Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   General Pro Player Discussion (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13)
-   -   Why did expert Commentators call Djokovic's 2011 best open era season ever? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=456517)

timnz 03-03-2013 08:14 PM

Why did expert Commentators call Djokovic's 2011 best open era season ever?
 
Djokovic had this incredibly good season in 2011. But when you compare it to other open era seasons, it shows up as very good, but is far from unique:


# Player Matches Year
1 Björn Borg (Sweden) 49 1978
2 Björn Borg (Sweden) 48 1979–80
3 Guillermo Vilas (Argentina) 46 1977
4 Ivan Lendl (Czechoslovakia) 44 1981–82
5 Novak Djokovic (Serbia) 43 2010–11
6 John McEnroe (U.S.) 42 1984
7 Roger Federer (Switzerland) 41 2006–07
8 Thomas Muster (Austria) 35 1995
= Roger Federer (Switzerland) 35 2005
10 Rafael Nadal (Spain) 32 2008

So it was the fifth best consecutive match win season.

How about winning percentage in the season? I read somewhere it was around 10th in the open era? (Please can you verify someone?)

So why were people like Becker and McEnroe saying it was the best open era season ever?

My theory is that people have very short memories in tennis. People often see the current number 1 as 'the best ever' because they assume that tennis players are getting better all the time (this is unfounded and never has been proven).

I think though Djokovic's 2011 was unique in the way he dominated the number 2 and 3 players throughout the season with many wins and only 1 loss. But then again, how was Borg doing against Connors in 1978-1980 period?

sportsfan1 03-03-2013 08:18 PM

Commentators probably have it in their job description to talk up and sell whatever's going on - phrases like "best ever", "great match" etc are used very liberally.

Polaris 03-03-2013 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 7249523)
My theory is that people have very short memories in tennis.

In tennis, as in most other things, this is true and is probably the most important factor. But, other than that, the people in the sports media also have an agenda - to attract attention, increase viewership, etc.

TMF 03-03-2013 08:25 PM

timnz,
Here's the top 10 winning percentage.


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

veroniquem 03-03-2013 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 7249523)
Djokovic had this incredibly good season in 2011. But when you compare it to other open era seasons, it shows up as very good, but is far from unique:


# Player Matches Year
1 Björn Borg (Sweden) 49 1978
2 Björn Borg (Sweden) 48 1979–80
3 Guillermo Vilas (Argentina) 46 1977
4 Ivan Lendl (Czechoslovakia) 44 1981–82
5 Novak Djokovic (Serbia) 43 2010–11
6 John McEnroe (U.S.) 42 1984
7 Roger Federer (Switzerland) 41 2006–07
8 Thomas Muster (Austria) 35 1995
= Roger Federer (Switzerland) 35 2005
10 Rafael Nadal (Spain) 32 2008

So it was the fifth best consecutive match win season.

How about winning percentage in the season?

1. Bjorn Borg .827
2. Rafael Nadal .826
3. Jimmy Connors .818
4. Ivan Lendl .818
5. John McEnroe .815
6. Roger Federer .810
7. Rod Laver .795
8. Novak Djokovic .775
9. Pete Sampras .774
10. Boris Becker .769

So it was the 8th best winning percentage.

So why were people like Becker and McEnroe saying it was the best open era season ever?

?


It's not about winning % or # of matches won. Those are good indicators of consistency, not brilliance. It's about titles won, big ones. It's about winning 2 slams + 3 masters on hard court (including the double IW/Miami) AND winning the slam on grass AND winning 2 masters on clay. It's about making only finals except for 1 semi between AO and USO. That's what it's about and that's why Djoko's stretch was particularly remarkable. Of course other players have had remarkable stretches for other reasons but Djoko's is definitely up there.

timnz 03-03-2013 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by veroniquem (Post 7249538)
It's not about winning % or # of matches won. Those are good indicators of consistency, not brilliance. It's about titles won, big ones. It's about winning 2 slams + 3 masters on hard court (including the double IW/Miami) AND winning the slam on grass AND winning 2 masters on clay. It's about making only finals except for 1 semi between AO and USO. That's what it's about and that's why Djoko's stretch was particularly remarkable. Of course other players have had remarkable stretches for other reasons but Djoko's is definitely up there.

