WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

again, Laver was the best player of 1971 but he had not the best year, so one cannot put him as the number 1 player of 1971.

71 was a very splitt year, with 4 different GS champions.Rosewall won the AO plus Dallas, Kodes won RG and lost the USO F to Smith, who also was beaten at the W finals by Newcombe...Nastase won the Masters and was beaten by Kodes at the french finals.5 or 6 players could claim the crown for that year, which happens to be one of the most competed ever.

Agreed, 1971 is a tough year to call.

I have a three-way tie.

1970—Laver
1971—Laver(8 )/Rosewall(5)/Newcombe
1972—Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Ashe
1976—Connors
1977—Borg/Vilas
1978—Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg(4)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(3)
1983—McEnroe
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Agreed, 1971 is a tough year to call.

I have a three-way tie.

1970—Laver
1971—Laver(8 )/Rosewall(5)/Newcombe
1972—Smith
1973—Nastase
1974—Connors
1975—Ashe
1976—Connors
1977—Borg/Vilas
1978—Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg(4)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(3)
1983—McEnroe/Wilander
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Lendl
1986—Lendl
1987—Lendl
1988—Wilander
1989—Becker

Following my reasoning, if I had to make a 3 players tier, I´d pìck Smith,Rosewall and Kodes ( they played at least 2 big finals), with Nastase over Newcombe and Laver for the 4 th position.It does not mean, of course, that Kodes or Smith were better players than Newcombe or Laver, but they had a more compact yearn and it is fair to recognize it.

[hoodjem]

Yep. Looks like Borg in 1979.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Yep. Looks like Borg in 1979.

Many Tennis Hall of Famers didn't have a CAREER that accomplished as much as Borg did in 1979. Borg won the French and Wimbledon. He won the Yes End Masters and the Canadian Open. In all he won 21 of 28 tournaments. His game scores are inhuman. He didn't beat people he destroyed them. Borg had the credentials to go into the Hall of Fame on this year alone.

[borg number one]

Originally Posted by pc1

Many Tennis Hall of Famers didn't have a CAREER that accomplished as much as Borg did in 1979. Borg won the French and Wimbledon. He won the Yes End Masters and the Canadian Open. In all he won 21 of 28 tournaments. His game scores are inhuman. He didn't beat people he destroyed them. Borg had the credentials to go into the Hall of Fame on this year alone.

Wow, I just counted the 13 official ATP titles PC1. Great post. 21/28 in 1979 is very impressive. So you have Connors as the "official" #1 in 1979 (like 1977), but again the ranking system was different (what exactly was the point system in say 1979?). Anyway, you had Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Vilas, Gerulaitis, Tanner, and Pecci, with plenty of great clay/grass/indoor/hard court players who played a vast variety of styles with great skill. It was a fascinating period. It got even more interesting in 1980 didn't it?

[kiki]

I think PC1 counts exos as well, Borg played lots of exos by that time.

I remember 79 as one of the most interesting years of that decade.Mc Enroe really challenged Borg, Gerulaitis and Tanner played their best ever tennis; Connors and Vilas were solid but not at their 1977 or 1978 level.Ashe had a superb first half and Pecci, of course, was the big bomb on the circuit.Also, a year were Gene Mayer and Peter Fleming broke into the top, and with Mc and pecci gave tennis fresh bllod.

It was also a year that consolidated surface specialisation, which was a tarde mark of the 70´s and 80´s, even the 90´s.Except the top 3-4 players, the rest of the top 50-100 players thrived on specialistaion.

[kiki]

The 1976 debate involving Connors and Borg is the same, just reversed, that involved Vilas and Borg for the 1977 year.

In 1976, Connors was the best player but Borg had a better year , with 2 majors vs 1 for Connors.

in 77, Vilas had the best year ( 2 majors to Borg´s 1 ), even though Borg was a better tennis player.

in 83, it was never close; Mac won Masters ( the Masters of January always belonged to the former year season, ALWAYS), but he also won WCT finals and Wimbledon to Mats lone Ausie open.It is overwhelming clear in favour of JMac and I cannot see why there is even debate.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by FiveO

As far as the WCT v. the Masters goes, format may be the reason why the WCT was thought to be the more important event at that time. The draws for each were very similar and while total prize money for the WCT Finals was only $200,000 v. the $400,000 for the Masters the WCT was formatted similar to the Majors, i.e. single elimination, best of five. OTOH the Masters were a round robin, best of 3, perhaps (I didn't do the math) with each individual match being less lucrative for the competitors.

5

I fully agree: in the Dallas event you couldn´t tank a match to avoid facing a player later on; while this happened in many Masters ( 1975,1977,1980,1982)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

I think PC1 counts exos as well, Borg played lots of exos by that time.

I remember 79 as one of the most interesting years of that decade.Mc Enroe really challenged Borg, Gerulaitis and Tanner played their best ever tennis; Connors and Vilas were solid but not at their 1977 or 1978 level.Ashe had a superb first half and Pecci, of course, was the big bomb on the circuit.Also, a year were Gene Mayer and Peter Fleming broke into the top, and with Mc and pecci gave tennis fresh bllod.

It was also a year that consolidated surface specialisation, which was a tarde mark of the 70´s and 80´s, even the 90´s.Except the top 3-4 players, the rest of the top 50-100 players thrived on specialistaion.

I count legit tournaments. A lot of the records were pretty badly kept in those days.

Originally Posted by kiki

I fully agree: in the Dallas event you couldn´t tank a match to avoid facing a player later on; while this happened in many Masters ( 1975,1977,1980,1982)

It really was terrible that they could tank in the Masters.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

That Wimbledon was interesting from several points of view. According to Bud Collins and John Newcombe, Laver was playing excellent tennis. Newcombe was Laver's partner in doubles that year and they lost to Reissen and Tanner in five sets in the first round. Laver apparently kept them both in the match by playing fantastic tennis.

Laver won his first round match easily and led Stockton 6-3 4-1 in the second set but lost the match.

I think of that tournament in some ways as the passing of the torch of one great serve and volley lefthander to another great serve and volley lefthander. Rod Laver to John McEnroe. I'm not 100% certain but I think it was the only tournament in which McEnroe and Laver were in the same draw. Wouldn't it have been great if by the luck of the draw Laver played McEnroe?

This is the one match tennis history is possibly missing: Laver ( 39) vs Mc Enroe ( 1.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by jrepac

actually, in 75 Orantes won the USO over Connors; in 75 Connors was runner up at the AO to Newk, Wimby to Ashe and USO to orantes....not a great year for him

in 75 Ashe beat Borg at the WCT finals and Borg and Connors at Wimbledon; he also reached the Masters semis.he is undisputed nº 1 in 1975.

Plus, Ashe and Orantes completely distroyed Connors in both finals.Newcombe also beat Connors in the AO final.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

Six of his 9 titles were on outdoor clay. He also won on hard court (indoors and outdoors), and had that great win on AO grass, so I don't want to portray him as some kind of clay-court specialist avoiding other surfaces. But it still leaves the bulk of his titles on one surface -- and if he won so often on outdoor clay, it makes his failure at the French all the more conspicuous.

It does remind me a little of '82 when Lendl did so well everywhere, murdering Connors and McEnroe on hard court and all that, but failed in the USO final -- the one match that if he'd won, would have given him the whole year. Same in '83, if Mats had beaten Noah, it would be hard not to give him #1 for the year by himself.

It's not entirely the same, of course. Lendl came away Slam-less in '82, while Wilander has that AO in '83. Lendl played scared when he first met Connors at the USO, and I don't want to say that Wilander played scared against Noah. He didn't -- but I think in both cases there was some immaturity. Both Lendl and Wilander failed to slow down their matches and were essentially swept away by an energetic opponent and a raucous crowd. In later years they learned how to take their time (to the point of abusing the clock, actually), how to figure out opponents, how to draw from experience.

So that's a common element I see in '82 and '83: the young guy beating everybody in the smaller tournaments but having less success in the biggest tournaments (the kind where you face raucous crowds in big stadiums -- and in which you face bigger expectations). You see some of that today, I think, with Murray.

In '88, when Wilander faced another flashy Frenchman in the RG final, his concentration and gameplan were perfect, nearly impossible to disrupt. When he faced Cash in Australia, and Lendl in a tumultuous USO final, same thing -- he knew what to do, and had enough experience behind him already.

I do admit that Wilander showed exceptional maturity in '83 for his age. But imo there wasn't enough of a veteran's clutch when the pressure was greatest. In the three biggest events of the year, he has:

- a straight set loss on his best surface
- a very early loss at Wimbledon
- a straight set loss to Lendl in the USO quarters

If the Masters is counted as the next biggest event, he also lost there, in two straight sets.

I'm not saying that immaturity by itself counts as a negative when you're looking at results. What I'm wondering about is how immature Wilander still was in '83 and how much that had to do with his poor results in the biggest tournaments -- his inability to put the year firmly in his grasp, for example, in that RG final.

in 82 Wilander had won the French overcoming one of the hardest draws , if not the absolute hardest: Lendl in 5 sets in the 4 th round, Gerulaitis in 4 sets in the QF, Clerc in 4 sets in the SF and Vilas in 4 sets in the finals.Those 4 beaten players were the best clay court players of that time, excluding the already retired Borg.In 1983 his draw was not nearly as good.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

Most of your points about 1977 are terribly reductive and difficult to take seriously.

But the poster is right in comparing Vilas better results in the big events compared to Borg.One Wimbledon does not make a year, I think that is what he tries to say.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Was McEnroe world no. 1 for four years until 1985?

1980—Borg(4)
1981—McEnroe
1982—Connors(3)
1983—McEnroe/Wilander
1984—McEnroe(3)
1985—Lendl

I agree except 1983 (Mac should be nº 1 alone)

[krosero]

Originally Posted by borg number one

Wow, I just counted the 13 official ATP titles PC1. Great post. 21/28 in 1979 is very impressive. So you have Connors as the "official" #1 in 1979 (like 1977), but again the ranking system was different (what exactly was the point system in say 1979?).

Actually Borg was #1 on the computer in '79. The computer gave Connors the top ranking through '78.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

This is the one match tennis history is possibly missing: Laver ( 39) vs Mc Enroe ( 1.

That's a great choice. I didn't want to pick the GOAT candidates in the dream matches. Two of the greatest lefties of all time.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's a great choice. I didn't want to pick the GOAT candidates in the dream matches. Two of the greatest lefties of all time.

I believe that this would be very interesting because Mac idolized Laver (through Harry Hopman).

I think Mac would be really, really nervous for the first few games, (and Laver would show him no mercy). The Rocket would then call Mac over for a conference at the net: "John, you need to settle down. I know you can play better than this."

"But Mr. Laver, you worked with Harry Hopman. You won the Grand Slam twice. You're my idol."

"Not right now John; right now I'm your opponent. And if you don't start playing better, I'm going to embarass you."

So Laver schooled the 18-year-old Mac: 6-4, 7-5 , 6-3. When they walked up to the net to shake hands, Laver said: "That's the way you play a left-handed serve-and-volley game. Right John?"

"Yes sir, Mr. Laver."

"John, call me Rod. Now let me show you a few things I learned from Hoad when I was 18 that Mr. Hopman didn't teach either of us."

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's a great choice. I didn't want to pick the GOAT candidates in the dream matches. Two of the greatest lefties of all time.

And two of the top 5 shotmaking talents, too

[borg number one]

Originally Posted by krosero

Actually Borg was #1 on the computer in '79. The computer gave Connors the top ranking through '78.

That's true, my mistake. Borg was #1 in 1979 on the ATP computer and year end #1, with Connors #1 in 1978. In 1977, you had Connors as #1, but considerable controversy. Even in 1978, you had Borg winning 2 majors (FO and Wimbledon), while Connors had 1 major (US Open).

I saw this link that raises the issue of the frequency of rankings.

See: http://www.itftennis.com/mens/startingout/rankrules.asp

How the Rankings Work
ATP Rankings, singles only at first, were first issued on 23rd August 1973 and were extended to include doubles from 1st March 1976. Apart from determining who were the best players in the world they were issued so as to be used by the majority of major tournaments as a basis of deciding the acceptance of entries.

They were not weekly as they are now (except for non issues in the middle Slams or during Davis Cup weeks) until 1979 with there being the following number of issues in the early years (and again not always on a Monday).

1973 - 7 issues
1974 - 11 issues
1975 - 13 issues
1976 - 23 issues
1977 - 34 issues
1978 - 40 issues
1979 - 43 issues

Year end rankings initially were the last issue of a year, or the first one of the following year, until 1991 when ATP deemed "the year end" to be after their Singles & Doubles Championships, in mid/late November, so that they could print their media guide for the Australian Open in mid January.

In 2000 an additional ranking was initiated by the ATP. This was called the ATP Champions Race. All players start the year with zero points and began a calendar year race with the player accumulating the most points becoming the world number 1. This additional ranking was introduced in order to make things more understandable for the public and to ensure that the top players participated in the most prestigious tournaments.

[kiki]

In 79 Borg crushed Connors 7 times in a row, if we count on exos ( there would be no such thing like an exo match between those 2 guys):

-.Boca Raton ( exo)
-.Las Vegas
-.Frankfurt (exo)
-.Wimbledon SF
-.Montreal ( exo)
-.Tokyo F
-.Masters RR

The only real chance Connors had to beat Borg was in the Masters rr ( 3-6,6-3,7-6), but he barely took a set off Borg in the remaining matches.