Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Xavier G, Feb 22, 2013.
hoodjem, Even though your example is an extreme one, I generally agree.
What's your definition of all-time great? 8 finals as well the titles is impressive, most of which were lost to Gonzales. Some of scores show a real battle.
You say Roche was awesome, but a guy like Roddick admittedly one dimensional was a very good player himself. Yet he gets no respect. He's beaten Djokovic in a slam before and Murray, both these times were when he was past his best.
It's impressive that Rosewall leads in the big matches. Is that what you favor over the full tally? The big matches one?
I've always rated Rosewall, since I've learnt some stuff about him.
Your example is unrealistic for two reasons;
1. Nobody has, or will ever, dominate to that extent.
2. A guy who dominated to that extent would, barring a ridiculous statistical improbability, win Wimbledon every year as well. Why, in your example, would he keep losing that one match every year? A bizarre recurring injury? It doesn't make sense. :-?
Rosewall is as much a "one of the greatest" as any other player.
Trying to downgrade him because of not winning Wimbledon is a bit strange, given that he could not enter the tournament during something like 13 years (in his prime).
Try to imagine we erase all Federer's Wimbledon results between 2001 and 2013 (but Federer winning many times an alternative great grass tournament that only the best players played during those years, only it was not called "Wimbledon"). That would not mean that Federer is not one of the greatest either.
I have never denied Rosewall is "one of the greatest". I have ranked him as high as 3rd, and now rank him 6th.
The point is not Rosewall's missed years (his performance in which is purely hypothetical, by the way), but the fact that he could not win in FIVE final attempts.
There is no way Federer (or Sampras, Borg, Laver, Nadal, Tilden, Gonzales, whoever) would have wasted that many opportunities in the biggest final, even if they were pre- or post-prime.
For me he isn't the GOAT, but simply because there isn't a GOAT.
There are several great players from different times, as simple as that, and Rosewall is, without a doubt, one of them.
Also I don't think Sampras or Federer could reach a Wimbledon final at 35 and at 39 again (and even if somehow they reached a Wimbledon final at that age, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if they'd lose the match).
Also I don't see anything bad in the finals he played (and lost) in 1954 and 1956. He was becoming (along with Hoad) one of the best amateurs, but neither Rosewall nor Hoad were in their primes still (they would have lost anyway against some of the pro players like Gonzales, Sedgman, Segura... had they been allowed to play).
When he was in his prime, he won several "Pro Slam" tournaments on grass (with the very best players playing), defeating Laver in the final of, at least, two of them.
He was one of the best ever on clay, but the guy could play and win on grass, indoor wood, hard, carpet and on anything really.
You are really unfair to Rosewall. There is no doubt that Rosewall reached his Wimbledon's finals far before and after his prime. That'sa great testimony of his abilities. He was 36 when he lost in 5 set to John Newcombe, 40 years old against Jimmy Connors in 1974. If you have any consideration for the players of the early days of the open era, you should admit what a feat it is to be able to reach a final at such an age! And you should also admit that when you are older, the more matches you accumulate, the more tired you are.
Claiming that someone who have won everything everywhere numerous time had a mental block to win one tournament that he could play only in the early and later day of his career is ridiculous.
He could only play the FO, USO and AO in the early and later parts of his career, and yet he managed to win all of them at least twice.
Yet when he stepped on the court in the final at SW19, he lost five times. It wasn't a surface issue, or an issue facing one invincible opponent on that surface (as Federer has faced vs. Nadal).
Therefore I can only conclude he had a psychological block.
Which prevents him from being GOAT.
since when did borg become a prime 'competitor' to rosewall ? they met only once , in toronto in 73... atleast fed beat sampras @ wimbledon in 2001 , not toronto !
ditto for vilas ....
as far as whom federer has faced, LOL @ mentioning murray, but not mentioning :
so that makes it :
del potro and may be others will join this list soon ....
rosewall's longevity is almost unparalleled in tennis, so its obvious he'd have played a lot of greats ...
However much of so called rosewall's competition was at the beginning or ending of his career... at his peak from 61-63, in the restricted pro field, it was considerably lesser ...
NatF, A player who can be ranked No.2 for a full decade should be an all-time great.
The balance of two players in big events is an important measure stick but probably not more important than the full tally.
Phoenix, YOUR opinion is just hypothetical. There is no reason to assume that Rosewall would not have won at least one Wimbledon in his prime. Even a non-Rosewall admirer like Jack Kramer granted Muscles FOUR open Wimbledons.
It's not sure by far that Nadal or other players you mentioned would have won a Wimbledon outside of his (their) prime. As told: very hypothetical...
Edit: Even the great Laver would not have got a single Wimbledon if he would have been banned in his prime.
How much do you value the WTF/Masters cup?
I see your point about being ranked number 2 for so long, problem is usually that would encompass winning alot of big titles. If all time great to you means top 20-30 then I won't argue perhaps.
No other male great has a 0-5 record in a major final, that is no hypothetical but a fact.
Would it have been better for Rosewall to not make the final at all?
mattennis, Yes, and Rod laver said that Muscles would have won also on glass...
Flash, Thanks for the support for Rosewall.
Phoenix, There is no MUST to win at Wimbledon if you won other majors, especially if you meet a Hoad or a Newcombe at 21 or 35 and if you are ill-adviced by your trainer (Hopman) against Drobny and tired after tough singles and doubles matches at 35. I purposely omit the 1974 final: It's totally unlikely to win a big final against a prime Connors at almost 40 and after five sets against Stan Smith...
abmk, I'm convinced that Murray has more potentional than Hewitt or Roddick had.
NatF, I value the WTF tournament rather high and it's surely a great plus in Federer's career to having won six of them.
By the way, I also value the old WCT finals rather high, at least in the 1970s.
Phoenix, a nice "idee fixe"...
NatF, funny question. In fact we can rate Rosewall's five W. finals as a plus in his career which indicates that it's rather likely that he would have WON at W. in his prime.
No doubt he has more talent. The difference probably isn't so vast from a matchup stand point though. I think Roddick could take Murray out at Wimbledon (like he has done) or the US Open.
I'm glad to hear you value that tournament. Too many people call it a meaningless exhibition. It's quite annoying...
Yes Rosewall's 2 WCT titles are also a plus.
Lendl almost caught him, had he lost the 84 FO final...
I agree with you. I was being sarcastic, not sure if you picked up on it. Hard to convey tone on a forum. Similarly I value Federer's 4 finals at the FO highly.
NatF, Yes, I understood your sarcasm. Maybe only such a sarcasm can help against the idee fixe of Phoenix...
Yes, but if Federer did not have the one *winning* final in 2009, he would not generally be considered GOAT.
Of course it is better for Rosewall's legacy that he succeeded to 'some extent' at Wimbledon. Let's say he had only got to the QFs (as Wilander did), maybe it would be difficult to rank him in the all-time top 10...
BobbyOne, I am allowed my opinions on the issue, whether or not you disagree with them. I remain convinced that Rosewall is not the GOAT - but we will have to agree to disagree...
I feel it's a little different. Rosewall proved he could play on grass, if he had been in 5 grass major finals and won none I would agree. But I think the circumstances should let him off abit. I agree about Federer, he needed that FO win. Would have been a shame if he never got it, he clearly had the game.
I see Wimbledon more as tiebreaker. As opposed to a make or break achievement like you do. I can see your point though.
At least you admit I have a point, unlike BobbyOne (who knows I have a good point but can't admit it because it would show Rosewall is likely not the GOAT).
Phoenix, Federer was valued the GOAT rather prematurily even before winning the French Open 2009 even though I don't agree...
Rosewall has won so much that he would enter the all-time top ten even if he would not reach a Wimbledon SF or not!!!
Phoenix, Of course you are allowed. We live in a democratic system. But also I'm allowed to say that you have an idee fixe just as Dan Lobb has one with Hoad.
Phoenix, I can assure you: I-and several other people- don't know that you have a good point with your Rosewall disparage. You will not find many experts who support your idee fixe...
Kodes won TWICE as much FO as Federer
Repeat it.Let it sink it.Live with it.
If only Federer got to play Kodes in his FO finals, he would have 5 of them then.
Funny Phoenix, Have you ever considered that no other player had such a long career as Rosewall had and therefore played as a too young and a too old competitor?.
You defend Gonzalez who had a similary long career but Pancho even did not achieved a Wimbledon final, a W. SF, a W. QF....
Your error is the fact that you value Rosewall's Wimbledon finals as a flaw while in fact they are a great plus in his career. Every success as a very young and a very old player is not a "duty" to achieve . It's just an additional favour which cannot be taken as granted.
You have not considered the argument that the greatest players (and Wimbledon winners) would not have won any Wimbledon if they had been banned in their prime years.
ask Kuerten about that...
Your idee fixe is that Rosewall is the GOAT! No arguments or evidence can convince you otherwise!
I said in the finals he made...Federer's wasn't ready for the FO title in 2004. Once 2005 rolled around if he hadn't of run into Rafa he would have won it. Kuerten is a greater clay courter than Federer anyway, better than Kodes too.
Phoenix, I have posted numerous posts since July about Rosewall's greatness and I'm happy to say that I seldom got strong contradiction. I mostly got contras when critisizing Federer....
I'm still waiting for a reasonable argument from your's.
Even my fiercest "Federer opponents" seem to admit that Rosewall deserves a very high place in history, probably a higher than your 6th place.
I have brought many arguments to support my thesis that Rosewall is a GOAT candidate but I cannot do nothing to convince a poster who neglect facts...
so ? right now, they've had better careers. If you mention murray, you should've mentioned the others as well ....
safin had more "potential"/"talent" than murray, I didn't see you mentioning him either .....
there ... fixed ....
Kuerten 3 RG
Kodes 2 RG
Federer 1 Rg
that is the correct order by mother nature as far as cc is cocnerned
kuerten > federer > kodes as far as clay court ability goes ...
the no of clay court titles federer has itself is more than the total no of titles kodes won in his entire career
make a poll in this very section about federer vs kodes as clay courters, federer will easily win it .. I'm not talking about the general section, I'm talking about here ...guarentee you federer will trump easily ...
kodes wouldn't have a single RG in this era ...he's not getting past nadal at the very least in every year ( apart from 2009 ) and would've lost to delpo/soderling in RG 2009 ...
put federer in kodes' time, he'd be almost a lock for RG 70,71,72 ......
73 the only question mark would be nastase ...
Life is full of excuses for those who refuse reality...
you mean like the reality that kodes won all 3 of his majors in highly weakened fields ... was only good enough to win 8 titles overall ?
plenty of slamless players have more titles than that ....
I got it !
anyways coming back to the thread topic, borg was better than connors by a distinct margin in 78 and was the true #1 .... whatever the flawed ATP rankings may say ...
There is nothing more to say other than that you overrate Rosewall. My ranking of 6th all time is reasonable, it is not insulting to him as it places him among the all time greats. To say he is GOAT is something which I cannot accept. Wimbledon is the cathedral of tennis and I cannot accept his record there as one of a GOAT.
Anyway there is no such thing as GOAT, there is no official list and it's all peoples' opinions. Therefore you cannot persuade me to rank Rosewall higher than 6th, using the criteria I personally consider important.
That is what separates greatness to journeymanship.Kodes name is written in the history books and all of those you refeer to are forgotten
Yes. If their other achievements were virtually the same, it could demonstrate more ability on greater variety of surfaces.
To re-use my hypothetical scenario from above, if player A has 30 slams, etc. and player B has 30 slam, etc, but player B has a Wimbledon title and player A does not.
Then, if everything else is the same I would be inclined to give the nod to player B. It is an advantage--if all else is equal.
My point here was simply to try to demonstrate that not having a Wimbledon title does not automatically and necessarily exclude one from the GOAT discussion.
In any case, call me traditionalists or whasoever, but I´d never on life would give any of my Wimbledon titles for any other slam.Wimbledon remains the true essence of this game.
Separate names with a comma.