Greatest Tennis Player of All-Time (Men)

urban

Legend
Wim 1967 World pro, Centre Court (Aug 25-28, 1967):

Laver-Stolle 6-4,6-2
Gimeno-Ralston 6-2,6-1
Hoad-Gonzales 3-6,11-9,8-6
Rosewall-Bucholz 5-7,6-2,6-3

Laver-Gimeno 6-3,6-4
Rosewall- Hoad 6-2,6-2

Final: Laver-Rosewall 6-2,6-2, 12-10
3rd place:
Gimeno-Hoad 6-3,6-3
Doubles final:
Gimeno/ Gonzales-Laver/ Stolle 6-3, 14-12

From the reports by Tingay and McCauley, Laver was overwhelming in the first two sets against Rosewall, breaking Rosewall at will. Rosewall recovered in the 3rd, but Laver turned it around in the long run. The sentimental highpoint was the Hoad-Gonzales encounter, which Hoad won with a lob on matchpoint. Full of anger, Gorgo put the remaining ball out of the stadium.
 

urban

Legend
Hadn't seen Your response, Carlo. On a Gonzales-Laver matchup. The peak Gonzales (say 1956-1958) against peak Laver (1965-1969). Would be depending on surfaces. On fast carpets or high kicking fast hard courts, where his serve would be an excellent weapon, Gonzales would probably do well. On medium hard courts, and on grass, Laver's lefty slice serve, and his better return (especially on the backhand) would come into play. On clay, Laver's topspin game from the baseline would be too much for Gorgo. But Gonzales in a winner take all match or a mano a mano series would be one of the toughest propositions imaginable. In a long series of tournaments however, i would give Laver the nod.
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
IMO you're also exactly right about peak Pancho pitted against peak Rocket Urban -- sharp analysis -- what about Borg 77,78-80 form pitted against peak Pancho/Rocket in your view?
 

urban

Legend
Gonzales-Borg. Indoors and on grass, Gorgo would be difficult for Borg. Gonzales was a sort of Amaya or Pecci, who could really play. His slice game would be difficult to master for Borg's extreme western grip. Borg would hang in with his serve, but in long sets or in tie-breakers Gorgo was very tough to beat. On clay, Borg would probably win 7 or 8 out of ten matches.
I think, peak Laver would have had more success with his lefty serve, than in later years, when he actually played Borg. The 1975 WCT semi was decided by Borgs return game against Laver's serve, which got considerable weaker since 1970. On grass, with his first serve working well, Laver would have given Borg similar problems on the doublehanded backhand, as McEnroe did with the serve wide - backhand volley combo. On clay, Borg's consistency probably would have won him more matches, but it would be more like 6-4 on clay, not 9-1. Laver would have tried to disrupt Borg's rhythm with drop shots and forrays to the net, what worked quite well in their 1974-75 matches.On clay, Laver did better against Rosewall on sun-baked, faster courts under hot sunshine. I assume, that would be a factor, too, against Borg.
 
Last edited:

pmerk34

Legend
You forgot the necessary addendum. Yes, Emerson accomplished all these things... against a severely depleted amateur field that lacked all of the top pros (Laver, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, etc.) who were, and are, almost universally considered greater players than Emerson. Emerson was a very fine player, but the numbers here are highly deceiving, and if you investigate closely I don't think you will find a very good case for including Emerson in the top 10. To his credit, the great writer Allison Danzig ranked Emerson #10 on his list in 1969, though allowing for the number of superior players since then (Borg, Sampras, Federer, etc.), Emerson surely must now have slipped out of the top 10 even in such a generous assessment as Danzig's.
It's too bad that this board got suckered into the Pete Sampras declaration that " only slams Matter".
 
newcombe 1971

hello urban,

about newcombe in 1971, he did winthe biggest event, but unfortunately he performed poorly at the other major events. the points based soley on majors (with only wimbledon having 200) and end of seson play-offs (masters or wct finals) were

Smith 411
kodes 369
rosewall 340
ashe 331
laver 292
newcombe 260
nastase 178


So newcombe might have won the most important event of the year, but failed in all the other majors. Koeds did more or less nothing in ordinary events. For instance,kodes played about 10 events in the usa , but only performed well at the us open; in the other 9 he failed to get past the qf.

overall performance by players in terms of good results in 1971:

laver (7 wins, 5 ru), rosewall (8 wins, 1 ru), smith (7 wins 1 ru), Ashe (2 wins, 5 ru), newcombe (6 wins , 2 ru) , nastase ( 9 wins, 6 ru), kodes (2 wins, 3 ru). smith and nastase's performances include the davis cup.

nastase was the most consistent player, but a lot of his performances were in weak fields and his major performance is the worst.

jeffrey
 

Borgforever

Hall of Fame
Gonzales-Borg. Indoors and on grass, Gorgo would be difficult for Borg. Gonzales was a sort of Amaya or Pecci, who could really play. His slice game would be difficult to master for Borg's extreme western grip. Borg would hang in with his serve, but in long sets or in tie-breakers Gorgo was very tough to beat. On clay, Borg would probably win 7 or 8 out of ten matches.
I think, peak Laver would have had more success with his lefty serve, than in later years, when he actually played Borg. The 1975 WCT semi was decided by Borgs return game against Laver's serve, which got considerable weaker since 1970. On grass, with his first serve working well, Laver would have given Borg similar problems on the doublehanded backhand, as McEnroe did with the serve wide - backhand volley combo. On clay, Borg's consistency probably would have won him more matches, but it would be more like 6-4 on clay, not 9-1. Laver would have tried to disrupt Borg's rhythm with drop shots and forrays to the net, what worked quite well in their 1974-75 matches.On clay, Laver did better against Rosewall on sun-baked, faster courts under hot sunshine. I assume, that would be a factor, too, against Borg.
Astute and correct assessment IMO. I agree with everything here.

Just some trivia Urban -- you mentioned Jules Verne entering Wimby and other artistes and poets... Could you be more specific? Mention maybe what year who entered and who was behind the aliases...

I know the Swedish King Gustavus V was called Mr. G playing at Wimby and the English King -- but Jules Verne... Hmmm...

Sounds cool as hell if true...

Cyberpunk tennis :)
 
Hello everyone, in order to correct some of my previous statements (about James Ernest Renshaw and about the 1970-1971 world rankings) I've edited my own posts #298 and #301.

One miscellaneous information : I've discovered in a World Tennis magazine that "Pfc. Stan Smith was unable to accept the $20,000 first prize for winning the US Open because he won the tournament while on active duty. He can only accept prize money when he is on leave ...".

Therefore not only Ashe in 1968 (because he was officially an amateur) but also Smith in 1971 (as an active soldier) didn't receive the prize money at the US Open.
 
Last edited:
reply to carlo

In 1964 at the time every one at the time seem to rank rosewall number one. All the journalists and the players (laver included). blindly accepted the pro tour's own ranking system. But now looking at the fullresults of the year, its obvious that laver is number. I suspect that only the tour itself had access to anything like the full results. Journalists would probably only know partial results given that pro tour results are reported in newspapers but only on a haphazard way. (a journalist would only definitely know the results in his own country). history can be rewritten with better information


In 1970 look how many voted newcombe no1, who you definitely do not regard as no1. the votes by tingay, gibson, mcCaulely and gibson cast doubt on their judgement but more importantly on their methodology. Any methodology that relies on just the so called 7 majors (4 slams + rome + german + south african) is nonsense. Eliminating all other results is just plain stupid. Sydney dunlop ignored for the french or italian is a total joke given the fields in 1970. Quoting contemporary jourmalist just shows most of them are just not prepared to incorporate all results; bluntly they are too lazy. Its only with the atp computer and the full grand prix in 1973 , that rankings started to but considered on all results. In 1974,vilas was ranked 2 by collins and world tennis, reflecting that grand prix success but poor slams could be ranked high. An old fashioned ranking by tingay ranked him only tenth.
The fact that laver was 4 behind roche shows how dumb many methodolgies were in 1970.

sgt john mentioned that the new york times voted for laver in 1970 and 1971.
I read an article just before us open 1971 where laver had been seeded 3rd, it stated that laver was withdrwaing because of poor form (don't believe that)
and that laver was still widely considered the best player in the world despite the traditionalist seeding

Look at nastase's own ranking, kodes 3 and himself 9, this is old fashioned big 7 rankings and is close to my major results rankings. The masters and the WCt crowns were totally irrelevant to him.

Old fashioned lazy rankings that still prevalied in some journalists (but not all) in the 1970s have been consigned to oblivion. Whatever the weights used nowadays, all results now count and not just 7 big events. The fact that 4 different people gained support in 1971 showed that there were fundamently different methodolgies competing. The fact that laver altered between 1 or 4 shows that some journalist were not on the same wave length at all.


jeffrey
 
Hello Jeffrey,
good post.
About Nasty, I haven't checked if he gave his own ranking before or after the WCT Finals/and the Grand Prix Masters. And also perhaps he didn't want to overrate himself.
As you say when journalists just took into account 7 events they were lazy because one thing I've learnt in studying tennis history is that every bloody result counts.
However I don't think it was McCauley's case because he was one of the best statistician in tennis. For instance he gave the complete records of the best players (one example is the "Las Vegas 69 - Pacific Coast 70" season).
What you say about Sydney 70 is completetly right and McCauley or Tingay had a tendancy to overrate "prestige" against "good field" (see the 1968 Australian "closed" considered as a major by McCauley).

Just a detail about the South African Champs. Those one were very overrated, entitled as "The little Wimbledon" or the "Wimbledon of the Southern hemisphere" but before 1966 the entry were truly weak.
For example :
- in 1955 the best players who entered the SA amateur champs were Sturgess, (the old) Bromwich, Russell Seymour (the future winner) and George Worthington (seeded in that order)
- 1956 : Sven Davidson (though seeded behind the home champion Sturgess), Sturgess, Torsten Johansson, Vermaak, Forbes
- 1957 : Neale Fraser, Sturgess, Forbes
- 1961 : Forbes, Vermaak, Robert Mark
- 1962 : Robert Mark, Forbes, Pietrangeli, Merlo, Vermaak
The least one can say is that it wasn’t impressive at all.
The heydays of this event were between just between 1966 and 1974 (however with ups and downs). In 1966 Owen Williams became the tournament director and with 125,000 spectators took its attendance to second behind Wimbledon (250,000), well ahead of the US (30,000), the French (25,000) and the Australian (16,000) Championships.
In 1966 players such as Emerson, Stolle, Drysdale, Darmon, Graebner, Hewitt, Wilson, Diepraam entered the amateur event (however the Australian amateur champs that year had a slightly better field (Emerson, Ashe, Stolle, Graebner, Newcombe, Roche, Riessen, Bowrey, …).
In this year at the South African Emerson beat Bob Hewitt 6-3 2-6 3-6 6-4 7-5 and Billie Jean Moffitt King overcame Margaret Smith 6-3 6-2. But even in 1969 (for the first South African open) the entry was really weaker than the Australian's though Laver in his autobiography considered that the South African should be ranked higher than the Australian.
The WCT circuit dealt a serious blow to the South African event in 1972 (conflicting with the Dallas final), so they changed the date to late Nov in 1973, and managed to have Connors and Ashe for 2 years. After 1974 its importance dwindled rapidly.
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
To the 1971 season. Following Total Tennis and History of Tennis by Bud Collins, Laver had a match record of 82-18 for 1971. I don't know the exact match records of Newcombe, Rosewall and Smith. I remember that Newcombe was leading the WCT series until late summer, when he got injured and didn't participate in the late WCT season. I went to the Cologne event in autumn 1971, and in the pospects of the WCT and in the media reaction, Laver was clearly the main man. The Cologne event, one of the first real pro events in Germany (they had a Spoga event in 1969), was very successful and drew crowds of ca. 35000 people overall and had TV coverage for 3-4 days, which was unheard at that time in Germany.
 
1971 rankings carlo methodology

here are the 1971 rankings using carlo's favoured approach

Laver 1010
rosewall 954
smith 940
newcombe 858
ashe 735
nastase 723

Not suprisingly Smith (carlo's choice for no1) benefits most from this approach, he led Newcomne by only 30 points on the standard methodology but his lead is now 80 points. Thus systems rewards wins and ru at majors and deflates ru and sf at ordinary events.


AS to your 50% ratios derived from the assumption that you have a 50% chance of winning, I don't approve. My preferred weighting is
1,2.4.7,10 compared to yours of 1,2,4,8,16. My system is nearly the the same as yours up to the final, but changes enormously for the final. losers in the early rounds are receiving the 50% ratio in both systems.


First of all winning tennis matches in succession is not the same as tossing 5 heads in a row. Players who lose in the second round have a 50% win ratio. Players who reach finals regularly like laver have a 90-95% winning chance in until about the sf.

Cumulative wins are not important; i treat each match and tournament as separate event and points are additive; the points you've already got are irrelevant. Following your logic thru a players winning successive events would recive an enormous number of points. For example one player at the start of the season has a record at 5 events as follows w,1st round, w, 1st round, w. That would lead to 48 points under your system

another player later in the season has arecord of w, w, w, 1st ,1st. He wins the same amount of matches but following the logic of unbearen cumulative wins he would carry thru to each tournament his previous points and would end up with about 32000 points. Totally riduclous. Just as tournaments are separate additive distinct events so are indvidual matches.


About your 4 tatio for slams against super 9s, nobody i have ever read has suggested this in the last 50 years. I presume given your readership of french tennis magazines that you got the idea from them. I have no time for atp rankings and their weights which are used shamlessly to promote their own events at the expense of other active promoters. However the ITf have been active in weights as well and the slams are their own events. The first weights ever were the grand prix weights of 1970 and that was openly set up as an itf event to crush wct. Their initial weight was 15:11 and the weights up to 2000 reflected that from everybody not just the atp. since 2000 a weighting system of 2:1: 0.5 has been used with the ITF approval (the itf got this weight in exchange for ditching the grand slam cup.)

rRemember a strong WCT event like philadelpnia in 1971 is on a 4:1 ratio with wimbledon. A weak event like Istanbul in 1971 is on 25 points a ratio of 8:1. Your sort of ratios do exist in the system but for standard events not really strong fields like washington and wembley which actually had stronger fields than the us open in 1971.


As to henman He is not forgotten. I cetainly regard him as better remenbered than either costa, gaudio and johanssen. Its your world ranking history that counts and henman's is beter. Nastase is better remembered (putting aside his gamenanship) for his world ranking; he was no2 in 1972 and no1 in 1973 and in the top ten from 1970-77. Okkerhad run of 1968-74 in the top ten; not much different, but his best was only no4 in '68 and '69. Okker's worst surface was grass and that surface was very important 68-74 for slams. Kodes did beter in the slams than nastase and okker with 3 wins and 2 ru, but his world ranking record is no where near as good as the others. Nastase is a lot better remembered and okker was abetter player than kodes.

jeffrey
 
First of all winning tennis matches in succession is not the same as tossing 5 heads in a row. Players who lose in the second round have a 50% win ratio. Players who reach finals regularly like laver have a 90-95% winning chance in until about the sf.
Cumulative wins are not important; i treat each match and tournament as separate event and points are additive; the points you've already got are irrelevant. Following your logic thru a players winning successive events would recive an enormous number of points. For example one player at the start of the season has a record at 5 events as follows w,1st round, w, 1st round, w. That would lead to 48 points under your system
another player later in the season has arecord of w, w, w, 1st ,1st. He wins the same amount of matches but following the logic of unbearen cumulative wins he would carry thru to each tournament his previous points and would end up with about 32000 points. Totally riduclous. Just as tournaments are separate additive distinct events so are indvidual matches.

About your 4 tatio for slams against super 9s, nobody i have ever read has suggested this in the last 50 years. I presume given your readership of french tennis magazines that you got the idea from them.
jeffrey
Sorry but I have some questions probably due to my bad understanding of English.
Firstly what does mean "tossing 5 heads in a row" ?.
Secondly I haven't understood anything about your cumulative points and "the points you've already got are irrelevant". I believe to understand the 48 points (=16+0+16+0+16) but I don't understand at all the "32000" points. Where does such an astronomic number come from ? Why a player whose record would be "w, w, w, 1st ,1st", should have so many points ?
Why in my logic a player winning successive events would receive an enormous number of points ? I'm completely lost by your explanations.
Why should a player carry through his previous points (what does mean "unbearen" in "logic of unbearen cumulative wins" ?) ?

So in conclusion could you please explain to me all this in a simplier way ?

One last question about that part of your message. What is "Totally riduclous" (I guess "ridiculous") ?

At last I would say that even my weighting of 1,2,4,8,16 (even more yours of 1,2,4.7,10) is unfair to the winner because one remembers only the winner and when a player lost many finals it is considered as a weakness so in my mind a winner should receive more than the double of points of a runner-up (but having no idea I just propose the double since I have nothing better to suggest).

About my 4:1 ratio of Slams-Super9 I have never read it anywhere, be it in French or foreign papers. I just think that a Slam should be credited at least twice more points than a Masters Cup because it's so much prestigious and idem for a Masters Cup compared to a Super9.
That ITF did approve the 2:1.5:1 ratio doesn't mean that the ITF was right.
 

SgtJohn

Rookie
jeffrey I think you misunderstood Carlo.

When you talk about 'tossing 5 heads in a row', I guess you mean that the probability of tossing 2 heads with a coin is 1/4, 3 heads is 1/8 and so on, which seems to mirror Carlo's points system. However, Carlo's reasoning obviously doesn't extend farther than one single tournament, so nobody said you can win 32768 points with a 15 match winning streak. Is that what you meant?

Anyway I totally agree with Carlo. The right way to look at it is how much a match is worth in terms of points.

Under Carlo's system: the first match (R32) is worth 1. Winning R16 is worth 1 too as you earn 2 points as a quarterfinalist but out of this 1 point was already from the former round.
Following this logic:
QF is worth 2
SF " 4
Final round win is worth 8.

With jeffrey's system:
R32 is worth 1
R16 " 1
QF " 2
SF " 3
FR " 3

My opinion is that you are contradicting yourself a bit: you say it is much easier, on average, to win a first round match than a final round, which is true. But under your system, winning this match is worth 1/3rd of the amount corresponding to a final round win. Under Carlo's system it is worth 1/8th. So technically the second system rewards early round wins much more.

(The use of the 450/700/1000 system by the ATP is the cause for many bad-ranked years in the current era in my opinion, most notably 1998 or 2003)


About the Super9/Slams ratio, 1/4 might be a little exaggerated but not much. When I try to rank players I often try different coefs anyway to check if the rankings rely too much on my personal choice in this regard or if they are constant.
Concerning Henman, he will be more remembered than Gaudio or Costa indeed, but for his 4 Wimbledon semi-finals, definitely not for his Paris win.

Jonathan
 
Last edited:
reply to carlo

sorry if you can't understand the english. read sgt john he followed the logic of 32000.

1/2*2*2*2*2*2 =16 That's the logic behind your 16 calulation: winning is a 50% chance and you carry your points from the previous match to finally get 16. This is multiply progression and its wrong for tennis.

with an unbeaten streak of 5 going into the next tournament you carry the 16 points following the above logic of cumulative wins ie with ten more wins from 2 events

is 16*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2= approx 32000 That's the logic of your system; a win streak does no end with an tournament finish (why should it ? it continues under the 16 point system). the high point of 2*8 =16 is brought about by treating wins as cumulative. My argument is that just as each tournament is a a seprate event starting from zero so is each match. How many ponts you have already accumlated in an event from two or three matches wins has no bearing on the points for the next match match. Points are awarded for the difficulty of the match. In my view a sf win or a final is worth 3* a first round win not 8.

to sgt john I'm not muddling the issue. Its for rod laver that first round matches are a certain win not the average second loser who for winning a match is difficult. Laver really deserves hardly anything for his first round wins but obviously you have to give points to 50% win ratios as a priority for first round wins who then lose in the second round. Laver deserves hardly anything for those wins but does deserve something large for his sf and final wins. He does not quite get as much as say 4 or 8 because he has already be over rewarded for his first round wins. points don't actually reflect indvidual win ratios for laver but overall balance of ten is right for really winning only 2 competitive matches.

hope this explains


jeffrey
 
Reply to rude Jeffrey

Once again thank you very much SgtJohn (for standing up for me).

Jeffrey I am really angry after you not to say more.
You’ve said that my system was totally ridiculous. Even if it is the case when you state that you could be more respectful and more polite. I always kept in my mind the first time you wrote to me in a Wikipedia discussion page. It wasn’t impolite but it was aggressive and I haven’t forgot it because it’s your natural behaviour. And I know how you can use sometimes uncivil words not to say more. You have sometimes inexcusable manners.
I have never been rude to you. I have never been disrespectful to you. Have I ever treated you or one of your statements as ridiculous, Jeffrey ? Who do you think you are to call my opinions that way ? And this isn’t the first time that you use such words. So henceforth I have no reason to respect you. I am so-called ridiculous so I will demonstrate that you are at least as much as I. Sometimes you would deserve a good damn whacking.

Another thing. If you could make some efforts when you write, it would help everyone and me in particular : for instance “1/2*2*2*2*2*2 =16” is wrong. 1/2*2*2*2*2*2 = 1/64 = 0,015625. “16*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2= approx 32000” is wrong too. 16*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2 = 16384 so if you want to be understood write intelligible phrases. And I don’t talk here about your numerous wrongly spelt words in many of your posts which sometimes make unclear your remarks. This could be understandable coming from me who doesn’t master English but from you I can’t understand.

Firstly I have never talk of any event which would count 32768 points (= 2**15 = 2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2*2) that is a 16 round-event (and not a 15 round-event) with the first round granting 1 point (and with each successive round giving twice as many points as the previous one). My system, as inaccurate as it can be, doesn’t multiply but divides which is slightly different because I never exceed a high level. If a Slam counts 400 points (that is the winner receives 400 points), given that it is the most important event, there will never be any event which will distribute 32768 points even if there are 16 rounds to win that tournament. The slight difference in my system (compared to what you’ve interpreted about my system) is that eventually if one day there’s a Slam with 16 rounds, the winner will always be granted 400 points (and certainly not your absurd fantasized 32768 points) and first round losers will receive 400 points divided by 32768, that makes only 0,01220703125 point.
Secondly you wrote about my system “That's the logic of your system; a win streak does no end with an tournament finish”. Where have you seen, in any of my statement, that a player cumulated points from the previous tournament ? Once again I don’t cumulate anything. On a given tournament I give X points for the winner and I divide those points by two at each round. So the loser of a first round receives X/(2**(n-1) rounds) points.
So if X = 100 and n = 5 rounds then the loser of the first round will receive 100/(2**(5-1)) = 100/(2**4) = 100/16 = 6.25 points.

If my system isn’t good I can tell you that yours is ridiculous too.
Firstly as SgtJohn pointed out in his last post, you give too much points for the first round losers.
Secondly for a semifinal win you give as many points as for a final round win : 3 points in each case (in a tournament giving a total of 10 points to the winner)
(see SgtJohn’s explanation : With jeffrey's system: R32 is worth 1, R16 " 1, QF " 2, SF " 3, FR " 3).
That is pretty ridiculous.
Firstly the probability to face a better player in the final than in the semi, is great therefore the probability to win a final round is lower than the probability to win a semi-final round. So it isn’t ridiculous (your favourite word) at all, that a final round win deserves more points which is not the case in your stupid system.
And secondly the pressure to win a event is pretty much higher than to win a semifinal round whatever the opponent you have to face. All the more reason to give more points for a final round win than for a semifinal win.
When players lost many finals in particular in big events they are much less well considered. Lendl is often dismissed in any GOAT discussion because he has lost 11 Slam finals. Pioline wasn’t considered in his time as a really strong player because he lost so many finals and won only 5 titles in his whole career.
So in conclusion a final round win deserves many more points than a semifinal round.
In my system (see SgtJohn’s post : Under Carlo's system: the SF (is worth) 4 (points), the Final round win is worth 8 (points)) I make a true distinction between a semifinal win and a final round win because I think it mirrors the reality : there is a huge gap between defeat and victory. If a player loses many finals he would be considered as a loser and not as a great champion. If losing finals were not so important then Connors would have been undoubtedly considered as the #1 in 1975 and in 1977 by the critics and by his peers because he reached the finals of the two very greatest events of the time (Wimbledon and Forest Hills) on so different surfaces as grass and clay (har-tru) while at the same time a) in 1975 Ashe won on grass but miserably failed on har-tru and Orantes even didn’t play Wimby and b) idem for Borg and Vilas in 1977, the Swede won at Wimby but lost early at Forest on clay and the Argentine captured the US title but lost as soon as the 3rd round at Wimby. If we restrict ourselves only to those events (which isn’t good as we have discussed before in several posts but to be coherent with many critics’ judgments of the time who considered that the #1 should be choosen among the winners of the British and US Open tourneys) Connors should have been considered without any doubt as the best player in the world because on those two very big occasions he was the most complete player by far : he was the 2nd on grass and the 2nd on clay while Ashe and Orantes were 1st on one surface and bad on the other one (idem for Borg and Vilas in 1977 though Borg was unlucky because he was injured).
However in 1975 very few thought that Connors was the best. The most famous critic who chose Connors as #1 was Tommasi (and the ATP computer). Surprisingly enough this critic didn’t give more importance to a final round win than to a semifinal round win (and in reality he gave exactly the same importance to every match whatever the round or the tournament, only in the late 70’s he gave bonus points for wins over great players).
And in 1977 to my knowledge no one ranked Connors # 1 (except the computer which once again underrates a final round win).
In both years everyone considered that Connors’ defeats in the very last rounds were enough not to consider Jimbo as a possible #1.
So victory is very important and your “3-3” point system for semifinal and final rounds wins is very ridiculous. Perhaps my “4-8” point system overrates a final round win in comparison to a semi round win but I am far from sure because in reality I’m enclined to give even more points (than “8”) for a final round win which in my opinion deserves in reality more than twice points than a semifinal round win because I repeat there is huge gap between victory and defeat.
It is the same in life. If you often lost then your life can be very bad.

When points are strongly argued with polite manners I am always sensitive to them. I am not inevitably convinced but somewhere in my mind those points are kept. For instance you perfectly know that you had almost convinced me by your arguments claiming that Laver was the best in 1970. And since your yesterday’s post #317 I am almost convinced too that Laver was the best in 1971 with your first lines “here are the 1971 rankings using carlo's favoured approach : Laver 1010 points Rosewall 954 Smith 940 Newcombe 858 Ashe 735 Nastase 723” but as I’ve just told before I’m not convinced at all by your “1-,2-4-7-10” weighting which I’ve just demonstrated is as bad as mine (“1-2-4-8-16”) if not worse. And particularly as you’ve been incorrect you have more convinced me that your system was bad that mine wasn’t good.


Now last remarks about ‘Slam/Super9’ ratios : 4 is perhaps a little exaggerated as SgtJohn suggests but 2 (your system and ATP’s) is still too small.
You perfectly know that in life some events are much more important than others. When you search a job if you’re not very good in your job interview you won’t be hired even though you’re the best, day in day out, in that job. That day’s interview is one of the most if not the most important day in your professional life and above all much more important than all the other days. You can be a very good commercial whole along your career but you can miss the contract of your life if you’re not good enough on that particular day. You can take the fewest possible risks in life it doesn’t imply that one day or another you won’t have an accident. For example you can be the best car driver in the world and nonetheless die in a car crash on the road : every day would have counted but the last one much more than the other.
In tennis it is the same. When a person likes tennis and is gifted enough, her dream is to win the US Open or Roland Garros or Wimbledon and not to win Indian Wells or the Canadian Open (except perhaps if she is a local) because the former events are truly more important than the last ones. If a player wins a Slam his life could dramatically change and his popularity, his fame and his money earnings will vastly improve. If Henman had beaten Sampras or Hewitt at Wimby and won the tournament he would be at least in Great Britain an icon while his Bercy win hasn’t changed his life, and his perception by the public or the other players, except that he received some extra euros and ATP points.

to be continued
 
Reply to rude Jeffrey (continuation)

Ask anyone in the street who Nastase is and sometimes (of course not every time) someone would be able to say he was a tennis player. Ask the same question about Okker and no one will give the good answer (except if by miracle the someone in the street is Jeffrey Neave). Okker in his best years played as a # 1 for some weeks (3 or 4) but never in June or July or September when it really mattered : for instance in 1973 he won on clay the Canadian Open and the Madrid tournaments with superb fields but he lost to Panatta (and Orantes) in Paris (and Rome). Okker has been consistent in 1973 but failed in the true important events. Had Okker won Paris he would be remembered by some today which is not the case in reality.

In conclusion I therefore think that my ratio of 4 is better than yours (2) which simply duplicates the ATP system. The ATP and you overrate consistency over true important feats.
You can tell me what you want but to win the Canadian Open and Cincinatti in succession will never be worth a US Open win. There is no comparison.
This is what I try to translate (perhaps badly but at least I try) with my 4-1 ratio while your (and ATP) ratio of “2-1” doesn’t describe at all the real huge difference between true major events and Super9.

When one knows how much you can contradict tennis authorities opinions (in particular journalists’ opinions and rankings) one can be amazed that you follow so closely the ATP system which is so perfectible not to say more. For instance that authority has waited for 36 years before taking into account Davis Cup results to make his ranking : unbelievable.
You, who are so quick to contradict tennis authorities’ (McCauley, Tingay, and so on …) opinions (I recognize with more often than not, good arguments), here you follow the herd.

Last word : as long as you won’t respect me (that is you will argue by using rude words) I won’t respect you too.
Not the best.
 

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Greatest???

1. Sampras
2. Tilden
3. Budge
4. Rosewall
5. Perry
6. Borg
7. Laver
8. Cochet
9. Gonzales
10. Lendl
11. Connors
12. McEnroe
13. Lacoste
14. Agassi

#3-#9 are all very, very close and a good argument could be made for Rosewall at #3 ... #11-#14 are also very close.
By Greatest do you mean seeing the greatness of talent in his play, with every stroke & shot? His natural God given feel???
For that its LAVER. (take Mac & Gasquet and times by 2)

By Greatest you mean a player that will kick your @$$? SAMPRAS. He destroyed his main rival, Agassi, in their head 2 head record and I think his prime game would kick butt in any era.

I've never seen Budge or Perry so I can't comment on those guys.
 
Last edited:

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
re:

This is a great post. I've always believed Sampras had amuch better career than Agassi and have never understood why some people say otherwise.
Are we allowed to say Agassi was INCREDIBLY talented but not a great athlete. We all know people in our towns that ran faster, could jump higher.

Sometimes I wonder if he had, say, Allen Iverson's athleticism, how many total slams would he have. (ya know if he could run a 4 minute mile, 41" vertical leap)

I think Nadal is showing us.
 
Last edited:

GameSampras

Banned
Are we allowed to say Agassi was INCREDIBLY talented but not a great athlete. We all know people in our towns that ran faster, could jump higher.

Sometimes I wonder if he had, say, Allen Iverson's athleticism, how many total slams would he have. (ya know if he could run a 4 minute mile, 41" vertical leap)

I think Nadal is showing us.
Personally I feel Andre is the more pure TALENT of the two (Nadal and Agassi). Andre's game could translate on any surface in an era of polarized surfaces. You would have a hard time convincing me that Nadal's ever could. But he certainly has the ahtleticism on Andre. Andre with Pete's athleticism, oh he would have been SCARY.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
By Greatest you mean a player that will kick your @$$? SAMPRAS. He destroyed his main rival, Agassi, in their head 2 head record
Having a 20-14 record against someone, including a 9-7 record in finals is hardly "destroying" that player.

Lastly, having a losing record against a player in half the slams AO and French (0-3) and not being able to beat that plyaer in those slams is hardly destroying that player.

Thanks, and God Bless.
 

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
Personally I feel Andre is the more pure TALENT of the two (Nadal and Agassi). Andre's game could translate on any surface in an era of polarized surfaces. You would have a hard time convincing me that Nadal's ever could. But he certainly has the ahtleticism on Andre. Andre with Pete's athleticism, oh he would have been SCARY.
Andre, was successful on clay but I wouldn't consider him to be a natural on it by any means. If Agassi, was playing a truly skilled clay court player like Nadal he would never have won the French.

Nadal's game has translated to other surfaces regardless of whether you will admit it or not. Nadal has won on all 3 surfaces, hard courts, clay, and grass. He's proven he can win on fast surfaces.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Andre, was successful on clay but I wouldn't consider him to be a natural on it by any means. If[/i] Agassi, was playing a truly skilled clay court player like Nadal he would never have won the French.


**IF** clay was played on rebound ace, Nadal wouldn't stand a chance. :roll:

In other words, we'll never know.

Nadal's game has translated to other surfaces regardless of whether you will admit it or not. Nadal has won on all 3 surfaces, hard courts, clay, and grass. He's proven he can win on fast surfaces.
No, his game hasn't translated to other surfaces. He plays the exact same way he plays on clay that he does on hard and grass. Something he wouldn't be able to get away with 8-9 years ago. That said, everyone is playing under the same conditions as he is, and he is coming out on top on all of these surfaces.

But again, we'll never know fi he would have been able to adjust.
 

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
**IF** clay was played on rebound ace, Nadal wouldn't stand a chance. :roll:

In other words, we'll never know.



No, his game hasn't translated to other surfaces. He plays the exact same way he plays on clay that he does on hard and grass. Something he wouldn't be able to get away with 8-9 years ago. That said, everyone is playing under the same conditions as he is, and he is coming out on top on all of these surfaces.

But again, we'll never know fi he would have been able to adjust.
Isn't rebound ace a surface used exclusively for hard courts?:-?

No. Nadal has made adjustments to his game on the other surfaces. They may be slight but they are noticeable. He is serving harder on hard courts and I think he comes to net more on hard courts and grass than he does on clay.

I agree that Nadal would not have had the same rate of success had he played most of his matches 8 or 9 years ago. However the same can be said for the people who played back then. Do you think Sampras would have won Wimbledon 7 times during this era? I guarantee Ivanisevic wouldn't have won a major.
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
Isn't rebound ace a surface used exclusively for hard courts?:-?
Yes. Does that mean har-tru, and red clay are the same????


No. Nadal has made adjustments to his game on the other surfaces. They may be slight but they are noticeable. He is serving harder on hard courts and I think he comes to net more on hard courts and grass than he does on clay.
He is serving faster overall. It's a result of him improving his serve, not a specific strategy for a given surface.

I agree that Nadal would not have had the same rate of success had he played most of his matches 8 or 9 years ago. However the same can be said for the people who played back then. Do you think Sampras would have won Wimbledon 7 times during this era? I guarantee Ivanisevic wouldn't have won a major.
I agree with your assessment. However, the surfaces were what they were, and everyone adjusted or failed. In today's game, the ATP and tournaments have decided to slow things down, including the balls they use so that players don't have to adjust.

Additionally, using your own argument, if Roland Garros would have used the same grass as they did at Wimbledon during sampras's era, he would have had 7 French Open titles.
 

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
Why not?



Ivansevic won his only Wimbledon on this era(2001), not the 90's era. Without Sampras, even an old Ivanisevic could win Wimbledon. Imagine a young prime Ivanisevic in this era. Use your logic.
Sampras would not win 7 Wimbledons in today's era because of the slower court speed and more difficult competition. I can't see Sampras winning more than 3 Wimbledon titles if he had to play Nadal and Federer everytime and that's if Pete developed a better baseline game.

Wimbledon was still pretty fast in 2001. If you remember, Federer S&V most of the time when he beat Sampras there in 2001. Since then the courts have slowed down significantly. Ivanisevic won Wimbledon during a very weak time in the ATP. Sampras was declining and Federer was new to the tour and was no-where near his prime by that point.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Sampras would not win 7 Wimbledons in today's era because of the slower court speed and more difficult competition. I can't see Sampras winning more than 3 Wimbledon titles if he had to play Nadal and Federer everytime and that's if Pete developed a better baseline game.

Wimbledon was still pretty fast in 2001. If you remember, Federer S&V most of the time when he beat Sampras there in 2001. Since then the courts have slowed down significantly. Ivanisevic won Wimbledon during a very weak time in the ATP. Sampras was declining and Federer was new to the tour and was no-where near his prime by that point.

Grass is still grass though and Pete was awesome on it. And what more "difficult competiton" is there today on grass that u speak of? Nadal? LOL. Hes a good grass court player. But not on Pete's level Im sorry, Pete even said if he got to play Nadal on grass he would be licking his chops.

Outside of Fed and Nadal where is the depth? THe most depth today is on Hardcourt. Not on grass and clay.

Really Goran outplayed Pete there in a couple wimbeldons. PEte had to come up with the goods in the clutch to defeat him. Im not going to put much stock in Pete at 30 years of age anyways. 2001 the wimbeldon court slowed and down and has been slowing ever since. Pete was struggling even before he played Roger. Even Johnny Mac was saying how PEte better pick it up up he would lose. He went 5 sets with some guy named Cowan or something before his match with Roger.
 
Last edited:

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Grass is still grass though and Pete was awesome on it. And what more "difficult competiton" is there today on grass that u speak of? Nadal? LOL. Hes a good grass court player. But not on Pete's level Im sorry, Pete even said if he got to play Nadal on grass he would be licking his chops.

Outside of Fed and Nadal where is the depth? THe most depth today is on Hardcourt. Not on grass and clay.

Really Goran outplayed Pete there in a couple wimbeldons. PEte had to come up with the goods in the clutch to defeat him. Im not going to put much stock in Pete at 30 years of age anyways. 2001 the wimbeldon court slowed and down and has been slowing ever since. Pete was struggling even before he played Roger. Even Johnny Mac was saying how PEte better pick it up up he would lose. He went 5 sets with some guy named Cowan or something before his match with Roger.
Exactly. The grass competition today is the weakest there has ever been because people rarely play on grass anymore. Put grass greats in the past(Laver, McEnroe, Becker, Sampras) in today's era and they'd be owning everyone.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Exactly. The grass competition today is the weakest there has ever been because people rarely play on grass anymore. Put grass greats in the past(Laver, McEnroe, Becker, Sampras) in today's era and they'd be owning everyone.
Yea Pete bar none is the greatest player to ever step foot on the lawns of wimbeldon without any debate. 7 wimbeldons in 8 years is sick. No one has done that since Renshaw in the 1800s. I highly doubt we will ever see a player of Pete's calibor on grass again. He was the Michael Jordan of Wimbeldon truly.

That may never be duplicated. I dunno
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Grass is still grass though and Pete was awesome on it. And what more "difficult competiton" is there today on grass that u speak of? Nadal? LOL. Hes a good grass court player. But not on Pete's level Im sorry, Pete even said if he got to play Nadal on grass he would be licking his chops.

Outside of Fed and Nadal where is the depth? THe most depth today is on Hardcourt. Not on grass and clay.

Really Goran outplayed Pete there in a couple wimbeldons. PEte had to come up with the goods in the clutch to defeat him. Im not going to put much stock in Pete at 30 years of age anyways. 2001 the wimbeldon court slowed and down and has been slowing ever since. Pete was struggling even before he played Roger. Even Johnny Mac was saying how PEte better pick it up up he would lose. He went 5 sets with some guy named Cowan or something before his match with Roger.
He didn't lose to him did he? According to your logic we should dismiss that match then.

But overall I agree,even though the grass slowed down it's still grass,serve is still a big factor and attacking tennis can still work even though harder than pre 2001-2002(when they slowed down the grass)so I'd expect Sampras,Becker,Ivanisevic etc. would still do great even on modern grass.

After Wimbledon 2001 Goran didn't win anything and almost didn't play matches at all because of his shoulder in the next few years(he missed Wimbledon in 2002-2003)yet even with so much lack of matchplay he passed a few rounds at Wimbledon in 2004(lost in third round to Hewitt)and Krajicek was also very rusty coming(he was coming off a surgery or something if I remember well)into 2002 Wimbledon yet he still reached quarters before he ran out of gass.
 

GameSampras

Banned
He didn't lose to him did he? According to your logic we should dismiss that match then.

But overall I agree,even though the grass slowed down it's still grass,serve is still a big factor and attacking tennis can still work even though harder than pre 2001-2002(when they slowed down the grass)so I'd expect Sampras,Becker,Ivanisevic etc. would still do great even on modern grass.

After Wimbledon 2001 Goran didn't win anything and almost didn't play matches at all because of his shoulder in the next few years(he missed Wimbledon in 2002-2003)yet even with so much lack of matchplay he passed a few rounds at Wimbledon in 2004(lost in third round to Hewitt)and Krajicek was also very rusty coming(he was coming off a surgery or something if I remember well)into 2002 Wimbledon yet he still reached quarters before he ran out of gass.

Just overrall IMO, is that Pete just wasnt playing well that tournament.. period. If it wasnt Roger playing "ahead of his years" so to speak that particular match I would assume that someone else would have bested PEte that year. Rafter or Goran easily.. Especially Goran who was playing lights out tennis. Pete's overall game was declining pretty rapidly at that point. Certainly not where it was a few years earlier.
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
Just overrall IMO, is that Pete just wasnt playing well that tournament.. period. If it wasnt Roger playing "ahead of his years" so to speak that particular match I would assume that someone else would have bested PEte that year. Rafter or Goran easily.. Especially Goran who was playing lights out tennis. Pete's overall game was declining pretty rapidly at that point. Certainly not where it was a few years earlier.
Yes it was declining(Sampras's prime was from '93-'98)but I still feel he would have won Wimbledon that year and made it 5 in a row if he didn't ran into Federer.Pete would outplay Goran and Rafter on big points like he always did,Goran could win more points than Sampras but was never close to him in mental toughness and Rafter couldn't beat a basically one-legged Sampras in the year before.Fed was playing "ahead of his years" but don't forget it took another 2 years for Fed to reach quarters of a slam again while Sampras reached USO final that year and won it the next so Fed definitely wasn't close to his prime either.

Neither of them were in their primes,that's why that match isn't a good sample to draw so many conclusions.It's one of the more overrated matches in tennis history,it was a good match but definitely not changing of the guard as it is presented sometimes.
 

GameSampras

Banned
Yes it was declining(Sampras's prime was from '93-'98)but I still feel he would have won Wimbledon that year and made it 5 in a row if he didn't ran into Federer.Pete would outplay Goran and Rafter on big points like he always did,Goran could win more points than Sampras but was never close to him in mental toughness and Rafter couldn't beat a basically one-legged Sampras in the year before.Fed was playing "ahead of his years" but don't forget it took another 2 years for Fed to reach quarters of a slam again while Sampras reached USO final that year and won it the next so Fed definitely wasn't close to his prime either.

Neither of them were in their primes,that's why that match isn't a good sample to draw so many conclusions.It's one of the more overrated matches in tennis history,it was a good match but definitely not changing of the guard as it is presented sometimes.
I dunno.. Fed looked awfully good that match. He certainly looked "prime-esque" during that match.. His movement was awesome and his passing shots were pretty. Some of the elements of his game looked a little better than they do now really. His court movement certainly looked better if you rewatch the match
 

helloworld

Hall of Fame
Yes it was declining(Sampras's prime was from '93-'98)but I still feel he would have won Wimbledon that year and made it 5 in a row if he didn't ran into Federer.Pete would outplay Goran and Rafter on big points like he always did,Goran could win more points than Sampras but was never close to him in mental toughness and Rafter couldn't beat a basically one-legged Sampras in the year before.Fed was playing "ahead of his years" but don't forget it took another 2 years for Fed to reach quarters of a slam again while Sampras reached USO final that year and won it the next so Fed definitely wasn't close to his prime either.

Neither of them were in their primes,that's why that match isn't a good sample to draw so many conclusions.It's one of the more overrated matches in tennis history,it was a good match but definitely not changing of the guard as it is presented sometimes.
The conclusion is clear. Federer was on fire that day, and Pete was not. Yet the match still went to 5 sets.
 

GameSampras

Banned
The conclusion is clear. Federer was on fire that day, and Pete was not. Yet the match still went to 5 sets.
Went all the way to 7-5 in the 5th and Pete had an opportunity there to win it and Pete didnt play all that well ( to his wimbeldon standards) and Fed was certainly playing beyond his years that match.

Its a shame thats the only match they played. Its too bad their career didnt overlap one another and Fed couldnt have hit his prime a couple years earlier. They could have some ones for the ages
 

flying24

Banned
The conclusion is clear. Federer was on fire that day, and Pete was not. Yet the match still went to 5 sets.
The real conclusion is clear. Federer was only the #15 seed, would end the year ranked a lowly 13th, would take another two full years to even make it past the round of 16 at another slam, and overall was about 30% the player he would be in 2-3 years. He was even further from his prime than Sampras and nobody expected him to win that match, yet he still won.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
The conclusion is clear. Federer was on fire that day, and Pete was not. Yet the match still went to 5 sets.
Wrong, the conclusion is : The defending champion who was playing well, serving at 69% got beat by a 19 year old kid who wouldn't make it past the 4th round of any GS until 2 years later ;)
 

JoshDragon

Hall of Fame
Grass is still grass though and Pete was awesome on it. And what more "difficult competiton" is there today on grass that u speak of? Nadal? LOL. Hes a good grass court player. But not on Pete's level Im sorry, Pete even said if he got to play Nadal on grass he would be licking his chops.

Outside of Fed and Nadal where is the depth? THe most depth today is on Hardcourt. Not on grass and clay.

Really Goran outplayed Pete there in a couple wimbeldons. PEte had to come up with the goods in the clutch to defeat him. Im not going to put much stock in Pete at 30 years of age anyways. 2001 the wimbeldon court slowed and down and has been slowing ever since. Pete was struggling even before he played Roger. Even Johnny Mac was saying how PEte better pick it up up he would lose. He went 5 sets with some guy named Cowan or something before his match with Roger.
I think Nadal would beat Sampras at Wimbledon (slower grass surface only.) Roger is just as good on grass as Pete was and Nadal was able to beat Federer in 2008 and nearly pulled it off in 2007. What tool could Pete use to beat Nadal on the slower grass surface?
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
The conclusion is clear. Federer was on fire that day, and Pete was not. Yet the match still went to 5 sets.
Yes,it can't be clearer to a Sampras fanatic like yourself.

Sampras got 70% of first serves in,was serving second serve at 110 mp/h average and was a defending champion who would go on to reach USO finals that year and win it next.Federer was ranked 15th and wouldn't reach another slam quarters until Wimbledon 2003(2 years after that match).I would bet my money on Sampras winning Wimbledon again that year if Fed didn't stop him,he would have gotten past Henman,Goran and Rafter IMO.

Both of them were on fire with their serving but as far as their overall game goes neither was in their prime(especially not Fed no matter how much you try to spin it).

The real conclusion is clear. Federer was only the #15 seed, would end the year ranked a lowly 13th, would take another two full years to even make it past the round of 16 at another slam, and overall was about 30% the player he would be in 2-3 years. He was even further from his prime than Sampras and nobody expected him to win that match, yet he still won.
It is,if you don't see the world with Sampras coloured glasses.
 
reply to carlo

i apoligise for freqently bad spelling; its a combination of poor typing skills and lazy spelling and poor health.

as to being rude your just as rude and arrogant. I did not call you stupid but l regard your idea as stupid; its not the same. We had a long dipute over the italian champs in 1971 and you called my thinking "wrong headed" and that is just as bad as ridiculous and stupid; i kept my temper and let it pass- rude words don't hurt. ARROGANT ACTIONS DO HURT

you lose your TEMPER frequently. as for stupidity 1/2*2*2*2*2*2 does equal 16 ie 1/2 * 2 = 1 ; 1*2 =2 : 2 *2 =4; 4*2 =8 etc. Its simple maths notation which was always used at my school.

as for rudeness your comment that ITF was not right sums you. The ITf and you have just an opinion. Neither of you are right. your expression was total arrogance AND plain wrong and you should never make such statements. you need to control you arrogance and learn your OPINION like mine is just one opinion
 
why the 1,2,4,8,16 points should never be used

for points distribution at oridnary events i like 1,2,4,7,10. I dislike 1,2,4,8,16.

The firsts points system in 1959 was 1,2,4,7 for 16 man events
In 1971 the wct converted this to 1,2,4,7,10 for 32 man events

This has been the bais for all tennis points system over the last 50 years

I wikk now demonstrate why i prefer this system with the help of rod laver. I view laver as easily the greatest day in day out tournament player ever.

In 1973 laver played the wct circiut with exactly the 1,2,4,7,10 system

The only two players who realisticly had a chance of beating laver on this tour were smith (the best player in the world at the time) and richey who had a suprisingly good record against laver. laver led by only 6-5 , although 2 of richey, wins came in the summer of 1972 when laver had a bad back. none of the other 30 players on the tour stood any real against laver; laver would and should win at 90% against the rest

I will compare laver with battrick,a journeyman player who played at 50% on this tour. both played 10 completed events.

laver played 44 and won 37; battrick played 19 and won9. he won about50% of his matches and on average lost in the second round.

Laver is a goat contender and miles better than battrick and him winning matches om this tour is very easy . myjudgement on a laver performance is reachig the sf is just ok; reaching the f pretty good; wiining the event good losing before the sf poor. battrick i rate as L16 ok; qf pretty good; sf very good; first round loser poor.

laver reached the sf 8/10 what you would expect; he got a bit unlucky and met richey in the qf 3 times . For laver richey is his sf opponent and smith his final opponent. Laver beat richey 2 times and lost once. discounting his bad luck he performed just what one would expect at about 90% (ie 8/9)


the far lesser battrick had 5 first round (poor) losses ; 2 qfs (pretty good) and one good sf.

the ponts awarded for performances for the 2 are

Laver poor =2 points ; laver ok = 4 ; laver pretty good = 7 and ; laver good=10



Laver also won 3 events and lost in final 3 times


battrick poor=0 ; battrick ok 1; battrick pretty good 2; battrick good 4

in my preferred system you get bonus pionts for beating good players. In this weak 1973 field laver had only 3 players who would help . based on 1973 play smith was a world number one contenfder and emerson and pilic were top 15 players. based on the ratios i calculated for 1971 beating smith is worth 3 points and the other 2 one point. thus if laver wins and beats smith its 13 points; if he beats emerson 11 ;and he beats alexander he's stuck with just 10.

now comparing the performance characteristics the ratio is constantly 3-4 times. laver is getting well rewarded. In fact when laver gave a poor performance he got 2 points and battrick's poor perf got zero. laver is being overrewarded. but what matter here is being fair to battrick and in terms of same performance the leeser player is battrick is geting only a third of laver's. Laver should have no compliants and is getting the correct rewarde for being a far better player. if wins 4 matches he gets 7 points (3 fairly easy ones and one tough sf win; his only win over smith came in the sf not the final; for one extra tough match win laver wins 5 matches and does not lose a match that week. 10 in total but 3 extra for one extra match . logically the four earlieir wins are better thenthan the last extra win. quite correctly he earns 7 pointsfor the first 4 and only 3 for the one extra; dead simple. logically 1,2,4,8,16 points would give an extra 8 for that one win which is miles too much. conclusion 1,2,4,7,10 is great. 1,2,4,8,16 is total garbage like many of carlos ideas.


on a poitical note . 1,2,4,8,16 has been used for prize money distribution. this pure ruthless nasty monopoly capitalism . nothing fair abot. thsankfully points are rewarded fairly in tennis and 1,2,4,7.10 hasd held sway for 50 years. three great cheers for fairnesxin tennis

so carlo read this and learn why your idea was pure arrogance and total stupidity

jeffrey
 

drakulie

Talk Tennis Guru
The conclusion is clear. Federer was on fire that day, and Pete was not. Yet the match still went to 5 sets.
Only reason you say this is because Pete lost. Fact is, Pete's serving percentage (first serve) was way better than many of the wimbledon finals he won. Sampras played a great match, and served very well. He got beat, not>>> he lost because he didn't play well.
 
for points distribution at oridnary events i like 1,2,4,7,10. I dislike 1,2,4,8,16.

Laver should have no compliants and is getting the correct rewarde for being a far better player. if wins 4 matches he gets 7 points (3 fairly easy ones and one tough sf win; his only win over smith came in the sf not the final; for one extra tough match win laver wins 5 matches and does not lose a match that week. 10 in total but 3 extra for one extra match . logically the four earlieir wins are better thenthan the last extra win. quite correctly he earns 7 pointsfor the first 4 and only 3 for the one extra; dead simple. logically 1,2,4,8,16 points would give an extra 8 for that one win which is miles too much. conclusion 1,2,4,7,10 is great. 1,2,4,8,16 is total garbage like many of carlos ideas.


on a poitical note . 1,2,4,8,16 has been used for prize money distribution. this pure ruthless nasty monopoly capitalism . nothing fair abot. thsankfully points are rewarded fairly in tennis and 1,2,4,7.10 hasd held sway for 50 years. three great cheers for fairnesxin tennis

so carlo read this and learn why your idea was pure arrogance and total stupidity

jeffrey
Clearly I have no lesson of behaviour to receive from you.
You are more arrogant than I have ever been.
You haven't demonstrated at all that I was wrong.
You haven't proved that either the 1,2,4,8,16 is wrong or that the 1,2,4,7,10 is great.
You're writing "logically the four earlieir wins are better thenthan the last extra win. quite correctly he earns 7 pointsfor the first 4 and only 3 for the one extra; dead simple. " but you don't demonstrate anything at all.
Why quite correctly he earns 7 points for the first 4 and only 3 for the one extra ?
Why dead simple ?
Why which is miles too much in "logically 1,2,4,8,16 points would give an extra 8 for that one win which is miles too much".

So your conclusion is a nonsense and if many of my ideas are garbage as you say then yours are mountains of garbage.

Whenever someone doesn't agree with you, you can't stay civil and you become automatically aggressive, bigheaded and so sure of yourself.

Whatever happens you never recognize others' arguments even if they are right.

You have no lesson to give to anyone.
 
Top