PDA

View Full Version : Best individual season of Open Era?


smoledman
09-30-2012, 03:00 PM
Open Era - Laver 1969
ATP Era(1973 to present) - Federer 2006

Next best in ATP Era - 2010 Nadal, 2011 Djokovic, 2007 Federer

Semi-Pro
09-30-2012, 03:13 PM
I still think :grin:Rafa's:D 2008 season exceeds his 2010 season despite winning 1 less slam

smoledman
09-30-2012, 03:22 PM
You can argue Nadal's 2008 is equivalent to 2010 because the gold medal = a slam. Also the gold medal was on the same surface as the US Open.

pc1
09-30-2012, 03:26 PM
A lot of other possibilities, Connors in 1974 won three out of three majors entered. He couldn't enter the French Open because players who played WTT weren't allowed to enter. He was either 99-4 or 93-4 for the year.

McEnroe in 1984 won Wimbledon and the US Open with an 82-3 won-lost record. He won 13 tournaments out of 15 entered. He destroyed people, not just beat them that year.

A few of Borg's seasons in the late 1970's deserve great consideration.

It's a long time ago :) but Djokovic's 2011 season deserves great consideration also. Any old timers remember 2011? lol.

Maybe the best season of the Open Era was Steffi Graf's 1988 season with the Golden Slam. And of course many of Martina Navratilova's seasons from 1982 to 1986. Margaret Court won the Grand Slam in 1970 and many of Chris Evert's season are up there also.

smoledman
09-30-2012, 03:27 PM
Many legendary seasons in the Open Era. Difficult to compare the modern era where the Australian Open is in January and on hardcourt since 1988 to before.

BauerAlmeida
09-30-2012, 04:38 PM
Federer's 2006.

But I don't think 2007 was his second best. 2004 was a bit better despite losing earlier in RG and in 2005 he was playing at his best, although ironically he won one less slam that year and didn't win the TMC.

underground
10-01-2012, 11:45 AM
You can argue Nadal's 2008 is equivalent to 2010 because the gold medal = a slam. Also the gold medal was on the same surface as the US Open.

Errm...no? The only bo5 match he had to play was against Gonzalez.

Gizo
10-01-2012, 11:53 AM
Obviously Laver's 1969 is the best, with him completing grand slam and winning the biggest titles available to him on grass, clay, hard courts and carpet. No other player has won all 4 majors, or won the biggest titles on 4 different surfaces, in one single season in the open era.

Federer's 2006, with him either winning or finishing as the runner-up in 16 out of the 17 events he entered, and McEnroe's 1984 when he won 96.5% of his matches, round off the top 3 in my opinion.

RF20Lennon
10-01-2012, 11:55 AM
Laver federer Mac djokovic IMO

timnz
10-01-2012, 10:04 PM
You can argue Nadal's 2008 is equivalent to 2010 because the gold medal = a slam. Also the gold medal was on the same surface as the US Open.

No, olympics=750 points, slam = 2000 points

NadalAgassi
10-01-2012, 10:19 PM
Laver in 1969 of course. Grand Slam >>>> no Grand Slam.

Second best would be Connors in 1974. Didnt lose an important match all year and was unfairly robbed of a chance at the Grand Slam by a jaded rival group.

Third best would be McEnroe in 1984. An insane match record which nobody has matched today, complete dominance of big matches vs legends, and the only big match or big event he didnt win was that French he had won but completely choked away, as the Australian was a relative afterthought at the time (except for the purposes of the Grand Slam).

the rest of my top 10 would be:

4. Nadal 2010 (won the biggest event of the year on every surface, huge)
5. Federer 2006 Great overall record but 0 clay titles.
6. Djokovic 2011
7. Federer 2005 lost 3 of the 5 biggest events of year, but incredible M-W record second to only McEnroe's 84 I believe.
8. Nadal 2008 (considering I consider the Olympics atleast on par with the WTF, a major title on each surface again)
9. Wilander 1998
10. McEnroe 1981

Federer in 2004 had too many early round defeats for a historic year, and in 2007 he had a number of really bad losses (eg- Canas in 2 hard court Masters in a row, then Volandri in a 3rd straight Masters).

ledwix
10-01-2012, 10:50 PM
No, olympics=750 points, slam = 2000 points

Just like how 1968/9, 1973, and whatever year the AO became the season opener slam are turning points in tennis history, 2008 may be the turning point for the Olympics. Its value in points is still low, but I could see it as a 1250 soon because on average people tend to see it as such.

merlinpinpin
10-01-2012, 10:57 PM
Rosol 2012 should be considered, too, at least according to Trolling Day & Knight. As h2h in slams is the only thing that matters, he has now established himself as being greater than :) RNadal :) in the GOAT debate, and by a fair margin, too, with a 100/ w/l ratio in the matches that opposed him to the Spaniard.

