Alan Trengove on Rod Laver. New Article

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by urban, Oct 7, 2012.

  1. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    laver lost to drysdale at the USO 68 ... rosewall beat him at Rg 68 .... why on earth wouldn't rosewall have a shot at taking him out at RG in 67 ? how on earth is the 67 pro slam even close to a true slam when it had shallow fields ? when the french pro was indoors and not on clay ...

    also we know laver in 62 wasn't even close to the best player in the world ...

    Laver has one GS, that's it .... Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know their tennis ....

    the Year ending championships have the best players in the world ... federer has beaten nadal four times there, including bagels and breadsticks thrown in , and losing only one set total in 4 matches ... yet you totally seem to ignore that .... why ? because it hurts your delusion that nadal owns federer everywhere .... nadal only has the edge on clay, nowhere else .......


    laver has one GS, that's it ... federer has plenty of things that top that ..... dominance over a 4 year period is unparalleled. 5 consecutive years of winning wimbledon and USO , 17 majors overall , 6 YECs etc etc ....

    what is funny is how bitter you are that federer has surpassed laver in the GOAT discussions in the eyes of many.... You try to make one stupid excuse after the other to try to cover that up ..... give it up .... anyone sane and with tennis knowledge can detect within a couple of days that you have near zero knowledge of tennis ........

    oh and your precious laver wouldn't do any better than federer did against nadal on clay ... deal with it ....
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2012
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    Just another public display of *******s bitterness and complex vs Laver
     
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    Federer is a transiction era champion between the last dinosaurs of the 90´s (Sampras,Agassi,Kuerten,Rafter,Goran) and the big bashing baseliners like Murray,Nadal,Djokovic,Del Potro

    Federer is in the transiction era, with guys like Roddick,Safin and Hewitt rounding up this transiction era.

    It is like the second half of the early 70´s, which was a transiction era between Laver,Hoad,Gonzales and Rosewall prime and the arrival of the two handed Bh and top spin era marked by Borg,Vilas and Jimmy Connors around the middle 70´s.
     
  4. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    there is no world called "transiction"

    your last sentence makes as much sense as this :

    laver was the the huge beneficiary to be in the transitional era b/w gonzales/hoad and connors/borg .......

    oh and one last thing, federer has as many majors as nadal, djoker, murray combined ....and yes, he's surprassed your crush laver as the GOAT ...deal with it ........
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2012
  5. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    actually those are facts ....

    fact: rosewall beat him in RG 68 on clay
    fact: French pro in 67 was indoors
    fact: pro majors had didn't have the depth
    fact: drysdale, nowhere close to being a major winner, beat laver in USO 68 , so don't give me that the depth of the field and possibility of an upset isn't there ....... laver is no federer who had a streak of 23 consecutive major semis ......
    fact: pro majors are not equivalent of a full major


    things that you lavertard cannot accept ....it hurts doesn't it ? :)

    of course, it does ....... now stop crying ......and come up with one more of those hilariously dumb statements of yours ...... its fun ...... :)
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2012
  6. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,643
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    It seems we need an unbiased party in here. I haven't read the article, and I'm not going to as I have heard that it is poorly written. I don't see how any sane person can debate that considering the quotes I've seen from the article. Fans of Laver, or people that are not fans of Federer will keep saying that Laver is the greatest, and Fed fans will do the opposite. Every discussion that revolves around the GOAT in tennis is exactly the same. IMO (I'm biased too) Federer is the greatest because the numbers he's put up over an extended period are beyond ridiculous. The best IMO. Nobody can argue that unless you're a troll no matter how much anybody hates the guy.

    I've seen it many times before. People will start posting saying what kind of numbers? Somebody (perhaps me) will give a rundown of Federer's numbers. Then somebody else will say, but Laver did this, or he has a losing record against Nadal, or I don't care about those numbers which is beyond stupid because if we can't base it on numbers it leaves little to argue about. And my all time personal favourite "He played in a weak era." This argument has more holes than swiss cheese (pun intended) and is very subjective.

    Who's to say Federer just didn't dominate that much. Nobody can prove I'm wrong really. I also laugh when people talk about the competition nowadays. If Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray couldn't beat Federer they wouldn't be competition, and then the people that go on and on about weak eras would have a more convincing argument, since none of those guys would be half as good today if they couldn't beat Federer in the first place.

    Like the fact that if Federer beat Novak at RG in 2011, and near beat him at the USO, what in god's name makes anybody think he wouldn't beat him at most of the slams if they played in their primes. Not to mention that he's #1 right now at 31, but I digress.

    For the writer to use the age old argument about Federer not even being the best of his era is weak, considering by that logic that Nadal is not really the "best" of his era if you factor in Djokovic. Just because Alan is well respected does not mean that he's right all the time. I always hate it when people say that.

    And then I've also seen that he said that Federer wasn't comfortable at RG until 2009. That's BS. If anything Federer was at his most uncomfortable that year considering he played 2 five setters and lost other sets to PH Mathieu and Acasuso.
     
  7. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    You're going to have to live with the fact that Federer's playing field is much stronger than Laver's field.
     
  8. Steve0904

    Steve0904 G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2012
    Messages:
    10,643
    Location:
    NL, Canada
    I will also never understand why people say Fed had weak competition, and then say Nadal beat Fed to win most of his slams. By that logic, because Fed had weak competition he's "not that good", therefore making Nadal "not that good." Not to mention that Federer has beaten Nadal himself to win 2 slams, and he's beaten the guy that's beaten Nadal many times.
     
  9. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    Do you know why?

    Because the fact is he's has greater competition than any past generations, and that's just about in every sports. The old-timers are saying the opposite but deep down they know it isn't true. They hated the when experts/ex-players/general fans keep mentioned about tennis played at a higher level, more depth, more talented players, more quality....
     
  10. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    You know that I perfectly meant Laver/Hoad/Gonzales/Rosewall, then transition (Newcombe and nastase leading a very good group with Ashe,Roche,Kodes,Smith...) and then Connors/Borg/Vilas.The two big eras were Laver and Rosewall and then Borg and Connors although the early 70´s were really exciting...

    not like the very boring Federer dominance transitional era, in between the great Agassi/sampras/rafter rivalry and the stronger Djokovic/Nadal/Federer trio of nowadays.

    That Roddick and Hewitt were the biggest threats to Federer says it all...

    I won´t discuss about Federer and Laver.Federer is a modern Emerson and Laver won the big thing about 3 times...
     
  11. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    You dumbo probably du not know that Drisdale was a finalist at 1965 Forest Hills, so he was not that far away from a major title...and keep delusional about the " bif Federer/Emerson like" era...
     
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    a broader base does not mean a stronger head.That is what happened.
     
  13. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,632
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    greater
    more
    better
    higher
    more
    more
    more


    You sound like a Republican candidate. Maybe if you keep repeating these terms enough, someone will believe them.

    Deep down what I know is that today's game is very powerful and very physical, but also very limited. No one, and I mean no one today is a great volleyer. Hardly anyone can or does hit well-placed lobs or drop shots. The closest thing we have today to an all-court player is Federer.

    And if he were better at volleying he would be more complete and better, and thus greater than he is. But he does not have to be, and this tells me a lot--deep down.

    Of course, by your logic (that tennis is always and inevitably getting better), tennis will better tomorrow, and better the day after that. And thus it will be better the day after Fed retires than the day before.

    Deep down.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2012
  14. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,960
    What you are saying is that in his best years, Federer played about 85 matches a year, against very low ranked players in early rounds of tournaments (the advantage of being the number one seed), and time off to rest between tournaments.
    Compare that to Laver in 1969, who essentially played two circuits, the open and the pro tours, and played 122 matches, losing only 16.
    Bear in mind that the pro tours of the 1950's and 1960's were a concentration of the best tennis talent in a small group, playing each other day after day.
    Imagine if Federer had played against only the top 8 players all year long. How would his record look then?
    I would have to rate Hoad's year in 1959 as the best ever, playing two championship circuits with a record of 76 wins and 33 losses, plus a total of over 150 matches (about twice the number that Fed plays), with a 70% record against a list of opponents unequalled in tennis history; Gonzales, Rosewall, Sedgman, Trabert, Segura, Cooper, Anderson, Hartwig, Rose, McGregor, Giammalva. All of these players had major resumes, even Giammalva, who won the Eastern Grasscourts in 1955 (beating Seixas, Nielsen) and was a U.S. Davis Cup player. Hartwig was runnerup at Forest Hills in 1954 (and beat Hoad twice in 1959), McGregor was Wimbledon runnerup in 1951 and Australian champion in 1952.
    I would like to see Federer the Great handle a wooden raquet and play a full year against this field (which would include Hoad) and see what his record would look like.
     
  15. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    Why do you insist that it has to stay constant? If players continue to try to improve then the only direction they are heading is getting better, not worse. More athletes means more competition, and more competition will push players from younger generation to be better. That's just how it works, to say otherwise is in denial. It doesn't take tennis alone to acknowledge the game is a more global sport which all the best players in the world are playing on the atp tour. Basketball, hockey, or soccer are all played at a much higher level than in the 60s. Why? More global sport, more athletes, more talented players.


    There's no volley doesn't mean athletes are getting worse. They have other areas to master, which the past players aren't equip with. Agassi had s/v in the 90s, he always believe today's players are better and "I watch these guys play from my living room, and I thank God I don't play anymore".
     
  16. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,326
    I agree with you. A person cannot assume a sport is necessarily getting better.

    I'll give you a major difference between tennis and other sports. In other sports like baseball things have remained the same as far as equipment is concerned. Tennis changes equipment every day, every second. The racquets improve constantly. The strings improve constantly. The players don't necessarily improve constantly.

    Superior equipment means you don't have to do as much to get superior results. I can now hit topspin backhand lobs and I couldn't do that years ago with a small wood racquet. I can hit with more consistency and power now than in the past. And I am not nearly the player I was in the past. Not that I ever was good.

    Wood racquets forced players like McEnroe or Laver to use a more variety of shots. They had to volley better, change angles better, hit drop shots and lob better. They don't need to do that now. Would these lost skills help the players of today? Of course they would if they players used these skills wisely.

    There are other reasons that tennis is different from other sports but I don't feel like mentioning them now.

    If today better than the past? Maybe. But maybe the past is better than the present? A guy like Nalbanian for example is hardly a superior athlete, even at his best and yet he was a top player. Baghdatis was a top player and hardly in my opinion a great athlete. It's not necessarily better today. It's not set in stone.
     
  17. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Hello pc1,

    It is hard to compare eras that use different technology, and obviously the type of game that is played will be different. Some people will prefer one over the other, but that isn't relevant.

    Let us look at only one, simple aspect of improvement in any particular sport.

    Basically, you and I are both going to pick (at random, but this is really just to ensure that we aren't playing a game of who is the better scout) a group of people who will then be trained by the exact same coaches to play tennis using whatever type of technology we agree upon. Each group will play among themselves in order to find the best player who will then play the best player from the other group.

    To start in an extreme manner, you only get to pick ten people and I get to pick ten million. Do you think the best player from your group will be better than my best?
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2012
  18. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,578
  19. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,578
    Interesting, Federer clobbered nearly everyone in that time period and twice came within one match of winning a calendar Grand Slam -- that one match being the French Open final, against Nadal. So the thing keeping Federer from winning the calendar Grand Slam twice -- the only "pathetic" opposition, in you words -- was Nadal. Arguably the greatest claycourter of all time, but to you he's the "pathetic" opposition that prevented Federer's Grand Slam.

    Unbelievable.
     
  20. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,578
    Then how many Grand Slams does Don Budge have?
     
  21. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    oh yeah, a final reached by beating giants like osuana/pasarell ......... oooohhhhhh, I'm scared of that opposition ...:)

    it was an amateur one, with the best players missing ( being in the pro circuit )

    had it been a full field, he'd probably not have got close to being in the finals ....
     
  22. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    no, gonzales/hoad were well off their peak when Laver hit his ...hence his luck
    ...

    emerson was never the best player in the world ... federer was for many weeks and many years - against full fields ... including in 2012 where he wrestled it away from djoker ...laver won the GS only once ... and he didn't have the dominance that federer had ... federer's competition at his peak wasn't just hewitt/roddick.... there was still strong agassi, safin, nalbandian, nadal on clay, then grass, dabydenko, then djoker etc

    federer > laver ... it is too much for you to accept right row .... But eventually you'll learn to deal with it .... :)
     
  23. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    a different case ..... Don Budge entered the pros next year and proved himself to be the best player in the world ....

    Laver wasn't in 62 ... he got clobbered by Rosewall/Hoad the next year in 63 ....
     
  24. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,578
    Yes there were differences between the two situations -- which you would expect. But whether or not Budge was the best player in the world in '38 (some thought he was, others still said that about Vines) -- if he had faced a full field his chances of sweeping all four Slam events would have dropped dramatically. Probably his chances would have been slim, if he had faced Vines, Perry, von Cramm and Nusslein: the latter two would have been particularly difficult to beat at the French and would arguably have been the favorites there.

    And isn't that the what we're talking about -- whether or not someone would have won his Grand Slam, if he had faced a full field? Even Laver's fans agree that he wouldn't have won a Grand Slam in '62 if he'd faced all the pros, but does that mean he didn't really win a Grand Slam in '62?

    If it means that, then Budge also didn't really win a Grand Slam in '38.
     
  25. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    agreed ....

    'Technically', Laver did win the grand slam in 62. Just that I don't place that much significance on it ...

    The reason why the grand slam assumes value is it shows that the player was clearly the best player over the year,dominating, winning all 4 majors .....

    But we know that wasn't exactly the case with Laver in 62 . Rosewall and Hoad were clearly better than him then ...
     
  26. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,578
    I think that's one reason the Grand Slam assumes value: it shows one player clearly better than his peers. But that is not the only value to a Grand Slam, and arguably not even the most significant one. A player can show himself to be clearly the best player over the course of the year, such as with Federer's 81-4 record for '05: one of the best records in history; and yet it contains only two wins at the majors.

    Sweeping the four majors is not just about showing yourself to be the best in a group of players. It's also -- I would argue, mainly -- an achievement in its own right. It's a perfect record at the majors. The sweep is the unique thing -- the thing that defines the Grand Slam.

    Yes of course it usually follows from a perfect record at the majors that the player must be considered the best for the year. But that's not necessary, as you can see with Laver in '62, or possibly with Budge in '38 -- and you could see that even today. It's possible to imagine that the second-best player today can sweep the Slams if his major rival is injured or retires. But does that mean that the player did not really win a Grand Slam?

    Yes I get that you don't place much significance on the '62 Slam. I do, but fine. I just don't think it can not be counted as a Grand Slam, as you said before when you gave Laver only his '69 Slam.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2012
  27. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,164
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    Nadal is a weak-era goat of clay.He would have folded like wet laundry to STRONGER competitions like,Borg,Rosewall,Kodes,Vilas,Kuerten,Bruguera,Gomez, etc,,,¡¡¡¡
     
  28. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,632
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I do not insist that it stays constant. I do not insist that it is getting worse. I merely doubt that it is always getting better. There are nuances of meaning possible. It appears to me that the game of tennis has ebbs and flows, peaks and valleys. In other words sometimes it goes up but it can also go down.


    Let's try a basketball analogy: what if players worked on nothing but their outside jump shots, so that they could make them from farther and farther away--35 feet, 40 feet, 50 feet, 60 feet. People would say amazing!

    These are surely the best players ever. But one day these players come up against a supremely man-to-man defensive team, and are required to shoot lay-ups. The problem is they don't know how because they have never practiced them. They don't make sense in a game built around hitting jump-shots from 60 feet.

    I say that Bill Russell or Michael Jordan is better because each can make jump shots from 30+ feet and do awesome layups or dunks.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  29. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,326
    That may be a bit of an overstatement but I understand the argument. But my point is that it may be comparing apples and oranges.

    Let's say you get to pick ten million people and I get to pick two million people to play chess. The ten million never played chess before but the two million played chess as a normal part of life. Do you think the best player will come from the two million or the ten million, even after years of training on the ten million side?
     
  30. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,632
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Sometimes I cannot tell whether someone is being sarcastic, or not, (or maybe doubly sarcastic).
     
  31. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,632
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes, true. He didn't catch up to the pros until after six months or so. By August he was able to beat Rosewall. By '64 I believe he had nosed ahead of Muscles into first place.
     
  32. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    I don't think it is quite as different as you make it out to be, in the sense that I think most players would be able to adapt to either the newer or older technology. It would help some and hurt others, for sure.

    The point of my post was that if you have a greater pool of people who participate and compete in a sport, you are generally going to get better players than if you have a smaller pool. Not just the average players, but the top players as well.

    There are limits to this and for example, it is entirely possible that you hit the jackpot and picked the GOAT in your group of ten, it is just unlikely. Obviously, the reality is not as grim as ten to ten million, but I never suggested it was.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  33. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,632
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes. Statistics will take you only so far.

    I submit that a player like a Federer (or a Laver) is not a product of statistics, but an anomaly that comes along outside the curve.

    I was thinking the other day how does Switzerland produce a player like Federer? Where's the population, the talent pool? Who were the great Swiss players before Federer? Where's the deep and vast Swiss tennis tradition? All those yodelers and cheese-makers and watch-makers taking up tennis, and then poof! (Maybe in China or India, where the talent pool is hundreds of millions, but Switzerland? Really?)

    It makes no statistical sense, but there he is.
     
  34. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    It can give you an idea of what to expect, in a quantifiable manner (in principle). It doesn't say what actually happens, but it can be used as a guide to help temper some of the more extreme rhetoric. The further you deviate from expectations the more likely it becomes that you have an extreme bias.

    The emergence of anomalous players isn't forbidden, it is only unlikely. This should become more likely with an increasing number of players.

    I've never been a big fan of dividing up players by country and gawking at how some small country was able to produce the best, as I believe that human performance is best studied by looking at the population as a whole. This is a whole other issue, with many details.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  35. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    The problem is basketball is not tennis, because basketball has always rely on jump shot, penetration, layups, defense, etc. for decades. Except that players today are more atlhetic that they dunk more often than the players in the 60s. I don't find any erea in basketball that players today don't pratice on, so the "what if" he doesn't pratice this or that part is pointless.

    Tennis has changed. While serve/volley is a key component for the 90s and before, but today it's not. You're suggesting today's players don't serve/volley often will get exposed by players in past generations. Well, put any past s/v players and try it on today's conditions, I think they will get expose by getting pass left and right. The baseliner would beat any s/v player, and that's why the players today don't pratice s/v a lot(not like basketball which they pratice everything). Now if the racquet technology and court condition haven't changed one bit since the 60s, the players today would pratice s/v thus we would have many s/v players. And I believe they would produce more and better s/v players from the past. Why? Because once again, tennis and every sports get better overtime.
     
  36. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    Another word 10 millions tennis players don't play s/v while the other 2 millions have, you're suggesting the best players are from the 2 millions. That's an overstatement since today's players do s/v but not that much. However, what the players don't practice on(s/v), but they have to focus more on other areas because they have to adapt to their environment. They may have to pratice more on the return of serve, train to be more athletic(due to the pace of the game), improve on defense, etc. Difference conditions will dictate what area of the game you have to work on. Assuming that condition hasn't change and today's player must practice a lot on s/v, I'm sure there would be plenty of great s/v players. So going back to the chess game, given both 10 millions have played chess vs. to the other 2 millions, I say there's more great players coming from the bigger pool.
     
  37. Carsomyr

    Carsomyr Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    4,164
    Location:
    Winesburg, Ohio
    ....................
     
  38. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,326
    Again you've misinterpreted my point. I didn't mention serve and volley at all. My point is that players who begin with wood racquets like John McEnroe, Rod Laver and Bill Tilden had to play a different style of game. They had to learn different skill sets instead of blindly baseline bashing all the time with topspin. They had to hit flatter shots in order to not mishit with smaller racquet surfaces. They had to change spins, angle, pace of the shot. They had to drop shot, lob and learn not only how to volley but when to volley. It was a different game and the players who learned those skills can easily have it translate to today's game. It is apples and oranges.

    You also misinterpreted the chess discussion. You didn't notice I wrote the ten million didn't know chess at all growing up while the two million grew up with it as a way of life. It's more natural for them. So it's more likely the greatest player would come from the two million. Why did Russian have more great players than any nation? It's because chess is a top game there unlike for example China which has a larger population. By your logic China should have greater players than any nation. Greater population.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  39. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    it is so cute how federites enhance Davidenkhos ( poor) record so to make Fed look bigger...same for old fart Agassi, nalbandian,Safin,Hewitt,Roddick and, of course, Baghdatis and Gonzalez ( not Pancho, of course, that one was for Laver..)
     
  40. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,326
    True enough. You could also make the example of Bobby Fischer in chess history. One man against the Russian Chess Machine. The United States did not have much funding to help chessplayers and yet somehow this chess genius from Brooklyn became perhaps the greatest player in the history of chess.

    Genius can come from anyone. They used to complain in the United States how this little nation of Australian dominated tennis over the much bigger nations like the United States.
     
  41. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    true, but not in 67, when Laver won the very prestigious Pro slam and of course not in 1969, when Laver used Rosewall´s head for cleaning purposals at the FO...
     
  42. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    Nadal may not be a pathetic opposition on clay, since he was already the best there.But other than Nadal ( on clay)...whom did Federer have to face? I just think it was a pretty weak period at the top when nobody was ( except cc nadal) challenging Federer so much...Safin, the only real credible thread had gone astray, Roddick and Hewitt had too many shortcomings and were never able to beat Federer at a major...I hope my answer won´t deserve one of your kilometric answers¡¡¡¡
     
  43. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    You mean Osuna, right? the 63 Forest Hills champ, right?
     
  44. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    You forgot Wilander and Lendl...while nobody disputes Nadal being a GOAT candidate on clay and the guy with the best overall cc record, it must be said that , except Federer and Djokovic at second class clay court events like Hamburg or Madrid, he has never been too seriously challenged.I mean, this year Rg final showed how far a guy like Djokoic is to be considered a cc threat for nadal.
     
  45. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,718
    You mean, that guy with a moustache that won 2 Rg titles ( as opposed to somebody´s else 1 ) ?
     
  46. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,632
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes. It is only about probabilities and likelihood or unlikelihood. Much used by insurance companies to set rates.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2012
  47. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,632
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Malarkey!

    I did not say s/v (or serve-and-volley). I said volley. Being pure s/v is equally limited to being a pure baseliner

    The quality player who can both volley and play baseline will beat the equal quality player who can do only one.
     
  48. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    Yep. It is only probabilities and likelihood. Used by insurance companies to set rates and by physicists to explain and predict natural phenomena. It tends to work pretty well.
     
  49. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,326
    A pure baseliner or a pure serve and volleyer may have weaknesses but one who has variety like some player have had can use this to his or her advantage. A McEnroe for example could serve and volley or could use his great touch to win. I've seen Laver give drop shot clinics to defeat Harold Solomon.

    Edberg, as great as he was at the net, could often be vulnerable to a player with a super return because his serve, while quite good was not as overpoweringly as let's say a Boris Becker.

    Rosewall was a super baseliner but he also had super touch and could volley as well as almost anyone.

    Nastase is another example of a top baseliner who could mix it up with serve and volley.

    I don't think most of today's player have the variety to play a McEnroe type game to bother the current baseliners. No volley, no touch, no lob, all baseline power with a few exceptions.
     
  50. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,578
    This is why the argument about larger populations producing larger numbers of good players cannot be used simplistically. Small nations like Sweden and Spain have produced great numbers of champions in relatively short periods, because of a tennis boom in those nations. That's what tends to produce great champions: the popularity of tennis. A population can grow, but if the sport's popularity doesn't keep pace, you're not necessarily going to be seeing larger numbers of champions.
     

Share This Page