Top 3 players per year from 1877 to 2020 (with a regular update)
- Thread starter Ivan69
- Start date
Happy New Year, Drob! I haven't thought they are people not congratulating for Christmas and New Year.
Several times in your post you are using the plural form "us" in your expression. Well, it's your choice but I prefer somebody's personal opinion.
Re Perry I described my arguments year by year. You may disagree but I haven't seen none of your arguments. Briefly, the fact that he refused to turn pro for some years speaks clearly that he felt uncomfortable to play pro players. Of course they were some financial issues but finally he got not much more than he wanted.
For sure, we can speak with stats. Whatever you want.
General skepticism? I wouldn't say so. Out of 144 years of rankings elegos disagreed about couple of them and you disagreed about couple of them.
Please have in mind that the classification of Open era tournaments is much much much easier task than the pre OE jungle. When somebody analyses the pre OE it's crucial for the objective analysis that it's used a strong, unified and structured methodology. Until now I haven't found a person who is using such. Partly it is TB but I found many key holes there.
Controversial years compared to whom ??? Till now no one expert, historian, researcher or whatever has presented solid arguments for their choice. The wide used "arguments" "this journalist said so" or "I think player A is better than player B" are too unserious.
1886 - already discussed; yep, my choice looks strange for the "mainstream" but at least is logical unlike the mainstream.
The mainstream says Renshaw or Sears because they won Wim and US. I say no because they won in ONLY 1 match. No reasonable historians can put No 1 player with 1 won match for the year !!! That's too too weird based on whatever standards of sports.
1909 - the same case as 1886
1923 - I don't know where the problem is. In terms of biggest titles Johnston won 2 and is finalist in 1. Tilden won 1. The American mainstream ignored European tournaments and concentrated on the winner of US. Simple but ... biased choice. Not acceptable by any sports standards.
1926 - I don't see a problem. Borotra and Cochet were the best. Lacoste also but played little. Tilden played only on US soil. US won Davis but Tilden played only in the challenge round where he had 1 win and 1 loss. 1 win in the best tournaments is not enough for a top position.
1930 - Maybe you think it should be Cochet. It could be the case. But ... Cochet played only 4 tournaments for the year if I remember correctly. He won RG and played 3 matches for Davis. He beat twice Tilden but h2h if not in series of matches is not decisive for me.
Tilden had 140 matches for the year, Cochet - 15-16. With such numbers of matches you can't prove you are the best. Moreover Cochet didn't perform well at Wim while Tilden was a finalist at RG.
1933-37 - already discussed;
That's an excellent theme. Thanks for raising it. Let me start with the thesis that 99.9% of the mainstream does use blindly the copy/paste information. From any internet sources. They don't analyse the information, they don't structure it, they don't assess it. They don't even become thoughtful if this info is reliable, prompt, accurate. Everything is accepted for granted.
To be honest I was a part of the mainstream some 7-8 years ago when accidentally came across some obvious mistakes. I counted them to 100 and stopped. That was my red lamp that I should find the "truth". All the years since then have been spent in finding the correct sources, ignoring the wrong ones and doubting every publication and every opinion till proving for correctness.
All my experience not only in sport proved me that these 99.9% tend to move more leisurely downstream than to understand processes and circumstances. My target was never to write something in order to be liked. I prefer to be rather in that 0.01% (quality side) than in the mainstream (quantity side).
Phone is never for me a proper solution for complex contents.
As you are a fan of the mainstream I will tell you the 2 wide-spread opinions which are ... fully contradictory.
1st version - "Amateurs were a full scrap. What mattered was only pro."
2nd version - "Slams matter most (no matter amateur or open)". That's why Emerson is one of the greatest with 12.
In the midst of the mainstream I am an astronaut.
The general argument for the value of the amateur tennis can be seen after analysing the whole history. All amateur players with only 4 exceptions were weaker than the pro when entering the pro. From these 4 exceptions we should exclude Tilden and Kramer who didn't have a big opposition in the beginning.
The other 2 exceptions are Vines and Budge. All the other rookie pros struggled. They got better and better only after a few years in the pro.
And no. The period is absolutely not 1957-60. From 1930 to 1972 the pros dominated in the tour. Maybe only some years after WW2 could be discussible due to objective reasons - sport was almost destroyed.
My approach is to find a balanced fair solution. In terms of points it doesn't really matter if the percentage is 60, 70 or something similar. I don't believe it's 50%. At the same time the amateurs were not so close to the pros having in mind their results as pros.
So, my approach is again not from the mainstream. It tries to assess all achievements.
Drob
Hall of Fame
I dare say I nearly completed a book chapter on why Fred Perry is at least top-three 1933-37 w an unshared No. 1 in ‘34.
I used “we” once in prior post. “We’re” fussy.
I have come to warm up a little more on Ritchie’s 1909 ranking, thanks in part to applying @dwightcharles salutary analogy of players chasing different fruits. Mr Charles might well come to different conclusion - I am just using his idea. Along w other factors I won’t bother w, I guess one pear, four apples and four cumquats is as good or better as anyone else has to show for the season. That does not mean he is number one for 1909 - there is this idea of a successful defending champion. But something like third is certainly justified.
it is yet Epiphany where I live. So:
Feliz Día de los Reyes Magos
I used “we” once in prior post. “We’re” fussy.
I have come to warm up a little more on Ritchie’s 1909 ranking, thanks in part to applying @dwightcharles salutary analogy of players chasing different fruits. Mr Charles might well come to different conclusion - I am just using his idea. Along w other factors I won’t bother w, I guess one pear, four apples and four cumquats is as good or better as anyone else has to show for the season. That does not mean he is number one for 1909 - there is this idea of a successful defending champion. But something like third is certainly justified.
it is yet Epiphany where I live. So:
Feliz Día de los Reyes Magos
I am super curious to read this chapter and waiting for it. I hope it has solid arguments.
Let's not mess "successful defending champion" of a tournament with No 1 for a year (best performer for the year). Right?
Several times I put the attention on the analysis of the game. On paper Renshaw and Sears won the titles. Are you making any difference between winning in 1 match and winning in 7? Is it possible that both could have lost in 1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, Q, S ??? Is it possible that both could have got an injury in the rounds ???
Don't forget that the key element in sports is the competition. Where is here the competition?
The big paradox in this case is that a player with 1 match per year is the "hero" if he wins the match and nobody if he looses it !!!!!!!!!!!!! That's weird, Drob, very weird.
And don't forget that the challenge system has been cancelled. With the only reason that it's too wrong and too unfair.
Rosewall won the Australian and French championships in 53. What did Hoad win that year? Seixas won Wimbledon, Trabert won the US
I haven't read all the pages yet. I will.
Whay I see is a huge work & lot of courage to publish that. Thx to you Ivan
I'm not agree with everything, (especially with the dominance of Tilden in the 30's). But I think I don't need to disrespect Ivan to say it ... We all have the same passion let's learn together.
I'll try to explain my point of view but my English is poor ... I hope you will anderstand ...
Maybe the first danger is to try to decide one only number one per year ... it's sometimes difficult to decide & the wiki page is good at this point.
The second danger for me is that havin' a "today mind" (with YEC & "Master 1000 like") is not a good start.
I usually think it's useless to try to compare differents periods because it's more a statistic research than an hystorical research, (not what interests me)
But if we try to do it it must be with a complete clearance of one model or another. I do such a work too actually (since 2 years is "actually ?" lol)
I try to determine a formula for "the quality of a tournament" no group A or B, and a notation that is calculated with the criterias of the tournament (something near of your criterias) compared to the others tournaments of the year & the n-1/n+1 years.
I don't know if it's a good system but the princip sounds good for me : was it a great tournament into his own period or not.
It doesn't help me to compare wim 1877 to wim 2022 but it helps me to realy know what where the great tournaments of the year(s) and to try to determine my tournaments & players rankings.
My results are more like the wiki page but I want to use your work to go further in my work
Thx again
Whay I see is a huge work & lot of courage to publish that. Thx to you Ivan
I'm not agree with everything, (especially with the dominance of Tilden in the 30's). But I think I don't need to disrespect Ivan to say it ... We all have the same passion let's learn together.
I'll try to explain my point of view but my English is poor ... I hope you will anderstand ...
Maybe the first danger is to try to decide one only number one per year ... it's sometimes difficult to decide & the wiki page is good at this point.
The second danger for me is that havin' a "today mind" (with YEC & "Master 1000 like") is not a good start.
I usually think it's useless to try to compare differents periods because it's more a statistic research than an hystorical research, (not what interests me)
But if we try to do it it must be with a complete clearance of one model or another. I do such a work too actually (since 2 years is "actually ?" lol)
I try to determine a formula for "the quality of a tournament" no group A or B, and a notation that is calculated with the criterias of the tournament (something near of your criterias) compared to the others tournaments of the year & the n-1/n+1 years.
I don't know if it's a good system but the princip sounds good for me : was it a great tournament into his own period or not.
It doesn't help me to compare wim 1877 to wim 2022 but it helps me to realy know what where the great tournaments of the year(s) and to try to determine my tournaments & players rankings.
My results are more like the wiki page but I want to use your work to go further in my work
Thx again
I would be glad to see your vision.
If you look at the tables you will see some years with 2 players as No 1. That means that both players' results are so close that are subject of the possible statistical mistake (0.5% in my case).
I have never used the today's mind. This is a mistake made by many fans giving a total preference to today's players and tournaments and ignoring the old ones. Every player and tournament is assessed based only on the respective year and respective era. Many people here can't understand that I don't compare eras but I compare player's accomplishments considering the specifics of the era.
Exactly
Hello Ivan
Sorry being late to answer.
I've worked a bit to have arguments against the first place you give to Tilden for years 1930 & 1932 ... & I've found that I was wrong !! lol
Incredible what he wins in 1930 ... especialy in France.
I thought Cochet & Kozeluh but there is no doubt Tilden is ahead !! What a GOAT !
For the discussion about the technics ... it's all very subjective I mean.
I've worked a lot with teenagers and I've trained adults to do it too. When you want to talk with tennagers about the media, the fakenews, the fact checking, conspiracy theory etc, you know you have to never say yes or no, bad or good, real or not. Because it doesn't make the teenagers to open their minds. They always stay with their convictions, you don't replace the subjective by the objective.
It's easier to talk about "probability of" "proportion" & so. For exemple "How many percent of credibility do you give to this news ?" & then you can make them talk & think.
Tilden is best than Cochet for 1930 I agree. But it's sometimes harder, because the difference is thin. & the minds too !
We can hear nowadays the Wolrd War to decide if Djokovic or Federer is the GOAT !! Is there an answer ? I don't think so. And if you want absolutely find an answer you risk to move away from the truth.
You said "Many people here can't understand that I don't compare eras but I compare player's accomplishments considering the specifics of the era." I agree with you and we surely are not so distant in the way we work.
But you said : "1. The tournaments are split into 6 categories - A (slams and pro slams), F (Finals, Masters, Grand slam cup), B (tier 1000 equivalents), C (tier 500 equivalents), D (tier 250 eq.) and E (futures, challengers, 2 men tournaments, weak tournaments).
That's what I've called "the today mind" and I'm not agree with this. The "A group" for all slams all time ? why ? doesn't it depends on years ? Australian Open 1965 = US Pro 1965 ? etc. etc. This "A group" is like the "A group" in Tennisbase & I don't agree.
For tennis I try to work with %. I don't have categories for tournaments, only % of greatness in the year, and in the 3 years periode. When you have a "A group" and a "B group" there is sometimes more difference between 2 tournaments of the same group than between the last of the A group & the first of the B group ...
I think it's the same for the rankings. Is it the only important to know who is first or second ? I find it more interesting to show the % of accomplishment in the year (I've read that you work with the accompliqhments). Naturally you can compare the % of accomplishment and see if there is one ahead the others, but you can see more ... Federer is second in 2003 ... Roddick is first ... but who is the best player of the year ? The rankings don't tell me enough.
I have understood that you have your own technic to "calculate" your rankings. It's your work and we only see the results ... that's maybe why it looks like something "rigid" for me ... And it would be the same if I tried to do such a ranking because I wouldn't show all my tips !! lol. I try to share my way of thinking but I don't criticize !
Thx for the job done ... & for making me work ! (I have now to search how Barlow can be so good for you =) )
Sorry being late to answer.
I've worked a bit to have arguments against the first place you give to Tilden for years 1930 & 1932 ... & I've found that I was wrong !! lol
Incredible what he wins in 1930 ... especialy in France.
I thought Cochet & Kozeluh but there is no doubt Tilden is ahead !! What a GOAT !
For the discussion about the technics ... it's all very subjective I mean.
I've worked a lot with teenagers and I've trained adults to do it too. When you want to talk with tennagers about the media, the fakenews, the fact checking, conspiracy theory etc, you know you have to never say yes or no, bad or good, real or not. Because it doesn't make the teenagers to open their minds. They always stay with their convictions, you don't replace the subjective by the objective.
It's easier to talk about "probability of" "proportion" & so. For exemple "How many percent of credibility do you give to this news ?" & then you can make them talk & think.
Tilden is best than Cochet for 1930 I agree. But it's sometimes harder, because the difference is thin. & the minds too !
We can hear nowadays the Wolrd War to decide if Djokovic or Federer is the GOAT !! Is there an answer ? I don't think so. And if you want absolutely find an answer you risk to move away from the truth.
You said "Many people here can't understand that I don't compare eras but I compare player's accomplishments considering the specifics of the era." I agree with you and we surely are not so distant in the way we work.
But you said : "1. The tournaments are split into 6 categories - A (slams and pro slams), F (Finals, Masters, Grand slam cup), B (tier 1000 equivalents), C (tier 500 equivalents), D (tier 250 eq.) and E (futures, challengers, 2 men tournaments, weak tournaments).
That's what I've called "the today mind" and I'm not agree with this. The "A group" for all slams all time ? why ? doesn't it depends on years ? Australian Open 1965 = US Pro 1965 ? etc. etc. This "A group" is like the "A group" in Tennisbase & I don't agree.
For tennis I try to work with %. I don't have categories for tournaments, only % of greatness in the year, and in the 3 years periode. When you have a "A group" and a "B group" there is sometimes more difference between 2 tournaments of the same group than between the last of the A group & the first of the B group ...
I think it's the same for the rankings. Is it the only important to know who is first or second ? I find it more interesting to show the % of accomplishment in the year (I've read that you work with the accompliqhments). Naturally you can compare the % of accomplishment and see if there is one ahead the others, but you can see more ... Federer is second in 2003 ... Roddick is first ... but who is the best player of the year ? The rankings don't tell me enough.
I have understood that you have your own technic to "calculate" your rankings. It's your work and we only see the results ... that's maybe why it looks like something "rigid" for me ... And it would be the same if I tried to do such a ranking because I wouldn't show all my tips !! lol. I try to share my way of thinking but I don't criticize !
Thx for the job done ... & for making me work ! (I have now to search how Barlow can be so good for you =) )
Accomplishment-wise the GOATs are Ken Rosewall and Rod Laver. Then comes Djokovic. For now. I can take this risk and I can prove it.
The truth? There can be no real truth if measuring the accomplishments of any sportsmen in any sport. For instance, in football my GOAT is Pele, 3 times world champion. But some may argue it's Maradona or Ronaldo or Messi or ...
Buddy, my methodology for measuring the players is 3 pages long in Word. It is far not including only the categories of the tournaments. It is a whole structure combining several factors valuing together every accomplishment of every player. It has absolutely nothing to do with tennisbase. My factors are (not in any order):
- draw of the tournament;
- level of competition;
- prize money;
- categories of tournaments;
- pointing system;
- concept about the tours - 2-men or multi-men;
- concept about pro/amateur relations.
All these factors work in combination and define every single accomplishment. They are not equal for every year, they respond to the specifics of every year.
And you have to be calm that according to my standards Australian Open 1965 is NOT equal to US Pro 1965.
Yep. That's correct. And this is also implemented in my methods. But don't mess the letters of the groups (A, B, C) with the tournaments in the same group. They could be in the same group but they could have a different value within the group. That's very important. Example, the 4 known slams have been always slams. But they have a different value in the 30s, 40s, ... 70s.
Best player of the year is the one who won more than the others. Simple. All time. Always. In 2003 Roddick won more and he is first.
Something I can be agree with
So we are agree ! I thought that the letters were sometnig very rigid to calculate the value ... it's not the case, I understand it now.
I'm reassured ! LOLAnd you have to be calm that according to my standards Australian Open 1965 is NOT equal to US Pro 1965.
In those days, many of the players played only 1, 2 tournaments per year. Only a few players played let's say 15-20 tournaments.
Even more many of the winners of US and Wimbledon played only 1 match winning the title due to the rule of the challenge round. This doesn't respond to my standards of a title with a big value. These were the specifics of the day but nobody can prove that this player was the best player of the year with only 1 match.
Just Barlow had most accomplishments in the year. That's it.
I think that it can not be "that's it"
We all choose the way we calculate the value of tournaments ... You choose the proportion/importance you give.
So maybe Barlow have more accomplishments in the years ... the way you calculate it.
Maybe I agree to calculate the way you do and maybe I want to calculate it differently because I don't give the same importance to such or such a thing.
It does not mean that it's the right or wrong way ... just differencies.
My way of thinking.
A good question for 1889 :
Lewis wins 3 challenge round against Barlow. Barlow naturaly played the all comers field.
Lewis wins only 3 matchs but he wins the 3 tournament ... beating Barlow 3x
Barlow wins more matches but loose the h2h against Lewis and the 3 finals
Who receives more points for this 3 tournaments with the way you calculate ?
Thx
onehandbh
G.O.A.T.
And Rios only made ONE grand slam final. No semifinals. Five quarterfinals.
Even before she won a Grand Slam at the Australian Open, Caroline Wozniacki had had a much more successful career, making 2 grand slam finals, 4 semifinals, and 3 quarterfinals.
Of course you are free to calculate what you want. In the cases you mentioned Lewis played 3 matches, Barlow played maybe 12 (I don't have the figures in front of me). The chances to lose these 12 matches are much much higher than losing 3 - by the usual reasons fatigue, injury, bad sleep, food poisoning.
h2h doesn't show correctly who is the better player just because the conditions are not equal for both players. Just imagine the situation that Hurkacz and Federer play just 1 match for the title of Wimbledon and theoretically Hurkacz wins as he won last year. And Hurkacz is declared the champion of Wim !!! And Hurkacz will get 2,000 points with 1 match !!! Really??? But in the next match Hubby lost to Berrettini. Berrettini lost to Djokovic.
h2h had/has its reason when a player A plays player B 30, 50, 100 matches as the big tours in the 50s, 60s.
And don't forget that the main principle of sport, not only tennis, is the full competition. Playing 1 match for the title is not competitive.
When you choose your way of thinking always keep to the principles and logic of the sport.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Interesting: two names appear twice.
sandy mayer
Semi-Pro
To give 5 year number ones to Lendl and 2 to Connors is in my view completely untenable. That gives the impression that Lendl spent far more time at the top than Connors. In reality they are evenly matched with time at number one. The vast majority of tennis experts give Connors number 1 for 74, 76 and 82. The vast majority of experts give Lendl 85, 86 and 87.
1982
In the official ranking for 1982 Lendl and Connors were close by points with a slight edge of Connors. But ... the official ranking did not include 4 big titles won by Lendl - EC ch., Mazda ch., Molson Light and Challenge of champions. Lendl together with the European team won also the $600,000 Europe vs America tournament. All these 5 tournaments were among the biggest tournaments for the year with the top competition there. 20 total titles for Lendl in 1982 - 10 for Connors. h2h 4-1 for Lendl. Lendl won almost double more prize money than Connors in 1982.
The experts? Oh, the experts quoted the ATP ranking. Simple. They did not prepare any analyses. But ... the same experts also said that the average pointing system is NOT fair to the players. Judge for yourself - Lendl played 23 ATP tournaments, won 15 ATP titles. Connors played 18 ATP tournaments, won 7 ATP titles. By a standard cumulative pointing Lendl would have had much more points than Connors. The players having played less were just privileged.
1989
Maybe you haven't read properly. Either ATP or the experts announced Lendl No 1. It's not a coincidence that Lendl was seeded No 1 in Nabisco Masters. Who is seeded No 1 in Masters/ATP finals?
sandy mayer
Semi-Pro
Connors won 2 slams in 1982. Lendl won none. That is why the vast majority of tennis experts said Connors was the world number 1 for 1982. Connors was named both ITF world champion and ATP player of the year.
\
In 1989 the majority of tennis experts gave world number to Becker, though not as overwhelmingly as they gave 82 to Connors. Becker was given ATP player of the year and ITF world champion for 89.
I am stating fact when I say it's a minority opinion that gives 82 and 89 to Lendl. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but you need to concede it is a minority opinion.
Have a look at this website:
World number 1 ranked male tennis players - Wikipedia
NEVER was the pointing so that winning a slam or slams gives you automatically the No 1 spot. The thesis "slam means everything" is very primitive and used only by the mass fans who don't see nothing except them. I told already that 1982 No 1 is calculated on a false average pointing. If you can't understand that I can't do nothing. I can't do nothing that you don't know that the tour was not united in those years. Based on different political decisions the tour was spilt between ATP tournaments and non-ATP tournaments. If you read the archives you can see that the players prefer to play in non-ATP, far more reach and attractive. That's a factor which should be taken into consideration if we want to assess the players adequately and fair.
No. ATP hasn't given Becker No 1 spot in 1989. That's fully wrong.
You should know that ITF criteria for No 1 was/is very different to the ATP's. ITF calculates the performance of the players on SLAMS. Yes, ITF says it's Becker. Normal.
Instead of reading wiki pages of unknown posters with a non-proven info you can go beyond the usual internet stuff and read original documents, the SPECIFICS of the tour in the 80s and the DEFICIENCIES of the pointing systems. Of course, only if you want to understand the structure of the tour in those times.
I really don't care if it's a majority or minority. Far more important is the justified measurement of the players' accomplishments based on a logical and unified structure.
sandy mayer
Semi-Pro
Becker didn't finish ATP number 1 on the computer in 1989, but he was awarded ATP player of the year by the ATP. In the opinion of most people Becker was number 1 in 1989.
You are rather dismissive of the importance of slams. In 1982 no pro would have chosen Lendl's slamless year over Connors' year which saw him win Wimbledon and the US Open.
A fresh example I remember now. ATP awarded Borg player of the year for 1976. Is that the right decision? What did the experts say???
I told already - try to analyse everything before quoting the surrealistic and inexplicable decisions of ATP.Do you know that the ranking for 1977 was mistaken and the mistakes have been found years later? But the smart ATP remained Borg No 1 and harmed Vilas - the real No 1 according to the same ATP pointing. That's why everybody should read. The things are not such as largely presented. I would say that ATP pointing is adequate since 2000. A lot of errors before that.
I don't care what "the most people" think. I don't care what "the slam only" maniacs think. Every reasonable fan or expert should assess the accomplishments in full and objective manner. Unfortunately the mass fans don't think, don't analyse, don't read an original info. They rely ONLY on the doubtful wiki pages. It's easier, it's lazy. But ... wrong.
Nope. I am not dismissive. Slams have their importance as well as all the other tournaments. The pointing systems and rankings in the sport as a whole, not only tennis, are made intentionally competitive, so no one can be No 1 with 1-2 big titles. Calculated are all accomplishments.
No, I am not a Lendl fan. I was not able to watch tennis in those years. I was a big football fan back then, as also now.
sandy mayer
Semi-Pro
Nobody has ever finished a year ranked number 1 on the computer without winning a slam. I doubt Lendl himself believes he was number 1 in 82.A fresh example I remember now. ATP awarded Borg player of the year for 1976. Is that the right decision? What did the experts say???
Do you know that the ranking for 1977 was mistaken and the mistakes have been found years later? But the smart ATP remained Borg No 1 and harmed Vilas - the real No 1 according to the same ATP pointing. That's why everybody should read. The things are not such as largely presented. I would say that ATP pointing is adequate since 2000. A lot of errors before that.
I don't care what "the most people" think. I don't care what "the slam only" maniacs think. Every reasonable fan or expert should assess the accomplishments in full and objective manner. Unfortunately the mass fans don't think, don't analyse, don't read an original info. They rely ONLY on the doubtful wiki pages. It's easier, it's lazy. But ... wrong.
Nope. I am not dismissive. Slams have their importance as well as all the other tournaments. The pointing systems and rankings in the sport as a whole, not only tennis, are made intentionally competitive, so no one can be No 1 with 1-2 big titles. Calculated are all accomplishments.
No, I am not a Lendl fan. I was not able to watch tennis in those years. I was a big football fan back then, as also now.
Sandy, you are changing your statements every time I give you arguments for every of your points. You don't read them, you don't even look carefully into them.
When you are using the words "nobody", "never", "ever" and so on you need to have all the info required to state that. In 1977 Connors "finished the year ranked number 1 on the computer without winning a slam". There is one more year with the same situation but I will not tell it. Try to find it by yourself.
I stop here. I don't intend to explain anymore when you don't buy anything I tell. It's pointless.
sandy mayer
Semi-Pro
Good point about Connors finishing number 1 on the computer in 77. But Connors' case for being number 1 that year is poor precisely because he won no slams. In fact your own rankings don't have Connors number 1. But I still stand by my point that Lendl has a very weak case to be number 1 in 82. doubt even Lendl believes he was. He finished 3 in the rankings, he won no slams and hardly anyone considers him number 1 for the year. In 82 you couldn't be considered a serious candidate for world number 1 if you didn't win at least one of Roland Garros, Wimbledon, or the US Open.Sandy, you are changing your statements every time I give you arguments for every of your points. You don't read them, you don't even look carefully into them.
When you are using the words "nobody", "never", "ever" and so on you need to have all the info required to state that. In 1977 Connors "finished the year ranked number 1 on the computer without winning a slam". There is one more year with the same situation but I will not tell it. Try to find it by yourself.
I stop here. I don't intend to explain anymore when you don't buy anything I tell. It's pointless.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Wow! Tilden as the GOAT.
Boom!
GOOD LIST!
Similar threads
- Poll
