Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by tennissportsrog, Sep 2, 2012.
I remember the list just not Roches place. Peak Federer was crazy.
I think Laver is tight with everybody, doesn't have the spontaneous personality of a Connors and McEnroe...looks like a classy guy
Roche spent a ton of time injured. It doesn't take away from the player he was.
As I keep saying. Stop looking merely at irrelevant numbers. Look at the strength of his field and how he played them.
Since people are content on equating Roche with Roddick, you may want to look at Roche's H2H against Laver and others at that time. I think you'll see a stark difference.
But yeah, ok. If we're just going to sit here and count a single number and credit (or discredit someone)... well... there's not much anyone can do with that. As I said before... Mahut/Isner is definitely the most impressive offensive display ever... since it had the most winners hit. :roll:
So numbers/stats/accomplishments are insignificant. Is that the reason you came up with Drew Brees the greatest quaterback of all time?
Irrelevent numbers? You do realize that beating the field is whats important. Roche could only do it once at the highest level. Someone like Hewitt or Safin both players who were also often injured are superior to Roche.
You don't know how Roddick would have preformed against Laver so it's quite pointless to say Roche was good because beat Laver some times. Was it a mental thing then? That he couldn't get through these guys in the big events?
Your analogy of Mahut/Isner is flawed and irrelevent. It doesn't make you look smart. Although I'm not sure anything could now after your Roddick = Almagro post lol.
mightyrick, Roche is commonly underrated. His peak was at least as high as Newcombe's. Tony had bad luck of being plagued by severe arm troubles and almost lost three years to his illness (1971 to 1973). In 1975 he was arguably the best grasscourter, at least in a group with Ashe, Newcombe and Connors. In 1978 he defeated McEnroe in straight sets...
You guys are absolutely the biggest attacking, misquoting, and misrepresenting bunch around.
If you want to discuss Drew Brees and misquote/misrepresent what I'm saying, at least keep it to other threads. I'll go ahead and report these posts for ridiculously trolling off-topic and flaming.
The least you guys can do is attempt to keep it civil and on topic in here.
Forza90, The crap is on the side of those who don't study history enough!
Roche has won at least 47 tournaments even though he lost three years to his illness!!! Learn history, boy!
The number of tournaments won does not tell all about PLAYING STRENGTH!!!!
Can someone show me this post before I get reported? Because I'd hate to get reported without good reason. I'm trying to be civil truthfully, but some things are just beyond the realm of possibility. Like I said, show me this post and I'll pass my own judgement, but if you really did say Drew Brees was the greatest QB ever then I am just utterly speechless.
mightyrick, Roche keeps fantastic hths against Laver and Rosewall (arguably the two all-time greatest): 9:11 against Laver and 9:7 against Rosewall. I don't know if there is another player with that balance...
Oh please you are making a fool of yourself. I ignored Roche's RG title BECAUSE I take into account the field. He won in the absence of all the pro players, two of them being Rosewall and Laver.
As for his run into the openslam finals in the late 60's, I must admit I have no idea who Fairlie and Cliffey, who he beat respectively in QF and SF of the USO 1970 run. As for Graebner, Bucholz, Newcombe, I know they were great player, but I wonder how you can make a comparison of their level of play in these precise year with the level of play of Hewitt, Murray or Roddick, especially if you don't care for their respective achievements.
Wikipedia list 9 ATP tournaments. I think for the sake of comparison, the amateur tournaments have to be left out of the discussion. Do you have a list of his open success?
Maybe the number of tournaments doesn't tell all about playing strength, but then, how do you assess playing strenght (Mightythik didn't answered this question by the way, but he still can)?
Is it by looking at H2H? Or at a few victories a player had against a top player (like your example with him beating a young McEnroe)?
Well, David Nalbandian is 8 - 11 against Federer, 2-5 against Nadal. He beat Federer in thrilling 5 set victory in the master cup final in 2005, and beat back to back Federer, Djokovic and Nadal to win Madrid 2007, then he beat again Nadal in the final in Paris.
Davydenko leads the H2H with Nadal. He beat him twice in master 1000 finals, and won the master cup in 2009, beating Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Del Potro.
Roddick leads the H2H with Djokovic, all encounter happening after 2007, defeated Nadal in Miami in 2010 to win the title (Nadal's best year), Federer in 2012, and obviously defeated Nole several times.
Now, all that is great. I like to think at these players resume. I make me remind great matches. But what does it tell in order to compare them with Stolle, Solomon or any other player? Not so much.
It's true that context is important and affect directly the number, but sadly there is no way to have an ounce of consensus from our sheer subjective evaluation of a player strength, and we should better keep it for us (that's why you don't know that I consider Gonzales, Davydenko and Wawrinka the 3 best players in the word).
Numbers especially on a relatively long time-span (5 to 10 years), are the best hint of a player's true strength. Numbers (achievement), also take into account the physical, emotionnal and mental skills of the player, whereas the simple evaluation of their technical prouesse don't. And these skills are just as important as the technical ones.
Pre-open era should be separated from the Open-era. It's where we separate the men from the boys
Where do you get these at least 47 titles?
Watch current tennis, grandpa!
Flash, Who is Cliffey? Never heard about him.
Difference is Roche always bowed when mattered and won when it didn' t
Newcombe beat Rosewall when it mattered
He only played once at a major final, though
He lost the 69 Wimbledon final but lets be fair...who could have stopped Laver that year, anyway?
Flash, You can't omit the amateur achievements even though they are not the equal to open era achievements.
I have counted 19 Roche titles in open era.
Roche was considered Laver's heir apparent by the experts of that time, not Newcombe. The latter came on top when Roche was already suffering from his elbow illness..
If you watch krosero's video of the 1969 AO final you hardly can say if Laver or Roche was better in that match. Fantastic shots (especially volleys) from both players. Tony is still ranked No.1 on the backhand volley, together with Rosewall and Edberg...
At the end of the day if you sent Federer back in time, he has the skills necessary to improve his volleying etc...and excell. If you sent Rosewall forward in time he'd be at a physical disadvantage and wouldn't be nearly as successful. That's what I think of your opinions on playing level Bobby.
Forza, I'm a grandpa without senility but you are a baby with much to learn yet.
Michel Sutter, "Winners 1946 -1991"
But the most important thing is that numbers are a consequence of conditions of an era.
Homogeneous (and slow) era+everybody baseliners---> top (or two top) players will have inflated numbers.
Polarized conditions (with at least 50\100 fast) era+different competitive styles----> titles more spread among more different players=top (or two top) players will have not that high numbers (statistics)
In my opinion, Federer's rivals were not weak. It is just that Federer (and then Nadal and now Djokovic) are the first top players playing in the homogeneous era+unique baseline style, and because of that their numbers will be higher than what they probably would have achieved in a polarized era with different competitive styles.
Or to say the same thing in other words: had conditions and styles in other eras (for example, in the 90s or in the 80s) been like they are today (homogeneous era+unique baseline style) and the best player from the 80s and the best player from the 90s (and the best player from the 70s....) would have had better overall numbers, better statistics (and for the very same reason, the players ranked about nº5 to nº20 in the 90s and in the 80s and in the 70s....would have had less success, just like it happens today).
That is why it is senseless to compare numbers from one era to numbers from another era (even comparing numbers from the 80s to the 90s is still senseless even though conditions this time were exactly the same, because they played against different players, period, so impossible to compare).
Only players from the same era, played under the same conditions and against the same players, that is why I can say that (up to now) Federer>Nadal>Djokovic or Sampras>Agassi>Courier or Lendl>McEnroe>Wilander....(and still some people won't agree even with these last statements, and some players like Becker or Edberg are "between" Lendl-McEnroe-Wilander era and Sampras-Agassi-Courier era, which make all this even more problematic)
By the way, what epic Sunday it was....
kiki, Again ignorant? Newcombe lost 4 matches to Rosewall when it really mattered and won only three. That against a grandpa of 35 to 39!
Roche was clearly stronger than Newk in 1968 and 1969.
And I think you are wrong.
Rosewall would struggle to generate the pace to hit through the court in today's conditions.
I know you think it's incredibly fun to turn my handle into something juvenile. But why not just stick to discussion. It actually is more entertaining, relevant, and on topic.
