Djokovic 2015 season: how does it compare?

[Denis]

Many threads have touched upon this topic, but now that the season is finally over I think we can appropriately assess it. There was a discussion a while ago that this would be the best season ever if he won 2/3 of the last big events. Novak won all three of them.

So 3/4 Slams

4/4 Slam finals

6/9 masters tournaments

8/9 masters finals (skipping Madrid)

Novak only lost to Roger (3 times) Karlovic, Wawrinka and Murray. 6 in total. 82 -6 win record (93%)

30 (!) top 10 wins.

That last stat IMO gives Novak 2015 season the edge over Rogers 2006 season.

 

[Billie]

31 top ten wins Denis.  It certainly is the best season I've seen.

 

[britbox]

Bottom Line... as good as it gets.

 

[shawnbm]

I have no problem with it being on par or even slightly better than Federer in 2006.  Each of them lost to one guy in particular throughout the year.  Federer won more matches and lost less, but Novak did win more Masters events and that could be the stat that gets him over the hump.  Frankly, I don't know how many wins over the top ten Roger had in 2006.

 

[Billie]

^^ Federer had 19 top ten wins that year.

 

Frankly Nole's year is better because he won more bigger titles than Federer in 2006.  Nole beat all slam winners from previous year.  He made all 8 masters 1000 finals (both Nole and Federer missed 1 in each of their respective years, but Federer lost in 2nd round of Cincinnati).  Record 6 Masters 1000.  Has 8,000 points more than #2 player.  I think it is really straight forward as to which year is better.   If he wins all 4 majors next year and not much else it wouldn't be greater year than 2015, to me.

 

[Denis]

Federer had 19 top 10 wins in 2006. The only GS champs he beat were Nadal (once) and Roddick (twice).

Novak beat Federer and Nadal both four times alone. He also beat Murray five times and Wawrinka three times.

 

[DarthFed]

Roger actually missed 2 MS events in 2006 (Paris and Hamburg) but regardless I think Nole's 2015 is clearly ahead of Roger's 2006.  6 MS wins is a record and 2 more than Roger won.  Roger's only edge that year is winning % and total titles which doesn't quite bridge that gap IMO.

 

[shawnbm]

Based on Billie and Denis answering my inquiry, I think I too must make this year the best year since Laver.  Federer's 2006 slides into third in my book.

 

[Federberg]

It's ironic. The status of Master's series tournaments has grown since 2006, precisely because of the success of the Big 3, quite amusing. Federer won more matches and lost fewer. Won more tournaments. Did exactly the same with the slams and WTF. The only difference being he lost RG to some Spanish dude. I'm actually not even really making the case that Roger's year was better, I'm just amazed that anyone would say it was worse. But as I said before... recency effect!

 

By the way I also find it odd that the issue of quality of the wins can be held against Federer (which I vehemently disagree with) but not against Laver. To me that's where the logic, or lack of it becomes truly preposterous 

 

[britbox]

It’s ironic. The status of Master’s series tournaments has grown since 2006, precisely because of the success of the Big 3, quite amusing. Federer won more matches and lost fewer. Won more tournaments. Did exactly the same with the slams and WTF. The only difference being he lost RG to some Spanish dude. I’m actually not even really making the case that Roger’s year was better, I’m just amazed that anyone would say it was worse. But as I said before… recency effect! By the way I also find it odd that the issue of quality of the wins can be held against Federer (which I vehemently disagree with) but not against Laver. To me that’s where the logic, or lack of it becomes truly preposterous

Agree to a degree, but either way people are splitting hairs.... both were very dominant years by a supremely dominant player.  I don't really care which year people regard as the "best".... it's kind of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg wrote:
It’s ironic. The status of Master’s series tournaments has grown since 2006, precisely because of the success of the Big 3, quite amusing. Federer won more matches and lost fewer. Won more tournaments. Did exactly the same with the slams and WTF. The only difference being he lost RG to some Spanish dude. I’m actually not even really making the case that Roger’s year was better, I’m just amazed that anyone would say it was worse. But as I said before… recency effect! By the way I also find it odd that the issue of quality of the wins can be held against Federer (which I vehemently disagree with) but not against Laver. To me that’s where the logic, or lack of it becomes truly preposterous

Agree to a degree, but either way people are splitting hairs…. both were very dominant years by a supremely dominant player. I don’t really care which year people regard as the “best”…. it’s kind of six of one and half a dozen of the other.

Out of curiousity, which bit do you disagree with, or agree to a lesser degree? Please note I'm not saying one year is better than the other. They are both in my opinion the best years ever in the open era. No worse than each other really. Hard stats would suggest Roger's year is better, but to me that would be nitpicking. I certainly can't understand why anyone would say 2006 was an inferior year to 2015 is all I'm saying..

 

[britbox]

My point is that they were both great years.. Dominant and not a lot to choose between them.  I guess my real opinion is that trying to put one above the other isn't really worth arguing about.  I might have done 10 years ago, but now I can't really be arsed.  Both were great years and both are great players.

 

[Federberg]

My point is that they were both great years.. Dominant and not a lot to choose between them. I guess my real opinion is that trying to put one above the other isn’t really worth arguing about. I might have done 10 years ago, but now I can’t really be arsed. Both were great years and both are great players.

I think we're saying exactly the same thing! 

 

[MikeOne]

I think Nole's slightly tops Fed's 06 year but Fed's 4 year run between 04-07 was harder. Federer won 11 slams during that stretch, including 3 years where he won 3. He only lost 9 matches between 05-06, which was crazy. Nole had an amazing 2011 and an even better 2015 but he had some bad episodes between 12-14, he wasn't able to maintain his very top level consistently. I think 2011 burned him out a little, remember, he was a shell of himself towards the end of 11. He started 2012 strong but needed two wars in SF and F to win AO. His showings at FO, Wimbledon and USO were not very impressive. He didn't seem at his top level throughout that year and same goes for 2013, except he finished 13 strong. Federer was able to maintain an incredibly high level for 4 years straight whereas Djokovic has been more up and down, reaching top gear in 2 spread out years over 5 year span. I think it comes down to style of play, Federer's game was more effortless, varied and he could count on his serve more. Djokovic's game requires longer rallies, more fitness and more mental strength as it's more mental taxing to win baseline points of attrition day in day out. Nole's top gear requires more effort, i think. Same goes for Nadal...

 

[Denis]

It’s ironic. The status of Master’s series tournaments has grown since 2006, precisely because of the success of the Big 3, quite amusing. Federer won more matches and lost fewer. Won more tournaments. Did exactly the same with the slams and WTF. The only difference being he lost RG to some Spanish dude. I’m actually not even really making the case that Roger’s year was better, I’m just amazed that anyone would say it was worse. But as I said before… recency effect! By the way I also find it odd that the issue of quality of the wins can be held against Federer (which I vehemently disagree with) but not against Laver. To me that’s where the logic, or lack of it becomes truly preposterous

What kind of David Ferrer logic is that? He won more matches? But against who and where? You can go undefeated on the challenger tour but that won't make the headlines. Novak's record is simply superior. Not by a large margin, but it is all things considered.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg wrote:
It’s ironic. The status of Master’s series tournaments has grown since 2006, precisely because of the success of the Big 3, quite amusing. Federer won more matches and lost fewer. Won more tournaments. Did exactly the same with the slams and WTF. The only difference being he lost RG to some Spanish dude. I’m actually not even really making the case that Roger’s year was better, I’m just amazed that anyone would say it was worse. But as I said before… recency effect! By the way I also find it odd that the issue of quality of the wins can be held against Federer (which I vehemently disagree with) but not against Laver. To me that’s where the logic, or lack of it becomes truly preposterous

What kind of David Ferrer logic is that? He won more matches? But against who and where? You can go undefeated on the challenger tour but that won’t make the headlines. Novak’s record is simply superior. Not by a large margin, but it is all things considered.

I could argue the same. I do not think either year is better than the other, it's just my opinion. To be honest I picked up on this because I find the logic seriously flawed and highly subjective when making these statements. And it always seems to be in favour of the latest hot shot! As per my point regarding Laver's 1969, there is a logical inconsistency where many describe that as the greatest year in the open era, with not much attention to the quality of the opposition, the fact that 3 slams were on the same surface etc. But then a higher level of precision is applied when assessing Federer's 2006 to Novak's 2015. My point is, that either both things are assessed on their own merits or not, but we can't do so with one, but not the other.

 

The whole thing degenerates into comedy (in my view) when the same people who sing the praises of Novak's year, will on other occasions dismiss Federer as an old man who's past it and isn't going to win another slam, but then praise Novak for beating the same guy. On the face of it the guy's that Novak has beaten this year might have more impressive resume's but does that speak to the quality of their game this year? I'm not so sure. A Nadal that was searching for his mojo? An older Federer? A Murray who seems to have regressed? Again... I repeat.. I'm not saying Federer's year was better, I am saying it was at least as good as Novak's 2015.

 

Furthermore I maintain that the stats alone would actually argue that it was superior even though I prefer to be more nuanced. Anyway.. I won't speak anymore about this 

 

[Denis]

Denis wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
It’s ironic. The status of Master’s series tournaments has grown since 2006, precisely because of the success of the Big 3, quite amusing. Federer won more matches and lost fewer. Won more tournaments. Did exactly the same with the slams and WTF. The only difference being he lost RG to some Spanish dude. I’m actually not even really making the case that Roger’s year was better, I’m just amazed that anyone would say it was worse. But as I said before… recency effect! By the way I also find it odd that the issue of quality of the wins can be held against Federer (which I vehemently disagree with) but not against Laver. To me that’s where the logic, or lack of it becomes truly preposterous

What kind of David Ferrer logic is that? He won more matches? But against who and where? You can go undefeated on the challenger tour but that won’t make the headlines. Novak’s record is simply superior. Not by a large margin, but it is all things considered.</blockquote>
I could argue the same. I do not think either year is better than the other, it’s just my opinion. To be honest I picked up on this because I find the logic seriously flawed and highly subjective when making these statements. And it always seems to be in favour of the latest hot shot! As per my point regarding Laver’s 1969, there is a logical inconsistency where many describe that as the greatest year in the open era, with not much attention to the quality of the opposition, the fact that 3 slams were on the same surface etc. But then a higher level of precision is applied when assessing Federer’s 2006 to Novak’s 2015. My point is, that either both things are assessed on their own merits or not, but we can’t do so with one, but not the other. The whole thing degenerates into comedy (in my view) when the same people who sing the praises of Novak’s year, will on other occasions dismiss Federer as an old man who’s past it and isn’t going to win another slam, but then praise Novak for beating the same guy. On the face of it the guy’s that Novak has beaten this year might have more impressive resume’s but does that speak to the quality of their game this year? I’m not so sure. A Nadal that was searching for his mojo? An older Federer? A Murray who seems to have regressed? Again… I repeat.. I’m not saying Federer’s year was better, I am saying it was at least as good as Novak’s 2015. Furthermore I maintain that the stats alone would actually argue that it was superior even though I prefer to be more nuanced. Anyway.. I won’t speak anymore about this

The wheels are really coming off here. Really what is the basis for you arguing that Federer's 2006 was superior than Novaks 2015? More wins at mickey mouse tournaments ain't gonna cut it.

 

[Federberg]

Federberg wrote:
<blockquote>
Denis wrote:
<blockquote>
Federberg wrote:
It’s ironic. The status of Master’s series tournaments has grown since 2006, precisely because of the success of the Big 3, quite amusing. Federer won more matches and lost fewer. Won more tournaments. Did exactly the same with the slams and WTF. The only difference being he lost RG to some Spanish dude. I’m actually not even really making the case that Roger’s year was better, I’m just amazed that anyone would say it was worse. But as I said before… recency effect! By the way I also find it odd that the issue of quality of the wins can be held against Federer (which I vehemently disagree with) but not against Laver. To me that’s where the logic, or lack of it becomes truly preposterous

What kind of David Ferrer logic is that? He won more matches? But against who and where? You can go undefeated on the challenger tour but that won’t make the headlines. Novak’s record is simply superior. Not by a large margin, but it is all things considered.</blockquote>
I could argue the same. I do not think either year is better than the other, it’s just my opinion. To be honest I picked up on this because I find the logic seriously flawed and highly subjective when making these statements. And it always seems to be in favour of the latest hot shot! As per my point regarding Laver’s 1969, there is a logical inconsistency where many describe that as the greatest year in the open era, with not much attention to the quality of the opposition, the fact that 3 slams were on the same surface etc. But then a higher level of precision is applied when assessing Federer’s 2006 to Novak’s 2015. My point is, that either both things are assessed on their own merits or not, but we can’t do so with one, but not the other. The whole thing degenerates into comedy (in my view) when the same people who sing the praises of Novak’s year, will on other occasions dismiss Federer as an old man who’s past it and isn’t going to win another slam, but then praise Novak for beating the same guy. On the face of it the guy’s that Novak has beaten this year might have more impressive resume’s but does that speak to the quality of their game this year? I’m not so sure. A Nadal that was searching for his mojo? An older Federer? A Murray who seems to have regressed? Again… I repeat.. I’m not saying Federer’s year was better, I am saying it was at least as good as Novak’s 2015. Furthermore I maintain that the stats alone would actually argue that it was superior even though I prefer to be more nuanced. Anyway.. I won’t speak anymore about this

</blockquote>
The wheels are really coming off here. Really what is the basis for you arguing that Federer’s 2006 was superior than Novaks 2015? More wins at mickey mouse tournaments ain’t gonna cut it.

With all due respect, just because you call them mickey mouse tournaments doesn't make it so, it's just your opinion and we clearly disagree. Perhaps your wheels are coming off? You certainly seem to have difficulty reading what I've said. I have said repeatedly that I don't see much reason to say that Novak's 2015 is superior to Federer's 2006. I have said I think they are both the two strongest years in history. No reason to be hysterical about it. I would rather ask you.. on what basis can you say that Novak's 2015 is superior? The hard statistics do not support that assertion. By far more match wins for Federer and fewer losses. More tournament wins, the same results in the slams, including losing to the best player ever at Roland Garros, and let's not forget that a lot of those non slam tournaments had 5 set finals. I remember that year, I am NOT swayed by any recency effects, the guy was utterly dominant, and powered through all the way to the end of the year. You can continue say what you want, but I don't consider Novak beating a 34 year old Federer, a floundering Nadal, or... Murray as elevating his year. It was a superb year but to make more of it than that is unjustified in my view. MY VIEW...

 

[Denis]

I love it when posts start with 'with all due respect': you just know that it's going to get ugly.

Like I said I think the years are very close and by together with Laver's the best we have seen. I really don't feel like repeating over and over the many points why Novak gets the edge, but the main ones are more masters events, titles on all surfaces (two clay masters), a superior top 10 win record, and competing in a stronger era. Heck, Novak straightsetted Nadal at RG this year. Federer can only dream of doing that.

 

[Billie]

I was always told that 17 > 14 > 10 but now suddenly 6 is not > 4?

If the quantity is so important now, then the player to win most tournaments in his career (Connors?) is the GOAT, no dispute there.

I did watch 2006 season and it wasn't as strong as Nole's 2015.  First of all no big clay titles for Federer in 2006, lost in 2nd round in Cinci.  While Nole had only 3 losses that really mattered all year around and those were in finals, all of his finals were in a row.  It is more impressive, for me, at least.