Rosewall and Gonzales Careers Official Thread

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by 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...

kiki, Gulyas was not unknown. he was one of the best Europen claycourters.

Writing that Roche is overrated must rate as joke of the century!

[Phoenix1983]

These two are both very underrated (should appear in everyone's all-time top ten list, and yet they are both often forgotten in 'mainstream' greatest lists).

Nevertheless I think some posters on this forum overcompensate by ranking them a bit too highly, i.e. suggesting they are legitimate contenders for GOAT.

- Pancho never won a clay major. He strikes me as a Sampras equivalent but playing in a weaker era (for the record, I consider the old pro majors with their small fields to be below the modern Grand Slams; and as for head-to-head tours between top players, they can be misleading: if the game had been contested in such a way over the past decade, we would conclude that Nadal is greater than Federer. They are not, IMHO, the best indicator of who is the top player).

- Rosewall had a psychological problem at Wimbledon: he went 0-5 in finals there in amateur, pro and Open play.

I rank Rosewall No 6 and Gonzales No 7 all-time.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

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.

Federic, Thanks for putting Stolle's wins into the right perspective.

To show how much stronger Roche was than Stolle, we should look at their hth against Rosewall: Roche leads 9:7 while Stolle trails 2:23. Roche also has a fine hth against Laver (9:11).

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, Thanks for putting Stolle's wins into the right perspective.

To show how much stronger Roche was than Stolle, we should look at their hth against Rosewall: Roche leads 9:7 while Stolle trails 2:23. Roche also has a fine hth against Laver (9:11).

Stolle baggeled Roche at a major final¡¡¡

ROFLMAO

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Stolle baggeled Roche at a major final¡¡¡

ROFLMAO

kiki, Guess how old Roche was then.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

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.

Stolle is a two timer while Roche is a mere one timer

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Stolle is a two timer while Roche is a mere one timer

Curious kiki, I always thought that Dan L. is the most stubborn poster in this forum but you disprove me now...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, Guess how old Roche was then.

22 I think.The same age Rosewall won his SECON slam title and the same age Hoad almost wins the whole slam thing.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Curious kiki, I always thought that Dan L. is the most stubborn poster in this forum but you disprove me now...

I know.Facts are stubborn.Specially when you dislike them.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by kiki

Stolle is a two timer while Roche is a mere one timer

Roche reached finals in the Open era, Stolle peak was in the 60s against amateur fields. Not the same thing, sorry.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Roche reached finals in the Open era, Stolle peak was in the 60s against amateur fields. Not the same thing, sorry.

They are about the same level.Roche had a more complete game but was weak menthally.

[NonP]

Gonzales arguably spent more time as the world's no. 1 than anyone else in the history of tennis. That alone is enough to put him in the GOAT equation.

As for Rosewall it depends on how much stock you put in longevity and how you calibrate the majors or their equivalents. Incidentally Pancho is probably his only serious challenger (apart from Tilden) in the former respect.

It's safe to say they both will always be in the discussion.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

22 I think.The same age Rosewall won his SECON slam title and the same age Hoad almost wins the whole slam thing.

kiki, Roche was 20, long before his prime.

When writing about 22: At that time Rosewall won already his fourth major title.

[kiki]

Borg had 4 majors by the age of 20
Mc Enroe had 3
Wilander had 2
Boris had 3

Of course Dallas and Madison were majors them

[kiki]

Sorry, Mats had 3

[veco]

anyone can tell me which tournaments in 1961 had rosewall and gonzales in the draw?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by veco

anyone can tell me which tournaments in 1961 had rosewall and gonzales in the draw?

veco, Geneva (winner Gonzalez), French Pro (Rosewall), Wembley (Rosewall), Copenhagen (Gonzalez), Milan (Gonzalez), Vienna (Gonzalez) Pro Challenge Turin (Gonzalez had two wins, Rosewall one win)

[veco]

great BobbyOne cheers!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by veco

great BobbyOne cheers!

veco, I rank Rosewall and Gonzalez equal No.1 for 1961. Gonzalez won the great world tour and won more tournaments, Rosewall won the two biggest events.

[veco]

the final showdown should have been the sydney tournament.shame gonzales retired just before it.