Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by pc1, Jul 23, 2009.
that upper right angle..so sexi
N.N., The actual best will always be praised most. Now the balance seems to switch to Nadal or Djokovic. Will there be a Rafa or Novak hype as we had a Roger one? Maybe in ten years from now I will praise Federer as I praise Laver and Rosewall now ;-) (but I doubt a bit)...
Something we can't overlook about Rosewall is how his greatness spanned and was sustained throughout multiple eras. The fact he won his first Major long before Laver and his last Major after is a rather important detail.
His two victories against Laver in the WCT 71 and 72 finals, Majors of the day, should also be treated very seriously. Even at that advanced stage after having a much longer career, he was able to beat Laver at an event considered as a Major twice consecutively. This is a pretty big deal, it would be a bit like Federer beating Nadal in successive Wimbledon finals in 2013 and 2014.
Yes I think in time that probably will happen once the over the top furore that is accentuated by the recency effect for current top pros dies down. At the same time, time can be a curse, as has been proven -- and unfairly so in my opinion as you well know -- for Rosewall. Laver's CYGS and winning more 'official Grand Slam events' has put Rosewall in the shade. I'm not going to undermine the greatness of achieving a CYGS, but Rosewall did it once in the pros too if I recall, and also it isn't such a great achievement that a player with the class, brilliance and longevity of Rosewall should be marginalised.
Both absolute giants of the game, existing at the very same time -- a very special circumstance.
NatF, At your posts I often have the impression that you don't want to argue with me with reasonable arguments but to find a weak spot in my argumentation and to blame me, just as you do in this post: You err: I don't give wrong information about Federer to pump up Rosewall. Firstly, I actually see some weaknesses in Roger's game (but only compared with other giants) . It's my conviction that Federer has a defensive backhand and a decent volley. Secondly, Rosewall is mostly ranked behind a number of players not only behind Federer. Thus I would have to "belittle" several players to "pump up my icon". But, oh wonder, I don't find weaknesses in Laver's game and almost none in Pancho's game (maybe a defensive backhand).
I rank Roy Emerson lower than most experts do, not because I hate Roy but because he is not a tier 1 player.
I hope you will understand that my opinions are my convictions and that I don't have an agenda aginst your idol.
I can see those as fair criticisms of Roger's game, for Rosewall the serve is dubious.
Laver had less holes perhaps in his game than either, though that doesn't necessarily mean he should be at the top of the list of those three players.
Borg also didn't have much deficiency except for average volleys though perhaps lacked some of the X factor shot-making capabilities of the likes of Laver and Federer.
There's a thread I think from hoodjem about how great a bunch of players are taking into account about 20 different categories. It might be worth a bump.
Yes, Nathaniel, Dallas was a title Laver really wanted, as Kramer wrote. In the book "500 Years of tennis" (Gianni Clerici) you can see a very disappointed Rocket after the 1972 final. Bud Collins rates Rosewall as GOAT candidate because of his two Dallas wins (and his longevity).
Yes, Laver and Rosewall at the same time (arguably 182 matches against each other):What could be better?. The two little Aussies stole some majors from each other though.
Well those 2 wins in Dallas are massive because they are the ultimate proof of his incredible longevity, given that he beat the Rocket of all players to win both Majors titles. Those 2 wins then are a sort of defining affirmation of Rosewall's longevity at the elite level of the game.
N.N., Thanks again.
I think you fail to take into consideration the changes in courts and technology that have made coming to net much less profitable. Federer can actually volley very well and in an era where it was essential he could only do better. As for his backhand, I'll agree to disagree with you here, it's his most 'unstable' shot but in his best years it was strong and it still is on surfaces which aren't clay. Even if you balance out his forehand and backhand he's still got fanatastic ground strokes. I feel Rogers backhand and volley's are no more weaknesses than Ken's forehand and serve.
As for your agenda, you occasionally come to the general player forum and atleast half the time it is to belittle Federer. Why you choose Federer and not Nadal etc...I don't know. Many would rank Nadal over Rosewall too (in error I might add).
Regardless I agree that Rosewall's longevity is astounding, who did he beat to get to the finals of those WCT's?
But it's interesting that Bud C. rated the US Pro final of 1966 higher than the much praised 1972 Dallas final, maybe because his friend won... No, I would agree with Bud because in 1966 both players were in their peak or very near to it while in 1971/72 they were already 33 and 37. Rod and Ken were able to defeat the whole WCT field including Newcombe, Ashe and Okker.
Sometimes a question is raised if Laver and Rosewall would have won as much in the 1960s if open era came earlier. I say: most probably as they won all 15 pro majors from 1963 to 1967 against players like Gonzalez, Gimeno and Hoad plus they won eight out of the first ten open majors where they participated (when they were old men ).
