Is Djokovic now in the tier with Becker, Wilander, Edberg?

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by kiki

I suuport that.In most of 70´s and in the first half of the 80´s, the Masters and the WCT Finals were well above the Australian Open in consideration. One has to, at least, look upon those 2 titles + GS titles for any judgement on the 70´s and 80´s records.

Need to be careful going too far down this path because it ends with people using the logic against Laver - claiming his two calendar slams don't have as much value...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Need to be careful going too far down this path because it ends with people using the logic against Laver - claiming his two calendar slams don't have as much value...

Only for iliterate, ignorant people.1969 AO was the best until 1985.All the greats competed there.If you had watched tennis in that era, you´d know that my statement about WCT and Masters is true and you also would know that 1969 AO was as big as any other slam.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

Yes. His first serve was always his main problem. Except during the USO final 1977 : he served very strong, and did a lot of aces. But this whole match was exceptional.

The other great default on Vilas, and I think this is to blame to Tiriac, is how much effort and spin he put in shots...that landed half of the court, letting others either blast them away (Lendl,Clerc) or just approach and come in (Connors,Mc Enroe,Gerulaitis).He was losing inches after inches.He could beat msot players with that, but that was a boomerang against the real top ones.That is why he had a poor record against the top 5 or 6 players.

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by kiki

Only for iliterate, ignorant people.1969 AO was the best until 1985.All the greats competed there.If you had watched tennis in that era, you´d know that my statement about WCT and Masters is true and you also would know that 1969 AO was as big as any other slam.

Ignorance and illiteracy are not hand in hand. Ignorance can come from simply not being present regardless of education or literacy.

I took what you said earlier clearly as meaning in some periods of time the WCT Finals and masters were more valued than the AO. If that is the case then it also goes also that AO's achieved in that period should be valued less than when it has been regarded as equal to other slams. Anyone who has those particular AOs included in their career achievements should have the fact noted. Not doing so would be deliberate perpetuation of ignorance.

The question remains is: when was this period? Is it a clear-cut, finite period or does it have grey edges to it? If 1985 is the cut-off year, why? When did it become a top tier slam again?

Not being argumentative as I totally see your point about eras etc putting varying importance on different events. But the brush should be applied when it suits and when it doesn't equally.

On the light-hearted side.... It is a small irony that you spelt illiterate incorrectly.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Ignorance and illiteracy are not hand in hand. Ignorance can come from simply not being present regardless of education or literacy.

I took what you said earlier clearly as meaning in some periods of time the WCT Finals and masters were more valued than the AO. If that is the case then it also goes also that AO's achieved in that period should be valued less than when it has been regarded as equal to other slams. Anyone who has those particular AOs included in their career achievements should have the fact noted. Not doing so would be deliberate perpetuation of ignorance.

The question remains is: when was this period? Is it a clear-cut, finite period or does it have grey edges to it? If 1985 is the cut-off year, why? When did it become a top tier slam again?

Not being argumentative as I totally see your point about eras etc putting varying importance on different events. But the brush should be applied when it suits and when it doesn't equally.

On the light-hearted side.... It is a small irony that you spelt illiterate incorrectly.

You seem to enjoy being things plainly explained, right.

WCT ( and Masters, too) were, in the context of the 1970´s and 80´s almost as great as the Slams, and field wise, possibly more prestigious that winning the AO.There were very competitive Australians, like 1969,1971,1975,1977 and may be 1980.From 1983 onwards, they attracted all or many of the top players, and regained its status ( not as a GS title, which they never lost) among the pros.

It is very important to consider how big and exciting the 2 indoor, season ending events were.If that era instead of 4 had 6 big events, clearly above the rest ( although Rome,Phily and Johannesburg for a while were as highly regarded as the AO), then it has to be always considered like that.

Things keep changing and, if you want to be true and honest, you have to go by what is the best in that particular time.If the fact that we use 6 and not 4 events to determine who was great and who wasn´t in the 70´s and 80´s, then go by abide.It is not their fault if there were 6 and not 4 events of comparable importance.If newtards feel uncomfortable ( because there is 4 now, not 6) it is their problem.Completely, their own problem.

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

Ignorance and illiteracy are not hand in hand. Ignorance can come from simply not being present regardless of education or literacy.

I took what you said earlier clearly as meaning in some periods of time the WCT Finals and masters were more valued than the AO. If that is the case then it also goes also that AO's achieved in that period should be valued less than when it has been regarded as equal to other slams. Anyone who has those particular AOs included in their career achievements should have the fact noted. Not doing so would be deliberate perpetuation of ignorance.

The question remains is: when was this period? Is it a clear-cut, finite period or does it have grey edges to it? If 1985 is the cut-off year, why? When did it become a top tier slam again?

Not being argumentative as I totally see your point about eras etc putting varying importance on different events. But the brush should be applied when it suits and when it doesn't equally.

On the light-hearted side.... It is a small irony that you spelt illiterate incorrectly.

The draw size was increased from 64 to 96 players in 1982. Many of the top players began to attend in 1983, when the top 3 (Lendl, McEnroe and Wilander) and several other top 20 players were present. Not a full-fledged slam yet but not far either. By 1987-88 all the top players were attending and the draw size was the same as the other majors.

1969-1971 - 48 players
1972 - 50 players
1973 - 56 players
1974-1981 - 64 players
1982-1987 - 96 players
Since 1988 - 128 players

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by kiki

The other great default on Vilas, and I think this is to blame to Tiriac, is how much effort and spin he put in shots...that landed half of the court, letting others either blast them away (Lendl,Clerc) or just approach and come in (Connors,Mc Enroe,Gerulaitis).He was losing inches after inches.He could beat msot players with that, but that was a boomerang against the real top ones.That is why he had a poor record against the top 5 or 6 players.

His records are not so poor ! Against Borg OK (5-17), but he leads 6/5 agains McEnroe and did 5/5 against Connors !

[kiki]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

His records are not so poor ! Against Borg OK (5-17), but he leads 6/5 agains McEnroe and did 5/5 against Connors !

In big events, Connors beats Vilas out.As you may know, Connors won their 1980 Masters RR match, 1976 and 1982 US Open matches, while Vilas won the big one, the 1977 Forest Hills match and, later, the 1977 Masters match.

Against Mac, both have a 2-2 record at DC, but John edges Vilas at the big events, since he beat Guillermo at the 1982 Masters ( not a big deal, but those are facts)

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by kiki

In big events, Connors beats Vilas out.As you may know, Connors won their 1980 Masters RR match, 1976 and 1982 US Open matches, while Vilas won the big one, the 1977 Forest Hills match and, later, the 1977 Masters match.

Against Mac, both have a 2-2 record at DC, but John edges Vilas at the big events, since he beat Guillermo at the 1982 Masters ( not a big deal, but those are facts)

OK, Connors leads 3/2 in big events, and McEnroe too (he won 2 times at the Masters + only one at Davis Cup ; Vilas won 2 times at Davis Cup).

[Bobby Jr]

Originally Posted by Benhur

The draw size was increased from 64 to 96 players in 1982...

The same thing can be said about draw sizes from earlier years at many tournaments. I read somewhere (here I think) that in many of his bigger titles Laver only had to play 3 or 4 matches. I think it even included some of the WTCs and American hard court champs.

(I'll try to find the post about it - no luck yet).

But, good call on this. I didn't know the AU draw was smaller than the others and only bumped up in size around then.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

OK, Connors leads 3/2 in big events, and McEnroe too (he won 2 times at the Masters + only one at Davis Cup ; Vilas won 2 times at Davis Cup).

