View Single Post
Old 11-11-2012, 10:33 AM   #55
Mustard
Talk Tennis Guru
 
Mustard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Bristol, England
Posts: 22,212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
So if the ATP today were to split the tour into two field and that wouldn't have any effect on the strength/depth of the competition. Got it. :roll eyes:
Imagine 16 of the current 20 top players, including all the top 4, in the professional game, while the rest of the field play in the amateurs. The top 4 are the best players in the world, but players like Ferrer, Wawrinka, Querrey and Verdasco would win the mainstream majors. Ferrer could even be an Emerson and win 12 majors, while Federer, having turned professional early, has only won 2 mainstream majors, whilst dominating the professional tour for years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
And imagine if Fed had a smaller pool and again, split fields, the chances of him having quality players as he's currently having to deal with today are slim.
Federer would be facing the very best players, all the time, with his pay packets depending on success. He would also have to travel around himself, without being a multi-millionaire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
This is your listed(although another poster said Gonzales only had 6 years).

1954: Pancho Gonzales
1955: Pancho Gonzales
1956: Pancho Gonzales
1957: Pancho Gonzales
1958: Pancho Gonzales
1959: Pancho Gonzales
1960: Pancho Gonzales
1961: Pancho Gonzales

1954: Jaroslav Drobny
1955: Tony Trabert
1956: Lew Hoad
1957: Lew Hoad
1958: Ashley Cooper
1959: Alex Olmedo
1960: Neale Fraser
1961: Roy Emerson


You had 2 players per year. So who's the number 1 players during those years? You can't have both players.

Like I said...having a split field Nadal would have 6 years ending #1 instead of 2.

Or let say we count 2 best players per year without having a spit fields, Nadal still gets 6 years #1. Federer gets 7 years(including 2012).
I've explained this already. The gap between the top professional players and top amateur players was close in the 1930s, but after the late 1940s, the best professional players pulled some way ahead of the best amateur players. Jack Kramer in 1948 was the last newly turned professional player to topple the best professional player in the world (i.e. Bobby Riggs).

So, that means that Pancho Gonzales (the best professional player) was the best player in the world from 1954-1961, while the other list shows the best amateur players of those years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
Like I said...having a split field Nadal would have 6 years ending #1 instead of 2.

Or let say we count 2 best players per year without having a spit fields, Nadal still gets 6 years #1. Federer gets 7 years(including 2012).
LOL. Completely wrong. I've mentioned in a previous post that in all the years I've listed, I believe that the best professional player was better than the best amateur player apart from 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, 1932 and 1933. So, if you want my best players in each year list, you know what to do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
sonicare is generous to say Laver is 5'10" who's really 5'8". And while he maybe exaggerating, his post is closer to reality than yours.
And what if Federer was put in the 1960s right now, with 1960s equipment? This is a fair question if you insist on transporting a 1960s version of Laver to the present day to play against Federer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
There are players from 5'6" to 6'5" who have dominate/number #1 in the wooden era. If all the greatest players in the wooden era hovering around 5'8", you got a strong argument. Unfortunately, you don't. There's no facts to even worth speculating Roger at 6'1" wouldn't have dominated the field, especially when tennis wasn't a global sport as today and only have to deal with 1 of the 2 fields.
Gonzales was 6ft 3ins, by the way. And what's all this "tennis wasn't global" nonsense. We had players from all over the world even then, it's just that the Australians were dominant for years with unprecedented success. Like Spain today multiplied 20 times over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
In this era, how many players at 5'8" dominated the sport during Sampras and Federer's generations? None. Over 20+ years it was all about players hovering around 6' to 6'3". Go check out all the slam winners and year end #1. numbers don't lie!
You're obsessed with heights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMF View Post
This is not to say Laver wouldn't be able to compete in the atp tour. Of course he can, but he wouldn't be one of the elite group. Tennis today demands a lot more than just talent alone to be at the top. Optimal height is one of the major attribute.
That is all speculation.

Last edited by Mustard : 11-11-2012 at 10:38 AM.
Mustard is offline   Reply With Quote