Djokovic 2015 vs. Federer 2006 (tour by tour comparison)

uscwang

Hall of Fame
2015v2006.jpg


Opponent rankings at quarterfinals and above are listed.

Arguing for Novak 2015:
Unprecedented 6 ATP masters 1000 titles in a season.
Unprecedented, perfect 13 finals at GS, WTF and ATP 1000 level.
Unprecedented 15 consecutive finals in a season.
Unprecedented 31 wins against Top 10 players.
2 ATP 1000 titles beat 3 ATP 250 titles.
More YE ATP points (converted to today's point system).
Won titles on all surfaces (clay, grass, indoor and outdoor hard court. Fed missed a clay title. Madrid was indoor hard court.)

Arguing for Federer 2006:
More total number of titles (12 to 11). BTW, Laver 1969 had 18, Vilas 1977 had 16.
Better W-L ratio (92-5 to 82-6). BTW, McEnroe 1984 had 82-3, Connors 1974 had 93-4.
 
Last edited:

stringertom

Bionic Poster
2015tennis.jpg


Opponent rankings at quarterfinals and above are listed.

Arguing for Novak 2015:
Unprecedented 6 ATP masters 1000 titles in a season.
Unprecedented, perfect 13 finals at GS, WTF and ATP 1000 level.
Unprecedented 15 consecutive finals in a season.
Unprecedented 31 wins against Top 10 players.
2 ATP 1000 titles beat 2 ATP 500 titles + 1 ATP 250 titles.
More YE ATP points (converted to today's point system).
Won titles on all surfaces (clay, grass, indoor and outdoor hard court. Fed missed a clay title. Madrid was indoor hard court.)

Arguing for Federer 2006:
More total number of titles (12 to 11). BTW, Laver 1969 had 18, Vilas 1977 had 16.
Better W-L ratio (92-5 to 82-6), following up an 81-4 season in '05. BTW, McEnroe 1984 had 82-3, Connors 1974 had 93-4.

The bolded add-on makes what Federer accomplished even more astonishing. A ratio of 173-9 over '15-'16 for Djokovic with more than two slam titles would seal the deal.
 

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic to go 90-0 next season and put an end to all these arguments :cool:
 
Last edited:
Last edited:

xFedal

Legend
The bolded add-on makes what Federer accomplished even more astonishing. A ratio of 173-9 over '15-'16 for Djokovic with more than two slam titles would seal the deal.
Why is win loss ratio so important, people don't care about it as long as you get the majors/
 
Fed also had a negative h2h with a main rival (2-4 against Rafa) and didn’t dominate whole tour like No1e did. Fed does nothing on clay, No1e was dominant over whole season (most points on every surface by playing less tournaments then competition).
 

TMF

Talk Tennis Guru
Why is win loss ratio so important, people don't care about it as long as you get the majors/

It's important because it measures how consistent and level of dominance against the overall playing field.

Highest Season Winning Percentage(90%+)
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5

5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Novak Djokovic(2015) .932 82-6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
= Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
9. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
10. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
11. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6
13. Ivan Lendl (1989) .919 79-7
= Jimmy Connors(1975) .919 79-7
15. Jimmy Connors(1976) .918 90-8
16. Jimmy Connors(1978) .917 66-6
17. Björn Borg(1977) .916 76-7
18. Rafael Nadal (2013) .915 75-7
19. Ivan Lendl (1987) .914 74-7
 

xFedal

Legend
It's important because it measures how consistent and level of dominance against the overall playing field.

Highest Season Winning Percentage(90%+)
1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5

5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
6. Novak Djokovic(2015) .932 82-6
7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
= Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
9. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
10. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
11. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
= Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6
13. Ivan Lendl (1989) .919 79-7
= Jimmy Connors(1975) .919 79-7
15. Jimmy Connors(1976) .918 90-8
16. Jimmy Connors(1978) .917 66-6
17. Björn Borg(1977) .916 76-7
18. Rafael Nadal (2013) .915 75-7
19. Ivan Lendl (1987) .914 74-7
Nobody talks about Lavers win loss in 1969.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
No more need to compare. Djokovic 2015 is clearly better. Almost every Federer fan said before WTF final that if he wins it his season is better, though I felt like he already got to that status by winning the 6th Masters. Now that he won even that, there is nothing more to discuss.
 

Tarkovsky

Semi-Pro
Unprecedented 31 wins against Top 10 players.

not only Djokovic had much more matches and wins against Top10, but his percentage of wins is considerably higher than Federer's:

Djokovic 2015 vs Top10: 31-5 = 86.11%
Federer 2006 vs Top10: 19-4 = 82.60%

conclusion:
Djokovic had more than 50% more Top 10 opponents in 2015, yet he managed 3.5% higher winning rate than Federer in 2006
 

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
Fed wins 12 titles - all big events as compared to Novak's 11 and the usual deluded Novak fans claim that Novak had a better year? LOL..Low IQ.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
Fed wins 12 titles - all big events as compared to Novak's 11 and the usual deluded Novak fans claim that Novak had a better year? LOL..Low IQ.
6 Masters are better than 4.
A record 31 top 10 wins are much better than 19.
Beating all your big rivals more than not is better than losing to your biggest rival more than winning.
15 season finals in a row stat is better than anything - also more special when not using several 500s and 250s to raise it.
So... yeah, it is kind of better.
 
Fed wins 12 titles - all big events as compared to Novak's 11 and the usual deluded Novak fans claim that Novak had a better year? LOL..Low IQ.

That depends on what you count as BIG titles. Among this 12, 3 was atp250 events and No1e barely plays so small tournaments (I think just 3-4 since 2011). That’s way No1e had significant more points, playing less tournaments, in 2015 than Fed in 2006.

3 GS = 3 GS
WTF = WTF
6 M >>>>>>>> 4 M
Atp500 = atp500
0 atp250 <<<3 atp250

Conclusion 2 M >>>>> 3 atp250

(Because one more 250 is worth one >, each 500 is worth 2 >>, M 4 >>>>, WTF 6 >>>>>> and slam 8 >>>>>>>> :cool:)
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 307496

Guest
That depends on what you count as BIG titles. Among this 12, 3 was atp250 events and No1e barely plays so small tournaments (I think just 3-4 since 2011). That’s way No1e had significant more points, playing less tournaments, in 2015 than Fed in 2006.

3 GS = 3 GS
WTF = WTF
6 M >>>>>>>> 4 M
Atp500 = atp500
0 atp250 < <<3 atp250

Conclusion 2 M >>>>> 3 atp250
 
2015tennis.jpg


Opponent rankings at quarterfinals and above are listed.

Arguing for Novak 2015:
Unprecedented 6 ATP masters 1000 titles in a season.
Unprecedented, perfect 13 finals at GS, WTF and ATP 1000 level.
Unprecedented 15 consecutive finals in a season.
Unprecedented 31 wins against Top 10 players.
2 ATP 1000 titles beat 2 ATP 500 titles + 1 ATP 250 titles.
More YE ATP points (converted to today's point system).
Won titles on all surfaces (clay, grass, indoor and outdoor hard court. Fed missed a clay title. Madrid was indoor hard court.)

Arguing for Federer 2006:
More total number of titles (12 to 11). BTW, Laver 1969 had 18, Vilas 1977 had 16.
Better W-L ratio (92-5 to 82-6). BTW, McEnroe 1984 had 82-3, Connors 1974 had 93-4.

This is completely WRONG! Back in 2006 Fed won just one atp500 title and 3 atp250 (Halle and Basel wasn’t 500 back in 2006). His points for that year should be ~500 points less than that you calculated.

Doha W 250
OZI W 2000
Dubai F 300
IW W 1000
Miami W 1000
MC F 600
Rome F 600
RG F 1200
Halle W 250
Wimbl W 2000
Canada W 1000
Cinci 2R 45
USO W 2000
DC PO 15
Tokyo W 500
Madrid W 1000
Basel W 250
WTF W 1500
-------
15510 points
 
Last edited:

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
6 Masters are better than 4.
A record 31 top 10 wins are much better than 19.
Beating all your big rivals more than not is better than losing to your biggest rival more than winning.
15 season finals in a row stat is better than anything - also more special when not using several 500s and 250s to raise it.
So... yeah, it is kind of better.

That depends on what you count as BIG titles. Among this 12, 3 was atp250 events and No1e barely plays so small tournaments (I think just 3-4 since 2011). That’s way No1e had significant more points, playing less tournaments, in 2015 than Fed in 2006.

3 GS = 3 GS
WTF = WTF
6 M >>>>>>>> 4 M
Atp500 = atp500
0 atp250 <<<3 atp250

Conclusion 2 M >>>>> 3 atp250

(Because one more 250 is worth one >, each 500 is worth 2 >>, M 4 >>>>, WTF 6 >>>>>> and slam 8 >>>>>>>> :cool:)


When you are having such a great season with just 5 losses with 3 or 4 of them to arch rival and that too on clay, the number of top 10 wins hardly matters. You throw in top 10 every match and Fed still wins .

Fed had 10 more wins and 1 less loss and not a shameful 3 losses to 34 year old. 1 more title as well. Masters win coming in BO 5.

You guys need to give it up.
 

Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil

Talk Tennis Guru
When you are having such a great season with just 5 losses with 3 or 4 of them to arch rival and that too on clay, the number of top 10 wins hardly matters. You throw in top 10 every match and Fed still wins .

Fed had 10 more wins and 1 less loss and not a shameful 3 losses to 34 year old. 1 more title as well. Masters win coming in BO 5.

You guys need to give it up.
Losing 3 times (and winning 5) to a 34 year old GOAT who was a threat on every surface isn't worse than losing 4 matches (and winning only twice) to a teenager who was only a threat on clay.
You say top 10 wins don't matter but you underline that overall wins are important. :rolleyes:
You are calling current Masters glorified 500 events but underline that Fed had one more title in 2006 despite him winning three 500 events and one 250 event comparing to only one 500 from Djokovic in 2015. :rolleyes:
Calling a record number of Masters and top 10 wins irrelevant = desperate. :D
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
It always makes me laugh when trolls like @tennisaddict say how "shameful" it is for Djokovic to lose to 34 year old Federer(who most of us sane posters know is no ordinary 34 year old). If someone had told him at the beginning of 2015 that they'd play eight times and Roger wouldn't win a single meeting, he'd have been as gobsmacked as the rest of us. He's just desperately trying to grasp at straws which is kinda sad, not that I can really blame him given that his hero's best season isn't even considered the 2nd best of the Open era now. Oh well.
 
Losing 3 times (and winning 5) to a 34 year old GOAT who was a threat on every surface isn't worse than losing 4 matches (and winning only twice) to a teenager who was only a threat on clay.
You say top 10 wins don't matter but you underline that overall wins are important. :rolleyes:
You are calling current Masters glorified 500 events but underline that Fed had one more title in 2006 despite him winning three 500 events and one 250 event comparing to only one 500 from Djokovic in 2015. :rolleyes:
Calling a record number of Masters and top 10 wins irrelevant = desperate. :D

Fed had just one atp500 title (Tokyo) back in 2006 and 3 atp250 (Doha, Halle and Basel).

Halle, Basel and Doha was among ATP international series (currently ATP250) back in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_International_Series
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Roger_Federer_tennis_season
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Davidoff_Swiss_Indoors
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halle_Open
 
Last edited:

uscwang

Hall of Fame
I've corrected the errors.
So it's Novak's 2 more ATP masters 1000 titles vs. Federer's 3 more ATP 250 titles. Let the 12>11 band march.
 
Then do corrections in your opening text as well.

"2 ATP 1000 titles beat 2 ATP 500 titles + 1 ATP 250 titles."

to - 2 ATP 1000 titles beat 3 ATP 250 titles.

And you missed a very important fact that No1e dominated all main rivals this year and that Fed was dominate by his main rival (2-4, H2H against Rafa) back in 2006.

So No1e was a dominant player over all season and surfaces and over all rivals (which are very important facts) and Fed wasn’t dominant in a 1/3 of seasons or surfaces (clay) and was dominated by one player back in 2006.
 
Last edited:

tennisaddict

Bionic Poster
It always makes me laugh when trolls like @tennisaddict say how "shameful" it is for Djokovic to lose to 34 year old Federer(who most of us sane posters know is no ordinary 34 year old). If someone had told him at the beginning of 2015 that they'd play eight times and Roger wouldn't win a single meeting, he'd have been as gobsmacked as the rest of us. He's just desperately trying to grasp at straws which is kinda sad, not that I can really blame him given that his hero's best season isn't even considered the 2nd best of the Open era now. Oh well.

So you are some certifying body on TTW who decides who is sane and who is a troll ? LOL.

Everyone is aware of your undying need that everyone in this forum should shower love on Novak and sing daily hymns about his glory.
 

uscwang

Hall of Fame
It always makes me laugh when trolls like @tennisaddict say how "shameful" it is for Djokovic to lose to 34 year old Federer(who most of us sane posters know is no ordinary 34 year old). If someone had told him at the beginning of 2015 that they'd play eight times and Roger wouldn't win a single meeting, he'd have been as gobsmacked as the rest of us. He's just desperately trying to grasp at straws which is kinda sad, not that I can really blame him given that his hero's best season isn't even considered the 2nd best of the Open era now. Oh well.
I choose to ignore posters like that. "Ignore" is a great feature of this forum.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Losing 3 times (and winning 5) to a 34 year old GOAT who was a threat on every surface isn't worse than losing 4 matches (and winning only twice) to a teenager who was only a threat on clay.

explain how federer was a threat on clay and slow HC in 15 ? he hasn't been ....
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
He reached Rome; and IW and WTF finals which he all could have won if it wasn't for Djokovic. He could have had one of his personal best seasons ever if Novak didn't stop him.

I'm not talking about YEC at all ...YEC is medium, medium slow (& low bouncing) -- its a good surface for federer's game

I was talking about the first half of the season. He didn't look to be that much of a threat on slow HC and clay in general -- did you think he could really outlast djoko on slow HC this year ? and clay ? got blitzed by stan at the FO, lost to kyrgios in 1R ....

mysterious how nadal is a threat only on clay in 06, when he actually reached Wimbledon final in 2006 in contrast to federer who was 3R at the AO and QF at the FO ( straights loss) ..... also nadal actually won canada and madrid in 05, in addition to defeating federer at dubai in 06.....

at the bold part, LOL, that speaks to the weakness of the field right now ....personal best seasons ever ? fat chance it'd be better than any of his top 5 - 2004-07, 09 ...
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
He would stand a better chance than Federer ever has, that's for sure.

and would still definitely lose ...he wouldn't stand a better chance than federer of rome 06 , Novak hasn't played at that level on clay ever IMO ..
if he's losing to stan wawrinka at RG, he's quite clearly losing to nadal at RG 06 as well ..

MC - yeah, fat chance , getting past that fortress of rafa when he was that quick ( in 06 ) in contrast to 13 ....
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
and would still definitely lose ...he wouldn't stand a better chance than federer of rome 06 , Novak hasn't played at that level on clay ever IMO ..
if he's losing to stan wawrinka at RG, he's quite clearly losing to nadal at RG 06 as well ..

MC - yeah, fat chance , getting past that fortress of rafa when he was that quick ( in 06 ) in contrast to 13 ....
I'd say Novak's level in Rome 11 was comparable to Fed's five years earlier.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
That's not Novak's fault and he shouldn't be penalized for it.

did I say it was ? just that Novak wouldn't/hasn't attained and maintained that high a level for 4/5 sets in a match or even for 3 straight sets in a Bo5 , like that ever ...
hell, after blitzing murray for sets 1 and 2 at this year's RG, he let sets 3 and 4 go ...

and also federer was up against a clearly better nadal in rome 06 than novak was in 11 rome ....
 

Djokovic2011

Bionic Poster
did I say it was ? just that Novak wouldn't/hasn't attained and maintained that high a level for 4/5 sets in a match or even for 3 straight sets in a Bo5 , like that ever ...
hell, after blitzing murray for sets 1 and 2 at this year's RG, he let sets 3 and 4 go ...
We'll never know what could've been if the best of 5 finals had remained abmk but I think Novak would've been just fine. It can't have escaped your notice that he's a great champion and champions tend to adapt.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
We'll never know what could've been if the best of 5 finals had remained abmk but I think Novak would've been just fine. It can't have escaped your notice that he's a great champion and champions tend to adapt.

point is he hasn't done that at RG in a Bo5 where he has had the chances -- so no ......
 
Top