Does Djokovic have to win US Open and Year End Finals to have best season since Laver - 1969

[McEnroeisanartist]

Do you think Djokovic has to win the U.S. Open and Year End Finals to have the best season since Laver - 1969 - eclipsing Federer's 2006.

As it stands today, in 2006 - Federer won 3 Grand Slams, Grand Slam final, Year End Champion, 4 Masters Series wins, 2 Masters Series finals.

2015 - Djokovic won 2 Grand Slams, Grand Slam final, 4 Masters Series wins, 2 Masters Series finals

Regardless of how Djokovic does in the Masters Series tournaments, does he have to win the Year End Finals to have a better season then Federer's 2006.

Does win/loss play into the equation? Federer finished 2006 - 92-5. Djokovic is currently at 57-5. He is not going to end the season winning 35 matches in a row.

 

[ollinger]

Depends on whether Djokovic is "owned" by anyone this year. Federer was a meager 2-4 against the great Rafaei Nadal (a mere 20 year old at the time) that year, taking some of the lustre off his record, consistent with a career of being owned by the feisty Mallorcan.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

The 2011 season deserves to be at least compared to the other great ones if anything else.
Had he won this French, Djokovic would already have the best year ever, holding Grand Slams on all surfaces with numerous Masters.
I think winning USO and WTF (and not losing early in the 2 remaining masters) would make 2015 in top 3 of open era, but it is always difficult comparing. When it comes to that period when Federer dominated, there will always be those "weak era" statements. I kind of think the more dominant the number 1 is, the weaker the competition looks.

 

[BGod]

I don't count secondary tournaments like 500 and 250 level which is how Federer got his 95 wins back in 06.

Djokovic is having the greatest year in the Open Era considering the draw sizes and competition Laver had in 69 I don't rank it near as high as other people.

I personally don't need him to win U.S. Open but he HAS to win the WTF and would need to win more Masters to make up for not winning USO.

 

[pame]

This "I don't count this" and "I don't count that" is spectacularly convenient. I commend to you the words of the Rubaiyat:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

You can twist, contort, equivocate all you want - the record of matches played is the record of matches played.

 

[BGod]

This "I don't count this" and "I don't count that" is spectacularly convenient. I commend to you the words of the Rubaiyat:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

You can twist, contort, equivocate all you want - the record of matches played is the record of matches played.

Convenient? No. It's about context.

If Player A gets 60 match wins from playing 250 events and wins 1 Slam and Player B gets 50 match wins by losing in Masters Finals and winning 2 Slams. Who the hell cares that Player A got 10 more match wins?

Context. Many of the top players can go undefeated in 250 and 500 events for the season.

 

[90's Clay]

No he already lost that chance by blowing the French Open again that year. Nothing tops Laver's '69 season yet.

 

[Cup8489]

Not for me. Federer was 92-5 in 2006, with 4 masters, 3 majors and a final, and the WTFs. Unless Djokovic wins both the USO and WTF, he doesn't deserve to be counted above 2006.

 

[vanioMan]

I don't count secondary tournaments like 500 and 250 level which is how Federer got his 95 wins back in 06./QUOTE]

I count them.

What now?

 

[tennisaddict]

No he already lost that chance by blowing the French Open again that year. Nothing tops Laver's '69 season yet.

2 surfaces. Not the same as 2006

 

[90's Clay]

Not for me. Federer was 92-5 in 2006, with 4 masters, 3 majors and a final, and the WTFs. Unless Djokovic wins both the USO and WTF, he doesn't deserve to be counted above 2006.

The 2006 field was an utter JOKE though and it needs to be said. Even the 2015 field is stronger than that one.


Nadal not in his prime yet, Roddick finished, Hewitt washed up by then. Outside of clay, Fed had no one to compete with. Nole still has an older Fed (which is still tougher than 2006 Roddick and Hewitt as both totally sucked that year), Stan, and Murray

 

[Djokovic2011]

The 2006 field was an utter JOKE though and it needs to be said. Even the 2015 field is stronger than that one.