Now, is he could just break the top 100... :-?

Edit: he has! Soaring at #89, wow!

Definitely one of the top seasons of the open era, then, and even IN HISTORY. GOATish stuff, Lukas! :)

DragonBlaze
10-02-2012, 12:24 AM
Laver in 1969 of course. Grand Slam >>>> no Grand Slam.

Second best would be Connors in 1974. Didnt lose an important match all year and was unfairly robbed of a chance at the Grand Slam by a jaded rival group.

Third best would be McEnroe in 1984. An insane match record which nobody has matched today, complete dominance of big matches vs legends, and the only big match or big event he didnt win was that French he had won but completely choked away, as the Australian was a relative afterthought at the time (except for the purposes of the Grand Slam).

the rest of my top 10 would be:

4. Nadal 2010 (won the biggest event of the year on every surface, huge)
5. Federer 2006 Great overall record but 0 clay titles.
6. Djokovic 2011
7. Federer 2005 lost 3 of the 5 biggest events of year, but incredible M-W record second to only McEnroe's 84 I believe.
8. Nadal 2008 (considering I consider the Olympics atleast on par with the WTF, a major title on each surface again)
9. Wilander 1998
10. McEnroe 1981

Federer in 2004 had too many early round defeats for a historic year, and in 2007 he had a number of really bad losses (eg- Canas in 2 hard court Masters in a row, then Volandri in a 3rd straight Masters).

I just find that hard to take seriously when Nadal had more losses in 2010 alone compared to Federer in 2005 and 2006 COMBINED.

Also you mention Federer's 2007 having "bad losses" and thus not including it in the list whatsoever. Yet still, Fed's record that year (68-9) is better than Nadal's 2010 (71-10). PLUS Federer won 8 titles (4/5 "big events" and final of the last) whereas Nadal had 7 titles (3/5 "big events" and one final, and one quarter final).

Further still, let's take a look at the "bad losses" from each year.

Fed's 2007 - the two Canas, and one Volandri. The other were as follows - One Djoker, 2 Nalby, 2 Rafa, nothing truly bad there.

Nadal's 2010 - Davydenko (after winning the first set 6-0 no less), Ivan ljubicic, Roddick, Lopez, Baghdatis, Garcia-Lopez, Melzer. Also 2x Murray and Federer which aren't bad.

Normally I wouldn't even consider Nadal's loss to Davydenko a bad one on HC since Davy owns Nadal on HC, but damn after winning that first set 6-0 to lose from there was pretty horrible. Suffice the rest of his losses are just as bad as Fed's 2007 except that there were more!

Considering how close Fed's 2007 to Nadal's 2010, I can see it plausible to put Rafa's season higher since he won on 3 different surfaces. However if you're going to say Nadal winning on 3 diff surfaces is going to magically leapfrog him over Fed's 2006, nevermind the gap in accomplishments (12 titles, 16/17 finals, 4/5 big events etc etc etc), well you might as well just be saying you like Nadal better Federer. Which is fair enough because you do and I notice you did atleast say "the rest of my list" and didn't proclaim it as fact. However then don't berate someone whose opinion it is that Fed's 2006 is better than Laver's 1969 (and someone surely will say it in this thread. Mind you, I'm not saying that).

sonicare
10-02-2012, 02:10 AM
Djokovic 2011..

He owned Nadal who was playing his best tennis ever in 6 finals across 3 surfaces.

Owned federer 4-1 too

merwy
10-02-2012, 02:40 AM
Djokovic 2011..

He owned Nadal who was playing his best tennis ever in 6 finals across 3 surfaces.

Owned federer 4-1 too

This. You know you've played an amazing season when you've beaten the (former) #1 six times in a row and you've beaten the GOAT 4 out of 5 times.

kOaMaster
10-02-2012, 05:22 AM
This. You know you've played an amazing season when you've beaten the (former) #1 six times in a row and you've beaten the GOAT 4 out of 5 times.

