Originally Posted by CyBorg
Maybe he can explain what his point is, because amateur results have fairly negligible weight in the overall scheme of things - especially for a player of Rosewall's longevity.
Had Rosewall opted to remain an amateur a la Emerson, I'm sure he would have won his share of Wimbledons, amateur or otherwise. But that should not be considered a "good" thing.
CyBorg, I'm convinced that Rosewall, if Wimbledon was open in the early 1960s, would have won three to five events.
But if he stayed amateur (while Hoad and Laver would be pros as they actually were), I'm sure that Muscles would have won even more Wimbledons...