Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.
kiki, old Newcombe fan, I would throw in that Rosewall beat Newcombe in the 1971 WCT finals.
I am fan of both...and you´re right.Newcombe won 3 big matches at Wimbledon 70,71 and USO 73 while Rosewall beat him at FH 70, Dallas 71 and Wimbledon 74.even at big matches...
kiki, I know we both are admirers of some old Aussies.
Kiki, you tend to forget a few Rosewall achievements against Newk: Muscles also beat him at the 1974 US Open in SFs...
true.Did they ever met at Philadelphia? any other WCT match?
kiki, They never met at Philadelphia.
1971 Chicago, SFs: Newcombe d Rosewall 7-6,7-5
Toronto SFs: N d R 7-6,6-2
1972 Las Vegas, QFs: N d R. 6-4,7-5
Fort Worth, Final: N d R. 5-7,1-6, 7-5,6-4,6-4
CBS Classic, Hilton Head: Final: R. d N 7-5,6-3 (it was the match where Muscles stepped on a nail and played partly injured...).
I'm not talking about 1977. 1977 is another matter. I'm talking about 1976.
Oh I see, Kiki, you had to wait for someone else.
You asked the other poster earlier in the discussion on what basis he made Connors number one for 1976. You must know the basis so well, it's been explained to you many times now and you take no notice of the facts and analysis pointed out to you. You don't address them.
The fact is even Lance Tingay in the World Of Tennis Yearbook, who nearly always picked the Wimbledon champion, had Connors as his number one for 1976.
Why, Kiki? Because Jimbo was, for most rational observers, number one that year.
For 1976 and 1977, Borg was chosen as the ATP Player of the year in contradiction of the computer rankings.
Here are how the "votes" came out for 1976-1977.
Connors deservedly topped the ATP rankings in 1976. Ah yes, Collins, Tingay, Barrett, Bodo, McCauley and Elian , all fine judges of a tennis season.
I agree Xavier G that they're all fine judges, no doubt about it. Among them, Lance Tingay of the London Daily Telegraph, Joe McCauley of Tennis Australia, Bud Collins and John Barrett gave Borg the nod for 1977 though. For 1976, Connors has the edge in terms of total titles and the head to head, including his win over Borg at the US Open, but Borg does have two big titles to one for Connors. My central point is that if one factors in the head to head records in 1976, the same must be done in 1977 to be consistent in the analysis. Regardless, I think we can agree that most writers/experts gave Connors the nod in 1976 and Borg the top spot in 1977, despite the ATP computer rankings. The ATP rankings did not properly consider all the important events. The Player of the Year honors from the ATP likely reflected the realization that the computer rankings just did not tell the full story. The year 1977 looks at least as close as 1970-1973 with Newcombe, Rosewall, and co.
borg number one, thanks for addressing the many points in Connors advantage for 1976. Personally, I have no problem with Borg as no.1 for 1977. I don't really believe Jimbo was number one in 77 based on results. It was either Borg or Vilas as far as I'm concerned.
But Vilas' activity in 1977 was on another level entirely compared to Borg's, winning 72 of his last 73 matches of the year. Vilas also won 2 majors.
I can´t understand the way you adresss to me.I´ll make clear for you that
1/Jimmy is one of my all time favs
2/I think , and also wrotte before, that AS A PLAYER, 1976 Connors was a bit better than 1976 Borg.He beat Borg in the US Open ( even if the match really swinged at the tie break, anyhow, Connors played with great courage and deserved to win) and also at Philadlephia.Both victories at Connors home soil...
But, exactly as Vilas vs Borg in 77, in this case the so considered lesser player had a better year and is my 1976 candidate to be world´s best.Not by much, but he is a natural.
Mustard, looking at everything, there's no question about that his total matches played, matches won, and total titles all are assets and he did win the US Open and the French Open, on the other hand, Borg took the biggest one of them all and went 5-1 versus Vilas/Connors. While Vilas racked up many clay court titles, Borg still beat Vilas both times they played on clay. Borg also displayed greater surface versatility than Vilas, of his 11 titles, the breakdown is:
clay titles-5 (including two wins over Vilas)
indoor titles-5 (1 indoor hard)
grass titles-1 (Wimbledon)
Vilas won 3 non-clay titles in 1977 compared to 6 for Borg. 1977 is inarguably debatable given that Tennis Magazine (France), Lance Tingay, Rino Tommasi, Joe McCauley, Bud Collins and John Barrett all gave the nod to Borg over Vilas. Obviously, they were considering some of these arguments in favor of Borg when they made their choice. They probably were not all big Bjorn Borg fans like me either.
well , my opinion, contrary to yours and almost anybody else is that Connors has a better reason to be nº 1 in 77 than in 76.
In 1976 he only played a major final - he won it deservedly-.BTW, that FH final must rank as one of the most emotional ever at the open,IMO.
In 1977 he took the two major indoors ( in one of the finals beating Borg, even if losing in the rr to Vilas) BUT ALSO played the Wimbledon and US Open finals.
Maybe he didn´t have as many minor wins as in 76, but in the big events he fared far better...
so 1977 Connors outclasses 1976 Connors.
... and losing the finals of a third and the semis of a fourth.since he did not enter the Dallas showdown, one concludes Vilas only failed - quite miserably- in the centennial Wimbledon.Journeyman Billy Martin defeated him in the earlier rounds...
So, clear dominance of Newcombe on fast indoors with a clay court win for the Old Master, isn´t it?
Vilas won 16 tournaments, played 3 Grand Slam finals and won 2 Grand Slams. Borg won 11 tournaments, played 1 Grand Slam final and won 1 Grand Slam.
I don't even understand how it's possible to think Borg is the n°1.
Just because he beated Vilas 3 times ? That's not the question. The question is : whos has the best results ?
Some years ago, Federer lots every time against Nadal, but he was the n°1.
Please read and learn about how the ATP ranking works. The system is put in place and players know their objective/goal.
kiki, I believe that Forth Worth and Las Vegas were played outdoors.
Rosewall beat Newcombe in their most important indoor match: Dallas 1971. A win there made up for several other WCT losses. For instance Laver would probably gladly have given his three WCT wins in 1972 (Houston etc) to gain the 1972 Dallas trophy...
And we always should keep in mind that Rosewall and Newcombe met only when Rosewall was already 33 plus to 43 ( Muscles won their last meeting in November 1977 6-3,6-3 (Japan))
As earlier told Rosewall was 14:10 matches against Newcombe.
TMF, Connors was the leader in the 1977 ATP computer ranking but most experts say that either Borg or Vilas deserve the No. 1 spot for that year.
In 1982 McEnroe was No.1 in ATP computer even though most experts say that Connors was the worthy No.1.
ATP ranks were a bit jeopardizing back then
In 79 Connors ended at 2 while Mac had a better year and was clear number 2 in minds of fans and experts
Thanks Xavier for your response. BobbyOne, 1982 is an interesting year. I'd have to pick Connors as #1 that year. In 1982, we saw Jimmy Connors win both the U.S. Open and Wimbledon. He won 7 titles that year and went 78-11 in official matches. He lost to Lendl in the semifinals of the Masters 6-1, 6-3. He made the quarters at the French Open, where he lost to Jose Higueras in straight sets. Yet, he had those two big, resurgent wins at the U.S. Open and Wimbledon, dispatching McEnroe and Lendl in the finals of those two majors. He also won at Columbus, Queen's Club, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Monterray. He went 2-2 against McEnroe that year, with wins at Wimbledon and Queen's Club and losses at Philadelphia and San Francisco. McEnroe won 5 titles, with wins at Wembley, Tokyo, San Francisco, He lost in the SF of the U.S. Open, while reaching the finals at Wimbledon and the Masters.
But you can't take away what the player actually earn the #1 from the ranking system, regardless of some people agree/disagree. It's still be determine by the system. For example, I consider the year 2003 Fed was the better player than Roddick, but that's not going to change...Roddick gets the year end #1.
It's like in basketball when some fans disagree with the referee's call which cost a team a win. Whether to agree/disagree with the ref is still subjective, but since the call stand, the team that got the call in their favor deserve the win.
what you miss is connors beat borg to win Philadelphia in 76 ..... and philly was a very important event in 76 .......
7-6,6-4,6-0 Yes, I know that.And also know US Pro Indoors were the third indoor event in the world, good win there for Connors ( who won that event a record of 4 consecutive times and played two more lost finals BTW)
Borg won the then huge WCT and Wimbledon while Connors US open and Phily is not in the very same league...
ok after completing my list http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=167531&page=7 this would be my final Open era No1 rankings (68-today)
the rest remains the same.
A 7-round event and hugely important. Another one he's missing is Palm Springs (a 6-round event), where Connors beat Borg 6-4, 6-1.
Both Philly and Palm Springs had 7 of the top 10 players in attendance, and both events had all of the top 3 players (Connors, Borg, Nastase). The Dallas WCT Finals won by Borg had only 5 of the top 10 in attendance, and only 1 of the top 3 (Borg himself).
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&dq=borg connors caracas clay&pg=2867,3027260
Connors had a stellar record in '76 and was deservedly chosen #1 by most experts. His win/loss record was over 90% (it was .918 ) which already puts him into select company among Open Era seasons. Borg was only .826.
Lendl in 82 had a better year than Connors in 76, winning 10 WCT events and a bunch of GP titles as well as Dallas,Masters and reaching US open final.
and, still, anybody places Connors at number 1, based solely on his W&USO runs.
Another instance of Slam Bias?
I still place Connors at nº 1, but it is just an example that data can be used in different angles.Don´t you think so?
I don't rate the WCT Finals fields in 1976 and 1977 as being particularly strong. Prior years especially were stronger.76 lacked Connors and 77 lacked Borg. Not a deciding factor in my eyes. Connors winning the 77 Masters over Borg was much more worthy.
1976 Connors was better overall in my view, won more tournaments, had a better win-loss record and won a Grand Slam tournament under pressure, beating Borg in probably the crunch showdown of the year fairly and squarely.
I can see your point of view, I've looked at the year in this way myself, but Lendl didn't win on the biggest stage of all, the Grand Slam events, in the final analysis
I don't know.
If the computer ranking system is properly and fairly configured, and the total points add up to player X being the winner (without any slams or with lesser slams), then there should be only one outcome--not multiple, differing interpretations.
In that case, many of us are guilty of "Slam Bias."
That is what I meant.data can be used in diverse ways.
I agree Connors was the best player in the world in 1976 but not the one with the best record.In 1982, Connors beat Lendl at Flushing, which is a bigger win than Lendl beating him at the Masters
To me it is hardly understandable to have the World Champion without AT LEAST 2 of the biggest events.
another thing is the computer ranking, which rewards minor tournaments, but that is not " world champion"
If everyone thinks of Wimbledon as the true "World Championship", then the computer-ranking-points should reflect this.
It should earn 3000 points . . . for the winner.
Lendl's 82 is inferior to Connors' 76. Lendl was winless in the top three events of the year: he lost in the USO final, was upset by Wilander at RG and didn't even try at the biggest event of all (he skipped Wimbledon entirely).
Connors won the USO in '76 and he won the final over Borg when facing the greatest pressure. He produced his best under pressure -- AND he was more consistent than Borg from day to day in the smaller events, winning far more titles and taking fewer losses.
Lendl in '82 was more consistent than Connors in the smaller events, but at the biggest events of the year he faltered (or didn't even try) while Connors won them. Totally different story.
I do think that Lendl is closer to Connors in '82 than he is normally given credit for. I say that not because Lendl won a huge haul of titles; I don't necessarily find a high number of titles, by itself and without context, to be impressive. I say that Lendl is close because he won Dallas and the Masters, and those were high-pressure events. They did not carry the pressure of the Slams, but they were nevertheless important events and Lendl won them.
In '82 I think Connors is correctly regarded as #1, but there probably is a little bit of a bias there. Connors' comeback story, winning Wimbledon and the USO after being shut out for four years, was an irresistible one; it would have been hard to resist giving him the #1 crown for the year, just because of the appeal of the story.
Again, I'm not saying he wasn't the top player of the year. He definitely was. I'm just suggesting the emotional aspect of the story may have led some to regard Connors as a slam dunk #1, with no near contenders, when IMO Lendl is a closer #2 that year than he is usually given credit for.
and he beat Connors 6-1, 6-1 at Cincinnatti.
That is exactly how I feel and how I felt in 82.I so much wanted Jimmy´s comeback, he just proved that only Borg was a real obstacle for the old fighter.No Borg and he takes nº 1 spot, even if lendl played very well and mac was more consistent he is given credit for.mac had no bad loss that year and won many indoor events, having a spectacular end of year.But, it was very very emotional.
if Borg had been in contention, with Gerulaitis, Vilas and Connors regaining old form ( Vilas first half was amazing and Vitas had clearly come back after 18 bad months since 1980 RG and 1981 USO) and Lendl and Mac, along newcomer Wilander , it´d have been a helluva year.
Bumped for relevancy.
1982 and 1976 hoodjem.. In 1982, Lendl did go 4-0 versus McEnroe and if you look at the ranking year, he did win the Masters in Jan. 83. Yet, missing Wimbledon is a minus. Then, you have Wilander taking the French Open and Connors winning Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. I'd give the nod to Connors and then it's close for #2 between Lendl and McEnroe, but Lendl does have the edge head to head. I was happy for Connors when he was able to do so well in 1982 at the U.S. Open and Wimbledon especially.
In 1976, Borg wins Wimbledon and he did it without losing a set. No other player in the Open Era has done that but I'm not sure about before that. In 1976, the WCT was where Borg made his mark outside of Wimbledon, especially with his WCT Finals title. He lost in the quarters at the French Open to eventual champ Panatta, while Connors could not play the French Open at all due to his WTT participation. Tanner beat Connors in straight sets at Wimbledon in the QF, so we missed a Borg-Connors Wimbledon SF. Borg took out Vilas, Tanner, and Nastase all in straight sets. He played some great tennis during that hot fortnight at Wimbledon.
No, the 1971 Canadian Open was played on clay, Newcombe winning the final against Okker in four great sets.
The semi-final was not the only win for Newcombe against Rosewall on clay, as Newcombe beat Rosewall at Roland Garros in 1968, scoring a 6-4, 6-1,5-7,1-6, 6-4 victory.
Newcombe was an underrated clay-courter, winning the 1969 Italian Open, and also a marathon at Roland Garros against Kodes in 1969 (Kodes would win at Roland Garros in 1970 and 1971).
Correct. Newcombe also won the German open in 1968 over Drysdale.
Watch Newcombe past prime vs Borg at the 1977 tourney at North Carolina which was hold on clay, Borg favourite turf and is available on you tube
Newk hold very well at the baseline with solid&deep slice BH and hits great angled approaches with his great offensive FH
Newk was a great tactician and vastly underrated on clay
His huge stamina and mental strength sure help here
here is another nice final of the 70´s...
Separate names with a comma.