View Single Post
Old 12-08-2012, 06:04 PM   #1281
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5,501

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb View Post
Rosewall had Nastase's number for years, even in 1975, 1976, 1977. Would have beaten him at RG in '73.
Originally Posted by krosero View Post
Seven rounds at RG would have been especially grueling for someone his age -- and Rosewall knew it. (We had a thread about this:

And we've only talked about 7 rounds at RG, picture also the claycourt preparations that Rosewall would have done, in practice and in tournaments, if he wanted to enter RG with the intention of winning it. It would have been draining for him.
Originally Posted by pc1 View Post
Rosewall was a great claycourt player and his stamina is underrated but it would have been super tough for him to go with seven rounds on red clay to win the 1973 French considering he would be 39 in 1973. He probably would have gone up against a number of clay specialists. Let's say he played a young Borg in one of the early rounds. Rosewall probably would have won but Borg would have probably kept him out on the court for a long time and would have taken a lot out of him for later rounds.

An older body takes longer to recover.
Originally Posted by Dan Lobb View Post
I notice that PC1 stayes on that thread that Rosewall would have won at least TWO MORE RG's in the early seventies if he had played there.
Is that what you wanted me to see? It agrees with what I have said.
Originally Posted by Dan Lobb View Post
PC1, I saw your earlier post, and you concluded that Rosewall would win at least TWO more RG's in the early seventies. What has happened to change your mind?
Dan, you do not read other people's posts carefully. Nowhere in that thread does PC1 say that Rosewall would have won AT LEAST two more RG's. He said in one post that it was reasonable to think Rosewall would take two more. In another post he says it would be one, or perhaps more than one. That's a reasonable and cautious argument, which YOU inflated to "at least two more RG's." Why do you exaggerate the arguments of reasonable posters? Why don't you bother to read their arguments carefully?

Most importantly of all, PC1 said Rosewall's best chances were probably in 1970 and 1971. We have been debating 1973!!! PC1 gave Rosewall a "decent" chance in '72 but said only that it was possible for Rosewall to win in '73, but not likely, due to his age and because nobody was tougher on clay than Nastase was in '73. That does NOT agree with what you've been saying: you made a flat-out declaration above that Rosewall would have beaten Nastase at RG in '73.

PC1, my apologies if you didn't see the need for us to go through this, it just burns me when people read other posters' arguments lazily and then misrepresent them.
krosero is offline   Reply With Quote