Federer No. 1 — in all sports

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by DoubleDeuce, Jul 14, 2012.

  1. objectivity

    objectivity Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,660
    actually i think the international diversity ratio in NBA is about 23%. i.e. 23% of the players playing in the NBA now are foreign born.

    http://www.theatlanticcities.com/arts-and-lifestyle/2013/10/remarkable-global-diversity-nba/7380/

    La Liga's comparable statistic is about 41%.

    http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/24467371

    The 2 statistics may not be completely comparable, but I just want to highlight that basketball is far more international than you may like to think.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  2. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    Look. Stick to your story. You said here that "...Basketball is a sport played by just about anybody in the world i.e..."

    This is wrong and that is what I said... because it's wrong. Basketball is not played by just about anybody in the world. Even if you intended to say it is played in just about any country in the world it's still mostly wrong in a practical sense. They play ice hockey in Singapore too but a couple of dozen aficionados hardly makes a census.

    Then you changed it in this post Later you changed it to "at least they CAN play it. there's absolutely no way anyone can just play golf, whatever level you want. or tennis. or F1 driving."

    Of course they can play it. I can be a fighter pilot too.

    So far as the rest of that post goes, I agree with you. Most people in the world can't go play golf or tennis or many other activities. The circumstances and opportunity make it very unlikely they ever will. For soccer it's far more likely as the hurdles in the way are very few compared to tennis and hang-gliding etc. The same should be true for basketball to some extent but still, in most of the world basketball is an irrelevance.
     
  3. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    18,912
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    One way to look at it is to analyse the top players in a sport.

    Basketball has generally seen players at the legendary level from one continent.. or one country even.

    Football has seen players at a legendary level from South America and Europe, so let's call that two continents. These countries may include: Argentina, Brazil, Portugal, Netherlands, France, Hungary, and maybe others.

    Tennis has seen players at a legendary level from perhaps three continents: Australasia/Oceania (not sure what to call it), Europe and the Americas. One can stretch it two North and South America by suggesting players like Kuerten and Vilas but they aren't all-time greats of the sport, and in which case you could count people like Dirk Nowitzki (Europe-basketball) or George Weah (Africa-football). These countries may include: US, Australia, Switzerland, Spain, Germany, Sweden and others that have had a consistent massive impact on the landscape of tennis and winning such as Argentina, France, Czech Republic, Yugoslavia/Serbia, Britain... a bunch of other European countries and probably some other countries from the Americas...

    Just another angle to consider.


    Badminton - two
    Cricket - three
    Rugby - two

    etc etc etc...

    This might be useful in the VERY popular sports (if a sport is a bit too niche then it's possible for any region to suddenly start taking it up and to then find top levels of success).



    One could look at the current top 100 for certain sports and see how many nations are represented also. Tennis would do extremely strongly here, with many continents and many countries represented.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  4. objectivity

    objectivity Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,660
    1) my first post is poorly lettered. what i meant was "Basketball is a sport that can be played by just about anybody."

    2) That explains my second post.

    and as the statistics show, basketball is played by far more people than you give credit for. trust me, i am of chinese ethnicity, i have lived in china for many years, and basketball is played at every level. for various reasons such as physicality etc, the level of play for the average chinese is still relatively low. but china alone, will bump up that number by A LOT.

    sure, there aren't as many people playing basketball as soccer. but seriously which other sport even comes close to the total number of people playing basketball? the 2002 statistic already has 400m people worldwide playing it. its definitely way more than that now.

    and yes, maybe you can be a fighter pilot. but actually most people can't. eyesight's too poor, too short, etc etc. the barriers to that profession is extremely high. and all i was highlighting, is that the financial barrier to playing basketball, is way lower to that for tennis. and hence by design, the talent pool has to be deeper. assuming of course the same athletic talents are actually choosing between the sports.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  5. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    18,912
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Indeed, there are sports that need very little effort to get involved in. Tennis golf, maybe ice hockey struggle here, where as sports such as football and basketball are simply accessed.

    With basketball though, it would appear that the necessary infrastructures outside of the US don't exist to consistently produce top level prospects who have the quality to compete in the NBA. How many of the top 50 players in the league are not from the single country of the US? I'd guess it's less than 30%.

    Basically, the massive player base for basketball in China is largely irrelevant until the necessary infrastructures, training and coaching are in place to actually take advantage of it. Until that point, it is largely untapped potential.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  6. objectivity

    objectivity Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,660
    ah but it could be simply a function of the fact that there may be more top potential athletes concentrated in the US.

    like you can give japan a few million courts but they aren't -- look i really doubt it and i am not being racist here -- going to beat the americans.
     
  7. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    18,912
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    I disagree. If the US suddenly spent a mass of money to help China build an infrastructure and create vast experience in the coaching practices, then they will produce many more great players. As for Japan, well maybe they won't produce many good centres and forwards but why not guards.

    It's about the quality of teaching, and the teaching is simply way better in the US than in China. China have produced a top level sprinter in the hurdles, top level weightlifters and top level racketeers. Even if they may possibly be at a slight physiological disadvantage regarding basketball, I remain convinced that the main things are facilities, experience and quality of training and coaching from the ground level upward.

    It would be dangerous to play the physiological card regarding basketball and races also, because it undermines your own argument for basketball in its ease of accessibility.

    In short, it's possible that physiological factors plays a small role, but given China's proven ability to produce top level sports people across a huge variety of sports as evidenced by the Olympics, it's doubtful that basketball would be an unfortunate and limiting anomaly.

    For the record, China are starting to produce a large number of very high level chess players, and that's down to them improving the training and coaching from the bottom-up. Where there's a will there's a way.

    This is where a sport like football (soccer) really comes into its own. It has many very high level domestic leagues in many countries and a top level of experience, coaching and training facilities in those countries.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  8. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    It is clear from your replies that we are not even talking about the same thing. Keep posting those stats if you like - they mean nothing in terms of what I was talking about. In bugger-all countries is basketball a remotely significant sport compared to others even if in the countries it is popular in it's extremely popular.

    Numbers-wise in terms of participants is a specious argument because viewing it that way only requires a sport to be popular in China, India or the USA for it to immediately be in the top ten even if it's almost non-existent in all other countries.
    Well, it is about as "international" as table tennis and rugby. Each have 10 or 15 countries that are serious about it and only 3 or 4 globally really make any headway into it when it comes time for a nation vs nation contest.

    Now, if you look at soccer you suddenly see many dozens of countries where the sport is taken seriously. Tennis is also up there (irrespective of their success at it - Japan being a good example of this).
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  9. objectivity

    objectivity Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,660
    no it doesn't contradict my accessibility level. i was only talking about the financial barriers. i wasn't talking about physicality limiting access to the pro levels.

    of course china can produce top level chess players, or basically in any sport. but its about the marginal efficiency. it is way more efficient to produce a top long distance runner in ethiopia than in china for eg.
     
  10. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    18,912
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    But the physical limitations argument is one to consider anyway, with boxing perhaps being the most inclusive here, allowing anyone with boxing talent of any size to have a chance at being successful in a sport. But like I said, I don't really begin to think of physiological factors as the one that preponderates over others. I suspect the proof will be in the pudding within about 30 years as well, especially as China continue to take over the world stage. It's just going to take a long time for China or Europe to catch up to the US because the US college system is so utterly thorough, they pour incredible amounts of money into their flagship sports and then, on top of that, they have all the best facilities and coaching, and then on top of that, they all practice and train against each other in one country -- the most elite training one can get. A sport like football is far less insular and far less segregated across, between, and within leagues. As such, the openness of information and knowledge equals its ease of access. This is not the case for basketball which is basically 'cliquey'.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  11. objectivity

    objectivity Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,660
    look, i never denied soccer is THE most global/popular sport etc. that's completely undeniable. I am just saying that basketball isn't what you made it out to be.
     
  12. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    18,912
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Basketball though is a popular and quite global sport, I agree. Also, its flagship league is crazy strong, probably superseding any of the Cricket leagues unless one wants to treat IPL seriously, and also the Super 15 Rugby Union league.

    (For the record, it's also one of my favourite sports.)
     
  13. objectivity

    objectivity Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,660
    pls stop comparing to football (soccer). i already said football is far and away the most accessible and truly global, plural sport. my contention is merely that basketball is more pluralistic than most other sports, including tennis.
     
  14. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    18,912
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    There is no need for me to stop comparing basketball to soccer. You should probably relax, as I'm merely having a friendly discussion rather than agreeing or disagreeing with your assertions. I'm further delving into some differences and they are two easy sports to compare due to their very clear demographic differences. I have also just introduced cricket, rugby and boxing into the discussion. This is my nature.
     
  15. Russeljones

    Russeljones G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,618
    They might as well close the thread lol
     
  16. objectivity

    objectivity Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2013
    Messages:
    2,660
    sorry i wasn't trying to be offensive. i am very relaxed.

    talking about cricket, its interesting to compare it to baseball. which do u think is the more competitive sport? like to hear your views. i am undecided.
     
  17. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    18,912
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    This is a question I really can't contribute much to I'm afraid due to my blissful ignorance of baseball. I'll have to have a think about that one and come back to it but as a gut instinct, based on an viewpoint I presented earlier regarding the difference between a segregated sport and one with more open access, probably cricket.

    ''A sport like football is far less insular and far less segregated (than basketball) across, between, and within leagues. As such, the openness of information and knowledge equals its ease of access.''

    Relating to that: cricket is less insular than baseball and has a more thorough international integration with many international tournaments in different formats and now also the IPL, as well as regular international series between two national teams.

    However, someone who actually knows the sport of baseball should probably try to refute me here and I would welcome it.
     
  18. Blocker

    Blocker Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2012
    Messages:
    532
    Location:
    Melbourne
    JK would have dominated squash today I have no doubt. He dominated his sport more than Federer dominated his. Comparing the two sports is neither here nor there.
     
  19. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    18,912
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    Why all the talk of Jahangir, was he even better than Jansher?
     
  20. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    I wasn't contradicting what you said about soccer. We both agree it is a global sport.

    Basketball is not except by a very liberal use of the phrase and in the same way rugby and table tennis is.
     
  21. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    He he... Where are you from? It seems like you've almost made two sports into one here. :twisted:
     
  22. Nathaniel_Near

    Nathaniel_Near G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    18,912
    Location:
    Relax folks, ...
    I meant the Super 15 rugby union competition of course (but then you know that).. rather than some sort of rugby union-league hybrid new super sport. ;)

    England.
     
  23. Bad_Knee

    Bad_Knee Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2012
    Messages:
    665
    Once Tiger Woods is done, love or hate him, he will be the greatest sportsman that ever lived.

    Transcendence, majors, stats, level of competition...Any category you want, he will have just about owned it.

    But for Injuries, and personal problems (all of his own doing of course), he might already be there, but he will get there.
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

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

    To put Federer's records into perspective:

    Roger won 11 majors out of 16. Rosewall won 12 majors out of 15 from 1960 to 1965 (where he participated). The pros then had only three majors per year.

    Federer won 1 major after his 30th birthday. Rosewall won 7...
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2014
  25. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,481
    To me he's the defining athlete of the 2000s. Greatest player of his sport, and overall greatest player I've seen in my lifetime across sports.
     
  26. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,742
    I am not so sure he would have done so in this day and age.
     
  27. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    Not to mention Rosewall won most of his majors in an era where half of the best players - if not more - in the game could not play at the majors.
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Povl Carstensen, And I'm not so sure that Roger would have won seven majors when being 30 in the 1960s...
     
  29. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Bobby Jr, You err, Junior: Rosewall won his 15 pro majors (adding to his 8 GS tournament wins) in an era when virtually all the top players played in his group which was the professional troupe, whereas the almost-top players played at the amateurs. That's tennis history...
     
  30. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    I talked of his majors, i.e. slams. Learn to read. Thanks.

    Now, looking at his US Pro Championships... 1963 had an 8 person draw. 1965 had a 12 person draw and Rosewall had a bye in the first round.

    The Wembly Pro Championships... 1963 had a 16 person draw but Rosewall had a bye in the first round and matches before the semis were best of 3 sets. 1962 had a 16 person draw and matches before the semis were best of 3 sets.

    Do you still want to pursue this laughable comparison with open era majors in terms of the difficulty of winning one?
     
    Last edited: Apr 7, 2014
  31. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    It also has been thoroughly explained by John123. Open era majors(slams) have more weight than the pro majors and amateur slams, but BobbyOne will continue to ignore it because he will do anything to boost Rosewall.

     
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Bobby Jr, Junior, listen: I read your post correctly.

    Rosewall won 23 majors: 4 amateur, 15 pro and 4 open era.

    Even if you count only GS majors you are not right that Rosewall won most of his majors when there were split fields.

    "Wembly" (you mean probably Wembley)1963 did not have a 16 person draw. Learn to read! (but you are young and so I hope you will learn...).

    Yes, the pro majors only had 8 to 16 participants. But there were giants like Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and Gonzalez involved. Federer often had to deal only with the likes of Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Baghdatis...

    Rosewall won four times in a row two pro majors within of seven/eight days: First the French Pro (mostly on clay) and then Wembley (on fast wood). He won three Channel Slams. It's the question if Roger could have done the same (clay!!).
     
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2014
  33. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,194
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Federer has to win 7 matches, including many good to great players like Nadal, Agassi, Djokovic, Murray, Nalbandian, Del Potro, Tsonga, Davydenko, F.Gonzalez, Ferrero etc...plus the guys you mentioned.

    Mentioning Baghdatis but not Djokovic or Murray or Nadal is laughable considering he's played the later 3 many times more in slams than he played Baghdatis.


    Get serious ;)
     
  34. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
    You did not. I said "Not to mention Rosewall won most of his majors in an era where half of the best players..."

    You replied "Bobby Jr, You err, Junior: Rosewall won his 15 pro majors (adding to his 8 GS tournament wins) in an era when virtually all the top..."

    I'm talking apples and you're saying his oranges were better. They're different things and always have been no matter how much you try and revise history. Those pro major championships were substantially easier to win both in terms of the competition, the number of matches and often even the length of the matches in the earlier rounds in the case of the US Pros. Making out like they're somehow the equivalent of modern majors (since the last 30-odd years) is specious at best.
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, I would be glad if you ever would try to argue as John123 did. You never did. Your only issue is to boost the Swiss No.2, and that without any arguments!

    If you had read John123 exactly, you would have realized that the modern GS tournaments did not always mean what they do today. F.i. Rosewall won two WCT finals (1971/72) that were considerd higher than AO and French Open or the Boycott Wimbledon 1973.

    John himself wrote that his point 3 should not be overstated (amateurs did not compete in the pro majors).

    I contradict John: Emerson was No.5 only in one year (if at all): 1964, his very best year.

    I don't boost Rosewall. I only use to show that the giants of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s were better than Federer's opponents in most of his peak years.

    Rosewall is widely underrated, Federer is hyped up by "modern" fans and "experts"...
     
  36. Bobby Jr

    Bobby Jr Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    7,319
  37. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Get less aggressive!

    I wrote that Federer "often" played against H,S,R,Baghdatis.

    Nadal, Djokovic and Murray did a little roll (or no roll at all) in some of Roger's peak years: 2004, 2005, 2006...Nadal was not at his peak then...

    I thought you would become less nasty. It's a pity you don't.
     
  38. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Federer is considered the consensus male tennis GOAT. His achievements were all in the Open Era, against a worldwide pool, and none of the giants of the past (except maybe Laver) can compare to him.

    It's a futile exercise to try and rewrite history to have the greats of older times proclaimed as GOAT, but it is funny to watch certain posters try. ;)
     
  39. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Junior, Learn to read and to think!!!

    You don't need to write in red and black giant letters!

    I wrote that if you count only the Grand Slam tournaments, you still are wrong: Rosewall won the half of them in OPEN ERA when all players could participate. Thus you were wrong that R. won MOST of his GS tournaments when there was a split field.

    Awake, Junior!
     
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
  41. Gonzalito17

    Gonzalito17 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,312
    Location:
    Bradenton, FL
    "Facing Federer: Symposium of a Champion" -- Good book.
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix1983, It's funny to read your wrong statements and claims.

    Federer is of course NOT the consensus male tennis GOAT.

    Did you ever hear the name Bud Collins?? Bud assured me last year that he does not rate Roger the GOAT. He told me his four GOAT candidates: Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver (guess he favours Laver).
     
  43. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    20,988
    Precisely. Federer is considered goat by consensus.

    Even after he won 2009 Wimbledon(with 15 slams), many have conceded him as the greatest of all time.

    Before he won the elusive FO, Bud Collins on ESPN said(rephrase)..."if he ever win the FO, I will bow to him".
     
  44. Fed_Djoker_Fan

    Fed_Djoker_Fan Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    574
    The joke thread is still going on.

    9-2, 23-10, 6-1 6-3 6-0. yes all hail the goat of goats.
     
  45. Fed_Djoker_Fan

    Fed_Djoker_Fan Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    574
    If Rafa owns the goat of goats like his lab, what does that make him then?
    The god of goats?
     
  46. Egoista

    Egoista Professional

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Messages:
    1,269
    nadal vs fed

    should be a grand slam of bloggers vs bloggers of both camps
     
  47. Povl Carstensen

    Povl Carstensen Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    5,742
    That is mainly clay. Federer has the other three majors, wtf, weeks at nr 1, etc.
     
  48. Gonzalito17

    Gonzalito17 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,312
    Location:
    Bradenton, FL
    Fed gets WC into Monte Carlo. Djokovic be ready )
     
  49. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,194
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    That wasn't aggressive or nasty Bobby, please be a little less sensitive.

    Nadal was easily playing some prime tennis in 05 and 06 especially on clay.

    But let's discuss those years in a little more depth. I hope you won't just gloss over this. Let's also have a look at some of Rosewall's draws - perhaps also confining it to his best years. Considering you pick 3 of Federer's I will look at 3 of Rosewall's namely 61, 62 and 63. I trust you have no objections.

    Of the years you mention only 06 could be considered weak, in 2004 these are the players he beat in his slam runs;

    AO - Hewitt, Nalbandian, Ferrero and Safin (albeit a very tired Safin)
    Wim - Karlovic, Hewitt, Grosjean and Roddick
    USO - Agassi, Henman and Hewitt

    Now that is a very solid and strong list of opponents. Most of those guys were playing really good tennis that tournament and in the tune ups. On grass you had Roddick and Hewitt as competition playing their peak tennis. Hard courts there was Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Nalbandian and Safin. On clay you had Moya, Nalbandian, Coria, Gaudio. Plus you had players like Fernando Gonzales, Ljubicic, Joachim Johansson starting to come through. It was a strong year with 7 slam winners in the top 10.

    In 2005 he was stopped at the AO by an on fire Safin in one of the great matches of all time. At the French Open Nadal beat Federer in the semi's in a competitive 4 setter. Both strong competition.

    Wim - Ferrero, Gonzales, Hewitt and Roddick
    USO - Nalbandian, Hewitt and Agassi

    Nadal had his break out year and played some great tennis on the clay and also on hardcourts pushing Federer in Miami and winning Montreal and Madrid Indoors. So he was still very strong. Even 19 year old Nadal would certainly be #3 in this era.

    2006 was weaker as Roddick (till the end of the year), Hewitt and Safin fell off. But Nadal was still strong on clay and played a good Wimbledon. Good but not great players filled the gap. Even still every great champion often has some weaker draws and wins. I don't think 2006 is enough to devalue the years before it.

    AO - Haas, Davydenko, Baghdatis
    Wim - Gasquet, Berdych (both young but still talented and tough for 1st and second rounds) and Nadal
    USO - Blake, Davydenko and Roddick

    So weaker for sure but Roddick and Blake at the USO were playing very well. Nadal was also quite good in 2006 though not at 07/08 levels of course.


    --------------

    In the early 60's the pro tour was much weaker than it had been previously, Gonzales was semi retired and over 30, Hoad was injured and in Rosewall's best year Laver was a rookie and far from his highest level.

    In 1961 at Wembley, Rosewall had to deal with 40 year old Segura (and you call Agassi in 2004/2005 old!), Olmeda and Cooper (both best of 3) before the finals. Now I'm sorry but that's not exactly a tough draw. None of those won more than 4 games in a set against Rosewall, though he was in great form. In the final he of course played Hoad. Immediately that's not a draw that screams tough era to me. A slightly worn out (and injured - back problems) Hoad is still a good finals opponent though.

    Rosewall skipped the US pro, at the French Pro he went through Haillet (who I confess I know little about, I must assume he was not particularly noteworthy - Sorry Haillet), Cooper and Segura. Again not a particularly tough draw to the finals on paper but Cooper pushed Rosewall really hard. In the final he met Gonzales, so a good final opponent. So that looks like a better win to me.

    Onto 1962, Wembley he went through Anderson, Cooper, Segura and Hoad. The last 3 of those actually pushed Rosewall very hard. So that's a very good win for him I think. Feel free to correct me ;)

    The French Pro, Molinari, Buchholz, Cooper and Gimeno. A solid group of players for sure though it's my personal opinion that this group is certainly no better than many of the players Federer went through in his slam runs in 04/05. Plus it was only 4 rounds as opposed to 7.

    In 1963, Rosewall swept the pro majors although I don't give it quite as much significance as you do considering Federer won 3 majors in a year 3 times. Connors, Wilanda, Nadal and Djokovic have also won 3 slams in a year.

    At Wembley he only had to win 3 matches and only 2 best of 5 set matches. Trabert and Olmedo were his first 2 opponents. Then he faced Hoad for the third time in 3 years. I don't rate this one tbh. Yes he faced Hoad but he only played 3 matches. Hoad was also tired from his semi with Buchholz an epic 5 setter. This is only better than Federer's 2006 AO IMO.

    At the USO pro Rosewall went through just 3 rounds, beating Trabert, Olmedo and Laver (who was clearly a rookie at this point). I don't think beating up on rookie Laver is so impressive. Likewise I'm sure you'd devalue Federer beating Nadal in 2006 at Wimbledon. But Federer at least played 7 rounds.

    The French Pro was again only 3 matches for Rosewall, but he faced Hoad and Laver back to back. Laver showed how much he had improved and had chances to win the match but Rosewall was too strong in the fifth. Good win for the final 2 opponents but only 3 rounds.

    I really don't see how Rosewall's 'peak years' were any better than Federer's. He played mostly the same opponents every pro major and these guys aren't exactly all-time greats and if they were they were getting into advanced years. There were of course some great wins but I think Federer's 04/05 draws hold up very well, especially considering all of those were 7 rounds best of 5 (with the occasional walkover).

    I hope my effort to discuss the details of their draws and victories isn't wasted on your Bobby, please don't just post a few lines with broad disagreements.
     
  50. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    ^ Good post, NatF. It's clear to all non-biased observers that Rosewall's draws were not harder than Federer's.
     

Share This Page