Who better? 2011 Djoker vs 2006 Roger Federer? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Who better? 2011 Djoker vs 2006 Roger Federer?

Pages : [1] 2 3

BigJohn
11-25-2011, 11:11 PM
Now that the year is over for Nole, what do you think? Who had the better year?

Federer 3 slams, 1 slam final, undefeated at the TMC, 12 titles 92-5 ( 6 titles post Wimbledon)

Djokovic 3 slams, 1 slam semi, 2 losses RR of the WTF, 10 titles, 70-6 ( 2 titles post Wimbledon)

The former thread
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=189890

Saberq
11-25-2011, 11:12 PM
2006 and stop trolling

rubbERR
11-25-2011, 11:13 PM
2006 and stop trolling

Trolling what? You dont make freaking any sense man. :lol:

BigJohn
11-25-2011, 11:13 PM
The other poll was deemed unfair because it was created before the year was done. Now it is. And the poll is public. :)

alter ego
11-25-2011, 11:13 PM
92-5 > 70-6
/thread

Egreen
11-25-2011, 11:16 PM
Fed by far.

Saberq
11-25-2011, 11:25 PM
We dont need thread at all .....2006 is better ....I will open then Fed 2005 against Novak 2011 for Novak to win and for Djokotards to gloat...pathetic

BigJohn
11-25-2011, 11:28 PM
We dont need thread at all .....2006 is better ....I will open then Fed 2005 against Novak 2011 for Novak to win and for Djokotards to gloat...pathetic

But I don't understand, Nole had more than 100 votes in the other thread...

I am sure those individuals still feel the same way, otherwise why would they have voted for Nole in the first place?

Congratulation for the correct use of the term Djokotard. Noletard or Fakertard would have been also acceptable.

Saberq
11-25-2011, 11:29 PM
But I don't understand, Nole had more than 100 votes in the other thread...

I am sure those individuals still feel the same way, otherwise why would they have voted for Nole in the first place?

At that point it was ....It was post US Open and he had 2 loses and 3 Slams and 5 Masters

atennisfan
11-25-2011, 11:30 PM
This is not even debatable.

2006 is the greatest

92-5?

T H I S I S S P A R T A !

habibko
11-25-2011, 11:33 PM
not even controversial anymore

Saberq
11-25-2011, 11:34 PM
I dont get you Fed fans ....your guy is the GOAT not only in success but in talent and game won 16GS was number 1 for 5 or so years and you have need to gloat.....why dont you relax and watch WTF till the end and support him instead of bragging about him all the time ...

Time Violation
11-25-2011, 11:37 PM
But I don't understand, Nole had more than 100 votes in the other thread...

I am sure those individuals still feel the same way, otherwise why would they have voted for Nole in the first place?

Congratulation for the correct use of the term Djokotard. Noletard or Fakertard would have been also acceptable.

When the thread was opened, Nole's season was superior, that's why :shrug: He performed poorly in the last two months - the bad part is the last two months are also a part of the season. The good part is that they are not so important part of the season :cool: Anyway, Fed can have his record, 3 slams + everything else Nole did is good enough for us :D

BigJohn
11-25-2011, 11:38 PM
I can assure you that I am not tense at the moment.


Guga2120 :rolls:

habibko
11-25-2011, 11:39 PM
I dont get you Fed fans ....your guy is the GOAT not only in success but in talent and game won 16GS was number 1 for 5 or so years and you have need to gloat.....why dont you relax and watch WTF till the end and support him instead of bragging about him all the time ...

you say that as if Djokovic fans weren't gloating when the streak was going

schadenfreude is one of the greatest pleasures in life you know

fmolinari2005
11-25-2011, 11:42 PM
Fed 2006. But not by far. To use a soccer metaphor, he won it with a goal on the last minute of the match.

Poirot123
11-25-2011, 11:45 PM
I dont get you Fed fans ....your guy is the GOAT not only in success but in talent and game won 16GS was number 1 for 5 or so years and you have need to gloat.....why dont you relax and watch WTF till the end and support him instead of bragging about him all the time ...

Wait five years. When your man is still a top dog, but being challenged by new young guns. The losing and inconsistencies increase. The despair of defeat snatched from the jaws of victory with wasted match points. Watching a great of the game lose when before they'd win easily. Throwing away 2 set leads. Missing a gazillion break points. You'll know how Fedtards feel then. We know success. We've celebrated brilliance. We've seen greateness. But when your man falters, loses to guys ranked 10-20 in the world in a slam, throws away winning positions, serves like a WTA player, then you know why people become a little, shall we say, insecure.

BigJohn
11-25-2011, 11:45 PM
Fed 2006. But not by far. To use a soccer metaphor, he won it with a goal on the last minute of the match.

Seems to me that Federer dominated the second half...

Federerhingis
11-25-2011, 11:46 PM
This is not even debatable.

2006 is the greatest

92-5?

T H I S I S S P A R T A !

I am not here to gloat or create drama but some will argue that John McEnroe states that 2011 is the best year he has seen a player play and use that as a source of argument, others may add on to the credibility that Pete Sampras agrees.

One thing that some have pointed out on other threads and comes again to attention is the fact that 3 out of the top four players were so banged up and out of shape for this year end championships and then some argue that these are the best athletes of all time. For starters they are all under what 26 and they are already all banged up? Will they even be in the top 10 by age 28? Here we see how Federer has been blessed with being mostly injury free and how his more proactive game style has served him to age well in tennis.

By the way Novak did have a significant achievement in winning 5 master series events in one year and I believe that will remain unrivaled for a few seasons, certainly that's one out of Rogers reach.

Sunset of Age
11-25-2011, 11:50 PM
Fed 2006. But not by far. To use a soccer metaphor, he won it with a goal on the last minute of the match.

I think it should also be taken into account that Fed played a lot more matches in 2006 - about 20 more, that's not just a little bit, that's the equivalent of about 4 tournaments.

manadrainer
11-25-2011, 11:51 PM
I always said that Nole's season could be the best if he won WTF.

3 GS + 4 Master + WTF > 3 GS + 5 Masters

12 > 10

92-5 > 70-6

2006 > 2011

Sophocles
11-25-2011, 11:52 PM
The killer awoke before dawn. He put his boots on. He took a face from the ancient gallery and he - he walked on down the hall. He went into the room where his sister lived and then he - then he paid a visit to his brother - and then he - and then he came to a door - and he looked inside. "Father?" "Yes son?" "I want to kill you. MOTHER..."

Poirot123
11-25-2011, 11:53 PM
Federer 2006 tops Djokovic 2011. Always 2012...

fmolinari2005
11-26-2011, 12:02 AM
Seems to me that Federer dominated the second half...

You make a good point. First half it was close with Nole having the edge. Nole goes to the lockeroom winning 2-1. Second half, Fed comes back stronger, levels the match and then at 35 mins of the second half turns it around and at 44 mins closes the deal with a 4-2. At 40 mins Nole almost levels the match. Not as close I initially thought. Just a bit of drama. LOL.

I think it should also be taken into account that Fed played a lot more matches in 2006 - about 20 more, that's not just a little bit, that's the equivalent of about 4 tournaments.

True. But at 2006 he was 2-3 against his main rival. Nole ended up with a perfect 6-0. So we should also take that into consideration.

All in all, as usual with Fed's career, Nadal is there to make the arguments a bit spicy. ;)

Saberq
11-26-2011, 12:03 AM
2013 Murray will win all 4 Slams and it will be the greatest year ever ....Sapeod said so

Time Violation
11-26-2011, 12:04 AM
Seems to me that Federer dominated the second half...

Ok, Fed's season was better, we get it, however all that Fed dominated were one 500 and one Masters (WTF pending), that's not even a quarter, let alone half :lol:

alter ego
11-26-2011, 12:10 AM
Ok, Fed's season was better, we get it, however all that Fed dominated were one 500 and one Masters (WTF pending), that's not even a quarter, let alone half :lol:


He was talking about 2006, Federer's end of the season then was better than Djokovic's end in 2011.

Time Violation
11-26-2011, 12:18 AM
He was talking about 2006, Federer's end of the season then was better than Djokovic's end in 2011.

If so, my bad then. :) Anyway, even by Nole's standards, this was probably the worst season ending in some years.

Sunset of Age
11-26-2011, 12:18 AM
True. But at 2006 he was 2-3 against his main rival. Nole ended up with a perfect 6-0. So we should also take that into consideration.

All in all, as usual with Fed's career, Nadal is there to make the arguments a bit spicy. ;)

Of course it is a factor as well, yet I regard it as less important, as a player's resumé over a year is primarily made up from what a player manages to do against the entire field, not just one other player. Just a personal opinion. :)

There is no doubt that Djokovic' season is a very exceptional one, and most definitely among the best of all times. But I just cannot help but give the edge to Federer whether he manages to win the WTF this year or not. The fact that Djokovic appeared to be gassed out after the USO and playing 70 matches compared to Fed's 92 and still be able to win the concluding event of the tour is a rather big factor imho.

tektonac
11-26-2011, 12:18 AM
2006 and stop trolling

troll detector recorded this:

http://www.seismo2009.ethz.ch/hazard/risk/flyers/shakeval/seismograms1.jpg

BigJohn
11-26-2011, 12:23 AM
Of course it is a factor as well, yet I regard it as less important, as a player's resumé over a year is primarily made up from what a player manages to do against the entire field, not just one other player. Just a personal opinion. :)


This is not just your opinion, it is the only intelligent way to approach this.

But it is not a not an accepted reality by many Ratatards...

Gagsquet
11-26-2011, 12:23 AM
2006 of course but I agree with some Djoko fans (I can sometimes) that this thread is a little useless and a backhanded trolling attempt.

kyleskywalker007
11-26-2011, 12:24 AM
I always said that Nole's season could be the best if he won WTF.

3 GS + 4 Master + WTF > 3 GS + 5 Masters

12 > 10

92-5 > 70-6

2006 > 2011

THIS.

Someone also mentioned how Fed was 2-3 vs Nadal on 2006 and how Novak is 6-0 against him this year. That doesn´t necessarily mean that Novak was somehow less beatable, because, last time I checked, Novak had 6 losses this year while Fed had 5. This means that, other than Nadal, Federer was practically untouchable on 2006, he dominated the rest of the field; whereas Novak dominated his closest competitor but still lost to the rest of the field more often... It somehow balances the equation if you think about it.

Time Violation
11-26-2011, 12:30 AM
The fact that Djokovic appeared to be gassed out after the USO and playing 70 matches compared to Fed's 92 and still be able to win the concluding event of the tour is a rather big factor imho.

To be honest, Nole had an extremely short break last year, playing DC into December, and going to Australia for Hopman cup three weeks later. It's as if his season started with USO 2010 and finished with USO 2011 :)

Ozone
11-26-2011, 12:32 AM
Fed cuz if '06 Nole played '06 Fed he would get buttf*cked, whereas '11 Fed has had success against '11 Nole multiple times even at RG

SaFed2005
11-26-2011, 12:33 AM
You make a good point. First half it was close with Nole having the edge. Nole goes to the lockeroom winning 2-1. Second half, Fed comes back stronger, levels the match and then at 35 mins of the second half turns it around and at 44 mins closes the deal with a 4-2. At 40 mins Nole almost levels the match. Not as close I initially thought. Just a bit of drama. LOL.



True. But at 2006 he was 2-3 against his main rival. Nole ended up with a perfect 6-0. So we should also take that into consideration.

All in all, as usual with Fed's career, Nadal is there to make the arguments a bit spicy. ;)

In 10 years nobody will remember that Djokovic beat Nadal 6 times in the year 2011. They will only remember that he had a great season where he won 3 slams and 5 masters with an awesome record of 70 wins and only 6 losses.

Same with Federers 2006 people will only remember that he won 3 slams 4 masters and the tennis masters cup. And that he had one of the best seasons with 92 wins and 5 losses. That's it.

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 12:37 AM
Assume Djokovic had a better season,

this implies that 70>92 and 5>6

But this is a contradiction because 92>70 and 6>5. Therefore Federer's 2006 season was better as proven using proof by contradiction.

/thread.

:wavey:

BigJohn
11-26-2011, 12:38 AM
To be honest, Nole had an extremely short break last year, playing DC into December, and going to Australia for Hopman cup three weeks later. It's as if his season started with USO 2010 and finished with USO 2011 :)

I don't think honest is the right adjective to introduce that post...

Time Violation
11-26-2011, 12:39 AM
Fed cuz if '06 Nole played '06 Fed he would get buttf*cked, whereas '11 Fed has had success against '11 Nole multiple times even at RG

Multiple times? You probably mixed this season with another one :)

fmolinari2005
11-26-2011, 12:41 AM
Of course it is a factor as well, yet I regard it as less important, as a player's resumé over a year is primarily made up from what a player manages to do against the entire field, not just one other player. Just a personal opinion. :)

There is no doubt that Djokovic' season is a very exceptional one, and most definitely among the best of all times. But I just cannot help but give the edge to Federer whether he manages to win the WTF this year or not. The fact that Djokovic appeared to be gassed out after the USO and playing 70 matches compared to Fed's 92 and still be able to win the concluding event of the tour is a rather big factor imho.

Agreed. I am just playing the role of the devil's advocate regarding how the number each one played their respective main rivals at their time. But we all know that, regardless of the fact that we might not agree with it, this issue will be brought up.

In the end stats don't lie. Federer's 2006 is better. I was only taking a stab of determing how much better it was. And I still don't think it was by a landslide. But as you and John pointed out, not as close as I thought it was.

And if you take stats out. And this is a matter of opinion. In terms of quality of tennis ... there I think Roger wins by a mile. On this I can say without fearing my "tardism" is playing a role, since despite being a Fed fan, I don't have a thing against Nole. But tennis-wise, Nole is mechanical. While Roger play(ed) such inspirational tennis. Right after Nole won Wimbledon I wrote that what he achieved was perfection through playing a "regular" brand of tennis. It was good, but not great seeing it, if I can sum it up in a sound bite.

atennisfan
11-26-2011, 12:43 AM
you say that as if Djokovic fans weren't gloating when the streak was going

schadenfreude is one of the greatest pleasures in life you know

Exactly.
It was Nole's first and only great season, and the noletards were already the most unbearable.

Time Violation
11-26-2011, 12:45 AM
I don't think honest is the right adjective to introduce that post...

It's true nonetheless, you can check the facts if you doubt it.

atennisfan
11-26-2011, 12:46 AM
Fed 2006. But not by far. To use a soccer metaphor, he won it with a goal on the last minute of the match.

Not really.

92-5 is a lot more superior than 70-7.
3 slams and 1 final > 3 slams and 1 semi
12 titles > 10 titles.

