Why did expert Commentators call Djokovic's 2011 best open era season ever?

[veroniquem]

Nadal's 2010 is definitely unique. It's up there for different reasons than Djoko's 2011. Both exceptional seasons.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by TMF

Borg had a 84-6 win/loss records(93%), which ranked #5 highest winning % of all time. That's pretty consistent and domination.

Doesn't matter. If every top 200 tennis player except John Isner disappeared off the face of the Earth and John Isner started winning everything left right and center would you look at his winning % and consistency and say he's had the greatest season of all time? NO, because his opponents aren't as good as if the top 200 players didn't disappear.

This is my point (although not to that extreme) JMac and Connors and whoever else you want to include are not as good competition as Federer and Nadal. So therefore Novak beating them consistently is more impressive.

[SStrikerR]

Novak had the best 3/4ths of a season IMO. Had he kept it up, the best was possible. However his shoulder injury and losses at the end of the season killed his chances. It doesn't qualify for best season if he was relatively poor towards the end. You can't discount that.

[kiki]

Nothing compared to Laver69 season winning the big 4 plus biggest HC and biggest indoor event in season

[timnz]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Doesn't matter. If every top 200 tennis player except John Isner disappeared off the face of the Earth and John Isner started winning everything left right and center would you look at his winning % and consistency and say he's had the greatest season of all time? NO, because his opponents aren't as good as if the top 200 players didn't disappear.

This is my point (although not to that extreme) JMac and Connors and whoever else you want to include are not as good competition as Federer and Nadal. So therefore Novak beating them consistently is more impressive.

I feel sorry for Djokovic and Nadal. People.may consider them great now, but in the years to come their careers will move to being completely irrelevant. Why? Because some commentators in the future will say....only their current players count, because..'.they are so much better'

So the question remains then, if great players records are counted as irrelevant after a few decades....should they put such huge efforts into establishing their records?

[Nickzor]

I'd still take Federers 2006 season over djokovics, okay Djokovic was unbeaten for like 5 straight months, they both won 3 slams, djoko won 4 masters titles, Fed won 3 BUT he won the masters cup which in my opinion is much more impressive then one extra masters 1000 title because you can't hope to get an easy opponent cause you have to vs one of the top 8, not to mention Federer was the finalist at the Roland Garros, whereas Djoko was a semi finalist, so in turn Fed made all finals of each slam in 06' and Djoko did not in 2011' also Federer had one less loss then Djokovic but 22 more wins in his 06 season compared to Djokos 2011 season, I think these stats speak for themselves, in my opinion 22 more wins, one less loss, all slam finals and the tennis masters cup is enough to edge out Djokovics 2011 season, although it was one of the top 10 best ever.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by timnz

I feel sorry for Djokovic and Nadal. People.may consider them great now, but in the years to come their careers will move to being completely irrelevant. Why? Because some commentators in the future will say....only their current players count, because..'.they are so much better'

So the question remains then, if great players records are counted as irrelevant after a few decades....should they put such huge efforts into establishing their records?

Right.Tennis evolve so fast that in three years any top 20 will be said to be able to whip these guy. After all they played in the weakest era ever.

[Hitman]

What makes it so special is that no one saw it coming! Nadal was perched at the top, and was ready to enjoy a dominate stretch as the outright world number one, and win more and more titles across all surfaces.

Novak just came out of no where and made the sun rise from the west! It was just stunning because he kept winning and winning and winning.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by Hitman

What makes it so special is that no one saw it coming! Nadal was perched at the top, and was ready to enjoy a dominate stretch as the outright world number one, and win more and more titles across all surfaces.

Novak just came out of no where and made the sun rise from the west! It was just stunning because he kept winning and winning and winning.

Yes you are right. Especially after 2010 which was by far his worse season. At this point you could see him go further down the ranking. Instead...

