1975 - does Orantes have a claim on the year end number 1?

[timnz]

I know that Ashe won Wimbledon and the wct finals. But beyond that he didn't win any masters 1000 equivalents (only made 1 final in those tournaments) Orantes in contrast won roland garros. He won 3 masters 1000 equivalents. Overall he won 8 tournaments and reached 13 finals. Jimmy connors also won no masters 1000 equivalents and only made final of those tournaments.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by timnz

I know that Ashe won Wimbledon and the wct finals. But beyond that he didn't win any masters 1000 equivalents (only made 1 final in those tournaments) Orantes in contrast won roland garros. He won 3 masters 1000 equivalents. Overall he won 8 tournaments and reached 13 finals. Jimmy connors also won no masters 1000 equivalents and only made final of those tournaments.

timnz,

I think you mean Orantes won the 1975 US Open not Roland Garros which actually is more in Orantes' favor since I believe the US Open was stronger than the French that year. Problem I see with Orantes is that while he was very good on all surfaces, in 1975 he won tournaments only on clay.

Yes I can see him with a claim for number one that year.

[elegos7]

None of the tennis journalists considered Orantes No 1 for 1975, everyone went for Ashe.
To decide which tournament can be considereded Masters equivalent is rather problematic in the 1970s.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by elegos7

None of the tennis journalists considered Orantes No 1 for 1975, everyone went for Ashe.
To decide which tournament can be considereded Masters equivalent is rather problematic in the 1970s.

He was the second best player, at pair with Borg.Had he won the 75 Masters instead of the 76 Masters, he could have a claim, but I think Ashe is still a step up.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by pc1

timnz,

I think you mean Orantes won the 1975 US Open not Roland Garros which actually is more in Orantes' favor since I believe the US Open was stronger than the French that year. Problem I see with Orantes is that while he was very good on all surfaces, in 1975 he won tournaments only on clay.

Yes I can see him with a claim for number one that year.

Oops yes you are roght! Was just thinking about clay slam, forgetting that at that time forest hills was on cllay.

[timnz]

Why did he play was badly? Going out in the first round so quickly?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by timnz

Why did he play was badly? Going out in the first round so quickly?

Orantes did what at FO 75? I can´t remember.I know he lost to N grondella but was it in 75?

[timnz]

Originally Posted by kiki

Orantes did what at FO 75? I can´t remember.I know he lost to N grondella but was it in 75?

He lost in the first round to Antonio Zugarelli 6-3 6-0 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Fr...en%27s_Singles

For someone who reached 13 clay finals that year it is inexplicable. Was he injured?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by timnz

He lost in the first round to Antonio Zugarelli 6-3 6-0 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Fr...en%27s_Singles

For someone who reached 13 clay finals that year it is inexplicable. Was he injured?

Orantes is one of the best players with most injuries, although I cannot recall if he was injuried coming up to RG 75.Zugarelli was a good cc specialist, he even reached the italian Open last match in 77.But, certainly, a straight sets lose with a baggel included is not normal.Orantes won, in 75, not just the USo, he also beat Connors at Indianapolis, Ashe at Boston...and lost the IO finals to Ramirez just a week or so before RG, which makes this early round lose more strange...

[Xavier G]

Orantes has a case for no.1 in 1975, had a good summer particularly, but I think Arthur Ashe just has a better case winning WCT Dallas and Wimbledon. Orantes and Arthur both had their best year in 1975. Ashe won on more varied surfaces than Orantes overall.
It was a year no one person dominated.
Jimbo got to three Slam finals and lost the lot. He was the most consistent player overall, but didn't win a major, so Ashe is no.1 for me.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

Orantes has a case for no.1 in 1975, had a good summer particularly, but I think Arthur Ashe just has a better case winning WCT Dallas and Wimbledon. Orantes and Arthur both had their best year in 1975. Ashe won on more varied surfaces than Orantes overall.
It was a year no one person dominated.
Jimbo got to three Slam finals and lost the lot. He was the most consistent player overall, but didn't win a major, so Ashe is no.1 for me.

On a subjective basis I think Connors was the best player in the world. If the top ten played a round robin on all surfaces I think Connors would have won easily.

It's one of the those cases again in which the strongest player I believe wasn't number one. And he didn't deserve to be.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

Orantes has a case for no.1 in 1975, had a good summer particularly, but I think Arthur Ashe just has a better case winning WCT Dallas and Wimbledon. Orantes and Arthur both had their best year in 1975. Ashe won on more varied surfaces than Orantes overall.
It was a year no one person dominated.
Jimbo got to three Slam finals and lost the lot. He was the most consistent player overall, but didn't win a major, so Ashe is no.1 for me.

