You can argue Nadal's 2008 is equivalent to 2010 because the gold medal = a slam. Also the gold medal was on the same surface as the US Open.
You can argue Nadal's 2008 is equivalent to 2010 because the gold medal = a slam. Also the gold medal was on the same surface as the US Open.
No, olympics=750 points, slam = 2000 points
Laver in 1969 of course. Grand Slam >>>> no Grand Slam.
Second best would be Connors in 1974. Didnt lose an important match all year and was unfairly robbed of a chance at the Grand Slam by a jaded rival group.
Third best would be McEnroe in 1984. An insane match record which nobody has matched today, complete dominance of big matches vs legends, and the only big match or big event he didnt win was that French he had won but completely choked away, as the Australian was a relative afterthought at the time (except for the purposes of the Grand Slam).
the rest of my top 10 would be:
4. Nadal 2010 (won the biggest event of the year on every surface, huge)
5. Federer 2006 Great overall record but 0 clay titles.
6. Djokovic 2011
7. Federer 2005 lost 3 of the 5 biggest events of year, but incredible M-W record second to only McEnroe's 84 I believe.
8. Nadal 2008 (considering I consider the Olympics atleast on par with the WTF, a major title on each surface again)
9. Wilander 1998
10. McEnroe 1981
Federer in 2004 had too many early round defeats for a historic year, and in 2007 he had a number of really bad losses (eg- Canas in 2 hard court Masters in a row, then Volandri in a 3rd straight Masters).
Djokovic 2011..
He owned Nadal who was playing his best tennis ever in 6 finals across 3 surfaces.
Owned federer 4-1 too
This. You know you've played an amazing season when you've beaten the (former) #1 six times in a row and you've beaten the GOAT 4 out of 5 times.
I still think :grin:Rafa's 2008 season exceeds his 2010 season despite winning 1 less slam
Laver 1969
Mc Enroe 1984
Connors 1974
Wilander 1988
Sampras 1983
Federer 2006
Nadal 2010
Djokovic 2011
Lendl 1986/87
Nastase 1973
Vilas 1977
Becker 1989
Rosewall 1971/72, in the first half, winning Ao and WCT finals back to back
but those last two basically on clay, since Nastase played a better grass court season back in 1972.
Sampras in 1993, obviously.
Sampras in 1993, obviously.
Wilander's 1988 is better than Federer's 2006?
Sampras' 1993 is better than Federer's 2006?
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.
Don't you worry, I'll find something on Sampras in those 16 losses cause that's exactly how many he suffered in 1993.
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 .
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 .
Relatively speaking maybe. His opposition overall in '93 was 3 TIMES more impressive then Fed's pathetic 2006 opposition.
Wilander's 1988 is better than Federer's 2006?
Sampras' 1993 is better than Federer's 2006?
Don't worry. kiki is special.
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.
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.
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.
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 13 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
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
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.
Yes it was an amazing year, and he was so consistent. That year he entered 15 official tournaments, won 9 of them, was a runner-up 3 times and a losing semi-finalist twice. The only tournament he lost early in was Toronto, but that was to Curren who was very dangerous and could beat anyone. His W/L record was 74-6 that year, with his defeats coming to Becker 3 times, Edberg, Noah and Curren. So he didn't have any 'bad' defeats that year.
He only dropped one set at RG, one set at US Open, and at the Masters destroyed Wilander, Edberg and Becker in straight sets.
Maybe you could argue that his 1987 was better. He beat Wilander in the RG/US Open finals instead of Pernfors and Mecir, and beat Edberg at Wimbledon. However that year he lost to guys like David Pate and Peter Lundgren, won one less title and lost one more match. Still a great year of course, but I think his 1986 was slightly better.
Yes he probably had tougher competition in 1980, as McEnroe was better, I personally that Connors played better in 1980 than 1979, and Lendl had improved.
Still in 1979 the tennis he played was just incredible.
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.
Nadal at the end of 2006 had achieved more than Becker at the end of 1988 and they were roughly the same age.
Nobody will ever trump Rafa.