View Single Post
Old 06-05-2012, 10:26 AM   #125
abmk
G.O.A.T.
 
abmk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: India
Posts: 14,762
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
On pure numbers, not on opinion, Connors has one of the most impressive records ever and a very underrated record. He played and won more matches against top tenners - as the scientific study last year showed - than any other player in open era.
and lost more than anyone among the greats as well ..... one word - longevity ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
Thats pretty good competition, i think.
who denied his competition ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
Nevertheless he won 109 events on the ATP list, and up to 148, including all events.
impressive nos, yet padded up by smaller events - this is not to say he didn't win the big ones ...but you can't deny the padding up due to smaller events and the fact the top players played many different events ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
And yet, his win-loss-percentage - and this includes his losses -over his career, with all the high and lows of age, over 1220 matches, is in the range of the very best, Borg and Nadal, who had or have shorter careers.
and does not include a decent portion of matches on his worst surface, red clay ...... he played pretty less on it ...

you do understand that skews the numbers or does that elementary math have to be explained ?


Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
And its not only the longevity aspect. His best year is 99-4, second only to McEnroe in open era,
granted great year .... but avoided the 3 places where chances of losing was highest - French Open , Masters and WCT ... Australian had a weak , weak field that year ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
his best 5 years is over 90% wins, very close to the best, Borg and Federer,
"relative" lack of big event wins in those 5 years hurts him in this regard ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
in his computer ranking he was ranked straight 5 years Nr.1 at the end of year, second only to Sampras with 6. In many opinions, he was lucky a bit by the computer ranking, but no one can deny, that he had a claim in each of those years. And this doesn't include his 1982 or 1983 ranking.
83 ? really ? mac and wilander had a better claim .....

ATP ranking was bogus in the 70s ..... he was no 1 in 74,76 and 82 ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
His head to heads with his main rivals were all close, never lopsided, until age took his toll. Borg changed the dynamics in 1977, but later on, including exhibitions in 1982, Jimmy changed them again.
umm, no, borg owned him from 77-81 ...

the H2H in official matches isn't that close ...

I do know exos were more serious those days, but it is better to keep them separate ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
He was the nemesis of Mac and Lendl until 1983, when he was 32
how on earth was he the nemesis of mac till 83 ? see my post before this .....

Quote:
Originally Posted by urban View Post
So on pure cold numbers, Jimmy ranks with the very best in open era, no doubt .The rest is opinion, or in some posts here heavy double standard.
one should know how to interpret numbers and not to take them at face value ...... Jimmy's record is very impressive , but good enough to challenge the records of federer/sampras/borg in the open era ? umm, nooo ......
abmk is offline   Reply With Quote