Just want to mention it:
Federer won 6 out of 6 matches vs Hewitt in 2004 and bageled him five times in those 6 matches, including twice in a final and four of those in grand slams.

Further: Won twice vs Agassi, three times vs Roddick (1 bagel), three times vs Safin, twice vs Moya

And there was no loss against any of those mentioned above (this was the top 5 end of 2004).

Overall: 74-6.

Agassifan
10-02-2012, 05:54 AM
I still think :grin:Rafa's:D 2008 season exceeds his 2010 season despite winning 1 less slam

What was his W/L record for 2008? End thread.

kiki
10-02-2012, 05:58 AM
Laver 1969
Mc Enroe 1984
Connors 1974
Wilander 1988
Sampras 1983
Federer 2006
Nadal 2010
Djokovic 2011
Lendl 1986/87
Nastase 1973
Vilas 1977
Becker 1989
Rosewall 1971/72, in the first half, winning Ao and WCT finals back to back
but those last two basically on clay, since Nastase played a better grass court season back in 1972.

kiki
10-02-2012, 05:59 AM
Laver 1969
Mc Enroe 1984
Connors 1974
Wilander 1988
Sampras 1983
Federer 2006
Nadal 2010
Djokovic 2011
Lendl 1986/87
Nastase 1973
Vilas 1977
Becker 1989
Rosewall 1971/72, in the first half, winning Ao and WCT finals back to back
but those last two basically on clay, since Nastase played a better grass court season back in 1972.

Sampras in 1993, obviously.

kiki
10-02-2012, 06:00 AM
Sampras in 1993, obviously.

Geez, How could I forget Borg in 1978,1979,1980.He stands up alone with laver 69, Mac 84, Connors 74, since he won 3 of the top 5 events and played the finals of a fourth (1979 WCT, 1978-1980 US Open)

In terms of excellency, few can match Borg.

jean pierre
10-02-2012, 07:09 AM
Vilas 77 is in the top 3.

tennis_pro
10-02-2012, 07:12 AM
Sampras in 1993, obviously.


Wilander's 1988 is better than Federer's 2006?
Sampras' 1993 is better than Federer's 2006?

Russeljones
10-02-2012, 07:52 AM
Wilander's 1988 is better than Federer's 2006?
Sampras' 1993 is better than Federer's 2006?

Don't worry. kiki is special.

90's Clay
10-02-2012, 09:38 AM
Wilander's 1988 is better than Federer's 2006?
Sampras' 1993 is better than Federer's 2006?

Relatively speaking maybe. His opposition overall in '93 was 3 TIMES more impressive then Fed's pathetic 2006 opposition.

tennis_pro
10-02-2012, 09:42 AM
Relatively speaking maybe. His opposition overall in '93 was 3 TIMES more impressive then Fed's pathetic 2006 opposition.

Don't you worry, I'll find something on Sampras in those 16 losses cause that's exactly how many he suffered in 1993.

TMF
10-02-2012, 10:01 AM
2006 is my vote because he was so dominant from beginning to the end of the year. If people wants to poke hole on Federer, pretty much you can do just about every players that had an excellent year.

Laver in 1969 was great, but he lost 16 times, which his winning % wasn't in the 90, unlike some of the other players(ie Fed, Borg, Mac). Laver have said the GS today is worth 2 GS in his heyday because the standard is a lot higher. And he won those 4 slams on 2 surfaces. Based on these facts, Fed 2006 > Laver 1969.

Nadal won 3 slams in 2010, but the problem is he only won 7 titles, no WTF, and winning % is below 90.

Nole had the best run in history from the start of the year to the USO. But his problem is he was a no show after the USO. Basically, if he didn't play at all after the USO it wouldn't make any difference, only to have a higher winning % but that would be due to lack in number of matches played.

Mac 1984 will be remember as having the highest winning %. But he only bagged in 2 slams. And since Fed also had a great year in 2005 with 2 slams, I don't think his 1 additional loss(81-4) means Mac 84 leapfrog Fed 05.

TMF
10-02-2012, 10:02 AM
Don't you worry, I'll find something on Sampras in those 16 losses cause that's exactly how many he suffered in 1993.

