Who had the best calendar year in open era?

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
This is my list for best calendar year so far:
1- Rod Laver: 1969: 6 titles of which all 4 slams (at 31 years old)
2- Jimmy Connors: 1974: 15 titles of which 3 slams (22)
3- Roger Federer: 2006: 12 titles of which 3 slams (25)
4- Mats Wilander: 1988: 6 titles of which 3 slams (24)
5- Guillermo Vilas: 1977: 16 titles of which 2 slams (25)
6- John McEnroe: 1984: 13 titles of which 2 slams (25)
Bjorn Borg: 1979: 13 titles of which 2 slams (23)
7- Pete Sampras: 1994: 10 titles of which 2 slams (23)
8- Ivan Lendl: 1986: 9 titles of which 2 slams (26)
9- Rafael Nadal: 2008: 8 titles of which 2 slams (22)
10- Boris Becker: 1989: 5 titles of which 2 slams (22)
Jim Courier: 1992: 5 titles of which 2 slams (22)
Andre Agassi: 1999: 5 titles of which 2 slams (29)
Does everybody agree with that list? (I didn't single out Olympics or masters just because they're too recent and didn't apply for older players)
 
Last edited:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
It's funny how tennis has changed since the early 70s, nowadays you wouldn't imagine anyone getting the grand slam at 31!! Was it because of lesser competition, uniformed surfaces, 1st year of open era? Why such a drastic difference in age capabilities? The "peak" age seems to always be between 22 and 25 in modern tennis with Lendl the exception at 26.
 

deltox

Hall of Fame
after age 26 your body slightly slows down.. and it only gets worse every year. depending on your partying in your youth the brain can also start to slow in the mid 20s and progress with age also..

not saying you cant walk or talk after 25, but you will start to notice tiny differences. tiny differences make a ton of difference on a pro level.

and its very fair to leave olympics off since they are once every 4 year and could have not been happening on one players prime and been on time for another.

the only person who i can think of an exception to this rule was andre agassi. he won a TON of titles, but over an unheard of 11 year period. and i dont mean masters,,, he won wimbeldon in 92. AO in 03 and tons more in between. he was definitely the exception to the rule.
 
Last edited:

8PAQ

Banned
This is my list for best calendar year so far:
1- Rod Laver: 1969: 6 titles of which all 4 slams (at 31 years old)
2- Jimmy Connors: 1974: 15 titles of which 3 slams (22)
3- Roger Federer: 2006: 12 titles of which 3 slams (25)
4- Roger Federer: 2004: 11 titles of which 3 slams (23)
5- Roger Federer: 2007: 8 titles of which 3 slams (26)
6- Mats Wilander: 1988: 6 titles of which 3 slams (24)
7- Guillermo Vilas: 1977: 16 titles of which 2 slams (25)
8- John McEnroe: 1984: 13 titles of which 2 slams (25)
Bjorn Borg: 1979: 13 titles of which 2 slams (23)
9- Roger Federer: 2005: 11 titles of which 2 slams (24)
10- Pete Sampras: 1994: 10 titles of which 2 slams (23))
Fixed it for you. Sorry Nadal doesn't make the top 10 based on your criteria.
 

Blinkism

Legend
Fixed it for you. Sorry Nadal doesn't make the top 10 based on your criteria.
You misunderstood the question. It wasn't, what was the best calendar year for a player, but who has had the best calendar year. So, each player would only show up once on the list (with their best season being on the list).

So actually, the OP's list is accurate in that context.

But, also, you're correct in the sense that Nadal's 2008 season is definitely not one of the best if you look at it in terms of the 10 best seasons by a player.

Maybe after 2009 he'll make it on that list?
 

