Because kiki was trying to make out the US Pro as something bigger than it actually was
No, Smiley, kiki rated US Pro as it was: bigger than an amateur Wimbledon and being a big tournament.
Federer: the most versatile player ever
- Thread starter Mayonnaise
- Start date
No, Smiley, kiki rated US Pro as it was: bigger than an amateur Wimbledon and being a big tournament.
kiki, Mayonnaise does not care about great players prior to open era.
kiki
Banned
Gonzo_style
Hall of Fame
You forgot blue clay (Madrid 2012), outdoor clay, indoor clay (Hamburg), outdoor grass and indoor grass (Wimbledon 2012).
Mayonnaise
Banned
Federer and Sampras won their first Wimbledon aged 21 years. When Rosewall was 21, he couldn't even win a Wimbledon against amateurs.
kiki
Banned
Not fair.Yes, he should have won that legendary 1954 final but Drobny was God touched that day ( and so much supported by crowds)
In 1970, Newcombe was at his prime and prime Newcombe on grass, and over a fifth set is too much for anybody
Same for peak Connors in 1974...and, of course, Hoad in 1956
So in substance, other than his first final (Nadal lost two finals before his first win), Rosewall played the peak of three of the best peak players of all time, at least at Wimbledon.I can count with few fingers of my hands how many players could beat 1974 Connors on that particular day as well as 1970 Newk
and, of course, nobody in the history of the game could touch Hoad when he was playing off his mind like he did at the 1956 and 1957 finals or his legendary match against Gonzales in 1959.
In 1970, Newcombe was at his prime and prime Newcombe on grass, and over a fifth set is too much for anybody
Same for peak Connors in 1974...and, of course, Hoad in 1956
So in substance, other than his first final (Nadal lost two finals before his first win), Rosewall played the peak of three of the best peak players of all time, at least at Wimbledon.I can count with few fingers of my hands how many players could beat 1974 Connors on that particular day as well as 1970 Newk
and, of course, nobody in the history of the game could touch Hoad when he was playing off his mind like he did at the 1956 and 1957 finals or his legendary match against Gonzales in 1959.
Most versatile one since 2003 so far. Within modern baseline domain.
In terms of titles he collected. It's been only one decade since the advent
of this modern baseline game. The record will be broken easily soon.
Don't compare current players to players who played on truely versatile surfaces with true versatile playing style.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Really? :lol: Laver had to play 3 of the Slams on grass :lol:
Don't forget the blue clay haha
Mayonnaise
Banned
Agassi has ONE Grasscourt title. That's it. Just ONE. Federer has at least 10 titles on:
1. Grass
2. Clay
3. Hard (O)
4. Hard (I)
Agassi doesn't compare, sorry. Face the facts.
Down_the_line
G.O.A.T.
I course he probably would of. But it's irrelevant. What if's, right?
By the way, he wasn't banned. He chose to play pro tennis. Not blaming him for it, just saying he wasn't banned.
You are the best history teacher over this forum.it is up to you
Thanks kiki. But to use a word from pc1: "It's not worth" and rather time-consuming...
I rather prefer to teach you a bit about Fraser, Buchholz and Co., my old friend/opponent ;-)
martini1
Hall of Fame
Should this go back a little more in finding the true versatile player when they had the "surface specialist" on each of the surface? If somebody can defeat all the specialists he would be the versatile player you are looking for.
On top of that he should also display games that beats all kinds of playing styles.
On top of that he should also display games that beats all kinds of playing styles.
To be exact: Federer and Sampras were almost 22. Rosewall in his last amateur Wimbledon was a few months younger.
But more important: Rosewall lost to all-time giant Hoad in that final whereas Sampras and Federer won against Courier (hardly a great grasscourter) and Philippoussis (only No.9 of the world) respectively.....
The pros were banned for all amateur events.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
NatF
Bionic Poster
Hoad was still an amateur. Philippoussis was a great grass courter, he took out plenty of good players on the way to that Wimbledon final and gave Sampras big troubles on grass in 1999 - I'm you recall how great Sampras was in the final of that tournament.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Rosewall lost to an Amateur in the Wimbledon final at 21. Federer and Sampras beat Professional players to win Wimbledon at 21.
NatF, Hoad in 1956 was already the No. 4 or 5 player in the world.
I'm not sure if Philippoussis gave Sampras big troubles in 1999. They only played a set and 3 games in QFs.
The sense of my post was to explain that Rosewall had a tough opponent at 21, arguably a tougher opponent than Sampras and Federer had at same age. I repeat: Courier was not a great grasscourter and Philippoussis was only No.9 when he faced Federer in their final. I concede that the Australian was very strong at times.
Mayonnaise
Banned
Federer also beat Andy Roddick. Either way, Rosewall failed to win Wimbledon against amateurs at 21. Federer and Sampras won it against professionals at 21.
kiki
Banned
Hoad playing with his left arm and his right one tied at his back wins in straights against monocord Philippousis.
M., Hoad was arguably the No. 3 on grass in 1956 whereas Courier was not among the top 5 on grass and Philippoussis was only No. 9 when Federer beat him. So what?
You don't know enough about Hoad's strength when he was "on". Ask Dan L and he can give you a lesson...
Note: not every pro is better than the top amateur. Lew was stronger than Courier and Philippoussis and arguably Roddick, even when being an amateur in his great year (he almost made the Grand Slam).
Mayonnaise
Banned
I don't need any lessons. All I need to know is that Rosewall never won Wimbledon, even against amateurs.
NatF
Bionic Poster
How much did Hoad need to improve when he turned pro to keep up?
I believe Sampras called it a lucky escape when Philippoussis became injured. The guy had a big game. He took out Agassi and Grosjean (multiple time semi finalist at Wimbledon and finalist at Queens) on the way to the final (2003) both guys with strong credentials on grass.
Ranking isn't necessarily important, Philippoussis was playing incredible tennis. He was a very talented player who didn't live up to his potential. Federer also went through Roddick the Queens winner and future 3x finalist in the semi's. Sampras went through Becker in the SF, past his best but still dangerous.
I'm unconvinced Rosewall had it harder with amateur Hoad.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
I think the point was he chose to be banned. He wasn't banned randomly or without being in full knowledge of what would happen if he played money events.
M., A wise man once said that the greatest problem on earth is that the stupid are so self-confident....
If you not consider tennis history, the amateur/pro matter and probabilities, you cannot discuss and rank the all-time greats!!
Bobby Jr, You are right but nevertheless we cannot judge the great players objectively when neglecting the greatness of the banned pros.
Do you really believe that Courier is a greater player than Gonzalez because Jim won 4 GS tournaments and Pancho only 2???
NatF, Why was Philippoussis only ranked N.9 when he played incredible tennis?
I trust those who claim that Hoad was extremely strong (and thus better than the 2003 No.9).
Mayonnaise
Banned
That great man must have had you in mind
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
BobbyOne how great a player was Rosewall on clay? I've heard some people say that there's an argument for him being arguably the greatest ever on that surface and I wanted to know what your views are on that.
By the way I responded to your post in the 'Djokovic greater than Lendl and Emerson?' thread. :wink:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Hoad was a very low percentage player. According to Jack Kramer he had the loosest game about any good kid. At least that's the way he phrased it. Kramer thought he didn't have the intensity but apparently even as a beginning pro he had all the shots. Kramer actually won the tour Hoad 13 matches to 12 and Kramer was way over the hill and basically just a show attraction. Hoad didn't care about beating Kramer but he did care about beating his rival Rosewall and according to Kramer won about two-thirds of his matches against Rosewall on that tour.
I think the key was that Hoad had to tighten up his game, have fewer unforced errors and maintain the concentration. In other words play a higher percentage game. He already had all the shots.
To me the definition of versatility is the ability to do virtually anything and play virtually any style of game well. There aren't many players in the history of tennis who can do that. Those who can are usually all time greats. They can serve and volley well, play baseline tennis well. They could mix up angles and spins and lob well. They are strong on the backhand and forehand. They move extremely well. I'll mention one guy who was like that who wasn't a GOAT candidate and that's Ilie Nastase.
Last edited:
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
So why doesn't Nadal have at least 10 titles on all surfaces?
I don't know....maybe because he sucks at tennis...maybe
Djoker, Thanks for your question. I now believe Rosewall is "only" the third greatest claycourt player ever (behind Nadal and Borg of course).
Rosewall was not as "flashy" or fiery as Borg and Nadal was/is. He not often won a match by 6-1, 6-1, but yet he usually won his claycourt matches against strong competition.
Muscles won six times at Roland Garros and would have had good chances to also win in 1955/56 (if he were allowed by Hopman to enter the French Champs.), in 1957 (there was no French pro at all), from 1963 to 1967 if French pro was played on clay (it was played on wood) and from 1970 to 1972 if he had participated. That way he might have had 10 or more Paris wins on clay...
By ther way, I rate Laver and Hoad almost as strong on clay and Gimeno not far behind Rosewall.
Rosewall won sometimes claycourt series very clearly against top opposition: France 1958 (16:1 matches against Hoad, Trabert and Segura), 1962 France (7:1 matches against Gimeno and others) and 1964, Italy (14:1 matches against Gimeno, Gonzalez and Buchholz).
I was busy on the other forum but will answer you in that thread.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Because he played incredible tennis mainly at Wimbledon. Have you seen any of his matches from that Wimbledon?
- I'd also say that Federer at Wimbledon in 2003 was playing at one of his highest levels ever. I think he would have won against amateur Hoad anyway
Last edited:
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
Curious - if you can manage to park your dislike for Fed for a second. Hasn't he been a "joy to your eyes" ? Again, I am not comparing him with other's or referring to greatness -- just the visual aspect of his game. How would you compare him with Nastase in that aspect ?
kiki
Banned
Good question.I don´t dislike him, rather the fanboyism around him
I don´t dilsike him because I don´t know him and he´s always behaved classy.
Second, as I posted many times when adressing to Fed faboys but also those of Nadal, he is the only player I really enjoyed watcing of this modern era, but rather during his 5 best years when he did a lot more with the racket than he has done over the last 5.
Second, compared to Nastase, both had athletic body and fast legs but I think Federer is a marginally better athlete and a better server.But Nastase was a far better volleyer and more imaginative overall.Nastase invented shots he even didn´t know to exist, but I don´t blame Federer for that, rather the change in surfaces, strings, balls and rackets...
I thought I was going to read about how Federer can play any style and in any conditions. Instead, I read yet another thread about Federer's total career stats.
The closer Nadal gets to 17/18, the more frequent these threads become. The gradual shift from total slams won to anything with a trophy at the end of it is not going unnoticed.
The closer Nadal gets to 17/18, the more frequent these threads become. The gradual shift from total slams won to anything with a trophy at the end of it is not going unnoticed.
sunny cali, Nastase had an even more beautiful game than Federer has. Have you watched Ilie?
Because he played incredible tennis mainly at Wimbledon. Have you seen any of his matches from that Wimbledon?
- I'd also say that Federer at Wimbledon in 2003 was playing at one of his highest levels ever. I think he would have won against amateur Hoad anyway
NatF, I saw the final. I never saw Hoad but after all what they report he must have been on the same level with Roger at least. But I concede I don't know how much Hoad improved after turning pro.
kiki, Your best post since a longer time. I agree totally.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
.
Good to know.
Yes. I agree. Especially in the last two years when his strokes have declined quite a bit. His footwork is still elegant, his strokes not quite so much.
I can buy that. On average, Fed comes in on poor approaches, and once he is at the net his sense of anticipation for the next shot, isn't quite what it is on the baseline.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
I can believe you, but you are not very objective when it comes to Fed
I caught the ***-end of Borg, and have watched tennis since.
kiki
Banned
The last point is what interests me.
Many good baseliners can hit a perfect volley with the adequate techniche, time or approach.
But the truly great volleyers LIVE at the net and their net feel is completely a different thing.
Anti-Fedal
Professional
It has to be Rosewall. All those majors and pro majors on indoor wood, clay and grass plus those 2 WCT wins over Laver on indoor carpet are super impressive.
Similar threads
