It's generally agreed that Borg was the real No. 1 in 1977 - Page 4

kiki · 10-08-2012, 09:40 AM

What if it was Connors?

5555 · 10-10-2012, 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

Have you looked at Vilas' and Borg's results yet?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...y=1977&m=s&e=0
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...y=1977&m=s&e=0

I think it's clear that Vilas had the better year in 1977.

"But even though World Tennis magazine declared Vilas No. 1 for the year, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed that mythical honor on Borg.”

source: The Bud Collins History of Tennis An Authoritative Encyclopedia and Record Book

jean pierre · 10-10-2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5555

"But even though World Tennis magazine declared Vilas No. 1 for the year, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed that mythical honor on Borg.”

source: The Bud Collins History of Tennis An Authoritative Encyclopedia and Record Book

I think Bud collins thought that Boud Collins was "the most other authorities" ! Because most authorities (Livre d'or du Tennis, Tennis de France, Eugene L. Scoot, Christian Quidet, Patrice Dominguez, Fracis Haedens, World tennis ...) declared Vilas n°1. "Experts were agree to consider Vilas as the real n°1 in 1977" (Chron'open, specialized web site). "ATP was contradicted by experts ; placed n°1 by specialized newspapers..." (Sportvox, web site).

Mustard · 10-10-2012, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 5555

"But even though World Tennis magazine declared Vilas No. 1 for the year, most other authorities disagreed and bestowed that mythical honor on Borg.”

source: The Bud Collins History of Tennis An Authoritative Encyclopedia and Record Book

Do you have a mind of your own at all?

Gizo · 10-10-2012, 09:52 AM

The real no. 1 is always the player with the best accomplishments over that particular year. Of course sometimes that can still be highly subjective, for instance with 2003 when many people disagree over whether Roddick, Federer or Ferrero had the best year.

However with 1977 it was clearly Vilas.

While I still think that Connors was the third best player that year behind Vilas and Borg, I still think he had an excellent year given that he won 2 titles and reached 2 more finals at the 4 biggest tournaments he entered.

He had a much better year than similarly questionable year end no.1 players Mac in 1982 or Sampras in 1998 (despite winning Wimbledon) I would say.

NadalAgassi · 10-10-2012, 09:54 AM

I would say the real #1 was indeed Borg, but Connors also has a decent case. Vilas was not, the 3 biggest events this year by far were Wimbledon, U.S Open, and the Masters, given the laughable fields of both Australia and Paris. Borg won one and lost the finals of another. Vilas was one, and didnt make the finals of the other two, and was owned by Borg all year long. Connors made the finals of all three, and won one. In the end Borg won Player of the Year and Connors was computer year end #1. A split of the fortunes between the two best, and just about right.

Mustard · 10-10-2012, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I would say the real #1 was indeed Borg, but Connors also has a decent case. Vilas was not, the 3 biggest events this year by far were Wimbledon, U.S Open, and the Masters, given the laughable fields of both Australia and Paris. Borg won one and lost the finals of another. Vilas was one, and didnt make the finals of the other two, and was owned by Borg all year long. Connors made the finals of all three, and won one. In the end Borg won Player of the Year and Connors was computer year end #1. A split of the fortunes between the two best, and just about right.

Are you joking? Vilas, Panatta, Gottfried, Ramirez, Solomon, Nastase, Kodes, Smith and Dibbs is not a "laughable field" for the 1977 French Open. As for Borg not being there, that was his choice. How the hell do you expect Borg to win the tournament if he has ruled himself out of it?

The facts remain. Vilas won 2 majors in 1977, won 72 out of his 73 matches of the year, and won 16 tournaments in all. Borg and Connors don't have the results in 1977 to match this.

Gizo · 10-10-2012, 10:14 AM

Connors's 1977 has got to be one of the best seasons in the open era that a player has had without winning a major. I think it comfortably tops his own 1975, as WCT final and Masters titles easily outweigh a runner-up appearance at an Australian Open that 18 out of the top 20 players skipped. Plus from his matches during both years that I've seen, I think that his overall 1977 level was higher than his 1975 one.

Lendl's 1982 was excellent with 15 official titles (plus 2 more unofficial ones) including the WCT finals and Masters, a US Open final appearance, and an unbeaten record against McEnroe.

Laver was banned from defending his Australian Open and RG titles in 1970 of course and had disappointing results at Wimbledon and the US Open, but won so many big titles that year, such as Philadelphia, Sydney, Johannesburg, Toronto, Los Angeles PSW and Wembley. Many people, me included, considered that to be his 7th consecutive year as the best player in the world.

