Alan Trengove on Rod Laver. New Article

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Tough to call, but I also have Laver by a nose in 1964.

hoodjem, If you and others put away one of Rosewall's feats (winner of the 1964 tour) it's no wonder that Muscles is mostly ranked far behind Laver and Gonzalez. The same with Rosewall's No. 1 place in 1970 (ex aequo with Laver and Newcombe).

It's time to give Muscles his due credit...

[jeffreyneave]

World rankings are based on total play; the organised series did consist of 19 tournaments(I have counted up Rosewall's 78 points) but that did not cover all 31 tournaments played in 1964. The series is faulty also because it gave no extra points to the pro majors. Just because the pro tour organises a serires does not mean we abandon standard world rankings procedures. Laver was ahead on all the standard measures of world ranings. He won more tournaments; he won more majors; he crushed rosewall 15-4 in the head to head. Just being ahead in two of these categories meand you desreve the no1; being ahead in all three means laver is a certainty. laver also had a superior win loss percentage of 74.8% compared to Rosewall's 69.5%. Just because Rosewall won one best of five set match in south africa in no way compensates for Laver's 15 wins which included 2 best of 5 set wins.

jeffrey

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

World rankings are based on total play; the organised series did consist of 19 tournaments(I have counted up Rosewall's 78 points) but that did not cover all 31 tournaments played in 1964. The series is faulty also because it gave no extra points to the pro majors. Just because the pro tour organises a serires does not mean we abandon standard world rankings procedures. Laver was ahead on all the standard measures of world ranings. He won more tournaments; he won more majors; he crushed rosewall 15-4 in the head to head. Just being ahead in two of these categories meand you desreve the no1; being ahead in all three means laver is a certainty. laver also had a superior win loss percentage of 74.8% compared to Rosewall's 69.5%. Just because Rosewall won one best of five set match in south africa in no way compensates for Laver's 15 wins which included 2 best of 5 set wins.

jeffrey

Well-stated.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

World rankings are based on total play; the organised series did consist of 19 tournaments(I have counted up Rosewall's 78 points) but that did not cover all 31 tournaments played in 1964. The series is faulty also because it gave no extra points to the pro majors. Just because the pro tour organises a serires does not mean we abandon standard world rankings procedures. Laver was ahead on all the standard measures of world ranings. He won more tournaments; he won more majors; he crushed rosewall 15-4 in the head to head. Just being ahead in two of these categories meand you desreve the no1; being ahead in all three means laver is a certainty. laver also had a superior win loss percentage of 74.8% compared to Rosewall's 69.5%. Just because Rosewall won one best of five set match in south africa in no way compensates for Laver's 15 wins which included 2 best of 5 set wins.

jeffrey

jeffrey,

I only counted 14 tournaments.

The No.1 player of the pros (and therefore of the world) was every year determinated by who won the world tour (world series). That's tennis history. By the way, I was one of the first ones who ranked Laver tied No.1 with Rosewall for 1964 while most or all sources had only Rosewall at No.1...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

hoodjem, If you and others put away one of Rosewall's feats (winner of the 1964 tour) it's no wonder that Muscles is mostly ranked far behind Laver and Gonzalez. The same with Rosewall's No. 1 place in 1970 (ex aequo with Laver and Newcombe).

It's time to give Muscles his due credit...

In 1970 Laver won just secondary events
Newcombe was the dominant player for a match but "only" won at Wimbly
Rosewall won Forest Hills and lost a classic five set final at London
Small but firm edge for muscles as the Number one player that yr

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

hoodjem, If you and others put away one of Rosewall's feats (winner of the 1964 tour) it's no wonder that Muscles is mostly ranked far behind Laver and Gonzalez. The same with Rosewall's No. 1 place in 1970 (ex aequo with Laver and Newcombe).

It's time to give Muscles his due credit...

I am a great admirer of Muscles. (I believe that his incredible longevity at the top of the game will never be duplicated.)

I do give him his due credit. I also do think that in 1964 Laver just edged him out as the top player for that year.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

In 1970 Laver won just secondary events
Newcombe was the dominant player for a match but "only" won at Wimbly
Rosewall won Forest Hills and lost a classic five set final at London
Small but firm edge for muscles as the Number one player that yr

kiki, I'm glad that you rank Rosewall No. 1 for 1970 but I must say that Laver won many rather important events. Thus I give him a tied No.1.

I also rank Newcombe Co.-No.1 because he won the most important tournament and reached SF of Forest Hills.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

In 1970 Laver won just secondary events
Newcombe was the dominant player for a match but "only" won at Wimbly
Rosewall won Forest Hills and lost a classic five set final at London
Small but firm edge for muscles as the Number one player that yr

Interesting that you write that Newcombe was a dominant player for a match because an in shape Newcombe in my opinion for a BIG MATCH would be one of my top choices for an important match. Newk would be a danger to beat anyone on any surface if he was in shape in an important match during his peak years.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I'm glad that you rank Rosewall No. 1 for 1970 but I must say that Laver won many rather important events. Thus I give him a tied No.1.

I also rank Newcombe Co.-No.1 because he won the most important tournament and reached SF of Forest Hills.

A reasonable ranking but I must add that I do believe that in actual playing strength I believe Laver was still the top player.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

A reasonable ranking but I must add that I do believe that in actual playing strength I believe Laver was still the top player.

It gets tricky in the early 1970's.
Sure in a 3 or 4 round event, or challenge match, Laver was clearly #1 in those years, but in the big one, Wimbledon, Newk was clearly number one, and should probably get the number one unofficially.
Newk once said that tennis should be judged by the majors, because STAMINA was an important aspect of tennis dominance, and seven rounds best-of-five sets was the standard. I believe that even the US Open lowered its standards for a while, accepting best-of-three sets in early rounds for a few years. This was an advantage for the top players.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Interesting that you write that Newcombe was a dominant player for a match because an in shape Newcombe in my opinion for a BIG MATCH would be one of my top choices for an important match. Newk would be a danger to beat anyone on any surface if he was in shape in an important match during his peak years.

Yes Newcombe never lost a five setter in an important event except to doubles mate Roche...and Jan Kodes

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I'm glad that you rank Rosewall No. 1 for 1970 but I must say that Laver won many rather important events. Thus I give him a tied No.1.

I also rank Newcombe Co.-No.1 because he won the most important tournament and reached SF of Forest Hills.

Laver won everything but the majors coming off his best season ever
Imagine Lakers winning the ring and next year picking N1 in the draft

Early 70 are not talked so much here but it is just ad tough as late 50
Newcombe,Ashe,Laver,Rosewall,Roche,Nastase,Smith,O kker,Gimeno,Santana,Lutz and of course Kodes

Better even than Gonzales,Hoad,Trabert,Segura,Sedgman,Olmedo,Anders on,Cooper and Rosewall which is to say a lot

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

Laver won everything but the majors coming off his best season ever
Imagine Lakers winning the ring and next year picking N1 in the draft

Early 70 are not talked so much here but it is just ad tough as late 50
Newcombe,Ashe,Laver,Rosewall,Roche,Nastase,Smith,O kker,Gimeno,Santana,Lutz and of course Kodes

Better even than Gonzales,Hoad,Trabert,Segura,Sedgman,Olmedo,Anders on,Cooper and Rosewall which is to say a lot

I don't see it.
For one thing, Rosewall was younger and better in the late 1950's.
Laver was beginning (at 32) to show age.
Really, the prime-age stars are Newcombe, Ashe, Roche, Nastase, Smith, Okker, Kodes. No one here to challenge the Gonzales or Hoad of the late fifties..

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I don't see it.
For one thing, Rosewall was younger and better in the late 1950's.
Laver was beginning (at 32) to show age.
Really, the prime-age stars are Newcombe, Ashe, Roche, Nastase, Smith, Okker, Kodes. No one here to challenge the Gonzales or Hoad of the late fifties..

