WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

[jeffreyneave]

laver is clearly number one in 1964 he won 11 to 10 tournaments, 2 majors to one,and had head to head 15-4 advantage. rosewall is behind on every statistic when you analyse all play. laver's win loss percentage is also far better.

laver is ahead in 1965 because he won 17 events to 6 for rosewall, and had big head to head advantage about 13-5. rosewall was 2 to one in majors but was completely out played outside the majors. laver was regarded as number one at the time and clealy still deserves it according to these facts.

rosewall is only number 2 in both years.

jeffrey

[timnz]

Originally Posted by pc1

According to the McCauley book, it's 11 to 11. Of course there are some errors in that great book.

I only have 10 tournament wins for Rosewall in 1964. Do you know what the 11th is?

Melbourne Pro (4-man tournament)
Masters Round Robin Pro (Los Angeles)
Saint Louis Volkswagen Pro Championships
Schiltz Pro Championships (Milwaukee)
San Remo Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
Venice Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
Cannes Pro
French Pro (Paris-Coubertin)
Hannover Pro
Western Province Pro (Cape Town)

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

In 1964, I have Laver: 11 and Rosewall: 10. CyB or Tim--can you enumerate how Rosewall wins "twice as many"?

When are the 1960 World Series Round Robin matches?

As I've mentioned, I stand corrected. I was wrong with the numbers due to faulty memory.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

laver is clearly number one in 1964 he won 11 to 10 tournaments, 2 majors to one,and had head to head 15-4 advantage. rosewall is behind on every statistic when you analyse all play. laver's win loss percentage is also far better.

jeffrey

In Wikipedia it states"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_n...layer_rankings


against 1964


McCauley's 1964 chapter is entitled: Rosewall Tops Again But Only Just[27] but Robert Geist co-ranked Laver & Rosewall #1 (in his book "DER GRÖSSTE MEISTER Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall").

What is McCauley's or Geist's logic here to consider Rosewall Number 1 or co-number 1? It seems that Laver is ahead in every category of consideration. Why do they think Rosewall was the best that year?

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by timnz

In Wikipedia it states"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_n...layer_rankings


against 1964


McCauley's 1964 chapter is entitled: Rosewall Tops Again But Only Just[27] but Robert Geist co-ranked Laver & Rosewall #1 (in his book "DER GRÖSSTE MEISTER Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall").

What is McCauley's or Geist's logic here to consider Rosewall Number 1 or co-number 1? It seems that Laver is ahead in every category of consideration. Why do they think Rosewall was the best that year?

I've just re-read the chapter and honestly McCauley's logic is ambiguous. He really doesn't make much of an argument for Rosewall, nor attempts one.

That said, I see nothing wrong with Rosewall being considered the co-#1 that year. He did win the French Pro and the battles with Laver at the US and Wembley pros were close. Still the h2h is hard to overlook.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by timnz

In Wikipedia it states"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_n...layer_rankings


against 1964


McCauley's 1964 chapter is entitled: Rosewall Tops Again But Only Just[27] but Robert Geist co-ranked Laver & Rosewall #1 (in his book "DER GRÖSSTE MEISTER Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall").

What is McCauley's or Geist's logic here to consider Rosewall Number 1 or co-number 1? It seems that Laver is ahead in every category of consideration. Why do they think Rosewall was the best that year?

Originally Posted by CyBorg

I've just re-read the chapter and honestly McCauley's logic is ambiguous. He really doesn't make much of an argument for Rosewall, nor attempts one.

That said, I see nothing wrong with Rosewall being considered the co-#1 that year. He did win the French Pro and the battles with Laver at the US and Wembley pros were close. Still the h2h is hard to overlook.

It wasn't McCauley or Geist's logic. It was the official Pro Rankings that had Rosewall as number one. It was I believe an odd ranking system but nevertheless Rosewall was the "official number one" so I think he deserves at least co-number one for the year.

To quote McCauley's book
PRO RANKINGS FOR 1964

The pro tournaments were operated on a points system. The winner got 7 points, runner up 4, third place 3, fourth place 2 and the quarter-finalists one each. The final ratings were as follows-
1. Ken Rosewall
2. Rod Laver
3. R. Gonzalez
4. A. Gimeno
5. E. Bucholz
6. L. Hoad
7. A. Olmedo
8. L. Ayala

So while head to head is quite important, it's clear Rosewall was probably better against the other players than Laver and was perhaps more consistent.

The other thing I notice was that I counted TEN tournament victories for Rosewall PLUS Rosewall won something called the Facis Trophy which I might guess is another tournament so that make it eleven and tied with Rod Laver.

Cyborg, I agree that Rosewall should perhaps be co-number one for 1964.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by pc1

It wasn't McCauley or Geist's logic. It was the official Pro Rankings that had Rosewall as number one. It was I believe an odd ranking system but nevertheless Rosewall was the "official number one" so I think he deserves at least co-number one for the year.

I think you're right. The title of McCauley's chapter referred to the rankings, rather than his personal opinion. Otherwise it doesn't follow.

[krosero]

Nice list, Hoodjem, and fun to read through and think about.

I agree you with about 1995 and 1999: like you said, Agassi and Sampras can be described as strong #2’s in those years. I think Borg can safely be described as a strong #2 in 1976, not because there’s no case for him as #1: but Borg had not beaten Connors in three years and their U.S. Open meeting was in many ways the match that decided #1; it showed that Connors was still dominant over Borg.

Wilander in 1983 does have important wins over McEnroe at the French and Australian, though I would still describe him as a strong #2 for the year because McEnroe won the January 1984 Masters and beat Wilander decisively there.

Sports Illustrated thought Wilander had a strong case but this is what they wrote after the Masters:

The Mac attack also effectively halted all debate about who is, or was, No. 1 in the world for 1983. It is, or was, McEnroe.

…. The issue became more quarrelsome than usual this year because, for the first time since 1976, the Grand Slam events had four different winners—Yannick Noah at the French Open, McEnroe at Wimbledon, Jimmy Connors at the U.S. Open and Wilander at the Australian Open. In addition, a fifth player, Lendl, led the money list with more than $1.6 million in earnings. Still, many observers maintained that the obvious choice for No. 1, regardless of the outcome of the Masters, was the man who had won the sport's most prestigious title and had finished first on the ATP computer. And that was McEnroe.

But wait a minute. Let's go to the mat for Mats. Wilander finished 1983 with a 79-10 match record (to McEnroe's 60-11) and a 15-5 mark against the rest of the Masters' 12-man field (to McEnroe's 9-6), and he was 7-4 against the other top four players in the world (to Mac's 5-5). The 19-year-old Wilander also was the only player to win tournaments on four different surfaces. All told, he won nine events, to McEnroe's six, and his Davis Cup record was superior to Mac's, 8-0 vs. 2-2. Moreover, last year McEnroe played Wilander mano a mano three times on three surfaces in three fairly significant tournaments—the French, the ATP Championships in Cincinnati and the Australian. Wilander won all three times.

Lendl had said McEnroe was #1 for the year even before he met him in the Masters final. After McEnroe won the final, Bud Collins told him there could be no doubt left about who was #1 for ’83.

In Bud’s book he still says McEnroe settled the issue at the January Masters, in what he describes as the 13th month of the season. He's ambiguous about it, though, because he says that for “breadth of accomplishment” Wilander was “Player of the Year” (then he goes on to list everything Mats did in the calendar year).

Yet for all that, I still can’t put Wilander as #1 because he was not regarded as rising to #1 in the world until 1988. Until then there were still questions about how hard he wanted to work to become #1, questions about his confidence. In all that there was the assumption that he had not yet made it to #1.

In '88, I never heard Wilander's rise to the top described as a return to #1; it was described as a breakthrough, a long time in coming.

So I see '76 and '83 as similar. Each year had 4 different Slam winners, and rather than settling the tie with smaller day-to-day wins, I prefer to settle it by looking at the big matches at the big events -- by looking at who was "ready" physically and mentally to take the top place from his rivals.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by krosero

Wilander in 1983 does have important wins over McEnroe at the French and Australian, though I would still describe him as a strong #2 for the year because McEnroe won the January 1984 Masters and beat Wilander decisively there.

In Bud’s book he still says McEnroe settled the issue at the January Masters, in what he describes as the 13th month of the season. He's ambiguous about it, though, because he says that for “breadth of accomplishment” Wilander was “Player of the Year” (then he goes on to list everything Mats did in the calendar year).


So I see '76 and '83 as similar. Each year had 4 different Slam winners, and rather than settling the tie with smaller day-to-day wins, I prefer to settle it by looking at the big matches at the big events -- by looking at who was "ready" physically and mentally to take the top place from his rivals.

I prefer to settle it by looking at the big matches at the big events

But doesn't your point here establish Wilander as number 1? Because as you said, he beat McEnroe at the French Open and the Australian - both tournaments that are more important than the Masters. Hence, Wilander won at the big events over McEnroe.

[CyBorg]

Originally Posted by timnz

I prefer to settle it by looking at the big matches at the big events

But doesn't your point here establish Wilander as number 1? Because as you said, he beat McEnroe at the French Open and the Australian - both tournaments that are more important than the Masters. Hence, Wilander won at the big events over McEnroe.

I would rank the masters over the Australian in terms of importance, considering the era-specific context.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by timnz

But doesn't your point here establish Wilander as number 1? Because as you said, he beat McEnroe at the French Open and the Australian - both tournaments that are more important than the Masters. Hence, Wilander won at the big events over McEnroe.

It's a good question. But in the Slams and the Masters, McEnroe trails Wilander 1-2 in the H2H, which is not normally enough of a margin to establish dominance; it leaves a lot of questions open. The French and Australian meetings were great wins for Wilander, but as far as I know they didn't carry with them the weight of deciding who would be #1. The Australian meeting may have carried some pressure for Mac who wanted to seal his place as #1, but Wilander was not in the race for #1 until he went on to win the AO; only then did he have a Slam win to set against McEnroe's Wimbledon. Only then, in essence, was there a tie to be broken. And the Masters match was then seen by a lot of observers as a tiebreaker (not to mention the Masters championship as a whole; in those days it was very much up there with an AO victory). That's the only match that both men played with the pressure of #1 on them (and McEnroe won it decisively, partly because Wilander had always been weak on indoor courts -- a definite knock against a POY candidate).

That's what I really meant by breaking a tie: what matches in the H2H were regarded as breaking a tie? If you just look at the H2H as another stat, and made it the decisive factor, the year would technically go to Mats, but I didn't want to make it a decisive factor in that way. I wanted to emphasize something about how the year played out in real time, and the perceptions of each match back then (some intangibles in there, to be sure, but I prefer to look at the H2H as an unfolding story rather than just a raw stat).

[krosero]

I also want to clarify that I think Mac deserves 1983 alone not just because he beat Mats in that one match in New York, but because he won the whole Masters tournament. There was a 4-way tie in the Slams, and that leaves two ways to break the tie: the H2H between Mac and Mats, and the Masters championship, which counted back then as either the fourth or the fifth biggest tournament. When the two met in the semis, there was a lot of buzz about the match potentially settling the issue of #1, and that was true at that moment. But McEnroe went further to seal it the next day by winning the whole thing, which arguably broke the 4-way tie that there had been up to then in majors -- and that would be true whether or not he had met Wilander in New York.

A loss to Wilander in New York, I admit, would look very damaging to McEnroe, because then you'd have to consider giving Wilander a co-#1 just because he tied McEnroe in majors and was essentially the one man McEnroe could not beat in the season on fast or slow surfaces. And if Wilander had then won the whole Masters, the year would definitely go to him.

But I don't think he was good enough to beat McEnroe or Lendl on carpet. That Masters tournament, just for being on carpet, not to mention the other reasons, was a critical element in looking at the whole year.

McEnroe, meanwhile won Wimbledon, which had always carried the greatest importance; and Wilander did poorly there, again partly because he never showed he could play well on that form of grass.

[David_86]

I don't think a match that was played in 1984 should have any bearing on who is ranked no.1 in 1983.

[Borgforever]

Hoodjem -- overall an excellent list of world no. 1s throughout recorded tennis history. I have just a few minor nit-pickings but, as usual, great work by you.

Jeffrey Neave -- as much as I respect his undeniable knowledge and fine posts here displays above -- IMO -- severe Laver-bias of the fatal and consistent kind that has become his trademark, besides overall harsh comments to posters disagreeing with him.

As regards to Laver as No. 1 in 1964, he is that too in my book, but not with Jeffrey cocky adamant stance which lacks credibility just with the basis of his arguments.

Remember Jeffrey Neave had Vilas as No. 1 in 1977, certainly a very debatable year, but Borg's biggest triumphs and H2Hs with Vilas was devastating -- in a way resembling 1964 and Laver and Rosewall. When it comes to Laver Mr. Jeffrey Neave doesn't express his opinions with the unbiased, diplomatic elegance of Cary Grant.

Jeffrey Neave is the exact opposite of Cary Grant...

Personally I have Rod Laver as No. 1 in 1964 -- BUT with the slightest margin imaginable, so a co-No. 1 for Ken Rosewall in 1964 is order for that year, and I've checked a few experts who saw a lot of them live in 1964 and they back this up -- and since they were so close in 1964 -- it's laughable. Remember Kenny was 30 years old in 1964, on the slowest decline, seemingly, in history, but still in decline after 3-4 sublime peak years against the best of the best.

