Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

I see dan's reply and he's already covered this ...

Two wrongs don't make a right.

yeah, I'd give edge to rosewall on clay ... but if you think djoker is a mug indoors or grass, you're sadly mistaken ...... on the grass of today, I think djoker wouldn't fare badly vs rosewall at all .... and he's no mug indoors , he's won 6 titles indoors, 2 of them being the Year Ending Championships ...

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

you should surely be able to get something somewhere on the net for reference ?

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

yeah, only gonzalez had semi-retired , hoad was affected by injuries ....

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 , nadal, out for only one slam, RG, and federer would most probably have 11 majors in a row , RG 2005-USO 2007 !

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.

those ifs are MUCH more powerful than just considering pro majors on par with full ones ....

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

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

pretty sure rosewall would've given a *LOT* for that wimbledon final in 56 ...(he'd already won 3 amateur slams by then )

Sure, it was a prestigious title, but it just missed the strongest players in the world. So he would have probably pumped Rosewall's legend a lot, but nothing more...

Originally Posted by abmk

emerson's game based so much on athleticism, declined sharply by 30+ .... yet he was 5-5 vs laver in 1968 ...

What a coincidence! He was able to win two Majors in 1967 and then he couldn't reach a semifinal from 1968, and failed miserably even at smaller events, winning only three little titles! Who are you kidding, seriously?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I already replied to your emerson part

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

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

because they played a lot indoors those days ... unlike these days ... my problem was with you saying like djokovic wouldn't have a chance vs rosewall ...... nowhere near reality ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

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

fair enough, but he doesn't mention anything about him being weaker vs peak hoad than rosewall

yeah and the very next part says "but he had a forehand weakness and a serve weakness"

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

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.

lol, wut ? you're completely ignoring gonzales' part time retirement ...

FTR, I never held laver's 62 slam in that high regard ...

the bold part is exactly what I am saying ... gonzales' part time retirement, hoad's injury problems (and laver maturing later in 64) , lead to 9 consecutive pro majors for rosewall .....

for federer, I'm not even taking away a full opponent, just one opponent at one slam

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

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

wrong interpretation, the right questions raised are more powerful than equating a tournament with so few players and lesser rounds with a full field major ....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Sure, it was a prestigious title, but it just missed the strongest players in the world. So he would have probably pumped Rosewall's legend a lot, but nothing more...

a big match ... you said hoad wasn't able to win a big match vs rosewall .. nowhere near reality again ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

What a coincidence! He was able to win two Majors in 1967 and then he couldn't reach even a semifinal from 1968, and failed miserably even at smaller events, winning only three little titles! Who are you kidding, seriously?

A certain Mats Wilander says hi

Emerson was winning amateur majors from 61-67 ... that's not a short period by any definition in tennis ....

sampras won wimbledon in 2000, reached finals of the USO in 2000 and reached the semis of AO in 2000

in 2001, he only reached the finals of the USO and won zero, yes zero titles ... when sampras, a much greater player than emerson, could have a sharp decline within a year, why not emerson ?

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

because they played a lot indoors those days ...

And Rosewall hadn't the chance to play a prestigious Major hard court event at all. So what?

unlike these days ... my problem was with you saying like djokovic wouldn't have a chance vs rosewall ...... nowhere near reality ...

I didn't say that, I've said he would have lost on grass, clay, and indoor, and that he would have won on hard courts (which means a lot of matches), and this is only science fiction obviously, we will never know if we are wrong or not.

fair enough, but he doesn't mention anything about him being weaker vs peak hoad than rosewall

He implied a lot of times that he had troubles against Hoad.
In 1958 Hoad was not at his peak yet but he was going to win the tour, he started to lose only when his back pain increased. Just read Pancho's comments after the tour to understand how much he feared Hoad.
Moreover, if Hoad's injuries demonstrate that Rosewall's domination was not so strong, they should demonstrate the same for Gonzales 1958 tour victory, am I wrong?

yeah and the very next part says "but he had a forehand weakness and a serve weakness"

That's because his game suited well against Rosewall. I doubt that Hoad and Laver would have quoted him, with respectively 5 and 9 great Major finals lost against Rosewall.

the bold part is exactly what I am saying ... gonzales' part time retirement, hoad's injury problems (and laver maturing later in 64) , lead to 9 consecutive pro majors for rosewall .....

