Career percentages of 17 alltime greats
- Thread starter krosero
- Start date
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
It does make me wonder when I read about how modern players don't even play doubles in majors today, and I have to ask myself why a guy like Rosewall at his age did not opt out of doubles. He may ask himself the same question today.
I am only looking at the records of players in the OE. I'm leaving the record during the 50s and 60s who are specialists in those eras. The only thing that is clear to me about the 50s and 60s is that match% is clearly way below what it has been in the OE and what it was for these guys in their amateur years. To me that makes it crystal clear that the competition was more severe in those years because of smaller fields with mostly the very top players.
In other words, when people report to me the match% of Gonzalez, just to name one player, I'm pretty much left with two choices:
1. Because of that lower percentage he clearly was not as good as players in the OE. I utterly reject that idea. I think it is clearly false.
2. The structure of competition has a direct bearing on all stats, and fewer rounds (for example) is linked to lower percentages.
There are two reasons for going with #2. First, looking at results in the OE, often they are higher when filtered only for majors. When I filter for rounds, I see that R128 together with R64 more or less "pads" the stats. Those are generally two weak round averaged into what comes later. From that I could conclude that players simply try harder in slams to get those higher numbers - and I believe there is some truth in that. But I don't think it is the full explanation.
I would personally say that IF Gonzalez, for example, turns out to have a lower match% than Laver - I don't know for a fact that this is true - I would say it is more likely that his competition was more extreme and not that he was a weaker player, if you follow my logic.
My stats for Rosewall in the OE are incomplete. For those numbers I would have to go with someone's list of (supposedly) all matches.
I can tell you this, for what it is worth. Ken's match record for all the matches I have from the ATP plus all his Davis Cup matches, which the ATP strangely omitted show that he was clearly lowest on carpet and highest on clay.
Now, there are some interesting things about his carpet record, because to me at this time it seems like every player I've checked has been lower on carpet. Why? One possibility - and I'm just throwing this out - is that carpet is more likely to be used in matches with fewer rounds, which in general knocks down stats. Most likely there are simply fewer easy matches in such situations. I'm not sure, so that is just an idea.
However, I think Ken's record on clay pretty much speaks for itself and at least suggests that Ken's strongest game was in the return game (in comparison to guys like Gonzalez, who depended on winning serve so much.)
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Back to weak era arguments again. They pop up in every thread about every era.
The purpose is always the same, to diminish the rep of player A, B or C and to pump up the record for player D, E or F.
As every exact reader has seen I have not misinterpreted any poster (neither this who posted a wrong claim nor this who "liked" that wrong claim).
Dear poster: be honest.
Last edited:
thrust, Excellent post. Yes, EVERY player, at least every male player, has a flaw in his record, even Laver (WCT Finals) and Federer (no GS).
Gary, I agree. And I respect your rather critical approach to value all posts (including mine).
I think that it's not bad to be a fierce fan of a great player (or even a non-great player like Martin Mulligan or Tommy Haas) as long as the fan can back up his admiration with serious facts.
I also believe that Hoad peak earlier than other all-time greats, as early as 1956, at least partly (at Wimbledon).
Budge and Riggs were clearly over the hill in the early 1950s.
To be fair, I believe that pc1 has changed his mind about 1964 recently, unlike to Limpin, Phoenix and Dan.
What does that prove?
Really it proves that Pancho had an ego the size of Jupiter, while Kenny is a quiet, humble man.
Gary, I guess Ken's statement has to be taken with a grain of salt. At least I never heard that he contradicted to his first biographer, Peter Rowley, when the latter ranked Muscles as No.1 for 1961 (and even 1959,1960). Ken also has not contradicted to me when he wrote my similary convictions. Meanwhile I think that Rosewall was only No.3 in 1959 and a tied No.1 in 1960 and 1961.
Phoenix1983, I'm sure: If krosero would support YOU more often you would call him the GPOAT (greatest poster of all time)...
Gary, Interesting thoughts about the surfaces. They sound reasonable.
