Where do Federer's 2004 and 2006, Djokovic's 2011 and 2015 rank in the best years of the Open Era

#1
Maybe add Nadal's 2008 or 2010 to that as possible ones to make the top 10. Federer's 2005 was his best playing level wise IMO, but the big losses put it below 2004, 2006, and even 2007 on paper probably. Federer's 2007 is another possible year, along with Djokovic's 2019 if he keeps going.

I would probably have the top 10 Open Era years in this order:

1. Laver 1969
2. Djokovic 2015
3. McEnroe 1984
4. Federer 2006
5. Connors 1974
6. Borg 1980
7. Djokovic 2011
8. Nadal 2010
9. Borg 1978
10. Borg 1979/Federer 2004

#3-#5 are pretty interchangeable for me, maybe even #2 to #5, as are about #8 to #12.

Other honorable mentions- Wilander 1988, Federer 2007, Sampras 1994, Nadal 2008
 
Last edited:
#4
When you get to this level, it's really just splitting hairs so the list seems fine.

I am a little confused why Borg's 1980 is below 1978. Am I missing something since I wasn't watching back then? 80 seems better on paper.
 
#5
Maybe add Nadal's 2008 or 2010 to that as possible ones to make the top 10. Federer's 2005 was his best playing level wise IMO, but the big losses put it below 2004, 2006, and even 2007 on paper probably. Federer's 2007 is another possible year, along with Djokovic's 2019 if he keeps going.

I would probably have the top 10 Open Era years in this order:

1. Laver 1969
2. Djokovic 2015
3. McEnroe 1984
4. Federer 2006
5. Connors 1974
6. Borg 1978
7. Borg 1980
8. Djokovic 2011
9. Nadal 2010
10. Federer 2004/2007

#3-#5 are pretty interchangeable for me, maybe even #2 to #5, as are about #8 to #12.
Federer's 2007 made it to all GS finals and won WTF. Nadal in 2010, failed to reach F at AO and lost WTF. Two inferior results, no way above Fed's 2007.
 
#6
When you get to this level, it's really just splitting hairs so the list seems fine.

I am a little confused why Borg's 1980 is below 1978. Am I missing something since I wasn't watching back then? 80 seems better on paper.
I just think his 78 was far more destructive. The way he was tearing apart tough opponents like Vilas. While he was being challenged hard by a young McEnroe on all surfaces in 1980. I am not 100% looking at stats in all cases, although it is largely stats based. Borg's 78-80 were all close to similarily dominant years though, and any of them could have made the bottom 5 of the list somewhere.

As for Nadal in 2010 I am giving him credit for winning a slam on every surface which IMO is a highly impressive feat. In fact I believe he is the only one in the Open Era to accomplish it.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#7
Maybe add Nadal's 2008 or 2010 to that as possible ones to make the top 10. Federer's 2005 was his best playing level wise IMO, but the big losses put it below 2004, 2006, and even 2007 on paper probably. Federer's 2007 is another possible year, along with Djokovic's 2019 if he keeps going.

I would probably have the top 10 Open Era years in this order:

1. Laver 1969
2. Djokovic 2015
3. McEnroe 1984
4. Federer 2006
5. Connors 1974
6. Borg 1978
7. Borg 1980
8. Djokovic 2011
9. Nadal 2010
10. Federer 2004/2007

#3-#5 are pretty interchangeable for me, maybe even #2 to #5, as are about #8 to #12.
1. Connors' 74 gets drastically over-rated as usual.
He wasn't even the best player in the 1st half. That was Newk on the WCT tour. Connors was off playing on the much weaker Riordan circuit.
The biggest events in 74 were Wimbledon, USO, French Open, WCT finals, The Masters.
Connors only won 2 of them. Borg won FO. Newk won WCT finals and Vilas won the Masters.
AO was nowhere near these events.

Connors only faced like 7 or 8 top 10 players in the entire year in ~99 matches , IIRC

2. Borg's best 2 years were 79 and 80.
79 ahead of 80. Granted he lost in QF of USO to Tanner in 79, but made final of USO in 78 (losing to Connors in an injury affected match), but he won the Masters in 79, which was the 4th biggest event that year.
Also played more and won more events in 79 than in 78.
 
#8
1. Connors' 74 gets drastically over-rated as usual.
He wasn't even the best player in the 1st half. That was Newk on the WCT tour. Connors was off playing on the much weaker Riordan circuit.
The biggest events in 74 were Wimbledon, USO, French Open, WCT finals, The Masters.
Connors only won 2 of them. Borg won FO. Newk won WCT finals and Vilas won the Masters.
AO was nowhere near these events.

Connors only faced like 7 or 8 top 10 players in the entire year in ~99 matches , IIRC

2. Borg's best 2 years were 79 and 80.
79 ahead of 80. Granted he lost in QF of USO to Tanner in 79, but made final of USO in 78 (losing to Connors in an injury affected match), but he won the Masters in 79, which was the 4th biggest event that year.
Well I only put Connors of 74 in 5th, behind all of McEnroe 84, Djokovic 2015, Federer 2006, which are the years he is usually most debated against. Are you saying he shouldnt even be that high? Where would you put it exactly? He did win all 3 slams he played which is pretty impressive. Yeah I know back then the Australian Open wasnt viewed as highly, but today it is, so I am trying to fit a medium between how it was viewed then and viewed today. Like how McEnroe's 84 could be put 2nd if the Australian Open is viewed under the lens of back then, and #5 if it is viewed under todays lens, so I put it somewhere in between that at 3rd or 4th.

I would have to look at Borg's stats closer I guess, but I am just swayed by how dominant he was against his chief rivals in 78, minus the U.S Open final where had a serious hand injury. 79 and 80 it felt like he was being challenged more. I also didnt include 79 due to his bad U.S Open result, while he made the finals in both 78 and 80.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
#9
I just think his 78 was far more destructive. The way he was tearing apart tough opponents like Vilas. While he was being challenged hard by a young McEnroe on all surfaces in 1980. I am not 100% looking at stats in all cases, although it is largely stats based. Borg's 78-80 were all close to similarily dominant years though, and any of them could have made the bottom 5 of the list somewhere.

As for Nadal in 2010 I am giving him credit for winning a slam on every surface which IMO is a highly impressive feat. In fact I believe he is the only one in the Open Era to accomplish it.
But those draws...
 

BGod

Hall of Fame
#10
1. 2015 Djokovic
2. 2006 Federer
3. 1969 Laver
4. 2011 Djokovic
5. 2007 Federer
6. 2004 Federer
7. 1988 Wilander
8. 1984 McEnroe
9. 2010 Nadal
10. 1980 Borg

I always jostle with Mac's 84. He really didn't have a reason to skip AO as he attended 83 & 85. He chokes French to give Lendl his 1st Slam and his competition that year is basically Connors on his last contender year but declined from 82 and a not yet prime Lendl. It was a perfect scenario for him.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
#11
Well I only put Connors of 74 in 5th, behind all of McEnroe 84, Djokovic 2015, Federer 2006, which are the years he is usually most debated against. Are you saying he shouldnt even be that high? Where would you put it exactly? He did win all 3 slams he played which is pretty impressive. Yeah I know back then the Australian Open wasnt viewed as highly, but today it is, so I am trying to fit a medium between how it was viewed then and viewed today. Like how McEnroe's 84 could be put 2nd if the Australian Open is viewed under the lens of back then, and #5 if it is viewed under todays lens, so I put it somewhere in between that at 3rd or 4th.
not even top 10 I think
Laver 69, Borg 78, Borg 79, Borg 80, Mac 84, Fed 04, fed 05, Fed 06, Fed 07, Nadal 10, Djoko 11, Djoko 15

AO was a really poor field in 74 and wasn't even close to top 5 event in that year. that shouldn't change just because AO is viewed differently now in general.

Level-wise, Connors was actually better in 76 than in 74 and won tons of 1000 level events. Only thing that drags it down in comparision to 74 is the loss to Tanner in Wim QF.

I would have to look at Borg's stats closer I guess, but I am just swayed by how dominant he was against his chief rivals in 78, minus the U.S Open final where had a serious hand injury. 79 and 80 it felt like he was being challenged more. I also didnt include 79 due to his bad U.S Open result, while he made the finals in both 78 and 80.
I wouldn't call a loss to a hot Tanner as bad per se. He was being challenged more in 79 and 80 than in 78 because competition was better in those years.
But you do have a point that RG 78 was clearly better than RG 79 for Borg.

And again winning the masters in 79 is a big difference wrt to 78
 
#12
1. 2015 Djokovic
2. 2006 Federer
3. 1969 Laver
4. 2011 Djokovic
5. 2007 Federer
6. 2004 Federer
7. 1988 Wilander
8. 1984 McEnroe
9. 2010 Nadal
10. 1980 Borg

I always jostle with Mac's 84. He really didn't have a reason to skip AO as he attended 83 & 85. He chokes French to give Lendl his 1st Slam and his competition that year is basically Connors on his last contender year but declined from 82 and a not yet prime Lendl. It was a perfect scenario for him.
I could be wrong but I thought McEnroe got banned from the AO in 84 due to some behavioral outburst late in the year.

I forgot 88 Wilander. He could be an inclusion too, would have to research his year more. I doubt I would rank it higher than McEnroe's 84 though. I agree McEnroe in 84 might not have had the absolute best competition, but apart from Lendl in the U.S Open final and to a minor degree Cash in the AO final there wasnt any real competition in any of Wilander's slam draws if that is the basis for putting him over.
 
#13
But those draws...
I dont think there was anyone beating him in any of the 3 slams he won that year honestly. I certainly cant think of anyone in any of the three running through all the names. Ironically Murray at the U.S Open probably had the best chance of anyone of Fed, Djokovic, Murray at any of French, Wimbledon, U.S Open, and he wasnt anywhere near making the finals.
 
#15
I wouldn't call a loss to a hot Tanner as bad per se. He was being challenged more in 79 and 80 than in 78 because competition was better in those years. But you do have a point that RG 78 was clearly better than RG 79 for Borg.

And again winning the masters in 79 is a big difference wrt to 78
Well I am looking at the result of a quarter final vs the result of a final. I agree a loss to Tanner on a fast court isnt a truly bad loss. Especialy hard courts for Borg, where he isnt exactly dominant like the other surfaces. His level at U.S Open 78 wasnt neccessarily much or any higher than 79, but the actual result was.

I think I am probably swayed by Borg's level at RG 78 which was so extraordinarily high to the point of overlooking some other aspects of those respective years.

Yes I probably am overrating Connors of 74 by the standards of the time. I figured I would be lynched if I didnt atleast have that year in the top 5 though as everyone generally ranks it so highly, I see it listed as even #1 or #2 on many lists.
 
#23
2006 and 2015 is debatable.

2011 Nole failed to win the WTF and win/loss percentage was below 90. 2004 Federer won the WTF, 11 total single titles, and win/loss percentage was above 90. 2004 > 2011.
IIRC Federer also crashed out in the 3R at the French to a guy with a dodgy hip who was way past his best.
2011 > 2004
 
#25
IIRC Federer also crashed out in the 3R at the French to a guy with a dodgy hip who was way past his best.
2011 > 2004
Kuerten was 27 at the time.

How curious that you're interested in putting players out to pasture before they're even sniffing 30.

Even more curious how many times a certain GOAT has taken folks to school (including a certain someone ;) ) after that point.
 
#31
Which part of what he put was incorrect?

I’m not sure an additional slam SF is enough to off set winning the YEC. I have them close along with 2007.
I really can't be bothered debating it. Just never ceases to amaze me how insecure and entitled some Federer fans are. Never known anything like it with any other fanbase in sport.
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
#33
My top 10 for the Open Era

1. 1969 Laver-CYGS, the ultimate feat in tennis.
2. 1974 Connors- 93-4 with 15 titles is insane. 3 slam title is big.
3. 1984 McEnroe- 82-3 is still the bench mark, 13 titles, 22-1 vs top 10(lost 5 setter to legend on clay)
4. 2006 Federer- 92-5, lost FO final to clay GOAT, 3 slam titles+ WTF title.
5. 2015 Djoker- 82-6, 31-5 vs top 10, 3 slam titles + WTF title
6. 2004 Federer- 74-6, 18-0 vs top 10, 3 slam titles + WTF title
7. 2007 Federer- 68-9 is weak. But 3 slam titles WTF title is huge(only 1 other player did this)
8. 2011 Djoker- 70-6, 3 slam titles, but chrashed out of WTF early, tough loss in FO semis
9. 2010 Nadal- 71-10, weak record, But 3 straight slam titles on different surfaces is huge.
10. 2005 Federer- 81-4, missed tying Mac’s winning pct on last match of the season.

Djoker and Fed are the only players to pick up 3 slam titles and the WTF in the same season.
Federer is the only player to win 3 slam titles while also going 5-0 in the WTF. Fed did this twice.
Djoker’s 2011 was on pace for #3 until he burned out at the end.
2004 Fed’s season is underrated by most. 3 slam titles + perfect record at WTF.
 
#34
2010 Nadal is underrated. Its the ONLY season in history where a single player won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a single season. Laver's calendar slam year was won on 2 surfaces. . Its not #1 but come on.. it should never be ranked real low either.
 
#35
Interesting debate between Djokovic 2011 vs Federer 2004. I would take Djokovic of 2011 since winning 2 extra Masters plus a significantly better result at the slam both lost in (semis vs 3rd round) atleast negates the WTF title IMO, and Djokovic was utterly dominant (through the overall tour, not just the slams) for 8 months of the year to a much greater degree than Federer ever was in 2004. The two are fairly close though, as are a lot of the years in question. I encourage people to make their own lists, that is what I made this thread more, not just for mine to be analyzed.
 
#36
2010 Nadal is underrated. Its the ONLY season in history where a single player won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a single season. Laver's calendar slam year was won on 2 surfaces. . Its not #1 but come on.. it should never be ranked real low either.
Honestly some people are going to question me putting him in the top 10 at all when apart from winning slams on 3 different surfaces his year arguably could be right out of the top 10, while others like you think I should give him even more credit for being the only guy in the Open Era to win slams on 3 surfaces. I am comfortable ranking him where I have him, in the lower part of the top 10. Wherever I had his 2010 some people would complain.

I did consider putting his 2008 which in some ways I find more impressive than his 2010, but there isnt quite one stat good enough to make the top 10.
 
#37
My top 10 for the Open Era

1. 1969 Laver-CYGS, the ultimate feat in tennis.
2. 1974 Connors- 93-4 with 15 titles is insane. 3 slam title is big.
3. 1984 McEnroe- 82-3 is still the bench mark, 13 titles, 22-1 vs top 10(lost 5 setter to legend on clay)
4. 2006 Federer- 92-5, lost FO final to clay GOAT, 3 slam titles+ WTF title.
5. 2015 Djoker- 82-6, 31-5 vs top 10, 3 slam titles + WTF title
6. 2004 Federer- 74-6, 18-0 vs top 10, 3 slam titles + WTF title
7. 2007 Federer- 68-9 is weak. But 3 slam titles WTF title is huge(only 1 other player did this)
8. 2011 Djoker- 70-6, 3 slam titles, but chrashed out of WTF early, tough loss in FO semis
9. 2010 Nadal- 71-10, weak record, But 3 straight slam titles on different surfaces is huge.
10. 2005 Federer- 81-4, missed tying Mac’s winning pct on last match of the season.

Djoker and Fed are the only players to pick up 3 slam titles and the WTF in the same season.
Federer is the only player to win 3 slam titles while also going 5-0 in the WTF. Fed did this twice.
Djoker’s 2011 was on pace for #3 until he burned out at the end.
2004 Fed’s season is underrated by most. 3 slam titles + perfect record at WTF.
Connors 1974 at #2, interesting to see what @abmk will have to say about that, LOL!

Thanks for actually making a list. I think Djokovic's 2015 is definitely too low at #5 personally but pretty good.
 
#38
Which part of what he put was incorrect?

I’m not sure an additional slam SF is enough to off set winning the YEC. I have them close along with 2007.
Dont forget Djokovic won 5 Masters that year to Federer's 3. I think that along with a SF vs a 3rd round (and losing to a near prime Federer who played one of his best ever clay matches is still better than losing to a way post prime Kuerten who played a surprisingly good match) offsets the YEC. I would have to look over the year again but I seem to remember Federer having a number of early round defeates (3 or 4 if you count the Olympics) which would be another edge for Djokovic who had very few that I recall. Still would be fairly close but Djokovic was utterly dominant over the whole tour for 70% of the year which I think is enough to give him the edge over Federer's 2004, but I agree the two are close and could be debated either way. A lot of years in this thread are close.

Personally I find Federer's 2007 seems more impressive than his 2004 in some ways, maybe it is because he wasnt having some of the weird losses of 2004 like to Hrbaby, baby Berdych, but I understand his 2004 is probably a bit stronger on paper.
 
#39
Honestly some people are going to question me putting him in the top 10 at all when apart from winning slams on 3 different surfaces his year arguably could be right out of the top 10, while others like you think I should give him even more credit for being the only guy in the Open Era to win slams on 3 surfaces. I am comfortable ranking him where I have him, in the lower part of the top 10. Wherever I had his 2010 some people would complain.

I did consider putting his 2008 which in some ways I find more impressive than his 2010, but there isnt quite one stat good enough to make the top 10.

People will question it because of his quality of competition. But if we do that, then we can easily question Fed's competition in 2006 or Nole's 2015 competition or his competition over the past year. Both of which were weak at best
 

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
#40
Connors 1974 at #2, interesting to see what @abmk will have to say about that, LOL!

Thanks for actually making a list. I think Djokovic's 2015 is definitely too low at #5 personally but pretty good.
I could see dropping Connors down a bit, due to his level of competition. But at the end of the day, 15 titles, a perfect record in slam play, and a 93-4 record was too insane to ignore.

I could see moving 2015 Djoker up a bit. Djoker lost a couple of big matches that he probably should have won, especially the FO vs Stan.

Had Djoker beaten Stan in the FO, Fed both times at the WTF, yet lost to Fed in the USO, then Djoker would move up the list a couple of spots.

I look at the WTF tourney differently than most. A pure win to me is winning that tourney by going 5-0. Granted, it is still a win. But sweeping all 5 is far more impressive. Both Fed and a Djoker went 4-1 at the 2015 WTF. In their two meetings, Fed won 13 games to Djoker’s 12. Sure , Djoker earned the title. But he wasn’t necessarily the best player at that tourney.

To Djoker’s defense at this event overall, he won the WTF each year from 2012-2014 without losing once. That is a remarkable record. If he ties Fed at this event with 6 titles, especially with a 5-0 record during his next title run, then I might actually nudge Djoker ahead of Fed at this event.

The WTF is quite intersting. I just watched a 1 hour show on the 2004 WTF. All of the players were excited to be there. It was awesome seeing their interviews. Winning all 5 matches in that tourney had a payout of 1.5 million dollars for Fed, which is 400K more than he made by winning the USO that year. That event was massive back in the day. It is still massive. Going undefeated this year would have paid 2.7 million dollars.
 
#42
1. Laver 1969
2. McEnroe 1984
3. Borg 1980
4. Djokovic 2011
5. Connors 1974
6. Nadal 2008
7. Borg 1978
8. Djokovic 2015
9. Nadal 2010
10. Federer 2007
 
#44
1. Connors' 74 gets drastically over-rated as usual.
He wasn't even the best player in the 1st half. That was Newk on the WCT tour. Connors was off playing on the much weaker Riordan circuit.
The biggest events in 74 were Wimbledon, USO, French Open, WCT finals, The Masters.
Connors only won 2 of them. Borg won FO. Newk won WCT finals and Vilas won the Masters.
AO was nowhere near these events.

Connors only faced like 7 or 8 top 10 players in the entire year in ~99 matches , IIRC

2. Borg's best 2 years were 79 and 80.
79 ahead of 80. Granted he lost in QF of USO to Tanner in 79, but made final of USO in 78 (losing to Connors in an injury affected match), but he won the Masters in 79, which was the 4th biggest event that year.
Also played more and won more events in 79 than in 78.
To be fair, he didn't play the Masters in 78 because of a prize money dispute and withdrew from WCT with an infection. Level wise I think they are very close, perhaps even an edge to 78 Borg.
 
#45
Dont forget Djokovic won 5 Masters that year to Federer's 3. I think that along with a SF vs a 3rd round (and losing to a near prime Federer who played one of his best ever clay matches is still better than losing to a way post prime Kuerten who played a surprisingly good match) offsets the YEC. I would have to look over the year again but I seem to remember Federer having a number of early round defeates (3 or 4 if you count the Olympics) which would be another edge for Djokovic who had very few that I recall. Still would be fairly close but Djokovic was utterly dominant over the whole tour for 70% of the year which I think is enough to give him the edge over Federer's 2004, but I agree the two are close and could be debated either way. A lot of years in this thread are close.

Personally I find Federer's 2007 seems more impressive than his 2004 in some ways, maybe it is because he wasnt having some of the weird losses of 2004 like to Hrbaby, baby Berdych, but I understand his 2004 is probably a bit stronger on paper.
Hrbaty was a semi-tank, he had heatstroke in Miami, Costa/Kuerten losses weren't that bad given that he wasn't great on slower clay yet. Berdych was the only truly bad loss that year, and maybe the loss to Henman. And in 07 he lost to freakin Canas and Volandri when fully fit.

Argument for 07 over 04 is obviously that he was more developed on clay, but his level in 04 is better than 07 pretty much everywhere else besides AO.
 
#46
2010 Nadal is underrated. Its the ONLY season in history where a single player won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces in a single season. Laver's calendar slam year was won on 2 surfaces. . Its not #1 but come on.. it should never be ranked real low either.
I was contemplating switching to your avatar a few weeks ago, such a sick picture, "new user" :)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#48
To be fair, he didn't play the Masters in 78 because of a prize money dispute and withdrew from WCT with an infection. Level wise I think they are very close, perhaps even an edge to 78 Borg.
yeah, agree level wise.
But if we consider achievements as well, would have to put 79 ahead of 78.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#49
I could see dropping Connors down a bit, due to his level of competition. But at the end of the day, 15 titles, a perfect record in slam play, and a 93-4 record was too insane to ignore.
Don't understand this rating of the AO win by Connors in 74. It wasn't even in the top 5 events that year. Wim, USO, RG, WCT finals, Masters were. In essence, its a 2 major season to be honest.

If Connors had actually played RG, he'd have lost that "perfect" record -- Borg, Vilas, Oranted, Solomon, Nastase, Solomon, Ramirez, Vilas...
the field was too deep on red clay that year.

While the rest of the field was busy playing the WCT - Newk, Borg, Laver, Ashe, Kodes, Nastase etc., Connors was off playing the very weak Riordan circuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_World_Championship_Tennis_circuit

If emphasis on win-record, Federer's 92-5 record in 06 for instance was MUCH better considering he played a full field (3 losses were to Nadal on clay, 1 to Nadal on HC and 1 to Murray on HC)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#50
I look at the WTF tourney differently than most. A pure win to me is winning that tourney by going 5-0. Granted, it is still a win. But sweeping all 5 is far more impressive. Both Fed and a Djoker went 4-1 at the 2015 WTF. In their two meetings, Fed won 13 games to Djoker’s 12. Sure , Djoker earned the title. But he wasn’t necessarily the best player at that tourney.

To Djoker’s defense at this event overall, he won the WTF each year from 2012-2014 without losing once. That is a remarkable record. If he ties Fed at this event with 6 titles, especially with a 5-0 record during his next title run, then I might actually nudge Djoker ahead of Fed at this event.

The WTF is quite intersting. I just watched a 1 hour show on the 2004 WTF. All of the players were excited to be there. It was awesome seeing their interviews. Winning all 5 matches in that tourney had a payout of 1.5 million dollars for Fed, which is 400K more than he made by winning the USO that year. That event was massive back in the day. It is still massive. Going undefeated this year would have paid 2.7 million dollars.
Of course Djoker was the better player in the 15 WTF. He raised his level in the final (a must win match). A RR loss ( in a non must-win situation) doesn't compare.

As far as overall record is concerned, Fed has 6 YECs+4 finals ...has been relevant from 02-18 (so far) ...only been eliminated in RR once. (08)
Djok has 5 YECs+2 finals ...has been relevant from 08-18 (so far) ....djoko has already been eliminated in RR twice (07 and 11)

fed's peak level is higher (IMO).
only plus point for Novak is his 4 in a row.

Novak was also helped immensely by the slowdown of the YEC in 12-15.
 
Top