'Tis the seasons - Stellar Tennis Seasons

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)

IMVHO, McEnroe would get my vote.

This sums up the awesomeness of Nole's season:
The Best vs GOAT + World number one = 10:1,
ah, yes and the style , guts an passion with which he did it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EGz8AeqAPY

You can crunch your numbers and percentages till hell freezes over....but in the heart of hearts you all know...

noleisthebest wrote:

You can crunch your numbers and percentages till hell freezes over....but in the heart of hearts you all know...

If I die and reincarnate as a Tennis player, I want you as my personal Fan. Love your passion, NitB.

For consideration? Connors 1974 - 93/5, with 3 GS, in singles.
31/11 doubles - 4 titles

140 matches in a season!

It's got be 2006. 3 Slams, I slam final and the Masters. Teh W/L ratio is important but not essential.

But more importantly It shows how much above the rest the player is.

McEnroe's second.

Neither Nadal or Djoko have shown in their best year that they were H&S above the rest. In fact they were very beatable....only scrapping through through sweat more than style.

The French Open Wimbledon double can only be achieved by the true titans of tennis. Only two players are in contention for this. Have voted for Nadal as 2009 has not been included...

JuliusHMarx wrote:For consideration? Connors 1974 - 93/5, with 3 GS, in singles.
31/11 doubles - 4 titles

140 matches in a season!

Added - partially.

hawkeye wrote:The French Open Wimbledon double can only be achieved by the true titans of tennis. Only two players are in contention for this. Have voted for Nadal as 2009 has not been included...

Nadal 2009 W/L was 68/14, hence was not added. I did think about 2010 Nadal 71/10.

PS: HE.

laverfan

I think you meant Federer 2009.

Nadal 2010 Slam on clay, grass and hard. Has anyone else achieved this particular triple?

Sorry to muddy the waters a little as I now realise you were talking about win/loss ratios...

I thought Nadal's 2010 was better in terms of results than his 2008.

Was tempted by Mac - another great favourite of mine, and I do think that, especially taking into account the doubles triumphs on top of such a dominant year in singles makes 1984 a brilliant choice, as you say laver.

However, unsurprisingly I have gone for 2006 and Federer simply because 3 slams, I gs final, Masters Cup 92-5 is quite exceptional. Hats off to Nadal for being the player to beat him 4 times in this year, and to Murray for beating him once.

I actually think 05 was almost more impressive for Federer. Sure he didn't pick up the TMC, but in 06 he was really dominated by Nadal, particularly on clay, and that takes a little away from his achievement IMHO. Anyway, I've gone for Mac.

Djokovic and Nadal's years weren't in the same league IMO, Nadal's was nice as it broke the Fed dominance, while Nole's was nice as it broke the Fedal duality, but they don't compare to the other years on show.

Laver '69?

lydian wrote:Laver '69?

Will research.

Cheers LF

For a different spin how about Agassi in 2003?
In 2003 he became oldest ever ranked #1 at 33yrs 4mths. During that year he won a slam (AO), won a TMS (Miami - making him only guy to win it 6 times), got to WTF final only losing to Federer (and only lost a RR match to him 9-7 in final set TB), and achieved overall 2003 W:L of 82%.......ok so its not comparable to the other players seasons here but for 33 years of age that is really quite some stellar achievement! What a talent he was to be playing that well at 33, and even older when he pushed Federer hard at USO final in 2005 at 35 yo!

PS. Trivia fact....Agassi still the only guy to hold ALL major trophies (OG, WTF, AO, FO, SW19, USO)

Laver 1969 W/L

Singles - 58 - 9 (Stolle - Stockholm, Riessen - Cologne, Stan Smith - Las Vegas, Ray Moore - Los Angeles, Newcombe - Queens, Roche - Oakland, Miami, Auckland, Sydney)

Doubles - 22 - 4 (Partners - Emerson, Pancho Gonzales)

Agassi 2003 W/L

Singles - 47 (50 - 3 byes) - 10 (Federer x 2- TMC, Ferrero - US Open, Schuettler - Canada, F. Gonzales - Washington, Phillippoussis - W, Roddick - Queens, Coria - RG, Ferrer - Rome, Enqvist - Scottsdale AZ USA)

Doubles - 0-0

Agassi lost third set 7-6(7) in third set TB in RR to Federer, but the final was 3-6, 0-6, 4-6 (Bo5).

