View Single Post
Old 11-02-2009, 07:18 AM   #42
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
 
hoodjem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Bierlandt
Posts: 12,021
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krosero View Post
I agree you with about 1995 and 1999: like you said, Agassi and Sampras can be described as strong #2’s in those years. I think Borg can safely be described as a strong #2 in 1976, not because there’s no case for him as #1: but Borg had not beaten Connors in three years and their U.S. Open meeting was in many ways the match that decided #1; it showed that Connors was still dominant over Borg.
Good point. Edit made.


Quote:
Originally Posted by krosero View Post
Wilander in 1983 does have important wins over McEnroe at the French and Australian, though I would still describe him as a strong #2 for the year because McEnroe won the January 1984 Masters and beat Wilander decisively there.

Lendl had said McEnroe was #1 for the year even before he met him in the Masters final. After McEnroe won the final, Bud Collins told him there could be no doubt left about who was #1 for ’83.

In Bud’s book he still says McEnroe settled the issue at the January Masters, in what he describes as the 13th month of the season. He's ambiguous about it, though, because he says that for “breadth of accomplishment” Wilander was “Player of the Year” (then he goes on to list everything Mats did in the calendar year).

Yet for all that, I still can’t put Wilander as #1 because he was not regarded as rising to #1 in the world until 1988. Until then there were still questions about how hard he wanted to work to become #1, questions about his confidence. In all that there was the assumption that he had not yet made it to #1.
I find this also to be a strong argument. Edit made.
__________________
"Capitalist industry offers the freedom to choose what is always the same."

Last edited by hoodjem : 09-24-2010 at 08:16 AM.
hoodjem is offline   Reply With Quote