Second Greatest individual year in tennis?

Greetings, brethren, and ummm, sistren(?). My original thread was going to ask what was the single greatest year in the Open Era (males), but I had completely forgotten that Rod Laver had won the Calender GS in 1969. So, a bit like the PGA in Tiger Woods pomp, every other player has to compete for second.

As a Nadal fan, I would put his 2010 second. But I am naturally biased. That said though, it was a phenomenal year. He became the first player since Laver to win three consecutive Slams in a year, and the only one to win a Slam on three seperate surfaces.

My natural bias does not, however, blind me to the fact that there have been other great years in mens tennis. Djokovic had a storybook 2011, winning three slams himself, but also winning a tour record five Masters Series in a year, as well as beating El Rey del Clay TWICE, on clay, in straight sets.

Roger Federers 2006 was another golden individual year. Eleven titles, three Grand Slams. 92-5. Failed to reach only one final. Lost to exactly TWO players all year (Andy Murray & Nadal). While writing this I'm beginning to reconsider my choice. Federer ftw.

The other consideration is John McEnroe's 1984. He won 13 titles that year, including two Slams (he didnt enter AO that year.) but he only entered two clay titles that year, residue from the fact that the tour used to have two factions -the clay tour, and everyone else.

Thoughts, the greatest year in tennis? Nadal, Djokovic, Federer, McEnroe, or have I carelessly omitted a superior calender year?

Djokovic because he had to beat Federer and Nadal, then Federer 2006- the sheer consistency of his genius was unfathonable that year, then McEnroe for similiar reasoning, then sorry- Nadal - that year he was completely dominant from Monte Carlo through US Open- but the rest of the year was avg.. He didn't win a tourny until Monte Carlo and only Toyko after US Open.. it just didn't have the sheer start to finish domination the others did..

Connors 1974 is often overlooked. 15 tournament wins, including all 3 GS that he entered. 93-6 for the year, 2 of the losses were withdrawals.

Ooh. Julian, that is careless from me I knew I omitted a Connors year, but couldnt for the life of me remember which year it was, and pride wouldnt let me look it up.

For me, it's between Fed 06 and Djokovic 11.

For the raw statistics, Fed takes it.

But the fact Novak won the first 41 matches of 2011 adds some serious weight to that year in my opinion.

Fed was one result better in the slams, Novak won one more Masters.

I can't really split them.

Rafa's 2010 had 10 defeats which I'd say puts it slightly behind the other two.

McEnroe's 84 was amazing too but I think the fact he only played 3 slams and included a pretty big blow out v Lendl in RG counts against it.

Really though, not a great deal between them. Four remarkable seasons.

Djokovic 3 slams, 5 masters and his utter dominance of Nadal who in his own right is a dominant force to be reckoned with in 2011 as well. 66-2 till he injured his back at the US open and after the injury he simply wasn't the same for the last two month of the season. But the first 10 months of it he was absolutely untouchable.

Rafa's is a bit below.

The others are at a similar level. With Connors winning 3/3 slams entered instead of 3/4 I'd be tempted to put Connors ahead. With Mcenroe winning 2/3 perhaps slightly behind.

By the way, I checked once and I vaguely recall that Laver lost something like 18 matches in 1969! It's also worth noting that he had to come from behind or win 5 set matches in slams several times. More of a golden year in a magical sense rather than absolute dominance. So, in a sense, you could even argue that even his is not necessarily clearer superior to those of Mcenroe, Federer, Connors etc.

Although I would vote/rank

#1 Laver
#2 Connors
#3 Djokovic
#4 Federer
#5 Nadal

EDIT: I seem to have missed out Mcenroe here. I meant to put Mcenroe #5 and Nadal #6 I think.

Djokovic and Federer's years were statistically similar but Djokovic had the toughest competition (oh dear I appear to have droppped a can of worms all over the floor).

Greatness should be measured by quality not just numbers otherwise this question could be answered using a calculator. Also if I'm to be the judge I can only judge what I've witnessed so I'm unable to include pre-history or the boring Sampras years. Zzzzz...

I would have to go with Nadal's 2008. He played some of the most impressive and dominant tennis I've ever seen to win RG. As a little sideline found himself somehow in the final of Queens with something to prove against Djokovic. Then played together with Federer what is generally considered the best match ever to win Wimbledon.

Henman Bill. Djokovic's slam final opposition in 2011 consisted of Murray who only won 7 games at the AO and a shell shocked Nadal who handed him Wimbledon and the US Open on a plate. So I presume by tough opposition you are talking about earlier rounds of the slams or other competitions? Ironically the best match I saw Djokovic play in 2011 (in terms of quality) was that amazing semi at the FO against Federer that he lost.

Between Federer and Djokovic for me.

Only losing to 2 players in a season is quite amazing, but I'd probably edge it to Novak for the streak. Rafa's season was amazing, but I'd put him behind the Novak and Roger.

I'm not long enough in the tooth to judge Conners or Mac's season.

Its all subjective. Nadal may have lost 10 matches that year, but like I said, no one post Laver has ever won three consecutive Slams in a calender year. That for me, puts it above. Connors year is an interesting one. The tour(s) at that time was wonerfully fractured at the time. A little like boxing right now, there were a few alphabet soup federations. So its difficult to quite quantify it, but three slams out of three is special, as is a record of 95-4, I think.

Can't really split many of them on the stats, but I'm inclined to say Connors or Mac, if only because it seems that this sort of year was a rarer beast in the days of yore! Three miraculous years since 2006, only three others from the preceding five decades - that has to mean something.

Out of the modern ones, Nadal's is also bolstered by the fact that he achieved the career slam that year, and Novak's streak was hugely impressive, particularly the way that he handled Nadal up to RG. I would still go with Federer though, almost unstoppable in 2006 and his level of play was obscene on every surface. I've not seen brilliance and consistency melded together in such a manner since, with respect to the other players.

hawkeye wrote:Henman Bill. Djokovic's slam final opposition in 2011 consisted of Murray who only won 7 games at the AO and a shell shocked Nadal who handed him Wimbledon and the US Open on a plate. So I presume by tough opposition you are talking about earlier rounds of the slams or other competitions? Ironically the best match I saw Djokovic play in 2011 (in terms of quality) was that amazing semi at the FO against Federer that he lost.

Perfectly said , alsoe good points regarding Rod Laver's year.

Its really difficult to judge which is the best 2 years

Mac's , Fed's 2004, 2006 n 2007, Djoko's 2011, Nadal's 2008 and 2010 and great Connor's year like JHM mentioned all more or less fall equal to me, in the end it boils down to one's favorite super star.

Nadal's 2008 is a bit under valued and 2010 a bit over valued, in 2008 he was close to untouchable on most matches, even on Wimbledon he was utter scary the first 2 set and no idea how Fed came back in that match, compared to that in 2010 Nadal had no real tough matches barring AO 2010 which was again gifted by Fed without much of a fight.

I will omit the (males) part and consider Graf's 1988.

In McEnroe's case what after 1984?

Connors was unlucky with his French issues in 1974.

hawkeye wrote:Henman Bill. Djokovic's slam final opposition in 2011 consisted of Murray who only won 7 games at the AO and a shell shocked Nadal who handed him Wimbledon and the US Open on a plate.

Why exactly was Rafa "shell shocked"?

Two of Novak's slam wins included Federer in the semis.

It's strange though. You are forever fawning over Federer and Nadal's brilliance but when a player goes 6-0 against Rafa and 4-1 against Federer, suddenly they are not so great.

Djokovic going 6-0 against Rafa was amazing, considering that prior to that, no one had beaten Rafa four times in a row.

I'll give the man his dues. 2011 was amazing, but I rank it behind Connors.

Actually I would say that is the best i have ever seen nadal play HE, but djoko was just way too good and he wasn't even trying.

LuvSports- Not sure I agree with that assertion, mate. Nadal said AO was the best he played during that 0-7 run. But personally I think the best Nadal played was RG 10 and USO10. He only had one set that went to tie-breaker the entire RG10, I think 25 out of 28 sets didnt go past 10 games.
USO10 was a tour de force, dropped serve five times out of 111. Dropped one serve and basically ran through the tournament.

He was a bit better than people would like to think (five MS finals, three Slam finals), but he didnt produce his best two week run in any slam. He got taken to five sets by Isner of all people, in RG that year. I think Djokovic winning those two clay matches put some serious doubts in Nadals mind.

The incredible thing about RF 06 and JC 74 is the number of matches.

Novak's season only featured 76 matches, Rafa's 81 and Mac's 85.

Federer though had 97 matches and Connors 99! That's the equivalent of 3 or 4 more tournaments!

