LOL.The level has never been higher. The field has evolved
That says more about the years in between.Some people think it’s been the best since 2013?
Coming close to this, but not quite, and not consistently. This is a decent to good year in my opinion.The level has never been higher. The field has evolved
Wouldn’t go any more than that though.Better than the previous three at least.
That’s fair. But it’s bloody surprising as a Djokovic fan why people call 2014-2015 weak but rate this year higher when it’s been worse IMO.I went with decent. A strong second tier of players developed which led to good matches in BO3 but we still had the Big 3 dominating the slams despite their clear decline.
Wimbeldon 2018 SF was something else though. Better than the final this year IMO. Nadal-Muller was better quality wise as well IMO in 2017.At 1000 level it probably was, yes. At slam level Wimbledon was better than its been in years, but otherwise it was pretty lame. The younger guys being able to narrow the gap with the big 3 over best of 3 ensured that we had way more strong tournaments in that form of the game than I can recall seeing in a good long while.
GAS.A great one, but not a strong one.
A year isn't strong if a 32 and 33 year old win all the slams and a slam final occurred between a 32 year old and a 38 year old.
Any year when the best player is under par is an under par year. Much like 2009. Exciting as the 2009 slam finales may have been...A great year. Two classic slam finals. Much stronger than 2017 which was all but ruined and made ridiculous by Djokovic's troubles.
Nah, he just needs to get some rest... Djokovic lost all his RR matches in 2011.I don't really see how was this year stronger than 2017-2018. The slams were still dominated by the same players. The only difference was Medvedev's run after Wimbledon, but as we saw in WTF he still has lots of work to do.
No way was 2009 under par....Any year when the best player is under par is an under par year. Much like 2009. Exciting as the 2009 slam finales may have been...
He came in FO09 somewhat hurt from Rome, then cancelled Wimby, then needed time to recuperate for USO but couldn't. So yeah, best player was AWOL essentially. Crap year.No way was 2009 under par....
Nadal wasn’t super effective in the 2nd half of the year which brings it down a bit but so many other players were.
Calling 2009 a crap year for Nadal is not a common opinion. He still achieved a lot in the first half of the year which makes it a good year for Nadal. Not his best year for sure though.He came in FO09 somewhat hurt from Rome, then cancelled Wimby, then needed time to recuperate for USO but couldn't. So yeah, best player was AWOL essentially. Crap year.
If the best player is below par, does that make them not the best player that year?Any year when the best player is under par is an under par year. Much like 2009. Exciting as the 2009 slam finales may have been...
A great one, but not a strong one.
A year isn't strong if a 32 and 33 year old win all the slams and a slam final occurred between a 32 year old and a 38 year old.
Irrelevant really. These were the seasons in which they turned those ages.The Australian Open winner was neither 32 nor 33!
If someone were to stab Monika Seles, does Sanchez or Graf become automatically the best?If the best player is below par, does that make them not the best player that year?
I wouldn't go that far, though I do agree the level has been very high. I voted Great. There was a Novak- Nadal final at the AO. Nadal-Thiem at the FO, in which Thiem played very well for two sets. The Novak-Roger Wimbledon final was unique, to say the least. The USO final with Rafa-Medvedev was very high quality and exciting. The same is true of the WTF final with Stefanos and Thiem.The level has never been higher. The field has evolved
I thought your use of below-par indicated just a lull in form, excluding injury. Besides, it was clear Nadal had declined in 2009 regardless of injury. His second half of the season can attest to that.If someone were to stab Monika Seles, does Sanchez or Graf become automatically the best?
Oops, wait, that already happened...
Injuries are a factor. And assassination attempts even.
Nadal primarily had an injury problem in 2009. This is as historical a fact as that WW2 started in 1939.I thought your use of below-par indicated just a lull in form, excluding injury. Besides, it was clear Nadal had declined in 2009 regardless of injury. His second half of the season can attest to that.
The injury lasted about three months, from the French Open to after Wimbledon. I don't think it impacted his season otherwise. He was just in terrible form the second half of the year.Nadal primarily had an injury problem in 2009. This is as historical a fact as that WW2 started in 1939.
It impacted the biggest part of his season.The injury lasted about three months, from the French Open to after Wimbledon. I don't think it impacted his season otherwise. He was just in terrible form the second half of the year.
And those two slams were, in all likelihood, the only two tournaments actually impacted by his injury. Just like Federer's mono only impacted his AO run (and Indian Wells and Miami, but nothing outside that).It impacted the biggest part of his season.
Or is the indoors season his best segment?
It affected two slams...
Irrelevant really. These were the seasons in which they turned those ages.
Well, it is relative really.I was just being pedantic because I don't like the idea of "rounding up" ages. On a more serious note, I really don't think that 31 or 32 is that old, but that's another discussion. (We don't say that 1982 or 1985 or 1989 are by definition weak years because a 17-year-old won a major in each of those three years, but it is obvious that 17 is a far greater age disadvantage than is 32).