Comparing Rosewall to Nadal- more their careers than games, a number of similarities

[thrust]

That is a fallacy known as argument from authority. The opinion of experts is not an indicative of truth.

To suggest that something is true only because experts say so is a logical fallacy (wrong argument) known as argument from authority:

Argument from authority - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Experts can be wrong live everyone else. Time can prove the opinion held by experts to be false. In the 1960s, scientists (the experts) believed that chimps are herbivores, but new observations proved them wrong, hence experts can be wrong like everybody else. In late 2019, many ESPN basketball analysts (the experts) suggested that Carmelo Anthony was done and had no place in the NBA and a few months later Anthony proved them wrong coming back to the NBA and scoring 16 points per game with the Blazers.

To consider Rosewall worse than Gonzales, it must be proved comparing their careers, not merely citing what experts say.

Both Tennisbase and Ultimate Tennis Statistics rank Rosewall above Gonzalez. These rankings are based of actual statistical facts, not Elo nonsense.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Arguments based on experts are better than arguments based on non-experts.
And arguments based on players who actually played against the greats are worth more than arguments from players who never played against the greats.

 

[thrust]

Arguments based on experts are better than arguments based on non-experts.
And arguments based on players who actually played against the greats are worth more than arguments from players who never played against the greats.

Arguments bases on wins and statistical facts are more important than arguments based on personal opinion of the so called experts.The fact IS that Rosewall had a winning H-H vs all his pro tour opponents, except Gonzalez and Laver. In the open era, past 33, he had a winning H-H vs Newcombe, Roche and just about anyone else, except for Connors and Laver. Still, he was able to beat Laver in four of their biggest matches open era matches: 68 FO and Bournemouth, 71-72 WCT finals.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Arguments bases on wins and statistical facts are more important than arguments based on personal opinion of the so called experts.The fact IS that Rosewall had a winning H-H vs all his pro tour opponents, except Gonzalez and Laver. In the open era, past 33, he had a winning H-H vs Newcombe, Roche and just about anyone else, except for Connors and Laver. Still, he was able to beat Laver in four of their biggest matches open era matches: 68 FO and Bournemouth, 71-72 WCT finals.

Rosewall may have had more major wins than any other player, but he would not be ranked as the best player ever, no one has accused Rosewall of being the greatest player ever, certainly not in terms of quality of play.
Oh, and Merry Christmas.

 

[thrust]

Rosewall may have had more major wins than any other player, but he would not be ranked as the best player ever, no one has accused Rosewall of being the greatest player ever, certainly not in terms of quality of play.
Oh, and Merry Christmas.

I am not saying Rosewall was the greatest player, but that he is definitely a top 5-10 ATG male player, as is stated by Tennisbase.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I am not saying Rosewall was the greatest player, but that he is definitely a top 5-10 ATG male player, as is stated by Tennisbase.

Tennisbase is not a prime reference or authority.
But Rosewall in Top Ten is reasonable. I think that Bobby would agree with that.