Top 10 Individual Open Era Seasons (Men+Women)

[egn]

Curious as into what you guys feel as the overall best individual seasons for both the men, just the top 10..would be nice to tally this all up and see what gets the most votes. I stumbled across a horribly written ESPN article on this, but then again the fact that I expected a good ESPN tennis article is funny. However out of curiosity anyone have input.

Men
1. Laver 1969
2. Federer 2006
3. Connors 1974
4. McEnroe 1984
5. Borg 1980
6. Lendl 1986
7. Federer 2007
8. Wilander 1988
9. Nadal 2008
10. Sampras 1994

Sure I get accused as ******* for that list. Wilander is as low as he is, because he only won 3 titles outside of the slams. I had a hard time with 2 and 3 as Connors 1974 and Federer 2006 were both phenomenal and I just could not pick as Connors was banned from the French Open, both won a lot of titles, had high winning percentages, it was tough.The middle was probably the easiest However Fed 2007 some might say is low? But Borg, McEnroe and Lendl all played phenomenal years and only played 2 of 3 slams making finals in all 3. Overall they had better win percentages and more titles so that was the edge over Fed. I hate to seem like a bandwagon jumper but Nadal 2008 was a phenomenal year. Sampras is also very low on the list but then again Sampras is noted for whole career dominance his best years might not be 1 or 2 on this list but career wise he is up near the top.

Women's
1. Graf 88
2. Court 70
3. Navratilova 83
4. Graf 89
5. Navratilova 84
6. King 72
7. Seles 92
8. Navratilova 86
9. Court 73
10. S. Williams 02

This was tough too many Graf/Navratilova years that I wanted to put in, and almost any thinking from 3-10 can easily be switched around..definitely a lot tougher than the mens list.

 

[Andres]

No Vilas 1977?

 

[CyBorg]

Two Federer years in the top 10 isn't too *******ish. Fed in 2006 is probably the second best in the open era.

Some comments:

- Connors 1974 - overrated. Avoided red clay events like a plague. Playing them would have taken some lustre off his year. Instead he stocked up on wins on a lot of minor events with bad fields. The Aussie Open championship isn't as much of an accomplishment as it is now. I would also argue that this was a transitional year with a lot of bad competition. Old Rosewall, old Newcombe, very young Borg. Jimmy just took advantage. The fact that he never came close to having such impressive numbers ever again suggests that the numbers here lie.

- Nice to see Lendl's year as high as you have it. Notice that Ivan only won two majors in this year; but it's easy to ignore the fact that the Australian was not played. This was truly a mesmerizing year.

- Wilander 1988 - I have a lot of respect for what Wilander did here, but I believe that one cannot look at only the majors won. One has to look at the whole year and this is not a dominant year. Borg's performances in 1978 and 1979 are much better, as an example. It also doesn't seem too *******ish of you to leave off Roger's great year in 2005 in favour of this.

- Nadal 2008 - I look at this in terms of percentages; Nadal was 2 out of 4 in majors; 1 out of 2 in the other key events (Olympics/Masters). Solid, but Borg was 2 out of 3 in majors and 1 for 1 in masters in 78 and 79. Way better than this.

- Sampras doesn't seem to quite crack it. He had some fantastic years and his consistency from year to year was something marvel at. But not a single really knock-your-socks-off kind of year. 1994 is probably the closest he came to this, but I'm not sure it deserves to be here.

- Vilas doesn't deserve a place on this list, AG.

 

[GameSampras]

How about Agassi 1995?

 

[boredone3456]

no Henin 07?...I mean she won 2 majors and she went undefeated after that Wimby disaster against Bartoli that year...that deserves something. All that on the Piggy back of a divorce that drove her out of the Aussie Open.

or 06 when she made all 4 slam finals? Both of those years were pretty good for her.

