Connors v Borg 1978 and the no.1 ranking

BobbyOne · Apr 7, 2013

borg number one said:
Borg was a great grass court player. He would have been very tough for Newcombe, Laver, or any other player at Wimbledon. He would have given them plenty of trouble as well, especially with his passing shots and all around play. He defeated Connors (several matches), Nastase, McEnroe, Tanner, and Gerulaitis in big matches at Wimbledon and won 41 matches in a row there. He also won Wimbledon without losing a set while winning 5 titles in a row.

borg number one, It's correct that Borg was very tough on grass. I only meant that he was even greater on clay. At Wimbledon he had several matches where he almost struggled while at Paris he hardly did.

Tanner, Gerulaitis were strong grass courters but not of the level of Laver, Hoad, Rosewall, Newcombe and Roche.

Flash O'Groove · Apr 8, 2013

ARFED said:
Altough i don`t consider Rosewall the GOAT, it is just not reasonable to hold his record at Wimbledon against him. His 1974 Wimby has to be one of the greatest performances in a major during the open era (beating Tanner, Smith and Newcombe in succesion at 39 is just jaw dropping). There are numerous arguments agaist his GOATNESS, imo the main has to be the very weak field he reigned upon in the early 60`s, when the competition became tougher he never was alone at the top. However, his longevity (greatest in that department) and consistency at the top, which allowed him to perform so higly at the majors well past his prime, deserves nothing but praise.

For me, the doubt regarding the strength of the field he faced in the 60's is the only argument against him as a clear GOAT.

I'm not a specialist of that time frame, but I think that the pro tour was not equivalent to the open tour, because it lacked depth. A strong amateur would turn pro in the 50's, make a name of himself by facing household names, and maybe remain able to go far in pro major late in his career because of the lack of depth in the pro tour: talented tennis players like Emerson, Pietrangeli, Santana, Stolle, who could have challenged them, stayed amateurs. Even Laver could have been a challenge earlier, if he had become a pro earlier.
For exemple, I wonder if Pancho Segura could have sustained the competition of the amateurs I mentioned in the 60's, when he was still reaching finals at an old age. The separation of the tours hurt in a small extent the legacy of the pro and early open era players.

On the other hand, I'm not sure about this. I think that it is in general very hard to assess the strength of a field: any thing could mean either that the field is stronger or weaker: if Rosewall had lost a bit more, he could either be better because his competition would thus be better, or worse because he would have won less. For this reason, I consider this argument a rather weak argument against Rosewall legacy and goatness claim. It is also an argument which works for Laver too, as they shared the same field in the 60's. In general, the competition strength discussion lead to downgrade every single tennis player of any single era. Because if Rosewall had weak competition (and is thus a weaker player that it seems by looking at his resume), what does it say of the players of the 70's, against whom he was highly competitive? And then, what was the merit of the players of the late 70's to impose themselves against them? And so on.

borg number one · Apr 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
borg number one, It's correct that Borg was very tough on grass. I only meant that he was even greater on clay. At Wimbledon he had several matches where he almost struggled while at Paris he hardly did.

Tanner, Gerulaitis were strong grass courters but not of the level of Laver, Hoad, Rosewall, Newcombe and Roche.

I think Borg's strength on grass courts gets overlooked sometimes because he was just so far ahead of the competition on clay. Tanner and Gerulaitis were not on the same level as those former greats, but Connors and McEnroe were outstanding on grass courts. Yet, Bjorn Borg beating Connors twice in finals (and other times in semifinals) and also McEnroe in the final shows great ability by him on the surface. Borg would be extremely tough for any player to beat at Wimbledon, though I contend that with all time greats facing off, they'd all have wins and losses.

BobbyOne · Apr 8, 2013

Flash O'Groove said:
For me, the doubt regarding the strength of the field he faced in the 60's is the only argument against him as a clear GOAT.

I'm not a specialist of that time frame, but I think that the pro tour was not equivalent to the open tour, because it lacked depth. A strong amateur would turn pro in the 50's, make a name of himself by facing household names, and maybe remain able to go far in pro major late in his career because of the lack of depth in the pro tour: talented tennis players like Emerson, Pietrangeli, Santana, Stolle, who could have challenged them, stayed amateurs. Even Laver could have been a challenge earlier, if he had become a pro earlier.
For exemple, I wonder if Pancho Segura could have sustained the competition of the amateurs I mentioned in the 60's, when he was still reaching finals at an old age. The separation of the tours hurt in a small extent the legacy of the pro and early open era players.

On the other hand, I'm not sure about this. I think that it is in general very hard to assess the strength of a field: any thing could mean either that the field is stronger or weaker: if Rosewall had lost a bit more, he could either be better because his competition would thus be better, or worse because he would have won less. For this reason, I consider this argument a rather weak argument against Rosewall legacy and goatness claim. It is also an argument which works for Laver too, as they shared the same field in the 60's. In general, the competition strength discussion lead to downgrade every single tennis player of any single era. Because if Rosewall had weak competition (and is thus a weaker player that it seems by looking at his resume), what does it say of the players of the 70's, against whom he was highly competitive? And then, what was the merit of the players of the late 70's to impose themselves against them? And so on.

Flash, Thanks for your interesting thoughts.

But I strongly contradict ARFED and partly you that Rosewall in the 1960s had weak competition. As pc1 once cited Rosewall, Ken said that his opposition was weaker in open era than in his pro era.

Remember that the pros had the very best players, significantly better than the amateurs. Best example Laver's great run as an amateur in 1962 (22 tournaments won) and his huge failure in early 1963.

In the pro ranks there were only a few weaker players like Haillet, Davies and Nielsen. A Rosewall had to beat Anderson, Gimeno and Laver (or similary players) week for week while in amateur or open competition a top player had several easy matches.

A Laver or Rosewall would have won also the big events in the 1960s if the tournaments would have had a full field. Remember that these two won 8 out of the first 10 majors in open era (where they participated) even though they were old men then.

The 1960s pro field had Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez, Sedgman, Hoad, Segura, Trabert, Olmedo, Cooper, Anderson, Gimeno, Buchholz, MacKay, Stolle and Ralston. I could not imagine a stronger field at all! Even Olmedo and Cooper were Wimbledon winners, Anderson, Stolle and Ralston also being very strong...

I'm still waiting for a reasonable reason why Rosewall is not a worthy GOAT candidate.

BobbyOne · Apr 8, 2013

borg number one said:
I think Borg's strength on grass courts gets overlooked sometimes because he was just so far ahead of the competition on clay. Tanner and Gerulaitis were not on the same level as those former greats, but Connors and McEnroe were outstanding on grass courts. Yet, Bjorn Borg beating Connors twice in finals (and other times in semifinals) and also McEnroe in the final shows great ability by him on the surface. Borg would be extremely tough for any player to beat at Wimbledon, though I contend that with all time greats facing off, they'd all have wins and losses.

borg number one, I agree.

Phoenix1983 · Apr 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
I'm still waiting for a reasonable reason why Rosewall is not a worthy GOAT candidate.

People don't care if you think he is GOAT.

All that matters is that the wider world knows he is an all-time great but not GOAT. This is reflected in his ranking in all-time lists and will be reflected in his obituaries.

BobbyOne · Apr 8, 2013

Phoenix1983 said:
People don't care if you think he is GOAT.

All that matters is that the wider world knows he is an all-time great but not GOAT. This is reflected in his ranking in all-time lists and will be reflected in his obituaries.[/QUOTE

Obituary-Phoenix1983: Other people don't care about your strange opinion.

Even ARFED (really not a good friend of mine) and Flash O'Groove don't agree with your wrong opinion.

Considering your opinion and Bud Collins' conviction that Rosewall is a GOAT candidate, I decide rather to Bud's side...

You have two GOATS but most rankings have only ONE GOAT. So don't refer to official rankings!

You never gave me a true reason why Rosewall cannot be a GOAT contender. You only give aggression...

borg number one · Apr 8, 2013

I have only watched tennis since the late 1970's so Rosewall and Laver were before my time, but I do know that Ken Rosewall should make any credible list of all time greats. Rosewall won a ton of major titles, so he is rightly considered as one of the greatest players ever. Plus, I think you can make an argument for him being the greatest ever (all all time greats have pluses and minuses). Even if tennis was not as "global" in his time, with less depth in say spots 200-1000, or 32-128 at a major, his competition was simply of a different nature. Players back then, such as Rosewall, Laver, and Gonzalez, would face off against other great players very often, including the very best 20-30 players in the world. They pushed each other in fierce competition and they did it for the love of the sport, not money or fame. Aussie conditioning was extremely rigorous, with an emphasis on an all-court game (especially volleying). Playing other greats like Hoad, Gonzalez, Laver , Roche, Newcombe, etc. all your life is not "easy" competition in any form or manner. Great players facing each other year round raised the overall level of play.They must have really pushed each other and in many ways that's more difficult than having a few easy rounds before facing the toughest matches. Just think what would happen if Murray, Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer faced each other on large tours? Well, that's what Rosewall and co. were doing, year after year. Does that sound easy to anyone?

Phoenix1983 · Apr 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Obituary-Phoenix1983: Other people don't care about your strange opinion.

Considering your opinion and Bud Collins' conviction that Rosewall is a GOAT candidate, I decide rather to Bud's side...

You mean your good friend Bud Collins, the man who called you 'The Vienna Visionary'? (which, by the way, you made up - you don't even know Bud Collins)

I guarantee you Rosewall will be acknowledged as one the greats, but not as GOAT, by the majority of people and commentators. It's only you who makes laughable attempts to call him GOAT.

BobbyOne said:
You have two GOATS but most rankings have only ONE GOAT. So don't refer to official rankings!

I don't have two GOATS, I said Federer is the GOAT. However I said Laver is a worthy contender. Rosewall is not.

BobbyOne said:
You never gave me a true reason why Rosewall cannot be a GOAT contender. You only give aggression...

I have given you reasons but you are patronising and call them "wrong opinions".

Actually I find you quite obnoxious.

BobbyOne · Apr 8, 2013

borg number one said:
I have only watched tennis since the late 1970's so Rosewall and Laver were before my time, but I do know that Ken Rosewall should make any credible list of all time greats. Rosewall won a ton of major titles, so he is rightly considered as one of the greatest players ever. Plus, I think you can make an argument for him being the greatest ever (all all time greats have pluses and minuses). Even if tennis was not as "global" in his time, with less depth in say spots 200-1000, or 32-128 at a major, his competition was simply of a different nature. Players back then, such as Rosewall, Laver, and Gonzalez, would face off against other great players very often, including the very best 20-30 players in the world. They pushed each other in fierce competition and they did it for the love of the sport, not money or fame. Aussie conditioning was extremely rigorous, with an emphasis on an all-court game (especially volleying). Playing other greats like Hoad, Gonzalez, Laver , Roche, Newcombe, etc. all your life is not "easy" competition in any form or manner. Great players facing each other year round raised the overall level of play.They must have really pushed each other and in many ways that's more difficult than having a few easy rounds before facing the toughest matches. Just think what would happen if Murray, Djokovic, Nadal, and Federer faced each other on large tours? Well, that's what Rosewall and co. were doing, year after year. Does that sound easy to anyone?

borg number one, Well said. I fear that for Phoenix it will sound easy...

BobbyOne · Apr 8, 2013

Phoenix1983 said:
You mean your good friend Bud Collins, the man who called you 'The Vienna Visionary'? (which, by the way, you made up - you don't even know Bud Collins)

I guarantee you Rosewall will be acknowledged as one the greats, but not as GOAT, by the majority of people and commentators. It's only you who makes laughable attempts to call him GOAT.

I don't have two GOATS, I said Federer is the GOAT. However I said Laver is a worthy contender. Rosewall is not.

I have given you reasons but you are patronising and call them "wrong opinions".

Actually I find you quite obnoxious.

Phoenix,

It's your obnoxiousity to always try to blame me for my arguments.

You cannot read: You yet have seen that several posters here agree with me that Rosewall is a GOAT candidate.

There are also other people and experts who agree. F.i. Marty Riessen once said that Rosewall was the best player he saw. And he saw quite a few ones. F.i. he played about 25 times against Laver and is even with Rod...

It's interesting and a bit nasty to always write about Rosewall's death...

I dislike to insult other posters (or people at all) but you force me to call you a nasty man: Bud Collins is actually a good friend of mine and he really called me the Vienna Visionary and the Authoritative Austrian! It's a severe insult to indirectly call me a liar.

I never met Bud personally but we are in letter, e-mail and phone contact since about 18 years. By the way, believe me: this man knows a bit about tennis history.

In doubting my friendship with Bud you remind me to old Limpinhitter who doubted that I possess about 30 letters from Muscles. Are you a second Limpinhitter?

Get serious, my young colleague!

kiki · Apr 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Phoenix,

It's your obnoxiousity to always try to blame me for my arguments.

You cannot read: You yet have seen that several posters here agree with me that Rosewall is a GOAT candidate.

There are also other people and experts who agree. F.i. Marty Riessen once said that Rosewall was the best player he saw. And he saw quite a few ones.F.i. he is even with Laver...

It's interesting and a bit nasty to always write about Rosewall's death...

I dislike to insult other posters (or people at all) but you force me to call you a nasty man: Bud Collins is actually a good friend of mine and he really called me the Vienna Visionary and the Authoritative Austrian! It's a severe insult to indirectly call me a liar.

I never met Bud personally but we are in letter, e-mail and phone contact since about 18 years. By the way, believe me: this man knows a bit about tennis history.

In doubting my friendship with Bud you remind me to old Limpinhitter who doubted that I possess about 30 letters from Muscles. Are you a second Limpinhitter?

Get serious, my young colleague!

Keep those letters Bobby¡¡ in one century theý´ll be worthy like a Van Gogh draw¡¡¡ ken is Van Gogh of the sport.

NatF · Apr 8, 2013

kiki said:
Keep those letters Bobby¡¡ in one century theý´ll be worthy like a Van Gogh draw¡¡¡ ken is Van Gogh of the sport.

kiki I'm afraid Bobby and no one posting on this board will be around in a century.

kiki · Apr 8, 2013

NatF said:
kiki I'm afraid Bobby and no one posting on this board will be around in a century.

But this will be Bobby´ñs most valuable legacy to his grangrandsons.

OTOH, I made a deal with the Devil, so don´t count me out, Sir

BobbyOne · Apr 8, 2013

kiki said:
Keep those letters Bobby¡¡ in one century theý´ll be worthy like a Van Gogh draw¡¡¡ ken is Van Gogh of the sport.

kiki, Ken's letters will never reach the van Gogh prize level but at least Muscles is favoured above the painter that he got more money with his profession than (really) poor Vincent...

kiki · Apr 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
kiki, Ken's letters will never reach the van Gogh prize level but at least Muscles is favoured above the painter that he got more money with his profession than (really) poor Vincent...

That is a good point.And I just can´t imagine ken cutting down his ear to improve his overhead.

BobbyOne · Apr 8, 2013

kiki said:
That is a good point.And I just can´t imagine ken cutting down his ear to improve his overhead.

Some say that Ken's service was a certain weakness but they concede that his overhead smash was excellent. No reason for ear-cutting...

ARFED · Apr 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
Phoenix,

It's your obnoxiousity to always try to blame me for my arguments.

You cannot read: You yet have seen that several posters here agree with me that Rosewall is a GOAT candidate.

There are also other people and experts who agree. F.i. Marty Riessen once said that Rosewall was the best player he saw. And he saw quite a few ones. F.i. he played about 25 times against Laver and is even with Rod...

It's interesting and a bit nasty to always write about Rosewall's death...

I dislike to insult other posters (or people at all) but you force me to call you a nasty man: Bud Collins is actually a good friend of mine and he really called me the Vienna Visionary and the Authoritative Austrian! It's a severe insult to indirectly call me a liar.

I never met Bud personally but we are in letter, e-mail and phone contact since about 18 years. By the way, believe me: this man knows a bit about tennis history.

In doubting my friendship with Bud remind me to old Limpinhitter who doubted that I possess about 30 letters from Muscles. Are you a second Limpinhitter?

Get serious, my young colleague!

Bobby, just as a friendly advice, don`t use your supposed relationship to Bud Collins to strenghten your points. As true as it can be (i don`t find any reasons to doubt what you claim, as i don`t in any other poster), it just makes you look insecure. Besides, this patronizing tone of yours is disrespectful to the other posters. You are a very knowledgeable poster, i give you that, try to convince the others with arguments, which you have by the way, but avoid the arrogance.

Regarding Rosewall`s competition, it is true that he faced valuable opponents in the early 60`s, and in the years outside his prime he proved his talent by beating the best numerous times. The records are there ,not the 23 majors you claim by the way , that is a twisted true and you know it, at best you can say that he has 4 amateur majors, 4 open majors and 15 pro majors, but equating them all would be a mistake. Back to topic, the fact remains, when he was the dominant force on men`s tennis, his 3 main rivals were somewhere absent so to speak. Hoad with many health issues, Laver in the amateurs and then maturing in his first pro year and Gonzo being a part time player. In addition, he didn`t have to face the best amateurs, how do you know if Emerson or Santana wouldn`t have improved in the same way or at least at some exetent, as Laver did?? Competition is what makes a player better, Laver improved immensely just by facing the pros in 63, aided by his supernatural talent of course, Federer went from being a super talented kid with a giant potential to being a GOAT candidate in just 2 years (02-04), he
has stated many times that the 2 aspects that he had to change in his game to become the best were his mentality and his backhand. Hewitt and Nalbandian abused his backhand until 2004, look what happened after his improvements.

Rosewall greatness is not in doubt, at least from myself, he is not a GOAT candidate for me since i only have 2 of those (Fed and Laver), but i can understand if someone make an argument for him.

BobbyOne · Apr 8, 2013

ARFED said:
Bobby, just as a friendly advice, don`t use your supposed relationship to Bud Collins to strenghten your points. As true as it can be (i don`t find any reasons to doubt what you claim, as i don`t in any other poster), it just makes you look insecure. Besides, this patronizing tone of yours is disrespectful to the other posters. You are a very knowledgeable poster, i give you that, try to convince the others with arguments, which you have by the way, but avoid the arrogance.

Regarding Rosewall`s competition, it is true that he faced valuable opponents in the early 60`s, and in the years outside his prime he proved his talent by beating the best numerous times. The records are there ,not the 23 majors you claim by the way , that is a twisted true and you know it, at best you can say that he has 4 amateur majors, 4 open majors and 15 pro majors, but equating them all would be a mistake. Back to topic, the fact remains, when he was the dominant force on men`s tennis, his 3 main rivals were somewhere absent so to speak. Hoad with many health issues, Laver in the amateurs and then maturing in his first pro year and Gonzo being a part time player. In addition, he didn`t have to face the best amateurs, how do you know if Emerson or Santana wouldn`t have improved in the same way or at least at some exetent, as Laver did?? Competition is what makes a player better, Laver improved immensely just by facing the pros in 63, aided by his supernatural talent of course, Federer went from being a super talented kid with a giant potential to being a GOAT candidate in just 2 years (02-04), he
has stated many times that the 2 aspects that he had to change in his game to become the best were his mentality and his backhand. Hewitt and Nalbandian abused his backhand until 2004, look what happened after his improvements.

Rosewall greatness is not in doubt, at least from myself, he is not a GOAT candidate for me since i only have 2 of those (Fed and Laver), but i can understand if someone make an argument for him.

ARFED, Thanks for the serious tone in your post!

Maybe you are right regarding my friendship with Bud Collins. It comes from a defensive position, but is it my fault to defend me against nasty and aggression posts? I think: If an unfriendly poster does not trust me, he maybe would trust a man like Bud Collins who is a much greater expert than I am...

I don't feel I'm arrogant to serious posters. You could blame several posters for being arrogant ("I don't believe you know Bud Collins" )at least as much as me.

I'm still convinced that Rosewall in his peak years had tough competition: Gonzalez played a full year in 1961 (Rosewall not, by the way), Hoad was extremely strong those years inspite of his back problems (see his 8:0 against Laver) and Laver was also extremely strong already in 1963, at least in the second half of the year. Also very strong were Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Cooper, Anderson (he almost beat Jimmy Connors even at 39), Gimeno and others.

Rosewall was able to cope with Laver even in 1964 to 1966 in big events even though he was a bit old then: Laver won five biggies, Rosewall won four.

ARFED · Apr 8, 2013

BobbyOne said:
ARFED, Thanks for the serious tone in your post!

Maybe you are right regarding my friendship with Bud Collins. It comes from a defensive position, but is it my fault to defend me against nasty and aggression posts? I think: If an unfriendly poster does not trust me, he maybe would trust a man like Bud Collins who is a much greater expert than I am...

I don't feel I'm arrogant to serious posters. You could blame several posters for being arrogant ("I don't believe you know Bud Collins" )at least as much as me.

I'm still convinced that Rosewall in his peak years had tough competition: Gonzalez played a full year in 1961 (Rosewall not, by the way), Hoad was extremely strong those years inspite of his back problems (see his 8:0 against Laver) and Laver was also extremely strong already in 1963, at least in the second half of the year. Also very strong were Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Cooper, Anderson (he almost beat Jimmy Connors even at 39), Gimeno and others.

Rosewall was able to cope with Laver even in 1964 to 1966 in big events even though he was a bit old then: Laver won five biggies, Rosewall won four.

So let me get this straight, Rosewall between 61-64 faced extremely hard competition (past their primes Hoad, Pancho, Trabert, Sedgman, Laver since 63 only, really old Segura, Gimeno and amateur giants Cooper, Anderson and Olmedo) but Fed played between 04-07 a joke field (prime Roddick, prime Hewitt, prime Safin, prime Nalbandian, old Agassi, youngs Nadal and Djokovic, Henman, Ljubicic, Coria, Davydenko, Haas, Blake, etc). Call me crazy, but i don`t see it the same way you do

kiki · Apr 9, 2013

ARFED said:
So let me get this straight, Rosewall between 61-64 faced extremely hard competition (past their primes Hoad, Pancho, Trabert, Sedgman, Laver since 63 only, really old Segura, Gimeno and amateur giants Cooper, Anderson and Olmedo) but Fed played between 04-07 a joke field (prime Roddick, prime Hewitt, prime Safin, prime Nalbandian, old Agassi, youngs Nadal and Djokovic, Henman, Ljubicic, Coria, Davydenko, Haas, Blake, etc). Call me crazy, but i don`t see it the same way you do

What a long list of journeymen from Henman onwards!!

forzamilan90 · Apr 9, 2013

kiki said:
What a long list of journeymen from Henman onwards!!

What a list of open era greats pre Henman in the list!

NatF · Apr 9, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
What a list of open era greats pre Henman in the list!

At the very least Davydenko is no journeyman. The other guys were capable of some great tennis too...

Phoenix1983 · Apr 9, 2013

ARFED said:
Rosewall greatness is not in doubt, at least from myself, he is not a GOAT candidate for me since i only have 2 of those (Fed and Laver), but i can understand if someone make an argument for him.

Fed and Laver are the only true GOAT contenders if you examine the records.

Rosewall is an all-time great but his failures at Wimbledon will lead most of the tennis world to discount him as a GOAT candidate. As I said before, this will be reflected in his obituaries (I doubt many of them will say he is considered the greatest tennis player of all-time).

But we will leave 'the authoritative Austrian' to his beliefs.

forzamilan90 · Apr 9, 2013

Phoenix1983 said:
Fed and Laver are the only true GOAT contenders if you examine the records.

Rosewall is an all-time great but his failures at Wimbledon will lead most of the tennis world to discount him as a GOAT candidate. As I said before, this will be reflected in his obituaries (I doubt many of them will say he is considered the greatest tennis player of all-time).

But we will leave 'the authoritative Austrian' to his beliefs.

I'm with you on this one...some posters have too many GOAT candidates. Realistically the two best candidates are Federer and Laver. Best player of the older era and best player of open era. I pick Federer. Rosewall may very well be 2nd best after Laver (or Gonzales) but he ain't no GOAT in no realm but longevity. In terms of dominance, he can't compare with Rod and Rogi.

BobbyOne · Apr 9, 2013

ARFED said:
So let me get this straight, Rosewall between 61-64 faced extremely hard competition (past their primes Hoad, Pancho, Trabert, Sedgman, Laver since 63 only, really old Segura, Gimeno and amateur giants Cooper, Anderson and Olmedo) but Fed played between 04-07 a joke field (prime Roddick, prime Hewitt, prime Safin, prime Nalbandian, old Agassi, youngs Nadal and Djokovic, Henman, Ljubicic, Coria, Davydenko, Haas, Blake, etc). Call me crazy, but i don`t see it the same way you do

ARFED, I'm glad that you consider Rosewall's opposition as yet being a hard one.

But I must contradict regarding Federer's opponents in his peak years.

Let's look at his main opponents: Roddick had medium grounstrokes and a weak mobility.

Safin was very talented but seldom in top condition.

Hewitt was plagued by injuries,

Agassi in his older days had some back problems which caused a certain retrograte step regarding qiuckness thus causeing not as mighty shots as he showed earlier.

Nadal was far behind his peak form regarding service, grounstrokes and volley.

Djokovic was just too young then.

Henman was seldom a top ten player.

Blake's No.4 in 2006 is a certain hint that the quality of the field was not that terrific.

I still would prefer a 1962 Hoad or 1964 Gonzalez (who lead against Laver in that year) over a 2004 Hewitt or Roddick to play for my life..

BobbyOne · Apr 9, 2013

Phoenix1983 said:
Fed and Laver are the only true GOAT contenders if you examine the records.

Rosewall is an all-time great but his failures at Wimbledon will lead most of the tennis world to discount him as a GOAT candidate. As I said before, this will be reflected in his obituaries (I doubt many of them will say he is considered the greatest tennis player of all-time).

But we will leave 'the authoritative Austrian' to his beliefs.

Phoenix, Maybe when you are 64 you will have changed your mind. At least I hope so. Belive me or not: I also have examined the players' records...

It seems you have two idees fixe: Rosewall regarding W. and Rosewall's death... Regarding the obituaries:holy Sigmund (Freud), you could tell a lot about this idee fixe!

I'm happy that several posters agree with me: Carlo Colussi, pc1, krosero, hoodjem, Flash and others. So why your hate especially against me??? (not that I plead that you hate the other posters...).

NatF · Apr 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
ARFED, I'm glad that you consider Rosewall's opposition as yet being a hard one.

But I must contradict regarding Federer's opponents in his peak years.

And I must contradict you...

Let's look at his main opponents: Roddick had medium grounstrokes and a weak mobility.

Roddick: strong mentality, amazing serve and good forehand. Mobility wasn't great but it wasn't weak. In a 3 set match against Federer at the US Open in 2007 Roddick hit over 40 winners and only 25 or so unforced errors. He was very capable, he had alot of power.

Safin was very talented but seldom in top condition.

Safin was an underachiever yes, but he was there and he did play some good matches against Federer.

Hewitt was plagued by injuries,

Hewitt was still playing very well in the back half of 2004 and throughout 2005. 6 grandslams in a row he only lost to the eventual champion.

Agassi in his older days had some back problems which caused a certain retrograte step regarding qiuckness thus causeing not as mighty shots as he showed earlier.

From 03 - 05 when Federer racked up 8 wins in a row Agassi was still playing well. His ground strokes in those US Open matches were extremely good.

Nadal was far behind his peak form regarding service, grounstrokes and volley.

Nadal is 07 certainly wasn't far behind his peak form on his ground strokes. His 07 Wimbledon final performance was in his top 2 matches ever on grass. Nadal's movement was also at it's best in his early years. His movement is perhaps his greatest asset...

Djokovic was just too young then.

Djokovic played better in 07 than he did arguably in 10 and perhaps patches of 09 too.

Henman was seldom a top ten player.

He spent quite a bit of time in the top 10. He wasn't great but he's underrated.

Blake's No.4 in 2006 is a certain hint that the quality of the field was not that terrific.

2006 was the weakest year of Federer's reign, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin just dropped off. The rest of the years weren't weak though.

I still would prefer a 1962 Hoad or 1964 Gonzalez (who lead against Laver in that year) over a 2004 Hewitt or Roddick to play for my life..

Sadly I've haven't seen anything of Hoad or Gonzalez really. Roddick and Hewitt at their best could go toe to toe with peak Federer though, so against older versions of Hoad and Gonzalez I don't see why they couldn't pick up wins.

BobbyOne · Apr 9, 2013

NatF said:
And I must contradict you...

Roddick: strong mentality, amazing serve and good forehand. Mobility wasn't great but it wasn't weak. In a 3 set match against Federer at the US Open in 2007 Roddick hit over 40 winners and only 25 or so unforced errors. He was very capable, he had alot of power.

Safin was an underachiever yes, but he was there and he did play some good matches against Federer.

Hewitt was still playing very well in the back half of 2004 and throughout 2005. 6 grandslams in a row he only lost to the eventual champion.

From 03 - 05 when Federer racked up 8 wins in a row Agassi was still playing well. His ground strokes in those US Open matches were extremely good.

Nadal is 07 certainly wasn't far behind his peak form on his ground strokes. His 07 Wimbledon final performance was in his top 2 matches ever on grass. Nadal's movement was also at it's best in his early years. His movement is perhaps his greatest asset...

Djokovic played better in 07 than he did arguably in 10 and perhaps patches of 09 too.

He spent quite a bit of time in the top 10. He wasn't great but he's underrated.

2006 was the weakest year of Federer's reign, Roddick, Hewitt and Safin just dropped off. The rest of the years weren't weak though.

Sadly I've haven't seen anything of Hoad or Gonzalez really. Roddick and Hewitt at their best could go toe to toe with peak Federer though, so against older versions of Hoad and Gonzalez I don't see why they couldn't pick up wins.

