06 federer tennis season : became so underrated now days ?

[skypadq]

i think that 06 federer tennis season is so underrated , becasue novak djokovic 's 2015 season
sure djokovic win masters two time more
but federer started what really tennis 's perpect season

all four grand slam final record is

It's been 37 years since 1969 by Rod Laver.

and that the time every masters final is BO5
so federer is more disadvantage
and federer dosen't compete paris masters and hamburg masters in 2006

- federer won 12 title
- The Cincinnati loss to Murray was Federer's only straight-set loss of the year and the only tournament out of 17 in which he did not reach the final
- his win loss record is 92 -5 , better than djokovic 's 2015 season 82-6 record

 

[ForehandCross]

LOL NO.

Djokovic's was better in every way possible statistically.

But the main difference was Federer faced a very strong Nadal in bo5 in clay masters while Djokovic didn't.

But despite that Djokovic's base level throughout the season was higher than Federer.

Djokovic's 2015 might get outshined in talks of pure peak level to 2006 but Djokovic was more consistent. And he has 2011 which is equal in terms of peak talks against a Better field.

Djokovic's 2015> Federer 2006. Statistically.
Djokovic 2011>= 2005-06 Federer>=2015 Djokovic. In terms of high level throughout the season.

 

[MichaelNadal]

But despite that Djokovic's base level throughout the season was higher than Federer.

Djokovic's 2015 might get outshined in talks of pure peak level to 2006 but Djokovic was more consistent. And he has 2011 which is equal in terms of peak talks against a Better field.

Djokovic's 2015> Federer 2006. Statistically.
Djokovic 2011>= 2005-06 Federer>=2015 Djokovic. In terms of high level throughout the season.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Plus he had a rising ATG and established clay GOD to deal with.. unlike declined mid30 atg or trash atg (fed and nadal 2015).
Don't tell me nadal was a baby. No freaking baby wins slam + 4 masters (2005) & slam + 2 masters + slam final (2006), wins 81 consecutive matches on clay and stays world no.2 throughout the span only due to the most dominant peak player ever to play tennis was keeping him at bay.

Fed's 2006 > Djok's 2015, level wise.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It's okay, memories get old quickly.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

And according to Lewisian mathematics,
2015 nadal > 2006 nadal, so the nadalian competition was better for djok than fed

 

[Breakpointerer]

And according to Lewisian mathematics,
2015 nadal > 2006 nadal, so the nadalian competition was better for djok than fed

Don't forget 2015 Fed>2006 Fed

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

LOL NO.

Djokovic's was better in every way possible statistically.

But the main difference was Federer faced a very strong Nadal in bo5 in clay masters while Djokovic didn't.

But despite that Djokovic's base level throughout the season was higher than Federer.

Djokovic's 2015 might get outshined in talks of pure peak level to 2006 but Djokovic was more consistent. And he has 2011 which is equal in terms of peak talks against a Better field.

Djokovic's 2015> Federer 2006. Statistically.
Djokovic 2011>= 2005-06 Federer>=2015 Djokovic. In terms of high level throughout the season.

Can't see how 2015 Djokovic had a higher base level, he's got no early masters losses to Federer's one but also got straight-setted by Aulderer thrice and struggled more at Wimbledon/USO. For all his accolades he didn't truly look unbeatable until the fall season.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Don't forget 2015 Fed>2006 Fed

It was fed's peak.
In every department.

 

[ForehandRF]

It took the clay greatest and toughest matchup to stop him on clay, that's how good Federer was.Oustanding consistency and level.

 

[ForehandCross]

Can't see how 2015 Djokovic had a higher base level, he's got no early masters losses to Federer's one but also got straight-setted by Aulderer thrice and struggled more at Wimbledon/USO. For all his accolades he didn't truly look unbeatable until the fall season.

And did Federer look unbeatable till USO?

He was sub par in AO and got dragged around in mud by Nadal on clay.
In Halle he had very close matches.

WB was great but in Final he could have gone 1-2 down. Cincy loss is a famous one.

 

[ForehandRF]

It was fed's peak.
In every department.

Yeah, he was peaking especially when he lost to Seppi, a kind of dude who would have been blown off the court back in the day.

 

[ForehandRF]

And did Federer look unbeatable till USO?

He was sub par in AO and got dragged around in mud by Nadal on clay.
In Halle he had very close matches.

WB was great but in Final he could have gone 1-2 down. Cincy loss is a famous one.

I don't think Fed was 100 % recovered at the AO following his ankle injury and luckily for him, he did have an easy draw.The Cincy loss, well, he should have skipped the tournament anyway because there was no bye in the first round at the time.

 

[Lew II]

Plus he had a rising ATG and established clay GOD to deal with.. unlike declined mid30 atg or trash atg (fed and nadal 2015).
Don't tell me nadal was a baby. No freaking baby wins slam + 4 masters (2005) & slam + 2 masters + slam final (2006), wins 81 consecutive matches on clay and stays world no.2 throughout the span only due to the most dominant peak player ever to play tennis was keeping him at bay.

Fed's 2006 > Djok's 2015, level wise.

Don't tell me Fedal were old in 2015, they won 8 slams years later, which could've been 11/12 without Djokovic.

Big Tournament matches won, 2015 vs 2006:

Djokovic 70 > Federer 66
Murray 50 > Nadal 42
Federer 38 > Nalbandian 30
Wawrinka 36 > Robredo 30
Berdych 36 > Ljubicic 29
Nadal 35 > Davydenko 27

 

[MS_07]

Don't tell me Fedal were old in 2015, they won 8 slams years later, which could've been 11/12 without Djokovic.

Big Tournament matches won, 2015 vs 2006:

Djokovic 70 > Federer 66
Murray 50 > Nadal 42
Federer 38 > Nalbandian 30
Wawrinka 36 > Robredo 30
Berdych 36 > Ljubicic 29
Nadal 35 > Davydenko 27

Here comes puking @Lew II with statistical hangover

 

[Lew II]

2015 #3-5

Federer, Wawrinka, Nadal --> 62 slam finals

2006 #3-5

Davydenko, Blake, Ljubicic --> 0 slam finals

 

[MichaelNadal]

06 Fed lost 5 matches all season and 4 were to Rafa. It gets no better than that.

 

[Lew II]

06 Fed lost 5 matches all season and 4 were to Rafa. It gets no better than that.

What about wins? Djokovic beat 31 top10 while Federer 19.

 

[Lew II]

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/winning-percentage-minus-opponents-ranking.656844/

Winning percentage minus opponent's ranking:

2015 Djokovic 75.38 (best)
2006 Federer 65.95 (14th best)

 

[MichaelNadal]

What about wins? Djokovic beat 31 top10 while Federer 19.

2015/16 were 2 of the weakest years ever man, you can try to inflate it as much as you want. I don't have a horse in the race but Fed's 06 will always be the most impressive year I've seen from someone since I started watching tennis. Literally if it wasn't for Epicdal the guy would have lost 1 match. It's unbelievable.

 

[RS]

2015/16 were 2 of the weakest years ever man, you can try to inflate it as much as you want. I don't have a horse in the race but Fed's 06 will always be the most impressive year I've seen from someone since I started watching tennis. Literally if it wasn't for Epicdal the guy would have lost 1 match. It's unbelievable.

2006 was not stronger than 2015 IMO.

 

[Lew II]

2015/16 were 2 of the weakest years ever man, you can try to inflate it as much as you want. I don't have a horse in the race but Fed's 06 will always be the most impressive year I've seen from someone since I started watching tennis. Literally if it wasn't for Epicdal the guy would have lost 1 match. It's unbelievable.

If you have no stats to prove it I have no interest for this conversation.

 

[MichaelNadal]

If you have no stats to prove it I have no interest for this conversation.

you really need a life lol

 

[duaneeo]

Level of competition in 2015: Djokovic's main rival (met in the finals of Dubai, Indian Wells, Rome, Wimbledon, Cincinnati, US Open, WTFs) was a player whose strongest year was nine years earlier.

 

[Bukmeikara]

What about wins? Djokovic beat 31 top10 while Federer 19.

Just because you play a higher ranked player doesn't mean that he is the best playing one at the moment. For example in 2004 Roger played Safin at AO and the later was ranked number 90, after that he played Hewitt at Wimbledon and he was ranked 20+. Those two are 2 of the top 4 guys that year but they had a down season in 2003 with injuries. They are better than most of the top 10 guys in 2016. Other example, Federer plays Djokovic at AO in 2007 - he beats him 3-0 impresive win, Novak wents to win Miami two months later and finish the year as a heavy number 3 and yet he is ranked 17 at AO and this doesn't count as top 10 win. Does it makes it less impresive or less worthy? Context !!!!! Also Federer defeated Tsitsipas in Basel 6-2 6-2, the greak was ranked 11 during that week, next one he reached top 10 and a month later won the WTF. That win doesn't count as top 10 and yet you can make a case that is more impresive than 75% of wins against top 10 guys in 2016

 

[Bukmeikara]

Miss

 

[Lew II]

Just because you play a higher ranked player doesn't mean that he is the best playing one at the moment. For example in 2004 Roger played Safin at AO and the later was ranked number 90, after that he played Hewitt at Wimbledon and he was ranked 20+. Those two are 2 of the top 4 guys that year but they had a down season in 2003 with injuries. They are better than most of the top 10 guys in 2016. Other example, Federer plays Djokovic at AO in 2007 - he beats him 3-0 impresive win, Novak wents to win Miami two months later and finish the year as a heavy number 3 and yet he is ranked 17 at AO and this doesn't count as top 10 win. Does it makes it less impresive or less worthy? Context !!!!! Also Federer defeated Tsitsipas in Basel 6-2 6-2, the greak was ranked 11 during that week, next one he reached top 10 and a month later won the WTF. That win doesn't count as top 10 and yet you can make a case that is more impresive than 75% of wins against top 10 guys in 2016

The ranking is a good method to determine the level of play, it is used by the ATP to make rankings.

Your opinion is not used by any official tennis organism.

Tistispas was #7 at Basel, btw.

 

[NiCo515]

Plus he had a rising ATG and established clay GOD to deal with.. unlike declined mid30 atg or trash atg (fed and nadal 2015).
Don't tell me nadal was a baby. No freaking baby wins slam + 4 masters (2005) & slam + 2 masters + slam final (2006), wins 81 consecutive matches on clay and stays world no.2 throughout the span only due to the most dominant peak player ever to play tennis was keeping him at bay.

Fed's 2006 > Djok's 2015, level wise.

Novak and Rafa were both teenagers in 2006, and outside of Rafa on clay, neither was serious competition. A far cry from "a rising ATG and established clay GOD" at that point.

 

[Bukmeikara]

The ranking is a good method to determine the level of play, it is used by the ATP to make rankings.

Your opinion is not used by any official tennis organism.

Tistispas was #7 at Basel, btw.

My bad about Tsitsipas, he defeated him at Dubai F ranked 11 and next week the greek entered top 10. Answer this, these are the top 10 wins for Djoko in 2015:

Raonic
Wawrinka 3x
Murray 6x
Berdych 4x
Federer 5x
Ferrer 3x
Cilic 3x
Nishikori 2x
Nadal 4x

How many of those are more impessive(# more difficutl) than beating:

1. Safin ranked 90+ at AO 04 final
2. Hewitt ranked 20+ at AO 04 and Wimbledon 04
3. Djokovic ranked 15+ at AO 17

 

[Lew II]

My bad about Tsitsipas, he defeated him at Dubai F ranked 11 and next week the greek entered top 10. Answer this, these are the top 10 wins for Djoko in 2015:

Raonic
Wawrinka 3x
Murray 6x
Berdych 4x
Federer 5x
Ferrer 3x
Cilic 3x
Nishikori 2x
Nadal 4x

How many of those are more impessive(# more difficutl) than beating:

1. Safin ranked 90+ at AO 04 final
2. Hewitt ranked 20+ at AO 04 and Wimbledon 04
3. Djokovic ranked 15+ at AO 17

My opinion is not as relevant as the ranking to determine the level of play with objectivity.

 

[lud]

It's in top 5 seasons ever. 2-4 against biggest rival is black spot.

 

[Bukmeikara]

My opinion is not as relevant as the ranking to determine the level of play with objectivity.

And yet you make a case that Ferrero is a bad player althrough being ranked number 3?

 

[Lew II]

And yet you make a case that Ferrero is a bad player althrough being ranked number 3?

Career results is another good method to evaluate the level of play.

Career results + ranking is very good.

2015's top5 set the record of ATP points and were also winners of 61 career Slams. This should tell you how good that year was.

 

[StrongRule]

2006 was not stronger than 2015 IMO.

Depends where. On clay 2006 was much stronger, not even close. The clay competition in 2015-2016 was a joke with Nadal being at his worst form. Only Wawrinka had one great run, but it also had a lot to do with how he matches up against Djokovic. Give this field to 2006 Federer and he wins all clay masters and RG.

 

[StrongRule]

Career results is another good method to evaluate the level of play.

Career results + ranking is very good.

2015's top5 set the record of ATP points and were also winners of 61 career Slams. This should tell you how good that year was.

 

[RS]

Depends where. On clay 2006 was much stronger, not even close. The clay competition in 2015-2016 was a joke with Nadal being at his worst form. Only Wawrinka had one great run, but it also had a lot to do with how he matches up against Djokovic. Give this field to 2006 Federer and he wins all clay masters and RG.

Djokovic and Murray and Wawrinka played well on clay in 2015 so it wasn’t a joke . But yes 2006 was stronger clearly on clay due to Nadal and Federer. 2016 isn’t part of this. Federer 2006 would win a lot on clay in 2015 with no Djokovic and he might have beaten Stan as well who is a harder matchup for Djokovic than Federer and got the all 4.

 

[beard]

you really need a life lol

Ultimate argument when you are with out argument...
60000 posts poster accuse other one for ni life... Looooool

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

And did Federer look unbeatable till USO?

He was sub par in AO and got dragged around in mud by Nadal on clay.
In Halle he had very close matches.

WB was great but in Final he could have gone 1-2 down. Cincy loss is a famous one.

Loooong way away from 1-2 down, good job raising his game when he had to break. Fred 06 being better in slams is the deciding factor, clear 2-1 vs Djok (RG unclear).

 

[RS]

Loooong way away from 1-2 down, good job raising his game when he had to break. Fred 06 being better in slams is the deciding factor, clear 2-1 vs Djok (RG unclear).

Yeah I think the problem with Djokovic in some peak debates he doesn’t sail though his slam wins apart from AO 2011 and maybe 2008. He peaks when he needs to. Happened in Wimbledon the same year struggling with Anderson but then playing maybe his best maybe on grass to beat Federer in the final.

 

[RS]

Career results is another good method to evaluate the level of play.

Career results + ranking is very good.

2015's top5 set the record of ATP points and were also winners of 61 career Slams. This should tell you how good that year was.

The points system was different pre 2009. It was like times 1.9 after I think. Are you sure 2015 was higher than 2008 ?

 

[Lew II]

The points system was different pre 2009. It was like times 1.9 after I think. Are you sure 2015 was higher than 2008 ?

2008 with today's points system:

1) Nadal 12,130
2) Djokovic 9,295
3) Federer 8,820
4) Murray 5,920
5) Davydenko 4,320

total: 40,485

2015:

1) Djokovic 16,585
2) Murray 8,945
3) Federer 8,265
4) Wawrinka 6,865
5) Nadal 5,230

total: 45,890

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

you really need a life lol

he posted plenty of 'stats' to prove that point...

 

[zagor]

I'd wager a good portion of this board nowadays didn't even follow tennis in 2006, reading wikipedia doesn't really give you a full picture.

It was one of the all-time great tennis seasons though for me Fed's 2005 will remain the most impressive one in terms of level of play, his FH and movement were devastating that year.

 

[ABCD]

I'd wager a good portion of this board nowadays didn't even follow tennis in 2006, reading wikipedia doesn't really give you a full picture.

I disagree. One of my polls demonstrated that you had more pensioners here than teenagers. There are not many young people here, mostly middle aged.

 

[RS]

I'd wager a good portion of this board nowadays didn't even follow tennis in 2006, reading wikipedia doesn't really give you a full picture.

It was one of the all-time great tennis seasons though for me Fed's 2005 will remain the most impressive one in terms of level of play, his FH and movement were devastating that year.

And 2004 too apart of clay.

 

[zagor]

I disagree. One of my polls demonstrated that you had more pensioners here than teenagers. There are not many young people here, mostly middle aged.

Not what I posted. You could start following the game when you're 5 or when you're 35.

 

[KINGROGER]

LOL NO.

Djokovic's was better in every way possible statistically.

But the main difference was Federer faced a very strong Nadal in bo5 in clay masters while Djokovic didn't.

But despite that Djokovic's base level throughout the season was higher than Federer.

Djokovic's 2015 might get outshined in talks of pure peak level to 2006 but Djokovic was more consistent. And he has 2011 which is equal in terms of peak talks against a Better field.

Djokovic's 2015> Federer 2006. Statistically.
Djokovic 2011>= 2005-06 Federer>=2015 Djokovic. In terms of high level throughout the season.

Statistically, 2006 has more titles, more wins, less defeats.

 

[KINGROGER]

Career results is another good method to evaluate the level of play.

Career results + ranking is very good.

2015's top5 set the record of ATP points and were also winners of 61 career Slams. This should tell you how good that year was.

2015 is probably the easiest year an ATG ever had. 0 competition anywhere for Djokovic Zzzz

 

[ABCD]

Not what I posted. You could start following the game when you're 5 or when you're 35.

We will now test your hypothesis. Please, vote.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/at-what-age-you-started-following-tennis.662549/

 

[bnjkn]

I'd wager a good portion of this board nowadays didn't even follow tennis in 2006, reading wikipedia doesn't really give you a full picture.

It was one of the all-time great tennis seasons though for me Fed's 2005 will remain the most impressive one in terms of level of play, his FH and movement were devastating that year.

Yes, I also think 2005 Fed was superior.