Rosewall and Gonzales Careers Official Thread

[kiki]

Roche, few players if any have impressed me more at the net.His volley basics were unbelievable.Laver,Mac and Edberg may have been just as good but not better.

But he is overrated a bit.Orantes, nobody talks about the many times he had to stop playing when he was joining his prime and still won big titles like the USO and Masters.c´mon , not only Roche has the right to cry about injuries¡¡¡

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

You underrate Tom Gorman.He was a great player, made many major semis like Wimbledon,US open and Masters and pulled off a big win over Laver at Wimbleodn.Won the 72 DC alongside Smith, and pulled off the Masters semi when he was a point or two to beat Stan so to let the people watch the final ( if he had gone through, his injury would not let him play the final).I haven´t seen a single act of class as this one in tennis.

Sorry to bring up this apparently senseless introduction to Gorman, but he deserves to be talked over here many more times.all of that to say that nobody ahd an easy task, not even laver, when Gorman played his best tennis.In 1979, Borg had a big battle with him in the Wimbledon first round, and Gornal was around 33 or 34...

BTW, when my first darling plays like that, I have no eyes for any other dalring

kiki, Gorman was hardly a top ten player (maybe in some rankings in 1973).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, Gorman was hardly a top ten player (maybe in some rankings in 1973).

I am sure you never watched tennis in the 70´s after this unfortunate comment.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

You overrate Roche here and there.After all, Chuck mc Kinley has a better record than him...and of course, my buddy fred Stolle, who beat Roche in one of the majors he won ( of course, Roche was extremely injuried. close to death¡¡¡¡)

kiki, I had thought you are a n expert for tennis history. I appreciated that you put Federer into his due place and so on. But I realize now that you don't understand the history's basics. You don't know the difference between open era and amateur era (and probably pro era).

Ranking Stolle and McKinley ahead of Roche? I cannot comment. It's too much for me...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I am sure you never watched tennis in the 70´s after this unfortunate comment.

You doubt the facts? Okay.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I had thought you are a n expert for tennis history. I appreciated that you put Federer into his due place and so on. But I realize now that you don't understand the history's basics. You don't know the difference between open era and amateur era (and probably pro era).

Ranking Stolle and McKinley ahead of Roche? I cannot comment. It's too much for me...

Roche was better than them, but they had that extra thing that led to more major wins.

And of course I know most of Roche´s career was played in the open era and certainly i can distinguish those eras asleep...but, wait, have you realized that Roche´s only major came as an amateur? so he had a better amateur career than a pro career... he never made it to the WCT finals or Masters.

Please, separate talent and results.Few have had Roche´s talent but many have achieved better results.Injuries or not.

[kiki]

Hoad was injuried many years.Still, when he was playing his best, he´d use his opponents heads to clean the floor.Roche never did anything like that, not even in his wet dreams...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Roche was better than them, but they had that extra thing that led to more major wins.

And of course I know most of Roche´s career was played in the open era and certainly i can distinguish those eras asleep...but, wait, have you realized that Roche´s only major came as an amateur? so he had a better amateur career than a pro career... he never made it to the WCT finals or Masters.

Please, separate talent and results.Few have had Roche´s talent but many have achieved better results.Injuries or not.

Ignorant kiki, Stolle and McKinley dealed with amateurs while Roche beat top Newcombe and almost top Rosewall and reached several finals against open era top players. Will you ever understand??

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Ignorant kiki, Stolle and McKinley dealed with amateurs while Roche beat top Newcombe and almost top Rosewall and reached several finals against open era top players. Will you ever understand??

I know how many lost finals Roche achieved: in 69 lost the USO final to Laver ( in 1970 he lost the final to your darling) and reached the Wimbledon (Newk), FO (Rosewall) and AO (Laver) semis.In 68 he had already been beaten by Laver at the Wimbledon final, and he had already lost to Emerson and Stolle in former major finals.

A very good record, indeed, but he lost many more times than he lost.results are results and not wet dreams, mon ami.

from 1970 onwards, his best result, I think, was the 1975 semi he lost at Melbourne against Newcombe, in what was possibly one of the best grass court matches of that time.I can accept he remained injuried for long slots of time, but so was Orantes and that didn´t deprive him to win a Masters and a Forest Hills title.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

Hoad was injuried many years.Still, when he was playing his best, he´d use his opponents heads to clean the floor.Roche never did anything like that, not even in his wet dreams...

Indeed, Hoad played at the summit of achievement on several major occasions.

When was Roche's summit moment?
(Hint: Despite Bobby's claims, semi-finals don't count, and close only counts in HORSESHOES.)

[kiki]

Bobbyone will like you one minute and hate you one minute later because you did not worship Rosewall
I Call it consistency
At least as consistent as Roche

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Bobbyone will like you one minute and hate you one minute later because you did not worship Rosewall
I Call it consistency
At least as consistent as Roche

I like anybody who respects the facts. I hate anybody who belittles great players like Rosewall and Roche and Vines and Nüsslein and Gimeno.

The worst you have done was your mean claim that Newcombe lost deliberately to Rosewall. That way you took away from Muscles one of his greatest achievements (beating a world's No.1 at 39)!

Similary mean was your comparison "Newcombe 8 majors and Rosewall 10 majors".

I will not forget these insults. I can't forgive you that because you are an intelligent man who knows what he writes!

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I like anybody who respects the facts. I hate anybody who belittles great players like Rosewall and Roche and Vines and Nüsslein and Gimeno.

The worst you have done was your mean claim that Newcombe lost deliberately to Rosewall. That way you took away from Muscles one of his greatest achievements (beating a world's No.1 at 39)!