The difference is clearly far more than a goal on the last minute.

Sunset of Age
11-26-2011, 12:52 AM
Agreed. I am just playing the role of the devil's advocate regarding how the number each one played their respective main rivals at their time. But we all know that, regardless of the fact that we might not agree with it, this issue will be brought up.

Heheh. I suspected that. :devil:

In the end stats don't lie. Federer's 2006 is better. I was only taking a stab of determing how much better it was. And I still don't think it was by a landslide. But as you and John pointed out, not as close as I thought it was.

Well I still think it's close, as I'd like to emphasize that both seasons are truly outstanding. Both deserve the kudos they get.

And if you take stats out. And this is a matter of opinion. In terms of quality of tennis ... there I think Roger wins by a mile. On this I can say without fearing my "tardism" is playing a role, since despite being a Fed fan, I don't have a thing against Nole. But tennis-wise, Nole is mechanical. While Roger play(ed) such inspirational tennis. Right after Nole won Wimbledon I wrote that what he achieved was perfection through playing a "regular" brand of tennis. It was good, but not great seeing it, if I can sum it up in a sound bite.

This is of course indeed a personal opinion - one which I happen to share, but that's of course a personal preference. ;) Still, the different playing styles should not be taken into account as "the better season" is a matter of achievements, not a beauty contest.

Time Violation
11-26-2011, 01:05 AM
Not really.

92-5 is a lot more superior than 70-7.
3 slams and 1 final > 3 slams and 1 semi
12 titles > 10 titles.

The difference is clearly far more than a goal on the last minute.

Well, 1 AO = 1 AO, however the numbers don't say that Federer faced 0 players from top 5, and that he played SF and F against world #25 and world #54 respectively. The haters would most likely laugh their ass off with "weak era/weak field" and similar stuff, if it happened to Novak. :p

Of course, as somebody has already mentioned, few years later nobody will remember anymore who beat who and where, Nole will be credited with 3 slams/5 masters in 2011 and that's it. Which is fine - witnessing it was huge fun, can't ask for more really :)

MIMIC
11-26-2011, 01:07 AM
Well I guess if Fed fans say Fed's 2006 was better, then we better listen.....to those Fed fans.

atennisfan
11-26-2011, 01:08 AM
To be honest, Nole had an extremely short break last year, playing DC into December, and going to Australia for Hopman cup three weeks later. It's as if his season started with USO 2010 and finished with USO 2011 :)

Fed in 2005-2006 played more matches than Nole can ever dream of.

I thought noletards call nole sparta warrior?

a warrior should never break down playing less matches than a federina ballerina, no?

MuzzahLovah
11-26-2011, 01:08 AM
Statistically Fed. But seeing as Djokovic Dominated Nadal on all surfaces, something Fed was never able to do, even at his peak, I have to go with him.

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 01:20 AM
Assume Djokovic had a better season,

this implies that 70>92 and 5>6

But this is a contradiction because 92>70 and 6>5. Therefore Federer's 2006 season was better as proven using proof by contradiction.

/thread.

:wavey:

Well I guess if Fed fans say Fed's 2006 was better, then we better listen.....to those Fed fans.

Statistically Fed. But seeing as Djokovic Dominated Nadal on all surfaces, something Fed was never able to do, even at his peak, I have to go with him.

If you just look above at my post; I have proved it rigorously using mathematical techniques that Federer's season was indeed better.:wavey:

Steelq
11-26-2011, 01:22 AM
Statistically Fed. But seeing as Djokovic Dominated Nadal on all surfaces, something Fed was never able to do, even at his peak, I have to go with him.
And Fed didn't have to play against himself,he didn't have 2 of the all time grates as his main rivals.
In other words,statistics are like bikinis.What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

fmolinari2005
11-26-2011, 01:22 AM
Not really.

92-5 is a lot more superior than 70-7.
3 slams and 1 final > 3 slams and 1 semi
12 titles > 10 titles.

The difference is clearly far more than a goal on the last minute.

As I already wrote, I agree that my original assessment wasn't correct.


This is of course indeed a personal opinion - one which I happen to share, but that's of course a personal preference. ;) Still, the different playing styles should not be taken into account as "the better season" is a matter of achievements, not a beauty contest.

I wasn't even going for the beauty contest issue- there is a saying in portuguese that roughly translated goes by "personal taste is like butt, everybody have their own". :lol:

It is not a matter of beauty. We are judging two great seasons. So I am judging on greatness. Federer took the tennis world by storm with a combination of power and classical tennis. It wasn't a matter of doing the same thing others did, only a bit better. With Djoko, to me, he achieved a great season by doing what was already being done (physical demanding tennis, based on consistency) but a bit better. Overall, I feel the legacy of the 2006 stands higher than the legacy of the 2011 season for this reason.

green25814
11-26-2011, 01:27 AM
The fact that Nole ran out of steam towards the end is a knock on his season. It shows either a weakness physically or mentally. I have to give this one to Fed, though this was still an amazing season for Djokovic

TennisGrandSlam
11-26-2011, 01:29 AM
As FED's Fans,

I need to say

Both are three-peats on AO, WM and UO,

For titles (12 > 10, 92-5 > 70-6) - Fed wins

For H2H against rivals (Fed 2-4 Rafa, Djoker 6-0 Nadal) - Djoker wins

Kat_YYZ
11-26-2011, 02:03 AM
The fact that Nole ran out of steam towards the end is a knock on his season. It shows either a weakness physically or mentally. I have to give this one to Fed, though this was still an amazing season for Djokovic

Novak made some bad decisions with his schedule and playing when injured towards the end. It's his first year with so many wins, so many tournaments played to the end, so much mileage. In 2004 it was the first year Roger won 3 of 4 slams, and was #1, and he arrived in Basel, trying to win it for the first time. Instead he injured himself at practice and had to withdraw. And he got hurt right before Basel in 2005 as well. You may argue that Basel is a nothing tournament, but it was important to Roger. He'd won so much and still not his home tournament.

I guess my point is maybe anyone playing at that level for the first time is in uncharted territory in terms of their fitness and their body. It was Novak's first time so he made some mistakes. Hopefully he will have learned from it, as Roger has. :)

SetSampras
11-26-2011, 02:10 AM
Fed had the better season in 06.. But you can argue Nole had the bigger accomplishments if you factor in the competition to get his slams. Beat Fed, Beat Rafa, Beat Murray etc.

He fumble fucked it around at the end of the year and didnt grab the YEC so that hurts.

But at the end of the day.. Who cares.. Its just one season. A season doesnt make a career

helvet empire
11-26-2011, 02:23 AM
And Fed didn't have to play against himself,he didn't have 2 of the all time grates as his main rivals.
In other words,statistics are like bikinis.What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.

that's the lamest excuse I've ever heard. It's like nadaltards trying to prove he's the GOAT because he has a positive H2H against... the GOAT. Super mega ultra lame:o

ssj100
11-26-2011, 02:55 AM
Fed had the better season in 06.. But you can argue Nole had the bigger accomplishments if you factor in the competition to get his slams. Beat Fed, Beat Rafa, Beat Murray etc.

He fumble fucked it around at the end of the year and didnt grab the YEC so that hurts.

But at the end of the day.. Who cares.. Its just one season. A season doesnt make a career

Beat Murray in a Slam? Since when is that worth "factoring" in?

BigJohn
11-26-2011, 03:04 AM
Fed didn't have to play against himself

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

Best argument ever.

rickcastle
11-26-2011, 03:11 AM
And Fed didn't have to play against himself

And how should Federer rectify this grave error that has been done to him?

Pirata.
11-26-2011, 03:14 AM
92-5 > 70-6
/thread

This.

Saberq :baby:

SetSampras
11-26-2011, 03:14 AM
Beat Murray in a Slam? Since when is that worth "factoring" in?

Still more impressive then beating a Davydenko in a slam finals or a Nadal in his 5th grass court tournament at Wimbledon or a Roddick in the finals

Kat_YYZ
11-26-2011, 03:16 AM
Still more impressive then beating a Davydenko in a slam finals or a Nadal in his 5th grass court tournament at Wimbledon or a Roddick in the finals

That's good to hear, since Fed has beaten Murray in two slam finals :wavey:

2003
11-26-2011, 03:19 AM
The problem with dominating your main rival 6-0 vs 2-3 arguement is, well simply, Nadal in 2011, at least in clay, was far inferior to 2006 Nadal. Not saying that 2011 Djokovic wouldnt beat 2006 Nadal on clay, but it makes it harder. In some regards its not the same player.

mickymouse
11-26-2011, 03:20 AM
The dude lost more and won less. There's not even a need for discussion now. Just shows how difficult it is to sustain a high level for an entire year and how impressive Federer really has been during 2004-2007.

rickcastle
11-26-2011, 03:26 AM
The problem with dominating your main rival 6-0 vs 2-3 arguement is, well simply, Nadal in 2011, at least in clay, was far inferior to 2006 Nadal. Not saying that 2011 Djokovic wouldnt beat 2006 Nadal on clay, but it makes it harder. In some regards its not the same player.

Exactly.

SetSampras
11-26-2011, 03:27 AM
That's good to hear, since Fed has beaten Murray in two slam finals :wavey:

He did.. But if we go by h2h and competition.. I don't know how anyone can reasonably say Fed had as tough as Nole did this year.. Afterall he was 10-1 vs. Fedal and Murray this year for his big titles. Fed didn't have to go through that in 06

ssj100
11-26-2011, 03:30 AM
Still more impressive then beating a Davydenko in a slam finals or a Nadal in his 5th grass court tournament at Wimbledon or a Roddick in the finals

Not sure. At least Nadal and Roddick had won Grand Slams before. Davydenko on form (like when he gets to a Slam semi or final) would probably be 50/50 against Murray in a Slam semi or final. Hang on, more like 100/0 if it was a Slam final against Murray.

MIMIC
11-26-2011, 03:31 AM
The problem with dominating your main rival 6-0 vs 2-3 arguement is, well simply, Nadal in 2011, at least in clay, was far inferior to 2006 Nadal. Not saying that 2011 Djokovic wouldnt beat 2006 Nadal on clay, but it makes it harder. In some regards its not the same player.

FAR inferior? The clay titles he won were the ones where he didn't have to face Djokovic....the man that beat him in the only ones that he didn't win. CLEARLY Djokovic is a pretty sizable factor in Nadal's year, much like how Nadal was a sizable factor in Fed's 2006.

One hiccup in the 1st round of RG, and he's "far inferior"? What?

Kat_YYZ
11-26-2011, 03:41 AM
FAR inferior? The clay titles he won were the ones where he didn't have to face Djokovic....the man that beat him in the only ones that he didn't win. CLEARLY Djokovic is a pretty sizable factor in Nadal's year, much like how Nadal was a sizable factor in Fed's 2006.

One hiccup in the 1st round of RG, and he's "far inferior"? What?

don't forget the set lost to Paolo Lorenzi (148) in Rome ;)

atennisfan
11-26-2011, 03:44 AM
But at the end of the day.. Who cares.. Its just one season. A season doesnt make a career


Noletards certainly CARED so much, right until USO.
:)

tektonac
11-26-2011, 03:47 AM
Statistically Fed. But seeing as Djokovic Dominated Nadal on all surfaces, something Fed was never able to do, even at his peak, I have to go with him.

yep, whopping 6:0 against rafa. roger would probably trade his 3 GSs for a positive h2h against nadal.

rickcastle
11-26-2011, 03:49 AM
yep, whopping 6:0 against rafa. roger would probably trade his 3 GSs for a positive h2h against nadal.

I really, really doubt that. If he trades in his 3 GS, he would be below Sampras' 14. Being record holder of most GS ever is way better than having a positive H2H against one player.

barbadosan
11-26-2011, 04:05 AM
I really, really doubt that. If he trades in his 3 GS, he would be below Sampras' 14. Being record holder of most GS ever is way better than having a positive H2H against one player.

I believe tektonac was being sarcastic ;)

selyoink
11-26-2011, 04:45 AM
Fed and it isn't even close.

Shinoj
11-26-2011, 04:47 AM
Look Djokovic had a phenomenal run till the US Open but since then he has been downright shambolic.abysmmal, self indulgent and what not. Trying to be a Messiah for ATP in tournament after tournament. But he got his handed over to him each time. It just shows the Federer season in true perspective, what a great run that was, 92-6, and he was consistent right through out.

Easily Federer 2006 > Djokovic 2011.

Djokovic can take a holiday with Nadal on to Antarctica to search their Soul.

There is only one Olderer and he is the Peakerer and he is the Epicerer. Novak take a hike. :wavey:

faboozadoo15
11-26-2011, 04:57 AM
Still more impressive then beating a Davydenko in a slam finals or a Nadal in his 5th grass court tournament at Wimbledon or a Roddick in the finals

Why? Davydenko, playing well, is ridiculously underrated. And how many major finals has Roddick made?

And Murray? :haha:

Topspindoctor
11-26-2011, 04:59 AM
I refuse to call Olderer's 2006 better because of muggy opposition. Burnt out players, fixers, clowns and mugs. My grandma could dominate 2006.

SetSampras
11-26-2011, 05:17 AM
Why? Davydenko, playing well, is ridiculously underrated. And how many major finals has Roddick made?

And Murray? :haha:


Because it doesn't NEARLY equal to beating Fed and Murray at the AO, beating Nadal in the wimbledon finals, and beating Fed and Nadal back to back at the USO.

juan27
11-26-2011, 05:29 AM
I refuse to call Olderer's 2006 better because of muggy opposition. Burnt out players, fixers, clowns and mugs. My grandma could dominate 2006.

jajajaja this is a joke, typical of a nadull tard.

my grandma could dominate more easy the nadal`s 2010 , patetic and weak year.

he take advantage of the injuries of delpo , davydenko and the patetics performances of federer and nole even mugray!!

the nadal`s 2010 was a fixers , clowns( like melzer in rg semis or berdych in wimbledon final or youznhys in usa semis) and mugs , thats was the only way that nadull could domiante, with a patetic year., his us open was the most joke of all

the 2010 was the most weak year of all , with verdascos and ferrers in finals of clay torunaments jajajaja.

setsampras, del potro could too defeat nadal and federer in us open , and???

defeat murray in ao???? mugray is patetic with scenic panic in slams finals , the reality is that the field was garbage , his only rival was a decadence federer.

ssj100
11-26-2011, 05:29 AM
Because it doesn't NEARLY equal to beating Fed and Murray at the AO, beating Nadal in the wimbledon finals, and beating Fed and Nadal back to back at the USO.

Do keep in mind that Federer was turning 30 in 2011. It can be argued that beating Federer in 2011 is easier than beating Federer in 2006.

