Rosewall > Laver

[Prisoner of Birth]

In the Open Era :
Rosewall has 4 Grand Slams
Laver has 5 (including the calendar year Grand Slam)

Pro Slams :
Rosewall has 15
Laver has 8

So Rosewall has 19 Majors compared to Laver's 13.


It's obvious Rosewall is far more successful. And these are some ways in which he is statistically better :

Dominance - Rosewall won 9 consecutive Pro Slams that he participated in. Laver only ever managed 4 Pro Slams in a row and 4 Open Era Grand Slams in a row. His 4 in a row against amateurs isn't comparable.

Longevity - Rosewall won his first Major in 1957 and his last Major in 1972. That's 15 years apart. Laver won his first in 1964 and his last in 1969. Just 5 years apart.

Versatility - Rosewall has 5 Grasscourt Majors, 5 Claycourt Majors, 5 Indoorcourt Majors, 4 Woodcourt Majors. That's 5-5-5-4. Very balanced, showing he was a versatile player. Laver has 8 Grasscourt Majors, 1 Claycourt Major, 4 Indoorcourt Majors, 1 Woodcourt Major. That's 8-1-4-1. Very lopsided and grass/indoor heavy, showing he was more of a fastcourt player and not as versatile.


I think Rosewall is head and shoulders above Laver, in almost every way. I don't even see it as debatable, statistically.

[Onehandedbackhand]

Laver held it longer, and that's the truth. When Laver was out of his prime, he was still giving guys like Borg and young Connors fits, and in some cases, late in tournaments. When Rosewall was out of his prime, Connors was cracking him like an egg, and still had enough energy to warm up doubles partners.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by Onehandedbackhand

Laver held it longer, and that's the truth. When Laver was out of his prime, he was still giving guys like Borg and young Connors fits, and in some cases, late in tournaments. When Rosewall was out of his prime, Connors was cracking him like an egg, and still had enough energy to warm up doubles partners.

That's because Rosewall is older than Laver and has been winning Majors 7 years before Laver was. It's like, 2 or 3 years from now, expecting Federer to do as well as Djokovic and Murray against the next generation of players.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

In the Open Era :
Rosewall has 4 Grand Slams
Laver has 5 (including the calendar year Grand Slam)

Pro Slams :
Rosewall has 15
Laver has 8

So Rosewall has 19 Majors compared to Laver's 13.


It's obvious Rosewall is far more successful. And these are some ways in which he is statistically better :

Dominance - Rosewall won 9 consecutive Pro Slams that he participated in. Laver only ever managed 4 Pro Slams in a row and 4 Open Era Grand Slams in a row. His 4 in a row against amateurs isn't comparable.

Longevity - Rosewall won his first Major in 1957 and his last Major in 1972. That's 15 years apart. Laver won his first in 1964 and his last in 1969. Just 5 years apart.

Versatility - Rosewall has 5 Grasscourt Majors, 5 Claycourt Majors, 5 Indoorcourt Majors, 4 Woodcourt Majors. That's 5-5-5-4. Very balanced, showing he was a versatile player. Laver has 8 Grasscourt Majors, 1 Claycourt Major, 4 Indoorcourt Majors, 1 Woodcourt Major. That's 8-1-4-1. Very lopsided and grass/indoor heavy, showing he was more of a fastcourt player and not as versatile.


I think Rosewall is head and shoulders above Laver, in almost every way. I don't even see it as debatable, statistically.

Prisoner of Birth, Welcome to the Club!

Thank you for giving these statistics that at least show that Rosewall belongs to the same group as Laver belongs. But, similary to me, you will not find many followers here....

It's good that you omitted the amateur majors as they are not too meaningful.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Prisoner of Birth, Welcome to the Club!

Thank you for giving these statistics that at least show that Rosewall belongs to the same group as Laver belongs. But, similary to me, you will not find many followers here....

It's good that you omitted the amateur majors as they are not too meaningful.

I think the only reasons Laver is more highly regarded is

1. The Grand Slam. I think it is a very overrated achievement. Don't get me wrong, it is definitely the most prestigious achievement in Tennis. But what people don't realize is that (1) A calendar year Grand Slam is no more special than a non calendar year Grand Slam. It's like saying a match won in November is more special than a match won in March, which is a total falsehood. And (2) You need luck to win a Calendar year Grand Slam. You may be Sampras on Grass, Federer on Hards, and Nadal on Clay, all put together, but you still wouldn't win one without an ounce of luck. That's what I believe.

2. The head-to-head. Which is a joke. Laver is much younger than Rosewall. It was only after Rosewall was past his best, and Laver came into his own, that he started to win more matches than he lost. Head-to-head is meaningless regardless, anyway, because every player matches up differently to different players and no match is completely fair. Which is why you need to beat the field to win tournaments, titles and championships, not individual players.


So, basically, I see no reason to think Laver is greater than Rosewall.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

2. The head-to-head. Which is a joke. Laver is much younger than Rosewall.

3 1/2 years is much younger?

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by timnz

3 1/2 years is much younger?

3 years and 9 months. And yes, against guys like Borg who would make you run out of your legs, it is a big difference.

[forzamilan90]

Laver was number 1 for longer however. Like 6 or 7 years or something

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I think the only reasons Laver is more highly regarded is

1. The Grand Slam. I think it is a very overrated achievement. Don't get me wrong, it is definitely the most prestigious achievement in Tennis. But what people don't realize is that (1) A calendar year Grand Slam is no more special than a non calendar year Grand Slam. It's like saying a match won in November is more special than a match won in March, which is a total falsehood. And (2) You need luck to win a Calendar year Grand Slam. You may be Sampras on Grass, Federer on Hards, and Nadal on Clay, all put together, but you still wouldn't win one without an ounce of luck. That's what I believe.

2. The head-to-head. Which is a joke. Laver is much younger than Rosewall. It was only after Rosewall was past his best, and Laver came into his own, that he started to win more matches than he lost. Head-to-head is meaningless regardless, anyway, because every player matches up differently to different players and no match is completely fair. Which is why you need to beat the field to win tournaments, titles and championships, not individual players.


So, basically, I see no reason to think Laver is greater than Rosewall.

Prisoner, I still rate the Grand Slam very high. Laver has done it three times. Rosewall did it once. Rosewall would likely made an amateur GS if he stayed as long an amateur as Laver did (till 24).

Old Man once wrote (and I believe him) Laver stands 99:83 matches against Rosewall which is a fine balance for Muscles considering that Rosewall was almost four years older. Yes, in most years (from 1965 onwards) age was a disadvantage for Rosewall. Of the first seven pro majors they played, Rosewall won five. Altogether Muscles leads 10:7 in big matches if we include the 1973 Dallas match for third place.

Prisoner, I appreciate your courage to put Rosewall ahead of Laver in a "Laver forum"...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Laver was number 1 for longer however. Like 6 or 7 years or something

Forza, but they were about even if we add the Co. No.1 years.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Forza, but they were about even if we add the Co. No.1 years.

Adding co-s is tricky business. Outright number 1 to me is fairer

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I think the only reasons Laver is more highly regarded is

1. The Grand Slam. I think it is a very overrated achievement. Don't get me wrong, it is definitely the most prestigious achievement in Tennis. But what people don't realize is that (1) A calendar year Grand Slam is no more special than a non calendar year Grand Slam. It's like saying a match won in November is more special than a match won in March, which is a total falsehood. And (2) You need luck to win a Calendar year Grand Slam. You may be Sampras on Grass, Federer on Hards, and Nadal on Clay, all put together, but you still wouldn't win one without an ounce of luck. That's what I believe.

2. The head-to-head. Which is a joke. Laver is much younger than Rosewall. It was only after Rosewall was past his best, and Laver came into his own, that he started to win more matches than he lost. Head-to-head is meaningless regardless, anyway, because every player matches up differently to different players and no match is completely fair. Which is why you need to beat the field to win tournaments, titles and championships, not individual players.

So, basically, I see no reason to think Laver is greater than Rosewall.

I agree with both your points: 1) The Grand Slam is an awesome feat, but it requires a bit of luck to win it. Winning a very large number of titles, especially of majors, is also an awesome feat (which require probably some luck as well in some of the wins); 2) The H2H is not really interesting because it is already taken into account into the main titles count: All defeat that Rosewall suffered to Laver (especially in the later stage of tournaments) are as many titles less for him. Counting the H2H corresponds thus to count some defeat twice.

However, your majors titles count is unfair to Laver because he didn't competed in them until 1963 (2?). That means a lot of major. When Laver became a pro, he needed roughly one year to become successful (BobbyOne will correct me if I'm wrong). That suggest that, while he needed adaptation to win on the pro tour, he was an excellent player already. Who know if he wouldn't have taken some of Rosewall's Wembley and French pro if he had turned pro earlier?

It doesn't seems so clear to me that Rosewall is that much a better GOAT candidate than Laver!

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Prisoner, I still rate the Grand Slam very high. Laver has done it three times. Rosewall did it once. Rosewall would likely made an amateur GS if he stayed as long an amateur as Laver did (till24).

Old Man once wrote (and I believe him) Laver stands 99:83 matches against Rosewall which is a fine balance for Muscles considering that Rosewall was almost four years older. Yes, in most years (from 1965 onwards) age was a disadvantage for Rosewall. Of the first seven pro majors they played, Rosewall won five. Altogether Muscles leads 10:7 in big matches if we include the 1973 Dallas match for third place.

Prisoner, I appreciate your courage to put Rosewall ahead of Laver in a "Laver forum"...

Oh but you lack consistency here, my dear Knight of the Rosewall! The man continued to win majors (open slams or pro majors) until 1972. He was surely still in his prime! By the way, Wikipedia wrote (and I'm not sure to believe that) that Laver stand 80-63 in pro and open era matches against Rosewall. However, half of Rosewall's wins happened in 1963, when Laver just turned pro and was still adapting. Their following H2H is 68-30, form 1964 until 1976 (with only 4 matches from 1973 to 1976, including 3 wins from Rosewall, who is a testimony of his longevity).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Adding co-s is tricky business. Outright number 1 to me is fairer

Forza, It is not tricky at all.

Whom do you rank higher: Player A who once was No.1 but never a Co. No1 or player B who never was clearly No.1 but five times a co.No.1?

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Forza, It is not tricky at all.

Whom do you rank higher: Player A who once was No.1 but never a Co. No1 or player B who never was clearly No.1 but five times a co.No.1?

In this example the 2nd option; however, in Laver's case we're talking about several years (and consecutive) at number 1 spot, not just 1 year as in your example. Several consecutive years as the undisputed best speaks volumes to me

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

I agree with both your points: 1) The Grand Slam is an awesome feat, but it requires a bit of luck to win it. Winning a very large number of titles, especially of majors, is also an awesome feat (which require probably some luck as well in some of the wins); 2) The H2H is not really interesting because it is already taken into account into the main titles count: All defeat that Rosewall suffered to Laver (especially in the later stage of tournaments) are as many titles less for him. Counting the H2H corresponds thus to count some defeat twice.

However, your majors titles count is unfair to Laver because he didn't competed in them until 1963 (2?). That means a lot of major. When Laver became a pro, he needed roughly one year to become successful (BobbyOne will correct me if I'm wrong). That suggest that, while he needed adaptation to win on the pro tour, he was an excellent player already. Who know if he wouldn't have taken some of Rosewall's Wembley and French pro if he had turned pro earlier?

