1968--2011..OPEN ERA:`#greatest calendar years#`[DJOKO`s 2011 rank]~? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

1968--2011..OPEN ERA:`#greatest calendar years#`[DJOKO`s 2011 rank]~?

Pages : [1] 2

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 07:57 AM
TOP-16 GREATEST calendar seasons in the OPEN ERA:confused:

*1. Rod Laver 1969: GRAND SLAM~ AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [18-titles] :worship:
*2. Roger Federer 2006: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist, TMC champion [12-titles]:devil:
*3. Roger Federer 2007: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist, TMC champion [8-titles]:angel:
4. Rafael Nadal 2010: FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [`career slam`], AO QFs, 3x TMS [6-titles]
*5. John McEnroe 1984: Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist, TMC champion [13-titles]:(
*6. Jimmy Connors 1974: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO DNP [14-titles]:cool:
*7. Roger Federer 2004: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, TMC champion [11-titles]:)
*8. Mats Wilander 1988: AO, FO, USO champion, Wimbledon QF [6-titles];)
*9. Rafael Nadal 2008: FO, Wimbledon champion, AO & USO SFs, Olympic champion [8-titles]
*10. Roger Federer 2005: Wimbledon, USO champion, AO & FO SFs [11-titles]
__________________________________________________ ___________________________
*11. Bjorn Borg 1980: FO, Wimbledon champion, USO finalist, TMC champion [9-titles]
*12. Bjorn Borg 1979: FO, Wimbledon champion, TMC champion [13-titles]
*13. Ivan Lendl 1986: FO, USO champion, Wimbledon finalist, AO SF(Dec 85), TMC champion [9-titles]
*14. Ivan Lendl 1987: FO, USO champion, Wimbledon finalist, AO SF, TMC champion [8-titles]
*15. Pete Sampras 1994: AO, Wimbledon champion, TMC champion [10-titles]
*16. Guillermo Vilas 1977: FO, USO champion, AO finalist [16-titles]




###
===>>>What do you think, agree with me, disagree, different order:confused: :confused:

FedFan_2007
09-12-2007, 08:14 AM
2008 will be the greatest of them all. The Golden Slam.

Stensland
09-12-2007, 08:15 AM
do masters cups (or the earlier equivalent) count?

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 08:18 AM
2008 will be the greatest of them all. The Golden Slam.


:wavey:
Don`t get too greedy:devil: .. FED`s already got 4/7 greatest calendar years in the history of Open Tennis:worship: ~~Isn`t that enough for you:confused: :confused:

LeChuck
09-12-2007, 08:21 AM
I'm far too lazy to rank the top 10, and my knowledge of tennis before the Sampras era is limited (or pretty much non-existant), but my top 3 would be:
1 - Rod Laver's 1969
2 - Federer's 2006
3 - McEnroe's 1984

Laver's 1969 has to come top. In addition to achieving the calendar grand slam (the holy grail of tennis), he won 18 titles in total. He won the biggest tournaments on grass (Wimbledon, Australian Open, US Open), the most important tournament on clay (French Open), the biggest tournaments on hard (Boston, Johannesburg, Los Angeles) plus the most important tournaments on carpet (Wembley and Phildalphia), so his versatility was just unprecedented (I don't even think the likes of Borg, Lendl, Agassi and Federer can match him in this department).
16 of his victories at the 4 grand slams that year came against grand slam champions/hall of famers (I think).
Federer's 2006 doesn't really need much explanation. He was basically one victory (or 2 sets) away from perfection.
I'm guessing that McEnroe consistently played unbelievable tennis throughout 1984, and his 82-3 win-loss record (96.5% success rate) was fantastic. In addition to his Wimbledon-US Open double and French Open final, I've heard that the Masters and the WCT Finals in Dallas were the next biggest tournaments on the circuit, and he won them both.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 08:22 AM
do masters cups (or the earlier equivalent) count?


Masters Cups are significant for sure~~ behind the slams, but ahead of the TMS events;)
**Of course late 1970s early 1980s TMC was arguably more important than AO [but you can`t deny history & TMC only plays best of 3-sets (except the final)];)

Would you like to change the order:confused:

I`ve considered Borg a lot, but not sure where he fits in:confused:
Maybe I`ll put Borg`s best year @ #10 [problem is he didn`t play many tourneys even at his peak]..

Stensland
09-12-2007, 08:27 AM
Would you like to change the order:confused:


i was going to say yes because at first glance i thought sampras was pretty underrepresented. but now that i checked his record reg. the masters or the grand slam cup, he hasn't been that good. i guess it's just his overall performance over the years that kinda tricked me into thinking he's better than he actually was.
still great though, no doubt. ;)

and lechuck seems to have a point with mcenroe. i didn't know that 1984 was the year when he got that "ultimate" record. maybe he should move up a bit. did he skip the aussie open that year or got kicked out early?

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 08:28 AM
McEnroe was great in 84, that tennis at such a high level consistently, though 2 of the 3 losses came on very big stages.

FedFan_2007
09-12-2007, 08:30 AM
:wavey:
Don`t get too greedy:devil: .. FED`s already got 4/7 greatest calendar years in the history of Open Tennis:worship: ~~Isn`t that enough for you:confused: :confused:

Nah, God put Federer on this earth to accomplish the impossible. 2008 is the year of the Golden Slam, only Federer can accomplish this. :worship: :worship: :worship:

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 08:31 AM
I'm far too lazy to rank the top 10, and my knowledge of tennis before the Sampras era is limited (or pretty much non-existant), but my top 3 would be:
1 - Rod Laver's 1969
2 - Federer's 2006
3 - McEnroe's 1984

Laver's 1969 has to come top. In addition to achieving the calendar grand slam (the holy grail of tennis), he won 18 titles in total. He won the biggest tournaments on grass (Wimbledon, Australian Open, US Open), the most important tournament on clay (French Open), the biggest tournaments on hard (Boston, Johannesburg, Los Angeles) plus the most important tournaments on carpet (Wembley and Phildalphia), so his versatility was just unprecedented (I don't even think the likes of Borg, Lendl, Agassi and Federer can match him in this department).
16 of his victories at the 4 grand slams that year came against grand slam champions/hall of famers (I think).
Federer's 2006 doesn't really need much explanation. He was basically one victory (or 2 sets) away from perfection.
I'm guessing that McEnroe consistently played unbelievable tennis throughout 1984, and his 82-3 win-loss record (96.5% success rate) was fantastic. In addition to his Wimbledon-US Open double and French Open final, I've heard that the Masters and the WCT Finals in Dallas were the next biggest tournaments on the circuit, and he won them both.



:cool:
Great post~ thanks:D
Your arguments are all valid, though with regards to McEnroe`s 1984 season- the reason I placed it lower [#8], was partly because his Wimbledon finalist opponent was old man Connors [32yrs], & he gave men`s tennis one of the greatest displays of choking ever seen @ the FO [2-sets-to-love & a break in the 3rd set, vs. Lendl]:eek: .. All-time greats shouldn`t be excused for choking that badly, especially since that was his only real chance to win FO:sad:

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 08:34 AM
I'm surprised Hewitt isn't on this list.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 08:35 AM
i was going to say yes because at first glance i thought sampras was pretty underrepresented. but now that i checked his record reg. the masters or the grand slam cup, he hasn't been that good. i guess it's just his overall performance over the years that kinda tricked me into thinking he's better than he actually was.
still great though, no doubt. ;)

and lechuck seems to have a point with mcenroe. i didn't know that 1984 was the year when he got that "ultimate" record. maybe he should move up a bit. did he skip the aussie open that year or got kicked out early?


1984 was an odd year for McEnroe-> won Wimbledon & USO emphatically, choked umbelievably in the FO final, skipped AO [though he played 1983 & 1985]... never won a slam again [aged only 25yrs]:eek: :eek:

Stensland
09-12-2007, 08:36 AM
I'm surprised Hewitt isn't on this list.

during his best slam years (like 05 for example, f plus 2 sf) he didn't win one. and during the years while he was at the top, he performed pretty poorly at the slams he didn't win.

he won two tmc's though.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 08:37 AM
I'm surprised Hewitt isn't on this list.


:wavey:
Good point..if we add 2001 & 2002 together [a bloody long calendar year] can i put him in:confused: :p

LeChuck
09-12-2007, 08:43 AM
:cool:
Great post~ thanks:D
Your arguments are all valid, though with regards to McEnroe`s 1984 season- the reason I placed it lower [#8], was partly because his Wimbledon finalist opponent was old man Connors [32yrs], & he gave men`s tennis one of the greatest displays of choking ever seen @ the FO [2-sets-to-love & a break in the 3rd set, vs. Lendl]:eek: .. All-time greats shouldn`t be excused for choking that badly, especially since that was his only real chance to win FO:sad:

I'm not old enough to have seen McEnroe play (i've only read a few tennis books) so you'll know far more about his career than me.
As GWH said, 2 out of his 3 defeats came at the French Open final and Davis Cup final, i.e hugely important stages.

Stensland
09-12-2007, 08:44 AM
you got me researching here, man... :tennis:

what about lendl's 87 record?

won french and us open, finalist in london, semifinalist at the aussie open plus winner of the masters.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 08:45 AM
during his best slam years (like 05 for example, f plus 2 sf) he didn't win one. and during the years while he was at the top, he performed pretty poorly at the slams he didn't win.

he won two tmc's though.


Hewitt probably played 2004-05 better than 2001-02 but there was won big problem>> Federer [Hewitt lost 5-times @ the slams those two years]:eek: .. But there was no excuse for Hewitt`s loss to Safin in the :eek: 05 AO final:sad: :sad:

Stensland
09-12-2007, 08:47 AM
But there was no excuse for Hewitt`s loss to Safin in the :eek: 05 AO final:sad: :sad:

except for being completely exhausted after nalbandian, tiny nadal and the likes gave him a run around over the course of the 2 weeks. even lleyton's human to some extent. ;)

LeChuck
09-12-2007, 08:51 AM
Borg must have been incredibly dominant from 1978-1980:
1978 - French Open Champion, Wimbledon Champion, US Open finalist, won 9 titles in total.
1979 - French Open champion, Wimbledon champion, US Open quarter-finalist, Masters champion, won 13 titles in total.
1980 - French Open champion, Wimbledon champion, US Open finalist, Masters champion, won 9 titles in total.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 08:53 AM
you got me researching here, man... :tennis:

what about lendl's 87 record?

won french and us open, finalist in london, semifinalist at the aussie open plus winner of the masters.


;) This is really tough~> maybe i should expand the list:eek: , Lendl was a frickn legend [esp. 8-straight USO finals:worship: ]...but it seems even his best~ 1987 isn`t quite Top-10 worthy (when you consider Borg & Sampras`s best years)!

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 08:55 AM
Borg must have been incredibly dominant from 1978-1980:
1978 - French Open Champion, Wimbledon Champion, US Open finalist, won 9 titles in total.
1979 - French Open champion, Wimbledon champion, US Open quarter-finalist, Masters champion, won 13 titles in total.
1980 - French Open champion, Wimbledon champion, US Open finalist, Masters champion, won 9 titles in total.


;)
Yes Borg was a maestro no doubt:worship:
...
I consider 1980 Borg`s best year, though he won more titles in 1979... what do you think:confused:

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 08:57 AM
No, CMonAussie you hate Lendl and have been open about it, therefore it's not a surprise you left him off the list.

LeChuck
09-12-2007, 08:59 AM
;)
Yes Borg was a maestro no doubt:worship:
...
I consider 1980 Borg`s best year, though he won more titles in 1979... what do you think:confused:

I would also say 1980 as he posted his best results in one season across the 4 biggest tournaments, the French Open, Wimbledon, US Open and Masters.
Just as a matter of interest, how did Borg not finish as the year end no. 1 in 1978? The ranking points system must have been pretty dodgy at that time.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 08:59 AM
No, CMonAussie you hate Lendl and have been open about it, therefore it's not a surprise you left him off the list.

Putting like/hate aside for a second, what do you consider Lendl`s best year [1987]:confused:
# & where would you rate it in terms of best calendar years [Top-10 worthy]:confused:

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 09:00 AM
I would also say 1980 as he posted his best results in one season across the 4 biggest tournaments, the French Open, Wimbledon, US Open and Masters.
Just as a matter of interest, how did Borg not finish as the year end no. 1 in 1978? The ranking points system must have been pretty dodgy at that time.

It was worse in 1977 with Vilas.

Stensland
09-12-2007, 09:02 AM
;) This is really tough~> maybe i should expand the list:eek: , Lendl was a frickn legend [esp. 8-straight USO finals:worship: ]...but it seems even his best~ 1987 isn`t quite Top-10 worthy (when you consider Borg & Sampras`s best years)!

hm...then let's compare sampras' 1994 at no.10 of your list to lendl's 1987:

slams:

lendl: won 2 slams, one more final, one more sf ...->better
sampras: won 2 slams, one quarterfinal

masters cup: both won it...->equal

total titles:

lendl: 8
sampras: 10...->better

year-end-ranking: both no.1...->equal


pretty close call, but to me it seems like lendl's dominance at the biggest tournaments would give him the edge over sampras in that particular year.

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 09:02 AM
Putting like/hate aside for a second, what do you consider Lendl`s best year [1987]:confused:
# & where would you rate it in terms of best calendar years [Top-10 worthy]:confused:

Lendl had a lot of good years and don't forget he made 8 Masters finals in a row as well.

87 was a very good year for him.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 09:02 AM
I would also say 1980 as he posted his best results in one season across the 4 biggest tournaments, the French Open, Wimbledon, US Open and Masters.
Just as a matter of interest, how did Borg not finish as the year end no. 1 in 1978? The ranking points system must have been pretty dodgy at that time.


Yeah that`s one of the biggest mysteries=> how Connors kept #1 in 78:eek: , some say it was simply because Jimbo was American that they rigged the rankings in his favor:mad:
I believe there`s a thread about it somewhere under archives;)

BTW, I moved McEnroe up the list slightly [#8->#7]:cool:

LeChuck
09-12-2007, 09:03 AM
It was worse in 1977 with Vilas.

Yeah definately. Connors was the 3rd best player in 1977, with Vilas and Borg both much, much better than him, and yet he still somehow finished in top spot. That sounds really messed up.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 09:05 AM
hm...then let's compare sampras' 1994 at no.10 of your list to lendl's 1987:

slams:

lendl: won 2 slams, one more final, one more sf ...->better
sampras: won 2 slams, one quarterfinal

masters cup: both won it...->equal

total titles:

lendl: 8
sampras: 10...->better

year-end-ranking: both no.1...->equal


pretty close call, but to me it seems like lendl's dominance at the biggest tournaments would give him the edge over sampras in that particular year.



:worship: Rrrainer:cool: ~your debating skills are superb:devil:
So I`ll edit my list again & elevate Lendl`s 1987 above Sampras`s 1994;)

LeChuck
09-12-2007, 09:07 AM
Yeah that`s one of the biggest mysteries=> how Connors kept #1 in 78:eek: , some say it was simply because Jimbo was American that they rigged the rankings in his favor:mad:
I believe there`s a thread about it somewhere under archives;)

BTW, I moved McEnroe up the list slightly [#8->#7]:cool:

I'm not wishing to put a dampener on Connors's achievements as he is clearly one of the tennis greats, but I've heard that during over 100 of the 268 weeks he spent as world no.1, he didn't hold any grand slams.

Stensland
09-12-2007, 09:07 AM
i was just gonna add that lendl's winning percentage was higher as well. ;)

the czech went 74-7 while sampras went 77-12 in 94.

nonetheless it's your list, so if you feel like i'm misjudging the guys (and i've never seen lendl play anyways) you just keep it the way you want it.

Stensland
09-12-2007, 09:10 AM
but I've heard that during over 100 of the 268 weeks he spent as world no.1, he didn't hold any grand slams.

so he was the 70s' davydenko? :eek: :D

must've played a whole lotta tournaments back in the days.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 09:11 AM
i was just gonna add that lendl's winning percentage was higher as well. ;)

the czech went 74-7 while sampras went 77-12 in 94.

nonetheless it's your list, so if you feel like i'm misjudging the guys (and i've never seen lendl play anyways) you just keep it the way you want it.

:cool:
I edited the list a couple of times thanks to your great analysis rrrainer mate;)

BTW, i`m happy for others to come up with completely different lists-> it`s always fun to debate these things, and certainly beyond Laver`s 1969 [unarguably the greatest year] there`s plenty of room for conjecture from #2->#10;)

LeChuck
09-12-2007, 09:11 AM
Lend's 1986 also sounds incredible:
French Open Champion, Wimbledon Finalist, US Open Champion, Masters Champion, won 9 titles in total (he won 8 in 1987). His win-loss record in 1986 was 74-6, and in 1987 it was 74-7.

It's really bizarre that in 1982, he won 15 titles (including the Masters and many big WCT events), but no grand slams.

Stensland
09-12-2007, 09:13 AM
Lend's 1986 also sounds incredible:
French Open Champion, Wimbledon Finalist, US Open Champion, Masters Champion, won 9 titles in total (one more than he won in 1987)


whoops! :o

i must've missed that one. so that's basically the year that should get him a place in aussie's list, not 87...

*edit: hm, just checked it again. he didn't even play down under, so it's a tough one again.

Action Jackson
09-12-2007, 09:14 AM
Lendl and GS success before 84 was like Davydenko and hair.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 09:16 AM
:wavey:

*1. Rod Laver 1969: GRAND SLAM~ AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [18-titles] :worship:
*2. Roger Federer 2006: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [12-titles]:devil:
*3. Roger Federer 2007: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [6+ titles]:angel:
*4. Jimmy Connors 1974: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO DNP [14-titles]:cool:
*5. Roger Federer 2004: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion [11-titles]:)
*6. Mats Wilander 1988: AO, FO, USO champion, Wimbledon QF [6-titles];)
*7. John McEnroe 1984: Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [13-titles]:(
*8. Roger Federer 2005: Wimbledon, USO champion, AO & FO SF [11-titles]
*9. Bjorn Borg 1980: FO, Wimbledon champion, USO finalist [9-titles]
*10. Ivan Lendl 1987: FO, USO champion, Wimbledon finalist, AO SF [8-titles]



Just realised looking at my list that `none` of the Top-10 greatest Open Era years occurred in the 1990s:eek:

*1960s = 1 [Laver]:angel:
*1970s = 1 [Connors]:devil:
*1980s = 4 [Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander]:cool:
*1990s = zero:eek:
*2000s = 4 [Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed]:worship:

Stensland
09-12-2007, 09:19 AM
Just realised looking at my list that `none` of the Top-10 greatest Open Era years occurred in the 1990s:eek:

*1960s = 1 [Laver]:angel:
*1970s = 1 [Connors]:devil:
*1980s = 4 [Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander]:cool:
*1990s = zero:eek:
*2000s = 4 [Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed]:worship:

oh lord, i guess that fact is gonna jumpstart the mtf-guys again who keep talking about the strong 1990s era in contrast to the weak 2000s era in order to belittle federer's achievements these days.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 09:22 AM
whoops! :o

*edit: hm, just checked it again. he didn't even play down under, so it's a tough one again.


:cool: *in 1986 AO wasn`t played [due to the change in dates from Dec->Jan]: hence Lendl & co couldn`t play [Edberg won AO in 1985 & defended his title in 1987 (13-months later)];)

LeChuck
09-12-2007, 09:31 AM
My top 10 would be:
1 - Laver's 1969
2 - Federer's 2006
3 - McEnroe's 1984
4 - Borg's 1980
5 - Lendl's 1986
6 - Borg's 1979
7 - Federer's 2004
8 - Connor's 1974
9 - Federer's 2007
10 - Wilander's 1988

Laver's 1969 is undoubtedly the best of the bunch, but my order from 2-9 is a pretty rough estimate.
Borg's 1978, McEnroe's 1981, Lendl's 1987, Sampras's 1994 and Federer's 2005 are all fantastic seasons that aren't far behind at all.

Rogiman
09-12-2007, 09:32 AM
oh lord, i guess that fact is gonna jumpstart the mtf-guys again who keep talking about the strong 1990s era in contrast to the weak 2000s era in order to belittle federer's achievements these days.Well, the 90's saw many all-time greats splitting the Slams between them. Must have been hard to be as dominant as Federer when guys like Sampras, Agassi, Becker (although he won only 1 Slam in the 90's) Courier (to an extent) and Edberg (done by 92) had to fight each other off.

Still, right now the game is as international as any sport can be. During Laver's time it seems to me tennis was a Common-Wealth only sort of thing.

RonE
09-12-2007, 09:51 AM
Well, the 90's saw many all-time greats splitting the Slams between them. Must have been hard to be as dominant as Federer when guys like Sampras, Agassi, Becker (although he won only 1 Slam in the 90's) Courier (to an extent) and Edberg (done by 92) had to fight each other off.


Begging your pardon there but Becker actually won 2- '91 AO and '96 AO :p

Rogiman
09-12-2007, 10:07 AM
Begging your pardon there but Becker actually won 2- '91 AO and '96 AO :pAlright :p

aulus
09-12-2007, 10:09 AM
oh lord, i guess that fact is gonna jumpstart the mtf-guys again who keep talking about the strong 1990s era in contrast to the weak 2000s era in order to belittle federer's achievements these days.

i think it's more b/c of the specialization. many good claycourters who weren't contenders at fasters majors, wimbledon dominated by the big serve.
i think sampras won 3 in a row but spread over 2 years.

i agree that connors' streak at 1 was a bogus record because the ranking system was flawed. i think lendl had a longer streak. borg and vilas passed connors but he was still ranked 1. ashe may have been 1 in 75, also.

Stensland
09-12-2007, 10:29 AM
Well, the 90's saw many all-time greats splitting the Slams between them. Must have been hard to be as dominant as Federer when guys like Sampras, Agassi, Becker (although he won only 1 Slam in the 90's) Courier (to an extent) and Edberg (done by 92) had to fight each other off.


...which is why this discussion won't be leading anywhere. who's to know if fed would have been as dominant as he is now in the 90s? who's to know if the lack of "all-time-greats" during the nineties isn't due to their shortcomings, how would you know if they just weren't able to dominate the tennis world like lendl, laver or federer are? maybe even ALL of them are overrated because there wasn't anyone out there showing them their lack of talent?

see, roddick would probably be a stunning player with at least 4 slams as of now already if it wasn't for fed. yet i don't think he'll ever be regarded as one of the great ones of the past.

such a laborious topic...

Voo de Mar
09-12-2007, 10:35 AM
2008 will be the greatest of them all. The Golden Slam.

+ Davis Cup's triumph :devil: ;)

Stensland
09-12-2007, 11:15 AM
+ Davis Cup's triumph :devil: ;)

if he really wanted to, i think next year would be the year to do it. he will decline eventually and, fingers crossed, if stan wawrinka keeps up his good work next year, 08 is the time do lift the trophy.

there's a way bigger chance to win that trophy than the grand slam, let alone golden slam.

Voo de Mar
09-12-2007, 11:36 AM
I'm cheering more for the Switzerland's DC triumph, with Roger as a main actor, than for his next GS titles :) I'd like to see him winning in Paris but only there.

