Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2009.
I have seen pictures of them at Hoad's place in Spain.
They were like twins.Potential wise, I don´t think there has ever been a doubles team like the Wunderteam of the 1953-1957 years.
As for Rosewall, he was a very honest and decent guy, but he was very mean, too.He was called among the pros " pockets" ( no Muscles)
What do pockets have to do with being mean?
Of course, both were raised togehter since kids.They couldn´t be more different, tecnichally and personally.Maybe, that is why they were always close.
He kept the money deep inside his pockets (which you can´t criticize since it was very little money by then as compared to the monstruous money journeymen make currently)
Laver and Emerson were also extremely close.They were raised in the same region and both came from humble and very strict farming families.
Laver was very very fond of Emerson and he describes him in a rather funny way in his book.
Ken Rosewall was and is a very humble man. He never asked for special treatments when he was No. 1 of the pro troup.
He never claimed "I am the greatest" as Budge and others have done...
He never belittled an opponent.
He was always friendly to spectators as I experienced myself.
There are rumors that he supported other players...
Well, Ken Rosewall, as far as I know, is a human being, and being mean is not the worst shortcoming I have seen in human race...you know, he ain´t perfect.None of us are.
It's fine that you praise Hoad-Rosewall.
By the way, that combination was also very successful in the 1960s winning Wembley 4 times and French Pro also four times.
Arguably the best ever doubles formation.
I am a long time doubles fan, and I have seen some of the finest doubles teams ever, although I missed some, too.My top ten would go:
8-.Edberg/Jarryd ( not on records, but a huge potential 9
I can tell you about 10-15 more great teams, but let´s leave it like that by now.
In fact, almost any doubles combination between Australian players from 1950 to 1970 makes an almost unbeatable team.It is completely owned by them.
Hoad and Gonzales travelled together in the same car with Hoad's wife, stayed at the same cheap motels, played pool together, and probably drank together.
They once had a supernatural encounter with a bright light while driving together between tour stops at night.
I'm sorry for my bad English: I confused Buddy with Caddy...
You overrate Hewitt/McMillan. They lost several matches at majors to Newcombe/Roche, Emerson/Laver, Rosewall/Stolle and Okker/Riessen.
Hewitt/ McMillan, of course a superb doubles formation, won the 1967 amateur Wimbledon and the 1972 Wimby in a boycott year...
That is probably when Hoad started having serious problems....
1972 Boycott? Hewitt/Mc Millie won a record number of slams, that alone puts them in a league by their own.
Plus, no other team ( with the possible exception of Bromwich-Quist and Borotra-Cochet) played with so much touch, angles and deep knowledge of the position.They moved like they were one single man.
What is your problem, Mr Bobbyone?
I don't have a problem but I would ask you to be objective with Hewitt/McMillan.
Why so harsh? I respect you as a true expert.
Hewitt/McMillan don't have the record number in majors. They "only" have won five.
Newcombe/Roche have won 12 (official record)
Best record have Hoad/Rosewall with 15 majors!
You know that 1972 was a Wimbledon boycott year (pros did not play)...
Hewitt-Mc Millan won more than 60 titles together and dominated for a whole decade, probably a bigger slot of time than Newk and Rochey 8 whom I rank nº1, as you could see).
In the 1978 final, they destroyed Fleming/Mc Enroe; no other team ever ( with the possible exception of Mc namara and Mc namee) have been able to achieve such a feat.
I don´t know if you ever saw them play when they were playing their best years.I did, and that is why I have few doubts about their status as a possible GOAT doubles team
Boycott? That was in 1973. 1972 was a banning. The ILTF banned the contracted pros from their events from January to July 1972, which included the French Open and Wimbledon, and only amateurs and freelance pros could play ILTF events in this period. This action was the final straw before the ATP was formed.
You are right. I used the wrong word. But it does not make a difference: The best players in the world (with exception of Smith, Nastase...) could not play. Especially the best doubles teams were absent with the Hewitt/McMillan duo as exception. Therefore it was rather easy to win at Wimbledon.
Unfortunately I have not impressed you much with the records I have given to you.
I have seen Hewitt/McMillan and was impressed. They surely were one of the best doubles but never No. 2. Hoad/Rosewall were stronger, f. i.
I have already written that in the first three open era years H/M lost deciding matches in the majors: to the three big Aussie formations plus even to Okker/Riessen.
They dominated only after the best doubles duos became old or had retired.
H/M won many South African titles with poor competition.
So, you don´t consider Fleming/Mc Enroe a " dominating" team? Please, let´s talk seriously.
Okker/Riessen were a very good team but can´t compare with the record of the two Southafricans ( remember Hewitt is Australian born).
