Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.

  1. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,357
    Hoad 1956 was clearly nor far from peak, and Budge Patty probably was past his own peak. Hoad- Trabert in DC 1953 was one of the best matches of all time, as was the Rosewall-Savitt semi at Forest Hills (ranked the best by Herbert Warren Wind), the Drobny-Patty Wim match of 1953 (ranked the best by Vic Seixas), the Gonzalez-Schroeder Forest Hills final of 1949 or some other matches of amateurs.
     
  2. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Mac '84 and Djoko '11 are two of the greatest peaks in the history of tennis, so it's a compliment to Rosewall.


    Can you even imagine how Djokovic would have played with wooden rackets? :oops:


    1. It was not Rosewall at his peak, it was the start of his domination, but his peak was from 1961 to 1963 (and then maybe 1964 and 1965). Rosewall 1960 was much more like Federer in 2003 in my opinion; 2. Don't forget that the tour was played only on very fast indoor courts, more suitable for Gonzales game, but if we have to consider the peak, we have to consider all surfaces, and you know better than me that Gonzales was not as complete as Rosewall; 3. Don't forget that while Gonzales had a lot of trouble against Hoad, Rosewall comfortably dominated him. The fact that Rosewall trailed Gonzales in my opinion is something similar to the Federer-Nadal rivalry: Pancho's game was more efficient against Rosewall than against Hoad.


    But Rosewall lead 9-7 their big matches.


    They were, as demonstrated by the fact that they were still winning Majors during the Open Era also... who would have stopped Rosewall in 1963? Roy Emerson? Please...
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  3. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Hoad's peak was in 1959. Three years before his peak are A LOT.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  4. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    so are federer's 2004-07, borg's 79-80 etc ... yet BobbyOne says he has Rosewall at the very top considering only peak level of play ....


    if we get into the technology part of it, the debate will go on forever, let's just say rosewall would be in trouble, mighty trouble vs djoker's return ...


    eh, no , gonzales had trouble vs peak hoad ... peak hoad also lead rosewall h2h in that time-period IIRC ... rosewall got the better of hoad mainly after injuries troubled him ...

    yeah, gonzales was not as complete as rosewall surface-wise, but he was better indoors,grass where majority of the matches where played on those days , rosewall was clearly better on clay


    yeah, no, its not the same; no one would've thought peter doohan would stop becker at wimbledon 87, soderling would stop rafa @ RG 2009, rosol would stop him at wimbledon 2012 etc ... that's what happens when you play against full fields over 7 rounds ... upsets do happen ..

    would the pros win most of the slams ? yes, but all of them ? hell no ... some amateurs would take them, there'd be some upsets along the way etc etc ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  5. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    1961-62-63...


    If Rosewall was able to place the ball wherever he wanted with wooden rackets, just image what he would have done with modern rackets. Let's just say Djokovic would be in trouble, mighty trouble against Rosewall's complete game.


    Gonzales had trouble against Hoad, everytime. In 1958 Hoad was not in his best season yet, but he won a lot of matches, and Gonzales surpassed him on tour only when Hoad's back started to give him a lot of trouble. Gonzales himself admitted that Rosewall was able to control Hoad better than him: would you know that better than Gonzales?


    So why no upsets for Rosewall for 34 consecutive Major matches?
     
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    For many years, Patty and Trabert were considered the best amercian clay court players, if memory serves well.At least, till Courier/Chang won their first FO title in the very early 90´s.
     
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Thanks.Patty is one of the best ever Us players.
     
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    The most amazing post in years.Hoad had one of the best years any player has ever had , back in 56, winning 3 out of 4 majors.Like Wilander in 88.Would you say that 1988 Wilander it was not peak Wilander?

    Hoad´s best ever year was 56...not peak?
     
  9. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    based on a select pro field, and a considerably weak pro field at that !? I'm convinced ...

    given his serve, I wouldn't say "complete" game ..... again, rosewall's touch/finesse game was more suited for his era than today's era ...


    I'd like to see that quote with reference and their exact h2h in that period ...

    yeah, no doubt rosewall was highly consistent, but 34 matches isn't *that* big ...compare to federer's streak of 23 semis , that's 115 matches vs opponents not in the final four ... also 18 major finals out of 19, that's 113-1 vs opponents not in the final ! let's take out first 2 rounds per major for fairness ; that's still considerably more than rosewall's 34 matches .... 69-0 vs opponents not in the final 4 ...75-1 vs opponents not in the final 2 ....

    also rosewall faced those players in the pro tournaments, so he had experience of playing them ....a relatively unknown in-form player is more likely to produce an upset ....

    again, upsets are only part of what I said

    if there were full fields for example, laver would probably reach his "peak" faster .... while rosewall would beat emerson majority of the times , would there be a chance that he'd defeat rosewall once at a major in say 4-5 meetings ? I'd say yes ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  10. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    I agree with those 5 guys peak being, possibly, as great if not better than Rosewall from 1950 on.I would add Hoad.But for overall record, Rosewall is top 5-6.
     
  11. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    well, based on whatever I know about tilden, I might put him up there apart from the 5 I mentioned ...

    so yeah, considering both peak play and overall records, I'd definitely have rosewall within top 8 ...
     
  12. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    It was so weak that no Pro who entered it at the time was able to win something, except Laver. Olmedo was destroyed, Ayala was destroyed, everyone else was destroyed. Some even refused to enter the Pro circuit because then knew that they had no chance.


    Who knows? Federer's ability has helped him a lot. He wouldn't have beat Djokovic on fast courts if he wasn't a master of variety.
    Do you seriously think that Djokovic would have won against Rosewall at Wimbledon, or in indoor courts? I'm just laughing.
    Djokovic would have won only at Melbourne and New York.
    I will give a reasonable edge to Rosewall even at Roland Garros, since a peak-form Djokovic was not able to beat Federer on clay.


    If I could give the exact quote of every interview I've read in my life, I would be a happy man.


    No, I'm not talking about streaks of semis, otherwise Rosewall's record would have been longer. I'm talking about 34 consecutive matches in Pro Majors, without a single loss. It means four consecutive modern grand Slam victories, with the loss coming in the fifth final. Who ever achieved that?


    If, if, if, if...
     
  13. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Actually, Hoad had a substantial edge against Rosewall on both clay and grass through 1960.
    When Hoad lost his conditioning and fitness, he had trouble with Rosewall in later years.
     
  14. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Emerson and Santana would have "had a chance", BUT THEY WERE MAKING MORE MONEY AS AMATEURS THAN LAVER OR ROSEWALL IN THE PROS. Emmo turned down an $80,000 offer from Laver and Rosewall.
     
  15. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Not according to Gonzales.
     
  16. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    He lost two Majors finals against Rosewall on clay in the years you're saying. (And he was never able to win a big final against Rosewall at all, that means a lot for me).
    They had the same age and it was not Rosewall's fault if Hoad was lazy and unstable. Even Kramer was angry with Hoad because he seemed to be interested only in half of his matches. But this is not the trait of a GOAT candidate in my opinion. The GOAT must be interested in EVERY match he plays.
     
  17. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    We will never know. What we know is that Emerson was never able to reach a Major semifinal in the open era, and he won only three minor titles since it started.
    (He was even beaten by an over-40 Gonzales on clay at Roland Garros, and it was Pancho's weakest surface)
     
  18. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    I see dan's reply and he's already covered this ...

    yeah, I'd give edge to rosewall on clay ... but if you think djoker is a mug indoors or grass, you're sadly mistaken ...... on the grass of today, I think djoker wouldn't fare badly vs rosewall at all .... and he's no mug indoors , he's won 6 titles indoors, 2 of them being the Year Ending Championships ...


    you should surely be able to get something somewhere on the net for reference ?


    yeah, only gonzalez had semi-retired , hoad was affected by injuries ....

    just take one player , nadal, out for only one slam, RG, and federer would most probably have 11 majors in a row , RG 2005-USO 2007 !


    those ifs are MUCH more powerful than just considering pro majors on par with full ones ....
     
  19. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    emerson's game based so much on athleticism, declined sharply by 30+ .... yet he was 5-5 vs laver in 1968 ...
     
  20. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    pretty sure rosewall would've given a *LOT* for that wimbledon final in 56 ...(he'd already won 3 amateur slams by then )
     
  21. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Two wrongs don't make a right.


    Sure. But now, why aren't we going to look how many titles has won Rosewall indoor? :)


    Wiki: "Just the way he played, he got under Hoad's skin". Ask them to remove it if you don't like it.


