The New Yorker: Djokovic's 2015 is greater than Laver's 1969, it's the best season in Open Era

5555

Hall of Fame
"Was it the greatest year ever in men’s tennis? Let’s repair to the parlor and play the game. John McEnroe had an incredible year in 1984, losing only three times and winning ninety-six per cent of his matches. But he avoided clay, his weakest surface, playing only two matches on the dirt and losing the French Open, devastatingly, after going up two sets against his arch-rival, Ivan Lendl. Jimmy Connors went 99-4 in 1974, but was barred from playing the French Open because of his involvement with World Team Tennis. Roger Federer reached all four Grand Slam finals in 2006, won twelve titles overall, and lost only five matches. Four of those losses were on clay to Rafael Nadal (the other was in Cincinnati to eighteen-year-old Andy Murray). A remarkable season, and most observers consider it the second-greatest in the modern history of the men’s game—second only to Rod Laver’s accomplishing the Grand Slam in 1969, something that no other Open-era men’s player has done. But neither Federer nine years ago nor Laver at the beginning of the Open era faced the competition or had to play the kind of grueling tennis Djokovic did to accomplish what he did this year. Of the Top Ten players in 2006 that Federer faced, only two had Grand Slam wins: Nadal, who dominated him, and Andy Roddick, who had won one Slam. Others who finished in the Top Ten that year included Ivan Ljubičić, Fernando González, and Mario Ančić (remember him?). The Golden Age had yet to arrive. And while Federer had some year, he accumulated only about half the A.T.P. point total Djokovic just amassed. To say that Laver also had an easier time of it in 1969 is, of course, to get more speculative. True, Laver played doubles as well as singles back then, and, because the tiebreak to settle a set tied at 6–6 was not yet part of most tournaments, he occasionally found himself grinding out sets 12–10 or 22–20. But men’s tennis then was serve and volley, with points usually over in three or four shots, if that. The game was not as physical and fast—as athletic—as today’s game. And the draws were not talent-deep: tennis was dominated by the Australians and the Americans and was not yet a truly global sport. This year, against much tougher competition, Djokovic—the son of a Serbian pizza-parlor owner—went 30–5 against Top Ten players, including 6–1 against the world No. 2 (Murray), and ended the season in London at the A.T.P. World Finals by beating Nadal in the semis and Federer in the finals, each in straight sets—something no player had ever done."

http://www.newyorker.com/news/sporting-scene/no-athlete-had-a-better-2015-than-novak-djokovic
 

Adv. Edberg

Legend
I don't think anyone disagrees with that as most pros didn't play on the tour until around 72. It was very messy back then
 

cknobman

Legend
USA Today wrote an article analyzing Fed 2006 vs Djokovic 2015.

They gave the nod to Federer.

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/rog...06-2015-john-mcenroe-rafael-nadal-grand-slams

Though I spent every moment researching and writing this post assuming the final conclusion would be that Novak Djokovic’s 2015 was better than all, recalling that Wawrinka match changes it. In what was his most important match of the year, Djokovic basically crumbled after winning the first set.

9. WHICH PLAYER HAD THE GREATEST SEASON IN TENNIS HISTORY?
Roger Federer in 2006, by a net cord over Novak Djokovic and his still-amazing 2015 campaign.
 

kevaninho

Hall of Fame
Djokovic against tougher competition? Seriously . This just gets boring now. All we get is god damn comparisons to who had the better season, on this site. They all had great seasons, cant it just be left at that?
 

D.Nalby12

G.O.A.T.
I agree. If there is debate, it should be between Federer 2006 and Djokovic 2015. What Laver did back in 1960's is pretty much incomparable to achievements in current era. Personally I put both Federer as well as Djokovic's most dominant years ahead of Laver's for obvious reasons/arguments which have been discussed many times before.
 

Adv. Edberg

Legend
I agree. If there is debate, it should be between Federer 2006 and Djokovic 2015. What Laver did back in 1960's is pretty much incomparable to achievements in current era. Personally I put both Federer as well as Djokovic's most dominant years ahead of Laver's for obvious reasons/arguments which have been discussed many times before.

Djoko's 2011 was better than 2015 because competition was much weaker in 2015. Either way there a few other seasons that are more impressive than both Fed 06 and DJoko 11.

McEnroe 84 for example.
 

Adv. Edberg

Legend
Many posters here say Laver's 1969 is greater than Djokovic's 2015.

Well, then many posters are wrong. I think Djoko 2015 is much more impressive as he actually played against the best players in the world.

It's always difficult to compare modern tennis with anything before 1973 as the tour was really messy back and the ATP had just really formed in 1972-73.
 
Well, then many posters are wrong. I think Djoko 2015 is much more impressive as he actually played against the best players in the world.

It's always difficult to compare modern tennis with anything before 1973 as the tour was really messy back and the ATP had just really formed in 1972-73.
That’s why I always stresses "in ATP era" (not in open era), and say that all other tennis in amateur and semi pro eras is out of competition.
 

roysid

Hall of Fame
Djokovics 2011 had the most awe inspiring start. The way he started beating nadal fresh from his 2010 dominance was unbelievable. It really had great er impact.

2015 he had better results, more consistency. He won all matches save one that mattered. And he didn't wash up after us open like in 2011. The opposition was not as good as 2011 but still impressive.

So each season has its merits.

Federer 2006 is equal to djokovics in slams but what surges djokovics ahead is the masters result. In contrast, feds 2005 has similarlities with djoko 2011
 

Fiero425

Legend
Djokovic against tougher competition? Seriously . This just gets boring now. All we get is god damn comparisons to who had the better season, on this site. They all had great seasons, cant it just be left at that?

The numbers don't lie; Nole had to deal with players who were a lot better than the riff-raff Roger contended against almost 10 years ago; PLEASE! There's no contest; those are facts! I have no dog in this hunt, retaining my belief that Sampras would beat them all at the height of his powers! He can't be the GOAT only because he wasn't able to make a FO final; even though we gave him honors above all others at the time! Now he won't even hang in there with the top 4 after all is said and done! This has truly been a Golden AGE with these current stars that are setting records unlikely to be bested in our lifetime! The rules were changed to make it a little easier with B03 Masters, 1st class accommodations, and promoters coddling them, but they still had to perform; and they did admirably! Roger's still ahead in most minds with 17 majors and tons of ATP records set, followed closely by Nadal who owns him, and a fast approaching Djokovic that's still amazing the experts even though a FEDAL obsession prevails! I think Nole will wind up #2 after all's said and done, followed by Nadal, Laver, Borg, then Sampras; SORRY! It seems the longer time goes on, the further Pete drops! His FO performance and deficiencies in the Masters is dragging him down due to Agassi setting the record in his era! ;-(
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
In other unrelated news, the New Yorker has recently hired AssaultJoker to their editorial department.
 

Tony48

Legend

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
There a few other seasons that are more impressive than both Fed 06 and DJoko 11.

McEnroe 84 for example.

I actually think Mac's '84 is the most dominant season because it was almost a miracle if anyone beat him that entire year. He had an aura of invincibility unlike even Fed ever had, or Djoker. But it's really tough to place his '84 season above all of the three-slam seasons of Roger, or 2011/2015 for Novak.
 

Tony48

Legend
Don't use that as too much weight, remember 2015 was Nadal's worst year on tour in a decade.

So it was pure coincidence that the only person who beat him -- aside from Soderling -- was the person with the most clay victories over him?

For years, people have always pointed to Nadal's form as a reason for why he wouldn't win RG. And it was no different this year. And each year he would go on and win RG anyway, demonstrating that RG was totally different. And now when Djokovic beats him -- the person who has had the most success against him clay -- it suddenly doesn't matter?
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
So it was pure coincidence that the only person who beat him -- aside from Soderling -- was the person with the most clay victories over him?

For years, people have always pointed to Nadal's form as a reason for why he wouldn't win RG. And it was no different this year. And each year he would go on and win RG anyway, demonstrating that RG was totally different. And now when Djokovic beats him -- the person who has had the most success against him clay -- it suddenly doesn't matter?
So the 2009 loss was completely 100% legit then too?
And thus Federer's victory that year was totally 100% just as valid as any other?
Glad we agree.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
How did you go from my post to this?
Your post is also an admission that this is true.

And I know that you don't like Federer (please correct me here if I am mistaken of course), so I felt it'd be worth highlighting. :D
 

MichaelNadal

Bionic Poster
5555= the Daily Prophet of TTW.

the-daily-prophet-o.gif
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
You were saying that Nadal's only losses at RG are to Djokovic and Soderling, and are arguing that Novak's victory over Nadal this year is legit despite Nadal playing very poorly.

Thus Soderling's victory was at least as legit.

Thus Soderling's place in the 2009 final was thoroughly earned.

Thus Federer's victory was thoroughly earned.

Or do you actually disagree lol?
The bias is real.
 

Tony48

Legend
You were saying that Nadal's only losses at RG are to Djokovic and Soderling, and are arguing that Novak's victory over Nadal this year is legit despite Nadal playing very poorly.

Thus Soderling's victory was at least as legit.

Thus Soderling's place in the 2009 final was thoroughly earned.

Thus Federer's victory was thoroughly earned.

Or do you actually disagree lol?
The bias is real.

No I don't disagree. In fact, any win EVER is legitimate.

I don't make excuses when someone wins/loses.
 
D

Deleted member 688153

Guest
No I don't disagree. In fact, any win EVER is legitimate.

I don't make excuses when someone wins/loses.
Cool. :)
Nice to see someone else around these parts with their head screwed on properly then.
 
C

Chadillac

Guest
So according the new yorker a wtf > a french open? Been telling nadal fans that for years.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
2015 was a hell of a season - and more memorable than it's getting credit for (I'll always love that AO final - the perfect mind-f*ck). Still not sure 2015 beats 1969, in which Laver won, among other things, the biggest tournaments on every available surface. I still think Mac 1984 has an argument as well, plus Fed 2006 and Connors 1974.

The interesting thing is that almost all these seasons are not necessarily viewed in hindsight as that player's peak in terms of level of play. Laver 1967, Connors 1976, Fed 2005, and Djokovic 2011 all involved arguably higher quality tennis against better competition. The same is true for other greats - Nadal 2008 v. 2010, Lendl 1986 v. 1987, Borg 1979 v. 1980.

Mac 1984 is the only clear example I can think of where the player's level and achievements peaked across one calendar year. Maybe that counts for something, though I'm not sure what.
 

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
The interesting thing is that almost all these seasons are not necessarily viewed in hindsight as that player's peak in terms of level of play. Laver 1967, Connors 1976, Fed 2005, and Djokovic 2011 all involved arguably higher quality tennis against better competition. The same is true for other greats - Nadal 2008 v. 2010, Lendl 1986 v. 1987, Borg 1979 v. 1980.

Mac 1984 is the only clear example I can think of where the player's level and achievements peaked across one calendar year. Maybe that counts for something, though I'm not sure what.

Hmm, that is an interesting point - although I haven't heard before that Connors' 1976 showed a higher level of play than 1974.
 

eldanger25

Hall of Fame
Hmm, that is an interesting point - although I haven't heard before that Connors' 1976 showed a higher level of play than 1974.

There's an argument for 1976 in terms of how well rounded his game was - for instance, Connors took out Kodes-Vilas-Borg (10 slams on clay between 'em) back-to-back-to-back on clay to win the Open that year, with a loss of only one set combined. 1976 gets less publicity than 1974 partly because Tanner took him out semi-early at Wimbledon (similar to Borg's 1979 in that way, where again a redlining Tanner knocked out an all-time great at a huge event (in Borg's case, the Open) in an otherwise unreal season).

There's also the matter of the tour being slightly more organized in 1976 (Riordan's IPA circuit was fading, for instance, and he and Connors would soon split), as well as a thaw between Connors and the ATP (all the lawsuits had been dropped, and Connors and Ashe even played doubles together at an event or two that summer). I don't think Connors continued to view the ATP as, like the American Davis Cup team, a cartel run by Ashe and his Los Angeles cronies - which was sort of the view from the Connors camp in 1973-75 as I understand it.

That's why, for instance, Connors had a 17-4 record against the top 10 in ATP sanctioned events in 1976 (16-1 against all but his old mentor Nastase - including 3-0 against Borg), rather than the 6-1 record in 1974. It was a different enough sport back then that I don't want to over-credit this fact - other top dogs had similar splits, and a sport in which the top players all show up to just a few huge pressure-cooker events while spreading the tennis gospel in different parts of the world at other times is no less legitimate to me than a highly structured tour in which all the best appear together at 14-15 events held at the same time and in the same place and on the same surface each season. But those stats are there.

Anyway, it's definitely not clear-cut by any stretch - 1974 was a hell of a season, and has stayed in the minds of many folks for many years. I'm just saying that 1976 has its fans as well, which is something similar to most of the other guys on the list (minus Mac).
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
It still takes a helluva lot out of you mentally though which was perhaps one of the contributing factors as to why Novak didn't win it in the end.

the main factor was that his passive play vs stan worked at the AO ( lucky for him ) , but backfired big time at RG - as it should have !
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
IMO the New Yorker article makes a good case.

Djokovic made the final of every tournament he played in 2015 with 1 exception (Doha). That's 15 finals and he won 11 of them including 3 Slams, the WTF and 6 Masters and he beat the top players to win each of those events. IMO it even exceeds his phenomenal 2011 as, unlike in that year, he didn't fade away at the end of season.

Even taking into account great seasons by former players, this one still takes the biscuit for me.
 
Top