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

[mattosgrant]

I would like say I think they gave Djokovic the award in 2013 based on some objective means (eg- despite only 1 slam win to Nadal's 2 he collected more official points in the slams). The only problem with that is many of their other choices contradict that where a person who collected more points in the slams last the award anyway, otherwise it would have made perfect sense. While I agree with you that Nadal got a bit lucky in 2013 (some say he was lucky in 2010 but I don't think so, as I said the events he won he beats anyone) I personally didn't understand the ITF award choice in 2013 whatsoever, but that is JMO. I am happy for the Djoker since it means he has a chance to win that award 6 or 7 or 8 times in a row now (5 is already in the bag IMO). I doubt it has any impact on Nadal's perception of his stellar comeback year of 2013 either.

 

[xan]

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

You just listed them in chronological order. Now why is that i wonder.

 

[mattosgrant]

You just listed them in chronological order. Now why is that i wonder.

Well:

Laver 69- the Grand Slam. That automatically gives it to this on top pretty much. He also lost a lot of matches but still won a huge number of overall tournaments.

Connors 74- won all 3 slams he was eligible to play (was banned from the French, maybe he wins it, maybe not, but he didn't lose an important event he was eligible to play), huge # of tournament titles which was higher than McEnroe 84 and Federer 06, W-L record worse than McEnroe in 84 but similar to Federer in 06. Seems like an obvious #2

McEnroe 84- best W-L in Open Era but technically speaking won only 2 slams. Didn't play the Australian, and Australian was kind of an iffy slam then. Maybe should even be below Federer 06 and perhaps Djokovic 2011 if anything due to only 2 slam wins, but some others would argue the Australian Open situation then, so I don't know.

Federer 2006- not the best in anything, but very good all around year.

Djokovic 2011- when you factor in quality of competition could even go higher, and be pulled up to 2nd or 3rd. Without factoring that in much or any would be only 5th at best though.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

I would like say I think they gave Djokovic the award in 2013 based on some objective means (eg- despite only 1 slam win to Nadal's 2 he collected more official points in the slams). The only problem with that is many of their other choices contradict that where a person who collected more points in the slams last the award anyway, otherwise it would have made perfect sense. While I agree with you that Nadal got a bit lucky in 2013 (some say he was lucky in 2010 but I don't think so, as I said the events he won he beats anyone) I personally didn't understand the ITF award choice in 2013 whatsoever, but that is JMO. I am happy for the Djoker since it means he has a chance to win that award 6 or 7 or 8 times in a row now (5 is already in the bag IMO). I doubt it has any impact on Nadal's perception of his stellar comeback year of 2013 either.

Not sure why someone would consider his 2010 lucky. He was maybe not great at Wimbledon, but I did not watch that tournament properly. Still he won the entire RG in straight sets, and only Novak made a good match in USO final. Same goes for Nole in 2011. He had dramatic comeback vs Roger at USO, but won AO and Wimbly without any problem. Same goes for Roger in his 3-Slam years. It were just those years when one player was head and shoulders above the rest, they won mostly because of their play, or would count on their mental stability, hope and will.
Btw, I had no idea Djokovic has 5 of those awards. That is quite an achievement. I know he has 2 Laureus awards for best sportsman of the year, but this never came to my mind.

 

[mattosgrant]

Not sure why someone would consider his 2010 lucky. He was maybe not great at Wimbledon, but I did not watch that tournament properly. Still he won the entire RG in straight sets, and only Novak made a good match in USO final. Same goes for Nole in 2011. He had dramatic comeback vs Roger at USO, but won AO and Wimbly without any problem. Same goes for Roger in his 3-Slam years. It were just those years when one player was head and shoulders above the rest, they won mostly because of their play, or would count on their mental stability, hope and will.
Btw, I had no idea Djokovic has 5 of those awards. That is quite an achievement. I know he has 2 Laureus awards for best sportsman of the year, but this never came to my mind.

Djoker hasn't won 2015 officially yet so right now he has 4 in a row, but I assume it is already in the bag for 2015 for a 5th in a row which is what I meant. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. If he loses it at this point it would be the biggest shock ever, even if Murray or Federer swept the rest of the years events. So that will be his 5th, and he could end up winning 6, 7, or even 8 in a row now. Who knows, but it is conceivable. Or who knows, if Murray really steps up next year it might end at 5, but either way 5 in a row (which will almost certain be made official in November with the 2015 award) is incredible.

Some consider Nadal in 2010 lucky since he didn't play the top seeds at his 3 slam wins apart from 3rd seeded Djokovic in the U.S Open final, and 4th seeded Murray in the Wimbledon semis. IMO it is silly since he would have slammed Federer or Djokovic at Roland Garros (and Soderling was playing way better than either there anyway), easily beaten either Federer or Djokovic at Wimbledon (and Berdych was probably playing than better there anyway too), almost certainly beaten Federer at the U.S Open had they met in the finals instead of Djokovic. Granted a lot of that is neither of those guys was even playing all that well, but how can someone who would have beaten anyone in the draw be lucky. So I agree.

Djokovic in 2011 was more impressive still though as he had tougher competition with a very good Nadal and quite good Federer than anything Nadal was facing in 2010. Plus he was more dominant in general, not just the slams and clay Masters, almost unbeatable until mid September.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Djoker hasn't won 2015 officially yet so right now he has 4 in a row, but I assume it is already in the bag for 2015 for a 5th in a row which is what I meant. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. If he loses it at this point it would be the biggest shock ever, even if Murray or Federer swept the rest of the years events. So that will be his 5th, and he could end up winning 6, 7, or even 8 in a row now. Who knows, but it is conceivable. Or who knows, if Murray really steps up next year it might end at 5, but either way 5 in a row (which will almost certain be made official in November with the 2015 award) is incredible.

Some consider Nadal in 2010 lucky since he didn't play the top seeds at his 3 slam wins apart from 3rd seeded Djokovic in the U.S Open final, and 4th seeded Murray in the Wimbledon semis. IMO it is silly since he would have slammed Federer or Djokovic at Roland Garros (and Soderling was playing way better than either there anyway), easily beaten either Federer or Djokovic at Wimbledon (and Berdych was probably playing than better there anyway too), almost certainly beaten Federer at the U.S Open had they met in the finals instead of Djokovic. Granted a lot of that is neither of those guys was even playing all that well, but how can someone who would have beaten anyone in the draw be lucky. So I agree.

Djokovic in 2011 was more impressive still though as he had tougher competition with a very good Nadal and quite good Federer than anything Nadal was facing in 2010. Plus he was more dominant in general, not just the slams and clay Masters, almost unbeatable until mid September.

Agree on all of that except Wimbledon. IMO Federer and Djokovic have always been better grass players. Federer at least at Wimbledon never had mental problems facing Rafa, Djokovic never had them. Though it was still 2010, both Djoko and Fed would have made at least a bigger fight than Berdych in that final.
As for Djoko not yet winning 2015 award, it is only not official. I kind of wonder did he seal the year-end number 1 already. He has USO and Shanghai semis and Paris and WTF titles to defend...
Btw, does anyone know is there a known record for the biggest gap between number 1 and number 2, as well as the highest amount of points held? I think Djoko is definitely somewhere at the top of those two lists...

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

Connors 74- won all 3 slams he was eligible to play (was banned from the French, maybe he wins it, maybe not, but he didn't lose an important event he was eligible to play), huge # of tournament titles which was higher than McEnroe 84 and Federer 06, W-L record worse than McEnroe in 84 but similar to Federer in 06. Seems like an obvious #2

why didn't jimbo play the year-end masters in 1974 ? (same question for 1975 and 1976, by the way)
he played it in both 1972 and 1973...

 

[mattosgrant]

Djokovic will probably be mathematically ensured of the YE#1 after this event, if he just reaches the final (and he should with his draw).

I dont think before 2011 Djokovic was thought of as a grass court player at all really. He has definitely become one.

why didn't jimbo play the year-end masters in 1974 ? (same question for 1975 and 1976, by the way)
he played it in both 1972 and 1973...

Good question, but I wouldnt be surprised if it were his conflicts with the ATP tour while he was with Riordan which is why he was banned from Roland Garros that year too.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Agree on all of that except Wimbledon. IMO Federer and Djokovic have always been better grass players. Federer at least at Wimbledon never had mental problems facing Rafa, Djokovic never had them. Though it was still 2010, both Djoko and Fed would have made at least a bigger fight than Berdych in that final.
As for Djoko not yet winning 2015 award, it is only not official. I kind of wonder did he seal the year-end number 1 already. He has USO and Shanghai semis and Paris and WTF titles to defend...
Btw, does anyone know is there a known record for the biggest gap between number 1 and number 2, as well as the highest amount of points held? I think Djoko is definitely somewhere at the top of those two lists...

I read before the USO started that if Djokovic reaches the final and Murray fails to, Nole will officially have the YE #1 ranking. Not sure what the biggest gap between number 1 and 2 is though.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Djokovic will probably be mathematically ensured of the YE#1 after this event, if he just reaches the final (and he should with his draw).

I dont think before 2011 Djokovic was thought of as a grass court player at all really. He has definitely become one.

The thing about Djokovic is that before 2011 he was reaching late stages at a regular basis but rarely winning titles. Now it has flipped, he is winning titles at a regular basis and rarely losing at late stages. The thing is he was always there to be seen.
Nadal on the other hand has not been in a Wimbledon quarterfinal since 2011. Even when he owned the French Open in recent years, he was nowhere to be seen at Wimbledon. That made me even underrate his two titles in London a bit, I feel like Djokovic leads 3-0 and not 3-2.

 

[mattosgrant]

The Nadal was a really good grass player from 06-2011. Probably roughly on par (in playing level) with Djokovic from 2011-2015. However he is downright pitiful in all years outside that span. Djokovic even in 2007-2010 was posting respectable results on grass, and will probably always do so.

Before 2011 though the perception was still that grass was his worst surface by far, despite that he was a contender on it, like all surfaces. Some even argue it today, although I dont know how you can with 3 titles there.

Another thing about Nadal on grass is he was always vurnerable in early rounds before the grass conditions changed as the event wore on. 2008 is the only year he cruised through everyone until the final. He had the confidence to always overcome those holes, but since Rosol in 2012 that confidence on grass is all gone, and with his bad knees the low bounce probably hurts him to play.

 

[Inside out FH]

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.

On what basis do you rank Nadal's 2010 ahead of Federer's 2004?
Only arguments for Nadal are slightly better GS results(QF>3rd round) and winning a slam on all 3 surfaces.

Federer had fewer matches lost(6 compared to Nadal's 10),he won Master titles on both clay and hard and he went undefetead in finals.
I think the TMC title seals the deal in Fed's favour.

Competition wise Federer beat prime Hewitt,prime Nalbandian,prime Ferrero and prime(but exausted) Safin at the AO,prime Hewitt and Roddick at Wimbledon,a very good Oldagassi and prime Hewitt at the USO.
His only slam loss was against all time clay great,Kuerten.

 

[mattosgrant]

I think it is because:

-3 slams on different surfaces which is a big thing for me. I mean this is obvious bigger than winning Masters on 2 different surfaces vs 1 which you pointed out as relevant, thus you couldnt say this is irrelevant.
-A quarterfinal is a much more respectable slam result than a 3rd one which seems really bad for a #1
-That Federer seemed to have quite a few early and bad showings in tournaments that year. I remember him losing a 1st round to Hrbaty, that 3rd round at the French obviously, another early loss, while Nadal seemed to have good showings in each tournament he played.

Of course you could also easily put Federer's 2004 higher. I just find Federer strange to evaluate, since his level of tennis and dominance in 2005 was so much higher I feel overall than 2004 or 2007, but due to the wrong losses his 2005 on paper is by far the worst of his 4 dominant years.

As for competition I would put 2004 and 2010 both somewhere in the middle I guess. Not bad (2006, 2015) or really good (2009, 2011).

 

[Inside out FH]

I already pointed out that Nadal winning slams on 3 different surfaces is relevant.

Federer ended the year with 11 titles,Nadal with only 7.

For me TMC+4more titles+better W-L record+masters on both surfaces(BO5 format in Hamburg final)+more top 10 wins>3slam on 3different surfaces and slightly better GS results

 

[xFedal]

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.

You rate Dj15 above fed06 right!!

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.

Thats truely consitent and dominant players beat a lot of top 10 players..... This is evident by Feds years like you pointed out.... He had crazy consistency in those year..... Nadal was very consistent in 2013 as well..