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

#51
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.
I miss the 2006-2008 Shanghai surface there. I have no doubt if they kept it at that speed Fed probably would’ve won 1-2 more titles in 2012/2014/2015/2017.
 
#52
Borg's years:
1979 > 1980 > 1980.

1978: Birmingham + Boca Raton + Tournament of Champions + Milan + Rome + Paris + Wimbledon + Tokyo(y)(y)
1979: Boca Raton + Richmond + Rotterdam + Montecarlo + Las Vegas + Paris + Wimbledon + Toronto + WCT Challenge Cup + Tokyo + Masters GP
(y)(y)(y)(y)

1980: Salisbury + Boca Raton + Montecarlo + Las Vegas + Paris + Wimbledon + Stockholm + Masters GP(y)(y)(y)
 
Last edited:

Pheasant

Hall of Fame
#53
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)
Fair enough, Amigo. Now that I look further into this, Connors had cakewalk competition. 39 year old Rosewall was the only heavyweight that he faced in the majors.
 
#55
McEnroe 1984(y)(y)(y)(y)

US Pro Indoor (Philadelphia) + Brussels + WCT Finals + WCT Tournament of Champions + Queen's + Wimbledon + Toronto + US Open + Stockholm + Masters GP
 
Last edited:
#57
Jimbo's years:
1976 > 1978 = 1974.

1974: Australian Open + Wimbledon +Indianapolis + US Open + PSW (Los Angeles) + Dewar Cup (London) + South African Open(y)(y)
1976: US Pro Indoor (Philadelphia) + Palm Springs + Las Vegas + Washington + North Conway + Indianapolis + US Open + Wembley(y)(y)(y)
1978: US Pro Indoor (Philadelphia) + US National Indoor (Memphis) + Rotterdam + Washington + Indianapolis + US Open(y)(y)
 
#60
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.
Federer benefited from WTF being fast
 
#61
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.

I didn't even bother listing 2007 when he won the AO, Wimbledon and the USO.

Other honorable mentions- Wilander 1988, Federer 2007, Sampras 1994, Nadal 2008
You list Fed once when he won 3/4 slams in three different years?

Total joke.

2004 Fed: 74-6 92.8%

2005 Fed: 81-4 93%

2006 Fed: 92-5 94.83%

I didn't even bother listing 2007 when he won 3/4 majors.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
#64
Federer benefited from WTF being fast
YEC being indoors is supposed to be medium-fast to fast, not medium slow.

doesn't make sense to say Nadal benefitted from RG being slow/high bouncing or Sampras benefitted from grass being fast/irregular bouncing either.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#66
Where does it say a surface is supposed to be a certain speed.
its not written down as some law/rule, but its per tradition and common sense.

it isn't written down that French Open is supposed to be on clay or Wimbledon supposed to be on grass. doesn't mean we don't expect those to be as they are.
 
#67
its not written down as some law/rule, but its per tradition and common sense.

it isn't written down that French Open is supposed to be on clay or Wimbledon supposed to be on grass. doesn't mean we don't expect those to be as they are.
They can do whatever they want with the court speed. They can make grass like carpet again or like clay somehow, it’s still a surface and players should adapt and win
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#68
They can do whatever they want with the court speed. They can make grass like carpet again or like clay somehow, it’s still a surface and players should adapt and win
a) that doesn't mean one player doesn't benefit from the change (significant departure from the tradition/norm) ...is that too tough to accept ?
b) tell that to those whiners in Nadal/Djokovic when they whined non-stop about Madrid 12 blue clay (while saying nothing about Monte Carlo that year which was more dangerous and actually had 2 serious injuries)
 
Last edited:
#69
You list Fed once when he won 3/4 slams in three different years?

Total joke.

2004 Fed: 74-6 92.8%

2005 Fed: 81-4 93%

2006 Fed: 92-5 94.83%

I didn't even bother listing 2007 when he won 3/4 majors.
But I'm confused about the math, like 81-4 would mean 81/85, right? But that would be 95.3%. I don't understand your numbers.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#71
Since winning percentage is a frequent argument I want to show something:

Big tournaments winning percentage

2015 Djokovic - 94.59%
2006 Federer - 94.29%
2011 Djokovic - 93.65%

average opponent ranking (geometric mean):

2011 Djokovic - 15.3
2015 Djokovic - 15.9
2006 Federer - 21.7
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
#72
2011 Djokovic before the YEC had a 58-2 score in big tournaments (96.66%) with opponents having an average ranking of 19.6 in Slams and 13.6 in Masters o_O
 
#75
More wins, titles, finals, less defeats, prime ATG competition.

2015 on the other hand has more ranking points and masters 1000 than 2006.
IIRC Fed has greater win % in 2006 vs Nole only when including 250s and wins against players ranked below 100. Not sure that’s what we want to include.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#77
IIRC Fed has greater win % in 2006 vs Nole only when including 250s and wins against players ranked below 100. Not sure that’s what we want to include.
The only meaningless title Federer won in 2006 was Tokyo. The others are all legit tournaments.

Doha - both played it and Djokovic lost before the semis while Federer won. Federer should not be penalized for winning a tournament which Djokovic also played but lost earlier.

Halle - grass warm-up. Federer has nearly always played this tournament before Wimb. Just because Djokovic doesn't play grass warm-ups, doesn't mean Federer shouldn't either.

Basel - Federer's hometown tournament. He pretty much has always played it. Not his problem Djokovic didn't have a hometown tournament. Remember, Novak did play Belgrade in 2011 back when it still existed.

So all this 250 padding myth needs to stop. You guys act like Federer chose to play 250's to pad his stats which is clearly not true.
 
#83
a) that doesn't mean one player doesn't benefit from the change (significant departure from the tradition/norm) ...is that too tough to accept ?
b) tell that to those whiners in Nadal/Djokovic when they whined non-stop about Madrid 12 blue clay (while saying nothing about Monte Carlo that year which was more dangerous and actually had 2 serious injuries)
As I said before, players should adapt and perform on whatever conditions.

And is it too tough to accept that Federer benefited from fast courts? He definitely wouldn't win as much now lol

Did I ever say anything defending them lol
It doesn’t. But that doesn’t mean conditions should be homogenised to the point where one guy can play the same style all year round and dominate. They should make USO and YEC again.
They can do whatever they want. The tournaments still count
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#84
As I said before, players should adapt and perform on whatever conditions.

And is it too tough to accept that Federer benefited from fast courts? He definitely wouldn't win as much now lol

Did I ever say anything defending them lol
anyone can offer up platitudes like those. That misses the whole point of what I was saying - some players benefit from certain changes, some get dealt a worse hand.

And, no, Federer grew up when the conditions were as they were back in the 90s/early 2000s , so he didn't 'benefit' from the faster or rather less homogenized conditions.

a change like Madrid on blue clay ? yeah, you could say he benefitted from that in 2012.
 
#86
anyone can offer up platitudes like those. That misses the whole point of what I was saying - some players benefit from certain changes, some get dealt a worse hand.

And, no, Federer grew up when the conditions were as they were back in the 90s/early 2000s , so he didn't 'benefit' from the faster or rather less homogenized conditions.

a change like Madrid on blue clay ? yeah, you could say he benefitted from that in 2012.
Players fault sorry. They can adapt. It’s not hard. Federer did it for blue clay did he not? There’s no worse hand, just better players winning more

You could easily say he did. Djokovic grew up in this era where courts are slowing down, but you say he benefited from it and Federer didn’t benefit from growing up in his era? Hypocrisy much?
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#87
As I said before, players should adapt and perform on whatever conditions.

And is it too tough to accept that Federer benefited from fast courts? He definitely wouldn't win as much now lol

Did I ever say anything defending them lol


They can do whatever they want. The tournaments still count
Federer did just that.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#89
Players fault sorry. They can adapt. It’s not hard. Federer did it for blue clay did he not? There’s no worse hand, just better players winning more
no, it isn't.
Yeah, Federer adapted to blue clay. doesn't mean he didn't benefit from the shift from red clay to blue clay that year.

if AO suddenly changed from HC to clay in say 2011 ....obviously Nadal would win a lot there and Djokovic would win quite less.
Isn't that being dealt a much worse hand (from Djokovic's PoV) ?

Would that mean Djokovic would be MUCH worse a player than Nadal ?

no, it means that circumstances changed from the norm.

You could easily say he did. Djokovic grew up in this era where courts are slowing down, but you say he benefited from it and Federer didn’t benefit from growing up in his era? Hypocrisy much?
just because player A benefitted from <<circumstances A>> doesn't mean player B benefitted from <<circumstances B>>
are we throwing all logic out out of the window now ?

Federer developed an all-court style based on the conditions that were there at that time and his game took longer to develop (more complex).
Djokovic was a baseliner....conditions slowing down only helped him/his style of play ...since he could afford to stay back quite a bit more, guys found it tougher to come in to take him out of his rhythm etc. etc.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#90
Yes definetly. It’s why he’s won so many USO titles after winning 5 in a row right? Or only winning one AO title after surface changed?
whereas Djokovic can't even defend USO even once, let alone 4 times as Fed did.
And that had nothing to do with change in conditions.

Federer won 3 AOs after the shift from rebound to plexi >> but nice try.
 
#91
no, it isn't.
Yeah, Federer adapted to blue clay. doesn't mean he didn't benefit from the shift from red clay to blue clay that year.

if AO suddenly changed from HC to clay in say 2011 ....obviously Nadal would win a lot there and Djokovic would win quite less.
Isn't that being dealt a much worse hand (from Djokovic's PoV) ?

Would that mean Djokovic would be MUCH worse a player than Nadal ?

no, it means that circumstances changed from the norm.



just because player A benefitted from <<circumstances A>> doesn't mean player B benefitted from <<circumstances B>>
are we throwing all logic out out of the window now ?

Federer developed an all-court style based on the conditions that were there at that time and his game took longer to develop (more complex).
Djokovic was a baseliner....conditions slowing down only helped him ...since he could afford to stay back quite a bit more, guys found it tougher to come in to take him out of his rhythm etc. etc.
Other players could have also benefited

Yes ofc, but it’s his responsibility to work on his clay game.

If Djokovic couldn’t adapt, that’s on him

Then they can improve their game and try to beat Djokovic. Like Stan did in several matches
 
#92
whereas your boy Djokovic can't even defend USO even once, let alone 4 times as Fed did.
And that had nothing with change in conditions.

FEderer won 3 AOs after the shift from rebound to plexi >> but nice try.
Hey, as I said Federer hasn’t done **** on USO for a while, that’s his fault

Lmao at thinking AO 2017-19 were the same surface as before lol

Another surface change that benefited Federer lol :D
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#93
Yes definetly. It’s why he’s won so many USO titles after winning 5 in a row right? Or only winning one AO title after surface changed?
What does that prove exactly? The fact that he won 5 USO in a row shows that he really has nothing to prove there. Why does he need to win another USO to satisfy some people's cherry picking criticism? Why couldn't Djokovic win the USO before it was slowed down in 2011?

He has won 3 AO titles since the surface change, not 1.

Facts that show Federer's adaptability:

- Federer has won the USO both on the old green surface and on the new blue one.
- Federer has won the AO on both Rebound Ace and Plexicusion.
- Federer has won Miami on both the green surface and the purple one.
- Federer has won the WTF in each location it was moved to and has won it when it was both outdoors and indoors.
- Federer has won Madrid on 3 different surface changes: indoor HC, red clay and blue clay.
- Federer has won Wimb both S&V-ing and implementing baseline tennis.

He has adapted better than most really. Djokovic hasn't had to deal with any drastic surface changes.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
#94
Hey, as I said Federer hasn’t done **** on USO for a while, that’s his fault

Lmao at thinking AO 2017-18 were the same surface as before lol

Another surface change that benefited Federer lol :D
LOL, yet when I pointed out the same for YEC in 11-15, you couldn't deal with it, were whining about it and came up some irrelevant platitudes. :-D:-D

yeah, fed hasn't done much since USO 15 final at the USO, but again, like I said it doesn't have much to do with the conditions.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
#96
Hey, as I said Federer hasn’t done **** on USO for a while, that’s his fault

Lmao at thinking AO 2017-19 were the same surface as before lol

Another surface change that benefited Federer lol :D
LOL, criticizing a 5 time USO champion who also won those titles consecutively is rich :-D Let me know when Djokovic comes close to winning any slam 5 times in a row.
 
#97
What does that prove exactly? The fact that he won 5 USO in a row shows that he really has nothing to prove there. Why does he need to win another USO to satisfy some people's cherry picking criticism? Why couldn't Djokovic win the USO before it was slowed down in 2011?

He has won 3 AO titles since the surface change, not 1.

Facts that show Federer's adaptability:

- Federer has won the USO both on the old green surface and on the new blue one.
- Federer has won the AO on both Rebound Ace and Plexicusion.
- Federer has won Miami on both the green surface and the purple one.
- Federer has won the WTF in each location it was moved to and has won it when it was both outdoors and indoors.
- Federer has won Madrid on 3 different surface changes: indoor HC, red clay and blue clay.
- Federer has won Wimb both S&V-ing and implementing baseline tennis.

He has adapted better than most really. Djokovic hasn't had to deal with any drastic surface changes.
He didn’t that’s on him. Just like it’s in Federer for not working on his game to beat Nadal on clay, Djokovic at AO, etc
 
#98
LOL, yet when I pointed out the same for YEC in 11-15, you couldn't deal with it, were whining about it and came up some irrelevant platitudes. :-D:-D

yeah, fed hasn't done much since USO 15 final at the USO, but again, like I said it doesn't have much to do with the conditions.
Lmao at thinking that I don’t think Djokovic shouldn’t have adapted either. And he ended up doing so anyway lmao
 
Top