Personally, I'd include Wilander - but can understand someone not doing so as per the argument above
I'm open to counterarguments though...
Lets have at it, then
When I hear "Maintaining 90% winning record for a year".... I think of "a year" as
a tennis season cycle, more than the fixed number 365 days
Intuitively, I consider every 90% season to fulfill the criteria... but per the reasoning you've used, they aren't necessarily. If the guy loses first match of the next season and goes below 90%... than that wouldn't qualify.
This scenario seems to be missing the broader, real point of the exercise to me
Wilander's run started at Davis Cup first round 1983 and ended
after Davis Cup first round 1984.... he completed a tennis cycle (the odd day here or there isn't all that important)
I drew the line by tournament rather than by match,
I like this move of yours.... because Wilander's was Davis Cup at both ends - as opposed to a normal tournament - it gets confounded a bit for his case.
Taking the Davis Cup to be a "tournament", Brussels - where he fell under - is 1 tournament beyond the seasonal cycle
That one is/was a hard judgment call I made (also Agassi August 1994-1995
Agassi is a bit different because he was under 90% going into the 95 US Open (88-10).... so he needed to win that event to take him past 90
Wilander was over 90
the Wilander equivalent for Agassi would have been his winning the 95 US Open to go over 90%, but be short of 365 days... and go under 90 in his next tournament when he's past 365 days. I would include him in that case
The Agassi equivalent for Wilander would have been had he lost a match at Davis Cup 1984, which would keep him below 90.... and of course, he wouldn't qualify
As it happened, my verdict would be Wilander in, Agassi not in
This was done somewhat to address the Borg issue, who theoretically could have banked time between his last tournament before his 1981 sabbatical from ATP events through his first tournament in his 1991 comeback a decade later.
If we were following rules like laws, Borg's 15+ year streak would fall under the heading of frivolous lawsuit
A small activity clause or minimum # of matches item can take care of him
Without one or the other, anything is possible.... Sampras would not just join the list, but remain on it for eternity with a 7-0 record
All in all, I think Wilander's run is cleaner than a few recent entries... like Federer's ongoing, missed 6 months through injury and clay-free run or Nadal's
injury 'abetted' streaks where he missed tournaments on surfaces less favourable to him
... appreciate you flagging how good Wilander was in 1983 (I recall there are some folks in the Former Pro forum who think he should share the PoY for 1983 with McEnroe).
We had a great thread on that that you might find interesting -
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...anking-of-mats-wilander-1983-and-1985.587893/
Gist is
Wilander was ranked 4th, behind Mac, Lendl and Connors
Win loss records for the year -
Wilander 82-11 @ 88%
McEnroe 63-11 @ 85%,
Lendl 75-16 @ 82%,
Connors 52-11 @ 83%
Big Tournament titles (Grand Slams and 250,000 or more prize money)
Wilander has 5 - Australian, Stockholm, Monte Carlo, Lisbon and Cincy
Connors has 3 - US, Memphis and Las Vegas
McEnroe 3 - Wimbledon, Philly, Wembley
Lendl 3 - Milan, Canada, Tokyo
Biggish tournament titles (200,000 prize money)
Wilander 2 - Guaraja, Barcelona
Connors 1 - Queens
McEnroe 1 - Sydney
Lendl 1 - San Francisco
@KG1965 worked out the ranking was due to a few Wilander early exits costing him heavily under the average per tournament ranking system used at the time
As for player of the Year, the ITF choice had always gone to the Wimbledon champion since its inception in 1978
The judges were Don Budge, Fred Perry and Lew Hoad
It sounds like their choices had all been unanimous until 1983 - when Hoad voted for Wilander
