billnepill
Hall of Fame
Nadal and Djokovic used to beat GOAT Federer even though Roger was yet in his prime...
So a player cannot be beaten in his prime? Is "GOAT" Rosewell unbeaten in his prime?
Nadal and Djokovic used to beat GOAT Federer even though Roger was yet in his prime...
So a player cannot be beaten in his prime? Is "GOAT" Rosewell unbeaten in his prime?
billnepill,
Firstly, please write Rosewall.
Secondly, there is a big difference between Rosewall and Federer: While Rosewall is seldom till never mentioned as GOAT or even as GOAT candidate, most "modern" fans and experts claim Federer is the GOAT who seems to be unbeatable.
Thirdly, Rosewall lost seldom a major in his prime (he actually was unbeaten in majors for four years), Federer lost several big tournaments to Nadal and Djokovic.
billnepill,
Firstly, please write Rosewall.
Secondly, there is a big difference between Rosewall and Federer: While Rosewall is seldom till never mentioned as GOAT or even as GOAT candidate, most "modern" fans and experts claim Federer is the GOAT who seems to them to be unbeatable.
Thirdly, Rosewall lost seldom a major in his prime (he actually was unbeaten in majors for four years), Federer lost several big tournaments to Nadal and Djokovic.
The same people who blame Muscles for never winning Wimbledon use to put Federer on top place even though Federer won 17 majors and Rosewall won 23...
You want to sell him as the GOAT or better than Federer so he must be unbeaten if he is to be better than Federer, right?
And why limit to majors, when you are talking about Rosewall but not when you are talking about Federer? Pretty convenient
What were the 4 years Rosewall went unbeaten in majors please?
billnepill,
Where is your logic? Why must a player be unbeaten to be better than Federer?
I can give you at least four players (Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver) who have a better record than Roger even though they all were not unbeaten!
Apart from the majors, Rosewall won at least 137 tournaments and Federer won 78 if I rightly remember. Of course Roger will yet win a few more events...
I don't like ranking top pros from different decades. I believe each decade has the #1 guy and leave it at that.
60s - Laver
70s - Borg
80s - Lendl
90s - Sampras
00s - Federer
Where is my logic?
I am not the one that brought up the fact Federer was beaten by this or that player in his prime. It's pretty idiotic to expect a player not to be beaten in 4-5 year time. I really don't see anything constructive in your attacks towards Federer. You would have been better off by stating the argument for the 137 vs 78 wins in the first place, even though you yourself realise it's not compatible due to the million mickey-mouse-ish events
Does anyone have a % of tournaments entered / won?
1960 to 1963 which is nine majors where Rosewall participated (it's still record).
That's right, esp. considering how depleted Rosewall was by the time he got to the final round at Wimbledon and USO, only one year later. Seven rounds on clay in best of 5 matches is only going to be harder on someone that age.As great as Rosewall was, he was going to be 39 in 1973 and that would be very tough to beat a Nastase who would be 27 in 1973. Nastase in 1973 would be a big major for anyone on clay and he was absolutely at his peak then. The person I think would have had the best chance to defeat Nastase would have been Manuel Orantes but he was upset earlier in the tournament.
1-FED
2-laver
3-gonzalez
4-rosewall
5-lew hoad
6-borg
7-sampras
8-nadal
9-lendl
10-johnny mac
women-
1-navratilova
2-serena
3-graf
4-evert
5-seles
6-court
7-venus
8-connnoly
9-king
10-lenghlen/henin
Ranking Serena ahead of Graf and Evert is ridiculous.
i see so you are awarding serena some extra majors/ big tourney wins that she didnt actually win because she was 'injured' or because she preferred to go shopping..hmm ok then. :neutral:For career accomplishments it makes no logical sense. However I know a number of long time expert observers who believe Serena may have the highest level of play when she is on her game. Of course you can argue that for a few players.
i see so you are awarding serena some extra majors/ big tourney wins that she didnt actually win because she was 'injured' or because she preferred to go shopping..hmm ok then. :neutral:
also martina and evert were on the same level..they took majors off each other for about 11 yrs, so why is one of them lower dodgy list you got there..not based in reality.
You want to sell him as the GOAT or better than Federer so he must be unbeaten if he is to be better than Federer, right?
And why limit to majors, when you are talking about Rosewall but not when you are talking about Federer? Pretty convenient
Dan, in 1973 all strong players with the exception of Laver and Rosewall entered the French Open. And the two Aussies were after their prime and I guess none of them would have beaten Nastase, unlike the previous year.
Dan, as an expert you should know that Bromwich was not a veteran in 1947.
That's right, esp. considering how depleted Rosewall was by the time he got to the final round at Wimbledon and USO, only one year later. Seven rounds on clay in best of 5 matches is only going to be harder on someone that age.
oop soz..i was looking at terrastars18 list.I think you read my post incorrectly. I don't think Serena is ahead of Evert, Graf and Navratilova.
i see so you are awarding serena some extra majors/ big tourney wins that she didnt actually win because she was 'injured' or because she preferred to go shopping..hmm ok then. :neutral:
also martina and evert were on the same level..they took majors off each other for about 11 yrs, so why is one of them lower dodgy list you got there..not based in reality.
As great as Rosewall was, he was going to be 39 in 1973 and that would be very tough to beat a Nastase who would be 27 in 1973. Nastase in 1973 would be a big major for anyone on clay and he was absolutely at his peak then. The person I think would have had the best chance to defeat Nastase would have been Manuel Orantes but he was upset earlier in the tournament.
1973 Nastase was almost unbeatable on clay.You can never count Rosewall out but Nastase would be the favourite, anyhow.
Nastase was not at all unbeatable on clay.
In the 1972 French Open, he lost in the first round, giving Gimeno an easy path to victory.
In the 1975 Canadian Open final on clay, he lost in straight sets to Orantes, the key being a close line-call in the first set tiebreaker which went against Nastase (rightfully) and upset his concentration, and he made no effort to play after that, letting routine shots go by him. He was fined by the Tennis Council after the season for lack of effort.
In the 1973 French Open, Nastase did not face a tough match in the tournament.
orantes would beat any player on clay if he was on, so no shame to Ilie.
I mentioned 1973, when he was on zone for the first half of the year.he just threw away his chances at Wimbledon because he was the only guy ( Kodes came second) to have a lock on that tournament.And, when being a favourite, Nasatse seldom delivered.Like in the 1972 Wimbledon final.
This is very strange. Nastase was much more comfortable in the season-ending events, where, frankly, there was, and is, LESS pressure than at Wimbledon or Forest Hills, the two premiere events in the game.
Peak Martina was much better than Evert. She beat Evert 13 times in a row at one point. She was far more dominant at her peak, losing only 1 or 2 matches a year. Evert didnt even deny Martina many majors, only 3 or 4, Martina by contrast denied Evert about 8-10.
I fully agree with you, but Nastase deefated Orantes easily for two consecutive years Orantes in Barcelona (73 and 74) and if memory serves, I think he also handled hin at the 1973 IO.
Peak Martina was much better than Evert. She beat Evert 13 times in a row at one point. She was far more dominant at her peak, losing only 1 or 2 matches a year. Evert didnt even deny Martina many majors, only 3 or 4, Martina by contrast denied Evert about 8-10.
they both won 18 majors..
Evert beat Navratilova 8 times at the buisiness end of majors..(4F, 4SF).
It's interesting since you trump the weak era card - who was the competition of Rosewall during those years? Where were Gonzales and Laver? Luckily Gonzales retired and his retirement is widely considered as clearing the path for Rosewall as the former was smashing the competition in 1960
Newk was there?
How old was Buchholz in 1968?
Rosewall was more formidable on clay than on grass at this time.
It is a mystery to me why he did not play RG after 1969.
1973 Nastase was almost unbeatable on clay.You can never count Rosewall out but Nastase would be the favourite, anyhow.
Nastase was not at all unbeatable on clay.
In the 1972 French Open, he lost in the first round, giving Gimeno an easy path to victory.
In the 1975 Canadian Open final on clay, he lost in straight sets to Orantes, the key being a close line-call in the first set tiebreaker which went against Nastase (rightfully) and upset his concentration, and he made no effort to play after that, letting routine shots go by him. He was fined by the Tennis Council after the season for lack of effort.
In the 1973 French Open, Nastase did not face a tough match in the tournament.
Newk was there?
orantes would beat any player on clay if he was on, so no shame to Ilie.
I mentioned 1973, when he was on zone for the first half of the year.he just threw away his chances at Wimbledon because he was the only guy ( Kodes came second) to have a lock on that tournament.And, when being a favourite, Nasatse seldom delivered.Like in the 1972 Wimbledon final.
My 10, not by acievements, but who I cheered for, over the years:
Borg
Becker
Zivojinovic
Agassi
Safin
Hewitt
Federer
Djokovic
Dan, I again contradict: Rosewall seems to having been stronger on grass those years, see his runs in 1974.
because he was awesome...
Yes Newcombe was there. As was Kodes (that was for you Kiki), Panatta, Okker, Dibbs, Vilas, Metrevelli, Proisy, Connors, Ramirez, Orantes, Cox, Solomon, Ashe, Stan Smith, Borg, Richey Gimeno, Pilic, Taylor. Some of these players were not in their primes yet or past their primes but still excellent players. Borg for example beat the 9th seeded Richey in the first round. A sign of things to come I suppose.
I think it was an extremely strong field. To be honest while Laver and Rosewall could have won this tournament, it's very doubtful at their advanced ages. Laver was having some physical problems also.
I would think that Nastase won an impressive victory.
And of course Nastase was not unbeatable on clay but he was at his peak in 1973 and was a great clay court player.
He would have been stronger on clay.
Dan, Tingay ranked Rosewall at No.2 in 1974. If he played great claycourt events, would you give Rosewall even a better ranking?? LOL.
I think that Rosewall had a better chance to win at RG in 1974 than at Wimbledon or Forest Hills.
I think that he skipped RG after 1969 to better prepare for Wimbledon, a strategy which did not quite work. Better to have played at RG.
As far as Tingay, wasn't he the guy who ranked Hoad at #5 for 1953? I would have put Hoad at #1 for that year. I guess Tingay and I use different criteria.
Dan, Rosewall would not have beaten Borg in a Paris final in 1974.
Yes, you would have put Hoad at No.1 for 1953. I guess you even would have ranked Hoad at No.1 also for 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960.
Did I forget 1961, 1962 and 1963??
Yes, I finally agree: Tingay and you have actually used different criteria........