PDA

View Full Version : Only 3 Real GOATS


Liv3 For It
05-17-2009, 05:59 PM
Lavar
Sampras
Federer

Now we just have to choose which is best out of those three.

GameSampras
05-17-2009, 06:37 PM
laver by far if you look at his resume overrall

Its more much more solid than pete's or Roger's. Maybe not by a long stretch but overrall more solid across the board

CyBorg
05-17-2009, 06:47 PM
Sampras and Federer are not even top-5.

hoodjem
05-18-2009, 04:15 AM
I would add Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales, Budge, Borg.



And am inclined to agree with CyB above about the top-5.

Q&M son
05-18-2009, 01:14 PM
Lavar.................

chaognosis
05-18-2009, 01:39 PM
My list has been pretty stable of late:

Laver
Rosewall
Tilden
Budge
Gonzales/Sampras
Borg
Federer
Cochet/Perry

(Federer ties Borg with a French win.)

So, I do have Sampras in the top five -- albeit barely, and only by way of a tie with Gonzales. Still, Laver, Rosewall, Tilden, and Budge are the true GOAT contenders for me, and will probably stay that way for some time.

GS
05-18-2009, 01:41 PM
Over the years, I've gotten tired of reading all about who's the GOAT.
At least I know who the LAMB is (the Loser After Many Blowouts). It's Vince Spadea---he holds the record of 21 straight first-round ATP losses. (No wonder he doesn't like to sign autographs---they're of little value.)

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 02:40 PM
I would add Tilden, Rosewall, Gonzales, Budge, Borg.



And am inclined to agree with CyB above about the top-5.

I'd rate the top tier something like this:

Laver
Rosewall
Tilden
Gonzales
Budge
Borg
Sampras
Federer

I've been thinking a bit about the criteria for ranking these guys and I've made a slight modification as to the notion of longevity. I've mentioned this as a factor, but wasn't really sure how to talk about it. Now I have a bit of a clearer idea and it manifested from the issue of the 'decline of Federer'.

I think what truly matters in longevity isn't how many years you play well in relation to the other guy, because these standards vary from era to era. Rosewall played somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20-25 years competitively, but is this realizable today? Perhaps not.

What truly matters in this respect I think is two things. A truly impressive longevity is when an elite player from one generation makes adjustments and remains an elite player in the following generation. This is what Federer is struggling with right now. The top two players on my list both aced this department. Rosewall perhaps even three generations. Laver probably most impressive - the pro/amateur split years, followed by the open era years, effectively competing against new blood like Newcombe and Smith.

Borg failed in this respect. Budge kind of did too, but with a much better excuse. Gonzales excelled - Sampras to some extent too, but against much less impressive opposition (let's face it, his toughest opponent in those latter years was a guy even older than he was).

So I'm gaining a new appreciation to the longevity factor and I think it is extremely important, because what is tested is the player's ability to adjust to highly complex phenomena, having to somehow maintain a competitive spirit in light of a lot of younger, hungry opponents aiming to dethrone him. Federer has been criticized for failing the test (so far).

So, my three-fold criteria is now as such: peak play (I look for three-four years as top player; consecutive is preferred), play across all surfaces (versatility); and adjustment from one generation to the next. We can also rate each facet. The results, just for fun can be seen as such:

Laver: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Rosewall: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4

This is all for fun, of course. Just a quick and easy way to illustrate the thinking process. If I were to go in-depth I would explain exactly why each facet is rated this way.

It's also not hard and fast. Tilden rates third because of an outside factor - he didn't play enough against Cochet and Lacoste, so it's more difficult to rate him above Rosewall. Gonzales I like more than Sampras - he wasn't nearly as bad on clay as Pete.

Some would I'm sure disagree with a few bits.

jimbo333
05-18-2009, 04:08 PM
Some would I'm sure disagree with a few bits.

Yes, you are correct:)

jimbo333
05-18-2009, 04:10 PM
So with longevity now being a key criteria, does Connors move above McEnroe on your GOAT list?

Just wondered:)

egn
05-18-2009, 04:20 PM
Right now Fed is outside top5 but honestly if Fed scores a french open win he shoots up and I don't think it would be fair to deny it. No case can really be made for Borg over Fed if Fed has a major on every surface, especially with his dominance. Even with the bad h2h against Nadal he would still have accomplished a lot more than most, however that is why I don't hold him GOAT. However if Fed gets that French Open in my eyes he is 4th all time. Fed still has time left to improve his ranking we will see what happens, which is why I think it is unfair for right now to give him a 2.5/4 on the longievity scale..Let us see where Fed is in 5 years. Right now it is really hard to keep him constantly ranked in one spot.

Anyway Laver is GOAT for his overall accomplishments and talent. Laver played the game amazingly and crushed the best of his era on their best surfaces.

jimbo333
05-18-2009, 04:26 PM
Yes I agree, the argument about LAVER being the GOAT has been won many times:)

hoodjem
05-18-2009, 04:35 PM
So, my three-fold criteria is now as such: peak play (I look for three-four years as top player; consecutive is preferred), play across all surfaces (versatility); and adjustment from one generation to the next. We can also rate each facet. The results, just for fun can be seen as such:

Laver: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Rosewall: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4

This is all for fun, of course. Just a quick and easy way to illustrate the thinking process. If I were to go in-depth I would explain exactly why each facet is rated this way.
I regard your new thinking and rating system as having tremendous validity. The only nit I was going to pick had to do with the versatility rating of Gonzales. But you sort of answered it at the end, here:
Gonzales I like more than Sampras - he wasn't nearly as bad on clay as Pete.

grafselesfan
05-18-2009, 04:40 PM
My top 10 all time in order are:

1. Rafael Nadal
2. Rod Laver
3. Don Budge
4. Pete Sampras
5. Bill Tilden
6. Pancho Gonzales
7. Ken Rosweall
8. Bjorn Borg
9. Roger Federer
10. Jack Kramer

tennis-hero
05-18-2009, 04:44 PM
IF elsworth Vines can be considered a contender for one great year then so can Muster :)

my list wouldn't include Laver because his records are overratted

Sampras would be top spot or sharing top with Federer

Borg's HC disaster stops him from matching Sampras and Fed

and Nadal is quickly rising up to join them

Muster and Lendl also on the list

as is Mac for his 84 season

jimbo333
05-18-2009, 04:49 PM
IF elsworth Vines can be considered a contender for one great year then so can Muster :)

my list wouldn't include Laver because his records are overratted

Sampras would be top spot or sharing top with Federer

Borg's HC disaster stops him from matching Sampras and Fed

and Nadal is quickly rising up to join them

Muster and Lendl also on the list

as is Mac for his 84 season

Which bridge do you live under exactly?

And please stay there:)

tennis-hero
05-18-2009, 04:50 PM
I'd rate the top tier something like this:

Laver
Rosewall
Tilden
Gonzales
Budge
Borg
Sampras
Federer


So, my three-fold criteria is now as such: peak play (I look for three-four years as top player; consecutive is preferred), play across all surfaces (versatility); and adjustment from one generation to the next. We can also rate each facet. The results, just for fun can be seen as such:

Laver: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Rosewall: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4

T.

i would take your criteria (make a minor adjustment to 10 for my own personal tastes) and add to it, surfaces variables

Peak play for Rosewall on clay i would rate as 9 out of 10
and Laver peak clay would be 8

somone like Sampras who could be a 10 on Grass would obviously not even be a 5 on clay

Borg who would be a 10 on clay, would not be a 7 on hard

Federer is tough to rate

talent wise you can give him 10 across the board, but you factor in his mental weakness and you have to take off at least 2 points on his weaker surfaces

Nadal would be a 10 on clay and only a 7 on grass

longevity is a nice adition but in my opinion its meaningless

peak play, matters most, and anyone who can be consistently good for an entire year is good enough in my opinion

tennis-hero
05-18-2009, 04:51 PM
Which bridge do you live under exactly?

And please stay there:)

sorry its not trolling just because i don't subscribe to the Laver worship

one fake Grand slam when the best players were pro 62

and one when the best players were in retirment homes 69 does not a GOAT make

he's not worthy of any GOAT discussion

Thomas Muster however is

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 05:05 PM
So with longevity now being a key criteria, does Connors move above McEnroe on your GOAT list?

Just wondered:)

McEnroe's peak is much better. They're very close, but I prefer McEnroe.

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 05:08 PM
i would take your criteria (make a minor adjustment to 10 for my own personal tastes) and add to it, surfaces variables

Peak play for Rosewall on clay i would rate as 9 out of 10
and Laver peak clay would be 8

somone like Sampras who could be a 10 on Grass would obviously not even be a 5 on clay

Borg who would be a 10 on clay, would not be a 7 on hard

Federer is tough to rate

talent wise you can give him 10 across the board, but you factor in his mental weakness and you have to take off at least 2 points on his weaker surfaces

Nadal would be a 10 on clay and only a 7 on grass

longevity is a nice adition but in my opinion its meaningless

peak play, matters most, and anyone who can be consistently good for an entire year is good enough in my opinion

I'm sorry, but this is unintelligible.

The point of this was not to reduce the discussion to numbers, but to clarify the thinking process through numbers. The numbers do not take place of a reasonable discussion. They are a starting point to a discussion.

I don't why Nadal is even being brought up.

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 05:14 PM
I regard your new thinking and rating system as having tremendous validity. The only nit I was going to pick had to do with the versatility rating of Gonzales. But you sort of answered it at the end, here:

Gonzales certainly isn't a perfect 4/4. I think he's solid, but not excellent on clay, hence probably comparable to someone like Federer.

Notice that to Sampras I gave 3/4 for versatility, which is I think extremely appropriate. Out of the four surfaces, he was great on three. The other one mostly a non-factor, save for two decent years (but nothing to write home about).

Federer and Gonzales get 3.5/4, because they have a weakness relative to their excellence elsewhere. However it is not a glaring weakness.

PERL
05-18-2009, 05:15 PM
Over the years, I've gotten tired of reading all about who's the GOAT.
At least I know who the LAMB is (the Loser After Many Blowouts). It's Vince Spadea---he holds the record of 21 straight first-round ATP losses. (No wonder he doesn't like to sign autographs---they're of little value.)

Vince Spadea is an all time great in the rap industry. He is cooler than you. He is much cooler than all these wannabe GOATS as well.

timnz
05-18-2009, 05:24 PM
I'd rate the top tier something like this:


Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4


Tilden was winning some matches against a peak Don Budge when Tilden was in his late 40's (yes, I know Budge was winning the majority of them but still to even win some is just mind bogling). Could you imagine Connors winning some matches against 1999 Agassi when he was 47 ? Tilden then went on in his early 50's to push Bobby Riggs to 5 sets in the late 1940's (Boddy was ranked either number 1 or 2 in the world at the time)! That even outstrips Rosewall in terms of Longevity. Imagine a peak Tilden, no wonder he could go match after match without even losing a game.

GS
05-18-2009, 05:26 PM
Okay, I guess I gave Spadea a bad RAP. But his behavior at the US Open a few years ago was worse---he constantly yelled at the ballboys, and after he missed a smash near the baseline wall, he yelled at the linesman there, "Hey, next time, get out of my way!!" He's the LAMB, man....

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 05:27 PM
Tilden was winning some matches against a peak Don Budge when Tilden was in his late 40's (yes, I know Budge was winning the majority of them but still to even win some is just mind bogling). Could you imagine Connors winning some matches against 1999 Agassi when he was 47 ? Tilden then went on in his early 50's to push Bobby Riggs to 5 sets in the late 1940's (Boddy was ranked either number 1 or 2 in the world at the time)! That even outstrips Rosewall in terms of Longevity. Imagine a peak Tilden, no wonder he could go match after match without even losing a game.

Actually, I don't care very much about stuff like this. I don't think it really matters that a guy in his 40s won some exhibition against a pro. It makes no difference.

Excelling in tennis means winning consistently while playing on a regular tour, dedicating one's life to the sport. A lot of former pros can win one match. Sampras can. But he's not on the tour.

It is a nice curio, I guess.

Again, what's important to me is to clarify what longevity means. I was hoping to make this very clear - longevity, meaningful longevity is when a player of a particular skill level and ability is able to hold his ground against players of a subsequent generation. Not only hold his ground, but maintain the level of excellence he achieved at his peak level or close to it. Winning the odd match - it's nice, but it's not true excellence.

tennis-hero
05-18-2009, 05:29 PM
I'm sorry, but this is unintelligible.

The point of this was not to reduce the discussion to numbers, but to clarify the thinking process through numbers. The numbers do not take place of a reasonable discussion. They are a starting point to a discussion.

I don't why Nadal is even being brought up.

reducing it to numbers simplfies things

Nadal was brought up because he's potentially going to own your boy's record in a month

Rafa has earned his place at this table

i Rate peak play as the most important stat

and in that case Rafa 2008/2006 on clay is just as good as Borg at his best

maybe better, who knows

gj011
05-18-2009, 05:30 PM
There can be only one GOAT and that is Laver.

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 05:32 PM
reducing it to numbers simplfies things

Nadal was brought up because he's potentially going to own your boy's record in a month

Rafa has earned his place at this table

i Rate peak play as the most important stat

and in that case Rafa 2008/2006 on clay is just as good as Borg at his best

maybe better, who knows

Attention deficit disorder?

tennis-hero
05-18-2009, 05:34 PM
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4


granted.
its all subjective

but this is BS

Borg couldn't wipe his *** on HC's, hell he couldn't even win the US OPEN on clay

and yet he gets 4/4 on versitility and Rog gets 3.5?

Pete couldn't make a clay slam final, and on slow HCs was at a ditinct disadvantage gets a whole 3?

Borg's peak play was still on show in 1981, Mac surpassed him, so to give Borg 4/4 for peak play you have to give MAc it, but Pete was better then Mac- (cite wimbledon 1999 final) so your numbers are just all wrong imo

Borg should look like

peak play 3/4
versitility 3/4
longevity 2/4

Federer
peak play 4/4
versitility 3/4
longevity 2/4

Sampras
Peak play 4/4
versitility 2.5/4
longevity 3.5/4

tennis-hero
05-18-2009, 05:35 PM
Attention deficit disorder?

oh grow up, or rather act your age not your shoe size

dont always expect people to agree with you

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 05:39 PM
oh grow up, or rather act your age not your shoe size

dont always expect people to agree with you

It's not about you agreeing with me. You don't follow things logically, your grammar is atrocious and some of the things you say border on the non-sequitur.

Slow down and think things through before you post. It helps - trust me.

CyBorg
05-18-2009, 05:46 PM
granted.
its all subjective

but this is BS

Borg couldn't wipe his *** on HC's, hell he couldn't even win the US OPEN on clay

and yet he gets 4/4 on versitility and Rog gets 3.5?

Pete couldn't make a clay slam final, and on slow HCs was at a ditinct disadvantage gets a whole 3?

Borg's peak play was still on show in 1981, Mac surpassed him, so to give Borg 4/4 for peak play you have to give MAc it, but Pete was better then Mac- (cite wimbledon 1999 final) so your numbers are just all wrong imo

This post is very hard on the eyes and the brain, but some clarification is appropriate. What I look for in terms of peak play:

- percentages. Dominant players make winning a habit. We can isolate years such as 1977 to 1980 as Borg's peak. His winning percentage in these years is above 90%.

In terms of versatility, Borg's results on carpet and hardcourt surfaces are excellent. Unfortunately, he only played four US Opens on hardcourts - not a very representative number. Of those four times, he made three finals. Very strong. Add other results on hardcourts and similar surfaces and I see no reason to downgrade Borg.

Federer suffers for not winning RG, Monte Carlo or Rome events. Too many losses on one surface - not enough to give him a four. Borg's wins in Toronto and Las Vegas on hardcourts (masters-quality events) definitely show that he was an elite player on the surface.

But feel free to disagree. I'm not imposing my point of view on anyone.

egn
05-18-2009, 05:57 PM
The whole Borg, Sampras, Federer thing will be better at the end of Fed's career after a bit of looking into the situation my opinion is changing a bit but as a whole right now Fed is hard to evaluate as he is not done yet.

Come on a few weeks ago people said Fed will never bet nadal again..he just beat Nadal on clay.

Liv3 For It
05-18-2009, 05:58 PM
There Are Only Three Real Goats. Pick From Them. Only.

grafselesfan
05-18-2009, 05:59 PM
The next 4 years will obviously prove Nadal is the true GOAT. The GOAT must dominate on all surfaces. That is why Graf is the female GOAT, she was utterly dominant on all surfaces which no other women can say. Nadal will prove the same thing in the coming years, he is already starting to do this.

Inner Game
05-18-2009, 06:10 PM
1. Laver
2. Gonzalez
3. Federer
4. Samparas
5. Emerson
6. Lendel
7. Borg
8. McEnroe
9. Jimmy Connors
10. Tie Becker, Edberg, Agassi

Tilden might be around 4 or 5 but the quality of mens tennis was not that deep in those years.....
Nadal.....its to early....and his Roid use is an issue for me....

Mikey Fresh
05-18-2009, 06:14 PM
+djokovic?

grafselesfan
05-18-2009, 06:14 PM
Nadal to not use steroids. He uses talent and mental toughness to dominate the field, including a 13 time slam winnner and top 10 player all time.

egn
05-18-2009, 07:15 PM
The next 4 years will obviously prove Nadal is the true GOAT. The GOAT must dominate on all surfaces. That is why Graf is the female GOAT, she was utterly dominant on all surfaces which no other women can say. Nadal will prove the same thing in the coming years, he is already starting to do this.

Let him do it before you crown him GOAT.

hoodjem
03-16-2013, 03:49 PM
I'd rate the top tier something like this:

Laver
Rosewall
Tilden
Gonzales
Budge
Borg
Sampras
Federer

I've been thinking a bit about the criteria for ranking these guys and I've made a slight modification as to the notion of longevity. I've mentioned this as a factor, but wasn't really sure how to talk about it. Now I have a bit of a clearer idea and it manifested from the issue of the 'decline of Federer'.

I think what truly matters in longevity isn't how many years you play well in relation to the other guy, because these standards vary from era to era. Rosewall played somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20-25 years competitively, but is this realizable today? Perhaps not.

What truly matters in this respect I think is two things. A truly impressive longevity is when an elite player from one generation makes adjustments and remains an elite player in the following generation. This is what Federer is struggling with right now. The top two players on my list both aced this department. Rosewall perhaps even three generations. Laver probably most impressive - the pro/amateur split years, followed by the open era years, effectively competing against new blood like Newcombe and Smith.

Borg failed in this respect. Budge kind of did too, but with a much better excuse. Gonzales excelled - Sampras to some extent too, but against much less impressive opposition (let's face it, his toughest opponent in those latter years was a guy even older than he was).

So I'm gaining a new appreciation to the longevity factor and I think it is extremely important, because what is tested is the player's ability to adjust to highly complex phenomena, having to somehow maintain a competitive spirit in light of a lot of younger, hungry opponents aiming to dethrone him. Federer has been criticized for failing the test (so far).

So, my three-fold criteria is now as such: peak play (I look for three-four years as top player; consecutive is preferred), play across all surfaces (versatility); and adjustment from one generation to the next. We can also rate each facet. The results, just for fun can be seen as such:

Laver: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Rosewall: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 4/4
Tilden: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4 (gets a bit subjective here due to lack of information and at times competition)
Gonzales: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 4/4
Budge: peak play 4/4; versality 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4
Sampras: peak play 3.5/4; versatility 3/4; longevity 3.5/4

This is all for fun, of course. Just a quick and easy way to illustrate the thinking process. If I were to go in-depth I would explain exactly why each facet is rated this way.

It's also not hard and fast. Tilden rates third because of an outside factor - he didn't play enough against Cochet and Lacoste, so it's more difficult to rate him above Rosewall. Gonzales I like more than Sampras - he wasn't nearly as bad on clay as Pete.

Some would I'm sure disagree with a few bits.
Resurrected for interest from a perspective of four years on.

BobbyOne
03-17-2013, 01:57 AM
sorry its not trolling just because i don't subscribe to the Laver worship

one fake Grand slam when the best players were pro 62

and one when the best players were in retirment homes 69 does not a GOAT make

he's not worthy of any GOAT discussion

Thomas Muster however is

tennis-hero, And you are not a hero with your absurd theories: Muster better than Laver???

BobbyOne
03-17-2013, 02:01 AM
Tilden was winning some matches against a peak Don Budge when Tilden was in his late 40's (yes, I know Budge was winning the majority of them but still to even win some is just mind bogling). Could you imagine Connors winning some matches against 1999 Agassi when he was 47 ? Tilden then went on in his early 50's to push Bobby Riggs to 5 sets in the late 1940's (Boddy was ranked either number 1 or 2 in the world at the time)! That even outstrips Rosewall in terms of Longevity. Imagine a peak Tilden, no wonder he could go match after match without even losing a game.

timnz, that sensational match Riggs/Tilden happened in 1946 when Tilden was 53. The grandpa was able to push World Champion Riggs to a 5-2 lead in the final (THIRD) set.

BobbyOne
03-17-2013, 02:04 AM
1. Laver
2. Gonzalez
3. Federer
4. Samparas
5. Emerson
6. Lendel
7. Borg
8. McEnroe
9. Jimmy Connors
10. Tie Becker, Edberg, Agassi

Tilden might be around 4 or 5 but the quality of mens tennis was not that deep in those years.....
Nadal.....its to early....and his Roid use is an issue for me....

Inner Game: Ranking Emerson ahead of Rosewall shows me that you are not familiar with the secrets of the Inner Game...

forzamilan90
03-17-2013, 03:05 AM
Hey look, 90s clay's previous account in the 2nd post how cute.

forzamilan90
03-17-2013, 03:05 AM
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras

Benhur
03-17-2013, 04:45 AM
Federer and Gonzales get 3.5/4, because they have a weakness relative to their excellence elsewhere.

Borg: peak play 4/4; versatility 4/4; longevity 2.5/4
Federer: peak play 4/4; versatility 3.5/4; longevity 2.5/4


Defining versatility as as a weakness relative to one’s own excellence elsewhere is problematic from the start. By that definition, a player who is phenomenally good on one surface and "only" very good on others, would become more versatile by becoming a bit less good on his best surface. Nadal's versatility would grow if you take away some of his clay titles to make it a bit more even with the other surfaces.

I don’t understand why Borg is given a 4/4 versatility (implying equal excellence on hard courts relative to himself on clay and grass), but Federer is given only 3.5.

Federer has 10 titles on clay, which include 1 RG and 6 Master’s series tournaments (2 of them against Nadal). And he is a 4-time finalist at RG and has another 7 Masters runnerups on clay. Most of them lost against the clay goat.

Borg has 3 titles on outdoor hardcourts (2 in Las Vegas and 1 in Montreal). And he was a 3-time finalist at the USO on hard courts, and one time in Toronto. That’s it.

So if this makes him a full 4/4 in versatility, surely Federer’s record on clay does too, being a lot better.

Borg was a very early bloomer relative to Federer, and he retired at or near the peak of his powers. Now, even if you include the 3 or 4 years that Federer spent in the process of hatching out of his pupa, Federer has a higher career percentage on clay than Borg has on hard courts. That’s pretty revealing in itself. And if you consider only his post-hatching years, then his record on clay has to be a lot better than Borg on hard courts.

Federer may actually be one of the top 2 or 3 most versatile players in the open era after Laver. Dismissing his clay ability as a weakness relative to himself in other surfaces, would be exactly the same as dismissing Borg’s grass ability if he had had to contend with a guy like Sampras during his best years and kept losing all his Wimbledon finals to Pete. That’s exactly what happened to Federer on clay. His “weakness” on clay during his career is a weakness relative only to Nadal, but that's a hell of a high bar to measure weakness.

I also don't understand why Federer is given the same very low mark in longevity as Borg. Certainly his longevity is better than that. His most recent slam title is less than a year old, and he started winning them almost 10 years ago.

I am also not sure about Gonzalez's weakness on clay. He seems to have won about 19 tournaments on that surface. How that makes it weaker that Borg's 3 tournaments on hard courts is not very clear to me. But I don't know much about the Gonzalez career, so I'll leave that to be assessed by more knowledgeable folks.

hoodjem
03-17-2013, 09:18 AM
tennis-hero, And you are not a hero with your absurd theories: Muster better than Laver???The very definition of trolling: trying to stir up trouble with absurd positions.

TMF
03-17-2013, 09:19 AM
Lavar
Sampras
Federer

Now we just have to choose which is best out of those three.

This thread is nearly 4 years ago when Fed won 13 slams(no FO) and is a goat candidate. Fed today is a lot more accomplished than he was in 2009, he's clearly separated himself from the pack.

Had Fed retired in 2009 after winning the FO, the debate would be between Fed and Laver, while most would have Fed above Sampras because of the career slam.

hoodjem
03-17-2013, 09:27 AM
Defining versatility as as a weakness relative to one’s own excellence elsewhere is problematic from the start. By that definition, a player who is phenomenally good on one surface and "only" very good on others, would become more versatile by becoming a bit less good on his best surface. Nadal's versatility would grow if you take away some of his clay titles to make it a bit more even with the other surfaces.

I don’t understand why Borg is given a 4/4 versatility (implying equal excellence on hard courts relative to himself on clay and grass), but Federer is given only 3.5.

Federer has 10 titles on clay, which include 1 RG and 6 Master’s series tournaments (2 of them against Nadal). And he is a 4-time finalist at RG and has another 7 Masters runnerups on clay. Most of them lost against the clay goat.

Borg has 3 titles on outdoor hardcourts (2 in Las Vegas and 1 in Montreal). And he was a 3-time finalist at the USO on hard courts, and one time in Toronto. That’s it.

So if this makes him a full 4/4 in versatility, surely Federer’s record on clay does too, being a lot better.

Borg was a very early bloomer relative to Federer, and he retired at or near the peak of his powers. Now, even if you include the 3 or 4 years that Federer spent in the process of hatching out of his pupa, Federer has a higher career percentage on clay than Borg has on hard courts. That’s pretty revealing in itself. And if you consider only his post-hatching years, then his record on clay has to be a lot better than Borg on hard courts.

Federer may actually be one of the top 2 or 3 most versatile players in the open era after Laver. Dismissing his clay ability as a weakness relative to himself in other surfaces, would be exactly the same as dismissing Borg’s grass ability if he had had to contend with a guy like Sampras during his best years and kept losing all his Wimbledon finals to Pete. That’s exactly what happened to Federer on clay. His “weakness” on clay during his career is a weakness relative only to Nadal, but that's a hell of a high bar to measure weakness.

I also don't understand why Federer is given the same very low mark in longevity as Borg. Certainly his longevity is better than that. His most recent slam title is less than a year old, and he started winning them almost 10 years ago.

I am also not sure about Gonzalez's weakness on clay. He seems to have won about 19 tournaments on that surface. How that makes it weaker that Borg's 3 tournaments on hard courts is not very clear to me. But I don't know much about the Gonzalez career, so I'll leave that to be assessed by more knowledgeable folks.Please note that the original quotatation, to which much of this is a response, was written in May 2009 before Fed won the FO.

borg number one
03-17-2013, 09:27 AM
The Tour in the time of Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and Vilas (1976-1981) had fewer big outdoor hard court tournaments and more indoor tournaments, including indoor hard and indoor carpet tourneys. The Tour is now disproportionately played on hard courts, with less of an emphasis on indoor tourneys in particular. So, as to Borg, his surface versatility is exhibited in his winning on grass when it was faster and at 23 indoor tournaments (two indoor hard court) and also 4 outdoor hard court tourneys. That total of 23 indoor titles, includes two indoor hard court titles. I see that he has 6 total hard court titles, including the 2 indoor and likely 4 outdoor hard titles. His win at the Auckland hard court tourney in Auckland (1974) is noted as simply a hard court title by the ATP site. It is played outdoors now, with Ferrer having won there in 2013. Wasn't it also a outdoor hard court tournament back in 1974?

Borg did win a lot indoors on fast carpet, as well as gather two indoor hard court titles. He also added in 4 outdoor hard court titles. Plus, he played a lot of "unofficial" hard court tourneys (not just the exos). Then, he reached three US Open finals, while playing in a total of 4 hard court majors during his career. So, his ability to excel on fast grass, as well as indoors, when indoor tennis was more of a focus, plus his 4 other hard court titles and 3 trips to US Open finals out of 4 chances, all exhibit excellent surface versatility. The only players he lost to at the US Open were Connors and McEnroe, who are both great hard courters. The US Open was not played on slow hard courts back then either. He played on faster hard courts there. In addition, there was no second hard court major in those days, and Borg never got a chance to compete on slow hard courts at the AO. Even a slower US Open surface would have favored him quite a bit. Here is Borg in the 1981 SF versus Connors at the US Open.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOUb8m6-lH0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR_aYm-PyfA

Bjorn Borg played a ton of unofficial matches while also putting up big totals in terms of matches played from 1973-1981. Players like himself, Connors, and even McEnroe played a lot of unofficial tourneys, as well as exos, and then also heavy "official" schedules on the Tour during that time. Yet there were fewer big hard court tourneys, while indoor tournaments in particular flourished. On the topic of this thread, if you try to pick from only these three players as the greatest ever, I'd pick Laver over both Federer and Sampras. In the first tier of greats, I would consider Gonzalez (who won plenty versus Laver), Laver, Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, and now Federer. I expect Nadal to reach that first tier of greats as well by the time his career ends.

Benhur
03-17-2013, 11:27 AM
Borg did win a lot indoors on fast carpet, as well as gather two indoor hard court titles. He also added in 4 outdoor hard court titles. Plus, he played a lot of "unofficial" hard court tourneys (not just the exos). Then, he reached three US Open finals, while playing in a total of 4 hard court majors during his career. So, his ability to excel on fast grass, as well as indoors, when indoor tennis was more of a focus, plus his 4 other hard court titles and 3 trips to US Open finals out of 4 chances, all exhibit excellent surface versatility. The only players he lost to at the US Open were Connors and McEnroe, who are both great hard courters.

Yes. But please note that I am not really arguing against the notion that Borg was a very versatile player. He certainly was. I have no problem giving him a high mark in that department. I would give a higher mark only to Laver. My argument was mainly against the notion that Federer has any less versatility than Borg. Similar arguments as you present for Borg on hard courts can be presented for Federer on clay, and this was pretty clear to me already before he won the FO. His losses in 4 RG finals and a bunch of Master's clay finals mirror the losses of Borg at the USO on hard courts, with the difference that beating Nadal on clay is probably even tougher than beating Connors or McEnroe on hard courts. Even so, he did manage to beat Nadal in a couple of Masters finals on clay. My argument is simply that Federer is at least every bit as versatile as Borg was. The only one among those goat candidates that I see clearly lacking in versatility is Sampras for obvious reasons.

borg number one
03-17-2013, 11:29 AM
Yes. But please note that I am not really arguing against the notion that Borg was a very versatile player. He certainly was. I have no problem giving him a high mark in that department. I would give a higher mark only to Laver. My argument was mainly against the notion that Federer has any less versatility than Borg. Similar arguments as you present for Borg on hard courts can be presented for Federer on clay, and this was pretty clear to me already before he won the FO. His losses in 4 RG finals and a bunch of Master's clay finals mirror the losses of Borg at the USO on hard courts, with the difference that beating Nadal on clay is probably even tougher than beating Connors or McEnroe on hard courts. Even so, he did manage to beat Nadal in a couple of Masters finals on clay. My argument is simply that Federer is at least every bit as versatile as Borg was. The only one among those goat candidates that I see clearly lacking in versatility is Sampras for obvious reasons.

I think you're quite right Benhur. I would agree that Laver, Borg, and Federer have all displayed greater overall surface versatility than Pete Sampras. Sampras could still be dangerous even on red clay, but I would put him behind those other players in terms of a "weakest surface". Meanwhile, Nadal really needs to do better on indoor courts in particular, perhaps at the YEC, if you look for his perhaps weakest surface.

kiki
03-18-2013, 06:15 AM
No Hoad?
I agree on Laver though

Benhur
03-18-2013, 06:46 AM
There is a certain tree that goats like to climb to eat its fruit and enjoy the view. Sometimes up to ten goats can be seen vying for space on top of a tree. There are many images like the one below http://tinyurl.com/c54tmuy

The tree of tennis contains at lest half a dozen goats.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ISrndp6k1ig/UB-bPE1QSVI/AAAAAAAAAFU/gOxPPXa-Fac/s1600/goats-in-trees.jpg

borg number one
03-18-2013, 06:50 AM
Great point Benhur. I completely agree with that perspective and the image above is very representative of it!

hoodjem
03-18-2013, 12:41 PM
Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

tennisplayer1993
03-18-2013, 02:14 PM
I actually agree with that:

I would rank them as the following:
1. Federer (watching him play in 2004-2006 was so fun, my jaw dropped every game from one of his shots, I hated him for robbing my fav. player of multiple Wimbledons but he was by far the most talented player on tour during his prime). The versatility he developed in his game throughout 2004 was just god-like
2. Sampras (I never really got to experience Sampras besides watching him extensively during the USO 2002)
3. Lavar (The Grand Slam)

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 02:20 PM
I actually agree with that:

I would rank them as the following:
1. Federer (watching him play in 2004-2006 was so fun, my jaw dropped every game from one of his shots, I hated him for robbing my fav. player of multiple Wimbledons but he was by far the most talented player on tour during his prime). The versatility he developed in his game throughout 2004 was just god-like
2. Sampras (I never really got to experience Sampras besides watching him extensively during the USO 2002)
3. Lavar (The Grand Slam)

tennisplayer: No player is God-like, especially not Federer who lacks some versatility...

Fintft
03-18-2013, 02:24 PM
I liked Nastase myself and I was kinda split between Laver, Borg and him. Maybe adding Federer and Sampras to the list.

ARFED
03-18-2013, 02:26 PM
tennisplayer: No player is God-like, especially not Federer who lacks some versatility...

Keep going Bobby, never ever surrender. The world is counting on you to enlighten us

forzamilan90
03-18-2013, 02:31 PM
tennisplayer: No player is God-like, especially not Federer who lacks some versatility...

just for you baby!
Ok this is going to be a massive post so just beware.

In terms of greatness of winners (points) and variety I think the following makes a solid case:

God Mode exhibit A: Freaky Lobs Concoctions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Hp-EArV6s8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc1RCqidtTg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yidqJM1Xl4U

God Mode exhibit B: Tweeners
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37qyvTRVus8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QobvppHSjB4

God mode exhibit C: Serve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QZQe-B4cNI

God mode exhibit D: Forehand Demonstration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_CuXqNBr2c

God mode exhibit E: Backhand Demonstration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bByvWPmMZ_8

God mode exhibit F: Slice Demonstration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B01nhqJizTc

God mode exhibit G: Return Demonstration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxzFlrFfUrg

God mode exhibit H: Volley
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INE4Y5CzoBM

God mode exhibit I: Dropshot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAeFXIIq95A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hq33L8K2mVs

God mode exhibit J: Smash (Both Backhand and Forehand)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2vF9xnL-EU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCownMHsCTI


Actual matches where Fed enters God Mode and it's scary

Federer vs Roddick - Australian Open 2007 Semi Final 6-4, 6-0, 6-2

Full Match
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6Bdn-Ml8rU

Highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ikx0Du735Y

Federer vs Hewitt - U.S. Open 2004 Final 6-0, 7-6 (3), 6-0

Full Match
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge17unv-XrI

Highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfb2PDlIc3o

Federer vs Nadal - World Tour Finals 2007 Semi Final 6-4, 6-1

Full Match
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ed7iRmkUhek

Highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR7do5BFgzA

Federer vs Nadal - World Tour Finals 2011 Round Robin 6-3, 6-0

Full Match
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjwaygk40LM

Highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6az62bmV5hM

Federer vs Gaudio - World Tour Finals 2005 Round Robin 6-0, 6-0

Highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwreJJgeYIg

Federer vs Del Potro - Australian Open 2009 Quarter Finals 6-3, 6-0, 6-0

Highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcfqC_DqQyE

Federer vs Blake - World Tour Finals 2006 Final 6-0, 6-3, 6-4

Highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imLOdUK0Kfs

Federer vs Agassi - World Tour Finals 2003 Final 6-3, 6-0, 6-4

Highlights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_dgHOVPy9g

there's some more, but looking at the screen is beginning to hurt.

FEDERERNADAL13
03-18-2013, 02:32 PM
just for you baby!

Thanks for posting this. I've got some watching to do :)

tennisplayer1993
03-18-2013, 02:34 PM
tennisplayer: No player is God-like, especially not Federer who lacks some versatility...

What does he exactly lack?

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 02:36 PM
Keep going Bobby, never ever surrender. The world is counting on you to enlighten us

ARFED, Thanks for your nice and supporting words. In fact I'm happy that I have contributed a bit to enlighten you and others...

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 02:38 PM
What does he exactly lack?

For instance to change his game plan when helpless to Nadal and others...

NatF
03-18-2013, 02:44 PM
For instance to change his game plan when helpless to Nadal and others...

lol at Federer being helpless against Nadal. He's lost alot of matches to Nadal but most of those were close, lots of tiebreaks and final sets. Federer's handed out more bagels to Nadal than vica versa.

What versatility does Rosewall have that would work against Nadal on these slow high bouncing courts?

forzamilan90
03-18-2013, 02:49 PM
lol at Federer being helpless against Nadal. He's lost alot of matches to Nadal but most of those were close, lots of tiebreaks and final sets. Federer's handed out more bagels to Nadal than vica versa.

What versatility does Rosewall have that would work against Nadal on these slow high bouncing courts?

http://www.tallmenshoes.com/

NatF
03-18-2013, 02:53 PM
http://www.tallmenshoes.com/

Atleast that way he wouldn't have to jump to hit the balls.

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 03:00 PM
lol at Federer being helpless against Nadal. He's lost alot of matches to Nadal but most of those were close, lots of tiebreaks and final sets. Federer's handed out more bagels to Nadal than vica versa.

What versatility does Rosewall have that would work against Nadal on these slow high bouncing courts?

NatF, As the GOAT he should not have lost so many matches. It does not matter too much that he seldom was crushed.

Rosewall f.i. would volley much more than Federer does.

I'm glad that recently Peter Bodo and Jeff Salzenstein have critisized Federer's weaknesses, i.e. his defensive backhand and his volley.

Phoenix1983
03-18-2013, 03:03 PM
NatF, As the GOAT he should not have lost so many matches. It does not matter too much that he seldom was crushed.


As the GOAT (according to you), Rosewall should not have lost five Wimbledon finals. It does not matter too much that he was not at peak.

8)

NatF
03-18-2013, 03:08 PM
NatF, As the GOAT he should not have lost so many matches. It does not matter too much that he seldom was crushed.

Rosewall f.i. would volley much more than Federer does.

I'm glad that recently Peter Bodo and Jeff Salzenstein have critisized Federer's weaknesses, i.e. his defensive backhand and his volley.

You said he was helpless, I corrected you.

And Rosewall would get passed at will and struggle with the topspin from Nadal's forehand.

And a dozen others have praised Federer as being the greatest of all time. Probably not the best idea to quote "experts" on this. Most of them would probably swing my way. Federer's forehand and serve are vastly superior to Rosewall's, I guess Rosewall is a poor GOAT candidate.

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 03:10 PM
As the GOAT (according to you), Rosewall should not have lost five Wimbledon finals. It does not matter too much that he was not at peak.

8)

In ignorance you are the undisputed GOAT!

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 03:15 PM
You said he was helpless, I corrected you.

And Rosewall would get passed at will and struggle with the topspin from Nadal's forehand.

And a dozen others have praised Federer as being the greatest of all time. Probably not the best idea to quote "experts" on this. Most of them would probably swing my way. Federer's forehand and serve are vastly superior to Rosewall's, I guess Rosewall is a poor GOAT candidate.

NatF, IT's yet as sign of being helpless when being unable to turn an important match and win a seemingly losing match.

Rosewall was able to take top-spin shots on the rise. He is a worth GOAT candidate.

It's an honour for me not to speak as majority speaks...

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 03:19 PM
You said he was helpless, I corrected you.

And Rosewall would get passed at will and struggle with the topspin from Nadal's forehand.

And a dozen others have praised Federer as being the greatest of all time. Probably not the best idea to quote "experts" on this. Most of them would probably swing my way. Federer's forehand and serve are vastly superior to Rosewall's, I guess Rosewall is a poor GOAT candidate.

NatF, and return, backhand, forehand volley, backhand volley, drop shot, drop volley, half-volley, lob, stamina, footwork, reflexes, tactics, anticipation of Rosewall are superior to Federer's...

NatF
03-18-2013, 03:23 PM
NatF, IT's yet as sign of being helpless when being unable to turn an important match and win a seemingly losing match.

Rosewall was able to take top-spin shots on the rise. He is a worth GOAT candidate.

It's an honour for me not to speak as majority speaks...

Rosewall was then helpless in Wimbledon finals...

An even contest decided on a few points is not the definition of helpless.

lol at you thinking the topspin of bygones past is anything close to what Nadal brings to the table. Nadal would destroy Rosewall if he tried to come to the net on the slow courts of todays era.

I hope you enjoy playing the martyr BobbyOne.

NatF
03-18-2013, 03:31 PM
NatF, and return, backhand, forehand volley, backhand volley, drop shot, drop volley, half-volley, lob, stamina, footwork, reflexes, tactics, anticipation of Rosewall are superior to Federer's...

That's just your opinion. Federer's return of big serves leaves your man in the dust, unless you have some evidence of Rosewall returning 140mph serves? As for volley's fine, but then again Rosewall didn't have to deal with the amount of topspin Federer has to when he volley's. Federer's footwork and anticipation and reflexes are excellent. As are his drop shots. Stamina? I doubt Rosewall has Federer beat considering modern sports science.

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 03:40 PM
Rosewall was then helpless in Wimbledon finals...

An even contest decided on a few points is not the definition of helpless.

lol at you thinking the topspin of bygones past is anything close to what Nadal brings to the table. Nadal would destroy Rosewall if he tried to come to the net on the slow courts of todays era.

I hope you enjoy playing the martyr BobbyOne.

Ignorant NatF, Rosewall would have excellent chances if both players used wood. Then Nadal would not be able to show his extreme top-spin.

I enjoy my knowledge of tennis history. I don't enjoy hateful posts...

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 03:42 PM
That's just your opinion. Federer's return of big serves leaves your man in the dust, unless you have some evidence of Rosewall returning 140mph serves? As for volley's fine, but then again Rosewall didn't have to deal with the amount of topspin Federer has to when he volley's. Federer's footwork and anticipation and reflexes are excellent. As are his drop shots. Stamina? I doubt Rosewall has Federer beat considering modern sports science.

NatF, again wrong: Rosewall faced and beat players who served as fast as the modern players (Gonzalez, Newcombe, Tanner) did!!

Phoenix1983
03-18-2013, 03:43 PM
BobbyOne, you really are a hopeless case.

NatF
03-18-2013, 03:44 PM
Ignorant NatF, Rosewall would have excellent chances if both players used wood. Then Nadal would not be able to show his extreme top-spin.

I enjoy my knowledge of tennis history. I don't enjoy hateful posts...

Likewise you give Rosewall poly and put him on these slower courts and his game is neutralized...

NatF
03-18-2013, 03:52 PM
NatF, again wrong: Rosewall faced and beat players who served as fast as the modern players (Gonzalez, Newcombe, Tanner) did!!

Whats Rosewall's h2h with those guys?

Regardless speed isn't everything and Rosewall returning fast serves doesn't prove his return is better when Federer has done the same...

Phoenix1983
03-18-2013, 04:00 PM
I just realised that Art Larsen died three months ago.

Thus Rosewall is now one of the ten oldest living male Grand Slam champions.

Sorry, this is apropos of nothing.

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 04:01 PM
Likewise you give Rosewall poly and put him on these slower courts and his game is neutralized...

I even could imagine that Rosewall nowadays, with the extreme racquets, would show a topspin backhand as well. You underrate Rosewall's skills!

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 04:05 PM
Whats Rosewall's h2h with those guys?

Regardless speed isn't everything and Rosewall returning fast serves doesn't prove his return is better when Federer has done the same...

Rosewall trails Gonzalez about 75 to 100, he leads against strong Newcombe (in John's peak!) 14 :10 and he trails Tanner 2:4 playing him when Muscles was a grandpa. In their most important match (Wimbledon 1974) Rosewall won in four sets.

NatF
03-18-2013, 04:08 PM
I even could imagine that Rosewall nowadays, with the extreme racquets, would show a topspin backhand as well. You underrate Rosewall's skills!

I underrate nothing. I've said numerous times I think Rosewall and Laver would be incredible in todays era. They wouldn't be playing the same way though. I give Rosewall more respect than you give Federer.

From what I've seen Rosewall was quick and his backhand was very very good indeed. But those are the highlight reels. I've seen some excellent down the line shots. I find it hard to believe he could go for winners like that today.

NatF
03-18-2013, 04:15 PM
Rosewall trails Gonzalez about 75 to 100, he leads against strong Newcombe (in John's peak!) 14 :10 and he trails Tanner 2:4 playing him when Muscles was a grandpa. In their most important match (Wimbledon 1974) Rosewall won in four sets.

I'll admit I seem to have underrated the serves of former players. I think the serves of today are likely to be superior on average and the best of today > the best of the 50's 60's and 70's.

BobbyOne
03-18-2013, 04:19 PM
I underrate nothing. I've said numerous times I think Rosewall and Laver would be incredible in todays era. They wouldn't be playing the same way though. I give Rosewall more respect than you give Federer.

From what I've seen Rosewall was quick and his backhand was very very good indeed. But those are the highlight reels. I've seen some excellent down the line shots. I find it hard to believe he could go for winners like that today.

And the Federer highlights I have seen (lobs and so on), provided by abmk, are also "only" highlights...

forzamilan90
03-18-2013, 04:31 PM
And the Federer highlights I have seen (lobs and so on), provided by abmk, are also "only" highlights...

one must have followed the Great One's matches with regularity to observe such mastery on a match to match basis, especially in his prime (not the overly extreme highlights that are one in a million, though he has numerous of those), but insane shotmaking generally that's unrivaled. Nadal's underrated in this department too, his great speed allows him to reach the ball in some very difficult positions and blast a highly amazing winner.

With due respect to past greats, I've yet to see someone even remotely provide highlights of Fed or Nadal or Djokovic's stature, in terms of shotmaking and retrieval/defense.

NatF
03-18-2013, 04:31 PM
And the Federer highlights I have seen (lobs and so on), provided by abmk, are also "only" highlights...

It shows he's capable of fantastic touch etc...if you saw much of Federer at his peak you'd know he did such things with regularity.

You don't understand that it's baseline centric era, if touch shots constantly won matches that's what Federer would do. Instead he plays from the baseline mostly and uses various other shots to take opponents off guard.

ARFED
03-18-2013, 07:52 PM
It shows he's capable of fantastic touch etc...if you saw much of Federer at his peak you'd know he did such things with regularity.

You don't understand that it's baseline centric era, if touch shots constantly won matches that's what Federer would do. Instead he plays from the baseline mostly and uses various other shots to take opponents off guard.

The problem with Bobby is that he didn`t even see Rosewall in his prime (not much of post prime Kenny for that matter), so it`s a fact that he doesn`t know what he is talking about, at least not from his own experience. So sorry Bobby, but you know the same about Rosewall`s prime game as i do about Lacoste`s

rofl_copter3
03-18-2013, 09:48 PM
I am prepared to get flamed but the mens game has come soooo far from when Laver played that you just can't compare what he did to the things players do or don't accomplish now...

It is more realistic to do a goat by decade.

that said if I had to do a top 5 all time in no order it would be

Laver Federer Sampras Borg Nadal...

Of these I believe Nadal and Sampras are second tier players with more of a one surface thing going on...

BobbyOne
03-19-2013, 11:18 AM
The problem with Bobby is that he didn`t even see Rosewall in his prime (not much of post prime Kenny for that matter), so it`s a fact that he doesn`t know what he is talking about, at least not from his own experience. So sorry Bobby, but you know the same about Rosewall`s prime game as i do about Lacoste`s

As always, you are wrong.

Nobody here has seen Rosewall in his peak (at the most a bit of the late prime).

I have seen enough of Rosewall's game that I can imagine how good he was in his peak.

Phoenix1983
03-19-2013, 02:39 PM
I have seen enough of Rosewall's game that I can imagine how good he was in his peak.

Haha, why do you speak as such an authority on Rosewall when you are basing your judgment of him on your imagination?

Dan Lobb
03-19-2013, 02:44 PM
Haha, why do you speak as such an authority on Rosewall when you are basing your judgment of him on your imagination?

There were many detailed accounts of matches in newspapers such as London Times and New York Times which give a good understanding of achievements before television.

NatF
03-19-2013, 02:49 PM
Haha, why do you speak as such an authority on Rosewall when you are basing your judgment of him on your imagination?

Laver rates Rosewall 5th or 6th amongst just the older crop of players. His peak play can't be so extraordinary considering his great record...

BobbyOne
03-19-2013, 03:16 PM
Haha, why do you speak as such an authority on Rosewall when you are basing your judgment of him on your imagination?

Phoenix, No comment...

BobbyOne
03-19-2013, 03:24 PM
Laver rates Rosewall 5th or 6th amongst just the older crop of players. His peak play can't be so extraordinary considering his great record...

NatF, Even a friend of mine who is a true Laver admirer, cannot understand Rod's Rosewall ranking. Laver, as most players, is a better player than expert in ranking all-time greats. I also don't agree with Rosewall's ranking of Federer (No.4).

Where is your logic, my intelligent fan of the modern players: Just Rosewall's awesome achievements indicate that he must have been extremely strong in his peak! A player who is No.2 at 40 must have been extremely strong when 26.

Rosewall crushed Laver 6-4,6-2,6-2 in the US Pro of 1963.

NatF
03-19-2013, 03:30 PM
NatF, Even a friend of mine who is a true Laver admirer, cannot understand Rod's Rosewall ranking. Laver, as most players, is a better player than expert in ranking all-time greats. I also don't agree with Rosewall's ranking of Federer (No.4).

Where is your logic, my intelligent fan of the modern players: Just Rosewall's awesome achievements indicate that he must have been extremely strong in his peak! A player who is No.2 at 40 must have been extremely strong when 26.

Rosewall crushed Laver 6-4,6-2,6-2 in the US Pro of 1963.

Laver had only recently become a pro then though when he suffered such a beating?

Rosewall's longevity is perhaps the greatest of all time, I am sure Rosewall was extremely strong at 26. However we can't quantify it because we can't see it. Likewise Federer returned to #1 past his prime over players your rate higher than him for peak play (who themselves were peaking). Perhaps we both underrate?

hoodjem
03-19-2013, 03:49 PM
I also don't agree with Rosewall's ranking of Federer (No.4). Is there a link to Muscles' rankings list?

BobbyOne
03-19-2013, 03:53 PM
Laver had only recently become a pro then though when he suffered such a beating?

Rosewall's longevity is perhaps the greatest of all time, I am sure Rosewall was extremely strong at 26. However we can't quantify it because we can't see it. Likewise Federer returned to #1 past his prime over players your rate higher than him for peak play (who themselves were peaking). Perhaps we both underrate?

Laver was already extremely strong at that time.

hoodjem
03-19-2013, 03:54 PM
Rosewall crushed Laver 6-4,6-2,6-2 in the US Pro of 1963.By 1964, Laver had caught up with Muscles and got him back at the Wembley Pro: 7–5, 4–6, 5–7, 8–6, 8–6.

BobbyOne
03-19-2013, 03:57 PM
Is there a link to Muscles' rankings list?

hoodjem, I only know the top four: Hoad, Gonzalez, Laver, Federer. Rosewall surely refers to peak play. He is expert enough to know that Hoad's achievements don't qualify for the top place.

hoodjem
03-20-2013, 05:29 AM
hoodjem, I only know the top four: Hoad, Gonzalez, Laver, Federer. Rosewall surely refers to peak play. He is expert enough to know that Hoad's achievements don't qualify for the top place.
An interesting interpretation.

BobbyOne
03-20-2013, 12:50 PM
An interesting interpretation.

hoodjem, at least a better one than Dan's.

NatF
03-20-2013, 02:07 PM
Laver was already extremely strong at that time.

Is that a yes he had just moved up from the amateurs?

CyBorg
03-20-2013, 02:15 PM
Resurrected for interest from a perspective of four years on.

I don't even remember posting that. Not bad.

BobbyOne
03-20-2013, 02:24 PM
Is that a yes he had just moved up from the amateurs?

Why always suggetive questions? Do you doubt EVERY statement of mine?

Laver in summer 1963 was far better than in his last amateur year (in which he won 22 tournaments).

NatF
03-20-2013, 02:32 PM
Why always suggetive questions? Do you doubt EVERY statement of mine?

Laver in summer 1963 was far better than in his last amateur year (in which he won 22 tournaments).

Ofcourse I don't doubt every statement, however we both know that Laver took some time to peak in the pro's. Considering he won the Amateur slam in 1962 I assume he wasn't at his best when Rosewall beat him quite badly. Rosewall who was at his peak at the time. A better indicator would be a match when both were peaking.

BobbyOne
03-20-2013, 03:15 PM
Ofcourse I don't doubt every statement, however we both know that Laver took some time to peak in the pro's. Considering he won the Amateur slam in 1962 I assume he wasn't at his best when Rosewall beat him quite badly. Rosewall who was at his peak at the time. A better indicator would be a match when both were peaking.

NatF, As Joe McCauley wrote: Laver was a quick learner. He improved immensely in the first 6 months of 1963.

kiki
03-21-2013, 01:04 AM
Laver was the best pro by 1964 or 1965
Gonzales had to wait Kramer to retire and Rosewall Gonzales to decline

Dan Lobb
03-21-2013, 07:58 AM
NatF, As Joe McCauley wrote: Laver was a quick learner. He improved immensely in the first 6 months of 1963.

Laver played private matches against Rosewall and Hoad in 1962 to prepare himself for the pro tour.
It was known by end of October 1962 at the latest that Laver would tour against Rosewall and Hoad, as this was when Hoad went into training for the Laver tour.
Laver looked good early in January 1963 against Rosewall and Hoad, beating Rosewall in the most important match of the Australian tour at Kooyong on television, and the night before pushing Hoad to 6-3 in the fifth set.

hoodjem
03-22-2013, 06:39 AM
Ofcourse I don't doubt every statement, however we both know that Laver took some time to peak in the pro's. Considering he won the Amateur slam in 1962 I assume he wasn't at his best when Rosewall beat him quite badly. Rosewall who was at his peak at the time. A better indicator would be a match when both were peaking.I think it took Laver most of 1963 to "catch up" to the pros. But by the end of '63, he was the second-ranked player in the world. By the end of 1964 he was world no. 1.

BobbyOne
03-22-2013, 10:20 AM
I think it took Laver most of 1963 to "catch up" to the pros. But by the end of '63, he was the second-ranked player in the world. By the end of 1964 he was world no. 1.

hoodjem, Laver was No.2 already after the early world tour of 1963 and seeded two in the summer events.

Rosewall was the official No.1 player in 1964 because he won the big tour. I give Laver a tied No.1 place.

hoodjem
03-23-2013, 02:29 PM
hoodjem, Laver was No.2 already after the early world tour of 1963 and seeded two in the summer events.

Rosewall was the official No.1 player in 1964 because he won the big tour. I give Laver a tied No.1 place.True. But I believe that by the end of 1964, Laver was superior in ability and achievements--just barely.

I believe that he earned his place as World no. 1 for 1964.


1960—Rosewall
1961—Rosewall
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall(4)
1964—Laver
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver(7)

kiki
03-23-2013, 02:33 PM
Is that a yes he had just moved up from the amateurs?

Does Natf spells for Nationalfedererismus?

In that case, you should pay me a royalty:confused:

BobbyOne
03-23-2013, 04:29 PM
True. But I believe that by the end of 1964, Laver was superior in ability and achievements--just barely.

I believe that he earned his place as World no. 1 for 1964.


1960—Rosewall
1961—Rosewall
1962—Rosewall
1963—Rosewall(4)
1964—Laver
1965—Laver
1966—Laver
1967—Laver
1968—Laver
1969—Laver
1970—Laver(7)

hoodjem, Also for 1970 I would give Rosewall (and maybe Newcombe) tied No.1 places.

hoodjem
03-23-2013, 06:32 PM
hoodjem, Also for 1970 I would give Rosewall (and maybe Newcombe) tied No.1 places.

You might, monsieur, you might.

Feather
03-23-2013, 10:05 PM
As always, you are wrong.

Nobody here has seen Rosewall in his peak (at the most a bit of the late prime).

I have seen enough of Rosewall's game that I can imagine how good he was in his peak.

Like how you imagine Federer was at his peak ?