Stats for 1988 W QF(Mecir-Wilander)

[Moose Malloy]

Mecir d Wilander 6-3, 6-1, 6-3

Mecir served at 68%(70 of 103)
Wilander served at 64%(56 of 88)

Mecir won 50 of 70 pts on 1st serve(71%)
He won 18 of 33 on 2nd(54%)

Wilander won 31 of 56 pts on 1st serve(55%)
He won 14 of 32 on 2nd(44%)

Mecir had 45 non service winners(10 fh, 10 bh, 9 fhv, 13 bhv, 3 ov)
Wilander had 24(5 fh, 6 bh, 6 fhv, 4 bhv, 3 ov)

Mecir had 16 passing shot winners(9 fh, 7 bh)
Wilander had 11(5 fh, 6 bh)

Mecir had 3 aces, one df
Wilander 2 aces, no df's

Mecir had 18 unreturned serves(3 service winners)
Wilander had 12(2 service winners)

Mecir was 6 of 15 on break points(Wilander made first serves on 11 of them)
Wilander was 1 of 8(Mecir made first serves on 5 of them)

net pts
Mecir 60 of 89(67%) he was 30-46 on S&V attempts(65%)
Wilander 31 of 57(54%) he was 23-46 on S&V attempts(50%)

Mecir won 21 straight points on serve(last 8 pts of the 2nd set, first 13 of the 3rd)

He lost 9 pts on serve in the last 2 sets

 

[krosero]

Mecir had 45 non service winners(10 fh, 10 bh, 9 fhv, 13 bhv, 3 ov)
Wilander had 24(5 fh, 6 bh, 6 fhv, 4 bhv, 3 ov)

Mecir had 16 passing shot winners(9 fh, 7 bh)
Wilander had 11(5 fh, 6 bh)

Mecir had 3 aces, one df
Wilander 2 aces, no df's

Mecir had 18 unreturned serves(3 service winners)
Wilander had 12(2 service winners)

So Mecir had 51 winners in only 25 games. That's just astoundingly good.

I haven't seen this match yet but it looks like Wilander got killed.

For anyone who has doubts that there's such a thing as matchup issues, have a look at Mecir and his great success against the topspinning Swedes. He has winning records over Wilander, Nystrom and Sundstrom.

Through the '86 USO he had won 18 of his last 21 matches against Swedes.

 

[Moose Malloy]

the first set was pretty close. Wilander had 5 break points, Mecir had 4. 89 total points, some long games.

Wilander was 8 of 13 on S&V pts in the 1st, 5 of 17 in the 2nd.

 

[krosero]

From Philly.com:

***************

Mecir Puts A Crushing End To Wilander's Slam Bid
June 30, 1988|From Inquirer Wire Services

Mats Wilander once said losing to Miloslav Mecir was "like slowly bleeding to death."

Which gives you some idea of how painful Wilander's match with Mecir was yesterday.

Ruthlessly dissecting Wilander's game for two hours, Mecir reached the men's semifinals at Wimbledon with a 6-3, 6-1, 6-3 victory.

Wilander, the world's No. 2 player and the winner of the Australian and French Open titles this year, now has lost seven of 11 times to the Czechoslovakian.

Mecir, ranked seventh in the world and seeded ninth in the tournament, relied on his sure touch to destroy the Swede's Grand Slam ambitions yesterday.

Mecir, whose habit of not shaving throughout a tournament makes him look like a Parisian painter, displayed an assortment of shots in dispatching Wilander, who needed to win both this tournament and the U.S. Open to complete a Grand Slam. But behind the precision, there was also power, with Mecir's cross-court backhands shredding Wilander's defenses.

From 3-3 in the opening set, Mecir won 10 of the next 11 games. There was nothing the Swede could do to stop the flood of winners.

"He didn't miss anything today," Wilander said. "I'm very disappointed, obviously. I think I was expected to do better than I did today, although the way the match turned out, I didn't have too many chances.

"Obviously, I've realized it's really tough to win the Grand Slam. I realize also that this is the hardest tournament for somebody with my style of playing to win (because it is on grass). I think, if we had three clay-court tournaments - three out of four for the Grand Slam - I'd have a really good chance."

Said Mecir: "When I came here, I was not expecting I was going to get so far. I reached the quarterfinals three years ago. When I play well, I get my timing very well, and I think I can play well, too, on grass. During the first two rounds, I got my confidence back, and my confidence was growing."

So was Wilander's. The Swede had yet to lose a set going into yesterday's match, and it seemed that he finally had become comfortable on grass.
After Mecir won the first set on his fourth break point, he never was threatened.

"The second set was a little different from the first," Mecir said. "I was attacking a little bit more."

And Wilander was retreating.

The first set took 52 minutes, the second 30 and the third 36. The loss ended any chance Wilander had of catching Ivan Lendl in the battle for No. 1 this year.

Mecir, who has two fused discs and wears a back support, said he did not feel handicapped by the injury, which forced him to withdraw from the French Open. Certainly, there was no hint of any lack of mobility.

Mecir's opponent intomorrow's semifinals will be another Swede, third- ranked Stefan Edberg.

"I think it is going to be a very hard match for me," Mecir said. "We always have tough matches."

 

[SusanDK]

The loss ended any chance Wilander had of catching Ivan Lendl in the battle for No. 1 this year.

This would prove to be an inaccurate statement.

 

[krosero]

This would prove to be an inaccurate statement.

Strange statement, somebody got their math wrong.

 

[krosero]

Mecir won 21 straight points on serve(last 8 pts of the 2nd set, first 13 of the 3rd)

There's only one streak I know of, up to that point in time, which was longer: Becker had 22 against Mayotte in Hartford, 1987 Davis Cup.

Mecir had an average serve at best and he's the last person I'd expect to put up such a streak.

Again without seeing this I can't say specifically what was going on during the streak, but in general terms I suspect at least part of the reason Mecir was posting such numbers was the matchup factor. Mecir wasn't bothered by Wilander, and by the same token, Wilander was troubled by Mecir.

After beating Wilander at the '86 USO, Mecir said: “He doesn't miss many balls, but his shots are not dangerous to me. I can get back to them and sometimes, attack them.”

During the '87 Open Mats said: “I don’t have enough power in my groundstrokes to control him. He gets to all my balls and he puts a little more speed on the balls back to me.” (That’s a quote from Carillo.)

In any case, Wilander won only 7 games in this match, and by that measure it was his worst-ever loss at Wimbledon.

 

[SusanDK]

Strange statement, somebody got their math wrong.

At that time, I don't remember everyone being so obsessed with the numbers and calculating far ahead what would have to fall into place for rankings to change the way they do now.

Today everyone looks ahead and determines that, for example, "if Djokovic reaches the finals and Nadal loses in the semis, then Djokovic becomes #1," or "Federer needs to reach the semis or better in the next 4 tournaments and Nadal has to lose in the finals of at least two tournaments" or "Nadal has XX points to defend so if he doesn't do that and Djokovic reaches the finals in at least 3 of the next 5 tournaments and Federer reaches the semis and beats Nadal and loses to Djokovic," etc., etc.

In 1988, someone probably eye-balled the rankings and points after Wilander lost in the quarters and made a sweeping generalization that it would not be possible for him to overtake Lendl (making assumptions that perhaps Lendl would have a better 2nd half of the year than he, in fact, did).

 

[Moose Malloy]

At that time, I don't remember everyone being so obsessed with the numbers and calculating far ahead what would have to fall into place for rankings to change the way they do now.

but with no internet, how many people did you talk tennis with to know what 'everyone' thought? and what tennis media was there? just the few commentators, magazines around etc. fans just didn't know as much about the pro tour back then as today. I'm sure they if had internet in the 80s there would be all sorts of ranking 'obsession' by fans.

I recall reading an article where Edberg thought he was #1 for a few hours in '87 due to wrong info from the atp.