Hoad/Rosewall probably had more potential than reality, because they turned pros very early.I am sure they would have dominated the Gran Slam titles if remained amateur.Would have been great see them against Emerson/Stolle or Emerson/Laver and, of course, against Newcombe/Roche.
The first great team from Australia were Bromwich and Dr Quist, followed by Sedgman and Ken Mc Gregor.Both teams could beat any other team ever formed at any time.
Hoad/Rosewall with 15? Has to be the best.
In your admiration for Hewitt/McMillan you seem to misread my words.See post 917!
I never wrote about the domination or not domination of Fleming/McEnroe (we only could say that they were not in their prime in 1978).
I did write about the domination of Hewitt/McMillan and contradicted your wrong claim that H/M dominated a whole decade.
I never wrote that Okker/Riessen can compare with H/M. I just wrote that they beat your darlings in a major.
You should accept that Hewitt/McMillan (who I always rank as top team) did not win an open major for 1968 to 1971 when the three Aussie formations dominated.
And please stop writing Gran Slam....
To win 15 major titles, that is the top. They knew each others' moves like brothers.
They did not link up in 1959, when Hoad teamed with Anderson or Trabert, but starting in 1960 they dominated the scene.
They also dominated the amateurs from 1952 to 1956, and Hopman's attempts to substitute Hartwig for Rosewall were very strange.
So who's #1 for the year, as of now?
Djokovic hasn't had a good year winning only three tournaments.
Murray is possible because he won the Olympics which is sort of a semi major and the US Open but only three tournaments in total.
Nadal won the French but is hurt.
I would go with Federer for now. He's won 6 tournaments including Wimbledon. He's had the most consistent year.
On the other hand he's been the most consistent at the majors. One could certainly argue that he's the real No. 1 right now.
Possible, but not very probable. Basically he'll need to sweep the indoor season.
He could have a case if he came back and led his team to another DC title, but he hasn't played any ties this year.
It's a close call between him and Djoko at this point. The WTF (BTW WTF were they thinking when they chose the new name?) will help decide things.
This is a tougher year to call, but I say . . .
Federer (or Djokovic).
Maybe the WTF will decide it.
On a subjective basis I do think Djokovic can be argued to be the best player. Yet I'm not sure if anyone this year played at the level Murray had at the Olympics in the last two rounds.
It'll be interesting.
That would be interesting.
It was very close at the top in 1983, with McEnroe, Wilander, Connors and Lendl.
base on what? The slam they each won?
Fed has the most titles with 6, and Nole is leading the atp point race. Nadal has NO result after Wimbledon. So no, they are not tie.
Not in my book.Lendl didn´t win a major, Connors, other than winning the USO had a lousy year, Wilander won the Australian but failed elsewhere, and mac won the biggest one and also dominated the two indoor majors , with his win against Lendl at Dallas being, by far, the best match of the year.
Mac hands down in 83.
Find a hobby.
Do we agree that Nadal and Murray are not in the discussion?
Djokovic is the No. 1 in 2012.
(Sssshhhhhh. Don't tell TMF.)
Yep. ATP World Tour Finals certainly settled that.
Nope, Federer stole Novak's chair, therefore he is the real number one.
That chair must have felt nice, but too bad he held only the no. 2 trophy.:cry:
Everyone knows that the higher ranked player sits to the left of the chair umpire. This is an indisputable fact that proves that Federer is officially the World No. 1.
Learn history. :lol:
What criteria do you use for judging who's the world number one at the end of a year?
What criteria do you use for judging who's the world number one at the end of a year, or the best player over a twelve-month period, which might not be the same thing? After all, the "official" computer rankings didn't exist until relatively recently, so such judgements can't be made solely using those rankings.
The official computer rankings are based on money won, which is one way of determining the number one player.
The official computer rankings are based on ranking points, from how far one gets in tournaments, not from prize money won. Using your criteria, David Wheaton is the number 1 player for 1991 after getting $2,000,000 for winning the Grand Slam Cup. LOL.
Yes, I see the point about Wheaton.
But the standards for 1959 (and today? where Djokovic guaranteed #1 before the final event) and 1964 and most Grand Prix and ATP years, is points awarded for placing in designated events. This corresponds very closely to prize money won in those events. There was also a bonus money pool in 1958 and 1959, the inaugural years for Grand Prix/ATP Masters type of annual series. The bonus money concept was not carried over into the 1964 series.
Why not just use prize money? Because using points is more dignified, less mercenary, and allows a clearer distinction between designated and non-designated events.
Djokovic this year
I think this is the first time in the Open Era that somebody was #1 for the year on the basis of an AO victory, not paired with any other Slam win.
Nastase and Kuerten have both made #1 with only a RG victory. It's happened many times with Wimbledon and the USO.
Separate names with a comma.