Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

thrust said:

Borg at Wimbledon was great to watch, yet when I saw Borg at the USO against Eddie Dibbs, it was one of the most boring matches I ever saw. Also there was a, I think, a WCT final against Vilas in which the points went on forever. In those two matches he seemed content to stay on the baseline and be a human backboard. I suppose the competition determined his game style on a given day.

Click to expand...

Thrust,

Borg played whatever style won and that was probably 1975 that you saw them play on har you. He was just a fraction of what he would be about three years later. In 1978 he had a bigger serve, more powerful AND consistent groundies and he volleyed better. You do realize that Borg defeated Rosewall the only time they met in 1973 on hard court when Borg was 17. Borg would improve a lot the next year.

I would assume you didn't see much of Borg playing if you only thought he was dull. It's better to be a dull winner than an exciting loser.

Here's the dynamic way even a young Borg could play. By the way it's always amused me how some posters have written Borg wasn't a hard hitter. He could really crush the ball even when young like in this video below.

I can tell you that in the video below the atmosphere was electric. I was there.

NatF said:

Whatever you say.

I have in the past belittled Rosewall in response to Bobby being well...Bobby, but these days I have far too much respect for Rosewall to go out of my way to talk ill of his great career. My post had nothing to do with trying to confirm Rosewall was strong or not strong. If you actually had a real grasp of my posts you'd know I wrote to NM that I think Rosewall's long list of big wins speaks much more for his quality then a ranking from Sedgman or Laver. But of course you've conveniently ignored that because it doesn't fit into the narrative you're peddling I also recently said I can see arguments for Rosewall over Laver. But yes I have a deep dislike of Rosewall, someone I never met and who retired long before I was born - the man even writes letters to Federer, how could I not despise him?!

I corrected Bobby because I'm fed up of his half truths and well fed up with Bobby in general. Don't mistake my anti-Ivan and anti-Bobby campaign as anything against Rosewall, personally I just think both of your personalities stink - inb4 Bobby calls me disgusting yada yada yada

I'm sure you'll just continue to say it's nothing to do with yourself or Bobby and I just dislike the fact a guy on the internet made a spreadsheet that said Rosewall > Federer. Maybe you're right, every night I have to read Rod Laver's interview where he calls Federer the GOAT just so I can nod off the sleep, otherwise I have nightmares of being sliced to death by the Little Master

Click to expand...

Indeed that is the hilarious part of all this.
Our “hate” for Rosewall.
Why should we hate him?
Federer is almost worldwide considered the GOAT. On L’Equipe after his win Federer was on first page, presented as the sportsman of the century. He’s compared now to Jordan, Gretzky, Phelps. Almost all his opponents regard him as the GOAT, with also exaggerated expression like “he’s from another planet”, “he’s a demi-God”, “nothing is perfect apart of Roger Federer”.
The only name that still is around him is Laver. So, I guess, we should try to downgrade Laver to raise our “hero”. Actually we should pump Rosewall up to have better arguments to downgrade Laver.

But no, we are worried about Rosewall!
We are Rosewall haters.

NatF said:

Whatever you say.

I have in the past belittled Rosewall in response to Bobby being well...Bobby, but these days I have far too much respect for Rosewall to go out of my way to talk ill of his great career. My post had nothing to do with trying to confirm Rosewall was strong or not strong. If you actually had a real grasp of my posts you'd know I wrote to NM that I think Rosewall's long list of big wins speaks much more for his quality then a ranking from Sedgman or Laver. But of course you've conveniently ignored that because it doesn't fit into the narrative you're peddling I also recently said I can see arguments for Rosewall over Laver. But yes I have a deep dislike of Rosewall, someone I never met and who retired long before I was born - the man even writes letters to Federer, how could I not despise him?

I corrected Bobby because I'm fed up of his half truths and well fed up with Bobby in general. Don't mistake my anti-Ivan and anti-Bobby campaign as anything against Rosewall, personally I just think both of your personalities stink - inb4 Bobby calls me disgusting yada yada yada

I'm sure you'll just continue to say it's nothing to do with your or Bobby and I just dislike the fact a guy on the internet made a spreadsheet that said Rosewall > Federer. Every night I have to read Rod Laver's interview where he calls Federer the GOAT just so I can nod off the sleep, otherwise I have nightmares of being sliced to death by the Little Master

Click to expand...

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. 10 times the name "Bobby" in your sentences. When posting you are not posting personally to Bobby but you express your positions to everyone. You are talking to me not to Bobby.

Wow, something new. You respect R because he writes letters to F. Wow, how generous?
Ha-ha. Laver's interview defines your position. If Laver has said Smith is the GOAT you will not read it. 300% sure. Like other guys you are reading very very selectively, only that fits your prejudiced position.

Now let's face some differences:
1. You are leading anti-Ivan campaign. I am not leading anti-Nat campaign.

2. You blame me for showing the achievements of Rosewall. I don't blame you for showing the achievements of other players.

3. You don't respect people who have other opinion than you. Again for a 100th time you are showing disrespect, now using the word "stink".

4. Your bias is so high that it's impossible that somebody could be ahead of Fed. Not possible. For you Fed is #1 by default. That's it. Simple.

5. Making an analysis and evaluation of the careers of the players is much better than using delusional non-measurable factors like "dominance", "level of play" etc. which you define 100% subjectively.

pc1 said:

Thrust,

Borg played whatever style won and that was probably 1975 that you saw them play on har you. He was just a fraction of what he would be about three years later. In 1978 he had a bigger serve, more powerful AND consistent groundies and he volleyed better. You do realize that Borg defeated Rosewall the only time they met in 1973 on hard court.

Click to expand...

Let's not forget that Rosewall was born in '34, so that needs to be put in context, as well as Borg's youth.

NoMercy said:

Indeed that is the hilarious part of all this.
Our “hate” for Rosewall.
Why should we hate him?
Federer is almost worldwide considered the GOAT. On L’Equipe after his win Federer was on first page, presented as the sportsman of the century. He’s compared now to Jordan, Gretzky, Phelps. Almost all his opponents regard him as the GOAT, with also exaggerated expression like “he’s from another planet”, “he’s a demi-God”, “nothing is perfect apart of Roger Federer”.
The only name that still is around him is Laver. So, I guess, we should try to downgrade Laver to raise our “hero”. Actually we should pump Rosewall up to have better arguments to downgrade Laver.

But no, we are worried about Rosewall!
We are Rosewall haters.

Click to expand...

I have cited some of your expressions some days ago. You obviously didn't responded because it's clear how you respect or disrespect Rosewall. The words showed that very clearly. I am using the word "disrespect" not "hate". They are very very different words. Please learn the meaning first.

Of course all players and experts praise Fed. He deserves that. No doubt. I also respect his achievements. But also have in mind that the current experts and media ALWAYS praise the current players. And this is normal. 20 years ago all the media, experts and players praised Sampras as the greatest. Nothing unusual.

But despite that current praises some experts still mention that Fed equaled Laver by majors, that Rosewall is still with 23 and that Rosewall is still the oldest player having won a major. Facts that you DON'T WANT TO ADMIT.

And I don't expect from you to admit it because if you respect Rosewall and his achievements you would admit that. 300% sure. This is called a DISRESPECT not hate.

Ivan69 said:

I have cited some of your expressions some days ago. You obviously didn't responded because it's clear how you respect or disrespect Rosewall. The words showed that very clearly. I am using the word "disrespect" not "hate". They are very very different words. Please learn the meaning first.

Of course all players and experts praise Fed. He deserves that. No doubt. I also respect his achievements. But also have in mind that the current experts and media ALWAYS praise the current players. And this is normal. 20 years ago all the media, experts and players praised Sampras as the greatest. Nothing unusual.

But despite that current praises some experts still mention that Fed equaled Laver by majors, that Rosewall is still with 23 and that Rosewall is still the oldest player having won a major. Facts that you DON'T WANT TO ADMIT.

And I don't expect from you to admit it because if you respect Rosewall and his achievements you would admit that. 300% sure. This is called a DISRESPECT not hate.

Click to expand...

Laver has not the same majors as Fed.
That list is a joke.
So I guess I’m disrespecting Laver now.

The Australian Open is not a major until 1977, and until 1990 is still a very weak one compared to the others.
So I guess I’m disrespecting all the Aus Open winners til 1989 now.

So much disrespect

Gary Duane said:

Let's not forget that Rosewall was born in '34, so that needs to be put in context, as well as Borg's youth.

Click to expand...

Borg was not top class yet and it was his first full year on the tour. Borg was 17 when they played. Rosewall was a seasoned veteran and a top ten player ranked number 9 in the world.

Borg was around number 44 in the world according to Tennis Base as of July 17, 1973. Borg met Rosewall on in late August of 1973 defeating Rosewall who was number 9 in the world by 2-6 6-1 7-5.

NoMercy said:

Indeed that is the hilarious part of all this.
Our “hate” for Rosewall.
Why should we hate him?
Federer is almost worldwide considered the GOAT. On L’Equipe after his win Federer was on first page, presented as the sportsman of the century. He’s compared now to Jordan, Gretzky, Phelps. Almost all his opponents regard him as the GOAT, with also exaggerated expression like “he’s from another planet”, “he’s a demi-God”, “nothing is perfect apart of Roger Federer”.
The only name that still is around him is Laver. So, I guess, we should try to downgrade Laver to raise our “hero”. Actually we should pump Rosewall up to have better arguments to downgrade Laver.

