Rank the 3-Slam seasons

[mike danny]

Federer was 34 in 2015. Djokovic 26 in 2013. Fallacy of bad analogy, because Djokovic was much younger. Also, Djokovic would have won 3 Slams in 2013, not merely 2.

It doesn't mean he was at absolute peak.

 

[robthai]

Are you claiming that Ferrer was going to defeat Djokovic in the RG 2013 final and Gasquet in the USO final? Stop being ridiculous. As I said, 3 Slams season for Djokovic in 2013 without Nadal.

I am just doing what you are doing with your "Untestable, therefore unacceptable " quote. Djokovic was on course to win RG 2015 and we all know what happened.

 

[ForehandRF]

Bias from you. Everything to make Nadal's 2010 USO win a GOAT one.

Anyone who followed Federer in 2010 can subscribe to my opinion.

Fed and Djokovic played better for sure in their 2011 SF compared to 2010.In fact, it's remarcable that Fed didn't lost in 4 in 2010, given his form, but Djokovic had his doubts, that until the MP when he played like he had nothing to lose.

 

[mike danny]

Hehe. You were happy defending "form > name" until someone questioned the level of Djokovic at Wimbledon 2012. Apparently, Djokovic is rubbish when playing against Nadal and absolute peak when he faces Federer.

As I said, saying that 2006 Roddick > 2013 Djokovic is like saying that 2017 Müller > 2012 Djokovic.

Djokovic would have had one of his best seasons in 2013 if not for Nadal. In effect, if not for Nadal, Djokovic would have won 3 Slams in 2013 plus the ATP finals. He was at his absolute peak. But somehow you need to dismish Nadal's victory in the USO 2013 final because Federer never defeated peak Djokovic at the USO.

Dude, in the USO final itself, Djokovic was no better thsn 2006 Roddick. Form on the day matters.

 

[mike danny]

Fed and Djokovic played better for sure in their 2011 SF compared to 2010.In fact, it's remarcable that Fed didn't lost in 4 in 2010, given his form, but Djokovic had his doubts, that until the MP when he played like he had nothing to lose.

Federer should not have lost, period. Any version of him prior to 2010 would have beaten that Djokovic in 4.

 

[mike danny]

Excuses again.

Bias from you.

 

[robthai]

Dude, in the USO final itself, Djokovic was no better thsn 2006 Roddick. Form on the day matters.

Had Roddick won the 3rd set, who knows what could have happened. I remember it was 4-4 break point for Roddick in the 3rd but Fed was clutch.

 

[Sport]

Yeah, Federer was soundly beaten by Berdych at Wimb, but yeah, sure, his form was top notch.

Meanwhile, 2010 Djokovic won no big titles after the USO and was getting his ass handed to him by Fedal, but yeah, he was peak..

Back injury at Wimbledon, not the US Open. He also lost to Tsonga at Wimbledon 2011 anyway.

 

[StrongRule]

I am just doing what you are doing with your "Untestable, therefore unacceptable " quote. Djokovic was on course to win RG 2015 and we all know what happened.

Stop being funny. Wawrinka beating Djokovic in RG 2015 wasn't as shocking as some want to believe. It was already clear that Wawrinka at his best has the game and mentality to challenge Djokovic, that clay is his best surface and that Djokovic wasn't exactly GOATing at that tournament. It took him 5 sets to beat a mentally weak Murray who was missing easy overheads time after time. There should have never been a 4th set in this match, leave alone a 5th set. Wawrinka>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Murray in terms of mentality, big weapons and ability to challenge Djokovic on clay. It was clear Wawrinka at least had a decent chance.

But there is no way Ferrer was going to beat Djokovic in RG 2013 final. At best case he would be close to winning a set, then would choke it away.

 

[mike danny]

Had Roddick won the 3rd set, who knows what could have happened. I remember it was 4-4 break point for Roddick in the 3rd but Fed was clutch.

It was 2-2 or so in the 3rd and Roddick had 0-40. Similar to Novak having 0-40 at 4-4 in the 3rd.

 

[mike danny]

Federer lost to Tsonga at Wimbledon 2011.

Nowhere near as terrible as 2010 Wimb.

 

[ForehandRF]

Federer should not have lost, period. Any version of him prior to 2010 would have beaten that Djokovic in 4.

Yeah, he surrendered too easy those two sets in 2010 which was uncharacteristic for him at the time.It was not a situation like in the 3rd set, in 2011, when Djokovic caught fire.

 

[Sport]

I am just doing what you are doing with your "Untestable, therefore unacceptable " quote. Djokovic was on course to win RG 2015 and we all know what happened.

Not the same at all. You were assuming Federer "would defeat" an ATG like Djokovic. Which is unacceptable.

On the other hand, we do can assume that non-ATGs like Ferrer or Gasquet would lose to Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

Not the same at all. You were assuming Federer "would defeat" an ATG like Djokovic. Which is unacceptable.

On the other hand, we do can assume that non-ATGs like Ferrer or Gasquet would lose to Djokovic.

But you're assuming an ATG is always tougher than a lesser player.

Just thing about who defeated Sampras at Wimb 1996 or Djokovic at 2015 RG. It wasn't Agassi and it wasn't Nadal.

 

[robthai]

Stop being funny. Wawrinka beating Djokovic in RG 2015 wasn't as shocking as some want to believe. It was already clear that Wawrinka at his best has the game and mentality to challenge Djokovic, that clay is his best surface and that Djokovic wasn't exactly GOATing at that tournament. It took him 5 sets to beat a mentally weak Murray who was missing easy overheads time after time. There should have never been a 4th set in this match, leave alone a 5th set. Wawrinka>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Murray in terms of mentality, big weapons and ability to challenge Djokovic on clay. It was clear Wawrinka at least had a decent chance.

But there is no way Ferrer was going to beat Djokovic in RG 2013 final. At best case he would be close to winning a set, then would choke it away.

You cannot rule anything out in tennis.

You never thought this would happen but it did.

 

[mike danny]

Hehe. You were happy defending "form > name" until someone questioned the level of Djokovic at Wimbledon 2012. Apparently, Djokovic is rubbish when playing against Nadal and absolute peak when he faces Federer.

As I said, saying that 2006 Roddick > 2013 Djokovic is like saying that 2017 Müller > 2012 Djokovic.

Djokovic would have had one of his best seasons in 2013 if not for Nadal. In effect, if not for Nadal, Djokovic would have won 3 Slams in 2013 plus the ATP finals. He was at his absolute peak. But somehow you need to dismish Nadal's victory in the USO 2013 final because Federer never defeated peak Djokovic at the USO.

Muller was proably tougher than 2012 Djokovic. But that is more due to Nadal's problems with big servers on grass.

A better example would be 2004 Roddick sure as heck being tougher than 2012 Djokovic.

 

[Sport]

But you're assuming an ATG is always tougher than a lesser player.

Just thing about who defeated Sampras at Wimb 1996 or Djokovic at 2015 RG. It wasn't Agassi and it wasn't Nadal.

Not necessarily always but in this specific case, yes. Both Ferrer and Gasquet (who were ultra-destroyed in 3 sets by Nadal at RG 2013 and USO 2013) had no chance against Djokovic.

 

[Sport]

You cannot rule anything out in tennis.

You never thought this would happen but it did.

I can rule out specifically that Ferrer would have defeated Djokovic at RG 2013 or Gasquet at the USO 2013. Nadal suffered 5 sets to defeat Djokovic at RG 2013 and then destroyed Ferrer in 3. Nadal ultra-destroyed Gasquet in 3 sets at the USO and then needed 4 sets (the third one almost losing it) to defeat Djokovic. So, yes, I rule out any option for Ferrer or Gasquet against 2013 Djokovic.

 

[mike danny]

Not necessarily always but in this specific case, yes. Both Ferrer and Gasquet (who were ultra-destroyed in 3 sets by Nadal at RG 2013 and USO 2013) had no chance against Djokovic.

Abd in the USO specific case, 2013 Djokovic was no better than 2006 Roddick.

Roddick even won more games

 

[StrongRule]

Federer fans are defending Djokovic so hard, it's pretty funny. And note, only in matches against Nadal. I wonder, had Federer won Wimbledon 2019, would any of them admit Djokovic was far from his best in this match? Or that would be a win over absolute peak Djokovic? (like AO 2017 was a win against Nadal who somehow was at his "absolute best")

 

[NatF]

Federer fans are defending Djokovic so hard, it's pretty funny. And note, only in matches against Nadal. I wonder, had Federer won Wimbledon 2019, would any of them admit Djokovic was far from his best in this match? Or that would be a win over absolute peak Djokovic? (like AO 2017 was a win against Nadal who somehow was at his "absolute best")

Yawn.

 

[Sport]

Abd in the USO specific case, 2013 Djokovic was no better than 2006 Roddick.

Roddick even won more games

Which is equally ridiculous as saying that 2012 Djokovic was no better than 2017 Müller.

Müller even won more games.

 

[Enceladus]

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.

No no, here began Nole's peak:

 

[ForehandRF]

Nowhere near as terrible as 2010 Wimb.

Yeah, after 7 consecutive finals and 6 titles it was a shock.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I kept hearing relentless pursuit of excellence on every Petch column or interview. Djokovic is still pretty fresh in the memory. I choose him.

 

[Enceladus]

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.

Winning three Grand Slam tournaments in one year on three different surfaces is certainly a great success, but by itself this is not enough to reach position the best 3-major season. Djokovic 2015 or Federer 2006 have on their side - triumph at WTF, more Masters titles, participation in all 4 GS finals and more ATP titles than Nadal 2010. More arguments are on their side.

 

[Third Serve]

2010 is either overrated or underrated, depending on who you ask. I tend to fall into the first camp but it’s an interesting discussion.

 

[MeatTornado]

Federer fans are defending Djokovic so hard, it's pretty funny. And note, only in matches against Nadal. I wonder, had Federer won Wimbledon 2019, would any of them admit Djokovic was far from his best in this match? Or that would be a win over absolute peak Djokovic? (like AO 2017 was a win against Nadal who somehow was at his "absolute best")

Please show us an example of Federer fans saying AO 17 was a win over Nadal at his "absolute best."

 

[mike danny]

Which is equally ridiculous as saying that 2012 Djokovic was no better than 2017 Müller.

Müller even won more games.

Which is perhaps true.

But Roddick did it in a GS final, where Fed wasn't vulnerable anymore.

 

[irishnadalfan1983]

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.

I always feel Noles 2011 was better than 2015 due to tougher competition...

 

[ForumMember]

Nadal 2010 is best of the lot as this shows dominance across surfaces as he won GS on three surfaces. Followed by Djokovic's 11 and 15 and then Federer 2006. Federer's H2H of 2-5 against big 4 in year 2006 is big bummer.

 

[King No1e]

Nadal 2010 is best of the lot as this shows dominance across surfaces as he won GS on three surfaces. Followed by Djokovic's 11 and 15 and then Federer 2006. Federer's H2H of 2-5 against big 4 in year 2006 is big bummer.

Murray and Djokovic weren't the main competition for Fed in 2006. It was Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt, Davydenko, Gonzalez, and Blake. Using Fed's record against Big 4 to define his success against competition is like using Djokovic's record against Zverev, Khachanov and Kyrgios to define his recent level.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

I guess you are not in the position tot talk about discrediting of achievements because you do this frequently when it comes to Federer.

I just point out the truth that Fed is not the GOAT. It has been obvious for quite a while.

 

[Third Serve]

I just point out the truth that Fed is not the GOAT. It has been obvious for quite a while.

One could just as easily argue the opposite direction, and the same for Djokovic. The truth is, you're just baiting people.

 

[Hitman]

For a full season in which they won three slams along side all the other achievements for that year, I would say the following

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

 

[ForehandRF]

One could just as easily argue the opposite direction, and the same for Djokovic. The truth is, you're just baiting people.

Living in the last 10 years knowing that Fed leads the slam race must have taken it's toll No matter how many detracting arguments he will bring, like an ardent fanboy who he is, it won't change anything.If Rafa somehow fails to end up with the slam record, it will be brutal for him.He will sing the weak era and H2H tune for the rest of his life if that happens, just to make him feel a bit better

 

[Enceladus]

My list takes the following form:

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

 

[DSH]

It isn't minor when you are way past your prime and you beat peak Nadal in his best year.

Roddick > Djokovic. Djokovic > Nadal. 2006 >>> 2015.

Baghdatis is one year older than Nadal.
It was an irrelvant tournament.
Roddick does not reach the sole of the shoe to Djokovic. You must recognize it, even if it hurts you.
2006 was a pretty poor year.
The competition of your idol disappeared completely and the Swiss capitalized it very well, by the way.

 

[DSH]

My list takes the following form:

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

A Rosewall over 39 years old and a "stacked" AO field, the competition of Connors at Slams.

 

[FedIsBoat]

Baghdatis is one year older than Nadal.
It was an irrelvant tournament.
Roddick does not reach the sole of the shoe to Djokovic. You must recognize it, even if it hurts you.
2006 was a pretty poor year.
The competition of your idol disappeared completely and the Swiss capitalized it very well, by the way.

Bags still killed Nadal at his absolute peak. Nadal just isn't that good.

So H2H means little now does it? LOL Roddick > Djokovic

 

[DSH]

Bags still killed Nadal at his absolute peak. Nadal just isn't that good.

So H2H means little now does it? LOL Roddick > Djokovic

Following your logic, 19 years old Murray killed your idol, at the same tournament in his absolute peak!

 

[FedIsBoat]

No words, that's what I figured

 

[DSH]

No words, that's what I figured

 

[FedIsBoat]

Following your logic, 19 years old Murray killed your idol, at the same tournament in his absolute peak!

Federer had an ankle injury. Nadal was at his absolute peak uninjured. Moreover, Murray > Bags LOLLL

 

[DSH]

Federer had an ankle injury. Nadal was at his absolute peak uninjured. Moreover, Murray > Bags LOLLL

Stop it!

You're beating Seinfeld!

 

[titoelcolombiano]

One could just as easily argue the opposite direction, and the same for Djokovic. The truth is, you're just baiting people.

I'm pointing out the facts. Which truth would you like to point out? Rafa's H2H dominance over Fed or the ever closing slam count gap?

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

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.

Djokovic was never 1 match away from CYGS, the only way to be in that position is to win AO, RG and Wimbledon and lose the US open Final. You can just not assume that if he won RG, the wins in Wimbledon and USO would have been taken for granted, you change status quo, more pressure, he could possibly have bombed earlier in either Wimbledon ot USo, just lets no remember how it affected Djokovic when he finally managed to win RG in 2016... So no, neither Fed or Djokovic have been one win away for CYGS, only the day they win AO, RG, WI back to back and lose the final in the US open then they were really 1 match away from achieving that feat.

 

[King No1e]

Djokovic was never 1 match away from CYGS, the only way to be in that position is to win AO, RG and Wimbledon and lose the US open Final. You can just not assume that if he won RG, the wins in Wimbledon and USO would have been taken for granted, you change status quo, more pressure, he could possibly have bombed earlier in either Wimbledon ot USo, just lets no remember how it affected Djokovic when he finally managed to win RG in 2016... So no, neither Fed or Djokovic have been one win away for CYGS, only the day they win AO, RG, WI back to back and lose the final in the US open then they were really 1 match away from achieving that feat.

Fair enough. He could well have lost to Anderson at Wimbledon with just a little more weight of expectation on his shoulders.

 

[The_Mental_Giant]

Fair enough. He could well have lost to Anderson at Wimbledon with just a little more weight of expectation on his shoulders.

Yes , Its no about the slam feats , but also apply to the , take X player out of the picture and this other player would have x tournament X times. Doesnt work that way.

 

[Third Serve]

I'm pointing out the facts. Which truth would you like to point out? Rafa's H2H dominance over Fed or the ever closing slam count gap?

See, that's easy. "Ever closing gap" kind of gives the game away, doesn't it?

It indicates that Federer has held the Slam count lead long before today (ten years, to be precise). Thus, you're incorrect on that count when you state that it's been obvious for a while that Federer is not the GOAT (your previous post). "Ever closing" refers to the future, while "obvious for a while" refers to the past. You could be right in stating that Federer could be dethroned from GOAT status in the future, but he is still the greatest player of all time, purely based off of the specific Slam count metric. That's what I take issue with, right there.

TL;DR: The fact that Rafa is getting close to the Slam record doesn't mean he is the best player of all time at the moment or at any time in history. It means he could very well become the greatest in the future. Again, "obvious for a while" is rendered invalid here.

I won't discuss H2H since it's not a very credible statistic. If you ask me, I would have mentioned his lead in Masters 1000's instead.