Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

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

  1. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    laver clearly lead their h2h from 64 onwards ...no doubt while rosewall-laver was competitive, its obvious laver's peak level was better ...

    what rosewall said wasn't modesty, it was reality ... and most , if not all of the players and experts at that time felt the same way ...

    eh, no , that has nothing to do with it ... I did mention rosewall in the top 10 for both peak play and obviously achievements ...so I;m not leaving him out of any list ...


    yeah, no, we were talking about peak level of play on those surfaces .. so that does come into the picture ...hell, even on clay, mac was wreaking havoc in 84 and it took all of lendl's considerable skill and fight to take that RG final ...

    achievements wise in singles , mac isn't near rosewall, we know that ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2013
  2. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    not a completely spent force, but clearly below his best and affected by injuries .....

    and here's a fact : pro majors were never considered/are not considered the equivalent of a full major ....try to spin it whatever way you want ...

    for a player like sampras that is a big drop and Emerson was even more reliant on his athleticism ...was the open field a factor ? obviously ... but his decline was much more of a factor ...

    newk, ashe, roche - amateurs - were pretty competitive in the open era , are you saying emerson was well below all of these 3 ? really ?

    whatever :roll:

    gonzales improved on his BH ....while hoad's injury was a major factor, it wasn't that gonzales himself didn't do anything ...


    yeah, it is distorted by that, but after 64, even with gonzales well past his best, their h2h was close ...even in 61 it was 2 all ....

    I was only saying it wasn't only gonzales who took advantage of his serve not being good , quite a few of the others did ....not saying who all rosewall lost to

    yeah, even gonzales had his weaknesses, a good BH, but not a great one and wasn't that great on clay ... but at his peak, there were not that many tourneys on clay

    yeah, I only mentioned all those because you and BobbyOne were going on about 9 Pro majors like they were full majors ...would rosewall still have brilliant years even in full fields ? obviously ... but many majors in a row like that ? hell no ....

    I wasn't only talking about first round opponents, you could still have unknown, streaky opponents in the first 4 rounds ..to break that streak, just one of them or one great performance from an "amateur" or obviously pancho not going into retirement (took a sabbatical in part because he felt he had beaten all challengers ; he might've felt differently against an open field )



    -------

    again, I'm done with this for now :

    I'll just sum up my thoughts :

    rosewall's consistency was brilliant and longevity probably unparalleled, his peak level excellent, but there are several I'd take peak to peak over him given the respective tour conditions in those times - federer, laver, gonzales, borg, mac, sampras, nadal ......

    and none of these are silly choices by any means ....
     
  3. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    An european clay tour without any source on the whole internet, while a player was an amateur and the other a professional...


    They were two of the biggest tournaments, that's a fact. And Hoad wasn't able to win them, nor he was able to win Forest Hills, Australian Pro in Sydney or Roland Garros. He lost the main Tour too. No way I can consider him the world no. 1 in 1958.
    Anyway, I've just found an old discussion on Hoad where you argued with the whole forum, trying to twist every statistic, sometimes giving the impression to invent them, and so on. That's why I will not answer you anymore on Hoad.


    It's not obvious, since their rivalry was affected by a little detail: Rosewall was in his twenties only two years, Laver was in his twenties six years. And still, he has a negative head-to-head in big matches.


    Laver has more mythology, and mythology amplify real contents as we know (just think that someone rates Newk no. 1 in 1970 only for his Wimbledon victory, while he was clearly a no. 3 in that season).
    I look at facts, undisputable facts: big matches 9-7 in Rosewall advantage, overall head-to-head in Laver advantage but very well balanced considering that Rosewall was four years older (and that he was 28 when he face Laver for the first time), they both were able to win all the important tournaments on one season (Laver did it twice, but his record of consecutive Major matches won is 29, while Rosewall's is 34. Let me guess, it doesn't count because he fronted weak fields, am I right?)


    Since you can't demonstrate that McEnroe '84 would beat Rosewall '63, this is just science fiction.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  4. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    And still, he was able to crush Laver 8-0 and to reach several Major finals.
    From my point of view, if you play, you play. We can't build an alternative tennis history. Rios and Cash without injuries would have been two of the greatest players ever, but since they had a lot of injuries, they were not. Hoad was always injured, except in 1959 he had trouble pratically in every other professional season: that can't be an argument to disregard Gonzales, Sedgman or Rosewall, let's be honest please...


