At their best, who would win?

[zagor]

Originally Posted by qindarka

That's the thing with these historians. They talk of being so experienced, having apparently watched tennis for decades and use this point to lord it over others. Yet all they can do is talk about numbers and selectively follow the opinions of former players, I see little in way of actual analysis from them.

Yes, but there's overall very little footage available from past eras (even in the 90s atleast in my country there was nowhere near as much as coverage as there is today) so sometimes the opinions of said player's peers is all people have to draw from, Kramer and Laver praising say Hoad's level of play does carry some weight and is interesting to hear.

[zagor]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

zagor, I believe that the pride of Federer was a factor in those exhibitions. He surely did not want to lose against an oldie who was away from regular tennis for 5 years. Also Pete's pride should have turned him on to try in those matches.

I disagree (take no offense at it, it's just a difference of an opinion), I do think Fed got a kick out of playing and hanging with his idol and Pete probably found it interesting to see what's all the hype about this guy firsthand, however the results of matches themselves I think were mostly staged (I thought even before they started their series of matches that there's no way Sampras wouldn't win one of them).

Fed's an extremely careful guy about his planing, scheduling etc. he doesn't give his full effort even in warm-up tourneys (and masters sometimes) let alone exos.

I realize exos were very different back in the day (something I learned from this site and had no idea beforehand) but the exos Fed played in his era are mostly hit and giggle stuff where the priority is entertaining the crowd and having a bit of fun, the winner and the loser both receive the same paycheck.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by qindarka

That's the thing with these historians. They talk of being so experienced, having apparently watched tennis for decades and use this point to lord it over others. Yet all they can do is talk about numbers and selectively follow the opinions of former players, I see little in way of actual analysis from them.

Qindarka,

Can you do me a favor and not use the term historian with negative connotations? This is no us against them thing. We all together here to learn about tennis. We all love tennis and we all have observed superb players. I don't see lording over others from anyone I can think of. By definition you're a historian too because you write about past matches. I would love to see your opinions because isn't the Former Pro Player talk area about the past and therefore aren't we all writing about tennis history. I'm just a fan of the game who is trying to help with answers and occasionally giving my opinions.

The question was who at their best would win. I haven't seen Vines at all or Hoad at his best so I ventured to give some possibilities that they are in consideration.

It's hard to answer this question. Edberg's victory over Courier is a good example of being in the zone but could he play like this if Sampras was serving aces or hitting unreturnable serves?

I've seen Laver in the zone where he seems to make hitting the line look easy yet could he play like that against Gonzalez?

With a wood racquet I might pick Laver or Borg who is the best when on overall on all surfaces. Borg's combination of power serve, power groundstrokes are tough to beat. McEnroe is there too but he would be very vulnerable (but good) on clay. With current racquets or somewhat modern racquets, I would pick Sampras on fast surfaces to medium pace court. Kuerten on clay. I am not including the current players. Too many tough choices here. You could also pick Gonzalez, Tilden, Vines or Hoad when they are playing their best also. Rosewall's quality of play was also extremely high also.
Another thought is let's say you have a Roscoe Tanner who can serve bullets. Yet a Jimmy Connors (I'm thinking of the 1975 Wimbledon semifinal) blasted the serves back for winners. They were comparing Connors to Lew Hoad after that match. They were saying Connors was returning the serve faster than Tanner hit them. Was Connors in the zone for that match? Apparently so but I haven't seen the match so I cannot comment.

Here's a little viewpoint on the Tanner-Connors match. They mentioned it was perhaps the hardest hitting ever on that court.
http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene.../big/0705.html

[qindarka]

Originally Posted by pc1

Qindarka,

Can you do me a favor and not use the term historian with negative connotations? We all love tennis and we all have observed superb players. I don't see lording over others from anyone I can think of. By definition you're a historian too because you write about past matches. I would love to see your opinions because isn't the Former Pro Player talk area about the past and therefore aren't we all writing about tennis history. I'm just a fan of the game who is trying to help with answers and occasionally giving my opinions.

I'm sorry for making the generalization. You among others do not deserve to be associated with those whom I am primarily referring to.

Really, with all the nonsense over in GPPD, I've probably been snapping a bit too much.

[abmk]

^^

maybe pseudo-historians would be a better term ?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by zagor

So we can agree Fed started to decline in 2008 then? Good to know, something to make a mental note of.

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Fed declined a bit in 2008.. But 2009 was certainly nothing to scoff at. He only reached the finals of every slam. I dont think a "real" decline began until 2010. While Pete's real decline began in 2000. Around the same age as Roger.

Let's look at Federer's win/loss records.

2003: 75-16
2004: 74-6
2005: 81-4
2006: 92-5
2007: 68-9
2008: 66-15
2009: 61-12
2010: 65-13
2011: 64-12
2012: 71-12

There was already a drop in 2007 from the high standards he had set in 2004-06. And that drop was not due to Nadal, because Federer lost to Rafa only twice in ’07, compared to 4 times in ‘06. For whatever reason – probably simply because no one can keep up a perfect standard for long – Federer’s losses were increasing. It would be too much to use the word ‘decline’ for ’07, but I think you could say he was starting to slip.

’08 was a bad year, with 15 losses, nearly as many as he had in ’03. But the drop to 15 losses was not due to Djokovic (who beat Federer only once in ’08, just as in ’07). Nor was it entirely due to Nadal, who beat Federer 4 times (up from 2 times in ’07). He was also just taking bad losses throughout the year, even to people he had owned (Roddick in Miami, Blake at the Olympics).

In ’09 he came back up to some degree, but by then you could clearly see the decline in his game. Some observed him to be slower than at his peak; and his return game against Roddick in the Wimbledon final was clearly inferior to what it had been at his peak.

H2H against Nadal: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F324&oId=N409

H2H against Djokovic:http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/...=F324&oId=D643

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, The size stuff is one of the worst in discussions.

You have no idea about the past champions, and/or the very best players from the 90s and today. If you already knew, I wouldn't expect any better respond anyway(). There's isn't any great player at Rosewall's height ...winning slams, ranked #1, and domination against the field, in case you didn't know. All the best players are at around 6' - 6'3", and Rosewall is well below this height. If the conditions and racquet technologies suits for a small players, then where are they at? Don't tell that it's just a coincidence that over past 2 decades there wasn't any great/gifted talented player around. It's obvious the sport is tailor best for player's hovering around 6 feet and a little taller. Since you haven't watch any tennis, watch it now. You will see how disadvantage for an undersize player who doesn't power on both wings, lack big serve, etc...

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

You don't need to be a giant to play well, especially on clay...

Who said that you have to be a giant like 7 feet tall to be one of the greatest? I get tired of poster(e.g. PC1) always misrepresented me. I've always said players optimum size is at 6 to 6'3", not more, not less. Grass is worst for an undersize player, while I believe clay is the most forgiven surface. But even all the past FO champion aren't close to Rosewall's size either. The one exception is Chang in 89, but many saw that win was a surprise, because Chang was certainly not the favorite. In fact, Mac didn't respect Chang...at Wimbledon, he said if Chang win Wimbledon, he would take his pant off in front of the center court.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

You have no idea about the past champions, and/or the very best players from the 90s and today. If you already knew, I wouldn't expect any better respond anyway(). There's isn't any great player at Rosewall's height ...winning slams, ranked #1, and domination against the field, in case you didn't know. All the best players are at around 6' - 6'3", and Rosewall is well below this height. If the conditions and racquet technologies suits for a small players, then where are they at? Don't tell that it's just a coincidence that over past 2 decades there wasn't any great/gifted talented player around. It's obvious the sport is tailor best for player's hovering around 6 feet and a little taller. Since you haven't watch any tennis, watch it now. You will see how disadvantage for an undersize player who doesn't power on both wings, lack big serve, etc...



Who said that you have to be a giant like 7 feet tall to be one of the greatest? I get tired of poster(e.g. PC1) always misrepresented me. I've always said players optimum size is at 6 to 6'3", not more, not less. Grass is worst for an undersize player, while I believe clay is the most forgiven surface. But even all the past FO champion aren't close to Rosewall's size either. The one exception is Chang in 89, but many saw that win was a surprise, because Chang was certainly not the favorite. In fact, Mac didn't respect Chang...at Wimbledon, he said if Chang win Wimbledon, he would take his pant off in front of the center court.

TMF, Thanks that you informed me that I have not watched tennis. Since I believed I yet have watched much of past and current tennis, I must have got some hallucinations....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

You have no idea about the past champions, and/or the very best players from the 90s and today. If you already knew, I wouldn't expect any better respond anyway(). There's isn't any great player at Rosewall's height ...winning slams, ranked #1, and domination against the field, in case you didn't know. All the best players are at around 6' - 6'3", and Rosewall is well below this height. If the conditions and racquet technologies suits for a small players, then where are they at? Don't tell that it's just a coincidence that over past 2 decades there wasn't any great/gifted talented player around. It's obvious the sport is tailor best for player's hovering around 6 feet and a little taller. Since you haven't watch any tennis, watch it now. You will see how disadvantage for an undersize player who doesn't power on both wings, lack big serve, etc...

Who said that you have to be a giant like 7 feet tall to be one of the greatest? I get tired of poster(e.g. PC1) always misrepresented me. I've always said players optimum size is at 6 to 6'3", not more, not less. Grass is worst for an undersize player, while I believe clay is the most forgiven surface. But even all the past FO champion aren't close to Rosewall's size either. The one exception is Chang in 89, but many saw that win was a surprise, because Chang was certainly not the favorite. In fact, Mac didn't respect Chang...at Wimbledon, he said if Chang win Wimbledon, he would take his pant off in front of the center court.

Again you're being too rigid. There were very few great players in tennis history before Rosewall's time at that height. You cannot just decide arbitrary that you have to be in a certain height range to do well today. Rios was 5'9" tall and he was ranked number one. Don't say he did not win a major because he certainly could have.

Joe Morgan was 5'7" tall and yet he was the MVP of the National League twice and probably the best player in baseball. Pedro Martinez has been said to be 5'9" tall but he is the most dominant starting pitcher I have seen. Randy Johnson is 6'10" but I'd rather have Pedro for a big game in his prime.

Genius comes in many forms and heights.

I find it interesting that you write that I misrepresent you when you once took a quote of mine totally out of context and put it in another thread to show that I seemed to support your point. I do support you at times when I agree with you.

Here's where I agree with you, a certain height range does help the player. Extra height of course helps the angle on the serve. Now who knows what will happen in the future? Perhaps we may have incredibly agile players who are 7' tall, serve better than anyone and be as smooth as anyone that ever played.

My point is that genius in tennis is not confined by height. I agree that a certain height range helps but it is not the end all.

Let's use Rod Laver as an example. Laver was about 5'9" or 5'8" tall. But he also had a tree trunk left arm and a huge left wrist. He also was an extremely quick and mobile player. He did not serve as well as Pancho Gonzalez but perhaps no one ever has. However he was an excellent server even late in his tennis career. No he did not have the angles that Isner would have or Pancho Gonzalez at almost 6'4" tall would have but he did get excellent racquet speed (helped by that wrist) so he could hit a large variety of excellent serves. He had a great lefty slice, an excellent kick serve and he had a good flat serve. He volleyed very well and his overhead was deadly. He jumped very well on his overheads. He also was superb at taking the ball on the rise, sometimes almost on the half volley. Laver more than compensated for his lesser height with his great talent and top physical ability.

Check these articles and videos out.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...son090168.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f60jJTbEps

How is his serve?
How is Laver's overhead?
How's his volley?
How's his range?

[forzamilan90]

^^you posted the same youtube video twice.

Anyway, here's a cool service comparison video with Pancho and Fed. In case some younger members are unfamiliar serves were done a bit differently back then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oaZ-49eebo

[Flash O'Groove]

Originally Posted by pc1

Again you're being too rigid. There were very few great players in tennis history before Rosewall's time at that height. You cannot just decide arbitrary that you have to be in a certain height range to do well today. Rios was 5'9" tall and he was ranked number one. Don't say he did not win a major because he certainly could have.

Joe Morgan was 5'7" tall and yet he was the MVP of the National League twice and probably the best player in baseball. Pedro Martinez has been said to be 5'9" tall but he is the most dominant starting pitcher I have seen. Randy Johnson is 6'10" but I'd rather have Pedro for a big game in his prime.

Genius comes in many forms and heights.

I find it interesting that you write that I misrepresent you when you once took a quote of mine totally out of context and put it in another thread to show that I seemed to support your point. I do support you at times when I agree with you.

Here's where I agree with you, a certain height range does help the player. Extra height of course helps the angle on the serve. Now who knows what will happen in the future. Perhaps we may have incredibly agile players who are 7' tall, serve better than anyone and be as smooth as anyone that ever played.

My point is that genius in tennis is not confined by height. I agree that a certain height range helps but it is not the end all.

Let's use Rod Laver as an example. Laver was about 5'9" or 5'8" tall. But he also had a tree trunk left arm and a huge left wrist. He also was an extremely quick and mobile player. He did not serve as well as Pancho Gonzalez but perhaps no one ever has. However he was an excellent server even late in his tennis career. No he did not have the angles that Isner would have or Pancho Gonzalez at almost 6'4" tall would have but he did get excellent racquet speed (helped by that wrist) so he could hit a large variety of excellent serves. He had a great lefty slice, an excellent kick serve and he had a good flat serve. He volleyed very well and his overhead was deadly. He jumped very well on his overheads. He also was superb at taking the ball on the rise, sometimes almost on the half volley. Laver more than compensated for his less height with his great talent and top physical ability.

Check these articles and videos out.

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...son090168.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

How is his serve?
How is Laver's overhead?
How's his volley?
How's his range?

I think TMF argument is not at all that Laver or Rosewall were not good players, but rather that they could counterbalance their drawback in height because the playing conditions of their era allowed it. Nobody cares about volleying now. It's all about blasting winners from the baseline. Mechanic power is important, and the length of the arm help. Now, player can generate power differently, such as Davydenko taking the ball as early as possible, but that is much more demanding than simply swinging, and it can't be done with enough regularity. The fact that no "short" player had real success for years is unlikely to have no connection with the playing conditions.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Rosewall was certainly up there with anyone in the return of serve area, even after 40. And Rosewall is always in the running when it comes to all time greatest return of serve.

Right.If I recall well, last time I watched Rosewall, he played against the big serve of Fred Stolle and his ROS were deadly, just an inch above the net and right at the volleyer´s feet.Amazing precision.He did that to Ashe, Newcombe,Smith and the other big servers he faced, including, of course, Pancho Gonzales and Jack Kramer.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Graphiteking

I can clearly see what era you guys are from. You guys are not giving credit where credit is due. @kiki, Serena will bagel those females you listed, except for Martina.

she always had trouble with Martina.

[TMF]

Thank you Flash. When I emphasis on height, it has no bearing on a player's gifted talent or ability. The game has changed and the conditions are suitable for a taller player. This doesn't mean Laver/Rosewall wouldn't make the pro tour today since there's a player like Oliver Rochus who's at 5'6". And since this thread is about at their best who would win, I wouldn't pick Laver/Rosewall because of the height disadvantage. It's not a knock on their skills/talent.

Davy and certainly Nalbandian are more gifted than Isner, but anyone can understand why Isner has a superior serve.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah and common sense dictates that anyone who thinks santana is even remotely near the same stratosphere as federer as far as talent is considered is off his rocker !

you admitted you haven't seen RG 2011 SF, one of the best matches in recent times, where past his prime federer beat peak djokovic , yet you judge that novak at his peak is better than federer at his peak ? LOL !!!

again simple question : how many matches have you seen of federer in 2004-07 ?

how many of them can you describe ?

see here for an example :

borg-mcenroe wimbledon 80 final : mac starts off darn well , but borg seems like he's asleep . mac takes first set easily. then borg somehow manages to hold on in the 2nd set even though he isn't playing that well, mac is playing well , then towards the end , borg somehow out of nowhere breaks mac and takes the set ....... then a competitive 3rd set with mac's level dropping and borg is in control , same for the 4th, where it seems borg is in control and has 2 MPs while serving for it, but out of nowhere mac pulls off two stunning points and saves them. Then a legendary tie-break ensues with both players battling it out at their highest levels. mac takes the breaker 18-16 .....then in the 5th set a battle ensues as expected, but borg serves very well and is clutch, barely losing points on serve ....finally breaks mac and takes the match 8-6 in the 5th ...

after the first set, borg is volleying darn well and even outsmarting mac at the net on a few occasions ...mac's serve is of course destructive and his drop volleys are brilliant ......

or even a less descriptive one like this one :

mac-connors USO 84 SF :

mac and connors both playing well darn well ..... mac is serving and volleying very well, but connors is hitting precise bullet like returns and passes past him time and again....... even with mac serving at 65%, his success % at the net is only close to 50%, that's how well connors was returning and passing. Finally in the end , its connors serve that proves to be the difference ..... mac manages to break him in the final set and take the match ...

ABMK watched 1980 tennis¡¡¡ it can only happen at Christmas.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

World's citizen, Why do you rank Budge ahead of Rosewall? Because of Don's GS? Rosewall has achieved much more than Budge.

I just considered peak play and those 4 players were ( and maybe Sampras, too) nearly unbeatable for peak play.If we consider a whole season or many overall seasons, Rosewall is clearly ahead of Budge.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by qindarka

There is absolutely no comparison between Santana and Federer.

No...specially since Santana won 2 RG as opposed to Federer´s one title there...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

I just considered peak play and those 4 players were ( and maybe Sampras, too) nearly unbeatable for peak play.If we consider a whole season or many overall seasons, Rosewall is clearly ahead of Budge.

kiki, I understand.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

^^you posted the same youtube video twice.

Anyway, here's a cool service comparison video with Pancho and Fed. In case some younger members are unfamiliar serves were done a bit differently back then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oaZ-49eebo

I'll correct it. Thanks for helping.

Nice video. Pancho Gonzalez could very well be the greatest athlete in the history of tennis.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

qindarka, Thanks that you say I write nonsense.

There have been many players who did not win too much but were more talented than several stars like Perry or Emerson. Very talented were, among others, Nüsslein, Kovacs, Segura, Santana, Pietrangeli and Nastase. Where is the problem??

Drobny,Patty,Cochet,Larssen.And, Santana who invented many top spin strokes.