NadalAgassi, I would suggest to all posters and readers to simply forget Tennis Channel because it does not have any worth.
Last edited:
Whats your top 10 of all time right now?
- Thread starter 90's Clay
- Start date
NadalAgassi, I would suggest to all posters and readers to simply forget Tennis Channel because it does not have any worth.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Do you know Rosewall personally? :shock:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Why does the fact that "Fed has tied or exceeded all of Sampras's achievements" (not quite true by the way: Sampras still has the six consecutive year-end No 1's) mean that Sampras is pushed out of Tier 1? All it means is that Federer has surpassed him.
You do realise that Tier 1 doesn't have to be composed of guys with eclectic 'achievement sets' (i.e. all achieving their greatness in different ways). Two guys can achieve their greatness in very similar ways (Fed/Sampras; Borg/Nadal) and the fact that one has surpassed the other doesn't mean that both can't be in the top tier.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I believe he does. Why would the man write Muscles told him? You realize that I'm sure a number of people in this forum know some of the former players you and they discuss. Most have seen at least some of these players in their primes so they have a basis to possibly compare.
Phoenix, Yes I met Muscles four times in my life: 1975 at Wimbledon (only for an autograph, 1 minute or so), in 1986 and 1987 at Poertschach, Austria (Carinthia at a wonderful lake), both times about ten minutes of talking , and in 1992 near Hamburg, Germany at an ATP senior's tournament for a longer interview and watching Vijay Amritraj playing tennis (Rosewall:" A great touch player").
And we are in contact with letters each year since about 1986. I think I possess 30 to 35 letters from Ken...
I watched Rosewall playing in every of those years and I was impressed how speedy he was even at a "high" age.
Phoenix , I agree.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Tier 1 and Tier 2 can mean different things for different people. Don Budge to me for years seemed to me to be in tier 1 and possibly the GOAT but it's not so clear to me now given some of the additional information we have today.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
TMF,
Please research something before you assume it to be true. As a few posters already wrote, that went out in the 1920's and Laver was born in 1938.
Here's a fact, Laver won 77 tournaments during the Open Era which started in 1968. Most of these 77 were won after Laver turned 30. I have no doubt Lave would have been around 200 tournament wins if the Open Era always existed.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Ah, I see.
May I suggest this personal acquaintance may cause you to rank Muscles higher than he should be?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Ah, I see.
May I suggest this personal acquaintance may cause you to rank Muscles higher than he should be?
I can't speak for BobbyOne but on record alone I believe Rosewall is a possible GOAT. If Rosewall was my arch enemy I would still consider him a possible GOAT when you examine his superb record.
Last edited:
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
The more I think about it the more I think Rosewall might be the best ever. While he had nowhere near as long a reign as the best in the World as Gonzales and Laver he still had about 3 years he was clearly the best. Meanwhile he was considered the best in the World on clay for about 15 years even if some years he lost the biggest pro clay title (not often). In fact perhaps he should be considered the clay GOAT ahead of Nadal, or at the very least should probably be 2nd over Borg. He could play and win on all surfaces, even at about 37 beating Laver in the biggest non Wimbledon and U.S Open event of the year at the WTF on fast indoor carpet 2 straight years, and making the Wimbledon and U.S open finals on grass in the same year at nearly 40, these being non clay feats and thus not even on his pet surface at that age. This is in contrast to Gonzales who won squat all on clay his entire career, and Federer who only won once at the 3 biggest clay events, and only when he could avoid Nadal and anyone who was a threat in the draw. Rosewall was also probably capable of winning more on grass, or any other surface, than Laver was capable of winning on clay (Laver was capable of winning big events on clay of course, but probably would have won fewer than Rosewall would on any surface). Had the Open Game been in place back then many have estimates of him winning more slams than anyone else, and probably for about years he would have won atleast 1 of the 4 slams for about 12 of a 16 year period had it been Open tennis with the 4 slams all the most valued events like today.
Ah, I see.
May I suggest this personal acquaintance may cause you to rank Muscles higher than he should be?
Phoenix, A person can never be sure if he or she is objective when ranking tennis players or other people or things. But at least I try to be objective.
I ranked Rosewall No.1 already before I met him for a longer talk the first time and before we changed letters...
pc1, please let me contradict here. Many of Laver's titles came from his amateur era where the competition was not as strong as in open era, especially regarding some Australian tournaments.
But it's pretty clear for me that The Rocket would have won far more than 100 open era tournaments.
NadalAgassi, On a bad day (I've caught a cold and have some pain in an ear) you nevertheless make me this day a good day.
Yes, Rosewall's record is awesome. As earlier said months ago I believe that Rosewall, along with Tilden, Gonzalez and Laver, would have won more than 20 open era GS tournaments and even more if he had stayed amateur.
His 23 majors speak for themselves...
I guess you have read my list of Rosewall achievements maybe on another thread about two months ago.
Regarding strength on clay I'm not as optimistic as you are. I think that Borg and maybe Nadal would win more matches in a series than Rosewall. And Laver on clay is a bit underrated. Remember that Laver beat Rosewall in one or two (was Cannes played on clay?) claycourt tournaments in 1963 and at Oklahoma (green clay) in 1967.
I'm sure that even more people will realize how great Rosewall is. I rank him No.1 with Laver.
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Your point is interesting, but I feel that if players are in the same tier, it means that we can't rank them --> if Sampras is in the same tier than Federer, it means that we don't know if Federer is better than Sampras or not. But we do. On the other hand, I agree that Sampras having been surpassed by Federer means he has been surpassed by all other tier 1 players, and thus should be put in tier 2. He may still be better that any tier 2 players.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Putting people in tiers doesn't mean that everyone in that tier is exactly equal, just that they are at a recognisable level above players in a lower tier. Hence (Open Era only), we could say something like:
Tier 1: Fed, Sampras, Borg, Nadal
Tier 2: Lendl, Connors, Agassi, McEnroe
Tier 3: Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Djokovic
Sampras would clearly be tier 1 Open Era, but still with the recognition that Fed is yet greater than he.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Oh for goodness sake. He was 35 and older in his last few Open Wimbledon finals. He was extremely young and not nearly at his peak in the first few. Yet the guy won on three grass court majors, one clay court major in the Open Era alone when he was a number of years over thirty.
To me a great player is one who proved he can win on all surfaces. Rosewall won majors on grass (he may have won more grass court tournaments than just about anyone), wood, red clay. He won two WCT championships which were essentially majors indoors over Rod Laver. He won Davis Cup several times. He was banned from playing the classic majors for over a decade, during his peak years and yet you keep harping on his losses at Wimbledon.
Question for you, do you really believe Rosewall wouldn't have won at least one Wimbledon if Open player was around during his peak years?
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Please get this into your head as you're still not understanding what I am saying: a man who reaches 5 Wimbledon finals and does not win a single one, while at the same time he is good enough to win all other major tournaments he's competing in, cannot be GOAT. This is because players like Laver and Federer did manage to win all major tournaments they competed in - often, when not at peak (i.e. Federer's 2012 Wimbledon win).
It does not matter whether he would have won Wimbledon in other years - I cannot accept that a guy who gets to 5 Wimbledon finals and doesn't win a single one can be GOAT. The GOAT - by definition - is the greatest to play the sport. A man who plays five times on the sport's biggest stage and does not win once cannot, IMHO, possibly be the greatest ever. Those who believe that he is are, IMHO, setting standards for GOAT too low.
Apologies if this appears rude - it's just that I don't think you are getting my argument...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I get your argument and it doesn't upset me but I still disagree with your logic.
To use the old boring phrase, I guess we are to agree to disagree.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
OK.
FWIW, I rank Rosewall at No 6 all-time (highest ranking I give to anyone, male or female, who didn't win Wimbledon). I just can't quite accept him as GOAT.
Nevertheless I do enjoy learning about past greats and much of the information on Rosewall provided by BobbyOne and others is very interesting.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
OK.
FWIW, I rank Rosewall at No 6 all-time (highest ranking I give to anyone, male or female, who didn't win Wimbledon). I just can't quite accept him as GOAT.
Nevertheless I do enjoy learning about past greats and much of the information on Rosewall provided by BobbyOne and others is very interesting.
Phoenix1983,
This is not to convince you but I thought I would explain some of my thinking in this matter.
My logic for GOAT is based on a number of factors. I will explain a few of them. Obviously accomplishments are important but also ability to play on all surfaces. Rosewall in this case has more than proven his ability to win on grass. If I counted correctly Rosewall won 52 grass court tournaments which is actually (again if I counted correctly) one more than Rod Laver! I also take in account historical factors as the Pro/Amateur divide in which the pros were not able to play the classic majors. Pancho Gonzalez imo is possibly as great a player that has ever played the game but he never won Wimbledon. And yes he did compete at Wimbledon as an amateur in 1949 losing in the fourth round. As a pro later he competed (he was around 40 and over) four times and did not win the tournament, not even reaching the quarterfinals even once. I do not hold that against Gonzalez because I know he was but a shadow of what he used to be. However between 1950 and 1967 Pancho Gonzalez won many Pro Majors, many head to head tours which in my opinion may be more impressive than winning majors. He won on grass, clay, indoors and hard court. I counted wood as a hard court but Gonzalez won on wood also which from what I understand, may have been the fastest surface ever. Gonzalez's record is arguably the greatest ever. I feel that he didn't have to win every classic major to prove his greatness. I feel that logic also works with Rosewall. Let's put it this way, Roy Emerson won every major but I don't think he is nearly the player Rosewall was.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Pancho was a true great and underestimated by those who only look at the classic majors. However he never won a clay court pro major, so I can't consider him GOAT either. (P.S. I don't consider winning pro majors as impressive as winning Open era majors...)
But it's obvious that Pancho was further from peak than Rosewall, on the few occasions he played at Wimbledon, i.e. late 40s and late 60s when he was eventually allowed to compete again. He was hardly able to win any majors, or even reach finals, in those periods. Rosewall on the other hand was winning everything else (amateur and Open era) but yet kept coming up short in W finals.
Of course Pancho and Ken are > Emerson. They're also greater than Agassi and Perry who won all four classic majors.
However their records of dominance and versatility do not quite match Federer and Laver.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
There were no open era equivalents of majors before the open era began.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Um, are you agreeing with me or not?
My point was that the amateur era majors (AO,FO,W,US) and the pro majors (US, Wembley, French etc.) are, IMHO, not as prestigious as the Open Era majors of AO,FO,W,US.
Funny how you never said the same thing about Laver's 1969 GS and his 200 titles.
If one has *clearly* surpassed the other, you're doing disservice to the one that is superior by clubbing him with the lesser one. Federer was in tier I with Sampras since the time he won 12 slams. It does not make sense to retain the same tier structure despite Federer adding a handful of records (and slams) since then.
IMO, you group a few folks into a tier because you have trouble coming up with a relative ranking (e.g. Federer - Laver, or Sampras - Laver) among that group, so you treat them as "equals". In the case of Federer-Sampras, it is clear that Federer > Sampras, so you can actually rank them. My tiers (fans of Rosewall, Hoad etc., can feel free to insert respective favorites as they please):
1. Federer, Laver
2. Sampras, Borg, Nadal
3. Lendl, Connors, Agassi, JMac
4. Edberg, Becker, Djokovic
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Well this is where we differ, I don't treat everyone in the same tier as equals. It's just everyone who has achieved a certain level of achievement (or higher).
i.e. for Open Era greats (my criteria only - people choose different criteria of course),
Tier 1: 10+ slams (among which we can rank Fed, Sampras, Borg, Nadal)
Tier 2: 7-8 slams + at least some dominance (Lendl, Connors, Agassi, Mac)
Tier 3: 5-6 slams, or 7 slams with no dominance (Becker, Edberg, Wilander, Djokovic)
I don't think we should rank Sampras/Borg/Nadal anywhere other than the top tier in the Open Era, even if we concede that Federer has surpassed them all and is clearly at the top of tier 1.
Phoenix, I will not again answer your attack on Rosewall.
Federer has a superb record. There are just a few flaws: no Grand Slam , no French Open against Nadal, "only" 17 majors in comparison to Rosewall's 23...
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Who cares that he has not won the FO beating Nadal? He has won the tournament and that's all that matters. No other GOAT contender is put down because of their failures against a specific opponent.
Please do not compare Rosewall's 23 majors with Federer's 17. As you well know, only 4 of Rosewall's titles were won against a full, Open Era field. The previous 19 were lesser tournaments from a historical perspective.
No CYGS, you are correct. This is why Laver still has a claim as GOAT.
Phoenix, It's really a great pity that you ignore all reasonable arguments and logic told by pc1, BobbyOne and surely some other guys!
It's an exception that Federer won at Wimbledon after his peak. Mostly players win at W. In their prime.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Um, are you agreeing with me or not?
My point was that the amateur era majors (AO,FO,W,US) and the pro majors (US, Wembley, French etc.) are, IMHO, not as prestigious as the Open Era majors of AO,FO,W,US.
So basically, all players from before the open era are excluded from being GOAT contenders, in your opinion? Heck, even well into the open era, many majors fell to different political disputes, and 1973 Wimbledon had a mass boycott on the men's side with 81 players staying away. The contracted pros were also banned from the 1972 French Open and 1972 Wimbledon after being sanctioned by the ILTF.
At the French Open, 1970 saw the contracted pros stay away due to prize money disputes, there were concerns about the quality of the facilities in years after that, and 1974-1978 saw anyone who played World TeamTennis banned from the same year's French Open tournament.
At the Australian Open, 1970 saw the NTL players stay away due to political disputes, 1972-1977 saw concerns over the prize money, and then 1977-1981 saw concerns over the awful slot the tournament had on the calendar over and around Christmas time. Even after the move to the current Melbourne Park venue in 1988 and making it a 128 player draw, a few players like Connors and Agassi still stayed away.
With all these facts known, it is ridiculous to talk about majors from past players as though they played in the same conditions as today, as well as blaming past players for not being able to play in the same conditions as today.
1969 was in the open era. Laver did win 200 titles, and well over 70 of these were in the open era. When Laver played in the open era, he was aged 29 or older.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Where did I say that?
I just said that I don't consider 1 major, pre-Open Era, to be equivalent to an Open Era major. There are reasons for considering amateur and pro majors not as prestigious, given that they didn't feature all top competitors in the same tournament. Yes, I am aware that even certain early Open Era majors suffered from such issues due to the disputes/scheduling that you outlined.
Of course players can be GOAT contenders from the pre-Open Era (Rosewall, Gonzales, Laver etc.) and I think Laver is still a good shout for GOAT.
All I'm saying is that, due to the relative lack of competition, you'd need to have won more majors pre-Open Era (along with appropriate dominance over field, surface versatility etc.) to have an equivalent to Federer's 17 in the Open Era and to challenge Fed for GOAT status.
Not sure what you're referring to here.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
People are ignoring my reasonable logic that a man who loses in five Wimbledon finals without ever winning one cannot be the greatest of all time!
pc1, It's very much commendable that you try to elucidate Phoenix that Rosewall is a GOAT candidate. But its seems that his "idee fixe" is a bit more stubborn than all reasonable arguments are convincing . Maybe Phoenix will be inspired a bit more in the coming year.
Erring is not a shame (errare humanum est). It's just a shame to persist on an error despite of well-thought contra arguments.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Please don't be so patronising.
I have not made a logical error, I'm just expressing a difference of opinion from yourself and pc1. I have already explained why I consider Gonzales a different case from Rosewall, yet nobody seems to read my explanation on that and people keep harping on about Gonzales as well.
There is nothing strange about why I consider Rosewall to have a fatal weakness in his GOAT case. 5 Wimbledon finals, when he is winning at all other venues, and not able to translate a single one into victory. This on the sport's grandest stage. The man simply cannot be GOAT.
Phoenix, Gonzalez was 21 when he played at Wimbledon. Rosewall was 19 and 21 when he played W. Please avoid double standards for R. and G.
But at least we can say that the pro majors were at least equivalents to the amateur majors, a fact often denied by "experts". In fact the pro majors were greater events than the amateur majors.
Phoenix, Your logic is breathtaking: You blame Rosewall for not winning Wimbledon although he lost 13 years including all his prime years but give Federer full respect for winning at Paris without meeting clay king, Nadal.
Only winning counts for you regardless the competition. That way you must rank Emerson higher than Laver, Rosewall and Borg!
You are wrong also at another point: Rosewall won the AO 1972 against a rather weak field. We should rank his pro majors (where the competition was stronger than at the 1972 AO) higher than this.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983, Sorry for patronising you.
I have already disproved your double standard Rosewall/Gonzalez but you seem to ignore it. Your explanation has not convinced me.
Last edited:
And Federer is the only player to win 17 slams, 6 WTFs, and tie Nadal with 21 Master Shields
I agree that this is a negative in Rosewall's record, at least to some degree. You've argued that Rosewall won the Australian, French and US titles in those periods when he failed at Wimbledon, which is a good point and one that I made some months ago. The way I put it: if he was good enough to win the grasscourt majors in Australia and New York, he should have been good enough to win at Wimbledon. The fact that he didn't is a genuine failure: he failed to do what he should have been able to do.
However I can't agree at all that those losses disqualify him from being the GOAT. Yeah I know the whole GOAT debate is largely subjective, and when it comes right down to it, anyone can say, "I place a high priority on X factor, and if I don't see a player accomplishing X, then he can't be GOAT. Not for me." In that sense I'm not going to try to change your mind.
But Rosewall just spent too much time barred from Wimbledon to be able to pin him with a GENERAL failure to win Wimbledon in his career. He lost at Wimbledon at certain times, and losses count; that's fine. But he lost 11 seasons to the pro game: his 11 best years. Those were by far his best chances to win Wimbledon, and he almost certainly would have taken 1 or 2 titles if not more.
I'm not trying to hand him imaginary wins, by the way. I'm just saying, he didn't fail to win at Wimbledon in his best years. He failed in years when he was a level, or more, below his alltime best; so his failure at Wimbledon is not comprehensive, not central to his career.
Think of it, at least 50% of his career was spent away from Wimbledon. He had 11 seasons as a barred pro. And he had 11 seasons in which he was making the finals of the classic majors (1953-56 and 1968-74). How can someone be disqualified from being GOAT for a failure that only covers half his career, and not even his best half?
This whole Rosewall situation reminds me of Navratilova and the USO. Martina had a poor, sometimes dismal record at the USO before she won it in '83, when she really was at her best. She was so good then that there was no stopping her anywhere. Something like that is what we're saying about Rosewall: he was not allowed to play his best tennis at Wimbledon, as Martina was able to do at the USO.
And yet Martina's USO losses before '83 all still count, when evaluating her entire career. When you weigh the whole career, everything counts to some degree: just as Rosewall's early and late losses at Wimbledon count. On that point I think you're right.
I think Federer's being held to too high a standard here. The fact that he's never beaten Nadal at RG just means he's not the claycourt GOAT. Only another GOAT-level claycourter can be expected to beat a peak and healthy Nadal at RG.
That's not to say that no one can do it; someone might. And if they do, kudos to them; they found a way to do it. But to expect it, or require it, is something else. You really could only expect it of someone who was on Rafa's level on clay: or someone who, like Nadal, is claimed to be the claycourt GOAT. But none of that is claimed for Federer.
Laver is not the claycourt GOAT either, but he's on everyone's short list of GOAT candidates.
krosero, I'm grateful for your support and your arguments. I do know that your words are taken here with more respect than mine. Maybe this comes also from the fact that I sometimes use unfriendly words towards posters who I regard as stubborn or unfriendly to me.
You seem to find the right words in this case which is probably important in the correct valuation of Rosewall's achievements. You agree with Phoenix that it was a failure for Muscles to not win at Wimbledon while he won all other official majors. But you rightly also say that this failure does not disqualify Rosewall for a possible GOAT position.
May I correct you in two small points (a point is always rather small...): Rosewall even lost 13 years to the pros at Wimbledon as he could not participate also in 1972 and 1973 when he would have decent chances to win that "damned thing". Muscles, as we know reached two finals and one SF around these years.
And the missing 11 years were not completely Rosewall's best years. He was not barred from the majors in 1970 and 1971 which I rate a bit higher than some years in the 11 years span (1957 to 1959, 1966 and 1967).
Yes maybe I did expect too much from Federer to beat Nadal at Roland Garros. But of course it's much easier to win Paris when Nadal is absent or injured. And I want to show that Federer is generally overrated in the sense as though he would be the best in EVERY aspect of the game. There was a poster, for instance, who claimed some while ago that even Federer's backhand is the best of all time. That's similary to a potential claim from me that Rosewall's forehand is the best ever or even his service....
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Obviously the forum is loaded with trolls who have stupid claims regarding Federer's level or his rival's level. It is better to ignore them that to build your opinion in reaction to these non-sense.
forzamilan90
Legend
Well said. But there are such claims for other players too. I was led to believe Rosewall hit 140 mph backhands for example.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Yes, I know this problem because after I suscribed to this forum beginned to dislike Nadal only because of non-sense I readed from some trolls. Now I simply ignore them, which allow me to like Nadal again (and miss him). It is easy to fall in the trap to dislike a player only in reaction to stupid claim.
Flash O'Groove,
If I understand you correctly you call rather the Federer praising posters as trolls than me. Thanks.
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
I'm not sure to understand you correctly not to be understood correctly (english is not my first language). I don't call you a troll. I reckon that lot of posters are "*******s" which could cause you to dislike Fed in reaction to their claims. It happened to me with the *******s. I looked for gap in Nadal's carreer to counter their claims and thus I underrated Nadal for a time. Now I know that, if Nadal is not as superior to Fed on hard as they said, he is a hell of a player, including on hard.
Of course I may assume wrongly that you do the same mistake I did.
forzamilan90
Legend
Flash where are you from man?
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
French speaking part of Switzerland. Are you eastern european? Given your moniker I would guess you are from northern Italy ;-)
Similar threads