Rod was ascending his peak -- his greatest heights -- and still Ken Rosewall was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo close.

Rod Laver was subjected to annihilation in 1963 by Ken Rosewall -- but in 1964 he adapted fast and bounced back with a booming vengeance.

Still, like Borg and Wilander to a certain extent in 1976 and 1983 respectively, he dominated everybody else in the field for 12 months, even more than Laver did that year and McEnroe in 1983 and Jimbo 1976.

Of course there's differences between these years but I think you get the gist.

Krosero -- absolutely brilliant work on the 1970 Dunlop-final. I've seen it 10 times already and it grows on me. I tip my hat for you for that one.

On the other hand -- I was on the Mac boat for No. 1 in 1983 for the reasons of his Lendl Wimby blowout and that was the biggest tourney. But on further scrutinization and debate with several experts who saw them live in 1983 on every important arena including Cincy -- the verdict is in for me. Wilander was alone No. 1. He leads every stat, everything.

Nobody can sustain the Mac for No. 1 in 1983 -- Björn Hellberg and several others, I know John Barrett, only smile wheh people push Mac's argument for that year.

At AO 1983 Wilander, Lendl and Mac were in the draw -- the major contenders and Mats blowouted them all -- even though Mac had the grass-court advantage. Mats Cincy-perf is widely considered his finest play ever. The January 1984 Masters tourney has no bearing whatsoever who was No. 1 in 1983. It belongs to 1984, since the year was 1984.

Don't listen too much to the press. They're confused on many issues for long periods of time.

Same goes for Borg in 1976. Jimbo didn't really dominate Borg in 1976. That argument holds no serious water. Jimbo beat Borg four times that year -- BUT -- didn't win the biggest tourney, didn't meet Borg when he was in top-form, always won when everything was in his favor, not only form-wise -- didn't even Jimbo pull out of WCT that year too?!

A great championship that Borg won of course plus that he dominated everybody else even more than Jimbo and only lost to Jimbo at the USO-final, when he hadn't practiced for a whole month because of the Wimby-stomach-muscle-injury and Borg almost won that too -- even though his form sucked on hot ice. Borg had 4 set-points to go up 2-1 in sets against peak Jimbo.

Of course, after this near-loss against an out-of-form Borg -- Jimbo -- pretty much -- didn't win any matches against Björn Borg FOR FIVE STRAIGHT YEARS!

QED

Co-No. 1 is okey for 1976 -- be diplomatic when things are very close -- but put Borg's name first Hood -- firstly B in Borg comes before C as in Connors in the alphabet and the momentum for Jimbo as No. 1 during the time came from the fact that Jimbo had been dominant in 1974 and great in 1975 and great in 1976 and considered only becoming better and better AND since his H2H with Fortress was quite in THE BELLEVILLE BASHER'S favor many saw that as strong arguments -- but of course they didn't study the nuances of their H2H or anyhting else challenging this lazily concocted opinion. Everybody who writes newpaper-articles are not Einstein or extremely serious about their work. That goes without saying. But that year's career-trajectory analysis by many wasn't exactly brilliant and was mostly based on old results, uncritical evaluation of Jimbo's 1976-record and on future predictions and had no foundation in detailed, precise and unbiased evaluation.

Jimbo never met Borg when Björn was in peak form. Borg met Jimbo when he was in poor shape and Jimbo in peak form.

And with the benefit of hindsight -- the Jimbo-promoters was dead-wrong we all know now...

Connors lost to Borg just a few months after USO 1976 and just lost and lost and lost -- while Borg's finest 1976 triumphs was just the start of what John Barrett called in 1981 "a career without equal"...

[jeffreyneave]

nasty comment by borgforever about me. I may admire laver a great deal bit i always use facts to back up my points and in 1964 its

laver rosewall
11 10 tournaments
2 1 majors
15 4 head to head

laver also had a much better win/loss percentage. its clear win for laver no matter how well rosewall actually played; rosewall is number 2 according to statistics and that's what counts.


jeffrey

[pc1]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

nasty comment by borgforever about me. I may admire laver a great deal bit i always use facts to back up my points and in 1964 its

laver rosewall
11 10 tournaments
2 1 majors
15 4 head to head

laver also had a much better win/loss percentage. its clear win for laver no matter how well rosewall actually played; rosewall is number 2 according to statistics and that's what counts.


jeffrey

Jeffrey,

I counted in the McCauley book ten tournament victories for Rosewall PLUS it states he won the Facis Trophy which I believe is a tournament. So I believe Rosewall very well won eleven tournaments as McCauley stated. This is stated on page 234 of the McCauley book. It is one line and I quote "Ken Rosewall was the overall winner of the Facis Trophy."

