View Single Post
Old 11-02-2009, 02:49 AM   #34
Hall Of Fame
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,564

Hoodjem -- overall an excellent list of world no. 1s throughout recorded tennis history. I have just a few minor nit-pickings but, as usual, great work by you.

Jeffrey Neave -- as much as I respect his undeniable knowledge and fine posts here displays above -- IMO -- severe Laver-bias of the fatal and consistent kind that has become his trademark, besides overall harsh comments to posters disagreeing with him.

As regards to Laver as No. 1 in 1964, he is that too in my book, but not with Jeffrey cocky adamant stance which lacks credibility just with the basis of his arguments.

Remember Jeffrey Neave had Vilas as No. 1 in 1977, certainly a very debatable year, but Borg's biggest triumphs and H2Hs with Vilas was devastating -- in a way resembling 1964 and Laver and Rosewall. When it comes to Laver Mr. Jeffrey Neave doesn't express his opinions with the unbiased, diplomatic elegance of Cary Grant.

Jeffrey Neave is the exact opposite of Cary Grant...

Personally I have Rod Laver as No. 1 in 1964 -- BUT with the slightest margin imaginable, so a co-No. 1 for Ken Rosewall in 1964 is order for that year, and I've checked a few experts who saw a lot of them live in 1964 and they back this up -- and since they were so close in 1964 -- it's laughable. Remember Kenny was 30 years old in 1964, on the slowest decline, seemingly, in history, but still in decline after 3-4 sublime peak years against the best of the best.

Rod was ascending his peak -- his greatest heights -- and still Ken Rosewall was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo close.

Rod Laver was subjected to annihilation in 1963 by Ken Rosewall -- but in 1964 he adapted fast and bounced back with a booming vengeance.

Still, like Borg and Wilander to a certain extent in 1976 and 1983 respectively, he dominated everybody else in the field for 12 months, even more than Laver did that year and McEnroe in 1983 and Jimbo 1976.

Of course there's differences between these years but I think you get the gist.

Krosero -- absolutely brilliant work on the 1970 Dunlop-final. I've seen it 10 times already and it grows on me. I tip my hat for you for that one.

On the other hand -- I was on the Mac boat for No. 1 in 1983 for the reasons of his Lendl Wimby blowout and that was the biggest tourney. But on further scrutinization and debate with several experts who saw them live in 1983 on every important arena including Cincy -- the verdict is in for me. Wilander was alone No. 1. He leads every stat, everything.

Nobody can sustain the Mac for No. 1 in 1983 -- Björn Hellberg and several others, I know John Barrett, only smile wheh people push Mac's argument for that year.

At AO 1983 Wilander, Lendl and Mac were in the draw -- the major contenders and Mats blowouted them all -- even though Mac had the grass-court advantage. Mats Cincy-perf is widely considered his finest play ever. The January 1984 Masters tourney has no bearing whatsoever who was No. 1 in 1983. It belongs to 1984, since the year was 1984.

Don't listen too much to the press. They're confused on many issues for long periods of time.

Same goes for Borg in 1976. Jimbo didn't really dominate Borg in 1976. That argument holds no serious water. Jimbo beat Borg four times that year -- BUT -- didn't win the biggest tourney, didn't meet Borg when he was in top-form, always won when everything was in his favor, not only form-wise -- didn't even Jimbo pull out of WCT that year too?!

A great championship that Borg won of course plus that he dominated everybody else even more than Jimbo and only lost to Jimbo at the USO-final, when he hadn't practiced for a whole month because of the Wimby-stomach-muscle-injury and Borg almost won that too -- even though his form sucked on hot ice. Borg had 4 set-points to go up 2-1 in sets against peak Jimbo.

Of course, after this near-loss against an out-of-form Borg -- Jimbo -- pretty much -- didn't win any matches against Björn Borg FOR FIVE STRAIGHT YEARS!


Co-No. 1 is okey for 1976 -- be diplomatic when things are very close -- but put Borg's name first Hood -- firstly B in Borg comes before C as in Connors in the alphabet and the momentum for Jimbo as No. 1 during the time came from the fact that Jimbo had been dominant in 1974 and great in 1975 and great in 1976 and considered only becoming better and better AND since his H2H with Fortress was quite in THE BELLEVILLE BASHER'S favor many saw that as strong arguments -- but of course they didn't study the nuances of their H2H or anyhting else challenging this lazily concocted opinion. Everybody who writes newpaper-articles are not Einstein or extremely serious about their work. That goes without saying. But that year's career-trajectory analysis by many wasn't exactly brilliant and was mostly based on old results, uncritical evaluation of Jimbo's 1976-record and on future predictions and had no foundation in detailed, precise and unbiased evaluation.

Jimbo never met Borg when Björn was in peak form. Borg met Jimbo when he was in poor shape and Jimbo in peak form.

And with the benefit of hindsight -- the Jimbo-promoters was dead-wrong we all know now...

Connors lost to Borg just a few months after USO 1976 and just lost and lost and lost -- while Borg's finest 1976 triumphs was just the start of what John Barrett called in 1981 "a career without equal"...

Last edited by Borgforever; 11-02-2009 at 03:02 AM.
Borgforever is offline   Reply With Quote