Best individual season of Open Era?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by kiki

Sampras in 1993, obviously.

Geez, How could I forget Borg in 1978,1979,1980.He stands up alone with laver 69, Mac 84, Connors 74, since he won 3 of the top 5 events and played the finals of a fourth (1979 WCT, 1978-1980 US Open)

In terms of excellency, few can match Borg.

[jean pierre]

Vilas 77 is in the top 3.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by kiki

Sampras in 1993, obviously.

Wilander's 1988 is better than Federer's 2006?
Sampras' 1993 is better than Federer's 2006?

[Russeljones]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Wilander's 1988 is better than Federer's 2006?
Sampras' 1993 is better than Federer's 2006?

Don't worry. kiki is special.

[90's Clay]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Wilander's 1988 is better than Federer's 2006?
Sampras' 1993 is better than Federer's 2006?

Relatively speaking maybe. His opposition overall in '93 was 3 TIMES more impressive then Fed's pathetic 2006 opposition.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Relatively speaking maybe. His opposition overall in '93 was 3 TIMES more impressive then Fed's pathetic 2006 opposition.

Don't you worry, I'll find something on Sampras in those 16 losses cause that's exactly how many he suffered in 1993.

[TMF]

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.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Don't you worry, I'll find something on Sampras in those 16 losses cause that's exactly how many he suffered in 1993.

None of Sampras years makes the top 10 list. Maybe the top 20.

[Gizo]

Although Federer's quality of play wasn't as good in 2007 as it was in 2004 or 2005, does his positive h2h against Nadal that year give it some bonus points? 2007 was the only year in he win he won more matches than he lost against Nadal, winning 3 out of their 5 encounters and beating him on 3 different surfaces.

Lendl's 1986 is a pretty underrated season. He won Roland Garros, the US Open, the Masters, other big titles at Boca West, Philadelphia, Milan (a very strong indoor event at the time) and Rome, and was a Wimbledon finalist. He won 74 matches out of 80 that year. I'm not saying it is the greatest season or anything, but it was still an amazing year. I personally think it tops Wilander's 1988 for instance.

Ranking Borg's 3 great years from 1978-1980 is pretty difficult.

You can argue that statistically 1980 was the best year of his career, given that he won RG, Wimbledon and the Masters, and was the runner-up at US Open, plus he won his home tournament at Stockholm.

However I personally think that he played his best tennis in 1979. He won 13 titles in total. Mac did win their big final in Dallas, but on numerous occasions that year he destroyed both Mac and Connors and made them look completely helpless, which was no mean feat.

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Although Federer's quality of play wasn't as good in 2007 as it was in 2004 or 2005, does his positive h2h against Nadal that year give it some bonus points? 2007 was the only year in he win he won more matches than he lost against Nadal, winning 3 out of their 5 encounters and beating him on 3 different surfaces.

this was possible because Federer lost at Rome early (to volandri). Goes to show how fallacious using Federer's h2h against Nadal is, especially when everyone knows (and won't admit) the heavy surface bias .

[Rock Strongo]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

this was possible because Federer lost at Rome early (to volandri). Goes to show how fallacious using Federer's h2h against Nadal is, especially when everyone knows (and won't admit) the heavy surface bias .

Surface bias... If Fed is intelligent he should WO the next match against Nadal on clay and then proceed to kick his butt on other surfaces to bring the H2H back. I know, logic.

Being completely on topic now though I'll give it to McEnroe's 84 solely for the winning percentage. Had he won against Lendl it would've been 83-2, which would've been even more insane.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

this was possible because Federer lost at Rome early (to volandri). Goes to show how fallacious using Federer's h2h against Nadal is, especially when everyone knows (and won't admit) the heavy surface bias .

True although 3 out of their 5 matches that year were still on clay, so it's not like Federer was avoiding Nadal on the surface.

I remember Federer had actually played very well in his opening match at Rome that year against Almagro (who had caused him a lot of problems in that same tournament the year before), so that defeat to Volandri really did come out of nowhere.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Relatively speaking maybe. His opposition overall in '93 was 3 TIMES more impressive then Fed's pathetic 2006 opposition.

Sampras losses in 1993:
- Edberg at the AO (straight sets)
- 33-year old Lendl in Philadelphia (straight sets)
- 22nd ranked Volkov in Indian Wells (straight sets)
- 87th ranked Eltingh (who? that doubles specialist?) in Atlanta (straight sets)
- Ivanisevic in Rome (straight sets)
- Bruguera in Rome (straight sets - 6-3 6-1 to be exact)
- Bruguera at the French Open
- Grant Stafford (who?) ranked 110th in Queen's on grass
- Brett Steven (who?) ranked 45th in Canada (straight sets)
- Edberg in Cincinnati
- Rafter (who was ranked 139th and half the man he became in 1997) in Indianopolis
- Costa (Carlos Costa) in Stockholm, for the record he was ranked 30th something which ain't shocking in Sampras' career. Now if Federer lost to a guy ranked 30th in his prime, the haters would be blowing all horns.
- Ivanisevic in Paris
- Stich at the Tour Finals
- Kodra in the Grand Slam Cup


Obviously, Sampras' competition will look stiffer if he has issues winning sets against pensioners and guys ranked outside the top 100. Also, there pretty much goes Sampras mental fortitude, out of the 15 losses he suffered in 1993 as many as 8 have been straight sets. What a fighter Sampras was!

Now compare it to Federer.

4 losses to Nadal - all 4 competitive (3 on clay)
1 loss to a teenage Murray in straight sets, a match I remember well as Federer was exhausted after winning Canada

[RAFA2005RG]

2010 Rafa, clay/grass/hardcourt slams. Will probably never be done again (unless he does it again).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by tennis_pro

Wilander's 1988 is better than Federer's 2006?
Sampras' 1993 is better than Federer's 2006?

I didn´t really use an order.But, thinking about, in Wilander´s time, there were real champs while in 2006 Fed had just a very young Nadal so, yes, Wilander in 88 against Becker,Lendl,Edberg far suprasses the best ever year of Federer.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Russeljones

Don't worry. kiki is special.

My worst quote easily matches up to your best.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

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 that´s 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]

Originally Posted by Gizo

Although Federer's quality of play wasn't as good in 2007 as it was in 2004 or 2005, does his positive h2h against Nadal that year give it some bonus points? 2007 was the only year in he win he won more matches than he lost against Nadal, winning 3 out of their 5 encounters and beating him on 3 different surfaces.

Lendl's 1986 is a pretty underrated season. He won Roland Garros, the US Open, the Masters, other big titles at Boca West, Philadelphia, Milan (a very strong indoor event at the time) and Rome, and was a Wimbledon finalist. He won 74 matches out of 80 that year. I'm not saying it is the greatest season or anything, but it was still an amazing year. I personally think it tops Wilander's 1988 for instance.

Ranking Borg's 3 great years from 1978-1980 is pretty difficult.

You can argue that statistically 1980 was the best year of his career, given that he won RG, Wimbledon and the Masters, and was the runner-up at US Open, plus he won his home tournament at Stockholm.

However I personally think that he played his best tennis in 1979. He won 13 titles in total. Mac did win their big final in Dallas, but on numerous occasions that year he destroyed both Mac and Connors and made them look completely helpless, which was no mean feat.

Thanks for posting about Ivan´s great 86, I feel it is one of the best pro seasons ever.

As for Borg, in 78 took Rome,Paris and London and made the New York finals while in 79, he won the Masters, a bigger event than the Italian Open and reached the WCT finals which were big but not as much as the USO final he reached in 78.

In 1980, he won Masters,Roland Garros and Wimbledon ( for the third consecutive Channel Slam) and played the USO finals, so 1980 might have been a bit better...still, I don´t think he played as well as in 1979, which IMo was the year he reached his peakest level.

[tennis_pro]

Originally Posted by kiki

I didn´t really use an order.But, thinking about, in Wilander´s time, there were real champs while in 2006 Fed had just a very young Nadal so, yes, Wilander in 88 against Becker,Lendl,Edberg far suprasses the best ever year of Federer.

Nadal at the end of 2006 had achieved more than Becker at the end of 1988 and they were roughly the same age.

Wilander had the luck to avoid them tons of times in 1988, he only played Becker once in the Masters and lost that match. He also lost to Edberg in the same tournament, beat him at the AO and Cincinnati, though. Wilander only faced Lendl once in 1988, in the final of the US Open which was a legit win. Now compare it to what Djokovic had to do in 2011 to achieve the same heights - he had to beat Federer and Nadal like 10 times combined, not to mention his record against the rest of the field including Murray, Roddick, Soderling, Tsonga or Berdych.

[TheFifthSet]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Relatively speaking maybe. His opposition overall in '93 was 3 TIMES more impressive then Fed's pathetic 2006 opposition.

Lol. Even if you believe that, Sampras had quite a few "bad" losses in '93 that I don't think you'd convince anyone that it was in any way better. He had 4 losses to sub-50 ranked players. And for somebody talking up his tough competition, did you see his draw en route to winning the US Open? Not exactly a group of titans. Chang, and a bunch of good but not elite players such as Volkov, Pioline, baby Enqvist. Ooh. Real tough one there. I don't think Federer would dream of beating those guys.