Roche was a US Open finalist in 1969 and reached the semis of the other 3 majors that year, in addition to winning very big titles at Sydney (beating Laver in the final) and the German Open. Plus he must have won a decent total of unofficial titles that year but I cannot find a definitive list.

pc1 · 10-10-2012, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I would say the real #1 was indeed Borg, but Connors also has a decent case. Vilas was not, the 3 biggest events this year by far were Wimbledon, U.S Open, and the Masters, given the laughable fields of both Australia and Paris. Borg won one and lost the finals of another. Vilas was one, and didnt make the finals of the other two, and was owned by Borg all year long. Connors made the finals of all three, and won one. In the end Borg won Player of the Year and Connors was computer year end #1. A split of the fortunes between the two best, and just about right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

Are you joking? Vilas, Panatta, Gottfried, Ramirez, Solomon, Nastase, Kodes, Smith and Dibbs is not a "laughable field" for the 1977 French Open. As for Borg not being there, that was his choice. How the hell do you expect Borg to win the tournament if he has ruled himself out of it?

The facts remain. Vilas won 2 majors in 1977, won 72 out of his 73 matches of the year, and won 16 tournaments in all. Borg and Connors don't have the results in 1977 to match this.

Vilas had a fantastic year in 1977 and you also have to take into account Vilas did beat Connors in the finals of the US Open and in the Masters. I can't see Connors as number one for 1977.

kiki · 10-10-2012, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pc1

Vilas had a fantastic year in 1977 and you also have to take into account Vilas did beat Connors in the finals of the US Open and in the Masters. I can't see Connors as number one for 1977.

I just wanted to throw in a different angle when I posted Connors to be the overall most regular player at majors.I do not think he deserved nº 1 based on major records that year but he owned the very very strong WCT tour ( which only Borg,Vilas,Gottfried skipped among the best players).

Do you know my feeling? it may seem absurd but I think that very hot year was decided by a single double fault.That of Connors at the fifth set, tenth game of the Wimbly final.I am sure that, had not he committed that DF, he would have beaten Borg at the very final edge, after one of the greatest come back in modern history..and with Wimbledon,Masters and Dallas he would have been the nº 1.It may look a bit exagerated but...it could have been very real.

pc1 · 10-10-2012, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiki

I just wanted to throw in a different angle when I posted Connors to be the overall most regular player at majors.I do not think he deserved nº 1 based on major records that year but he owned the very very strong WCT tour ( which only Borg,Vilas,Gottfried skipped among the best players).

Do you know my feeling? it may seem absurd but I think that very hot year was decided by a single double fault.That of Connors at the fifth set, tenth game of the Wimbly final.I am sure that, had not he committed that DF, he would have beaten Borg at the very final edge, after one of the greatest come back in modern history..and with Wimbledon,Masters and Dallas he would have been the nº 1.It may look a bit exagerated but...it could have been very real.

I can see your logic but the fact remains that Borg did win the Wimbledon final. Maybe Connors would won if he didn't double fault but to be honest, since he was playing Borg I'm not so sure about that. Borg did say that he thought Connors would win if not for the double fault but Borg does say a lot of things. I think Ashe made a comment once (I think it was when Borg in 1974 won another close match) that Borg would always say he was so lucky to win. Ashe wrote something to the effect that everyone knew he was NOT lucky to win these close matches.

And you also have to take into account Connors didn't have the best of years for him. He won 8 of 21 tournaments. A sub par Connors year in those days.

kiki · 10-10-2012, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pc1

I can see your logic but the fact remains that Borg did win the Wimbledon final. Maybe Connors would won if he didn't double fault but to be honest, since he was playing Borg I'm not so sure about that. Borg did say that he thought Connors would win if not for the double fault but Borg does say a lot of things. I think Ashe made a comment once (I think it was when Borg in 1974 won another close match) that Borg would always say he was so lucky to win. Ashe wrote something to the effect that everyone knew he was NOT lucky to win these close matches.

And you also have to take into account Connors didn't have the best of years for him. He won 8 of 21 tournaments. A sub par Connors year in those days.

But you are comparing Connors many more wins at Riordan´s tour, which had much weaker fields than 77 WCT.if you look at the WCT tour players, it is an impressive colection of talent, with Nastase,Laver ( quite old, true) and Rosewall ( the same), Stockton ( on his finest year),Dibbs,Ramirez,Solly,Okker,Gerulatis,Fibak,Pa natta ( a year after his great 76), Orantes,Cox,Drysdale,Alexander...I mean, really excelent field with terrific first round opponents.Only Borg and Vilas, and maybe Gottfried missed it, although Borg and Vilas did play the Montecarlo event.

As for Borg not being lucky, that is so true.He had been too lucky on too many times to believe in fairy tales.He was a cloutch winner, and that was his pattented trademark.But, the only time I felt he could have really lost a five setter, it was against Connors at that W final.I never had that feeling against Orantes in the 74 FO final, Lendl at the 1981,Tanner at the 1979 W final...and, after the match had reached a fifth set, I even thought he had the edge against Mac at the terrific 1980 Wimbledon final.

On the eother hand, I also think he never had the edge agaisnt Mac at the 1980 USO final, which was very clsoe at the score...call it feelings.

Mustard · 10-10-2012, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiki

Tanner at the 1979 W final.

Seriously? Whenever I watch the match, I feel that Tanner is in control for most of it, particularly once he went 2 sets to 1 in front. Borg was also very edgy for most of the fifth set as Tanner tried to break back after going 0-2 down in that set.

NadalAgassi · 10-10-2012, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

Are you joking? Vilas, Panatta, Gottfried, Ramirez, Solomon, Nastase, Kodes, Smith and Dibbs is not a "laughable field" for the 1977 French Open. As for Borg not being there, that was his choice. How the hell do you expect Borg to win the tournament if he has ruled himself out of it?

The facts remain. Vilas won 2 majors in 1977, won 72 out of his 73 matches of the year, and won 16 tournaments in all. Borg and Connors don't have the results in 1977 to match this.

Obviously the facts and others disagree with you as the computer (which you always normally defend even in ridiculous cases like Wozniacki in 2011) ranked Connors at #1 for every single week of the year, while the ATP named Borg its Player of the Year. So Vilas is the only one of the three who was neither officially ranked #1 nor the ATP's Player of Year choice, hmmm wonder why that is. Why did even the ATP not name Vilas their #1 if it was so obvious he was the real #1 even though the computer never once ranked him there, as you claim.

Your insistence on grading Vilas's French Open win as some proof of red clay superiority to Borg that year even though Borg didnt play, and as the same value as if Borg had been there, is on par with the delusions of a Barker or Ruzica fan saying their French Open wins made them the best on red clay that year, over Chris Evert, and for the record Vilas's chances of ever beating Borg in a major red clay event around then are about on par of what Sue Barker beating Chris Evert in one would be, LOL!

Lastly his record on the year was 130-14, including an 0-3 record vs Bjorn Borg. Do not try to deceive people with your 72 of 73 matches stat, which is not a reflection of his overall year in its entirety.

Mustard · 10-10-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Obviously the facts and others disagree with you as the computer (which you always normally defend even in ridiculous cases like Wozniacki in 2011) ranked Connors at #1 for every single week of the year, while the ATP named Borg its Player of the Year. So Vilas is the only one of the three who was neither officially ranked #1 nor the ATP's Player of Year choice, hmmm wonder why that is. Why did even the ATP not name Vilas their #1 if it was so obvious he was the real #1 even though the computer never once ranked him there, as you claim.

You trust the 1970s ATP computer? I'm a human being, not a machine. As for why Vilas wasn't number 1 on the ATP computer in 1977, why don't you ask the ATP? Vilas never getting to official number 1 is one of the biggest mysteries in tennis. Vilas had the best record in the majors, won 16 tournaments in the year (including 2 majors), and had ridiculous winning streaks in the second half of the year. Borg and Connors are not near this for the year in question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Your insistence on grading Vilas's French Open win as some proof of red clay superiority to Borg that year even though Borg didnt play, and as the same value as if Borg had been there, is on par with the delusions of a Barker or Ruzica fan saying their French Open wins made them the best on red clay that year, over Chris Evert, and for the record Vilas's chances of ever beating Borg in a major red clay event around then are about on par of what Sue Barker beating Chris Evert in one would be, LOL!

Will you stop putting words in my mouth! Vilas played and won the biggest tournament on red clay (1977 French Open), while Borg played WTT instead. I did not say that Vilas had "red clay superiority", neither did I say anything about Evert. That's your rhetoric. The point is that you have to be in the tournament in order to win it, and Borg ruled himself out by choosing WTT. Borg doesn't get any bonus points of "oh, he would have won had he played", for that. Vilas did play, and won it in dominant fashion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Lastly his record on the year was 130-14, including an 0-3 record vs Bjorn Borg. Do not try to deceive people with your 72 of 73 matches stat, which is not a reflection of his overall year in its entirety.

Vilas' achievements for the year surpass Borg's. Borg had a fanastic record for 1977, but it doesn't match up to the sheer activity of Vilas. I don't know what else I can tell you.

NadalAgassi · 10-10-2012, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

Vilas' achievements for the year surpass Borg's. Borg had a fanastic record for 1977, but it doesn't match up to the sheer activity of Vilas. I don't know what else I can tell you.

Continue shouting that all you want, but it doesnt look like you are having any luck convincing hardly anyone. As usual you are mostly on your own island on this one.

Mustard · 10-10-2012, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Continue shouting that all you want, but it doesnt look like you are having any luck convincing hardly anyone. As usual you are mostly on your own island on this one.

