Whats your top 10 of all time right now?

[fed_rulz]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, Rosewall's service cannot have been a weakness considering that this player has won more majors than any other player. You can't do it with a weak service.

wow, what a hypocrite. Federer has won the most majors in the open era, yet according to you, his BH is weak!!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

wow, what a hypocrite. Federer has won the most majors in the open era, yet according to you, his BH is weak!!

Rosewall won more majors than Federer plus he played in a stronger era.

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Rosewall won more majors than Federer plus he played in a stronger era.

Rosewall won less majors than Federer plus he played in a weaker era.

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

wow, what a hypocrite. Federer has won the most majors in the open era, yet according to you, his BH is weak!!

/BobbyOneisatroll

He is the Rosewall edition of ***.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by fed_rulz

wow, i'd loved for Rosewall to've played against Nadal, on clay. why the cop-out, "at least against Nadal"? Is it because it's easy to find evidence of Federer's flubbed BHs against Nadal (and only on clay, of course)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fC3uI-A8fGM

before you protest that these are just highlights, there are plenty of these for a lot of matches that Federer has played. I know I'm wasting my time with you because you come across as one of those who can never be swayed with new evidence; your opinions seem cut in stone despite many pointing out that it's illogical.

I'm ready to learn. But not many posters have blamed my opinions as illogical. Most have agreed with my statements or at least have not contradicted me.. Among those who yet have contradicted me were two very fanatic guys: Federer fanatic, TMF, and Dan Lobb, Hoad fanatic...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Rosewall won less majors than Federer plus he played in a weaker era.



/BobbyOneisatroll

You are third in that proud list!

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You are third in that proud list!

I am ecstatic to be a part of it. I hope this means you will ignore all of my posts instead of just the relevant parts that you disagree with.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I'm ready to learn. But not many posters have blamed my opinions as illogical. Most have agreed with my statements or at least have not contradicted me.. Among those who yet have contradicted me were two very fanatic guys: Federer fanatic, TMF, and Dan Lobb, Hoad fanatic...

Federer's backhand has held up just fine. Nadal is pretty much the only one who was able to exploit it once Federer got his head in the game. It will never compare to his forehand, but that isn't a knock on his backhand.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

I am ecstatic to be a part of it. I hope this means you will ignore all of my posts instead of just the relevant parts that you disagree with.



Federer's backhand has held up just fine. Nadal is pretty much the only one who was able to exploit it once Federer got his head in the game. It will never compare to his forehand, but that isn't a knock on his backhand.

I would like to ignore you.

But note: Most posters here would disagree with you that Federer has won more majors than Rosewall and that he played in a stronger era than Muscles.

I concede that Federer now has three top opponents but he won many of his majors before they came along and reached their prime.


Rosewall played and won against Kramer, Segura, Gonzalez, Trabert, Hoad, Sedgman, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Connors and Vilas. I hope that's enough for you, Federer fanatic!

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I would like to ignore you.

But note: Most posters here would disagree with you that Federer has won more majors than Rosewall and the he played in a stronger era than Muscles.

I concede that Federer now has three top opponents but he won many of his majors before they came along.

Rosewall played and won against Kramer, Segura, Gonzalez, Trabert, Hoad, Sedgman, Laver, Gimeno, Newcombe, Roche, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Connors and Vilas. I hope that's enough for you, Federer fanatic!

I'm extremely hurt that most posters would disagree about era strength. Other experts who aren't members of this forum tend to still rank Federer at #1, so perhaps they know something as well.

Of course, I know anyone who disagrees with you isn't a "true" expert or is instead a fanatic, but this is where we end up when we appeal to authority to try and end debates.

Thanks for the list of names that shows that the era was very competitive. It still says nothing about the actual level in comparison to other eras.

[piece]

Originally Posted by kiki

has anybody done here an exercise of equivalence of nº of majors if a player is considered in any other era, based on weak and strong eras consensus?

Let´s take Jan Kodes.let´s take Novak Djokovic.As it has been clearly and longly stated by seasoned psoters, 1970´s is about 2,5 more difficult to win a major than in th2 2000´s.So , if we transport Kodes to 2010, he´d have the equivalent of 7 majors of the era 20000´s.While, if we tranport Djokovic into , say, 1974, he´d have 2-3 majors equivalent of the 70´s era.

