Rosewall > Laver

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think in evaluations of players we have to look at both peak and career. Would Michael Jordan be any less a player if he retired after eight years? Would we argue that Karl Malone is better than Michael Jordan if this happened? I don't think so because Jordan's peak play was so high it's ridiculous. In this case of course Jordan did play for a long time so his career record and peak is super. Incidentally Karl Malone's peak and career overall was great but I don't think either was as great as Michael Jordan's.

Yes, it would, and this is coming from a Jordan fan. If Jordan only played 8 years, he only has 1 ring, 2 MVP, and a bunch of other stats/records that he wouldn't have. Malone was consistent at being the top power forward all years, won MVPs, 2nd behind Kareem in scoring, carry his team to playoff every year, most durable(no injury). Without Jordan, he and the Jazz would have won 1998 finals. So with Malone's longevity, that would eclipses Jordan's 8 years.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

There is also numerous arguments for Rosewall ahead of Federer also.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Originally Posted by pc1

As far as your Laver forum tinged with negativism comment think of it this way. It's the former players forum. Who is the first major superstar in tennis of the Open Era. Yes, it's Rod Laver.

I just want to make a correction to Bobby who said this is more of a pro Fed forum, but that's not the case, it's Laver.

[TMF]

Career achievements >>> peak play. I don't how this is even a debate.

Is Wilander > Agassi just because he had a monster year in 1988 but Agassi never had a dominant year like him? No, Agassi career achievement surpass Wilander's peak play. And the experts would agree on this.

[FedericRoma83]

well, let's make this a Rosewall forum then! ;D

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Career achievements >>> peak play. I don't how this is even a debate.

Is Wilander > Agassi just because he had a monster year in 1988 but Agassi never had a dominant year like him? No, Agassi career achievement surpass Wilander's peak play. And the experts would agree on this.

Well if you go by just that then Rosewall may very well surpass Federer with 136 tournaments won and 23 majors plus a Pro Grand Slam.

I'm not saying that it's necessarily true but the point is (and I don't expect you to recognize it) that any GOAT candidate has pluses over other GOAT candidates. Federer has pluses over many GOAT candidates and those same GOAT candidates have pluses over him.

Some GOAT candidates have pluses over Laver and Rosewall.

Gonzalez for example has many pluses over many GOAT candidates as does Bill Tilden.

Actually Agassi's peak years may arguably be superior to Wilander's 1988 if you examine it closely. Wilander didn't win many tournaments outside of the majors that year. That's a poor example. It's an excellent year but hardly dominant.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

There's an argument for Rosewall being ahead of Laver, but basically every experts have Federer ahead of Rosewall, with some players fill in the gap between them.

Originally Posted by pc1

There is also numerous arguments for Rosewall ahead of Federer also.

As far as your Laver forum tinged with negativism comment think of it this way. It's the former players forum. Who is the first major superstar in tennis of the Open Era. Yes, it's Rod Laver.

Maybe if we had this type of forum available in the 1960's people would talk about Bill Tilden but guess what, most of those guys aren't around anymore. Maybe in the 1970's they would have written about Don Budge but guess what, very few who are around have seen Budge in person at his peak.

Laver was on television, he won the Grand Slam in 1969 during the Open Era and he won it in front of millions of viewers on television.

Now in a few years this will be definitely the Federer Forum. No doubt about it and I'm sure you'll be a major contributor at that point. But bottom line we discuss Former Players here and that includes Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Connors, Lendl etc.

I wouldn't mind if we discussed more of Bill Tilden or Pancho Gonzalez here. They're legendary and interesting to discuss.

Incidentally you have a tendency in your agenda to praise Federer to knock down other players, I think it would be better to focus on the great achievements of Federer and why he in your opinion deserves to be call the GOAT. You have done things like knocking Laver's height to the point that it is quite amusing. Laver seems to get shorter and shorter. You've called other players tournament victories minor tournaments or if I get it correct pitty pat tournaments. Federer has a lot of huge positives in his favor like his dominating years, his great forehand, serve etc. Please focus more on that.

Originally Posted by TMF

You're entitled to your opinion.

Of course I am and you are entitled to disagree. My point is that unlike you, many do not think Federer belongs in his own separate tier.

As of now I don't believe Rosewall is the GOAT either but I leave open the possibility he could be. To not think that considering the great record of Rosewall makes no logical sense to me. You have to keep your mind open.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by pc1

Some GOAT candidates have pluses over Laver and Rosewall.
Gonzalez for example has many pluses over many GOAT candidates as does Bill Tilden.

Surely, Tilden is an excellent GOAT candidate as well, in the same Rosewall league. Laver is slightly below them in my opinion.
Gonzales was excellent and extra-dominant too, but I don't know where to put him because he missed a clay Major.
I remember Tony Trabert saying that on clay, where his serve was slowed down, Pancho was not the strongest.

Actually Agassi's peak years may arguably be superior to Wilander's 1988 if you examine it closely. Wilander didn't win many tournaments outside of the majors that year. That's a poor example. It's an excellent year but hardly dominant.

Hardly dominant with 3 Majors out of 4 (+Miami* and Cincinnati)?
I think I have to disagree.

*When it was a seven rounds tournament and you had to win three sets from the first to the last match.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Surely, Tilden is an excellent GOAT candidate as well, in the same Rosewall league. Laver is slightly below them in my opinion.
Gonzales was excellent and extra-dominant too, but I don't know where to put him because he missed a clay Major.
I remember Tony Trabert saying that on clay, where his serve was slowed down, Pancho was not the strongest.


Hardly dominant with 3 Majors out of 4 (+Miami* and Cincinnati)?
I think I have to disagree.

*When it was a seven rounds tournament and you had to win three sets from the first to the last match.

Actually in 1999 he won two majors and eight total tournaments. Wilander won three majors and six total tournaments. Don't get me wrong I would pick Wilander's year but Agassi has had some super years. My personal opinion is his most dominant year was 1995 and yet he only won one major.

Bottom line is that Federer is not the undisputed GOAT imo. As of now I don't believe Rosewall is necessarily the GOAT either but I leave open the possibility he could be. To not think that considering the great record of Rosewall makes no logical sense to me.

[BTURNER]

I am way out of my league on this one. I have only seen comparatively little of both of them. But there is a marketing angle to this. When I remember Rod, I imagine these glorious gets and shots, incredible variety and a flair for the dramatic shot well past his prime. Ken is just not 'flashy'. He is always there, but I don't visualize the sprint. The overhead wins the point just the same, but the angle and power aren't as acute. The volleys are always solid but he may need two, instead of one golden outstretched one. Some of this may have to do with us not being quite as accustomed visually to the lefty spins. Some might be far simpler. Rosewall does not go for glory, if average but certain will do the job just as well. He saves line balls, for when line balls are needed. There is more McEnroe in Laver, more Wilander in Rosewall.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

I am way out of my league on this one. I have only seen comparatively little of both of them. But there is a marketing angle to this. When I remember Rod, I imagine these glorious gets and shots, incredible variety and a flair for the dramatic shot well past his prime. Ken is just not 'flashy'. He is always there, but I don't visualize the sprint. The overhead wins the point just the same, but the angle and power aren't as acute. The volleys are always solid but he may need two, instead of one golden outstretched one. Some of this may have to do with us not being quite as accustomed visually to the lefty spins. Some might be far simpler. Rosewall does not go for glory, if average but certain will do the job just as well. He saves line balls, for when line balls are needed. There is more McEnroe in Laver, more Wilander in Rosewall.

I think your analogy is basically correct BTURNER. Incidentally when you say you don't visualize the sprint with Rosewall that is actually very much a tribute to Rosewall. Players were always amazed how he seemed always in position to hit a shot that others had to run to. It shows how great his footwork and anticipation was.

McEnroe has always said his idol was Laver so it is an appropriate comparison although I think Laver had greater groundstroking power while McEnroe had the better serve and a bit better volley.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think your analogy is basically correct BTURNER. Incidentally when you say you don't visualize the sprint with Rosewall that is actually very much a tribute to Rosewall. Players were always amazed how he seemed always in position to hit a shot that others had to run to. It shows how great his footwork and anticipation was.

McEnroe has always said his idol was Laver so it is an appropriate comparison although I think Laver had greater groundstroking power while McEnroe had the better serve and a bit better volley.

My impression was that Laver was as attracted to power both on the volley and ground, as McEenroe was to delicate and finely placed. Rosewall went for just enough of either, to make it real hard for his opponent to get it back over again. Maybe a veteran Billie jean King is an apt comparison for Rosewall.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

My impression was that Laver was as attracted to power both on the volley and ground, as McEenroe was to delicate and finely placed. Rosewall went for just enough of either, to make it real hard for his opponent to get it back over again. Maybe a veteran Billie jean King is an apt comparison for Rosewall.

I don't think King's groundies (relatively speaking) was the equal of Muscles. Some actually have compared Rosewall's overall game to Connors in the footwork and the flat style of play. I think Connors hit harder but Rosewall was the superior volleyer and Rosewall made some less errors but I can see that comparison.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by pc1

I don't think King's groundies (relatively speaking) was the equal of Muscles. Some actually have compared Rosewall's overall game to Connors in the footwork and the flat style of play. I think Connors hit harder but Rosewall was the superior volleyer and Rosewall made some less errors but I can see that comparison.

It was her tactical mindset at net and sense of risk to which I refer. Connors, as a volleyer was a one volley kind of guy. He did not use a volley, to set up an easy volley. He did not mind going up, but he did not feel confident in hanging around up there.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

It was her tactical mindset at net and sense of risk to which I refer. Connors, as a volleyer was a one volley kind of guy. He did not use a volley, to set up an easy volley. He did not mind going up, but he did not feel confident in hanging around up there.

I can see that.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

On the other hand, Limpinhitter didn't said anything for a while. The active members in this current discussion in different thread are Krosero, abmk, Forzamilan, TMF, PC1, my self...and I don't recall anyone other than Limpi denigrating Rosewall. I recall writing that i have huge respect for consistency and that I consider Rosewall's five finals in Wimby as a pro, not as a con in his resume. You could make the difference between Limpinhitter and the actual poster you arguing with.

You are of course free to feel what you want, but you shouldn't espect us to accept what you feel as a verity, especially if we have given numerous arguments which are not based on what we "feel".

Flash, Five Wimby finals as a pro?

All lists about playing strength are "feeled" lists, not arguments.

You are free to take it as a verity what I feel or to don't take. Where is the problem?

Among the current posters there yet are some who don't rank Rosewall too high: my friends, kiki and Dan Lobb for instance. Although Dan gives Rosewall a fifth or sixth place, he usually denigrates Muscles as much as possible.

When reading top ten lists on Former PPT there seldom is any with Rosewall among the top five...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

You're entitled to your opinion.


I just want to make a correction to Bobby who said this is more of a pro Fed forum, but that's not the case, it's Laver.

TMF, It's both a Laver and a Federer forum. But I realized that also the Rosewall fans have a good run now...

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Flash, Five Wimby finals as a pro?
Among the current posters there yet are some who don't rank Rosewall too high: my friends, kiki and Dan Lobb for instance. Although Dan gives Rosewall a fifth or sixth place, he usually denigrates Muscles as much as possible.

When reading top ten lists on Former PPT there seldom is any with Rosewall among the top five...

This is just a distortion of the history of tennis in my opinion. No way, really no way Rosewall can be rated under a top-5 placement.

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Flash, Five Wimby finals as a pro?

All lists about playing strength are "feeled" lists, not arguments.

You are free to take it as a verity what I feel or to don't take. Where is the problem?

Among the current posters there yet are some who don't rank Rosewall too high: my friends, kiki and Dan Lobb for instance. Although Dan gives Rosewall a fifth or sixth place, he usually denigrates Muscles as much as possible.

When reading top ten lists on Former PPT there seldom is any with Rosewall among the top five...

I think that reaching 5 finals is a good thing in career who shouldn't be used to downgrade a career. For me you can say "X player didn't won Wimbledon which is a weakness in his career" but you can't say "x player reached five wimbledon finals, which is a weakness in his career!" I personally rank Rosewall in the top tier, along Laver, Federer and maybe Gonzales and Tilden (I have some work to do to be sure).

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

My impression was that Laver was as attracted to power both on the volley and ground, as McEenroe was to delicate and finely placed. Rosewall went for just enough of either, to make it real hard for his opponent to get it back over again. Maybe a veteran Billie jean King is an apt comparison for Rosewall.

BTURNER, Some posters told me there are no people in this forum who denigrate Rosewall, therefore I hesitate to say that YOU denigrate him ("veteran B.J.King")....

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

This is just a distortion of the history of tennis in my opinion. No way, really no way Rosewall can be rated under a top-5 placement.

Federic, I appreciate the fresh wind coming from Rome now. It's good to have at least a few colleagues who counter the huge amount of Federer and Laver admirers (I stress, I also admire Laver and, to a certain degree, Federer).