Rosewall and Gonzales Careers Official Thread

kiki

kiki

Banned
pc1 said:
Kiki,

BobbyOne does know a lot about tennis. One does not have to have seen Bill Tilden in person to know a lot of information on him. Of course it helps but in analyzing his results against top competition it is not as important as knowing the information. If I saw Henri Leconte on one of his "on" days I would think this guy was astounding. But in checking his results I would realize that he wasn't quite that good. Actually I still think Leconte was an astounding talent and one of the most gifted I've seen come to think of it. :)

It's quite easy to be in awe of Laver. Sometimes I would watch Laver and see the announcers yell "On the line" for another one of Laver's shots when he was on one of his hot streaks and I would think to myself that it can't be that easy for him to hit the line. Laver was a great shotmaker.

But I admire Rosewall too. He's spectacular in his own way. After watching Rosewall for a while you realize what a genius this guy was. He did things in a quietly brilliant way. By that I mean that he never seemed rushed but always seemed in the right place to hit the right shot. Arthur Ashe once wrote that Rosewall and him had as their best shots the backhand. Ashe commented that he had a wide variety of backhand and Rosewall had one backhand...perfect.
Click to expand...

Bobbyone is too biassed and seems bothered that somebody just doesn´t flatten Rosewall day in, day out.I have seen him, I have posted many times that he was just impressing.he seemed in total comand and his positional sense was just unmatched.He was, sometimes, unreal.he hit what many consider ( and I am one of them) the greatest ground stroke of all time.His backhand, I just laughed at how ridiculous perfect it was.he seemed like a 80 yrs old guy that just happened to go by a tennis court.He was making the other guy feeling miserable and he would not looked up.He was a player of a cartoon design, that is the best definition I can find for him.

I have posted that, if I could choose a personal teacher for my tennis, I´d pick him with very few doubts, even if I know I´d be happy to just be 1/1000.000 of him.

having said that, the matter of the subject is that when somebody brings in such a great champion ( and sportsman) as Newcombe and even Kodes, people over here just have the need to belittle them so to enhance their fav players.It is not fair and it proves that the jusgement or tennis experience is somehow failing.

now that you borught up Leconte, I always thought he was really talented but, because there were not so many attacking players in europe, he got really hypped.His left arm was compared to Laver.

maybe but Laver did a lot more inteligent things with that left arm.french press is just hysterical, you know.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
Kiki,

BobbyOne does know a lot about tennis. One does not have to have seen Bill Tilden in person to know a lot of information on him. Of course it helps but in analyzing his results against top competition it is not as important as knowing the information. If I saw Henri Leconte on one of his "on" days I would think this guy was astounding. But in checking his results I would realize that he wasn't quite that good. Actually I still think Leconte was an astounding talent and one of the most gifted I've seen come to think of it. :)

It's quite easy to be in awe of Laver. Sometimes I would watch Laver and see the announcers yell "On the line" for another one of Laver's shots when he was on one of his hot streaks and I would think to myself that it can't be that easy for him to hit the line. Laver was a great shotmaker.

But I admire Rosewall too. He's spectacular in his own way. After watching Rosewall for a while you realize what a genius this guy was. He did things in a quietly brilliant way. By that I mean that he never seemed rushed but always seemed in the right place to hit the right shot. Arthur Ashe once wrote that Rosewall and him had as their best shots the backhand. Ashe commented that he had a wide variety of backhand and Rosewall had one backhand...perfect.
Click to expand...

pc1, Thanks for your words.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Bobbyone is too biassed and seems bothered that somebody just doesn´t flatten Rosewall day in, day out.I have seen him, I have posted many times that he was just impressing.he seemed in total comand and his positional sense was just unmatched.He was, sometimes, unreal.he hit what many consider ( and I am one of them) the greatest ground stroke of all time.His backhand, I just laughed at how ridiculous perfect it was.he seemed like a 80 yrs old guy that just happened to go by a tennis court.He was making the other guy feeling miserable and he would not looked up.He was a player of a cartoon design, that is the best definition I can find for him.

