Where Does Djokovic's 2015 Season Stand In History?

[El Dude]

^^No. Because then we look at who Federer beat and think, sheesh, I'd look great against that bunch! :snicker

This tired old argument.

Newsflash! Kieran doesn't like Roger Federer and thinks he's overrated!

We get it.

 

[Kieran]

^^No. Because then we look at who Federer beat and think, sheesh, I'd look great against that bunch! :snicker

This tired old argument.

Newsflash! Kieran doesn't like Roger Federer and thinks he's overrated!

We get it.

It was sitting there, waiting to be hit...

 

[El Dude]

Anyhow, I agree with this order:

1. 2015 Djokovic
2. 1969 Laver
3. 2006 Federer

Those are clearly the three greatest seasons of the Open Era. There can be quibbles about the order, mainly possibly swapping 1 and 2, but that's how I'd arrange them.

 

[Riotbeard]

Fed's 2006 tops Novak's 2015 as per this detailed analysis published in USA today . Check out the details yourself. Do you agree?

This is not an "agenda" based analysis. In fact, the author says that when he started writing he thought Novak's 2015 would come out as a victor and it is just a matter of writing it up. But, once
he sat down to analyze, he finds that Fed's 2006 is indeed better than Novak's 2015.

The man is a gushingly unabashed Fed fanatic. He comments on everything from Fed's beard - devoting two (2) articles - one calling it the biggest news at the WTF, to his opinion that Fed is the "greatest sportsman on the planet"

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/roger-federer-beard-keep-it-mirka-like-atp-world-tour-finals-schedule-shave

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/roger-federer-beard-atp-world-tour-finals-novak-djokovic-match-stats

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/roger-federer-sportsmanship-award-fan-favourite-favorite-atp-how-many-years-in-a-row

That's just in the past week alone.

And knowing all this, he picks Fed's 06 by a net cord - in his opinion. Nice try GSM. :snicker

I did not know the history of the author.

When you look at the bigness of the titles won, clearly 2015 better.

But, when you look at the quality of losses, clearly 2006 is better. After all Fed lost 4 times to Rafa and once to Andy, both of whom are younger and one is King of Clay. But, Novak lost to old man alone three times. There is no shame in losing to Roger. But, there is shame in losing to old Roger.

When you look at the quality of wins, Novak's 2015 is better. He clearly beat lot tougher opponents on the average than Fed in terms of ranking and played top 10 opponents a lot more times.

Also, another thing in Novak's favor is that almost all (except for one) of his losses came in finals. That was not the case for Fed. I think the article does not talk about this point.

Before reading this articles, my personal opinion was that Novak's 2015 is better than Fed's 2006.
But, now I am beginning to rethink. I have not made up my mind.

To me there are definitely arguments to be made. I think it would be harder to pull off 6 masters with best of 5 finals, although, I think best of 5 would have favored novak against anyone else...

The biggest problem I found with the article and it's what the author hangs his argument on is that Djokovic choked away the French Open. I remember Novak playing quite well, getting Stan out of position, and then once Stan was out of position, he would hit a winner... I am not saying Novak couldn't have played better, but he played very, very well (at a level that would have beaten anyone else on tour that day on clay), but Stan just found an insane level. While of course losing to Nadal in the FO final means more, I think there was no shame in the French Open final loss. Not to mention that the author did not explain that Rafa got injured down a set in AO final...

 

[Backhand_DTL]

The man is a gushingly unabashed Fed fanatic. He comments on everything from Fed's beard - devoting two (2) articles - one calling it the biggest news at the WTF, to his opinion that Fed is the "greatest sportsman on the planet"

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/roger-federer-beard-keep-it-mirka-like-atp-world-tour-finals-schedule-shave

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/roger-federer-beard-atp-world-tour-finals-novak-djokovic-match-stats

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/roger-federer-sportsmanship-award-fan-favourite-favorite-atp-how-many-years-in-a-row

That's just in the past week alone.

And knowing all this, he picks Fed's 06 by a net cord - in his opinion. Nice try GSM. :snicker

I did not know the history of the author.

When you look at the bigness of the titles won, clearly 2015 better.

But, when you look at the quality of losses, clearly 2006 is better. After all Fed lost 4 times to Rafa and once to Andy, both of whom are younger and one is King of Clay. But, Novak lost to old man alone three times. There is no shame in losing to Roger. But, there is shame in losing to old Roger.

When you look at the quality of wins, Novak's 2015 is better. He clearly beat lot tougher opponents on the average than Fed in terms of ranking and played top 10 opponents a lot more times.

Also, another thing in Novak's favor is that almost all (except for one) of his losses came in finals. That was not the case for Fed. I think the article does not talk about this point.

Before reading this articles, my personal opinion was that Novak's 2015 is better than Fed's 2006.
But, now I am beginning to rethink. I have not made up my mind.

To me there are definitely arguments to be made. I think it would be harder to pull off 6 masters with best of 5 finals, although, I think best of 5 would have favored novak against anyone else...

If playing best of 5 finals and having no Bye in the 1st rounds (which apart from Indian Wells and Miami was also introduced after 2006) might have influenced Novak's number of masters titles is an interesting question. But I don't think it would have. Novak would probably not have lost any of the finals he won from 2:0 or 2:1 sets up and it's hard to imagine him not winning some because of the need to play a 1st round against some unseeded player.

As he didn't play Madrid and Rome back to back because of skipping Madrid only Montreal and Cincinnati might have turned out different. I think it's possible that Novak would have taken the Montreal final to five sets and maybe could have won and then would have pulled out or lost quite early in Cincinnati afterwards.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

laver is the best..simply for 4/4 majors, Djokovic/fed prob equal...

fed won an extra title, 10 more matches and lost one fewer than djokovic, but djoko won an an extra masters title.

also fed lost 3 times to clay goat rafa on clay, 1 to rafa on hc and once to murray, but djoko lost 3 times to 33/34yrs old Federer, and ivo karlovic. and lost to stan at rg final.

Djokovic keeps losing to the old blokes lol.

 

[Fiero425]

Laver is the best..simply for 4/4 majors, Djokovic/Fed prob equal...

Fed won an extra title, 10 more matches and lost one fewer than Djokovic, but he won an extra Masters title.

Also Fed lost 3 times to clay goat Rafa on clay, 1 to Rafa on HC and once to Murray, but Djoko lost 3 times to 33/34yrs old Federer, Ivo Karlovic, and lost to Stan at RG final.

Djokovic keeps losing to the old blokes lol.

All the more to be hopeful, his reign will be longer since the new "young bloods" can't stay on the court! :angel: :dodgy:

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Boris Becker tweets saying that Roger's 2006 is better.

Just a word to all the @rogerfederer fans in the world ...he is the GOAT ! 2006 was even better than 2015 but give @DjokerNole respect!!!


3:53 PM - 23 Nov 2015



405 405 Retweets

609 609 likes

 

[nehmeth]

Guess he's motivating Djoker to do "better" next year.

 

[Mile]

Guess he's motivating Djoker to do "better" next year.

Exactly. Statement of Becker is from eyes of coach, so he was saying actually, no, you werent better, keep pushing next year. With giving him benefits, he knew Djoker could feel satisfaction, and that one brings decease. So push and push in 2016.


Anyway, for us, you, me,... there isnt any doubt Feds 2006 in better from Djokers 2015, not in a single way or stat. Simple, 2015 is best in tennis history.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Perhaps, the OP could add a poll to this thread.

Which one is better? Novak 2015 or Fed 2006

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Another thing here is that Fed did not win a single clay title in 2006 (but we know, why).

Novak won two prestigious clay titles in MC and Rome.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I did not know the history of the author.

When you look at the bigness of the titles won, clearly 2015 better.

But, when you look at the quality of losses, clearly 2006 is better. After all Fed lost 4 times to Rafa and once to Andy, both of whom are younger and one is King of Clay. But, Novak lost to old man alone three times. There is no shame in losing to Roger. But, there is shame in losing to old Roger.

When you look at the quality of wins, Novak's 2015 is better. He clearly beat lot tougher opponents on the average than Fed in terms of ranking and played top 10 opponents a lot more times.

Also, another thing in Novak's favor is that almost all (except for one) of his losses came in finals. That was not the case for Fed. I think the article does not talk about this point.

Before reading this articles, my personal opinion was that Novak's 2015 is better than Fed's 2006.
But, now I am beginning to rethink. I have not made up my mind.

To me there are definitely arguments to be made. I think it would be harder to pull off 6 masters with best of 5 finals, although, I think best of 5 would have favored novak against anyone else...

If playing best of 5 finals and having no Bye in the 1st rounds (which apart from Indian Wells and Miami was also introduced after 2006) might have influenced Novak's number of masters titles is an interesting question. But I don't think it would have. Novak would probably not have lost any of the finals he won from 2:0 or 2:1 sets up and it's hard to imagine him not winning some because of the need to play a 1st round against some unseeded player.

As he didn't play Madrid and Rome back to back because of skipping Madrid only Montreal and Cincinnati might have turned out different. I think it's possible that Novak would have taken the Montreal final to five sets and maybe could have won and then would have pulled out or lost quite early in Cincinnati afterwards.

I agree with your comments on the given question. But, a more interesting question would be whether Federer would have won more Masters if it were three set matches. Generally speaking, people tend to take the existing results and truncate it to first three sets to get a feel. But, that is a bad philosophy. If you know that the match is best of three sets, you would play differently. Rafa is more difficult to beat on clay in 5 set matches. Surely, Fed would have had better chances of beating Rafa in 3 set matches than in 5 set matches on clay. That could possibly have given him MC or Rome. Then Fed's Masters count goes up to 5.

Finally, as many might remember the Rome final between Rafa and Fed was an epic (lot better than RG final of that year) that went to five sets. As a result of that match both Fed and Rafa did not play in Hamburg. Fed usually had an advantage in Hamburg and for all you know, if Rome final was a three set match (even if Fed had lost there), he would have had a chance to play in Hamburg and possibly clinch it as it is his favorite clay masters tourney. That would have made his Masters count go up to 6.

I am not doing any revision to the history here; that is I am not saying if Fed had done something other than what he did, he would have won. But, what I am trying to say is that without altering anything, it is conceivable that Fed might have won couple more Masters in 2006, if the finals were three set matches.

 

[Backhand_DTL]

Another thing here is that Fed did not win a single clay title in 2006 (but we know, why).

Novak won two prestigious clay titles in MC and Rome.

Here's a ranking of the players on the different surfaces for this year:

I don't know if anybody managed to be 1st in every category before. Roger in 2009 could be possible but he did not win any of the hard court slams or the WTF that year, so he probably wasn't leading on indoor hard at least.

Novak was somewhat lucky that Rafa's problems made it easier to score the most points on clay than in any other year since 2005 but by playing just three tournaments on clay on one on grass (although to be 1st on grass winning Wimbledon is mandatory anyway) he didn't have much margin for error, so it's still an impressive achievement.

 

[Front242]

^^No. Because then we look at who Federer beat and think, sheesh, I'd look great against that bunch! :snicker

Federer looked much more unstoppable in his prime as the top 10 opponents were much tougher. All the talk of Federer winning his early slams in a weak era is pure nonsense. Roddick, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Robredo, Ancic, Gonzalez, Blake. All of these guys were far better than the likes of Ferrer, Tsonga, Berdych and all the other guys in the top these days who have won nothing of note. Prime Roddick had wins over Nadal and ended his career with a winning h2h over Djokovic. Davydenko ended his career with a winning h2h over Nadal. Blake had numerous wins over Nadal in his prime as did Gonzalez. The same thing happened to all of them as they got older, they started losing to Nadal, Djokovic and Federer more 'cos they were older and well past their prime. Now Djokovic is beating guys well past their prime. There's no difference whatsoever, time catches up with everyone but the top 10 in 2006 was far more impressive than it is today.

http://www.stevegtennis.com/men-atp-rankings/2006-12-25/1/all/

 

[Kieran]

^^ Gimme a break, brother... :cover

 

[Front242]

Maybe you'd like to watch prime Roddick against Nadal, prime Gonzalez making a monkey out of Nadal at the AO '07, or the whopping 1 extra win Nadal had over Blake when he ended his career. Without his knee injuries crippling his movement in his later years that trend of him beating Nadal was likely to continue as he had his number when fit. Likewise Roddick who you're always taking the p1$$ out of had Djokovic's number till his prime ended. It's a common problem that people only remember these guys last days on tour when they started losing to all the guys they beat handily before. It's called age. Roddick was a great player in his prime and if not for Roger Federer would have won multiple slams.

 

[Kieran]

Roddick was not a great player. Not in his prime. Not in his dreams. In your dreams, maybe... :laydownlaughing

 

[Front242]

Roddick was not a great player. Not in his prime. Not in his dreams. In your dreams, maybe... :laydownlaughing

So how pray tell did he win the US Open 2003 and reach the final of Wimbledon 2004, 2005 and 2009? Not to mention the SF of the AO (2003, 2005, 2007, 2009) As I said, he would have won multiple slams if not for having to play against Roger Federer all the times he lost at Wimbledon. There's no shame losing to the guy who has won Wimbledon the same number of times as Pete Sampras. :nono He proved how great he was by getting to all those finals only to lose the guy regarded as the GOAT for now. Gee, what a disgrace it was losing to him. :cover

 

[Kieran]

Mats Wilander had a great phrase: "great players find a way." Commit it to memory.

Roddick was a good player who was better than a bunch of not so good players...