But no, we are worried about Rosewall!
We are Rosewall haters.

Click to expand...

You do realize NatF was joking! I hope you do.

Ivan69 said:

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. 10 times the name "Bobby" in your sentences. When posting you are not posting personally to Bobby but you express your positions to everyone. You are talking to me not to Bobby.

Wow, something new. You respect R because he writes letters to F. Wow, how generous?
Ha-ha. Laver's interview defines your position. If Laver has said Smith is the GOAT you will not read it. 300% sure. Like other guys you are reading very very selectively, only that fits your prejudiced position.

Now let's face some differences:
1. You are leading anti-Ivan campaign. I am not leading anti-Nat campaign.

2. You blame me for showing the achievements of Rosewall. I don't blame you for showing the achievements of other players.

3. You don't respect people who have other opinion than you. Again for a 100th time you are showing disrespect, now using the word "stink".

4. Your bias is so high that it's impossible that somebody could be ahead of Fed. Not possible. For you Fed is #1 by default. That's it. Simple.

5. Making an analysis and evaluation of the careers of the players is much better than using delusional non-measurable factors like "dominance", "level of play" etc. which you define 100% subjectively.

Click to expand...

Laver's rankings are similar to other players...there is a consensus.

pc1 said:

You do realize NatF was joking! I hope you do.

Click to expand...

You do realize mine was a mocking post! I hope you do.

NoMercy said:

Laver has not the same majors as Fed.
That list is a joke.
So I guess I’m disrespecting Laver now.

The Australian Open is not a major until 1977, and until 1990 is still a very weak one compared to the others.
So I guess I’m disrespecting all the Aus Open winners til 1989 now.

So much disrespect

Click to expand...

Yes. That's very true. You disrespect all AO winners. Very very bad for you.

And to ignore the 3 AO majors of Laver is the UGLIEST statement I ever heard in tennis. This statement goes undoubtedly to the #1 of the UGLIEST statements of the century.

By this to ignore the 2 calendar Grand Slams of Laver is the #1 weirdest conclusion.

Fortunately the history and all experts recognize the AO winners. Unfortunately you are very very far from the reality.

Your last post told me that you are the most misguided man in tennis. You broke all the records. I should check whether such records are possible for the Guiness book.

I am shocked that a man with huge rough tennis database may have such huge tennis distortions. Honestly! SHOCK and SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!

Ivan69 said:

Yes. That's very true. You disrespect all AO winners. Very very bad for you.

And to ignore the 3 AO majors of Laver is the UGLIEST statement I ever heard in tennis. This statement goes undoubtedly to the #1 of the UGLIEST statements of the century.

By this to ignore the 2 calendar Grand Slams of Laver is the #1 weirdest conclusion.

Fortunately the history and all experts recognize the AO winners. Unfortunately you are very very far from the reality.

Your last post told me that you are the most misguided man in tennis. You broke all the records. I should check whether such records are possible for the Guiness book.

I am shocked that a man with huge rough tennis database may have such huge tennis distortions. Honestly! SHOCK and SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

You should write a letter to ATP.
And ask them why they put the Australian Open into the 4th, 5th category of the tennis year.
And no, it’s not a matter of money.
Because some of the tournaments in the second class were richer than the 3 Slams.
It’s a matter of making categories of tournaments: the 3 slams and everything else.

Write to them and ask clarifications.

And by the way, your history background lacks one time more.
The Grand Slams are 100% ok, Laver won the 4 Slams. Do you know the difference between Slams and Majors? Do you know when majors first popped up and when slams?

Ivan69 said:

NatF, NM, abmk, pc1

You are fully free to present as much such posts as you wish. Just to mention that maybe 80% of your last 5 months discussions were tries to smirch the name of Rosewall and to belittle his career. 80% spent to spit and spit. That speaks clearly enough of your willingness to understand and analyse the tennis history. I don't expect from you to put R high on the list. That's impossible due to biased reasons. I expect from you an appropriate respect to him.

Fully understand that Rosewall is a BIG thorn in your as..s but fortunately you CAN'T change the history.

Fully understand that ONLY by belittling of Rosewall you are able to impose your favorites and idols. You have no real arguments based on achievements. I know this hurts A LOT. That's why you are trying to pull out from the closet some unclear and non-measurable fantasies like "dominance", "peak play" etc. Because you know very well you have NO chances with the accomplishments.

But dear guys the top players in all sports are measured and defined mostly by their achievements - Pele, Jordan, Phelps, Lewis, Kasparov etc. not by your illusional peak play.

So you can keep going with the articles, books and opinions. You are free to rank Rosewall 15, 115, 1015. I don't care AT ALL because in this 6 months since I am here I clearly saw your way of posting re Rosewall. A ranking based on bias and antipathies is not an objective ranking.

And please don't be such arrogant hypocrites to say that you "respect him highly". Not needed, nobody believes you.

