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

[Azzurri]

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

That is a tough call. When you read everyone posts (except Serve and Volley) people have made a good arguement for both players. I would give them co-players of the year. I remember that year very well. My friend was a huge Becker fan and we always watched his matches (his neighbor had a satellite dish) and many matches were not on cable. I thought Becker played terrific tennis and Lendl was his normal self.

 

[CyBorg]

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.

Connors wasn't a factor on the tour in 1989. Chang was nobody until breaking out at the French. Gilbert, Mayotte - they were okay but they wouldn't be contenders.

 

[msunderland71]

Yes, and I'd say Agassi wouldn't have won it in '89 either. He had reached the semis of the '88 US Open, but was no match for Lendl back then.
Funny how it was just US players skipping the Aust Open - anyone know a reason for that?

Connors wasn't a factor on the tour in 1989. Chang was nobody until breaking out at the French. Gilbert, Mayotte - they were okay but they wouldn't be contenders.

 

[pabloJD]

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?

The Australian Open was in 1989 already almost as important as it is now.
As somebody said, everybody would pick Becker's year over Lendl's. He won Wimbledon, US, Davis Cup... you can't beat that with an Australian. Add to that the 2-0 H to H
If I remember well, that was the last year of the average's system in the rankings, so I guess Becker must have been more irregular at lesser tournaments and that was punished in that system

 

[Serve and Volley]

The Australian Open was in 1989 already almost as important as it is now.
As somebody said, everybody would pick Becker's year over Lendl's. He won Wimbledon, US, Davis Cup... you can't beat that with an Australian. Add to that the 2-0 H to H
If I remember well, that was the last year of the average's system in the rankings, so I guess Becker must have been more irregular at lesser tournaments and that was punished in that system

The article said that the AO did not gain legitamacy until 1995 just about the time Agassi decided to play in it.

In 1989 half of the top ten did even bother to play in the tournament.

 

[Serve and Volley]

Connors wasn't a factor on the tour in 1989. Chang was nobody until breaking out at the French. Gilbert, Mayotte - they were okay but they wouldn't be contenders.

all were ranked in the top 10. Thats like saying Roddick, Blake, Ljubicic, Fererr, nalbbandian are not factors in 2007. Imagine if they all skipped the AO today?

 

[Jack the Hack]

all were ranked in the top 10. Thats like saying Roddick, Blake, Ljubicic, Fererr, nalbbandian are not factors in 2007. Imagine if they all skipped the AO today?

This has been pointed out to you already... but 6 of the top 10 were at the '89 Australian (not 5, as you keep saying over and over).

Agassi (#3) didn't play because he was an idiot and liked to take December and January off. He also didn't play Wimbledon during those years either. Carlsson (#6) didn't play because he had a chronic knee problem and didn't play in hard court tournaments anymore at that point in his career. Connors (#7) never played the Aussie again after losing in the 1974 final. Mayotte (#10) missed the '89 Australian because he was injured. And finally, Chang and Gilbert were not in the top 10 at the time of the '89 Australian.

You would know all of this if you were actually following tennis back then. However, by your weak reliance on a poorly written Wikipedia article for source material, you just show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You probably weren't even alive when the tournament was played. :roll:

 

[msunderland71]

Well spoken! I'm pleased someone had the memory/research time to pour cold water over the wacky idea that the Australian Open was not legit.
Regards
Matt

This has been pointed out to you already... but 6 of the top 10 were at the '89 Australian (not 5, as you keep saying over and over).

Agassi (#3) didn't play because he was an idiot and liked to take December and January off. He also didn't play Wimbledon during those years either. Carlsson (#6) didn't play because he had a chronic knee problem and didn't play in hard court tournaments anymore at that point in his career. Connors (#7) never played the Aussie again after losing in the 1974 final. Mayotte (#10) missed the '89 Australian because he was injured. And finally, Chang and Gilbert were not in the top 10 at the time of the '89 Australian.

You would know all of this if you were actually following tennis back then. However, by your weak reliance on a poorly written Wikipedia article for source material, you just show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You probably weren't even alive when the tournament was played. :roll:

 

[prosealster]

Well spoken! I'm pleased someone had the memory/research time to pour cold water over the wacky idea that the Australian Open was not legit.
Regards
Matt

i second that too!!!

 

[CyBorg]

all were ranked in the top 10. Thats like saying Roddick, Blake, Ljubicic, Fererr, nalbbandian are not factors in 2007. Imagine if they all skipped the AO today?

You are either a liar or you don't do your homework.

Chang made the top 10 after winning the French several months later. He was around 30 early in 1989. Mayotte was ranked 12th early in 1989. Gilbert 19th.

That leaves two top-10 players - Connors, who made early exits at the French and at Wimbledon, and had the one decent grand slam result at the US Open (a QF loss); and Agassi who also skipped Wimbledon.

 

[CyBorg]

In 1989 half of the top ten did even bother to play in the tournament.

Keep lying.

 

[Serve and Volley]

Keep lying.

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

Now if you go into to the top 20 even more was missing. Guys like Tim mayotte. The year prior to that Jimmy Connors did not appear. In fact Connors and Borg only played the AO once int their entire careers!!!!! How legit could it have been????

Regardless what you believe the article I quoted says that the AO did not become legit until 1995 when Agassi started to play in it as did the other top names.

 

[Serve and Volley]

This has been pointed out to you already... but 6 of the top 10 were at the '89 Australian (not 5, as you keep saying over and over).

Agassi (#3) didn't play because he was an idiot and liked to take December and January off. He also didn't play Wimbledon during those years either. Carlsson (#6) didn't play because he had a chronic knee problem and didn't play in hard court tournaments anymore at that point in his career. Connors (#7) never played the Aussie again after losing in the 1974 final. Mayotte (#10) missed the '89 Australian because he was injured. And finally, Chang and Gilbert were not in the top 10 at the time of the '89 Australian.

You would know all of this if you were actually following tennis back then. However, by your weak reliance on a poorly written Wikipedia article for source material, you just show that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You probably weren't even alive when the tournament was played. :roll:

Assuming arguendo that 6 out of the top ten appeared (which i dont agree with ,....i say its only five) thats still terrible!

Agassi did not play because you say :" Agassi was an idiot." The bottom line is who cares why he didnt play it...he didnt play it!!!! hes maybe the greatest AO player ever and he skipped it. In fact when was the fiorst time Agassi bothered to play in it???? I am not sure but I Believe the article stated that the tournament did not become legit until 1995 when Agassi entered.

In fact you have an excuse for everyone who did not play it. Face the fact whenter you go by mys stas which is 50% of the top ten in 1989 skipped the AO or your stats which is 40% of the top 10 skipped the AO...thats just terrible.

You make all these excises for why players didnt play with no evidence. Take Mayotte for example. You say he didnt play in it because he was injured. Well he also dodnt bother to play in it the next year either.....why is that???

Connors didnt bother to play in the tournament for almost his entire career...why????

According to my list Chang and Gilbert were in the top 10. Even if somehow they were not in the top 10 a(even though the rankings clearly showed that they were in the top 10)....so what???? They were great players but they also did not bother to play at the AO.

How many excuses can you come up with????? Do you realize how many skipped it???? I agree with the article...the AO was not legit till 1995. If you can site an authority to the contrary i would be glad to read it.

Whats even more intersting is who Lendl beat at the AO in 1989.....he beat Miroslav Mecir!!! The dude never won a grand slam in his entire life!!! he was not even ranked in the top 10! The reason???? Because many of the better players like Connors, Agassi, Chang, all skipped the AO. Compare that to Beckers wins at Wimbledon and The US open. They were far more legitimate.

 

[Moose Malloy]

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.)

I looked through my old tennis magazines recently & found the points differential for 1989. The ATP ranking didn't count any WCT events or the Year End Masters. It was a system that averaged the points you earned at all other events by the amount of events you entered.
The final standings:

Lendl 213.214 from 15 events
Becker 189.916 from 12 events
Edberg 150.857 from 15 events

Using the points listed on the player activity for '89 for these players on the website, the average I came up with matched the average listed in Tennis Magazine.

Also Tennis Magazine published the totals of the players under the Grand Prix Race system for 1989(this includes WCT & the Year End Masters) The top finishers in this system qualifed for the Year end masters:

Lendl 9,831
Becker 7,039
Edberg 6,355

Under both ranking systems, Lendl had a big lead over Becker. But Edberg gets closer with the 'race' system(not surprising since he won the Masters that year) I'm curious as to how different the atp ranking for that year would be if the Year End Masters was included(in which Becker made the final)
And who knows, Wilander may have not passed Lendl in '88 if it had, since Lendl was so dominant at that event, an event which gives so many points today.

Also looking at the player activity page, you can see how many points were given to the majors back then. I'm assuming bonus points were used since they all gave different amounts to the winners of each, though there does seem to be a big gap in points with the AO compared to other majors.

Becker got 466 points for winning the USO in '89
He got 488 for winning Wimbledon.
Lendl got 335 points for winning the AO.
Chang got 455 for winning the French.

Here is Becker's page for '89:

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/playe...1989&player=B028&selTournament=0&prevtrnnum=0

 

[CAM178]

The best player that year was Schlomo Glickstein.

 

[thrust]

Becker.

2 grand slams

Lendl also won a slam plus 5 more tournaments than Becker, all of which count towards deciding who is #1. Therefore, Becker according to the ranking system of that time, was the official YE #1

 

[GuyForget]

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?

It was a serious slam by 88 bro

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Becker easily. Everyone knows it, which is why every Player of Year award went to Becker, overruling the ATP rankings, with not a single one going to Lendl.

 

[HBK4life]

Lendl also won a slam plus 5 more tournaments than Becker, all of which count towards deciding who is #1. Therefore, Becker according to the ranking system of that time, was the official YE #1

That’s all fine. But I guarantee Ivan would trade all 5 tournaments and the official #1 for the 2 to 1 slam number Becker had on him that year.

 

[Mustard]

Lendl would be number 1 for 1989 on any rankings computer. He won more tournaments, had a better win-loss record and more overall consistency.

However, everyone (including Lendl) would prefer Becker's 1989 because of the highs, i.e. winning Wimbledon, US Open and Davis Cup, and winning both matches against Lendl.

 

[Hard Court]

Yeah, I think sometimes we all forget the rest of the get how small of a factor the Grand Slams are in the rankings. Obviously one Grand Slam is a bigger deal winning a non-Grand Slam. (at least for a long time now.)
However, the four Grand Slams combined are not worth as much as all of the other tournaments combined.

 

[Mustard]

Yeah, I think sometimes we all forget the rest of the get how small of a factor the Grand Slams are in the rankings. Obviously one Grand Slam is a bigger deal winning a non-Grand Slam. (at least for a long time now.)
However, the four Grand Slams combined are not worth as much as all of the other tournaments combined.

And that was even more the case in the 20th century than what it is today.

 

[toth]

I vote for Becker