[djokovic2008]

Originally Posted by Nickzor

I'd still take Federers 2006 season over djokovics, okay Djokovic was unbeaten for like 5 straight months, they both won 3 slams, djoko won 4 masters titles, Fed won 3 BUT he won the masters cup which in my opinion is much more impressive then one extra masters 1000 title because you can't hope to get an easy opponent cause you have to vs one of the top 8, not to mention Federer was the finalist at the Roland Garros, whereas Djoko was a semi finalist, so in turn Fed made all finals of each slam in 06' and Djoko did not in 2011' also Federer had one less loss then Djokovic but 22 more wins in his 06 season compared to Djokos 2011 season, I think these stats speak for themselves, in my opinion 22 more wins, one less loss, all slam finals and the tennis masters cup is enough to edge out Djokovics 2011 season, although it was one of the top 10 best ever.

This beats any argument one can make as this is UNHEARD of at that level of tennis.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by djokovic2008

This beats any argument one can make as this is UNHEARD of at that level of tennis.

Federer was unbeaten from august 2006 to march 2007, which make 6 month and a half. His streak included 2 slams, 1 WTF, 1 master 1000, 3 500.

Not bad. I admit that Nole crushing Nadal twice when everybody was seeing as unbeatable on clay was amazing (personally it's the only reason which make this run so impressive).

[djokovic2008]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Federer was unbeaten from august 2006 to march 2007, which make 6 month and a half. His streak included 2 slams, 1 WTF, 1 master 1000, 3 500.

Not bad. I admit that Nole crushing Nadal twice when everybody was seeing as unbeatable on clay was amazing (personally it's the only reason which make this run so impressive).

He beat fed three times in that streak and beat nadal four times in that streak, WHO HAS EVER DONE THAT, this is what makes the streak incredible.

[Nickzor]

Originally Posted by djokovic2008

He beat fed three times in that streak and beat nadal four times in that streak, WHO HAS EVER DONE THAT, this is what makes the streak incredible.

Well it was a ''Well out of his prime'' Older-Fed that ended Novaks godly spree, if it was anyone that was going to end it i don't think anyone would have thought Federer was going to it, especially at the French and seeing how Djokovic had just beaten nadal in two clay court masters 1000 titles back to back

[djokovic2008]

Originally Posted by Nickzor

Well it was a ''Well out of his prime'' Older-Fed that ended Novaks godly spree, if it was anyone that was going to end it i don't think anyone would have thought Federer was going to it, especially at the French and seeing how Djokovic had just beaten nadal in two clay court masters 1000 titles back to back

He was 29 excuses excuses.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by Nickzor

Well it was a ''Well out of his prime'' Older-Fed that ended Novaks godly spree, if it was anyone that was going to end it i don't think anyone would have thought Federer was going to it, especially at the French and seeing how Djokovic had just beaten nadal in two clay court masters 1000 titles back to back

Either Fed is finished and beating him is not a bigger achievment than beating Ferrer, either he can still stop a winning streak in RG. You can't have it both way.

[Nickzor]

Originally Posted by djokovic2008

He was 29 excuses excuses.

well obviously in your eyes Djokovic is the Golden miracle child of the Megaverse, your username more or less means your a Djokertard, yes I'm a fed and nadal **** but i tell it as it is

[Nickzor]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Either Fed is finished and beating him is not a bigger achievment than beating Ferrer, either he can still stop a winning streak in RG. You can't have it both way.

Maybe write in a way that's comprehend-able so i can reply

[djokovic2008]

Originally Posted by Nickzor

well obviously in your eyes Djokovic is the Golden miracle child of the Megaverse, your username more or less means your a Djokertard, yes I'm a fed and nadal **** but i tell it as it is

Ok i'll tell it how it is so you can understand, Djokovic is the best player in the world by a mile and has been since 2011.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by djokovic2008

Ok i'll tell it how it is so you can understand, Djokovic is the best player in the world by a mile and has been since 2011.

Except for one half of 2012...

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by Nickzor

Maybe write in a way that's comprehend-able so i can reply

In your post you said two things:

1) that Fed is well past his prime, which imply that beating him three time in a row is nothing special.
2) that Fed is well past his prime but still able to beat Novak in RG which shows how great a player he still is.

I see a contradiction. I think it was a great feat from Novak to beat Fed three time in a row, even if I agree Fed in 2011 is not the same player than until 2009.

Is my english good enough for you?