3rd best year of Open Era

3rd best year of the Open Era

  • Total voters
    53
M

mattosgrant

Banned
It seems from my poll that the heavy consensus is the 69 year of Laver and the 2015 year of Djokovic are the 2 best years in the Open Era in whichever order.

Is Federer's 2006 the 3rd best year of the Open Era. Or is that Djokovic's 2011 (due to quality of competition + results, not just results, for those who like to look at things that way), McEnroe's 84, Connors's 74, Borg's 79, Nadal's 2010, Federer's 2005/2004/2007, Wilander's 1988.

I figure this is an appropriate poll for the Current Player Section as Fedalovic take up 6 of the 9 poll choices.
 
Well I rate Djokovic 2011 as the best I have seen. My rating would be (of the ones I have seen) --

1) Djokovic 2011 (the competition can't get tougher than that)
2) Djokovic 2015 (insane results)
3) Federer 2006 ( slightly below Djokovic 2015 due to fewer masters)
4) Nadal 2010 ( slams on 3 different surfaces, no one else has done that till date)
 
CYGS said:
The author treats every ATP 500/250 tournament the same as Masters, and that's why it's comical.
Click to expand...
No he doesn't. He mentioned that the finals of masters were best of 5 back then.

Do you really think Djokovic would have managed to win 6 of them if they had best of 5 finals? I'm gonna have to say that is pretty doubtful. And they made a good point about the FO. Djokovic was the favorite in that match against someone he's basically owned outside of the AO.. while Fed had to deal with 20 year old Nadal, who is basically the roadrunner at that age. Federer nearly took that match to 5, despite making bucketfuls of errors in the latter stages. Federer played Nadal tough.. Djokovic faded away and let the occasion get to him. Truthfully, outside of the Murray match in 2006.. Federer didn't have a single bad loss. and even that one is arguable. Losing 4 times to Nadal is not something to write off. He's an all time great himself. That's like saying it would be a bad loss for Djokovic to have lost to Federer in 2012 Wimbledon.. but I don't think anyone said that.
 
cknobman said:
USA Today wrote an article analyzing Fed 2006 vs Djokovic 2015.

They gave the nod to Federer.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/roger-federer-novak-djokovic-best-season-in-tennis-history-ever-2006-2015-john-mcenroe-rafael-nadal-grand-slams
Click to expand...

The only part of the season when Djokovic topped Federer was the lead-up to the FO so the MS on clay. Djokovic won both Masters he entered, Federer lost 2 finals to prime Nadal on clay.

If 2006 Federer faced 2015 Nadal in 2006, he would've lost no more than 2 matches that year and would surely bag the CYGS. That's why it still tops Djokovic's 2015. Djokovic has no major rival in his prime, Federer had to play Nadal right in his clay prime. If it wasn't for Nadal Federer would be considered one of the best clay courters ever with like 4 or 5 FO titles.
 
CYGS said:
The author treats every ATP 500/250 tournament the same as Masters, and that's why it's comical.
Click to expand...

He didn't do that but I did find the way he worded Djokovic's 500 in Beijing as lowly and didn't mention that Federer had some 250 titles a little bias.

Federer ’05 — 11 titles, three Grand Slams, 4 Masters wins, four other wins
Federer ’06 — 12 titles, three Grand Slams, 5 Master wins (including ATP WTF), four other wins
Djokovic — 11 titles, three Grand Slams, 7 Masters 1000 events (including ATP WTF) and a lowly 500 event in Beijing.

There are fair arguments for Fed's 06 being better or Djokovic's 15 being better, but I found that wording rather humorous.
 
Last edited:
Cup8489 said:
No he doesn't. He mentioned that the finals of masters were best of 5 back then.

1. Do you really think Djokovic would have managed to win 6 of them if they had best of 5 finals? I'm gonna have to say that is pretty doubtful.

2. And they made a good point about the FO. Djokovic was the favorite in that match against someone he's basically owned outside of the AO.. while Fed had to deal with 20 year old Nadal, who is basically the roadrunner at that age. Federer nearly took that match to 5, despite making bucketfuls of errors in the latter stages. Federer played Nadal tough.. Djokovic faded away and let the occasion get to him.


3. Truthfully, outside of the Murray match in 2006.. Federer didn't have a single bad loss. and even that one is arguable. Losing 4 times to Nadal is not something to write off. He's an all time great himself. That's like saying it would be a bad loss for Djokovic to have lost to Federer in 2012 Wimbledon.. but I don't think anyone said that.
Click to expand...
1. Why not? I can say it's doubtful he wouldn't as well. So what does that tell? Nothing. 6 masters > 4 masters, on the other hand, is a fact. Federer played one less match at slams. Would you discount his win? I bet you wouldn't. So don't be a hypocrite and sore loser.

2. That's an opinion, which means nothing. Djokovic BEAT Nadal at FO, which Federer never managed to do, and saying he faded away is unfair to him as well, because he clearly played STANIMAL tough as well. So no.

3. Again, this arguments adds nothing to the discussion. It does not prove Federer 2006 is better.

Clearly as a fan, it pains you to admit that Djokovic 2015 is better, but 3 Slams + WTF + 6 Masters > 3 Slams + WTF + 4 Masters (Accomplishment-wise, i.e. I don't wanna argue about level of play, competition... all those subjective craps).
 
mavsman149 said:
He didn't do that but I did find the way he worded Djokovic's 500 in Beijing as lowly and didn't mention that Federer had some 250 titles.

Federer ’05 — 11 titles, three Grand Slams, 4 Masters wins, four other wins
Federer ’06 — 12 titles, three Grand Slams, 5 Master wins (including ATP WTF), four other wins
Djokovic — 11 titles, three Grand Slams, 7 Masters 1000 events (including ATP WTF) and a lowly 500 event in Beijing.

There are fair arguments for Fed's 06 being better or Djokovic's 15 being better, but I found that wording rather humorous.
Click to expand...
He did indirectly in terms of winning statistics, number of titles and what not (treating all titles as equal)
 
CYGS said:
Clearly as a fan, it pains you to admit that Djokovic 2015 is better, but 3 Slams + WTF + 6 Masters > 3 Slams + WTF + 4 Masters (Accomplishment-wise, i.e. I don't wanna argue about level of play, competition... all those subjective craps).
Click to expand...

I'm not pained at all. And if you really want to get into it, Federer won more titles than Djokovic and had a better w/l, and only lost to prime nadal and up and coming murray. Djokovic had several losses other than to Federer. I don't wanna argue about importance of titles, if masters today really are better than masters before, all those subjective craps. I look at the titles won, and matches won and lost.
 
Cup8489 said:
I'm not pained at all. And if you really want to get into it, Federer won more titles than Djokovic and had a better w/l, and only lost to prime nadal and up and coming murray. Djokovic had several losses other than to Federer. I don't wanna argue about importance of titles, if masters today really are better than masters before, all those subjective craps. I look at the titles won, and matches won and lost.
Click to expand...
Masters > all others (except slams and wtf) is not subjective. Are you saying Slams > all others is subjective? That's trolling.
 
CYGS said:
Masters > all others (except slams and wtf) is not subjective. Are you saying Slams > all others is subjective? That's trolling.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is subjective. You just believe that masters are better because of bigger draws and potentially greater competition, in the form of them being mandatory events. But just because someone faces more players in the top 50, for example, doesn't mean that it's actually tougher competition. That's an assumption on your part.
 
Cup8489 said:
Actually, it is subjective. You just believe that masters are better because of bigger draws and potentially greater competition, in the form of them being mandatory events. But just because someone faces more players in the top 50, for example, doesn't mean that it's actually tougher competition. That's an assumption on your part.
Click to expand...
Well, then I'm done arguing with you. I won 1000 school titles and I am greater than Federer/thread
 
I'll bite on the ordering one by one
1) Laver 69
2) Federer 06
3) Djokovic 15
4) McEnroe 84
5) Djokovic 11
6) Connors 74
Although ordering them is moot.
 
Article has an error for 2005. It says Federer won 3 GS, in fact he won 2.

IMHO,
I think for the whole year and GS performance:
Federer (2006) > Djokovic (2015)

For GS performance:
Federer (2006) = Djokovic (2011)

Novak beat peak Rafa (2) and peak Murray in 2011 GS finals whereas he beat 34 yo Federer (2), slightly declining&post-injury Murray and was beaten by No.9 Wawrinka in 2015 finals. I'm thinking he had better success in 2011 but was dominant in 2015 due to lack of competition on the tour. Djokovic beating Federer twice this year is like Federer beating 35 yo Agassi in USO 2005 final. 8 time GS champion Agassi was good after 30 like Federer, so comparison is fair.

