Top seasons of the Open Era

[Billie]

I don't have a problem with people putting seasons in any order that they want. But it is interesting that as soon as somebody points out that 2015 season is better than 2006, then the competition is being downplayed and all sorts of reasons are thrown in, which are just plain and simple bias. If you rank 2006 season better and say: Federer won 1 more tournament, or he had more wins and less losses, that would be accurate and fair. But no. Since Nole won more big titles, then his competition is weaker. I guess now that he is not #1 and is losing more frequently that means that competition is better now than last year?

If you really want to be frank you would concede that competitions in both years were not all that different, really. If anything the physicality is greater these days. I doubt that Davydenko could have played so many tournaments last year as he did in 2006, his body would have broken down at some point in the season. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Mary]

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.

Have to agree about Laver in 69. I saw him throughout Wimbledon then and even taking into account all the changes in the game he was sensational. The opposition from that era is often discounted but I think that is more to do with the quality of available film than the quality of play. The speed and shot variation rivals anything I see today even though I have great admiration for Novak, Rafa and Roger.

 

[brokenshoelace]

If you really want to be frank you would concede that competitions in both years were not all that different, really. If anything the physicality is greater these days. I doubt that Davydenko could have played so many tournaments last year as he did in 2006, his body would have broken down at some point in the season. But that is just my opinion.

Why would his body break down? What's changed since?

 

[Federberg]

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.

I would argue that you're creating the narrative to fit your point. But even if I take your point at face value, that may well be the case against lesser players, but that doesn't work against the top guys. Roger is not getting that space from the likes of Novak. To be honest this is quite beside the point. One of my continuing surprises when people make the claim that Roger hasn't really declined much is how does one account for the losses he's now making against lesser players? How does one account for the fact that his performance drop after a long match is so noticeable now? Back in his prime the guy wasn't showing these performance drops. I don't get why it's so important to deny his decline. It is what it is, no one can fight time.

I find it amusing that it's so important to elevate the performance of Federer now to justify Novak's achievement. But at the same time Federer's performances in his prime are somehow diminished.

 

[shawnbm]

I never really saw anything other than post-40 Laver--but he was good enough to beat the then teenaged sensation that was Borg in 1975. I think if today's players were to play the best of that era with the same racquets--they would be mighty battles. Those guys were a lot better than folks give them credit for--they may not have had the physios and all that, but they played a lot of tennis and had great variety.

 

[Ricardo]

I never really saw anything other than post-40 Laver--but he was good enough to beat the then teenaged sensation that was Borg in 1975. I think if today's players were to play the best of that era with the same racquets--they would be mighty battles. Those guys were a lot better than folks give them credit for--they may not have had the physios and all that, but they played a lot of tennis and had great variety.

Exactly, but most fans are shallow and clueless....which is normal. Show me a player from today who can play the same tennis with a wood racquet and i'll admit that the old generation was no good. It's simply physically not possible, the racquet and string make so much difference it's no brainer that the old pros were limited by the equipment.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

I would argue that you're creating the narrative to fit your point. But even if I take your point at face value, that may well be the case against lesser players, but that doesn't work against the top guys. Roger is not getting that space from the likes of Novak. To be honest this is quite beside the point. One of my continuing surprises when people make the claim that Roger hasn't really declined much is how does one account for the losses he's now making against lesser players? How does one account for the fact that his performance drop after a long match is so noticeable now? Back in his prime the guy wasn't showing these performance drops. I don't get why it's so important to deny his decline. It is what it is, no one can fight time.

I find it amusing that it's so important to elevate the performance of Federer now to justify Novak's achievement. But at the same time Federer's performances in his prime are somehow diminished.

Just to make sure that I didn't mix something up I checked Roger's percentage of service games won and 2015 is along with 2004 indeed his best year in that regard with 92 % (from 2005 to 2007 he had numbers of 89 %, 90 % and 89 %), so that definitely shows he found a way to adapt or improve certain elements that despite an overall decline resulted in his hold game not being negatively affected.

Again I absolutely agree that there is a noticeable decline in important areas like forehand, movement, return, ability to recover and match-to-match-consistency which clearly hurts his chances to win tournaments that are played on slow, medium slow and medium paced high bouncing surfaces (which make like 60 % of the important events) and increases his vulnerability to lesser players in general.

But that isn't necessarily a contradiction to the thought that on courts that suit his game he is still capable of reaching a level that is comparable to that of his prime for a certain amount of time. And in my opinion he hit such a stretch where he matched at least his standard of 2008-2012 for Halle, Wimbledon, Cincinnati and the US Open last year. That the first half of the year apart from Dubai and maybe Indian Wells and the fall season and therefore the majority of the year weren't on the same level is something I definitely wouldn't dispute.