WORLD NO. 1 (by year)

hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Even better than Borg/lendl/mac/connors in 1981 or Becker/lendl/Edberg/Wilander in 1986, or Agassi/Sampras/Courier/Rafter in 1994... or today´s Fed/Nadal/djokovic/Murray
Click to expand...
Well dang. It looks like it is better to say Djokovic/Nadal/Murray/Federer (given the rankings as of today).
 
N

newmark401

Professional
kiki said:
Again, it proves that Laver/Pancho/Rosewall/Hoad in 63 or 64 were able to produce the best tennis ever played.

Even better than Borg/lendl/mac/connors in 1981 or Becker/lendl/Edberg/Wilander in 1986, or Agassi/Sampras/Courier/Rafter in 1994... or today´s Fed/Nadal/djokovic/Murray
Click to expand...

But how do you know that the type of tennis played by those players in 1963 and 1964 was better than that played by the players in the other eras? What made it better? Did you actually see any of the matches played by those great players in the early 1960s?
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
Of course and that is why I am amused by people talking about how much tougher it is to play nowadays. Perhaps it is true, but perhaps not. But it is a fact that many of the top players today have entire teams of people to help them train, have the best facilities, equipment, food and places to stay plus the best transportation.

The top pros in the world in the past be playing constantly plus they played singles AND doubles. That's a lot of work and I guess training.

What's better is debatable, but the top players in the past certainly played a lot more than the top players today.
Click to expand...
borg number one said:
Great points PC1. They played singles and doubles and with no complaining of course about their conditions/pay, calls, etc. They were also expected to exhibit great sportsmanship at all times. They were doing this week in, week out:
Click to expand...
Gotta agree here.

Don't forget the technology: one is aware that present technology does allow players to hit harder and faster, but one wonders whether it makes it actually easier to do so.
 
Last edited:
kiki

kiki

Banned
pc1 said:
That's one of the reasons I believe that if Laver played head to head against any of the other players that year that contended for number one, let's say a series of ten matches apiece on clay, grass, indoors and hard court that Laver may have come out ahead. But while I feel that Laver may have been still the strongest player player in the world he did not have the best results for that year so players like Newcombe deserved to be number one perhaps more than Laver.
Click to expand...

True.I like the poster´s comment on how interesting that 1971 year was, not just because of the competition, but also - and mainly- because of the diversity of styles at the top, in a way all 7 players were quite different from each other...truly magic tennis.

and , yes, while Laver remained still the best player, his results were the worse of that 7 players group and didn´t deserve the nº 1 spot at the end of the year.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
newmark401 said:
But how do you know that the type of tennis played by those players in 1963 and 1964 was better than that played by the players in the other eras? What made it better? Did you actually see any of the matches played by those great players in the early 1960s?
Click to expand...

I wasn´t there but having seen them play later, I can figure out what a great combination of smarts, talent and champion´s temper was that...and the 4 were alos, each one in their way, 4 interesting charachters
 
N

Nadal_Power

Semi-Pro
1982 Ranking according to Tennis Magazine

Overall : Connors/ Lendl/ McEnroe/ Vilas/ Wilander/ Gerulaitis/ Mayer/ Clerc/ Noah/ Higueras


Grass : Connors/ McEnroe/ Kriek/ Edmondson/ Gerulaitis
Indoor : Lendl/ McEnroe/ Connors/ Gerulaitis/ Mayer
Clay : Wilander/ Vilas/ Lendl/ Clerc/ Higueras
Hard : Connors/ Lendl/ McEnroe/ Gerulaitis/ Vilas
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
I have assigned 2011 to Djokovic. Whereas it may not have been the "greatest year in tennis history" (as we have demonstrated), he certainly had the best record.
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
Pancho and Laver each have 7 straight years as #1.

Tilden and Sampras each have 6 straight.
Click to expand...

But I think Tilden lost a lot less in the years he was dominant although I think Laver and Gonzalez had better competition.
 
B

Benhur

Hall of Fame
Vegito said:
The number one or "players of the year" between 1877 and 2011, according to a French site. Very interesting:

http://plazbovo.free.fr/CHRONOPEN-numeros1.html

Apparently these are the criteria they have used to compile the rankings, at least since 1968:

http://plazbovo.free.fr/CHRONOPEN-classement-chronopen.html
Click to expand...


I note two things:

1. The rankings they arrive at in the criteria page (by assigning points according to their method) don't always correspond to the chosen number 1 for the year on the first page. I don't know why.

2. From the criteria page, the method seems generally reasonable, except for the following statement which sounds a bit excessive to me. This is my own translation, followed by the original:

The principle being applied is simple: a runner-up doesn't have more merit than a first round loser, because only victory is beautiful. In theory, a first round loser is not necessarily worse in the tournament than a loser in the final because, in the end, the only thing that's certain is that neither of them beat the winner of the title. In addition, this principle is upheld by tennis itself, since the fact of eliminating the losers (unlike what happens in football championships, for example) boils down to acknowledging that, when it comes to counting, only the winner of the tournament matters.

Le principe appliqué est simple : un finaliste défait n'a pas plus de mérite qu'un battu du premier tour parce que seule la victoire est belle. Théoriquement, un vaincu du premier tour n'est pas forcément moins fort sur le tournoi que celui qui a chuté en finale, car à l'arrivée, la seule certitude est qu'aucun des deux n'a battu celui qui a finalement remporté le titre. C'est d'ailleurs implicitement le principe défendu par le tennis lui-même, puisque le fait d'éliminer les vaincus (à la différence des championnats de football par exemple) revient à reconnaître que seul le vainqueur du tournoi a une importance comptable
 
Vegito

Vegito

Hall of Fame
That´s true, I had seen it, then I forgot it. I was fascinated with that table black and white photos! I thought these were two different things.

Now, seeing a very interesting article in Wikipedia, I see these chosen number 1 for the year coincide with these rankings of Wikipedia, same the clasification writed by hoodjem in this Thread. These are rankings made considering opinions of journalists from different times and trying to be objective, considering the titles won by each player:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World-number-one_male_tennis-player_rankings

There is an explanation for each year.

This issue is complicated! The objectivity of the rankings in the 70's was questioned, but anyway it was difficult because often the top players chose to play different tournaments and they coincided only in a few tournaments. There was no Masters tournament 1000 (obligatory), but I think I once read a clasification of tournaments, even I read Vilas saying he played in Springfield because in the Grand Prix it was obligatory play two tournaments "one star":
http://del7007led-entradasanteriores.blogspot.com/2009/07/vilas-en-springfield.html

It´s like in these years these kind of rankings was more necessary, because the ATP rankings were stranges, I don't know until what year. I guess current ranking system is quite clear.
 
Last edited:
kiki

kiki

Banned
hoodjem said:
1976—Connors
1977—Borg/Vilas
1978—Borg
1979—Borg
1980—Borg(4)
Click to expand...

Based on who was the best player, yes ( I don´t care ATP ranks)...but based on results, Borg had a much better 76 uyear than Connors ( 2 Majors+1 final vs Connors only win at USO).

Reversely, in 77 Vilas had a much better year than Borg: Won 2 majors, reached the F of another one...Borg´s only major win was Wimbledon, and F at the Masters.

IMO
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
In 1982 Lendl won 15 events + 2 YEC titles.More than Connors, who basically won much less regular tournaments...but 2 GS...who was the best player and who was nº 1?
 
N

Nadal_Power

Semi-Pro
kiki said:
In 1982 Lendl won 15 events + 2 YEC titles.More than Connors, who basically won much less regular tournaments...but 2 GS...who was the best player and who was nº 1?
Click to expand...

Ivan was 103-8 in ATP tournaments, from 23 tournaments played he made 20 finals and won 15 titles... not bad if you ask me

Vilas, Connors and McEnroe won 19 titles overall
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Nadal_Power said:
Ivan was 103-8 in ATP tournaments, from 23 tournaments played he made 20 finals and won 15 titles... not bad if you ask me

Vilas, Connors and McEnroe won 19 titles overall
Click to expand...


Some of those tourneys, mostly WCT tour´s, had pretty weak fields.But, of coruse, it still remains a sensational year; few other pros have achieved that much during the course of one single year.

What denied him the nº 1 spot is poor showings at the GS ( just one final and got beaten ).But he beat Mc Enroe twice to win the Masters and the WCT finals, very important events by then.
 
J

jrepac

Hall of Fame
kiki said:
Based on who was the best player, yes ( I don´t care ATP ranks)...but based on results, Borg had a much better 76 uyear than Connors ( 2 Majors+1 final vs Connors only win at USO).

Reversely, in 77 Vilas had a much better year than Borg: Won 2 majors, reached the F of another one...Borg´s only major win was Wimbledon, and F at the Masters.

IMO
Click to expand...

76 was a close call; Connors held the number one ranking, even tho' Bjorn won the French and Wimby. I think because Connors beat Bjorn at the USO, on clay, that tipped it in his favor.
 
J

jrepac

Hall of Fame
kiki said:
Some of those tourneys, mostly WCT tour´s, had pretty weak fields.But, of coruse, it still remains a sensational year; few other pros have achieved that much during the course of one single year.

What denied him the nº 1 spot is poor showings at the GS ( just one final and got beaten ).But he beat Mc Enroe twice to win the Masters and the WCT finals, very important events by then.
Click to expand...

Ivan had a great year, but just could not produce at the 2 biggest events. And, if you look at it from the perspective that Connors beat his 2 greatest rivals of that time at those events, it seems like a clear choice. I think both Ivan and Jimmy had a fantastic year; Mac was really the laggard in '82.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
jrepac said:
76 was a close call; Connors held the number one ranking, even tho' Bjorn won the French and Wimby. I think because Connors beat Bjorn at the USO, on clay, that tipped it in his favor.
Click to expand...

Borg won no RG in 76, losing to Panatta in the quarters.But he won 2 of the 4 major events of the year (WCT was considered the 4 th event ) and lost the final of a third.Much like Vilas in 76.

No colour, basing on mere results.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
jrepac said:
Ivan had a great year, but just could not produce at the 2 biggest events. And, if you look at it from the perspective that Connors beat his 2 greatest rivals of that time at those events, it seems like a clear choice. I think both Ivan and Jimmy had a fantastic year; Mac was really the laggard in '82.
Click to expand...

As I posted, I consider Connors the nº 1 player in 1982, even though Lendl won more ( second cathegory ) events.
 
K

krosero

Legend
kiki said:
Borg won no RG in 76, losing to Panatta in the quarters.But he won 2 of the 4 major events of the year (WCT was considered the 4 th event ) and lost the final of a third.Much like Vilas in 76.

No colour, basing on mere results.
Click to expand...
The WCT event had great prestige but like the Masters you have to look at it year by year because the draw was not always great. Dallas was missing Connors that year. The US Pro Indoor was a big title then, not much less than Dallas in pure prestige which is difficult to quantify, and that year it had a better draw. Connors was there and beat Borg in the final. So each man has at least one big title outside of the Slams.

Meanwhile Borg took Wimbledon and Connors took USO. Still no great edge for either player.

But Connors got more titles overall than Borg. And the H2H between them went decisively to Connors, including that huge meeting at Forest Hills.

Edge to Connors.

Here's an article giving one opinion about how the Dallas draw was viewed in '76: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&dq=borg connors caracas clay&pg=2867,3027260
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
krosero said:
The WCT event had great prestige but like the Masters you have to look at it year by year because the draw was not always great. Dallas was missing Connors that year. The US Pro Indoor was a big title then, not much less than Dallas in pure prestige which is difficult to quantify, and that year it had a better draw. Connors was there and beat Borg in the final. So each man has at least one big title outside of the Slams.

Meanwhile Borg took Wimbledon and Connors took USO. Still no great edge for either player.

But Connors got more titles overall than Borg. And the H2H between them went decisively to Connors, including that huge meeting at Forest Hills.

Edge to Connors.

Here's an article giving one opinion about how the Dallas draw was viewed in '76: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...&dq=borg connors caracas clay&pg=2867,3027260
Click to expand...

Borg reached 2 major finals, Connors one.Very tight.As I said before, Connors was the better player, Borg had a better year ( not by far, but enough).Panatta came third, with RG and a great DC win, very difficult to achieve those days.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BTW, now that the US Pro Indoor has been mentioned...what a great organization and tradition¡¡¡ the biggest indoor tournament for years, with a 64 men field and 5 sets from semis on...
 
K

krosero

Legend
kiki said:
Borg reached 2 major finals, Connors one.Very tight.As I said before, Connors was the better player, Borg had a better year ( not by far, but enough).Panatta came third, with RG and a great DC win, very difficult to achieve those days.
Click to expand...
Can't see Borg having a better record overall, since Connors led him 13-6 in titles. And he had fewer losses (7-11).

Those are in tournaments officially counted today. Borg has a number of wins in exos as well, but I'm not sure how much weight can be assigned to them: the gap in official titles is large, and even if the gap were closed the H2H would remain between them.

(Bergelin said that the H2H would go up to 4-0 for Connors if exos were counted, since Borg lost to him in one exo).

On top of that, the gap in total losses for the year is not going to close if Borg's exos are counted, it's only going to widen further in Connors' favor.

By the way Connors was impressive in the 12 titles he did win, he wasn't just stacking up titles against lesser competition as he did on the Riordan tour in '74 (a year in which he's still unquestionably #1, just in case anyone misunderstands me). He won 6 on carpet, 2 on hard, and 4 on clay.
 
Last edited:
J

jrepac

Hall of Fame
kiki said:
Borg won no RG in 76, losing to Panatta in the quarters.But he won 2 of the 4 major events of the year (WCT was considered the 4 th event ) and lost the final of a third.Much like Vilas in 76.

No colour, basing on mere results.
Click to expand...

whoops; my bad, you are right BB did NOT win RG in '76
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
krosero said:
Can't see Borg having a better record overall, since Connors led him 13-6 in titles. And he had fewer losses (7-11).

Those are in tournaments officially counted today. Borg has a number of wins in exos as well, but I'm not sure how much weight can be assigned to them: the gap in official titles is large, and even if the gap were closed the H2H would remain between them.

(Bergelin said that the H2H would go up to 4-0 for Connors if exos were counted, since Borg lost to him in one exo).

On top of that, the gap in total losses for the year is not going to close if Borg's exos are counted, it's only going to widen further in Connors' favor.

By the way Connors was impressive in the 12 titles he did win, he wasn't just stacking up titles against lesser competition as he did on the Riordan tour in '74 (a year in which he's still unquestionably #1, just in case anyone misunderstands me). He won 6 on carpet, 2 on hard, and 4 on clay.
Click to expand...

I didn´t have that record in mind.You are probably right, Connors being nº 1, even by a very very slight margin.Seems like the case of 1977 with the disicussion between Vilas or Borg; Borg beat constantly Vilas but had an overall lesser record in major events, so I´d give it to Vilas, bearing in mind that Borg was the better player , as proved by their h to h ( same as Connors in 76).

Those 3 years, 75,76,77 were very disputed.For instance, in 1973 Nastase was clealry the best player, in 1974 and 1982 it was Connors, in 1979-1980-1981, it was Bjorn Borg, Mc Enroe was the nº 1 in 1981,83,84, Lendl from 1985 to 1987 and so on...but, who was nº 1 in 75?

Most people will say it was Ashe, who won 2 out of the top 5 por titles (WCT and Wimbly), but then Nastase won the Masters, Newcombe won his last big one in Australia, Borg took his second RG, Orantes was the winner at FH, and, on top of that, Connors lost ALL 3 major finals he played...I think Ashe had the best arguments to be a nº 1, but not a solid nº 1, rather a circumstancial.The fact he beat Borg at Dallas and Wimbledon, and Connors at Wimbledon, gives him the edge.

For instance, if Orantes had just won the Masters in 1975 instead of one year later, he could also claim to be world´s nº 1.
 
Vegito

Vegito

Hall of Fame
Was Andy Roddick definitely "the man" in 2003?

2003
2003-1.jpg

Andy Roddick
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Gonzales further claimed that the best tennis he ever witnessed was in the 1959 championship tour against Hoad. Gonzales won the opening match in Los Angeles, and then Hoad went 15 to 2 against him. With the score at 15 to3, Hoad's back acted up, and he paced himself, losing the last ten matches of the tour to Gonzales for a 15 to 13 final score. Gonzales stated that he had "blisters under my blisters" from Hoad's power. Time magazine had a major write-up of their season, including the Forest Hills Pro final, which McCauley describes as Hoad "crossing the Rubicon" (when Julius Caesar took power in ancient Rome).
Click to expand...

Dan Lobb said:
In 1959, the Kramer tour instituted a year-long series of tournaments in which all of the top ten pros played, and everyone won at least one tournament. There was a points system to decide who won a substantial bonus money pool (Hoad finished first, Gonzales second).
Click to expand...
1958—Gonzales(6)/Sedgman(2)
1959—Hoad
1960—Rosewall
 
Last edited:
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
krosero said:
Can't see Borg having a better record overall, since Connors led him 13-6 in titles. And he had fewer losses (7-11).

Those are in tournaments officially counted today. Borg has a number of wins in exos as well, but I'm not sure how much weight can be assigned to them: the gap in official titles is large, and even if the gap were closed the H2H would remain between them.

(Bergelin said that the H2H would go up to 4-0 for Connors if exos were counted, since Borg lost to him in one exo).

On top of that, the gap in total losses for the year is not going to close if Borg's exos are counted, it's only going to widen further in Connors' favor.

By the way Connors was impressive in the 12 titles he did win, he wasn't just stacking up titles against lesser competition as he did on the Riordan tour in '74 (a year in which he's still unquestionably #1, just in case anyone misunderstands me). He won 6 on carpet, 2 on hard, and 4 on clay.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I tend to think of 1976 as perhaps Connors' best year. I believe he won over 90% of his matches (again) and he won the US Open over Borg that year. While I felt Borg far surpassed Connors later I thought at this point Connors was a better player than Borg.

You can't go just by majors to evaluate a player's year or his career.
 
Mustard

Mustard

Bionic Poster
For me, since 1974, the best players each year were:

1974: Jimmy Connors

1975: Jimmy Connors (although 3 big losses in major finals)

1976: Jimmy Connors

1977: Guillermo Vilas

1978: Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors (take your pick)

1979: Bjorn Borg

1980: Bjorn Borg

1981: John McEnroe

1982: Jimmy Connors

1983: John McEnroe (just about over Connors, Wilander and Lendl)

1984: John McEnroe

1985: Ivan Lendl

1986: Ivan Lendl

1987: Ivan Lendl

1988: Mats Wilander

1989: Ivan Lendl (although Becker did better in the big tournaments and was simply sensational in winning Davis Cup)

1990: Stefan Edberg (despite losing in the first round in 2 majors as the number 1 seed!)

1991: Stefan Edberg

1992: Jim Courier

1993: Pete Sampras

1994: Pete Sampras

1995: Pete Sampras (Agassi could have sealed number 1 like Lendl in 1989 had he played more after the US Open, but Sampras delivered more at the big tournaments than Agassi)

1996: Pete Sampras

1997: Pete Sampras

1998: Pete Sampras

1999: Andre Agassi (Sampras was sensational when fit in 1999, but missed the Australian Open through fatigue chasing the 1998 year-end number 1 ahead of Rios and Rafter, and missed the US Open because of a herniated disc in his back, allowing Agassi to take advantage)

2000: Gustavo Kuerten (the number 1 actually came down to the final match of the Masters Cup, where Kuerten beat Agassi to replace Safin as world number 1)

2001: Lleyton Hewitt (special mention for Kuerten who was well on his way to finishing the year number 1 until the start of his hip troubles in September saw a catastrophic decline in his form)

2002: Lleyton Hewitt

2003: Andy Roddick

2004: Roger Federer

2005: Roger Federer

2006: Roger Federer

2007: Roger Federer

2008: Rafael Nadal

2009: Roger Federer

2010: Rafael Nadal

2011: Novak Djokovic
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Mustard said:
For me, since 1974, the best players each year were:

1974: Jimmy Connors

1975: Jimmy Connors (although 3 big losses in major finals)

1976: Jimmy Connors

1977: Guillermo Vilas

1978: Bjorn Borg and Jimmy Connors (take your pick)

1979: Bjorn Borg

1980: Bjorn Borg

1981: John McEnroe

1982: Jimmy Connors

1983: John McEnroe (just about over Connors, Wilander and Lendl)

1984: John McEnroe

1985: Ivan Lendl

1986: Ivan Lendl

1987: Ivan Lendl

1988: Mats Wilander

1989: Ivan Lendl (although Becker did better in the big tournaments and was simply sensational in winning Davis Cup)

1990: Stefan Edberg (despite losing in the first round in 2 majors as the number 1 seed!)

1991: Stefan Edberg

1992: Jim Courier

1993: Pete Sampras

1994: Pete Sampras

1995: Pete Sampras (Agassi could have sealed number 1 like Lendl in 1989 had he played more after the US Open, but Sampras delivered more at the big tournaments than Agassi)

1996: Pete Sampras

1997: Pete Sampras

1998: Pete Sampras

1999: Andre Agassi (Sampras was sensational when fit in 1999, but missed the Australian Open through fatigue chasing the 1998 year-end number 1 ahead of Rios and Rafter, and missed the US Open because of a herniated disc in his back, allowing Agassi to take advantage)

2000: Gustavo Kuerten (the number 1 actually came down to the final match of the Masters Cup, where Kuerten beat Agassi to replace Safin as world number 1)

2001: Lleyton Hewitt (special mention for Kuerten who was well on his way to finishing the year number 1 until the start of his hip troubles in September saw a catastrophic decline in his form)

2002: Lleyton Hewitt

2003: Andy Roddick

2004: Roger Federer

2005: Roger Federer

2006: Roger Federer

2007: Roger Federer

2008: Rafael Nadal

2009: Roger Federer

2010: Rafael Nadal

2011: Novak Djokovic
Click to expand...

Mustard,

Are you going by who you think is the best player by real strength or are you going by record? I consider Connors the best player for true tennis strength for example in 1975 but by the way they judge number one Ashe was in 1975.
 
K

krosero

Legend
Mustard said:
1975: Jimmy Connors (although 3 big losses in major finals)
Click to expand...
His Davis Cup loss to Raul Ramirez was also considered one of his big losses in '75.

Connors underwent so many reversals of his victories from '74, that what he did in '76 came to seem like something of a comeback (the first of many in his career).
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
pc1 said:
I agree with you. I tend to think of 1976 as perhaps Connors' best year. I believe he won over 90% of his matches (again) and he won the US Open over Borg that year. While I felt Borg far surpassed Connors later I thought at this point Connors was a better player than Borg.

You can't go just by majors to evaluate a player's year or his career.
Click to expand...

Connors only showed to be an undisputed nº 1 in 74 and 82.Could have a claim for 76 and 83 but others (Mc,Wilander and specially Borg) had better results in the events that count: GS and WCT or Masters.

I´m sure Connors would have loved to have Borg´s year in 1976...
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Guys when I write I think Connors' best year may have been 1976 it is because of a few reasons, one is that I truly believe he was a better player in 1976 than in 1974, second is that he played tougher competition because I don't think he played the Bill Riordan circuit at all or at least very little in 1976, third he beat Borg every time they played and Borg was extremely strong in 1976.

Connors' year in 1974 looks impressive but by Games Won percentage I believe Connors was just as good or better in 1976 against tougher competition. I'm not certain but I believe so.
 
X

Xavier G

Hall of Fame
Hiya all, first post on this forum. Love the 70's and 80's era in particular.

I make Connors no.1 for 1974, 1976 and 1982. I would probably give Ashe the nod for 75 and Borg 77, though that is highly disputed, Vilas having a great year. Borg no.1 78-80, even though Connors had a strong 1978.
 
K

krosero

Legend
pc1 said:
Guys when I write I think Connors' best year may have been 1976 it is because of a few reasons, one is that I truly believe he was a better player in 1976 than in 1974, second is that he played tougher competition because I don't think he played the Bill Riordan circuit at all or at least very little in 1976, third he beat Borg every time they played and Borg was extremely strong in 1976.

Connors' year in 1974 looks impressive but by Games Won percentage I believe Connors was just as good or better in 1976 against tougher competition. I'm not certain but I believe so.
Click to expand...
Agreed on all points. In '76 Connors was 16-4 against the Top Ten (Borg was 15-7). In '74 he was only 6-1 (Newcombe was 9-5, Borg 10-10).

That's all in officially sanctioned events.

Connors' 13 titles in '76 were his highest yearly total ever except for '74 when he got 15.

One big difference between the two years is that in '74 Connors didn't meet Newcombe, arguably his main rival.

Agreed that Borg was very strong in '76, so it counts for a lot that Connors beat him all three times they met. Beating Borg on clay was a particularly great achievement.
 
K

krosero

Legend
Per the ATP and Davis Cup sites, these are various H2H records against the Top Ten.

1974
Connors: 6-1
Newcombe: 9-5
Borg: 10-10

1975
Ashe: 13-9
Orantes: 10-7
Connors: 6-3
Borg: 11-9

1976
Connors: 16-4
Borg: 15-7

1977
Borg: 15-3
Vilas: 15-6
Connors: 17-9

1978
Borg: 21-2
Connors: 14-3
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
krosero said:
Agreed on all points. In '76 Connors was 16-4 against the Top Ten (Borg was 15-7). In '74 he was only 6-1 (Newcombe was 9-5, Borg 10-10).

That's all in officially sanctioned events.

Connors' 13 titles in '76 were his highest yearly total ever except for '74 when he got 15.

One big difference between the two years is that in '74 Connors didn't meet Newcombe, arguably his main rival.

Agreed that Borg was very strong in '76, so it counts for a lot that Connors beat him all three times they met. Beating Borg on clay was a particularly great achievement.
Click to expand...


We´ll agree on disagreeing...BTW, did Connors play Newcombe in an official match in 1976? (Las Vegas exo isn´t even close to an official match)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

U
All time rankings pre 1950
Replies
23
Views
2K
hoodjem
hoodjem
I
Top 3 players per year from 1877 to 2020 (with a regular update)
5 6 7
Replies
328
Views
14K
thrust
T
pc1
Rankings of Greats by tennis experts
14 15 16
Replies
791
Views
74K
Dan Lobb
D
hoodjem
Second-20 Greatest Male Singles Players
Replies
12
Views
1K
hoodjem
hoodjem
Mustard
Winners of the Major Tennis Tournaments
Replies
43
Views
8K
Dan Lobb
D
Top