1989 - Who was the best player that year, Becker or Lendl?

[Gizo]

Becker's year:
Won 5 Titles - Milan (carpet), Philadelphia (carpet), Wimbledon (grass), US Open (hard), Paris-Bercy (carpet)
Australian Open - 4th Round
Roland Garros - Semi-Finalist
Wimbledon - Champion
US Open - Champion
The Masters - Runner-Up
Win-Loss Record - 65-8 (89%)

Lendl's year:
Won 10 Titles - Australian Open (hard), Scottsdale (hard), Key Biscayne (hard), Forest Hills (green clay), Hamburg (red clay), Queen's (grass), Montreal (hard), Bordeaux (red clay), Sydney (indoor hard), Stockholm (carpet)
Australian Open - Champion
Roland Garros - 4th Round
Wimbledon - Semi-Finalist
US Open - Runner-Up
The Masters - Semi-Finalist
Win-Loss Record - 79-7 (91.9%)

Head to head between the two players in 1989:
Wimbledon Semi-Final - Becker def Lendl 7-5 6-7 2-6 6-4 6-3
US Open Final - Becker def Lendl 7-6 1-6 6-3 7-6

I was a big Lendl fan, but in my opinion Becker was definately better than him that year.

 

[Gizo]

On a side note, 1989 really was Becker's best opportunity to win the only grand slam that eluded him, the French Open. He came from 2 sets down to level his FO semi-final against Edberg that year, and I thought that he was going to win the 5th set, but he couldn't. Had he beaten Edberg and reached the final, he would have been the red hot favourite against Chang, who struggled to handle his sheer power whenever they played each other (i.e. during the quarter-final between the two players at the FO in 1991).

 

[anointedone]

Becker was the real #1 of 1989.

 

[HBK4life]

Becker.

2 grand slams

 

[CEvertFan]

I would say Lendl, except he didn't beat Becker during any of their confrontations that year, so I have to go with Becker. It's still a close call though because Lendl had a pretty great year himself.

 

[urban]

Becker won the Davis Cup with Germany, too, crushing Edberg and Wilander in the final on carpet. And if i remember it right, won a great 5 setter vs. Agassi at Munich in DC semi.

 

[Hooooon]

Becker won the Davis Cup with Germany, too, crushing Edberg and Wilander in the final on carpet. And if i remember it right, won a great 5 setter vs. Agassi at Munich in DC semi.

^ this is the only relevant info besides slams, making becker a clear choice.

 

[Jack the Hack]

The ranking system in 1989 was not that much different than the one today. Lendl won 10 tournaments, including the Australian Open and Key Biscayne, Hamburg, and Montreal (which are all Masters Series events today). While Becker won Wimbledon and the US Open, he did not accumulate enough points to rightfully be #1... and he wouldn't be #1 even in the system as it stands today. (In fact, Becker didn't actually get the #1 ranking until two years later... in early 1991.)

However...

Becker DID get the ATP Player of the Year honors in 1989, which was probably the more important honor in his mind. Becker deserved that honor, and Lendl deserved the #1 ranking.

 

[Hooooon]

The ranking system in 1989 was not that much different than the one today. Lendl won 10 tournaments, including the Australian Open and Key Biscayne, Hamburg, and Montreal (which are all Masters Series events today). While Becker won Wimbledon and the US Open, he did not accumulate enough points to rightfully be #1... and he wouldn't be #1 even in the system as it stands today. (In fact, Becker didn't actually get the #1 ranking until two years later... in early 1991.)

However...

Becker DID get the ATP Player of the Year honors in 1989, which was probably the more important honor in his mind. Becker deserved that honor, and Lendl deserved the #1 ranking.

100% of pros would take becker's year over lendl's

 

[Tshooter]

Speaking of '89, do you think Rostagno still has nightmares about THE MATCH with Becker?

 

[Mick]

Becker.

2 grand slams

I am with you.

 

[andreh]

It's a close call. If 1 slam + 9 other titles > 2 slams + 3 other titles then Lendl was no. 1. Otherwise it Becker.

Either way, only avid Becker fans would claim Becker was a clear no. 1.

It's nowhere near as clear cut as Edberg being no. 1 in 90 and 91 or Wilander in 88 or Lendl in 87 etc etc etc....

 

[Serve and Volley]

BECKER....................................

