'Tis the seasons - Stellar Tennis Seasons

First topic message reminder :

Looking at some numbers, since 2011 is done and dusted. Here are some wonderful tennis years (McEnroe being the Open Era benchmark).

Amazing thing about McEnroe's 1984 is the Doubles effort, which does not get a mention as much as it should.

If there is another player's season (perhaps Vilas) then I can research it as well.

Connors - 1974 W/L (How do I modify the poll? )

Singles - 93 (100 - 7 byes) - 6 (Parun - San Francisco, Metreveli - South Orange- USA, Gisbert Sr - Canada, Smith - Nottingham, Amritraj - Washington, Meiler - Omaha-USA)
Doubles - 31 (37 - 6 byes) - 11 (Partners - Segura, Nastase, Gerulaitis, F. McMillan, Charles Owens, Robert Kreiss, Bjorn Borg)


McEnroe - 1984 W/L

Singles - 82 (88 - 6 byes) - 3 (Sundstrom - Clay vs. SWE DC, Amritraj - Cincinnati, Lendl - RG)
Doubles - 41 (45 - 4 byes) - 5 (Partners - Peter Fleming, Patrick Mcenroe(2), Peter Rennert (1))


Federer - 2005 W/L

Singles - 81 ( 83 - 2 byes) - 4 (Nalbandian - TMC, Nadal - RG, Gasquet - MC, Safin - AO)
Doubles - 6 - 2 (Partners - Yves Allegro)


Federer - 2006 W/L

Singles - 92 (96 - 4 byes) - 5 (Murray - Cincinnati, Nadal - RG, Nadal - Rome, Nadal - MC, Nadal - Dubai)
Doubles - 3 - 3 (Partners - Yves Allegro)


Nadal - 2008 W/L

Singles - 82 (93 - 11 byes) - 11 ( Davydenko - Paris, Simon - Madrid, Murray - US Open, Djokovic - Cincinnati, Ferrero - Rome, Davydenko - Miami, Djokovic - IW, Roddick - Dubai, Seppi - Rotterdam, Tsonga - AO, Youzhny - Chennai)

Doubles - 11 - 10 (Partners - Monaco, Moya, Robredo, Mariano Hood, Ferrer, F Lopez)


Djokovic - 2011 W/L

Singles - 72 (80 - 8 byes) - 7 (Tsonga - Paris, Nishikori - Basel, Del Potro - DC, Murray - Cincinnati, Federer - RG, Tipsarevic, Ferrer - WTF)
Doubles - 3 - 5 ( Partners - Tipsarevic, Zimonjic, Murray, Troicki, Marko Djokovic)

sirfredperry wrote:"As I say above, I think your argument is a bit flawed as you consider today's players relatively better than those of 2006."

I think most would reckon the rest of the current top four - Fed, Nadal and Murray - were MUCH better than the top guys with whom Fed was competing in 06. These obviously included a young Rafa who despite his inexperience beat Rog in a number of finals that year.
While Djoko had to get past a far-more-experienced Rafa in a lot of finals this year, Fed managed to chalk up some big wins against the likes of James Blake, Gonzo and Luby. Djoko was 6-0 , I think, against Rafa this year, but Fed, I think, may have been in deficit against Rafa in 06.
Having said all that, I accept that opinions will differ on this. That's the fun of it.

Yes but Seppi is better than Borg and McEnroe, it did not help the italian though. You have been around longer than me to know that many factors make the game evolve without necessarily creating "better" players. Just that they are recently equipped and trained in a way Blake and Ljubo were not. I for instance think that Blake and Ljubo are more talented and better shot makers than Murray and Nadal but they have much less stamina and in the case of Ljubo much less mobility. Would Djoko have been that fit had he learnt his game in the 90s? If anything he was coughing and gasping for air not so long ago. Would Nadal have been that successful without newer string technologies, new training and slower courts? too many parameters to compare players 5 years apart. Nalbandian Ljubo and Blake were simply amongst the best players or 2006, and they were better than those in 2000, which in turn were better than those in 95....etc....It's a very competitive sport out there. And the merit goes to those who speed up that evolution. Federer, McEnroe and Borg did just that more than Djoko or Nadal....by a long stretch.

If Djoko takes off (yet to reach his peak) next year or the year after next, and creates a gap like Federer, Borg and Mc did, then happy to reconsider, but as I said, I am not even convinced his tennis for now is better than Federer's.

I go for McEnroe 1984 because losing only 3 matches is phenomenal. People say he had a lighter ride than the depth of field with today's players, but he played his greatest rival Lendl 7 times beating him 6 times and he swept his erstwhile great rival Connors away. He lost only one match which really counted, the RG Final, his other two losses were really not that significant.

Fed's 2006 was extraordinary, but he suffered 4 significant losses to his main rival, three of which were in important finals, and the other was on a surface favouring him.

Also, the Wimbledon Final 1984 was one of the most destructive major finals I have ever seen - Fed did not produce a performance of that calibre against top-class opposition in any of the big matches in 2006.

It's like comparing Margaux with Lafite (I'd take either!).

barrystar wrote:Also, the Wimbledon Final 1984 was one of the most destructive major finals I have ever seen - Fed did not produce a performance of that calibre against top-class opposition in any of the big matches in 2006.

No but Fed did better a few months earlier in the USO.

Also he started his Wimbledon 06 with a 60...Had the surface favoured talent over physique like it did in 1984, I think he could have scored more impressively than Mc. The problem is that they made SW19, another FO to allow for a better spectacle than Roddick could give to Federer...so no easy win for Fed as soon as they made it easier for the physical players.

Tenez, Fed has had some knock-down wins and I was thinking of his final vs. Hewitt in 2004, but we are looking at 2006 vs. 1984.

I would add one correction - Mac's loss to Sundstrom in the DC final in straight sets on indoor clay was a fairly significant one as it probably made the tie close to unwinnable for the US.

Even so, I still say 1984 just - as you say Tenez, a player can only beat who he's got in front of him.

Of yeah I meant USO 2004.

I remember this match v Sundstrom...it was on clay. Sundstrom would have been deadly with light racquets and new string technology. At the time he was the heaviest top spinner...before Kent Carlsson came on board.

Tenez wrote: As I say above, I think your argument is a bit flawed as you consider today's players relatively better than those of 2006. This is wrong.

Come on Tenez, we cant go around telling people they are flat wrong - this is all about opinions and conjecture. Especially when Ljubicic and Blake have won 0 slams, have got to just 1 slam SF between them and only 4 QF's, plus won just 1 Masters between them. That's not exactly high talent is it. Leaving aside the small matter of Nadal's 10 slams, Nadal and Murray have won 27 Masters, got to many many slam finals, SFs and QFs plus got to 9 WTF finals. And thats not even looking at the difference in ATP titles won which are Bo3 sets. There's simply no comparison IMO.

I wasn't meant to be irrespectuous here. I actually value SFP views a lot. It's just my French.

But I stand by my point. I think the number of slams is irrelevant. Had all courts played like clay in the 90s, Pete may have zero slams today and Bruguerra over 10!

It was not Nadal who was trying to prevent Federer to win slams on other surfaces than clay...it was actually Blake, Nalbandian and Ljubo.

Tenez wrote: Had the surface favoured talent over physique like it did in 1984, I think he could have scored more impressively than Mc.

Federer is a physical player too! Remember the Paganini workouts since 2000 and Federer's desire to be the fittest player on tour and lose no shot-making performance over a 4 hour match. Federer was brought up on slow courts, hence his clay prowess. When the surface at SW19 was faster he lost to Henman and Kafelnikov (indeed he lost alot of fast court matches to Henman)...there's always a counter argument.

I personally agree with barrystar that 1984 was the best season on record given the depth of competition and what he achieved across the whole season. That final against Connors is legendary, one of the best all time displays.

That's why I gave stats beyond slams. However, the number of slams overall is highly relevant because slams are the pinnacle of tennis (the biggest fields over 5 sets each match). Just how else is the talent of a player to be ultimately judged? And in which case shall we just ignore Federer's 16 slams as a point of talent?

Nadal wasnt prime on grass/HC until 2008 at the earliest, he was still evolving his game (to his credit)...thats not a valid comparison. We know what happened after then - do you think Federer would have beaten Nadal in this years USO final had he got past Nole? I dont.

Barry,

What about the Rome 2006 final.

That was an epic by all measures.

Five long and brutal sets, over five hours.

Fed had match points but lost out to rafa in the end.

I think the quality of that match exceeds W'08 and AUS'09.

Agree that was a fantastic match emancipator, loved every minute of it. And is always the foil to Federer physically folding in long matches. Federer is one of the best athletes to have ever come along in tennis - his fitness coach Paganini also says so! Let's not forget Paganini employs similar fitness routines with Wawrinka but look at the difference - Federer is a natural athlete with huge stamina and fitness reserves make no mistake.

You keep saying that Federer is a physical player. But that's "flat wrong". A physical player is a player who relies on his superior physique to win. Certainly not the case of Federer. His physique is good enough to allow him not to lose about it...his weapon is not his physique but his talent.

You say Nadal adapted his game to the other surfaces. I maintain, it;s the other surfaces and conds which adapted to Nadal's game. A big difference. The bigger balls provide Nadal with more time to inject his spin. The fact is on faster surfaces, which are still pretty slow, he is still beaten by lower ranked players like in Cincy or Shanghai.

Yes I agree that Federer woudl have struggled at the USO this year and more likely than not may have lost...Or certainly what I thought at the time...but I think Federer on the day is still better than Nadal and had he been on a day like he was last week, I woudl still fancy his chance actually.

Tenez, there you go telling people they're wrong again!
IMO Federer plays ~90% of his matches from the baseline. So he ralleys mainly to win points (besides service winners). This makes him a physical player because he moves the ball around until he can play a winner - which are themselves very physical shots - hitting winners >90mph isnt just about timing, they need and energy and strength too - try it! And Federer will do that for hours if needed.

Ok, Nadal plays slightly longer ralleys but its still essentially a baseline game at the end of the day. We're not talking about the difference between Edberg and Nadal here. Indeed, you yourself said Nadal likes to only play 10-20 shot ralleys (not really long points) before pulling the winner. And when he's on form he is a very attacking baseliner - you dont win 10 slams by being just a counter-puncher (as Murray's tally of 0 has shown - he's just not aggressive enough at the business end of slams). So my point is that all these modern players (post early 2000s) are physical players because they all play from the baseline predominantly...and as I said Federer was raised on clay where fitness/stamina is a major issue.

To indicate that Nadal hasnt adapted his game over time is not really fair to the guy...his allround game has improved out of sight from the clay rookie who appeared on tour in 03/04 (when surfaces were already alot slower). No-one is saying Nadal is an adept fast court player - even Toni says that - but he has adapted none the less to a position where he's a force on every surface - infact he's won Queens which is very fast! (beating Karlovic en-route!). I just think you should give the guy more credit rather than saying everything is moving around him...the fact he's highly talented shouldnt really be a discussion point. At this level its all about talent and stamina...all the very top multi-slam players have that.

lydian wrote:Tenez, there you go telling people they're wrong again!
IMO Federer plays ~90% of his matches from the baseline. So he ralleys mainly to win points (besides service winners). This makes him a physical player because he moves the ball around until he can play a winner - which are themselves very physical shots - hitting winners >90mph isnt just about timing, they need and energy and strength too - try it! And Federer will do that for hours if needed.

Ok, Nadal plays slightly longer ralleys but its still essentially a baseline game at the end of the day. We're not talking about the difference between Edberg and Nadal here. Indeed, you yourself said Nadal likes to play 10-20 shot ralleys (not overly long points) before pulling the winner. And when he's on form he is a very attacking baseliner - you dont win 10 slams by being just a counter-puncher (as Murray's tally of 0 has shown - he's just not aggressive enough at the business end of slams).

To indicate that Nadal hasnt adapted his game over time is not really fair to the guy...his allround game has improved out of sight from the clay rookie who appeared on tour in 03/04 (when surfaces were already alot slower). No-one is saying Nadal is an adept fast court player - even Toni says that - but he has adapted none the less to a position where he's a force on every surface - infact he's won Queens which is pretty fast! (beating Karlovic en-route!). I just think you should give the guy more credit rather than saying everything is moving around him...the fact he's highly talented shouldnt really be a discussion point. At this level its all about talent and stamina...all the very top multi-slam players have that.

It's a shame we cannot have a serious discussion cause you do not want to recognise the huge gap there is physically and talent wise between Federer and Nadal. That simple fact will lead to endless arguments if you do not want to acknowledge it.

As a clue, just read Nadal's interview posted by BB's new article. Nadal is 25 and is a spent force physically and mentally. Federer is 30 and going strong. Those are the facts.

emancipator wrote:Barry,

What about the Rome 2006 final.

That was an epic by all measures.

Five long and brutal sets, over five hours.

Fed had match points but lost out to rafa in the end.

I think the quality of that match exceeds W'08 and AUS'09.

I missed it sadly, so I have to say that I thought Aus Open 2009 was the best I saw between them (at least in the first 4 sets).

I am not going to disagree with you, but our points are a bit different. I am saying that Fed did not thrash his opponent in a major final in 2006 like the 1984 Wimbledon Final.

I do agree with you that one of the joys of Fed's career is that there are plenty of epic matches - plenty of which he lost as well as won. Fans of his can celebrate brilliance with a touch of fallibilty at times, how boring if there was none of that.

Tenez wrote: It's a shame we cannot have a serious discussion cause you do not want to recognise the huge gap there is physically and talent wise between Federer and Nadal. That simple fact will lead to endless arguments if you do not want to acknowledge it.

As a clue, just read Nadal's interview posted by BB's new article. Nadal is 25 and is a spent force physically and mentally. Federer is 30 and going strong. Those are the facts.

Tenez, its funny really because I could say exactly the same words....except change the "huge gap" to "narrow gap" because talent can be - and should be - defined in so many ways. Thats where we fundamentally differ and will never agree. You saying this will lead to endless arguments is your viewpoint, and you're telling me I should change my position so we dont argue (and I'm not arguing BTW). That seems a rather unilateral position to take to me.

I just replied to the BBC comments which are actually old news...there is alot going on in Nadal's head which he needs to clear, and he will as he's mentally strong. I dont remember you making all these "going strong" comments about Federer when he was breaking racquets in 2009, losing to loads of different players and shanking balls all over place. Players do go through doldrums as their careers progress you know, not every season can be stellar...even for Federer! At times on here it feels like there's a certain amount of glee in seeing Nadal break down and struggle...

Huge or narrow, it comes down to our respective glasses. The fact is there is a gap. That gap is reflected by about 200 weeks at number 1, 6 GSs, 6 Masters, and if anything that gap could stretch despite federer being 30 and Nadal only 25.

Call it narrow but I honestly think that despite you being a fan of Nadal, you don't quite understand what's his main strengh is and are still heavily underestimating the physical side of Nadal's game.

Oh come on Tenez please dont patronise me about not knowing the attributes of Nadal's and Federer's games. Of course I know Nadal is gifted physically but its not just that. It cant be. You seem to hang everything about Nadal on his lungs and biceps and nothing else. You always have done. Similarly, you fail to recognise the physical stamina that Federer has and that talent can be defined in so many different ways.

Besdies which, we are almost arguing semantics here because that "gap" you mention could have been eveb narrower had Djokovic not had the amazing season he had, or if this type of Djokovic had been around when Federer was amassing slams...or if the WTF was held on indoor clay not indoor hard - why shouldnt it be sometimes? That surface benefits those who like fast courts even though people can arrive at WTF mainly having exelled on outdoor courts of different varieties. Federer has had an amazing career, his talent is unquestioned...but yet a guy who's won 10 slams and 19 TMS (still an amazing level of achievement right?), with many records is questioned. I dont get it.

When you look at the bigger picture, and examine Federer and Nadal together, the gap between them is so much smaller than the gap between them and most of the ATP Tour beneath them. You seem to always choose to focus on the rose-tinted aspects for Federer and the negatives for Nadal - you give the guy 0 credit for any tennis ability only that he's some type of ogre who wields a racquet like a caveman does a club. Thats why we never agree - you only seem to see issues with Nadal as black and white but opinions and judgements nearly always concern shades of grey. That's what I always find frustrating with your opinions, and thats all they are at the end of the day.

lydian wrote: Of course I know Nadal is gifted physically but its not just that but you seem to hang everything about Nadal on his lungs and biceps and nothing else. You always have done.

How do you know it's "gifted" and not acquired through hard training or else?

Besdies which, we are almost arguing semantics here because that "gap" you mention could have been eveb narrower had Djokovic not had the amazing season he had, or if this type of Djokovic had been around when Federer was amassing slams...

We can argue that had Djoko not been around, Federer may have added another 2 slams this year and increased the gap.

But when you look at Federer and Nadal together, the gap between them is so much smaller than the gap between them and most of the ATP Tour beneath them. You seem to always choose to focus on the rose-tinted aspects for Federer and the negatives for Nadal - you give the guy 0 credit for any tennis ability only that he's some type of ogre who wields a racquet like a caveman does a club - thats why we never agree.

But that's not what we were arguing. I say teh gap in physique and talent is huge...but that is actually what made them so close over the years. Don;t you think Federer was not tired in London? He is 30 and had played 12 matches in the last 22 days, but his talent made the difference....in a big way cause Nadal was physically down like Fed...certainly not as tired Fed though.

Nadal and Federer are both gifted...physically and talent-wise. But they also work hard to enhance that. You cant make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Nadal was beating guys much older than him from a young age on clay...that took a degree of innate physical ability. The way he responded back at AO09 from 5 hrs with Verdasco to 4+hrs with Federer was also physically gifted when Verdasco could barely walk on the Sunday. Many people say he's physically blessed with talent. But its not just that which makes him successful. He can play a little tennis too you know...

Personally I dont think Federer would have beaten Nadal at Wimb or USO buts thats my opinion...and Federer's form didnt lift until late in the season - and then the other top4 were eseentially going AWOL. So had Djokovic not been around in the summer I think Nadal would have been the beneficiary.

You keep saying the mysterious, whatever it is, talent gap is huge...I simply dont agree because I dont agree with what you define as talent. Federer is a marvellous shot-maker and plays with a graceful style but Nadal is also an awesome shot-maker when on form (which he wasnt post-USO), he just plays with a more physical style. Yes Federer was tired at WTF but thats not the discussion point. By WTF Nadal was at a very low point and came in with injuries of his own (shoulder - hence the poor serving). You see I'm not arguing that Nadal is more talented overall (again however we define that) than Federer whereas you seem to imply I am. My issue is that you give the guy 0 credit for his actual tennis ability...not one iota and that seems rather short-sighted to me. So how can I ever agree with that viewpoint? Why should I?

So, as usual these drawn out discussions get us nowhere because our viewpoints are not reconcilable. And because I, and the forum, dont want a Fedal debate all day long, as Peter Jones would say in Dragons Den "And with that I'm out!".

sirfredperry wrote:These obviously included a young Rafa who despite his inexperience beat Rog in a number of finals that year.

Nadal won Dubai, MC, Rome, RG while Federer won W and TMC when they played. Rome seems to overshadow MC, but MC (played Bo5) was important as well. Two TB sets split between the two of them 6-2, 6-7(2), 6-3, 7-6(5).

MC was a pretty close preview of what was to come at Rome.

L'fan. Ta for the details of those 06 finals. Amazing, really, that Rafa did so well so young. Praps that's why he's so tired now. Some play their best tennis in their late 20s may be because they've burst on the scene later rather than earlier.
Of the teenage top tenners, some fell by the wayside or had off times (Agassi). With the sheer physicality of it all now, I wonder if we're actually gonna get ANY teenage top tenners in the near future.

I have hopes for Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic, Harrison.

Dolgopolov is not a teenager, but a joy to watch, showing perhaps a bit of a bias there. Del Potro is another gentle giant that I enjoy watching play.

Indeed LF, some great battles that year.
I agree with barrystar its hard for the youngsters to break through as early now as yesteryear due to the increased strength/stamina they need as a base level to last an event and the tour as a whole. I suspect we wont see players breaking through in areas such as top 20 much until they're 22-23 at the earliest. Nadal has been playing at a high level for getting on for 6-7 years now since he became #2 in the rankings...so he's been around for a while and at some point he's bound to have a dip, not just due to injury as such but a mental dip. I think this is a mental one and he's probably going through that transitional phase to the next part of his career where he learns to think for himself more (rather than being led by Toni) so I'm sure we'll see him bounce back.

sirfredperry wrote:.............
....................................................................................................
With the sheer physicality of it all now, I wonder if we're actually gonna get ANY teenage top tenners in the near future.

Good point, certainly no sign of it right now or in forseeable future

Not sure quite how the current top 20 would compare to previous generations age-wise, but it does seem a much older group overall

- three guys are already into their 30's

- only three are under 25

- and of course nobody even close to a teenager ......

I think Medvedev was a teenage top tenner and the guy I couldn't think of yesterday but have dredged up today was, of course, Enqvist. But neither really kicked on, although Medvedev, but for the rain, might have won RG in 99.
I think now it's an achievement to be a teenage TOP 100 guy and there aren't many, even, of them. Interesting what Rafa said in his book about Rog's body being about the only one capable of playing on relatively free of injury.
The fact is that Rafa's teenage and early-20s body was about the only one capable of playing so hard at SUCH A YOUNG AGE. Trouble is, he's not found a way to kick on to a kinda Rafa Body II (the Movie) stage.

Was just having a second read of this thread.

Some seriously impressive stats production by LF !

(we're gonna have to set you a proper challenge one day .... )