Often players say things to promote the game but don't really mean it. I know one all time great who has praised another all time great but in reality he doesn't believe that the great player is that terrific and another player in his mind is truly the GOAT.
Gary,
Laver was truly awesome and his record was super but he is of course not the god-like presence that some say he was. However he has performed some superhuman type feats in his career. The Open Grand Slam, the 200 plus tournament wins and seemingly the ability at times to hit winners out of nowhere. I used to watch him go on some of his hot streaks and think to myself that it can't be as easy to hit the lines as he's making seem to be. Ashe used this description of Laver when he was on a hot streak from his book "Arthur Ashe-Portrait in Motion"-Still, no one can ever feel secure against Rocket. People talk about me being a streaky player, but there is no one who can blow any hotter than Rocket. In 1968 in the finals of the Pacific Southwest, Rosewall beat him 7-5 in the first set and then didn't win another game--love and love, a double bagel. When Laver goes on one of those tears, it's just ridiculous. He starts hitting the lines, and ten he starts hitting the lines harder--and harder and harder. No one can stop him.
So Gary, while Laver may not be what some say he was he was pretty great. Here's Rosewall's description of Laver's game from "Play Tennis with Rosewall"--When he is playing confidently I cannot think of a more destructive tennis machine than Rod Laver. He is one of the toughest players you could ever have the misfortune to meet. He hits the ball hard, moves like lightning and has no weaknesses--so how do you beat him? To be honest you do not, unless a chink appears in his armour. It used to be his forehand volley but that's no weakness now. Occasionally it is his service which still let's him down at times. However in the last five or six years his service has improved out of sight. He is hitting even harder now than he used to and the wicked spin that he can command and the disguise he can achieve--particularly when running flat out to make his shot, makes him a really hazardous opponent to face.
Now ranking Rosewall number six is pretty awesome by the way with greats like Gonzalez, Laver, Tilden, Federer, Vines, Budge, Riggs, Kramer, Lacoste, Cochet, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Lendl, Hoad, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, Newcombe, Sedgman, Segura, Riggs, Trabert around. Tilden's record for example is almost ridiculous in its numbers and he played for decades defeating greats from Lacoste, Brookes, Johnston, Budge, Perry, Vines, Ted Schroeder in the 1940s, Nusslein etc. He even played Pancho Gonzalez and in one match only lost to Gonzalez 7-5 10-8 according to Tennis Base. This was in 1951 when Tilden would be 58! I could see Rosewall ranked high and I could see Rosewall out the top ten as I could with many of these players. For example Laver, Tilden, Federer, Gonzalez, Budge, Kramer, Borg, McEnroe, Connors, Hoad, Djokovic, Nadal, Sampras, Cochet, Perry have all been called the GOAT. So you know they have impressed people with their play and their record. Many of these players can be reasonably said to be ahead of Rosewall and at the same time many of them can be reasonably said to be behind Rosewall
Another excellent post.
Good post, PC1
But I notice quite a few posters are scratching their heads about how Laver could rank Rosewall "as low as sixth" of the pre Borg-Connors counterrevolution, i.e. Sixth among the old-timers.
And I noticed you conflated the lists. It is two lists and the thing that may be bothering some people is the implication that when combining the two lists, it looks like Rosewall ends up between 12th and 15th or so. So the Laver list needs scrutiny.
The two lista were, for short hand, old timers and "moderns". The list was from The Melbourne Herald Sun during the 2012 AO but before That Djokovic -Nadal match, which I believe led Laver to remark that he had never seen any tennis like it.
Old Timers 1-6 (out of 10 mentioned)
Hoad
Kramer
Gonzalez
Budge
Perry
Rosewall
et al. (Notice Rosewall above Sedge, Vines and many others)
Moderns
Federer
Borg
Sampras
McEnroe
Nadal
Djokovic
Agassi
Connors
Lendl
Edberg
Hence the danger that Kenny does not make even top 12, on the face of it.
But I actually don't think he meant to
Put Kenny quite so low, or, don't think he would on closer analysis.
Here is what I am sure happened regarding that list:
Lew Hoad is God to Laver. He is Willlie Mays and Mickey Mantle rolled into one for the boy Rodney. Or, for the non-baseball fans, and with just a tiny error in the order of time, he is Puskas, Pele and Garrincha in one man. He is Rod's idol and his player model. That is absolutely the case and that has always skewed Laver's view of Lew Hoad.
Second, he damn sure is going to be thinking about Gonzalez because (a) Gorgo was the best player in the world from the time Laver started competing at the world level through and including the year Laver won his first Wimbledon, and (b) He gave Rocket unshirted hell in 1964, and tagged him but good now and then all the way through 1970 - a combination of powerful visceral impressions, not to mention it is absolutely correct to rank Richard as high as you want.
Third, even after all these years, Rocket's views are hijacked somewhat by the crowd - I mean the Kramer crowd. This starts w assuming Kramer had to be practically at the top. That was the view of the Kramer crowd. The crowd young Rod was aspiring to join - the narrow culture he was entering. And Budge as a nearly God-like figure is part of the Kramer hegemony. Rod's inclusion of Riggs (especially), as well as Vines, in the old-timers top 10 as opposed to Tilden, and even Cochet, Lacoste and Sedgman, shows him going w the Kramer influence. This crowd were his elders, his received wisdom. The one exception to that, to some extent, is Perry.
Tremendous, even underrated player, but Perry over Rosewall is just a flat out mistake. Surely Rocket would realize and acknowledged that. Then Hoad. It is stubborn hero worship, combined probably with Rod's preference for "hare over tortoise," to borrow from another poster's recent comments. Hoad No. 1 is just Weird. And Hoad over "The Little *******" is not reasonable. I do not think Kramer belongs ahead of Doomsday. That Would make an interesting conversación. But I see it as Jack's influential personality over Laver even today.
Budge, yes, you could Argue above Rosewall. Many would.
So, you could have González, Budge, Laver himself, plus the non-listed Tilden ahead of Rosewall. That is it. So, i see Laver as really ranking Muscles fourth or fifth, depending if Rod sees the light re. Tilden.
SO much for old timers.
In addition, i Am sure that Fed, Borg, Sampras and Nadal would rank ahead of Rosewall in a Laver analysis. I think Mac and Novak probably would, So asumming he remembers Tilden, a Laver reconsiderartion should have Muscles no Higher than 9th or 10th historically, But probably 11th or 12th because Rodney will never give up the ideal of Hoad.
So there is a quirkiness to Rocket's evaluation. But his placement of Rosewall is still higher than where many others place him. Moreover, Laver spends more time on Rosewall in his autobiography than on anyone besides Himself, and it is all positive. And he calls Rosewall the most underrated player in history.
Excuse me for word errors on this post. Apart from writing on the phone, the Spanish keyboard on the phone won't unlock, and I have had to write each word three times or more to get autocorrect to stand down. I am sure I missed some errors.
