Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

thrust said:

As far as I know, Ken did not make an excuse for that, or any other loss. Trabert was not a player he would lose to, at that time, by such a lopsided score unless something was either wrong with him or Trabert would have to be playing out of his mind. I read in a book I think, 20 years at the top, that Ken was suffering from some sort of virus at that time. Some fans here of Federer and Nadal are always claiming that the only time these guys lose is when they either have Mono or some sort of injury.

Click to expand...

abmk said:

@pc1 :

agreed, achievements and level of play don't always go hand in hand.

for greatness, you have to consider both objective and subjective factors.

one slight nitpick though, WCT finals definitely cannot be considered a major after 76. (I'd say could be considered a major in 71-73). Grand Prix took over clearly after that and the Masters was more important at Mac's time. That one could be considered a major.

Click to expand...

• 1 Rod Laver
• 2 Tom Okker
• 3 Ken Rosewall
• 4 Cliff Drysdale
• 5 Arthur Ashe
• 6 John Newcombe
• 7 Marty Riessen
• 8 Bob Lutz
• 9 Roy Emerson
• 10 Andrés Gimeno

• 1 Rod Laver
• 2 Ken Rosewall
• 3 Tom Okker
• 4 Cliff Drysdale
• 5 Marty Riessen
• 6 Arthur Ashe
• 7 Bob Lutz
• 8 John Newcombe
• 9 Roy Emerson
• 9 Charlie Pasarell

• 1 John Newcombe
• 2 Arthur Ashe
• 3 Tom Okker
• 4 Mark Cox
• 5 Cliff Drysdale
• 5 Marty Riessen
• 7 Bob Lutz
• 7 Niki Pilić
• 9 Roy Emerson
• 9 Anthony Roche
• 9 El Shafei

• 1 Stan Smith
• 2 Rod Laver
• 3 Roy Emerson
• 3 John Alexander
• 5 Cliff Richey
• 6 Dick Stockton
• 7 Bob Lutz
• 8 Brian Gottfried
• 9 Colin Dibley
• 10 J Fillol

• 1 Ken Rosewall
• 2 Arthur Ashe
• 3 Marty Riessen
• 4 Roger Taylor
• 4 Mark Cox
• 6 Brian Fairlie
• 7 Jan Kodeš
• 8 Tom Okker
• 9 Roscoe Tanner
• 10 Tom Gorman

• 1 Nastase*
• 2 Okker*
• 3 Gorman
• 4 Drysdale
• 5 Pilic
• 6 Pattison
• 7 John Alexander
• 8 Riessen
• 9 Anthony Roche
• 10 McMillan

• 1 John Newcombe*
• 2 Smith*
• 3 Metreveli
• 4 Stockton
• 5 Hrebec
• 6 Borowiak
• 7 Ross Case
• 8 Ramirez
• 9 Fillol
• 10 Richey

• 1 Ashe*
• 2 Rod Laver*
• 3 Borg*
• 4 Kodes*
• 5 Cox
• 6 Tanner
• 7 Dibbs
• 8 Taylor
• 9 Panatta
• 10 Parun

• 1 John Alexander*
• 2 Solomon*
• 3 Cox*
• 4 Smith
• 5 Stockton
• 6 Lutz
• 7 Dent
• 8 Drysdale
• 9 Amritraj
• 9 Riessen

• 1 Laver*
• 2 Tanner*
• 3 Ramirez*
• 4 Gottfried
• 5 Gerulaitus
• 6 Fillol
• 7 Stone
• 8 Pattison
• 9 Borowiak
• 9 El Shafei

• 1 Ashe*
• 2 Borg*
• 3 Okker
• 4 Mottram
• 5 Hewitt
• 6 Parun
• 7 Warwick
• 8 Higueras
• 9 Dominguez
• 10 Giltinan

• 1 Ashe
• 2 Ramirez
• 3 Vilas
• 4 Dibbs
• 5 Borg
• 6 Stockton
• 7 Lutz
• 8 Solomon
• 9 Gerulaitis
• 10 Gottfried

• 1 Stockton
• 2 Dibbs
• 3 Connors
• 4 Nastase
• 5 Drysdale
• 5 Fibak
• 5 Gerulaitis
• 8 Panatta
• 9 Barazzutti
• 10 Solomon
• 10 Rosewall

• 1 Gerulaitis
• 2 Borg
• 3 Dibbs
• 4 Ramirez
• 5 Nastase
• 6 S Mayer
• 7 Connors
• 7 Gottfried
• 9 Stockton
• 10 Barazzutti

• 1 McEnroe
• 2 Borg
• 3 Gerulaitis
• 4 Connors
• 5 Tanner
• 6 G Mayer
• 7 Ashe
• 7 Vilas
• 9 Masters
• 10 Alexander
• 10 Gottfried
• 10 Nastase

• 1 McEnroe
• 2 Scanlon
• 3 Connors
• 4 Lendl
• 4 Tanner
• 6 Gunthardt
• 6 V Amritraj
• 8 Sadri
• 8 Clerc
• 10 Gottfried
• 10 G Mayer

• 1 Tanner
• 2 Connors
• 3 Fibak
• 4 Noah
• 5 McEnroe
• 6 V Amritraj
• 7 Gottfried
• 8 Gerulaitis
• 9 S Mayer
• 10 G Mayer

• 1 Lendl
• 2 Clerc
• 3 Fibak
• 4 V Amritraj
• 5 Smid
• 6 McNamara
• 7 McEnroe
• 8 Gerulaitis
• 9 Taroczy
• 10 Dibbs

• 1 Lendl
• 2 Smid
• 3 Clerc
• 4 Vilas
• 5 Kriek
• 6 Higueras
• 7 Gunthardt
• 7 Fibak
• 9 Tanner
• 10 Bourne

• 1 Fibak
• 2 Scanlon
• 3 Curren
• 3 Vilas
• 5 Taroczy
• 6 McNamee
• 7 Lendl
• 7 Teacher
• 9 Tom Gullikson
• 9 Smid

• 1 Lendl
• 2 McEnroe
• 3 Vilas
• 4 Gerulaitis
• 5 Clerc
• 6 McNamee
• 7 Smid
• 8 Fibak
• 9 Taroczy
• 10 Scanlon

Ivan69 said:

Obviously Nole is trying to improve the record of losses vs top 20+ players. I am very sad to say it but I think Nole is over with the top tennis. I see weaknesses in all areas of his game - physics, movement, mentality. No matter what he is saying to the press Marco wasn't the better player today. Nole was the weaker.

And all this is a result of Nole's own mistakes - change of Becker, the guru and the famous diet. I don't know a sportsman playing physical sport using such a diet. Nobody changes the coach when being at the top. NOBODY!
Shame, Nole, big shame!

Click to expand...

Drob said:

Those ranking, btw, are simply per Wikipedia. I do not affirm these rankings as precise fact. My question is: assuming the basic accuracy of this information as to who was participating, and any other relevant factors, is the WCT a Major?

Click to expand...

• Nov. 11, 2017

Drob said:

With KG1965's comment, apparently at least partly endorsed by two other top posters, is there the germ of, or even emerging, CONSENSUS that the WCT simply was never a Major, irrespective of year? Does anyone have a different view?

I do not propose to oppose this worthy trio. Yet, I am still trying to figure it out, a little bit. If you say it never was Major-worthy, okay. If you say 1971-72 only, or something like this, It seems like the WCT as major-equivalent goes on several years longer, but at some point it stops.

Food for thought.

Steve Flink: "[WCT Finals] had become one of the five top tournaments in tennis". The Greatest Matches of the Twentieth Century, p. 117.

Karoly Mazak, The Concise History of Tennis, lists the WCT as a Major for all 19 years, 1971-89.

Peter Rowley:.Ken Rosewall: Twenty Years at the Top: "Prior to the 1972 WCT final Rosewall won the U.S. in 1970, the Australian in 1971, WCT in 1971, and the Australian in 1972. He had not entered the French in 1971 or Forest Hills in 1971 and did not win Wimbledon in 1971. Thus of the five important championships, since and including Forest Hills in 1970, which Rosewall had entered before WCT '72, he had won four." Rowley, p 158. Just self-serving on Ken's part?

John Newcombe: "The glittering event in the pro calendar in '74 was the WCT finals in Dallas in May, the winner of which would be deemed the best professional player in the world, and therefore the best player in the world, period." Newk, p. 113. Self-serving, because Newk did prevail at the WCT that year? Maybe. In the context of the book it really does not come off that way. Whether plausible or misguided, Newk makes clear he thought himself every bit as justified as world No. 1 in 1974 as Connors (and the two only played one, one-set match the whole year, which Newcombe won). That is what 1975 Australian Open final was all about.

Rod Laver: "The bigest disappointment of my career came in 1972: another defeat by Rosewall in he WC of T final in May." Laver and Collins, p. 231. Not failure to win Wimbledon in 1970 or '71, or the 1970 U.S. Open, or any other title. This is NOT self-serving. This is an admission of failure at a Major.

Speaking of Arthur Ashe: "There is only one way to have it be your year in tennis, and that is by winning Major championships, and the WCT is this year's first". See Youtube, 1975 WCT Dallas Tennis World Championship, at 4:12. Then, at 24.52: "So Arthur Ashe, who thought 1975 would be his year has won his first major title." Nice video, Charlton Heston narrator.

In the following posts I will share some articles indicating WCT has a special significance, that might at least be that of a "near major" - something above the typical M1000.

Click to expand...

Nobody talked about the Pro tournaments, everyone knew that the Amateurs slam won them the worst, few were interested to open slams.
Laver the top dog was little known despite the 2 GS.

NatF said:

Rosewall is the GOAT of burns, called Thiem's performance disappointing right in front of him

Click to expand...

KG1965 said:

In my home Rafa is contender.
In the wake of Fedr, Laver, Tilden and Pancho.
Rosewall delivered to Rafa the 5th greatest all time trophy.

Click to expand...

Phoenix1983 said:

I have Nadal as 3rd greatest after Federer and Laver.

Click to expand...

Phoenix1983 said:

I have Nadal as 3rd greatest after Federer and Laver.

Click to expand...

thrust said:

Before this FO, Tennisbase had Nadal 4th behind Rosewall. Most likely they will now have Nadal at #3 and Ken at #4

Click to expand...

Phoenix1983 said:

Nadal is greater than Rosewall for sure.

Click to expand...

Phoenix1983 said:

I have Nadal as 3rd greatest after Federer and Laver.

Click to expand...

Phoenix1983 said:

Nadal is greater than Rosewall for sure.

Click to expand...

Dan Lobb said:

Nadal is not great except on clay, and even there, looking at the highlights of today's final, Nadal runs around his backhand a lot, and relies on TWO hands and modern racquets to make it work for him,

With consistent racquets technology, I doubt that Nadal would make top fifteen on a grass rating, which is what I look at.

Click to expand...

I get cramps said:

https://twitter.com/rodlaver/status/1005933831851892736

Click to expand...

KG1965 said:

In my home Rafa is contender.
In the wake of Fedr, Laver, Tilden and Pancho.
Rosewall delivered to Rafa the 5th greatest all time trophy.

Click to expand...

Drob said:

Third all-time, overall, all-round, globally?

Click to expand...

urban said:

Looking at Nadal and Rosewall, it seems very difficult, if not impossible to compare those players from 50 years apart, in an adaequate way. But looking at the Nadal achievement alone, it is sensational. 11 wins at RG, in most players minds the hardest to win major, with the highest physical and tactical challenges. Weak era aside, he won it fairly easy against multiple top five players and top clay courters like Thiem, Wawrinka, Delpo, Schwartzman, not to speak of his other clay wins over Zverev, Thiem, and an (off top form) Djokovic, you name them. This is sensational alone. And 19 championships at the two most prolific clay champs, French and Italian, nobody could and would believe this number before (and add the 11 at Monte Carlo, now the third big clay event). Going by the parameters of the 1960s and 1970s, when the Italian was ranked among the top four or top five major events, Nadal would sit on 25 big championships. And don't forget he won the most difficult RG-Wim double already twice and the US champs, the traditional hard court event 3 times. And his career is far from over. He is on his way, to close the only missing number in his career, the year end Nr. 1 position. If he will reach 5 times Nr. 1, he will be in the territory of Connors and Federer and close to Sampras, very much on top of the open era.

Click to expand...

forzamilan90 said:

I legit think at this point Nadal has surpassed Sampras, and is top 3 all time (Fed and Laver the top two for me). I hate it, but I can't find a reason not to justify him. Hope Fed can keep winning to keep a lead, but it's very plausible these two rivals are the top two players ever when it's all said and done.

Click to expand...

Drob said:

IS IT OR ISN'T IT?

Is the WCT a Major, or Not?

It seems a majority of posters here say it is. But a good many of this majority also qualify things . . . which seems a little bit like us eating our cake and having it.

In this instance the gentleman says WCT is a Major for only 1971-73. I believe I have even seen posters say only 1971 and 1972. And I have seen multiple posts saying that the WCT was a Major for the 1970s, but then not.

I would respectfully request everyone's opinion on the simple proposition: The WCT is considered a Major in tennis history. Full stop.

This is a question - a request for comment. It is not advocacy.

For your contemplation, I will, in the immediate following posts give the list of the WCT points rankings by year, so we can see who participated in each given year. I think we all know it paid a king's ransom. And posters feel free to introduce any other reasonable factors for why you are voting YES or NO to WCT as a Major.

If, in fact, the consensus is that the WCT was a Major for some of its existence only, then please specify when it began and stopped being a Major, and why.

Thanks very much to all.

I will start by reminding us of the champion and finalist of each year:



1971

Ken Rosewall

Rod Laver

6–4, 1–6, 7–6(7–3), 7–6(7–4)


1972

Ken Rosewall

Rod Laver

4–6, 6–0, 6–3, 6–7, 7–6


1972 winter[a]

Arthur Ashe

Bob Lutz

6–2, 3–6, 6–3, 3–6, 7–6


1973

Stan Smith

Arthur Ashe

6–3, 6–3, 4–6, 6–4


1974

John Newcombe

Björn Borg

4–6, 6–3, 6–3, 6–2


1975

Arthur Ashe

Björn Borg

3–6, 6–4, 6–4, 6–0

1976

Björn Borg

Guillermo Vilas

1–6, 6–1, 7–5, 6–1


1977

Jimmy Connors

Dick Stockton

6–7, 6–1, 6–4, 6–3


1978

Vitas Gerulaitis

Eddie Dibbs

6–3, 6–2, 6–1


1979

John McEnroe

Björn Borg

7–5, 4–6, 6–2, 7–6


1980

Jimmy Connors

John McEnroe

2–6, 7–6, 6–1, 6–2


1981

John McEnroe

Johan Kriek

6–1, 6–2, 6–4


1982

Ivan Lendl

John McEnroe

6–2, 3–6, 6–3, 6–3


1982 fall

Ivan Lendl

Wojciech Fibak

6–4, 6–2, 6–1


1982 winter[c]

Ivan Lendl

Guillermo Vilas

7–5, 6–2, 2–6, 6–4


1983

John McEnroe

Ivan Lendl

6–2, 4–6, 6–3, 6–7, 7–6


1984

John McEnroe

Jimmy Connors

6–1, 6–2, 6–3


1985

Ivan Lendl

Tim Mayotte

7–6, 6–4, 6–1


1986

Anders Järryd

Boris Becker

6–7, 6–1, 6–1, 6–4


1987

Miloslav Mečíř

John McEnroe

6–0, 3–6, 6–2, 6–2

1988

Boris Becker

Stefan Edberg

6–4, 1–6, 7–5, 6–2


1989

John McEnroe

Brad Gilbert

6–3, 6–3, 7–6

Click to expand...

Drob said:

I agree with some of what you say, but not sure about the diet. Did he change his diet from the vegan approach that had served him well for several years, with which he won most of his Slams and so on - is that what you are saying? I did not know that. I thought he was still on that diet . . . the one he credits with curing his allergies and giving him greater stamina and resistance.

Parting with Becker was a shame and a mistake. My understanding is that Becker was trying to push Novak to train harder in the second half of 2016 and Novak did not want to, and that was one source of friction. But the elbow thing is a bit of a curiosity. I am not much interested in injury excuses, but the elbow is curious with respect to this rift that Becker talks about, regarding training. The elbow could not have been too bad in mid-2016 if Becker was pushing for more training. Yet, I seem to recall Djokovic favouring the elbow at the 2016 U.S. Open.

The last time I saw Novak Djokovic, or thought I saw him, was at the O2 in November 2016. After that bad patch, he played real Djoker tennis for four matches, and I thought he was going to win a sixth YEC (and fourth undefeated YEC), end the year in high style, and be crowned undisputed World No. 1 for the fifth time in six years. With the No. 1 ranking on the line, I, like almost everyone else, expected an exciting, hammer-and-tongs final versus Murray, with Djokovic winning. Instead, he lost lamely to Andy, and lost the No. 1. And I have been looking for Новак Ђоковић every since.

I believe he will return, however briefly, I believe he will return a Slam champ. But I am a dreamer. Your assessment of his game . . . I cannot argue with that. He has to change, and has to change pretty quickly.

Click to expand...

KG1965 said:

What is a major?
Can a major tournament be a 8-men?

Click to expand...

Drob said:

With KG1965's comment, apparently at least partly endorsed by two other top posters, is there the germ of, or even emerging, CONSENSUS that the WCT simply was never a Major, irrespective of year? Does anyone have a different view?

I do not propose to oppose this worthy trio. Yet, I am still trying to figure it out, a little bit. If you say it never was Major-worthy, okay. If you say 1971-72 only, or something like this, It seems like the WCT as major-equivalent goes on several years longer, but at some point it stops.

Food for thought.

Steve Flink: "[WCT Finals] had become one of the five top tournaments in tennis". The Greatest Matches of the Twentieth Century, p. 117.

Karoly Mazak, The Concise History of Tennis, lists the WCT as a Major for all 19 years, 1971-89.

Peter Rowley:.Ken Rosewall: Twenty Years at the Top: "Prior to the 1972 WCT final Rosewall won the U.S. in 1970, the Australian in 1971, WCT in 1971, and the Australian in 1972. He had not entered the French in 1971 or Forest Hills in 1971 and did not win Wimbledon in 1971. Thus of the five important championships, since and including Forest Hills in 1970, which Rosewall had entered before WCT '72, he had won four." Rowley, p 158. Just self-serving on Ken's part?

John Newcombe: "The glittering event in the pro calendar in '74 was the WCT finals in Dallas in May, the winner of which would be deemed the best professional player in the world, and therefore the best player in the world, period." Newk, p. 113. Self-serving, because Newk did prevail at the WCT that year? Maybe. In the context of the book it really does not come off that way. Whether plausible or misguided, Newk makes clear he thought himself every bit as justified as world No. 1 in 1974 as Connors (and the two only played one, one-set match the whole year, which Newcombe won). That is what 1975 Australian Open final was all about.

Rod Laver: "The bigest disappointment of my career came in 1972: another defeat by Rosewall in he WC of T final in May." Laver and Collins, p. 231. Not failure to win Wimbledon in 1970 or '71, or the 1970 U.S. Open, or any other title. This is NOT self-serving. This is an admission of failure at a Major.

Speaking of Arthur Ashe: "There is only one way to have it be your year in tennis, and that is by winning Major championships, and the WCT is this year's first". See Youtube, 1975 WCT Dallas Tennis World Championship, at 4:12. Then, at 24.52: "So Arthur Ashe, who thought 1975 would be his year has won his first major title." Nice video, Charlton Heston narrator.

In the following posts I will share some articles indicating WCT has a special significance, that might at least be that of a "near major" - something above the typical M1000.

Click to expand...

Drob said:

Sports Illustrated on the 1975 WCT Final


****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
THIS ASHE DIDN'T CRUMBLE
AFTER HE LOST THE FIRST SET TO BJORN BORG, IT LOOKED AS IF ARTHUR ASHE WOULD BLOW ANOTHER BIG ONE, BUT HE RALLIED TO WIN THE WCT FINAL
BY JOE JARES

May 18, 1975


The image of Arthur Ashe that many tennis fans have is the personable, articulate UCLA graduate and ex-Army officer with the dynamite serve, the cheetah quickness—and the incredible weakness of choking in a big match. Among the traditional sights in sport is Ashe putting an easy volley into the net on a crucial point. By his record in Lamar Hunt's World Championship of Tennis tournaments this year, Ashe should have been the favorite going into last week's WCT finals in Dallas. Instead, in a poll of 79 WCT pros, Ashe was picked to win on only three ballots.

So last Sunday in the final match at Moody Coliseum, there was Ashe up against Bjorn Borg, the 18-year-old Swede whose every top-spin forehand is as big news in Scandinavia as a change in the price of herring. A perfect time for masochistic Ashe rooters to see their hero fail them again. This time, though, it was the other guy who wilted. Ashe followed the same pattern he had established earlier in the week in matches with Mark Cox and John Alexander, losing the first set and fighting back to win. Against Borg the score was 3-6, 6-4, 6-4, 6-0, and Ashe left Texas with the $50,000 first prize.

After the match Ashe said he had been told by a Spanish-Swedish gypsy fortuneteller in Stockholm last month that he would soon come into a lot of money, that something would soon happen to make him cry a lot and that he was soon going to have a child.

"So far things have gone just as she said," said Ashe, "but I don't even have a steady girl friend!"

Ashe had the money, all right, and he did shed a few tears when he stood at the podium.
On top of the $50,000, the winner's jackpot included the use of a new car for a year, a ring featuring a diamond tennis court, a $1,200 Swiss wristwatch as thin as a coin (the seven other contestants received similar watches), a $1,000 wardrobe and for his mother or girl friend a bracelet to match the ring. The runner-up booty was a trifling $20,000.

In addition, early in the week Ashe received a unique trophy. This year Haggar slacks put up $33,333.33 for the WCT player who earned the most points in the tournaments leading to Dallas. Ashe was the winner, with 760, some 60 points more than Rod Laver amassed. However, instead of a routine check, Haggar and WCT commissioned a Dallas jeweler to make a solid-gold tennis ball that was worth precisely $33,333.33 on the day it was completed.

"I like it so much that I'm going to have it bronzed," said Ashe to Lamar Hunt.

Actually, he plans to put it in a vault, where it will remain regardless of how high the price of gold zooms. He may take it out occasionally to fondle, much as Scrooge McDuck joyfully wallows in his money bin. Ashe will have a cheap replica made for display.

All in all it was a fairly classy week, what with the players driving around in official tournament Cadillacs and the pretty Courtmates (almost all of them SMU coeds) ushering for the matches, then dancing the nights away in the hospitality room of the Ramada Inn Central. About the only rough moments were when Lew Hoad almost got in a fight with a British newspaperman at a party and when Harold Solomon had $1,000 worth of equipment stolen while he was practicing. All but his WCT warmup jacket was returned the next day with a note saying, "I am not a thief, just a souvenir hunter."

As often happens in tennis, the best match wasn't the final but Borg versus Laver in the Friday night semis. Laver, twice Borg's age at 36, was in the WCT "exceptional eight" for the fifth straight year and was a clear favorite. He had a 30-5 record in the Blue Group, set a WCT record by winning 23 matches in a row and won four straight events: La Costa, Sao Paolo, Caracas and Orlando. In the poll of pros, 57 picked Rocket Rod to win at Dallas. All but five picked him to reach the final.

Even more clearly he was everyone's sentimental choice. Laver has won just about everything worth winning, including two Grand Slams, en route to becoming the sport's first millionaire. But he has never won the WCT championship, although he came painfully close with a fifth-set tie breaker in the 1972 final.


"Sentimentally, I'm with Rod Laver," said Don Budge, who was at courtside. "If the Rocket's on his game, he will win."

The feeling among some of the press and public was that if Laver failed to win this time, there would be an embarrassingly empty space in his trophy case at home in Corona del Mar, Calif. and a permanent bruise on his ego. There was some speculation that a suicide leap from the top of the 50-story First National Bank Building was not entirely out of the question. Laver got a little tired of hearing about it and insisted that it was not that important, and that his life would not be shattered by a loss.

After Borg had beaten Mexico's Raul Ramirez in the quarters Wednesday night, Laver had a long struggle before beating Solomon, the movable backboard. He was plainly tired in the fifth set, but he had a full day of rest before the semis. As it turned out, rest, polls, sentiment and his steel-cable left wrist were not enough against the iceBorg, who in scientific tests has been proved to have the pulse rate of a corpse.

Borg-Laver lasted more than four hours, unusual in this tie-breaker era, and had enough drama to fill a Broadway season. Laver was leading two sets to one and, after falling behind 5-2 in the fourth set, broke Borg's serve twice in a row to tie it at 5-5. When he then blasted two straight aces on his own serve, Laver seemed to have the match locked up. Yet instead of submitting quietly, Borg fought back to win that game. Then Laver broke his serve a third straight time in a game that took 17 points to decide. But Borg won the tie breaker to even the score at two sets apiece. It wasn't a tennis match, it was a roller-coaster ride. Laver was too tired to keep up the terrific pace in the fifth set and Borg won his way into the final round 7-6, 3-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-2

The match, full of drop shots, lobs, impossibly angled volleys and hard ground strokes hit to within inches of the baselines, backed up Lamar Hunt's claim that WCT had "finally come up with an outstanding surface, the best ever in indoor tennis." The carpet, made by Supreme Court in Rome, Ga., has a rough surface that slows down even hard-hit balls and gives the player without a cannonball serve a fairly good chance.

In the interview room, Laver gave due credit to Borg's splendid passing shots, griped a bit about line calls and then bade an unmawkish, dry-eyed farewell to WCT.

"No, I don't think I'll try it again," he said. "Very doubtful. I've had five good shots at it and enjoyed it immensely. It's been a great challenge...I don't go out with any sadness. I've enjoyed playing it all."

It wasn't exactly Lou Gehrig's farewell speech at Yankee Stadium (for one thing, Laver is playing this week in Las Vegas), but the reporters and assorted hangers-on at the press conference felt they had been in on a semihistoric occasion, maybe like Big Bill Tilden's last appearance at Forest Hills or Jimmy Connors' first obscene gesture. It was nice to have been among the 9,208 people who were there when Bjorn Borg on the way up passed Rod Laver on the way down—but not easily, not unchallenged.

"For sure it's my finest win," said Borg, the youngest man ever to make Dallas (he lost to John Newcombe in the final last year) and the youngest man ever to win the Italian and French championships.

Unfortunately, his finest win also drained him emotionally and physically and left him unable to put up a good fight against Ashe as he all but conceded the final games.

Borg has escaped the Swedish tax bite by moving with his pSarents to Monte Carlo, but there is no way he can escape the nipping of the Swedish press. Ashe, who played in the Green Group with Borg, reported that after Borg had been upset by a lesser-known countryman, a headline in one Swedish newspaper said: IS THIS THE END OF BJORN BORG?

The truth of the matter, of course, is that the end is not in sight for this tennis phenomenon. And the truth about Arthur Ashe is that he can win the big ones—the U.S. Open in '68, the Australian in '70, three Davis Cups and now the rich WCT singles. Sometimes nice guys finish first.


*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Click to expand...

Drob said:

Sports Illustrated declares Borg best in world after May 1976 WCT Finals triumph. Note, this is before Borg's initial Wimbledon championship.


IT WAS A LIKE-HATE RELATIONSHIP
BJORN BORG AND GUILLERMO VILAS ARE THE BEST OF FRIENDS, BUT WHEN THEY MET FOR THE WCT CHAMPIONSHIP IN DALLAS, THEY WERE THE BEST OF ENEMIES. BORG WON IN FOUR SETS TO BECOME THE BEST OF THE BEST
BY CURRY KIRKPATRICK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
X
May 16, 1976

Tennis' own counterculture all-stars resumed their traveling headband-and-friendship review deep in the heart of Texas last Sunday, and when the barrage of ground-stroke dust had cleared, the scraggly curled, blue-jeaned teen-ager from Scandinavia had done it to the scraggly curled, blue-jeaned poet from the Argentine one more time.

That the top-spin twins, Bjorn Borg and Guillermo Vilas, managed to eat meals together, hit practice balls together, hang around hotel lobbies and attend press conferences with each other and reach the deciding match of the sixth annual World Championship of Tennis Finals looking like some new country rock group was understandable enough. But that Borg then saw fit to wind up and blast his way past his friend for the fifth time in six matches in the past year and that Vilas reacted to another rear-kicking with merely a shrug was somewhat amazing. "These beatings not affect our relationship. I am never thinking I cannot win," said Vilas after losing the $50,000 first prize, 1-6, 6-1, 7-5, 6-1.

If it seems Borg has been making the WCT finals in Dallas since he was six, it probably is because every time he does reach Big D and its blue-bunting hoopla, he slugs his way through to the championship round. Having lost in the finals to John Newcombe in 1974 and Arthur Ashe last May, Borg wasn't about to let this one slip away, not even to a boon companion. "I am pretending Guillermo is somebody else; it is another guy over the net," Borg said.

After the Teen Angel and the Mild Bull of the Pampas had fought through two sets and two service breaks in the third, it came to Vilas serving at 5-5, 15-40. Their competition is always a fascinating study in strokes and tactics; now, as the ball passed over the net 84 times, one point mirrored the entire match. The players pounded top-spin drives, sliced delicate backhands, ran down lobs, chased drop shots. It was power on power, then soft stuff countering soft stuff. Suddenly Borg rushed the net, and Vilas, momentarily stunned, sliced a forehand down the line, but wide.

Having gained the key break, Borg served out the set and quickly broke in the fourth, taking advantage of Vilas' fading forehand and a questionable line call. "One ball does not make difference," Vilas said. "Bjorn was too deep on approach, very high balls, no good angles for me."

At the end one dashing blond right-hander had simply outhit and overpowered one dashing brown-haired lefthander again, but they still were world-ranking best pals.

"What so strange about this?" Vilas said. "Cannot be friends and tennis players too?"

Before Borg and Vilas came to grips with their top-spin artillery as well as their friendship, the tournament belonged to Ashe. For about two hours. That's how long it took the spunky, 5'6" moonballer, Harold Solomon, to eliminate Arthur on opening night.

Ashe had started his brilliant run in WCT play last season and had won 61 of 69 matches during a two-year span, including five tournaments this year. He was the proud owner of two 13-pound solid gold tennis balls as WCT's two-time point leader and he had won the fairly outrageous sum of $218,500 in four months. Yet there were signs that the defending champion was in for trouble.

He had finished his regular WCT season in Caracas a long four weeks ago. Since then he had played in one challenge match in Hawaii and in the WCT doubles in Kansas City, so he was not tournament sharp. Friends say he did not seem the hungry, eager, new Ashe who had shown up in Dallas last year.

Indeed, against Solomon, he was the old Ashe we had all come to know and be puzzled by, the tentative, confused, erratic, even lazy Ashe. After losing the first set 7-5 by blowing two late service games in which he led 40-15, the world No. 1 seemed to recover by taking the second 6-3. Then Solomon, who was forced to win his last two tournaments (beating Newcombe, Ilie Nastase and Ken Rosewall among others) just to qualify for this moment, took control.

He hit double-fisted backhand service returns by the ton—low and skidding away. He made Ashe overanxious with long baseline rallies, and took advantage of the champion's weak drop shots to triumph in cat-and-mouse confrontations at the net. He won 20 of 23 points in one stretch as his opponent missed shots, Ashe later admitted, "a 14-year-old could make. I embarrassed myself." Solomon ran out the match by a shocking 6-1, 6-3.


In the semifinals against Borg, a man he had never beaten, Solomon didn't have it. Giving away five inches, 30 pounds and half the speed of sound on groundstrokes to the Swede, he battled him through a service-break-marred first set, losing 7-5. But he was punished in the second set 6-0—he won only five points—and in the final set 6-3.

"I'm reaching up all the time to get his top spin; he exhausts me," Solomon said. "The kid is so much stronger than I am. Just look at him. I don't think I'll be ready to beat Borg for at least two years."

By that time Borg's right arm will be shriveled like a Swedish meatball and embalmed in formaldehyde, so hard does he whack everything that approaches, so often does he compete when stray exhibition cash is on the line. A lot of people are beginning to wonder if Borg is being burned out and sabotaged by his own schedule makers. The Teen Angel is coached by Lennart Bergelin, but he is managed by Mark McCormack, whose people seem to be under the impression that a day off will turn their prince into a frog. Last year Borg played almost 10 full months, including 12 singles victories leading to the Swedish Davis Cup triumph. The week before the WCT finals his itinerary resembled a campaign schedule in the Stop Jimmy Carter movement.

Borg literally played his way halfway around the world to Dallas: Wednesday, challenge match in Copenhagen; Friday, exhibition in New Jersey; Saturday, exhibition in Chicago; Sunday, exhibition in Oklahoma City. After Dallas, Borg was to play exhibitions in Kalamazoo, Mich. and Durham, N.C. before flying to Hawaii, Germany, France and oblivion

"I am not like all these exhibitions," said Bergelin. "I cannot control. Bjorn have to slow down. This is too much stupid. All time I am seeing him, he look more or less half dead."

Meanwhile in the other half of the draw, Vilas, 23, was alternately pounding backhand drives and lofting tantalizing lobs in impressive destructions of Bob Lutz and Dick Stockton. The latter had upset Mexico's Raul Ramirez, but he was quickly dispatched to his suburban Dallas home in straight sets by the perplexing variety of Vilas' shots. "It was a matter of whether he screeched the ball by me or I lunged at it," said Stockton. "Vilas can hit three different directions off one motion. It got to be a guessing game."

Lutz, who won the first set 7-5 before succumbing 6-1, 6-1, 6-2 to Vilas, was more graphic about the effects of his opponent's relentless heavy ammunition. "I got cold," he says. "My ears started popping. The rubber came off my shoes. I got a cramp in my leg. My contact lens started shooting around in my eye. I was falling apart."

Of all international court eminences, perhaps the least is known about the swashbuckling Vilas. In the two years it took him to streak to the top, he went through a mystical stage, quoting Krishnamurti, the Indian philosopher, and Pablo Neruda, the Chilean poet, as well as doing some writing of his own. Entitled 125, it is a volume of poetry, short stories and the like. It sold out its first two printings of 20,000 copies, in Argentina.

"Poetry used to give me peace of mind on court," Vilas says. "But sometimes not. Now I am leaving poetry aside to concentrate on tennis."

Until both men reached the finals, it was not generally known how close Vilas and Borg had become. In fact they had been friends for a long time. "Our friendship go back five years to when he a star and I not even winning," says Vilas. "Sure, sometimes I hate him on court, but we are never enemies."

As last week's events in Dallas demonstrated, with stars like these, who needs enemies?

Click to expand...

Drob said:

McEnroe was 419-72: a winning percentage of 85.3, which ranks first by a significant margin, and he won five WCT Finals, which were the prestigious culmination of the WCT circuit, a rival of the traditional tour.

Click to expand...

KG1965 said:

In the tennis of the last 20 years there are no anomalies, everything is clear, the subdivision is easy (slam, YEC, Master1000), the only questionable aspect is if
- 1 slam = 2 Masters (as for ATP) or
- 1 slam = 10 Masters because the Masters count little, or
- if only the slams count.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Rosewall is the GOAT of burns, called Thiem's performance disappointing right in front of him

Click to expand...

Ivan69 said:

As usual a wrong expression. Very bad try to affect a great player! Very!
Rosewall DIDN'T said that Thiem's performance was disappointing. Rosewall said that he hasn't expected that the match will finish in straight sets. And I think many people haven't expected that having in mind Thiem's excellent performance on clay and the previous matches between Nadal and Thiem.
Thiem played very well technically and tactically but Rafa was incredible.

Click to expand...