2017 could have been the most competitive season of the 2000s, but what was actually the most competitive season in the fab four era?

[Winner Sinner]

I've always wondered what season 2017 would have been if, following Fedal's rebirth, we would have simultaneously seen both Djokovic and Murray capable of expressing themselves at the levels of 2016 (first part Djokovic, second part Murray).
The fact that they were both breaking perhaps robbed us of the single most competitive season of the 2000s.
Yes, but what was the single most competitive season of the 2000s?

 

[Hitman]

Any Fedal fans that didn't openly come out and state their favs are winning inflated slams, in 2017 immediately after AO 2017 or RG 2017 or W 2017 or USO 2017, don't have a leg to stand on in judging what is inflated now, because their guy didn't win the slam race IMO just to suit their agenda. Those that did, props to you.

 

[GRASScaraz]

Federer waited for Djokovic to decline and vultures pathetically

 

[NatF]

If you're specifically talking Big 4 then it's 2012. As that was the only year with relative parity between all four.

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

What is the Fab Four?

 

[Winner Sinner]

If you're specifically talking Big 4 then it's 2012. As that was the only year with relative parity between all four.

Dividing the slams equally does not necessarily mean peak competitiveness, especially since we know that of the 4, one was significantly inferior to the other 3.
Ergo, if Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray could have competed within a single season with everyone at their peak, it is difficult to think that a Murray could have won a major tournament in that hypothetical season.

 

[edberg volleys]

2009

 

[NatF]

Dividing the slams equally does not necessarily mean peak competitiveness, especially since we know that of the 4, one was significantly inferior to the other 3.
Ergo, if Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray could have competed within a single season with everyone at their peak, it is difficult to think that a Murray could have won a major tournament in that hypothetical season.

He would win 0, but there was no year when all were peaking.

 

[Winner Sinner]

He would win 0, but there was no year when all were peaking.

I know that there has never been a season in which the 4 of them were at their best at the same time, what I meant is that having divided the slams equally in 2012 does not necessarily mean that that season was the most competitive but only the most balanced in terms of distribution.
Precisely because although Murray was the clearly less strong player of the 4, the fact that in 2012 he managed to win a slam and the Olympic gold suggests that 2012 cannot be the season with the highest competitiveness in the Fab Four era.

 

[Racquet_smash]

It's 2012 because all 4 were in good form.

2nd place either 2008 or 2011.

2009 was overall a great season but Nadal was nowhere to be found after clay season and Djokovic regressed compared to 2008. More or less the same goes for Murray.

2010 Federer started great but faded troughout the year. Djokovic was only good at the end.

2013 saw a complete lack of Federer.

 

[RS]

RG 2017 is all that matters.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

2011-2012 is the moment we've had Big 4 at the highest level combined. 2008 comes a bit below them. 2013 if Federer hadn't had his worst year would be one of the strongest too.

 

[SonnyT]

I've always wondered what season 2017 would have been if, following Fedal's rebirth, we would have simultaneously seen both Djokovic and Murray capable of expressing themselves at the levels of 2016 (first part Djokovic, second part Murray).
The fact that they were both breaking perhaps robbed us of the single most competitive season of the 2000s.
Yes, but what was the single most competitive season of the 2000s?

Of all the years, you had to pick 2017, when Djokovic & Murray were injured!

2014 had four different winners of the four slams!

 

[Winner Sinner]

Of all the years, you had to pick 2017, when Djokovic & Murray were injured!

2014 had four different winners of the four slams!

But did you read what I wrote correctly?

I didn't say that 2017 was the most competitive year in the Fab Four era but that it could potentially have been the most competitive if Fedal's rebirth had been added to a scenario in which Djokovic and Murray had maintained the level of 2016, so in a scenario where they hadn't broken.

Furthermore, I didn't even include 2017 in the survey, so why make controversy on the basis of cosmic nothingness?

 

[NoleFam]

I would say 2012.

 

[MeatTornado]

What is the Fab Four?

Someone call a time out to discuss

 

[Federer and Del Potro]

Someone call a time out to discuss

Five became Four when they iced out C Webb for that

 

[Rosstour]

Any Fedal fans that didn't openly come out and state their favs are winning inflated slams, in 2017 immediately after AO 2017 or RG 2017 or W 2017 or USO 2017, don't have a leg to stand on in judging what is inflated now, because their guy didn't win the slam race IMO just to suit their agenda. Those that did, props to you.

How is AO17 an "inflated Slam" for Fed? Do you need a refresher on his draw?

 

[inflation_era]

Djokovic was peak in 2009 since he had already won a slam by then.

 

[The Blond Blur]

What is the Fab Four?

@BeatlesFan

 

[Hitman]

How is AO17 an "inflated Slam" for Fed? Do you need a refresher on his draw?

I never said it was, but when I am hearing that when a 35 year old is winning slams, it's due to career inflation, so if the same people who are saying that for Djokovic not saying it the moment a 35.5 year old Federer won, in 2017, then I have already said what I said.

 

[Rosstour]

I never said it was, but when I am hearing that when a 35 year old is winning slams, it's due to career inflation,

Age alone is not why Djokovic's later Slams are considered inflated and you are well aware of that

The French Djoko won over Nadal could never be considered inflated regardless of their ages

 

[Third Serve]

“most competitive season”

> votes 2011

 

[Rosstour]

I know that there has never been a season in which the 4 of them were at their best at the same time, what I meant is that having divided the slams equally in 2012 does not necessarily mean that that season was the most competitive but only the most balanced in terms of distribution.
Precisely because although Murray was the clearly less strong player of the 4, the fact that in 2012 he managed to win a slam and the Olympic gold suggests that 2012 cannot be the season with the highest competitiveness in the Fab Four era.

Federer beat Djokovic at Wimbledon in 12 sir

Look at the F matchups

AO was Djokovic-Nadal
RG was Nadal-Djokovic
Wimbledon was Fed-Murray with a SF win over Djoko
USO was Murray-Djoko

So they all had to take their Slam win over one (or more) of the others, and all of them except Fed made more than one Slam Final

Dunno how much more competitive it can get?

 

[Mainad]

I fancy 2012. In that year each of the Big 4 won a Slam (Djokovic AO, Nadal RG, Federer W, Murray USO).

Djokovic made 3 finals (AO, RG, USO), Nadal made 2 finals (AO, RG), Murray made 2 finals (W, USO), Federer made 1 final (W).

 

[Hitman]

Age alone is not why Djokovic's later Slams are considered inflated and you are well aware of that

The French Djoko won over Nadal could never be considered inflated regardless of their ages

The revisionists now go back to 2017 to call it inflation era, some go back to W 2016, you know this very well, as the cope is seen on a daily basis. So where was the acknowledge back in 2017 that it was inflation era slams, why now, when they knew the writing was on the wall? Oh yeah, to turn it around, shift goalposts so they can still have their guy as GOAT. Any one who didn't say it then, but now is backtracking doesn't get credit in my eyes,

 

[Rosstour]

The revisionists now go back to 2017 to call it inflation era, some go back to W 2016,

Sir, the inflation era begins at Wimbledon 2003, I think we have both learned this after being here a while

 

[Hitman]

Sir, the inflation era begins at Wimbledon 2003, I think we have both learned this after being here a while

Those people that said it then and have continued to hold that notion get all my respect. The rest, well, you know....

 

[SonnyT]

But did you read what I wrote correctly?

I didn't say that 2017 was the most competitive year in the Fab Four era but that it could potentially have been the most competitive if Fedal's rebirth had been added to a scenario in which Djokovic and Murray had maintained the level of 2016, so in a scenario where they hadn't broken.

Furthermore, I didn't even include 2017 in the survey, so why make controversy on the basis of cosmic nothingness?

Cool down, fellow!