At their best, who would win?

Dan Lobb · Jan 15, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Dan, I cannot agree that the big pro events must be considered second tier compared to the elite four.

Wembley, the WCT finals and so on should be ranked ahead of the amateur GS tournaments at least.

Yes, before open tennis arrived, but the WCT only happened after open tennis.
Sure in the late fifties, the Forest Hills Pro was the preeminent tennis tournament in the game, perhaps of all time.
And Wembley was the premier tournament of 1952 and 1953 (although the Davis Cup was the most followed tennis event between 1946 and 1967).
I think that in 1956, Wembley and Wimbledon were on a par.
But once open tennis arrived, the grand slam had an enhanced and special meaning, even during the boycotted years.

kiki · Jan 15, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, when discussing with other posters including yourself I assume a certain niveau! Rosewall has 10 big titles??? Learn history!!!

As I said, Newcombe was the player no one wanted to face in the early 70´s.He is in the decade´s top three, along Borg and Connors.

kiki · Jan 15, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Roche outclassed Newcombe clearly in 1968 and 1969 before he got severe arm troubles. He was acknowledged as Laver's heir. Then Newcombe came at the top but NEVER clearly: In 1970 Rosewall had the better balance. In 1971 Smith was a t least as strong, in 1973 Nastase was at least equal. In 1974, at "world's best", he lost terribly to greatgrandpa Rosewall in the two big tournaments

I don't have ressentiments against Newk as a person.

Roche was a superb player, with vast talent.he was John´s teammate and both knew each other too well.Those things happen in tennis, you should know that.But he was never, even as much talented as he was, at Newcombe´s dominating level.

BobbyOne · Jan 15, 2013

kiki said:
As I said, Newcombe was the player no one wanted to face in the early 70´s.He is in the decade´s top three, along Borg and Connors.

kiki, I can agree but this is not an answer to my statement. I'm sorry.

BobbyOne · Jan 15, 2013

kiki said:
Roche was a superb player, with vast talent.he was John´s teammate and both knew each other too well.Those things happen in tennis, you should know that.But he was never, even as much talented as he was, at Newcombe´s dominating level.

kiki, you forget 1968 and 1969.

kiki · Jan 15, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, you forget 1968 and 1969.

You mean 1969 Wimbledon?

I posted before: the best rivalry of the late 60´s , even moreso than Laver vs Rosewall would be Newcombe vs Roche.

pc1 · Jan 15, 2013

kiki said:
You mean 1969 Wimbledon?

I posted before: the best rivalry of the late 60´s , even moreso than Laver vs Rosewall would be Newcombe vs Roche.

From the ITF website

NEWCOMBE, John
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

vs

ROCHE, Tony
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

7 *Record 3
68 (23 May 1944) Age 67 (17 May 1945)
Sydney, NSW, Australia Birth Place Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia
New Braunfels, TX, USA Residence Sydney, Australia
Right Handed Plays Left Handed
Year Tournament Nation Surface Round Winner Score
1969 U.S. Open USA Grass SF ROCHE 6-3 4-6 6-4 3-6 6-8
1969 Wimbledon GBR Grass SF NEWCOMBE 3-6 6-1 14-12 6-4
1969 Rome ITA Clay FR NEWCOMBE 6-3 4-6 6-2 5-7 6-3
1969 Australian Open AUS Grass QF ROCHE 8-10 6-4 8-6 5-7 3-6
1970 GP/WCT Louisville USA Clay SF NEWCOMBE 6-3 8-6
1971 Tehran IRI Clay QF NEWCOMBE 7-6 7-6
1974 Sydney Indoor AUS SF NEWCOMBE 4-6 6-1 6-4
1974 U.S. Open USA Grass 32 NEWCOMBE 4-6 7-6 6-3 7-5
1975 Australian Open AUS Grass SF NEWCOMBE 6-4 4-6 6-4 2-6 11-9
1980 Sydney Indoor AUS Hard 32 ROCHE 4-6 6-7

pc1 · Jan 15, 2013

Delete 11 character.

