At their best, who would win?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Graphiteking, Dec 26, 2012.

  1. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,011
    Yes, before open tennis arrived, but the WCT only happened after open tennis.
    Sure in the late fifties, the Forest Hills Pro was the preeminent tennis tournament in the game, perhaps of all time.
    And Wembley was the premier tournament of 1952 and 1953 (although the Davis Cup was the most followed tennis event between 1946 and 1967).
    I think that in 1956, Wembley and Wimbledon were on a par.
    But once open tennis arrived, the grand slam had an enhanced and special meaning, even during the boycotted years.
     
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    As I said, Newcombe was the player no one wanted to face in the early 70´s.He is in the decade´s top three, along Borg and Connors.
     
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Roche was a superb player, with vast talent.he was John´s teammate and both knew each other too well.Those things happen in tennis, you should know that.But he was never, even as much talented as he was, at Newcombe´s dominating level.
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I can agree but this is not an answer to my statement. I'm sorry.
     
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, you forget 1968 and 1969.
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    You mean 1969 Wimbledon?

    I posted before: the best rivalry of the late 60´s , even moreso than Laver vs Rosewall would be Newcombe vs Roche.
     
  7. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    From the ITF website



    NEWCOMBE, John
    Australia flagAustralia
    Ranking:

    vs

    ROCHE, Tony
    Australia flagAustralia
    Ranking:

    7 *Record 3
    68 (23 May 1944) Age 67 (17 May 1945)
    Sydney, NSW, Australia Birth Place Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia
    New Braunfels, TX, USA Residence Sydney, Australia
    Right Handed Plays Left Handed
    Year Tournament Nation Surface Round Winner Score
    1969 U.S. Open USA Grass SF ROCHE 6-3 4-6 6-4 3-6 6-8
    1969 Wimbledon GBR Grass SF NEWCOMBE 3-6 6-1 14-12 6-4
    1969 Rome ITA Clay FR NEWCOMBE 6-3 4-6 6-2 5-7 6-3
    1969 Australian Open AUS Grass QF ROCHE 8-10 6-4 8-6 5-7 3-6
    1970 GP/WCT Louisville USA Clay SF NEWCOMBE 6-3 8-6
    1971 Tehran IRI Clay QF NEWCOMBE 7-6 7-6
    1974 Sydney Indoor AUS SF NEWCOMBE 4-6 6-1 6-4
    1974 U.S. Open USA Grass 32 NEWCOMBE 4-6 7-6 6-3 7-5
    1975 Australian Open AUS Grass SF NEWCOMBE 6-4 4-6 6-4 2-6 11-9
    1980 Sydney Indoor AUS Hard 32 ROCHE 4-6 6-7
     
  8. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    Delete 11 character.
     
  9. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Thanks.Maybe their best match was the 1975 AO semi?
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I mean Roche did better than Newcombe in 1968 and 1969 in majors and was ranked ahead of Newk . As an intelligent man you should know this.

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

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

    Roche beat Newcombe in the 1969 AO and the 1969 US Open. Roche was 5.4 against peak Laver in 1969.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2013
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks, pc1, It confirms my statement that Roche did better than Newcombe in the end-1960s at majors.
     
  12. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    My darling and your darling among the all time greats?? oh¡ that is not possible.

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

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

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki,

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

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

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

    Your recent posts are painful to read for every serious tennis fan. You reach Dan Lobb level effortlessly...
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2013
  14. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    In 1974 Wimbledon, Newcombe, who was such a nice guy, knew Rosewall was on the edge of his last chance to win Wimbledon.John had won it three times, two of them beating Rosewall ( one of them a landslide) so he decided he´d let his buddy Kenny win it.He owed that to Kenny.

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

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    and know something funny? Your beloved Gimeno always had big trouble against Kodes.Life is fun.
     
  16. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Tennis was so good in the 70´s and 80´s that we were fortunate to have 5 majors and the AO as a great complement:)
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, You are wrong: Newcombe wanted to win Wimbledon 1974. After his loss to Rosewall he was rather disappointed and he said: Hopefully Rosewall will win that tournament at last.
     
  18. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,011
    It confirms other things, too.
     
  19. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,011
    I think that YOU have reached Dan Lobb levels here.
    I thought that Hoad's injuries were no excuse, but you keep dragging Roche's injuries into the discussion.
    Welcome to the club, my friend!
     
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, Of course we should consider the injuries and illnesses of a player. Hoad and Roche were probably the two players with the greatest handicap because of their injuries. We only can speculate how far they would have come without them.
     
  21. Pebbles10

    Pebbles10 New User

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2012
    Messages:
    70
    Wilander in the shape of 1988 would be a tuff match even for a top shaped Federer:)
     
  22. Calor1

    Calor1 New User

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    Messages:
    57
    Location:
    Europe
    Impossible to say IMO.
    That being said I think Rafa on gravel would win against anyone on his best day. Don't think anyone could get him to 5 sets.
     
  23. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Exactly what I said.

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

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    They were but so was Manuel Orantes.The guy visited the surgeon at least 6 or 7 times while at his peak.He couldn´t keep it up for long time, still managed to be one of the best players of the decade.of course, he was extremely talented.
     
  25. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, wrong: you said Newcombe wanted to lose while I say Newcombe was disappointed to having lost.

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

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

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

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

    Newcombe was nasty to rank Stolle ahead of his friend, Roche. Come to earth!
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Here I can agree.
     
  27. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    Actually since we are talking about Orantes, I always felt that his best on clay was higher than many greats like Vilas, Connors and perhaps even Nastase. Not so sure about Nastase.
     
  28. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I could agree but Nastase had the edge in most of their cc matches.
     
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I was exagerating a bit, on purpose.truth is many aussies of the 60´s were straight, humorous, great sports guys with a very healthy atittude.Even pockets Rosewall was known to be a humble, gentle guy.I am sure Newcombe and Roche had their ups and downs and maybe Newcombe was challenging Roche by ranking Stolle ahead of him...and why not? Stolle has 2 majors to Roche´s one.
     
  30. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Come to think abotu, and even if it is out of the thread, the best 4 yeras in my opinion are all tied with " 1".

    My top ten for

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

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

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

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

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

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Joking kiki, I know your attitude to exaggerating and joking. But PLEASE try to be objective and considering along the facts.

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

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I only can rate these lists as first class jokes.

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

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I´ve seen both while seating a few rows behind them.Roche was a more complete player, but Stolle, in his day, was very dangerous.You don´t need to belittle Stolle to enhance Tony.
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You also don't understand and use the basics of any discussion. It's not a belittleing of any player if I say that another player was ranked higher then him. The same with Rosewall and Newcombe...

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

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

    Have good dreams from Laver, Newcombe, Emerson, Stolle, Gorman and McKinley...
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  35. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Kramer could play with the best at 35, even if he didn´t do it often...and I didn´t name players according to their ranking.I just compiled a list with no ranking involved.

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

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Gutten nacht mein freundisch.a last couple of words.

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

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I'm not your friend anymore.

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

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

    I would say that Rosewall's balance is better, but at least even.
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2013
  38. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,011
    "Reached" doesn't do it.
    Close only counts in curling and horseshoes.
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Doubting Dan, You should accept tennis history.
     
  40. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    ...and history says that, while Rosewall record is overall better, both had the same number of majors in the 70´s.But I doubt Rosewall could dominate like Newcombe.
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, I must contradict even in your favour: Newcombe won 6 majors in the 1970s while Rosewall won only 5 majors.

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

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Let me see.

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

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

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

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,011
    What history are you referring to?
    Roche won which majors? And what were his summit achievements?
    Compared to Hoad?
    I like Hoad's record over other greats because his summit moments are the best ever.
    Again, "reached" doesn't do it. It falls a step short of something.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  44. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, please stop your ignorance. Don't we want to discuss on a high level?

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

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

    Every serious expert does consider a player's top placings apart from his wins (finals reached, SFs reached). It's a huge difference if a player loses in the first round of Wimbledon or if he reaches the tournament's final.Thus you must make great efforts yet to be ranked as a serious expert...
     
  45. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,472
    Just to make a point. Let's say a player wins Wimbledon and reaches the final of the US Open and loses. He won one of two majors played.

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

    Who had the better record? Obviously the former.
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    pc1, I hope you will convince Dan.
     
  47. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,011
    Unfortunately, there is only enough glory for one player in each major.
    Runnerups are just that; a failure to win.
    When we compile achievement records, it looks cheesy to list the runnerup totals, as if there are not enough championship achievements to fill out the list.
    I understand that points are given for tournament results less than victories, and these points count for the season.
    But the season total is ONE event, albeit a composite of many events.
    We should list the season total as one victory, and not list the tournament standings unless there is an absolute win.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2013
  48. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Mysterious Dan, Your many words cannot avert my impression that you missed the point.

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

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

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,011
    Interesting examples.
    It seems to me that Rosewall had a better year in 1975, and when you say "not ranked as high" what do you mean? By Tingay? Or by the ATP?
    Most points systems would give the higher ranking to 1975.

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

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan,

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

    All experts would agree that the 1974 Rosewall deserves a higher place than the 1975 Rosewall. You seem to be the only one who neglects top placings apart from tournament wins...
     
    Last edited: Jan 19, 2013

Share This Page