It has to be Djoko this year, although the other seasons mentioned were remarkable. Reasons - He had to beat in so many of his finals the second-ranked player (and earlier in the year, the top-ranked).
He also had to contend with the strongest top four since, arguably, the early 1980s. This year, it was not as if any of these top guys were getting injured (OK, possibly Nadal at the AO) or being beaten by others earlier in the tourney.
Fed was utterly dominant in 05 and 06 but, apart from a young Nadal, faced less-powerful rivals. I realise I've mentioned the early 80s strong fields and then NOT chosen Mac's incredible run in 1984. But I still think Djoko edged it this year.

sirfredperry wrote: Fed was utterly dominant in 05 and 06 but, apart from a young Nadal, faced less-powerful rivals . I realise I've mentioned the early 80s strong fields and then NOT chosen Mac's incredible run in 1984. But I still think Djoko edged it this year.

But that's the key of dominance isn't it? It's to make the field look average when it was actually the best tennis ever played at the time. That's something Borg, McEnroe and Federer did more than anybody else. In 2 years time, we may have many players as fit as Nadal and Djoko yet with the talent of Federer, and Djoko and Nadal may look average in comparison...like Djoko made Nadal look very human after his 2010 success.

Djoko imo, did not dominate Federer this year, the way Federer dominated his peers in 2006, in particular those older than him. And federer could do it with such ease that he could last a season. Had he struggled more to do it, he probably woudl have tired earlier like Djoko and Nadal.

Djoko made Nadal look human...but not average. There's a difference.

Oh I dont know, I think the players around in 05/06 just werent as strong as some other eras but I cant technically prove it. Thats just my opinion (of course). And in my opinion this did make it easier for Federer to dominate that period - plus, and once again, the surfaces have homogenised making it also easier for one guy to dominate with minimal adjustments whereas it was much much harder before say early 00s for the guys to do this - which is generally why it didnt happen. Also, we saw that guys like Agassi at 35 years old were still pushing Federer hard even though 11 years older...this to me speaks to the competition of that period being not as strong...for example I cant imagine another Agassi in this period being able to sustain themselves on tour at 35 against the latest breed of players.

Federer is clearly an amazing player...but we'll never know how his results would have faired in different eras - thats the beauty of tennis! This is why Becker calls him the most 'successful' player, not necessarily the greatest of all time because thats unfathomable. All players can be is the best of their own era. Era-wise, I agree that the 80s was probably the strongest period given its depth of talent across all the different surface types - the fact that an insanely talented guy like McEnroe came within an hairs breadth of winning all 4 majors shows it could have been done but it was just so very very difficult...none of those amazing players could do it from Borg/Mac/Lendl/Edberg/Becker/Wilander/Sampras...and yet we now have 3 guys who may have done it in the space of 3-4 seasons, are we to believe these guys are so much better than those 80s guys that they can now do this? Maybe they are...maybe they arent.

Vilas 1977 W/L

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, Gottfired - Palm Springs, Baltimore, Bob Lutz - Ocean City, Tanner - AO)

I will reverify, but if true, this is shocking to have been ignored.

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

And in my opinion this did make it easier for Federer to dominate that period - plus, and once again, the surfaces have homogenised making it also easier for one guy to dominate with minimal adjustments whereas it was much much harder before say early 00s for the guys to do this

But you can say even more that the fact that the rest of the field was not as physically as developed as Nadal, made it easy for Nadal to dominate....but once they got to know how to get fitter, Nadal got into big trouble.

The fact is when Federer was young, courts were fast and he was invited to play with small frame, just natural gate and learnt to play the dominant players of the time which were essentially SVing. Fed had to adapt to Nalbandian and Hewitt who were ahead of time with Luxilon strings and could afford to stand a bit behind and whack everything back.