An exceptional season no doubt. He was completely in the zone. But any better than Borg's 1978, 1979 or 1980? One could argue for Borg.

I just wonder when people look at his 2011 and reflect on that it was the 5th best in consecutive matches and the 10th best percentage.....well, perhaps it shouldn't be talked about as the best.

TMF 03-03-2013 08:31 PM

Top 10 greatest seasons

1. Rod Laver, 1969 ("Grand Slam" - all 4 majors, Win-Loss 103-16 record)
2. Roger Federer, 2006 (3 Grand Slam titles, 92-5 record)
3. Novak Djokovic, 2011 (3 Grand Slams titles, 70-6 record)
4. John McEnroe, 1984 (2 Grand Slams titles, 82-3 record)
5. Jimmy Connors, 1974 (3 Grand Slam titles, 93-4 record)
6. Roger Federer, 2007 (3 Grand Slam titles)
7. Rafael Nadal, 2010 (3 Grand Slam titles)
8. Mats Wilander, 1988 (3 Grand Slam titles)
9. John McEnroe, 1981 (2 Grand Slam titles, Davis Cup)
10. Bjorn Borg, 1979 (2 Grand Slam titles, 84-6 record)

http://timelesstennis.blogspot.com/2...s-seasons.html

The_Order 03-03-2013 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 7249542)
An exceptional season no doubt. He was completely in the zone. But any better than Borg's 1978, 1979 or 1980? One could argue for Borg.

I just wonder when people look at his 2011 and reflect on that it was the 5th best in consecutive matches and the 10th best percentage.....well, perhaps it shouldn't be talked about as the best.

He was consistently beating players who had won 16 and 10 majors respectively at the time. That's why.

TMF 03-03-2013 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Order (Post 7249546)
He was consistently beating players who had won 16 and 10 majors respectively at the time. That's why.

But he stop showing up after the USO.

Indio 03-03-2013 08:36 PM

But then again, how was Borg doing against Connors in 1978-1980 period?[/quote]

Borg's record versus Connors:

73-76: 1-6
77-78: 4-2
79-81: 10-0, including 6-0 in 1979 and 2-0 in each of the following years

Here's his record versus McEnroe:

1978: 0-1
1979: 4-2
1980: 3-1
1981: 0-3

In 1979-80, Borg went 15-3 versus the two of them, very little, if any, on clay.

The_Order 03-03-2013 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF (Post 7249543)
Top 10 greatest seasons

1. Rod Laver, 1969 ("Grand Slam" - all 4 majors, Win-Loss 103-16 record)
2. Roger Federer, 2006 (3 Grand Slam titles, 92-5 record)
3. Novak Djokovic, 2011 (3 Grand Slams titles, 70-6 record)
4. John McEnroe, 1984 (2 Grand Slams titles, 82-3 record)
5. Jimmy Connors, 1974 (3 Grand Slam titles, 93-4 record)
6. Roger Federer, 2007 (3 Grand Slam titles)
7. Rafael Nadal, 2010 (3 Grand Slam titles)
8. Mats Wilander, 1988 (3 Grand Slam titles)
9. John McEnroe, 1981 (2 Grand Slam titles, Davis Cup)
10. Bjorn Borg, 1979 (2 Grand Slam titles, 84-6 record)

http://timelesstennis.blogspot.com/2...s-seasons.html

LOL putting Rafa's 3 slams on the same level as others. He won his on 3 DIFFERENT surfaces and IN A ROW. Just because Rafa didn't win as much at the mickey mouse tournaments it's put as 7th? What a joke.

Also, Roger's 2006 was definitely not > Novak's 2011. Novak won titles on EVERY surface and did so by beating Rafa and Fed consistently. These 2 players had won 16 and 10 majors at the time.

It should be Laver at #1 with his GRAND slam (don't get why everyone calls each slam a grand slam it's just wrong) then Novak at #2 and Nadal at #3 and Fed's 2006 at #4. If Fed had won a clay Masters in 2006 then he'd be at #2 but he repeatedly lost to Nadal on clay, whereas Novak was able to beat Rafa and take 2 of the clay masters.

And ranking Fed's 2007 above Nadal's 2010 makes whoever put this list together lose all credibility because he's clearly a *******.

The_Order 03-03-2013 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF (Post 7249548)
But he stop showing up after the USO.

Oh, so because he didn't win Basel, Paris and WTF his season is not as good as Borg's best who never won USO?

LOL. It is the second best season of all time after Laver's 1969.

timnz 03-03-2013 09:14 PM

Borg Djokovic
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Order (Post 7249602)
Oh, so because he didn't win Basel, Paris and WTF his season is not as good as Borg's best who never won USO?

LOL. It is the second best season of all time after Laver's 1969.

By what criteria? Again, it was a marvelous season. Yes, Borg didn't win the USO, but Djokovic didn't win the French.

TMF 03-03-2013 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Order (Post 7249568)
LOL putting Rafa's 3 slams on the same level as others. He won his on 3 DIFFERENT surfaces and IN A ROW. Just because Rafa didn't win as much at the mickey mouse tournaments it's put as 7th? What a joke.

Also, Roger's 2006 was definitely not > Novak's 2011. Novak won titles on EVERY surface and did so by beating Rafa and Fed consistently. These 2 players had won 16 and 10 majors at the time.

It should be Laver at #1 with his GRAND slam (don't get why everyone calls each slam a grand slam it's just wrong) then Novak at #2 and Nadal at #3 and Fed's 2006 at #4. If Fed had won a clay Masters in 2006 then he'd be at #2 but he repeatedly lost to Nadal on clay, whereas Novak was able to beat Rafa and take 2 of the clay masters.

And ranking Fed's 2007 above Nadal's 2010 makes whoever put this list together lose all credibility because he's clearly a *******.

But Nadal only won 7 titles. You discredit for Federer not winnin clay in 2006, but ignoring Nadal won only clay MS. Fed won 4 to Nadal 3 MS.

Nadal winning % was below 90 while Fed, Mac, Nole, Connors are above 90%.

Nadal also failed to win the 5th most important title(WTF), which you conveniently ignore Fed won both in 2006 and 2007.

Yes, Nadal won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces, but never made all four slam finals(Fed did in 2006).

The_Order 03-03-2013 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 7249609)
By what criteria? Again, it was a marvelous season. Yes, Borg didn't win the USO, but Djokovic didn't win the French.

And Borg didn't win the AO. And Borg wasn't consistently beating players who had majors in the double digits.

veroniquem 03-03-2013 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timnz (Post 7249542)
An exceptional season no doubt. He was completely in the zone. But any better than Borg's 1978, 1979 or 1980? One could argue for Borg.

.

No, one can't. Borg never won the USO and never won 3 slams in a season.

TMF 03-03-2013 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Order (Post 7249602)
Oh, so because he didn't win Basel, Paris and WTF his season is not as good as Borg's best who never won USO?

LOL. It is the second best season of all time after Laver's 1969.

Tennis doesn't end in September, but it covers the entire year. You just simply can't ignore indoor season.

MonkeyBoy 03-03-2013 09:23 PM

Winning 5 masters in one year was mighty impressive. Several have done 3 slams in one year, but no ones ever done that.

TMF 03-03-2013 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Order (Post 7249616)
And Borg didn't win the AO. And Borg wasn't consistently beating players who had majors in the double digits.

Borg had a 84-6 win/loss records(93%), which ranked #5 highest winning % of all time. That's pretty consistent and domination.

The_Order 03-03-2013 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMF (Post 7249614)
But Nadal only won 7 titles. You discredit for Federer not winnin clay in 2006, but ignoring Nadal won only clay MS. Fed won 4 to Nadal 3 MS.

Nadal winning % was below 90 while Fed, Mac, Nole, Connors are above 90%.

Nadal also failed to win the 5th most important title(WTF), which you conveniently ignore Fed won both in 2006 and 2007.

Yes, Nadal won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces, but never made all four slam finals(Fed did in 2006).

But Nadal made a unique achievement in 2010, one that has never been done before because of the degree of difficulty. Players have made all 4 finals before, and there was one guy who won them all in the open era.

Nobody has won 3 majors in a row on 3 different surfaces. Federer didn't get a single clay title in 2006 and his mickey mouse wins in basel, doha, tokyo and halle count for nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I ignore that Nadal only won clay masters in 2010 because he won MAJORS on HC and grass, so that's more important. Fed not only didn't win masters on clay he didn't win a major on clay either.


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:21 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse