Your "1957 Mature Rosewall" is one of your most absurd claims at all!!
Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)
- Thread starter granddog29
- Start date
Your "1957 Mature Rosewall" is one of your most absurd claims at all!!
NatF
Bionic Poster
Most if not all of those statements have been debunked, they've been misrepresented by you.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I meant the difference in styles of play on clay & grass was more in Borg's time than in Rosewall's time.
Exactly.
It didn’t happened in 1972, because he had no achievements in 1971.
Eheheh.
One thing is saying that somebody is a great player or has great skills.
Other thing is saying who is the best.
Lobb, Most readers here will agree that you are NOT this who is most respectful poster. Even my toughest opponents would say that Rosewall is even more respected (some say too much) by thrust, Ivan and myself.
You use to belittle Rosewall more than reasonably. F.e. you fantasize about a "full mature Rosewall" in 1957 just in order to blame him for losing important matches through 1959.
Yes, Rosewall admirer!
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Funny how Laver ranks Perry higher than Vines since Vines was number one more years and beat Perry on tour a few times. Gonzalez ranks Hoad as number one and Kramer number two also.
So you agree that Metreveli was very strong in 1972?? Have you changed your mind now? That would be fine.
Eheheh.
One thing is saying that somebody is a great player or has great skills.
Other thing is saying who is the best.
You still ignore that several players have stated that Rosewall is one of the all-time great players (not only one of the most skilled)!
Ha-ha. Dan, the players didn't knew even all their own matches for the year. They hadn't such stats like today. They made some remarks but partially.
Re the other players they had only a some bleak view.
Even Laver and Rosewall used to err regarding some of their matches; all great players do.
Nope.
He became pro when he was ready.
In January 1972 was not ready, he was still an average player.
Australian Open began last week of 1971 and he became pro in 1973.
Run your conclusions
If you had read carefully, I stated all the time that a player became a pro when it was ready to make money, that means being good.
You tried to escape in many ways, but it’s exactly what happened.
Metreveli pro in January 1973, not in January 1972.
Again, for one more time, game over Bobby
The obvious theme that you raise and that bothers some of the posters in the thread is that the WS are somehow not enough valued. Thus they raise the theme about the value of the majors, respectively all tournaments.
In order to assess what is the value of the WS and other events I can't see other measurable tools except to apply some reasonable and fair metrics system. Such system will be probably never the best one or the optimal one. But it will be something useful for answering hundreds of questions.
Personally I am using a point system and can say at any time how much value is awarded to every event, what are the reasons for that and the basics of the discussion - what is the value of a specific WS compared to any other event - 2, 3, 4, 5 times. I have cases when a WS is equal to 5, 6 pro majors calculated as points which I find reasonable.
I am open to participate in such a discussion if of course the other posters want to. We could start discussing the events year by year initially for 3 players - Laver, Rosewall and Gonz which are my top players of the pre-OE. Then we could expand the theme with other players.
All depends if there is a willingness to do it. Otherwise the discussion "what is the value of a tournament" and "what is the value of WS" will be endless.
That's why I wrote that everything should be considered.
Of course I can hear other opinions.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think a lot of experts prefer the hare over the tortoise. Rosewall was consistent and of course a great player but I think most who played him never thought of him as the unbeatable juggernaut that overwhelmed players like a Federer in 2005 or a Djokovic in 2011. Perhaps it's because of his immaculate style and smoothness.
Rosewall was a very consistently strong player who won around 73% (if memory serves) with his best year in 1962 at what Tas has as 52-7 which is a percentage of 88.1. The problem with that year is that Gonzalez and Laver wasn't around at their peaks. Laver won at about 78% for his career.
It's tough to always go by percentages because it often depends on the opponents.
However I do believe Rosewall was number one a few years in the early 1960s from 1962 to 1964 although some would debate 1964.
Laver for example won the Open Grand Slam which is very memorable as perhaps the greatest achievement in the Open Era. It was on television instead of the hidden away venues of the Old Pro Tour. I'm sure Laver and Rosewall played a lot of great matches that were not seen on television in those days.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Maybe not but at least Rod hit with Budge so he may have an idea of Budge's strength at his best. Maybe he heard about Perry from Budge.
Rod didn't even know how many tournaments he won until recent years I believe.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
That would be around 23 years age difference. Budge was old enough to be Laver's father.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
They played in 1962 and I don't mean in an official match. Rod was going for the Grand Slam in 1962 and Budge I believe played some practice sets with him.
It's pretty well known.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
He couldn't have any idea on how they played.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Laver actually played a pracrice match against Budge. He didn’t have to speculate about it.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Bobby,
I try to be clearer:
according to the prevailing parameter, that is "only the Majors count" (it is not my parameter, for me it is an absurd parameter) ... but it is the dominant parameter ... Rosewall should be the GOAT if we consider the pro majors.
I ask you Bobby: Rosewall is considered GOAT by 70% of people who are interested in tennis, or the media or the "experts"?
- if the answer is yes, Rosewall is the GOAT end of the discussion
- if the answer is no, Bobby, means that the Majors that are considered won by Rosewall are less than 20-25 .. so the Pro Majors are not considered.
KG, I still don't understand you (maybe I'm too tired having a cold). The fact how many people find that a player is The GOAT does not concur convincingly with the real fact if this player is actually the GOAT. Most people believe that Federer is the GOAT even though it's debatable. If we count how many people think that Rosewall is the GOAT then Muscles is not one of the top 10 or 15 even though it's possible that HE is the GOAT in reality. If we discount the standard pro majors, Rosewall has not a claim for GOAT candidacy at all. That's the reason why I have tried to point to Rosewall's greatness in books and articles ("Serve and Volley"; "Tennis Week") and in this forum since over five years and to plead to acknowledge his candidacy for GOATness. As a conclusion I must say that only a few willing persons (Bud Collins, Joe McCauley, Ray Bowers, Carlo Colussi, krosero, Nathaniel Near, thrust, Ivan, treblings, Octorok, sorry if I forgot one) have followed my suggestion. Will try to still plead for the Little Master who still is underrated shamefully by most people generally and some posters here.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
As I explained above, Laver played a practice match against Budge in the early 60's. They split sets. So, based on that experience, I think Laver had a healthy dose of personal knowledge to support his opinions. Further, it isn't that hard for a player to extrapolate the level of play of Tilden, Vines and Perry all of whom played each other, and Budge. I also know Crawford beat Vines at Wimbledon who had wins against Tilden, Perry and Budge.
I think he's saying that the "major count as determinant of GOAT" wasn't as important in Rosewall's day. Rather, level of play was. Thus, we cannot claim that Rosewall winning more pro majors elevates his place in the GOAT discussion.
I believe that achievements were always considered as equal with peak play or even higher, see Budge's and Laver's GSs. Furthermore I think that Rosewall is also a GOAT candidate if we concentrate only on playing level or even peak level. As pc1 has once written rightly (sic) playing level is shown by achievements. We know that you dislike Rosewall as he drops one place in your all-time list every year (sic).
Limpin, You really take this practice match as a true measure? Laver would not have made the GS if he would lose a set to a 47 year and overweight Budge. Laver also ranked Crawford, Perry and Kramer without ever playing them!
abmk
Bionic Poster
If Rosewall has dropped one place lower this year in his list now, its because Nadal's last year, 2017. 2 slams 1 slam final, dominant clay court play/season and YE #1.
If you want to complain about that, that's your problem.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I think that that drop happened about 7-8 years ago.
NATF, Phoenix1983, Lobb and pc1: Stop calling me (indirectly) a swindler or liar!! It's just disgusting how you still use lies! No single point of mine has ever been debunked!!! Get serious or stop posting!! It could be that Riggs, Riessen and Alexander have changed their mind in the course of the years or decades (most people change their rankings in a point or more points) but that does NOT mean that my quotations about Riggs, Riessen and Alexander were wrong or not serious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop insulting me!!!!!!! You, as also a few others here, just want to get me furious in order to get me banned again. That's disgusting!!!
I have already run my conclusion about your "expertise". World of Tennis writes that Metreveli had an "outstanding" year in 1972. Average player??? He was not significantly better the following year.
Several players rank Rosewall among the top ten, f.e. Newcombe among the top 6. Stop belittling Rosewall's greatness!
abmk
Bionic Poster
We're not necessarily talking about your way of ranking by peak play.
Its about how Phoenix ranked them.
I actually checked.
1. https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?posts/7680164/
Phoenix1983, Aug 21, 2013
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Rosewall
6. Nadal
7. Borg
8. Tilden
9. Budge
10. Lendl
2. https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?posts/10368603/
Phoenix1983, Jun 6, 2016
With his victory yesterday, Djokovic moves into my all-time top 5. I can't minimise the significance of holding all four slams at once, in the Open Era.
1. Federer
2. Laver
3. Sampras
4. Gonzales
5. Djokovic
6. Nadal
7. Rosewall
8. Borg
9. Tilden
10. Budge
^^ I am thinking he assumed Djokovic would end 2016 as #1 as well (like almost everyone else)
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ll-time-now-men.474196/page-169#post-11990731
Phoenix1983, Jan 29, 2018
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Rafael Nadal
4. Pete Sampras
5. Pancho Gonzales
6. Novak Djokovic
7. Ken Rosewall
8. Bjorn Borg
9. Bill Tilden
10. Don Budge
------------
Nadal won USO 2013, ended 2013 as #1 , also won RG 2014. So no wonder he moved Nadal ahead of Rosewall.
Then with Djokovic's accomplishments from late 2013 to mid-2016, he moved him ahead of Rosewall as well.
(4 slams in a row, 6 more slams total, 2 YE #1, dominant stretch from indoor 2014 to mid-2016)
I don't see anyone reasonable having a problem with this, @BobbyOne
and Phoenix dislikes Djokovic considerably more than he *dislikes* Rosewall
Stop your insulting and primitive (sic!) attitude. Neither the game is over nor is your argumentation correct. Metreveli, as you rightly wrote, did not have very good results in 1971. But in 1972!!!! Are you able to understand this difference??? And you write rightly (did not know the month though) he became pro in JANUARY 1973 but of course NOT because he won a super great mega event in the first days of the year. No he was accepted as a pro because of his great achievements in 1972!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't destroy the rules of logic!!!
Exactly.
A bit too much of extrapolation for good old (young) Rocket...
Ranking Nadal above Rosewall is still absurd. Compare their achievements.
Your logic is super weak.
He turned pro as soon he/they noticed he achieved results. So at the moment of the Australian Open was an average player (#35 for TB ranking). He turned pro for what he has done AFTER 1971 (it’s not a very difficult concept, I’m surprised I have to repeat it).
So AT THE MOMENT of the Australian Open 72 (I guess we were talking about that, read better) he was what it was: an amateur, ranked 35.
We can keep going if you want, it’s not gonna change
You cannot see those who rank Rosewall ahead of Nadal and Djokovic. Perhaps you should buy good eye-glasses...
This time I must really doubt your mental capacities!!! Metreveli might have been No.35 in a list but he was No.34 the following year! No, we not only discussed about Metreveli's status in January 1972 but also about his status in 1972 generally. You wrote that he was an average player in (the whole) 1972! Furthermore: Can you imagine that M. improve even in early 1972 in comparison to 1971? At least we can say that he reached the SFs of AO and lost to Anderson (who had eliminated world's No.1, Newcombe) in the round before, only by 2-6, 6-7, 6-7! (I know who dislike this writing but it's usual in Austria and other countries).
This is my last post about this argument.
I’m still going to play a little bit more with you, but on new stuff.
Everything started (you can check) with me showing the draw of Aus Open 72 and saying that Metreveli in SF was a shame (not for him, for the level of the tournament). I guess, maybe I’m wrong, that we were talking about the Aus Open. With an amateur is SF.
Then you started to reply with a lot of c*ap regarding amateurs, pro, Davis cup, Soviet Union, etc. Always trying to find excuses to push up the partecipants of the worst Slam in Open Era history.
Fact is he was an amateur because of his poor results. During the 1972, thanks to the ban of WCT he had some good results at Rome, Paris, Queens (you can add the apostrophe) and Wimbledon.
So AFTER THAT he/they thought to turn pro.
It’s a pretty linear concept.
You can understand it if you try.
abmk
Bionic Poster
err, what ?
Rosewall is ahead, but not by much in terms of achievements.
4 amateur slams, 15 pro majors, 3 open era slams+1 depleted open era slam+2 WCTs
An amateur slam doesn't come close to a full open era slam.
Let say for a fun excercise, we put 1 amateur slam and the depleted open era slam as 0.5*major
Let say we have each pro majors and the WCTs as 0.75*major
totally we get : 5*0.5+17*0.75+3*1 = 2.5+12.75+3 = 18.25 majors
Nadal has 16 majors as now.
Nadal has been #1 for 4 years.
Rosewall is #1 for either one of 60 or 61 (choose one among them, you can't have both, you can't have the cake and eat it too), #1 for 62 and 63 clearly.
64 is close. Arguable #1.
70 and 71 are weaker claims tbh.
I don't see more than 4 years as #1 for Rosewall tbh.
He was #2 guy for quite some time (just like Nadal)
I have 15 majors for Rosewall in a hypothetical open environment. (IMO , margin of error was 2-3, so IMO he ends up with 17-18 majors tops. I don't think he does, but anyways.)
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-etc-in-hypothetical-open-environment.595606/
Nadal has won 30 masters titles and some other smaller titles as well. So he has that part covered as well along with Rosewall (given the context of their respective times).
--------
and now coming to the more important point. why does rating have to be based on achievements only ? There are other factors like peak play, consistency, longevity, dominance etc. etc
Last edited:
I didn’t say he is #20.
Just replying to your post saying a lot of players claimed he is an all time great: I guess the 20th best player of all time is an all time great too.
What do you think? Don’t you agree? :O
abmk
Bionic Poster
Nope, I can see someone who under-values peak play , rates longevity highly rating Rosewall ahead of Nadal and Djokovic.
You OTOH do a stupid ,addition of the amateur majors, pro majors etc. of Rosewall like they are worth anywhere near a full open era major and then you get outraged when someone rates Nadal ahead of Rosewall.
Its like hitting yourself on the foot with a hammer and then getting outraged that it hurts !
Just one remark for the ranking - Fed is #1 since 2003 not since 2013.