Edit: Sorry that I forgot to mention pc1. As I read his posts several years ago he changed drastically his positions. I don't know why but now I see a different poster.

Click to expand...

I will address this properly. Try to read this without any pre-conceived bias or notions.

1. The top players in all sports are measured by their several factors of which achievements is one, peak level play , dominance are among others. Longevity is another, consistency is another, adapting to circumstances is another . But people normally pay more attention to peak play. Its how good can this guy play when he's playing really well. It is why almost no one in the past players has Rosewall as #1 among the 3 (Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall). Laver even rated him at #6 in the pre-open era(his rating was based on peak play). Most of the other players did not rate Rosewall as #1 either.
Most of the expert lists have Rosewall as #3/#4 in that era depending on whether they were focussing on peak play for Hoad.

Now, I agree that they under-rated achievements and over-rated peak level of play. But now, you are going to the other extreme. Just taking achievements and not even thinking about other factors, including peak play. You cannot re-write history by talking only achievements, when at that time level of play was valued highly. You can say they over-rated and reduce its importance to a more appropriate level, but you cannot ignore it.

2. Peak cannot be measured ? Not true.
You can take peak periods (1 year, 4 years, 5 years etc.). See their records in that time period. But you need to compare like to like if you want to compare directly. Many a times, this is not possible. So you need to adjust according to the circumstances of those times. You cannot compare pro period %s to amateur period%s.

Dominance cannot be measured ? Not true.

Borg's 77-80, Lendl's 85-87 and Federer's 04-07 are the top 3 dominant periods in the open era (if we consider their overall records in that period want to take a 3 or 4 year period).
Laver's 69, Borg's 79, Mac's 84, Federer's 06, Djokovic's 15 etc. are among the dominant years in the open era.

Check their W/L record, their titles won, their record in majors in those time periods etc. etc.
Another parameter to look at is to check their Games Won-Loss % (need to look surface wise as well, since this stat favours clay court dominance)

Peak level of play within a match cannot be measured ? Again, not necessarily true. You can, if you have the stats for the matches and know how to analyze in a nuanced way (here's one such attempt : https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...vel-of-play-federer-nadal-djokovic-co.450014/. Again, this is just one parameter. You cannot judge by just one parameter. Don't say I didn't say that.)

3. And finally, who is widely regarded as GOAT apart from Federer. Laver, right ? Do you see any of us going on and on and belittling his achievements?
Why would we target Rosewall instead of targetting Laver ?
And Gonzales is regarded more highly historically than Rosewall. I and the others should be belittling Gonzales, not Rosewall, right ?
No, instead I've always argued that Gonzales achieved more and was the greater player.

4. See this conversation for instance, where I pointed out that Rosewall was under-rated in this list.

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ll-time-now-men.474196/page-122#post-11725497

NoMercy said:

You should write a letter to ATP.
And ask them why they put the Australian Open into the 4th, 5th category of the tennis year.
And no, it’s not a matter of money.
Because some of the tournaments in the second class were richer than the 3 Slams.
It’s a matter of making categories of tournaments: the 3 slams and everything else.

Write to them and ask clarifications.

And by the way, your history background lacks one time more.
The Grand Slams are 100% ok, Laver won the 4 Slams. Do you know the difference between Slams and Majors? Do you know when majors first popped up and when slams?

Click to expand...

No, thanks. I will ask nobody. Your post shocked me 100 times more than the discrepancies of ATP.

Ivan69 said:

No, thanks. I will ask nobody. Your post shocked me 100 times more than the discrepancies of ATP.

Click to expand...

Ok, you don’t know the difference between Slams and Majors

Ivan69 said:

Yes. That's very true. You disrespect all AO winners. Very very bad for you.

And to ignore the 3 AO majors of Laver is the UGLIEST statement I ever heard in tennis. This statement goes undoubtedly to the #1 of the UGLIEST statements of the century.

By this to ignore the 2 calendar Grand Slams of Laver is the #1 weirdest conclusion.

Fortunately the history and all experts recognize the AO winners. Unfortunately you are very very far from the reality.

Your last post told me that you are the most misguided man in tennis. You broke all the records. I should check whether such records are possible for the Guiness book.

I am shocked that a man with huge rough tennis database may have such huge tennis distortions. Honestly! SHOCK and SHAME!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

And just a small little tennis history lesson, so you can go to bed happy to have learned something new.
In the Amateurs Era there were 7 majors, the 4 slams plus the Italian champs, the German champs and the South African one

NoMercy said:

You do realize mine was a mocking post! I hope you do.

Click to expand...

How dare you mock me? LOL!

Ivan69 said:

I have cited some of your expressions some days ago. You obviously didn't responded because it's clear how you respect or disrespect Rosewall. The words showed that very clearly. I am using the word "disrespect" not "hate". They are very very different words. Please learn the meaning first.

Of course all players and experts praise Fed. He deserves that. No doubt. I also respect his achievements. But also have in mind that the current experts and media ALWAYS praise the current players. And this is normal. 20 years ago all the media, experts and players praised Sampras as the greatest. Nothing unusual.

But despite that current praises some experts still mention that Fed equaled Laver by majors, that Rosewall is still with 23 and that Rosewall is still the oldest player having won a major. Facts that you DON'T WANT TO ADMIT.

And I don't expect from you to admit it because if you respect Rosewall and his achievements you would admit that. 300% sure. This is called a DISRESPECT not hate.

Click to expand...

wait a minute.
How are the amateur slams of Rosewall/Laver anywhere close to a full open era major ?
why would you put them as equivalent over here ?

abmk said:

wait a minute.
How are the amateur slams of Rosewall/Laver anywhere close to a full open era major ?
why would you put them as equivalent over here ?

Click to expand...

The funny part is the Laver/Rosewall ones are good ones. The Emerson ones are weak

Ivan69 said:

No, thanks. I will ask nobody. Your post shocked me 100 times more than the discrepancies of ATP.

Click to expand...

Oh, and very important.
This is not an ATP discrepancy.
It’s not a mistake, a lack of info, or something like that.

It’s how the tennis world was seen in those years. By the Association of Tennis Professionals. Who, in a very few words, were the one who made the rules.

NoMercy said:

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.

Click to expand...

You totally ignore that I disproved your 1973 thesis when showing you that Metreveli "improved" only from No.35 in 1972 to No.34 in 1973. Cant's stand your kind of "logic" and your insulting word.

Thanks that you posted that you have not seen any contribution of mine since you joined the forum (okay, then you mentioned one contribution)...

NoMercy said:

The funny part is the Laver/Rosewall ones are good ones. The Emerson ones are weak

Click to expand...

Lets wait and hear what he has to say first.

abmk said:

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

Click to expand...

I never ranked only regarding achievements!

NoMercy said:

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

Click to expand...

I clearly told you that some players rank Rosewall among the top ten, not 20!

NoMercy said:

The funny part is the Laver/Rosewall ones are good ones. The Emerson ones are weak

Click to expand...

I never said that.

BobbyOne said:

abmk, Thanks for your next intelligent insult.

Click to expand...

I gave a full, proper, clear, polite answer to your statement.
"Ranking Nadal above Rosewall is still absurd. Compare their achievements."

Post #10096. But you did not respond to that. And only chose to respond to this one. Why ?

You were the one who made a snippy statement first. "You cannot see those who rank Rosewall ahead of Nadal and Djokovic. Perhaps you should buy good eye-glasses..."

I responded in kind. My post was accurate. Yours wasn't.
If you can't take it, then dish it out.

Edit : Just saw your response to the other post now.

BobbyOne said:

I never said that.

Click to expand...

Ok, so Emerson 12 majors.
Above Borg.

Cool

NoMercy said:

I think Pancho was not impressed by the level a mature Rosewall showed in the WS60.

Click to expand...

Was he impressed by the 1959 hth??

BobbyOne said:

I clearly told you that some players rank Rosewall among the top ten, not 20!

Click to expand...

And I clearly told you that top20 all time is huge. It means being among the best.
And there is a big difference to be rated as the best or among the best.

BobbyOne said:

Was he impressed by the 1959 hth??

Click to expand...

Not so much, as he was one of the top2 players of the year. And Rosewall was not the other one.

Also, if he was impressed, he could have named also Rosewall among his best opponents. But he named Sedgman

BobbyOne said:

I never ranked only regarding achievements!

Click to expand...

Didn't say you did.

But your statement "Ranking Nadal above Rosewall is still absurd. Compare their achievements." meant that you thought/think that Rosewall is considerably ahead of Nadal in terms of achievements.
I've shown in that post (though not in a fully accurate way) that it isn't the case. Rosewall is ahead, but not by too much.

Now, what do you say ? In terms of achievements, is Rosewall still considerably ahead or ahead , but not by too much ?

BobbyOne said:

You totally ignore that I disproved your 1973 thesis when showing you that Metreveli "improved" only from No.35 in 1972 to No.34 in 1973. Cant's stand your kind of "logic" and your insulting word.

Thanks that you posted that you have not seen any contribution of mine since you joined the forum (okay, then you mentioned one contribution)...

Click to expand...

I ignore that you disproved me because you didn’t.
Let’s try to make it simple, even for you.
According to TB ranking, Metreveli is #35 at the end of 1971.
He’s #15 after the US Open 1972 and #21 at the end of 1972.
He turned pro in January 1973 (I have the newspaper article with the date, do you wanna read it? You could learn something new ).

I see improvements, even if he was helped by the absence of WCT players.
Thanks to these improvements he turned pro.
Even in Soviet Union

abmk said:

1. The top players in all sports are measured by their several factors of which achievements is one, peak level play , dominance are among others. Longevity is another, consistency is another, adapting to circumstances is another . But people normally pay more attention to peak play. Its how good can this guy play when he's playing really well. It is why almost no one in the past players has Rosewall as #1 among the 3 (Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall). Laver even rated him at #6 in the pre-open era(his rating was based on peak play). Most of the other players did not rate Rosewall as #1 either.
Most of the expert lists have Rosewall as #3/#4 in that era depending on whether they were focussing on peak play for Hoad.

Click to expand...

I reply again properly.
The top players in all sports are measured by their achievements. No such components like level of play, dominance etc. Pele is on the top due to his unprecedented 3 World Cups and near 1,300 goals. Jordan is on the top due to his champions and MVP titles. Everybody knows Phelps with his 23 titles IIRC. Everybody knows Lewis with his records and titles. Everybody knows Woods with his 16 majors IIRC. This is what remains in the history.
Research it. And I am talking principally how the sport is measured not how Rosewall should be measured. Everybody (players, experts, media) cares about the achievements. The other is just interesting details.

abmk said:

2. Peak cannot be measured ? Not true.
You can take peak periods (1 year, 4 years, 5 years etc.). See their records in that time period. But you need to compare like to like if you want to compare directly. Many a times, this is not possible. So you need to adjust according to the circumstances of those times. You cannot compare pro period %s to amateur period%s.

Click to expand...

You can take periods but this is NOT a measurement. These are year numbers not saying anything about the level of competition, is this the real peak play etc. Second, taking periods (not measurement) you easily ignore the other periods of the player. A player been #1 for 5 years and #2 for 10 years could have much better achievements than player B been #1 for 6 years and #2 for 3 years.
Using your methods of thinking should we ignore a player like Nadal who has "only" 4 #1s but in the last 10 years is always in the top 3. No, we should differentiate between the ranking or YE position and the peak play of a player. To be #2 or #3 is also a great achievement.

abmk said:

Dominance cannot be measured ? Not true.

Borg's 77-80, Lendl's 85-87 and Federer's 04-07 are the top 3 dominant periods in the open era (if we consider their overall records in that period want to take a 3 or 4 year period).
Laver's 69, Borg's 79, Mac's 84, Federer's 06, Djokovic's 15 etc. are among the dominant years in the open era.

Check their W/L record, their titles won, their record in majors in those time periods etc. etc.
Another parameter to look at is to check their Games Won-Loss % (need to look surface wise as well, since this stat favours clay court dominance)

Click to expand...

All these years you mention are very interesting for the tennis fans but they don't define the evaluation of the entire careers of the players.
1. You may have some dominant periods and beyond them weaker periods or injuries. Examples - Mac, Borg, Wilander.
2. At the same time we have players without big dominant periods but with a more consistent game and much more success - Lendl, Connors.

Fed is among the greatest not because his 04-07 period was dominant but because his entire career is excellent. His period after 2007 is also remarkable despite he was not dominant.

Yes, yes, don't worry. I have all the stats about the players - titles, W/L, H2H etc. I have them into account.

So the dominance can't be a definitive indicator for the resume of a player. I consider the career of Lendl and Connors more successful than Mac, Borg and Wilander.

abmk said:

3. And finally, who is widely regarded as GOAT apart from Federer. Laver, right ? Do you see any of us going on and on and belittling his achievements?
Why would we target Rosewall instead of targetting Laver ?
And Gonzales is regarded more highly historically than Rosewall. I and the others should be belittling Gonzales, not Rosewall, right ?
No, instead I've always argued that Gonzales achieved more and was the greater player.

Click to expand...

That's a BIG BIG problem. Most of the current tennis fans have NO or barely knowledge of the whole pre-OE. Most of the current tennis fans don't even a barely knowledge of the 70s and 80s. That's really too bad.
If you now make a brainstorming in the forum for the top 10 the list will be almost full of OE players. Be sure. Some of them will mention Laver because they have heard something about him but no idea about his career. Do you think that the most fans but even also current experts know about the careers of Gonz, Rosewall, Tilden etc? Wow, 0 to 1% max. Make the same brainstorm about European football! The results will be Ronaldo, Messi, Neymar. Most of the fans don't know about Pele.
So, the "widely" regard of the players could be fully not representative. And don't forget the media coverage, PR, advertising and all related big money around.

abmk said:

4. See this conversation for instance, where I pointed out that Rosewall was under-rated in this list.

Click to expand...

Look, I have read such words not only from you. But they mean nothing when finally you rank him #9. This place is too far from the real place he deserves. My view is that this guy deserves very fairly a place at least in the top 3 all time. I rank him at the top with Laver but I wont argue if somebody ranks him #2 or #3 but not lower.

NatF said:

From Vines book the last paragraph in the Riggs chapter-
When asked to volunteer his All-Time-First Ten, Riggs replied, "I'd put Kramer, one; Budge, two; Vines (a nod), three; Tilden, four; Gonzalez, five; Perry, six; Laver, seven; Segura, eight; Sedgman, nine..." The he paused. "Ten is tough---probably Rosewall. He's been winning major tournaments for over twenty years." Then a pause...followed by a smile. "But I agree with you, I was better than Rosewall. Better serve. Better balance off both sides...his forehand was always a little suspect."

Seems odd to me that Riggs would reassess his evaluation so much especially considering most of the guys in front peaked before Rosewall anyway. Commies and ex-players say a lot of stuff to hype the game. Wilander once said Djokovic was playing the best clay court tennis of all time (back in 2015 at the French) - he went on to lose to Wawrinka in 4 in the final. There's all sorts of examples of this. I wouldn't take 'in the moment' comments or statements at face value.

Alexander most recently called Federer the GOAT as well

And I didn't insult you. As far as no single point of yours ever being debunked - just lol - I guess we can trust you on that because you're so objective right?

Click to expand...

NatF (and Limp and NM): I gave you what I have read about Riggs in World Tennis of September 1963. The "W.T. reporter" means that Bobby's point of view is that "Rosewall could beat any of the great pros of history". Pancho contradicted that point of view. It's also written that "Riggs in a "Rosewall" man through and through". Your quoting of the Vines book does not make my quoting wrong. People can change their mind. When I was young I thought that Emerson was the greatest of his time. Furthermore I'm not a friend of Riggs' character. He blows up himself.

I doubt that Riggs could have beaten peak Laver as Rosewall did.

Ranking Segura ahead of Rosewall says all about Riggs' expertise.

Get serious and stop mocking me. I have not deserve it!!!

NoMercy said:

LOL
Even behind Segura.
Very high rated by other players.
Oh yeah

Click to expand...

Your only goal in this forum is to show your God-like status and to belittle posters who disagree with you. That's mean!

NoMercy said:

Reading the opinion other players have/had about Rosewall is like reading the opinion other players have about Federer.........
Ops, actually not!

A REAL goat contender....

But probably our fine analysts know the game better than the people that really play

Click to expand...

You will be surprised: I'm convinced that experts like krosero, Carlo Colussi and I (I can't rate you as expert anymore) do know MORE about the records of the "old" players than Federer and Nadal know. It's of course natural since the current players have not studied tennis history. Players are often bad experts for history.

abmk said:

I gave a full, proper, clear, polite answer to your statement.
"Ranking Nadal above Rosewall is still absurd. Compare their achievements."

Post #10096. But you did not respond to that. And only chose to respond to this one. Why ?

You were the one who made a snippy statement first. "You cannot see those who rank Rosewall ahead of Nadal and Djokovic. Perhaps you should buy good eye-glasses..."

I responded in kind. My post was accurate. Yours wasn't.
If you can't take it, then dish it out.

Edit : Just saw your response to the other post now.

Click to expand...

"Stupid" is kind????

NoMercy said:

And just a small little tennis history lesson, so you can go to bed happy to have learned something new.
In the Amateurs Era there were 7 majors, the 4 slams plus the Italian champs, the German champs and the South African one

Click to expand...

Lessons from you ????? You are somewhere in the 5th grade in tennis after the today's post.
You know pretty well what we mean in the forum under the word "major". If you don't know learn it. No need of further explanations.

NoMercy said:

I ignore that you disproved me because you didn’t.
Let’s try to make it simple, even for you.
According to TB ranking, Metreveli is #35 at the end of 1971.
He’s #15 after the US Open 1972 and #21 at the end of 1972.
He turned pro in January 1973 (I have the newspaper article with the date, do you wanna read it? You could learn something new ).

I see improvements, even if he was helped by the absence of WCT players.
Thanks to these improvements he turned pro.
Even in Soviet Union

Click to expand...

Stop your insulting arrogance finally!!!!!

You did not comment my information that Metreveli "improved" from No.35 (1972) to No.34 (1973)!

TB is not the one and all. I referred to the official ATP rankings!!!

BobbyOne said:

You will be surprised: I'm convinced that experts like krosero, Carlo Colussi and I (I can't rate you as expert anymore) do know MORE about the records of the "old" players than Federer and Nadal know. It's of course natural since the current players have not studied tennis history. Players are often bad experts for history.

Click to expand...

Again, you didn't understand.
Regarding the opinion of the players that have played Rosewall, he was not the best of the ones they played.
Regarding the opinion of the players that have played Federer, he was the best of the ones they played.
This means to be regarded from your opponents as the best they faced.
Sorry Bobby, but it's VERY important.

Ivan69 said:

Lessons from you ????? You are somewhere in the 5th grade in tennis after the today's post.
You know pretty well what we mean in the forum under the word "major". If you don't know learn it. No need of further explanations.

Click to expand...

Haha, ok.
So Mr Teacher, tell what is a Major. So I can learn it.

Then we write a letter to ATP and explain to them too

abmk said:

wait a minute.
How are the amateur slams of Rosewall/Laver anywhere close to a full open era major ?
why would you put them as equivalent over here ?

Click to expand...

What is this question? Close or far? A slam is a slam - in 1950, 1980 and 2010. The same category. The value could be different but it is a slam.

I don't put anything. The history makes this.

BobbyOne said:

Stop your insulting arrogance finally!!!!!

You did not comment my information that Metreveli "improved" from No.35 (1972) to No.34 (1973)!

TB is not the one and all. I referred to the official ATP rankings!!!

Click to expand...

So you should know better than me that the first ATP ranking was a race, that began on 1 Jan 1973 and when it was first published in late August included only 7 months of tournaments and only at the end of the year was a fully 12-months ranking.

I'm sure you knew, because you are an expert and historian (a goooood one!).

So in no one of 1973 ranking there were Metreveli 1972 results.

PS Bobby, I'm schooling you in a way you never seen, right? Are you happy?

NoMercy said:

Again, you didn't understand.
Regarding the opinion of the players that have played Rosewall, he was not the best of the ones they played.
Regarding the opinion of the players that have played Federer, he was the best of the ones they played.
This means to be regarded from your opponents as the best they faced.
Sorry Bobby, but it's VERY important.

Click to expand...

I must laugh: Some great opponents of Rosewall used to say that Muscles was not at the top, had weaknesses and so on. But the facts show that he dominated all of them with Gonzalez and Laver as exceptions. But even these two struggled against Rosewall in important matches (Rosewall has a positive hth against Laver in very big tournaments). Learn history instead of just collecting information without the capability to value them in a serious way!

BobbyOne said:

Stop your insulting arrogance finally!!!!!

You did not comment my information that Metreveli "improved" from No.35 (1972) to No.34 (1973)!

TB is not the one and all. I referred to the official ATP rankings!!!

Click to expand...

And I will tell you another secret, so you can go happy to bed too (like Ivan), having learned something new.
Wimbledon73 was not included in the ATP ranking because of the boycott, that's why Metreveli had so few points in August 1973: his Wimbledon final was not included.

BobbyOne said:

"Stupid" is kind????

Click to expand...

I was quite clear that I referred to the other response , response to your other statement ""Ranking Nadal above Rosewall is still absurd. Compare their achievements."

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...ll-time-now-men.474196/page-202#post-12027771

no sharp words there at all.


When you said "You cannot see those who rank Rosewall ahead of Nadal and Djokovic. Perhaps you should buy good eye-glasses..."

that's when I used stupid.
it was a response in kind.

NoMercy said:

And I clearly told you that top20 all time is huge. It means being among the best.
And there is a big difference to be rated as the best or among the best.

Click to expand...

Maybe Federer is No.12 and Laver No.18: Indeed very good players, better than Karlovic, Ramillon and Rod Frawley!! I agree.

BobbyOne said:

I must laugh: Some great opponents of Rosewall used to say that Muscles was not at the top, had weaknesses and so on. But the facts show that he dominated all of them with Gonzalez and Laver as exceptions. But even these two struggled against Rosewall in important matches (Rosewall has a positive hth against Laver in very big tournaments). Learn history instead of just collecting information without the capability to value them in a serious way!

Click to expand...

nope. Its tied.

1-1 in open era majors
6-6 in pro majors (including Wimbledon Pro in 67)
2-0 Rosewall in WCT Dallas
2-0 Laver in TCC

BobbyOne said:

I must laugh: Some great opponents of Rosewall used to say that Muscles was not at the top, had weaknesses and so on. But the facts show that he dominated all of them with Gonzalez and Laver as exceptions. But even these two struggled against Rosewall in important matches (Rosewall has a positive hth against Laver in very big tournaments). Learn history instead of just collecting information without the capability to value them in a serious way!

Click to expand...

You can laugh, but if they rate Gonzales and Laver higher, maybe there is a reason, what do you think?

NoMercy said:

Oh, and very important.
This is not an ATP discrepancy.
It’s not a mistake, a lack of info, or something like that.

It’s how the tennis world was seen in those years. By the Association of Tennis Professionals. Who, in a very few words, were the one who made the rules.

Click to expand...

If under the tennis world you mean you then OK. ATP???? Wow, you spitted so much on ATP but now is the greatest. But Mr. Smart guy if I open the ATP I can see all the amateur slams.
I am again shocked of you. Today you are on another planet. What's happening to you? Do you need some help?