Anyway, all this is just opinion. In many ways, it's better to just look at the raw statistics.

atennisfan
11-26-2011, 05:40 AM
I refuse to call Olderer's 2006 better because of muggy opposition. Burnt out players, fixers, clowns and mugs. My grandma could dominate 2006.

This alone destroys any arguments and reputations that you ever made/had.
I'm not saying you had any to begin with.

tektonac
11-26-2011, 05:50 AM
2011 field was much stronger than 2006 field.

2006: AO Federer d Baghdatis, W Federer d Nadal, USO Federer d Roddick.
2011: AO Djokovic d Murray (d Federer in SF), W Djokovic d Nadal, USO Djokovic d Nadal (d Federer in SF).

there was no 2006 path that would match Federer/Nadal or Federer/Murray one.

juan27
11-26-2011, 06:00 AM
2011 field was much stronger than 2006 field.

2006: AO Federer d Baghdatis, W Federer d Nadal, USO Federer d Roddick.
2011: AO Djokovic d Murray (d Federer in SF), W Djokovic d Nadal, USO Djokovic d Nadal (d Federer in SF).

there was no 2006 path that would match Federer/Nadal or Federer/Murray one.

baghdathis at leats could won a set to the real jesusfed , murray with a past peak federer was humilliated in slam finals and by nole too.

the rest of the field of 2010 and 2011 were patetic , the real only rival for nole was nadal and a paste peak and decadence roger , the rest are all mugs

rickcastle
11-26-2011, 06:41 AM
I believe tektonac was being sarcastic ;)

Nah, tektonac is a Djokovic fan.

rocketassist
11-26-2011, 07:07 AM
Three of the four GS finals in 2006 were way superior in quality. Only this year's USO final had the edge tbh.

tektonac another Murray disser who will suddenly start sticking up for him to show what a strong era it is, seriously stop it.

BroTree123
11-26-2011, 07:29 AM
Nole fans here becoming angry, bitter, cold sooks :lol:

BigJohn
11-26-2011, 07:29 AM
This alone destroys any arguments and reputations that you ever made/had.
I'm not saying you had any to begin with.

He had none.

tripwires
11-26-2011, 08:41 AM
Because it doesn't NEARLY equal to beating Fed and Murray at the AO, beating Nadal in the wimbledon finals, and beating Fed and Nadal back to back at the USO.

Obviously Fed can't beat himself.

tripwires
11-26-2011, 08:45 AM
yep, whopping 6:0 against rafa. roger would probably trade his 3 GSs for a positive h2h against nadal.

:haha: Biggest joke I've heard all day. 3GS titles >>> positive h2h against Nadal.

Roger's 2006 was better than Nole's 2011, but Nole had an amazing 2011. This should be the end of the argument really. Nole can try again next year to top his phenomenal season this year; I wouldn't be surprised if he does so.

TBkeeper
11-26-2011, 08:59 AM
STOP ARGUMENTING and Fakertards + Fedtards we must unite against Nadull tards cause they are still messing the comparison and everything else ...

alter ego
11-26-2011, 09:01 AM
I refuse to call Olderer's 2006 better because of muggy opposition. Burnt out players, fixers, clowns and mugs. My grandma could dominate 2006.
So I guess your grandma could beat Nadull.

Because it doesn't NEARLY equal to beating Fed and Murray at the AO, beating Nadal in the wimbledon finals, and beating Fed and Nadal back to back at the USO.
TardSampras hating like a bitch :lol:
You can cry all you want but 16>14.

2011 field was much stronger than 2006 field.

2006: AO Federer d Baghdatis, W Federer d Nadal, USO Federer d Roddick.
2011: AO Djokovic d Murray (d Federer in SF), W Djokovic d Nadal, USO Djokovic d Nadal (d Federer in SF).

there was no 2006 path that would match Federer/Nadal or Federer/Murray one.
So basically Djokovic 2011 is better because Federer 2006 didn't beat Federer 2011.:silly:
And Roddick 2006 had a hard court game as oppose to Nadull and his WTA serve.

TBkeeper
11-26-2011, 09:03 AM
Why? Davydenko, playing well, is ridiculously underrated. And how many major finals has Roddick made?

And Murray? :haha:

And to this
yes guys please think Davydenko was equal to Fed in the rallies but since he has no serve and has no mentality (or in his case he got too much balls and tries everything)nearly everymatch everywhere anywhen he destroys himself ... See some of their matches Davy vs Fed and then talk ...
Davydenko vs Federer QF AO 2006
Davydenko vs Federer SF FO 2007
Davydenko vs Federer USO 06/07

Shinoj
11-26-2011, 11:21 AM
2011 field was much stronger than 2006 field.

2006: AO Federer d Baghdatis, W Federer d Nadal, USO Federer d Roddick.
2011: AO Djokovic d Murray (d Federer in SF), W Djokovic d Nadal, USO Djokovic d Nadal (d Federer in SF).

there was no 2006 path that would match Federer/Nadal or Federer/Murray one.


The field wasnt stronger but just that the Top 4 now are stronger but the rest of them suck Wozniackis as compared to 2006. So in effect it remains same whether you beat competitive field in the earlier rounds and then not so strong No 2 to No 4 or 5 to the way to your grand Slam or you beat Mugs on the way to the semis and then have real tuff competition. In effect it remains the same.

And even if some added weightage could be given to the stronger field for now,92 -5 will always be greater than 70-6.

rickcastle
11-26-2011, 11:26 AM
Can't win an argument with Djokovic fans when one of their primary argument involves Federer 2006 having to get involved in a virtual match with his 2011 self :stupid:

Telegram Sam
11-26-2011, 12:14 PM
Obviously Fed can't beat himself.

You must have missed this year's USO semis. :D

tripwires
11-26-2011, 01:26 PM
You must have missed this year's USO semis. :D

Don't remind me. :sad:

Saberq
11-26-2011, 01:28 PM
Don't remind me. :sad:

you know what's funny ....for 2 years in a row I didnt watch the 5 set and for 2 years in a row when I came home turned the channel on Fed had 2 match points :cool:

TheRafaelNadal
11-26-2011, 01:30 PM
This poll has been done before.

tripwires
11-26-2011, 01:32 PM
you know what's funny ....for 2 years in a row I didnt watch the 5 set and for 2 years in a row when I came home turned the channel on Fed had 2 match points :cool:

REALLY? OK, if the same fiasco happens again next year at the USO, i.e. Fed/Djokovic SF going to a 5th set, could you NOT turn on your TV please? ;)

BigJohn
11-26-2011, 02:34 PM
This poll has been done before.

Yes, but not after the year was completed. The results from the other poll were also strongly in favor of Federer, the obvious choice after the French Open semi.

This is just an opportunity for the misguided souls who voted Djokovic on that first poll to come to their senses and vote the right way this time around...

... even if Federer did not have to play against himself. :lol:

Saberq
11-26-2011, 02:39 PM
REALLY? OK, if the same fiasco happens again next year at the USO, i.e. Fed/Djokovic SF going to a 5th set, could you NOT turn on your TV please? ;)

I hope it will be done in 3 for either player to spare us ;)

tripwires
11-26-2011, 04:02 PM
I hope it will be done in 3 for either player to spare us ;)

:lol: Actually I hope they'd be on opposite sides of the draw for once. It would be nice to watch a Federer/Djokovic final. This year's US Open final was mentally exhausting to watch. :o

Sophocles
11-26-2011, 04:27 PM
2011 field was much stronger than 2006 field.

2006: AO Federer d Baghdatis, W Federer d Nadal, USO Federer d Roddick.
2011: AO Djokovic d Murray (d Federer in SF), W Djokovic d Nadal, USO Djokovic d Nadal (d Federer in SF).

there was no 2006 path that would match Federer/Nadal or Federer/Murray one.

Well actually, to take these in turn: Baghdatis played way better than Murray in the A.O. final. Djoker barely had to do anything beyond keeping the ball in play. Roger had to come back from a set and a break down against an on-fire opponent with nothing to lose. At Wimbledon, Federer had to beat Gasquet, Henman, Mahut, Berdych, Ancic just to get to the semis, and then he had to play Nadal in the final who was on a 5-match winning streak against him. It was an absolute must-win match and while Nadal was less experienced on grass then, he was in many respects a better player, with better movement in particular and a significant mental edge against Roger. And with all that pressure, Roger came out and won the first set 6-0. Djoker, who incidentally had a fair bit of trouble against a clapped-out Baghdatis early on, had a tough route to the final but the Nadal he was playing was slower and, crucially, prone to choking against him, having already been butt-f*cked multiple times. And at the U.S.O., Roddick was in superb form and on American hard courts in-form Roddick is at least as good as a mentally f*cked Nadal, who managed to lose a set 1-6 to a guy with no fucking serve. The fact that Djoker also had to beat (old) Fed en route to 2 of his slams does edge it, but it's closer than you make out.

Saberq
11-26-2011, 04:36 PM
:lol: Actually I hope they'd be on opposite sides of the draw for once. It would be nice to watch a Federer/Djokovic final. This year's US Open final was mentally exhausting to watch. :o

it would be man.....and they would set the record for playing 6 straight years in 1 Slam :D

BigJohn
11-26-2011, 06:57 PM
I would really appreciate it if the people who voted in the original poll would do it again now that the season is over.

There is no harm in voting in an internet poll.

Start da Game
11-26-2011, 07:03 PM
nothing changes......that weak shit 2006 gets effed by 2011 any day......

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 07:05 PM
Assume Djokovic had a better season,

this implies that 70>92 and 5>6

But this is a contradiction because 92>70 and 6>5. Therefore Federer's 2006 season was better as proven using proof by contradiction.

/thread.


This was in response to the other thread where the nole tards and fed tards are desperate to prove who had the better season.

There's nothing more true than a mathematical proof.

BigJohn
11-26-2011, 07:06 PM
Start da Coin has voted for Nole 2011, so now, Nole 2011 is officially the a clown option.

TopSpin08
11-26-2011, 07:08 PM
:worship:

EliSter
11-26-2011, 07:08 PM
Moron.

/thread

Start da Game
11-26-2011, 07:09 PM
Start da Coin has voted for Nole 2006, so now, Nole 2006 is officially the a clown option.

your pointless threads deserve only such replies......what's the point in utilizing the loopholes of forum rules, blackmailing the mods and starting an already discussed thread?

p.s. what nole 2006?

ssj100
11-26-2011, 07:09 PM
Nadal's probably playing worse in 2011 than in 2006. Also, Federer is past 30 years of age. Djokovic's opponents this year are weaker.

Sorry, couldn't help it.

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 07:11 PM
Moron.

/thread
:spit:

I'd like to see you contribute more rather than posting insults, boy.

Saberq
11-26-2011, 07:12 PM
dude I like you but you should be banned for like a month for trolling .....we saw that like 20 times do we need another thread

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 07:12 PM
Let's see, we have a thread about comparing Fed 06 to Novak 11... so what's the logical next step? Create a thread about comparing Fed 06 to Novak 11.

Good stuff as usual GOAT = Fed

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 07:13 PM
dude I like you but you should be banned for like a month for trolling .....we saw that like 20 times do we need another thread

I didn't think many people saw the post so I thought I'd create a thread for it :shrug:

BigJohn
11-26-2011, 07:14 PM
your pointless threads deserve only such replies......what's the point in utilizing the loopholes of forum rules, blackmailing the mods and starting an already discussed thread?

p.s. what nole 2006?

My bad... Nole 2011. I was giggling too hard I was distracted.

PS: blackmailing the mods?????

Saberq
11-26-2011, 07:15 PM
I didn't think many people saw the post so I thought I'd create a thread for it :shrug:

math is not everything ...I will give Fed's 2006 the award but Novak had a tougher job than Fed did in 2006 and that's a fact

Looner
11-26-2011, 07:22 PM
^^^
Nope, that's the delusions of a Noletard. That is a fact.

Commander Data
11-26-2011, 07:22 PM
Assume Djokovic had a better season,

this implies that 70>92 and 5>6

But this is a contradiction because 92>70 and 6>5. Therefore Federer's 2006 season was better as proven using proof by contradiction.

/thread.


This was in response to the other thread where the nole tards and fed tards are desperate to prove who had the better season.

There's nothing more true than a mathematical proof.

Imagine a GoldenSlam season with 70:6 vs a Slamless season with 92:5. GoldenSlam season is better.

Your proof is shit because I can refute it by one counter-example.

(But of course Fed 2006 > Nole 2011)

DrJules
11-26-2011, 07:24 PM
These are the final facts for these 2 exceptional years (both slightly better than the exceptional 2008 and 2010 for Nadal):

Federer 2006: 3GS+1F, YE master title, 4 master titles, 12 titles in total, 92-5 in matches.

Djokovic 2011: 3GS+1SF, 5 master titles, 10 titles in total, 70-6 in matches.

Overall selecting Federer (Djokovic lost it in the last 2 months and we are considering the whole year).

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 07:26 PM
Imagine a GoldenSlam season with 70:6 vs a Slamless season with 92:5. GoldenSlam season is better.

Your proof is shit because I can refute it by one counter-example.

(But of course Fed 2006 > Nole 2011)

:facepalm:

Obviously this proof takes into account that they both have similar grand slam results, hence the comparison in the first place.

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 07:30 PM
:facepalm:

Obviously this proof takes into account that they both have similar grand slam results, hence the comparison in the first place.

You can't assume things in mathematics, or assume that the ones you're trying to convince know that you've taken this into account. You should know this.

If you want unassailable proof, you need to take every little factor of a season into account, and that's why it can't be done. Tennis =/= maths, hope that helps

Nole Rules
11-26-2011, 07:34 PM
Clown.

/Thread.

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 07:37 PM
You can't assume things in mathematics, or assume that the ones you're trying to convince know that you've taken this into account. You should know this.

If you want unassailable proof, you need to take every little factor of a season into account, and that's why it can't be done. Tennis =/= maths, hope that helps

:facepalm:

The reason why this comparison was possible in the first place, like I said, is because they've both got similar grand slam results. I obviously won't say in my proof 3 grand slams = 3 grand slams, as everyone knows this is true. It's a relatively simple proof which I did in a rush.

Also, axioms you have to take for granted and cannot prove in Mathematics ;)

Commander Data
11-26-2011, 07:40 PM
:facepalm:

Obviously this proof takes into account that they both have similar grand slam results, hence the comparison in the first place.

Obviously if all is equal except the W-L ratio the better W-L ration edges it. Thanks for working that out Einstein.

Johnny Groove
11-26-2011, 07:40 PM
I have already mathematically proven this more than once using ranking points.

