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

[No1e]

I voted for Nadal, just because Novak's is far superior.

[Zarfot Z]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Just to put in perspective how talented federer truly is, he is 31 years old and still on the upper 2 percentile of all active tennis professionals

Laver won yet another Grand Slam at age 31. For Federer winning Wimbledon and briefly returning to #1 at 30 seems amazing, but for Laver winning all the slams at 31 was just ho hum, yet another day at the office.

Agassi was ranked #1 in the World and a Slam Champion at 33.

Serena has owned the last 3 major tournaments and made a mockery of the Worlds so called top 2 ranked players at 31.

How is what you said such an amazing feat.

Because GOAT Nadal would already be hospitalized in a wheelchair with artificial kneecaps by age 30.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by sbengte

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.

Here's something I found on the net, it could probably do a better job of explaining the quote than I ever could :

"They're both oaks, even if they were planted in different forests. But then, m'lord, we all suffer in our different ways from being prisoners of birth.” – Fraser Munro (A Prisoner of Birth - Jeffrey Archer)

So aptly put… come to think of it, most of what we are is because of something we don’t have a hand in. We can’t chose our parents, our religion, the social strata we want to belong to or for that matter our name – and it is all of these that gives us our identity. An identity that evolves, but never really goes far from its essence.

We are prisoners of our roots, and like in the extract, we can only hope to move towards the sun, while remaining firmly bound to our earth. I am not sure whether this is fortunate or otherwise, but one can only hope to grow into the tallest oak of the forest.

[MTF07]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

He did not lose a match at the biggest clay, biggest grass, or biggest hard court event of the year however. No surface, nor any opponent, was an issue for him. For Federer both clay (0 clay titles in 2006) and Nadal (1-4 vs Nadal in finals, including a final on lightning greased courts) were a major issue. As for Federer in 2005 he may have lost only 4 matches, too bad despite that he managed to win only 2 of the years 5 biggest events and make only 2 of 4 slam finals on the year somehow, LOL!

Nadal 2010 is immediately disqualified from the discussion, because he didn't even reach the semis of all 4 slams, let alone the finals of all four like Federer did.

He also lost 10 matches. Way too many losses.

[MTF07]

Originally Posted by dangalak

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.

Not only that but a brief lapse in concentration cost Federer winning the 4th set 6-1. That 06 final was a comprehensive beatdown.

[kaku]

Djoker 2011 was the greatest year ever. He took out 2 GOAT candidates to win almost all the big titles

[DropShotArtist]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Djokovic's since like Federer he was unable to win the years biggest event on a certain surface. Nadal was able to win the years biggest event on all surfaces, making him superior to both. Djokovic was atleast able to win tournaments on clay and beat Nadal on it though, which puts him above Federer in 2006 however. As "no clay slam to go with his grass and hard court slam for the year" Djokovic is closer to being down with "0 clay titles and 1-4 finals record for year vs Nadal" Federer I voted him.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

My list would be:

1. Rover Laver 1969
2. John McEnroe 1984
3. Jimmy Connors 1974
4. Roger Federer 2006
5. Novak Djokovic 2011
6. Roger Federer 2005
7. Rafael Nadal 2010
8. Mats Wilander 1988
9. John Mcenroe 1981
10. Bjorn Borg 1979

So definitely a good list. Almost exactly as I would have it.

LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

[Hitman]

Djokovic's run still makes me shake my head in disbelief.

[NatF]

The first half of Djokovic's 2011 season was the greatest ever, dominating the greatest claycourter ever (on clay) and arguably the GOAT as well. However he ran out of steam and the season doesn't end at the US Open.

Nadal's 2010 was great, but it wasn't dominance all year round. It was dominance in the final 3 biggest events of the year. He had too many losses and too few tournaments to be comparable to Federer's 2006.