In 1988, someone probably eye-balled the rankings and points after Wilander lost in the quarters and made a sweeping generalization that it would not be possible for him to overtake Lendl (making assumptions that perhaps Lendl would have a better 2nd half of the year than he, in fact, did).

ranking system was very different, it was an average based system counting all events played in last 12 months. and slams weren't awarded an absurd amount of points like they are today. mats was an incredibly inconsistent player compared to lendl, even in '88. Lendl rarelt lost early at any event in '86, '87, etc. If Lendl had played more in '88(he was injured & missed a lot of time), he would have had a good shot at finishing #1 even with Mats winning 3 slams.

 

[krosero]

If Lendl had played more in '88(he was injured & missed a lot of time), he would have had a good shot at finishing #1 even with Mats winning 3 slams.

Which would have been incredibly unjust. If that had happened the computer ranking would have been utterly ignored.

 

[pc1]

Which would have been incredibly unjust. If that had happened the computer ranking would have been utterly ignored.

If I recall Wilander didn't win that many tournaments that year despite winning three majors. It (1988 ) was his best year but in some ways 1983 was better.

I always wondered how Mecir would have progressed as a player if he didn't have his back problem. If he improved his serve it would have been hard to see him losing to anyone.

 

[SusanDK]

but with no internet, how many people did you talk tennis with to know what 'everyone' thought? and what tennis media was there? just the few commentators, magazines around etc. fans just didn't know as much about the pro tour back then as today.

True, no internet, but I was referring to the media, both print and broadcast. The cited article was presumably by a tennis journalist, so one would have thought he'd have access to the rankings and how they could change based on results. I just don't think looking months ahead and making detailed calculations was done even by those intimately involved in the game as it's done today. Or perhaps it isn't even done today by those closest to the game, but only by the internet-active crazed fans.

There were plenty of print publications at the time. I think I subscribed to at least five or six tennis periodicals, including the newspaper-format publication that was sent weekly or bi-weekly, primarily to tennis professionals.

mats was an incredibly inconsistent player compared to lendl, even in '88. Lendl rarelt lost early at any event in '86, '87, etc. If Lendl had played more in '88(he was injured & missed a lot of time), he would have had a good shot at finishing #1 even with Mats winning 3 slams.

Lendl had a gap after the US Open, by which time Wilander had achieved the #1 ranking, but he played a lot early in the year leading up to it.

If I recall Wilander didn't win that many tournaments that year despite winning three majors. It (1988 ) was his best year but in some ways 1983 was better.

In '88, Mats won six tournaments, including the 3 GS, and was 6 for 6 in finals that year. Lendl won three tournaments, and was runner-up in two others. He lost in the QF of the French and SF of both Wimbledon and Australian, so really did have a comparatively weaker year than Wilander.

 

[Moose Malloy]

. I just don't think looking months ahead and making detailed calculations was done even by those intimately involved in the game as it's done today.

well, like I said earlier, the ranking system was a lot different back then(& a lot more complicated)

It was based on an average system, you weren't just accumulating points like today(& since 1990 - I certainly remember a lot of number crunching by tennis media that year) And they also used quality points, so it would be incredibly hard to exactly predict future rankings, depending on who you beat there a USO win could give you some very different point totals.

And Lendl still had a big lead after '88 Wimbledon, & had a great summer hardcourt season in '87, so I don't the writer was going out on a limb by saying that. Lendl hadn't lost the #1 ranking in 3 years at that point.

Lendl had a gap after the US Open, by which time Wilander had achieved the #1 ranking, but he played a lot early in the year leading up to it.

In '87 Lendl played 10 events prior to the USO. In '88 he only played 8. And he missed Key Biscayne, one of the bigger points events on tour. I remember hearing about his injury problems throughout that year.

Playing 8 instead of 10 events is a big difference in that ranking system. If Lendl played 2 more events earlier in the year & won them(esp if one was Key Biscayne), I don't think Mats would have got to #1 at the USO, even with 3 majors. And if Lendl played a full indoor season after USO(not a good time for Mats) he could have had an even bigger gap. I know it sounds strange, but that system valued consistency more than anything & Mats just wasn't that consistent that year outside majors. For example Lendl in '87 played 15 events(not counting masters since it didn't count for atp ranking) & failed to make the semis in only 2 of them. Made finals is 11 of the 15.

Mats in '88(again not counting the masters) - 13 events - only 6 finals. 5 early round losses(those could really kill you in that ranking system, you can't throw them away like today) While Lendl only had 2 early round losses in '88.

I have the ranking list in tennis magazine after the '88 USO somewhere, Lendl was still pretty close to #1 after it.

And look how quickly he got it back, 1989 AO, after playing only one event after the '88 USO(and one that didn't count for ranking)

Which would have been incredibly unjust. If that had happened the computer ranking would have been utterly ignored.

well many 2 slam winners didn't get #1(Connors '82, Becker '89 etc)
I would not be surprised at all if Djokovic ends this year as #1, even if Nadal has another 3 major season.

 

[krosero]

well many 2 slam winners didn't get #1(Connors '82, Becker '89 etc)

That's certainly true, but in a case like Becker he's got a 2-1 edge in majors over his rival. 2-1 is not overwhelming, there's something to talk about there. But for someone to have a 3-0 edge over his rival and not get the top ranking would have been unprecedented. The first 3-major season since Laver, and not get the top ranking? The computer would have been ignored -- which is essentially what happened in '82 when Connors' edge in majors over McEnroe was just 2-0.

It's strange enough that Wilander got the top ranking by a slim margin. He had 6 titles in '88, more than he won in any year except '83 (when he had 9 titles).

Let's see, when the '88 USO ended, he was the current titleholder of 5 titles. Lendl currently held 5 too (including 2 from the autumn of '87). So it was a 5-5 tie. Okay, Wilander had those early-round losses, so those have to count against him. But in this 5-5 tie with Lendl, 3 of Wilander's titles were Slams. None, of course, for Lendl. The computer may have had Wilander over Lendl by a slim margin at that point in time, for all the reasons you explained, but to me that is not a slim margin.

 

[Waspsting]

Ok, we have a bit of a puzzle about how the rankings worked here

I would have thought it was

- simple average-based system, Total Points/Number of Tournaments Played
- goes on one year cycle (i.e. points from last year falling off after a year, just like now)

The loss ended any chance Wilander had of catching Ivan Lendl in the battle for No. 1 this year.

Strange statement, somebody got their math wrong.

By my calculations, its an utterly bizarre and highly irresponsible statement

In what we now call the "Year End Race" (points accumulated in the calendar year), Wilander led Lendl after the French, going into Wimbledon (Wilander 190.6 points, Lendl 143.4)

With his loss at Wimbledon, Wilander fell to 178.4 points. Lendl would still have been in the tournament, but unless writer was making wild assumptions, there's nothing to indicate Lendl would finish the tournament ahead of Wilander, much less the year

As events transpired, Lendl ended Wimbledon on 154.5 points, about 24 points behind Wilander for the year. Why on earth would anyone think that ends the year end #1 race?

I would think the writer has just expressed himself badly and he meant to say "the loss ended any chance Wilander had of catching Lendl (overall, not just for the year end race) at this tournament".... the year end race seems to have been absolutely wide open, with Wilander in fact, leading

---

Puzzle becomes a bit more complicated still for the end of the year

After US Open, Wilander stood at 192.9 points for the year, Lendl 163.8 (and we know he became the overall #1 than too)

Lendl didn't play for the rest of the year, while Wilander had 3 outings (other than the point-free Masters) in which he did fairly poorly. After Stockholm and just before the Masters, his average (157.5 points) seems to have fallen below Lendl (remained on 163.8 points)

So Lendl should have regained the #1 spot before the Masters... there must have been a mandatory number of tournaments that players had to enter for Wilander to have remained #1

Lendl had to have missed at least 1 such tournaments to remain below Wilander. Missing 1 tournament (i.e. gaining 0 points for another tournament added) puts him below Wilander for the year

If it was just one mandatory tournament that kept Lendl from #1 for the year... he would just have needed about 105 points from that tournament to take #1

A semi-final showing in Stockholm would have done it! If the Masters had carried points, that would probably have done it (and of course, Lendl only finished runner up there)

Imagine the hullabaloo now if Lendl had finished #1 ahead of 3 Slam winner Mats Wilander

Worth noting is it was realistically more than just a 3 Slam year for Mats, too... he also won Miami, a bona fide "Fifth Slam" - 128 man field, all matches best of 5.... he got 306 points for winning it (by comparison, he got 332 for the Australian Open)

(All info from ATP site - http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/mats-wilander/w023/player-activity?year=1988
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/ivan-lendl/l018/player-activity?year=1988 )


@KG1965 might find this interesting

 

[BorgCash]

The next match, SF Mecir-Edberg was a real thriller. Remember it so well.

 

[KG1965]

@KG1965 might find this interesting

This time I don't have adequate data to replicate in a very constructive way.

What I can highlight is this:
1) Slam = number one ATP .... centers nothing, as I have already expressed the concept in other threads, you should never confuse the fruit with the steaks. You can obviously disagree with the ranking but the slam's victory is very undersized by ATP.

2) Wilander made stratospheric slams in 1988 and did well in the other big titles winning Lipton & Cincy, but lost 11 matches (83% of wins is not much)

3) Lendl hurt in the slam but reaches 3 semifinals and once the quarterfinal (consistency), but remained unbeaten in only other big titles in which he participated (Montecarlo, Rome & Canada) ... was absent in others (injury? I do not remember), lost only 8 matches (84% of wins, better than Mats !!).

Ultimately IMHO Mats lost too many matches in the first rounds in the worst tournaments .... ATP penalized him ... and Mats risked finishing second.

Waspsting .. I suggest you think this way:
if Mats had participated in 10 other tournaments (5 Master250+ 5 Master500) and had always lost in the first round,
1) do you think it was right that ATP ranking considered him the number one?
2) Would Mats be the number one for you?

 

[krosero]

I would think the writer has just expressed himself badly and he meant to say "the loss ended any chance Wilander had of catching Lendl (overall, not just for the year end race) at this tournament".... the year end race seems to have been absolutely wide open, with Wilander in fact, leading

That actually makes a lot of sense and is probably what the writer meant. There's no reason to think that he must have meant only the year-end ranking. He's describing a race in general, in which Wilander can catch Lendl.

Whether the writer knew specifically what the computer points were at that moment is something else. He may have been merely presuming that Wimbledon was a chance for Wilander to catch Lendl. If Wilander was close enough in points to catch Lendl at '88 Wimbledon, I don't remember.

There was a report after the French Open final that Wilander was now moving past Edberg into the #2 spot on the computer.

I'm sure btw that the ranking was a rolling 52-week ranking. It was not computed from January 1st and if it had been, like you said, Wilander held a lead over Lendl from the beginning of the year.

 

[krosero]

Here's an AP report on July 7, 1988:

Stefan Edberg's Wimbledon victory moved him up to No. 2 on the Association of Tennis Professionals computer and cut the lead of top-ranked Ivan Lendl to its slimmest margin since Sept. 23, 1985.

Lendl has been No. 1 since Sept. 9, 1985, after he won the U.S. Open. He has been top-ranked 147 straight weeks, 12 short of the ATP record set by Jimmy Connors from July 29, 1974, to Aug. 16, 1977.

Edberg has been ranked among the top three since Feb. 2, 1987. He has 146.2 computer points to 159.14 for Lendl.

Mats Wilander, who had been No. 2, dropped a notch after his Wimbledon quarterfinal loss to Miloslav Mecir. He has 135.93 points.​

 

[krosero]

After US Open, Wilander stood at 192.9 points for the year, Lendl 163.8 (and we know he became the overall #1 than too)

Yeah Wilander's lead is solid (but still somewhat thin for a 3-Slam winner) when counting from Jan. 1. More solid than in the rolling 52-week rankings reported after the USO:

Wilander, whose victory Sunday snapped a six-match losing streak against Lendl, now has 156.07 average points per tournament, according to the ATP computer. Lendl is second with an average of 147 points per tournament.​

 

[Moose Malloy]

While there was no race for the atp ranking in 1988, there was a race for the year end Grand Prix Masters that was mentioned a lot in tv broadcasts and published in tennis magazine. Different points were allocated in this system(top players usually had 2-3000 points or so)

These were the top 5 prior to the start of the 1988 Masters.
1 Wilander
2 Becker
3 Edberg
4 Agassi
5 Lendl

I guess another mystery is how many Grand Prix points were given to atp events.

 

[Waspsting]

This time I don't have adequate data to replicate in a very constructive way.

What I can highlight is this:
1) Slam = number one ATP .... centers nothing, as I have a

Waspsting .. I suggest you think this way:
if Mats had participated in 10 other tournaments (5 Master250+ 5 Master500) and had always lost in the first round,
1) do you think it was right that ATP ranking considered him the number one?
2) Would Mats be the number one for you?

KG, I hadn't quite got that far yet

My line of thinking in this is, in order -

a) I just want to make sense of the rankings

b) explore how most people intuitively make 'rankings' in their head

c) See if a) and b) line up for any given year

---
To expand, I'm sure you (and @krosero ) remember the debate/discussion about 1970

I remain of the opinion #1 should have been Rod Laver... but can understand and respect that "#1 for the year" just commonly meant something different back then

Another example comes from the ITF Player of the Year Award, which is a type of ranking - which was decided by a panel of three (Hoad, Perry and Budge I think - not sure)

From its start in 1978 to 1984, they always chose the Wimbledon champion... that seems to have been their virtually sole criteria (The ATP Player of the Year Award, which started in 1975 did the same)

----

Today, in our great wisdom, we tend to look at best results in big tournaments

We remember for example, Joe winning Wimbledon, Aus, Rome, Canada and runner-up at Madrid and Paris.... we typically do not remember or care about his first rounders in French, Miami, Shanghai and 2nd/3rd rounders in US, Indian Wells and Monte Carlo

This is a good reflection of the ranking system in place. a) = b) , sense made, mission accomplished

You agree?

Under an average points system.... the Joe example above would not align with the system at all

I want to explore if that's an accurate reflection of the time

Today, if someone suggested Lendl was #1 in 1988, they'd be considered crazy

In 1988, would they have been???

According to my calculations and deductions, Lendl could easily have finished #1 ...

just before the Masters, Wilander's average (157.5 points) seems to have fallen below Lendl (remained on 163.8 points)

So Lendl should have regained the #1 spot before the Masters... there must have been a mandatory number of tournaments that players had to enter for Wilander to have remained #1

Lendl had to have missed at least 1 such tournaments to remain below Wilander. Missing 1 tournament (i.e. gaining 0 points for another tournament added) puts him below Wilander for the year

If it was just one mandatory tournament that kept Lendl from #1 for the year... he would just have needed about 105 points from that tournament to take #1

A semi-final showing in Stockholm would have done it!

---

I think they changed the system the next year to a 'Best 16/17/18 Results' system (don't recall the exact number)

I remember Lendl was highly critical - "a joke", he called it - and he probably wasn't alone in feeling that way

Having looked into 1988 closely, it's likely they changed it because of it

 

[Moose Malloy]

@Waspsting
The ranking system was changed in 1990 and it had nothing to do with the 1988 season. 1990 was the first year of the standardized ATP tour which replaced the Grand Prix and WCT tour(you can read all about this on wiki) and the first year of Masters Series. The deal was famously announced in a parking lot in the summer of 1988. Google it and you will learn more, if you are interested.

The first year of best of 14 was very controversial since Edberg finished 1 despite losing in the first round of 2 majors. That likely wouldn't have happened under the old system. Anyway, this thread has gone way off track....

 

[KG1965]

KG, I hadn't quite got that far yet

My line of thinking in this is, in order -

a) I just want to make sense of the rankings

b) explore how most people intuitively make 'rankings' in their head

c) See if a) and b) line up for any given year

IMHO 99% of the people ranking only on slams, if for ATP Ranking the number one is the number one of the slam, the ATP ranking is ok. When it is not so, the ranking is wrong.
ATP ranking becomes superfluous.
2 slam> 1, there is absolutely no need for a computer system.
If instead you trust the computer system probably the number one is the one who wins a slam. And the number two who wins 2!

 

[KG1965]

To expand, I'm sure you (and @krosero ) remember the debate/discussion about 1970

I remain of the opinion #1 should have been Rod Laver... but can understand and respect that "#1 for the year" just commonly meant something different back then

Another example comes from the ITF Player of the Year Award, which is a type of ranking - which was decided by a panel of three (Hoad, Perry and Budge I think - not sure)

From its start in 1978 to 1984, they always chose the Wimbledon champion... that seems to have been their virtually sole criteria (The ATP Player of the Year Award, which started in 1975 did the same)

The 1970s had this problem to the umpteenth power: Laver (unlike Connors 1975-77-78) sucked in the two slams in which he participated.
But he dominated the whole year.
Who decrees that is the number one ???
I definitely. But I understand that it's a problem, especially in 2017.
If in 2018 Federer wins one or two slams and Nadal as well, then it's enough. Djoker wins 9 Master1000 and WTF + 6 Master500 but it sucks in two slam who is the number one?

The number one ITF is the number one of the slams. Does it have value? A little ... little IMHO.

 

[KG1965]

oday, in our great wisdom, we tend to look at best results in big tournaments

We remember for example, Joe winning Wimbledon, Aus, Rome, Canada and runner-up at Madrid and Paris.... we typically do not remember or care about his first rounders in French, Miami, Shanghai and 2nd/3rd rounders in US, Indian Wells and Monte Carlo

This is a good reflection of the ranking system in place. a) = b) , sense made, mission accomplished

You agree?

Under an average points system.... the Joe example above would not align with the system at all

I want to explore if that's an accurate reflection of the time

Today, if someone suggested Lendl was #1 in 1988, they'd be considered crazy

In 1988, would they have been???

According to my calculations and deductions, Lendl could easily have finished #1 ...

Today if one loses 10 times in the first round but then wins two slams, nobody remembers premature defeats.
Even in the 70 Waspsting (Ashe 75 and Vilas 77 they played a lot and lost a lot but nobody remembers this.
ATP remembers it. And it penalizes.
It's right? I do not know frankly. I think a little ... yes.

 

[KG1965]

I think they changed the system the next year to a 'Best 16/17/18 Results' system (don't recall the exact number)

I remember Lendl was highly critical - "a joke", he called it - and he probably wasn't alone in feeling that way

Having looked into 1988 closely, it's likely they changed it because of it

It is difficult to find the best political system, the ideal woman, .... perfection.
We can understand any errors.

 

[abmk]

Today if one loses 10 times in the first round but then wins two slams, nobody remembers premature defeats.
Even in the 70 Waspsting (Ashe 75 and Vilas 77 they played a lot and lost a lot but nobody remembers this.
ATP remembers it. And it penalizes.
It's right? I do not know frankly. I think a little ... yes.

Vilas lost 'only" 10 times in 77 IIRC.

Connors lost 11 times in that year.

 

[KG1965]

Vilas lost 'only" 10 times in 77 IIRC.

Connors lost 11 times in that year.

I didn't want to compare Vilas-Connors. We did it abundantly in the past.

Vilas lost a few matches before semi-finals (4 in the first rounds) but nobody cares (and that's okay for me ...) but ATP not forgive, ... crucifies.

Connors has lost 16 matches of which:
- 7 ATP points
- 4 ATP points but WO
- 4 not ATP points (Masters + Pepsi + Challenge Cup 1 & 2)
- 1 not ATP points but WO

then.. ATP for ranking counts only 7 lost ... is one of the reasons why Jimbo is the 1st.

 

[abmk]

I didn't want to compare Vilas-Connors. We did it abundantly in the past.

Vilas lost a few matches before semi-finals (4 in the first rounds) but nobody cares (and that's okay for me ...) but ATP not forgive, ... crucifies.

Connors has lost 16 matches of which:
- 7 ATP points
- 4 ATP points but WO
- 4 not ATP points (Masters + Pepsi + Challenge Cup 1 & 2)
- 1 not ATP points but WO

then.. ATP for ranking counts only 7 lost ... is one of the reasons why Jimbo is the 1st.

That's because the ATP rankings at that time based on average was a crappy one.

Much worse compared to the current one (slams+8 mandatory masters+ 6 best other events)

Also my point was Vilas did not lose 'a lot' in 77.

 

[KG1965]

Mecir d Wilander 6-3, 6-1, 6-3

Mecir served at 68%(70 of 103)
Wilander served at 64%(56 of 88)

Mecir won 50 of 70 pts on 1st serve(71%)
He won 18 of 33 on 2nd(54%)

Wilander won 31 of 56 pts on 1st serve(55%)
He won 14 of 32 on 2nd(44%)

Mecir had 45 non service winners(10 fh, 10 bh, 9 fhv, 13 bhv, 3 ov)
Wilander had 24(5 fh, 6 bh, 6 fhv, 4 bhv, 3 ov)

Mecir had 16 passing shot winners(9 fh, 7 bh)
Wilander had 11(5 fh, 6 bh)

Mecir had 3 aces, one df
Wilander 2 aces, no df's

Mecir had 18 unreturned serves(3 service winners)
Wilander had 12(2 service winners)

Mecir was 6 of 15 on break points(Wilander made first serves on 11 of them)
Wilander was 1 of 8(Mecir made first serves on 5 of them)

net pts
Mecir 60 of 89(67%) he was 30-46 on S&V attempts(65%)
Wilander 31 of 57(54%) he was 23-46 on S&V attempts(50%)

Mecir won 21 straight points on serve(last 8 pts of the 2nd set, first 13 of the 3rd)

He lost 9 pts on serve in the last 2 sets

Wilander particularly suffered the game of Mecir. It was a varied game, but grafted into a very solid system from the groundstrokes.
Mecir loved to set his game against waiters like the Swedes but the problem of Miloslav were the players like Becker or Edberg, even with more varieties and weapons.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Was just added to youtube, I know some posters here wanted to see it.

 

[bluetrain4]

Mecir was up 2-0 over Edberg in the SFs. Edberg came back to take it in 5 and then won his first Wimbledon.

 

[NicoMK]

Not that I love seeing Mats being kicked but any new match of him is appreciated. Thanks for sharing.

Someone also added the Pernfors-Wilander at the USO 1993. A match that I love for many reasons.

 

[bluetrain4]

Not that I love seeing Mats being kicked but any new match of him is appreciated. Thanks for sharing.

Someone also added the Pernfors-Wilander at the USO 1993. A match that I love for many reasons.

Pernfors had comeback from injuries and won the Canadian Open that summer - what would now be considered a Masters tournament. That was a big win, but he had to play Mats early at the USO and didn't the match go until early morning?

More 5-set misery for Pernfors. The wind in that match looks crazy.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Pernfors had comeback from injuries and won the Canadian Open that summer - what would now be considered a Masters tournament. That was a big win, but he had to play Mats early at the USO and didn't the match go until early morning?

More 5-set misery for Pernfors. The wind in that match looks crazy.

Yeah 2:30 am, latest finish at the time. There have been several that have gone way past that since.

Masters Series/Super 9 started in 1990, so 93 Canada is officially counted as a Masters.

Mats basically retired after 91, he didn't play in 92, played a few events in 93. Many were surprised to see him enter that USO. Pernfors was definitely favored in that match. I was shocked Mats was able to get back in top 50 in 95, the game seemed so much more powerful by then.

Oncins had a funny remark after losing to Wilander in the 1st round(he lost to Connors 1st round the year before), "maybe next year I'll lose to Vilas"

 

[NicoMK]

Yeah 2:30 am, latest finish at the time. There have been several that have gone way past that since.

Masters Series/Super 9 started in 1990, so 93 Canada is officially counted as a Masters.

Mats basically retired after 91, he didn't play in 92, played a few events in 93. Many were surprised to see him enter that USO. Pernfors was definitely favored in that match. I was shocked Mats was able to get back in top 50 in 95, the game seemed so much more powerful by then.

Oncins had a funny remark after losing to Wilander in the 1st round(he lost to Connors 1st round the year before), "maybe next year I'll lose to Vilas"

Wasn't it the year before that Pernorfs won the Canada Open? Can't remember exactly.

But I remember very well that match against Mats. How good it was to have him back.

Completely forgot the Oncins funny quote though, very well spotted MM!