I'd be interested to here some opinions. The thing that gets me that even though Connors and Becker won Wimbledon and US Open in both those years there win-loss record was inferior to Lendl's. Not just slightly inferior, but vastly inferior. If Lendl had won the US Open final, he would have been unquestionably ranked number one by every competent tennis historian for both those years. My question is how can one match make so much difference? Think about it. If he had won that one match, he would have to be number one. No lawyer in the world would be able to make a plausible case for the other two being ahead of him. We're talking Lendl-daylight-Connors/Becker. But because he lost that one match no-one could ever bring themselves not to put Connors and Becker at the head of the pack. Admittedly the ranking were pretty screwed up back then. McEnroe at 1 for 1982! Lendl was actually ranked 1 for 1989 although at the end of the year he said Becker deserved it (hard to imagine Becker being as complimentary about Lendl). It's amazing how few people give Lendl credit these days. McEnroe and Cash seem to hate the guy, Becker seems to have revised tennis history (where the tennis crown is passed from McEnroe to him to Sampras). Wilander seems to be the only legend of that era who gives Lendl his due.