View Single Post
Old 04-08-2014, 11:48 PM   #754
NatF's Avatar
Join Date: May 2012
Location: On the road from would of to would have
Posts: 12,475

Originally Posted by BobbyOne View Post
NatF, It's my decision if I write much or little.

Your detailed analysis does not impress me much because you over-rate Federer's opponents like Baghdatis, Blake, Ljubicic, F. Gonzalez, Grosjean and Gaudio whereas you belittle Rosewall's opponents like Olmedo (Wimbledon winner), Cooper (Wimbledon winner) and Anderson (US Champion).
I'm not overrating Federer's opponents, all those players are good players it was a point considering depth not top competition. Olmedo, Cooper and Anderson did very little in the pro ranks. Olmedo won the US pro with a pretty tiny and weak draw. Certainy a weaker opponent than most of Federer's top contemporaries.

Thus you come to wrong conclusions.
Your considering Federer's conquerors as assets in his career sounds a bit ironic: Roger LOST to them while Rosewall did not lose to any opponents in big events from 1960 to 1963...
This is a question of competition, I'm pointing out Federer had tough opponents. Federer played more big events than Rosewall, if he just played Wimbledon and the USO he would have been undefeated also.

Gonzalez was not semi-retired in 1961: In fact he played much more than Rosewall.

Laver in the second part of 1963 was NOT far from his highest level. Just ask Laver admirer, pc1...
I didn't say Gonzales was semi retired for the whole period but he played only one pro major in a 2 year span from 1962 to 1963.

Laver was at his best when Rosewall straight setted him for the lost of 8 games? The fact is even by the end of the year Laver still had some ways to go.

Hoad was not worn out or significantly more injured than in the end-1950s.
You need only to read match reports of some of his finals versus Rosewall to see he was 'sluggish'. He had also had some back problems by then. He wasn't at his best in the matches I mentioned.

Yes, I call old Agassi old (No.8 and 7 at that time). And I claim that Segura at 40/41 was a very tough player (ranked No.5 and 4). On clay Pancho Segura was arguably No.2 in the world!
And you and other Federer worshippers like abmk claim that Federer at 27/28 was declining...
Agassi played fewer matches which is why his ranked dipped, he was still a very tough player also. Though almost exclusively on hard courts. Federer had mono in 2008 which caused a decline that year, he was better again in 2009. Losing a step or some motivation getting closer to 30 is normal for a lot of great players.

The fact Rosewall beat Olmedo and Cooper easily is NOT a proof they were weak players. Where is your logic, young man?
Where is your logic that Federer's contemporaries were weak? The fact is guys like Cooper were just there to fill in the numbers for the most part. He made a few semi's of pro majors which isn't a great feat but that's all.

Laver clearly a rookie at the 1963 US Pro? No way.
He still in his first (rookie) year as a pro yes?

Facit: You have a wrong picture of tennis history. Please stay at modern tennis!
Nah, don't think so. 40 year old Segura being #2 on clay but that's a strong era lol. We can at least say that Federer had much tougher clay competition with Nadal
NatF is online now   Reply With Quote