I believe in examining the record that Rod was the TRUE number one also but I also believe that for the purposes of this thread that you can also name Rosewall number one since he was OFFICIALLY number one.

Originally Posted by timnz

I only have 10 tournament wins for Rosewall in 1964. Do you know what the 11th is?

Melbourne Pro (4-man tournament)
Masters Round Robin Pro (Los Angeles)
Saint Louis Volkswagen Pro Championships
Schiltz Pro Championships (Milwaukee)
San Remo Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
Venice Pro Championships (4-man tournament)
Cannes Pro
French Pro (Paris-Coubertin)
Hannover Pro
Western Province Pro (Cape Town)

Timnz, check my first paragraph above. I put the key words in bold.

[jeffreyneave]

facsis event is not a touranment it was tour of italy of one night stands. it 11 to 10 for tournaments ; whether you count as extra win for tours is another matter. the official 1964 rankings are stupid just as the atp rankings in 1977 with connors number one are.

[Borgforever]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

nasty comment by borgforever about me. I may admire laver a great deal bit i always use facts to back up my points and in 1964 its

laver rosewall
11 10 tournaments
2 1 majors
15 4 head to head

laver also had a much better win/loss percentage. its clear win for laver no matter how well rosewall actually played; rosewall is number 2 according to statistics and that's what counts.


jeffrey

I am sorry Jeffrey if you take my criticism of SOME OF THE THINGS YOU STATE as "nasty".

I clearly stated that I agree with your points and arguments to great degree AND YOU KNOW I HAVE BEEN OUTSPOKEN ABOUT THIS. But that doesn't excuse your inconsistencies in SOME your arguments, when Laver is concerned. What goes for Laver in your book doesn't work for Borg in 1977 and several other examples -- we all know them.

I've had my issues with people here and I know I make mistakes and at least try to own up to them constructively and, if possible, with arguments.

You Jeffrey, on the other hand, are, according to yourself infallible and no one here forgets your many uncalled for and very vicious and denigrating accusations without any argument whatsoever against Carlo Giovanni Colussi and others, calling him and others out, and I am paraphrasing "Carlo's opinions are rubbish, crap, that's stupid et al" without any back-up for those statements. Even Einstein, who was fairly smart, never expressed such slamming of people and situations. Maybe you're smarter than Einstein Jeffrey and are above courtesy and sensitivity.

This malicious and undiplomatic attitude of yours doesn't resemble, say, Cary Grant. I don't think I am wrong in saying that.

I guess you think you're perfect and that your only response to me was that I was "nasty" towards you -- without any argumentation as is Jeffrey's "expert modus operandi" it's been proven time and again -- all of which fits neatly into the profile you've presented of yourself here over the years.

That said -- the actual content of a vast majority of your posts are, IMO, uniformly excellent and of exceptional caliber. I wish I could say the same about your diplomatic skills...

[jeffreyneave]

facsis event is not a touranment it was tour of italy of one night stands. it 11 to 10 for tournaments ; whether you count as extra win for tours is another matter. the official 1964 rankings are stupid just as the atp rankings in 1977 with connors number one are.

[urban]

The 1964 Facis series was a series of matches, divided in two parts, one in summer (when Laver didn't participate) and one in autumn, when Laver dominated Rosewall. Overall Rosewall won the series, because he played the whole series. On wikipedia discussions going on the basis of McCauley alone, i pleaded at least for a co-ranking of Laver and Rosewall, and i think Jeffrey did the same. I am contend with a co- ranking, no problem for me.
The internal ranking of the pros was always a bit problematic and eclectic, in 1959 for instance, Hoad came on top of this point race of 15-18 events, which all got the same number of points, while most people saw Gonzales as the World Champ. But speaking of now, because of Andrew Tas new findings, Laver's claim for 1964 imo gets even stronger. It seems that Laver had the best of the Australian/ NZ tour in spring over Hoad and Rosewall, then Rosewall won the US tour in spring and early summer (Gonzales second and Laver third), but Laver won the climactic event at Boston (Rosewall had a bout with food poisening in the sf). In Europe in the summer, Laver and Rosewall were close, with Laver winning the World Champs at Wembley. Then at last, the South African tour was dominated by Laver. One other factor besides the head to head in favor of Laver is the the overall win-loss percentage (Jeffrey mentioned it), which Andrew Tas put on another thread. I wrote it down somewhere, but for the moment cannot find it. Maybe Carlo or Andrew Tas can put it here.