Is Novak's year the second best of the open era after Laver?

I have to say that in general there have been a lot of great years in tennis. Certainly, Fed's 2006, Mac's 84, and Connors 74 really come to mind. Also we still have a debate as to whether this is even Novak's best year at all as he had the great year in 2011. But for my money I think this season tops the others or at the least is the equal of the others. People may say that well in those seasons Novak didn't have the winning percentage of the other three. To me winning percentage is really immaterial. I mean if Novak had two or three more losses but instead also had the FO title with his other three slams would anyone rate his year as being worse than Mac 84 because he had a lower winning percentage? To me how you do in the big events and the slams in particular determine the greatness of your year. So Novak winning 3 slams and losing in the final of the 4th is as well as he can do without winning all 4 slams. Plus you add the victory in the WTF and a record 6 1000 point events. Of the 13 first tier events that he entered, (1 wtf, 4 slams, 8 of 9 masters ) Novak won 10 of them. Meaning that he posted a 77 percent win percentage of the first tier tournaments that he entered. Not of the matches he played in those tournaments he WON NEARLY 4 out of 5 major events he entered. And his failure in just one event to reach the final the first one of the year.
In comparison to 2011, a lot has been made to the competition he faced. Yet he has 11 more wins over top ten opponents in 2015 than he did in 2011.

So feel free to make your cases for other incredible years that we have seen in the open era. No Laverfan I don't want to know how many tournaments Methusela's grandmother won in biblical times lets keep this open era where there is some semblance of continuity of schedule. A great case can be made for each of the other guys as well. And people won't like this but even though Fed won as many slams and played in as many slam finals the reason I don't give him the nod is simply down to his inferior completion level.

I rate his 2015 better than his own 2011 in terms of results and better than Fed's 2006. I think only Laver's calendar slam year is better than this if greater emphasis is given to slams. I've no idea how Laver performed in the other tournaments in that year.

Becker said 2006 was better then 2015.

He knows tennis more then LK and IMBL, so all done here

Personally I'd agree it was the 2nd best after Laver '69, for the reasons socal mentions.
It's all about the titles.
3 slams, 6 Masters and the WTF - that's 10 of the 14 biggies. Unheard of. Any other stats like winning percentage etc are relatively unimportant. Level of competition - well, let's compare it with Connors' and McEnroe's years - except we can't because who here can honestly say they have that knowledge? No-one. Why? Because over time that sort of stuff becomes irrelevant and the titles are what matters.

Jahu wrote:Becker said 2006 was better then 2015.

He knows tennis more then LK and IMBL, so all done here

Eh??

The stark, cold facts determine these things in the long run. At the moment we are viewing 2015 in all its factors, including court speed, strength of opposition, match scheduling etc, etc.
But in the future people will look at Djoko's staggering stats for 2015 and these other factors will not be considered. So, yeah, it's been a helluva year.

I'm going to be controversial here, and admit that I don't agree with the lionising of Laver's 1969 season.

It was a great season, no doubt.

But a CYGS at a time when 3 slams were on the same surface (grass) and when Australia didn't attract all the top players is not of the same difficulty as a modern day CYGS.

So I don't accept that a CYGS of that nature is a trump card in a 'greatest year' discussion.

This is especially so when Laver's 1969 included early round losses in non-slam competitions.

Personally, I think a decent case can be made that Novak's 2015 is better than Laver's 1969.

But I think I still consider McEnroe's 84 the best season. 82-3 in singles and, often overlooked, 40-5 in doubles too. A combined record of 122-8!

Add homogenization to the argument and we could default the Djokovic year of 2015.

Swings and roundabouts this argument.

Swings & roundabouts? Maybe, but then just stick to the list of titles. Was the CYGS so easy back then? If so, who else did it? No-one. To me that trumps everything else - it's the holy grail and only Laver did it. The titles won by Djoko this year make it 2nd. Titles are more important than win/loss ratio.

Yeah McEnroes was the best for me in terms of utter dominace of his contemporaries. Laver didn't play across different surfaces, Federer didn't win quite as many masters etc.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Add homogenization to the argument and we could default the Djokovic year of 2015.

Swings and roundabouts this argument.

Exactly.

Which is why I disagree with Laver's 1969 being the default best year ever. There are arguments for it and arguments against it.

It's not untouchable on its pedestal.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Swings & roundabouts? Maybe, but then just stick to the list of titles. Was the CYGS so easy back then? If so, who else did it? No-one. To me that trumps everything else - it's the holy grail and only Laver did it. The titles won by Djoko this year make it 2nd. Titles are more important than win/loss ratio.

CYGS was never easy.

But I believe winning 4 slams on 2 surfaces, where one of those events is a second tier field, is not as difficult as winning 4 slams on 3 surfaces against the world's best players every time.

If the CYGS was the Holy Grail in Laver's time, why did the world's best players not even bother going to Australia until the late 80s?

The AO 1969 wasn't a second tier field.
I agree that if someone won the CYGS these days it would be better than Laver '69 - but no-one has. Is winning 3 out of 4 better than winning 4 out of 4? Not to me.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Swings & roundabouts? Maybe, but then just stick to the list of titles. Was the CYGS so easy back then? If so, who else did it? No-one. To me that trumps everything else - it's the holy grail and only Laver did it. The titles won by Djoko this year make it 2nd. Titles are more important than win/loss ratio.

So why is Navratilova not hailed as the greatest across the sport?

344 titles in total. No-one near that number.

...because she likes girls

Julius H Marx wrote:The AO 1969 wasn't a second tier field.

Really?  The field for the AO 1969 was 48 strong - Laver had to win 5 matches to win it.  It was equivalent to a well-attended Masters 1,000 - perhaps Indian Wells with Best-of-Five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles.  The other slams of that year had the usual compliment of 128.

Also, the extreme focus we have on the Slams now did not really come into place until c.1988, when the Australian Open truly took its place as having consistently similar fields in terms of depth and quality as compared to the other slams.  Mac, Connors, and Borg hardly gave the Australian Open airtime during their careers.

That said, there is still something about Laver's year in 1969, and, rather like the total tally of slam wins, I don't think we'll be ready to see it in its proper context until such time as the CYGS is achieved again; rather like the fact that Sampras needed finally to overtake Emerson's tally of 13 Slams before that record was confined to its proper place in history.  Emerson is never in the debate now, but prior to 2000 his name was always mentioned.

For my money Djoko's achievements in the quality tournaments, the Slams, the Masters, and the WTF makes 2015 the best year ever on the current arrangement of the tour (he made the final in every such event he entered and lost 3 of them).  I'd put it above 2006 in terms of quality and also the fact that unlike Fed in 2006 none of Djoko's rivals this year had the better of him in terms of numbers or on any surface.  The tour has changed so much since 1984 that I don't find it easy to make comparisons with McEnroe's 1984.

barrystar wrote:

Julius H Marx wrote:The AO 1969 wasn't a second tier field.

Really?  The field for the AO 1969 was 48 strong - Laver had to win 5 matches to win it.  It was equivalent to a well-attended Masters 1,000 - perhaps Indian Wells with Best-of-Five https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_Australian_Open_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles.  The other slams of that year had the usual compliment of 128.

Not often one has to defend Laver from the dreaded asterisk
All the best players were at the AO 69 afaik. OK, Laver didn't have to overcome the test of playing the world number 90 in round 1 or a wildcard in round 2, but of the players who entered, who won? Not Rosewall, not Newcombe, Roche, Gonzales, Stolle or Emerson.

barrystar - great post. I didn't realise that about the Australian Open in 1969.

So Laver had to win 26 matches to achieve his CYGS, whereas Federer and Djokovic have both won 27 matches and didn't achieve a CYGS.

This is exactly the kind of detail why I'm not keen on Laver's 1969 as the de facto best ever.

Federer and Djokovic both failed to win all four slams. Laver succeeded. Federer and Djokovic both lost in a GS final. Laver didn't. I can't put a failure ahead of a success or a loss ahead of a win.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
All the best players were at the AO 69 afaik. OK, Laver didn't have to overcome the test of playing the world number 90 in round 1 or a wildcard in round 2, but of the players who entered, who won? Not Rosewall, not Newcombe, Roche, Gonzales, Stolle or Emerson.

I agree about most of the top players being there, most of them were Australian anyway!  That makes it like Indian Wells with Bo5, albeit with a smaller field.  Another point of difference is you will recall that in those days there were only 16 seeds so it was possible to be drawn to face anyone from #17 down in R1 or R2 - there can be no doubt that the smaller field, the different number of rounds, and the overall depth of field at the AO made it a less formidable tournament to win than the other slams.  There is no disputing the fact that the AO was by miles the weakest of the slams.  Your best point is that nobody else did it, and more to the point, until Fedal only two managed 3 in one year (Connors 1974, Willander 1988), and nobody managed the achievement that they were mostly all trying for each year, namely winning Roland Garros, Wimbledon, and the US Open in the same year.

So yes, it was a huge achievement and remains out there on its own, but I believe that if it is ever matched then it will be viewed differently to the way it is now and not just against the matching achievement - it's loss of uniqueness would mean a significant reassessment of its pure quality against other years too.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Federer and Djokovic both failed to win all four slams. Laver succeeded. Federer and Djokovic both lost in a GS final. Laver didn't. I can't put a failure ahead of a success or a loss ahead of a win.

I don't think HM is arguing that he's necessarily right; but that due to what BarryStar pointed out- there is actually room for argument and it's not as clear cut as people may think.
For me the feat of winning all 4 of the Slams is huge; and gives Laver's year the edge. However I do acknowledge the points made on Laver's easier Aus Open, so Mac's 1984, Fed's 2006, and Djoko 2015 are right up there.

JHM - do you think CYGS is always a trump card?

To take an exaggerated scenario, if a modern player won the CYGS but lost every other match of the season, would you think that to be the best year ever?

HM Murdock wrote:JHM - do you think CYGS is always a trump card?

To take an exaggerated scenario, if a modern player won the CYGS but lost every other match of the season, would you think that to be the best year ever?

Very hypothetical, so I might change my answer if it actually happened, but yes I probably would.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:JHM - do you think CYGS is always a trump card?

To take an exaggerated scenario, if a modern player won the CYGS but lost every other match of the season, would you think that to be the best year ever?

Very hypothetical, so I might change my answer if it actually happened, but yes I probably would.

I can see I have little chance of persuading you against 1969 as the best tennis year ever then!

I think the major point against Laver is not really the AO actually but that he didn't utterly dominate. If you look at his 1969 slam results (seen on the wikipedia article for each tournament) he had various tight matches where he could easily have lost.

The other thing is I think from memory he lost SIXTEEN matches in 1969, albeit winning over a 100 but it's still equivalent to perhaps ten or twelve losses in a modern season. He certainly wasn't getting to every final.

Laver 69 vs Djokovic 15 - hard to come up with a definite answer.

Fed 06 vs Djokovic 15 - hard to say, slightly better W/L vs arguably slightly tougher field.

Djok 11 vs Djok 15 - tougher competition vs better stats, again hard to say.

I think Jimmy Connors 1974 needs more discussion on here. His 93-4 W/L (95.9%) ranks with the best. Also, remember he won 3 out of 3 slams entered, being barred from the FO. Mcenroe won 2 out of 3 slams entered, surely more significant than the fact that he has a 0.6% better W/L than Connors. 82-3 (96.5%). Also Connors played more matches so debatable who has the better W/L anyway. (Obviously a season of 1-0(100%) would not trump the above.)

The only thing that can be said against Connors might be the strength of the competition but you could maybe make the same argument almost as well against any of the other dominant seasons except Djokovic 2011.

1974 U.S. Open Jimmy Connors bt Ken Rosewall
1974 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors bt Ken Rosewall
1974 French Open Bjorn Borg bt      Manuel Orantes
1974 Australian Open Jimmy Connors bt Phil Dent

Ken Rosewall was one of the best ever but he was past his best by 1974.
Anyway, I think Jimmy Connors 1974 is the best of the open era, if I had to pick one.
I was actually born in 1980, so I never saw any of it, but just looking at raw stats.

The problem with the tougher competition argument is that it doesn't look in detail at how the opponents actually played on the day, it just assumes a general, average level based on ranking, past performance etc. That assumption may very well not be accurate.
Counting the titles is accurate.

To take this argument to its absurd and yet perhaps logical conclusion

A vs B

Player A
Win/loss record of 100-1
3 slams out of 4
9 masters out of 9 and WTF, Olympics singles and doubles, and Davis Cup
forced to retire in the US Open final after freak injury while leading 2 sets to love

Player B
Win/loss record of 50-15
4 slams out of 4 - no other tournament wins
Wins some slams due to various injuries and poor performances of top players
numerous early round defeats and losses to lowly ranked players

HB - according to the ATP website, Laver went 59-7 in 1969.

