Rank the 3-Slam seasons

[King No1e]

In the Open Era, how would you rank each 3-Slam season by dominance? I'm weighting statistical dominance over level of play here, which is why I rate Djoker's 2015 above his 2011 despite his 2011 level being clearly superior (no one else in history can match Peak Nadal the way he did)

1. Djokovic 2015
2. Connors 1974
3. Federer 2006
4. Djokovic 2011
5. Federer 2007
6. Nadal 2010
7. Federer 2004
8. Wilander 1988

Djokovic's 2015 takes the cake because of how near-perfect it was - made every single final except Doha, won 3 Slams, 6 M1000's, World Champion, just one match from CYGS, a winnable match on paper at that. I had a lot of trouble putting 2-4 in a particular order, as they were all GOAT seasons in their own way - Connors not losing a Slam match and having a 96% win rate, Federer winning an ungodly amount of titles, Djokovic going 41-0 and outclassing his competition repeatedly. I could also rank Nadal's 2010 above Fed's 07 for the 3-surface trifecta, but Fed played much better outside the Slams and won the World Championship in 07, so slight edge to him.

 

[Third Serve]

1. Djoker 2015
2. Fed 2006
3. Connors 1974
4. Djoker 2011
5. Fed 2004
6. Fed 2007
7. Ned 2010
8. Wilander 1988 (mostly due to lack of research on my half)

 

[tonylg]

1969 was in the open era.

 

[Third Serve]

1969 was in the open era.

I think he meant purely three Slam seasons.

 

[King No1e]

1969 was in the open era.

3 Slam seasons, not 4 Slam seasons
That's not a category because Rod is the GOAT and no one can hope to replicate what he did. Twice.

 

[DSH]

Despite what is said, Nadal is the only male player in tennis history to win Grand Slam tournaments on three different surfaces (clay, grass and hard court) the same calendar year.
10 years have passed since that great achievement.

 

[Phoenix1983]

1. Novak Djokovic 2015
2. Federer 2006
3. Connors 1974
4. Novak Djokovic 2011
5. Nadal 2010
6. Federer 2004
7. Federer 2007
8. Wilander 1988

 

[NatF]

1. Djokovic 2015
2. Federer 2006
3. Connors 1974
4. Djokovic 2011
5. Federer 2004
6. Federer 2007
7. Nadal 2010
8. Wilander 1988

I recall reading somewhere that Connor's 1974 isn't so impressive when looked in depth but I can't remember exactly why so #3 it goes...

 

[Sport]

1. Nadal 2010. Only male player to win Grand Slams on 3 different surfaces (clay, grass and hard) the same calendar year and so only male player to dominate the 3 surfaces on Slam level the same calendar year.
2. Djokovic 2011
3. Federer 2006/Djokovic 2015
4. Federer 2007
5. Federer 2004
6. Wilander 1988

 

[Deleted member 748597]

1. Nadal 2010. Only male player to win Grand Slams on 3 different surfaces (clay, grass and hard) the same calendar year and so only male player to dominate the 3 surfaces on Slam level the same year.
2. Djokovic 2011
3. Federer 2006/Djokovic 2015
4. Federer 2007
5. Federer 2004
6. Wilander 1988

Lol.

 

[Sport]

Lol.

Laugh is not an argumentation.

 

[Towny]

Connors 74 is the hardest to place. On the surface, it is statistically the best year. 93-4 win-loss (2nd best win percentage of Open era after Mac '84), 15 titles and undefeated at slams (banned from RG). That said, most of his competition was pretty washed up and I think I recall he missed some of the bigger events that year. So not sure where to rank it.

In terms of the others:

1. Djokovic 2015 - 6 masters and YEC, 11 titles and 82-6 win loss
2. Federer 2006 - 4 masters and YEC, 12 titles, 92-5 win loss
3. Djokovic 2011 - 5 masters, crazy 41 match win streak and domination of Fedal. 10 titles, 70-6 win loss
4. Federer 2004 - 3 masters and YEC. Complete domination of top 10. 11 titles and 74-6 win loss
5. Federer 2007 - 2 masters and YEC. 8 titles and 68-9 win loss. Above 2010 due to extra title, YEC > 1 masters and slam final > slam QF. But I could go either way on this. 3 consecutive slams on different surfaces is very impressive.
6. Nadal 2010 - 3 masters, 7 titles, 71-10 win loss. Best player on all 3 surfaces
7. Wilander 1988 - 6 titles. 53-11 wins loss ratio. Clearly the least impressive, albeit still a great achievement.

 

[alexio]

1. Nadal 2010. Only male player to win Grand Slams on 3 different surfaces (clay, grass and hard) the same calendar year

this kind of argumentation is invalid. players nowadays playing not under the same conditions with players in the past, 3 surfaces vs 2 surfaces, thus to compare them by this yardstick (surface) is slyness. example: 1968 - grass&clay vs 2018 - grass&hard&clay

 

[NoleFam]

1. Djokovic 2015
2. Federer 2006
3. Connors 1974
4. Djokovic 2011
5. Federer 2004
6. Federer 2007
7. Nadal 2010
8. Wilander 1988

I recall reading somewhere that Connor's 1974 isn't so impressive when looked in depth but I can't remember exactly why so #3 it goes...

I probably wouldn't put Connos at #3 since he missed so many big tournaments outside of Slams but good list nonetheless.

 

[Third Serve]

1. Djokovic 2015
2. Federer 2006
3. Connors 1974
4. Djokovic 2011
5. Federer 2004
6. Federer 2007
7. Nadal 2010
8. Wilander 1988

I recall reading somewhere that Connor's 1974 isn't so impressive when looked in depth but I can't remember exactly why so #3 it goes...

Wow your list is the same as mine.

 

[FedIsBoat]

1. Federer 2006 (more titles than 2015 and higher win%, best of 5 M1000 finals, had to face peak Nadal on clay)
2. Djokovic 2015 (more M1000 than 2006, but lost to clay novice Wawa in the final quite convincingly)
3. Connors 1974
4. Federer 2007 (again lost to peak Nadal at FO final)
5. Djokovic 2011 (lost to old man Fed (Nadal's pigeon) at FO semi)
6. Federer 2004
7. Nadal 2010 (very weak finals opponents, including Djoker 1.0 in 2010)
8. Wilander 1988 (lol)

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

Medvedev 2020
Tsitsipas 2021
Zverev 2022

 

[alexio]

Medvedev 2020
Tsitsipas 2021
Zverev 2022

Hetthegreaterer 2023

 

[BeatlesFan]

8. Wilander 1988 (lol)

Winning 3 slams in one year is huge and very few players have ever achieved it. Putting a LOL after Wilander’s 1988 season isn’t cool. Sure, it wasn’t at the level of Fed or Djoker’s greatest seasons, but only Laver can top that.

 

[DSH]

1. Federer 2006 (more titles than 2015 and higher win%, best of 5 M1000 finals, had to face peak Nadal on clay)
2. Djokovic 2015 (more M1000 than 2006, but lost to clay novice Wawa in the final quite convincingly)
3. Connors 1974
4. Federer 2007 (again lost to peak Nadal at FO final)
5. Djokovic 2011 (lost to old man Fed (Nadal's pigeon) at FO semi)
6. Federer 2004
7. Nadal 2010 (very weak finals opponents, including Djoker 1.0 in 2010)
8. Wilander 1988 (lol)

Federer 2006
AO: Baghdatis
Wimbledon: Nadal
US Open: Roddick


Nadal 2010
RG: Soderling
Wimbledon: Berdych
US Open: Djokovic

 

[buscemi]

Winning 3 slams in one year is huge and very few players have ever achieved it. Putting a LOL after Wilander’s 1988 season isn’t cool. Sure, it wasn’t at the level of Fed or Djoker’s greatest seasons, but only Laver can top that.

