Rosewall vs. Gonzalez

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 1477aces, Jul 9, 2013.

?

Who was Greater?

  1. Rosewall

    25.0%
  2. Gonzales

    75.0%
  3. Equal

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Can't compare

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. 1477aces

    1477aces Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,598
    Who was greater? I believe these two were the greatest players from the end of WWII to the start of the open era. Rosewall for his record number of pro majors and Gonzalez for his domination of the tour where he destroyed most of his opponents.
     
    #1
  2. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    Gonzales was greater.

    He dominated the pro tour year after year in the 50s, besting all who challenged him, and won multiple pro majors (including a record 8 US Pros).

    He won at least one major title (amateur or pro) for 12 consecutive years (1948-1959).

    He was world No 1 for roughly 7 years.

    Clearly the greatest of his era, and his only weakness (much like Sampras) was never winning a clay major.

    Rosewall had a longer career but was only the world's best player for about 2 or 3 yrs. Also, he had a 0-5 record in Wimbledon finals.
     
    #2
  3. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    1477aces, It's really difficult to decide between the two because Gonzalez won the important pro tours while Rosewall has the record of majors won. I give the edge to Muscles who is arguably the more complete player (touch, doubles).
     
    #3
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix, It would be curious to see a post of yours without mentioning that Rosewall did not win at Wimbledon. It will never happen, I guess...

    You forget that Pancho also did not win there and that Muscles was much more successful at W. than Pancho. Reaching four or five W. finals is a great achievement of a player who could not participate 13 years. (I know that Gonzalez lost even 17 years).
     
    #4
  5. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,509
    I think Gonzales was the better player in this comparison. As already noted, similar to Sampras in many ways.
     
    #5
  6. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,348
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Gonzales was better, Rosewall just lasted longer.
     
    #6
  7. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I need to point out why he cannot be considered the GOAT.

    Pancho played at Wimbledon once before he turned pro, in 1949. On his debut there he made the R16. It is unreasonable to expect him to win on his debut at an event - that very rarely happens at a major tournament.

    He then turned pro, and, throughout the 1950s, when he was dominant on all fast surfaces, he could never play at Wimbledon. By the time he got to play there again in 1968, he was 40 years old. Even then, he played a legendary match to beat Pasarell in 1969, but was obviously far too old to win the title.

    The dude literally never got a chance to win Wimbledon, or come close.

    As for Rosewall, let's look at his record there:

    - 5 appearances as an amateur (1952-1956); this includes two losing finals to two different opponents (Drobny and Hoad), one SF and one QF. The competition was not that tough, as many of the world's top players (Gonzales, Segura, Kramer etc.) were in the pros. Yet he could not get it done.
    - During this same period, Rosewall was winning everything else on offer in the amateur game: 2 Australian championships, 1 French, 1 US, and the Davis Cup. Thus he was clearly one of, if not the, dominant amateur. Yet he could not get over the final hurdle at SW19.

    - Missed Wimbledon from 1957-1966. For much of this period, he was dominated, first by Gonzales, then by Laver. Those two men, along with Lew Hoad, would have been favoured to win Wimbledon over him.

    - Wimbledon pro final 1967, lost a third final to Laver.

    - 4 appearances in the early Open Era (1968-1971). This included a final in 1970 (lost to a fourth opponent, Newcombe) and a semi-final in 1971. These losses occurred despite Rosewall skipping the FO, so that he could better prepare himself for Wimbledon. Yet, much like Lendl who did the same thing a generation later, he could still not win the game's biggest prize.
    - During this same period, Rosewall won 2 Australian Opens, 1 French, 1 US, and the WCT. He was winning all the other big events of the early Open Era, so was clearly one of the world's top players.

    - 2 appearances as an old man (1974-75). Lost a fifth final, to a fifth opponent, in Jimmy Connors (1974). This loss I can forgive as he was nearly 40 years old.

    Rosewall had multiple chances to win Wimbledon, at times when he was winning everything else, and never did so.

    That, my friends, is the difference between Pancho and Ken.
     
    #7
  8. DolgoSantoro

    DolgoSantoro Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    839
    Location:
    Far away
    Pretty sure there's already a thread for this, but going with Pancho.
     
    #8
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix83, everybody can have their opinion and even wrong opinion. But your Rosewall hate is just obnoxious!

    You write some wrong opinions.

    Rosewall was not dominated by Laver in big events. Rosewall is the alltime greatest regarding the most important tournament of the year: 5 wins, 5 finals, five SFs. How often shall I explain it to you that Rosewall was not dominated by Laver??? He also was not dominated by Hoad. How often...

    He also was not dominated by Gonzalez in majors. How often...

    Your hate against a player who arguably is the GOAT can be seen also by your demagogy to call Newk the fourth opponent and Connors the fifth opponent. You do know that Newcombe was No.1 that year and Connors also No.1. It's very nasty to belittle a giant of tennis!!!

    Where have you read that Rosewall skipped the FO in order to prepare for Wimbledon???

    Have you forgotten what Carlo and krosero have written to convince you that it is not a blame for Rosewall to never winning Wimbledon?

    Phoenix83, I'm NOT your friend. I prefer people who don't argue in a demgogic way!
     
    #9
  10. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I don't hate Rosewall at all. I rank him 5th on the GOAT list, and it will be a sad day when I read his obituary (he is one of the 10 oldest living Grand Slam champions, as you can see in my signature, so this will not be too far in the future...)

    Laver has a winning H-2-H against Rosewall and was ranked No 1 for most of the time they played together in the 1960s.

    ...and which tournament is that? :?

    In 1956, Hoad won 3 of the 4 amateur majors and had surpassed Rosewall as the top amateur.

    Gonzales was world No 1 when Rosewall faced him the late 50s, it was only when Pancho declined due to age that Rosewall surpassed him.

    I already said I excuse Rosewall for his defeat against Connors.

    However, to your point, if a man is the GOAT, it shouldn't really matter that he's facing the No 1 player of that year, right? It didn't matter for Federer against Djokovic at last year's Wimbledon...

    This is from his Wikipedia page:

    He skipped the FO in 1970 and 1971, yet still could not quite win Wimbledon.

    I wrote a very long response to Carlo, to which I don't think he replied. Suffice to say, I disagree with your and his opinion on Rosewall.

    Look, it's very simple. I value winning Wimbledon very highly, and I think it's a joke that a guy can reach five finals, lose them all, and some people claim he is the GOAT. I realise you have a different opinion, but don't accuse me of demagogy please.
     
    #10
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Phoenix83, I have proofed your strange attitude when you wrote he should win against the No.4 and 5. Now you write he should win against No.1. Rosewall was 35 plus at W.1970 and had have long singles and doubles matches before. Even Jack Kramer (never a Rosewall man) conceded that!

    Again that unsensible orbituary stuff. Gardnar Mulloy turns 100 this year.

    I wrote about Laver vs. Rosewall in big events where it matters, also for our discussion. Laver has 6 top placings, Federer 8 and Rosewall 15 at the biggest event which was Wembley in the pre-open time, then Wimbledon and US Open 1972/73.

    Hoad reached the Rosewall level in 1956 (even though Rosewall was stronger in the second part of the year), 1957, 1958 and 1959. Then Muscles was much better.

    Newcombe was NOT No.4 at Wimbledon. he was No.2!

    Wikipedia is not always correct. As far as I know there were quarrels between WCt management and ITF as reason why Rosewall and the other WCT players did not participate in Paris.

    I promise to write friendly if you be serious.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2013
    #11
  12. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Rosewall admittedly skipped the French and Italian championships in 1956 to prepare for Wimbledon, even going to Australia to work on his serve with Sedgman.

    It is not much of a step to see him doing the same thing in 1970 and 1971.
     
    #12
  13. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, You err. In the 1970s there were quarrels between the organisations.

    Why did Laver and the other WCT players skip FO? All for saving energy for Wimbledon??
     
    #13
  14. Mustard

    Mustard Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2009
    Messages:
    25,067
    Location:
    Cwmbran, Wales
    Rosewall was an amateur then, so was controlled by Tennis Australia.
     
    #14
  15. Rabbit

    Rabbit G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    Messages:
    12,545
    Location:
    at the bottom of every hill I come to
    I'm pretty sure Gonzalez owned Rosewall and Laver when they came on the Pro Tour and both were younger than Gonzalez. I think Gonzalez went on record as saying the only guy he feared on the Pro Tour was Hoad.
     
    #15
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Rabbit, Gonzalez was great in big tours but a bit weaker in tournament play. He lost the 1957 and 1958 Wembley, the 1957 and 1958 Australian Pro, the 1958 French Pro, the 1961 Wembley and French Pro, the 1958 Masters and the 1959 ToC.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2013
    #16
  17. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    The Australian tennis bosses wanted to keep Hoad and Rosewall happy and amateur.
    Hoad was given special permission to travel separately with his wife, and Rosewall got time off to prepare for Wimbledon.
    Privately, Rosewall wanted Wimbledon badly to improve the terms of his anticipated pro contract with Kramer.
     
    #17
  18. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    The tournaments Gonzales really cared about in 1957 to 1959 were Forest Hills (winning in 1957, 1958)), L.A. Masters (winning in 1957, 1959), and the U.S. Pro (winning in 1953 to 1959).
    He put his big efforts into them.
     
    Last edited: Jul 10, 2013
    #18
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, A wonder happened: You accept the Cleveland pro as the US Pro.

    It's still significant that Pancho lost so many big tournaments.
     
    #19
  20. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,078
    If a prime Rosewall can't beat a 40+ years old Pancho then it's likely that Pancho would win more often if both were in their prime.
     
    #20
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    It's only partly right. In 1959 when Pancho was in his peak, Rosewall beat him 8:4 matches. In 1960 Pancho was clearly better though.
     
    #21
  22. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,348
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Your friend Collins writes that it's likely no one played the game better, Laver also thinks Gonzales was the superior player.
     
    #22
  23. NadalDramaQueen

    NadalDramaQueen Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    1,561
    This thread should have a poll. :)
     
    #23
  24. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,509
    Your post has changed the dynamic of the thread, we now have a poll....brw this is like the third thread on the issue. Nathaniel had one, I had one that turned into a cat fight, now this one.
     
    #24

Share This Page