Men's Season with the most achievement
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
South Africa would change the point totals but Anderson did not do well there. According to McCauley, he went 4-10 there and finished in fourth place, behind Segura and Cooper; so it's hard to see how he could catch the latter two men in points as I've calculated them thus far.
Unfortunately I don't have any information about that South Africa tour, other than what's in McCauley.
Interesting..perhaps Anderson was wrong about 14 events..possibly it was 15 or 16?
Yep I was thinking something like that too.
Now, how many players played all 16 events? Or fifteen?
Most or all players skipped some of them, Trabert missed a bunch toward the second half of the season.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
The men's seasons with the greatest achievement in the Open Era are, IMHO:
1. Rod Laver, 1969 - Calendar Year Grand Slam speaks for itself. He also won the biggest tournament on hard courts and 18 titles in total.
2. Novak Djokovic, 2015 - 3 slams + YEC + 6 Masters, also had an unbeaten clay court season other than its most important match (FO final)
3. Roger Federer, 2006 - 3 slams + YEC. Only lost to two players throughout the year (one of them a GOAT contender and the clay GOAT)
4. John McEnroe, 1984 - 'Only' 2 slams, but the AO was not as important in those days. Had a ridiculous winning streak and an 82-3 overall record
5. Jimmy Connors, 1974 - 3 slams + many other tournaments, second best winning percentage in an Open Era season
6. Novak Djokovic, 2011 - 3 slams, arguably the best level of play of the Open Era considering the competition, great winning streak to start the season, but faded towards the end
7. Roger Federer, 2005 - 'Only' 2 slams, but had an 81-4 overall record, and in three of the defeats (Safin, Nalbandian, Gasquet), he was one or two points from winning
8. Bjorn Borg, 1979 - 2 slams + YEC, several other tournament wins and great winning percentage overall. Only slight downside is a quarter-final exit at the US Open
9. Guillermo Vilas, 1977 - 2 slams, ridiculous winning run, also lost in the final of the January AO (bizarrely was not ranked No 1 this year, but that's due to a faulty ranking system)
10. Rafael Nadal, 2010 - 3 slams, only man to win the biggest clay, grass and hard court tournaments in the same year, which pushes this just ahead of Fed's 2007 and Wilander's 1988 for me.
As you can see, I mainly consider slam achievements, but other factors such as competition, YEC/Masters titles, and W-L records come into play as well.
Maybe another poster could attempt the all-time Top 10 seasons, I don't think my knowledge of the pre-Open Era, especially the Pro tour, is strong enough to attempt that.
1. Rod Laver, 1969 - Calendar Year Grand Slam speaks for itself. He also won the biggest tournament on hard courts and 18 titles in total.
2. Novak Djokovic, 2015 - 3 slams + YEC + 6 Masters, also had an unbeaten clay court season other than its most important match (FO final)
3. Roger Federer, 2006 - 3 slams + YEC. Only lost to two players throughout the year (one of them a GOAT contender and the clay GOAT)
4. John McEnroe, 1984 - 'Only' 2 slams, but the AO was not as important in those days. Had a ridiculous winning streak and an 82-3 overall record
5. Jimmy Connors, 1974 - 3 slams + many other tournaments, second best winning percentage in an Open Era season
6. Novak Djokovic, 2011 - 3 slams, arguably the best level of play of the Open Era considering the competition, great winning streak to start the season, but faded towards the end
7. Roger Federer, 2005 - 'Only' 2 slams, but had an 81-4 overall record, and in three of the defeats (Safin, Nalbandian, Gasquet), he was one or two points from winning
8. Bjorn Borg, 1979 - 2 slams + YEC, several other tournament wins and great winning percentage overall. Only slight downside is a quarter-final exit at the US Open
9. Guillermo Vilas, 1977 - 2 slams, ridiculous winning run, also lost in the final of the January AO (bizarrely was not ranked No 1 this year, but that's due to a faulty ranking system)
10. Rafael Nadal, 2010 - 3 slams, only man to win the biggest clay, grass and hard court tournaments in the same year, which pushes this just ahead of Fed's 2007 and Wilander's 1988 for me.
As you can see, I mainly consider slam achievements, but other factors such as competition, YEC/Masters titles, and W-L records come into play as well.
Maybe another poster could attempt the all-time Top 10 seasons, I don't think my knowledge of the pre-Open Era, especially the Pro tour, is strong enough to attempt that.
You should also consider
1. Hoad, 1959 see above
2. Laver, 1967 see above
3. Budge, 1939
4. Gonzales, 1957
5. Rosewall, 1963
I think that Hoad played more matches in 1959 than the other players listed here in their best years, and against the toughest field.
NatF
Bionic Poster
From what I've read 1962 was a better year for Rosewall.
