Bobby, with all respect, but Your choice of important matches is a bit arbitrary. I still cannot see the WCT third place play off as an important match, it was made for the public as an appetizer for the Smith-Ashe final. It is in fact very seldom mentioned anywhere. I also would add the 1967 Wim pro final as a very important match. It can be also discussed whether the Classic series final in 1970 at MSG for 35000 $ was a important match, or the 1968 LA open final, because it had great impotance for the World ranking. In the US pro, Laver leads Rosewall 3-2, including his semi win 1969. Only at Stade Coubertin in Paris, where Rosewall always played well, he has a substantial advantage in big matches.
Rosewall > Laver
- Thread starter Prisoner of Birth
- Start date
urban, I understand your reservations. The 1973 Dallas match is actually a problem. But I think it was more than just an appetizer. I guess Rod did not want to lose it.
If you omit that match you also should not consider the 1969 US Pro as that tournament had lost much of his prestige after 1967.
LA 1968 and Dunlop are good candidates.
Muscles leads also at Dallas even if we omit the 1973 match. Bud Collins refers to the two big finals when including Rosewall in his GOAT list.
Generally I followed Peter Rowley in his Rosewall book who considered the amateur, pro and open majors plus WCT and Masters.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Do we expect to see more young players with one-handed backhands?
As long as the courts stll have the high bounce syndrome i don`t think so. Other aspect imo is that in a baseline orientated game the 2 hander is less prone to errors. Today we have players with better footwork and mobility than ever before, this allows them , for example in a rightie against rightie cross court exchange, to cheat on their backhand side and hit the most feared shot in today`s game, the inside-out forehand, against their opponent`s backhand. It is well known that a 2 hander copes better with the spin and absorbes the pace better too.
forzamilan90
Legend
Doubt it, right now of "up and coming players" Grigor Dimitrov looks to be the main one to preserve the one handed tradition but not many others are. I hope he has a fruitful career, and inspires others. Pity, I personally play with a one hander, no idea how to hit a double handed racquet, it doesn't feel natural to me.
mightyrick
Legend
Bobby, this is where stats are very misleading. It is so unfair to compare Laver and Rosewall career percentage to Borg's. Laver played eight years after his last major. Rosewall played six and a half years after his last major.
Borg? Borg played ZERO years. Borg turned tail and ran away like a girl when McEnroe beat him in his house. The guy didn't have the conviction to actually be able to accept the challenge of McEnroe and the incoming strong era. To this day, I still despise this act by Borg.
And for sure you will not see Federer play 8 years after his last major. Or Nadal. Hell, probably not even Djokovic.
I actually think the fact that Laver continued to compete 8 years after his last major is an unbelievable accomplishment. 22 years ain't bad for a career like that.
CyBorg
Legend
You are projecting emotions based on your misunderstanding of what happened, what Borg actually felt and his reasons for retiring.
This has been discussed on this board before. Borg did not retire because of McEnroe.
Borg was actually playing very well against McEnroe when he was working his way back in 1982, all the while Mac was having a terrible year. It was Connors who was giving Borg trouble in the 1982 exos.
Studying the evidence, it makes absolutely no sense to state that Mac had anything to do with Borg leaving the game. Remember that Borg was slated to return in 1983, but changed his mind shortly after New Year's. And we know that Mac by then had long lost his momentum.
Your belief is based on a popular but incorrect theory that was spread by the mainstream media because it made for an attractive story. It is more correct to say that Borg left because of a mental burnout, although this doesn't completely explain what happened. We don't really know.
I think that Borg suffered from some kind of depression or malaise. These conditions don't tend to have basic causes and are instead chemical. But I can't prove this.
kiki
Banned
you are a sick, no live journeyman poster.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yes, Borg left the Wimby finals of 1981 whining, crying, and with his tail between his legs. . . never to play again.
Such silliness.
mightyrick
Legend
Well, after all that... you and I are in the same boat. We can't prove any of this. It all is really hearsay.
So until Borg fesses up, we have to go with what we feel.
I think Borg was on the tour a long time. I think he was an enigmatic figure. The guy was a persistent winner. He had the coolest cars. The hottest chicks. The boyfriend of the press. The coolest clothes. He was like the Elvis of tennis.
The consecutive McEnroe defeats resulted in the press going into a frenzy. Zillions of fun headlines. I think this started to apply unbelievable pressure on Borg... who only really loved to be adulated and beloved by people. Now, he was having to answer questions about his worthiness, et cetera.
I think all of that pressure caused Borg to get out of the game.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Borg did 'fess' up. He said he lost his drive, stopped being bothered when he lost. He took some time out and when he tried to comeback he was told he'd have to qualify for the grand slams, he didn't think he should have to do that and retired instead.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB_eDWwSoec
He talks about it here.
mightyrick
Legend
Sure, we all know this account. We've read and seen it anywhere since it happened.
Most folks don't buy this account, though. Even people close to the sport have thought that it is a little too "empty" of an explanation. I saw one McEnroe interview where he says, "I'm sure Bjorn has his reasons" and leaves it at that.
After 30 years, I'm sure even Borg himself has lost touch with all the reasons he had for leaving tennis. Time does tend to do that.
This.
It is amazing how some people buy the first thing they hear and state an opinion not knowing anything about what really happened.
mightyrick, I agree that pure numbers can distort truth.
Laver and Rosewall played even a bit longer after winning their last major than you have stated: Laver played almost ten years after (played till early 1979) and Rosewall at least eight years after (he played his last official tournament in late 1980 and added a smaller event in early 1982).
forzamilan90
Legend
He cried because he's passionate...and he won that same tournament next year. Nothing wrong with crying
NatF
Bionic Poster
If you're not going to believe his own words then that's fine, but don't say he needs to fess up about it because he has.
mightyrick
Legend
Will you stop trolling me, already? Seriously. If you want to have a meaningful discussion, fine. Otherwise, put me on your ignore list. You words are so freaking explosive to the person you disagree with.
Back to the subject at hand. Just because someone comes out and gives an explanation of aberrant behavior doesn't mean it is true.
I've given up on the idea that Borg will ever come out and say why he really did what he did. It was so long ago, I don't even know if he actually remembers his thought process coherently enough.
kiki
Banned
it is as simple as he explained.Lost motivation and felt burned out, willing to recover what 10 years of hard training, pressure, traveling and popularity had taken from him.
It was the right decision for Borg at that time because it was his heart and mind who decided it.wish everybody could be as coherent and corageous at the every day decisions we are all compulsed to take.
It was the right decision for Borg at that time because it was his heart and mind who decided it.wish everybody could be as coherent and corageous at the every day decisions we are all compulsed to take.
Forza, This time I agree.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Well stated.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Again, such silliness.
I am sure that you know what and how a multi-millionaire, Swedish tennis champion truly feels.
Yep, that's why he did it: for all the adulation.
You should return your "psychology degree" to the cracker jack box, and ask for a refund.
Last edited:
And he got back on his feet to win 4 more slams plus setting more tennis records to become the GOAT.
mightyrick
Legend
Wow, did you think that one up all by yourself? I think that joke debuted either on Hee Haw or Laugh-In. Might want to at least do something modern.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Nah, Post-modern.
C'mon, get with it.
BTW, the Mac-drove-Borg-out-of-tennis theory was refuted by 1983, particularly the semis of the Suntory Cup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pVwMnYbVrY
Last edited:
rosewallGOAT
Banned
I agree. Rosewall is the greater player and the best ever.
rosewallGOAT, Don't write that because there is danger that the Federer armada will "kill" you...
forzamilan90
Legend
Nah, however if he starts accusing the Eagle of having no touch or blasting his era, then we'll unleash the hounds.
On topic, Laver is superior to Rosewall and history values him higher for a reason, he's the better player
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes, this ... BobbyOne doesn't understand the difference b/w blatant cluelessness of some of his opinions ( which leads to laughter and posts that offend his sensitive self ) and differing on opinions when they are close to reality/debatable [ Like for example : who's better peak to peak on clay : borg or nadal ]
yep, the clearly better player peak to peak and greater player overall
Nope, it's the opposite. people claimed Roger's the greatest and you always say they are wrong.
BTW, Rosewall isn't in the top 5 by many experts, some don't even have him in the top 10.
Forza, Rosewall has won more majors than Laver and leads him 10:7 in major clashes. Therefore it's not sure that Laver tops Rosewall...
abmk, The louder you cry the wronger you are. Voice of reason is low, as a Vienna visionary once said...
forzamilan90
Legend
We talked before about domination of tour a while back...in the case of the Federers, Lavers, Samprases (who's clearly better than Rosewall btw), Gonzaleses we have clear cut time periods where they reign supreme as undisputed best in the worlds,#1, and for Rosewall it seems we had a bunch of years where he was cotied for #1 but it pales in comparisons to several undisputed years as the man to beat.
forzamilan90
Legend
Bobby turn in tv right now to see Novak vs Federer's son
NatF
Bionic Poster
Laver achieved the grand slam 3 seperate times, including his 67 pro slam. He also leads the h2h overall and is generally viewed by historians and older players as greater. Their playing level is going to be close seeing as Rosewall could give Laver problems. But Laver should be definately ahead.
Forza, Rosewall was unlucky in his peak that he faced two other GOAT candidates (Gonzalez, Laver). He mostly played Laver when he was an old player.
Laver achieved his regulary Grand Slams (the greatest accomplishment at all) in an age of life (at 24, at 31) when Rosewall could not participate in GS tournaments. Rosewall did win a pro GS like Laver.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Irrelevent
Laver's pro slam included the Wimbledon pro, so surely Laver's pro slam > Rosewall's?
Rosewall played at a top level for longer than Laver did, age isn't an excuse.
Irrelevent
Laver's pro slam included the Wimbledon pro, so surely Laver's pro slam > Rosewall's?
Rosewall played at a top level for longer than Laver did, age isn't an excuse.
!) Learn English (there is no word "irrelevent" in English language)
2) Learn logic: Of course age is a factor even if Rosewall had a longer top level. You use the same "logic" as Phoenix in his belittleing of Muscles. I will explain you the matter: If a player is, say, 32 (Rosewall in 1966) and another player is 28 (Laver at that time) it's evident that the older player has a disadvantage opposite the younger player. Is this so difficult to understand???
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
1) Showing your true colours telling me to learn English because I mistakenly put an 'e' instead of an 'a' in irrelevant.
2) Logic my dear friend is 3 > 1. As in 3 Grand Slams are better than 1. Hypotheticals and complaining that Rosewall was too old won't change history.
Laver is greater than Rosewall.
I disagree with both of you, BobbyOne and NatF.
Laver only has one TRUE GS. The 1962 GS was from the amateur which has nowhere near as the value of the open era GS. If it is, then Emerson's 12 amateur slams should put him in a very high list of all time great.
Second, pro major slams were only 3 events per year, not 4 like the open era slam. And pro majors only consists of 8-14 players, not like modern slam with a 128 man draw.
Laver only has one TRUE GS. The 1962 GS was from the amateur which has nowhere near as the value of the open era GS. If it is, then Emerson's 12 amateur slams should put him in a very high list of all time great.
Second, pro major slams were only 3 events per year, not 4 like the open era slam. And pro majors only consists of 8-14 players, not like modern slam with a 128 man draw.
Well, we have to agree/disagree. And 1967 was also a split fields. Only 1969 was a full field, despite tennis was still not a global as it is today.
I stop the discussion with you now. You repeatedly wrote irrelevent in two threads. But that's not important of course.
I take your statement about the 3 GSs: Then Laver is greater than Federer because your hero has never made the GS...
An expert who does not consider the various aspects (the pros were not allowed to participate, age is a factor and so on) is NOT an expert. You are not an expert!
I put you again on my ignore list. Good bye.
Last edited:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
What the hell is this "global" stuff? There were players from all parts of the world in the 1960s, whether North America, South America, Europe, Australasia or Asia. The difference is that in the 1960s, there was the Soviet Union (now 15 different countries), Yugoslavia (now 7 different countries) and Czechoslovakia (now 2 different countries), and the Australians did have unprecedented dominance of tennis at the time.
NatF
Bionic Poster
So if I gifted Rosewall a hypothetical grand slam I'd be an expert? lol.
Rosewall won 3 majors in a year, Federer's done that 3 times. At least Roger is ahead of old Kenny on that front
Someone quote me so Bob can see my reply :twisted:
kiki
Banned
don´t bother to explain to these newtards that there was life before the internet and Beyoncée...
1980
At a glance: The US was the dominant power in tennis at the start of the 1980s, with Australia a very distant second. Great Britain and Czechoslovakia had a number of solid players, but the rest of Europe as a whole was severely lacking in talent compared to the front runners.
1990
At a glance: While tennis in America remained excellent, there was real growth across western Europe, particularly in France, Spain and Germany. Sweden and Italy, too, started producing top players and, for the first time, tennis in the Soviet Union was starting to develop.
2000
At a glance: America was not the only tennis superpower in 2000, with both France and Spain boasting impressive talent. The Soviet Union was now 15 separate countries, but that didn't stop Russia continuing to rise up the tennis rankings and, for the first time, the likes of China, Thailand and South Korea were being represented in the game's elite.
2010
At a glance: Russia and Spain carried the tennis torch at the end of 2010, with the USA a distant third at best. France, Germany and Italy were all there or thereabouts, and smaller nations like the Czech Republic, Switzerland, Serbia and Belgium were producing elite players. China, too, continued to improve, and nations such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekestan and Latvia were also joining the party. 34 nations were represented in the women's top 100 and 37 countries in the men's ranking, more than ever before.
Similar threads