BlueSwan
09-12-2007, 11:43 AM
Well, the 90's saw many all-time greats splitting the Slams between them. Must have been hard to be as dominant as Federer when guys like Sampras, Agassi, Becker (although he won only 1 Slam in the 90's) Courier (to an extent) and Edberg (done by 92) had to fight each other off.
People tend to distort the facts about the 90's. While Sampras is undoubtedly one of the alltime greats, I think the claim that his era was stronger than the current one is completely erroneus.

Sampras dominated tennis from 1993 to 1998, finishing all of those years as #1. In 1993 Edberg and Llendl were gone. Becker was over the hill, even if he still had a few good tournaments in him. Courier started a rapid decline from 1993.

Sure there was the rivalry with Agassi, but during 1993-1998 Agassi was only at the top of his game in 1994-95. His 1993 was terrible, he was in decline in 1996 and hit rock bottom in 1997 only to resurface as a decent player in 1998. It wasn't until 1999, when Sampras was on the decline, that Agassi truly found his form again.

The rest of the great players of the 90's were at about the same level as your average top 10 player today, while your typical #100 player is definitely stronger today than back then.

On the other hand Sampras never ever had a rival as formidable as Federer has in Rafael Nadal. Federer also had to deal with former #1's Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin - two players that managed to humiliate Sampras in US Open finals. Two players who along with at least Roddick and Nadal would have gone on to win the usual 3-8 slams that all the regular "greats" win, had it not been for Federer snatching up all the titles.

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 12:31 PM
People tend to distort the facts about the 90's. While Sampras is undoubtedly one of the alltime greats, I think the claim that his era was stronger than the current one is completely erroneus.

Sampras dominated tennis from 1993 to 1998, finishing all of those years as #1. In 1993 Edberg and Llendl were gone. Becker was over the hill, even if he still had a few good tournaments in him. Courier started a rapid decline from 1993.

Sure there was the rivalry with Agassi, but during 1993-1998 Agassi was only at the top of his game in 1994-95. His 1993 was terrible, he was in decline in 1996 and hit rock bottom in 1997 only to resurface as a decent player in 1998. It wasn't until 1999, when Sampras was on the decline, that Agassi truly found his form again.

The rest of the great players of the 90's were at about the same level as your average top 10 player today, while your typical #100 player is definitely stronger today than back then.

On the other hand Sampras never ever had a rival as formidable as Federer has in Rafael Nadal. Federer also had to deal with former #1's Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin - two players that managed to humiliate Sampras in US Open finals. Two players who along with at least Roddick and Nadal would have gone on to win the usual 3-8 slams that all the regular "greats" win, had it not been for Federer snatching up all the titles.


:worship: :worship:
Excellent post, all I can say is bravo:cool:

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 12:38 PM
My top 10 would be:
1 - Laver's 1969
2 - Federer's 2006
3 - McEnroe's 1984
4 - Borg's 1980
5 - Lendl's 1986
6 - Borg's 1979
7 - Federer's 2004
8 - Connor's 1974
9 - Federer's 2007
10 - Wilander's 1988
.

:cool: Thanks for your list LeChuck mate:)
*Your list may be more accurate than mine, though I disagree with a few points...

1. Lendl`s 1987 was more impressive than his 1986 in my opinion [in 87 he was just a couple of wins from achieving THE SLAM];)
2. I think you rate McEnroe`s 1984 too highly [#3},~can`t get over the fact that Mac clearly choked away a golden chance to win FO [biggest choke in a slam final ever:eek: ]!!
3. I think you rate Federer`s 2007 too lowly [#9], he won 3-Slams & finalist @ FO [2-sets away from achieving THE SLAM]:angel:

Stensland
09-12-2007, 12:40 PM
[biggest choke in a slam final ever:eek: ]!!


...tied with coria 04 in my opinion. :angel:

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 12:46 PM
...tied with coria 04 in my opinion. :angel:

;) Yes it`s true that Coria`s meltdown was nearly equally shocking:sad:
***
However Coria`s 04 choke is more excusable in my opinion, because it was his 1st Slam final ever & he wasn`t the dominant type of player;)
McEnroe`s 84 choke stands on it`s own for sheer incredulousness, as Mac was king @ the time, & Lendl was known as the choker [losing his 3-previous slam finals].. Mac had been in slam finals numerous times & took down the great Borg in back-to-back slam finals, there was no excuse for his meltdown against Lendl that year:(

LeChuck
09-12-2007, 01:51 PM
:cool: Thanks for your list LeChuck mate:)
*Your list may be more accurate than mine, though I disagree with a few points...
1. Lendl`s 1987 was more impressive than his 1986 in my opinion [in 87 he was just a couple of wins from achieving THE SLAM];)

His 1986 and 1987 are pretty evenly matched. I actually think that his 1986 season was slightly more impressive as he won 3 out of the 4 biggest tournaments, while in 1987 he was out 3 out of the 5 biggest, although it's not his fault that there was no Australian Open in 1986. He won 9 titles and had a 92.5% success rate in 1986, compared to 8 titles and a 91.4% success rate in 1987. I can definately understand why many people think that his 1987 was more impressive though, especially as he beat Wilander in the French Open, US Open and Masters finals.

2. I think you rate McEnroe`s 1984 too highly [#3},~can`t get over the fact that Mac clearly choked away a golden chance to win FO [biggest choke in a slam final ever:eek: ]!!

True his meltdown was extraordinary, but I think that he deserves credit for immediately bouncing back from such a huge defeat and playing brilliant tennis for the rest of the year. He also got his revenge over Lendl by brushing him aside in the US Open and Masters finals. That 96.5% success rate is very hard to ignore, plus I've heard that practically every time he stepped on to a tennis court, he was playing imperious tennis, and he had positive head to heads against all of his major rivals that year.

3. I think you rate Federer`s 2007 too lowly [#9], he won 3-Slams & finalist @ FO [2-sets away from achieving THE SLAM]:angel:
That is a good point. I did find the tennis that he was playing in 2004 more enjoyable to watch and of a higher standard, maybe that had a lot to do with the fact that he was younger, more care free, and wasn't competing against history and former greats at that stage of his career. There is a case to say that his 2007 has been more impressive than his 2004 (despite the fact that he has won 3 titles less at this stage of the season than he did 3 years ago), because he is much better on clay now than he was then, and he also has had to fend off sterner competition this year thanks to Nadal and Djokovic. I think that the Masters Cup and whether he wins the title at Shanghai or not could be important in determining which season has been more impressive.

MatchFederer
09-12-2007, 02:47 PM
Wasn't it the 2004 year where Federer had a string of 25 or so victories against top 10 opponents and won 11 of 12 finals and had made a ridiculous number of consecutive finals? I think there is a case for putting 2004 ahead of 2006, though I would personally place 2006 ahead of 2004.

My top 10 would be:
1 - Laver's 1969
2 - Federer's 2006
3 - Federer's 2004
4 - Federer's 2007 - All 3 of these Federer seasons were greater than McEnroe's because of the ending slam count AND FO FINALS. 2004 beats it because he managed almost equally crazy consistency and still won 3 Slam events.

5 - McEnroe's 1984
6 - Connor's 1974 - It maybe harsh... but we can't judge what he didn't play.. good case for this year being ahead of George McEnroe's 1984. ;) (lame)
7 - Borg's 1980
8 - Wilander's 1988 - quarters at Wimby and only RR at the year ending championships makes this year less impressive than Mac's 1984 and Borg's 1980.
9 - Lendl's 1987
10 - Borg's 1979

EDIT: Or was it 2005 that was the year Federer had his freaky finals streak and top 10 player beatdown streak. If so, then I would definitely stick Fed's 2005 in at number 9 or 10.. probably 9, displacing Borg's 1979.

FedFan_2007
09-12-2007, 03:38 PM
Oxy: I agree that 2004 > 2007 because he was undefeated against top 10 players and won every single final.

jcempire
09-12-2007, 03:44 PM
Great post

CyBorg
09-12-2007, 04:08 PM
Borg had a more accomplished year in 1979 than 1980, although he probably played his best tennis in 1980.

CyBorg
09-12-2007, 04:12 PM
One more note: people tend to count up the grand slam titles and let that influence where they rate one guy's year in relation to another's.

This hurts the 70s and early-80s players in particular, because of the Aussie, which was commonly skipped.

For example: no one mentions Borg in 1978, despite the fact that he made the final at each of the three (!) majors, winning two. He didn't play at the Australian Open for obvious reasons and skipped the Masters for political reasons (Connors skipped it as well as did a number of players).

Context is important here. Laver also played amazing tennis for the most part in 1970 and 1971, but for political reasons could not participate in some of the majors. What does this tell us about what we think we know about the most dominant years in tennis history?

MatchFederer
09-12-2007, 04:48 PM
Ok, some really strong points here Cyborg. To a large extent though, surely we can only judge what has happened and what has been done. We cannot say with certainty that Borg would have won the Australian Open or even made the finals in that year. Also If he had won the Australian.. he may have had worse results at the other majors, it doesn't mean that his other results would have been identicle. But no, I see the points you are making and they are valid to a large degree.

CyBorg
09-12-2007, 05:18 PM
Ok, some really strong points here Cyborg. To a large extent though, surely we can only judge what has happened and what has been done. We cannot say with certainty that Borg would have won the Australian Open or even made the finals in that year. Also If he had won the Australian.. he may have had worse results at the other majors, it doesn't mean that his other results would have been identicle. But no, I see the points you are making and they are valid to a large degree.

Again, he won the Masters in January. I don't think it's even necessary to bring up the Aussie. The Masters was a huge event and should count for quite a bit.

MisterQ
09-12-2007, 05:19 PM
What were the political reasons that kept Laver from playing majors in 1970? I don't hear much discussion of this.

CyBorg
09-12-2007, 05:43 PM
What were the political reasons that kept Laver from playing majors in 1970? I don't hear much discussion of this.

I've read about this, but I can't confirm exactly what it was at this point. It may have been Davis Cup-related, but I seem to recall that it was political. I'll post it if I find it.

Whistleway
09-12-2007, 06:22 PM
Just realised looking at my list that `none` of the Top-10 greatest Open Era years occurred in the 1990s:eek:

*1960s = 1 [Laver]:angel:
*1970s = 1 [Connors]:devil:
*1980s = 4 [Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander]:cool:
*1990s = zero:eek:
*2000s = 4 [Fed, Fed, Fed, Fed]:worship:

Wow. You guys are brushing off a lot of history for recency. It is just the way things go :( A lot of under representation of 60s and 70s here :(

You are judging yesteryears performances with today's importance. Meaning, AO was crap till even late 80s and now being counted as supreme to justify 4 occurances for Federer.

An impartial way to judge is to who won the important titles during that era rather than judging who won most slams. If you do that, you gotta atleast throw out Australian Open till late 80s.

Also check out, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_one_male_tennis_player_rankings

World Beater
09-12-2007, 06:30 PM
People tend to distort the facts about the 90's. While Sampras is undoubtedly one of the alltime greats, I think the claim that his era was stronger than the current one is completely erroneus.

Sampras dominated tennis from 1993 to 1998, finishing all of those years as #1. In 1993 Edberg and Llendl were gone. Becker was over the hill, even if he still had a few good tournaments in him. Courier started a rapid decline from 1993.

Sure there was the rivalry with Agassi, but during 1993-1998 Agassi was only at the top of his game in 1994-95. His 1993 was terrible, he was in decline in 1996 and hit rock bottom in 1997 only to resurface as a decent player in 1998. It wasn't until 1999, when Sampras was on the decline, that Agassi truly found his form again.

The rest of the great players of the 90's were at about the same level as your average top 10 player today, while your typical #100 player is definitely stronger today than back then.

On the other hand Sampras never ever had a rival as formidable as Federer has in Rafael Nadal. Federer also had to deal with former #1's Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin - two players that managed to humiliate Sampras in US Open finals. Two players who along with at least Roddick and Nadal would have gone on to win the usual 3-8 slams that all the regular "greats" win, had it not been for Federer snatching up all the titles.


Perfect. This is what ive been trying to say for years now. Not to mention that the youngster class that Federer will deal with is likely superior to sampras'.

JimmyV
09-12-2007, 07:07 PM
People tend to distort the facts about the 90's. While Sampras is undoubtedly one of the alltime greats, I think the claim that his era was stronger than the current one is completely erroneus.

Sampras dominated tennis from 1993 to 1998, finishing all of those years as #1. In 1993 Edberg and Llendl were gone. Becker was over the hill, even if he still had a few good tournaments in him. Courier started a rapid decline from 1993.

Sure there was the rivalry with Agassi, but during 1993-1998 Agassi was only at the top of his game in 1994-95. His 1993 was terrible, he was in decline in 1996 and hit rock bottom in 1997 only to resurface as a decent player in 1998. It wasn't until 1999, when Sampras was on the decline, that Agassi truly found his form again.

The rest of the great players of the 90's were at about the same level as your average top 10 player today, while your typical #100 player is definitely stronger today than back then.

On the other hand Sampras never ever had a rival as formidable as Federer has in Rafael Nadal. Federer also had to deal with former #1's Lleyton Hewitt and Marat Safin - two players that managed to humiliate Sampras in US Open finals. Two players who along with at least Roddick and Nadal would have gone on to win the usual 3-8 slams that all the regular "greats" win, had it not been for Federer snatching up all the titles.

:worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: Put it perfectly :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship: :worship:

CmonAussie
09-12-2007, 11:35 PM
Again, he won the Masters in January. I don't think it's even necessary to bring up the Aussie. The Masters was a huge event and should count for quite a bit.


I think you`re giving too much importance to the Masters [TMC]:

*Masters has little history [began in 1971]
*Masters has a field of 8-players only
*Masters regularly changes venue/city/country
*Masters regularly changes name [World Championships, TMC...]
*Masters is best-of-three-sets-only [except final]
*Masters format allows you to lose a match & still win the tournament
*Masters requires only 5-matches
*Masters is played on an indoor court, meaning wind & sun are non-factors
*Master was & is an end of season cash cow for the most elite only
~~~~
Therefore it never has & never will have the importance of a Slam:p

CmonAussie
09-13-2007, 01:25 AM
My top 10 would be:
1 - Laver's 1969
2 - Federer's 2006
3 - Federer's 2004
4 - Federer's 2007 - All 3 of these Federer seasons were greater than McEnroe's because of the ending slam count AND FO FINALS. 2004 beats it because he managed almost equally crazy consistency and still won 3 Slam events.
5 - McEnroe's 1984
6 - Connor's 1974 - It maybe harsh... but we can't judge what he didn't play.. good case for this year being ahead of George McEnroe's 1984. ;) (lame)
7 - Borg's 1980
8 - Wilander's 1988 - quarters at Wimby and only RR at the year ending championships makes this year less impressive than Mac's 1984 and Borg's 1980.
9 - Lendl's 1987
10 - Borg's 1979
.


:wavey: Thanks for your contribution [list]:cool:

Surprised though that you put Federer`s 2004 ahead of his 2007, considering that in 04 FED lost Rd.3 @ FO, whereas this year he was a finalist;)
Also Roger endured many surprising losses in 04 as well [lost to Henman @ Rotterdam, lost to Nadal in Rd.2 @ Miami, lost early @ Cincinatti & the Olympics]..

##
Do you think Borg`s 1979 is better than Federer`s 2005:confused: :confused:

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 02:49 AM
I think you`re giving too much importance to the Masters [TMC]:

*Masters has little history [began in 1971]

I fail to see how this is in any way important beyond prestige subjectivities. There is either a deep field or there isn't.

*Masters has a field of 8-players only

The only real issue in my opinion, but the eight players were the top-eight seeds and this is already more than the pro championships of the pre-open era.

*Masters regularly changes venue/city/country

So?

*Masters regularly changes name [World Championships, TMC...]

So?

*Masters is best-of-three-sets-only [except final]

You're forgetting that the US Open was best-of-three sets until the semifinal right up to around the mid-70s. I'm not even talking about the Aussie.

*Masters format allows you to lose a match & still win the tournament

So? Does the best man not still win?

*Masters requires only 5-matches

Yes, but the competition is much more rigorous. All top-10 seeds presumably.

*Masters is played on an indoor court, meaning wind & sun are non-factors

So?

*Master was & is an end of season cash cow for the most elite only

And it was the fourth most important tournament of the late 70s and early 80s.

Therefore it never has & never will have the importance of a Slam:p

Too vague. The Australian Open is a major (not a slam), but it was of little value in those times. The Masters was, conversely, of some value. So was the Dallas event up to roughly the late 70s where it was so huge that guys prepared for months to play in it. Interestingly it also yielded a field of 8.

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 02:51 AM
Do you think Borg`s 1979 is better than Federer`s 2005:confused: :confused:

Is there something wrong with Borg's 13 (or 14 if you count Brussels) titles in 1979?

MatchFederer
09-13-2007, 03:08 AM
:wavey: Thanks for your contribution [list]:cool:

Surprised though that you put Federer`s 2004 ahead of his 2007, considering that in 04 FED lost Rd.3 @ FO, whereas this year he was a finalist;)
Also Roger endured many surprising losses in 04 as well [lost to Henman @ Rotterdam, lost to Nadal in Rd.2 @ Miami, lost early @ Cincinatti & the Olympics]..

##
Do you think Borg`s 1979 is better than Federer`s 2005:confused: :confused:

I put 2004 ahead because I it was the year he won all the finals he reached and didn't lose to a top 10 player... which for me gives it a slight edge over 2007 right now, but lets not forget that 2007 ISN't finished. :) Perhaps if he concludes the season with a TMC I might possibly edge it ahead, but we will see.

Personally, yes I see Borgs 1979 as better than Federers 2005, with the back to back French and Wimbledon being the biggest swaying factor.

MatchFederer
09-13-2007, 03:14 AM
Again, he won the Masters in January. I don't think it's even necessary to bring up the Aussie. The Masters was a huge event and should count for quite a bit.

Yes he did, but I am just not willing to judge what didn't happen... he may have not even won the Australian Open. I think it is a hard sort of call to make and I can see arguments from both sides... context is important, but so is what happened and the Australian Open event was available to be played, but he didn't play it. I do think he had some brilliant seasons obviously, as my list suggests, but I do think the number of GS events won is important and we can't say with certainty that Borg would have won 3 of the 4 events in those years with any certainty.:cool:

Maybe you could educate me though Cyborg... and many others here. I explained to CmonAussie why I put Federer's 2004 ahead of his 2007. Are there any such factors such as incredible streaks against top 10 opponents or spectacular consistency outside of the slams and in finals that I am missing with any of my Borg choices that would perhaps make me look at the seasons in question (the ones in anyones list) differently?:confused:

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 03:35 AM
Yes he did, but I am just not willing to judge what didn't happen... he may have not even won the Australian Open. I think it is a hard sort of call to make and I can see arguments from both sides... context is important, but so is what happened and the Australian Open event was available to be played, but he didn't play it. I do think he had some brilliant seasons obviously, as my list suggests, but I do think the number of GS events won is important and we can't say with certainty that Borg would have won 3 of the 4 events in those years with any certainty.:cool:

The point is that he won 3 of the 4 important events. There is nothing inherently important about the Australian Open. It is only important when made so by the quality of its draw and hence the respect it is given by the ATP players.

Maybe you could educate me though Cyborg... and many others here. I explained to CmonAussie why I put Federer's 2004 ahead of his 2007. Are there any such factors such as incredible streaks against top 10 opponents or spectacular consistency outside of the slams and in finals that I am missing with any of my Borg choices that would perhaps make me look at the seasons in question (the ones in anyones list) differently?:confused:

You can find his (partial) results to non-grand slam tournaments on the ATP website. If you're a junkie you can also sneak a peak on ITFtennis.com. His consistency outside of the majors was as remarkable as one would expect from the number one player.

barbadosan
09-13-2007, 03:55 AM
The point is that he won 3 of the 4 important events. There is nothing inherently important about the Australian Open. It is only important when made so by the quality of its draw and hence the respect it is given by the ATP players.

Just curious as to your assessment of the AO. It's a GS played with the same criteria as the other grand slams... well mostly so, but its the USO that's the oddity because of its 5th set tie-break

CmonAussie
09-13-2007, 04:10 AM
The point is that he won 3 of the 4 important events. There is nothing inherently important about the Australian Open. It is only important when made so by the quality of its draw and hence the respect it is given by the ATP players.
.


CyBorg you have little sense of history:sad:
Perhaps that`s why your a fan of the enigmatic Borg;)

**If AO had `no inherent importance` why would the likes of Don Budge travel all the way from America to Australia by ship in the 1930s:confused:
THE GRAND SLAM [winning all 4]~ had significance in the 1930s when Budge did it, in the 1960s when Laver did it, & in recent years when Federer`s come close to doing it;)

##AO`s standing as a major was briefly jeopardised in the late 1970s due to prizemoney problems & your man-> Borg`s absence:o

AO`s 102-years old & clearly one of the 4-most important events, unfortunately Borg did a lot to damage the events status [between 1976-1981]:eek:


BTW, ask David Nalbandian if he`d rather keep his TMC title [Shanghai 05] or trade it in for an AO title:p

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 04:21 AM
CyBorg you have little sense of history:sad:
Perhaps that`s why your a fan of the enigmatic Borg;)

I am a big-time fan, yes.

**If AO had `no inherent importance` why would the likes of Don Budge travel all the way from America to Australia by ship in the 1930s:confused:

The context of the time. The Australian Open was important in Budge's eras due to varying factors: prestige established by virtue of things like prize money, regulations, attendance of other great players. The prestige evaporated in the 1970s, because of a different time and a different context. Because of this the Australian Open cannot be inherently important, as this also presupposes that it will be inherently important 30 years from now, and we cannot accurately predict the context for those years.

THE GRAND SLAM [winning all 4]~ had significance in the 1930s when Budge did it, in the 1960s when Laver did it, & in recent years when Federer`s come close to doing it;)

You should reconsider. Budge won the grand slam as an amateur - again, a different context. A very different accomplishment. One is not like the other.

##AO`s standing as a major was briefly jeopardised in the late 1970s due to prizemoney problems & your man-> Borg`s absence:o

There were many factors. The fact that the Aussie was scheduled right around the same time as the Masters at the end of the year didn't help the tournament.

AO`s 102-years old & clearly one of the 4-most important events, unfortunately Borg did a lot to damage the events status [between 1976-1981]:eek:

Borg didn't play there. Connors didn't play there. Gerulatis didn't play there. McEnroe didn't play there until (if memory serves) 83. It had poor draws and Borg was not the causal factor.

BTW, ask David Nalbandian if he`d rather keep his TMC title [Shanghai 05] or trade it in for an AO title:p

Not relevant. The context for the current era differs from that of the 70s era.

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 04:25 AM
Just curious as to your assessment of the AO. It's a GS played with the same criteria as the other grand slams... well mostly so, but its the USO that's the oddity because of its 5th set tie-break

The Australian Open is as important as any event in tennis as long as its draws are as deep as that of the other tournaments (majors).

An argument had been made that the Australian Open is actually the most competitive of all the majors because of the rebound ace surface that, due to its high bounce, was supposed to appeal to clay court-type players as much as to the all-around hard court or grass talents. I don't know if this is true. Regardless of all of that, rebound ace is on the outs.

barbadosan
09-13-2007, 04:28 AM
Cyborg, we have a saying my country: "You preparing ground for monkey to run on". On the basis of what you're saying, should we then award the Golden Slam title to anyone winning the FO, Wimby and the USO during that period which you have determined the AO was of inherently little importance?

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 04:33 AM
Cyborg, we have a saying my country: "You preparing ground for monkey to run on". On the basis of what you're saying, should we then award the Golden Slam title to anyone winning the FO, Wimby and the USO during that period which you have determined the AO was of inherently little importance?

The "Golden Slam Title", as you call it, exists in imaginations of tennis romantics everywhere. It has never been and will never be more than a distraction in the face of true analytical discourse.

barbadosan
09-13-2007, 04:37 AM
The "Golden Slam Title", as you call it, exists in imaginations of tennis romantics everywhere. It has never been and will never be more than a distraction in the face of true analytical discourse.

you forgot to add "and irrefutable logic"

FedFan_2007
09-13-2007, 04:42 AM
As usual CyBorg has nothing substantive to add to the debate. Just lies, putdowns, insults and "the 1970s". Bullshit.

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 04:44 AM
you forgot to add "and irrefutable logic"

"Irrefutable logic" is a fallacy just like "exact science". Science is never exact. Logic is never irrefutable. Neither are proved, only disproved, that's right, by more logic (or more scientific analysis).

The Golden Slam is not logical, because it ignores contextual implications of respective eras. Without context we have Roy Emerson's 12 grand slam titles as a shallow indicator of excellence. Without context we cannot distinguish, not properly classify, Rod Laver's first grand slam from his second.

FedFan_2007
09-13-2007, 05:13 AM
CyBorg - are you deliberately trying to be dense? When Fed gets to 15 he's GOAT. End of discussion.

CmonAussie
09-13-2007, 05:32 AM
I am a big-time fan, yes.
The context of the time. The Australian Open was important in Budge's eras due to varying factors: prestige established by virtue of things like prize money, regulations, attendance of other great players. The prestige evaporated in the 1970s, because of a different time and a different context. Because of this the Australian Open cannot be inherently important, as this also presupposes that it will be inherently important 30 years from now, and we cannot accurately predict the context for those years.

Borg didn't play there. Connors didn't play there. Gerulatis didn't play there. McEnroe didn't play there until (if memory serves) 83. It had poor draws and Borg was not the causal factor.
.

###
Well it`s true that no tournament is "inherently important"~~ other than Wimbledon maybe,~since it`s the oldest tournament!

Anyway we began this argument because you made a hooplah about Masters being the 4th most important tourney in the 1970s..

My point is that you can`t erase history;)
What makes the 4-majors parts of the SLAM~~ i`ll tell you:
**AUS, GB, France & the US were the only countries to win the Davis Cup for the first ~100years or so if it`s inception:cool:
**AO, FO, Wimby & USO were recognised as the 4-countries most competitive/prestigious/historic tournaments!!
**The 4-majors each have a history dating over 100-years [no others come close]!
**Traditionally the best players have made their mark in these tourneys!
[Remember that from the 1940s->1960s many of the best players were Aussies]:cool: .


BTW, Connors, Vilas, Gerulatis, Ashe, Newcombe, Tanner all won the AO during it`s apparently weak era~ granted;)
Borg also won half of his FO titles during it`s weakest era:p

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 05:41 AM
My point is that you can`t erase history;)
What makes the 4-majors parts of the SLAM~~ i`ll tell you:
**AUS, GB, France & the US were the only countries to win the Davis Cup for the first ~100years or so if it`s inception:cool:
**AO, FO, Wimby & USO were recognised as the 4-countries most competitive/prestigious/historic tournaments!!
**The 4-majors each have a history dating over 100-years [no others come close]!
**Traditionally the best players have made their mark in these tourneys!
[Remember that from the 1940s->1960s many of the best players were Aussies]:cool:

I know all of this. I just don't think that this is relevant to the matter of context. I don't deny that the Australian Open has a rich history.

BTW, Connors, Vilas, Gerulatis, Ashe, Newcombe, Tanner all won the AO during it`s apparently weak era~ granted;)
Borg also won half of his FO titles during it`s weakest era:p

I debated once about the Australian Open with a fellow who was convinced that the Aussie was never a lame duck grand slam event, despite all evidence to the contrary. He used similiar defense of "AO had winners like Newcombe, Ashe and so on". My response was simple: look at the draws of the Aussie between the mid-70s all the way up to about 83 or 84 and you can tell the difference.

As for the French Open, as you really want to make the argument that its draws were weak in the first few years when Borg won it (I assume you are pointing to 74, 75 and 78 and maybe those in between), I would be interested in seeing something tangeable. You can examine the draws and explain to me for what reason you consider these events to have been weak, or for that matter indicative of the weakest era in the event's history.

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 05:48 AM
This should help you:

French Open draws from 1974 to 1978:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_French_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles

Australian Open draws from 1975 to 1983 (75 being the year after Borg played his one and only AO)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Australian_Open_%28January%29_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Australian_Open_-_Men%27s_Singles

Notice how the AO draws become increasingly abysmal with each year, culminating with the especially weak years in the late 70s and early 80s.

Again, I thought this was common knowledge to most people, but I thought I would point it out anyway.

Stensland
09-13-2007, 05:53 AM
Again, I thought this was common knowledge to most people

i wasn't even born back then.

so i'll better apologize in advance for not having sufficient knwoledge of the grand slam draws of the 70s. :scratch:

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 05:55 AM
i wasn't even born back then.

so i'll better apologize in advance for not having sufficient knwoledge of the grand slam draws of the 70s. :scratch:

Why?

Stensland
09-13-2007, 06:05 AM
Why?

because it apparently requires quite a profound knowledge to take part in your discussion. i actually didn't plan back out of this thread so in order to avoid troubles between us i just wanted to let you know: i'm interested in this topic but i do not know all of what you assume that is generally "known" out there. :wavey:

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 06:15 AM
because it apparently requires quite a profound knowledge to take part in your discussion. i actually didn't plan back out of this thread so in order to avoid troubles between us i just wanted to let you know: i'm interested in this topic but i do not know all of what you assume that is generally "known" out there. :wavey:

I see. Don't apologize. I started from nil just like everyone. It all starts with curiosity and goes from there.

I don't think there's ever any potential for 'trouble', as long as individuals don't perceive my criticism/inquiry as that of the person. The inquiry pertains to a perspective, which is seldom unique and often common.

Some people were similarly disturbed when I took some of the members here up on their use of 'grand slam' to refer to a major, thinking that I was attacking them personally, which couldn't be further from the truth.

megadeth
09-13-2007, 07:50 AM
Nah, God put Federer on this earth to accomplish the impossible. 2008 is the year of the Golden Slam, only Federer can accomplish this. :worship: :worship: :worship:

i'd like to see this happen in my lifetime... so go fed!!!

CmonAussie
09-13-2007, 08:22 AM
I know all of this. I just don't think that this is relevant to the matter of context. I don't deny that the Australian Open has a rich history.

As for the French Open, as you really want to make the argument that its draws were weak in the first few years when Borg won it (I assume you are pointing to 74, 75 and 78 and maybe those in between), I would be interested in seeing something tangeable. You can examine the draws and explain to me for what reason you consider these events to have been weak, or for that matter indicative of the weakest era in the event's history.


You make some decent points CyBorg;)

Undoubtedly FO`s draws in the mid-late 1970s were stronger than AOs, however the FO was still a distant 3rd behind Wimbledon & USO in terms of strength of field:eek:

For instance, Borg can consider his 1974 FO win very lucky, when several American players were barred from competing,~~most notably Jimmy Connors >>who had won 3/4 majors that year & may have won THE SLAM if he`d been allowed to compete:sad: .. Jimbo was not a great clay player but he did defeat Borg on clay in a USO final [green clay].. & in 1974 Connors was clearly the man, whilst Borg was a young spunk, who got lucky winning his 1st FO with a depleted field;)

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 08:24 AM
Connors couldn't beat Borg on red clay and he never won an event on it.

CmonAussie
09-13-2007, 08:40 AM
Connors couldn't beat Borg on red clay and he never won an event on it.


Jimbo wasn`t that bad on clay, as i said he took out Borg in the USO final on `green clay`..
Also Connors made SFs @ FO 4-times, & QF 4-times;)

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 08:43 AM
Jimbo wasn`t that bad on clay, as i said he took out Borg in the USO final on `green clay`..
Also Connors made SFs @ FO 4-times, & QF 4-times;)

Red and green clay are very very different. It's not like Borg enjoyed playing in New York. Movement is different, the bounce is different.

McEnroe was better on red clay than Connors was and Borg was very tough mentally, especially on that surface..

Good thread btw.

LeChuck
09-13-2007, 08:45 AM
The grand slam count has been of a paramount importance in the Sampras and Federer eras, but I'm guessing that it wasn't that important at all in the Borg (or Laver) eras. When Sampras reached the 10 grand slam title mark (Wimbledon 1997), there was a lot of excitement that he could break Emerson's record. However I've heard that when Borg got to 10-11 grand slam titles, nobody brought up Emerson's record at all, or particularly cared about whether he would equal/surpass it or not, as the ultimate goal in those days was the calendar grand slam. Is that true?
I'm also guessing that Borg and McEnroe only would have played at the Australian Open during the tournament's bleaker days, if they had won the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open earlier in the season, and had the chance to complete the calendar grand slam Down Under.

CmonAussie
09-13-2007, 09:06 AM
The grand slam count has been of a paramount importance in the Sampras and Federer eras, but I'm guessing that it wasn't that important at all in the Borg (or Laver) eras. When Sampras reached the 10 grand slam title mark (Wimbledon 1997), there was a lot of excitement that he could break Emerson's record. However I've heard that when Borg got to 10-11 grand slam titles, nobody brought up Emerson's record at all, or particularly cared about whether he would equal/surpass it or not, as the ultimate goal in those days was the calendar grand slam. Is that true?
I'm also guessing that Borg and McEnroe only would have played at the Australian Open during the tournament's bleaker days, if they had won the French Open, Wimbledon and US Open earlier in the season, and had the chance to complete the calendar grand slam Down Under.

McEnroe played AO 5-times: 83, 85, 88, 90, 92
Borg played AO only once: 74

###
Both Mac & Borg said they would have come Down Under during their absent years if THE SLAM had been on the line;)

In McEnroe`s autibiography he admits to regretting his decision not to play the AO more often..;)

Stoic Borg as always, expresses no regrets about anything:eek:

CmonAussie
09-13-2007, 09:16 AM
Red and green clay are very very different. It's not like Borg enjoyed playing in New York. Movement is different, the bounce is different.

McEnroe was better on red clay than Connors was and Borg was very tough mentally, especially on that surface..

Good thread btw.


Thanks for the good rap GW mate:cool:
...
Yeah i know McEnroe was better than Connors on clay but...
Regarding the 1974 season~~ who knows what might have happened had Jimbo been allowed to play!
1974 Connors was an arrogant, brash, fearless young man who won 3-Slams, 14-titles & #1!!

An analogy could be made with Serena Williams, who won FO in 2003, despite never being much chop on a clay court.. 2003 Serena was in full arrogant/fearless flight & the other players felt the heat:devil: .. Connors may have had the same affect on the field in the 74 FO if he`d been there:confused:

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 09:25 AM
Well Connors somehow was ranked #1 after 77, therefore I have no sympathy for what happened to him in 74 with RG and I still doubt very much he'd beat Borg on red clay, maybe when Borg was 13.

tripb19
09-13-2007, 10:21 AM
The point is that he won 3 of the 4 important events. There is nothing inherently important about the Australian Open. It is only important when made so by the quality of its draw and hence the respect it is given by the ATP players.




:retard:

This makes so little sense, unless you meant 'was', and yes I've read all your other posts in this thread, and yes I think you should try and explain yourself a bit clearer and without the word 'inherently'.

CmonAussie
09-13-2007, 01:57 PM
:retard:

This makes so little sense, unless you meant 'was', and yes I've read all your other posts in this thread, and yes I think you should try and explain yourself a bit clearer and without the word 'inherently'.

There`s no point mate:cool:

CyBorg won`t offer any clarity regarding his stance [ie."AO not inherently important" & "Masters being the 4th biggest tourney"]~~> because he`s the #1 fan of the enigmatic Borg, who never offered any excuses or explanations for his career choices [retiring so young, not playing AO, playing World Team tennis instead of FO one year, attempting suicide, not returning to Wimbledon for 20+ years, attempting a comeback with a wooden racket in 1991...]:eek:

Borg`s career/personality will surely remain one of biggest unsolved mysteries in tennis:angel: :devil:

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 02:00 PM
For a period of time the AO was the poor brother, the generation between the great Aussies and until Lendl/Wilander and McEnroe starting playing it and then it grew and once they changed the surface and got proper facilities then it improved.

CmonAussie
09-13-2007, 02:10 PM
For a period of time the AO was the poor brother, the generation between the great Aussies and until Lendl/Wilander and McEnroe starting playing it and then it grew and once they changed the surface and got proper facilities then it improved.


1976--1982 were undoubtedly the dark days of AO, though i blame the likes of Borg mostly>> he had great influence in those days, if Borg had bothered to show up AO would have pulled more sponsors, most of the top players would have taken Borg`s lead & we wouldn`t be having this discussion;)

##anyway AO has a history over 100-years & 6-disappointing years in the late 70s early 80s doesn`t automatically make an AO title less significant than a Masters title:eek:

Borg was a legend no doubt, but his unprofessional attitude to upholding the traditions of the sport did have some negative impacts:( .. thankfully his proteges~~ Wilander & Edberg:angel: took a different, more professional approach [not just greedy cash grabbing];)

Action Jackson
09-13-2007, 02:17 PM
Borg wasn't the only player not to turn up during that time, it's not like Connors turned up either.

Bad timing of the year, outdated facilities. If they had it in December now, it wouldn't be much better than it was then.

It was a shit event during the time Borg played, the timeframe is the key. Did the Masters have better players, well at that time of course, but we know why this is the case.

Top players don't skip the AO now unless injured, then they didn't give a fuck for the most part.

LeChuck
09-13-2007, 02:29 PM
Looking at the draw size pattern at the 4 grand slams during the open era:

Australian Open:
1969-1971 - 48 players
1972 - 50 players
1973 - 56 players
1974-1981 - 64 players
1982-1987 - 96 players
1988-Present - 128 players

French Open:
1968 - 135 players
1969-1971 - 128 players
1972 - 110 players
1973-Present - 128 players

Wimbledon:
1968-Present - 128 players

US Open:
1968 - 96 players
1969 - 128 players
1970 - 108 players
1971 - 128 players
1972 - 148 players
1973-Present - 128 players

Prior to 1988, the Australian Open always had a smaller draw size than the other 3 grand slams. Perhaps this is one reason why many people think that while the Australian Open has been on a par with the other 3 grand slams since 1988, before then it wasn't.
I personally think that the Australian Open is the best grand slam nowadays, as in my opinion it produces the best matches, has the best crowds and atmosphere, and has the best facilities.

CmonAussie
09-13-2007, 02:30 PM
Borg wasn't the only player not to turn up during that time, it's not like Connors turned up either.
Bad timing of the year, outdated facilities. If they had it in December now, it wouldn't be much better than it was then.

It was a shit event during the time Borg played, the timeframe is the key. Did the Masters have better players, well at that time of course, but we know why this is the case.

Top players don't skip the AO now unless injured, then they didn't give a fuck for the most part.


Here`s the thing I find craziest about it-->>
*Connors & McEnroe didn`t play AO during the late 1970s-early 80s, yet they kept coming Down Under every year to play the Sydney Indoor event, & Mac even played Brisbane during that time:rolleyes: :eek:

Even worse Connors made the trip to Melbourne in 1980, but not to play AO, instead he came all that way to play a stupid exhibition tourney~~ the 16-man `Mazda Challenge` [which he won]:o

What a dipshit Jimbo was,& it gives you some insight into his personality that he`d spend 20-hours on a plane to play a nothing exho, but not bother to player the Slam tourney in the same city!!.. Those guys were really money hungry whores, who didn`t give a shit about tradition, except maybe they gave Wimby a little more respect!

Can you imagine Federer doing a Connors in this day & age:confused: .. Fly to Melbourne for the Kooyong Classic exho & then return to Switzerland without competing @ AO:confused:

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 05:30 PM
You make some decent points CyBorg;)

Undoubtedly FO`s draws in the mid-late 1970s were stronger than AOs, however the FO was still a distant 3rd behind Wimbledon & USO in terms of strength of field:eek:

For instance, Borg can consider his 1974 FO win very lucky, when several American players were barred from competing,~~most notably Jimmy Connors >>who had won 3/4 majors that year & may have won THE SLAM if he`d been allowed to compete:sad: .. Jimbo was not a great clay player but he did defeat Borg on clay in a USO final [green clay].. & in 1974 Connors was clearly the man, whilst Borg was a young spunk, who got lucky winning his 1st FO with a depleted field;)

I've heard this argument as well. Connors would never have won the French Open. First of all, he seldom played matches on red clay, thus having very little practice on the surface. He was a first round loser in 1973. He got pretty good on red clay in the early 80s and made a couple or so semis, but still failed to get to the final even in the years without Borg. The slow clay was his worst surface - Jimmy liked to attack his opponent and preferred the ball about waist-high. This worked perfectly on the fast green clay at summer time. The red clay necessitated a strict baseline contest.

Either way, the French Open had very strong draws regardless of Jimmy's presence. Interestingly enough, a very weak draw was at the 1973 Wimbledon when politics intervened.

CyBorg
09-13-2007, 05:32 PM
There`s no point mate:cool:

CyBorg won`t offer any clarity regarding his stance [ie."AO not inherently important" & "Masters being the 4th biggest tourney"]~~> because he`s the #1 fan of the enigmatic Borg, who never offered any excuses or explanations for his career choices [retiring so young, not playing AO, playing World Team tennis instead of FO one year, attempting suicide, not returning to Wimbledon for 20+ years, attempting a comeback with a wooden racket in 1991...]:eek:

Borg`s career/personality will surely remain one of biggest unsolved mysteries in tennis:angel: :devil:

You read wikipedia too much.

thrust
09-13-2007, 09:04 PM
Laver spans the open, pro and amateur eras. He was great in all of them, so he is a separate case. In strictly the Open Era the fact is that Sampras has more Slams than anyone else for that era, as well as 6 consecutive years at #1 which still is the bench mark for the Open Era. Plus,Pete played in an era of several great players. Federer is playing in an era, so far, of second rate players. Nadal is great on clay, but thats about all. Roger is as lucky as he is great.