By these figures, that means he was only 33-7 outside of the slams.

By contrast, Federer in 06 went 65-4 outside of the slams!

So I agree, Laver's 69 wasn't a dominant year as a whole.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Counting the titles is accurate.

Would you consider Jan Kodes superior to Andy Murray?

(His third title, Wimbledon 1973, was when 80 players boycotted the tournament)

In '69 Laver was also playing non-ATP tournaments. He actually won 18 titles (of 32 entered), of which 7 were ATP titles, with a 106-16 singles record
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/02/1969-rocket-launch/53950/#.VlWqjyBFDIU

HM Murdock wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Counting the titles is accurate.

Would you consider Jan Kodes superior to Andy Murray?

(His third title, Wimbledon 1973, was when 80 players boycotted the tournament)

I only counted 11 career titles. Define 'superior'

Two things amuse me in this thread:

1) JHM is getting more heat about his opinion than even some of our WUMs do.

2) The opinion he is getting heat for is the idea that Laver's 69 season is the best ever!

These are strange times!

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdock wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Counting the titles is accurate.

Would you consider Jan Kodes superior to Andy Murray?

(His third title, Wimbledon 1973, was when 80 players boycotted the tournament)

I only counted 11 career titles. Define 'superior'

It's 3 slams v 2 slams.

And I thought slams trumped all?

To be honest, JHM, feel free to bail out of this at any time. I'm not trying to change your view. The discussion has kind of morphed into an intellectual exercise! I don't want to pull you away from whatever happens in that home office of yours.

socal1976 wrote:And people won't like this but even though Fed won as many slams and played in as many slam finals the reason I don't give him the nod is simply down to his inferior completion level.

Ah the subjectivity of a fan is very clear!

legendkillarV2 wrote:Add homogenization to the argument and we could default the Djokovic year of 2015. Swings and roundabouts this argument.

HM,

I consider Murray to have the superior career, but Kodes to be a superior GS champion

I don't deny there can be exceptional/'absurd' circumstances, but I don't think Laver '69 comes anywhere remotely close to having those.

I could potentially agree to the idea that Laver '69 and Djoko '15 are simply too far apart to reasonably be compared. Budge '38 and Laver '69 are far closer in time.

Laver won 18 titles of 32 entered.
Djokovic 11 titles of 16 entered.

Henman Bill wrote:Laver won 18 titles of 32 entered.
Djokovic 11 titles of 16 entered.

An example of why they can't be compared perhaps. Could we reasonably extrapolate Djoko's figures to 22 from 32, or would fatigue etc set in? Thus we get into what if's and unknowns. What I do know is that Laver won all 4 slams in '69 and Djoko only won 3 in '15 and lost in the other one

That's it JHM, don't give in to Djoko, stand your ground

JuliusHMarx wrote: What I do know is that Laver won all 4 slams in '69 and Djoko only won 3 in '15 and lost in the other one

'Wonderful World' - Sam Cooke

Yeah, which is better, 18/32, or 11/16? Very little in it.

How about this though:

Laver 1969
Slams 26-0 (100%)
Overall 106-16 (86.7%)

Connors 1974
Slams 20-0 (100%)
Overall 93-4 (95.9%)

No-one is going to beat Connors 74 for the combined slam win % and overall W/L %, and any other metric is going to be hard to compare, so I'm standing by Connors' season still.

Djokovic 15 vs Connors 74 looks like a clear cut victory for Connors to me as well.

It may have been the case that top players would have not played each other as often outside the slams in the 70s, but I am not sure if that's true or not.

Connors also beat Borg, the 1974 French Open champion, in their one match in 1974, on clay, and  again beat him on clay the one time they played in 1975 on the surface. Borg was not at his peak and its quite possible that Connors might have had the beating of him in that form, even at the French Open. Then again, US clay I think was faster and different to European clay perhaps (both of Connors above mentioned clay victories were in the USA) which Connors wasn't playing on....so the arguments go round and round forever....

What if Connors had played the FO, got beat by Borg in the final, was not sufficiently rested, confident or adjusted for grass and then lost Wimby?

