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

[NatF]

It was called the best based on who he beat at the top, if he keep going after the US Open I'd agree it was the best season since Laver's 1969. But he got burned out and took some bad losses in the end.

[Nickzor]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

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?

Okay gotcha! Yes I agree with all of that, I just couldn't quite understand what you meant before, lol sorry

[djokovic2008]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Except for one half of 2012...

I'll give you that.

[The_Order]

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?

No, no don't get me wrong, I'm not saying JMac and Connors records are irrelevant. What I'm saying is they are not as good as Federer and Nadal, which therefore means they are easier to beat, which therefore means that it's easier to get these higher winning percentages.

However, if you want to hold JMac and Connors above Nadal and Federer as players that's up to you, it's your opinion but it is a ridiculous notion.

[spinovic]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

It's not about winning % or # of matches won. Those are good indicators of consistency, not brilliance. It's about titles won, big ones. It's about winning 2 slams + 3 masters on hard court (including the double IW/Miami) AND winning the slam on grass AND winning 2 masters on clay. It's about making only finals except for 1 semi between AO and USO. That's what it's about and that's why Djoko's stretch was particularly remarkable. Of course other players have had remarkable stretches for other reasons but Djoko's is definitely up there.

I agree. He pretty much shut down after the US Open.

Through the US Open, he was 66-2, losing to Federer in the Roland Garros SF's and Murray in the Cincy finals.

In that span he won 3 of 4 slams making all 4 SF's. He made the finals of all 6 Masters 1000 tournaments he entered, winning 5 of them. This included beating Nadal in six consecutive finals on three different surfaces(3 on hard, 2 on clay and one on grass). And, to boot, he beat Federer in the Dubai final and won a 250 clay court tournament in Belgrade. He made won 10 of 12 tournaments, made the finals in 11 and the SF's in all 12.

After the US Open, he played in 3 tournaments and finished 6-4, including a 1-2 finish in the WTF's with RR losses to Ferrer and Tipsarevic.

The reason his season is viewed in such high regard is because the level of play he maintained for 9 months was insane.

FYI: I included walkover wins in Djokovic's record, which gives him a couple more than his official total.

[Fugazi]

Originally Posted by TMF

But he stop showing up after the USO.

He did indeed stop showing up after the US Open. Basically his 2011 season was in the top 3 ever (possibly the best ever) up until that point. Maybe "the best sequence ever" would be more appropriate.

[TMF]

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.

But for a player to play some 90 matches with a 90+ winning % and not winning slam(s) is highly unlikely. When you win such a high percentage, you're basically ranked #1 or at least #2. How many player never won a slam by playing a lot of tennis with a 90+ winning percentage? For Isner, he's not in that league, and I say he's likely to win a slam than having a season with 90+ winning %.

Originally Posted by The_Order

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.

Then that should also applies to Laver in 69, but you're willing to accept Laver's 69 as the greatest season. Mac/Connors were well after Laver's time, so laver's season shouldn't be ranked #1 if level of competition is included. Frankly I believe tennis gets stronger over the decades, but the experts are ranking the best season base on achievements, domination, and all the stats. They don't include level of competition/strength of the field.

[NadalAgassi]

It was a great season but not the best. It would rank around 4th and 5th, about equal with Federers 2006. The 3 best seasons in the Open Era are definitely Laver's Grand Slam season (unquestionably #1), Connors 1974 season and McEnroe's 1984 season (toss up for #2).

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

Mac/Connors were well after Laver's time

Yes 1974 is so far away from 1969. More usual TMF clown logic. Also the field Laver faced in 1969 was by FAR harder than the field Connors faced in 1974, any field Federer faced, and overall tougher than the field McEnroe faced in 1984 too. It was one of the greatest fields in history full of all time greats and Hall of Famers. Not that you would know anything about that as you only began following tennis when Federer began dominating.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes 1974 is so far away from 1969. More usual TMF clown logic. Also the field Laver faced in 1969 was by FAR harder than the field Connors faced in 1974, any field Federer faced, and overall tougher than the field McEnroe faced in 1984 too. It was one of the greatest fields in history full of all time greats and Hall of Famers. Not that you would know anything about that as you only began following tennis when Federer began dominating.

Laver 69 was nearing the end of his career, while mac/connors played up til 1990. You act as 1969 and 1974 was when they all at the same age(DRY).

The rest of your post...keep saying that if it helps you sleep well at night Davey25.

[Povl Carstensen]

Originally Posted by 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.

True. In 2004 Federer also had a winning % in the 90's and 3 GS.