PDA

View Full Version : The 10 Greatest Men's Seasons


ZeroSkid
12-08-2011, 12:46 PM
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15346&zoneid=9

No. 1: Rod Laver, 1969
No. 2: Roger Federer, 2006
No. 3: Novak Djokovic, 2011
No. 4: John McEnroe, 1984
No. 5: Jimmy Connors, 1974
No. 6: Roger Federer, 2007
No. 7: Rafael Nadal, 2010
No. 8: Mats Wilander, 1988
No. 9: John McEnroe, 1981
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979

Thoughts......

Mustard
12-08-2011, 12:50 PM
I still don't know why anyone puts McEnroe's 1984 above Connors' 1974. Connors lost no big matches in 1974, while McEnroe lost 2 in 1984.

CyBorg
12-08-2011, 01:23 PM
I would put Connors lower. I agree with Carlo that his record was inflated by playing mickey mouse tournaments. The Australian was poorly attended.

Context is everything. Most people who make these lists just don't do their research.

I think that Borg had three years (78, 79, 80), that were better than Connors in 1974.

Borg always gets the shaft on these lists because he didn't play the AO. But was he less dominant than Wilander in 1988?

No, of course not. He was much, much more dominant.

Don't understand why McEnroe's 1981 is so high. It wasn't better than Fed in '05 or '04. It wasn't better than Borg in '78 or '80.

And, of course, always shocking not to see Pete up there. But we know that his percentages weren't great. He just won the big ones.

Mustard
12-08-2011, 01:30 PM
Connors in 1974 won 3 majors and was banned from the other major. Had he played and won, no doubt it would have been there with Laver's 1969, but he was never given the chance. Connors won all his big matches that year, unlike McEnroe in 1984 who lost a French Open final from 2 sets up and lost a vital rubber in the Davis Cup final against Henrik Sundstrom.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-08-2011, 01:31 PM
No. 1: Roger Federer, 2006
No. 2: John McEnroe, 1984
No. 3: Jimmy Connors, 1974
No. 4: Rod Laver, 1969
No. 5: Roger Federer, 2004
No. 6: Novak Djokovic, 2011
No. 7: Roger Federer, 2007
No. 8: Rafael Nadal, 2010
No. 9: Roger Federer, 2005
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979

DjokovicForTheWin
12-08-2011, 01:32 PM
I still don't know why anyone puts McEnroe's 1984 above Connors' 1974. Connors lost no big matches in 1974, while McEnroe lost 2 in 1984.

Didn't connors try to duck a lot of the competition?

Mustard
12-08-2011, 01:36 PM
Didn't connors try to duck a lot of the competition?

Who said that?

TopspinAce
12-08-2011, 01:39 PM
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15346&zoneid=9

No. 1: Rod Laver, 1969
No. 2: Roger Federer, 2006
No. 3: Novak Djokovic, 2011
No. 4: John McEnroe, 1984
No. 5: Jimmy Connors, 1974
No. 6: Roger Federer, 2007
No. 7: Rafael Nadal, 2010
No. 8: Mats Wilander, 1988
No. 9: John McEnroe, 1981
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979

Thoughts......

Wheres Pistol Pete in this?

tennis_pro
12-08-2011, 01:41 PM
I still don't know why anyone puts McEnroe's 1984 above Connors' 1974. Connors lost no big matches in 1974, while McEnroe lost 2 in 1984.

it's hard to lose big matches if you're facing a 40-year old Rosewall in major finals

Mustard
12-08-2011, 01:43 PM
it's hard to lose big matches if you're facing a 40-year old Rosewall in major finals

So who should he have been facing? Whoever you say, they either lost earlier in the tournament or didn't compete.

tennis_pro
12-08-2011, 01:54 PM
So who should he have been facing? Whoever you say, they either lost earlier in the tournament or didn't compete.

The fact that a 40-year old player no matter how good he was in the past made it to the final of 2 (!!!) major finals in 1 year tells me all I need to know about the field.

NadalAgassi
12-08-2011, 02:08 PM
I would have raised McEnroe's 1984 to #2. It is hard to fault him much for not playing/winning the Australian when that was the norm back then. It is too bad he didnt win the French otherwise his year would clearly be the best.

I would have had Federer's 2005 there around #6 instead of his 2007. It is the only year that nearly matched McEnroe's 1984 W-L, even though it was marred by 2 semifinal defeats in majors and a loss in the WTF final. Still the overall level of play and performance was higher than 2004 or 2007 where he was far less dominant despite winning 3 slams.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-08-2011, 02:11 PM
Laver had 16 losses in 1969, really mars the grand slam. Kinda means he fluked out the slam, especially given that two of them went to 5 sets.

TMF
12-08-2011, 02:12 PM
Wheres Pistol Pete in this?
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15346&zoneid=9

No. 1: Rod Laver, 1969
No. 2: Roger Federer, 2006
No. 3: Novak Djokovic, 2011
No. 4: John McEnroe, 1984
No. 5: Jimmy Connors, 1974
No. 6: Roger Federer, 2007
No. 7: Rafael Nadal, 2010
No. 8: Mats Wilander, 1988
No. 9: John McEnroe, 1981
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979

Thoughts......

The better question is where's Fed 2004 fit in.

Since Fed made the list twice, I think Stephen Tignor don't want to add another one for Fed, but rather include a different player to his list.

NadalAgassi
12-08-2011, 02:14 PM
The years listed were all rightfully better than Federer's 2004. Federer won 3 slams but had alot of horrible showings in significant events in 2004. 3rd round loss at the Olympics ,3rd round loss at the French, 1st round loss in Cincinnati, 2nd or 3rd round loss in Rome.

Carsomyr
12-08-2011, 02:36 PM
Connors in 1974 won 3 majors and was banned from the other major. Had he played and won, no doubt it would have been there with Laver's 1969, but he was never given the chance. Connors won all his big matches that year, unlike McEnroe in 1984 who lost a French Open final from 2 sets up and lost a vital rubber in the Davis Cup final against Henrik Sundstrom.
.....................
Of course, Connors was the Nr.1 in 1974. But he was critisized by many writers and fellow pros, that he didn't play the big guns constantly, but waited for the moments, when others were burned out by the schedule of the hard WCT tour. The top ten in 74 on the computer were - out of the top of my head - Connors, Newcombe, Borg, Laver, Vilas, Smith, Ashe, Nastase, Rosewall and Ramirez (or Tanner). In his 3 majors, he won, Connors faced out of the top ten only Rosewall twice (and Tanner). Not his fault, but a somewhat strange fact. He focussed on the summer events, while the WCT pro played their 11 tornament series until May. Connors didn't play the Masters end of the year, because it didn't fit into his schedule.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-08-2011, 02:40 PM
Who said that?

There you go. See above.

Mustard
12-08-2011, 03:00 PM
There's a saying, you beat who is in front of you. Any of the people he "should have faced" either lost earlier on in the tournament or didn't play.

ZeroSkid
12-08-2011, 03:16 PM
I think it depends how much smaller tournaments are valued like is it better to get into a grand-slam semi final or final than win a masters

pc1
12-08-2011, 04:15 PM
I would put Connors lower. I agree with Carlo that his record was inflated by playing mickey mouse tournaments. The Australian was poorly attended.

Context is everything. Most people who make these lists just don't do their research.

I think that Borg had three years (78, 79, 80), that were better than Connors in 1974.

Borg always gets the shaft on these lists because he didn't play the AO. But was he less dominant than Wilander in 1988?

No, of course not. He was much, much more dominant.

Don't understand why McEnroe's 1981 is so high. It wasn't better than Fed in '05 or '04. It wasn't better than Borg in '78 or '80.

And, of course, always shocking not to see Pete up there. But we know that his percentages weren't great. He just won the big ones.

Agree with you about Borg. His seasons were very dominant. Interesting that Lendl was left out also. Some of his years deserve consideration.

krosero
12-08-2011, 05:39 PM
1st round loss in Cincinnati, That one was the killer right there ...

Laver had 16 losses in 1969, really mars the grand slam. Kinda means he fluked out the slam, especially given that two of them went to 5 sets.It just means he played his best when it mattered most.

CyBorg
12-08-2011, 05:57 PM
Connors in 1974 won 3 majors and was banned from the other major. Had he played and won, no doubt it would have been there with Laver's 1969, but he was never given the chance. Connors won all his big matches that year, unlike McEnroe in 1984 who lost a French Open final from 2 sets up and lost a vital rubber in the Davis Cup final against Henrik Sundstrom.

The Australian was very poorly attended.

CyBorg
12-08-2011, 05:58 PM
Agree with you about Borg. His seasons were very dominant. Interesting that Lendl was left out also. Some of his years deserve consideration.

Forgot Lendl. His year in 1986 was better than Connors' 1974 as well.

