Is Djokovic now in the tier with Becker, Wilander, Edberg?

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

This is the mistake : the problem is notn to say who was the "better player", but to say who was the man who do the best season. Borg was maybe the better player, he beated Vilas 3 times this year, but had not the results of Vilas.

So Vilas cant be considered as "best player" (even according to you) in his one and only year you call him top player, where he wasnt even officialy ranked #1 either? So in Vilas's year as supposed top player (arguably) he was neither best player or #1 ranked, which 2 different other men held? That already confirms even more how he can never come close to comparing to Novak at this point. After all Novak has already had a year he was best player, top player, and #1 ranked all by a mile coming and going, and Federer (even at 29) and Nadal are not weaker competition than Borg and Connors by any stretch.

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

So Vilas cant be considered as "best player" (even according to you) in his one and only year you call him top player, where he wasnt even officialy ranked #1 either? So in Vilas's year as supposed top player (arguably) he was neither best player or #1 ranked, which 2 different other men held? That already confirms even more how he can never come close to comparing to Novak at this point. After all Novak has already had a year he was best player, top player, and #1 ranked all by a mile coming and going, and Federer (even at 29) and Nadal are not weaker competition than Borg and Connors by any stretch.

"Best player" means nothing. During several years, Federer was the n°1, considered like the world champion, the best player, even if he lost many times against Nadal during the same year !
I don't know if Vilas was the "best player", or the "world champion", or other thing, in 1977, but it is sure he was the n°1, because he was the guy who won the more tournaments (14), played the more Grand Slams finals (3), won the more Grand Slams (2), and had a record which is always a record today (46 matches won consecutively). It is one of the best (the best ?) season of history, and the ATP ranking saying Connors is n°1 was really a joke.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

"Best player" means nothing. During several years, Federer was the n°1, considered like the world champion, the best player, even if he lost many times against Nadal during the same year !

Federer was undisputably considered the best player in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007, even with his losses to Nadal so your point is meaningless. In 2009 Nadal was so bad after his loss at the French and missing of Wimbledon, Federer ended the year as being considered best player as well.

What in the heck is this "best player" is meaningless, this is an argument about which players is Djokovic at the same level as.

I don't know if Vilas was the "best player", or the "world champion", or other thing, in 1977, but it is sure he was the n°1

No Connors was the #1 ranked, that is a fact, just like Wozniacki being #1 ranked for 2010 and 2011 is a fact whether one agrees with it or not. The fact Vilas was not #1, nor best player, nor World Champion or Player of the Year to most, shows he has no real claim on being King of 1977.

[5555]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

but it is sure he was the n°1

You have not provided a reliable source which claims that Vilas was undisputed No. 1 in 1977. World Tennis just claims that in its opinion Vilas was No. 1. in that season.

Therefore, it can be concluded that you lost the argument.

[NadalAgassi]

The undisputed #1 or Player of the Year despite the rankings would be Kvitova for the women last year, or Connors for the men in 1982. Vilas in 1977 does not qualify.

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by 5555

You have not provided a reliable source which claims that Vilas was undisputed No. 1 in 1977. World Tennis just claims that in its opinion Vilas was No. 1. in that season.

Therefore, it can be concluded that you lost the argument.

For you, what is a reliable source ? If it's only ATP Ranking, OK, Vilas was never n°1, and Connors was the n°1 in 1977, without winning a Grand Slam.

[5555]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

For you, what is a reliable source ? If it's only ATP Ranking, OK, Vilas was never n°1, and Connors was the n°1 in 1977, without winning a Grand Slam.

World Tennis is a reliable source. Does it claim that Vilas was undisputed No. 1 in 1977? No, it does not.

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by 5555

World Tennis is a reliable source. Does it claim that Vilas was undisputed No. 1 in 1977? No, it does not.

What means "undisputed" ? All can be discussed. I can say for example that Rios is better than Vilas because he was n°1. It's totally absurd but I can say that if I want.
For conclusion, I think that a big majority of tennis fans and specialists consider that Vilas is the n°1 in 1977. And personnally, I think that a player who wins more tournaments + Grand Slams + matches in a year than anyone else is obviously the n°1.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by 5555

Can you find a reliable source which claims that Vilas was undisputed No. 1 in 1977? If you can't, you lost the argument.

KIKI+results... isn´t it enough for you?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

"Best player" means nothing. During several years, Federer was the n°1, considered like the world champion, the best player, even if he lost many times against Nadal during the same year !
I don't know if Vilas was the "best player", or the "world champion", or other thing, in 1977, but it is sure he was the n°1, because he was the guy who won the more tournaments (14), played the more Grand Slams finals (3), won the more Grand Slams (2), and had a record which is always a record today (46 matches won consecutively). It is one of the best (the best ?) season of history, and the ATP ranking saying Connors is n°1 was really a joke.

Very good post.But don´t try to convince a Djokovictard teenager that he is not right...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

The undisputed #1 or Player of the Year despite the rankings would be Kvitova for the women last year, or Connors for the men in 1982. Vilas in 1977 does not qualify.

Connors lost at the FO qf to Higueras and didn´t win neither the Masters or the WCT ; he didn´t attend Australia...as much as I consider him be the best player in 1982, his case for this nomination is not stronger than Vilas in 77.Both were the best players in the world in those respective years.If Borg didn´t play 1977 FO or was injuried in the 1977 USO doesn´t influence one single bit...same thing for 1982, when Borg didn´t play Connors at Wimbledon or the USO ( in spite of beating him at those events the former year...)

[Nadal_Power]

Maybe some of you can tell us how the ranking worked back than.. it is really crazy to have Jimbo at Year end number 1 for 1977.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by kiki

Connors lost at the FO qf to Higueras and didn´t win neither the Masters or the WCT ; he didn´t attend Australia...as much as I consider him be the best player in 1982, his case for this nomination is not stronger than Vilas in 77.Both were the best players in the world in those respective years.If Borg didn´t play 1977 FO or was injuried in the 1977 USO doesn´t influence one single bit...same thing for 1982, when Borg didn´t play Connors at Wimbledon or the USO ( in spite of beating him at those events the former year...)

The link I posted which accounts for all the valid voices on the subject seems to indicate otherwise:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-n...layer_rankings

1977 Björn Borg P. (Swe.) - Guillermo Vilas P. (Arg.) both ranked equally

Tennis Magazine (France); Michel Sutter; World Tennis; London Daily Telegraph; Tennis Club Magazine (Rome); ATP Awards; Borg won Wimbledon over Connors who also lost the US Open against Vilas; Connors captured both the Masters beating Borg and the WCT Finals (Dick Stockton runner-up); Vilas also won a depleted French Open without Connors, Borg, Vitas Gerulaitis, Orantes and Stockton; Orantes beat Eddie Dibbs in the U.S. Pro; Tennis Magazine (France) ranked Borg #1 because he won Wimbledon and he had also defeated Vilas 3 times out of 3; Lance Tingay of the London Daily Telegraph and Rino Tommasi of Rome's Tennis Club magazine also rated Borg first; while World Tennis and Michel Sutter considered Vilas the best one because among other reasons he won 46 matches in a row (even 50 including the Rye tournament excluded in ATP statistics) and 16 titles (or 17 Rye included); the ATP itself awarded Borg "Player of The Year" contradicting its computer ranking (Connors N° 1).

1982 Jimmy Connors P. (USA)

L'Équipe; Tennis Magazine (France); ITF; ATP Awards; Connors won both Wimbledon (McEnroe runner-up) and the US Open (Lendl finalist); Mats Wilander def. Vilas at the French Open; Lendl made one of his best and strongest performances of his whole career in decisevely beating McEnroe in the Masters final and again in the WCT Final; Vilas beat Mel Purcell in U.S. Pro; small anecdote : though retired of the official circuit, Borg played in many invitational tournaments or exhibitions and he was able to win 2 matches out of 6 against Connors and he beat Gerulaitis, McEnroe and Lendl in the Sydney Akai Gold Challenge; ITF awarded Connors as World Champion; the ATP awarded Connors "Player of The Year" contradicting its computer ranking; L'Équipe and Tennis Magazine (France) ranked Connors n°1 player in the world ahead of Lendl n°2 and McEnroe n°3 also strongly contradicting the ATP ranking.

It seems clear from this nobody questioned that Connors was the true #1 of 1982, contrary to the computer rankings. The ATP which at one point hated Connors with a passion even awarded him Player of the Year. McEnroe was not even runner up (granted neither was computer #1 Connors in 1977).

Whereas Vilas is ranked behind Borg by most sources.

It is ok if you wish to believe Vilas was the clear #1 player of 1977, but others dont have to accept this viewpoint as it is clear most reputable sources dont even feel that way, in addition that he wasnt the computer #1 either.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

I think it's not only a question of number. Becker and Edberg, and even McEnroe, won more Grand Slams than Vilas and Courier, but they won only on fast courts, they didn't win the French. Vilas, Courier, Wilander won on fast courts (grass or hard) and on clay. I think they're greater than the others, for this reason.

I didnt notice this post before. Are you saing Vilas and Courier are better than Becker, Edberg, and even MCENROE. Seriously!?!?!

[kiki]

Djokovic has already surpassed Laver,Newcombe,Vilas,Kriek,Lendl,Becker,Couirer and Edberg, all of them with 2 AO.Vilas won a third title on Australian grass, but it was not the AO but the 1974 Masters Cup, held in Melbourne.

He is on equal terms with Wilander, who won the Ao on 2 surfaces ( Djokovic only one surface).he has to look now to catch up Rosewall´s 4 titles and Emerson´s 6.Good look.

[Benhur]

I’ve always thought that the 1977 controversy wouldn’t exist at all if the roles had been exactly reversed (I mean if Borg had Vila's record, and Vilas had Borg's record that year). In that case, Vila’s absence from RG and the USO would not have been cause for suspicions and speculations that he might have won them if he had played them, and few people would have dismissed the 1977 French Open as seriously depleted, with players like Gottfried, Dibbs, Ramirez, Nastase, Barazzutti, Fibak, Solomon, Fillol, Panatta etc all being there. The head to head would have been ignored as supremely irrelevant for measuring achievments, and the 14 titles with 2 majors plus a 46 match winning streak would have been properly recognized as quite remarkable and amply sufficient to give him the number one title for the year (or "player of the year" or whatever). In other words, everything would have been more or less as it should be and Borg would be the sole number one that year. But since Vilas wasn't Borg, and Borg wasn't Vilas, we have bit of a mess.

[5555]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

What means "undisputed"?

Undisputed means generally agreed upon.

Originally Posted by kiki

KIKI+results... isn´t it enough for you?

Considering that you did not prove that Vilas was undisputed No. 1 in 1977, it can be concluded that you lost the argument.

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by 5555

Undisputed means generally agreed upon.

Considering that you did not prove that Vilas was undisputed No. 1 in 1977, it can be concluded that you lost the argument.

OK for the definition of "undisputed". And it's clear that it's generally agreed that Vilas is n°1 in 1977.

[5555]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

it's clear that it's generally agreed that Vilas is n°1 in 1977.

Can you provide a reliable source which says that "it's generally agreed that Vilas is n°1 in 1977"? Yes or no?

[jean pierre]

Who is n°1 in 1977 ? This question exists since 35 years !! Everybody is OK to say that it's not Connors, even if he's n°1 in ATP ranking. So, Borg or Vilas ? For me, it's an absurd question, because I think it's obviously Vilas. But some people think it's Borg. I think the only way to close the debate is to send a request, a sort of petition at the ATP, asking for an official declaration : what is today the official position of the ATP ? Who's number one in 1977 ?