At their best, who would win?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I think that one Kodes feat is seldom mentioned: His Wimbledon QF five-setter against Connors in the latter's best year.

truth.In his 1970´s book, Connors aknowledged that.He always admired Kodes fighting spirit and that is a great great thing coming from such a fighter like Jimmy.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I must defend Henman. He seems to be the last of those who really could serve and volley. He even troubled Federer and has a 6:7 balance against Roger.

I never questioned that Henman was a very good S&V player.he was sort of a modern Dick Stockton.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I contradict: The Olympics are much more than an exo.

Not possible.The Olimpics is a secondary event for the pro sports such as soccer, tennis and, maybe excepting basketball.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

T.ABMK´s ignorance putting guys like Roddick and even ¡ Henman¡ who had just one fifteenth part of Kodes champion menthality is just amazing but he´s clearly never seen tennis before current era.

lol, wut ? fact is you are near clueless about tennis and only keep on boosting up your fav, laver, kodes and hingis ...

I never ever said henman was better than kodes .... show one post where I said or implied that ..

I only said henman > taylor ( and by some distance ) , i,e. the toughest opponent hewitt faced in wimbledon 2002 was by some distance better than the toughest opponent kodes faced in wimbledon 1973 ......

and the field was a full one in 2002 compared to the one in 73 ....

roddick has just as much champion/fighting mentality as kodes, if not more ... and is a superior player on any surface bar clay ... overall a superior player, deal with it ...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

ABMK has found the right equation for champion heart and balls:
Murray,Roddick and Henman x 15= Kodes

kodes = 0 majors in full fields ....

fact !....

murray and roddick both have one major in full fields and are clearly superior players ... deal with it ...

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

I never questioned that Henman was a very good S&V player.he was sort of a modern Dick Stockton.

But Henman was beaten by the very good and talented Dan Lobb.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

kodes = 0 majors in full fields ....
fact !....

murray and roddick both have one major in full fields and are clearly superior players ... deal with it ...

Even if it was partially depleted, RG 1971 was a pretty good tournament, I consider it a Major without any kind of doubt. On the other hand, RG '70 and Wimbledon '73 were really weak.
We also have to give credit to Kodes for his two US Open finals: in '71 he defeated Ashe and Newcombe, in '73 he defeated Smith.
He was surely a great player, reaching three "real" Majors finals (but I have to admit that he has a bad record on overall finals: 18 losses, 8 wins).

Anyway, I agree that Roddick and Murray are superior: they both reached five Majors finals (and Murray is still at the top of his game). Moreover, they won some other great tournaments (five and eight Masters 1000 respectively, while Kodes didn't win any Championship Series at the time).

I also give a full credit to Murray's Olympic Gold Medal: it is not a Major, that's sure, but I think it's superior to a Masters 1000 victory (Murray himself after the match said that it was his greatest achievement). Del Potro & Federer's reactions after their epic match also make me believe it.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

But Henman was beaten by the very good and talented Dan Lobb.

Really, Dan? When and where?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Even if it was partially depleted, RG 1971 was a pretty good tournament, I consider it a Major without any kind of doubt. On the other hand, RG '70 and Wimbledon '73 were really weak.
We also have to give credit to Kodes for his two US Open finals: in '71 he defeated Ashe and Newcombe, in '73 he defeated Smith.
He was surely a great player, reaching three "real" Majors finals (but I have to admit that he has a bad record on overall finals: 18 losses, 8 wins).

Anyway, I agree that Roddick and Murray are superior: they both reached five Majors finals (and Murray is still at the top of his game). Moreover, they won some other great tournaments (five and eight Masters 1000 respectively, while Kodes didn't win any Championship Series at the time).

I also give a full credit to Murray's Olympic Gold Medal: it is not a Major, that's sure, but I think it's superior to a Masters 1000 victory (Murray himself after the match said that it was his greatest achievement). Del Potro & Federer's reactions after their epic match also make me believe it.

Federic, I don't see much difference between French 70 and French 71: In both tournaments the two best claycourters, Laver and Rosewall were absent.

Yes, The Olympic tournament is an important event.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, I don't see much difference between French 70 and French 71: In both tournaments the two best claycourters, Laver and Rosewall were absent.

Yes, The Olympic tournament is an important event.

RG '70 had only one top-10 player, RG '71 had five of them. I think there's a difference. I also don't think that Rosewall and Laver were the best on clay in 1971.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

RG '70 had only one top-10 player, RG '71 had five of them. I think there's a difference. I also don't think that Rosewall and Laver were the best on clay in 1971.

Laver won the Italian on clay I believe in 1971 over Kodes. The Italian was the second biggest clay tournament. It shows that it's very possible that Laver would have been a big factor at the French that year. Looking in hindsight on what Laver and Rosewall did after 1971 it is possible that they may have been the two best on clay in 1971. Not saying that they definitely were the two best but they certainly were up there with anyone.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Really, Dan? When and where?

When both were in their late teens. (I am referring to Dan Lobb, the former pro tennis player and current British television star, possibly a fourth or fifth cousin of mine.)

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

When both were in their late teens. (I am referring to Dan Lobb, the former pro tennis player and current British television star, possibly a fourth or fifth cousin of mine.)

Is this the Dan Lobb you are referring to Dan?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...Lobb.aspx?t=pa

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Is this the Dan Lobb you are referring to Dan?

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...Lobb.aspx?t=pa

Yes, indeed. He is currently a hot television star.
I showed his online photos to my wife, and she claims that I am more handsome than he is, in spite of the fact that he is twenty-one years younger, a compliment I can live with. (excuse the pun)

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

RG '70 had only one top-10 player, RG '71 had five of them. I think there's a difference. I also don't think that Rosewall and Laver were the best on clay in 1971.

Federic, You might be right about top ten players.

Laver and Rosewall were surely the best claycourters 1970 to 1972.

Re 1971: Laver won the Italian Open with a clear win against Kodes. Rosewall won the top tournament of Washington with wins against Laver, Smith and Riessen. Both were awesome also in 1970 and 1972.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, You might be right about top ten players.

Laver and Rosewall were surely the best claycourters 1970 to 1972.

Re 1971: Laver won the Italian Open with a clear win against Kodes. Rosewall won the top tournament of Washington with wins against Laver, Smith and Riessen. Both were awesome also in 1970 and 1972.

Nastase also did not have to play Rosewall at RG in 1973, and faced a weak field.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

That's true; Nadal and Djokovic did better against Federer when they moved into their peak. It's also a fact, however, that they started doing better against Federer when Roger's numbers against the whole field started dropping. Note how Federer's win/loss records took a significant drop from '06 to '07; and how Federer had strange losses starting in early '08 to men he had previously owned (Mardy Fish at Indian Wells, Roddick in Miami).

Federer got off to a terrible start in '08, before even meeting Nadal. In fact he closed out '07 winning his last two matches with Nadal; but then in '08 he failed to win any tournament between the AO and the beginning of the claycourt season, when he started meeting Nadal. The last time he had entered the claycourt season without a title under his belt was 2002.

In a post upthread I also showed that the drops in Federer's win/loss records from '06 onward could only be partly attributed to extra losses he was taking to Nadal and Djokovic. In some cases the drop could not be attributed to that at all. He had more losses in '07 than in '06, but that was not due at all to Nadal, because in '07 he actually cut down on his losses to Rafa.

One thing I'd like ask you concerns win/loss records (and this question is for PC1, too, since he has done a lot of work with yearly win/loss records). We know when young players like Nadal and Djokovic reach their peak, because we are guided by their win/loss records. Those records improve as the players mature, until a peak year when the player has his best win/loss record: that is presumed to be his peak; or near his peak.

So if win/loss records guide us in telling us when Nadal and Djokovic hit their peaks, shouldn't win/loss records guide us in telling us when Federer started declining?

About Roddick and Hewitt: if you are right that Nadal and Djokovic have higher playing levels than Federer, then they should have gone through old Roddick and old Hewitt like a knife through butter. They should have dispatched those men at least as easily as Federer did. But the opposite is true: they did not have the same dominating scores over Hewitt and Roddick that Federer did over the peak versions of those men.

What I'm curious about -- I don't want to have a heated debate about it, just curious what you think -- is what you attribute all that to? Why do you think it went that way with Hewitt and Roddick, if Nadal and Djokovic really are better players than Federer?

I'll try to do some analysis on it. In the meantime here's some of the head to heads of Nadal against Roddick and Hewitt and Djokovic against the same two players.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=R485&oId=N409 7-3 in favor of Nadal against Roddick

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=N409&oId=H432 6-4 in favor of Nadal against Hewitt. First three won by Hewitt and one won by Hewitt when Nadal retired.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=N409&oId=H432 6-1 in favor of Djokovic against Hewitt. Hewitt won the first match which Djokovic was younger.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=D643&oId=R485 5-4 in favor of Roddick. Roddick actually won four in a row against Djokovic at one point. Since late 2010 when Djokovic I guess straightened out his serve Djokovic has won the last two. In this case I would venture a guess that Roddick declined and Djokovic improved tremendously in the last two matches between the two.

Try to do more work on it later.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

This is a honest post on Kodes.I never said he was a megatalent but he certainly has one of the best ration talent/major wins and he was a very complete all round player, with no big weapon ( still his backhand return was just a notch belwo Connors or Rosewall, but an excellent shot).He was extremely fit and had the heart of a true lion.ABMK´s ignorance putting guys like Roddick and even ¡ Henman¡ who had just one fifteenth part of Kodes champion menthality is just amazing but he´s clearly never seen tennis before current era.

As for Newcombe, he was extraordinary at increasing his level when he needed that.few posters talk about him but he was a true true champion.I´ll say more, he is the only guy in the 70´s that i´d bet my money on him if he had to play Bjorn Borg at the Wimbledon final.a Borg-newcombe Wimbledon final would have certainly been the best grass court match of the decade.

Good post Kiki. Newcombe was some player under pressure. Don't know if I would bet my money on Newcombe even on grass against the Borg of 1978 and 1979 but I'm sure Borg would fear Newcombe at his peak. On a grass court when Newcombe was in shape he could beat any player in history.

And everything you wrote here about Kodes is true. He wasn't the most talented but I think he still was very talented. He really was a top player who was fun to watch.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

I'll try to do some analysis on it. In the meantime here's some of the head to heads of Nadal against Roddick and Hewitt and Djokovic against the same two players.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=R485&oId=N409 7-3 in favor of Nadal against Roddick

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=N409&oId=H432 6-4 in favor of Nadal against Hewitt. First three won by Hewitt and one won by Hewitt when Nadal retired.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=N409&oId=H432 6-1 in favor of Djokovic against Hewitt. Hewitt won the first match which Djokovic was younger.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=D643&oId=R485 5-4 in favor of Roddick. Roddick actually won four in a row against Djokovic at one point. Since late 2010 when Djokovic I guess straightened out his serve Djokovic has won the last two. In this case I would venture a guess that Roddick declined and Djokovic improved tremendously in the last two matches between the two.

Try to do more work on it later.

My own post on the H2H records between those five men was here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...60#post7091660.

I'd be interested in hearing your take on it. But even more than the H2H records, it's my question about the yearly win/loss records that I was interested in getting you to address (not sure if I made that distinction clear).

I first posted the data here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...40#post7085240.

2003: 75-16
2004: 74-6
2005: 81-4
2006: 92-5
2007: 68-9
2008: 66-15
2009: 61-12
2010: 65-13
2011: 64-12
2012: 71-12

Upthread you wrote, who really knows whether Federer has left his best tennis behind -- a statement I can't agree with at all, for many reasons. So my question has to do with these W/L records. We usually let them guide us if we want to identify when young players reached their peak playing level.

That being the case, shouldn't we let Federer's declining win/loss records guide us in the same way if we want to identify when he began declining from his peak playing level?

That was a question for both you and BobbyOne. I know you both have done a lot of research and work with yearly win/loss records going well back through tennis history.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Good post Kiki. Newcombe was some player under pressure. Don't know if I would bet my money on Newcombe even on grass against the Borg of 1978 and 1979 but I'm sure Borg would fear Newcombe at his peak. On a grass court when Newcombe was in shape he could beat any player in history.

And everything you wrote here about Kodes is true. He wasn't the most talented but I think he still was very talented. He really was a top player who was fun to watch.

What´s talent? Kodes knew how to take advantage of his ability and that is talent.He had great courage, he gained respect of all of his peers and had he played in a weaker era, his major wins would have probably doubled.

All in all, he honoured one of the funniest eras ever played, and he has gotten the right to be talked about in the same sentence as those great players that represented the great tennis era of the early to middle 70´s.

Newcombe-Borg is, IMo, the best match that could have been played on a Wimbledon final during that decade, provided both players were at their peak.Newcombe dominated the first half and Borg the second with Connors fitting in in 1974 and 1975.Of course, Borg lost to guys named Ashe and Amritraj and Connors bowed to Ashe and Tanner.Newcombe himself was beaten at Forest Hills by Kodes and Rosewall but I think both were the most dominat grass court players of the 70´s.Laver was at their level for a given match, but his record was clearly below them, at least from 1970 to 1979.