TennisGrandSlam
09-14-2007, 11:21 AM
Jimbo wasn`t that bad on clay, as i said he took out Borg in the USO final on `green clay`..
Also Connors made SFs @ FO 4-times, & QF 4-times;)

Connors could not beat Borg in either Wimbledon (Grass) or Roland Garros (Red Clay)

In US Open, he has strong home advantage! :devil:

You can say,

Connors was the King of America.

Borg was the King of Europe.

:devil:

MatchFederer
09-14-2007, 02:47 PM
Laver spans the open, pro and amateur eras. He was great in all of them, so he is a separate case. In strictly the Open Era the fact is that Sampras has more Slams than anyone else for that era, as well as 6 consecutive years at #1 which still is the bench mark for the Open Era. Plus,Pete played in an era of several great players. Federer is playing in an era, so far, of second rate players. Nadal is great on clay, but thats about all. Roger is as lucky as he is great.

Complete fallacy.

CmonAussie
09-14-2007, 07:12 PM
Laver spans the open, pro and amateur eras. He was great in all of them, so he is a separate case. In strictly the Open Era the fact is that Sampras has more Slams than anyone else for that era, as well as 6 consecutive years at #1 which still is the bench mark for the Open Era. Plus,Pete played in an era of several great players. Federer is playing in an era, so far, of second rate players. Nadal is great on clay, but thats about all. Roger is as lucky as he is great.


Yes~ but we know FED will pass Sampras`s mark soetime in the next 12-18 months:p

Also FED`s been #1 for 4-successive years unbroken:worship:
Sampras finished #1, 6-years but he wasn`t #1 throughout all of those years [Agassi, Muster, Moya, Rios, Rafter...etc. all had turns @ #1 though Pete finished #1];)

TennisGrandSlam
09-15-2007, 02:06 AM
Yes~ but we know FED will pass Sampras`s mark soetime in the next 12-18 months:p

Also FED`s been #1 for 4-successive years unbroken:worship:
Sampras finished #1, 6-years but he wasn`t #1 throughout all of those years [Agassi, Muster, Moya, Rios, Rafter...etc. all had turns @ #1 though Pete finished #1];)


I is regretible that Guillermo Vilas in 1997 was not NO.1 (I should say he has never been NO.1) :devil:

- 128 win - 14 loss (not counting Davis Cup)

- 16 singles titles (including Roland Garros and US Open B2B winner)

- Australian Open (Jan.) runner-up, totally 3GS finals in a calendar year.

- 53 straight win on clay

- 46 straight win on all courts including Davis Cup

This result can supress most of histrical ATP YE NO.1 :

Nastase 1973
Connors 1975-78 (I still don't know the ranking point counting in 1977)
JMac 1981-83
Lendl 1985, 1989
Edberg 1990-91
Courier 1992
Sampras 1997-98
Agassi 1999
Kuerten 2000
Hewitt 2001-02
Roddick 2003

CyBorg
09-15-2007, 02:49 AM
Mickey Mouse tournaments.

CmonAussie
09-15-2007, 02:55 AM
I is regretible that Guillermo Vilas in 1997 was not NO.1 (I should say he has never been NO.1) :devil:

- 128 win - 14 loss (not counting Davis Cup)

- 16 singles titles (including Roland Garros and US Open B2B winner)

- Australian Open (Jan.) runner-up, totally 3GS finals in a calendar year.

- 53 straight win on clay

- 46 straight win on all courts including Davis Cup

This result can supress most of histrical ATP YE NO.1 :

Nastase 1973
Connors 1975-78 (I still don't know the ranking point counting in 1977)
JMac 1981-93
Lendl 1985, 1989
Edberg 1990-91
Courier 1992
Sampras 1997-98
Agassi 1999
Kuerten 2000
Hewitt 2001-02
Roddick 2003


Vilas was certainly the most underrated player of his generation!!!
***However Vilas had a huge impact in South America & esp Argentina, which helped kick of the sports popularity there & produce players like Rios, Coria, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Massu...etc:cool:

TennisGrandSlam
09-15-2007, 03:15 AM
Vilas was certainly the most underrated player of his generation!!!
***However Vilas had a huge impact in South America & esp Argentina, which helped kick of the sports popularity there & produce players like Rios, Coria, Nalbandian, Gonzalez, Massu...etc:cool:

Does you mean that

Vilas 1977 = Muster 1995 = Nadal 2005 :devil:

CmonAussie
09-15-2007, 04:00 AM
Does you mean that

Vilas 1977 = Muster 1995 = Nadal 2005 :devil:


Vilas 77 ~ Becker 89 ~ Muster & Agassi 95 ~ Nadal 05
:cool:

TennisGrandSlam
09-15-2007, 04:13 AM
Vilas 77 ~ Becker 89 ~ Muster & Agassi 95 ~ Nadal 05
:cool:

Vilas 1977 = Muster 1995 = Nadal 2005 = lefty King of Clay :devil:

TennisGrandSlam
09-15-2007, 04:53 AM
Yes~ but we know FED will pass Sampras`s mark soetime in the next 12-18 months:p

Also FED`s been #1 for 4-successive years unbroken:worship:
Sampras finished #1, 6-years but he wasn`t #1 throughout all of those years [Agassi, Muster, Moya, Rios, Rafter...etc. all had turns @ #1 though Pete finished #1];)


Guillermo Vilas or Patrick Rafter, who is greater?
Vilas (Singles titles : 62, including 4 Grand Slam, but never been NO.1)

1973--Buenos Aires
1974--Buenos Aires, Gstaad, Hilversum, Louisville, Masters, Montreal / Toronto, Tehran;
1975--Buenos Aires, Hilversum, Louisville, Munich, Washington
1976--Buenos Aires, Fort Worth WCT, Monte Carlo WCT, Montreal / Toronto, Sao Paulo, St. Louis WCT
1977--Bogota, Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Columbus, Johannesburg WCT, Kitzbuhel, Louisville, Paris, Roland Garros, Santiago, South Orange, Springfield, Tehran, US Open, Virginia Beach, Washington
1978--Aix-En-Provence, Australian Open, Basel, Gstaad, Hamburg, Munich, South Orange
1979--Australian Open, Buenos Aires, Hobart, Washington; 1980--Kitzbuhel, Palermo, Rome
1981--Cairo, Houston, Mar Del Plata
1982--Boston, Buenos Aires, Kitzbuhel, Madrid, Milan, Monte Carlo, Rotterdam
1983--Delray Beach WCT, Kitzbuhel, Richmond WCT


Rafter has only 11 singles titles, including 1997-98 back-to-back US Open titles. He reached NO.1 for 1 week.
:devil:



Vilas - twice Grass and twice Clay GS winner :)
Rafter - twice Hardcourt GS winner :p

PamV
09-15-2007, 12:12 PM
In 1969 Laver entered 8 tournaments and won the 4 majors plus Philidelphia. I don't know that took more effort than Roger winning 3 majors plus his 4 MS events in 2006 and 11 titles all together that year....add to the fact that Federer was a finalist in RG and Rome and Monte Carlo!

In 1969 AO consisted of only 5 rounds. The top 100 was not so deep as it is today. Not to put Laver down but I think it's sort of difficult to compare solely based on the 4 major wins in that year. Right now we know the players who are involved and what they are like.....but most of us don't know how tough opponents like Tony Roche, John Newcombe, Andres Gimeno, or Ken Rosewall were.

PamV
09-15-2007, 12:39 PM
In strictly the Open Era the fact is that Sampras has more Slams than anyone else for that era, as well as 6 consecutive years at #1 which still is the bench mark for the Open Era. Plus,Pete played in an era of several great players. Federer is playing in an era, so far, of second rate players. Nadal is great on clay, but thats about all. Roger is as lucky as he is great.

Who were the great players in Sampras era? By 1990 -1992 McEnroe, Lendl, Becker were already declining. In 1997 Wimbleodon Pete didn't face player ranked above 18 to win the title. He played #44 ranked Cedric Pioline in the final, Cedric was totally out of his element on grass.

Agassi was said to have been Pete's main rival but Agassi was not always in the top 10 and certainly not driven to compete and win as many titles as Federer's main rival Nadal. I recently watched Agassi's 1999 French Open win against 100 ranked Medvedev. Their play looked like lower level WTA type hitting by comparison of what we see today. They hit long rallies of shots with nothing on them all moonballs with racquets held like a frying pan. (So much for a tougher era!)

In
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/...
Joel Drucker writes:

------
Pete Sampras trekked through Europe throughout the fall of 1998 in hopes of becoming the first player in tennis history to have finished the year ranked No. 1 six straight times. "Just about killed me, but it was worth it," he said years later.

--------

He lost to Ferreira in R32 in Basel, beat Kucera in Vienna, lost to Haas in Quarters of Lyon, lost to Krajicek in semis in Suttgart, lost to Rusedski in finals of Paris, lost to Stoltenberg in R32 in Sweden, and finally lost to Corretja in semis in the year end championship.

You can see the desparation in his attempt to go for the records. Yes, the records show that he was year end #1, but a deeper look shows it is not by winning two or three slams and two or three masters events, but by playing every tournament there is and racking up points. That year he only won 3 tournaments - Wimbledon, Atlanta, and Vienna.

It's absolutely incredible in those days of "tougher competition" Pete retained #1 with just one slam and two dinky tournaments. Unthinkable these days.

This year, Nadal won the French, reached finals in Wimbledon, won Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Rome - all masters series and won Barcelona. He is still not #1. Go tell Nadal that in 1998 things were tougher. If he played in 1998, he'd be a #1 by a mile.

CmonAussie
09-15-2007, 01:00 PM
In
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/...
Joel Drucker writes:
Pete Sampras trekked through Europe throughout the fall of 1998 in hopes of becoming the first player in tennis history to have finished the year ranked No. 1 six straight times. "Just about killed me, but it was worth it," he said years later.

He lost to Ferreira in R32 in Basel, beat Kucera in Vienna, lost to Haas in Quarters of Lyon, lost to Krajicek in semis in Suttgart, lost to Rusedski in finals of Paris, lost to Stoltenberg in R32 in Sweden, and finally lost to Corretja in semis in the year end championship.

You can see the desparation in his attempt to go for the records. Yes, the records show that he was year end #1, but a deeper look shows it is not by winning two or three slams and two or three masters events, but by playing every tournament there is and racking up points. That year he only won 3 tournaments - Wimbledon, Atlanta, and Vienna.
It's absolutely incredible in those days of "tougher competition" Pete retained #1 with just one slam and two dinky tournaments. Unthinkable these days.

This year, Nadal won the French, reached finals in Wimbledon, won Indian Wells, Monte Carlo, Rome - all masters series and won Barcelona. He is still not #1. Go tell Nadal that in 1998 things were tougher. If he played in 1998, he'd be a #1 by a mile.


Just imagine if Federer lost 6-tourneys in the indoor season to players like: Ferreira, Haas, Krajicek, Rusedski, Stoltenberg, Corretja [5-of those losses b4 the final]:eek: :eek:

If FED loses one tourney [eg. Canada AMS final to Djokovic]~~ MTF posters begin saying he`s over the hill:rolleyes: .. Fortunately Roger shut up the critics by winning Cincinatti & USO:worship:

LeChuck
09-15-2007, 01:54 PM
In 1969 Laver entered 8 tournaments and won the 4 majors plus Philidelphia. I don't know that took more effort than Roger winning 3 majors plus his 4 MS events in 2006 and 11 titles all together that year....add to the fact that Federer was a finalist in RG and Rome and Monte Carlo!

In 1969 AO consisted of only 5 rounds. The top 100 was not so deep as it is today. Not to put Laver down but I think it's sort of difficult to compare solely based on the 4 major wins in that year. Right now we know the players who are involved and what they are like.....but most of us don't know how tough opponents like Tony Roche, John Newcombe, Andres Gimeno, or Ken Rosewall were.

Laver won 18 titles in 1969.
On grass, he won the won the 3 biggest tournaments, Wimbledon, Australian Open and US Open.
On clay, he won the biggest tournament, the French Open, plus 1 more title.
On hard, he won the 3 biggest tournaments, Boston, Johannesburg and Los Angeles, plus 5 more titles.
On carpet, he won the 2 biggest tournaments, Wembley and Philadelphia, plus 3 more titles.
His versatility was amazing.
True his calendar grand slam, required 26 victories instead of 28, but 16 of his victories came against hall of famers/major winners. Ken Rosewall was the dominant force on clay in the 60s, and was Laver's 'Nadal' on the surface, regularly beating Laver in French Pro Championships finals previously in the decade. Therefore Laver turning the tables and beating Rosewall in the French Open final was a monumental achievement. While there wasn't that much depth in the top 100, the top 20 was loaded with talented, and at the 2nd week of grand slams, draws were fiercely difficult because there were so many world class players still around.
Also regarding the surfaces, it is important to note that the grass at Wimbledon and the Australian Open were completely different to each other (the grass at Kooyong was firmer and had a higher bounce). It is said that there was a bigger difference between the grass at Wimbledon and Australia in those days, than between the hardcourts at Flushing Meadows and Australia now. Also Laver still completed the fiercely difficult French Open-Wimbledon double, and in those days the grass at Wimbledon was lightening fast, and the clay at Roland Garros was slower and heavier than it is today. Therefore players would have had to adapt their games to the different grand slam surfaces more in those days than now.

CyBorg
09-15-2007, 05:07 PM
Laver won 18 titles in 1969.

Yeah, I don't know what PamV is talking about.

TennisGrandSlam
09-15-2007, 06:25 PM
Mickey Mouse tournaments.

2 GS titles + 14 MM titles + 1 GS runner-up + 5 MM runners-up almost supress everything (but Laver, Borg and Federer, Connors in 1974, JMac in 1984 :devil: )

CyBorg
09-15-2007, 06:53 PM
2 GS titles + 14 MM titles + 1 GS runner-up + 5 MM runners-up almost supress everything (but Laver, Borg and Federer, Connors in 1974, JMac in 1984 :devil: )

I'll repeat for you: Mickey Mouse tournaments. More than 10 of them. Number of times he beat Borg that year: zero.

That doesn't mean he didn't have a great year, but it's less great than some here think.

TennisGrandSlam
09-15-2007, 07:43 PM
I'll repeat for you: Mickey Mouse tournaments. More than 10 of them. Number of times he beat Borg that year: zero.

That doesn't mean he didn't have a great year, but it's less great than some here think.

No problem, it is not related, Borg was not YE NO.1 in 1977. :devil:

Connors was announced as YE NO.1, but Vilas 2-0 Connors :o

CyBorg
09-16-2007, 12:37 AM
No problem, it is not related, Borg was not YE NO.1 in 1977. :devil:

Connors was announced as YE NO.1, but Vilas 2-0 Connors :o

I believe Connors was #1 because the rating system at the time took into consideration prior years. Most of the tennis world relied on separate rankings released by tennis journalists, all of whom rated Vilas or Borg as the top player that year.

TennisGrandSlam
09-16-2007, 02:25 AM
I believe Connors was #1 because the rating system at the time took into consideration prior years. Most of the tennis world relied on separate rankings released by tennis journalists, all of whom rated Vilas or Borg as the top player that year.


Only counting career achievement : Borg > Connors > Vilas :devil:

But for 1977, Vilas > Borg > Connors :)

TennisGrandSlam
09-16-2007, 02:53 AM
Lendl and GS success before 84 was like Davydenko and hair.


Quite different!

Davydenko won only 5 titles (1 is AMS) in 2006.

Lendl won 15 titles (most are WCT) and Masters (now TMC) in 1982, also runner-up in US Open, by using nowadays ranking system, he can supress JMac (actually YE NO.1 in 1982 w/o Slam) and Connors (7 titles including Wimbledon and US Open B2B Slam) for YE NO.1. :devil:

CyBorg
09-16-2007, 03:49 AM
Only counting career achievement : Borg > Connors > Vilas :devil:

But for 1977, Vilas > Borg > Connors :)

Borg won the player of the year. He, of course, skipped both the French and the Aussie. But I think that a good case can be made for Vilas.

CyBorg
09-16-2007, 03:50 AM
Quite different!

Davydenko won only 5 titles (1 is AMS) in 2006.

Lendl won 15 titles (most are WCT) and Masters (now TMC) in 1982, also runner-up in US Open, by using nowadays ranking system, he can supress JMac (actually YE NO.1 in 1982 w/o Slam) and Connors (7 titles including Wimbledon and US Open B2B Slam) for YE NO.1. :devil:

George was making fun of Lendl's notorious choking in grand slam competition.

TennisGrandSlam
09-16-2007, 03:58 AM
Borg won the player of the year. He, of course, skipped both the French and the Aussie. But I think that a good case can be made for Vilas.

Borg always skipped AO after 1974 :devil:

FedFan_2007
09-16-2007, 05:57 AM
No one is denying Laver's outstanding 1969 season.

jonas
09-17-2007, 09:47 PM
1984 was an odd year for McEnroe-> won Wimbledon & USO emphatically, choked umbelievably in the FO final, skipped AO [though he played 1983 & 1985]... never won a slam again [aged only 25yrs]:eek: :eek:


Wilander won his 7th and last slam at age 24... :rolleyes:

I don't think it's that unusual actually.

jonas
09-17-2007, 10:16 PM
Borg was a legend no doubt, but his unprofessional attitude to upholding the traditions of the sport did have some negative impacts:( .. thankfully his proteges~~ Wilander & Edberg:angel: took a different, more professional approach [not just greedy cash grabbing];)

Wow! You really don't have a clue about tennis history! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Borg has done more for tennis than anyone before or after him. He was the sports' first rock star. What's wrong with earning money, you communist?

Accept Borg for the great man he was, Hewitt freak! :o

jonas
09-17-2007, 10:19 PM
There`s no point mate:cool:

CyBorg won`t offer any clarity regarding his stance [ie."AO not inherently important" & "Masters being the 4th biggest tourney"]~~> because he`s the #1 fan of the enigmatic Borg, who never offered any excuses or explanations for his career choices [retiring so young, not playing AO, playing World Team tennis instead of FO one year, attempting suicide, not returning to Wimbledon for 20+ years, attempting a comeback with a wooden racket in 1991...]:eek:

Borg`s career/personality will surely remain one of biggest unsolved mysteries in tennis:angel: :devil:

Why would he need explainations, you ignorant chump? Leave the man be. :mad:

CmonAussie
09-17-2007, 10:44 PM
Wow! You really don't have a clue about tennis history! :eek: :eek: :eek:

Borg has done more for tennis than anyone before or after him. He was the sports' first rock star. What's wrong with earning money, you communist?
Accept Borg for the great man he was, Hewitt freak! :o


Oh yes it`s very noble what Borg did~~ deciding to look like a rock star to attract groupie girl fans:eek: .. Spend all his off time with the rich & famous in Monte Carlo`s casinos~~ a righteous man doing everything he could for the sport:rolleyes:

On the other hand we have Roger Federer, who genuinely is interested in promoting tennis & making a difference overall~~ UNICEF ambassador, visiting underpriveleged kids in South Africa & India:angel:


GET REAL Jonas:o[Borg groupie]

jonas
09-17-2007, 11:27 PM
Oh yes it`s very noble what Borg did~~ deciding to look like a rock star to attract groupie girl fans:eek: .. Spend all his off time with the rich & famous in Monte Carlo`s casinos~~ a righteous man doing everything he could for the sport:rolleyes:

On the other hand we have Roger Federer, who genuinely is interested in promoting tennis & making a difference overall~~ UNICEF ambassador, visiting underpriveleged kids in South Africa & India:angel:



:haha: :haha:

Who cares about that stuff?? :rolleyes:

I love Federer. Because he's genious on the tennis court. Not because he's doing well fare. That's nice and all but to be honest I don't give a s***. I love Marat Safin as a tennis player - maybe not as a person. But he's carismatic, and I don't know the bloke.

Borg is one of the all time greats in tennis. He made the sport really popular for:

1. Playing incredible tennis
2. Being carismatic...
3. .. and ice cool on court

What he does off court is his business.

Tennis is not religion. Turn to scientologists or something, weirdo. :wavey: You've got an annoying goody-goody-attitude.

So what has Hewitt done for the sport? He's a racist and a homofobic. Nice guy...

CmonAussie
11-07-2007, 11:57 AM
TOP-10 GREATEST calendar seasons in the OPEN ERA:confused:

*1. Rod Laver 1969: GRAND SLAM~ AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [18-titles] :worship:
*2. Roger Federer 2006: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [12-titles]:devil:
*3. Roger Federer 2007: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [7-titles]:angel:
*4. Jimmy Connors 1974: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO DNP [14-titles]:cool:
*5. John McEnroe 1984: Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [13-titles]:(
*6. Roger Federer 2004: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion [11-titles]:)
*7. Mats Wilander 1988: AO, FO, USO champion, Wimbledon QF [6-titles];)
*8. Roger Federer 2005: Wimbledon, USO champion, AO & FO SF [11-titles]
*9. Bjorn Borg 1980: FO, Wimbledon champion, USO finalist [9-titles]
*10. Ivan Lendl 1987: FO, USO champion, Wimbledon finalist, AO SF [8-titles]

HNCS
11-07-2007, 12:44 PM
still patiently waiting for 2008 to come along and see what happens there. Wishing for the best.

barbadosan
11-07-2007, 12:52 PM
C'Mon Aussie, would you allow me to post this list elsewhere - with credits of course :)

CmonAussie
11-07-2007, 12:54 PM
C'Mon Aussie, would you allow me to post this list elsewhere - with credits of course :)


Yeah of course mate:cool:
...
happy if you find my list useful:D

barbadosan
11-07-2007, 12:57 PM
Thank you. I promise not to wish the Aussie cricket team ill for 2 matches (I'm from the WIndies) lol

CmonAussie
11-07-2007, 01:00 PM
Thank you. I promise not to wish the Aussie cricket team ill for 2 matches (I'm from the WIndies) lol

no worries mate:cool:
...
just please don`t wish any ill will against my fav Lletyon Hewitt:angel:

barbadosan
11-07-2007, 01:12 PM
no worries mate:cool:
...
just please don`t wish any ill will against my fav Lletyon Hewitt:angel:

Not a chance! :)

MisterQ
11-07-2007, 01:53 PM
TOP-10 GREATEST calendar seasons in the OPEN ERA:confused:

*1. Rod Laver 1969: GRAND SLAM~ AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [18-titles] :worship:
*2. Roger Federer 2006: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [12-titles]:devil:
*3. Roger Federer 2007: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [7-titles]:angel:
*4. Jimmy Connors 1974: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO DNP [14-titles]:cool:
*5. Roger Federer 2004: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion [11-titles]:)
*6. Mats Wilander 1988: AO, FO, USO champion, Wimbledon QF [6-titles];)
*7. John McEnroe 1984: Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [13-titles]:(
*8. Roger Federer 2005: Wimbledon, USO champion, AO & FO SF [11-titles]
*9. Bjorn Borg 1980: FO, Wimbledon champion, USO finalist [9-titles]
*10. Ivan Lendl 1987: FO, USO champion, Wimbledon finalist, AO SF [8-titles]

Thanks for the list. :hatoff:

Why does McEnroe's 1984 fall so (relatively) low on the list? Is it because he didn't play Australia? It was quite common for top players to skip it back then, as you know. ;) Considering his 82-3 record, I would probably place this in the top 3. He also won the year-end championships and made the Davis Cup final that year. (And though we are only talking about singles, he also won 8 doubles titles, including Wimbledon!)

CmonAussie
11-07-2007, 02:14 PM
Thanks for the list. :hatoff:

Why does McEnroe's 1984 fall so (relatively) low on the list? Is it because he didn't play Australia? It was quite common for top players to skip it back then, as you know. ;) Considering his 82-3 record, I would probably place this in the top 3. He also won the year-end championships and made the Davis Cup final that year. (And though we are only talking about singles, he also won 8 doubles titles, including Wimbledon!)

:wavey:
A lot of posters wanted me to place McEnroe higher;)
The biggest dent against J.Mac`s name in 84 was the fact that he gave tennis the scene of one of the greatest chokes ever witnessed @ the FO final[Lendl was totally gone in the 3rd set]:eek:
Also Mac didn`t play AO:(
Also Mac`s Wimbledon final victory came against 32yrs Jimmy Connors, who later pushed Mac to the edge in their USO SF that same year!

##
But since you make some valid points about Mac`s Davis Cup involvement & dominance in the doubles as well, I can see where you`re coming from:cool:
Thanks for the info... okie dokes i`ll move McEnroe up a few notches:devil:

MisterQ
11-07-2007, 02:19 PM
:wavey:
A lot of posters wanted me to place McEnroe higher;)
The biggest dent against J.Mac`s name in 84 was the fact that he gave tennis the scene of one of the greatest chokes ever witnessed @ the FO final[Lendl was totally gone in the 3rd set]:eek:
Also Mac didn`t play AO:(
Also Mac`s Wimbledon final victory came against 32yrs Jimmy Connors, who later pushed Mac to the edge in their USO SF that same year!

##
But since you make some valid points about Mac`s Davis Cup involvement & dominance in the doubles as well, I can see where you`re coming from:cool:
Thanks for the info... okie dokes i`ll move McEnroe up a few notches:devil:

:lol:

No need to move him for me. ;) These are all amazing years, and pretty hard to weigh against each other. Comes down to one's personal sensibility, I suppose.

McEnroe choked in a sense... but I don't think it was one of the worst ones we've seen! The last three sets were all pretty close (6-4, 7-5, 7-5) -- it's not like he went away and got bagelled, at least. :)

CmonAussie
11-07-2007, 02:24 PM
:lol:

No need to move him for me. ;) These are all amazing years, and pretty hard to weigh against each other. Comes down to one's personal sensibility, I suppose.

McEnroe choked in a sense... but I don't think it was one of the worst ones we've seen! The last three sets were all pretty close (6-4, 7-5, 7-5) -- it's not like he went away and got bagelled, at least. :)


Lendl had never won a slam b4 Mac choked that one on a platter for him:eek:
Also McEnroe had a double break in the 3rd set [4-1?] & led by a break again in the 5th set:o .. yet failed to get the job done!
The circumstances were pretty spectacular also, with Mac doing a major breakdown dummy spit while he was leading in the 3rd set:devil:

CmonAussie
11-18-2007, 01:46 PM
UPDATE:

2007 truly was a remarkable year for FED, though slightly less so than 2007:
>>>
FED`s 2007 achievements:
#3rd AO
#5th `consecutive` Wimby
#4th `consecutive` USO
#4th TMC
*2nd FO final
#4th `consecutive` year @ #1
#4th Hamburg
#4th Dubai
#2 AMS
#8-titles
*1st player to win $10,000,000 prizemoney in a calendar year!




TOP-10 GREATEST calendar seasons in the OPEN ERA:confused:

*1. Rod Laver 1969: GRAND SLAM~ AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [18-titles] :worship:
*2. Roger Federer 2006: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [12-titles]:devil:
*3. Roger Federer 2007: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [8-titles]:angel:
*4. Jimmy Connors 1974: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO DNP [14-titles]:cool:
*5. John McEnroe 1984: Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [13-titles]:(
*6. Roger Federer 2004: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion [11-titles]:)
*7. Mats Wilander 1988: AO, FO, USO champion, Wimbledon QF [6-titles];)
*8. Roger Federer 2005: Wimbledon, USO champion, AO & FO SF [11-titles]
*9. Bjorn Borg 1980: FO, Wimbledon champion, USO finalist [9-titles]
*10. Ivan Lendl 1987: FO, USO champion, Wimbledon finalist, AO SF [8-titles]

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 02:43 PM
That's quite a biased top-10 if you ask me.

How is Federer in 2005, 2007 in any way better than Borg in 1979? Or even Borg in 1978? Ilie Nastase had one of the great years ever in 1973. What about Lendl in 1986? Laver in 1968?

My top 10 most dominant years for the open era would be:

1. Laver in 1969: 18 titles + grand slam
2. Federer in 2006: 12 titles + 3 majors + MC
3. McEnroe in 1984: 84-3 record + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
4. Borg in 1979: 22 overall titiles (13 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
5. Connors in 1974: 15 titles + 3 majors out of 3
6. Borg in 1980: 12 titles (9 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
7. Federer in 2004: 11 titles + 3 majrs out of 4 + MC
8. Lendl in 1986: 9 titles + 2 majors + MC
9. Sampras in 1997: 8 titles + 2 majors + MC
10. Nastase in 1973: 17 titles (14 ATP) + RG + Masters

runner-up:
Laver in 1968: 11 titles + Wimbledon + US/French Pros

TennisGrandSlam
11-18-2007, 02:54 PM
Somebody forgets that Guillermo Vilas in 1977 : 16 titles (2 Major titles, 1 Major final)

W-L : 128-14, winning titles in 5 different continents within single calendar year.


:devil:

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 02:55 PM
Somebody forgets that Guillermo Vilas in 1977 : 16 titles (2 Major titles, 1 Major final)

W-L : 128-14, winning titles in 5 different continents within single calendar year.


:devil:

I didn't forget that 14 out of his 16 titles were Mickey Mouse.

stebs
11-18-2007, 03:07 PM
That's quite a biased top-10 if you ask me.

How is Federer in 2005, 2007 in any way better than Borg in 1979? Or even Borg in 1978? Ilie Nastase had one of the great years ever in 1973. What about Lendl in 1986? Laver in 1968?

My top 10 most dominant years for the open era would be:

1. Laver in 1969: 18 titles + grand slam
2. Federer in 2006: 12 titles + 3 majors + MC
3. McEnroe in 1984: 84-3 record + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
4. Borg in 1979: 22 overall titiles (13 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
5. Connors in 1974: 15 titles + 3 majors out of 3
6. Borg in 1980: 12 titles (9 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
7. Federer in 2004: 11 titles + 3 majrs out of 4 + MC
8. Lendl in 1986: 9 titles + 2 majors + MC
9. Sampras in 1997: 8 titles + 2 majors + MC
10. Nastase in 1973: 17 titles (14 ATP) + RG + Masters

runner-up:
Laver in 1968: 11 titles + Wimbledon + US/French Pros

Some interesting points but some silly choices as well:

Federer '07 left out and yet you have Lendl '86 and Sampras '97. No logic at all, neither should be ahead of Federer's year. 3 slams > 2 slams and he also won the MC and only one less title than Lendl and I think 1 extra slam is better than 1 extra title of little meaning.

Nastase '73 is a good year but I disagree with having any year with a single slam on the list.

I know we have discussed this and you disagree but it is my opinion that if players chose not to go the AO then that shouldn't be seen as a plus. Borg '79 and '80 both are 2 slams out of 4. That he didn't go to Australia is fair enough and his decision but it means he gets marked down there and that's the only possible fair way to do thing. Would you rate Federer higher if he never went to RG and therefore won all the slams he played? No.

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 03:19 PM
Federer '07 left out and yet you have Lendl '86 and Sampras '97. No logic at all, neither should be ahead of Federer's year. 3 slams > 2 slams and he also won the MC and only one less title than Lendl and I think 1 extra slam is better than 1 extra title of little meaning.

Lendl was a more consistent winner in 1986 than Roger in 2007 and won the Masters Cup unlike Roger in 2005. There was no Aussie event in 1986 by the way. The biggest factor that pushes the year in Lendl's favour is his win at the Boca West challenge - a 128-man draw with one of the deeper draws of the year. He beat Wilander in the final. Some other big wins - Philly, Rome, Stratton Mountain. This is a much better year in Federer in 07 and a more complete year than Federer in 2005.

Let's look at Sampras in 1997. Again, two majors and a year-ending championships. That's already better than Federer in 2005. Otherwise it's close between this and Roger in 2007. Both are highly inconsistent years. I don't mind if you go with one over the other. I gave the edge to Sampras largely because I felt that Sampras deserved a spot in the top 10. If you disagree I can take him out and enter Laver 1968. I don't mind.

Nastase '73 is a good year but I disagree with having any year with a single slam on the list.

You can make that argument. Nastase in 1973 played some of the finest clay court tennis ever and was also fantastic indoors. It's a highly underrated year. He didn't participate at the Aussie.

I know we have discussed this and you disagree but it is my opinion that if players chose not to go the AO then that shouldn't be seen as a plus. Borg '79 and '80 both are 2 slams out of 4. That he didn't go to Australia is fair enough and his decision but it means he gets marked down there and that's the only possible fair way to do thing. Would you rate Federer higher if he never went to RG and therefore won all the slams he played? No.

Yeah, sorry. This isn't a smart argument. You already know why.

All four majors are legitimate today. Not all four were legitimate in select eras of the past. That's not the fault of the players who didn't bother to go there and play mickey mouse players.

