Big 3 Seasons Ranked

[N01E]

I ranked all of the big 3 individual seasons based on the achievements alone, without taking their opponents into account. If you're all about the competition then I've also got a thread for that: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/big-3-slams-won-vs-champions-of-that-event.706489/ , though it's for grand slams only.

For this ranking I used the following criteria:

GS > YE #1 > YEC > M1000 > Total titles > YE ranking > ATP points

I divided seasons into tiers, where they are first separated by the number of GS titles won, then the YE#1, then YEC etc., I didn't differentiate the seasons by number of titles won other than GS (just ranked them), but I put them in a different tier based on whether they got the YE#1 or YEC. I didn't want to mix categories (e.g. YEC = 2 M1000), which creates an obivous problem with undervaluing the M1000 series, as it makes the whole set worth less than YEC. The biggest "battle" between YEC and M1000 in this comparison happened in Novak's 2011 vs 2023 and Roger's 2003 vs 2012 (YEC vs 3 M1000), so it's not a big issue.

In hindsight, although it didn't take much time, it probably would have been better if I had coded it, so that it can be applied automatically to more players. For the purpose of this thread though, it's good enough. Here's the result:



Djokovic:

1. 2015 (3 GS, YE #1, YEC, 6 M, 11 T)
2. 2023 (3 GS, YE #1, YEC, 2 M, 7 T)

3. 2011 (3 GS, YE #1, 5 M, 10 T)
4. 2021 (3 GS, YE #1, 1 M, 5 T)

5. 2018 (2 GS, YE #1, 2 M, 4 T)

6. 2016 (2 GS, 4 M, 7 T)
7. 2019 (2 GS, 2 M, 5 T)

8. 2014 (1 GS, YE #1, YEC, 4 M, 7 T)
9. 2012 (1 GS, YE #1, YEC, 3 M, 6 T)

10. 2020 (1 GS, YE #1, 2 M, 4 T)

11. 2013 (1 GS, YEC, 3 M, 7 T)
12. 2008 (1 GS, YEC, 2 M, 4 T)
13. 2022 (1 GS, YEC, 1 M, 5 T, #5)

14. 2007 (2 M, 5 T, #3)
15. 2009 (1 M, 5 T)

16. 2010 (2 T, #3)
17. 2017 (2 T, #12)
18. 2006 (2 T, #16)

19. 2005 (#78)
20. 2004 (#186)
21. 2003 (#679)



Federer:

1. 2006 (3 GS, YE #1, YEC, 4 M, 12 T)
2. 2004 (3 GS, YE #1, YEC, 3 M, 11 T)
3. 2007 (3 GS, YE #1, YEC, 2 M, 8 T)

4. 2005 (2 GS, YE #1, 4 M, 11 T)
5. 2009 (2 GS, YE #1, 2 M, 4 T, 1050)

6. 2017 (2 GS, 3 M, 7 T)

7. 2010 (1 GS, YEC, 1 M, 5 T, #2)

8. 2003 (1 GS, YEC, 7 T)

9. 2012 (1 GS, 3 M, 6 T, 10265)

10. 2008 (1 GS, 4 T, #2)
11. 2018 (1 GS, 3 T, #3)

12. 2011 (YEC, 1 M, 4 T)

13. 2014 (2 M, 5 T, #2)
14. 2015 (1 M, 6 T)
15. 2019 (1 M, 4 T)
16. 2002 (1 M, 3 T)

17. 2013 (1 T, #6)
18. 2001 (1 T, #13)

19. 2020 (#5)
20. 2021 (#16, 2385)
21. 2016 (#16, 2130)
22. 2000 (#29)
23. 1999 (#64)
24. 1998 (#301)
25. 1997 (#704)



Nadal:

1. 2010 (3 GS, YE #1, 3 M, 7 T)

2. 2013 (2 GS, YE #1, 5 M, 10 T)
3. 2008 (2 GS, YE #1, 3 M, 8 T)
4. 2017 (2 GS, YE #1, 2 M, 6 T)
5. 2019 (2 GS, YE #1, 2 M, 4 T, 9985)

6. 2022 (2 GS, 4 T)