It doesn't seems so clear to me that Rosewall is that much a better GOAT candidate than Laver!

Yes, Flash, Laver did not compete in the pro ranks through 1962. On the other hand they usually count Laver's first GS and his many amateur titles as a Rod's plus.

It's a fact that Laver was not an early developer as Rosewall was (and also not as late a champion as Rosewall was). Therefore I'm not sure if an earlier pro Laver would have taken pro majors from Muscles.

Prisoner did not count the amount of tournaments won. I would add it.

Laver's a t least 200 wins are awesome and a big plus in his record.

On the other hand we should consider that Rosewall turned pro earlier than Laver did (therefore more amateur wins for the Rocket) and that in Rosewall's pro career there seldom were years with many pro events while Laver in his prime was lucky that in those years there were many pro tournaments. But still Laver would be the all-time tournaments winner in any case.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Oh but you lack consistency here, my dear Knight of the Rosewall! The man continued to win majors (open slams or pro majors) until 1972. He was surely still in his prime! By the way, Wikipedia wrote (and I'm not sure to believe that) that Laver stand 80-63 in pro and open era matches against Rosewall. However, half of Rosewall's wins happened in 1963, when Laver just turned pro and was still adapting. Their following H2H is 68-30, form 1964 until 1976 (with only 4 matches from 1973 to 1976, including 3 wins from Rosewall, who is a testimony of his longevity).

Flash, please avoid to agree with Phoenix who claims that Rosewall was in his prime as long as he won majors or even as long as he reached big finals. No player in history was in his prime at 37, not even Tilden. Rosewall was great regarding longevity but SURELY past his prime after 1965, especially after 1971 (his last year as possible No 1).

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Yes, Flash, Laver did not compete in the pro ranks through 1962. On the other hand they usually count Laver's first GS and his many amateur titles as a Rod's plus.

It's a fact that Laver was not an early developer as Rosewall was (and also not as late a champion as Rosewall was). Therefore I'm not sure if an earlier pro Laver would have taken pro majors from Muscles.

Prisoner did not count the amount of tournaments won. I would add it.

Laver's a t least 200 wins are awesome and a big plus in his record.

On the other hand we should consider that Rosewall turned pro earlier than Laver did (therefore more amateur wins for the Rocket) and that in Rosewall's pro career there seldom were years with many pro events while Laver in his prime was lucky that in those years there were many pro tournaments. But still Laver would be the all-time tournaments winner in any case.

But in this case everybody agreed to not take into account Laver's amateurs slams, for obvious reasons. As good these reasons are, it remains that Laver didn't compete on the pro tour for as long as Rosewall did. And given Laver level, AND his H2H against Rosewall, I could really see him steal some of the pro majors. As for the number of pro events that were available for Rosewall, I think that we only take into account the pro majors here. Apart a French pro (who could probably have been won by Kenny), there was as many pro major available for Rosewall than for Laver.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Flash, please avoid to agree with Phoenix who claims that Rosewall was in his prime as long as he won majors or even as long as he reached big finals. No player in history was in his prime at 37, not even Tilden. Rosewall was great regarding longevity but SURELY past his prime after 1965, especially after 1971 (his last year as possible No 1).

I know. It was a gesture of bad faith from me (not sure that this expression exist in english: "un geste de mauvaise fois") regarding our other discussion on Fed's prime. From what I know Rosewall prime ended around 1970?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

In this example the 2nd option; however, in Laver's case we're talking about several years (and consecutive) at number 1 spot, not just 1 year as in your example. Several consecutive years as the undisputed best speaks volumes to me

But even then they sometimes exaggerate Laver's run. In my opinion he was undisputed No.1 from 1965 (or even 1966) to 1969, thus five years. Rosewall was near to the top in 1965 and 1966 even when being an oldie while Laver was at his peak. Even in Rosewall's "weak" year 1967 Muscles was the dominant player in the summer season...