    Just your opinion, can't see any "fact".


    Emerson was simply not strong enough to win in front of a professional field competition.


    Newcome and Ashe were superior to Emerson, no doubt about it.


    As I've learned from you, to beat an injured opponent is no big deal.


    If you're using the head-to-head with Gonzales to demonstrate anything against Rosewall, we can also use it against Laver. He had an excellent head-to-head against Laver, who was 10 years older. So maybe Laver was not so dominant...


    And when they were, he was not able to win them.


    Just look at who he has beaten during his 34 Pro Majors matches winning streak.


    Science fiction again. Do you prefer Ballard, Dick or Gibson?


    I didn't say that they are silly choices, I just said that a peak Rosewall would be up there too. Your first post was a little disrespectful to Kenny, just go back and read it... :D
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, I doubt that Gonzalez was stronger on grass than Rosewall.
     
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, I also was referring to 1958 and 1959.

    Nastase was not a top player in the first open era years. Laver and Rosewall won almost all majors at that time even though they were OLD men.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, again you "forgot" the 1959 GP where Rosewall defeated Hoad.
     
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, Laver leads Rosewall in hth but Rosewall leads Laver in big events!
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, Yes, we should rank Newcombe, Roche and Ashe higher than Emerson because they all reached at least No.2 while Emerson at his best only reached No.5 in 1964...
     
  10. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    Tell that Ashe, Newcombe or Roche, when they had to face old Emmo. I think, he leads all of them in hth.
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, As you attack me in almost all your posts and as you use to belittle Rosewall's strength, I would like to tell you two of Muscles' super feats.

    pc1 has mentioned Rosewall's great run 1960 to 1962 at Paris and London where he won both French Pro and Wembley (clay and wood) within of 7 or 8 days against strong competition, a run never realized by Laver, Federer and other players you rank ahead of Muscles. Even Borg's channel slam was not as impressive because Borg had two week to adapt his game while Rosewall had only one or two days...

    Rosewall is the only player who has a positive balance against his strongest opponents at big events (I omit Connors because Rosewall was already 39 plus when they played each other). Laver and Gonzalez did have such a balance.

    I hope I could give you some stuff for a change of your opinion...
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    urban, Emmo leads them only because they were too young when they played each other. Emerson never reached such heights as the three reached.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  13. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,355
    Bobby, i rate Emerson the 3rd or 4th player of the 60s, clearly behind Laver and Rosewall, but behind none other. I know, all this is speculative, because Emmos faced the pros only since 1968. Maybe Gonzalez did sporadically better, maybe Gimeno on ability was on equal terms. But i think, that Emmo in the 60s was more consistent than Gonzalez, who had long spells of inactivity, and did better in big matches than Gimeno.
    Rex Bellamy wrote that Emerson is both overrated and underrated, and he is imo right. Yes, he wouldn't never have won 12 majors with all the pros competing, yes, his high ranking by some experts like Hopman and by most polls isn't correct (in behalf of Rosewall or Gonzalez).
    But this is certainly not Emmo's fault, who was and is one of the niecest and warmest people in the whole tennis world. He certainly was no bum, but one of the most athletic and mental solid players ever, who had sound allround game for all surfaces, a great backhand, a great serve and volley game, and excelled in the fith set. Newcombe made an all time list of Australian players and ranked Emmo third, behind Laver and Rosewall but ahead of Sedgman and Hoad. Of course, this is debatable. But Emmos record in Davis Cup, in majors, in singles and doubles and in hth really stands out. His major wins include wins over Laver, Newcombe, Stolle, Roche and Ashe, his 1964 season was one of the best amateur seasons of all time. He has a big lead in hth over Newcombe, who could barely beat him in the 1970 Wim quarter, when he came through Stan Smith and gave Newk his toughest fight there. He still beat Ashe in 1974 in the Aetna World Cup, when he was 36. Much is made of his 5 set defeat by Gonzalez at RG 1968, i even had to deal with some, who stated, that he lost all pro matches to the older Gonzalez. But he did hammer Rosewall on clay early in spring in Florida 1968, had a string of pro wins over Nr. 1 Laver in 68, and in 1970 stopped Gonzalez in the Classic Series in their most lucrative match, and was still Nr. 6 or 7 on the Money winner list.
     
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    urban, I cannot agree at all. You seem to overrate Emerson as many do.

    Gonzalez and Gimeno were surely stronger than Emmo. Gonzalez had his spells of inactivity but that did not reduce his strength. After his two years pause Pancho almost equalled Rosewall and Laver in 1964- at 36!. In 1965 he beat Rosewall several times. I strongly doubt that Emerson could have done it the same way.

    You cannot take Gimeno's not winning majors in the 1960s as a fault. He had Laver and Rosewall as chief opponents. Gimeno thrice beat Rosewall in majors before open era plus beat Muscles in the 1969 AO.

    I don't take Newcombe's list seriously. He also ranked his doubles partner, Roche, behind Stolle!! Such a shame!!

    Emerson's balance in the 1960s years without Laver (10 majors won) is rather meagre. He was clearly the No.1 amateur only in 1964 and 1965.

    The 1968 Emerson win against Rosewall on clay does not tell too much. It was their very first meeting as pros.

    Emerson failed terribly in open majors. Only his 1970 Wimbledon QF match against Newcombe is a plus in his career.

    Gimeno was 6:1 in 1968 against Emerson. Altogether Gimeno won nine tournaments where he beat both Laver and Rosewall and numerous tournaments where he defeated one of the two giants (arguably the two all-time greatest). Could have Emerson done the same??
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  15. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Without a source? Bobby and I reconstructed the scores for the 1957 tour. Hoad won the European head to head against Rosewall 6 to 3, and won the South African tour. Look at McCauley for a start.

    US Pro was NOT a major, not even an accreditied tournament title, And THAT'S a fact, documented on the USPTA website. Sorry.

    The three genuine biggies in 1958 were Kooyong, Forest Hills, and Roland Garros, and Hoad beat Gonzales in all three tournaments.
    There was a points system which counted all matches towards a bonus money pool. Hoad won in both 1958 and 1959.
     
  16. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Hoad was clearly out of shape in the period 1960 to 1963, just read Peter Rowley's description.
    In October 1962, negotiations concluded for Laver to turn pro, and Hoad was excited to meet him on court. Hoad spent eight weeks training and preparing for five-set matches.
    This was an exception for Hoad's post-1959 career.
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Hoad played full years in the early 1960s.
     
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You forget that Hoad lost the Forest Hills and Roland Garros tournaments...
     
  19. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    I've also seen you contesting a lot of McCauley and Bowers statistics in the past, without providing any source, and now you say "Look at McCauley", it sounds funny.


    Couldn't care less about the USPTA. Even the Australian Open was nominally a Major in 1976 but nobody considered it a big one. In the 50s the US Pro was called World Pro and it often had really strong fields, that's enough.


    The only Major Hoad won was ToC 1959, deal with it.


    Hoad was always out of shape, in 1958 he had big troubles too. His only season with a relatively good health was 1959. I don't see how this can affect the consideration of Ken Rosewall or Pancho Gonzales or whoever...
     
  20. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    About Roy Emerson, I'm with BobbyOne, he's definitely overrated. Gimeno at his peak in 1965-66 would have crushed him.
     
  21. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks, Federic. I believe Gimeno's best year was 1967 when he twice beat Rosewall in pro majors.
     
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks, Federic. I believe Gimeno's best year was 1967 when he twice beat Rosewall in pro majors.

    SORRY for this double.
     
  23. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    I've said 1965-66 because he won some nice clay tournaments in those years, such as Milano and Noordwijk, but 1967 was also a strong season, no doubt about it.
     
  24. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Federic, I correct myself: Gimeno's best years were 1966 (when he won two big claycourt tournaments: Barcelona and Oklahoma) and 1967. For both years I rank Andres at No.3, ahead of Gonzalez.
     
  25. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    I have to correct myself too, he won Milano in 1965, but Noordwijk was in 1964, not 1966. Anyway, he was probably the strongest on clay from 1964 to 1967, it was a shame that the Pro circuit didn't have a clay Major in those years, he would have been much more considered now.
     
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Federic, Here I disagree: I think that Gimeno was best claycourter only in 1966. For 1964 I would still have Laver or Rosewall (or yet Gimeno?) as best on clay, 1965 Rosewall (Reston won) and 1967 Laver (Oklahoma). Rosewall beat Gimeno in the Bournemouth and Roland Garros tournaments in 1968.
     
  27. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    The fact is that Rosewall and Laver had only sporadic victories in 1964-67 on clay, while Gimeno won clay titles with constance from 1964 to 1966 (I can't remember if in 1967 too). In the Open Era he clearly declined, except for the RG title.
     
  28. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Federico di Roma, I agree that Gimeno declined after 1967 but it might be interesting that he still was sometimes awesome: He reached the final of the AO in 1969, after a win against Rosewall, he won FO in 1972, he reached SFs there in 1968 and only lost in five sets to Rosewall, reached QFs there against Laver, reached SFs at Wimbledon 1970, lost a five setter to Smith at the US Open in 1972 and beat Smith in Davis Cup the same year. Imagine how strong Gimeno was in his prime...
     
  29. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    no doubt about it, great player for sure.
     
  30. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Not even close.
    Hoad played over 120 matches in 1958, over 150 in 1959.
    Only 36 in 1960 and similar numbers in the sixties.
     
  31. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Didn't forget. Every match counted towards the overall tournament championship and total money, both of which Hoad won in 1958.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  32. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Hoad won the world tournament championship for 1959, consisting of 14 tournaments.
    Even with back trouble, he was top money winner in both 1958 and 1959.
    I think that deals with it.
    The Cleveland event was never a major. Just look at the fields, simply the four-man en route through Cleveland.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2013
  33. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,963
    Emerson was the man in tennis in the mid 1960's, making more money than either Laver or Rosewall.
     
  34. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Blah blah blah, stay in your parallel tennis history, I wouldn't give you credit anymore.
     
  35. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    Like I said, before I'm almost done on this ... I'll answer answer to a few of the points

    yeah, except hoad's problems were more pronounced in the 60s than in the late 50s ..... then of course the possibility of facing a new challenge in laver stirred hoad up in 63 ...


    ehm, no , its a *fact*, pro majors are NOT the equivalent of full majors ...


    face it , you just tried to blow off emerson by saying no one declined that quickly within a year and when I gave you the example of wilander and sampras , you just tried to backtrack ...

    question was were newk, ashe, roche so much better than emerson that while these guys were competitive in the open field, emerson wasn't that much ....... the answer is no ... the main factor was emerson's decline ... he was winning amateur majors from 61-67 and that's not a short period and for especially for someone whose game relied quite a bit on athleticism, that's not a short time

    its like penalizing rosewall big time for not winning Wimbledon ..... if you get what I mean ... :)

    yeah, but its not like he was poor on clay .. he was still pretty decent ...


    don't quite agree, peak Rosewall would still be a bit below them ... which post are you referring to btw ?
     
  36. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    I wouldn't say that, except for 1959. In 1958 he had a lot of troubles, he was winning the tour by an 8 matches margin, and he lost it by a 15 matches margin!


    Backtrack?
    The Sampras example is not right, as I was saying. On Wilander, what I can say is: he has proved he could beat the big guys in big events. He proved it 7 times. Emerson never faced the big guys until 1968. It's funny that according to you there is really no connection with the big ones entering the main fields and his victories record dropping down, seriously.
    Wilander had the same fields in 1988 and 1989. Emerson had totally different fields.
    Moreover, no one of the tennis historicians or commentators has ever noticed that drastic drop in Emerson's game (simply because there was no drastic drop).


    You're still using too much "if". I know that if Emerson had entered the Pro tour many years before, he probably would have had more chances to raise his level, but this is only a theory. Just watch Cooper: 3 out of 4 amateur majors, and then he was totally destroyed on the Pro tour, so were Mal Anderson, Alex Olmedo, and many others.
    We will never know if Emerson would have raised his level while facing the Pros as a 25-year old boy: there's the possibility, but it's not sure at all. What we know - the only thing we really know - is that he never faced them until 1968, that he didn't raise his level, and that he was often beaten by older guys, including a 40 years old Pancho Gonzales, on clay (Pancho's weakest surface).


    Ok, Pro Majors are NOT the equivalent of full majors. Thank you. Oh, wait... if Pro Majors were so easy tournaments to win, why no clay Pro Majors for Pancho? Duh...
    (Just kidding, I know he was still decent on clay, just trying to demonstrate that your attempts to downsize Rosewall can by applied to Pancho Gonzales too).


    The first I've answered to.
     
  37. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    How is the sampras example not right ? just because emerson won 2 amateur majors to sampras' one open major in 2000 and sampras reached one final in 2001 compared to QF for emerson ? totally ignoring that it took a top form agassi 5 sets and then an absolute peak safin to stop him at the other 2 slams in 2000? relative to his level in 2000 , 2001 was a major drop ...again he won 4 titles in 2000 to zero in 2001

    you still don't get it ? really ? sampras and wilander are both clearly superior players to emerson ... if their level could drop that drastically within a year , so could emerson's ... you simply refused to even think it was possible at first that emerson's level could drop that much within a year and you asked if I was kidding. only when I raised the examples, you acknowledged that possibility

    did I say the open field was not a factor at all ... of course not ....it was, just that I think emerson's decline was a clearly bigger factor ...

    yeah, only because you're comparing ashe, newk who in their primes in the open era to emerson whose prime was before that ... remember open era was seven years after emerson had won his first amateur slam .... that's not a short period ...

    are you saying ashe improved so much that from losing 4,1,4 to emerson in AO 67, he went on to become the champ in the open era at the USO in 68 and that emerson while remaining at the same level was rendered a non-threat ? (remember he was beating newk, roche as well in the amateurs )....emerson's decline was a trivial non-significant thing in 68 ... really ? :)

    we know ashe, newk, roche improved , but to suggest emerson's decline was non-significant ..........

    like I said, we know rosewall was good enough to win Wimbledon atleast once ...... but he didn't as he didn't get chances to do so @ his prime ... so do we just stick to the facts like he didn't win Wimbledon while he was winning other majors pre-prime and post-prime and penalize him heavily ?

    we do know there were differences in the grass at the AO, USO and wimbledon , difference in prestige, pressure etc ... going a bit OT, but history does penalize margaret court for relatively under-performing at wimbledon ...we do know she was darn good on grass ...
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  38. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    post 2196 or 2200 ?

    the first one you just answered to without quoting and 2nd one you quoted ... I don't think there's anything in those two posts that much disrespectful towards rosewall .... If anything you've put down emerson far more ....
     
  39. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    you mean like how we should rate hewitt ahead of becker because hewitt was #1 for 80 weeks or so and year end no 1 for 2 years whereas becker was no 1 for only a few weeks ? :)

    again, not the exact point of discussion ... point was emerson in 67 was still beating ashe,newk, roche and not just once or twice here and there ... it couldn't be that the level of all these guys skyrocketed in a year or so that they went far ahead of emerson without emerson declining significantly ...
     
  40. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, he did not play world tours but he played a full tournament schedule in several years: 1960, 1962, 1963, 1964...
     
  41. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan Moneymaker: Money is not the only criterion.
     
  42. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, There is an important difference between Rosewall and Emerson: Muscles dominated in his peak years while Emmo NEVER was a top player (1-4).
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  43. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, Both is fact: Newcombe, Roche and Ashe improved in 1968 and Emerson declined.
     
  44. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    Read second part of post #2287
     
  45. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,706
    Location:
    U.S
    yeah, that's what I said ... Only FedericRoma83 refuses to acknowledge that emmo declined by quite a bit and says that the beginning of the open era was the main reason and emmo's decline , if any , was negligible ...
     
  46. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, I understand.

    Edit: But I believe Emmo's decline was only a little one. I have Emerson as No.8 for 1967 and as No.11 or 12 for 1968. In comparison Gimeno declined more significantly: from No.3 to No. 11 or 12.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  47. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    Glad you both have come to an understanding, as least in this case.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  48. FedericRoma83

    FedericRoma83 Rookie

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    185
    Safin literally destroyed him in 2000. In 2001 he has beaten in sequence Rafter, Agassi, and Safin to reach the final. Emerson never did something similar in 1968. Fact.


    Not in my opinion. Of course Emerson was physically stronger in his 20s than in his 30s, but I'm sure that if tennis was still closed to Professional, he would have won a Slam in 1968 also. I mean: losing to Pancho Gonzales, 40 years old, on Pancho's weakest surface, when you're the defending champion... that's enough for me.


    Can't understand what this have to do with Emerson.
     
  49. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Federic, I agree that begin of open era was the deciding factor for Emerson's low playing plus the fact that Roche and Ashe surpassed Emmo in 1968.

    Please note: I have changed my answer to abmk a bit.
     
  50. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,344
    If you're talking about Sampras, bear in mind that the US Open plays its semifinal the day before the final. It's not easy on any player but especially older players like Sampras was. Sampras also has that disease that affects his stamina. So the losses in the finals to Safin and Hewitt while a credit to both of them for winning, the one sided losses may be due to the tough schedule.
     

Share This Page