 

[crabgrass]

hard to go past steffi's 1988, the grand slam plus olympic gold seems impossible to top.
graf had another 4 years where she won 3 grand slams, so she could be on this list possibly 5 times or so.
i think steffi was at her most dominant between 1987 through 1989,
at least in terms of her winning percentage:
in '87 she won 97.4% of her matches (only 2 losses all year)
in '88 she won 96.0% of her matches (only 3 losses all year)
in '89 she won 97.6% of her matches (only 2 losses all year)

surprisingly chris evert hasnt gotten a mention, i would think her best year would be at least a contender for a top ten spot.

 

[egn]

no Henin 07?...I mean she won 2 majors and she went undefeated after that Wimby disaster against Bartoli that year...that deserves something. All that on the Piggy back of a divorce that drove her out of the Aussie Open.

or 06 when she made all 4 slam finals? Both of those years were pretty good for her.

Henin 07 over any of those is an outrage. Only Navratilova 86 had two slams and she made all 4 finals that year and her win percntage was 96..Henin never close to that.

hard to go past steffi's 1988, the grand slam plus olympic gold seems impossible to top.
graf had another 4 years where she won 3 grand slams, so she could be on this list possibly 5 times or so.
i think steffi was at her most dominant between 1987 through 1989,
at least in terms of her winning percentage:
in '87 she won 97.4% of her matches (only 2 losses all year)
in '88 she won 96.0% of her matches (only 3 losses all year)
in '89 she won 97.6% of her matches (only 2 losses all year)

surprisingly chris evert hasnt gotten a mention, i would think her best year would be at least a contender for a top ten spot.

Probably with 87 was she lost the two biggest matches of the year..93..Should have thrown that in now that I think about it..but 95 and 96 could have slipped in at 10 over Williams 02, but Williams 02 impresses me more cause she came out of nowhere.

On Chris Evert I was looking at 80 or 82..Once again for those last 2 spots but the 3 slam wins from Court and Williams just kind of weighed me against Evert..once again it was tough..which is why I want other input.

Two Federer years in the top 10 isn't too *******ish. Fed in 2006 is probably the second best in the open era.

Some comments:

- Connors 1974 - overrated. Avoided red clay events like a plague. Playing them would have taken some lustre off his year. Instead he stocked up on wins on a lot of minor events with bad fields. The Aussie Open championship isn't as much of an accomplishment as it is now. I would also argue that this was a transitional year with a lot of bad competition. Old Rosewall, old Newcombe, very young Borg. Jimmy just took advantage. The fact that he never came close to having such impressive numbers ever again suggests that the numbers here lie.

- Nice to see Lendl's year as high as you have it. Notice that Ivan only won two majors in this year; but it's easy to ignore the fact that the Australian was not played. This was truly a mesmerizing year.

- Wilander 1988 - I have a lot of respect for what Wilander did here, but I believe that one cannot look at only the majors won. One has to look at the whole year and this is not a dominant year. Borg's performances in 1978 and 1979 are much better, as an example. It also doesn't seem too *******ish of you to leave off Roger's great year in 2005 in favour of this.

- Nadal 2008 - I look at this in terms of percentages; Nadal was 2 out of 4 in majors; 1 out of 2 in the other key events (Olympics/Masters). Solid, but Borg was 2 out of 3 in majors and 1 for 1 in masters in 78 and 79. Way better than this.

- Sampras doesn't seem to quite crack it. He had some fantastic years and his consistency from year to year was something marvel at. But not a single really knock-your-socks-off kind of year. 1994 is probably the closest he came to this, but I'm not sure it deserves to be here.

- Vilas doesn't deserve a place on this list, AG.

On Connors thats why I threw him 3 but still his accomplished record for that year puts him as high as he is. He did win a clay event that year and won on all the major surfaces that year so I had to give it to him.

Yay for someone understanding the Lendl reason.

On Nadal. I happen to like his year, 78 Borg in my opinion was worse, 79 Borg I guess you could make the case. But 78 Borg in my opinion was not as good as 08 Nadal its preference though. I like 08 Nadal his mid year performance was amazing, the streak is what has me going I guess you can say. His dominance in this season was outstanding.

