*What were the GREATEST calendar SEASONS ever played~??.How do you rate Fed/Laver etc [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

*What were the GREATEST calendar SEASONS ever played~??.How do you rate Fed/Laver etc

CmonAussie
10-08-2006, 04:11 PM
What years did these legends have their greatest calendar seasons & what about Fed~~which year do you rate higher- 2004 or 2005 or 2006???
...................>>>>>Welcome to discuss which of these was the greatest ever calendar year played by a pro ~~


1969 Rod Laver ~ calendar GRAND SLAM (AO & FO & Wimby & USO):worship:

1973 John Newcombe ~ AO & USO:D

1974 Jimmy Connors ~ AO & Wimby & USO (14-titles):devil:

1977 Guillermo Vilas ~ FO & USO plus AO final (16-titles);)

1978 Bjorn Borg ~ FO & Wimby plus USO final (9-titles):eek:

1979 Bjorn Borg ~ FO & Wimby (12-titles)

1980 Bjorn Borg ~ FO & Wimby plus USO final (8-titles):(

1981 John McEnroe ~ Wimby & USO (10-titles):devil:

1984 John McEnroe ~ Wimby & USO plus FO final (13-titles):o

1986 Ivan Lendl ~ FO & USO plus Wimby final (9-titles):rolleyes:

1987 Ivan Lendl ~ FO & USO plus Wimby final (8-titles)

1988 Mats Wilander ~ AO & FO & USO (6-titles):worship:

1989 Boris Becker ~ Wimby & USO (5-titles):cool:

1992 Jim Courier ~ AO & FO (5-titles):wavey:

1993 Pete Sampras ~ Wimby & USO (8-titles):confused:

1994 Pete Sampras ~ AO & Wimby (10-titles):cool:

1995 Pete Sampras ~ Wimby & USO plus AO final (5-titles):p

1997 Pete Sampras ~ AO & Wimby (8-titles):worship:

1999 Andre Agassi ~ FO & USO plus Wimby final (5-titles):[NOTE: also won AO in 2000~ 3/4 Slams]

2004 Roger Federer ~ AO & Wimby & USO (11-titles);)

2005 Roger Federer ~ Wimby & USO (11-titles)

2006 Roger Federer ~ AO & Wimby & USO plus FO final (9-titles+?):angel:


#####
NOTE: ..........The minimum requirement to be on this list is winning 2 Slams in a calendar year.

artlinkletter
10-08-2006, 04:15 PM
If the minimum requirement is 2 slams, Fed's 2005 still qualifies. Plus, his win loss record 2005, 81-4 is the second best, next to JMacs.

CmonAussie
10-08-2006, 04:18 PM
If the minimum requirement is 2 slams, Fed's 2005 still qualifies. Plus, his win loss record 2005, 81-4 is the second best, next to JMacs.
:wavey:
Okie dokies mate:cool: :cool: ~~if you think his 2005 deserves to be in contention then I`ll add it to the list;)

TennisGrandSlam
10-08-2006, 04:18 PM
What years did these legends have their greatest calendar seasons & what about Fed~~which year do you rate higher- 2004 or 2006???
...................>>>>>Welcome to discuss which of these was the greatest ever calendar year played by a pro ~~