    Nobody ordered Hoad to be affected by injuries. He was not able to keep an high level, that's all.
    Moreover: if he got all these injuries but he was still able to beat Laver on their first 8 matches consecutively, just think to the real value of Laver's 1962 Grand Slam. :)


    Just take one player, Laver, and Rosewall would have been no. 1 for about 10 years (8 of which undisputed). It's easy to pump a record by taking away strong opponents.



    So things that didn't happen are more powerful than things that happened. That's an interesting one...
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  22. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Sure, it was a prestigious title, but it just missed the strongest players in the world. So he would have probably pumped Rosewall's legend a lot, but nothing more...


    What a coincidence! He was able to win two Majors in 1967 and then he couldn't reach a semifinal from 1968, and failed miserably even at smaller events, winning only three little titles! Who are you kidding, seriously?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  23. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    I already replied to your emerson part

    because they played a lot indoors those days ... unlike these days ... my problem was with you saying like djokovic wouldn't have a chance vs rosewall ...... nowhere near reality ...


    fair enough, but he doesn't mention anything about him being weaker vs peak hoad than rosewall

    yeah and the very next part says "but he had a forehand weakness and a serve weakness" :)


    lol, wut ? you're completely ignoring gonzales' part time retirement ...

    FTR, I never held laver's 62 slam in that high regard ...

    the bold part is exactly what I am saying ... gonzales' part time retirement, hoad's injury problems (and laver maturing later in 64) , lead to 9 consecutive pro majors for rosewall .....

    for federer, I'm not even taking away a full opponent, just one opponent at one slam :)


    wrong interpretation, the right questions raised are more powerful than equating a tournament with so few players and lesser rounds with a full field major ....
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  24. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    a big match ... you said hoad wasn't able to win a big match vs rosewall .. nowhere near reality again ...


    A certain Mats Wilander says hi :)

    Emerson was winning amateur majors from 61-67 ... that's not a short period by any definition in tennis ....

    sampras won wimbledon in 2000, reached finals of the USO in 2000 and reached the semis of AO in 2000

    in 2001, he only reached the finals of the USO and won zero, yes zero titles ... when sampras, a much greater player than emerson, could have a sharp decline within a year, why not emerson ?
     
  25. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    And Rosewall hadn't the chance to play a prestigious Major hard court event at all. So what?


    I didn't say that, I've said he would have lost on grass, clay, and indoor, and that he would have won on hard courts (which means a lot of matches), and this is only science fiction obviously, we will never know if we are wrong or not.


    He implied a lot of times that he had troubles against Hoad.
    In 1958 Hoad was not at his peak yet but he was going to win the tour, he started to lose only when his back pain increased. Just read Pancho's comments after the tour to understand how much he feared Hoad.
    Moreover, if Hoad's injuries demonstrate that Rosewall's domination was not so strong, they should demonstrate the same for Gonzales 1958 tour victory, am I wrong?


    That's because his game suited well against Rosewall. I doubt that Hoad and Laver would have quoted him, with respectively 5 and 9 great Major finals lost against Rosewall.


    Ahahah. Nice, I will try this game with everyone.
    Rod Laver 1969 Grand Slam was not so good. He just had to beat Roche (never an Open Slam champion), Gimeno (as I've learned from you, he was not so good), Ken Rosewall (1967-69 was his weakest moment), and John Newcombe (would have become an Open Slam champion only a year later, when he was not still able to qualify for the Masters). Do you like this game? I don't.


    It's the same, take away Laver from only one Pro Slam and Rosewall would have been the player with most Major wins from 1960 to 1966.


    These few players proved they can destroy every amateur who entered the circuit since 1959, except Rod Laver (who anyway was severely beaten by both Rosewall and Hoad at his Pro debut).
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  26. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    fair enough

    yeah, only gonzales does lead hoad h2h just like rosewall does ... what was the h2h b/w hoad and rosewall in the 50s or more specifically in 58-59 ...

    hoad was not at his peak in 58 ? really now ? and yes, hoad's injury in 58 does cast its shadow over gonzales' win in 58 .... only their matches were competitive and h2h before injuries nowhere close to 4-15 record that rosewall had vs gonzales in 60 ....


    he's not talking about how his game matched up in that sentence. He straight off mentions about rosewall's 'weaknesses'


    yeah, you only forgot a tiny few details ... firstly that was an open field with lot more players ....*UNLIKE* the pro field which was had lot lesser players, lesser rounds ....

    that was roche's peak year and he was playing darn well ... newk was no slouch either ... ashe had won 68 USO

    only emerson, santana the strongest amateurs apart from laver didn't enter ....
     
  27. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    He lost 5 Major finals over 5 he played against Rosewall. Their overall head-to-head count is around 45-25, even though this is just an estimation, since is very hard to reconstruct it, but it speaks clearly. Let me guess, it doesn't count because Rosewall reached it by taking advantage in Hoad's injuries, am I right? I like your tennis vision.


    I didn't say that he wasn't strong as an amateur, I've just said that amateurs' level was way lower than Pros. He could have grow if he entered the Pro circuit, but since he didn't we are only talking about hypothesis.
    What we know, with historical, undisputable certainty, is that every Pro who entered the circuit since 1959 was blown away, except Laver (who trailed Rosewall 12-33 and Hoad 0-8 in his first year) and Gimeno (who never won a Pro Major anyway).

    Sampras example is not correct: he won only a Major in 2000, not two, and he reached a final in 2001, not a quarterfinal. Wilander is more suitable I admit, I think he simply lost his motivation. That doesn't change a fact: Wilander has won his 7 Majors by facing every time the strongest guys of the tour, while Emerson never faced a top-4 since 1968.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  28. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    He didn't win a Major tournament that year, while in 1959 he did (morever, he had a positive head-to-head agaisnt Gonzales in 1959). He was surely strong in 1958, but not strong as in 1959. Moreover, in 1958 he was not accustomed to road life yet, he needed to rest between matches and he couldn't, that's what caused his injury.


    They were 18(H)-10(G) when Hoad had his injury: a very solid margin in my opinion. And he was still able to obtain 18 more victories with his constant back pain.


    Weaknesses from his point of view, who was able to neutralize them. There are no perfect players, every player has his weaknesses. Rosewall had not a great serve, Hoad had continuos physical problems, Federer troubles to control Nadal's topspin, Gonzales was not so great on clay courts, and so on.



    So what? They were not great players, so they don't count, am I right?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  29. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    I didn't say it didn't count ... Only you're trying to make it look like rosewall had all the answers to hoad at his peak and that gonzales struggled like hell vs him at his peak ... that's simply not close to reality ...

    both lead the h2h vs hoad overall comfortably .....

    only I can't find the exact hoad-rosewall h2h in 58-59

    did rosewall's style trouble hoad when hoad was slightly off ? absolutely ... but then even gonzales could and did take advantage when hoad's game was slightly off ... gonzales' "troubles" were with an on-fire Hoad , even rosewall had quite a bit of trouble with on-fire Hoad .... its part of why he puts him #1 on his list ....

    overall , the pros were at a clear high level than the amateurs, no doubt, but could the very best of amateurs in emerson, santana etc. beat them at a major once in a while ? absolutely ...

    yeah, I'm not saying emerson was better than wilander or anything close to it ... just that even better players than emerson have had a massive drop off in level within a year ....

    why isn't the sampras example correct ? since when does it have to be the exact same scenario or majors ? in AO 2000, he only narrowly lost to agassi playing his best and in USO 2000 final, faced safin at his very best and got blown off ..

    a slam , a final, a semi , 4 overall titles in 2000 to only one slam final and zero titles overall in 2001 is a massive drop in level

    so yeah, no kidding that a somewhat similar thing happened to emerson in 68 ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  30. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    that was one of his two best years (58-59 ) ...if we can't call that as his peak .......

    again, not close to a 4-15 h2h b/w gonzales and rosewall ....
    and gonzales also on his part improved to face the challenge of hoad ...

    gonzalez clearly lead the h2h vs rosewall not just because of styles but because he was the superior player indoors and on grass ...


    not really, even others like laver, hoad, newk etc were able to exploit those 'weaknesses' on numerous occasions ...

    eh, since when did this ever come into the picture or when did I imply this ?
     
  31. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Nobody had all the answers for these three players at their peak, they can won any match they wanted. But the fact is that when Hoad faced Rosewall in big matches, he really couldn't win: five straight losses in Pro Major finals, and I'm sorry but I refused to consider Hoad a spent force in 1961-62, since he destroyed Laver 8-0 in 1963.


    This is only a theory.
    You are saying: "playing against Pros would have raised their level", and I accept it. This may be true (not sure at all anyway, just look at Ashley Cooper).
    But there is a fact: they didn't play against Pros, so their level didn't raise.


    Sure, it is a drop, but not a drop in a gigantic black hole such as Emerson's fall after 1967 :p I think my opinion is more realistic: Emerson level in 1967 and 1968 was pretty much the same, but in 1968 he faced really strong opponents.


    Ok, change it in: 1959 was his only dominant year, while in 1958 he didn't win important titles.


    Improved by being beaten 18 more times by an injured opponent. I'm impressed. Anyway, I'm not trying to delegitimate Pancho's 1958 title, since nobody ordered Hoad to fall injured.


    Please take in account that their head-to-head (wiki says 107-75, which I think is not exact, but it give us an impression) is distorted by the fact that their meet each other 86 times in 1957, with Gonzales at his absolute peak, while they didn't meet each other at all in 1962-63.


    Newk was able to exploit them, but he faced Rosewall only since 1968, when Ken was 33, well past his prime. Moreover, Newk was TEN YEARS younger, and still Rosewall defeated him in a lot of big matches: USO '70, Wim '74, USO '74 (add Dallas WCT Finals '71 to the list if you want).
    I have to remind you that anyone loses sometimes: Gonzales has also great defeats against Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Trabert... why don't you complain about his weaknesses then?


    If the Pro circuit was weak in the early 60s, as you said, why should I consider big challanges the first-round guys in Slam tournaments?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  32. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, You seem to be influenced by Dan. Hoad No.1 in 1958? No way.

    Rosewall strength: No comment.
     
  33. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    urban, Rosewall was 1:1 against Patty. Muscles young and Patty in his prime.
     
  34. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, I wrote (a longer time ago) that Rosewall together with Laver is No.1 regarding peak play.

    Hoad did not have the edge in hth against Rosewall. Don't trust Dan Lobb!

    Laver and Rosewall have proved in the early years of open era that they still dominated the majors even when being old...
     
  35. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
     
  36. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Federic, I appreciate how you give contra to abmk and how you keep Rosewall's flag fluttering Well done! Many feats of Rosewall are still not known, for instance Ken's reaching 36 consecutive SFs at majors...
     
  37. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    yeah and rosewall himself explictly says that laver was better at his peak ..... and by putting hoad at #1 in his list implies Hoad was better at his peal ...

    and that's not even considering federer, borg, sampras, mac , gonzales .......

    not lifetime , no ....... I was only talking abut 58-59 ....

    yeah, only they weren't making a clean sweep, you had ashe, newk, nastase etc in the mix ..
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,724
    Location:
    U.S
    I was talking mainly about djoker vs rosewall's serve . I stand by it ... he'd have it easy vs rosewall's serve ... he'd easily lead their h2h on HC ... while rosewall is the better player on grass, indoors and clay, djoker's returning vs rosewall's serve would narrow down that gap drastically ...

    again, like I've said, is there any indication whatsoever that nadal off clay and maybe djoker off slow HC come are better than fed peak to peak ? nope, not one ..... you put federer out of the top 10 in a list including peak level + longevity !

    the players I mentioned are players with very high peak levels on those surfaces enough to tip overall peak play in their favour ..... all well documented & referenced with matches available ( well 70s onwards atleast )

    federer off clay , laver off clay , borg on natural surfaces, nadal on clay and on the grass of today , gonzales indoors and grass ...

    would you really pick rosewall vs peak mac or sampras on grass or fast HC or indoors ? I wouldn't !
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  39. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    This is just his opinion, not a scientific truth. An over-30 Rosewall has beaten a top-form Rod Laver a lot of times, that is enough in my opinion. Moreover, these champions like to be modest nowadays. Rod Laver said that he would love to be the ball boy in a Tilden-Rosewall match. Does that prove anything?

    In my opinion, abmk, you are angry with BobbyOne because he left Federer out of his top-10, but as I said, two wrongs won't make a right. If you try to despise Rosewall with your thousands of undemonstrable theories, that will not give Federer more credit. You should defend Federer instead of attacking Rosewall.
    At the end, you are both wrong: no way Rosewall or Federer could be left of from any serious list.


    Again, you are talking about science fiction, you can not demonstrate anything. The only certain thing is that Rosewall has won Majors on any surface of his time, while Sampras and McEnroe didn't. Also, Rosewall won 34 consecutive Majors matches, while Sampras and McEnroe didn't.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  40. the hack

    the hack New User

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2012
    Messages:
    66
    Location:
    Houston Texas
    i really like these picks. what a tough but fun list to come up with.
     
  41. Relinquis

    Relinquis Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2012
    Messages:
    4,336
    Location:
    On the courts; hard & clay ...
    rios was pretty cool
     
  42. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    As I stated, Rosewall was very difficult for Hoad to beat AFTER 1960. Through that year, Hoad had a positive won/lost against the Little Master on both clay and grass. (5 to 0 in 1953, 6 to 2 on the 1959 world tournament series).
    As Hoad himself said, "I always felt that I could beat Ken, although if I was not playing well he would probably win, as he was a more consistent player than I was."
     
  43. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Where do you get your numbers?
    Hoad had a lifetime edge on Rosewall on clay, and a big edge through 1960. (At Roland Garros it was 2 to 1 for Rosewall.)
    Wimbledon is not a major? Right.
    As I said earlier, Hoad was 5 to 0 against Rosewall in 1953, 2 to 1 in major finals in 1956, 6 to 3 on the European clay tour in 1957, and 6 to 2 on the world tournament series in 1959 (beating Rosewall at Kooyong, Roland Garros, and Forest Hills).
    Had enough?
     
  44. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Actually, Hoad led Gonzales 18 to 8 on the 1958 tour when his back acted up.
     
  45. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    In 1958, Hoad won the world tournament series, which consisted of five tournaments, winning at Kooyong and scoring enough points in the other tournaments to take first place in the bonus money pool.
     
  46. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Hoad was the number one money winner in 1958, won the world tournament series, and won the greatest match ever played at Kooyong against Gonzales.
    Number one all the way.
     
  47. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Hey, we showed an edge on both clay and grass for Hoad through 1960. No doubt.
     
  48. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    I didn't count their amateur matches as "big ones".
    But even if you want to count their four amateur Slam finals, we are still 7-2 in Rosewall advantage.
    They had no European clay tour in 1957 (Rosewall was a pro at the time and he was fronting Pancho in tour, while Hoad was still an amateur).
    They had two short tour, one at the very end of 1957 (with Sedgman and Segura) and another in October 1958 (with Trabert and Segura): Rosewall won 'em both!
    Had enough?


    That add even more power to my theory: Gonzales had a lot of trouble against Hoad. :)
    (Anyway, according to my sources, he was 18-10).


    No. 1 all the way without winning a Pro Slam nor the main Tour?
    I agree he was no. 1 in 1959, but not in 1958.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  49. piece

    piece Professional

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2010
    Messages:
    1,403
    These are some awesome choices. Here's two that I'd add, both involving Federer.

    Federer-Laver on a medium to fast hardcourt (think Arthur Ashe stadium of the late 90s early 00s)
    - Perhaps the only two players in history who (in their respective primes) have been so successful whilst relying so heavily on spectacular shotmaking. Would be a sight to see.

    Federer-Lendl on a slow to medium hardcourt (think the rebound ace on Rod Laver Arena)
    - Similar games in some ways. Both have solid one-handers that can hit winners. Maybe the two best forehands in the game's history (with nods to Nadal and Segura). Both willing to go to net when the occasion calls for it, though they are more comfortable at the baseline. But with a contrast between Lendl's grinding movement and endurance and Federer's quickness and beautiful footwork.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  50. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    There was a European clay tour in 1957, Hoad having a 6 to 3 edge on Rosewall.
    In 1958, it was 18 to 8 going into Palm Springs, where Hoad's back first acted up, and he lost that night.
    The so-called "slams" were not part of the world tournament championship series in 1958. The Cleveland and Wembley events were managed outside the Kramer organization. Only Roland Garros was included in the championship series, together with Kooyong, Sydney, LA Masters, Forest Hills. Five events.
    Hoad finished first on points and won the bonus money pool.
    The same happened in 1959, with an expanded series of 14 tournaments.
     

Share This Page