Federer beat Baghdatis (peak, though not significant), Nadal (peak) and Roddick (peak) in 3 GS he won in 2006 and lost to Nadal in FO final. I think his GS performance is on par with Djokovic 2011.
 
No respect for Mac? He was king in 1984. Had he played the Australian, he'd have easily won it that year. I think you're all smoking something. McEnroe in 1984 turned in some performances akin to Nadal's drubbing of Federer in the 2008 French. It's shocking that anyone would put his 1984 behind any year other than Laver's 1969, and even then I think Mac was more dominant than Laver. If not for that French Open and Lendl finally waking up and deciding to become a champion...
 
Winners or Errors said:
No respect for Mac? He was king in 1984. Had he played the Australian, he'd have easily won it that year. I think you're all smoking something. McEnroe in 1984 turned in some performances akin to Nadal's drubbing of Federer in the 2008 French. It's shocking that anyone would put his 1984 behind any year other than Laver's 1969, and even then I think Mac was more dominant than Laver. If not for that French Open and Lendl finally waking up and deciding to become a champion...
Click to expand...

I agree with this. In my opinion, the ultimate achievement in a tennis season isn't winning the four majors--it's coming as close as possible to total domination, and McEnroe, with only three losses in 85 matches, came closer than any other man to doing this.
 
2006 Federer was the highest level of tennis any player has ever achieved in my opinion.

He was only able to be beaten by two people - peak level Nadal (which was/is the best level of clay court tennis of all time, requiring a much higher level to compete against - which Djokovic didn't have to worry about in 2015), and that one loss to Murray in Cincy.

If you take Nadal out of the equation (i.e. the luxury Djokovic experienced this year), Federer would've (very probably, not much debate on this) won Roland Garros, Rome (where he actually had match points anyway), and Monte Carlo.
Being that he didn't play the Paris Masters or Hamburg (then a Masters), he was at a higher level for 7 of the 9 Masters Series.

There is no bias here, Djokovic is awesome. I've watched tennis a long time. I saw Federer play a lot in 2006 (actually live at the events. I saw him play at the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the Toronto Masters). I believe that is the best level I've ever seen. Actually I would also add 2005 Federer to that as well. From about July 2005 until February 2007 was the highest level I've seen in this sport.
 
Rhino said:
2006 Federer was the highest level of tennis any player has ever achieved in my opinion.

He was only able to be beaten by two people - peak level Nadal (which was/is the best level of clay court tennis of all time, requiring a much higher level to compete against - which Djokovic didn't have to worry about in 2015), and that one loss to Murray in Cincy.

If you take Nadal out of the equation (i.e. the luxury Djokovic experienced this year), Federer would've (very probably, not much debate on this) won Roland Garros, Rome (where he actually had match points anyway), and Monte Carlo.
Being that he didn't play the Paris Masters or Hamburg (then a Masters), he was at a higher level for 7 of the 9 Masters Series.

There is no bias here, Djokovic is awesome. I've watched tennis a long time. I saw Federer play a lot in 2006 (actually live at the events. I saw him play at the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the Toronto Masters). I believe that is the best level I've ever seen. Actually I would also add 2005 Federer to that as well. From about July 2005 until February 2007 was the highest level I've seen in this sport.
Click to expand...
20 year old Nadal was not PEAK. Stop twisting things to make your case. That's ridiculous.
 
Rhino said:
2006 Federer was the highest level of tennis any player has ever achieved in my opinion.

He was only able to be beaten by two people - peak level Nadal (which was/is the best level of clay court tennis of all time, requiring a much higher level to compete against - which Djokovic didn't have to worry about in 2015), and that one loss to Murray in Cincy.

If you take Nadal out of the equation (i.e. the luxury Djokovic experienced this year), Federer would've (very probably, not much debate on this) won Roland Garros, Rome (where he actually had match points anyway), and Monte Carlo.
Being that he didn't play the Paris Masters or Hamburg (then a Masters), he was at a higher level for 7 of the 9 Masters Series.

There is no bias here, Djokovic is awesome. I've watched tennis a long time. I saw Federer play a lot in 2006 (actually live at the events. I saw him play at the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the Toronto Masters). I believe that is the best level I've ever seen. Actually I would also add 2005 Federer to that as well. From about July 2005 until February 2007 was the highest level I've seen in this sport.
Click to expand...
I hate you :p
 
Rhino said:
2006 Federer was the highest level of tennis any player has ever achieved in my opinion.

He was only able to be beaten by two people - peak level Nadal (which was/is the best level of clay court tennis of all time, requiring a much higher level to compete against - which Djokovic didn't have to worry about in 2015), and that one loss to Murray in Cincy.

If you take Nadal out of the equation (i.e. the luxury Djokovic experienced this year), Federer would've (very probably, not much debate on this) won Roland Garros, Rome (where he actually had match points anyway), and Monte Carlo.
Being that he didn't play the Paris Masters or Hamburg (then a Masters), he was at a higher level for 7 of the 9 Masters Series.

There is no bias here, Djokovic is awesome. I've watched tennis a long time. I saw Federer play a lot in 2006 (actually live at the events. I saw him play at the Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the Toronto Masters). I believe that is the best level I've ever seen. Actually I would also add 2005 Federer to that as well. From about July 2005 until February 2007 was the highest level I've seen in this sport.
Click to expand...
But the OP is asking which year was the 3rd best in terms of results, not competition.
 
CYGS said:
20 year old Nadal was not PEAK. Stop twisting things to make your case. That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...
I'm not like you. I don't care about winning or losing a case, it's just an observation. I believe it's better to try and get to the bottom of this rather than 'win' over other posters or gain one-upmanship credits.
My point is, there is nobody in 2015 that is anywhere near Nadals 2006 level on clay. I don't think that is up for any kind of credible debate. Or correct me if I'm wrong and I've missed somebody.

And that fact that the very guy - Federer - who produced that insane level of play in 2006 is now 34 years old and yet instead of being retired for three years, managed to defeat the best that 2015 could offer (Djokovic level of play) THREE times... it goes without saying what a 2006 level Federer would've been capable of this year without a clay God in the way..
 
Rhino said:
I'm not like you. I don't care about winning or losing a case, it's just an observation. I believe it's better to try and get to the bottom of this rather than 'win' over other posters or gain one-upmanship credits.
My point is, there is nobody in 2015 that is anywhere near Nadals 2006 level on clay. I don't think that is up for any kind of credible debate. Or correct me if I'm wrong and I've missed somebody.

And that fact that the very guy - Federer - who produced that insane level of play in 2006 is now 34 years old and yet instead of being retired for three years, managed to defeat the best that 2015 could offer (Djokovic level of play) THREE times... it goes without saying what a 2006 level Federer would've been capable of this year without a clay God in the way..
Click to expand...
You admitted you were wrong. 20 yo Nadal was not peak. Case closed.
 
Kind of surprised McEnroe 84 is so low in votes.

He is a complicated case though since factually he won only 2 slams which is a big negative (in comparision of the absolute best years that is). However the Australian Open situation was still fudgy then. 82-3 is amazing.
 
OK lets be real on one thing. 2015 Nadal basically sucks, and 2006 Nadal > 2015 Nadal on any surface easily. Djokovic's competition this year was not Nadal, except for a decent Nadal at the end of the year indoors (where he is hardly some beast at the best of times), it was Federer, Murray, and Wawrinka.
 
mavsman149 said:
He didn't do that but I did find the way he worded Djokovic's 500 in Beijing as lowly and didn't mention that Federer had some 250 titles a little bias.

Federer ’05 — 11 titles, three Grand Slams, 4 Masters wins, four other wins
Federer ’06 — 12 titles, three Grand Slams, 5 Master wins (including ATP WTF), four other wins
Djokovic — 11 titles, three Grand Slams, 7 Masters 1000 events (including ATP WTF) and a lowly 500 event in Beijing.