Ahahah. Nice, I will try this game with everyone.
Rod Laver 1969 Grand Slam was not so good. He just had to beat Roche (never an Open Slam champion), Gimeno (as I've learned from you, he was not so good), Ken Rosewall (1967-69 was his weakest moment), and John Newcombe (would have become an Open Slam champion only a year later, when he was not still able to qualify for the Masters). Do you like this game? I don't.

I'm not even taking away a full opponent, just one opponent at one slam

It's the same, take away Laver from only one Pro Slam and Rosewall would have been the player with most Major wins from 1960 to 1966.

wrong interpretation, the right questions raised are more powerful than equating a tournament with so few players and lesser rounds vs a full field major ....

These few players proved they can destroy every amateur who entered the circuit since 1959, except Rod Laver (who anyway was severely beaten by both Rosewall and Hoad at his Pro debut).

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

And Rosewall hadn't the chance to play a prestigious Major hard court event at all. So what?


I haven't said that, I've said he would have lost on grass, clay, and indoor, and that he would have won on hard courts (which means a lot of matches), and this is only science fiction obviously, we will never know if we are wrong or not.

fair enough

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

He implied a lot of times that he had troubles against Hoad.
In 1958 Hoad was not at his peak yet but he was going to win the tour, he started to lose only when his back pain increased. Just read Pancho's comments after the tour to understand how much he feared Hoad.
Moreover, if Hoad's injuries demonstrate that Rosewall's domination was not so strong, they should demonstrate the same for Gonzales 1958 tour victory, am I wrong?

yeah, only gonzales does lead hoad h2h just like rosewall does ... what was the h2h b/w hoad and rosewall in the 50s or more specifically in 58-59 ...

hoad was not at his peak in 58 ? really now ? and yes, hoad's injury in 58 does cast its shadow over gonzales' win in 58 .... only their matches were competitive and h2h before injuries nowhere close to 4-15 record that rosewall had vs gonzales in 60 ....

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

That's because his game suited well against Rosewall. I doubt that Hoad and Laver would have quoted him, with respectively 5 and 9 great Major finals lost against Rosewall.

he's not talking about how his game matched up in that sentence. He straight off mentions about rosewall's 'weaknesses'

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Ahahah. Nice, I will try this game with everyone.
Rod Laver 1969 Grand Slam was not so good. He just had to beat Roche (never an Open Slam champion), Gimeno (as I've learned from you, he was not so good), Ken Rosewall (1967-69 was his weakest moment), and John Newcombe (would have become an Open Slam champion only a year later, when he was not still able to qualify for the Masters). Do you like this game? I don't.

It's the same, take away Laver from only one Pro Slam and Rosewall would have been the player with most Major wins from 1960 to 1966.

yeah, you only forgot a tiny few details ... firstly that was an open field with lot more players ....*UNLIKE* the pro field which was had lot lesser players, lesser rounds ....

that was roche's peak year and he was playing darn well ... newk was no slouch either ... ashe had won 68 USO

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

These few players proved they can destroy every amateur who entered the circuit since 1959, except Rod Laver (who anyway was severely beaten by both Rosewall and Hoad at his Pro debut).

only emerson, santana the strongest amateurs apart from laver didn't enter ....

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

a big match ... you said hoad wasn't able to win a big match vs rosewall .. nowhere near reality again ...

He lost 5 Major finals over 5 he played against Rosewall. Their overall head-to-head count is around 45-25, even though this is just an estimation, since is very hard to reconstruct it, but it speaks clearly. Let me guess, it doesn't count because Rosewall reached it by taking advantage in Hoad's injuries, am I right? I like your tennis vision.

Emerson was winning amateur majors from 61-67 ... that's not a short period by any definition in tennis ....

I didn't say that he wasn't strong as an amateur, I've just said that amateurs' level was way lower than Pros. He could have grow if he entered the Pro circuit, but since he didn't we are only talking about hypothesis.
What we know, with historical, undisputable certainty, is that every Pro who entered the circuit since 1959 was blown away, except Laver (who trailed Rosewall 12-33 and Hoad 0-8 in his first year) and Gimeno (who never won a Pro Major anyway).

Sampras example is not correct: he won only a Major in 2000, not two, and he reached a final in 2001, not a quarterfinal. Wilander is more suitable I admit, I think he simply lost his motivation. That doesn't change a fact: Wilander has won his 7 Majors by facing every time the strongest guys of the tour, while Emerson never faced a top-4 since 1968.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

hoad was not at his peak in 58 ?

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.

only their matches were competitive and h2h before injuries nowhere close to 4-15 record that rosewall had vs gonzales in 60 ....

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.

he's not talking about how his game matched up in that sentence. He straight off mentions about rosewall's 'weaknesses'

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.

yeah, you only forgot a tiny few details ... firstly that was an open field with lot more players

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

[abmk]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

He lost 5 Major finals over 5 he played against Rosewall. Their overall head-to-head count is around 45-25, even though this is just an estimation, since is very hard to reconstruct it, but it speaks clearly. Let me guess, it doesn't count because Rosewall reached it by taking advantage in Hoad's injuries, am I right? I like your tennis vision.

I didn't say it didn't count ... Only you're trying to make it look like rosewall had all the answers to hoad at his peak and that gonzales struggled like hell vs him at his peak ... that's simply not close to reality ...

both lead the h2h vs hoad overall comfortably .....

only I can't find the exact hoad-rosewall h2h in 58-59

did rosewall's style trouble hoad when hoad was slightly off ? absolutely ... but then even gonzales could and did take advantage when hoad's game was slightly off ... gonzales' "troubles" were with an on-fire Hoad , even rosewall had quite a bit of trouble with on-fire Hoad .... its part of why he puts him #1 on his list ....

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

I didn't say that he wasn't strong as an amateur, I've just said that amateurs' level was way lower than Pros. He could have grow if he entered the Pro circuit, but since he didn't we are only talking about hypothesis.
What we know, with historical, undisputable certainty, is that every Pro who entered the circuit since 1959 was blown away, except Laver (who trailed Rosewall 12-33 and Hoad 0-8 in his first year) and Gimeno (who never won a Pro Major anyway).

overall , the pros were at a clear high level than the amateurs, no doubt, but could the very best of amateurs in emerson, santana etc. beat them at a major once in a while ? absolutely ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Sampras example is not correct: he won only a Major in 2000, not two, and he reached a final in 2001, not a quarterfinal. Wilander is more suitable I admit, I think he simply lost his motivation. That doesn't change a fact: Wilander has won his 7 Majors by facing every time the strongest guys of the tour, while Emerson never faced a top-4 since 1968.

yeah, I'm not saying emerson was better than wilander or anything close to it ... just that even better players than emerson have had a massive drop off in level within a year ....

why isn't the sampras example correct ? since when does it have to be the exact same scenario or majors ? in AO 2000, he only narrowly lost to agassi playing his best and in USO 2000 final, faced safin at his very best and got blown off ..

a slam , a final, a semi , 4 overall titles in 2000 to only one slam final and zero titles overall in 2001 is a massive drop in level

so yeah, no kidding that a somewhat similar thing happened to emerson in 68 ...

[abmk]

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.

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

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

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.

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 ...

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

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.

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

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

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

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

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

I didn't say it didn't count ... Only you're trying to make it look like rosewall had all the answers to hoad at his peak

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.

overall , the pros were at a clear high level than the amateurs, no doubt, but could the very best of amateurs in emerson, santana etc. beat them at a major once every few matches at the very least ? absolutely ...

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.

why isn't the sampras example correct ? since when does it have to be the exact same scenario or majors ? in AO 2000, he only narrowly lost to agassi playing his best and in USO 2000 final, faced safin at his very best and got blown off ..
a slam , a final, a semi , 4 overall titles in 2000 to only one slam final and zero titles overall in 2001 is a massive drop in level

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.

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

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

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 ...

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

wasn't hoad was near the top in 58-59, arguable #1 for those years ?

and lol @ rosewall tied with laver for peak play @ no 1 ... rosewall *himself* acknowledged time and again that laver's peak play was better than his .... many others have said it too ... and rosewall's peak play over gonzales' ? really ?

when gonzales, at the end of his peak period was hammering rosewall at the start of his peak period 15-4 in h2h in 1960 ?

here's a list of players who'd rank over rosewall in terms of peak play ( given the tour conditions in the respective times )

from 50s onwards :

for sure :gonzales , laver, borg, mac, sampras, federer, nadal

debatable : lendl, connors, hoad, djokovic ( hoad, djokovic only because they've had less periods of peak play )

rosewall's serve in itself straight-away puts him out of the top 5 at the very least

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

Rosewall strength: No comment.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by urban

I think, Budge Patty has a very good record against Hoad and Rosewall, positive at least against Hoad, whom he could beat until 1956. He also won the channel slam in 1950. The Drobny-Patty matches are rated by many experts as classics. DRobny himself was no slouch on clay. I think, some here are heavily underrating all things, which are combined with amateur tennis before 1968. Under modern comprehension, those amateurs were de facto pros and they could play really good tennis.

urban, Rosewall was 1:1 against Patty. Muscles young and Patty in his prime.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

so are federer's 2004-07, borg's 79-80 etc ... yet BobbyOne says he has Rosewall at the very top considering only peak level of play ....




if we get into the technology part of it, the debate will go on forever, let's just say rosewall would be in trouble, mighty trouble vs djoker's return ...




eh, no , gonzales had trouble vs peak hoad ... peak hoad also lead rosewall h2h in that time-period IIRC ... rosewall got the better of hoad mainly after injuries troubled him ...

yeah, gonzales was not as complete as rosewall surface-wise, but he was better indoors,grass where majority of the matches where played on those days , rosewall was clearly better on clay




yeah, no, its not the same; no one would've thought peter doohan would stop becker at wimbledon 87, soderling would stop rafa @ RG 2009, rosol would stop him at wimbledon 2012 etc ... that's what happens when you play against full fields over 7 rounds ... upsets do happen ..

would the pros win most of the slams ? yes, but all of them ? hell no ... some amateurs would take them, there'd be some upsets along the way etc etc ...

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...

[BobbyOne]

[quote=abmk;7114599]I see dan's reply and he's already covered this ...



yeah, I'd give edge to rosewall on clay ... but if you think djoker is a mug indoors or grass, you're sadly mistaken ...... on the grass of today, I think djoker wouldn't fare badly vs rosewall at all .... and he's no mug indoors , he's won 6 titles indoors, 2 of them being the Year Ending Championships ...




you should surely be able to get something somewhere on the net for reference ?




yeah, only gonzalez had semi-retired , hoad was affected by injuries ....

just take one player , nadal, out for only one slam, RG, and federer would most probably have 11 majors in a row , RG 2005-USO 2007 !




those ifs are MUCH more powerful than just considering pro majors on par with full ones ....[/QUOTE

abmk, You heavily blamed me for me feeling that Nadal and Djokovic were stronger than Federer but you speculate in many points how weak Rosewall would play against many other greats...

[BobbyOne]

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...

Federic, I appreciate how you give contra to abmk and how you keep Rosewall's flag fluttering Well done! Many feats of Rosewall are still not known, for instance Ken's reaching 36 consecutive SFs at majors...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

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 .......

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

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

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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

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

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

abmk, You heavily blamed me for me feeling that Nadal and Djokovic were stronger than Federer but you speculate in many points how weak Rosewall would play against many other greats...

I was talking mainly about djoker vs rosewall's serve . I stand by it ... he'd have it easy vs rosewall's serve ... he'd easily lead their h2h on HC ... while rosewall is the better player on grass, indoors and clay, djoker's returning vs rosewall's serve would narrow down that gap drastically ...

again, like I've said, is there any indication whatsoever that nadal off clay and maybe djoker off slow HC come are better than fed peak to peak ? nope, not one ..... you put federer out of the top 10 in a list including peak level + longevity !

the players I mentioned are players with very high peak levels on those surfaces enough to tip overall peak play in their favour ..... all well documented & referenced with matches available ( well 70s onwards atleast )

federer off clay , laver off clay , borg on natural surfaces, nadal on clay and on the grass of today , gonzales indoors and grass ...

would you really pick rosewall vs peak mac or sampras on grass or fast HC or indoors ? I wouldn't !

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah and rosewall himself explictly says that laver was better at his peak

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?

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.

Originally Posted by abmk

would you really pick rosewall vs peak mac or sampras on grass or fast HC or indoors ? I wouldn't !

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.

[the hack]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Roger Federer
4. Pete Sampras
5. Rafael Nadal
6. Pancho Gonzales
7. Bill Tilden
8. Bjorn Borg
9. Don Budge
10. Jimmy Connors


1. Martina Navratilova
2. Chris Evert
3. Margaret Court
4. Steffi Graf
5. Serena Williams
6. Suzanne Lenglen
7. Helen Wills Moody
8. Maureen Connolly
9. Billie Jean King
10. Monica Seles


I thought of including Elsworth Vines, Ivan Lendl, Justine Henin, and Venus Williams, but I just couldnt find space for them.

i really like these picks. what a tough but fun list to come up with.