Rosewall > Laver

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

I never said that.

TMF, You insinuated it when you wrote that Evert achieved more than Laver...

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, You insinuated it when you wrote that Evert achieved more than Laver...

I think he wanted to say that she has won more Majors, which is true.

[pc1]

Delete. Not worth it.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

I think he wanted to say that she has won more Majors, which is true.

Yes, she won 18 grand slam titles, 34 slam finals, 94% winning on clay. It's ridiculous.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...1&postcount=22

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, You insinuated it when you wrote that Evert achieved more than Laver...

Bobby, whether you agree or not about who's more achieved isn't that big a deal. The point is if both Rod and Chris is ranked #4 greatest of all time is remarkable, not something to be disgruntled about.

It's players like Lendl or Agassi are the one who doesn't get much respect.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by pc1

Delete. Not worth it.

Must be something about my opinion ?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

Must be something about my opinion ?

Yes actually but to be honest just write what you write. The only thing I ask of you is to occasionally please try to keep an open mind on what I write. Last thing, just write what you believe on the lists. Don't feel pressure because of what people think. I for example may disagree but I don't want you to write something you don't want to write.

It was something I've written already numerous times so I felt it wasn't worth repeating. It was something I've written which I'm sure you've seen but noticed you ignored when you've given some of your arguments.

Honestly if you think Rosewall doesn't belong, then don't put him on the list. Now I believe he's among the top few on record and personal viewing of his matches but hey if you disagree, fine.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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.

you did say that ... which makes your opinion regarding modern day tennis totally worthless ; even if you've changed it now just because few others have said so to you ... it just shows you just haven't watched modern day tennis ....

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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...

yeah, so do I , just that I see plenty more weaknesses in rosewall's and most of the others ? your point being ?

and I admire *any* player's good tennis , even if it is #100 ranked rosol or #43 peter doohan ...

[abmk]

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.

I'd say rosewall had the better BH, better return and better touch , but that's it .... better volley, nah ....rosewall's level was more consistent , but that was probably significant the most on clay ...... on other surfaces, I'd take laver's brilliance and higher level of play ...

regarding majors won... with all respect , the pro tour in 61-63 @ rosewall's peak was considerably weaker than it was in the 50s and later half of 60s ... here a single player can make more of a difference as the fields were limited ...

gonzales retiring, hoad's injuries and laver not yet in the pros ( till 62 and still getting adjusted in 63 )

again, I'm not just going to add up the amateur, pro and open majors ...

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

you did say that ... which makes your opinion regarding modern day tennis totally worthless ; even if you've changed it now just because few others have said so to you ... it just shows you just haven't watched modern day tennis ....

We've both been debating BobbyOne about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, so I'm just going to give my own two cents here and say that I do not consider his opinions on modern tennis to be worthless. If I had thought the view to be worthless, I would not have engaged it as far as I did.

Thinking an opinion is wrong is not the same thing as thinking it worthless.

Of course there's a LOT of distance between my views on Fed/Nad/Djok and BobbyOne's view. But I'm happy to say now that he's admitted some error (which takes some character), there is LESS distance between our views. That's enough for me.

Just my two cents.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by krosero

We've both been debating BobbyOne about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, so I'm just going to give my own two cents here and say that I do not consider his opinions on modern tennis to be worthless. If I had thought the view to be worthless, I would not have engaged it as far as I did.

Thinking an opinion is wrong is not the same thing as thinking it worthless.

Of course there's a LOT of distance between my views on Fed/Nad/Djok and BobbyOne's view. But I'm happy to say now that he's admitted some error (which takes some character), there is LESS distance between our views. That's enough for me.

Just my two cents.

look, I'll differentiate b/w two cases here :

when opinions are somewhere near reality and could be debated upon ... , for example, I'd say safin's level of play at the AO when playing well is up there with anyone else, including federer, agassi, djoker and better than that of lendl ,sampras, becker etc ..... this is well backed up by his performances at AO 2004,05 ...even if he has only one AO ...

but if someone were to say that safin, when playing well would defeat anyone on grass including federer, sampras, mac, becker, borg etc ... well then there's bound to be some laughter and criticism ...

BobbyOne's opinion is like the 2nd kind ...

if BobbyOne *actually* did some more research on the records on his own and said that he did so or admitted he hasn't watched many matches of federer at his peak or said he'd like to watch more matches before getting back on that, I'd say *that* takes some character. Not just changing views because a few of us here told so ...

reading and thinking on others PoVs is well and good, that's just one step, but one needs to actually do some research on their own .....

just for another example, I think some of TMF's points on tennis history and players of the history are plainly laughable ..he's seen quite a bit in the 2000s , but not before ... Therefore I wouldn't pay that much attention to his points regarding tennis before 2000 or so .....

only in BobbyOne's case, its worse as he claims he's "studied" players from many generations , including the present one .. yet if he comes up with points like nadal's/djoker's peak level of play is much better than federer's (can you imagine the laughter from nadal/djoker if they ever heard anything like that !? ) ,well ......

[krosero]

Originally Posted by abmk

look, I'll differentiate b/w two cases here :

when opinions are somewhere near reality and could be debated upon ... , for example, I'd say safin's level of play at the AO when playing well is up there with anyone else, including federer, agassi, djoker and better than that of lendl ,sampras, becker etc ..... this is well backed up by his performances at AO 2004,05 ...even if he has only one AO ...

but if someone were to say that safin, when playing well would defeat anyone on grass including federer, sampras, mac, becker, borg etc ... well then there's bound to be some laughter and criticism ...

BobbyOne's opinion is like the 2nd kind ...

if BobbyOne *actually* did some more research on the records on his own and said that he did so or admitted he hasn't watched many matches of federer at his peak or said he'd like to watch more matches before getting back on that, I'd say *that* takes some character. Not just changing views because a few of us here told so ...

reading and thinking on others PoVs is well and good, that's just one step, but one needs to actually do some research on their own .....

just for another example, I think some of TMF's points on tennis history and players of the history are plainly laughable ..he's seen quite a bit in the 2000s , but not before ... Therefore I wouldn't pay that much attention to his points regarding tennis before 2000 or so .....

only in BobbyOne's case, its worse as he claims he's "studied" players from many generations , including the present one .. yet if he comes up with points like nadal's/djoker's peak level of play is much better than federer's (can you imagine the laughter from nadal/djoker if they ever heard anything like that !? ) ,well ......

You'd like to differentiate between the laughable and the non-laughable. That's your choice; I do it too. But I've seen laughter and ridicule, on discussion boards, have far more negative effects than positive ones.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

Yes, she won 18 grand slam titles, 34 slam finals, 94% winning on clay. It's ridiculous.

More than Fed? Better than Fed.

Not possible!

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

I'd say rosewall had the better BH, better return and better touch , but that's it .... better volley, nah ....rosewall's level was more consistent , but that was probably significant the most on clay ...... on other surfaces, I'd take laver's brilliance and higher level of play ...

regarding majors won... with all respect , the pro tour in 61-63 @ rosewall's peak was considerably weaker than it was in the 50s and later half of 60s ... here a single player can make more of a difference as the fields were limited ...

gonzales retiring, hoad's injuries and laver not yet in the pros ( till 62 and still getting adjusted in 63 )

again, I'm not just going to add up the amateur, pro and open majors ...

I've seen Laver and Rosewall during their playing days and I can tell you that Rosewall's volley was quite amazing. My favorite Rosewall volley was when it seemed like the ball passed him on the backhand side when somehow he seemed to hit the ball when it was slightly behind him for an angled backhand crosscourt drop shot winner. Rosewall was more solid on the forehand volley and he missed fewer volleys in my opinion.

We're talking fractions here. There's really not much difference but I can write that a tennis magazine (I think it was World Tennis) ranked Rosewall as higher than Laver on the volley in I believe a poll of the players.

[kiki]

Rosewall was the best ever technician master and first time I watched him, being so much focused on his bh,I found amazing how clean and perfect struck his volleys were
Laver was a crush net player and he also had enormous touch and feeling
Both won many points at the net so it makes no sense to compare

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Rosewall was the best ever technician master and first time I watched him, being so much focused on his bh,I found amazing how clean and perfect struck his volleys were
Laver was a crush net player and he also had enormous touch and feeling
Both won many points at the net so it makes no sense to compare

I agree with you there.

But to show how great the Rosewall volley, Rosewall in the mid to late 1970's when he was around 40 was named by World Tennis Magazine to have the second best backhand volley and second best forehand.

I'm a big Rosewall admirer. He is perhaps the perfect example of smooth efficiency in tennis.

[kiki]

Rosewall never overdid anything
Never wasted timing or energy
Is that the reason he was known as Pockets ( mean man)?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

In the Open Era :
Rosewall has 4 Grand Slams
Laver has 5 (including the calendar year Grand Slam)

Pro Slams :
Rosewall has 15
Laver has 8

So Rosewall has 19 Majors compared to Laver's 13.


It's obvious Rosewall is far more successful. And these are some ways in which he is statistically better :

Dominance - Rosewall won 9 consecutive Pro Slams that he participated in. Laver only ever managed 4 Pro Slams in a row and 4 Open Era Grand Slams in a row. His 4 in a row against amateurs isn't comparable.

Longevity - Rosewall won his first Major in 1957 and his last Major in 1972. That's 15 years apart. Laver won his first in 1964 and his last in 1969. Just 5 years apart.

Versatility - Rosewall has 5 Grasscourt Majors, 5 Claycourt Majors, 5 Indoorcourt Majors, 4 Woodcourt Majors. That's 5-5-5-4. Very balanced, showing he was a versatile player. Laver has 8 Grasscourt Majors, 1 Claycourt Major, 4 Indoorcourt Majors, 1 Woodcourt Major. That's 8-1-4-1. Very lopsided and grass/indoor heavy, showing he was more of a fastcourt player and not as versatile.


I think Rosewall is head and shoulders above Laver, in almost every way. I don't even see it as debatable, statistically.

You're a prisoner of your mind.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

You're a prisoner of your mind.

hoodjem, Prisoner might be too onesided but he gives some reasonable facts.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

hoodjem, Prisoner might be too onesided but he gives some reasonable facts.

I agree. Eclectic.