You are surely right regarding higher percentages for amateur and open era periods, as also krosero has shown if I recall correctly.
I believe the WCT Finals were played on carpet. Thus the more remarkable that Rosewall won two of them on his weakest surface.
Last edited:
Krosero, as in "her"?
You mean, "Krosero" is a "Krosera"?
Last edited:
Dan, Finally a good post of yours!
By the way, I'm sure about krosero's gender but not about Limpinhitter's even though I asked him/her several times...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Come on, we all know Krosero is a guy. He's okay in my book. He knows his stuff and is a top poster.
And by the way he's probably one of the better tennis players in this forum. You can see that in his youtube channel. At least I thought I've seen it in the past. My memory could be wrong here.
And by the way he's probably one of the better tennis players in this forum. You can see that in his youtube channel. At least I thought I've seen it in the past. My memory could be wrong here.
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Bobby, I'm not saying that carpet was Rosewall's weakest surface, only that his stats on carpet were lower. Again, that could have something to do with the number of rounds and the strength of the competition. But it is still logical, I believe, to think that he should have been best on clay. Would you agree with that?
I hesitate to say too much about the numbers for Laver and Rosewall when it comes to matches in general in the OE because I simply don't have all the matches. But I took a quick look at Laver and I believe he was slightly higher on carpet than on clay, but barely, and clearly had better stats on HCs and grass. It's hard to draw conclusions today. I've look at guys like Federer on carpet, and they played matches on carpet mostly when they were very young. It has been phased out.
[Edited: wrong figures following this, correcting...]
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Back to weak era arguments again. They pop up in every thread about every era.
The purpose is always the same, to diminish the rep of player A, B or C and to pump up the record for player D, E or F.
Well I was just responding, I don't start weak era arguments. Just finish them
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
That reminds me of a lady I once taught, a really cool person who was high up in management.Well I was just responding, I don't start weak era arguments. Just finish them
She said:
"I don't get headaches. I just give them."
NatF
Bionic Poster
That reminds me of a lady I once taught, a really cool person who was high up in management.
She said:
"I don't get headaches. I just give them."
I might use that one day...
Gary, Thanks for these interesting statistics. It's interesting to see those differences between great players regarding kind of tournaments.
Yes, I believe that clay was Rosewall's best surface but perhaps he is a bit overrated there and a bit under-rated on grass (and maybe other surfaces). There is not a big difference between Rosewall on clay and on grass.
It's maybe interesting that Muscles won 6 big clay tournaments, 8 big grass tournaments and 11 big wood tournaments (plus 2 on carpet thus 13 big indoor events).
Of course Rosewall played much less claycourt events than grasscourt events.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Are you sure about those clay numbers for Sampras, or am I reading it wrong? 77% clay matches won? Isn't he in the 60's?
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Yes. Thanks for catching that. I was looking at several players, and to be honest right now I don't know which name I transposed. Those figures are for someone else. Sampras's record on clay was pretty awful and drags his all surface stats way down.
53.3178
62.5000
All matches on clay.
53.7336
64.8649
clay at RG
Last edited:
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
OK, rechecking. It was very late, and I was probably looking at two different players. A bit of insomnia and maybe bad filters.
I need more sleep...
The point is that most of these top players appear to be weaker on carpet and PERHAPS that is because competition was more fierce in tourneys on carpet, but I don't have any more thoughts on this yet. For Sampras clay was weakest, as expected, but we would expect him to do very well on carpet. Yet those figures are a good bit lower than HCs, way below grass.
Fixing, for Pete.
Sampras, games and matches, percents, corrected:
Majors:
57.2370
84.2324
Non majors
55.8963
75.2355
Carpet, all matches
55.7296
76.3158
Clay, all matches:
53.3178
62.5000
HC, all matches:
57.2206
80.5293
Grass, all matches:
57.6061
83.4711
treblings
Hall of Fame
Bobby, i´m impressed that you are able to give such a thoughtful answer to a post that was clearly meant to provoke you.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
More data on winning matches, OE:
All data is ONLY OE.
Other people have more complete lists of matches that Laver and Rosewall played, but as you add in more data both game% and match% either stay pretty level or go down. So this should be fair.
For modern players I had to do a lot of filtering. Fed, Nadal, all the players in that generation played a lot of Challengers and Junior matches. None are counted by the ATP.
I counted Davis Cup for all players. The ATP always counts Davis Cup for modern players but screws up horribly for older players.
My main thrust was to compare records in and out of slams. @BobbyOne, I know you don't like "slams", but for me it is useful to immediately differentiate between majors and Pro Majors.
I'll let you guys draw your own conclusions, but I will offer one thought:
Connors is frequently criticized for playing too many "not important" matches, and thereby pumping up his record. To me the numbers say otherwise and suggest that he does not get enough credit.
It does appear to me that "big match players" seemed to have upped their level in slams, while others did not, or barely.
Note: Rosewall looks almost average in this list for his matches outside of slams but was hugely better in slams. I have to wonder at the fact that a guy pushing 34 years old (at the end of the year in '68) managed to win almost 83% of his matches.
All data is ONLY OE.
Other people have more complete lists of matches that Laver and Rosewall played, but as you add in more data both game% and match% either stay pretty level or go down. So this should be fair.
For modern players I had to do a lot of filtering. Fed, Nadal, all the players in that generation played a lot of Challengers and Junior matches. None are counted by the ATP.
I counted Davis Cup for all players. The ATP always counts Davis Cup for modern players but screws up horribly for older players.
My main thrust was to compare records in and out of slams. @BobbyOne, I know you don't like "slams", but for me it is useful to immediately differentiate between majors and Pro Majors.
I'll let you guys draw your own conclusions, but I will offer one thought:
Connors is frequently criticized for playing too many "not important" matches, and thereby pumping up his record. To me the numbers say otherwise and suggest that he does not get enough credit.
It does appear to me that "big match players" seemed to have upped their level in slams, while others did not, or barely.
Note: Rosewall looks almost average in this list for his matches outside of slams but was hugely better in slams. I have to wonder at the fact that a guy pushing 34 years old (at the end of the year in '68) managed to win almost 83% of his matches.
Gary, Fantastic research and compilation.
Gary, Yes, astonishing high level of Rosewall in OE majors.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Bobby,
The oldest player I remember seeing play is Pancho Gonzalez. Because of his incredibly long career, IS part of my memories. I remember seeing him play, as a very old man (in tennis), hair shot with gray, looking very gaunt.
What do most people know about Pancho Gonzalez today?
In contrast, now we know about it if Federer farts.
In order to bring to light how good these guys were we have to put it into a perspective that younger people can understand. We really can't do that without:
If Rosewall was STILL that good at age 38, If Connors was STILL that good at age 39, and Agassi was STILL that good in his 30s, and Federer is STILL that good at age 35, we have kind of a time-line of greatness. To complete this cycle we can look how good Gonzalez was up to age 40, then we know how good Kramer was when Gonzalez first joined the pros.
What I'm trying to show is that tennis has not changed as much as we think it has. But only sports like soccer, or basketball, the equipment has changed radically, and that has changed how we view the top players. People accuse Federer of not really being "good" at the net, and when we look at stats of serving back in the late 60s and early 70s, it appears that those older players did not serve nearly as well.
Most of all this is the change in rackets and strings. Those of us who grew up playing with wood and gut, buying a Kramer racket, know this viscerally. Younger people simply don't. How could they?
But the one thing that now seems clear is that no matter how many decades we go back, the sport is a LOT more similar than we realize.
The oldest player I remember seeing play is Pancho Gonzalez. Because of his incredibly long career, IS part of my memories. I remember seeing him play, as a very old man (in tennis), hair shot with gray, looking very gaunt.
What do most people know about Pancho Gonzalez today?
In contrast, now we know about it if Federer farts.
In order to bring to light how good these guys were we have to put it into a perspective that younger people can understand. We really can't do that without:
- Talking about how good Agassi still played when Fed started rising to the top.
- How well Becker and Edberg still played in the early 90s.
- How well old Connors, age 39, still played in the USO, only finally losing to Lendl in the SFs.
- Mentiong that when Rosewall played Connors at in a LA WTC match in '72, the same year Connors was good enough to reach the QF at Wimbledon, that's important. Because after that, when Connors rose to the very top, it's hardly fair to expect Rosewall, 18 years old, to be competing on an even keel.
If Rosewall was STILL that good at age 38, If Connors was STILL that good at age 39, and Agassi was STILL that good in his 30s, and Federer is STILL that good at age 35, we have kind of a time-line of greatness. To complete this cycle we can look how good Gonzalez was up to age 40, then we know how good Kramer was when Gonzalez first joined the pros.
What I'm trying to show is that tennis has not changed as much as we think it has. But only sports like soccer, or basketball, the equipment has changed radically, and that has changed how we view the top players. People accuse Federer of not really being "good" at the net, and when we look at stats of serving back in the late 60s and early 70s, it appears that those older players did not serve nearly as well.
Most of all this is the change in rackets and strings. Those of us who grew up playing with wood and gut, buying a Kramer racket, know this viscerally. Younger people simply don't. How could they?
But the one thing that now seems clear is that no matter how many decades we go back, the sport is a LOT more similar than we realize.
Bobby,
The oldest player I remember seeing play is Pancho Gonzalez. Because of his incredibly long career, IS part of my memories. I remember seeing him play, as a very old man (in tennis), hair shot with gray, looking very gaunt.
What do most people know about Pancho Gonzalez today?
In contrast, now we know about it if Federer farts.
In order to bring to light how good these guys were we have to put it into a perspective that younger people can understand. We really can't do that without:
And so on.
- Talking about how good Agassi still played when Fed started rising to the top.
- How well Becker and Edberg still played in the early 90s.
- How well old Connors, age 39, still played in the USO, only finally losing to Lendl in the SFs.
- Mentiong that when Rosewall played Connors at in a LA WTC match in '72, the same year Connors was good enough to reach the QF at Wimbledon, that's important. Because after that, when Connors rose to the very top, it's hardly fair to expect Rosewall, 18 years old, to be competing on an even keel.
If Rosewall was STILL that good at age 38, If Connors was STILL that good at age 39, and Agassi was STILL that good in his 30s, and Federer is STILL that good at age 35, we have kind of a time-line of greatness. To complete this cycle we can look how good Gonzalez was up to age 40, then we know how good Kramer was when Gonzalez first joined the pros.
What I'm trying to show is that tennis has not changed as much as we think it has. But only sports like soccer, or basketball, the equipment has changed radically, and that has changed how we view the top players. People accuse Federer of not really being "good" at the net, and when we look at stats of serving back in the late 60s and early 70s, it appears that those older players did not serve nearly as well.
Most of all this is the change in rackets and strings. Those of us who grew up playing with wood and gut, buying a Kramer racket, know this viscerally. Younger people simply don't. How could they?
But the one thing that now seems clear is that no matter how many decades we go back, the sport is a LOT more similar than we realize.
Gary, Thanks. It's one of my old claims that tennis AT THE TOP has not improved significantly as we can see at great wins of old and every old players against next generation and even the following generation (as in Pancho's, Ken's and Jimmy's case).
I yet think that the great volleyers of the past like Hoad and Newcombe were better on the volley than Federer.
The 1972 PSW tournament was not a WCT event. It was a Grand Prix (category A) event. Rosewall won very clearly against a young Connors who had already won six tournaments that year and had lost a final to No.1, Stan Smith, only in five sets. Of course Jimbo was not at his peak though.
And yes, the equipment has changed tennis significantly.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Do you remember when Collins used to talk about McEnroe's asbestos hands?
