Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

Dolgopolov85 · May 27, 2017

There's a big omission in Carlo's post and that is the no. of weeks/years Fed's spent at no.1 vis a vis Nadal. In short, we could say that Fed is the more consistent and dominant player across all surfaces and through the length of his career. Peak for peak, Nadal has had his measure on clay for sure and arguably on grass and HC as well. However, since Nadal fans feel obliged to add the disclaimer that Nadal in 2017 is not playing at the same level as he used to (and neither is Fed for that matter but we'll leave that be for the time being), it has to be pointed out that Fed fans could validly make the same argument about Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009. Yes, Fed was much closer to his peak then than Nadal in 2017 but it wasn't a peak for peak match up. Wimbledon 2007 is where they squared off peak for peak and Fed edged a close five setter. Had there been less of an age gap between the two, we could have had more matches with both in their peak to see who bests who peak for peak on grass and HC. But of this I am sure, even peak Fed would not be able to beat peak Nadal on those surfaces as convincingly as peak Nadal beat peak Fed on clay. Nadal's domination on clay is more absolute (by far) than Fed's on his favourite surfaces. It's just that by the time he got good enough to get to Fed on grass and HC, Fed had started to slide from his peak save the W 2007 match. Unlike Borg, though, Fed didn't run away from Nadal and even beat Djokovic at RG in arguably his career best year to get to Nadal for a familiar result. And it has eventually paid off as he has demonstrated astonishing longevity in staying with Nadal and even beating him at this late stage of his career which was an unexpected result for most of us.

zagor · May 28, 2017

Dolgopolov85 said:
There's a big omission in Carlo's post and that is the no. of weeks/years Fed's spent at no.1 vis a vis Nadal. In short, we could say that Fed is the more consistent and dominant player across all surfaces and through the length of his career. Peak for peak, Nadal has had his measure on clay for sure and arguably on grass and HC as well. However, since Nadal fans feel obliged to add the disclaimer that Nadal in 2017 is not playing at the same level as he used to (and neither is Fed for that matter but we'll leave that be for the time being), it has to be pointed out that Fed fans could validly make the same argument about Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009. Yes, Fed was much closer to his peak then than Nadal in 2017 but it wasn't a peak for peak match up. Wimbledon 2007 is where they squared off peak for peak and Fed edged a close five setter. Had there been less of an age gap between the two, we could have had more matches with both in their peak to see who bests who peak for peak on grass and HC. But of this I am sure, even peak Fed would not be able to beat peak Nadal on those surfaces as convincingly as peak Nadal beat peak Fed on clay. Nadal's domination on clay is more absolute (by far) than Fed's on his favourite surfaces. It's just that by the time he got good enough to get to Fed on grass and HC, Fed had started to slide from his peak save the W 2007 match. Unlike Borg, though, Fed didn't run away from Nadal and even beat Djokovic at RG in arguably his career best year to get to Nadal for a familiar result. And it has eventually paid off as he has demonstrated astonishing longevity in staying with Nadal and even beating him at this late stage of his career which was an unexpected result for most of us.

Yeah, Fed was already starting to show cracks against the field in 2008 and 2009 that can't possibly be attributed solely to Nadal.

In 2008 he was on the brink of losing to Tipsarevic and Andreev in early rounds of a HC slam (something unthinkable for Fed in 2004-2007 when early rounds were glorified practice sessions), Blake, Fish and Karlovic all registered their first wins over Fed (not to mention that Roddick also got him for the first time in 5 years), suffered back injuries at the end of the year etc. He did find some great form in the grass season but no one would be calling 2008 one of Fed's peak years even if you take Nadal out of the field. Sure he also had those losses to Canas in 2007 but that's against a player who matches-up far better against him than than guys like Blake, Fish or Roddick.

2009 was a bit better but even then he had to come back from 2-0 down against Berdych at AO 4th round (which people seem to have largely forgotten), had bad serving performance in two slam finals in the same year (AO and USO) when his serve is normally rock solid in them(even against Nadal), was utterly hopeless against Roddick's serve in a slam match for the first time(even if the latter was serving amazingly well), first time loss to Davydenko at YEC etc.

There's this tendency to act like Fed never ages and thus doesn't have the same luxury other ATGs have in terms of explaining/excusing their losses away (just think about Nadal and Sampras for example, you could write a book about it). Some of it is possibly due to his consistency of going deep in tourneys on all surfaces even in less than stellar form (whereas someone like Nadal will get bounced early by Tom, Dick and Harry on HC/grass when he's not at his best and never reach his rivals) or this mischaracterization of his game as being "effortless" like he's some touch and finesse player like Santoro. The reality is that he achieved the vast majority of his success as a topspin baseliner with great FH and movement whose results visibly suffered once he lost a step, that he managed to adapt to a certain degree to mask the decline in his physicality doesn't make him the player he was in his prime.

Dolgopolov85 · May 28, 2017

zagor said:
Yeah, Fed was already starting to show cracks against the field in 2008 and 2009 that can't possibly be attributed solely to Nadal.

In 2008 he was on the brink of losing to Tipsarevic and Andreev in early rounds of a HC slam (something unthinkable for Fed in 2004-2007 when early rounds were glorified practice sessions), Blake, Fish and Karlovic all registered their first wins over Fed (not to mention that Roddick also got him for the first time in 5 years), suffered back injuries at the end of the year etc. He did find some great form in the grass season but no one would be calling 2008 one of Fed's peak years even if you take Nadal out of the field. Sure he also had those losses to Canas in 2007 but that's against a player who matches-up far better against him than than guys like Blake, Fish or Roddick.

2009 was a bit better but even then he had to come back from 2-0 down against Berdych at AO 4th round (which people seem to have largely forgotten), had bad serving performance in two slam finals in the same year (AO and USO) when his serve is normally rock solid in them(even against Nadal), was utterly hopeless against Roddick's serve in a slam match for the first time(even if the latter was serving amazingly well), first time loss to Davydenko at YEC etc.

There's this tendency to act like Fed never ages and thus doesn't have the same luxury other ATGs have in terms of explaining/excusing their losses away (just think about Nadal and Sampras for example, you could write a book about it). Some of it is possibly due to his consistency of going deep in tourneys on all surfaces even in less than stellar form (whereas someone like Nadal will get bounced early by Tom, Dick and Harry on HC/grass when he's not at his best and never reach his rivals) or this mischaracterization of his game as being "effortless" like he's some touch and finesse player like Santoro. The reality is that he achieved the vast majority of his success as a topspin baseliner with great FH and movement whose results visibly suffered once he lost a step, that he managed to adapt to a certain degree to mask the decline in his physicality doesn't make him the player he was in his prime.

Yeah, I honestly wasn't so surprised when he lost to Djokovic in 2008 AO because, yes, he had already struggled against Tipsarevic. And I remember Roddick saying after the 2009 AO match that this time he was close and felt a little hard done (would be even more so at Wimbledon the same year). Fed has so many options and adapted so well in the last few years that it has sort of become a stick to beat him up with; so if he doesn't beat Djokovic at the slams in 2015, it's his fault rather than impressive resistance shown by a great player past his best. I have no problem with that as long as the aging great rationale isn't then trotted out in Nadal's defence. It should apply to all of them and not just to Fed.

NatF · May 28, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Carlo, I mostly agree. But I think it's debatable if Nadal's best was greater than Federer's on grass. Nadal reached seldom his potential at Wimbledon though.

I think that the pros regarded their pro majors very highly, at least in the 1960s.

With respect Carlo's comments about Federer and Nadal are garbage Bobby

Up there with claiming Rosewall would have never won Wimbledon and was only #2 in 1964

See my response and the posts after yours...

BobbyOne · May 28, 2017

NatF said:
With respect Carlo's comments about Federer and Nadal are garbage Bobby Up there with claiming Rosewall would have never won Wimbledon and was only #2 in 1964

See my response and the posts after yours...

NatF, There is no fair comparison between those who "know" that Rosewall would not have won a Wimbledon and who ignore krosero's tough argumentation and findings about 1964 on one side and Carlo's post about Federer and Nadal on the other side because Carlo, as we all can see uses to research meticulously and to argue with an objective approach. I respect his posts very much even though I disagree with him here and there.

I would say that Nadal's best on grass was about equal with Federer's best on grass. I'm not so sure about hardcourts.

NatF · May 28, 2017

BobbyOne said:
NatF, There is no fair comparison between those who "know" that Rosewall would not have won a Wimbledon and who ignore krosero's tough argumentation and findings about 1964 on one side and Carlo's post about Federer and Nadal on the other side because Carlo, as we all can see uses to research meticulously and to argue with an objective approach. I respect his posts very much even though I disagree with him here and there.

I would say that Nadal's best on grass was about equal with Federer's best on grass. I'm not so sure about hardcourts.

Carlo's post was hardly meticulously researched though - though his earlier efforts were superb IMO. It's a shame that you generally pay more heed to posters who argue against Roger as opposed to in his favour. I've often been your opponent but you've taught me much about Rosewall etc...I would say that Federer's best on grass across era's and against the field would be comfortably above Nadal's. Likewise on HC.

As I said to Carlo Nadal has a losing record against top 10 players on HC. Federer has infact won more matches against top 10 players on HC than Nadal has played. Look at their record against the very best players and their titles won.

Nadal is 24-36 against top 5 opponents on HC (40%), where as Federer is 70-40 (64%). He has 16 titles on HC compared to 63 for Federer. Federer has 10 majors to Nadal's 3. If this were Rosewall and some other player we were comparing and the gap between their records was this gigantic you'd be incensed I'm sure. Especially when this has been in the same era.

If you want to bring this back to peak play. Then Nadal has never bagelled a top 5 player on HC, he's given one bagel to a top 10 player. Federer on the other hand has bagelled top 5 players 6 times on HC (and this includes Djokovic in 2012) and top 10 players 16 times.

Nadal's best on HC is obviously very very good. But I've rarely seen him completely take the racquet out of a top 10 players hands the way Federer has. I've rarely seen him absolutely destroy in-form former #1's and slam winners like Federer has.

In any case the margins between these ATG's are often small. A couple of percent here and there are often what separate these players at their very bests. Even if Nadal's best on grass was close to Federer's if he's only reached that level in a handful of matches compared to Federer's 20-30 can we really say he's almost as good as Federer on grass? I do realise you partly covered this by saying Nadal rarely reached his potential on grass. But even comparing them on the very narrowest of margins e.g. absolute peak play the edge has to go to Federer.

Dolgopolov85 · May 28, 2017

BobbyOne said:
I would say that Nadal's best on grass was about equal with Federer's best on grass. I'm not so sure about hardcourts.

I will willingly concede that Nadal was close to Fed on grass but considering Fed held a 2-1 advantage in 3 back to back finals, it's hard to see Nadal as his equal on grass. on HC, Fed currently holds a slim lead. If we consider that Nadal only got to peak Fed 5 times on HC (2004-07) and Fed again led 3-2. So Fed is not convincingly ahead but ahead nevertheless. And he has strung together a 4 match streak against Nadal now; the last time he won two consecutive matches against Nadal was in 2007. Those matches were far apart - Wimbledon and Masters Cup (the forerunner to the WTF). Nadal did not get to peak Fed enough off clay whereas Fed got to him time and time again on clay and lost. This skews the rivalry and with a more even spread across surfaces, it may have been closer (though Nadal would have likely still led because he would stay with Fed off clay and beat him comprehensively on it). Even from 2008 onwards, it's an even 7-7 off clay so Fed has not been owned as badly by Nadal as it seems at first glance. I get it; Fed is the GOAT so he should not be losing to Nadal even on clay etc. But Nadal is the clay GOAT. If he was only owning Fed badly on clay, it would be one thing. But Djokovic had many gos at a weaker Nadal at RG and only converted once in 2015 when Nadal played way below par. So it's not just Fed. Nadal has owned everyone on clay and esp at RG. He leads Djokovic 15-7 on clay. While that is much better than his 13-2 against Fed, it's still a comprehensive lead, more than twice the no. of wins Djokovic could manage against him on that surface.

BobbyOne · May 28, 2017

Dolgopolov85 said:
I will willingly concede that Nadal was close to Fed on grass but considering Fed held a 2-1 advantage in 3 back to back finals, it's hard to see Nadal as his equal on grass. on HC, Fed currently holds a slim lead. If we consider that Nadal only got to peak Fed 5 times on HC (2004-07) and Fed again led 3-2. So Fed is not convincingly ahead but ahead nevertheless. And he has strung together a 4 match streak against Nadal now; the last time he won two consecutive matches against Nadal was in 2007. Those matches were far apart - Wimbledon and Masters Cup (the forerunner to the WTF). Nadal did not get to peak Fed enough off clay whereas Fed got to him time and time again on clay and lost. This skews the rivalry and with a more even spread across surfaces, it may have been closer (though Nadal would have likely still led because he would stay with Fed off clay and beat him comprehensively on it). Even from 2008 onwards, it's an even 7-7 off clay so Fed has not been owned as badly by Nadal as it seems at first glance. I get it; Fed is the GOAT so he should not be losing to Nadal even on clay etc. But Nadal is the clay GOAT. If he was only owning Fed badly on clay, it would be one thing. But Djokovic had many gos at a weaker Nadal at RG and only converted once in 2015 when Nadal played way below par. So it's not just Fed. Nadal has owned everyone on clay and esp at RG. He leads Djokovic 15-7 on clay. While that is much better than his 13-2 against Fed, it's still a comprehensive lead, more than twice the no. of wins Djokovic could manage against him on that surface.

Dolgopolov, Interesting details. I just doubt that Federer is the GOAT...

NatF · May 28, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Dolgopolov, Interesting details. I just doubt that Federer is the GOAT...

GOAT debatable. Best of his era, not debatable

BobbyOne · May 28, 2017

NatF said:
Carlo's post was hardly meticulously researched though - though his earlier efforts were superb IMO. It's a shame that you generally pay more heed to posters who argue against Roger as opposed to in his favour. I've often been your opponent but you've taught me much about Rosewall etc...I would say that Federer's best on grass across era's and against the field would be comfortably above Nadal's. Likewise on HC.

As I said to Carlo Nadal has a losing record against top 10 players on HC. Federer has infact won more matches against top 10 players on HC than Nadal has played. Look at their record against the very best players and their titles won.

Nadal is 24-36 against top 5 opponents on HC (40%), where as Federer is 70-40 (64%). He has 16 titles on HC compared to 63 for Federer. Federer has 10 majors to Nadal's 3. If this were Rosewall and some other player we were comparing and the gap between their records was this gigantic you'd be incensed I'm sure. Especially when this has been in the same era.

If you want to bring this back to peak play. Then Nadal has never bagelled a top 5 player on HC, he's given one bagel to a top 10 player. Federer on the other hand has bagelled top 5 players 6 times on HC (and this includes Djokovic in 2012) and top 10 players 16 times.

Nadal's best on HC is obviously very very good. But I've rarely seen him completely take the racquet out of a top 10 players hands the way Federer has. I've rarely seen him absolutely destroy in-form former #1's and slam winners like Federer has.

In any case the margins between these ATG's are often small. A couple of percent here and there are often what separate these players at their very bests. Even if Nadal's best on grass was close to Federer's if he's only reached that level in a handful of matches compared to Federer's 20-30 can we really say he's almost as good as Federer on grass? I do realise you partly covered this by saying Nadal rarely reached his potential on grass. But even comparing them on the very narrowest of margins e.g. absolute peak play the edge has to go to Federer.

NatF, Maybe I have the same problem with Federer as you had or have with Rosewall: a certain reservation against assumed too high praise. But there is a difference between Rosewall and Federer: Muscles might have been praised very much by one certain poster while Federer is praised every day by thousands of posters and fans and experts. It's doubtful if Roger deserves that high degree of praise in comparison to the forgotten achievements of giants like Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver...

NatF · May 28, 2017

BobbyOne said:
NatF, Maybe I have the same problem with Federer as you had or have with Rosewall: a certain reservation against assumed too high praise. But there is a difference between Rosewall and Federer: Muscles might have been praised very much by one certain poster while Federer is praised every day by thousands of posters and fans and experts. It's doubtful if Roger deserves that high degree of praise in comparison to the forgotten achievements of giants like Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver...

It's a shame that fans of certain players can have such a large impact on the way we view those players. I used to be a fan of Djokovic but some of his fans really put me off him. I think it's natural.

I agree that those players you mentioned deserved to be mentioned more, even if I believe Federer is the GOAT I don't believe it's indisputable or that it could ever be indisputable. The General Pro section is rife with bickering. There's much knowledge and experience here that I think here we can be fairer when discussing the merits of every player and what they achieved.

BobbyOne · May 28, 2017

NatF said:
It's a shame that fans of certain players can have such a large impact on the way we view those players. I used to be a fan of Djokovic but some of his fans really put me off him. I think it's natural.

I agree that those players you mentioned deserved to be mentioned more, even if I believe Federer is the GOAT I don't believe it's indisputable or that it could ever be indisputable. The General Pro section is rife with bickering. There's much knowledge and experience here that I think here we can be fairer when discussing the merits of every player and what they achieved.

NatF, I agree regarding the two forums.

Of course we all should not be too influenced by players' fans and their sometimes exaggerated worshipping. Just let's value the players according to their achievements and skills.

pc1 · May 28, 2017

NatF said:
It's a shame that fans of certain players can have such a large impact on the way we view those players. I used to be a fan of Djokovic but some of his fans really put me off him. I think it's natural.

I agree that those players you mentioned deserved to be mentioned more, even if I believe Federer is the GOAT I don't believe it's indisputable or that it could ever be indisputable. The General Pro section is rife with bickering. There's much knowledge and experience here that I think here we can be fairer when discussing the merits of every player and what they achieved.

This is your usual high-quality smart and rational post. I wish everyone thought that way.

NatF · May 28, 2017

pc1 said:
This is your usual high-quality smart and rational post. I wish everyone thought that way.

Thanks man. The tennis world should be filled with joy when there's a major on

pc1 · May 28, 2017

NatF said:
Thanks man. The tennis world should be filled with joy when there's a major on

Absolutely true! I love watching the French Open!

During my honeymoon many years ago I was in Paris watching the French Open on the television sets they had in the metro system! I was in heaven!

NatF · May 28, 2017

pc1 said:
Absolutely true! I love watching the French Open!

During my honeymoon many years ago I was in Paris watching the French Open on the television sets they had in the metro system! I was in heaven!

I hope your wife likes tennis too!

It's a bank holiday over here so I get a full day of watching the French tomorrow.

pc1 · May 28, 2017

NatF said:
I hope your wife likes tennis too!

It's a bank holiday over here so I get a full day of watching the French tomorrow.

We used to play a lot of doubles together. We usually won (she's very competitive) but I remember one time we were playing against a woman who was a top college player and another guy. My wife has a very weak serve with a lot of slice that causes some people some problems. However for this woman it was easy to handle. She simply angled my wife's serve at a sharp angle into the doubles alley. She was being nice since I know she could have blasted away for winners off her serve also.

I decided that as soon as my wife hit the serve I would try to poach so I half volleyed it into the alley for a winner. My wife went to me, "That was my shot!" I thought to myself that there is no way she could ever have gotten that shot. But the key thing here is to lose the battle and win the war. I decided not to go after that shot and let my friend hit winners against my wife's serve! Got to keep my wife happy!

My wife has enjoyed tennis over the years and her favorite player is Henri Leconte!

BobbyOne · May 28, 2017

Carlo Giovanni Colussi said:
By the way that year in Madrid and Paris Nalbandian played even better than Federer ever did that year on indoor slow hard courts. Federer and Nadal were very lucky not to face Nalbandian in the Tennis Masters Cup

(if my memory is right Nalbandian was #9 at the ATP race and so the first alternate so didn’t qualify)

because it is not unlikely that Federer wouldn’t have won the Masters Cup in 2007 if Nalbandian had been there.

Once again you make inaccurate comparisons.

How can you compare Gonzales’s win in Berlin 1952 with Sampras’s in Rome in 1994.

Sampras had the opportunity, unlike Gonzales, to play on clay, true majors (Roland Garros) and sort of “Masters 1000 of the time”, EVERY YEAR WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION

and he failed every time but once in his whole career, winning that “Masters 1000” in Rome in 1994.

Besides that “Masters 1000” victory didn’t prove that Sampras was very temporarily (for just a week) the best on clay

given that the true clay courts master of the time, Sergi Bruguera, didn’t compete in that tourney.

Moreover the Italian wasn’t the true major on clay that year, it was Roland Garros

and also other events on clay, such as Monte Carlo (with Bruguera) and Hamburg, were as important as the Italian that year.

Therefore

SAMPRAS HAS NEVER BEEN THE BEST PLAYER ON CLAY IN THE WORLD EVEN A SINGLE WEEK IN HIS LIFE.

Gonzales, with his victory in the German Pro championships in 1952,

WON THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT ON CLAY THAT YEAR

so even though, as the 1994 Italian Open, the 1952 Berlin event was not a true major

the latter was however the most important clay tourney of its year

while it wasn’t the case at all of the 1994 Rome event.

So do not compare what it isn’t comparable.

In 1955 there was no great tourney on clay but Gonzales was probably the best on that surface that year given that he bettered what Segura did that same year on clay.

And about Drobny I recognize there are few elements available to compare both players

but I gave you earlier indications with their head-to-head confrontations

with Drobny only able to beat Gonzales when the latter was a 19-year-old baby in 1947 before becoming a future champion.

So there is absolutely no comparison between Gonzales’s record on clay and Sampras’s.

Pete won once a great tournament on clay but the best claycourter was absent.

Sampras has not even been in the World Top2 Claycourt players

while Gonzales was probably the best in the world on clay for at least two years (1952 and 1955) and the second best many other years as his 1956 or 1961 World Pro Clay Court Finals show when this tourney was held.

Carlo, I agree regarding Gonzalez vs. Sampras.

I believe that the 1952 Berlin 4 man event was not an official German Pro. I once got the details of that tournament by a German friend, Ernest L. Otto, who was an umpire and organisator.

But Berlin seems to having been the only significant claycourt event of the year.

I think that Pancho's greatest claycourt title was the 1959 Toronto tournament where he defeated a very strong field. Another big win was his 1965 CBS title at Dallas where he defeated Laver and Rosewall in a strong field. Gonzalez also beat peak Laver in the 1966 Hollywood, Florida, tournament probably played on clay.

Of course his two SFs at Paris in 1949 and 1968 show how strong Gonzalez was on clay.

BobbyOne · May 28, 2017

Carlo Giovanni Colussi said:
No, no, no !!!

In 1952 and 1955 Gonzales was very likely the best on clay : he beat the other players more than the reverse on clay these years. You, you intentionally mix these 1952 and 1955 years with other years when he lost as in 1956 to Trabert or 1958 to Hoad, etc ...

In 1952 and 1955 I repeat his record was positive and you have absolutely no valid argument to deny it.

Federer has only been the best a single year, 2009,

and besides by default when Nadal was injured

(the Swiss won the French and also beat Nadal, already injured, in Madrid).

How can you say if Federer would have won 5 FOs in the absence of Nadal ?

Pure assumption on your part.

And if Kuerten had not had his numerous hip (and other) injuries,

the Brazilian would have been a great rival of Nadal perhaps until 2008

and above all Kuerten would have possibly beaten Federer many times :

in 2004 Gustavo, though on one only leg, gave Federer a lesson of clay-court tennis and beat the Swiss easily three sets to love.

Kuerten has declined since Roland Garros 2001 because of his hip injury.

As he stated in his autobiography, in 2004 he was already the shadow of himself given that he was so diminished since he could play on only one leg and couldn’t move easily on the court.

Federer was already the best player in the world and close to his peak on clay.

Though tennis steadily improves through time

I am not completely sure that Federer once played on clay as well as Kuerten did on some occasions in the early 2000’s.

So it’s right that Federer was not lucky to face Nadal from 2005 to 2008, the best clay-courter ever (with Borg ?).

It is clear that Federer had strongest opposition on clay these years than Gonzales.

However the latter had to face Segura and Trabert in their prime and Rosewall at the beginning of his peak (in 1961) which was not the weakest era on clay, far from that.

Segura and Trabert were in the same league as Courier, Bruguera, Lendl, Wilander, Rosewall and probably Kuerten (not injured).

Except Nadal, the biggest mountain on clay

with Borg,

(I insist, those who haven’t watched LIVE peak Borg on clay, don’t know what a fortress the Swede was on that surface)

the other players who had some success on clay in the years 2005-2008 were not very impressive on that surface :

Coria, Gaudio, Nalbandian. Puerta, Davydenko, Ljubicic, Djokovic (until 2008), Monfils.

Coria and Nalbandian in particular were not mentally strong whereas they were more talented than others and should have had better results.

Once again you underrate Gonzales and overrate Federer.

In return it also can be said for every player on earth from the start of the game until now :

if Federer and Nadal had played on true fast indoor courts and on true slippery fast grass their records on these fast surfaces would have been much less impressive had they faced players in Gonzales’s league.

And besides Gonzales had guts that very few players had.

In a fifth set of a great match between Gonzales and for instance Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic

I would give the edge to Gonzales.

It is very unlikely that Gonzales in the same conditions as Federer in the fifth set of the 2008 Wimby final

would have lost.

Federer, with his technique, much more suited to the grass, even the grass of the XXIth century,

at his peak should never have lost to Nadal that Wimby final

but the Spaniard, at the time, had mentally the Indian sign on Federer,

the latter had been especially shaken by his rout in the Roland Garros final a month earlier.

Now here are some krosero’s replies to your wrong posts that show the big lack of good arguments from your answers.

krosero perfectly replied with

.

krosero proved that you both overrate Federer’s feats on clay and also underrate Tilden’s feats on clay.

In particular you claimed that Tilden couldn’t win the FO when facing the Musketeers

but you just forget that Tilden was past his prime when he faced the French at Saint-Cloud and Paris on clay.

Yes I once agree with krosero on that other point :

yes Nadal is better on clay than Cochet or Lacoste

but it is also true that Federer had “only” Nadal to beat

as I detailed earlier

while Tilden had to beat both French (Lacoste and Cochet)

and besides a peak Lacoste on clay was almost as strong as Nadal :

in the second half of the 1920’s Lacoste was endowed with a flawless concentration and played as a brick wall.

I also said earlier that Tilden had a bad call on match and title point in his favour in the 1927 French amateur final.

krosero also contradicted your judgment about Rosewall because you do not rate the Aussie when he was at his best that is during his pro years before the open era :

.

As simple as that.

Carlo, I consider your new and huge input and the virtual non-answer from Phoenix1983 as the all-time story of this forum and as the best example that expertise can always beat bias and superficiality.

Hope that Phoenix will re-read your many posts and that he will be ready to accept at least a part of your serious arguments.

krosero · May 30, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Gonzalez also beat peak Laver in the 1966 Hollywood, Florida, tournament probably played on clay.

Definitely on clay. And only 7 days later he repeated the result, beating Laver in the final in Orlando, also on clay.

BobbyOne · May 30, 2017

krosero said:
Definitely on clay. And only 7 days later he repeated the result, beating Laver in the final in Orlando, also on clay.

krosero, Thanks for this information and confirmation. Thus we can say that Pancho was a great claycourter generally. Laver, himself a great player on clay, was at his peak when losing those finals to Gonzalez.

EDIT: Gonzalez also beat peak Laver in the 1968 Hollywood, Fl., tournament 10-2 for third place!

abmk · May 30, 2017

Carlo Giovanni Colussi said:
By the way that year in Madrid and Paris Nalbandian played even better than Federer ever did that year on indoor slow hard courts. Federer and Nadal were very lucky not to face Nalbandian in the Tennis Masters Cup

(if my memory is right Nalbandian was #9 at the ATP race and so the first alternate so didn’t qualify)

because it is not unlikely that Federer wouldn’t have won the Masters Cup in 2007 if Nalbandian had been there.

.

nope, nope and nope.

at madrid, nalbandian lost the 1st set 1-6 ...federer had not lost serve all tournament until then ...then federer's level went down and nalbandian capitalized raising his level....

federer has played better tennis indoors in TMC 06, 07 ( after the first match ), 10 , madrid 06 ( he bagelled nalbandian), basel 08 (bt nalbandian in straights) etc ....

Edit :

my bad, I missed out the "that year" part here
madrid was hardly slow. only Paris was.
the YEC wasn't slow either.

its a no-brainer that nalby having won Madrid/Paris was better than federer in those 2 tourneys.

Drob · Jun 5, 2017

Limpinhitter said:
What's absurd about it?

They just are not in the same league. It seemed weird to talk about them as if they were. But glad you asked , because I see I must have used the iphone with its "autocorrect". I meant to write "sui generis" and it came out "genetics" and that is definitely weird and not what I wrote. BobbyOne is a very knowledgeable commentator and perhaps he had something in mind, but I cannot imagine what. It was a minor point and I would have been as well to let it go.

Drob · Jun 5, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Carlo, I don't think that Drobny was close to Sedgman in 1952. I also believe that Kramer was stronger than Drobny that year.

It was 3-2 Sedgman in head-to-head for calendar year, and 1-1 in Slam finals. Excellent matches. Sedgman extremely impressive in 1952, even beat Drob at Rome. I think he ranks equal to Kramer and Gonzalez for 1952.

BobbyOne · Jun 5, 2017

Drob said:
They just are not in the same league. It seemed weird to talk about them as if they were. But glad you asked , because I see I must have used the iphone with its "autocorrect". I meant to write "sui generis" and it came out "genetics" and that is definitely weird and not what I wrote. BobbyOne is a very knowledgeable commentator and perhaps he had something in mind, but I cannot imagine what. It was a minor point and I would have been as well to let it go.

Drob, I also have forgotten what the point was. No problem at all.

Drob · Jun 5, 2017

abmk said:
nope, nope and nope.

at madrid, nalbandian lost the 1st set 1-6 ...federer had not lost serve all tournament until then ...then federer's level went down and nalbandian capitalized raising his level....

federer has played better tennis indoors in TMC 06, 07 ( after the first match ), 10 , madrid 06 ( he bagelled nalbandian), basel 08 (bt nalbandian in straights) etc ....

Mr Colussi's speculation is tenable, but not very helpful. Marat Safin was on an even more impressive roll of victories in fall 2004 and Federer was able to beat him at the semifinal of The Masters Cup. Who was the greater, Safin or Nalbandian? Using Mr. Colussi's logic, there is no way Federer (or anyone else) would have defeated Djokovic at 2011 French semifinals, to take one example. Generally best not to hypothesize about anyone beating Federer at the year-end finals, even about someone (Nalbandian) who did so once before, in a dramatic five-setter. Should we then hypothesize that Federer would have beaten Djokovic at the 2014 WTF final but for his injury withdrawal? The two were quite close that year and the final was only three sets, where Fed has been able to beat Nole in recent years. Counter-factuals may make for interesting novels, but there is plenty tennis history to argue just sticking to the facts.

Drob · Jun 5, 2017

Mr. Colussi's retort to Phoenix is found following my comments.

The aggressive tone aside (let's remember we are just guys who love tennis), Mr. Colussi is just wrong. I must make more accurate his rather restrictive, and misleading, statistics. To be sure Rosewall gave Rocket as good as he got in the biggest matches of their career. But they played a lot of BIG MATCHES.

Mr. Colussi's list is overly restrictive, and it is also deceptive. He avers that he is counting "Majors" only. The 1966 MSG and the WCTs were not "Majors" notwithstanding they were darn important, and they of course are to Rosewall's great credit. Curiously, however, Mr. Colussi does not give Laver the same courtesy, as he fails to include Rocket's 1967 and 1968 MSG finals wins over The Little Master. That already makes it 10-8, or 10-9 once he decides whether to include the Dunlop Sydney International. But once you include the WCT you must needs include the TCC matches. So, simply following Mr. Colussi's inconsistent logic, we have a tally of 10-10, or 10-11 in favor of Laver, depending on where he ultimately comes down on the Dunlop.

I offer the following list as closer to the "truth" of how our heroes fared in their very most important matches. Laver's 16-13 advantage ends up being consistent with differing, but similarly proportioned, estimates of their overall rivalry, which include 75-66, 81-73, 100-85 (I am counting on Krosero to know which estimate is the most credible and why). Multiply 16-13 by 5 and you get 80-65, or pretty close to the overall record.

I am happy for the "micro experts," as I admiringly see you, to make this or that correction or improvement to this list. I certainly don't insist that the answer is 16-13, Laver. I do insist that the notion of a 10-6 Rosewall advantage in their most important matches is erroneous. And, as I see it, it appears to have been done by sleight of hand. We needn't buy someone's opinion just because it is made with such vehement assurance.

Here is how I see the Biggest Matches of the rivalry:

1963 World Championship Series

Rosewall (1) by 14 matches to 4.

1963 U.S. Pro final

Rosewall (2)
6-4, 6-2, 6-2

1963 French Pro final

Rosewall (3)
6-8, 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 6-4

1964 U.S. Pro semifinal

Laver (1)
6-3, 6-3, 7-9, 6-2

1964 French Pro final

Rosewall (4)
6-3, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3

1964 London Pro final

Laver (2)
7-5, 4-6, 5-7, 8-6, 8-6

1964 Ellis Park Challenge, Johannesburg

Rosewall (5)
6-4, 6-1-, 6-4 (Special match at end of 1964 to determine Pro No. 1 - See Joe McCauley's book)

1965 Victorian Pro (Melbourne)

Laver (3)
2-6,6-1,6-4

1965 U.S. Pro final

Rosewall (6)
6-4, 6-3, 6-3

1965 French Pro final

Rosewall (7)
6-3, 6-2, 6-4

1966 Victorian Pro final

Laver (4)
6-3, 6-0

1966 Madison Square Garden Pro Final

Rosewall (8)
6-3, 6-3

1966 U.S. Pro final

Laver (5)
6-4, 4-6, 6-2, 8-10, 6-3

1966 French Pro final

Rosewall (9)
6-3, 6-2, 14-12

1966 London Pro Indoor final

Laver (6)
6-2, 6-2, 6-3

1967 Madison Square Garden Pro final

Laver (7)
6-4, 6-4

1967 Wimbledon Pro final

Laver (8)
6-2, 6-2, 12-10

1967 London Pro Indoor final

Laver (9)
2-6, 6-1, 1-6, 8-6, 6-2

1968 British Hard Courts final (first-ever Open tournament)

Rosewall (10)
3-6, 6-2, 6-0, 6-3

1968 French Open final

Rosewall (11)
6-3, 6-1, 2-6, 6-2

1968 Pacific Southwest final

Laver (10)
4-6, 6-0, 6-0

1968 Madison Square Garden Pro final

Laver (11)
4-6, 6-3, 9-7, 6-4

1969 French Open final

Laver (12)
6-4, 6-3, 6-4

1970 Grand Prix Masters Round Robin

Laver (13)
5-6, 6-3, 6-5

1970 Tennis Champions Classic final

Laver (14)
6-4, 6-3, 6-3

1970 Dunlop Sydney International

Laver (15)
3-6,6-2,3-6,6-2,6-3 (Considered at the time "The real Australian Open of 1970")

1971 Tennis Champions Classic Round Robin

Laver (16)
6-3, 6-2, 7-5

1971 WCT final

Rosewall (12)
6-4, 1-6, 7-6, 7-6

1972 WCT final

Rosewall (13)
4-6, 6-0, 6-3, 6-7, 7-6

HERE ARE MR. COLUSSI'S REMARKS:

Carlo Giovanni Colussi, May 8, 2017 Report
Phoenix1983;7345420 said:
… Rosewall led Laver 10-6, according to you. However, the non-clay score is 5-5. This does bias things a bit towards Rosewall. (Nadal also had a leading h2h against Federer in majors even when the latter was at his peak; a 3-2 record in the period 2005-07). …

Your wrong argument here just shows how incompetent, ignorant, and very inaccurate about tennis history you are.

So I copy here my old quote about the 16 (10-6) confrontations in question :

“US Pro 63 (Rosewall winner), French Pro 63 (Rosewall), French Pro 64 (Rosewall), Wembley Pro 64 (Laver), US Pro 65 (Rosewall), French Pro 65 (Rosewall), Madison Square Garden 66 (Rosewall), US Pro 66 (Laver), Wembley Pro 66 (Laver), French Pro 66 (Rosewall), Wimbledon Pro 67 (Laver), Wembley Pro 67 (Laver), French Open 68 (Rosewall), French Open 69 (Laver), WCT Finals 71 (Rosewall), WCT Finals 72 (Rosewall).
(I don’t think that the Dunlop Open Sydney 70 was a major but I don’t entirely dismiss it as a major so I can eventually add a Laver win here).

You can see that

Rosewall led Laver in major matches, 10 to 6 (or 7 with Sydney 1970).

At one point, March 1966 after the MSG event, Rosewall even led Laver 6-1 !!!

Laver began to reverse the trend in July 1966 at the US Pro when Rosewall was close to 32 years old

but never evened the score and stayed clearly behind Ken in those great confrontations.

If I put aside 1963

in order to compare a Rosewall, in his true declining years, with a Laver at his top

(which is clearly biased in favour of Laver)

you can note that Rosewall still led Laver 8-6 (or 7).”

So in these very important confrontations

ONLY TWO were played on clay, Roland 1968 & 1969, and only another one on a slow court, MSG 1966,

thus 13 MEETINGS WERE PLAYED ON FAST (outdoor or indoor) COURTS

Therefore AN ALREADY DECLINING ROSEWALL LED A PEAK LAVER 8-5 ON FAST COURTS

in these great events.

So where do your 5-5 stats come ? I remember you that the French Pro was played on very fast indoor wood between 1963 and 1967. Do you ignore that ?

PHOENIX YOU ARE CLEARLY AND DEFINITELY COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT IN TENNIS HISTORY AND ANALYSIS WITHOUT ANY SLIGHTEST DOUBT

Drob · Jun 5, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Drob, I also have forgotten what the point was. No problem at all.[/QUOTE

I do not have much time to participate but I read quite a bit of what you write and it helps my thinking about the sport.

abmk · Jun 6, 2017

Drob said:
Mr Colussi's speculation is tenable, but not very helpful. Marat Safin was on an even more impressive roll of victories in fall 2004 and Federer was able to beat him at the semifinal of The Masters Cup. Who was the greater, Safin or Nalbandian? Using Mr. Colussi's logic, there is no way Federer (or anyone else) would have defeated Djokovic at 2011 French semifinals, to take one example. Generally best not to hypothesize about anyone beating Federer at the year-end finals, even about someone (Nalbandian) who did so once before, in a dramatic five-setter. Should we then hypothesize that Federer would have beaten Djokovic at the 2014 WTF final but for his injury withdrawal? The two were quite close that year and the final was only three sets, where Fed has been able to beat Nole in recent years. Counter-factuals may make for interesting novels, but there is plenty tennis history to argue just sticking to the facts.

two things there :

1. By the way that year in Madrid and Paris Nalbandian played even better than Federer ever did that year on indoor slow hard courts.

my bad, I missed out the that year, part here
madrid was hardly slow. only Paris was.
the YEC wasn't slow either.

its a no-brainer that nalby having won Madrid/Paris was better than federer in those 2 tourneys.

2. that nalbandian would have def federer indoors in YEC 2007.
-- he may have, but no guarantee. they are 3-1 at the YEC btw ( federer winning in 03 RR, 05 RR and 06 RR, nalby winning in 05 final)

BobbyOne · Jun 6, 2017

Drob said:
Mr. Colussi's retort to Phoenix is found following my comments.

The aggressive tone aside (let's remember we are just guys who love tennis), Mr. Colussi is just wrong. I must make more accurate his rather restrictive, and misleading, statistics. To be sure Rosewall gave Rocket as good as he got in the biggest matches of their career. But they played a lot of BIG MATCHES.

Mr. Colussi's list is overly restrictive, and it is also deceptive. He avers that he is counting "Majors" only. The 1966 MSG and the WCTs were not "Majors" notwithstanding they were darn important, and they of course are to Rosewall's great credit. Curiously, however, Mr. Colussi does not give Laver the same courtesy, as he fails to include Rocket's 1967 and 1968 MSG finals wins over The Little Master. That already makes it 10-8, or 10-9 once he decides whether to include the Dunlop Sydney International. But once you include the WCT you must needs include the TCC matches. So, simply following Mr. Colussi's inconsistent logic, we have a tally of 10-10, or 10-11 in favor of Laver, depending on where he ultimately comes down on the Dunlop.

I offer the following list as closer to the "truth" of how our heroes fared in their very most important matches. Laver's 16-13 advantage ends up being consistent with differing, but similarly proportioned, estimates of their overall rivalry, which include 75-66, 81-73, 100-85 (I am counting on Krosero to know which estimate is the most credible and why). Multiply 16-13 by 5 and you get 80-65, or pretty close to the overall record.

I am happy for the "micro experts," as I admiringly see you, to make this or that correction or improvement to this list. I certainly don't insist that the answer is 16-13, Laver. I do insist that the notion of a 10-6 Rosewall advantage in their most important matches is erroneous. And, as I see it, it appears to have been done by sleight of hand. We needn't buy someone's opinion just because it is made with such vehement assurance.

Here is how I see the Biggest Matches of the rivalry:

1963 World Championship Series

Rosewall (1) by 14 matches to 4.

1963 U.S. Pro final

Rosewall (2)
6-4, 6-2, 6-2

1963 French Pro final

Rosewall (3)
6-8, 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 6-4

1964 U.S. Pro semifinal

Laver (1)
6-3, 6-3, 7-9, 6-2

1964 French Pro final

Rosewall (4)
6-3, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3

1964 London Pro final

Laver (2)
7-5, 4-6, 5-7, 8-6, 8-6

1964 Ellis Park Challenge, Johannesburg

Rosewall (5)
6-4, 6-1-, 6-4 (Special match at end of 1964 to determine Pro No. 1 - See Joe McCauley's book)

1965 Victorian Pro (Melbourne)

Laver (3)
2-6,6-1,6-4

1965 U.S. Pro final

Rosewall (6)
6-4, 6-3, 6-3

1965 French Pro final

Rosewall (7)
6-3, 6-2, 6-4

1966 Victorian Pro final

Laver (4)
6-3, 6-0

1966 Madison Square Garden Pro Final

Rosewall (8)
6-3, 6-3

1966 U.S. Pro final

Laver (5)
6-4, 4-6, 6-2, 8-10, 6-3

1966 French Pro final

Rosewall (9)
6-3, 6-2, 14-12

1966 London Pro Indoor final

Laver (6)
6-2, 6-2, 6-3

1967 Madison Square Garden Pro final

Laver (7)
6-4, 6-4

1967 Wimbledon Pro final

Laver (8)
6-2, 6-2, 12-10

1967 London Pro Indoor final

Laver (9)
2-6, 6-1, 1-6, 8-6, 6-2

1968 British Hard Courts final (first-ever Open tournament)

Rosewall (10)
3-6, 6-2, 6-0, 6-3

1968 French Open final

Rosewall (11)
6-3, 6-1, 2-6, 6-2

1968 Pacific Southwest final

Laver (10)
4-6, 6-0, 6-0

1968 Madison Square Garden Pro final

Laver (11)
4-6, 6-3, 9-7, 6-4

1969 French Open final

Laver (12)
6-4, 6-3, 6-4

1970 Grand Prix Masters Round Robin

Laver (13)
5-6, 6-3, 6-5

1970 Tennis Champions Classic final

Laver (14)
6-4, 6-3, 6-3

1970 Dunlop Sydney International

Laver (15)
3-6,6-2,3-6,6-2,6-3 (Considered at the time "The real Australian Open of 1970")

1971 Tennis Champions Classic Round Robin

Laver (16)
6-3, 6-2, 7-5

1971 WCT final

Rosewall (12)
6-4, 1-6, 7-6, 7-6

1972 WCT final

Rosewall (13)
4-6, 6-0, 6-3, 6-7, 7-6

HERE ARE MR. COLUSSI'S REMARKS:

Carlo Giovanni Colussi, May 8, 2017 Report
Phoenix1983;7345420 said:
… Rosewall led Laver 10-6, according to you. However, the non-clay score is 5-5. This does bias things a bit towards Rosewall. (Nadal also had a leading h2h against Federer in majors even when the latter was at his peak; a 3-2 record in the period 2005-07). …

Your wrong argument here just shows how incompetent, ignorant, and very inaccurate about tennis history you are.