There are fair arguments for Fed's 06 being better or Djokovic's 15 being better, but I found that wording rather humorous.
Click to expand...
The use of the word "lowly" by the author could have been used to contrast his other titles that were all at 1000-level or above. Had Djokovic won Doha or Dubai, or entered and won a Wimby tuneup, that term would not have been used. Had he done all three, Djokovic's '15 would be the best year ever.
 
stringertom said:
The use of the word "lowly" by the author could have been used to contrast his other titles that were all at 1000-level or above. Had Djokovic won Doha or Dubai, or entered and won a Wimby tuneup, that term would not have been used. Had he done all three, Djokovic's '15 would be the best year ever.
Click to expand...

The author doesn't know how many GS Federer won in 2005. Credibility lost. Why didn't he also write "lowly four other tournaments"? He is probably no PhD in linguistics, and he obviously had an agenda. Had Djokovic won Dubai and Doha, it would be win-loss ratio, etc... His opinion is as relevant as anyone's on this forum, so it's no big deal.
 
For me the 10 best years in the open era factoring in accomplishments and circumstances:
Laver 69
Fed 06
Djoker 15
Mac 84
Fed 04
Djoker 11(would be second or third if he had won WTF)
Fed 05
Borg 79
Fed 07
nadal 10
 
user said:
The author doesn't know how many GS Federer won in 2005. Credibility lost.
Click to expand...

Yeah someone who doesnt even know how many slams he won in 2005 isnt really qualifed to do a credible breakdown on Fed's 2006 or 2005 vs Djokovic's 2015. You are right too a huge LOL at noting Djokovic's 1 500 title as a minor title and referring to some of Fed's 250 titles as just other titles.
 
mattosgrant said:
Yeah someone who doesnt even know how many slams he won in 2005 isnt really qualifed to do a credible breakdown on Fed's 2006 or 2005 vs Djokovic's 2015. You are right too a huge LOL at noting Djokovic's 1 500 title as a minor title and referring to some of Fed's 250 titles as just other titles.
Click to expand...

to be fair...Halle and Basel are more like 500's anyways. Beating Ferrer, Scricaphan (what a match that was), Gonzalez in Basel and Gasquet, Haas, and Berdych at Halle is more like a 500 win than a 250. All top 10 players at some point in time. A 250 win is the win Federer had in Istanbul beating mostly scrubs.
 
metsman said:
to be fair...Halle and Basel are more like 500's anyways. Beating Ferrer, Scricaphan (what a match that was), Gonzalez in Basel and Gasquet, Haas, and Berdych at Halle is more like a 500 win than a 250. All top 10 players at some point in time. A 250 win is the win Federer had in Istanbul beating mostly scrubs.
Click to expand...

Fair point, but still my point stands about the editors wording and not knowing Federer's # of slam wins in 2005 is inexcusable for someone who can make a credible verdict on this subject.

I agree Halle and Basel are basically the same as Queens today.
 
metsman said:
to be fair...Halle and Basel are more like 500's anyways. Beating Ferrer, Scricaphan (what a match that was), Gonzalez in Basel and Gasquet, Haas, and Berdych at Halle is more like a 500 win than a 250. All top 10 players at some point in time. A 250 win is the win Federer had in Istanbul beating mostly scrubs.
Click to expand...

They were 250 back in the day. You can't put that aside. And your Top 10 opponents logic is flawed. Should we downgrade his AO title because he beat only 1 Top 20 player there?
 
user said:
They were 250 back in the day. You can't put that aside. And your Top 10 opponents logic is flawed. Should we downgrade his AO title because he beat only 1 Top 20 player there?
Click to expand...

If you're beating 2-3 top 10 caliber opponents who are playing well it's above the level of competition of a standard 250 period. At the AO he beat an on fire Haas and Baghdatis who on their day are easily top 5-10 caliber players and Kiefer isn't a joke either. I mean have people seen Baghdatis during that tourney? Haas is a former Number 2 and was playing like it for most of that match. Davydenko is also a very tough out on that surface. 2006 AO is one of Fed's finest GS wins imo and it showed in the ceremony. He wasn't at 100 % yet battled through some motivated opponents. after the ankle injury (wasn't really till Indian wells)
 
metsman said:
If you're beating 2-3 top 10 caliber opponents who are playing well it's above the level of competition of a standard 250 period. At the AO he beat an on fire Haas and Baghdatis who on their day are easily top 5-10 caliber players and Kiefer isn't a joke either. I mean have people seen Baghdatis during that tourney? Haas is a former Number 2 and was playing like it for most of that match. Davydenko is also a very tough out on that surface. 2006 AO is one of Fed's finest GS wins imo and it showed in the ceremony. He wasn't at 100 % yet battled through some motivated opponents. after the ankle injury (wasn't really till Indian wells)
Click to expand...