Interesting, very very telling and a good system to weighten titles to make a clarifying analogy...

Just to make sure Kiki isn't referring only to himself (and perhaps bobbyone) here, I'd like to ask pc1, krosero, hoodjem, Borg number 1, urban, steve132, timnz, mustard, NonP and Moose Malloy - all 'seasoned posters' - whether they agree with the bold statement. Anyone I've forgotten to list, feel free to chime in.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

There's a little more to measuring the greatness of a tennis player than merely counting up his major championships, especially players from the pre-open era. If all you're going to do is count major titles, why bother making a list. We can figure it out without you.

BTW, I haven't read where Laver said that. Can you provide a source? But, the way you wrote it, it appears that Laver is saying that Federer would have to win 2 Grand Slams today to equal his one Grand Slam.

Laver said it during 2007 AO.

Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and, if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won because standards are much higher these days.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Roger_Federer

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Rosewall won more majors than Federer plus he played in a stronger era.

The most grand slam winners is Roger Federer and that how the historians have it as the benchmark. Rosewall pro majors are not as impressive because of the split fields, and the draw was only from 8-14 players. Frankly, I believe they are comparable to the modern Master Series.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
= Rafael Nadal 11*
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

[Talker]

Originally Posted by TMF

The most grand slam winners is Roger Federer and that how the historians have it as the benchmark. Rosewall pro majors are not as impressive because of the spit fields, and the draw was only from 8-14 players. Frankly, I believe they are comparable to the modern Master Series.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
= Rafael Nadal 11*
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

When the tennis channel put out their list Fed was #1.

But since then Fed has become #1 in the rankings and has an additional slam.

I had Fed, Sampras, Borg and Laver about equal when Fed was at #13.
When he made #14 and got the french open I put him as #1 all-time.

And of course Fed still has some time to go.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, Rosewall's service cannot have been a weakness considering that this player has won more majors than any other player. You can't do it with a weak service.

You might be right regarding US 1956 and Wimbledon 1970 but we should consider that these two matches were played when Rosewall had a rather bad day.

Some experts have said that Rosewall improved his service after turning pro. And I guess it was again weaker when he became an oldie.

That argument has been posted hundreds of times regarding Federer: that you can't win 16/17 majors if your backhand is weak. I see the point -- as I see your point -- but I've grown tired of such arguments. If I criticize Fed's backhand, I am not claiming that it was too weak to win 16 majors. It obviously wasn't. If I criticize Rosewall's serve, I am not claiming that it was too weak to win 23 majors. It obviously wasn't.

It depends entirely on what you mean when you critique a stroke. I did not call Rosewall's serve a weakness. I said there were many alltime greats with greater serves; and I said it was far weaker than the very best serves. And that is true, and verifiable.

I also said it was not a "bad" stroke, because at that level there are no bad strokes. Rosewall, like Connors, directed his serve well, and it was not an easy thing to break him. But his serve was not a damaging weapon, as so many serves have been among the alltime greats. It's one thing to place your serve well so your opponent cannot easily tee off on your serve; another to lay down aces and service winners with regularity.

Even so Rosewall's serve has been attacked on big occasions. I do not agree that his performances in the '56 and '70 Wimbledon finals can be put down entirely to his having a bad day. Double-faults tend to come when the receiver is attacking the second serve; that is very common, at the top levels as well as among hackers. Rosewall was not the type to double-fault gratuitously in a match in which his serve was not pressured. Rosewall, probably less than almost all the alltime greats, was not an inconsistent fellow who had "bad" days on which he just couldn't get the ball in the court. His consistency was his great strength: which is why I think it's very sound and logical to credit Hoad and Newcombe for pressuring him into making those critical double-faults. It's far more likely that Rosewall was forced into those errors, rather than that he just had a bad day.

Here's what Newk did in that '70 final (Sports Illustrated):

Rosewall won the first set by breaking Newcombe's big serve in the 11th game and then holding his own.

But for the next hour it was all Newcombe. Whenever Rosewall missed with his first serve, Newcombe would take the weak second one on his forehand, perhaps the strongest in tennis, and pin Rosewall back on his heels. Newcombe won the second and third sets 6-3, 6-2 and when he immediately broke Rosewall to start the fourth set, the rout appeared to be on. Rosewall looked exhausted, and he would seize the brief rest periods to sit at the base of the umpire chair, waiting until Newcombe took his position on the court before rising.

Here's an article from 2006 that looked back on his great victory over Hoad at Forest Hills:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/...012743457.html

Rosewall liked playing at Forest Hills because, among other reasons, the grasscourts' low bounce suited his less-than-booming second serve.

Incidentally that goes back to our debate about why Rosewall did better at Forest Hills than at Wimbledon: it was that low bounce at Forest Hills that protected him, to some degree, from getting attacked on the second serve. Laver hated those courts because of the low junk-friendly bounce; at Wimbledon (and Australia) the ball would bounce higher, and Rosewall's second serve would be easier to attack.

Anyway, there's no question that real damage could be done to Rosewall's serve. I don't call it a "weakness" for the reasons I explained above; but it was an attackable serve.

I find that significant because on serve, more than on any other shot, a player should be on offense.

The backhand is a totally different story. The backhand is where almost every opponent will attack you. It's where you should attack your opponent even if his backhand is stronger than his forehand, according to Vines. Budge had possibly the best BH of all time, and yet Kramer in their famous five-set match attacked it. Rosewall's BH was possibly the best of all time, and yet Newcombe served to it more than he did to Rosewall's FH -- as I tabulated recently; and he drew a lot of errors from it. That's just the standard play in tennis: attack the BH.

And that's partly why I question it when I hear that Federer has a weak backhand because it gets attacked. So what? Of course it's going to be attacked. Of course players are going to draw errors from it. It happened also to Budge and Rosewall.

Yet Federer's backhand holds up remarkably well overall -- except against Nadal's topspin. And in that regard we should remember that no one in tennis history has ever faced the RPM produced by Nadal. It did not happen in the wood era. In that era, especially at the grasscourt slams, Federer would have faced much lower bouncing balls; and his backhand is stellar against those kinds of shots.

His BH is the weakest part of his game but I can't agree that it's as weak, for a BH, as Rosewall's serve is for a serve. Federer can rip passes and other winners on that side; he can be offensive with it, and has been. Many greats in the past have been content to do nothing but slice their backhand (one example is Newcombe; I won't include Rosewall because while he sliced all his backhands, his slice was definitely not defensive!) Yet Federer can be do damage with his.

On the serve it's totally different. On the serve you SHOULD be doing damage routinely; you should be on the offensive. Rolling it in with accuracy is safe and fine -- that does not make your serve a weakness as such -- but there's far more that you can do with a serve, to damage your opponent. That's why I have never liked Rosewall's serve. His groundstrokes are far more imposing than his serve (I guess because he was a natural left-hander taught to play with his right).

[krosero]

Incidentally I would add Vilas and Segura to the list I posted of greats who had non-notable serves (those were HL Doherty, Bill Johnston, Cochet, Lacoste, Nusslein, Emerson, Connors).

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

has anybody done here an exercise of equivalence of nº of majors if a player is considered in any other era, based on weak and strong eras consensus?

Let´s take Jan Kodes.let´s take Novak Djokovic.As it has been clearly and longly stated by seasoned psoters, 1970´s is about 2,5 more difficult to win a major than in th2 2000´s.So , if we transport Kodes to 2010, he´d have the equivalent of 7 majors of the era 20000´s.While, if we tranport Djokovic into , say, 1974, he´d have 2-3 majors equivalent of the 70´s era.

Interesting, very very telling and a good system to weighten titles to make a clarifying analogy...

The 1973 Wimbledon was, to use your own logic, 2.5 times easier to win than a fully attended major like the 1974 Wimbledon.

This is what I don't get, Kiki -- and it's surely that reason that so many accuse you of hypocrisy. You insist that one era can be many times weaker than another. Yet not once have you ever dealt with the possibility that a single major WITHIN an era might be weaker than other majors.

Why only the inter-era comparisons? Why don't you ever speak of how majors might differ within a single era?

You absolutely have to do that for the early Open Era (which you love so much): because attendance at majors fluctuated greatly (unlike today).

To be clear: if someone doesn't want to get into the question of how strong the field was at such-and-such tournament, fine. If you don't want to discuss how the field might have been weak at the 1973 Wimbledon, or how the field in today's era might be weaker or stronger than that from another era -- fine. At least that's consistent.

But if you're going to go on endlessly about how the field in one era is weaker than in another -- then you HAVE to acknowledge the weaknesses of particular events within a single era. That's just basic consistency and honesty.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

The most grand slam winners is Roger Federer and that how the historians have it as the benchmark. Rosewall pro majors are not as impressive because of the split fields, and the draw was only from 8-14 players. Frankly, I believe they are comparable to the modern Master Series.

Most GS titles
1. Roger Federer 17*
2. Pete Sampras 14
3. Björn Borg 11
= Rafael Nadal 11*
5. Jimmy Connors 8
= Ivan Lendl 8
= Andre Agassi 8
8. John McEnroe 7
= Mats Wilander 7
10. Stefan Edberg 6
= Boris Becker 6

It's interesting that you omit Laver and Rosewall in your list...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

That argument has been posted hundreds of times regarding Federer: that you can't win 16/17 majors if your backhand is weak. I see the point -- as I see your point -- but I've grown tired of such arguments. If I criticize Fed's backhand, I am not claiming that it was too weak to win 16 majors. It obviously wasn't. If I criticize Rosewall's serve, I am not claiming that it was too weak to win 23 majors. It obviously wasn't.

It depends entirely on what you mean when you critique a stroke. I did not call Rosewall's serve a weakness. I said there were many alltime greats with greater serves; and I said it was far weaker than the very best serves. And that is true, and verifiable.

I also said it was not a "bad" stroke, because at that level there are no bad strokes. Rosewall, like Connors, directed his serve well, and it was not an easy thing to break him. But his serve was not a damaging weapon, as so many serves have been among the alltime greats. It's one thing to place your serve well so your opponent cannot easily tee off on your serve; another to lay down aces and service winners with regularity.

Even so Rosewall's serve has been attacked on big occasions. I do not agree that his performances in the '56 and '70 Wimbledon finals can be put down entirely to his having a bad day. Double-faults tend to come when the receiver is attacking the second serve; that is very common, at the top levels as well as among hackers. Rosewall was not the type to double-fault gratuitously in a match in which his serve was not pressured. Rosewall, probably less than almost all the alltime greats, was not an inconsistent fellow who had "bad" days on which he just couldn't get the ball in the court. His consistency was his great strength: which is why I think it's very sound and logical to credit Hoad and Newcombe for pressuring him into making those critical double-faults. It's far more likely that Rosewall was forced into those errors, rather than that he just had a bad day.

Here's what Newk did in that '70 final (Sports Illustrated):

Rosewall won the first set by breaking Newcombe's big serve in the 11th game and then holding his own.

But for the next hour it was all Newcombe. Whenever Rosewall missed with his first serve, Newcombe would take the weak second one on his forehand, perhaps the strongest in tennis, and pin Rosewall back on his heels. Newcombe won the second and third sets 6-3, 6-2 and when he immediately broke Rosewall to start the fourth set, the rout appeared to be on. Rosewall looked exhausted, and he would seize the brief rest periods to sit at the base of the umpire chair, waiting until Newcombe took his position on the court before rising.

Here's an article from 2006 that looked back on his great victory over Hoad at Forest Hills:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/...012743457.html

Rosewall liked playing at Forest Hills because, among other reasons, the grasscourts' low bounce suited his less-than-booming second serve.

Incidentally that goes back to our debate about why Rosewall did better at Forest Hills than at Wimbledon: it was that low bounce at Forest Hills that protected him, to some degree, from getting attacked on the second serve. Laver hated those courts because of the low junk-friendly bounce; at Wimbledon (and Australia) the ball would bounce higher, and Rosewall's second serve would be easier to attack.

Anyway, there's no question that real damage could be done to Rosewall's serve. I don't call it a "weakness" for the reasons I explained above; but it was an attackable serve.

I find that significant because on serve, more than on any other shot, a player should be on offense.

The backhand is a totally different story. The backhand is where almost every opponent will attack you. It's where you should attack your opponent even if his backhand is stronger than his forehand, according to Vines. Budge had possibly the best BH of all time, and yet Kramer in their famous five-set match attacked it. Rosewall's BH was possibly the best of all time, and yet Newcombe served to it more than he did to Rosewall's FH -- as I tabulated recently; and he drew a lot of errors from it. That's just the standard play in tennis: attack the BH.

And that's partly why I question it when I hear that Federer has a weak backhand because it gets attacked. So what? Of course it's going to be attacked. Of course players are going to draw errors from it. It happened also to Budge and Rosewall.

Yet Federer's backhand holds up remarkably well overall -- except against Nadal's topspin. And in that regard we should remember that no one in tennis history has ever faced the RPM produced by Nadal. It did not happen in the wood era. In that era, especially at the grasscourt slams, Federer would have faced much lower bouncing balls; and his backhand is stellar against those kinds of shots.

His BH is the weakest part of his game but I can't agree that it's as weak, for a BH, as Rosewall's serve is for a serve. Federer can rip passes and other winners on that side; he can be offensive with it, and has been. Many greats in the past have been content to do nothing but slice their backhand (one example is Newcombe; I won't include Rosewall because while he sliced all his backhands, his slice was definitely not defensive!) Yet Federer can be do damage with his.

On the serve it's totally different. On the serve you SHOULD be doing damage routinely; you should be on the offensive. Rolling it in with accuracy is safe and fine -- that does not make your serve a weakness as such -- but there's far more that you can do with a serve, to damage your opponent. That's why I have never liked Rosewall's serve. His groundstrokes are far more imposing than his serve (I guess because he was a natural left-hander taught to play with his right).

krosero, many thanks that you argue in a serious way against my opinions and NOT blame me for them as a few others use to do.

Your arguments are really well-thought and I agree to a great part. But let me nevertheless contradict a few times.

I believe that every player has good and bad days, even the so consistent Rosewall. For instance at the 1968 Wembley (May) Muscles catched a very poor day (Plus Laver got a famous day as well). Ken himself admitted that on that day "nothing worked".

And Rosewall wrote that he saw the ball better in the 1970 US Open than in the 1970 Wimbledon which means that he did play weaker at W. He just was too exhaused after tough singles and doubles matches.

In the 1962 French tour Rosewall lost a match to Robert Haillet in straight sets. It happened not because Haillet suddenly played like a champion but because Rosewall had a bad day.

[Iron Man]

Originally Posted by krosero

That argument has been posted hundreds of times regarding Federer: that you can't win 16/17 majors if your backhand is weak. I see the point -- as I see your point -- but I've grown tired of such arguments. If I criticize Fed's backhand, I am not claiming that it was too weak to win 16 majors. It obviously wasn't. If I criticize Rosewall's serve, I am not claiming that it was too weak to win 23 majors. It obviously wasn't.

It depends entirely on what you mean when you critique a stroke. I did not call Rosewall's serve a weakness. I said there were many alltime greats with greater serves; and I said it was far weaker than the very best serves. And that is true, and verifiable.

I also said it was not a "bad" stroke, because at that level there are no bad strokes. Rosewall, like Connors, directed his serve well, and it was not an easy thing to break him. But his serve was not a damaging weapon, as so many serves have been among the alltime greats. It's one thing to place your serve well so your opponent cannot easily tee off on your serve; another to lay down aces and service winners with regularity.

Even so Rosewall's serve has been attacked on big occasions. I do not agree that his performances in the '56 and '70 Wimbledon finals can be put down entirely to his having a bad day. Double-faults tend to come when the receiver is attacking the second serve; that is very common, at the top levels as well as among hackers. Rosewall was not the type to double-fault gratuitously in a match in which his serve was not pressured. Rosewall, probably less than almost all the alltime greats, was not an inconsistent fellow who had "bad" days on which he just couldn't get the ball in the court. His consistency was his great strength: which is why I think it's very sound and logical to credit Hoad and Newcombe for pressuring him into making those critical double-faults. It's far more likely that Rosewall was forced into those errors, rather than that he just had a bad day.

Here's what Newk did in that '70 final (Sports Illustrated):

Rosewall won the first set by breaking Newcombe's big serve in the 11th game and then holding his own.

But for the next hour it was all Newcombe. Whenever Rosewall missed with his first serve, Newcombe would take the weak second one on his forehand, perhaps the strongest in tennis, and pin Rosewall back on his heels. Newcombe won the second and third sets 6-3, 6-2 and when he immediately broke Rosewall to start the fourth set, the rout appeared to be on. Rosewall looked exhausted, and he would seize the brief rest periods to sit at the base of the umpire chair, waiting until Newcombe took his position on the court before rising.

Here's an article from 2006 that looked back on his great victory over Hoad at Forest Hills:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/...012743457.html

Rosewall liked playing at Forest Hills because, among other reasons, the grasscourts' low bounce suited his less-than-booming second serve.

Incidentally that goes back to our debate about why Rosewall did better at Forest Hills than at Wimbledon: it was that low bounce at Forest Hills that protected him, to some degree, from getting attacked on the second serve. Laver hated those courts because of the low junk-friendly bounce; at Wimbledon (and Australia) the ball would bounce higher, and Rosewall's second serve would be easier to attack.

Anyway, there's no question that real damage could be done to Rosewall's serve. I don't call it a "weakness" for the reasons I explained above; but it was an attackable serve.

I find that significant because on serve, more than on any other shot, a player should be on offense.

The backhand is a totally different story. The backhand is where almost every opponent will attack you. It's where you should attack your opponent even if his backhand is stronger than his forehand, according to Vines. Budge had possibly the best BH of all time, and yet Kramer in their famous five-set match attacked it. Rosewall's BH was possibly the best of all time, and yet Newcombe served to it more than he did to Rosewall's FH -- as I tabulated recently; and he drew a lot of errors from it. That's just the standard play in tennis: attack the BH.

And that's partly why I question it when I hear that Federer has a weak backhand because it gets attacked. So what? Of course it's going to be attacked. Of course players are going to draw errors from it. It happened also to Budge and Rosewall.

Yet Federer's backhand holds up remarkably well overall -- except against Nadal's topspin. And in that regard we should remember that no one in tennis history has ever faced the RPM produced by Nadal. It did not happen in the wood era. In that era, especially at the grasscourt slams, Federer would have faced much lower bouncing balls; and his backhand is stellar against those kinds of shots.

His BH is the weakest part of his game but I can't agree that it's as weak, for a BH, as Rosewall's serve is for a serve. Federer can rip passes and other winners on that side; he can be offensive with it, and has been. Many greats in the past have been content to do nothing but slice their backhand (one example is Newcombe; I won't include Rosewall because while he sliced all his backhands, his slice was definitely not defensive!) Yet Federer can be do damage with his.

On the serve it's totally different. On the serve you SHOULD be doing damage routinely; you should be on the offensive. Rolling it in with accuracy is safe and fine -- that does not make your serve a weakness as such -- but there's far more that you can do with a serve, to damage your opponent. That's why I have never liked Rosewall's serve. His groundstrokes are far more imposing than his serve (I guess because he was a natural left-hander taught to play with his right).

excellent analysis Mr Krosero

you're one of the best and most objective posters here

regards

[Talker]

Originally Posted by krosero

That argument has been posted hundreds of times regarding Federer: that you can't win 16/17 majors if your backhand is weak. I see the point -- as I see your point -- but I've grown tired of such arguments. If I criticize Fed's backhand, I am not claiming that it was too weak to win 16 majors. It obviously wasn't. If I criticize Rosewall's serve, I am not claiming that it was too weak to win 23 majors. It obviously wasn't.

It depends entirely on what you mean when you critique a stroke. I did not call Rosewall's serve a weakness. I said there were many alltime greats with greater serves; and I said it was far weaker than the very best serves. And that is true, and verifiable.

I also said it was not a "bad" stroke, because at that level there are no bad strokes. Rosewall, like Connors, directed his serve well, and it was not an easy thing to break him. But his serve was not a damaging weapon, as so many serves have been among the alltime greats. It's one thing to place your serve well so your opponent cannot easily tee off on your serve; another to lay down aces and service winners with regularity.

Even so Rosewall's serve has been attacked on big occasions. I do not agree that his performances in the '56 and '70 Wimbledon finals can be put down entirely to his having a bad day. Double-faults tend to come when the receiver is attacking the second serve; that is very common, at the top levels as well as among hackers. Rosewall was not the type to double-fault gratuitously in a match in which his serve was not pressured. Rosewall, probably less than almost all the alltime greats, was not an inconsistent fellow who had "bad" days on which he just couldn't get the ball in the court. His consistency was his great strength: which is why I think it's very sound and logical to credit Hoad and Newcombe for pressuring him into making those critical double-faults. It's far more likely that Rosewall was forced into those errors, rather than that he just had a bad day.

Here's what Newk did in that '70 final (Sports Illustrated):

Rosewall won the first set by breaking Newcombe's big serve in the 11th game and then holding his own.

But for the next hour it was all Newcombe. Whenever Rosewall missed with his first serve, Newcombe would take the weak second one on his forehand, perhaps the strongest in tennis, and pin Rosewall back on his heels. Newcombe won the second and third sets 6-3, 6-2 and when he immediately broke Rosewall to start the fourth set, the rout appeared to be on. Rosewall looked exhausted, and he would seize the brief rest periods to sit at the base of the umpire chair, waiting until Newcombe took his position on the court before rising.

Here's an article from 2006 that looked back on his great victory over Hoad at Forest Hills:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/sport/...012743457.html

Rosewall liked playing at Forest Hills because, among other reasons, the grasscourts' low bounce suited his less-than-booming second serve.

Incidentally that goes back to our debate about why Rosewall did better at Forest Hills than at Wimbledon: it was that low bounce at Forest Hills that protected him, to some degree, from getting attacked on the second serve. Laver hated those courts because of the low junk-friendly bounce; at Wimbledon (and Australia) the ball would bounce higher, and Rosewall's second serve would be easier to attack.

Anyway, there's no question that real damage could be done to Rosewall's serve. I don't call it a "weakness" for the reasons I explained above; but it was an attackable serve.

I find that significant because on serve, more than on any other shot, a player should be on offense.

The backhand is a totally different story. The backhand is where almost every opponent will attack you. It's where you should attack your opponent even if his backhand is stronger than his forehand, according to Vines. Budge had possibly the best BH of all time, and yet Kramer in their famous five-set match attacked it. Rosewall's BH was possibly the best of all time, and yet Newcombe served to it more than he did to Rosewall's FH -- as I tabulated recently; and he drew a lot of errors from it. That's just the standard play in tennis: attack the BH.

And that's partly why I question it when I hear that Federer has a weak backhand because it gets attacked. So what? Of course it's going to be attacked. Of course players are going to draw errors from it. It happened also to Budge and Rosewall.

Yet Federer's backhand holds up remarkably well overall -- except against Nadal's topspin. And in that regard we should remember that no one in tennis history has ever faced the RPM produced by Nadal. It did not happen in the wood era. In that era, especially at the grasscourt slams, Federer would have faced much lower bouncing balls; and his backhand is stellar against those kinds of shots.

His BH is the weakest part of his game but I can't agree that it's as weak, for a BH, as Rosewall's serve is for a serve. Federer can rip passes and other winners on that side; he can be offensive with it, and has been. Many greats in the past have been content to do nothing but slice their backhand (one example is Newcombe; I won't include Rosewall because while he sliced all his backhands, his slice was definitely not defensive!) Yet Federer can be do damage with his.

On the serve it's totally different. On the serve you SHOULD be doing damage routinely; you should be on the offensive. Rolling it in with accuracy is safe and fine -- that does not make your serve a weakness as such -- but there's far more that you can do with a serve, to damage your opponent. That's why I have never liked Rosewall's serve. His groundstrokes are far more imposing than his serve (I guess because he was a natural left-hander taught to play with his right).

Very nice objective analysis and refreshing to see this kind of post.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

It's interesting that you omit Laver and Rosewall in your list...

Because Laver's 6 of his 11 slams are from the amateur. Rosewall have 4 of 8 from the amateur.