Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Phoenix1983, Sep 3, 2013.
Phoenix, Good seedings even though they are as speculative as my rankings.
Rabbit, Laver and Rosewall won 8 out of the first 10 open majors where they participated even though they werre old men then. The pros were clearly better than the amateurs.
Laver and Rosewall were in the same class with Gonzalez and Hoad.
Nastase and Smith were not yet great in 1969.
DMP, I agree. Also the old pros had the psychological disadvantage that they had to defend their great reputation of being the better players. Plus they had played only against a small group of players while the amateur had played a larger field.
Yep, Riggs was a trickster, a gambler, a coyote. Very good but never great after his peak years--when he parlayed his tennis skills into money, pure and simple.
He is not in the same league as Laver and Muscles. Kramer tips his hand here.
The top 16 seeds in the all-time super-tournament on grass with wood racquets. (Results do not follow seeding.)
In the semifinals, we have
Laver vs. Hoad
Gonzales vs. Budge
And, as you guessed, a Hoad/Gonzales final, just like Forest Hills in 1959, although a closer score, in a four-set final win for Hoad.
Any attempt to be more specific would be pure fantasy, unlike the above, which is cold, hard, objective thought.
(Kramer lost in the round of sixteen.)
Phoenix, I appreciate your effort to answer this question for me, but I think we disagree on some names here.
Becker or Cochet instead Lacoste
Jack Crawford was the walking mine and too out Federer
Hoad went to a five set tiebreak against Edberg in the opening match
Tony Roche played the best match of the tournament and defeated Connors
But Borg was too much for him
It all depends on court, racket and string conditions
Old Golden Wimbledon or Current dull one?
Becker, like Trabert, relatively slow of foot.
Cochet unpredictable, rumoured to have a battle with the bottle.
Hoad would handle Edberg easily. In 1993, world number one Edberg, at his best, lost in five long sets to Daniel Nestor in Davis Cup singles.
Did Roche ever take out Connors?
Don´t know if Connors and Roche ever played against each other.
They could have if Roche had beaten Newcombe in their 75 AO semi, which as usual, was a 5 sets battle between two of the finest grass courters of all time.Who also happen to know each other sisnce both were in wimpers and made up the possibly strongest doubles team of the modern era.
Cochet was the player Tilden feared the most, yes, so talented and unpredictable.
Dan , interesting list but you clearly forgot Roche who was stronger than Newcombe before he got his injury.
Dan, Roche, long after his peak, gave Connors rather tough opposition in the Challenge Cup (1976 and 1977).
Newk looked stronger than Roche even before Roche's injury.
Newk had a Wimbledon and Forest Hills title in 1967 (Roche had only a French title), Newk was runnerup at Wembley, Roland Garros, and Longwood in 1968, and Italian champ in 1969, giving Laver his toughest challenge in the Wimbledon final that year.
Roche was money-leader on the Handsome Eight tour in 1968, runnerup at Wimbledon in 1968 and Forest Hills in 1969 and 1970, but made a relatively tame showing in those finals.
I think that players such as Becker, Trabert, Smith, Nastase, Cochet, Williams, Ashe and others were as close or closer than Roche to the mythical top 16 seeds.
Newcombe and Roche were more of the australian twins than Rosewall and Hoad 10 years before.But Newcombe had a weapon that Roche lacked, and that was his mental strength.That made all the difference in their careers.
fi Newcombe used to wipe Rosewall off at majors but Roche didn´t.
Roche had a helluva nice volley though.
It seems interesting that Kramer omits all Australians from the top tier, listing Perry and five Americans. Did he feel a rivalry or resentment of the great Australians of the 50's and 60's?
I am so sure he did.
Dan, Roche was ranked above Newcombe both in 1968 and 1969. In the latter year he had a positive balance against The Rocket and gave him the strongest resistance at the AO. He was thought as Laver's successor!
Will you ever learn???
Newcombe did not wipe Rosewall at majors. Rosewall leads their encounters and lost only in five sets in the Wimbledon 1970 final.
By the way, Newcombe trails Rosewall 10:14 matches while Roche leads Rosewall 9:7 matches!
Roche beat Muscles twice at Wimbledon, crushing him in the 1968 event.
What you agree with Federer being better than Rosewall and laver?
I have just received an e-mail from PC1 making the same points.
Yes, Roche won more money than Newk in 1968, had a great overall 1969, and was thought of by many as Laver's successor.
BUT Roche disappointed in 1970.
Lost to Rosewall at both Wimbledon and Forest Hills.
Roche went to five slam finals, and won only one, the 1966 French.
Over the same years, Newcombe went to five slam finals, and won three (two Wimbledons, one Forest Hills).
That's the difference.
Newcombe vs Roche, I´ll repeat it again, is a simple matter of size of balls: Newcombe´s were quite bigger than Roche´s
While Newcombe was able to beat Czech Lion Jan Kodes over 5 sets in a US Open final...well, it is hardly conceivable that Roche would have been able to do so¡¡¡
and yet roche defeated newk 6-3 in the 5th set in AO 69 and 8-6 in the 5th in USO 69
I suppose that did not happen in your alternate fantasy world ? :roll:
Were those matches finals? No¡¡¡¡
You, like Bobbyone are the utmost examples of well informed posters, in your case, probably wiki, that use that to jeopardize their complete cluelessness on the basics of the game.Neither of you ever picked up a racket and that is so evident¡¡¡
so newk couldn't get up for a slam qf or a semi ? you know, you actually need to win those to get to a slam final .. bah, cluelessness at its finest :roll:
you can live in your fantasy world where newk was invincible in 5-set matches or big matches whereas reality indicates he was nowhere near being so .. Even though he was pretty good at them, he was nowhere near invincible.
Ase played all the big aussies at major finals, that is what he said: " Of all the big australians, Newcombe is the one with far more presence.He may not have Rosewall´s finess, Laver´s rithym or Emerson´s stamina but he certainly seems the steadiest of them"
Ashe dixit(Les Cannibales du tennis, Jean Couvercelle, Chef Editor at LÉquipe)
Considering the amount of trouble ashe had with laver, I will have to strongly disagree.
There's no question that I'd take Laver and Rosewall over Newk as far as mental toughness goes.
Like I said, you can live in your fantasy world and ignore the many big matches and 5 set matches that newk lost, not the rest of us. He was very good, but not among the very best in that regard.
So, you are in a better position than Ashe to judge players he faced at almost every major event, at its most decisive rounds????
I never said Newcombe was stronger mentally than Laver.But he certainly was stronger than Rosewall, whom he beat IN 5 SETS at their legendary Wimbledon final.I am talking about a big match, not a whole series of secondary events, that is when Rosewall was clearly far more consistent.
Newcombe was interested in the big battles.He beat Connors when Connors was peaking its peakest ( Rosewall never did), beat Borg at the WCT Finals, a month before Borg cameback in 5 sets to win RG, beat Kodes at a mayestatic USO F ( and Kodes had twice the size of Roche´s balls as their records unforgivingly prove) and beat Stan Smith, one of the strongest menthally players ( as his record vastly shows) at Wimbledon 1971 over 5 sets.
Rosewall lost to old fart Drobny when he had to go to 5 sets, lost to Newcombe when he had to go to five sets.yes, he beat Laver at WCT 72, but his record in big 5 sets looks not so good.
I am talking about match winning abilities.Newcombe is one of the biggest there.Don´t bother looking at weakpedia, they haven´t reached that knowlegde yet
your knowledge about rosewall is plain awful to say the least.
rosewall was 38+ when facing prime connors, clueless. What is hilarious is he still beat your big match player newk twice in majors when nearly 40 - wimbledon 74 and USO 74 . In case you didn't get it, I'm talking about big matches here.
He won so many pro majors beating laver, gonzales and hoad, had an excellent Davis cup record as well. A clearly better big match player than newk, no question.
You were in la la land when rosewall beat ashe, newk and roche to win USO 70 ?
the loss to drobny was not a good one, but still that pre-prime rosewall, not prime rosewall.
again, it was Rosewall who stopped Hoad from his amateur grand slam in 56 in the US Open, not anyone else.
He beat laver in 5-sets in French Pro 63, WCT 72 among other matches. It wasn't just 72 WCT.
Comparing roche to kodes ? Roche at his peak was competitive vs laver, rosewall who were closer to their primes than kodes was vs them ( when they were further away from their primes )
peak to peak, roche easily over kodes on grass, carpet, fast HC. Only on clay, I'd take kodes.
Kodes was just far more luckier - both with the fields he faced to win his majors and health-wise , compared to Roche.
look at wiki to see what happened at majors between Roche and Kodes
I know Rosewall much better thay you.I watched him live and you, only through wikipedism.Oh¡ and I watched Roche and Kodes several times live too¡¡ go to general forum, we have enough wikipedists here
Newk won some close five-setters in slam tourneys against Roche, too.
The bottom line, Newk gets 3 slams in 1966-70, 2 Wimbledons, 1 U.S.
Roche 1 slam event, the French.
When people cannot play head-to-head at their peak, you have to judge them by their technique, and the Australians never did have as good technique as the Americans of the 1930s and '40s. The Australians, Laver included, used wristy Continental forehands, and to be a truly great player you have to use an Eastern forehand (heel on the upper angled bevel, or at the lowest, towards the top of the broad flat panel), with a grip change of 1/8th to 1/4th a circle for the backhand.
This is why we must assume that such players as Tilden, Vines, Budge, Riggs and Kramer were better than anyone playing today (whose forehand grips err in the other direction, and use two-hands on the backhand).
I wasn't arguing about newk's career vs roche's.
What I was saying was that newk wasn't invincible in big matches , 5-set matches ; that roche wasn't incapable of beating him in a match that went to a 5th set.
Gonzales, like Hoad, used a single grip for all shots until 1958, when he began to adjust.
Hoad always used a single grip for all shots, with a shortened handle, which Gonzales said "he wielded like a Ping-Pong bat."
This allowed rapid changes at the net for volleying or while on the run.
You needed great wrist strength for this, thus Hoad was a weight-lifting fanatic.
Once in a South African bar, he lifted the chair of an offending heckler BY THE FRONT LEGS with the man still seated in it.
^ You do love that story, don't you Dan?
Dan, Roche was No.2 mostly because his Wimbledon final.
Losing twice to prime Rosewall is not disappointing. His injuries also had begun.
kiki, you are wrong: Roche was able to almost beat prime Laver in the AO which is a better feat than Kodes losing to Smith in five sets.
abmk, Thanks for your support and statements. I'm glad we agree at least this time.
kiki, Rosewall was 18 years older than Connors. How should he have beaten peak Connors?
Kodes was never No. 2 in the world, Roche was...
Rosewall lost to Drobny in four sets.
Muscles has a fine record in five set matches from 1952 (Seixas) to 1977 (Riessen).
Rosewall was tired at the end of the 1970 W. final because he had played tough singles and doubles matches before, as Jack Kramer during the final said. Also he was 35 then.
abmk, Well written.
Rosewall was already 39 plus when he firstly faced prime Connors. In 1972 he beat young Connors 6-3,6-2 at L.A.
Rosewall beat Smith (6-2,6-2,6-2) in the 1970 US Open QFs (not Ashe).
Dan, the open era feats count more than the amateur feats. As long as Roche was healthy, he was ahead of Newcombe.
Yes, and he also loves the smoke in the air story...
Yes, Roche had a better 69.But Newcombe had a better overall career.Both great players and, in fact, in my ranking of " favourite players to watch" i´d have Roche slighty ahead of Newcombe.
I don´t think Roche´s career, OTOH, has been so much dammaged for injuries in the global outlook.It certainly deprived him of, maybe one more major, but he was not as solid and complete as Laver and I don´t think he would have beaten the Rocket in a major final, in fact, he played one against Rosewall, which he lost.Newcombe beat Rosewall at the biggest venue of all, over 5 sets.He also beat Muscles in the 1971 semis and the 73 USO semis.Enough said.
Now, both Newk and Roche lost a major final to Stolle...which proves Stolle was a great tennis player.
I´ll take Kodes record over Roche´s at any time.
kiki, I wonder that an intelligent man can write such strange things.
Of course Roche's career was severely damaged by his elbow troubles that cost him three peak years plus he was not "the old Roche" anymore after that (but still very strong).
In 1970 Roche beat Laver in the Irish final by 6-3,6-1 if I remember well. Why could not have won he also in majors in his peak years when Laver declined?
Stolle was rather great but he is 2:23 against Rosewall and probably clearly behind Laver.
kiki, YOU surely do.....
Separate names with a comma.