Originally Posted by NatF
I did not know that Anderson won Wembley. Impressive that he went through Rosewall, still not an all-time great though. He didn't make another final at a major for 13 years after that anyway. Olmedo has a weak draw to get his US pro. Enlighten me about the European GP what is impressive about that? Guys like Nalbandian and Davydenko have won the YEC and multiple masters. I don't see any superiority from the 60's crop.
And Darcis beat Nadal at Wimbledon at 29 etc...winning the odd match is all well and good. But unless he was winning tournaments against those guys it doesn't say much. Did he win those tournaments?
Yes...but this says nothing about their strength. The point is not that they were bad players. It's that they weren't better than Federer's second tier competition.
Which is essentially what I said.
I'm not going about how strong exactly Laver was, the fact is he was still improved as he was even in years like 1964 where he clearly dominated Rosewall.
You don't believe he had this problems or you don't believe he was hindered by them? You jump on anyone that questions Nadal's fitness yet deny Hoad was hampered by back problems?
I don't either of us (kiki and myself) are happy with that comparison
Improved a lot but had a long way to go still.
Near 30 year old Trabert and 40 years old Segura, Cooper who made just one semi at the French pro. Gonzales only played the French Pro a few times. Were there some other major clay tournaments which he proved his mettle on?
I'm enjoying you trying to pass off 40 year old players as excellent competition while belittling the likes of Agassi who was 6-5 years younger when he competed with Federer.
NatF, You are too nasty and aggressive to me. Reason is that you have a prejudice towards me, and , like abmk, you are fighting EVERY word I write to you. The last time for a good while I will answer you. Remember you were on my ignore list already earlier. pc1 would say:" it's not worth to answer" (you).
I hated that you use words like "rubbish" and "foolish" towards me.
I have not studied tennis (history) for more than 40 years to be treated as a schoolboy by a 23 years old and by other Federer fanatics!
It's significant you did not know Anderson's biggest achievement where he beat Sedgman, Rosewall and Segura in a row!
Anderson semi-retired after 1966, thus his "poor" record from 1967 to 1971.
Cooper won the European Grand Prix over Gimeno, Anderson and Segura. You had claimed Cooper did little.
Anderson, Cooper and Olmedo, while strong players , were just the second echelon at the pros. The first echelon were Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman, Segura and Gimeno. Buchholz between them.
Mal Anderson did win the 1973 HSW Championships with wins against Newcombe and Rosewall. At 38...
You can't await that a 39 years old Anderson wins a tournament where peak Connors is involved.
"semi-retired" is not "virtually retired". Be correct!
You had "asked" me if Laver was in best form when he was crushed by Rosewall in the US Pro. Now you write you are not going about how strong Laver was...Stay logical and honest!!
In 1964 Laver did NOT clearly dominate Rosewall! Rosewall was the official No.1. Furthermore Laver won at Wembley in tough five sets when a few net-cords decided the match. At the US Pro Muscles was handicapped by a food-poisoning.
You try to misunderstand my words: I wrote that Hoad was always hampered by his back injury (already in his amateur years) and not even more in the early 1960s...
Trabert at 30/31 was still very tough on clay.
Segura won several strong claycourt tournaments when being 40/41.
Good-bye. Maybe see you again after you have learnt history...