Good point on Wilander 1988 and Sampras 94..I kind of just felt like different things I guess. Wilander 1988 and Sampras 94 should probably be Fed 05 and Borg 79.

How about Agassi 1995?

Not close.

 

[boredone3456]

Well..This list is decent but I think overall having a single player on the lists multiple times is off putting. I think if you put the absolute best years of players throughout history into one list it would be better, because obviously the womens list is dominated by the women considered the all time greats...well without Evert. Like its been said...Graf could be on a list of best years 5 or 6 times, and thats sort of makes the whole idea boring. Henin had 2 pretty good years, Vicario's 94 was phenominal for her, Hingis in 97 was good and should have been better if not for that gag at the french. I think comparing personal best years would be pretty cool. but thats just my opinion.

 

[AndrewTas]

- Connors 1974 - overrated. Avoided red clay events like a plague.

Connors was barred from the French in 1974 because of his commitment to World Team Tennis. He and Goolagong sued the ITF. So I don't think he tried to avoid clay courts.

 

[srinrajesh]

I would rate the performances in grand slams and year end masters as higher when taking the year's dominance.

In that respect, I like Boris becker's great year in 1989 as well. He won the two biggest grand slams in Wimbledon and US open, reached the year end masters final and lost a close 5 setter to edberg in french open SF(the year in which 17 year old chang won his french open-would probably have been overpowered had becker reached the final)
He won 3 other titles and made the monte carlo final on clay as well.

Sampras in 1994 won 2 GS but lost in 4th round at US open.

 

[JoshDragon]

Curious as into what you guys feel as the overall best individual seasons for both the men, just the top 10..would be nice to tally this all up and see what gets the most votes. I stumbled across a horribly written ESPN article on this, but then again the fact that I expected a good ESPN tennis article is funny. However out of curiosity anyone have input.

Men
1. Laver 1969
2. Federer 2006
3. Connors 1974
4. Borg 1980
5. McEnroe 1984
6. Lendl 1986
7. Federer 2007
8. Wilander 1988
9. Nadal 2008
10. Sampras 1994

Sure I get accused as ******* for that list. Wilander is as low as he is, because he only won 3 titles outside of the slams. I had a hard time with 2 and 3 as Connors 1974 and Federer 2006 were both phenomenal and I just could not pick as Connors was banned from the French Open, both won a lot of titles, had high winning percentages, it was tough.The middle was probably the easiest However Fed 2007 some might say is low? But Borg, McEnroe and Lendl all played phenomenal years and only played 2 of 3 slams making finals in all 3. Overall they had better win percentages and more titles so that was the edge over Fed. I hate to seem like a bandwagon jumper but Nadal 2008 was a phenomenal year. Sampras is also very low on the list but then again Sampras is noted for whole career dominance his best years might not be 1 or 2 on this list but career wise he is up near the top.

Women's
1. Graf 88
2. Court 70
3. Navratilova 83
4. Graf 89
5. Navratilova 84
6. King 72
7. Seles 92
8. Navratilova 86
9. Court 73
10. S. Williams 02

This was tough too many Graf/Navratilova years that I wanted to put in, and almost any thinking from 3-10 can easily be switched around..definitely a lot tougher than the mens list.

Why is Borg in 80 so far ahead of Nadal in 08? I realize Borg made 3 slam finals winning two but Nadal won 2 slam finals and made two slam semis, he became #1 player for the first time and he won the olympics.

 

[380pistol]

Curious as into what you guys feel as the overall best individual seasons for both the men, just the top 10..would be nice to tally this all up and see what gets the most votes. I stumbled across a horribly written ESPN article on this, but then again the fact that I expected a good ESPN tennis article is funny. However out of curiosity anyone have input.

Men
1. Laver 1969
2. Federer 2006
3. Connors 1974
4. Borg 1980
5. McEnroe 1984
6. Lendl 1986
7. Federer 2007
8. Wilander 1988
9. Nadal 2008
10. Sampras 1994

Sure I get accused as ******* for that list. Wilander is as low as he is, because he only won 3 titles outside of the slams. I had a hard time with 2 and 3 as Connors 1974 and Federer 2006 were both phenomenal and I just could not pick as Connors was banned from the French Open, both won a lot of titles, had high winning percentages, it was tough.The middle was probably the easiest However Fed 2007 some might say is low? But Borg, McEnroe and Lendl all played phenomenal years and only played 2 of 3 slams making finals in all 3. Overall they had better win percentages and more titles so that was the edge over Fed. I hate to seem like a bandwagon jumper but Nadal 2008 was a phenomenal year. Sampras is also very low on the list but then again Sampras is noted for whole career dominance his best years might not be 1 or 2 on this list but career wise he is up near the top.

Women's
1. Graf 88
2. Court 70
3. Navratilova 83
4. Graf 89
5. Navratilova 84
6. King 72
7. Seles 92
8. Navratilova 86
9. Court 73
10. S. Williams 02

This was tough too many Graf/Navratilova years that I wanted to put in, and almost any thinking from 3-10 can easily be switched around..definitely a lot tougher than the mens list.

I'd have Sampras 1994 above Nadal 2008, McEnroe 1984 above Borg 1980, and maybe even Federer 2006 and Conors 1974. Federer 2004 is ahead of Federer 2007 for the men.

 

[srinrajesh]

I would rate the performances in grand slams and year end masters as higher when taking the year's dominance.

In that respect, I like Boris becker's great year in 1989 as well. He won the two biggest grand slams in Wimbledon and US open, reached the year end masters final and lost a close 5 setter to edberg in french open SF(the year in which 17 year old chang won his french open-would probably have been overpowered had becker reached the final)
He won 3 other titles and made the monte carlo final on clay as well.

Sampras in 1994 won 2 GS but lost in 4th round at US open.

Also in 89 Boris becker also led germany to davis cup win almost single handedly.

He beat Edberg, wilander in singles and won the doubles as well in the final.

 

[egn]

I'd have Sampras 1994 above Nadal 2008, McEnroe 1984 above Borg 1980, and maybe even Federer 2006 and Conors 1974. Federer 2004 is ahead of Federer 2007 for the men.

McEnroe 1984 and Borg 1980 yea I guess you can switch the two, but neither of those can go over Fed 06 and Connors 74.

I prefer Fed 2007 to Fed 2004 ans 2007 Fed had more consistency than 2004, and 2007 Fed had the 4 slam finals.

Why is Borg in 80 so far ahead of Nadal in 08? I realize Borg made 3 slam finals winning two but Nadal won 2 slam finals and made two slam semis, he became #1 player for the first time and he won the olympics.

Okay your point being? Borg only played 3 slams? Made a final on every slam surface? Borg won more titles, better win percentage and the year end masters to boot. You can't hold the olympics against Borg..there was no olympic tennis for Borg.

 

[CyBorg]

On Connors thats why I threw him 3 but still his accomplished record for that year puts him as high as he is. He did win a clay event that year and won on all the major surfaces that year so I had to give it to him.

Yeah - that one clay title was on har-tru. Jimmy was a solid har-tru player. What he avoided were the really slow, high bouncing red clay events. And, yes, some will mention the feud, but that doesn't change the fact that Jimmy was a mediocre player at best on the surface at the time.

Also, a lot of really minor insignificant events - Little Rock, Roanoke, Tempe in particular. The only event I see as an equivalent to a masters series is Indianapolis, where he beat Borg.

I've seen better years.

 

[CyBorg]

Okay your point being? Borg only played 3 slams? Made a final on every slam surface? Borg won more titles, better win percentage and the year end masters to boot. You can't hold the olympics against Borg..there was no olympic tennis for Borg.

78/79/80 for Borg were all better years than Nadal in 08. Borg even had a better win percentage in 77 than Nadal last year, but played only two majors. Glad you're not buying into the hype.

 

[380pistol]

McEnroe 1984 and Borg 1980 yea I guess you can switch the two, but neither of those can go over Fed 06 and Connors 74.

I prefer Fed 2007 to Fed 2004 ans 2007 Fed had more consistency than 2004, and 2007 Fed had the 4 slam finals.

Explain?? I'm inclined to put Federer's 2006 over Borg's 1980, but McEnroe's 1984???

-Mac's 82-3 > Fed's 92-5
-Mac's 13 titles > Fed's 12 titles
-Fed's 3 slams > Mac's 2 (Mac didn't play in Aus Open)
-Mac 4 masters "type" (Philadelphia, Dallas, Canada & Stockholm) = Fed's 4 masters (Indian Wells, Miami, Canada and Madrid)
-Both won YEC
-Mac's 39 match win streak > Any streak Fed had
-Mac's up 2 sets in French final > Nadal handled Roger in Paris
-Mac (had Connors, Lendl and Wilander) > Fed (had Nadal)

Other than Roger's 3 slams to Mac's 2 how is Federer's 2006 ahead of Mac's 1984?? And Mac didn't play in Australia, which he likely would have won.

 

[380pistol]

Sampras in 1994 won 2 GS but lost in 4th round at US open.

A leg injury killed Sampras' 1994 season. When he won Wimbledon that was his 8th title that year in 9 finals (Todd Martin at Queens was his only loss). He became the fastest to ever qualify foe the YEC (but then the ranking system changes).

In the Wimbledon SF he injured his ankle/shin vs Martin, and played the final with a brace on it. A week after he went to the Netherlands to play Davis Cup, and completely damaged it. He had shin injuries, damage to his fibula, and was out for the entire summer of 1994. He didn't play a single match during the US summer hardcourt season, and was not completely healed for the US Open. He was basically on one eg when he lost in the 4th rd to Yzaga.

The loss in Davis Cup (that eventually cost him the summer) also eneded Pete's the record of 34 straight wins on hardcourts.

 

[egn]

Explain?? I'm inclined to put Federer's 2006 over Borg's 1980, but McEnroe's 1984???

-Mac's 82-3 > Fed's 92-5 82-3 greater than 92-5. The percentage is slightly better but by 1.5 and 10 more wins is a lot. I would say neither is better, but you can't say that is so much better.
-Mac's 13 titles > Fed's 12 titles Yea Fed played 17 tournaments and made 16 finals? Mac made 14 finals? I think that weighs out the one title advantage.
-Fed's 3 slams > Mac's 2 (Mac didn't play in Aus Open) got that right.
-Mac 4 masters "type" (Philadelphia, Dallas, Canada & Stockholm) = Fed's 4 masters (Indian Wells, Miami, Canada and Madrid)
-Both won YEC
-Mac's 39 match win streak > Any streak Fed had That you win there.
-Mac's up 2 sets in French final > Nadal handled Roger in Paris Wow..now thats really dumb..they both last. big deal.
-Mac (had Connors, Lendl and Wilander) > Fed (had Nadal) Wilander was far from a threat in 84..and Connors got trashed just like Fed trashed Roddick. Mac's threat that year was Lendl Connors career was basically done that year he won top tier tournaments but he lost to Mac al the time same as Roddick and the Fed crew, the competition at the moment was just as deep, Connors career might look better but Connors and Roddick's year were neither amazing and neither posed threats to either

Other than Roger's 3 slams to Mac's 2 how is Federer's 2006 ahead of Mac's 1984?? And Mac didn't play in Australia, which he likely would have won.

Likely? Everyone knows you can't make that justifcation.
Where you had Mac edge on Fed was on some ridiculous grounds? Mac Entered 16 tournaments and finaled in 14 while Fed entered 17 and finaled in 16. The case can easily be made that everything you threw up can be tied out by something Federer did that year.

