Weakest Year Ever - 1986

[McEnroeisanartist]

Was this the weakest year ever for tennis?

Only 3 Grand Slams were played.

Lendl defeated Pernfors in the French Open final losing 9 games.
Becker defeated Lendl in the Wimbledon final winning in straight sets.
Lendl defeated Mecir in the U.S. Open final losing 6 games.

Lendl defeated Becker in straight sets in the Masters Played in January and again the Masters Played in December.

The only good matches that I can think of were the U.S. Open semifinals Mecir-Becker and the Stratton Mountain Semifinals Becker-McEnroe.

This year McEnroe and Connors fell from #2 and #4 to #14 and #8, respectively.

Oh yeah, and Mats Wilander, the world #3, did not even reach a Grand Slam semifinal.

[Moose Malloy]

You weren't even born in '86, so maybe you should just stick to creating your many useless Federer threads.

Oh yeah, and Mats Wilander, the world #3, did not even reach a Grand Slam semifinal

Oh yeah, the guys he lost to at the 3 majors were Chesnokov, Cash, Mecir. The depth from 5-20 was much higher back then compared to today(didn't you just start a thread saying that Nadal will finish the year #4 without having won a match in the 2nd half of the year? what does that say about the field?)

didn't you just start a thread saying that Nadal will finish the year #4 without having won a match in the 2nd half of the year? what does that say about the field?

Bingo! End of thread. Atleast the pro tour was about 100 players back then, rather than about 4.

[McEnroeisanartist]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

You weren't even born in '86, so maybe you should just stick to creating your many useless Federer threads.



Oh yeah, the guys he lost to at the 3 majors were Chesnokov, Cash, Mecir. The depth from 5-20 was much higher back then compared to today(didn't you just start a thread saying that Nadal will finish the year #4 without having won a match in the 2nd half of the year? what does that say about the field?)

I was born in 84, hence my name. But, I have more historical knowledge and perspective than the vast majority, except you. Not sure why Federer threads are useless. I think many find them interesting. More interesting than a lot of the opinionated drivel that is spewed by most posters. The top 10 year end of 1986:
1 Ivan Lendl
2 Boris Becker
3 Mats Wilander
4 Yannick Noah
5 Stefan Edberg
6 Henri Leconte
7 Joakim Nystrom
8 Jimmy Connors
9 Miloslav Mecir
10 Andres Gomez

6 Grand Slam champs, and one future Grand Slam champ. Total grand slams won by the players at the time: 19

The top 10 of 2012:
1 Federer
2 Djokovic
3 Murray
4 Nadal
5 Ferrer
6 Berdych, Tomas
7 Tsonga, Jo-Wilfried
8 Del Potro, Juan Martin
9 Tipsarevic, Janko
10 Monaco, Juan

5 Grand Slam champs, who knows how many future Grand Slam champs. Total grand slams won by the players at the time: 35.

Of course, 1986 and 2003 were the only years in the open era, where all the men's singles grand slam finals were only 3 sets.

[jrepac]

It was an odd year, surely.
Mac was losing his Mojo altogether and Lendl was on the rise but not quite the dominant force he would soon become. Still, 2 of 3 majors is quite good, no?
Connors had a god awful year and was really showing his age....definitely not the best year for American tennis. I really thought going into '86, Wilander would have a break through year, but it did not quite happen.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by jrepac

It was an odd year, surely.
Mac was losing his Mojo altogether and Lendl was on the rise but not quite the dominant force he would soon become. Still, 2 of 3 majors is quite good, no?
Connors had a god awful year and was really showing his age....definitely not the best year for American tennis. I really thought going into '86, Wilander would have a break through year, but it did not quite happen.

Lendl on the rise in 1986? I thought 1986 was Lendl's best year, he won both Masters titles at MSG as well as winning 2 of the 3 majors (French Open, US Open) and being runner-up in the other major (Wimbledon).

[TMF]

Nadal is a much deserving #4 than Wilandar at #3. He won RG, made the AO final, and 2 Master Shields. Wilander only won 2 titles in '86, it's possible for him to reach that high because the weak competition allow him to get there. Raonic, Cilic, Monaco have won multiple titles this year and they aren't even in the top 10. That speak volumes.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

You weren't even born in '86, so maybe you should just stick to creating your many useless Federer threads.



Oh yeah, the guys he lost to at the 3 majors were Chesnokov, Cash, Mecir. The depth from 5-20 was much higher back then compared to today(didn't you just start a thread saying that Nadal will finish the year #4 without having won a match in the 2nd half of the year? what does that say about the field?)

Fully agree with this post.Still, 86 was not as good as 85 or 87 and 88, but still a good year.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

Nadal is a much deserving #4 than Wilandar at #3. He won RG, made the AO final, and 2 Master Shields. Wilander only won 2 titles in '86, it's possible for him to reach that high because the weak competition allow him to get there. Raonic, Cilic, Monaco have won multiple titles this year and they aren't even in the top 10. That speak volumes.

I agree Wilander did not deserve such a high position that year but reason is simple: the ATP rankings worked in a different way and kept the full results of the former year until the equivalent week of next year would erase it.If you had, say, 10 great months in 1985, you could keep very highly ranked until those 10 months had been completely erased.I think current system is better.

Ashe, while retiring in the middle of 1979 kept highly ranked till the first quarter of 1980.Reason is that he had a sensational first half of 1979 and until those results were not completely erased, he could be highly ranked...even if retired long time before.

[McEnroeisanartist]

Originally Posted by kiki

Fully agree with this post.Still, 86 was not as good as 85 or 87 and 88, but still a good year.

Again, I can not think of any great matches from that year.

I suppose Pernfors at the French Open was a great story beating Edberg in the round of 16 and Becker in the quarterfinals and Leconte in the semifinals. Lendl-Gomez in the quarterfinals that year was interesting as Lendl lost the first set 7-6, won the second set 7-6, and then didn't lose a game in sets 3 and 4.

Wimbledon had nothing of significance that year, unless you count Lendl's grittiness in winning 5 setters in the quarterfinals and semifinals against opposition he never should have.

[Mustard]

Mecir vs. Becker at the 1986 US Open was a very good match. There's also Connors vs. Lendl at 1986 Boca West, where Connors got himself defaulted after losing his cool with the umpire.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Wimbledon had nothing of significance that year, unless you count Lendl's grittiness in winning 5 setters in the quarterfinals and semifinals against opposition he never should have.

Tim Mayotte was at his grass-court peak at that time. He had won Queen's Club, gotten to the quarter finals of Wimbledon against the man he would never beat (0-17 against Lendl by the end), and he pushed Lendl to 5 sets (losing 7-9 in the fifth set).

Zivojinovic is tough on grass too. He had upset Wilander at 1985 Wimbledon and had a famous 5-set win over McEnroe in the quarter finals of the 1985 Australian Open.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

didn't you just start a thread saying that Nadal will finish the year #4 without having won a match in the 2nd half of the year?

what does that say about the field?

Ouch!!

So much for the billions of players forming the present talent-pool that TMF is always going on (ad infinitum) about.

And how that proves this is the greatest era in the history of the game.

Originally Posted by TMF

Federer and his peers should get more prop over the previous generation[s] because they are competing in a more global sport with many more athletes. . . . the differen[ce] is Roger ha[s] a bigger pool to deal with, it's more difficult for him to beat his playing field than Laver. If Laver had 7 billion people living in the 60s, maybe it [would have] push[ed] him to improve (e.g. [as] Nadal/Murray/Nole have said they [were required] to improve), more talented player(s) [would have] challenge[d] him.

As I always suspected: it sounds convincing, but the logic is sieve-like.

[Nadal_Power]

Boca Raton 1/2 between Ivan and Jimbo.. what else do you need

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Ouch!!

So much for the billions of players forming the present talent-pool that TMF is always going on (ad infinitum) about.

And how that proves this is the greatest era in the history of the game.

As I always suspected: it sounds convincing, but the logic is sieve-like.