7. 2005 (1 GS, 4 M, 11 T)
8. 2007 (1 GS, 3 M, 6 T, 10897*)
9. 2009 (1 GS, 3 M, 5 T, 9205)
10. 2018 (1 GS, 3 M, 5 T, 7480)
11. 2006 (1 GS, 2 M, 5 T)
12. 2012 (1 GS, 2 M, 4 T)
13. 2014 (1 GS, 1 M, 4 T)
14. 2011 (1 GS, 1 M, 3 T)

15. 2020 (1 GS, 2 T)

16. 2021 (1 M, 2 T, #6)
17. 2016 (1 M, 2 T, #9)

18. 2015 (3 T)
19. 2004 (1 T, #51)

20. 2003 (#61)
21. 2002 (#200)
22. 2023 (#663)
23. 2001 (#811)



TOTAL:

1. Djokovic (1) - 2015 (3 GS, YE #1, YEC, 6 M, 11 T)
2. Federer (1) - 2006 (3 GS, YE #1, YEC, 4 M, 12 T)
3. Federer (2) - 2004 (3 GS, YE #1, YEC, 3 M, 11 T)
4. Federer (3) - 2007 (3 GS, YE #1, YEC, 2 M, 8 T)
5. Djokovic (2) - 2023 (3 GS, YE #1, YEC, 2 M, 7 T)

6. Djokovic (3) - 2011 (3 GS, YE #1, 5 M, 10 T)
7. Nadal (1) - 2010 (3 GS, YE #1, 3 M, 7 T)
8. Djokovic (4) - 2021 (3 GS, YE #1, 1 M, 5 T)

9. Nadal (2) - 2013 (2 GS, YE #1, 5 M, 10 T)
10. Federer (4) - 2005 (2 GS, YE #1, 4 M, 11 T)
11. Nadal (3) - 2008 (2 GS, YE #1, 3 M, 8 T)
12. Nadal (4) - 2017 (2 GS, YE #1, 2 M, 6 T)
13. Federer (5) - 2009 (2 GS, YE #1, 2 M, 4 T, 1050)
14. Nadal (5) - 2019 (2 GS, YE #1, 2 M, 4 T, 9985)
15. Djokovic (5) - 2018 (2 GS, YE #1, 2 M, 4 T, 9045)

16. Djokovic (6) - 2016 (2 GS, 4 M, 7 T)
17. Federer (6) - 2017 (2 GS, 3 M, 7 T)
18. Djokovic (7) - 2019 (2 GS, 2 M, 5 T)

19. Nadal (6) - 2022 (2 GS, 4 T)

20. Djokovic (8) - 2014 (1 GS, YE #1, YEC, 4 M, 7 T)
21. Djokovic (9) - 2012 (1 GS, YE #1, YEC, 3 M, 6 T)

22. Djokovic (10) - 2020 (1 GS, YE #1, 2 M, 4 T)

23. Djokovic (11) - 2013 (1 GS, YEC, 3 M, 7 T)
24. Djokovic (12) - 2008 (1 GS, YEC, 2 M, 4 T)
25. Federer (7) - 2010 (1 GS, YEC, 1 M, 5 T, #2)
26. Djokovic (13) - 2022 (1 GS, YEC, 1 M, 5 T, #5)

27. Federer (8) - 2003 (1 GS, YEC, 7 T)

28. Nadal (7) - 2005 (1 GS, 4 M, 11 T)
29. Nadal (8) - 2007 (1 GS, 3 M, 6 T, 10897*)
30. Federer (9) - 2012 (1 GS, 3 M, 6 T, 10265)
31. Nadal (9) - 2009 (1 GS, 3 M, 5 T, 9205)
32. Nadal (10) - 2018 (1 GS, 3 M, 5 T, 7480)
33. Nadal (11) - 2006 (1 GS, 2 M, 5 T)
34. Nadal (12) - 2012 (1 GS, 2 M, 4 T)
35. Nadal (13) - 2014 (1 GS, 1 M, 4 T)
36. Nadal (14) - 2011 (1 GS, 1 M, 3 T)

