kiki
Banned
yes, they are all in sin
Rosewall > Laver
- Thread starter Prisoner of Birth
- Start date
yes, they are all in sin
NatF
Bionic Poster
I disagree with you on quite alot regarding modern tennis...but I like your flair.
kiki
Banned
Thanks.My flair comes straight from Zepp´s flair, that is what makes it so unique.
NatF, Rosewall leads Laver 10:7 matches in big events. That even though Muscles had the disadvantage of being older than Rocket.
...achieved in an age of life (31) when Rosewall could not enter the GS tournaments.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Surface distribution of the matches?
CyBorg
Legend
It's not out of context. The context was you downgrading Rosewall for not winning Wimbledon. But he only played Wimbledon as a very young player and as a very old player.
NatF,
Indoor Wood: Rosewall:Laver 4:3
Indoor Carpet? Rosewall : Laver 3:1
Grass: Rosewall:Laver 2:2
Clay: Rosewall: Laver 1:1
CyBorg, You are right regarding Rosewall's "flaw" at Wimbledon but Phoenix actually referred to Rosewall's amateur Wimbledons, to be fair.
CyBorg
Legend
Maybe he can explain what his point is, because amateur results have fairly negligible weight in the overall scheme of things - especially for a player of Rosewall's longevity.
Had Rosewall opted to remain an amateur a la Emerson, I'm sure he would have won his share of Wimbledons, amateur or otherwise. But that should not be considered a "good" thing.
CyBorg, I'm convinced that Rosewall, if Wimbledon was open in the early 1960s, would have won three to five events.
But if he stayed amateur (while Hoad and Laver would be pros as they actually were), I'm sure that Muscles would have won even more Wimbledons...
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Gee, who was that guy Laver beat in the finals of the 1969 French Open?
Must have been someone else.?:wink:
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
B1, Laver leads Muscles 80-63 in all events, even though Rod has the disadvantage of being younger and less experienced.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Uh? Rosewall played at all the majors in 1969. Rosewall lost in the Round of 16 of the 1969 Australian Open to Gimeno, lost in the final of the 1969 French Open to Laver, lost in the Round of 32 of 1969 Wimbledon to Lutz and lost in the quarter finals of the 1969 US Open to Ashe.
hoodjem, you are wrong. We had discussed this already months ago. Read all words in my post!
Good joke indeed!
Mustard, the same as for hoodjem. People just don't read correctly.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
You need a subject to your incomplete sentence.
Who was 31 years of age?
Rosewall was 31 in 1965, and as a pro he could not enter the slams.
Laver was 31 in 1969, (when he won the Grand Slam). And Rosewall could and did enter all the slams that year.
Please try to make clear sense, if that is possible.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Okay.
Finally I have deciphered the meaning here, which is not clearly expressed in the incomplete sentence in English as used.
Laver won his Grand Slam at the age of 31. When Rosewall was at the same age of 31, he could not enter the slam tournaments.
Rosewall was 35 when he could enter all four slams in 1969.
Last edited:
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
BobbyOne is saying that Laver, in 1969, was 31 years old, and that when Rosewall was 31, in 1965, he did not have the opportunity to enter the traditional majors. Thus he may have been denied the CYGS.
(I disagree with his assessment btw, but this is what he is saying)
hoodjem, I'm surprised that my English is so unclear. I'm sure my sentence was not incomplete: I just used your words "an awesome achievement".
I would have awaited that you grant a "visionary" the knowledge that Rosewall did enter the 1969 majors.
Last edited:
hoodjem, Exactly what I meant. I'm not sure if I had the same problem once with you or with Mustard. But it's okay now.
Yes, I use to hint that Laver, who is valued as the GOAT by Collins and others, has achieved all his great amateur and open achievements at 21, 22, 30 and 31. When Rosewall was in these ages, he was banned. I think it's worth to consider this but of course we will never know if Muscles would have done the same great things.
It's good that you understood me but it's curious that you disagree. Rosewall would have had yet the chance for the GS in 1965 but surely earlier...
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Bbby1,
You have an excellent sense of humour.
I have "awaited" that the Wienervisionär knew Muscles' schedule in 1969.
Last edited:
Bbby1,
You have an excellent sense of humor.
I have "awaited" that the Wienervisionär knew Muscles' schedule in 1969.
hoodjem, humour is always better than hostilities...
By the way, I prefer the British kind of spelling. Therefore "humour", but I'm aware there are more Americans posting than Britons.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
What we can say is that Rosewall at age 31 was one of the top 2 players in the world, but that Laver was the world's best player. Laver at age 31 was still the world's best player.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Probably. That's the year when Rosewall won the Professional Grand Slam, and beat Laver in 33 out of their 45 matches that year. Laver had to learn fast in the professional ranks.
Mustard, Correct. But Rosewall won two majors clearly against laver and lost a tough match to strong Gimeno.
We also should consider that Rosewall then was arguable the best grass courter (US Pro) and clay courter (Reston).
Therefore I still believe Muscles would have had a fair chance for a GS in 1965.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Are you suggesting that there is something magical about the age of 31?
Do you think, if he was allowed to compete, that he had a better chance in 1963 (when Muscles was younger, and before Laver improved)?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Every great champion gets a little luck along the way. Luck of the draw or an point here and there. Obviously winning 4 in a year/row is also largely a result of skill and excellence though.
hoodjem, No magic at 31.
Yes, Muscles would have had his best chances in 1963 and also in 1962. In fact he did not lose any big tournament from 1960 to 1963. He had a 33:0 record.
kiki
Banned
If you are french, your posting name sounds a bit dangerous to me...
joe sch
Legend
I personally give the edge to Laver over Rosewall since the head to head 79–63 in favour of Laver and since Laver is the only player to win two grand slams and also a professional slam.
Rosewall may just be the GOAT. There has been lots of recent talk of the tennis GOAT with Roger Federer breaking the record for open majors won and currently has 17.
Laver and Rosewall both have 19 Majors.
Both players far surpass Federer in career titles, Rosewall 133 and Laver 200 vs 76 for Federer. Don't think Roger will surpass either the career wins or majors won by either player.
I really do not think you can compare players of different era but since all three of these players have Open era experience, I will give the nod to Laver and Rosewall over Federer unless Roger wins 2 more slam majors and adds many more championships and victories to his impressive open career.
I think the below stats should be considered for open era GOAT decisions:
Tennis players with most titles since 1968
Player - championships - majors - overall
--------------------------------------------
Jimmy Connors 109 8 1243–277
Ivan Lendl 94 8 1071–239
John McEnroe 77 7 875–198
Roger Federer 76 17 891–202
Rosewall may just be the GOAT. There has been lots of recent talk of the tennis GOAT with Roger Federer breaking the record for open majors won and currently has 17.
Laver and Rosewall both have 19 Majors.
Both players far surpass Federer in career titles, Rosewall 133 and Laver 200 vs 76 for Federer. Don't think Roger will surpass either the career wins or majors won by either player.
I really do not think you can compare players of different era but since all three of these players have Open era experience, I will give the nod to Laver and Rosewall over Federer unless Roger wins 2 more slam majors and adds many more championships and victories to his impressive open career.
I think the below stats should be considered for open era GOAT decisions:
Tennis players with most titles since 1968
Player - championships - majors - overall
--------------------------------------------
Jimmy Connors 109 8 1243–277
Ivan Lendl 94 8 1071–239
John McEnroe 77 7 875–198
Roger Federer 76 17 891–202
Last edited:
forzamilan90
Legend
^^^you're aware that pros nowadays plays fewer tournaments than back in the "good old days?" Under current tour structure and tendencies it will be near impossible for even someone Federeresque to go to 100 titles let alone 200. Add to that deeper fields and more physical game no chance players will "try" to accumulate that amount of total titles (and exhibitions don't count).
Also totaling their major counts (if you want to total them all up Rosewall has more than Laver) is not equivalent to comparing 17 outright contemporary majors. Modern majors definitely hold more weight and considering the utmost focus and dedication placed on them as the pinnacle tournaments of today their value is much greater than back in the day.
Also totaling their major counts (if you want to total them all up Rosewall has more than Laver) is not equivalent to comparing 17 outright contemporary majors. Modern majors definitely hold more weight and considering the utmost focus and dedication placed on them as the pinnacle tournaments of today their value is much greater than back in the day.
I see no issue with Rosewall being viewed on a similar level as Laver, but its pretty tough to win the argument that he should be placed above him. I can't say because I've only seen a few clips of each. But, the consensus among past tennis players is that Laver was the best. That has to mean something.
joe sch, I agree partly.
But Rosewall leads Laver in BIG events 10:7 and has won much more majors (23 or 25 : 19 if we add the WCT finals).
Last edited:
Not anymore. It's Federer who's widely considered the greatest.
If the next generations are going to be influenced by Nadal, Djokovic and Murray more than they will be by Federer then i will probably use some of your favourite statements :twisted:.
I have a feeling that you will appreciate Fed after his retirement much more than you do now
Obviously he will influence the next generation since he set the benchmark. The goal post has been established for future player to reach catch him. If any player manage to surpass him, then the throne will be handed to that player.
Past history the throne has been handed to the next great athlete in many sports. e.g. Largent --> Rice, Spitz --> Phelps
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Murray,Nadal and Djokovic are all 'children of Lendl' in the way they play. (Maybe Nadal is also a 'child of Borg')
I'm not sure Federer can influence future generations because there will hardly be anyone who has the all-round talent to play like him.
kiki
Banned
Unfortunatley, Federer won´t be their role model, I remark unfortunately because it would be the less bad choice.
You are probably right, Fed`s almost unhuman talent is what enabled him to play his style with an incredible amount of succes in the past 10 years.
Somehow i see more in his game from the 70`s and 80`s than the 90`s. His all court display of both touch and power was already in rapid decline in the 90`s.
Dimitrov is probably the best example of an all-court game a la Fed of the current young crop. He is miles behind of course but at least i can see some resemblance, his forehand probably won`t ever be half as good as Fed`s though.
Baseline game, with its 2 variants, grinding and ball-bashing, is here to stay i`m afraid. It is easier to develop and the results come much faster than more agressive styles (when i mean agressive i refer to court positioning, players like Berdych or Del Potro can be extremely agressive but they would rarely be on or inside the baseline). A baseline play based in taking the ball on the rise and pressure the opponent not only by power but by taking the time away from him, is much harder to develop and depends on great skills
joe sch
Legend
Bobby, Thanks for doing soo much research and really supporting these great threads.
Its difficult to do these analysis comparisons with the pre-open players since the stats are not clear. I thought both had 19 majors but as you point out, the WCT wins should be counted as majors. So Rosewall had 4 or 6 WCT wins and Laver none ??
I would really like to know the career won-loss ?? records for both Laver and Rosewall so a better comparison could be made to the top open greats ??
I do think that titles is a great barometer and will repeat the below from my prior page post:
Laver and Rosewall both have 19 Majors.
Both players far surpass Federer in career titles, Rosewall 133 and Laver 200 vs 76 for Federer. Don't think Roger will surpass either the career wins or majors won by either player.
Would really like to know how these two Aussies compare to Connors in total wins and championships ?
Last edited:
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Usually the amateur majors are distinguished from the pro and open majors, because the top players where absent, and the field was thus significantly weaker.
If we count only the pro and open majors, Rosewall won 19 majors. 23 if we count his 4 amateur majors.
Laver won 14 pro and open majors. 18 if we count his 6 amateur majors. In both method of counting, Rosewall leads.
Rosewall won two WCT. If we count them as majors, he won 21 majors with full competition, + 4 with limited competition.
I looked at the result of their finals in pro majors, open majors, and WCT finals. Rosewall leads Laver 7-6. I don't know which are the other important events that Bobby counted that I did not.
Flash, Thanks for explaining that.
A few corrections: Laver won "only" 13 pro and open majors.
In finals Rosewall leads 9:5.
I added the 1964 US Pro SF, won by Laver; the 1970 Masters rr (Laver beat Rosewall) and the 1973 WCT finals' match for third place, won by Rosewall.
Thus I come to a 10:7 balance of Rosewall against Laver in big events.
Joe, Thanks for your nice words.
Flash has explained this matter partly.
Carlo Colussi has considered partly other big events. For instance he omitted Rosewall's 1972 AO win and added Ken's 1966 MSG win. Carlo's lists show that probably Rosewall has again the edge.
Unfortunately we don't have Laver's and Rosewall's won-loss records. Several pro matches are still missing.
But I do know the records regarding the majors (amateur, pro and open events):
Laver: 180:36 which is a 83.3 percentage.
Rosewall: 246:46 which is a 84.7 percentage.
In comparison to other greats: Borg 141:16 which is 89.8 (all-time record).
Federer: has a 86.9 %. This could decrease in the following years. And: Roger was not forced to play a Laver or a Rosewall...
Similar threads