Laver 1969- 16,530 using 2011 points, 8,600 using 2008 points= 12,565 avg.
Fed 2006- 15,760 using 2011 points, 8,370 using 2006 points= 12,065 avg.
Djokovic 2011- 13,630 using 2011 points, 7,235 using 2008 points= 10,432.5 avg.
Fed 2007- 13,595 using 2011 points, 7,180 using 2007 points= 10,387.5 avg.
Nadal 2010- 12,495 using 2010 points, 6,680 using 2008 points= 9,587.5 avg.
Fed 2005- 12,375 using 2011 points, 6,725 using 2005 points= 9,550 avg.
Nadal 2008-12,310 using 2011 points, 6,730 using 2008 points= 9,520 avg.
Fed 2004- 12,385 using 2011 points, 6,360 using 2004 points= 9,372.5 avg.

Gagsquet
11-26-2011, 07:42 PM
Delete this thread please. It's a forum disruption.

rickcastle
11-26-2011, 07:42 PM
Numbers and results will tell you that Federer had the better season and that's a fact.

Djokovic fans can argue that Djokovic faced tougher opponents and yada-yada but Federer fans can counter argue that Nadal 2006 may be a better clay courter than Nadal 2011, Baghdatis played better at AO final than Murray did despite Baghadatis' lower ranking and yada-yada. Point is, the tougher opponents thing is purely subjective. Just because you're playing higher ranked players doesn't mean you're playing tougher opponents. Obviously, the lower ranked player was playing hot and did something right in the tournament to get that far. I mean, Ivanisevic was a wild card who had never won a slam before but if Rafter happened to beat him at that 2001 Wimbledon, are we going to be saying that Rafter played a weak opponent and that's why he won? If a player is playing hot, he's playing hot and rankings become of little matter.

Only way to be objective about it is to compare the results and numbers and obviously, Federer edges it out. No shame for Djokovic because he had a spectacular season though.

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 07:44 PM
:facepalm:

The reason why this comparison was possible in the first place, like I said, is because they've both got similar grand slam results. I obviously won't say in my proof 3 grand slams = 3 grand slams, as everyone knows this is true. It's a relatively simple proof which I did in a rush.

Also, axioms you have to take for granted and cannot prove in Mathematics ;)

What about quality of the opposition? Federer's biggest rival was the clay courter Nadal. Djokovic faced all rounder Nadal and the 'GOAT'. Big, big difference.

That's not something you can take for granted, bro, brah, braw or whatever you always use to end a sentence

TBkeeper
11-26-2011, 07:47 PM
You can't assume things in mathematics, or assume that the ones you're trying to convince know that you've taken this into account. You should know this.

If you want unassailable proof, you need to take every little factor of a season into account, and that's why it can't be done. Tennis =/= maths, hope that helps

You are dumb
EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE is MATHS ... the reason that you're lazy and can't imagine how many factors are included doesn't mean Tennis = / = maths ...

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 07:51 PM
You are dumb
EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE is MATHS ... the reason that you're lazy and can't imagine how many factors are included doesn't mean Tennis = / = maths ...

Ok smart kid, give me the formula for quality of the opposition and what kind of an impact that has on the greatness of a season.

Commander Data
11-26-2011, 07:52 PM
Leonhard Euler is turning in his grave.

MIMIC
11-26-2011, 07:53 PM
Assume Djokovic had a better season,

this implies that 70>92 and 5>6

But this is a contradiction because 92>70 and 6>5. Therefore Federer's 2006 season was better as proven using proof by contradiction.



Assume that Federer is better than Nadal.

This implies that 9>17

But this is a contradiction because 17>9. Therefore, Nadal is better than Federer as proven using proof by contradiction.

:stupid:

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 07:54 PM
Assume that Federer is better than Nadal.

This implies that 9>17

But this is a contradiction because 17>9. Therefore, Nadal is better than Federer as proven using proof by contradiction.

:stupid:

:lol: what numbers are you using here?

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 07:55 PM
You are dumb
EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE is MATHS ... the reason that you're lazy and can't imagine how many factors are included doesn't mean Tennis = / = maths ...

Well said :worship:

Also this was all a bit of a joke, but looks like some people here just do not have a sense of humour :facepalm:

MIMIC
11-26-2011, 07:58 PM
:lol: what numbers are you using here?

Win-loss as demonstrated by their H2H. :wavey:

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 07:59 PM
Well said :worship:

Also this was all a bit of a joke, but looks like some people here just do not have a sense of humour :facepalm:

Or that some people have a really bad sense of humour :rolleyes:

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:00 PM
Win-loss as demonstrated by their H2H. :wavey:

Well since most of those numbers are on clay; it does prove that Nadal is a better clay courter. Your sample isn't big enough, whereas a sample of a season is big enough :wavey:

Nole Rules
11-26-2011, 08:01 PM
Well said :worship:

Also this was all a bit of a joke, but looks like some people here just do not have a sense of humour :facepalm:

Or your sense of humour simply sucks.

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:01 PM
Ok smart kid, give me the formula for quality of the opposition and what kind of an impact that has on the greatness of a season.

Sigh you just don't get it do you.

Maths made it possible to receive live transmissions of tennis.

Maths made is possible for players to travel worldwide and play tennis on an international level.

Maths made it possible to calculate ranking points (Although this is ofcourse more common sense, but still)

Maths made it possible to make stunning, state of the art tennis stadiums.

Among a host of other things.

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:02 PM
Or your sense of humour simply sucks.

Or maybe you're too much of a Nole fanboy to appreciate some light humour.

EliSter
11-26-2011, 08:03 PM
:spit:

I'd like to see you contribute more rather than posting insults, boy.

Why should i contribute to your troll thread with stupid facts? :confused:

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 08:05 PM
Sigh you just don't get it do you.

Maths made it possible to receive live transmissions of tennis.

Maths made is possible for players to travel worldwide and play tennis on an international level.

Maths made it possible to calculate ranking points (Although this is ofcourse more common sense, but still)

Way to avoid the question. I agree a lot relies on maths to work, but there are things maths can't prove. What a person considers 'great', and other emotional values like that. Also, the differences in 'quality' in tennis is not something maths can understand or prove.

MIMIC
11-26-2011, 08:05 PM
Well since most of those numbers are on clay; it does prove that Nadal is a better clay courter. Your sample isn't big enough, whereas a sample of a season is big enough :wavey:

25 meetings in a H2H isn't a large-enough sample ? How much stupider can you get? :lol:

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:06 PM
25 meetings in a H2H isn't a large-enough sample ? How much stupider can you get? :lol:

:facepalm:

Like I said a sample of 25, where more than 70% of the numbers are on clay is extremely skewed. You need roughly even samples from all surfaces for your proof to suffice.

:wavey:

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:07 PM
Way to avoid the question. I agree a lot relies on maths to work, but there are things maths can't prove. What a person considers 'great', and other emotional values like that. Also, the differences in 'quality' in tennis is not something maths can understand or prove.

Oh yh, true about that. That cannot be calculated using just Mathematical analysis.

Obviously this thread wasn't meant to be taken as seriously as some people are :facepalm:

MIMIC
11-26-2011, 08:09 PM
:facepalm:

Like I said a sample of 25, where more than 70% of the numbers are on clay is extremely skewed. You need roughly even samples from all surfaces for your proof to suffice.

:wavey:

OH, you you mean that it's important to look BEYOND WIN-LOSS at other important factors? Thank you, I'll keep that in mind. Hopefully you'll do the same :cool:

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 08:10 PM
:facepalm:

Like I said a sample of 25, where more than 70% of the numbers are on clay is extremely skewed. You need roughly even samples from all surfaces for your proof to suffice.

:wavey:

O really? I thought it was always just a match up issue, the fact that Rafa owned Federer...and that it carried no weight when discussing the greatness of a player.

Are you now saying it does?

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 08:11 PM
Oh yh, true about that. That cannot be calculated using just Mathematical analysis.

Obviously this thread wasn't meant to be taken as seriously as some people are :facepalm:

Thank you, that's all I needed to hear.

Just think I'll end by using one of these smilies

:wavey: :facepalm: :lol:

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:11 PM
O really? I thought it was always just a match up issue, the fact that Rafa owned Federer...and that it carried no weight when discussing the greatness of a player.

Are you now saying it does?

Rafa is a better clay courter than Federer; never did I once deny it.

Federer has a better H2H off clay.

Don't know what you're trying to say?

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:13 PM
Thank you, that's all I needed to hear.

Just think I'll end by using one of these smilies

:wavey: :facepalm: :lol:

Well, it's true. You can't equate feelings and emotions by Mathematics.

Still it doesn't mean that mathematics can't be used where numbers are, which is exactly what I've done.

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 08:16 PM
Rafa is a better clay courter than Federer; never did I once deny it.

Federer has a better H2H off clay.

Don't know what you're trying to say?

In the whole Fedal battle it was always the case of, 16 slams vs. H2H. And the H2H was always deemed worthless by Federer fans.

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:22 PM
In the whole Fedal battle it was always the case of, 16 slams vs. H2H. And the H2H was always deemed worthless by Federer fans.

Well you're making a massive generelisation then, if you're equating every single Federer fan to have the same opinion to the majority of Federer fans :shrug:

Also H2H clearly shows you that Nadal is better than Federer. But also 16 slams is a lot of overlook over 10.

I think they're quite even as players. Obviously it's gonna be hard for Nadal to get to 16 slams, but I think all 10+ slam winners are legends of the game and contrary to what my username may suggest I do not believe there is one GOAT.

Nole Rules
11-26-2011, 08:23 PM
Or maybe you're too much of a Nole fanboy to appreciate some light humour.

I'm not the only one who thinks that your sense of humour sucks, moron. See below.

Or that some people have a really bad sense of humour :rolleyes:

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:24 PM
I'm not the only one who thinks that your sense of humour sucks, moron. See below.

Well he is a well-known Nadal 'tard. :shrug:

lessthanjake
11-26-2011, 08:26 PM
O really? I thought it was always just a match up issue, the fact that Rafa owned Federer...and that it carried no weight when discussing the greatness of a player.

Are you now saying it does?


It's very simple. Let's take the following things as given:

1. Nadal is a bad individual matchup for Federer
2. Nadal is a better clay court player than Federer
3. Federer is a better player on all other surfaces

If you take those facts as given (and I don't think they are controversial), how would you expect their head to head to go?

Well, since Nadal is a better clay court player AND a bad matchup for Federer, you'd expect him to dominate the clay court matches between the two. He has, with a 12-2 head to head.

Since Federer is a better player on the other surfaces BUT Nadal is a bad matchup for him, you'd expect their head to head on other surfaces to be close, with a slight edge for the better player (ie. Federer) but not a large one due to the matchup. This is what we have seen, with Federer having a 7-5 advantage on non-clay surfaces.

When you think about it this way, the head to head is exactly as we'd expect. Federer is worse on clay AND has a bad matchup, so he is dominated on clay. He is better on other surfaces but has a bad matchup, so he manages to have a small advantage on those surfaces.

All these facts say though is that Federer is worse than Nadal on clay. But Federer does NOT need to be considered better than Nadal on clay to be considered the GOAT. He simply needs to be considered unquestionably better than Nadal on other surfaces. The fact that he wins the head to head with Nadal despite the bad matchup fairly conclusively proves that.

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:28 PM
It's very simple. Let's take the following things as given:

1. Nadal is a bad individual matchup for Federer
2. Nadal is a better clay court player than Federer
3. Federer is a better player on all other surfaces

If you take those facts as given (and I don't think they are controversial), how would you expect their head to head to go?

Well, since Nadal is a better clay court player AND a bad matchup for Federer, you'd expect him to dominate the clay court matches between the two. He has, with a 12-2 head to head.

Since Federer is a better player on the other surfaces BUT Nadal is a bad matchup for him, you'd expect their head to head on other surfaces to be close, with a slight edge for the better player (ie. Federer) but not a large one due to the matchup. This is what we have seen, with Federer having a 7-5 advantage on non-clay surfaces.

When you think about it this way, the head to head is exactly as we'd expect. Federer is worse on clay AND has a bad matchup, so he is dominated on clay. He is better on other surfaces but has a bad matchup, so he manages to have a small advantage on those surfaces.

All these facts say though is that Federer is worse than Nadal on clay. But Federer does NOT need to be considered better than Nadal on clay to be considered the GOAT. He simply needs to be considered unquestionably better than Nadal on other surfaces. The fact that he wins the head to head with Nadal despite the bad matchup fairly conclusively proves that.

Agree and well said.

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 08:29 PM
It's very simple. Let's take the following things as given:

1. Nadal is a bad individual matchup for Federer
2. Nadal is a better clay court player than Federer
3. Federer is a better player on all other surfaces

If you take those facts as given (and I don't think they are controversial), how would you expect their head to head to go?

Well, since Nadal is a better clay court player AND a bad matchup for Federer, you'd expect him to dominate the clay court matches between the two. He has, with a 12-2 head to head.

Since Federer is a better player on the other surfaces BUT Nadal is a bad matchup for him, you'd expect their head to head on other surfaces to be close, with a slight edge for the better player (ie. Federer) but not a large one due to the matchup. This is what we have seen, with Federer having a 7-5 advantage on non-clay surfaces.

When you think about it this way, the head to head is exactly as we'd expect. Federer is worse on clay AND has a bad matchup, so he is dominated on clay. He is better on other surfaces but has a bad matchup, so he manages to have a small advantage on those surfaces.

All these facts say though is that Federer is worse than Nadal on clay. But Federer does NOT need to be considered better than Nadal on clay to be considered the GOAT. He simply needs to be considered unquestionably better than Nadal on other surfaces. The fact that he wins the head to head with Nadal despite the bad matchup fairly conclusively proves that.

I know, and I agree with you, I've never claimed Rafa was better than Roger, and I've claimed more than once that Federer is the best ever. Look up my post history if you don't believe me, I'm sure you'll find a couple posts. Hell, I even have a Rafa quote saying he's not the best ever in my sig ;)

Just thought I'd throw a quick jab at GOAT = Fed

SetSampras
11-26-2011, 08:30 PM
Does Math take into account greater competition at the top? Compared to the shit 2006 competition consisting of goofy mug Roddick, Davydenko Kiefer, Baghaditis, Diaper rash baby Nadal who sucked outside of clay, Broken down Hewitt? :devil:

Didn't think so.

Give me some names from 2006 that measure up to even 30 year old Olderer, '11 Nadal, '11 Nole, and Murray.. Tough to argue 06 over '11 with competition.. You have a better chance peeing into the wind and not getting wet

"statistically" sure.. Fed's year is much more impressive, looking deeper into it, Nole's is more impressive

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:34 PM
Does Math take into account greater competition at the top? Compared to the shit 2006 competition consisting of goofy mug Roddick, Davydenko Kiefer, Baghaditis, Diaper rash baby Nadal who sucked outside of clay, Broken down Hewitt? :devil:

Didn't think so.