37. Federer (10) - 2008 (1 GS, 4 T, #2)
38. Federer (11) - 2018 (1 GS, 3 T, #3)
39. Nadal (15) - 2020 (1 GS, 2 T)

40. Federer (12) 2011 (YEC, 1 M, 4 T)

41. Federer (13) - 2014 (2 M, 5 T, #2)
42. Djokovic (14) - 2007 (2 M, 5 T, #3)
43. Federer (14) - 2015 (1 M, 6 T)
44. Djokovic (15) - 2009 (1 M, 5 T)
45. Federer (15) - 2019 (1 M, 4 T)
46. Federer (16) - 2002 (1 M, 3 T)
47. Nadal (16) - 2021 (1 M, 2 T, #6)
48. Nadal (17) - 2016 (1 M, 2 T, #9)

49. Nadal (18) - 2015 (3 T)
50. Djokovic (16) - 2010 (2 T, #3)
51. Djokovic (17) - 2017 (2 T, #12)
52. Djokovic (18) - 2006 (2 T, #16)
53. Federer (17) - 2013 (1 T, #6)
54. Federer (18) - 2001 (1 T, #13)
55. Nadal (19) - 2004 (1 T, #51)

56. Federer (19) - 2020 (#5)
57. Federer (20) - 2021 (#16, 2385)
58. Federer (21) - 2016 (#16, 2130)
59. Federer (22) - 2000 (#29)
60. Nadal (20) - 2003 (#61)
61. Federer (23) - 1999 (#64)
62. Djokovic (19) - 2005 (#78)
63. Djokovic (20) - 2004 (#186)
64. Nadal (21) - 2002 (#200)
65. Federer (24) - 1998 (#301)
66. Nadal (22) - 2023 (#663)
67. Djokovic (21) - 2003 (#679)
68. Federer (25) - 1997 (#704)
69. Nadal (23) - 2001 (#811)



*ATP points were adjusted by factor 1.9 before 2009 (same multiplier as UTS)

 

[itrium84]

Total: 1st and 2nd place are ok, but 2011 seems to have got unfair treatment

 

[The Sinner]

Should include OG medals, then 2008 for Nadal will be above 2013.

 

[Pheasant]

Nice list, OP!

 

[helterskelter]

In the Djokovic 2011 v Djokovic 2023 comparison, I think it's a bit odd to say that winning the tour finals > three extra MS 1000 titles.

Also, I don't at all agree that the only achievements that matter are titles won. (In this case, that pulls matters back very slightly in favor of Djokovic 2023, as he was runner-up rather than semi-finalist at the slam he didn't win. But that isn't enough to compensate for three extra MS events, even with the Tour Finals in question.

(I wrote those two paragraphs before reading all of the OP, so I now see that the OP addresses it, but I don't think the argument is convincing. You have to have a formula and you have to "mix categories." It can't be lexical - e.g. 1 of category B outranks 4 or 7 of category C).

 

[thrust]

In the Djokovic 2011 v Djokovic 2023 comparison, I think it's a bit odd to say that winning the tour finals > three extra MS 1000 titles.

Also, I don't at all agree that the only achievements that matter are titles won. (In this case, that pulls matters back very slightly in favor of Djokovic 2023, as he was runner-up rather than semi-finalist at the slam he didn't win. But that isn't enough to compensate for three extra MS events, even with the Tour Finals in question.

(I wrote those two paragraphs before reading all of the OP, so I now see that the OP addresses it, but I don't think the argument is convincing. You have to have a formula and you have to "mix categories." It can't be lexical - e.g. 1 of category B outranks 4 or 7 of category C).

What makes Novak's 11, for me, is his 11-1 vs Fedal, when all 3 were at their peak or very near peak.

 

[helterskelter]

What makes Novak's 11, for me, is his 11-1 vs Fedal, when all 3 were at their peak or very near peak.

I think that was very impressive, too. The opening sentence of the OP explicitly says that he/she doesn't take opponent into account. I would have Djokovic's 2011 and 2015 as the top tier on their own, because I think they combine the best results with the most formidable opposition. I think it's fairly close between them - in 2011, he had that record against Federer and Nadal, but he couldn't keep it going for quite the whole season as he did in 2015.

I was just addressing the methodology of the OP, which wants to rely on results alone without thinking about things such as level. And that's an okay task, but the methodology still has to be a good one. I don't think it makes sense to say that you will rank things lexically so that a title at the tour finals is more important than any number of MS titles. In this case, it means 1 tour finals title > 3 MS titles, but it could mean 1 tour finals title > 9 MS titles (in theory).

For something to be ranked lexically such that one of the more important event outranks any number of the less important event, the more important event has to be very, very much more important than the minor event. I can see a case that one slam > winning a 250 every week of the season in which one is played. If it were one slam > 15-20 250 titles, I think you're right that we'd need to look at opponents, because that is such a bizarre eventuality that it seems hard to fathom. How did someone win one slam but nothing else? How did someone win 15-20 250s but nothing else? But in practice, a rule that counts slams as so much more important than 250s that no amount of 250s makes up for a slam seems sensible, because the competition is so much stiffer. That doesn't apply to a tour finals v Masters comparison. The tour finals are more important, but only somewhat so. I think the ATP's formula, which suggests that the tour finals is 1.5 times more important is probably about right here. You could make it 2:1 if you liked, but I don't think more. So, Djokovic having three more MS titles in 2011 than he had in 2023 should be more important than is him having the tour finals title in 2023 but not in 2011. Using the ATP formula, the tour finals + two MS titles = 3,500 points, whereas five MS titles without the tour finals = 5,000 points. Using my 2:1 ratio, that gap would drop, but it would still be there.

 

[GoatNo1]

In the Djokovic 2011 v Djokovic 2023 comparison, I think it's a bit odd to say that winning the tour finals > three extra MS 1000 titles.

Also, I don't at all agree that the only achievements that matter are titles won. (In this case, that pulls matters back very slightly in favor of Djokovic 2023, as he was runner-up rather than semi-finalist at the slam he didn't win. But that isn't enough to compensate for three extra MS events, even with the Tour Finals in question.

(I wrote those two paragraphs before reading all of the OP, so I now see that the OP addresses it, but I don't think the argument is convincing. You have to have a formula and you have to "mix categories." It can't be lexical - e.g. 1 of category B outranks 4 or 7 of category C).

I think that was very impressive, too. The opening sentence of the OP explicitly says that he/she doesn't take opponent into account. I would have Djokovic's 2011 and 2015 as the top tier on their own, because I think they combine the best results with the most formidable opposition. I think it's fairly close between them - in 2011, he had that record against Federer and Nadal, but he couldn't keep it going for quite the whole season as he did in 2015.

I was just addressing the methodology of the OP, which wants to rely on results alone without thinking about things such as level. And that's an okay task, but the methodology still has to be a good one. I don't think it makes sense to say that you will rank things lexically so that a title at the tour finals is more important than any number of MS titles. In this case, it means 1 tour finals title > 3 MS titles, but it could mean 1 tour finals title > 9 MS titles (in theory).

For something to be ranked lexically such that one of the more important event outranks any number of the less important event, the more important event has to be very, very much more important than the minor event. I can see a case that one slam > winning a 250 every week of the season in which one is played. If it were one slam > 15-20 250 titles, I think you're right that we'd need to look at opponents, because that is such a bizarre eventuality that it seems hard to fathom. How did someone win one slam but nothing else? How did someone win 15-20 250s but nothing else? But in practice, a rule that counts slams as so much more important than 250s that no amount of 250s makes up for a slam seems sensible, because the competition is so much stiffer. That doesn't apply to a tour finals v Masters comparison. The tour finals are more important, but only somewhat so. I think the ATP's formula, which suggests that the tour finals is 1.5 times more important is probably about right here. You could make it 2:1 if you liked, but I don't think more. So, Djokovic having three more MS titles in 2011 than he had in 2023 should be more important than is him having the tour finals title in 2023 but not in 2011. Using the ATP formula, the tour finals + two MS titles = 3,500 points, whereas five MS titles without the tour finals = 5,000 points. Using my 2:1 ratio, that gap would drop, but it would still be there.

I had a similar system for many years:

GS=YE#1=100p
WTF=OG=40p (2,5 WTF=GS)
M=20p (2M=WTF, 5M=GS)
(maybe GS final 15p)
MM=5P (4MM=M, 8MM=WTF, 20MM=GS)
1 week at no1=2p (50 weeks, apr 1 year=100p=GS)

bonuses:
reaching no1=100p
4 GS simultaneously=100p
each CGS=100p
each CGM=100p
slam record=100p
YE#1 record=100p
weeks at #1 record=100p
W% racord=100p
ATP points record=100p

if between 2 players:
positive h2h=100p
better/greater on a specific surface=100p

 

[TheGoldenEra1990’s]

All great seasons In terms of level I like Feds 2006 season and Nadals 2010 season. I just can’t decide what’s better. 2008 Nadal/2011 Djoker was great too but I don’t think their level quite matches up to Feds 06 level say. It’s close though.

Djokers 2015 season was awesome but he also had garbage competition that year. Nadals 2010 competition was questionable at times but his level was freaking awesome that year from the clay season on . Though his absolute peak time was mid 2008-early 2009 but I can’t include that cause it wasn’t a calendar year

Fed’s 05 season can arguably be considered his best because the competition in 05 was better than 06


In terms of a calendar year, Fed’s 2006/Nadals 2010 tops it out for me overall. Djokers 2011 just below

We will see how sinner does the rest of the year. He may be in the mix too if he dominates from June on. Too early to tell though. If he loses Wimbledon it’s over

 

[BVSlam]

Not that they were good seasons or at least injury-ridden, but where are Fed's 2013 and 2016? Maybe I'm just not seeing them. The bad/injured seasons of the other two are also there.

 

[SonnyT]

The matter is that the strength of the opposition wasn't taken into account. With all due respect, Djokovic's 11 and 15 campaign had much stronger opposition than Federer's top 3.

 

[GoatNo1]

The matter is that the strength of the opposition wasn't taken into account. With all due respect, Djokovic's 11 and 15 campaign had much stronger opposition than Federer's top 3.

 

[N01E]

I think that was very impressive, too. The opening sentence of the OP explicitly says that he/she doesn't take opponent into account. I would have Djokovic's 2011 and 2015 as the top tier on their own, because I think they combine the best results with the most formidable opposition. I think it's fairly close between them - in 2011, he had that record against Federer and Nadal, but he couldn't keep it going for quite the whole season as he did in 2015.

I was just addressing the methodology of the OP, which wants to rely on results alone without thinking about things such as level. And that's an okay task, but the methodology still has to be a good one. I don't think it makes sense to say that you will rank things lexically so that a title at the tour finals is more important than any number of MS titles. In this case, it means 1 tour finals title > 3 MS titles, but it could mean 1 tour finals title > 9 MS titles (in theory).

For something to be ranked lexically such that one of the more important event outranks any number of the less important event, the more important event has to be very, very much more important than the minor event. I can see a case that one slam > winning a 250 every week of the season in which one is played. If it were one slam > 15-20 250 titles, I think you're right that we'd need to look at opponents, because that is such a bizarre eventuality that it seems hard to fathom. How did someone win one slam but nothing else? How did someone win 15-20 250s but nothing else? But in practice, a rule that counts slams as so much more important than 250s that no amount of 250s makes up for a slam seems sensible, because the competition is so much stiffer. That doesn't apply to a tour finals v Masters comparison. The tour finals are more important, but only somewhat so. I think the ATP's formula, which suggests that the tour finals is 1.5 times more important is probably about right here. You could make it 2:1 if you liked, but I don't think more. So, Djokovic having three more MS titles in 2011 than he had in 2023 should be more important than is him having the tour finals title in 2023 but not in 2011. Using the ATP formula, the tour finals + two MS titles = 3,500 points, whereas five MS titles without the tour finals = 5,000 points. Using my 2:1 ratio, that gap would drop, but it would still be there.

Used methodology will always be subjective and flawed. I agree that using this lexical superiority can lead to problematic situations. You did mention the 20 250 vs 1 GS comparison, which goes for the whole career I assume. To a certain degree, I applied this reasoning, where I look at the individual season from a perspective of how much it adds to the career as a whole.

There are only 25 YEC champions compared to 35 3+ and 47 2+ M1000 champions (according to UTS, with keeping the 2024 update in mind). I also believe that the probability of getting a 3 "easy" M1000 titles compared to "easy" 1 YEC is also significantly higher. Somewhat of a counter argument to the quantity comparison would ironically be the 250 vs GS battle you mentioned above. There are 22 20+ ATP 250 or equivalent champions compared to 59 GS champions, though we assume that the level required for winning a slam is so much higher and competition so much tougher that we don't even bother comparing the two. Sometimes the level can be close or higher in the smaller events featuring the same players in a close timespan (2016 YEC vs 2017 Doha, 2023 Wimbledon vs 2023 Cincy), but we just have to live with those outliers (from the perspective of tournaments, not my ranking), unless we want to look at every single event individually (which I've done in my big 3 VS GS champions thread). By limiting ourselves to the big 3 we don't have to take different tour structures and goals from other eras into conisderation.

Lexical superiority eliminates the issue of weights of events, where there's no determinig the number of lower tier accomplishments that would be equal or better than those of higher tiers.

It's also worth noting that this sometimes may give results that I don't fully agree with. 2011 for example is a year that seems to be hurt the most by not taking the competition into account. Theoretical anomalies are also possible; if Novak won the 2021 US Open, but not Bercy or YEC, he'd be 6 M1000 (+1 final) and YEC behind 2015 which would be quite visible in the points difference that is used only as a tie-breaker here. Nadal's 2022 is also the only multi slam seasons with no other big titles (without YE#1 as well), so I wouldn't pick it over Djokovic's 2014 with YE#1, YEC and 4 M1000s, but that complicates methodology for just a few outliers.

Not that they were good seasons or at least injury-ridden, but where are Fed's 2013 and 2016? Maybe I'm just not seeing them. The bad/injured seasons of the other two are also there.

Fixed now, thanks.

 

[GoatNo1]

Nadal's 2022 is also the only multi slam seasons with no other big titles (without YE#1 as well), so I wouldn't pick it over Djokovic's 2014 with YE#1, YEC and 4 M1000s, but that complicates methodology for just a few outliers.

by my system (YE#1+GS+GSF+WTF+M+MM):

rafa22: 2x100*+5+5=210p
nole14: 100+100+15+40+4x20+5=340p

rafas AO comes with big *

 

[N01E]

by my system (YE#1+GS+GSF+WTF+M+MM):

rafa22: 2x100*+5+5=210p
nole14: 100+100+15+40+4x20+5=340p

rafas AO comes with big *

It's not a bad system, but the heavy subjectivity that comes into play with distributing weights for achievements is the problem. There's still (although very slim) a possibility of outperfofming slam champions with smaller events in the long run. Zverev probably takes out Delpo, Cilic and Thiem with this system for example, though he has an extremely strong (the best I would say) CV for a slamless player. I like using the extra achievements, which I do for ranking players personally (obviously can't use week #1 or other career achievements for ranking seasons), though seeing how almost all of them just boost one player who already has all the big records, there isn't much use. CGS wasn't a big deal during McEnroe or Lendl era, so feels like Agassi gets a freebie against them, but then again he's so far behind Sampras, that it doesn't change much. Nadal's "D"CGS hurts Federer the most, and is one of those rare times where extra context helps Roger's case. I'm strongly against using W% and H2H as those can be "improved" by not playing, which isn't the case for any important stat.

UTS also had a points based system, that could in some ways also be applied in ranking seasons:

Ultimate Tennis Statistics - GOAT List

Open Era GOAT List (a.k.a. GOATometer) compares tennis player career achievements expressed by GOAT Points

www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com

but you might as well use ATP points seeing how you can climb the list with slam QFs and such, that gives Ferrer higher place than Wawrinka and Del Potro (lol).

Also since 2011 is being mentioned so often I'll just add that even with the brutal competition it was #1 on paper until the post USO season.