Italian, German, South American ch. and US Amateur don't require to your basic criteria - money and big field.
If you include the second MSG you need to include the first one too. But small draw for both.
BIG titles ranking (work in progress)
- Thread starter KG1965
- Start date
If you include the second MSG you need to include the first one too. But small draw for both.
Something should be wrong with the money of Italian. It was about 15,000 - 12,000 for men and 3,000 for women. No top field - no Masters. The same was with MCarlo - no big money, no top field.
Definitely you have to include US pro and Japan Pro.
I would include Stockholm and St. Louis instead of Barcelona.
I don't see how you could exclude Queens and Indian Wells?
For Lendl you could also add 2 WCT Finals/ For Laver would you include his 2 Champions Classics? From my point of view his 1971 win at that event is nearly worth 2 Slams (13 straight best of 5 matches with every round having top class opponents - Ken Rosewall in the first round!).
Drob
Hall of Fame
Thanks, timnz. I put the TCC and the early WCT Finals in a category above M 1000 Equivalents. Basically majors.
Maybe it gets confusing. Maybe I should try to categorize differently.
Regarding Lendl's WCT Finals, I did include the 1980s WCT Finals as M 1000 Equivalents because I considered it had lost its near-Slam status by then, if not earlier.
Including TCC puts Laver at 19 Open era. If you include the WCT Finals of the decade of the 1970s then there is one extra each for Newk, Ashe, Borg, Connors, Gerulaitis (and Smith) and two extra for Rosewall.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
Thanks. It looks like I might not have explained sufficiently the justifications for a few tournaments, and need to go back and do so. Obliged for the critique - it helps.
Neither do I actually.
When I made that list I took two parameters: the prize money and the seeding. I also let my memory help me, I have a very vivid memory of those years.
Sometimes it happened that in the 70s and 80s a tournament could have big prize money but poor seeding. Or the other way around.
The Queen's Club of those years was certainly a big title with great finals and did not have sufficient prize money (and therefore few ATP ranking points.
Same as La Quinta (Indian Wells area).
But after a few years I think it is correct to include his two victories at Queen's 82 and 83 with both finals won against Supermac (not 72 because it was a poor edition) and La Quinta 81 and 84 (finals won against Lendl and Noah ).
However, some tournaments that I had entered for a high prize meny but lower in seeding should be removed (Monterrey 82, Boca West 84 for example).
Maybe one day I will include the 4 changes but I will probably exclude 4 of them leaving the total unchanged.
Thanks for the observation, very pertinent.
Playing once a week or once in 2-3 weeks is much easier than playing everyday or every 2 days. Never should be ignored the bigger chances of fatigue or injury playing in a tight schedule. TCC fulfills only 1 criterion of the slam - best of 5. The extended schedule is a substantial factor for non-slam. I have placed TCC similar the ATP finals - tier 1500.
The average gap in days was 6 days. 13 matches in a 2 month period, comes out around 1 every 6 days. I do know the last match was played on the 19th of march And the first on 2nd of jan.
Originally Posted by urban
1971:
Matches were played between Jan and March. Because Laver won all the matches i give the name of the opponent:
New York: Rosewall 6-3,6-4,7-5.
Rochester: Newcombe 6-4,6-2,4-6,5-7,6-4.
Boston: Roche 7-5,4-6,3-6,7-5,6-1.
Philadelphia: Emerson, 6-2,6-3,7-5.
New York: Ashe 7-5,6-4,7-5.
Detroit: Okker 5-7,5-7,6-2,6-2,6-2.
New York: Ashe 3-6,6-3,6-3,6-4.
Inglewood: Taylor 6-3,7-5,6-2.
New York:Okker 6-1,6-4,6-3.
New York: Ralston 3-6,6-1,6-4,6-3.
New Haven: Emerson 6-3,5-7,6-3,3-6,6-3.
To decide the semifinal line-up outside the Laver-matches, the following matches were played:
Ralston bt. Roche. Ralston bt. Ashe. Ashe bt. Rosewall, Okker bt- Newcombe. Emerson bt. Taylor.
Semifinals, New York:
Laver-Ralston 6-3,6-4,7-5.
Okker-Emerson 6-4,2-6,4.6,6-3,6-4.
Final, New York:
Laver-Okker 7-5,6-2,6-1.
Last edited:
I don't need the matches, I have them. Good that you changed the average from 4 to 6 days. Well, 6 days are a very comfortable time for rest and refresh. Not like in the slam.
Drob
Hall of Fame
TCC is what it is. The herky-jerky nature of the struggle might have made it more difficult rather than less. You are, after all, competing in other tournaments in the meantime. Laver played three big tournaments during the course of the 1971 TCC, Okker and Ashe four such each.
I think maybe TCC bothers a lot of observers because it doesn't fit any normal category. It is not a tour or a "barn-storming" by any means; it is not a fortnightly, 11-day or week-long tournament; it is not the old Davis Cup format. It is entirely sui generis, and for that, diminished by some. So be it.
I think maybe TCC bothers a lot of observers because it doesn't fit any normal category. It is not a tour or a "barn-storming" by any means; it is not a fortnightly, 11-day or week-long tournament; it is not the old Davis Cup format. It is entirely sui generis, and for that, diminished by some. So be it.
In January Laver played only TCC. In Feb he played Phila and TCC. In March he played in London, 2 matches at AO and the last 2 matches of TCC.
I think that this tournament so exhausted Laver (he said so himself) that he was never the same again. The first half of 1971 was the end of prime Laver.
So most of it was played in jan and feb - so most of the matches were more frequent than every 6 days
Drob
Hall of Fame
Laver may have said that, and, sure, there is a decline starting, but it is very gradual at this point (1971) - so gradual has to not seem decline. Following TCC, Laver is 65-16 the remainder of the season and wins five tournaments (not counting 4-man gigs). Three are solid-good (Colonial, Bologna, Bristol), one very strong (Pac Coast Champs) and one is the Italian, which in 1971 might as well be the French - it is the premier clay event of the year. At the start of the 1972 season, Rod goes 38-6 leading up to the Duel in Dallas, winning five tournaments along the way and posting a 15-3 record versus top-10 opponents.
Maybe the decline starts after losing the Big One to Kenny. But that is about 14 months later.
Last edited:
He was still a great player but after the Italian open he stopped contending for the really big championships (Except getting close twice in the WCT finals). The champions Classic victory and the Italian open were the last huge championship wins for him. Later in the year he has some close misses, like London indoor.
I am still surprised that you are discussing this issue when not knowing the dates.
Drob
Hall of Fame
I can't really disagree, I guess. Its not like he won another Major, or tournament arguably Major, after the Italian. At that point, when he won the Italian, he was still No. 1 in my view. As far as the rest of 1971 is concerned, he goes 57-16 after the Italian Open, a few tournament titles including a very nice one at the PCC. Loses at Wimbledon QF, does not play USO, bad, close loss at Wembley final and close loss at WCT Finals final, as you know. Then, the hot start in 1972 mentioned before. Then a definite drop after the great Dallas match. Never again plays RG or Wimbledon, losses at '72 USO in the 4th round (and in 3rd round in 1973).
He wins a couple of significant titles in 1974.
But he is not at any of the Slams, which is too bad. He would have been at both the 1972 and '73 Wimbledon. In his book he makes specific reference to '73 Wimbledon he had planned to play as his last chance there.
But it is interesting that when Connors got to the locker room after '74 USO final, he saw Bill Riordan and yelled, "Bring me Laver."
Re. Connors. Laver’s reputation still loomed large even though he wasn’t the top guy anymore
Drob
Hall of Fame
As edited 17-08-23
@Ivan69 :
It was Lance Tingay's fault. No, it was my fault. Tingay's presentation on the Grand Prix Masters 1970-81, in The Guiness Book of Tennis Facts & Feats, lists the eight players who each year qualified for the tournament and does not list the players who actually played. I did not read the fine print. I was surprised at what I read but it made some sense because WCT players were almost all excluded except for Newcombe some years and Ashe in 1975, and I figured they had found a way to play enough ILTF tournaments to qualify, or perhaps winning a Slam might have been an exception.
It was a poor presentation by Tingay, sure - so poor as to be erroneous - but I should have at least double checked the surprising lists before re-analyzing the entire question on misinformation. I was right the first time. And I messed up on this one.
I went back over the actual draws using TB. Compared to what came after and what we expect the YEC to look like, these six years should probably remain downgraded.
1971 is weak
1972 is weak
1973 is pretty strong
1974 is pretty strong
1975 is strong
1976 is pretty weak
Three "strong" and three weak for a tournament that had no tradition is not good.
It is interesting that WCT players occasionally qualified - and occasionally played.
I did not take time to identify which top-10 players qualified but did not participate. But obviously there must have been several in 1971 and '72, with things getting stronger after that.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
Hi
I chanced upon another tournament victory of Laver's that seems to make the grade as an M 1000 equivalent and burnishes his late-1971 just a little. I am not going out hunting for Laver trophies, and I might not decide to use this one. But it is interesting. We mentioned it in passing earlier as a title but w no special significance. It was actually kind of important and kind of cool.
Bologna WCT. This was the final full tournament of the WCT before the WCT Finals, so it was important for some players to try to qualify for the Finals and for others as a momentum builder. Described by leading tennis journalist Richard Evans as the most consistent top-quality play he ever saw at any tournament. Thirteen of world’s top 20 in a 48-player draw. Five-set matches at semifinals and finals. Rod Laver champion
Drob
Hall of Fame
The following confirms your point, but it is kind of interesting.
1971 Italian to 1972 WCT Finals is virtually one year exactly.
Right after the Italian, Laver does funk out a bit: For three months or so, until late August, he is 21-10, and of course he has those problems at Wimbledon and Queen's.
But then, he goes 79-13, up to and including the 1972 WCT Finals. This is from late August 1971 to mid-May 1972. During these nine months he picks up 10 tournament titles.
As you said, after that loss at Dallas, it is downhill.
But Italian Open to WCT Finals, inclusive, his match record is 102-23 (and includes the Italian), which is a better than calendar-year 1968 and just about the same as calendar-year 1967 and calendar-year 1970, when he was No. 1. Of course, there are no Huge titles after Rome during this period and only one Big title.
Big Titles:
I guess there are six big titles he competes for during this 12-month period, three Really Big or Huge. I am not counting the Italian which I consider in the past tense for this purpose: The two WCT Finals, 1971 Wimbledon, 1971 Wembley, 1971 Stockholm, 1972 US Pro Indoor. And one for six is not like Laver. So, on win-loss looks like same Laver, but on big tournaments looks like your idea of downhill after Rome is right. Of course, losing to Kenny can never be a surprise to anyone, much less Rod. And he always had problems playing Nastase (I think Nasty and Borg are the only players he met at least seven times and has a losing record against). But he also bombs out completely at Wimbledon and Stockholm. No, overall record is fine, but he is definitely not the same player after Rome, May 1971. Yet he also has flashes of himself. At Bologna, certainly at Philadelphia, at River Oaks, and in both losses to Rosewall, second particularly.
Laver's record the rest of 1972 is 11-9. That says a lot.
There are some bright spots over the next few seasons, but they become exceptions.
But hey, win or lose, if your "prime" (which includes late-prime) ended with the Match of All-Time or whatever it is called, that is a good place to leave it.
Last edited:
Laver had played a lot of tennis in the early 1970s, and was a bit burnt out. In the TC series and maybe at Rome he showed his last majestic form.He was the leading man and main attraction of the Hunt WCT and following his huge contract, had to play almost all the WCT events, which was a hard schedule. Physically he had problems especially with his back, which hampered his serve and overhead, and became pretty severe at some times. In Chicago in spring 1971, he was rushed to the hospital with a paralyzing back problem and had to withdraw. He had a slump in the summer of 1971, and withdrew from the USO 1971. He lost some close matches to Nastase at Wembley, Lutz at Cologne, Kodes at Stockholm or Rosewall at Dallas, when he played not bad, but couldn't get the last energy of previous years.
Drob is correct, that between the second half of 1971 and the first half of 1972, Laver was by far the points leader of the WCT tour. I have a table with the points race of the WCT, which tabulated this time frame in mid 1972. In the serious reconstruction of the ATP computer system by Slasher, Laver was by far the Computer Nr. 1 for the first half of 1972. In the second half, Laver again had serious back problems, which took him out for months. He played only a handful of WCT winter events. He was announced to play WCT at Essen in October 1972, but had to scratch because of injury.
After 1972, Laver focussed more and more on working in tennis resorts, which became very popular and lucrative in the tennis boom of the US. Laver reduced his schedule a lot, setting out most of the summer season. He regained some good form late in 1973, motivated by the Davis Cup re-entry. He beat Rosewall and Newcombe, then virtually the Nr. 1 in the world, in five sets at Sydney indoor, won all his Davis Cup rubbers, and the Philadelphia biggie early 1974 over Okker, Kodes and Ashe. His Green Group at WCT in 1974, was pretty strong with Ashe, Borg, Kodes, Tanner, Panatta, Vilas, but he won 3 events in a row. At Dallas he had his usual loss of form, but regrouped and won the very rich Las Vegas Alan King Classic in impressive matches vs. Okker and Riessen.
Drob is correct, that between the second half of 1971 and the first half of 1972, Laver was by far the points leader of the WCT tour. I have a table with the points race of the WCT, which tabulated this time frame in mid 1972. In the serious reconstruction of the ATP computer system by Slasher, Laver was by far the Computer Nr. 1 for the first half of 1972. In the second half, Laver again had serious back problems, which took him out for months. He played only a handful of WCT winter events. He was announced to play WCT at Essen in October 1972, but had to scratch because of injury.
After 1972, Laver focussed more and more on working in tennis resorts, which became very popular and lucrative in the tennis boom of the US. Laver reduced his schedule a lot, setting out most of the summer season. He regained some good form late in 1973, motivated by the Davis Cup re-entry. He beat Rosewall and Newcombe, then virtually the Nr. 1 in the world, in five sets at Sydney indoor, won all his Davis Cup rubbers, and the Philadelphia biggie early 1974 over Okker, Kodes and Ashe. His Green Group at WCT in 1974, was pretty strong with Ashe, Borg, Kodes, Tanner, Panatta, Vilas, but he won 3 events in a row. At Dallas he had his usual loss of form, but regrouped and won the very rich Las Vegas Alan King Classic in impressive matches vs. Okker and Riessen.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
It seems something like if Djokovic next year went 70-8, but lost at three Slams, YEC and 3 of 6 Masters he enters, and has to pull out of a fourth Slam. He ends up with titles at Foro Italico and Bercy maybe, on that superficially excellent match record. It would seem weird, and unclear, but it would certainly seem like Djokovic had lost something key.
We sort of see something like this in Lendl 1991 (71-20) and Federer 2019 (57-10). They both win a couple of notable tournaments, but falter at the biggest.
But quite a match record and too many matches, of course. I mean Rodney's 100 wins in 53 weeks - gosh, that falls just one-week short of meeting the Urban approbation.
We sort of see something like this in Lendl 1991 (71-20) and Federer 2019 (57-10). They both win a couple of notable tournaments, but falter at the biggest.
But quite a match record and too many matches, of course. I mean Rodney's 100 wins in 53 weeks - gosh, that falls just one-week short of meeting the Urban approbation.
Last edited:
Drob
Hall of Fame
What is this Slasher analysis? Where is it found? Thanks.
TB has Rocket No. 1 throughout 1970 and all of 1971. By mid-1972 he drops to No. 3 and by year-end to No. 5.
Drob
Hall of Fame
I honestly had never thought about a connection between 1973 Davis Cup and Laver's brief resurgence in 1974, but I bet D.C. was a shot-in-the-arm. I remember he was excited about getting back into Cup competition, having been barred for the first five years of Open tennis.
Last edited:
Tennis Abstract has currently some good articles on the year 1973. It also announces recently a project of editing all amateur and pro results of the pre open era. One has to wait and see (and compare it with Tennis Base stats and Chris Jordans book). Slasher has published his rankings in a rivalling forum of Mens tennis, which i cannot cite here. His preliminary webside is www. OpenErarankings. com
Good Analysis.
I am surprised about the endless speculations of the major status or "close to major" status of a tournament.
4 are the majors in the OE. They are defined clearly with an official status. No matter if they gave most money or not. No matter if they attracted the best players or not. Second but important factor is what is their value money-wise and field-wise. But they are THE majors, with big or small value.
I credited highly your basic criteria for classification of the tournaments. Now I see you are ignoring your own criteria.
1. From 1970 to 1976 Masters was not among the top money tournaments, not even close in most years. The boom came in 1977, the second in 1990.
2. Level of field - I am not going to discuss all the mentioned years although I can. Let me focus on 1976 which is a "pretty strong" Masters. 4 out of 8 top players did not participate.
Connors said: "I think I have done enough this year", he said. "I don't like playing in December anyway."
After US Open Borg played only exhibitions and independent tournaments, thus according to the GP pointing system did not qualify for the Masters. He didn't care.
Nastase put his attention on the multi-million WTT, exhibitions and independent tournaments, thus according to the GP pointing system did not qualify for the Masters. He didn't care.
Panatta, winner of Italian and French open, played the whole autumn in exhibitions and independent tournaments, thus according to the GP pointing system did not qualify for the Masters. Obviously he didn't care for the Masters.
So yes, on paper Fibak, Vilas, Dibbs etc. qualified and played at the Masters. But the top guns were undoubtedly Connors, Borg, Nastase and Panatta which missed. By the way Connors missed a third straight Masters. How do you think - was it important for him?
Drob
Hall of Fame
"So yes, on paper Fibak, Vilas, Dibbs etc. qualified and played at the Masters."
Much obliged Ivan69 for pointing this out.
That was sloppy or something. Possibly I was even looking at a different year. You are correct, also, on Panatta not playing, so it is six of top 10. It is, as you say, okay only "on paper." The competitors are primarily of second rank by the highest standards. Wonderful players, but . . .1976 is "Weak". This changes things now to uncertainty. There was some reason I rejected these six years in the first place. May have to determine to put 1971-76 back into the 1000-like category.
I will edit the post accordingly.
Last edited:
Even more, 71, 72 and 73 Masters were close to tier 500 the only top players have being Nastase and Smith. Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Okker, Ashe missing."So yes, on paper Fibak, Vilas, Dibbs etc. qualified and played at the Masters."
Much obliged Ivan69 for pointing this out.
1976 is "Weak". This changes things now to uncertainty. There was some reason I rejected these six years in the first place. May have to determine to put 1971-76 back into the 1000-like category.
I will edit the post accordingly.
We have to be accurate with the chaos of the tour in these years. Different leagues, different rules, different rankings.
Another important factor was the relatively lower prize money. In 1977 they raised it 3 times to 400k and it became attractive.
So if one was to rank the WCT finals vs Masters in the 70s and 80s?
1970 Masters (no WCT finals)
1971-1976 WCT finals
1977 Masters
1978 - 1983 ? I mean 1980 and 1983 reasonably good competitions in wct finals
1984-1989 all masters.
thoughts. Was 1977 the absolute cut-off?
Here is my classification for both which I can defend with tennis arguments:
WCT finals
1971-1973 - tier 1500
1974-1989 - tier 1000
Masters
1970 - tier 1000
1971-1972 - tier 500
1973-1975 - tier 1000
1976 - tier 500
1977-onwards - tier 1500
Yes, It could be said that since 1977 Masters took a new look - money and field.
WCT finals had traditionally good money and good field. But the draw of 8 knock-out remained till the end (they were 1-2 years with 12). So, it can't be recognised with a bigger status.
Post Cincy
DJOKOVIC
23 Slam
6 ATP Finals
11 IW or Miami
6 Rome
13 Master1000 (extra IW, Miami, Rome, Paris, Madrid)
9 Paris or Madrid or Queen's
68 BIG TITLES
69.000 (23 x 3000)
9.000 (6 x 1500)
15.400 (11 x 1400)
7.500 (6 x 1250)
13.000 (13 x 1000)
6.750 (8 x 750)
120.650 BIG TITLES POINTS
DJOKOVIC
23 Slam
6 ATP Finals
11 IW or Miami
6 Rome
13 Master1000 (extra IW, Miami, Rome, Paris, Madrid)
9 Paris or Madrid or Queen's
68 BIG TITLES
69.000 (23 x 3000)
9.000 (6 x 1500)
15.400 (11 x 1400)
7.500 (6 x 1250)
13.000 (13 x 1000)
6.750 (8 x 750)
120.650 BIG TITLES POINTS
Divide the results for 4835 so that Laver has a score of 20 points.
RESULTS
24,95 DJOKOVIC
21,71 NADAL
20,39 FEDERER
20,00 LAVER
18,69 GONZALEZ
18,25 ROSEWALL
16,60 CONNORS
16,25 LENDL
15,21 SAMPRAS
15,02 MCENROE
13,58 BORG
FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
37,95 DJOKOVIC (24,95 + 13 bonus)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,71 NADAL (21,71 + 14 bonus)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
...................................................
27,69 GONZALEZ (18,69 + 9 bonus)
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)
RESULTS
24,95 DJOKOVIC
21,71 NADAL
20,39 FEDERER
20,00 LAVER
18,69 GONZALEZ
18,25 ROSEWALL
16,60 CONNORS
16,25 LENDL
15,21 SAMPRAS
15,02 MCENROE
13,58 BORG
FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
37,95 DJOKOVIC (24,95 + 13 bonus)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,71 NADAL (21,71 + 14 bonus)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
...................................................
27,69 GONZALEZ (18,69 + 9 bonus)
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)
Last edited:
Would you consider including Slam runner-ups? (or perhaps you are already) After all they are worth more ATP points than a Masters 1000 win
Yes, in fact, the slams runner-ups are currently more considered than an M1000 title by almost everyone and also by the ATP.
I didn't enter them because I only considered the victories in the final, not the defeats.
But yes, it can be integrated.
People can consider them defeats, but, in my view, they are 6 wins (6 rounds)
Post Flushing Meadows
DJOKOVIC
24 Slam
6 ATP Finals
11 IW or Miami
6 Rome
13 Master1000 (extra IW, Miami, Rome, Paris, Madrid)
9 Paris or Madrid or Queen's
69 BIG TITLES
72.000 (24 x 3000)
9.000 (6 x 1500)
15.400 (11 x 1400)
7.500 (6 x 1250)
13.000 (13 x 1000)
6.750 (8 x 750)
123.650 BIG TITLES POINTS
DJOKOVIC
24 Slam
6 ATP Finals
11 IW or Miami
6 Rome
13 Master1000 (extra IW, Miami, Rome, Paris, Madrid)
9 Paris or Madrid or Queen's
69 BIG TITLES
72.000 (24 x 3000)
9.000 (6 x 1500)
15.400 (11 x 1400)
7.500 (6 x 1250)
13.000 (13 x 1000)
6.750 (8 x 750)
123.650 BIG TITLES POINTS
Divide the results for 4835 so that Laver has a score of 20 points.
RESULTS
25,57 DJOKOVIC
21,71 NADAL
20,39 FEDERER
20,00 LAVER
18,69 GONZALEZ
18,25 ROSEWALL
16,60 CONNORS
16,25 LENDL
15,21 SAMPRAS
15,02 MCENROE
13,58 BORG
FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
38,57 DJOKOVIC (25,57 + 13 bonus)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,71 NADAL (21,71 + 14 bonus)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
...................................................
27,69 GONZALEZ (18,69 + 9 bonus)
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)
RESULTS
25,57 DJOKOVIC
21,71 NADAL
20,39 FEDERER
20,00 LAVER
18,69 GONZALEZ
18,25 ROSEWALL
16,60 CONNORS
16,25 LENDL
15,21 SAMPRAS
15,02 MCENROE
13,58 BORG
FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
38,57 DJOKOVIC (25,57 + 13 bonus)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,71 NADAL (21,71 + 14 bonus)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
...................................................
27,69 GONZALEZ (18,69 + 9 bonus)
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)
Hi KG, till now I haven't reviewed this thread. At first sight I see some missings for Laver. Where are the tour titles? At least big are tours:
European tour in 1964;
European tour in 1965;
The same goes for Rosewall. Missing tours:
New Zealand 1963
World tour 1963 - 2 tours
European tour 1962
France tour 1961
European tour 1959
New Zealand 1959
Asia tour 1958
European tour 1958
European tour 1957
Points for tours
Perrier trophy 750? When Rosewall was 20-4 vs Segura, Trabert and Hoad???
Facis 750? When Rosewall was 12-3 vs Gimeno, Buchholz, Laver, Hoad, Sedgman???
Drob
Hall of Fame
KG1965:
I have not been able to locate the post or post where you lay out how all these points are assigned. Can you give me the post # Many thanks.
1968 French Open, first Open Slam- Rosewall, champion.
