Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[Relinquis]

rios was pretty cool

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Two wrongs don't make a right.


Sure. But now, why aren't we going to look how many titles has won Rosewall indoor?


Wiki: "Just the way he played, he got under Hoad's skin". Ask them to remove it if you don't like it.


Nobody ordered Hoad to be affected by injuries. He was not able to keep an high level, that's all.
Moreover: if he got all these injuries but he was still able to beat Laver on their first 8 matches consecutively, just think to the real value of Laver's 1962 Grand Slam.


Just take one player, Laver, and Rosewall would have been no. 1 for about 10 years (8 of which undisputed). It's easy to pump a record by taking away strong opponents.



So things that didn't happen are more powerful than things that happened. That's an interesting one...

As I stated, Rosewall was very difficult for Hoad to beat AFTER 1960. Through that year, Hoad had a positive won/lost against the Little Master on both clay and grass. (5 to 0 in 1953, 6 to 2 on the 1959 world tournament series).
As Hoad himself said, "I always felt that I could beat Ken, although if I was not playing well he would probably win, as he was a more consistent player than I was."

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

He lost two Majors finals against Rosewall on clay in the years you're saying. (And he was never able to win a big final against Rosewall at all, that means a lot for me).
They had the same age and it was not Rosewall's fault if Hoad was lazy and unstable. Even Kramer was angry with Hoad because he seemed to be interested only in half of his matches. But this is not the trait of a GOAT candidate in my opinion. The GOAT must be interested in EVERY match he plays.

Where do you get your numbers?
Hoad had a lifetime edge on Rosewall on clay, and a big edge through 1960. (At Roland Garros it was 2 to 1 for Rosewall.)
Wimbledon is not a major? Right.
As I said earlier, Hoad was 5 to 0 against Rosewall in 1953, 2 to 1 in major finals in 1956, 6 to 3 on the European clay tour in 1957, and 6 to 2 on the world tournament series in 1959 (beating Rosewall at Kooyong, Roland Garros, and Forest Hills).
Had enough?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

He didn't win a Major tournament that year, while in 1959 he did (morever, he had a positive head-to-head agaisnt Gonzales in 1959). He was surely strong in 1958, but not strong as in 1959. Moreover, in 1958 he was not accustomed to road life yet, he needed to rest between matches and he couldn't, that's what caused his injury.


They were 18(H)-10(G) when Hoad had his injury: a very solid margin in my opinion. And he was still able to obtain 18 more victories with his constant back pain.


Weaknesses from his point of view, who was able to neutralize them. There are no perfect players, every player has his weaknesses. Rosewall had not a great serve, Hoad had continuos physical problems, Federer troubles to control Nadal's topspin, Gonzales was not so great on clay courts, and so on.



So what? They were not great players, so they don't count, am I right?

Actually, Hoad led Gonzales 18 to 8 on the 1958 tour when his back acted up.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Nobody had all the answers for these three players at their peak, they can won any match they wanted. But the fact is that when Hoad faced Rosewall in big matches, he really couldn't win: five straight losses in Pro Major finals, and I'm sorry but I refused to consider Hoad a spent force in 1961-62, since he destroyed Laver 8-0 in 1963.


This is only a theory.
You are saying: "playing against Pros would have raised their level", and I accept it. This may be true (not sure at all anyway, just look at Ashley Cooper).
But there is a fact: they didn't play against Pros, so their level didn't raise.


Sure, it is a drop, but not a drop in a gigantic black hole such as Emerson's fall after 1967 :P I think my opinion is more realistic: Emerson level in 1967 and 1968 was pretty much the same, but in 1968 he faced really strong opponents.


Ok, change it in: 1959 was his only dominant year, while in 1958 he didn't win important titles.


Improved by being beaten 18 more times by an injured opponent. I'm impressed. Anyway, I'm not trying to delegitimate Pancho's 1958 title, since nobody ordered Hoad to fall injured.


Please take in account that their head-to-head (wiki says 107-75, which I think is not exact, but it give us an impression) is distorted by the fact that their meet each other 86 times in 1957, with Gonzales at his absolute peak, while they didn't meet each other at all in 1962-63.


Newk was able to exploit them, but he faced Rosewall only since 1968, when Ken was 33, well past his prime. Moreover, Newk was TEN YEARS younger, and still Rosewall defeated him in a lot of big matches: USO '70, Wim '74, USO '74 (add Dallas WCT Finals '71 to the list if you want).
I have to remind you that anyone loses sometimes: Gonzales has also great defeats against Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Trabert... why don't you complain about his weaknesses then?


If the Pro circuit was weak in the early 60s, as you said, why should I consider big challanges the first-round guys in Slam tournaments?

In 1958, Hoad won the world tournament series, which consisted of five tournaments, winning at Kooyong and scoring enough points in the other tournaments to take first place in the bonus money pool.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

abmk, You seem to be influenced by Dan. Hoad No.1 in 1958? No way.

Rosewall strength: No comment.

Hoad was the number one money winner in 1958, won the world tournament series, and won the greatest match ever played at Kooyong against Gonzales.
Number one all the way.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

abmk, I wrote (a longer time ago) that Rosewall together with Laver is No.1 regarding peak play.

Hoad did not have the edge in hth against Rosewall. Don't trust Dan Lobb!

Laver and Rosewall have proved in the early years of open era that they still dominated the majors even when being old...

Hey, we showed an edge on both clay and grass for Hoad through 1960. No doubt.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Where do you get your numbers?
Hoad had a lifetime edge on Rosewall on clay, and a big edge through 1960. (At Roland Garros it was 2 to 1 for Rosewall.)
Wimbledon is not a major? Right.
As I said earlier, Hoad was 5 to 0 against Rosewall in 1953, 2 to 1 in major finals in 1956, 6 to 3 on the European clay tour in 1957.
Had enough?

I didn't count their amateur matches as "big ones".
But even if you want to count their four amateur Slam finals, we are still 7-2 in Rosewall advantage.
They had no European clay tour in 1957 (Rosewall was a pro at the time and he was fronting Pancho in tour, while Hoad was still an amateur).
They had two short tour, one at the very end of 1957 (with Sedgman and Segura) and another in October 1958 (with Trabert and Segura): Rosewall won 'em both!
Had enough?

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Actually, Hoad led Gonzales 18 to 8 on the 1958 tour when his back acted up.

That add even more power to my theory: Gonzales had a lot of trouble against Hoad.
(Anyway, according to my sources, he was 18-10).

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad was the number one money winner in 1958, won the world tournament series, and won the greatest match ever played at Kooyong against Gonzales.
Number one all the way.

No. 1 all the way without winning a Pro Slam nor the main Tour?
I agree he was no. 1 in 1959, but not in 1958.

[piece]

Originally Posted by pc1

I will give you choices of five all time dream matches and where they would be played.

One of mine could be McEnroe-Laver (current racquets) at Wimbledon.
Borg-Nadal at the French.
Federer-Nastase (old wood or current racquets) at the French or Wimbledon.
Pancho Gonzalez-Federer at Flushing Meadow
Sampras-Gonzalez at Wimbledon (old wood or current racquets).

These are some awesome choices. Here's two that I'd add, both involving Federer.

Federer-Laver on a medium to fast hardcourt (think Arthur Ashe stadium of the late 90s early 00s)
- Perhaps the only two players in history who (in their respective primes) have been so successful whilst relying so heavily on spectacular shotmaking. Would be a sight to see.

Federer-Lendl on a slow to medium hardcourt (think the rebound ace on Rod Laver Arena)
- Similar games in some ways. Both have solid one-handers that can hit winners. Maybe the two best forehands in the game's history (with nods to Nadal and Segura). Both willing to go to net when the occasion calls for it, though they are more comfortable at the baseline. But with a contrast between Lendl's grinding movement and endurance and Federer's quickness and beautiful footwork.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

I didn't count their amateur matches as "big ones".
But even if you want to count their four amateur Slam finals, we are still 7-2 in Rosewall advantage.
They had no European clay tour in 1957 (Rosewall was a pro at the time and he was fronting Pancho in tour, while Hoad was still an amateur).
They had two short tour, one at the very end of 1957 (with Sedgman and Segura) and another in October 1958 (with Trabert and Segura): Rosewall won 'em both!
Had enough?


That add even more power to my theory: Gonzales had a lot of trouble against Hoad.
(Anyway, according to my sources, he was 18-10).


No. 1 all the way without winning a Pro Slam nor the main Tour?
I agree he was no. 1 in 1959, but not in 1958.

There was a European clay tour in 1957, Hoad having a 6 to 3 edge on Rosewall.
In 1958, it was 18 to 8 going into Palm Springs, where Hoad's back first acted up, and he lost that night.
The so-called "slams" were not part of the world tournament championship series in 1958. The Cleveland and Wembley events were managed outside the Kramer organization. Only Roland Garros was included in the championship series, together with Kooyong, Sydney, LA Masters, Forest Hills. Five events.
Hoad finished first on points and won the bonus money pool.
The same happened in 1959, with an expanded series of 14 tournaments.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

This is just his opinion, not a scientific truth. An over-30 Rosewall has beaten a top-form Rod Laver a lot of times, that is enough in my opinion. Moreover, these champions like to be modest nowadays. Rod Laver said that he would love to be the ball boy in a Tilden-Rosewall match. Does that prove anything?

laver clearly lead their h2h from 64 onwards ...no doubt while rosewall-laver was competitive, its obvious laver's peak level was better ...

what rosewall said wasn't modesty, it was reality ... and most , if not all of the players and experts at that time felt the same way ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

In my opinion, abmk, you are angry with BobbyOne because he left Federer out of his top-10, but as I said, two wrongs won't make a right. If you try to despise Rosewall with your thousands of undemonstrable theories, that will not give Federer more credit. You should defend Federer instead of attacking Rosewall.
At the end, you are both wrong: no way Rosewall or Federer could be left of from any serious list.

eh, no , that has nothing to do with it ... I did mention rosewall in the top 10 for both peak play and obviously achievements ...so I;m not leaving him out of any list ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Again, you are talking about science fiction, you can not demonstrate anything. The only certain thing is that Rosewall has won Majors on any surface of his time, while Sampras and McEnroe didn't. Also, Rosewall won 34 consecutive Majors matches, while Sampras and McEnroe didn't.

yeah, no, we were talking about peak level of play on those surfaces .. so that does come into the picture ...hell, even on clay, mac was wreaking havoc in 84 and it took all of lendl's considerable skill and fight to take that RG final ...

achievements wise in singles , mac isn't near rosewall, we know that ...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Nobody had all the answers for these three players at their peak, they can won any match they wanted. But the fact is that when Hoad faced Rosewall in big matches, he really couldn't win: five straight losses in Pro Major finals, and I'm sorry but I refused to consider Hoad a spent force in 1961-62, since he destroyed Laver 8-0 in 1963.

not a completely spent force, but clearly below his best and affected by injuries .....

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

This is only a theory.
You are saying: "playing against Pros would have raised their level", and I accept it. This may be true (not sure at all anyway, just look at Ashley Cooper).
But there is a fact: they didn't play against Pros, so their level didn't raise.

and here's a fact : pro majors were never considered/are not considered the equivalent of a full major ....try to spin it whatever way you want ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Sure, it is a drop, but not a drop in a gigantic black hole such as Emerson's fall after 1967 :P I think my opinion is more realistic: Emerson level in 1967 and 1968 was pretty much the same, but in 1968 he faced really strong opponents.

for a player like sampras that is a big drop and Emerson was even more reliant on his athleticism ...was the open field a factor ? obviously ... but his decline was much more of a factor ...

newk, ashe, roche - amateurs - were pretty competitive in the open era , are you saying emerson was well below all of these 3 ? really ?

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Ok, change it in: 1959 was his only dominant year, while in 1958 he didn't win important titles.

whatever

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Improved by being beaten 18 more times by an injured opponent. I'm impressed. Anyway, I'm not trying to delegitimate Pancho's 1958 title, since nobody ordered Hoad to fall injured.

gonzales improved on his BH ....while hoad's injury was a major factor, it wasn't that gonzales himself didn't do anything ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Please take in account that their head-to-head (wiki says 107-75, which I think is not exact, but it give us an impression) is distorted by the fact that their meet each other 86 times in 1957, with Gonzales at his absolute peak, while they didn't meet each other at all in 1962-63.

yeah, it is distorted by that, but after 64, even with gonzales well past his best, their h2h was close ...even in 61 it was 2 all ....

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Newk was able to exploit them, but he faced Rosewall only since 1968, when Ken was 33, well past his prime. Moreover, Newk was TEN YEARS younger, and still Rosewall defeated him in a lot of big matches: USO '70, Wim '74, USO '74 (add Dallas WCT Finals '71 to the list if you want).
I have to remind you that anyone loses sometimes: Gonzales has also great defeats against Sedgman, Segura, Rosewall, Trabert... why don't you complain about his weaknesses then?

I was only saying it wasn't only gonzales who took advantage of his serve not being good , quite a few of the others did ....not saying who all rosewall lost to

yeah, even gonzales had his weaknesses, a good BH, but not a great one and wasn't that great on clay ... but at his peak, there were not that many tourneys on clay

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

If the Pro circuit was weak in the early 60s, as you said, why should I consider big challanges the first-round guys in Slam tournaments?

yeah, I only mentioned all those because you and BobbyOne were going on about 9 Pro majors like they were full majors ...would rosewall still have brilliant years even in full fields ? obviously ... but many majors in a row like that ? hell no ....

I wasn't only talking about first round opponents, you could still have unknown, streaky opponents in the first 4 rounds ..to break that streak, just one of them or one great performance from an "amateur" or obviously pancho not going into retirement (took a sabbatical in part because he felt he had beaten all challengers ; he might've felt differently against an open field )



-------

again, I'm done with this for now :

I'll just sum up my thoughts :

rosewall's consistency was brilliant and longevity probably unparalleled, his peak level excellent, but there are several I'd take peak to peak over him given the respective tour conditions in those times - federer, laver, gonzales, borg, mac, sampras, nadal ......

and none of these are silly choices by any means ....

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

There was a European clay tour in 1957, Hoad having a 6 to 3 edge on Rosewall.

An european clay tour without any source on the whole internet, while a player was an amateur and the other a professional...

The so-called "slams" were not part of the world tournament championship series in 1958. The Cleveland and Wembley events were managed outside the Kramer organization.

They were two of the biggest tournaments, that's a fact. And Hoad wasn't able to win them, nor he was able to win Forest Hills, Australian Pro in Sydney or Roland Garros. He lost the main Tour too. No way I can consider him the world no. 1 in 1958.
Anyway, I've just found an old discussion on Hoad where you argued with the whole forum, trying to twist every statistic, sometimes giving the impression to invent them, and so on. That's why I will not answer you anymore on Hoad.

Originally Posted by abmk

laver clearly lead their h2h from 64 onwards ...no doubt while rosewall-laver was competitive, its obvious laver's peak level was better ...

It's not obvious, since their rivalry was affected by a little detail: Rosewall was in his twenties only two years, Laver was in his twenties six years. And still, he has a negative head-to-head in big matches.

what rosewall said wasn't modesty, it was reality ... and most , if not all of the players and experts at that time felt the same way ..

Laver has more mythology, and mythology amplify real contents as we know (just think that someone rates Newk no. 1 in 1970 only for his Wimbledon victory, while he was clearly a no. 3 in that season).
I look at facts, undisputable facts: big matches 9-7 in Rosewall advantage, overall head-to-head in Laver advantage but very well balanced considering that Rosewall was four years older (and that he was 28 when he face Laver for the first time), they both were able to win all the important tournaments on one season (Laver did it twice, but his record of consecutive Major matches won is 29, while Rosewall's is 34. Let me guess, it doesn't count because he fronted weak fields, am I right?)

yeah, no, we were talking about peak level of play on those surfaces .. so that does come into the picture ...hell, even on clay, mac was wreaking havoc in 84 and it took all of lendl's considerable skill and fight to take that RG final ...

Since you can't demonstrate that McEnroe '84 would beat Rosewall '63, this is just science fiction.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

not a completely spent force, but clearly below his best and affected by injuries

And still, he was able to crush Laver 8-0 and to reach several Major finals.
From my point of view, if you play, you play. We can't build an alternative tennis history. Rios and Cash without injuries would have been two of the greatest players ever, but since they had a lot of injuries, they were not. Hoad was always injured, except in 1959 he had trouble pratically in every other professional season: that can't be an argument to disregard Gonzales, Sedgman or Rosewall, let's be honest please...

and here's a fact : pro majors were never considered/are not considered the equivalent of a full major

Just your opinion, can't see any "fact".

for a player like sampras that is a big drop and Emerson was even more reliant on his athleticism ...was the open field a factor ? obviously ... but his decline was much more of a factor ...

Emerson was simply not strong enough to win in front of a professional field competition.

newk, ashe, roche - amateurs - were pretty competitive in the open era , are you saying emerson was well below all of these 3 ? really ?

Newcome and Ashe were superior to Emerson, no doubt about it.

gonzales improved on his BH ....while hoad's injury was a major factor, it wasn't that gonzales himself didn't do anything ...

As I've learned from you, to beat an injured opponent is no big deal.

yeah, it is distorted by that, but after 64, even with gonzales well past his best, their h2h was close ...even in 61 it was 2 all ....

If you're using the head-to-head with Gonzales to demonstrate anything against Rosewall, we can also use it against Laver. He had an excellent head-to-head against Laver, who was 10 years older. So maybe Laver was not so dominant...

yeah, even gonzales had his weaknesses, a good BH, but not a great one and wasn't that great on clay ... but at his peak, there were not that many tourneys on clay

And when they were, he was not able to win them.

yeah, I only mentioned all those because you and BobbyOne were going on about 9 Pro majors like they were full majors ...would rosewall still have brilliant years even in full fields ? obviously ... but many majors in a row like that ? hell no ....

Just look at who he has beaten during his 34 Pro Majors matches winning streak.

I wasn't only talking about first round opponents, you could still have unknown, streaky opponents in the first 4 rounds ..to break that streak, just one of them or one great performance from an "amateur" or obviously pancho not going into retirement (took a sabbatical in part because he felt he had beaten all challengers ; he might've felt differently against an open field )

Science fiction again. Do you prefer Ballard, Dick or Gibson?

rosewall's consistency was brilliant and longevity probably unparalleled, his peak level excellent, but there are several I'd take peak to peak over him given the respective tour conditions in those times - federer, laver, gonzales, borg, mac, sampras, nadal ......
and none of these are silly choices by any means ....

I didn't say that they are silly choices, I just said that a peak Rosewall would be up there too. Your first post was a little disrespectful to Kenny, just go back and read it...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

that was one of his two best years (58-59 ) ...if we can't call that as his peak .......



again, not close to a 4-15 h2h b/w gonzales and rosewall ....
and gonzales also on his part improved to face the challenge of hoad ...

gonzalez clearly lead the h2h vs rosewall not just because of styles but because he was the superior player indoors and on grass ...




not really, even others like laver, hoad, newk etc were able to exploit those 'weaknesses' on numerous occasions ...



eh, since when did this ever come into the picture or when did I imply this ?

abmk, I doubt that Gonzalez was stronger on grass than Rosewall.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah and rosewall himself explictly says that laver was better at his peak ..... and by putting hoad at #1 in his list implies Hoad was better at his peal ...

and that's not even considering federer, borg, sampras, mac , gonzales .......



not lifetime , no ....... I was only talking abut 58-59 ....



yeah, only they weren't making a clean sweep, you had ashe, newk, nastase etc in the mix ..

abmk, I also was referring to 1958 and 1959.

Nastase was not a top player in the first open era years. Laver and Rosewall won almost all majors at that time even though they were OLD men.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

As I stated, Rosewall was very difficult for Hoad to beat AFTER 1960. Through that year, Hoad had a positive won/lost against the Little Master on both clay and grass. (5 to 0 in 1953, 6 to 2 on the 1959 world tournament series).
As Hoad himself said, "I always felt that I could beat Ken, although if I was not playing well he would probably win, as he was a more consistent player than I was."

Dan, again you "forgot" the 1959 GP where Rosewall defeated Hoad.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

laver clearly lead their h2h from 64 onwards ...no doubt while rosewall-laver was competitive, its obvious laver's peak level was better ...

what rosewall said wasn't modesty, it was reality ... and most , if not all of the players and experts at that time felt the same way ...



eh, no , that has nothing to do with it ... I did mention rosewall in the top 10 for both peak play and obviously achievements ...so I;m not leaving him out of any list ...




yeah, no, we were talking about peak level of play on those surfaces .. so that does come into the picture ...hell, even on clay, mac was wreaking havoc in 84 and it took all of lendl's considerable skill and fight to take that RG final ...

achievements wise in singles , mac isn't near rosewall, we know that ...

abmk, Laver leads Rosewall in hth but Rosewall leads Laver in big events!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

not a completely spent force, but clearly below his best and affected by injuries .....



and here's a fact : pro majors were never considered/are not considered the equivalent of a full major ....try to spin it whatever way you want ...



for a player like sampras that is a big drop and Emerson was even more reliant on his athleticism ...was the open field a factor ? obviously ... but his decline was much more of a factor ...

newk, ashe, roche - amateurs - were pretty competitive in the open era , are you saying emerson was well below all of these 3 ? really ?



whatever



gonzales improved on his BH ....while hoad's injury was a major factor, it wasn't that gonzales himself didn't do anything ...




yeah, it is distorted by that, but after 64, even with gonzales well past his best, their h2h was close ...even in 61 it was 2 all ....



I was only saying it wasn't only gonzales who took advantage of his serve not being good , quite a few of the others did ....not saying who all rosewall lost to

yeah, even gonzales had his weaknesses, a good BH, but not a great one and wasn't that great on clay ... but at his peak, there were not that many tourneys on clay



yeah, I only mentioned all those because you and BobbyOne were going on about 9 Pro majors like they were full majors ...would rosewall still have brilliant years even in full fields ? obviously ... but many majors in a row like that ? hell no ....

I wasn't only talking about first round opponents, you could still have unknown, streaky opponents in the first 4 rounds ..to break that streak, just one of them or one great performance from an "amateur" or obviously pancho not going into retirement (took a sabbatical in part because he felt he had beaten all challengers ; he might've felt differently against an open field )



-------

again, I'm done with this for now :

I'll just sum up my thoughts :

rosewall's consistency was brilliant and longevity probably unparalleled, his peak level excellent, but there are several I'd take peak to peak over him given the respective tour conditions in those times - federer, laver, gonzales, borg, mac, sampras, nadal ......

and none of these are silly choices by any means ....

abmk, Yes, we should rank Newcombe, Roche and Ashe higher than Emerson because they all reached at least No.2 while Emerson at his best only reached No.5 in 1964...

[urban]

Tell that Ashe, Newcombe or Roche, when they had to face old Emmo. I think, he leads all of them in hth.