Similary mean was your comparison "Newcombe 8 majors and Rosewall 10 majors".

I will not forget these insults. I can't forgive you that because you are an intelligent man who knows what he writes!

some comments.

1/I just posted Rosewall´s overall record is better than Newcombe.Facts are facts

2/Newcombe was the most feared one match player of the early 70´s.Ask fellow pros.Facts are facts.He beat the two best players of the decade, Borg and Connors at major finals.That is not belitteling Rosewall´s great achievements in the 70´s.I have him at co nº 3 with Newcombe for the 70´s.

3/Saying that Vines won the same amount of majors than Kodes does not belittle him.It rather exposes Kodes great career.facts are facts

4/Gimeno was a very good player.But not a nº 1.Facts are facts.And I have seen him live, probably much more times than you did.

5/Same for Roche.His only major, injuried or not came as an amateur..Stolle won two, yet you go against any factual data and claim Roche belongs to another league.It is you who belittles Stolle, not me who belittles Roche.facts are facts.

6/How many slams did Nusslein win? facts are facts.Not just your darling´s opinion.Everybody is entitled to have his own.

The only thing we agree is that I am a man that knows what he wrrites, inteligent or not.I prefer to support my opinion by what I saw.My opinion is not based merely on repports and statistics.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

some comments.

1/I just posted Rosewall´s overall record is better than Newcombe.Facts are facts

2/Newcombe was the most feared one match player of the early 70´s.Ask fellow pros.Facts are facts.He beat the two best players of the decade, Borg and Connors at major finals.That is not belitteling Rosewall´s great achievements in the 70´s.I have him at co nº 3 with Newcombe for the 70´s.

3/Saying that Vines won the same amount of majors than Kodes does not belittle him.It rather exposes Kodes great career.facts are facts

4/Gimeno was a very good player.But not a nº 1.Facts are facts.And I have seen him live, probably much more times than you did.

5/Same for Roche.His only major, injuried or not came as an amateur..Stolle won two, yet you go against any factual data and claim Roche belongs to another league.It is you who belittles Stolle, not me who belittles Roche.facts are facts.

6/How many slams did Nusslein win? facts are facts.Not just your darling´s opinion.Everybody is entitled to have his own.

The only thing we agree is that I am a man that knows what he wrrites, inteligent or not.I prefer to support my opinion by what I saw.My opinion is not based merely on repports and statistics.

kiki, You avoid "elegantly" to answer my main accusations: your mean statements regarding Newcombe's deliberately losing and "forgetting" Rosewall's pro majors.....

Nüsslein's slams? This question disqualifies yourself.

Yes, you go more along your watching. I go more along facts. The latter is better for valueing achievements.

[kiki]

Bibbyone, if it makes you feel better,I deliberately joked on Newcombe letting Rosewall win Wimbledon.Of course, I am sure newcombe never wanted to lose that match and Rosewall deserved to win, as he proved by beating Godzile next day.

You take an opinion forum like this one too seriously when it comes to your personal preferences.

But i know that is in your nature, so i cannot do much about.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Bibbyone, if it makes you feel better,I deliberately joked on Newcombe letting Rosewall win Wimbledon.Of course, I am sure newcombe never wanted to lose that match and Rosewall deserved to win, as he proved by beating Godzile next day.

You take an opinion forum like this one too seriously when it comes to your personal preferences.

But i know that is in your nature, so i cannot do much about.

kiki, my former friend, Thanks for your correction. It honours yourself.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, my former friend, Thanks for your correction. It honours yourself.

and thanks for correcting myself on the number of titles.

That places Newcombe just slighty ahead Rosewall for the 70´s.Here is my ranings for that decade, IMO, the best ever in terms of classy players coming in 10 years.And by much.

1/Borg
2/Connors
3/Newcombe
4/Rosewall
5/Vilas and Nastase
7/Smith and Ashe
9/Kodes
10/Orantes
11/Mc Enroe
12/Gerulaitis
13/Tanner
14/Panatta
15/Gimeno
16/Laver

can you imagine a tournament with this seeding list ?

if we consider 1968 till 1979, then Laver is co nº 1 with Borg and the rest goes down one place (Ashe should get ahead of Vilas and Nastase)

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

and thanks for correcting myself on the number of titles.

That places Newcombe just slighty ahead Rosewall for the 70´s.Here is my ranings for that decade, IMO, the best ever in terms of classy players coming in 10 years.And by much.

1/Borg
2/Connors
3/Newcombe
4/Rosewall
5/Vilas and Nastase
7/Smith and Ashe
9/Kodes
10/Orantes
11/Mc Enroe
12/Gerulaitis
13/Tanner
14/Panatta
15/Gimeno
16/Laver

can you imagine a tournament with this seeding list ?

if we consider 1968 till 1979, then Laver is co nº 1 with Borg and the rest goes down one place (Ashe should get ahead of Vilas and Nastase)

kiki, Great list, I concede.

[kiki]

and how amazing the doubles standarts here and the biasses which are surprising.

Roche´s only major came in the amateurs against unknown Guylas.

And people still says Kodes won against depleted fields¡¡¡

and Stolle doubles Roche´s majors and has two important opponents in his 2 wins: Newcombe and Roche....

Kodes and Stolle are so underrated as Vines and, of course Roche are so overrated...

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by kiki

Kodes and Stolle are so underrated as Vines and, of course Roche are so overrated...

Newcombe and Roche were sooooooo before their prime when they lost these finals against Stolle. Stolle wouldn't have won against a peak-Newk, nor a peak-Roche.

I agree on Kodes though.