Yes Connors won 3 of 3, but in the other one he failed to win a match, whereas Djoko won 6 matches. I'm soooo tempted to put 'FACT'

I was a huge Connors fan, by the way, and would love to put '74 as the 2nd best, but can't quite do it. Missing the FO (as with Mac missing the AO '84) takes the edge off it.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I was a huge Connors fan, by the way, and would love to put '74 as the 2nd best, but can't quite do it. Missing the FO (as with Mac missing the AO '84) takes the edge off it.

Darn it! I forgot Mac missed the AO in 84!

I'm going to have to re-think my answer.

I might have to go with Connors 74 then.

Get a grip Murdock. This is no place for amateurs.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Get a grip Murdock. This is no place for amateurs.

Sorry. My flip-flopping is making this whole debate appear entirely subjective.

An interesting, slightly related article:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/roger-federer-novak-djokovic-best-season-in-tennis-history-ever-2006-2015-john-mcenroe-rafael-nadal-grand-slams

Henman Bill wrote:I think Jimmy Connors 1974 needs more discussion on here. His 93-4 W/L (95.9%) ranks with the best. Also, remember he won 3 out of 3 slams entered, being barred from the FO. Mcenroe won 2 out of 3 slams entered, surely more significant than the fact that he has a 0.6% better W/L than Connors. 82-3 (96.5%). Also Connors played more matches so debatable who has the better W/L anyway. (Obviously a season of 1-0(100%) would not trump the above.)

The only thing that can be said against Connors might be the strength of the competition but you could maybe make the same argument almost as well against any of the other dominant seasons except Djokovic 2011.

1974 U.S. Open Jimmy Connors bt Ken Rosewall
1974 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors bt Ken Rosewall
1974 French Open Bjorn Borg bt      Manuel Orantes
1974 Australian Open Jimmy Connors bt Phil Dent

Ken Rosewall was one of the best ever but he was past his best by 1974.
Anyway, I think Jimmy Connors 1974 is the best of the open era, if I had to pick one.
I was actually born in 1980, so I never saw any of it, but just looking at raw stats.

Win against top ten players

Djokovic ’15 — 31-5 (.861)

Connors ’74 — 6-2 (.750)

Here is where Connors 74 loses out to both Fed and Djoko's seminal years. The tour as constructed in the 70s simply didn't require you to play all the same events as all the other top guys. You didn't have a full field of all the best players in Masters after Masters. I mean Novak has 5 times as many matches against top ten players in 2015 and won a much higher percentage of those actual matches. McEnroe I think has the stronger argument here was remarkable 21-1 against top ten players with the lone loss being to Lendl. Nobody won even nearly as many matches against the top ten as Djokovic in 2015. The best win percentage against the top ten is Fed 05 with a lot less matches against the top ten, then Novak 2015, then Fed 06. The difference percentage wise between Djoko 2015 and Fed 05 is rather miniscule we are talk a few hundredths of a percent, with Novak having a lot more total wins and matches.

HM Murdock wrote:An interesting, slightly related article:

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2015/11/roger-federer-novak-djokovic-best-season-in-tennis-history-ever-2006-2015-john-mcenroe-rafael-nadal-grand-slams

I read this article after posting this thread and in fact pulled the numbers about Connors v. top ten players from that article. Interestingly, that article gives Fed 05 a slight edge over Novak 2015. However, what the writer specifically states he doesn't take into consideration is the various competition level between the two years. He points out that many people would to a small amount discount Fed's competition of that period (ahum people like socal) but that he specifically states he will avoid that topic because it is a can of worms he doesn't want to open. Well I think if you want to do the analysis right you have to open that can of worms and dig your hands in and examine it. I mean the writer does the same thing to discount Connors 74, but refuses to give an opinion on Fed's competition level vis a vis 2011 or 2015.


Also Djokovic has two more masters victories than Roger did in either 05 and 06, so that as well cuts in favor of Novak 2015.

As for the argument regarding Laver, it is probably true that from start to finish on the whole tour Laver was not as dominant as Fed, Mac, or Novak's best years. But he answered the bell at the slams. True that the AO wasn't a full field and not valued as highly as the other three, I think if a player did the CYGS today it would be more impressive than Laver 69 because of many of the points made by Murdoch and others, but I am not ready to say that years that didn't result in 4 slam wins will trump a calendar year slam. It is a good argument though, there is some points that cut for and against 69 similar to all those other years.