kiki · Jan 15, 2013

pc1 said:
From the ITF website

NEWCOMBE, John
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

vs

ROCHE, Tony
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

7 *Record 3
68 (23 May 1944) Age 67 (17 May 1945)
Sydney, NSW, Australia Birth Place Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia
New Braunfels, TX, USA Residence Sydney, Australia
Right Handed Plays Left Handed
Year Tournament Nation Surface Round Winner Score
1969 U.S. Open USA Grass SF ROCHE 6-3 4-6 6-4 3-6 6-8
1969 Wimbledon GBR Grass SF NEWCOMBE 3-6 6-1 14-12 6-4
1969 Rome ITA Clay FR NEWCOMBE 6-3 4-6 6-2 5-7 6-3
1969 Australian Open AUS Grass QF ROCHE 8-10 6-4 8-6 5-7 3-6
1970 GP/WCT Louisville USA Clay SF NEWCOMBE 6-3 8-6
1971 Tehran IRI Clay QF NEWCOMBE 7-6 7-6
1974 Sydney Indoor AUS SF NEWCOMBE 4-6 6-1 6-4
1974 U.S. Open USA Grass 32 NEWCOMBE 4-6 7-6 6-3 7-5
1975 Australian Open AUS Grass SF NEWCOMBE 6-4 4-6 6-4 2-6 11-9
1980 Sydney Indoor AUS Hard 32 ROCHE 4-6 6-7

Thanks.Maybe their best match was the 1975 AO semi?

BobbyOne · Jan 15, 2013

kiki said:
You mean 1969 Wimbledon?

I posted before: the best rivalry of the late 60´s , even moreso than Laver vs Rosewall would be Newcombe vs Roche.

kiki, I mean Roche did better than Newcombe in 1968 and 1969 in majors and was ranked ahead of Newk . As an intelligent man you should know this.

Of course Laver/Rosewall was clearly better than Newcombe/ Roche. Don't you know that Laver and Rosewall are arguably the two all-time greatest?

You pick one match and believe you have catched the truth. That's not serious!

Roche beat Newcombe in the 1969 AO and the 1969 US Open. Roche was 5.4 against peak Laver in 1969.

BobbyOne · Jan 15, 2013

pc1 said:
From the ITF website

NEWCOMBE, John
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

vs

ROCHE, Tony
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

7 *Record 3
68 (23 May 1944) Age 67 (17 May 1945)
Sydney, NSW, Australia Birth Place Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia
New Braunfels, TX, USA Residence Sydney, Australia
Right Handed Plays Left Handed
Year Tournament Nation Surface Round Winner Score
1969 U.S. Open USA Grass SF ROCHE 6-3 4-6 6-4 3-6 6-8
1969 Wimbledon GBR Grass SF NEWCOMBE 3-6 6-1 14-12 6-4
1969 Rome ITA Clay FR NEWCOMBE 6-3 4-6 6-2 5-7 6-3
1969 Australian Open AUS Grass QF ROCHE 8-10 6-4 8-6 5-7 3-6
1970 GP/WCT Louisville USA Clay SF NEWCOMBE 6-3 8-6
1971 Tehran IRI Clay QF NEWCOMBE 7-6 7-6
1974 Sydney Indoor AUS SF NEWCOMBE 4-6 6-1 6-4
1974 U.S. Open USA Grass 32 NEWCOMBE 4-6 7-6 6-3 7-5
1975 Australian Open AUS Grass SF NEWCOMBE 6-4 4-6 6-4 2-6 11-9
1980 Sydney Indoor AUS Hard 32 ROCHE 4-6 6-7

Thanks, pc1, It confirms my statement that Roche did better than Newcombe in the end-1960s at majors.

kiki · Jan 15, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, I mean Roche did better than Newcombe in 1968 and 1969 in majors. As an intelligent man you should know this.

Of course Laver/Rosewall was clearly better than Newcombe/ Roche. Don't you know that Laver and Rosewall are arguably the two all-time greatest?

You pick one match and believe you have catched the truth. That's not serious!

Roche beat Newcombe in the 1969 AO and the 1969 US Open. Roche was 5.4 against peak Laver in 1969.

My darling and your darling among the all time greats?? oh¡ that is not possible.

As PC1 posted, Newcombe dominated Roche in the long term.I know Roche played his best tennis from 1968 to 1970, being considered by many the next Rod Laver and Laver himself clealry feared another left handed that had the game to beat him.Laver was smart, you know.

Having said that, Newcombe was the clear n1 in a general overlook from 1970 to 1974.Not that he was nº 1 every year and of course, that era is one of the toughest ever, so he lost to other great champions on the ocasion. But He looked unbeatable when he wanted to, as Rosewall himself painfully experienced in the 1970 and 1971 Wimbledon as well as the 1973 US Open.

BobbyOne · Jan 15, 2013

kiki said:
My darling and your darling among the all time greats?? oh¡ that is not possible.

As PC1 posted, Newcombe dominated Roche in the long term.I know Roche played his best tennis from 1968 to 1970, being considered by many the next Rod Laver and Laver himself clealry feared another left handed that had the game to beat him.Laver was smart, you know.

Having said that, Newcombe was the clear n1 in a general overlook from 1970 to 1974.Not that he was nº 1 every year and of course, that era is one of the toughest ever, so he lost to other great champions on the ocasion. But He looked unbeatable when he wanted to, as Rosewall himself painfully experienced in the 1970 and 1971 Wimbledon as well as the 1973 US Open.

kiki,

First of all you have not apologized for your insult towards Rosewall ("10 majors won").

Have you forgotten that Roche almost did not play from 1971 to 1973 and that he was severely handicapped by his injuries? To omit this fact it's a shame. Shame on you, Mr. Much-watcher!

Newcombe did not want to be unbeatable in the 1970 US Open, in the 1971 WCT finals, in the 1974 Wimbledon and in the 1974 US Open??? Your theory is crap, sorry, is not serious, to say the least. You don't stop to belittle Rosewall. You should honour Muscles for dominating Newcombe even when being a grandpa!

Your recent posts are painful to read for every serious tennis fan. You reach Dan Lobb level effortlessly...

kiki · Jan 15, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki,

First of all you have not apologized for your insult towards Rosewall ("10 majors won").

Have you forgotten that Roche almost did not play from 1971 to 1973 and that he was severely handicapped by his injuries? To omit this fact it's a shame. Shame on you, Mr. Much-watcher!

Newcombe did not want to be unbeatable in the 1970 US Open, in the 1971 WCT finals, in the 1974 Wimbledon and in the 1974 US Open??? Your theory is crap, sorry, is not serious, to say the least. You don't stop to belittle Rosewall. You should honour Muscles for dominating Newcombe even when being a grandpa!

In 1974 Wimbledon, Newcombe, who was such a nice guy, knew Rosewall was on the edge of his last chance to win Wimbledon.John had won it three times, two of them beating Rosewall ( one of them a landslide) so he decided he´d let his buddy Kenny win it.He owed that to Kenny.

You know, Newcombe was no pockets.He had a golden heart and he showed it in 1974.He was happy enough to squander Borg at the 1974 WCT finals and he´d beat Connors to win his last big title in 1975.How did Rosewall do against Connors?

kiki · Jan 15, 2013

and know something funny? Your beloved Gimeno always had big trouble against Kodes.Life is fun.

kiki · Jan 15, 2013

pc1 said:
Arthur Ashe for example was named number one in 1975 due to his winning two big titles Wimbledon and the 1975 WCT Championship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5sBBFQfcNU

Check at about 4:25 in the video above. The commentator called the WCT Championship this years first major.

Also check the 10:20 mark which shows highlights of the great Laver/Borg match in that tournament.

Tennis was so good in the 70´s and 80´s that we were fortunate to have 5 majors and the AO as a great complement

BobbyOne · Jan 16, 2013

kiki said:
In 1974 Wimbledon, Newcombe, who was such a nice guy, knew Rosewall was on the edge of his last chance to win Wimbledon.John had won it three times, two of them beating Rosewall ( one of them a landslide) so he decided he´d let his buddy Kenny win it.He owed that to Kenny.

You know, Newcombe was no pockets.He had a golden heart and he showed it in 1974.He was happy enough to squander Borg at the 1974 WCT finals and he´d beat Connors to win his last big title in 1975.How did Rosewall do against Connors?

kiki, You are wrong: Newcombe wanted to win Wimbledon 1974. After his loss to Rosewall he was rather disappointed and he said: Hopefully Rosewall will win that tournament at last.

Dan Lobb · Jan 16, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Thanks, pc1, It confirms my statement that Roche did better than Newcombe in the end-1960s at majors.

It confirms other things, too.

Dan Lobb · Jan 16, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki,

First of all you have not apologized for your insult towards Rosewall ("10 majors won").

Have you forgotten that Roche almost did not play from 1971 to 1973 and that he was severely handicapped by his injuries? To omit this fact it's a shame. Shame on you, Mr. Much-watcher!

Newcombe did not want to be unbeatable in the 1970 US Open, in the 1971 WCT finals, in the 1974 Wimbledon and in the 1974 US Open??? Your theory is crap, sorry, is not serious, to say the least. You don't stop to belittle Rosewall. You should honour Muscles for dominating Newcombe even when being a grandpa!

Your recent posts are painful to read for every serious tennis fan. You reach Dan Lobb level effortlessly...

I think that YOU have reached Dan Lobb levels here.
I thought that Hoad's injuries were no excuse, but you keep dragging Roche's injuries into the discussion.
Welcome to the club, my friend!

BobbyOne · Jan 16, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
I think that YOU have reached Dan Lobb levels here.
I thought that Hoad's injuries were no excuse, but you keep dragging Roche's injuries into the discussion.
Welcome to the club, my friend!

Dan, Of course we should consider the injuries and illnesses of a player. Hoad and Roche were probably the two players with the greatest handicap because of their injuries. We only can speculate how far they would have come without them.

Pebbles10 · Jan 16, 2013

Wilander in the shape of 1988 would be a tuff match even for a top shaped Federer

Calor1 · Jan 16, 2013

Impossible to say IMO.
That being said I think Rafa on gravel would win against anyone on his best day. Don't think anyone could get him to 5 sets.

kiki · Jan 16, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, You are wrong: Newcombe wanted to win Wimbledon 1974. After his loss to Rosewall he was rather disappointed and he said: Hopefully Rosewall will win that tournament at last.

Exactly what I said.

As I said before, you cannot be both: human and dislike Newcombe.

kiki · Jan 16, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Dan, Of course we should consider the injuries and illnesses of a player. Hoad and Roche were probably the two players with the greatest handicap because of their injuries. We only can speculate how far they would have come without them.

They were but so was Manuel Orantes.The guy visited the surgeon at least 6 or 7 times while at his peak.He couldn´t keep it up for long time, still managed to be one of the best players of the decade.of course, he was extremely talented.

BobbyOne · Jan 16, 2013

kiki said:
Exactly what I said.

As I said before, you cannot be both: human and dislike Newcombe.

kiki, wrong: you said Newcombe wanted to lose while I say Newcombe was disappointed to having lost.

After his 1970 win Newk was asked if he was disappointed that he deprived Rosewall from a Wimbledon win, he answered:"Not at all".

Your absurd "argument" was disproved by Newk's loss to Rosewall at the US Open (Muscles had already won at the US Open).

You will never find a played who deliberately loses to do a favour to another player.

Your praise of Newk's character reaches the border of enslavement.

Newcombe was nasty to rank Stolle ahead of his friend, Roche. Come to earth!

BobbyOne · Jan 16, 2013

kiki said:
They were but so was Manuel Orantes.The guy visited the surgeon at least 6 or 7 times while at his peak.He couldn´t keep it up for long time, still managed to be one of the best players of the decade.of course, he was extremely talented.

Here I can agree.

pc1 · Jan 16, 2013

kiki said:
They were but so was Manuel Orantes.The guy visited the surgeon at least 6 or 7 times while at his peak.He couldn´t keep it up for long time, still managed to be one of the best players of the decade.of course, he was extremely talented.

Actually since we are talking about Orantes, I always felt that his best on clay was higher than many greats like Vilas, Connors and perhaps even Nastase. Not so sure about Nastase.

kiki · Jan 16, 2013

pc1 said:
Actually since we are talking about Orantes, I always felt that his best on clay was higher than many greats like Vilas, Connors and perhaps even Nastase. Not so sure about Nastase.

I could agree but Nastase had the edge in most of their cc matches.

kiki · Jan 16, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, wrong: you said Newcombe wanted to lose while I say Newcombe was diaappointed to having lost.

After his 1970 win Newk was asked if he was disappointed that he deprived Rosewall from a Wimbledon win, he answered:"Not at all".

Your absurd "argument" was disproved by Newk's loss to Rosewall at the US Open (Muscles had already won at the US Open).

You will never find a played who deliberately loses to do a favour to another player.

Your praise of Newk's character reaches the border of enslavement.

Newcombe was nasty to rank Stolle ahead of his friend, Roche. Come to earth!

I was exagerating a bit, on purpose.truth is many aussies of the 60´s were straight, humorous, great sports guys with a very healthy atittude.Even pockets Rosewall was known to be a humble, gentle guy.I am sure Newcombe and Roche had their ups and downs and maybe Newcombe was challenging Roche by ranking Stolle ahead of him...and why not? Stolle has 2 majors to Roche´s one.

kiki · Jan 16, 2013

Come to think abotu, and even if it is out of the thread, the best 4 yeras in my opinion are all tied with " 1".

My top ten for

1961: Hoad,Gonzales,Rosewall,Trabert,Sedgman,Kramer,Segura and three top amateurs called Laver,Santana and Emerson.Rien va plus.and then add up Stolle,Mc Kinley,Olmedo,Segura,Cooper,Anderson,

1971: Newcombe,Laver,Ashe,Nastase,Rosewall,Kodes,Smith and also Gimeno,Okker and Roche ( plus Orantes,Lutz,Hewitt,Gorman,Richey,Panatta,Pilic,Metrevali,Ralston,Riessen,Barthes,Proisy,Mc Millan...)

1981: greats Borg,Mc Enroe,Lendl,Connors and next Gerulatisi,Kriek,Clerc,Mayer,Tanner,Vilas,Pecci ( and also consider guys like Amritraj,Gottfried,Fibak,Noah,Teltscher,Tarozcy).it was a great great year

1991: Becker,Edberg, Agassi,Sampras,Courier,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Stich, Forget or Leconte and guys like Mac and Lendl,Wilander,Medvedev,Muster,Martin)

I don´t think there have been beter years than those 4, all of them ending up in " 1 "... more opinions?

BobbyOne · Jan 16, 2013

kiki said:
I was exagerating a bit, on purpose.truth is many aussies of the 60´s were straight, humorous, great sports guys with a very healthy atittude.Even pockets Rosewall was known to be a humble, gentle guy.I am sure Newcombe and Roche had their ups and downs and maybe Newcombe was challenging Roche by ranking Stolle ahead of him...and why not? Stolle has 2 majors to Roche´s one.

Joking kiki, I know your attitude to exaggerating and joking. But PLEASE try to be objective and considering along the facts.

Roche was much stronger than Stolle. Roche was No.2 while Stolle at his best was No.5 (1967).

BobbyOne · Jan 16, 2013

kiki said:
Come to think abotu, and even if it is out of the thread, the best 4 yeras in my opinion are all tied with " 1".

My top ten for

1961: Hoad,Gonzales,Rosewall,Trabert,Sedgman,Kramer,Segura and three top amateurs called Laver,Santana and Emerson.Rien va plus.and then add up Stolle,Mc Kinley,Olmedo,Segura,Cooper,Anderson,

1971: Newcombe,Laver,Ashe,Nastase,Rosewall,Kodes,Smith and also Gimeno,Okker and Roche ( plus Orantes,Lutz,Hewitt,Gorman,Richey,Panatta,Pilic,Metrevali,Ralston,Riessen,Barthes,Proisy,Mc Millan...)

1981: greats Borg,Mc Enroe,Lendl,Connors and next Gerulatisi,Kriek,Clerc,Mayer,Tanner,Vilas,Pecci ( and also consider guys like Amritraj,Gottfried,Fibak,Noah,Teltscher,Tarozcy).it was a great great year

1991: Becker,Edberg, Agassi,Sampras,Courier,Bruguera,Chang,Krajicek,Stich, Forget or Leconte and guys like Mac and Lendl,Wilander,Medvedev,Muster,Martin)

I don´t think there have been beter years than those 4, all of them ending up in " 1 "... more opinions?

kiki, I only can rate these lists as first class jokes.

Kramer in 1961 playing? Rosewall No.5 in 1971? Candidates of best ever jokes...

kiki · Jan 16, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Joking kiki, I know your attitude to exaggerating and joking. But PLEASE try to be objective and considering along the facts.

Roche was much stronger than Stolle. Roche was No.2 while Stolle at his best was No.5 (1967).

I´ve seen both while seating a few rows behind them.Roche was a more complete player, but Stolle, in his day, was very dangerous.You don´t need to belittle Stolle to enhance Tony.

BobbyOne · Jan 16, 2013

kiki said:
I´ve seen both while seating a few rows behind them.Roche was a more complete player, but Stolle, in his day, was very dangerous.You don´t need to belittle Stolle to enhance Tony.

You also don't understand and use the basics of any discussion. It's not a belittleing of any player if I say that another player was ranked higher then him. The same with Rosewall and Newcombe...

But it's a belittleing if you put the better player down to the lesser as you use to do with Rosewall and Newcombe. You even sometimes put Newk ahead of Muscles!

I think I will stop to answer your distorted and absurd posts.

Have good dreams from Laver, Newcombe, Emerson, Stolle, Gorman and McKinley...

kiki · Jan 16, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, I only can rate these lists as first class jokes.

Kramer in 1961 playing? Rosewall No.5 in 1971? Candidates of best ever jokes...

Kramer could play with the best at 35, even if he didn´t do it often...and I didn´t name players according to their ranking.I just compiled a list with no ranking involved.

No better years in history than 61,71,81 and 91.My two cents.

kiki · Jan 16, 2013

BobbyOne said:
You also don't understand and use the basics of any discussion. It's not a belittleing of any player if I say that another player was ranked higher then him. The same with Rosewall and Newcombe...

But it's a belittleing if you put the better player down to the lesser as you use to do with Rosewall and Newcombe. You even sometimes put Newk ahaed of Muscles!

I think I will stop to answer your distorted and absurd posts.

Have good dreams from Laver, Newcombe, Emerson, Stolle, Gorman and McKinley...

Gutten nacht mein freundisch.a last couple of words.

I don´t rank Newcombe above Rosewall in the context of tennis history.I just mean Newcombe was a more dominant player in the early 70´s than Rosewall, even if it was, as I aknowledged, real close.I hope you are happy now and I wish you to dream with Rosewall´s backhand, that is, in case you really watched it live as I did.

BobbyOne · Jan 17, 2013

kiki said:
Gutten nacht mein freundisch.a last couple of words.

I don´t rank Newcombe above Rosewall in the context of tennis history.I just mean Newcombe was a more dominant player in the early 70´s than Rosewall, even if it was, as I aknowledged, real close.I hope you are happy now and I wish you to dream with Rosewall´s backhand, that is, in case you really watched it live as I did.

kiki, I'm not your friend anymore.

Newcombe won Wimbledon in 1970 and 1971, won US Open in 1973, won AO 1973, reached SF at US Open in 1970, won WCT in 1974, reached SF at US Open in 1974.

Rosewall won US Open 1970, AO in 1971 and 1972, WCT in 1971 and 1972, reached final at Wimbledon 1970, reached SF at Wimbledon 1971, reached SF US Open 1973, reached finals of Wimbledon 1974 and US Open 1974.

I would say that Rosewall's balance is better, but at least even.

Dan Lobb · Jan 17, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, I'm not your friend anymore.

Newcombe won Wimbledon in 1970 and 1971, won US Open in 1973, won AO 1973, reached SF at US Open in 1970, won WCT in 1974, reached SF at US Open in 1974.

Rosewall won US Open 1970, AO in 1971 and 1972, WCT in 1971 and 1972, reached final at Wimbledon 1970, reached SF at Wimbledon 1971, reached SF US Open 1973, reached finals of Wimbledon 1974 and US Open 1974.

I would say that Rosewall's balance is better, but at least even.

"Reached" doesn't do it.
Close only counts in curling and horseshoes.

BobbyOne · Jan 17, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
"Reached" doesn't do it.
Close only counts in curling and horseshoes.

Doubting Dan, You should accept tennis history.

kiki · Jan 17, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Doubting Dan, You should accept tennis history.

...and history says that, while Rosewall record is overall better, both had the same number of majors in the 70´s.But I doubt Rosewall could dominate like Newcombe.

BobbyOne · Jan 17, 2013

kiki said:
...and history says that, while Rosewall record is overall better, both had the same number of majors in the 70´s.But I doubt Rosewall could dominate like Newcombe.

kiki, I must contradict even in your favour: Newcombe won 6 majors in the 1970s while Rosewall won only 5 majors.

But Rosewall reached more big finals (3:0).

kiki · Jan 17, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, I must contradict even in your favour: Newcombe won 6 majors in the 1970s while Rosewall won only 5 majors.

But Rosewall reached more big finals (3:0).

Let me see.

Newcombe: 1 WCT, 2 Wimbledon, 2 AO, 1 USO = 6 majors

Rosewall: 2 WCT, 2 AO and 1 USO = 5 majors

You are right, Newcombe has one more big title.If we account the open era, Rosewall´s 1968 RG title puts them at the same figure.

Dan Lobb · Jan 18, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Doubting Dan, You should accept tennis history.

What history are you referring to?
Roche won which majors? And what were his summit achievements?
Compared to Hoad?
I like Hoad's record over other greats because his summit moments are the best ever.
Again, "reached" doesn't do it. It falls a step short of something.

BobbyOne · Jan 18, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
What history are you referring to?
Roche won which majors? And what were his summit achievements?
Compared to Hoad?
I like Hoad's record over other greats because his summit moments are the best ever.
Again, "reached" doesn't do it. It falls a step short of something.

Dan, please stop your ignorance. Don't we want to discuss on a high level?

I never said that Roche is ahead of Hoad in their achievements or their playing strength.

It's doubtful if Hoad's summit moments are the best ever.

Every serious expert does consider a player's top placings apart from his wins (finals reached, SFs reached). It's a huge difference if a player loses in the first round of Wimbledon or if he reaches the tournament's final.Thus you must make great efforts yet to be ranked as a serious expert...

pc1 · Jan 18, 2013

Just to make a point. Let's say a player wins Wimbledon and reaches the final of the US Open and loses. He won one of two majors played.

Let's say another player wins Wimbledon but loses in the first round of the US Open. Both won one of two majors played.

Who had the better record? Obviously the former.

BobbyOne · Jan 18, 2013

pc1 said:
Just to make a point. Let's say a player wins Wimbledon and reaches the final of the US Open and loses. He won one of two majors played.

Let's say another player wins Wimbledon but loses in the first round of the US Open. Both won one of two majors played.

Who had the better record? Obviously the former.

pc1, I hope you will convince Dan.

Dan Lobb · Jan 18, 2013

pc1 said:
Just to make a point. Let's say a player wins Wimbledon and reaches the final of the US Open and loses. He won one of two majors played.

Let's say another player wins Wimbledon but loses in the first round of the US Open. Both won one of two majors played.

Who had the better record? Obviously the former.

Unfortunately, there is only enough glory for one player in each major.
Runnerups are just that; a failure to win.
When we compile achievement records, it looks cheesy to list the runnerup totals, as if there are not enough championship achievements to fill out the list.
I understand that points are given for tournament results less than victories, and these points count for the season.
But the season total is ONE event, albeit a composite of many events.
We should list the season total as one victory, and not list the tournament standings unless there is an absolute win.

BobbyOne · Jan 18, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
Unfortunately, there is only enough glory for one player in each major.
Runnerups are just that; a failure to win.
When we compile achievement records, it looks cheesy to list the runnerup totals, as if there are not enough championship achievements to fill out the list.
I understand that points are given for tournament results less than victories, and these points count for the season.
But the season total is ONE event, albeit a composite of many events.
We should list the season total as one victory, and not list the tournament standings unless there is an absolute win.

Mysterious Dan, Your many words cannot avert my impression that you missed the point.

I give you an example for the importance of finals reached: In 1974 Rosewall did not win any tournaments. Nevertheless he was ranked as high as No.2 in the world by a true expert (Lance Tingay). Why? Because he reached the finals in the two most important tournaments, i.e Wimbledon and US Open. If you don't consider Rosewall's finals you should not rank him at all which would be a big mistake.

In 1975 Muscles won five tournaments but he was not ranked as high as in 1974. Thus we can see that big finals can be more important than victories (of lesser tournaments).

Dan Lobb · Jan 18, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Mysterious Dan, Your many words cannot avert my impression that you missed the point.

I give you an example for the importance of finals reached: In 1974 Rosewall did not win any tournaments. Nevertheless he was ranked as high as No.2 in the world by a true expert (Lance Tingay). Why? Because he reached the finals in the two most important tournaments, i.e Wimbledon and US Open. If you don't consider Rosewall's finals you should not rank him at all which would be a big mistake.

In 1975 Muscles won five tournaments but he was not ranked as high as in 1974. Thus we can see that big finals can be more important than victories (of lesser tournaments).

Interesting examples.
It seems to me that Rosewall had a better year in 1975, and when you say "not ranked as high" what do you mean? By Tingay? Or by the ATP?
Most points systems would give the higher ranking to 1975.

Certainly, the slam events have a greater value than a minor, but even the minors have varied weight, depending on their tradition or if they are a national title.
The Canadian is the third oldest tennis tournament in the world, and the Italian has a long and distinguished tradition.
I would agree with a weighted points system, which is what I believe is used now.

BobbyOne · Jan 19, 2013

Dan Lobb said:
Interesting examples.
It seems to me that Rosewall had a better year in 1975, and when you say "not ranked as high" what do you mean? By Tingay? Or by the ATP?
Most points systems would give the higher ranking to 1975.

Certainly, the slam events have a greater value than a minor, but even the minors have varied weight, depending on their tradition or if they are a national title.
The Canadian is the third oldest tennis tournament in the world, and the Italian has a long and distinguished tradition.
I would agree with a weighted points system, which is what I believe is used now.

Dan,

Rosewall in 1975 was ranked No.6 in the ATP list but not ranked in the top ten by the experts (I rank him at a Co. No.10 place).

All experts would agree that the 1974 Rosewall deserves a higher place than the 1975 Rosewall. You seem to be the only one who neglects top placings apart from tournament wins...

At their best, who would win?

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

New User

New User

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads