Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Best of three sets only. A major step below Wembley that year. Exhibition level here.

Dan, I had been hoping that we now can discuss on a higher level than before and that you give up to write very strange posts. But I must learn that you again come with that "exhibition" nonsense...

BBC 2 in 1964 was a hard fought top tournament with a worthy winner, Gonzalez. British Lawn Tennis has brought an article on that event. Best of three sets only? Many big tournaments of the pros were best of three, f. i. MSG, PSW... To be correct: MOST pro tournaments were best of three.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Such a weak era, right? Because if you give a modern racquet to Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and all the other superhuman athletes of the past they would eat alive Nadal on a clay court (i can see mighty Rod handling with his flawless one hander, 3500 rpm Nadal`s forehands, standing on the baseline without breaking a sweat) or Djokovic on a hard court. Yeah i think they wouldn`t have any problem at all trying to cope with a 100+ mph forehand from the likes of Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, etc. Such a piece of cake for all the 60`s bunch. I can even see how easily peakest of peakest Hoad would serve bagels and blast away Murray on a slow hard court. The thing is that you cant compare eras because the conditions, equipment, etc are all very different. I can assure you that shotmakers like Laver, Hoad, Nastase or SV players like Edberg, Newcombe, Gonzalez, etc would have to adapt their games today, if not they wouldnt make the top 50. Was the game more enjoyable to the eye in the past?? Perhaps, I cant tell, but better or more competitive...no, hell no.

All those mighty forehands added have. ..0 majors,live with the fact current era is non competitive

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Well Agassi's return stats aren't as impressive as some by the way. And I'm writing about a player like a Hoad who had the big serve, forehand and volley plus the big return when he was on his game.

Tanner had the big serve and forehand and was blown off the court by Connors. Sometimes we can also consider that maybe a receiver may have a day where he or she is on his game. Who is to say that a big server cannot be dominated by an even better returner that day. It may not happen that often but it does happen.

Mandlikova was that type of player on the female side. Big serve, volley, forehand and backhand plus when she was on she hit on the rise winning returns. I saw her do this to Navratilova at her almost invincible best in the finals of the 1985 US Open in the first five games. Navratilova was helpless under that type of firepower. Hana's level dropped and Martina won the next five games before Mandlikova won the first set in a tiebreak. Mandlikova eventually won the match.

Hana may have been the female version of Hoad
.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by ARFED

Such a weak era, right? Because if you give a modern racquet to Laver, Rosewall, Hoad and all the other superhuman athletes of the past they would eat alive Nadal on a clay court (i can see mighty Rod handling with his flawless one hander, 3500 rpm Nadal`s forehands, standing on the baseline without breaking a sweat) or Djokovic on a hard court. Yeah i think they wouldn`t have any problem at all trying to cope with a 100+ mph forehand from the likes of Del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, etc. Such a piece of cake for all the 60`s bunch. I can even see how easily peakest of peakest Hoad would serve bagels and blast away Murray on a slow hard court. The thing is that you cant compare eras because the conditions, equipment, etc are all very different. I can assure you that shotmakers like Laver, Hoad, Nastase or SV players like Edberg, Newcombe, Gonzalez, etc would have to adapt their games today, if not they wouldnt make the top 50. Was the game more enjoyable to the eye in the past?? Perhaps, I cant tell, but better or more competitive...no, hell no.

Just think about the NBA in the 60s. Despite having a small squad but how many players could make the NBA today? Very few. It's the same for tennis, there's not a whole lot of players in the 60s that can make the atp tour since the standard is a lot higher.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, In the 1964 BBC2 tournament we did have the four giants when Hoad d. Rosewall 8-1 and Gonzalez beat Laver. In the final Pancho won even though he lost the first set by 0-6...

Those 4 in a fast to medium supreme carpet is the closest tennis can get to perfection.Imagime the WCT finals in 63 or 64 with those 4 in top form...it should be held at Louvre or Rome Colosseo instead of Dallas

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Just think about the NBA in the 60s. Despite having a small squad but how many players could make the NBA today? Very few. It's the same for tennis, there's not a whole lot of players in the 60s that can make the atp tour since the standard is a lot higher.

Red Auerbach thought a Dream Team of top players of the 1960's would do quite well against the 1992 Dream Team if memory serves.

The height of the average NBA player in 1970 was 6'6. In the year 2012 it is 6'7".

Wow, one inch.

I think in the year 1986 and 1999 it was 6'7.5 inches. Guess the NBA is going backwards. Players have shrunk.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I had been hoping that we now can discuss on a higher level than before and that you give up to write very strange posts. But I must learn that you again come with that "exhibition" nonsense...

BBC 2 in 1964 was a hard fought top tournament with a worthy winner, Gonzalez. British Lawn Tennis has brought an article on that event. Best of three sets only? Many big tournaments of the pros were best of three, f. i. MSG, PSW... To be correct: MOST pro tournaments were best of three.

Of course, many tournaments were best-of-three sets, pro and amateur. But the majors usually had some best-of-five component.
Examples of majors? Let's see...how about Forest Hills T of C in the late fifties, Kooyong in late fifties and early sixties, Roland Garros at the same time, all predominantly best-of-five in the later stages.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

Red Auerbach thought a Dream Team of top players of the 1960's would do quite well against the 1992 Dream Team if memory serves.

The height of the average NBA player in 1970 was 6'6. In the year 2012 it is 6'7".

Wow, one inch.

I think in the year 1986 and 1999 it was 6'7.5 inches. Guess the NBA is going backwards. Players have shrunk.

Red is biased toward the 60s. I've heard some of his interviews, one of them was when he claimed he was better than Phil Jackson as a coach because he inherited all the star players. That contradict him because he had the best players in the 60s. He said Russell was better than Chamberlain and would pick Russell as center again if he had to coach again. Of course he had to say Russell.

Players in the 60s were mostly white players, and there's no doubt that black basketball players are better than white players. The 1 inch difference doesn't really matter if a player is more athletic, jump higher, stronger, more talented, etc. I seriously doubt if the best players in the 60s competing in the Olympic today and return home with a Gold, because so many nations have improved over the decades.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Red is biased toward the 60s. I've heard some of his interviews, one of them was when he claimed he was better than Phil Jackson as a coach because he inherited all the star players. That contradict him because he had the best players in the 60s. He said Russell was better than Chamberlain and would pick Russell as center again if he had to coach again. Of course he had to say Russell.

Players in the 60s were mostly white players, and there's no doubt that black basketball players are better than white players. The 1 inch difference doesn't really matter if a player is more athletic, jump higher, stronger, more talented, etc. I seriously doubt if the best players in the 60s competing in the Olympic today and return home with a Gold, because so many nations have improved over the decades.

I don't think so. He said at in his last few years that Michael Jordan was better than Russell.
http://articles.nydailynews.com/1999...michael-jordan

And I'm talking about 1970 with Oscar, Baylor, Chamberlain, Jabbar, Frazier, Unseld, Monroe, Bing, Reed, Luke Jackson, Hal Greer, Connie Hawkins among the numerous great African American players. You also had West, Lucas, Cummingham, Goodrich. It was a great league. The athletes were great. So I guess a team of Jabbar, West, Robertson, Frazier, Lucas, Debusschere, Reed, Baylor, Unseld, Monroe, Gus Johnson wouldn't do well according to you. To quote John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious"

Here's a link to an article interviewing Auerbach about the 1992 Dream team and the team he could have formed in the 1960's. Notice that he said that the team should win 50% to 60% of the games with the 1992 Dream Team.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...94/2/index.htm

Oh yes I would like to point out it was a smaller league so having 20 great players is the equivalent of a much higher number now. I don't see anyone coming close to Jabbar or Chamberlain today. Lebron is great but so was Oscar.

Do some research on the league on that point. Red Auerbach was a great talent evaluator and I think he knows the NBA and how to form a team far better than perhaps anyone in history. He said the league in the 1960's with its version of the Dream Team would be very competitive with the 1992 team. Does that mean anything to you?

You're too rigid in your theory about past versus present. The universe is not set in stone.

[kiki]

Best foursomes:

1950´s: Davis,Coltrane,Chambers and Garland ( and Jones)

1960´s: Entwisthle,Daltrey,Townshed,Moon

1970´s: Plan,.Bohnan,Jones and Page

1980´s: close call between Taylor,Mercury,May and Deacon vs

Brecker,Ershkine,Gomez and Mainieri vs

Davis,Coleman,Carter,Hancock ( and Williams)

[tennissportsrog]

thanks comment.

[tennissportsrog]

Nadal is sh*t in fast court.

no?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by ARFED

In my opinion there is no such thing as an unstoppable player, because there is no perfect player. Laver for example couldnt do much , even when playing his best, on a fast court against a power hitter (Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, etc) with a perfect serve day. How could he, if he isnt able to touch the ball on the return games??? Take a look to the 5 set between Nadal and Rosol at Wimbledon, i honestly dont know if Laver, Sampras, Mc Enroe, Federer or whoever you choose would have stopped Rosol that day. In a way mostly all the players at the top level can be unstoppable so for the same reason none of them really are

yeah, the thing here is even against a player playing that well, if you can hold serve, you might be able to capitalize on a slight drop of level or come up with a bit of inspirational play to break or take it in a breaker ....

for example, take the second set of federer-murray wimbledon final in 2012 ...... murray was playing better than federer there ....but federer managed to hold his serve and came up with an inspirational game out of nowhere to break murray and seal the set ....

as far as nadal-rosol match goes, well, no one would have it easy vs the rosol who showed up in the 5th set, but I think the other superior grass court players could've easily taken 3 sets out of the first 4 ....

I get your point that no one is really unstoppable in the absolute sense, just that it is possible to discuss relatively .....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

All those mighty forehands added have. ..0 majors,live with the fact current era is non competitive

delpo win the USO in 2009 ......you fail there ..... they'd have won more slams if not for the era being strong

actually fact is the mid-60s to the early 70s was the worst era ever. .....

and finally, the level of delpo in RG 2009 SF was far better than that of rosewall in RG 1969 final , even though rosewall is the better CC player by far ....

deal with it !

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I had been hoping that we now can discuss on a higher level than before and that you give up to write very strange posts. But I must learn that you again come with that "exhibition" nonsense...

BBC 2 in 1964 was a hard fought top tournament with a worthy winner, Gonzalez. British Lawn Tennis has brought an article on that event. Best of three sets only? Many big tournaments of the pros were best of three, f. i. MSG, PSW... To be correct: MOST pro tournaments were best of three.

Most important pro tournaments had a best-of-five sets final.
PSW (is that the Pacific South West?) as in post-open era?
Best-of-three does not show STAMINA, which should be tested in a major event.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

delpo win the USO in 2009 ......you fail there ..... they'd have won more slams if not for the era being strong

actually fact is the mid-60s to the early 70s was the worst era ever. .....

and finally, the level of delpo in RG 2009 SF was far better than that of rosewall in RG 1969 final , even though rosewall is the better CC player by far ....

deal with it !

Let´s see...wasn´t Laver second slam in the middle to late 60´s? oh¡¡ I see...

[tennissportsrog]

Nadal "Sampras era was not true tennis. no?."

[kiki]

Current foursome is good but not better tham Sampras,Agassi,Becker and Edberg/Courier
Of course the greatest ever is Laver/Rosewall/Hoad/Gonzales followed by Borg/Mc Enroe/Connors/Lendl

[NatF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Current foursome is good but not better tham Sampras,Agassi,Becker and Edberg/Courier
Of course the greatest ever is Laver/Rosewall/Hoad/Gonzales followed by Borg/Mc Enroe/Connors/Lendl

Federer > Sampras

Nadal > Agassi

Djokovic > Becker

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NatF

Federer > Sampras

Nadal > Agassi

Djokovic > Becker

In which world can be imagined Becker inferior to Djokovic?