View Single Post
Old 10-02-2012, 11:37 AM   #37
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 18,477

Originally Posted by TMF View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote