Originally Posted by krosero
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.
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 nş 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.