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

[BauerAlmeida]

Agassi deserved it based on results, but I was a big Agassi fan back then, watched all their matches and it was an awful frustration as he on times looked completely helpless. The Wimbledon final, the Cincinnati semi and the YEC final were complete beatdowns where you never had the impression that Agassi at any point had a chance (apart from the three break points at 3-3 in the Wimbly first set which Pete quickly defended with GOAT serves).
Agassi himself said in the Wimbledon after match speech that he does not feel like the No.1.
I also find it tough for his No.1 case that he won the USO in Pete's absence just between the beatdowns of Cincy and rhe YEC. He wasn't No.1 undeservedly but nobody including himself felt it at that time. It is a little like Ding Liren being chess world champion.

Sampras did indeed own the H2h, but I think Agassi did better overall against the field and proved he deserved it winning the AO and beating Sampras along the way. At that point, he was holding 3 slams and final in the other one. Sampras unfortunately missed the USO but did not do well at Roland Garros losing against the same player Agassi beat the final. And I don't think Agassi deserves to be "punished" for going deep at Wimbledon enough to lose to Pete but Sampras losing early in RG (where he would have lost to Agassi very likely).

 

[andreh]

If by YEC, people are referring to the 1989. New York Masters, Becker didn't win that. Edberg did.

 

[Mustard]

This actually puts 1989 into a better perspective. I don't care anything about H2H's in terms of YE #1, but Lendl's 10 titles is a big deal compared to Boris's 5 titles. Still, with Boris winning 2 slams and the YEC, it's a tough call and I say this as a huge Lendl fan.

I'd rather Becker's year anyday, but Lendl is bound to be number 1 on the world rankings computer regardless.

 

[Mustard]

If by YEC, people are referring to the 1989. New York Masters, Becker didn't win that. Edberg did.

Correct. Edberg beat Becker in the 1989 YEC final (after Becker had beaten Edberg in a round robin match), although Becker then beat Edberg in the 1989 Davis Cup final.

 

[Mustard]

Sampras did indeed own the H2h, but I think Agassi did better overall against the field and proved he deserved it winning the AO and beating Sampras along the way. At that point, he was holding 3 slams and final in the other one. Sampras unfortunately missed the USO but did not do well at Roland Garros losing against the same player Agassi beat the final. And I don't think Agassi deserves to be "punished" for going deep at Wimbledon enough to lose to Pete but Sampras losing early in RG (where he would have lost to Agassi very likely).

Sampras and Agassi wouldn't have met at the 1999 French Open unless it was in the final. It was Medvedev, eventual runner-up, who beat Sampras in the second round.

Any rankings computer would have Agassi as number 1 for 1999, especially as Sampras missed the US Open and didn't play at the Australian Open, along with a second round loss to Medvedev at the French Open already mentioned. It's unfortunate for Sampras that he had to pull out of the 1999 US Open at the last moment due to the back injury that he had sustained in Indianapolis against Spadea. Sampras wouldn't have gotten together with Bridgette Wilson at that time had he played at the 1999 US Open, which would have made his life since dramatically different. Sampras had beaten Agassi in straight sets at Wimbledon, Los Angeles and Cincinnati, where Agassi seemed helpless, and again in the YEC final, despite Agassi beating Sampras in a round robin match.

One can also understand the pressure that Agassi was feeling in the 1999 YEC final and 2000 Australian Open semi final to beat Sampras, because people were saying that Sampras was better than Agassi no matter what the rankings said.

 

[JasonZ]

Agassi deserved it based on results, but I was a big Agassi fan back then, watched all their matches and it was an awful frustration as he on times looked completely helpless. The Wimbledon final, the Cincinnati semi and the YEC final were complete beatdowns where you never had the impression that Agassi at any point had a chance (apart from the three break points at 3-3 in the Wimbly first set which Pete quickly defended with GOAT serves).
Agassi himself said in the Wimbledon after match speech that he does not feel like the No.1.
I also find it tough for his No.1 case that he won the USO in Pete's absence just between the beatdowns of Cincy and rhe YEC. He wasn't No.1 undeservedly but nobody including himself felt it at that time. It is a little like Ding Liren being chess world champion.

yeah agassis so called best ever return of all times was absolutely useless against sampras serve. super overrated return.

however i think he 100% deserved the no 1 end ranking in 1999. and sampras wimby win was also lucky, because of the philippoussis match.

 

[buscemi]

It can only be Vilas based on playing activity. That's what ranking systems care about, not head-to-heads.

But isn't that the point of this thread? The ranking system had Connors as #1 in 1977. IMO, this thread is asking who the best player was in a given season, setting aside the ranking system (which, again, favored Connors).

If we set aside the ranking system and just try to decide who was the best player in 1977, Borg going 2-0 against Vilas, beating him 6-0 in the fourth set of the Nice final and beating him 6-2, 6-3 in the Monte Carlo SF, seems like information that many people would consider valuable in comparing the two players.

 

[Mustard]

But isn't that the point of this thread? The ranking system had Connors as #1 in 1977. IMO, this thread is asking who the best player was in a given season, setting aside the ranking system (which, again, favored Connors).

If we set aside the ranking system and just try to decide who was the best player in 1977, Borg going 2-0 against Vilas, beating him 6-0 in the fourth set of the Nice final and beating him 6-2, 6-3 in the Monte Carlo SF, seems like information that many people would consider valuable in comparing the two players.

But Vilas won something like 72 of his last 73 matches of the year, including the US Open.

 

[buscemi]

But Vilas won something like 72 of his last 73 matches of the year, including the US Open.

It was a great end to the year for Vilas, and a great overall year, with a 131-13 (91%) record.

Meanwhile, Borg was 75-6 (92.6%), with the 2-0 record against Vilas.

Looking at records against top 10 players:

Vilas was 10-4​

​

Borg was 13-2​

 

[KG1965]

The title is wrong.
And the discussion is not precise because the title is wrong.
Number 1, who won the most big titles, who was the best player are three very different things in some years.
For example in 1982 Connors won the most important titles and Lendl was probably the strongest player.
But only the ATP computer can decide number 1.
And it was McEnroe.
Same as in 1977.
Vilas won the most important titles.
Borg was probably the top player.
But Connors was No. 1.
The number 1 is mathematical, either it proves to be a calculation error or the computer decides.
You can possibly discuss the parameters but it is complex, you need to know how to argue all the scores of all the tournaments.
Takes time.
It's not "2 slams it's more than one. End of discussion".
We need to go into the merits of all the tournaments.
And in any case if there is no calculation error the computer is always right, still decides.

In other words.
Deciding who is the top player of a year is simple, everyone has their own parameters and decides based on those.
It's about the perception of the tennis player who seems to you to be stronger.
Deciding who won the best/big/important titles requires a little more evaluation.
Are only slams valid? Runner ups? Finals? M1000?
To argue against a computer is almost impossible unless you discover a calculation error.

 

[bobcolbert]

It was a great end to the year for Vilas, and a great overall year, with a 131-13 (91%) record.

Meanwhile, Borg was 75-6 (92.6%), with the 2-0 record against Vilas.

Looking at records against top 10 players:

Vilas was 10-4​

​

Borg was 13-2​

In 1977, Borg was maybe the man who played the best tennis, but not the man who had the best results. Vilas was the real number one that year.

 

[travlerajm]

In 1998, while I might not go as far as to say that it was wrong that Sampras ended 1998 at no. 1, I've always struggled to regard him as the best that year. To me his overall record, and level of play during the year, wasn't quite good enough. Probably his best tennis of the year was at Vienna during the fall (especially his QF demolition of Henman), which he only entered after Becker donated his wildcard to him. I personally consider him to be the best from 1993-1997, but can't include 1998.

If we use 1973 when the ATP computer rankings were introduced as a starting point, and say that Ashe was no. 1 in 1975, either Vilas or Borg was no. 1 in 1977 and Connors was no. 1 in 1982 - it doesn't matter whether we classify Borg or Connors as the best in 1978 (though for me it was definitely Borg), or Becker or Lendl as the best in 1989 (though for me it was definitely Becker) - then Sampras's 1998 looks weak in comparison to every other season put together by any other 'player of the year'.

I believe that the only seasons from 1973 in which a year end no. 1 and / or true player of the year didn't win at least 5 titles, were Sampras in 1998, Federer in 2009, Djokovic in 2018, Nadal in 2019, and Djokovic in 2020, who all won 4 titles in those respective years. Of course Federer in 2009, Djokovic in 2018 and Nadal in 2019 all won 2 majors plus 2 masters series titles (and Federer in 2009 and Nadal in 2019 had incredibly consistent records at the majors), while 2020 was COVID interrupted but Djokovic's title distribution and body or work were still clearly better that year than Sampras's in 1998.

And I believe that the only seasons from 1973 onwards in which a year end no. 1 and / or true player of the year had a sub-80% win rate, were Sampras in 1998 (78%), Kuerten in 2000 (74%) and Roddick in 2003 (79%) - Courier's W/L record in 1992 rounds up from 79.5% to 80% and so just makes it there. Kuerten's record at the other 3 majors away from Paris in 2000 was definitely weak for a year end no. 1, but at least he won the YEC in impressive fashion, won Hamburg on the back of reaching the final at Rome, won Indianapolis which was a pretty strong and highly regarded tournament etc.

If not Pete in 98, then who? Rios is the only one within shouting range points-wise, but he was only 12-4 in slams. Pete went 17-3.

 

[Gizo]

That's what really stinks about being part time. Again I really don't fault Kim, I love her and wish she had been year end #1 that year, the message that would have sent that she did that as a mother would have been amazing. But playing part time means you have to really knock EVERYTHING out of the park especially when its based on cumulative points. Off hand I cannot remember how many points separated her and Woz that year, but I feel like it was so close that if Kim had played and won even a few matches at some tournament between the AO and Indian Wells (she skipped all of them) or not torn a muscle in her foot/missed all of Madrid, Rome and the French...she would have had it. All her wins were balanced by some pretty big mandatory zeroes in the rankings and sort of washed. It really stinks for her because I would categorically agree at her best she was the best in 2010...but she also missed a fair amount of 2010.

2011 was just busted. You had Li Na start off so strong at the majors then have one of the biggest 2nd half of the year implosions I have ever seen. Kvitova at times looked like a goddess, then she looks like she was lost in the deadlights. 2011 US Open had the reigning Wimbledon and French Open Champs both our round 1 and Clijsters not even playing. No current major champion was present after round 1 was completed, which may be the first time in major history that EVER happened. Just a really weird 2 years for pretty much the entire tour

2010 is the other year I can think of for the women, alongside 2004, where is there is no obvious player of the year winner, even though if push comes to shove I'd go for Clijsters. That was also a crazy year, with Serena's pulmonary embolism, Stosur beating Henin, Serena and Jankovic in succession at RG only to lose to Schiavone in the final, Zvonareva finishing as the year end no. 2 despite only winning 1 title (though she did reach 2 slam finals and also finished as the runner-up in 3 other big events).

In 2011, I think Kvitova as the player of the year is actually pretty clear cut, well as clear cut as possible in a year with 4 slam champions and no dominant player. I would go as far as to say that I don't see how anyone else other than Kvitova has a serious claim for the crown that year.

I think her results away from Wimbledon are good enough there; Brisbane champion, Australian Open quarter-finalist, Paris indoor champion, Madrid champion, RG last 16 losing to the eventual champion, Eastbourne finalist, Tokyo semi-finalist, Linz champion, YEC champion going undefeated.

The fact that she won both the WTA and ITF year end awards was pretty telling. It's also worth noting that Wozniacki only won 7 more matches than Kvitova that year, despite entering 5 more tournaments.

 

[Gizo]

If not Pete in 98, then who? Rios is the only one within shouting range points-wise, but he was only 12-4 in slams. Pete went 17-3.

All things considered, in a year during which no one player IMO sufficiently separated themselves from the pack, I’d give a very narrow edge to Rafter, based on the fact that he won 6 titles to Sampras’s 4 (the difference is essentially the 2 super 9 titles that he won during the summer), and beat Sampras both times they played each other.

However as I said previously, during the history of the ATP computer rankings, if there is any one season in which no player deserved the player of year title and it should be left vacant, IMO it would be 1998.

 

[travlerajm]

All things considered, in a year during which no one player IMO sufficiently separated themselves from the pack, I’d give a very narrow edge to Rafter, based on the fact that he won 6 titles to Sampras’s 4 (the difference is essentially the 2 super 9 titles that he won during the summer), and beat a at Sampras both times they played each other.

However as I said previously, during the history of the ATP computer rankings, if there is any one season in which no player deserved the player of year title and it should be left vacant, it would be 1998.

I like this. He beat The Man several times in a row, including on his way to the US Open title, back in an era when (most people forget) the US Open title winner was usually won by the “best player” that year.

 

[medieval_remnant]

The recent debates that often came up of Borg vs Connors vs Vilas for 77, and Evert vs Navratilova for 78, had me think of this. Which years in your opinion did the player who was not the most deserving not end the year officialy ranked #1.

1977 men- This one is pretty clear. Connors ended #1. Most agree Borg or Vilas should have ended this year ranked #1. Personally I would say Borg.

1982 men- McEnroe somehow ended his year ranked #1. Clearly should have been Connors.

1989 men- Lendl ended the year ranked #1. Should have been Becker.

1994 women- Graf ended the year ranked #1. Should have been Sanchez Vicario who had far superior slam results to Graf this year.

1995 women- Only ridiculous as Seles who played only 2 tournaments all year somehow ended up as the co-ranked #1 with Graf due to her stupid comeback rules, LOL!

2000 women- Hingis ended the year ranked #1. Definitely should have been either Davenport or Venus. Hingis did not win a slam this year, and also reached only 1 slam final, and her overall tournament results weren't significantly ahead of Davenport imparticular.

2001 women- This one is one of the biggest jokes of all time. Davenport who did even reach a slam final somehow ended the year at #1 over both Venus and Capriati, who each won 2 majors. Venus also won 6 tournaments, I believe the same number as Davenport won.

2004 women- Davenport who didn't even reach a slam final again ends the year at #1. Granted there isn't a clear person who deserves it this year, but it should never be a player who doesn't even reach a slam final.

There are probably some others but those are the ones that instantly come to mind.

McEnroe went on tear after the Open in 1982 when he switched to the thin-soled Challenge Court sneakers

 

[Mustard]

McEnroe went on tear after the Open in 1982 when he switched to the thin-soled Challenge Court sneakers

Pales in comparison to Connors and Lendl in 1982 though.

