Times the wrong person ended the year ranked #1 in your opinion

[martinezownsclay]

There is no way any number of small titles can make up for a six slam deficit. Also Pete has the way better YEC record and was clearly the best player of his generation, while Connors trails the H2H against most great players (Borg 8-15, Lendl 13-22, Mac 14-20). We can of course say, he had an age disadvantage against Lendl and maybe also Mac, but he was absolutely not clearly the best player of his generation unlike Pete.

Players back then ALWAYS won more tournaments back then anyway. Not saying it was due to the competition, and no way am I one of those who automatically says competition today is way harder than back then, and if anything many of the fields from back then were stronger than some of the recent fields. More likely something due to the tour format, the number of tournaments with only 3 rounds (which don't exist, even in small tournaments from say 1990 onwards), the less physical nature of the game, etc... But it is so consistent it can't be coincidence. So I always take tournament counts with a grain of salt comparing players pre around 1985 to post, the same way I take slam counts with a grain of salt as those favor the post 1985 players when players were focusing on all 4 majors more consistently.

Doesn't Virginia Wade have more singles titles than Steffi Graf, LOL! Evonne Goolagong more than Serena Williams? Yeah nuff said on titles counts of any player from the 70s vs any player from the 90s. People only seem to bring it up when convenient anyway.

 

[WCT]

Yes, to me the dispute isn't why Connors topped the computer ranking (I understand why he did), or to debate whether or not the ranking system was flawed. To me the debate is who was the best player that year regardless of the ranking system in place, and I think that was definitely Borg.

I think this sums it up nicely. We can objectively see how the ATP computer said Connors was 1, but not thinking that necessarily was the best player. Although, IMO, a valid argument could be made for both players. And while I might not agree 100% with your conclusions, I give you kudos for how persuasively you present your case.

 

[WCT]

225 points Phila + 225 Memphis > 300 RG

This is the summary.

The source is on Wikipedia but I remember years ago having compared the data with a specialized site where Slasher wrote (a user who no longer writes here).

So, it's 450 combined for the 2 tournaments? That makes sense. I thought RG would have more individually. I always found Philadelphia a more impressive title than Memphis based on their fields. Again, the US Pro Indoor used to have as good a field as any indoor tournament. Connors loved them both. He won 4 at Philly and 6 at Memphis.

 

[jrepac]

So, it's 450 combined for the 2 tournaments? That makes sense. I thought RG would have more individually. I always found Philadelphia a more impressive title than Memphis based on their fields. Again, the US Pro Indoor used to have as good a field as any indoor tournament. Connors loved them both. He won 4 at Philly and 6 at Memphis.

I think it's important to recognize that we are all probably looking at the past with a bit of shading from today's "sunglasses"....there were many more events back in the 70's and a lot were highly regarded, many televised as well. Thus the points awarded being higher than we might expect based on our 2024 perspectives. Where most of the tennis viewing public, IMHO, over-emphasizes GS results. Even in the 80's, Memphis was a big deal, as was Philly.

 

[Gizo]

Another factor in Borg's favour in 1978, and it was mentioned by numerous tennis writers at the end of the year, was his perfect Davis Cup singles record that year, with him winning 9 matches out of 9. I personally prefer to discount dead rubbers though (for all players), and say that he won 7 live singles rubbers out of 7. But regardless it goes without saying that the Davis Cup was hugely important then, certainly more so than tournaments such as Philly, Rome and Memphis which we've discussed (and I'd argue that it was no less important than RG), so that's a big deal IMO. Borg came pretty close to leading Sweden a 2nd Davis Cup final that year, despite having the weakest supporting cast out of any open era legend, and despite difficult and marathon scheduling, especially with that tie against Yugoslavia in-between RG and Wimbledon.

I agree that when determining the best player of the year going simply by computer ranking is too simplistic and would be a moot point anyways as it does not require any further analysis. Thinks like dominance (like in the example of Borg 78), extra-value of slam results, results at events that don't grant points and yeah also H2H (in case two players are similar in achievements) should be considered as well.
Let's assume the (admittedly very extreme) hypothetical that Becker would have beaten Sampras in the Wimbledon 95 final and also beaten Agassi and Pete to win the USO. Lets also assume he would have won the GSC that year (receiving zero points) and had led Germany to winning the Davis Cup, beating Pete along the way (also for zero points). Also still wins the YEC. He was completely useless at the other two slams though and if we let Pete win some more of the smaller tournaments he could still end up number one. Would anyone in that case really see Pete as the real No.1 if he wins zero slams to Becker's two, losing two slam finals and a prestigious Davis Cup match against him, while Becker on top wins YEC AND GSC? No way. The points awarded to the individual tournaments are mostly for seeding and do not reflect greatness with 100% accuracy.

Agreed. The merits of the ranking system (and some systems that I've seen have been far better than others) and who accumulated the most points, is basically a separate argument to who the player of the year is (despite the fact that often the answers are the same), which depends on numerous other factors beyond points totals. And we know that the Masters, WCT events etc. did not count for ranking points around that time.

And regarding 1995, Agassi could well have finished as the year end no. 1 had it not been for his chest injury during the fall, and even without winning the YEC (he still had a healthy points lead over Sampras after the USO). But very few people, including Agassi himself, would have considered him to be best player in the world or player of the year under that scenario.

 

[Gizo]

Looking at 2006 on the women's side, regardless of Mauresmo being my favourite player at the time, I never saw that as particularly controversial. For a period I forgot that she actually finished the year at no. 3 instead of no. 2, also behind Sharapova.

Clearly her winning 2 majors, and beating Henin in both finals to boot, carries a lot of weight. And unlike Graf vs. Navratilova for example in 1987, when Graf's vastly superior results outside the majors were easily enough to outweigh Navratilova winning 2 majors (and clearly still the 2 biggest majors on the women's side) to her 1, it’s not like there was an absolutely enormous gulf in Henin’s favour away from the majors, with 6 titles overall (on clay, grass, outdoor hard and indoor hard) compared to 4.

But Henin did reach the final at all 4 majors, and in 10 out of the 13 tournaments that she entered (and in 2 of the other 3 she lost in the semis), won the YEC (beating Sharapova and Mauresmo back to back), and had a 60-8 W/L record compared to Mauresmo’s 51-14. And Mauresmo won nothing after Wimbledon. It's probably worth pointing out that during that period, certain Tier 2 events could be just as strong as, if not stronger than, certain Tier 1 events in terms of the quality of the field. I actually think that was the best and clearest tournament designation system I've seen, on either the WTA or ATP tours.

Henin secured the year end no. 1 ranking after her SF win against Sharapova at the YEC. Had she then lost the final to Mauresmo, she still would have finished as the year end no. 1. However under that scenario, now with 5 titles apiece, Mauresmo winning 3 of the 5 biggest tournaments compared to Henin winning 1, and beating Henin in a 3rd showpiece final, then I think it would have been clear cut in Mauresmo’s favour regardless of the ranking computer.

But of course she didn't, so it's (IMO) more open to debate. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to consider Henin as the player of the year there, or alternatively to consider Mauresmo as the player of the year. Maybe it was appropriate all things considered that they split the WTA and ITF awards between them.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Another factor in Borg's favour in 1978, and it was mentioned by numerous tennis writers at the end of the year, was his perfect Davis Cup singles record that year, with him winning 9 matches out of 9. I personally prefer to discount dead rubbers though (for all players), and say that he won 7 live singles rubbers out of 7. But regardless it goes without saying that the Davis Cup was hugely important then, certainly more so than tournaments such as Philly, Rome and Memphis which we've discussed (and I'd argue that it was no less important than RG), so that's a big deal IMO. Borg came pretty close to leading Sweden a 2nd Davis Cup final that year, despite having the weakest supporting cast out of any open era legend, and despite difficult and marathon scheduling, especially with that tie against Yugoslavia in-between RG and Wimbledon.



Agreed. The merits of the ranking system (and some systems that I've seen have been far better than others) and who accumulated the most points, is basically a separate argument to who the player of the year is (despite the fact that often the answers are the same), which depends on numerous other factors beyond points totals. And we know that the Masters, WCT events etc. did not count for ranking points around that time.

And regarding 1995, Agassi could well have finished as the year end no. 1 had it not been for his chest injury during the fall, and even without winning the YEC (he still had a healthy points lead over Sampras after the USO). But very few people, including Agassi himself, would have considered him to be best player in the world or player of the year under that scenario.

Well Agassi writes in his book that Gilbert got furious and said the injury would cost him the YE1 to which Andre replied that he does not care, Pete would be No.1 regardless of what a computer says.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Well Agassi writes in his book that Gilbert got furious and said the injury would cost him the YE1 to which Andre replied that he does not care, Pete would be No.1 regardless of what a computer says.

Yes Agassi lost all motivation, heart, or care after that US Open final loss. He gave up the YE#1 ranking by his own will, when he likely could have gained it just by trying. He knew even if he ended the year at #1 for 95, that would be nothing more than a paper thing, this despite that his year objectively would still be better than Sampras's in many ways, in a way many of these other examples of questionable computer #1s were not. Then gave up on playing serious tennis altogether until very end of 97 when he decided he wanted to start a push for a real comeback. That is one of many examples real #1 and computer #1 are often two very different things. That is my entire point of this thread, even if I might not have worded it perfectly.

Who ever considered Safina a real #1 over Serena at one point in 2009 without a major title. And that despite that this was a far more justifiable ranking than many other times a questionable person was at #1, based on overall tour results, and Serena's lack of care for the regular tour by then. Absolutely nobody, including Safina herself.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Looking at 2006 on the women's side, regardless of Mauresmo being my favourite player at the time, I never saw that as particularly controversial. For a period I forgot that she actually finished the year at no. 3 instead of no. 2, also behind Sharapova.

Clearly her winning 2 majors, and beating Henin in both finals to boot, carries a lot of weight. And unlike Graf vs. Navratilova for example in 1987, when Graf's vastly superior results outside the majors were easily enough to outweigh Navratilova winning 2 majors (and clearly still the 2 biggest majors on the women's side) to her 1, it’s not like there was an absolutely enormous gulf in Henin’s favour away from the majors, with 6 titles overall (on clay, grass, outdoor hard and indoor hard) compared to 4.

But Henin did reach the final at all 4 majors, and in 10 out of the 13 tournaments that she entered (and in 2 of the other 3 she lost in the semis), won the YEC (beating Sharapova and Mauresmo back to back), and had a 60-8 W/L record compared to Mauresmo’s 51-14. And Mauresmo won nothing after Wimbledon. It's probably worth pointing out that during that period, certain Tier 2 events could be just as strong as, if not stronger than, certain Tier 1 events in terms of the quality of the field. I actually think that was the best and clearest tournament designation system I've seen, on either the WTA or ATP tours.

Henin secured the year end no. 1 ranking after her SF win against Sharapova at the YEC. Had she then lost the final to Mauresmo, she still would have finished as the year end no. 1. However under that scenario, now with 5 titles apiece, Mauresmo winning 3 of the 5 biggest tournaments compared to Henin winning 1, and beating Henin in a 3rd showpiece final, then I think it would have been clear cut in Mauresmo’s favour regardless of the ranking computer.

But of course she didn't, so it's (IMO) more open to debate. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to consider Henin as the player of the year there, or alternatively to consider Mauresmo as the player of the year. Maybe it was appropriate all things considered that they split the WTA and ITF awards between them.