Mustard
12-08-2011, 07:18 PM
The Australian was very poorly attended.

How is that relevant? Connors won the Australian Open in 1974. He was banned from the French Open because of politics and failed with his legal action against the FTF to get the ban overturned.

Connors' 1974 was vital for open tennis to finally stand on its own, away from the amateur/professional era, because Connors wasn't there in those days. It's the most important year in modern tennis, in my opinion. Borg, Vilas, McEnroe etc. soon joined him in creating a big boom in professional tennis.

Forgot Lendl. His year in 1986 was better than Connors' 1974 as well.

I disagree. A teenage Becker was regularly beating Lendl already, in Lendl's best ever year on the tour.

krosero
12-08-2011, 08:20 PM
How is that relevant? Connors won the Australian Open in 1974. He was banned from the French Open because of politics and failed with his legal action against the FTF to get the ban overturned.

Connors' 1974 was vital for open tennis to finally stand on its own, away from the amateur/professional era, because Connors wasn't there in those days. It's the most important year in modern tennis, in my opinion. Borg, Vilas, McEnroe etc. soon joined him in creating a big boom in professional tennis.Obviously Connors missed out on a chance to win RG, but it wasn't the only big title he didn't win. He also didn't win the WCT Finals in Dallas, which was an enormous title back then. And that was because he chose not to join the WCT tour, which was probably the most demanding part of the entire tennis season -- instead choosing to play the Riordan tour which was far less demanding.

So yeah, Connors' wins in '74 were important, but he wasn't participating in one of the things (WCT) that was creating the big boom in pro tennis. He just wasn't a part of that. Not in '74.

I disagree. A teenage Becker was regularly beating Lendl already, in Lendl's best ever year on the tour.Lendl went 2-3 against the #2 player in the world (I think you have them tied at 3-3 if you're counting the January Masters?) That's not at all unusual. Laver went 3-5 against Roche in '69.

I'm not sure how Lendl's year is diminished by Becker's age. Becker was one of the most precocious champions of all time -- which is to Becker's credit. Does the fact that Becker was a teenager mean that he was not yet a great player, that Lendl lost 3 matches in '86 to someone who was not yet great?

And one more thing I'm not clear on. You said it doesn't matter who Connors faced or did not face at the '74 AO. Presumably that means that we should just take his win-loss record for the year as it stands, without looking at opponents. But then why can't we just take Lendl's win-loss record for '86 as it stands? Why is it important to look at Lendl's opponents and how he did against them?

Carsomyr
12-08-2011, 08:38 PM
Obviously Connors missed out on a chance to win RG, but it wasn't the only big title he didn't win. He also didn't win the WCT Finals in Dallas, which was an enormous title back then. And that was because he chose not to join the WCT tour, which was probably the most demanding part of the entire tennis season -- instead choosing to play the Riordan tour which was far less demanding.

So yeah, Connors' wins in '74 were important, but he wasn't participating in one of the things (WCT) that was creating the big boom in pro tennis. He just wasn't a part of that. Not in '74.

Lendl went 2-3 against the #2 player in the world (I think you have them tied at 3-3 if you're counting the January Masters?) That's not at all unusual. Laver went 3-5 against Roche in '69.

I'm not sure how Lendl's year is diminished by Becker's age. Becker was one of the most precocious champions of all time -- which is to Becker's credit. Does the fact that Becker was a teenager mean that he was not yet a great player, that Lendl lost 3 matches in '86 to someone who was not yet great?

And one more thing I'm not clear on. You said it doesn't matter who Connors faced or did not face at the '74 AO. Presumably that means that we should just take his win-loss record for the year as it stands, without looking at opponents. But then why can't we just take Lendl's win-loss record for '86 as it stands? Why is it important to look at Lendl's opponents and how he did against them?

Context only matters when it helps your argument. :)

Mustard
12-08-2011, 08:50 PM
Obviously Connors missed out on a chance to win RG, but it wasn't the only big title he didn't win. He also didn't win the WCT Finals in Dallas, which was an enormous title back then. And that was because he chose not to join the WCT tour, which was probably the most demanding part of the entire tennis season -- instead choosing to play the Riordan tour which was far less demanding.

So yeah, Connors' wins in '74 were important, but he wasn't participating in one of the things (WCT) that was creating the big boom in pro tennis. He just wasn't a part of that. Not in '74.

The fact remains that Connors lost no big match in 1974, and lost just 4 matches in total with well over 90 wins. He has to be given huge credit for that, and he was the benchmark standard of play for other players to match. Yes, Connors was a rebel and a "my way or the highway" sort of guy, but that brought in the spectators.

Lendl went 2-3 against the #2 player in the world (I think you have them tied at 3-3 if you're counting the January Masters?) That's not at all unusual. Laver went 3-5 against Roche in '69.

I'm not sure how Lendl's year is diminished by Becker's age. Becker was one of the most precocious champions of all time -- which is to Becker's credit. Does the fact that Becker was a teenager mean that he was not yet a great player, that Lendl lost 3 matches in '86 to someone who was not yet great?


I mentioned Becker in order to point out that Lendl's 1986 wasn't as good as Connors' 1974. Lendl's 1986 is still a fabulous year.

And one more thing I'm not clear on. You said it doesn't matter who Connors faced or did not face at the '74 AO. Presumably that means that we should just take his win-loss record for the year as it stands, without looking at opponents.

Well, the Australian Open is one of the four majors, and that has always been the case since the 1920s or before. You've got to be in the tournament in order to win it. Connors won this and more "prestigious" tournaments at the time like Wimbledon and the US Open in 1974.

But then why can't we just take Lendl's win-loss record for '86 as it stands? Why is it important to look at Lendl's opponents and how he did against them?

Fine. Lendl lost the Wimbledon final, a big match-up. As I said before, Lendl's 1986 is a great year but I fail to see how it can be better than Connors' 1974 when he just didn't lose a big match.

Benhur
12-08-2011, 08:56 PM
Forgot Lendl. His year in 1986 was better than Connors' 1974 as well.

Going over Connors record in 74 I must say it’s pretty awesome. As Mustard pointed out, none of his 5 losses are big ones, all rather trivial. I do agree that Lendl’s 86 was a heck of a year as well, and probably should be somewhere in that list. But of his 6 losses that year, 3 were to Becker, and the Wimbledon one is big. He made up for it somewhat in the end by winning the year-end Masters in impressive fashion, beating Edberg, Gomez, Noah, Wilander and Becker in succession without dropping a set. Still, I can’t really say the year as a whole was better than what Connors did in 74.

urban
12-08-2011, 09:33 PM
Those lists are always difficult to make or change. Federer could be on the list with his 2005 year as well, although he won "only" 2 majors. Connors had a great year in 1974, which put him on the map. But he wasn't that far away from the others, as his match score indicates. He defaulted twice in the middle of tournaments, and - along with his manager Bill Riordan - picked his events very carefully. A potential Connors-Newk final at Forest Hills would have been effectively for the Nr 1 position in 1974; Rosewall spoiled it (to his own detriment). Borg's 1979 should be over Wilander's 1988. I think Wilander lost to Steeb in a crucial Davis Cup tie, and Borg just destroyed his opponents. With a standardized modern circuit with AO a prominent event, i believe, Borg possibly would have had 3 seasons in the range of Federer's. Three times he won the Channel double, and his only significant losses were at USO.
In 1969, Laver was 4-5 to Roche, the fifth was a one set loss in a 3rd place play off at Tokyo. Roche won Auckland and Sydney and 2 US pro events, but Laver always won, when it mattered: AO semi, USO final, Philly final and Wembley final. Laver's promotional contract with NTL (George McCall) gave him no rest, he played 36 weeks non stop all around the world. Its good, that Tignor notes, that Laver beat some solid opposition in 1969. He beat Hall of famers, major winners and major finalists in 18 of his 26 GS matches. He won across all kinds of surfaces, grass (only majors), clay, hard court, indoor carpet, indoor hard. He won at least 4 Masters equivalents, too (Johannesburg, Philadelphia, US pro Boston and Wembley). And he was 7-1 over Rosewall and 4-1 over Newcombe for example. When his big left arm, which he packed into an ice-box, got warm, he could accelerate and fire winners anytime, it was demanded from him.

jean pierre
12-09-2011, 12:22 AM
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15346&zoneid=9

No. 1: Rod Laver, 1969
No. 2: Roger Federer, 2006
No. 3: Novak Djokovic, 2011
No. 4: John McEnroe, 1984
No. 5: Jimmy Connors, 1974
No. 6: Roger Federer, 2007
No. 7: Rafael Nadal, 2010
No. 8: Mats Wilander, 1988
No. 9: John McEnroe, 1981
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979

Thoughts......

Where is Vilas 1977 ? He won 2 Grand Slams + 1 other Final + won 16 tournaments (record) and 46 matches consecutively (record) !

aphex
12-09-2011, 01:27 AM
lol, when Laver wins it, Australian Open=Important, well-contested tourney.
when Mcenroe doesn't=doesnt matter, nobody plays it anyway...

aphex
12-09-2011, 01:31 AM
No. 1: Roger Federer, 2006
No. 2: John McEnroe, 1984
No. 3: Jimmy Connors, 1974
No. 4: Rod Laver, 1969
No. 5: Roger Federer, 2004
No. 6: Novak Djokovic, 2011
No. 7: Roger Federer, 2007
No. 8: Rafael Nadal, 2010
No. 9: Roger Federer, 2005
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979

Excellent list!

Laver had 16 losses in 1969, really mars the grand slam. Kinda means he fluked out the slam, especially given that two of them went to 5 sets.

Yep. Clearly not as dominant as Fed's 2006 who only lost to 1 player (the murray loss doesn't really matter).

Laver was pretty lucky he didn't have a Nadal or a Federer to stop him like Federer and Djokovic did...

Have the ****torians no shame?

Agassifan
12-09-2011, 03:25 AM
Wheres Pistol Pete in this?

LOL LOL. Winning 2 slams and tanking the entire clay season gets you nowhere near the Top 10.

Russeljones
12-09-2011, 04:45 AM
Laver played against amateurs to reach finals, that is the definition of a weak era.

GasquetGOAT
12-09-2011, 08:13 AM
LOL LOL. Winning 2 slams and tanking the entire clay season gets you nowhere near the Top 10.

lol indeed, Pete's best season would be somewhere in the 10-20 and below Rafa's 2008.

veritech
12-09-2011, 09:14 AM
interesting how more than half of the years on the list belong to the top 3 guys on the tour right now.

Netzroller
12-09-2011, 10:01 AM
I know some people will call me dumb for it but I would put Federer's 2006 over Lavers 69. The level of the sport was just so much higher, the Slams were played on 3 different surfaces as opposed to 2 (3*grass and 1*clay) and Federer had a much higher winning percentage.

TMF
12-09-2011, 10:19 AM
I know some people will call me dumb for it but I would put Federer's 2006 over Lavers 69. The level of the sport was just so much higher, the Slams were played on 3 different surfaces as opposed to 2 (3*grass and 1*clay) and Federer had a much higher winning percentage.

No, there's nothing wrong in having Fed 06 above Laver 69. You are just being fair/reasonable by analyzing all the facts and details. But I know it fall on deaf ears to the Laver fans(anti-fed fans).

aphex
12-09-2011, 11:09 AM
How many people did Rodney lose to in '69?

Mustard
12-09-2011, 11:14 AM
How many people did Rodney lose to in '69?

Rod Laver lost in 1969 to:

Tony Roche in Sydney
Tony Roche in Auckland
Tony Roche in Miami
Tony Roche in Oakland
John Newcombe at Queen's Club
Raymond Moore in Los Angeles
Stan Smith in Las Vegas
Marty Riessen in Cologne
Fred Stolle in Stockholm

That's 6 different opponents. There may be others.

aphex
12-09-2011, 11:17 AM
Rod Laver lost in 1969 to:

Tony Roche in Sydney
Tony Roche in Auckland
Tony Roche in Miami
Tony Roche in Oakland
John Newcombe at Queen's Club
Raymond Moore in Los Angeles
Stan Smith in Las Vegas
Marty Riessen in Cologne
Fred Stolle in Stockholm

That's 6 different opponents. There may be others.

I thought he lost 15 or 16 times...

Mustard
12-09-2011, 11:18 AM
I thought he lost 15 or 16 times...

He probably did. The tour was a lot more chaotic in those days, not like now where there's a universal order to the tour.

TMF
12-09-2011, 11:21 AM
I thought he lost 15 or 16 times...

He probably did. The tour was a lot more chaotic in those days, not like now where there's a universal order to the tour.

According to the old-timers in here, they said he lost 16 times.

aphex
12-09-2011, 11:26 AM
According to the old-timers in here, they said he lost 16 times.

Hmmm...not as dominant as people would have you believe then...

I guess in terms of pure dominance over contemporaries, Federer comes second only to Tilden really...

Mustard
12-09-2011, 11:27 AM
Laver was still a mile ahead of the opposition in 1969, because he always delivered when it mattered most. He held all 4 majors at the same time and won them all in the same calendar year, neither of which has been done since.

Steve132
12-09-2011, 11:29 AM
The years listed were all rightfully better than Federer's 2004. Federer won 3 slams but had alot of horrible showings in significant events in 2004. 3rd round loss at the Olympics ,3rd round loss at the French, 1st round loss in Cincinnati, 2nd or 3rd round loss in Rome.

Um .... most sane observers would agree that the majors and the YEC are, in fact, the five most important events in the tennis year. Federer in 2004 won three majors and the YEC. He also won three Masters events (Indian Wells, Hamburg and Toronto) and was unbeaten (18-0) against top ten players. His record for the year was 74-6 with 11 titles.

Do you really want to compare Federer 2004 with, say, Wilander 1988? Wilander also won three majors, but only two Masters events and no YEC. He finished the year at 53-11 with 6 titles and far more bad losses (however defined ) than Federer did. Why should his year be considered better than Federer's 2004?

Your bias is showing.

aphex
12-09-2011, 11:41 AM
Laver was still a mile ahead of the opposition in 1969, because he always delivered when it mattered most. He held all 4 majors at the same time and won them all in the same calendar year, neither of which has been done since.

You don't say? He did both? What a revelation!

Not very dominant though...maybe luck played a small part?

Had there even existed the concept of the Grand Slam during his time, Tilden would have about 5-6 of them. A far superior player in his era compared to Laver.

How Lavertards mindlessly claim Rodney is the goat is quite pathetic.

ZeroSkid
12-09-2011, 11:41 AM
I know some people will call me dumb for it but I would put Federer's 2006 over Lavers 69. The level of the sport was just so much higher, the Slams were played on 3 different surfaces as opposed to 2 (3*grass and 1*clay) and Federer had a much higher winning percentage.

In Fed`s year there were more surfaces, and Federer had a much better record than Laver that year BUT Laver did win all 4 slams, it`s not like he chooses the surfaces, so Laver`s year has to be put ahead of Rogers because grand slams are more important than anything else in tennis

Mustard
12-09-2011, 11:44 AM
"Luck" would have played a far less part in the era of wooden racquets than it has in subsequent eras. You had to think a lot more and the maximum power you could hit in your shots was a hell of a lot less back in Laver's prime.

Mustard
12-09-2011, 11:46 AM
What's annoying, though, is that Connors was prevented from having the chance of winning the calendar year Grand Slam by a load of politics. Had Connors played and won the French Open in 1974, that has to be a serious candidate for the best year in men's tennis history, but he was denied the opportunity.

aphex
12-09-2011, 11:52 AM
What's annoying, though, is that Connors was prevented from having the chance of winning the calendar year Grand Slam by a load of politics. Had Connors played and won the French Open in 1974, that has to be a serious candidate for the best year in men's tennis history, but he was denied the opportunity.

Didn't Connors lose many matches in '74?

By most accounts Tilden lost 1 (unimportant) match in 1923 and 1924, combined.

TMF
12-09-2011, 11:58 AM
Um .... most sane observers would agree that the majors and the YEC are, in fact, the five most important events in the tennis year. Federer in 2004 won three majors and the YEC. He also won three Masters events (Indian Wells, Hamburg and Toronto) and was unbeaten (18-0) against top ten players. He record for the year was 74-6 with 11 titles.

Do you really want to compare Federer 2004 with, say, Wilander 1988? Wilander also won three majors, but only two Masters events and no YEC. He finished the year at 53-11 with 6 titles and far more bad losses (however defined ) than Federer did. Why should his year be considered better than Federer's 2004?

Your bias is showing.

No doubt Fed 2004 is better than Wilander 1988, and I believe the author don't want to have too many Fed's name in the top ten list.

NadalAgassi needs to crawl back to his cave and stop trolling with his imbecilic posts. It's not even funny.

Talker
12-09-2011, 11:59 AM
Laver was still a mile ahead of the opposition in 1969, because he always delivered when it mattered most. He held all 4 majors at the same time and won them all in the same calendar year, neither of which has been done since.

How did he lose 16 times then.

The best year shouldn't have that many losses, all four slams is very important only if the rest of the important stats are among the best.

He won 18 tournaments IIRC but did not win 16.
Winning just over half of tournaments entered which is very good and includes CYGS but look at the other 'best' years.
Mac only lost 3 tournaments of all he played in his best year for instance.

This shows Laver's level wasn't that high all year, not good enough for all time best year IMO.

Mustard
12-09-2011, 11:59 AM
Didn't Connors lose many matches in '74?.

Connors lost 4 matches in 1974:

to Karl Meiler in the final of Omaha
to Stan Smith in the QF of Nottingham
to Juan Gisbert Sr. in the R16 of Toronto
to Onny Parun in the QF of San Francisco

NadalAgassi
12-09-2011, 12:03 PM
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15346&zoneid=9

No. 1: Rod Laver, 1969
No. 2: Roger Federer, 2006
No. 3: Novak Djokovic, 2011
No. 4: John McEnroe, 1984
No. 5: Jimmy Connors, 1974
No. 6: Roger Federer, 2007
No. 7: Rafael Nadal, 2010
No. 8: Mats Wilander, 1988
No. 9: John McEnroe, 1981
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979

Thoughts......

My list would be:

1. Rover Laver 1969
2. John McEnroe 1984
3. Jimmy Connors 1974
4. Roger Federer 2006
5. Novak Djokovic 2011
6. Roger Federer 2005
7. Rafael Nadal 2010
8. Mats Wilander 1988
9. John Mcenroe 1981
10. Bjorn Borg 1979

So definitely a good list. Almost exactly as I would have it.

aphex
12-09-2011, 12:04 PM
Connors lost 4 matches in 1974:

to Karl Meiler in the final of Omaha
to Stan Smith in the QF of Nottingham
to Juan Gisbert Sr. in the R16 of Toronto
to Onny Parun in the QF of San Francisco

...and he beat a 40 year old Rosewall in the finals of W and USO...

...talk about a weak era...

celoft
12-09-2011, 12:28 PM
...and he beat a 40 year old Rosewall in the finals of W and USO...

...talk about a weak era...

I concur................

krosero
12-09-2011, 02:12 PM
The fact remains that Connors lost no big match in 1974, and lost just 4 matches in total with well over 90 wins. He has to be given huge credit for that, and he was the benchmark standard of play for other players to match. One reason he has only 4 losses is that he didn't play the rigorous WCT tour with all the other top players. If he had, he would probably have come away with more losses. That was one of the criticisms of his year -- one reason that people had reservations about his '74 record. They did not question that he was #1 for the year, of course. But they questioned how dominant a record it really was, when he had not beaten, much less dominated, Newcombe or Laver or Stan Smith. (Stan was co-ranked #1 in the States with Jimmy early in the year). That's why when you say he was the benchmark standard -- well in a way he was, but for many people Jimmy was the one who had yet to meet the benchmark, until he met and defeated Newcombe, in particular, but also others like Smith and Laver. In '74 the only one Jimmy met was Smith, at Queens -- and he lost to him there.

As you know Newcombe and Connors finally did meet on Jan. 1st of the new year, and Newcombe won. Sports Illustrated wrote, "Their get-together was to many people the ex post facto 1974 tennis championship of the world." That shows that the lack of a meeting between Connors and Newcombe in '74 was regarded as significant.

TIME magazine in April '75 noted that Connors won 14 of 20 tournaments in '74 but that “many fans still consider Newcombe the world’s premier player.”

Connors was unquestionably, even dominantly, the top player of '74. But he was not universally regarded as the world's best player.

I mentioned Becker in order to point out that Lendl's 1986 wasn't as good as Connors' 1974. Lendl's 1986 is still a fabulous year.That's fine to bring in Becker, but if you're looking at Lendl's opponents -- and judging their quality, for example by noting that Becker was a teenager -- then it's fair game to look at Connors' opponents and their quality.

Well, the Australian Open is one of the four majors, and that has always been the case since the 1920s or before. You've got to be in the tournament in order to win it. Connors won this and more "prestigious" tournaments at the time like Wimbledon and the US Open in 1974.No need for the quotation marks. Wimbledon and the USO were regarded as more prestigious than the AO. In '74 there was no question: while only 1 of the top 20 players in the world missed Wimbledon, and only 3 missed the USO, 17 were missing at the AO.

Fine. Lendl lost the Wimbledon final, a big match-up. As I said before, Lendl's 1986 is a great year but I fail to see how it can be better than Connors' 1974 when he just didn't lose a big match.I agree Lendl's loss in the Wimbledon final is a significant loss. But it's a runner-up showing, too, at a Slam that nearly everyone attended. Apart from that, Connors and Lendl each won two well-attended Slams. I'm not saying either year is better than the other, not without looking at all the details. I do know Lendl was playing with all the top players throughout his year and regularly defeating them: the price for those victories was 6 losses.

kiki
12-09-2011, 02:42 PM
You don't say? He did both? What a revelation!

Not very dominant though...maybe luck played a small part?

Had there even existed the concept of the Grand Slam during his time, Tilden would have about 5-6 of them. A far superior player in his era compared to Laver.

How Lavertards mindlessly claim Rodney is the goat is quite pathetic.

Laver 69 stands alone, wether you like it or not.So would Borgīs 79, Macīs 84, Wilanderīs 88,Connors 74,Vilas 77,Nastyīs 73 and 2-3 Sampras years and 2-3 Federerīs along Djoko 2011 and Nadal 2010.Lets be honest and recognize their merits.

kiki
12-09-2011, 02:44 PM
So who should he have been facing? Whoever you say, they either lost earlier in the tournament or didn't compete.

They have no idea.Rosewall beat Newcombe, Smith,Tanner and all major opposition in his 2 magical runs at FH and W in 74.

urban
12-09-2011, 02:57 PM
Seems that *******rs are turning green and yellow. Its really funny.

kiki
12-09-2011, 03:05 PM
In Fed`s year there were more surfaces, and Federer had a much better record than Laver that year BUT Laver did win all 4 slams, it`s not like he chooses the surfaces, so Laver`s year has to be put ahead of Rogers because grand slams are more important than anything else in tennis

Johannesburg,Rome,MSG,Wembley....

NadalAgassi
12-09-2011, 03:13 PM
*******s insistence that Federer's 2006 has to be the best year in everyones view is laughable. It wasnt the best from any standard. In terms of slams it is Laver (and after that Connors who won all 3 slams he was allowed to enter). In terms of record and W-L it is clearly McEnroe. In terms of winning a ton of tournaments and matches it is Connors. In terms of Masters and other top non slam events it is Djokovic or McEnroe. If anything it is funny Federer's year could be considered for best ever year at all.

dh003i
12-09-2011, 03:32 PM
*******s insistence that Federer's 2006 has to be the best year in everyones view is laughable. It wasnt the best from any standard. In terms of slams it is Laver (and after that Connors who won all 3 slams he was allowed to enter). In terms of record and W-L it is clearly McEnroe. In terms of winning a ton of tournaments and matches it is Connors. In terms of Masters and other top non slam events it is Djokovic or McEnroe. If anything it is funny Federer's year could be considered for best ever year at all.

Not everyone has o consider Federer's 2006 to be the best year of all time, but someone who said it isn't one of the best years of all time is clearly showing questionable judgment.

I'm not sure I'd rate Federer's 2006 over Laver's 1969, and it may very well be the case that there is no one single metric that would point to it as the best year of all time. However, a combination of metrics would.

It is arbitrary and stupid to say that we can only use one metric to discriminate. In basketball, if you only considered a single metric, you'd likely conclude Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russel were the greatest players ever (ppg during prime or championships won). However, most consider Michael Jordan the greatest due to a variety of metrics.

Carsomyr
12-09-2011, 03:36 PM
*******s insistence that Federer's 2006 has to be the best year in everyones view is laughable. It wasnt the best from any standard. In terms of slams it is Laver (and after that Connors who won all 3 slams he was allowed to enter). In terms of record and W-L it is clearly McEnroe. In terms of winning a ton of tournaments and matches it is Connors. In terms of Masters and other top non slam events it is Djokovic or McEnroe. If anything it is funny Federer's year could be considered for best ever year at all.

I don't think Federer's 2006 is better than Laver's 1969, but your rationale is pretty baffling. No, it wasn't the best in terms of Slams, but it was certainly top five in in the Open Era: only Laver, Wilander, Connors, and Nadal have won as many or more in a single year. No, it wasn't the best in terms of winning percentage, but it is also top five. And in terms of tournaments won, it was the most since McEnroe in 1984. And they weren't Mickey Mouse tournaments like Connors frequently dominated. And in terms of "non-slam" events...err, what? Djokovic did win 5 MS, but Federer won 4 + the WTF. How is that not better?

NadalAgassi
12-09-2011, 03:40 PM
When did I say it wasnt one of the best or atleast in the top 5 (or atleast in the top 4 since I rated it over Djokovic's 2011 at this point). ****s have reading comprehension issues it seems.

kiki
12-09-2011, 03:42 PM
What about Vilas in 77? and Lendl in 86?

Carsomyr
12-09-2011, 03:48 PM
When did I say it wasnt one of the best or atleast in the top 5 (or atleast in the top 4 since I rated it over Djokovic's 2011 at this point). ****s have reading comprehension issues it seems.

The reading comprehension problem is yours. You said that that you think Federer's 2006 wasn't better than Laver's 1969, which is fine, but your reasoning behind it was pretty laughable. You mentioned it wasn't worth considering as such because it wasn't the best in any category, including Slams won, W-L, tournaments won, "big events" won. I said it was top five, if not higher, in each case, which makes it at least a candidate. Just for the sake of argument, Laver's 1969 is no where near the top ten in terms of W-L.

piece
12-09-2011, 03:51 PM
That one was the killer right there ...

It just means he played his best when it mattered most.

Why is it that one first round loss is a killer for a season in which Federer won three majors and lost only six matches, whereas Laver's sixteen losses in his Grand Slam season only serve to show that he played his best when it mattered most?

dh003i
12-09-2011, 03:54 PM
When did I say it wasnt one of the best or atleast in the top 5 (or atleast in the top 4 since I rated it over Djokovic's 2011 at this point).

Fair enough, I haven't read this entire thread. I do think that considering multiple metrics is the way to go. That said, I don't really try to achieve more precision than is possible -- I focus on grouping players or seasons into "tiers"...1st, 2nd, 3rd all-time great players or seasons.

If you wanted to have a more precise way to do it, I think calculating all-time ranking using a system similar to what is used in chess rankings would be the best way to go: the ELO rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system).

krosero
12-09-2011, 04:29 PM
Why is it that one first round loss is a killer for a season in which Federer won three majors and lost only six matches, whereas Laver's sixteen losses in his Grand Slam season only serve to show that he played his best when it mattered most?Just kidding there. I picked out the Cincy loss because Cincy is the 5th Slam, right? :wink:

TheFifthSet
12-09-2011, 04:31 PM
http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15346&zoneid=9

No. 1: Rod Laver, 1969
No. 2: Roger Federer, 2006
No. 3: Novak Djokovic, 2011
No. 4: John McEnroe, 1984
No. 5: Jimmy Connors, 1974
No. 6: Roger Federer, 2007
No. 7: Rafael Nadal, 2010
No. 8: Mats Wilander, 1988
No. 9: John McEnroe, 1981
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979

Thoughts......

What I don't understand is, how can you put Wilanders 1988 on there and leave out Federers 2004?

piece
12-09-2011, 05:43 PM
Just kidding there. I picked out the Cincy loss because Cincy is the 5th Slam, right? :wink:

Haha right. Should've seen that coming.

piece
12-09-2011, 06:38 PM
Fair enough, I haven't read this entire thread. I do think that considering multiple metrics is the way to go. That said, I don't really try to achieve more precision than is possible -- I focus on grouping players or seasons into "tiers"...1st, 2nd, 3rd all-time great players or seasons.

If you wanted to have a more precise way to do it, I think calculating all-time ranking using a system similar to what is used in chess rankings would be the best way to go: the ELO rating system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system).

There have been some threads in the former pro player section with ELO-type ratings of players but from what I recall some of the results were not all that well received.

abmk
12-09-2011, 07:31 PM
*******s insistence that Federer's 2006 has to be the best year in everyones view is laughable. It wasnt the best from any standard. In terms of slams it is Laver (and after that Connors who won all 3 slams he was allowed to enter). In terms of record and W-L it is clearly McEnroe. In terms of winning a ton of tournaments and matches it is Connors. In terms of Masters and other top non slam events it is Djokovic or McEnroe. If anything it is funny Federer's year could be considered for best ever year at all.

@ bold part:

djokovic had 5 masters in 2011
federer had 4 masters+YEC in 2006.

How is djoker's performance better ?

oh and I disagree with the Connors point totally - we are giving him a free pass ? There is a genuine possibility he wouldn't even have made the finals at RG with a field consisting of those better on red clay like vilas, orantes, borg, solomon, ramirez etc .... He didn't win a single red CC tournament in his career.

dh003i
12-09-2011, 07:46 PM
There have been some threads in the former pro player section with ELO-type ratings of players but from what I recall some of the results were not all that well received.

Oh I agree. It obviously needs some tweaking. IIRC, Roddick might have been ranked above some players most of us agree are better than him. It seemed like it was biased towards modern players.

Part of the question is, what are you trying to measure? Are we trying to compensate for the effects of better training and nutrition, which advantaged newer players? e.g., are we trying to get to "how would X do in Y's generation and vica-versa"? Or are we trying to say "who played the best on an absolute level, accounting for equipment"?

I think that there's no reason we can't have two separate rating systems for comparing modern players to those historically: one which tries to measure absolute level of play (but backing out benefits from rackets/strings)...and another which measures the player's core attributes and backs out the benefits modern players attained from better training and nutrition. The former would obviously clearly benefit modern players. The latter would benefit them less so.

Statistically, there is good reason to think that the best players today are better -- in terms of their natural ability -- than the best players of older ages. The population of the world when Laver was born (1938) was around 2.25 billion. The population of the world when Federer was born (1981) was ~4.5 billion. That's a selection pool 2x larger right off the bat. And by the time Federer and his contemporaries were growing up, tennis was a much more international sport. We would expect the top 10 today to be a higher percentile of world-wide talent than the top 10 of Laver's era.

TenFanLA
12-09-2011, 07:54 PM
RE: Laver 1969 season...I don't care if he lost them in a 8-game pro set or play to 21 points. If you lose 16 matches in a season that AUTOMATICALLY disqualifies you from even being mentioned as the GOAT season. In the 60's there were very few top-tier players with no clay court specialists. Virtually all the majors were played on grass. I'd imagine Fed would have had 4 or 5 CYGS had he played in that era. Heck, even Sampras might have had a FO title or 2.

NadalAgassi
12-09-2011, 07:59 PM
@ bold part:

djokovic had 5 masters in 2011
federer had 4 masters+YEC in 2006.

How is djoker's performance better ?

oh and I disagree with the Connors point totally - we are giving him a free pass ? There is a genuine possibility he wouldn't even have made the finals at RG with a field consisting of those better on red clay like vilas, orantes, borg, solomon, ramirez etc .... He didn't win a single red CC tournament in his career.

Fair point. I had forgotten about Djokovic being the only one of those three who didnt win the WTF. Still Djokovic's Masters titles is a new record since the events were qualifed as that, and he won 2 of them on clay by beating Nadal and gave him a better balance of wins on it, so it is still close between the two IMO.

We will never know on Connors at the French, but he was still kept from any opportunity to play. He did win the 3 slams he was allowed to participate in, and as Mustard said didnt lose an important match all year. Personally I think he would have had a real shot at winning the French in 74 and 75, or atleast the meaningful year of 1974. Remember he completedly owned Borg back then, Borg even lost to him in straight sets on the green clay (and yes I know green clay is very different but that is still emphatic) at the 75 U.S Open, and even in a tough 4 setter in 1976 after Borg had won Wimbledon. By the time Connors began playing the French in 1979 he was no longer the games top player on any surface, and given that clay is not an old mans game likely past his potential best on the surface, and still made the semis or quarters every year until 1983.

borg number one
12-09-2011, 08:06 PM
A bigger "pool" does not automatically translate into more great players in my opinion. For example, there is arguably a larger "pool" of tennis players in Spain now (referencing just total tennis players in Spain and not the entire population of Spain). Yet, are there more "great" tennis players coming out of Spain now as opposed to say 5-10 years ago? There are few if any players that are in the top 100 from Spain that are under 25 years of age. So, why didn't a recent "tennis boom" in Spain with players like Moya, Ferrero, and later Nadal automatically translate into more and more "great" Spanish players? I think that even with less total depth, when you have great players facing off and making each other better, that can produce some truly remarkable players. I think of that as "depth at the top". This question of the "greatest" season is very much like the "greatest" player debates. It all starts with how one defines a great player, or in this case, a great season. I would also add that though tennis is more "international" with more countries producing pro players now, there has been a decline in countries like Australia, the U.S., Great Britain. Another country that's interesting country is Sweden. How did that small country produce the stellar players that followed after Borg, from such a small "pool"?

piece
12-09-2011, 08:21 PM
Oh I agree. It obviously needs some tweaking. IIRC, Roddick might have been ranked above some players most of us agree are better than him. It seemed like it was biased towards modern players.

Part of the question is, what are you trying to measure? Are we trying to compensate for the effects of better training and nutrition, which advantaged newer players? e.g., are we trying to get to "how would X do in Y's generation and vica-versa"? Or are we trying to say "who played the best on an absolute level, accounting for equipment"?

I think that there's no reason we can't have two separate rating systems for comparing modern players to those historically: one which tries to measure absolute level of play (but backing out benefits from rackets/strings)...and another which measures the player's core attributes and backs out the benefits modern players attained from better training and nutrition. The former would obviously clearly benefit modern players. The latter would benefit them less so.

Statistically, there is good reason to think that the best players today are better -- in terms of their natural ability -- than the best players of older ages. The population of the world when Laver was born (1938) was around 2.25 billion. The population of the world when Federer was born (1981) was ~4.5 billion. That's a selection pool 2x larger right off the bat. And by the time Federer and his contemporaries were growing up, tennis was a much more international sport. We would expect the top 10 today to be a higher percentile of world-wide talent than the top 10 of Laver's era.

I don't think we're necessarily trying to measure either of those, especially if it's an ELO-type rating your talking about. This kind of rating is a function of performance, so what's being measured is dominance over contemporaries - which seems a pretty good general metric to use in determining who the greatest players ever are. But if you're looking to find out who played the best tennis ever (whether you adjust for technology etc. or not) you're going to need another metric altogether. I'm really not sure what could serve as an objective standard in this regard.

The statistical argument you've given might support the contention that there are people alive now with greater aptitude for tennis than Laver had since, ceteris paribus, it is more likely that the greatest tennis talent in history would be found in a larger population than a smaller one. It's not clear that your argument supports the contention that, say, Federer is more talented than Laver since, for instance, it might be that more people played tennis when Laver took up the sport than when Federer did.

krosero
12-09-2011, 08:40 PM
He did win the 3 slams he was allowed to participate in, and as Mustard said didnt lose an important match all year. But this way of putting it just highlights that the one Slam he did not participate in was on his weakest surface (red clay). The three he did get to play were on grass, which was one of his strong surfaces. So it's impressive that he won 3 straight Slams among the ones he entered: but he did not play in the one place where he was most likely to lose an important match.

He could have risked other important losses at the WCT Finals or the YEC, but he was not present for either event.

Remember he completedly owned Borg back then, Borg even lost to him in straight sets on the green clay (and yes I know green clay is very different but that is still emphatic) at the 75 U.S Open, and even in a tough 4 setter in 1976 after Borg had won Wimbledon. At the time of the '74 French Connors and Borg had only met once, on a fast indoor court, and Borg had won the match. Later Connors did have good success against Borg on clay, always on Har-Tru and always in the U.S. At the USO in particular he played his best, as always. But back in June '74 it was Borg who was on a roll on European red clay, and Connors was not yet the super-confident champion he became after winning Wimbledon and the USO. He had done nothing yet at RG, losing in the first and second rounds in '72 and '73. So he had next to zero experience at RG. I don't see him going into that tournament with any particular confidence.

Besides all that, there were other players besides Borg who could have beaten him in Paris. Borg was not necessarily the one with the best chance to beat him. Orantes might have had the best chance; or maybe Nastase (whom Connors did not consistently defeat until well after '74, for some reason). Or maybe Jimmy would have been upset in an early round struggle with some lesser claycourter. I think that last possibility was at least as great a danger for him as were the big name players.

Mustard
12-09-2011, 08:47 PM
The point is that Connors was never given the chance to play at the 1974 French Open.

Subventricular Zone
12-09-2011, 09:31 PM
Laver 1969 tops them all IMO.

abmk
12-09-2011, 09:40 PM
Fair point. I had forgotten about Djokovic being the only one of those three who didnt win the WTF. Still Djokovic's Masters titles is a new record since the events were qualifed as that, and he won 2 of them on clay by beating Nadal and gave him a better balance of wins on it, so it is still close between the two IMO.

perhaps, but lets not forget that Masters finals were best of 5 back then ...

Would that lessen the chances of winning masters in back to back weeks ? Djoker's IW-miami and rome-madrid wins were in back to back weeks. I'd say hell yeah !

We will never know on Connors at the French, but he was still kept from any opportunity to play. He did win the 3 slams he was allowed to participate in, and as Mustard said didnt lose an important match all year. Personally I think he would have had a real shot at winning the French in 74 and 75, or atleast the meaningful year of 1974. Remember he completedly owned Borg back then, Borg even lost to him in straight sets on the green clay (and yes I know green clay is very different but that is still emphatic) at the 75 U.S Open, and even in a tough 4 setter in 1976 after Borg had won Wimbledon. By the time Connors began playing the French in 1979 he was no longer the games top player on any surface, and given that clay is not an old mans game likely past his potential best on the surface, and still made the semis or quarters every year until 1983.

The below post from krosero sums it up

But this way of putting it just highlights that the one Slam he did not participate in was on his weakest surface (red clay). The three he did get to play were on grass, which was one of his strong surfaces. So it's impressive that he won 3 straight Slams among the ones he entered: but he did not play in the one place where he was most likely to lose an important match.

He could have risked other important losses at the WCT Finals or the YEC, but he was not present for either event.

At the time of the '74 French Connors and Borg had only met once, on a fast indoor court, and Borg had won the match. Later Connors did have good success against Borg on clay, always on Har-Tru and always in the U.S. At the USO in particular he played his best, as always. But back in June '74 it was Borg who was on a roll on European red clay, and Connors was not yet the super-confident champion he became after winning Wimbledon and the USO. He had done nothing yet at RG, losing in the first and second rounds in '72 and '73. So he had next to zero experience at RG. I don't see him going into that tournament with any particular confidence.

Besides all that, there were other players besides Borg who could have beaten him in Paris. Borg was not necessarily the one with the best chance to beat him. Orantes might have had the best chance; or maybe Nastase (whom Connors did not consistently defeat until well after '74, for some reason). Or maybe Jimmy would have been upset in an early round struggle with some lesser claycourter. I think that last possibility was at least as great a danger for him as were the big name players.

abmk
12-09-2011, 09:41 PM
The point is that Connors was never given the chance to play at the 1974 French Open.

yes, he wasn't. But then he can't be given a 'free' pass saying he didn't lose a single important match in 74 when he didn't play the FO ( where he was the most vulnerable ) and the WCT and the masters

kiki
12-10-2011, 02:06 AM
If we refeer to a single surface, then 1977 Vilas and 1995 Muster must be included ( clay), as was 1973 Nastaseīs season

TMF
12-10-2011, 11:05 AM
What about Vilas in 77? and Lendl in 86?

They both have a great year but not good enough to be in the top 10 list.

Roughly over 90% of Vilas accomplishments were on clay and had too many losses. Lendl won over 90%, but won less than 10 titles. Fed 2004 and 2005 were better than them but didn't make the list.

IvanisevicServe
12-10-2011, 11:18 AM
I'm sorry, 3 majors and a ban from the 4th is NOT better than 3 majors and a runner up finish at the 4th.

Federer could've had the same slam result as Connors had he skipped the French in 2006.

CyBorg
12-10-2011, 11:19 AM
How is that relevant? Connors won the Australian Open in 1974.

Is this a serious question?

aphex
12-10-2011, 11:22 AM
I'm sorry, 3 majors and a ban from the 4th is NOT better than 3 majors and a runner up finish at the 4th.

Federer could've had the same slam result as Connors had he skipped the French in 2006.

Do you mean that Borg should not be awarded at least 10 more slams because he could have won them had he not walked away??

Surely you're joking!

CyBorg
12-10-2011, 11:27 AM
RE: Laver 1969 season...I don't care if he lost them in a 8-game pro set or play to 21 points. If you lose 16 matches in a season that AUTOMATICALLY disqualifies you from even being mentioned as the GOAT season. In the 60's there were very few top-tier players with no clay court specialists. Virtually all the majors were played on grass. I'd imagine Fed would have had 4 or 5 CYGS had he played in that era. Heck, even Sampras might have had a FO title or 2.

ahahaha .. a lot of stupidity in this thread.

zagor
12-10-2011, 11:33 AM
lol, when Laver wins it, Australian Open=Important, well-contested tourney.
when Mcenroe doesn't=doesnt matter, nobody plays it anyway...

There's also the thing about # of slams(majors)won not being that of an important factor(we only think so because of media hype surrounding Pete's quest to break Emereson's record) but nobody can be compared to Laver because he won all 4 slams in a single year.

It's complicated...

Mustard
12-10-2011, 11:35 AM
There's also the thing about # of slams(majors)won not being that of an important factor(we only think so because of media hype surrounding Pete's quest to break Emereson's record) but nobody can be compared to Laver because he won all 4 slams in a single year.

It's complicated...

The media mentioned Borg was 1 major behind Emerson when he won the 1981 French Open.

aphex
12-10-2011, 11:37 AM
ahahaha .. a lot of stupidity in this thread.

Don't be so hard on yourself...

zagor
12-10-2011, 11:40 AM
The media mentioned Borg was 1 major behind Emerson when he won the 1981 French Open.

I didn't say I personally claim # of slams won doesn't matter. I grew up watching Sampras so I value slam count probably above any other statistic.

