Very debatable indeed.
Not just debateable: it's flat out wrong. Fed's only credible competitoin in 2006 was a young Nadal that hadn't come of age yet on all surfaces.
You mean "Fed fans". That's not biased at all.
Exactly. Even if Djokovic wins the CYGS next year, they will still insist Fed 2006 is better because of its greater "competition". Trolls gonna be trolls.Dear God, this is still discussed?
After US Open it was said Djokovic needs to win at least one of remaining 3 big tournaments to have a better season. When he won Shanghai, he needed to win at least one of remaining two. When he won Bercy, he needed to win WTF because Masters are overhyped. Now that he won WTF too, what is the flaw? Not winning Doha or missing Madrid?
BO5 Masters >>>>> BO3. Undefeated WTf with bo5 final>>>>>>>>wtf with a loss and bo3 final. Roger also lost fewer sets and was more dominant at the slams.
Try "almost".
The thing is the "weak competition" stories all started recently. If those who are saying that really believe in it, they would have started talking about it after early HC season ended, or during clay season... even after Wimbledon. But no, it only started after US Open finished and when Novak confirmed his dominance and there was fear that he will win all until the end of the season. Turns out the fear was justified.
That's why they are trolls to me.
What do you think why the ones blindly supporting Fed 2006 have been avoiding the ATP points comparison? Because Djokovic wins that one by a visible margin.
Quantity is fact, but quality is subjective and there's nothing one can prove which one was higher or better. You don't decide which year the players played higher quality tennis, but you're entitled to your opinion which I disagree. It's like you trying to convince the general public that yellow is a better color than blue.
I think he was referring to the quality and quantity of tournaments won.Quantity is fact, but quality is subjective and there's nothing one can prove which one was higher or better. You don't decide which year the players played higher quality tennis, but you're entitled to your opinion which I disagree. It's like you trying to convince the general public that yellow is a better color than blue.
Well Djokovic did not influence ATP to switch the Masters finals from BO5 to BO3. That happened a long time ago. And these days, it is a lot harder to beat Djokovic in BO5 than in BO3 anyway. If it still was the same format, others would have had even tougher task beating him.
No one argues about that. Does the fact that he had higher winning % prove his season better than Fed 2006? Please answer this explicitly, so that we can examine the consistency in your logic.
Masters 1000 > ATP 500/250. This "quality" has already been quantified. Thank you.Quantity is fact, but quality is subjective and there's nothing one can prove which one was higher or better. You don't decide which year the players played higher quality tennis, but you're entitled to your opinion which I disagree. It's like you trying to convince the general public that yellow is a better color than blue.
No. Could you please discount Fed's slam points because he played one less match in 2006 than Djokovic did this year? And since slams trump everything else, Djokovic 2015 still wins. Thanks.
I'm not asking about somebody else's answer. Don't dodge the obvious.
And playing one less match shouldn't be considered equal too. That's why "discounting" points according to factors players can't control is nonsensical. If a systematic way is what you're looking for, then you have to follow the ATP system, in which Djokovic 2015 > Fed 2006.
What do you mean Fed played one less match in the slams in 2006?
Still afraid of saying YOUR answer to that question. 6 masters > 4 masters is a fact, not subjective.
When did you start watching tennis?
If that is true, case closed.What do you think why the ones blindly supporting Fed 2006 have been avoiding the ATP points comparison? Because Djokovic wins that one by a visible margin.
Federer ended 2006 with 8370 points, which is equivalent to 15495 points by 2015 ranking system. Djokovic has won 16585 points this year, the difference is bigger than 1000 points.
Peace!
I am asking you the same question mate. Federer had no walkovers at Slams in 2006. Did you mix it up with some other year?
It'd be better to bring that stat up if the debate was about who had the more dominant season. However in terms of which season was better overall, I don't see how you can argue that Djokovic's 2015 > Federer's 2006.
No "what if". Discounting things due to factors players can't control is not fair, however you want to look at it.
Again, no "what if"s. Your hypothetical situations aren't relevant.