None of Sampras years makes the top 10 list. Maybe the top 20.

Gizo
10-02-2012, 10:16 AM
Although Federer's quality of play wasn't as good in 2007 as it was in 2004 or 2005, does his positive h2h against Nadal that year give it some bonus points? 2007 was the only year in he win he won more matches than he lost against Nadal, winning 3 out of their 5 encounters and beating him on 3 different surfaces.

Lendl's 1986 is a pretty underrated season. He won Roland Garros, the US Open, the Masters, other big titles at Boca West, Philadelphia, Milan (a very strong indoor event at the time) and Rome, and was a Wimbledon finalist. He won 74 matches out of 80 that year. I'm not saying it is the greatest season or anything, but it was still an amazing year. I personally think it tops Wilander's 1988 for instance.

Ranking Borg's 3 great years from 1978-1980 is pretty difficult.

You can argue that statistically 1980 was the best year of his career, given that he won RG, Wimbledon and the Masters, and was the runner-up at US Open, plus he won his home tournament at Stockholm.

However I personally think that he played his best tennis in 1979. He won 13 titles in total. Mac did win their big final in Dallas, but on numerous occasions that year he destroyed both Mac and Connors and made them look completely helpless, which was no mean feat.

fed_rulz
10-02-2012, 10:28 AM
Although Federer's quality of play wasn't as good in 2007 as it was in 2004 or 2005, does his positive h2h against Nadal that year give it some bonus points? 2007 was the only year in he win he won more matches than he lost against Nadal, winning 3 out of their 5 encounters and beating him on 3 different surfaces.



this was possible because Federer lost at Rome early (to volandri). Goes to show how fallacious using Federer's h2h against Nadal is, especially when everyone knows (and won't admit) the heavy surface bias .

Rock Strongo
10-02-2012, 10:44 AM
this was possible because Federer lost at Rome early (to volandri). Goes to show how fallacious using Federer's h2h against Nadal is, especially when everyone knows (and won't admit) the heavy surface bias .

Surface bias... If Fed is intelligent he should WO the next match against Nadal on clay and then proceed to kick his butt on other surfaces to bring the H2H back. I know, logic.

Being completely on topic now though I'll give it to McEnroe's 84 solely for the winning percentage. Had he won against Lendl it would've been 83-2, which would've been even more insane.

Gizo
10-02-2012, 10:44 AM
this was possible because Federer lost at Rome early (to volandri). Goes to show how fallacious using Federer's h2h against Nadal is, especially when everyone knows (and won't admit) the heavy surface bias .

True although 3 out of their 5 matches that year were still on clay, so it's not like Federer was avoiding Nadal on the surface.

I remember Federer had actually played very well in his opening match at Rome that year against Almagro (who had caused him a lot of problems in that same tournament the year before), so that defeat to Volandri really did come out of nowhere.

tennis_pro
10-02-2012, 11:11 AM
Relatively speaking maybe. His opposition overall in '93 was 3 TIMES more impressive then Fed's pathetic 2006 opposition.

Sampras losses in 1993:
- Edberg at the AO (straight sets)
- 33-year old Lendl in Philadelphia (straight sets)
- 22nd ranked Volkov in Indian Wells (straight sets)
- 87th ranked Eltingh (who? that doubles specialist?) in Atlanta (straight sets)
- Ivanisevic in Rome (straight sets)
- Bruguera in Rome (straight sets - 6-3 6-1 to be exact)
- Bruguera at the French Open
- Grant Stafford (who?) ranked 110th in Queen's on grass
- Brett Steven (who?) ranked 45th in Canada (straight sets)
- Edberg in Cincinnati
- Rafter (who was ranked 139th and half the man he became in 1997) in Indianopolis
- Costa (Carlos Costa) in Stockholm, for the record he was ranked 30th something which ain't shocking in Sampras' career. Now if Federer lost to a guy ranked 30th in his prime, the haters would be blowing all horns.
- Ivanisevic in Paris
- Stich at the Tour Finals
- Kodra in the Grand Slam Cup


Obviously, Sampras' competition will look stiffer if he has issues winning sets against pensioners and guys ranked outside the top 100. Also, there pretty much goes Sampras mental fortitude, out of the 15 losses he suffered in 1993 as many as 8 have been straight sets. What a fighter Sampras was!

Now compare it to Federer.

4 losses to Nadal - all 4 competitive (3 on clay)
1 loss to a teenage Murray in straight sets, a match I remember well as Federer was exhausted after winning Canada

RAFA2005RG
10-02-2012, 11:14 AM
2010 Rafa, clay/grass/hardcourt slams. Will probably never be done again (unless he does it again).

kiki
10-02-2012, 11:32 AM
Wilander's 1988 is better than Federer's 2006?
Sampras' 1993 is better than Federer's 2006?

I didnīt really use an order.But, thinking about, in Wilanderīs time, there were real champs while in 2006 Fed had just a very young Nadal so, yes, Wilander in 88 against Becker,Lendl,Edberg far suprasses the best ever year of Federer.

kiki
10-02-2012, 11:33 AM
Don't worry. kiki is special.

My worst quote easily matches up to your best.

kiki
10-02-2012, 11:37 AM
2006 is my vote because he was so dominant from beginning to the end of the year. If people wants to poke hole on Federer, pretty much you can do just about every players that had an excellent year.

Laver in 1969 was great, but he lost 16 times, which his winning % wasn't in the 90, unlike some of the other players(ie Fed, Borg, Mac). Laver have said the GS today is worth 2 GS in his heyday because the standard is a lot higher. And he won those 4 slams on 2 surfaces. Based on these facts, Fed 2006 > Laver 1969.

Nadal won 3 slams in 2010, but the problem is he only won 7 titles, no WTF, and winning % is below 90.

Nole had the best run in history from the start of the year to the USO. But his problem is he was a no show after the USO. Basically, if he didn't play at all after the USO it wouldn't make any difference, only to have a higher winning % but that would be due to lack in number of matches played.

Mac 1984 will be remember as having the highest winning %. But he only bagged in 2 slams. And since Fed also had a great year in 2005 with 2 slams, I don't think his 1 additional loss(81-4) means Mac 84 leapfrog Fed 05.

in 84 Masters and WCT were bigger than AO, so mac takes 3 out of 4.

Laver, you know, won almost all big events of the year bar Rome, which went to his successor John Newcombe...and facing Rosewall,Newcombe,Roche,Gimeno,ashe,emmo,Ralston,D risdale,Stolle, Lutz,Smith,Kodes,Nastase in their prime or close to is not exactly like having to worry only about unmature Nadal and thatīs it.

At msot you can compare Fed 2006 to Laver 62 and still Laver had to play true champs such as Santana,Emerson,Fraser,Osuna while other than Roddick and unmature Nadal, rest of the field in 2006 is a joke, and a very big one...

kiki
10-02-2012, 11:44 AM
Although Federer's quality of play wasn't as good in 2007 as it was in 2004 or 2005, does his positive h2h against Nadal that year give it some bonus points? 2007 was the only year in he win he won more matches than he lost against Nadal, winning 3 out of their 5 encounters and beating him on 3 different surfaces.

Lendl's 1986 is a pretty underrated season. He won Roland Garros, the US Open, the Masters, other big titles at Boca West, Philadelphia, Milan (a very strong indoor event at the time) and Rome, and was a Wimbledon finalist. He won 74 matches out of 80 that year. I'm not saying it is the greatest season or anything, but it was still an amazing year. I personally think it tops Wilander's 1988 for instance.

Ranking Borg's 3 great years from 1978-1980 is pretty difficult.

You can argue that statistically 1980 was the best year of his career, given that he won RG, Wimbledon and the Masters, and was the runner-up at US Open, plus he won his home tournament at Stockholm.

However I personally think that he played his best tennis in 1979. He won 13 titles in total. Mac did win their big final in Dallas, but on numerous occasions that year he destroyed both Mac and Connors and made them look completely helpless, which was no mean feat.

Thanks for posting about Ivanīs great 86, I feel it is one of the best pro seasons ever.

As for Borg, in 78 took Rome,Paris and London and made the New York finals while in 79, he won the Masters, a bigger event than the Italian Open and reached the WCT finals which were big but not as much as the USO final he reached in 78.

In 1980, he won Masters,Roland Garros and Wimbledon ( for the third consecutive Channel Slam) and played the USO finals, so 1980 might have been a bit better...still, I donīt think he played as well as in 1979, which IMo was the year he reached his peakest level.

tennis_pro
10-02-2012, 11:45 AM
I didnīt really use an order.But, thinking about, in Wilanderīs time, there were real champs while in 2006 Fed had just a very young Nadal so, yes, Wilander in 88 against Becker,Lendl,Edberg far suprasses the best ever year of Federer.

Nadal at the end of 2006 had achieved more than Becker at the end of 1988 and they were roughly the same age.

Wilander had the luck to avoid them tons of times in 1988, he only played Becker once in the Masters and lost that match. He also lost to Edberg in the same tournament, beat him at the AO and Cincinnati, though. Wilander only faced Lendl once in 1988, in the final of the US Open which was a legit win. Now compare it to what Djokovic had to do in 2011 to achieve the same heights - he had to beat Federer and Nadal like 10 times combined, not to mention his record against the rest of the field including Murray, Roddick, Soderling, Tsonga or Berdych.

TheFifthSet
10-02-2012, 11:47 AM
Relatively speaking maybe. His opposition overall in '93 was 3 TIMES more impressive then Fed's pathetic 2006 opposition.

Lol. Even if you believe that, Sampras had quite a few "bad" losses in '93 that I don't think you'd convince anyone that it was in any way better. He had 4 losses to sub-50 ranked players. And for somebody talking up his tough competition, did you see his draw en route to winning the US Open? Not exactly a group of titans. Chang, and a bunch of good but not elite players such as Volkov, Pioline, baby Enqvist. Ooh. Real tough one there. I don't think Federer would dream of beating those guys.

TheFifthSet
10-02-2012, 11:49 AM
Sampras losses in 1993:
- Edberg at the AO (straight sets)
- 33-year old Lendl in Philadelphia (straight sets)
- 22nd ranked Volkov in Indian Wells (straight sets)
- 87th ranked Eltingh (who? that doubles specialist?) in Atlanta (straight sets)
- Ivanisevic in Rome (straight sets)
- Bruguera in Rome (straight sets - 6-3 6-1 to be exact)
- Bruguera at the French Open
- Grant Stafford (who?) ranked 110th in Queen's on grass
- Brett Steven (who?) ranked 45th in Canada (straight sets)
- Edberg in Cincinnati
- Rafter (who was ranked 139th and half the man he became in 1997) in Indianopolis
- Costa (Carlos Costa) in Stockholm, for the record he was ranked 30th something which ain't shocking in Sampras' career. Now if Federer lost to a guy ranked 30th in his prime, the haters would be blowing all horns.
- Ivanisevic in Paris
- Stich at the Tour Finals
- Kodra in the Grand Slam Cup


Obviously, Sampras' competition will look stiffer if he has issues winning sets against pensioners and guys ranked outside the top 100. Also, there pretty much goes Sampras mental fortitude, out of the 15 losses he suffered in 1993 as many as 13 have been straight sets. What a fighter Sampras was!

Now compare it to Federer.

4 losses to Nadal - all 4 competitive (3 on clay)
1 loss to a teenage Murray in straight sets, a match I remember well as Federer was exhausted after winning Canada

You beat me to it, nice work. :)

edberg505
10-02-2012, 12:37 PM
Sampras losses in 1993:
- Edberg at the AO (straight sets)
- 33-year old Lendl in Philadelphia (straight sets)
- 22nd ranked Volkov in Indian Wells (straight sets)
- 87th ranked Eltingh (who? that doubles specialist?) in Atlanta (straight sets)
- Ivanisevic in Rome (straight sets)
- Bruguera in Rome (straight sets - 6-3 6-1 to be exact)
- Bruguera at the French Open
- Grant Stafford (who?) ranked 110th in Queen's on grass
- Brett Steven (who?) ranked 45th in Canada (straight sets)
- Edberg in Cincinnati
- Rafter (who was ranked 139th and half the man he became in 1997) in Indianopolis
- Costa (Carlos Costa) in Stockholm, for the record he was ranked 30th something which ain't shocking in Sampras' career. Now if Federer lost to a guy ranked 30th in his prime, the haters would be blowing all horns.
- Ivanisevic in Paris
- Stich at the Tour Finals
- Kodra in the Grand Slam Cup


Obviously, Sampras' competition will look stiffer if he has issues winning sets against pensioners and guys ranked outside the top 100. Also, there pretty much goes Sampras mental fortitude, out of the 15 losses he suffered in 1993 as many as 8 have been straight sets. What a fighter Sampras was!

Now compare it to Federer.

4 losses to Nadal - all 4 competitive (3 on clay)
1 loss to a teenage Murray in straight sets, a match I remember well as Federer was exhausted after winning Canada

Now that was ownage in its purest form! Well done!

Gizo
10-02-2012, 12:40 PM
Thanks for posting about Ivanīs great 86, I feel it is one of the best pro seasons ever.



Yes it was an amazing year, and he was so consistent. That year he entered 15 official tournaments, won 9 of them, was a runner-up 3 times and a losing semi-finalist twice. The only tournament he lost early in was Toronto, but that was to Curren who was very dangerous and could beat anyone. His W/L record was 74-6 that year, with his defeats coming to Becker 3 times, Edberg, Noah and Curren. So he didn't have any 'bad' defeats that year.

He only dropped one set at RG, one set at US Open, and didn't lose any sets at the Masters where he destroyed Wilander, Edberg and Becker.

Maybe you could argue that his 1987 was better. He beat Wilander in the RG/US Open finals instead of Pernfors and Mecir, and beat Edberg at Wimbledon. However that year he lost to guys like David Pate and Peter Lundgren, won one less title and lost one more match. Still a great year of course, but I think his 1986 was slightly better.


As for Borg, in 78 took Rome,Paris and London and made the New York finals while in 79, he won the Masters, a bigger event than the Italian Open and reached the WCT finals which were big but not as much as the USO final he reached in 78.

In 1980, he won Masters,Roland Garros and Wimbledon ( for the third consecutive Channel Slam) and played the USO finals, so 1980 might have been a bit better...still, I donīt think he played as well as in 1979, which IMo was the year he reached his peakest level.

Yes he probably had tougher competition in 1980, as McEnroe was better, I personally that Connors played better in 1980 than 1979, and Lendl had improved.

Still in 1979 the tennis he played was just incredible.

kiki
10-02-2012, 12:46 PM
Yes it was an amazing year, and he was so consistent. That year he entered 15 official tournaments, won 9 of them, was a runner-up 3 times and a losing semi-finalist twice. The only tournament he lost early in was Toronto, but that was to Curren who was very dangerous and could beat anyone. His W/L record was 74-6 that year, with his defeats coming to Becker 3 times, Edberg, Noah and Curren. So he didn't have any 'bad' defeats that year.

He only dropped one set at RG, one set at US Open, and at the Masters destroyed Wilander, Edberg and Becker in straight sets.

Maybe you could argue that his 1987 was better. He beat Wilander in the RG/US Open finals instead of Pernfors and Mecir, and beat Edberg at Wimbledon. However that year he lost to guys like David Pate and Peter Lundgren, won one less title and lost one more match. Still a great year of course, but I think his 1986 was slightly better.



Yes he probably had tougher competition in 1980, as McEnroe was better, I personally that Connors played better in 1980 than 1979, and Lendl had improved.

Still in 1979 the tennis he played was just incredible.

Hard to say about which year is better, 86 or 87.In 82, he won the 10 WCT events he entered plus the three season ending events at Dallas,Naples and Detroit, beating Mac,Kriek and Vilas.He also won a bunch of GP titles, although lost a few ones to Vilas and Wilander.The fact that he did not win a Gran Slam event in 82 makes that year look average, but it was just a great one.

As for Borg, hard to say which event is the best he ever played, although in the 79 Masters he beat, day in day off, the nš 5 (Tanner) nš 2 (Connors) nš 3 (Mc Enroe) and nš 4 (Gerulaitis) players of the world and next year, heīd beat nš 2 (Mc Enroe) nš 3 (Connors) nš 4 (Lendl) and nš 5 (Clerc).That is simply amazing, considering the level of those players, and the fact that he had to do it day in, day out.

NadalAgassi
10-02-2012, 03:55 PM
Nadal at the end of 2006 had achieved more than Becker at the end of 1988 and they were roughly the same age.

Wilander had the luck to avoid them tons of times in 1988, he only played Becker once in the Masters and lost that match. He also lost to Edberg in the same tournament, beat him at the AO and Cincinnati, though. Wilander only faced Lendl once in 1988, in the final of the US Open which was a legit win. Now compare it to what Djokovic had to do in 2011 to achieve the same heights - he had to beat Federer and Nadal like 10 times combined, not to mention his record against the rest of the field including Murray, Roddick, Soderling, Tsonga or Berdych.

Becker was not a consistent contender on anything but fast grass and carpet before 1989 so I dont find Wilander lucky to avoid Becker. He was luckier to not play Lendl as much maybe but then Lendl kept having bad losses (for him) in all the big events, he just wasnt playing that well for his standards that year, and Wilander was just the better player and playing the better tennis that year, and solidified that for certain with his U.S Open final win over Lendl.

Vcore89
10-02-2012, 04:27 PM
Anyone like Steffi Graf's Golden Slam has the best individual season in the Open Era!

Will have to wait for the next man or woman to achieve it.

Golden Slam. The best next thing is calendar slam, then 3 slams in diminishing order, etc:)

Vcore89
10-02-2012, 04:35 PM
Nadal at the end of 2006 had achieved more than Becker at the end of 1988 and they were roughly the same age.

Aside from Michael Chang, Becker was the second youngest grand slam winner ever. That alone trumps Rafa's achievement.:wink:

RAFA2005RG
10-02-2012, 06:07 PM
Nobody will ever trump Rafa. 2010 clay-grass-hard slam titles.

kOaMaster
10-03-2012, 02:56 AM
how about
navratilova?
1983 98.9% (86–1) single season match winning percentage

Russeljones
10-03-2012, 03:13 AM
Nobody will ever trump Rafa.

You're begging to be Rosol'ed. ;)

TennisLovaLova
10-03-2012, 04:14 AM
Soderling 2012

Gonzo_style
10-03-2012, 10:47 AM
I think Djokovic 2011 season is the best, crushing Fedal like no one before

RF20Lennon
10-03-2012, 11:01 AM
crushing Fedal like no one before

Yes losing to a 30 year old in RG and a point away from losing in USO was extremely crushing

smoledman
10-03-2012, 11:12 AM
Honestly Fed's 2004 was the most dominating season since Laver's 1969. Then Fed did 2006 which was a step better.

Gonzo_style
10-03-2012, 11:30 AM
Yes losing to a 30 year old in RG and a point away from losing in USO was extremely crushing

How many times you wrote 30 year old or 31 year old?

Djokovic-Fedal 10-1

Prisoner of Birth
10-03-2012, 11:36 AM
How many times you wrote 30 year old or 31 year old?

Djokovic-Fedal 10-1

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6ulorERUz1qle9e0.gif

Polvorin
10-04-2012, 03:40 AM
You can argue Nadal's 2008 is equivalent to 2010 because the gold medal = a slam.

Someone go inform Nicolas Massu that he's a slam winner. Seriously, try not to make statements like that...it makes you lose credibility.

TMF
10-04-2012, 07:47 AM
Nadal 2008 is equal to Roger 2009

NDFM
10-04-2012, 07:57 AM
Nadal 2008 is equal to Roger 2009

i hope that's a good thing then, they both achieved great things in those respective years

TMF
10-04-2012, 08:17 AM
i hope that's a good thing then, they both achieved great things in those respective years

Yes, nadal won his 1st hc slam + gold medal. Fed won a career slam + broke Pete's 14 slam record.

10is
10-04-2012, 10:18 AM
Federer's 2006.

But I don't think 2007 was his second best. 2004 was a bit better despite losing earlier in RG and in 2005 he was playing at his best, although ironically he won one less slam that year and didn't win the TMC.

Exactly my thoughts as well! His ankle cost him that 2005 TMC Final. :(

Gonzo_style
10-04-2012, 11:27 AM
Exactly my thoughts as well! His ankle cost him that 2005 TMC Final. :(

Yeah, Nalbandian never beat him before that match:mad: Give him some credit, he played incredible on TMC 2005!

Gonzo_style
10-04-2012, 11:30 AM
Yes, nadal won his 1st hc slam + gold medal. Fed won a career slam + broke Pete's 14 slam record.

He won Wimbledon

10is
10-04-2012, 05:55 PM
Yeah, Nalbandian never beat him before that match:mad: Give him some credit, he played incredible on TMC 2005!

I give credit where credit is due. As much as I like Nalbadian, he would not have won the final if Federer's recently healed wonky ankle had not started to trouble and and seriously hamper his movement during the last couple of sets.