However what I learned from former pro regulars is that slam count didn't matter all that much until Pete's time and that career slam is an accomplishment manufactured by media to hype Agassi.

NJ1
12-10-2011, 11:40 AM
I'd expected to see Pete's name in here somewhere, though I haven't crunched the numbers so it's an observation rather than a questioning of the original list. Becker's '89 was pretty stellar too.

aphex
12-10-2011, 11:45 AM
I didn't say I personally claim # of slams won doesn't matter. I grew up watching Sampras so I value slam count probably above any other statistic.

However what I learned from former pro regulars is that slam count didn't matter all that much until Pete's time and that career slam is an accomplishment manufactured by media to hype Agassi.

The former pro section provides knowledge that can't be found anywhere else.
For example, I learned that tournaments that are not majors count as majors although major count doesn't matter.

urban
12-10-2011, 11:45 AM
The matter with the Grand Slam and the major count is not complicated but rather simple, for those, who are able to comprehend.

DjokovicForTheWin
12-10-2011, 11:46 AM
All accomplishments are manufactured

aphex
12-10-2011, 11:47 AM
The matter with the Grand Slam and the major count is not complicated but rather simple, for those, who are able to comprehend.

Yeah, I pity those who can't comprehend the simple concept of imaginary majors..

CyBorg
12-10-2011, 11:52 AM
The former pro section provides knowledge that can't be found anywhere else.
For example, I learned that tournaments that are not majors count as majors although major count doesn't matter.

"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

aphex
12-10-2011, 11:55 AM
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

Don't be so hard on yourself...

TMF
12-10-2011, 12:12 PM
I'd expected to see Pete's name in here somewhere, though I haven't crunched the numbers so it's an observation rather than a questioning of the original list. Becker's '89 was pretty stellar too.

No. Pete's best year can't make the top 10 list, but he surely qualify in the top 20 list.

TenFanLA
12-10-2011, 02:27 PM
Not really. Most of the posts make solid points and counterpoints. It just seems like there is a lot of stupidity because it comes from the same poster:

"And, of course, always shocking not to see Pete up there."

"Forgot Lendl. His year in 1986 was better than Connors' 1974 as well."

"Is this a serious question?"

"'A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.' - Bertrand Russell"

Towser83
12-10-2011, 02:55 PM
I'm sorry, 3 majors and a ban from the 4th is NOT better than 3 majors and a runner up finish at the 4th.

Federer could've had the same slam result as Connors had he skipped the French in 2006.

Exactly. I mean it was unfair on him, but that's life. He could have lost in the first round for all people know, so he has 3 slams, where as Federer has 3 slams and a final twice and Djokovic has 3 slams and a semi, Nadal 3 and a quarter final. It's unlucky for Connors but being banned from even entering a slam diminishes his year not boosts it. I could maybe look at the w/l
as well and rate it higher than nadal and maybe Djokovic and Federer 2007 because Federer was patchy that year, but not Federer 2006.

kiki
12-11-2011, 12:53 AM
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

GOAT quote:)

jerriy
12-11-2011, 01:16 AM
lol, when Laver wins it, Australian Open=Important, well-contested tourney.
when Mcenroe doesn't=doesnt matter, nobody plays it anyway...I've noticed this discrepancy too.

Lots of posters and (more importantly) lots of so-called experts lose credibility when their opinion of the importance and prestige of ancient Australian-open goes up and down depending on whether their favorite player won it or not.

kiki
12-11-2011, 02:07 AM
I've noticed this discrepancy too.

Lots of posters and (more importantly) lots of so-called experts lose credibility when their opinion of the importance and prestige of ancient Australian-open goes up and down depending on whether their favorite player won it or not.

As many times quoted, the Australian was not at the same level as other majors between 1973 and 1982, even tough some great players won it, but the competition was signifiantly weaker.It regained its status as big 4 by 1983.

From 1970 to 1983, WCT Finals were much more competitive, even if it was a season end championship.Masters was equally more prestigious to win.So, we should count for 6 majors between 1970 and 1990 and then replace Dallas by Miami from 1990 till now.This way, we could talk about comparable results, otherwise it is biassed.

aphex
12-11-2011, 03:13 AM
As many times quoted, the Australian was not at the same level as other majors between 1973 and 1982, even tough some great players won it, but the competition was signifiantly weaker.It regained its status as big 4 by 1983.

From 1970 to 1983, WCT Finals were much more competitive, even if it was a season end championship.Masters was equally more prestigious to win.So, we should count for 6 majors between 1970 and 1990 and then replace Dallas by Miami from 1990 till now.This way, we could talk about comparable results, otherwise it is biassed.

Australians opens up to '68 and after '70 don't really count.

kiki
12-11-2011, 03:17 AM
Australians opens up to '68 and after '70 don't really count.

They count, still the 4 th leg of the GS.But a weaker leg than the other 3 until 1983-84

aphex
12-11-2011, 03:24 AM
They count, still the 4 th leg of the GS.But a weaker leg than the other 3 until 1983-84

Please don't call Rod's Grand Slam weak.

merlinpinpin
12-11-2011, 04:51 AM
No doubt Fed 2004 is better than Wilander 1988, and I believe the author don't want to have too many Fed's name in the top ten list.

Agreed, they're definitely not on the same scale. I, too, suspect that the author didn't want to show a pro-Federer bias by including three of his seasons in the top 10, but interestingly, he shows another kind of bias by doing this... ;)

kiki
12-11-2011, 04:58 AM
Please don't call Rod's Grand Slam weak.

Of course not.I posted some times that the quality of Rodīs rivals was so much superior to the quality of Rogerīs: Emerson,Stolle,Roche,Gimeno were the 4 guys he had to beat to get the 69 AO title...weak??? ROFLLLLLLLLL:):)

aphex
12-11-2011, 05:03 AM
Of course not.I posted some times that the quality of Rodīs rivals was so much superior to the quality of Rogerīs: Emerson,Stolle,Roche,Gimeno were the 4 guys he had to beat to get the 69 AO title...weak??? ROFLLLLLLLLL:):)

I agree...that's pretty weak...

kiki
12-11-2011, 05:18 AM
I agree...that's pretty weak...

You mean Federerīs opposition at his prime, right? I fully agree.

glazkovss
12-11-2011, 05:36 AM
Fed's 2004 was also great.

krosero
12-11-2011, 07:26 AM
I've noticed this discrepancy too.

Lots of posters and (more importantly) lots of so-called experts lose credibility when their opinion of the importance and prestige of ancient Australian-open goes up and down depending on whether their favorite player won it or not.This "discrepancy" is based on an assumption that there is no significant difference between Laver's AO and McEnroe's AO's, and that therefore the only thing remaining must be favoritism. My question is, why the assumption? An assumption like that is especially risky when talking about the early Open Era when political changes kept players out of various Slam events and the attendance at a major could change significantly from year to year. There was an awful lot of instability back then, so again, why is the assumption made that there is no difference and only favoritism must be left?

I'm not trying to be hostile, I would genuinely appreciate an answer to my question.

kiki
12-11-2011, 07:31 AM
This "discrepancy" is based on an assumption that there is no significant difference between Laver's AO and McEnroe's AO's, and that therefore the only thing remaining must be favoritism. My question is, why the assumption? An assumption like that is especially risky when talking about the early Open Era when political changes kept players out of various Slam events and the attendance at a major could change significantly from year to year. There was an awful lot of instability back then, so again, why is the assumption made that there is no difference and only favoritism must be left?

I'm not trying to be hostile, I would genuinely appreciate an answer to my question.

It happens to be that the 1969 AO was the best of the open era, in terms of competition, until 1984 or 1985.All players were there ( except, I think Rosewall) and that brightens Laverīs achievement.

krosero
12-11-2011, 09:47 AM
It happens to be that the 1969 AO was the best of the open era, in terms of competition, until 1984 or 1985.All players were there ( except, I think Rosewall) and that brightens Laverīs achievement.I know, the '69 AO and the 1971 AO (the one that was played in March and was free of all the political disputes that kept players out of majors) were the strongest AO's until about the mid-80s. I was just looking for an answer to my question above.

BTW Rosewall attended the '69 AO (he lost in the R16).

jerriy
12-11-2011, 10:04 AM
^ Complete and utter nonsense

First and foremost I don't buy that crappy premise. If the AO in 1969 was the best thing ever then the only minus thing about the subsequent AO's is that someone didnt' attend them because it was inconvenient or some other reason EXCLUDING lack of prestige!!! Busted :)

So then now that we have bursted that absurd **** bubble we can comfortably argue that if this "attendance criteria" is valid then there's no reason no to apply that criteria on ALL slams, including the ones after 1983 :D

beast of mallorca
12-11-2011, 10:16 AM
You mean Federerīs opposition at his prime, right? I fully agree.

