PDA

View Full Version : Lendl #1 Ranking


egn
05-13-2009, 08:37 PM
Lendl and Rios have one thing in common they both obtained the number 1 ranking without winning a slam. Lendl was number 1 before he actually won his first slam in 1983..I did not even realize this until today, I never payed attention to such a detail Are there any other players who can join them in this company. Also what was it like in the early 80s when Lendl had said ranking? Out of curiosity did it cause a stir? I would doubt as Lendl was amazing week in and out

CEvertFan
05-13-2009, 08:52 PM
I thought Lendl got that monkey off his back a long time ago. He's more than proven himself since then.

pc1
05-14-2009, 04:58 AM
egn,

I don't remember it causing any sort of stir at the time. I would guess you are talking about 1982 when Lendl was pretty much unbeatable except for the majors. The thing I remember was that everyone was amazed at Lendl's power on serve and off the ground and compared him to Don Budge.

Was it 1982??

timnz
05-14-2009, 05:22 AM
February 28, 1983.

As we know the rankings are based on the previous 12 months effort. So that February 28, 1983 ranking related basically to most of 1982's effort.

Lendl won an amazing 18 tournaments in 1982 (15 ATP). 24 finals in tournaments that year! (20 ATP) Just amazing! Imagine someone today making 24 finals in one year. It is just amazing to contemplate!

No wonder his ranking got through to number 1.

Interestingly Borg beat him very easily in two tournaments in Australia towards the end of 1982.

jeffreyneave
05-14-2009, 06:22 AM
lendl did not deserve to be no1 in 1983. and nobody should be intreseted as far as l am concerbebed with mid year rankings ; only the end of 1983 counts not feb.



the atp rankings of the early 80s are garbage.

here is why

A) only 50% mark up for slams on other top atp events
b) none of lendl's 1982 wct wins counted (he won of 10 out of 10 on that circuit incuding WCT finals Dallas

c) atp an average systen based on minimumum of only 12
d) no points for masters or Davis cup which I woulf rate at 750 points on 2000 to 2007 atp ststem

e) no bonus points for beating good players eg 4 for no1 contender; 2 for rest of top 10 and 1 point for players betwenn 15-20 ; the actual number of players based on the critreion of who had a good competive seson


f) my formula for no 1 end of year rankings fits the 2000-2007 formula of the atp with 18 points counting events , consisting of 4 slams, 9 super nines that you must play or you score zero points formising eg monte carlo like roddick always does; and 5 best others .


g) ratio of points would be 30% 4 slams; 45% other events; 25% quality wins as stated above plus bonuses for masters and davis cup.

H) note in the champion ship race system of 2000-2007 the points are 800 slams to 1150 non slams ie 30 to 45 ratio shown above

ATP rankings have always been useless eexcept for those between 200-2007. In 2008 they started giving out 300 points for for non-events like rotterdam . only events like barcelona and dubai deserved 300 with thier incredibly strong fields ; the olympics scored less points for nadal than the candian open - a total joke. any atp ranking except 200-2007 should be treated as a joke and only a rough good guide to the top ten players; definitely not the exact order. remember mcenroe was rated no1 by the atp at the end of 1982 a total joke.


only the 2000-2007 rankings would i regard as reasonable and they still excluded davis cup points


jeffrey




f)

jeffreyneave
05-14-2009, 06:25 AM
borg had a 3-1 edge over lendl or 1982 season taking the year end as the masters in jan 1983 where he beat connors and mcenroe in straight sets

hoever borg's record against other top players was

2-7 against connors and 1-3 against mcenroe

jeffrey

pc1
05-14-2009, 06:28 AM
Lendl wasn't the number one player for 1983 anyway. I think McEnroe was so it's a moot point.

However it does raise an interesting question, let's say Jimmy Connors did not win two majors (Wimbledon and the U.S. Open) in 1982 and only won one of the two majors. With the great year Lendl had in 1982 would it be reasonable that Lendl become the number one player for 1982?

jeffreyneave
05-14-2009, 07:05 AM
if lendl beat connors at usopen 1982, he would definitely being no1, but connors played a great match with his famed bachhand overpowering lendl's crosscourt forehand for most of the match. lendl only made the match competitive when he changed tactics in the 3rd and 4th sets and started hittinh his foreland down the line and stop connor's backhand dominating the rallies. the 3rd and 4th sets of that final were very high quality.

jeffrey

pc1
05-14-2009, 07:20 AM
if lendl beat connors at usopen 1982, he would definitely being no1, but connors played a great match with his famed bachhand overpowering lendl's crosscourt forehand for most of the match. lendl only made the match competitive when he changed tactics in the 3rd and 4th sets and started hittinh his foreland down the line and stop connor's backhand dominating the rallies. the 3rd and 4th sets of that final were very high quality.

jeffrey

Of course Lendl would have been number one if he beat Connors. What I was wondering about is if Lendl would have been a good number one candidate if he did't win a major that year and yet had the same fantastic record and if Jimmy Connors only won one major.

I think in this case you could argue Lendl is number one for the year.

A similar discussion of this type occurred when the topic of Laver in 1970 was brought up. Laver had a great tournament record that year but didn't win a major but his record overall was better than Rosewall's or Newcombe. However Rosewall and Newcombe won majors and either one were considered number one for 1970 instead of Laver. The question was in that case, could Laver have been number one for that year?

tudwell
05-14-2009, 08:27 AM
Another thing is at the 1988 U.S. Open final Wilander and Lendl played for the number one ranking. This seems strange to me, as Wilander had already won 2 grand slams that year. Lendl would have had points still from last year's U.S. Open, but Wilander was defending finals points, so the gap couldn't have been very big. Were slams not worth as many points in those days?

dataseviltwin
05-14-2009, 08:32 AM
Most recently: Safina and Jankovich on the women's side. Methinks you shouldn't be able to be #1 without winning a slam... let's bring it before Congress... NOT. ;-)

Borgforever
05-14-2009, 09:38 AM
I remember it in 1983 in the way that there was a lot of buzz about Lendl being a "weak" No. 1 -- but also that there was a huge consensus that Ivan would just continue to flourish (which he did) he had made two major finals already and he was the youngest of the bunch of Borg, Jimbo and Mac -- and everybody knew how great those guys were in the clutch -- practically dominating and dividing a decade of majors just by themselves. And Lendl still dominated Mac having a clear H2H advantage -- even in 1981, blowouting Mac at will...

Everyone had seen Lendl's fantastic competitive skills consistently between 1980 and 1983 against nightmarish competitor's competitors. Ivan was the only man on the planet who had a positive H2H against Borg in 1980 (helped by some of Björn's injuries to be sure) but he still won fine wins and made hyper-tough resistence in the losing match-ups.

To put it simply -- everyone knew even back in 1980 that Ivan was the real deal -- a seemingly unstoppable true contender for the No. 1 spot (which he achieved) with multiple major wins and even so far as becoming as great as the above mentioned, very highly regarded trio (which he also achieved himself dominating an era -- the 80s) it was just a question of when...

At the end of 83 though the debate escalated regarding Ivan's "clutch-ability" in the majors...

All in all Lendl's 1980-83 stands as one of the strongest starting years of any pro in any era -- almost being No. 1 in 1982. On his third year as a pro. Mats Wilander started his career fast also...

BTW as regards to Laver I think -- since we debated this topic not long ago -- that Rod was clearly the No. 1 in 1970 for his eight successive year. The results are too defined on so many levels all speaking for Rod IMO. A weird year true but not unclear...

jeffreyneave
05-14-2009, 11:39 AM
yes it would be possible, but connors has to lose either the wimbledon or us open final. if mcenroe had beaten connors at wimbledon, then lendl wouuld have deserbved it. his 15 official titles including wct and masters plus a 7-1 edge over mcenroe in all events ie events borg played liked chicago tournament of chapms , european champs at antwerp etc and a 4-1 edge over connors. over the clalender year 192 lendl won 21 events just behind laver's incredible 22 in 1962.
it would be season like lave's 1970 total domination outside the 2 major slams wimbledon and usa open.

remember never use the atp rankings as the true no1. nobody thought mcenroe was no1 in 1982, but the atp rankings sais so. I repeat atp rankingsin the 70s,80,90s are useless; they are just a rough guide to the top 10 players; the actual ranking should be based on the2000-2007 system the atp employed which had wide acceptance and the approval of the ITF who control the slans and the davis cup. therefore if the atp and itf agree then the no1 ranking is correct; but if they disagree you get out the 200-207 points and work out from scratch match by match.

I would also note that Mcenroe's number one ranking is doubtful in 1983 because wilander won more events (8 to 7) ; had a better record in the slams and had a 3-1 edge over mcenroe; won all his singles matches in the davis cup and the atp nations cup : a superb record.. lew hoad voted for wilander in the ITF vote of 1983


jeffrey

Borgforever
05-14-2009, 11:59 AM
Yes, I agree with all your points regarding the ATP computer-ranking Jeffrey...

pc1
05-14-2009, 12:05 PM
Yes, I agree with all your points regarding the ATP computer-ranking Jeffrey...

I would tend to agree also. Wilander had a superb 1983 season and in some ways it was superior to his more famous 1988 season.

Benhur
05-14-2009, 09:29 PM
the atp rankings of the early 80s are garbage.

here is why

A) only 50% mark up for slams on other top atp events
b) none of lendl's 1982 wct wins counted (he won of 10 out of 10 on that circuit incuding WCT finals Dallas

c) atp an average systen based on minimumum of only 12
d) no points for masters or Davis cup which I woulf rate at 750 points on 2000 to 2007 atp ststem

e) no bonus points for beating good players eg 4 for no1 contender; 2 for rest of top 10 and 1 point for players betwenn 15-20 ; the actual number of players based on the critreion of who had a good competive seson


f) my formula for no 1 end of year rankings fits the 2000-2007 formula of the atp with 18 points counting events , consisting of 4 slams, 9 super nines that you must play or you score zero points formising eg monte carlo like roddick always does; and 5 best others .


g) ratio of points would be 30% 4 slams; 45% other events; 25% quality wins as stated above plus bonuses for masters and davis cup.

H) note in the champion ship race system of 2000-2007 the points are 800 slams to 1150 non slams ie 30 to 45 ratio shown above

ATP rankings have always been useless eexcept for those between 200-2007. In 2008 they started giving out 300 points for for non-events like rotterdam . only events like barcelona and dubai deserved 300 with thier incredibly strong fields ; the olympics scored less points for nadal than the candian open - a total joke. any atp ranking except 200-2007 should be treated as a joke and only a rough good guide to the top ten players; definitely not the exact order. remember mcenroe was rated no1 by the atp at the end of 1982 a total joke.


only the 2000-2007 rankings would i regard as reasonable and they still excluded davis cup points


jeffrey



The notion that some internet poster can rearrange at will the relative value of tennis tournaments 26 years after the fact is itself ludicrous and revealing of boundless pompous arrogance. These boards are abuzz with omniscient, infallible experts who just happen to know the exact relative value of, say, Montreal vs Barcelona 20 years ago, and they just happen to know what the best measuring system is at all given times. The Holy Ghost enlightens them. By sheer coincidence, it happens to be at or near the present values, and of course they possess the key to assessing how the present should be projected and adjusted into the relative value of tournaments past. Self-contradiction is never perceived by these foggers. Thus, if a non-slam tournament is deemed to be worth half a “slam” by the old accountants, this is presented as ultimate proof that the accountants were insane. Simultaneously, if that tournament is worth 0.8 an Australian, this is presented as ultimate proof of the great wisdom of the accountants, to put the Australian in its proper place.

The idea that the “slam” notion has been marketed to sacrosanct heights since those days escapes these oafs. The idea that ALL measuring systems are arbitrary escapes them even more. The idea that the accountants of the time may have had valid reasons to assign relative values as they did, escapes them completely. They just KNOW. Nothing but their omniscience remains. They just know what the impartial system should be at any given time. They know exactly what each tournament should be worth with respect to a slam, and they know how this assessment should be adjusted over time.

I marvel at this knowledge, especially when the arguments amount to phrases like: “My Formula Is.” Impressive.

Of course there are some years where you have to wonder what they were thinking. The most obvious one is 1977. And then 1982 is interesting only in regard to the #2 vs #3 decision, but this is easily explained by the fact that one organization chose to olympically ignore the WCT tournaments as valid. Aside from that, the idea that ALL ATP rankings in the 70s, 80s and 90s are “garbage” is without a doubt a preposterously idiotic pronouncement that can only come from a self-satisfied oaf.

If the Internet is up in its relatively free current form 20 years from now (which I doubt) I take amusing relish in contemplating a future Jeffrey Knave rearranging the current rankins according to his infallible “Formula,” and ranting about the putrid matter that filled the brain of the current accountants, when they thought, in their corrupt madness, that winning 4 Rotterdams was anywhere near winning a French.

You are completely full of beans, mister.

35ft6
05-14-2009, 10:22 PM
Just thought about how amazing it was Lendl playing with that racket. Some older guy at the courts I played at as a kid had one of those Adidas rackets and I thought it was so cool and that the guy must be a millionaire to be able to afford two of them. It felt like a board but was surprisingly flexible if I remember correctly. Head was very small and I had to change my forehand swing a bit to not shank. Lendl strung those so tight. When he would straighten his strings between points, you could just HEAR how tight they were. Brutal.

jeffreyneave
05-15-2009, 02:41 AM
as you must know by now you are in a minority of one because nobody with any sense would accept 1970s and 1980 by the atp

and nor should they . ben hur you are very rude , arrogant and stupid as always. you are the only person defending atp rankings of 70s 80s and 90s.


only 2000-2007 are acceptable. the atp and the itf agreed those rankings, which is why they were acceptable; the atp suggesting on thier own their own ranking with no support of the players, journalist or itf is rude arrogant nastyandtypical unacceptable behaviour by the atp. the atp are not god with world rankings and the only acceptable methodology for world rankings has to have the acceptance of the ITF, playyers and juornalist and the atp. if the the atp rankings of 1978, 1982 and 1989 were rejected by everybody but the atp and ben hur its easy tom assume the atp rankings should be buried iand never given credence on this forum. so tough ben hur , the vast majority readers acccept my rankings and logical arguments on this forum.


only rude ben hur whorships at the shrine of atp rankings and thinks lendl was no1 in 1989; you are on your own supporting lendl for 1989; yuor belief in atp rankings is pure facism; grow up and learn the atp with 7 different ranking systems are selfish political manipulators and have always used the rankings to promote their own agenda

i)no daviscup points until 2009; ii) disgracegful low points for olympics 2008 below candian open iii) only 50% mark-up for slams d) event like weak barcelona worth 1/2 a slam in 1989= total joke


i produced 8 resons why atp rankings are crap you produced nothing but rude , nasty, vicious abuse; not one argument.


the point is rankings can always be challenged. its not forever and they can always be challenged. nobody thought mcenroe was no1 in 1982 except the stupid atp and nobody but atp and ben hur thinks lendl was no1 in1989.

the two attempts you produce were total cheats when you did your version for 1989

ie your first versiom made it best of 18 when the atp system was in an average system minimum of 12

2nd version produce on more realistic weights but still had the nonesnse that
barecolna in 1989 was worth a 1/2 slam; the field was ordinary and worth about 45% of a slam; no average system which were the rules the season started with - ben hur can not change 1989 to best 18 just because he loves lendl; its caled cheating. abnd finally no points for DAvis cup, masters and wct finals a total cheat by ben hur, who is totally ignorant about world rankings. of course rankings can be revisited. you lok at the replies to my revaluations of 1970, 1971 and 1977. those works were praised as superb and my choices of laver in 1970 and 1971 are now widely accpted as correct on this forum; in othrwords i am a world ranking expert and all world rankings can be revisited eg wilander should probably be no1 in 1983 not mcenroe


the atp have produced 7 different versions of rankings and as this forum has proved the 2000-2007 is their best yet (but because of no davis cup points is not truly accurate) and has support from the rest of the the tennis community
of the players, journalists abd the ITF. therefore every atp ranking should be revisited in line with 2000-2007 system but with the addition of the davis cup.

old atp rankings are good for giving you the top ten players, but for their actual order you nedd to the 200-2007 with the davis cup to get nos 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 abd 10 in order.

jeffrey

Benhur
05-23-2009, 09:46 AM
as you must know by now you are in a minority of one because nobody with any sense would accept 1970s and 1980 by the atp

and nor should they . ben hur you are very rude , arrogant and stupid as always. you are the only person defending atp rankings of 70s 80s and 90s.


Not that being in a minority would cause me any grief, rather the opposite, but you are dellusional if you think the majority rejects offhand the only existing rankings of three full decades of tennis, as kept by the ATP, considering them "garbage" as you claim they are. Aside from 1977, 1982 and 1989, the rankings are generally accepted by everyone.

I agree that the top rankings for 1977 and 1982 are wrong. But not for 1989.
-------------------

Let's see. Is the 1989 system an aberration because of its being radically different from the surrounding years?

Or is it an aberration because of the unusual result it produced, where a player with a slightly better record in slams, found itself ranked second?

If it is an aberration because the system itself was fundamentally different from previous and later years, what are those differences?

If it is essentially the same or very similar to previous or later years, why should it be changed only for that particular year? Why shouldn’t all the rankings of the 80s and 90s be rearranged according to the system of your invention?

Can you demonstrate that this kind of thing would be impossible in any other year of the 80s, 90s or 00s?

The core of the matter is this:

A ranking system where a player finds himself ranked behind another player who has a slightly worse record in slams, is deemed intolerable.

Yet, I argue: the above IS perfectly possible in all the ranking systems the ATP has used in the last decades. Any year.

And I also argue that the only way to create a ranking system where the above becomes impossible, would be to assign such disproportionately low weights to anything outside slams, that all tournaments outside slams would become merely ceremonial, kind of like exhibitions, with very little effect on the rankings.

This would mean players would not care much about them, except for the money. It would also mean that 4 times a year you should expect cataclysmic rearrangements in the rankings, as player A, who last year got to the semis of a slam, loses in the first round and drops 20 or 30 spots. While player B, ranked in the gloomy 60s, finds himself catapulted to the top 10 by reaching a final through a freak streak of good matches and luck.

It would also mean that you would put even more disproportionate weight on all the accidental vagaries determening the results of only 4 events, to the detriment of regular performance, which is best reflected by a week-in week-out measurment.

Aside from all that, there is the ridiculous notion that the relative weights of events were somehow given by God to you up in the mountain, to be applied futuristically and retroactively to all of tennis.

The fact that in other periouds the weights of slams with regard to other tournaments were different, you regard as a kind of sacrilege.

As I demonstrated ad nauseam in my thread on the matter, even if you give today’s weights, you still have Lendl come up far ahead. In fact, he comes up even farther ahead, due to the fact that his AO would be worth more in today’s system than it was in the 1989 system.

The only way you achieve your results is by concocting a special system of your own creation, where you decide how much each tournament should be worth. Sometimes your method achieves truly comic status.

You keep refusing to base the transposition of points on the relative values assigned to non-GS events in 1989. You increase, for example the value of Indian Wells by a whopping 109%, because Becker played it, and you simultaneously refuse to increase Montreal or Hamburg at all, not even by 33%, because Lendl won them. What divine assistence do you get to arrive at your values? Does the Holy Ghost whisper these numbers in your ear?

Quote from previous post of mine at the “Lendl - Becker 1989” thread:

http://tinyurl.com/q98kne
As can be abundantly gathered from previous posts, it is crystal clear that any transposition to the CURRENT system (not the Jeffrey potpourri system) would show Lendl ahead by a large margin. Detailed calculations were shown, but they are not even necessary because all you have to do is compare slam performances, see the difference in points in TODAY's system, and then take a quick glance at the rest.

Your idiotic mystifications about the relative value of Montreal and Hamburg are useless garbage. I have shown you countless times that the only way to assess their relative value to other lower tier events at the time is by comparing the points assigned at the time and alignign that range with today's range of 175-300 to find a transposition factor. That puts Montreal and Hamburg at about 300 today, which is perfectly reasonable.

I mean, on the one hand you catapult Indian Wells from 239 points (in 1989) to 500 points today. On the other hand you refuse to give even 300 points to Montreal, which had 225 points then - barely under IW.

It is sheer nonsense, and you will not get away with it. I am a rather tenacious junkyard dog, and you won't get away with that stuff, am telling you.

You are utterly dellusional if you think those kinds of prestidigitations and fog emissions are going to have any effect on my assessment of the situation.The situation can be grasped very quickly by looking at their respective slam performance, which is separated by half a slam, and then looking at the rest where Lendl was far better. Only

It is really incredible the hoops and loops and knots you go through to confuse the issue. Is it really that difficult for you to understand that the exact same situation is perfectly possible today?

Mick
05-23-2009, 09:53 AM
Just thought about how amazing it was Lendl playing with that racket. Some older guy at the courts I played at as a kid had one of those Adidas rackets and I thought it was so cool and that the guy must be a millionaire to be able to afford two of them...

that must have been jetlee2k that you saw :D

Pete27
04-12-2014, 02:44 AM
Hi everybody,
I´m collector of tennis rankings and results (for many years). I´m searching for someone who has some old mens tennis magazines with mens singles rankings for period approximately 1980 to 1982, and is able to scan a few pages of rankings to me.
I can send you as my thanks some tennis statistics made by me if you want (preview of Grand Slam results of all players by player in Open Era with win-loss records, and a few others).
My e-mail has administrator of this web (I don´t want it to be public)
Thank you in advance

hoodjem
04-12-2014, 06:47 AM
February 28, 1983.

As we know the rankings are based on the previous 12 months effort. So that February 28, 1983 ranking related basically to most of 1982's effort.

Lendl won an amazing 18 tournaments in 1982 (15 ATP). 24 finals in tournaments that year! (20 ATP) Just amazing! Imagine someone today making 24 finals in one year. It is just amazing to contemplate!

No wonder his ranking got through to number 1.Yes, I can easily imagine that someone with this kind of record should be the no. 1 player, in spite of not winning a slam.

To think otherwise would seem to indicate "Slam Bias," (i.e. believing that nothing else matters other than achievements in slams.

Vensai
04-12-2014, 03:39 PM
Ivan Lendl reached a couple of GS finals before he became World No. 1 though. Marcelo Rios only reached one GS final in his career.

kiki
04-12-2014, 11:56 PM
No possible comparing pre slam champion Lendl against Rios.No sane way to do so.