Not to take away from Ashe but other than the Wct finals and wimbledon, were his other wins in events of any consequence? Of the titles that are typically considered the masters 1000 equivalents - arthur didn't win any of them. In fact he only made one final of them. I consider these events to be masters 1000 equivalents that year. The are the top tournaments below the slams and season end finals level (wct finals and the masters)

Washington
Indianapolis
Monte Carlo WCT
Rome
Toronto
Boston
Stockholm
Philadelphia WCT
Las Vegas

[krosero]

Originally Posted by timnz

He lost in the first round to Antonio Zugarelli 6-3 6-0 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Fr...en%27s_Singles

For someone who reached 13 clay finals that year it is inexplicable. Was he injured?

He was stuck in Paris traffic according to the newspaper reports and went into the match without warmup.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

He was the second best player, at pair with Borg.Had he won the 75 Masters instead of the 76 Masters, he could have a claim, but I think Ashe is still a step up.

#2 is also where I'd put him. He and Ashe each won 8 (official) titles. One has Wimbledon, the other the USO. But Ashe also had Dallas.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by krosero

#2 is also where I'd put him. He and Ashe each won 8 (official) titles. One has Wimbledon, the other the USO. But Ashe also had Dallas.

Is three Masters 1000 tournament equivalents better than 1 WCT final? If so Orantes should have the top position.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by timnz

Is three Masters 1000 tournament equivalents better than 1 WCT final? If so Orantes should have the top position.

Ashe won the entire WCT tour, with 4 titles, not including Dallas. And I've always understood that the WCT tour, in those days, featured the toughest competition.

I haven't studied the fields of the various events in detail, but I've tracked how the top players did against the rest of the Top Ten throughout the year.

Ashe: 13-9
Orantes: 10-7
Borg: 11-9
Connors: 6-3

The Top Ten competition that Ashe and Orantes faced was very similar, and in fact Ashe has more Top Ten wins than anyone else.

So however the events may be defined in terms of masters equivalents, I would not say that Orantes faced tougher competition than Ashe. Their competition looks comparable.

I agree with PC1, too, that it's a negative for Orantes to have won nothing outside of clay. Ashe's achievements were more diverse: 6 of his 8 titles were on carpet, another on hard and another on grass.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by timnz

Not to take away from Ashe but other than the Wct finals and wimbledon, were his other wins in events of any consequence? Of the titles that are typically considered the masters 1000 equivalents - arthur didn't win any of them. In fact he only made one final of them. I consider these events to be masters 1000 equivalents that year. The are the top tournaments below the slams and season end finals level (wct finals and the masters)

Washington
Indianapolis
Monte Carlo WCT
Rome
Toronto
Boston
Stockholm
Philadelphia WCT
Las Vegas

No Barcelona or Madrid? No Hamburh or MC? You should look at WCT tour as well

[kiki]

Split year, but PC1 has a point with Connors who played 3 slam finals
but lost them
What regular tour titles Connors won in 75?

[urban]

Ashe did win his segment of the WCT tour, which were splitted into 3 groups. I think, Ashe played in his group with Borg and beat him most of the times. In late summer Ashe also won the LA event, which was big in those times. Connors won the important US clay court on har tru over Borg. I would rank Ashe over Connors with Orantes and Borg for third place.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by krosero

Ashe won the entire WCT tour, with 4 titles, not including Dallas. And I've always understood that the WCT tour, in those days, featured the toughest competition.

I haven't studied the fields of the various events in detail, but I've tracked how the top players did against the rest of the Top Ten throughout the year.

Ashe: 13-9
Orantes: 10-7
Borg: 11-9
Connors: 6-3

The Top Ten competition that Ashe and Orantes faced was very similar, and in fact Ashe has more Top Ten wins than anyone else.

So however the events may be defined in terms of masters equivalents, I would not say that Orantes faced tougher competition than Ashe. Their competition looks comparable.

I agree with PC1, too, that it's a negative for Orantes to have won nothing outside of clay. Ashe's achievements were more diverse: 6 of his 8 titles were on carpet, another on hard and another on grass.

This is good analysis. Though I would comment that ashe was wimning his non-dallas wct titles against only a 1/3 of the wct guys.