WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[krosero]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Definitely agree.
In my rankings the fourth Major is:
WCT Finals from 1972 to 1976
Masters from 1977 to 1982 (in 1977 the Masters went to New York and became a classic, staying there until 1989. In addition, that year its field slightly overtaken the WCT Finals in quality).
[Translating that in numbers: McEnroe 8 Majors overall (7 Slam + 1978 Masters), Connors 8 (8 Slam, excluding the 1974 AO + 1977 Masters), Lendl 11 (8 Slam + 1981, 1982, 1986 Masters), Borg 14 (11 Slam + 1976 WCT Finals + 1979-80 Masters). Obviously this is only my personal vision, but I think it's pretty accurate]

My own list would look very similar. From 1972 through '75 I think you could say the WCT Finals was the fourth most important tournament of the year, and maybe even higher.

After '75, though, I think there were other tournaments that were stronger. In '76, Philadelphia had 7 of the top ten players (including Borg and Connors), so it may have been the best-attended event of the year apart from the Big Three Slams. Dallas was missing 5 of the top ten (including #1 Connors). This article mentions how the Dallas field was seen as somewhat weak this year.

In '77, Philadelphia had 8 of the top ten players, equal to Wimbledon, and exceeded only by the USO. The Masters, now in New York, had 7. Dallas had only 5 again.

In '78 Philadelphia was again one of the top tournaments. This was in the AP:

Actually, nine of the top 10 ranked players in the world and 25 of the leading 30 are in a field described by some as equal to that of Wimbledon. Only Vilas, Tony Roche, Stan Smith, Jaime Fillol and Phil Dent are missing.

“There is no question in my mind that the Philadelphia field is superior and much tougher than Wimbledon,” said defending champion Stockton in an appearance here recently.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by slice bh compliment

Kriek's family would even agree. That's like comparing Green Day to the Beatles.

But that is my point exactly. There needs to be a way of counting majors than 'grand slam tournaments only'

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by timnz

But that is my point exactly. There needs to be a way of counting majors than 'grand slam tournaments only'

Nobody is ever going to agree on that.

My personal way of doing things is to count the tournaments below as majors, and use other big events like WCT Dallas, Masters, Grand Slam Cup, Philadelphia etc. as big events that boost players records without counting as majors. But that's my way of bringing the best sense of order in my philosophy on tennis majors. Other people will have different opinions and different criteria.

Majors
Open majors
Australian Open (1969-January 1977, December 1977-1985, 1987-Present Day)
French Open (1968-Present Day)
Wimbledon (1968-Present Day)
US Open (1968-Present Day)

Pro majors
French Pro (1930-1939, 1956, 1958-1967)
Wembley Pro (1934-1939, 1949-1953, 1956-1967)
US Pro (1927-1943, 1945-1967)
Tournament of Champions (1956-1959)
Wimbledon Pro (1967)

Amateur majors
Australasian/Australian Championships (1924-1940, 1946-1968 )
French Championships (1925-1939, 1946-1967)
Wimbledon (1877-1914, 1919-1939, 1946-1967)
US Championships (1882-1967)
World Hard Court Championships (1912-1914, 1920-1923)
World Covered Court Championships (1913, 1919-1923)


One thing I also have to say is that there were nothing as big as open era majors before 1968, but this cannot be blamed on the players of pre-1968.

List of majors won
Ken Rosewall: 23 (4 amateur, 15 pro, 4 open)

Rod Laver: 20 (6 amateur, 9 pro, 5 open)

Pancho Gonzales: 17 (2 amateur, 15 pro)

Roger Federer: 16

Bill Tilden: 15 (11 amateur, 4 pro)

Pete Sampras: 14

Roy Emerson: 12 (12 amateur)

Bjorn Borg: 11
Henri Cochet: 11 (10 amateur, 1 pro)

Rafael Nadal: 10
Don Budge: 10 (6 amateur, 4 pro)
Fred Perry: 10 (8 amateur, 2 pro)

Andre Agassi: 8
Jimmy Connors: 8
Ivan Lendl: 8
Ellsworth Vines: 8 (3 amateur, 5 pro)

Mats Wilander: 7
John McEnroe: 7
John Newcombe: 7 (2 amateur, 5 open)
Tony Trabert: 7 (5 amateur, 2 pro)
Frank Sedgman: 7 (5 amateur, 2 pro)
Rene Lacoste: 7 (7 amateur)
Anthony Wilding: 7 (7 amateur)
William Larned: 7 (7 amateur)
William Renshaw: 7 (7 amateur)

Boris Becker: 6
Stefan Edberg: 6
Bobby Riggs: 6 (3 amateur, 3 pro)
Jack Crawford: 6 (6 amateur)
Laurie Doherty: 6 (6 amateur)
Richard Sears: 6 (6 amateur)

Novak Djokovic: 5
Hans Nusslein: 5 (5 pro)
Jack Kramer: 5 (3 amateur, 2 pro)
Lew Hoad: 5 (4 amateur, 1 pro)

Jim Courier: 4
Guillermo Vilas: 4
Karel Kozeluh: 4 (4 pro)
Vinny Richards: 4 (4 pro)
Manuel Santana: 4 (4 amateur)
Ashley Cooper: 4 (4 amateur)
Frank Parker: 4 (4 amateur)
Jean Borotra: 4 (4 amateur)
Bill Johnston: 4 (4 amateur)
Reggie Doherty: 4 (4 amateur)
Robert Wrenn: 4 (4 amateur)

Gustavo Kuerten: 3
Arthur Ashe: 3
Jan Kodes: 3
Pancho Segura: 3 (3 pro)
Alex Olmedo: 3 (2 amateur, 1 pro)
Neale Fraser: 3 (3 amateur)
Jaroslav Drobny: 3 (3 amateur)
Adrian Quist: 3 (3 amateur)
Gerald Patterson: 3 (3 amateur)
Arthur Gore: 3 (3 amateur)
Malcolm Whitman: 3 (3 amateur)
Wilfred Baddeley: 3 (3 amateur)
Oliver Campbell: 3 (3 amateur)

Marat Safin: 2
Lleyton Hewitt: 2
Yevgeny Kafelnikov: 2
Patrick Rafter: 2
Sergi Bruguera: 2
Johan Kriek: 2
Ilie Nastase: 2
Stan Smith: 2
Mal Anderson: 2 (1 amateur, 1 pro)
Fred Stolle: 2 (2 amateur)
Nicola Pietrangeli: 2 (2 amateur)
Mervyn Rose: 2 (2 amateur)
Vic Seixas: 2 (2 amateur)
Dick Savitt: 2 (2 amateur)
Budge Patty: 2 (2 amateur)
Ted Schroeder: 2 (2 amateur)
John Bromwich: 2 (2 amateur)
Don McNeill: 2 (2 amateur)
Gottfried von Cramm: 2 (2 amateur)
James Anderson: 2 (2 amateur)
William Laurentz: 2 (2 amateur)
Lindley Murray: 2 (2 amateur)
Richard Norris Williams: 2 (2 amateur)
Norman Brookes: 2 (2 amateur)
Maurice McLoughlin: 2 (2 amateur)
Joshua Pim: 2 (2 amateur)
Henry Slocum: 2 (2 amateur)
John Hartley: 2 (2 amateur)

Juan Martin del Potro: 1
Gaston Gaudio: 1
Andy Roddick: 1
Juan Carlos Ferrero: 1
Albert Costa: 1
Thomas Johansson: 1
Goran Ivanisevic: 1
Carlos Moya: 1
Petr Korda: 1
Richard Krajicek: 1
Thomas Muster: 1
Michael Stich: 1
Andres Gomez: 1
Michael Chang: 1
Pat Cash: 1
Yannick Noah: 1
Brian Teacher: 1
Vitas Gerulaitis: 1
Roscoe Tanner: 1
Adriano Panatta: 1
Mark Edmondson: 1
Manuel Orantes: 1
Andres Gimeno: 1
Butch Buchholz: 1 (1 pro)
Welby Van Horn: 1 (1 pro)
Bruce Barnes: 1 (1 pro)
Joe Whalen: 1 (1 pro)
Robert Ramillon: 1 (1 pro)
Martin Plaa: 1 (1 pro)
William Bowrey: 1 (1 amateur)
Tony Roche: 1 (1 amateur)
Rafael Osuna: 1 (1 amateur)
Chuck McKinley: 1 (1 amateur)
Sven Davidson: 1 (1 amateur)
Ken McGregor: 1 (1 amateur)
Art Larsen: 1 (1 amateur)
Bob Falkenburg: 1 (1 amateur)
Jozsef Asboth: 1 (1 amateur)
Dinny Pails: 1 (1 amateur)
Yvon Petra: 1 (1 amateur)
Marcel Bernard: 1 (1 amateur)
Joseph Hunt: 1 (1 amateur)
Henner Henkel: 1 (1 amateur)
Vivian McGrath: 1 (1 amateur)
Wilmer Allison: 1 (1 amateur)
Sidney Wood: 1 (1 amateur)
John Doeg: 1 (1 amateur)
Edgar Moon: 1 (1 amateur)
John Colin Gregory: 1 (1 amateur)
John Hawkes: 1 (1 amateur)
Gordon Lowe: 1 (1 amateur)
Andre Gobert: 1 (1 amateur)
Otto Froitzheim: 1 (1 amateur)
William Clothier: 1 (1 amateur)
Beals Wright: 1 (1 amateur)
Holcombe Ward: 1 (1 amateur)
Harold Mahony: 1 (1 amateur)
Frederick Hovey: 1 (1 amateur)
Willoughby Hamilton: 1 (1 amateur)
Ernest Renshaw: 1 (1 amateur)
Herbert Lawford: 1 (1 amateur)
Frank Hadow: 1 (1 amateur)
Spencer Gore: 1 (1 amateur)

[Gizo]

1998 was a very strange year. Despite Sampras finishing as no. 1 on the computer, I can't give that year to him.

4 years titles is very poor for a year end no. 1. Yes Federer 'only' won 4 titles as well in 2009, but he won 2 slams and 2 masters series events that year and he reached the final at all 4 slams.

Apart from Wimbledon, Sampras didn't win any other big titles in 1998 and his other 3 titles were at Philadelphia and Atlanta which had pretty weak fields, and at Vienna when Becker donated his wildcard to him as he pursued that 6th consecutive year end no. 1 ranking. Admittedly though Sampras's QF demolition of Henman at that tournament was one of the best performances I ever saw from him. Sampras's form at Wimbledon was patchy to say the least (unlike his form there the year before) and he was very lucky to walk away with the title. Plus he failed to reach the final at any of the other 3 slams.

Had Rios won the Australian Open final against Korda then 1998 would have been his year considering he won the titles at Indian Wells, Miami and Rome. Plus he won the Grand Slam Cup which was unofficial at the time but is now officially counted as part of his playing record.

Possibly you could give the year to Rafter as won 6 titles in total, including the Toronto-Cincinnati-US Open triple, and he won both of his matches against Sampras that year in Cincy and Flushing Meadows. Then again he did nothing significant at any of the other 3 slams.

Maybe 1998 was a tie between different players. A bizarre year and I don't think Sampras did enough to have that year all to himself. His level of play that year was significantly worse than his overall level during his 1993-1997 peak or his summer of 1999 resurgance.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

One thing I also have to say is that there were nothing as big as open era majors before 1968, but this cannot be blamed on the players of pre-1968.

That's probably true in the sense that the field was long divided between amateur and pro. If you go back to the early 1920s, before the pro era, the majors were not divided in that sense -- but back then the world's best players were divided in another way, simply because travel between continents was difficult and not the norm.

However, Davis Cup was a huge event back then. Later on, many of the world's best players became pros and could not compete in Davis Cup. But up to the early 1920s all the world's best players were eligible for Davis Cup, and in that format they did meet one another, difficulties of travel aside.

I think it's hard to overestimate just how much a part of tennis Davis Cup was in those days. Even in later years, it remained a huge part of the amateur game. Don Budge said that if he had had to play a full year of Davis Cup in 1938, he would probably not have won the Grand Slam. I believe the fact that he did not have to play the full season of Davis Cup was a factor in his decision to go to Australia and France and attempt the Slam.

In a real sense Davis Cup was as much a priority to many champions, sometimes even a higher priority, than the majors were.

I don't know if that means we should call Davis Cup a major. But I do think that Tilden's 15 majors, for example, are far short of his major accomplishments. His 7 Davis Cup victories are right up there among the biggest titles of his career (and his unsuccessful efforts to regain the Cup from France are a major part of his legacy).

And is it possible to refer to any of the French Musketeers without giving major weight to what they did in Davis Cup?

[Mustard]

Davis Cup was certainly a lot bigger back then. Didn't Frank Shields even pull out of the 1931 Wimbledon final to be ready for Davis Cup? Of course, back then, the Davis Cup was known as the International Lawn Tennis Challenge.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

My own list would look very similar. From 1972 through '75 I think you could say the WCT Finals was the fourth most important tournament of the year, and maybe even higher.

After '75, though, I think there were other tournaments that were stronger. In '76, Philadelphia had 7 of the top ten players (including Borg and Connors), so it may have been the best-attended event of the year apart from the Big Three Slams. Dallas was missing 5 of the top ten (including #1 Connors). This article mentions how the Dallas field was seen as somewhat weak this year.

In '77, Philadelphia had 8 of the top ten players, equal to Wimbledon, and exceeded only by the USO. The Masters, now in New York, had 7. Dallas had only 5 again.

In '78 Philadelphia was again one of the top tournaments. This was in the AP:

Actually, nine of the top 10 ranked players in the world and 25 of the leading 30 are in a field described by some as equal to that of Wimbledon. Only Vilas, Tony Roche, Stan Smith, Jaime Fillol and Phil Dent are missing.

“There is no question in my mind that the Philadelphia field is superior and much tougher than Wimbledon,” said defending champion Stockton in an appearance here recently.

As much as I enjoyed the US pro indoors, it´s not a major.I fully agree, the 1977 year mamrks the resurgence of the Masters and a slight decline for the Hunt´s tour.But, still, 1983 and 1989 WCT finals had a better field than the Masters, and I´d say the same for 1985.This is a great rivalry.Like the Avon vs Virginia Slims in the ladies field

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

That's probably true in the sense that the field was long divided between amateur and pro. If you go back to the early 1920s, before the pro era, the majors were not divided in that sense -- but back then the world's best players were divided in another way, simply because travel between continents was difficult and not the norm.

However, Davis Cup was a huge event back then. Later on, many of the world's best players became pros and could not compete in Davis Cup. But up to the early 1920s all the world's best players were eligible for Davis Cup, and in that format they did meet one another, difficulties of travel aside.

I think it's hard to overestimate just how much a part of tennis Davis Cup was in those days. Even in later years, it remained a huge part of the amateur game. Don Budge said that if he had had to play a full year of Davis Cup in 1938, he would probably not have won the Grand Slam. I believe the fact that he did not have to play the full season of Davis Cup was a factor in his decision to go to Australia and France and attempt the Slam.

In a real sense Davis Cup was as much a priority to many champions, sometimes even a higher priority, than the majors were.

I don't know if that means we should call Davis Cup a major. But I do think that Tilden's 15 majors, for example, are far short of his major accomplishments. His 7 Davis Cup victories are right up there among the biggest titles of his career (and his unsuccessful efforts to regain the Cup from France are a major part of his legacy).

And is it possible to refer to any of the French Musketeers without giving major weight to what they did in Davis Cup?

I agree.Good post.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Davis Cup was certainly a lot bigger back then. Didn't Frank Shields even pull out of the 1931 Wimbledon final to be ready for Davis Cup? Of course, back then, the Davis Cup was known as the International Lawn Tennis Challenge.

It's a gross generalization, but the difference between today and yesterday is that Davis Cup has declined in importance, while the importance of the majors has increased.

Originally Posted by kiki

As much as I enjoyed the US pro indoors, it´s not a major.I fully agree, the 1977 year mamrks the resurgence of the Masters and a slight decline for the Hunt´s tour.But, still, 1983 and 1989 WCT finals had a better field than the Masters, and I´d say the same for 1985.This is a great rivalry.Like the Avon vs Virginia Slims in the ladies field

For the moment I'm just talking about what tournaments had the best fields. Whether to call them 'majors' is a difficult issue, because I'm not sure we all define the word the same. Officially, of course, neither Philadelphia nor Dallas, nor any tournament other than the 4 Slams, is a major.

But if we can call pro-tour events 'majors', without any official backing, then I think we can do the same with other tournaments that are not officially majors -- like Philadelphia, Dallas, the Masters, 1970 Dunlop Open, etc.

[kiki]

Major status for Dallas and Masters was earned because they were Circuit end Championships, like a big playoff, while Phily was just a very important stop on the regular tour, and specially indoors...

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

Major status for Dallas and Masters was earned because they were Circuit end Championships, like a big playoff, while Phily was just a very important stop on the regular tour, and specially indoors...

But being a circuit-ending championship is not the same thing as being a major. Today's Masters Cup is certainly not among the majors. The 1970 Dunlop Open, like Philadelphia, was not a circuit-ender, just a very important stop on the tour.

Think of it this way, there were many years in which both the WCT finals and the Masters took place. In some years you can include one of them as the fourth most important tournament of the year, and perhaps call it a major. But Dallas and the Masters can't be considered majors every time they were held, because that would leave many years with more than 4 majors. And that just creates major problems, no pun intended.

[krosero]

One other problem I see with giving events the status of majors, merely on the strength of their being circuit-ending championships, is that it gives an undue advantage to the chaotic years of the 1970s and 80s when there was more than one tour. Today's tour, for example, would get penalized, just for being a unified tour. The 70s and 80s, for being divided, would get extra majors. Doesn't seem right.

[kiki]

We are obsessed with comparing players exclusively record against record thus need to homogenyse records and titles.Not at all, tennis must be always put in the context of each time.If there were 5 majors ( 3 slams + 2 YEC 9 in the 70´s and 80´s ( and 6 again after the AO regained its prestige), then let´s leave it like that.Let´s find a way to compare records but always within the context of an era.

it´s a bit like world powers.2 for the whole Cold War, one for a decade or so and 5-6 for the next decades...shall we have to cut them into 2 just to make a comparative to, say, Cold Wra?...or shall we just relativise things and put them in their right context?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

We are obsessed with comparing players exclusively record against record thus need to homogenyse records and titles.Not at all, tennis must be always put in the context of each time.If there were 5 majors ( 3 slams + 2 YEC 9 in the 70´s and 80´s ( and 6 again after the AO regained its prestige), then let´s leave it like that.Let´s find a way to compare records but always within the context of an era.

it´s a bit like world powers.2 for the whole Cold War, one for a decade or so and 5-6 for the next decades...shall we have to cut them into 2 just to make a comparative to, say, Cold Wra?...or shall we just relativise things and put them in their right context?

The problem is that players of different eras, rightly or wrongly, are always compared to each other. This metric, how many majors they won, will always be used to compare them (rightly or wrongly). If you give the 70s and 80s extra majors it will cause huge problems in comparing, not just to the players of today, but to the greats of previous decades, like Laver and Budge.

And you can even set aside the problem of inter-era comparisons. I'm not even that big on inter-era comparisons. Let's set it aside completely. There is still a huge problem here: tennis fans will often not know what they are saying to each other. If I hear that X player has Y number of majors, and the number is something radically different from what I usually see, then I will have a whole set of questions. I will be asking, "Are you counting 3 majors per year? or 4? or 5? or 6?" That's hardly an acceptable range of uncertainty. If major-counting can be that flexible, I can assure you, I will ignore any major-count I see, unless I know what's being included in it.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Gizo

1998 was a very strange year. Despite Sampras finishing as no. 1 on the computer, I can't give that year to him.

So who would you give it too, then? Rios, Rafter, Moya and Corretja weren't quite good enough to get the year end number 1 ranking that year. Sampras had the best results overall than any other player, even if it was very close.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

A very silly decision on Kramer's part, in hindsight. TV coverage would have helped to raise the profile and popularity of professional tennis, and people would have been able to clearly see how much better the professional players were as a whole. I mean, how many people watched Wimbledon on the BBC in the amateur only days and thought these were the best tennis players in the world? Most surely would have, considering that the professionals were seldom mentioned, although Kramer was hired as a commentator for the BBC in 1960.

If Bryan Cowgill hadn't had approached Kramer during 1966 Wimbledon about the idea of hosting a professional tournament at Wimbledon for the following year, how much longer would the pre-open era had gone on for? We know how much TV coverage of the best tennis players in the 1970s made the sport boom.

Indeed, and how many tennis fans in Los Angeles or Chicago would normally buy tickets for the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, held in New York, the most prominent pro event?
TV would have raised the profile of the pro game, and would have probably raised ticket sales in New York itself for the Forest Hills event, as well as when the pros went on tour to Chicago and LA.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I can't agree.

Take 1959 Wembley. Mal Anderson beat Sedgman, Rosewall and Segura in succession to win the title, the latter two in five sets. That's brilliant, and surely the best moment of Anderson's career.

Yes, but the top guys did not put out for Wembley, unlike at Forest Hills,
Hoad lost to Segura early, and Gonzales didn't even bother to make the trip to Wembley. Anderson was a member of the supporting cast.
If the top guys take a pass, that is not a major event.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by krosero

My own list would look very similar. From 1972 through '75 I think you could say the WCT Finals was the fourth most important tournament of the year, and maybe even higher.

After '75, though, I think there were other tournaments that were stronger. In '76, Philadelphia had 7 of the top ten players (including Borg and Connors), so it may have been the best-attended event of the year apart from the Big Three Slams. Dallas was missing 5 of the top ten (including #1 Connors).

Sure, but here I have to count another element: the prestige.
Philadelphia was amazing that year, as Sydney was in 1970, but they are not events comparable to the historical value of Masters and WCT Finals.
Counting Philadelphia as a substitute to a major would sound too arbitrary to me: I still prefer to choose between Masters and WCT, which are milestones in the history of tennis (obviously, I would have counted Philadelphia if WCT were totally depleted, but in my opinion they were still good, even if not perfect).
Anyway, this is only my interpretation, I think that your point of view is also definitely legitimate, and I agree that to choose the no. 1 we should also give credit to the Championship Series results: that's why I think that Connors has a big argument for 1976.

Mustard - The 1971 WCT Dallas event certainly seems bigger than the 1971 French Open. Heck, even 1971 Rome was probably bigger than the 1971 French Open. The 1971 French Open, however, is the only one of those 3 events to be a major. The politics of that era, I'm afraid.

Again? I've already admitted which ones were officially considered Majors and which one weren't. I've also reported you that I'm interested only in the tournaments' effective value (=prestige+good fields).
I don't know how many times I have to repeat that, I think my opinion is pretty clear... :P

About the 1971 French Open: it was a nice tournament, surely not big as the three other Slam that year, but not so bad. It was entered by four top-8: Smith (#1), Kodes (#5), Ashe (#7), Nastase (#8 ). The WCT Finals that year had five top-8, as they missed Smith, Kodes and Nastase.
Probably the best solution is to give them credit as semi-Majors, but as I said, WCT Finals in 1971 had some problems with media coverage: they would become THE event only in 1972. That's why in my personal view of tennis history, Roland Garros is still the 4th tournament that year.

Anyway, all that discussion definitely demonstrates how much tennis history is complicated and how many interpretations could be given, all with some solid arguments.
That's why I couldn't care less about what was official and what wasn't (even because ATP is always changing its mind... in 1990 the Grand Slam Cup wasn't official, in 2000 it was dismissed and became official... it's just laughable).

Gizo - Had Rios won the Australian Open final against Korda then 1998 would have been his year considering he won the titles at Indian Wells, Miami and Rome. Plus he won the Grand Slam Cup which was unofficial at the time but is now officially counted as part of his playing record.

Possibly you could give the year to Rafter as won 6 titles in total, including the Toronto-Cincinnati-US Open triple, and he won both of his matches against Sampras that year in Cincy and Flushing Meadows. Then again he did nothing significant at any of the other 3 slams.

Maybe 1998 was a tie between different players. A bizarre year and I don't think Sampras did enough to have that year all to himself. His level of play that year was significantly worse than his overall level during his 1993-1997 peak or his summer of 1999 resurgance.

This is a really nice post, I agree with everything you said.

To Sampras advantage: ATP official no. 1 in the chart, Wimbledon.
To Rafter advantage: 6 titles overall, including Rogers Cup, Cincinnati and US Open.
To Rios advantage: Grand Slam Cup, IW, Miami, Rome, Australian Open runner-up.

It's extremely difficult to choose. I probably would say Rafter at the very end, but I'm still sceptical because as you said he did poorly in the 3 slam out of 4.
I also agree with you about Rios: with the Australian Open victory, he would have been the undisputed 1998 no. 1 (what a great player he was!).

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Yes, but the top guys did not put out for Wembley, unlike at Forest Hills, Hoad lost to Segura early, and Gonzales didn't even bother to make the trip to Wembley. Anderson was a member of the supporting cast.
If the top guys take a pass, that is not a major event.

Here I agree with Mustard, Mal Anderson definitely deserves his Wembley victory.
Hoad lost to Segura early: well, it's just his fault. He could have won...
otherwise we can also dismiss Federer's 2009 RG: Nadal lost to Soderling early...
that's the rule of the game. If you lose to someone, you're out.

Anderson defeated Sedgman, Rosewall and Segura in that tournament: I can't ask him more.

[Wuppy]

1886—W. Renshaw

Dude are you a Renshawtard or something? Ain't no way he was tops in 1886!!