WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

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.

Because you win majors - no mather how many they are- in the context of your era, then we should pick up the true greats of each era and compare them besed ALWAYS on their dominance of an era.Not just a matter of counting this and that major and then use them to compare inter eras players ( as you said, it wouldn´t be unfair, but it would be also very unfair not to count WCT/Masters for 1970-1989).Because, era´s strengths are so different that winning 5 majors in a very strong era may be harder to achieve than 10 in a weak era.

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by Mustard

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.

I would probably give the year to Rafter like FedericRoma83. Sure he was weak at the first 3 slams of the year, but he he had the best title haul that year, 1 slam, 2 super 9 titles and 3 other titles, while Sampras won 1 slam, 0 super 9 titles and 3 other titles. Plus in close comparisons like these we might as well as throw in Rafter's 2-0 h2h advantage over Sampras that year. Still he is not exactly a convincing 'player of the year' either.

Just 4 titles won, with only one of those 4 titles being a genuinely big one, is not enough to give Sampras the year IMO.

Maybe 1998 can be a tie between Rafter/Sampras. I think certainly since the creation of the ATP computer ranking in 1973, Sampras in 1998 was probably the worst tennis played by an official year end no. 1 throughout the year. Even though Connors was clearly not as good as Vilas or Borg in 1977, and McEnroe was clearly not as good as Connors or Lendl in 1982 etc, they both displayed a much higher standard of tennis in those years IMO. Sampras's played much better tennis in 1999 when he finished as the year end no. 3 (of course he probably would have finished at no. 2 ahead of Kafelnikov had he not missed the Aussie and US Opens) than he did in 1998.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by kiki

Because you win majors - no mather how many they are- in the context of your era, then we should pick up the true greats of each era and compare them besed ALWAYS on their dominance of an era.Not just a matter of counting this and that major and then use them to compare inter eras players ( as you said, it wouldn´t be unfair, but it would be also very unfair not to count WCT/Masters for 1970-1989).Because, era´s strengths are so different that winning 5 majors in a very strong era may be harder to achieve than 10 in a weak era.

Nice point, I agree.
It is the reason why I consider Ivan Lendl one of the strongers. He was the dominant player in a decade with a lot of 6-Slam-or-more opponents. That's a quite amazing feat.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

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.

There is at least one problem with the historical prestige criteria for the Masters and WCT Finals: it's the same criterias used to argue that the AO, despite its weak field, should always be counted as a major. The AO has far more prestige from a historical standpoint, than Dallas or the Masters, so by that reasoning the AO should be kept as a major in the 70s and 80s.

In other words, if the AO is dropped as a major, it's because the criteria of strength of field is being elevated over historical prestige. And if that's the case then many tournaments can be placed over the Masters or Dallas, if those tournaments had stronger fields.

There have been lists on this forum of the 4 biggest tournaments per year. I don't know if this one was the most recent, but you can have a look; this one happens to take Philadelphia in '76 and '78:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...92#post1892492

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

Because you win majors - no mather how many they are- in the context of your era, then we should pick up the true greats of each era and compare them besed ALWAYS on their dominance of an era.Not just a matter of counting this and that major and then use them to compare inter eras players ( as you said, it wouldn´t be unfair, but it would be also very unfair not to count WCT/Masters for 1970-1989).Because, era´s strengths are so different that winning 5 majors in a very strong era may be harder to achieve than 10 in a weak era.

Giving the players of the 70s and 80s six majors per year instantly gives that era the appearance of being strong; and it will be seen as favoritism for that era, or favoritism for the players of that era. Because that's exactly what happens if you give that era 6 majors per year: the players of that era will gain an instant edge in major count over the players of ALL other eras.

I'm not just talking about Federer and Nadal here. I'm saying that if McEnroe, Borg, Connors and Lendl are all given 6 opportunities per year to win majors, then those players instantly appear greater in relation to Laver and Rosewall than they really were. Laver, after all, had 4 opportunities per year, at most, to win majors; in his pro years he has only 3 per year. McEnroe, meanwhile, gets 6 chances per year. Instantly you see the problem: McEnroe with 15 majors becomes a near-equal to Laver (who is usually given 18 majors, I think?).

You mention strong and weak eras. If that is the justification for giving the 70s and 80s more majors -- ie, to reward the players of that era with greater major count, in order to reflect the strong era they played in -- then other eras must appear as weak: including Federer's era and Laver's era.

That's a systemic problem that drops the value of all eras outside of the 70s and 80s: and a systemic problem can't be solved merely by saying, well, we know Laver was a great player, and so there's no problem, his era is still strong. The problem here is systemic: numbers are being inflated in favor of certain players, so everyone else takes a hit.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by krosero

In other words, if the AO is dropped as a major, it's because the criteria of strength of field is being elevated over historical prestige.

You're correct, but the Australian Open in 1972-1982 in my opinion was much more depleted than the 1976 WCT. Moreover, even if partially depleted, the WCT had still a great media coverage that year, and a big money prize too (I think we have to consider the resonance of the event): we really can't say that about the 1972-82 Australian Open (less money, small resonance).