I have posted that, if I could choose a personal teacher for my tennis, I´d pick him with very few doubts, even if I know I´d be happy to just be 1/1000.000 of him.

having said that, the matter of the subject is that when somebody brings in such a great champion ( and sportsman) as Newcombe and even Kodes, people over here just have the need to belittle them so to enhance their fav players.It is not fair and it proves that the jusgement or tennis experience is somehow failing.

now that you borught up Leconte, I always thought he was really talented but, because there were not so many attacking players in europe, he got really hypped.His left arm was compared to Laver.

maybe but Laver did a lot more inteligent things with that left arm.french press is just hysterical, you know.
Click to expand...

kiki, I often have proved that I'm not just a Rosewall "fanatic". I only get hot when a poster like you, sometimes belittles a player who is arguably the GOAT and compares him with lesser players like Newcombe and writes that Newk won against Rosewall when he wanted to be unbeatable. What a nonsense!!

The latest and best proof for your nasty argumentation was when you claimed that Newcombe was better than Roche 1970 to 1974. What a fault!!
 
Last edited:
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
kiki, I often have proved that I'm not just a Rosewall "fanatic". I only get hot when a poster like you, sometimes belittle a player who is arguably the GOAT and compare him with lesser players like Newcombe and write that Newk won against Rosewall when he wanted to be unbeatable. What a nonsense!!

The latest and best proof for your nasty argumentation was when you claimed that Newcombe was better than Roche 1970 to 1974. What a fault!!
Click to expand...

I have much respect for Roche to bring up his record against Newcombe´s.I had the pleasure to watch Roche and he was a big, big player.

But, please, look at the books.What did Newcombe win from 1970 to 1974? and Roche?

I don´t know if Newcombe was a lesser player.Unless you consider Wimbledon a lesser tournament...
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
1974 WCT, Mr Bobbyone: probably the toughest ever 8 men draw.Borg,Okker,Nastase,Kodes,Laver,Ashe,Newcombe and Smith.Connors was missing because he was a spoilt kid playing the secondary Riordan show.By the way, Who won this event?

This does not take anything off Rosewall´s two sensational wins at Dallas.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
I have much respect for Roche to bring up his record against Newcombe´s.I had the pleasure to watch Roche and he was a big, big player.

But, please, look at the books.What did Newcombe win from 1970 to 1974? and Roche?

I don´t know if Newcombe was a lesser player.Unless you consider Wimbledon a lesser tournament...
Click to expand...

kiki, When will you realize that Roche did not play almost three years and when playing he was handicapped. Even a child is aware of that!
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
1974 WCT, Mr Bobbyone: probably the toughest ever 8 men draw.Borg,Okker,Nastase,Kodes,Laver,Ashe,Newcombe and Smith.Connors was missing because he was a spoilt kid playing the secondary Riordan show.By the way, Who won this event?

This does not take anything off Rosewall´s two sensational wins at Dallas.
Click to expand...

I do know that Newk won the 1974 WCT finals. Thus the more his shame that he lost to Rosewall when it really counted.

Your nasty argumentation (Newcombe let win Rosewall at Wimbledon because Rosewall never won there) does NOT work at the US Open!!!!!
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Guys,

Just relax. Both Rosewall and Newcombe were fantastic in the early 1970's. Rosewall won two WCT Championships, two Australian, one US Open and was in the final of several majors.

Newcombe won two Wimbledons, one US Open, one Australian and one WCT championship.

Both players won a lot of other tournaments during this period.

What is truly amazing is that Rosewall accomplished all of those after he was age 33 and way past his best.

Newcombe on grass at this point could arguably be considered that best grass player in the world but Rosewall wasn't that far behind if he was at all. Both were superb on clay but I still think Rosewall was better during this period.
 
Last edited:
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
Guys,

Just relax. Both Rosewall and Newcombe were fantastic in the early 1970's. Rosewall won two WCT Championships, two Australian, one US Open and was in the final of several majors.

Newcombe won two Wimbledons, one US Open, one Australian and one WCT championship.

Both players won a lot of other tournaments during this period.

What is truly amazing is that Rosewall accomplished all of those after he was age 33 and way past his best.

Newcombe on grass at this point could arguably be considered that best grass player in the world but Rosewall wasn't that far behind. Both were superb on clay but I still think Rosewall was better during this period.
Click to expand...

Davis Cup was big in 1973, and both Newcombe and Rosewall played for Australia that year.
Rosewall should probably have been chosen to play the final that year in Cleveland, and the choice of Laver (then in decline) was strange, probably based on the past.

No doubt that Newk's record 1970 to 1974 was better than Rosewall's.
Again, guys, close only counts in horseshoes. Runnerup just doesn't do it.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
Dan Lobb said:
Davis Cup was big in 1973, and both Newcombe and Rosewall played for Australia that year.
Rosewall should probably have been chosen to play the final that year in Cleveland, and the choice of Laver (then in decline) was strange, probably based on the past.

No doubt that Newk's record 1970 to 1974 was better than Rosewall's.
Again, guys, close only counts in horseshoes. Runnerup just doesn't do it.
Click to expand...

Dan, Rosewall is 4:3 against Newcombe at big events for that period and has an edge in regular tournaments as well.

Reaching the final of big events is part of a player's success. For instance Hoad reached 8 pro major finals. Do you want to omit them?
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
I do know that Newk won the 1974 WCT finals. Thus the more his shame that he lost to Rosewall when it really counted.

Your nasty argumentation (Newcombe let win Rosewall at Wimbledon because Rosewall never won there) does NOT work at the US Open!!!!!
Click to expand...

Newcombe beat Rosewall in 1970, 1971 (Wimbledon) and 1973 (Forest Hills).Of course, such a great player as Rosewall can win even if he is around his 40 ies.He beat Newcombe at Forest Hills, I think in 1970 and 1974 and also at Wimbledon.It is not rare.It just shows how even they were, at least in the first half of the 70´s.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
kiki, When will you realize that Roche did not play almost three years and when playing he was handicapped. Even a child is aware of that!
Click to expand...

So every day Roche loses to Newcombe , he is injuried.But PC1 posted their head to head, and I just don´t believe Roche was injuried the seven times Newcombe defeated him...
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Dan Lobb said:
Davis Cup was big in 1973, and both Newcombe and Rosewall played for Australia that year.
Rosewall should probably have been chosen to play the final that year in Cleveland, and the choice of Laver (then in decline) was strange, probably based on the past.

No doubt that Newk's record 1970 to 1974 was better than Rosewall's.
Again, guys, close only counts in horseshoes. Runnerup just doesn't do it.
Click to expand...

Laver gave his beasty best to earn the choice.He proved his captain right and won the Davis Cup almost singlehandedly.Gorman and Smith were no angels, yet Laver regained old form for that week end.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Newcombe beat Rosewall in 1970, 1971 (Wimbledon) and 1973 (Forest Hills).Of course, such a great player as Rosewall can win even if he is around his 40 ies.He beat Newcombe at Forest Hills, I think in 1970 and 1974 and also at Wimbledon.It is not rare.It just shows how even they were, at least in the first half of the 70´s.
Click to expand...

Yes, they were about even . But: Newcombe was 26 to 30 while Rosewall was 35 to 39 plus...
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Laver gave his beasty best to earn the choice.He proved his captain right and won the Davis Cup almost singlehandedly.Gorman and Smith were no angels, yet Laver regained old form for that week end.
Click to expand...

kiki, Laver needed five sets against Gorman. Almost singlehanded? What about your second darling who played also every well? Here I must defend Newk...
 
pc1

pc1

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
So every day Roche loses to Newcombe , he is injuried.But PC1 posted their head to head, and I just don´t believe Roche was injuried the seven times Newcombe defeated him...
Click to expand...