I have answered the question you asked several times. You cannot look at numbers alone to determine anything -- including strength of player. At a high level, you do this by looking at how (over a period of time) the player performs against the field and then how the field performs against itself. You compare those things. You dig. It takes time. I realize that merely looking at a few numbers is a quicker/least-resistance approach, but it isn't accurate.
Within a period of time, there is a fixed amount of success to be had. The distribution of that success between an individual and the field... and then the distribution of the success within the field itself... tells you how strong or weak the entirety is. You actually can plot these distributions over any players primes and see very interesting things.
When you do statistical analysis, you absolutely need data. But you need to collect the correct data... the data you think to be most relevant to the question being asked or hypothesis being put forth.
When you have a single player or team who completely dominates everyone over a period of time, it doesn't mean that single player or team is the best ever. It also doesn't necessarily mean that the field is complete crap. It is a combination of both factors in certain proportions.
So the 2-3-4 top players we have had for the last 9 years or so is an inflated number? I do not quite get it.
And what makes you believe you are correct?
I don't think there's any player in modern tennis at Rosewall's height(5'6") ranked in the top 100. And outside of Rochus, how many player qualify for the top 128 draw at the slam?
Evidence is clear that Rosewall's size is not suited for today's standard and conditions. He would be another player who will struggle against the bigger, stronger, faster and more athletic players in this generation.
EDIT: Since you claimed you only saw 10 matches played by Federer so it's no secret that you don't know tennis player's optimum size is at around 6' - 6'3". No undersize player can compete with the big boys, let alone be an elite player today. The game has changed !
And many of the taller players today would not be suited in that era to play in those conditions. Height really wasn't an advantage. It works both ways.
I meant the best (or two best) players from an "homogeneous+unique baseline style era" will have better numbers (GS titles, GS finals, GS SF, GS QF...) than the best player (or two best players) from a "polarized+different competitive styles era".
The reasoning behind it is the "decathlon example" I have written more than once in the last months.
If it's 6'9" that could be a problem, but not for player like Sampras, Fed, Nadal, Nole. They would do fine in any era. Why? Because there are players at their height winning slams or ranked #1 in those days. Tall Pancho who's considered by many that his peak would beat peak Rosewall and Laver. And a near 42 years old Pancho did beat the prime Rosewall/Laver.
You point out the same thing. Players of varying heights were winning slams, so height wasn't really a factor back then... and it didn't yield a real overall advantage in terms of success. I'm sure fitness, training, recovery, et cetera factor into this... given that it was very non-existent back then.
So natural physical prowess tended to dictate. A bigger/taller guy is going to have a tough time motoring around those courts. Especially clay. Much tougher than a skinny 5'8" guy who gets to everything.
Height has never been proven to play any significant role in a player's success, otherwise tall players such as Berdych, Querry, Karlovic, Soderling and Isner would be majors winners and/or dominating the game, yet none of these tall men have reached that level.
Laver was not considered tall (at a time when the height of talents such as Emerson (6') and Gonzales (6'2") were not an oddity), but he is the greatest player in men's tennis history--far above the rest no matter the height.
Similarly, on the women's side, Davenport (6'2" 1/2) towered over Serena Williams (5'9"), but she's nowhere near as accomplished as the shorter Williams...or even Hingis (5'7"). According to some, height was supposed to be this great advantage, but time and again, it comes down to genuine talent, not height.
you don´t get it, did you?
Newcombe took away a Wimbledon title - two if we consider their 71 semifinal- from Rosewall.It was his last real chance to win the only major that eluded him because, frankly, he stood no chance against Connors in 1974.
As for Roche, which is one of the players I enjoyed most watching, he clearly was never at Newk´s league.He pales in comparison and the reason was not his body but his mind.
Yes, fortunately talent still means a lot in this game...and, of coruse, i consider also laver the greatest tennis player.
Yes, competition was not so strong.
I believe Federer has shown the all surface versatility. Specially when you consider that the slowing down / homogenisation is said to be the biggest disadvantage to him of the current crop.
specially since all surfaces are almost equal...
True. Talent--and the most effective use of it--is independent of height as noted earlier. Players train with their natural gifts, so if a short player wipes the floor with taller opponents (which has happened in the annals of tennis history) it is not a fluke but due to the only human element which matters.
No, that isn't what I said. But thank you for drawing a completely incorrectly stated conclusion to my post.
No it's not the same. Variation in height wasn't an issue during Rosewall era because you had tall players winning slams and reach #1. However, that isn't the case in the modern era. The very best players are around 6~ 6'3", none of them are undersize like Rosewall or oversize like Isner.
How many player at Rosewall's height have won a slam in the new millennium? Exactly. None !
Men's optimum height are taller than women's optimum's height for a tennis player. While 6'2" is an ideal for a male tennis player but it's too tall for a female player. The ideal tennis player is Graf, who's body is built for speed, and power, and she stood around 5'9".
As fitness regimens have improved, training has improved, technology has improved, and courts become faster... really tall players have been able to be more successful. Given the advances in training, diet, technology... it doesn't make the taller player any better either. The game has changed over the years enough to be able to suit taller players more the shorter ones. Sure... things change.
I guess I'm not getting what the point is.
If your point is that Rosewall could not compete in today's world and be as successful... well... okay. I'm not sure what relevance that has to anything. It doesn't make his own era any less prolific given the state of the game at the time.
See below and you'll get my point.
Bobby said NatF is wrong, so I had to point him out that there's no such player at Rosewall's size that can compete with the bigger, faster, stronger players in this era. You need power on both wings(especially the fh), great movement, great serve. Of course you need talent, but it's still a constant struggle when the other players has more games.
Well, the whole "transporting players forward and back in time" seems completely irrelevant to me.
But this much I do know... player ability is affected by environment.
While I agree that Rosewall wouldn't be such a GOAT in today's environment, I also don't believe that Roger Federer would necessarily be as successful in Rosewall's environment.
Physical stature is only one aspect of this. But without the training, without the diet, without the fitness, without the ease of travel, without the technology... there is nothing to say that Federer would even crack the Top 10. There is nothing to say that Federer would even elect to be a tennis player.
Read the rest of my post.
The logical conclusion.
Did I just read that roddick = hard court version of almagro ? :lol: :lol:
I fully agree with this. Players should only be rated according to the standards of their time. It is likely (at least possible), that tennis will evolve in a way that will suit taller player even better than now. So imagine if in 2020-2030, the dominant players are all 1.90-2m tall, are you willing to discard Federer, Djokovic and Nadal as player to short for the 2025 eras, and thus out of discussion for the goat titles?
The same goes for tournaments. If the slams ad a round or two, will it make the current slam weaker than the future one?
So if a player is considered by experts as the next big thing, bag a few spectacular victories against the top players, play at a level that it make it hard to identify who the best player is (something very common), or have a single shot who is considered as one of the best in the game, BUT fails to achieve, this player can be declared as one of the best player of all time?
I have a good news for Gasquet.
I agree with all this, except one thing: The distribution of the success between an individual and the field and between the field itself doesn't tell you absolute value, but only relative value.
Beside, all of this is a theoretical model to measure players' strength. But how does it work practically? You consider Nalbandian and Roddick very weak players, and Tony Roche a very strong player. Why? In others post, I have used the same logic than BobbyOne to identify Nalbandian, Roddick and even Gasquet as great players.
The criterions he used are:
- Evaluation by expert: they considered Roche to be Laver's heir, not Newcombe.
- H2H against top players. Their failure against the field is counterbalanced by their ability to give troubles to the top players.
- Example of a few important victories against top players.
- Video or memory of close matches where it as hard to identify the better player.
Can these criterions allow you to affirm that Roddick, Hewitt, Murray, Nalbandian or Davydenko are mugs in comparison with Roche?
So today's surfaces are too similar and homogenous and the top players have it easy.
Laver in 69 won 3 of the 4 majors on grass but the grass was vastly different to each other.
So the nostalgic farts want us to believe that 3 types of grass is not as similar to each other as the current grass/clay/hard court combo.
Lmao lavertards. Logic, not even once.
Separate names with a comma.