 

[jrepac]

The title is wrong.
And the discussion is not precise because the title is wrong.
Number 1, who won the most big titles, who was the best player are three very different things in some years.
For example in 1982 Connors won the most important titles and Lendl was probably the strongest player.
But only the ATP computer can decide number 1.
And it was McEnroe.
Same as in 1977.
Vilas won the most important titles.
Borg was probably the top player.
But Connors was No. 1.
The number 1 is mathematical, either it proves to be a calculation error or the computer decides.
You can possibly discuss the parameters but it is complex, you need to know how to argue all the scores of all the tournaments.
Takes time.
It's not "2 slams it's more than one. End of discussion".
We need to go into the merits of all the tournaments.
And in any case if there is no calculation error the computer is always right, still decides.

In other words.
Deciding who is the top player of a year is simple, everyone has their own parameters and decides based on those.
It's about the perception of the tennis player who seems to you to be stronger.
Deciding who won the best/big/important titles requires a little more evaluation.
Are only slams valid? Runner ups? Finals? M1000?
To argue against a computer is almost impossible unless you discover a calculation error.

the computer rankings always rewarded consistency, thus Connors in 75/77/78 and Mac in 82 and Lendl in 89. But hard to say a guy is #1 when someone else won the 2 biggest slams in '82. Plus, Lendl was superior to Mac in '82.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I also forgot 78. Borg clearly the true #1 of that year, not Connors.

I actually think Connors has a stronger case in 77 than many do, although I still wouldn't pick him over Borg (or probably even Vilas). I think 78 however is clear in Borg's favor and not particularly close.

 

[martinezownsclay]

It was a great end to the year for Vilas, and a great overall year, with a 131-13 (91%) record.

Meanwhile, Borg was 75-6 (92.6%), with the 2-0 record against Vilas.

Looking at records against top 10 players:

Vilas was 10-4​

​

Borg was 13-2​

Agreed. That is an example how it is very close, but Borg is slightly ahead. Also the quality of fields and quality wins (vs quality opponents) of Borg for the year was generally better too.

 

[Gizo]

I like this. He beat The Man several times in a row, including on his way to the US Open title, back in an era when (most people forget) the US Open title winner was usually won by the “best player” that year.

Yep a lot of years ultimately came down to the US Open, and many cases the final itself between either the top 2 players or two of the contenders for player of the year battled it out.

Examples (probably not a full list) include 1976 between Connors and Borg, 1977 between Vilas and Connors (if Connors wins that and still goes on to win the Masters, I think he’d be the player of the year), 1982 between Connors and Lendl, 1985 between Lendl and McEnroe, 1989 between Becker and Lendl, 1991 between Edberg and Courier, 1995 between Sampras and Agassi, 2003 between Roddick and Ferrero, 2013 between Nadal and Djokovic etc.

1998 was a weird summer for Sampras, as the aftermath of the Cincy (including by several accounts in the locker room afterwards) was among the angriest that he ever was during his playing career, he showed up to New Haven and blatantly tanked vs. Paes wanting to pocket the appearance money and rush out of there etc.

 

[travlerajm]

Yep a lot of years ultimately came down to the US Open, and many cases the final itself between either the top 2 players or two of the contenders for player of the year battled it out.

Examples (probably not a full list) include 1976 between Connors and Borg, 1977 between Vilas and Connors (if Connors wins that and still goes on to win the Masters, I think he’d be the player of the year), 1982 between Connors and Lendl, 1985 between Lendl and McEnroe, 1989 between Becker and Lendl, 1991 between Edberg and Courier, 1995 between Sampras and Agassi, 2003 between Roddick and Ferrero, 2013 between Nadal and Djokovic etc.

1998 was a weird summer for Sampras, as the aftermath of the Cincy (including by several accounts in the locker room afterwards) was among the angriest that he ever was during his playing career, he showed up to New Haven and blatantly tanked vs. Paes wanting to pocket the appearance money and rush out of there etc.

And Pete was infamously salty after losing to Rafter in the us open semi.

Winning the US Open back-to-back during Sampras’s prime is one of the most underrated badass achievements in atp history.

And it happened after Pat sort of came out of nowhere to win it the first time. Went from Top 20 guy with athleticism but low expectations to slam contender almost overnight.

Probably my favorite top player ever.

 

[urban]

Rafters numerical case in 1998 would be better, if the ATP computer had counted Davis Cup results, what they did in several other years. In Rios case the Grand Slam Cup wasn't counted for political reasons. I recall that Rafter - imo correctly- was named Player of the Year by Tennis Magazine. Those paper rankings by Tennis Mag or World Tennis were pretty important in the 1970s, in 1998 not so much any more.

 

[Gizo]

And Pete was infamously salty after losing to Rafter in the us open semi.

Winning the US Open back-to-back during Sampras’s prime is one of the most underrated badass achievements in atp history.

And it happened after Pat sort of came out of nowhere to win it the first time. Went from Top 20 guy with athleticism but low expectations to slam contender almost overnight.

Probably my favorite top player ever.

Yes there was the 'about 10 grand slams' comment re the difference between them after the Cincy final, and then after the US Open he said 'When I see him holding the US Open trophy, it p*sses me off'. Also it really annoyed him that most the crowd in Cincy were increasingly cheering for Rafter over him (he destroyed Rafter in the 1st set with Rafter asking a ball-kid to take his racket and play for him which also helped get the crowd on his side). And apparently he was breaking / smashing things in the locker-room afterwards.

I think that Rafter only hit 5 UEs in 4 sets in the 1998 USO final vs. Philippoussis which was nice going. I enjoyed watching him play as well.

 

[GrandSlam24]

The title is wrong.
And the discussion is not precise because the title is wrong.
Number 1, who won the most big titles, who was the best player are three very different things in some years.
For example in 1982 Connors won the most important titles and Lendl was probably the strongest player.
But only the ATP computer can decide number 1.
And it was McEnroe.
Same as in 1977.
Vilas won the most important titles.
Borg was probably the top player.
But Connors was No. 1.
The number 1 is mathematical, either it proves to be a calculation error or the computer decides.
You can possibly discuss the parameters but it is complex, you need to know how to argue all the scores of all the tournaments.
Takes time.
It's not "2 slams it's more than one. End of discussion".
We need to go into the merits of all the tournaments.
And in any case if there is no calculation error the computer is always right, still decides.

In other words.
Deciding who is the top player of a year is simple, everyone has their own parameters and decides based on those.
It's about the perception of the tennis player who seems to you to be stronger.
Deciding who won the best/big/important titles requires a little more evaluation.
Are only slams valid? Runner ups? Finals? M1000?
To argue against a computer is almost impossible unless you discover a calculation error.

In the Open Era I see Connors as No. 4 behind the Big 3, do you go along with that?
I know that he has a hard time keeping up with Sampras. But aren't there arguments for that? 45 more titles?
Sampras only 6 Slams more. And none on clay etc.
I think only the Big 3 are clearly ahead.
Fortunately, Novak is the best.

 

[jrepac]

I also forgot 78. Borg clearly the true #1 of that year, not Connors.

I actually think Connors has a stronger case in 77 than many do, although I still wouldn't pick him over Borg (or probably even Vilas). I think 78 however is clear in Borg's favor and not particularly close.

