View Single Post
Old 03-04-2013, 08:19 AM   #47
Talk Tennis Guru
TMF's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,407

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
Doesn't matter. If every top 200 tennis player except John Isner disappeared off the face of the Earth and John Isner started winning everything left right and center would you look at his winning % and consistency and say he's had the greatest season of all time? NO, because his opponents aren't as good as if the top 200 players didn't disappear.
But for a player to play some 90 matches with a 90+ winning % and not winning slam(s) is highly unlikely. When you win such a high percentage, you're basically ranked #1 or at least #2. How many player never won a slam by playing a lot of tennis with a 90+ winning percentage? For Isner, he's not in that league, and I say he's likely to win a slam than having a season with 90+ winning %.

Originally Posted by The_Order View Post
This is my point (although not to that extreme) JMac and Connors and whoever else you want to include are not as good competition as Federer and Nadal. So therefore Novak beating them consistently is more impressive.
Then that should also applies to Laver in 69, but you're willing to accept Laver's 69 as the greatest season. Mac/Connors were well after Laver's time, so laver's season shouldn't be ranked #1 if level of competition is included. Frankly I believe tennis gets stronger over the decades, but the experts are ranking the best season base on achievements, domination, and all the stats. They don't include level of competition/strength of the field.
Federer > Davydenko > Nadal > Federer
Nadalgaenger: "Djokovic is clearly better than Pete"
TMF is offline   Reply With Quote