Rosewall > Laver

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

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).

Flash, I agree. I just wondered about five W. finals as a PRO.

[hoodjem]

I think the one area in which Rosewall is peerless (even beyond Laver) is Muscles' longevity.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

BobbyOne, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Level of play can be measured in any number of ways.

Match analysis is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and as I mentioned in some other thread there is a wealth of data for modern players.

The argument you made about Federer's peak level of play being lower than Nadal's and Djokovic's was controversial because so much is known about how these players perform and how their level of play measures statistically.

And match analysis is not the only way to judge playing strength. I can think of a handful of other methods, and you have used them yourself.

You can argue by analogy with other players, for example. To argue for Nusslein's superiority over von Cramm, you have connected them through Tilden: the argument is that Tilden defeated von Cramm in 1934, while Nusslein had an edge over Tilden in that year and in subsequent years.

That's similar to the way I connected Federer on the one hand, and Nadal and Djokovic on the other, through Roddick and Hewitt. I noted that Federer defeated peak Roddick and Hewitt more easily than Nadal and Djokovic were able to do in later years.

Then there are a player's yearly win/loss records, which all of us frequently use as a guide to judging when a player reaches his peak and when he starts to decline.

I don't know if you and PC1 saw the questions I put to you both in the other thread, about those last two methods -- but anyway my point here is that ranking players according to playing strength is not an exercise that is merely restricted to feeling. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant by feeled lists.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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")....

LOL, you misunderstood this. Two points: I qualified the stage of BJK's career, because its the stage I could witness. I have not seen much early or mid career tape. So actually I am qualifying my knowledge base not Rosewall. King could have been as strategically immature as anyone at 20 yrs for all I know.

IMO,The 'veteran' BJK was a tactical genius. She got slower, less patient, and less flexible, but BKJ got nothing but smarter and smarter. On the aspects of comparison I was trying to reach, honestly there aren't many higher compliments I can offer. I hold the veteran King's court sense, anticipation and tactical acumen in very high regard, as I do Rosewall. She had the same knack of being where she ought to be, and choosing the right shot at the right time against the right opponent that he seemed to.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

BobbyOne, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Level of play can be measured in any number of ways.

Match analysis is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and as I mentioned in some other thread there is a wealth of data for modern players.

The argument you made about Federer's peak level of play being lower than Nadal's and Djokovic's was controversial because so much is known about how these players perform and how their level of play measures statistically.

And match analysis is not the only way to judge playing strength. I can think of a handful of other methods, and you have used them yourself.

You can argue by analogy with other players, for example. To argue for Nusslein's superiority over von Cramm, you have connected them through Tilden: the argument is that Tilden defeated von Cramm in 1934, while Nusslein had an edge over Tilden in that year and in subsequent years.

That's similar to the way I connected Federer on the one hand, and Nadal and Djokovic on the other, through Roddick and Hewitt. I noted that Federer defeated peak Roddick and Hewitt more easily than Nadal and Djokovic were able to do in later years.

Then there are a player's yearly win/loss records, which all of us frequently use as a guide to judging when a player reaches his peak and when he starts to decline.

I don't know if you and PC1 saw the questions I put to you both in the other thread, about those last two methods -- but anyway my point here is that ranking players according to playing strength is not an exercise that is merely restricted to feeling. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant by feeled lists.

krosero, I partly can agree. But I still think achievements are easier to compare than playing strength.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

LOL, you misunderstood this. Two points: I qualified the stage of BJK's career, because its the stage I could witness. I have not seen much early or mid career tape. So actually I am qualifying my knowledge base not Rosewall. King could have been as strategically immature as anyone at 20 yrs for all I know.

IMO,The 'veteran' BJK was a tactical genius. She got slower, less patient, and less flexible, but BKJ got nothing but smarter and smarter. On the aspects of comparison I was trying to reach, honestly there aren't many higher compliments I can offer. I hold the veteran King's court sense, anticipation and tactical acumen in very high regard, as I do Rosewall. She had the same knack of being where she ought to be, and choosing the right shot at the right time against the right opponent that he seemed to.

BTURNER, That sounds good.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, I partly can agree. But I still think achievements are easier to compare than playing strength.

They might be, but only if achievements are separated entirely from playing strength. In practice we rarely do that; and we wouldn't want to. Nobody considers Emerson's 12 amateur Slams to be of the value of Laver's 11.

Ultimately the two -- achievements and playing level -- are bound up together. Playing to a high level is ultimately an achievement, and one which all of us want to see in any of our choices for GOAT (or other similar honorifics, like best player of the 1980s, or claycourt GOAT, etc.), or when asking which of two players is the greater one.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

BobbyOne, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Level of play can be measured in any number of ways.

Match analysis is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and as I mentioned in some other thread there is a wealth of data for modern players.

The argument you made about Federer's peak level of play being lower than Nadal's and Djokovic's was controversial because so much is known about how these players perform and how their level of play measures statistically.

And match analysis is not the only way to judge playing strength. I can think of a handful of other methods, and you have used them yourself.

You can argue by analogy with other players, for example. To argue for Nusslein's superiority over von Cramm, you have connected them through Tilden: the argument is that Tilden defeated von Cramm in 1934, while Nusslein had an edge over Tilden in that year and in subsequent years.

That's similar to the way I connected Federer on the one hand, and Nadal and Djokovic on the other, through Roddick and Hewitt. I noted that Federer defeated peak Roddick and Hewitt more easily than Nadal and Djokovic were able to do in later years.

Then there are a player's yearly win/loss records, which all of us frequently use as a guide to judging when a player reaches his peak and when he starts to decline.

I don't know if you and PC1 saw the questions I put to you both in the other thread, about those last two methods -- but anyway my point here is that ranking players according to playing strength is not an exercise that is merely restricted to feeling. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant by feeled lists.

Krosero,

Could you give me a link to the posts you wrote that you asked me some questions?

I think when we look at a player's strength of course we look at won-lost record but even that can be deceiving as you pointed out so well in discussing Emerson and Laver. We have to back the statistics in which we analyze the records of the players along with studying the history of the time. If we were just to look at won-lost record we would think Laver in 1962 was superior to Laver in 1963 but that is far from the case. Laver at the end of 1963 was a far superior player to himself in 1962. The stats would not show it except we know from studying tennis history that he played in a far superior league if you can call it a league.

It frankly annoys me when I read some so call experts saying one player is better than another because when they played this great, the great made him feel helpless or that he had beautiful strokes. I used to read of one all time great who from the accounts in the books seemed to be all but unbeatable yet in looking at the records he did lose a lot more than I expected. Don't get me wrong, the guy's record was still fantastic but the books almost indicated that not only did he almost never lose but he crushed everyone. Brad Gilbert was not known for the best looking strokes in the world but the guy became one of the top players in the world. Some players like Leconte look great but they often found a way to lose. Heck I thought Leconte looked better as a player than either Edberg or Becker but his record couldn't even come close to the other two.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by pc1

Laver at the end of 1963 was a far superior player to himself in 1962. The stats would not show it except we know from studying tennis history that he played in a far superior league if you can call it a league.

I like this part.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Krosero,

Could you give me a link to the posts you wrote that you asked me some questions?

I think when we look at a player's strength of course we look at won-lost record but even that can be deceiving as you pointed out so well in discussing Emerson and Laver. We have to back the statistics in which we analyze the records of the players along with studying the history of the time. If we were just to look at won-lost record we would think Laver in 1962 was superior to Laver in 1963 but that is far from the case. Laver at the end of 1963 was a far superior player to himself in 1962. The stats would not show it except we know from studying tennis history that he played in a far superior league if you can call it a league.

It frankly annoys me when I read some so call experts saying one player is better than another because when they played this great, the great made him feel helpless or that he had beautiful strokes. I used to read of one all time great who from the accounts in the books seemed to be all but unbeatable yet in looking at the records he did lose a lot more than I expected. Don't get me wrong, the guy's record was still fantastic but the books almost indicated that not only did he almost never lose but he crushed everyone. Brad Gilbert was not known for the best looking strokes in the world but the guy became one of the top players in the world.

My questions were in this post: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...80#post7098680

Those questions had to do with Federer and the current era, though of course I agree with what you say about past eras when circumstances were not uniform. The amateur and pro games barely had anything in common, so the yearly W/L records cannot be used across that divide. You'd be much safer comparing within one or the other -- for example, looking at Emmo's yearly W/L records on the amateur tour.

But even then the numbers get distorted, because if you're an amateur, one day your greatest rival might disappear into the pro tour.

Today circumstances are uniform, and changes in rivalries are more gradual.

As far as Budge, I get what you're saying, but I have a hard time identifying with it, because I just never got exposed to all those stories about his invincibility. That may be because I didn't get into tennis until '85; and I studied other past greats more than Budge. Maybe if I was following tennis in the 70s like you were I would have been more exposed to stories about his legend.

For me Budge was just the first guy who won the Grand Slam, but a guy who won only 6 Slam titles in all and then sort of disappeared into the mists of a world war and later the pro scene. In other words I never had the impression that he was The Greatest, or something like that. Again, that's probably just due to not coming across the same things you did.

Originally Posted by pc1

Some players like Leconte look great but they often found a way to lose.

Got a good chuckle from this

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

They might be, but only if achievements are separated entirely from playing strength. In practice we rarely do that; and we wouldn't want to. Nobody considers Emerson's 12 amateur Slams to be of the value of Laver's 11.

Ultimately the two -- achievements and playing level -- are bound up together. Playing to a high level is ultimately an achievement, and one which all of us want to see in any of our choices for GOAT (or other similar honorifics, like best player of the 1980s, or claycourt GOAT, etc.), or when asking which of two players is the greater one.

krosero, I agree.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

(I stress, I also admire Laver and, to a certain degree, Federer).

if so, you've done a brilliant job at hiding it !

Give me a break ! Someone who thinks nadal's/djoker's peak level of play is MUCH better, I repeat MUCH better than federer's is just outright spiteful/jealous/ignorant of federer ....

Atleast many who don't like federer openly admit so ....

[abmk]

@ the thread, a huge no , laver > rosewall ......

laver was the better player at his peak, more versatile, had more firepower , had that je ne sais quoi that rosewall simply didn't ....

only edge rosewall has is his longevity ....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

@ the thread, a huge no , laver > rosewall ......

laver was the better player at his peak, more versatile, had more firepower , had that je ne sais quoi that rosewall simply didn't ....

only edge rosewall has is his longevity ....

While I agree with you about Laver being a little better than Rosewall, Muscles had a number of advantages over Laver.

First of all Rosewall was the more consistent player for level of play, had the slightly superior backhand, perhaps a slightly (debatable here) better volley and a little better touch. Rosewall did win more overall majors than Laver also.

To me it's close enough that it is reason for debate.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

if so, you've done a brilliant job at hiding it !

Give me a break ! Someone who thinks nadal's/djoker's peak level of play is MUCH better, I repeat MUCH better than federer's is just outright spiteful/jealous/ignorant of federer ....

Atleast many who don't like federer openly admit so ....

abmk, SPITEFUL are only YOU with your hate against my person!!

If I can calm you: I don't think that Nadal and Djokovic are much better than Federer. I admit that I have underrated Federer or overrated the two others.

I think every player among the top ten or 15 is worth to be admired. I just see a few weaknesses in Roger's game. That's all, Federer fanatic...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

@ the thread, a huge no , laver > rosewall ......

laver was the better player at his peak, more versatile, had more firepower , had that je ne sais quoi that rosewall simply didn't ....

only edge rosewall has is his longevity ....

Only an ignorant would say that Rosewall's edge is only his longevity.

There are several fields where Rosewall is greater than Laver but I'm tired to repeat them again and again. You would never be ready to believe me...

I strongly would suggest you to stay on fields where you are an expert, i.e. at the question who had more successful second services, Federer or Nadal in the 2005 to 2009 period or similar topics. In tennis HISTORY you are not an expert, I'm afraid...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

While I agree with you about Laver being a little better than Rosewall, Muscles had a number of advantages over Laver.

First of all Rosewall was the more consistent player for level of play, had the slightly superior backhand, perhaps a slightly (debatable here) better volley and a little better touch. Rosewall did win more overall majors than Laver also.

To me it's close enough that it is reason for debate.

pc1, It's just rather difficult to discuss with biased people.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, It's just rather difficult to discuss with biased people.

LOL...that's like Terrell Owens saying Randy Moss is a locker room distraction, bad team chemistry.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

LOL...that's like Terrell Owens saying Randy Moss is a locker room distraction, bad team chemistry.

TMF,

I have noticed, despite the criticisms of BobbyOne that he does change his opinions and seems to listen. For example he ranks Laver as co number one.

When someone said Rosewall was clearly superior to Laver, BobbyOne fought for Laver as Rosewall's equal.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by pc1

TMF,

I have noticed, despite the criticisms of BobbyOne that he does change his opinions and seems to listen. For example he ranks Laver as co number one.

When someone said Rosewall was clearly superior to Laver, BobbyOne fought for Laver as Rosewall's equal.

To be fair, his stance has pretty much always been that. Laver and Rosewall close together at the top. There isn't anything wrong with that, but there is no need to stretch the truth on your part.

The only reason I say anything is because you seem to really have it out for TMF lately. So what if he thinks Federer is the best ever, many people, experts included, do as well.