Kiki,

Actually Roche was injured after 1970 and while he recovered somewhat he never was the same player again. Roche was as you know consider the "heir apparent" to Rod Laver as the best player in tennis and considering his great talent rightfully so in my opinion. Here's a little fun fact for you, did you know that Roche (I believe in 1969) was actually seeded number one in a tournament that he and Laver participated in? The seeding committee's reasoning was the while Laver was considered the better player, Roche was number two at that point and was defeating Laver more often than Laver was defeating him so they decided to seed Roche over Laver. I remember hearing that on the radio and was amazed.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
pc1 said:
Kiki,

Actually Roche was injured after 1970 and while he recovered somewhat he never was the same player again. Roche was as you know consider the "heir apparent" to Rod Laver as the best player in tennis and considering his great talent rightfully so in my opinion. Here's a little fun fact for you, did you know that Roche (I believe in 1969) was actually seeded number one in a tournament that he and Laver participated in? The seeding committee's reasoning was the while Laver was considered the better player, Roche was number two at that point and was defeating Laver more often than Laver was defeating him so they decided to seed Roche over Laver. I remember hearing that on the radio and was amazed.
Click to expand...

pc1, Thanks for your words on Roche.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
kiki, Laver needed five sets against Gorman. Almost singlehanded? What about your second darling who played also every well? Here I must defend Newk...
Click to expand...

You underrate Tom Gorman.He was a great player, made many major semis like Wimbledon,US open and Masters and pulled off a big win over Laver at Wimbleodn.Won the 72 DC alongside Smith, and pulled off the Masters semi when he was a point or two to beat Stan so to let the people watch the final ( if he had gone through, his injury would not let him play the final).I haven´t seen a single act of class as this one in tennis.

Sorry to bring up this apparently senseless introduction to Gorman, but he deserves to be talked over here many more times.all of that to say that nobody ahd an easy task, not even laver, when Gorman played his best tennis.In 1979, Borg had a big battle with him in the Wimbledon first round, and Gornal was around 33 or 34...

BTW, when my first darling plays like that, I have no eyes for any other dalring:)
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
kiki, Learn history again!!
Click to expand...

You overrate Roche here and there.After all, Chuck mc Kinley has a better record than him...and of course, my buddy fred Stolle, who beat Roche in one of the majors he won ( of course, Roche was extremely injuried. close to death¡¡¡¡)
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Roche, few players if any have impressed me more at the net.His volley basics were unbelievable.Laver,Mac and Edberg may have been just as good but not better.

But he is overrated a bit.Orantes, nobody talks about the many times he had to stop playing when he was joining his prime and still won big titles like the USO and Masters.c´mon , not only Roche has the right to cry about injuries¡¡¡
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
You underrate Tom Gorman.He was a great player, made many major semis like Wimbledon,US open and Masters and pulled off a big win over Laver at Wimbleodn.Won the 72 DC alongside Smith, and pulled off the Masters semi when he was a point or two to beat Stan so to let the people watch the final ( if he had gone through, his injury would not let him play the final).I haven´t seen a single act of class as this one in tennis.

Sorry to bring up this apparently senseless introduction to Gorman, but he deserves to be talked over here many more times.all of that to say that nobody ahd an easy task, not even laver, when Gorman played his best tennis.In 1979, Borg had a big battle with him in the Wimbledon first round, and Gornal was around 33 or 34...

BTW, when my first darling plays like that, I have no eyes for any other dalring:)
Click to expand...

kiki, Gorman was hardly a top ten player (maybe in some rankings in 1973).
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
You overrate Roche here and there.After all, Chuck mc Kinley has a better record than him...and of course, my buddy fred Stolle, who beat Roche in one of the majors he won ( of course, Roche was extremely injuried. close to death¡¡¡¡)
Click to expand...

kiki, I had thought you are a n expert for tennis history. I appreciated that you put Federer into his due place and so on. But I realize now that you don't understand the history's basics. You don't know the difference between open era and amateur era (and probably pro era).

Ranking Stolle and McKinley ahead of Roche? I cannot comment. It's too much for me...
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
kiki, I had thought you are a n expert for tennis history. I appreciated that you put Federer into his due place and so on. But I realize now that you don't understand the history's basics. You don't know the difference between open era and amateur era (and probably pro era).

Ranking Stolle and McKinley ahead of Roche? I cannot comment. It's too much for me...
Click to expand...

Roche was better than them, but they had that extra thing that led to more major wins.

And of course I know most of Roche´s career was played in the open era and certainly i can distinguish those eras asleep...but, wait, have you realized that Roche´s only major came as an amateur? so he had a better amateur career than a pro career... he never made it to the WCT finals or Masters.

Please, separate talent and results.Few have had Roche´s talent but many have achieved better results.Injuries or not.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Hoad was injuried many years.Still, when he was playing his best, he´d use his opponents heads to clean the floor.Roche never did anything like that, not even in his wet dreams...
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Roche was better than them, but they had that extra thing that led to more major wins.

And of course I know most of Roche´s career was played in the open era and certainly i can distinguish those eras asleep...but, wait, have you realized that Roche´s only major came as an amateur? so he had a better amateur career than a pro career... he never made it to the WCT finals or Masters.

Please, separate talent and results.Few have had Roche´s talent but many have achieved better results.Injuries or not.
Click to expand...

Ignorant kiki, Stolle and McKinley dealed with amateurs while Roche beat top Newcombe and almost top Rosewall and reached several finals against open era top players. Will you ever understand??
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
Ignorant kiki, Stolle and McKinley dealed with amateurs while Roche beat top Newcombe and almost top Rosewall and reached several finals against open era top players. Will you ever understand??
Click to expand...

I know how many lost finals Roche achieved: in 69 lost the USO final to Laver ( in 1970 he lost the final to your darling) and reached the Wimbledon (Newk), FO (Rosewall) and AO (Laver) semis.In 68 he had already been beaten by Laver at the Wimbledon final, and he had already lost to Emerson and Stolle in former major finals.

A very good record, indeed, but he lost many more times than he lost.results are results and not wet dreams, mon ami.

from 1970 onwards, his best result, I think, was the 1975 semi he lost at Melbourne against Newcombe, in what was possibly one of the best grass court matches of that time.I can accept he remained injuried for long slots of time, but so was Orantes and that didn´t deprive him to win a Masters and a Forest Hills title.
 
D

Dan Lobb

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Hoad was injuried many years.Still, when he was playing his best, he´d use his opponents heads to clean the floor.Roche never did anything like that, not even in his wet dreams...
Click to expand...

Indeed, Hoad played at the summit of achievement on several major occasions.

When was Roche's summit moment?
(Hint: Despite Bobby's claims, semi-finals don't count, and close only counts in HORSESHOES.)
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
Bobbyone will like you one minute and hate you one minute later because you did not worship Rosewall
I Call it consistency
At least as consistent as Roche;-)
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Bobbyone will like you one minute and hate you one minute later because you did not worship Rosewall
I Call it consistency
At least as consistent as Roche;-)
Click to expand...

I like anybody who respects the facts. I hate anybody who belittles great players like Rosewall and Roche and Vines and Nüsslein and Gimeno.

The worst you have done was your mean claim that Newcombe lost deliberately to Rosewall. That way you took away from Muscles one of his greatest achievements (beating a world's No.1 at 39)!

Similary mean was your comparison "Newcombe 8 majors and Rosewall 10 majors".

I will not forget these insults. I can't forgive you that because you are an intelligent man who knows what he writes!
 
Last edited:
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
I like anybody who respects the facts. I hate anybody who belittles great players like Rosewall and Roche and Vines and Nüsslein and Gimeno.

The worst you have done was your mean claim that Newcombe lost deliberately to Rosewall. That way you took away from Muscles one of his greatest achievements (beating a world's No.1 at 39)!

Similary mean was your comparison "Newcombe 8 majors and Rosewall 10 majors".

I will not forget these insults. I can't forgive you that because you are an intelligent man who knows what he writes!
Click to expand...

some comments.

1/I just posted Rosewall´s overall record is better than Newcombe.Facts are facts

2/Newcombe was the most feared one match player of the early 70´s.Ask fellow pros.Facts are facts.He beat the two best players of the decade, Borg and Connors at major finals.That is not belitteling Rosewall´s great achievements in the 70´s.I have him at co nº 3 with Newcombe for the 70´s.

3/Saying that Vines won the same amount of majors than Kodes does not belittle him.It rather exposes Kodes great career.facts are facts

4/Gimeno was a very good player.But not a nº 1.Facts are facts.And I have seen him live, probably much more times than you did.

5/Same for Roche.His only major, injuried or not came as an amateur..Stolle won two, yet you go against any factual data and claim Roche belongs to another league.It is you who belittles Stolle, not me who belittles Roche.facts are facts.

6/How many slams did Nusslein win? facts are facts.Not just your darling´s opinion.Everybody is entitled to have his own.

The only thing we agree is that I am a man that knows what he wrrites, inteligent or not.I prefer to support my opinion by what I saw.My opinion is not based merely on repports and statistics.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
some comments.

1/I just posted Rosewall´s overall record is better than Newcombe.Facts are facts

2/Newcombe was the most feared one match player of the early 70´s.Ask fellow pros.Facts are facts.He beat the two best players of the decade, Borg and Connors at major finals.That is not belitteling Rosewall´s great achievements in the 70´s.I have him at co nº 3 with Newcombe for the 70´s.

3/Saying that Vines won the same amount of majors than Kodes does not belittle him.It rather exposes Kodes great career.facts are facts

4/Gimeno was a very good player.But not a nº 1.Facts are facts.And I have seen him live, probably much more times than you did.

5/Same for Roche.His only major, injuried or not came as an amateur..Stolle won two, yet you go against any factual data and claim Roche belongs to another league.It is you who belittles Stolle, not me who belittles Roche.facts are facts.

6/How many slams did Nusslein win? facts are facts.Not just your darling´s opinion.Everybody is entitled to have his own.

The only thing we agree is that I am a man that knows what he wrrites, inteligent or not.I prefer to support my opinion by what I saw.My opinion is not based merely on repports and statistics.
Click to expand...

kiki, You avoid "elegantly" to answer my main accusations: your mean statements regarding Newcombe's deliberately losing and "forgetting" Rosewall's pro majors.....

Nüsslein's slams? This question disqualifies yourself.

Yes, you go more along your watching. I go more along facts. The latter is better for valueing achievements.
 
Last edited:
kiki

kiki

Banned
Bibbyone, if it makes you feel better,I deliberately joked on Newcombe letting Rosewall win Wimbledon.Of course, I am sure newcombe never wanted to lose that match and Rosewall deserved to win, as he proved by beating Godzile next day.

You take an opinion forum like this one too seriously when it comes to your personal preferences.

But i know that is in your nature, so i cannot do much about.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
Bibbyone, if it makes you feel better,I deliberately joked on Newcombe letting Rosewall win Wimbledon.Of course, I am sure newcombe never wanted to lose that match and Rosewall deserved to win, as he proved by beating Godzile next day.

You take an opinion forum like this one too seriously when it comes to your personal preferences.

But i know that is in your nature, so i cannot do much about.
Click to expand...

kiki, my former friend, Thanks for your correction. It honours yourself.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
kiki, my former friend, Thanks for your correction. It honours yourself.
Click to expand...

and thanks for correcting myself on the number of titles.

That places Newcombe just slighty ahead Rosewall for the 70´s.Here is my ranings for that decade, IMO, the best ever in terms of classy players coming in 10 years.And by much.

1/Borg
2/Connors
3/Newcombe
4/Rosewall
5/Vilas and Nastase
7/Smith and Ashe
9/Kodes
10/Orantes
11/Mc Enroe
12/Gerulaitis
13/Tanner
14/Panatta
15/Gimeno
16/Laver

can you imagine a tournament with this seeding list ?

if we consider 1968 till 1979, then Laver is co nº 1 with Borg and the rest goes down one place (Ashe should get ahead of Vilas and Nastase)
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
and thanks for correcting myself on the number of titles.

That places Newcombe just slighty ahead Rosewall for the 70´s.Here is my ranings for that decade, IMO, the best ever in terms of classy players coming in 10 years.And by much.

1/Borg
2/Connors
3/Newcombe
4/Rosewall
5/Vilas and Nastase
7/Smith and Ashe
9/Kodes
10/Orantes
11/Mc Enroe
12/Gerulaitis
13/Tanner
14/Panatta
15/Gimeno
16/Laver

can you imagine a tournament with this seeding list ?

if we consider 1968 till 1979, then Laver is co nº 1 with Borg and the rest goes down one place (Ashe should get ahead of Vilas and Nastase)
Click to expand...

kiki, Great list, I concede.
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
and how amazing the doubles standarts here and the biasses which are surprising.

Roche´s only major came in the amateurs against unknown Guylas.

And people still says Kodes won against depleted fields¡¡¡

and Stolle doubles Roche´s majors and has two important opponents in his 2 wins: Newcombe and Roche....

Kodes and Stolle are so underrated as Vines and, of course Roche are so overrated...
 
F

FedericRoma83

Rookie
kiki said:
Kodes and Stolle are so underrated as Vines and, of course Roche are so overrated...
Click to expand...
Newcombe and Roche were sooooooo before their prime when they lost these finals against Stolle. Stolle wouldn't have won against a peak-Newk, nor a peak-Roche.

I agree on Kodes though.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
kiki said:
and how amazing the doubles standarts here and the biasses which are surprising.

Roche´s only major came in the amateurs against unknown Guylas.

And people still says Kodes won against depleted fields¡¡¡

and Stolle doubles Roche´s majors and has two important opponents in his 2 wins: Newcombe and Roche....

Kodes and Stolle are so underrated as Vines and, of course Roche are so overrated...
Click to expand...

kiki, Gulyas was not unknown. he was one of the best Europen claycourters.

Writing that Roche is overrated must rate as joke of the century!
 
Phoenix1983

Phoenix1983

G.O.A.T.
These two are both very underrated (should appear in everyone's all-time top ten list, and yet they are both often forgotten in 'mainstream' greatest lists).

Nevertheless I think some posters on this forum overcompensate by ranking them a bit too highly, i.e. suggesting they are legitimate contenders for GOAT.

- Pancho never won a clay major. He strikes me as a Sampras equivalent but playing in a weaker era (for the record, I consider the old pro majors with their small fields to be below the modern Grand Slams; and as for head-to-head tours between top players, they can be misleading: if the game had been contested in such a way over the past decade, we would conclude that Nadal is greater than Federer. They are not, IMHO, the best indicator of who is the top player).

- Rosewall had a psychological problem at Wimbledon: he went 0-5 in finals there in amateur, pro and Open play.

I rank Rosewall No 6 and Gonzales No 7 all-time.
 
B

BobbyOne

G.O.A.T.
FedericRoma83 said:
Newcombe and Roche were sooooooo before their prime when they lost these finals against Stolle. Stolle wouldn't have won against a peak-Newk, nor a peak-Roche.

I agree on Kodes though.
Click to expand...

Federic, Thanks for putting Stolle's wins into the right perspective.

To show how much stronger Roche was than Stolle, we should look at their hth against Rosewall: Roche leads 9:7 while Stolle trails 2:23. Roche also has a fine hth against Laver (9:11).
 
kiki

kiki

Banned
BobbyOne said:
Federic, Thanks for putting Stolle's wins into the right perspective.

To show how much stronger Roche was than Stolle, we should look at their hth against Rosewall: Roche leads 9:7 while Stolle trails 2:23. Roche also has a fine hth against Laver (9:11).
Click to expand...

Stolle baggeled Roche at a major final¡¡¡

ROFLMAO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
  • Poll
Gonzales VS Rosewall: The Ultimate Battle Fight 2 - More Impressive Career?
4 5 6
Replies
258
Views
22K
kiki
kiki
F
Comparing Rosewall to Nadal- more their careers than games, a number of similarities
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
Dan Lobb
D
M
Pancho Gonzales-better than Laver?
5 6 7
Replies
345
Views
31K
Dan Lobb
D
L
  • Locked
Is Rosewall a GOAT Candidate?
46 47 48
Replies
2K
Views
75K
Limpinhitter
L
C
The 38 Greatest Tennis Players of All Time: A New Comprehensive and Methodical Survey
Replies
36
Views
4K
alemonster585
A
Top