Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.
ravelok, I welcome you on TT. You seem to be a serious poster. We need here guys and girls like you.
Looks like a great match, here's a report in The Times Record (Troy, NY):
Hoad Rallies To Beat Rosewall
Scheveningen, Netherlands (AP)—Lew Hoad fought off a match point in the fourth set yesterday and rallied to defeat Ken Rosewall, his onetime teammate on the Australian Davis Cup team, in a 3½-hour tennis marathon. The scores were 6-4, 3-6, 6-8, 9-7, 8-6. They appeared with Jack Kramer’s touring pro troupe.
In an earlier match, Kramer bowed to Pancho Segura, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3.It wasn't a tournament final, though. It was just part of a two-day stop on the Kramer tour.
It's listed by AndrewTas; he gives the correct date (Sept 8 ) and lists it under Scheveningen, which is a district of The Hague.
Budge, Vines, Tilden and Stoefen had made a similar two-day stop in Scheveningen as part of their tour of Europe in '39. Possibly the same court was used for both tours. I've seen a picture of the '39 match and it's definitely the same court used for the present-day The Hague Open, which is played on red clay.
krosero, Thanks for this information and the report.
Yes, this is it.
The same venue as today.
However, Hoad defeated Segura the previous day IN A FIVE-SET MATCH, so it looks, even now, like a tourney, with Kramer and Segura playing for third place in a THREE SET MATCH.
Something is wrong with your calculations.
The London Times byline is stated as "The Hague".
And, yes, this gets my nomination for greatest ever red clay match.
Nadal never faced such tough clay opposition.
Mulloy was, and is, a REAL expert.
Not like the armchair enthusiasts who PRETEND to be experts.
Bobby, do we even know the surfaces?
I followed up, and the semi-finals were best of three sets.
The final was a five-setter, the greatest ever played on red clay, Hoad over Rosewall 6-4, 3-6, 6-8, 9-7, 8-6, with Rosewall holding a match point in the fourth set.
Three and a half hours of unparalleled brilliance.
Nadal would finish third in this event.
Dan, Whom do you mean??? ;-)
Dan, We know them.
3. Pete Sampras
4. Rod Laver
Why Laver included but not Rosewall and Gonzalez and Tilden?. Agassi has won 8 majors, Rosewall has won 25.
Who is an armchair enthusiast?
You can answer that one better than I can, Bobby.
You THINK you know them.
I draw a distinction between minor tour matches and major event matches.
Where's my armchair? (I have no idea.)
Based on what I've seen.
Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Stefan Edberg, Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe, Ken Rosewall, Pete Sampras, Mats Wilander.
I could probably put Roger and Rafa in over Edberg, and... Pete? Pete or Andre, but probably not. Homogeny and all that.
I must confess, I have an armchair myself these days.
Wilander and Agassi top 10 all time, but not Federer or Nadal. Interesting to put it mildly.
I read the London Times account in about 1975.
It is remarkable to me that I remembered that the final set was 8-6, forty years later.
Because not everyone shares the same view as you. And many fans have put Nadal ahead of Rosewall after he won this year FO.
Thank you for being so polite in your disagreement!
I just value what they did winning slams on all different surfaces when those surfaces played in such widely varying ways, against players that played in so hugely varying ways. What Agassi as a baseliner was able to accomplish on the faster, lower bouncing surfaces against players with such big serves, and proficient net games is remarkable. His longevity at the highest level doesn't hurt his case either. 16 years from first slam final till last is no small thing.
As for Wilander, I don't remember who it was that said it, but I remember hearing the quote during the 88 US Open final that in the opinion of... whoever it was, the biggest weapon in mens tennis was not anybodies forehand, backhand, serve, or return, but Wilander's brain. He was so damn intelligent on the court, he combated guys with more game so effectively during one of the stronger periods for mens tennis there has ever been, and that he was the first man to hold multiple slams on 3 different surfaces, and achieve consistently strong performances at the Masters Cup on carpet on top of that just makes me think so very highly of him.
Dan, I'm not sure. But at least I can say that I can answer some questions about tennis history better than a certain Hoad worshipper...;-)
Dan, sometimes even I'm thinking rightly...
Perrier Cup and Grand Prix were not minor events!!
ibbi, Very courageous choice...
TMF, Everybody is entitled to have own views, even you...
Agassi won 8, Rosewall won 23.
There are lists that logically and meticulously compare and contrast player achievements and then there are lists that are a complete waste of everyone's time.
If we discard preferential lists in favor of lists based on the most objective approach to thinking about tennis history (achievements measured quantitatively and qualitatively), we wind up with some of the following players who stand out as the very best (let's say, for simplicity's sake, we begin with the 1920s):
Tilden, Budge, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal.
Then order them as you wish.
Some arguments could be made for other names like Cochet, Kramer, Connors, Lendl, but the fact is that their names just do not show up as often accounting for major achievements.
It does not matter how much somebody and their mother-in-law like Agassi. He is not in this group of tennis greats and never will be. I am sure he is among the most popular players of all time, but that is a whole other list entirely.
To conclude, if your list deviates substantially from the above it cannot be taken seriously.
We should all agree that GOAT is a very relative concept because the changes in conditions, technology, training, the tours,politics and, of course, the competitive level of the top 10 or 15 players who are the ones challenging for the big championships.
The concept of major itself has changed.Till the 1950´s, Davis Cup wins counted as much as a traditional slam or, in the case of pros, a pro major win.In the 70 and 80, WCT and Masters were majors de facto as opposed to the Australian, which was still an official slam title but felt short of those two events.
Indoors on fast carpet and formerly wood were big while there were almost no important hard courts tournaments, just the polar opposite of modern times
I think we should decide who is the goat in the context of his or her era, how much and long dominates, how diversified his or her major accounts, what level of competition he or she dominated and so forth.and of course, how well she or he played the game or how close was to " perfection" if such a thing exists.
That said, I´d propose to , first determine, relatively homogeneous eras and then, pick up the top 10 players of each.At the end, however, we should pick 15 or 20 because that´d give us a much wider idea of the real level of competition atop.
To me, it´d go as follows ( and I have already posted that before):
1900-1929: Tilden,Wilding,Cochet,Lacoste,Doherty,Brookes and Borotra with Williams,Decugis and Richards as minor champions
1930-1949: Budge,Perry,Kramer,Vines,Crawford,Parker,Riggs,Von Cramm,Nusslein,Kovacs
Laver,Rosewall,Hoad,Gonzales,Emmo,Santana,Gimeno,Fraser,Cooper,Anderson with Olmedo,Stolle and Pietrangeli who could spot also the tenth place
Borg,Connors,Newcombe,Nastase,Vilas,Rosewall,Kodes,Ashe,Smith and Orantes.Mc Enroe,Panatta and Gerulaitis could also challenge Orantes for the number 10 position ( although Orantes has the best overall record)
Lendl,Mc Enroe,Wilander,Becker,Borg,Edberg,Connors,Noah,Cash and Johan Kriek
Sampras, Agassi,Rafter,Courier,Bruguera,Ivanisevic,Stich,Muster,Chang,Krajicek and Kafelnikov or Moya
CyBorg, I agree with your list and the reasoning.
I only have some doubts about Budge.
kiki, Very reasonable concept and lists.
At 1960-1969 I would add a certain player.....Tony Roche ;-)
I think CyBorgs list is very reasonable. Most people and almost all experts i know would name Tilden and Budge for pre War players. Budge is maybe a bit overrated, surely by himself, maybe peak Vines would beat peak Budge, maybe Riggs or Perry or Cochet deserve better. But in the long run, Budge's record as an amateur and as a pro is shining through as the more complete record. On behalf of these older players, we all have to lean on the observations of older writers and experts, and almost unanimously people like Kramer, Maskell, Danzig, Wood or Seixas pointed to Budge as the top player or at least top 3 player. The other players on the list seem to me quite clear, while the last word on Federer and Nadal is not spoken.
No love for Jack Kramer, Jack Crawford and Frank Sedgman? No love for Lew Hoad?
2000-2013 should be
Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, Hewitt, Murray, Safin, Kuerten, Roddick, Sampras, Ferrero, Wawrinka.
Federer is clearly still greater than Nadal. And Agassi and Sampras both won multiple slams in the early 00's. Hewitt, Murray and Safin achieved more than Kuerten in the 00's. I also feel Hewitt deserves the nod over Murray at this point.
Now, if we pick up 1o more players per decade, that is when the 70´s, 50´s and at a certain distance, 80´s emerge as the strongest decades.So that I find normal that about 50% of GOAT candidates, or at least, all time greats, come from those decades.
Ah, spoken like a true armchair enthusiast.
I'll put my money on Gardnar Mulloy, a true expert.
His judgment is supreme.
Can I convince you to place Nadal outside the top 5 and have either Tilden/Budge replace him? Also, are you ranking them purely on slam count?
why would tilden/budge be in front of nadal?
Dan, even if Mulloy's statement was supreme, you just don't understand it! That's the problem with you. Gardnar did NOT rank regarding the year 1961, only reg. the early tour.
No, you can't convince me. Budge is actually a little bit overrated and doesn't deserve to be in the top 5 (some would say he doesn't deserve to be in the top 10). As for Tilden, I just think he played in too weak an era to be in the top 5.
I don't know why you hate Nadal so much, he's clearly top 5 all time.
Bobby, the "early tour" was not just "the early tour".
You must know that.
In fact, it was THE CHAMPIONSHIP TOUR, and Rosewall was not invited to participate.
There was no tournament series championship in 1961, unlike 1958 and 1959, and the match of the year was actually the Wembley semifinal between Hoad and Gonzales, a great match won by Hoad.
Budge got the CYGS and Tilden has 7 USO titles and dominated the 20s.
Ok fair enough. So if Nadal gets to 17 winning just RGs and 18 winning just RGs will he be #1 on your list? Is 17 enough or he must get 18?
17 is enough due to the H2H with Federer (assuming Federer doesn't win another slam).
I don't like the clay skew of Nadal's career either but it's the way things are.
I am guessing neither of you care how many terrible losses are acrued to get that extra major or how many embarrassing showings come after, as though those matches are not part of the professional record.
If Nadal is omitted because if all the French wins how about Borg? He couldn't win the uS open
5 Wimbledon in a row, three of them after a RG title.2 Masters and 1 WCT title.
while Nadal has a better record on clay, Borg clearly surclasses him anywhere else except the US Open.
Separate names with a comma.