Top 10 years of all time in order

[davey25]

It is interesting to read historic books on tennis and become familiar with the many great years, moments, events, and players that have made their mark on this great game. These are what my top ten years of all time for men and women would be. Your thoughts......


Men-

1)Rod Laver-1969
2)Don Budge-1938
3)Lew Hoad-1956
4)Jack Crawford-1933
5)Fred Perry-1934
6)Tony Trabert-1955
7)Roger Federer-2004
8)John McEnroe-1984
9)Mats Wilander-1988
10)Jimmy Conners-1974


Women-

1)Steffi Graf-1988
2)Margaret Court-1970
3)Maureen Connoly-1953
4)Martina Navratilova-1984
5)Steffi Graf-1989
6)Martina Navratilova-1983
7)Martina Hingis-1987
8)Helen Wills Moody-1928
9)Alice Marble-1939
10)Billie Jean King-1972

 

[Camilio Pascual]

Nice list, I'll have to think about it. There are probably a few years of Ken Rosewall, Chris Evert, and Pancho Gonzalez that would belong here.

Vilas - 1977
Coetzer - 1997

I assume you meant Hingis - 1997. She got a LOT of help from Miss Mandy, the only person to beat Graf on court for over a year, beating her 3 times in 1997. Martina's defeat of Steffi was actually a walkover.

 

[007]

Federer 2004 has to be up there IMO

 

[Ronaldo]

2002 and the SerenaSlam??????????

 

[davey25]

Nice list, I'll have to think about it. There are probably a few years of Ken Rosewall, Chris Evert, and Pancho Gonzalez that would belong here.

Vilas - 1977
Coetzer - 1997

I assume you meant Hingis - 1997. She got a LOT of help from Miss Mandy, the only person to beat Graf on court for over a year, beating her 3 times in 1997. Martina's defeat of Steffi was actually a walkover.

Steffi was badly injured for the months she played in 1997. I personally doubt she would have made much of a dent in Hingis had they played that year. Still a great year for Coetzer, and an incredable effort to have that much success against the bigger, stronger Steffi Graf despite Graf's physical woes.

Too bad Coetzer could not win her French semi with Majoli that year. She had an awesome chance, but choked a bit at the opportunity. Hingis was very weary in the final and I think Amanda could have taken her. It would have been nicer to see her have a slam win, given the career she has had, than Majoli who only was a noteable player for 3 years of her career, and who generally was a lazy underachiever.

 

[davey25]

2002 and the SerenaSlam??????????

I am sorry, you are right I should have picked Serena. The Serena slam would carry into 2003 so that final part would not count though. Maybe give her the #7 spot and bump out Hingis who had her great year in what was arguably the weakest year ever in womens tennis, as far as level of competition.

 

[Kevin Patrick]

davey,
I'm surprised you didn't include Seles from '91 or '92. Her year was certainly as good or better than Hingis in '97, with a much better field those years(as you say '97 was pretty weak)

 

[JohnThomas1]

Good list. Omissions i immediately see are Kramer who often gets ranked as high as two, and Gonzales. Some also put Riggs and Segura way up too, tho they are a long way back from the two i mention. I myself would have Lendl in there without hesitation, i rate him above Mac and Connors and he was light years ahead of Wilander

 

[Kevin Patrick]

Which Lendl year would you pick John? He seemed to have multiple years at the same level. But '86 might be his best year:74-6 won 2 slams, reached the final at the other(only 3 slams were played that year)

It's really hard to judge years with the amateur/pro split. Gonzalez may be the best ever, but he turned pro so early(& there aren't official records of the pro years prior to the open era) so he won only 2 grand slams.

 

[Ronaldo]

Seles 1992 was awesome, hardest hitter IMHO. Only negative was that grunting, like she just couldn't quite get it over with, eh?

 

[davey25]

davey,
I'm surprised you didn't include Seles from '91 or '92. Her year was certainly as good or better than Hingis in '97, with a much better field those years(as you say '97 was pretty weak)

I should have put an honorable mention list too. The great thing about choosing a list is you have to choose between more deserving people than available spots. There are probably close to 20 deserving of a top 10 spot.

With regards to Seles, she did not go through a year undefeated as Marble did, granted Marble didnt play as many matches, but those who followed her that year agree she would have been undefeated regardless the number. King's 72 was atleast, probably slightly more dominant than Seles of 91 and 92. I probably made a mistake including Hingis the first time in hindsight. Either Seles of 91 or S. Williams of 2002 would be more deserving.

I must admit though, part of my issue with Seles, compared to the greatest years or greatest players, is her Wimbledon record. In 92 she made the final but it was a humiliating loss for a slam final, compared to other 3-slam winners or dominant players. In 91 she skipped it altogether, given her other performances in Wimbledon and her lack of a substantial reason given, I hesitate to give her the benefit of doubt.

 

[Datacipher]

Davey, why would you put Federer over Connors?

 

[davey25]

Davey, why would you put Federer over Connors?

To annoy the hell out of you. j/k.

Lets just say alot of it depends on how you view Connor's French Open boycott, or atleast for me that would be a key factor to where his year rates. With no result from the French Open it is quite within reason to rate him where I did. If you assume he would definitely have won, or even been in the finals that is a different story. My feeling is:

1)if we start talking about hypotheticals, how many more times are we going to have to start guessing on things that didnt happen. Hypotheticals such as "what if so and so wasnt injured", "what if he/she didnt have the flu that week", "what if such and such a personal tragedy taken place". Those are no different for me than "what if he wasn't boycotted".

2)I dont tend to be so generous to assume somebody who's best French Open results in a long career are semis and quarters, some dissapointing losses to relative unknowns, would have automatically won or even reached a specific round at the French had he played. Yes I am aware of his dominance against Borg that year, and his win over him in a clay court tournament in the U.S by the way. Alot of people access his clay court ability in the mid-70s on his results on American clay, but the clay in Europe is and always has been much different. That is not to say he could have translated success over there, but I by no means feel so sure of it to assume.

 

[Datacipher]

Davey it doesn't annoy me in the slightest, I couldn't care less which is why I didn't bother posting till now. I was just curious as to your reasoning.

To me it's got nothing to do with hypotheticals. I don't assume anything about Connors other than DNP. I never said I assumed anything about what Connors would have done, I don't see how it factors in. I just wondered why you would rank a guy who won the same 3 GS as Federer with a much better win/loss record and more tournament titles as having a worse year. I only picked Federer arbitrarily because I knew he would be fresh in your mind, I could have said Wilander as well....only Mcenroe of the bottom 4 is questionable over Connors. Tony Trabert and Connors are pretty even, with perhaps a slight edge to Trabert.

I also am not really sure why you put Fred Perry in 1934 so high. Why is that?

Here's how I would have rated only the years you listed:

Budge
Laver
Trabert
Connors
Hoad
Fed
Mcenroe
Wilander
Perry

 

[davey25]

Davey it doesn't annoy me in the slightest, I couldn't care less which is why I didn't bother posting till now. I was just curious as to your reasoning.

To me it's got nothing to do with hypotheticals. I don't assume anything about Connors other than DNP. I never said I assumed anything about what Connors would have done, I don't see how it factors in. I just wondered why you would rank a guy who won the same 3 GS as Federer with a much better win/loss record and more tournament titles as having a worse year. I only picked Federer arbitrarily because I knew he would be fresh in your mind, I could have said Wilander as well....only Mcenroe of the bottom 4 is questionable over Connors. Tony Trabert and Connors are pretty even, with perhaps a slight edge to Trabert.

I also am not really sure why you put Fred Perry in 1934 so high. Why is that?

j/k stands for just kidding by the way. I am very impressed by the fact Federer lost no finals and had no losses to players ranked in the top 10 at the time he played them. To me that has to be something that raises the value of his year significantly. Also while people say Roger had "easier competition" I wouldnt consider a 39-year old Ken Rosewall as tough of competition as Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, and a 34-year old Agassi(who had much less success than Rosewall was able to attain in 74). I am aware of the amazing longevity of Rosewall, but even so, I havent read or heard anybody who thought he was anywhere close to his best by then, and he still reached 2 of the 3 slam finals Connors won, nor having watched him on tape would I have concluded him to be near his best by 74. Newcombe losing out to Rosewall both times, would make Newcombe weaker that year more than anything. Also regardless how one feels about the top players the depth today of the lower ranked players are much more than it was in the 70s and 80s.

As for Fred Perry, he won 3 of 4 slams, and I believe lost in the quarters of the other slam. While obviously the depth would be even more reduced back then, he had as his chief rivals Jack Crawford who had almost won the grand slam the previous year. To win 3 of 4 slams at the expense of somebody who won 3 of the 4 himself the previous year is why I rate him so high.

 

[Datacipher]

ah well that explains it right there. You went with a lot fuzzy, subjective factors. Which is fine as it is your personal list. When I reordered your list, I only went with GS titles, tournament titles and match records.

I know what J/K means....it just didnt' think it was much of a joke so I thought you must be trying to imply something else as well...so I wanted to point out, I have no personal preference for placing any of these players above each other.

PS. Last time I checked, Perry never won more than 2 GS titles in a single year.

 

[davey25]

ah well that explains it right there. You went with a lot fuzzy, subjective factors. Which is fine as it is your personal list. When I reordered your list, I only went with GS titles, tournament titles and match records.

I know what J/K means....it just didnt' think it was much of a joke so I thought you must be trying to imply something else as well...so I wanted to point out, I have no personal preference for placing any of these players above each other.

PS. Last time I checked, Perry never won more than 2 GS titles in a single year.

Well check again because I am sure Perry won 3 grand slams in 34 and only the loss in the french quarters to a both-forehands player cost him the grand slam. He came back to beat him 6-0, 6-0, 6-0 the following year though, after promising he would not allow him another game when they played the following year. Obviously he was a man of his word.

 

[davey25]

Datacipher, would you happen to have a top ten list, atleast for the men?

 

[Datacipher]

Yes, you're right about Perry. I actually went to check this time. I didnt' remember 1934 that well....in that case I would put him higher on your list.

No, I don't have a list. Frankly, I'm not interested enough...I think such lists are folly. But when you do undertake to make such a list, if you want it to be a respectable endeavor, you must define exactly what the list is measuring and how you measured it. Otherwise the ranking is just a wild opinion and neither you nor I were there to see most of these players.

I think you made a reasonable 10 picks, I just couldn't see any logic in the order.

 

[Trillus]

My lists just from the Open Era:

Men:

1. Rod Laver- 1969
2. Roger Federer- 2006
3. John McEnroe- 1984
4. Roger Federer- 2005
5. Jimmy Connors- 1974
6. Roger Federer- 2007
7. Roger Federer- 2004
8. Mats Wilander- 1988
9. Bjorn Borg- 1978
10. Pete Sampras- 1994

I will wait to see how Nadal finishes the year before deciding where to place him. He will definitely make my list though.


Women:

1. Steffi Graf- 1988
2. Steffi Graf- 1989
3. Martina Navratilova- 1984
4. Martina Navratilova- 1983
5. Steffi Graf- 1995
6. Steffi Graf- 1996
7. Serena Williams- 2002
8. Monica Seles- 1992
9. Justine Henin- 2007
8. Chris Evert- 1977

Navratilova's 1983 is bumped below her own 1984 and Graf's 1988 and 1989 due to her terrible loss at the French Open in the 3rd round, a Grand Slam event. It was her only loss of the year but up against 2 loss years or a 3 loss year with the Grand Slam accomplished, it still makes all the difference for me.

 

[powerangle]

My lists just from the Open Era:

Men:

1. Rod Laver- 1969
2. Roger Federer- 2006
3. John McEnroe- 1984
4. Roger Federer- 2005
5. Jimmy Connors- 1974
6. Roger Federer- 2007
7. Roger Federer- 2004
8. Mats Wilander- 1988
9. Bjorn Borg- 1978
10. Pete Sampras- 1994

I will wait to see how Nadal finishes the year before deciding where to place him. He will definitely make my list though.


Women:

1. Steffi Graf- 1988
2. Steffi Graf- 1989
3. Martina Navratilova- 1984
4. Martina Navratilova- 1983
5. Steffi Graf- 1995
6. Steffi Graf- 1996
7. Serena Williams- 2002
8. Monica Seles- 1992
9. Justine Henin- 2007
8. Chris Evert- 1977

Navratilova's 1983 is bumped below her own 1984 and Graf's 1988 and 1989 due to her terrible loss at the French Open in the 3rd round, a Grand Slam event. It was her only loss of the year but up against 2 loss years or a 3 loss year with the Grand Slam accomplished, it still makes all the difference for me.

Why is Serena's 2002 above Monica's 1992?

Three slams each, but Monica also reached the other slam final, and won more tournaments overall that year. We are only talking about results, yes? Because if you're talking about level of play then that list could be drastically changed.

 

[Trillus]

Why is Serena's 2002 above Monica's 1992?

Three slams each, but Monica also reached the other slam final, and won more tournaments overall that year. We are only talking about results, yes? Because if you're talking about level of play then that list could be drastically changed.

Since Serena won a slam on every surface that year. That is a big thing for me. It will also factor into my later rating of Nadal who managed the same thing this year. Serena also was denied winning the Calendar Slam only since she had to miss Australia, not through getting outplayed there as Seles soundly was at Wimbledon in 92 (yeah Seles had to miss Wimbledon in 91 too but everyone knows she wasnt winning it this year anyway).

 

[powerangle]

Since Serena won a slam on every surface that year. That is a big thing for me. It will also factor into my later rating of Nadal who managed the same thing this year. Serena also was denied winning the Calendar Slam only since she had to miss Australia, not through getting outplayed there as Seles soundly was at Wimbledon in 92 (yeah Seles had to miss Wimbledon in 91 too but everyone knows she wasnt winning it this year anyway).

I understand your point but I'll respectfully disagree. It is Serena's own fault for getting injured (as an athlete, part of your job is staying fit physically), no one else denied her anything but herself. Yes it was a freak accident and she may very well won the AO that year (or not), but I'm not into awarding phantom slams or get into the "what if?" scenarios. She won the Serena Slam anyway, which a very amazing thing by itself.

It's close for me but I'd put Seles 1992 a hair over Serena 2002 for this reason, and for the reasons stated in my other post. Touche.

 

[veroniquem]

I have a list of most dominant years since the masters started (1990, quite recently I know!). It combines dominance in slams, masters and titles overall:

1- Federer 2006
2- Federer 2004
3- Nadal 2010
4- Federer 2005
5- Sampras 1994
6- Nadal 2008
7- Sampras 1997

 

[Trillus]

I have a list of most dominant years since the masters started (1990, quite recently I know!). It combines dominance in slams, masters and titles overall:

1- Federer 2006
2- Federer 2004
3- Nadal 2010
4- Federer 2005
5- Sampras 1994
6- Nadal 2008
7- Sampras 1997

That is a really good list but I would swap Federer's 2005 with his 2004 probably. Although Federer lost in 2 slam semis in 2005 he lost only 4 matches all year. In Masters events he played he ended up with titles in Miami, Indian Wells, Hamburg, and Cincinnati, and just a quarterfinal loss in Monte Carlo. Runner up at the TMC too. If you value more than slams (and I know you do) it is pretty hard to say Federer's 2004 was better than his 2005 despite the extra slam title and even the TMC win too.

It is a shame Agassi didnt win the U.S Open in 1995 otherwise he would probably have made the list.

 

[sonicare]

I have a list of most dominant years since the masters started (1990, quite recently I know!). It combines dominance in slams, masters and titles overall:

1- Federer 2006
2- Federer 2004
3- Nadal 2010
4- Federer 2005
5- Sampras 1994
6- Nadal 2008
7- Sampras 1997

where is fed 07?

 

[veroniquem]

That is a really good list but I would swap Federer's 2005 with his 2004 probably. Although Federer lost in 2 slam semis in 2005 he lost only 4 matches all year. In Masters events he played he ended up with titles in Miami, Indian Wells, Hamburg, and Cincinnati, and just a quarterfinal loss in Monte Carlo. Runner up at the TMC too. If you value more than slams (and I know you do) it is pretty hard to say Federer's 2004 was better than his 2005 despite the extra slam title and even the TMC win too.

It is a shame Agassi didnt win the U.S Open in 1995 otherwise he would probably have made the list.

True about Agassi. Well, I value titles over finals and semis, that's why Fed's 2004 has to come first: same # of titles overall, 3 masters + TMC doesn't seem very different from 4 masters but 1 more slam title vs 1 extra 500 has to take the prize, especially since seasons of winning 3 slams or more are SO rare (even Sampras never did it). I understand your argument of fewer losses but the problem I have with that is that in 2005, Fed played very few events (15 with only 5 masters). IMO, he would have lost more if he had played more.
So I still go with the titles as being the most significant criterion.

 

[Trillus]

True about Agassi. Well, I value titles over finals and semis, that's why Fed's 2004 has to come first: same # of titles overall, 3 masters + TMC doesn't seem very different from 4 masters but 1 more slam title vs 1 extra 500 has to take the prize, especially since seasons of winning 3 slams or more are SO rare (even Sampras never did it). I understand your argument of fewer losses but the problem I have with that is that in 2005, Fed played very few events (15 with only 5 masters). IMO, he would have lost more if he had played more.
So I still go with the titles as being the most significant criterion.

True, all good points. I guess I just still have memories of Federer in 2005 so nearly tieing McEnroe's Open Era best W-L mark.

 

[veroniquem]

where is fed 07?

Fed's 2007 was dominant in slams but not in masters (Nadal was the dominant player in masters that year).
I only included the years when the same player dominated the slams, the super 9 and overall titles. But yeah if you want to factor in TMC, I guess you could add it.

 

[kishnabe]

1- Federer 2006
2- McEnroe 1984
3-Federer 2005
4- Nadal 2010
5- Agassi 1999
6-Willander 1988
7- Borg 1980
8- Becker 1989
9- Courier 1993
10- Sampras 1994

 

[piece]

Fed's 2007 was dominant in slams but not in masters (Nadal was the dominant player in masters that year).
I only included the years when the same player dominated the slams, the super 9 and overall titles. But yeah if you want to factor in TMC, I guess you could add it.

Why wouldn't you factor in TMC? It's more prestigious than a Master's title

 

[abmk]

Why wouldn't you factor in TMC? It's more prestigious than a Master's title

umm, maybe because nadal hasn't won it ?

 

[powerangle]

1- Federer 2006
2- McEnroe 1984
3-Federer 2005
4- Nadal 2010
5- Agassi 1999
6-Willander 1988
7- Borg 1980
8- Becker 1989
9- Courier 1993
10- Sampras 1994

Hmm, if your #5 and lower are these years, then Federer's 2004 would have to make the list too....heck even his 2007 should be here, just my opinion.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

How much more obvious can it be that Trillius is davey25, Ii mean bumping a thread started by davey in 2005 that anyone who wasn't davey had all but forgotten about. Love how banned users can just constantly come back w/ new usernames over and over again.

 

[abmk]

How much more obvious can it be that Trillius is davey25, Ii mean bumping a thread started by davey in 2005 that anyone who wasn't davey had all but forgotten about. Love how banned users can just constantly come back w/ new usernames over and over again.

well that was obvious from the first post of trillus , to me atleast !

 

[vive le beau jeu !]

How much more obvious can it be that Trillius is davey25, Ii mean bumping a thread started by davey in 2005 that anyone who wasn't davey had all but forgotten about. Love how banned users can just constantly come back w/ new usernames over and over again.

davey25 (& friends) has so many identities around here that sometimes, when i brush my teeth in front of the mirror in the morning, i wonder if i'm really myself of one of those... this is getting frightening. :shock: i heard he(she?) could parasite other TTW posters and take control of their body... is that true ?

 

[timnz]

Top Years

For men:

1/ Laver - 1967 (Pro Grand Slam + Pro Wimbledon)
2/ Laver - 1969 (Open Grand Slam)
3/ Federer 2006 (3 Slams + great win loss record that year)
4/ McEnroe 2004 (only 3 loses the whole year)
5/ Budge 1938 (Grand Slam)
6/ Wilding 1913 (All 3 Majors - unbeaten that year I believe)
7/ Connors 1974 (3 Majors that year)
8/ Borg 1980 (2 Majors + Masters + Finalist US Open)
9/ Rosewall 1963 (Pro Grand Slam)
10/ Tilden 1921 (US Open, Wimbledon + World Hard Court Championship on Clay)

Special mention to one of the best 1/2 years - Laver 1st half 1971 - winning 13 straight 5 set matches on the most top quality competition imaginable (Rosewall and Newcombe in the 1st two rounds!) in the 'Tennis Champions Classic' + winning Italian Open over French Open Champion.

Tennis Champions Classic:

New York: Rosewall 6-3,6-4,7-5.
Rochester: Newcombe 6-4,6-2,4-6,5-7,6-4.
Boston: Roche 7-5,4-6,3-6,7-5,6-1.
Philadelphia: Emerson, 6-2,6-3,7-5.
New York: Ashe 7-5,6-4,7-5.
Detroit: Okker 5-7,5-7,6-2,6-2,6-2.
New York: Ashe 3-6,6-3,6-3,6-4.
Inglewood: Taylor 6-3,7-5,6-2.
New York:Okker 6-1,6-4,6-3.
New York: Ralston 3-6,6-1,6-4,6-3.
New Haven: Emerson 6-3,5-7,6-3,3-6,6-3.

To decide the semifinal line-up outside the Laver-matches, the following matches were played:
Ralston bt. Roche. Ralston bt. Ashe. Ashe bt. Rosewall, Okker bt- Newcombe. Emerson bt. Taylor.

Semifinals, New York:
Laver-Ralston 6-3,6-4,7-5.
Okker-Emerson 6-4,2-6,4.6,6-3,6-4.

Final, New York:
Laver-Okker 7-5,6-2,6-1.

 

[kiki]

For men:

1/ Laver - 1967 (Pro Grand Slam + Pro Wimbledon)
2/ Laver - 1969 (Open Grand Slam)
3/ Federer 2006 (3 Slams + great win loss record that year)
4/ McEnroe 2004 (only 3 loses the whole year)
5/ Budge 1938 (Grand Slam)
6/ Wilding 1913 (All 3 Majors - unbeaten that year I believe) CHANGE BY EMERSON
7/ Connors 1974 (3 Majors that year)
8/ Borg 1980 (2 Majors + Masters + Finalist US Open)
9/ Rosewall 1963 (Pro Grand Slam)
10/ Tilden 1921 (US Open, Wimbledon + World Hard Court Championship on Clay)

REST IS OK
Special mention to one of the best 1/2 years - Laver 1st half 1971 - winning 13 straight 5 set matches on the most top quality competition imaginable (Rosewall and Newcombe in the 1st two rounds!) in the 'Tennis Champions Classic' + winning Italian Open over French Open Champion.

Tennis Champions Classic:

New York: Rosewall 6-3,6-4,7-5.
Rochester: Newcombe 6-4,6-2,4-6,5-7,6-4.
Boston: Roche 7-5,4-6,3-6,7-5,6-1.
Philadelphia: Emerson, 6-2,6-3,7-5.
New York: Ashe 7-5,6-4,7-5.
Detroit: Okker 5-7,5-7,6-2,6-2,6-2.
New York: Ashe 3-6,6-3,6-3,6-4.
Inglewood: Taylor 6-3,7-5,6-2.
New York:Okker 6-1,6-4,6-3.
New York: Ralston 3-6,6-1,6-4,6-3.
New Haven: Emerson 6-3,5-7,6-3,3-6,6-3.

To decide the semifinal line-up outside the Laver-matches, the following matches were played:
Ralston bt. Roche. Ralston bt. Ashe. Ashe bt. Rosewall, Okker bt- Newcombe. Emerson bt. Taylor.

Semifinals, New York:
Laver-Ralston 6-3,6-4,7-5.
Okker-Emerson 6-4,2-6,4.6,6-3,6-4.

Final, New York:
Laver-Okker 7-5,6-2,6-1.

AGREED, EXCEPT TAKE OUT WILDING AND PUT KRAMER OR GONZALES TOTALIZING THEIR MATCH UP GAMES IN THE PRO TOUR.THEY ARE AMAZING BUT FOR THE REST, YEAH, LAVER IS NOT ONLY THE TOP GUY UNDER THE NUMBERS BY INSIDE THE HEARTS¡¡

 

[veroniquem]

Why wouldn't you factor in TMC? It's more prestigious than a Master's title

I consider TMC a "special event": few players participate, the format is unique to it (round robins), exactly like DC (distinct format, team achievement) or Olympics (only every 4 years, extra match played to determine silver and bronze). So I treat those separately (as kind of bonus or prestige events that stand on their own).
I factored TMC "on top" , meaning 1 player dominating slams, super 9 and # of titles overall could get either TMC, Olympics or DC as a bonus to the season (but not TMC "replacing" dominating the other categories). Given how different it is to the super 9, I don't think it can be treated as being part of them. It needs a category of its own. It's just a system and as I said I have no problem with you doing things differently.