Alan Trengove on Rod Laver. New Article

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Emerson's sentiment is correct. Injuries or not, the result is fair either way.

The result may be fair, but does not tell us much.
Ideally, what we want is to have both players healthy and playing their best. This tells us something about the relative merits of the players.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

The result may be fair, but does not tell us much.
Ideally, what we want is to have both players healthy and playing their best. This tells us something about the relative merits of the players.

Of course. Ideally, we want every player 100% fit, but that's not always possible.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Of course. Ideally, we want every player 100% fit, but that's not always possible.

And the results have to be considered with that in mind.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

And the results have to be considered with that in mind.

No, the results are the results. No excuses. Explanations are okay, but not excuses.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

No, the results are the results. No excuses. Explanations are okay, but not excuses.

Yes, the point is to evaluate the results.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Of course, Emmo was playing with a broken foot after running into a post at Wimbledon, and Laver's toughest match at Wimbledon was against Santana.

Originally Posted by Mustard

It's interesting how Emerson has a 12-3 win-loss record in major finals, and that all 3 of the losses were to Laver in 1962.

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

At Forest Hills, Emmo was returning after a layoff due to a broken foot.

Yes, Emerson was injured at Wimbledon in '62, and if he had remained healthy the likelihood is that he would have lost all 4 majors finals in '62 to Laver. Up to the time of that injury, Laver had taken 11 of their last 13 matches, including a straight-set wins at Queens Club.

After Queens Club both Emerson and McKinley said that Laver was a much better player than he had been in '61.

[Mustard]

Who do you think was the best amateur player of 1961, krosero? Emerson or Laver? I went for Emerson narrowly, because of his 2 majors, but Laver has a strong case too.

[World Beater]

this article is hilarious.

It reeks of bias.

Alan Trengrove might have a very decorated career documenting tennis in various forms...but this if intended to be a serious piece doesnt really add to it.

Only true fanboys of the bygone eras of tennis would think its well written and unbiased.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Who do you think was the best amateur player of 1961, krosero? Emerson or Laver? I went for Emerson narrowly, because of his 2 majors, but Laver has a strong case too.

I really can't say, I've never looked at that year in depth.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Yes, Emerson was injured at Wimbledon in '62, and if he had remained healthy the likelihood is that he would have lost all 4 majors finals in '62 to Laver. Up to the time of that injury, Laver had taken 11 of their last 13 matches, including a straight-set wins at Queens Club.

After Queens Club both Emerson and McKinley said that Laver was a much better player than he had been in '61.

And Emmo was a much better player in 1964 than 1962.
Santana was a better player in 1965 and 1966 than in 1962.
The reality is that the amateurs made more money for themselves and the administrators.

[jeffreyneave]

Hoad played a lot of tennis in 1958 and 1959 because he was part of the world championship series of head to head tours. sedgeman did not play much tennis in '57 and '58 because he was not part of the head to head tours. The structure of the tour chaned in early 1960s. From july 1961 the tour was bsased on tournaments not head to head tours because Trabert was in charge rather than Kramer. Hoad was a full-time tournament player and played all thsat was available to him. He played as much as Rosewall, who was the number one player for most of the period of july 1961 to the end of 1964. Hoad played more tournaments than rosewall in '61 and '62, slightly less in'63 and about the same in '64. Hoad 's least active year in the first half of the 60s was 1960 because there were fewer tournaments to play. His most active was '64 when there lots to play.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

Hoad played a lot of tennis in 1958 and 1959 because he was part of the world championship series of head to head tours. sedgeman did not play much tennis in '57 and '58 because he was not part of the head to head tours. The structure of the tour chaned in early 1960s. From july 1961 the tour was bsased on tournaments not head to head tours because Trabert was in charge rather than Kramer. Hoad was a full-time tournament player and played all thsat was available to him. He played as much as Rosewall, who was the number one player for most of the period of july 1961 to the end of 1964. Hoad played more tournaments than rosewall in '61 and '62, slightly less in'63 and about the same in '64. Hoad 's least active year in the first half of the 60s was 1960 because there were fewer tournaments to play. His most active was '64 when there lots to play.

Actually, there was more tournament play in 1959, when Ampol and Qantas were sponsors of the tour. And a 14-tournament series designed to determine the world #1 (no such series existed in 1960, 1961, 1962), with points awarded according to finishes, and a bonus money pool.
This 1959 series pre-figured the later Grand Prix circuit and Masters series, both also arranged by Kramer.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Actually, there was more tournament play in 1959, when Ampol and Qantas were sponsors of the tour. And a 14-tournament series designed to determine the world #1 (no such series existed in 1960, 1961, 1962), with points awarded according to finishes, and a bonus money pool.
This 1959 series pre-figured the later Grand Prix circuit and Masters series, both also arranged by Kramer.

Dan, 1964 had as many tournaments as 1959 had.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, 1964 has as many tournaments as 1959 had.

Bobby, I was meaning to ask you, how many matches EXCLUDING DOUBLES did Laver play in 1962?
Yes, 1964 was a full year of tournament play, but I am not sure that there was an organized CHAMPIONSHIP based on tournament results. If so, there would be no controversy about who was number one in 1964.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Bobby, I was meaning to ask you, how many matches EXCLUDING DOUBLES did Laver play in 1962?
Yes, 1964 was a full year of tournament play, but I am not sure that there was an organized CHAMPIONSHIP based on tournament results. If so, there would be no controversy about who was number one in 1964.

Dan, Laver won 167 out of 182 matches in singles in 1962.

In 1964 there was an organized championship based on tournament (probably 14 events)results. Buchholz wrote about the series in World tennis. That's also the reason why I still rank the winner of the series, Rosewall first for 1964 tied with Laver who had the huge hth and won two majors.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, Laver won 167 out of 182 matches in singles in 1962.

In 1964 there was an organized championship based on tournament (probably 14 events)results. Buchholz wrote about the series in World tennis. That's also the reason why I still rank the winner of the series, Rosewall first for 1964 tied with Laver who had the huge hth and won two majors.

Sounds good.

[jeffreyneave]

The organised series consisted of 19 tournaments in 1964 more than 1959. Laver ended up playing 28 tournaments more than hoad's sixteen in 1959. I regard laver as clearly no1 in 1964. Overall he won 11 tournaments compared to Rosewall's 10. Laver won 2 major to rosewall's one. In the head to head he crushed rosewall 15-4. Laver's win percentage was 74% compared to Rosewall's 69%. Laver is ahead in all categories a clear winner.

Rosewall's win in the point series is based only on a proprtion of the overall tournaments and play. Furthermore it gave no extra points to pro majors. World rankings are based on total overall play not a proportion of overall play. The organised series should be disregarded as a measure of world rankings.

jeffrey

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

The organised series consisted of 19 tournaments in 1964 more than 1959. Laver ended up playing 28 tournaments more than hoad's sixteen in 1959. I regard laver as clearly no1 in 1964. Overall he won 11 tournaments compared to Rosewall's 10. Laver won 2 major to rosewall's one. In the head to head he crushed rosewall 15-4. Laver's win percentage was 74% compared to Rosewall's 69%. Laver is ahead in all categories a clear winner.

Rosewall's win in the point series is based only on a proprtion of the overall tournaments and play. Furthermore it gave no extra points to pro majors. World rankings are based on total overall play not a proportion of overall play. The organised series should be disregarded as a measure of world rankings.

jeffrey

When you have an "organized" series, the constituent tournaments have extra weight and count towards bonus money (as in 1959, and today).
Clearly, Hoad faced tougher opposition than Laver (in 1964) in 1959, yet still won 70% of his championship tour matches (there were two championship tours), 76 wins and 33 losses. Hoad played almost 400 matches in his first 2 1/2 years as a pro.
There were no extra points awarded for winning the Forest Hills Tournament of Champions, by far the most prestigious event of the year, where he had to beat the number two and three players on the Ampol tour, Gonzales and Rosewall.
And, yes, Hoad's money winnings from July 1957 to January 1, 1960 (the final match of the 1959 tour) exceeded Laver's winnings from 1963 to 1965.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

The organised series consisted of 19 tournaments in 1964 more than 1959. Laver ended up playing 28 tournaments more than hoad's sixteen in 1959. I regard laver as clearly no1 in 1964. Overall he won 11 tournaments compared to Rosewall's 10. Laver won 2 major to rosewall's one. In the head to head he crushed rosewall 15-4. Laver's win percentage was 74% compared to Rosewall's 69%. Laver is ahead in all categories a clear winner.

Rosewall's win in the point series is based only on a proprtion of the overall tournaments and play. Furthermore it gave no extra points to pro majors. World rankings are based on total overall play not a proportion of overall play. The organised series should be disregarded as a measure of world rankings.

jeffrey

jeffrey, I clearly contradict you that Laver is the clear No.1 for 1964. I also doubt that the series included 19 tournaments. You can't consider all tourneys you find in Joe's book. After the series Butch Buchholz clearly wrote in World Tennis that "Rosewall (again) won the tour". All players had known at the year's start that the official tournament tour was the only way to determine the world' best. Nothing else is as clear as this....

I still rank Rosewall and Laver equally for 1964.

Rosewall also won the World's Heavyweight Championship at Johannesburg against Laver.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

I regard laver as clearly no 1 in 1964. Overall he won 11 tournaments compared to Rosewall's 10. Laver won 2 major to rosewall's one. In the head to head he crushed rosewall 15-4. Laver's win percentage was 74% compared to Rosewall's 69%. Laver is ahead in all categories a clear winner.

Rosewall's win in the point series is based only on a proprtion of the overall tournaments and play. Furthermore it gave no extra points to pro majors. World rankings are based on total overall play not a proportion of overall play. The organised series should be disregarded as a measure of world rankings.

jeffrey

Tough to call, but I also have Laver by a nose in 1964.