Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
The more I read about Rosewall's career, the more I start to think that he may be the all time GOAT. :shock:
Federer: the most versatile player ever
- Thread starter Mayonnaise
- Start date
NatF
Bionic Poster
Don't get sucked into it. He's not. He achieved his results in a split field and was only undisputed #1 for a few years. He was first overshadowed by Gonzalez and then Laver.
Bobby will get on my case for this :lol:
Last edited:
In terms of best it's hard to compare across eras or even semi-eras (Fed is a bit older than Nadal) but I'd probably have the top four open era players as Fed, Nadal, Sampras and Borg and next group of Lendl, Agassi and now Djokovic with Djokovic having a chance to progress even further and possibly even join that first group.
As for the initial question, not sure about versatility with Fed. He didn't manage to sort out the Nadal that's for sure. What I can say is peak Fed and even post-peak Fed has some of the most artistically beautiful shots I've ever seen. His inside out forehand is a joy his single-handed backhand, while being the bane of his life vs Nadal, is also so elegant. And he seems to manage different surfaces well so definite versatility too I suppose.
As for the initial question, not sure about versatility with Fed. He didn't manage to sort out the Nadal that's for sure. What I can say is peak Fed and even post-peak Fed has some of the most artistically beautiful shots I've ever seen. His inside out forehand is a joy his single-handed backhand, while being the bane of his life vs Nadal, is also so elegant. And he seems to manage different surfaces well so definite versatility too I suppose.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Where's Jimmy?
yeah well I suppose him and Mac could also be tier 2. I thought about it but actually I think utterly subjectively not on their career stats obviously that Lendl, Agassi and Djokovic were better than them. But yeah they're involved too so bung them in.
At tier 3 is Becker, Edberg and Willanders for me. then tier 4 vilas, Courier and the like. If Murray wins 1 or 2 more I'd have him in tier 4. If he unlikely wins 3 or 4 more he's obviously knocking on the door of tier 3.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
nah 15 finals that's all. Roughly Same as Djokovic now and he'll end up with at least 20. He just had longevity. Solid tier 2 with Mac. I didn't watch him too much in the 70s actually as only really started watching around 1980 so I could be wrong on this. Borg basically dominated him by the time Borg was 20/21 and Connors was only 4 years older. He won the last three in Borg's absence who was the real era great.
Last edited:
Anti-Fedal, I agree. Rosewall was originally a baseliner (they said the best, before Borg emerged) but developed also a great serve-and-volley game for fast courts after turning pro.
Even if Mayonnaise found me enthusiasm for Rosewall's three channel slams (Paris clay and London wood) unjustified, I still admire Ken for that feat because it's not easy to adapt one's game from slowest to fastest surface within of only two DAYS and to win the two biggies three times in a row.
Last edited:
Djoker, I made the same experience years ago!
NatF
Bionic Poster
Definitely not Sampras with his clay record
I think it's probably Borg, 5 Wimbledons and 6 FO's.
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.
Definitely not Sampras with his clay record
I think it's probably Borg, 5 Wimbledons and 6 FO's.
NatF,
By my definition of versatile, who is the most versatile you've seen and who do you think is the most versatile of all time just from what you have read about?
Of course, NatF,
Split field: Do you really believe that Rosewall would not have won his pro majors if the Emersons and Santanas and so on were added??
Rosewall won open era majors with strongest fields (AO, US Open, WCT finals) even though he was an old man. No, he was a grandpa at that time!
Muscles was not always overshadowed by Gonzalez and Laver. For instance he was 8:4 against Pancho in 1959, 2:2 against him in 1961. He won five out the first seven pro majors (!) against Laver and had the disadvantage of being 4 years older than the Rocket whom he dominated 10:7 in major events.
It's not a shame to be only two or three years clear No.1 but at least four times additionally tied No.1 with giants like Gonzalez and Laver and great players like Newcombe and Smith.
However, Rosewall won more majors than Gonzalez and Laver. That's sufficient in my opinion to consider him a GOAT candidate.
Yes, Djoker, Jimbo has won 149 tournaments!!
NatF
Bionic Poster
From the current game i.e the last 10+ years I've been watching it's got to be Federer at the highest level. At his peak had a good backhand and before he abandoned his net play he could volley well too. Some of his 2003 matches show great feel at net. Wawrinka is someone who has great shots off both wings and volleys well too. I think Dimitrov is developing into a versatile player. Murray can also play all the shots although his forehand lets him down especially on clay.
Nalbandian had a great all round game, although he never used to attack the net consistently as a strategy. Safin as well when he was on could do anything.
All time the likes of Laver, Rosewall etc...have to be mentioned, guys who could play well from the baseline but were excellent at net although I think Rosewall might not have the be the most versatile. And of course Borg who had all time great ground strokes but could also volley well enough to win Wimbledon.
Essentially I can't give you one name, I can only say a few that I've seen who have all the shots and can play well on every surface.
Which of his AO's had the strongest fields?
Rosewall was great no doubt. I just don't think he has a resume enough to be 'the GOAT' only enough to be a potential GOAT. He's certainly not THE greatest of all time IMO.
I think if he was playing in full fields he would have liable for some potential upsets from hot lower ranked players or unknowns. Maybe he would have had a tough battle with the likes of Emerson and not had enough in the tank to beat his next opponent etc...The fact is pro majors are not equivalents to Open Era majors.
It was a disadvantage when Rosewall got older to be Laver's senior but initially he had rookie Laver to deal with and the benefit of playing rookie Laver 30+ times to pad out his h2h.
He wouldn't be tied under the current system which is the point. He'd just be the #2 player or perhaps #1 in some cases. I don't accept joint #1 places as anything to special, it's like applauding being potentially second best. IMO the GOAT should have a several year stretch of being the clear best player. I don't think Rosewall had that.
I'm fine if you think being among the worlds very best for a very long time equals GOATness despite not being the very best for much of it. But it's my personal evaluation of GOAT criteria that makes me say I can't award Rosewall the top spot. He is amongst the very best but not the best in my humble non expert opinion
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Thanks for your opinion Nat.
When I made some of these choices, the ability to hit topspin is also very important in my mind so I left some top players out. I give the wood players a bit of a break but they should at least be able to hit a topspin forehand.
Actually Kramer and Gonzalez in that way were quite versatile. Kramer has been named by a number of his opponents as one of the best baseliners they have faced. And of course Kramer was legendary for his great serve and volley game. Kramer's had some unusual shots many don't use nowadays like his legendary sidespin forehand approach.
Both Kramer and Gonzalez had excellent topspin forehands, could defend well and also of course attack.
Tilden's versatility was incredible. Bobby Riggs was very versatile and as Pancho Segura. Riggs could serve and volley, had great touch, had a big serve and was a great baseliner. Don Budge, according to some wasn't that versatile. He was a great player but he played one way. According to Riggs, Budge couldn't serve and volley well.
You already mentioned Borg and Laver. McEnroe was extremely versatile. His baseline play was very underrated. I think Connors was very versatile also.
Arthur Ashe was very versatile. Ashe was known for his great power but he was capable of great touch although he rarely used it.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Did Gonzalez and Kramer have strong backhands? I know they had great forehands and dominating serve and volley games.
Yes of course Tilden needs a mention, I remember that extract where he copied Perry's (?) forehand just by watching. Incredible tennis mind. Segura was versatile? In Kramer's book I got the impression most of what he did was hit his monster forehand and run really fast.
Connor's lacked a strong serve, which hampers his versatility a bit. Yes Ashe is a good one. Any 90's era players stand out for you? Korda or Kafelnikov were capable net players I think with great ground strokes.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Kramer's backhand was a very consistent strong shot. Here's an excerpt from Ken Rosewall's book "Play Tennis With Rosewall"--I remember being greatly impressed with Kramer's game, which was based on a big serve and heavy, well controlled ground shots. I remember thinking how solid his forehand and backhand seemed with the head of his racket flowing right through the ball.
Kramer had a very solid backhand that was consistent with great depth. You couldn't really break it down. It was usually hit with slice although he could hit a combination and sidespin and slice for down the line shots. He lobbed well.
Gonzalez wrote in the Fireside Book of Tennis that the best baseline players were Kramer, Rosewall and Segura. Incidentally Gonzalez names Kramer in three categories, best forehand which is second to Segura, best serve along with himself and best baseliner. I think Segura (not sure here) mentions Kramer as one of the best baseliners also.
I would not call Gonzalez's backhand super strong but it was solid for baseline play. I would think Kramer had the superior backhand for groundies and return. Gonzalez could hit topspin off the backhand which was unusual for those days but Gonzalez was a unique player to say the least. Gonzalez clearly had more variety off the backhand side.
Gonzalez also had great disguise on his groundstrokes. He often caught players going the wrong way on the baseline. How often do we see that now?
So with these two you have possibly the two greatest serve and volleyers and yet they were very good and I think in Kramer's case possibly great in groundstroking rallies. Kramer doesn't hold the record for fewest games lost at Wimbledon because he couldn't break serve. And obviously when players serve, most serves go to the backhand.
Segura was a great volleyer also with a solid but not great backhand. He lobbed extremely well. As you would expect his forehand volley was his best volley.
For players in the 1990's, I'll have to think about that. My first thought is Henri Leconte but he was hurt for much of the early part of the 1990's although he did dominate the Davis Cup final against Sampras and the United States. But I'm not sure about Leconte in baseline rallies.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Kramer actually discusses a matchup of himself against Connors in one of his books. He picks himself of course to win.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
@ kiki. I know you're a fan of Nastase so I was wondering why he only ever managed to win the 2 Slams when he won something like 58 career titles overall. Was it simply that he wasn't as good a player on the biggest stage as other greats of his generation? I'd be interested to know why.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Nastase was as gifted as they come but he was, oddly enough relatively late bloomer at the top levels. He was in his early to mid twenties or so when he was a contender battling players like Smith and Ashe etc. He obviously had some problems with his mental concentration which didn't help. And all of a sudden he was in his late twenties to early thirties battling a young Borg, Connors, Vilas. In a battle versus any new generation, the older generation has to give way due to age.
Remember also that majors weren't of the utmost importance in those days as they are now. Nastase won a number of Year End Masters also. A peak Nastase I may venture to say would defeat a number of greats ranked higher than him on all time lists if they play a 100 match series on each of the different surfaces.
kiki
Banned
well, discussing Ilie is just as complicated and thrilling as trying to understand him.
At the end, I think he really wasn´t interested in winning much.He wanted to have fun, get chicks, be famous and enjoy playing tennis.Once he got to number one, his tennis ego was already fulfilled, and don´t forget he had 4 Masters wins, playing 5 consecutive finals.
He also loved to play against himself, but that adding to playing a very tough opponent really wore him down.
It just came to my head a very good definition of Ashe, long time mate of him.After the very torrid USO F which Nastase won against Ashe in 5 sets, when asked by press members if he was not upset by Nasty´s behaviour, he just answered: " Ilie is such an awesome player, but he will be even better the day he learns to behave himself".Well, he never learnt.
Another wonderful sentence is from Nastase himself.He was asked by a biographer why he always tried to rob himself the big matches with those concentration slumps...he just kicked back: " I come from Romania, and in Romania everybody is a thief.We are famous for horse thiefs.But I just have my concentration to rob myself.So I rob my own concentration".
He was like that.But I have enjoyed few if any player when he was on, willing to play and he was an exceptional shotmaking.And, like all real clowns at heart, the thing he loved more than anything to do is to share with the others the joy of playing and having fun"
( that said, he was also extremely generous, he never gave any value to money)
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Thanks for the explanation. Yes it's true that the majors weren't as important in those days as the tour was structured differently so who knows, maybe Nastase would've won a few more had the circumstances been different. Anyway I think it's fair to say that he left his mark on the sport and will always be remembered!
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Absolutely fascinating! Thanks for this, it's certainly helped me to know more about him both as a player and a person. What a character he was!
kiki
Banned
Absolutely fascinating! Thanks for this, it's certainly helped me to know more about him both as a player and a person. What a character he was!
He was.
I have a lots of gems from him, but they would suit bad your stomach if I don´t dosify them¡¡¡
Here two for starters:
When somebody told him that his credit card had been stolen, he just kicked back: " Oh I don´t care.I am sure the person who stole it will spend much less than my wife"
a friend of mine, a tennis journalist once asked him why he didn´t behave like the Smiths and Borgs of the tour.He said" I know that being the way I am has cost me a couple of majors...but, when Smith hits 40, he´ll probably have an ulcera in his stomach, while me I certainly won´t...unless it is due to the horrible food we have to swallow up at the tournaments"¡¡
NatF, I forgot two important things about Rosewall vs. Gonzalez and Laver.
Rosewall (as also the other great opponents of Pancho) played the majority of his/their matches indoors on fast canvas, Pancho's forte. If the surface choices were more balanced and had more grass and clay surfaces in the world tours, Gonzalez might not have been so dominant over Rosewall (and Hoad, Trabert, Segura).
And Laver was a lefty. In the outcast pros' troupe he always played against right-handers. So he got into a certain groove. But Rosewall played against all those right-handers too but NOT when he met his toughest rival, Laver. He just could not get into a groove at The Rocket! Nobody seems to care about that disadvantage.
From the current game i.e the last 10+ years I've been watching it's got to be Federer at the highest level. At his peak had a good backhand and before he abandoned his net play he could volley well too. Some of his 2003 matches show great feel at net. Wawrinka is someone who has great shots off both wings and volleys well too. I think Dimitrov is developing into a versatile player. Murray can also play all the shots although his forehand lets him down especially on clay.
Nalbandian had a great all round game, although he never used to attack the net consistently as a strategy. Safin as well when he was on could do anything.
All time the likes of Laver, Rosewall etc...have to be mentioned, guys who could play well from the baseline but were excellent at net although I think Rosewall might not have the be the most versatile. And of course Borg who had all time great ground strokes but could also volley well enough to win Wimbledon.
Essentially I can't give you one name, I can only say a few that I've seen who have all the shots and can play well on every surface.
Which of his AO's had the strongest fields?
Rosewall was great no doubt. I just don't think he has a resume enough to be 'the GOAT' only enough to be a potential GOAT. He's certainly not THE greatest of all time IMO.
I think if he was playing in full fields he would have liable for some potential upsets from hot lower ranked players or unknowns. Maybe he would have had a tough battle with the likes of Emerson and not had enough in the tank to beat his next opponent etc...The fact is pro majors are not equivalents to Open Era majors.
It was a disadvantage when Rosewall got older to be Laver's senior but initially he had rookie Laver to deal with and the benefit of playing rookie Laver 30+ times to pad out his h2h.
He wouldn't be tied under the current system which is the point. He'd just be the #2 player or perhaps #1 in some cases. I don't accept joint #1 places as anything to special, it's like applauding being potentially second best. IMO the GOAT should have a several year stretch of being the clear best player. I don't think Rosewall had that.
I'm fine if you think being among the worlds very best for a very long time equals GOATness despite not being the very best for much of it. But it's my personal evaluation of GOAT criteria that makes me say I can't award Rosewall the top spot. He is amongst the very best but not the best in my humble non expert opinion
NatF, May I responde as a Rosewall expert ;-)
Of course the 1971 AO was the toughest Rosewall ever played: against Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Ashe, Stolle, Drysdale, Riessen, Okker...
Muscles won without losing a set!
What exactly do you miss in Rosewall's resume? Rosewall has made so many great achievements that they equal his possible "deficiencies" like no Grand Slam (only a Pro Grand Slam) and no Wimbledon. You know the reason as you are not Phoenix1983 ;-)
If his three years reign is also a "failure" then he has evened out it by his 7 years as No.1 (if we include the tied places; tied No.1 means NOBODY was better in that year!), his many 2nd and 3rd places, altogether 16 years!! Only Gonzalez is on the same level regarding No.3 places (if we include 1962/1963 when Pancho did not play).
Upsets in full field majors: Rosewall was a typical player who almost never lost to a lesser player (if he was healthy), unlike to Laver who sometimes had troubles against relatively weaker players. Muscles has the all-time record for reaching major SFs in a row (36!).
Surprising defeats in early rounds you could imagine for all great players including Laver and Federer. But as Roger has shown, a player of that highest level very seldom loses to an unseeded opponent (Nadal at grass seems to be an exception). Gonzalez and Borg are more examples. Why should Rosewall, arguably the most consistent player ever (see Stolle's statement about Laver and Rosewall that he would rather prefer to play against Laver because Rosewall never has a bad day) falter against lesser players including the best amateurs (Emerson maybe an exception)??
I guess the GOAT discussion is not at its end...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I don't think Hoad was as consistent from the baseline as some. John Newcombe didn't have a strong attacking backhand although you can give him the benefit of the doubt since he was a wood player. Newk was a great serve and volleyer and a very good baseliner when he was in shape.
I mentioned Ilie already as super versatile. Incidentally you mentioned Federer may be a fractionally better athlete than Nastase, I'm not sure about that. Nastase's hand reflexes and athletic ability was incredible. Could be but I'm not sure.
kiki
Banned
Yes, Nastase was a great athlete, with superb coordination, quickness ,stamina and reflexes.Federer maybe a bit stronger in his upper body but not in his wrist.Nasty had great wrists.
I mentioned Kodes as an example of the truly athletic tennis.He had huge stamina and while not powerful, he had strengths, reflexes, superb footwork and quickness, look at his USO final against Newcombe in 1973 and you will agree with this statement.But when I think of Kodes, I think of raw energy, he is so similar in that to Connors, who was not the strongest guy out there but kept coming at every ball relentless.Jan was very much alike, although his groundies were not that penetrating ( but he was far better at the net).The last time I saw him he was around 34 and still able to play the last set which would end like 10-8 or similar.His courage never let him take it easy.
Of course, Newcombe, a great athlete and his BH is somewhat underrated although was never on par with his magnificient FH.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Always thought Newcombe's forehand is a forgotten shot when people discuss great all time shots. Newcombe won a number of clay court tournaments including the Italian Open I believe which shows his strength as a baseliner.
No doubt Kodes had excellent talent. He was unbelievable when he got hot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-hIaUiA5Qo
NatF
Bionic Poster
I didn't know you were a Rosewall expert Bobby
There are a few things I think hold Rosewall back as the top GOAT candidate, the first is as I've mentioned his lack of time as the dominant player in tennis. I think someone had to be the best player of the year, I don't think an exact tie is possible. Other times since the computer rankings were developed their have been very close races. Those players aren't gifted the #1 ranking. Years like 2003 and 2013 would potentially be tied places in the old system.
I also devalue slightly the achievements in split fields. You are right of course that Rosewall was very consistent and unlikely to lose early, like Federer in his heyday. However I still feel a lot of his achievements would be more impressive in an Open Field.
I'm also unsure of his peak level, I struggle with Laver's ranking of Rosewall.
Bobby those things you've written about Rosewall's h2h with Gonzalez and Laver equally apply to Federer. Disproportionate number of matches on clay in early years and an age deficit.
I do admit I may be a little harsh on Rosewall though. If I could only see some more of his matches the eye test might bump him up in my estimations.
Perhaps we both could give Rosewall and Federer some more respect
Thanks for this pc1.
Yes going back behind the opponent is a good and underused tactic especially when players are so quick moving from side to side these days. Federer has at times this year hit his volley behind the opponent to catch them off guard. Good tactic I say.
I haven't seen Leconte apart from the odd highlight video. Someone like Stich maybe too for the 90's?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
They both were gifted players who didn't fulfill their potential. I guess in that way they are similar. Leconte was nicknamed "The Idiot" by Ion Tiriac I suppose for his often poor choice of shots which he also often made because of his ridiculous talent. He was very fun to watch. Incredible power and touch off both sides. He could dazzle you with a winner you couldn't believe and then play the most ridiculous shot into the net.
http://articles.latimes.com/1986-07-13/sports/sp-20882_1_tennis-player
I'm tempted to discuss some major flaws in logic on a player you're discussing with another poster but it's not worth it. Your logic is fine by the way in my opinion but I can add many more facts on why I believe you're correct but again, it's not worth it.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Great to hear that pc1.
yes, Newk´s FH is an all time great FH and his approach off the FH maybe one of the 3 or 4 greatest.
Ashe himself said that Newcombe used to swing to the FH on the return just ocassionally and he did it to intimidate ( and Ashe was not a guy that could be easily intimidated when he was serving).Newcombe was a great tactician, as well.
As for Kodes, I honestly cannot believe how much underrated he is; he was a complete all rounder that gave big matches to different style players like Nastase,Smith,Connors,Newcombe and some others as well.He hit flat out, and he was possibly the most similar player to Connors in the whole 70´s ( they also had a great fighting spirit even if their personalitiies were quite polar opposite).Connors himself respected Kodes a lot, as he said before winning the USO in 1974.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Dolgopolov is another who can pull off insane shots one minute then terrible misses the next.
Well it is up to you, although I would be interested in seeing your points about that player. We shouldn't be afraid to discuss but I can understand if you feel it might become an argument. Perhaps things will cool in the near future and you can share your points.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Why don't you ask the admin to send me an email? I'll give you all the stats and the logic behind it. It's up to you whether you agree or disagree.
And yes I don't want it to escalate into an argument.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think you click on my profile and click to send an email. And it'll automatically give a message that you have to contact the admin. So just bring down the appropriate subject and write you want to send an email to pc1.
Tennis_Maestro
Banned
Best post of entire thread. OP seems intent on painting Federer in the most perfect light he possibly can.
This myth that Federer is flawless is silly now.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Great. Hopefully we can have some nice discussions via email.
I didn't know you were a Rosewall expert Bobby
There are a few things I think hold Rosewall back as the top GOAT candidate, the first is as I've mentioned his lack of time as the dominant player in tennis. I think someone had to be the best player of the year, I don't think an exact tie is possible. Other times since the computer rankings were developed their have been very close races. Those players aren't gifted the #1 ranking. Years like 2003 and 2013 would potentially be tied places in the old system.
I also devalue slightly the achievements in split fields. You are right of course that Rosewall was very consistent and unlikely to lose early, like Federer in his heyday. However I still feel a lot of his achievements would be more impressive in an Open Field.
I'm also unsure of his peak level, I struggle with Laver's ranking of Rosewall.
Bobby those things you've written about Rosewall's h2h with Gonzalez and Laver equally apply to Federer. Disproportionate number of matches on clay in early years and an age deficit.
I do admit I may be a little harsh on Rosewall though. If I could only see some more of his matches the eye test might bump him up in my estimations.
Perhaps we both could give Rosewall and Federer some more respect
Thanks for this pc1.
Yes going back behind the opponent is a good and underused tactic especially when players are so quick moving from side to side these days. Federer has at times this year hit his volley behind the opponent to catch them off guard. Good tactic I say.
I haven't seen Leconte apart from the odd highlight video. Someone like Stich maybe too for the 90's?
NatF, I don't think that an exact differentiation is possible for every year, see 1930, 1931, 1938, 1947, 1952, 1959, 1960, 1964, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1982 and so on.
Of course Rosewall's achievements would look more impressive in an open field but you just can't blame Muscles that the lived and played a great part of his life before 1968!!
Laver is not the GOAT expert. Players and ex-players seldom are true experts. See f.i. McEnroe's various "GOATs" during the years...
I found it a shame that Rod ranked Rosewall so low, if I remember well even behind Perry which is absurd.
Bobby Riggs in 1963, after Rosewall had demolished Laver at the US Pro, claimed that Rosewall is the GOAT. Marty Riessen and John Alexander spoke similary. Riessen maybe because he did better against The Rocket than against Muscles...
Yes, watching matches is a good solution.
You could easily be right that we should give Rosewall and Federer more respect.
After Roger's great match at Wimbledon I put him a step higher: now ahead of Sampras and at least on a level with Borg.
I don't think that courageous pc1 will find severe flaws in my argumentation.
NatF
Bionic Poster
A computer ranking like the one today would give a #1 player though, even if it was by the most smallest of margins. Maybe you're right and in those cases a joint #1 is fairer. It's an interesting subject at the very least.
I of course don't blame Rosewall for the era he was born into, that would be absurd. However I can't ignore that many of his majors were in small fields which I feel were less competitive. That's why I consider his majors tally to be equivalent to Federer's as opposed to superior.
Yes of course Laver is not the GOAT expert but I find it odd that he who played Rosewall the most ranks him so lowly. You are right though I shouldn't base my rankings around just Laver's opinion.
My opinion is that he's been a head of those 2 for a while, but I'm glad he's gone up in your estimation
. It was a great match, I would have liked Roger to get his 8th Wimbledon and standalone but I think a loss would have broken Novak's spirit. It meant so much to him in hindsight I'm not too sad about perhaps Roger's last great opportunity. Especially considering he fought bravely and won that 4th set! Federer is 5th in your opinion now? For arguments sake what would he need to do to go above Tilden?I don't want to get involved in your arguments with pc1, I think it's a shame you two can't bury the hatchet. I'm just curious about different angles with which to look at these careers.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Just for the record I probably shouldn't have made that comment earlier. It was just that I disagreed with the logic and I didn't want to get into these long endless debates.
Similar threads