-------
Nadal's 2010 doesn't belong on that list IMO.
There was no pro tour in 1962, just a few stand-alone events.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Other possible years would be some of Vines' years in the pros. Tilden in 1921 when including the World Hardcourt he won three majors, the others being Wimbledon and the US Championship. Some of the years Dan mentioned like Hoad in 1959 although I agree with NatF that Rosewall in 1962 probably had a superior year to Rosewall in 1963. BobbyOne, the Rosewall "expert" agreed with that. Although I do wonder if you could call Rosewall's 1962 year that super since he didn't play that much, didn't have great competition imo with Gonzalez being retired, Laver not being a Pro yet and often injured Hoad not in playing shape. While he won two Pro majors out of two played he didn't play that much. He won 9 tournaments out of 15 played. Laver for example in 1967 won 19 tournaments the Pro Grand Slam and the most important tournament in the history of the Pro Tour which was the Wimbledon Pro. Rosewall did have a better winning percentage in 1962 than Laver in 1967.
Riggs in 1946 had a very underrated and unknown great year. He won the only Pro Major available in the US Pro and won 14 tournaments out of 31 played. Kovacs was next with 7 tournaments won, Perry won 4 and Budge far behind with 3 tournaments won. For some reason Budge was ranked number two to Riggs but that's the way it was done then. Rankings were often up to the people who choose. Perhaps Kovacs was lousy in other tournaments although I doubt it.
Incidentally I've of the opinion that Riggs is one of the unknown greats of our time. The problem was that it's well known he was a huge gambler and did bet. I don't think the tennis establishment was too fond of him overall. However Riggs had everything you wanted in a player, big serve, super and consistent groundstrokes, good volley. He lost to Kramer on tour by a big margin but even Kramer admitted that Riggs may have tanked a good portion of the tour to set him up for the US Pro and claim he was still the best over Kramer. Players like Vines, Budge and Kramer rank him extremely high among the all time tennis greats. Kramer for example ranks him over Laver and Rosewall among others. Vines barely ranks Laver over him but ranks Riggs over Rosewall.
Riggs in 1946 had a very underrated and unknown great year. He won the only Pro Major available in the US Pro and won 14 tournaments out of 31 played. Kovacs was next with 7 tournaments won, Perry won 4 and Budge far behind with 3 tournaments won. For some reason Budge was ranked number two to Riggs but that's the way it was done then. Rankings were often up to the people who choose. Perhaps Kovacs was lousy in other tournaments although I doubt it.
Incidentally I've of the opinion that Riggs is one of the unknown greats of our time. The problem was that it's well known he was a huge gambler and did bet. I don't think the tennis establishment was too fond of him overall. However Riggs had everything you wanted in a player, big serve, super and consistent groundstrokes, good volley. He lost to Kramer on tour by a big margin but even Kramer admitted that Riggs may have tanked a good portion of the tour to set him up for the US Pro and claim he was still the best over Kramer. Players like Vines, Budge and Kramer rank him extremely high among the all time tennis greats. Kramer for example ranks him over Laver and Rosewall among others. Vines barely ranks Laver over him but ranks Riggs over Rosewall.
Last edited:
These 16 events represent the strongest year and strongest field ever for pro tennis. This is one reason why I would rate Hoad's year for 1959 as the best ever.
Similarly, Laver's 1969 slam year was achieved against a deeper field of players than either his previous years in 1962 or 1967, which makes for a greater achievement. And Budge's year in 1938 should be downgraded for the same reason.
The field was a little weaker in 1962, and in that year, the amateurs probably had a stronger field than the pros.
Dan, I'm sorry but I must contradict. The amateurs had Laver, Emerson, Santana, Fraser, Osuna, McKinley, Pietrangeli, Mulligan. The pros had Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno, Sedgman, Segura, Buchholz,Trabert, Olmedo, Cooper, Anderson. Both groups had attractive names but I think the latter ones were significantly stronger.
Last edited:
I think that some of the pros were getting too long in the tooth and past prime....the only ones in prime form were Rosewall, Gimeno, Buchholz, Olmedo...a weaker group overall than the top amateurs.
Dan, Even though you are right that some pros were getting old around 1962, they still were stronger than most amateurs. Remember that Hoad was still very strong in 1962/1963, that Segura had one of his best years at all at 41, that Sedgman beat Laver in 1963 and 1964 and that he had two or three matchpoints against the Rocket at the 1965 Wembley tournament.
If you are interested, here my "mixed" 1962 rankings (I considered both achievements and playing strength):
1 Rosewall
2 Hoad
3 Gimeno
4 Laver
5 Segura
6 Buchholz
7 Sedgman
8 Trabert
8 Olmedo
10 Emerson
Next would be Anderson tied with Cooper.
Thus 8 pros and only 2 amateurs.
Bobby, it is really difficult to conclude anything about how strong the 1962 pros WOULD have been or COULD have been relative to the top amateurs, simply because they did not actually play each other in tournament play. No conclusions can be drawn about amateur/pro play which did not really happen.
However, it is clear that the pro tour did not exist in 1962, there was very little pro play, Hoad played only about 30 matches for that 12 month period. No one was match tough or sharp.
Dan, It may be difficult to compare and rank amateurs and pros together but it's far from impossible. Since the pro scene virtually emerged in the 1930s, rather often players ( Tilden!) and experts tried to rank both categories in "mixed" rankings. And they had some grounds for comparing the difficult. Firstly there sometimes were pro/am matches. Famous examples are von Cramm's win against Nüsslein (the latter was ill), Nüssleins win against Allison and the other US stars, and Tilden's win against von Cramm. Even in the 1960s there were some "Mixed" matches: Laver beat Darmon, Gimeno beat Alvarez (fine claycourter) 6-0, 6-0 on clay.
Furthermore often top amateurs (Davis Cup players) had famous coaches from the pro ranks, f.i. Gonzalez coached and played the US squad around 1960, Rosewall took Fraser and Emerson in practice matches etc.
The maybe most important point is the fact that often the amateur champ of a given year turned pro and played the following season against the reigning pro king. From 1950 onwards always the top pro beat the (former) top amateur, as you of course know. A few examples: Rosewall was the best amateur in the second half of 1956 (even though some posters contradict) but lost clearly to Gonzalez in their big tour (Rosewall handicapped by the fact that most matches were played indoors which was new for the Aussie); Olmedo won Wimbledon in 1959 but was slaughtered the following year by the pros, once losing to Rosewall 0-6, 0-6, 3-6.
You know how Laver fared in his pro debut. He was also slaughtered. Rosewall lost two matches to Rod but I'm sure that was because Ken did not practice at all for their series while Hoad tried to get his best form with intensively practicing.
Even Muscles himself reflected about Laver's strength in 1962 when he compiled a pro ranking at the end of 1962 as follows (from Joe's book): 1 Rosewall, 2 Hoad, 3 Gimeno, 4 Laver, 5 Buchholz. And, as it occured a little time later, he was not too bad with his prognosis that Laver would be No.4 in early 1963.
In the course of tennis history several experts have reflected how strong amateurs and pros have been. Otherwise we still would think (as the "experts" from Tennis Channel have done) that Emerson is greater and was stronger than Gonzalez, Hoad and Rosewall...
Only recently our overall respected poster krosero has speculated (using facts!) if Vines (pro) or Perry (amateur) was better in 1936. He also compared Vines and Budge in 1937 and 1938.
Of course a pro tour existed in 1962. Only the World Series was cancelled. But there was much activity from January to December. Hoad played more than about 30 matches, other players might have played even more than him.
"No one was match tough or sharp": This statement is just another of the many Dan jewels I have read. Please don't tell your claim to Ken Rosewall or Andres Gimeno...
Bobby, you've been away...yes I know how Laver fared in 1963 against Rosewall. As you suggest, it took Laver some time to adjust to indoor play, but he gave a great account of himself in outdoor play, splitting the four outdoor five set matches with Rosewall in Australia, and whipping Rosewall badly in the fourth one. Laver was tough in five sets that year.
In particular, for the pros in the late fifties, the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions was viewed as the foremost event in the pro game, certainly by the media.
Here is the British Pathe designation of Forest Hills as the World Professional Tennis Crown
Dan, Thanks for providing this. Rather lively play even from partly lesser players lke Nielsen and Haillet...
Dan, Thanks for that clipping. Two GOAT candidates are meeting at Forest Hills. Would be great to see the whole dramatic match with the 36 games set...
Unfortunately, no chance of that with Kramer not allowing television coverage...would have made pro tennis very popular at that time.
This may be the best clip we have of Anderson in prime form....quicker around the court than Cooper. Segura had at least one match point in this 1959 Wembley final, his best chance to win a Wembley.
Hoad was 18 to 2 against Cooper on the 4 man tour that year, but only 9 to 5 against Anderson.
Anderson finished a close second to Hoad on the 1960 New Zealand tour, and was 2 to 2 against Rosewall on the 1964 New Zealand tour...that mountain air must have agreed with him.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Segura actually held TWO match points against Anderson, but Anderson served to save them.
Also, Segura saved three match points against him, before losing. Tough loss.
There was that UPI poll in January 1963 which rated the top players for 1962 as 1) Hoad 2) Laver 3) Rosewall, using the January tour of Australia as the primary indicator.
Dan, A wrong claim (or stats) does not become true even if it is repeatedly written.
If UPI was ranking the 1962 season how can it use the 1963 tour as its primary indicator?
Rosewall had the edge over Laver in the 1963 Australia tour.
Hoad was neither in 1962 nor in 1963 the best player. Stop trolling!
Last edited:
Bobby, explain yourself please. How did Rosewall exceed Hoad on the 1963 Australian tour?
Hoad clearly had the best record.
You are aware that the sports editors rated Rosewall THIRD for 1962 based on his performance in Australia? Were those 85 sports editors merely a bunch of obnoxious "trolls"?
You are asking us to believe the incredible.
Dan, Sorry I confused Laver with Hoad. I have already corrected it.
Hoad never had clearly the best record in any year of his career apart from 1956 as an amateur. We can only rank him No.1 for 1959 (together with Pancho and arguably Muscles).
You still confuse 1962 with 1963. Please explain us how a player can be ranked No.1 for 1962 by counting his results of 1963! Obviously I'm too stupid to understand that riddle.
Rosewall was ranked by ALL experts No.1 for 1962 and 1963! It's just tennis history.
I don't believe that 85 TENNIS experts made that poll. But I believe they ranked according glamour, not achievements. See Laver's Grand Slam which was praised very much in that time.
I see...so it only counts if it agrees with your view?
Dan, All is counting which is correct and not distorted. Get serious and try to avoid to pump up Hoad's achievements.
You don't give any convincing counter-arguments.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Not here. Not compared to the greats of the game.Here we go. Another thread obviously heading into the direction of Federer 2006 vs Djokovic 2015. its getting ridiculous now
On the list, but not at the top.
You have no basis for alleging that the sports editors made their choice based on "glamour". That is a wild supposition.
Sports editors would normally consult their own reporters who cover tennis.
Dan, Laver and Hoad had more glamour than Rosewall. That's it. There was no single tennis expert in 1962/63 who ranked Muscles behind Hoad or Laver. Get serious!
Last edited:
The bookish experts were looking from December, not the end of January.
Dan, December 1962 or January 1963. You gave both versions. I'm confused!
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Another one of Bobby's jewels.
Do you have a source? A letter? A published biography?
Why don't you invent an injury? How about Muscles had mononucleosis.
(Rosewall does not need your blind, fawning, imaginary, rather pathetic excuses.)
hoodjem (and NatF), I properly should not answer such hateful and unreasonable posts.
But here yet an answer. Why do a few posters doubt and attack many, no: ALL my posts? Are they satisfied in trying to blame a fellow poster who uses to provide serious information??
You don't contradict my word that not having practiced might be the reason why Rosewall lost two matches. I would understand such a contradiction because of course there could have been several reasons for his losses. Here I might have formulated unlucky. No, you contradict (and you blame me for that) that I wrote that Muscles did not practice for the series. Please take this claim as a serious one. I don't remember for the moment where I have read it but I read it actually.
If you present an information I don't ask you (in a hostile tone) "Do you have a source?" and I don't insinuate you invent strange things. I'm very sad.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
You invent strange things. That is manifest. Plainly.
I do not need to contradict your words because contradiction is unnecessary and superfluous. What you state is conjecture and supposition (or at best unfounded opinion).
And everyone herein can witness the motivation behind it.
It's not invented. McCauley writes that while Hoad went into a period of intensive training for the upcoming tour against Laver, Rosewall "seemed unphased". That is likely to be based on something that McCauley read in World Tennis which was his main source; and I've found myself when looking through World Tennis how closely McCauley tended to follow that publication when making any of his claims.
I thought it was well known that Hoad took the challenge seriously and made every effort to get back in shape (because he was not in shape) and that Rosewall pointedly did not go into any special preparation. I thought I even saw that documented somewhere other than in McCauley (perhaps I saw it in World Tennis); though I did not save the reference.
I am deeply familiar with BobbyOne's work about Rosewall and I have never seen him talk about an injury without a source.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Okay. Thank you.
This is exactly what I was asking for--some source or reference for the statement that "Ken did not practice."
The UPI poll of 85 sports editors was done late Jan. 1963, not in December 1962....you and your sources are looking back from Dec. 1962.
Bobby, you should know that Rosewall practiced hard with both Laver and Hoad in preparation for the series...memory fail you?
I am still waiting for Bobby's source and explanation for the supposed "neck injury" in the 1967 Wimbledon Pro, Rosewall certainly was not wearing a neck brace in that final, as is clear from the clip that I provided. Did he sleep on a hard pillow and get a sore neck muscle? That is not an injury within the ordinary understanding of the term.
Both Hoad and Rosewall practiced for some time with Laver in preparation for the 1963 Australian tour.