1969 Rod Laver ~ calendar GRAND SLAM (AO & FO & Wimby & USO):worship:

1973 John Newcombe ~ AO & USO:D

1974 Jimmy Connors ~ AO & Wimby &USO (14-titles):devil:

1977 Guillermo Vilas ~ FO & USO plus AO final (16-titles);)

1978 Bjorn Borg ~ FO & Wimby plus USO final (9-titles):eek:

1980 Bjorn Borg ~ FO & Wimby plus USO final (8-titles):(

1981 John McEnroe ~ Wimby & USO (10-titles):devil:

1984 John McEnroe ~ Wimby & USO plus FO final (13-titles):o

1986 Ivan Lendl ~ FO & USO plus Wimby final (9-titles):rolleyes:

1988 Mats Wilander ~ AO & FO & USO (6-titles):worship:

1989 Boris Becker ~ Wimby & USO (5-titles):cool:

1992 Jim Courier ~ AO & FO (5-titles):wavey:

1993 Pete Sampras ~ Wimby & USO (8-titles):confused:

1994 Pete Sampras ~ AO & Wimby (10-titles):cool:

1995 Pete Sampras ~ Wimby & USO plus AO final (5-titles):p

1997 Pete Sampras ~ AO & Wimby (8-titles):worship:

1999 Andre Agassi ~ FO & USO plus Wimby final (5-titles):worship:

2004 Roger Federer ~ AO & Wimby & USO (11-titles);)

2006 Roger Federer ~ AO & Wimby & USO plus FO final (9-titles+?):angel:


#####
NOTE: I didn`t include Federer`s 2005 because I believe the fact that he won one less slam last year prevented it being in contention for his best ever;) ..........The minimum requirement to be on this list is winning 2 Slams in a calendar year.


Lendl in 1989 still greater than Becker in 1989

Lendl (10 titles including Australian Open + Runner-up in US Open

TennisGrandSlam
10-08-2006, 04:19 PM
If the minimum requirement is 2 slams, Fed's 2005 still qualifies. Plus, his win loss record 2005, 81-4 is the third best, next to JMacs.

Connors in 1974 : 89-4

CmonAussie
10-08-2006, 04:20 PM
Lendl in 1989 still greater than Becker in 1989

Lendl (10 titles including Australian Open + Runner-up in US Open_
:wavey:
Minimum of 2-Slam wins in a calendar year to qualify for the list so Lendl`s 89 misses out:sad:

Fed-Express
10-08-2006, 04:20 PM
I would rate this season higher than Laver's slam, simply because of the difficulty to win on four different surfaces. That makes this year's 27-1 in GS even greater than 28-0 in '69.

artlinkletter
10-08-2006, 04:22 PM
Connors in 1974 : 89-4

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the correction. :)

Saumon
10-08-2006, 04:22 PM
are all the ###~~~***^^^^ necessary? there are so much of them that I couldn't even tell what the title of the thread really is :o

TennisGrandSlam
10-08-2006, 04:24 PM
:wavey:
Minimum of 2-Slam wins in a calendar year to qualify for the list so Lendl`s 89 misses out:sad:

OK

But I think only singles titles > 8 should be counted.

Dancing Hero
10-08-2006, 04:34 PM
How do you top a Grand Slam year like 1969? To win all 4 in a single calendar year is the ultimate year when all's said and done. Only 2 surfaces and slower pace of play then, players better athletes now, stronger depth of competition, so it's open to debate, but I pick Laver in the end.

Federer and Connors close behind.

CmonAussie
10-08-2006, 04:34 PM
OK

But I think only singles titles > 8 should be counted.
:cool:
I respect your opinion but I believe that in the end the greats are always judged by how many slams they win:angel: .....So if we include Lendl`s 1989 season then the lines are blurred & it opens up a can of worms for the criterion:p ....>>> Try to keep things simple & there are simply too many players who one just one slam in a year & could almost make this list~~ unfortunately we need to be brutal:devil: :sad:

sawan66278
10-08-2006, 04:49 PM
What about Lendl in 1987? 8 titles, with wins at the French and U.S. Opens, and a finals appearance at Wimbledon...plus a season-ending Masters championship with only one set lost!!!! There was no Aussie Open that year...here's the link:

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1987&player=L018&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

CmonAussie
10-08-2006, 04:52 PM
What about Lendl in 1987? 8 titles, with wins at the French and U.S. Opens, and a finals appearance at Wimbledon...plus a season-ending Masters championship with only one set lost!!!! There was no Aussie Open that year...here's the link:

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/playerprofiles/playeractivity.asp?query=Singles&year=1987&player=L018&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0
:wavey:
Thanks ~good point:cool: ....However you`re wrong about there being no AO in 1987...there was an AO that year & Lendl lost in the SF to Pat Cash;) --->>1986 was the year that it wasn`t played

DrJules
10-08-2006, 07:25 PM
In a number of years mentioned the computer did not rank that player number 1. However, in all years mentioned that player was certainly the best player even if the computer did not agree.

Have to go with the Laver grand slam although Connors 1974 is close and I felt McEnroe 1984 was the best I have ever seen a player play consistenly through a year.

Cervantes
10-08-2006, 10:05 PM
I would rate this season higher than Laver's slam, simply because of the difficulty to win on four different surfaces. That makes this year's 27-1 in GS even greater than 28-0 in '69.

This might be true for tennis insiders and we all know how difficult it is to win four slams in a year, but in general Raver is still the only player to win all four in the same year and therefore it should be regarded as the best year ever. The only way to beat Laver is to win all four slams or go a year almost undefeated (only loss at missing slam for instance).

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 02:11 AM
In a number of years mentioned the computer did not rank that player number 1. However, in all years mentioned that player was certainly the best player even if the computer did not agree.

Have to go with the Laver grand slam although Connors 1974 is close and I felt McEnroe 1984 was the best I have ever seen a player play consistenly through a year.
:wavey:
There`s a couple of "what if" marks against the two you mention.....:confused:
1974 ~~ Connors wins 3/4 Slams & banned from FO...we`ll never know:sad:
1984 ~~ McEnroe wins 2/4 Slams & chokes majorly at FO after two sets to love & a break up:eek: ...if he`d won he surely would have played the AO to try for the Calendar Slam:sad:

Boris Franz Ecker
10-09-2006, 09:08 AM
1984 ~~ McEnroe wins 2/4 Slams & chokes majorly at FO after two sets to love & a break up

There was this ARTE movie about this match and they said that McEnroe wasn't ahead in the third set.

Boris Franz Ecker
10-09-2006, 09:13 AM
If Federer wins the Masters Cup there would be no doubt that his year was the best since Laver.
Without there would be some doubt.
Because McEnroe didn't play pseudo slams in the early 80ies and therefore only had three slams left in his best year 84. He won the Masters and a lot of other titles.

TennisGrandSlam
10-09-2006, 10:58 AM
Laver in 1969 is still no.1

But FedEx 2004-06 is wonderful.

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 11:14 AM
Laver in 1999 is still no.1

But FedEx 2004-06 is wonderful.
:wavey:
I think you mean Laver in 1969;)

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 11:16 AM
There was this ARTE movie about this match and they said that McEnroe wasn't ahead in the third set.
:confused:
Wasn`t McEnroe leading 5-3 ~~or something in the 3rd set:confused:

TennisGrandSlam
10-09-2006, 11:17 AM
:wavey:
I think you mean Laver in 1969;)

yes :devil:

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 11:23 AM
If Federer wins the Masters Cup there would be no doubt that his year was the best since Laver.
Without there would be some doubt.
Because McEnroe didn't play pseudo slams in the early 80ies and therefore only had three slams left in his best year 84. He won the Masters and a lot of other titles.
:wavey:
You love going on about this psuedo slam stuff don`t you:rolleyes:
....BTW, ~McEnroe did play the AO in 1983 & 1985 [also 89, 90, 92]~ either side of his best year 1984;)...Therefore he was willing to make the trip around his peak years but he just wasn`t good enough to win:p ....McEnroe played the AO a total of 5-times: One SF (lost to Wilander 83), three QF & one 4rd (defaulted due to obscene outburst)...#BTW~ I`m sure McEnroe wishes he`d played the AO a few more times-->> as he missed out on the opportunity to win more slams & keep himself in the company of Agassi, Lendl & Connors etc..:sad:

TennisGrandSlam
10-09-2006, 12:01 PM
Absolutely Dominated Years (3 slam or above, or 2 slam w/ 8 titles or above) since open era

Laver 1969
Connors 1974
Vilas 1977
Borg 1978, 1979, 1980
McEnroe 1984
Lendl 1986, 1987
Wilander 1988 (even though less titles)
Sampras 1993, 1994, 1997
Agassi 1999 (even less titles than 8, but 3 slam finals)
Federer 2004, 2005, 2006

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 12:07 PM
Absolutely Dominated Years (3 slam or above, or 2 slam w/ 8 titles or above) since open era

Laver 1969
Connors 1974
Vilas 1977
Borg 1978, 1979, 1980
McEnroe 1984
Lendl 1986, 1987
Wilander 1988 (even though less titles)
Sampras 1993, 1994, 1997
Agassi 1999 (even less titles than 8, but 3 slam finals)
Federer 2004, 2005, 2006
:wavey:
We could simplify the list by only including 3+ Slams in a calendar year:.........................
Laver 69:worship:
Connors 74:devil:
Wilander 88:)
Federer 04:worship:
Federer 06:angel:
...................>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~However that would dismiss a lot of great years by great players (a bit unfair to Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Vilas, Borg, Lendl ~~maybe)...

TennisGrandSlam
10-09-2006, 12:20 PM
:wavey:
We could simplify the list by only including 3+ Slams in a calendar year:.........................
Laver 69:worship:
Connors 74:devil:
Wilander 88:)
Federer 04:worship:
Federer 06:angel:
...................>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~However that would dismiss a lot of great years by great players (a bit unfair to Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Vilas, Borg, Lendl ~~maybe)...


3 Slam finals (2 win) & 8+ titles

Vilas 77
Borg 78, 80, 81
McEnroe 84
Lendl 86, 87
Federer 05

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 12:29 PM
3 Slam finals (2 win) & 8+ titles

Vilas 77
Borg 78, 80, 81
McEnroe 84
Lendl 86, 87
Federer 05
:cool:
That`s fine but the criterion of 8-titles is a bit hazy~~ I mean we could pluck any number:confused: ... For instance I`d rate Agassi`s 1999:worship: season ahead of Lendl`s 87 season~ yet Andre only won 5-titles that year->> so he`d miss the cut according to the number you selected:rolleyes:

SLICK
10-09-2006, 12:40 PM
What years did these legends have their greatest calendar seasons & what about Fed~~which year do you rate higher- 2004 or 2005 or 2006???
...................>>>>>Welcome to discuss which of these was the greatest ever calendar year played by a pro ~~


1969 Rod Laver ~ calendar GRAND SLAM (AO & FO & Wimby & USO):worship:

1973 John Newcombe ~ AO & USO:D

1974 Jimmy Connors ~ AO & Wimby & USO (14-titles):devil:

1977 Guillermo Vilas ~ FO & USO plus AO final (16-titles);)

1978 Bjorn Borg ~ FO & Wimby plus USO final (9-titles):eek:

1980 Bjorn Borg ~ FO & Wimby plus USO final (8-titles):(

1981 John McEnroe ~ Wimby & USO (10-titles):devil:

1984 John McEnroe ~ Wimby & USO plus FO final (13-titles):o

1986 Ivan Lendl ~ FO & USO plus Wimby final (9-titles):rolleyes:

1987 Ivan Lendl ~ FO & USO plus Wimby final (8-titles)

1988 Mats Wilander ~ AO & FO & USO (6-titles):worship:

1989 Boris Becker ~ Wimby & USO (5-titles):cool:

1992 Jim Courier ~ AO & FO (5-titles):wavey:

1993 Pete Sampras ~ Wimby & USO (8-titles):confused:

1994 Pete Sampras ~ AO & Wimby (10-titles):cool:

1995 Pete Sampras ~ Wimby & USO plus AO final (5-titles):p

1997 Pete Sampras ~ AO & Wimby (8-titles):worship:

1999 Andre Agassi ~ FO & USO plus Wimby final (5-titles):worship:

2004 Roger Federer ~ AO & Wimby & USO (11-titles);)

2005 Roger Federer ~ Wimby & USO (11-titles)

2006 Roger Federer ~ AO & Wimby & USO plus FO final (9-titles+?):angel:


#####
NOTE: ..........The minimum requirement to be on this list is winning 2 Slams in a calendar year.

You forgot to include Borg in 1979: Won French Open and Wimbledon and a host of other titles and finished the year as No.1 for the first time.

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 12:49 PM
You forgot to include Borg in 1979: Won French Open and Wimbledon and a host of other titles and finished the year as No.1 for the first time.
Okie dokies I suppose I better include that year as well ~~ thanks:cool:

Whistleway
10-09-2006, 01:20 PM
Okie dokies I suppose I better include that year as well ~~ thanks:cool:
Yeah goi ahead and add a few more, you will have all the years of the open era :)

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 01:24 PM
Yeah goi ahead and add a few more, you will have all the years of the open era :)
OK mate:cool: ~ I don`t mind a bit of sarcasm myself;) ....Seriously though what years do you consider to be the most legendary:confused:

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 01:28 PM
Yeah goi ahead and add a few more, you will have all the years of the open era :)
;)
1999 Andre Agassi ~ FO & USO plus Wimby final (5-titles)
..........
..........5-years:eek:
2004 Roger Federer ~ AO & Wimby & USO (11-titles)
.............
>>>>> Surprising that we had a 5-year gap between multiple-slam winning years:o ..I guess Hewitt really did take advantage of a weak era:worship:

TheMightyFed
10-09-2006, 02:18 PM
Coria 2006. Awesome.

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 02:24 PM
Coria 2006. Awesome.
:worship:
:devil::eek: ~That`s a bit nasty...atleast he had the hottest wife;) ~ until she decided to dump him:sad:

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 09:33 PM
I would rate this season higher than Laver's slam, simply because of the difficulty to win on four different surfaces. That makes this year's 27-1 in GS even greater than 28-0 in '69.
:wavey:
Although I`m an Aussie & believe Laver to be the greatest player ever I also agree with your point. Actually Mr.Modesty Laver himself even said that what Federer is doing is much more remarkable because "there were no clay-specialists or hard-court specialists in my era...";) ...Therefore the competition is much tougher presently!!!!

cmurray
10-10-2006, 12:05 AM
I'm going to jump in and say that Andre's 1999 season is the most impressive, if for no other reason than that he wasn't supposed to win ANYTHING that year. If I recall properly, he was at something like 14 in the world when he won the French. And then went on to get to 3 more successive finals.

Rogiman
10-10-2006, 12:13 AM
I'm going to jump in and say that Andre's 1999 season is the most impressive, if for no other reason than that he wasn't supposed to win ANYTHING that year. If I recall properly, he was at something like 14 in the world when he won the French. And then went on to get to 3 more successive finals.
There is no room for sentiments in this kind of discussions, Federer has exceeded (in two different years, actually) everything Agassi achieved in 99, therefore Agassi's peak year is out of the equation really.

Of course, each tennis fan may have his personal favorite year, from his own subjective point of view.

cmurray
10-10-2006, 12:35 AM
There is no room for sentiments in this kind of discussions, Federer has exceeded (in two different years, actually) everything Agassi achieved in 99, therefore Agassi's peak year is out of the equation really.

Of course, each tennis fan may have his personal favorite year, from his own subjective point of view.


Well, yes SIR. If there is no room for sentiment, then the thread is pointless; because statistically, laver won all 4 the same year. Your OPINION that 4 different surfaces is more difficult, according to your rules, bears no weight at all.

Rogiman
10-10-2006, 12:47 AM
Well, yes SIR. If there is no room for sentiment, then the thread is pointless; because statistically, laver won all 4 the same year. Your OPINION that 4 different surfaces is more difficult, according to your rules, bears no weight at all.
I said absolutely nothing about different surfaces, you can look it up, my previous post was my first on the subject ;)

For the record, I've never argued about Laver's superiority, I guess I just haven't lived long enough to have any measure of how much the game of tennis meant to anyone back in 1969, and how professional it was.

CmonAussie
10-10-2006, 01:04 AM
I'm going to jump in and say that Andre's 1999 season is the most impressive, if for no other reason than that he wasn't supposed to win ANYTHING that year. If I recall properly, he was at something like 14 in the world when he won the French. And then went on to get to 3 more successive finals.
:wavey: :cool: ;)
Appreciate you jumping in mate:cool: .
That`s why I started this thread ~ wanted to hear about various posters favourite legendary seasons/years... #Also I want to agree with you ~ because what Andre Agassi did in 1999-2000 was absolutely remarkable:worship: :angel: .. He hadn`t won a Slam in 4-years & suddenly he was a career slamer & won 3/4 slams, plus the Wimby final.........all at the age of 29yrs [most players retire about then]:angel: ... Agassi resparked my interest in tennis ~~ truly inspirational:worship:

PamV
10-10-2006, 03:50 AM
If the minimum requirement is 2 slams, Fed's 2005 still qualifies. Plus, his win loss record 2005, 81-4 is the second best, next to JMacs.

Yes, and furthermore among Fed's 2005 titles there were 4 MS titles. I don't think total number of titles tell the whole story. It should be taken in to account the value of the titles. In othe words low tier titles don't mean as much as a MS titles or Majors.

PamV
10-10-2006, 03:55 AM
I said absolutely nothing about different surfaces, you can look it up, my previous post was my first on the subject ;)

For the record, I've never argued about Laver's superiority, I guess I just haven't lived long enough to have any measure of how much the game of tennis meant to anyone back in 1969, and how professional it was.

To hear people talk who knew that era.....the competition wasn't as high as it is now looking outside of the top 5 or so guys. It wasn't as professional in that there wasn't as much money in tennis and it couldn't attract as many guys to play it as a career as the sport does now.

I think it does factor in that their were only two surfaces in Laver's day. He was great, but I wouldn't say his 4 majors in one year is the greatest accomplishment ever in tennis.

PamV
10-10-2006, 03:59 AM
This might be true for tennis insiders and we all know how difficult it is to win four slams in a year, but in general Raver is still the only player to win all four in the same year and therefore it should be regarded as the best year ever. The only way to beat Laver is to win all four slams or go a year almost undefeated (only loss at missing slam for instance).

It's a matter of opinion. Why would Laver winning 4 majors on only two surfaces be more of an accomplish than Fed winning 3 majors on 3 different surfaces, plus getting to a 4th Major final plus winning 3 MS titles and getting to the final of 2 more?

Back in Laver's day they played S/V tennis all the time and there was no need to switch styles to suit the surface. They used wooden rackets and didn't have to deal with returning serves in the 130's and 140's.

CmonAussie
10-10-2006, 04:28 AM
Yes, and furthermore among Fed's 2005 titles there were 4 MS titles. I don't think total number of titles tell the whole story. It should be taken in to account the value of the titles. In othe words low tier titles don't mean as much as a MS titles or Majors.
:wavey:
Prior to 1990 there was no ATP tour:p ~ and there was no TMS tournaments either;) ...So then how do we compare eras of great years:confused:

Everyone knows that most of Federer`s wins are quality wins~ however 2004 & 2006 were both better years than 2005 me thinks:cool: .

1.2006 [AO, Wimby, USO, FO final, 3-AMS, 3-other titles +more?]:worship:
2.2004 [AO, Wimby, USO, TMC, 3-AMS, 4-other titles]:angel:
3.2005 [Wimby, USO, 4-AMS, 5-other titles]:cool:
...
...........That`s how I`m sure he would consider it too;) ~this is his best year, 2004 was brilliant & 2005 was good ~ by his lofty standards:angel: