PDA

View Full Version : A look at the best players never to win the French Open


Laurie
05-24-2012, 03:08 PM
I did an article on the best players never to win Wimbledon two years ago. But I've never seen article re the French, so done this. Read on....

With the clay season underway and Roland Garros coming up, it will be interesting to look at the best players never to win the title there.

http://burnstennis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/look-at-best-players-never-to-win.html#!/2012/05/look-at-best-players-never-to-win.html

NadalAgassi
05-24-2012, 03:21 PM
I almost would like to see two seperate lists. One of the best overall players not to win Roland Garros and one of the best clay courters not to win Roland Garros, as the lists would be totally different. Thanks for your work though.

BeHappy
05-24-2012, 03:36 PM
Jimmy Connors? Got to the semi final every year and beat Borg on green clay at the USO.

Mustard
05-24-2012, 03:45 PM
All I see on the link is a black screen.

Anyway, my choices are, in no particular order:

Guillermo Coria
Andrei Medvedev
Alex Corretja
Alberto Berasategui
Marcelo Rios
Felix Mantilla
Alberto Mancini
Raul Ramirez
Jose-Luis Clerc
Vitas Gerulaitis
Eddie Dibbs
Victor Pecci
Harold Solomon
Henri Leconte
Pancho Gonzales
Zeljko Franulovic
Pete Sampras
Jimmy Connors
John McEnroe
Boris Becker
Stefan Edberg
Arthur Ashe
John Newcombe
Manuel Orantes

krosero
05-24-2012, 06:00 PM
"In fact, Connors was banned from being able to participate in the French Open from 1974 to 1978 because he signed up to play World Team Tennis which the ATP and ITF did not recognise,"

He was banned in '74, but that was the only season he played WTT (until the 90s). From '75 to '78 he missed the French, but it was his own choice -- partly motivated, perhaps, by memories of the bitter dispute in '74.

I almost would like to see two seperate lists. One of the best overall players not to win Roland Garros and one of the best clay courters not to win Roland Garros, as the lists would be totally different. Thanks for your work though.Orantes not winning the French is one that always stands out.

Xavier G
05-25-2012, 12:44 AM
There are many great players who didn't win the French. Just going back to the late 60's onwards, Newcombe, Smith, Ashe, Orantes, Connors, McEnroe. Becker, Edberg, Sampras to name some of the very top players of the Open era.
Orantes had a 2 sets to love lead over an 18 year old Borg in 1974 and let it slip. McEnroe should have won the French in 1984 from a similar position, toying with Lendl even on clay that season. I think John was thinking it was too easy. That was McEnroe's hardest defeat. Edberg could have won in 89, but was denied by a 17 year old Michael Chang with his only GS win.
I'm glad Federer got the French Open monkey off his back, he was too good a player everywhere else and deserves a French title on his record.
Connors didn't play in 1974-78, really his very peak years. We'll never know if he would have won a Roland Garros crown or not. Personally, I think he would have a chance from 74-76, but also there were many players who could have denied him, not just Borg. The likes of Vilas, Nastase, Panatta, Solomon, Ramirez and Orantes particularly.

vive le beau jeu !
05-25-2012, 01:34 AM
I did an article on the best players never to win Wimbledon two years ago. But I've never seen article re the French, so done this. Read on....

With the clay season underway and Roland Garros coming up, it will be interesting to look at the best players never to win the title there.

http://burnstennis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/look-at-best-players-never-to-win.html#!/2012/05/look-at-best-players-never-to-win.html
nice article, but edberg's clay titles are:
- gstaad (1986)
- hamburg (1992)
- madrid (1993)
too bad he didn't win RG... snif ! :|

kiki
05-25-2012, 02:48 AM
"In fact, Connors was banned from being able to participate in the French Open from 1974 to 1978 because he signed up to play World Team Tennis which the ATP and ITF did not recognise,"

He was banned in '74, but that was the only season he played WTT (until the 90s). From '75 to '78 he missed the French, but it was his own choice -- partly motivated, perhaps, by memories of the bitter dispute in '74.

Orantes not winning the French is one that always stands out.

Specially since he was 2 sets up ( 6-7,2.6) against Borg in 74...and blew it away ( 6-0,6-1,6-1).The greatest turndown that I can remember and the greatest non expected winner.

It is amazing how Orantes learned the lesson, and did to Vilas ( in 75 USO sf) and Fibak ( in 76 Masters F) what Borg had done to him...just amazing.

kiki
05-25-2012, 02:50 AM
There are many great players who didn't win the French. Just going back to the late 60's onwards, Newcombe, Smith, Ashe, Orantes, Connors, McEnroe. Becker, Edberg, Sampras to name some of the very top players of the Open era.
Orantes had a 2 sets to love lead over an 18 year old Borg in 1974 and let it slip. McEnroe should have won the French in 1984 from a similar position, toying with Lendl even on clay that season. I think John was thinking it was too easy. That was McEnroe's hardest defeat. Edberg could have won in 89, but was denied by a 17 year old Michael Chang with his only GS win.
I'm glad Federer got the French Open monkey off his back, he was too good a player everywhere else and deserves a French title on his record.
Connors didn't play in 1974-78, really his very peak years. We'll never know if he would have won a Roland Garros crown or not. Personally, I think he would have a chance from 74-76, but also there were many players who could have denied him, not just Borg. The likes of Vilas, Nastase, Panatta, Solomon, Ramirez and Orantes particularly.

Orantes fared much worse than Mc Enroe.Lendl was already nš 2 in the world in 84 and a better clay courter than Mac, while Borg , in 1974,was just an 18 yrs old up and coming guy, with much less experience than Orantes, whom he still had to beat by then.

TennisLovaLova
05-25-2012, 03:08 AM
Rios obviously
And Hicham Arazi

Laurie
05-25-2012, 04:56 AM
"In fact, Connors was banned from being able to participate in the French Open from 1974 to 1978 because he signed up to play World Team Tennis which the ATP and ITF did not recognise,"

He was banned in '74, but that was the only season he played WTT (until the 90s). From '75 to '78 he missed the French, but it was his own choice -- partly motivated, perhaps, by memories of the bitter dispute in '74.

Orantes not winning the French is one that always stands out.

Thanks for that KRosero

Laurie
05-25-2012, 04:57 AM
Rios obviously
And Hicham Arazi

I didn't mention Rios as a former number 1 player but I can't remember his best result at Roland Garros, I don't remember him making an impression, hardcourts seemed to be his thing unless I'm mistaken.

kiki
05-25-2012, 08:43 AM
Rios was pretty good on clay, having won Rome and reached, if I recall well, the MC final.That was in 1997, possibly his best year, along 1998.

He had a solid and nice touch, I saw him live on clay, but sometimes he went for the flashy shot and was not as consistent as it takes on clay courts.

Mustard
05-25-2012, 09:55 AM
Rios won Monte Carlo in 1997, won Rome in 1998 and won Hamburg in 1999.

TMF
05-25-2012, 10:00 AM
Robin Soderling

He lost to Nadal and Fed in the 2009/2010 finals. At the same time, he also beat Nadal/Fed at the FO. Give him a chance to play in the past generation, he could win a FO.

Nadal_Power
05-25-2012, 10:47 AM
Robin Soderling

He lost to Nadal and Fed in the 2009/2010 finals. At the same time, he also beat Nadal/Fed at the FO. Give him a chance to play in the past generation, he could win a FO.

With so many clay titles and good results in clay Masters 1000 events he must be first on the list

TMF
05-25-2012, 10:50 AM
With so many clay titles and good results in clay Masters 1000 events he must be first on the list

You have never saw him played in 2009/2010 FO.

Nadal_Power
05-25-2012, 11:39 AM
You have never saw him played in 2009/2010 FO.

I did, but that's not enough cause outside fast Paris clay from that years he achieved nothing

NadalAgassi
05-25-2012, 11:50 AM
By the logic of including Soderling one might as well include Pete Sampras. Sampras has beaten Bruguera, Courier, Muster, at the French so 3 huge wins vs only 2 for Soderling. Of course Sampras didnt make any French finals as back then there were about 12 really good clay courters, not only 2 or 3, so just having a big win didnt guarantee you making the final like it does today. Sampras also won Rome, Soderling has never won an event close to that on clay.

Then again both Sampras and Soderling are more worthy choices than freaking Enqvist, LOL!

vive le beau jeu !
05-25-2012, 12:02 PM
Robin Soderling

He lost to Nadal and Fed in the 2009/2010 finals. At the same time, he also beat Nadal/Fed at the FO. Give him a chance to play in the past generation, he could win a FO.
i thought the implicit rule was to mention players who already retired...
if we include active players, then djokovic and soderling have to be in the list for their RG records.

Laurie
05-25-2012, 01:03 PM
In my earlier post, I meant to say I DID mention Rios in the article, I must have been typing in a hurry!

Laurie
05-25-2012, 01:06 PM
Robin Soderling

He lost to Nadal and Fed in the 2009/2010 finals. At the same time, he also beat Nadal/Fed at the FO. Give him a chance to play in the past generation, he could win a FO.

My article is about the best players never to win the French. At the end of the article, I mentioned guys like Hewitt, Safin, Rios, Stich, Rafter. These guys were a factor on all other surfaces and majors. Rios got to the final of the Aussie Open on rebound ace. Soderling has not shown he is a factor at any other major. Needless to say I cannot envisage including him in an article like this.

Laurie
05-25-2012, 01:08 PM
i thought the implicit rule was to mention players who already retired...
if we include active players, then djokovic and soderling have to be in the list for their RG records.

Indeed, no need to include Djokovic as he is too young and at this stage has very chance to win the French in the next few seasons.

Limpinhitter
05-25-2012, 01:16 PM
There are many great players who didn't win the French. Just going back to the late 60's onwards, Newcombe, Smith, Ashe, Orantes, Connors, McEnroe. Becker, Edberg, Sampras to name some of the very top players of the Open era.
Orantes had a 2 sets to love lead over an 18 year old Borg in 1974 and let it slip. McEnroe should have won the French in 1984 from a similar position, toying with Lendl even on clay that season. I think John was thinking it was too easy. That was McEnroe's hardest defeat. Edberg could have won in 89, but was denied by a 17 year old Michael Chang with his only GS win.
I'm glad Federer got the French Open monkey off his back, he was too good a player everywhere else and deserves a French title on his record.
Connors didn't play in 1974-78, really his very peak years. We'll never know if he would have won a Roland Garros crown or not. Personally, I think he would have a chance from 74-76, but also there were many players who could have denied him, not just Borg. The likes of Vilas, Nastase, Panatta, Solomon, Ramirez and Orantes particularly.

My theory is Mac ran out of gas because: (1) he wasn't in great shape, and (2) he was using.

kiki
05-25-2012, 01:35 PM
Robin Soderling

He lost to Nadal and Fed in the 2009/2010 finals. At the same time, he also beat Nadal/Fed at the FO. Give him a chance to play in the past generation, he could win a FO.

Corretja also lost twice at RG...

letīs take also Franulovic, once a beaten R/U and once a semifinalist.

kiki
05-25-2012, 01:37 PM
While Mac just ran out of gas in the third s et of the 1984 final, it still surprises me he was able to beat so handily Lendl, very few weeks before, at the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions.In fact, he may have played his best ever clay court match that day...

krosero
05-25-2012, 06:56 PM
Specially since he was 2 sets up ( 6-7,2.6) against Borg in 74...and blew it away ( 6-0,6-1,6-1).The greatest turndown that I can remember and the greatest non expected winner.

It is amazing how Orantes learned the lesson, and did to Vilas ( in 75 USO sf) and Fibak ( in 76 Masters F) what Borg had done to him...just amazing.It was an extreme turnaround, but Borg had just won the Italian so he really wasn't an unexpected champion. He was seeded 3rd, Orantes 14th.

Orantes fared much worse than Mc Enroe.Lendl was already nš 2 in the world in 84 and a better clay courter than Mac, while Borg , in 1974,was just an 18 yrs old up and coming guy, with much less experience than Orantes, whom he still had to beat by then.Actually the Borg-Orantes h2h was 3-3, coming into the French. Borg had taken their most recent meetings, including one in Rome in '74.

While Mac just ran out of gas in the third s et of the 1984 final, it still surprises me he was able to beat so handily Lendl, very few weeks before, at the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions.Precisely because he didn't have to win 3 sets at Forest Hills.

TMF
05-25-2012, 07:21 PM
My article is about the best players never to win the French. At the end of the article, I mentioned guys like Hewitt, Safin, Rios, Stich, Rafter. These guys were a factor on all other surfaces and majors. Rios got to the final of the Aussie Open on rebound ace. Soderling has not shown he is a factor at any other major. Needless to say I cannot envisage including him in an article like this.

I didn't use Soderling to compare the players in your article, but to Mustard's list which I disagree with him.

Laurie
05-26-2012, 03:06 AM
I didn't use Soderling to compare the players in your article, but to Mustard's list which I disagree with him.

Thanks for the clarification.

kiki
05-26-2012, 04:41 AM
It was an extreme turnaround, but Borg had just won the Italian so he really wasn't an unexpected champion. He was seeded 3rd, Orantes 14th.

Actually the Borg-Orantes h2h was 3-3, coming into the French. Borg had taken their most recent meetings, including one in Rome in '74.

Precisely because he didn't have to win 3 sets at Forest Hills.

In terms of experience, Borg had reached the WCT finals and won the Rome event a week or so before coming into RG.But Orantes had already played a Davis Cup, a Wimbledon and a Roland Garros semi and was 7 years older than Borg.The press gave Orantes as a favourite, even if Borg had recently defeated him on red clay.I fully remember that match at Roland Garros.Once he had done that great feat, it was just a question of time before 18 yrs old Bjorn was going to be number 1.In 1976, he had the best record and deserved being worldīs nš1.

Xavier G
05-26-2012, 07:22 AM
Orantes fared much worse than Mc Enroe.Lendl was already nš 2 in the world in 84 and a better clay courter than Mac, while Borg , in 1974,was just an 18 yrs old up and coming guy, with much less experience than Orantes, whom he still had to beat by then.

McEnroe's defeat at Roland Garros 84 was his hardest to take though, John always says that. His best and only chance to win the French as it turned out. Orantes' loss to Borg will have been a big blow to Manuel too.

Xavier G
05-26-2012, 07:25 AM
In terms of experience, Borg had reached the WCT finals and won the Rome event a week or so before coming into RG.But Orantes had already played a Davis Cup, a Wimbledon and a Roland Garros semi and was 7 years older than Borg.The press gave Orantes as a favourite, even if Borg had recently defeated him on red clay.I fully remember that match at Roland Garros.Once he had done that great feat, it was just a question of time before 18 yrs old Bjorn was going to be number 1.In 1976, he had the best record and deserved being worldīs nš1.

Kiki's back to 1976 again. Leave it go, man! :)

kiki
05-26-2012, 09:58 AM
McEnroe's defeat at Roland Garros 84 was his hardest to take though, John always says that. His best and only chance to win the French as it turned out. Orantes' loss to Borg will have been a big blow to Manuel too.

Due to Santana ( and also Gimeno) success in recent years, Orantes was considered a must win by many fans and press, and the pressure was really big.That explains why he colapsed when he had almost won the final.Otherwise, in 75, nobody would expect him win Forest Hills and he freed himself after that miraculous recovery against Vilas.Felt no pressure at all, as he was the unexpected finalist and the underdog against mighty Jimmy Connors.

kiki
05-26-2012, 10:01 AM
Kiki's back to 1976 again. Leave it go, man! :)

Many people claim that Connors positive H2H against Borg, enhanced by his US Open win against the swede, puts him as nš 1 in 1976.But h2h is second to record, and Borg won 2 of the top 5 events of the year (Dallas and Wimbledon) and also reached another final (Forest Hills), which Connors did not.Back in 76, AO was not on line with the 2 season end championships and the 3 GS (as a matter of fact, only Newcombe and Rosewall attended the event as memberos of the top 10 and it was surprisingly won by unknown aususie Mark Edmondson who defeated both)

Mustard
05-26-2012, 10:24 AM
I didn't use Soderling to compare the players in your article, but to Mustard's list which I disagree with him.

May I ask why you disagree?

Many people claim that Connors positive H2H against Borg, enhanced by his US Open win against the swede, puts him as nš 1 in 1976.But h2h is second to record, and Borg won 2 of the top 5 events of the year (Dallas and Wimbledon) and also reached another final (Forest Hills), which Connors did not.Back in 76, AO was not on line with the 2 season end championships and the 3 GS (as a matter of fact, only Newcombe and Rosewall attended the event as memberos of the top 10 and it was surprisingly won by unknown aususie Mark Edmondson who defeated both)

Connors was the best player of 1976, kiki. Borg needed to win the US Open and failed.

kiki
05-26-2012, 10:32 AM
May I ask why you disagree?



Connors was the best player of 1976, kiki. Borg needed to win the US Open and failed.

Borg was nš 1 in 76 ( just as Vilas in 77) by virtue of his substantially better record.Even if Connors won most of the time their matches ( as Borg did against Vilas) it is secondary.Records clearly put Borg two notches above Jimmy in 1976.

I donīt care what the ATP says, I think computers do not necessarily have common sense:)

kiki
05-26-2012, 10:40 AM
IMo, the trned of Connors nš 1 in 76 is due to some desperate attempt to give Connors more than 2 diminant years (74 and 82) where he was the undisputed king of tennis.I can understand from a technical point of view that some fans can rank him above Borg because of his dominant H2H and great Forest Hills win in their final.But records, if hionestly looked at, show Borg was nš 1 in 1976, much like Ashe in 75 ( and Borg was even better since he also reached a third major final
which Ashe didnīt)

Mustard
05-26-2012, 10:48 AM
Borg was nš 1 in 76 ( just as Vilas in 77) by virtue of his substantially better record.Even if Connors won most of the time their matches ( as Borg did against Vilas) it is secondary.Records clearly put Borg two notches above Jimmy in 1976.

I donīt care what the ATP says, I think computers do not necessarily have common sense:)

Connors won 12 titles, including the US Open, and others like Wembley, WCT Philadelphia and WCT Denver. Borg won 6 titles, including Wimbledon and WCT Dallas. Connors had a win-loss record of 91-8 and Borg had a win-loss record of 57-12. Connors won all 3 of their matches in 1976 (the WCT Philadelphia final, the Palm Springs semi final and the US Open final).

In 1977, Vilas had a win-loss record that was something like 132-13 or 145-14, and won 16 tournaments (maybe more), including the French Open and US Open, and a record win streak of 46 wins in a row that was controversially ended. Borg and Connors in 1977 were nowhere near this, even if Borg beat Vilas whenever they met that year.

Cesc Fabregas
05-26-2012, 11:28 AM
Robin Soderling

He lost to Nadal and Fed in the 2009/2010 finals. At the same time, he also beat Nadal/Fed at the FO. Give him a chance to play in the past generation, he could win a FO.

Nadal was on his last knees.

kiki
05-26-2012, 12:10 PM
Connors won 12 titles, including the US Open, and others like Wembley, WCT Philadelphia and WCT Denver. Borg won 6 titles, including Wimbledon and WCT Dallas. Connors had a win-loss record of 91-8 and Borg had a win-loss record of 57-12. Connors won all 3 of their matches in 1976 (the WCT Philadelphia final, the Palm Springs semi final and the US Open final).

In 1977, Vilas had a win-loss record that was something like 132-13 or 145-14, and won 16 tournaments (maybe more), including the French Open and US Open, and a record win streak of 46 wins in a row that was controversially ended. Borg and Connors in 1977 were nowhere near this, even if Borg beat Vilas whenever they met that year.

So, you still give Connors the edge for 76?

Mustard
05-26-2012, 12:14 PM
So, you still give Connors the edge for 76?

Of course.

kiki
05-26-2012, 12:20 PM
Borg beat Tanner in straight sets at Wimbledon, one day after Connors was straight setted by Tanner.Logic indicates that BorhĄg would have beaten Connors, which would have closed the debate about who is nš 1 in 76.

krosero
05-26-2012, 05:36 PM
Specially since he was 2 sets up ( 6-7,2.6) against Borg in 74...and blew it away ( 6-0,6-1,6-1).The greatest turndown that I can remember and the greatest non expected winner.

It is amazing how Orantes learned the lesson, and did to Vilas ( in 75 USO sf) and Fibak ( in 76 Masters F) what Borg had done to him...just amazing.Orantes actually already had done that to Vilas earlier in the tournament (74RG) -- came back from two sets down, in the fourth round.

Those two sets he lost to Vilas happened to be the only sets Orantes lost before the final.

Many people claim that Connors positive H2H against Borg, enhanced by his US Open win against the swede, puts him as nš 1 in 1976.But h2h is second to record, and Borg won 2 of the top 5 events of the year (Dallas and Wimbledon) and also reached another final (Forest Hills), which Connors did not.Connors also won 2 of the top 5 events (USO and Philadelphia). He shut Borg out in critical matches; he won twice as many official tournaments as Borg; and had fewer losses than Borg (see Mustard's post for the exact details).

But records, if hionestly looked at, show Borg was nš 1 in 1976, much like Ashe in 75 ( and Borg was even better since he also reached a third major final which Ashe didnīt)Borg arguably had a better year in '76 than Ashe did in '75, but that does not mean that Borg should be made #1 in '76. I see this argument all the time and frankly I don't understand it. Every year is different; and you can only be #1 over the records of your rivals. Ashe in '75 was not competing against a record like Connors had in '76. Ashe was competing against the Connors of '75, who won no Slams and no big titles (partly because he was still playing the Riordan tour). Connors in '75 won fewer overall titles, and titles of poorer quality, than what he won in '76.

The two years are very different. Borg's competition in '76 was much better than what Arthur faced in '75.

And critically, Ashe defeated his main rival in '75. Borg lost to his main rival in every match they played and in the final of a major.

IMo, the trned of Connors nš 1 in 76 is due to some desperate attempt to give Connors more than 2 diminant years (74 and 82) where he was the undisputed king of tennis.This is false, because a majority of experts at the time (Americans, British and French) voted for Connors as #1 of the year.

pc1
05-26-2012, 06:32 PM
For what it's worth, I saw both Borg and Connors numerous times that year on television and in person and I felt Connors was a better player. Now that doesn't mean he had the better year but I also felt that at the time also.

I felt Borg surpassed Connors in overall tennis strength in 1977.

krosero
05-26-2012, 06:49 PM
A little more on Borg-Orantes in '74.

The Age:

“Before the match I felt very tired,” Borg said afterwards. “Then I was losing two sets to love and it looked bad. But in the third set Manuel didn’t seem to try and I felt I had him after that.”

UPI:

Borg, habitually slow to get warmed up and tired after months of continual competition, could not match Orantes’ attack at the start of their match.

The 25-year-old Spanish number one was fresh and made few errors. Borg sometimes looked exhausted at the start of the three hour, 10 minute match.

But, after the first two sets, Borg began hammering his serve and slamming his tricky topspin forehand.

“After winning the first two sets, he was tired and I don’t think Orantes tried in the third,” Borg said afterward. “In the fourth set, I thought I must win the first two games to get back into the match and I did it.”

It was a very humid day, the kind that Maskell said sapped everyone’s energy.

Orantes was taking his time, and Borg was so upset that, besides asking the umpire to push Orantes along, he stayed in his chair and made Orantes wait at the start of the third set.

Gizo
05-26-2012, 11:33 PM
It's a shame that Corretja never won the French Open. He had a very classy backhand and style of play, and in my opinion he was a better player than his compatriots Moya and Costa who were both able to win the title.

He was the runner-up in Paris twice, in 1998 to Moya and in 2001 to Kuerten, and lost in the semis to his good friend Costa in 2002 (I think a week after their match he was Costa's best man at his wedding).

1999 looked to be another great opportunity for him, but he was sick from an allergic reaction and lost to Meligeni in his QF. It's funny to think that the three best players in the world on clay and title favourites, Kuerten, Rios and Corretja all lost in the quarters that year.

It's astonishing that Rios won all three of the masters series events on clay, but never reached the semi-finals in Paris. In 1999 he lost in the quarters to Hrbaty who was a terrible match-up for him and won all 3 of their matches. In 1998 he lost his QF Moya. Rios actually lead their h2h 5-2, winning all 5 of their non-slam matches while Moya's 2 wins both came at the slams.

Rios's 1997 Monte-Carlo title run was hugely impressive when he beat Costa and Moya along the way before putting on a masterclass to demolish Corretja in the final. Rios and Corretja had a nice clay court rivalry with each other in the mid 90s.

kiki
05-27-2012, 11:23 AM
Orantes actually already had done that to Vilas earlier in the tournament (74RG) -- came back from two sets down, in the fourth round.

Those two sets he lost to Vilas happened to be the only sets Orantes lost before the final.

Connors also won 2 of the top 5 events (USO and Philadelphia). He shut Borg out in critical matches; he won twice as many official tournaments as Borg; and had fewer losses than Borg (see Mustard's post for the exact details).

Borg arguably had a better year in '76 than Ashe did in '75, but that does not mean that Borg should be made #1 in '76. I see this argument all the time and frankly I don't understand it. Every year is different; and you can only be #1 over the records of your rivals. Ashe in '75 was not competing against a record like Connors had in '76. Ashe was competing against the Connors of '75, who won no Slams and no big titles (partly because he was still playing the Riordan tour). Connors in '75 won fewer overall titles, and titles of poorer quality, than what he won in '76.

The two years are very different. Borg's competition in '76 was much better than what Arthur faced in '75.

And critically, Ashe defeated his main rival in '75. Borg lost to his main rival in every match they played and in the final of a major.

This is false, because a majority of experts at the time (Americans, British and French) voted for Connors as #1 of the year.

Phily, as great an indoor tourney as it was, canīt compare in prestige with WCT Finals.In fact, Philadelphia led to Dallas ( it was the WCT with more points ) but not the other way round.

The reason I canīt understand is why Connors never played a full WCT tour...till 77, when players that competed in the WCT tour didnīt play any other until it was over.

in 76, Borg won the biggest event (Wimbledon) and the fourth (Dallas) being also a finalist in the second (USO).Connors won the second biggest, but fared poorly at Wimbly, and played no WCT Finals, no Roland Garros and no Masters ( which was the fifth best event in that year).

In 1982 Mc Enroe beat Connors at Philadelphia and San Francisco by a much wider margin than Connors beat him at Queenīs and Wimbledon.Yet, nobody would put Mac above Connors that year.

kiki
05-27-2012, 11:26 AM
A little more on Borg-Orantes in '74.

The Age:

“Before the match I felt very tired,” Borg said afterwards. “Then I was losing two sets to love and it looked bad. But in the third set Manuel didn’t seem to try and I felt I had him after that.”

UPI:

Borg, habitually slow to get warmed up and tired after months of continual competition, could not match Orantes’ attack at the start of their match.

The 25-year-old Spanish number one was fresh and made few errors. Borg sometimes looked exhausted at the start of the three hour, 10 minute match.

But, after the first two sets, Borg began hammering his serve and slamming his tricky topspin forehand.

“After winning the first two sets, he was tired and I don’t think Orantes tried in the third,” Borg said afterward. “In the fourth set, I thought I must win the first two games to get back into the match and I did it.”

It was a very humid day, the kind that Maskell said sapped everyone’s energy.

Orantes was taking his time, and Borg was so upset that, besides asking the umpire to push Orantes along, he stayed in his chair and made Orantes wait at the start of the third set.

Orantes and Borg played some very fine clay court matches along their careers against each other.I think, as late as 1981, when Manolo was 32, he still took a set off Borg at the Ginebra indoor event.

They had also a pretty good rivalry in the Davis Cup, which both played very seriously.Borg was so good that even surrounded by mere journeymen, he took Sweden to the title in 1975, slamming the Czech team led by Jan Kodes in the final.

kiki
05-27-2012, 11:28 AM
It's a shame that Corretja never won the French Open. He had a very classy backhand and style of play, and in my opinion he was a better player than his compatriots Moya and Costa who were both able to win the title.

He was the runner-up in Paris twice, in 1998 to Moya and in 2001 to Kuerten, and lost in the semis to his good friend Costa in 2002 (I think a week after their match he was Costa's best man at his wedding).

1999 looked to be another great opportunity for him, but he was sick from an allergic reaction and lost to Meligeni in his QF. It's funny to think that the three best players in the world on clay and title favourites, Kuerten, Rios and Corretja all lost in the quarters that year.

It's astonishing that Rios won all three of the masters series events on clay, but never reached the semi-finals in Paris. In 1999 he lost in the quarters to Hrbaty who was a terrible match-up for him and won all 3 of their matches. In 1998 he lost his QF Moya. Rios actually lead their h2h 5-2, winning all 5 of their non-slam matches while Moya's 2 wins both came at the slams.

Rios's 1997 Monte-Carlo title run was hugely impressive when he beat Costa and Moya along the way before putting on a masterclass to demolish Corretja in the final. Rios and Corretja had a nice clay court rivalry with each other in the mid 90s.

Corretjaīs best win was the 1998 Masters Championship, beating countryman Moya over 5 long and exhausting sets and coming back from behind to take the event.

Xavier G
05-27-2012, 12:16 PM
Phily, as great an indoor tourney as it was, canīt compare in prestige with WCT Finals.In fact, Philadelphia led to Dallas ( it was the WCT with more points ) but not the other way round.

The reason I canīt understand is why Connors never played a full WCT tour...till 77, when players that competed in the WCT tour didnīt play any other until it was over.

in 76, Borg won the biggest event (Wimbledon) and the fourth (Dallas) being also a finalist in the second (USO).Connors won the second biggest, but fared poorly at Wimbly, and played no WCT Finals, no Roland Garros and no Masters ( which was the fifth best event in that year).

In 1982 Mc Enroe beat Connors at Philadelphia and San Francisco by a much wider margin than Connors beat him at Queenīs and Wimbledon.Yet, nobody would put Mac above Connors that year.

The reason nobody would put Mac above Connors in 1982 is because Connors won the Wimbledon-US Open double. That's obvious. Lendl has a better case than Mac for 1982.

Regarding 1976, if we're talking hypothetical match ups, it's likely Borg would have beaten Jimmy if they had played at Wimbledon that year the form Bjorn was in, but it's also likely Jimmy would have beaten Borg in Dallas 76 considering Jimmy's h2h against Bjorn and coming off a couple of wins over Borg that season already. Borg went to Paris that year and was well beaten by Panatta. Connors had a much superior win-loss record for 76 compared to Borg and won double the titles Bjorn did. Most intelligent watchers of the game had Jimmy as no.1 for 1976, that's the truth of it.

krosero
05-27-2012, 12:24 PM
Phily, as great an indoor tourney as it was, canīt compare in prestige with WCT Finals.Pronouncements about prestige are always inexact and subjective -- and they cannot give Dallas a better attendance than what Philadelphia had. Dallas had only one of the top 3 players (Borg). Philly had all three (Connors, Borg, Nastase).

I don't object to prestige as a concept, the way some other posters do. But I do object when I think "prestige" is used (misused) to ignore the realities of draw strength. At best I think you could say that the prestige of the Dallas title makes that event equal with Philadelphia; but when someone says that Philadelphia, which had the better draw, cannot even compare to Dallas, I know the concept of prestige is being misused.

in 76, Borg won the biggest event (Wimbledon) and the fourth (Dallas) being also a finalist in the second (USO).Connors won the second biggest, but fared poorly at Wimbly, and played no WCT Finals, no Roland Garros and no Masters ( which was the fifth best event in that year).And this is a perfect example: calling the '76 Masters the fifth most important event of the year, just because it was a tour-ending championship. The top 3 were absent (Connors, Borg, Nastase). So was the French Open champion (Panatta).

I think it's a very artificial thing, making Dallas and the Masters into majors whenever they were played, simply because they were tour-ending championships. How can an event be considered a major if the top 3 players in the world, and all the champions of the Slams played in that year, don't even bother to go?

Dallas was clearly more prestigious than the Masters in '76, but even so, its prestige was not beyond criticism, as you can see here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6As1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=EU8KAAAAIBAJ&dq=borg%20connors%20caracas%20clay&pg=2867%2C3027260

In 1982 Mc Enroe beat Connors at Philadelphia and San Francisco by a much wider margin than Connors beat him at Queenīs and Wimbledon.Yet, nobody would put Mac above Connors that year.Who decides #1 according to margins of victory? And you know the reason nobody puts McEnroe above Connors in 82: because Mac won no Slams, and Connors won two.

kiki
05-27-2012, 12:34 PM
The reason nobody would put Mac above Connors in 1982 is because Connors won the Wimbledon-US Open double. That's obvious. Lendl has a better case than Mac for 1982.

Regarding 1976, if we're talking hypothetical match ups, it's likely Borg would have beaten Jimmy if they had played at Wimbledon that year the form Bjorn was in, but it's also likely Jimmy would have beaten Borg in Dallas 76 considering Jimmy's h2h against Bjorn and coming off a couple of wins over Borg that season already. Borg went to Paris that year and was well beaten by Panatta. Connors had a much superior win-loss record for 76 compared to Borg and won double the titles Bjorn did. Most intelligent watchers of the game had Jimmy as no.1 for 1976, that's the truth of it.

I donīt think those watchers were inteligent enough to separate H2H vs Overall record in the big events.If Borg had won the USO, Palm Springs, Phily, have a 3-0 H2H vs Connors but Jimmy had taken Dallas,Wimbledon and lost the Open final to Borg, Iīd have said that Borg was a better player than Connors, but Jimmy was the undeniable nš 1.As simple as that.

Xavier G
05-27-2012, 01:32 PM
I donīt think those watchers were inteligent enough to separate H2H vs Overall record in the big events.If Borg had won the USO, Palm Springs, Phily, have a 3-0 H2H vs Connors but Jimmy had taken Dallas,Wimbledon and lost the Open final to Borg, Iīd have said that Borg was a better player than Connors, but Jimmy was the undeniable nš 1.As simple as that.

Philadelphia was a big event and Jimmy beat Borg 7-6 6-4 6-0 in the final. He also beat Bjorn Borg in Palm Springs and of course, in the US Open final. That's 8 out of 9 sets and quite comprehensive for Jimbo.
Connors won 12 titles to Borg's 6 and had the superior match record for the year. Jimmy was the most consistent player of the year, won most titles, had the best win-loss record and beat Borg, his closest challenger, 3-0. Facts, simple as that, Kiki.

kiki
05-27-2012, 01:36 PM
Philadelphia was a big event and Jimmy beat Borg 7-6 6-4 6-0 in the final. He also beat Bjorn Borg in Palm Springs and of course, in the US Open final. That's 8 out of 9 sets and quite comprehensive for Jimbo.
Connors won 12 titles to Borg's 6 and had the superior match record for the year. Jimmy was the most consistent player of the year, won most titles, had the best win-loss record and beat Borg, his closest challenger, 3-0. Facts, simple as that, Kiki.

Then, weīll agree on disagreeing:)

kiki
05-27-2012, 01:40 PM
Pronouncements about prestige are always inexact and subjective -- and they cannot give Dallas a better attendance than what Philadelphia had. Dallas had only one of the top 3 players (Borg). Philly had all three (Connors, Borg, Nastase).

I don't object to prestige as a concept, the way some other posters do. But I do object when I think "prestige" is used (misused) to ignore the realities of draw strength. At best I think you could say that the prestige of the Dallas title makes that event equal with Philadelphia; but when someone says that Philadelphia, which had the better draw, cannot even compare to Dallas, I know the concept of prestige is being misused.

And this is a perfect example: calling the '76 Masters the fifth most important event of the year, just because it was a tour-ending championship. The top 3 were absent (Connors, Borg, Nastase). So was the French Open champion (Panatta).

I think it's a very artificial thing, making Dallas and the Masters into majors whenever they were played, simply because they were tour-ending championships. How can an event be considered a major if the top 3 players in the world, and all the champions of the Slams played in that year, don't even bother to go?

Dallas was clearly more prestigious than the Masters in '76, but even so, its prestige was not beyond criticism, as you can see here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6As1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=EU8KAAAAIBAJ&dq=borg%20connors%20caracas%20clay&pg=2867%2C3027260

Who decides #1 according to margins of victory? And you know the reason nobody puts McEnroe above Connors in 82: because Mac won no Slams, and Connors won two.

In the 70īs, Wimbledon,Roland Garros,Forest Hills/Flushing Meadows,Masters and WCT finals were the reference and the so called majors.

a second tier, very selective as well, includes ( even if it is unofficial, we probbaly will agree) Philadelphia, as the second best indoor event, Rome, as the second best clay event,Johannesburg and lately Toronto as the second best hard court event, and Melbourne as the second best grass event.

I donīt think that anyone can dispute Borg won 2 of the big 5 and Connors 1 of the big 5 and 2 of the big 10.But then, he is at the same level as Panatta, who took Paris and Rome ( and the Davis Cup which was huge back then).

Xavier G
05-27-2012, 02:06 PM
Then, weīll agree on disagreeing:)

No problem, buddy.

Kirko
05-27-2012, 03:10 PM
All I see on the link is a black screen.

Anyway, my choices are, in no particular order:

Guillermo Coria
Andrei Medvedev
Alex Corretja
Alberto Berasategui
Marcelo Rios
Felix Mantilla
Alberto Mancini
Raul Ramirez
Jose-Luis Clerc
Vitas Gerulaitis
Eddie Dibbs
Victor Pecci
Harold Solomon
Henri Leconte
Pancho Gonzales
Zeljko Franulovic
Pete Sampras
Jimmy Connors
John McEnroe
Boris Becker
Stefan Edberg
Arthur Ashe
John Newcombe
Manuel Orantes

the "list" no questions.

krosero
05-27-2012, 04:50 PM
In the 70īs, Wimbledon,Roland Garros,Forest Hills/Flushing Meadows,Masters and WCT finals were the reference and the so called majors.

a second tier, very selective as well, includes ( even if it is unofficial, we probbaly will agree) Philadelphia, as the second best indoor event, Rome, as the second best clay event,Johannesburg and lately Toronto as the second best hard court event, and Melbourne as the second best grass event.So now you have Philadelphia as the second best indoor event? You've been consistently placing it behind Dallas and the Masters, even in years like '76 when the Masters was missing the best players.

Plainly you're trying to make things cookie-cutter neat, with each surface hosting a major and a "second best" tournament. I can tell you're following some abstract design, rather than letting facts guide you, because you can't even keep your design consistent.

The 70s is probably the messiest of all decades, and you keep trying to make things as neat as possible instead of taking each year one at a time.

I donīt think that anyone can dispute Borg won 2 of the big 5 and Connors 1 of the big 5 and 2 of the big 10.But then, he is at the same level as Panatta, who took Paris and Rome ( and the Davis Cup which was huge back then).You think no one can dispute that the Masters was the 5th biggest event of '76? Please take your head out of the sand.

kiki
05-27-2012, 10:22 PM
So now you have Philadelphia as the second best indoor event? You've been consistently placing it behind Dallas and the Masters, even in years like '76 when the Masters was missing the best players.

Plainly you're trying to make things cookie-cutter neat, with each surface hosting a major and a "second best" tournament. I can tell you're following some abstract design, rather than letting facts guide you, because you can't even keep your design consistent.

The 70s is probably the messiest of all decades, and you keep trying to make things as neat as possible instead of taking each year one at a time.

You think no one can dispute that the Masters was the 5th biggest event of '76? Please take your head out of the sand.

I may not explain myself properly.

If you ever watched 1970īs tennis, youīd knoe that there were several facts that, as you well posted, make it a messy ( and very rich) decade:

1/AO was not considered a real slam , although it remained so technically
2/Masters and WCT finals were the season end events of two separate circuits, yet both of them were very popular
3/sometimes, neither Dallas neither the Masters ( which was played at different venues till 77, when it settled dwon finally at New York City) had always the best fields.Yet, because they were season ending and very appealing, deserved being just behind the 3 top slams and above a second tier that includes Philadelphia,Rome,the Australaian and for a while, either the SAF Open ( which had great fields and a sensational venue at Ellis) or the Canadian Open, which gathered strength at the same time Johannseburg declined.

4/ There were alos classic events called "Super Series", like Palm Springs,Vegas,Tokyo,Memphis,LA,San Francisco,Sidney Indoors,Boston,Indy,Washington and North Conway, besides BAires,Barcelona,Milan,Wembley,Brussels,Frankfurt, MOntecarlo and Stockholm.And also, at the same level, the WCT tour events like Richmond,Houston,New Orleans/Kansas City and Birmingham/Monterrey.

5/ The Masters in 76 had,e xcept Borg and Connors, the best players.The same happened at the 1977 RG and you wouldnīt take away its Grand Slam status, woulod you?

Laurie
05-28-2012, 04:41 AM
I did one for the women as well. Happy to discuss any entries there

http://burnstennis.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/look-at-best-female-players-never-to.html#!/2012/05/look-at-best-female-players-never-to.html

TMF
05-28-2012, 08:50 AM
May I ask why you disagree?


According to the OP, it's about the best players who never won the FO, but all the players on your list are NOT best players. Unless you're saying they are the best.:confused:

Since you listed non-great players that never won the FO, I believe Soderling should be on the list and he's above many of the names you listed. Mantilla, Leconte, Mancini, Franulovic are not better performer than soderling at the FO. I know you're going to say these guys won more clay titles than him, but we are talking about the FO, where Soderling beat Fed and Nadal in 2009/2010. Unfortunately for him, he can't win the FO because he have to beat BOTH guys(tall order!).

You could also include Nole despite he's only 25. He's a hell of a cc...beat both Nadal and Fed, won multiple MS.

krosero
05-28-2012, 10:36 AM
I may not explain myself properly.

If you ever watched 1970īs tennis, youīd knoe that there were several facts that, as you well posted, make it a messy ( and very rich) decade:

1/AO was not considered a real slam , although it remained so technically
2/Masters and WCT finals were the season end events of two separate circuits, yet both of them were very popular
3/sometimes, neither Dallas neither the Masters ( which was played at different venues till 77, when it settled dwon finally at New York City) had always the best fields.Yet, because they were season ending and very appealing, deserved being just behind the 3 top slams and above a second tier that includes Philadelphia,Rome,the Australaian and for a while, either the SAF Open ( which had great fields and a sensational venue at Ellis) or the Canadian Open, which gathered strength at the same time Johannseburg declined.

4/ There were alos classic events called "Super Series", like Palm Springs,Vegas,Tokyo,Memphis,LA,San Francisco,Sidney Indoors,Boston,Indy,Washington and North Conway, besides BAires,Barcelona,Milan,Wembley,Brussels,Frankfurt, MOntecarlo and Stockholm.And also, at the same level, the WCT tour events like Richmond,Houston,New Orleans/Kansas City and Birmingham/Monterrey.

5/ The Masters in 76 had,e xcept Borg and Connors, the best players.The same happened at the 1977 RG and you wouldnīt take away its Grand Slam status, woulod you?Kiki, instead of taking each year one at a time, in its own context, you've merely fallen back on generalities. Instead of dealing with the facts of the draw, you're using emotional terms like "appealing," and "deserved." This doesn't begin to cut it.

If this is your final position -- that certain events, you concede, did not always have the best fields, but nevertheless "deserved" top-tier status, because they were "popular" or "appealing" -- well, be my guest.

And what is this business about only Connors and Borg missing the '76 Masters? As I said, Nastase and Panatta (two players who were not absent from the '77 French) were also missing. The top three players in the world, plus the FO champion (7th ranked), were all missing. There's no way I'm going to take that event and reward it with more significance than an event like Philadelphia where all the top players were present, merely because it was technically a tour-ending championship (you've got to use common sense about this), or because of some special pleading about "popularity" or "appeal."

kiki
05-29-2012, 02:27 PM
Kiki, instead of taking each year one at a time, in its own context, you've merely fallen back on generalities. Instead of dealing with the facts of the draw, you're using emotional terms like "appealing," and "deserved." This doesn't begin to cut it.

If this is your final position -- that certain events, you concede, did not always have the best fields, but nevertheless "deserved" top-tier status, because they were "popular" or "appealing" -- well, be my guest.

And what is this business about only Connors and Borg missing the '76 Masters? As I said, Nastase and Panatta (two players who were not absent from the '77 French) were also missing. The top three players in the world, plus the FO champion (7th ranked), were all missing. There's no way I'm going to take that event and reward it with more significance than an event like Philadelphia where all the top players were present, merely because it was technically a tour-ending championship (you've got to use common sense about this), or because of some special pleading about "popularity" or "appeal."

Your choice is neat and good.Phily had very tough fields, even in 78 or 79 the field may be even tougher than in 76.I donīt want, on the other side, take anything off Orantes, who had a very tough field to deal with at Houston.yes, the top 2 players were absent, as they were in 77 Roland Garros...why should we question Orantes win and not Vilas? in fact, Orantes beat Vilas, the 77 FO winner at that 76 Masters, and then went onto beating a top form Fibak in 5 hard fought sets, that could have gone either way.

I donīt think it would have mattered if Nastase and Panatta were in, since Orantes had beaten them many times in the past years.Connors on fast carpet, yes, I donīt think he could have beaten Connors there.Definitely.Borg was also a couple of notches above him , indoors or not.But he played the event and deservedly won it.The ifs are useless.

I agree the 70īs were as rich that sometimes can lead to confusion.Take the 2 year end championships in 1972.The WCT field was excelent and the final is widely regarded as one, if not the best ever match.But the Masters had also a very tough cast, including peak Nastase,peak Smith, peak Kodes, peak Gorman, almost peak Orantes...I can take any of the 2 fields and the differences are really minor.

krosero
05-29-2012, 04:27 PM
Your choice is neat and good.Phily had very tough fields, even in 78 or 79 the field may be even tougher than in 76.I donīt want, on the other side, take anything off Orantes, who had a very tough field to deal with at Houston.yes, the top 2 players were absent, as they were in 77 Roland Garros...why should we question Orantes win and not Vilas? in fact, Orantes beat Vilas, the 77 FO winner at that 76 Masters, and then went onto beating a top form Fibak in 5 hard fought sets, that could have gone either way.

I donīt think it would have mattered if Nastase and Panatta were in, since Orantes had beaten them many times in the past years.Connors on fast carpet, yes, I donīt think he could have beaten Connors there.Definitely.Borg was also a couple of notches above him , indoors or not.But he played the event and deservedly won it.The ifs are useless.

I agree the 70īs were as rich that sometimes can lead to confusion.Take the 2 year end championships in 1972.The WCT field was excelent and the final is widely regarded as one, if not the best ever match.But the Masters had also a very tough cast, including peak Nastase,peak Smith, peak Kodes, peak Gorman, almost peak Orantes...I can take any of the 2 fields and the differences are really minor.If you don't want to take anything away from Orantes' win, no problem there: but I don't want to artificially inflate the win either. Yet that is what will happen if you call an event a major, and you use the force of the term "major" to place it above other events with better fields.

If you go by strength of draw, then Connors won 2 of the top 4 events of the year: USO and Philadelphia; Borg and Panatta split the remaining two. What you're doing is slapping the term "major" onto Dallas and the Masters, and pushing Philadelphia down with the term "second-tier", and then ending up with this picture: Borg has 2 majors, while Connors and Panatta and Orantes each has 1.

The whole picture gets distorted by the use of these labels -- especially when the labels are defined heavily with the use of such emotional adjectives as "popular" and "appealing." The strength of the draw is a far less subjective guide.

It makes little sense to me how Connors can defeat full fields at the USO and Philadelphia, and yet when you introduce your labels, he ends up merely on the same level as Orantes, who won an event in which none of the three players ranked above him (all of them excellent indoor players) were present.

I'm not saying that the computer rankings should be an ironclad formula for deciding what the majors are in a particular year. The presence or absence of the top players is not the only important criteria; there are others, for example, the number of rounds required for the champion to win (which is one thing in favor of the 1977 French -- not to mention the fact that despite the absences at that tournament, Vilas was there, and he was solidly among the top two claycourters in the world, arguably the #1). But the criteria, whatever they are, should be as objective as possible. Then the term "major" can be slapped on. But slapping the term on first, based on some abstract idea about which tournaments "deserve" the term -- and then using the term to decide the top players of the year -- is IMO very much the wrong approach.

I've noticed Mustard uses the term "major" but he very much acknowledges that certain majors did not always have the best fields of the year. If the strength/weakness of the draw is acknowledged that way, I don't see a problem. But calling certain events "majors" and then, without looking at the draws, simply adding up who won the "majors" that year and picking the #1 player that way, is a real problem.

kiki
06-02-2012, 12:41 PM
If you don't want to take anything away from Orantes' win, no problem there: but I don't want to artificially inflate the win either. Yet that is what will happen if you call an event a major, and you use the force of the term "major" to place it above other events with better fields.

If you go by strength of draw, then Connors won 2 of the top 4 events of the year: USO and Philadelphia; Borg and Panatta split the remaining two. What you're doing is slapping the term "major" onto Dallas and the Masters, and pushing Philadelphia down with the term "second-tier", and then ending up with this picture: Borg has 2 majors, while Connors and Panatta and Orantes each has 1.

The whole picture gets distorted by the use of these labels -- especially when the labels are defined heavily with the use of such emotional adjectives as "popular" and "appealing." The strength of the draw is a far less subjective guide.

It makes little sense to me how Connors can defeat full fields at the USO and Philadelphia, and yet when you introduce your labels, he ends up merely on the same level as Orantes, who won an event in which none of the three players ranked above him (all of them excellent indoor players) were present.

I'm not saying that the computer rankings should be an ironclad formula for deciding what the majors are in a particular year. The presence or absence of the top players is not the only important criteria; there are others, for example, the number of rounds required for the champion to win (which is one thing in favor of the 1977 French -- not to mention the fact that despite the absences at that tournament, Vilas was there, and he was solidly among the top two claycourters in the world, arguably the #1). But the criteria, whatever they are, should be as objective as possible. Then the term "major" can be slapped on. But slapping the term on first, based on some abstract idea about which tournaments "deserve" the term -- and then using the term to decide the top players of the year -- is IMO very much the wrong approach.

I've noticed Mustard uses the term "major" but he very much acknowledges that certain majors did not always have the best fields of the year. If the strength/weakness of the draw is acknowledged that way, I don't see a problem. But calling certain events "majors" and then, without looking at the draws, simply adding up who won the "majors" that year and picking the #1 player that way, is a real problem.

I simply donīt think you can throw away the great prestige WCT finals had ( of which Phily was a stop) just because one single year, another event (like Philadelphia) had an apparent tougher field.

krosero
06-02-2012, 04:02 PM
I simply donīt think you can throw away the great prestige WCT finals had ( of which Phily was a stop) just because one single year, another event (like Philadelphia) had an apparent tougher field.No one is throwing away its prestige.