3rd best year of Open Era

3rd best year of the Open Era

  • Total voters
    53
user said:
I was gonna reply, but I just realised you used the word bias too many times. You seem too biased to get a reply.
Click to expand...
Strange, the notification thing didn't mention that you replied until just now (it was 29mins ago). Odd.

Not my fault you hate Federer btw.
 
I just figured out what that "looking at my watch" thing for Nadal was from. Haha what a little beetch he can be sometimes. I think he and Federer's relationship is definitely more icey than it used to be, strange since the most intense part of their rivalry is very long past now.
 
mattosgrant said:
I just figured out what that "looking at my watch" thing for Nadal was from. Haha what a little beetch he can be sometimes. I think he and Federer's relationship is definitely more icey than it used to be, strange since the most intense part of their rivalry is very long past now.
Click to expand...

I really doubt he meant it in any rude or malicious way. Probably checking what time it was for some soccer match or something..
 
President said:
I really doubt he meant it in any rude or malicious way. Probably checking what time it was for some soccer match or something..
Click to expand...

I dont think he meant to be rude or mean either, but it still is a funny shot, and I do sense a bit more tension between them in recent years than their used to be. They have had some public disagreements with each other, and times criticizing the other which they didnt used to. Also when Stan beat Nadal in the Australian Open final it was clear Federer was super happy and that is the result he desperately wanted. I think 4-5 years ago he would have been more mixed had they played a big match vs each other, since back then he was very close with both. Granted the whole slam record thing probably was on his mind too. Still I just sense they arent as chummy in more recent times.
 
mattosgrant said:
I just figured out what that "looking at my watch" thing for Nadal was from. Haha what a little beetch he can be sometimes. I think he and Federer's relationship is definitely more icey than it used to be, strange since the most intense part of their rivalry is very long past now.
Click to expand...
Am I the only one who really doesn't think there is more tension or dislike between these guys than the little bit that you'd expect of professional rivals?

I'm just not seeing it.

I think this is all largely drummed up by the media and by extremist fans (not you ofc).

Federer and Nadal get along quite well I think, all things considered.
 
Firstservingman said:
Am I the only one who really doesn't think there is more tension or dislike between these guys than the little bit that you'd expect of professional rivals?

I'm just not seeing it.

I think this is all largely drummed up by the media and by extremist fans (not you ofc).

Federer and Nadal get along quite well I think, all things considered.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with what you are saying, just that they used to be unusually close for such top level rivals in tennis. Now they are closer to the expected norm, not unsually friendly anymore.
 
Steve0904 said:
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."
Click to expand...

People tend to romanticize past not present. It's because of nostalgia.
 
Last edited:
2006. It's hard to ignore those earlier round losses by Roger in 07.

Although to clarify on my side, I wouldn't put Laver's 69 season in the Top 3. I've already stated why.
 
mattosgrant said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just now realized that this is actually my quote that you responded to on Thursday. That aside, clearly you've found the other 5% (looks like more) of the forum that don't just give Djokovic the 2nd best year without an argument. Considering some of the posts on the first 2 or so pages. Something I believe is true (i.e not necessarily that Federer's 2006 is better than Djokovic's 2015, but that Federer at least has an argument that's pretty solid in its own right).

If you don't think that, that's perfectly fine, but this is my opinion (above), and I'll say the same thing I've said in many other threads about this topic. I have no interest whatsoever in debating this topic for the 5th time or more now so if it's fine with you we can agree to disagree.
 
Cup8489 said:
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?
Click to expand...

You do know that Djokovic is harder to beat bo5 than bo3, right?

That's because when Djokovic is down 2 Sets to Love, turning off the TV is never a good Idea because the match is far from over.

Vice versa is a different Story. Djokovic usually wins his Matches when up 1:0. When he is 2:0 up, Hell freezes over before he lets someone back into the Match. And even in such a very unlikely case (RG 2015/SF), he usually wins the 5th.

It is more likely that Djokovic would have won either Montreal and/ore Cinci in addition ... It took Murray 3 hours in Montreal, to defeat Novak.
 
PinShot said:
You do know that Djokovic is harder to beat bo5 than bo3, right?

That's because when Djokovic is down 2 Sets to Love, turning off the TV is never a good Idea because the match is far from over.

Vice versa is a different Story. Djokovic usually wins his Matches when up 1:0. When he is 2:0 up, Hell freezes over before he lets someone back into the Match. And even in such a very unlikely case (RG 2015/SF), he usually wins the 5th.

It is more likely that Djokovic would have won either Montreal and/ore Cinci in addition ... It took Murray 3 hours in Montreal, to defeat Novak.
Click to expand...

Funny, I don't remember Canada or Cincy being best of 5; ever! Maybe in old days when Canadian Open was on clay, but I definitely don't recall these events doing anything but best of 3 on HC! OTTH, finals @ IW, Miami, Rome, MC, and back in the day Hamburg were best of 5! It was tough to win one, much less 6 back then! ;-)
 
Last edited:
Fiero425 said:
Funny, I don't remember Canada or Cincy being best of 5; ever! Maybe in old days when Canadian Open was on clay, but I definitely don't recall these events doing anything but best of 3 on HC! OTTH, finals @ IW, Miami, Rome, MC, and back in the day Hamburg were best of 5! It was tough to win one, must less 6 back then! ;-)
Click to expand...

You're right, I forgot about Canada/Cinci both being bo3 back then.

It was tough :-) .. Well, I guess it's always tough to win one. But bo5 in a Final only cant be that much more of a difference, I believe.

Djokovic likely played more Matches/Sets than most other Player on Tour because of all the Tournaments he played and all the consecutive Finals he reached.

Yet, he still managed to win all four Tournament after the US Open without signs of exhaustion.

Bo5 Finals really doesnt sound like much of an Argument to me.
 
PinShot said:
You're right, I forgot about Canada/Cinci both being bo3 back then.

It was tough :) .. Well, I guess it's always tough to win one. But bo5 in a Final only cant be that much more of a difference, I believe.

Djokovic likely played more Matches/Sets than most other Player on Tour because of all the Tournaments he played and all the consecutive Finals he reached.

Yet, he still managed to win all four Tournament after the US Open without signs of exhaustion.

Bo5 Finals really doesnt sound like much of an Argument to me.
Click to expand...

Not only BO5 matches, but no byes either. The argument is not that Djokovic would be easier to beat in BO5 because he's not. The argument is that it was harder to win them because of fatigue, particularly in the case of back to back Masters. It doesn't matter how hard Djokovic is to beat in BO5 if he has to skip some tournaments entirely because he fights for 4-5 hours in one BO5 match to win one Masters where he has to play 6 matches and not 5, as Federer (and Nadal) had to do after Rome 2006 where he skipped Hamburg.

Paris 2006 had the same problem. The top 3 seeds (being Federer, Nadal, and Nalbandian) all withdrew to prepare for the YEC. This is a particularly important point in Federer's case since he's Swiss, therefore he plays Basel which is directly before Paris. He won that tournament in a BO5 final and then to win Paris he would've had to win another BO5 final. Obviously he felt that it wasn't worth it.

Of course he had the choice to skip Basel and go after the tournament that gave more points, but it's not much of a choice, IMO. Paris is not that important in comparison to Basel, and of course Federer will choose to play in his hometown. It's a no brainer for anybody as popular as Federer that has any pride in where they came from to be frank. People here seem to underestimate that a bit too often for my taste.
 
Last edited:
PinShot said:
You do know that Djokovic is harder to beat bo5 than bo3, right?

That's because when Djokovic is down 2 Sets to Love, turning off the TV is never a good Idea because the match is far from over.

Vice versa is a different Story. Djokovic usually wins his Matches when up 1:0. When he is 2:0 up, Hell freezes over before he lets someone back into the Match. And even in such a very unlikely case (RG 2015/SF), he usually wins the 5th.

It is more likely that Djokovic would have won either Montreal and/ore Cinci in addition ... It took Murray 3 hours in Montreal, to defeat Novak.
Click to expand...
Hasn't Djokovic had a better w/l percentage at the masters than in the majors? In the last two years?
 
Steve0904 said:
Just now realized that this is actually my quote that you responded to on Thursday. That aside, clearly you've found the other 5% (looks like more) of the forum that don't just give Djokovic the 2nd best year without an argument. Considering some of the posts on the first 2 or so pages. Something I believe is true (i.e not necessarily that Federer's 2006 is better than Djokovic's 2015, but that Federer at least has an argument that's pretty solid in its own right).

If you don't think that, that's perfectly fine, but this is my opinion (above), and I'll say the same thing I've said in many other threads about this topic. I have no interest whatsoever in debating this topic for the 5th time or more now so if it's fine with you we can agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

That is fine but the thing is it is not even my opinion that is important here to why I started this specific thread. Here is the original thread I talked about:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...-top-year-in-open-era-or-still-behind.548208/

Now you can argue my titleing the thread this way was slanted, but if people thought Federer's 2006 would be better than Djokovic's 2015 with the WTF title many people would have just voted the bottom option. Which btw I fully expected given Fed's insane popularity here, and was quite surprised at the poll results of my original poll and found them telling. As you can see only 15% chose that bottom option (so maybe my 5% figure was a bit exaggerated but when I last looked at that poll it was closer to 5%, as often is as times goes on the minority figures balance out some). Also keep in mind my bottom option was not only for Fed's 2006, but any other year besides Laver's 69, and some of those 15% votes are probably for another year considering as this poll shows not even everyone considers Fed's 2006 as the 3rd best year (myself included). Also keep in mind I made that poll before Paris, which means hypothetically Djokovic could have only 5 Masters, won the WTF, and that is how people felt. As it was he won both Paris and the WTF.

As you can see on that poll there were many more (37%) who felt his year would be better than Laver's than inferior to someone elses (Federer or otherwise). That again before knowing Djokovic would neccessarily win the 6th Masters. So based on that arguing again about Djokovic's 2015 vs Federer's 2006 seemed redundant, and I was basing that on what most obviously felt, not what I felt. So given that the strong consensus on this forum is Djokovic's 2015 and Laver's 69 are the top 2 Open Era years now (as you can see by this poll many even have Djokovic's 2015 first now, even as silly as it might be) it made sense to discuss who people believe is 3rd best. Again as this poll shows that isnt even a total consensus of Fed's 2006. Despite that I dont even view Fed's 06 as the 3rd best year, let alone 2nd or best, had most felt differently I would not have started a poll or topic like this. I am basing it on the consensus that was already stamped out amongst the posters here, even if it happens to coincide with my own personal views.

I agree you could make an argument for Fed's 06 being 2nd best over Djokovic's 2015, but depending on what you value you could also make the same argument for McEnroe's 84, Connor's 74, and if you are factoring in competition even Djokovic's 2011, Federer's 2005, Borg's 79, or if you really value winning the biggest titles on each surface Nadal's 2010. Heck you could also argue Laver's 69 is below many of these years depending on what you value, like say if you go strongly on W-L record where he is much inferior to many due to his 15 losses, and hold 3 of the 4 slams being on grass against him. The strong consensus here though, which I agree on, is Laver's 69 and Djokovic's 2015 are the best overall.
 
Last edited:
NatF said:
I went for Mac's 1984 for the sheer dominance.
Click to expand...

What complicates evaluating McEnroe's 84 to me is the winning only 2 majors thing. I do think he should have more votes than he has on this poll, and I know the Australian Open situation is dicey then still, but I am just now sure how to evaluate that and factor that. I sort of look at it like he won 2 of the 3 real majors that year and barely lost the final of the 3rd, but I am not sure if that is totally accurate.

Also while his competition was better than Djokovic's 2011 or Fed's 2006 for instance IMO, it is also a bit overrated. Lendl was not the Lendl of 85-90 yet, and Connors's was not even the Connors's of 80-83 anymore, let alone the truly prime Connors of the mid to late 70s. I also dont remember Wilander being noteable much that year. Edberg and Becker were total unknowns and non factors at that point. Still formidable enough competition though.
 
mattosgrant said:
What complicates evaluating McEnroe's 84 to me is the winning only 2 majors thing. I do think he should have more votes than he has on this poll, and I know the Australian Open situation is dicey then still, but I am just now sure how to evaluate that and factor that.

Also while his comopetition was better than Djokovic's 2011 or Fed's 2006 for instance IMO, it is also a bit overrated. Lendl was not the Lendl of 85-90 yet, and Connors's was not even the Connors's of 80-83 anymore, let alone the truly prime Connors of the mid to late 70s. I also dont remember Wilander being noteable much that year. Edberg and Becker were total unknowns and non factors at that point. Still formidable enough competition though.
Click to expand...

I feel Mac in 1984 embodies 'unbeatable' more than any other on this list. The lack of the AO is inconsequential to me, he won the YEC and was flat out bossing the entire tour in such a way that I can let him being a major down slide. It's either Mac or Federer 06 for me and I give a slight edge to McEnroe.
 
NatF said:
I feel Mac in 1984 embodies 'unbeatable' more than any other on this list. The lack of the AO is inconsequential to me, he won the YEC and was flat out bossing the entire tour in such a way that I can let him being a major down slide. It's either Mac or Federer 06 for me and I give a slight edge to McEnroe.
Click to expand...

I am just always in two minds how to evaluate the only winning 2 majors thing, and the Australian Open thing. I say that since when I look at it as inconsequential like you say, I have been razzed out for that, but when I give it too much importance I have also been razzed out for it. It is kind of an open to interpretation thing, but yeah his year was still amazing and so dominant, and such an extreme level of peak play. It is a shame he didnt win the Grand Slam that year really.
 
mattosgrant said:
I am just always in two minds how to evaluate the only winning 2 majors thing, and the Australian Open thing. I say that since when I look at it as inconsequential like you say, I have been razzed out for that, but when I give it too much importance I have also been razzed out for it. It is kind of an open to interpretation thing, but yeah his year was still amazing and so dominant, and such an extreme level of peak play. It is a shame he didnt win the Grand Slam that year really.
Click to expand...
McEnroe won the WCT that year which some people regard as bigger than the AO back then so I guess in that sense it could be argued that he did have a 3 major season although I'm not sure if I agree with that.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Tell that to Lendl, who denied him the first major title played that year.
Click to expand...

Well no one on that list when unbeaten nor did they win the CYGS, so the highest win/loss ratio plus his peak play for me qualifies him as the most unbeatable.

mattosgrant said:
I am just always in two minds how to evaluate the only winning 2 majors thing, and the Australian Open thing. I say that since when I look at it as inconsequential like you say, I have been razzed out for that, but when I give it too much importance I have also been razzed out for it. It is kind of an open to interpretation thing, but yeah his year was still amazing and so dominant, and such an extreme level of peak play. It is a shame he didnt win the Grand Slam that year really.
Click to expand...

I can understand the reasoning slightly, as even if the AO was a nothing major back then we can't assume he would have won it anyway. However for his time and considering what was important at the time his year was really spectacular.
 
Djokovic2011 said:
McEnroe won the WCT that year which some people regard as bigger than the AO back then so I guess in that sense it could be argued that he did have a 3 major season although I'm not sure if I agree with that.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can see that logic. I think that is also why some are buffing up Lendl's all time ranking. I think he won the WCT 5 times and if it truly was bigger than the Australian Open until 1990 atleast, it would be like he has 11 majors (docking the 2 Australians and adding the 5 WCT) rather than 8. Similar to how Vilas would have 3 (adding the 1 WCT and docking the 2 Aussies) rather than 4 in a sense. Same with Borg sort of being rated as a 13 slam winner (2 time WCT winner, 0 time Australian Open) rather than 11 to people.
 
I still think McEnroe needs to be "punished" for his Davis Cup performance. It was his 4th major. Equally though his Davis Cup performances should be taken into account for other years (e.g 1982).

Purely for achievements I would say Federer 2006. Taking into account things like level of play and competition it becomes more interesting. I'm not sure the top 2 are the top 2 in this case. Throw Federer 2005 in there along with Djokovic 2011, McEnroe 1984 and Borg 1979.

My gut feeling is that 1979 might just be the strongest year for competition. Borg has the best 52 week win % from RG79 to RG80.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
pc1 said:
For outright dominance those two years are up there up any year perhaps in the history of tennis.
Click to expand...
The results of the two years that I have chosen are excellent , but the difference compared to other great years, is also the fact that :
- In 1979 Borg destroys Connors who came from five or six years "out of mind" and Mac played a tennis moon .
- In 1984 Mac destroys Ivan Lendl and outclasses Connors, and Jimbo watching 1984 lost only two of them.

Opponents incredible , and fit.
 
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