Becker: Djokovic's 2011 is the greatest season in tennis history

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 5555, Nov 19, 2011.

  1. Eternity

    Eternity Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Messages:
    562
    Location:
    Australia
    Scratch Tsonga, Novak withdrew from Paris before playing that match. You got the rest right. Novak's W/L record is 70-6.
     
    #51
  2. Datacipher

    Datacipher Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,611
    No, that is the root of the problem. "Best" is a vague and subjective term, so it will depend entirely on what parameters each person uses to evalute it.

    The OP is, I am hoping, a child, and he/she started a thread with a subjective term, and then, if somebody has an opinion that differs, they simply say: that's an opinion, not fact! It's nonsensical reasoning, and a waste of time.

    5555, why don't you tell us on what you based your assessment of Djoko's season?
     
    #52
  3. storypeddler

    storypeddler Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    565
    Location:
    Hickory, NC
    Becker and McEnroe notwithstanding, I disagree. Rod Laver TWICE (not once, but TWICE) won the calendar year Grand Slam...all four majors. Done. TWICE. Joker had a great year, but you can't have a better year than perfection. Sorry Boom-Boom and JohnnyMac---LAVER.
     
    #53
  4. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,377
    We should not get carried away by the most recent results. Djokovic's season is still a great season. The guy has consistently won all tournaments, big and small over a half year or three thirds of a year, across all kinds of surfaces. Since his Davis Cup win last year, he was on a high and stayed there. He not only won 3 majors, but dominated the Masters circuit as no other has done. To win Indian Wells and Miami or Madrid and Rome back to back against top opposition isn't easy and it takes its physical toll. His physical, stretching style is prone to injuries. His losses often came due to exhaustion or injuries, if i think of his loss to Murray at Cincy (after winning Canada) or his Davis Cup loss to Delpo, when he surprisingly came in to support his team. At the end of the seaon, he bowed to the ATP regulations and the lure of the bonus money, but who wouldn't? Maybe he should have scratched those late events, to preserve his win/ loss record. We shouldn't blame him too much for those losses, but better remember his great year.
     
    #54
  5. DMan

    DMan Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2007
    Messages:
    923
    Well, a tennis season is the WHOLE season. SO while maybe it looked like Djoker's year was greatest ever.....turned out it wasn't.
     
    #55
  6. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    If Agassi is a candidate then Djokovic and Nadal would have to be. Agassi never had a year that compares to Djokovic's 2011 or Nadal's 2010. Neither his 1995 or 1999 even come close. Nadal's 2008 is even probably superior to any year Agassi ever had. Actually Sampras never had a year that compares to Djokovic's 2011 or Nadal's 2010 either. Neither did Vilas, especialy as the French was a glorified exhibition in his best year. Neither did Rosewall or Hoad in the Open Era, neither even had a #1 year in the Open Era. Really an excess of needless names, if you are talking about potential the "best year" of the Open Era, not subjective arguments about careers or peak levels of play.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 28, 2011
    #56
  7. 5555

    5555 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,755
    Location:
    London
    Is it opinion or fact?
    No, I'm not a child. I'm 44 years old.
    I have no problem if somebody has an opinion that differs. I have problem if somebody is stating opinions as if they were facts.
    My assessment? What did I say?
    So, it's opinion.
    Is it fact that "statistically best season in history" translates as "best season in history"?
     
    #57
  8. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    I made a mistake and wrote Agassi. I was thinking of the Sampras/Agassi rivalry and wrote Andre by accident. Thanks for pointing that out. And Rosewall's best year was 1962 or 1963 which would qualify but as you pointed out, it wasn't the Open Era.

    Federer should have been the name after Sampras.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2011
    #58
  9. Devilito

    Devilito Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,266
    It’s a lot easier to have a dominant season now when all the surfaces play a lot closer to each other and all the tennis players play the same baseline game. You can’t compare dominance now with dominance in the 90s. If you’re number 1 in the world now chances are you’re going to be a threat on any surface against any opponent. In the 90s you might be weaker on clay/grass / slow courts / fast courts. You might play better against grinders or serve and volleyers. Nobody has those concerns anymore. While being dominant is still a huge feat mentally, in terms of tennis skill it’s not nearly as impressive.
     
    #59
  10. Nadal_Power

    Nadal_Power Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    506
    Simple as that
     
    #60
  11. CDestroyer

    CDestroyer Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,354
    IMO Becker spoke a few weeks too soon. If Djoko could have taken the 2011 WTF as well then he would have had the greatest season ever.

    But as all of the chips fell it seems that some of Feds seasons surpassed Djokos season a bit.
     
    #61
  12. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I definitely agree with all of this. I was simply pointing out by statistics and actual results which determine what is considered the "greatest season(s)" (which it is clear was the discussion point) many of the ones listed never had a season to compare to Nadal or Djokovic's best, let alone Federer's. Yes it is an awful lot easier to dominate today and post a season like that today though. Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic have all capatilized.
     
    #62
  13. PrinceMoron

    PrinceMoron Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,232
    Are there any Germans out there who don't think Becker is a fool? Just what all the Germans I know say about Becker is really not positive at all. He seems popular in the UK and does a lot of tv work, but maybe people who speak German as an L1 know something we don't.
     
    #63
  14. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,499
    This ^.

    Nicely framed.
     
    #64
  15. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,650
    Okay in summary

    1/ Best season is not solely determined by win loss record. It is just one factor. Djokovic's win-loss record is about the 5th best in the open era behind McEnroe 1984, Connors 1974, Federer 2005, Federer 2006

    2/ Best season is mostly determined by achievement ie top titles won.

    Djokovic's season certainly rates - I would place it around 3rd best in Open era - behind Laver's 1969 and Federer's 2006 (Federer won one less Masters 1000 but he won the WTF which is more important - 4 Masters 1000 + WTF > 5 Masters 1000; plus Federer did better in the Slams and won more titles overall).

    Hence, Djokovic's season probably rates around the 4th or 5th best in the Open era. Well done - fantastic year.
     
    #65
  16. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Did ya heard about a certain Bjorn Borg? Djokovic is a first year school compared to him... ah¡ Jimmy Connors won 3 out of 4 GS titles in 1974...so, some old boys did what Djokovic has done this year.

    Of course, Rod Laver GS remains the greatest feat achieved...even for *******s
     
    #66
  17. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Yeah¡ and I´d add Borg´s 1978 season: Rome,Roland Garros,Wimbly and finalist at the US Open¡
     
    #67
  18. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,377
    Agree with kiki. The seasons of Borg especially 1978 and 1979 are often a bit overlooked. Numerically his 1980 with the New York Masters included in January, may look better at first sight, but for sheer dominance his end 70s years were incredible. While Jimbo in 1974 and Mac in 1984 profitated a bit from a generation change respectively, Borg had solid opposition in those years. His European triple in 1978 was exceptional, as were his nil set lost performances. With the AO out of side, his only blemish was New York, but only a few have conquered Paris, London and New York in one season.
     
    #68
  19. Chopin

    Chopin Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2004
    Messages:
    4,109
    Location:
    St. John, USVI
    No, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all had "greater" seasons than Laver's '69 season. Laver's '69 season was fine, but it was from another era where the Australian Open was smaller than many Masters Series titles and three out of four slams were played on grass. There's no comparison, what Federer, Nadal and Djokvoic have done winning three slams in a year is more impressive than what Laver did.

    Mac and Becker understand this. Laver was a fine player in his day, but he was playing in an era much weaker than today. Laver would be a top 50 player today, maybe crack the top 20, but he'd never be a slam champion.
     
    #69
  20. timnz

    timnz Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,650
    Your basing this on what evidence? Throughout tennis history top players with long playing lives have done well against the younger competition late in their careers eg connors, pancho gonzales, agassi. That tells me that at the top level things are not hugely better.

    There the myth that the cuurent player is so much stronger, fiitter and faster than the players of old -never substatinated with any evidence. The mile record hasnt improved for 12 years and the 100 metres record has only improved by a fraction of a second in 30 years -so we know that athletes arent much better.
     