They split the 2 biggest slams and both had solid years in '78....seems pretty close to me. '77 is a bit tricky, but it always felt like Vilas was cheated a bit. The computer did what it was programmed to do. Looking back, we all question if the programming really made good sense

 

[martinezownsclay]

They split the 2 biggest slams and both had solid years in '78....seems pretty close to me. '77 is a bit tricky, but it always felt like Vilas was cheated a bit. The computer did what it was programmed to do. Looking back, we all question if the programming really made good sense

Yeah no on 78. Borg had a clearly better record overall, even outside the slams, and the French was atleast a somewhat legitimate slam that year, especialy since no way on gods green earth was anyone (including Connors) ever beating him at RG That year. Nearly every major governing body picked Borg. Borg was ATP Player of Year, ITF Player of Year, World Tennis, French Magazine, and the picks of Collins, Tingay, and Barrett. The only one who picked Connors is Tennis Magazine (a US publication, LOL). No it wasn't really close at all, a pretty easy call IMO.

Now as for 77, if you are making any attempt to discount or even downplay Borg's 78 French title, despite it having a far stronger field than 77, and despite nobody being absent who even had a prayer to beat him (including of course Connors who was never going to beat Borg on red clay at that point, when he was even losing most of their non clay matches by now), then by that logic no credit should be given to Vilas's 77 French title, in a far weaker field than 78, and when there were many people absent who had a chance to beat him. See I was being generous and giving almost full credit to Vilas's 77 French title, and still just barely picked Borg over him for 77 inspite of that, but by your logic in downplaying or even discreding Borg's 78 French Open title to try and make it at all close between Borg and Connors for 78, Vilas's 77 French title means nothing in that context, and 77 is a real blowout for Borg now.

 

[jrepac]

In the Open Era I see Connors as No. 4 behind the Big 3, do you go along with that?
I know that he has a hard time keeping up with Sampras. But aren't there arguments for that? 45 more titles?
Sampras only 6 Slams more. And none on clay etc.
I think only the Big 3 are clearly ahead.
Fortunately, Novak is the best.

That's a tough call....Connors w/fewer slams, but more titles, greater longevity. I lean towards Pete at #4, but you could make the case for Jimmy based on win percentages. Which is already being debated on another thread. Pete's win % is below the other GOATs, but he overperformed at the slams, essentially, underperformed elsewhere. Whereas guys like Lendl and Connors were tough cookies to beat every day of the week, year after year.

 

[jrepac]

Yeah no on 78. Borg had a clearly better record overall, even outside the slams, and the French was atleast a somewhat legitimate slam that year, especialy since no way on gods green earth was anyone (including Connors) ever beating him at RG That year. Nearly every major governing body picked Borg. Borg was ATP Player of Year, ITF Player of Year, World Tennis, French Magazine, and the picks of Collins, Tingay, and Barrett. The only one who picked Connors is Tennis Magazine (a US publication, LOL). No it wasn't really close at all, a pretty easy call IMO.

Now as for 77, if you are making any attempt to discount or even downplay Borg's 78 French title, despite it having a far stronger field than 77, and despite nobody being absent who even had a prayer to beat him (including of course Connors who was never going to beat Borg on red clay at that point, when he was even losing most of their non clay matches by now), then by that logic no credit should be given to Vilas's 77 French title, in a far weaker field than 78, and when there were many people absent who had a chance to beat him. See I was being generous and giving almost full credit to Vilas's 77 French title, and still just barely picked Borg over him for 77 inspite of that, but by your logic in downplaying or even discreding Borg's 78 French Open title to try and make it at all close between Borg and Connors for 78, Vilas's 77 French title means nothing in that context, and 77 is a real blowout for Borg now.

It's very hard to assess the value of the FO in the mid 70's due to the bans and weakened fields. Not all that different from the AO situation. Bjorn and Jimmy did not/could not meet at the FO, so that is hypothetical. Look at the titles, look at win percentages, etc.....it's not a cavernous difference in '78. They split the 2 biggest slams and won lots of titles between them. All of the "picks" are subjective, only the computer has no feelings in calculating its results. I can easily understand why these groups picked Borg, but I don't think it's a slam dunk. If it was, the computer would've had Borg on top as well. If anything, I do think Vilas got the short end of the stick in '77, whilst Connors won zero GS, just getting to finals got him to #1 which is definitely wonky

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

They split the 2 biggest slams and both had solid years in '78....seems pretty close to me

Sorry what? Borg won 2 slams to 1, the channel slam in the most dominant fashion ever, only losing 32 games at RG and destroying Connors 6-2, 6-2, 6-3 in the Wimbledon final. The USO is/was not really bigger than the FO, maybe a little, but then Wimbledon was still the biggest back then, so saying they split the two biggest slams is a strange way of comparison. If at all one should say Borg won the first and third biggest while Connors won the one in between. Even outside of slams Borg was better.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

In the Open Era I see Connors as No. 4 behind the Big 3, do you go along with that?
I know that he has a hard time keeping up with Sampras. But aren't there arguments for that? 45 more titles?
Sampras only 6 Slams more. And none on clay etc.
I think only the Big 3 are clearly ahead.
Fortunately, Novak is the best.

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.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

Sorry what? Borg won 2 slams to 1, the channel slam in the most dominant fashion ever, only losing 32 games at RG and destroying Connors 6-2, 6-2, 6-3 in the Wimbledon final. The USO is/was not really bigger than the FO, maybe a little, but then Wimbledon was still the biggest back then, so saying they split the two biggest slams is a strange way of comparison. If at all one should say Borg won the first and third biggest while Connors won the one in between. Even outside of slams Borg was better.

Yeah, '78 is clear for Borg. '76 is a debatable one.

 

[jrepac]

Sorry what? Borg won 2 slams to 1, the channel slam in the most dominant fashion ever, only losing 32 games at RG and destroying Connors 6-2, 6-2, 6-3 in the Wimbledon final. The USO is/was not really bigger than the FO, maybe a little, but then Wimbledon was still the biggest back then, so saying they split the two biggest slams is a strange way of comparison. If at all one should say Borg won the first and third biggest while Connors won the one in between. Even outside of slams Borg was better.

The USO was not bigger than the FO in 1978? On what planet? If Wiki is correct, Borg won 9 titles, Connors 10. If the FO/Channel slam is your point of difference, sure you'd give Borg the edge. But, results are results. Interestingly, they only met 3 times in '78, splitting the GS events and Borg then winning at Pepsi for a 2-1 advantage. At this point in their rivalry, Borg was clearly moving ahead, but the real dominance didn't start until '79. Again, I can see how picking Borg made sense, but I'm guessing it was mighty close in the computer rankings.

 

[ChrisRF]

Apart from extraordinary events (like the Seles stabbing or the Djokovic ban) there is no such thing as "should have" with the rankings.

Who says "but player XY was so much better at the Slams" simply misses the point of rankings. They are intended to reflect the whole season and exactly NOT a "Slams are everything" attitude.

The importance of Slams is taken into account by clearly assigning the most points to them, but if the difference is still greater in combined other tournaments, then so be it. Every single round at every tournament counts, and that's how it should be. Or otherwise those smaller tournaments wouldn't make sense anyway.