NatF, you disagree with me not here but virtually always...
I criticize Federer more than Nadal because there is no Nadal hype yet plus Rafa has less weaknesses than Roger.
Federer in older times (wood racquets!) would not have been able to play his usual topspin forehand shots as well as he does it actually.
Rosewall beat several strong players in the tournaments which lead (as qualification) to the "Dallas Finals". The Dallas finals consisted of three rounds: In 1971 Rosewall beat Newcombe, Okker (6-3,6-3,6-1) and Laver (four sets). In 1972 he beat Lutz, Ashe (three sets) and Laver (in five).
There's plenty of Nadal hype, plenty say he's potentially the GOAT. And lol at Nadal having less weaknesses than Federer. Once again showing your lack of knowledge.
I never said Federer could hit the same amount of topspin with a wood raquet, his modified forehand would still a great shot though. He'd have less trouble with his backhand too seeing as he likes low bounces and slice was more rewarded.
Thanks for the information on the Dallas Finals.
Almost as bad as his "Roger lacks touch shots".
Roger's backhand is better than Nadal. Roger's backhand was exploited by ONLY Rafa that too only on clay.
Ask Murray what happened when he attacked Roger's backhand in AO 2010 final.
Djokovic exploits Rafa's back hand on all courts. Rafa could do that to Roger ONLY on clay.
You are really clueless Bobby
Knowledgable NatF, Is it possible that Nadal fans believe Rafa has less weaknesses than Roger because it's a fact?????????
What are these weaknesses, you have no clue at all Bobby. Stop embarassing yourself. I know you're an old man but even that excuse has it's limits
Federer is better on hardcourts and on grass compared to Nadal. He has a better serve, more touch, arguably a better backhand including all facets e.g. slice. Nadal's main advantage is being a lefty, his movement and stamina.
Why is it that the Nadal fans must be right for liking Nadal but Federer fans who reason that Federer is the superior player overall (on 2 surfaces) are fanatics.
Hello Federer Armada, I give my opinion and observation and you answer nastily like a Pawlow's dog....
Frankly, I'm not sure if your God, pardon, idol would appreciate the way you defend him.
Federer himself said that Nadal has improved immensely.
It's sure for me (I wear normal glasses, not pink like you do) that Nadal exploits Federer's weaknesses better than Federer exploits Nadal's "weaknesses".
Please tell me more about Nadal's weaknesses. Is it his service, his forehand, backhand, volley, overhead, touch shots, stamina or court coverage?
As far as I know Nadal and Federer are even on hard courts.
Why did young Nadal beat Federer on grass in 2008?
It's wrong, abmk, NatF and Featherer, that only Nadal exploits Federer's weaknesses on clay. Djokovic, Murray and others have done so. Do you fanatics realize that Roger The Invincible has lost now 12 (=twelve) majors (or 13) out of the last 13 (or 14) against various opponents???
The clueless BobbyOne
NastyF, I know I'm 104 now and too old to judge current tennis. By the way, you are too young to judge tennis history...
The last sentence of post 122 is accurate tbh.
I'm going to continue to defend BobbyOne here, because even though I disagree with him as to the extent of Federer's weaknesses or how they may or may stack up with Nadal's and other things, it's just his opinion.
It's not like he's THUNDERVOLLEY telling the world Laver has to be the GOAT and the only worthy consideration that gives you the chance to be one is having a CYGS (although this is still an opinion).
He's calling it how he sees it and we don't need to be forcing him to see it another way. BobbyOne is not really forcing anybody to see it his way, he's just exclaiming his thoughts, where as the response from Federer fans is one of incredulity and they almost feel compelled to try and FORCE BobbyOne to see the perceived errors of his ways. As he said earlier, I'm sure Roger Federer will survive his opinions given how gloriously revered he is.
Meanwhile we can all continue to argue and yet for all of that, any of you, try to tell me that it isn't a travesty how largely ignored Rosewall is these days. He's the one who needs defending. Federer's got it good.
Forza90, You can be proud to be a part of the Armada even though your colleagues are possibly a bit more intelligent than you...
This is a really compelling question and one I have pondered many times.
I envisage a faster evolution of competition had the Open era come earlier, as more players would have been forced to up their game. Do I believe Laver and Rosewall would have still come out comfortably on top? Absolutely.
Nathaniel, Thanks a lot for your defense. It's a pleasant balsam for me and a certain reconsiliation to words like "clueless" and "old man". I do hope that you and other posters and readers will forgive me that I sometimes fight back a bit...
Generally I use to "fight" for the under-rated players more than for the hyped players (I also stand up more for the poor people than for billlionaires). Thus my engagement for Rosewall, Roche, Nüsslein, Segura,Gimeno, Kovacs and others.
Roger Federer does not need my support because he has Millions of fans and supporters. And even though I admire Laver and rank him along with Rosewall, I sometimes hesitate to praise him that much because the Rocket is well acknowledged in most books, magazines and ranking lists, even in that insane Tennis Channel list where Gonzalez is only ranked as No.22 among the male players!
Not really, I'm old enough to read. Consider that you've seen very few matches of Rosewall. We're in essentially the same boat, I can read the same sources you do. I don't even think anything bad of Rosewall, I only aim to educate you on current tennis.
As for some of your other comments;
Nadal played his best grass tennis in 2007 and 2008, so young 'Nadal' was not weak. Many think his highest level of play was in 2008. He was also facing a mentally weary Federer in one of his worst year since becoming a slam champion.
Nadal is very good at exploiting the one handed backhand, even a backhand like Wawrinka's which took Djokovic to the wood shed at the AO this year. He has alot more practice playing against right handed players than Federer does against lefties. He's also got the best movement of any player in the last 30 years.
Yes they're even on hardcourts, but then again Nadal is something like 13 - 6 behind Djokovic on hardcourts where as Federer and Djokovic are about even. So what does the h2h mean? Gonzales and Laver both lead Rosewall.
Federer and Djokovic are even on clay, with Federer winning the match in Djokovic's best year. They haven't met often on clay. Murray has never faced Federer on clay. The fact you even mention it shows your complete of understanding. Murray is pretty bad on clay, are you aware of his exploits on clay this year? Lots of early exits, the same last year. Federer would destroy Murray on clay prime for prime and probably even now.
Federer's level dropped in 2010, in 2011 he lost mostly to inspired opponents or an opponent in one of the most dominant stretches ever. Nadal lost to Djokovic 3 straight times in majors from 2011 - 2012. Federer has actually beaten Djokovic twice off clay in majors since 2011 (better than Nadal) and had match points in another match.
If Nadal is so much better than Federer why does Federer handle Djokovic so much better off clay? If you answer any one question answer this one please.
Mr. Teacher, do I have to answer all your questions? It's nice that you will test me if you can find a weak spot (sorry that I'm repeating my word but you seem to be rather stubborn).
I find it strange that you put yourself on the same level as I am regarding tennis history. I never doubted that you know more than I regarding current tennis as you and your Armada colleagues have seen more recent matches.
Please not: It's not the same to read about history and to put the information into to right perspective.
You have asked me for information about the WCT finals and I gladly gave it to you. But it's a hint that you don't know yet enough about tennis history. I can give you more information but I am tired to be tested by you in an unfriendly way.
Djokovic since 2011 is 5:2 against Federer on non-clay courts.
N.F., never forget that we disagree but we are not enemies...
I don't put myself on the same level of you with regards to tennis history, you know alot more dates and names etc...However I will say I am aware of a lot testimonies on players strengths and weaknesses from the 60's. Thought not as many as you. I know who won what major and who their finalist opponent was etc...
I know enough to say that Rosewall is for sure not on a tier above Federer, which is where we seem to disagree.
Yes and Nadal is 5-0 versus Djokovic since 2011, so Federer has done better has he not? He also bagelled Djokovic in 2012. Since 2011 is irrelevent as well Bobby as Nadal and Djokovic are the same age. Since really the second half of 2008 Djokovic has mostly gotten the best of Nadal on hards. In that time frame Federer has mostly led and is still level. By results Djokovic and Federer are both superior hardcourters than Nadal. Djokovic's h2h supports that, Nadal does well against Federer everywhere for often intangible reasons. But Federer has done much better on hards versus Djokovic. So clearly simply quoting the h2h between Nadal and Federer on hards is flawed is it not?
We're not enemies, perhaps we're slightly too passionate . However I think it's clear as day that Federer on hardcourts is overall far superior to Nadal. Even when Nadal was young he gave Federer problems on hardcourts, this was at a time when he was being trashed by players with zero wins against Roger.
they're a bit older and wiser, it's a privilege to be on the war front with these great guys and learn from them.
Forza, Yes, it's always good to learn. Even as a man of advanced age I can learn from older (and younger).
I'm sorry for my words in my last recent post to you.
Bobbyone and forzamilan90, I like you both as posters. Forzamilan90, while perhaps a bit younger and I believe a Roger Federer fan, he at leasts posts and contributes to this section of the forum. PLUS, he's a Led Zeppelin fan for heaven's sake! He's all right in my book. Bobbyone has great knowledge of past players, with great detail and personal knowledge. Yet, he also understands how the game is played I believe, so even if he is not watching as much of modern tennis as perhaps some, he knows plenty about the modern game as well. It's fascinating to see subtle changes in the game while it has changed over time. To still go out there and play tennis these days with all I've experienced both while playing tennis and watching these great pros is something great! We're so lucky to play tennis and appreciate its history. So, if we can all accept that players such as Rosewall, Laver, and Federer are all all time great players, each with their respective strengths and weaknesses, that's a great place to find common ground. To even be thought of as one of the very best tennis players in history is a incredible honor. The truth is that the young learn from the older and the older learn from the young. For sure as Bjorn says. Let's see how it plays out with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray in the coming years. We've been lucky to have those guys at the top of the game. Who'll be next?
I really, really, really, really hope it's this guy
Few would say Nadal is more complete than Federer, he's worse at the net for one only coming in for easy put aways. His slice is inferior as is his serve, you should also know that Djokovic built up a 7 match win streak versus Nadal by attacking his backhand. Nadal's backhand is a weakness as much as Federer's, he's just more able to run around it. He's also got a worse drop shot.
I find it quite astounding that you think Nadal wins because he's more complete. Do you think Nadal beats Federer by attacking the net and using all court play? Federer is more complete, Nadal is just better from the baseline especially when forcing his pattern of play.
borg number one, Thanks for your serious post.
I concede that we live now in an interesting time as we have four great players at the same time and only one of them perhaps on the decline but still rather strong.
I confess I'm rather ignorant of Led Zeppelin. I only know there was an airship called Zeppelin but with a tragic end ;-)
NatF, Nadal is not forced to go to the net too often because he dominates Federer from the baseline, as you partly concede.
I doubt that Roger has a better slice and a better volley.
Watch some tennis Bobby. Bud Collins ranks Federer's slice up there with Rosewall as you once told me, does Nadal have the GOAT slice? Nadal's slice is nothing special. As for volley's yes Federer is better. This is why you have a reputation for simply degrading Federer with no basis.
Nadal doesn't go to the net much against anyone...
And you have the reputation for worshipping Roger in a biassed way.
I regret that the players don't get more to the net.
I don't worship Roger. I just find it irritating when I correct your blatantly wrong sentiments and you ignore it. You're not open minded. You should at the very least be aware of and concede that Federer has a better slice than Nadal...
Definitley.WCT was the biggest stage of the game in the early 70´s and only Wimbledon tradition could keep up with it...lamar Hunt is certainly not a GOAT but a God for tennis...
The 71 and 72 dallas finals hade the very same players.Rosewall,Laver,Ashe,Lutz,Okker,Riessen,Newcombe and Drisdale.
The eraly years Federer was cetainly FAR better to watch than Nadal.
I´d have always liked to watch his game evolve into the 80´s.with that era´s equipment, Connors,Becker,Borg,Lendl,Edberg,Wilander;Mc Enroe and Federer would have made a great group, possibly the hardest.
Having seen Laver live, I could tell you certainly many other reasons apart from his GS runs to name him the greatest tennis player of all time...
I agree.A Led Zepp fan is forgiven all his faults...even if he doesn´t read a song backwards...
This other Zeppelin had also a tragic end...
As a friend of mine once said, I think God took Bonzo away from us because his amazing and unequaled beat didn´t let him sleep...
NatF, I dislike your arrogant tone in your posts against me ("I correct your wrong sentiments").I just give opinions but you give the TRUTH!
Re backhands: One-handed backhand players use to slice the ball often because the cannot drive the ball as some two-handers can. Nadal does not need to slice that much. Federer is not a Rosewall who can drive the ball with an offensive backhand.
Federer used his heavily slice for years without great resistance from his opponents who did not know what to do. Then Nadal, Djokovic and Murray came along and found a good contra-stragedy in answering the often too short backhand with shots down the line.
In older times a Laver or Rosewall would attack Roger's backhand by volleying it back.
Please tell me where Federer's backhand is better than Nadal's. Is it better regarding drive, re offensive shot, re defensive shot , re consistency , re passing shot?
Re volleys: As far as I know McEnroe called Nadal's volley the best volley.
Federer has hit plenty of winners off his backhand in the past, it's won him lots of matches in the past. His slice can also be used offensively he doesn't just do it on the defence like you seem to believe.
I give the truth when I say Federer's s;ice is better than Nadal's. Your bias is showing again. Nadal is excused for his inferior slice because he doesn't need it because it has a two-handed backhand.
How many matches did you watch to get this opinion? Nadal wasn't the first player to attack Federer's backhand. Even recently Federer's backhand has handled Murray and Djokovic just fine, it's only Nadal who's really made Federer's backhand suffer.
Federer would play differently versus a serve volleyer. His slice has worked wonders for him against Djokovic in the past.
McEnroe talks a lot of crap. Nadal comes in and puts away sitters but he doesn't actively go to the net. Nadal's got a good volley but it's not the best. Someone like Tsonga is superior at net compared to Nadal.
Separate names with a comma.