Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

orantes would beat any player on clay if he was on, so no shame to Ilie.

I mentioned 1973, when he was on zone for the first half of the year.he just threw away his chances at Wimbledon because he was the only guy ( Kodes came second) to have a lock on that tournament.And, when being a favourite, Nasatse seldom delivered.Like in the 1972 Wimbledon final.

Kiki,

Quick question. If peak Orantes played peak Kodes in the finals of the French, who is the favorite? I won't give my opinion but I'm curious about your answer. I'm not joking. Just wondering what you think.

[BlueB]

My 10, not by acievements, but who I cheered for, over the years:
Borg
Becker
Zivojinovic
Agassi
Safin
Hewitt
Federer
Djokovic

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BlueB

My 10, not by acievements, but who I cheered for, over the years:
Borg
Becker
Zivojinovic
Agassi
Safin
Hewitt
Federer
Djokovic

Nice that you mentioned Bobo. He had a huge serve.

The most fun doubles match I've seen was Zivojinovic and Becker against Noah and Leconte at the US Open. What power and great angle volleys from Leconte? It was in the Grandstand and it was packed. People talked about that match for years.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I again contradict: Rosewall seems to having been stronger on grass those years, see his runs in 1974.

He would have been stronger on clay.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

because he was awesome...

He faced an awsomely weak path to victory.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Yes Newcombe was there. As was Kodes (that was for you Kiki), Panatta, Okker, Dibbs, Vilas, Metrevelli, Proisy, Connors, Ramirez, Orantes, Cox, Solomon, Ashe, Stan Smith, Borg, Richey Gimeno, Pilic, Taylor. Some of these players were not in their primes yet or past their primes but still excellent players. Borg for example beat the 9th seeded Richey in the first round. A sign of things to come I suppose.

I think it was an extremely strong field. To be honest while Laver and Rosewall could have won this tournament, it's very doubtful at their advanced ages. Laver was having some physical problems also.

I would think that Nastase won an impressive victory.

And of course Nastase was not unbeatable on clay but he was at his peak in 1973 and was a great clay court player.

How many of these "great" clay players did Nastase meet en route to victory?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

He would have been stronger on clay.

Dan, Tingay ranked Rosewall at No.2 in 1974. If he played great claycourt events, would you give Rosewall even a better ranking?? LOL.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Tingay ranked Rosewall at No.2 in 1974. If he played great claycourt events, would you give Rosewall even a better ranking?? LOL.

I think that Rosewall had a better chance to win at RG in 1974 than at Wimbledon or Forest Hills.
I think that he skipped RG after 1969 to better prepare for Wimbledon, a strategy which did not quite work. Better to have played at RG.
As far as Tingay, wasn't he the guy who ranked Hoad at #5 for 1953? I would have put Hoad at #1 for that year. I guess Tingay and I use different criteria.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I think that Rosewall had a better chance to win at RG in 1974 than at Wimbledon or Forest Hills.
I think that he skipped RG after 1969 to better prepare for Wimbledon, a strategy which did not quite work. Better to have played at RG.
As far as Tingay, wasn't he the guy who ranked Hoad at #5 for 1953? I would have put Hoad at #1 for that year. I guess Tingay and I use different criteria.

Dan, Rosewall would not have beaten Borg in a Paris final in 1974.

Yes, you would have put Hoad at No.1 for 1953. I guess you even would have ranked Hoad at No.1 also for 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960.

Did I forget 1961, 1962 and 1963??

Yes, I finally agree: Tingay and you have actually used different criteria........

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Rosewall would not have beaten Borg in a Paris final in 1974.

Yes, you would have put Hoad at No.1 for 1953. I guess you even would have ranked Hoad at No.1 also for 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960.

Did I forget 1961, 1962 and 1963??

Yes, I finally agree: Tingay and you have actually used different criteria........

Whoa, don't get carried away.
But since you ask, here it goes.

Amateur rankings:

1953: 1) Hoad 2) Trabert 3) Rosewall 4) Seixas

Key to this is the hth between Hoad and Trabert (2 and 0 for Hoad), and Rosewall (5 and 0 for Hoad, wow!), and the Davis Cup final (Tingay does not include the Cup play in his rankings) (there is a point in the first set against Seixas where Hoad hits a strong groundstroke and Seixas underestimates the power, and is actually knocked off his feet)
Following the 1953 season, Kramer offered a contract to only ONE amateur player, Hoad, to play against himself in 1954. Hoad stated that he wanted to win Wimbledon twice before turning pro. Some prophecy.

1954: 1) Drobny 2) Seixas 3) Trabert

1955: 1) Trabert 2) Hoad (based on Davis Cup, despite Tingay) 3) Rosewall

1956: 1) Hoad 2) Rosewall

Pro rankings:

1957: 1) Gonzales 2) Sedgman 3) Rosewall

1958: 1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Rosewall 4) Sedgman 5) Trabert

1959: 1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Rosewall 4) Sedgman 5) Trabert

1960: 1) Gonzales 2) Rosewall 3) Hoad

1961: 1) Rosewall 2) Gonzales 3) Hoad

1962: 1) Rosewall 2) Hoad

1963: 1) Rosewall 2) Hoad 3) Laver

I believe that these are very fair and objective rankings, based upon a very sober consideration of available data.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I think that Rosewall had a better chance to win at RG in 1974 than at Wimbledon or Forest Hills.

based on what exactly ? he was drained out with those matches on grass itself by the finals and got pummeled by connors

Imagine those grueling rallies on clay with the likes of borg, orantes, vilas, dibbs, solomon, ramirez etc...... @ 40 years old ....... fat, fat chance of rosewall being in any shape to compete by the time of the finals ( that is if he managed to reach there ! )

CC tennis was far more grueling then and very different when compared to the time of rosewall's peak ....

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Rosewall was more formidable on clay than on grass at this time.
It is a mystery to me why he did not play RG after 1969.

Old Rosewall was better on grass.easy, clay wears you down much more than the fast grass, so it is completely understandable that Rosewall´s greatest succeses in the 70´s came on grass and fast supreme, rather than clay or hard courts.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Peak Martina was much better than Evert. She beat Evert 13 times in a row at one point. She was far more dominant at her peak, losing only 1 or 2 matches a year. Evert didnt even deny Martina many majors, only 3 or 4, Martina by contrast denied Evert about 8-10.

What about peak Martina-Hingis- vs peak Evert LLoyd ( or Evert Mills for that matter)?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Kiki,

Quick question. If peak Orantes played peak Kodes in the finals of the French, who is the favorite? I won't give my opinion but I'm curious about your answer. I'm not joking. Just wondering what you think.

Not peak Orantes won the IO final against peak Kodes in 1972.Orantes was almost a peak player back then but IMo he was better from 1973 to 1976.

Kodes, however, had a tremendous fighting spirit.Connors, another fighter, always recognised that.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

I guess we both agree that Orantes at that point would have been Nastase's toughest competition although Nastase would have been favored. Orantes defeated Nastase in four sets at the 1975 US Open in a match I was privileged to see in person. Nastase played well imo in that match but Orantes I believe was playing the best tennis of the tournament. Two of the greatest touch players in the history of tennis. I don't recall Nastase acting up in that match.

Great for you to see that match.1975 FH was a terrific event, with Laver playing his last great tournament and bowing to Eddie Dibbs ( an underrated player IMO).The semifinal line up was exceptional, and the same for the ladies event.

Nobody acted against Orantes, who was worldwide respected for his sportmanship and honesty.Orantes beat Mc Enroe in the 1977 USO fourth round and Mac behaved very well.

Orantes and Nastase respected each other.Orantes was good friends with other megastars of his generation such as Borg,Vilas,Panatta.Connors respected him.Ashe,Smith and Rosewall praised in public the great sportmanship of Orantes.Many people missed him when he retired, not just because of his exceptional touch but also because he was probably the last player of the old school.

Orantes last great year was 77.In 78 he beat Ashe and Solomon to win Boston, but felt to Stockton at RG, a match he should have won.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

billnepill, Rosewall beat Laver, Gonzalez, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo in his sensational nine majors winning streak. I would say that was a field not too bad...

Add Kramer and you´ve got the most exceptional line up ever seen on tennis.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

How many of these "great" clay players did Nastase meet en route to victory?

So what.is Nastase´s fault if they didn´t get far enough.

Nastase in 1973 would defeat any other player in history if he was on.Nobody ever doubted that.From Tilden to Federer.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Yes Newcombe was there. As was Kodes (that was for you Kiki), Panatta, Okker, Dibbs, Vilas, Metrevelli, Proisy, Connors, Ramirez, Orantes, Cox, Solomon, Ashe, Stan Smith, Borg, Richey Gimeno, Pilic, Taylor. Some of these players were not in their primes yet or past their primes but still excellent players. Borg for example beat the 9th seeded Richey in the first round. A sign of things to come I suppose.

I think it was an extremely strong field. To be honest while Laver and Rosewall could have won this tournament, it's very doubtful at their advanced ages. Laver was having some physical problems also.

I would think that Nastase won an impressive victory.

And of course Nastase was not unbeatable on clay but he was at his peak in 1973 and was a great clay court player.

Kodes is not for me, PC1.He is a top ten whole decade included and anybody that watched tennis in the 70´s know that.

It is not a matter of bias but reality.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Rosewall would not have beaten Borg in a Paris final in 1974.

Yes, you would have put Hoad at No.1 for 1953. I guess you even would have ranked Hoad at No.1 also for 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960.

Did I forget 1961, 1962 and 1963??

Yes, I finally agree: Tingay and you have actually used different criteria........

Orantes was beating Rosewall as soon as 1971.He also played the FO final.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, thanks that you teached Dan tennis history!

Nastase did have great admiration for Rosewall and the past great aussies.He inspired his game much from Manuel Santana and Nicola Pietrangeli, however.