Weakest Seasons with 2 Majors of the Open Era

[McEnroeisanartist]

"Weakest" defined as Few Titles outside of the 2 or more Majors won in a Year:

1988 - Mats Wilander - 3 Grand Slams, only 3 other titles
1989 - Boris Becker - 2 Majors, only 3 other titles
1992 - Jim Courier - 2 Majors, only 3 other titles
1995 - Pete Sampras - 2 Majors, only 3 other titles
1999 - Andre Agassi - 2 Majors, only 3 other titles
2009 - Roger Federer - 2 Majors, only 2 other titles

If Novak wins the 2012 U.S. Open and doesn't win any other tournaments, it would be only his third title of the season, but two majors.

 

[EvonneFedererBorgster]

JenCap 2001 - 2 majors but only one other title. Obviously she should have won Miami but Venus had other thoughts.

 

[fezer]

"Weakest" defined as Few Titles outside of the 2 or more Majors won in a Year:

1988 - Mats Wilander - 3 Grand Slams, only 3 other titles
1989 - Boris Becker - 2 Majors, only 3 other titles
1992 - Jim Courier - 2 Majors, only 3 other titles
1995 - Pete Sampras - 2 Majors, only 3 other titles
1999 - Andre Agassi - 2 Majors, only 3 other titles
2009 - Roger Federer - 2 Majors, only 2 other titles

If Novak wins the 2012 U.S. Open and doesn't win any other tournaments, it would be only his third title of the season, but two majors.

Becker was not only strong in slams in 89. He also was part of the winning Teams in the most Important Team events. Ger won the World Team Cup (2:1 over Arg) and DC (3:2 over Swe).

 

[martinezownsclay]

JenCap 2001 - 2 majors but only one other title. Obviously she should have won Miami but Venus had other thoughts.

I have often said Capriati is one of the strangest players ever in a lot of ways, one of them is she is one of the only ones you could strongly argue is both a huge underachiever and huge overachiever. Underachiever in how much talent and potential she seemed to have early, including nearly winning the US Open at only 15 (I think it is generally believed she beats Navratilova in the 91 final had she finished off Seles). A huge overachiever in her amazing comeback to slams nobody envisioned at any point before it happened, particularly after a mediocre first few years back, and winning 3 slams despite winning only 14 titles, and having terrible head to heads vs almost all her rivals, including ones with fewer slams. Underachiever in that she came so close to a few more slams post Australian Open 2002 and didn't manage to win any of them, plus not winning a US Open despite her hard court pedigree, and being involved in two of the best ever matches she seemingly had won in the 91 US Open and 2003 US Open semis, both which she likely wins the finals of, plus coming close to a great shot at the 2004 US Open even though that was flukey in nature completely (Davenport's injury, Serena's BS loss to Capriati in the quarters, again both over and underachiever Capriati). Overachiever in that she never should have won the 2002 Australian Open for a number of reasons, down a ton of match points vs Hingis in the final after getting totally outplayed the first 2 sets, Serena and Davenport's WDs. Overachiever in that she somehow the same number of slams as Davenport who has about quadruple the titles, and an overwhelming head to head with Capriati. Underachiever in that Davenport was nearly the same age and a ton behind her when both were just starting to come up, and still objectively had by a huge margin the better career, despite their being tied in major wins.

The best example in history of both a massive overachiever and underachiever. Her 2001 year is even an example of both overachieving and underachieving. Underachieving significantly in titles won as she should have won Miami, and won more than 1 non slam title. Yet she kind of stole the 2001 RG title despite getting outplayed and not even playing well in the final. She totally wrongly lost the YE#1 to Davenport who never deserved it this year, yet probably won Player of the Year awards over Venus, who both won 2 slams, won 6 titles to her 3, and was 3-0 vs her head to head.

 

[boredone3456]

Amelie Mauresmo 2006

It pains me to write it, because I actually really like her, but outside of the 2 major wins, her season wasn't as stellar. After February of 2006 she didn't win any non major titles. She lost in the finals of the China open to Kuzzy 64 60 and was straight setted in the final of YEC by Henin. She had a usual early loss at the French and ate 2 bagels in her loss at the US Open SF. She missed several big tournaments and ended the year at I think #3. Henin and Sharapova both kind of overshadowed her at times throughout the year despite it being her breakout year. Plus I think she is the only person to win a major in which 3 of her opponents retired during their matches with her?

Her Wimbledon win was, however, glorious and I was happy she raised that trophy.

 

[thrust]

Amelie Mauresmo 2006

It pains me to write it, because I actually really like her, but outside of the 2 major wins, her season wasn't as stellar. After February of 2006 she didn't win any non major titles. She lost in the finals of the China open to Kuzzy 64 60 and was straight setted in the final of YEC by Henin. She had a usual early loss at the French and ate 2 bagels in her loss at the US Open SF. She missed several big tournaments and ended the year at I think #3. Henin and Sharapova both kind of overshadowed her at times throughout the year despite itN being her breakout year. Plus I think she is the only person to win a major in which 3 of her opponents retired during their matches with her?

Her Wimbledon win was, however, glorious and I was happy she raised that trophy.

Not Me, as I really wanted Justine to win that Wimbledon final

 

[boredone3456]

Not Me, as I really wanted Justine to win that Wimbledon final

I kinda did as well, so she could get her career slam. But I was really glad Amelie won. At the AO she won, but 3 of her opponents retired and I really didn't want her major legacy to be the woman who finally won 1 because several people retired against her. Plus Mauresmo had some Wimbledon heartbreaks herself, having lost in the SF 3 of the past 4 years and having won the first set in 2 of those losses.

 

[Gizo]

That 2006 Wimbledon final wasn't an all-time classic, but it was still fun to watch and better than many Wimbledon finals in later years.

Both Mauresmo and Henin came to the net more often across 3 sets in that women's final, than either Federer or Nadal did across 4 sets in the men's final.

Henin secured the year end no. 1 ranking in 2006 courtesy of her YEC SF win vs. Sharapova. Had Mauresmo beaten Henin in the YEC final, then I would have said that she was the 'real no. 1' in 2006 regardless of what the computer said. Under that scenario they would have both won 5 titles each for the year but with 2 slams + the YEC for Mauresmo vs. 1 slam for Henin. And Mauresmo would have beaten Henin in 3 showpiece finals .

But as Henin won that final in Madrid, I think she was a worthy and deserving year end no. 1, especially given that Mauresmo had won 0 titles post-Wimbledon.

 

[martinezownsclay]

That 2006 Wimbledon final wasn't an all-time classic, but it was still fun to watch and better than many Wimbledon finals in later years.

Both Mauresmo and Henin came to the net more often across 3 sets in that women's final, than either Federer or Nadal did across 4 sets in the men's final.

Henin secured the year end no. 1 ranking in 2006 courtesy of her YEC SF win vs. Sharapova. Had Mauresmo beaten Henin in the YEC final, then I would have said that she was the 'real no. 1' in 2006 regardless of what the computer said. Under that scenario they would have both won 5 titles each for the year but with 2 slams + the YEC for Mauresmo vs. 1 slam for Henin. And Mauresmo would have beaten Henin in 3 showpiece finals .

But as Henin won that final in Madrid, I think she was a worthy and deserving year end no. 1, especially given that Mauresmo had won 0 titles post-Wimbledon.

Sharapova ending the Year at #1 would have been ridiculous and that happens if she wins the YEC semi with Henin, I believe regardless of the result of the YEC final.

Not that Sharapova didn't have an excellent year, she did, and a worthy #1 year in many years, but it was clearly inferior to both Henin and Mauresmo, even if she had somehow won the YEC, and especialy if she just won the YEC semi then lost the YEC final to Mauresmo. As it was, it was horrible she ended the year #2, I believe she and Mauresmo both won only 5 titles, so the extra slam for Mauresmo, and the earliest slam defeat for both was also Sharapova's, should have easily had her ahead, another example of the super flawed ranking system which does not give enough credit to slam wins and top slam results.

 

[Pheasant]

Margaret Court, outside of her 4 slam titles in 1970, only managed to win 17 other titles. And she even lost 2 finals matches that year. That’s pretty weak sauce.

 

[boredone3456]

Sharapova ending the Year at #1 would have been ridiculous and that happens if she wins the YEC semi with Henin, I believe regardless of the result of the YEC final.

Not that Sharapova didn't have an excellent year, she did, and a worthy #1 year in many years, but it was clearly inferior to both Henin and Mauresmo, even if she had somehow won the YEC, and especialy if she just won the YEC semi then lost the YEC final to Mauresmo. As it was, it was horrible she ended the year #2, I believe she and Mauresmo both won only 5 titles, so the extra slam for Mauresmo, and the earliest slam defeat for both was also Sharapova's, should have easily had her ahead, another example of the super flawed ranking system which does not give enough credit to slam wins and top slam results.

Mauresmo was hurt by Missing several big tournaments that year. She didn't play Indian Wells, The Italian Open (where she was 2 time defending champ) or the Canadian Open. Ironically, Sharapova won Indian Wells that year. The both played Miami, with Sharapova outperforming Mauresmo by making the final while Mauresmo lost in the SF. Sharapova also won the Zurich Open (Which Mauresmo skipped as well). Choosing not to play Indian Wells was probably a huge nail in the coffin for her in the rankings since Sharapova won and she wasn't there.

It really has nothing to do with the ranking system and more to do with the fact that Mauresmo missed quite a few tournaments, 2 of which Sharapova ended up winning. Its not the rankings fault that after February Mauresmo only won Wimbledon and Sharapova won several more tournaments than her, and more titles overall at 5 to 4

 

[Mustard]

Courier in 1992 had a 25-match winning streak in the spring, and it was pretty damn dominant as well.

Yes, he was a boom and slump kind of player, even in his best years.

 

[pierceforehands]

Well the Player of the Year awards were split between Henin and Mauresmo, while Sharapova not being picked for a single one of the 8 or so I heard of. Sharapova was seen by all, and still is today, as the #3 player of that year regardless what the rankings said. Even if she had ended the year as the computer #1 that would be the case, it would be laughed off completely the same way Davenport's in 2011 and Wozniacki's in 2011 both were.

 

[Ombelibable]

Djokovic 2018, eking out the win under the roof in broad daylight opened the floodgates for him

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Djokovic 2021, winning three slams and coming within one match of CYGS, but outside slams only wining Belgrade and Paris masters.