I am not on my own at all.

Gizo · 10-10-2012, 07:27 PM

I do think that 1977 is one of those years in which the player that had the best achievements and the player had produced the highest standard of tennis were different.

To me there's no doubt that Vilas had the best record, and so he was the player of the year and the real no. 1. However I think Borg produced the highest standard of tennis that year during his period of winning big titles on carpet, grass and clay. Borg's best tennis in 1977 was better than Vilas's best tennis in 1977.

Similarly in 1999, Agassi clearly had the best achievements and thus was the deserved year end no. 1 and player of the year. However the level of tennis that Sampras produced during his 24 match winning run over the summer when he straight setted Agassi 3 times, and during the YEC, was beyond anything that Agassi produced that year. Sampras's best tennis in 1999 was better than Agassi's best tennis in 1999.

1989 was a funny year because I do think that Becker had the best achievements and produced the best standard of tennis. He out-performed Lendl at 4 out of the 5 biggest tournaments (Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open and the Masters) and was the player of the year. However Lendl actually had a pretty healthy lead over Becker in the year end rankings. In fact some posters on this forum have shown that even under the ranking systems used in the 90s and 00s, Lendl would still have had a pretty clear lead over Becker points-wise, due to his excellent day-in day-out consistency that year.

jean pierre · 10-10-2012, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Continue shouting that all you want, but it doesnt look like you are having any luck convincing hardly anyone. As usual you are mostly on your own island on this one.

On your own island ?? There was a poll on this forum, and 76% said that Vilas is n°1. And theres is no doubt about that.

kiki · 10-10-2012, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mustard

Seriously? Whenever I watch the match, I feel that Tanner is in control for most of it, particularly once he went 2 sets to 1 in front. Borg was also very edgy for most of the fifth set as Tanner tried to break back after going 0-2 down in that set.

Tanner could have won but Borg was always in control
Whereas in 77 Borg was just 1-2 points away from losing the tempo and a confident Connors...

10-08-2012, 09:40 AM	#61
kiki G.O.A.T. Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 10,511	What if it was Connors? __________________ " I have watched plenty of matches of the 70´s and 80´s" ABMK, the historian

10-10-2012, 10:14 AM	#68
Gizo Professional Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,055	Connors's 1977 has got to be one of the best seasons in the open era that a player has had without winning a major. I think it comfortably tops his own 1975, as WCT final and Masters titles easily outweigh a runner-up appearance at an Australian Open that 18 out of the top 20 players skipped. Plus from his matches during both years that I've seen, I think that his overall 1977 level was higher than his 1975 one. Lendl's 1982 was excellent with 15 official titles (plus 2 more unofficial ones) including the WCT finals and Masters, a US Open final appearance, and an unbeaten record against McEnroe. Laver was banned from defending his Australian Open and RG titles in 1970 of course and had disappointing results at Wimbledon and the US Open, but won so many big titles that year, such as Philadelphia, Sydney, Johannesburg, Toronto, Los Angeles PSW and Wembley. Many people, me included, considered that to be his 7th consecutive year as the best player in the world. Roche was a US Open finalist in 1969 and reached the semis of the other 3 majors that year, in addition to winning very big titles at Sydney (beating Laver in the final) and the German Open. Plus he must have won a decent total of unofficial titles that year but I cannot find a definitive list. Last edited by Gizo : 10-10-2012 at 10:18 AM.

10-10-2012, 07:27 PM	#78
Gizo Professional Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,055	I do think that 1977 is one of those years in which the player that had the best achievements and the player had produced the highest standard of tennis were different. To me there's no doubt that Vilas had the best record, and so he was the player of the year and the real no. 1. However I think Borg produced the highest standard of tennis that year during his period of winning big titles on carpet, grass and clay. Borg's best tennis in 1977 was better than Vilas's best tennis in 1977. Similarly in 1999, Agassi clearly had the best achievements and thus was the deserved year end no. 1 and player of the year. However the level of tennis that Sampras produced during his 24 match winning run over the summer when he straight setted Agassi 3 times, and during the YEC, was beyond anything that Agassi produced that year. Sampras's best tennis in 1999 was better than Agassi's best tennis in 1999. 1989 was a funny year because I do think that Becker had the best achievements and produced the best standard of tennis. He out-performed Lendl at 4 out of the 5 biggest tournaments (Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open and the Masters) and was the player of the year. However Lendl actually had a pretty healthy lead over Becker in the year end rankings. In fact some posters on this forum have shown that even under the ranking systems used in the 90s and 00s, Lendl would still have had a pretty clear lead over Becker points-wise, due to his excellent day-in day-out consistency that year. Last edited by Gizo : 10-10-2012 at 07:30 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode