Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.
- Thread starter tennissportsrog
- Start date
Flash, A billion of time? I must have been on the moon.
Did those second class players have positive balances against the top players at Grand Slam tournaments?
ARFED, "Oldies" Gonzalez, Segura, Sedgman etc were still stronger than Federer's opponents, at least apart from Nadal and Djokovic. Rosewall would have laughed to had such a weak opposition as Federer many years had...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Bit classless to call them second class players, play nice Bobby!
Roddick is even with Djokovic in Major meetings 1-1.
Davvy and Nadal have never met at a grand slam but he's 6-1 against him on harcourts with all but one of those victories being in straight sets. Peak for peak on hardcourts in a major and Davy would definately push Nadal!
You can't prove that. I could just as easily say that peak Roddick's serve would be unreturnable for Rosewall...
Last edited:
Yes Bobby, you are right there. Part time player, grandpa, 35 year old Gonzalez was a better opposition than prime Roddick and prime Hewitt. At least when he had time to play after bingo nights. You nailed it there.
Joy??? Tell that to the kids in Biafra. The world is much larger than USA and western europe, you know??
NatF, Your logic is terrific: You blame me that I cannot prove my thesis and you and your Federer fans claim that Gonzalez and Co. were weak, also without any prove: It's not unusual that one cannot prove an opinion but yet one is entitled to tell his opinion. I fear we will never convince the other...
It's an irony that you doubt Rosewall's ability to return Roddick's service because the little Australian is the synonym for showing grand returns as he proved against service masters like Kramer, Gonzalez, Ashe, Smith and Newcombe.
Last edited:
ARFED, Gonzalez was 33 in 1961. I will stop my discussion with you now: You are too ignorant to compete with me.
Showing the angry austrian in you again Bobby??
kiki
Banned
And kids starving today, with more richness...so the mankind has gotten worse, isn´t it?
NatF
Bionic Poster
I never said Gonzalez and Co. were weak, did I? You're the one who goes on about weak competition. I like to give every player their due. Even older champions are great competitiors, Federer today and Agassi are two good examples of the last decade. However guys like Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, Davydenko etc...have been good enough to score wins and push your strong era darlings far past their best. Federer dominated those guys like no other, Davydenko won several matches in a row versus Nadal but had to wait to 2009 to score his first win over Federer.
It wasn't a serious comment about Roddick, although I doubt he's faced down someone with the consistant speed of Roddick...
I get angry when an ignorant poster belittles the great Gonzalez who of course was tougher at 33 than Hewitt and Roddick! Learn history!
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hewitt was quick and had great passing shots and consistancy off both wings. He also had a never give up attitude. At his peak he'd be top 10 in any era. Possibly higher in the faster era's seeing as he excelled against serve and volley players. You guys are hippocrits. You cry about the younger guys belittling your hero's but do the expect same thing.
,
In fact he was 35 when little Kenny had his best year, so you better take some lessons quickly old man.
i would never dare to suggest that Pancho was weak opposition (he is in my top 5 all time), just that he wasn`t that great during Rosewall`s reign at the top. It all comes down to oppinions, and never claim i am the holder of the truth.
So stop being such a self righteous you know what....and stop with the ignorant thing also (such a coward attitude to attack behind a keyboard, i doubt you have the guts to tell that to my face)
kiki
Banned
have you ever heard of John Newcombe, Pancho Gonzales,Jack Kramer,Stan Smith,Roscoe Tanner or Arthur Ashe? Rosewall beat them on extremely fast grass.
L. Hewitt among the top ten in a strong era? Absurd.
kiki
Banned
If a poster argues Hewitt would be top ten ever, sorry, but this poster knows very very little of tennis.He played in ultraslow courts, I´d like to see what he´d be able to do on fast grass or indoors...i don´t think he´d fare any better than guys like Chang,Muster,Higueras,Dibbs,Solomon or Barazzutti...
NatF
Bionic Poster
I never said all time, I said in an era...Hewitt prefers faster conditions so he can hit through the court better. Who knows very little?
How is it absurd. He's a 2 time grand slam champion with a winning head to head over Pete Sampras.
I have, but that says nothing of what Roddicks 130+ mph bombs would do on fast grass...
Rosewall did not play against Gonzalez when Pancho was 35. That's the lesson.
Yes, dangerous Argentinian, I'm glad I am not forced to meet you personally. That's right.
Well he won the masters twice on indoors, so there you go...
kiki
Banned
If Hewitt is so highly regarded, then i go nuts on how underrated Kodes is.He won at Wimbledon with a field including three all timers like Connors,Borg and Nastase.He won 2 frenchies, with wins over Ilie Nastase when he was peaking.twice a runner up at the USO, with an event that saw him past...roche,Newcombe and Ashe¡¡¡ just amazing.He also gunned down Smith in the other USo where he made it to the finals, losing to Mr 5 sets John Newcombe in a very close 5 sets game...and he won Madrid, back in 75 with a field that included prime Borg,prime Nastase, prime Panatta, prime Vilas and prime Orantes...those 5 players and Kodes being the top 6 of the decade on clay courts...wowww¡¡¡
So basically Gonzalez was 33 to 36 years old during Rosewall`s reign. Poor Kenny
he had to play against that fantastic field (too old, too young, injured).
Don`t be affraid Bobby, luckily for you, you are too far away. :twisted:
In any case i am tired arguing with you, let`s leave it at that
Since when Borg hit his prime in 75?? And counting Borg in the field of Wimbledon 1973, is like giving credt to Sampras for defeating a field that had Federer in 2000.
kiki
Banned
Oh¡ well, Borg had ALREADY proved to be the best clay courter with two RG wins ( 74 and 75), Rome ( 74) and Boston ( 75) plus two WCT finals.If that is not prime...
1973 field also had Vijay Amritraj if I recall properly
kiki
Banned
yes, slow indoors, clay court like...Corretja, at least, won on fast indoors...
ARFED, Yes, we agree to stop our discussion. Just a last word: It does not honour you that you intimitade a fellow poster!
It doesn`t you either to insult me, but no hard feelings.
So 2006 Nadal was in his prime then, Federer`s era is getting strongeer by the minute it seems...
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Fed's right. It's definitely less now.
abmk
Bionic Poster
ha ha, typical BobbyOne ignorance ....
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, biggest events do depend on the era. But by the time becker came in, 85, Australia was the 4th major, not WCT/Masters ....
would take Masters/WCT over Australian Open in the 70s, but not after 83 ....
abmk
Bionic Poster
hewitt won wimbledon in a field that included sampras, agassi, federer, krajicek .... it was a full field >>>>>>>> wimbledon 73 which was the weakest wimbledon in the open era ., 13 of the 16 seeds missing, 81 players not there ...
hewitt also won 2 YECs in fields including agassi, rafter, ferrero, federer ......
abmk
Bionic Poster
hewitt prefers faster courts like the ones at flushing or wimbledon or queens or indoor courts ... he's had MUCH more success there than @ the AO or on clay ....the slowing down of courts actually hurt him ....
he absolutely pummeled sampras in their USO 2001 meeting, beat him twice @ queens and bagelled him indoors @ lisbon in 2000 .......owned both rafter & henman as well ....most of their meetings were on faster courts ....
to compare hewitt to higueras, dibbs, solomon, barazzuitti, muster is just downright clueless .... these guys preferred clay courts & clay is hewitt's worst surface ...
none of these guys come near a mile's distance of hewitt's passing/returning & ability to redirect pace .....
you ( & BobbyOne ) just continue to amaze with your increasing levels of cluelessness .......you don't even know what hewitt's strengths/weaknesses are, yet keep on continuing with weak era cr*p ...though its absolutely blatantly transparent you have very little clue .....
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
borg's prime was from 76-81 ....73 sure as hell wasn't any part of his prime ....
kiki
Banned
Definitely, Federer knows about past players much more than his loyals here
kiki
Banned
Well fortunatelt AO regained slowly his luster but I put indoor slams at the same level or a bit above till end of decade
There were the big three and a special status for next three
kiki
Banned
Keep listening to Rhinana, Bieber or Gaga or crap, excuse me rap
abmk
Bionic Poster
I don't listen that much to English music in general, so I couldn't care less .......
Fact remains you are clueless about hewitt ....just like many other things in tennis ....
abmk
Bionic Poster
that's just your double standards .... you want to have more majors per year for the older players just to pump them in comparison to the current crop of players
AO had good fields from 83 onwards .... you cannot take away "major" status unless the field is considerably weak ... it wasn't from 83 onwards ...
kiki
Banned
As I said,the Australiam gained status since 85 or so but anybody following tennis then will tell you the indoor majors were bigger or at least equañ
To be fair I always made the following accounting
Before 1990 the 4 traditional slams and the 2 indoors
From 1990 the 4 slams, Masters Cup and the biggest super 9 which is Miami
So 6 big tourneys for everybody
It becomes a big joke if 2 indoors are not considered for 1970 to 1989
abmk
Bionic Poster
really ? no one considers miami a cut above any of the other masters right now ... it was more important back then - esp. when it was best of 5 ( even called 5th major at times ) , but not now .... I assure you that when agassi was winning miami 6 times, he did not think he was winning 'majors' there by any means
70-89 is not uniform ...
AO 72-82 was weak, weak...WCT/YEC were clearly more important that time ....
83 onwards, AO fields were good , so it takes over any of the indoor events ...
you can only have 4 of the biggest events as 'majors' for a year ...
I did already mention indoor events were also important in the 80s ... which is one thing that is in favour of becker ...
otherwise djoker is clearly better @ the AO, FO & the USO ... I would've said djoker was clearly ahead , if not for indoors being important during becker's time & becker being a very brilliant indoors player ...Just that I can't consider those events as a major/4th biggest event in becker's time
funny thing is going by your so called "count" itself, djokovic ends up with one more big event then becker :
djokovic : 4 AO, 1 USO, 1 wimbledon , 2 YEC , 3 miami, total = 11
becker : 3 wimbledon, 2 AO, 1 USO, 3 YEC, 1 WCT , total = 10
now, that's a self-goal from you, isn't it !? :lol:
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
No, if that is the case numbers favour Djokovic
Another issue is totally different is quality of oppostion:*)
NatF
Bionic Poster
Opposition is subjective. Plus Djokovic has had to contend with Federer and Nadal...
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
Have you been listening to bieber again? You and your gaga generation are really clueless.
They missed out a bit in 2009, no?
kiki
Banned
Have you been listening to bieber again? You and your gaga generation are really clueless.
They missed out a bit in 2009, no?
...no Nadalthequuen, I was listening to c-rap, you know, that funny and senseless kinda sound that " afroamericans" invented ( I use this word for your tender age people understand, in the golden days we were more direct and called them straight " blacks" )
It would be funny to learn that blacks are also nice and politically correct, and call us " western whites" or " anglo whites" or similar to that...
N
NadalDramaQueen
Guest
You can give it a rest, as I'm not going to be fooled by another whippersnapper claiming to have experience that he lacks.
It's Icarus all over again.
Similar threads
