Top seasons of the Open Era

[Federberg]

I haven't kept up with the thread, but is anyone really arguing that Roger was playing better tennis in 2015 than he did in 2006?

Here's a question, can anyone please remind me of Roger's results in the first half of 2015 and the people he lost to? Thanks.

Just to stir the pot, here's a direct quote from @Mastoor earlier in the thread...

"Federer, in his own words, never played better tennis then in 2015 and he said that several times."

 

[Obsi]

Lol! I must have missed that one.

How on earth you missed it? The opening post is only about the TennisNow listing.

 

[Federberg]

^Ah! I see it. I think I was drawn to this thread because I was agreeing with someone's post. If your point is that I didn't directly confront @britbox post, you're mistaken. He started a thread, to encourage discussion. It's not clear to me he was even agreeing with it from what I've now seen. On the other hand you're presenting your post as if it should have some special authority? I don't agree with that

 

[Obsi]

^Ah! I see it. I think I was drawn to this thread because I was agreeing with someone's post. If your point is that I didn't directly confront @britbox post, you're mistaken. He started a thread, to encourage discussion. It's not clear to me he was even agreeing with it from what I've now seen. On the other hand you're presenting your post as if it should have some special authority? I don't agree with that

Britbox could've started this thread with his own opinion to encourage disscussion so why is it clear to you he didn't quote the TennisNow because it should have some special authority?

 

[Federberg]

His contributions later on in the thread. And knowing that he's keen to promote discussion on these threads. He can speak for himself and tell us at some point. Nevertheless, my initial response stands. Even if he did do what you thought he did. I didn't see it that way. If I had seen it that way I would have disagreed. As I often do with britbox. You're not really making much sense to me, if he had done what you think he was doing there would be no point in creating the thread in the first place. I repeat he was trying to get people to post their views

 

[britbox]

Britbox could've started this thread with his own opinion to encourage disscussion so why is it clear to you he didn't quote the TennisNow because it should have some special authority?

I don't think it has any special authority (and I like the TennisNow video snippets)... but it's a talking point, just like any other article of news and yes it does generate discussion. I don't think anyone has special authority as it's all opinion based... I think you can respect an opinion without agreeing with it. I happen to like Steve Flink, the guy you mentioned a lot... and enjoy listening to him articulating his views - he's well informed and a historian of the game. I respect his opinion and give it weight but don't consider him or anyone else the absolute Oracle

It's an open house here Obsi,nobody needs to agree with my opinion in the slightest. Not a single post has been moderated on this board since it opened. Federberg and I disagree so often I'm beginning to think the man is insane. but it's all good and your posts have generated plenty of discussion also - keep em coming.

 

[Obsi]

His contributions later on in the thread. And knowing that he's keen to promote discussion on these threads. He can speak for himself and tell us at some point. Nevertheless, my initial response stands. Even if he did do what you thought he did. I didn't see it that way. If I had seen it that way I would have disagreed. As I often do with britbox. You're not really making much sense to me, if he had done what you think he was doing there would be no point in creating the thread in the first place. I repeat he was trying to get people to post their views

His contributions later on in the thread? I posted Flink's list today and you replied very soon after. You didn't wait for me to speak for myself at some point but instead proclaimed I quoted Flink for different reason than britbox TennisNow.
All I can tell you is that your argument is very weak so I believe the real reason for your behaviour is that Flink put Djokovic's 2015 above Federer's 2006 and TennisNow did otherwise.

 

[Federberg]

hahaha! I just happened to see it mate. There's no mystery here. I don't agree with Flink. This is getting boring. If I didn't give you a chance to speak, then my bad. Why did you post it then?

 

[Obsi]

Why did you post it then?

I wanted to show that a reputable tennis historian disagrees with TennisNow but I don't think Flink should have some special authority.

 

[britbox]

I still have Laver at #1 for a single season, simply because I put a lot on the Calendar Grand Slam being the Holy Grail of tennis. I know a lot of people downplay it for various reasons (field, competition, country club tennis etc...) but it still trumps everything IMO. It's clearly not easy to do or somebody else would have done it at some point over the last 47 years... it's mathematically harder to accomplish than 4 in a row.

Statistically, Novak's 2015 trumps his 2011... but I was more impressed in 2011... maybe it's because he broke out and the competition was tougher... likewise in some ways, I prefer Federer's 2005 to his 2006.

 

[Federberg]

I wanted to show that a reputable tennis historian disagrees with TennisNow but I don't think Flink should have some special authority.

fair enough

 

[Federberg]

I still have Laver at #1 for a single season, simply because I put a lot on the Calendar Grand Slam being the Holy Grail of tennis. I know a lot of people downplay it for various reasons (field, competition, country club tennis etc...) but it still trumps everything IMO. It's clearly not easy to do or somebody else would have done it at some point over the last 47 years... it's mathematically harder to accomplish than 4 in a row.

Statistically, Novak's 2015 trumps his 2011... but I was more impressed in 2011... maybe it's because he broke out and the competition was tougher... likewise in some ways, I prefer Federer's 2005 to his 2006.

For me.. Federer's 2006 and Mac's 1984 are right up there. Sustained excellence throughout the year, hardly any losses and still mighty at the end of the year. Novak's 2011 is just behind. Novak's 2015, Federer's 2004 & 5, Nadal's 2010, all very strong. I'm probably missing some. I'm bit more sceptical about Laver's 69 and even Connors 74, depth is very important to me

 

[britbox]

I get it with Laver... but give him a pass all the same. It's an interesting discussion because I always wonder when posters considered tennis to be "modern"... as in somewhat comparable across eras and I'm kind of concluding it's related to the age of the poster. If they saw the player play then it's more authentic...

 

[Federberg]

I'm sure there's a lot of that going on. For me I started watching late 70s early 80s. And as much as I want to give the guys I first watched a pass, I'm still mindful of the huge increase in depth in the last 10-15 years. And I mean that not just in terms of depth of field, but also the equalisation that has come from technology. Not enough is made of technology. For me it's the combination of people from all over the world (not just the posh tennis clubs from back in the day) and the fact that technology has made less talented players better equipped to compete now

 

[DarthFed]

I do put Djoker's 2015 slightly ahead of Fed's 2006. He did win 2 more MS events and set the record that year with 6 total. For Federer the argument is that he had a better record and may have won more titles overall (I think he did but not sure). Djoker's 2011 is clearly behind his 2015 and Fed's 2006 statistically, but as mentioned earlier the competition was still fierce that year in comparison to the other years. So in many ways it was more impressive, he just ran out of gas after the USO that year.

And the talk of how hard Djoker's 2015 competition was is laughable. 34 year old, washed up Fed was his biggest challenge. Fed didn't do anything the first half of the year but was ok after that, making some finals. But in the end we are giving his year and level of play a little too much praise when the only thing of note he won was Cincy.

 

[Tennis Fan]

I still have Laver at #1 for a single season, simply because I put a lot on the Calendar Grand Slam being the Holy Grail of tennis. I know a lot of people downplay it for various reasons (field, competition, country club tennis etc...) but it still trumps everything IMO. It's clearly not easy to do or somebody else would have done it at some point over the last 47 years... it's mathematically harder to accomplish than 4 in a row.

Statistically, Novak's 2015 trumps his 2011... but I was more impressed in 2011... maybe it's because he broke out and the competition was tougher... likewise in some ways, I prefer Federer's 2005 to his 2006.

Agree with the first part. Don't remember Federer's 2005 and 2006 exploits, but it was during his heyday so it seems it would've been hard to pick between the two.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Let me ask you a question... I get that Rogers own claim to be playing better tennis recently has some Novak fans confused. Hard to see what else he could say really, but I suspect what he's really trying to say is he plays with a higher tennis IQ now. My question is this... do you really think Federer of 2015 would stand a chance against his 2006 version? Because his 2015 version would have to beat that guy from 9 years ago, yes... nearly a decade ago. Hope that sounds as preposterous to you as it does to me.

As for styles, here's my issue with that... one of Rogers big issues now is that his lack of speed makes him vulnerable with his tendency to camp on the Ad side. Novak kills him with that, by hitting winners into an open deuce side. Please go and watch Federer in his prime, I dare you to try that tactic against him then. The point is that in his prime he had a more lethal attack as well as a better defence. Now he no longer has the point ending forehand and his defence is compromised by loss of movement. How can anyone think this player is on a par with what he used to be??

Of course I don't think Roger played his best tennis last year, especially when you compare the complete season to 2004 to 2007 but in my opinion the level he showed from Halle to the US Open is not as far away from it as some Federer fans would like to believe either. His return, forehand, movement (especially to the forehand side) and overall baseline game definitely have declined compared to his peak level but his backhand and net game were on a similar level and his serve and tactical prowess were probably even slightly better in 2015. If I remember correctly he finished last year with the best percentage of service games won he ever had for a season, which indicates that the serve itself worked extremely well. Matches like the Wimbledon final 2014, Wimbledon semi final 2015 and Cincinatti semi final and final 2015 might well have been among his best ever serving performances. So a hypothetical match between the Roger of 2006 and the one of 2015 might well come down to tiebreaks (in which I would clearly favour the 2006 version) or at least not result in the one of 2006 winning that easy.

In general I think that an improved serve can compensate for a small decline in other areas quite well and for example also is the most important reason for Novak having such a great last year despite a compared to 2011 slightly declined return and baseline game.

I do put Djoker's 2015 slightly ahead of Fed's 2006. He did win 2 more MS events and set the record that year with 6 total. For Federer the argument is that he had a better record and may have won more titles overall (I think he did but not sure). Djoker's 2011 is clearly behind his 2015 and Fed's 2006 statistically, but as mentioned earlier the competition was still fierce that year in comparison to the other years. So in many ways it was more impressive, he just ran out of gas after the USO that year.

And the talk of how hard Djoker's 2015 competition was is laughable. 34 year old, washed up Fed was his biggest challenge. Fed didn't do anything the first half of the year but was ok after that, making some finals. But in the end we are giving his year and level of play a little too much praise when the only thing of note he won was Cincy.

That's basically my opinion as well. When you want to determine the best seasons I think the results should be the key factor where 2011 is noticeably behind 2006 and 2015. In 2006 Roger had a 92:5 record with 12 titles and won 4 of the 7 Masters he played and Novak's 2015 was 82:6 with 11 titles including winning 6 out of the 8 Masters he played so I also think the additional Masters titles put 2015 marginally ahead.

Ranking the greatest season is slightly different and more subjective as things like surprise factor, strength of competition (where 2011 clearly trumps 2006 and 2015 in my opinion) and level of the dominating player (where Federer's in 2006 might be cosidered most impressive) can be included there which ultimately means every order of 2006, 2011 and 2015 can be reasonable depending on personal preferences.

 

[britbox]

@Backhand_DTL - how do you personally regard seasons of yesteryear... like Laver's 69, Connors 74 and Mac's 84 in respect to the present game?

 

[Federberg]

In general I think that an improved serve can compensate for a small decline in other areas quite well and for example also is the most important reason for Novak having such a great last year despite a compared to 2011 slightly declined return and baseline game.

In that case why isn't Karlovic the number 1 ranked player in the world. I'm sorry, as much as you might want to try to use reductive logic to argue this point I just don't see it. The decline in Federer's movement and consequentially his forehand is not a small thing. It's huge. The guy's forehand in his prime is possibly the most lethal weapon the sport has ever seen. Here's a problem with stats, if you're looking at Rogers serving stats in isolation I think you're missing a lot. Federer's greatest combo was the serve and forehand combined. It was always a lethal one-two. Yes sure he always got a lot of aces, but now he's practically forced to go down the Karlovic route. What made him so difficult in the past was the forehand shot following a successful return. The likes of Novak don't even need to worry about that anymore. They know if they get it in, it's very likely a rally will ensue. Back in his prime you had to get the ball in and ensure the return was positioned away from a lethal forehand response. You simply cannot look at single shots in isolation, elite tennis is not that simple. The idea that in effect you think there has been a slight decline that's been largely compensated for by improvements elsewhere is a complete misreading of what's happened. Roger has had to improve his serve and tactics to try to hang in there. That's the best we can say

 

[Backhand_DTL]

@Backhand_DTL - how do you personally regard seasons of yesteryear... like Laver's 69, Connors 74 and Mac's 84 in respect to the present game?

I didn't see any of those because I wasn't even born then, so I can basically just assess numbers. So in terms of those 1969 would be the best season of the open era because it was the only one where someone one all 4 slams. 1984 would be clearly the best two slam season and 1974 would be somewhat similar to 2006 and 2015.

But a big problem is that the tournament structure was different then, so it's hard to compare results away from the majors and the majors themselves apart from Wimbledon didn't have the same importance they have since the 90s as I think Connors and McEnroe skipped the French Open, respectively the Australian Open more or less voluntarily. That's why those years could be even better in terms of greatness than the pure numbers show and it's not possible for me to sensibly compare those to 2006, 2011 and 2015.

In that case why isn't Karlovic the number 1 ranked player in the world. I'm sorry, as much as you might want to try to use reductive logic to argue this point I just don't see it. The decline in Federer's movement and consequentially his forehand is not a small thing. It's huge. The guy's forehand in his prime is possibly the most lethal weapon the sport has ever seen. Here's a problem with stats, if you're looking at Rogers serving stats in isolation I think you're missing a lot. Federer's greatest combo was the serve and forehand combined. It was always a lethal one-two. Yes sure he always got a lot of aces, but now he's practically forced to go down the Karlovic route. What made him so difficult in the past was the forehand shot following a successful return. The likes of Novak don't even need to worry about that anymore. They know if they get it in, it's very likely a rally will ensue. Back in his prime you had to get the ball in and ensure the return was positioned away from a lethal forehand response. You simply cannot look at single shots in isolation, elite tennis is not that simple. The idea that in effect you think there has been a slight decline that's been largely compensated for by improvements elsewhere is a complete misreading of what's happened. Roger has had to improve his serve and tactics to try to hang in there. That's the best we can say

Because Karlovic is so much worse than the top players in everything but serve, volleys and backhand slice that even his superior serve cannot compensate that. But compared to himself as an overall tennis player I don't think he is any worse now with 37 than he was at 27.

In general the differences in tennis are really small as even in a win with a routine scoreline like 6:3 6:3 the ratio of points won is typically something like 55 % to 45 % which is not a big difference on absolute terms and even top 10 players sometimes win just above 50% of the points they played in a complete season. So even a slight decline or an improvement that leads to a change of 1 or 2 % can make a significant difference in results. But it's also possible that a decline in certain areas influences the way points are lost and won more than the numbers themselves. So it is completely possible that Roger wins less points with his first or second shot after the serve now but having more unreturned serves and still winning a majority of the longer rallies that happen on his serve ultimately result in him being as good at holding serve as ever.

On slower Hard Courts and clay which make the majority of the tour his decline in movement, return and on the point ending forehand definitely visibly hurt him and greatly lessen his chances against the players with elite defensive skills as well as making him beatable for a lot more players than when he was younger, but on faster courts he could adapt his game in a way that over best-of-three he was still the best player in the world in 2014 and 2015 but fell just short of beating Novak over best-of-five.