Why I don't think Djokovic's season is the best ever

[wangs78]

First of all, if Djokovic wins the WTF, then I think it would be hard to argue that his season isn't on par with any of Fed's 3 GS years, and sure, I think it can be ARGUED that his is the best in recent memory.

But one thing I've noticed this year is how weak the competition has been outside of the big 3. Seriously. If you think about it, almost all of Nadal's losses this year have been to Djokovic. Almost all of Federer's have been to Djokovic. The only other player who's had success against the big 3 has been Tsonga, who's beaten Federer twice and Nadal once.

What I'm trying to say is that the players like Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer, Roddick, who I make no argument are clearly less talented than the big 3 and are tier 2 of the top players, they've barely registered on the radar this year. It's basically been a three man show all year and Djokovic has the mental edge against both Nadal and Federer at the moment, and because of that, *boom* he's got only 3 losses on the year.

Even Federer is having quite a good year where he's really only losing to the likes of Djokovic whereas in recent years he even has hiccups against the tier 2. I think some of it is he's healthier this year and still as focused as ever, but I also think no one else is really challenging.

This year, more than any other I remember, has been a case of the big 3 marching to the SF and finals of tournaments with nary a misstep and then duking it out. Anyway, I can easily argue the other way too but I really do not find Djokovic's season that much more impressive than ones Nadal and Federer had. For example, Nadal clearly is not at the level he was at last year. And Djokovic's wins against Federer seem more like Fed cracking on his own rather than Djokovic cracking him.

Thoughts?

 

[sadowsk2]

Ahhh a hard-core ****** now bringing up the "mediocre" competition argument.... The fact is Djokovic has beaten more top 10 players and has a better record against the top 10 than Fed ever did in any single year. Fed never won more Masters series in a single year than Djokovc has already... The lost goes on.... While Fed certainly has had the better career, the single season mark clearly goes to Djoker....

 

[Clarky21]

First of all, if Djokovic wins the WTF, then I think it would be hard to argue that his season isn't on par with any of Fed's 3 GS years, and sure, I think it can be ARGUED that his is the best in recent memory.

But one thing I've noticed this year is how weak the competition has been outside of the big 3. Seriously. If you think about it, almost all of Nadal's losses this year have been to Djokovic. Almost all of Federer's have been to Djokovic. The only other player who's had success against the big 3 has been Tsonga, who's beaten Federer twice and Nadal once.

What I'm trying to say is that the players like Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer, Roddick, who I make no argument are clearly less talented than the big 3 and are tier 2 of the top players, they've barely registered on the radar this year. It's basically been a three man show all year and Djokovic has the mental edge against both Nadal and Federer at the moment, and because of that, *boom* he's got only 3 losses on the year.

Even Federer is having quite a good year where he's really only losing to the likes of Djokovic whereas in recent years he even has hiccups against the tier 2. I think some of it is he's healthier this year and still as focused as ever, but I also think no one else is really challenging.

This year, more than any other I remember, has been a case of the big 3 marching to the SF and finals of tournaments with nary a misstep and then duking it out. Anyway, I can easily argue the other way too but I really do not find Djokovic's season that much more impressive than ones Nadal and Federer had. For example, Nadal clearly is not at the level he was at last year. And Djokovic's wins against Federer seem more like Fed cracking on his own rather than Djokovic cracking him.

Thoughts?

I agree with you,but you are going to have a stampede of *********s come into this thread and give you some serious h*ll for daring to post this.

 

[Mainad]

But one thing I've noticed this year is how weak the competition has been outside of the big 3. Seriously. If you think about it, almost all of Nadal's losses this year have been to Djokovic. Almost all of Federer's have been to Djokovic. The only other player who's had success against the big 3 has been Tsonga, who's beaten Federer twice and Nadal once.

In addition to Federer, Djokovic has also lost to Murray and Del Potro.

In addition to Djokovic and Tsonga, Nadal has also lost to Ferrer, Dodig and Fish.

