Men's Season with the most achievement

[Dan Lobb]

The conflicting reports show imo two things: 1. There was a concept emerging to form a Grand Prix like series of tournaments worldwide (which makes more sense than an only Australia series). Remember that Kramer later was also the founder of the ILTF Grand Prix in 1970. The concept foreshadows the 1960s, when the pros played series of tournaments in Australia, US, Europe and South Africa. Such a year long tournament series imo would be a progression to the old World Series concept with only two players playing a hth series over 3 or 4 months.
2. The pro reality marred this ideal concept: We see a real mess of changes, in the whole concept and in single decisions. From the press reports it seems, that Kramer changed the Melbourne Event to a Round Robin in the last minute, and then he played a final nevertheless. Several events are included or excluded in the last minute and so on. The whole pro scene was instable and fragile, and nobody knew what was really telling. For 1959, as the same press reports show, we have a "World tournament Champion" in Hoad, and a "World Champion" in Gonzalez. And if i remember it right, Kramer had a world ranking for 1959 with Gonzalez first, Sedgman 2, Rosewall 3 and Hoad 4, which seems ridiculous regarding his own concept, and even makes more of a mess out of it.

There is a problem with Kramer's 1959 ranking list, it was supposedly issued sometime in December 1959, but it was in the "News from around the world"

section of Tennis magazine, it was a recycled interview with Kramer, probably from October, and must have been concocted well before the

December publication date. That would explain the heavy influence of the European tour on the ranking order.

Therefore it could not have been intended as a FINAL ranking for the season. The season did not end until early 1960, and this Kramer ranking

was therefore only an INTERIM ranking pending the closing stages of the Ampol series.

The same applies to the "l'Equipe" ranking, which was recycled in Tennis mag in December, 1959, and probably arranged in October, well before this

publication date.

The "l'Equipe" ranking also shows the influence of the Grand Prix de Europe final standings, suggesting an October date.

Also, the Barnes ranking was well before the end of December, showing Anderson well back in the standings.

So, these were not final rankings at all, although we have previously been told (wrongly, it is clear) that they were, but only interim rankings pending the final

events of the season in early 1960.

It is ironic how so many tennis commentators have jumped to the wrong conclusions based on these rankings.

This means that the final Ampol standings represent the official Kramer list for that season.

 

[Dan Lobb]

There is a problem with Kramer's 1959 ranking list, it was supposedly issued sometime in December 1959, but it was in the "News from around the world"

section of Tennis magazine, it was a recycled interview with Kramer, probably from October, and must have been concocted well before the

December publication date. That would explain the heavy influence of the European tour on the ranking order.

Therefore it could not have been intended as a FINAL ranking for the season. The season did not end until early 1960, and this Kramer ranking

was therefore only an INTERIM ranking pending the closing stages of the Ampol series.

The same applies to the "l'Equipe" ranking, which was issued in December, 1959, and probably arranged in October, well before this publication date.

The "l'Equipe" ranking also shows the influence of the Grand Prix de Europe final standings, suggesting an October date.

Also, the Barnes ranking was well before the end of December, showing Anderson well back in the standings.

So, these were not final rankings at all, although we have previously been told (wrongly, it is clear) that they were, but only interim rankings pending the final

events of the season in early 1960.

It is ironic how so many tennis commentators have jumped to the wrong conclusions based on these rankings.

This means that the final Ampol standings represent the official Kramer list for that season.

There was a former poster here who was very interested in this issue of the Kramer rankings for 1959.

I hope that this will help to clarify the issue, and show that the final Ampol standings represent the official Kramer list for that historic 1959/60 season.

 

[Dan Lobb]

It is surprising how much misunderstanding has clouded our view of tennis history, with records misreported or even not reported at all.

To discover the facts behind the myths is like cleaning away the dirt from the Sistine Chapel and seeing Michelangelo's original work for the first

time....an amazing and stunning view.

 

[urban]

It could be, that those experts rankings were made before years end. We have the same problem with Tingay's rankings in the late 60s and early 70s, which were made in September/ October for Daily Telegraph, when the tour hasn't finished yet. But nevertheless, Krmaer should have been more careful with his rankings, because he marred his own concept. On the other side, i often have the suspect, that the pros were interested in some controversy and intransparency, to sell more than one champion. In some Kramer programs of the early 60s, which No Mercy found, Segura is billed as the World pro Champ for 1950 and 1952, which would contradict Kramer's own claims - an this in a Kramer controlled publication.

 

[Dan Lobb]

It could be, that those experts rankings were made before years end. We have the same problem with Tingay's rankings in the late 60s and early 70s, which were made in September/ October for Daily Telegraph, when the tour hasn't finished yet. But nevertheless, Krmaer should have been more careful with his rankings, because he marred his own concept. On the other side, i often have the suspect, that the pros were interested in some controversy and intransparency, to sell more than one champion. In some Kramer programs of the early 60s, which No Mercy found, Segura is billed as the World pro Champ for 1950 and 1952, which would contradict Kramer's own claims - an this in a Kramer controlled publication.

Good points, Urban.

I think that Kramer rated Hoad low in October 1959 to reflect Hoad's lack of serious effort on that European Grand Prix tour.

Perhaps Kramer was giving an admonishment to Hoad, but Gonzales did not even show up for the European tour.

Kramer was tough to figure sometimes.

The "l'Equipe" ranking was similar to Kramer's, and I suspect it also was made in October, long before the end of the season on January 2, 1960.

It was strange that Kramer did not inform the American and British press that Hoad was the winner of the great Ampol world series, there was not

even a peep about it in the London Times or New York Times.

But that was probably because Hoad was not participating in the 1960 tour, and it would hurt the prestige of that tour if Hoad's world championship

became widely known, and him not showing up in 1960.

 

[Dan Lobb]

So, altogether, Hoad's payday for winning the 1958 Kooyong TOC was $7,000 for winning the singles, plus a further $700 for the doubles play, a total of $7,700.

On January, 1960, Hoad's payday was $9,800, plus whatever doubles money he earned.

For winning the Forest Hills TOC in 1959, Hoad won $3,000 for the singles victory, plus about $1,500 for winning the doubles, total about $4,500. Another good payday.

This 1958 Kooyong paycheck of $7,700 must be the biggest payday on the pro circuit from the pre-open era.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Hoad was ranked second on the TB moving ranking 6 times between 1956 and 1959, plus a number 1 ranking in early 1960.
That shows some consistency.

Consistency, indeed.

 

[King No1e]

Where's Lew when you need him to spew volumes of statistics about how 2015 was the greatest year in men's tennis?

 

[Dan Lobb]

Where's Lew when you need him to spew volumes of statistics about how 2015 was the greatest year in men's tennis?

Hoad was a great teacher....he could give Djokovic and Fed some lessons on how to volley.

 

[Donk]

Obviously Djokovic 2011

Laver would struggle to win points against Nadal on clay. Djokovic was straight up owning the guy on the dirt.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Obviously Djokovic 2011

Laver would struggle to win points against Nadal on clay. Djokovic was straight up owning the guy on the dirt.

LOL, that’s not even Novak Djokovic’s best season - let alone the best ever.

 

[xFedal]

Let's bring this thread back where it should be. For some time I was nagging @pc1 for info on Mac's '84 and now that I have it (he actually emailed it to me nearly two weeks ago, so the ridiculous delay is entirely on me) I thought I'd provide y'all with yet another (in)valuable lesson.

Some of you may recall me wondering at the end of last year's YEC (I refuse to ever adopt WTF, and not because I'm a prude, I assure you) if Novak just had an even better season than Mac's 84 or Fed's '06. I eventually decided that Mac's funhouse season was still better, but I was still somewhat hesitant about it for what I felt to be good reasons. Well, it's not very often I say this but I'm even more certain about it now. First let's run the numbers:

Mac in '84 (including the YEC in early '85)

• 82-3 win-loss match record, for 96.5% (the stat y'all are most familiar with)
• 195-23 set record, for 89.4% won
• 1279-679 game record, for 65.32% won

Fed in '06

• 92-5, or 94.8%
• 221-40, or 84.7%
• 1556-965, or 61.7%

Nole in '15

• 82-6, or 93.2%
• 195-37, or 84.1%
• 1369-815, or 62.7%

As you can see, while the match win-loss %s alone may be close between the three Mac has a big edge over the other two in %s of sets and games (both service and return) won, and as pc1 correctly argues those %s are better indicators of overall tennis prowess than the ubiquitous match winning % (FYI Rafa himself never exceeded the 61% range). And get this: Mac had a stunning 24-2 record against his 10 top peers (92.3%), his remaining 3rd loss coming against the dangerous big-serving floater Amritraj, while Fed had a 19-4 record against his own top 10 (82.6%) and Novak went 31–5 (86.11%) last year. Djokovic's "record" 2015 season doesn't sound so unprecedented now, does it? (For the record he still had a record # of wins vs. top 10, but obviously that ain't everything.) Even considering the unreliability of the ATP rankings at the time a 6-10% advantage here is huge.

And here are Mac's H2Hs against his own Big 3: 6-1 vs. Lendl (yes, that one at RG was his lone loss), 6-0 vs. Jimbo, and 3-0 vs Wilander. Again Fed and Novak lag clearly behind. Given all these advantages to Mac and considering his doubles achievements in the same year I just don't see how one can make a strong argument against his '84 being the 2nd best season of the Open era. The only thing I can think of is that Mac suffered not one but two big losses that year, the 2nd spoiler being Sundstrom in the DC finals, but that's obviously comparing apples and oranges (needless to say neither Fed nor Novak played the DC finals in his respective season, or participated all the way for that matter which if anything works in Mac's favor) and as Moose told me Henrik played one hell of a match to dethrone Mac:

So there it is. For me the only season superior to Mac's '84 is Laver's still unsurpassed '69, and only because Rocket managed to win the most important event on every surface. One slip by Rod and I would've declared Mac the winner without hesitation.

P.S. pc1 also gave me the %s of games won in the following notable years:

Budge in '37 - 982 GW, 549 GL for 64.14%
Budge in '38 - 780 GW, 464 GL for 62.70%
Fed in '04 - 1245 GW, 767 GL for 61.88%
Agassi in '95 - 1192 GW, 746 GL for 61.51%

JMacs 1984 he only lost 23 sets lmao....thats insane....... SURELY THE MOST EASIEST AND DOMINANT ANYBODY HAS EVER FELT?

 

[NonP]

JMacs 1984 he only lost 23 sets lmao....thats insane....... SURELY THE MOST EASIEST AND DOMINANT ANYBODY HAS EVER FELT?

It's very possible. Mac has said that the ball occasionally felt bigger in his hands during his magic run (or something to that effect) and I believe him. And let's not forget his doubles success in that very season, either.

All of the above is why I still tend to think of Mac as a GOAT candidate. It's interesting to contemplate just how much higher his already high standing would be had he somehow managed to hold onto his lead over Lendl in the FO final. With that trophy in the bag it'd be hard to disagree with the sentiment that Mac's 84 ranks even above Rod's '69 as the single greatest season in the history of (modern) men's tennis.

 

[Dan Lobb]

It's very possible. Mac has said that the ball occasionally felt bigger in his hands during his magic run (or something to that effect) and I believe him. And let's not forget his doubles success in that very season, either.

All of the above is why I still tend to think of Mac as a GOAT candidate. It's interesting to contemplate just how much higher his already high standing would be had he somehow managed to hold onto his lead over Lendl in the FO final. With that trophy in the bag it'd be hard to disagree with the sentiment that Mac's 84 ranks even above Rod's '69 as the single greatest season in the history of (modern) men's tennis.

Laver had deeper and tougher competition in 1969.

 

[Dan Lobb]

We now have another metric to rate major seasons, suggested by Urban.

100+ wins, plus 50+ wins over losses on the season.

Tilden probably had some of those seasons in the 1920's, Kramer may have had a 100+/50+ season in 1950, Gonzales in 1954 and 1956, Hoad in 1956 and 1959, Laver on eight occasions from 1961 going forward.

 

[Dan Lobb]

We now have another metric to rate major seasons, suggested by Urban.

100+ wins, plus 50+ wins over losses on the season.

Tilden probably had some of those seasons in the 1920's, Kramer may have had a 100+/50+ season in 1950, Gonzales in 1954 and 1956, Hoad in 1956 and 1959, Laver on eight occasions from 1961 going forward.

Should add Tony Trabert in 1955, with a 106 to 7 match record.

 

[urban]

On the pure amateur circuit is was probably easier to win 100 plus matches than on the more competitive pro circuit, even including the ultra long mano a mano hth match series. Emerson had probably several seasons on the amateur circuit, but not as a pro in the early open circuit. I think Riggs as amateur had 2 years in the late 30s. But even on the pure amateur circuit, Lavers 151-15 of 1962 with a + 136 margin of win-loss stands clearly out. In the open era, i think Ashe, maybe Nastase, in every case Vilas in 1977, Borg once or twice if you count exos, and Lendl once or twice had over 100 match wins. Highest in modern times is Federer with 92-5 in 2006.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I doubt that today's players could handle a long 100+ season, they seem to top out at about 50-70 matches per year.

That may be due to the hard rubber surfaces of today which take their toll on the legs and knees.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I doubt that today's players could handle a long 100+ season, they seem to top out at about 50-70 matches per year.

That may be due to the hard rubber surfaces of today which take their toll on the legs and knees.

To the long list of great tennis players of the current era who have endured significant downtime due to leg and knee injuries, presumably caused by the hard

rubber surfaces of the majority of court surfaces today, must be added Canada's current athlete of the year, Bianca Andreescu.

Andreescu is still in recovery from her knee injury suffered in China last month. Still no word about when that might heal enough to resume play.

Hopefully the Aussie Open?

It is no longer reasonable in today's hard rubber world to expect a tennis player to win 100+ matches.

Still, this remains a key metric to evaluate a great season, it puts the winners of 100+ matches in a special category, and establishes a qualifying benchmark

as a pre-condition for a truly great season.

With the plethora of leg and knee injuries related to hard rubber surfaces, is it expecting too much to implore the tennis world to move back to good old grass,

as the football and baseball worlds have already done?

Soccer never left the world of grass.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Would Djokovic's season in 2021 be regarded as one of the great all-time seasons? It might rank as high as Crawford in 1933 and Hoad in 1956.

 

[thrust]

Would Djokovic's season in 2021 be regarded as one of the great all-time seasons? It might rank as high as Crawford in 1933 and Hoad in 1956.

IF Novak wins this year's WTF, then it should be considered an ATG season. Unfortunately, for Novak the scheduling really hurts his chances as he has to play tonight, then Zverev tomorrow and most likely Medvedev IF he can get past Zverev who like Medvedev has a day off on Friday.