Deeper than 50 a top
The top 15 of the early 70 is the best IMO
Perfect mixture of depth and to
ughness
1970 Laver could beat 1959 Hoad and 1972 Nastase could also beat 1959 Gonzales

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

Deeper than 50 a top
The top 15 of the early 70 is the best IMO
Perfect mixture of depth and to
ughness
1970 Laver could beat 1959 Hoad and 1972 Nastase could also beat 1959 Gonzales

We will never know for sure, but the top EIGHT of 1959 looks better than the top eight of 1971, including a resume of titles won.
Laver at his best (not 1970, but about 1967) would not beat a 1959 Hoad, he could not match the power, and Nastase would crack apart in a tough match with Gonzales (there is no comparison with the serves).

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

Yes Newcombe never lost a five setter in an important event except to doubles mate Roche...and Jan Kodes

Kodes never beat Newcombe in a five-setter. He actually lost three times to Newk in five-set matches: at Rome and RG in '69 and in the '73 USO final: http://www.itftennis.com/ProCircuit/...ayer2=10002309

Newk did lose five-setters to Roche, at 69 AO and 69 USO. He also lost five-setters at 1968 Wimbledon (to Ashe), 1969 French (to Okker), and 1972 AO (to Mal Anderson 9-7 in the fifth).

And he lost at the 1970 AO to Ralston in a four-set match that went to 93 games.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

It gets tricky in the early 1970's.
Sure in a 3 or 4 round event, or challenge match, Laver was clearly #1 in those years, but in the big one, Wimbledon, Newk was clearly number one, and should probably get the number one unofficially.
Newk once said that tennis should be judged by the majors, because STAMINA was an important aspect of tennis dominance, and seven rounds best-of-five sets was the standard. I believe that even the US Open lowered its standards for a while, accepting best-of-three sets in early rounds for a few years. This was an advantage for the top players.

In some ways it is an advantage but over the course of five sets there are generally fewer upsets because it's harder for an inferior player to win three sets than two over a better player.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Laver won everything but the majors coming off his best season ever
Imagine Lakers winning the ring and next year picking N1 in the draft

Early 70 are not talked so much here but it is just ad tough as late 50
Newcombe,Ashe,Laver,Rosewall,Roche,Nastase,Smith,O kker,Gimeno,Santana,Lutz and of course Kodes

Better even than Gonzales,Hoad,Trabert,Segura,Sedgman,Olmedo,Anders on,Cooper and Rosewall which is to say a lot

Not sure about that. Lobb does have a point that Laver was declining and the eternally young Rosewall was actually going down a bit also. Ancient Pancho Gonzalez could be in that group also and Jimmy Connors became a top force in 1973 so he could be added there also.

In the late 1950's Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman and Segura were particularly strong players, especially the top four. But I'll give you this, the early 1970's were pretty incredible and you could be correct.

In 1975 they had Connors, Ashe, Borg, Orantes, Rosewall, Laver, Tanner, Vilas so that's not bad either. Newcombe was still around but pass his best despite winning the Australian.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

We will never know for sure, but the top EIGHT of 1959 looks better than the top eight of 1971, including a resume of titles won.
Laver at his best (not 1970, but about 1967) would not beat a 1959 Hoad, he could not match the power, and Nastase would crack apart in a tough match with Gonzales (there is no comparison with the serves).

Peak Nastase can match anybody
While Nasty is much better than Pancho on clay Pancho is better indoors and maybe grass but by a less difference
Laver was mentaly stronger than Hoad

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Not sure about that. Lobb does have a point that Laver was declining and the eternally young Rosewall was actually going down a bit also. Ancient Pancho Gonzalez could be in that group also and Jimmy Connors became a top force in 1973 so he could be added there also.

In the late 1950's Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Sedgman and Segura were particularly strong players, especially the top four. But I'll give you this, the early 1970's were pretty incredible and you could be correct.

In 1975 they had Connors, Ashe, Borg, Orantes, Rosewall, Laver, Tanner, Vilas so that's not bad either. Newcombe was still around but pass his best despite winning the Australian.

By early 70 I mean 70-74 before the 1974 revolution took over
It is pre golden era and we can also assimilate 68 and 69 since it is homogeneous
So 68 to 73 is pre golden, 74 to 89 is golden and 90 to 95 is post golden, at least O