Rosewall > Laver

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by TMF

Ok that's fine. You know some experts have Rosewall in the top 10 and some don't, and hardly(if any) have him in the top 5. But since your arguments with actual facts/numbers say Rosewall is head and shoulders above Laver, I don't know where Laver's placement in history now.

Don't go negative against other players, just stay pro-Federer. I know you are only responding to all of the crap Fed gets from a small number of nuts on this forum, but there is no need to join them. All of the players who are discussed here are greats and none of them deserve to have their careers trolled by a bunch of internet try-hard experts.

On topic, it seems like a tough decision between the two. Laver is obviously the super star, but I think Rosewall was at least in the same league.

[forzamilan90]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Don't go negative against other players, just stay pro-Federer. I know you are only responding to all of the crap Fed gets from a small number of nuts on this forum, but there is no need to join them. All of the players who are discussed here are greats and none of them deserve to have their careers trolled by a bunch of internet try-hard experts.

+1. best and most sensible thing I've read today

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Tilden has an awesome record (14 majors won, at least 161 tournaments won) which would have been even greater if he had travelled to Australia, to Wimbledon 1922 to 1926, if French Championship would have come earlier.

It's not too bold to speculate about three or four Grand Slams (true GSs) for Tilden.

Perhaps competition was not quite as tough as Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver faced.

I believe that Tilden actually won the French of 1927 with an ace. Rene Lacoste (his opponent) seemed to also think so (he started to walk up and shake Tilden's hand).

But the linesman was Henri Cochet (whom Tilden had defeated in the semis), and he called the serve out. Tilden was so rattled by the interruption and the call, he lost his concentration and went on to lose the match.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I believe that Tilden actually won the French of 1927 with an ace. Rene Lacoste (his opponent) seemed to also think so (he started to walk up and shake Tilden's hand).

But the linesman was Henri Cochet (whom Tilden had defeated in the semis), and he called the serve out. Tilden was so rattled by the interruption and the call, he lost his concentration and went on to lose the match.

Can you imagine the huge controversy that would bring about today?

[hoodjem]

I cannot imagine that any sane tournament official would even consider letting a semifinal loser be a linesman in the final involving the player who beat him against a great friend and fellow Davis Cup teammate.

Incroyable!

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

I believe that Tilden actually won the French of 1927 with an ace. Rene Lacoste (his opponent) seemed to also think so (he started to walk up and shake Tilden's hand).

But the linesman was Henri Cochet (whom Tilden had defeated in the semis), and he called the serve out. Tilden was so rattled by the interruption and the call, he lost his concentration and went on to lose the match.

Allison Danzig wrote that Tilden played his greatest tennis ever in the 1927 Forest Hills final against Lacoste (and Danzig saw all of Tilden's great matches, including the 1927 French final).
Tilden threw everything that he had against Lacoste, but lost in three sets. This was Lacoste's greatest showing ever.

[BobbyOne]

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.

Onehandedbackhand,

Laver never faced Connors (or Borg) at 39 as Rosewall did. When Rosewall was 37 he clearly beat Connors at L.A.

[FedericRoma83]

Hi guys, I was away for a while, you probably don't remember me

I wanted to say that I definitely agree with Prisoner of Birth.

Laver was obviously a giant, a tennis monument, and amazing player. He has won two times 4 majors out of 4 (1967, 1969), while Rosewall was able to achieve a similar feat only in 1963, but as you said, Rosewall emerge on his rival if we consider any other statistic.

I don't know if there's a GOAT, but if Kenny wasn't, he was surely not so far
Laver is probably in my top-5 too, but below Muscles.

[Doug_Hartley_2012]

ROSEWALL...better than LAVER. Based on certain assumptions. Direct head to head; major tournaments won; opponents defeated; rankings; rankings by age from juniors to seniors; longevity; excellence. I have only had the free time to write one article about Rosewall online, but others have written three biographies of him. THREE. As fans discover more about the history of tennis, they discover more about Rosewall.He won't say he was the best, but others will. The man's record is aewome.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Hi guys, I was away for a while, you probably don't remember me

I wanted to say that I definitely agree with Prisoner of Birth.

Laver was obviously a giant, a tennis monument, and amazing player. He has won two times 4 majors out of 4 (1967, 1969), while Rosewall was able to achieve a similar feat only in 1963, but as you said, Rosewall emerge on his rival if we consider any other statistic.

I don't know if there's a GOAT, but if Kenny wasn't, he was surely not so far
Laver is probably in my top-5 too, but below Muscles.

Federic, There is some courage needed to pick Rosewall ahead of Laver in a Laver forum...

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, There is some courage needed to pick Rosewall ahead of Laver in a Laver forum...

Is this forum really Laver-oriented? I remember a lot of Rosewall fans... am I wrong?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Is this forum really Laver-oriented? I remember a lot of Rosewall fans... am I wrong?

It's a forum for past players and obviously Laver is one of the most famous past players so a good percentage will discuss Laver and some of his accomplishments. If they had a forum like this 40 years ago a good percentage will discuss Bill Tilden and Don Budge but many of those observers aren't around anymore. I wouldn't mind if the forums discussed players earlier than the 1950's which they do on occasion. There are also less info on tennis the further back that you go which also restricts discussion.

Rosewall is discussed very often because his accomplishments rival Laver's and some think surpass him. The same can be said about Pancho Gonzalez. I've always thought that among Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall the one with the greatest single weapon is Gonzalez, with his great serve, possibly the greatest in tennis history.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

Bobby do you think Laver's marketing manager was better than Rosewall's?

I don´t think his manager won him2 Gran Slams.

In any case, no marketing agent can compare to Elsworth´s

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

It's a forum for past players and obviously Laver is one of the most famous past players so a good percentage will discuss Laver and some of his accomplishments. If they had a forum like this 40 years ago a good percentage will discuss Bill Tilden and Don Budge but many of those observers aren't around anymore. I wouldn't mind if the forums discussed players earlier than the 1950's which they do on occasion. There are also less info on tennis the further back that you go which also restricts discussion.

Rosewall is discussed very often because his accomplishments rival Laver's and some think surpass him. The same can be said about Pancho Gonzalez. I've always thought that among Gonzalez, Laver and Rosewall the one with the greatest single weapon is Gonzalez, with his great serve, possibly the greatest in tennis history.

Rosewall´s backhand was a superb weapon.So was Laver´s.But, of course, Gonzales had what many still consider to be the best ever first ball.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

It's not a question of marketing but great timing also. Laver was the best player in the world when the Open Era started and even at that point considered one of the greatest if not the greatest that ever lived by many experts. Laver in the first opportunity to win the Open Grand Slam won all four majors in 1969 to accomplish this great feat. Television was beginning to make tennis a far more popular sport and Laver was really the first superstar of the Open Era.

But marketing had nothing to do with Laver's greatness. Marketing does not win you an amateur Grand Slam, a Pro Grand Slam and an Open Grand Slam. When you do that it's a sign of great dominance. But the timing allowed Laver to become the main focus of the beginning of the Open Era.

If Pancho Gonzalez was able to play in an Open Era it is very possible that he would have won the Open Grand Slam and this is the case with Rosewall.

Laver won at least 200 tournaments in his career. Marketing does not allow you to do that. Talent and skill plus competitive zeal allowed Laver to do that.

Rosewall was a super player, perhaps the GOAT but I do think Laver should be ranked slightly above Rosewall.

I agree.You spotted it right on timing.Laver is the only guy that can be placed above those two monsters called Rosewall and Gonzales.Hoad,Budge and Tilden are not so far, anyway.

[FedericRoma83]

Here's the translation of an old post of mine (I write on some italian forums).

Rosewall Majors (1957: Wembley Pro, 1958: French Pro, 1960: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1961: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1962: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1963: French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1964: French Pro, 1965: French Pro, US Pro, 1966: French Pro, 1968: Roland Garros, 1970: US Open, 1971: Australian Open, 1972: WCT Finals) 19 for sure, 20 if you count the Madison Square Garden Pro 1966, 21 if you count the 1963 tournée as a fourth Major for that season.

Laver Majors (1964: Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1965: Wembley Pro, 1966: Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1967: French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro, Wimbledon Pro, 1968: Wimbledon, 1969: Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open) 14 for sure, 15 if you count the Pacific Southwest Open 1968.
Some count the two Tennis Champions Classic events: even though they were two big titles, in the open era I prefer to count normal tournaments. Anyway, even if count them, you're still below Rosewall: 17


Statistics by surface (counting only undisputed Majors):
Laver - grass 8, clay 1, indoor 5
Rosewall - grass 4, clay 5, indoor 10

Time between first and last Major victory:
Laver 1964-1969 (first final 1963, last final 1972)
Rosewall 1957-1972 (first final 1957, last final 1974)

Head-to-head:
Laver 80-99 depending on sources, Rosewall 63-83 depending on sources

Head-to-head on big matches:
Laver 7 - Rosewall 9

Just think that when they faced each other for the first time Ken Rosewall was 28, and that an over-30 Rosewall won 5 of their 11 Majors meetings when Laver was considered the undisputed world no. 1 (1965-69): that says a lot about Rosewall's stature.

I think these numbers speak clearly. "Rosewall > Laver" is a pretty solid theory.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Is this forum really Laver-oriented? I remember a lot of Rosewall fans... am I wrong?

You are wrong. This yet is a Laver forum and, most of all, a Federer forum.

You will get harsh critics if you place Rosewall ahead of Federer and Laver. Believe me: I have my experience...

Those who praise Rosewall here mostly praise Laver even more.

Alas, you are in a small group yet but maybe this group could grow a bit with the time...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Here's the translation of an old post of mine (I write on some italian forums).

Rosewall Majors (1957: Wembley Pro, 1958: French Pro, 1960: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1961: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1962: French Pro, Wembley Pro, 1963: French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1964: French Pro, 1965: French Pro, US Pro, 1966: French Pro, 1968: Roland Garros, 1970: US Open, 1971: Australian Open, 1972: WCT Finals) 19 for sure, 20 if you count the Madison Square Garden Pro 1966, 21 if you count the 1963 tournée as a fourth Major for that season.

Laver Majors (1964: Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1965: Wembley Pro, 1966: Wembley Pro, US Pro, 1967: French Pro, Wembley Pro, US Pro, Wimbledon Pro, 1968: Wimbledon, 1969: Australian Open, Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open) 14 for sure, 15 if you count the Pacific Southwest Open 1968.
Some count the two Tennis Champions Classic events: even though they were two big titles, in the open era I prefer to count normal tournaments. Anyway, even if count them, you're still below Rosewall: 17


Statistics by surface (counting only undisputed Majors):
Laver - grass 8, clay 1, indoor 5
Rosewall - grass 4, clay 5, indoor 10

Time between first and last Major victory:
Laver 1964-1969 (first final 1963, last final 1972)
Rosewall 1957-1972 (first final 1957, last final 1974)

Head-to-head:
Laver 80-99 depending on sources, Rosewall 63-83 depending on sources

Head-to-head on big matches:
Laver 7 - Rosewall 9

Just think that when they faced each other for the first time Ken Rosewall was 28, and that an over-30 Rosewall won 5 of their 11 Majors meetings when Laver was considered the undisputed world no. 1 (1965-69): that says a lot about Rosewall's stature.

I think these numbers speak clearly. "Rosewall > Laver" is a pretty solid theory.

Federic, fine analysis but some would say that Laver was stronger when both were at their peak.

By the way, you have forgotten 1971 Dallas WCT, surely a major.

[Nathaniel_Near]

I agree Rosewall might be greater than Laver, and let's not forget those fantastic YEC WCT Dallas Major victores in 1971 and 1972, where in both matches at an advanced age, he beat Rod Laver for both of the victories. To win against such an opponent at 37-ish in such important matches is a testament to his incredible longevity and ability.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You are wrong. This yet is a Laver forum and, most of all, a Federer forum.

You will get harsh critics if you place Rosewall ahead of Federer and Laver. Believe me: I have my experience...

Those who praise Rosewall here mostly praise Laver even more.

Alas, you are in a small group yet but maybe this group could grow a bit with the time...

Actually you will have harsh critics if you denigrate Laver or Federer without backing up your claims. A lot of people on this forum may rank Laver, Federer or both higher than Rosewall, but very few of them denigrate him as you denigrate Fed with wobbly arguments such as "despite all the arguments and evidence all of you provided, I still believe that Djokovic's peak level is higher than Federer's (because thus Federer is out of the competition with my dear Rosewall and Djokovic was never in it anyway)".