NatF, Thanks for your contra arguments. Alas, they don't convince me that much.

Henman: was only once top ten in Federer's peak.

Old players against recent players: Your logic is that Roddick and Hewitt were almost as strong as Federer (that's not a compliment for Roger at all) and thus would have had wins against Hoad and Gonzalez. Of course all great players are losing from time to time. But my conviction is that Federer himself would have heavy troubles whzen playing against prime Hoad and Gonzalez or even against short after prime ones.

NatF · Apr 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF, Thanks for your contra arguments. Alas, they don't convince me that much.

Henman: was only once top ten in Federer's peak.

Old players against recent players: Your logic is that Roddick and Hewitt were almost as strong as Federer (that's not a compliment for Roger at all) and thus would have had wins against Hoad and Gonzalez. Of course all great players are losing from time to time. But my conviction is that Federer himself would have heavy troubles whzen playing against prime Hoad and Gonzalez or even against short after prime ones.

I meant Henman was top 10 during his career a few times.

I never said they were almost as strong as Federer, I said they were very good players who when they were playing their best could give Federer trouble. I can't really comment on Hoad and Gonzalez at their primes, neither can you really...

Maybe they would give him trouble but I think Federer from 04-07 would beat them the majority, across all surfaces.

BobbyOne · Apr 9, 2013

NatF said:
I meant Henman was top 10 during his career a few times.

I never said they were almost as strong as Federer, I said they were very good players who when they were playing their best could give Federer trouble. I can't really comment on Hoad and Gonzalez at their primes, neither can you really...

Maybe they would give him trouble but I think Federer from 04-07 would beat them the majority, across all surfaces.

NatF, Where is the logic left?

Henman's top ten places are relevant only regarding Federer's peak if and when we discuss Federer's peak competition.

Your logic: "I can't really comment on Hoad and Gonzalez at their Primes" BUT: "Federer would beat them the majority". That's the main error of the admirers of the recent and current players.

kiki · Apr 9, 2013

Am I a journeyman poster?

NatF · Apr 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF, Where is the logic left?

Henman's top ten places are relevant only regarding Federer's peak if and when we discuss Federer's peak competition.

Your logic: "I can't really comment on Hoad and Gonzalez at their Primes" BUT: "Federer would beat them the majority". That's the main error of the admirers of the recent and current players.

I didn't write that list though! I was just saying Henman was a top 10 player. He wasn't a major rival of Federer's anyway.

You haven't seen Gonzalez or Hoad or even Rosewall in his prime, so how is it that you can comment? Notice I said I think. I never said Federer would do it, it's just my personal opinion that Federer's top level is the all round greatest of the open era. I've seen matches of Connors, Borg, Sampras, Mcenroe and obviously the current era. However watching peak Federer I think he was the best.

I think plenty of guys would give him trouble, especially on clay. If only Federer of 24 had the experience he has now, he would truly be the greatest ever IMO. As it stands I think the likes of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez from the oldies have the records to be in the GOAT conversation. I find it hard to equate majors from split fields though. However the doubles achievements in my mind show that they were extremely balanced and talented players.

So those guys would be my top 4, Sampras would fill out the top 5. For pure talent I think Borg would be in the top 5 too but unfortunately he stopped before he achieved all he could.

BobbyOne · Apr 9, 2013

NatF said:
I didn't write that list though! I was just saying Henman was a top 10 player. He wasn't a major rival of Federer's anyway.

You haven't seen Gonzalez or Hoad or even Rosewall in his prime, so how is it that you can comment? Notice I said I think. I never said Federer would do it, it's just my personal opinion that Federer's top level is the all round greatest of the open era. I've seen matches of Connors, Borg, Sampras, Mcenroe and obviously the current era. However watching peak Federer I think he was the best.

I think plenty of guys would give him trouble, especially on clay. If only Federer of 24 had the experience he has now, he would truly be the greatest ever IMO. As it stands I think the likes of Laver, Rosewall, Gonzalez from the oldies have the records to be in the GOAT conversation. I find it hard to equate majors from split fields though. However the doubles achievements in my mind show that they were extremely balanced and talented players.

So those guys would be my top 4, Sampras would fill out the top 5. For pure talent I think Borg would be in the top 5 too but unfortunately he stopped before he achieved all he could.

NatF I appreciate that you have L,R, and G in your top four.

forzamilan90 · Apr 9, 2013

kiki said:
Am I a journeyman poster?

Your rank says otherwise

NatF · Apr 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
NatF I appreciate that you have L,R, and G in your top four.

Ignore everything but the part where I praise Rosewall and co...

ARFED · Apr 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
ARFED, I'm glad that you consider Rosewall's opposition as yet being a hard one.

But I must contradict regarding Federer's opponents in his peak years.

Let's look at his main opponents: Roddick had medium grounstrokes and a weak mobility.

Safin was very talented but seldom in top condition.

Hewitt was plagued by injuries,

Agassi in his older days had some back problems which caused a certain retrograte step regarding qiuckness thus causeing not as mighty shots as he showed earlier.

Nadal was far behind his peak form regarding service, grounstrokes and volley.

Djokovic was just too young then.

Henman was seldom a top ten player.

Blake's No.4 in 2006 is a certain hint that the quality of the field was not that terrific.

I still would prefer a 1962 Hoad or 1964 Gonzalez (who lead against Laver in that year) over a 2004 Hewitt or Roddick to play for my life..

In fact you misunderstood me. I don`t consider Rosewall`s competition to be that hard, at all, during his peak.

Here you seem to have a double standard:

-Hewitt ''plagued with injuries", well Hoad????

-Nadal ''far behind his peak", well Nadal`s peak according to most experts came in 2008, Laver`s peak came in 1967. So as you see, peak Federer faced a version of Nadal much closer to his peak than Rosewall did with Laver

-Safin too inconsistent you say. Well Gonzalez was a part time player well past his prime during most of Rosewall`s peak. That can lead to a heavy amount of inconsistency if you ask me

-Blake No. 4, well wasn`t Butch Butchholz winning pro majors and somewhat in the top 5 around this time?????

-Agassi being old??? Trabert was 31 when Rosewall hited his prime, Segura was 40, Sedgman 34, Gonzalez 33. Any of them spring chikens in my book. Actually, the fact that many of them remained highly competitive during this period demonstrates the lack of depth in the pro field.

Finally, i would recommend you to watch some of the 2004 Roddick version, perhaps the most powerful and lethal serve and forehand combo in the history of the game.

Phoenix1983 · Apr 9, 2013

^ excellent post, puts the 'Viennese Visionary' in his place.

BobbyOne · Apr 9, 2013

NatF said:
Ignore everything but the part where I praise Rosewall and co...

Henman was in ARFED 's list, I concede. But he is one of your "Federer colleagues" who doubts that Roger played in a weak period.

Not answering every sentence could also mean that I don't disagree every time.

You can judge a player even though you have not seen him in his peak years by watching him later (Rosewall 1970, 1971), by reading books, talking and writing to players and so on.

BobbyOne · Apr 9, 2013

ARFED said:
In fact you misunderstood me. I don`t consider Rosewall`s competition to be that hard, at all, during his peak.

Here you seem to have a double standard:

-Hewitt ''plagued with injuries", well Hoad????

-Nadal ''far behind his peak", well Nadal`s peak according to most experts came in 2008, Laver`s peak came in 1967. So as you see, peak Federer faced a version of Nadal much closer to his peak than Rosewall did with Laver

-Safin too inconsistent you say. Well Gonzalez was a part time player well past his prime during most of Rosewall`s peak. That can lead to a heavy amount of inconsistency if you ask me

-Blake No. 4, well wasn`t Butch Butchholz winning pro majors and somewhat in the top 5 around this time?????

-Agassi being old??? Trabert was 31 when Rosewall hited his prime, Segura was 40, Sedgman 34, Gonzalez 33. Any of them spring chikens in my book. Actually, the fact that many of them remained highly competitive during this period demonstrates the lack of depth in the pro field.

Finally, i would recommend you to watch some of the 2004 Roddick version, perhaps the most powerful and lethal serve and forehand combo in the history of the game.

ARFED, Again nasty?

I still can read. You wrote that Rosewall had extremely hard competition. Why do you doubt your own words??

I don't understand the injury issue. Hoad was strong in years even when having injuries. It's a lie (Dan) that he was a cripple.

Rosewall faced Laver with success in all the peak years of the latter. Laver's peak began already in 1965!!!

I don't ask you about Gonzalez. Pancho had a full year in 1961 and did not play in 1962 and 1963. In 1964 and 1965 he was again extremely strong.

If you compare Blake to Buchholz I cannot answer anymore...

Wrong again regarding Rosewall's old rivals. When a 41 years old Segura has matchpoint against Muscles it does NOT mean there is a weak field. You belittle the old champs.

I never doubted Roddick's strengths.

Learn history, my friend!

BobbyOne · Apr 9, 2013

Phoenix1983 said:
^ excellent post, puts the 'Viennese Visionary' in his place.

Edit:I guess you envy me that Bud has called me that way. It's not my fault that you are not yet a visionary. Maybe later...

You doubt that Bud is my friend. Okay. And I doubt that you really exist at all. Guess you are merely a curious nightmare of mine which I have not deserved...

ARFED · Apr 9, 2013

BobbyOne said:
ARFED, Again nasty?

I still can read. You wrote that Rosewall had extremely hard competition. Why do you doubt your own words??

I don't understand the injury issue. Hoad was strong in years even when having injuries. It's a lie (Dan) that he was a cripple.

Rosewall faced Laver with success in all the peak years of the latter. Laver's peak began already in 1965!!!

I don't ask you about Gonzalez. Pancho had a full year in 1961 and did not play in 1962 and 1963. In 1964 and 1965 he was again extremely strong.

If you compare Blake to Buchholz I cannot answer anymore...

Wrong again regarding Rosewall's old rivals. When a 41 years old Segura has matchpoint against Muscles it does NOT mean there is a weak field. You belittle the old champs.

I never doubted Roddick's strengths.

Learn history, my friend!

If you believe that was nasty, then some posts must be unbearable to you. Too susceptible my friend.

Again, one more time, maybe it`s not your fault and my writing skills are not sharp enough. So let me be clear, IMO Rosewall at his peak (61-64) did not face tough competition.

Hoad wasn`t a cripple, but he wasn`t anywhre near his physical best. Heck even in 58-59, according to many people and even Hoad himself, he was already dealing with much back pain. So you stating that Hewitt wasn`t a tough rival because of injuries, when he was running like hell in 04-05 is an irony to say the least. There is a point in Indian Wells final in 2005, where Hewitt and Fed played a rally of more than 50 shots i believe. Trust me, if you watch that point you would know that at that time Hewitt was a beast.

If Laver peak began in 65 (according to you), why does he always say that his best tennis came in 67??? Anyway, Rosewall during his peak didn`t have to face a peak Laver (this much you seem to agree), so he is in the same ground of Fed regarding this issue. Neither of them faced the very best of their main rivals during their respective peaks.

So Pancho, coming back to play a full schedule in 64 was much stronger competition than Agassi during 04-05??? Give me a break man.

Blake has victories against Federer and Nadal. He reached No. 4. What exactly did Buchholz to be that much better than Blake??. Oh yeah, he defetead a 41 year old Segura to win one of the weakest pro majors ever. You are right, i`m impressed.

When a 41 year old Segura, or anyone for that matter, has a match point against the number one player of the world, it just says that Rosewall had a pretty bad day. Awful day.

You doubted about Roddick groundstrokes. His forehand in 04-05 wasn`t from another planet like Fed`s, but it was a pretty damn good one.

Finally, this is becoming boring. You have a pretty firm idea about Federer and Rosewall status. I don`t have Rosewall as a GOAT contender (he was a fantastic player nonetheless), and you don`t have Fed in that group as well. So i would like to move on and discuss other things with you in the future, i`m sure that i can learn plenty of history like you say.

kiki · Apr 9, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
Your rank says otherwise

Didn' t even look at it till you mentioned

forzamilan90 · Apr 10, 2013

kiki said:
Didn' t even look at it till you mentioned

Weurd thing is G.O.A.T. isn't even the final stage of rankings, there's a poster called Breakpoint with over 20 000 posts his rank says bionic poster.

kiki · Apr 10, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
Weurd thing is G.O.A.T. isn't even the final stage of rankings, there's a poster called Breakpoint with over 20 000 posts his rank says bionic poster.

Lol!!!
Have no idea of my total posts
What is amazing is I was not banned one single time in spite of heavy de******* & controversy

forzamilan90 · Apr 10, 2013

kiki said:
Lol!!!
Have no idea of my total posts
What is amazing is I was not banned one single time in spite of heavy de******* & controversy

U lucky..i cursed out ironically biggest troll in forum hidtory, Nadal Slam King and he ratted me out to the coppers and got banned one time.

If he ever starts frequently posting on this side of the forum watch out, it's going to get hilarious...and messy

hoodjem · Apr 10, 2013

kiki said:
What is amazing is I was not banned one single time in spite of heavy de******* & controversy

It is amazing--you Zepptard!

BobbyOne · Apr 10, 2013

ARFED said:
If you believe that was nasty, then some posts must be unbearable to you. Too susceptible my friend.

Again, one more time, maybe it`s not your fault and my writing skills are not sharp enough. So let me be clear, IMO Rosewall at his peak (61-64) did not face tough competition.

Hoad wasn`t a cripple, but he wasn`t anywhre near his physical best. Heck even in 58-59, according to many people and even Hoad himself, he was already dealing with much back pain. So you stating that Hewitt wasn`t a tough rival because of injuries, when he was running like hell in 04-05 is an irony to say the least. There is a point in Indian Wells final in 2005, where Hewitt and Fed played a rally of more than 50 shots i believe. Trust me, if you watch that point you would know that at that time Hewitt was a beast.

If Laver peak began in 65 (according to you), why does he always say that his best tennis came in 67??? Anyway, Rosewall during his peak didn`t have to face a peak Laver (this much you seem to agree), so he is in the same ground of Fed regarding this issue. Neither of them faced the very best of their main rivals during their respective peaks.

So Pancho, coming back to play a full schedule in 64 was much stronger competition than Agassi during 04-05??? Give me a break man.

Blake has victories against Federer and Nadal. He reached No. 4. What exactly did Buchholz to be that much better than Blake??. Oh yeah, he defetead a 41 year old Segura to win one of the weakest pro majors ever. You are right, i`m impressed.

When a 41 year old Segura, or anyone for that matter, has a match point against the number one player of the world, it just says that Rosewall had a pretty bad day. Awful day.

You doubted about Roddick groundstrokes. His forehand in 04-05 wasn`t from another planet like Fed`s, but it was a pretty damn good one.

Finally, this is becoming boring. You have a pretty firm idea about Federer and Rosewall status. I don`t have Rosewall as a GOAT contender (he was a fantastic player nonetheless), and you don`t have Fed in that group as well. So i would like to move on and discuss other things with you in the future, i`m sure that i can learn plenty of history like you say.

ARFED, It's good to be susceptible in an inhuman world where posters in a tennis forum don't even shrink to give threats...

I am tired to explain you matters repeatedly, about Rosewall's peak years and so on.

I did not know that Laver claimed his peak was in 1967 but if so I refuse to rate only ONE year of his career as the peak. In fact his peak was 1965 to 1969. It's hard to believe that a player's peak came only at 29 (Segura might be an exception because he was not the real Segura before). It might be that Laver was even a shade stronger in 1967 than the few years before and afterwards but also Rosewall was not exact at the same level in all his peak years (highest level maybe in 1962). There is often a highlight single year within of the peak years. By the way, even a declining Rosewall almost beat Laver at Wembley in 1967!

As earlier written, Rosewall was also tough after his peak years, especially in big events. For instance he won three majors in 1965 and 1966 which is as much as Laver won...

I will give you a break!

kiki · Apr 10, 2013

forzamilan90 said:
U lucky..i cursed out ironically biggest troll in forum hidtory, Nadal Slam King and he ratted me out to the coppers and got banned one time.

If he ever starts frequently posting on this side of the forum watch out, it's going to get hilarious...and messy

yep messy is the biggest soccer player, my balcanic buddy

timnz · Apr 10, 2013

Peaking in late 20's

BobbyOne said:
ARFED, It's good to be susceptible in an inhuman world where posters in a tennis forum don't even shrink to give threats...

I am tired to explain you matters repeatedly, about Rosewall's peak years and so on.

I did not know that Laver claimed his peak was in 1967 but if so I refuse to rate only ONE year of his career as the peak. In fact his peak was 1965 to 1969. It's hard to believe that a player's peak came only at 29 (Segura might be an exception because he was not the real Segura before). It might be that Laver was even a shade stronger in 1967 than the few years before and afterwards but also Rosewall was not exact at the same level in all his peak years (highest level maybe in 1962). There is often a highlight single year within of the peak years. By the way, even a declining Rosewall almost beat Laver at Wembley in 1967!

As earlier written, Rosewall was also tough after his peak years, especially in big events. For instance he won three majors in 1965 and 1966 which is as much as Laver won...

I will give you a break!

Lots of players had their best year in their late 20's.

Gonzales - 1956 - 28 years old - only one set from Pro Grand Slam + Tournament of Champions

Rosewall - 1963 - 28/29 years old - Pro Grand Slam winner

Newcombe - 29/30 years old - late 1973 to early 1974 - US Open winner, Davis Cup winner, WCT Finals winner

Laver - 1967 - 28/29 years old - Pro Grand Slam winner + Pro Wimbledon + every other significant Pro title that year

Agassi - 1999 - 29 years old - French Open winner, US Open winner, Wimbledon Runner-up - year end number 1

Tilden - 1921 - 28 years old - World Hardcourt Championship, Wimbledon, US Championships + Davis Cup

Connors v Borg 1978 and the no.1 ranking

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Professional

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Banned

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

Professional

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Professional

Banned

Legend

Banned

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Legend

Similar threads