Why should i trust you more than even the players that competed with Hoad himself? All from Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Kramer have stated that Hoad was the more phisically talented of the pack. Probably Hoad was a better player than Rosewall, not greater as that comes from achievements, but better from a technical standpoint
Why should i trust you more than even the players that competed with Hoad himself? All from Laver, Gonzalez, Rosewall, Kramer have stated that Hoad was the more phisically talented of the pack. Probably Hoad was a better player than Rosewall, not greater as that comes from achievements, but better from a technical standpoint
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Very intersting post.
Yes, much speculation. I do believe (having studied Laver's game and life somewhat), if born in the 1980s he would have (been like Federer and thus) chosen the one-handed backhand.
Given the amount of spin he was able to impart with a 66 sq. in. racquet with gut strings, if born in the 80s and using present technology, I daresay he would have one of those "top modern forehands" and a backhand spinnier than Wawrinka, Gasquet, or Almagro.
Keep in mind that late in his career, Laver did play against Vilas (a clay-court skilled lefty with fair spin) and Borg (righty) who had a two-handed backhand with a fair amount of spin.
Laver did surprisingly well against both in spite of his age. (He has wins on clay against both. Laver also has big clay-court wins over Gimeno and Orantes, two other exellent clay-courters.)
When he wanted to, Laver could certainly slug it out with the best clay-courters.
Last edited:
ARFED, Hoad was stronger, Rosewall was more talented, at least regarding touch and footwork.
The mentioned greats have talked about playing strength.
I am not in any way saying that he couldn`t cope with modern players. Just that he would have to change his tactics. Against Nadal he would be somewhat favoured in the match up because his backhand would not be exposed to Nadal`s forehand so much. But Rafa`s IO forehand would be directed to his backhand, and believe me he has not faced anything like that before. Not Borg, not Vilas, is not even close IMO. Obviously the equipment nowadays allows Nadal to have such a shot, but nonetheless the point withstands.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Who r those so called strong opponents ? Wawrinka ? Rosol ? Darcis ?
If its djokovic, federer has met him more times than nadal in majors since Montreal 2007.
If its murray, federer and Djokovic have met him 7+ times since lendl took over as coach. Nadal has met him zero times since then.
Fed-djoko have also met tsonga, delpo etc. far more times than nadal has .
Nadal hasn't even met tsonga in major since ao 2008.
Federer also faced peak safin, hewitt, roddick, still strong agassi etc.
Clearly he had more varied and tougher competition than nadal did .
Simple eye test would tell you that fed is better on everything except clay
About hoad and rosewall, please , Hoad was clearly better in 56, 58 and 59. Deal with it and stop with the ridiculous bias.
74 newk was better than rosewall overall even though rosewall beat him at wimbledon and fh. Newk won the draining wct tour.
Was arguably better in 71 as well.
And finally nadal and blisters in the final ? Jeez how ignorant are you ? His blisters had healed after the qf. He had back problems in the final. Wawrinka was anyways beating him until he got injured.
Fed's peak had many players like wawrinka - gonzalez, nalbandian, baghdatis, blake, davydenko etc. Only federer did not lose to those sort of players at his prime. Nadal does
abmk, It's a fact that Nadal has tougher opposition than Federer had.
Djokovic was partly a youngster when he met Roger.
Lendl took over not long ago.
Federer is not generally stronger than Nadal. It's just the contrary.
I'm not biased against Hoad. I admire him!
When Rosewall turned pro in late 1956 he was the strongest amateur. Look at the results.
Why did Lance Tingay (guess you know him) rank Rosewall 2nd and Newcombe 3rd for 1974?
Newcombe was not better than Rosewall in 1971. He did not too much besides of his Wimbledon win. Rosewall reached SFs at W. and won two of the arguably three biggest tournaments: AO and WCT finals...
Please tell me the faith-healer who is able to heal a heavy wound on a player's hand plus blisters within of only two days!
Regarding ignorance you are clearly superior!
kiki
Banned
Not to take anything away from Kenny but Hoad won 3 out of 4 slams in the 56 amateurs.Clear world´s number one seems to me.And lost the final of the fourth.One win apiece but a much better record for Hoad in the other two slams that year.
Newcombe beat Laver to win the biggest indoor tournament at Philadelphia in 1971.Very close for Rosewall beat Ashe at Australia and Laver at Dallas while Newcombe beat Laver at Philly and Smith at the AELTC.Plus he trashed Rosewall in their Wimbledon semifinal.
kiki, Hoad did better than Rosewall at the AO but not MUCH better as Muscles lost a four-setter only in the FINAL.
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, federer has had it tougher. It is a 'fact'.
if you'd learn to read, I said from montreal 2007 onwards,when djoko beat #1,#2 and #3 to win it.
also if djoko was younger earlier, federer has been had the disadvantage of being older later ....federer has actually got into the disadvantage category overall as it stands now.
that was in the beginning of 2012, its been more than 2 years now.
fed-murray and djoko-murray have met atleast 7 times since then and atleast thrice in majors.
nadal-murray -> zero times anywhere
only in your la la land. Deal with it. Federer is well and above nadal on anything except clay. It isn't even close
no, you don't. You are blinded by your fanboyism for Rosewall. Hoad > Rosewall in 56,58 and 59. The story for those 2 years - 58, 59 was who would end up #1 b/w Gonzales and Hoad ( & sedgeman in 58 ) . Rosewall was behind.
what ? hoad won 3 of the 4 majors in 56 and only 'narrowly' lost the 4th in the final. Anyone who thinks rosewall was better in 56 overall is downright delusional.
Kramer wanted Hoad over Rosewall in the pros, but Hoad wanted to stay amateur till he won Wimbledon once more. So Kramer went for Rosewall. Hoad turned pro soon after Wimbledon in 57.
because writers have their own set of criteria ( some ridiculous at times ). Results wise newk was #2 for 74 .
ATP has Rosewall at #8 at the end of 74
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=17.01.1975&r=1&c=#
oh puhlese, stop with showing yourself to be more and more thick and actually watch . Nadal was fine in the semi. His problem in the final was back problem which he tweaked after being a set and break down, not blisters >>> get a friggin' clue
Oh and while I realise you were trying hard to be sarcastic, faith healing is an entirely different story. Considering you are not even able to get simple things in tennis ..........It'd be futile to even go anywhere near more complex things
Last edited:
abmk, Yes, I'm thick: I have got a respectable belly... You also are thick: You cannot cope with me.
Roddick and Hewitt as tough as Djokovic, Murray and Federer?
Nadal is stronger than Federer on hardcourts and equal to him at grass.
Nadal has better backhand, volleys, strategy...
It's an impertinance that you claim I don't admire Hoad and/or biased against him!
Fanboyism for Rosewall?? I only can prove he is a GOAT candidate, more than Federer is. Should I neglect facts?
Please write Sedgman.
Rosewall was ranked ahead of Hoad by Kramer in 1958 and 1959.
Rosewall won the French Pro in 1958 and beat Hoad at Forest Hills and in the L.A. Masters tournament and cleary in the long European clay series.
Rosewall was arguably equal with Hoad in 1959 since he did better against Gonzalez than Hoad did. Muscles said that he had the best overall balance of the pros. But I concede he did not win a major that year.
Who has claimed that Rosewall was better than Hoad 1956 overall?? And you blame me for not learning to read...
Rosewall only played 8 tournaments in 1974. Thus his low ATP ranking.
You might be a first-class expert for current and recent tennis but you know little about the older times.
My sarcastic sentence about a faith-healer for Nadal or anyone with a severe wound seemed too complex for you to find a good and convincing contra-argument...
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Looks like har-tru at Sea Pines. (I'm getting sea-sick.)
abmk
Bionic Poster
and the deluisions continue. I already said, that nadal's problem in the final was back issues, not blisters. He was also fine in the semi >> anyone who saw will attest to that
its like someone sitting in their own room and shouting that there is a elephant outside without looking , when in reality it is only a dog.
nadal was there during federer's prime as well ...how does federer get included in nadal's but not vice versa for federer ? :lol:
Like I said , federer has faced djokovic more times in majors than nadal has since djokovic broke through in montreal 07
and nadal hasn't faced murray since lendl took over ...that was more than 2 years ago ...fed-djoko have 7+ times...
federer also faced safin, nalbandian, agassi, davydenko etc etc.
fed has also faced delpo-tsonga-soderling etc. far more times combined ( overall & in majors ) than nadal has --- since they became top players
so yeah, compared to nadal, federer has had it tougher
( so has djokovic for that matter since he & federer have had to battle it out in so many semis .... and then djoko has had to face murray from 12 onwards as well , he's also faced in-form tsonga-delpo-berdych etc. more times than nadal as well )
if that is true, then roddick is better than rosewall, borg and nadal combined on clay :lol:
federer >> nadal on grass
federer >> nadal on HC
if nadal has better volleys than federer, then I have a better BH than rosewall :lol:
Didn't Krosero & I clearly put forward stats showing the clear superiority of federer at the net ? But hey why would you care about reality -- when it goes against what you wish it to be ////
no, you should learn to open your eyes. Your so called 'respect' for Hoad is only to showcase Rosewall's competition >> Otherwise you wouldn't be arguing below ...
and while Rosewall is a GOAT candidate, he's distinctly behind federer.
Even his 'best' rival Laver only ranked him #6 as far as playing level goes in the pre-open era ..
58 & 59, Hoad > Rosewall.. Kramer was ****ed off at Hoad in part because of Hoad missing out some matches (mostly due to injury) and his inconsistency and couldn't-care-less attritude. So a clear bias here.
Kramer also said Federer could do anything with a racquet. But of course you will blatantly ignore that -- Kramer has no reason for any bias here, mind you
your point about 'only a few months in 56' >> shows your ridiculous bias towards Rosewall
yeah, which means Tingay's ranking is *bunk* -- you only brought it in because it was convenient for you at that time ... You want me to bring up posts of yours downgrading the same writers, including Tingay when they went against your posts ?
I knew exactly why Rosewall was ranked lower. But hey, *you* were the one arguing he was better than newk in 74 ....... :lol:
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
If I remember correctly, krosero's observation was about laver's winners being balanced -- b/w fh & bh groundstrokes and fh & bh volleys -- not about laver having more winners with the bh most times ..
I wonder what his winner/opportunity ratio was on his backhand? My guess is that Rosewall might have had fewer winners because he had fewer opportunities, because everyone knew when playing him 'don't go to his backhand!' With Laver it was not obvious where to go, so people tended to go to his backhand more, because his forehand was also bad news! It would be interesting to know the winner/opportunity ratios for other player whose backhands were known to be their stronger wing - e.g. Kuerten, Safin, Gasquet.
I remember reading about Laver and he said that he liked to hit a lot of topspin off both his FH and BH especially in the warm-up and early in the match when he and his opponent were nervous. He felt that the spin gave him margin and allowed him to take a full swing and get the ball in the court. This was a very modern concept for its time as a lot of guys hit flatter on both sides, almost exclusive slice on the BH, and moderate spin at best. Laver may have been the transition between the flatter game to the modern topspin players. Borg and Vilas were 2 of the first guys that truly had modern technique in my view. Especially Vilas, his ground game include open to semi-open stances, loose grips, loads of topspin, extreme grips, and WW follow-thru.
I think that is exactly right. My recollection is that his topspin was not seen as particularly innovative (as, for instance Borg's backhand was), but it was seen as noteworthy because of its reliability and his being prepared to commit to it in the heat of battle. It was therefore another powerful weapon he had.
abmk, Even after having slept very little in the last few nights, I still can disprove you at several points.
IQ 200 man abmk was not able to explain how a severe wound and blisters can heal within of two days!!
Nadal was a youngster when facing Federer in some of Roger's peak years.
Roddick better than Rosewall, Borg, and Nadal on clay is not sarcastic but only stupid.
Your "joke" about abmk BH better than Rosewall's is just abmk-like...
Nadal has improved his bh in the last few years.
"...respect for Hoad to showcase Rosewall's competition": No comment...
Laver was just wrong in ranking Rosewall only sixth.
Rosewall is a GOAT candidate also for his record!
"Kramer bias (toward) Hoad": mean argument.
When did I write "only a few months in 1956"? Firstly it was the half of a year and secondly I wrote "when Rosewall was turning pro in late 1956"!
Tingay's ranking Rosewall 2nd "although" he played only 8 tournaments is a "bunk"? You are an arrogant person!
You knew exactly why Rosewall was ranked lower (because he played only 8 tournaments; 12 were required) and yet "presented" that Rosewall was ATP ranked only at eight place? Are you serious? And you blame me for being biased...
abmk
Bionic Poster
because it wasn't that severe. Its as simple as that. How tough is that comprehend ? Do you actually even make an attempt to watch matches ? I mean seriously, do you !?
and federer was older in some of nadal's 'prime' years, so it more or less evens out. nadal was already at his CC prime in 2005 and was proficient on grass in 06 -- where he made the final instead of losing in 2R and 1R like he was in 12 and 13
I was only showing a mirror .... its just as stupid as your statements about nadal's volleys being better than federer though me & krosero provided stats that clearly show that federer is well and above nadal @ net play. yet you chose to ignore that completely.
also stupid is ranking nadal above federer on HC and equal on grass, when nadal has only 3 majors to federer's 9 on HC, 0 year ending championships to 6 for federer and 2 majors to federer's 7 on grass
Laver was mainly considering peak level of play. So his rating is actually justified
mean argument ? No, that's the reality.
Are you actually suggesting Kramer of all people was the p-aragon of fair judgement ?
You are aware that he rated Laver & Rosewall 'only' in the 2nd tier of players ?
see post no 56 of mine where I quoted you :
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=8130334&postcount=56
you know, you actually need to play many tournaments to be ranked as high as #2 - under a fair system. Rosewall didn't in 74. Newk was well and above him in terms of overall play in 74 -- even if Rosewall did beat him at wimbledon & FH.
kiki
Banned
coming back to topic, one of the biggest, if not the truly biggest ( at least IMO) weapon of the Rocket unfinishing arsenal was his ability to turn defensive into ofensive in a cosmic instant and his BH was a key factor in that ability.
He could play 4-5 different BH depending on the point situation, court position, tactical choice and surface.Truly genious.
He could play 4-5 different BH depending on the point situation, court position, tactical choice and surface.Truly genious.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
OK, but same for Chang, Agassi, and Ferrer.ok, so lets get back to the thread topic :
The two shorties -- Laver and Rosewall - their BHs would stand no chance vs the topspin FHs of nadal & bruguera :twisted:
Ooooops! Oh wait, Chang and Agassi owned Bruguera.:smile:
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
At the 1969 AO, Laver beat Emmo in the third round. This footage is of his semi win over Roche.
(A huge five-set match, BTW.)
Last edited:
Interesting, because Hoad said the same thing about beating Rosewall in the Wimbledon final that same year, that he knew Ken was planning to turn pro, and Hoad felt badly about hurting Rosewall's signing bonus.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Clearly for the Modern Game Laver's backhand would be superior because of his topspin but as I've written before Rosewall was able to hit topspin in practice so I'd think Rosewall could hit a top flight topspin backhand today. Rosewall could not constantly get away with his regular backhand against players with Nadal's forehand topspin because as John Yandell wrote that the ball would hit the back wall or at least something to that effect.
Rosewall's backhand has generally been slightly ranked over Laver I believe but I do wonder if that's true. Especially considering Rod's far superior head to head and overall record after 1963.
Rosewall made fewer errors I believe and was a safer volleyer. It's close. Here is a comparison with Rosewall versus Roche and Laver versus Roche at the US Open in 1970 and 1969 respectively.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
And that's why people feared Laver in pressure situations. When most would perhaps be overly cautious Laver would have the courage to play the shot that was needed. There was no shot Laver could not hit with his backhand. Rosewall's backhand was great but he had some limitations to his shot that Laver did not. Maybe it's me but in the above videos of Laver versus Roche in 1969 at the West Side Tennis Club and Rosewall versus Roche in 1970 at the West Side Tennis Club I found Laver's backhand to be more impressive and seemingly more effective. The opponent and the court were the same so it's almost like a science experiment in comparing backhands.
This begs the question on whether Rosewall would have a great backhand today with topspin. I think so but I would still think that Laver, due to his much greater wrist and left arm strength would be capable of hitting superior shots.
borg number one
Legend
Laver v. Roche, though I said Emerson! Thanks for that Hoodjem. Yeah, that Laver one handed backhand is something else.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Haven't seen you post here in a while. Glad to see you back!
I was glancing at the thread here and wow some of the arguments was heated to say the least. Forgot about some of those disputes.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Here's a 31 year old Laver and his backhand against Tony Roche in the final of the 1969 US Open.
Here's a 36 year old Laver and his backhand against Borg. Lots of excellent Laver's backhand winners here. Laver would be 37 later that year. It seems to me that while Laver is still superb he lost a lost of his quickness and is not quite as fluid. Borg is also a number of years before his peak. Borg defeated Laver in the US Open later that year. I had the chance to go to that match which would turn out to be the last match Laver would play at the US Open and the last major in which I believe that he was still good enough to be a threat to win the tournament. Stupidly I let a friend convince me to play tennis with him that day instead of going to the match. Ouch!
Similar threads
- MeMyselfandI
- Tennis Tips/Instruction
