Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by conway, Aug 11, 2014.
How would you see this going as a head to head matchup.
Woods,clay,old grass, Rosewall
Hard,New grass,slow indoors,Federer
I would see:
Slow hard courts- Federer wins 3 of 5. I think Rosewall would have been quite strong on this surface.
Clay- Rosewall wins 4 or 5 of 5. Federer is no slouch on clay so might get the odd win. Not sure Rosewall is of the level on clay of peak Nadal or even peak Borg.
Fast hard courts- Federer wins 4 out of 5.
Carpet/indoors- Federer wins 3 out of 5. Rosewall was actually really strong here. His 2 WTF final wins over Laver were some of the best matches of all time.
Old/fast grass or new/slow grass- Federer wins 4 out of 5 on both. Federer is clearly superior on any type of grass, might even win 5 of 5.
Federer overpowers him on every surface probably. Rosewall might have the edge on clay but that's it IMO. I don't think he has the weaponry
Federer isn't exactly the most "powerful" player taking into account his era and equipment. There are quite a few bigger hitters in this era than even prime Federer. Someone like Gonzales I am quite sure would be more powerful than Federer in the same time (not necessarily better, but for sure more powerful) and Rosewall more than held his own against him, and owned him on clay (and yes I know Federer is a better clay courter than Gonzales).
Rosewall could be even better on modern grass
Because of radical change in surface speed,Rosewall never played slow courts and Federer never smelt a fast one
The only comparable is clay
Federer hit the ball big in his prime. His forehand was huge. Gonzalez would be bigger off the serve, don't know about the forehand at least consistently.
Put into the same era Gonzales probably would have a much bigger serve, and his attacking game (powerful volleys, overheads, coming in constantly) would be much bigger. Even though Federer's ground game overall would be a lot better, it probably wouldn't be much (or any) more powerful. Overall Gonzales would easily have a bigger game.
Agreed. And Gonzalez was a better player than Rosewall.
Gonzalez probably could hit the ball with more pace than Federer since he was timed a little over 112 mph with a wood racquet but I do think Federer's forehand is superior, even taking into account the racquet tech.
In terms of consistent power I imagine Federer would be better off the forehand due to his margin for error.
That's my thought also.
What's your thoughts on the match up?
What racquet tech?
Both. When I think of these I try to base it on their strokes relative to their era. Essentially ignoring tech and assuming Rosewall would have a great backhand no matter the era.
I can see this thread going to 30 pages
Tell you want, I'll email you my thoughts.
That's fair enough. Looking forward to it.
NatF, You forget that Rosewall was extremely strong on grass (see his two clear US Pro wins against Laver) and very strong on carpet (see his two WCT wins against Laver and the 1966 MSG clear win against peak Laver).
Federer is not used to play against a top volleyer.
conway, I don't think that Federer is better on clay than Gonzalez.
NatF, How do you come to this claim? Rosewall won at least 76 matches against Pancho and would be about even with him if they would not have had that 1957 tour when Rosewall was a youngster of 22 and a rookie pro.
You should also consider that they played mostly on canvas, Pancho's favourite surface and seldom on clay, Ken's favourite surface.
Bobby, I do agree.
I see Pancho as 1984 Mac, a huge talent player who could raise his game on clay and almost win it all.But Mac had in front of him Lendl and Gonzales would have probably had in front of him Rosewall.
How did he fare vs Trabert on clay?
NatF, I know what pc1's opinion was until recently but I will not reveal it because I fear pc1 would again manage to ban me...;-)
Bobby, you know I like you and think you are a great poster with a lot of knowledge to contribute to this forum. But there is just no way that pc1 could unjustly have you banned, unless he is secretly a moderator or something! The moderators will only ban you if you have broken one or more rules of the forum.
kiki, As you know Pancho lost the five set final of the 1956 French Pro against Trabert. But he beat Tony in the 1961 French Pro SFs 6-3,6-0,6-4 when Trabert was a bit out of shape possibly.
What happened to the RG finalist Luis Ayala, who turned pro at the same time as Gimeno?
How did he do at pro majors, specially those on clay?
I might be wrong about Gonzales being a weaker clay court player than Federer. Federer I would rate only about 11th or 12th best clay courter of the Open Era, so I don't view him as a GOAT clay courter at all. I guess we would have to see them in the exact same era to really compare. I do know Gonzales was not close to being the best clay courter of his era. Federer was a very distant 2nd best a lot of his, but this is also a weak clay era with almost no depth. So hard to compare.
Federer played plenty of top volleyers in his youth. Beat defending champion Pete Sampras at Wimbledon when he was 19 for example.
I don't forget, I just don't think Rosewall's game especially his serve would do well against Federer.
As for Pancho versus Ken, I think based on their 1960 matches that Gonzalez would generally have the edge versus Rosewall peak for peak. Even if we ignore the matches in the first few years when Rosewall was peak and Gonzalez was getting old he h2h is very even.
Gonzalez game is built better for grass, indoors, wood etc...
How do the old tapes of Gonzolez footspeed compare to Federer? Guys back then weren't on the same level athletically as some of the top players now days. Federer is incredibly gifted in coordination and movement.
President, Thanks for you nice words.
But I'm still convinced that pc1 set the initiative to delete posts of mine at least once.
My posts were harmless but pc1 felt annoyed by them. It is a fact that only my posts towards him were deleted, not my "much sharper" posts to others (Phoenix!!) and not sharper posts from others (again Phoenix who wrote that I'm a fraud). I'm convinced he contacted the administrator (as he had done once in my favour when we were good friends) because he could not stand that I write he has changed some opinions recently, f.i. his valuation of Rosewall, not, as he claims, many years ago.
My ban was probably a result of that "pre-history" and not anymore caused by pc1 himself.
kiki, Ayala turned pro one year after Gimeno.
Ayala beat Hoad in four sets in his first pro major (French pro 1961) but lost in the next round to old Segura in four sets. Luis had reached an amateur final two weeks earlier.
Ayala lost to Cooper in four in the 1962 French Pro.
No success in other pro majors.
NatF, You can't win 23 or 25 majors with a weak service.
You take only the 1960 tour. A year earlier Rosewall was 8:4 against Pancho, 5:2 in tournament matches.
As most experts and fans you under-rate Rosewall on grass.
You can because Rosewall obviously did
Gonzalez may be the greatest serve volley player ever. I think he'd be stronger on grass than Rosewall.
I mentiond this in the Sampras-Gonzales thread, but Gonzales actually wasn't nearly as strong or dominant on grass as he was either carpet and wood based on his pro results. Probably would have been better on hard courts too, had they been around then. I don't know the exact reason for that but it is true. Someone like Sedgeman was a nightmare for him at times on grass.
Rosewall is probably underrated on grass due to not winning Wimbledon (while an amateur). If Gonzales has an edge on grass where he wasn't ever dominant, it isn't much.
Rosewall doesn't have the best serve, but how can one presume he would be ineffective vs the best players just based on that. And most of all how could we presume him doing poorly vs Federer based on that. Federer has an excellent serve but not a dominant one, and it is not like nobody can return Federer's serve and matches vs him become a serving contest, or a do or die if you are broken like if he were Sampras or Gonzales. I would be willing to bet Rosewall's serve today would atleast be equal or better than Nadal's (minus the lefty) factor and we see how well Nadal is doing, and more to the point of this thread how well Nadal does vs Federer even with his unremarkable serve. Nadal would be doing even better off clay even with that serve if he wasn't for his stubborn Conchita-like insistence on playing way behind the baseline and predominantly playing only defense (not to mention the technical flaws in Nadal's game which don't allow him to fully capatilize on his natural strength and athleticsm, which are almost non existent in Rosewall's virtually flawless technique).
Rosewall's serve was worse than Nadal's, you can't separate the 'lefty' from Nadal's serve. Ken's serve was weak, even for his era - it would be relatively weak in this era too I expect. It would never have the awkwardness of Nadal's lefty spin.
Federer gets a lot of free points with his serve and has a hold game percentage nearly as high as Sampras. The serve itself is very precise and he uses it to set up for his next shot. The difference between his and Rosewall's serve is vast. Rosewall would return it fine but it's clear Federer would hold serve more easily.
Rosewall doesn't have the power of Nadal, I don't think he'd be able to hurt Federer from the back of the court enough to live with him from the baseline and it's much harder to volley in today's era.
conway, Fine analysis. Rosewall handled the biggest servers pretty well.
Yes, Gonzalez was better on canvas and wood than on grass.
Separate names with a comma.