You are right.Mac didn´t play Vilas in the 1981 final since the US team had a 3-1 lead.And I forgot the 1979 rr match at the Masters.Vilas beat Mac at Basel 78, Indianapolis 79 and Montecarlo 80, right?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Bobby Jr

The same thing can be said about draw sizes from earlier years at many tournaments. I read somewhere (here I think) that in many of his bigger titles Laver only had to play 3 or 4 matches. I think it even included some of the WTCs and American hard court champs.

(I'll try to find the post about it - no luck yet).

But, good call on this. I didn't know the AU draw was smaller than the others and only bumped up in size around then.

WCT run 16 player draws regular tournaments that led into the dallas final showcase.But, mind you, those draws were star studded, so a first round there could easily be a semifinal in any other event.

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by kiki

You are right.Mac didn´t play Vilas in the 1981 final since the US team had a 3-1 lead.And I forgot the 1979 rr match at the Masters.Vilas beat Mac at Basel 78, Indianapolis 79 and Montecarlo 80, right?

Mac beated Vilas in 81 final (I think it's the only time he beated him in Davis Cup) + 2 Masters + Boca Raton 81 and Forest Hills 83.
Vilas won 2 times in Davis Cup + the three times you said + South Orange 77.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by jean pierre

Mac beated Vilas in 81 final (I think it's the only time he beated him in Davis Cup) + 2 Masters + Boca Raton 81 and Forest Hills 83.
Vilas won 2 times in Davis Cup + the three times you said + South Orange 77.

Mac also beat Vilas in 1979 Davis Cup, at Memphis.

They also played ( along Nastase and Connors, wow) an exhibitional series in such appealing venues like Frejus,Cap D´Agde and Aix en Provençe, in Cote D´Azur, in the summer of 1979.I don´t know the results of those series.

[5555]

Grand Slams Career Win-Loss Open Era

1. Bjorn Borg .898
2. Rafael Nadal .876
3. Roger Federer .869
4. Rod Laver .857
5. Pete Sampras .842
6. Novak Djokovic .830
7. Ken Rosewall .829
8. Jimmy Connors .826
9. Ivan Lendl .819
10. John McEnroe .815
11. John Newcombe .814
12. Andre Agassi .809
13. Boris Becker .803
14. Mats Wilander .796
15. Stefan Edberg .791

Link http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliabil...reer-List.aspx

[Nadal_Power]

First they need to add one more win to Connors and then to calculate something.. stupid ATP

[kiki]

Originally Posted by 5555

Grand Slams Career Win-Loss Open Era

1. Bjorn Borg .898
2. Rafael Nadal .876
3. Roger Federer .869
4. Rod Laver .857
5. Pete Sampras .842
6. Novak Djokovic .830
7. Ken Rosewall .829
8. Jimmy Connors .826
9. Ivan Lendl .819
10. John McEnroe .815
11. John Newcombe .814
12. Andre Agassi .809
13. Boris Becker .803
14. Mats Wilander .796
15. Stefan Edberg .791

Link http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliabil...reer-List.aspx

Good list.Add Courier,Nasty,Vilas and Kodes or Ashe and here you got the best 20.

[MG1]

Kiki..

why are you so obsessed with old players .....i agree they might be great but you always try to downplay every current player achievement and try to prove that they are nothing in front of former legends...thats not true..They are as great as former players .

[jean pierre]

Originally Posted by kiki

Mac also beat Vilas in 1979 Davis Cup, at Memphis.

They also played ( along Nastase and Connors, wow) an exhibitional series in such appealing venues like Frejus,Cap D´Agde and Aix en Provençe, in Cote D´Azur, in the summer of 1979.I don´t know the results of those series.

You're right, I forgot this match in Davis Cup.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by MG1

Kiki..

why are you so obsessed with old players .....i agree they might be great but you always try to downplay every current player achievement and try to prove that they are nothing in front of former legends...thats not true..They are as great as former players .

I wouldn´t, just that some bunch of posters here need somebody whot eaches them some history, as well as respect.Always like tha with teens.