The 10 Greatest Men's Seasons

[aphex]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Rod Laver lost in 1969 to:

Tony Roche in Sydney
Tony Roche in Auckland
Tony Roche in Miami
Tony Roche in Oakland
John Newcombe at Queen's Club
Raymond Moore in Los Angeles
Stan Smith in Las Vegas
Marty Riessen in Cologne
Fred Stolle in Stockholm

That's 6 different opponents. There may be others.

I thought he lost 15 or 16 times...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by aphex

I thought he lost 15 or 16 times...

He probably did. The tour was a lot more chaotic in those days, not like now where there's a universal order to the tour.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by aphex

I thought he lost 15 or 16 times...

Originally Posted by Mustard

He probably did. The tour was a lot more chaotic in those days, not like now where there's a universal order to the tour.

According to the old-timers in here, they said he lost 16 times.

[aphex]

Originally Posted by TMF

According to the old-timers in here, they said he lost 16 times.

Hmmm...not as dominant as people would have you believe then...

I guess in terms of pure dominance over contemporaries, Federer comes second only to Tilden really...

[Mustard]

Laver was still a mile ahead of the opposition in 1969, because he always delivered when it mattered most. He held all 4 majors at the same time and won them all in the same calendar year, neither of which has been done since.

[Steve132]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The years listed were all rightfully better than Federer's 2004. Federer won 3 slams but had alot of horrible showings in significant events in 2004. 3rd round loss at the Olympics ,3rd round loss at the French, 1st round loss in Cincinnati, 2nd or 3rd round loss in Rome.

Um .... most sane observers would agree that the majors and the YEC are, in fact, the five most important events in the tennis year. Federer in 2004 won three majors and the YEC. He also won three Masters events (Indian Wells, Hamburg and Toronto) and was unbeaten (18-0) against top ten players. His record for the year was 74-6 with 11 titles.

Do you really want to compare Federer 2004 with, say, Wilander 1988? Wilander also won three majors, but only two Masters events and no YEC. He finished the year at 53-11 with 6 titles and far more bad losses (however defined ) than Federer did. Why should his year be considered better than Federer's 2004?

Your bias is showing.

[aphex]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Laver was still a mile ahead of the opposition in 1969, because he always delivered when it mattered most. He held all 4 majors at the same time and won them all in the same calendar year, neither of which has been done since.

You don't say? He did both? What a revelation!

Not very dominant though...maybe luck played a small part?

Had there even existed the concept of the Grand Slam during his time, Tilden would have about 5-6 of them. A far superior player in his era compared to Laver.

How Lavertards mindlessly claim Rodney is the goat is quite pathetic.

[ZeroSkid]

Originally Posted by Netzroller

I know some people will call me dumb for it but I would put Federer's 2006 over Lavers 69. The level of the sport was just so much higher, the Slams were played on 3 different surfaces as opposed to 2 (3*grass and 1*clay) and Federer had a much higher winning percentage.

In Fed`s year there were more surfaces, and Federer had a much better record than Laver that year BUT Laver did win all 4 slams, it`s not like he chooses the surfaces, so Laver`s year has to be put ahead of Rogers because grand slams are more important than anything else in tennis

[Mustard]

"Luck" would have played a far less part in the era of wooden racquets than it has in subsequent eras. You had to think a lot more and the maximum power you could hit in your shots was a hell of a lot less back in Laver's prime.

[Mustard]

What's annoying, though, is that Connors was prevented from having the chance of winning the calendar year Grand Slam by a load of politics. Had Connors played and won the French Open in 1974, that has to be a serious candidate for the best year in men's tennis history, but he was denied the opportunity.

[aphex]

Originally Posted by Mustard

What's annoying, though, is that Connors was prevented from having the chance of winning the calendar year Grand Slam by a load of politics. Had Connors played and won the French Open in 1974, that has to be a serious candidate for the best year in men's tennis history, but he was denied the opportunity.

Didn't Connors lose many matches in '74?

By most accounts Tilden lost 1 (unimportant) match in 1923 and 1924, combined.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Steve132

Um .... most sane observers would agree that the majors and the YEC are, in fact, the five most important events in the tennis year. Federer in 2004 won three majors and the YEC. He also won three Masters events (Indian Wells, Hamburg and Toronto) and was unbeaten (18-0) against top ten players. He record for the year was 74-6 with 11 titles.

Do you really want to compare Federer 2004 with, say, Wilander 1988? Wilander also won three majors, but only two Masters events and no YEC. He finished the year at 53-11 with 6 titles and far more bad losses (however defined ) than Federer did. Why should his year be considered better than Federer's 2004?

Your bias is showing.

No doubt Fed 2004 is better than Wilander 1988, and I believe the author don't want to have too many Fed's name in the top ten list.

NadalAgassi needs to crawl back to his cave and stop trolling with his imbecilic posts. It's not even funny.

[Talker]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Laver was still a mile ahead of the opposition in 1969, because he always delivered when it mattered most. He held all 4 majors at the same time and won them all in the same calendar year, neither of which has been done since.

How did he lose 16 times then.

The best year shouldn't have that many losses, all four slams is very important only if the rest of the important stats are among the best.

He won 18 tournaments IIRC but did not win 16.
Winning just over half of tournaments entered which is very good and includes CYGS but look at the other 'best' years.
Mac only lost 3 tournaments of all he played in his best year for instance.

This shows Laver's level wasn't that high all year, not good enough for all time best year IMO.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by aphex

Didn't Connors lose many matches in '74?.

Connors lost 4 matches in 1974:

to Karl Meiler in the final of Omaha
to Stan Smith in the QF of Nottingham
to Juan Gisbert Sr. in the R16 of Toronto
to Onny Parun in the QF of San Francisco

Originally Posted by ZeroSkid

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templ...15346&zoneid=9

No. 1: Rod Laver, 1969
No. 2: Roger Federer, 2006
No. 3: Novak Djokovic, 2011
No. 4: John McEnroe, 1984
No. 5: Jimmy Connors, 1974
No. 6: Roger Federer, 2007
No. 7: Rafael Nadal, 2010
No. 8: Mats Wilander, 1988
No. 9: John McEnroe, 1981
No. 10: Bjorn Borg, 1979

Thoughts......

My list would be:

1. Rover Laver 1969
2. John McEnroe 1984
3. Jimmy Connors 1974
4. Roger Federer 2006
5. Novak Djokovic 2011
6. Roger Federer 2005
7. Rafael Nadal 2010
8. Mats Wilander 1988
9. John Mcenroe 1981
10. Bjorn Borg 1979

So definitely a good list. Almost exactly as I would have it.

[aphex]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Connors lost 4 matches in 1974:

to Karl Meiler in the final of Omaha
to Stan Smith in the QF of Nottingham
to Juan Gisbert Sr. in the R16 of Toronto
to Onny Parun in the QF of San Francisco

...and he beat a 40 year old Rosewall in the finals of W and USO...

...talk about a weak era...

Originally Posted by aphex

...and he beat a 40 year old Rosewall in the finals of W and USO...

...talk about a weak era...

I concur................

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

The fact remains that Connors lost no big match in 1974, and lost just 4 matches in total with well over 90 wins. He has to be given huge credit for that, and he was the benchmark standard of play for other players to match.

One reason he has only 4 losses is that he didn't play the rigorous WCT tour with all the other top players. If he had, he would probably have come away with more losses. That was one of the criticisms of his year -- one reason that people had reservations about his '74 record. They did not question that he was #1 for the year, of course. But they questioned how dominant a record it really was, when he had not beaten, much less dominated, Newcombe or Laver or Stan Smith. (Stan was co-ranked #1 in the States with Jimmy early in the year). That's why when you say he was the benchmark standard -- well in a way he was, but for many people Jimmy was the one who had yet to meet the benchmark, until he met and defeated Newcombe, in particular, but also others like Smith and Laver. In '74 the only one Jimmy met was Smith, at Queens -- and he lost to him there.

As you know Newcombe and Connors finally did meet on Jan. 1st of the new year, and Newcombe won. Sports Illustrated wrote, "Their get-together was to many people the ex post facto 1974 tennis championship of the world." That shows that the lack of a meeting between Connors and Newcombe in '74 was regarded as significant.

TIME magazine in April '75 noted that Connors won 14 of 20 tournaments in '74 but that “many fans still consider Newcombe the world’s premier player.”

Connors was unquestionably, even dominantly, the top player of '74. But he was not universally regarded as the world's best player.

Originally Posted by Mustard

I mentioned Becker in order to point out that Lendl's 1986 wasn't as good as Connors' 1974. Lendl's 1986 is still a fabulous year.

That's fine to bring in Becker, but if you're looking at Lendl's opponents -- and judging their quality, for example by noting that Becker was a teenager -- then it's fair game to look at Connors' opponents and their quality.

Originally Posted by Mustard

Well, the Australian Open is one of the four majors, and that has always been the case since the 1920s or before. You've got to be in the tournament in order to win it. Connors won this and more "prestigious" tournaments at the time like Wimbledon and the US Open in 1974.

No need for the quotation marks. Wimbledon and the USO were regarded as more prestigious than the AO. In '74 there was no question: while only 1 of the top 20 players in the world missed Wimbledon, and only 3 missed the USO, 17 were missing at the AO.

Originally Posted by Mustard

Fine. Lendl lost the Wimbledon final, a big match-up. As I said before, Lendl's 1986 is a great year but I fail to see how it can be better than Connors' 1974 when he just didn't lose a big match.

I agree Lendl's loss in the Wimbledon final is a significant loss. But it's a runner-up showing, too, at a Slam that nearly everyone attended. Apart from that, Connors and Lendl each won two well-attended Slams. I'm not saying either year is better than the other, not without looking at all the details. I do know Lendl was playing with all the top players throughout his year and regularly defeating them: the price for those victories was 6 losses.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by aphex

You don't say? He did both? What a revelation!

Not very dominant though...maybe luck played a small part?

Had there even existed the concept of the Grand Slam during his time, Tilden would have about 5-6 of them. A far superior player in his era compared to Laver.

How Lavertards mindlessly claim Rodney is the goat is quite pathetic.

Laver 69 stands alone, wether you like it or not.So would Borg´s 79, Mac´s 84, Wilander´s 88,Connors 74,Vilas 77,Nasty´s 73 and 2-3 Sampras years and 2-3 Federer´s along Djoko 2011 and Nadal 2010.Lets be honest and recognize their merits.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

So who should he have been facing? Whoever you say, they either lost earlier in the tournament or didn't compete.

They have no idea.Rosewall beat Newcombe, Smith,Tanner and all major opposition in his 2 magical runs at FH and W in 74.