In addition to Djokovic,Nadal and Tsonga, Federer has also lost to Melzer, Gasquet and Berdych.

What I'm trying to say is that the players like Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer, Roddick, who I make no argument are clearly less talented than the big 3 and are tier 2 of the top players, they've barely registered on the radar this year. It's basically been a three man show all year and Djokovic has the mental edge against both Nadal and Federer at the moment, and because of that, *boom* he's got only 3 losses on the year.

Even Federer is having quite a good year where he's really only losing to the likes of Djokovic whereas in recent years he even has hiccups against the tier 2. I think some of it is he's healthier this year and still as focused as ever, but I also think no one else is really challenging.

This year, more than any other I remember, has been a case of the big 3 marching to the SF and finals of tournaments with nary a misstep and then duking it out. Anyway, I can easily argue the other way too but I really do not find Djokovic's season that much more impressive than ones Nadal and Federer had. For example, Nadal clearly is not at the level he was at last year. And Djokovic's wins against Federer seem more like Fed cracking on his own rather than Djokovic cracking him.

Thoughts?

You seem to have gone out of your way to avoid mentioning Murray whilst referring to a whole lot of other players in your discourse. Is he the forgotten man yet again? He was the only player other than Djokovic to make the semi-finals of all 4 slams this year plus he made a slam final like Federer and, unlike Nadal at the AO (v Ferrer) and Federer at Wimbledon (v Tsonga) he never lost to a lower ranked player. He is also the only player other than Djokovic and Nadal to win a Masters tournament this year and beat Djokovic in the final to do it.

Its unarguable that this season has been easily Djokovic's best so far and it's not over yet. But we will have to wait a few more years before deciding whether it will be his best ever. But I feel confident that it will be.

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Competition is stronger than ever this year. Djoker just owned all.

 

[Tammo]

Competition is stronger than ever this year. Djoker just owned all.

I agree, look at him vs. Soderling in Rome. Djokovic just purely crushed him 3 and 0.

 

[Set Sampras]

Djokovic had to go through either Fed or Nadal to get all his slams. Who did Fed go through in his best year in 06? Heck who did he go through in 04-07? Roddick? Baghdatis? Gonzales? Davydenko? Hewitt? Nadal just starting out and still learning to play outside of clay? Old Agassi on his last leg urmm I mean back? Heck prime nadal and 30 year old Fed is better then those guys
Nole's year is superior to Fed's best year based on that IMO . Im not sure its the best ever but I think its superior to Fed's

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

There's no such things as weak or strong competition you idiots. It is what it is.

 

[sadowsk2]

Djokovic had to go through either Fed or Nadal to get all his slams. Who did Fed go through in his best year in 06? Heck who did he go through in 04-07? Roddick? Baghdatis? Gonzales? Hewitt? Nadal just starting out and still learning to play outside of clay? Old Agassi on his last leg urmm I mean back? Heck prime nadal and 30 year old Fed is better then those guys
Nole's year is superior to Fed's best year best on that. Im not sure its the best ever but I think its superior to Fed's

I agree with this

 

[Set Sampras]

There's no such things as weak or strong competition you idiots. It is what it is.

So all eras are equal with equal talent?

 

[sadowsk2]

So all eras are equal with equal talent?

Nope. Not even close. The current era is an era where the US has shown ineptitude and incompetence in developing players.... Being a world superpower with th resources to develop talent in sports, It's embarrassing the US isn't better represented

 

[Set Sampras]

Nope. Not even close. The current era is an era where the US has shown ineptitude and incompetence in developing players.... Being a world superpower with th resources to develop talent in sports, It's embarrassing the US isn't better represented

Oh I agree. We've been represented by players like Roddick, Isner, Blake, Fish, Querry etc. God help us:-|

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Nope. Not even close. The current era is an era where the US has shown ineptitude and incompetence in developing players.... Being a world superpower with th resources to develop talent in sports, It's embarrassing the US isn't better represented

So weak US players = weak era?

 

[Carsomyr]

Nope. Not even close. The current era is an era where the US has shown ineptitude and incompetence in developing players.... Being a world superpower with th resources to develop talent in sports, It's embarrassing the US isn't better represented

:lol:

So because the US isn't producing major winners means it's a weak era?

:lol:

 

[billnepill]

So all eras are equal with equal talent?

No, new eras should have way more talent. With world population increasing and the sport becoming more and more affordable, it is more probable to see more talent these days.

But then hard work, technology and nutrition > talent, so talent doesn't really matter, does it?

It is somewhat perverse to wish for more talent and bash Federer in the same breath. But that is the perverse nature of samprastards.

 

[sadowsk2]

So weak US players = weak era?

It contributes to it

 

[Carsomyr]

It contributes to it

:lol::lol::lol:

 

[Tony48]

Do we need to look at the resumes of the players that Djokovic has recorded victories over?

 

[TMF]

The US player didn't get weaker. It's the European players got better and distant themselves from the US.

 

[Set Sampras]

No, new eras should have way more talent. With world population increasing and the sport becoming more and more affordable, it is more probable to see more talent these days.

But then hard work, technology and nutrition > talent, so talent doesn't really matter, does it?

It is somewhat perverse to wish for more talent and bash Federer in the same breath. But that is the perverse nature of samprastards.

Well if thats the case then top 10 shouldn't be so questionable or the americans shouldnt suck so bad at tennis. . Almagro In the top 10? Monfils with 0 masters titles in the top 10? Murray without even a set in a slam final in the top 4? Ferrer in the top 5?.. With the world's population increasing what are these guys doing in the top 5-10 in the world? With the world population going through the roof, I thought we could find a better top 10 in the world to hang our hat on. This should be the strongest top 10 in history bar none.

And if thats the case, then I should have already seen a better american player then Andre, Pete, Mac, Connors or Courier. I havent seen one yet. If everything is constantly improving that is tennis. With the world population and even the Americas population increasing, why in the name of god, have we had NOTHING in terms of american players? Our population is increasing.

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Well if thats the case then top 10 shouldn't be so questionable or the americans shouldnt suck so bad at tennis. . Almagro In the top 10? Monfils with 0 masters titles in the top 10? Murray without even a set in a slam final in the top 4? Ferrer in the top 5?.. With the world's population increasing what are these guys doing in the top 5-10 in the world? With the world population going through the roof, I thought we could find a better top 10 in the world to hang our hat on. This should be the strongest top 10 in history bar none.

And if thats the case, then I should have already seen a better american player then Andre, Pete, Mac, Connors or Courier. I havent seen one yet. If everything is constantly improving that is tennis. With the world population and even the Americas population increasing, why in the name of god, have we had NOTHING in terms of american players? Our population is increasing.

Apples to oranges. The outlier can come from any era and any country (Switzerland or Serbia aren't exactly historical powerhouse tennis factories). But the overall level of tennis is higher than it's ever been. I don't really see how that's debatable.

 

[iamke55]

So all eras are equal with equal talent?

No, the later in time an era is the stronger the field. Incredibly basic logic should tell you that.

 

[Mike Sams]

First of all, if Djokovic wins the WTF, then I think it would be hard to argue that his season isn't on par with any of Fed's 3 GS years, and sure, I think it can be ARGUED that his is the best in recent memory.

But one thing I've noticed this year is how weak the competition has been outside of the big 3. Seriously. If you think about it, almost all of Nadal's losses this year have been to Djokovic. Almost all of Federer's have been to Djokovic. The only other player who's had success against the big 3 has been Tsonga, who's beaten Federer twice and Nadal once.

What I'm trying to say is that the players like Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer, Roddick, who I make no argument are clearly less talented than the big 3 and are tier 2 of the top players, they've barely registered on the radar this year. It's basically been a three man show all year and Djokovic has the mental edge against both Nadal and Federer at the moment, and because of that, *boom* he's got only 3 losses on the year.

Even Federer is having quite a good year where he's really only losing to the likes of Djokovic whereas in recent years he even has hiccups against the tier 2. I think some of it is he's healthier this year and still as focused as ever, but I also think no one else is really challenging.

This year, more than any other I remember, has been a case of the big 3 marching to the SF and finals of tournaments with nary a misstep and then duking it out. Anyway, I can easily argue the other way too but I really do not find Djokovic's season that much more impressive than ones Nadal and Federer had. For example, Nadal clearly is not at the level he was at last year. And Djokovic's wins against Federer seem more like Fed cracking on his own rather than Djokovic cracking him.

Thoughts?

Nadal's level is fine. He actually is better this year than last year and would have 3 Slams and probably 5 Masters if not for one man.
Djokovic was also in pathetic form last year. He was losing to everybody. Losing to Tsonga, Berdych and Melzer in Slams. Today he eats them for breakfast!
It's not the inferiority of the competition, it's the superiority of Djokovic! It's just that simple. Djokovic crushed Nadal 6 times in 6 finals and replaced him as the world #1. Nobody ever has dominated Nadal this way including Federer at his absolute best. People seem to be having a hard time accepting that the Fedal era is over.

 

[veroniquem]

This is the Djokodal (or Djokal) era.

 

[Set Sampras]

No, the later in time an era is the stronger the field. Incredibly basic logic should tell you that.

Ok. So..... basic logic is indeed telling me that the top 10-15 in the world right now are better then the top 10-15 in the world then say 1984-1995.

Monfils, Almagro, Isner, Ferrer, Murray, Soderling, Berdych, Roddick, Fish etc.. are indeed stronger and better players then Edberg, Courier, Becker, Mac, Connors, Wilander, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl etc.


Romo is better then Elway or Montana. Lebron and Kobe and Wade etc. are better then Jordan, Bird, Chamberlain or Magic.

Gotcha.

 

[Set Sampras]

Apples to oranges. The outlier can come from any era and any country (Switzerland or Serbia aren't exactly historical powerhouse tennis factories). But the overall level of tennis is higher than it's ever been. I don't really see how that's debatable.

Well then I don't know what to tell you whats happening here in the states then

Where is our overrall tennis level?

 

[ChanceEncounter]

Ok. So..... basic logic is indeed telling me that the top 10-15 in the world right now are better then the top 10-15 in the world then say 1984-1995.

Monfils, Almagro, Isner, Ferrer, Murray, Soderling, Berdych, Roddick, Fish etc.. are indeed stronger and better players then Edberg, Courier, Becker, Mac, Connors, Wilander, Sampras, Agassi, Lendl etc.


Romo is better then Elway or Montana. Lebron and Kobe and Wade etc. are better then Jordan, Bird, Chamberlain or Magic.

Gotcha.

Yes, let's compare a snapshot of today's top 15 against players spanning a decade. That's completely fair.

Well then I don't know what to tell you whats happening here in the states then

Where is our overrall tennis level?

The US is going through a dip in tennis appreciation. People don't like tennis as much in the US so they pursue it less. But globally, tennis is more affordable and more popular than ever.

 

[NadalAgassi]

In addition to Federer, Djokovic has also lost to Murray and Del Potro.

In addition to Djokovic and Tsonga, Nadal has also lost to Ferrer, Dodig and Fish.

In addition to Djokovic,Nadal and Tsonga, Federer has also lost to Melzer, Gasquet and Berdych.



You seem to have gone out of your way to avoid mentioning Murray whilst referring to a whole lot of other players in your discourse. Is he the forgotten man yet again? He was the only player other than Djokovic to make the semi-finals of all 4 slams this year plus he made a slam final like Federer and, unlike Nadal at the AO (v Ferrer) and Federer at Wimbledon (v Tsonga) he never lost to a lower ranked player. He is also the only player other than Djokovic and Nadal to win a Masters tournament this year and beat Djokovic in the final to do it.

Its unarguable that this season has been easily Djokovic's best so far and it's not over yet. But we will have to wait a few more years before deciding whether it will be his best ever. But I feel confident that it will be.

So there is currently a very strong #2 and #3 although neither playing their best tennis ever, especialy the aging and well past his prime #3. We have a fairly strong #4, although still slamless. Then we have a bunch of journeymen making up the rest of the field, with clowns like Verdasco, Melzer, Troicki, all taking up residence in the top 10, and second rate pretenders who everyone knows have no chance to ever win a major title like Ferrer, Soderling, and Berdych the best of the middle top 10. Not Djokovic's fault of course, you can only play who is on the other side. Really neither Federer or Djokovic had anywhere near the competition for their best seasons McEnroe had when he had his historic 84 though.

 

[Murrayfan31]

Stupid thread. Djokovic's season is the best ever.

 

[Raiden]

Ahhh a hard-core ****** now bringing up the "mediocre" competition argument....

You mean you thought that the "weak era" argument wasn't gonna be used in the coming years?

You thought that would only be used for past eras and that Djoker would escape the same fate? LMAO

 

[jackson vile]

First of all, if Djokovic wins the WTF, then I think it would be hard to argue that his season isn't on par with any of Fed's 3 GS years, and sure, I think it can be ARGUED that his is the best in recent memory.

But one thing I've noticed this year is how weak the competition has been outside of the big 3. Seriously. If you think about it, almost all of Nadal's losses this year have been to Djokovic. Almost all of Federer's have been to Djokovic. The only other player who's had success against the big 3 has been Tsonga, who's beaten Federer twice and Nadal once.

What I'm trying to say is that the players like Berdych, Soderling, Ferrer, Roddick, who I make no argument are clearly less talented than the big 3 and are tier 2 of the top players, they've barely registered on the radar this year. It's basically been a three man show all year and Djokovic has the mental edge against both Nadal and Federer at the moment, and because of that, *boom* he's got only 3 losses on the year.

Even Federer is having quite a good year where he's really only losing to the likes of Djokovic whereas in recent years he even has hiccups against the tier 2. I think some of it is he's healthier this year and still as focused as ever, but I also think no one else is really challenging.

This year, more than any other I remember, has been a case of the big 3 marching to the SF and finals of tournaments with nary a misstep and then duking it out. Anyway, I can easily argue the other way too but I really do not find Djokovic's season that much more impressive than ones Nadal and Federer had. For example, Nadal clearly is not at the level he was at last year. And Djokovic's wins against Federer seem more like Fed cracking on his own rather than Djokovic cracking him.

Thoughts?

This would speak volumes of just how pathetic Federer's competition was. Nadal is better than back then, Federer did not have to deal with that, Federer did not have to play against any form of Federer.

And no one is going to make believe that Hewitt, Roddick, Safin is more consistent than Murray.

Novak's achievement is already superior to Federer's, all other titles will be icing on the cake.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Ahhh a hard-core ****** now bringing up the "mediocre" competition argument.... The fact is Djokovic has beaten more top 10 players and has a better record against the top 10 than Fed ever did in any single year. .

Don't make the call just yet. Djokovic could potentially lose another 5 or 6 times this year.

 

[Clarky21]

This is the Djokodal (or Djokal) era.

I think you mean this is the Djokovic era. Noone else should even be mentioned.

 

[Manus Domini]

I wanna know how a player is supposed to have the best year ever and still lose to players ranked outside the top 3...

 

[BrooklynNY]

I wanna know how a player is supposed to have the best year ever and still lose to players ranked outside the top 3...

"The depth of the field is so deep compared to 10-20 years ago" right TMF? haha

 

[FedExpress 333]

This would speak volumes of just how pathetic Federer's competition was. Nadal is better than back then, Federer did not have to deal with that, Federer did not have to play against any form of Federer.

And no one is going to make believe that Hewitt, Roddick, Safin is more consistent than Murray.

Novak's achievement is already superior to Federer's, all other titles will be icing on the cake.

You are very dumb.

 

[wangs78]

I knew I was going to get a lot of flak from this thread but I'm standing by my opinion. I certainly think Djokovic's season is right up there with McEnroe's and Federer's but I don't think it's clearly the best ever. He's playing at a time when the tier 2 players that I mentioned in my OP are all having inconsistent years and his big 2 rivals (Nadal and Fed) are both mentally in a funk (Nadal himself admitting he is having a mental troubles with Djokovic and Federer past his prime and losing when he shouldn't). Look I think Djokovic's season is one of the best ever, hands down, but is it THE best ever? It's debatable. If he wins the WTF then from a stats perspective then yes it will be the best ever bc he will likely have a better W-L record than Fed did in his 3 Slam years. So let's see what happens at the WTF.

 

[MichaelNadal]

I think you mean this is the Djokovic era. Noone else should even be mentioned.

Well it's not like Nadal isn't in the finals or he didn't win the FO.

 

[Clarky21]

Well it's not like Nadal isn't in the finals or he didn't win the FO.

Nope. He has to actually beat Cvac in order for him to be mentioned alongside him for an era. He obviously has not beaten Cvac,and will not so this is the Djokovic era since he is doing all the winning in their matches.

And the only slam Nadal won this year he owes to Roger. I have said this a million times,but it is the truth. He would have gone slamless otherwise.

 

[abmk]

Ahhh a hard-core ****** now bringing up the "mediocre" competition argument.... The fact is Djokovic has beaten more top 10 players and has a better record against the top 10 than Fed ever did in any single year. Fed never won more Masters series in a single year than Djokovc has already... The lost goes on.... While Fed certainly has had the better career, the single season mark clearly goes to Djoker....

federer did not lose a single match vs top 10 in 2004 - he was 18-0 IIRC. Djoker has lost to fed and murray. That's a big fail !

 

[celoft]

Nope. He has to actually beat Cvac in order for him to be mentioned alongside him for an era. He obviously has not beaten Cvac,and will not so this is the Djokovic era since he is doing all the winning in their matches.

And the only slam Nadal won this year he owes to Roger. I have said this a million times,but it is the truth. He would have gone slamless otherwise.

This.

Nadal ought to send Federer a VERY expensive x-mas present.

 

[glazkovss]

Because of Federer. If not for him at RG, Novak would be holding a Grand Slam right now.

 

[glazkovss]

I knew I was going to get a lot of flak from this thread but I'm standing by my opinion. I certainly think Djokovic's season is right up there with McEnroe's and Federer's but I don't think it's clearly the best ever. He's playing at a time when the tier 2 players that I mentioned in my OP are all having inconsistent years and his big 2 rivals (Nadal and Fed) are both mentally in a funk (Nadal himself admitting he is having a mental troubles with Djokovic and Federer past his prime and losing when he shouldn't). Look I think Djokovic's season is one of the best ever, hands down, but is it THE best ever? It's debatable. If he wins the WTF then from a stats perspective then yes it will be the best ever bc he will likely have a better W-L record than Fed did in his 3 Slam years. So let's see what happens at the WTF.

Have you ever heard of a guy named Laver, or about the thing called Grand Slam?
Novak blew his chance for the best season ever in Paris semifinals.

 

[wangs78]

Have you ever heard of a guy named Laver, or about the thing called Grand Slam?
Novak blew his chance for the best season ever in Paris semifinals.

Yes, but quite frankly you can't compare Laver's era to Fed's era.

 

[Evan77]

because it is. If you don't understand I have nothing to say.

 

[wangs78]

because it is. If you don't understand I have nothing to say.

Your comment is directed at whom...?

 

[zagor]

I knew I was going to get a lot of flak from this thread but I'm standing by my opinion. I certainly think Djokovic's season is right up there with McEnroe's and Federer's but I don't think it's clearly the best ever. He's playing at a time when the tier 2 players that I mentioned in my OP are all having inconsistent years and his big 2 rivals (Nadal and Fed) are both mentally in a funk (Nadal himself admitting he is having a mental troubles with Djokovic and Federer past his prime and losing when he shouldn't). Look I think Djokovic's season is one of the best ever, hands down, but is it THE best ever? It's debatable. If he wins the WTF then from a stats perspective then yes it will be the best ever bc he will likely have a better W-L record than Fed did in his 3 Slam years. So let's see what happens at the WTF.

You do realize that every time a xy player is "too" dominant a number of people are gonna feel it's a weak era? Nadal is playing about as well as he did in 2010 at the very least and Fed while in the twilight of his career is still dangerous on a good day and IMO is playing better overall(in slams atleast) than he did last year when he played some of the worst grasscourt tennis I've ever seen him play.

I don't think it's the best ever, I'd put it behind Laver's Calendar Slam and Mcenroe's 1984(considering he also dominated doubles along with singles) but still ahead of Fed's 2006 even if he doesn't win WTF.

 

[Agassifan]

The US player didn't get weaker. It's the European players got better and distant themselves from the US.

Exactly. John Isner > Pete Sampras, Donald Young > Andre Agassi

 

[wangs78]

You do realize that every time a xy player is "too" dominant a number of people are gonna feel it's a weak era? Nadal is playing about as well as he did in 2010 at the very least and Fed while in the twilight of his career is still dangerous on a good day and IMO is playing better overall(in slams atleast) than he did last year when he played some of the worst grasscourt tennis I've ever seen him play.

I don't think it's the best ever, I'd put it behind Laver's Calendar Slam and Mcenroe's 1984(considering he also dominated doubles along with singles) but still ahead of Fed's 2006 even if he doesn't win WTF.

I realize what your saying and agree that it's easy to make that mistake (assume that the sudden dominance is due to a weaker field), but let me lay things out in more detail:

- The tier 2 players, IMO, are definitely weaker this year than in years past. Look at Soderling, he's had a very uneven year highlighted by missing the entire US hardcourt season. His game is well suited for hardcourts. Look at Berdych, he's had a good year, but arguably lost early at Wimby to Fish and then has had shoulder trouble during the US hardcourt season. Roddick who used to be able to give Djokovic trouble (Roddick has won 4 out of their last 5 matches) has been a non-factor on tour this year.
- The tier 1 players, namely Nadal and Federer (I would put Murray on a tier 1.5), have been able to consistently make finals and SFs because the tier 2 competition has been weak this year. Then they bump into Djokovic, who happens to have owned both of them this year. And Federer is clearly past his prime - he's still playing well, but the problem is he suffers terrible lapses nowadays. I mean, look, he SHOULD have won the USO SF and Novak. Did Novak win by inches help his case in having the greatest season ever? No, bc I think Fed could easily have won. It was a point here and there. Novak's success against Federer has not been because he's suddenly gotten better and more dominant. It's because Fed lacks the consistency to translate his superior talent into wins nowadays (against other tier 1 players). We don't even need to talk about Nadal. I was at the USO final and what struck me was simply that his body language, lack of swagger, reminded me of Federer when he plays Nadal. Djokovic has a huge mental edge over Nadal right now. And I don't think Nadal is playing as well as he did last year. His serve at the USO is nothing like last year's.

Anyway, all I am saying is, Djokovic's success this year, while very very impressive may not be quite as dominant as it seems. It has to do with (1) him playing well, (2) tier 2 players playing pretty poorly this year and (3) he happens to have a big mental edge over Nadal right now and (4) he has benefited from an incredible stroke of good luck against Fed at the USO. I don't disagree with anything anyone is saying, but I'm just saying, try thinking about my points and they are not crazy.

 

[MichaelNadal]

Because of Federer. If not for him at RG, Novak would be holding a Grand Slam right now.