Dan, Have not read the article but I still think you overlook that it was written directly before the Olmedo/Hoad meeting.
Who was number 1 for 1970?
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
Dan, Have not read the article but I still think you overlook that it was written directly before the Olmedo/Hoad meeting.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Yes, with different answers and different opinions.
I don't consider that answered, but rather a back and forth discussion that is never going to be fully agreed upon.
It's not clear what you disagree with, although probably everything.
I would not necessarily argue against this point. In fact, I would say that Rosewall is one of the rare players who probably had multiple peaks. Most likely players have physical peaks (young, strong, fast, quick recovery) and mental peaks (understanding of the game, superior tactics, learning how to win ugly when necessary.) These two peaks can happen at the same time, in which case a player is absolutely unbeatable. But they can also happen at different times, which is especially likely when a player, for one reason or another, does not utterly devote himself to the game until later in his career. Agassi might be a good example of this. Injuries will also split careers, so that might explain Nadal's return to near dominance in 2013.
The only place where I strongly disagree with you is the idea of a peak that is uninterrupted for a very long time. I don't agree that Rosewall's peak lasted for many, many years.
I would agree with that.
You are, again, completely ignoring age. I agree that Laver had not yet reached his peak until sometime in '64, but you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that perhaps Rosewall had passed his own physical peak at age 30.
That's where we disagree. You are also assuming that by the early 60s Gonzales, at a time when he would have been at least 32, that Pancho would have had no loss in his own physical peak. I'm still saying that for most players the peak of their careers PHYSICALLY tended to be around age 25 or so. You disagree.
I'm saying that this peak is probably moving closer to the end of the 20s now, reflecting training and medicine which is lengthening both life spans and quality of life.
Gary, Fine analysis.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
My own data suggests much the same thing as your graphs, but I don't have as much data as I would like to have.In general, this is a wonderful post and I have much to agree with here.
I'd like to tackle the following:
I have a few of graphs on this.
The first is based on computer rankings in the open era. The data set is all men who won a slam and were born in 1950 or later (so that most of their careers are captured in the rankings). What the graph shows is the average computer ranking of all men in the data set. The peak in this graph is around 23 to 25. The attack is quite sharp to age 20, but the taper to age 31 or so is fairly gradual. It certainly illustrates that prime age is from 20 to 29-30. (Incidentally, the small hiccup at age 24 is almost totally due to Pat Cash's crash at that age, and the one at 27 to Del Potro.)
The second graph shows just the end of year rankings for the most recent 6 top men who were multi-year #1's, and had reasonably long careers (note that Sampras has the shortest career of this group). For Laver and Rosewall, rankings before 1973 are subjective, but use my majority opinion approach. All rankings after 1973 are computer rankings (so Connors, rightly or wrongly gets #1 for 1974-78).
In this graph the peak is at 26 or 27 when no one is ranked below #2.
The next graph (and more to GD's point) is the number of majors won at each age by top major winners throughout tennis history. It includes all who won 4 majors or more, plus Murray and Wawrinka. 'Majors' include all Wim and USC/O, AO, RG since 1925, ITF majors (1912-24), and pro-majors (Wem, FrPro, USPro for the years universally recognized). Specifically, this includes: Renshaw, Sears, RDoherty, Larned, Wrenn, HDoherty, Wilding, Tilden, Johnston, Kozeluh, Borotra, Cochet, Richards, LaCoste, Crawford, Perry, Nusslein, Vines, Budge, Parker, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzales, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Emerson, Santana, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka.
The red line represents the total number of titles won by this group at each age. The blue line is the two-year average for each age. This blue line tends to smooth out the line a bit to make the trend more visible. It seems that the longterm average peak major-winning age has been 24.
To see if there was a difference with modern times, I looked at just those who had won 6 or more slams in the open era (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). It looks like the peak is still about age 24.
My assumption is that a male tennis player's absolute physical peak should happen around the middle 20s for the same reason that young men act as if they are mostly immortal, recovering from too little sleep and all sorts of physical excesses that later will wreak havoc on a career. I also assume that in general players know more about how to win when they are older but often no longer have bodies that will allow them to put that knowledge to good use.
Furthermore, anything that improves recovery/stamina of older players is going to somewhat tip the scales in favor of them, which is exactly what I assume is going on right now.
The extreme advantage young players used to have was pure physical endurance, both in individual matches and in series of matches. I see that advantage continually decreasing, giving more and more edge to experience combined with whole teams of experts supporting established stars.
dwightcharles
Rookie
krosero, what a find! that totally rocks!
I wonder what is the source of the rankings he cites? They would be consistent with World Tennis, Collins, and Tingay, I believe. I wonder, did the players at the time see Tingay's rankings as authoritative?
In general, this is a wonderful post and I have much to agree with here.
I'd like to tackle the following:
I have a few of graphs on this.
The first is based on computer rankings in the open era. The data set is all men who won a slam and were born in 1950 or later (so that most of their careers are captured in the rankings). What the graph shows is the average computer ranking of all men in the data set. The peak in this graph is around 23 to 25. The attack is quite sharp to age 20, but the taper to age 31 or so is fairly gradual. It certainly illustrates that prime age is from 20 to 29-30. (Incidentally, the small hiccup at age 24 is almost totally due to Pat Cash's crash at that age, and the one at 27 to Del Potro.)
The second graph shows just the end of year rankings for the most recent 6 top men who were multi-year #1's, and had reasonably long careers (note that Sampras has the shortest career of this group). For Laver and Rosewall, rankings before 1973 are subjective, but use my majority opinion approach. All rankings after 1973 are computer rankings (so Connors, rightly or wrongly gets #1 for 1974-78).
In this graph the peak is at 26 or 27 when no one is ranked below #2.
The next graph (and more to GD's point) is the number of majors won at each age by top major winners throughout tennis history. It includes all who won 4 majors or more, plus Murray and Wawrinka. 'Majors' include all Wim and USC/O, AO, RG since 1925, ITF majors (1912-24), and pro-majors (Wem, FrPro, USPro for the years universally recognized). Specifically, this includes: Renshaw, Sears, RDoherty, Larned, Wrenn, HDoherty, Wilding, Tilden, Johnston, Kozeluh, Borotra, Cochet, Richards, LaCoste, Crawford, Perry, Nusslein, Vines, Budge, Parker, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzales, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Emerson, Santana, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka.
The red line represents the total number of titles won by this group at each age. The blue line is the two-year average for each age. This blue line tends to smooth out the line a bit to make the trend more visible. It seems that the longterm average peak major-winning age has been 24.
To see if there was a difference with modern times, I looked at just those who had won 6 or more slams in the open era (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). It looks like the peak is still about age 24.
dwight, Thanks for that great compilation and graphics.
Just a minor point: Please write "Lacoste".
dwightcharles
Rookie
It's interesting that marathoners tend to peak in their early 30's. I always assumed that it was pure physical coordination that favoured players to age 25, and that the increase in longevity we are seeing now has to do with the nature of the game changing away from hand-eye skills (like volleying) to more endurance (the baseline game).
It's also possible that in the late 70's to early 90's when the increases in racket and string technology were so rapid, that only the young could adapt to the change effectively, which is why we had careers of short relevance like Borg, McEnroe, Wilander, Becker, Edberg...
What do you think?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Yes I agree this will never be fully agreed on. I'm fairly certain of my answer and frankly it really doesn't matter to me what others think as long as it's resolved in my mind.
dwightcharles
Rookie
In general, this is a wonderful post and I have much to agree with here.
I'd like to tackle the following:
I have a few of graphs on this.
The first is based on computer rankings in the open era. The data set is all men who won a slam and were born in 1950 or later (so that most of their careers are captured in the rankings). What the graph shows is the average computer ranking of all men in the data set. The peak in this graph is around 23 to 25. The attack is quite sharp to age 20, but the taper to age 31 or so is fairly gradual. It certainly illustrates that prime age is from 20 to 29-30. (Incidentally, the small hiccup at age 24 is almost totally due to Pat Cash's crash at that age, and the one at 27 to Del Potro.)
The second graph shows just the end of year rankings for the most recent 6 top men who were multi-year #1's, and had reasonably long careers (note that Sampras has the shortest career of this group). For Laver and Rosewall, rankings before 1973 are subjective, but use my majority opinion approach. All rankings after 1973 are computer rankings (so Connors, rightly or wrongly gets #1 for 1974-78).
In this graph the peak is at 26 or 27 when no one is ranked below #2.
The next graph (and more to GD's point) is the number of majors won at each age by top major winners throughout tennis history. It includes all who won 4 majors or more, plus Murray and Wawrinka. 'Majors' include all Wim and USC/O, AO, RG since 1925, ITF majors (1912-24), and pro-majors (Wem, FrPro, USPro for the years universally recognized). Specifically, this includes: Renshaw, Sears, RDoherty, Larned, Wrenn, HDoherty, Wilding, Tilden, Johnston, Kozeluh, Borotra, Cochet, Richards, LaCoste, Crawford, Perry, Nusslein, Vines, Budge, Parker, Riggs, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzales, Trabert, Rosewall, Hoad, Cooper, Emerson, Santana, Laver, Newcombe, Connors, Borg, Vilas, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Edberg, Sampras, Courier, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka.
The red line represents the total number of titles won by this group at each age. The blue line is the two-year average for each age. This blue line tends to smooth out the line a bit to make the trend more visible. It seems that the longterm average peak major-winning age has been 24.
To see if there was a difference with modern times, I looked at just those who had won 6 or more slams in the open era (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic). It looks like the peak is still about age 24.
To GD's point... what these graphs show is that a player at 30 (Rosewall 1965) is typically functioning well below a player at 26/27 (Laver 1965).
It's true that Vines and Nusslein put up different kinds of stats, because they played different kinds of events. But they were in same pro field and allowed to participate in all pro events, so the chess analogy doesn't apply here, with its players of wholly different levels, not allowed to enter each other's events. The pro/am split in tennis might be closer to that chess analogy.Actually it's a decent example that I used about the Earth.You see you can compare apples with apples for tennis in 1970. Same tour, same tournaments, same general field. The example you give with Vines is on the Old Pro Tour with a different approach to the game. Perhaps with more information I may rank Nusslein over Vines in 1937 but that's besides the point. However the Old Pro Tour with Nusslein and Vines being compared is like comparing apples to oranges. Totally different because of the tours.
I am give you an example in the chess world. In chess, often there are tournaments based on the general strength of the player. If you are too strong you cannot play in that tournament. So if I was allowed to enter a weak chess tournament that I'm not supposed to enter I may very well easily sweep the tournament. That of course would not be fair. So let's say I score 12 points (a win in chess is one point, a draw is a half a point) in 12 games for 100%. Let's say another guy in a higher Open tournament scores 10 out 12 for 83.3%. Well an ill informed person may say I'm the superior player but it's very possible the one who scored 10 points in the higher Open tournament was better. This is not apples to apples. You are basically doing the same thing for 1937. It's hard to compare.
Vines (along with Perry) was actually invited to a series of challenge matches against Nusslein, but Elly and Fred declined. I mention this just because it's so different from the chess analogy. Vines and Perry were able, and even invited, to enter Nusslein's tournaments. In such a situation one could argue, in Nusslein's favor, that yes he won his titles without facing Vines but "you can only play who's in front of you." In short it's not like the chess situation where presumably a lower-level player wins what he wins only because he's not facing a player who's so far above him that the two are not even allowed to play the same league (or class) of tournaments.
And the field that Nusslein was dominating in '37, in Europe, was essentially the field that had made up Vines' competition in 1936 (Tilden and Stoefen). Except, Nusslein in '37 was facing not only Tilden and Stoefen but good European players, in European tournaments -- and he was dominating just as much as Vines dominated similar names in '36.
Still I agree that with Vines and Nusslein in '37 we're looking at different kinds of stats. Same pro field, but different stats, because they played different kinds of events. 1970 was different.
On the first page of this thread SgtJohn made some points about the problems inherent in applying a points system retroactively to past years. In one of his posts he wrote that one problem is how much the final point tallies vary depending on the criteria you start out with. And in fact Carlo's approach left Laver only slightly ahead of Rosewall for the year, 1072 to 1028.
Another problem SgtJohn mentioned was that points systems often just add up victories. I don't recall how exactly he fleshed out that point, but one thing I personally don't like many in many of these points exercises is that wins are added up, without measuring bad losses; or if you don't like the word "bad" you can say important losses; or big losses on important stages. It's not just that Laver failed to win Wimbledon/USO; it's the early losses to lesser players; I recall one writer referring to Laver's "debacle" at these two tournaments.
Sometimes these exercises with points can be useful but every once in a while you see their limitations. Look at 1982. Lendl won 15 titles to Connors' 7 (and I believe that's just the official count, not even including non-sanctioned events). Lendl's haul included very big titles including the Masters and Dallas. His official win/loss was 106-9 (92%) and he had winning H2H records over Connors (2-1) and Mac (I forget the exact number but it was dominant). Has anyone ever applied a retroactive point system to this year? Is there any way to get Connors more points than Lendl?
Yet Connors is (almost?) universally named as #1 for the year, because of Wim/USO. Sometimes we argue that Lendl had a major-equivalent, with his Masters win; but no one back then thought that this title was Lendl's first major. He was universally regarded as a non-major winner until he won the French in '84. The Masters, even though you can sometimes regard it as an AO equivalent/replacement (ie, like the Dunlop in 1970), just wasn't regarded as one of the majors; therefore the players entered there simply didn't feel the same pressure that they would have felt at a designated traditional major like the USO.
1989 would be another such problem, with these points systems. I think the poster Benhur once said that he tried applying points in various different ways but he said that in no case does Becker ever top Lendl. And yet Becker is a very common choice for #1 that year.
#1 for the year (or #1 for all of tennis history) is about much, much more than math.
Last edited:
dwight, I trust more the experts of 1970 than the posters of today.
Can you now understand why I rank three players equal for 1970?
By the way, I think that Rosewall would have gotten an additional first place if Joe McCauley (I remember him respectfully as a very helpful friend of mine) would not have erred in his 1970 World Tennis ranking. Joe brought a table with the hth balances of the top ten of the year against each other. These balances were one of his main criteria he used to judge. That table showed that Rosewall had a better overall balance against his nine opponents than Newcombe had.
Rosewall also had the edge against Newk himself (5:2) and several other positive points such as reaching the final of the TCC and the 3rd place in the Masters.
dwight, Budge just edged out Vines in 1939. Vines at that time was half-way to golf in his mind..
dwight, Rankings were made regarding the year's achievements and not regarding who was playing at the highest level, at least mostly.
dwight, Most experts went obviously according to the accomplishments.
Exactly this!
Limpinhitter, How do you explain that Rosewall was No.1 or No.2 (the latter only to peak Laver!) from 1960 to 1968 but only No. 5 or 6 in 1969?
...but not in your sense...
Deleted post.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Ironically, 25 is the average age of full development of the prefrontal cortex, the area of the brain to which executive function (judgment and appreciation for the consequences of your actions), is attributed. That's why I don't think children under 25 should be able to vote, drink, marry, drive or join the military.
Does that explain Borg retiring at 26?http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html
https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051
krosero, Thanks. This quoting was also already in a previous edition of Laver's book, i.e. in 1971 (2009).
Laver said that he did not win a major. So we can conclude that he did not rate Dunlop or TCC as true majors (don't know how I should rate Dunlop). It also indicates that he maybe would not rank himself as (lone) No.1 for 1970 even if he fared better in the two big ones, say reaching a final and a SF.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Tell you the truth, sports, given the correct stats, rankings are all about math. You just have to apply the right formulas. Heck the mysteries of the universe is solved by math.
Ask Bill James, Pete Palmer in American Sports about math. I think Bill James once said something like if you say that you cannot analyze just by stats, you're looking at the wrong stats or analyzing it incorrectly. In tennis the information, especially in the Open Era is right there.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
On this one point you and I differ, perhaps. I don't think there are always factual answers to some questions due to complexity and various different viewpoints that literally cause different conclusions.
Instead, we can assess certain factors:
1. Who won the most money?
2. Who won the most tournaments?
3. Which tournaments were more important and should be more heavily weighted?
4. How important are slams (really part of #3)?
For me each of these can have different answers, and so who was the best player in any year is a real problem when one player was not clearly dominant in all ways.
I'll also say that I know a lot less than people like you and Krosero, which is why I always read your posts.
Instead of giving you an opinion - I have several - I'd suggest that we when assume that all players have the same priorities, we may make a huge mistake.
For example, and only one possibility: suppose that Rosewall and Laver in 1970 had wildly different goals. Laver, for example, sitting on a grand slam and generally considered THE alpha male tennis player, may have cared less about slams and a lot more about money. We don't know this for a fact, but it is logical. Rosewall, on the other hand, having never won Wimbledon and being so far not nearly so successful winning slams in the open era may have been very hungry for slams and may have set that as his top priority. Again, we don't know this, but it is certainly possible.
My view of Rosewall and Laver is (apparently) different from just about everyone in this forum. I would personally say that Laver at his absolute peak was clearly the stronger player - more weapons, more aggression, more ways to pull out a match with sheer balls-to-the-walls match play. But I would rate Rosewall much closer. The overall H2H does not indicate to me absolute dominance but rather a clear advantage to Laver over their entire careers.
In contrast, Rosewall had an even longer career, one that started four years before Laver's and continued after Laver faded. Some may simply say, "Well, that doesn't count, but Laver wasn't around any more, and Laver didn't start to lose the edge until he had injuries." To me that seems dismissive of Rosewall and of his accomplishments, and no matter how you look at it no one else in the open era has been able to do what he did at such an advanced age.
To this very moment it shocks me to think about how he won the 1970 USO, not only winning it at almost age 36 but doing it by beating Smith, Newcombe and Roche. Then a couple months later he won the AO by beating Emerson, Okker and Ashe. We can say that the AO was "weak" because of byes and fewer matches, but we also have to look at the players he beat.
Then we look back to '68 when he was "only" closer to 34 than 33, and he had to defeat Gimeno and then Laver, back to back.
If anyone today, with all the medical advantages, special teams and perhaps and chemicals that are only legal because they have not been banned yet did what Rosewall did, we'd be in a awe.
So my overall viewpoint remains that Rosewall does NOT get as much credit as he deserves, something I think is even more true of big Pancho.
You have in Laver and Rosewall two unique talents, and I don't understand the continual compulsion to make one lesser by making the other greater.
Olmedo was still an amateur at the time of the article, there was no projected Hoad/Olmedo match at that time.
Mr.or Mrs. Limpinhitter (you never have informed me about this question), Instead of attacking dwight and also me you should accept the facts and should apologize for your obnoxious lie ("Rosewall 40") and your absurd numbers ("Laver 36")!.
Please note, expert: Your darling HIMSELF ranked himself at NUMBER FOUR, not number one! You should not blame the Rocket with your ignorance!
GET SERIOUS, old fellow!
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
That's simplistic.
I love statistics, but statistics only work when you agree on what you are measuring.
In order to apply the right formulas you have to agree upon what it is you are analyzing. So we can argue about 1970 until hell freezes over, but if we can't agree upon which is more important - winning majors or winning more money - we are back at square one.
The real question is: can you live with more than one answer? Or does everything have to be black and white?
We can actually see that idea here looking at which people are happy with tied rankings and which people can't live with a tie.
I'm 100% fine with answers that say "too close to call, too many variables". That's just the way I look at the world.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Gary,That's simplistic.
I love statistics, but statistics only work when you agree on what you are measuring.
In order to apply the right formulas you have to agree upon what it is you are analyzing. So we can argue about 1970 until hell freezes over, but if we can't agree upon which is more important - wining majors or wining more money - we are back at square one.
The real question is: can you live with more than one answer? Or does everything have to be black and white?
We can actually see that idea here looking at which people are happy with tied rankings and which people can't live with a tie.
I'm 100% fine with answers that say "too close to call, too many variables". That's just the way I look at the world.
Forget about 1970 or 1964 or the War of 1812. Let's try to look at perception versus reality. Sometimes a player in any sport can be perceived as the best for the year but the perception is incorrect perhaps due to a flaw system, incorrect information or incorrect analysis. We should at least try to correct that. Isn't that the ideal?
I agree with you 1000% that we won't resolve it here but I will try to discuss it with you off these forums.
dwightcharles
Rookie
Brilliant, balanced analysis!
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Absolutely.
I think we can really be off the mark by restricting ourselves to one lens. Looking at 1970 through a 2017 lens is going to distort things horribly, but we should never accept that everything that there is to know was already known in a particular year. That's why I think we need to keep changing lenses, carefully considering each view.
For example, we may discover new facts about who won the most money in 1970, or exactly how much money was earned, but that won't tell us anything about how the players felt, personally, about winning tournament A or B as opposed to winning prize money in tournament C or D.
On another subject, I am about the worst speller in the universe and depend on red lines to tell me when I have screwed up yet again. But today I typed "wining" twice (instead of winning), then on rereading tried to figure out how that passed.
Turns out that there is a verb form for "consuming wine".
dwightcharles
Rookie
Awesome! beautifully written and argued!
dwight, I think Laver "used" the rankings coming from his closest friend, Bud Collins, but there is also the possibility that Collins took Rod's own assessment... One thing ist clear: Both men plus most other experts ranked the players according their achievements at the big tournaments.
Tingay, as you have shown, had Laver at No.3.
Tingay was widely acknowledges as a or THE "tennis pope".
I don't like his rankings in every case because Tingay mostly put the Wimbledon winner at No.1, even in years like 1971 when Newcombe did not do much apart from his Wimbledon win (in 1970 he at least had reached the US Open SF losing to the winner of the tournament).
I also never understood that Tingay very seldom gave tied place, curiously only at place 10. That's not logical mathematically.
dwight, Let me please contradict again a bit: Rosewall in 1965 was not well below Laver. They were very close. I even once made a case that they were even but I got a "silly" or "stupid" from NatF...
Rosewall won two pro majors beating Laver in both finals clearly plus he beat Laver clearly in the biggest claycourt event of the year (Reston) and the US Hardcourt Pro clearly (in the SFs, Rosewall won in the final over Gimeno).
dwightcharles
Rookie
I'm not certain that Laver is putting forward his own ranking here stating he is #4. He might merely be reflecting Tingay's ranking or what he considers the majority view.
krosero, Many thanks for this analysis. I especially find it worth to reflect about the case of "pressure" that you raise. You are right that the pressure in a pseudo-major is not as great as in a true major. For me it's always deciding what the players had to do (to win) to be the acknowledged top player. As repeatedly said I'm sure that Laver was aware at the begin of the official 1964 world championship tour that he must win it to be the world's No.1 equal if he has the best hth, the best percentages and so on or not (Limpin, urban, NatF, please note this). In 1970 Laver again knew what he had to do to become the champion: winning the big ones (or at least winning one of them and reaching the final of the other).
Maybe in 1959 there was a confusion because there were two big world tours.
dwightcharles
Rookie
Ah, a simple misunderstanding I think...
I did not say that Rosewall was well below Laver in 1965. I said the graphs show that a player at 30 is typically functioning well below a player at 26/27.
All the more remarkable then that Rosewall was so close to Laver at that age. Rosewall is one of the outliers, but so is Connors in 1982, and a host of others. The point I was reinforcing (of GD's) is that Laver's dominance of Rosewall in Rosewall's 30's is not a strike against Rosewall.
Gary, Very good thoughts.
A few comments. Prize money is a rather unimportant measure stick.
I'm not sure that Laver had more weapons than Rosewall: Muscles was better at backhand, backhand volley, lob, drop shot, return, maybe drop volley.
More aggression does not mean a player is stronger. You can even out aggression with better tactics, better footwork, better anticipation, better touch if your name is ...Ken Rosewall.
Please understand that I plead so often and so emphatically for Rosewall's true place in tennis history. I do this because, as others have said (f.i. Nathaniel Near and thrust), Laver gets his full credit in his forum whilst Rosewall is significantly underrated by many posters. There even is a well-known poster here who ranks Rosewall (a GOAT candidate!) at place 17 or 18! And he calls himself a Rosewall admirer...
krosero, I believe that Vines was stronger than Nüsslein. He would have dominated the German in an indoor (and grass) series. But Nüsslein was stroger than Vines on clay.
Please tell us the exact date of the publishing of that article. Thanks.
dwight, No. His words are clear like water in the Alps.
You mean Collins, not Tingay who ranked Laver third.
dwight, Your claim might be right for many players but not for Rosewall who played superbly in 1965 (and 1966!). Ken "functioned" very well that year. In the first half of 1965 Muscles suffered from an allergic illness which hampered him a bit, as Mal Anderson has written in World Tennis. Thus his several losses to Gonzalez whom he had dominated in 1964.
I agree with you though that Laver's dominance of Rosewall in Ken's 30's is not a strike against Rosewall.
I love about a dozen points you've made in this post, and the general outlook in it; and the point I've highlighted is really worth considering!
I have a small new result from 1970, which makes no difference to the ranking, but it's an interesting event and a nice win by Newk over Pancho Gonzalez.
It was given to me by Scott Campbell who is a poster here; he's provided me with a number of Open-Era results for Pancho.
Evanston IL
Sept. 17-18, 1970 two-day event
Marriott Tennis Classic
Northwestern University - McGaw Hall
Day 1:
Margaret Court defeated Richey, Nancy 16 75 60
Cliff Richey defeated Ashe 63 46 62
Ashe/Court defeated Richey/Richey 62 61
Day 2:
Newcombe d. Gonzalez 6-1, 4-6, 6-4, 4-6, 6-2
Scott’s note: “Attendance 7800 per one report. An earlier report indicated that the same day [9-18] would have matches between Roche and Riessen, and between Roche/El Shafei and Riessen/Okker but I can't locate results of those matches.”
It was given to me by Scott Campbell who is a poster here; he's provided me with a number of Open-Era results for Pancho.
Evanston IL
Sept. 17-18, 1970 two-day event
Marriott Tennis Classic
Northwestern University - McGaw Hall
Day 1:
Margaret Court defeated Richey, Nancy 16 75 60
Cliff Richey defeated Ashe 63 46 62
Ashe/Court defeated Richey/Richey 62 61
Day 2:
Newcombe d. Gonzalez 6-1, 4-6, 6-4, 4-6, 6-2
Scott’s note: “Attendance 7800 per one report. An earlier report indicated that the same day [9-18] would have matches between Roche and Riessen, and between Roche/El Shafei and Riessen/Okker but I can't locate results of those matches.”
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I'm so incredibly tuned into age that the first thing that knocks me in the eyes is the year and the score. Pancho was probably 42, and if not months away from turning 42. But after getting creamed in the 1st set, he fought back in the 2nd and 4th. Again, think if that happened now, a former #1 in the world still going toe to toe in a 5 set match against someone of the caliber of John Newcombe.
This is not the first time I terribly much regret never seeing Pancho play at his peak.
I guess I'm finally going to have to cave in and start using the "z", but it just feels weird because I saw "Gonzales" for so many years as I was growing up...
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I continue to believe that at the beginning of the open era it was hugely important, and thus an important factor. That does not mean that I think it is the most important factor, Bobby.
Well, I'm not sure either, Bobby, because I don't have data, and I'm never going to get it. I do know from studying statistics very carefully over the last 25 years or so that the advantage is always with the guy with the stronger service game when stats are otherwise equal.
By this I mean that if two players are winning the same % of games, overall, but one player is holding serve more easily, the better server generally has a statistically better record winning matches.
This leads to what I call "the Sampras effect", which I have been puzzling over for at least a couple years now.
What this means is that players like Sampras and to a slightly lesser degree Federer appear to have an extra gear. My hunch is that very powerful servers coast when they are ahead a break, saving energy and only going all out on return when things get even, or when they fall behind. In contrast, players like Agassi, Nadal and Murray had/have to keep the gas on more uniformly because they are more likely to be broken. This does not, by the way, particularly apply to Nadal at his peak on clay. In spite of not having a dominant serve, he had a very dominant service game on clay.
I don't have stats on Rosewall, so I'm guessing, and I may be 100% wrong. But just looking at his serve I would think that he must have been more vulnerable to being broken, and that even Laver was probably a good deal more vulnerable to losing serve than Gonzalez.
Over the last 25 years or so there has been no one I can think of with a phenomenally high % of holding serve who has been much under 6 foot, and even then the really tall guys have at least a slight advantage over Sampras, Roddick and Federer. But the giants all have relative weaknesses in returning (Karlovic, Isner, Raonic) and so none of them are at the top of winning games both on serve and return.
I just have a lot of trouble imagining a man Rosewall's height and with the serve we see in videos winning service games as easily as the other guys with bigger serves. I would say the same thing to some extent about Laver, but as I remember Laver had a very powerful serve for a shorter player.
Again, we don't have data. If my hunch is right, Rosewall would have had an amazingly high rate of breaking serve. At his peak he would have been close to Nadal on clay, but of course on fast surfaces, which would have meant he would always be a threat to break back after being broken.
I'm repeating that I have zero data to back this up.
This is what I do have, although I may still have minor errors, which I'm always looking to correct:
Going back all the way to '68 I see that the players who were most dominant in winning games in slams are Borg, Nadal and Vilas, but this is on clay. Game dominance is highest on slow courts, lowest on fast courts, so in general this dominance shows up highest on clay, lowest on grass, and somewhere in the middle on HCs.
When I eliminate all slams not on grass, the guys at the top of the list are interesting because this catches most of the great ones. Rosewall does very well on this list, for all games.
To some extent I think that looking at only the last three matches - usually quarter final, final and championship match - might be even more important. McEnroe is at that top, two years in a row. To me that is significant. The next names are Federer, Sampras, Borg, Connors. Rosewall is next. However, the players who do best on this list also usually won grass slams several times, so more chances to have a dominant slam. Laver does not fare so well because his 1969 grand slam was extremely tight, a real miracle in terms of a story, and he did not contest as many times after that on grass slams.
As you can see, I have part of the story, but in order to find out what I'm missing I would have to go through match after match and calculate not only how many games were won and lost but also how many breaks there were. That's beyond my patience.
You unfortunately don't always recognize those of us who are ALMOST as enthusiastic as you are about Rosewall. I've always been a huge admirer of Rosewall and remain so. Remember, I am utterly uninterested in GOAT debates.
Last edited:
You may remember this older post in the career percentages thread: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...17-alltime-greats.562591/page-2#post-10281651It's not clear what you disagree with, although probably everything.
I would not necessarily argue against this point. In fact, I would say that Rosewall is one of the rare players who probably had multiple peaks. Most likely players have physical peaks (young, strong, fast, quick recovery) and mental peaks (understanding of the game, superior tactics, learning how to win ugly when necessary.) These two peaks can happen at the same time, in which case a player is absolutely unbeatable. But they can also happen at different times, which is especially likely when a player, for one reason or another, does not utterly devote himself to the game until later in his career. Agassi might be a good example of this. Injuries will also split careers, so that might explain Nadal's return to near dominance in 2013.
The only place where I strongly disagree with you is the idea of a peak that is uninterrupted for a very long time. I don't agree that Rosewall's peak lasted for many, many years.
I would agree with that.
You are, again, completely ignoring age. I agree that Laver had not yet reached his peak until sometime in '64, but you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that perhaps Rosewall had passed his own physical peak at age 30.
That's where we disagree. You are also assuming that by the early 60s Gonzales, at a time when he would have been at least 32, would have had NO loss in his own physical peak. I'm still saying that for most players the peak of their careers PHYSICALLY tended to be around age 25 or so. You disagree.
I'm saying that this peak is probably moving closer to the end of the 20s now, reflecting training and medicine which is lengthening both life spans and quality of life.
I built on PC1's concept of a 5-year peak and found that a player's rate of titles won (out of events entered) shows their decline exceptionally well. Maybe I should put those numbers in graph form, but the list is straightforward and you can see how steeply the numbers climb to a peak and then how steeply they fall. Rosewall in the late 60s and early 70s was winning titles at a far slower rate than he had done in 1960-64. A very similar curve is evident for Laver. It's true for all the players for whom I got career-length data.
That's just talking about it statistically. There is plenty of other written evidence that Rosewall was declining from about '64 onwards, for example World Tennis' report of the 1965 Wembley Pro:
THE LONDON PRO CHAMPIONSHIPS
by LINDA TIMMS
Rod Laver is the best player in the world. He proved it by the way he won the London Professional Championships at Wembley in September. Of all the champions since the war, only Lew Hoad has commanded the same frightening brilliance and power of stroke, the same ability to bring off in every other game coups which any other player would have more sense than to attempt. But Laver has achieved even more than Hoad; he has learned to discipline his genius sufficiently to bring him to the top of the cruelly demanding professional game. More than that, he has eliminated his unevenness without sacrificing any of his individuality. His game now is one long purple patch.
The finest match at Wembley this year came in an early round three-setter when Laver met Frank Sedgman. At 38, the Wimbledon champion of 1952 is still incredibly fit, fast and severe of stroke. Against Laver he did more than anyone else even approached; he reached match point before losing bravely in a wonderfully exciting contest.
If Laver has reached his peak, it became clear on the evidence of this week that Ken Rosewall has just passed his. He lost surprisingly in the semi-finals to Andres Gimeno after leading by two sets to love and looking completely authoritative. He dropped the third 6-0, relaxing after an early loss of his service, led in the fourth and then missed his chance. At 3-5 in the fifth one waited confidently for the deadly Rosewall riposte. It never came. His own bitter disappointment was evident and justified; it was a fine match but it was a defeat that should never have happened to him.
It would probably be unfair to judge Rosewall on this match, partly because his left leg was troubling him in the last two sets. But throughout the week his famous impeccability showed a slight fraying at the edges. He produced the perfect shot at the necessary moment nine out of ten instead of ten times. He would droop his head and drop his racket as the old impassive master with everything at his fingertips would never do. But his relative shortcomings should not be exaggerated; he is a superb player still and will be for a long time.
Laver won both his semi-final against Earl Buchholz and his final against Gimeno in three straight sets. People often complain that matches at Wembley lack atmosphere, but strangely enough this was not true even of such a one-sided final. Gimeno, who had shown marvellous touch and flair against Rosewall even in the two sets he lost, never had a chance against Laver’s furious pace, control and variety. What gave the match its excitement was simply Laver’s genius. This was lawn tennis played as well as it can be played, not only with perfect skill but also with startling virtuosity. It was an extraordinary display.
The Empire Pool, Wembley, is no one’s favorite tennis centre. It can be both cold and stuffy at the same time, and the atmosphere, full of glaring lights and cigarette smoke, swirls more thickly as the night goes on. No one goes to Wembley for strawberries and cream. If lawn tennis of this quality could be seen on grass, in sunshine (and with strawberries), gate money would cease to be a problem.
by LINDA TIMMS
Rod Laver is the best player in the world. He proved it by the way he won the London Professional Championships at Wembley in September. Of all the champions since the war, only Lew Hoad has commanded the same frightening brilliance and power of stroke, the same ability to bring off in every other game coups which any other player would have more sense than to attempt. But Laver has achieved even more than Hoad; he has learned to discipline his genius sufficiently to bring him to the top of the cruelly demanding professional game. More than that, he has eliminated his unevenness without sacrificing any of his individuality. His game now is one long purple patch.
The finest match at Wembley this year came in an early round three-setter when Laver met Frank Sedgman. At 38, the Wimbledon champion of 1952 is still incredibly fit, fast and severe of stroke. Against Laver he did more than anyone else even approached; he reached match point before losing bravely in a wonderfully exciting contest.
If Laver has reached his peak, it became clear on the evidence of this week that Ken Rosewall has just passed his. He lost surprisingly in the semi-finals to Andres Gimeno after leading by two sets to love and looking completely authoritative. He dropped the third 6-0, relaxing after an early loss of his service, led in the fourth and then missed his chance. At 3-5 in the fifth one waited confidently for the deadly Rosewall riposte. It never came. His own bitter disappointment was evident and justified; it was a fine match but it was a defeat that should never have happened to him.
It would probably be unfair to judge Rosewall on this match, partly because his left leg was troubling him in the last two sets. But throughout the week his famous impeccability showed a slight fraying at the edges. He produced the perfect shot at the necessary moment nine out of ten instead of ten times. He would droop his head and drop his racket as the old impassive master with everything at his fingertips would never do. But his relative shortcomings should not be exaggerated; he is a superb player still and will be for a long time.
Laver won both his semi-final against Earl Buchholz and his final against Gimeno in three straight sets. People often complain that matches at Wembley lack atmosphere, but strangely enough this was not true even of such a one-sided final. Gimeno, who had shown marvellous touch and flair against Rosewall even in the two sets he lost, never had a chance against Laver’s furious pace, control and variety. What gave the match its excitement was simply Laver’s genius. This was lawn tennis played as well as it can be played, not only with perfect skill but also with startling virtuosity. It was an extraordinary display.
The Empire Pool, Wembley, is no one’s favorite tennis centre. It can be both cold and stuffy at the same time, and the atmosphere, full of glaring lights and cigarette smoke, swirls more thickly as the night goes on. No one goes to Wembley for strawberries and cream. If lawn tennis of this quality could be seen on grass, in sunshine (and with strawberries), gate money would cease to be a problem.
In '64 I recall as well, a couple of reports noting that the players themselves agreed that Rosewall was overplaying himself and in a bit of a slump at times. They said this about how he was doing from day to day, not in the big events; Ken was still getting up for those but he wasn't as consistent in the smaller events as he used to be.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Gonzalez was born in May of 1928 so he was 42 at this point.I'm so incredibly tuned into age that the first thing that knocks me in the eyes is the year and the score. Pancho was probably 42, and if not months away from turning 42. But after getting creamed in the 1st set, he fought back in the 2nd and 4th. Again, think if that happened now, a former #1 in the world still going toe to toe in a 5 set match against someone of the caliber of John Newcombe.
This is not the first time I terribly much regret never seeing Pancho play at his peak.
I guess I'm finally going to have to cave in and start using the "z", but it just feels weird because I saw "Gonzales" for so many years as I was growing up...
As far as the spelling is concerned it's been spelled both ways but the family of Pancho Gonzalez prefers the z at the end so I do it that way.
dwightcharles
Rookie
I'm so incredibly tuned into age that the first thing that knocks me in the eyes is the year and the score. Pancho was probably 42, and if not months away from turning 42. But after getting creamed in the 1st set, he fought back in the 2nd and 4th. Again, think if that happened now, a former #1 in the world still going toe to toe in a 5 set match against someone of the caliber of John Newcombe.
This is not the first time I terribly much regret never seeing Pancho play at his peak.
I guess I'm finally going to have to cave in and start using the "z", but it just feels weird because I saw "Gonzales" for so many years as I was growing up...
Call be a neophyte... what's with the Z and S for Gonazales. I too have grown up with it being S. I've heard that the two are interchangeable. What reason is there to prefer the Z?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's just that the Gonzalez family prefers the z so out of respect for their wishes I do it that way.
dwightcharles
Rookie
Several have mentioned the tennisbase, which I jhave used for a while as an invaluable resource. Does anyone know if there is a comparable site for women stats?
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Your info reflects my belief that older players, no matter how well they play in big tournaments, have to be more careful to plan their schedules, and they have to pace themselves. I also suspect that Laver in 1969 was no longer at his peak, but he was so incredibly good that he still pulled off the miraculous grand slam.
No one beats Father Time.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Well I wouldn't call it just prize money for Laver, he also won 5 of the 15 biggest tournaments in 1970 compared to just one each for Rosewall and Newcombe. I don't see Wimbledon and the rest of Newcombes results giving him equal claims with Rosewall and Newcombe. Tingay tended to give precedence to Wimbledon, it's not a case of being out of touch but when the criteria is that stringent I think it's fine to disregard it to a degree.
Win/loss and h2h are secondary to me, Laver won vastly more tournaments including many more large ones. That's what sells him as #1 for me.
Your last paragraph is mostly how I understand it. Rosewall has a good case, however I don't think just 2 events can decide the year so decisively. Especially when Rosewall only won one of them. As far as contemporaries of the time go I would point out that one of those you named 'Robert Geist' was not a contemporary expert, his rankings came after 1970 - though he of course rated them all equal. Worth pointing out that the seeding committee which consistently gave Laver the #1 seed in early 1971 would also be contemporary experts as well.
