Rosewall > Laver

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

The only reason I say anything is because you seem to really have it out for TMF lately. So what if he thinks Federer is the best ever, many people, experts included, do as well.

Well said. Even if I totally disagree with TMF (in my opinion he wastely underrates Rosewall and Tilden, and overrates other players), I have to admit that sometimes BobbyOne seems to disregard other people's opinion. I've had the same problem in the "all times top-10" thread. Nothing personal, maybe these are just misunderstandings, they're habitual on virtual forums, this is just an invitation to calm us down

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

To be fair, his stance has pretty much always been that. Laver and Rosewall close together at the top. There isn't anything wrong with that, but there is no need to stretch the truth on your part.

The only reason I say anything is because you seem to really have it out for TMF lately. So what if he thinks Federer is the best ever, many people, experts included, do as well.

As I wrote in a few posts, it's okay for him to write Federer is the best. That doesn't annoy me. I'm just trying to figure out how he makes his lists. I really don't want him to pick Rosewall if he truly doesn't believe him to be top ten. What I would like to do is explain how by accomplishments that I believe (not just me but others too) that Rosewall is deserving just to use that as an example.

Honestly I would prefer if he leaves Rosewall or others out because I don't want him to give in other people's opinions. I would hope he would pick some of these greats only he thought they deserved it.

I was trying to convince him (and others too) that Tilden is clearly deserving because of his great accomplishments. What else could Tilden do but be virtually unbeatable? To me it's not right that just because he played years ago that people diminish his great accomplishment. But honestly I know he believes the past cannot be close to the present (I disagree) so I have pretty much given up there.

Anyway it would be boring if everyone agreed with everyone else.

I'm half asleep now at a little past 1 am and I have to get up in a few hours.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Only an ignorant would say that Rosewall's edge is only his longevity.

There are several fields where Rosewall is greater than Laver but I'm tired to repeat them again and again. You would never be ready to believe me...

I strongly would suggest you to stay on fields where you are an expert, i.e. at the question who had more successful second services, Federer or Nadal in the 2005 to 2009 period or similar topics. In tennis HISTORY you are not an expert, I'm afraid...

Nor are you, by the sound of it.

[TomT]

Since Rosewall is my favorite player of all time, I figure I should post here.

I have no opinion on who is better, Rosewall vs Laver. (Complicated question involving lots of justifiable criteria.) They each won enough matches against the other that I call it anybody's match on any given day.

For me it's just a very clear, yet subjective, esthetic preference for Rosewall's game (with the exception of his serve ).

It is nonetheless interesting and enjoyable to read the various (objective) arguments for one or the other.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

TMF,

I have noticed, despite the criticisms of BobbyOne that he does change his opinions and seems to listen. For example he ranks Laver as co number one.

When someone said Rosewall was clearly superior to Laver, BobbyOne fought for Laver as Rosewall's equal.

pc1, Thanks for understanding my kind of objectivity.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

To be fair, his stance has pretty much always been that. Laver and Rosewall close together at the top. There isn't anything wrong with that, but there is no need to stretch the truth on your part.

The only reason I say anything is because you seem to really have it out for TMF lately. So what if he thinks Federer is the best ever, many people, experts included, do as well.

NadalDramaQueen, pc1 is right that I originally had Rosewall ahead of Laver. That was also the reason why I got punishment from several posters.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Well said. Even if I totally disagree with TMF (in my opinion he wastely underrates Rosewall and Tilden, and overrates other players), I have to admit that sometimes BobbyOne seems to disregard other people's opinion. I've had the same problem in the "all times top-10" thread. Nothing personal, maybe these are just misunderstandings, they're habitual on virtual forums, this is just an invitation to calm us down

Federic, I of course accept other people's opinions. But I can't stand if a poster has extremely strange opinions such as Emerson ahead of Rosewall.

In the discussion with you I just defended Laver against your low opinion about Rod. Thus you called me a Laver fanatic...

I'm glad about any list where Rosewall and Laver are ranked among the top five. I only regret that this forum is widely a Federer and Laver forum and that Rosewall is underrated be many posters. Is n't this in your sense?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TomT

Since Rosewall is my favorite player of all time, I figure I should post here.

I have no opinion on who is better, Rosewall vs Laver. (Complicated question involving lots of justifiable criteria.) They each won enough matches against the other that I call it anybody's match on any given day.

For me it's just a very clear, yet subjective, esthetic preference for Rosewall's game (with the exception of his serve ).

It is nonetheless interesting and enjoyable to read the various (objective) arguments for one or the other.

TomT, I'm convinced that it was a pity for both Aussies that their careers concured to a great amount. These two maybe all-time greatest have "stolen" majors from each other. Otherwise their tally would have even greater than it is actually.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

In the discussion with you I just defended Laver against your low opinion about Rod. Thus you called me a Laver fanatic...

He is my all times no. 4 and you call it LOW OPINION!
What are we talking about, seriously? How can I consider you not a fanatic if you say that a no. 4 placement in an all times chart is a low opinion?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

He is my all times no. 4 and you call it LOW OPINION!
What are we talking about, seriously? How can I consider you not a fanatic if you say that a no. 4 placement in an all times chart is a low opinion?

Federic, No.4 for Laver is relatively low but still rather good. I referred rather to your statement that Laver's first GS does not count...

[NadalDramaQueen]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

HadalDramaQueen, pc1 is right that I originally had Rosewall ahead of Laver. That was also the reason why I got punishment from several posters.

Was Laver not always your close number two? You don't berate Laver like you do other players, you only speak of how Rosewall is as good if not better (a model you should use when you speak about other players as well).

It is true that some posters consider the ranking of Rosewall above or even on par with Laver as a crime, and you did receive punishment for that (from some posters more than others ). There is no denying that.

[FedericRoma83]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, No.4 for Laver is relatively low but still rather good. I referred rather to your statement that Laver's first GS does not count...

Oh, well I'm sorry but I won't change my opinion. No way that I can give my personal credit to a Grand Slam achieved without Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno, and all the best Pros around.

Moreover, I really can't understand how can a no. 4 placement be "relatively low". I placed my favourite tennis player ever, Ivan Lendl, at no. 6... so just think how I consider the players I ranked above him.

[TMF]

Being ranked #4 greatest of all time isn't to be ashame of, but an honor. Chris Evert is considered by many as the #4, and I don't see fans getting all upset, and Chris have accomplished more than Laver.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalDramaQueen

Was Laver not always your close number two? You don't berate Laver like you do other players, you only speak of how Rosewall is as good if not better (a model you should use when you speak about other players as well).

It is true that some posters consider the ranking of Rosewall above or even on par with Laver as a crime, and you did receive punishment for that (from some posters more than others ). There is no denying that.

NadalDramaQueen, I originally had Laver on second place and now have him on first, tied with Rosewall.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by FedericRoma83

Oh, well I'm sorry but I won't change my opinion. No way that I can give my personal credit to a Grand Slam achieved without Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno, and all the best Pros around.

Moreover, I really can't understand how can a no. 4 placement be "relatively low". I placed my favourite tennis player ever, Ivan Lendl, at no. 6... so just think how I consider the players I ranked above him.

In my opinion both Laver and Rosewall deserve a higher place than No.4.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by TMF

Being ranked #4 greatest of all time isn't to be ashame of, but an honor. Chris Evert is considered by many as the #4, and I don't see fans getting all upset, and Chris have accomplished more than Laver.

TMF, I did not know that Chrissie has realized three or four Grand Slams. Thanks for this information.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

BTURNER, Some posters told me there are no people in this forum who denigrate Rosewall, therefore I hesitate to say that YOU denigrate him ("veteran B.J.King")....

Somehow, BTurner has a point.But I´d rather compare King to Nastase rather than Rosewall.Bturner is a good poster on women´s tennis although she doesn´t have Martina Hingis in great esteem...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, I appreciate the fresh wind coming from Rome now. It's good to have at least a few colleagues who counter the huge amount of Federer and Laver admirers (I stress, I also admire Laver and, to a certain degree, Federer).

You can have the highest regard for both, laver and Rosewall AT THE SAME TIME.At least, I certainly do.As for comparisons, lets´give to them their fierce rivalry and just enjoy both of them.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Federic, I of course accept other people's opinions. But I can't stand if a poster has extremely strange opinions such as Emerson ahead of Rosewall.

In the discussion with you I just defended Laver against your low opinion about Rod. Thus you called me a Laver fanatic...

I'm glad about any list where Rosewall and Laver are ranked among the top five. I only regret that this forum is widely a Federer and Laver forum and that Rosewall is underrated be many posters. Is n't this in your sense?

You are completely right.The forum is for former pro players so we should only discuss Laver and Rosewall ( and others, from Sampras tob Renshaw) and leave the fedfans to go to their church in the 99,9% of the forums that load TT...

[TMF]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

TMF, I did not know that Chrissie has realized three or four Grand Slams. Thanks for this information.

I never said that.