Top5 seasons by Big3

[EasyGoing]

Nadal's #1 in my book. If we have ATP points or overall titles as the main criterion, 2015 can be considered the best year. But I consider the following criterion as the most pertinent: domination of all surfaces at the Slam level.

Following the aforementioned criterion, this is my list:

1. 2010
2. 2011
3. 2006/2015
5. 2007
6. 2004

Nadal in 2010 became the first and ONLY player to win 3 Slams on 3 different surfaces the same calendar year. Which is the reason why 2010 is for me the best season of a member of the Big 3, it is the only season where a player dominated the 3 surfaces at the Slam level. Only 2011 from Djokovic comes close in terms of domination of the 3 surfaces at the Slam level. In 2015 Novak lost the RG final to Wawrinka, which is unforgivable as it means 2015 was not an all-around dominant year on all surfaces. In 2004 Federer lost in the 4R of RG, so even though his level was very good on hard and grass, I had to donwngrade it because of his lack of succes on clay at Slam level. 2006/2015 are very close with regard to my criterion, so I let them be tied.

Of course, this is my personal criterion. Feel free to elaborate another list following a different methodological criterion.

All this time and you are still hanging on this really thin straw - that is laughable. Domination on all surfaces and Nadal is an oxymoron. He never even made all 4 finals, he had a pretty easy run at RG and Wimbledon, also US Open, out of his measly 7 titles 4 came on clay, and the last one was Tokyo beating a bunch of nobodies. He of course couldn't win the WTF. Didn't reach a Masters final outside of clay losing to the likes of Ljubicic, Roddick, Baghdatis, and Melzer, while his overall record was 71-10.

It was a good season, no doubt, but it's nowhere near top 5 by the Big3, let alone the best ever.

 

[Lew II]

Good, you have a different criterion.

I don't think there should be just one criterion.

Nadal's 2010 is just the 17th season with the highest winning percentage by an active player. The 3 slams on the 3 surfaces was great, but the rest not so much.

 

[Sport]

All this time and you are still hanging on this really thin straw - that is laughable. Domination on all surfaces and Nadal is an oxymoron. He never even made all 4 finals, he had a pretty easy run at RG and Wimbledon, also US Open, out of his measly 7 titles 4 came on clay, and the last one was Tokyo beating a bunch of nobodies. He of course couldn't win the WTF. Didn't reach a Masters final outside of clay losing to the likes of Ljubicic, Roddick, Baghdatis, and Melzer, while his overall record was 71-10.

It was a good season, no doubt, but it's nowhere near top 5 by the Big3, let alone the best ever.

I can equally call "laughable" your opinion of not including Nadal's 2010 in the top 2.

 

[Sport]

I don't think there should be just one criterion.

I do.

 

[NoleFam]

Nadal's #1 in my book. If we have ATP points or overall titles as the main criterion, 2015 can be considered the best year. But I consider the following criterion as the most pertinent: domination of all surfaces at the Slam level.

Following the aforementioned criterion, this is my list:

1. 2010
2. 2011
3. 2006/2015
5. 2007
6. 2004

Nadal in 2010 became the first and ONLY player to win 3 Slams on 3 different surfaces the same calendar year. Which is the reason why 2010 is for me the best season of a member of the Big 3, it is the only season where a player dominated the 3 surfaces at the Slam level. Only 2011 from Djokovic comes close in terms of domination of the 3 surfaces at the Slam level. In 2015 Novak lost the RG final to Wawrinka, which is unforgivable as it means 2015 was not an all-around dominant year on all surfaces. In 2004 Federer lost in the 4R of RG, so even though his level was very good on hard and grass, I had to donwngrade it because of his lack of succes on clay at Slam level. 2006/2015 are very close with regard to my criterion, so I let them be tied.

Of course, this is my personal criterion. Feel free to elaborate another list following a different methodological criterion.

Come on man, you know this isn't going to fly. 2010 is not on the level of 2015 and 2006 seasons in terms of dominance and big titles won. Winning Slams on 3 surfaces just isn't going to make 2010 much better than 2015 or 2006, especially when they made all 4 Slam finals, something Nadal didn't do in 2010, and won the WTF. Djokovic also won 6 Masters in 2015 which is double what Nadal won. Nadal was 71-10 in 2010 which is 87.7%. Federer was 92-5 in 2006 (94.8%) and Djokovic was 82-6 in 2015 (93.2%) Both are clearly over 2010.

 

[StrongRule]

Nadal's #1 in my book. If we have ATP points or overall titles as the main criterion, 2015 can be considered the best year. But I consider the following criterion as the most pertinent: domination of all surfaces at the Slam level.

Following the aforementioned criterion, this is my list:

1. 2010
2. 2011
3. 2006/2015
5. 2007
6. 2004

Nadal in 2010 became the first and ONLY player to win 3 Slams on 3 different surfaces the same calendar year. Which is the reason why 2010 is for me the best season of a member of the Big 3, it is the only season where a player dominated the 3 surfaces at the Slam level. Only 2011 from Djokovic comes close in terms of domination of the 3 surfaces at the Slam level. In 2015 Novak lost the RG final to Wawrinka, which is unforgivable as it means 2015 was not an all-around dominant year on all surfaces. In 2004 Federer lost in the 4R of RG, so even though his level was very good on hard and grass, I had to donwngrade it because of his lack of succes on clay at Slam level. 2006/2015 are very close with regard to my criterion, so I let them be tied.

Of course, this is my personal criterion. Feel free to elaborate another list following a different methodological criterion.

Dude, stop it. You are making haters laugh at you and for a reason. Nadal never dominated like Federer or Djokovic did, it's a fact. He is still a great player, arguably ahead of Djokovic and much closer to Federer than some of his fanatics want to believe. He has his own incredible records, but overall dominance is not his strong side. On the other hand he is the most dominant player at his best events. His records in MC, Barcelona, RG and even Rome are way better than Djokovic's dominance in ANY event and way better than Federer's dominance in any important event. (and even in the 500 level tournaments Federer had to wait until age 38 to finally win 10 titles). Now imagine haters bringing down Nadal's achievements because their favorite players can't achieve the same. Don't be like them.

 

[Sport]

Come on man, you know this isn't going to fly. 2010 is not on the level of 2015 and 2006 seasons in terms of dominance and big titles won. Winning Slams on 3 surfaces just isn't going to make 2010 much better than 2015 or 2006, especially when they made all 4 Slam finals, something Nadal didn't do in 2010, and won the WTF. Djokovic also won 6 Masters in 2015 which is double what Nadal won. Nadal was 71-10 in 2010 which is 87.7%. Federer was 92-5 in 2006 (94.8%) and Djokovic was 82-6 in 2015 (93.2%) Both are clearly over 2010.

We radically disagree on this particular issue. Let us agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Sport]

Dude, stop it. You are making haters laugh at you and for a reason. Nadal never dominated like Federer or Djokovic did, it's a fact. He is still a great player, ahead of Djokovic and much closer to Federer than some of his fanatics want to believe. He has his own incredible records, but overall dominance is not his strong side. On the other hand he is the most dominant player at his best events. His records in MC, Barcelona, RG and even Rome are way better than Djokovic's dominance in ANY event and way better than Federer's dominance in any important event. Now imagine haters bringing down Nadal's achievements because of that. Don't be like them.

This is my opinion on the issue. I do not think I should change it, as I believe the whole "best season" category is highly subjective and depends on what criteria do you prefer. The ATP does not give an official award to the "best season", so we are moving on a largely subjective domain.

 

[EasyGoing]

This is my opinion on the issue. I do not think I should change it, as I believe the whole "best season" category is highly subjective and depends on what criteria do you prefer. The ATP does not give an official award to the "best season", so we are moving on a largely subjective domain.

Yes, "largely subjective", as in you and you alone on one side, and everyone else pointing fingers and laughing at you. Agree to disagree, LOL - you wish ))

 

[Lleytonstation]

Because you are a Nadal detractor on the deep.

Nadal's #1 in my book. If we have ATP points or overall titles as the main criterion, 2015 can be considered the best year. But I consider the following criterion as the most pertinent: domination of all surfaces at the Slam level.

Following the aforementioned criterion, this is my list:

1. 2010
2. 2011
3. 2006/2015
5. 2007
6. 2004

Nadal in 2010 became the first and ONLY player to win 3 Slams on 3 different surfaces the same calendar year. Which is the reason why 2010 is for me the best season of a member of the Big 3, it is the only season where a player dominated the 3 surfaces at the Slam level. Only 2011 from Djokovic comes close in terms of domination of the 3 surfaces at the Slam level. In 2015 Novak lost the RG final to Wawrinka, which is unforgivable as it means 2015 was not an all-around dominant year on all surfaces. In 2004 Federer lost in the 4R of RG, so even though his level was very good on hard and grass, I had to donwngrade it because of his lack of succes on clay at Slam level. 2006/2015 are very close with regard to my criterion, so I let them be tied.

Of course, this is my personal criterion. Feel free to elaborate another list following a different methodological criterion.

Hence why I said "on the surface" as this is very subjective. I would think Rafa has one that belongs in that group depending on criteria. But those are some good picks he provided.

 

[Sport]

Yes, "largely subjective", as in you and you alone on one side, and everyone else pointing fingers and laughing at you. Agree to disagree, LOL - you wish ))

People laughing does not make them right. Laugh is not an argument.

 

[GabeT]

Come on man, you know this isn't going to fly. 2010 is not on the level of 2015 and 2006 seasons in terms of dominance and big titles won. Winning Slams on 3 surfaces just isn't going to make 2010 much better than 2015 or 2006, especially when they made all 4 Slam finals, something Nadal didn't do in 2010, and won the WTF. Djokovic also won 6 Masters in 2015 which is double what Nadal won. Nadal was 71-10 in 2010 which is 87.7%. Federer was 92-5 in 2006 (94.8%) and Djokovic was 82-6 in 2015 (93.2%) Both are clearly over 2010.

I have to admit I admire the creativity shown here. Winning slams on 3 surfaces as a criteria? For decades we only had two surfaces, so there go the comparisons. There’s not a single tennis export that thinks that’s a valid criteria. Oh well.

 

[Sport]

I have to admit I admire the creativity shown here. Winning slams on 3 surfaces as a criteria? For decades we only had two surfaces, so there go the comparisons. There’s not a single tennis export that thinks that’s a valid criteria. Oh well.

Can you post a link of a "tennis expert" discussing the best season?

Also, we are discussing the best year of the Big 3 not of all time. So we do can apply the criterion of the 3 surfaces, as all members of the Big 3 played on the 3 surfaces.

 

[GabeT]

Can you post a link of a "tennis expert" discussing the best season?

Also, we are discussing the best year of the Big 3 not of all time. So we do can apply the criterion of the 3 surfaces, as all members of the Big 3 played on the 3 surfaces.

There are many, many discussions and articles online on the best season In tennis history. Not a single one looks at the surface distribution of slams won as a criteria. Much less the most important criteria.

Even more important is the fact that no pro player ever seeks to maximize slam surface distribution in a given year as a goal. They want to win as much as they can but the idea that winning AO, W, and RG is somehow superior to winning AO, W and the USO is not something any pro player shares.

I do admire the ability to come up with increasingly esoteric criteria to judge tennis outcomes though.

 

[Sport]

.

 

[Sport]

There are many, many discussions and articles online on the best season In tennis history. Not a single one looks at the surface distribution of slams won as a criteria. Much less the most important criteria.

Even more important is the fact that no pro player ever seeks to maximize slam surface distribution in a given year as a goal. They want to win as much as they can but the idea that winning AO, W, and RG is somehow superior to winning AO, W and the USO is not something any pro player shares.

I do admire the ability to come up with increasingly esoteric criteria to judge tennis outcomes though.

Thanks for the detailed and well-structured reply.

To suggest that something is true only because most people say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument ad populum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

To suggest that something is true only because experts say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument form authority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Neither the opinion of the majority nor the opinion of the experts is an indicative of truth. Time can prove both the opinion held by the majority and the opinion held by experts to be false. In the X century, most people believed that the Earth was flat, and they were proved wrong later, so the majority of people can be wrong. In the 1960s, scientits (the experts) believed that chimps are herbivores, but new observations proved them wrong, hence experts can be wrong like everybody else.

There is nothing esoteric in demanding Slams distribution by surface. It indicates all-around domination of all surfaces at Slam level. It is a sign of complete domination at Slams level, as oposed to domination of only 2 of the 3 surfaces. But because your favorite player does not have it, it is suddenly "esoteric".

 

[KINGROGER]

15=06>07=11>04

I’m not about to put 2015 > 2006 based on clay masters wins over Berdych and Old Fed, with less overall wins and titles. Tie.

11 and 07 are up there for toughest competition, which is why I had 07 same as 11 thanks to the YEC win.

 

[GabeT]

Thanks for the detailed and well-structured reply.

To suggest that something is true only because most people say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument ad populum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

To suggest that something is true only because experts say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument form authority:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Neither the opinion of the majority nor the opinion of the experts is an indicative of truth. Time can prove both the opinion held by the majority and the opinion held by experts to be false. In the X century, most people believed that the Earth was flat, and they were proved wrong later, so the majority of people can be wrong. In the 1960s, scientits (the experts) believed that chimps are herbivores, but new observations proved them wrong, hence experts can be wrong like everybody else.

There is nothing esoteric in demanding Slams distribution by surface. It indicates all-around domination of all surfaces at Slam level. It is a sign of complete domination at Slams level, as oposed to domination of only 2 of the 3 surfaces. But because your favorite player does not have it, it is suddenly "esoteric".

Listen, if you want to use slam surface distribution as a criteria for judging seasons be my guest. i’m just pointing out that it’s not something anyone who writes professionally on tennis has ever mentioned. And with good reason. It’s not really a goal of tennis pros and no one thinks winning 3 slams in 3 diff surfaces is greater than winning them in 2 diff surfaces.

and I’d raise a couple of issues with relying in surfaces. First of all, tennis doesn’t have 3 surfaces. It has 2 and Wimbledon, which is not the same thing. About 70% of the pro tour is in hard and another 30% in clay and then you have Wimbledon. That wasn't always the case, grass used to be the most important surface, but that has changed.

The other point is that it’s not even fully clear that there are only 3 surfaces. the AO and the USO play very differently and you can see that in the Big 3 results. Nadal has only 1 AO and his record there is but a fraction of Fed’s or Novak’s results. But at the USO he has won more than Nole (who is arguably in the running for HC goat) and only one slam away from Fed. Both Fed and Novak have the AO and Wimbledon as their top slams, with the USO in third place.

So one can easily make the argument that Slams have four different surfaces, based on the fact they play differently.

 

[MeatTornado]

@Sport right now

 

[Pheasant]

Greatest Big-3 seasons broken down. After running this, I made one change. I moved 2011 Djokovic ahead of 2007 Federer.

2015 Djokovic
Slam titles: 3
Slam finals: 4
WTF titles: 1
Overall titles: 11
Overall record: 82-6, .932
Record vs top-5: 16-4

2006 Federer
Slam titles: 3
Slam finals: 4
WTF titles: 1
Overall titles: 12
Overall record: 92-5, .948
Record vs top-5: 8-4

2004 Federer
Slam titles: 3
Slam finals: 3
WTF titles: 1
Overall titles: 11
Overall record: 74-6, .925
Record vs top-5: 11-0

2011 Djokovic
Slam titles: 3
Slam finals: 3
WTF titles: 0
Overall titles: 10
Overall record: 70-6, .921
Record vs top-5: 13-3


2007 Federer
Slam titles: 3
Slam finals: 4
WTF titles: 1
Overall titles: 8
Overall record: 68-9, .883
Record vs top-5: 9-3


2010 Nadal
Slam titles: 3
Slam finals: 3
WTF title: 0
Overall titles: 7
Overall record: 71-10, .877
Record vs top-5: 5-3

 

[rUDin 21]

1. Djokovic 2015
2. Federer 2006
3. Djokovic 2011
4. Federer 2004
5. Federer 2007

I didn't realize you already wrote exactly the same thing.