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

[CDestroyer]

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.

[NadalAgassi]

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.

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.

[PrinceMoron]

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.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by 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.

This ^.

Nicely framed.

[timnz]

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.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

Win/loss record...yes, Mac takes this one.

But Nole won 3 slams to 2 for Mac. OTOH, Mac won the Year End Champion but Nole still has a shot(not that much). If he doesn't win, it's a tough call to who has a better year.

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

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Djokovic's 2011 now has to clearly rank behind the 3 greatest sesons in the Open Era- Laver's 1969, McEnroe's 1984, and Connors's 1974. Probably even behind Federer's 2006 now, so at best only the 5th best season in the Open Era.

Yeah¡ and I´d add Borg´s 1978 season: Rome,Roland Garros,Wimbly and finalist at the US Open¡

[urban]

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.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by joe sch

Nope ... Not even a grand slam so cant be the best season in "tennis history". Rod Laver won the grand slam in 1969 which IMO should be the greatest tennis season in "open tennis history". Its sad that even our modern champions do not seem to remember history. I guess these guys greatest season definition has more to do with percentage of matches won than winning all the majors in the same season ?

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.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Chopin

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.

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.

[jean pierre]

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.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

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.

Borg never won 3 slams per year.

Yes, 1974 Connors belong in the conversation.

Originally Posted by kiki

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

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

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

Originally Posted by TMF

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.

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.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

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.

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.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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 !

[urban]

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..

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

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 !

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.

[piece]

Originally Posted by urban

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..

How much better, exactly?

[vllaznia]

Originally Posted by piece

How much better, exactly?

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.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

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.

Originally Posted by _maxi

offtopic: your signature is only 50% truth.