Originally Posted by timnz
In Wikipedia it states"
McCauley's 1964 chapter is entitled: Rosewall Tops Again But Only Just but Robert Geist co-ranked Laver & Rosewall #1 (in his book "DER GRÖSSTE MEISTER Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall").
What is McCauley's or Geist's logic here to consider Rosewall Number 1 or co-number 1? It seems that Laver is ahead in every category of consideration. Why do they think Rosewall was the best that year?
Originally Posted by CyBorg
I've just re-read the chapter and honestly McCauley's logic is ambiguous. He really doesn't make much of an argument for Rosewall, nor attempts one.
That said, I see nothing wrong with Rosewall being considered the co-#1 that year. He did win the French Pro and the battles with Laver at the US and Wembley pros were close. Still the h2h is hard to overlook.
It wasn't McCauley or Geist's logic. It was the official Pro Rankings that had Rosewall as number one. It was I believe an odd ranking system but nevertheless Rosewall was the "official number one" so I think he deserves at least co-number one for the year.
To quote McCauley's book
PRO RANKINGS FOR 1964
The pro tournaments were operated on a points system. The winner got 7 points, runner up 4, third place 3, fourth place 2 and the quarter-finalists one each. The final ratings were as follows-
1. Ken Rosewall
2. Rod Laver
3. R. Gonzalez
4. A. Gimeno
5. E. Bucholz
6. L. Hoad
7. A. Olmedo
8. L. Ayala
So while head to head is quite important, it's clear Rosewall was probably better against the other players than Laver and was perhaps more consistent.
The other thing I notice was that I counted TEN tournament victories for Rosewall PLUS Rosewall won something called the Facis Trophy which I might guess is another tournament so that make it eleven and tied with Rod Laver.
Cyborg, I agree that Rosewall should perhaps be co-number one for 1964.