WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[David_86]

In 1976 I have Borg with 6 tournament wins and 11 losses and Connors with 12 tournament wins and 6 losses. If these stats are accurate then I see Connors as no.1 on his own for 1976 also considering his wins over Borg that year.

[Moose Malloy]

Very unspecific and subjective. Do we know for sure why Connors did not play in Dallas? Do we know for sure that his game was not up to par at the time?

To play Dallas, you had to accumulate enough points on the WCT circuit to finish in the top 8. It wasn't an invitation only event or something.
Look at Connors' WCT schedule that year, he didn't play many events. He didn't qualify for Dallas in '74 or '75 either.

I have a collection of WCT highlight shows(narrated by Charlton Heston), they explain all this.

I found it rather interesting that they were so concerned by the endless rallies that Borg, Vilas, Solomon, etc were engaging in that they actually had a shot clock on court that year('76) to ensure quicker play.

Still Borg & Vilas managed to have an 84 stroke rally in the final(& this was indoor carpet!)

here are some excerpts from an article on the '77 WCT Finals:

At a time when tennis is awash—not to say drowning—in Grand Slams. Grand Prix, Heavyweight Championships, Las Vegas Showdowns and highly suspect Winner-Take-All television specials, the WCT series offered a degree of logic in the orderly ascent to a "major" championship and was a perfect place for an emergence. The eight qualifiers got to Dallas on points awarded over 12 farflung tournaments—Mexico City, Rotterdam, Birmingham, Ala., etc.—beginning in January. Once in Dallas, the exalted eight were treated with the now customary reverence—they drove Cadillac Sevilles with their names on the doors and lunched at Lamar Hunt's estate—but generally and relatively speaking, they earned it.

The winner got $100,000 for his time, plus a redundant $1,000 wardrobe and a diamond pendant for his lady. The tournament drew record crowds—capacity of 9,000-plus at SMU's Moody Coliseum for the semifinals and finals—and was well handled. The WCT format still leaves a lot to be desired, however. Not all the best players participate in every one of the 12 preliminary tournaments, and some do not participate at all. Bjorn Borg pulled out in January, "breaking a promise," said Hunt. Connors himself had never played in it before. "But I've heard a lot about it," he said grandly. Hunt perked up Jimbo's ears by guaranteeing him $750,000 just for playing in the WCT series. Because Jimmy's WCT earnings after last weekend totaled $258,123 for the year, that meant only $491,877 would have to come out of Hunt's deep pocket.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...40/2/index.htm

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by krosero

I'll tell you, though, the problem I have with the criteria of having to beat a player at his peak (your example of Connors not beating a peak Borg). IMO that has its place when we're trying to judge who the better play was; or analyzing the level of play in particular matches, etc. But who was #1 for the year is primarily about results. It may be that Connors did not defeat Borg at his peak in 1976. But he did defeat him, and the turnaround in the rivalry did not come until the following year. That's the only place it can count. 1977 gives some perspective -- tells us that Borg was almost there in 1976, that the rivalry was about to change. But it didn't change. Not yet. Borg came close -- that's what your arguments point to -- but that's it, just close. That makes him a strong #2 (a close #2).

In 1976 perhaps, as you say, casual observers saw the 3-year-old winning streak that Connors had over Borg and casually judged that Connors was going to be the reigning champion for some time. That always happens; we tend to glorify the champion of the moment. But none of my arguments depend on those casual overheated judgments of the moment. My argument about 1976 is that is was simply close but no cigar. Borg did not start beating Connors until 1977.

As I say, your arguments about level of play carry some weight, for deciding whether Borg was better than Connors. And that criteria -- who was better -- is a factor, for instance when we say that Borg was a better player than Vilas as of 1977. That's great -- but Borg showed it with actual results over Vilas. He's got no victories over Connors in 1976, and if we speculate that in peak form he could have beaten Connors, then we're merely talking about matches that did not occur. If the argument is that he came close, then that's all we have -- close but no cigar. I see no way, with these arguments, to lift Borg over Connors in 1976.

But there may be a way by judging what he did over the course of the year, against other opponents, and comparing it to Jimmy's record. If Hellborg's arguments go down that road, then I might see the logic. But Borg, even then, would be given #1 for the year without any concrete indication that he was better than Connors (in actual matches as they were), and for that reason alone I can't see myself giving him more than a co-#1 for the year. To give it to Borg alone, and leave out the man who beat him every time they met?

To this point, results matter, not physical condition at the time...it's not hard to say that Bjorn was a better player than Jimbo...but not in 74/75/76...Jimmy pretty much dominated him across surfaces. 12 tournament wins, including the USO, over his rival Borg (on clay) is enough to say he should be #1 for 1976. Bjorn may have had injuries in 76 and 78, for that matter, but they only count the wins for the record, when all is said and done.

Q: would you also elevate Mac over Connors and Lendl in '82, simply because he was the best player of the 3 and perhaps a bit off physically that year? I don't think you can do that.

1983 is actually a very tricky year to rank...4 different slam winners, Mats w/a number of wins but, Mac at the top of the computer...not very clear cut.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by krosero

And it makes quite a difference for Connors in '77. With the Masters he's got a major in his pocket (and Borg a runner-up showing).

It's not that I think he really is in a three-way tie with Borg and Vilas. I don't. But Connors' record in '77 is stronger than I always assumed it was, just looking at the Slams.

And that's true in general of Jimmy's career. If I had to pick one sujbect on which this board has changed my mind the most, it's his career and his skill: he's stronger than I'd ever given him credit for.

This is very true. I think Borg being SO great kind of overshadowed Jimmy's accomplishments, which were quite impressive. He kept "accomplishing" long after Bjorn retired...it will take some time for anyone to match/beat his overall # of wins...

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by pc1

Excellent point.

Connors was an exceptional strong player. He was unlucky in that his played at the same time as a Borg who could match him easily from the baseline and had some skills Connors didn't have, like a huge serve.

And people forget what a great defensive player he was and who a great lob he had. He also had excellent footwork and speed.

Unlucky for him, lucky for us. Having Connors, Borg and then Mac playing all at the same time made for some exceptional tennis! Truly, I think Connors enjoyed the competition...he never seemed to have any resentment in regards to Bjorn...shoot, he had enough important wins over him (as well as several painful losses). But, this is what made it a "strong" era...there was not a 100% certainty of who would win when you had those 3 facing off against each other..they were all THAT good!

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by timnz

Take 1982 for example. If Ivan Lendl had won the US Open against Connors then he would be undisputably the best player in the world that year. Just one match made the difference.

McEnroe was a number 3 (not in ATP terms but in realistic terms) to Connors and Lendl that year.

Lendl dominated McEnroe in the head to head - Lendl won all their matches - 4 official ATP sactioned ones + 2 others = 6-0 head to head. Lendl won between 15 to 18 events depending on your counting and McEnroe won between 5 to 7 events depending on your counting. Lendl also dominated McEnroe in the most important tournament they placed against each other - the Masters - in straight sets. Lendl also beat McEnroe in the WCT Finals as well.

Lendl was 2 matches to 1 against Connors that year. In the two matches he won he dominated Connors 6-1, 6-1 and 6-3, 6-1. Connors won 7 ATP Sanctioned events plus 4 other events. Hence a lot less than Lendl. Hence if Lendl had won that one match it would have been clear to everyone that he was a clear cut number 1. Its amazing that it came down to just one match.

Scary, but true. Ivan was the up and coming guy who had not yet broken thru at the slams...if he had beaten Jimmy, he would've had a strong case. But w/Wimby and USO in his pocket, no way that Connors would be denied that year...it was too good of a comeback [since many assumed he was DOA and Mac was now ascendent]

[Hypatia]

Tennis de France would be a good authority but you seem unsure about their vote. The ATP Players poll: CyBorg covered the reasons to be skeptical about it.

I think Borgforever is right about Tennis de France but have not checked, either. It seems clear enough that the majority of informed opinion was for Connors as number 1.

CyBorg’s objections to ‘counting’ the ATP Players poll are good ones, but although it's true that Connors was widely disliked and that may have affected the voting, isn't that speculation only, albeit reasonable speculation? No reason not to cite the vote and add it to Borg’s side of the ledger, unless there’s evidence that the vote was tilted to Borg out of animus against Connors. It’s not decisive, in any event.

To this point, results matter, not physical condition at the time...

True -- up to a point. I would think that a player’s condition is part of the context of those results?

...it will take some time for anyone to match/beat his overall # of wins...

Given the current structure of the schedule, I’m not sure it’s possible for any top player to match that number, whatever the duration of his career.

I've learned a lot from reading this thread and would like to thank all the contributors.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

At least two posters have said that a Masters tournament in January should not count for the previous calendar year, and I can't think of a better thread to debate that question.

In '83 it's critical, because if the Masters is counted as the true fourth major, then McEnroe has two majors, Wilander only one. I've already shown that a lot of people saw that tournament as huge -- and it was indisputably the biggest tournament indoors, which is an important thing to look at (particularly if Mats gets credit, as he often does, for his surface variety that year; you've also got to look at his weak surfaces).

Even it's it's only the fifth biggest tournament, that's a lot of weight in McEnroe's corner.

I'm going to make the case that a January Masters did count for the previous calendar year and that we should count it that way, but it's debateable. The ITF lists the Masters tournament of January 1984, for example, as 1984. The ATP counts it as the 1983 Masters -- and Bud Collins in his book continues to treat those Masters tournaments from January as counting for the previous calendar year.

The calendar by itself is not a decisive argument, because some Australian Opens have started in December and carried over into January. I know the 1975 final was played on New Year's Day. So just because most of the tournament was played in 1974, does not mean that that the first six rounds should be left as part of 1974 season. It was clearly a 1975 tournament: the calendar by itself can't definitely decide what season a tournament belongs to.

The problem I have with counting the January 1984 Masters as part of the 1984 season is that the players themselves went into it thinking that it could potentially settle the question of #1 for 1983. It was thought of as a season-ending championship, even if there were questions about its exact importance (it did not count in the computer rankings, for example). And a season-ending championship is what the Masters was earlier when it was held in December; that's what the tournament's successor is today, a season-ending event. Is the date of January by itself enough to make those few editions in the late 70s and 80s into season-opening championships? Not in my opinion.

And if we do treat them as season-openers according to our own choice, what I'd like to see is some source from the time that did the same. Did anyone go into the January 1984 Masters thinking that it had no bearing on the 1983 season, that the new season was simply getting underway? That would be important to know, because if Wilander, for example, thought that way, then his loss to McEnroe takes on a new light.

However that would not change the fact that both McEnroe and Wilander knew that they were in a tight race; they knew that for a lot of people (at least) the Masters was part of the 1983 season and would decide which of them was #1. So even if someone played the tournament thinking it wasn't important, that would not change the fact that expectations were on him from other people. The pressure was there, regardless of what any single player thought.

So I'd like to see more sources about the Masters, from that time period.

The Masters in January is always the end of the year for the tennis season. There is no doubt that the Masters counts for the previous months. Therefore the 1984 Master in January counts for the 1983 Tennis season.


In another debate for 1964 between Laver and Rosewall. Andrew Tas has Rosewall winning 10 tournaments plus one shared in 26 attempts. So perhaps that is where McCauley found 11 tournament victories for Rosewall. Rosewall won one major and had a record of 69-30 for the year.

Laver won two majors and won 11 tournaments in 28 attempts. Laver had a record of 81-27 for the year. I think overall Laver was number one but I wouldn't be too upset at the co ranking of number since it was official that Rosewall was number one.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

To play Dallas, you had to accumulate enough points on the WCT circuit to finish in the top 8. It wasn't an invitation only event or something.
Look at Connors' WCT schedule that year, he didn't play many events. He didn't qualify for Dallas in '74 or '75 either.

I am aware of this. Connors was not top eight going into Dallas though? Even after winning Philadelphia? I assumed he was.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by Hypatia

I think Borgforever is right about Tennis de France but have not checked, either. It seems clear enough that the majority of informed opinion was for Connors as number 1.

CyBorg’s objections to ‘counting’ the ATP Players poll are good ones, but although it's true that Connors was widely disliked and that may have affected the voting, isn't that speculation only, albeit reasonable speculation? No reason not to cite the vote and add it to Borg’s side of the ledger, unless there’s evidence that the vote was tilted to Borg out of animus against Connors. It’s not decisive, in any event.

It is speculation, but it is in the service of criticizing the claim. I never made the claim that Connors was widely disliked by the players, as if it was fact.

Rather it was the claim that the players vote was in some way impartial that I objected to, as players are not obligated to vote without bias. And bias they probably had. But I can't prove much beyond that, nor do I care to.

[jimbo333]

Originally Posted by David_86

In 1976 I have Borg with 6 tournament wins and 11 losses and Connors with 12 tournament wins and 6 losses. If these stats are accurate then I see Connors as no.1 on his own for 1976 also considering his wins over Borg that year.

Connors was no.1 in the world in 1976, yes, this is correct!

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

borgforever you are rude arrogant man. and you need lessons in manners and your arrogant tone is a disgrace. as far as carlo is concerned he was rightly criticised for his rudeness and arrogance about his world ranking methodolgy; he stated the rudeness about me before i did and used bad language . i only attack someone if they are bad mannerred first like you and carlo.

I think BF had a bad day. It was unlike him to get so riled up.

I'll always defend his honesty and good will, even when I'll be less forgiving of certain of his arguments (though I probably agree with most).

BF lays the cards on the table every time, which is why I like him. He is never pretentious and as such can be an easy target of those eager to accuse him of bias. But when one posts so passionately about a topic, one will sometimes get overly emotional and that will rub some people the wrong way.

Let's appreciate him for the way he is and hope that he continues to grace us with his presence. A little bit of rudeness from this or other party I'm sure won't kill anymore. Let's shake that off and move on.

[Hypatia]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

It is speculation, but it is in the service of criticizing the claim. I never made the claim that Connors was widely disliked by the players, as if it was fact.

Rather it was the claim that the players vote was in some way impartial that I objected to, as players are not obligated to vote without bias. And bias they probably had. But I can't prove much beyond that, nor do I care to.

Thank you for clarifying, CyBorg. As noted, I think speculation is just fine and part of what discussion boards are for. It is a minor point and I don’t mean to make too much of it, but I don’t think anybody claimed that the vote of the ATP players was entirely disinterested – human beings do the voting and there are few votes (or opinions) completely without bias of some kind. You could obligate the players to vote 'impartially' but it's unlikely that would stop anyone determined to do otherwise.

(I also take the opportunity to note that there’s a typo in my post. It should read “although if it’s true” not “although it’s true.”)

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

Money aside, I think Laver would have preferred to have the weakened 1973 Wimbledon in his career resume than the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic. At least I would guess he would.

Laver's stated before that he would have loved to come back more for the glory than the money.

Small point: Laver did not play Wimbledon in 1972 or 1973. I believe that 1971 was the last Wimbledon tournament that he entered.

[urban]

Not exactly. Laver played, well past his prime, the Centurion Wimbledon 1977, to honor the event. He lost to Stockton, a good player at that time in 4. It shows, that Laver at that time did not look at his percentages, but more on the game itself.

[cristiano]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

ALL STATS FAVOR BORG IN 1976

.

Originally Posted by krosero

Win/loss:
Connors -- 100-12
Borg -- 63-14

Tournaments won/played:
Connors -- 13 of 23
Borg -- 7 of 19

H2H:
3-0 Connors

Slams - 1 each

We can debate about who was the number one in 1976.
But it seems evident that, no matter how many things a person knows about tennis, no matter how this person usually behaves on the board, sometimes a person is just not using a honest logic. That is the case.

The 1983 is actually more interesting than i supposed before reading this thread. Also 2003 is really complicated. For me Laver 1st in 1964/65.

c.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by jrepac

1983 is actually a very tricky year to rank...4 different slam winners, Mats w/a number of wins but, Mac at the top of the computer...not very clear cut.

I do think that 1983 is less clear-cut than ’76. I’ve been talking about a lot of the similarities but there are some important differences. Borg’s win/loss record is poorer than Connors’, while Wilander’s is better than McEnroe’s. Borg has no wins over Connors, while Wilander went 3-1 vs. Mac. It was an important loss at the Masters, but still, 3-1 is 3-1.

There are several years on Hoodjem’s list where the most consistent player of the year, the player with the biggest numbers, is not #1 for the year (Muster in 1995 might be the clearest case; or Lendl 'in '82). The big events are still the big events, and McEnroe has Wimbledon, the Masters, and the WCT Finals – with wins over Lendl in all three, plus a win over Wilander in New York. Wilander’s biggest win was at the AO, and he won 8 other titles for the year; one or more of those might have had a draw to stack up against the Dallas event, but none were as big as Wimbledon or the Masters.

So I tend to look at 1983 as one of those years where the “veteran” (if we can call John that) was not as consistent, day in and day out, as a new young rival, and indeed had trouble beating him in direct meetings, but still edged him out 2-1 in majors (or the equivalent).

Wilander’s numbers in 1983 are definitely impressive. But what I remember is that it wasn’t until 1988 that people felt he’d really made a commitment to reach the top and broken through his confidence issues. I remember watching matches, listening to commentators talk about McEnroe’s criticism of Wilander: I believe John said somewhere that Mats wanted to get to #1 through the back door. The criticism was that he didn’t seem to want to take the prize (or didn’t believe he could).

And you’ve got to remember, Wilander at the end of ’83 was only 19. Who else on Hoodjem’s list is that young? Just looking over the list quickly, I don’t think anybody (Hewitt was almost 21 at the end of 2001).

It takes some maturity to really reach the top of the game. At 19 you can be skilled and consistent (and in particular, a great clay-courter), but maturity is still some way off. At 19 you haven’t even accumulated much experience, and that’s what mature world-beaters have: they fight their way to the top, and they’ve pocketed plenty of valuable lessons along the way. At 19 you’ve barely had any time to do more than make a splash.

And Wilander’s accomplishments in ’83 still show some immaturity. On his best surface he lost a Slam final to Yannick Noah in straight sets, and I just can’t see how that would have happened to him in later years.

So I think Wilander in ’83 was a LITTLE like Lendl’s case in ’82: sterling overall numbers, but something still missing.

And I realize all of this comes under the heading of “intangibles.” That’s fine with me, because I think sometimes stats don’t tell the whole story (Muster in 1995, again).

And falling back on stats, I still think McEnroe has the edge in majors in ’83.

[David_86]

I do think that 1983 is less clear-cut than ’76. I’ve been talking about a lot of the similarities but there are some important differences. Borg’s win/loss record is poorer than Connors’, while Wilander’s is better than McEnroe’s. Borg has no wins over Connors, while Wilander went 3-1 vs. Mac. It was an important loss at the Masters, but still, 3-1 is 3-1.

There are several years on Hoodjem’s list where the most consistent player of the year, the player with the biggest numbers, is not #1 for the year (Muster in 1995 might be the clearest case; or Lendl 'in '82). The big events are still the big events, and McEnroe has Wimbledon, the Masters, and the WCT Finals – with wins over Lendl in all three, plus a win over Wilander in New York. Wilander’s biggest win was at the AO, and he won 8 other titles for the year; one or more of those might have had a draw to stack up against the Dallas event, but none were as big as Wimbledon or the Masters.

So I tend to look at 1983 as one of those years where the “veteran” (if we can call John that) was not as consistent, day in and day out, as a new young rival, and indeed had trouble beating him in direct meetings, but still edged him out 2-1 in majors (or the equivalent).

Wilander’s numbers in 1983 are definitely impressive. But what I remember is that it wasn’t until 1988 that people felt he’d really made a commitment to reach the top and broken through his confidence issues. I remember watching matches, listening to commentators talk about McEnroe’s criticism of Wilander: I believe John said somewhere that Mats wanted to get to #1 through the back door. The criticism was that he didn’t seem to want to take the prize (or didn’t believe he could).

And you’ve got to remember, Wilander at the end of ’83 was only 19. Who else on Hoodjem’s list is that young? Just looking over the list quickly, I don’t think anybody (Hewitt was almost 21 at the end of 2001).

It takes some maturity to really reach the top of the game. At 19 you can be skilled and consistent (and in particular, a great clay-courter), but maturity is still some way off. At 19 you haven’t even accumulated much experience, and that’s what mature world-beaters have: they fight their way to the top, and they’ve pocketed plenty of valuable lessons along the way. At 19 you’ve barely had any time to do more than make a splash.

And Wilander’s accomplishments in ’83 still show some immaturity. On his best surface he lost a Slam final to Yannick Noah in straight sets, and I just can’t see how that would have happened to him in later years.

So I think Wilander in ’83 was a LITTLE like Lendl’s case in ’82: sterling overall numbers, but something still missing.

And I realize all of this comes under the heading of “intangibles.” That’s fine with me, because I think sometimes stats don’t tell the whole story (Muster in 1995, again).

And falling back on stats, I still think McEnroe has the edge in majors in ’83.

Even though Wimbledon was a much more important title than the Australian Open in 1983 I just find it very difficult to belittle the achievement of defeating McEnroe and Lendl in the SF and F respectively. I'm one of those people who count the Jan84 Masters as part of 1984 so McEnroe's claim is weakened (maybe subconsciously I'm not all that keen on giving 1983 to McEnroe over Wilander).

After the 1983 AO McEnroe did call Wilander "the man to beat". That's hardly evidence but, if I haven't taken it out of context, it does show that McEnroe did not consider himself the no.1 player at that time.

[jeffreyneave]

in 1976 connors did not attempt to qualify for dallas wct finals. you had to play 8 wct events to have a good chance of qualifying. connors only played 2 wct events instead along with nastase he played the IPA circuit playing 5 events.

in 1983 i give the nod probably to wilander. mCENROE WITH HIS WIMLEDON , masters and wct titles had the better major record against wilander's aussie win and french runner up. wilander had the better tournament record outside the majors with 8 other wins (plus an unbeaten run in the davis cup) compared to only 4 for mcenroe. he also has the 3-1 head to head lead over mcenroe. Wilander leads clearly in 2 of the 3 statistics with mcenroe ahead in only one


jeffrey

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Borgforever

The H2H doesn't matter much in this particular case for these reasons:

* Borg won the biggest. Connors was in the field and sunk. And Borg's triumph-style and stats are still unsurpassed. A more glorious triumph at the established biggest stage in the world. Connors lost to the man Borg crushed.

and connors defeated borg himself at the USO

Originally Posted by Borgforever

* Jimbo never met the finest form Borg and after Wimby they were very close while Borg's form was down

not connors' fault if borg couldn't play at his best against him , btw this is irrelevant to rankings , could be considered if you were talking about quality/level of play

Originally Posted by Borgforever

-- thereafter Borg dominated their H2H in a unique manner.

again irrelevant to the rankings , borg didn't even beat connors that year

Originally Posted by Borgforever

* Federer's H2H against Rafa during some of his peak years look like Borg Connors in 1976 but there's no disputing that Roger was No. 1 and won the biggest tourneys and beat the other guys that took out Rafa. There's a lot of nuance...

umm, but rafa never had a year where he won nearly twice the no of tournaments as fed, won as many major events as him while leading the H2H and still ended up no2, try again