Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I just listed about 20 consensus "all-time seasons" or "dominant" years that would not be considered such under your narrow criteria. Most of the greatest players with the greatest seasons would be left out. That is my "objection".

1920-30s, only Tilden reaches 100, in four years, and this after his peak. Vines does not, Perry does not, Budge does not, nobody does.

1940 and '41 - Bobby Riggs wins 101 both years. These are not generally considered dominant years and Riggs is farther down the list of the greats.

1948 and '50 - Jack Kramer, owing to very long WCS against Riggs and Gonzalez, respectively.

1950 and 1952 - Jaroslav Drobny (104-8 in 1952). Not known as dominant years and Drobny is a special case: stateless and staving off depression, he needed to play tennis 12 months a year.

Trabert 1955.

Gonzalez twice, 1956 and 1957. These are all-time, mega seasons, two of the very few that qualify as such under the 100+/50+ stringency.

Hoad twice. AGAIN YOU MISREPRESENT HOAD TO US. He did not make your 50-plus victory margin in 1959, but was 100-61. Don't be calling this a dominant year, please, Dan. You can read the record as well as anyone.

Speaking of the record - you will see that 1958-62, at least, there is a gap in Rosewall's record between late January and late April or May. He doesn't play any matches. Yes, he stayed home to be with his family. Sure he practiced, and he probably played some exhibitions, but he was there in order to be with his family.

Moving into the Open Era, Connors ('76) and Borg ('78 and '79) only just barely hit 100, but you have to count plain exhibition matches - which you said in the other thread you don't want to do - not just independent tournaments. But only the '79 Borg year is "dominant".

Ivan Lendl played 102 matches in 1985, counting only official and non-sanctioned tournaments, not exhibitions. In 1989 he won 105 counting the independent tourneys, no exhibitions. Earlier in his career, in 1980 and 1982, he won more than 100 official matches, but those are not "dominant years." Although all splendid years, none of these four are all-time mega seasons. For Lendl, those would be '86 and '87.

Finally, as I mentioned before, the 1984 McEnroe season, widely considered one of, if not the, best single season, fails to meet your manliness criterion, as Junior only won 96 matches.

Since Lendl, I don't believe any player has won 100 matches.

So, you are left with recognizing . . . what? Of these 100-victory years, Gonzalez '56 and '57 qualify otherwise as all-time, or dominant years. Laver '62, '67 and '69 can be counted. (IMO the Kramer '48, Trabert '55 and Hoad '56 make the list of greatest single seasons, but at the bottom of that list).

No Tilden
No Lacoste
No Cochet
No Crawford
No Perry
No Budge
No Rosewall
No Connors
No Borg
No McEnroe
No Lendl
No Sampras
No Federer
No Nadal
No Djokovic

Enjoy your list of "truly dominant" seasons.
You are fully fully right. This theory about "the 100 wins dominance" is distorted basically from its roots. The dominance in every aspect of the life is a qualitative indicator. The qualitative indicators are always measured by qualitative methods. That's why you easily found hundreds of huge discrepancies which show nothing else than the absurdness of such theories.
In my view one of the best qualitative methods in this matter could be the winning ratio for the year. 80%, 85% or 90% shows the efficiency of the player for the year.
Another method combined or not with the winning ratio should be the balance vs top 10 players. In this way you will avoid any obstructions that a player played many matches vs low competition.

I can go with many figures but just to show the "reasoning" of one Hoad maniac I will show just some win ratios - Hoad in 1959 (the best year) is 63%, Laver in 1969 - 87%, Connors in 1976 - 91%, Lendl in 1986 - 92%, Sampras in 1996 - 85%, Federer in 2006 - 94%, Djokovic in 2015 - 93%, Nadal in 2013 - 91% etc.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
I am gulible.
Nope, you are not. NoMercy lied to you. He is well known with his "sympathies" to Rosewall.
Briefly the discussion back then went about Rosewall's titles by surface. And here the data you are asking - Rosewall has 89 grass titles, out of which 18 grass majors, out of which 8 in singles and 10 in doubles.
 

Drob

Professional
Nope, you are not. NoMercy lied to you. He is well known with his "sympathies" to Rosewall.
Briefly the discussion back then went about Rosewall's titles by surface. And here the data you are asking - Rosewall has 89 grass titles, out of which 18 grass majors, out of which 8 in singles and 10 in doubles.

