Which period was most similar to Fed's 2006 dominance: Novak@2011 or Nadal@2010?

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Because you could only come up with 3 other instances, one from decades ago and one from the WTA?

oh there are plenty more if you wish:

Rosewall reaching Wimbledon and U.S Open finals at 39.

Sampras winning the U.S Open, the most physically demanding slam in tennis with the schedule (proof of that in Federer who last won it at 27) at 31.

Lendl ending a year ranked #1 in the World at 31.

Navratilova reaching the finals of Wimbledon at 37.

I am sure one of or both of Djokovic and Nadal will be adding to the list in several years time.

Originally Posted by ledwix

Lol..are you claiming Nadal's 2010 was the greatest year since Laver? Federer in 2006 made all four slam finals, won WTF, accumulated the most points in a season since ATP started, and only lost to two people. Nadal lost to more people more often and was less consistent. Nobody in 2010 felt the buzz of dominance that was felt in 2006 (or 2011)

Yes such a buzz of dominance that whenever he played a clay event you expected him to lose, and whenever he played Nadal you expected him to lose. Such a buzz of dominance that such noted individuals as McEnroe, Connors, and Bud Collins picked Federer to lose the 2006 Wimbledon final at the peak of his dominance to baby Nadal who should have lost in 3 sets to Robert Kendrick earlier in the tournament, and had not Nadal not choked serving out the 2nd set is probably what would have happened as well. Never has there been a buzz of dominance like that.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

oh there are plenty more if you wish:

Rosewall reaching Wimbledon and U.S Open finals at 39.

Sampras winning the U.S Open, the most physically demanding slam in tennis with the schedule (proof of that in Federer who last won it at 27) at 31.

Lendl ending a year ranked #1 in the World at 31.

Navratilova reaching the finals of Wimbledon at 37.

I am sure one of or both of Djokovic and Nadal will be adding to the list in several years time.

Rosewall didn't win, did he?

Sampras won the US Open but he was skipping tournaments left and right all year, so I assure you he wasn't tired. And what was he ranked again?

Federer is #1 at 31 too. And he won Wimbledon (something Lendl never won, even at 24).

Navratilova didn't win, did she?


You're clutching at straws now. What more? Haas appearing in Wimbledon at 34?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes such a buzz of dominance that whenever he played a clay event you expected him to lose, and whenever he played Nadal you expected him to lose. Such a buzz of dominance that such noted individuals as McEnroe, Connors, and Bud Collins picked Federer to lose the 2006 Wimbledon final at the peak of his dominance to baby Nadal who should have lost in 3 sets to Robert Kendrick earlier in the tournament, and had not Nadal not choked serving out the 2nd set is probably what would have happened as well. Never has there been a buzz of dominance like that.

92-5. 3 Slams and a Final in the other. WTF title. One of the best winning % of all time. And he bageled Nadal By far the most dominant season in recent memory.

[Gizo]

I don't think that Nadal's 2010 was as great as Federer's 2006 (winning 12 titles and reaching 16 finals in 17 tournament appearances was phenomenal).

However his RG-Wimbledon-US Open treble on 3 different surfaces in a 16 week timespan was an amazing and very underrated achievement. Many great players couldn't win all 3 of those tournaments, the 3 most prestigious events in the sport, during their careers, let alone in one single year.

Federer had been two points away from achieving that feat himself the previous year, when he lost to Del Potro in the 2009 US Open final after completing the RG-Wimbledon double.

If Nadal had beaten Federer in the YEC final (not that Federer who was in inspired form throughout that entire tournament was going to be stopped), then he would have won the most prestigious tournaments on 4 different surface specifications (clay, grass, hard and indoors) in one year. Had that happened I think his 2010 would have been superior to Federer's 2006.

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Rosewall didn't win, did he?

Sampras won the US Open but he was skipping tournaments left and right all year, so I assure you he wasn't tired. And what was he ranked again?

Federer is #1 at 31 too. And he won Wimbledon (something Lendl never won, even at 24).

Navratilova didn't win, did she?


You're clutching at straws now. What more? Haas appearing in Wimbledon at 34?

The only straw clutching is desperate ****s who think winning a slam and briefly being #1 at age 30/31 is an unamazing unearthly feat when Andre Agassi, a total non GOAT contender, recently was winning a slam and being ranked #1 at age 33. As for winning Navratilova won Wimbledon at 33, and beat Graf and Seles and won tier 1 titles at age 36. Rosewall won Roland Garros and beat Laver to win the WTF finals at age 36 and 37. Anymore excuses in store?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The only straw clutching is desperate ****s who think winning a slam and briefly being #1 at age 30/31 is an unamazing unearthly feat when Andre Agassi, a total non GOAT contender, recently was winning a slam and being ranked #1 at age 33. As for winning Navratilova won Wimbledon at 33, and beat Graf and Seles and won tier 1 titles at age 36. Rosewall won Roland Garros and beat Laver to win the WTF finals at age 36 and 37. Anymore excuses in store?

Agassi didn't have any 5-year-younger tier-1 GOAT snapping at his heels. And why would you keep bringing up WTA? ATP is totally different. And about Rosewall Tennis then was different where there were no great athletes and even grandfathers could win (which is why Gonzales had such a good record against Laver for someone 10 years older). Again, your examples are full of fail. Federer's ascension to #1 is incredibly impressive. You're probably just butthurt that it disproves your silly, "Federer dominated in a weak-era" argument.

And no one claimed it was "unearthly". One guy said it was impressive and you came butting in because you couldn't hold your butthurt anymore I know you're still ****ed Nadal went out to #100 but hold it in, he'll be back and he'll have his time again. For now, it's Federer who's reigning.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes such a buzz of dominance that whenever he played a clay event you expected him to lose, and whenever he played Nadal you expected him to lose. Such a buzz of dominance that such noted individuals as McEnroe, Connors, and Bud Collins picked Federer to lose the 2006 Wimbledon final at the peak of his dominance to baby Nadal who should have lost in 3 sets to Robert Kendrick earlier in the tournament, and had not Nadal not choked serving out the 2nd set is probably what would have happened as well. Never has there been a buzz of dominance like that.

Nobody gives a f*ck what McEnroe or whoever thought. Most intelligent people expected Federer to win and he did. He shoved a bagel up Nadal's ***, a fact that you seemingly ignore.

So what if he lost to Nadal on clay? You are the guy who props Nadal up as the clay god. His matchup problems are well documented. Nadal on the other hand benefitted from a weakened field. Federer did too to a certain extent, but with Federer, he looked unbeatable against any hypothetical opponent. We all know that Nadal would've been pummeled by Djokovic on hardcourts and lose to peak Federer on faster surfaces. Federer on the other hand would only be expected to lose in Paris. The AO was not yet played on plexicushion.

Nadal got outplayed hard by Murray in Melbourne and failed to win the WTF, even though it was played on a slow surface.

Compare Federer's winning percentage in that year with Nadal's and then come back to me.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The only straw clutching is desperate ****s who think winning a slam and briefly being #1 at age 30/31 is an unamazing unearthly feat when Andre Agassi, a total non GOAT contender, recently was winning a slam and being ranked #1 at age 33. As for winning Navratilova won Wimbledon at 33, and beat Graf and Seles and won tier 1 titles at age 36. Rosewall won Roland Garros and beat Laver to win the WTF finals at age 36 and 37. Anymore excuses in store?

Agassi accomplished this only because he went up and down the rankings, sometimes falling off the radar completely, had he been at the top of the game the entire time like Fed, then it might have been comparable, not to mention we're comparing the Aussie Open to Wimbledon, please, and let's leave the girls tour out of this, what a complete joke, and back when my grandpa played, the game was a little different.

LOL it is so easy to get the ****s butthurt and crying a river with just a little prodding. They love their mancrush and fantasy more than their own children if they have any. Seemingly oblivious that he is married, has his own kids, and doesnt give two twats about their existence.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

LOL it is so easy to get the ****s butthurt and crying a river with just a little prodding. They love their mancrush and fantasy more than their own children if they have any. Seemingly oblivious that he is married, has his own kids, and doesnt give two twats about their existence.

Oooh, personal attacks. You think Nadal gives 2 arsewipes about you? No. Then why are we arguing? Because this is a Tennis forum. Grow a pair and don't get personal about Tennis debates.

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

don't get personal about Tennis debates.

More hilarious **** hypocricy at its finest.

[merlinpinpin]

Poll is incomplete, as both are clearly inferior (facts and figures speak for themselves), although Djokovic would have had a real shot at it had his 2011 year not ended in September.

[Hood_Man]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Show me one instance where I got personal? Or maybe you're too dumb to know what "hypocrisy" means.

You're playing into his hands, you know. The only way to win is not to play

[merlinpinpin]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Lendl ending a year ranked #1 in the World at 31.

Oh, really?

If you think Lendl ended 1991 as #1, I have a nice plot of land to sell you on the moon.

In fact, he ended that year at #5, so you must have confused him for another guy who may end up the year at #1 at the ripe old age of 31. A Swiss tennis player, maybe?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by merlinpinpin

Oh, really?

If you think Lendl ended 1991 as #1, I have a nice plot of land to sell you on the moon.

He ended that year at #1, so you must have confused him for another guy who may end up the year at #1 at the ripe old age of 31. A Swiss tennis player, maybe?

I was doubtful about that, too, but was too lazy to cross check.

[sbengte]

Originally Posted by Evan77

what Fed's 2006? hm. remind me one more time of his field? who did he have to beat? did I hear 'a bunch of nobodies', yeah, I thought so.

Whatever it was, I am sure that it was better than what Nadal faced for his 2010 slams when Fed,Djoko and Murray were all going through a bad patch. Unless you consider Youzhny and Melzer in slam semis as tough competition

[sbengte]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Calling a poster "dumb" isn't getting personal, IMO. I am basing my opinion on his (dumb) posts. But mentioning children and families is. But I see your point

(sorry this is a bit OT)
Interesting username and sig, but apparently we all choose to be born/become prisoners

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sbengte

(sorry this is a bit OT)
Interesting username and sig, but apparently we all choose to be born/become prisoners

You're mistaking a preference with a choice One may prefer to be born (after one is born and becomes capable of such thought) but no one can choose to be born.

[sbengte]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

You're mistaking a preference with a choice One may prefer to be born (after one is born and becomes capable of such thought) but no one can choose to be born.

I meant, we all choose the circumstances we are born into to fulfill a certain purpose, believe it or not Of course, once you are born you are a prisoner as you would have no recollection of why you made that particular choice.