Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by sandy mayer, May 22, 2007.
Of course it is right, Vegito. The rankings of the time were very hard to calculate, that's true, but tennis was played on a weekly schedule. The fact that they missed a key week has to be pointed out because it was their job to detect if the rankings had to be run after a certain event dropped out or entered the rankings which could potentially modify the top spot. That is why the reiteration project used the exact ranking system, but also calculated weekly rankings, because it is the only way to point out what was missed.
Besides that, finding and correcting the errors in calculations done by operator was another major milestone of the project.
The final issue was verifying that categories were correctly assigned to tournaments. The only rule of the time was prize money, and in some case, there were errors. But since this is a parametric error, we had to do two runs of the project, one where original categories are left untouched, and one where they are correct (by the rules). That is why there is an annex.
I believe that the 5 updates missing from 1975 on the ATP websites are:
- Post Wimbledon
- end of July
- middle of August
- September 16, 1975
- end of October
Yes, there is one important difference between the two, but they are remarkably similar at all the rest of the details. It's important to note that this means that minor errors affected the rankings only marginally. And this applies to the bonus point thing. There are very minute differences between points when you run the rankings weekly. You see, once you do that, bonus points shift between how you apply them and how they were originally applied.
That thread you mention is old and based on older ideas, but the concept remains: once you decide you need to award bonus points, it's important to run the rankings as often as possible, because you can't award them based on 3 months old rankings, the players may not be inside the Top 24 anymore, or other players may have already replaced them. But the shifts are extremely small, it's important to note that the variance doesn't affect positioning inside the Top 10. This extremely minor difference has 2 consequences:
1. The rankings you provide are more precise and represent the historical reality (within the same ranking system).
2. The rankings you provide do not have the same bonus points as the original rankings, which are impossible to determine in some cases (because ranking issues after 1976 have been completely lost). But the differences are acceptable as it doesn't cause any position shifts. The effect has a way to advantage all the players in the same manner somehow.
Yes, I will continue to work 1979 onwards. The idea is to provide data where it is missing. And 1979-1984 is a giant black hole for statistics.
If the ATP refuses the study (and that is extremely likely right now), it is not because of not accepting the historical reality, but rather because they can't verify our data (ironically, because they don't have that data anymore). If that happens, the study will be released to the press directly, without ATP involvement, and everyone will be free to accept it or deny it, but it won't be part of official history. I will be somehow happy that it will be the first time someone has redone the 70s calculations with the original system and pointed out all the flaws, which will be a good start for statistics to be complete.
Salatino es un viejo engreído que pifia muchas de las cosas que habla.
Hay mucha gente que sabe más de tenis en Argentina que ese tipo master, tenélo en cuenta...
I don't know the exact quote of Salatino, but it looks to me he would talk about the fact that there are tournament draws which the ATP does not have in their database, they no longer have their record, but they were played, and they counted for ATP points. Not necessarily in 1975. For example, the tournament draw of Palmetto 1973 is not present in the ATP database, but the tournament counted for ATP points.
Probably should, but you must know the guy.:cry:
Some awful mistakes (more than often) in his speaking. Fact.
I can only say that very soon all will be revealed. I hope you didn't lose your patience.
It is clear it comes down to Vilas,Borg and Connors.The other interesting point is...who was the fourth best? Gerulaitis? Gottfried? Tanner? Stockton?
Brian 4°, Dick 5° .. for me.
ATP indica Gerulaitis 4°, Gottfried 5°, Stockton 10°, Tanner 15° .
Tanner that year played badly .
Gerulaitis pretty well for me though was clearly Gottfried 4th and 5th Stockton .
Gottfried ago 15 finals (winning a few) , including but Palm Springs (the current Indian Wells , heavy) . 15!!!
Stockton is very strong in the WCT circuit and wins in Philadelphia ( heavy ) .
For both the ATP does not calculate the final of Stockton to Dallas and the semifinals of the Masters Brian NY , as 8draws .
But both have much relevance .
Yes, Gerulaitis and Tanner excelled at the majors, with Vitas winning Rome and that fabulous Wimbledon semi and Tanner winning the Australian against Vilas.But in the second string tourneys, Stockton and Gottfried did very well and had a far more solid season.I´d place Gottfried and Gerulaitis tied for number 4, and then Stockton and Tanner in the top ten ( with a few others like Dibbs,Orantes,Panatta and Ramirez)
I'm fine .
Just a note : the Australian were cheap .
Philadelphia ( Stockton ) and Palm Springs ( Gorrfried ) were worth more than Rome in those years .
Still ok .
Tanner beat guys like Teacher,Dent and Fleming besides Vilas, in a grass court competition, it is not that weak¡
I agree Stockton´s win at the US Pro was great and quite unexpected.
Good tournament Tanner , Roscoe was a loose cannon , he could win and lose against anyone .
But quell'Australian open lacked the top 5 .
There were only five of the top 15 but especially any of the first 5 ( because Vilas was 6 ° ) and there were only 8 of the top 37 .
Connors n. 1 1977! - Vilas n.1 1975?
Hoping that justice is done in Vilas and is given the number 1 even if only for a week, I think it's more just like him end the year 1975 rather than 1977. In 1975, Connors was not in shape, too taken by the case against ATP Ashe and the two challenge matches against Laver and Newk. Were those two matches that he prepared that year. It lost sight of the rest. I enjoy it if they give the 1975 in Vilas.
But 1977 is more complicated, and explain why.
Borg is out of the game, played badly and won little recently.
The reasoning is two.
1) if one considers only the ATP (excluding 8draws) Vilas and Connors if they play, but I expect the recalculation Vilas should emerge because he won a lot.
2) but if you consider the 8draws, ie WCT Challenge Cup, Masters WCT Dallas and Masters GP NYork, Connors won them all three and Vilas has made only a semifinal in NY.
Connors wins so abundantly because .......
the big titles in 1977 were:
Philadelphia (final Connors)
Las Vegas (Connors)
Palm Springs (final Vilas)
Masters Dallas (Connors)
Wimbledon (Borg, Connors final)
US Open (Vilas, final Connors)
Masters Grand Prix (Connors, Borg final)
Connors 3 + 3
Vilas 2 + 1
Borg 2 + 1
While he didn´t win a traditional slam, Connors was, if nothing, the most consistent of the big three in 1977.He won the WCT/Masters, lost the Wimbledon final and the US Open final and did very well in the remaining tournaments.
Borg basically won the biggest title and played another major final.Vilas was great, of course, but his poor Wimbledon somehow dammages his image.I still think that Vilas should be awarded the number one, but if somebody has a claim against this, it is Connors, not Bjorn.
similarly, while Connors was the best player in 1976, Borg did better at the majors and should be awarded the number one
76 Borg ( Connors a close second)
77 Vilas ( Connors a close second)
In 1978 Connors was a close second and in 1979 Mc Enroe was also a close second, yet Borg should be regarded as the number one in both seasons.
think 1976 was the best year of Connors and one of the first five years of the open era .
Connors dominated from January to end of the year .
The big titles in 1976 were :
Philadelphia ( Connors destroyed Borg )
Las Vegas ( Connors )
Palm Springs ( Connors destroyed Borg )
Dallas ( Borg )
Paris ( Panatta )
W ( Borg )
American summer of Har Tru ( Connors wins at Indy , N. Conway and Washington )
Boston ( Borg )
US Open ( Connors defeated Borg on clay )
Wembley ( Connors )
To decide the number one there are three ways : 1 ) the ranking ATP , Connors has double points to Borg , there is no comparison , another category ( 80.27 to 52.60 ) 2 ) to take account only of 3 majors but is an absurd , tennis is played from January to December ....
3 ) the ranking ATP reasoned , including tournaments 8draws who had a very good value . Borg won in Dallas , but remains at a distance from the sidereal Connors .
Always he lost with Connors in those years ! Even on clay !
My ranking 1974-1988
76 Connors, Too much stronger than Borg . He won too much more .
77 Connors for me , but it's good enough Vilas . Borg third , far.
78 Connors , Borg but not far .
82 I don't know
83 i don't know
in 82 it is Connors, with Lendl second and Mac quite far below.In 83, while Wilander and Connors played great tennis, it is Mac who had the best season, with the Masters,Wimbledon and the WCT titles under his belt.He was the best player in 1983 without any reasonable doubt.
1982 I'm not sure.
Connors played well and won two slam, winning three other major tournaments (Monterrey, Quenn's, Las Vegas) but not as ATP titles won in large numbers as in the 70's.
The ATP will not rewarded at year end because as Lendl won three titles non-ATP, very prestigious at that time:
Rosemont / Chicago, Miami, Molson / Montreal.
While Lendl won Antwerp, Mazda Melbourne and Molson / Toronto.
1982 remember that Connors was glad to be back the number one rather than winning in Flushing !!
Then it is distracted (with Lendl) and while Mac recovered in autumn winning series in Tokyo, at Wembley, in Sydney and Frisco (had won only US indoor Philadelphia ...) they were winning tournaments non-ATP.
There, at that point Mac returned to year-end number one.
Connors and Lendl knew that the rewards ATP tournaments ATP and non-ATP !!
I do not know ... also because I have no idea of averages. I did not find in the ATP website.
I believe that Mac was a little under Lendl / Connors but did all ATP tournaments. The three non-ATP won by Lendl and Connors for me were worth much.
Between Connors and Lendl but I do not know, the WCT tournaments that Ivan won in the series that year I remember that they did not have the importance of 70. Lendl won two Masters against Mac, Cincy and Forest Hills WCT.
Third Mac. For the first not sure.
In a way, Mac started very well the 82 season with his Philadelphia win and then went onto a big slump but recovered in October-November to win 4 indoor titles in a row beating people like Connors,Mayer and Gottfried very easily.He also played a great DC final against France, on clay.I think Mac said this was the best tennis he had played up to date, even if he kept on losing to Lendl in the unofficial events like Antwerp, AKAI and Barcelona.The 1982 domination of Lendl over Mc Enroe is very similar to that of Borg over Connors in 1979: 7-0 if we include the unofficial events.
Lendl´s WCT run is one of the best achievements of the open era, yet seems to be forgotten.That 1982 season he won all, yes all of the 10 WCT regular events he entered and all, yes all WCT finals he entered ( 3).I think it was amazing.
Yes Lendl's amazing acheivements in 1982 are largely forgotten today. If he had found a way to win just one more match - the US Open final - he would have been uncontestabily the number 1 for the year. He was just so far ahead of Connors and McEnroe under every other criteria. As it was Connors won Wimbledon/US Open so regardless of this other achievements the YE#1 goes to him.
Just by way of Comparison:
Lendl - 15 official tournament wins out of 20 official finals. On top of that 3 unoffical tournament wins (Toronto (over McEnroe), Melbourne (over Gerulaitis) and Antwerp (over McEnroe)). Also made US Open final. Best 3 official tournaments wins (WCT Finals, Masters, Cincinnati)
Connors - 7 official tournaments wins out of 11 official finals. On top of that 3 unofficial tournament wins (Rosemont (over McEnroe), Montreal (over Borg) & North Miami Beach). Won Wimbledon and the US Open. Best 3 official tournament wins (Wimbledon, US Open, Las Vegas?)
McEnroe - 5 official tournament wins out of 10 official finals. On top of that 2 unofficial tournament wins (Manchester & Perth (over Borg)). Also made Wimbledon final. Best 3 official tournaments wins (Philadephia, Tokyo Indoor, Wembley).
As you can see if Lendl's record was much stronger than the two other contenders (except against Connors slam record).
Lendl, as you said, just lacked to win the US Open to close up any debate about the 1982 season´s number one.He won a lot, including the two indoor majors; he also lost some other finals like Palm Springs, Toronto,Madrid,Montecarlo.That means, he seldom lost before the final; maybe his worst results were the FO and Barcelona defeats...but that was against Wilander, who would win both tournaments and ended up as the best clay court player of the season.That shows tremendous hunger and consistency for a whole season.
I remember a quote by Yannick Noah, who broke his match winning streak at Palm Springs.Apparently, Lendl was sour and bad tempered when he attended the press conference.When it was Noah´s turn, the winner of the tournament just said " You know, Ivan doesn´t lose very often these days.But when he does, he is a sour loser ".
I agree , great post .
We are here not to forget .
1982 ...counting 8draws
We are used to the stronger one who wins the most important titles, then the majors, and so is the number 1 ATP ranking.
But it was not always so.
Sometimes a player A plays better in majors, another player B wins the important titles and another player C is the strongest. And another player D at the end of the year is the number 1. Incredible? 1982 was an amazing year.
Generally the number one New Year is awarded in two ways: with the ATP ranking or with counting major (like ITF and many critics). The method majors-ITF seems stupid because a year lasts 365 days, I do not even consider.
I always start from the ATP rankings but has always had three flaws:
1) the difference in points between the majors and what I call big titles (now Master 1000) is low;
2) the finalist has too many points compared to the winner;
3) the 8draws are not considered in the ranking. Not even the tournaments organized by ATP and WCT (Masters, Challenge Cup and T. of Champions !!!)
My method is to start from the ATP rankings but attributed little importance to the finals lost (unless there are many and are crucial) and I attribute much significance to 8draws.
It 'hard to spot the Big 10 titles in 1982, because that year there were so many important tournaments 8draws. Anyway I try. In chronological order:
1) Challenge of Champions no-ATP (Connors beats Mac on the 5th)
2) US Indoor (Mac destroys Connors)
3) Montreal Molson no-ATP (Lendl beats Mac)
4) Masters WCT (Lendl beats Mac)
5) Wimbledon (Connors beats Mac on the 5th)
6) Cincy (Lendl)
7) USE (Connors beat Lendl)
8) Miami no-ATP (Connors beat Lendl)
9) Antwerp no-ATP (Lendl beats Mac)
10) Masters NY (Lendl beats Mac)
CONNORS won four titles (including 2 slam) + 1 final
Lendl won 5 titles + 2 finals
MAC wins first title + 6 finals
Vied other major tournaments that year such as Paris but the three hurt and I excluded or Molson edition 2 (Connors), Las Vegas (Connors), Monterrey (Connors), Queen's (Connors), Washington (Lendl) , N. Conway (Lendl), Canada, AKAI Sidney (Lendl), Tokyo (Mac) and Wembley (Mac) but the first 10 they have been these.
Mac is away, made a human year, the other two super.
ATP did not consider the two Masters of Lendl and 3 non-ATP, and did not consider the three non atp Jimbo, so at the end of the year turned out to Mac. There are too many big titles.
Between Lendl and Connors I did not know ...
How big titles ATP equal, big titles as non-ATP equal, the two majors are worth more than 2 Masters is undoubted. Lendl won nine other tournaments WCT to which I can not give a real score.
In the sense that the WCT circuit weaker compared to 70, participated only Lendl, Vilas and Clerc of the strongest.
Maybe at the end of the whole number one was played at Flushing Meadows. I am left with the question of how to calculate those 9 WCT titles won by Ivan Lendl.
This is your thread on 1977.
I apologize if I have written several posts about other years .
From now on I will write here only in 1977 .
For 1975 I wrote a post on the thread in 1975 .
International Tennis Hall of Fame about Vilas in 1977 :
"it was widely considered he was the real world No. 1"
Separate names with a comma.