There is no doubt to me that the 2004-6 players had better FHs that Nadal and Murray and their BH was very good when single HBH and in a disadvantage when considering DHBH cause teh surfaces were faster.

Nadal was simply ahead physically cause his team was. Before no-one could afford to play like him cause there waas no science and technology behind allowing it. If in 10 years people can jump 3m high thanks to better training and diet, the game will change accordingly. Nadal's game is very old but it was reinvented cause diet and technology allowed a re-birth.

Federer - 2006

laverfan wrote:Vilas 1977 W/L

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, Gottfired - Palm Springs, Baltimore, Bob Lutz - Ocean City, Tanner - AO)

I will reverify, but if true, this is shocking to have been ignored.

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

Hand-counted these. 200 matches (Singles and Doubles 130 + 16 + 38 + 16).

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

lol, there's nothing old about Nadal's FH, its completely unique in the game, past or present. I disagree entirely that players in 04-06 had better FHs than Nadal...its a weapon thats brought him 10 slams! How many of those players 04-06 have even won one slam? Lets get some perspective here.

I also dont think Nalbandian just sat there and whacked everything back, he was - and is - a major talent who can do more than reactive whacking. Federer recognised around 2000 when he started working privately with Paganini on gruelling strength/fitness regimes, that he needed to bulk up to make the most his talent. Also, as surfaces were slowing down and tennis was getting more ralley based so the work with Paganini became more important. Paganini's work with Federer takes place around 140-160 days per year. Also, Federer doesnt have a small frame - he's a natrually gifted athlete who is quite broad across the shoulders - his fitness regimes have built on the good base he has (like Nadal).

I dont buy the "there was no science" before Nadal came along. You clearly didnt see how fit Muster, and others, were in the 90s. Federer was extremely fit and strong long before Nadal came along - Paganini saw to that!

Nadal's FH is not unique. Topspinning is nothing new. What makes it unique is the energy he applies coupled with the light racquet and strings.

Hitting cross court FH ad nausea as been seen before many times. But of course, those type of games were obsolete cause players learnt how to beat them and beyond clay they were not very successful. Only when they slowed other courts down (homogenisation as you call it) that Nadal has been able to export it elswhere...plus he became so strong physically that the surface did not matter any longer. Every single shot was a pain to handle (attack that is) cause the energy on teh ball was difficult to time.

The principle of Nadal's game is nothing new.

Tenez - if we're going down that track then any FH is not unique, all are topspun or hit flat. But if you know anything about SSC's with FHs then you wouldnt say the way he hits the ball isnt unique. I personally think you denigrate Nadal's game and ability far too much.

lydian wrote:Tenez - if we're going down that track then any FH is not unique, all are topspun or hit flat. But if you know anything about SSC's with FHs then you wouldnt say the way he hits the ball isnt unique. I personally think you denigrate Nadal's game and ability far too much.

I agree. The uniqueness is how early, how talented at timing a player is, the player' s frame, technology etc...At the end of the day, a ball comes with more or less pace, spin, angle etc...

I know Nadal's game. More importantly I know its strengths and weaknesses. The only thing that surprised me thus far is his increasing fitness as the years went by and how long he has been staying at the top. But that is because I was behind some medical prowess. For 40years I thought that when someone had tendinitis, especially at knee level he was done. Recently we learnt that;s not the case anymore. For the first few years it took me a while to understand that Nadal's poor end of season was cyclical and not down to injury or else. It was again a new phenomenon in tennis to have players having such variation in form.

Now I do think other players are showing great fitness...and that doesn;t bode well for Nadal.

Tenez - are you doubting if Nadal's knee tendinitis was legit? I have had tendinitis in my wrist and knee from tennis to football and cycling to hockey and it can subside and with round the clock medical attention and physio it can heal much faster than it did for me

LuvSports! wrote:Tenez - are you doubting if Nadal's knee tendinitis was legit? I have had tendinitis in my wrist and knee from tennis to football and cycling to hockey and it can subside and with round the clock medical attention and physio it can heal much faster than it did for me

I am not interested in knowing whether his injury was legit or not. That's not the point here. I am just saying it can be healed much quicker than in the past. Some players have had their career abruptly stopped because of knee tendonitis not that long ago. Now it seems they can heal it pretty well. If anything it seems modern medecine can make you ligaments stronger than they initially were....which is pretty amazing..and clearly what saved Nadal.

Tenez I know medicine pretty well I dont need to be informed about the course of tendinitis, tendinitis is basically inflammation which can addressed in the main with a short course of treatment - NSAIDs with physical support. More latterly PDGF treatment has become more popular, but it only accelerates what can be achieved with longer rest anyway (as tendons tend to have a poor bloody supply) - and obviously tennis players want to return to action ASAP. Inflammation does not have to become a long term condition (tendinosis - non-inflammatory basis, and much harder to treat with lower success) if the underlying triggers can be identified and the route to inflammation mitigated. Many players in the past have come through chronic tendinitis without amazing medical science...Agassi for one with his wrist. Players can even have surgery to correct it (as Agassi did). I think you were confusing tendonitis and tendinosis for 40 years

Murray has been showing great fitness for ages but its not really chinked Nadal's "armour" much. Nadal's game/success is not just down to his fitness no matter how much you would like to believe it is. You dont win 10 slams, etc, from just having a great pair of lungs, as with most things its multifactoral.

Lydian, I know the basics to, but knowing what is PRP is one thing, knowing whether it is efficient or not is another, and finally knowing what growth factor is used is beyong your and my reach......but not the point here anyway.

The fact is this science was not availale not so long ago and knee inflammated ligaments were very much a killer not so long ago in a sport that was already physical in the mid 80s. With Nadal's game there was every chance to think he woudl struggle badly to recover.

But then we were told he lost some weight to ease pressure on his knees....just to see him regain everything and more a few months after and have knees cured once and for all.

As much as you know, I think you know a very tiny bit of the story here.

Clinical trial data around PRP isnt extensive, so it comes down to real world experience of whether its deemed to work or not. As I say patients with tendinitis tend to get better anyway so how do you judge efficacy from natural repair vs. that due to PRP repair -they both overlap.

When you call it "this science", its hardly rocket science...just a case of reinjecting a patients own blood into their joints - but this approach will not save those patients who already have a severe tendinosis/tenosynovitis issue. They would need more extensive treatment and a very prolonged time away from sporting activity - this was probably the issue for Delpo. Its more for those athletes who need a more speedy recovery and the underlying damage is manageable without surgery.

This is not a complex area of discussion. All we can surmise is that its likely in Nadal's case that his knee condition wasnt as serious as first thought or else the PRP/std tx wouldnt have been enough. Sure he was in pain as you often are when inflammation strikes but once his medical team investigated it they must have found the damage to the tendon itself wasnt extensive, and that scar tissue hadnt formed which can lead to a loss of strength following repair and/or need surgery. I dare say losing weight was probably advice given to mitigate further damage but again it may not have actually been necessary.

So now that a good period of time has passed and he's played without issues, clearly his knees have stabilised to the extent he and his team feel that he can continue, if desired, to train at a similar level as before...i.e. at whatever bodyweight he chooses to attain within reason. For all we know he may have been under-strength in relative terms as he chose to reduce bodyweight to save damage to his knees. None of us know though - you, I or anyone else outside his team. So we all know very little of the story here

lydian wrote:Clinical trial data around PRP isnt extensive, so it comes down to real world experience of whether its deemed to work or not. As I say patients with tendinitis tend to get better anyway so how do you judge efficacy from natural repair vs. that due to PRP repair -they both overlap.

When you call it "this science", its hardly rocket science...just a case of reinjecting a patients own blood into their joints - but this approach will not save those patients who already have a severe tendinosis/tenosynovitis issue. They would need more extensive treatment and a very prolonged time away from sporting activity - this was probably the issue for Delpo. Its more for those athletes who need a more speedy recovery and the underlying damage is manageable without surgery.