TennisGrandSlam
11-18-2007, 03:26 PM
I didn't forget that 14 out of his 16 titles were Mickey Mouse.

Connors' 1974 - 14 titles (ATP profile show), 3 Majors + 11 MM :devil:

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 03:32 PM
Connors' 1974 - 14 titles (ATP profile show), 3 Majors + 11 MM :devil:

Frankly, you're right. Indianapolis was probably his only masters series-type title.

I still think he's top ten, but maybe I'd lower him a bit on the list.

The greatest proof of his dominance of course is in the way that he won Wimbledon and the US Open. The thrashings of Ken Rosewall in particular was astonishing.

That being said, Connnors in 1974 would not qualify as one of the top 10 best years in the Open Era. There's a difference between "best" and "most dominant". Connors was dominant, but this was a transitional year, where many of his future rivals were a bit too young and other opponents were frankly way too old. As history proved, Connors wasn't quite as good as he seemed in 1974.

Another good example is Borg in 1979 and 1980. 1979 was a more dominant year, but he played his best tennis in 1980.

rwn
11-18-2007, 04:35 PM
That's quite a biased top-10 if you ask me.

How is Federer in 2005, 2007 in any way better than Borg in 1979? Or even Borg in 1978? Ilie Nastase had one of the great years ever in 1973. What about Lendl in 1986? Laver in 1968?

My top 10 most dominant years for the open era would be:

1. Laver in 1969: 18 titles + grand slam
2. Federer in 2006: 12 titles + 3 majors + MC
3. McEnroe in 1984: 84-3 record + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
4. Borg in 1979: 22 overall titiles (13 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
5. Connors in 1974: 15 titles + 3 majors out of 3
6. Borg in 1980: 12 titles (9 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
7. Federer in 2004: 11 titles + 3 majrs out of 4 + MC
8. Lendl in 1986: 9 titles + 2 majors + MC
9. Sampras in 1997: 8 titles + 2 majors + MC
10. Nastase in 1973: 17 titles (14 ATP) + RG + Masters

runner-up:
Laver in 1968: 11 titles + Wimbledon + US/French Pros

Sampras 1997 and Nastase 1973 are on your list and not Federer 2007(3 GS + TMC)? You're such a clown.

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 05:04 PM
Sampras 1997 and Nastase 1973 are on your list and not Federer 2007(3 GS + TMC)? You're such a clown.

Is it necessary to take this personally? Was my list the equivalent of insulting your mother?

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 05:22 PM
A few corrections to my list. I've dropped Connnors a bit and removed Nastase in favour of Laver.

I have also removed Federer's 2004 and replaced it with 2007. This is upon a few thoughts. Roger won 11 titles in 2004, which is more than eight in 2007, but consider some of them: Halle is hardly essential and was skipped by Roger in 07, Gstaad is pretty Mickey Mouse and Bangkok likewise. That's three unnecessary titles. Besides Roger's clay results are poor in 04. To be honest I was going on memory in including 04 and looking back on the results I find that I was foolish. This is still a great year and I would probably include it as the runner-up to the list, along with McErnoe's 1981 (11 titles, 10 ATP, 2 majors), Borg's 1978 (15 titles, 9 ATP, 2 of three majors), Roger in 2005, Nastase's year, Borg in 1977 (one of two majors, 12 titles - 11 ATP - dominant on clay, carpet and grass) and Connors in 1982 (2 of 3 majors; seven titles).

I still think that Connors had a great year in 1974, despite playing in some questionable events. The fact that a strict scheduling system was not yet set up at the time contributes to this and one can only conclude that had Connors participated at events like Dallas and Philly he would have won a few of them. We know objectively that Jimmy was a dominant player that year. We can't take this away from him.

1. Laver in 1969: 18 titles + grand slam
2. Federer in 2006: 12 titles + 3 majors + MC
3. McEnroe in 1984: 84-3 record + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
4. Borg in 1979: 22 overall titiles (13 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
5. Borg in 1980: 12 titles (9 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
6. Connors in 1974: 15 titles + 3 majors out of 3
7. Federer in 2007: 8 titles + 3 majors + MC
8. Lendl in 1986: 9 titles + 2 majors + MC
9. Sampras in 1997: 8 titles + 2 majors + MC
10.Laver in 1968: 11 titles + Wimbledon + US/French Pros

stebs
11-18-2007, 05:32 PM
1. Laver in 1969: 18 titles + grand slam
2. Federer in 2006: 12 titles + 3 majors + MC
3. McEnroe in 1984: 84-3 record + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
4. Borg in 1979: 22 overall titiles (13 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
5. Borg in 1980: 12 titles (9 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
6. Connors in 1974: 15 titles + 3 majors out of 3
7. Federer in 2007: 8 titles + 3 majors + MC
8. Lendl in 1986: 9 titles + 2 majors + MC
9. Sampras in 1997: 8 titles + 2 majors + MC
10.Laver in 1968: 11 titles + Wimbledon + US/French Pros

On the whole it is a decent list and yes I disagree about the two out of three slams and for me that is just BS because it was still a major then even if it was less respected.

Anyway, the only real problem with this list is:

Sampras 1997.

It makes absolutely no sense, what's the point of making this list if you add a Sampras year in purely because you "felt that Sampras deserved a spot in the top 10"? It's really not a good argument and Federer '07 and '04 both clearly should be above this year and in the top 10.

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 05:44 PM
On the whole it is a decent list and yes I disagree about the two out of three slams and for me that is just BS because it was still a major then even if it was less respected.

Anyway, the only real problem with this list is:

Sampras 1997.

It makes absolutely no sense, what's the point of making this list if you add a Sampras year in purely because you "felt that Sampras deserved a spot in the top 10"? It's really not a good argument and Federer '07 and '04 both clearly should be above this year and in the top 10.

I find that Sampras did himself a disservice by concentrating entirely on the majors and avoiding spicing up his resume with additional titles. 1997 is one of a number of years where he could have easily won a dozen of titles. Federer, conversely, plays a much more consistent schedule from beginning of the year to the end, which makes his years look better. Sampras was a dominant player - I mean, we know that. And he was spectacular in 1997, 1995 and 1993, hence I think that one of these deserves top be on the list. I don't think that Pete was less dominant in 1997 than Roger in 2004. Both of them actually were a bit inconsistent with a number of dominant performances, but I suppose that if you feel that Roger had a more dominant year because he had one more major you can make that case.

Another year very close with Roger's 2004 year is McEnroe in 1981. Not only did he win two of three majors he did it against Borg. Maybe Mac's year deserves to be ahead of Sampras'. I'm not sure. Borg in 1978 was also every bit as good as Roger in 2004 and I would argue way better. His domination of both French and Wimbledon was historic and he made the final at the US Open.

stebs
11-18-2007, 05:57 PM
I find that Sampras did himself a disservice by concentrating entirely on the majors and avoiding spicing up his resume with additional titles. 1997 is one of a number of years where he could have easily won a dozen of titles. Federer, conversely, plays a much more consistent schedule from beginning of the year to the end, which makes his years look better.
So Sampras gets rewarded on your list because he didn't try hard in MM events? It makes no sense I'm afraid unless I am misinterpreting.

Sampras was a dominant player - I mean, we know that. And he was spectacular in 1997, 1995 and 1993, hence I think that one of these deserves top be on the list.
This is what I was criticising. This is a list about the best years not the best players. Federer '04 quite clearly was a better year than Sampras '97 and it doesn't matter if Sampras deserves to be on there or not.

I don't think that Pete was less dominant in 1997 than Roger in 2004. Both of them actually were a bit inconsistent with a number of dominant performances, but I suppose that if you feel that Roger had a more dominant year because he had one more major you can make that case.
Well if you look at the facts:

Federer won 3 slams, Sampras only 2.
Sampras lost 12 times that year, Federer only 6.
Federer won 11 titles, Sampras only 8.
Federer had longer winning streaks.
Federer had a perfect record against his close rivals, Sampras didn't.

Federer is ahead of Sampras in pretty much every single category that year and Sampras has NO cause to be put ahead of Feds 2004. I mean you can argue that I'm biased but frankly these are all facts and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that it is clear Fed '04 >>> Sampras '97.

Another year very close with Roger's 2004 year is McEnroe in 1981. Not only did he win two of three majors he did it against Borg. Maybe Mac's year deserves to be ahead of Sampras'. I'm not sure.
I would put Mac's year ahead of Sampras' as well but still behind Federer '04. I know you are a big Borg fan but you start to become ridiculous when you take into account that Mac beat Borg. It makes no difference and the discussion is about acheivements and no offence but it starts to become a clown discussion when you bring in the compeition factor because agreements are never made and anyone with a shred of sense can see you cannot let it effect the argument if you want real results.

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 05:59 PM
McEnroe in 1981 .. 11 total titles .. Wimbledon and US Open wins .. also won Dallas .. beat Borg in Milan .. won Cincinnati which had pretty decent draws .. again, it's not obvious that this one is top 10, but it might be .. a bit of a letdown after winning the US Open.

Borg in 1978 .. 15 total titles .. dominated Wimbledon and French in unprecedented fashion .. big wins in Las Vegas, Rome and Tokyo .. finalist at the US Open; Aussie non-factor .. did not play at the Masters, I believe, due to some sort of boycott.

Sampras in 1997 .. 8 titles .. AO + Wimbledon + Masters .. lost to Korda in a five-set knuckle-biter in the fourth round .. Cincinnati, Paris, Grand Slam cup as well.

Federer in 2004 .. 11 titles .. Aussie, Wimbledon, US Open, Masters .. IW, Hamburg, Toronto .. poor on clay, aside from Hamburg (interestingly enough) and Gstaad; early exit from RG.

You decide. As I look over this it seems to me that Borg had the best year of the bunch. McEnroe, Sampras and Federer are close - McEnroe's competition being much better than Federer's (heh, okay, okay).

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 06:02 PM
This is what I was criticising. This is a list about the best years not the best players. Federer '04 quite clearly was a better year than Sampras '97 and it doesn't matter if Sampras deserves to be on there or not.

Well, I'm not typically a Sampras defender, but you probably have a point about that.

Pete certainly had a long career with a number of really good years, but seemingly no truly great ones.

FedFan_2007
11-18-2007, 06:10 PM
A few corrections to my list. I've dropped Connnors a bit and removed Nastase in favour of Laver.

I have also removed Federer's 2004 and replaced it with 2007. This is upon a few thoughts. Roger won 11 titles in 2004, which is more than eight in 2007, but consider some of them: Halle is hardly essential and was skipped by Roger in 07, Gstaad is pretty Mickey Mouse and Bangkok likewise. That's three unnecessary titles. Besides Roger's clay results are poor in 04. To be honest I was going on memory in including 04 and looking back on the results I find that I was foolish. This is still a great year and I would probably include it as the runner-up to the list, along with McErnoe's 1981 (11 titles, 10 ATP, 2 majors), Borg's 1978 (15 titles, 9 ATP, 2 of three majors), Roger in 2005, Nastase's year, Borg in 1977 (one of two majors, 12 titles - 11 ATP - dominant on clay, carpet and grass) and Connors in 1982 (2 of 3 majors; seven titles).



Wait, you take away a 3 slam year in 2004 because of a 3rd round FO? He did win Hamburg that year. :mad: 3 slams are 3 slams!

stebs
11-18-2007, 06:13 PM
McEnroe in 1981 .. 11 total titles .. Wimbledon and US Open wins .. also won Dallas .. beat Borg in Milan .. won Cincinnati which had pretty decent draws .. again, it's not obvious that this one is top 10, but it might be .. a bit of a letdown after winning the US Open.

Borg in 1978 .. 15 total titles .. dominated Wimbledon and French in unprecedented fashion .. big wins in Las Vegas, Rome and Tokyo .. finalist at the US Open; Aussie non-factor .. did not play at the Masters, I believe, due to some sort of boycott.

Sampras in 1997 .. 8 titles .. AO + Wimbledon + Masters .. lost to Korda in a five-set knuckle-biter in the fourth round .. Cincinnati, Paris, Grand Slam cup as well.

Federer in 2004 .. 11 titles .. Aussie, Wimbledon, US Open, Masters .. IW, Hamburg, Toronto .. poor on clay, aside from Hamburg (interestingly enough) and Gstaad; early exit from RG.

You decide. As I look over this it seems to me that Borg had the best year of the bunch. McEnroe, Sampras and Federer are close - McEnroe's competition being much better than Federer's (heh, okay, okay).

Sampras' clearly the worst, the others are closer.

You say Borg's is fantastic but without a third slam and without the masters it comes up short in terms of really HUGE achievements to Federer's year. Yes, he was more dominant in big tournaments but I believe losing the USO final that year drags him down where he would've been ahead he drops slightly behind Federer simply because 3 slams + TMC > 2 slams and both of them had three other big titles (AMS equivalents). Borg won more titles yes but that's because he entered a lot more MM events. Borg still lost more matches than Federer did and his wins in MM events for me are not that significant.

I would say '04 > '78 >>> '81 >>>>>> '97

Taking each > as a very small gap in achievements.

EDIT: I also add that poor on clay apart from Hamburg and Gstaad makes no sense, Hamburg is an AMS and Gstaad is also a quite big event, a poor RG? Yes. A poor clay season? No.

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 06:36 PM
You say Borg's is fantastic but without a third slam and without the masters it comes up short in terms of really HUGE achievements to Federer's year. Yes, he was more dominant in big tournaments but I believe losing the USO final that year drags him down where he would've been ahead he drops slightly behind Federer simply because 3 slams + TMC > 2 slams and both of them had three other big titles (AMS equivalents). Borg won more titles yes but that's because he entered a lot more MM events. Borg still lost more matches than Federer did and his wins in MM events for me are not that significant.

It depends on whether you look at this in terms of percentages or in terms of totals. Totals clearly don't favour Borg. Percentages do - his record was 20-1 in majors and he won three masters series level titles. I also think that it is a more dominant year because Borg was excellent on all surfaces and Federer wasn't.

EDIT: I also add that poor on clay apart from Hamburg and Gstaad makes no sense, Hamburg is an AMS and Gstaad is also a quite big event, a poor RG? Yes. A poor clay season? No.

Terrible results in Rome and RG. The Hamburg part is a mystery. Roger continues to love playing there. The surface, admittedly, is a bit different and the ball bounces lower. But, yes, clay is clay but these clearly weren't the most important clay events.

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 06:46 PM
I actually think that Federer may have been more dominant in 2005 than in 2004.

- better results on clay
- dominated Wimbledon, especially Roddick - incredible performance; better than the year before
- Miami/Indian Wells - this was great tennis
- even more convincing at the US Open .. no five-setters and more dominant against Agassi

But - he wasn't 100% at the Masters Cup and he lost to Safin, who played incredible tennis, at the Aussie. So, I guess we can argue that Roger had a more accomplished year in 2004. But was it more dominant? What does one make of the fact that Safin just wasn't as good in early 2004 as he became in early 2005? Does it matter?

stebs
11-18-2007, 09:25 PM
I actually think that Federer may have been more dominant in 2005 than in 2004.

- better results on clay
- dominated Wimbledon, especially Roddick - incredible performance; better than the year before
- Miami/Indian Wells - this was great tennis
- even more convincing at the US Open .. no five-setters and more dominant against Agassi

But - he wasn't 100% at the Masters Cup and he lost to Safin, who played incredible tennis, at the Aussie. So, I guess we can argue that Roger had a more accomplished year in 2004. But was it more dominant? What does one make of the fact that Safin just wasn't as good in early 2004 as he became in early 2005? Does it matter?

More dominant? Yes, I think you're right and remember he was two points away from going 82-3 that year and equally JMacs record. However, once again I will have to say, Safin playing well, niggling injury at the TMC etc... It's the same as saying Mac should be credited for playing Borg. the only fair way to judge is accomplishments and '04 is better than '05 for sure with the extra slam plus the TMC.

On the subject of '05 for Federer the scary thing is you would have to change extraordinarily little for Federer to lose just one match that year. Only Nadal at Roland Garros beat him comfortably. He was within two points in all three of his other losses.

CmonAussie
11-18-2007, 09:28 PM
More dominant? Yes, I think you're right and remember he was two points away from going 82-3 that year and equally JMacs record. However, once again I will have to say, Safin playing well, niggling injury at the TMC etc... It's the same as saying Mac should be credited for playing Borg. the only fair way to judge is accomplishments and '04 is better than '05 for sure with the extra slam plus the TMC.

On the subject of '05 for Federer the scary thing is you would have to change extraordinarily little for Federer to lose just one match that year. Only Nadal at Roland Garros beat him comfortably. He was within two points in all three of his other losses.


:wavey:
thanks for your contributions stebs:cool:
...
the debate between you & CyBorg makes good reading;)

BTW, i haven`t seen your list yet:confused:
please let us know what you think are the 10 best calendar years since 1968:angel:

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 09:47 PM
More dominant? Yes, I think you're right and remember he was two points away from going 82-3 that year and equally JMacs record. However, once again I will have to say, Safin playing well, niggling injury at the TMC etc... It's the same as saying Mac should be credited for playing Borg. the only fair way to judge is accomplishments and '04 is better than '05 for sure with the extra slam plus the TMC.

That's a good argument in saying that Federer had a more "accomplished" year in 2004 than 2005. That's different than being more dominant. Federer was definitely more dominant at both Wimbledon and US Open in 2005. I would say that my list is definitely ordered by levels of dominance, but that's just the way I interpreted the question posed in this thread.

What is a "great" year anyway? Mats Wilander won three majors in 1988. I don't think he was dominant. He barely squeaked by all three times.

CyBorg
11-18-2007, 09:56 PM
Updated list. Upon further inspection I add Federer's 2005 to the list. Frankly I don't think 2004 warrants being on.

Again, this is top 10 most dominant seasons in the open era.

1. Laver in 1969: 18 titles + grand slam
2. Federer in 2006: 12 titles + 3 majors + MC
3. McEnroe in 1984: 84-3 record + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
4. Borg in 1979: 22 overall titiles (13 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
5. Borg in 1980: 12 titles (9 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
6. Federer in 2005: 2 majors, 4 masters series, four losses
7. Connors in 1974: 15 titles + 3 majors out of 3
8. Federer in 2007: 8 titles + 3 majors + MC
9. Lendl in 1986: 9 titles + 2 majors + MC
10.Laver in 1968: 11 titles + Wimbledon + US/French Pros OR Borg in 1978: 15 titles (9 ATP), two majors out of three

Undecided about the last one. Funny how I completely changed my mind about Federer in 2004.

CmonAussie
11-19-2007, 12:38 AM
Updated list. Upon further inspection I add Federer's 2005 to the list. Frankly I don't think 2004 warrants being on.
Again, this is top 10 most dominant seasons in the open era.

1. Laver in 1969: 18 titles + grand slam
2. Federer in 2006: 12 titles + 3 majors + MC
3. McEnroe in 1984: 84-3 record + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
4. Borg in 1979: 22 overall titiles (13 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
5. Borg in 1980: 12 titles (9 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
6. Federer in 2005: 2 majors, 4 masters series, four losses
7. Connors in 1974: 15 titles + 3 majors out of 3
8. Federer in 2007: 8 titles + 3 majors + MC
9. Lendl in 1986: 9 titles + 2 majors + MC
10.Laver in 1968: 11 titles + Wimbledon + US/French Pros OR Borg in 1978: 15 titles (9 ATP), two majors out of three

Undecided about the last one. Funny how I completely changed my mind about Federer in 2004.

:wavey:
thanks for your list CyBorg:cool:
...
i agree with some of your points & will make a few minor adjustments to my own list;)
however i disagree about you leaving Fed`s 2004 off the list:eek:
>>>
i think you`re in denial about how exception FED`s 4-successive years have been [2004--2007], each of these warrants Top-10 `Open Era` billing:angel:

CmonAussie
11-19-2007, 12:47 AM
...
my updated list (taking into account some valid points by fellow MTF posters).


TOP-10 GREATEST calendar seasons in the OPEN ERA:confused:

*1. Rod Laver 1969: GRAND SLAM~ AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [18-titles] :worship:
*2. Roger Federer 2006: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [12-titles]:devil:
*3. Roger Federer 2007: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [8-titles]:angel:
*4. John McEnroe 1984: Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [13-titles]:(
*5. Jimmy Connors 1974: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO DNP [14-titles]:cool:
*6. Roger Federer 2004: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion [11-titles]:)
*7. Mats Wilander 1988: AO, FO, USO champion, Wimbledon QF [6-titles];)
*8. Roger Federer 2005: Wimbledon, USO champion, AO & FO SF [11-titles]
*9. Bjorn Borg 1980: FO, Wimbledon champion, USO finalist [9-titles]
*10. Bjorn Borg 1979: FO, Wimbledon champion [13-titles]

MrChopin
11-19-2007, 01:28 AM
Updated list. Upon further inspection I add Federer's 2005 to the list. Frankly I don't think 2004 warrants being on.

Again, this is top 10 most dominant seasons in the open era.

1. Laver in 1969: 18 titles + grand slam
2. Federer in 2006: 12 titles + 3 majors + MC
3. McEnroe in 1984: 84-3 record + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
4. Borg in 1979: 22 overall titiles (13 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
5. Borg in 1980: 12 titles (9 ATP) + 2 majors out of 3 + MC
6. Federer in 2005: 2 majors, 4 masters series, four losses
7. Connors in 1974: 15 titles + 3 majors out of 3
8. Federer in 2007: 8 titles + 3 majors + MC
9. Lendl in 1986: 9 titles + 2 majors + MC
10.Laver in 1968: 11 titles + Wimbledon + US/French Pros OR Borg in 1978: 15 titles (9 ATP), two majors out of three

Undecided about the last one. Funny how I completely changed my mind about Federer in 2004.

i think that's a good list, statistically and especially with the ranking of Fed's years. I sometimes think there's too much emphasis on titles, especially when measuring consistency at the biggest events, and finals/semi-finals can be a good clue to overall consistency. By stats, I think Fed '06 >> '05 > '07 > '04. His failure to capture AO and TMC in '05, especially only by losing 5th set finals, is negated by getting both Miami and Indian Wells, the next biggest. This also puts him above '07, which is better, with '05, than '04, as '04 was miserable clay performance.

Of course, this doesn't take into account his competition. Djokovic was hardly a factor before '07, and Federer would (and should) have Montreal. If not for Nalbandian on-fire, completely absent from '06, Federer takes Madrid. I also think his '07 FO performance is his best to date, especially with Rafa's admitted improvement from '06-'07 and obviously better play.

Combining both stats and dominance/competition/performance, I think Fed '06 >>> '05 >= '07 >> '04. He looked most dominant in '06, and from Wimb-TMC, was nearly unbeatable. '07 was by far his best year of competition among the four years. I think your list reflects that '05 was statistically better than '07 but '07 had way more competition and well-rounded play from Fed. '04 is the clear loser of the four for me as well. '06 is the obvious winner.

CyBorg
11-19-2007, 01:53 AM
i think that's a good list, statistically and especially with the ranking of Fed's years. I sometimes think there's too much emphasis on titles, especially when measuring consistency at the biggest events, and finals/semi-finals can be a good clue to overall consistency. By stats, I think Fed '06 >> '05 > '07 > '04. His failure to capture AO and TMC in '05, especially only by losing 5th set finals, is negated by getting both Miami and Indian Wells, the next biggest. This also puts him above '07, which is better, with '05, than '04, as '04 was miserable clay performance.

Of course, this doesn't take into account his competition. Djokovic was hardly a factor before '07, and Federer would (and should) have Montreal. If not for Nalbandian on-fire, completely absent from '06, Federer takes Madrid. I also think his '07 FO performance is his best to date, especially with Rafa's admitted improvement from '06-'07 and obviously better play.

Combining both stats and dominance/competition/performance, I think Fed '06 >>> '05 >= '07 >> '04. He looked most dominant in '06, and from Wimb-TMC, was nearly unbeatable. '07 was by far his best year of competition among the four years. I think your list reflects that '05 was statistically better than '07 but '07 had way more competition and well-rounded play from Fed. '04 is the clear loser of the four for me as well. '06 is the obvious winner.

Yes, I agree. I think that there's a tendency to overrate 2004 and much of it is based on our memories of the year. I was guilty of this to begin with. I remembered that the year had many accolades, I recalled that Roger won three majors and a Masters Cup and had more than 10 titles. Immediately I ranked it second. Then I started to look a bit closer and realized that the year was in no way better than 2007 - if you take out three minor titles then you get the exact same equivalent of eight titles as in 2007. The big difference, again, are the clay results. Also upon closer inspection of 2005 I realized just how dominant Roger was that year. He was, in fact, winning everything in sight, but with two noticeable blemishes - the Aussie loss to Safin and the Masters Cup loss to Nalbandian. Considerable, but probably no worse than McEnroe's two big blemishes in 1984 - RG loss and Davis Cup loss. For a period of about 10 months between the Aussie and the Masters Cup Federer played mind-boggling tennis in '05, although with some flaws on clay, but better than in 2004.

As for the other poster, I just don't agree that 2004 is a top-10 year. In order to establish dominance we must look for a complete effort and there are some blemishes: an early exit in Miami, another early one in Rome, a loss in the third round at RG, a first round loss in Cincinnati and another sub-par performance in Athens. You have to look at performance on all surfaces and every single year in my top 10, with the exception of Connors who I don't think played a red clay even in 1974, consists of players who were proficient on every surface. Look at the guys at the bottom of the list: Lendl, Laver, Borg - all contenders on every surface and every major (or "major"-type events, particularly in Laver's case). Federer was not a real contender at the French in 2004 - that's a big gap there. By all means, this is a great year, but I don't think it is obvious that it is better than Lendl's year in 1986. By all means, Ivan won the equivalent of three majors that year (US Open, French and the 128-man Boca West - AO not held) and was the runner-up at the other one (Wimbledon). He also won the Masters Cup.

MrChopin
11-19-2007, 02:17 AM
Yes, I agree. I think that there's a tendency to overrate 2004 and much of it is based on our memories of the year. I was guilty of this to begin with. I remembered that the year had many accolades, I recalled that Roger won three majors and a Masters Cup and had more than 10 titles. Immediately I ranked it second. Then I started to look a bit closer and realized that the year was in no way better than 2007 - if you take out three minor titles then you get the exact same equivalent of eight titles as in 2007. The big difference, again, are the clay results. Also upon closer inspection of 2005 I realized just how dominant Roger was that year. He was, in fact, winning everything in sight, but with two noticeable blemishes - the Aussie loss to Safin and the Masters Cup loss to Nalbandian. Considerable, but probably no worse than McEnroe's two big blemishes in 1984 - RG loss and Davis Cup loss. For a period of about 10 months between the Aussie and the Masters Cup Federer played mind-boggling tennis in '05, although with some flaws on clay, but better than in 2004.

As for the other poster, I just don't agree that 2004 is a top-10 year. In order to establish dominance we must look for a complete effort and there are some blemishes: an early exit in Miami, another early one in Rome, a loss in the third round at RG, a first round loss in Cincinnati and another sub-par performance in Athens. By all means, this is a great year, but I don't think it is obvious that it is better than Lendl's year in 1986. By all means, Ivan won the equivalent of three majors that year (US Open, French and the 128-man Boca West - AO not held) and was the runner-up at the other one (Wimbledon). He also won the Masters Cup.

You bring up a good point about Lendl's win at Boca West, with its draw of 128. I guess my one obvious complaint against Lendl in '86 is the competition. Aside from Becker and a little Wilander, I can't recall anybody that was knocking on the door. He smoked Conners somewhere. I also think he had an early loss or two, like 3rd round. Still, I'd have to think about it being better/worse than Fed '04. The stats/titles/records are probably near identical. Clay may be the deciding factor in Lendl's favor, except I'm not sure how difficult '86 was, competition-wise.

CmonAussie
11-19-2007, 02:19 AM
As for the other poster, I just don't agree that 2004 is a top-10 year. In order to establish dominance we must look for a complete effort and there are some blemishes: an early exit in Miami, another early one in Rome, a loss in the third round at RG, a first round loss in Cincinnati and another sub-par performance in Athens. You have to look at performance on all surfaces and every single year in my top 10, with the exception of Connors who I don't think played a red clay even in 1974, consists of players who were proficient on every surface. Look at the guys at the bottom of the list: Lendl, Laver, Borg - all contenders on every surface and every major (or "major"-type events, particularly in Laver's case). Federer was not a real contender at the French - that's a big gap there. By all means, this is a great year, but I don't think it is obvious that it is better than Lendl's year in 1986. By all means, Ivan won the equivalent of three majors that year (US Open, French and the 128-man Boca West - AO not held) and was the runner-up at the other one (Wimbledon). He also won the Masters Cup.


:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
you could atlest be polite enough to refer to people by name:o
...
Lets just look @ some other aspects of FED`s amazing 2004:

#Won AO by defeating: Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Safin in successive matches [he had losing records against Hewitt & Nalbandian coming into that AO, plus the match against Ferrero was to decide who took #1 (away from Roddick) at the time].

#Not a bad clay season at all:
won Hamburg by defeating Gonzalez, Moya & Coria [who was the clear #1 clay courter at the time].
also won Gstaad!

**Won the USO final in spectacularly one-sided fashion [6-0 7-6 6-0].
*Led the tour with most bagels [~20+].

`@@`.
11-titles
3-slams
TMC
3-AMS

~~~ nobody had played a year even close to FED`s 2004 since McEnroe`s 1984, and it was the year FED emerged from the pack of `young balls` [Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero] to stake his claim as the best of his generation:devil:


in retrospect 2006 & 2007 are clearly more impressive years, but that`s only because FED continues to show why he`s the most dominant athlete in sports.. 2004 was the 1st time that Roger stamped his authority on men`s tennis~~ & as a stand alone year it was the best calendar season in 2-decades:angel:

CmonAussie
11-19-2007, 02:22 AM
....
PS, CyBorg~~ you lose a lot of credibility by referring to Lendl`s 1986 Boca West win as a "equivalent of a slam"><..

You would probably be happy to see Indian Wells & Miami become slams as well then?`@@`??

steve132
11-19-2007, 03:07 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
you could atlest be polite enough to refer to people by name:o
...
Lets just look @ some other aspects of FED`s amazing 2004:

#Won AO by defeating: Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Safin in successive matches [he had losing records against Hewitt & Nalbandian coming into that AO, plus the match against Ferrero was to decide who took #1 (away from Roddick) at the time].

#Not a bad clay season at all:
won Hamburg by defeating Gonzalez, Moya & Coria [who was the clear #1 clay courter at the time].
also won Gstaad!

**Won the USO final in spectacularly one-sided fashion [6-0 7-6 6-0].
*Led the tour with most bagels [~20+].

`@@`.
11-titles
3-slams
TMC
3-AMS

~~~ nobody had played a year even close to FED`s 2004 since McEnroe`s 1984, and it was the year FED emerged from the pack of `young balls` [Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero] to stake his claim as the best of his generation:devil:


in retrospect 2006 & 2007 are clearly more impressive years, but that`s only because FED continues to show why he`s the most dominant athlete in sports.. 2004 was the 1st time that Roger stamped his authority on men`s tennis~~ & as a stand alone year it was the best calendar season in 2-decades:angel:

Aussie: Excellent post. I don't see how anyone could argue that Federer's 2004 season was not one of the 10 best in the Open Era. He won 3 Slams and TMC, 3 Masters Series titles (including one on clay) and finished with a 74-6 record. As you indicate, this was the best season since McEnroe's 1984.

If anyone else had done that it would undoubtedly have been hailed as one of the greatest seasons ever. The problem, of course, is that Federer is his own worst enemy. He has completed four extraordinary seasons in a row. No one else in the Open era has come close to matching his dominance and excellence for a sustained period. As such, there is a tendency to judge him by his own lofty standards.

CyBorg sees "blemishes" in this record, but there are blemishes in ALL of the other Top 10 performances, including even Laver's in 1969. Federer's 2004 had fewer than most.

CyBorg
11-19-2007, 04:41 AM
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
you could atlest be polite enough to refer to people by name:o

Don't take offense. I rarely refer to people by name on message boards. Largely because people don't use their real names on boards.

Lets just look @ some other aspects of FED`s amazing 2004:

#Won AO by defeating: Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Safin in successive matches [he had losing records against Hewitt & Nalbandian coming into that AO, plus the match against Ferrero was to decide who took #1 (away from Roddick) at the time].

#Not a bad clay season at all:
won Hamburg by defeating Gonzalez, Moya & Coria [who was the clear #1 clay courter at the time].
also won Gstaad!

**Won the USO final in spectacularly one-sided fashion [6-0 7-6 6-0].
*Led the tour with most bagels [~20+].

`@@`.
11-titles
3-slams
TMC
3-AMS

~~~ nobody had played a year even close to FED`s 2004 since McEnroe`s 1984, and it was the year FED emerged from the pack of `young balls` [Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Ferrero] to stake his claim as the best of his generation:devil:


in retrospect 2006 & 2007 are clearly more impressive years, but that`s only because FED continues to show why he`s the most dominant athlete in sports.. 2004 was the 1st time that Roger stamped his authority on men`s tennis~~ & as a stand alone year it was the best calendar season in 2-decades:angel:

I respect your opinion and yes he faced some good competition, but so did Lendl, who had a better, more complete year in 1986.

FedFan_2007
11-19-2007, 04:44 AM
CyBorg - tell me how Lendl's 2 slams + 1 final > 3 slams?

CyBorg
11-19-2007, 04:44 AM
....
PS, CyBorg~~ you lose a lot of credibility by referring to Lendl`s 1986 Boca West win as a "equivalent of a slam"><..

You would probably be happy to see Indian Wells & Miami become slams as well then?`@@`??

If you wish to provide me with a grounded counter-examination of the quality of Boca West then by all means go ahead.

It was a 128-man field and one of the deeper events of the year. It was by all means the fourth major with the absence of the Aussie in 1986. You can look at the draws if you like.

Here's a link in fact: http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/vault/draws.asp?TournamentID=403&TournamentYear=1986.

CyBorg
11-19-2007, 04:48 AM
You bring up a good point about Lendl's win at Boca West, with its draw of 128. I guess my one obvious complaint against Lendl in '86 is the competition. Aside from Becker and a little Wilander, I can't recall anybody that was knocking on the door. He smoked Conners somewhere. I also think he had an early loss or two, like 3rd round. Still, I'd have to think about it being better/worse than Fed '04. The stats/titles/records are probably near identical. Clay may be the deciding factor in Lendl's favor, except I'm not sure how difficult '86 was, competition-wise.

We can argue competition if you like, but this doesn't pertain to the topic at hand which concerns dominance. In essence, we're looking for #1 players and their control over the rest of the field - the quality of the field is less important (although I feel that the quality of Lendl's opposition in 1986 was just fine and no worse than Federer's in 2004 - I'm not sure which player had better competition; I haven't analyzed these factors very closely).

I made this point before. I could basically make two lists: the top 10 best Open era seasons ever and the top 10 most dominant Open era seasons ever. The lists would be quite different. The former would focus more on how good the player actually was, rather than how much he would win and by what margin.

CyBorg
11-19-2007, 04:52 AM
Aussie: Excellent post. I don't see how anyone could argue that Federer's 2004 season was not one of the 10 best in the Open Era. He won 3 Slams and TMC, 3 Masters Series titles (including one on clay) and finished with a 74-6 record. As you indicate, this was the best season since McEnroe's 1984.

If anyone else had done that it would undoubtedly have been hailed as one of the greatest seasons ever. The problem, of course, is that Federer is his own worst enemy. He has completed four extraordinary seasons in a row. No one else in the Open era has come close to matching his dominance and excellence for a sustained period. As such, there is a tendency to judge him by his own lofty standards.

CyBorg sees "blemishes" in this record, but there are blemishes in ALL of the other Top 10 performances, including even Laver's in 1969. Federer's 2004 had fewer than most.

This is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't show how Federer's year is better than Lendl's in 1986 (if we're talking of the 20 years from '84 to '04). Lendl was great on all surfaces, which Federer wasn't. Lendl made the final at each of the three majors and won the deep Boca event. To boot he also won the Masters event. He also won a handful of masters series-quality events like Philadelphia, Rome and Stratton Mountain.

CyBorg
11-19-2007, 05:08 AM
The one additional note I'd like to add is in reiterating just how biased most historical lists are as they are typically at the hands of younger, less knowledgeable posters.

They commonly employ the following fallacies:

1) The major count as the key determining factor of greatness or dominance .. this is something that is not true historically and is especially untrue going back to the mid-80s and beyond

2) Winning 3 out of 4 majors is automatically better than winning 2 out of 3 .. not necessarily so .. you have to look closer .. if the Australian Open was an afterthought in select years then it was not of importance and should not be counted as an important tournament .. realistically the Aussie was not a true major in between 1976 and 1983 inclusive .. in certain years surrounding these it was also relatively weak.

3) Non-Major events cannot be held to be as important as Majors .. pure baloney .. Guillermo Vilas won two Australian Open championships against awful fields and it is common for us to say that the man has four majors and technically he does, but two of them are non-factors .. how does one know? One knows by examining the quality of the draws. Often a non-major is right at the relative quality of a major, considering the size of the draw and the quality of the participants. Two examples are Rome in 1972 and Boca West in 1986. Both were huge events. Both were important. The biggest fallacies is in assuming that if somehow Bjorn Borg or John McEnroe or Jimmy Connors had bothered to show up at the Australian Open and beat Sean Marks in the final that they would automatically become more dominant players. This is just plain ridiculous .. another good example of an undeserved 'major' is Jan Kodes at Wimbledon in 1973 - mediocre draws due to player boycotts and a less than exciting result.

4) The Masters series had a fixed rate of importance across a span of at least 35 years .. the year-ending championships picked up steam in 1977 when the event moved to New York .. the event had a temporary lapse in '78 when a number of players boycotted the event, but immediately after that the event became essentially legit up until today.

CmonAussie
11-19-2007, 05:55 AM
If you wish to provide me with a grounded counter-examination of the quality of Boca West then by all means go ahead.

It was a 128-man field and one of the deeper events of the year. It was by all means the fourth major with the absence of the Aussie in 1986. You can look at the draws if you like.

Here's a link in fact: http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/vault/draws.asp?TournamentID=403&TournamentYear=1986.


thanks for the Boca West info & draw:cool:
...no doubt the 1986 field there was impressive;)

>>>
however, up to the QFs they only played best-of-3sets [big difference with a slam]!!

plus, when players win an event such as Boca West in 86, they happily take the ranking points & prizemoney~~ but accept the fact that the tourney has no history & adds close to `zero` towards their career legacy:p

even the likes of Connors, who only played AO twice [won 74, finalist 75] still refers fondly to the 74 win as his "first major win" in interviews..
if you interview Lendl, i highly doubt he`ll mention Boca West 86 as one of his career highlights:eek:

##
what makes the slams special is the fact that the players themselves get extra amped/nervous knowing that they`re playing for a place in history, & there`s an achievement that won`t be forgotten 12-months later;)

same situation with golf, it doesn`t matter how many World Championships, Players Champs, Tour Champs etc. Garcia & Scott win~~ until they get their 1st major they`ll still be known as underachievers!!

i`ll take ToJo`s AO over Nalbandian`s TMC anyday:devil:

CyBorg
11-19-2007, 06:14 AM
however, up to the QFs they only played best-of-3sets [big difference with a slam]!!

Not that unusual. Especially if you go back to the 70s.

plus, when players win an event such as Boca West in 86, they happily take the ranking points & prizemoney~~ but accept the fact that the tourney has no history & adds close to `zero` towards their career legacy:p

They had no way of knowing of the event's potential 'history'. The WCT events have little history as well but were essential in the 1970s. These players were not clairvoyant.

even the likes of Connors, who only played AO twice [won 74, finalist 75] still refers fondly to the 74 win as his "first major win" in interviews..

The Aussie had decent draws until 1976.

if you interview Lendl, i highly doubt he`ll mention Boca West 86 as one of his career highlights:eek:

Desperate argument. Why don't you find him yourself and ask him?

what makes the slams special is the fact that the players themselves get extra amped/nervous knowing that they`re playing for a place in history, & there`s an achievement that won`t be forgotten 12-months later;)

Boca West was an important event in its time. These players had no way of knowing that it would expire. The Hamburg masters is currently a masters series event but will eventually be almost nothing. This is not a valid argument.

same situation with golf, it doesn`t matter how many World Championships, Players Champs, Tour Champs etc. Garcia & Scott win~~ until they get their 1st major they`ll still be known as underachievers!!

What you know about the major today is largely based on the reputation that these events have accumulated since the open era began. Rod Laver grew up knowing the pro events as the most important, playing the majors as an amateur and then winning pro events as a professional. Only in his later years did the majors become the key events. The Australian Open did not have any particular prestige until the 90s.

These are the most basic things that every self-respecting tennis fan should know. It should be part of your most basic knowledge of history.

i`ll take ToJo`s AO over Nalbandian`s TMC anyday:devil:

This has nothing to do with anything discussed in the thread so far and has no bearing on the discussion of different eras and respective standards.

steve132
11-19-2007, 10:24 AM
This is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't show how Federer's year is better than Lendl's in 1986 (if we're talking of the 20 years from '84 to '04). Lendl was great on all surfaces, which Federer wasn't. Lendl made the final at each of the three majors and won the deep Boca event. To boot he also won the Masters event. He also won a handful of masters series-quality events like Philadelphia, Rome and Stratton Mountain.

I think that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. As has been pointed out several times, Federer won a Masters Series event in Hamburg, beating Gaudio, Coria and Moya in the process, as well as a clay event in Gstaad. Your analysis ignores all this and states that Federer was not great on all surfaces. If that phrase means winning Slams on all surfaces only Laver's 1969 run would qualify as a great year.

You state that Lendl won the Masters event as well as "a handful of Masters Series quality events." So did Federer. Federer also won the Australian Open, which in 2004 was certainly regarded as a major.

Incidentally, I believe that Lendl's 1986 belongs on the Top 10 list. So does Federer's 2004.

TennisGrandSlam
11-19-2007, 10:45 AM
Lendl had never won a slam b4 Mac choked that one on a platter for him:eek:
Also McEnroe had a double break in the 3rd set [4-1?] & led by a break again in the 5th set:o .. yet failed to get the job done!
The circumstances were pretty spectacular also, with Mac doing a major breakdown dummy spit while he was leading in the 3rd set:devil:

If JMac won Lendl in FO Final 1984, there was no Lendl's Dynasty in 1985-87 and 1989, JMac would continue his dynasty over whole 1980s. :devil:

CmonAussie
11-19-2007, 11:22 AM
If JMac won Lendl in FO Final 1984, there was no Lendl's Dynasty in 1985-87 and 1989, JMac would continue his dynasty over whole 1980s. :devil:

:wavey:
good point TennisGrandSlam:cool:
...
BTW, you think Vilas`s 1977 year belongs in the Top-10 don`t you, then where would you place it [realistically]:confused:

TennisGrandSlam
11-19-2007, 11:39 AM
:wavey:
good point TennisGrandSlam:cool:
...
BTW, you think Vilas`s 1977 year belongs in the Top-10 don`t you, then where would you place it [realistically]:confused:

:devil:

1. Lendl is worse in GS Final winning rate (8 win - 11 loss), there is no one but him losing more than 10 GS finals. :o
One reason should be considered, he played in difficult Era (more difficult than Sampras' Era in 1990s), he played Borg, Connors, JMac, Becker, Edberg (all of them are 6+ slam) in his career times, usually in GS Finals. So, he was underrated.

2. Why I think Vilas 1977 is worthy of being in Top Ten.
- He is the only one player to win 2 Clay Slam in the same year. :devil:
- 53 winning streak on clay, 46 winning streak on all surfaces.
- Winning singles in 5 continents within single calendar year.
- 3 GS Finals, winning 2.
- 128-14 (not including DC), over 90% winning rate.
- 13 straight finals (winning 12)
- 16 ATP singles titles (only conunting ATP-recognized titles) - most ATP singles titles in single calendar year.
(Laver won 18 singles titles in 1969 and ATP profile only shows 5, some info. may be missing, but I ensure that some of these titles were demostration sport / invitation tournament, and 4-man MM :o, Of course, he finished Grand Slam in 1969, this must be the most awful achievement :wavey: )

CmonAussie
11-19-2007, 12:09 PM
:devil:

1. Lendl is worse in GS Final winning rate (8 win - 11 loss), there is no one but him losing more than 10 GS finals. :o
One reason should be considered, he played in difficult Era (more difficult than Sampras' Era in 1990s), he played Borg, Connors, JMac, Becker, Edberg (all of them are 6+ slam) in his career times, usually in GS Finals. So, he was underrated.

2. Why I think Vilas 1977 is worthy of being in Top Ten.
- He is the only one player to win 2 Clay Slam in the same year. :devil:
- 53 winning streak on clay, 46 winning streak on all surfaces.
- Winning singles in 5 continents within single calendar year.
- 3 GS Finals, winning 2.
- 128-14 (not including DC), over 90% winning rate.
- 13 straight finals (winning 12)
- 16 ATP singles titles (only conunting ATP-recognized titles) - most ATP singles titles in single calendar year.
(Laver won 18 singles titles in 1969 and ATP profile only shows 5, some info. may be missing, but I ensure that some of these titles were demostration sport / invitation tournament, and 4-man MM :o, Of course, he finished Grand Slam in 1969, this must be the most awful achievement :wavey: )


good points:cool:
...
although the fact that he won 2 clay slams in one year has a lot to do with fortunate timing, how happy would Rafa be if 2/4 slams were played on clay these days:devil: :confused:

>>>
so if i put Vilas`s 1977 year @ #10 on the list would that do him justice:confused:
where would you rank his year:confused:

stebs
11-19-2007, 01:15 PM
All this discussion is well and good but there is always going to be a clear difference in opinions depending on whether you measure acheivements only. I think that is the way it should be done as competition cannot be measuered and it all becomes very subjective.

CyBorg
11-19-2007, 02:16 PM
I think that we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. As has been pointed out several times, Federer won a Masters Series event in Hamburg, beating Gaudio, Coria and Moya in the process, as well as a clay event in Gstaad. Your analysis ignores all this and states that Federer was not great on all surfaces. If that phrase means winning Slams on all surfaces only Laver's 1969 run would qualify as a great year.

I understand if Federer at least made the semi at the French or at worst in Rome. But he didn't.

You state that Lendl won the Masters event as well as "a handful of Masters Series quality events." So did Federer. Federer also won the Australian Open, which in 2004 was certainly regarded as a major.

I agree with this. I'm not saying it's lopsided.

CmonAussie
11-19-2007, 02:21 PM
I understand if Federer at least made the semi at the French or at worst in Rome. But he didn't.

I agree with this. I'm not saying it's lopsided.


cmon CyBorg:eek:
...
you know very well that FED played a decent clay court season in 2004, winning 2 clay titles:cool:
>> also you know why he didn`t go deep @ FO, because he played an inspired 3-time FO champion [Guga] in Rd.3;)
Kuerten was still playing decent tennis then & obviously as a 3-time winner he felt very comfortable taking on Roger in his pseudo backyard:angel:

CyBorg
11-19-2007, 02:22 PM
Why I think Vilas 1977 is worthy of being in Top Ten.
- He is the only one player to win 2 Clay Slam in the same year. :devil:

So? This is more of an anomaly than anything else. The US Open was on clay for a period of three years. Aside from that we have only seen one major played on clay in a season.

- 53 winning streak on clay, 46 winning streak on all surfaces.

Look at his competition and the events where he played. He purposefully avoided top events.

- Winning singles in 5 continents within single calendar year.

Who cares? If I go and win a challenger in Africa does that make me better than Federer?

- 3 GS Finals, winning 2.

Frankly, the only good argument in Vilas' favour. The Aussie was already a pretty poor event though; 64-man draw as well.

- 128-14 (not including DC), over 90% winning rate.

Against what kinds of opponents?

- 13 straight finals (winning 12)

In what kinds of tournaments?

- 16 ATP singles titles (only conunting ATP-recognized titles) - most ATP singles titles in single calendar year.

Most of them not amounting to a hill of beans.

(Laver won 18 singles titles in 1969 and ATP profile only shows 5, some info. may be missing, but I ensure that some of these titles were demostration sport / invitation tournament, and 4-man MM :o, Of course, he finished Grand Slam in 1969, this must be the most awful achievement :wavey: )

Laver played in better tournaments and was dominant on all surfaces that year. Vilas was only good clay and not even the best player on clay that year.

CyBorg
11-19-2007, 02:25 PM
cmon CyBorg:eek:
...
you know very well that FED played a decent clay court season in 2004, winning 2 clay titles:cool:
>> also you know why he didn`t go deep @ FO, because he played an inspired 3-time FO champion [Guga] in Rd.3;)
Kuerten was still playing decent tennis then & obviously as a 3-time winner he felt very comfortable taking on Roger in his pseudo backyard:angel:

Kuerten was okay at best that year. Roger struggled on the RG surface. There was a much greater bounce and Kuerten's topspin ate him up. Hamburg is much more to his liking, in part due to the way the ball moves and largely due to the weather. Rome is actually quite fast and has been for some time - Roger still failed to do anything there.

TennisGrandSlam
11-19-2007, 02:32 PM
Ivan Lendl: 94 (Houston, Toronto, Barcelona, Basel, Tokyo Outdoor, Hong Kong, Taipei 80; Stuttgart Indoor, Las Vegas, Montreal, Madrid, Barcelona, Basel, Vienna, Cologne, Buenos Aires, Masters 81; Delray Beach WCT, Genoa WCT, Munich WCT, Strasbourg WCT, Frankfurt, Houston, Dallas WCT, Forest Hills WCT, Washington, North Conway, Cincinnati, L.A. WCT, Naples WCT, Hartford WCT, Masters 82; Detroit WCT, Milan, Houston WCT, Hilton Head WCT, Montreal, San Francisco, Tokyo Indoor 83; Luxembourg, Roland Garros, Wembley 84; Fort Myers, Monte Carlo, Dallas, Forest Hills, Indianapolis, US Open, Stuttgart Outdoor, Sydney Indoor, Tokyo Indoor, Wembley, Masters 85; Philadelphia, Boca West, Milan, Fort Myers, Rome, Roland Garros, Stratton Mountain, US Open, Masters 86; Hamburg, Roland Garros, Washington, Montreal, US Open, Sydney Indoor, Wembley, Masters 87; Monte Carlo, Rome, Toronto 88; Australian Open, Scottsdale, Key Biscayne, Forest Hills, Hamburg, Queens, Montreal, Bordeaux, Sydney Indoor, Stockholm 89; Australian Open, Milan, Toronto Indoor, Queens, Tokyo Indoor 90; Philadelphia, Memphis, Long Island 91; Tokyo Indoor 92; Munich, Tokyo Indoor 93)

John McEnroe: 77 (Hartford, San Francisco, Stockholm, Wembley, London, Masters 78; New Orleans, Milan, San Jose, Dallas WCT, Queens, South Orange, US Open, San Francisco, Stockholm, Wembley 79; Richmond WCT, Memphis, Milan, Queens, US Open, Brisbane, Sydney Indoor, Wembley 80; Pepsi Grand Slam, Milan, Frankfurt, L.A., Dallas WCT, Queens, Wimbledon, Cincinnati, US Open, Sydney Indoor 81; Philadelphia, San Francisco, Sydney Indoor, Tokyo Indoor, Wembley 82; Philadelphia, Dallas WCT, Forest Hills WCT, Wimbledon, Sydney Indoor, Wembley, Masters 83; Philadelphia, Richmond WCT, Madrid, Brussels, Dallas WCT, Forest Hills WCT, Queens, Wimbledon, Toronto, US Open, San Francisco, Stockholm, Masters 84; Philadelphia, Houston, Milan, Chicago, Atlanta, Stratton Mountain, Montreal, Stockholm 85; L.A., San Francisco, Scottsdale 86; Tokyo Outdoor, Detroit 88; Lyon, Dallas WCT, Indianapolis 89; Basel 90; Chicago 91)



Who is greater :devil: (Both are 4-times Year-end NO.1)



I think, for single calendar year (comparsion between both players of their single calendar year individually)

JMac 84 > Lendl 86
JMac 81 < Lendl 87
JMac 83 < Lendl 85
JMac 82 << Lendl 89


For Singles titles, JMac (77) < Lendl (94)

For YE NO.1, JMac > Lendl, JMac is 4-consecutive-year YE NO.1, even though controversial in 1982 :o .

stebs
11-19-2007, 05:41 PM
Kuerten was okay at best that year. Roger struggled on the RG surface. There was a much greater bounce and Kuerten's topspin ate him up. Hamburg is much more to his liking, in part due to the way the ball moves and largely due to the weather. Rome is actually quite fast and has been for some time - Roger still failed to do anything there.

:yeah: It was far from impressive when compared with other players accomplishments on all surfaces but then that is kind fo neutralised by the dominance Federer had off the red stuff obviously with three slams and then three AMS events and the TMC that is an impressive resume.

FedFan_2007
11-19-2007, 06:12 PM
Bottom line is that 2004 was one of the most dominant seasons ever. Fed went undefeated in finals AND against the top 10. Nobody had ever done that before.

CmonAussie
11-20-2007, 04:51 AM
Bottom line is that 2004 was one of the most dominant seasons ever. Fed went undefeated in finals AND against the top 10. Nobody had ever done that before.


:cool:
exactly;)
you manage to make a couple of very valid points!!
...

2004 was an extraordinary year for FED, in fact it was the best calendar season in 2 decades [since McEnroe`s 84] & in many ways better than that:angel:

winning 11/11 finals & the perfect record vs. Top-10 players exemplifies the point:devil:

FED`s 2004 is clearly worthy as a Top-10 calendar year since the Open Era began in 1968:cool:

FedFan_2007
11-20-2007, 04:56 AM
Anyone with half a brain knows that 2004-2007 are 4 of the top 10 calendar years since 1968. Anyone trying to argue against it is pissing against the wind.

TennisGrandSlam
11-20-2007, 01:21 PM
For consecutive years,

Lendl's 85-87 is awful.

Sampras' 93-98 is also awful.

CmonAussie
11-20-2007, 01:54 PM
For consecutive years,

Lendl's 85-87 is awful.

Sampras' 93-98 is also awful.



not sure if you`re being sarcastic or not:confused:
...

Lendl`s 85-87 is hardly awful [won 5-slams & a couple of Masters in those years];)

Sampras`s 93-98 was a superb run [won 10-slams & 4 Masters during these years]:eek:

TennisGrandSlam
11-20-2007, 03:47 PM
not sure if you`re being sarcastic or not:confused:
...

Lendl`s 85-87 is hardly awful [won 5-slams & a couple of Masters in those years];)

Sampras`s 93-98 was a superb run [won 10-slams & 4 Masters during these years]:eek:


Lendl in 86-87 : Roland Garros (W) - Wimbledon (F) - US Open (W) B2B :devil:
(Australian Open is not very prestigious :o in early to mid-1980s

Also, he entered
9 consecutive Masters Final : 80-88
8 consecutive US Open Finals : 82-88
4 consecutive Roland Garros Finals : 84-87

;)

TennisGrandSlam
11-20-2007, 04:50 PM
TOP-10 GREATEST calendar seasons in the OPEN ERA:confused:

*1. Rod Laver 1969: GRAND SLAM~ AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [18-titles] :worship:
*2. Roger Federer 2006: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [12-titles]:devil:
*3. Roger Federer 2007: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [7-titles]:angel:
*4. Jimmy Connors 1974: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO DNP [14-titles]:cool:
*5. John McEnroe 1984: Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [13-titles]:(
*6. Roger Federer 2004: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion [11-titles]:)
*7. Mats Wilander 1988: AO, FO, USO champion, Wimbledon QF [6-titles];)
*8. Roger Federer 2005: Wimbledon, USO champion, AO & FO SF [11-titles]
*9. Bjorn Borg 1980: FO, Wimbledon champion, USO finalist [9-titles]
*10. Ivan Lendl 1987: FO, USO champion, Wimbledon finalist, AO SF [8-titles]


I points out that

Laver was awful in 1969. But those 18 titles include non-ATP-recognized titles, so the result should be less than 18. :devil:

CmonAussie
11-21-2007, 12:40 AM
I points out that

Laver was awful in 1969. But those 18 titles include non-ATP-recognized titles, so the result should be less than 18. :devil:

:wavey:
in 1969 there was no such thing as the ATP, also it`s predecessor only began in the 1970s, so it`s hardly surprising that they wouldn`t recognise all of Laver`s 18-titles:sad:

if you know of a link detailing Laver`s 1969 results accurately i would be happy to check it out [please let me know if you find any useful links/stats]:wavey: :cool:

CyBorg
11-21-2007, 01:38 AM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=167531

Scroll down to post 10. A fascinating attempt by Sgt John (great poster) to come up with the four top tournaments for each year going back to 1877. Some results may surprise you.

The method, of course, is the only one that makes sense - looking at the depth of draws and drawing conclusions from there.

CmonAussie
11-21-2007, 02:41 AM
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=167531

Scroll down to post 10. A fascinating attempt by Sgt John (great poster) to come up with the four top tournaments for each year going back to 1877. Some results may surprise you.

The method, of course, is the only one that makes sense - looking at the depth of draws and drawing conclusions from there.


:cool:
okie dokies, thanks for the link BorgClone mate:wavey:

CmonAussie
11-21-2007, 02:46 AM
####
the Open Era slams [official/unofficial] according to Sgt John @ tennis-warehouse.com
...link thanks to CyBorg<:)


2007
AO Federer (Gonzalez)
RG Nadal (Federer)
Wim Federer (Nadal)
USO Federer (Djokovic)

2006
AO Federer (Baghdatis)
RG Nadal (Federer)
Wim Federer (Nadal)
USO Federer (Roddick)

2005
AO Safin (Hewitt)
RG Nadal (Puerta)
Wim Federer (Roddick)
USO Federer (Agassi)

2004
AO Federer (Safin)
RG Gaudio (Coria)
Wim Federer (Roddick)
USO Federer (Hewitt)

2003
AO Agassi (Schuettler)
RG Ferrero (Verkerk)
Wim Federer (Philippoussis)
USO Roddick (Ferrero)

2002
AO Johansson (Safin)
RG Costa (Ferrero)
Wim Hewitt (Nalbandian)
USO Sampras (Agassi)

2001
AO Agassi (Clément)
RG Kuerten (Corretja)
Wim Ivanisevic (Rafter)
USO Hewitt (Sampras)

2000
AO Agassi (Kafelnikov)
RG Kuerten (Norman)
Wim Sampras (Rafter)
USO Safin (Sampras)

1999
AO Kafelnikov (Enqvist)
RG Agassi (Medvedev)
Wim Sampras (Agassi)
USO Agassi (Martin)

1998
AO Korda (Rios)
RG Moya (Corretja)
Wim Sampras (Ivanisevic)
USO Rafter (Philippoussis)

1997
AO Sampras (Moya)
RG Kuerten (Bruguera)
Wim Sampras (Pioline)
USO Rafter (Rusedski)

1996
AO Becker (Chang)
RG Kafelnikov (Stich)
Wim Krajicek (Washington)
USO Sampras (Chang)

1995
AO Agassi (Sampras)
RG Muster (Chang)
Wim Sampras (Becker)
USO Sampras (Agassi)

1994
AO Sampras (Martin)
RG Bruguera (Berasategui)
Wim Sampras (Ivanisevic)
USO Agassi (Stich)

1993
AO Courier (Edberg)
RG Bruguera (Courier)
Wim Sampras (Courier)
USO Sampras (Pioline)

1992
AO Courier (Edberg)
RG Courier (Korda)
Wim Agassi (Ivanisevic)
USO Edberg (Sampras)

1991
AO Becker (Lendl)
RG Courier (Agassi)
Wim Stich (Becker)
USO Edberg (Courier)

1990
AO Lendl (Edberg)
RG Gomez (Agassi)
Wim Edberg (Becker)
USO Sampras (Agassi)

1989
AO Lendl (Mecir)
RG Chang (Edberg)
Wim Becker (Edberg)
USO Becker (Lendl)

1988
AO Wilander (Cash)
RG Wilander (Leconte)
Wim Edberg (Becker)
USO Wilander (Lendl)

1987
AO Edberg (Cash)
RG Lendl (Wilander)
Wim Cash (Lendl)
USO Lendl (Wilander)

1986
RG Lendl (Pernfors)
Wim Becker (Lendl)
USO Lendl (Mecir)
Boca West Lendl (Wilander)

1985
AO Edberg (Wilander)
RG Wilander (Lendl)
Wim Becker (Curren)
USO Lendl (McEnroe)

1984
AO Wilander (Curren)
RG Lendl (McEnroe)
Wim McEnroe (Connors)
USO McEnroe (Lendl)

1983
AO Wilander (Lendl)
RG Noah (Wilander)
Wim McEnroe (Lewis)
USO Connors (Lendl)

1982
RG Wilander (Vilas)
Wim Connors (McEnroe)
USO Connors (Lendl)
Masters Lendl (McEnroe)

1981
RG Borg (Lendl)
Wim McEnroe (Borg)
USO McEnroe (Borg)
Masters Lendl (Gerulaitis)

1980
RG Borg (Gerulaitis)
Wim Borg (McEnroe)
USO McEnroe (Borg)
Masters Borg (Lendl)

1979
RG Borg (Pecci)
Wim Borg (Tanner)
USO McEnroe (Gerulaitis)
Masters Borg (Gerulaitis)

1978
Philadelphia Connors (Tanner)
RG Borg (Vilas)
Wim Borg (Connors)
USO Connors (Borg)

1977
RG Vilas (Gottfried)
Wim Borg (Connors)
USO Vilas (Connors)
Masters Connors (Borg)

1976
Philadelphia Connors (Borg)
RG Panatta (Solomon)
Wim Borg (Nastase)
USO Connors (Borg)

1975
RG Borg (Vilas)
Wim Ashe (Connors)
USO Orantes (Connors)
Masters Nastase (Borg)

1974
WCT Finals Newcombe (Borg)
RG Borg (Orantes)
Wim Connors (Rosewall)
USO Connors (Rosewall)

1973
WCT Finals Smith (Ashe)
RG Nastase (Pilic)
USO Newcombe (Kodes)
Masters Nastase (Okker)

1972
WCT Finals Rosewall (Laver)
RG Gimeno (Proisy)
PSW Los Angeles Smith (Tanner)
USO Nastase (Ashe)

1971
AO Rosewall (Ashe)
Rome Laver (Kodes)
Wim Newcombe (Smith)
USO Smith (Kodes)

1970
Sydney Laver (Rosewall)
Wim Newcombe (Rosewall)
USO Rosewall (Roche)
Barcelone Santana (Laver)

1969
AO Laver (Gimeno)
RG Laver (Rosewall)
Wim Laver (Newcombe)
USO Laver (Roche)

1968
RG Rosewall (Laver)
Wimbledon Laver (Roche)
PSW Los Angeles Laver (Rosewall)
USO Ashe (Okker)

CyBorg
11-21-2007, 03:35 AM
...link

The most interesting parts are the pre-Open Era in particular, the 50s - when Gonzalez was the best pro. The guy was #1 for more years than Federer.

CmonAussie
11-21-2007, 08:57 AM
The most interesting parts are the pre-Open Era in particular, the 50s - when Gonzalez was the best pro. The guy was #1 for more years than Federer.

:cool: :cool:
...
also interesting if we look @ the periond 1949--1972 & check the career slams of-
Gonzalez, Laver, Rosewall:
1972
WCT Finals Rosewall (Laver)
RG Gimeno (Proisy)
PSW Los Angeles Smith (Tanner)
USO Nastase (Ashe)

1971
AO Rosewall (Ashe)
Rome Laver (Kodes)
Wim Newcombe (Smith)
USO Smith (Kodes)

1970
Sydney Laver (Rosewall)
Wim Newcombe (Rosewall)
USO Rosewall (Roche)
Barcelone Santana (Laver)

1969
AO Laver (Gimeno)
RG Laver (Rosewall)
Wim Laver (Newcombe)
USO Laver (Roche)

1968
RG Rosewall (Laver)
Wimbledon Laver (Roche)
PSW Los Angeles Laver (Rosewall)
USO Ashe (Okker)

1967
Wembley Laver (Rosewall)
World Pro Laver (Rosewall)
Wimbledon Pro Laver (Rosewall)
US Pro Laver (Gimeno)

1966
Wembley Laver (Rosewall)
Barcelona Gimeno (Rosewall)
New York MSG Pro Rosewall (Laver)
US Pro Laver (Rosewall)

1965
French Pro Rosewall (Laver)
Milan Pro Gimeno (Rosewall)
Wembley Laver (Gimeno)
US Pro Rosewall (Laver)

1964
Noordwijk Pro Gimeno (Rosewall)
French Pro Rosewall (Laver)
Wembley Laver (Rosewall)
US Pro Laver (Gonzales)

1963
French Pro Rosewall (Laver)
Wembley Rosewall (Hoad)
US Pro Rosewall (Laver)
Italian Pro Rosewall (Laver)

1962
French Pro Rosewall (Gimeno)
Wembley Rosewall (Hoad)
Stockholm Pro Rosewall (Gimeno)
Wimbledon Laver (Mulligan)

1961
Geneva Pro Gonzales (Rosewall)
Copenhagen Pro Gonzales (Olmedo)
French Pro Rosewall (Gonzales)
Wembley Rosewall (Hoad)

1960
Victorian Pro Hoad (Rosewall)
World Cham’p Tour Gonzales (Rosewall)
French Pro Rosewall (Hoad)
Wembley Rosewall (Segura)

1959
Melbourne Pro Sedgman (Gonzales)
French Pro Trabert (Sedgman)
Los Angeles Pro RR Gonzales (Hoad)
Tourn. Of Champ. Hoad (Gonzales)

1958
Australian Pro Sedgman (Trabert)
French Pro Rosewall (Hoad)
Wembley Sedgman (Trabert)
Tourn. Of Champ. Gonzales (Rosewall)

1957
Australian Pro Segura (Sedgman)
Wembley Rosewall (Segura)
Tourn. Of Champ. Gonzales (Sedgman)
RG Davidson (Flam)

1956
French Pro Trabert (Gonzales)
Wembley Gonzales (Sedgman)
Tourn. Of Champ. Gonzales (Sedgman)
Wimbledon Hoad (Rosewall)

1955
US Pro Gonzales (Segura)
US Pro Hard Court Gonzales (Segura)
Scarborough Pro Gonzales (Segura)
RG Trabert (Davidson)

1954
Australian Pro Sedgman (Segura)
US Pro Gonzales (Sedgman)
US 4-men Tour Gonzales (Segura)
Roland Garros Trabert (Larsen)

1953
New York Indoor Kramer (Sedgman)
Scarborough Pro Segura (Sedgman)
Wembley Sedgman (Gonzales)
Paris Pro Sedgman (Gonzales)

1952
Phil. Indoor Pro Gonzales (Segura)
Wembley Gonzales (Kramer)
US Pro Segura (Gonzales)
Wimbledon Sedgman (Drobny)

1951
Phil. Indoor Pro Kramer (Gonzales)
Berlin Pro Segura (Earn)
Wembley Gonzales (Segura)
US Pro Segura (Gonzales)

1950
Phil. Indoor Pro Gonzales (Kramer)
Wembley Gonzales (Van Horn)
Paris Pro Indoors Segura (Kramer)
US Pro Segura (Kovacs)

1949
Scarborough Kramer (Budge)
Wembley Kramer (Riggs)
Barcelona Kramer (Segura)
Forest Hills Gonzales (Schroeder)

CmonAussie
11-21-2007, 09:01 AM
Career Majors:

GONZALES = 19

ROSEWALL = 20 [all 4 in 1963]

LAVER = 18 [all 4 in 1967 & 1969]

FedFan_2007
11-21-2007, 09:08 AM
Career Majors:

GONZALES = 19

ROSEWALL = 20 [all 4 in 1963]

LAVER = 18 [all 4 in 1967 & 1969]


B.S. Where do you get 19 majors for Gonzalez? Rosewall has 8 slams. Laver has 11.

CmonAussie
11-21-2007, 09:26 AM
B.S. Where do you get 19 majors for Gonzalez? Rosewall has 8 slams. Laver has 11.


why don`t you bother reading a few posts above;)
anyway I made these calculations based on the following post/information/link provided by CyBorg:

"
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=167531

Scroll down to post 10. A fascinating attempt by Sgt John (great poster) to come up with the four top tournaments for each year going back to 1877. Some results may surprise you.

The method, of course, is the only one that makes sense - looking at the depth of draws and drawing conclusions from there."


thanks again to CyBorg for the fascinating info:cool:

stebs
11-21-2007, 10:36 AM
The most interesting parts are the pre-Open Era in particular, the 50s - when Gonzalez was the best pro. The guy was #1 for more years than Federer.

I have seen clips of Gonzalez but not extended ones. I am of the opinion that comparisons between pre-open era and open-era are pointless but from what I've heard if you do want to argue including the pre-open era players it is tough to get away from a Laver - Gonzales debate, both were incredible players.

I prefer to leave those guys out of it and just look at the obvious open era greats, Borg, Sampras, Federer and then the second tier of Lendl, Agassi, Connors and McEnroe.

CmonAussie
11-21-2007, 11:12 AM
I have seen clips of Gonzalez but not extended ones. I am of the opinion that comparisons between pre-open era and open-era are pointless but from what I've heard if you do want to argue including the pre-open era players it is tough to get away from a Laver - Gonzales debate, both were incredible players.

I prefer to leave those guys out of it and just look at the obvious open era greats, Borg, Sampras, Federer and then the second tier of Lendl, Agassi, Connors and McEnroe.


it`s one thing to leave Gonzalez out of the discussion but how can you leave Laver out:confused:
...
at every level Laver proved himself an all-time great:angel:
###
Laver actually won 3 types of `the SLAM`:worship:

1962: all-4 `amateur slam`
1967: all-4 `pro slam`
1969: all-4 `open slam`

>>>
no matter how you look at it Laver can`t be ignored:devil:

LeChuck
11-21-2007, 11:25 AM
it`s one thing to leave Gonzalez out of the discussion but how can you leave Laver out:confused:
...
at every level Laver proved himself an all-time great:angel:
###
Laver actually won 3 types of `the SLAM`:worship:

1962: all-4 `amateur slam`
1967: all-4 `pro slam`
1969: all-4 `open slam`

>>>
no matter how you look at it Laver can`t be ignored:devil:

That's incredible. From the sound of things Laver compiled the best ever seasons in each of the amateur era, pre open era pro tour, and the open era.
His CV does appear to be blemishless, as he passed the domination, versatility and longevity tests with flying colours.

CyBorg
11-21-2007, 08:52 PM
I have seen clips of Gonzalez but not extended ones. I am of the opinion that comparisons between pre-open era and open-era are pointless but from what I've heard if you do want to argue including the pre-open era players it is tough to get away from a Laver - Gonzales debate, both were incredible players.

I prefer to leave those guys out of it and just look at the obvious open era greats, Borg, Sampras, Federer and then the second tier of Lendl, Agassi, Connors and McEnroe.

I wasn't really comparing, although I don't think there's much difference between the 50s guys and the 70s guys.

CyBorg
11-21-2007, 08:54 PM
That's incredible. From the sound of things Laver compiled the best ever seasons in each of the amateur era, pre open era pro tour, and the open era.
His CV does appear to be blemishless, as he passed the domination, versatility and longevity tests with flying colours.

Most likely the most perfect resume is Tilden's, but Laver's era was probably more advanced. The interesting thing is that Laver played right around the same time as Rosewall and both combined for about 40 "major-likes". That's amazing. Rosewall, if I count correctly, has 21 for his career. Gonzales 19, Laver 18.

CyBorg
11-21-2007, 09:29 PM
Connors/Laver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

CmonAussie
11-21-2007, 10:01 PM
Connors/Laver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM


thanks for the footage:cool:
...
always great to see any footage of Laver:worship:

>>>
keep in mind though that this was 1975 when Connors was at his peak [aged 23 & winner of 3 slams in 74], while Laver was well beyond his peak aged 37yrs;)
**despite his age Rod showed his superior skills:angel: .. just amazing that he could hit the ball that hard & crisp with such a small wooden racket:worship: :worship:

MisterQ
11-21-2007, 11:51 PM
Connors/Laver.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM


Thanks so much, that's great footage! :worship:

I wonder if a very young Andre Agassi might have been brought to see this Vegas encounter.

CmonAussie
09-11-2008, 03:56 PM
...
BUMP
...
Not sure where to rank RAFA`s 2008 season & of course it`s not over yet, so he may go onto win more than 10 titles, but i`ll tentatively place Nadal @ #8, slightly ahead of FED`s 2005!



TOP-10 GREATEST calendar seasons in the OPEN ERA

*1. Rod Laver 1969: GRAND SLAM~ AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [18-titles]
*2. Roger Federer 2006: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [12-titles]
*3. Roger Federer 2007: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [8-titles]
*4. John McEnroe 1984: Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [13-titles]
*5. Jimmy Connors 1974: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO DNP [14-titles]
*6. Roger Federer 2004: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion [11-titles]
*7. Mats Wilander 1988: AO, FO, USO champion, Wimbledon QF [6-titles]
#8. Rafael Nadal 2008: FO, Wimbledon champion, Olympic champion, AO & USO SFs [8-titles]
*9. Roger Federer 2005: Wimbledon, USO champion, AO & FO SFs [11-titles]
*10. Bjorn Borg 1980: FO, Wimbledon champion, USO finalist [9-titles]
*11. Bjorn Borg 1979: FO, Wimbledon champion [13-titles]

OSmeone
09-11-2008, 04:53 PM
The thing about Fed's 2005 season was that he only lost 4 matches. Nadal hasn't shown such near invincibility this year so I wouldn't rank 2008 above 2005.

stebs
09-11-2008, 05:56 PM
Federer lost 4 times in 2005 and for me that was actually the year where he played at his peak level. He was just brilliant. It's a shame that the matches he lost were so very important.

As for ranking Nadal's year ahead, I think it's always going to come down to personal preference. In both AO and USO Nadal actually lost to the eventual runner up, not the eventual winner. Federer lost to Safin and Nadal (who both won the GS). I think arguments can be made for either to be the better based on the numbers but for me 81-4 is the trump card, a stunning figure.

Black Adam
09-11-2008, 06:08 PM
I think you should also include the TMC in your criteria.

Henry Kaspar
09-11-2008, 07:23 PM
Points based, W=4, F=3, S=2, Q=1, 4 tournaments up to US Open. A player's best seasons is bolded.

** indicates that a player missed out on a Grand Slam that year (or better, 3 tourneys before the US Open in that year -- the McEnroe 84 score, for example, includes the Aussie Open Dec 83).

Name year points

Laver 1969 16

Federer 2007 15
Federer 2006 15

Wilander 1988 13
Lendl 1987 13
Lendl 1986 13
McEnroe 1984 13

Federer 2008 12
Nadal 2008 12
Federer 2005 12
Federer 2004 12
Lendl 1984 12
Connors 1974 12 **

Agassi 1999 11
Sampras 1995 11
Sampras 1993 11
Borg 1980 11 **
Borg 1978 11 **
Vilas 1977 11

Agassi 1995 10
Courier 1993 10
Courier 1992 10
Becker 1989 10
Wilander 1985 10
Borg 1981 10 **

Sampras 2000 9
Sampras 1994 9
Becker 1991 9
Edberg 1991 9
Lendl 1989 9
Connors 1982 9 **
McEnroe 1981 9 **
Borg 1979 9 **
Connors 1975 9 **
Roche 1969 9

Nadal 2007 8
Nadal 2006 8
Ferrero 2003 8
Roddick 2003 8
Agassi 2001 8
Sampras 1997 8
Edberg 1992 8
Courier 1991 8
Lendl 1988 8
Edberg 1987 8
Gerulaitis 1978 8
Borg 1976 8 **
Kodes 1973 8 **
Newcombe 1973 8 **
Smith 1971 8 **

Henry Kaspar
09-11-2008, 07:42 PM
...
BUMP
...
Not sure where to rank RAFA`s 2008 season & of course it`s not over yet, so he may go onto win more than 10 titles, but i`ll tentatively place Nadal @ #8, slightly ahead of FED`s 2005!



TOP-10 GREATEST calendar seasons in the OPEN ERA

*1. Rod Laver 1969: GRAND SLAM~ AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [18-titles]
*2. Roger Federer 2006: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [12-titles]
*3. Roger Federer 2007: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [8-titles]
*4. John McEnroe 1984: Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [13-titles]
*5. Jimmy Connors 1974: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO DNP [14-titles]
*6. Roger Federer 2004: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion [11-titles]
*7. Mats Wilander 1988: AO, FO, USO champion, Wimbledon QF [6-titles]
#8. Rafael Nadal 2008: FO, Wimbledon champion, Olympic champion, AO & USO SFs [8-titles]
*9. Roger Federer 2005: Wimbledon, USO champion, AO & FO SFs [11-titles]
*10. Bjorn Borg 1980: FO, Wimbledon champion, USO finalist [9-titles]
*11. Bjorn Borg 1979: FO, Wimbledon champion [13-titles]

Nice, but Ivan Lendl 1987 should be in there (US Open, French Open champion, Wimbledon final, Aussie Open SF, 8 ATP titles). Lendl 1986 too if you count in the Dec 85 Aussie Open.

fast_clay
09-11-2008, 07:49 PM
Nice, but Ivan Lendl 1987 should be in there (US Open, French Open champion, Wimbledon final, Aussie Open SF, 8 ATP titles). Lendl 1986 too if you count in the Dec 85 Aussie Open.

:yeah:

CyBorg
09-11-2008, 09:04 PM
Again, Lendl in 1986 was a far better player than Connors in 1974 and had a better year. Borg's years in 1979 and 1980 are underrated because of the missing Aussies.

By the same token, Connors' year in 1974 is overrated because of the Aussie - a rather second-rate major at the time.

Henry Kaspar
09-11-2008, 09:05 PM
Again, Lendl in 1986 was a far better player than Connors in 1974 and had a better year. Borg's years in 1979 and 1980 are underrated because of the missing Aussies.

By the same token, Connors' year in 1974 is overrated because of the Aussie - a rather second-rate major at the time.

But Connors didn't play the French Open. He won every slam he entered that year, big (Wimbledon, USO) or small (AO).

CmonAussie
09-12-2008, 03:13 AM
Points based, W=4, F=3, S=2, Q=1, 4 tournaments up to US Open. A player's best seasons is bolded.

** indicates that a player missed out on a Grand Slam that year (or better, 3 tourneys before the US Open in that year -- the McEnroe 84 score, for example, includes the Aussie Open Dec 83).

Name year points

Laver 1969 16

Federer 2007 15
Federer 2006 15

Wilander 1988 13
Lendl 1987 13
Lendl 1986 13
McEnroe 1984 13

Federer 2008 12
Nadal 2008 12
Federer 2005 12
Federer 2004 12
Lendl 1984 12
Connors 1974 12 **

Agassi 1999 11
Sampras 1995 11
Sampras 1993 11
Borg 1980 11 **
Borg 1978 11 **
Vilas 1977 11

Agassi 1995 10
Courier 1993 10
Courier 1992 10
Becker 1989 10
Wilander 1985 10
Borg 1981 10 **

Sampras 2000 9
Sampras 1994 9
Becker 1991 9
Edberg 1991 9
Lendl 1989 9
Connors 1982 9 **
McEnroe 1981 9 **
Borg 1979 9 **
Connors 1975 9 **
Roche 1969 9

Nadal 2007 8
Nadal 2006 8
Ferrero 2003 8
Roddick 2003 8
Agassi 2001 8
Sampras 1997 8
Edberg 1992 8
Courier 1991 8
Lendl 1988 8
Edberg 1987 8
Gerulaitis 1978 8
Borg 1976 8 **
Kodes 1973 8 **
Newcombe 1973 8 **
Smith 1971 8 **


:wavey:
Thanks for the cool stats Henry Kaspar:cool:
...
I see your point about Lendl, but it would help me if you suggested where you think his best year ranks?

<>Also i think your wrong in suggesting Federer`s best year was 2007, certainly 2006 was Roger`s most impressive calendar year thus far;)
2006 & 2007 are similar in that FED won 3 majors + TMC, however in 2006 he won 4 more tournaments (incl 2 more Masters Series) & more matches overall. Also Fed played in 16 finals in 2006, compared with 12 finals in 2007! Clearly 2006 will go down as FED`s best..

fast_clay
09-12-2008, 03:53 AM
Again, Lendl in 1986 was a far better player than Connors in 1974 and had a better year. Borg's years in 1979 and 1980 are underrated because of the missing Aussies.

By the same token, Connors' year in 1974 is overrated because of the Aussie - a rather second-rate major at the time.

as an aussie.. i would regard the AO in 1974 as struggling to even be a b-grade tournament... only one thing saving it is the ageing aussie greats who patroned it... mark 'Chopper Reid' edmondson won the f***ing thing two years later... i think there's something in that for all of us...

CyBorg
09-12-2008, 04:11 AM
But Connors didn't play the French Open. He won every slam he entered that year, big (Wimbledon, USO) or small (AO).

Connors skipped red clay in its entirety, his worst surface, and frequently padded his win-loss record by avoiding wct tournaments.

Macbrother
09-12-2008, 04:48 AM
Connors skipped red clay in its entirety, his worst surface, and frequently padded his win-loss record by avoiding wct tournaments.

But Connors was banned that year (he played the French in the years before it); and based on his utter dominance of the rest of the tournaments I think it's certainly reasonable he could've gotten a grand slam. (Granted he would've had to beat Borg but it was his first year winning. :))He also did reach the QF or better 7 straight years (4 of them SF). I really wouldn't say the year was overrated.

crude oil
09-12-2008, 05:16 AM
...
BUMP
...
Not sure where to rank RAFA`s 2008 season & of course it`s not over yet, so he may go onto win more than 10 titles, but i`ll tentatively place Nadal @ #8, slightly ahead of FED`s 2005!



TOP-10 GREATEST calendar seasons in the OPEN ERA

*1. Rod Laver 1969: GRAND SLAM~ AO, FO, Wimbledon, USO champion [18-titles]
*2. Roger Federer 2006: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [12-titles]
*3. Roger Federer 2007: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [8-titles]
*4. John McEnroe 1984: Wimbledon, USO champion, FO finalist [13-titles]
*5. Jimmy Connors 1974: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion, FO DNP [14-titles]
*6. Roger Federer 2004: AO, Wimbledon, USO champion [11-titles]
*7. Mats Wilander 1988: AO, FO, USO champion, Wimbledon QF [6-titles]
#8. Rafael Nadal 2008: FO, Wimbledon champion, Olympic champion, AO & USO SFs [8-titles]
*9. Roger Federer 2005: Wimbledon, USO champion, AO & FO SFs [11-titles]
*10. Bjorn Borg 1980: FO, Wimbledon champion, USO finalist [9-titles]
*11. Bjorn Borg 1979: FO, Wimbledon champion [13-titles]


i think borg's season (10) could actually be ranked ahead of nadal's because of the usopen finalist result . But what nadal did was amazing this year. so either way.

CmonAussie
09-12-2008, 07:18 AM
I think you should also include the TMC in your criteria.

:wavey:
...
OK~ lets go with that, probably easier to separate them if we include the TMC as a `pseudo 5th slam`[though nowhere near as significant].. Give me a day or 2 & i`ll rework the list including TMC results;)

CmonAussie
09-12-2008, 07:21 AM
i think borg's season (10) could actually be ranked ahead of nadal's because of the usopen finalist result . But what nadal did was amazing this year. so either way.

...:cool:
But consider also Nadal`s effort in winning the Olympic Gold~ i think the majority would agree that RAFA`s 08 is a little bit better than Borg`s 1980;). Though Borg did win the Masters that year, perhaps we should wait until the TMC is done this year, plus Nadal still has Davis Cup duties:devil:

aulus
09-12-2008, 08:09 AM
federer's 2005 and 2007 were similar in the number of majors and titles, but federer played at a clearly higher level in 2005. i also think federer played better in 2005 than 2004.

MatchFederer
09-12-2008, 08:15 AM
federer's 2005 and 2007 were similar in the number of majors and titles, but federer played at a clearly higher level in 2005. i also think federer played better in 2005 than 2004.

You know what... you are probably right. 2005 - 2006 Federer = Ultimate Federer. late 2006 to Aussie Open 2007 being the peak maybe.

ballbasher101
09-12-2008, 08:32 AM
As much as I dislike Rafa's game I have to say that he has been brilliant this year and deserves the praise and the number one position this year. I hope that in 2009 Federer can step it up and take the wimbledon trophy back from the Majorcan.

MatchFederer
09-12-2008, 08:38 AM
For sure, Nadal's year has been astonishing. It is the 5th best year out of the last 5 years of tennis!! Ok, enough banter. In all seriousness Nadal has had an excellent year, a hugely successful year in which he had to dethrone Federer to win the Wimbledon championship. It is a top year and maybe in the top 10 best years in the Open Era thus far.

ballbasher101
09-12-2008, 08:47 AM
For sure, Nadal's year has been astonishing. It is the 5th best year out of the last 5 years of tennis!! Ok, enough banter. In all seriousness Nadal has had an excellent year, a hugely successful year in which he had to dethrone Federer to win the Wimbledon championship. It is a top year and maybe in the top 10 best years in the Open Era thus far.

I could not agree more with you on this one. I suspect that next year Nadal is going to find it tough to replicate his heroics this season. I can see Rafa taking the French open only the other three majors will be tough for him to win.

Bazooka
09-12-2008, 09:24 AM
I could not agree more with you on this one. I suspect that next year Nadal is going to find it tough to replicate his heroics this season. I can see Rafa taking the French open only the other three majors will be tough for him to win.

As far has we know, he is one of the most fierce defenders of titles in the tour. He has never failed to defend a slam, and has defended multiple times all his clay titles, failing only in Rome this year. I think his mentality will be the same on grass, and defeating him in Wimbledon won't be easy. Remember only one man has been able to defeat him there in the last three years, and he may be the gratest ever.

ballbasher101
09-12-2008, 09:32 AM
As far has we know, he is one of the most fierce defenders of titles in the tour. He has never failed to defend a slam, and has defended multiple times all his clay titles, failing only in Rome this year. I think his mentality will be the same on grass, and defeating him in Wimbledon won't be easy. Remember only one man has been able to defeat him there in the last three years, and he may be the gratest ever.

Nadal is a fighter that is for sure but taking wibledon from Federer 2 years in a roll is well not going to happen. Federer is fired up for wibledon 2009 he wants that trophy back and by god he will do everything he can to get it back. I expect Federer to win wibledon 2009.