Plus, it was a really good year for Mats:

-Beat #2 Edberg in 5 sets in the SF and then Cash (reigning Wimbledon winner and Australian Open finalist) in 5 sets to win the Australian Open;​

-Won the Lipton when it was a 128 player/BO5 every round draw, beating Connors in the final;​

-Beat Agassi in the SF and crushed Leconte in the final to win the French Open;​

-Beat Edberg in a 3rd set tiebreaker to win Cincinnati;​

-Beat three time defending champion Lendl in 5 sets to win the U.S. Open​

-Added a 6th title by winning Palermo on clay.​

Sure, I'd put it at the bottom of this list, but that's pretty impressive.

 

[clout]

1. 2015 Djokovic
2. 2006 Federer
3. 2011 Djokovic
4. 1974 Connors
5. 2007 Federer
6. 2010 Nadal
7. 2004 Federer
8. 1988 Wilander

 

[Pheasant]

Djokovic 2015
Federer 2006
Federer 2004
Djokovic 2011
Federer 2007
Nadal 2010
Connors 1974
Wilander 1988

I give bonus points for winning 3 slam titles and the WTF. The WTF is an extremely tough draw, since you almost always face opponents that are in the top 10.

Djokovic is a very tough out. 82-6 is a great record. Granted, that's been topped. However, 6 Masters + a WTF all by itself gives this a strong case for 1st place. But the clincher is his record against top 10, which was 31-5. 31 wins against the top 10 is a record that might not ever be broken.

I rated 2004 Federer higher than most did. Based on the matches I watched, I believe that he hit his highest level. It lacked the consistency of 2006. But his forehand was insane that year; like a cannon going off. 2004 Fed is the only player to go undefeated against the top 10 for a whole season(18-0). Fed destroyed the top 10 that year. He dished out 4 bagels and 3 bread sticks, which is incredible. He won 11 of his 18 matches vs the top 10 in straight sets. His weak point that year was his 74-6 record, good for a .925 winning pct.

I had a really tough time choosing between 2007 Federer and 2011 Djokovic. I think that 2011 Djokovic hit a higher level. But he crashed and burned at the end of the season. Federer made all 4 slam finals and he won the WTF. Djoker was incredible in the Masters; winning the first 5 that he played in and he made 6 straight finals. Given Djoker's better record at the Masters and his better winning pct in 2011, I have 2011 Djoker squeaking by 2007 Federer.

1974 Connors takes a big hit for me. His 93-4 record is the best winning percentage of the group. However, he only played 8 matches against the top 10 while going 6-2. A lot of his wins in slams were against fairly weak opponents in the QF or later. Examples: AO: He beat Zednik, Alexander, and Dent. WI: he beat Kodes, Stockton, and 39 1/2 year old Rosewall. USO: he beat Metreveli, Tanner, and 39 3/4 year old Rosewall. Connors was a beast in 1974. But he takes 7th here.

 

[FedIsBoat]

Federer 2006
AO: Baghdatis
Wimbledon: Nadal
US Open: Roddick


Nadal 2010
RG: Soderling
Wimbledon: Berdych
US Open: Djokovic

In 2010, peak Nadal lost to Baghdatis when Bags was way past his prime. That's how overrated Nadal's level was in 2010.

Roddick leads Djokovic 5-4. In 2006 Fed beat slam winners in 2/3 slams. In 2010, Nadal beat only Djokovic 1.0 who won a fluke slam 2 years prior due to Mono Fed..

 

[FedIsBoat]

Winning 3 slams in one year is huge and very few players have ever achieved it. Putting a LOL after Wilander’s 1988 season isn’t cool. Sure, it wasn’t at the level of Fed or Djoker’s greatest seasons, but only Laver can top that.

Sorry Ma.

 

[Sport]

this kind of argumentation is invalid. players nowadays playing not under the same conditions with players in the past, 3 surfaces vs 2 surfaces, thus to compare them by this yardstick (surface) is slyness. example: 1968 - grass&clay vs 2018 - grass&hard&clay

I am not comparing the Big 3 seasons with seasons before the Open Era or before there were 3 surfaces. Therefore the comparison is valid. I am comparing Big 3 seasons with Wilander. It is valid to compare Big 3 seasons, as all memebers of the BIg 3 played on the same surfaces. And Wilander also played on the 3 surfaces.

 

[DSH]

In 2010, peak Nadal lost to Baghdatis when Bags was way past his prime. That's how overrated Nadal's level was in 2010.

Roddick leads Djokovic 5-4. In 2006 Fed beat slam winners in 2/3 slams. In 2010, Nadal beat only Djokovic 1.0 who won a fluke slam 2 years prior due to Mono Fed..

Minors tournaments does not count.
Roddick is a good match up for Federer. The results of their matches were so predictable.
2006 was a weak year in terms of competition.
Djokovic was not in his peak.

 

[Sport]

1. Federer 2006 (more titles than 2015 and higher win%, best of 5 M1000 finals, had to face peak Nadal on clay)
2. Djokovic 2015 (more M1000 than 2006, but lost to clay novice Wawa in the final quite convincingly)
3. Connors 1974
4. Federer 2007 (again lost to peak Nadal at FO final)
5. Djokovic 2011 (lost to old man Fed (Nadal's pigeon) at FO semi)
6. Federer 2004
7. Nadal 2010 (very weak finals opponents, including Djoker 1.0 in 2010)
8. Wilander 1988 (lol)

Which "strong" players did Federer face in 2004? Neither Nadal nor Djokovic.
Which "strong" competition did Federer have in Slams on hard courts in 2006? Neither Nadal nor Djokovic.

By the way. Djokovic was already at his peak in the USO 2010. He had dramatically improved and beat Federer in the USO SF. In the USO 2009 SF, Djokovic lost in 3 sets to Federer. But in the USO 2010 SF Djokovic beat Federer with the same result than in the USO 2011 SF, indicating that he already had peaked. It is not like Djokovic was non-peak the 31th of December of 2010 and suddenly became peak the 1st of January of 2011. He peaked in the last months of 2010, at the USO 2010.

So Nadal in 2010 faced stronger competition than Federer in 2004 on any surface or 2006 on hard courts.

 

[King No1e]

Medvedev 2020
Tsitsipas 2021
Zverev 2022

I could see Stef having a 3 Slam season at some point. He's a great all courter and clutch against top opponents.

 

[DSH]

Which "strong" players did Federer face in 2004? Neither Nadal nor Djokovic.
Which "strong" competition did Federer have in Slams on hard courts in 2006? Neither Nadal nor Djokovic.

By the way. Djokovic was already at his peak in the USO 2010. He had dramatically improved and beat Federer in the USO SF. In the USO 2009 SF, Djokovic lost in 3 sets to Federer. But in the USO 2010 SF Djokovic beat Federer with the same result than in the USO 2011 SF, indicating that he already had peaked. It is not like Djokovic was non-peak the 31th of December of 2010 and suddenly became peak the 1st of January of 2011. He peaked in the last months of 2010, at the USO 2010.

So Nadal in 2010 faced stronger competition than Federer in 2004 or 2006 on hard courts.

Djokovic 2010........Roddick 2006!

 

[aditya123]

1. Djokovic 2015
2. Federer 2006
3. Connors 1974
4. Djokovic 2011
5. Federer 2004
6. Federer 2007
7. Nadal 2010
8. Wilander 1988

I recall reading somewhere that Connor's 1974 isn't so impressive when looked in depth but I can't remember exactly why so #3 it goes...

I dint expect you to put 2004 ahead of 2010
... It takes away some sheen from you

 

[NatF]

I dint expect you to put 2004 ahead of 2010
... It takes away some sheen from you

Don't really rate 2010 that highly compared to other Big 3 triple slam seasons, sorry if that upsets you and takes sheen off me

 

[aditya123]

Don't really rate 2010 that highly compared to other Big 3 triple slam seasons, sorry if that upsets you and takes sheen off me

No offense intended here. But rating their primary achievements using their secondary achievements as a main criteria is a bit unfair... At the end of day Nadal won slams on 3 different surfaces which is a top notch achievement itself...

 

[RS]

Which "strong" players did Federer face in 2004? Neither Nadal nor Djokovic.
Which "strong" competition did Federer have in Slams on hard courts in 2006? Neither Nadal nor Djokovic.

By the way. Djokovic was already at his peak in the USO 2010. He had dramatically improved and beat Federer in the USO SF. In the USO 2009 SF, Djokovic lost in 3 sets to Federer. But in the USO 2010 SF Djokovic beat Federer with the same result than in the USO 2011 SF, indicating that he already had peaked. It is not like Djokovic was non-peak the 31th of December of 2010 and suddenly became peak the 1st of January of 2011. He peaked in the last months of 2010, at the USO 2010.

So Nadal in 2010 faced stronger competition than Federer in 2004 on any surface or 2006 on hard courts.

Nadal prime had a better field than Federer prime imo but I don’t see how Nadal faced better opponents in 2010 on all surfaces than Federer did in 2004.

 

[aditya123]

Nadal prime had a better field than Federer prime imo but I don’t see how Nadal faced better opponents in 2010 on all surfaces than Federer did in 2004.

In 2010 Nadal faced those players in finals who defeated Federer earlier..... That itself speaks high ...

 

[RS]

In 2010 Nadal faced those players in finals who defeated Federer earlier..... That itself speaks high ...

Yeah. I said not long back that 2010 was a underlooked year. It was the weakest of Nadal best years though imo.

 

[NoleFam]

No offense intended here. But rating their primary achievements using their secondary achievements as a main criteria is a bit unfair... At the end of day Nadal won slams on 3 different surfaces which is a top notch achievement itself...

But he won no Masters titles on anything but clay. He won no big titles in AO or Spring hardcourt season where Fedovic won 3, and he won no fall big tournaments when they won 2/3. On the other hand, Djokovic won 2 Masters on clay and Federer won 1. Their seasons were also more dominant. I don't see why you think that season deserves to be above theirs.

 

[HetTheGreaterer]

I could see Stef having a 3 Slam season at some point. He's a great all courter and clutch against top opponents.

Losing multiple sets in early rounds against mugs can hurt though

 

[aditya123]

Yeah. I said not long back that 2010 was a underlooked year. It was the weakest of Nadal best years though imo.

How is it weakest???

 

[Sport]

Nadal prime had a better field than Federer prime imo but I don’t see how Nadal faced better opponents in 2010 on all surfaces than Federer did in 2004.

Why do you have a Nadal profile picture if you are a Federer fan? Are you really comparing Djokovic with Roddick?

 

[aditya123]

But he won no Masters titles on anything but clay. He won no big titles in AO or Spring hardcourt season where Fedovic won 3, and he won no fall big tournaments when they won 2/3. On the other hand, Djokovic won 2 Masters on clay and Federer won 1. Their seasons were also more dominant. I don't see why you think that season deserves to be above theirs.

Thats what I questioned. How can you rate your primary achievements on the basis of your secondary achievements????

 

[RS]

How is it weakest???

2008-2009 and 2011-2013?
Had a better Federer in 2008-2009 and 2011-2012
And a better Murray as well in some of those as Nadal in top form in all those years?

 

[NatF]

No offense intended here. But rating there primary achievements using their secondary achievements as a main criteria is a bit unfair... At the end of day Nadal won slams on 3 different surfaces which is a top notch achievement itself...

Sure. Maybe I'm opening a can of worms here but I rate 2010 lower for a couple of reasons;

- Lack of thorough domination. Slams are the most important events but he didn't bring it that much outside of them relative to others on this list- he had the clay sweep but didn't really have success elsewhere. Only 7 titles, not even a masters final on HC and though he made the YEC final in 2010 he didn't win it like Fed in 2004/2007. This lack of success in the big HC tournaments is why he had relatively few top 10 wins/meetings that year. Meeting top 10 players isn't the be all and end all for me but paired with the clearly lower win/loss and less big titles it all feeds into the overall picture. Now Nadal did have a good amount of top 10 meetings in the slams (6) but...
- I don't rate his competition that year. I'm sure this will be contentious but for me 2010 was a bit of a down year with many of the players that played so well in 2009 all dropping their level for various reasons in 2010 - similar to 2006 where the top 10 of 2005 basically collapsed with injury. The difference is Fed in 2006 ran rough shod over the field where as Nadal in 2010 didn't. Also in 2004 and 2007 that were less dominant I think Fed had clearly tougher competition overall in his slam wins than Nadal in 2010.

I suppose you could say that competition or no competition Fed was never in a position to win on all three surfaces in 2004 (which is valid), and maybe for you that cancels out the YEC, the 4 extra titles, 5% higher win/loss etc...but for me it doesn't. If you want to argue that 2010 tops 2004 then I'm not going to go to war over it lol, I strongly disagree with those putting 2010 it at #1 but even then I don't care enough to argue so I'm not going to kick up a fuss about a year I rated #5.

 

[RS]

Why do you have a Nadal profile picture if you are a Federer fan? Are you really comparing Djokovic with Roddick?

You do know that Djokovic wasn’t peak Djokovic in 2010. Of course a peak Djokovic is better than Roddick.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Laugh is not an argumentation.

Doesn't need to be.

lol.

 

[aditya123]

Versatality has got nothing to do here.... Which athlete would you rate higher ??? A) the one who has gold medal in world championships at 100, 200 and 800 or the one who has a gold medal at only 100 metres sprint but at various events which are not as popular as world championships?

 

[Sport]

You do know that Djokovic wasn’t peak Djokovic in 2010. Of course a peak Djokovic is better than Roddick.

Djokovic was already at his peak in the USO 2010. He had dramatically improved and beat Federer in the USO SF. In the USO 2009 SF, Djokovic lost in 3 sets to Federer. But in the USO 2010 SF Djokovic beat Federer with the same result than in the USO 2011 SF, indicating that he already had peaked. It is not like Djokovic was non-peak the 31th of December of 2010 and suddenly became peak the 1st of January of 2011. He peaked in the last months of 2010, at the USO 2010.

Roddick NEVER defeated Federer in a Grand Slam match.

Late 2010 Djokovic >>>> any version of Roddick.

 

[Sport]

Doesn't need to be.

lol.

It does, if your intention is to refute the opponent.

 

[NatF]

Versatality has got nothing to do here.... Which athlete would you rate higher ??? A) the one who has gold medal in world championships at 100, 200 and 800 or the one who has a gold medal at only 100 metres sprint but at various events which are not as popular as world championships?

Analogy doesn't work here. Both guys have three golds at the World Championships, it's like one Athlete winning 2x 100m and 1x 200m versus a guy that wins 100m, 200m and 400m - but then the first guy wins twice as many races across the rest of the year including another gold at the next most prestigious event.

 

[aditya123]

Sure. Maybe I'm opening a can of worms here but I rate 2010 lower for a couple of reasons;

- Lack of thorough domination. Slams are the most important events but he didn't bring it that much outside of them relative to others on this list- he had the clay sweep but didn't really have success elsewhere. Only 7 titles, not even a masters final on HC and though he made the YEC final in 2010 he didn't win it like Fed in 2004/2007. This lack of success in the big HC tournaments is why he had relatively few top 10 wins/meetings that year. Meeting top 10 players isn't the be all and end all for me but paired with the clearly lower win/loss and less big titles it all feeds into the overall picture. Now Nadal did have a good amount of top 10 meetings in the slams (6) but...
- I don't rate his competition that year. I'm sure this will be contentious but for me 2010 was a bit of a down year with many of the players that played so well in 2009 all dropping their level for various reasons in 2010 - similar to 2006 where the top 10 of 2005 basically collapsed with injury. The difference is Fed in 2006 ran rough shod over the field where as Nadal in 2010 didn't. Also in 2004 and 2007 that were less dominant I think Fed had clearly tougher competition overall in his slam wins than Nadal in 2010.

I suppose you could say that competition or no competition Fed was never in a position to win on all three surfaces in 2004 (which is valid), and maybe for you that cancels out the YEC, the 4 extra titles, 5% higher win/loss etc...but for me it doesn't. If you want to argue that 2010 tops 2004 then I'm not going to go to war over it lol, I strongly disagree with those putting 2010 it at #1 but even then I don't care enough to argue so I'm not going to kick up a fuss about a year I rated #5.

All I can say is that Nadal was not at his best in masters at 2010... But it shouldn't be the criteria to rate his extraordinary slam season. Op should better add a poll here which would be the best