380pistol

Banned
This is my list for best calendar year so far:
1- Rod Laver: 1969: 6 titles of which all 4 slams (at 31 years old)
2- Jimmy Connors: 1974: 15 titles of which 3 slams (22)
3- Roger Federer: 2006: 12 titles of which 3 slams (25)
4- Mats Wilander: 1988: 6 titles of which 3 slams (24)
5- Guillermo Vilas: 1977: 16 titles of which 2 slams (25)
6- John McEnroe: 1984: 13 titles of which 2 slams (25)
Bjorn Borg: 1979: 13 titles of which 2 slams (23)
7- Pete Sampras: 1994: 10 titles of which 2 slams (23)
8- Ivan Lendl: 1986: 9 titles of which 2 slams (26)
9- Rafael Nadal: 2008: 8 titles of which 2 slams (22)
10- Stefan Edberg: 1990: 7 titles of which 2 slams (24)
Does everybody agree with that list? (I didn't single out Olympics or masters just because they're too recent and didn't apply for older players)
Edberg only won one slam in 1990.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
You misunderstood the question. It wasn't, what was the best calendar year for a player, but who has had the best calendar year. So, each player would only show up once on the list (with their best season being on the list).

So actually, the OP's list is accurate in that context.

But, also, you're correct in the sense that Nadal's 2008 season is definitely not one of the best if you look at it in terms of the 10 best seasons by a player.

Maybe after 2009 he'll make it on that list?
Thank you for clarifying my list: it's true, I listed each player only once, that was my perspective: very best year (so far) for each player but it's also true that Federer had more than 1 of those great years.
 

edmondsm

Legend
It appears that we are applying modern standards to Laver's era. Correct me if I'm wrong but the FO and AO were not considered majors back then. If that is true then his 1969 can not be considered the best year with only 6 titles.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
It appears that we are applying modern standards to Laver's era. Correct me if I'm wrong but the FO and AO were not considered majors back then. If that is true then his 1969 can not be considered the best year with only 6 titles.
I would tend to agree with you. I'm probably gonna get killed for saying that but I also don't think Laver was that good in 1969, the tour was in its infant stage, it wasn't that competitive yet and there wasn't as much variety in the surfaces.
 

luckyboy1300

Hall of Fame
It appears that we are applying modern standards to Laver's era. Correct me if I'm wrong but the FO and AO were not considered majors back then. If that is true then his 1969 can not be considered the best year with only 6 titles.
i agree. the australian open back then has i think only a 64-man draw which makes lots and lots of difference when factoring the difficulty of winning slams back then. i think laver's grand slam is too much overrated.
 

Ronaldo

Bionic Poster
i agree. the australian open back then has i think only a 64-man draw which makes lots and lots of difference when factoring the difficulty of winning slams back then. i think laver's grand slam is too much overrated.
Cannot be serious, tourneys did not even have chairs. Players stood from the locker room, throughout the match, until after their shower. Laver stands above the rest IMHO.
 
D

Deleted member 21996

Guest
This is my list for best calendar year so far:
1- Rod Laver: 1969: 6 titles of which all 4 slams (at 31 years old)

i'm sorry, but your facts are not correct. Laver won 18 titles in 1969.

and must not forget he won doubles in ao that same year
 
Last edited by a moderator:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
i'm sorry, but your facts are not correct. Laver won 18 titles in 1969.

and must not forget he won doubles in ao that same year
I got my facts from the ATP site. You can check yourself. Maybe the other titles were not considered part of the pro tour?
 

egn

Hall of Fame
Why is Wilander 88 above McEnore 84? and Borg 79 or 80 should be higher than Wilander 88. Wilander 88 was outside of 3 slams not much of a dominate year. McEnroe 84 was more dominate than almost any year on that list only debatable ones about it are Federer 06 and Laver 69? He was 2 for 3 in slams made it to all 3 slam finals posted an 82-3 record? 82-3 Highest single season winning percentage of a season for a male tennis player to date. He won all his slams in straight set blow outs. He destroyed his two biggest rivals all year long..he is the only reason Lendl is not number 1 a year earlier as he beat him in 5 tournament finals. He was so dominate and destructive that year. Wilander 88 won slams but barely anything else. He early exited in tons of tournaments and his record was 53-11..I am sorry Wilander 88 is top 10 but not top 5.