So, to give an example: Should Federer have been #1 for 2017? As a Federer fan I can easily say no. It was his own fault how it went. He should have played clay to get the few points for some rounds there that would have been enough.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

The USO was not bigger than the FO in 1978? On what planet? If Wiki is correct, Borg won 9 titles, Connors 10. If the FO/Channel slam is your point of difference, sure you'd give Borg the edge. But, results are results. Interestingly, they only met 3 times in '78, splitting the GS events and Borg then winning at Pepsi for a 2-1 advantage. At this point in their rivalry, Borg was clearly moving ahead, but the real dominance didn't start until '79. Again, I can see how picking Borg made sense, but I'm guessing it was mighty close in the computer rankings.

When USO was bigger than FO then so was Wimbledon bigger than USO. They might have split their GS meetings but Borg won 2 slams to 1 and also leads the H2H 2-1 (the Pepsi was not a small event). Close could be, but Borg was ahead and rhe reasoning of bundling Wimbledon and rhe USO randomly together as the "two most important slams" is rather illogical to me. Might as well say, Borg led 2-1 in the three most important slams.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Apart from extraordinary events (like the Seles stabbing or the Djokovic ban) there is no such thing as "should have" with the rankings.

Who says "but player XY was so much better at the Slams" simply misses the point of rankings. They are intended to reflect the whole season and exactly NOT a "Slams are everything" attitude.

The importance of Slams is taken into account by clearly assigning the most points to them, but if the difference is still greater in combined other tournaments, then so be it. Every single round at every tournament counts, and that's how it should be. Or otherwise those smaller tournaments wouldn't make sense anyway.

So, to give an example: Should Federer have been #1 for 2017? As a Federer fan I can easily say no. It was his own fault how it went. He should have played clay to get the few points for some rounds there that would have been enough.

The thing is the points awarded to slams do not appropriately reflect their importance. If they did, then it would mess up the rankings and seeds because the other tournaments really become meaningless. Nevertheless nobody would ever argue that winning four 500s will ever equal a slam. Guys like the big three don't even play four 500s in a year. Same as no way two lost slam finals will be greater than a slam. This leads to the possibility that the No.1 guy in the rankings will not be perceived as the best player in the world. It is not unrealistic for instance that one guy ends the year as No.1 ahead of a guy who won 2 more slams (Djoko loses the AO13 final but wins some smaller tournaments and we can have that case, Alcaraz performs better during the end last year and we have a guy with three slams and one set shy of a CYGS not ending as No.1). On top H2H also plays a big role. If two players are roughly equal in achievements but one completely owned the H2H but got injured at some disadvantageous time, I have a hard time putting the other guy ahead (like Agassi 99 or Ned 17).
Imho best player of the year and player ending as YE1 goes hand in hand in next to all but not all cases, since the awarded points do not 100% reflect the relevance of the achievements (could also throw in Olympics or in former times DC or GSC which should count for best player of the year but do not award points).

 

[Gizo]

In terms of 1978, clearly the majors were far from the be all and end all then, and I agree that RG was not as a big a tournament at the time as the Wimbledon or the US Open (but Wimbledon was clearly no. 1 over the US Open - I'd say that was definitely still the case in the 80s as well). But still it's a definite win for Borg for me there, just as 1976 is a definite win for Connors IMO.

It wasn't just what Borg won, but how he won his titles as well, with his record breaking and insanely dominant RG triumph (not even Nadal has topped Borg's feat of conceding just 32 games in a campaign at RG), followed by him drubbing Connors to match Fred Perry's feat of 3 consecutive Wimbledon titles (that was an absolutely enormous deal, with Perry also presenting the trophy to him).

Also the fact that those successes were part of an incredible RG-Wimbledon double is a huge deal. Borg destroying Vilas for the loss of 5 games in an RG final with a series of long, seemingly never ending baseline rallies over the first 2 sets in-particular, with him breaking down Vilas's backhand at times with cross-court backhands to drag him out of position followed by crosscourt forehands (Vilas then came in a lot more during the 3rd set), and a month later destroying Connors for the loss of 7 games in a Wimbledon final, in which he serve-volleyed behind all / nearly all of his 1st serves and came to the net around 80 times in 3 short sets, was an insane feat. And he played a Davis Cup tie in Belgrade on clay in-between RG and Wimbledon as well, just to make that double even more impressive.

That was after he won the Italian Open, beating Panatta in the final in-front of an incredibly hostile crowd of which many members relentlessly booed and threw coins at him.

Also Borg clearly a better record against follow top 10 players than Connors did that year. Based on activity listed in the ATP website, Borg had a 21-2 vs. top 10 opponents, compared to Connors' 13-3 record (unless my counting is faulty which is definitely possible). Significantly more wins and 1 fewer defeat together there, is very significant IMO.

Also, while this is harsh on Connors, the US Open final was essentially a walkover. The likes of John Newcombe and Tony Trabert both had the firm attitude that if players showed up they were healthy, but readily acknowledged the huge impact of Borg's thumb injury. Connors may well have won that match anyway (he was certainly hell-bent on gaining revenge after the Wimbledon drubbing), but the point is that it wasn't a proper contest to begin with. The Wimbledon final that year should carry far more weight than the USO final IMO.

Borg also won more unsanctioned titles that year that Connors as well, 9 vs. 3, which I think probably counts for at least something.

 

[KG1965]

1978 PART 1

Below I will try to explain why the ATP ranking designated Connors number 1, also because I remember it very well.
The circuit was divided into
- 3 slams,
- 3 tournaments with 200,000+ (Phila, Memphis and Alan King Classic Las Vegas),
- around twenty 175,000,
- then the Mastesr500 and
- the Masters250.

Connors won 10 Grand Prix tournaments recognized by the ATP rankings.
Borg 7, not 9 because Boca Raton and ToC Las Vegas had no ATP points.
So we start from 10-7 (which is no small gap).

 

[KG1965]

1978 PART 2

Borg obviously won 2 slams to 1.
Connors won 2 200000+ tournaments (Phila and Memphis), Borg none.
Connors won 4 175000 (Indy, Washington, Rotterdam and Sydney), Borg 4 (Birmingham USA, Milan, Rome, + Tokyo actually 200000, ...)
Connors won a Master500 in Birmingham (England).
Then, but they don't count for anything, Connors won two M250s in Denver and Stowe and Borg one in Baastad.

In summary, there are two substantial differences for the ATP Ranking:
1) the points attributed to the double victory Philadelphia+Memphis (450 points) are worth more than a slam (300 points ..for example RG)
2) The only M500 won in Birmingham (England) by Jimbo is worth 125 points.
This is just to motivate the criterion and parameters of the ATP Ranking.

You can obviously argue that RG (or Wimbledon) are >>> Philadelphia + Memphis but the computer has a program and data and the counts are not wrong.

 

[KG1965]

1978 PART 3

My conclusions as a Jimmy fan are these.
1) the ATP Ranking data as they were set are correct, there is no way to object to the counts
2) thinking about it and remembering that period, I honestly struggle to believe RG > Phila + Memphis also because the US Indoor which was held at the Spectrum in Philadelphia was a Supertournament.
3) I therefore tend to respect the 1978 ATP Ranking.

But I think that
1) Borg was a stronger player than Jimbo in 1978 (just a little)
2) Borg won more big/important titles in 1978 because the two big titles won in Boca Raton and Las Vegas (ToC) and which were invisible for the ATP Ranking were decisive.

 

[KG1965]

In the Open Era I see Connors as No. 4 behind the Big 3, do you go along with that?
I know that he has a hard time keeping up with Sampras. But aren't there arguments for that? 45 more titles?
Sampras only 6 Slams more. And none on clay etc.
I think only the Big 3 are clearly ahead.
Fortunately, Novak is the best.

I don't know precisely.
I think that Big Three are clearly the top 3 in OE, with Nole ahead of everyone.
A step below Sampras, Borg, Jimbo, Mac and Lendl I have always seen them quite close.
I think each of these 5 has failed in a choice and without this they would have gotten a little closer to the Big 3 without reaching them.
Borg, for example, played too much, too many exhibitions and ended up getting depressed early on.
McEnroe played too many doubles tournaments always trying to win them, essentially he played double the matches and he destroyed himself, he too could have been competitive 6-7 years older.
Lendl was a little frail in the 3/5, he tended to get cooked in long tournaments.
Sampras was built for slams, he was the opposite of Lendl: unapproachable in some slams but less competitive in 2/3.
And finally Jimbo: I think he made a series of errors of evaluation, errors of choice in not participating in many slams, especially in Melbourne (basically he never participated in the AO, it seems like an absurd choice now. But then you go and look and in those years also Borg... and Nastase too... Mac, Smith, almost all the top players), Masters WCT, Marsters GP, preferring the dollars of the rich exhibitions.
So to the question which is better Sampras or Jimbo I don't know frankly.
Maybe I choose Pete, but it's difficult they made diametrically opposite choices.
I hope I have answered you.

 

[GrandSlam24]

I don't know precisely.
I think that Big Three are clearly the top 3 in OE, with Nole ahead of everyone.
A step below Sampras, Borg, Jimbo, Mac and Lendl I have always seen them quite close.
I think each of these 5 has failed in a choice and without this they would have gotten a little closer to the Big 3 without reaching them.
Borg, for example, played too much, too many exhibitions and ended up getting depressed early on.
McEnroe played too many doubles tournaments always trying to win them, essentially he played double the matches and he destroyed himself, he too could have been competitive 6-7 years older.
Lendl was a little frail in the 3/5, he tended to get cooked in long tournaments.
Sampras was built for slams, he was the opposite of Lendl: unapproachable in some slams but less competitive in 2/3.
And finally Jimbo: I think he made a series of errors of evaluation, errors of choice in not participating in many slams, especially in Melbourne (basically he never participated in the AO, it seems like an absurd choice now. But then you go and look and in those years also Borg... and Nastase too... Mac, Smith, almost all the top players), Masters WCT, Marsters GP, preferring the dollars of the rich exhibitions.
So to the question which is better Sampras or Jimbo I don't know frankly.
Maybe I choose Pete, but it's difficult they made diametrically opposite choices.
I hope I have answered you.

The big problem is that in arguing for Connors as one of the 5 after the Big 3, you always run into the point about Sampras' 6 slams lead.
You can make some arguments against Lendl and McEnroe. With Borg it somehow still works.
The weeks at No. 1 alone. Connors was even at No. 1 for a year longer than Nadal.
But if you put Connors on a par with Pete, there's relentless resistance.
Again and again, the advantage comes with the Slams and the resulting 18 more weeks on 1. It's crazy.

 

[jrepac]

In terms of 1978, clearly the majors were far from the be all and end all then, and I agree that RG was not as a big a tournament at the time as the Wimbledon or the US Open (but Wimbledon was clearly no. 1 over the US Open - I'd say that was definitely still the case in the 80s as well). But still it's a definite win for Borg for me there, just as 1976 is a definite win for Connors IMO.

It wasn't just what Borg won, but how he won his titles as well, with his record breaking and insanely dominant RG triumph (not even Nadal has topped Borg's feat of conceding just 32 games in a campaign at RG), followed by him drubbing Connors to match Fred Perry's feat of 3 consecutive Wimbledon titles (that was an absolutely enormous deal, with Perry also presenting the trophy to him).

Also the fact that those successes were part of an incredible RG-Wimbledon double is a huge deal. Borg destroying Vilas for the loss of 5 games in an RG final with a series of long, seemingly never ending baseline rallies over the first 2 sets in-particular, with him breaking down Vilas's backhand at times with cross-court backhands to drag him out of position followed by crosscourt forehands (Vilas then came in a lot more during the 3rd set), and a month later destroying Connors for the loss of 7 games in a Wimbledon final, in which he serve-volleyed behind all / nearly all of his 1st serves and came to the net around 80 times in 3 short sets, was an insane feat. And he played a Davis Cup tie in Belgrade on clay in-between RG and Wimbledon as well, just to make that double even more impressive.

That was after he won the Italian Open, beating Panatta in the final in-front of an incredibly hostile crowd of which many members relentlessly booed and threw coins at him.

Also Borg clearly a better record against follow top 10 players than Connors did that year. Based on activity listed in the ATP website, Borg had a 21-2 vs. top 10 opponents, compared to Connors' 13-3 record (unless my counting is faulty which is definitely possible). Significantly more wins and 1 fewer defeat together there, is very significant IMO.

Also, while this is harsh on Connors, the US Open final was essentially a walkover. The likes of John Newcombe and Tony Trabert both had the firm attitude that if players showed up they were healthy, but readily acknowledged the huge impact of Borg's thumb injury. Connors may well have won that match anyway (he was certainly hell-bent on gaining revenge after the Wimbledon drubbing), but the point is that it wasn't a proper contest to begin with. The Wimbledon final that year should carry far more weight than the USO final IMO.

Borg also won more unsanctioned titles that year that Connors as well, 9 vs. 3, which I think probably counts for at least something.

I think this is adding a lot of subjectivity to it....certainly valid opinions...but no special weight is given to the channel slam, for instance. Nor if you win 6-0 in 3 sets versus 7-6 in the fifth set. It's a qualitative assessment, and I get it. Similarly, Borg's injury in the USO final. There's no 'adjustment' for that when they tally the points. It's just a feeling that "if he was well he SHOULD have won" (maybe, maybe not). I don't disagree the W is the premiere event either, much like I'd put the USO in front of RG. But the computer rankings don't make these sorts of adjustments (not even sure they could or should). I think there is certainly value in the panel assessments, but technically, the computer is never wrong...it may just need different programming .

PS--GREAT detail from KG on the ATP ranking system in 1978. Fascinating stuff. That math makes sense (even if the outcome doesn't). Just crazy!

 

[WCT]

1978 PART 2

Borg obviously won 2 slams to 1.
Connors won 2 200000+ tournaments (Phila and Memphis), Borg none.
Connors won 4 175000 (Indy, Washington, Rotterdam and Sydney), Borg 4 (Birmingham USA, Milan, Rome, + Tokyo actually 200000, ...)
Connors won a Master500 in Birmingham (England).
Then, but they don't count for anything, Connors won two M250s in Denver and Stowe and Borg one in Baastad.

In summary, there are two substantial differences for the ATP Ranking:
1) the points attributed to the double victory Philadelphia+Memphis (450 points) are worth more than a slam (300 points ..for example RG)
2) The only M500 won in Birmingham (England) by Jimbo is worth 125 points.
This is just to motivate the criterion and parameters of the ATP Ranking.

You can obviously argue that RG (or Wimbledon) are >>> Philadelphia + Memphis but the computer has a program and data and the counts are not wrong.

Philadelphia and Memphis had 1 1/2 times the ATP points as RG? I assume you mean ATP points and not Grand Prix points. Th former is for the computer rankings, the latter to qualify for the Masters and the bonus pool money.

I am fully aware of the fields that Philadlphia drew. Probably the best indoor field for the year with a regular sized draw. Still, RG was a grand slam. Did you find this point totals online? No way I would have thought it would be 1 1/2 times.

I never thought of there being that big of a gap between Wimbledona and the US Open. Wimbledon had the edge, but I thought of them more in terms of 1A and 1B then a clear 1 and 2. They were the clear top 2, though. Certainly in 1978.

Connors only lost 3 or 4 ATP matches that year. I suppose it's how you weigh RG versus Philadelphia and Memphis. He won the US clay courts as well. But if weighing those 2 indoor titles so much higher than RG it's not difficult to see why it would rank him number 1

 

[Gizo]

I think this is adding a lot of subjectivity to it....certainly valid opinions...but no special weight is given to the channel slam, for instance. Nor if you win 6-0 in 3 sets versus 7-6 in the fifth set. It's a qualitative assessment, and I get it. Similarly, Borg's injury in the USO final. There's no 'adjustment' for that when they tally the points. It's just a feeling that "if he was well he SHOULD have won" (maybe, maybe not). I don't disagree the W is the premiere event either, much like I'd put the USO in front of RG. But the computer rankings don't make these sorts of adjustments (not even sure they could or should). I think there is certainly value in the panel assessments, but technically, the computer is never wrong...it may just need different programming .

PS--GREAT detail from KG on the ATP ranking system in 1978. Fascinating stuff. That math makes sense (even if the outcome doesn't). Just crazy!

When it comes to debating who is the best player of any year, then digging deeper and looking and what players won, who they beat along the way, how dominant they were along the way, the conditions that they faced etc., is important.

That stuff has 'no special weight' if we're purely looking at the computer rankings, but clearly that's not what we're doing here, so it does carry weight. It's like if we look at 1982, we can go with the computer rankings and say that Mac was no. 1 and be done with it, or we can analyse the results in more detail, and say that Connors and Lendl were actually both better than him that year.

Winning majors on polar opposition conditions, adopting hugely different playing styles to do so, with such a short turnaround time, and with unprecendented (in the open era) dominance in the first one and then a very dominant final performance in the second, is a very big deal. After Wimbledon, Borg's feat of winning the Italian Open, RG and Wimbledon within 6 weeks (in addition to playing in the Davis Cup) was mentioned including by Sports Illustrated and the like, and was conisdered to be a pretty momumental achievement. Though the main focus at that stage was the fact that he had won his 3rd straight Wimbledon title which was a huge achievement (and was clearly an even bigger deal than Mac winning 3 straight USO titles during the next 3 years, which was still a very big deal itself).

Also the fact that Borg was beating fellow top 10 players noticeably more regularly than Connors was that year (and still suffering even fewer defeats there as well) is noteworthy. It paints the picture that he was generally facing and overcoming tougher competition than Connors was.

In terms of other title beyond the majors, I'd definitely rank Borg's Italian Open win over Connors' Memphis win, given that that he IMO beat better players to so, plus it had a 64 player draw size (relevant in men's tennis with a lot of depth in the field) - beating Solomon, Dibbs and the home favourite backed by a partisan (to put it mildly) crowd Panatta to win a big title on clay was impressive. For perspective, when Vilas won the RG title in 1977, there was talk about his previous poor record in big, important finals, which included his defeat to Panatta in Rome in 1976.

In terms of the USO, it was reported at the time that Borg had a 55 match winning streak before the defeat to Connors in the final. Connors got the USO title win, but after losing in 6 out of his last 7 finals in majors (though admittedly that doesn't paint the full picture with his 1975 Challenge match against Newcombe at Caesar's Palace, 1976 Philly final against Borg etc. a very big deal), he certainly got a big break there, against an opponent that clearly would have defaulted had it not been a major final. Newcombe and Trabert, when commentating on the 1979 Pepsi Grand Slam final between the two of them, again referred back to that USO final, and said that we couldn't read anything into it due to the state of Borg's injury.

The ITF, World Tennis, the French Tennis Magazine, Bud Collins, Lance Tingay went for Borg as the player of the year, while Rino Tomassi (though he ranked both Lendl and Mac over Connors in 1982 for perspective) and the US Tennis Magazine went for Connors, so it was advantage Borg there.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

When it comes to debating who is the best player of any year, then digging deeper and looking and what players won, who they beat along the way, how dominant they were along the way, the conditions that they faced etc., is important.

That stuff has 'no special weight' if we're purely looking at the computer rankings, but clearly that's not what we're doing here, so it does carry weight. It's like if we look at 1982, we can go with the computer rankings and say that Mac was no. 1 and be done with it, or we can analyse the results in more detail, and say that Connors and Lendl were actually both better than him that year.

Winning majors on polar opposition conditions, adopting hugely different playing styles to do so, with such a short turnaround time, and with unprecendented (in the open era) dominance in the first one and then a very dominant final performance in the second, is a very big deal. After Wimbledon, Borg's feat of winning the Italian Open, RG and Wimbledon within 6 weeks (in addition to playing in the Davis Cup) was mentioned including by Sports Illustrated and the like, and was conisdered to be a pretty momumental achievement. Though the main focus at that stage was the fact that he had won his 3rd straight Wimbledon title which was a huge achievement (and was clearly an even bigger deal than Mac winning 3 straight USO titles during the next 3 years, which was still a very big deal itself).

Also the fact that Borg was beating fellow top 10 players noticeably more regularly than Connors was that year (and still suffering even fewer defeats there as well) is noteworthy. It paints the picture that he was generally facing and overcoming tougher competition than Connors was.

In terms of other title beyond the majors, I'd definitely rank Borg's Italian Open win over Connors' Memphis win, given that that he IMO beat better players to so, plus it had a 64 player draw size (relevant in men's tennis with a lot of depth in the field) - beating Solomon, Dibbs and the home favourite backed by a partisan (to put it mildly) crowd Panatta to win a big title on clay was impressive. For perspective, when Vilas won the RG title in 1977, there was talk about his previous poor record in big, important finals, which included his defeat to Panatta in Rome in 1976.

In terms of the USO, it was reported at the time that Borg had a 55 match winning streak before the defeat to Connors in the final. Connors got the USO title win, but after losing in 6 out of his last 7 finals in majors (though admittedly that doesn't paint the full picture with his 1975 Challenge match against Newcombe at Caesar's Palace, 1976 Philly final against Borg etc. a very big deal), he certainly got a big break there, against an opponent that clearly would have defaulted had it not been a major final. Newcombe and Trabert, when commentating on the 1979 Pepsi Grand Slam final between the two of them, again referred back to that USO final, and said that we couldn't read anything into it due to the state of Borg's injury.

The ITF, World Tennis, the French Tennis Magazine, Bud Collins, Lance Tingay went for Borg as the player of the year, while Rino Tomassi (though he ranked both Lendl and Mac over Connors in 1982 for perspective) and the US Tennis Magazine went for Connors, so it was advantage Borg there.

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.

 

[abmk]

It was a great end to the year for Vilas, and a great overall year, with a 131-13 (91%) record.

Meanwhile, Borg was 75-6 (92.6%), with the 2-0 record against Vilas.

Looking at records against top 10 players:

Vilas was 10-4​

​

Borg was 13-2​

Borg was 3-0 vs Vilas if we consider Masters as part of the 1977 season (even if held in early 1978)

 

[KG1965]

Philadelphia and Memphis had 1 1/2 times the ATP points as RG? I assume you mean ATP points and not Grand Prix points. Th former is for the computer rankings, the latter to qualify for the Masters and the bonus pool money.

I am fully aware of the fields that Philadlphia drew. Probably the best indoor field for the year with a regular sized draw. Still, RG was a grand slam. Did you find this point totals online? No way I would have thought it would be 1 1/2 times.

I never thought of there being that big of a gap between Wimbledona and the US Open. Wimbledon had the edge, but I thought of them more in terms of 1A and 1B then a clear 1 and 2. They were the clear top 2, though. Certainly in 1978.

Connors only lost 3 or 4 ATP matches that year. I suppose it's how you weigh RG versus Philadelphia and Memphis. He won the US clay courts as well. But if weighing those 2 indoor titles so much higher than RG it's not difficult to see why it would rank him number 1

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).

 

[KG1965]

When it comes to debating who is the best player of any year, then digging deeper and looking and what players won, who they beat along the way, how dominant they were along the way, the conditions that they faced etc., is important.

That stuff has 'no special weight' if we're purely looking at the computer rankings, but clearly that's not what we're doing here, so it does carry weight. It's like if we look at 1982, we can go with the computer rankings and say that Mac was no. 1 and be done with it, or we can analyse the results in more detail, and say that Connors and Lendl were actually both better than him that year.

Winning majors on polar opposition conditions, adopting hugely different playing styles to do so, with such a short turnaround time, and with unprecendented (in the open era) dominance in the first one and then a very dominant final performance in the second, is a very big deal. After Wimbledon, Borg's feat of winning the Italian Open, RG and Wimbledon within 6 weeks (in addition to playing in the Davis Cup) was mentioned including by Sports Illustrated and the like, and was conisdered to be a pretty momumental achievement. Though the main focus at that stage was the fact that he had won his 3rd straight Wimbledon title which was a huge achievement (and was clearly an even bigger deal than Mac winning 3 straight USO titles during the next 3 years, which was still a very big deal itself).

Also the fact that Borg was beating fellow top 10 players noticeably more regularly than Connors was that year (and still suffering even fewer defeats there as well) is noteworthy. It paints the picture that he was generally facing and overcoming tougher competition than Connors was.

In terms of other title beyond the majors, I'd definitely rank Borg's Italian Open win over Connors' Memphis win, given that that he IMO beat better players to so, plus it had a 64 player draw size (relevant in men's tennis with a lot of depth in the field) - beating Solomon, Dibbs and the home favourite backed by a partisan (to put it mildly) crowd Panatta to win a big title on clay was impressive. For perspective, when Vilas won the RG title in 1977, there was talk about his previous poor record in big, important finals, which included his defeat to Panatta in Rome in 1976.

In terms of the USO, it was reported at the time that Borg had a 55 match winning streak before the defeat to Connors in the final. Connors got the USO title win, but after losing in 6 out of his last 7 finals in majors (though admittedly that doesn't paint the full picture with his 1975 Challenge match against Newcombe at Caesar's Palace, 1976 Philly final against Borg etc. a very big deal), he certainly got a big break there, against an opponent that clearly would have defaulted had it not been a major final. Newcombe and Trabert, when commentating on the 1979 Pepsi Grand Slam final between the two of them, again referred back to that USO final, and said that we couldn't read anything into it due to the state of Borg's injury.

The ITF, World Tennis, the French Tennis Magazine, Bud Collins, Lance Tingay went for Borg as the player of the year, while Rino Tomassi (though he ranked both Lendl and Mac over Connors in 1982 for perspective) and the US Tennis Magazine went for Connors, so it was advantage Borg there.

I agree with everything you describe in this post.
I limit myself to explaining (as I see it) the reasons why the ATP Ranking designated Connors as number one.
1) some tournaments were close to slams (Memphis was one of them)
2) Memphis was considered from ranking > Rome (highest prize money but also seeding, out of 7-8 of the top ten)
3) Connors won 10 tournaments and Borg 7 in 1978

Basically, if you look at the results without the two special events in Vegas and Boca Raton we understand why.
We can obviously disagree but I think it is useful to understand why.

 

[Gizo]

I agree with everything you describe in this post.
I limit myself to explaining (as I see it) the reasons why the ATP Ranking designated Connors as number one.
1) some tournaments were close to slams (Memphis was one of them)
2) Memphis was considered from ranking > Rome (highest prize money but also seeding, out of 7-8 of the top ten)
3) Connors won 10 tournaments and Borg 7 in 1978

Basically, if you look at the results without the two special events in Vegas and Boca Raton we understand why.
We can obviously disagree but I think it is useful to understand why.

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, and the ITF and most publications and tennis writers seemed to agree. In 1998 with IMO a better and more logical computer ranking system than in 1974, I earlier argued that I thought Rafter was the player of the year, albeit very narrowly, over the computer year end no. 1 Sampras.

Regarding Memphis vs. Rome, when it comes to comparing tournaments at that level which are both highly regarded, and are not really that far apart from each other in terms of overall importance and status, I personally think the standard of opponents faced and beaten, overrides the tournament designation.

Borg beat Ycaza, Deblicker, Tanner and then far more notably Solomon, Dibbs, and Panatta to win Rome, so 6 matches with 3 very high quality opponents with plenty of clay court pedigree in the last 3 rounds.

Connors beat Stockton (who won the 1st set and then retired injured during the 2nd set), Fibak, Cox, Higueras and Gullikson to win Memphis, so 5 matches facing opponents nowhere near as strong in comparison (especially relative to the surface) in the last 3 rounds.

With a 64 player draw and the requirement to win 6 matches in 1 week, with a best of 5 set semi-final and final and still a strong draw, the Italian Open was a brutally difficult tournament to win from a physical perspective as well, and far tougher in that department than Memphis with a 32 player draw and best of 3 set matches throughout, or any of the majors over 2 weeks for that matter. Also facing Panatta in a final in Rome with him backed by a 'passionate' crowd', is on a different level to facing Gullikson in a final in Memphis. So therefore I personally rate Borg's Italian Open win more highly, though I think that Connors' Memphis title was still very significant.

However when it comes to comparing the US Open to Rome for example, and it is definitely possible in any era for players to face and come through tougher draws in Rome than New York, then I think that the prestige and status of the tournament (i.e. the stakes at the US Open match by match are just so much higher) definitely overrides the quality of opponents faced.

In terms of money for example, Borg earned considerably greater prize money after winning the title in Dallas in 1976, than Connors did after winning the title that year in Philly, but I think that Connors' Philly title should carry (even) more weight and be valued more highly that year, due to the strong field and opponents faced.

I've seen figures regarding the total prize money earned by Evert and Navratilova on the women's side in 1978, but not earned by Borg and Connors on the men's side that year. I assume that Borg overall, helped by his huge winners' cheque after winning the Pepsi Grand Slam and also much stronger record in invitational events, earned greater prize money overall than Connors that year, which if he did, would be another big factor in his favour re who was the player of the year.