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

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Unfortunately, I believe the answer is yes.

Djokovic's 2011 season is certainly, definitely, manifestly not greatest season in tennis history.

A number of tennis seasons are superior to Djokovic's 2011 but it was still a great year for Novak. Hopefully the other top players recover from their injuries to start the new tennis season healthy.

Here's a big question, I will eliminate Laver, Borg and Federer from discussions because it causes too many controversies but aside from them, what season is the best in the tennis open era?

McEnroe, Hoad, Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall, Connors, Vilas, Rosewall, Sampras, Agassi are candidates. I think for average level of play I would go with McEnroe in 1984. Connors in 1974 with three majors is impressive too. Rosewall's best years came before the open era in 1962 and 1963. While Wilander won three majors he also lost a lot in 1988.

[5555]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Unfortunately, I believe the answer is yes.

So, it's your opinion.

Originally Posted by pc1

A number of tennis seasons are superior to Djokovic's 2011.

Is it opinion or fact?

[vllaznia]

Originally Posted by 5555

So, it's your opinion.

Is it opinion or fact?

Its a fact, as an example Mcenroe in 1984 had 82-3 win-loss ratio which is much better than 70-6 of Djokovic's, is this fact good enough for you?

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by vllaznia

Its a fact, as an example Mcenroe in 1984 had 82-3 win-loss ratio which is much better than 70-6 of Djokovic's, is this fact good enough for you?

Heh, more accurately, it's an opinion that many quantitative facts support. On the other hand, there is are no facts which support Djoko's season being the best. It's not even on the table at this point. In terms of match record, not just Mcenroe, but Connors, Federer, Lendl, Borg, have all gone past Djoko now.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Datacipher

Heh, more accurately, it's an opinion that many quantitative facts support. On the other hand, there is are no facts which support Djoko's season being the best. It's not even on the table at this point. In terms of match record, not just Mcenroe, but Connors, Federer, Lendl, Borg, have all gone past Djoko now.

Well, I guess it's still in the realm of opinion, but the mathematical evidence is pushing us toward calling it a fact.

Indeed, I wonder if any "best" can ever be an absolute fact.?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by 5555

So, it's your opinion.

Is it opinion or fact?

Opinion of course and I should have wrote that but I would think by the ways many of us value tennis accomplishments that many would agree with me. In terms of majors Djokovic has three, in terms of winning percentage a number of players are better. In terms of winning matches many are better.

Don't get me wrong I was rooting for Djokovic to go unbeaten and win the Grand Slam considering how he started out. But his play at the end of the year is disappointing. It's not his fault because he was injured.

A high winning percentage is hard to sustain is you play a lot of matches. The wear and tear causes a lot of injuries. That's why I find it incredible that some of the players of the past like Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez and Borg could do so well despite playing so much. Many played with injuries. Even recently a player like Vilas in 1977 played an incredible amount of matches but won two majors and a huge amount of tournaments. I believe Vilas played around 150 matches that year.

Edit-According to an article on the ATP website Vilas was 145-14 in 1977.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...rmo-Vilas.aspx

Here's a sample of Vilas' play in 1977 against Jimmy Connors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLKV-...eature=related

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

Edit-According to an article on the ATP website Vilas was 145-14 in 1977.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...rmo-Vilas.aspx

"Among his souvenirs [in 1977] were an Open Era winning streak record of 46 matches and the French and U.S. titles. His streak, begun after Wimbledon, was stopped at Aix-en-Provence in September by Ilie Nastase, who used one of the controversial "spaghetti" rackets that produced weird strokes and bounces. Vilas quit in disgust; such rackets were shortly banned."

Because Nastase's "spaghetti" racquet (leave it to Nasty to utilize such trash) was shortly thereafter banned as illegal, I believe that the record books should be re-written to ignore this loss.