Yeah but ultimately it's a player's results that matter the most. If we're taking competition into account then it could be argued that Djokovic's 2011 was superior to Fed's 2006.

 

[90's Clay]

Yeah but ultimately it's a player's results that matter the most. If we're taking competition into account then it could be argued that Djokovic's 2011 was superior to Fed's 2006.

I look at it deeper than that though. If Peak Nole was going up against the 2006 field, he would have won the calendar (Which Fed COULDN'T do) and a buttload of other titles. More than Fed accomplished that year.

When you're competition is worse, your results will be better

Its why I put '05 Fed far above '06 Fed. The field was much stronger in '05 even though Fed accomplished less

 

[tennisaddict]

I look at it deeper than that though. If Peak Nole was going up against the 2006 field, he would have won the calendar (Which Fed COULDN'T do) and a buttload of other titles. More than Fed accomplished that year.

When you're competition is worse, your results will be better

Its why I put '05 Fed far above '06 Fed. The field was much stronger in '05 even though Fed accomplished less

I thought 2011 Novak's opposition was Declinerer, Mugray, RaoMUG and bunny Rafa.

peak Nole and uninjured Rafa can move Mount Everest.

 

[merlinpinpin]

I look at it deeper than that though. If Peak Nole was going up against the 2006 field, he would have won the calendar (Which Fed COULDN'T do) and a buttload of other titles. More than Fed accomplished that year.

When you're competition is worse, your results will be better

Its why I put '05 Fed far above '06 Fed. The field was much stronger in '05 even though Fed accomplished less

Stupidity at its stupidest. Oh wait, it's you. Business as usual, then.

If peak Nole from 2011 went against the 2006 field with Fed in it, he would easily have won much less than he did in 2011, and that's not even close. Fed would have beaten him at Wimbledon and the US Open, and Nadal was much stronger on clay in 2006 than in 2011, so he would probably have ended with two slams and at least two masters less that what he got in 2011, ranking #3 at the end of the year. Goody!

(Of course, this is with the AO on Plexicushion. If they're playing in '06 and it's on Rebound Ace, chalk up another slamless year for young--sorry, peak--Djokovic.)

 

[90's Clay]

I thought 2011 Novak's opposition was Declinerer, Mugray, RaoMUG and bunny Rafa.

peak Nole and uninjured Rafa can move Mount Everest.

Are u implying that washed up Roddick, Hewitt, and Baghditis are better than 2011 fed and nadal? Hahahahahahh

 

[Anaconda]

I look at it deeper than that though. If Peak Nole was going up against the 2006 field, he would have won the calendar (Which Fed COULDN'T do) and a buttload of other titles. More than Fed accomplished that year.

When you're competition is worse, your results will be better

Its why I put '05 Fed far above '06 Fed. The field was much stronger in '05 even though Fed accomplished less

No you don't, you're a complete tool and have absolutely no clue about anything in life not named Pete. I've never once read a post of yours which seems like you've put any sort of thought into it at all.




On topic, I think this will be the best year ever if Djokovic wins the US Open and the WTF, I'm also pretty sure Djokovic will claim another MS title in between those tournaments. The guy has been in a final of every tournament this year aside from the first tournament he played I believe.

 

[mike danny]

I look at it deeper than that though. If Peak Nole was going up against the 2006 field, he would have won the calendar (Which Fed COULDN'T do) and a buttload of other titles. More than Fed accomplished that year.

When you're competition is worse, your results will be better

Its why I put '05 Fed far above '06 Fed. The field was much stronger in '05 even though Fed accomplished less

I think Fed of 2006 would do at least as good as Nole in 2015. He would probably even win the FO. The 2015 field may be tougher but it's not something Fed 2006 wouldn't handle. Nadal would rarely be in his way and I think Fed would do better against this Rafa. He dealt with a better Rafa in 2006. So that leaves Murray and Stan. I think Fed would beat them more often than not. So Fed might replicate his 2006 results in 2015.

 

[mike danny]

On topic Djokovic needs to win the USO, the WTF and another masters title to have a better season than Fed's 2006.

At the USO he probably has his best chance since last year to clinch it.

At the WTF he is always dominant.

And I think he will win Paris. Shanghai is a question mark because Fed might beat him there as well just like at Cincy.

 

[tennis_pro]

Depends on whether Djokovic is "owned" by anyone this year. Federer was a meager 2-4 against the great Rafaei Nadal (a mere 20 year old at the time) that year, taking some of the lustre off his record, consistent with a career of being owned by the feisty Mallorcan.

3 of those losses on clay and one on HC against an ankle-strapped Federer. 1 loss against Murray when Fed was exhausted. Other than that he won EVERY match.

Djokovic would have to go unbeaten to match/top Federer's 2006.

 

[pennc94]

2 surfaces. Not the same as 2006

Fair point, but you could argue today's game is played on nearly the same surface. So much so that style of play does not change as much as it did back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. For example, nobody needs to play serve and volley to win a Wimbledon.

 

[tennisaddict]

Fair point, but you could argue today's game is played on nearly the same surface. So much so that style of play does not change as much as it did back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. For example, nobody needs to play serve and volley to win a Wimbledon.

The homogenization is only to the extent of protecting the big 4.

It is not that Rafa kept winning AO or Wimbledon and Novak won on FO and USO

 

[mike danny]

Depends on whether Djokovic is "owned" by anyone this year. Federer was a meager 2-4 against the great Rafaei Nadal (a mere 20 year old at the time) that year, taking some of the lustre off his record, consistent with a career of being owned by the feisty Mallorcan.

Fed's only mistake in 2006 was losing the Dubai match. A victory there would have given him a 3-3 record vs Rafa.

But other than that he simply lost to him on clay. Not that bad.

Plus Fed only lost to 2 players in 2006. Djokovic has already lost to 4 different people.

 

[mike danny]

The 2006 field was an utter JOKE though and it needs to be said. Even the 2015 field is stronger than that one.


Nadal not in his prime yet, Roddick finished, Hewitt washed up by then. Outside of clay, Fed had no one to compete with. Nole still has an older Fed (which is still tougher than 2006 Roddick and Hewitt as both totally sucked that year), Stan, and Murray

Nadal was better in 2006 than he is this year. He reached slam finals on 2 different surfaces. And don't bring me the number of matches he played on grass. Boris Becker won Wimb at 17. I doubt he played tons of matches on grass back then. Nadal reaching a Wimb final at 20 is not something out of the ordinary. So Fed dealt with a better Nadal on clay and grass than the one this year.

And Roddick did ressurect his game. He was horrible that year but at the American HC season he started playing well, winning Cincy and reaching the USO final. So he wasn't finished at all.

 

[tennisaddict]

Are u implying that washed up Roddick, Hewitt, and Baghditis are better than 2011 fed and nadal? Hahahahahahh

Washed up Roddick could beat Novak which Declinerer and Bunny Rafa couldn't manage. So, there goes your argument out of the window.

 

[GabeT]

Fair point, but you could argue today's game is played on nearly the same surface.

Not much evidence for that given how top players still tend to dominate certain events but not others.

 

[xan]

i dno. not winning rg or cincy to complete his sets kinda puts a bad taste in my mouth. having 2nd year with 3 gs won would was some of that foul taste away.

 

[pame]

The 2006 field was an utter JOKE though and it needs to be said. Even the 2015 field is stronger than that one.


Nadal not in his prime yet, Roddick finished, Hewitt washed up by then. Outside of clay, Fed had no one to compete with. Nole still has an older Fed (which is still tougher than 2006 Roddick and Hewitt as both totally sucked that year), Stan, and Murray

Don't you ever get tired singing the song the cow dead 'pon? <yawnnn>

 

[TheMusicLover]

Why-oh-why do people keep replying to 90's Cocaine's neverending spawn of garbage?

 

[NatF]

Why-oh-why do people keep replying to 90's Cocaine's neverending spawn of garbage?

The mans been upgraded, now a class A clown.

 

[Gazelle]

Why-oh-why do people keep replying to 90's Cocaine's neverending spawn of garbage?

Indeed. People giving more attention to 60's dung than other turd they have encountered in life.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

No he already lost that chance by blowing the French Open again that year. Nothing tops Laver's '69 season yet.

True. Djokovic needs the Grand Slam to match Laver at all.

...and for those who still push the surface BS...

There is no such thing as surface disadvantage, as all were trained to excel on all available to them. If any current player fails to win that--in reference to Laver's GOAT 1969 season, it due to their own shortcomings, not the surface myth.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

If Djokovic wins the USO, WTF (unbeaten), and one more Masters title, I'd rate his season over Federer's 2006, which is undeniably the second greatest season of all time after Laver's 1969.

If Djokovic doesn't win another Masters, or if his WTF win isn't unbeaten, things would get really murky, but I'd side with Federer's season. If he wins one more Masters but loses once at the WTF, it would be pretty much a tie (and will come down to Djokovic's other results).

 

[Cup8489]

The 2006 field was an utter JOKE though and it needs to be said. Even the 2015 field is stronger than that one.


Nadal not in his prime yet, Roddick finished, Hewitt washed up by then. Outside of clay, Fed had no one to compete with. Nole still has an older Fed (which is still tougher than 2006 Roddick and Hewitt as both totally sucked that year), Stan, and Murray

That's all your opinion. You can't objectively prove the field was stronger today than back then.

 

[killerboi2]

Federer did what he had to do back then. Was winning all slams against the mugs except french open where he was facing clay goat. I remember players literally saying that they were scared of facing him before the match.

Djokovic's 2011 season and 2015 should he win the US Open would be more impressive than Federer's 2004-2007 period imo just for one reason - better competition.

 

[zagor]

Nadal was better in 2006 than he is this year. He reached slam finals on 2 different surfaces. And don't bring me the number of matches he played on grass. Boris Becker won Wimb at 17. I doubt he played tons of matches on grass back then. Nadal reaching a Wimb final at 20 is not something out of the ordinary. So Fed dealt with a better Nadal on clay and grass than the one this year.

And Roddick did ressurect his game. He was horrible that year but at the American HC season he started playing well, winning Cincy and reaching the USO final. So he wasn't finished at all.

Yup, Roddick definitely got his mojo back by summer HC season. He hired Connors and played great in Cinci (after struggling in the first round against his nemesis Bracialli), gave peak Fed a good match in USO final and had MP against him in TMC at the end of the year (in their RR match IIRC).

Still, this is nothing new, Fed's 2004-2007 run has always been underrated on TW (to about the same degree his late career form is overrated).

 

[NatF]

I rate Mac's 1984 above Federer's 2006 tbh - I feel that year Mac was just more unbeatable.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Yup, Roddick definitely got his mojo back by summer HC season. He hired Connors and played great in Cinci (after struggling in the first round against his nemesis Bracialli), gave peak Fed a good match in USO final and had MP against him in TMC at the end of the year (in their RR match IIRC).

Still, this is nothing new, Fed's 2004-2007 run has always been underrated on TW (to about the same degree his late career form is overrated).

Pains me to say it but Roddick had ONE top 10 win in 2006 and it was at the Master Cup. He still had some "top 10 worthy" wins against Gonzalez, Ferrero and Hewitt that summer in Cincinnati and at the Open but still it`s quite a shoking stat. I believe even that after AO 2007 Roddick became number 3 in the world and at that moment he had TWO top 10 wins in the past 12 months. This is a perfect example that there was nobody besides Federer and Nadal at the top.

Top tier in 2005 - Coria, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Federer and probably Ferrero whom was still expected to make a comeback
Top tier in 2006 - Federer and Nadal

 

[NBP]

Okay let's get one thing straight. Djokovic's competition in 2011 was very high, and even I rate it near equal to Fed's 2006 just based on the win streak and beating Nadal in back-to-back clay Masters finals. It was unheard of, absoloutely unreal. But, do not for one second try and elevate his 2015 above Federer's 2006 because of 'better competition'. Who? Murray who he beat 8 times in a row? A 30 year old he couldn't beat in a slam final? A 34 year old past his prime? A washed up Rafa? Lost kids like Raonic and Nishikori? Please, it seems some of you guys think competition is stronger if you lose. If Federer had lost to Roddick in the USO final or Baghdatis in Australia you'll be saying how strong it was. It doesn't work that way. Give Federer 2015 Rafa on clay in 2006 and he'll have a good chance (not saying he'll win the French, but he had match points in Rome so obviously he could win that one). But I still rate Djokovic's 2015, but even if he wins the US Open and WTF it's not as impressive as his 2011 IMO, which may be better than Fed's 2006 season...

 

[zagor]

I rate Mac's 1984 above Federer's 2006 tbh - I feel that year Mac was just more unbeatable.

I agree, not to mention that he was also #1 in doubles that year which has to be taken into consideration (basically dominating tennis as a whole).

Pains me to say it but Roddick had ONE top 10 win in 2006 and it was at the Master Cup.

I don't care what it pains you to say. I was talking about Roddick's level of play during that short period, he could have easily gone 2-1 up against Fed in USO final and was very impressive in Cinci.

Ranking is one thing, form during the tournament is another (for example Roddick faced Youzhny in 2006 SF but Youzhny beat Nadal beforehand). To give another example, I think Nadal's level of play in 2010 USO was very impressive despite having a relatively easy draw.

Top tier in 2005 - Coria, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Federer and probably Ferrero whom was still expected to make a comeback
Top tier in 2006 - Federer and Nadal

And today a 34 year old is #2 and the young guns are basically non-existent (what is the average age of top 10, 30?).

 

[mattosgrant]

Okay let's get one thing straight. Djokovic's competition in 2011 was very high, and even I rate it near equal to Fed's 2006 just based on the win streak and beating Nadal in back-to-back clay Masters finals. It was unheard of, absoloutely unreal. But, do not for one second try and elevate his 2015 above Federer's 2006 because of 'better competition'. Who? Murray who he beat 8 times in a row? A 30 year old he couldn't beat in a slam final? A 34 year old past his prime? A washed up Rafa? Lost kids like Raonic and Nishikori? Please, it seems some of you guys think competition is stronger if you lose. If Federer had lost to Roddick in the USO final or Baghdatis in Australia you'll be saying how strong it was. It doesn't work that way. Give Federer 2015 Rafa on clay in 2006 and he'll have a good chance (not saying he'll win the French, but he had match points in Rome so obviously he could win that one). But I still rate Djokovic's 2015, but even if he wins the US Open and WTF it's not as impressive as his 2011 IMO, which may be better than Fed's 2006 season...

I sort of agree, but 2006 was an incredibly weak year. Even Nadal was very dissapointing compared to 2005 outside of clay and a surprise good performance on grass. Beyond that there was absolutely nobody at all. I am not someone who goes along with the conventional thought Federer had terrible competition in 2004-2007 either, but 2006 was by a huge margin the weakest year of all those years. I would say it is still the weakest year since 2002 (or perhaps since 1998) still today.

2015 I would still put over 2006 in competition, although both years are weak. 2011 is of course light years above both, and when you factor in competition one could say Djokovic in 2011 is the best year of all those (obviously just by stats it wouldnt be). 2015 Djokovic probably has to end the year fairly dominant, especialy losing those last 2 Masters finals, and absolutely has to win both the U.S Open, WTF, and probably another Masters, to have a case to be over Federer's 2006, as the competition itself is not enough to do that I agree.

 

[mattosgrant]

I rate Mac's 1984 above Federer's 2006 tbh - I feel that year Mac was just more unbeatable.

I rate Connors's year in 1974 over both though. Particularly with McEnroe winning only 2 slams. So my order would be:

1. Laver 69
2. Connors 74
3. McEnroe 84
4. Federer 06
5. Djokovic 2011

 

[Djokovic2011]

I rate Connors's year in 1974 over both though. Particularly with McEnroe winning only 2 slams. So my order would be:

1. Laver 69
2. Connors 74
3. McEnroe 84
4. Federer 06
5. Djokovic 2011

Where would you rank Nadal's 2010 mattosgrant?

 

[mickeyrs]

Well, winning USO will get Novak to the ATP points record of 16.145, if he wins Beijing + Shanghai, he could extend it to 16.785. Then defending title in Paris is not mandatory, but winning WTF leaves him over 16.000 points for 2015 which is definitely, even mathematically, better season than Feds 2006.

But, first he needs to get USO and then stay unbeaten pretty long time, very though to ask. Such a shame for that FO, how many records would have been set in a season like this where he plays only finals...

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/inde...highest-atp-points.341896/page-2#post-9576308

 

[Deleted member 77403]

I really have to see how the rest of the season goes for Djokovic, he hasn't even surpassed his 2011 yet. If he wins the US Open, he is at least on the right path, but even then I honesty wouldn't know until he has played his last match of season to truly know.

 

[zep]

Yeah but ultimately it's a player's results that matter the most. If we're taking competition into account then it could be argued that Djokovic's 2011 was superior to Fed's 2006.

I do consider Djokovic's 2011 to be superior to Federer's 2006 or Djokovic 2015 (no matter what he does in the rest of the year). There is absolutely no comparison between the level of competition that Djokovic had to beat in 2011 and Federer in 2006. Federer on his best year still lost 4 times to Nadal who was still not in his prime.

 

[mattosgrant]

Where would you rank Nadal's 2010 mattosgrant?

That is a good question. I would need to look up all the stats he compiled which I don't recall all 100% perfectly. I think I would probably rank it ahead of Federer's 2004 and 2005, but perhaps below his 2007 due to not winning the WTF and not making the final of a 4th slam. Djokovic's 2015 is too soon to tell. I would rank it above Wilander's 1988. I would need to study Borg's 1980 better to know for sure where to rank that.

Maybe 7th behind those 5 and Federer's 2007 as well? Then again since he won a slam on 3 different surfaces which IMO is a great feat perhaps 6th.

Federer's 2005 is an unfortunate year since he lost only 4 matches, but they were the semis (not even finals) of 2 slams, both which he would have easily anyone but his semi final opponent, and lost the WTF final too. I think his level of play was his highest ever but his record in the important events of the year don't bear that out.

 

[mike danny]

I rank Nadal's 2013 ahead of his 2010. In 2010 he still only had 11 top 10 victories. In 2013 he beat more top 10 players despite winning less slams.

Federer in 2004, 2005,2006 and 2007 defeated more top 10 players every year than Nadal in 2010.

 

[mattosgrant]

Nadal's 2010 ranks higher since 3 slams, WTF final and slam quarterfinal > a year with 2 majors and a 1st round loss and DNP at the other major (WTF final again). Nadal still won several Masters in 2010 too. It isn't his fault draws broke the way they did, and none of the events he won (the 3 slams or the 3 Masters for instance) was there a single player in the world who would have beaten him that year regardless. A lot of that is nobody that really mattered was even playing that well this year, but aside the point in the context of top 10 wins.

2010 he was also by a huge margin best player of the year, while 2013 he even lost the ITF Player of Year to Djokovic.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Nadal's 2010 ranks higher since 3 slams, WTF final and slam quarterfinal > a year with 2 majors and a 1st round loss and DNP at the other major (WTF final again). Nadal still won several Masters in 2010 too. It isn't his fault draws broke the way they did, and none of the events he won (the 3 slams or the 3 Masters for instance) was there a single player in the world who would have beaten him that year regardless. A lot of that is nobody that really mattered was even playing that well this year, but aside the point in the context of top 10 wins.

2010 he was also by a huge margin best player of the year, while 2013 he even lost the ITF Player of Year to Djokovic.

Maybe Nadal did show more "colorful" display in 2013 than in 2010, when his serve was an incredible weapon. In 2010 hardly anyone could beat him though, while both of his Slams in 2013 were won with slight luck (RG net touch and USO final choke from Nole - though this is only my opinion), so that is probably the reason why Djokovic beat him to that individual award.