Well, what do you have there, Aphex, Kiki and I all agree. Very rare indeed, lol

jerriy
12-11-2011, 10:25 AM
As many times quoted, the Australian was not at the same level as other majors between 1973 and 1982, even tough some great players won it, but the competition was signifiantly weaker.It regained its status as big 4 by 1983...Poppycock!

The AO never relinquished it's big 4 status any one time.

The only true facts are that in the 70s due to the introduction of "open era" tennis and the status of players often being contractors of promoters who were at war with other tournament organizers including the majors and what not... all that rivalry created fragmentation and conflict between tournaments and THAT (and NOT lack of prestige) led to players deliberately skipping what only in the 21st century would become universally indispensable tournaments attended by 99% of all eligible pros.

beast of mallorca
12-11-2011, 10:41 AM
Poppycock!

The AO never relinquished it's big 4 status any one time.

The only true facts are that in the 70s due to the introduction of "open era" tennis and the status of players often being contractors of promoters who were at war with other tournament organizers including the majors and what not... all that rivalry created fragmentation and conflict between tournaments and THAT (and NOT lack of prestige) led to players deliberately skipping what only in the 21st century would become universally indispensable tournaments attended by 99% of all eligible pros.

I thought it wasn't as popular before because of the distance and its time in the calendar (December). It was only during the late 80's that it got popular because of the changes they made.

krosero
12-11-2011, 11:55 AM
^ Complete and utter nonsense

First and foremost I don't buy that crappy premise. If the AO in 1969 was the best thing ever then the only minus thing about the subsequent AO's is that someone didnt' attend them because it was inconvenient or some other reason EXCLUDING lack of prestige!!! Busted :)

So then now that we have bursted that absurd **** bubble we can comfortably argue that if this "attendance criteria" is valid then there's no reason no to apply that criteria on ALL slams, including the ones after 1983 :D

Poppycock!

The AO never relinquished it's big 4 status any one time.

The only true facts are that in the 70s due to the introduction of "open era" tennis and the status of players often being contractors of promoters who were at war with other tournament organizers including the majors and what not... all that rivalry created fragmentation and conflict between tournaments and THAT (and NOT lack of prestige) led to players deliberately skipping what only in the 21st century would become universally indispensable tournaments attended by 99% of all eligible pros.The AO never relinquished its official status as one of the four traditional Grand Slam events -- and if that's your argument then kindly point out the person who has said otherwise. The AO never lost its official status as a Slam. And nothing could take away its historical prestige. But it did not retain its prestige as one of the most important events of the season, when most of the top players stopped attending.

If you think player attendance does not have an effect on the prestige of the tournament, then let me ask you this. None of the world's top 10 ranked players attended the 1982 AO. Do you call it one of the 4 most prestigious tournaments of 1982?

krosero
12-11-2011, 12:11 PM
I thought it wasn't as popular before because of the distance and its time in the calendar (December). It was only during the late 80's that it got popular because of the changes they made.No that's right, at least that was the principal reason for the longest time. The AO in 1969-70 was played in January so a lot of the top players attended -- but in '70 the tournament took a hit because some top players did not attend, citing the prize money as too low for a Slam event. And that was true. The 1st prize dropped that year to $3,800 (Laver had won $5,000), while Wimbledon offered $7,200, the French $10,000 and the USO $20,000.

In '71 the AO was played in March and Dunlop's sponsorship offered big money (first prize of $10,080); most of the top players attended.

In '72 the tournament really started declining for two reasons. One, the prize money tumbled (1st prize fell back to $2,240 and did not recover for some years). Two, the tournament switched to a late-December start date, either during Christmas or in the days immediately after. That was done for a political reason, to circumvent a ban on WCT players applying to all tournaments started in '72.

But the AO kept being played around the holidays for many years, which killed the strength of the field. You did not get most top players attending again, as you said, until changes were made in the late 80s: moving the tournament to late January and switching to a modern venue.

timnz
12-11-2011, 12:23 PM
I would have raised McEnroe's 1984 to #2. It is hard to fault him much for not playing/winning the Australian when that was the norm back then.


How can that be the case when he played there in 1983 and 1985? I thought he missed it due to injury, but i may be wrong about that.

urban
12-11-2011, 12:40 PM
Addition to Krosero and Timnz: Problem with the AO was, that between 1976 and 1986 it was the last of the 4 majors, and the last leg of the potential Grand Slam. It was a big difference for the top players, if a Grand Slam was on (with AO the first leg) or off (with AO the last leg). Borg would have played it certainly, if he had succeeded at Flushing Meadow, the third leg, but he never got around the third pole. Connors would have played in Australia too, because he announced frequently to follow Borg to the ends of the world, to prevent him from taking a Grand Slam (see a recent article by Peter Bodo on Tennis.com about this). I think McEnroe would have played the AO end 1984, if he hadn't lost already to Lendl at Roland Garros.

NadalAgassi
12-11-2011, 12:55 PM
Addition to Krosero and Timnz: Problem with the AO was, that between 1976 and 1986 it was the last of the 4 majors, and the last leg of the potential Grand Slam. It was a big difference for the top players, if a Grand Slam was on (with AO the first leg) or off (with AO the last leg). Borg would have played it certainly, if he had succeeded at Flushing Meadow, the third leg, but he never got around the third pole. Connors would have played in Australia too, because he announced frequently to follow Borg to the ends of the world, to prevent him from taking a Grand Slam (see a recent article by Peter Bodo on Tennis.com about this). I think McEnroe would have played the AO end 1984, if he hadn't lost already to Lendl at Roland Garros.

I think that just goes to show how Slam count being the be all and end all is a relatively new philosophy. Back then, even as late as the mid 80s, it was about winning Wimbledon and the U.S Open, winning the Grand Slam if possible, and being ranked over #1 your peers.

kiki
12-12-2011, 01:26 PM
I know, the '69 AO and the 1971 AO (the one that was played in March and was free of all the political disputes that kept players out of majors) were the strongest AO's until about the mid-80s. I was just looking for an answer to my question above.

BTW Rosewall attended the '69 AO (he lost in the R16).

Who did beat Rosewall?

kiki
12-12-2011, 01:30 PM
Poppycock!

The AO never relinquished it's big 4 status any one time.

The only true facts are that in the 70s due to the introduction of "open era" tennis and the status of players often being contractors of promoters who were at war with other tournament organizers including the majors and what not... all that rivalry created fragmentation and conflict between tournaments and THAT (and NOT lack of prestige) led to players deliberately skipping what only in the 21st century would become universally indispensable tournaments attended by 99% of all eligible pros.

Put it the way you like.But, except for 69 and 71, the AO was not at the same level in terms of competition until 1983 or 1984.Yes, there was a Newcombe-Connors final in 75 and a Vilas-Tanner in 77, but the competition they had to face was quite weaker, as a matter of fact, some of the semifinalist were unknown or mere journeymen ( like Pfister,Marks and a bunch others)

Mustard
12-12-2011, 01:35 PM
Who did beat Rosewall?

Andres Gimeno, the eventual runner-up.

kiki
12-12-2011, 02:02 PM
Andres Gimeno, the eventual runner-up.

Thanks.Gimeno spelled danger for his fellow pros.Nobody liked to play him when he was inspired or calmy.

kiki
12-12-2011, 02:04 PM
BTW, I think he lost to Drisdale at the 1969 Wimbledon, do you know who defeated him at Forest Hills?.1969 was not a good year for Muscless, definitely ( only made a major final and was trounced by Laver, who played his best ever cc match, according to himself)

hoodjem
12-12-2011, 02:09 PM
The fact that a 40-year old player no matter how good he was in the past made it to the final of 2 (!!!) major finals in 1 year tells me all I need to know about the field.I believe that it tells us less about the field, and more about the limited capacity of this person's brain.

kiki
12-12-2011, 02:11 PM
I believe that it tells us less about the field, and more about the limited capacity of this person's brain.

Absolutely...and speaks volume for his/her lack of knowledge, which even a minor brain can achieve

Mustard
12-12-2011, 02:12 PM
BTW, I think he lost to Drisdale at the 1969 Wimbledon, do you know who defeated him at Forest Hills?.1969 was not a good year for Muscless, definitely ( only made a major final and was trounced by Laver, who played his best ever cc match, according to himself)

Rosewall lost to Robert Lutz in the R32 of 1969 Wimbledon, and lost to Arthur Ashe in the quarter finals of the 1969 US Open.

kiki
12-12-2011, 02:17 PM
Rosewall lost to Robert Lutz in the R32 of 1969 Wimbledon, and lost to Arthur Ashe in the quarter finals of the 1969 US Open.

Good.Thans again.You are a very aknowledged poster.Got no more questions.

Lutz was certainly a terrific talent, like Roche, injuries prevented him from becoming one of the greatest players of his generation, in my humble opinion.