Why Laver didnt win a slam after 1969?

[kiki]

After the torrid Hoad´s thread, this one looks to be in firelights even more....great enjoyment guys, keep on¡¡¡

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I watched more tennis in the 70´s than now, so I now what I am talking about.I didn´t think so to please your stubborn passion for Rosewall.I admire Rosewall as I admire Laver but still no player is perfect and themselves will aknowledge that ( both classy sportsmen)

IMO, the peakest Laver surpasses peakest Rosewall but it is fair to assume that records will tell that Rosewall had much better results than Laver, and the two Dallas finals were probably the biggest matches from 1970 to 1975 or 1976, as I recall.

I agree mostly. I think I don't have a stubborn passion for Rosewall. I just try to defend him against wrong arguments and against those who praise Laver but neglect Rosewall. Of course both players are giants of the game and worthy to be praised.

But should I discuss with a man who does not include Rosewall in the top ten and who back this his opinion with "arguments" like Laver was No.1 though 1973? ATP has Laver at place 8, Tingay at place 7...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I agree mostly. I think I don't have a stubborn passion for Rosewall. I just try to defend him against wrong arguments and against those who praise Laver but neglect Rosewall. Of course both players are giants of the game and worthy to be praised.

But should I discuss with a man who does not include Rosewall in the top ten and who back this his opinion with "arguments" like Laver was No.1 though 1973? ATP has Laver at place 8, Tingay at place 7...

Right. I have no stubborn views on Hoad, either. I agree with you completely.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Right. I have no stubborn views on Hoad, either. I agree with you completely.

I am not stubborn on Kodes, neither...but somebody has to defend him.

Rosewall has many admirers ( of course, deservedly so as myself am one of them) but poor Kodes, has none.Maybe, many posters who watched tennis in the Cold war days cannot overcome it...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Right. I have no stubborn views on Hoad, either. I agree with you completely.

Dan, I'm glad you agree with my views.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I am not stubborn on Kodes, neither...but somebody has to defend him.

Rosewall has many admirers ( of course, deservedly so as myself am one of them) but poor Kodes, has none.Maybe, many posters who watched tennis in the Cold war days cannot overcome it...

It's good you defend Kodes but PLEASE don't belittle Nüsslein, Plaa and others of that group!

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Regarding 1970 to 1974: Rosewall reached 8 out of 8 major SFs while Laver reached 0 out of 6....

But Rosewall's number here is not correct. He made the semis in 8 of 10 majors in that time period, losing in the second round at the '72 USO and '73 AO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ros...eer_statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Lav...mance_Timeline

On the overall subject, I think Laver's commitment to his family was one of the key issues. Here's something in the NY Times in May '74, which explains why he missed all the Slam events that year:

He won't play again until August, passing up Wimbledon and other tournaments while concentrating on his tennis camps and his family.

At 35, Laver said, a time comes when a man must make choices.

"I feel fine and I think I'm playing as well as ever, now that I've got my timing back," he said, "but other things become more important than playing in every possible tournament."

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

But Rosewall's number here is not correct. He made the semis in 8 of 10 majors in that time period, losing in the second round at the '72 USO and '73 AO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ros...eer_statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Lav...mance_Timeline

On the overall subject, I think Laver's commitment to his family was one of the key issues. Here's something in the NY Times in May '74, which explains why he missed all the Slam events that year:

He won't play again until August, passing up Wimbledon and other tournaments while concentrating on his tennis camps and his family.

At 35, Laver said, a time comes when a man must make choices.

"I feel fine and I think I'm playing as well as ever, now that I've got my timing back," he said, "but other things become more important than playing in every possible tournament."

krosero, thanks for your correction. My error. But still 8 out of 10 is much better than 0 out of 6...

Your quote is of May 1974 but I discussed with Limpinhitter the years before.

As far as I know Laver had a full year 1973.

I find it-with all my respect for the Rocket- a bit naiv or arrogant that Laver claimed he was playing as well as ever. A player at 36 is surely not as strong as in his peak years and Laver declined already after 1969, at least after 1970.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Rosewall has many categories where he leads against Laver (winning majors in a row, years in top ten, record as a young player, record as an old player,WINNING MAJORS and so on).

HtH is not the only measure for dominating of a player. More important is ranking in the top ten! You should know this. Laver was ranked below Rosewall in most years of the 1970s.

Laver played against Rosewall mostly when the age was a handicap for Rosewall. Remember that Rosewall was already 28 when they first met. From 1965 onward Rosewall had that handicap.

You seem as stubborn as Dan Lobb in your idolization of your darling...

Among other things:

- Laver won: 1 amateur Grand Slam, 1 pro Grand Slam and 1 Open Grand slam. Rosewall has "0" Grand Slams.

- Laver had 200 career titles, Rosewall has about 130 career titles.

- Laver had a winning career H2H record against Rosewall, a winning H2H record during 4 years of Rosewall's peak, a winning H2H during 10 years of Rosewall's prime, and a winning H2H record in the 70's when Rosewall enjoyed better health than Laver who played a reduced schedule beginning in 1972 because of injuries.

- Laver was #1 in the World for 7 straight years, all of which were during Rosewall's peak and prime. Rosewall was #1 for 2 years, and only because Gonzales was past his peak and Laver had not reached his peak.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I agree mostly. I think I don't have a stubborn passion for Rosewall. I just try to defend him against wrong arguments and against those who praise Laver but neglect Rosewall. Of course both players are giants of the game and worthy to be praised.

Hahaha! Yes you do. But, that's ok, you do a heroic job of standing your ground, especially considering that history is against you. Even when you stoop to calling me another Dan Lobb, I give you some slack because you have such a tough job.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

But should I discuss with a man who does not include Rosewall in the top ten and who back this his opinion with "arguments" like Laver was No.1 though 1973? ATP has Laver at place 8, Tingay at place 7...

I didn't say Laver should be ranked #1 through 1973. I said he should be ranked #1 through 1970, but that he was de facto the best player through 1973.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I find it-with all my respect for the Rocket- a bit naiv or arrogant that Laver claimed he was playing as well as ever. A player at 36 is surely not as strong as in his peak years and Laver declined already after 1969, at least after 1970.

Yes it's somewhat like Tilden. In '34 he told the press he was playing about as well as ever.

I think Federer said something like that recently.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Among other things:

- Laver won: 1 amateur Grand Slam, 1 pro Grand Slam and 1 Open Grand slam. Rosewall has "0" Grand Slams.

Rosewall has a pro Grand Slam in '63.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by krosero

Yes it's somewhat like Tilden. In '34 he told the press he was playing about as well as ever.

I think Federer said something like that recently.

Rosewall has a pro Grand Slam in '63.

I stand corrected. Thanks.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by krosero

But Rosewall's number here is not correct. He made the semis in 8 of 10 majors in that time period, losing in the second round at the '72 USO and '73 AO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Ros...eer_statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Lav...mance_Timeline

On the overall subject, I think Laver's commitment to his family was one of the key issues. Here's something in the NY Times in May '74, which explains why he missed all the Slam events that year:

He won't play again until August, passing up Wimbledon and other tournaments while concentrating on his tennis camps and his family.

At 35, Laver said, a time comes when a man must make choices.

"I feel fine and I think I'm playing as well as ever, now that I've got my timing back," he said, "but other things become more important than playing in every possible tournament."

This statement by Laver just proves he played selectively in the early 70's as he had done it all the previous decade. He made a choice to make as much as could with what little time he had left on the tour.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I find it-with all my respect for the Rocket- a bit naiv or arrogant that Laver claimed he was playing as well as ever. A player at 36 is surely not as strong as in his peak years and Laver declined already after 1969, at least after 1970.

Whatever man. No competitive player wants to admit out loud to his peers that he's past it. That's why he said he's 'playing as well as ever'.

I remember Sampras not liking to talk about his Thalassemia Minor affiliation. He felt it made him look weak to rest of the tour.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Among other things:

- Laver won: 1 amateur Grand Slam, 1 pro Grand Slam and 1 Open Grand slam. Rosewall has "0" Grand Slams.

- Laver had 200 career titles, Rosewall has about 130 career titles.

- Laver had a winning career H2H record against Rosewall, a winning H2H record during 4 years of Rosewall's peak, a winning H2H during 10 years of Rosewall's prime, and a winning H2H record in the 70's when Rosewall enjoyed better health than Laver who played a reduced schedule beginning in 1972 because of injuries.

- Laver was #1 in the World for 7 straight years, all of which were during Rosewall's peak and prime. Rosewall was #1 for 2 years, and only because Gonzales was past his peak and Laver had not reached his peak.

Limpinhitter,

I have said you good bye but I cannot stand your impertinent youngest post without disproving.

As the "Authoritative Austrian" (Bud Collins) I'm proud enough to refuse your arrogant advise: I do know that Laver has won at least 200 tournaments. I will not explain why Rosewall was handicapped to win only at least 137 tournaments. You would not follow me and my explanation. I never doubted these numbers. In contrary: I was one of those (McCauley, Sutter, Andrew Tas) who claimed that Laver has won many, many tournaments (I once counted 183 when the official number was 145)
I seldom have read a post with so many mistakes.

Why do you teach me?. I never belittled Laver as you belittle Rosewall. I just contradicted you that Laver is leading in most categories against Rosewall. I brought you examples but you stubbornly ignored them

Why do you think I rank Laver first together with Rosewall: Because I do know about his three GSs, his at least 200 tournament wins and so on. But it's a fact of history that, as I have explained you earlier, Rosewall leads in several other categories!



krosero has already corected you: Rosewall did the Pro GS. It's typically for you to "forget" this.

When Laver had a winning hth against Rosewall, Rosewall was NOT at his peak. He was at his peak (when they played each other) in 1963 and 1964 when these two years together Rosewall had the edge.

I have explained you that hth against one player is not the only measure for a player's domination. There is a reason why experts did not rank Laver No. 1 for several years when you rank him first. In fact they ranked Laver No.3 and 4 for 1970, No.3 for 1971, No.4 for 1972 and No. 7 and 8 for 1973...

Laver was not 7 years No.1 when Rosewall was in his prime and even peak: 1965 -1970 Rosewall was not in his peak.

You have written that Laver was best player through 1973. It's about the same as though you write he was ranked No.1. It's a case of hair-splitting.That latter statement shows me that you know nothing or very little about tennis history. In 1973 Laver was ranked No. 7 and No.8 for some reason.

I hate your kind of "discussing".

[treblings]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Limpinhitter,

I have said you good bye but I cannot stand your impertinent youngest post without disproving.

As the "Authoritative Austrian" (Bud Collins) I'm proud enough to refuse your arrogant advise: I do know that Laver has won at least 200 tournaments. I will not explain why Rosewall was handicapped to win only at least 137 tournaments. You would not follow me and my explanation. I never doubted these numbers. In contrary: I was one of those (McCauley, Sutter, Andrew Tas) who claimed that Laver has won many, many tournaments (I once counted 183 when the official number was 145)
I seldom have read a post with so many mistakes.

Why do you teach me?. I never belittled Laver as you belittle Rosewall. I just contradicted you that Laver is leading in most categories against Rosewall. I brought you examples but you stubbornly ignored them

Why do you think I rank Laver first together with Rosewall: Because I do know about his three GSs, his at least 200 tournament wins and so on. But it's a fact of history that, as I have explained you earlier, Rosewall leads in several other categories!



krosero has already corected you: Rosewall did the Pro GS. It's typically for you to "forget" this.

When Laver had a winning hth against Rosewall, Rosewall was NOT in his peak. He was in his peak (when they played each other) in 1963 and 1964 when these two years together Rosewall had the edge.

I have explained you that hth against one player is not the only measure for a player's domination. There is a reason why experts did not rank Laver No. 1 for several years when you rank him first. In fact they ranked Laver No.3 and 4 for 1970, No.3 for 1971, No.4 for 1972 and No. 7 and 8 for 1973...

Laver was not 7 years No.1 when Rosewall was in his prime and even peak: 1965 -1970 Rosewall was not in his peak.

You have written that Laver was best player through 1973. It's about the same as though you write he was ranked No.1. It's a case of hair-splitting.That latter statement shows me that you know nothing or very little about tennis history. In 1973 Laver was ranked No. 7 and No.8 for some reason.

I hate your kind of "discussing".

i´m sure you mostly enjoy the discussions. don´t let your blood pressure go up too much, it isn´t worth it
some posters seem to confuse the discussions with tennis matches where there has to be a winner and a loser.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

i´m sure you mostly enjoy the discussions. don´t let your blood pressure go up too much, it isn´t worth it
some posters seem to confuse the discussions with tennis matches where there has to be a winner and a loser.

treblings, you are right: I usually enjoy discussions but sometimes my "opponent" does not make it easy for me to stay calm. However, I take good medicine against high blood pressure...

Meanwhile I have found my peace with Dan Lobb. Maybe one day also with Limpinhitter...

[treblings]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

treblings, you are right: I usually enjoy discussions but sometimes my "opponent" does not make it easy for me to stay calm. However, I take good medicine against high blood pressure...

Meanwhile I have found my peace with Dan Lobb. Maybe one day also with Limpinhitter...

limpinhitter is one of the good guys around here, just very opinionated
i´m sure you find common ground, and meanwile we others get to enjoy the heated discussions.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

limpinhitter is one of the good guys around here, just very opinionated
i´m sure you find common ground, and meanwile we others get to enjoy the heated discussions.

I have learnt that Limpinhitter has a good and a bad side. For instance I hate that he called TMF (I concede he is as biassed as Lobb is regarding Hoad and Limpinhitter regarding Laver vs. Rosewall) the "tt village idiot"...

[treblings]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I have learnt that Limpinhitter has a good and a bad side. For instance I hate that he called TMF (I concede he is as biassed as Lobb is regarding Hoad and Limpinhitter regarding Laver vs. Rosewall) the "tt village idiot"...

that kind of name-calling is totally unacceptable. usually happens when someone is losing an argument, or at the least not winning it

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by treblings

that kind of name-calling is totally unacceptable. usually happens when someone is losing an argument, or at the least not winning it

Thanks that you agree in that point. krosero has also done.

I must confess that I once called Dan Lobb an idiot for his stubborness. But I apologized for that rather soon.

I would like to have discussions on a high level and with respect for the other side but I hate it when a poster tries to belittle a great player and to push the own "darling" with strange arguments and to answer questions I did not raise...