So I copy here my old quote about the 16 (10-6) confrontations in question :

“US Pro 63 (Rosewall winner), French Pro 63 (Rosewall), French Pro 64 (Rosewall), Wembley Pro 64 (Laver), US Pro 65 (Rosewall), French Pro 65 (Rosewall), Madison Square Garden 66 (Rosewall), US Pro 66 (Laver), Wembley Pro 66 (Laver), French Pro 66 (Rosewall), Wimbledon Pro 67 (Laver), Wembley Pro 67 (Laver), French Open 68 (Rosewall), French Open 69 (Laver), WCT Finals 71 (Rosewall), WCT Finals 72 (Rosewall).
(I don’t think that the Dunlop Open Sydney 70 was a major but I don’t entirely dismiss it as a major so I can eventually add a Laver win here).

You can see that

Rosewall led Laver in major matches, 10 to 6 (or 7 with Sydney 1970).

At one point, March 1966 after the MSG event, Rosewall even led Laver 6-1 !!!

Laver began to reverse the trend in July 1966 at the US Pro when Rosewall was close to 32 years old

but never evened the score and stayed clearly behind Ken in those great confrontations.

If I put aside 1963

in order to compare a Rosewall, in his true declining years, with a Laver at his top

(which is clearly biased in favour of Laver)

you can note that Rosewall still led Laver 8-6 (or 7).”

So in these very important confrontations

ONLY TWO were played on clay, Roland 1968 & 1969, and only another one on a slow court, MSG 1966,

thus 13 MEETINGS WERE PLAYED ON FAST (outdoor or indoor) COURTS

Therefore AN ALREADY DECLINING ROSEWALL LED A PEAK LAVER 8-5 ON FAST COURTS

in these great events.

So where do your 5-5 stats come ? I remember you that the French Pro was played on very fast indoor wood between 1963 and 1967. Do you ignore that ?

PHOENIX YOU ARE CLEARLY AND DEFINITELY COMPLETELY INCOMPETENT IN TENNIS HISTORY AND ANALYSIS WITHOUT ANY SLIGHTEST DOUBT

Drob, I think Carlo Colussi will answer you himself but here some thoughts of mine.

Yes, Carlo wrote in an aggressive tone but I would say that Phoenix1983 deserves a harsher tone. It was Phoenix who once revealed my proper name (it's forbidden) and who called serious poster, krosero, "BobbyOne's lackey". He never concedes that another poster (who contradicts him) is right with a serious argument. He also has not accepted at least one of Carlo's maybe 100 serious arguments recently.

You have overlooked that Carlo has not listed up just the semi-official "majors". In fact he did list up the four biggest tournaments of the year! Some of the pro majors had weak fields (US Pro in several years f.e.).

Some of your "biggest matches" were not big enough to fit to the "biggest 4 events" list: 1967 MSG, 1968 MSG, 1968 Bournemouth, 1970 TCC; maybe also not 1971 TCC.

It's right that Laver won more "big" encounters and tournaments than Rosewall. But it's also evident that Rosewall is superior if we count only the VERY big titles and encounters: 23:19 in Ken's favour if we count all the amateur, pro and open era majors. Even 19:13 in Ken's favour if we omit the amateur majors where the best players were missing. Also if we consider the 4 TRUE big events of a year, Rosewall has the edge.

The WCT Finals should be higher regarded than the 1971 TCC and especially the low 1970 TCC.

I don't think that the big 1970 Dunlop tournament was regarded as the real AO of 1970 at the time when it was played. Probably only in retrospect it deserves such a consideration.

krosero · Jun 6, 2017

Drob said:
I offer the following list as closer to the "truth" of how our heroes fared in their very most important matches. Laver's 16-13 advantage ends up being consistent with differing, but similarly proportioned, estimates of their overall rivalry, which include 75-66, 81-73, 100-85 (I am counting on Krosero to know which estimate is the most credible and why). Multiply 16-13 by 5 and you get 80-65, or pretty close to the overall record.

Drob, the 75-66 count is a much older count by Robert Geist, which Bud Collins published in a 2006 article. I am not sure but I believe that Andrew Tas published his own career records for Laver and Rosewall sometime after. But in any case Andrew's full list became the basis for the Laver/Rosewall rivalry page at Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver–Rosewall_rivalry

Some Wiki users including myself have continued to update that list, and right now the count there stands at 84-71; I am sure we will continue to find matches.

[EDIT: The second count you mentioned is 81-73. I'm not familiar with that count.]

The other count you mentioned is 100-85, which I am not familiar with, though it may be based on a count of 99-83 given by a poster here, Tennis Old Man (whom some believe was none other than Bud Collins): https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/rosewall-v-laver.167553/#post-2139725

I've always thought that the 99-83 figures were too high to be realistic, but I'm not sure anymore. I've recently been reviewing the Laver and Rosewall careers with Tennis Base and Andrew Tas, and I think it's possible we could find at least several more meetings. We recently discovered that Laver won the '63 Trofeo Facis, which was a tour of Italy with many unknown results. Maybe we could find a few new meetings there. That's just one example. At the very end of their career we just found a new meeting, in 1977, another example.

So I don't know if 99-83 is possible but I no longer dismiss it.

I just wonder, if 99-83 is an accurate record of all Laver/Rosewall meetings -- I wonder who produced it, and how, and why that research never ended up in any published source.

Drob said:
I am happy for the "micro experts," as I admiringly see you, to make this or that correction or improvement to this list. I certainly don't insist that the answer is 16-13, Laver. I do insist that the notion of a 10-6 Rosewall advantage in their most important matches is erroneous. And, as I see it, it appears to have been done by sleight of hand. We needn't buy someone's opinion just because it is made with such vehement assurance.

Here is how I see the Biggest Matches of the rivalry:

1963 World Championship Series

Rosewall (1) by 14 matches to 4.

1963 U.S. Pro final

Rosewall (2)
6-4, 6-2, 6-2

1963 French Pro final

Rosewall (3)
6-8, 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 6-4

1964 U.S. Pro semifinal

Laver (1)
6-3, 6-3, 7-9, 6-2

1964 French Pro final

Rosewall (4)
6-3, 7-5, 3-6, 6-3

1964 London Pro final

Laver (2)
7-5, 4-6, 5-7, 8-6, 8-6

1964 Ellis Park Challenge, Johannesburg

Rosewall (5)
6-4, 6-1-, 6-4 (Special match at end of 1964 to determine Pro No. 1 - See Joe McCauley's book)

1965 Victorian Pro (Melbourne)

Laver (3)
2-6,6-1,6-4

1965 U.S. Pro final

Rosewall (6)
6-4, 6-3, 6-3

1965 French Pro final

Rosewall (7)
6-3, 6-2, 6-4

1966 Victorian Pro final

Laver (4)
6-3, 6-0

1966 Madison Square Garden Pro Final

Rosewall (8)
6-3, 6-3

1966 U.S. Pro final

Laver (5)
6-4, 4-6, 6-2, 8-10, 6-3

1966 French Pro final

Rosewall (9)
6-3, 6-2, 14-12

1966 London Pro Indoor final

Laver (6)
6-2, 6-2, 6-3

1967 Madison Square Garden Pro final

Laver (7)
6-4, 6-4

1967 Wimbledon Pro final

Laver (8)
6-2, 6-2, 12-10

1967 London Pro Indoor final

Laver (9)
2-6, 6-1, 1-6, 8-6, 6-2

1968 British Hard Courts final (first-ever Open tournament)

Rosewall (10)
3-6, 6-2, 6-0, 6-3

1968 French Open final

Rosewall (11)
6-3, 6-1, 2-6, 6-2

1968 Pacific Southwest final

Laver (10)
4-6, 6-0, 6-0

1968 Madison Square Garden Pro final

Laver (11)
4-6, 6-3, 9-7, 6-4

1969 French Open final

Laver (12)
6-4, 6-3, 6-4

1970 Grand Prix Masters Round Robin

Laver (13)
5-6, 6-3, 6-5

1970 Tennis Champions Classic final

Laver (14)
6-4, 6-3, 6-3

1970 Dunlop Sydney International

Laver (15)
3-6,6-2,3-6,6-2,6-3 (Considered at the time "The real Australian Open of 1970")

1971 Tennis Champions Classic Round Robin

Laver (16)
6-3, 6-2, 7-5

1971 WCT final

Rosewall (12)
6-4, 1-6, 7-6, 7-6

1972 WCT final

Rosewall (13)
4-6, 6-0, 6-3, 6-7, 7-6

Carlo listed only finals which is why he's missing '64 US Pro. And he did use his own list (which I can't find) of the top events of each year. I'm not sure why you've included Victorian Pro (and you've missed Rosewall's win over Laver there in '64). In some years it was a big event, but I don't know why it would stand out in the mid-to-late 60s. I also would not list MSG Pro (in any year, though perhaps there's a good reason to include it in '66 as Carlo has done).

It's a judgment call, of course, and there are really two ways to do this. One is to use a list of the top events of the year. Another is to identify big events across years and to include all their editions, but I think with that method we miss the fact that in these decades a tournament's importance might change quite a bit from year to year. For example I think there's a big difference between the 1970 and 1971 TCC's; and for me a significant difference too between even the '71 TCC on the one hand and the 71-72 Dallas events on the other, though I acknowledge there again it's a judgment call.

The Masters, too, I tend to think of as a defacto major after it moved to New York in '77, but not before. Similarly, Dallas was huge in the early 70s but it started declining in the late 70s, and I certainly wouldn't include it as one of the biggest events of the year all the way through its last edition in '89.

SgtJohn produced a list of the most important events of each year (not restricted to 4), at https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/goat-which-kind-of-domination.167531/#post-3098710

If I've counted correctly, that list would give Rosewall a 12-9 edge:

1972
0.5 WCT Rosewall

1971
0.5 WCT Rosewall

1970
0.5 Sydney Laver
0.5 Masters (won by Smith but Laver defeated Ken here)

1969
1 RG Laver

1968
1 PSW Laver
0.5 RG Rosewall

1967
1 Wimbledon Pro Laver
1 Wembley Laver

1966
1 Wembley Laver
1 French Pro Rosewall
1 US Pro Laver
0.5 MSG Pro Rosewall

1965
0.5 US Pro Hardcourt [sic] Rosewall
1 US Pro Rosewall
1 French Pro Rosewall

1964
1 Wembley Laver
1 French Pro Rosewall
1 US Pro Laver

1963
1 World Championship Series Rosewall
1 French Pro Rosewall
1 US Pro Rosewall

BobbyOne · Jun 6, 2017

krosero said:
Drob, the 75-66 count is a much older count by Robert Geist, which Bud Collins published in a 2006 article. I am not sure but I believe that Andrew Tas published his own career records for Laver and Rosewall sometime after. But in any case Andrew's full list became the basis for the Laver/Rosewall rivalry page at Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver–Rosewall_rivalry

Some Wiki users including myself have continued to update that list, and right now the count there stands at 84-71; I am sure we will continue to find matches.

[EDIT: The second count you mentioned is 81-73. I'm not familiar with that count.]

The other count you mentioned is 100-85, which I am not familiar with, though it may be based on a count of 99-83 given by a poster here, Tennis Old Man (whom some believe was none other than Bud Collins): https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/rosewall-v-laver.167553/#post-2139725

I've always thought that the 99-83 figures were too high to be realistic, but I'm not sure anymore. I've recently been reviewing the Laver and Rosewall careers with Tennis Base and Andrew Tas, and I think it's possible we could find at least several more meetings. We recently discovered that Laver won the '63 Trofeo Facis, which was a tour of Italy with many unknown results. Maybe we could find a few new meetings there. That's just one example. At the very end of their career we just found a new meeting, in 1977, another example.

So I don't know if 99-83 is possible but I no longer dismiss it.

I just wonder, if 99-83 is an accurate record of all Laver/Rosewall meetings -- I wonder who produced it, and how, and why that research never ended up in any published source.

Carlo listed only finals which is why he's missing '64 US Pro. And he did use his own list (which I can't find) of the top events of each year. I'm not sure why you've included Victorian Pro (and you've missed Rosewall's win over Laver there in '64). In some years it was a big event, but I don't know why it would stand out in the mid-to-late 60s. I also would not list MSG Pro (in any year, though perhaps there's a good reason to include it in '66 as Carlo has done).

It's a judgment call, of course, and there are really two ways to do this. One is to use a list of the top events of the year. Another is to identify big events across years and to include all their editions, but I think with that method we miss the fact that in these decades a tournament's importance might change quite a bit from year to year. For example I think there's a big difference between the 1970 and 1971 TCC's; and for me a significant difference too between even the '71 TCC on the one hand and the 71-72 Dallas events on the other, though I acknowledge there again it's a judgment call.

The Masters, too, I tend to think of as a defacto major after it moved to New York in '77, but not before. Similarly, Dallas was huge in the early 70s but it started declining in the late 70s, and I certainly wouldn't include it as one of the biggest events of the year all the way through its last edition in '89.

SgtJohn produced a list of the most important events of each year (not restricted to 4), at https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/goat-which-kind-of-domination.167531/#post-3098710

If I've counted correctly, that list would give Rosewall a 12-9 edge:

1972
0.5 WCT Rosewall

1971
0.5 WCT Rosewall

1970
0.5 Sydney Laver
0.5 Masters (won by Smith but Laver defeated Ken here)

1969
1 RG Laver

1968
1 PSW Laver
0.5 RG Rosewall

1967
1 Wimbledon Pro Laver
1 Wembley Laver

1966
1 Wembley Laver
1 French Pro Rosewall
1 US Pro Laver
0.5 MSG Pro Rosewall

1965
0.5 US Pro Hardcourt [sic] Rosewall
1 US Pro Rosewall
1 French Pro Rosewall

1964
1 Wembley Laver
1 French Pro Rosewall
1 US Pro Laver

1963
1 World Championship Series Rosewall
1 French Pro Rosewall
1 US Pro Rosewall

krosero, I don't think that The Old Man was identical with Bud Collins. Bud once asked me how the hth of Laver vs. Rosewall was. I could not help Bud too much, and my numbers were far away from Old Man's 99:83.

This 99:83 balance does not look impossible.

I don't know if you know about the following Laver/Rosewall match: In September, 1963 there was an exhibition match won by Rosewall in two sets. It was played at the Kramer Cup's final at Dublin. I think that we should count that match as there was no significant difference at that time between a tour match and an exhibition. I believe I have read once a short report in World Tennis.

Regarding Sgt. John's list: I count a 12:10 balance between Rosewall and Laver. Perhaps you have not counted the 1970 Masters encounter.

hoodjem · Jun 6, 2017

pc1 said:
Absolutely true! I love watching the French Open!

During my honeymoon many years ago I was in Paris watching the French Open on the television sets they had in the metro system! I was in heaven!

My plan is that next year, 2018, I shall attend.

krosero · Jun 6, 2017

BobbyOne said:
krosero, I don't think that The Old Man was identical with Bud Collins. Bud once asked me how the hth of Laver vs. Rosewall was. I could not help Bud too much, and my numbers were far away from Old Man's 99:83.

This 99:83 balance does not look impossible.

I don't know if you know about the following Laver/Rosewall match: In September, 1963 there was an exhibition match won by Rosewall in two sets. It was played at the Kramer Cup's final at Dublin. I think that we should count that match as there was no significant difference at that time between a tour match and an exhibition. I believe I have read once a short report in Worl Tennis.

Regarding Sgt. John's list: I count a 12:10 balance between Rosewall and Laver. Perhaps you have not counted the 1970 Masters encounter.

No I didn't know about that match, I'll look for it

Drob · Jun 6, 2017

krosero said:
Drob, the 75-66 count is a much older count by Robert Geist, which Bud Collins published in a 2006 article. I am not sure but I believe that Andrew Tas published his own career records for Laver and Rosewall sometime after. But in any case Andrew's full list became the basis for the Laver/Rosewall rivalry page at Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver–Rosewall_rivalry

Some Wiki users including myself have continued to update that list, and right now the count there stands at 84-71; I am sure we will continue to find matches.

[EDIT: The second count you mentioned is 81-73. I'm not familiar with that count.]

The other count you mentioned is 100-85, which I am not familiar with, though it may be based on a count of 99-83 given by a poster here, Tennis Old Man (whom some believe was none other than Bud Collins): https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/rosewall-v-laver.167553/#post-2139725

I've always thought that the 99-83 figures were too high to be realistic, but I'm not sure anymore. I've recently been reviewing the Laver and Rosewall careers with Tennis Base and Andrew Tas, and I think it's possible we could find at least several more meetings. We recently discovered that Laver won the '63 Trofeo Facis, which was a tour of Italy with many unknown results. Maybe we could find a few new meetings there. That's just one example. At the very end of their career we just found a new meeting, in 1977, another example.

So I don't know if 99-83 is possible but I no longer dismiss it.

I just wonder, if 99-83 is an accurate record of all Laver/Rosewall meetings -- I wonder who produced it, and how, and why that research never ended up in any published source.

Carlo listed only finals which is why he's missing '64 US Pro. And he did use his own list (which I can't find) of the top events of each year. I'm not sure why you've included Victorian Pro (and you've missed Rosewall's win over Laver there in '64). In some years it was a big event, but I don't know why it would stand out in the mid-to-late 60s. I also would not list MSG Pro (in any year, though perhaps there's a good reason to include it in '66 as Carlo has done).

It's a judgment call, of course, and there are really two ways to do this. One is to use a list of the top events of the year. Another is to identify big events across years and to include all their editions, but I think with that method we miss the fact that in these decades a tournament's importance might change quite a bit from year to year. For example I think there's a big difference between the 1970 and 1971 TCC's; and for me a significant difference too between even the '71 TCC on the one hand and the 71-72 Dallas events on the other, though I acknowledge there again it's a judgment call.

The Masters, too, I tend to think of as a defacto major after it moved to New York in '77, but not before. Similarly, Dallas was huge in the early 70s but it started declining in the late 70s, and I certainly wouldn't include it as one of the biggest events of the year all the way through its last edition in '89.

SgtJohn produced a list of the most important events of each year (not restricted to 4), at https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/goat-which-kind-of-domination.167531/#post-3098710

If I've counted correctly, that list would give Rosewall a 12-9 edge:

1972
0.5 WCT Rosewall

1971
0.5 WCT Rosewall

1970
0.5 Sydney Laver
0.5 Masters (won by Smith but Laver defeated Ken here)

1969
1 RG Laver

1968
1 PSW Laver
0.5 RG Rosewall

1967
1 Wimbledon Pro Laver
1 Wembley Laver

1966
1 Wembley Laver
1 French Pro Rosewall
1 US Pro Laver
0.5 MSG Pro Rosewall

1965
0.5 US Pro Hardcourt [sic] Rosewall
1 US Pro Rosewall
1 French Pro Rosewall

1964
1 Wembley Laver
1 French Pro Rosewall
1 US Pro Laver

1963
1 World Championship Series Rosewall
1 French Pro Rosewall
1 US Pro Rosewall

I respond to both you and BobbyOne in this reply. And to you both, if Phoenix has harmed or insulted you, then that is a different thing. But I still feel the bullying by Mr. Colussi was not in the spirit of these arguments. It also proved ridiculous, since he himself was so far off in his estimates. I also know you admire Mr. Coluss's prodigious work of a long period of time, and I'll not gainsay that. He appears to be a trenchant analyst at times.

At other times, he releases as if it were authoritative research, as opposed to the off-the-cuff biases that they are, some poorly-thought-out conclusions. One such was a couple of weeks back, regarding Nadal and Federer's success by surfaces, in which he claimed that Peak Nadal was better than Peak Federer on all surfaces. I showed clearly that he had absolutely zero brief for such a claim and that the truth was (w the exception of clay), in fact, quite the opposite. About this, BobbyOne acknowledged at least that I made "good points." Given your affinity with Mr. Colussi, I appreciated your terse recognition of the truth. Now, he does it again in this Rosewall-Federer "Big Match" estimate, which can charitably be described as cherry picking.

I have been grateful for the critiques and added information that you both have provided on my few other posts. But I am frankly surprised at you fellows on this particular issue. Some highlights follow. I have to divide these into two posts because a word limit has prevented sending as one post.:

(1) There is no reason the 1966 MSG should be counted w/o counting the 1967 and 1968 MSG. If, as you suggest, none of the MSGs should be counted, I can live with that. I think they were quite "big" because I think the money was better than usual and the venue was top-of-the-line, a rare luxury and prestige for the pros. But let's jettison all three, that's fine.

(2) Based on the tournaments that Krosero found acceptable as either majors or "major equivalents," I also counted it 12-10, not 12-9.

Drob · Jun 6, 2017

Drob reply to Krosero and Bobby One, continued:

(3) Guys, I said this before, The TTC paid out to the winner three times as much as the WCT, and almost 10 times as much as the Majors. It was astronomical money for those days. Rosewall loved money even more than Laver did - everyone knows that - and both were trying to cash in during their reduced window of opportunity. TTC is at least equal in importance to the two WCTs - much more money was on the line. You just are not being congruent if you disdain the TTC so much that you will not put it on the list. I'm sorry, but I really think you have to re-think your position on that.

(4) Inclusion of the TTC brings us to 12-12. Look how are far we are from Mr. Colussi's 10-6 Rosewall.

(5) Victorian Pro Champs. Krosero left these off entirely. They appear to be the most prestigious pro tournaments in a tennis power nation, and native country of our protaganists. These must have been extremely important matches to both men. I do not have a prior Rosewall win over Laver in that event (and I am on the road and w/o McCauley, who might have that result). But I would be more wise to simply accept Krosero when he says it happened. Now, I think the top Australian tournament contested between these Aussies matters, and that would include the 1970 Dunlop Sydney International. Including all of them gives Laver a 3-1 jump, so we would be at 15-13, including the Rosewall triumph in 1965. But you seemed to think this tournament too minor to make the list. Okay, let's not include it. We remain at 12-12.

(6) 1964 U.S. Pro Semifinal. Sorry, but here I have to stop you. This match was fraught with significance. In his second season, Laver had caught up to Rosewall and appeared to be passing him. The U.S. Pro was a huge title. Rosewall had missed it for several years in order to spend longer time with his family and then he would join the troupe for Europe and southern Africa. Kenny took the title in 1963 and sure he wanted badly to repeat. Plus there was the extra matter of getting the chance to meet - and beat - the great Gonzalez in the final. If anybody wanted every chance he could get to beat Gonzalez, it would be The Little Master, whose only less-than-stellar career record is his won-loss against Gorgo. My friend, would you really say that all those hard-fought, Slam semifinals between Federer and Djokovic should not be considered as among the BIG MATCHES of the Roger-Novak rivalry? You would not count Becker vs. Lendl 1989 Wimbledon semifinal as absolutely key to the course of their rivalry? You would say no, we won't count the 1980 and 1984 McEnroe-Connors U.S. Open semifinals when evaluating the Bad Boys' most important matches, nor the Borg-Connors 1981 Wimbledon semifinal? The Lendl victories over McEnroe at the 1982 and '83 U.S. Open semifinals won't make our list of "Biggest Matches" between those bitter rivals? And I guess the Safin-Federer 2005 Australian semifinal is not of sufficient importance, nor the Agassi-Sampras 2000 Aussie semifinal, nor the Rafter-Sampras 1998 U.S. Open semifinal, nor Djokovic-del Potro 2013 Wimbledon semifinal. You know I could go on and on. I have conceded on the MSGs, which favor Laver. I have conceded on the Victorian Pro, which also favored Laver. The 1964 U.S. Pro semifinal stays. That makes it 13-12, to Laver.

(7) If you don't care for the winner-is-declared-the 1964-Pro-No. 1 Ellis Park Challenge, okay. Same with the first-ever Open tournament at Bournemouth. Same wit The Dunlop. I agree to ignore those as well.

(8) So, that would leave it 13-12 in favor of Rod Laver. The overall won-loss record between the two men would have suggested a 14-11 Laver edge. Kenny Rosewall outperformed the overall record by one match, or, very roughly, an 8 percent improvement over the aggregate tally. Much though you wish to make the Colussi assertions seem somehow within the bounds of reasonable analysis, the best you can do is 13-12, Laver.

(Finally, parenthetically, BobbyOne is basically right about the quality of The Grand Prix Masters year-end tournament before 1977. The tournament was screwed up because, (A) beginning in '71, the contract pros were excluded, with very limited exceptions in certain years, such as 1974, and (B) between 1974 and '76, Connors refused to participate. But the initial event, the 1970 clash that we have been talking about, was a competition among probably the six best players in the world, carried out in the old RR style of the the pre-Open professional circuit. I personally count it as highly significant, a "near Major," such as all the year-end shoot outs since 1977).

Thanks, gentlemen.

krosero · Jun 6, 2017

Drob, I can reply quickly because we're actually in agreement about a lot of things. I used Sgt John's list because it is so comprehensive but when I've tallied up the major meetings between Laver and Rosewall myself, I usually get Ken slightly ahead or tied. I haven't made any definitive list, and I'm not sure one is possible, given how many factors are at play. But I've always included their '64 US Pro meeting and I agree with you entirely that it has to be counted. I would include the '64 Challenge Match in my own list. I've never thought of Bournemouth as one of their major meetings simply because I've never thought of Bournemouth as a major, but in a way the meeting itself can reasonably be described as very important; it certainly was watched by the entire tennis world (though the meetings between pros and the recent amateurs were the mostly closely watched).

And I've never had a problem with including the '71 TCC as one of their major meetings (even though I've never done so with the '70 edition). Dunlop final, I've always included.

Now, whether all of these events were majors is a difficult question, and you've seen yourself how much disagreement there is. But they were undoubtedly among the most important events, and on that basis I think they can be included among the most important Rosewall/Laver meetings.

Re: your point #8: you said Rosewall outperformed the overall H2H, in major meetings. That's true; if he leads Laver in that metric, or ties him, or even trails him by only 1 (as you have), then he's outperformed the overall H2H. That, in itself, should not be surprising, if only because of those two Dallas meetings. Leave aside all other years for the moment. The two Dallas meetings stand out as Rosewall victories at a time when he was barely picking up any wins, not only in big matches, but even in little matches. He barely has any wins at all in that span (late 60s/early 70s). Laver wrote himself in both of his memoirs that he'd been beating Rosewall regularly in those years but that Ken, that bloody thief, only managed to take the two most important matches of all. I don't have the exact quote but it was words to that effect.

So statistically it's not necessary to expect that Laver's edge in the overall H2H will be of the same proportion when the important meetings are considered. Rosewall should improve in the comparison at least a little when top meetings are counted, if only because of the two Dallas meetings, nothing else considered.

krosero · Jun 6, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Regarding Sgt. John's list: I count a 12:10 balance between Rosewall and Laver. Perhaps you have not counted the 1970 Masters encounter.

Drob said:
(2) Based on the tournaments that Krosero found acceptable as either majors or "major equivalents," I also counted it 12-10, not 12-9.

that's correct, it's 12-10. I had Microsoft Word do the counting for me, but on my list I had the name "Smith" next to the 1970 Masters (as the winner of the event), rather than Laver.

BobbyOne · Jun 6, 2017

Drob said:
I respond to both you and BobbyOne in this reply. And to you both, if Phoenix has harmed or insulted you, then that is a different thing. But I still feel the bullying by Mr. Colussi was not in the spirit of these arguments. It also proved ridiculous, since he himself was so far off in his estimates. I also know you admire Mr. Coluss's prodigious work of a long period of time, and I'll not gainsay that. He appears to be a trenchant analyst at times.

At other times, he releases as if it were authoritative research, as opposed to the off-the-cuff biases that they are, some poorly-thought-out conclusions. One such was a couple of weeks back, regarding Nadal and Federer's success by surfaces, in which he claimed that Peak Nadal was better than Peak Federer on all surfaces. I showed clearly that he had absolutely zero brief for such a claim and that the truth was (w the exception of clay), in fact, quite the opposite. About this, BobbyOne acknowledged at least that I made "good points." Given your affinity with Mr. Colussi, I appreciated your terse recognition of the truth. Now, he does it again in this Rosewall-Federer "Big Match" estimate, which can charitably be described as cherry picking.

I have been grateful for the critiques and added information that you both have provided on my few other posts. But I am frankly surprised at you fellows on this particular issue. Some highlights follow. I have to divide these into two posts because a word limit has prevented sending as one post.:

(1) There is no reason the 1966 MSG should be counted w/o counting the 1967 and 1968 MSG. If, as you suggest, none of the MSGs should be counted, I can live with that. I think they were quite "big" because I think the money was better than usual and the venue was top-of-the-line, a rare luxury and prestige for the pros. But let's jettison all three, that's fine.

(2) Based on the tournaments that Krosero found acceptable as either majors or "major equivalents," I also counted it 12-10, not 12-9.

Drob, Carlo Colussi did NOT write that Nadal was better than peak Federer on all surfaces.

I'm sorry but you are wrong regarding MSG 1967 and especially 1968. They did not be among the top four events of those years. The 1966 edition did.

BobbyOne · Jun 6, 2017

Drob said:
Drob reply to Krosero and Bobby One, continued:

(3) Guys, I said this before, The TTC paid out to the winner three times as much as the WCT, and almost 10 times as much as the Majors. It was astronomical money for those days. Rosewall loved money even more than Laver did - everyone knows that - and both were trying to cash in during their reduced window of opportunity. TTC is at least equal in importance to the two WCTs - much more money was on the line. You just are not being congruent if you disdain the TTC so much that you will not put it on the list. I'm sorry, but I really think you have to re-think your position on that.

(4) Inclusion of the TTC brings us to 12-12. Look how are far we are from Mr. Colussi's 10-6 Rosewall.

(5) Victorian Pro Champs. Krosero left these off entirely. They appear to be the most prestigious pro tournaments in a tennis power nation, and native country of our protaganists. These must have been extremely important matches to both men. I do not have a prior Rosewall win over Laver in that event (and I am on the road and w/o McCauley, who might have that result). But I would be more wise to simply accept Krosero when he says it happened. Now, I think the top Australian tournament contested between these Aussies matters, and that would include the 1970 Dunlop Sydney International. Including all of them gives Laver a 3-1 jump, so we would be at 15-13, including the Rosewall triumph in 1965. But you seemed to think this tournament too minor to make the list. Okay, let's not include it. We remain at 12-12.

(6) 1964 U.S. Pro Semifinal. Sorry, but here I have to stop you. This match was fraught with significance. In his second season, Laver had caught up to Rosewall and appeared to be passing him. The U.S. Pro was a huge title. Rosewall had missed it for several years in order to spend longer time with his family and then he would join the troupe for Europe and southern Africa. Kenny took the title in 1963 and sure he wanted badly to repeat. Plus there was the extra matter of getting the chance to meet - and beat - the great Gonzalez in the final. If anybody wanted every chance he could get to beat Gonzalez, it would be The Little Master, whose only less-than-stellar career record is his won-loss against Gorgo. My friend, would you really say that all those hard-fought, Slam semifinals between Federer and Djokovic should not be considered as among the BIG MATCHES of the Roger-Novak rivalry? You would not count Becker vs. Lendl 1989 Wimbledon semifinal as absolutely key to the course of their rivalry? You would say no, we won't count the 1980 and 1984 McEnroe-Connors U.S. Open semifinals when evaluating the Bad Boys' most important matches, nor the Borg-Connors 1981 Wimbledon semifinal? The Lendl victories over McEnroe at the 1982 and '83 U.S. Open semifinals won't make our list of "Biggest Matches" between those bitter rivals? And I guess the Safin-Federer 2005 Australian semifinal is not of sufficient importance, nor the Agassi-Sampras 2000 Aussie semifinal, nor the Rafter-Sampras 1998 U.S. Open semifinal, nor Djokovic-del Potro 2013 Wimbledon semifinal. You know I could go on and on. I have conceded on the MSGs, which favor Laver. I have conceded on the Victorian Pro, which also favored Laver. The 1964 U.S. Pro semifinal stays. That makes it 13-12, to Laver.

(7) If you don't care for the winner-is-declared-the 1964-Pro-No. 1 Ellis Park Challenge, okay. Same with the first-ever Open tournament at Bournemouth. Same wit The Dunlop. I agree to ignore those as well.

(8) So, that would leave it 13-12 in favor of Rod Laver. The overall won-loss record between the two men would have suggested a 14-11 Laver edge. Kenny Rosewall outperformed the overall record by one match, or, very roughly, an 8 percent improvement over the aggregate tally. Much though you wish to make the Colussi assertions seem somehow within the bounds of reasonable analysis, the best you can do is 13-12, Laver.

(Finally, parenthetically, BobbyOne is basically right about the quality of The Grand Prix Masters year-end tournament before 1977. The tournament was screwed up because, (A) beginning in '71, the contract pros were excluded, with very limited exceptions in certain years, such as 1974, and (B) between 1974 and '76, Connors refused to participate. But the initial event, the 1970 clash that we have been talking about, was a competition among probably the six best players in the world, carried out in the old RR style of the the pre-Open professional circuit. I personally count it as highly significant, a "near Major," such as all the year-end shoot outs since 1977).

Thanks, gentlemen.

Drob, I again must contradict in a few points.

Please write "TCC" instead of "TTC"

The WCT Finals were regarded much higher than the TCC in the time they were held. Also in retrospect we should regard them higher. Money is NOT all! It was a case of prestige. Both Laver and Rosewall considered Dallas much higher than the TCC. The 1970 version was much weaker than the 1971 version, by the way.

Why do you count The Victorian Pro Championships and not also (or even instead of) the NSW Pro Championships? The Australian pro tournaments were about on the same level. There was no Austrian Pro in the 1960's (Wikipedia is wrong).

I fully agree with you regarding the 1964 US Pro. It must count. There is only one restriction in the valuation: Rosewall was handicapped by a food poisoning.

Rosewall trailed to Laver in 1964 but dominated Gonzalez totally that year. The encounters with Laver were the greater challenge for Rosewall.

I don't understand your sentence that Rosewall triumphed there (Sydney?) in 1965.

I don't understand your 14: 11 edge for Laver. It's a fact that Rosewall has the edge at very big events.

I agree regarding Masters 1970 (and maybe the following years).

BobbyOne · Jun 6, 2017

krosero said:
Drob, I can reply quickly because we're actually in agreement about a lot of things. I used Sgt John's list because it is so comprehensive but when I've tallied up the major meetings between Laver and Rosewall myself, I usually get Ken slightly ahead or tied. I haven't made any definitive list, and I'm not sure one is possible, given how many factors are at play. But I've always included their '64 US Pro meeting and I agree with you entirely that it has to be counted. I would include the '64 Challenge Match in my own list. I've never thought of Bournemouth as one of their major meetings simply because I've never thought of Bournemouth as a major, but in a way the meeting itself can reasonably be described as very important; it certainly was watched by the entire tennis world (though the meetings between pros and the recent amateurs were the mostly closely watched).

And I've never had a problem with including the '71 TCC as one of their major meetings (even though I've never done so with the '70 edition). Dunlop final, I've always included.

Now, whether all of these events were majors is a difficult question, and you've seen yourself how much disagreement there is. But they were undoubtedly among the most important events, and on that basis I think they can be included among the most important Rosewall/Laver meetings.

Re: your point #8: you said Rosewall outperformed the overall H2H, in major meetings. That's true; if he leads Laver in that metric, or ties him, or even trails him by only 1 (as you have), then he's outperformed the overall H2H. That, in itself, should not be surprising, if only because of those two Dallas meetings. Leave aside all other years for the moment. The two Dallas meetings stand out as Rosewall victories at a time when he was barely picking up any wins, not only in big matches, but even in little matches. He barely has any wins at all in that span (late 60s/early 70s). Laver wrote himself in both of his memoirs that he'd been beating Rosewall regularly in those years but that Ken, that bloody thief, only managed to take the two most important matches of all. I don't have the exact quote but it was words to that effect.

So statistically it's not necessary to expect that Laver's edge in the overall H2H will be of the same proportion when the important meetings are considered. Rosewall should improve in the comparison at least a little when top meetings are counted, if only because of the two Dallas meetings, nothing else considered.

krosero, Rosewall not only considers his Dallas wins (I also count the 1973 encounter for third place) as his biggest of the WCT circuit of course but even as his greatest wins at all thus as his biggest wins over Laver, i. e. more important than his French Pro wins, the US Pro wins, and the French Open win. I also strongly guess that Laver considers his Dallas losses as his most painful ones of their rivalry.

EDIT: I'm convinced that Rosewall has the edge in very big titles equally if we take the "conservative" version of the GS and Pro GS counting (23:19 or 20) or if we take the "Colussi" version of counting always the four top (slight edge to Rosewall). The same if we consider the (very) big encounters between the two Aussies.

krosero · Jun 6, 2017

Drob said:
(3) Guys, I said this before, The TTC paid out to the winner three times as much as the WCT, and almost 10 times as much as the Majors. It was astronomical money for those days. Rosewall loved money even more than Laver did - everyone knows that - and both were trying to cash in during their reduced window of opportunity. TTC is at least equal in importance to the two WCTs - much more money was on the line. You just are not being congruent if you disdain the TTC so much that you will not put it on the list. I'm sorry, but I really think you have to re-think your position on that.

The Dallas finals were considered, at the time, to award the highest prize ever, even including the TCC. In Dallas first prize was $50,000, the runner-up getting $20,000. TCC's first prize was $35,000, the runner-up getting $15,000 (both in 1970 and 1971).

You're thinking of the entire purse available for the TCC series, which in '71 was $210,000 (of which Laver pocketed a total of $160,000). That's the whole series of matches and I think the proper comparison is with the entire series of WCT tournaments. Laver, in his memoir, compared the TCC to a tour of one-night stands, because of its format. Each night there was a winner-take-all match worth $10,000, kind of like a one-night stand except of course far more lucrative than anything the old pros had seen pre-OE. The top 4 performers in these series of matches would be chosen to participate in the semis and finals. So in a sense you had to qualify for the "final" tournament. Technically the entire TCC was a tournament, but at the time it was also called a series. It was not a knock-off tournament set in a single week, like Dallas; it was a series of matches leading up to a playoff to determine the final winner. The WCT series of tournaments functioned in the same way: the top performers of the season went to Dallas, for the final playoff, in which the champion would be determined.

But becoming the WCT champion was something far more meaningful than becoming TCC champion, as I think is made clear in Laver's memoir (1973):

The kicks aimed at me continued to come, annoyingly, from light-footed Kenny Rosewall. As our rivalry ran into the 1970s and began to get more and more attention, it became known as “The Rod and Kenny Show,” and the ending was almost always happy for me. We played a lot of terrific matches, most of them tournament finals, and during 1970-71-72 Kenny managed to win only three of fourteen.

Only? Damn him, two he came through in were only the biggest, financially, that any tennis players have ever been involved in. And they came within six months of each other: the finals of a new competition called the World Championship of Tennis, staged in playrooms selected by promoter Lamar Hunt in his hometown, Dallas.

Big D meant Bigger Dollars than we could imagine: $50,000 to the winner of the first-place match and $20,000 to the runnerup. Eight players came to Dallas for the $100,000 shootout, and both times Rosewall took the fifty grand and ran to Sydney, leaving me feeling mugged and morose….

In presenting WCT’s World Championship of Tennis format, Lamar felt the pro tennis needed a logical progression toward a world championship, a season of clearly defined competitions that would lead to a title playoff embracing the leaders over the season….

WCT scheduled this troupe to play twenty $50,000 tournaments in America and eight other countries around the world. Prize money and points would be awarded uniformly. “We’re building an entirely new million-dollar competition, strictly professional, to determine the professional champion of the world,” said Lamar. So it was….

It was one of those stratospheric days for Kenney as he whipped me, 6-4, 1-6, 7-6, 7-6. As you can tell by the score, I had a good shot at it, losing two tie-breakers. But Kenny was way up emotionally, and he played those tense tie-breakers particularly well, winning them 7-3 and 7-4. I think I lost it in the third set as he served at 3-3. It was a five-deuce game with five break points for me. I played it a little too safe. Maybe $50,000 on a match puts a few more twitches in there and restrains you a little. When he escaped from that game he seemed to get looser, and his backhand and half-volleys got sharper.

He came down long enough to hug the trophy, pocket the check plus a diamond ring that annually goes to the champ, a sports car thrown in by a TV sponsor and a diamond bracelet for his wife, Wilma. I had $20,000 and—if it was possible—added respect for the little nuisance.

I think it's clear that, though TCC was one of their most important meetings, their Dallas meetings were bigger both in terms of prestige and even financially.

From Sports Illustrated in May 1972:

The only rival on the circuit safely ahead of Rosewall at the moment is Laver, whose own advancing years—he was 33 last August—enable one to understand why help-wanted ads are always calling for men of experience. Rested and confident after some shaky moments toward the end of 1971, Laver won this year's first three WCT tournaments, defeating Rosewall in the finals of two of them. But none of this compensated for Rosewall's four-set victory over Laver for the WCT championship in November, which carried a payoff of $50,000, the biggest in tennis history. The reason he has to defend the title so soon, after only a six-month reign, is that the WCT, tailoring its season to TV, is currently switching from a late-fall to a late-spring windup.

Laver should pocket the $50,000 this time, but never count out Rosewall when the stakes are high. Besides his triumph in last year's WCT showdown, he has done well in the four championships—of Australia, France, Wimbledon and Forest Hills—that make up the game's Grand Slam. Of the last six such events, Rosewall has entered four and won three: he won at Forest Hills in 1970, then took the Australian championship in both 1971 and 1972 ….

In Laver's accounts of the '72 Dallas final, he says similar things and emphasizes another factor that made it such an important meeting, namely the huge television audience.

Drob · Jun 7, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Drob, Carlo Colussi did NOT write that Nadal was better than peak Federer on all surfaces.

I'm sorry but you are wrong regarding MSG 1967 and especially 1968. They did not be among the top four events of those years. The 1966 edition did.

BobbyOne:

I enjoy your critiques on facts, reasoning, etc., very helpful. But I know how to copy edit. I was a journalist and editor for 10 years, and for the last 22 years a lawyer writing briefs to Courts. This forum is supposed to be recreation, and I don’t care if I misspell Stuttgart or make a typo on abbreviation of Tennis Champions Classic. You can spare yourself the trouble of pointing out typos and the like.

You either have a short memory, or you are splitting hairs, and the latter would be consistent with your style. Carlo Giovanni Colussi did not say “all”, but he did say virtually all, and this is an important example of his again being simply wrong. Mr. Colussi said, on May 7:

“Only on fast indoor courts, peak Nadal was less good than peak Federer.

In other words

peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on most surfaces.”

Now, about how many tournaments have either of them even played on fast indoor courts? Does Federer generally play more than three tournaments a year on indoor courts? He said all surfaces except fast indoor. That is essentially saying “all”. You get mired in what we call tecnisimos, which does not translate well as technicalities – at least as used in Mexico City it is much more like “minutia” or even smaller. I did not use the word “all” in my direct response to his Federer-Nadal comments, and if I used the word “all” in a later post, then, okay, I’ll say “virtually all”, or "all" except the surface the players almost never play on.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi’s entire post of May 7 on the subject is quoted immediately below and it can be found on page 33 of this thread. My response to him was posted on May 16 and is on page 37 I believe, and your related comment was posted the same day, same page. My response politely showed that he had no basis and no business for his assertion that Nadal is/was superior on all surfaces except “fast indoor.”

To the extent that tennis analysis should ever deserve to be called “brilliant”, some of Mr. Colussi’s pieces can be called that, and I used that word in my response. He can also be reckless. The notion that Rosewall was 10-6 against Laver in their 16 most important matches was most reckless. Everybody who reads these posts for fun can decide Federer-Nadal for themselves. Not all the readers are such nerds that they are steeped in the details of the Laver-Rosewall rivalry, and some may actually believe his misleading figures.

Here is a copy of his complete post, which I think you can find on p. 33 of this thread.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi, May 7, 2017

And Federer superior to Nadal ? This is also very debatable.

Federer is superior to Nadal

a) in the number of Slam tournaments won,

b) in the number of “Masters Cup” won,

and

c) on true fast (indoor) courts

but

On all the other points, Nadal is better than Federer.

Peak Nadal is clearly better than peak Federer on clay.

Peak Nadal is better than peak Fed on slow outdoor hardcourts

as almost all their Australian Open

(usually slow courts in the 2000’s and early 2010’s but fast courts since 2016 and especially 2017)

and Indian Wells

(not always but usually slow courts in California)

results had shown :

on slow outdoor hardcourts Nadal had lost only twice to Federer both at Indian Wells, in 2012 when the Spanish was slightly injured and in 2017 when Nadal played badly (but apparently Federer played even better than at the 2017 AO final).

Until 2016,

peak Nadal has been better than peak Federer on fast outdoor hardcourts.

But I have to recognize that

it is likely that

“Federer early 2017” is on fast (and perhaps even slow) hard courts better than peak Nadal (early 2009 / 2010 / 2013) ever was.

I still do not claim “surely” but “likely”

because “Nadal early 2017” is not as good as he was in 2009 (before his injury) or 2010 or 2013.

Nadal is not anymore as fast as he was in his young years

and besides in his three matches against Federer in 2017, the Spaniard has played too often Federer’s forehand including on the serve which he didn’t do in previous years (in some ancient matches Nadal had fully served to Fed’s backhand).

On the contrary “Federer early 2017” is better than he ever was on hard court surfaces.

Peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on XXIth Wimbledon slow grass.

Only on fast indoor courts, peak Nadal was less good than peak Federer.

In other words

peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on most surfaces.

Nadal has a much better record in Davis Cup,

Nadal has a much better record in Olympic Games singles event,

Nadal has a much better record in “Masters 1000”.

On August 19, 2013, Nadal had a positive head-to-head record against every other Top30 player in the world.

Since that date the Top30 list has changed

but it is very likely that Nadal has still a positive record today against everyone except of course Djokovic

(and perhaps a new rising player)

who leads Nadal in head-to-head confrontations since their 2016 Doha final on Saturday, January 9th.

It just shows how Nadal has been a dominant player

(before his recent years decline).

Federer at the same age

(27 years 2 months 16 days)

had not such a positive record

(in particular he was already dominated by Nadal in head-to-head record).

When Nadal was at his top he was superior to any player except Djokovic when the latter was on “stratospheric” heights

while Federer had and still has enormous problems to say the least when he met (meets) Nadal

or when he faces Murray when the Scots is in form

(though the Swiss has won their last 5 matches to lead 14-11 up to April 2017).

Federer is possibly the only player in tennis history who, as a world #1 was dominated during his reign by the supposed world #2, then Nadal.

Drob · Jun 7, 2017

krosero said:
The Dallas finals were considered, at the time, to award the highest prize ever, even including the TCC. In Dallas first prize was $50,000, the runner-up getting $20,000. TCC's first prize was $35,000, the runner-up getting $15,000 (both in 1970 and 1971).

You're thinking of the entire purse available for the TCC series, which in '71 was $210,000 (of which Laver pocketed a total of $160,000). That's the whole series of matches and I think the proper comparison is with the entire series of WCT tournaments. Laver, in his memoir, compared the TCC to a tour of one-night stands, because of its format. Each night there was a winner-take-all match worth $10,000, kind of like a one-night stand except of course far more lucrative than anything the old pros had seen pre-OE. The top 4 performers in these series of matches would be chosen to participate in the semis and finals. So in a sense you had to qualify for the "final" tournament. Technically the entire TCC was a tournament, but at the time it was also called a series. It was not a knock-off tournament set in a single week, like Dallas; it was a series of matches leading up to a playoff to determine the final winner. The WCT series of tournaments functioned in the same way: the top performers of the season went to Dallas, for the final playoff, in which the champion would be determined.

But becoming the WCT champion was something far more meaningful than becoming TCC champion, as I think is made clear in Laver's memoir (1973):

The kicks aimed at me continued to come, annoyingly, from light-footed Kenny Rosewall. As our rivalry ran into the 1970s and began to get more and more attention, it became known as “The Rod and Kenny Show,” and the ending was almost always happy for me. We played a lot of terrific matches, most of them tournament finals, and during 1970-71-72 Kenny managed to win only three of fourteen.

Only? Damn him, two he came through in were only the biggest, financially, that any tennis players have ever been involved in. And they came within six months of each other: the finals of a new competition called the World Championship of Tennis, staged in playrooms selected by promoter Lamar Hunt in his hometown, Dallas.

Big D meant Bigger Dollars than we could imagine: $50,000 to the winner of the first-place match and $20,000 to the runnerup. Eight players came to Dallas for the $100,000 shootout, and both times Rosewall took the fifty grand and ran to Sydney, leaving me feeling mugged and morose….

In presenting WCT’s World Championship of Tennis format, Lamar felt the pro tennis needed a logical progression toward a world championship, a season of clearly defined competitions that would lead to a title playoff embracing the leaders over the season….

WCT scheduled this troupe to play twenty $50,000 tournaments in America and eight other countries around the world. Prize money and points would be awarded uniformly. “We’re building an entirely new million-dollar competition, strictly professional, to determine the professional champion of the world,” said Lamar. So it was….

It was one of those stratospheric days for Kenney as he whipped me, 6-4, 1-6, 7-6, 7-6. As you can tell by the score, I had a good shot at it, losing two tie-breakers. But Kenny was way up emotionally, and he played those tense tie-breakers particularly well, winning them 7-3 and 7-4. I think I lost it in the third set as he served at 3-3. It was a five-deuce game with five break points for me. I played it a little too safe. Maybe $50,000 on a match puts a few more twitches in there and restrains you a little. When he escaped from that game he seemed to get looser, and his backhand and half-volleys got sharper.

He came down long enough to hug the trophy, pocket the check plus a diamond ring that annually goes to the champ, a sports car thrown in by a TV sponsor and a diamond bracelet for his wife, Wilma. I had $20,000 and—if it was possible—added respect for the little nuisance.

I think it's clear that, though TCC was one of their most important meetings, their Dallas meetings were bigger both in terms of prestige and even financially.

From Sports Illustrated in May 1972:

The only rival on the circuit safely ahead of Rosewall at the moment is Laver, whose own advancing years—he was 33 last August—enable one to understand why help-wanted ads are always calling for men of experience. Rested and confident after some shaky moments toward the end of 1971, Laver won this year's first three WCT tournaments, defeating Rosewall in the finals of two of them. But none of this compensated for Rosewall's four-set victory over Laver for the WCT championship in November, which carried a payoff of $50,000, the biggest in tennis history. The reason he has to defend the title so soon, after only a six-month reign, is that the WCT, tailoring its season to TV, is currently switching from a late-fall to a late-spring windup.

Laver should pocket the $50,000 this time, but never count out Rosewall when the stakes are high. Besides his triumph in last year's WCT showdown, he has done well in the four championships—of Australia, France, Wimbledon and Forest Hills—that make up the game's Grand Slam. Of the last six such events, Rosewall has entered four and won three: he won at Forest Hills in 1970, then took the Australian championship in both 1971 and 1972 ….

In Laver's accounts of the '72 Dallas final, he says similar things and emphasizes another factor that made it such an important meeting, namely the huge television audience.

A fair point on the "semi-transcendent" nature of the the 1972 WCT. No question that match would rank among the very most important ever for both of them, and no question a humongous disappointment for Laver and thrill for Rosewall. It was most special.

Your point about the relative money is interesting and facially a winner. However, to make the amount of money Laver made through the TCC in 1971 (and '70 for that matter) you played a whole lot more matches on the WCT tour. Laver played and won 13 TCC matches in 1971. The number of WCT matches he and Rosewall each had to play during the course of the tour was probably four times that number, don't you think?

BobbyOne · Jun 7, 2017

Drob said:
BobbyOne:

I enjoy your critiques on facts, reasoning, etc., very helpful. But I know how to copy edit. I was a journalist and editor for 10 years, and for the last 22 years a lawyer writing briefs to Courts. This forum is supposed to be recreation, and I don’t care if I misspell Stuttgart or make a typo on abbreviation of Tennis Champions Classic. You can spare yourself the trouble of pointing out typos and the like.

You either have a short memory, or you are splitting hairs, and the latter would be consistent with your style. Carlo Giovanni Colussi did not say “all”, but he did say virtually all, and this is an important example of his again being simply wrong. Mr. Colussi said, on May 7:

“Only on fast indoor courts, peak Nadal was less good than peak Federer.

In other words

peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on most surfaces.”

Now, about how many tournaments have either of them even played on fast indoor courts? Does Federer generally play more than three tournaments a year on indoor courts? He said all surfaces except fast indoor. That is essentially saying “all”. You get mired in what we call tecnisimos, which does not translate well as technicalities – at least as used in Mexico City it is much more like “minutia” or even smaller. I did not use the word “all” in my direct response to his Federer-Nadal comments, and if I used the word “all” in a later post, then, okay, I’ll say “virtually all”, or "all" except the surface the players almost never play on.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi’s entire post of May 7 on the subject is quoted immediately below and it can be found on page 33 of this thread. My response to him was posted on May 16 and is on page 37 I believe, and your related comment was posted the same day, same page. My response politely showed that he had no basis and no business for his assertion that Nadal is/was superior on all surfaces except “fast indoor.”

To the extent that tennis analysis should ever deserve to be called “brilliant”, some of Mr. Colussi’s pieces can be called that, and I used that word in my response. He can also be reckless. The notion that Rosewall was 10-6 against Laver in their 16 most important matches was most reckless. Everybody who reads these posts for fun can decide Federer-Nadal for themselves. Not all the readers are such nerds that they are steeped in the details of the Laver-Rosewall rivalry, and some may actually believe his misleading figures.

Here is a copy of his complete post, which I think you can find on p. 33 of this thread.

Carlo Giovanni Colussi, May 7, 2017

And Federer superior to Nadal ? This is also very debatable.

Federer is superior to Nadal

a) in the number of Slam tournaments won,

b) in the number of “Masters Cup” won,

and

c) on true fast (indoor) courts

but

On all the other points, Nadal is better than Federer.

Peak Nadal is clearly better than peak Federer on clay.

Peak Nadal is better than peak Fed on slow outdoor hardcourts

as almost all their Australian Open

(usually slow courts in the 2000’s and early 2010’s but fast courts since 2016 and especially 2017)

and Indian Wells

(not always but usually slow courts in California)

results had shown :

on slow outdoor hardcourts Nadal had lost only twice to Federer both at Indian Wells, in 2012 when the Spanish was slightly injured and in 2017 when Nadal played badly (but apparently Federer played even better than at the 2017 AO final).

Until 2016,

peak Nadal has been better than peak Federer on fast outdoor hardcourts.

But I have to recognize that

it is likely that

“Federer early 2017” is on fast (and perhaps even slow) hard courts better than peak Nadal (early 2009 / 2010 / 2013) ever was.

I still do not claim “surely” but “likely”

because “Nadal early 2017” is not as good as he was in 2009 (before his injury) or 2010 or 2013.

Nadal is not anymore as fast as he was in his young years

and besides in his three matches against Federer in 2017, the Spaniard has played too often Federer’s forehand including on the serve which he didn’t do in previous years (in some ancient matches Nadal had fully served to Fed’s backhand).

On the contrary “Federer early 2017” is better than he ever was on hard court surfaces.

Peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on XXIth Wimbledon slow grass.

Only on fast indoor courts, peak Nadal was less good than peak Federer.

In other words

peak Nadal is better than peak Federer on most surfaces.

Nadal has a much better record in Davis Cup,

Nadal has a much better record in Olympic Games singles event,

Nadal has a much better record in “Masters 1000”.

On August 19, 2013, Nadal had a positive head-to-head record against every other Top30 player in the world.

Since that date the Top30 list has changed

but it is very likely that Nadal has still a positive record today against everyone except of course Djokovic

(and perhaps a new rising player)

who leads Nadal in head-to-head confrontations since their 2016 Doha final on Saturday, January 9th.

It just shows how Nadal has been a dominant player

(before his recent years decline).

Federer at the same age

(27 years 2 months 16 days)

had not such a positive record

(in particular he was already dominated by Nadal in head-to-head record).

When Nadal was at his top he was superior to any player except Djokovic when the latter was on “stratospheric” heights

while Federer had and still has enormous problems to say the least when he met (meets) Nadal

or when he faces Murray when the Scots is in form

(though the Swiss has won their last 5 matches to lead 14-11 up to April 2017).

Federer is possibly the only player in tennis history who, as a world #1 was dominated during his reign by the supposed world #2, then Nadal.

Drob, Thanks for posting Carlo's post with the many good points about Nadal and Federer.

Thanks for insulting me by critisizing my writing style which was rather noble towards yourself in contrary to your style here which is rather arrogant. Please note: I have not attacked you for your misspelling. I just asked you politely to write the correct name of TCC.(It has not been a typo because you used the wrong name repeatedly).

This forum is also thought to be a place where readers/posters can learn from others. If it was you who wrote "Stuggart" (as the people of Stuttgart use to say) then it's good to correct you because that name is not too familiar in Anglo-Saxon countries and maybe some readers. I wonder that you as a former editor seems to be a bit superficially about words and names.

You probably would not like to read "Poris" instead of Paris, "Now Fork" instead of New York and so on.

I also feel badly every time when reading Muscles' name as "Rosewell" or even "Roswell" as though Kenny is an alien...

I like to write exactly (as far as my English allows it) and to argue in an exact way. You cited Carlo Colussi (a man whom I admire because of his ability to differentiate) wrongly:"Most surfaces" is not "all surfaces".

Fast indoor surface is an important one equally how many matches Federer and Nadal have played on (YEC!).

I don't think I have bad memory or am spiltting hairs. That's your job here as you attack me for correcting wrong quoting from a Carlo Colussi post.

If one claims that Laver has won all big events in his career it's wrong because he never won the WCT Finals. Would you accept when reading that Rosewall has won all majors?? In fact they won ALMOST all majors.

You have not reacted (so far) to my points about the doubtful big matches you cited (MSG 1967 and 1968; Melbourne Pro 1965 and 1966).

It's a pity that youseemingly are not ready to accept the historical fact that Rosewall has the slight edge against Laver in very big matches and tournaments.

BobbyOne · Jun 7, 2017

Drob said:
A fair point on the "semi-transcendent" nature of the the 1972 WCT. No question that match would rank among the very most important ever for both of them, and no question a humongous disappointment for Laver and thrill for Rosewall. It was most special.

Your point about the relative money is interesting and facially a winner. However, to make the amount of money Laver made through the TCC in 1971 (and '70 for that matter) you played a whole lot more matches on the WCT tour. Laver played and won 13 TCC matches in 1971. The number of WCT matches he and Rosewall each had to play during the course of the tour was probably four times that number, don't you think?

Drob, WCT Dallas was arguably the No. 3 event among the 1971 big tournaments and the No. 2 event in 1972. A much bigger title than the 1971 TCC and especially than the not really big 1970 TCC title.

Drob · Jun 7, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Drob, I again must contradict in a few points.

Please write "TCC" instead of "TTC"

The WCT Finals were regarded much higher than the TCC in the time they were held. Also in retrospect we should regard them higher. Money is NOT all! It was a case of prestige. Both Laver and Rosewall considered Dallas much higher than the TCC. The 1970 version was much weaker than the 1971 version, by the way.

Why do you count The Victorian Pro Championships and not also (or even instead of) the NSW Pro Championships? The Australian pro tournaments were about on the same level. There was no Austrian Pro in the 1960's (Wikipedia is wrong).

I fully agree with you regarding the 1964 US Pro. It must count. There is only one restriction in the valuation: Rosewall was handicapped by a food poisoning.

Rosewall trailed to Laver in 1964 but dominated Gonzalez totally that year. The encounters with Laver were the greater challenge for Rosewall.

I don't understand your sentence that Rosewall triumphed there (Sydney?) in 1965.

I don't understand your 14: 11 edge for Laver. It's a fact that Rosewall has the edge at very big events.

I agree regarding Masters 1970 (and maybe the following years).

I can see where the 1965 ref. could be confusing. Not Sydney. Rather I was accepting Krosero's interjection that Rosewall had beaten Laver at The Victorian in 1964 (not '65). So I was adding that to Rosewall's totals in the big tournaments. But one of you, I guess is was Krosero, wanted to take out all Victorian Championships and I said fine. As for why not use NSW. Why not? I think, without having my reference materials to hand, that if you add up all the big finals they played in Australia (NSW, Victorian, The Dunlop) you will see a 5-2 or 5-3 advantage Laver. I explained earlier why I thought the big Australian finals should be included. But I left off the NSW so as not to go overboard on the Australian angle, and because I thought it would seem like "piling on" for Laver - WHICH IS NOT MY INTENTION - because I think he had the edge at NSW also.

I thought I had ended up at 12-11 in Laver's favor after conceding some things to Krosero, but not all things. Perhaps I did not count up correctly. My initial post, I did count correctly, and it was Laver ahead by 16-13 in biggest matches. Then, in response to Krosero, I think I said, fine, let's take out the MSGs and the Victorians if that is your preference. At that point, maybe I did not add up carefully enough. So, if I initially had Laver ahead 16-13, and Laver had a 2-1 advantage at MSG and I took MSG out, that makes it 14-12. And Laver had a 2-1 advantage at The Victorian and I took that out, so 12-11, Laver. I did not think I said 14-11. If I did, that would be wrong. I conceded on two points of ambivalence on Krosero's part, MSG and Melbourne, and would not concede regarding the TCC. So, that is how I end up at 12-11 in a revised list. My own view now would be 16-14, Laver, based on adding the 1964 Victorian to Rosewall's total.

I never mentioned an "Australian Pro." There is no record of such a thing that I know of. It seems to have been made up in hindsight and if you look at the known record you can't make head or tail of how they came up with the supposed champions. There was something that was called the Australian Pro Indoor maybe a couple years - you undoubtedly know - (I think Segura won it one of those years). But if somebody can prove the existence of an Australian Pro over a period of even a few years, I would love the documentation and details.

Giving '66 MSG precedence over the '67 and '68 editions does not make sense. Your apparent insistence that there has to be four events that matter each year, four and no less, no more, regardless of circumstances, does not fit with tennis history. In evaluating the greatest players, you would be taking out all kinds of tournaments (and in the case of the old pros, for some years you wouldn't even be able to hunt up four tournaments).

Just in the Open era, in discussing who were the greatest players, you would have to throw out the WTF and all its antecedents; the Italian (which your good friend Bud Collins said rivaled the Australian for many years in prestige and which he includes specially in his last edition as one of the great tournaments outside the traditional Grand Slam); Indian Wells, which some people think has a special importance; The Grand Slam Cup; The Olympics, and; either the Australian or the WTC between 1971 and 1989. Take out the WTF, for example, and the credentials of Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Lendl, Becker and McEnroe diminish considerably. Start taking out these other mentioned tournaments and similar things start happening. I don't think that you really believe that non-credit for WTFs would produce fair or accurate evaluations of the best players of the Open era, etc.

I will leave to you or Krosero the last word . . . save that if I can find it, I will send along an interesting article about the TCC. Thanks.

Drob · Jun 7, 2017

BobbyOne said:
Drob, Thanks for posting Carlo's post with the many good points about Nadal and Federer.

Thanks for insulting me by critisizing my writing style which was rather noble towards yourself in contrary to your style here which is rather arrogant. Please note: I have not attacked you for your misspelling. I just asked you politely to write the correct name of TCC.(It has not been a typo because you used the wrong name repeatedly).

This forum is also thought to be a place where readers/posters can learn from others. If it was you who wrote "Stuggart" (as the people of Stuttgart use to say) then it's good to correct you because that name is not too familiar in Anglo-Saxon countries and maybe some readers. I wonder that you as a former editor seems to be a bit superficially about words and names.

You probably would not like to read "Poris" instead of Paris, "Now Fork" instead of New York and so on.

I also feel badly every time when reading Muscles' name as "Rosewell" or even "Roswell" as though Kenny is an alien...

I like to write exactly (as far as my English allows it) and to argue in an exact way. You cited Carlo Colussi (a man whom I admire because of his ability to differentiate) wrongly:"Most surfaces" is not "all surfaces".

Fast indoor surface is an important one equally how many matches Federer and Nadal have played on (YEC!).

I don't think I have bad memory or am spiltting hairs. That's your job here as you attack me for correcting wrong quoting from a Carlo Colussi post.

If one claims that Laver has won all big events in his career it's wrong because he never won the WCT Finals. Would you accept when reading that Rosewall has won all majors?? In fact they won ALMOST all majors.

You have not reacted (so far) to my points about the doubtful big matches you cited (MSG 1967 and 1968; Melbourne Pro 1965 and 1966).

It's a pity that youseemingly are not ready to accept the historical fact that Rosewall has the slight edge against Laver in very big matches and tournaments.

Gosh. Last thing I meant to do was insult you. I did not mention your writing ability, which I think is fine. I have previously said that you are quite keen, and that your commentaries have been helpful to me. What I meant was you have a strength in knowing the fine details, but you also get to caught up in them unnecessarily at times. That was an opinion about you, yes, and it was a request to give me a break because I am writing these posts after working hours and don't want my typos corrected. But I sure did not mean it as an insult. Why would I want to insult you? I enjoy hashing out this tennis history with you.

BobbyOne · Jun 7, 2017

Drob said:
I can see where the 1965 ref. could be confusing. Not Sydney. Rather I was accepting Krosero's interjection that Rosewall had beaten Laver at The Victorian in 1964 (not '65). So I was adding that to Rosewall's totals in the big tournaments. But one of you, I guess is was Krosero, wanted to take out all Victorian Championships and I said fine. As for why not use NSW. Why not? I think, without having my reference materials to hand, that if you add up all the big finals they played in Australia (NSW, Victorian, The Dunlop) you will see a 5-2 or 5-3 advantage Laver. I explained earlier why I thought the big Australian finals should be included. But I left off the NSW so as not to go overboard on the Australian angle, and because I thought it would seem like "piling on" for Laver - WHICH IS NOT MY INTENTION - because I think he had the edge at NSW also.

I thought I had ended up at 12-11 in Laver's favor after conceding some things to Krosero, but not all things. Perhaps I did not count up correctly. My initial post, I did count correctly, and it was Laver ahead by 16-13 in biggest matches. Then, in response to Krosero, I think I said, fine, let's take out the MSGs and the Victorians if that is your preference. At that point, maybe I did not add up carefully enough. So, if I initially had Laver ahead 16-13, and Laver had a 2-1 advantage at MSG and I took MSG out, that makes it 14-12. And Laver had a 2-1 advantage at The Victorian and I took that out, so 12-11, Laver. I did not think I said 14-11. If I did, that would be wrong. I conceded on two points of ambivalence on Krosero's part, MSG and Melbourne, and would not concede regarding the TCC. So, that is how I end up at 12-11 in a revised list. My own view now would be 16-14, Laver, based on adding the 1964 Victorian to Rosewall's total.

I never mentioned an "Australian Pro." There is no record of such a thing that I know of. It seems to have been made up in hindsight and if you look at the known record you can't make head or tail of how they came up with the supposed champions. There was something that was called the Australian Pro Indoor maybe a couple years - you undoubtedly know - (I think Segura won it one of those years). But if somebody can prove the existence of an Australian Pro over a period of even a few years, I would love the documentation and details.

Giving '66 MSG precedence over the '67 and '68 editions does not make sense. Your apparent insistence that there has to be four events that matter each year, four and no less, no more, regardless of circumstances, does not fit with tennis history. In evaluating the greatest players, you would be taking out all kinds of tournaments (and in the case of the old pros, for some years you wouldn't even be able to hunt up four tournaments).

Just in the Open era, in discussing who were the greatest players, you would have to throw out the WTF and all its antecedents; the Italian (which your good friend Bud Collins said rivaled the Australian for many years in prestige and which he includes specially in his last edition as one of the great tournaments outside the traditional Grand Slam); Indian Wells, which some people think has a special importance; The Grand Slam Cup; The Olympics, and; either the Australian or the WTC between 1971 and 1989. Take out the WTF, for example, and the credentials of Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, Lendl, Becker and McEnroe diminish considerably. Start taking out these other mentioned tournaments and similar things start happening. I don't think that you really believe that non-credit for WTFs would produce fair or accurate evaluations of the best players of the Open era, etc.

I will leave to you or Krosero the last word . . . save that if I can find it, I will send along an interesting article about the TCC. Thanks.

Drob, Just a short note before getting the bed.

The devil is in the detail as we in German say. For example in 1971 BOTH the AO and the WCT FInals were among the top 4 tournaments.

Where do you make a cut for Laver/Rosewall encounters? If you include such events like 1964 Melbourne, 1968 Bournemouth and 1967/1968 MSG you will land at ALL encounters between the two GOAT candidates. In this case Laver is much much better than Rosewall because he beat him in many more tournaments. But then you hurt the idea and category of a BIG tournament.

As I said before, Laver has won more big tournaments than Rosewall but Rosewall has won more BIG tournaments than Laver.

I will never understand that you Laver admirers (almost all posters here rank Laver above Rosewall) not only consider Laver's true big assets just like 2 or 3 Grand Slams, 202 or more tournament victories, 4 Wimbledons but also try to diminish Rosewall's big assets just like winning the most majors, having the edge in very big encounters against Laver, having the best backhand slice and so on...

BobbyOne · Jun 7, 2017

Drob said:
Gosh. Last thing I meant to do was insult you. I did not mention your writing ability, which I think is fine. I have previously said that you are quite keen, and that your commentaries have been helpful to me. What I meant was you have a strength in knowing the fine details, but you also get to caught up in them unnecessarily at times. That was an opinion about you, yes, and it was a request to give me a break because I am writing these posts after working hours and don't want my typos corrected. But I sure did not mean it as an insult. Why would I want to insult you? I enjoy hashing out this tennis history with you.

Be honest, Drob, You accused my writing style (hair splitting, bad memory). That's unfair!

Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads