Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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.

Dan, thanks for the rankings. For some years I can agree.

But for other years I doubt that you ranked in a sober way. Maybe you have drunk a bit...

1953: I disagree even although Tingay did not consider Davis Cup and despite of Hoad's excellent hths.

1955: Hoad ahead of Rosewall? Have you found this on the bottom of your wine glass?

1958: Hoad ahead of Gonzalez: Your very own kind of rankings....

1963: Hoad ahead of Laver? You are the only expert to rank that way.

Now I begin to understand why you consider Hoad so high. Because he was No.1 or 2 for many, many years...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

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

kiki, Rosewall had some revenge when he beat Orantes in 1977 (I don't know the surface of that Mexico tournament).

[krosero]

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.

Seven rounds at RG would have been especially grueling for someone his age -- and Rosewall knew it. (We had a thread about this: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=302936).

And we've only talked about 7 rounds at RG, picture also the claycourt preparations that Rosewall would have done, in practice and in tournaments, if he wanted to enter RG with the intention of winning it. It would have been draining for him.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

Seven rounds at RG would have been especially grueling for someone his age -- and Rosewall knew it. (We had a thread about this: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=302936).

And we've only talked about 7 rounds at RG, picture also the claycourt preparations that Rosewall would have done, in practice and in tournaments, if he wanted to enter RG with the intention of winning it. It would have been draining for him.

Rosewall was a great claycourt player and his stamina is underrated but it would have been super tough for him to go with seven rounds on red clay to win the 1973 French considering he would be 39 in 1973. He probably would have gone up against a number of clay specialists. Let's say he played a young Borg in one of the early rounds. Rosewall probably would have won but Borg would have probably kept him out on the court for a long time and would have taken a lot out of him for later rounds.

An older body takes longer to recover.

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by pc1

NadalAgassi, I agree that peak Navratilova was better than peak Evert but it may not have been as one sided as you may think. A good friend of mine pointed out that Navratilova was using the new racquets during most of those 13 straight matches that Navratilova won while Evert stuck to a wood racquet. After Evert switched to the new racquets of the time the matches were closer and Evert was able to defeat Navratilova.

My friend really knows tennis and I do think he has a decent argument.

if your friend 'really knows tennis' they shouldve mentioned how after the 1981 u.s open she had to be fitter and dedicated herself to a new fitness and diet regieme..evert readily admits she was caught out by this 'new martina' and after a few defeats new she had to either retire, accept she was never going to beat martina again, or up her own level of fitness and commitment to tennis which is what she did..

i think everts losing streak to martina was ended at the 1985 french open final..

you may be right about the raquets i dont know...but it was the other stuff that was the big reason for change..martina much like lendl for the men brought in a new era of dedicated non partying focused superfit tennis players.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by abmk

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 ....

Rosewall had a very economical energy expenditure, it was the big hitters who got tired on clay.
In 1976, TWO YEARS after the Forest Hills loss to Connors, Rosewall gave him a tough 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 final on clay in California, a much tougher match, and Rosewall was not the least bit tired at the end.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

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.

He looked better in the clay events.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

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.

Of course it wasn't Nastase's fault, but it puts the win in a different perspective.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, thanks for the rankings. For some years I can agree.

But for other years I doubt that you ranked in a sober way. Maybe you have drunk a bit...

1953: I disagree even although Tingay did not consider Davis Cup and despite of Hoad's excellent hths.

1955: Hoad ahead of Rosewall? Have you found this on the bottom of your wine glass?

1958: Hoad ahead of Gonzalez: Your very own kind of rankings....

1963: Hoad ahead of Laver? You are the only expert to rank that way.

Now I begin to understand why you consider Hoad so high. Because he was No.1 or 2 for many, many years...

I do not indulge in drink. Only dinner wine when guests are over. I recommend that approach to everyone.

The big match of 1955 was not the Australian final, but the Davis Cup encounter between Hoad and Trabert, which drew over 10 million TV audience in NBC's very first color broadcast of anything.

In 1958, Hoad dominated the hth tour when healthy, including the greatest of all time match at Kooyong, was the leading money-winner on the tour, and won the Ampol world tournament championship. That's enough.

In 1963, Hoad had a winning hth against Laver, and beat Buchholz (Laver's conqueror) while playing on one leg. Not bad.
Hoad's peak was relatively brief, but included about 400 tour matches against the toughest collection of players ever assembled. That is sufficient room to evaluate.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Seven rounds at RG would have been especially grueling for someone his age -- and Rosewall knew it. (We had a thread about this: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=302936).

And we've only talked about 7 rounds at RG, picture also the claycourt preparations that Rosewall would have done, in practice and in tournaments, if he wanted to enter RG with the intention of winning it. It would have been draining for him.

I notice that PC1 stayes on that thread that Rosewall would have won at least TWO MORE RG's in the early seventies if he had played there.
Is that what you wanted me to see? It agrees with what I have said.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

they both won 18 majors..

Evert beat Navratilova 8 times at the buisiness end of majors..(4F, 4SF).

The times one lost in the semis very rarely would the loser have won the title. There is a reason they were playing in the semis, it is because those times they were playing in the semis they were not the 2 best at the moment, the way they were 77-79 and 82-86. Especialy the ones where Evert beat Navratilova, which were always well outside of Martina`s peak periods.

Times Evert beat Navratilova in semis:

1975 U.S Open and 1976 Wimbledon- Goolagong was a much better player than Navratilova at the time, and their H2H around that period bears that out, as well as their general results and ranking. Goolagong would have won the title had Evert not been there.

1980 Wimbledon- Navratilova was in horrible shape around then, and by the end of 1980 was losing regularly to Shriver, Turnbull, 17 year old Mandlikova, everyone, and dropped to number 5 in the World at one point. Cant imagine her winning Wimbledon this year with any draw, unless she played Ruzica in the final or something.

1988 Australian- No chance on earth Navratilova comes close to beating Graf in the final on rebound ace, this is the most obvious one of all.


So Evert denied Navratilova at absolute most 4 slams, the 4 she lost to her in the finals. Navratilova beat Evert in 10 slams and Evert probably would have won atleast 8 of those 10 without Martina, so Martina cost Chris much more. This also shows how silly the remove so and so arguments are anyway though, as based on that Evert would be much better than Navratilova as she wins way more without Martina, than Martina does without Chris, yet it is Martina`s ownage of Evert in slam finals (10-4) which is why people clearly rate her better and often have them multiple spots apart.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Rosewall was a great claycourt player and his stamina is underrated but it would have been super tough for him to go with seven rounds on red clay to win the 1973 French considering he would be 39 in 1973. He probably would have gone up against a number of clay specialists. Let's say he played a young Borg in one of the early rounds. Rosewall probably would have won but Borg would have probably kept him out on the court for a long time and would have taken a lot out of him for later rounds.

An older body takes longer to recover.

PC1, I saw your earlier post, and you concluded that Rosewall would win at least TWO more RG's in the early seventies. What has happened to change your mind?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, Rosewall had some revenge when he beat Orantes in 1977 (I don't know the surface of that Mexico tournament).

Indoors since it was a part of the sensational WCT tour ( probably the toughest ever fields for a tour) and only Montecarlo and Houston were not indoors (clay).None of them did make it to Dallas, however.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Of course it wasn't Nastase's fault, but it puts the win in a different perspective.

Not in mine.

Hoad beat Davidson at RG...shall we belittle him for that?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

Not in mine.

Hoad beat Davidson at RG...shall we belittle him for that?

Davidson had beaten Rosewall at RG and won a French title at RG. No comparison with the lesser players that Nastase beat.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

Seven rounds at RG would have been especially grueling for someone his age -- and Rosewall knew it. (We had a thread about this: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=302936).

And we've only talked about 7 rounds at RG, picture also the claycourt preparations that Rosewall would have done, in practice and in tournaments, if he wanted to enter RG with the intention of winning it. It would have been draining for him.

krosero, even though I understand your argument, I would yet say that Rosewall (and Laver for that matter) would have had good chances to win the French Open in 1970, 1971 and 1972 (not in 1973 though!).

Remember that Muscles won the Cincinnati 1970 clay event with top participation and going over 6 rounds.

He also won the 1971 Washington Star clay tournament, winning all six matches including wins against Laver and Smith.

In the French Open players have one day rest after every round. That might compensate for one round more than the mentioned events and for best of five matches.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Rosewall had a very economical energy expenditure, it was the big hitters who got tired on clay.
In 1976, TWO YEARS after the Forest Hills loss to Connors, Rosewall gave him a tough 6-4, 6-4, 6-2 final on clay in California, a much tougher match, and Rosewall was not the least bit tired at the end.

Dan, I agree that Rosewall's game was very economic.

I believe you err regarding a 1976 Connors/Rosewall match on clay in California with that result. Please explain that match. I only know that Connors beat Rosewall in the 1976 Las Vergas event 6-1,6-3.

[boredone3456]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

if your friend 'really knows tennis' they shouldve mentioned how after the 1981 u.s open she had to be fitter and dedicated herself to a new fitness and diet regieme..evert readily admits she was caught out by this 'new martina' and after a few defeats new she had to either retire, accept she was never going to beat martina again, or up her own level of fitness and commitment to tennis which is what she did..

i think everts losing streak to martina was ended at the 1985 french open final..

you may be right about the raquets i dont know...but it was the other stuff that was the big reason for change..martina much like lendl for the men brought in a new era of dedicated non partying focused superfit tennis players.

Evert beat Navratilova at the Aussie in 1982 using her trusted woodie while Martina was using graphite. The racquet difference was a part of it although I am not sure how much. One could argue the reason for this Martina loss was her trying to adjust to graphite, and once she was used to it she started beating Evert consistantly while Evert had to come to grips and catch up. Arguably Martina switching first helped her big time in getting hers caught up in the H2H. It took Evert a while to adjust totally to the new racquet and Martina was the only one who could really exploit it. Martina handled the racquet change better and the power boost gave her even more confidence.

Martinas fitness definitely took Evert by surprise. Before all Chris had to do was lob and drop Martina or blitz the pass by her. Once Martina got fit she could make the move to net a lot faster and she couldn't be grinded out of a match. Chris knew she had to get fitter, plus she was so dog gone stubborn I do not think she wanted to quit admitting Martina had conquered her. Thats what made the 1985 and 1986 French finals so dramatic. 1985 was almost Everts revenge and last chance to win a major (or so it was thought).

Part of me says had Evert made the switch at the same time things might have worked out more in her favor historically...although I think also she was to stubborn to believe she needed graphite at all at first despite what she said to the public.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Of course it wasn't Nastase's fault, but it puts the win in a different perspective.

I believe Nastase won the title without losing a set.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, even though I understand your argument, I would yet say that Rosewall (and Laver for that matter) would have had good chances to win the French Open in 1970, 1971 and 1972 (not in 1973 though!).

Remember that Muscles won the Cincinnati 1970 clay event with top participation and going over 6 rounds.

He also won the 1971 Washington Star clay tournament, winning all six matches including wins against Laver and Smith.

In the French Open players have one day rest after every round. That might compensate for one round more than the mentioned events and for best of five matches.

Agreed, certainly, with your argument, and with PC1's, that Rosewall had good chances to win RG in the early 70s but not in '73.