Give me some names from 2006 that measure up to even 30 year old Olderer, '11 Nadal, '11 Nole, and Murray.. Would love to hear some people's thoughts.

"statistically" sure.. Fed's year is much more impressive, looking deeper into it, Nole's is more impressive
On the other hand Novak had to play a Nadal that had one of his worst clay seasons since he started playing on tour, was a former shadow of himself during the hard court compared to 2010, Federer was very below-par compared to his 2006 self, had to play a Murray that was slam-less (If he wins a slam in the future).

See what I did there?

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:35 PM
I know, and I agree with you, I've never claimed Rafa was better than Roger, and I've claimed more than once that Federer is the best ever. Look up my post history if you don't believe me, I'm sure you'll find a couple posts. Hell, I even have a Rafa quote saying he's not the best ever in my sig ;)

Just thought I'd throw a quick jab at GOAT = Fed

Well it didn't work did it?

Just because my username suggest so; don't assume me to be a Fed 'tard. ;)

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 08:39 PM
Well it didn't work did it?

This post suggest otherwise:

Well you're making a massive generelisation then, if you're equating every single Federer fan to have the same opinion to the majority of Federer fans :shrug:

Also H2H clearly shows you that Nadal is better than Federer. But also 16 slams is a lot of overlook over 10.

I think they're quite even as players. Obviously it's gonna be hard for Nadal to get to 16 slams, but I think all 10+ slam winners are legends of the game and contrary to what my username may suggest I do not believe there is one GOAT.

Always nice to see a Fed fan admitting things like this. Especially the bolded parts.

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:42 PM
This post suggest otherwise:



Always nice to see a Fed fan admitting things like this. Especially the bolded parts.

Well you thought that I was going to go off on a tangent raging about how Federer clearly is miles better than Nadal hence showing my 'tardism.

Those bolded parts just show that I'm analytical and objective. I don't just close my eyes and sway away from the facts. I see it how it is, I'm not scared to admit the truth, even if it doesn't go my way :shrug:

GSMnadal
11-26-2011, 08:44 PM
Well you thought that I was going to go off on a tangent raging about how Federer clearly is miles better than Nadal hence showing my 'tardism.

Those bolded parts just show that I'm analytical and objective. I don't just close my eyes and sway away from the facts. I see it how it is, I'm not scared to admit the truth, even if it doesn't go my way :shrug:

No I didn't, I just said that so you would either contradict yourself by saying H2H actually didn't mean anything, despite saying before that it did, only if the sample was bigger. Or that you did what you did now, and admit that it is important and that Rafa therefore has a great thing over Federer in the GOAT debate.

lessthanjake
11-26-2011, 08:45 PM
Does Math take into account greater competition at the top? Compared to the shit 2006 competition consisting of goofy mug Roddick, Davydenko Kiefer, Baghaditis, Diaper rash baby Nadal who sucked outside of clay, Broken down Hewitt? :devil:

Didn't think so.

Give me some names from 2006 that measure up to even 30 year old Olderer, '11 Nadal, '11 Nole, and Murray.. Tough to argue 06 over '11 with competition.. You have a better chance peeing into the wind and not getting wet

"statistically" sure.. Fed's year is much more impressive, looking deeper into it, Nole's is more impressive

I think there's a valid point in what you say in that I think this year is a particularly strong year for tennis, which adds to Djokovic's achievement. However, you always fail to realize that part of why we don't consider many of the best players who peaked in Federer's peak to be very good is because Federer took all the titles from them. Remember, there's only 4 Grand Slam titles a year to go around, no matter what the competition is.

So let me give you this hypothetical:

Let's say the following players were all playing in one era: Federer, Nadal, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall, Courier, and Djokovic. Basically, all the all time greats. However, also playing during this era is a player who is completely perfect in every way; he is the best at every facet of tennis. That player would dominate the grand slam titles in this era. Would the fact that all those all time greats didnt win very much actually make them worse players? No, it just means that an uber GOAT won everything.

Now, I am not saying Federer's peak was in a super strong era like that, but the point is that you can't measure the quality of an era and its players purely by grand slam counts of the players. If the GOAT is playing in an era, he will dominate no matter what, and if you measure a player's quality purely by how many grand slams he won, he will look bad no matter what if he is in an era with that GOAT. I think that is what has happened with some high quality players from Federer's peak.

Johnny Groove
11-26-2011, 08:48 PM
After he won the USO, Djokovic had a chance at the greatest year ever, possibly even better stat wise than Laver's 69, even w/o all 4. Certainly had a chance to pass Fed 06, but Nole's body breaking down at the end of the year was a bit sad to see, really, but he still had the 3rd best season in the Open Era.

GOAT = Fed
11-26-2011, 08:48 PM
No I didn't, I just said that so you would either contradict yourself by saying H2H actually didn't mean anything, despite saying before that it did, only if the sample was bigger. Or that you did what you did now, and admit that it is important.

Well yes the H2H sample, statistically is not big enough, especially since it's so largely skewed towards Clay :shrug:

Yes it does show Nadal is a better player on clay; I was did write that in my post before the one you quoted and that's what I meant on the bolded part too. Obviously Nadal overall is better than Federer, not in terms of greatness per se, but when they face each other. The huge H2H lead Nadal has over Federer and the very tight off clay record they have suggests this, no?

ssj100
11-26-2011, 09:05 PM
On the other hand Novak had to play a Nadal that had one of his worst clay seasons since he started playing on tour, was a former shadow of himself during the hard court compared to 2010, Federer was very below-par compared to his 2006 self, had to play a Murray that was slam-less (If he wins a slam in the future).

See what I did there?

That's exactly right. Everyone arguing that Djokovic's season is better due to "level of competition" is clearly biased for Djokovic and against Federer. Judging "level of competition" is all extremely subjective. I reckon that unless you have played the actual game of tennis at the professional level, it's impossible to accurately judge "level of competition". In 2007, Jim Courier (a great tennis player in his time) made repeated statements about the depth of tennis and level of competition being higher than it's ever been.

From an objective point of view, it's very hard to say Djokovic's season is better - he didn't even make the WTF semis, and also missed making a Grand Slam final, losing to a 30 year old clay court player in 4 sets in the semis.

Sunset of Age
11-26-2011, 09:20 PM
These are the final facts for these 2 exceptional years (both slightly better than the exceptional 2008 and 2010 for Nadal):

Federer 2006: 3GS+1F, YE master title, 4 master titles, 12 titles in total, 92-5 in matches.

Djokovic 2011: 3GS+1SF, 5 master titles, 10 titles in total, 70-6 in matches.

Overall selecting Federer (Djokovic lost it in the last 2 months and we are considering the whole year).

As would anyone do when basing their decision on cold-clear facts and numbers. Adding up anyone who doesn't in the Lexicon of Tardism.

Ori
11-26-2011, 10:30 PM
After he won the USO, Djokovic had a chance at the greatest year ever, possibly even better stat wise than Laver's 69, even w/o all 4. Certainly had a chance to pass Fed 06, but Nole's body breaking down at the end of the year was a bit sad to see, really, but he still had the 3rd best season in the Open Era.

Most of this, although I'd add J-MAC's 1984 Before Djokovic's 2011 as well...

pray-for-palestine-and-israel
11-26-2011, 10:34 PM
LOL

all the nole fans feel embarrassed for saying nole 2011 was better in june

fed's 2004,2006 are better than nole 2011 and nadal 2010

nole 2011 is better than nadal 2010 tho

my 2 cents

MIMIC
11-26-2011, 10:57 PM
LOL

all the nole fans feel embarrassed for saying nole 2011 was better in june

fed's 2004,2006 are better than nole 2011 and nadal 2010

nole 2011 is better than nadal 2010 tho

my 2 cents

2006 is debatable (and most outside of the MTF Federer fan club would give the edge to Djokovic) but 2004 is not.

ssj100
11-26-2011, 11:08 PM
2006 is debatable (and most outside of the MTF Federer fan club would give the edge to Djokovic) but 2004 is not.

Why is the edge given to Djokovic? Numbers don't lie. Opinions can.

Look, if Djokovic had won the WTF, then it would be a much closer comparison. However, he didn't even make the semi, winning only 1 match out of 3.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-26-2011, 11:32 PM
Nole screwed up the indoor season cuz of injuries:sobbing: :banghead: :facepalm:

so winner is fed:ras:

Saberq
11-26-2011, 11:40 PM
Nole screwed up the indoor season cuz of injuries:sobbing: :banghead: :facepalm:

so winner is fed:ras:

there's always next year :cool:

SetSampras
11-26-2011, 11:40 PM
I think there's a valid point in what you say in that I think this year is a particularly strong year for tennis, which adds to Djokovic's achievement. However, you always fail to realize that part of why we don't consider many of the best players who peaked in Federer's peak to be very good is because Federer took all the titles from them. Remember, there's only 4 Grand Slam titles a year to go around, no matter what the competition is.

So let me give you this hypothetical:

Let's say the following players were all playing in one era: Federer, Nadal, Borg, Laver, Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall, Courier, and Djokovic. Basically, all the all time greats. However, also playing during this era is a player who is completely perfect in every way; he is the best at every facet of tennis. That player would dominate the grand slam titles in this era. Would the fact that all those all time greats didnt win very much actually make them worse players? No, it just means that an uber GOAT won everything.

Now, I am not saying Federer's peak was in a super strong era like that, but the point is that you can't measure the quality of an era and its players purely by grand slam counts of the players. If the GOAT is playing in an era, he will dominate no matter what, and if you measure a player's quality purely by how many grand slams he won, he will look bad no matter what if he is in an era with that GOAT. I think that is what has happened with some high quality players from Federer's peak.

Well unfortunately,there has never been a player who is perfect in every way:) Regardless of Fed's 06 domination, from a quality, talent, standpoint I don't see ANYWHERES where the opposition at the top sticks up to '11. Again Im open for discussion, but I don't see where there is an argument to be made. I have no doubt Fed 06 WOULD NOT dominate on the level in 2011 as he did in 2006 with '11 Djoker and '11 Nadal. However, I could EASILY see '11 Nole dominating at nearly the same level as 06 Fed did back then. He would have a worse rookie rafa to play at wimbledon. He EASILY wins the Australian... Probably beats 06 Rafa at the French ( Not 08 Rafa there) and EASILY wins the USO. I see no one stopping him. Whereas Fed could be stopped by one guy that year.. I dont think there is anyone who CAN stop '11 Nole.


Anyways.. I think the whole "one year dominant" thing is a bit overrated anyways.. Its one thing to have a hot year, its another thing to sustain..Not sure Nole can like Fed did

Naudio Spanlatine
11-26-2011, 11:43 PM
there's always next year :cool:

we'll see about that my dear friend :angel:

GAME ON! :devil:

MIMIC
11-26-2011, 11:50 PM
Why is the edge given to Djokovic? Numbers don't lie. Opinions can.

Yes, numbers don't lie. But if the debate is who's year was more impressive then Djokovic's 10-1 over Fedal and 6-0 record over Nadal (plus his streak) certainly gives him the edge.

In 2009, Safina was ranked No. 1 ahead of Serena who won 2 slams that year.....because "the numbers" said that Safina was better. But if you don't look beyond "those numbers", you're missing the bigger picture.

ssj100
11-27-2011, 12:01 AM
Yes, numbers don't lie. But if the debate is who's year was more impressive then Djokovic's 10-1 over Fedal and 6-0 record over Nadal (plus his streak) certainly gives him the edge.

In 2009, Safina was ranked No. 1 ahead of Serena who won 2 slams that year.....because "the numbers" said that Safina was better. But if you don't look beyond "those numbers", you're missing the bigger picture.

I didn't say numbers explained everything. But Federer's 2006 numbers make Djokovic's numbers look much more inferior. Safina was ranked no. 1 - that's just one number. Need to look at more than one number usually to get the bigger picture. Federer won more titles, won more games, lost less games, reached more Grand Slam finals, won the same number of Grand Slams and won the WTF. So what's going for Djokovic? He had a 10-1 record over Fedal and won one more Masters tournament. I really don't think having a good win/loss ratio against specific players counts as much - it's incredibly subjective as to who is playing well at any one time. I repeat, Federer was "turning 30" for most of the year and Nadal was no where near his peak for most of the year.

I think people are getting confused with Djokovic's streak. I would have to agree that Djokovic's winning streak was probably the best in history. However, it doesn't make it the best "year" in history - as I said, if he had won the WTF, then it would have been up there. Excuses aside, Djokovic simply couldn't maintain that incredible level of play for long enough to qualify as having a better "year" than Federer's 2006.

rickcastle
11-27-2011, 12:06 AM
Federer won more titles, won more games, lost less games, reached more Grand Slam finals, won the same number of Grand Slams and won the WTF.

/thread

habibko
11-27-2011, 12:09 AM
/thread

and to top it off, 2011 Federer beat 2011 Djokovic in a GS (and had match points in another one), this alone speaks volumes on Federer's peak level in 2006

BigJohn
11-27-2011, 12:34 AM
and to top it off, 2011 Federer beat 2011 Djokovic in a GS (and had match points in another one), this alone speaks volumes on Federer's peak level in 2006

That is very telling, bot Noletards won't accept that reality.

MIMIC
11-27-2011, 12:38 AM
I didn't say numbers explained everything. But Federer's 2006 numbers make Djokovic's numbers look much more inferior. Safina was ranked no. 1 - that's just one number. Need to look at more than one number usually to get the bigger picture. Federer won more titles, won more games, lost less games, reached more Grand Slam finals, won the same number of Grand Slams and won the WTF. So what's going for Djokovic? He had a 10-1 record over Fedal and won one more Masters tournament.

He also won 2 clay Masters (Federer won no clay title all year), had a 42-match win streak (Federer came no where near that), won 5 straight Masters which had never been done by ANYONE (Fed won 2 back-to-back ) and never lost before the quarter-finals in ANY tournament.


I really don't think having a good win/loss ratio against specific players counts as much - it's incredibly subjective as to who is playing well at any one time. I repeat, Federer was "turning 30" for most of the year and Nadal was no where near his peak for most of the year.

Well then if you're going to downplay Djokovic's competition, I could do the same with Fed's in 2006. It goes both ways.

I think people are getting confused with Djokovic's streak. I would have to agree that Djokovic's winning streak was probably the best in history. However, it doesn't make it the best "year" in history - as I said, if he had won the WTF, then it would have been up there. Excuses aside, Djokovic simply couldn't maintain that incredible level of play for long enough to qualify as having a better "year" than Federer's 2006.

No one is saying that his streak made his year. It was simply a huge part of it that isn't part of the "numbers" portion that makes it better.

Saberq
11-27-2011, 12:41 AM
and to top it off, 2011 Federer beat 2011 Djokovic in a GS (and had match points in another one), this alone speaks volumes on Federer's peak level in 2006

Fed played in that match the same as in his peak but onle Fedtards argue different

ssj100
11-27-2011, 12:54 AM
He also won 2 clay Masters (Federer won no clay title all year), had a 42-match win streak (Federer came no where near that), won 5 straight Masters which had never been done by ANYONE (Fed won 2 back-to-back ) and never lost before the quarter-finals in ANY tournament.




Well then if you're going to downplay Djokovic's competition, I could do the same with Fed's in 2006. It goes both ways.



No one is saying that his streak made his year. It was simply a huge part of it that isn't part of the "numbers" portion that makes it better.

There are so many ways to look at it. For me, the biggest reason that Djokovic's year can't really be compared with Federer's 2006 is the fact that he played horribly (whether due to fatigue or whatever reason doesn't matter in this context) for 10-20% of the year. It's a pity he didn't perform well in arguably what has been hailed the "fifth slam". Players do care about the "fifth slam" because it "pays out really well" in monetary and points terms - that's why it's the "fifth slam".

Look, I personally like to see records being demolished, and I'm not a Djokovic "hater". In fact, part of me was hoping he wouldn't lose a single match this year - it's always incredible to see crazy things happen in life. However, Djokovic performed terribly post US Open (failed to even make the semis at the "fifth slam") and also failed to make one of the Grand Slam finals. Federer was 2 sets away from a calender year Grand Slam - that alone makes it one of the greatest years in tennis history. However, Federer backed it up by only losing 5 times all year (including post US Open) and winning 12 titles.

Fedex
11-27-2011, 01:09 AM
Well unfortunately,there has never been a player who is perfect in every way:) Regardless of Fed's 06 domination, from a quality, talent, standpoint I don't see ANYWHERES where the opposition at the top sticks up to '11. Again Im open for discussion, but I don't see where there is an argument to be made. I have no doubt Fed 06 WOULD NOT dominate on the level in 2011 as he did in 2006 with '11 Djoker and '11 Nadal. However, I could EASILY see '11 Nole dominating at nearly the same level as 06 Fed did back then. He would have a worse rookie rafa to play at wimbledon. He EASILY wins the Australian... Probably beats 06 Rafa at the French ( Not 08 Rafa there) and EASILY wins the USO. I see no one stopping him. Whereas Fed could be stopped by one guy that year.. I dont think there is anyone who CAN stop '11 Nole.


Anyways.. I think the whole "one year dominant" thing is a bit overrated anyways.. Its one thing to have a hot year, its another thing to sustain..Not sure Nole can like Fed did

In this scenario of putting Djokovic into a time machine and sending him back to the year 2006, does Federer still exist?

MM_1257
11-27-2011, 01:22 AM
Poor Noletards. :sad:

Arkulari
11-27-2011, 01:31 AM
No TMC/WTF, No RG Final

2006 Roger > 2011 Nole

/thread.

Saberq
11-27-2011, 01:44 AM
In this scenario of putting Djokovic into a time machine and sending him back to the year 2006, does Federer still exist?

of course not ...

Fedex
11-27-2011, 01:47 AM
of course not ...

LOL, but if we do it the other way, and have 06 Fed moved to the year 2011, he gets to face a Nadal who is weaker on clay than he was 5 years ago and a Federer 5 years older than he. He'd still lose a match or two to Nadal because he'll always be a matchup issue, but I can't see 06 Fed ever losing to 2011 Fed.

Saberq
11-27-2011, 01:57 AM
LOL, but if we do it the other way, and have 06 Fed moved to the year 2011, he gets to face a Nadal who is weaker on clay than he was 5 years ago and a Federer 5 years older than he. He'd still lose a match or two to Nadal because he'll always be a matchup issue, but I can't see 06 Fed ever losing to 2011 Fed.

I agree ....Let's do it :devil:

Naudio Spanlatine
11-27-2011, 02:00 AM
LOL, but if we do it the other way, and have 06 Fed moved to the year 2011, he gets to face a Nadal who is weaker on clay than he was 5 years ago and a Federer 5 years older than he. He'd still lose a match or two to Nadal because he'll always be a matchup issue, but I can't see 06 Fed ever losing to 2011 Fed.

I agree ....Let's do it :devil:

how dare you guys plan these attacks to get rafa:devil: :fiery: :sobbing: :lol:

Nole fan
11-27-2011, 02:02 AM
Who fuckin cares? Federer has 0 slams this year and Nole has 3 plus 5 MS and other titles. And he's 10-1 against Fedal, arguably the best players ever. That's all that counts. When people start looking into nostalgia that tells you something about the player they support. Now is all that matters.

ssj100
11-27-2011, 02:05 AM
Now is all that matters.

Exactly. Federer on the verge of winning an unprecedented 6th Year End title.

Saberq
11-27-2011, 02:06 AM
Exactly. Federer on the verge of winning an unprecedented 6th Year End title.

and we should all admire if he does that

Mountaindewslave
11-27-2011, 02:11 AM
Who fuckin cares? Federer has 0 slams this year and Nole has 3 plus 5 MS and other titles. And he's 10-1 against Fedal, arguably the best players ever. That's all that counts. When people start looking into nostalgia that tells you something about the player they support. Now is all that matters.

how is "now all that matters"??? if now is all that mattered I would be an extremely depressed tennis fan given the low quality of the tour the past month. of course the past is significant, as is the future. what do you think a discussion board is for? only discussing what is going on this exact moment? there's a live score thread for that, sure, but what a discussion board is for is to argue about things that HAVE happened or are GOING to happen. discussing the quality of play that Federer had in 2006 is just as significant as discussing the quality of play Djokovic is having now or may have in 2012....

it's strange that your defense and reaction to people saying "Federer 2006 is better than Djokovic 2011" is that "let's focus on here and now!" ??? :confused: :confused: :confused:

very odd. I agree Djokovic deserves credit and people should not take away his great accomplishments by comparing it to a another great year, but never looking back is a dangerous thing to do as you lose perspective

jcempire
11-27-2011, 02:40 AM
2006 Federer way way way way way better

Finally I got 90% people agree with me

jmjhb
11-27-2011, 02:42 AM
Who fuckin cares? Federer has 0 slams this year and Nole has 3 plus 5 MS and other titles. And he's 10-1 against Fedal, arguably the best players ever. That's all that counts. When people start looking into nostalgia that tells you something about the player they support. Now is all that matters.

What does this have to do with 2006 Federer?

You're really clutching at straws if this is the best 'argument' you can come up with.

venky91
11-27-2011, 02:54 AM
Before:

Clearly, Novak.

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=189890&highlight=fed+2006

After:

Who fuckin cares? Federer has 0 slams this year and Nole has 3 plus 5 MS and other titles. And he's 10-1 against Fedal, arguably the best players ever. That's all that counts. When people start looking into nostalgia that tells you something about the player they support. Now is all that matters.

barbadosan
11-27-2011, 03:03 AM
Who fuckin cares? Federer has 0 slams this year and Nole has 3 plus 5 MS and other titles. And he's 10-1 against Fedal, arguably the best players ever. That's all that counts. When people start looking into nostalgia that tells you something about the player they support. Now is all that matters.

I'm sorry Nole fan, I know you would wish us to forget Fed's 16 slams, his record consecutive weeks at no 1 etc and all his other gazillion records, but those all go to make up the body of tennis and tennis knowledge.

However, should Nole not do very well next year, and should you continue at that time to insist that "now is all that matters", we shall try our best to oblige you insofar as your Djoker is concerned :)

PS - Saberq may do his fair share of trolling, but at least he knows when not to throw a hissy fit

shiaben
11-27-2011, 03:18 AM
Federer had the better year. Regardless, Djokovic did his job. He had a remarkable year. Hopefully he can replicate a similar performance next year to perpare his resume for tennis hall of fame.

Saberq
11-27-2011, 03:22 AM
Federer had the better year. Regardless, Djokovic did his job. He had a remarkable year. Hopefully he can replicate a similar performance next year to perpare his resume for tennis hall of fame.

he is already going there even if he retires today .......but I agree more titles wont hurt

tripwires
11-27-2011, 03:43 AM
Can someone explain to me how Nole's 4-1 record against Roger this year is supposed to give his 2011 the edge over Roger's 2006? I mean, in what hypothetical scenario is it possible for Roger to have a head-to-head against himself? How does it make any sense to say that Nole's superior because he beat Roger 4 times, and therefore implying that Roger's year is inferior because...he can't actually play against himself on a tennis court?!

The numbers are as objective as you can get. Therefore, Roger's 2006 >>> Nole's 2011. BUT Nole still had a sublime season. End of argument.

MIMIC
11-27-2011, 03:52 AM
There are so many ways to look at it. For me, the biggest reason that Djokovic's year can't really be compared with Federer's 2006 is the fact that he played horribly (whether due to fatigue or whatever reason doesn't matter in this context) for 10-20% of the year. It's a pity he didn't perform well in arguably what has been hailed the "fifth slam". Players do care about the "fifth slam" because it "pays out really well" in monetary and points terms - that's why it's the "fifth slam".

I've seen more people refer to Indian Well, rather than the tour finals, as the "5th Slam". If you Google "5th Slam" (in terms of tennis), the tour finals doesn't even come up.

But anyway, Djokovic didn't play well for one small part of the year, while sweeping the rest. Federer had tiny hiccups throughout the entire year but maintained his footing throughout. I would almost say that this would amount to an identical years that played out in different ways. I guess I could liken it with money: Djokovic made $100 by doing a $90 job and then a $10 job, whereas Federer did 5 $20 jobs. They both got to $100 but in different ways.

I still think that his record over Fedal puts him over the edge. Fierce competition (aka "style points") is always more impressive, otherwise winning a challenger event would be no different than winning a Masters or a slam.

Can someone explain to me how Nole's 4-1 record against Roger this year is supposed to give his 2011 the edge over Roger's 2006? I mean, in what hypothetical scenario is it possible for Roger to have a head-to-head against himself? How does it make any sense to say that Nole's superior because he beat Roger 4 times, and therefore implying that Roger's year is inferior because...he can't actually play against himself on a tennis court?!

The numbers are as objective as you can get. Therefore, Roger's 2006 >>> Nole's 2011. BUT Nole still had a sublime season. End of argument.

Federer can't be faulted for not playing HIMSELF, but he didn't play anyone NEAR the kind of competition Djokovic faced. Someone consistent in every single slam? That type of person didn't even exist in that year. Federer could count on players being good in one slam then floppin in the others. Djokovic faced TWO guys that made it that much harder.

Sunset of Age
11-27-2011, 04:04 AM
I'm sorry Nole fan, I know you would wish us to forget Fed's 16 slams, his record consecutive weeks at no 1 etc and all his other gazillion records, but those all go to make up the body of tennis and tennis knowledge.

However, should Nole not do very well next year, and should you continue at that time to insist that "now is all that matters", we shall try our best to oblige you insofar as your Djoker is concerned :)

PS - Saberq may do his fair share of trolling, but at least he knows when not to throw a hissy fit

This.

Sorry Nole fan, I've disregarded your tardishness for quite a long time as I thought you're quite a nice poster, but I'm sorry to say that you've crossed the line by now. You're a full-blown TARD. Agreeing with the biggest tool ever to post on this board, aka Mr. SdG, doesn't do your job very well either.
No bad personal feelings. :wavey:

ssj100
11-27-2011, 04:08 AM
I've seen more people refer to Indian Well, rather than the tour finals, as the "5th Slam". If you Google "5th Slam" (in terms of tennis), the tour finals doesn't even come up.

But anyway, Djokovic didn't play well for one small part of the year, while sweeping the rest. Federer had tiny hiccups throughout the entire year but maintained his footing throughout. I would almost say that this would amount to an identical years that played out in different ways. I guess I could liken it with money: Djokovic made $100 by doing a $90 job and then a $10 job, whereas Federer did 5 $20 jobs. They both got to $100 but in different ways.

I still think that his record over Fedal puts him over the edge. Fierce competition (aka "style points") is always more impressive, otherwise winning a challenger event would be no different than winning a Masters or a slam.

People refer to the tour finals as "something missing" if it's not in one's collection. I've heard it being referenced as the "fifth slam" many times, hence why I call it so. I've never heard of any other tournament being referenced as the "fifth slam". It is a very important tournament (look how many times the media have referenced that Federer is tied with Sampras and Lendl), and to win only one match (barely) significantly ruins Djokovic's running for "greatest year ever" or "greater year than Federer's best years". There's a reason why the world tour finals awards up to 1500 points - the implication is that it is the fifth most important tournament of the year, with the four Grand Slams awarding up to 2000 points and the Masters Series tournaments awarding up to 1000 points.

In my own personal opinion, I feel that Federer's 2005 and 2007 years were better than his 2006 year. Federer's record in 2005 was 81-4, and could very well have been 82-3. The most significant losses were in 5 sets (Australian Open semi and tour finals final) and he held match points.

Also, if Djokovic got to $100, then Federer got to $120, as he won two more titles than Djokovic.

Naudio Spanlatine
11-27-2011, 04:30 AM
in the other thread i said 2006 fed is better, in this thread........well still same answer........his 2006 will be number 1 til rafa and/or nole come up with a bigger dominance, which will probably not happen do to the fact that both players risk their injuries so much:sad:

Manequin75
11-27-2011, 04:34 AM
I would say Novak 2011. He took the battle to the two GOATS and was 11-1 against them. (Are you freaking kidding me??????????)
Novak literally broke through the stranglehold the two GOATS had on slams against all odds.

Federer in 2006 was good but what was the competition like - I barely remember. He still lost to Nadal in the French Open I believe.

Novak was freaking incredible and I will forever respectfully hate him for that :)

SetSampras
11-27-2011, 05:11 AM
Can someone explain to me how Nole's 4-1 record against Roger this year is supposed to give his 2011 the edge over Roger's 2006? I mean, in what hypothetical scenario is it possible for Roger to have a head-to-head against himself? How does it make any sense to say that Nole's superior because he beat Roger 4 times, and therefore implying that Roger's year is inferior because...he can't actually play against himself on a tennis court?!

The numbers are as objective as you can get. Therefore, Roger's 2006 >>> Nole's 2011. BUT Nole still had a sublime season. End of argument.

Because its more impressive (going 10-1 over Fedal for the year in both slams and masters events) then it is going 120-0 Over Roddick and broken down Hewitt in 2006?:shrug:

juan27
11-27-2011, 05:15 AM
I've seen more people refer to Indian Well, rather than the tour finals, as the "5th Slam". If you Google "5th Slam" (in terms of tennis), the tour finals doesn't even come up.

But anyway, Djokovic didn't play well for one small part of the year, while sweeping the rest. Federer had tiny hiccups throughout the entire year but maintained his footing throughout. I would almost say that this would amount to an identical years that played out in different ways. I guess I could liken it with money: Djokovic made $100 by doing a $90 job and then a $10 job, whereas Federer did 5 $20 jobs. They both got to $100 but in different ways.

I still think that his record over Fedal puts him over the edge. Fierce competition (aka "style points") is always more impressive, otherwise winning a challenger event would be no different than winning a Masters or a slam.



Federer can't be faulted for not playing HIMSELF, but he didn't play anyone NEAR the kind of competition Djokovic faced. Someone consistent in every single slam? That type of person didn't even exist in that year. Federer could count on players being good in one slam then floppin in the others. Djokovic faced TWO guys that made it that much harder.

two guys made harder???

only one guy and was nadal , federer has 30 years old and in his decadence and even that , he could defeat nole in rg and push to the limits in us open.

another factor is that only in us open he defeat both nadal and federer(talking in slams) , delpo did the same too and with a better federer than now and with nadal in his worst surface and without any confidence in the victory , nadal only wished that federer defeated nole like in rg for had some chance to won in new tork.

the rest of the field were patetic like in 2010.

nole had lucky that federer is in decadence , because with a better federer in fast courts and with the antecedents in rg and us open , the thigs would be different

bokehlicious
11-27-2011, 10:12 AM
Nole fan being pwned on here again? :awww: give the girl a break you mean people, she'll own us back come AO anyway :devil: or not :o :D

MIMIC
11-27-2011, 10:12 AM
People refer to the tour finals as "something missing" if it's not in one's collection. I've heard it being referenced as the "fifth slam" many times, hence why I call it so. I've never heard of any other tournament being referenced as the "fifth slam". It is a very important tournament (look how many times the media have referenced that Federer is tied with Sampras and Lendl), and to win only one match (barely) significantly ruins Djokovic's running for "greatest year ever" or "greater year than Federer's best years". There's a reason why the world tour finals awards up to 1500 points - the implication is that it is the fifth most important tournament of the year, with the four Grand Slams awarding up to 2000 points and the Masters Series tournaments awarding up to 1000 points.

I totally get what you're saying, but there are a LOT more people who consider other tournaments as the 5th slam.


Also, if Djokovic got to $100, then Federer got to $120, as he won two more titles than Djokovic.

Well if Fed made more money, then Djoker got his $100 doing something more impressive.

two guys made harder???

only one guy and was nadal , federer has 30 years old and in his decadence and even that , he could defeat nole in rg and push to the limits in us open.

another factor is that only in us open he defeat both nadal and federer(talking in slams) , delpo did the same too and with a better federer than now and with nadal in his worst surface and without any confidence in the victory , nadal only wished that federer defeated nole like in rg for had some chance to won in new tork.

the rest of the field were patetic like in 2010.

nole had lucky that federer is in decadence , because with a better federer in fast courts and with the antecedents in rg and us open , the thigs would be different

AO SF: Djokovic def. Federer
FO SF: Federer def. Djokovic
USO SF: Djokovic def. Federer

YES. TWO GUYS :facepalm:

nobama
11-27-2011, 10:34 AM
Just curious did ND beat prime Fedal in 2011? I mean if we're going to throw in subjective things like level of competition, then isn't it fair to question whether ND faced Fedal at their best? I think one could argue neither were at their peak in 2011.

MIMIC
11-27-2011, 11:01 AM
Just curious did ND beat prime Fedal in 2011? I mean if we're going to throw in subjective things like level of competition, then isn't it fair to question whether ND faced Fedal at their best? I think one could argue neither were at their peak in 2011.

And Federer didn't go through Nadal at ALL to win his French Open. Does that make it any less impressive?

EDIT: Going through that thread now (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=145333). Hmmmm...Fed fans don't seem too concerned with Fed having to beat a prime Nadal in the final. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........

rickcastle
11-27-2011, 11:13 AM
Who fuckin cares? Federer has 0 slams this year and Nole has 3 plus 5 MS and other titles. And he's 10-1 against Fedal, arguably the best players ever. That's all that counts. When people start looking into nostalgia that tells you something about the player they support. Now is all that matters.

Spoken like a true glory hunter.

r3d_d3v1l_
11-27-2011, 11:25 AM
Nole fan being pwned on here again? :awww: give the girl a break you mean people, she'll own us back come AO anyway :devil: or not :o :D

Who doesn´t love seeing gloryhunters getting trashed?

Egreen
11-27-2011, 01:27 PM
Just curious did ND beat prime Fedal in 2011? I mean if we're going to throw in subjective things like level of competition, then isn't it fair to question whether ND faced Fedal at their best? I think one could argue neither were at their peak in 2011.

Ditto.

BigJohn
11-27-2011, 04:59 PM
Sorry Nole fan, I've disregarded your tardishness for quite a long time as I thought you're quite a nice poster, but I'm sorry to say that you've crossed the line by now.

I've been saying that since the beginning of the year almost, ever since I received that "good rep" from Nole spam that went a little bit like this:

"Nole is a different player now and you know it. Or maybe you don't want to know"

To paraphrase the real Joker, I know the Noletards when I see them, and...

MIMIC
11-27-2011, 05:51 PM
Ditto.

Because Fed fans are so concerned with players facing the stiffest competition.....except when Federer is the one winning :secret:

It didn't even occur to me. Now I know that it's all hypocritical bullshit, so you all can stop playing the "Federer not at his best" game. Historians aren't even going to consider the desperate excuses Fed fans come up with these days when looking at Djokovic's 2011, just like they aren't going to consider the fact that Federer didn't go through Nadal to win his lone French Open. The effort to downplay Federer to understate Djokovic's dominant year futile, and pretty much grandstanding for the Fed community.

tripwires
11-28-2011, 03:04 AM
:haha: Your obsession with Fed's achievements viz. Djokovic's 2011 season is astounding. Speaking for myself, I'm proud of him for being the first person to beat Djokovic this year at the age of 29, almost 30; I'm very proud of him for being the only player, really, to challenge Djokovic at the US Open at the age of 30. Djokovic played amazing tennis this season. Roger's being 30 has absolutely no bearing on Djokovic's amazing season; Roger played great at the French and won the match, played great at the US Open but lost the match. Where's the shame in either scenario? Those two matches were some of the best tennis I've seen this season. I've always enjoyed watching them play against each other - the tennis is exciting and varied, which isn't something I can say for Fedal matches. The fact of Roger's decline shouldn't in any way put an asterisk on Nole's amazing season, and your continued obsession with disproving Roger's decline in order to prop up Nole's season when it really speaks for itself is, well, it's pretty tragic, to say the least.

I suggest you stop being so insecure about Nole's achievements this year and just celebrate them and be proud of your favourite player. There's no shame in losing to one of the greatest players to have ever played the sport, and there's all the glory to be had in saving match points en route to beating him in a slam that he's won 5 times.

I don't understand why Noletards continue to be bitter despite the fantastic year he's had. I wonder what you guys were like when he wasn't winning.

MIMIC
11-28-2011, 04:01 AM
Errr....I could just as easily advise the Fed community to not be so insecure about Federer's achievements that they have to pretend that Federer was a nobody when Djokovic beat him.

It goes both ways.

Now Fed fans hate the media. After the media's love affair with Fed, I bet they wish they'd stop propping him up now. It's has to be bittersweet.

tripwires
11-28-2011, 04:35 AM
Errr....I could just as easily advise the Fed community to not be so insecure about Federer's achievements that they have to pretend that Federer was a nobody when Djokovic beat him.

It goes both ways.

Now Fed fans hate the media. After the media's love affair with Fed, I bet they wish they'd stop propping him up now. It's has to be bittersweet.

Roger Federer is a living legend. He's never a nobody. Anyone who claims to be a fan and says otherwise is either a troll or a glory hunter and thus not a true fan. ;)

I dunno, I'm totally enjoying reading all the articles about Roger now. :)

Art&Soul
11-28-2011, 04:44 AM
FedGOD 2006 >>>>> Joker 2011, 90% tennis fans agree :), only 10% Nole Fan girls are clueless :o

Asadinator
11-28-2011, 04:57 AM
I only came here to see Saberq's posts. I wasn't disappointed.

bandabou
11-28-2011, 08:36 AM
Till the U.S. Open, Djokovic was doing great. But then he hit the wall...

DDrago2
11-28-2011, 08:39 AM
Federer 2006 > Djokovic 2011

cardio
11-28-2011, 10:11 AM
It is useless to argue who beat better opposition, players cant choose their opponents. Djoko had a very good season, but I think Fed declining and Nadal having sub-par year also had something to do with it.

Beating Fedal 10 -1 are impressive numbers, but Fedal collected 27 losses this year, there were lot of other players who did it also.

And Djoko losing all his momentum in last months doesnt help either. It was kinda downhill since Wimbledon already :

1)Wimby win - greatest tennis year ever
2) still great after Cinci, but will he beat Mac 1984, Fed 2006-2007 ?
3) still great after USO, but dark clouds already over indoor season, injury concerns .
4) after Paris - still great year, but all the momentum is gone
5) after WTF -still a very good year, but he barely stumbled over finish line

Overall Fed 2006 is way better because Fed never had year-end disaster results, he finished it like he started it- with very dominating winning streak.

Sophocles
11-28-2011, 12:28 PM
I have already mathematically proven this more than once using ranking points.

Laver 1969- 16,530 using 2011 points, 8,600 using 2008 points= 12,565 avg.
Fed 2006- 15,760 using 2011 points, 8,370 using 2006 points= 12,065 avg.
Djokovic 2011- 13,630 using 2011 points, 7,235 using 2008 points= 10,432.5 avg.
Fed 2007- 13,595 using 2011 points, 7,180 using 2007 points= 10,387.5 avg.
Nadal 2010- 12,495 using 2010 points, 6,680 using 2008 points= 9,587.5 avg.
Fed 2005- 12,375 using 2011 points, 6,725 using 2005 points= 9,550 avg.
Nadal 2008-12,310 using 2011 points, 6,730 using 2008 points= 9,520 avg.
Fed 2004- 12,385 using 2011 points, 6,360 using 2004 points= 9,372.5 avg.

Shouldn't Connors 1974 & Mac 1984 be in there somewhere?

Sophocles
11-28-2011, 12:45 PM
And Federer didn't go through Nadal at ALL to win his French Open. Does that make it any less impressive?

EDIT: Going through that thread now (http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=145333). Hmmmm...Fed fans don't seem too concerned with Fed having to beat a prime Nadal in the final. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...........

I don't think you read the post you're replying to, which begins, "If we're going to throw in subjective things like level of competition..."

doomsday
11-28-2011, 12:52 PM
Till the U.S. Open, Djokovic was doing great. But then he hit the wall...

Pretty much, still he had a great season but Federer 2006 takes the cake.

Saberq
11-28-2011, 01:55 PM
Lavers seasons shouldn't be number 1 it should be Fed's 2006...I dont care about the numbers ...who did he beat then?

Johnny Groove
11-28-2011, 02:04 PM
Shouldn't Connors 1974 & Mac 1984 be in there somewhere?

The following are just the ones I have done, there are about 20 other years I have yet to go through.


1. Laver 1969- 16,530 using 2011 points, 8,600 using 2008 points= 12,565 avg.
2. Fed 2006- 15,760 using 2011 points, 8,370 using 2006 points= 12,065 avg.
3. Nastase 73- 14,950 using 2011 points, 8,010 using 2008 points= 11,480 avg.
4. Lendl 86- 14,940 using 2011 points, 7,750 using 2008 points= 11,345 avg.
5. Vilas 77-8,195 using 2008 points, 13,000 using 2011 points= 10,597.5 avg.
6. Mcenroe 84- 13,935 using 2011 points, 6,980 using 2008 points= 10,457.5 avg.
7. Djokovic 2011- 13,630 using 2011 points, 7,235 using 2008 points= 10,432.5 avg.
8. Fed 2007- 13,595 using 2011 points, 7,180 using 2007 points= 10,387.5 avg.
9. Connors 74- 13,045 using 2011 points, 7,140 using 2008 points= 10,092.5 avg.
10. Borg 78- 6,570 using 2008 points, 13,275 using 2011 points= 9,922.5 avg.
11. Nadal 2010- 12,495 using 2010 points, 6,680 using 2008 points= 9,587.5 avg.
12. Fed 2005- 12,375 using 2011 points, 6,725 using 2005 points= 9,550 avg.
13. Nadal 2008-12,310 using 2011 points, 6,730 using 2008 points= 9,520 avg.
14. Fed 2004- 12,385 using 2011 points, 6,360 using 2004 points= 9,372.5 avg.
15. Sampras 95- 10,740 using 2011 points , 5,820 using 2008 points= 8,280 avg.
16. Fed 09- 10,565 using 2011 points, 5,765 using 2008 points= 8,165 avg.
17. Rafa 07- 10,050 using 2011 points, 5,685 using 2008 points= 7,867.5 avg.
18. Rafa 11- 9,860 using 2011 points, 5,525 using 2008 points= 7,692.5 avg.
19. Sampras 94- 10,005 using 2011 points , 5,340 using 2008 points= 7,672.5 avg.
20. Wilander 88- 9,660 using 2011 points, 5,070 using 2008 points= 7,365 avg.
21. Rafa 09- 9,360 using 2011 points, 5,110 using 2008 points= 7,235 avg.
22. Rafa 05- 9,065 using 2011 points, 5,090 using 2008 points= 7,077.5
23. Sampras 97- 5,220 using 2008 points, 8,315 using 2011 points= 6,767.5 avg.
24. Sampras 96- 8,175 using 2011 points , 4,695 using 2008 points= 6,435 avg.
25. Fed 03- 4,695 using 2008 points, 7,920 using 2011 points= 6,307 avg.
26. Rafa 06- 7,950 using 2011 points, 4,470 points using 2008 points= 6,210 avg.

Saberq
11-28-2011, 02:06 PM
The following are just the ones I have done, there are about 20 other years I have yet to go through.


1. Laver 1969- 16,530 using 2011 points, 8,600 using 2008 points= 12,565 avg.
2. Fed 2006- 15,760 using 2011 points, 8,370 using 2006 points= 12,065 avg.
3. Nastase 73- 14,950 using 2011 points, 8,010 using 2008 points= 11,480 avg.
4. Lendl 86- 14,940 using 2011 points, 7,750 using 2008 points= 11,345 avg.
5. Vilas 77-8,195 using 2008 points, 13,000 using 2011 points= 10,597.5 avg.
6. Mcenroe 84- 13,935 using 2011 points, 6,980 using 2008 points= 10,457.5 avg.
7. Djokovic 2011- 13,630 using 2011 points, 7,235 using 2008 points= 10,432.5 avg.
8. Fed 2007- 13,595 using 2011 points, 7,180 using 2007 points= 10,387.5 avg.
9. Connors 74- 13,045 using 2011 points, 7,140 using 2008 points= 10,092.5 avg.
10. Borg 78- 6,570 using 2008 points, 13,275 using 2011 points= 9,922.5 avg.
11. Nadal 2010- 12,495 using 2010 points, 6,680 using 2008 points= 9,587.5 avg.
12. Fed 2005- 12,375 using 2011 points, 6,725 using 2005 points= 9,550 avg.
13. Nadal 2008-12,310 using 2011 points, 6,730 using 2008 points= 9,520 avg.
14. Fed 2004- 12,385 using 2011 points, 6,360 using 2004 points= 9,372.5 avg.
15. Sampras 95- 10,740 using 2011 points , 5,820 using 2008 points= 8,280 avg.
16. Fed 09- 10,565 using 2011 points, 5,765 using 2008 points= 8,165 avg.
17. Rafa 07- 10,050 using 2011 points, 5,685 using 2008 points= 7,867.5 avg.
18. Rafa 11- 9,860 using 2011 points, 5,525 using 2008 points= 7,692.5 avg.
19. Sampras 94- 10,005 using 2011 points , 5,340 using 2008 points= 7,672.5 avg.
20. Wilander 88- 9,660 using 2011 points, 5,070 using 2008 points= 7,365 avg.
21. Rafa 09- 9,360 using 2011 points, 5,110 using 2008 points= 7,235 avg.
22. Rafa 05- 9,065 using 2011 points, 5,090 using 2008 points= 7,077.5
23. Sampras 97- 5,220 using 2008 points, 8,315 using 2011 points= 6,767.5 avg.
24. Sampras 96- 8,175 using 2011 points , 4,695 using 2008 points= 6,435 avg.
25. Fed 03- 4,695 using 2008 points, 7,920 using 2011 points= 6,307 avg.
26. Rafa 06- 7,950 using 2011 points, 4,470 points using 2008 points= 6,210 avg.


So what you are only looking at the numbers?No top 10 wins,level of competition and other stuff?...Fed should be number 1 followed by Novak

Johnny Groove
11-28-2011, 02:08 PM
So what you are only looking at the numbers?No top 10 wins,level of competition and other stuff?...Fed should be number 1 followed by Novak

I am of the opinion that the only objective way to do it is to do it mathematically.

Top 10 wins I didn't feel like counting, and level of competition is very subjective.

MIMIC
11-28-2011, 02:11 PM
The following are just the ones I have done, there are about 20 other years I have yet to go through.


1. Laver 1969- 16,530 using 2011 points, 8,600 using 2008 points= 12,565 avg.
2. Fed 2006- 15,760 using 2011 points, 8,370 using 2006 points= 12,065 avg.
3. Nastase 73- 14,950 using 2011 points, 8,010 using 2008 points= 11,480 avg.
4. Lendl 86- 14,940 using 2011 points, 7,750 using 2008 points= 11,345 avg.
5. Vilas 77-8,195 using 2008 points, 13,000 using 2011 points= 10,597.5 avg.
6. Mcenroe 84- 13,935 using 2011 points, 6,980 using 2008 points= 10,457.5 avg.
7. Djokovic 2011- 13,630 using 2011 points, 7,235 using 2008 points= 10,432.5 avg.
8. Fed 2007- 13,595 using 2011 points, 7,180 using 2007 points= 10,387.5 avg.
9. Connors 74- 13,045 using 2011 points, 7,140 using 2008 points= 10,092.5 avg.
10. Borg 78- 6,570 using 2008 points, 13,275 using 2011 points= 9,922.5 avg.
11. Nadal 2010- 12,495 using 2010 points, 6,680 using 2008 points= 9,587.5 avg.
12. Fed 2005- 12,375 using 2011 points, 6,725 using 2005 points= 9,550 avg.
13. Nadal 2008-12,310 using 2011 points, 6,730 using 2008 points= 9,520 avg.
14. Fed 2004- 12,385 using 2011 points, 6,360 using 2004 points= 9,372.5 avg.
15. Sampras 95- 10,740 using 2011 points , 5,820 using 2008 points= 8,280 avg.
16. Fed 09- 10,565 using 2011 points, 5,765 using 2008 points= 8,165 avg.
17. Rafa 07- 10,050 using 2011 points, 5,685 using 2008 points= 7,867.5 avg.
18. Rafa 11- 9,860 using 2011 points, 5,525 using 2008 points= 7,692.5 avg.
19. Sampras 94- 10,005 using 2011 points , 5,340 using 2008 points= 7,672.5 avg.
20. Wilander 88- 9,660 using 2011 points, 5,070 using 2008 points= 7,365 avg.
21. Rafa 09- 9,360 using 2011 points, 5,110 using 2008 points= 7,235 avg.
22. Rafa 05- 9,065 using 2011 points, 5,090 using 2008 points= 7,077.5
23. Sampras 97- 5,220 using 2008 points, 8,315 using 2011 points= 6,767.5 avg.
24. Sampras 96- 8,175 using 2011 points , 4,695 using 2008 points= 6,435 avg.
25. Fed 03- 4,695 using 2008 points, 7,920 using 2011 points= 6,307 avg.
26. Rafa 06- 7,950 using 2011 points, 4,470 points using 2008 points= 6,210 avg.

Interesting. Thanks :yeah:

Sophocles
11-28-2011, 02:45 PM
Very telling that several of Rafa's years as Number 2 get in there.

Vida
11-28-2011, 05:07 PM
hehe this shit still going on?

well, without WTF 2011 cant be better than 2006 cause it lacks a big, meaningful tournament. still an unbelievable season. one of the best ever. and if you want to compare 'levels' (tards like to do that), we should look at 2011 up until end of usopen, rather than end of WTF.

Luinir
11-28-2011, 05:30 PM
2006 federer.

edit: but i am not going to vote for it. because i hate more from federer than djokovic.

Nole fan
11-28-2011, 05:49 PM
Federer thinks his best match this year was against Novak in RG. :spit:

DpyRCBfpGKg&feature=player_embedded

sexybeast
11-28-2011, 05:56 PM
Federer thinks his best match this year was against Novak in RG. :spit:

DpyRCBfpGKg&feature=player_embedded

So?

Shinoj
11-28-2011, 06:40 PM
This thread reminds me of Thomas Muster, way way past retirement date.

tripwires
11-29-2011, 03:24 AM
I hope Nole fan goes far in the ACC.

Nole fan
12-02-2011, 06:28 PM
Dedicated to that mug tripwires. :wavey:

The 10 Greatest Men's Seasons (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15265&zoneid=9)
By Stephen Tignor - Friday, December 2, 2011

It’s often said that men’s tennis is deeper and more competitive than it has ever been. And it’s true; the sport has never been played at a higher level. But over the last five years, it hasn’t been the excellence of the ATP as a whole that’s been most impressive. It has been the dominance of the top players despite that depth. Since 2006, we’ve seen three players—Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic—put together seasons that rank among the most gloriously accomplished of the Open era.

Now that the third and perhaps finest of those seasons, Djokovic’s remarkable 2011, is complete, it seems like a good time to look back at where it—as well as Federer’s and Nadal’s best years—fits among the greatest single seasons of the Open era. There’s no right answer, and that’s what makes this parlor game so much fun. Here we present our countdown of the 10 best men’s seasons since the Open era began in 1968.

No. 7: Rafael Nadal, 2010

For the first four months, it didn’t look much like an historic season for Rafael Nadal. He was upset in the quarterfinals of the Australian Open and didn’t win his first tournament until Monte Carlo in April. But once Nadal got on the board, he never got off of it. The Spaniard became the first player to win three straight Masters titles when he added Rome and Madrid to his Monte Carlo title. He rolled through Paris without dropping a set, and kept rolling through the All England Club for his second Wimbledon title. But Nadal’s finest achievement came at the US Open, where he had never been past the semifinals in seven tries. The eighth was the charm: He completed his career Grand Slam by beating Novak Djokovic in a four-set final. Nadal was the first player in 41 years to win three consecutive Slams, and the first to do it on three different surfaces. Five short months after his first win of the season, Nadal’s year-end No. 1 ranking was a foregone conclusion.

No. 8: Mats Wilander, 1988
No. 9: John McEnroe, 1981 (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15259&zoneid=9)
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979 (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15257&zoneid=9)

Check TENNIS.com each day for the next season on the list. (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15265&zoneid=9)

guga2120
12-02-2011, 06:40 PM
Now that the third and perhaps finest of those seasons, Djokovic’s remarkable 2011, is complete, it seems like a good time to look back at where it—as well as Federer’s and Nadal’s best years—fits among the greatest single seasons of the Open era.



This guy seems to be one the few american tennis writers who knows what he's talking about, he still will put Federer's 2006 number 1 and just talk about the consistency all year, and forget the fact that he was beating so many clowns, and a teenage clay courter was kicking his ass on a regular basis.

Seems like he knows the right answer though.

DrJules
12-02-2011, 06:48 PM
This guy seems to be one the few american tennis writers who knows what he's talking about, he still will put Federer's 2006 number 1 and just talk about the consistency all year, and forget the fact that he was beating so many clowns, and a teenage clay courter was kicking his ass on a regular basis.

Seems like he knows the right answer though.

I think he will pick Laver's 1969 grand slam year.

DrJules
12-02-2011, 06:50 PM
Dedicated to that mug tripwires. :wavey:

The 10 Greatest Men's Seasons (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15265&zoneid=9)
By Stephen Tignor - Friday, December 2, 2011

It’s often said that men’s tennis is deeper and more competitive than it has ever been. And it’s true; the sport has never been played at a higher level. But over the last five years, it hasn’t been the excellence of the ATP as a whole that’s been most impressive. It has been the dominance of the top players despite that depth. Since 2006, we’ve seen three players—Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic—put together seasons that rank among the most gloriously accomplished of the Open era.

Now that the third and perhaps finest of those seasons, Djokovic’s remarkable 2011, is complete, it seems like a good time to look back at where it—as well as Federer’s and Nadal’s best years—fits among the greatest single seasons of the Open era. There’s no right answer, and that’s what makes this parlor game so much fun. Here we present our countdown of the 10 best men’s seasons since the Open era began in 1968.

No. 7: Rafael Nadal, 2010

For the first four months, it didn’t look much like an historic season for Rafael Nadal. He was upset in the quarterfinals of the Australian Open and didn’t win his first tournament until Monte Carlo in April. But once Nadal got on the board, he never got off of it. The Spaniard became the first player to win three straight Masters titles when he added Rome and Madrid to his Monte Carlo title. He rolled through Paris without dropping a set, and kept rolling through the All England Club for his second Wimbledon title. But Nadal’s finest achievement came at the US Open, where he had never been past the semifinals in seven tries. The eighth was the charm: He completed his career Grand Slam by beating Novak Djokovic in a four-set final. Nadal was the first player in 41 years to win three consecutive Slams, and the first to do it on three different surfaces. Five short months after his first win of the season, Nadal’s year-end No. 1 ranking was a foregone conclusion.

No. 8: Mats Wilander, 1988
No. 9: John McEnroe, 1981 (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15259&zoneid=9)
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979 (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15257&zoneid=9)

Check TENNIS.com each day for the next season on the list. (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15265&zoneid=9)

Your signature incorrectly records the Djokovic year (win/loss 70/6 and top 10 21-4):

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Novak-Djokovic.aspx

MatchFederer
12-02-2011, 06:55 PM
Your signature incorrectly records the Djokovic year (win/loss 70/6 and top 10 21-4):

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Top-Players/Novak-Djokovic.aspx

good catch, and they happened quite a while ago too. I wonder why the sig hasn't been updated, it's certainly very curious.

Alex999
12-02-2011, 06:59 PM
Yes, statistically Roger was better back in 2006. I don't want to take anything away from him. However, what makes 2011 so amazing is that Djokovic had to fight Nadal, Federer and Murray in 2011. The only rival Federer really had in 2006 was Nadal. The fact that Djokovic had to defeat Murray, Fed and Nadal (his major rivals, the best players in the world) in order to win 3 majors plus 5 masters in 2011 is simply out of this world.

buzz
12-02-2011, 07:28 PM
Dedicated to that mug tripwires. :wavey:

The 10 Greatest Men's Seasons (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15265&zoneid=9)
By Stephen Tignor - Friday, December 2, 2011

It’s often said that men’s tennis is deeper and more competitive than it has ever been. And it’s true; the sport has never been played at a higher level. But over the last five years, it hasn’t been the excellence of the ATP as a whole that’s been most impressive. It has been the dominance of the top players despite that depth. Since 2006, we’ve seen three players—Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic—put together seasons that rank among the most gloriously accomplished of the Open era.

Now that the third and perhaps finest of those seasons, Djokovic’s remarkable 2011, is complete, it seems like a good time to look back at where it—as well as Federer’s and Nadal’s best years—fits among the greatest single seasons of the Open era. There’s no right answer, and that’s what makes this parlor game so much fun. Here we present our countdown of the 10 best men’s seasons since the Open era began in 1968.

No. 7: Rafael Nadal, 2010

For the first four months, it didn’t look much like an historic season for Rafael Nadal. He was upset in the quarterfinals of the Australian Open and didn’t win his first tournament until Monte Carlo in April. But once Nadal got on the board, he never got off of it. The Spaniard became the first player to win three straight Masters titles when he added Rome and Madrid to his Monte Carlo title. He rolled through Paris without dropping a set, and kept rolling through the All England Club for his second Wimbledon title. But Nadal’s finest achievement came at the US Open, where he had never been past the semifinals in seven tries. The eighth was the charm: He completed his career Grand Slam by beating Novak Djokovic in a four-set final. Nadal was the first player in 41 years to win three consecutive Slams, and the first to do it on three different surfaces. Five short months after his first win of the season, Nadal’s year-end No. 1 ranking was a foregone conclusion.

No. 8: Mats Wilander, 1988
No. 9: John McEnroe, 1981 (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15259&zoneid=9)
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979 (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15257&zoneid=9)

Check TENNIS.com each day for the next season on the list. (http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15265&zoneid=9)

Federer also won three consecutive slams (wim2005-AO2006 and Wim2006-AO2007) Or must it be in 1 season?