My Top 10 remark still stands. If I accepted the bolded part, then we could also come to terms that on his day Florian Mayer is a Top 5 material. But it isn't so. You're hyping them to suit your needs, not because of them, but because Federer beat them all. E.g. Anderson was doing great at Wimbledon (he also beat Murray at USO), had a chance to beat Djokovic there, but most people are not focusing on his qualities, they are rather using that 5-setter to undermine Djokovic for being in a position to lose to such "scrub". Therefore, your point is not valid.
 
user said:
My Top 10 remark still stands. If I accepted the bolded part, then we could also come to terms that on his day Florian Mayer is a Top 5 material. But it isn't so. You're hyping them to suit your needs, not because of them, but because Federer beat them all. E.g. Anderson was doing great at Wimbledon (he also beat Murray at USO), had a chance to beat Djokovic there, but most people are not focusing on his qualities, they are rather using that 5-setter to undermine Djokovic for being in a position to lose to such "scrub". Therefore, your point is not valid.
Click to expand...
Haas has gotten to 4 slam semis and numerous other quarters. Won a masters. Baghdatis has gotten to a slam final and semi and was absolutely on fire during that tournament. routinely hitting 10-20 aces and posting +20 winners/UE against quality opponents who have been ranked as high as 3. What have Mayer and Anderson done compared to that? Jack ****
 
metsman said:
Haas has gotten to 4 slam semis and numerous other quarters. Won a masters. Baghdatis has gotten to a slam final and semi and was absolutely on fire during that tournament. routinely hitting 10-20 aces and posting +20 winners/UE against quality opponents who have been ranked as high as 3. What have Mayer and Anderson done compared to that? Jack ****
Click to expand...

Mayer was also one of Federer's opponents at that tournament. That's why I mentioned him. Anderson's level at Wimbledon was comparable to the best level of those you mentioned. You want someone whose career can be compared to that of Haas? Berdych has been more successfull overall than Haas and Baghdatis together. Still, most of the time his career is being underestimated. But I figured you won't understand.
First you say it doesn't matter if someone is not top 20, what matters is they were goating at that tournament vs Federer. Then, you're upgrading 250 to 500 based on Top 10 players Federer beat there. Were they also goating? Inconsistency in your criteria is just too great to ignore.

Offending me isn't really helping your cause, if anything it's labeling you as an unstable 12 year old.
 
Last edited:
user said:
Mayer was also one of Federer's opponents at that tournament. That's why I mentioned him. Anderson's level at Wimbledon was comparable to the best level of those you mentioned. You want someone whose career can be compared to that of Haas? Berdych has been more successfull overall than Haas and Baghdatis together. Still, most of the time his career is being underestimated. But I figured you won't understand.
First you say it doesn't matter if someone is not top 20, what matters is they were goating at that tournament vs Federer. Then, you're upgrading 250 to 500 based on Top 10 players Federer beat there. Were they also goating? Inconsistency in your criteria is just too great to ignore.

Offending me isn't really helping your cause, if anything it's labeling you as an unstable 12 year old.
Click to expand...
where did I bring up Berdych lol? Even if he's a mental midget, Berdych at his best is a really tough opponent. Berdych wasn't anywhere near his best this year.

I clearly said that the players Federer beat in those 250's where playing well in addition to being former or future top 10's. Same with the AO opponents. Where is the inconsistency there. It's the same thing.

Ah, chirping someone on the internet by calling them 12 a year old, never seen that before. Think of something better next time bud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Poll Poll
3rd best year of Open Era
Replies
9
Views
558
D.Nalby12
D
M
Djokovic with chance to complete best year of Open Era?
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
NatF
NatF
M
How do Connors 74 and McEnroe 84 compare to Fed 2006 and Djokovic in 2011 in best years
Replies
17
Views
824
Jaitock1991
Jaitock1991
socallefty
  • Poll Poll
Best player of each decade for the ATP?
Replies
5
Views
240
Hitman
Hitman
K
ERA OPEN : Top 5 consecutive years
Replies
35
Views
1K
KG1965
K
Back
Top