This is not a complex area of discussion. All we can surmise is that its likely in Nadal's case that his knee condition wasnt as serious as first thought or else the PRP/std tx wouldnt have been enough. Sure he was in pain as you often are when inflammation strikes but once his medical team investigated it they must have found the damage to the tendon itself wasnt extensive, and that scar tissue hadnt formed which can lead to a loss of strength following repair and/or need surgery. I dare say losing weight was probably advice given to mitigate further damage but again it may not have actually been necessary.

So now that a good period of time has passed and he's played without issues, clearly his knees have stabilised to the extent he and his team feel that he can continue, if desired, to train at a similar level as before...i.e. at whatever bodyweight he chooses to attain within reason. For all we know he may have been under-strength in relative terms as he chose to reduce bodyweight to save damage to his knees. None of us know though - you, I or anyone else outside his team. So we all know very little of the story here

The reason we are ll going on about Nadal's knees is that his team have always done so. Number of times we have heard Nadal was on his last legs (pun intended)....surely he knew the state of his knees all the time as well as what can be done to fix any problems.
Nole's been carrying shoulder tendonitis for years, but nobody had a clue until recently.
So why exactly did Nadal team moan about those knees so openly in public?

Why parade your injuries, that's completely contrary to any logic.

People say Federer had no injuries, rubbish...they all do, but they go quietly about them.

Guess all roads lead to Rome, or on a Tennis forum, to a Fedal debate.

No one has commented on Vilas's 200 matches in 1977.

At least hoping Nore Staat and JuliusHMarx do.

2-2 (lost to Dibbs(W/O) and Borg) - Masters, NY, U.S.A.; 04.01.1978; WC; Indoor: Carpet; Draw: 8
5-0 - Johannesburg WCT, South Africa; 28.11.1977; GP; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32
5-0 - Buenos Aires, Argentina; 21.11.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 32
5-0 - Santiago, Chile; 14.11.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 32
5-0 - Bogota, Colombia; 07.11.1977; GP; : Clay; Draw: 32
6-0 - Tehran, Iran; 03.10.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64
4-1 (lost to Nastase) - Aix en Provence, France; 26.09.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 32
5-0 - Paris, France; 19.09.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 32
2-0 - ARG vs. AUS WG SF, Buenos Aires; 16.09.1977; DC; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 4
7-0 - US Open, NY, U.S.A.; 31.08.1977; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
6-0 - Columbus, OH, U.S.A.; 08.08.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64
5-0 - South Orange, New Jersey, USA; 31.07.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 32
6-0 - Louisville, KY, U.S.A.; 25.07.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64
6-0 - Washington, DC, U.S.A.; 18.07.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64
5-0 - Kitzbuhel, Austria; 11.07.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 32
2-1 (lost to Billy Martin) - Wimbledon, England; 20.06.1977; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 128
1-1 (lost to Ross Case) - London / Queen's Club, England; 13.06.1977; GP; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 64
0-1 (lost to Tim Gullikson) - Nottingham, England; 06.06.1977; GP; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 64
7-0 - Roland Garros, France; 23.05.1977; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
1-1 (lost to Franulovic) - Rome, Italy; 16.05.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64
3-1 (lost to Mottram) - Hamburg, Germany; 09.05.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 64
4-0 - Virginia Beach, VA, USA; 19.04.1977; GP; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 16
4-0 - Buenos Aires, Argentina; 14.04.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 16
2-1 (lost to Borg) - Monte Carlo WCT, Monaco; 04.04.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 16
4-1 (lost to Borg) - Nice, France; 28.03.1977; GP; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 32
4-1 (lost to Borg) - Johannesburg, South Africa; 08.03.1977; GP; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 32
3-1 (lost to Mark Cox) - Memphis, TN, U.S.A.; 28.02.1977; GP; Indoor: Carpet; Draw: 64
5-1 (lost to Gottfried) - Palm Springs, CA, U.S.A.; 21.02.1977; GP; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 64
2-1 (lost to Bob Lutz) - Ocean City, Ocean City, MD, USA; 15.02.1977; GP; Outdoor: Hard; Draw: 16
5-0 - Springfield, Springfield, MA, USA; 07.02.1977; GP; Indoor: Carpet; Draw: 32
4-1 (lost to Gottfried) - Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.; 17.01.1977; GP; Indoor: Carpet; Draw: 32
5-1 (lost to Tanner) - Australian Open, Australia; 01.01.1977; GS; Outdoor: Grass; Draw: 64

Total - 130-16

16 Titles.

Hope Lydian can peel himself from the Fedal stuff.

Interesting you say Fedal debate LF when I didnt even mention Federer once?

NITB, I dont know the answers specifically to your questions. Nadal is quite an open expressive person, he tends to say how he feels - and increasingly so. The spanish are an expressive race. I'm sure when the knees flared up he was seriously worried about them, you can have excruiating pain in them without the underlying damage being serious. Only when they investigated did they find the damage wasnt extensive. I dont think he talks about them much now. IMVHO he's just a perfectionist in every thing he does and so tends to focus on any issues and communicates about them very openly and candidly. Personally I think people read, or want to read, too much negativity into what he says, as though every word he utters has massive significance.

Nole will need to be careful if he has a long standing shoulder issue, they can become notoriously difficult to treat because they are the most complex joint in the body. He needs to let the inflammation go down properly.

Anyway, away from Nadal great stats work as usual LF
88 of those 130 wins were on clay, and only 3 titles out of the 16 were off clay. And lost to Buster Mottram on clay too! Thats like Nadal losing to Henman on clay - but even worse! Vilas was a great player, but mainly on clay to be fair. Nonethess 146 matches in a season is insane!

lydian wrote:Interesting you say Fedal debate LF when I didnt even mention Federer once?

You just mentioned Paganini (but not the 'F' word).

lydian wrote:NITB, I dont know the answers specifically to your questions. Nadal is quite an open expressive person, he tends to say how he feels - and increasingly so. The spanish are an expressive race. I'm sure when the knees flared up he was seriously worried about them, you can have excruiating pain in them without the underlying damage being serious. Only when they investigated did they find the damage wasnt extensive. I dont think he talks about them much now. IMVHO he's just a perfectionist in every thing he does and so tends to focus on any issues and communicates about them very openly and candidly. Personally I think people read, or want to read, too much negativity into what he says, as though every word he utters has massive significance.

Nole will need to be careful if he has a long standing shoulder issue, they can become notoriously difficult to treat because they are the most complex joint in the body. He needs to let the inflammation go down properly.

I would be if Djokovic were to lose an opportunity in 2012 to collect some more silverware.

lydian wrote:Anyway, away from Nadal great stats work as usual LF
88 of those 130 wins were on clay, and only 3 titles out of the 16 were off clay. And lost to Buster Mottram on clay too! Thats like Nadal losing to Henman on clay - but even worse! Vilas was a great player, but mainly on clay to be fair. Nonethess 146 matches in a season is insane!

I agree, it was primarily clay, but a very demanding surface nevertheless. He did not like grass much either.

The Rome loss is intriguing and I need to read a bit more about it, while I can understand the loses to Borg.

Also, playing 50+ doubles, with Tiriac as the main partner, is very interesting.

LF,

nothing to worry about. As Lydian says, tendonitis is a very manageable condition (I know from personal experience)....even the shoulder one!

A healthy sport needs healthy players.

From Sanskrit...

Let everybody be happy, healthy, and blessed

Sarve Api Sukhina Santu Sarve Santu Niramayah

laverfan wrote:A healthy sport needs healthy players.

From Sanskrit...

Let everybody be happy, healthy, and blessed

Sarve Api Sukhina Santu Sarve Santu Niramayah

From King James English:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"—Matthew 19:19.

everything else follows....

Well said, NiTB.

Yep, nice quotes guys.

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:A healthy sport needs healthy players.

From Sanskrit...

Let everybody be happy, healthy, and blessed

Sarve Api Sukhina Santu Sarve Santu Niramayah

From King James English:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"—Matthew 19:19.

everything else follows....

Do you practice what you preach and extend this love to Nadal? I'm just a bit sceptical. I think you should try harder.

Not sure why 2011 and 1984 are featuring so low on the scoreboard on this particular thread.
I'm a huge Fed fan, but recognise that Djoko in '11 and Mac in 84 were up against multiple slam winners, yet still had terrific years. Fed, in 06, had a young, inexperienced Nadal up against him and - with respect to Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzo et al - not much else. Yet there's been huge support for that year being the greatest.
The reason, IMHO, why '11 and '84 should be getting more of the votes is that Djoko faced, and generally outfought, two of the greatest players of all time with a combined GS success rate of 26, while Mac, in 84, was competing with Lendl, Connors and Wilander - a rather handy trio.
Yes, Fed was dominant in 06, but was not Djoko dominant this year?

hawkeye wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:

laverfan wrote:A healthy sport needs healthy players.

From Sanskrit...

Let everybody be happy, healthy, and blessed

Sarve Api Sukhina Santu Sarve Santu Niramayah

From King James English:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself"—Matthew 19:19.

everything else follows....

Do you practice what you preach and extend this love to Nadal? I'm just a bit sceptical. I think you should try harder.

Oh hawkeye...where do i start.....

sirfredperry wrote:Not sure why 2011 and 1984 are featuring so low on the scoreboard on this particular thread.
I'm a huge Fed fan, but recognise that Djoko in '11 and Mac in 84 were up against multiple slam winners, yet still had terrific years. Fed, in 06, had a young, inexperienced Nadal up against him and - with respect to Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzo et al - not much else. Yet there's been huge support for that year being the greatest.
The reason, IMHO, why '11 and '84 should be getting more of the votes is that Djoko faced, and generally outfought, two of the greatest players of all time with a combined GS success rate of 26, while Mac, in 84, was competing with Lendl, Connors and Wilander - a rather handy trio.
Yes, Fed was dominant in 06, but was not Djoko dominant this year?

You should look at the player of the year poll.....Fed got quite a few voices, even Laura Robson...

sirfredperry wrote:Not sure why 2011 and 1984 are featuring so low on the scoreboard on this particular thread.
I'm a huge Fed fan, but recognise that Djoko in '11 and Mac in 84 were up against multiple slam winners, yet still had terrific years. Fed, in 06, had a young, inexperienced Nadal up against him and - with respect to Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzo et al - not much else. Yet there's been huge support for that year being the greatest.
The reason, IMHO, why '11 and '84 should be getting more of the votes is that Djoko faced, and generally outfought, two of the greatest players of all time with a combined GS success rate of 26, while Mac, in 84, was competing with Lendl, Connors and Wilander - a rather handy trio.
Yes, Fed was dominant in 06, but was not Djoko dominant this year?

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. In 2 years time we will be able to say that Djoko only played young Raonic or Dolgolpopov or a player relying essentially on his physique. Dominance is about how much better one is versus the rest of the field at a given time. How much gap one increases with the others. Federer, McEnroe and Borg would be top of my list anytime, they had this aura of invicibility that we have seen for short term only with Djoko (not even a full season)..and one feels Federer and MUrray are not that far off Djoko's level. Someone can achieve a great streak like Djoko did without being so much H&S above the rest. I don't think Federer 2006 would have been beaten by a 30yo player from the old generation. Djoko has not got a game which clearly makes him much better than the rest, if anything I still think the best of Federer is better than Djoko's. He has won a few close matches. Borg, Mc and Federer were simply above the rest by quite some margin and that, especially for Mc and Federer, was expressed by their W/L ratio.

It's not even close for me. Fed and McEnroe anytime.

I agree with you here Tenez: the very fact that Djokovic had to work so hard to achieve his admittedly great results (burnout by Sep) proves that he was actually not so dominant. But the way he took his opportunities was phenomenal!

"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.