Fed wins it slamwise and I give you Mac wins it streak wise but the rest is at par, yes after looking into it I should have put Mac 84 about Borg 80 but Fed 06 is above them simply for the fact that 3 slams wins beats 2. Mac's streak in small tournaments can not make up for that.

 

[Michael Bluth]

How about Agassi 1995?

Not even Agassi's best year. 99 was his best year.

 

[GameSampras]

Not even Agassi's best year. 99 was his best year.

Record wise it was pretty darn impressive going 72-10. He met Pete 5 different times at various tournaments that year and beat him 3 times including the Australian Open. It may not have been the most dominating of a player ever, but pretty impressive nonetheless. I thought Andre play his best tennis in that year to be honest even though he didnt have the showing of 1999. But also, Pete was injured before the US OPEN in 99 and thus didnt play and chances are he would never have defeated Pete there. And even Andre said he never felt like the number 1 player in 99 because Sampras was still around and he couldnt pete.

People are hard on Agassi due to his inconsistency, but if it was not for Sampras, Andre would be mentioned more fondly I think.

 

[JoshDragon]

McEnroe 1984 and Borg 1980 yea I guess you can switch the two, but neither of those can go over Fed 06 and Connors 74.

I prefer Fed 2007 to Fed 2004 ans 2007 Fed had more consistency than 2004, and 2007 Fed had the 4 slam finals.



Okay your point being? Borg only played 3 slams? Made a final on every slam surface? Borg won more titles, better win percentage and the year end masters to boot. You can't hold the olympics against Borg..there was no olympic tennis for Borg.

Borg won 9 titles (2 slams) in 1980. Nadal 8 (2 slams) in 2008. Borg, won the Masters and Nadal won the Olympics.

Both players had great years but Borg's year in 1980 wasn't way better. Maybe a little bit but not much.

Not enough to be ranked 5 spots ahead of Nadal.

 

[380pistol]

Likely? Everyone knows you can't make that justifcation.
Where you had Mac edge on Fed was on some ridiculous grounds? Mac Entered 16 tournaments and finaled in 14 while Fed entered 17 and finaled in 16. The case can easily be made that everything you threw up can be tied out by something Federer did that year.

Fed wins it slamwise and I give you Mac wins it streak wise but the rest is at par, yes after looking into it I should have put Mac 84 about Borg 80 but Fed 06 is above them simply for the fact that 3 slams wins beats 2. Mac's streak in small tournaments can not make up for that.

You're contradicting yourself. Fed had 10 more wins, but my grounds are ridiculoues. What does 10 more wins mean??? Enlighten me. Anyway doesn't 99 beat 92, that's 7 more, that would have Connors 1974 ahead of Federer 2006, winning percentage 99-4 > 92-5. Connors went 3 for 3 in slams while Roger went 3 for 4, 1.000 > .750 does it not???

All you say is Fed wins it slamwise. That's the only distinguishable nod his 2006 season has over Mac's 1984, and it's not definitive as Mac only played 3slams that year.

Winning % - Mac wins, cuz his was better than Roger's and the best ever.
Titles - Mac 13 in 15 and Roger 12 in 17 you can do the math!!!! (But the finals outwigh the titles cuz you say so... really???) Mac won MORE title while playing LESS tournaments, but you say Roger wins that.
French Open - Mac 2 games from title, while Fed 2 sets from the title, but it's dumb.... until it's the other way around, and it would have been Roger was 2 games this that and the 5th.
Competition Mac and easily. Federer had a #2 who had never played a slam SF on a harsdcourt, and outside of Monte carlo to Wimbledon was ranked #11 in 2006. Wilander, who had 3 slams 2 Aus Opens (ON GRASS!!!!) and the French Open. Lendl and Connors. Aks Roger himslef who he would rather deal with???

Other than 3 slams to 2. Mac's 84 seems to better. And we'll never know if he would have won the Aus Open. Say what you want. The evidence is in.

 

[boredone3456]

You're contradicting yourself. Fed had 10 more wins, but my grounds are ridiculoues. What does 10 more wins mean??? Enlighten me. Anyway doesn't 99 beat 92, that's 7 more, that would have Connors 1974 ahead of Federer 2006, winning percentage 99-4 > 92-5. Connors went 3 for 3 in slams while Roger went 3 for 4, 1.000 > .750 does it not???

All you say is Fed wins it slamwise. That's the only distinguishable nod his 2006 season has over Mac's 1984, and it's not definitive as Mac only played 3slams that year.

Winning % - Mac wins, cuz his was better than Roger's and the best ever.
Titles - Mac 13 in 15 and Roger 12 in 17 you can do the math!!!! (But the finals outwigh the titles cuz you say so... really???) Mac won MORE title while playing LESS tournaments, but you say Roger wins that.
French Open - Mac 2 games from title, while Fed 2 sets from the title, but it's dumb.... until it's the other way around, and it would have been Roger was 2 games this that and the 5th.
Competition Mac and easily. Federer had a #2 who had never played a slam SF on a harsdcourt, and outside of Monte carlo to Wimbledon was ranked #11 in 2006. Wilander, who had 3 slams 2 Aus Opens (ON GRASS!!!!) and the French Open. Lendl and Connors. Aks Roger himslef who he would rather deal with???

Other than 3 slams to 2. Mac's 84 seems to better. And we'll never know if he would have won the Aus Open. Say what you want. The evidence is in.

Amazing post...perfectly said.

 

[CyBorg]

Connors was barred from the French in 1974 because of his commitment to World Team Tennis. He and Goolagong sued the ITF. So I don't think he tried to avoid clay courts.

I know about this. The French Open wasn't the only red clay event out there though.

 

[CEvertFan]

No Evert? Laughable.

 

[egn]

You're contradicting yourself. Fed had 10 more wins, but my grounds are ridiculoues. What does 10 more wins mean??? Enlighten me. Anyway doesn't 99 beat 92, that's 7 more, that would have Connors 1974 ahead of Federer 2006, winning percentage 99-4 > 92-5. Connors went 3 for 3 in slams while Roger went 3 for 4, 1.000 > .750 does it not???

All you say is Fed wins it slamwise. That's the only distinguishable nod his 2006 season has over Mac's 1984, and it's not definitive as Mac only played 3slams that year.

Winning % - Mac wins, cuz his was better than Roger's and the best ever.
Titles - Mac 13 in 15 and Roger 12 in 17 you can do the math!!!! (But the finals outwigh the titles cuz you say so... really???) Mac won MORE title while playing LESS tournaments, but you say Roger wins that.
French Open - Mac 2 games from title, while Fed 2 sets from the title, but it's dumb.... until it's the other way around, and it would have been Roger was 2 games this that and the 5th.
Competition Mac and easily. Federer had a #2 who had never played a slam SF on a harsdcourt, and outside of Monte carlo to Wimbledon was ranked #11 in 2006. Wilander, who had 3 slams 2 Aus Opens (ON GRASS!!!!) and the French Open. Lendl and Connors. Aks Roger himslef who he would rather deal with???

Other than 3 slams to 2. Mac's 84 seems to better. And we'll never know if he would have won the Aus Open. Say what you want. The evidence is in.

Okay I simply said that McEnroe winning percentage is no huge win over Fed based on 4 more wins. I believe Mac was 13 for 16. I said the fact that he made 4 runner ups can be seen pretty even to one title, yes 13 titles still beats 12, but Fed more consistently made longer runs. You make one title sound like the largest thing ever. So if one title counts so much than one slam counts a lot. You say I contradict myself. Oh yea where did I say Roger wins that..I said it was even read clearly before you attack me.

Number 2, Wilander in the slams that McEnroe played did almost nothing outside of France, Wilander was no threat to McEnroe in 1984. He was not posing any threat outside of France. Besides Wilander did not even face him there. Connors and Lendl yea, but Connors was on the downspin of his game. The competition field that single year was nothing huge. Oh sure Connors and Wilander defintely had better careers, but that does not mean they poised better competition that year than Feds in 2008. You weight it on what overall career? Isn't it amazing how WIlander could win the AO on grass but not make it past 2R of Wimbledon..oh thats right cause as you pointed out the top avoid the AO? As McEnroe did.

Your French Open thing is still bull, and hell I would call it bull the scores were flipped. They both still LOST the final. Case could even be made that Mac and Fed both choked...neither had impressive clay court draws nothing special about either of their runs, both had same difficulty since Mac avoided Wilander.

Oh yea on win percentage you chose win percent I chose to also throw in total wins why not? Fed played more matches, Fed played a longer season. Fed still kept his win percentage up. Yes Macs 1984 is really good, but his numbers are not leaps and bounds ahead of Fed's as you are making them out to be.

 

[380pistol]

Be quiet. Outside of 3 slams to 2 where else is Roger's 2007 superior to Mac's 1984, other than the warped dimensions of your mind???

Mac being 2 games away from the French title is no different from Fed cuz the both lost, according to you. The save me Fed making 16 final, cuz he LOST!!! Mac 13 for 15, Fed 12 for 17. If you don't care that Mac's French final was superir to Roger's seeing how the both LOST, then spare me the nonsense of Fed making deeper runs in tournamnets, cuz he LOST. Or does losing only matter where you see fit.

Mac;s winning % has never been surpassed. Has 92 wins in a season been surpassed??? And by YOUR logic that puts Federer's 2006 behind Connors' 1974. So stop trying to sell me this, cuz I ain't buying!!!!

 

[CEvertFan]

Here's some Evert stats for you in case you didn't look them up and I think she should at least be a contender for one of those top 10 spots.

1974 103-7 16 titles Wimbledon and French Open winner, AO finalist, US Open semifinalist

1975 94-6 16 titles AO dnp, Wimbledon semifinalist, FO and US Open winner

1976 75-5 12 titles AO dnp, FO dnp (due to Team Tennis), Wimbledon and US Open winner

1977 70-4 11 titles AO dnp, FO dnp (same reason as previous year), Wimbledon semifinalist, US Open winner

1982 75-6 10 titles AO winner, US Open winner, Wimbledon finalist, FO semifinalist

There are more good ones but one of these years should be good enough to get on the list. :roll:

 

[Argento full]

- Vilas doesn't deserve a place on this list, AG.

Yeah, look this http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=241723 :twisted:

 

[Argento full]

Borg won 9 titles (2 slams) in 1980. Nadal 8 (2 slams) in 2008. Borg, won the Masters and Nadal won the Olympics.

Cant' compare.
Masters is more important

 

[jean pierre]

Vilas 1977 of course !

 

[timnz]

If you widened it to non-open era seasons - 1967 top year

I'd rate Lavers 1967 year over 1969.

Achieving the Pro-Grand Slam + Pro Wimbledon + 15 other tournaments = 19 tournaments in all.

In 1969 he seemed to lose quite a lot to Tony Roche. (But obviously he put it all together for the big tournaments).

In fact, I'd be hard pressed to think of a more dominant year in all of Tennis history.

Yes I know it is not an Open Tennis year (but hey only 1 year too early!).

 

[chaognosis]

I will only go as far as the top five:

1. Laver 1969
2. Borg 1980
3. McEnroe 1984
4. Federer 2006
5. Lendl 1986

 

[Tennisfan!]

I will only go as far as the top five:

1. Laver 1969
2. Borg 1980
3. McEnroe 1984
4. Federer 2006
5. Lendl 1986

Plus Laver 67, I fully agree!