For all we know Nadal might already be retired and even if he were still probably wont lose his #4 ranking until atleast April, having not played any tennis for roughly 10 months under a 12 month ranking system. That speaks volumes to the field today.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

For all we know Nadal might already be retired and even if he were still probably wont lose his #4 ranking until atleast April, having not played any tennis for roughly 10 months under a 12 month ranking system. That speaks volumes to the field today.

It could also have something to do with the fact that at least (quick check) 4500 out of his 6995 total points were won during the clay season. Rafa has almost always been able to dominate the clay season to such an extent to make up for being subpar in the latter part of the season.

In addition, the guy has already won a slam and made the final of another. How many people are supposed to surpass that? Even if you have a competitive top 100, there are still only four slams. It really isn't shocking that he won't drop out of the top four.

As for everyone being upset that only the top four can win anything worth winning, that has been discussed enough already.

[90's Clay]

I think you are confusing 1986 with 2006. There have been more horrible years from the early 2000's-present (barring a few years) in terms of inconsistency, underachievers, lack of depth lack of talent, , lack of anyone doing anything, then there was from the 60's to the 90s

[Gizo]

1986 was a very underrated season of dominance from Lendl's point of view.

His record at the 4 biggest tournaments that year was outstanding. He dropped just one set en-route to the RG title (in his QF against Gomez) and just one set on his way to the US Open title (in his QF against Leconte). At Wimbledon he showed tremendous fighting spirit to win those back to back 5 set matches against Mayotte and Zivojinovic and reach the final. At the Masters he came through a very difficult draw against Edberg, Gomez, Noah, Wilander and Becker to win the tournament without dropping a set.

Plus he won other very big titles that year at Philadelphia, Boca West, Milan and Rome. All in all in 1986 he entered 15 tournaments, winning 9 titles, finishing as the runner-up 3 times and a losing semi-finalist twice. Toronto was the only event that he failed to reach the semis or better in. His 6 defeats in 1986 came against Becker 3 times, Edberg, Noah and Curren, so he had no 'bad losses' that year.

His record at RG, Wimbledon, the US Open and the Masters was identical 1987. Plus that year he beat Wilander in his RG and US Open finals as opposed to Pernfors and Mecir, and beat Edberg at Wimbledon. However in 1987 he won one less title and suffered one more defeat. Plus that year he had losses against David Pate and Peter Lundgren. Both statistically and in-terms of his overall standard of play, I think that his 1986 was slightly better than his 1987.

The US media were labelling the US Open as the Czechoslovakian Open around that time. From 1985-1987, all 6 singles champions in the men's and women's tournaments, and 9 out of the 12 finalists, were born in Czechoslovakia. In 1986, all 4 finalists (Lendl, Mecir, Navratilova and Sukova) were born there. Talk about domination.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

I think you are confusing 1986 with 2006. There have been more horrible years from the early 2000's-present (barring a few years) in terms of inconsistency, underachievers, lack of depth lack of talent, , lack of anyone doing anything, then there was from the 60's to the 90s

Yes year end #3 in 2006 was Davydenko who made 1 slam semifinal that year where he feel meekly to Federer. A player who in his career made 0 slam finals. Year end #4 was James Blake who made 1 slam quarterfinal that year, and who in his career never made a slam semifinal. #3 in the World early that year was Ivan Ljubicic whose only ever slam semifinal was on his worst surface at Roland Garros in 2006. 20 year old Nadal was still the overwhelming #2 despite winning 0 non clay Masters this year, and posting results of DNP, quarterfinals, and semifinals at the years big 3 hard court events.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by McEnroeisanartist

Was this the weakest year ever for tennis? .

Nope, I think 2009 was a much weaker year. Federer wins Wimbledon because Roddick chokes. Federer loses the US Open because he chokes. Federer wins the French because someone else beat Nadal. Nadal wins the Aus because he doesn't choke.

All up I'd rather have 1986. At least no-one won their major because the other bloke choked. You could also make a very good case that Cash was playing so well he would have won even if Becker hadn't been upset by Doohan. Oh, and they all had personality (Lendl never lacked personality, he just chose not to show it).