Just as there is recency bias, to some extent I think there is also selective memory about what happened in the past, so when we read about some of these older players it can sometimes seem as if they never made errors, and of course they did.
But champions of the past sort of "lived at the net", and the last really famous guy to do that was Sampras.
I think there is a two-part reason for why no one volleys that well today. The first part is what players face, with insanely fast, dipping returns. They also have less time to get to the net today. Serves are faster, and that actually cuts down on net-rushing time.
Those two factors cut down on the practice they get at the net in matches. Getting red hot on any kind of return is linked to rhythm. So I think Fed in a previous era would have been a better volleyer, and guy like Rosewall playing today would be far worse (much less opportunity to come in.) In other words, a great deal of the skill sets are developed according to playing conditions of the time. Can you imagine how different play would be today if guys were competing three times a year on fast grass?
Bobby, I envy people who have amazing recall. I don't remember ANY of this stuff without checking.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/ken-rosewall/r075/player-activity?year=1972
The ATP has Connors playing in September in LA, a WTC event. Apparently that is wrong. Or maybe you are talking about another tourney?
As you know as well as anyone, the data for Rosewall is absolutely terrible. I'm not sure, but I don't think the ATP even counts Grand Prix events. I know I am missing a LOT of his matches, but I'm pretty confident that the stats I have for Ken are, if anything, a little high because of some of the small events that are left out of most lists.
As others have suggests, those small events tend to depress match and game% because they are (or were) more competitive, small fields, very good players, and that is the main reason that players in the 50s and 60s appear to be weaker - which is totally wrong.
This kind of thing makes me insane:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/performance-zone/win-loss-index/career/grass/all/
Pancho is 161 on this list, with no picture. It is like he is some kind of former failure, a nothing, who is not even important today. That's the kind of thing I am fighting against. I know this is mostly about the open era, but Budge is at the top of the list. You have all these guys from pre-1950 up at the top of the list, then there is a big hole.
Pancho is not even on the list of great HC players. I loathe the ATP site.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Recently seen an interview where Rosewall stated that Gonzalez was #1 until he retired. So much for Rosewall being the GOAT, couldn't overtake even old Pancho. Straight from the horses mouth
That's true depending on which retirement.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Do you remember when Collins used to talk about McEnroe's asbestos hands?
Just as there is recency bias, to some extent I think there is also selective memory about what happened in the past, so when we read about some of these older players it can sometimes seem as if they never made errors, and of course they did.
But champions of the past sort of "lived at the net", and the last really famous guy to do that was Sampras.
I think there is a two-part reason for why no one volleys that well today. The first part is what players face, with insanely fast, dipping returns. They also have less time to get to the net today. Serves are faster, and that actually cuts down on net-rushing time.
Those two factors cut down on the practice they get at the net in matches. Getting red hot on any kind of return is linked to rhythm. So I think Fed in a previous era would have been a better volleyer, and guy like Rosewall playing today would be far worse (much less opportunity to come in.) In other words, a great deal of the skill sets are developed according to playing conditions of the time. Can you imagine how different play would be today if guys were competing three times a year on fast grass?
Bobby, I envy people who have amazing recall. I don't remember ANY of this stuff without checking.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/ken-rosewall/r075/player-activity?year=1972
The ATP has Connors playing in September in LA, a WTC event. Apparently that is wrong. Or maybe you are talking about another tourney?
As you know as well as anyone, the data for Rosewall is absolutely terrible. I'm not sure, but I don't think the ATP even counts Grand Prix events. I know I am missing a LOT of his matches, but I'm pretty confident that the stats I have for Ken are, if anything, a little high because of some of the small events that are left out of most lists.
As others have suggests, those small events tend to depress match and game% because they are (or were) more competitive, small fields, very good players, and that is the main reason that players in the 50s and 60s appear to be weaker - which is totally wrong.
This kind of thing makes me insane:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/performance-zone/win-loss-index/career/grass/all/
Pancho is 161 on this list, with no picture. It is like he is some kind of former failure, a nothing, who is not even important today. That's the kind of thing I am fighting against. I know this is mostly about the open era, but Budge is at the top of the list. You have all these guys from pre-1950 up at the top of the list, then there is a big hole.
Pancho is not even on the list of great HC players. I loathe the ATP site.
Gary, I don't remember that Collins term. I never heard Bud commentating live at that time. We had Austrian broadcasting of the three big GS tournaments and German commentating...
Yes, the ATP site is wrong: The 1972 L.A. PSW tournament, as every year from 1970 (introduction of Grand Prix and Masters ) was a Grand Prix event with a larger field than the WCT tourneys, at least through 1981. Thanks for the link. That ATP site also forgot two Rosewall tournament wins of 1972: Hilton Head with a final win over Newcombe (Rosewall hurt his foot at a nail of the surface and played with a swollen foot...) and Tokyo WCT with a final win over Stolle. Thus Rosewall won seven tournamnets in 1972.
Re volleys. It's interesting that Roger Federer once ( when he has trained by Tony Roche) said that Roche still has a better volley than 90% of the current players even though Roche was 60 plus then and had have a hip surgery...
Yes tennis has changed and I agree that Rosewall and other great volleyers of the past would not get to an ideal volley positionnow as often as they got in their time.
Thanks also for your second link, to that idiotic list of grass court wins and percentages. That list is even more insane than the idiotic Tennis Channel list (The 100 greatest players).
They have, f.e., Emerson with zero wins even though he won a huge amont of grasscourt titles.
They even write "Mcgrath" instead of McGrath".
I think we have (thanks to Andrew Tas and krosero) now all of Rosewall's amateur and open era matches recorded.
Last edited:
I appreciate the huge amount of work done here....but I can't help feeling that it is a bit like the slam final winning percentage statistic. That latter statistic is the most mis-leading in tennis. It penalises people who win semi-finals and relatively helps those who lose semi-finals eg Connors Slam final percentage 8-7 (53%), Lendl Slam final percentage 8-11 (42%). On the face of it it looks like Connors has the superior percentage - when in actual fact his statistic is inferior to Lendl's. Explanation - if Lendl had just lost 4 more of his semi-finals instead of winning them then he would be sitting on 8-7 - the same as Connors. Hence, ipso-facto it is a superior performance to lose a semi-final than win it.
Similarly if you are looking at overall percentage - compare Connors 1974 vs McEnroe's 1984. Connors won 93 lost 4 in 1974 ie 95.8% (some say he won 99 lost 4 - 96.1%). McEnroe in 1984 won 82 lost 3 ie 96.4%
McEnroe's season better right? Look again. Connors won 11 more matches (or even 17 more matches if you use the 99-4 stat that some hold to) for only 1 more match loss. To say that McEnroe's season was superior in terms of match wins - it rewards him not risking his percentage by not playing 12 (or 18) more matches. To me it is superior to win 11 (or 17) more matches and have 1 loss than not to play matches at all. And that in its essence is the weakness of career percentages. It rewards no shows over people who took the risk.
You end up with people saying Graf's 1988 season was better than Courts 1970 season because Graf's percentage was better. That completely ignores the fact that Court won 10 more tournaments than Graf!
Which is better - to compete in 1 tournament only and win it (100% record) , or compete in 20 tournaments and win 10? (50% record). I'm sorry, but I have to go with the latter. I rate people who put themselves on the line over people who don't.
Last edited:
Do you remember when Collins used to talk about McEnroe's asbestos hands?
Just as there is recency bias, to some extent I think there is also selective memory about what happened in the past, so when we read about some of these older players it can sometimes seem as if they never made errors, and of course they did.
But champions of the past sort of "lived at the net", and the last really famous guy to do that was Sampras.
I think there is a two-part reason for why no one volleys that well today. The first part is what players face, with insanely fast, dipping returns. They also have less time to get to the net today. Serves are faster, and that actually cuts down on net-rushing time.
Those two factors cut down on the practice they get at the net in matches. Getting red hot on any kind of return is linked to rhythm. So I think Fed in a previous era would have been a better volleyer, and guy like Rosewall playing today would be far worse (much less opportunity to come in.) In other words, a great deal of the skill sets are developed according to playing conditions of the time. Can you imagine how different play would be today if guys were competing three times a year on fast grass?
Bobby, I envy people who have amazing recall. I don't remember ANY of this stuff without checking.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/ken-rosewall/r075/player-activity?year=1972
The ATP has Connors playing in September in LA, a WTC event. Apparently that is wrong. Or maybe you are talking about another tourney?
As you know as well as anyone, the data for Rosewall is absolutely terrible. I'm not sure, but I don't think the ATP even counts Grand Prix events. I know I am missing a LOT of his matches, but I'm pretty confident that the stats I have for Ken are, if anything, a little high because of some of the small events that are left out of most lists.
As others have suggests, those small events tend to depress match and game% because they are (or were) more competitive, small fields, very good players, and that is the main reason that players in the 50s and 60s appear to be weaker - which is totally wrong.
This kind of thing makes me insane:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/performance-zone/win-loss-index/career/grass/all/
Pancho is 161 on this list, with no picture. It is like he is some kind of former failure, a nothing, who is not even important today. That's the kind of thing I am fighting against. I know this is mostly about the open era, but Budge is at the top of the list. You have all these guys from pre-1950 up at the top of the list, then there is a big hole.
Pancho is not even on the list of great HC players. I loathe the ATP site.
Gary, I forgot to mention that ATP yet considered the Grand Prix events even rather than all WCT events because Grand Prix was sanctioned be ITF since the beginning and because Grand Prix included the Grand Slam tournaments (with the exception of early AO issues).
the green god
Professional
Little Ken knew who the "Boss" was.
WHO???
7
70sHollywood
Guest
the green god
Professional
Who? Little Ken called him Mr. Gonzalez.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Bobby, very strange about the ATP getting the name of that tourney wrong. I need to get back to what you wrote.
As I said, if I include more of Rosewall's matches, the results outside of majors will not change much and if anything will go down some. So we have a pretty solid "big picture" idea of how he did inside and outside of majors.
Majors, of course, are not the only place he did very well in big matches.
I frankly don't know if the ATP is just stupid or has an agenda the way it tracks info. I suspect more stupid. It seems that once it gets something wrong it never gets fixed. You simply can't talk to anyone.
I've tried. Maybe I have not been persistent enough.
It's all very uneven. For some players most of the Davis Cup is there, but there were something like 35 matches missing from the data on Borg. In other words, they had just a few matches (they normally count all of them), and there are other very odd things. Often you will see two tourneys listed as being played on the same date.
I know you and others have been collecting data for many years. I'm still pretty new to trying to track down information in the early OE, and to be honest it is shocking how much is wrong.
Interesting that little Ken was able to beat his "boss" about 80 times and to level him at 3:3 in major events...
Little Ken was also able to dominate his "boss" in 1959 (8:4 matches) and in 1961 (5:4 matches) even though Big Pancho used to show an intimidating (=nasty) behaviour!
Last edited:
Bobby, very strange about the ATP getting the name of that tourney wrong. I need to get back to what you wrote.
As I said, if I include more of Rosewall's matches, the results outside of majors will not change much and if anything will go down some. So we have a pretty solid "big picture" idea of how he did inside and outside of majors.
Majors, of course, are not the only place he did very well in big matches.
I frankly don't know if the ATP is just stupid or has an agenda the way it tracks info. I suspect more stupid. It seems that once it gets something wrong it never gets fixed. You simply can't talk to anyone.
I've tried. Maybe I have not been persistent enough.
It's all very uneven. For some players most of the Davis Cup is there, but there were something like 35 matches missing from the data on Borg. In other words, they had just a few matches (they normally count all of them), and there are other very odd things. Often you will see two tourneys listed as being played on the same date.
I know you and others have been collecting data for many years. I'm still pretty new to trying to track down information in the early OE, and to be honest it is shocking how much is wrong.
Gary, Yes, it's kind of stupidity and partly arrogance regarding tennis of earlier times.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Or, if Sharapova stubs her toe (even when she is not on the tour). (It certainly seems that her publicity machine/agency is working overtime.)Bobby,
The oldest player I remember seeing play is Pancho Gonzalez. Because of his incredibly long career, IS part of my memories. I remember seeing him play, as a very old man (in tennis), hair shot with gray, looking very gaunt.
What do most people know about Pancho Gonzalez today?
In contrast, now we know about it if Federer farts.
Could I care less? No.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I believe you are correct.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I remember reading Pancho's story many years ago. I was fascinated by it all, but I do remember he had a way of excusing every loss and bragging about every win. I don't think anyone could ever accuse Pancho of being either humble or cooperative.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Bobby, I want to repeat that I don't necessarily believe that carpet was Ken's weakest surface on the basis of W/L records or games, but I'm not saying that is wrong either. I believe that many other players appear to be weaker on carpet if we go by stats only, and I think that MAY be because of fewer rounds/more difficult competition.
I really don't know yet, and we may never know.
I do know that in comparing results for modern day players, I don't get results I expect when comparing results in 250s, 500s, 1000s and majors. To be honest I had assumed that numbers would have been highest in 250s, lowest in majors. What I had not taken into consideration is that those "easier" or "lower" tourneys have fewer rounds, and the number of rounds vs strength of field seems to cancel each other out, at least to some extent.
It is more a math principle than anything else.
I will eventually post results of several modern players showing how their different level tourneys stack up. It is easy to do today because the tourneys categorize so discretely.
For instance, I do this for the modern Big Four:
challengers
juniors
Davis Cup
Olympics
250s
500s
1000s
majors
I've looked at this with Federer, and it was a bit different from what I expected. I'd have to do it with a few other players to make a conclusion. Another problem is that there are so few people to check playing at such a high level, and it may not work the same way for lower ranked players.
the green god
Professional
How many times did Mr. Gonzalez beat Lil' Ken?
About 110 times. 50 times of those when Rosewall was 22 and a rookie pro.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Here it is, Bobby:
"Back in the early 80’s, my favorite tennis player was John McEnroe. I loved his brashness and was entertained by his over-the-top antics. During one Wimbledon match, the color commentator, Bud Collins, said, “John McEnroe was the kid with the asbestos hands.” The way he was able to take the fire out of the ball on hard-hit shots, he was a master with the racket. Collins meant this statement as a compliment—and in its glory days, asbestos was a sign of superior quality and excellence."
https://deq.utah.gov/news/asbestos-home
If I can get a link to those tournaments I'll add them, but they may not be available anywhere that I can get to.
I don't know why some of these things are not on the ATP site. But you typed 1962 for the ATP. Did you mean 1972?
Right now I'm not too worried about missing matches because I'm pretty sure what I have gives me a good idea of how he played outside of majors, and at the moment my chief interest is in the majors themselves. I feel like majors are the only common metric we have for the OE.
Yes, that is fascinating!
It is awful, isn't it?
The biggest problem with the ATP is that their data is fragmented:
http://www.atpworldtour.com/players/roy-emerson/e030/player-activity?year=all
That may not be a bad place to start. But you can't break it down by surface.
Even for modern players the only way I can do a final check is to slog through each player's lists, year by year, and then cross-check. It is maddening, and you never know when you will suddenly find something wrong, or missing.
Gary, Thanks for the Collins quoting and the Emerson link.
Yes, I meant 1972. I have corrected it.
And this is one of the things we will all miss about Bud's absence from our sport. The man really knew his way around a metaphor or visual image. You just don't get a lot of real writers in the commentary booth . Sanchez Vicario as the ' Barcelona Bumblebee' Where will we find that wit again?
