At their best, who would win?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Dan, I cannot agree that the big pro events must be considered second tier compared to the elite four.

Wembley, the WCT finals and so on should be ranked ahead of the amateur GS tournaments at least.

Yes, before open tennis arrived, but the WCT only happened after open tennis.
Sure in the late fifties, the Forest Hills Pro was the preeminent tennis tournament in the game, perhaps of all time.
And Wembley was the premier tournament of 1952 and 1953 (although the Davis Cup was the most followed tennis event between 1946 and 1967).
I think that in 1956, Wembley and Wimbledon were on a par.
But once open tennis arrived, the grand slam had an enhanced and special meaning, even during the boycotted years.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, when discussing with other posters including yourself I assume a certain niveau! Rosewall has 10 big titles??? Learn history!!!

As I said, Newcombe was the player no one wanted to face in the early 70´s.He is in the decade´s top three, along Borg and Connors.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Roche outclassed Newcombe clearly in 1968 and 1969 before he got severe arm troubles. He was acknowledged as Laver's heir. Then Newcombe came at the top but NEVER clearly: In 1970 Rosewall had the better balance. In 1971 Smith was a t least as strong, in 1973 Nastase was at least equal. In 1974, at "world's best", he lost terribly to greatgrandpa Rosewall in the two big tournaments

I don't have ressentiments against Newk as a person.

Roche was a superb player, with vast talent.he was John´s teammate and both knew each other too well.Those things happen in tennis, you should know that.But he was never, even as much talented as he was, at Newcombe´s dominating level.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

As I said, Newcombe was the player no one wanted to face in the early 70´s.He is in the decade´s top three, along Borg and Connors.

kiki, I can agree but this is not an answer to my statement. I'm sorry.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Roche was a superb player, with vast talent.he was John´s teammate and both knew each other too well.Those things happen in tennis, you should know that.But he was never, even as much talented as he was, at Newcombe´s dominating level.

kiki, you forget 1968 and 1969.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, you forget 1968 and 1969.

You mean 1969 Wimbledon?

I posted before: the best rivalry of the late 60´s , even moreso than Laver vs Rosewall would be Newcombe vs Roche.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

You mean 1969 Wimbledon?

I posted before: the best rivalry of the late 60´s , even moreso than Laver vs Rosewall would be Newcombe vs Roche.

From the ITF website



NEWCOMBE, John
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

vs

ROCHE, Tony
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

7 *Record 3
68 (23 May 1944) Age 67 (17 May 1945)
Sydney, NSW, Australia Birth Place Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia
New Braunfels, TX, USA Residence Sydney, Australia
Right Handed Plays Left Handed
Year Tournament Nation Surface Round Winner Score
1969 U.S. Open USA Grass SF ROCHE 6-3 4-6 6-4 3-6 6-8
1969 Wimbledon GBR Grass SF NEWCOMBE 3-6 6-1 14-12 6-4
1969 Rome ITA Clay FR NEWCOMBE 6-3 4-6 6-2 5-7 6-3
1969 Australian Open AUS Grass QF ROCHE 8-10 6-4 8-6 5-7 3-6
1970 GP/WCT Louisville USA Clay SF NEWCOMBE 6-3 8-6
1971 Tehran IRI Clay QF NEWCOMBE 7-6 7-6
1974 Sydney Indoor AUS SF NEWCOMBE 4-6 6-1 6-4
1974 U.S. Open USA Grass 32 NEWCOMBE 4-6 7-6 6-3 7-5
1975 Australian Open AUS Grass SF NEWCOMBE 6-4 4-6 6-4 2-6 11-9
1980 Sydney Indoor AUS Hard 32 ROCHE 4-6 6-7

[pc1]

Delete 11 character.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

From the ITF website



NEWCOMBE, John
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

vs

ROCHE, Tony
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

7 *Record 3
68 (23 May 1944) Age 67 (17 May 1945)
Sydney, NSW, Australia Birth Place Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia
New Braunfels, TX, USA Residence Sydney, Australia
Right Handed Plays Left Handed
Year Tournament Nation Surface Round Winner Score
1969 U.S. Open USA Grass SF ROCHE 6-3 4-6 6-4 3-6 6-8
1969 Wimbledon GBR Grass SF NEWCOMBE 3-6 6-1 14-12 6-4
1969 Rome ITA Clay FR NEWCOMBE 6-3 4-6 6-2 5-7 6-3
1969 Australian Open AUS Grass QF ROCHE 8-10 6-4 8-6 5-7 3-6
1970 GP/WCT Louisville USA Clay SF NEWCOMBE 6-3 8-6
1971 Tehran IRI Clay QF NEWCOMBE 7-6 7-6
1974 Sydney Indoor AUS SF NEWCOMBE 4-6 6-1 6-4
1974 U.S. Open USA Grass 32 NEWCOMBE 4-6 7-6 6-3 7-5
1975 Australian Open AUS Grass SF NEWCOMBE 6-4 4-6 6-4 2-6 11-9
1980 Sydney Indoor AUS Hard 32 ROCHE 4-6 6-7

Thanks.Maybe their best match was the 1975 AO semi?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

You mean 1969 Wimbledon?

I posted before: the best rivalry of the late 60´s , even moreso than Laver vs Rosewall would be Newcombe vs Roche.

kiki, I mean Roche did better than Newcombe in 1968 and 1969 in majors and was ranked ahead of Newk . As an intelligent man you should know this.

Of course Laver/Rosewall was clearly better than Newcombe/ Roche. Don't you know that Laver and Rosewall are arguably the two all-time greatest?

You pick one match and believe you have catched the truth. That's not serious!

Roche beat Newcombe in the 1969 AO and the 1969 US Open. Roche was 5.4 against peak Laver in 1969.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

From the ITF website



NEWCOMBE, John
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

vs

ROCHE, Tony
Australia flagAustralia
Ranking:

7 *Record 3
68 (23 May 1944) Age 67 (17 May 1945)
Sydney, NSW, Australia Birth Place Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia
New Braunfels, TX, USA Residence Sydney, Australia
Right Handed Plays Left Handed
Year Tournament Nation Surface Round Winner Score
1969 U.S. Open USA Grass SF ROCHE 6-3 4-6 6-4 3-6 6-8
1969 Wimbledon GBR Grass SF NEWCOMBE 3-6 6-1 14-12 6-4
1969 Rome ITA Clay FR NEWCOMBE 6-3 4-6 6-2 5-7 6-3
1969 Australian Open AUS Grass QF ROCHE 8-10 6-4 8-6 5-7 3-6
1970 GP/WCT Louisville USA Clay SF NEWCOMBE 6-3 8-6
1971 Tehran IRI Clay QF NEWCOMBE 7-6 7-6
1974 Sydney Indoor AUS SF NEWCOMBE 4-6 6-1 6-4
1974 U.S. Open USA Grass 32 NEWCOMBE 4-6 7-6 6-3 7-5
1975 Australian Open AUS Grass SF NEWCOMBE 6-4 4-6 6-4 2-6 11-9
1980 Sydney Indoor AUS Hard 32 ROCHE 4-6 6-7

Thanks, pc1, It confirms my statement that Roche did better than Newcombe in the end-1960s at majors.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, I mean Roche did better than Newcombe in 1968 and 1969 in majors. As an intelligent man you should know this.

Of course Laver/Rosewall was clearly better than Newcombe/ Roche. Don't you know that Laver and Rosewall are arguably the two all-time greatest?

You pick one match and believe you have catched the truth. That's not serious!

Roche beat Newcombe in the 1969 AO and the 1969 US Open. Roche was 5.4 against peak Laver in 1969.

My darling and your darling among the all time greats?? oh¡ that is not possible.

As PC1 posted, Newcombe dominated Roche in the long term.I know Roche played his best tennis from 1968 to 1970, being considered by many the next Rod Laver and Laver himself clealry feared another left handed that had the game to beat him.Laver was smart, you know.

Having said that, Newcombe was the clear n1 in a general overlook from 1970 to 1974.Not that he was nº 1 every year and of course, that era is one of the toughest ever, so he lost to other great champions on the ocasion. But He looked unbeatable when he wanted to, as Rosewall himself painfully experienced in the 1970 and 1971 Wimbledon as well as the 1973 US Open.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

My darling and your darling among the all time greats?? oh¡ that is not possible.

As PC1 posted, Newcombe dominated Roche in the long term.I know Roche played his best tennis from 1968 to 1970, being considered by many the next Rod Laver and Laver himself clealry feared another left handed that had the game to beat him.Laver was smart, you know.

Having said that, Newcombe was the clear n1 in a general overlook from 1970 to 1974.Not that he was nº 1 every year and of course, that era is one of the toughest ever, so he lost to other great champions on the ocasion. But He looked unbeatable when he wanted to, as Rosewall himself painfully experienced in the 1970 and 1971 Wimbledon as well as the 1973 US Open.

kiki,

First of all you have not apologized for your insult towards Rosewall ("10 majors won").

Have you forgotten that Roche almost did not play from 1971 to 1973 and that he was severely handicapped by his injuries? To omit this fact it's a shame. Shame on you, Mr. Much-watcher!

Newcombe did not want to be unbeatable in the 1970 US Open, in the 1971 WCT finals, in the 1974 Wimbledon and in the 1974 US Open??? Your theory is crap, sorry, is not serious, to say the least. You don't stop to belittle Rosewall. You should honour Muscles for dominating Newcombe even when being a grandpa!

Your recent posts are painful to read for every serious tennis fan. You reach Dan Lobb level effortlessly...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki,

First of all you have not apologized for your insult towards Rosewall ("10 majors won").

Have you forgotten that Roche almost did not play from 1971 to 1973 and that he was severely handicapped by his injuries? To omit this fact it's a shame. Shame on you, Mr. Much-watcher!

Newcombe did not want to be unbeatable in the 1970 US Open, in the 1971 WCT finals, in the 1974 Wimbledon and in the 1974 US Open??? Your theory is crap, sorry, is not serious, to say the least. You don't stop to belittle Rosewall. You should honour Muscles for dominating Newcombe even when being a grandpa!

In 1974 Wimbledon, Newcombe, who was such a nice guy, knew Rosewall was on the edge of his last chance to win Wimbledon.John had won it three times, two of them beating Rosewall ( one of them a landslide) so he decided he´d let his buddy Kenny win it.He owed that to Kenny.

You know, Newcombe was no pockets.He had a golden heart and he showed it in 1974.He was happy enough to squander Borg at the 1974 WCT finals and he´d beat Connors to win his last big title in 1975.How did Rosewall do against Connors?

[kiki]

and know something funny? Your beloved Gimeno always had big trouble against Kodes.Life is fun.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Arthur Ashe for example was named number one in 1975 due to his winning two big titles Wimbledon and the 1975 WCT Championship.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5sBBFQfcNU

Check at about 4:25 in the video above. The commentator called the WCT Championship this years first major.

Also check the 10:20 mark which shows highlights of the great Laver/Borg match in that tournament.

Tennis was so good in the 70´s and 80´s that we were fortunate to have 5 majors and the AO as a great complement

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

In 1974 Wimbledon, Newcombe, who was such a nice guy, knew Rosewall was on the edge of his last chance to win Wimbledon.John had won it three times, two of them beating Rosewall ( one of them a landslide) so he decided he´d let his buddy Kenny win it.He owed that to Kenny.

You know, Newcombe was no pockets.He had a golden heart and he showed it in 1974.He was happy enough to squander Borg at the 1974 WCT finals and he´d beat Connors to win his last big title in 1975.How did Rosewall do against Connors?

kiki, You are wrong: Newcombe wanted to win Wimbledon 1974. After his loss to Rosewall he was rather disappointed and he said: Hopefully Rosewall will win that tournament at last.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Thanks, pc1, It confirms my statement that Roche did better than Newcombe in the end-1960s at majors.

It confirms other things, too.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki,

First of all you have not apologized for your insult towards Rosewall ("10 majors won").

Have you forgotten that Roche almost did not play from 1971 to 1973 and that he was severely handicapped by his injuries? To omit this fact it's a shame. Shame on you, Mr. Much-watcher!

Newcombe did not want to be unbeatable in the 1970 US Open, in the 1971 WCT finals, in the 1974 Wimbledon and in the 1974 US Open??? Your theory is crap, sorry, is not serious, to say the least. You don't stop to belittle Rosewall. You should honour Muscles for dominating Newcombe even when being a grandpa!

Your recent posts are painful to read for every serious tennis fan. You reach Dan Lobb level effortlessly...

I think that YOU have reached Dan Lobb levels here.
I thought that Hoad's injuries were no excuse, but you keep dragging Roche's injuries into the discussion.
Welcome to the club, my friend!

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I think that YOU have reached Dan Lobb levels here.
I thought that Hoad's injuries were no excuse, but you keep dragging Roche's injuries into the discussion.
Welcome to the club, my friend!

Dan, Of course we should consider the injuries and illnesses of a player. Hoad and Roche were probably the two players with the greatest handicap because of their injuries. We only can speculate how far they would have come without them.