    #70
  21. jean pierre

    jean pierre Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    793
    Don't forget Vilas 77 : won the French and the US Open, finalist AO, won 16 tournaments (record), won 46 matches consecutively (record). Not bad.
     
    #71
  22. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    Borg never won 3 slams per year.

    Yes, 1974 Connors belong in the conversation.

    INCORRECT.

    Fed fans have Laver 1969 below Fed's 2006, 2004 and 2007. And other fans don't have Laver at the top either. Stop making up story.
     
    #72
  23. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    Borg in 1979 won 21 tournaments, won way over 90% of his matches, won the French Open, Wimbledon, the Canadian Open (on hard court over John McEnroe in straight sets) and the Year End Masters. He destroyed players, not just beat them. And among them was Jimmy Connors with whom he defeated six times without a loss. The Australian really wasn't considered that important in those days. And a number of years that Borg had were very similiar in quality. Several of Borg's years also belong in the conversation. I could go into other statistical reasons but I feel this is more than enough for now. My personal opinion is that Borg's 1979 season is one of the great tennis seasons ever and also arguably the best ever.

    If we are talking about great all time seasons we have to look at some of Tilden's years in the 1920's also.
    Rosewall in 1962 or 1963.
    Laver in 1967 when he won the Pro Grand Slam.
    Connors in 1974 but strangely enough I feel Connors was a better player later for example in 1976. You can criticize Connors in 1974 for playing a portion of that year in the old Riordan circuit.
    Don Budge had a great year in 1938 when he won the Grand Slam but it was against a weak amateur field. Odds are he wouldn't have won the Grand Slam if he played against greats like Vines, Nusslein, Perry, Tilden and Cochet. His main rival von Cramm was imprisoned. So on paper that year of 1938 looks awesome for Budge but it really wasn't to me as impressive as one may think.
    Pancho Gonzalez had a number of great years but for Pro Majors his best was 1956 in which he took two of three Pro Majors and was unbeaten in two tours. His tour against Tony Trabert that finished that year in 1956 went for 101 matches of which Gonzalez won 74.
    Vilas in 1977 had a great year in which he won two majors with a 145-14 record.

    Among the Women there are so many impressive years.
    Many of Suzanne Lenglen years in the 1920's were unbelievable.
    Helen Wills didn't lose a match for years.
    Alice Marble was unbeaten in several years I believe in 1939 and 1940.
    Connolly in 1953 when she won the Grand Slam
    Margaret Court in 1970 when she won the Grand Slam and I believe around 20 tournaments. If memory serves I think 21 tournaments won out of 27 tournaments entered.
    Navratilova in several years from 1982 to 1986.
    Graf in 1988 when she won the Golden Slam but she also had a number of other dominant years.
    Seles in 1991 and 1992 with six majors during those years.
    Billie Jean King in 1972 with three majors won out of three entered.
    Evert in several years in the mid to late 1970's.

    While he didn't have the statistical year that the above men or women have had, the Nastase of 1973 was pretty fantastic also with a French Open title (without the loss of a set) and winning the year end Masters. He won 17 tournaments that year plus ten doubles titles. On a subjective note Nastase played a brand of tennis that was beautiful to see in its combination of touch and power. His mobility and anticipation was uncanny in those days.
     
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2011
    #73
  24. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Yes since ****s like yourself are stupid and delusional. All experts agree Laver's 1969 Grand Slam is superior to anything Federer ever achieved however.
     
    #74
  25. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    IF Fed fans and I were delusional like you we would have agreed with you believing Serena will end up with 20 slams by the end of 2013 !
    :oops:
     
    #75
  26. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,377
    Steve Tignor on Tennis magazine has made a list of great years in open tennis. I think, he rates Mac's 1981 over Borg's 1979, which i wouldn't do. As pc1 writes, Borg had great years at the end of the 70s. Only the lack of the AO, which was skipped by the top players then, makes it look not as impressive as some of the recent years. But in truth, Borg was way more dominant than Wilander in 1988 for example, and his win-loss percentages over 3-4 years were better than anything Federer did in his great years. Besides: Tignor seems to rate Djokovic's year third behind Laver 1969 and Federer 2006. I personally think, that Federer played better, more dominant and aggressive tennis in 2005, despite winning 2 majors instead of 3..
     
    #76
  27. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Considering it took a freak and life threatening injury (given the subsequent illness) for me to (probably) be wrong, one which you mocked and even issued racial insults and death threats amidst to the horror of all, it was an excellent prediction, far more reasonable than your various claims of stupidity.
     
    #77
  28. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    How much better, exactly?
     
    #78
  29. vllaznia

    vllaznia Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Messages:
    406
    Maybe he meant just only on clay, there is no way that Borg had a better win-loss ratio than Federer in the period 2004-2007.
     
    #79
  30. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    That is a lie. No one has ever said anything you stated above. LDVTennis have called you out for fabricating one's post, and even reported you to the moderator.

    Even your signature isn't even correct...you took my post out of context.
    _Maxi caught you for being dishonest.

    :oops:
     
    #80
  31. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    Will you kindly provide the data for this? I'm very interested....
     
    #81
  32. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    Top 10 Highest Season Winning Percentage

    1. John McEnroe (1984) .965 82–3
    2. Jimmy Connors (1974) .959 93–4
    3. Roger Federer (2005) .953 81–4
    4. Roger Federer (2006) .948 92–5

    5. Björn Borg (1979) .933 84–6
    6. Ivan Lendl (1986) .925 74–6
    7. Roger Federer (2004) .925 74–6
    8. Ivan Lendl (1985) .923 84–7
    9. Ivan Lendl (1982) .922 106–9
    10. Björn Borg (1980) .921 70–6
    Novak Djokovic (2011) 0.921 70-6


    I heard Borg has 4 years winning over 90%, but what year?

    I know Lendl has 5 years(a record).
     
    #82
  33. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    They missed 1977 and 1978 where Borg won over 90% also.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2011
    #83
  34. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    Are you suggesting Borg's winning percentage in '77 and '78 surpasses what was achieved (in terms of winning percentage) in some of the years on TMF's list?
     
    #84
  35. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece

    I see...so urban wasn't quite truthful with his statement...

    Have the heeztorians drooped so low as to present falsehoods as facts?
    Does their Fed hate run so deep?
     
    #85
  36. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,377
    Some should think twice about true and false facts. Not all list you find on the internet, are true or correct. This list above is certainly false, maybe made by Apex himself. Connors for example was 99-4 in 1974. Peter Bodo on Tennis online recently showed another false internet list, where Borg was listed with over 90% for 1977! In this list above, now suddenly he is given over 90% for 1979 and 1980. But this list isn't true neither. Following my stats, Borg had 5 years over 90 % win-loss percentage. With important invitational events, if you only count at least 8 men events, Borg was better than 84-6 in 1979, more like 105 or 110-6. Look at the draws of those invitational events, when Borg beat Connors, Mac, Vilas and other top players frequently in best of 5 matches. For 1978, the Collins Tennis history gives him 88-8 in official ATP tournaments, but with important invitationals he has over 100-8 wins for 1978. So better do a bit of research, before claiming on false stats.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
    #86
  37. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,377
    And speaking of the uncompleteness of this list above, lets take a look on Connors won lost record. Collins Tennis History gives Connors 84-7 for 1978 ATP play, which would be another over 90% season ( by the way:in 1976 he was 100-12, not bad either). Maybe some should read some books on tennis, not only internet stats, where anybody can put on his own lists.
     
    #87
  38. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    Yeah genius...I made that list, secretly sent it to TMF, told him to post it here so that I could quote his post...

    You got me...you're too smart for me...

    Btw, still waiting for data supporting your below statement:

    "and his win-loss percentages over 3-4 years were better than anything Federer did in his great years"

    I'm very curious which 3-4 seasons Borg had a winning percentage better than 95.3.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
    #88
  39. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    And of course, he would be bageled by Santoro.:roll:
     
    #89
  40. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Presuming that the statistics here are accurate (i.e. that the originator of this list was truthful), Federer obviously had three great winning years--up there with the very best, and thus is worthy of much respect and esteem. On a top-five list for one individual to have two spots, whereas ever other person has only one, is quite an achievement.

    I presume that in some of the years listed here the losses were sprinkled in sporadically among the wins. I believe that all the hype about Djokovic's year started before the French Open, when he was unbeaten. Combining a near-record unbeaten streak and a high win-loss percentage (and ultmately three majors) has, I believe, led to all the hyperbole.

    I retract what I said earlier, Djokovic's year was not sad or pathetic, it was pretty darn good. But tying for 10th does not make it the "greatest year in history."
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
    #90
  41. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,377
    Quite right, Hoodjem nobody is deniying that. But the list isn't accurate nor complete. I don't know, why writers like Bodo (in an article about Nole in the 900 club) came up with such problematic lists. As said, Connors 1974 was 99-4 for a .961 percentage. Borgs percentage in 1979 is actually higher than 93%, or 84-6, as the list above shows. To his 13 titles which the ATP counts today (they have already changed that stat thanks to guys like O& M) Borg won 8 additional invitational events. That would make the count 104-6 for 1979. And for a 4 year period , Borgs percentage is imo unsurpassed. Ditto for 5 years. At least, the guy calling himself TMF, who came up with this list, "heard" about Borgs finishing with 4 over 90% seasons, it were indeed 5.
    Bottom line is, and that was my point: Borg's 1977-1980 years are quite underrated today by writers like Steve Tignor. He puts recently Borg's 1979 behind Mac's 1981 or Wilander's 1988. I wouldn't do that. We should do more research, how the true records looked in the 70s and what the players activity was.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
    #91
  42. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,769
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Sorry for my dim-witted confusion. Are you saying that the list is not accurate and is incomplete?
     
    #92
  43. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    I think he means the list in not accurate and it is not complete.
     
    #93
  44. Li Ching Yuen

    Li Ching Yuen Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    6,989
    Very easy, Borg has never lost a match when not depressed and worn out.
     
    #94
  45. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    In case you missed my post urban:

     
    #95
  46. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    Aphex, I think you're getting upset over nothing. Why the big letters? Urban wasn't lying. Please don't accuse him of that.

    The answer to your large big red question is none but Borg did have a number of season with over 90% winning percentage.

    Aren't we trying to get more information? So how are we going to do that if this is going on?
     
    #96
  47. aphex

    aphex Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2008
    Messages:
    6,263
    Location:
    athens, greece
    Lol, I'm not upset...he just made a false statement, which I called him out on.
    He, then proceeded to "not notice" my post when he was asked for specifics.

    The big red letters had the purpose of drawing his attention to my post in case he really did miss it...

    PS. He was obviously lying. He made a statement which he knew to be false.
    His motive? I don't know...
     
    #97
  48. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    Actually the statement over a period of time doesn't seem incorrect and I don't believe he was lying. He's comparing Borg over a period of a number of years over Federer over a number of years if I read his statement correctly. He was not saying Borg's individual year is necessarily higher than anything in Federer's individual. This is how I interpret Urban's statement.

    I believe Borg over a five year period is better than Federer over any five consecutive year period. So yes Borg is superior to Federer over a period of five years for winning period I believe. If I recall Federer is at 90.7% and Borg is higher by a bit.

    Incidentally, just ask the man to explain his statement. Don't accuse a man of lying. And I don't think he was lying.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011
    #98
  49. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,369
    ^^^^
    I would appreciated if you post your list where you got your resources instead of calling my list is incorrect or incomplete. Just b/c you have your own resources doesn't mean your's are correct/accurate. And Collins isn't the only author who compiled these win/loss records, lol.

    Borg's 1974 was recorded as 93-4, if you find another site that say he's 99-4 doesn't mean that is an absolute correct. There could be a reason for the discrepancy, we don't know.
     
    #99
  50. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,465
    First of all it's Connors that's 99-4 and check the Collins book and other sources. And yes I do believe my sources are correct.

    It's frankly getting tiring with everyone arguing over these trivial issues. We are suppose to help each other, not argue whether it's a 91.1 percentage or 90.1 percentage.

    Please resolve all this issues. Please.

    Honestly I find this stuff so petty. If you want to believe Connors was 93-4 so be it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2011

Share This Page