Yes I would actually give the slight edge to Henin for the #1 ranking for 2006, even if Mauresmo had ended #1 on the computer. That Henin ended #1 on the computer, isn't something I really even questioned. Now Mauresmo ending #3 behind Sharapova was absolutely ridiculous, even though Maria had an excellent year in her own right, it was clearly the #3 and ending ranked over Mauresmo with 1 less slam win and the same number of tournament titles is yet another example of the absurd WTA ranking system 2000 onwards. I am happy some factions picked Mauresmo as Player of the Year, and none picked Sharapova.

 

[Gizo]

Yes I would actually give the slight edge to Henin for the #1 ranking for 2006, even if Mauresmo had ended #1 on the computer. That Henin ended #1 on the computer, isn't something I really even questioned. Now Mauresmo ending #3 behind Sharapova was absolutely ridiculous, even though Maria had an excellent year in her own right, it was clearly the #3 and ending ranked over Mauresmo with 1 less slam win and the same number of tournament titles is yet another example of the absurd WTA ranking system 2000 onwards. I am happy some factions picked Mauresmo as Player of the Year, and none picked Sharapova.

Yes Sharapova was very consistent throughout the year, and had a very strong record overall especially for the standards of the 3rd best player, even though she officially finished as the year end no. 2 on the ranking computer.

Her W/L record that year was almost the same as Henin's, 60-8 for Henin vs. 59-9 for her, and she only failed to make the semi-finals in 2 out of the 15 tournaments that she entered, 1 of them at RG where she had to save 3 match points to avoid losing to Mashona Washington in R1, before surrendering a 5-1 final set lead against Safina in R4.

She actually did win 1 more title that year than Mauresmo, 5 vs. 4, with 3 Tier 1 titles at Indian Wells, San Diego (beating Clijsters in the final as the underdog) and Zurich, plus a Tier 2 title at Linz. As I said earlier though, during that period the Tier 1 vs. Tier 2 distinction could be overstated or even meaningless at times, as often Tier 2 events could have stronger fields and draws than Tier 1 events (in fact that was pretty common) - for example Sharapova's Tier 2 title in Linz was arguably better on paper in terms of who she beat along the way, than her Tier 1 title in Zurich the previous week. Dubai, where Henin beat Sharapova in the final, was a Tier 2 event, but also had Mauresmo, Davenport, Hingis, Kuznetsova, Petrova etc. in the draw, and so was clearly stronger than many of the Tier 1 events that year.

A big negative that year as a Mauresmo fan, was her receiving 2 bagels form Sharapova in their USO SF, after also being bagelled by an unfit Serena in R4.

 

[martinezownsclay]

IMO the US Open was always going to be the least effective (game wise, RG is where she probably has the toughest time but purely due to the pressure) surface for her. I never expected her to win there, not even in her career year, and she did well to make the semis there twice, and IMO probably makes the final in 2002 if she doesn't get screwed by a whole series of line calls in her semi final vs Venus. She wasn't even in great form at that event or the weeks before either, so being beaten pretty comfortably by Maria, and struggling vs a fat Serena, who has always been a rough opponent for her, didn't surprise me either.

 

[KG1965]

I go back to 1978, given that I was interested in exploring the reasons why the ranking decided Connors as number 1 and that I agree that Borg was the stronger player (a little more) and that he won the most (a little more), I want with this post I make two strange clarifications.

In those years the WCT Finals were played in Dallas and the Masters GP at MSG NY.

Borg and Connors obviously qualified for both but in Dallas Connors did not take part due to injury, Borg was the clear favorite but he was injured in the semi-final leaving the way for Gerulaitis who won the title.

In reverse order, the same thing happened in NY, where Borg did not participate due to injury and Connors, the clear favorite, injured his foot.

I don't think anything like this has ever happened.

 

[GrandSlam24]

1978 for me it is Connors, Borg and Vilas.

1975 it is also Connors, because he was in 3 Slam Finals. And no one won more than 1 title.

3 Silver >>>> 1 Gold

 

[WCT]

I go back to 1978, given that I was interested in exploring the reasons why the ranking decided Connors as number 1 and that I agree that Borg was the stronger player (a little more) and that he won the most (a little more), I want with this post I make two strange clarifications.

In those years the WCT Finals were played in Dallas and the Masters GP at MSG NY.

Borg and Connors obviously qualified for both but in Dallas Connors did not take part due to injury, Borg was the clear favorite but he was injured in the semi-final leaving the way for Gerulaitis who won the title.

In reverse order, the same thing happened in NY, where Borg did not participate due to injury and Connors, the clear favorite, injured his foot.

I don't think anything like this has ever happened.

Connors didn't withdraw from Dallas in 1978. He choose not to participate. I didn't remember it happening so I did some searching. Here is a 1978 article that confirms it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1978/05/13/infection-leads-borg-to-default/fcec62e4-7909-4b7f-bb30-67fced784ebe/

1978 was a change in that WCT was merged into the Grand Prix tour. Before that you had to commit to the WCT tour to play Dallas. That is why Connors didn't play there until 1977. Then, in 1982, the tours split again. Only this time WCT had a year long tour.

I'm not positive of this, but I think they didn't count in the 82 ATP computer rankings. The majority of Lendl's titles were WCT. He won 15 tournaments, Dallas and the Masters included, how could Mcenroe be ahead of him on the computer otherwise?

 

[KG1965]

Connors didn't withdraw from Dallas in 1978. He choose not to participate. I didn't remember it happening so I did some searching. Here is a 1978 article that confirms it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/sports/1978/05/13/infection-leads-borg-to-default/fcec62e4-7909-4b7f-bb30-67fced784ebe/

1978 was a change in that WCT was merged into the Grand Prix tour. Before that you had to commit to the WCT tour to play Dallas. That is why Connors didn't play there until 1977. Then, in 1982, the tours split again. Only this time WCT had a year long tour.

I'm not positive of this, but I think they didn't count in the 82 ATP computer rankings. The majority of Lendl's titles were WCT. He won 15 tournaments, Dallas and the Masters included, how could Mcenroe be ahead of him on the computer otherwise?

Connors went to Rotterdam early last month and won a tournament to qualify for Dallas, but shortly thereafter Mrs. Connors cabled WCT that Jimmy would not participate because of previous commitment to play exhibitions.
Connors had assumed, as Gottfried did, that his limited schedule of tournaments would not enable him to qualify. He played no two events - the U.S. Pro Indoor at Philadelphia and Rotterdam - but won them both.
He apparently planned to play, but a mysterious dispute with WCT officialdom - not an unfamiliar phenomenon for Connors - developed. His status became a moot point when Connors subsequently developed mononucleosis, which hospitalized him in Los Angles until last weekend and will keep him out of action several more weeks.
Washington Post 1978/05/08

 

[WCT]

Connors went to Rotterdam early last month and won a tournament to qualify for Dallas, but shortly thereafter Mrs. Connors cabled WCT that Jimmy would not participate because of previous commitment to play exhibitions.
Connors had assumed, as Gottfried did, that his limited schedule of tournaments would not enable him to qualify. He played no two events - the U.S. Pro Indoor at Philadelphia and Rotterdam - but won them both.
He apparently planned to play, but a mysterious dispute with WCT officialdom - not an unfamiliar phenomenon for Connors - developed. His status became a moot point when Connors subsequently developed mononucleosis, which hospitalized him in Los Angles until last weekend and will keep him out of action several more weeks.
Washington Post 1978/05/08

That is just some additional reporting details to what my link says although mine is dated 5 days later. My point is, though, injury is not why he didn't play. He wasn't playing there regardless. My article says he wanted a guarantee. Apparently not unusual for Connors.

I don't know the specifics of qualifying for Dallas that year, but I imagine they were less exacting than when it was a separate tour from the Grand Prix.