Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Rosewall had Nastase's number for years, even in 1975, 1976, 1977. Would have beaten him at RG in '73.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

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?

Dan, you do not read other people's posts carefully. Nowhere in that thread does PC1 say that Rosewall would have won AT LEAST two more RG's. He said in one post that it was reasonable to think Rosewall would take two more. In another post he says it would be one, or perhaps more than one. That's a reasonable and cautious argument, which YOU inflated to "at least two more RG's." Why do you exaggerate the arguments of reasonable posters? Why don't you bother to read their arguments carefully?

Most importantly of all, PC1 said Rosewall's best chances were probably in 1970 and 1971. We have been debating 1973!!! PC1 gave Rosewall a "decent" chance in '72 but said only that it was possible for Rosewall to win in '73, but not likely, due to his age and because nobody was tougher on clay than Nastase was in '73. That does NOT agree with what you've been saying: you made a flat-out declaration above that Rosewall would have beaten Nastase at RG in '73.

PC1, my apologies if you didn't see the need for us to go through this, it just burns me when people read other posters' arguments lazily and then misrepresent them.

[BlueB]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

Bobo was the first Yougoslavian/Serbian man to win a GS and be ranked No1 (dobles though).
Yeah, no kidding, at 6'6" 220lbs and weilding Prince Boron, the serve had to be a bomb!
He played often with Boom-Boom-Becker, who was his best buddy, too. Rumor has it, that Becker paid the ransom when Bobo's son got kidnapped...

[abmk]

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.

so explain why he got crushed by connors in 74 wim and USO ? was it because he was that much inferior to connors ????? no, its because the tough matches earlier took some energy away from him ...

now imagine going through multiple rounds of slug-fests on clay vs the likes of borg,vilas, orantes, dibbs, solomon, ramirez etc...... he might win one match, might, but by the next match, he'd be spent

frankly, if you think he could go through multiple rounds like that to win RG at nearly 40, you are delusional ...

[Goosehead]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

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.

you are just imagining stuff.."evert probably thisandthatblahblah ??"..you dont know,

two goats x and y meet in semi, but so what because the loser if they had won would lose the final ?..you dont know that.

the point remains that they both had 18 majors and were direct rivals in sf f of majors for years and years.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

Dan, you do not read other people's posts carefully. Nowhere in that thread does PC1 say that Rosewall would have won AT LEAST two more RG's. He said in one post that it was reasonable to think Rosewall would take two more. In another post he says it would be one, or perhaps more than one. That's a reasonable and cautious argument, which YOU inflated to "at least two more RG's." Why do you exaggerate the arguments of reasonable posters? Why don't you bother to read their arguments carefully?

Most importantly of all, PC1 said Rosewall's best chances were probably in 1970 and 1971. We have been debating 1973!!! PC1 gave Rosewall a "decent" chance in '72 but said only that it was possible for Rosewall to win in '73, but not likely, due to his age and because nobody was tougher on clay than Nastase was in '73. That does NOT agree with what you've been saying: you made a flat-out declaration above that Rosewall would have beaten Nastase at RG in '73.

PC1, my apologies if you didn't see the need for us to go through this, it just burns me when people read other posters' arguments lazily and then misrepresent them.

krosero. I agree. Maybe you understand also why I have some difficulties with Dan's kind of argumentation and why I use to answer him rather cynically. I do know I should stay a bit more calm...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

Dan, you do not read other people's posts carefully. Nowhere in that thread does PC1 say that Rosewall would have won AT LEAST two more RG's. He said in one post that it was reasonable to think Rosewall would take two more. In another post he says it would be one, or perhaps more than one. That's a reasonable and cautious argument, which YOU inflated to "at least two more RG's." Why do you exaggerate the arguments of reasonable posters? Why don't you bother to read their arguments carefully?

Most importantly of all, PC1 said Rosewall's best chances were probably in 1970 and 1971. We have been debating 1973!!! PC1 gave Rosewall a "decent" chance in '72 but said only that it was possible for Rosewall to win in '73, but not likely, due to his age and because nobody was tougher on clay than Nastase was in '73. That does NOT agree with what you've been saying: you made a flat-out declaration above that Rosewall would have beaten Nastase at RG in '73.

PC1, my apologies if you didn't see the need for us to go through this, it just burns me when people read other posters' arguments lazily and then misrepresent them.

I do get annoyed when others are misrepresented and I am misrepresented. Either Dan is not understanding what I write correctly or he is doing it on purpose. I hope it's the former. Either way he's incorrect.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Goosehead

you are just imagining stuff.."evert probably thisandthatblahblah ??"..you dont know,

two goats x and y meet in semi, but so what because the loser if they had won would lose the final ?..you dont know that.

the point remains that they both had 18 majors and were direct rivals in sf f of majors for years and years.

I am not imagining anything. Of course one cant guarantee Evert or Navratilova not winning the title all 8 times each lost in the semis, just as we cant guarantee them winning the title all 14 combined times they lost to one another in the finals. What we can safely believe though is that is LIKELY the vast majority of those 8 times they lost in the semis the losing semifinalist would have lost in the finals, and the vast majority of the 14 times they lost in the finals to one another the other would have won the title otherwise. I am pointing out the obvious, those periods they were playing in the semis there is a reason they were playing in the semis, one (or both) was not ranked in the top 2 in the World, and as that player ranked 3rd or often lower those times was the one usually losing in the semis, they were not the likely winner over the other higher ranked finalist even without the other thre. If you break down the 8 times one lost to the other in the semis, Navratilova or Evert would have been the underdog in all 8 finals had they won.

1975 U.S Open- Goolagong would have been heavy favorite over nowhere near prime Navratilova in final on clay.

1976 Wimbledon- Peak Goolagong would have again been heavy favorite over fat and still underachieving Navratilova.

1980 Wimbledon- Slumping and overweight Navratilova likely loses to Austin or Goolagong, or based on her late 1980 results a slew of other possible opponents pending her draw.

1981 U.S Open- Evert would have had decent chance vs Austin in final, although Tracy led her 9-4 from 79-81 and had spanked her in Canada recently.

1987 French/1987 Wimbledon/1988 Wimbledon- Graf was waiting in all the finals for aging Evert all 3 times, forget it (Evert's last ever win over Graf was early 86 before Graf had even won her first pro tournament).

1988 Australian- Graf was waiting in finals for aging/slumping Navratilova on slow bouncy hard courts. Again forget it.

The only one either had an even decent shot of winning without the other is Evert at the 81 U.S Open.

However really that isnt important to my point either. Since even if we count all the semifinal and final meetings we still have Navratilova beating Evert in 14 and Evert only Navratilova in 8, almost double for Navratilova beating Evert once again, so even someone delusional enough to believe most of the times they were losing in the semis they were going to win the title (despite that even the winning semifinalist who was generally the much stronger of the two at the given time of those semifinal meetings, 5 times out of those 8 went on to lose the final), Navratilova still denied Evert much more than vice versa, and had the clear upper hand in slams over Evert. Hence why Navratilova is rated multiple spots above Evert by so many people.

Of course Evert's amazing career deserves huge respect, but losing 13 times in a row to Navratilova and going 4-10 vs Navratilova in slam finals, is not going to be easily erased from peoples minds when they determine who was the better player. Furthermore many believe Navratilova is better than Graf, and most believe she is better than Court, while very few now believe Evert is better than Graf, and many dont even believe she was better than Court, so put that all together and naturally they will be often ranked 2-3 places apart atleast. People also remember Navratilova well into her 30s pushing Graf hard, and sometimes beating her. They also note Navratilova leading Graf 4-1 at the U.S Open, their most neutral possible meeting ground, despite Navratilova being 29 or older for 4 of those 5 meetings, she still won 4 of the 5 meetings, which doesnt look good at all for Graf in the comparision to Navratilova. Hence why many still think she is better despite Graf surpassing her singles record in most respects. By contrast they remember an aging Evert losing to Graf 8 times in a row and generally making virtually no impact at all (only 1 set won) once 16 year old Graf won her first tournament while Graf was only starting to head towards the start of her prime. Even much inferior players like Virginia Wade managed to beat Evert at an older age than Evert even once could manage to beat young Graf. So with Graf surpassing Evert's singles record as she also had Navratilova's, there is nothing about the Graf vs Evert confrontations which would help squeeze Evert about Graf despite Graf's greater slam count and general superior figures, the way Navratilova's meetings with Graf would, already putting a wedge between them in many lists, before even getting into the other players. On top of all that Navratilova's doubles record pulling her further ahead of Evert (and others like Graf who also did very little in doubles) to those who value doubles.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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.

It was televised, but might have been 1977.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

It was televised, but might have been 1977.

Dan, I doubt also that such a Californian match was played in 1977. The British World Tennis yearbook does not mention it.

But there was a Sydney match where Connors has won 7-5,6-4,6-2 where Muscles gave a magnificent performance, as John Thirsk wrote. Maybe you confused these two matches.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Dan, you do not read other people's posts carefully. Nowhere in that thread does PC1 say that Rosewall would have won AT LEAST two more RG's. He said in one post that it was reasonable to think Rosewall would take two more. In another post he says it would be one, or perhaps more than one. That's a reasonable and cautious argument, which YOU inflated to "at least two more RG's." Why do you exaggerate the arguments of reasonable posters? Why don't you bother to read their arguments carefully?

Most importantly of all, PC1 said Rosewall's best chances were probably in 1970 and 1971. We have been debating 1973!!! PC1 gave Rosewall a "decent" chance in '72 but said only that it was possible for Rosewall to win in '73, but not likely, due to his age and because nobody was tougher on clay than Nastase was in '73. That does NOT agree with what you've been saying: you made a flat-out declaration above that Rosewall would have beaten Nastase at RG in '73.

PC1, my apologies if you didn't see the need for us to go through this, it just burns me when people read other posters' arguments lazily and then misrepresent them.

Okay, so PC1 said it would be one, possibly two. That supports my argument that Rosewall would have won more slam events if he had continued to play the French, rather than skip it and hope for the best at Wimbledon.
Rosewall handled Nastase very well over five sets in 1976 at Hong Kong and 1977 (in a close three-setter) in Tokyo. Rosewall was the mentally tougher player, and Nastase seemed to be intimidated by him.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I doubt also that such a Californian match was played in 1977. The British World Tennis yearbook does not mention it.

But there was a Sydney match where Connors has won 7-5,6-4,6-2 where Muscles gave a magnificent performance, as John Thirsk wrote. Maybe you confused these two matches.

That sounds like the score, all right.
But I watched the match on television, and thought it was in U.S. I remember that Hoad was present and was interviewed, and expressed his disgust with the result in physical terms.
I was quite certain that it was on clay.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Okay, so PC1 said it would be one, possibly two. That supports my argument that Rosewall would have won more slam events if he had continued to play the French, rather than skip it and hope for the best at Wimbledon.
Rosewall handled Nastase very well over five sets in 1976 at Hong Kong and 1977 (in a close three-setter) in Tokyo. Rosewall was the mentally tougher player, and Nastase seemed to be intimidated by him.

Dan, the 1976 match was in four sets. Nastase did not try in the last set.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

That sounds like the score, all right.
But I watched the match on television, and thought it was in U.S. I remember that Hoad was present and was interviewed, and expressed his disgust with the result in physical terms.
I was quite certain that it was on clay.

It was indoors, probably on a fast or medium fast surface (Australian Indoors)..

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, the 1976 match was in four sets. Nastase did not try in the last set.

Nastase had a bad habit of tanking whenever he felt that he was not being respected by the officials or the crowd, or if the crowd supported his opponent. He pulled the same stunt in the 1975 Canadian Open final against Orantes (Orantes was the crowd favourite in that match).
In Hong Kong, Nastase had lost the third set to Rosewall, and clearly gave up. I doubt that he could have won the match if he didn't tank, and he probably knew it himself.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

It was indoor, probably on a fast or medium fast surface (Australian Indoors)..

It was broadcast on American network television.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

It was indoor, probably on a fast or medium fast surface (Australian Indoors)..

Indoor "hardcourt" in 1977. It played slow, like clay.
Rosewall was 42 years old. Later that year he beat Nastase in the Tokyo final, age 43 (?).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

so explain why he got crushed by connors in 74 wim and USO ? was it because he was that much inferior to connors ????? no, its because the tough matches earlier took some energy away from him ...

now imagine going through multiple rounds of slug-fests on clay vs the likes of borg,vilas, orantes, dibbs, solomon, ramirez etc...... he might win one match, might, but by the next match, he'd be spent

frankly, if you think he could go through multiple rounds like that to win RG at nearly 40, you are delusional ...

I agree with your point of Rosewall getting burnt out at Wimbledon.he had to overcome the two last great W champs, Smith and Newcombe.But I would not say that much about the 74 USO.

Tanner and Amitraj did not wera him down as much.

Connors had to fight a guy called Kodes, who would wear his opponents down.He had a tough path before meeting the 3 times GS champion.Stockton was not that much of a deal but he was just as much tired as Kenny should be.IMO.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

so explain why he got crushed by connors in 74 wim and USO ? was it because he was that much inferior to connors ????? no, its because the tough matches earlier took some energy away from him ...

now imagine going through multiple rounds of slug-fests on clay vs the likes of borg,vilas, orantes, dibbs, solomon, ramirez etc...... he might win one match, might, but by the next match, he'd be spent

frankly, if you think he could go through multiple rounds like that to win RG at nearly 40, you are delusional ...

Overall I agree with you but to be honest I thought Rosewall was clearly inferior to Connors in 1974 and it didn't help that I felt at that point that the style of Rosewall did not match up well at that point with Connors. Add that the matches did take a lot out of him and you got the slaughters. Laver matched up better at that point because I believe his strong serve allowed him to take the net more than Rosewall against Connors although Laver in 1975 (challenge match) was also inferior to Connors.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

It was broadcast on American network television.

Dan, you are privileged of having watched that match. I still wonder why Rosewall could make pretty more games than in his other clashes with Connors.

That match leads me to the opinion that a peak Rosewall would have fared pretty well against a peak Connors.

Rosewall realized another masterpiece when he beat world No. 4, Gerulaitis, in the SFs.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Indoor "hardcourt" in 1977. It played slow, like clay.
Rosewall was 42 years old. Later that year he beat Nastase in the Tokyo final, age 43 (?).

Rosewall was almost 43 then. He beat Nastase in the Gunze, Tokyo, final, not to be confused with the Japan Open.