Best GS Tournament Run Ever?

What is the highest level of play at a single Tournament?

  • Total voters
    42
MeatTornado said:
How much of this board do you think were watching full matches, let alone full tournaments in the 70s & 80s?
Click to expand...
True. However I have seen many people recall matches from back then pretty accurately. However, it is crazy to me how much people on here underrate players like Laver and Rosewall. They were my heroes when I first started watching tennis.
 
JaoSousa said:
Here are my rankings(included olympics because it is a big tournament as well):

1. Borg 1978 RG
2. Serena Olympics 2012
3. Nadal 2008 RG, Graf 1988 RG
4. Navratilova 1984 Wimbledon
5. Mcenroe 1984 Wimbledon
6. Djokovic AO 2011
7. Nadal RG 2017
8. Federer AO 2007

1. Borg 1978 RG
Borg beats Deblicker 6-1 6-1 6-1
Borg beats Fagel 6-0 6-1 6-0
Borg beats Bertolucci 6-0 6-2 6-2
Borg beats Tanner 6-2 6-4 7-6 (5)
Borg beats Ramirez 6-3 6-3 6-0
Borg beats Barazzutti 6-0 6-1 6-0
Borg beats Vilas 6-1 6-1 6-3

2. Serena Olympics 2012
Serena beats Jankovic 6-3 6-1
Serena beats Radwanska 6-2 6-3
Serena beats Zvonareva 6-0 6-1
Serena beats Wozniacki 6-0 6-3
Serena beats Azarenka 6-1 6-2
Serena beats Sharapova 6-0 6-1

3. Nadal 2008 RG
Nadal beats Belucci 7-5 6-3 6-1
Nadal beats Devilder 6-4 6-0 6-1
Nadal beats Nieminen 6-1 6-3 6-1
Nadal beats Verdasco 6-1 6-0 6-2
Nadal beats Almagro 6-1 6-1 6-1
Nadal beats Djokovic 6-4 6-2 7-6 (3)
Nadal beats Federer 6-1 6-3 6-0

3. Graf 1988 RG
Graf beats Guerree 6-0 6-4
Graf beats Reis 6-1 6-0
Graf beats Sloane 6-0 6-1
Graf beats Tauziat 6-1 6-3
Graf beats Fulco 6-0 6-1
Graf beats Sabatini 6-3 7-6(3)
Graf beats Zvereva 6-0 6-0



Discuss...
Click to expand...
I voted Nadal RG 2008....but geez, look at Serena's OG 2012 draw. All her scalps were either slam champs or slam finalists! I can't stand the egotistical b*t^h, but taking all them high quality opponents to the cleaners, is just wow!
 
The Guru said:
@Third Serve if you felt like I disrespected you I apologize. I (as you probably know) was just searching for your explanation. Anyway, this guy is being a tool and calling me out for no reason but if you could clarify the situation that'd be great. Thanks (y)
Click to expand...

The sad point is you sound like an entirely decent guy but why do you need to promote those ugly assertions that, as we both well know, ultimately result in fedr sucks.
 
66th ranked Brazilian beating the 1994, 1995, and 1996 (plus the guy who just won Hamburg a few weeks earlier for good measure) Roland Garros champions en route to his first title there (his first title ANYWHERE!) in 1997.

Nadal at Roland Garros in 2013 is my personal favourite of his wins there. Not the dominance of some of his other runs, no, but considering he didn't play a single guy outside the worlds top 60 (5 top 30, 4 top 15, 3 top 10) I'd say it's by far the most impressed I have been by him, especially considering both the long lay off period he was returning from, and his dethroning in Monte Carlo.

Novak's 2011, 14, 15 and Fed's 2006 Wimbledon runs also all come to mind for a variety of reasons, most important of which was the grass court pedigree of most of their opponents those years.
 
Last edited:
AnOctorokForDinner said:
The sad point is you sound like an entirely decent guy but why do you need to promote those ugly assertions that, as we both well know, ultimately result in fedr sucks.
Click to expand...
the sad point is you can't really see that your opinions shouldn't match necessarily on every single point out there (especially when it comes to such a player as fed for certain reasons from both sides probable)
 
DjokoGOAT said:
Easy to look dominant vs gonzalez, Robredo, Roddick and baby Djokovic. See a year later when an improved novak easily beat 26 years old federer or 2011 when he straight setted a better version of federer with 4 years more practice.
Click to expand...
2007 AO Gonzalez was actually better than 2019 AO Nadal, but sure, carry on :-D
 
DjokoGOAT said:
2007 Gonzalez: 4 sets dropped before final.
2019 Nadal: 0 sets dropped before final.
Click to expand...

2018 YEC Djokovic: broken 0 times before the final, 0 sets dropped

2014 YEC Djokovic: broken 3 times, 1 set dropped

any other YEC Djokovic: broken 5+ times, 2+ sets dropped

Zverev beat peak Djokovic in the 2018 YEC final?
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
2018 YEC Djokovic: broken 0 times before the final, 0 sets dropped

2014 YEC Djokovic: broken 3 times, 1 set dropped

any other YEC Djokovic: broken 5+ times, 2+ sets dropped

Zverev beat peak Djokovic in the 2018 YEC final?
Click to expand...
Yes. Djokovic said he played his best ever slam final at 2019 AO so I trust his words. Players are now taller, faster, hit with more topspin and power now than ever.
 
imperssive in terms of level of play?

has to be Ned FO 08.

people probably rank it by a different criteria because I don’t understand the votes.
 
Cashman said:
Edberg, 1992 US Open. Beat Kraijeck-Lendl-Chang-Sampras in the last 4 rounds to win the title.
Click to expand...
One of the most epic runs of all time, no doubt. Even better than Federer 2017 AO, Rafa 2009 AO, and Djokovic 2012 AO to name a few. Wouldn't call it dominant exactly, but if you look at the draw, beat all of them in very tight 4 or 5 set matches. One of the best tournament runs of all time no doubt.
 
alexio88 said:
the sad point is you can't really see that your opinions shouldn't match necessarily on every single point out there (especially when it comes to such a player as fed for certain reasons from both sides probable)
Click to expand...

Lew taught me not to tolerate serious rubbish opinions. You're entitled to your thoughts but I will not accept monstrosities. Sad but necessary.
 
JaoSousa said:
One of the most epic runs of all time, no doubt. Even better than Federer 2017 AO, Rafa 2009 AO, and Djokovic 2012 AO to name a few. Wouldn't call it dominant exactly, but if you look at the draw, beat all of them in very tight 4 or 5 set matches. One of the best tournament runs of all time no doubt.
Click to expand...

Down a break in the fifth in three consecutive matches, won them all. Escaped another potential five-setter in the final as well, since Sampras served for a two sets to one lead. What a marathon run, undying will on court.
 
DjokoGOAT said:
2007 Gonzalez slam record:
F
1R
3R
1R
8-4 win/loss. 66.67% wins.

2019 Nadal slam record:
F
W
SF
W
24-2 win/loss. 91.67% wins.
Click to expand...
How can you judge how good a play is by future results? Would you say in 2003 that Federer is peak because he is going to win 3 out of four slams next year?
 
StANDAA said:
imperssive in terms of level of play?

has to be Ned FO 08.

people probably rank it by a different criteria because I don’t understand the votes.
Click to expand...
You should check some of the draws I posted in the OP. Some of those other runs are amazing too. Also, maybe you should go back and rewatch Borg in 1978 (probably don't have the full match) or Serena Olympics 2012. Those were some pretty high levels too.
 
The Guru said:
@Third Serve if you felt like I disrespected you I apologize. I (as you probably know) was just searching for your explanation. Anyway, this guy is being a tool and calling me out for no reason but if you could clarify the situation that'd be great. Thanks (y)
Click to expand...

That guy (@AnOctorokForDinner) is a known tool. Don't take him seriously - like all the wannabe authoritarians, the best way to deal with him is to mock him.
 
JaoSousa said:
You should check some of the draws I posted in the OP. Some of those other runs are amazing too. Also, maybe you should go back and rewatch Borg in 1978 (probably don't have the full match) or Serena Olympics 2012. Those were some pretty high levels too.
Click to expand...

I mean no arguing against that, but people generally universally agree that Nadal at 08 FO was the highest level reached on any surface, so.. if you don’t pick that Nadal, you probably disagree with that opinion.
 
StANDAA said:
I mean no arguing against that, but people generally universally agree that Nadal at 08 FO was the highest level reached on any surface, so.. if you don’t pick that Nadal, you probably disagree with that opinion.
Click to expand...
Good point about universal agreement. Before I created this thread, I would have put him at the top too. But after I took a while to recall some other runs that I saw, Nadal's is still second or third, but Graf's RG 1988 and Serena's Olympics 2012(I watched every match in these runs) were just slightly better, in my view, that his RG 2008.

Also, I think a big part of the reason why people say this is because Nadal's best surface is clearly clay, and that his highest level on clay, should automatically be the highest level ever, which is not necessarily true.
 
Does anyone have good suggestions for any dominant runs outside of Slams? I am thinking of making a new thread.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Lew taught me not to tolerate serious rubbish opinions. You're entitled to your thoughts but I will not accept monstrosities. Sad but necessary.
Click to expand...
.. then both of you should attend a lecture on wisdom by gary duane :D..don't know why but first thought after reading this has been about the judge from our film ten little n...(and then there were none), i hope you watched (read) it
 
JaoSousa said:
How can you judge how good a play is by future results? Would you say in 2003 that Federer is peak because he is going to win 3 out of four slams next year?
Click to expand...
2018 nadal also made 2 HC slam SF, Wimbledon SF and won RG. His win % in HCs between 2017-2019 is the best of his career so no doubt Djokovic beat the best ever nadal on HCs.
 
DjokoGOAT said:
2018 nadal also made 2 HC slam SF, Wimbledon SF and won RG. His win % in HCs between 2017-2019 is the best of his career so no doubt Djokovic beat the best ever nadal on HCs.
Click to expand...
Maybe not the best ever(I would give that to 2013 Nadal), but definitely Nadal was playing very well in that time period. Djokovic's level in the final was unparalleled, and Nadal was playing at a decent level. I might not give this one a spot on the list because he dropped a few sets in the third and fourth round I think.
 
>70% of games won in a Slam:

1978 RG Borg 79.87
1980 RG Borg 76.83
2017 RG Nadal 76.82
2008 RG Nadal 75.60
1977 RG Vilas 74.85
1977 UO Vilas 72.11
2003 AO Agassi 71.60
1986 RG Lendl 71.12
1981 RG Borg 71.05
2012 RG Nadal 70.88
2014 RG Nadal 70.31
1973 RG Nastase 70.12

clay --> 11 out 55 (20%)
hard --> 1 out of 75 (1.3%)
grass --> 0 out of 79 (0%)

Clay is obviously easier to dominate.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
The sad point is you sound like an entirely decent guy but why do you need to promote those ugly assertions that, as we both well know, ultimately result in fedr sucks.
Click to expand...
So you can't be a good guy if you aren't a Federer supporter? I don't find my assertions to be "ugly". They're just my interpretations of what I see. I don't think Federer sucks. I just think he's worse than most do. I think Nadalovic are better. I don't think that's so crazy.
 
Big3 were the only to win a Slam beating three top5 by being top5 themselves:

2007 UO Federer (ranked #1, beat #5 Roddick, #4 Davydenko and #3 Djokovic)
2011 RG Nadal (ranked #1, beat #5 Soderling, #4 Murray and #3 Federer)
2012 AO Djokovic (ranked #1, beat #5 Ferrer, #4 Murray and #2 Nadal)

These may be some of the best runs.
 
alexio88 said:
.. then both of you should attend a lecture on wisdom by gary duane :D..don't know why but first thought after reading this has been about the judge from our film ten little n...(and then there were none), i hope you watched (read) it
Click to expand...

Ten little lectures of wisdom on why you can't say words in a clearly historical context still.

Gary rarely makes his grievances public - that's very nice of him and I respect that, but I don't care for shutting up at this point. I used to be nicer and did it help stop the rot, not a bit. How can one discuss nicely if the trolls are sure to come and smear everything with their verbal diarrhea?
 
The Guru said:
So you can't be a good guy if you aren't a Federer supporter? I don't find my assertions to be "ugly". They're just my interpretations of what I see. I don't think Federer sucks. I just think he's worse than most do. I think Nadalovic are better. I don't think that's so crazy.
Click to expand...

I fail to see the point of exchanging opinions via regurgitating the same kind of points over and over, without any hope to change each other's minds if our argumentations are generally based on broad eye-test impressions and circumstantial evidence. Some would like to entertain doing just that, well more power to y'all I guess, at any rate you're not vindictive which alone puts you fairly high in the decency rankings around here.

I reckon there's probably a fundamental difference in understanding that won't be reconciled. I assert the obvious truth that between two players of similar quality, the more attacking player has the egde in most conditions (matches on his racquet more often than not), because attacking is action and defending is reaction, like the serve always has the advantage over the return - unreturnable serves exist (210 kmh on the line, whatchagonnado), unbeatable returns do not. You seem to not accept the former which reads to me as silly as refusing the latter, like if you saw Federer acing someone like old Agassi or Nadal and though, 'nah, my boi Nole would totally return that deep and hard more often than not 'cause he's amazing'. Yeah no, not interested in hearing anything like that.
 
Lew II said:
Big3 were the only to win a Slam beating three top5 by being top5 themselves:

2007 UO Federer (ranked #1, beat #5 Roddick, #4 Davydenko and #3 Djokovic)
2011 RG Nadal (ranked #1, beat #5 Soderling, #4 Murray and #3 Federer)
2012 AO Djokovic (ranked #1, beat #5 Ferrer, #4 Murray and #2 Nadal)

These may be some of the best runs.
Click to expand...
Try to stay on topic here. If you want to rate most epic runs, etc, you should create a new thread. If we talk about most dominant runs, these would not be in the top 10 imo.
Lew II said:
>70% of games won in a Slam:

1978 RG Borg 79.87
1980 RG Borg 76.83
2017 RG Nadal 76.82
2008 RG Nadal 75.60
1977 RG Vilas 74.85
1977 UO Vilas 72.11
2003 AO Agassi 71.60
1986 RG Lendl 71.12
1981 RG Borg 71.05
2012 RG Nadal 70.88
2014 RG Nadal 70.31
1973 RG Nastase 70.12

clay --> 11 out 55 (20%)
hard --> 1 out of 75 (1.3%)
grass --> 0 out of 79 (0%)

Clay is obviously easier to dominate.
Click to expand...
Please post the same statistics for the women's runs that I put in the poll. You will probably find that Graf and Serena's runs are super high there too.
Edit: Graf 1988 RG tops all of them with 81% of games won. :eek:
Edit: Serena beats all of them with 83% of games won. :eek:
 
Lew II said:
>70% of games won in a Slam:

1978 RG Borg 79.87
1980 RG Borg 76.83
2017 RG Nadal 76.82
2008 RG Nadal 75.60
1977 RG Vilas 74.85
1977 UO Vilas 72.11
2003 AO Agassi 71.60
1986 RG Lendl 71.12
1981 RG Borg 71.05
2012 RG Nadal 70.88
2014 RG Nadal 70.31
1973 RG Nastase 70.12

clay --> 11 out 55 (20%)
hard --> 1 out of 75 (1.3%)
grass --> 0 out of 79 (0%)

Clay is obviously easier to dominate.
Click to expand...
What are highest tournaments for Djokovic and Federer?
 
DjokoGOAT said:
What are highest tournaments for Djokovic and Federer?
Click to expand...
Federer's is 64.7% at the Australian Open in 2007 (calculations were done on paper so feel free to double check)
I don't think Novak has won a slam without dropping a set, but my guesses would be AO 2011 or AO 2008.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
I fail to see the point of exchanging opinions via regurgitating the same kind of points over and over, without any hope to change each other's minds if our argumentations are generally based on broad eye-test impressions and circumstantial evidence. Some would like to entertain doing just that, well more power to y'all I guess, at any rate you're not vindictive which alone puts you fairly high in the decency rankings around here.

I reckon there's probably a fundamental difference in understanding that won't be reconciled. I assert the obvious truth that between two players of similar quality, the more attacking player has the egde in most conditions (matches on his racquet more often than not), because attacking is action and defending is reaction, like the serve always has the advantage over the return - unreturnable serves exist (210 kmh on the line, whatchagonnado), unbeatable returns do not. You seem to not accept the former which reads to me as silly as refusing the latter, like if you saw Federer acing someone like old Agassi or Nadal and though, 'nah, my boi Nole would totally return that deep and hard more often than not 'cause he's amazing'. Yeah no, not interested in hearing anything like that.
Click to expand...
Everyone on here does this (including you) all the time. You may not be able to completely change minds but you can get people to moderate or you can convince them off smaller points but not necessarily the broader assertion. If you fail to see the point of that, well, I don't mean this in an obnoxious way, but you should just leave. I like to talk tennis with people even if they have different opinions. If you don't nothing's keeping you here.

I think your argument in the second paragraph is self-defeating. If the two players are of similar (I'm interpreting this as same) quality but one plays an attacking style and one plays defensive then there is a 50/50 chance each one wins. Because while the attacking player may be dictating, hitting more winners, forcing more errors, they are also making more unforced errors. An aggressive style of the same quality of a defensive style naturally brings with it more unforced errors. I think that under your interpretation of tennis it would make sense to say (I don't believe this) that 2015 USO Fed was the best because his serve was better than it had ever been and he was ultra-aggressive moreso than he ever was in his prime.

As far as the whole serve/return thing I think Fed's serve was better during Nole's prime than it was during Fed's prime so I don't think Novak would be unable to handle his serve. What's more valuable Sampras's serve or Novak's return? Sampras's serve. I don't disagree. However, you think that Murray constantly hitting neutral CC balls with outrageous consistency is not quality tennis. I think it is. Quality tennis doesn't have to be a SABR or a S&V or linear. Aggression≠Quality. Fast surface≠Quality. If what you're saying is true how come Nadal beat Federer so consistently before recently when he was way more defensive than Fed. They are of similar quality and Fed's more offensive so how come Nadal won. It's because consistency can matter as much or more than the ability to take the ball up the line.
 
The Guru said:
Everyone on here does this (including you) all the time. You may not be able to completely change minds but you can get people to moderate or you can convince them off smaller points but not necessarily the broader assertion. If you fail to see the point of that, well, I don't mean this in an obnoxious way, but you should just leave. I like to talk tennis with people even if they have different opinions. If you don't nothing's keeping you here.
Click to expand...

I posted a funny little stat thread yesterday. There's a jab but it has substance. That's the good sort of argument to have around.

I think your argument in the second paragraph is self-defeating. If the two players are of similar (I'm interpreting this as same) quality but one plays an attacking style and one plays defensive then there is a 50/50 chance each one wins. Because while the attacking player may be dictating, hitting more winners, forcing more errors, they are also making more unforced errors. An aggressive style of the same quality of a defensive style naturally brings with it more unforced errors. I think that under your interpretation of tennis it would make sense to say (I don't believe this) that 2015 USO Fed was the best because his serve was better than it had ever been and he was ultra-aggressive moreso than he ever was in his prime.
Click to expand...

Similar not same. Put it this way, a 90/80 atk/def player is better than a 80/90 atk/def player even if the sum of their attributes is the same at 170.

Again, no forehand, no party. Federer became more aggressive because his defence declined more than his attack (as is the norm) but his attack very much declined too. He wasn't on the same level as peak Djokovic yet pushed him well often, what does this tell us. I already told you Agassi pushing peak Federer speaks great of Agassi - Sampras is still better of course, well his level on faster surfaces may have been better than anyone's.

As far as the whole serve/return thing I think Fed's serve was better during Nole's prime than it was during Fed's prime so I don't think Novak would be unable to handle his serve. What's more valuable Sampras's serve or Novak's return? Sampras's serve. I don't disagree. However, you think that Murray constantly hitting neutral CC balls with outrageous consistency is not quality tennis. I think it is. Quality tennis doesn't have to be a SABR or a S&V or linear. Aggression≠Quality. Fast surface≠Quality. If what you're saying is true how come Nadal beat Federer so consistently before recently when he was way more defensive than Fed. They are of similar quality and Fed's more offensive so how come Nadal won. It's because consistency can matter as much or more than the ability to take the ball up the line.
Click to expand...

Again I already said, aggression is far from just winners. Anything good enough to make the opponent uncomfortable (by its own merit, pure UEs excluded) counts as aggressive intent, whether it comes from an attacking or defensive position. Defence-to-attack is so significant it has its own style name, counterpunching. Nadal's prime ability to make aggressive gets from defensive positions was unparalleled; passing shots make a textbook example of an aggressively-minded shot from a defensive position and Nadal's peak superiority in this aspect is indusputable. Nadal was more aggressive against Federer than you give him credit for, he was never anything like a Simon grinder type (and while peak Simon was no slouch I'm confident that if peak Fed happened to play Simon in every slam Gilles would be fortunate to get two sets in four matches) and raised his attacking game specifically to fight Fed when the usual stuff wasn't enough. Fred at his best still wins off clay (and maybe Miami and Canada as well, minor point though), when he wasn't and Nadal was matches still went five sets with Federer statistically near-equal.
 
JaoSousa said:
Try to stay on topic here. If you want to rate most epic runs, etc, you should create a new thread. If we talk about most dominant runs, these would not be in the top 10 imo.

Please post the same statistics for the women's runs that I put in the poll. You will probably find that Graf and Serena's runs are super high there too.
Edit: Graf 1988 RG tops all of them with 81% of games won. :eek:
Edit: Serena beats all of them with 83% of games won. :eek:
Click to expand...
You wrote the thread is about the best / highest level runs, which is not only about domination. But I understand what you meant now.

I don't know data for women.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Winner Sinner
  • Poll Poll
[POLL] Which H2H streak among the big three was most impressive?
2
Replies
79
Views
2K
Hitman
Hitman
Pheasant
ATG players getting shredded in a slam match.
2 3 4
Replies
176
Views
8K
Mainad
Mainad
BGod
  • Poll Poll
Grand Slam Beatdowns: French Open Edition
Replies
15
Views
986
Sudacafan
Sudacafan
D
Hey John Thomas check out this Twilight Zone....;-)
Replies
5
Views
1K
JohnThomas1
J
Joe Pike
all-time greats and their best matches ever
Replies
8
Views
1K
PM_
PM_
Back
Top