I think Connors should below Fed and Mac

I feel top 5 is
Laver
Fed
Mac
Connors
Borg/Villas
 
Last edited:

edmondsm

Legend
I would tend to agree with you. I'm probably gonna get killed for saying that but I also don't think Laver was that good in 1969, the tour was in its infant stage, it wasn't that competitive yet and there wasn't as much variety in the surfaces.
i agree. the australian open back then has i think only a 64-man draw which makes lots and lots of difference when factoring the difficulty of winning slams back then. i think laver's grand slam is too much overrated.
Wow, I didn't think that anybody agreed with me on this. Sometimes I feel like I'm swimming in a sea of Laver-envy on this site. Thanks guys.
 

pmerk34

Legend
Wow, I didn't think that anybody agreed with me on this. Sometimes I feel like I'm swimming in a sea of Laver-envy on this site. Thanks guys.
His slam is honored from 1969 but I have usually heard or read that more dominanat years was Federer in 05 and 06 Mac in 1984 and Vilas in 1977.
 

pmerk34

Legend
This is my list for best calendar year so far:
1- Rod Laver: 1969: 6 titles of which all 4 slams (at 31 years old)
2- Jimmy Connors: 1974: 15 titles of which 3 slams (22)
3- Roger Federer: 2006: 12 titles of which 3 slams (25)
4- Mats Wilander: 1988: 6 titles of which 3 slams (24)
5- Guillermo Vilas: 1977: 16 titles of which 2 slams (25)
6- John McEnroe: 1984: 13 titles of which 2 slams (25)
Bjorn Borg: 1979: 13 titles of which 2 slams (23)
7- Pete Sampras: 1994: 10 titles of which 2 slams (23)
8- Ivan Lendl: 1986: 9 titles of which 2 slams (26)
9- Rafael Nadal: 2008: 8 titles of which 2 slams (22)
10- Boris Becker: 1989: 5 titles of which 2 slams (22)
Jim Courier: 1992: 5 titles of which 2 slams (22)
Andre Agassi: 1999: 5 titles of which 2 slams (29)
Does everybody agree with that list? (I didn't single out Olympics or masters just because they're too recent and didn't apply for older players)

The Masters was around in the 70's and was way more important than the AO or the French Open for that matter. And why isn't Davis Cup factored in here too?
 

Gen

Banned
It appears that we are applying modern standards to Laver's era. Correct me if I'm wrong but the FO and AO were not considered majors back then. If that is true then his 1969 can not be considered the best year with only 6 titles.
"The term Grand Slam, as applied to tennis, was first used by New York Times columnist John Kieran according to Total Tennis, The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia by Bud Collins. In the chapter about 1933, Collins writes that after the Australian player Jack Crawford had won the Australian, French, and Wimbledon Championships, speculation arose about his chances in the U.S. Championships. Kieran, who was a bridge player, wrote: "If Crawford wins, it would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)
 

Gen

Banned
I would tend to agree with you. I'm probably gonna get killed for saying that but I also don't think Laver was that good in 1969, the tour was in its infant stage, it wasn't that competitive yet and there wasn't as much variety in the surfaces.
Pancho Gonzales - Ricardo Alonso Gonzales was born on 9 May 1928 and died on 3 July 1995. He won 4 amateur Grand Slam titles, 12 professional Grand Slam titles and was 6 times a finalist. Pancho Gonzales was World N. 1 tennis player for the still unequalled 9 years during 1950s and 1960s.

Roy Stanley Emerson (born November 3, 1936) is a former Australian tennis player who won 12 Grand Slam singles titles and 16 Grand Slam men's doubles titles. He is the only male player to have won singles and doubles titles at all four Grand Slam tournaments. His 28 Grand Slam titles are an all-time record for a male player.

Kenneth Robert ("Ken") Rosewall AM MBE (born 2 November 1934, in Sydney, Australia) is a former amateur and professional tennis player who won Grand Slam singles titles in Australia, the United States, and France. He is considered to be one of the top male tennis players of all time.

John David Newcombe AO OBE (born 23 May 1944 in Sydney, Australia) is a former World No. 1 tennis champion. 7 single slam titles, 3 runner-up, 17 doubles slam titles, 4 runner-up, 2 mixed slam titles, 1 runner-up.

Ilie Năstase (born July 19, 1946, in Bucharest, Romania) is a former Romanian professional tennis player, one of the world's top players of the 1970s. Năstase was the World No. 1 in 1973 according to the Association of Tennis Professionals ranking system, which placed him first from August 23, 1973 to June 2, 1974. Năstase won seven Grand Slam titles: two in singles, three in men's doubles, and two in mixed doubles.



Also "minor" players like Arthur Ashe and Fred Stolle.

Low competition indeed.
 

edmondsm

Legend
"The term Grand Slam, as applied to tennis, was first used by New York Times columnist John Kieran according to Total Tennis, The Ultimate Tennis Encyclopedia by Bud Collins. In the chapter about 1933, Collins writes that after the Australian player Jack Crawford had won the Australian, French, and Wimbledon Championships, speculation arose about his chances in the U.S. Championships. Kieran, who was a bridge player, wrote: "If Crawford wins, it would be something like scoring a grand slam on the courts"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_(tennis)
Just because a columnist used the term doesn't mean that the tennis world agreed with his assessment. Top players were skipping the AO up to the 80's. So obviously Borg and Mac didn't agree with Kieran's view of what tournaments were important.
 

pmerk34

Legend
Just because a columnist used the term doesn't mean that the tennis world agreed with his assessment. Top players were skipping the AO up to the 80's. So obviously Borg and Mac didn't agree with Kieran's view of what tournaments were important.
The Masters was much more prestigious in the 70's and 80's than the AO. The French Open also lost prestige int he 1970's but has since regained it.
 

McLovin

Legend
Don't know if you noticed... but this is male players :roll:
Don't know if you noticed, but the title says "Who had the best calendar year in open era?", not "Which male player had the best calendar year in open era"...
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
The Masters was around in the 70's and was way more important than the AO or the French Open for that matter. And why isn't Davis Cup factored in here too?
Davis cup is a team effort. I was really emphasizing individual achievements. What were the masters in the 70s? Serious question, I have no idea and I'd like to know, they were not called masters for sure.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Don't know if you noticed, but the title says "Who had the best calendar year in open era?", not "Which male player had the best calendar year in open era"...
Well I didn't precise but I meant ATP players as the list made clear. I'm totally against comparing or mixing ATP and WTA records. There is no comparison in the level and competitivity between both tours, so to me they have to be considered totally separately.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
Pancho Gonzales - Ricardo Alonso Gonzales was born on 9 May 1928 and died on 3 July 1995. He won 4 amateur Grand Slam titles, 12 professional Grand Slam titles and was 6 times a finalist. Pancho Gonzales was World N. 1 tennis player for the still unequalled 9 years during 1950s and 1960s.

Roy Stanley Emerson (born November 3, 1936) is a former Australian tennis player who won 12 Grand Slam singles titles and 16 Grand Slam men's doubles titles. He is the only male player to have won singles and doubles titles at all four Grand Slam tournaments. His 28 Grand Slam titles are an all-time record for a male player.

Kenneth Robert ("Ken") Rosewall AM MBE (born 2 November 1934, in Sydney, Australia) is a former amateur and professional tennis player who won Grand Slam singles titles in Australia, the United States, and France. He is considered to be one of the top male tennis players of all time.

John David Newcombe AO OBE (born 23 May 1944 in Sydney, Australia) is a former World No. 1 tennis champion. 7 single slam titles, 3 runner-up, 17 doubles slam titles, 4 runner-up, 2 mixed slam titles, 1 runner-up.

Ilie Năstase (born July 19, 1946, in Bucharest, Romania) is a former Romanian professional tennis player, one of the world's top players of the 1970s. Năstase was the World No. 1 in 1973 according to the Association of Tennis Professionals ranking system, which placed him first from August 23, 1973 to June 2, 1974. Năstase won seven Grand Slam titles: two in singles, three in men's doubles, and two in mixed doubles.



Also "minor" players like Arthur Ashe and Fred Stolle.

Low competition indeed.
Lower competition outside of the very best, ie the rest of the players may have been much inferior compared to current situation.
 

Ronaldo

Bionic Poster
Davis cup is a team effort. I was really emphasizing individual achievements. What were the masters in the 70s? Serious question, I have no idea and I'd like to know, they were not called masters for sure.
Surprised no one mentions the WCT finals, which had supposedly the best match ever played in 1972.
 

pmerk34

Legend
Davis cup is a team effort. I was really emphasizing individual achievements. What were the masters in the 70s? Serious question, I have no idea and I'd like to know, they were not called masters for sure.
I was talking about the Year End tournament called The Masters played in NY. Top 8 players in the world round robin. Serious prize money.
 

timnz

Legend
Laver definitely won 18 Titles in 1969 - hence he is way ahead of anybody in Open Era

I got my facts from the ATP site. You can check yourself. Maybe the other titles were not considered part of the pro tour?
And no-one in History has doubted that the 1969 Grand Slam events were full Grand Slam status. Comments about the Australia open and the French Open being less than Grand Slam status were true of 1970 (especially Australian Open) & 1971 (especially French Open) but not 1969.

In terms of surface variation - Laver won the main Hard Court (eg South Africa) + indoor (eg Philadelphia) tournaments that year.

Hence with 18 titles Including Grand-Slam - no-one else's season in the open era has comes close.

The ATP site is well known for not including all of the tournaments in the early day of the open era. That is a fault of the site not the quality of the tournaments. Remember the Grand Prix tour only started in the early 70's and the ATP itself only in 1972 or there abouts.

If you want to see a list of Laver's titles, go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver.

Here are his 1969 titles:

1/Australian Open, Brisbane Surface: Grass
2/Philadelphia Indoor Open WCT, Pennsylvania, U.S. Surface: Carpet
3/Orlando Professional Championships, Florida, U.S. Surface: ???
4/Los Angeles Professional Championships, U.S. Surface: ???
5/South African Open, Johannesburg Surface: Hard
6/Anaheim Professional Championships, California, U.S.  Surface: ???
7/Madison Square Garden Invitational, New York City Surface: Indoor
8/BBC2 World Professional Championship, Wembley Arena, London Surface: Indoor
9/French Open, Paris Surface: Clay
10/Wimbledon, London Surface: Grass
11/U.S. Professional Championships, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, U.S. Surface: Uni-Turf (outdoor) Note: This is a rubberised Hard Court surface
12/Saint Louis Professional Championships, Missouri, U.S.  Surface: ???
13/Fort Worth Professional Championships, Texas, U.S. Surface: Hard
14/Binghamton Professional Championships, New York, U.S. Surface: ???
15/Baltimore Professional Championships, Maryland, U.S. Surface: Grass
16/U.S. Open, New York City Surface: Grass
17/British Covered Court Championships, London Surface: Indoor
18/Madrid Professional Championships, Spain Surface:  ???


So much for the myth that Laver could only play on Grass and Clay....
 
Last edited:

Gen

Banned
Lower competition outside of the very best, ie the rest of the players may have been much inferior compared to current situation.
And what's the current situation? Three and a half on top and are bunch of journeyman lagging far behind?
 

pmerk34

Legend
Davis cup is a team effort. I was really emphasizing individual achievements. What were the masters in the 70s? Serious question, I have no idea and I'd like to know, they were not called masters for sure.
You don't win Davis Cup singles matches as a team you win them individually and some of the top players greatest matches and moments have been in Davis Cup play. Sampras practically singlehandedly beating Russia on the slowest red clay court I've ever seen in the 1995 Davis Cup is one the best moments I've ever seen in tennis and to me adds to his legacy.
 
A

AprilFool

Guest
It's funny how tennis has changed since the early 70s, nowadays you wouldn't imagine anyone getting the grand slam at 31!! Was it because of lesser competition, uniformed surfaces, 1st year of open era? Why such a drastic difference in age capabilities? The "peak" age seems to always be between 22 and 25 in modern tennis with Lendl the exception at 26.
What age group buys the most tennis related merchandise?
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
I was talking about the Year End tournament called The Masters played in NY. Top 8 players in the world round robin. Serious prize money.
OK, in my post I was talking about master shields: a group of tournaments more important than the rest. Master Cup was included in the general # of titles.
 

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
And no-one in History has doubted that the 1969 Grand Slam events were full Grand Slam status. Comments about the Australia open and the French Open being less than Grand Slam status were true of 1970 (especially Australian Open) & 1971 (especially French Open) but not 1969.

In terms of surface variation - Laver won the main Hard Court (eg South Africa) + indoor (eg Philadelphia) tournaments that year.

Hence with 18 titles Including Grand-Slam - no-one else's season in the open era has comes close.

The ATP site is well known for not including all of the tournaments in the early day of the open era. That is a fault of the site not the quality of the tournaments. Remember the Grand Prix tour only started in the early 70's and the ATP itself only in 1972 or there abouts.

If you want to see a list of Laver's titles, go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver.

Here are his 1969 titles:

1/Australian Open, Brisbane Surface: Grass
2/Philadelphia Indoor Open WCT, Pennsylvania, U.S. Surface: Carpet
3/Orlando Professional Championships, Florida, U.S. Surface: ???
4/Los Angeles Professional Championships, U.S. Surface: ???
5/South African Open, Johannesburg Surface: Hard
6/Anaheim Professional Championships, California, U.S. Surface: ???
7/Madison Square Garden Invitational, New York City Surface: Indoor
8/BBC2 World Professional Championship, Wembley Arena, London Surface: Indoor
9/French Open, Paris Surface: Clay
10/Wimbledon, London Surface: Grass
11/U.S. Professional Championships, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, U.S. Surface: Uni-Turf (outdoor) Note: This is a rubberised Hard Court surface
12/Saint Louis Professional Championships, Missouri, U.S. Surface: ???
13/Fort Worth Professional Championships, Texas, U.S. Surface: Hard
14/Binghamton Professional Championships, New York, U.S. Surface: ???
15/Baltimore Professional Championships, Maryland, U.S. Surface: Grass
16/U.S. Open, New York City Surface: Grass
17/British Covered Court Championships, London Surface: Indoor
18/Madrid Professional Championships, Spain Surface: ???


So much for the myth that Laver could only play on Grass and Clay....
How come there are several tournaments in there where the surface is not even known? :shock:
It is not a matter of what he can play on. Laver's big achievement is the 4 slams the same year, sorry but none of the 4 slams is on hard, that's what people are talking about, 3 of them were on grass.
 
Last edited:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
And what's the current situation? Three and a half on top and are bunch of journeyman lagging far behind?
Who is the half, lol?
Look, I'm just trying to understand why in the late 60s, early 70s there were a bunch of players who were able to win everything under the sun at 30 and older. It would definitely stop being true from the mid-seventies onwards. I believe there is a reason and I'm trying to think of some. If you have a better idea, please express it.
In current situation a guy like Canas can beat Fed and guys like Monfils or Tsonga (ranked much lower at AO 2008) can beat Nadal. I'm just wondering if that was true in the 60s. I also know that at some point in the past, players didn't have to play every round, there were some cases when they were allowed to skip all the first rounds.
 
Last edited:

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
One Year - Open Era (minimum 30 sets)
Rank Player Year Slams Sets W-L Set W%
1 John McEnroe 1984 3 62-7 89.9%
2 Roger Federer 2007 4 79-9 89.8%
3 Jimmy Connors 1976 2 30-4 88.2%
4 Roger Federer 2005 4 73.8-10 88.1%
5 Bjorn Borg 1978 3 57-8 87.7%
6 Roger Federer 2004 4 66-10 86.8%
7 Roger Federer 2006 4 80.8-13 86.1%
8 Ivan Lendl 1986 3 60-10 85.7%
 

edmondsm

Legend
Who is the half, lol?
Look, I'm just trying to understand why in the late 60s, early 70s there were a bunch of players who were able to win everything under the sun at 30 and older. It would definitely stop being true from the mid-seventies onwards. I believe there is a reason and I'm trying to think of some. If you have a better idea, please express it.
In current situation a guy like Canas can beat Fed and guys like Monfils or Tsonga (ranked much lower at AO 2008) can beat Nadal. I'm just wondering if that was true in the 60s. I also know that at some point in the past, players didn't have to play every round, there were some cases when they were allowed to skip all the first rounds.
There were only a handful of players back then that could play tennis full time. Everybody else had to make a living doing something other than playing competitively. This created a huge disparity between the upper echelons of tennis and the "middle class" of the sport. Laver beat a guy in the Wimbledon final that played and graduated from USC. Can you imagine a college player making a Wimbledon final today?

Edit: He actually lost that Wimbledon final to Alex Olmedo.
 
Last edited:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
One Year - Open Era (minimum 30 sets)
Rank Player Year Slams Sets W-L Set W%
1 John McEnroe 1984 3 62-7 89.9%
2 Roger Federer 2007 4 79-9 89.8%
3 Jimmy Connors 1976 2 30-4 88.2%
4 Roger Federer 2005 4 73.8-10 88.1%
5 Bjorn Borg 1978 3 57-8 87.7%
6 Roger Federer 2004 4 66-10 86.8%
7 Roger Federer 2006 4 80.8-13 86.1%
8 Ivan Lendl 1986 3 60-10 85.7%
Those statistics can't be very significant. How can Fed have worse statistics in 2006 when he almost won everything in sight and lost to only 2 players all year than in 2007 when he lost early in masters to people like Canas and Volandri, lost to 6 different players in all and generally speaking won fewer tournaments. Obviously 2006 was Fed's best year, I don't care what those numbers say.
 
Last edited:

veroniquem

Bionic Poster
There were only a handful of players back then that could play tennis full time. Everybody else had to make a living doing something other than playing competitively. This created a huge disparity between the upper echelons of tennis and the "middle class" of the sport. Laver beat a guy in the Wimbledon final that played and graduated from USC. Can you imagine a college player making a Wimbledon final today?
Thank you for backing up my point. It seems obvious to me looking at how much they won well over 30 that there had to be something different about the kind of competition they faced.
 

TennezSport

Hall of Fame
Many differences.........

Look, I'm just trying to understand why in the late 60s, early 70s there were a bunch of players who were able to win everything under the sun at 30 and older. It would definitely stop being true from the mid-seventies onwards. I believe there is a reason and I'm trying to think of some. If you have a better idea, please express it.
If you look at the history of the game back in the 60/70s, you will find it was a very different game entirely. Only 2 predominate surfaces of grass and clay. Major differences in the major pro players abilities and the lower players abilities. S&V was the major style of play. Game was much less physical and more or a chess match. Much less physical training and conditioning. Most racquets were wood and string were mostly gut.

In current situation a guy like Canas can beat Fed and guys like Monfils or Tsonga (ranked much lower at AO 2008 ) can beat Nadal. I'm just wondering if that was true in the 60s.
In modern tennis you have 4 different court surfaces (Hard, Grass, Clay & Carpet), with varying characteristics and demands. Martina and Lendl changed the game by making it much more physically strenuous and demanding, making it harder to maintain physically. More powerful racquets and stings. Depth of the players field has also improved due to the new training facilities and practices. Ability to analyze kinetic chain flaws in players abilities and make major corrections easier via computer and video analysis. Just to name a few things :)

Cheers, TennezSport :cool:
 
Top