Originally Posted by krosero
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. I agree. Maybe you understand also why I have some difficulties with Dan's kind of argumentation and why I use to answer him rather cynically. I do know I should stay a bit more calm...