The AO fields ->
1972: Rosewall #3, Newcombe #4, no one else from the top-30
1973: Newcombe #2, Rosewall #6, no one else from the top-30
1974: Newcombe #2, Connors #3, Borg #18, no one else from the top-25
1975: Connors #1, Newcombe #2, no one else from the top-25
1976: Rosewall #6, Roche #12, Newcombe #20, no one else from the top-50
1977-A: only Vilas (#6) from the top-10 + Tanner, Ashe, Rosewall, Stockton (but no one of them was a top-10 at the time)
1977-B: only Gerulaitis from the top-10 (maybe Roscoe Tanner, I can't find his ranking at the end of 1977)
1978: only Vilas (#3) from the top-10
1979: only Vilas (#6) from the top-15
1980: Vilas (#4), Lendl (#6), Clerc (#8 ), Gerulaitis (#9) <- but despite the rankings, you have to agree that three of these players were not grass courters and we still have no one from the top-3.
1981: Vilas (#6), Tanner (#9), no one else from the top-10.
1982: Kriek (#10), no one else from the top-10.

As you can see, this were severely depleted fields (the only one which can be compared with the 1976 WCT Finals is the 1980 edition, but it was still worse)... on the contrary, when the field is only partially depleted, I still give to the prestige a higher credit.
For example, Wimbledon 1972 was a major in my opinion: five from the top-10, including the two stronger players of the year... add to that the Wimbledon prestige and you have a major (on the contrary, I don't consider the 1973 edition, with only one player from the top-10: I think that the difference is evident).
Anyway I also accept who propose Los Angeles for 1972: we don't have to be stiff.
We have some numbers, but there are a lot of ways to read them: some are unconvincing, some are good even with their differences. Your tennis history is definitely good. (Let me add that I'm honoured to write directly to the one who uploaded all these historical tennis videos on youtube!)

There have been lists on this forum of the 4 biggest tournaments per year. I don't know if this one was the most recent, but you can have a look; this one happens to take Philadelphia in '76 and '78:
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...92#post1892492

That's a nice list, I know it, even if I don't agree on every year.

[kiki]

WCT and Masters count as majors for the 1970-1983 period, even if I´d pick 1971 AO for 4 th 1971 major.

[Mustard]

Lendl didn't win a "big one" until 1984, so we know what the majors are.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Lendl didn't win a "big one" until 1984, so we know what the majors are.

Give any player of the 70´s and early to middle 80´s what would he prefer winning and any top player would instantly pick Dallas and Madison over Kooyong.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Give any player of the 70´s and early to middle 80´s what would he prefer winning and any top player would instantly pick Dallas and Madison over Kooyong.

I know, but they still weren't majors. I don't know why some people can't see the difference between majors and big events, and that in those days, they weren't always the same thing per se. When they said "Lendl hasn't won the big ones", they were talking about the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open, particularly the latter three. Lendl first won the Masters in January 1982, and first won WCT Dallas in 1982. They were big events, but not majors.

[kiki]

Lendl´s 1982 victims were Vitas Gerulaitis ( a former AO winner) and John Mc Enroe.In the 1981 and 1982 AO, Johan Kriek beat almost unknown Texas ace Steve Denton.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Lendl´s 1982 victims were Vitas Gerulaitis ( a former AO winner) and John Mc Enroe.In the 1981 and 1982 AO, Johan Kriek beat almost unknown Texas ace Steve Denton.

Okay, but Kriek won 2 majors in the 1981-1982 period, Lendl won zero majors in the same period. There's a reason why Lendl was getting criticism, and it's because he was winning so many tournaments on the tour but none of them were majors until the 1984 French Open. And even with the 1984 French Open win, there soon started to be rumours that "McEnroe had thrown it away". It wasn't until after the 1985 US Open that Lendl got the monkey entirely off his back about him not being able to win the majors.

Now, if WCT Dallas and the Masters were majors, then Lendl would have won 2 majors already in 1982. They clearly weren't majors, but the biggest tournaments outside the majors.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Okay, but Kriek won 2 majors in the 1981-1982 period, Lendl won zero majors in the same period. There's a reason why Lendl was getting criticism, and it's because he was winning so many tournaments on the tour but none of them were majors until the 1984 French Open. And even with the 1984 French Open win, there soon started to be rumours that "McEnroe had thrown it away". It wasn't until after the 1985 US Open that Lendl got the monkey entirely off his back about him not being able to win the majors.

Lendl deserves absolutely the whole credit for sticking up with Mc Enroe in that great RG final...and winning it in the fifth set.He did his job, John didn´t his.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Lendl deserves absolutely the whole credit for sticking up with Mc Enroe in that great RG final...and winning it in the fifth set.He did his job, John didn´t his.

Oh, I agree. Lendl's win over McEnroe in the 1984 French Open final silenced the criticism of Lendl for a while, but it started to come back in the fall of 1984 and into 1985 as McEnroe was the dominant player on the tour. The criticism of Lendl's record in winning majors got louder still after Wilander beat Lendl in the 1985 French Open final and when Leconte embarrassed Lendl at 1985 Wimbledon.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Oh, I agree. Lendl's win over McEnroe in the 1984 French Open final silenced the criticism of Lendl for a while, but it started to come back in the fall of 1984 and into 1985 as McEnroe was the dominant player on the tour. The criticism of Lendl's record in winning majors got louder still after Wilander beat Lendl in the 1985 French Open final and when Leconte embarrassed Lendl at 1985 Wimbledon.

Yes, I remember.But,still, just the very very best (Becker,Wilander,Mc Enroe,Connors,Borg) could beat Lendl at a major final.That proves the extraordinary competition Lendl faced ( and later Cash on grass and Edberg also on grass) which was enormous and still it took an all time great to beat him.I really never understood so much that criticism, even if I was aware of Lendl´s mental hype to win the GS titles.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I know, but they still weren't majors. I don't know why some people can't see the difference between majors and big events, and that in those days, they weren't always the same thing per se. When they said "Lendl hasn't won the big ones", they were talking about the Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open, particularly the latter three.

Something similar was said about Vilas not winning the big ones. When he won the French, a lot of people said he had the monkey off his back. But not everyone. When he won the USO, this was in the Associated Press:

Guillermo Vilas finally has won a big one....solidifying his claim toward being the No. 1 tennis player in the world.... Although Vilas had captured the French Open title in Paris earlier this summer, he never had won one of the sport’s two premier events – Forest Hills or Wimbledon. But now the stigma of not being able to win the big one has ended – decisively....

I just think that the top tournaments were viewed on a continuum, more than being sharply divided between traditional majors and non-majors.

And if there was ever a time when there was confusion about what a major was, it was the early Open Era.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

Something similar was said about Vilas not winning the big ones. When he won the French, a lot of people said he had the monkey off his back. But not everyone. When he won the USO, this was in the Associated Press:

Guillermo Vilas finally has won a big one....solidifying his claim toward being the No. 1 tennis player in the world.... Although Vilas had captured the French Open title in Paris earlier this summer, he never had won one of the sport’s two premier events – Forest Hills or Wimbledon. But now the stigma of not being able to win the big one has ended – decisively....

I just think that the top tournaments were viewed on a continuum, more than being sharply divided between traditional majors and non-majors.

And if there was ever a time when there was confusion about what a major was, it was the early Open Era.

I think a lot of the tennis writers in those days weren't sure what really was a top tournament or not and you really can't blame them. The WCT Championship was to supposely determine the World Champion of tennis so you would think by that definition it is a major and yet we don't call it a major now.

Check what Heston says at 1:09. He says to determine the World Champion of Tennis. At 4:29 Heston says this years WCT championship is this year's first major.

By the way this is a great video. It shows some highlights of Borg versus Laver. Great tennis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntJquiEpVMY

[kiki]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Nice point, I agree.
It is the reason why I consider Ivan Lendl one of the strongers. He was the dominant player in a decade with a lot of 6-Slam-or-more opponents. That's a quite amazing feat.

1985 Top ten

Lendl
Mac
Wilander
Becker
Edberg
Connors
Cash
Noah
Kriek
Gomez

all multislamers ( plus Mecir and Jarryd - WCT winners- Curren - AO and W finalist - Mayotte,Gilbert,Leconte...)

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by krosero

Something similar was said about Vilas not winning the big ones. When he won the French, a lot of people said he had the monkey off his back. But not everyone. When he won the USO, this was in the Associated Press:

Guillermo Vilas finally has won a big one....solidifying his claim toward being the No. 1 tennis player in the world.... Although Vilas had captured the French Open title in Paris earlier this summer, he never had won one of the sport’s two premier events – Forest Hills or Wimbledon. But now the stigma of not being able to win the big one has ended – decisively....

I just think that the top tournaments were viewed on a continuum, more than being sharply divided between traditional majors and non-majors.

And if there was ever a time when there was confusion about what a major was, it was the early Open Era.

Wimbledon and the US Open were the 2 biggest events at that time, but that article makes it sound like they were the only majors. Tony Trabert mentioned Vilas' French Open win on the 1977 US Open final broadcast, how Vilas had won the 1977 French Open in "decisive fashion".

And yes, the early open era was chaotic to say the least in terms of organisation.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Okay, but Kriek won 2 majors in the 1981-1982 period, Lendl won zero majors in the same period

I really can't understand why you act like this. It's a bit annoying, to be honest.

It's just laughable to hear that Kriek's negligible AO victories were more important thant Lendl's first two Masters. Ask to anyone who was in the tour back in the days which tournament was more important and prestigious.
The fields speak for themselves:
AO 1981: Vilas (#6), Tanner (#9), no one else from the top-10.
AO 1982: Kriek (#10), no one else from the top-10.

Majors?
Give less credit to the ATP dude, or you'll go in short-circuit in the case of tournaments like the Grand Slam Cup: dismissed in 1999, official since 2000 (ahahah).