 

[msunderland71]

Of course the computer takes into account the best 14 tournaments, and even though the slams are given more weight, Lendl was ranked no.1. His strength was winning week after week. But Becker had that extra gear on the big occasion.
For me it came down to who won the US Open final. Prior to that they had both won 1 slam. Winning that 2nd slam was more important to the players and fans than winning 6 more regular titles.
I recall at the time Lendl did admit that Becker had done enough to be considered the true no.1. That would have been a tough thing for him to do, but he gave Becker credit when he deserved it.

 

[zagor]

Becker,he performed better on the biggest stages than Lendl even though Lendl was more consistant during the whole year.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Of course the computer takes into account the best 14 tournaments, and even though the slams are given more weight, Lendl was ranked no.1.

best 14 ranking system only started in 1990.

It's nowhere near as clear cut as Edberg being no. 1 in 90 and 91

the ITF gave Lendl their 'player of the year' award in '90, so maybe it wasn't clearcut that Edberg was #1 that year. He did lose in the 1st round of 2 majors.

 

[Serve and Volley]

Becker,he performed better on the biggest stages than Lendl even though Lendl was more consistant during the whole year.

it proves the ranking system sucks. How Becker who won 2 grand slams and Lendl won zero and Lendl was ranked 1 is insane!!!!

 

[krosero]

it proves the ranking system sucks. How Becker who won 2 grand slams and Lendl won zero and Lendl was ranked 1 is insane!!!!

Lendl won the Aussie Open that year.

 

[boredone3456]

lendl won the austrailian that year...so he did not win zero. and the reason lendel remanied number 1 is because he won double the number of titles that becker did. I would say lendl had the better year if not for the fact he didnt beat becker that year. lendl won a title on every surface that year...while three of beckers five were on carpet, granted the others were majors but still. If lendl had beaten becker in their encounters the year would have been his. and the ranking system doesn't suck, a player could win 2 slams, but lose in the early stages everwhere else, and another player could make the semi's or better of every event, who deserves the higher ranking in that situation...the more consistant overall player, not the one who performed in the two majors and no where else. Now, I dunno what becker did in those tournaments lendl won that year, but lendl's victories secured him the number one spot because of his consistancy outside the majors, plain and simple

 

[Serve and Volley]

lendl won the austrailian that year...so he did not win zero.

Yeah but back then the AO was not really a grand slam. I mean technically it was but many pros didnt even play in it. mcenroe skipped it for most of his career and Borg never even bothered to play it. Thats why so many lesser players like Roscoe tanner and Vita Gerulatis were able to win it.

Clearly it did not equal beckers wins on gras and clay at the US open and Wimbledon!!! What more has the guy got to do?

 

[boredone3456]

by 1989 many of the top pros were turning up in australia as it was legitimately the fourth major and worth as many points as the other three, all the big names usually turned up to play in unless they were hurt. and like i said...lendl won way more titles outside the majors and while they do not count for much...they tipped the balance. at the slams they were almost equal...cept for the points becker got by beating lendl at the us open. so you have to look outside the majors..and that is where lendl got the edge. by winning more of those than becker, he was able to maintain the top spotq

 

[Serve and Volley]

by 1989 many of the top pros were turning up in australia as it was legitimately the fourth major and worth as many points as the other three, all the big names usually turned up to play in unless they were hurt. and like i said...lendl won way more titles outside the majors and while they do not count for much...they tipped the balance. at the slams they were almost equal...cept for the points becker got by beating lendl at the us open. so you have to look outside the majors..and that is where lendl got the edge. by winning more of those than becker, he was able to maintain the top spotq

I still dont think the AO is a legitimate major today! What the heck is rebound ace????????????

 

[Jack the Hack]

I still dont think the AO is a legitimate major today! What the heck is rebound ace????????????

That comment, added to your previous one, pretty much invalidates anything you have to say about this subject.

Were you even alive in 1989?

What is Rebound Ace? Well, what is DecoTurf II? Both are just different types of surfacing material on a hard court, which is an asphalt base covered up with a sand, paint, and rubber mix over the top. Rebound Ace is the hard court surfacing they put over the asphalt in Australia, and DecoTurf II is what was used at the US Open. The only differences between the two are that one provides better traction (Rebound Ace) and the speed of the ball skidding through the court is faster (on DecoTurf II).

The '89 Australian Open had a full 128 player draw, and almost the entire top 10 (minus a young Agassi) participated. Here is the draw:

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/vault/draws.asp?TournamentID=580&TournamentYear=1989

The top 16 seeds were:

1. Mats Wilander
2. Ivan Lendl
3. Boris Becker
4. Stefan Edberg
5. Jakob Hlasek
6. Henri Leconte
7. John McEnroe
8. Yannick Noah
9. Miloslav Mecir
10. Aaron Krickstein
11. Thomas Muster
12. Mikael Pernfors
13. Pat Cash
14. Jonas Svensson
15. John Fitzgerald
16. Amos Mansdorf

Lendl beat Mronz, Steeb, Kulti, Mansdorf, John McEnroe, Muster, and then crushed Mecir 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 in the final. Becker lost in the 4th round to Jonas Svensson. There is absolutely nothing illegitimate with Lendl's '89 Australian title... nor with Becker's loss in that same tournament.

As I said before, Lendl earned his #1 ranking... and Becker was certainly the Player of the Year. They each got what they deserved.

 

[CyBorg]

Lendl was easily the best player. Becker deserved his player of the year though with the W+USO combo.

AO was a legitimate major - at least starting with 1987.

 

[Serve and Volley]

Lendl was easily the best player. Becker deserved his player of the year though with the W+USO combo.

AO was a legitimate major - at least starting with 1987.

Its odd at the time many publications came out criticizing the rankings. In fact Tennis magazine was the leader and decided that Becker was the real #1 that year.

I'm not sure on this but didnt becker beat Lendl both at Wimbledon and the US open that year?

Becker will probably go down in history as the greatest player ever to never reach the #1 by years end. But ya never know....Nadal may beat him.

 

[Serve and Volley]

The '89 Australian Open had a full 128 player draw, and almost the entire top 10 (minus a young Agassi) participated. Here is the draw:

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/vault/draws.asp?TournamentID=580&TournamentYear=1989

The top 16 seeds were:

1. Mats Wilander
2. Ivan Lendl
3. Boris Becker
4. Stefan Edberg
5. Jakob Hlasek
6. Henri Leconte
7. John McEnroe
8. Yannick Noah
9. Miloslav Mecir
10. Aaron Krickstein
11. Thomas Muster
12. Mikael Pernfors
13. Pat Cash
14. Jonas Svensson
15. John Fitzgerald
16. Amos Mansdorf

Wrong.

The AO was not considered that important back then . In fact HALF of the top 10 did not even bother to attend. Including maybe the greatest AO player ever: Andre Agassi. Also missing were Michael Chang, Brad Gilbert, Alberto Mancini, and Jay berger.

Have you ever heard of a grand slam tournament that is missing half of the top ten players today????

Here is the list of the top ten players in 1989 (#5,#6,#7, #9 and #10 all did not bother to attend):


1-Ivan Lendl
2-Boris Becker
3-Stefan Edberg
4-John McEnroe
5-Michael Chang
6-Brad Gilbert
7-Andre Agassi
8-Aaron Krickstein
9-Alberto Mancini
10-Jay Berger

For what its worth...Wikipedia says that the AO was not considered a legitimate grandslam until 1995. Heres the excerpt:

Nevertheless if we except the 1969 and 1971 tournaments many of the best players missed this championship until 1982 (that year the best player in the field was Johan Kriek, only ranked No. 12 at the ATP computer ranking), because of the remoteness, the wrong dates (Christmas and New Year's Day), and the low prize money — in 1970 the National Tennis League (NTL) which employed Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Andres Gimeno, Pancho Gonzales, Roy Emerson and Fred Stolle prevented its players to enter the tournament because the guarantees were insufficient.

In 1983, Ivan Lendl and John McEnroe came Down Under and Mats Wilander, having to play the Davis Cup final in the same site as the Australian Open's (Kooyong stadium in Melbourne) a few days after the tournament, decided at the last moment to enter the Australian championship in order to be ready and fit for the Cup (it succeeded beyond all hope because the Swede won the tournament and his two Davis Cup singles). From that year the Australian Open began to deserve its 'Grand Slam' label. Nevertheless the International Tennis Federation prompted the Lawn Tennis Association of Australia to change the site of the tournament, because the Kooyong stadium was then inappropriate to serve such a big event, and in 1988 the tournament was first held at Flinders Park (later renamed Melbourne Park) on Rebound Ace a low carpet surface. From 1995, the year when Andre Agassi entered the competition for the first time, no great players have missed this tournament unless he/she was injured or suspended. The Australian Open has therefore become one of the four biggest tennis competitions.

 

[krosero]

Here is the list of the top ten players in 1989 (#5,#6,#7, #9 and #10 all did not bother to attend):


1-Ivan Lendl
2-Boris Becker
3-Stefan Edberg
4-John McEnroe
5-Michael Chang
6-Brad Gilbert
7-Andre Agassi
8-Aaron Krickstein
9-Alberto Mancini
10-Jay Berger

This list is from December 1989, not from January 1989 when the Australian Open that Lendl won was played.

Here's the one you want:

1. Wilander, Mats
2. Lendl, Ivan
3. Agassi, Andre
4. Becker, Boris
5. Edberg, Stefan
6. Carlsson, Kent
7. Connors, Jimmy
8. Hlasek, Jakob
9. Leconte, Henri
10. Mayotte, Tim

The ones who did not attend were Agassi (#3), Carlsson (#6), Connors (#7), and Mayotte (#10).

And you can't read too much into Agassi's absence, since he was flaky enough even to miss Wimbledon in those days. The rest of the Top 5 were in Australia; he wasn't.

 

[feyya]

my boy mike chang

 

[Serve and Volley]

This list is from December 1989, not from January 1989 when the Australian Open that Lendl won was played.

Here's the one you want:

1. Wilander, Mats
2. Lendl, Ivan
3. Agassi, Andre
4. Becker, Boris
5. Edberg, Stefan
6. Carlsson, Kent
7. Connors, Jimmy
8. Hlasek, Jakob
9. Leconte, Henri
10. Mayotte, Tim

The ones who did not attend were Agassi (#3), Carlsson (#6), Connors (#7), and Mayotte (#10).

And you can't read too much into Agassi's absence, since he was flaky enough even to miss Wimbledon in those days. The rest of the Top 5 were in Australia; he wasn't.

either list you use its still bad. In my list 5 out of the top ten did not bother to attend the AO in your list 4 out of the top ten did not bother to attend the AO. Including names like Agassi, Connors, Mayotte , Gilbert, Chang.....wow!!!!!

In fact Agassi did not bother to play in it till 1995.

As the article I quoted stated the AO was not a real grand slam until 1995.

 

[urban]

Of course, at least since 1983 AO was a real major again. If you measure the worth of a major by the absence of Agassi, even Wimbledon wasn't a major around 1990. Lendl missed some French Open due to his will to win Wimbledon. Many top ten clay courters in the 90s regularly missed Wimbledon.

 

[Serve and Volley]

Of course, at least since 1983 AO was a real major again. If you measure the worth of a major by the absence of Agassi, even Wimbledon wasn't a major around 1990. Lendl missed some French Open due to his will to win Wimbledon. Many top ten clay courters in the 90s regularly missed Wimbledon.

Yeah but not 5 out of 10!!! Thats half of the top players in the world!!! Borg never even bothered to play in it once!!!

Now the article disagree with you. It says that the AO BEGAN to become legitimate in the 80's/ That means it was on its way. But that it did not gain real legitamcay until 1995 when most of the top ten played in it.

 

[andreh]

best 14 ranking system only started in 1990.



the ITF gave Lendl their 'player of the year' award in '90, so maybe it wasn't clearcut that Edberg was #1 that year. He did lose in the 1st round of 2 majors.

Which was heavily critized at the time. Many though Edberg was being punished for skipping the Grand Slam Cup. Edberg won 7 tournaments that year incl. Wimbledon, Indian Wells, Paris Open etc etc). He reached the finals of another 4 or 5 including Australian Open, Lipton, Stockholm and the ATP championship. And he overtook Lendl on the computer ranking, who never came back as no1. Pretty sure Edberg had plus in the head to head as well.

Lendl won the AO. His oponent, Edberg, defaulted in the final after being in the lead despite his injury. I'd say Edberg was no 1 in 90. But you make an interesting point.

 

[andreh]

Yeah but back then the AO was not really a grand slam. I mean technically it was but many pros didnt even play in it. mcenroe skipped it for most of his career and Borg never even bothered to play it. Thats why so many lesser players like Roscoe tanner and Vita Gerulatis were able to win it.

Clearly it did not equal beckers wins on gras and clay at the US open and Wimbledon!!! What more has the guy got to do?

Are you still talking about 1989? The AO was definietly a full slam in 1989. You're talking about the early 80s and 70s.

That being said, I'd still go for Becker as no 1 in 89, but barely.

 

[msunderland71]

What did Becker win on clay?
The Australian Open was a legitimate slam well before 1995. Try saying it wasn't in front of Lendl/Becker/Courier/Sampras and they would just laugh at you.

Yeah but back then the AO was not really a grand slam. I mean technically it was but many pros didnt even play in it. mcenroe skipped it for most of his career and Borg never even bothered to play it. Thats why so many lesser players like Roscoe tanner and Vita Gerulatis were able to win it.

Clearly it did not equal beckers wins on gras and clay at the US open and Wimbledon!!! What more has the guy got to do?

 

[andreh]

What did Becker win on clay?

If I recall, Becker never won a clay court tournament. But he reached the Semis of the French Open 3 times and a couple of other clay court finals. Still a strong result, IMO, considering his offensive style.

 

[Serve and Volley]

Are you still talking about 1989? The AO was definietly a full slam in 1989. You're talking about the early 80s and 70s.

Many others disagree . The article I quoted says it did not become legitimate until 1995. Did you miss that?

In any event rather than reprint that article again heres another. Please note that the AO only BEGAN to revamp the tournamnet in 1983. It didnt really do it until 1995. In 1995 five of the top ten players did not even bother to play in the AO:

"Always regarded as the junior member of the Grand Slams, the Australian Open was staged in various locations around the country and even twice in New Zealand.

The event never had the magic of Wimbledon or Roland Garros, to say nothing of the brutal charm of the US Open.

In 1983, the Australian tennis authorities took the decision to revamp the championship and put it on a par with the other three.

In previous generations, stars like Jimmy Connors had given it a miss. After losing the final in 1975, the American never went again in the remaining 17 years of his career. Bjorn Borg only went once in nine years.

These days, many feel it has caught up with other Slams. Nevertheless, the timing of the event has thrown up some odd results.

Coming right after the winter break, not all the players are at their best in January.

In 1998, the men's semi-finalists were Petr Korda, Karol Kucera, Marcelo Rios and Nicolas Escude, with Korda eventually winning. The following year Tommy Haas and Nicolas Lapentti surprised many by reaching the last four.

In 1999, Anna Kournikova won a match despite hitting 31 double faults and Venus Williams was docked a point when beads fell out of her hair and onto the court."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/in_depth/2000/australian_open/1099109.stm

 

[CyBorg]

Here are the 1989 Aussie draws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Australian_Open_-_Men's_Singles

Pretty legit.

I wouldn't place too much stock into the occasional player skipping a major. Agassi also had no trouble skipping Wimbledon in his early years.

Why? Because you didn't need to play in all majors in order to maintain a high ranking. There were plenty of tournaments that went towards the building of one's ranking.

 

[krosero]

either list you use its still bad. In my list 5 out of the top ten did not bother to attend the AO in your list 4 out of the top ten did not bother to attend the AO. [/COLOR]

2 of the top ten skipped Wimbledon that year: Agassi (#4) and Muster (#7). What is the great difference between 2 players missing and 4 missing?

Be careful, because there is a difference. I'm asking you why does 2 absences leave Wimbledon as the premier Slam while 4 absences leaves the Aussie Open as not even the least of the 4 Slams, not a Slam at all?

In 1990 Wimbledon was missing Agassi (#5), Muster (#7), Krickstein (#8 ) and Emilio Sanchez (#9). That's 4 out of 10.

So why is Wimbledon a real Slam that year but the Australian Open in 1989 is "not legitimate", in your words?

As the article I quoted stated the AO was not a real grand slam until 1995.

You're not careful enough with your language. The article does not "state" any such thing. It describes certain long-term trends. On the other hand, you did state in your first post, without subtlety, that "Lendl won zero" Grand Slams in 1989. That was a statement.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I see 'The Pusher Terminator' has returned. Don't waste your time krosero, its like arguing with a brick wall.

 

[msunderland71]

Yes, he had some strong results on clay as he was such a strong player.
My statement was only directed at the comment that was made about Becker winning on clay. It was factually incorrect, so I was pointing that out to the person who made it. I don't think it will sink in though!

If I recall, Becker never won a clay court tournament. But he reached the Semis of the French Open 3 times and a couple of other clay court finals. Still a strong result, IMO, considering his offensive style.

 

[Wuornos]

Based purely on the 1989 results, the DOT ratings that I have described in an earlier thread http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=165788, yields the following ratings for that year.

1. Boris Becker 2656
2. Ivan Lendl 2639
3. Stefan Edberg 2617
4. Michael Chang 2614
5. Miloslav Mečíř 2607
6. John McEnroe 2605
7. Andre Agassi 2604.3
7. Aaron Krickstein 2604.3
9. Tim Mayotte 2603.8
10. Jay Berger 2603.7

The calculated DOT weightings awarded to each of the majors for that year based upon the players present and their respective domination of peers during the preceeding 12 months etc were as follows:

Australian 17 Points
French 15 Points
Wimbledon 16 Points
US Open 21 Points.

So far fom the Australian being the weak event that some people have claimed it was in fact the second strongest major based upon the domination of players being present and how that impacted proportionally on the difficulty to win the event. By far the top event of that year in terms of difficulty to win was the US Open with Lendl and Becker both making the final. Agassi and Aaron Krickstein both being eliminated at the semi final stage.

My vote then based purely on perfromance limited to the 1989 year must go to Becker, not because of his two major wins as opposed to Lendl's 1 win and 1 final, but because he won the US Open which in 1989 was the most difficult of the majors.

Regards

Tim

 

[hoodjem]

Wimbledon - Champion
US Open - Champion

Hence Becker.

I find Wuornos's calculated DOT weightings awarded to each of the majors rather curious, particularly as it ranks the French Open the lowest, and Wimbledon lower than the Australian.

I know it is based on "the players present and their respective domination of peers during the preceeding 12 months, etc." but many would argue that Wimbledon is THE most important championship in the world. And given several that several recent, top-ten-of-all-time players inability to win it, the French is the hardest tournament to win for very talented players.

Maybe the French separates the truly great from the also-rans.?

 

[Wuornos]

Wimbledon - Champion
US Open - Champion

Hence Becker.

I find Wuornos's calculated DOT weightings awarded to each of the majors rather curious, particularly as it ranks the French Open the lowest, and Wimbledon lower than the Australian.

I know it is based on "the players present and their respective domination of peers during the preceeding 12 months, etc." but many would argue that Wimbledon is THE most important championship in the world. And given several that several recent, top-ten-of-all-time players inability to win it, the French is the hardest tournament to win for very talented players.

Maybe the French separates the truly great from the also-rans.?

Hi Hoodjem.

Yes I would agree that Wimbledon etc are the more prestigious tournaments and the French can be dificult given the difference clay makes to what would otherwise be a succesful style on other surfaces. I think we are in full agreement on that.

I was just trying to provide an evaluation based upon results in the 1989 year only. I have previously posted about strongest players in a specific year and have been criticied by calculating their probable strength based on information outside that year. The DOT ratings do seek to independently asses a tournaments worth and normally this would be done with reference to results outside a single year. However because of the previous criticism I isolated these results from the sofware that makes the calculations with the outcome as quoted above. To simplify the calculations somewhat these calculations simply concluded that a final at the French of Michael Chang v Stefan Edberg was weaker than Ivan Lendl v Boris Becker at the US Open at that time. Of course these calculations go much deeper in reality but you get the idea.

Your point regrading the French being won by someone who is not the top player seems to me to be an argument that the tournament should be awarded less Kudos rather than more. However, I leave this to the DOT sofware to decide as I prefer to keep its calculations independent of any human interference or opinion.

However, if we were calculating who the strongest players were at this time and was allowed reference to data from previous years, not only to gauge the relative success of the players but also the standard of the tournaments, an uninhibitted DOT rating would yield the following levels of play:

1. Ivan Lendl 2738
2. Boris Becker 2709
3. Mats Wilander 2691
4. Stefan Edberg 2681
5. Miloslav Mečíř 2616
6. Michael Chang 2613
7. Pat Cash 2600
8. Andre Agassi 2595
9. John McEnroe 2581
10. Jimmy Connors 2579

As you can see these ratings are far closer to the opinion of experts.

I think you have made an excellent point which supports the difficulties of attempting to base a players success on a single years results, something which I have posted about several times as I feel this is to shorter time frame.

Thanks for raising this.

Appreciated.

Tim

 

[Serve and Volley]

What did Becker win on clay?
The Australian Open was a legitimate slam well before 1995. Try saying it wasn't in front of Lendl/Becker/Courier/Sampras and they would just laugh at you.

dont kill the messenger. I quoted an article that said it was not legit till 1995. Go kill the expert not me.

 

[Serve and Volley]

Here are the 1989 Aussie draws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Australian_Open_-_Men's_Singles

Pretty legit.

I wouldn't place too much stock into the occasional player skipping a major. Agassi also had no trouble skipping Wimbledon in his early years.

Why? Because you didn't need to play in all majors in order to maintain a high ranking. There were plenty of tournaments that went towards the building of one's ranking.

5 out of the top ten skipped it in 1989. Connors only played in it once in his 17 year career. He skipped it in 1989 as well!!mike chang, brad gilbert, tim mayotte,all skipped it in 1989 as well. They all playwr in the us open and wimbledon in 1989..... So you tell me which is more legit in 1989.

 

[Azzurri]

I still dont think the AO is a legitimate major today! What the heck is rebound ace????????????

after reading a few of your posts, I am in awe how ignorant you seem to be. You can't be older than like 13 years old. Please read a little tennis history before coming up with NONSENSE.

 

[Azzurri]

Wrong.

The AO was not considered that important back then . In fact HALF of the top 10 did not even bother to attend. Including maybe the greatest AO player ever: Andre Agassi. Also missing were Michael Chang, Brad Gilbert, Alberto Mancini, and Jay berger.

Have you ever heard of a grand slam tournament that is missing half of the top ten players today????

Here is the list of the top ten players in 1989 (#5,#6,#7, #9 and #10 all did not bother to attend):


1-Ivan Lendl
2-Boris Becker
3-Stefan Edberg
4-John McEnroe
5-Michael Chang
6-Brad Gilbert
7-Andre Agassi
8-Aaron Krickstein
9-Alberto Mancini
10-Jay Berger

For what its worth...Wikipedia says that the AO was not considered a legitimate grandslam until 1995. Heres the excerpt:

Nevertheless if we except the 1969 and 1971 tournaments many of the best players missed this championship until 1982 (that year the best player in the field was Johan Kriek, only ranked No. 12 at the ATP computer ranking), because of the remoteness, the wrong dates (Christmas and New Year's Day), and the low prize money — in 1970 the National Tennis League (NTL) which employed Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, Andres Gimeno, Pancho Gonzales, Roy Emerson and Fred Stolle prevented its players to enter the tournament because the guarantees were insufficient.

In 1983, Ivan Lendl and John McEnroe came Down Under and Mats Wilander, having to play the Davis Cup final in the same site as the Australian Open's (Kooyong stadium in Melbourne) a few days after the tournament, decided at the last moment to enter the Australian championship in order to be ready and fit for the Cup (it succeeded beyond all hope because the Swede won the tournament and his two Davis Cup singles). From that year the Australian Open began to deserve its 'Grand Slam' label. Nevertheless the International Tennis Federation prompted the Lawn Tennis Association of Australia to change the site of the tournament, because the Kooyong stadium was then inappropriate to serve such a big event, and in 1988 the tournament was first held at Flinders Park (later renamed Melbourne Park) on Rebound Ace a low carpet surface. From 1995, the year when Andre Agassi entered the competition for the first time, no great players have missed this tournament unless he/she was injured or suspended. The Australian Open has therefore become one of the four biggest tennis competitions.

Wikipedia...LOL!!!!!!!!! You are CLUELESS.

 

[AndrewD]

dont kill the messenger. I quoted an article that said it was not legit till 1995. Go kill the expert not me.

Can you provide a link to or reference for the article?

 

[RiosTheGenius]

I was hoping someone would start this thread.... this has been bothering me since 1989... who was really the best player that year?..

 

[Azzurri]

Can you provide a link to or reference for the article?

S&V took Wikipedia information and ran with it. He has no clue what he is talking about. It won't matter how many people tell him the AO was a legit GS by then. He seems to be very ignorant with regards to tennis history, so much so that no one should really argue with his lack of any understanding of the subject.