Tennisanity
Legend
The same Ljubicic beat peak Nadal in 2010.
3rd best year of Open Era
- Thread starter mattosgrant
- Start date
The same Ljubicic beat peak Nadal in 2010.
metsman
Talk Tennis Guru
And Ljubicic wasn't even third! Davydenko was (don't even need to mention what he did to Nadal on hard courts lol). Ljubicic was 5th, who's 5th this year? Nadal! Ljubicic at least got to a slam quarter and a slam semi(getting taken out by a GOATing Baghdati who was +21 winners/UE in 5 sets and Nadal) and in his masters final he gave peak Federer three tiebreaks as opposed to Nadal who got destroyed by Murray on clay.
xan
Hall of Fame
im not sure how losing to one guy is better than losing to several guys. like in your best year you have negative h2h with your closest rival. rather have 4 odd losses to 4 different guys, than losing 4 times to a single guy.
i mean thats at least how i see it, regardless of djokovic and federer.
i mean thats at least how i see it, regardless of djokovic and federer.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I never said that. I said that Federer had an ATG in his prime on at least 1 surface in that season (which basically cost him 2 Masters and a Slam), something that can't be said about Djokovic. With all respect but this year Nadal played like a parody of himself at his peak which left the gates open for Djokovic. And even there he failed to win the French. Federer took the very first opportunity he had without Nadal in 2009, Djokovic can't do even that.
Yes, cause obviously a 34-year old Federer losing to Wawrinka means that a 25-year old Federer would lose to him too.
How lucky can arrogant Federer be?
Baghdatis beat players seeded 17 (Stepanek), 2 (Roddick), 7 (Ljubicic) and 4 (Nalbandian) to get to the final in which he led with a set and a break. He didn't just come out of nowhere.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
To be fair the guy reached 3 of the last 4 masters finals at one point. Madrid 2005, Paris 2005, Miami 2006. Add to that IW QF losing to peak Fed and AO QF. Very consistent and excelent results.
Tell me, when did someone like Berdych ever have such results? Reaching 3 out of 4 masters finals, as well as a slam QF in between?
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Heck, Mcenroe beat Chrsi Lewis in a final to win one of his Wimb titles in 1983. Was that a weak era too?
duaneeo
Legend
I think 2015 ranks higher, but liked your post because you make an excellent argument why 2006 is better without being disrespectful to Djokovic's amazing 2015.
5555
Hall of Fame
Compare the competition that Djokovic faced in 2011 with the competiton that Federer faced in 2006 and you will admit it is not a joke if you are really a reasonable Federer fan.
mattosgrant
Banned
I believe the Djokovic votes are for those taking competition into consideration. Which people do in general. Just look at the threads fiercely debating Djokovic's competition this year and Federer's in 2006.
Also recency bias. Most are only considering Federer's 2006 and Djokovic's 2015, as most cant be bothered to research or even care about McEnroe's 84, Connors's 74, or other earlier years.
user
Professional
A joke? Djokovic won tournaments on every surface. Federer didn't. Djokovic won 5 Masters. Federer didn't. Djokovic had 41 match streak. Federer didn't. Djokovic completely dominated his biggest rival. Federer didn't. Djokovic had tough competition on every surface. Federer didn't. How's that for objective?
duaneeo
Legend
Level of competition?? Yawn. I'm not even going there.
mattosgrant
Banned
For the record I do agree Djokovic's weak ending to 2011 rules it out from being any better than 5th or 6th. I understand how some feel differently though.
I still am stunned McEnroe's 84 doesnt have alot more votes on this poll.
I still am stunned McEnroe's 84 doesnt have alot more votes on this poll.
xFedal
Legend
It was only a 2 slam season. The reason people rate it high is because of his high win percentage.
Fiero425
Legend
We're spoiled and jaded these days due to the consecutive successes of the current "Big 3!" I give all due credit to McEnroe having one of the great seasons with Lendl and Connors nipping at his heels! He won both Wimbledon and The USO in straight set finals over each and was 2 games from taking the FO! Some may have reservations due to Connors aging and Lendl pretty much shot after coming all the way back at that FO final to beat McEnroe in 5 sets! At the USO, both had to play after "The Longest Day;" both were wiped out, but John's style got him through the match Sunday against Ivan! ;-)
mattosgrant
Banned
I do agree the 2 slam season is also what kills McEnroe to many people and I totally get that. I take into account the Australian Open situation at the time. Similar to how people do when evaluating Borg.
Fiero425
Legend
McEnroe also gets a little discounted since he "vanished" after '84; merely a pigeon for Lendl to toy with in most instances after that period! I've always said, burning bright makes the fall all the more evident! I should create a thread with a poll concerning past champions like McEnroe, Wilander, Connors, and even Sampras; who's fall was the worst? ;-)
mattosgrant
Banned
That would be a good one. Definitely not Connors. He won slams even past his prime and his fall was always gradual. Never a severe or unexpected fall at all, and he aged quite gracefully.
I would probably pick Wilander who was never a real contender ever again after 88. Atleast McEnroe and Sampras were contenders awhile after winning their last slams(or in Sampras's what seemed to be his last which wasnt and he won another after a 25 tournament-less drought).
Fiero425
Legend
Didn't remember the # of tourneys Sampras went without a win, but what did stick with me was his Wimbledon in 2000 wasn't followed by another win of any kind until 2002 USO where his personal pigeon awaited him in the final! Pete dropped to #22 in the world and was seeded @ #17 for the USO; his curtain call! ;-)
duaneeo
Legend
Djokovic didn't win a tournament on indoor hard. And so what he won 5 Masters. Federer won 4 Masters (three of them in a best-of-5 final), the WTFs (also a best-of-5 final), and Basel (yet another best-of-5 final). And so what Nole had a 41 match streak. He won 70 matches to Roger's 92. And so what he dominated his biggest rival. Roger lost to two players (Nadal and Murray) while Nole lost to six (Federer, Murray, Del Potro, Nishikori, Ferrer, and Tipsarevic). The loss to then 32-ranked Kei included a 3rd-set bagel. The straight-set loss to David included a breadstick.
Again, the votes for 2011 are a joke, made by Djokovic fanboys (and fangirls) who don't know the meaning of objectivity.
5555
Hall of Fame
Your comment is an act of hypocrisy. In the post #58 you said that Rhino made an excellent argument why Federer's 2006 was better and that argument was based on level of competition.
mattosgrant
Banned
I do think Djokovic 2011 and Federer 2006 having almost all the votes and McEnroe 84 and Connors 74 having none is a reflection of recency bias. It is clear Laver 69 and Djokovic 2015 are by far the 2 best years of the Open Era, but after that Federer 2006/Djokovic 2011/McEnroe 84/Connors 74 are all very close together and a case could be made for any of them to be anywhere from 3rd to 6th best. Due to recency bias only the former 2 are considered by most here though.
duaneeo
Legend
Did you even read Rhino's post? Yes, it states that Djokovic didn't face a peak Nadal in 2015 (and I'm sure even a Djokovic fanboy like you can admit to that), but the gist of his comment is that 2006 is better because Roger was only beaten by two players; that had it not been for ONE player (Nadal), Roger would have a 2006 record of 96-1, including the calendar Grand Slam and 6 of 7 Masters played. How did you conclude that his argument is based on level of competition??
5555
Hall of Fame
Why did Rhino say that Nadal's level in 2006 was higher than in 2015? What's the point?
duaneeo
Legend
Why? Because Rhino was disagreeing with the OP's statement that 2015 tops 2006. I suspect his point is that if Djokovic had faced a 2006-level Nadal in 2015, perhaps he wouldn't have won their SF match at Monte Carlo, or their QF match at RG. If Nole hadn't made the final of all 4 slams and won Monte Carlo, his 2015 would look less impressive.
But regardless, I think level-of-play is an issue made important by current fans. Years from now, only actual results will be looked at. Everyone knows Laver won the calendar Grand Slam in 1969. Hardly anyone knows the players he beat in winning those titles.
CYGS
Legend
Hypocrite.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Sorry Steve but that honour now belongs to King Novak's 2015.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Federer's level was higher in 2006 than Novak's in 2015.
Novak 2011 would be closer.
Achievements-wise, Novak's 2015 is greater than either, so he does win this one. Credit to him.
As far as I'm concerned, Djokovic's 2015 was greater, but Fed's 2006 was better.
He only lost to prime Nadal all year if we forget his Cincy tank.
In 2015 Novak has lost to Federer 3 times in important matches* (the equivalent of Nadal to Federer in 2006), but also Murray and Wawrinka in important matches, and Karlovic too at a 250 (equivalent of Cincy 2006 loss you could say).
*And the Dubai final is definitely important too, that tournament is more serious than some of the Masters, so there'll be no argument about that thanks.
Strange too, as Fed usually does better in the "greater" category than in the "better" one.
Greatest years, from objective stats:
Laver 1969
Djokovic 2015
Federer 2006
Federer 2007
Djokovic 2011
Best years, IMO (Laver 1969 not considered for this list as it's difficult to compare the level of the game from so long ago to now):
Federer 2006
McEnroe 1984
Federer 2005
Djokovic 2011
Djokovic 2015
Novak 2011 would be closer.
Achievements-wise, Novak's 2015 is greater than either, so he does win this one. Credit to him.
As far as I'm concerned, Djokovic's 2015 was greater, but Fed's 2006 was better.
He only lost to prime Nadal all year if we forget his Cincy tank.
In 2015 Novak has lost to Federer 3 times in important matches* (the equivalent of Nadal to Federer in 2006), but also Murray and Wawrinka in important matches, and Karlovic too at a 250 (equivalent of Cincy 2006 loss you could say).
*And the Dubai final is definitely important too, that tournament is more serious than some of the Masters, so there'll be no argument about that thanks.
Strange too, as Fed usually does better in the "greater" category than in the "better" one.
Greatest years, from objective stats:
Laver 1969
Djokovic 2015
Federer 2006
Federer 2007
Djokovic 2011
Best years, IMO (Laver 1969 not considered for this list as it's difficult to compare the level of the game from so long ago to now):
Federer 2006
McEnroe 1984
Federer 2005
Djokovic 2011
Djokovic 2015
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Wait, I just checked the poll and read the OP and folks are saying that Djokovic's 2011 was greater than Fed's 2006 too?
You've got to be kidding. He didn't even make all four GS finals, let alone win the WTF.
Where do folks pull these ideas from?
You could maybe argue he had a better level, that's about it.
And still I think you would find that a majority would disagree.
You've got to be kidding. He didn't even make all four GS finals, let alone win the WTF.
Where do folks pull these ideas from?
You could maybe argue he had a better level, that's about it.
And still I think you would find that a majority would disagree.
mattosgrant
Banned
I think in terms of level of tennis Federer was better in 05 than 06.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
I agree actually.
Federer 2005 level > Federer 2006 level > Djokovic 2015 level.
Nadal's was pretty darn good in 2008 too.
When I said "best years" it wasn't purely level I was taking into account.
I couldn't put a 3-slam year below a 2-slam year.
Garhi Shot First
Hall of Fame
It was a close call with Fed 06, but I voted for Mac, because that record is incredible given the competition AND he delivered us The Outburst.
Who could top that?
GOATwo-slam seasons.
Who could top that?
GOATwo-slam seasons.mattosgrant
Banned
Nice to see McEnroe 84 finally getting some votes.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Was Mac's competition really so great in 1984? I wasn't watching tennis at the time but I know that Borg was off the scene by then, Connors was considered past his prime and Lendl was yet to truly hit his stride. I guess Wilander was also about but I can't really think of anyone else.It was a close call with Fed 06, but I voted for Mac, because that record is incredible given the competition AND he delivered us The Outburst.
Who could top that?
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Dat two-handed bench racquet-smash.It was a close call with Fed 06, but I voted for Mac, because that record is incredible given the competition AND he delivered us The Outburst.
Who could top that?
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
His competition was pretty good.
Umpires and lines were at their peak and everything.
Fiero425
Legend
Edberg and Becker were coming along; Stefan had actually won the junior GS in '83 before getting to AO final against Wilander! He also won the first OG Gold in exhibition of '84 and got to Slam doubles finals with Anders Jarryd from early on! ;-)
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Sorry Steve but that honour now belongs to King Novak's 2015.
Says you.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Not just me my friend, far from it in fact. Lol, you really don't want Novak to have anything whatsoever over Federer do you? Some of you Fed fans are so greedy!
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Some of you Fed fans are so greedy!
Steve0904
Talk Tennis Guru
Not just me my friend, far from it in fact. Lol, you really don't want Novak to have anything whatsoever over Federer do you? Some of you Fed fans are so greedy!
Same way not everybody has to concede that Djokovic 2015 had a better year than Federer in 2006 just to buy into the media driven idea that "present is best."
All I've always asked here is that the Djokovic fans admit that Federer has an argument for a better season or at least a "tie", but most of what I've seen has been Djokovic fans brushing Federer's 2006 aside just to put their boy up on a pedestal. In reality, this should be an argument that ends peacefully where people can feel ok with picking whoever they think had the better season without being attacked for it (but it is TTW so that doesn't happen). The stats are close enough to warrant this, IMO.
But that's where the "problem" occurs. It's my opinion. I believe the stats are close enough for this to be more opinion based than fact based, and I lean towards the Federer side of the debate mostly because I am a Federer fan, but I acknowledge that Djokovic has an argument so I don't argue against people that are on that side.
All I'd like to see is a Djokovic fan admit that Federer has an argument and not just brush him aside in favour of Djokovic's 2015, but a lot of them just want to crown Djokovic like they feel threatened by my opinion or they can't stomach the idea of me still putting Djokovic behind Federer because they have an inferiority complex.
This thread is a prime example. The OP (being a Djokovic fan) is just assuming that Federer's year is 3rd. He can't be 2nd because that would put him above Djokovic's 2015 and we can't do that. Blasphemy! Again, to reiterate, my issue is not that some people might put Djokovic's 2015 over Federer's 2006. It's that somehow, Federer doesn't have an argument for the better season. In that way, the Djokovic fans are getting greedy.
Last edited:
user
Professional
Why should we forget about that "tank"? And, IMO Nadal wasn't all that impressive on clay that year. Nadal that beat Federer on the hardcourt of Dubai was all but prime. The only important match Djokovic lost to Federer is the Cincinnati one. But, that's not what matters:
What you're basically doing is estimating Federer's level of play based on ONLY those matches he won, dismissing those he lost, because it was "prime" Nadal, and a "tank". (Objectively, his level at AO was not that high, too.) At the same time, you're overemphasizing the importance of the matches Djokovic lost, in order to depreciate his level of play. Hence, 2011 is "closer" to 2006, which is a laughable statement.
Bear in mind that post USO Djokovic was injured, and shouldn't have even played Paris, he should have skipped it like Federer used to do during his best years on tour.
mattosgrant
Banned
I started this poll since my previous poll made it clear that virtually everyone (95% of the votes or something) rated Djokovic as best or 2nd best year of the Open Era along with Laver. Thus that poll became redundant as it was clear what virtually everyone thought.
So with that settled quite obviously out of curiosity I moved onto who people viewed as 3rd best, which was still a current players topic as the debate heavily involves 3 current players. I didnt start the poll since I strongly believed Federer's best year was only 3rd best. I dont believe Federer's 2006 is 3rd best after all, I believe it is more like 5th best, so that line of logic for me would be impossible.
As for few Djokovic fans conceding 2006 vs 2015 could be Federer, well that is pretty easy to understand. 2 extra Masters titles vs 3 250 titles and 1 fewer RR loss in a tournament both win anyway (essentially the difference of their years) is not a tough call.
5555
Hall of Fame
It's a strong evidence that Rhino's argument was based on level of competition.
D
Deleted member 688153
Guest
Nadal was completely prime on clay in 2006, there is no denying this. He was certainly better than he has ever been against Djokovic except in 2012.
He swept the season including one of his best performances (Rome 2006), and played a style that was practically unbeatable on clay.
As for important matches Federer won this year against Djokovic, all three were.
The Dubai final is a damn sight more important than a SF at some of the Masters tournaments, and their other match was at the WTF (the most important tournament after the slams).
I'm estimating Federer's level of play based on the fact that he only lost to prime Nadal all year.
Not to mention that Fed played one of his best clay matches ever as well in 2006.
But you're being seriously biased here anyway.
Yeah, Nadal swept the clay season in one of his best clay years ever, but he wasn't prime! Yes, of course. Whatever you say lol.
Who cares about his losses in the tail end of the season for this discussion?
When I say "Djokovic 2011" I mean the Djokovic which showed up from the beginning of the year to the USO, and that was one of the highest levels of tennis I've ever seen.
He smashed prime Nadal 7-0 in a row.
Same with Fed tanking a random match during the year, that doesn't say anything about his best level that year.
But no, Nadal wasn't prime in 2006 (despite results clearly showing otherwise), Federer was peaking at Cincy 2006 (despite losing in the 2R to a not-even-very-good Murray), Djokovic was a mug in 2011 despite 3GS and 6-0 against Nadal, WTF matches aren't important, Dubai finals aren't important despite Novak breaking his racquet during matches there, etc. etc!!
Completely unbiased and everything!
You're too biased against Federer to be taken seriously much of the time, sorry.
user
Professional
I was gonna reply, but I just realised you used the word bias too many times. You seem too biased to get a reply.
mattosgrant
Banned
Nadal's prime and peak are like the most bizarre things ever. Just like his career. Usually for a player we define an overall prime period with a smaller peak period with in that. Nadal though you say his peak was 2008, 2010, and 2013. More to the point something like 2008 Monte Carlo-2009 Madrid, 2010 Monte Carlo-2010 WTF, 2013 Indian wells, 2014 Australian Open. I would suggest 2011 could be included but even that wouldnt change the point of a broken up weak which is weird in itself for a legendary player. He started 2009 and 2012 playing really good and looking like the probable #1 for the year then fizzled out badly.
Then his prime or peak years completely vary by surface. Grass he has been rubbish since after 2011. Hard courts his level rises and falls in various years, but he is generally quite good. Some of his best hard court tennis ever was at the Australian Opens in 2009 and 2012 when he finished either not playing or playing poorly on hard courts. Clay his more prime or peak years were mostly his younger years but he played some excellent clay tennis in 2012, and quite strong in 2013 too.
He is the all time king of Roland Garros, yet he denied himself an undisputed 3 year reign of tennis by losing the 2009 French Open, and this one loss at RG of all places is the one thing that deprives him of having an era at all in some peoples views, or ever having back to back years as the best, a huge hole in his career. Everything about the evaluation of his career is unique and confusing.
Then his prime or peak years completely vary by surface. Grass he has been rubbish since after 2011. Hard courts his level rises and falls in various years, but he is generally quite good. Some of his best hard court tennis ever was at the Australian Opens in 2009 and 2012 when he finished either not playing or playing poorly on hard courts. Clay his more prime or peak years were mostly his younger years but he played some excellent clay tennis in 2012, and quite strong in 2013 too.
He is the all time king of Roland Garros, yet he denied himself an undisputed 3 year reign of tennis by losing the 2009 French Open, and this one loss at RG of all places is the one thing that deprives him of having an era at all in some peoples views, or ever having back to back years as the best, a huge hole in his career. Everything about the evaluation of his career is unique and confusing.
Similar threads