With doubles that sounds about right. i was not thinking about doubles. I see where you get the eight singles.
 

Drob

Professional
You are fully fully right. This theory about "the 100 wins dominance" is distorted basically from its roots. The dominance in every aspect of the life is a qualitative indicator. The qualitative indicators are always measured by qualitative methods. That's why you easily found hundreds of huge discrepancies which show nothing else than the absurdness of such theories.
In my view one of the best qualitative methods in this matter could be the winning ratio for the year. 80%, 85% or 90% shows the efficiency of the player for the year.
Another method combined or not with the winning ratio should be the balance vs top 10 players. In this way you will avoid any obstructions that a player played many matches vs low competition.

I can go with many figures but just to show the "reasoning" of one Hoad maniac I will show just some win ratios - Hoad in 1959 (the best year) is 63%, Laver in 1969 - 87%, Connors in 1976 - 91%, Lendl in 1986 - 92%, Sampras in 1996 - 85%, Federer in 2006 - 94%, Djokovic in 2015 - 93%, Nadal in 2013 - 91% etc.

Winning percentage is an important factor in determining a mega season. But has to be accompanied by multiple BIG achievements.
 

Drob

Professional
I think a classic example of what Ivan69 is talking about is McEnroe 1984. There you have requisite big achievements, but you have a virtually incredible won-loss percentage - 96.5% in official matches. The winning percentage is the stand-out reason many would call this the greatest single season ever, or in the Open Era. In terms of Slams, Mac does not match the three Slams of a few players, nor, of course, the Grand Slam. Still, if we took a vote from all the posters in the "Former Players" threads, Mac '84 might well finish first for greatest single season. And clearly, in those seasons when Federer and Djokovic won three Slams and other important tournaments, their high winning percentages make those super seasons even stronger. Ditto Connors 1974. Certainly, Borg's high winning percentage in 1979-80 strengthens the arguments regarding how highly to rank them against dominant seasons by other players, and Lendl '86-'87 are similar.

On the other hand, and sticking to 85% or better winning percentage, here are some seasons since the War that would not be considered among the all-time time best, not mega seasons.

Kramer 1946 - 95.8%
Drobny 1952 - 92.9%
Cooper 1958 - 92.5%
Laver 1970 - 85.4%
Connors 1975 - 91%
Lendl 1982 - 92%
Agassi 1988 - 85.1%
Federer 2012, '14-'15 - between 85 and 86% in these three years
Djokovic 2014 - 88.4%
Murray 2009; 2016 - 86.7 and 89.7%, respectively

All of these are extremely fine years. But I don't think anyone would argue they should be considered among the very best seasons.

Achievements first, and their exact nature, to see if you even have a mega, or dominant, season.
Then, win-loss percentage
Then, relative competition

Finally, any other factors that might be relevant, and this could include the 100 wins and/or the Plus-50.
 

urban

Legend
I don't get, why people are arguing here against quantity, when all their preferred career stats are based on quantity. Percentages are correct, but also the sheer body of work and wins in a season. What to do with Wilanders 1988. He won 3 Slams, but had only 53 overall match wins. Is it better than Macs 1984? Mac won ca. 30 matches more. Gonzalez' most productive year was 1956. His percentage was low, but he won way over 100 matches and had a win-loss difference of ca. 90 matches. Great season or not? Bud Collins and Joe McCauley always regarded match win-loss numbers for a season as essential. Vilas 1977 was always regarded by Collins as one of the finest open era seasons. Vilas had the advantage to play most of the time on clay and har-tru, but what an immense work and winning rate.
 

Drob

Professional
I don't get, why people are arguing here against quantity, when all their preferred career stats are based on quantity. Percentages are correct, but also the sheer body of work and wins in a season. What to do with Wilanders 1988. He won 3 Slams, but had only 53 overall match wins. Is it better than Macs 1984? Mac won ca. 30 matches more. Gonzalez' most productive year was 1956. His percentage was low, but he won way over 100 matches and had a win-loss difference of ca. 90 matches. Great season or not? Bud Collins and Joe McCauley always regarded match win-loss numbers for a season as essential. Vilas 1977 was always regarded by Collins as one of the finest open era seasons. Vilas had the advantage to play most of the time on clay and har-tru, but what an immense work and winning rate.

Relative competition.

Relative competition is an important factor, if you read my post. Hence Gonzalez '56 and '57 two of the very top years in tennis history.


Vilas always overrated, especially by Vilas.


I very much like your 100/plus 50. Just don't think it is the leading guide to answering the questions of who has all-time, mega seasons and when. I do think it is something to look at in the rank ordering of the mega seasons.

In the case of Gonzalez '56 and '57, the relative competition and the fact he had to play the same guys all the time mitigates his 73.7% and 67.7%, respectively. Those seasons are still among the best of the best. 1956 had 100 plus wins, '57 far fewer. But all-in-all, I'd go with Ivan69 in the sense that I think Djokovic 2011 is superior, with a 70-6 record, three Slams, five M 1000s, two wins over Rafa at clay M 1000 finals. The year 2011 was as competitive as any in tennis history. And 70-6 is just better than 69-33 or 138-49. As I understand it, Djokovic 2011 would not make your standard for one of the great seasons of all time, because no 100 wins, and I guess the same would happen to Gorgo's 1957 - no 100 wins, no plus 50.

As for Wilander versus McEnroe, where in the name of Zeus did you come up with that? If you read my post, I gave McEnroe as the classic example of a player whose mega season gets extra praise and prestige because of extraordinary won-loss record. I don't even think Wilander '88 is a mega season.

I think you came up with a great statistic, one that can be fun and also recognize the achievement of 100 wins, and can be a talking point when comparing great seasons. It is helpful in those contexts. But don't try to make more out of it than it is.
 
Last edited:

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
With doubles that sounds about right. i was not thinking about doubles. I see where you get the eight singles.
How can a tournament be a major if Kramer, Sedgman, Segura, Gonzales, McGregor are not there?
These guys were way better grass court players than a 18years old Rosewall.
McGregor before turning professional was leading 7-0 vs Rosewall, crushing him 3-0 just one month and a half before the 1953 Australian championships.
And McGregor was by far the worst of those 5.

Also, 4 of top 8 1953 Wimbledon seeds were not in Australia that year. More than half of the 1952 US Champs seeds were not in Australia.

Only 5/6 not Australian players in the draw :D

What a great tournament!!!
 
Last edited:

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Relative competition.

Relative competition is an important factor, if you read my post. Hence Gonzalez '56 and '57 two of the very top years in tennis history.


Vilas always overrated, especially by Vilas.


I very much like your 100/plus 50. Just don't think it is the leading guide to answering the questions of who has all-time, mega seasons and when. I do think it is something to look at in the rank ordering of the mega seasons.

In the case of Gonzalez '56 and '57, the relative competition and the fact he had to play the same guys all the time mitigates his 73.7% and 67.7%, respectively. Those seasons are still among the best of the best. 1956 had 100 plus wins, '57 far fewer. But all-in-all, I'd go with Ivan69 in the sense that I think Djokovic 2011 is superior, with a 70-6 record, three Slams, five M 1000s, two wins over Rafa at clay M 1000 finals. The year 2011 was as competitive as any in tennis history. And 70-6 is just better than 69-33 or 138-49. As I understand it, Djokovic 2011 would not make your standard for one of the great seasons of all time, because no 100 wins, and I guess the same would happen to Gorgo's 1957 - no 100 wins, no plus 50.

As for Wilander versus McEnroe, where in the name of Zeus did you come up with that? If you read my post, I gave McEnroe as the classic example of a player whose mega season gets extra praise and prestige because of extraordinary won-loss record. I don't even think Wilander '88 is a mega season.

I think you came up with a great statistic, one that can be fun and also recognize the achievement of 100 wins, and can be a talking point when comparing great seasons. It is helpful in those contexts. But don't try to make more out of it than it is.
100 wins is a must to rank among the best seasons. Also competition level.
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Mr. NoMercy gets angry again in the last post. Just a year or something ago he said that the field is never important for him in terms of the category of a tournament. Cheers! :oops:
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Mr. NoMercy gets angry again in the last post. Just a year or something ago he said that the field is never important for him in terms of the category of a tournament. Cheers! :oops:
And it’s still true.
Aus53 is one of the worst among the worst.
Nothing new.
An amateur Slam, with the pro playing in another circuit, is never a Major.
Or better said, it’s a Major for Ligue2 players.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
1953 Australian Champion has to wait for Ken McGregor to move into the pro to win that great tournament.
0-7 vs Ken McGregor...
Definitely a worthy champion
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
Long live the "principles" of the people!:unsure:
Sad thing is that if more people stand to their principles the world could be a bit more beautiful.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Another big grass tournament for Worthy is the Australian Open 1972.
Let’s remember to those who don’t know that he and Newcombe played there only because of commitments with Dunlop.
Not because it was a good tournament.

Nice points by Newcombe (that he’s Australian!) before the beginning of the event.
 

Drob

Professional
Here is a nice tidbit I ran into in research tonight:

We know only 10 or 12 players won the Channel Slam (depending on whether you count the WHCC and, therefore count the two Bills), and about the same number (11) won the Continental Double.

How about both, in the same season (same six-week period)?

Hoad 1956
Laver 1962
Borg 1978
Nadal 2010
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Here is a nice tidbit I ran into in research tonight:

We know only 10 or 12 players won the Channel Slam (depending on whether you count the WHCC and, therefore count the two Bills), and about the same number (11) won the Continental Double.

How about both, in the same season (same six-week period)?

Hoad 1956
Laver 1962
Borg 1978
Nadal 2010
By far Borg and Nadal the best in this remarkable feat.
Hoad without Gonzales/Trabert/Sedgman and Laver without Rosewall/Hoad were kinda blessed and lucky.
Borg the real hero though, winning Rome when it really was the second best red clay event of the year just the week before the beginning of RG, from R64 and SF and F best of five. Nadal had it a little easier....
 

Drob

Professional
By far Borg and Nadal the best in this remarkable feat.
Hoad without Gonzales/Trabert/Sedgman and Laver without Rosewall/Hoad were kinda blessed and lucky.
Borg the real hero though, winning Rome when it really was the second best red clay event of the year just the week before the beginning of RG, from R64 and SF and F best of five. Nadal had it a little easier....
I prefer to take it at face value, being such a rare accomplishment.

In fact, Rosewall did not participate at the '56 French or Italian.

In fact, before meeting Connors at the 1978 Wimbledon, Borg played Amaya, McNamara, Fillol, Sandy Meyer, and, an ancient Tom Okker in the semis. A weaker draw can hardly be imagined.
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
I prefer to take it at face value, being such a rare accomplishment.

In fact, Rosewall did not participate at the '56 French or Italian.

In fact, before meeting Connors at the 1978 Wimbledon, Borg played Amaya, McNamara, Fillol, Sandy Meyer, and, an ancient Tom Okker in the semis. A weaker draw can hardly be imagined.
Connors was one of the top2 players in the world.
Who did Laver play in Wim final? Mulligan?
Was Mulligan one of the top50 players in the world?
 

Drob

Professional
Italian and Wimbledon in same season:

Tilden 1930
Sedgman 1952
Sampras 1994
Djokovic 2011
Djokovic 2014
Djokovic 2015
 

NoMercy

Hall of Fame
Clearly, I was saying very weak draw leading up to the final against Connors.
I know.
Laver had a cakewalk draw more or less like Borg, without Rosewall and Hoad and with Mulligan in the final.
When I wrote blessed and lucky, maybe I was too generous.
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Here is a nice tidbit I ran into in research tonight:

We know only 10 or 12 players won the Channel Slam (depending on whether you count the WHCC and, therefore count the two Bills), and about the same number (11) won the Continental Double.

How about both, in the same season (same six-week period)?

Hoad 1956
Laver 1962
Borg 1978
Nadal 2010
Who was the youngest player to win three different slams?
 

Ivan69

Hall of Fame
"Nadal is not great except on clay, and even there, looking at the highlights of today's final, Nadal runs around his backhand a lot, and relies on TWO hands and modern racquets to make it work for him,

With consistent racquets technology, I doubt that Nadal would make top fifteen on a grass rating, which is what I look at."

I see no reason to change this assessment.

So, Nadal not in it.

This is a grass rating only, looking at level of play, not numbers of events won.