If you leave out the Nastase match (at Aix en Provence, France; 26 September), then Vilas won 73 matches in a row before losing in a Round Robin walkover to Eddie Dibbs at the Masters in NYC in January 1978.

[hoodjem]

By the way, I am curious as to exactly whom Djokovic lost to this year.

1. Federer (French Open)
2. Murray (Cincinnati)
3. Del Potro (Davis Cup; 9-16)
4. Nishikori (Basel)
5. Ferrer (London)
6. Tipsarevic (London)

[Devilito]

you cant run 90m of the 100m dash in record time, then give up at the end and convince people that if you had finished the race you'd hold the world record.

Djokovic end of season indoor run was so pathetic that it marred his year. While still an amazing year i can't call it the greatest season ever while he gives up at the finish line because he's content with what he's accomplished already. A real champion pushes to the finish. I can be sympathetic if he's injured but too bad so sad.

[newmark401]

Originally Posted by timnz

Basically it comes down the WTF whether or not Djokovic's record is even in discussion this year. If he doesn't win that means that he will likely add 1 to 2 losses to his 6 loses this year. That will make 6 losses. Now if that is the case, his win/loss record is far behind Federer 2006. At the moment his Grand Slam record is behind Federer's 2006 (Federer got to all 4 GS finals, Djokovic didn't). He will have won about 15 less matches as well. And Federer's 4 Masters + WFT > 5 Masters for Djokovic. So hard to think of what criteria people would even discuss this season as being the best ever.
(The only thing would be perhaps would be being consistent winner over the number 2 player)

Good points. I think the conclusion to be drawn is that most people have short memories and/or are biased or simply lack the facts.

[Eternity]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

By the way, I am curious as to exactly who Djokovic lost to this year.

1. Federer (French Open)
2. Murray (Cincinnati)
3. Del Potro (Davis Cup; 9-16)
4. Nishikori (Basel)
5. Tsonga (Paris)
6. Ferrer (London)
7. Tipsarevic (London)

Scratch Tsonga, Novak withdrew from Paris before playing that match. You got the rest right. Novak's W/L record is 70-6.

[Datacipher]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Well, I guess it's still in the realm of opinion, but the mathematical evidence is pushing us toward calling it a fact.

Indeed, I wonder if any "best" can ever be an absolute fact.?

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?

[storypeddler]

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.

[urban]

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.

[DMan]

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.

Originally Posted by pc1

A number of tennis seasons are superior to Djokovic's 2011 but it was still a great year for Novak. Hopefully the other top players recover from their injuries to start the new tennis season healthy.

Here's a big question, I will eliminate Laver, Borg and Federer from discussions because it causes too many controversies but aside from them, what season is the best in the tennis open era?

McEnroe, Hoad, Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall, Connors, Vilas, Rosewall, Sampras, Agassi are candidates. I think for average level of play I would go with McEnroe in 1984. Connors in 1974 with three majors is impressive too. Rosewall's best years came before the open era in 1962 and 1963. While Wilander won three majors he also lost a lot in 1988.

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.

[5555]

Originally Posted by DMan

SO while maybe it looked like Djoker's year was greatest ever.....turned out it wasn't.

Is it opinion or fact?

Originally Posted by Datacipher

The OP is, I am hoping, a child

No, I'm not a child. I'm 44 years old.

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!

I have no problem if somebody has an opinion that differs. I have problem if somebody is stating opinions as if they were facts.

5555, why don't you tell us on what you based your assessment of Djoko's season?

My assessment? What did I say?

Originally Posted by pc1

Opinion of course and I should have wrote that

So, it's opinion.

Originally Posted by vllaznia

Its a fact, as an example Mcenroe in 1984 had 82-3 win-loss ratio which is much better than 70-6 of Djokovic's, is this fact good enough for you?

Is it fact that "statistically best season in history" translates as "best season in history"?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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.

[Devilito]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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.

[Nadal_Power]

Originally Posted by Devilito

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.

Simple as that