The Greatest 2-Slam Seasons

[NoleFam]

I also have him at No.1 but it is closer with Borg 1980 than one would think. Both won two out of three slams and loosing a tough five setter final at the third. Both won YEC with Borg going 5-0 against Mac,Connors and Lendl on carpet that season. Carpet was Macs best surface and Borg beat him twice. Mac in 84 or any other season never had to go through Borg on clay. Sure Macs win-loss record in 84 is unbelievable but I would rate Borgs channel slam under polarized conditions higher than a Wimbledon-US Open double.

I don't see how Borg 1980 was better than his 1979 season, but quite a few here do. He was 70-6 in 1980 but 84-6 in 1979, and won 13 titles in 1979 to 9 in 1980. I can't see either season really touching Mac's 1984 pure massacre of the field though, with an 82-3 record and 13 titles, with 8 of them being in the higher tier.

 

[buscemi]

I don't see how Borg 1980 was better than his 1979 season, but quite a few here do. He was 70-6 in 1980 but 84-6 in 1979, and won 13 titles in 1979 to 9 in 1980. I can't see either season really touching Mac's 1984 pure massacre of the field though, with an 82-3 record and 13 titles, with 8 of them being in the higher tier.

Borg 1979 and Borg 1980 are really close. I have 1980 ahead by a whisker due to the 5 set loss to McEnroe in the U.S. Open final vs. the QF loss to Tanner in 1979 (whom he would beat in the 1980 QF). I also agree that both are behind McEnroe's 1984.

 

[NoleFam]

Borg 1979 and Borg 1980 are really close. I have 1980 ahead by a whisker due to the 5 set loss to McEnroe in the U.S. Open final vs. the QF loss to Tanner in 1979 (whom he would beat in the 1980 QF). I also agree that both are behind McEnroe's 1984.

How though? He had 14 more wins in 1979 with the same amount losses, and won an extra Masters/Grand Prix title. He also had higher winning percentages on clay, hard and carpet in 1979, narrowly but they are higher. I have to go with 1979, especially because of his win/loss ratio and because he won 4 more titles.

 

[DSH]

To answer OP, here is my top 10:

1. 1984 McEnroe
2. 2005 Federer
3. 1979 Borg
4. 2008 Nadal
5. 2013 Nadal
6. 1980 Borg
7. 2016 Djokovic
8. 1986 Lendl
9. 1994 Sampras
10. 1999 Agassi

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

don't see how Borg 1980 was better than his 1979 season, but quite a few here do. He was 70-6 in 1980 but 84-6 in 1979, and won 13 titles in 1979 to 9 in 1980.

In 80 he reached the US Open final and was very close to winning all slams that season. In 79 he lost in the quarter. Also I would rate the competition higher in 80. Beating Mac in Wimbledon is way tougher than beating Tanner. Also, as mentioned what I rate very high is his carpet season in 80. Going 5-0 against three carpet giants is massive considering that it is only his third best surface. Imagine a guy wins the FO going 5-0 in the clay season against Nadal, Federer and Djokovic.

I also can't see either season really touching Mac's 1984 pure massacre of the field, with an 82-3 record and 13 titles, with 8 of them being in the higher tier.

Im slam achievements and YEC they are deadly even with Borg arguably facing tougher competition and having the elusive channel slam under polarized conditions. Those are the big ones and this is what counts most. Sure win-loss ratios are impressive but also can be misleading if this is racked up at smaller events. What sets Mac in 84 apart for me is more his WCT title which Borg did not play in 1980.

 

[buscemi]

How though? He had 14 more wins in 1979 with the same amount losses, and won an extra Masters/Grand Prix title. He also had higher winning percentages on clay, hard and carpet in 1979, narrowly but they are higher. I have to go with 1979, especially because of his win/loss ratio and because he won 4 more titles.

Let's look at the 3 biggest tournaments of the year:

French Open: 1979: Lost 3 sets, beating Pecci in 4 set in the finals. 1980: Dominated, losing 0 sets, beating Gerulaitis in the finals.​

Wimbledon: 1979: Lost 6 sets, beating Tanner in 5 sets in the finals. 1980: Lost 4 sets, beating McEnroe in an epic 5 setter in the finals.​

U.S. Open: 1979: Lost to Tanner in 4 sets in the QF. 1980: Lost to McEnroe in 5 sets in the finals.​

I would say Borg played better against better competition in 1980 vs. 1979.

WTF also might play a role here. 1978 WTF was held in January 1979, and Borg didn't play. 1979 WTF was held in January 1980, and Borg won without losing a match, straight setting Gerulaitis in the finals. 1980 WTF was held in January 1981, and Borg won, losing 1 match (to Mayer), straight setting Lendl in the final.

I go by the year a tournament was played, meaning Borg won WTF in 1980 and didn't play in 1979, but I don't have a huge objection if you treat 1979 WTF as part of 1979 and 1980 WTF as part of 1980.

 

[DSH]

Courier won AO and RG in 1992.

And Wilander won those Slams plus the US Open, in 1988.

 

[NoleFam]

In 80 he reached the US Open final and was very close to winning all slams that season. In 79 he lost in the quarter. Also I would rate the competition higher in 80. Beating Mac in Wimbledon is way tougher than beating Tanner. Also, as mentioned what I rate very high is his carpet season in 80. Going 5-0 against three carpet giants is massive considering that it is only his third best surface. Imagine a guy wins the FO going 5-0 in the clay season against Nadal, Federer and Djokovic.

Im slam achievements and YEC they are deadly even with Borg arguably facing tougher competition and having the elusive channel slam under polarized conditions. Those are the big ones and this is what counts most. Sure win-loss ratios are impressive but also can be misleading if this is racked up at smaller events. What sets Mac in 84 apart for me is more his WCT title which Borg did not play in 1980.

Neither Wimbledon draw in either year is what I would call groundbreaking but he did beat Connors in the 1979 SF that you kind of left out and squeaked out the final in 5 against Tanner, so even though Tanner isn't a player on McEnroe's level we have to say he put up a valiant effort. On carpet, he was 19-2 in 1980 but 32-3 in 1979. Yea he went 5-0 against Lendl, Connors and Mac in 1979, but his 8-2 against Connors, Mac and Gerulaitis in 1979 wasn't too shabby either. He won 5 carpet titles in 1979 and 3 in 1980, so his head to head record against his rivals is not enough for me to say 1980 outweighs 1979.

I don't think Borg gets brownie points for a channel Slam when Mac won the USO in his year, so while Mac never won a channel Slam, Borg never held a USO title either. So the channel Slam was more attainable for Borg but winning Wimbledon and the USO was more attainable for Mac. It's kind of a wash so what separates them is how dominant Mac was from the beginning of the year to the end, with level of competition being more subjective.

 

[NoleFam]

Let's look at the 3 biggest tournaments of the year:

French Open: 1979: Lost 3 sets, beating Pecci in 4 set in the finals. 1980: Dominated, losing 0 sets, beating Gerulaitis in the finals.​

Wimbledon: 1979: Lost 6 sets, beating Tanner in 5 sets in the finals. 1980: Lost 4 sets, beating McEnroe in an epic 5 setter in the finals.​

U.S. Open: 1979: Lost to Tanner in 4 sets in the QF. 1980: Lost to McEnroe in 5 sets in the finals.​

I would say Borg played better against better competition in 1980 vs. 1979.

WTF also might play a role here. 1978 WTF was held in January 1979, and Borg didn't play. 1979 WTF was held in January 1980, and Borg won without losing a match, straight setting Gerulaitis in the finals. 1980 WTF was held in January 1981, and Borg won, losing 1 match (to Mayer), straight setting Lendl in the final.

I go by the year a tournament was played, meaning Borg won WTF in 1980 and didn't play in 1979, but I don't have a huge objection if you treat 1979 WTF as part of 1979 and 1980 WTF as part of 1980.

Is the number of sets they lost to winning the title really that important though? His draw in 1980 Wimbledon consisted of two players ranked outside the top 100 and another ranked outside the top 80. He should have lost less sets in that tournament. I don't know if he played better against competition in either year since I didn't watch the majority of those matches, since that was before my time and am going on what he achieved, and the numbers he put up.

I will say Tanner wasn't exactly a scrub being that he was an AO champ, so I don't weigh that USO loss as a bad one really although his USO run in 1980 was definitely better than 1979. With that said, his USO run is just not enough for me to rank that year over 1979.

Fair enough on the WTF but I was treating that win over Lendl as part of 1979. I guess we will just disagree on this it seems.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I don't think Borg gets browny points for a channel Slam when Mac won the USO in his year, so while Mac never won a channel Slam, Borg never held a USO title either. So the channel Slam was more attainable for Borg but winning Wimbledon and the USO was more attainable for Mac.

While this is generally true, the channel slam under polarized conditions is harder to achieve than the Wimbly - US double. Wimbledon grass and the fast US Open HC played very similar. If we compare the respective winners in the 80s and 90s it is very showy how often the winners coincide. Mac, Edberg, Sampras, Connors almost everyone who was good at Wimbledon also excelled at the US Open while at the same time having the French at their worst slam.

 

[buscemi]

Is the number of sets they lost to winning the title really that important though? His draw in 1980 Wimbledon consisted of two players ranked outside the top 100 and another ranked outside the top 80. He should have lost less sets in that tournament. I don't know if he played better against competition in either year since I didn't watch the majority of those matches, since that was before my time and am going on what he achieved, and the numbers he put up.

I will say Tanner wasn't exactly a scrub being that he was an AO champ, so I don't weigh that USO loss as a bad one really although his USO run in 1980 was definitely better than 1979. With that said, his USO run is just not enough for me to rank that year over 1979.

Fair enough on the WTF but I was treating that win over Lendl as part of 1979. I guess we will just disagree on this it seems.

Fair enough. I admit they're really close, so I can definitely see the case for Borg 1979 being better than Borg 1980.

 

[NoleFam]

While this is generally true, the channel slam under polarized conditions is harder to achieve than the Wimbly - US double. Wimbledon grass and the fast US Open HC played very similar. If we compare the respective winners in the 80s and 90s it is very showy how often the winners coincide. Mac, Edberg, Sampras, Connors almost everyone who was good at Wimbledon also excelled at the US Open while at the same time having the French at their worst slam.

Fair enough but Borg is unique in that no other player was dominant at RG and Wimbledon. That is his trademark but when comparing two dominant seasons, I don't give extra points for which combination of Slams each player won when they have the same number of wins and the same number of finals. Agree to disagree here.

 

[BeatlesFan]

McEnroe 1984. Whoever is in second place, is way down the ladder.

Mac was 82-3 in 1984 and won 13 titles. His winning percentage was 96.5%, which remains the highest single-season winning percentage by a man in the Open Era. He reached the finals of all three slams he played in that season, winning two of them.

I can't see how anyone can dispute McEnroe's 1984 is the greatest two-slam season ever.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Lendl 1986. Only 3 Majors were held that year due to the Australian Open shift from December to January. Lendl won the French Open, the U.S. Open, WTF (without dropping a set), and the Lipton (128 player draw & BO5 in QF/SF/F), and lost in the Wimbledon finals to Becker.

I'm a gigantic Lendl fan, but his '86 season isn't remotely as great as Mac's '84 season. Ivan won 9 titles in 1986, Mac won 13 in 1984, along with many other intangibles.

 

[clout]

No way I would put Nadal 2013 above Sampras 94. Sampras was great that year had already won 7 tournaments before Wimbledon started and also a very good FO for his standards. He was a little unlucky that he got injured prior to the US Open, if not he would have very good chances to win 3 slams that year. He came back strong though winning YEC. Nadal in 2013 won two slams which is great but did nothing (literally nothing) at the other two and also as usual did not win YEC.

I put Nadal 2013 at #5 since he literally played zero matches 7 months prior to his start of the season, and once he did he lost like 2 matches between mid-February and early-October. 2013 was also quite a competitive year with Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all playing at a very high level (at least until Murray's late season injury), Ferrer had one of his best years, Del Potro had one of his best years, and Wawrinka had his best year to that date - the only player who didn't play well in '13 was Federer.

1994 was the year a lot prominent late 80s/early 90s players began to decline. Courier, and Edberg were on the decline, Lendl retired, and Becker missed half the year. There was also no 25/26 year old, in the middle of his prime, Novak Djokovic in 1994, which imo is the big factor (half of Rafa's losses from Sao Paolo till the end of the year were to Nole).

In comparison:

2013 Nadal: 75-7 (92%) record, 10 titles, 2 Majors, 5 Masters, 14 finals, 16 semifinals, YEC finals, 24 wins vs top 10 players, 12 wins vs top 5 players, best stretch - 62-2 (97%) from Sao Paolo to Beijing
1994 Sampras: 77-12 (87%) record, 10 titles, 2 Majors, 3 Masters, 12 finals, 13 semifinals, YEC title, 13 wins vs top 10 players, 8 wins vs top 10 players, best stretch - 55-4 (93%) from Sydney to Wimbledon

Two incredible seasons, but gun to my head and I had to rank one above the other, I'd give '13 Rafa the edge over '94 Pete

 

[FedIsBoat]

Fed had mono in 2008, it's the only reason Nadal beat him. 2019 W semi proved that.

 

[DSH]

Fed had mono in 2008, it's the only reason Nadal beat him. 2019 W semi proved that.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

I put Nadal 2013 at #5 since he literally played zero matches 7 months prior to his start of the season, and once he did he lost like 2 matches between mid-February and early-October. 2013 was also quite a competitive year with Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all playing at a very high level (at least until Murray's late season injury), Ferrer had one of his best years, Del Potro had one of his best years, and Wawrinka had his best year to that date - the only player who didn't play well in '13 was Federer.

1994 was the year a lot prominent late 80s/early 90s players began to decline. Courier, and Edberg were on the decline, Lendl retired, and Becker missed half the year. There was also no 25/26 year old, in the middle of his prime, Novak Djokovic in 1994, which imo is the big factor (half of Rafa's losses from Sao Paolo till the end of the year were to Nole).

In comparison:

2013 Nadal: 75-7 (92%) record, 10 titles, 2 Majors, 5 Masters, 14 finals, 16 semifinals, YEC finals, 24 wins vs top 10 players, 12 wins vs top 5 players, best stretch - 62-2 (97%) from Sao Paolo to Beijing
1994 Sampras: 77-12 (87%) record, 10 titles, 2 Majors, 3 Masters, 12 finals, 13 semifinals, YEC title, 13 wins vs top 10 players, 8 wins vs top 10 players, best stretch - 55-4 (93%) from Sydney to Wimbledon

Two incredible seasons, but gun to my head and I had to rank one above the other, I'd give '13 Rafa the edge over '94 Pete

Agree to disagree then. Even if we consider Rafas injury at the beginning of the year, the first round loss at Wimbledon still stands and Sampras also got injured prior to the US Open, otherwise it could very well have been a 3 slam season. Pete also won the YEC, while Rafa lost the final against Djokovic.

 

[FedIsBoat]

You honestly don't believe Nadal had knee issues in 2009 when he lost to Sod at FO?

 

[clout]

Agree to disagree then. Even if we consider Rafas injury at the beginning of the year, the first round loss at Wimbledon still stands and Sampras also got injured prior to the US Open, otherwise it could very well have been a 3 slam season. Pete also won the YEC, while Rafa lost the final against Djokovic.

Yea that's fair

 

[DSH]

You honestly don't believe Nadal had knee issues in 2009 when he lost to Sod at FO?

If you think that Nadal did not deserve to beat Federer in Wimbledon 2008 because the Swiss still suffered the consequences of mononucleosis, it is your point of view.

Seeing the match that both played right there in 2007, your statement is not congruent. Nadal could have won Wimbledon a year earlier and would not have detracted any merit from what Federer did for 4 consecutive years at the Cathedral.

With respect to the 2019 match, the Spaniard played a bad match tactically and, of course, the opponent in front, who is not a stranger precisely, made him pay the consequences.

Subtracting the merits of someone after so many years, just to corroborate your thesis, does not help foster a healthy discussion among the people we love tennis.

 

[FedIsBoat]

If you think that Nadal did not deserve to beat Federer in Wimbledon 2008 because the Swiss still suffered the consequences of mononucleosis, it is your point of view.

Seeing the match that both played right there in 2007, your statement is not congruent. Nadal could have won Wimbledon a year earlier and would not have detracted any merit from what Federer did for 4 consecutive years at the Cathedral.

With respect to the 2019 match, the Spaniard played a bad match tactically and, of course, the opponent in front, who is not a stranger precisely, made him pay the consequences.

Subtracting the merits of someone after so many years, just to corroborate your thesis, does not help foster a healthy discussion among the people we love tennis.

It's not non-congruent at all. If Federer can lose to Stakhowsky at W then he can lose an extra set here and there to Nadal, hence 2007.

As for the bolded, I see your and raise you

Just to make it crystal clear, saying Nadal played a bad match is completely congruously to claiming Fed had mono, LOL, the hypocrisy is incredible on this forum and some of you don't even realize it. Sad.

 

[tennis_pro]

Can't believe no-one mentioned 2017 Fed. He basically didn't lose a match unless he was injured or tired. Literally pwned the no 2 player in the world and anyone that mattered.

 

[buscemi]

I'm a gigantic Lendl fan, but his '86 season isn't remotely as great as Mac's '84 season. Ivan won 9 titles in 1986, Mac won 13 in 1984, along with many other intangibles.

Yes, I just added him in that post b/c McEnroe 1984 had already been mentioned. McEnroe 1984 is definitely #1 for me.

 

[buscemi]

Can't believe no-one mentioned 2017 Fed. He basically didn't lose a match unless he was injured or tired. Literally pwned the no 2 player in the world and anyone that mattered.

There are a bunch of players who won 2 Majors and finished year-end #1 and/or won WTF. Tough to include a season where Federer did neither.

 

[DSH]

It's not non-congruent at all. If Federer can lose to Stakhowsky at W then he can lose an extra set here and there to Nadal, hence 2007.

As for the bolded, I see your and raise you

Just to make it crystal clear, saying Nadal played a bad match is completely congruously to claiming Fed had mono, LOL, the hypocrisy is incredible on this forum and some of you don't even realize it. Sad.

Not at all, it seems to bother you still (and many others) that Nadal was the one who overthrew Federer in his sacred garden, and they look for an excuse to justify a perfectly viable situation.

An old news that many do not understand in their stubborn head: No one is invincible, nobody.

If you accept that your idol was defeated in good law, the debate becomes more interesting, returning to an idea incessantly does not change what happened.

And at least for me, it doesn't take away an iota of greatness from what Federer did for years at Wimbledon, where he achieved what no one else had managed to accomplish: Win an eighth title there, an absolute record in men's tennis.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

How the heck did I forget McEnroe’s 1984 season?

Yeah. McEnroe was astounding form that year, and no one could handle him at the majors he won. Legendary year for a player--not GOAT, but legendary.

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

1979 borg
1980 borg
1984 mcenroe
1986 lendl
1987 lendl
1994 sampras
2005 federer

 

[Third Serve]

Aaaaand I also need to submit my own list as well.

1. McEnroe 1984
2. Federer 2005
3. Nadal 2013
4. Sampras 1994
5. Nadal 2008

I’m afraid that’s all I know.

Looking back on yesterday, I think Lendl's 1986 season had to fit in there somewhere. I'll leave the original list here but post a new one:

1. McEnroe 1984
2. Federer 2005
3. Lendl 1986
4. Nadal 2013
5. Sampras 1994

 

[BGod]

Open Era:

1. Federer 05- This is very much to do with his winning percentage where he was going to break McEnroe's mark were not for a 2-0 choke against Nalbandian. But truly a masterclass 2 Slam season that you always forget was just 2 Slams wedged in that 04-07 super run.
2. McEnroe 84- I don't like the competition this year which boosted the numbers for Mac, but that's really the only criticism I can put on it. The tour was also different in terms of prestige in non-Slam events.
3. Nadal 13- Rafa put out an assault winning 4 Masters in a row along with the French and USO with only that Wimbledon loss a stain during that run. Outside of it he had a 5th Masters title with another Final and playing the WTF title match as well. Indeed that 1st Round exit at Wimbledon was the only 1 of 12 big events he didn't at least make SF. Outrageous.
4. Sampras 94- It might be a matter of opinion which was Pete's best season but 1994 has a lot going for it. In addition to the Slams he won 3 of the 5 Masters he entered including the Sunshine Double which although Indian Wells wasn't as revered Key Biscayne certainly was the 5th biggest tournament of the year. He also won the WTF so aside from the French and USO there isn't much left to desire and what's more is his 3rd Masters was his only big clay title in Rome. It really was a very dominant year for him outside the 2 Slams he didn't win.
5. Federer 09- The lack of big titles outside the Slams holds this back but the man was so close to winning all 4 wasn't he? I think that's enough said about this ranking.
6. Novak 16- I can't help but feel the 2nd half of the season for Novak wasn't so much declining play but just not caring after finally getting that French Open. As it stands he still made an additional Slam Final and WTF title match along with 4 Masters titles and another Final. By the books this season beats the Borg runs, although I understand it was a different era, Borg did play less.
7. Borg 80-Borg simply didn't play the amount of events pros of today do, so that's why I have his 80 season, on paper seemingly his best at #8.
8. Borg 79-This basically boils down to the year end tournaments and Grand Prix titles. He won the most Grand Prix (4) of his career and this was only one of 3 seasons he played both year end tournaments, winning the modern version WTF and getting to the finals of WCT. The knock here on paper is the QF loss to Tanner at the USO but really he had an overall possibly cleanest season of his career depending on how you look at it.
9. Borg 78-The margin between this and his 1980 season isn't really that big. He just didn't play several tournaments in 78 that he would in 80, not that he was necessarily worse. The biggest mark is that he came closest to winning the USO losing in 5 sets and that's true but he also faced stiffer competition at Wimbledon whereas in 78 he steamrolled. Overall this is still Prime Borg, I feel from a physical level better than 80 Borg as well as stronger mentally but that's me. I'm still putting 80 season ahead for obvious reasons but I'm looking at how good Borg was himself.
10. Federer 17- This season can only be defined by brutal efficiency. Of the 8 big events entered, Federer won 5 of them and made a Final, SF and QF in the ones he didn't. The Sunshine Double is clearly the 6-7th biggest tournaments of the year. However not playing many tournaments limits how high I can really put this up, despite the clean sweep at Wimbledon. You're also looking at weakened competition with both Djokovic and Murray sidelines with injuries.

 

[DSH]

Open Era:

1. Federer 05- This is very much to do with his winning percentage where he was going to break McEnroe's mark were not for a 2-0 choke against Nalbandian. But truly a masterclass 2 Slam season that you always forget was just 2 Slams wedged in that 04-07 super run.
2. McEnroe 84- I don't like the competition this year which boosted the numbers for Mac, but that's really the only criticism I can put on it. The tour was also different in terms of prestige in non-Slam events.
3. Nadal 13- Rafa put out an assault winning 4 Masters in a row along with the French and USO with only that Wimbledon loss a stain during that run. Outside of it he had a 5th Masters title with another Final and playing the WTF title match as well. Indeed that 1st Round exit at Wimbledon was the only 1 of 12 big events he didn't at least make SF. Outrageous.
4. Sampras 94- It might be a matter of opinion which was Pete's best season but 1994 has a lot going for it. In addition to the Slams he won 3 of the 5 Masters he entered including the Sunshine Double which although Indian Wells wasn't as revered Key Biscayne certainly was the 5th biggest tournament of the year. He also won the WTF so aside from the French and USO there isn't much left to desire and what's more is his 3rd Masters was his only big clay title in Rome. It really was a very dominant year for him outside the 2 Slams he didn't win.
5. Federer 09- The lack of big titles outside the Slams holds this back but the man was so close to winning all 4 wasn't he? I think that's enough said about this ranking.
6. Novak 16- I can't help but feel the 2nd half of the season for Novak wasn't so much declining play but just not caring after finally getting that French Open. As it stands he still made an additional Slam Final and WTF title match along with 4 Masters titles and another Final. By the books this season beats the Borg runs, although I understand it was a different era, Borg did play less.
7. Borg 80-Borg simply didn't play the amount of events pros of today do, so that's why I have his 80 season, on paper seemingly his best at #8.
8. Borg 79-This basically boils down to the year end tournaments and Grand Prix titles. He won the most Grand Prix (4) of his career and this was only one of 3 seasons he played both year end tournaments, winning the modern version WTF and getting to the finals of WCT. The knock here on paper is the QF loss to Tanner at the USO but really he had an overall possibly cleanest season of his career depending on how you look at it.
9. Borg 78-The margin between this and his 1980 season isn't really that big. He just didn't play several tournaments in 78 that he would in 80, not that he was necessarily worse. The biggest mark is that he came closest to winning the USO losing in 5 sets and that's true but he also faced stiffer competition at Wimbledon whereas in 78 he steamrolled. Overall this is still Prime Borg, I feel from a physical level better than 80 Borg as well as stronger mentally but that's me. I'm still putting 80 season ahead for obvious reasons but I'm looking at how good Borg was himself.
10. Federer 17- This season can only be defined by brutal efficiency. Of the 8 big events entered, Federer won 5 of them and made a Final, SF and QF in the ones he didn't. The Sunshine Double is clearly the 6-7th biggest tournaments of the year. However not playing many tournaments limits how high I can really put this up, despite the clean sweep at Wimbledon. You're also looking at weakened competition with both Djokovic and Murray sidelines with injuries.

He was also close to losing with Acasuso, Haas or Del Potro in RG, and with Roddick in Wimbledon, but apparently your memory just wants to remember the "good times" of the Swiss that year.

And the 2008 Nadal season is better than some that you mention.

 

[FedIsBoat]

Not at all, it seems to bother you still (and many others) that Nadal was the one who overthrew Federer in his sacred garden, and they look for an excuse to justify a perfectly viable situation.

An old news that many do not understand in their stubborn head: No one is invincible, nobody.

If you accept that your idol was defeated in good law, the debate becomes more interesting, returning to an idea incessantly does not change what happened.

And at least for me, it doesn't take away an iota of greatness from what Federer did for years at Wimbledon, where he achieved what no one else had managed to accomplish: Win an eighth title there, an absolute record in men's tennis.

What not at all, totally all, you're a hypocrite. My idol is still leading the slam count, last I checked. Still the GOAT

 

[DSH]

What not at all, totally all, you're a hypocrite. My idol is still leading the slam count, last I checked. Still the GOAT

Good for you!

 

[FedIsBoat]

Good for you!

And you too, since he is your GOAT too