Who is the GOAT??

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Given his psychological problems having a 0-5 record in Wimbledon finals, I don't think it's inevitable he would ever have won it. Not sure why you and others assume he would definitely have won it had he been allowed to compete (remember Gonzales, Laver, Hoad etc. would have all been present as well).

This is one of those hypotheticals that people state as if they are definitives. No way to say if it would be true.

And given that some of the great players have failed to win on their worst slam during their prime...Lendl-Wimbledon, Sampras-FO, Borg-USO, Mac-FO etc...

Like you said...it's hypothetical and there's no answer if Rosewall would have Wimbledon had he played during his prime.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

What happened to those psychological problems in those 5 Wembley Pros he won vs the best players in the World?

He clearly wasn't intimidated at Wembley. He certainly was playing at SW19, the home of tennis. No man who fails in five finals there can be GOAT.

[NikeWilson]

Nadal owns Federer, convincingly.

That's huge evidence against Federer's case.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Some said the same of Henin; according to her supporters, she had a game that was "all court," and could handle the faster surface (for one with her strengths being on clay) and should have been a perfect fit to win the Wimbledon title, but despite all studies of potential match-ups or how well she was playing (ex. 2006), it was not to be. That event was not hers to own.

Henin did not dominate tennis to the extent of early 1990s Seles. Seles at that time had a enthusiasm for tennis as a sport, and the competition that went with it, well beyond what Henin had, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Exactly, making a Wimbledon final at a young age is no proof to winning Wimbledon. Henin impressively made the Wimbledon finals at only 18 in 2001 as well, but never went on to hold the trophy, and she wasnt humiliated in the final the way Seles was either.

I'm sorry, but with all the crazy weather during the 1992 Wimbledon final combined with a mute Seles, the scoreline doesn't tell the story in terms of tennis ability. Now, we can blame Seles for the poor way she dealt with the circumstances she had found herself in, if you wish, but that comes from a lack of experience with the situations that she had found herself in. That experience would have made her stronger for the future. In fact, she had a chat with Arthur Ashe before the 1992 US Open, and she decided that she wouldn't pay attention to the grunt controversy any longer.

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

ROFL...........Rosewall had a 0-5 record in Wimbledon finals, when he was winning everything else available to him. His failures there are certainly a reason to exclude him from GOAT.

But Rosewall couldn't play at Wimbledon for over a decade after turning professional in late 1956.

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

Given his psychological problems having a 0-5 record in Wimbledon finals, I don't think it's inevitable he would ever have won it. Not sure why you and others assume he would definitely have won it had he been allowed to compete (remember Gonzales, Laver, Hoad etc. would have all been present as well).

Of course we can't say for sure. But Rosewall was the world's best player in 1962 and 1963, with Gonzales having gone into an 18 month retirement from the end of 1961. Gonzales stayed the best in 1960 and 1961 due to him winning the big World Pro Tours, but Rosewall was the best in tournament play in 1960 and 1961. In 1962 and 1963, as I said before, Rosewall was the best player in the world. Admittedly, Wimbledon was Rosewall's weakest mainstream major, but it's hard to believe that Rosewall wouldn't have won Wimbledon at some stage in that decade plus period when he couldn't play at Wimbledon.

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

1970- lost to John Newcombe. Rosewall was already 34 and well past his prime. Newcombe was the #1 player at the time.

There were no official rankings before 1973, but Rod Laver was the number 1 seed and the best player in the world at that time. Laver lost at 1970 Wimbledon in an upset against Roger Taylor in the Round of 16. John Newcombe was the number 2 seed.

[mightyrick]

Mustard, with that last post, you have just made me realize that Laver over Rosewall is the men's GOAT.

Why? Because these arguments just shouldn't be so difficult to make with a GOAT.

You should not have to do complex what-if hypotheticals and excuse-making for a GOAT. I've done this for years concerning Rosewall. I can't give him the nod anymore. He had five shots at Wimbledon... and he didn't make it. I'm sorry... that's all there is to it.

And Laver did it. Laver played in the Professional league, too.

But here's the other thing that convinced me. If I compare Laver's entire career to Rosewall... including the Professional and Open era... it goes to Laver. Even though Rosewall did beat Laver in the Professional league.

Laver just accomplished more over the entire period than Rosewall did.

[moonballs]

Originally Posted by NikeWilson

Nadal owns Federer, convincingly.

That's huge evidence against Federer's case.

I think you left out clay in the first sentence.