Tier One
Hoad, Gonzales, Laver, Federer

Tier Two
Williams, Tilden, Vines, Budge, Kramer, Sedgman, Rosewall, Newcombe, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras

Tier Three
Brookes, Lacoste, Cochet, Crawford, Perry, von Cramm, Drobny, Riggs, Segura, Trabert, Emerson, Santana, Gimeno, Smith, Ashe, Nastase, Connors, Becker, Edberg, Agassi, Nadal, Djokovic
What an interesting story! I am impressed. Let me satisfy the desire of Lobb of not discussing the "disgusting" factor - the number of titles. It is so disgusting for Lobb for obvious reasons. Anyway, let me skip this for a moment and let me focus on the beloved "level of play".
As Hoad's best surface was grass Mr. Lobb reviews only grass. Good. Not a problem.
Intentionally or not, surprisingly or not Hoad is placed 1st in Tier 1 group. I think everybody is sure that the hidden message is that Hoadie is most probably the best of the best (i.e. above the other 3).
Let me start with Hoad's winning ratio on grass - 72%. Not bad but ... faaaaaaaaaaar from the best.
Now let's see the ratios of other players mentioned in his list in Tier 2 and 3 - let me call them weaker than Tier 1 players on grass:
Tilden 88%
McEnroe 86%
Djokovic 84%
Vines 84%
Sampras 84%
Connors 83%
Borg 81%
Kramer 80%
Rosewall 80%
Newcombe 78%

Here comes the cherry of the pie (I love pies). Nadal was called "not great except on clay" and "I doubt that Nadal would make top fifteen on a grass rating". The same Nadal has 78% win ratio on grass. Why Rafa? Why do you have a better ratio than the best of the best?
And now the cream of the pie - also Agassi has a better ratio than the best of the best - 75% !!! How dares he ?!?

By the way Gonzales' ratio on grass is 70%, far from the best.

Cheers!
 

BGod

Legend
Open Era Only

1. Federer
2. Djokovic
3. Borg
4. Sampras
5. Nadal
6. Lendl
7. Connors
8. Agassi
9. Becker
10. McEnroe
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Call it old world quadruple and add the German Championships for Hoad and Laver. Borg and Nadal made the triple, too.
Thanks for the clarification....the Old World Quadruple (or Old World Quad) has just two players who achieved it, Hoad and Laver.

Very elite company.
 

Drob

Professional
Borg 1978 and Nadal 2010 as well
I covered them all, to wit:

[/QUOTE]
Here is a nice tidbit I ran into in research tonight:

We know only 10 or 12 players won the Channel Slam (depending on whether you count the WHCC and, therefore count the two Bills), and about the same number (11) won the Continental Double.

How about both, in the same season (same six-week period)?

Hoad 1956
Laver 1962
Borg 1978
Nadal 2010
There is your Hoad, your Laver Borg and your Nadal - listed as winning all three in one season, the only to do so. The other post was Italian and Wimbledon only. I thought it was crystal clear at the time, but apparently not, as this is the third or fourth time I have been "corrected."
 

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
Now, as i have written before, i diminish nobody and nothing. I simply see a century of wins in a season as a cool mark to have. A cool mark in itself. And why not? I don't see any reason against it. You have to be in great physical and mental form to reach it. Why not give Riggs, Lendl for 1982, Vilas, Nasty or Ashe some props? Maybe their highpoints are a bit underrated today.
And that the modern players play and win less matches, so it is and so let it be. In a time, when people bring up any kinds of records, which enhance and favor the modern players, which the old players simply couldn't reach because of different circumstances, why not ? .And the number of wins in a season is still a mark, which the ATP recognizes. Two years ago, the ATP edited an official statement, that Nadal had 60 season wins again for the 8th or 10th time in his career, This year the ATP officially praises Medwedew to reach 50 wins. Today, it seems that records only count, if Fed, Nadal or Djoker can or will reach them. Nobody talked about Jimbos 109 ATP tourney wins, let alone his overall titles, until Fed reached 100 tourney wins. Now suddenly its a great record. Before it was a Mickey Mouse record. I am sure. If Fed or Djoker had reached 100 wins in season, it would be the greatest thing next to Coca Cola.
I don't think that we are pushing 100+ wins in a season as the absolute marker, but it surely is ONE marker of a great season.

Then you could look at strength of field, majors won, etc. for further sorting out the best years.

I mention Gonzales, Hoad, Laver and 100+ wins as among the best years because they faced tough opposition and won the most significant events.
 
Top