Amazing really.

kingraf wrote:LuvSports- Not sure I agree with that assertion, mate. Nadal said AO was the best he played during that 0-7 run. But personally I think the best Nadal played was RG 10 and USO10. He only had one set that went to tie-breaker the entire RG10, I think 25 out of 28 sets didnt go past 10 games.
USO10 was a tour de force, dropped serve five times out of 111. Dropped one serve and basically ran through the tournament.

He was a bit better than people would like to think (five MS finals, three Slam finals), but he didnt produce his best two week run in any slam. He got taken to five sets by Isner of all people, in RG that year. I think Djokovic winning those two clay matches put some serious doubts in Nadals mind.

I don't agree with it at all kingraf, none of it is true, but when hawkeye says ridiculous things like that i try to respond with equal or even more ridiculousness
Rafa has played many a final/year better than '11.

LuvSports- Dont go there. I refuse my thread to go off on the tangents yours do. Even HM is on topic!!

The best seasons talk is so mch better than a best ever player discussion in my opinion, great thread and some really good posts

Good shout LF for Graf' 88. Steffi beat Chris Evert in the final in Australia (not losing a set there). She beat Zverava at the French 6-0, 6-0 in 32 minutes (I'd have asked for a partial refund of my ticket). She came back from behind to beat Navratilova at Wimbledon - this was when Navratilova "owned" Wimbledon. She then beat Gabriella Sabatini in both the US Open and the Seoul Olympic Gold final.

This of course tends to be an Open Era discussion....'Best Ever' tends to mean 'Best in Open Era'. If we look back before that there are some interesting periods too when the game was 'amateur'.

Bill Tilden won what was then called the U.S. National Men's Singles Championships six times in a row, won Wimbledon the two times he played there in his prime, led the United States to seven straight Davis Cup victories and supposedly won 98 straight matches in 1924 and '25. They say he was so much better than his opponents, he would tank sets just to keep the crowd interested.

Don Budge won Wimbledon and the U.S. singles in 1937 and also beat Gottfried Van Cramm in a five-set Davis Cup match that some tennis historians insist is the greatest match ever played. He won the grand slam in 1938 - didn't lose a set at Wimbledon, and lost just four games in the final. Fred Perry always said that Budge was the perfect player. It's hard to imagine a tennis year better than Budge's in '37 or '38. But …hey, alas they're just a bunch of amateurs!

Others have mentioned Connors' remarkable 1974 season where he went 99-4, winning 15 tournaments and all three grand slams he entered (the French Open did not allow him to compete because he played in World Team Tennis). Cruel. Many tennis people suggest this isn't comparable to the game today. Why not? Well, the surfaces were different. The equipment was different. And, most of all they say, the level of competition was different. Fields are so much deeper today. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps from 1974 is when discussions about "best ever" can only begin?

Bjorn Borg won the French Open-Wimbledon double three years in a row - from 1978-80 - and that's probably the toughest challenge in tennis. Borg was the only player to do it from Laver's grand slam all the way to Nadal and Federer in 2008, 2009. Djokovic, as remarkable a year as he had, did not do it. Borg did it THREE TIMES IN A ROW. But again, there's the depth of competition question, though its true that Borg in his amazing three-year Wimbledon-French double run did beat the greats of Guillermo Vilas, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe along the way.

John McEnroe's 1984 season seems to be the one that many considered the best until Djokovic. McEnroe went 84-3 and won two grand slam titles. It was a ridiculously great season. His win over Jimmy Connors at Wimbledon was absurd domination. He won 6-1, 6-1, 6-2. Shouldnt best ever seasons include some total annihilation of opponents in finals? He then went to the French Open and dominated there losing just one set all the way to the Final, where he had Ivan Lendl down two sets and a break. That's when Lendl, who had a reputation for choking when things weren't going well, made his stand, broke back, won the third set and eventually beat a shattered McEnroe in five. McEnroe got his revenge though, he destroyed Lendl in the final of the U.S. Open. In all, McEnroe won 13 tournaments and lost just three matches all year. But the thing is, McEnroe himself thinks Djokovic's year is better. And he should know. The competition's better, he says. The game is better. The athletes are better. All that. That's certainly true. But I wonder if McEnroe is also be underselling his own dominance. He does tend to talk hyperbole at times.

What about Mats Wilander's 1988 when he won three grand slams and along the way beat Stefan Edberg, Andre Agassi (twice), Jimmy Connors, Ivan Lendl and also Frenchman Henri Leconte in the French Open Final?

What about Ivan Lendl from 1985-87, when he won 26 times, won the French Open twice, the U.S. Open three times and twice was a finalist at Wimbledon despite his well-known dislike of grass? Was there a great year in there somewhere? What about Pete Sampras in 1993 and 1994 when he pretty much dominated everywhere except on the clay in Paris? What about Agassi's 1999-2000 run, when he reached four straight finals, and won the U.S. Open and French Open in five sets?

Then we have the recent past. 3 times in his career, Roger Federer has won 3 grand slam events in the same year. In 2006, 2007 and 2009 he reached the final of all four majors, something that Djokovic did not quite do in 2011 - ironically because of Federer who beat him at the French. In 2006, Federer's only losses were to Rafael Nadal on clay and Andy Murray in Cincinnati. He only lost one set at Wimbledon (to Nadal in the Final) and two sets at the U.S. Open, one of those in a tiebreaker.

But...but...but...like Djokovic's 2011, which was truly amazing - won three of the four slams (only 6th man in Open Era to do that), 5 Masters with a 42 match streak and dominated a strong field - the only thing I would say is that for any season to be considered truly phenomenal then surely within that season you've got to be winning the toughest challenge there is in tennis as mentioned above - the same year French Open & Wimbledon double.

It's such a difficult task - grass and clay are so different and still are plus there's so little time to adjust between clay and grass seasons. Only a few have ever managed to win the RG/Wimb double in the same season which just shows what a challenge it is. Infact for me its the ultimate challenge (within the tennis holy grail of winning all 4 in a row from Jan to Dec). Even during his amazing 2011 Novak couldn't quite pull that one off. That cuts the list down to Laver '69, Borg '78-80, Federer '09 and Nadal '08 & '10.

From those I choose Nadal's 2008. What a year. He played Federer 4 times that year, winning all 4, destroying him in the French (Federer's first bagel since 1999) and then winning what many consider the greatest match of all at Wimbledon a fortnight later - consider that Federer had got to the final without dropping a set only to go immediately 2 down. However, between winning RG and Wimbledon Nadal also won ultra-quick Queens too! Something the other RG-Wimb double winners didn't achieve. After Wimbledon he extended his run to 32 unbeaten matches by winning the Rogers Cup Masters in Canada. That amazing run saw Federer's 5 consecutive years winning Wimbledon, 65 unbeaten matches on grass pls 4 and half year run at #1 all ended. Many argue 2008 would have also included the 'Clay slam' but for blisters vs Ferrero at Rome where he was 3 time defending champion. However, he won Monte Carlo and Hamburg - both beating Federer in the finals. After winning the Rogers Cup he then went on to win the Olympic Gold in Beijing beating AO champion Djokovic along the way.

So, Nadal's 2008 season stands out for me amongst many glittering tennis seasons and notwithstanding how good Novak's 2011 was.

I wish I had been paying attention during Federer's great 2006 but I still thought Mens tennis was suffering from the Sampras effect. It contains so many matches I wish I could go back in time to watch. Back in those days masters finals where over 5 sets also making them just that little bit more tricky. These are a few of the matches I sadly missed.

Federer was runner up to Nadal in Dubai 6-2, 4-6, 4-6

Federer beat Ljubicic in final of Miami 7-6, 7-6, 7-6 (Just for the score)

Federer was runner up to Nadal in Monte Carlo 2-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-7

Federer was runner up to Nadal in Rome 7-6, 6-7, 4-6, 6-2, 6-7 (I can't believe I didn't know that was going on. sigh...)

Federer was runner up to Nadal at the FO 6-1, 1-6, 4-6, 6-7

I watched Wimbledon that year and from then on was well aware that the boring Sampras era had well and truly ended. I knew Federer was good before that but the 2006 Wimbledon final was the first time I saw he had a rival.

lydian. Just saw your last post. Yes 2008 was packed with glittering tennis. That amazing Wimbledon final was also capped with one of my favorite non tennis tennis moments. When arguably the best tennis match ends what celebration can do it justice? Well you climb on the roof as darkness descends surrounded by cameras flashing like fireworks. Could a Hollywood script writer come up with a better final scene? No way. That match arguably transcends the sport and deserves to be on the list as one of the best sporting events. So of course 2008 was special.

sorry kingraf
wont happen again

^ It's me you should say sorry to not kingraf

The thing that lets Rafa's 2008 down for me is that, either side of those remarkable RG and W performances, were semi finals in the other slams.

I can't call 2008 the greatest year when Rafa didn't even make the final on the two hard court slams.

It also included 11 defeats.

I see 2008 as a season of great moments rather than an entire season of excellence.

All is forgiven mate.

Back on topic:

I will only go by what I have seen so for me it goes 1) novak '11 (for me the slams, masters and record over the big 4 was just unreal and it was unexpected) (2) feds '06 (3) nadal '10

HM Murdoch wrote:The thing that lets Rafa's 2008 down for me is that, either side of those remarkable RG and W performances, were semi finals in the other slams.

I can't call 2008 the greatest year when Rafa didn't even make the final on the two hard court slams.

It also included 11 defeats.

I see 2008 as a season of great moments rather than an entire season of excellence.

IMO it depends just how great the great moments are. Both Nadal and Federer could have spent the rest of the year with their feet up and sitting in comfy chairs after producing the Wimbledon 2008 final and I doubt many would have noticed. 2008 was defined as a great year for tennis because of that. It made people who don't even follow tennis sit up and notice. That's how high it measured on the greatness scale. Many who judged it as great would have no idea who won the hard court slams that year.

But Nadal didn't sit on a comfy chair straight away after that he went on to win the Olympics in China completely wrecking his chances at the US Open. Sadly after that he was in need of a good sit down.

(It's a shame Nadal wasted his energy winning the gold medal back then because back in 2008 an Olympic gold medal didn't carry much weight. If he had only waited until 2012 to do so (cough) some would have included it in his slam tally)

HM Murdoch wrote:The incredible thing about RF 06 and JC 74 is the number of matches.

Novak's season only featured 76 matches, Rafa's 81 and Mac's 85.

Federer though had 97 matches and Connors 99! That's the equivalent of 3 or 4 more tournaments!

Amazing really.

I had done an article on another forum ( ) a while back...


Guillermo Vilas 1977 W/L - Monsterous season.

Singles - 130 - 16 (Dibbs, Borg - NY Masters, Nastase - Aix En Provence, Billy Martin - W, Ross Case - Queens, Tim Gullikson - Nottingham, Franulovic - Rome, Mottram - Hamburg, Borg - MC, Nice, Johannesburg, Mark Cox - Memphis, Gottfried - Palm Springs, Baltimore, Bob Lutz - Ocean City, Tanner - AO)

Doubles - 38 (40 - 2 byes) - 16 (Partners - Tiriac, Ricardo Cano, Lito Alvarez, Borg)

Hand-counted these. 199 matches (Singles and Doubles 130 + 15 + 38 + 16).

Raw data is available here (if anyone wants to validate my statistics - www.itftennis.com/mens/players/activity.asp?player=10001449 for the period of 1 Jan 1977 - 31 Dec 1977)


On McEnroe's 1984, I have also noted his doubles contributions...

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))

The part is that Laver played doubles, but Fedalovic very rarely do, except perhaps DC or Olympics.

I think Alice Marble circa 1939-40, with a W/L of 84-0 (IIRC) should also be mentioned. (need to check my trusty Bud Collins for exact details).

Martina once went 86-1, as well.

Laverfan, that is a great point about doubles.

Even allowing for the fact that the game perhaps wasn't quite as physical back then, those are absolutely monstrous figures from Vilas and McEnroe.

Like I said, its very difficult to quantify past successes due to the fact that there were many hands in the pro tennis pie. The Connors year is made a little easier by the fact that he won three Slams out of three. Vilas, on the other hand, well he did win two Slams... I gather that he must have played WCT judging by the tournaments he won. WCT in terms of quality varied by year, but generally it was somewhere between a Slam and a MS1000. But he was never ranked number 1 that (Apparently he would have been ranked number one by today system but you cant use todays system to to quantify his year, as he had to play according to his generations rules)

@HM...

@KingRaf... Regarding Vilas, he had quite a bit on Clay here. He only had 2 WCTs, one in your corner Jo'burg and another MC.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Vi/G/Guillermo-Vilas.aspx?t=pa&y=1977&m=s&e=0#

I do agree the tour was different than what it is now.

Is that to say he only entered two WCT's, LF, or did he play the whole circuit?

kingraf wrote:Ooh. Julian, that is careless from me I knew I omitted a Connors year, but couldnt for the life of me remember which year it was, and pride wouldnt let me look it up.

There's nothing wrong with needing Google to find things out my friend. At nearly 51, I need that to merely cross the road

It has to be Novak in 2011

Whislt I'd much prefer to back my faves, Connors and Mac, they didn't have the intensity of oppostion (particularly Jimbo) that here was in 2011

I actually forgot that Fed stat and think it's more a reflection of the fact that his normal peers (at the time) were totally pyshced out by him, as I think he was better in 2005. It's significant that Nadal and Murray were the ones, two guys naively oblivous to his reputation - but it also shows that Fed wasn't pushed as much as he should have been.

Nole's 2011 was remarkable - mainly because Nadal was so awesome in 2010 add the other two who were ready to seize on any under-performance and it has to be seen as the best

BanBrotam- I dont even use Google when I'm lost, unless its a particularly dodgy area. I just like that feeling of getting it done myself.

I dont know, quite a few players have won the AO-W-USO triple. McEnroe probably would have done it had he wanted to play tennis in Christmas. Traditionally, everyone plays RG-W-USO. I have no problem with people picking the Djoker, its just my right to respectfully disagree.
for me:
Fed 2006
Connors '74
Nadal '10
Djokovic '11
McEnore '84

But it is razor-close between one and five, Mac is probably only a set (RG final) from jumping all the way to one in my opinion.

Mac in 84' would be the standout - if his fitness had held in that notorious French final

But it didn't, i.e. we could argue he failed his one tough test

true, but you could also argue, that Djokovic won his facing a guy who was 0-3 in slams, and then a guy who for a short period had a "Roddick complex" (0-7).

kingraf wrote:true, but you could also argue, that Djokovic won his facing a guy who was 0-3 in slams, and then a guy who for a short period had a "Roddick complex" (0-7).

Apart from Vince Spadea and Donald Young, this one comes to mind about the 'Roddick Complex'.

https://www.606v2.com/t15936-will-nadal-break-brian-gottfried-s-record

kingraf wrote:true, but you could also argue, that Djokovic won his facing a guy who was 0-3 in slams, and then a guy who for a short period had a "Roddick complex" (0-7).

That would be making the mistake of only looking at the finals.

You have to bear in mind that two SFs were against Federer. He was actually 4-1 v Federer in 2011.

The 'Roddick Complex' is a bit of a circular argument too. Why does the number 1 and dominant player of 2010, viewed by many the toughest player mentally, suddenly get a complex? It's not something you catch like a cold. He got it because he couldn't find a way to beat Novak.

So to use this as an argument against Novak is a bit harsh. It's basically saying that because he played so well that he got in a brilliant player's head, it doesn't count as much because his play was so good he got in the player's head.

Would it count more if he lost a couple and didn't get in Rafa's head?

HM- I think you misunderstand me a little, I am not belittling Nole's 2011. My comment was in reply to BanBrotam's. I was merely illustrating, tha you could find unimpressive undertones in any record you look for.

Michael Schumacher had the best car
Pele mainly played exho level football (kinda true)
Bolt is lucky because he is 6'5

kingraf wrote:HM- I think you misunderstand me a little, I am not belittling Nole's 2011. My comment was in reply to BanBrotam's. I was merely illustrating, tha you could find unimpressive undertones in any record you look for.

Michael Schumacher had the best car
Pele mainly played exho level football (kinda true)
Bolt is lucky because he is 6'5

Ah, I see.

The big mark against Novak's 2011 is that, post USO, he really limped into port. Part of this was injury but I think a large factor is that the season had taken its toll. I think he just ran out of mental and emotional energy and couldn't get himself up for the last 2 or 3 tournaments.

I'm really not sure to what extent injury (as opposed to basic fatigue/exhaustion) was a factor - if at all.

Just how much conclusive, documented evidence of injury was there at the time ....??

but he was actually injured wasn;t he with the back muscle thing. http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/6991701/novak-djokovic-says-back-injury-not-serious-require-rest

Ok, duly noted LS, thanks for the link.

So, one might say troublesome but - in his own words - "not serious"

lags72 wrote:Ok, duly noted LS, thanks for the link.

So, one might say troublesome but - in his own words - "not serious"

Serious enough for him to withdraw from Paris and retire from a DC match.

But what I said was partly injury and a large factor was running out of energy.

Not sure which point (if any) you are disagreeing with?