Originally Posted by Phoenix1983
You have inadvertently revealed why I have given Gonzales more concessions than Rosewall for not winning W: because he wa clearly far from his best when he played there (hence his sub-par performances by his great standards).
Rosewall on the other hand won FOUR major titles between 1953-1956 and FOUR again between 1968-1972, so he was undoubtedly one of the world's very best at the time. Yet in those same years he could not win the Wimbledon finals in four attempts. This doesn't mean he is not a great player but it does mean he is not GOAT. Please understand that.
Rosewall actually maintained a consistently high level for many years as you know. The definition of when his 'prime' was is debatable for me. Certainly there were only a few years when he was the top pro. In all likelihood he would have been beaten by Gonzales, Hoad (as he was in 1956) and later Laver at Wimbledon (as he was in the 1967 pro tournament). The fact is that Rosewall could not psychologically cope with winning at Wimbledon, whether an amateur or pro, so he never did.
You should content yourself with Rosewall beig the best never to win Wimbledon, rather than the GOAT. It would be better for your health.
PS. Calling him Muscles displays your fanboyism.
I hate it to call a colleague "ignorant" but you give me so many reasons to yet do it!
Calling Rosewall "Muscles" blames me? I must laugh...
People here use to call Federer Fed or Roger, they call Nadal Rafa or even Ralph.
Muscles is the well known nickname of Rosewall. Yes, I am a Rosewall admirer. No wonder looking at his fabulous record second to no other player's in my opinion. What's the problem in a forum where hundreds of posters are Federer fanatics (some of them in no reasonable way)?
You are wrong: Rosewall's four Wimbledon finals are among his greatest successes! No other player has reached W. finals 20 years apart.
Rosewall's prime is debatable? Are you Dan Lobb? All real tennis fans and experts do know that Rosewall was far away from his prime when he reached the W. finals! The fact that The Little Master (maybe more convenient for you than Muscles) also succeded in non-prime years makes him thus the more great but cannot abolish the fact that Rosewall's prime was about 1959 to 1965.
It's debatable if Rosewall is really the greatest not to win W. He is has tough opponent in Pancho, pardon, Gonzalez...
Better for my health would be if you could be more reasonable and less biased against Muscles...
If you call the actual Rosewall Wimbledon years as not far away from his best, why then do you exculp Gonzalez from not winning W. in 1949 when Pancho was NOT FAR away from his prime?
Rosewall would have been beaten in his prime by Gonzalez, Hoad (are you Dan's brother or lover??) and Laver?? In German language we would say:"I mean I dream" hearing such stuff...
Are you aware that Rosewall dominated Hoad from 1960 onwards? Are you aware that Rosewal dominated Gonzalez in the big ones in the 1960s? Are you aware that Rosewall crushed Laver in 1963 and 1965 on grass in the US Pro? I doubt that you are aware...
The psychological issue is your own invention. You cannot prove it!