PDA

View Full Version : Borg - would he have won Roland Garros in 1977 & 1982 ?


timnz
05-10-2009, 11:59 PM
Funny how politics gets in the way of records....

In 1977 Borg was barred from playing Roland Garros because he was playing in World Team Tennis. The other dominant player on clay that year was Vilas, who won Roland Garros and the US Open (which was on clay then, the last year of 3 years on clay).


Borg and Vilas played twice that year on clay and Borg won both times. He won 6 Clay Court titles that year.

So would he have won at Roland Garros if politics didn't get in the way? I think so.

Less political but Borg's choice - but in 1982 he was still easily good enough to be the favourite going into Roland Garros.

In 1982 Mats Wilander worked out with Borg beforehand and reported that Borg easily beat him in practice regularly. Mats of course went on to win Roland Garros.

Again I think Borg would have had Roland Garros in the bag.

I know, I know if's, and but's...... but you got to admit he would be a favourite for both those titles.

That would have made it 8 Roland Garros - wow.

BTURNER
05-11-2009, 12:03 AM
We could have said the same thing bout Evert too. Except there was no equivalent to a Vilas

thalivest
05-11-2009, 12:08 AM
Borg would have won in 1977 and 1982 I agree. If he had continued playing I honestly dont think he would have been dethroned at the French until say 1985.

gj011
05-11-2009, 02:10 AM
Yes. 10 chars.

hoodjem
05-11-2009, 04:49 AM
Yes, ifs and buts. Borg with 15+ slams, Laver or Rosewall (without the Pro ban) who knows how many--20 plus each. Sampras's 14 seems like small potatoes.

jean pierre
05-11-2009, 07:09 AM
Impossible to answer ! Vilas was very strong in 1977.

PERL
05-11-2009, 08:29 AM
What about Connors in 1974-1978 ? Best shot in ’76 maybe ? Why not ’74 even against a young Bjorn Borg ?

swedechris
05-11-2009, 08:46 AM
Borg would have won in ´77 ..Vilas as great as he was that year, was still Borgs lil vodoodoll throughout Borgs career .. still not so sure bout '82. .. Lendl and Wilander and Clerc wold have been difficult for him.

Connors .. maybe but nowhere as solid as Borg on the red dirt. He was ok on Har Tru but thats quite different from how red clay palys in Europe. Trust me.

PERL
05-11-2009, 09:03 AM
Borg would have won in ´77 ..Vilas as great as he was that year, was still Borgs lil vodoodoll throughout Borgs career .. still not so sure bout '82. .. Lendl and Wilander and Clerc wold have been difficult for him.

Connors .. maybe but nowhere as solid as Borg on the red dirt. He was ok on Har Tru but thats quite different from how red clay palys in Europe. Trust me.

With Wilander, it would have been a physical and stamina challenge essentially against a much younger player.
Noah was in tremedous form in 1983. Beating Lendl and Wilander is no fluke. Borg had a few tough matches against Pecci and Panatta at RG. Noah is another rare specimen of these attacking clay court specialists that Borg did not like to play.
Now if you watch the 1984 RG final compared to the 1983 final, it’s just another level of play, just like another decade. What would have done Borg ? We can’t say for sure but we know that Mcenroe himself never won a major anymore after 1984. With his type of game, it would have been almost inhuman to last until age 30. That said Borg still is my favorite all time player.
Just my two cents about the "what ifs".

CyBorg
05-11-2009, 02:33 PM
1977 - easily, I think.

1982/83 - if his mind was up to it. If Borg had agreed to play those 10 tournaments at the start of the year he perhaps would have been in super shape and ready to dominate RG again. However Borg basically showed up in Monte Carlo with his mind elsewhere. He played three qualifying matches, pretty much dominating but then seemed to gradually lose interest - eventually losing to Noah while 'whistling' between points (so says Noah).

But there's little doubt about Borg's form in 1977. 22-0 on red clay and 2-0 against Vilas.

CyBorg
05-11-2009, 02:35 PM
Now if you watch the 1984 RG final compared to the 1983 final, it’s just another level of play, just like another decade.

I disagree. It just looks that way, because Mac is serving and volleying. It's an aesthetic illusion. The passing shots are whizzing past him, especially in the last two sets.

Now, watch Wilander-Lendl in 1985 or 1987 and it's almost as slow as in the Borg years. Whereas Pecci-Borg looks almost as faced past as Mac-Lendl and that was in 1979 (Pecci served and volleyed).

PERL
05-11-2009, 04:57 PM
I disagree. It just looks that way, because Mac is serving and volleying. It's an aesthetic illusion. The passing shots are whizzing past him, especially in the last two sets.

Noah was serving and volleying too in 1983. But he was temporizing a lot from the baseline when needed, patiently waiting for the opportunity as an educated clay courter. Also Wilander was well known for his slow safe passing shots. In fact he decided to complement his game afterwards since he felt frustrated in this match. Maybe it’s just Mcenroe’s flatter strokes. Still the effect is amazing, not what I would call an illusion.

hoodjem
05-11-2009, 05:19 PM
Noah was in tremedous form in 1983. Beating Lendl and Wilander is no fluke. Borg had a few tough matches against Pecci and Panatta at RG. Noah is another rare specimen of these attacking clay court specialists that Borg did not like to play.I remember watching that Noah victory. He was amazing--like a gazelle.

egn
05-11-2009, 05:58 PM
Yes in 1977..though I imagine 82 is a bit tougher..I would have loved to see it though. I imagine though Borg could easily win until 84..though I don't imagine Lendl toppling him and it would be Wilander to do it as Lendl did not handle Borg well on clay at all..He had his chance in 81 and he blew it in that awful fifth set and Borg just showed he could break Lendl like a twig.

Mick
05-11-2009, 07:07 PM
on the other hand, had he played in 77, it could have accelerated his early retirement.

CyBorg
05-11-2009, 07:09 PM
Noah was serving and volleying too in 1983. But he was temporizing a lot from the baseline when needed, patiently waiting for the opportunity as an educated clay courter. Also Wilander was well known for his slow safe passing shots. In fact he decided to complement his game afterwards since he felt frustrated in this match. Maybe it’s just Mcenroe’s flatter strokes. Still the effect is amazing, not what I would call an illusion.

Noah would have been dangerous, but he didn't have the best groundies. Panatta/Pecci both had better groundies.

CyBorg
05-11-2009, 07:10 PM
on the other hand, had he played in 77, it could have accelerated his early retirement.

Don't buy it. However it could have possibly denied him Wimbledon that year.

jean pierre
05-12-2009, 08:53 AM
Would Vilas have won Roland-Garros in 1980 if he was not sick ? Yes ! He won in Rome, and beated Borg in Dusseldorf.

CyBorg
05-12-2009, 11:02 AM
Would Vilas have won Roland-Garros in 1980 if he was not sick ? Yes ! He won in Rome, and beated Borg in Dusseldorf.

Yeah, I'm sure Borg really cared about Dusseldorf.

jimbo333
05-13-2009, 04:11 PM
A better question would have been, "Connors - would he have won French Open in 1974 & 1975?":)

Maybe I'll actually start a new thread:):)

DMan
05-13-2009, 09:20 PM
Funny how politics gets in the way of records....

In 1977 Borg was barred from playing Roland Garros because he was playing in World Team Tennis. The other dominant player on clay that year was Vilas, who won Roland Garros and the US Open (which was on clay then, the last year of 3 years on clay).


Borg and Vilas played twice that year on clay and Borg won both times. He won 6 Clay Court titles that year.

So would he have won at Roland Garros if politics didn't get in the way? I think so.

Less political but Borg's choice - but in 1982 he was still easily good enough to be the favourite going into Roland Garros.

In 1982 Mats Wilander worked out with Borg beforehand and reported that Borg easily beat him in practice regularly. Mats of course went on to win Roland Garros.

Again I think Borg would have had Roland Garros in the bag.

I know, I know if's, and but's...... but you got to admit he would be a favourite for both those titles.

That would have made it 8 Roland Garros - wow.

A favorite in 1977. But I still think it was Vilas' year.

As for 1982 - he didn't even try. So it wasn't like he was banned or anything. After the 1981 US Open, Borg basically gave up. So no way in the world was Borg going to win 7 best of five set matches!

timnz
05-13-2009, 10:13 PM
A favorite in 1977. But I still think it was Vilas' year.

As for 1982 - he didn't even try. So it wasn't like he was banned or anything. After the 1981 US Open, Borg basically gave up. So no way in the world was Borg going to win 7 best of five set matches!

You are right in the sense his head wasn't into it. But in terms of capability, Wilander reported that Borg was easily handling Mats (the eventual winner of Roland Garros) in practice that year.

PERL
05-14-2009, 04:00 AM
I remember watching that Noah victory. He was amazing--like a gazelle.

Last win for a serve & volleyer at RG. 26 years and counting… absolutely nothing in sight.
Last french win in a major. 26 years, etc. :wink:

PERL
05-14-2009, 04:09 AM
Noah would have been dangerous, but he didn't have the best groundies. Panatta/Pecci both had better groundies.

Certainly not the most gifted technically. Bigger serve and great physical presence though. Good fighting spirit as well and a good tennis mind. That third set against Wilander was tight. If he loses this one, he may well lose the match.

pc1
05-14-2009, 05:23 AM
Noah would have been dangerous, but he didn't have the best groundies. Panatta/Pecci both had better groundies.

Noah was good on clay against some players, like Lendl. For some reason his style bother Ivan.

I loved watching Noah play but his groundies were very suspect. He had a lot of problems hitting backhand passing shots crosscourt which is hard to believe because it's such a natural shot. Very little power on the groundstrokes and a lot of spin.

It was fun watching him against Wilander in 1983 in the French final. The backhand slice approach shots really hurt Wilander and Noah's reach at the net allowed him to hit a lot of volleys that would have passed anyone else.

Noah's volley wasn't that penetrating but it was effective.

I don't think Noah would have been able to handle a Borg in 1983 if Borg was in tournament shape. Too many weaknesses on the groundstrokes.

I saw Gomez crush Noah on Har tru at a Tournament of Champions final I think in 1987 by approaching the net often and almost every approach shot was hit to Noah's backhand. Noah couldn't pass him effectively.

Q&M son
05-18-2009, 06:48 AM
Yes in both years

jeffreyneave
05-18-2009, 10:45 AM
in 1977 borg avoided playing paris and dallas because of his committments to WTT and the sponsors of the grand prix colgate. borg therefore looks a likely winner of paris because in 2 warm up events in nice and monte carlo he beat vilas. however, how good borg is unproven because every other year between 74-79 he did attempt to win dallas and paris; he only once in dallas in '76 and lost only once to panatta in '76. If he had to face connors in dallas and vilasin paris , we would have found out if borg really was a great player in 1977. as it is I rate no2 in '77. because vilas won 2 slams, runner-up aussie open and besides his 2 slams wom 16 other events. borg won 1 slam and 11 other events; his 3-0 head to head is not good enough oniyts own to give him the no1 spot.


In 1982 it would interestingto note how the practice matches went after wilander won in paris and in october in barcelona to confirm his status as the top clay court player on the ITF circuit. Did wilander play borg after wilander started to win on clay against vilas and lendl ?


jeffrey

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 11:02 AM
in 1977 borg avoided playing paris and dallas because of his committments to WTT and the sponsors of the grand prix colgate. borg therefore looks a likely winner of paris because in 2 warm up events in nice and monte carlo he beat vilas. however, how good borg is unproven because every other year between 74-79 he did attempt to win dallas and paris; he only once in dallas in '76 and lost only once to panatta in '76. If he had to face connors in dallas and vilasin paris , we would have found out if borg really was a great player in 1977. as it is I rate no2 in '77. because vilas won 2 slams, runner-up aussie open and besides his 2 slams wom 16 other events. borg won 1 slam and 11 other events; his 3-0 head to head is not good enough oniyts own to give him the no1 spot.

It depends on how you think about it. Personally, this "slam counting" strikes me as bogus.

I look at it this way: who was the better player on red clay? Borg. Who was the better player on grass? Borg. Who was the better player on carpet? Borg.

Vilas, just by the virtue of the fact that he played more matches on green clay than Borg, is better on that surface. One can say that.

I just don't see how it's even arguable that Vilas was the better player that year. It's not even close.

pc1
05-18-2009, 11:39 AM
It depends on how you think about it. Personally, this "slam counting" strikes me as bogus.

I look at it this way: who was the better player on red clay? Borg. Who was the better player on grass? Borg. Who was the better player on carpet? Borg.

Vilas, just by the virtue of the fact that he played more matches on green clay than Borg, is better on that surface. One can say that.

I just don't see how it's even arguable that Vilas was the better player that year. It's not even close.

The topic is whether Borg would have won in 1977 and it's very clear Borg was a superior player to Vilas in 1977. I have no doubt you are correct Cyborg.

Here's the head to head between the two according to ITF. Of course as we all know, it may not be 100% accurate but it does show Borg's mastery of Vilas. Even in 1977 Borg won the matches on clay against Vilas.

BORG, Bjorn (SWE)

Versus GuillermoVILAS (ARG)
Year Tournament Round Surface Winner Score
1973 Buenos Aires FR Clay (O) G.VILAS 6-3 7-6 4-6 6-6 RET
1974 WCT Tokyo QF B.BORG 6-4 6-3
1974 WCT Houston QF B.BORG 6-2 6-4
1974 Rome SF Clay (O) B.BORG 2-6 3-6 6-3 6-4 7-5
1974 Canadian Open QF Hard (O) G.VILAS 6-7 0-6
1974 Masters Singles Grass (O) G.VILAS 5-7 1-6
1975 French Open FR Clay (O) B.BORG 6-2 6-3 6-4
1975 Boston FR Clay (O) B.BORG 6-3 6-4 6-2
1975 Barcelona SF Clay (O) B.BORG 6-3 6-1 7-6
1975 Masters Singles Hard (I) G.VILAS 5-7 6-4 1-6
1976 WCT Sao Paulo FR Carpet (I) B.BORG 7-6 6-2
1976 WCT Finals FR Carpet (I) B.BORG 1-6 6-1 7-5 6-1
1976 Wimbledon QF Grass (O) B.BORG 6-3 6-0 6-2
1977 Johannesburg (O) FR Hard (O) NP
1977 Nice FR Clay (O) B.BORG 6-4 1-6 6-2 6-0
1977 WCT Monte Carlo SF Clay (O) B.BORG 6-2 6-3
1978 Masters SF Carpet (I) B.BORG 6-3 6-3
1978 French Open FR Clay (O) B.BORG 6-1 6-1 6-3
1979 Richmond FR Carpet (I) B.BORG 6-3 6-1
1979 Pepsi Grand Slam SF Clay (O) B.BORG 6-3 6-3
1980 Pepsi Grand Slam SF Clay (O) B.BORG 6-2 6-3
1980 Monte Carlo FR Clay (O) B.BORG 6-1 6-0 6-2
1980 World Team Cup Clay (O) G.VILAS 3-6 6-1 1-6
Bjorn BORG (SWE) Leads Guillermo VILAS (ARG) : 17 to 5 *

in 1977 borg avoided playing paris and dallas because of his committments to WTT and the sponsors of the grand prix colgate. borg therefore looks a likely winner of paris because in 2 warm up events in nice and monte carlo he beat vilas. however, how good borg is unproven because every other year between 74-79 he did attempt to win dallas and paris; he only once in dallas in '76 and lost only once to panatta in '76. If he had to face connors in dallas and vilasin paris , we would have found out if borg really was a great player in 1977. as it is I rate no2 in '77. because vilas won 2 slams, runner-up aussie open and besides his 2 slams wom 16 other events. borg won 1 slam and 11 other events; his 3-0 head to head is not good enough oniyts own to give him the no1 spot.


In 1982 it would interestingto note how the practice matches went after wilander won in paris and in october in barcelona to confirm his status as the top clay court player on the ITF circuit. Did wilander play borg after wilander started to win on clay against vilas and lendl ?


jeffrey

Jeffrey, it's not unreasonable that you rate Borg number two in 1977 but rating for accomplishments for the year and deciding who is the better player are two different things. I'm not 100% certain who had the better year in 1977. It was a strange year for rating number one players but if you ever watched Borg play Vilas on any surface, it was a rare occasion that Vilas ever won. Clearly by 1977 Borg was the better player on clay. Let's put it this way, if you had your life on the line and Borg played Vilas on red clay at the French in 1977, would you bet on Vilas because you believe he had the better year or would you bet your life on Borg? I think most would go with Borg in 1977. We of course assume both players are healthy and in top condition. Borg was better on any surface.

Gizo
05-18-2009, 12:37 PM
This might have been covered on this forum in the past, but does anyone know why Borg retired from that 1973 BA final when he was leading? Was it a serious injury that he picked up? I don't think there's any question that he would have won the Roland Garros title in 1977 had he played there. Vilas's *** was basically his property especially on clay, and he only dropped a total of 14 games combined against him in the 1975 and 1978 finals. His victory over Vilas at Monte-Carlo in 1977 was very convincing indeed. I agree that perhaps his hopes of retaining his Wimbledon title later that year might have been affected though.
Had Borg continued to play at RG after 1981, and I don't think he would have been stopped there until 1984 at the earliest.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi
05-19-2009, 02:26 AM
... does anyone know why Borg retired from that 1973 BA final when he was leading?

I don't remember but I think he bumped into the umpire chair or something like that but it has to be checked.

jeffreyneave
05-19-2009, 05:33 AM
rankings must take account of actual achievement. borg's year in '77 was regarded as a bit thin with only that one big win at wimbledon by david gray. urban and world tennis also choose vilas as number one. winning wimbledon for borg is not enough. lendl had 3 world number ones and never won wimbledon

world rankings break down into 3 factores:

major events (slams in this decade but in 1960s jou would choosing pro majores like wemblely)

consistency/ regular tournament play


head to head or wins against top players.


you could eliminate the final category if you use super nine system meaning players are forced to play and meet each other as often as federer and nadal. i prefer treating all events outside the majors as the same and giving extra points for ctual wins so borg's 3 wins are given a numerical value

if you look at the champoionship race system of 2000-2008 the points for majors 800: 1150 for regular events. ie 2:3 ratio with ther nasters as a 19th event bonus'

since most ranking experts rank head to head as least important counting catergory the split of 100% becomes

45% 14 regular events
30% 4 majors
25% wins over top players


remember fedrerer was rated as the number one between 2004-7 even though his head to head was poor against nadal particularly in 2006 but he won every thing else. just because borg would have likely have won in paris does make hin him no1 because he did not play; if you play wtt like borg did you get no points to your world ranking and thus lose out in the number one race. REmember vilas had a 50 match win streak in the summer easily the best in the open era. borg neded to play dallas and paris to prove how good he was and vilas did win 5/20 matches against borg; its not impossible in the bestform of his life with his 50 match streak he might have beaten borg
Vilas was not really contender for the number one spot in '75 or '78 whenborg crushed hin on clay; not real opposition for borg.



jeffrey

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 06:00 AM
Federer in 2006 was the best player on the three of four surfaces (let's count indoor carpet/hardcourts as a separate surface). The H2H thing doesn't really work here.

Tennis Magazine ranked Borg #1 in 1977 and the ATP also awarded him the player of the year.

Borg also won important events in Monte Carlo and Wembley.

I don't see how a 'super 9' system could even be applied. These guys quite simply did not play the same events. Vilas consistently avoided top events off clay. Borg missed a lot of green clay events in the summer.

I also reject the thinking that a player had to play RG to be considered the best on the surface. Laver, for example, did not play RG in the early 1970s. Was Jan Kodes better? Of course not.

What's important is that there is sufficient evidence to back up the claim. Borg's 22-0 record (including 2-0 v Vilas) is more than sufficient. For Laver, we can look at his win in (the deep) Rome in 1971 as evidence that he was the best.

urban
05-19-2009, 06:20 AM
Borg was the better player than Vilas, but overall in 1977 Vilas had the better record. It was not Vilas' fault, that Borg went out against Stockton at the USO. And Vilas had the form of his life, as one can see in his final, especially the final set, against Connors. Borg needed the final win over Connors at the Masters in New York MSG early January 1978 for the Nr. 1 place, but at MSG was beaten by Connors.
If Borg would have won in 1977 and 1982?In 1977 maybe Borg could do all things Vilas could do, but just a little better (as Tiriac once said). In 1982 i have my doubt. In the early and mid 80s there were some players, who could have worried Borg on clay. I don't say, that he wouldn't have beaten them, but not as easy as Gerulaitis, Solomon or others in the late 70s. Noah had a spontaneous game, that could upset Borg, who craved for rhythm. Lendl's hard forehand could put holes in Borg's defense - in 1981 only for spurs in one or two sets, but later maybe in more. McEnroe wasn't bad on clay, when he played with the new racket. I would have loved, to see Borg against 'Suede-killer' Mecir, a player, who gave you no rhythm at all.

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 06:28 AM
Borg was the better player than Vilas, but overall in 1977 Vilas had the better record. It was not Vilas' fault, that Borg went out against Stockton at the USO.

I agree 100% about the latter part. It is not Vilas's fault. Vilas deserves to be called the year's best har-tru player and there was a whole stretch of har-tru events in the summer, including the US Open. Injuries are never an excuse - they are part of the grind. Borg got injured - missed most of that stretch. Vilas dominated.

The WTT-RG situation, conversely, is part of the reality of the times. Something that wouldn't have happened today. It does not involve an injury. I could claim that Borg was the better player on har-tru that Vilas in 1977, but I would have no results to show for it from that year and therefore my claim is moot. But for red clay I can show results and I can explain why Borg not playing Roland Garros should not be used against him.

In a concretely standardized tour as we have today, we can very mechanically formulate these things. But this is harder to do for a year like 1977.

Whether Borg or Vilas had the better year in 1977 really depends on one's abstraction of things. In my opinion, most abstractions that place Vilas on top overrate his red clay accomplishments based on their sheer volume.

pc1
05-19-2009, 06:30 AM
rankings must take account of actual achievement. borg's year in '77 was regarded as a bit thin with only that one big win at wimbledon by david gray. urban and world tennis also choose vilas as number one. winning wimbledon for borg is not enough. lendl had 3 world number ones and never won wimbledon

world rankings break down into 3 factores:

major events (slams in this decade but in 1960s jou would choosing pro majores like wemblely)

consistency/ regular tournament play


head to head or wins against top players.


you could eliminate the final category if you use super nine system meaning players are forced to play and meet each other as often as federer and nadal. i prefer treating all events outside the majors as the same and giving extra points for ctual wins so borg's 3 wins are given a numerical value

if you look at the champoionship race system of 2000-2008 the points for majors 800: 1150 for regular events. ie 2:3 ratio with ther nasters as a 19th event bonus'

since most ranking experts rank head to head as least important counting catergory the split of 100% becomes

45% 14 regular events
30% 4 majors
25% wins over top players


remember fedrerer was rated as the number one between 2004-7 even though his head to head was poor against nadal particularly in 2006 but he won every thing else. just because borg would have likely have won in paris does make hin him no1 because he did not play; if you play wtt like borg did you get no points to your world ranking and thus lose out in the number one race. REmember vilas had a 50 match win streak in the summer easily the best in the open era. borg neded to play dallas and paris to prove how good he was and vilas did win 5/20 matches against borg; its not impossible in the bestform of his life with his 50 match streak he might have beaten borg
Vilas was not really contender for the number one spot in '75 or '78 whenborg crushed hin on clay; not real opposition for borg.



jeffrey


Jeffrey,

The question is NOT whether Borg was number one in 1977 but whether he would win the French in 1977. You didn't answer my question, if both Vilas and Borg reached the French Open final in 1977, who do you think would win?

The thread in itself is hypothetical. Borg improved by a great margin in 1977 from 1976 and at this point was clearly better than Vilas. I believe there is a greater than 50% (the percentage is probably far higher than that) chance Borg would have won the French in 1977 if he played.

Let's put this another way. Let's go back to 1952, a year Frank Sedgman was quite dominant in amateur tennis. Sedgman lost I believe six matches the entire year and was quite overwhelming in most of his matches and won Wimbledon. Gonzalez and Kramer were unable to play Wimbledon because they were banned because they were professionals.

Clearly as far as traditional accomplishments are concerned, Sedgman had a better year than Gonzalez or Kramer. However if Gonzalez or Kramer were allowed to play Wimbledon in 1952, would you think they would win Wimbledon over Sedgman? I would lean toward that. Now Sedgman did give Kramer some problems two years later but Kramer was suffering from arthritis at that time and wasn't at his peak.

The question with Borg winning in 1977 is the same type of question. Borg was banned from the French because of WTT. Would Borg win the French if he played? Bottom line, was Borg better on red clay than Vilas in 1977? They played twice on clay that year, Borg won both. Vilas won one set. My answer is Borg would win, and probably very easily.

jean pierre
05-19-2009, 09:01 AM
It depends on how you think about it. Personally, this "slam counting" strikes me as bogus.

I look at it this way: who was the better player on red clay? Borg. Who was the better player on grass? Borg. Who was the better player on carpet? Borg.

Vilas, just by the virtue of the fact that he played more matches on green clay than Borg, is better on that surface. One can say that.

I just don't see how it's even arguable that Vilas was the better player that year. It's not even close.


Who won 2 Grand slams (+ 1 Final) ? Vilas
Who won 16 tournaments ? Vilas
Whon won 46 matches consecutively (record) ? Vilas

jean pierre
05-19-2009, 09:04 AM
If Borg played in 2008, he certainely won. So Borg is the N°1 in 2008. And in 2009. And in 2010 .......
If Sampras played in 2022, he won. So Sampras is the N°1 in 2022.
If .... if ..... if .....

What are the facts ?

jeffreyneave
05-19-2009, 09:04 AM
i must admit i am only interested in the no1 ranking for 1977 and my stats prove vilas desereved it given that the year of tennis was domniated by clay court tennis on har-tru and red clay. vilas entered and won the 2 majors on clay. clay was king in 1977. borg deserves to be severely punished for not playing paris and dallas. He only performed well at one major wimbledon. one major win and 4th round retirement is not world one form against a player with 2 majors , 16 other wins and a 50 match streak. all borg has is i repeat one major , 11 other wins and the 3-0 edge over vilas. 3-0 to is not enough for borg. nadal had a 4-2 edge on federer in 2006 but federer's major and tournament record made him number one. nadal was better on hard couts and clay in 2006 against federer, but weaker on grass and fast indoors. nadal enfed up with the head to head advantage becauise clay and hard courts are more prevalent than grass (hardly exists) and indoors (just the autumn). head to head wins count but they are not every thing and just as nadal was not best with only one major to federer's 3 majors in 2006 nor was borg the best with only one major and only 11 wins and only a 30 match winning streak compared to vilas' 2 major , ru aussie on grass, 16 other wins and 50 match winning streak . head to head advantasge for borg is only worth a little just as it was for nadal in 2006. vilas was the player who improved in 1977 not borg. vilas was my number 5 in 1976 and not remotely a contender for the top 3. he improved as lot in 1977 under tirac and produced one great year of tennis like ashe did in '75 and smith did in '72. borg was no2 in '76 with official 6 wins but if you count all his 4man events he won 5 or 6 four man events against the likes of vilas,nastase, newcombe, laver and panatta. he took 4-man events very seriously and only lostonce in 1976 to the only players who stood a chance of beating him regularly in 1976 namely nastase and connors at caracas in october 1976. that gives borg one major in 1976, ru at us open plus 10 or 11 other including dallas wins just as good as '77. borg was no2 in 76 and he stayed no2 in '77 . borg did not improve from 76 to 77. he played great at wimbledon in '76 not losing a set thrasing vilas, dominating tanner and comfortably beating nastase all in straight setes. in '77 he was taken to 5 sets 3 times because edmondson, gerulaitis and connors played higher standard tennis than the ordinary performances of his opponebts in 1976. its vilas whio improved to challenge for number one; borg was still the same player avery close number 2.


number ones for 1977

atp computer connors
players vote borg
world tennis magazine vilas
sutter vilas
tennis magazine borg
urban vilas
jeffrey vilas


I am not fan of either borg or vilas nor do i dislike either of them just as i have the same attitude with connors and lendl. my favourite is laver unlike cyborg who makes his favourtism actually quite clear.

jeffrey


jeffrey

pc1
05-19-2009, 10:21 AM
i must admit i am only interested in the no1 ranking for 1977 and my stats prove vilas desereved it given that the year of tennis was domniated by clay court tennis on har-tru and red clay. vilas entered and won the 2 majors on clay. clay was king in 1977. borg deserves to be severely punished for not playing paris and dallas.

borg did not improve from 76 to 77. he played great at wimbledon in '76 not losing a set thrasing vilas, dominating tanner and comfortably beating nastase all in straight setes. in '77 he was taken to 5 sets 3 times because edmondson, gerulaitis and connors played higher standard tennis than the ordinary performances of his opponebts in 1976. its vilas whio improved to challenge for number one; borg was still the same player avery close number 2.


number ones for 1977

atp computer connors
players vote borg
world tennis magazine vilas
sutter vilas
tennis magazine borg
urban vilas
jeffrey vilas


I am not fan of either borg or vilas nor do i dislike either of them just as i have the same attitude with connors and lendl. my favourite is laver unlike cyborg who makes his favourtism actually quite clear.

jeffrey


jeffrey



Jeffrey,

The thread is not who is number one for 1977, it's would Borg have won the French in 77 and 82. Check the records, Borg was far better in 77 than in 76 overall. It's not close. Borg barely won 80% of his matches in 1976 but was over 90% in 1977. He also won more tournaments with less losses.

One of my interests in tennis is to see who is the best player in tennis for any year and who accomplished the most in any year. These two answers can be different. In 1977, Vilas may very well been number one but I believe Borg was the overall superior player and I'm not sure about the former assumption.

Vilas played more tournaments and won more matches and more majors. There is no doubt about that.

Borg won Wimbledon, defeated Vilas twice on clay fairly easily and if you count the year end Masters as part of the 1977 season, defeated Vilas three time without a loss, losing only one set.

The evidence clearly points to the fact that if Borg played Vilas at the French in 1977, Borg won.

There is no absolute proof here but I know this, saying who was number one for the year in 1977 has nothing to do with the question.

Jeffrey,

I think Cyborg was very logical in his evidence incidentally and while he may like Borg it was very convincing and I don't think it affected his judgement.

Jeffrey, you admit you like Laver and I could easily start a thread asking who would win Wimbledon in 1965 if Laver competed. Emerson actually won and had a great record that year. I would argue that Laver probably would have won if he was able to compete in 1965. He was not allowed to.

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 10:51 AM
Who won 2 Grand slams (+ 1 Final) ? Vilas
Who won 16 tournaments ? Vilas
Whon won 46 matches consecutively (record) ? Vilas

I know all of this, but you ignore a lot of important factors here. You simply treat Vilas's accomplishments as if this was a standardized calendar like what we have today.

It's more complicated than that. The Australian was poorly attended. The French lacked Borg (and even Connors). And those 46 matches in a row was mostly all clay and against a lot of weak opponents.

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 11:00 AM
i must admit i am only interested in the no1 ranking for 1977 and my stats prove vilas desereved it given that the year of tennis was domniated by clay court tennis on har-tru and red clay.

Says who? Jeffreyneave?

vilas entered and won the 2 majors on clay. clay was king in 1977. borg deserves to be severely punished for not playing paris and dallas.

Vilas didn't play Dallas. Oops. Double standard.

He only performed well at one major wimbledon. one major win and 4th round retirement is not world one form against a player with 2 majors , 16 other wins and a 50 match streak. all borg has is i repeat one major , 11 other wins and the 3-0 edge over vilas. 3-0 to is not enough for borg.

Selective. Monte Carlo and Wembley were very important events.

nadal had a 4-2 edge on federer in 2006 but federer's major and tournament record made him number one. nadal was better on hard couts and clay in 2006 against federer, but weaker on grass and fast indoors.

Nadal was not better on hardcourts than Federer in 2006. You're reaching.

nadal enfed up with the head to head advantage becauise clay and hard courts are more prevalent than grass (hardly exists) and indoors (just the autumn). head to head wins count but they are not every thing and just as nadal was not best with only one major to federer's 3 majors in 2006 nor was borg the best with only one major and only 11 wins and only a 30 match winning streak compared to vilas' 2 major , ru aussie on grass, 16 other wins and 50 match winning streak . head to head advantasge for borg is only worth a little just as it was for nadal in 2006. vilas was the player who improved in 1977 not borg.

This is mostly unreadable. I was able to make out the part about Vilas improving and not Borg and that's patently wrong.

vilas was my number 5 in 1976 and not remotely a contender for the top 3. he improved as lot in 1977 under tirac and produced one great year of tennis like ashe did in '75 and smith did in '72. borg was no2 in '76 with official 6 wins but if you count all his 4man events he won 5 or 6 four man events against the likes of vilas,nastase, newcombe, laver and panatta. he took 4-man events very seriously and only lostonce in 1976 to the only players who stood a chance of beating him regularly in 1976 namely nastase and connors at caracas in october 1976. that gives borg one major in 1976, ru at us open plus 10 or 11 other including dallas wins just as good as '77. borg was no2 in 76 and he stayed no2 in '77 . borg did not improve from 76 to 77.

I can tell you at least one way Borg improved from 1976 to 1977. His red clay performances. Borg went undefeated 22-0 on red clay in 1977, but lost on the surface twice in 1976.

he played great at wimbledon in '76 not losing a set thrasing vilas, dominating tanner and comfortably beating nastase all in straight setes. in '77 he was taken to 5 sets 3 times because edmondson, gerulaitis and connors played higher standard tennis than the ordinary performances of his opponebts in 1976. its vilas whio improved to challenge for number one; borg was still the same player avery close number 2.

I agree that Vilas did improve, but Borg established himself as an unbeatable clay court force in 1977, something that could not be said in 1976.

number ones for 1977

atp computer connors
players vote borg
world tennis magazine vilas
sutter vilas
tennis magazine borg
urban vilas
jeffrey vilas

You left out ATP, which awarded Borg player of the year. I am also not aware that jeffrey worked for a publication. Should I add my name to this list? Why leave me out?

I am not fan of either borg or vilas nor do i dislike either of them just as i have the same attitude with connors and lendl. my favourite is laver unlike cyborg who makes his favourtism actually quite clear.

Have you ever heard of 'ad hominem'?

Interesting logic - your favorite player is Laver, therefore what you say makes unquestionable sense. Brilliant!

Borgforever
05-19-2009, 11:03 AM
Splendidly put pc1! I've still never come across a view you've put forth that I've disagreed with.

Incidentally Borg received (correctly IMO although I heartily disagree with the ATP computer ranking many times) the ATP Player Of The Year Award both in 1976 and 1977 -- in the end awarding him as year end No. 1 player five years in a row 1976-80 when he was 20 to 24 years old. When did we ever see such a versatile great player and seasoned General in competition at such a young age? Will we ever see another...

I say Borg was the best player with the greatest and highest sustained levels of performance both those years.

I have Jimbo as co-No. 1 in 1976 based on his great records on the lesser events and against Borg in the minor tourneys when Borg wasn't at his best.

Many people and experts support my view that Borg was No. 1 for 1976. Fred Tupper credits Borg all the way for his Wimby win -- "finest sustained tennis of the year during the biggest tourney of the year".

Björn Hellberg is adamant that Borg was "clearly" the best player based on results in 1976 but Hellberg (being a Laver for GOAT-man and very results-oriented with focus on the major events) gives Vilas sole No. 1 status in 1977 just because of "stronger record" but he easily admits that Borg was the best player in 1977 -- i. e. Vilas just won more matches against weak fields overflowing with stiffs ripe for the plucking. Like Jimbo's own summer circuit in 1974. Air inflating his record beyond his actual level and achievements greatly aided by absence of great opposition, strange political boycotts and an over-reliance on quantity over quality...

I rate 1976 and 1977 fairly close to 1999. Strongest sustained achievement and highest level of play in 1999 was IMO made by Pete Sampras. The Sampras Summer of 1999 was the finest play by Pete I've ever seen -- add to that the YEC and it's a done deal. But Andre was also amazing everywhere else earning him IMO a clear co-No. 1 for just the strongest overall record.

Just as in Laver's wonderful victory in five stunning sets over Rosewall at Dunlop in 1970 looks clearly sharper IMO and had greater tennis (even better stats) than either Rosewall's USO win or Newk's Wimby-victory that same year.

1977 was a weird year like 1970 and 1999. If they were not injured Borg, Laver and Sampras produced the most impressive results weighing in every thinkable factor in three dimensions (important stage performances, great opponents in form, stats, overall impression, peak level) if one is seriously looking for the best tennis player and strongest and most important achievement of any particular year.

I say Laver also wins Wimby 1965 -- IMO probably in great blowout style considering The Rocket's stunning level and peak results that year living up to his nickname to the hilt.

By the way, I have McEnroe and Wilander as co-No. 1s in 1983. Finest sustained tennis and greatest achievement was Mac's blazing Wimby-win but Mats had a stronger record and could almost match Mac's Wimby level at Cincy that year but I put Mac's sustained greatness of play at Wimby as slightly higher than Mats level at Cincy plus that sustaining the quality for seven straight best of five set matches during two consecutive weeks against the most amped opposition at the biggest stage in tennis is definitely just as great as Mats amazing overall record in 1983 IMO...

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 11:09 AM
I give Connors 1976. It's hard to overlook the fact that Bjorn simply couldn't beat Jimmy that year.

But how could this be? I must be a blind fanboy, or what am I?

Paradox.

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 11:11 AM
CyBorg's publication ranks Borg #1 in 1977 as does BorgForever's publication. Please note that our publications are the most widely read and are highly respected in all civilized parts of the world.

Bring it on suckas!

;)

pc1
05-19-2009, 11:28 AM
CyBorg's publication ranks Borg #1 in 1977 as does BorgForever's publication. Please note that our publications are the most widely read and are highly respected in all civilized parts of the world.

Bring it on suckas!

;)

My publication is not sure about number one in 1977 but it is sure Borg was the best player in 1977.

The question is for all of you. Cyborg, maybe you should set up a poll for this. "It's the French Open final 1977, Borg against Vilas, you have to pick the winner or you will die, who do you pick?"

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 11:31 AM
My publication is not sure about number one in 1977 but it is sure Borg was the best player in 1977.

The question is for all of you. Cyborg, maybe you should set up a poll for this. "It's the French Open final 1977, Borg against Vilas, you have to pick the winner or you will die, who do you pick?"

I don't want to overdo this. Some folks really want Vilas to have his year and I can understand this and don't want to pour any salts down any wounds, if you get my drifts.

Borgforever
05-19-2009, 11:50 AM
I give Connors 1976. It's hard to overlook the fact that Bjorn simply couldn't beat Jimmy that year.

But how could this be? I must be a blind fanboy, or what am I?

Paradox.

Borg didn't meet Connors when he was in his finest form in 1976 -- certainly they didn't meet at Wimby and all Borg's losses to Jimmy falls as much on Björn's "complex" towards Jimbo as it does for the lack of matches when he was at his best form just as much as it owes to Jimmy playing great in those minor tourney wins.

Remember Federer's 2-4 against Rafa in 2006 or Mac's 0-4 against Lendl in 1981 or heck just go to Nastase who was 3-1 against Jimbo in 1976 almost blowouting Jimmy every time. By strict quantity over quality reasoning one could say that if Borg had chosen a hockey career instead of tennis in the late 60s (not improbable) Nastase would've probably won Wimby and US Open in 1976 since Connors had a enormous, inflated beyond reality complex playing Ilie up until and including that year...

H2Hs are never the barometer for the best level. And Borg Wimby win was made in greater fashion (stats etc) than Jimmy's USO victory -- plus that Wimby is bigger than USO -- plus that Borg has a final at the second biggest tourney of the year USO and a victory in the greatest tourney Wimby -- both of them entering the two most amped up fields of the year.

Borg's performance, importance of achievements and record at the toughest fields outclasses Jimbo's QF at the greatest tourney Wimby (blowout loss to Tanner who Borg subsequently executed in straight sets) and victory at the second biggest tourney...

pc1
05-19-2009, 11:55 AM
I give Connors 1976. It's hard to overlook the fact that Bjorn simply couldn't beat Jimmy that year.

But how could this be? I must be a blind fanboy, or what am I?

Paradox.

Cyborg,

While your favorite is Borg you are clearly NOT a fanboy. I usually find your comments very well thought out.

Borg didn't meet Connors when he was in his finest form in 1976 -- certainly they didn't meet at Wimby and all Borg's losses to Jimmy falls as much on Björn's "complex" towards Jimbo as it does for the lack of matches when he was at his best form just as much as it owes to Jimmy playing great in those minor tourney wins.

Remember Federer's 2-4 against Rafa in 2006 or Mac's 0-4 against Lendl in 1981 or heck just go to Nastase who was 3-1 against Jimbo in 1976 almost blowouting Jimmy every time. By strict quantity over quality reasoning one could say that if Borg had chosen a hockey career instead of tennis in the late 60s (not improbable) Nastase would've probably won Wimby and US Open in 1976 since Connors had a enormous, inflated beyond reality complex playing Ilie up until and including that year...

H2Hs are never the barometer for the best level. And Borg Wimby win was made in greater fashion (stats etc) than Jimmy's USO victory -- plus that Wimby is bigger than USO -- plus that Borg has a final the second biggest tourney fo the year and a victory in the greatest tourney -- both of them entering the two most amped up fields of the year.

Borg performance, importance of achievements and record at the toughest fields outclasses Jimbo's QF at the greatest tourney Wimby (blowout loss to Tanner who Borg subsequently executed in straight sets) and victory at the second biggest tourney...

Agreed, as usual.

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 12:06 PM
Borg didn't meet Connors when he was in his finest form in 1976 -- certainly they didn't meet at Wimby and all Borg's losses to Jimmy falls as much on Björn's "complex" towards Jimbo as it does for the lack of matches when he was at his best form just as much as it owes to Jimmy playing great in those minor tourney wins.

Remember Federer's 2-4 against Rafa in 2006 or Mac's 0-4 against Lendl in 1981 or heck just go to Nastase who was 3-1 against Jimbo in 1976 almost blowouting Jimmy every time. By strict quantity over quality reasoning one could say that if Borg had chosen a hockey career instead of tennis in the late 60s (not improbable) Nastase would've probably won Wimby and US Open in 1976 since Connors had a enormous, inflated beyond reality complex playing Ilie up until and including that year...

H2Hs are never the barometer for the best level. And Borg Wimby win was made in greater fashion (stats etc) than Jimmy's USO victory -- plus that Wimby is bigger than USO -- plus that Borg has a final the second biggest tourney fo the year and a victory in the greatest tourney -- both of them entering the two most amped up fields of the year.

Borg performance, importance of achievements and record at the toughest fields outclasses Jimbo's QF at the greatest tourney Wimby (blowout loss to Tanner who Borg subsequently executed in straight sets) and victory at the second biggest tourney...

I can see why Borg was voted player of the year in 1976. Wimbledon + Dallas were both huge.

I do value H2H a bit more than you, though. And Jimmy also didn't play Dallas, but did play Philly where beat Bjorn.

pc1
05-19-2009, 12:16 PM
I can see why Borg was voted player of the year in 1976. Wimbledon + Dallas were both huge.

I do value H2H a bit more than you, though. And Jimmy also didn't play Dallas, but did play Philly where beat Bjorn.

In 1976 you could argue that the WCT final in Dallas was almost a major. It was clearly higher in prestige than the Australian Open. The field in Dallas that year had Ashe, Solomon, Dibbs, Ramirez, Borg, Stockton, Lutz and Vilas. All top players.

Borgforever
05-19-2009, 12:31 PM
I can see why Borg was voted player of the year in 1976. Wimbledon + Dallas were both huge.

I do value H2H a bit more than you, though. And Jimmy also didn't play Dallas, but did play Philly where beat Bjorn.

Having researched this year extensively -- both watching every key match and almost every match Borg and Nastase and Jimbo played at Wimby, RG and USO and have checked up on Björn's losses to Connors in 1976 Jimbo only met a very good Borg once that year in the USO-final still clearly inferior to his Wimby and WCT level which was 10-20 % better in everything else that year in terms of highest caliber play -- easy -- and still Borg lost a very close match, not being at his Wimby or WCT form.

You add Borg's lack of meeting Jimmy at his own finest form and that he had a complex for Jimmy similar to Jimmy against Ilie -- creates a reasonable doubt that the H2Hs between them that year should decide who's Boss. I don't see a clear logic at all going by this stat as the decider in this...

Just compare Borg's stats at Wimby 1976 with Sampras (in his own words "best match") majestic win over a in form Agassi at Wimby 1999.

Actually Borg complained of first signs of burnout in August (having such crazy busy schedule) after the hectic WCT, clay and grass seasons and the injury break...

In 1976 Borg serves 62 % first serves and makes 53 clean winners including aces out of the 220 points played -- effectively making 24.09 % clean winners out of all the points played.

Borg made 61 forced and unforced errors making errors on 27 % of all the points played...

In 1999 Sampras serves 59 % and makes 46 clean winners including aces out of 191 points played -- effectively making 24.08 % clean winners out of all the points played.

Sampras made a total of 58 forced and unforced errors making errors on more than 30 % of all the points played.

Borg has less error and greater winner percentage than Sampras in both cases. He also made more winners at the net than Sampras -- 22 to 19 and Björn faced a better performer than Agassi.

Nastase served harder and better than Andre with 62 % against 43 %, hit many more winners than Andre and was quite simply stronger opposition.

Compare all stats yourselves and consider that wood racquets of 1976 had less power, much less precision and control inviting high error counts so that they could actually have greater stats in 1976 compared to 1999 or 1969 is actually really remarkable.

Here's Borg stats 1976:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=233339

Sampras stats 1999:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=185518

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 01:02 PM
I guess I'd feel differently about Borg's year if he put together a more consistent spring stretch.

Borgforever
05-19-2009, 01:18 PM
The spring was WCT, arguably the fourth major that year with an interconnecting series of tourneys which Borg ultimately won.

That's two victories in majors and one final and a QF, one supreme win at the most important tourney in a fashion unmatched even today 21-0 in sets (even by Sampras in 1999 and Mac in 1984 -- Mac had about 27 % winners in 1984 but Jimbo made an enormous amount of errors and wasn't in Nasty or Andre class that day) and a final in the second biggest major and a QF at RG plus a victory at WCT spring season. That's clearly stronger and outshines Jimbo's achievements that year -- while impressive they're not at all so stunning and filled with records that stand unmatched to this day as Borg's.

All international sportswriters put Borg as one of the top ten athletes on the planet if 1976. Björn made all the lists. Jimbo made none...

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 01:23 PM
Too bad Jimbo didn't play Dallas.

Actually, too bad Bjorn didn't win Dallas again. Do you know why he retired from Dallas in 1978?

Borgforever
05-19-2009, 01:34 PM
Borg's important match stats are nothing short of stunning if one makes comparisons. The finest stats for any match Borg played must go to the Wimby SF 1977 against Gerulaitis -- arguably the greatest five setter ever with the maybe the finest play made.

Out of the 353 points played in that match Borg and Vitas made an unmatched, absolutely stunning 149 winners (including clean aces and krosero's calls for "actual" service winners) -- a whopping 42.20 % winners on all points played...

WITH WOODEN TEASPOONS IN THEIR HANDS... Hard to grasp...

Even more stunning in relation to it's unbelievably low errors count: Borg at only 55 and Vitas at 73...

In the great five setter between Borg and Tanner in 79 Björn has 83 errors total and Tanner 109...

Laver had a total error count of "normal" 93 errors and Rosewall also 93 total errors in the great 1970 Dunlop-final five setter battle...

Beyond belief. Is Vilas close to matching Borg's achievement in 1977? Not even close. Borg then murdered a great Jimbo in five in the final, made mincemeat of Nasty in the QF and came back from 0-2 against Edmondson in R2. That alone gets Borg the No. 1 spot for 1977. Nothing compares in Vilas achievements. Vilas played Wimby and came up very, very short... Without excuses...

Here's the stats:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=188239

My estimation of Donald Budge is shaky to say the least but The Great Budge named Borg vs Gerulaitis Wimby SF 1977 the greatest match he'd ever seen bar none.

Dan Maskell called it spontaneously "one of the greatest matches -- if not the greatest match I've ever seen."

Remember Vitas plays better here, hits more clean winners than Laver or practically everybody of the Wimbledon emperors in their grandest victories -- Vitas does everything right playing better than Rod or Pete maybe according to the stats -- even having a break in the fifth -- but still lost to The Ice Man...

Borg was the competitor's competitor...

Borgforever
05-19-2009, 01:49 PM
CyB -- the WCT was going through transformations after 1976 and it was losing it's lustre -- a lustre created by Laver and Rosewall and Newk and the other WCT greats and lost without their presence. Borg was frustrated with his 1977 season and his insane Boss at WTT.

Borg loved red clay and disliked the break of rythm that plagued the tour in the mid 70s -- red clay, green clay, indoor, hardcourt cement -- tourneys on different surfaces all wrecking a surface rythm to present itself. A certain amount time for adaptability is a must to reach peak form on a surface and the crazy tour didn't -- how should I say -- promote a smooth season line-up.

So Borg called his own shots in 1978 -- pretty much what Vilas did in 1977. Guillermo joked to Borg in early 1978, something like "Yes, Björn, you're the best in 1977 -- but I planned my schedule the best!" :-)

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 01:52 PM
It's just that he played one match and then simply left, it appears. Weird.

Agree 100% about surface rhythm.

Borgforever
05-19-2009, 02:39 PM
When it comes to H2H stats as a factor of value in comparison with other factors I always look for to the H2H status over all the top 10 ranked players that year. If you dominate practically everyone -- like what Laver did in 1970 in absolutely astonishing fashion -- the H2Hs are very important. Also of critical importance is paying attention to the context of the losses and victories: How impressive were they from a tennis standpoint? What were the stats? How well was the opposition playing? Peak? injuries? Minor tourney? A major final?

All these things weigh in of course -- enhancing or diluting the achievement accordingly...

Borg dominated the top 10 H2Hs better than anyone in 1976 to 1980 -- better than Mac, Connors or Lendl or Nastase in any of the five years in question piling up arguably the most dominant records (five straight Wimby-wins and six straight finals/four straight RG wins retiring as undefeated there (!), four US Open-finals, two YEC Masters-titles and one final and lastly one WCT-victory the last year that tourney carried serious, arguable Major status, achievements (alone at winning RG twice without set-loss and the last to win Wimby without set loss and the only player ever who's won three Major Grand Slam titles without set loss) and streaks still unsurpassed by one player in the Open Era (33 straight Davis Cup-victories (back when that mattered), 41 straight victories at Wimby and not losing a five setter for almost five years at the time -- among other streaks) perhaps the strongest recorded dominance in the history of the game.

Certainly he is the only player achieving such majestic, unmatched superiority and dominance at such a young age...

Before he was 25...

Borgforever
05-19-2009, 04:14 PM
Actually Borg spontaneously jumped the WCT-ship in 1978 just because he blamed WCT-season for draining him a lot before the vital RG in Paris in 1976 -- Paris, a city he loved/loves and always celebrated his birthday at during the tourney -- June 6th.

Borg missed RG and being well prepped for it. He wanted another RG victory badly in 1978 and listened to Vilas advice in his jokes -- it's better to plan and do what you really want to do...

Borg loved the RG tourney and it's classic atmosphere. Even Connors thought RG was his favorite tourney of all -- he reveals this during the great interview he made with Charlie Rose -- which is wonderfully enough available to watch for free online at charlierose.com. Just add Connors in the interview search engine and you get one hour with great Jimbo.

Jimmy said he didn't particularly like red clay since it didn't necessarily speak to the strengths of his game but the tournament itself and it's wonderful atmosphere made Jimmy love it more than any other. Jimmy was also very much celebrated when he finally entered the tourney late in his career. It is indeed a shame he wasn't allowed to enter between 1974-78 -- not that I think he would've won it -- but one never knows anything, stranger things have happened...

Borgforever
05-19-2009, 04:47 PM
Actually it just struck me -- if I would throw out IMO a probable (even if it's slight and it's not something I consider very probable) chance for Jimmy to nail a RG victory it would be in 1975.

Borg won just losing one set that year -- quite dominant -- blowouting a great Vilas in the final -- so I don't think Jimbo would've been the better red clay player that year -- but there are some extenuating circumstances that might've worked to Jimbo's favor in a victory in a final against Björn at RG namely the following:

RG 1975 was played right during the time when Connors rep was at it's peak -- Jimmy was surfing four straight finals in majors going into his fifth straight major final against Ashe at Wimby in July.

Björn was so scared of Jimmy during this time it wasn't even funny and he almost folded mentally when they met just out of fear for Jimmy thunderous groundies. Borg admits that if he wasn't injured against Ashe and maybe pulled off a win in that QF at Wimby Björn himself is certain that he would've lost against Jimmy in an imaginary final.

Connors was also in fantastic form around the spring and summer of 1975. He reached finals all over place -- dominated pretty much everyone in the top ten and made the Wimby final in 1975 without losing a set blowouting Tanner in the SFs on the soft, slightly slower humid grass in one of the most impressive return and knockout winner performances in Wimby history.

On the faster Har-Tru he truly dominated Borg at the USO 1975 SF -- toying with Borg from start to finish -- partly because of great play but mostly because of Björn's lack of authority and bleakly hesitant play.

So there's some context IMO that speaks for Connors to maybe topple Borg at RG there -- the time would be ripe -- in combination with Jimbo's dominant form...

krosero
05-19-2009, 06:34 PM
BF: I'm glad you're using my stats but I want to clarify some things.

Out of the 353 points played in that match Borg and Vitas made an unmatched, absolutely stunning 149 winners (including clean aces and krosero's calls for "actual" service winners) -- a whopping 42.20 % winners on all points played...

Even more stunning in relation to it's unbelievably low errors count: Borg at only 55 and Vitas at 73...

Here's the stats:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=188239
The total errors here are actually 98 errors by Borg, 116 by Gerulaitis.

Those are the numbers left over after the aces and clean winners are subtracted from the total points won. That's how I calculated the errors in Borg-Nastase, Borg-Tanner, and Sampras-Agassi, the other matches you mentioned.

Just be careful with some of my older threads, like Borg-Gerulaitis. I used to subtract not just the aces/winners but also return errors and double-faults, to get the number of errors made in what I called "rallies": 55 by Borg and 73 by Gerulaitis. That's why those numbers are so low compared to the other matches: they don't include return errors and df's.

I noted, by the way, that I was subtracting returns and doubles, but I also made the mistake of referring to the result as the "total number of errors", so my post was contradictory (I'll edit it).

By the way, I like that you included service winners in the total winner count for Borg/Gerulaitis, since that's the way it's done today. And you're right, the percentage is winners among the total points played is 42%, incredibly high.

Just note that when I speak of the total errors, I'm subtracting only the clean winners and aces, so there are some points that I'm calling errors even when the player's racquet made only minimal contact with the ball. So some of the "total errors" include what we would call today service winners.

Just something to keep in mind, in my threads, when you lay out both the winners and errors.

For this match we would get an even higher percentage of winners if we included judgment calls on volleys and groundstrokes (again, like it's done today; but when I did that match I wasn't making those calls).

In the great five setter between Borg and Tanner in 79 Björn has 83 errors total and Tanner 109...Yes those are the total errors -- returns, double-faults, everything -- just like the errors in Borg-Nastase and Sampras-Agassi (and just like those numbers, they include technical errors that would go down today as service winners).

Laver had a total error count of "normal" 93 errors and Rosewall also 93 total errors in the great 1970 Dunlop-final five setter battle...
Not sure what you mean by normal errors.

If we did this like the other matches, subtracting the aces/winners from the total points won, then I've got Laver making 110 total errors, Rosewall 101.

He also made more winners at the net than Sampras -- 22 to 19 and Björn faced a better performer than Agassi.But Borg played 220 points, Sampras only 191.

That works out almost exactly to each man making a volley winner for every 10 points played. They're quite evenly matched.

Borg made 61 forced and unforced errors making errors on 27 % of all the points played...

Nitpick: Borg's total errors against Nastase were 62.

I've tried to be exact in my descriptions but there are so many numbers and terms that there are bound to be questions; feel free to ask me anything if there's the slightest doubt.

It helps me as much as anyone else.

urban
05-19-2009, 08:28 PM
Now that 1976 is included, when almost all magazine rankings had Connors at Nr.1, how about 1978. There was a tennis publication in the USA, Tennis Mag, which called Connors the Nr.1. He also was the computer Nr. 1 for the year. In my (private and imaginary) book, (which was never written nor published), Borg was Nr.1 for 1978.

CyBorg
05-19-2009, 08:41 PM
Now that 1976 is included, when almost all magazine rankings had Connors at Nr.1, how about 1978. There was a tennis publication in the USA, Tennis Mag, which called Connors the Nr.1. He also was the computer Nr. 1 for the year. In my (private and imaginary) book, (which was never written nor published), Borg was Nr.1 for 1978.

You should write one, urban. I'd read it.

pc1
05-20-2009, 03:28 AM
On the faster Har-Tru he truly dominated Borg at the USO 1975 SF -- toying with Borg from start to finish -- partly because of great play but mostly because of Björn's lack of authority and bleakly hesitant play.

So there's some context IMO that speaks for Connors to maybe topple Borg at RG there -- the time would be ripe -- in combination with Jimbo's dominant form...

I can tell you from what I remember that Connors was not really in super form during the 75 U.S. Open semi final against Borg. He was excellent but he has played better. As you wrote Borg was hesitant and clearly nervous. It was an unusual match in that it was the same sequence of games every set. Connors (serving) won the first game, Borg the second, Connors won the next three, Borg the next three, Connors held serve, Borg held serve, Connors held serve and broke Borg to win the set 7-5. Same thing in the second and third sets. Connors was clearly the better player at the time. As you wrote before I did wonder if Connors was toying with Borg considering the sequence of games. He seemed to be able to break Borg when he needed it. In hindsight I doubt if Connors toyed with a player of Borg's level but it seemed very odd at the time.

After the match and after the semi finals were all done with I remember thinking to myself that despite the fact Orantes might be exhausted I couldn't see how Connors could defeat Orantes considering the tremendous form Orantes was in. Orantes defeated Vilas in an incredible match and defeated Nastase earlier in the tournament I think in four sets and Nastase played very well. Remember what I thought, clearly I wasn't impressed with Connors form.

Now that 1976 is included, when almost all magazine rankings had Connors at Nr.1, how about 1978. There was a tennis publication in the USA, Tennis Mag, which called Connors the Nr.1. He also was the computer Nr. 1 for the year. In my (private and imaginary) book, (which was never written nor published), Borg was Nr.1 for 1978.

Connors had a great year in 1978 but it was ridiculous to name Connors number one over Borg.

Borgforever
05-20-2009, 05:08 AM
Thanks Kros for the clarification. It was certainly beyond belief the errors stat! :-)

I had a hard time grasping a 55 ad 73 error total on fast surface, with wood, high-intensity et al -- what I meant by "normal" errors, isn't really normal. If you have two great players face off in a five setter around 350 to 400 points and only 25 % of them end up as errors was something I've never seen before.

So there was an explanation.

Around a 100 errors per player of forced and unforced errors are more "normal" but still excellent.

Other very high winner percentage by Borg against an all time great at an important stage was the YEC Masters SF 1979 against McEnroe 6-7, 6-3, 7-6 played in January 1980.

Borg pasted 54 winners including aces and service winners over three sets with 44 total errors. Mac was at 51 winners including aces and service winners with 51 total errors...

Amazing for such a high pressure match on fast surface playing with wood...

I think the stats for Wimby 1969 Laver vs Newk, Dunlop 1970 Laver vs Rosewall and many of the 70s match stats made here demonstrate amazing numbers of winners and very few errors. The difference should be bigger when compared to the graphite era.

I was a very good wood player, consistent and so forth. But I became 20 % better in everything with graphite. A lot fewer errors and many more spectacular powershots just happened without apparent effort in my game. It forgave so much and opened up new shots never possible before. A real game changer and if that would work for me -- what about Laver, Pancho and Borg with bigger graphite racquets in their hands? They would be wayyyyy better also. They have a million times more hand-eye-coordination than I ever did. I saw Edberg in the early 80 and he was good but not at all like the power-attacker with graphite that he became when tech allowed it to happen. Stefan at 14 looked more like a mix of the smoothness of Pancho or even Mac with a whiff of the power of Newk...

urban
05-20-2009, 05:23 AM
Thanks CyBorg for Your kind readership. But You would be probably the one and only reader in Germany. In Germany tennis simply doesn't sell since the times of Becker and Graf. The only titles, which would make money, could be "Adventures in a Cleaning-Room. The Secret Life of Boris Becker" or "The Psychology of a Father. Wy Peter Graf called his Call Girls Steffi".

Borgforever
05-20-2009, 05:36 AM
Also a Borg vs Mac-stat worth underlining: As per the Wiki Björn Borg-page -- if one includes ALL Borg's tourney wins (i. e. even 8-man and less tourneys even of invitational and exhibition tourneys included in Borg's 100 tourney wins) Borg leads Mac in their H2H -- not 7-7 -- but with 10-7 up until of the end of 1982 which then encompasses the last of Borg's prime when he played at the peak of his powers and still practiced in a serious fashion trying to improve.

Borg's final H2H advantage over Mac with 10-7 all occurred on Mac's favorite surfaces -- never on any type of clay...

Quite great by The Dirt GOAT Borg...

Borgforever
05-20-2009, 05:38 AM
I would also read your book Urban! :-) And your publications... Avidly...

So you write one now...

pc1
05-20-2009, 05:56 AM
Also a Borg vs Mac-stat worth underlining: As per the Wiki Björn Borg-page -- if one includes ALL Borg's tourney wins (i. e. even 8-man and less tourneys even of invitational and exhibition tourneys included in Borg's 100 tourney wins) Borg leads Mac in their H2H -- not 7-7 -- but with 10-7 up until of the end of 1982 which then encompasses the last of Borg's prime when he played at the peak of his powers and still practiced in a serious fashion trying to improve.

Borg's final H2H advantage over Mac with 10-7 all occurred on Mac's favorite surfaces -- never on any type of clay...

Quite great by The Dirt GOAT Borg...
Borgforever,

That's why as you wrote before that head to head are not always that valid. John McEnroe didn't advance far enough in clay court tournaments to face and probably lose to Borg. For example the French in 77 (perhaps I should count the 77 French, Mac was too young), the Pepsi in 79, the Pepsi in 80, the French in 80 and the French in 81. I would venture to say that McEnroe may very well have lost most if not all of these matches if they played on clay in those years and the head to head between the two would be very one sided in favor of Borg. If you don't count the French in 77 I would guess Borg probably would have won all five matches if they played in these tournaments.

Urban,

I would read your book and anything you write.

krosero
05-20-2009, 05:57 AM
Thanks Kros for the clarification. It was certainly beyond belief the errors stat! :-)

I had a hard time grasping a 55 ad 73 error total on fast surface, with wood, high-intensity et al -- what I meant by "normal" errors, isn't really normal. If you two great players face off in a five setter around 350 to 400 points and only 25 % of them end up as errors was something I've never seen before.

So there was an explanation.

Around a 100 errors per player of forced and unforced errors are more "normal" but still excellent. Yes I'd agree, around 100 for that length of time is more normal.

Other very high winner percentage by Borg against an all time great at an important stage was the YEC Masters SF 1979 against McEnroe 6-7, 6-3, 7-6 played in January 1980.

Borg pasted 54 winners including aces and service winners over three sets with 44 total errors. Mac was at 51 winners including aces and service winners with 51 total errors...

Amazing for such a high pressure match on fast surface playing with wood...No problem with the winners, but this is another match in which I subtracted return errors and df's along with the winners/aces. So those errors you mention don't include every category. Including returns and df's, Borg actually made 67 errors, McEnroe 69.

I've edited that thread now to clarify it. If you copied my numbers before, you may want to have a second look at my older threads to see if I calculated the errors by subtracting returns and df's along with winners/aces (when I did so I always said so; but when I read those threads now I see how convoluted the phrasing was, and I'm going to go back and lay out the errors more simply, as the total errors).

Note on that match: if I get a complete copy with the missing first two games, both the winners and errors will go up (but the ratio of winners to errors will remain high so you're right about that; it's one of Borg's best matches).

Borgforever
05-20-2009, 05:57 AM
Thanks CyBorg for Your kind readership. But You would be probably the one and only reader in Germany. In Germany tennis simply doesn't sell since the times of Becker and Graf. The only titles, which would make money, could be "Adventures in a Cleaning-Room. The Secret Life of Boris Becker" or "The Psychology of a Father. Wy Peter Graf called his Call Girls Steffi".

You prove my point Urban! You really can write with quality and wit! :-)

But I must say that I don't think only Germany suffers from gossip-disease. Sweden most certainly is sinking deeper into the bullcrap-swamp and the symptoms in Britain and the US have reached Black Death proportions -- and the print business is in trouble partly because of this lack of importance...

A sad and very uninteresting state of affair this boring gossip culture. Stifling. Irrelevant.

jeffreyneave
05-20-2009, 10:44 AM
first of all i did include the atp players vote in list of number choices of number one for 1977. the atp computer choose connors ; atp players choose borg.

your total insistence that borg's 3-0 vilas is so important needs to be proved statistically; prove it or shut up. i did the calculation on a previous thread counting just majors and treating all other events the same . that leaves space for 25% of points to go to top wins ie borg's wins over connors .vilas , gottfried and gerulaitis etc.
my system dropped the super 9 idea because with free choice (borg made dumb stupid choices not playing WCt and paris, which he played every other year when he was full-timetop player 74-79) and only philadelphia had nearly all the top players including the only event beside the majors to have borg and connors in it; what did borg do but lose in the second round to moore to prove he definitely was not the number one indoor player ;that was connors just over stockton(ie connors won masters and wct; stockton philadeplhia. with no super nines because of the legions/masses of events all events outside the majors count the same.

the majors are aussie (lots of strong grass players rosewall, roche, tanner alexander dent ashe ,and vilas and stockton 2 top tenners of '77) but only worth 100 points; wimbledon worth 200 points; us open 200 ; french open 150 due to connors boycott, but nastase a top tenner played and he was a WTT player ,where was borg; dallas 100 (2/3 * 150 =100 based on 6 of top ten and 11/of top 17 attempted to qualify for dallas. borg entered a pathetic 2 majors; vilas 4 and connors entered 3.


All other events are the same and its who you beat ie extra points for borg beating vilas in nice ; no extra points for borg reaching the unplayed south african final in spring '77 . in this system of putting an actual value on borg's 3 wins the rest of the circuit is exactly same; there are no super nines etc or extrapoints for more money; its up to borg to go out and beat connors and gottfried (andl ose to them which he did as well) to get extra points


wembley and monte carlo are not big event, niether are nice washington , louisville , boston, us clay court or any other win by borg , connors and vilas. Its total joke to think that monte carlo because borg beat a number of good players there was the big red clay court event of 1977. paris was the major and vilas demolished gottfried superbly in the red clay couirt event. vilas played great '77 . borg was the same as '76given his overall record and borg derseves to be punished for choosing wtt. WTT was for players like laver at age 39 picking up easy money playing one set tennis near where he lived for san diego.



in cyborg's world nastase would be the best player of 1976. he deserved and was usually ranked 3 in '76. but head to head he was 4-1 against connors and 6-6 against borg. connors was 4-0 against borg. nastase's 10-7 record is clearly the best and he at 30 is beating top clas connors and borg. these results include 4-man events and as far as borg was concerned he took them very seriously winning 6 out of 7, only losing in caracas where he faced the 3 players(nasty, panatta and connors) who definitely had an even or in connors more than even chance of beating him, namely caracas in october '76


but nobody ranks nastase number one in '76 because majors do count and are worth a lot more than regular tour events. nastase won 9 events in' 76 but none of the 4 big ones (us open, wimb, french or philadelphia, which as connors said after thrasing borg in the final was like playing wimbledon in one week). borg won 11 events and one major in '77 and was runner-up at the end season masters (a 150 point event compared to 200 for wimbledon). in '76 borg won one major ,was .ru at usopen major and ru at philadelphia major, and won 11 other events and that 11 included the prestigous wct worth about the same as in '77 at a 100 points because coonotrs, panatta, orantes and to certain extent nastasedid not try to qualify for dallas)


I did '77 rankings in a previous thread and they stand good until cyborg can come up with a stastical methodology which challenges them and uses ratio like the 2000-8 which have wide accetance because the itf and the atp have never disagreed on the male worldnumber one. those are the ratios of 4 major events to 14 other events.

pc1
05-20-2009, 01:54 PM
Jeffrey,

Read the question in the thread. It's not who deserved to be the top ranked player in 1977, it would Borg have won the French in 1977 and 1982? Cyborg's reasoning is quite logical based on the question.

Cyborg using the 3-0 record against Vilas makes total sense considering the question. He is using evidence that Borg was able to beat Vilas on clay and other surfaces in that year, 1977 and it shows that given what happened that year in matches between the two, that Borg, if he had played the French, may very well have beaten Vilas.

I think we all know the records of Vilas and Borg in 1977 but that is not the question.

Please answer my question then, in 1977, French Open FINAL, Vilas against Borg, who do you pick if your life was on the line? Vilas or Borg? If you pick Vilas, fine. If you pick Borg, that's fine too but don't use records of tournament won for the year and why Vilas should be number one. The basic question is in actuality, who was more likely to win the French in 1977 if Borg and Vilas both entered?

Now if the question was who was number one in 1977, yes it's quite possible you are correct. Vilas had two majors, more tournaments won. However that's NOT the question.

pc1
05-20-2009, 01:56 PM
You prove my point Urban! You really can write with quality and wit! :-)

But I must say that I don't think only Germany suffers from gossip-disease. Sweden most certainly is sinking deeper into the bullcrap-swamp and the symptoms in Britain and the US have reached Black Death proportions -- and the print business is in trouble partly because of this lack of importance...

A sad and very uninteresting state of affair this boring gossip culture. Stifling. Irrelevant.
Unfortunately in the United States, we also suffer from the gossip culture and we have pseudo celebs who thrive on that. It's all over the papers, television, radio and many websites.

CyBorg
05-20-2009, 03:58 PM
your total insistence that borg's 3-0 vilas is so important needs to be proved statistically; prove it or shut up.

Wat. Borg was 3-0 against Vilas. Proven statistically. Is it important? Well, of course it is. Especially considering that Borg won two of those against Vilas on red clay. Quite convincingly.

i did the calculation on a previous thread counting just majors and treating all other events the same . that leaves space for 25% of points to go to top wins ie borg's wins over connors .vilas , gottfried and gerulaitis etc.
my system dropped the super 9 idea because with free choice (borg made dumb stupid choices not playing WCt and paris, which he played every other year when he was full-timetop player 74-79) and only philadelphia had nearly all the top players including the only event beside the majors to have borg and connors in it; what did borg do but lose in the second round to moore to prove he definitely was not the number one indoor player ;that was connors just over stockton(ie connors won masters and wct; stockton philadeplhia. with no super nines because of the legions/masses of events all events outside the majors count the same.

Confusing (most likely on purpose) jibber-jabber. I don't think Borg was the top carpet player either, but he was definitely better than Vilas. He after all beat Vilas at the masters.

Forget your formula and use your common sense. There's nothing to Vilas's record to suggest that he was the best player on any surface but har-tru.

the majors are aussie (lots of strong grass players rosewall, roche, tanner alexander dent ashe ,and vilas and stockton 2 top tenners of '77) but only worth 100 points; wimbledon worth 200 points; us open 200 ; french open 150 due to connors boycott, but nastase a top tenner played and he was a WTT player ,where was borg; dallas 100 (2/3 * 150 =100 based on 6 of top ten and 11/of top 17 attempted to qualify for dallas. borg entered a pathetic 2 majors; vilas 4 and connors entered 3.

Oh, no. Borg entered two majors. He must be a worst player because of that. Wait a minute. Connors also only entered two majors. Upon closer inspection this doesn't look all that uncommon for the era.

I don't think you're going to convince anyone that the Australian Open was a real "major". It wasn't. Not for years.

All other events are the same and its who you beat ie extra points for borg beating vilas in nice ; no extra points for borg reaching the unplayed south african final in spring '77 . in this system of putting an actual value on borg's 3 wins the rest of the circuit is exactly same; there are no super nines etc or extrapoints for more money; its up to borg to go out and beat connors and gottfried (andl ose to them which he did as well) to get extra points

The point system is nonsense, because it rewards a quantitative measure of a player, rather than qualitative. It arrives at no truth - add up all the numbers all you want and you will probably get at Vilas as the #1. But look at the percentages instead and you'll get a much better idea of how things really were. Based on pure volume, sure Vilas winds up ahead - he probably played twice the number of matches than Borg. That's why he won more events. Mostly minor ones though.

Also don't ignore the fact that Vilas purposefully avoided non-clay events all year. There's a reason why the current ATP rules are set up to prevent players from doing this.

wembley and monte carlo are not big event, niether are nice washington , louisville , boston, us clay court or any other win by borg , connors and vilas. Its total joke to think that monte carlo because borg beat a number of good players there was the big red clay court event of 1977. paris was the major and vilas demolished gottfried superbly in the red clay couirt event. vilas played great '77 . borg was the same as '76given his overall record and borg derseves to be punished for choosing wtt. WTT was for players like laver at age 39 picking up easy money playing one set tennis near where he lived for san diego.

I really hope this is satire. Wembley, Monte Carlo and Boston were all masters-quality events of the time. I'm not the only one who feels this way - SgtJohn is among those who also does.

in cyborg's world nastase would be the best player of 1976. he deserved and was usually ranked 3 in '76. but head to head he was 4-1 against connors and 6-6 against borg. connors was 4-0 against borg. nastase's 10-7 record is clearly the best and he at 30 is beating top clas connors and borg. these results include 4-man events and as far as borg was concerned he took them very seriously winning 6 out of 7, only losing in caracas where he faced the 3 players(nasty, panatta and connors) who definitely had an even or in connors more than even chance of beating him, namely caracas in october '76

It doesn't seem like you actually read my posts. If the H2H was the only thing that mattered then perhaps Nastase would have been #1 in 1976, but I never made this claim. I believe that Connors was the #1 in 1976, although BorgForever makes very good arguments for Borg.

but nobody ranks nastase number one in '76 because majors do count and are worth a lot more than regular tour events. nastase won 9 events in' 76 but none of the 4 big ones (us open, wimb, french or philadelphia, which as connors said after thrasing borg in the final was like playing wimbledon in one week). borg won 11 events and one major in '77 and was runner-up at the end season masters (a 150 point event compared to 200 for wimbledon). in '76 borg won one major ,was .ru at usopen major and ru at philadelphia major, and won 11 other events and that 11 included the prestigous wct worth about the same as in '77 at a 100 points because coonotrs, panatta, orantes and to certain extent nastasedid not try to qualify for dallas)

Sure, majors count but these things aren't fixed. Today majors are "sacred", because we can expect everyone to attend them. And when players do not then it is never for a good reason. In the 1970s, there were circumstances (such as WTT) that prevented players from showing up at majors. You probably think Jan Kodes was a better player than Rod Laver in 1970 because he won a major and Laver did not?

I did '77 rankings in a previous thread and they stand good until cyborg can come up with a stastical methodology which challenges them and uses ratio like the 2000-8 which have wide accetance because the itf and the atp have never disagreed on the male worldnumber one. those are the ratios of 4 major events to 14 other events.

Reducing such complexities to numbers isn't necessary nor particularly intelligent. It reduces all discussion to petty semantics and occasional ad hominems.

I do not believe that I have to come up with a statistical formula in order to make a strong argument for Borg in 1977. My abstraction is simpler and focuses more on surfaces and basic percentages. You just count majors and allot made-up value to events with little to support their inherent importance.

CyBorg
05-20-2009, 04:09 PM
Jeffrey,

Read the question in the thread. It's not who deserved to be the top ranked player in 1977, it would Borg have won the French in 1977 and 1982? Cyborg's reasoning is quite logical based on the question.

Cyborg using the 3-0 record against Vilas makes total sense considering the question. He is using evidence that Borg was able to beat Vilas on clay and other surfaces in that year, 1977 and it shows that given what happened that year in matches between the two, that Borg, if he had played the French, may very well have beaten Vilas.

It's a simple point. Vilas's excellence in 1977 hinges mostly on his success on clay.

I see this as red clay/green clay - both extended stretches. The latter in the summer. Different surfaces.

I believe that rather than citing Vilas's victory at Roland Garros as something important, we should instead look for evidence of who the best player on red clay was. It was clearly Borg. Therefore some lustre immediately comes off Vilas's year. If he's not the year's top red clay player, is he then still the player of the year? I think not. At best he's the co-#1.

Am I being fair here? Yes, I think I am. We've already discussed on this board who the best clay courter was in 1971, for example. Most folks who know anything about anything will say Laver. But Laver did not play in Roland Garros - Kodes won. Laver however dominated a much deeper event in Rome and won it. Enough evidence? I think so.

Fast forward to 2009 and there's no reasonable excuse for a player missing a major. The tour is extremely standardized and has been precisely so for years. There's no WTT in the way. No parallel tours. Very clear cut. Herein we can apply a simple "quantitative" formula. This is why the ATP rankings make sense now, but didn't back then.

Vilas won probably around 10 red clay titles in 1977. That's a lot. Doesn't happen anymore. Reminds me a bit of Muster's domination of red clay in 1995, when he was allowed to enter almost as many as he wish. But the system was changed since then. He won maybe about 10-12 back then. Today he probably wouldn't win more than 5-7. Is he a worse player as a result? No, of course not. That said, there's little doubt he was the best player on red clay that year. Was Vilas in 1977?

No!

Borgforever
05-20-2009, 04:21 PM
Excellent posts CyBorg. And pc1 as asual, I'm sorry but it's the truth IMO...

krosero
05-21-2009, 07:33 AM
I just wanted to re-emphasize something about the stats, Borgforever (and anyone else interested in using the stats Moose and I have posted).

I said above that it's fine to include service winners in the total winners of any given match, because that's how it's done today -- but to be careful comparing them to the total errors, because when I report those I'm including the service winners too. I've been thinking about this a little more today, about what happens when service winners are essentially reported in both columns (as winners and errors).

For example, we say that Borg and Gerulaitis played a total of 353 points.

You wrote that they hit a total of 149 winners. I wrote that they made 214 errors between them. That would add up to 363 points, not 353 -- because the 10 service winners are being reported twice (as winners and as errors).

To reiterate, I see no problem with defining winners and errors one way or another. The real problem comes when they're compared to each other using different definitions -- especially if we went on to say, for example, that Borg "made ___ more winners than errors." That just wouldn't work -- unless the definitions were made consistent.

The way I've always looked at this stat project, my idea for it, is that anyone could look at our numbers and know for sure that unless otherwise specified, when we say "winner" we mean no contact by the opponent's racquet, and when we say "error" we mean some kind of contact was made, however minimal. No questions need be asked, and definitions are consistent. That's why you see me reporting errors by subtracting the clean winners/aces from the total points won, rather than also subtracting the service winners (or any other judgment calls).

But tennis stats are found with all sorts of definitions, and will continue to be, so I think the best we can do is just be careful and clear with what definitions we're using, when we cite numbers.

This is not meant to be a lecture to you in particular, I'm just thinking about the issues that were brought up when you cited my stats (and it's very helpful when anyone talks about them right here, where we can "hash out" all the issues, and I can then improve my work).

DMan
05-22-2009, 12:14 AM
To answer the originall question of would Borg have won Roland Garros in 1977 & 1982?

The answer is

NO and NO.

Why?

Because he didn't play them. So it's only speculation.

In 1982, Borg was already washed up. Does anyone think that if he entered the tournament, he could go 7 rounds in a best of five set format and win every match, given his own conditioning and match play results?

As far as 1977, Borg was starting to come into his own. He was still a bit fragile physically. Seven rounds in Paris were a tough ticket, even for Borg. And Vilas was especially tough and motivated that year.

pc1
05-22-2009, 02:14 AM
As far as 1977, Borg was starting to come into his own. He was still a bit fragile physically. Seven rounds in Paris were a tough ticket, even for Borg. And Vilas was especially tough and motivated that year.
DMan,

How do you explain 1975 then, when Borg defeated Vilas in straight sets in the French Open final?

Vegito
06-08-2009, 02:03 PM
DMan,

How do you explain 1975 then, when Borg defeated Vilas in straight sets in the French Open final?

Vilas said in that final(1975), in the warm up (when the players practice drives, volleys...), Borg had used a tactic, and in the match, he used a different tactic. I don´t know if the final would have been more difficult if Borg had not misled Vilas. Both were playing very well before(Vilas beat Borg in Masters Cup 1974, round robin)

About 1977 French Open, I would have loved to see a final Borg-Vilas, because Vilas had an impressive development, he was more motivated and ready than ever, that two weeks and he played incredibly. He seemed invincible. In Nice the match was closed. About 1982, Borg had no motivation, very difficult; but he beat Wilander in a practice, i´m not sure.

thalivest
06-08-2009, 02:04 PM
1977 for sure. 1982 would be depended on his motivation and that would lead me to think no, but if he really could have found that motivation then yes.

Nalbandian great
06-09-2009, 03:08 AM
Yes, he would won it both

jean pierre
06-17-2009, 09:32 AM
Yeah, I'm sure Borg really cared about Dusseldorf.

I saw the match in DVD. Borg seemed not very happy to loose !

CyBorg
06-17-2009, 10:19 AM
10 characters.

380pistol
06-17-2009, 11:20 AM
Simple, he probably would have. Anything can happen, but I would have him favoured.


That would have made it 8 Roland Garros - wow.

No it wouldn't cuz Borg didn't win it 1976, he lost to Panatta.