Is Rosewall a GOAT Candidate?

[Limpinhitter]

As a preliminary matter, I define GOAT candidate as one for whom a compelling argument can be made that he/she is the single greatest tennis player of all time. Further, in my opinion, when formulating an argument for the greatest player of all time, it has to be reasonably arguable that such a candidate’s peak level of play was the highest level ever played, and that, such candidate was able to maintain his peak level of play for an extended period of time (more than just one or two years).

It is not enough that a player is among the all-time greats, or that a player is nearly as great as a genuine GOAT candidate. If one player is only nearly as great as any other genuine GOAT candidate, then, by definition, he cannot be a GOAT candidate.

Therefore, simply put, in my opinion, there have been too many players in the history of tennis whose peak level of play over an extended period of time was higher than any level of play that Rosewall ever played in his career for a compelling argument to be made that Rosewall is the greatest player of all time.

The players I have seen play, who I submit played at a higher level than Rosewall, and who did so for an extended period of time, include Laver, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Accord Becker and Edberg. At his peak, I don’t think Rosewall would have a winning record against any of these players at their peaks. Further, as great a clay court player as Rosewall was in his day, I don’t think his style of play would hold up as well on clay against the best players of the past 20 or so years (the changes of racquets and courts having turned everyone in to clay court specialists). Compare Laver whose ground game was very similar to the modern game and benefitted from immense power and topspin that Rosewall lacked.

Players I have not seen in their prime, whose peak level of play over an extended period has been said by others to be the highest level ever played, include Ellsworth Vines, Don Budge, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales and Lew Hoad.

Who has said that Rosewall’s highest level of play was the highest ever played? No one that I am aware of. How can it be said that Rosewall is the greatest player of all time if, at no time, was his peak level of play arguably the highest level ever played? How can it be said that Rosewall is the greatest player of all time when there are players whose peak level of play, for 3, 4, 5, 6, 7+ years, was higher than Rosewall’s peak level of play?

In addition, Rosewall was the best player in the World for, at most, two years, exploiting the gap between a declining Gonzales and a rising Laver, similar to the gap left open between a retiring Sampras and developing Federer during which players such as Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick briefly held the #1 position. I categorically reject the notion that Rosewall was co #1 in any year. Further, although Rosewall maintained his level of play through at least his last Major championship in 1972, Laver was the best player in the World for at least 7 straight years during Rosewall’s prime which both preceded and succeeded Laver’s prime. How can Rosewall be a GOAT candidate when another player was greater than he was during his prime? I also categorically reject the notion that Rosewall was not in his prime (if not his peak) when he won 4 open major championships defeating other open major champions in the process.

A vociferous argument has been made, comparing Rosewall’s head to head record against Laver, a consensus GOAT candidate, in an attempt to equate Rosewall’s greatness with Laver’s greatness. This argument fails scrutiny on numerous levels. The truth is that Rosewall’s biggest strength, his consistency, matched up well against Laver’s biggest weakness, Laver was a streaky player by comparison to Rosewall. Nevertheless, Laver had a comfortable (80-64), winning record against Rosewall despite the facts that (1) Rosewall’s prime both preceded and succeeded Laver’s prime, (as explained above), and (2) more than half of Rosewall’s wins (34) against Laver occurred in Laver’s 1st year on the pro tour. Looking only at Laver’s prime, from 1964 through 1971, the head to head record is 64-26 in favor of Laver. By any reasonable measure, Rosewall’s record comes up short by comparison to Laver. Accord Gonzales. Further, if head to head records and/or comparisons were the threshold to GOAT candidate status, then Nadal would be a GOAT candidate and Federer would be disqualified. Yet, Federer is another consensus GOAT candidate, and Nadal is not.

In Rosewall’s defense, I would submit that his ability to consistently play at or near his peak level of play, among the best in the game, for nearly two decades, is remarkable and deserving of immense respect. Rosewall's career is the Hall of Fame career of an all-time great. He was able to do this because of his great shot-making ability, mental toughness and his immaculate technique and footwork which enabled a virtually injury free 20+ year career. In some respects, it can be argued that Rosewall had one of the greatest careers of all time. However, in my view, this does not support a compelling argument that Rosewall is the single greatest tennis player of all time.

 

[pc1]

As a preliminary matter, I define GOAT candidate as one for whom a compelling argument can be made that he/she is the single greatest tennis player of all time. Further, in my opinion, when formulating an argument for the greatest player of all time, it has to be reasonably arguable that such a candidate’s peak level of play was the highest level ever played, and that, such candidate was able to maintain his peak level of play for an extended period of time (more than just one or two years).

It is not enough that a player is among the all-time greats, or that a player is nearly as great as a genuine GOAT candidate. If one player is only nearly as great any other genuine GOAT candidate, then, by definition, he cannot be a GOAT candidate.

Therefore, simply put, in my opinion, there have been too many players in the history of tennis whose peak level of play over an extended period of time was higher than any level of play that Rosewall ever played in his career for a compelling argument to be made that Rosewall is the greatest player of all time.

The players I have seen play, who I submit played at a higher level than Rosewall, and who did so for an extended period of time, include Laver, Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Lendl, Agassi, Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. Accord Becker and Edberg. At his peak, I don’t think Rosewall would have a winning record against any of these players at their peaks. Further, as great a clay court player as Rosewall was in his day, I don’t think his style of play would hold up as well on clay against the best players of the past 20 or so years (the changes of racquets and courts having turned everyone in to clay court specialists). Compare Laver whose ground game was very similar to the modern game and benefitted from immense power and topspin that Rosewall lacked.

Players I have not seen in their prime, whose peak level of play over an extended period has been said by others to be the highest level ever played, include Ellsworth Vines, Don Budge, Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales and Lew Hoad.

Who has said that Rosewall’s highest level of play was the highest ever played? No one that I am aware of. How can it be said that Rosewall is the greatest player of all time if, at no time, was his peak level of play arguably the highest level ever played? How can it be said that Rosewall is the greatest player of all time when there are players whose peak level of play, for 3, 4, 5, 6, 7+ years, was higher than Rosewall’s peak level of play?

In addition, Rosewall was the best player in the World for, at most, two years, exploiting the gap between a declining Gonzales and a rising Laver, similar to the gap left open between a retiring Sampras and developing Federer during which players such as Kuerten, Safin, Hewitt and Roddick briefly held the #1 position. I categorically reject the notion that Rosewall was co #1 in any year. Further, although Rosewall maintained his level of play through at least his last Major championship in 1972, Laver was the best player in the World for at least 7 straight years during Rosewall’s prime which both preceded and succeeded Laver’s prime. How can Rosewall be a GOAT candidate when another player was greater than he was during his prime? I also categorically reject the notion that Rosewall was not in his prime (if not his peak) when he won 4 open major championships defeating other open major champions in the process.

A vociferous argument has been made, comparing Rosewall’s head to head record against Laver, a consensus GOAT candidate, in an attempt to equate Rosewall’s greatness with Laver’s greatness. This argument fails scrutiny on numerous levels. The truth is that Rosewall’s biggest strength, his consistency, matched up well against Laver’s biggest weakness, Laver was a streaky player by comparison to Rosewall. Nevertheless, Laver had a comfortable (80-64), winning record against Rosewall despite the facts that (1) Rosewall’s prime both preceded and succeeded Laver’s prime, (as explained above), and (2) more than half of Rosewall’s wins (34) against Laver occurred in Laver’s 1st year on the pro tour. Looking only at Laver’s prime, from 1964 through 1971, the head to head record is 64-26 in favor of Laver. By any reasonable measure, Rosewall’s record comes up short by comparison to Laver. Accord Gonzales. Further, if head to head records and/or comparisons were the threshold to GOAT candidate status, then Nadal would be a GOAT candidate and Federer would be disqualified. Yet, Federer is another consensus GOAT candidate, and Nadal is not.

In Rosewall’s defense, I would submit that his ability to consistently play at or near his peak level of play, among the best in the game, for nearly two decades, is remarkable and deserving of immense respect. Rosewall's career is the Hall of Fame career of an all-time great. He was able to do this because of his great shot-making ability, mental toughness and his immaculate technique and footwork which enabled a virtually injury free 20+ year career. In some respects, it can be argued that Rosewall had one of the greatest careers of all time. However, in my view, this does not support a compelling argument that Rosewall is the single greatest tennis player of all time.

I agree with about all of your points. It's been very bothersome to me to see information that is slanted (and I'm being very nice by writing slanted) to make Rosewall look more impressive than he truly was.

If you look at Rosewall's stats they in no way compare to Laver, Gonzalez, Tilden, Federer and many many others. Yet somehow stats are brought up like Rosewall beat Laver in big matches! That imo is totally incorrect. That was the subjective opinion. In my subjective opinion Laver beat Rosewall more in big matches! Gonzalez's World Championship tours are ignored because it makes Rosewall look better etc.

Rosewall was no doubt great but he is not the Superhuman that some make him out to be.

 

[NatF]

Oh **** he's back.

Will digest your post in a minute.

 

[Phoenix1983]

In short, no, we cannot consider Rosewall a GOAT candidate.

Tier 1? Yes.

Greatest longevity at the top level in tennis history, and thus a unique place in that history? Yes.

Best backhand of all time? Probably.

Greater than Federer or Laver (my only two GOAT candidates)? Absolutely not.

 

[NonP]

Yo @Limpinhitter, welcome back you fogey!!!! Dunno if you noticed but when somebody recently put up a thread calling for kiki (and later Bobby) to be reinstated I was the first one to vouch for you instead. Don't have time to respond right now but just wanted to say it's good to have you back. We certainly can use another troublemaker to help school the children around here.

 

[NatF]

I agree with the gist of the post and the majority of what's been said. Unsure about the details, specifically which players I think would be better than him peak for peak. Only that Ken should be ranked below a significant number in that area.

 

[dgold44]

No he is not a GOAT level but right behind !!!
He would be in the top 10 of all time but not top 7 or 8.
Yes he won many big events but many were as Amateur

 

[Gary Duane]

I hate the whole idea of GOAT. I wish someone would kill it. Rosewall was a magnificent player, and one of the very best of his era. Best to leave it at that.

 

[dgold44]

Goats- Tilden, Pancho, Laver, Sampras, Federer, Nadal

Rosewall is stronger than most Tier 2 but below Tier 1, in my opinion only.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I'm not convinced that grouping the greatness of players into tiers is particularly helpful. However, if you must, the tier that Rosewall should be included in depends on the requirements of the respective tiers. If tier one is reserved for GOAT candidates, then I wouldn't put Rosewall in tier one. In my mind there are about 5 or 6 genuine GOAT candidates. Further, if tier two is reserved for those whose peak level of play over an extended period of time was the smallest increment below GOAT candidate, and, in my opinion there are another 5 or 6 players who fit that description, then Rosewall is not in tier two either. On the other hand, if you value Rosewall's remarkable longevity at a level of play that is, perhaps, two increments below that of the genuine GOAT candidates, above a tier two great who played at a higher level of play but for a much shorter period of time (which is not a wholly unreasonable position), then it might be reasonable to categorize Rosewall as a tier two great. However, if you look strictly at level of play for an extended period, then in my opinion, Rosewall is tier three.

 

[NonP]

I'm not convinced that grouping the greatness of players into tiers is particularly helpful.

Agreed. Since I'm feeling generous I'll make this easy for y'all and present you the definite GOAT ranking:

1 (tie #1). Gonzales, Laver
3 (tie #2). Tilden, Federer
5 (tie #3). Borg, Sampras, Nadal
8 (tie #4). Budge, Kramer
10 (tie #5). Vines, McEnroe, Djokovic
13 (tie #6). Perry, Hoad, Connors, Lendl

All the way down to #23... Rosewall

Of course I could be wrong. It's just less likely that you're right and I'm not.

In all seriousness, one can make a case for any of these guys (save perhaps those below the top 10). Anybody that says otherwise is letting his (or her--it's just that most of us happen to be male) bias cloud his judgment or hasn't thought about this hard enough.

(Oh and BTW, the real GOAT man or woman is Martina Navratilova.)

 

[pc1]

Agreed. Since I'm feeling generous I'll make this easy for y'all and present you the definite GOAT ranking:

1 (tie #1). Gonzales, Laver
3 (tie #2). Tilden, Federer
5 (tie #3). Borg, Sampras, Nadal
8 (tie #4). Budge, Kramer
10 (tie #5). Vines, McEnroe, Djokovic
13 (tie #6). Perry, Hoad, Connors, Lendl

All the way down to #23... Rosewall

Of course I could be wrong. It's just less likely that you're right and I'm not.

In all seriousness, one can make a case for any of these guys (save perhaps those below the top 10). Anybody that says otherwise is letting his (or her--it's just that most of us happen to be male) bias cloud his judgment or hasn't thought about this hard enough.

(Oh and BTW, the real GOAT man or woman is Martina Navratilova.)

Of course, everything can be changed depending on new information.

 

[dgold44]

Agreed. Since I'm feeling generous I'll make this easy for y'all and present you the definite GOAT ranking:

1 (tie #1). Gonzales, Laver
3 (tie #2). Tilden, Federer
5 (tie #3). Borg, Sampras, Nadal
8 (tie #4). Budge, Kramer
10 (tie #5). Vines, McEnroe, Djokovic
13 (tie #6). Perry, Hoad, Connors, Lendl

All the way down to #23... Rosewall

Of course I could be wrong. It's just less likely that you're right and I'm not.

In all seriousness, one can make a case for any of these guys (save perhaps those below the top 10). Anybody that says otherwise is letting his (or her--it's just that most of us happen to be male) bias cloud his judgment or hasn't thought about this hard enough.

(Oh and BTW, the real GOAT man or woman is Martina Navratilova.)

Oh come on.. Rosewall is higher up than MAC or Perry or HOAD or Lendl

 

[dgold44]

I know.. I have watched every match since 1920 on tape ( only major ones) so my rankings are 100 percent, the truth. It only took about 20 years of watching but I am the king of deciding this.
Now I am unemployed an live in a VAN down by the RIVER

 

[pc1]

Guys I'm going to write about Rosewall's great assets. He was a great player for many years. First of all Rosewall was arguably, along with a few others the most consistent player of all time. His usual high level of play over the course of a match and over the years enabled him to win many tournaments. He rarely had any horrible years and his peak five year period wasn't much different from his other five year periods until his last years. He was smooth and had a great variety of shots. His rivalries with Gonzalez, Hoad and Laver were legendary. Just to be able to compete well with these guys is remarkable and Rosewall just more than just compete, he often won in the big matches.

Rosewall has an argument to be the best ever in two categories and that's the greatest backhand and the return of serve. Dennis Ralston once wrote Rosewall didn't miss a backhand return for two weeks at one point! It may or may not be true but it just shows how great and consistent Rosewall return was.

Rosewall's style took very little out of him. It was maximum results from minimum effort. He was a very smooth player with great footwork, much like Gonzalez, Connors, Borg and Federer.

You add all that up and you get a fantastic player. A legend of the game.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Agreed. Since I'm feeling generous I'll make this easy for y'all and present you the definite GOAT ranking:

1 (tie #1). Gonzales, Laver
3 (tie #2). Tilden, Federer
5 (tie #3). Borg, Sampras, Nadal
8 (tie #4). Budge, Kramer
10 (tie #5). Vines, McEnroe, Djokovic
13 (tie #6). Perry, Hoad, Connors, Lendl

All the way down to #23... Rosewall

Of course I could be wrong. It's just less likely that you're right and I'm not.

In all seriousness, one can make a case for any of these guys (save perhaps those below the top 10). Anybody that says otherwise is letting his (or her--it's just that most of us happen to be male) bias cloud his judgment or hasn't thought about this hard enough.

(Oh and BTW, the real GOAT man or woman is Martina Navratilova.)

Of course, the guys you put in a tie for #1 were both in agreement about who the GOAT should be....

 

[dgold44]

Of course, the guys you put in a tie for #1 were both in agreement about who the GOAT should be....

We can only have 3 tiers !!!!

 

[Dan Lobb]

We can only have 3 tiers !!!!

Tier 1+. With only one name.

 

[pc1]

Agreed. Since I'm feeling generous I'll make this easy for y'all and present you the definite GOAT ranking:

1 (tie #1). Gonzales, Laver
3 (tie #2). Tilden, Federer
5 (tie #3). Borg, Sampras, Nadal
8 (tie #4). Budge, Kramer
10 (tie #5). Vines, McEnroe, Djokovic
13 (tie #6). Perry, Hoad, Connors, Lendl

All the way down to #23... Rosewall

Of course I could be wrong. It's just less likely that you're right and I'm not.

In all seriousness, one can make a case for any of these guys (save perhaps those below the top 10). Anybody that says otherwise is letting his (or her--it's just that most of us happen to be male) bias cloud his judgment or hasn't thought about this hard enough.

(Oh and BTW, the real GOAT man or woman is Martina Navratilova.)

I could be wrong with the numbers but I think Navratilova from 1982 to 1986 was 427-14. That's mind boggling and that's incredible dominance. What's more impressive a CYGS or winning six straight majors like Navratilova did? Unfortunately she didn't quite get that seventh straight major for a Grand Slam.

 

[pc1]

Tier 1+. With only one name.

Let me guess who you're thinking of Dan. Is his initials LH? I don't think it's Liam Hemsworth or Linda Hamilton. Lleyton Hewitt?? Lesley Hunt?? Liezel Huber??

I give up. Tell me Dan. LOL.

 

[NatF]

Of course, the guys you put in a tie for #1 were both in agreement about who the GOAT should be....

I think Laver has recently picked Federer as the GOAT, ateast tied with Hoad

 

[Murray Is A Pusher]

No because he failed to win the Grand Slam.

 

[tipsa...don'tlikehim!]

for me a GOAT candidate is someone who could have a good amount of votes in a "who is the tennis GOAT" contest with of course legit arguments coming with.

We can't compare eras and I agree with this statement, but here Rosewall is not a GOAT candidate given that Gonzales who played in the same era, was better than him and won more. You simply can't put Rosewall over Gonzales. The latter is a GOAT candidate, no doubt.

and by the way I personally don't see the point in these "tier 1", "tier 2" categories. either you are a GOAT candidate or you are not, the latter should not be a bad thing anyway, Agassi will be remembered for a long time and he is far from being a GOAT candidate.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Guys I'm going to write about Rosewall's great assets. He was a great player for many years. First of all Rosewall was arguably, along with a few others the most consistent player of all time. His usual high level of play over the course of a match and over the years enabled him to win many tournaments. He rarely had any horrible years and his peak five year period wasn't much different from his other five year periods until his last years. He was smooth and had a great variety of shots. His rivalries with Gonzalez, Hoad and Laver were legendary. Just to be able to compete well with these guys is remarkable and Rosewall just more than just compete, he often won in the big matches.

Rosewall has an argument to be the best ever in two categories and that's the greatest backhand and the return of serve. Dennis Ralston once wrote Rosewall didn't miss a backhand return for two weeks at one point! It may or may not be true but it just shows how great and consistent Rosewall return was.

Rosewall's style took very little out of him. It was maximum results from minimum effort. He was a very smooth player with great footwork, much like Gonzalez, Connors, Borg and Federer.

You add all that up and you get a fantastic player. A legend of the game.

In my view, there have been quite a few better backhands, forehands, and volley's than those of Rosewall. (In terms of stroke production, believe it or not, Rosewall's greatest shot was probably his smash). What made Rosewall great was, as you state, his consistency, and his dogged competitiveness. I can think of only one player whose focus and mental toughness may have exceeded that of Rosewall, Borg. Rosewall maximized the value of the assets that he had. He also enjoyed a very balanced game. He had no weaknesses to attack, except for his serve which, as Laver has been quoted as saying: "it's a powder-puff serve that is hard to attack." It was probably hard to attack because, although it was weak in pace, it was strong in location, movement and disguise.

 

[pc1]

In my view, there have been quite a few better backhands, forehands, and volley's than those of Rosewall. (In terms of stroke production, believe it or not, Rosewall's greatest shot was probably his smash). What made Rosewall great was, as you state, his consistency, and his dogged competitiveness. I can think of only one player whose focus and mental toughness may have exceeded that of Rosewall, Borg. Rosewall maximized the value of the assets that he had. He also enjoyed a very balanced game. He had no weaknesses to attack, except for his serve which, as Laver has been quoted as saying: "it's a powder-puff serve that is hard to attack."

Given a choice I would pick a number of backhands over Rosewall also, especially nowadays but it still was a fantastic backhand. I definitely would pick Laver's one hander over Rosewall's because of the greater power, spin and versatility. Rosewall's backhand was more consistent but I wonder if that wasn't just a case of Laver going for more on his backhand. It's probably a little of both. Now it doesn't mean that Laver's backhand is better than Rosewall because I picked it but given the choice between the two I would pick Laver's backhand. It is to me better for today's game and maybe as good or better for years ago.

Subjectively I think a big problem with Rosewall's game was that he didn't have the big OFFENSIVE POWER WEAPON that just about all the greats have to finish off things. Yes he had the great backhand but it really wasn't the power weapon that players need to finish off rallies. Rosewall's forehand was very good but it also wasn't a power weapon.

McEnroe had the weapons in his serve and on the rise groundies. Gonzalez had the serve and forehand. Laver with his serve, backhand and forehand. Kramer in his serve and forehand. Vines in his serve and forehand. Connors with his backhand and forehand. Borg with his serve, forehand and backhand. Federer with his serve and forehand. Novak Djokovic with his serve, backhand and forehand. Sampras in the serve and forehand. Lendl in the serve, forehand. Tilden with the serve, forehand and backhand. Hoad with the serve and forehand and the backhand if he was on. Nadal with the forehand. Budge with his serve and backhand. Riggs with his serve and forehand.

So without the big offensive weapon like a big serve how can Rosewall hurt a player like a Nadal, Djokovic, Connors? It would be tough. That's why I think Rosewall was beaten so badly by Connors once Connors was in his prime. Yes Rosewall was older by far but at the same time I think a younger Rosewall's serve would be blasted back by Connors also. So Rosewall would be very vulnerable to being broken in every game imo.

Rosewall of course had his excellent volley to approach the net when he would be a danger to anyone but he would have to get there in the first place. It's harder to get there when the returner is a Jimmy Connors, Novak Djokovic, McEnroe, Andy Murray, Budge, Riggs, Kramer or Borg. And a lot of these players were even better volleyers than Rosewall. Technically Rosewall was as good as anyone at the net and he was very quick but guys like Kramer covered more ground at the net and was a superior volleyer. Same with McEnroe, Gonzalez, Edberg, Sedgman and perhaps Laver although Laver probably made more errors at the net than Rosewall.

 

[dgold44]

Would u rank rosewall ahead of nadal or Borg ???

 

[pc1]

Would u rank rosewall ahead of nadal or Borg ???

No. I would rank Nadal and Borg higher. For level of play I think Nadal and Borg would beat Rosewall regularly. Comparing apples with apples I think Borg's level of play with wood racquets was higher than Rosewall's level of play peak for peak. They only met once in 1973 at the Canadian Open on hard court. Borg won 2-6 6-1 7-5. Borg wasn't the player he would be even in 1974. Yes Rosewall was old but also Borg was too young.

Not sure however how Nadal would do with a wood racquet to be fair but I do think Nadal would be fine with wood.

Nadal has been number one in the world many times and this is in the Open Era so you easily could rank him ahead of Rosewall in that area.

Borg was the dominant player in the world for years also.

 

[Limpinhitter]

As I see it, all of Rosewall's shots (except serve), were potential offensive weapons given the right opportunity. Perhaps Rosewall's offensive weapon was that he was very skilled at setting up and recognizing opportunities to go for winners when opportunities presented themselves, and rarely overplayed his shots in the mean time.

As for Gonzales, I'm not sure his forehand was any better, or even as good, as Rosewall's. As Newcombe explained, Gonzales was primarily a touch player who also rarely overplayed his shots. As I see it, Gonzales' biggest weapons were his serve, and his size and athleticism at the net. Gonzales is often overlooked as one of the all time great vollyers/net players. BTW, let me add Gonzales as one whose dogged competitiveness may have equaled Rosewall's.

 

[pc1]

As I see it, all of Rosewall's shots (except serve), were potential offensive weapons given the right opportunity. Perhaps Rosewall's offensive weapon was that he was very skilled at setting up and recognizing opportunities to go for winners when opportunities presented themselves, and rarely overplayed his shots in the mean time.

As for Gonzales, I'm not sure his forehand was any better, or even as good, as Rosewall's. As Newcombe explained, Gonzales was primarily a touch player who also rarely overplayed his shots. As I see it, Gonzales' biggest weapons were his serve, and his size and athleticism at the net. Gonzales is often overlooked as one of the all time great vollyers/net players. BTW, let me add Gonzales as one whose dogged competitiveness may have equaled Rosewall's.

Perhaps overall Limpinhitter but Gonzalez could really blast his forehand to finish off shots with much more power than Rosewall. That's what I mean by a shot to finish off a rally.

 

[Limpinhitter]

No. I would rank Nadal and Borg higher. For level of play I think Nadal and Borg would beat Rosewall regularly. Comparing apples with apples I think Borg's level of play with wood racquets was higher than Rosewall's level of play peak for peak. They only met once in 1973 at the Canadian Open on hard court. Borg won 2-6 6-1 7-5. Borg wasn't the player he would be even in 1974. Yes Rosewall was old but also Borg was too young.

Not sure however how Nadal would do with a wood racquet to be fair but I do think Nadal would be fine with wood.

Nadal has been number one in the world many times and this is in the Open Era so you easily could rank him ahead of Rosewall in that area.

Borg was the dominant player in the world for years also.

Perhaps this is an indication of how Nadal would fare with a wood racquet, with a continental grip, no less.

PS: My apology. I tried to start the video showing a close up of Okker hitting his famous windmill forehand. See it at 1:15.

 

[boredone3456]

While I love rosewall and respect his accomplishments I would have to say no, he's not a contender for GOAT. That discussion centers around a select few, highlighted by Laver, Federer, and outside odds to Pete and Pancho.

Now if we are talking could he compete with others peak to peak, I think he could. He was smart enough and had enough offensive weapons to trouble an opponent and enough grit to tough out wins...however I wouldn't say he would have winning records against many other all time greats either.

 

[pc1]

Perhaps this is an indication of how Nadal would fare with a wood racquet, with a continental grip, no less.

PS: My apology. I tried to start the video showing a close up of Okker hitting his famous windmill forehand. See it at 1:15.

Years ago I was at the US Open and I noticed a player in the very far distance hitting. I had no idea who it was until I saw the forehand swing. I immediately realized it was Tom Okker. What a great forehand and a great talent.

 

[dgold44]

It seems Pancho gets little respect (maybe because he was not very liked by everybody as was a moody loner).

Pancho regularly beat some of the best players of all time in a great era of tennis that has been forgotten.

Roswell did have a weak serve but he was ranked number 1 or co-1 for a good 5-6 years plus he won far bigger tourneys than both KRamer, Nadal or Borg.

 

[dgold44]

Roswell played for 3 decades and maintained a high level of play while Borg was done and out by age 25.

 

[dgold44]

No Doubt both NAdal and Borg were more talented than Rosewall and were better at peak times but Ken did it for 3 decades or so.

I dont know.

 

[NatF]

No Doubt both NAdal and Borg were more talented than Rosewall and were better at peak times but Ken did it for 3 decades or so.

I dont know.

Depends how you rate talent. I would say Borg and Nadal are more athletically talented than Rosewall - who was of course extremely quick and talented in that area too. Rosewall was more of a touch player than they were (which is something I really gravitate towards when talking about talent) and he did it all playing with his the wrong hand.

Talent is just so subjective. I would say peak for peak both Borg and Nadal are better on clay. On HC as well in Nadal's case. Indoors Rosewall is definitely better than at least Nadal - on grass too. Grass between Rosewall and Borg would be interesting.

 

[pc1]

While I love rosewall and respect his accomplishments I would have to say no, he's not a contender for GOAT. That discussion centers around a select few, highlighted by Laver, Federer, and outside odds to Pete and Pancho.

Now if we are talking could he compete with others peak to peak, I think he could. He was smart enough and had enough offensive weapons to trouble an opponent and enough grit to tough out wins...however I wouldn't say he would have winning records against many other all time greats either.

It seems Pancho gets little respect (maybe because he was not very liked by everybody as was a moody loner).

Pancho regularly beat some of the best players of all time in a great era of tennis that has been forgotten.

Roswell did have a weak serve but he was ranked number 1 or co-1 for a good 5-6 years plus he won far bigger tourneys than both KRamer, Nadal or Borg.

Rosewall wasn't number one for 5 or 6 years. Perhaps three. Outside of 1962 and 1963 he was never clear number one. There was no way he was number one in 1959 as some have indicated. Rosewall didn't win a major while Gonzalez won the World Championship tour and the US Pro. Gonzalez only entered two majors which were the US Pro and the Tournament of Champions in which he reached the final. Gonzalez also won the Los Angeles Masters over Hoad which was a huge tournament. Gonzalez won five tournaments (one pro major) and Rosewall won three with no pro majors. I cannot believe some have said Rosewall was possibly co-number one in 1959. That is really pushing it!! Hoad had a far superior year to Rosewall also. Rosewall in 1959 won 3 of 13 tournaments with a 27-15 record. Not exactly overwhelming. How could he possibly be number one???

 

[dgold44]

Depends how you rate talent. I would say Borg and Nadal are more athletically talented than Rosewall - who was of course extremely quick and talented in that area too. Rosewall was more of a touch player than they were (which is something I really gravitate towards when talking about talent) and he did it all playing with his the wrong hand.

Talent is just so subjective. I would say peak for peak both Borg and Nadal are better on clay. On HC as well in Nadal's case. Indoors Rosewall is definitely better than at least Nadal - on grass too. Grass between Rosewall and Borg would be interesting.

Yes touch player!!. Good call and touch players are super fun to watch. We have so many great ones today like .... Actually none

 

[dgold44]

Rosewall wasn't number one for 5 or 6 years. Perhaps three. Outside of 1962 and 1963 he was never clear number one. There was no way he was number one in 1959 as some have indicated. Rosewall didn't win a major while Gonzalez won the World Championship tour and the US Pro. Gonzalez only entered two majors which were the US Pro and the Tournament of Champions in which he reached the final. Gonzalez also won the Los Angeles Masters over Hoad which was a huge tournament. Gonzalez won five tournaments and Rosewall won three. I cannot believe some have said Rosewall was possibly co-number one in 1959. That is really pushing it. Hoad had a far superior year to Rosewall also. Rosewall in 1959 won 3 of 13 tournaments with a 27-15 record. Not exactly overwhelming.

Interesting... some think Rosewall was number 1 for 7 years but you cleared that up.
Pancho had more accomplishments than Sampras many think.
Maybe one day somebody will post a few his great matches.

 

[SoBad]

I defer to BobbyOne -- the ultimate woolpants authority.

 

[dgold44]

PC-1 seems to be the best authority here with the pre-open game ??

I am learning a bunch of stuff from him that I would not know.

 

[NatF]

Yes touch player!!. Good call and touch players are super fun to watch. We have so many great ones today like .... Actually none

Several players have good touch today. A certain Swiss player in particular for the top players. Murray has good feel as well, though he mostly uses it on the lob. A guy like Djokovic has a really good drop shot as well.

 

[NatF]

PC-1 seems to be the best authority here with the pre-open game ??

I am learning a bunch of stuff from him that I would not know.

Yes pc1 has taught me a lot about the pre-open era players as well. I also often marvel at the information that krosero provides too.

I don't often like BobbyOne's opinions but he knows a lot as well

 

[dgold44]

The best way is for my own eyes!!!

And I need footage of every match to see who is the best. My eyes dont lie

My job to teach the youngsters in 10 years about who was the best and I can act like I Was actually there.

 

[dgold44]

Several players have good touch today. A certain Swiss player in particular for the top players. Murray has good feel as well, though he mostly uses it on the lob. A guy like Djokovic has a really good drop shot as well.

I am guessing it was pretty hot and humid where you live ??
In the Cretaceous !!
Watch out for just about everything because just about everything can eat you. You would be on the bottom of the food chain just above mice and rats

 

[pc1]

Depends how you rate talent. I would say Borg and Nadal are more athletically talented than Rosewall - who was of course extremely quick and talented in that area too. Rosewall was more of a touch player than they were (which is something I really gravitate towards when talking about talent) and he did it all playing with his the wrong hand.

Talent is just so subjective. I would say peak for peak both Borg and Nadal are better on clay. On HC as well in Nadal's case. Indoors Rosewall is definitely better than at least Nadal - on grass too. Grass between Rosewall and Borg would be interesting.

I don't think grass would be interesting since Borg's return on grass would be a problem for Rosewall and Borg's serve is far better.

NatF, you would have loved Manuel Orantes if you like touch players. He was mesmerizing (at least to me) at his best. These clips don't show how he use his drop shots and lobs in total but you may get the idea.

Of course Rosewall also had superb touch. Orantes to me was more fun to watch, especially on clay with the mixture of spins, angles, drops shots and lobs. Orantes in the 1975 US Open won a lot of points with the topspin lob which was a shot Rosewall did not have.

 

[pc1]

I also often marvel at the information that krosero provides too.

I don't often like BobbyOne's opinions but he knows a lot as well

Yes Krosero is amazing in the information he provides. Bobby does know a lot about the pre-open era.

 

[urban]

One can put it in a positive way: Rosewall was among the top for more than 20 years, despite having no real one strike weapon. Mostly we prefer the super power players, who win by playing the big game, and the great personalities - or what we think is great personality. Kramer looked as if he came fresh from the set of Officers and Gentlemen, Gonzalez had that latin charme, Hoad that laid-back smile of Bob Mitchum. Rosewall never had those assets, but he had a very effective offensive game. And i mean offensive, because he was no grinder like a Ferrer today. True, his serve wans't extraordinary by any means, but he compensated for it with great volleys and half volleys. He had much better volleys than a Wilander for instance, and his half volley could maybe rank with that of McEnroe. He was able to make his half of the court small, he used the openings and went forward after a good return. He placed the ball, where the opponent didn't want it to have. He was no first strike player, but a very good combination player. His best combination was maybe the return and the next volley, which set the server under immense pressure. I feel, that his best surface for his slice and flat drive game could have the Australian Grass. His groundies had more pace and leverage, than he gets credit for, and in many ways he resembled a Connors or a Mecir. Like Connors he had not so many years at Nr. 1, but a very long career. He was good, when he was very Young at 18, and he was good, when he was very old at 39. And nobody went so deep in majors - i mean real classical majors - for so long. Heck, he was Wim finalist in 1954, when Fritz Walther for Germany played Puskas for Hungary in the World Cup, and in 1974, when Beckenbauer for Germany played Cruyff for the Netherlands. If someone goes for longevity, he could nominate Rosewall. And i really admire him.

 

[pc1]

One can put it in a positive way: Rosewall was among the top for more than 20 years, despite having no real one strike weapon. Mostly we prefer the super power players, who win by playing the big game, and the great personalities - or what we think is great personality. Kramer looked as if he came fresh from the set of Officers and Gentlemen, Gonzalez had that latin charme, Hoad that laid-back smile of Bob Mitchum. Rosewall never had those assets, but he had a very effective offensive game. And i mean offensive, because he was no grinder like a Ferrer today. True, his serve wans't extraordinary by any means, but he compensated for it with great volleys and half volleys. He had much better volleys than a Wilander for instance, and his half volley could maybe rank with that of McEnroe. He was able to make his half of the court small, he used the openings and went forward after a good return. He placed the ball, where the opponent didn't want it to have. He was no first strike player, but a very good combination player. His best combination was maybe the return and the next volley, which set the server under immense pressure. I feel, that his best surface for his slice and flat drive game could have the Australian Grass. His groundies had more pace and leverage, than he gets credit for, and in many ways he resembled a Connors or a Mecir. Like Connors he had not so many years at Nr. 1, but a very long career. He was good, when he was very Young at 18, and he was good, when he was very old at 39. And nobody went so deep in majors - i mean real classical majors - for so long. Heck, he was Wim finalist in 1954, when Fritz Walther for Germany played Puskas for Hungary in the World Cup, and in 1974, when Beckenbauer for Germany played Cruyff for the Netherlands. If someone goes for longevity, he could nominate Rosewall. And i really admire him.

True enough. He was a beautiful player to watch and an excellent pure groundstoker.

 

[NatF]

I don't think grass would be interesting since Borg's return on grass would be a problem for Rosewall and Borg's serve is far better.

NatF, you would have loved Manuel Orantes if you like touch players. He was mesmerizing (at least to me) at his best. These clips don't show how he use his drop shots and lobs in total but you may get the idea.

Of course Rosewall also had superb touch. Orantes to me was more fun to watch, especially on clay with the mixture of spins, angles, drops shots and lobs. Orantes in the 1975 US Open won a lot of points with the topspin lob which was a shot Rosewall did not have.

Indeed though in Rosewall's defense he has beaten some great grass players in his time. I only meant the match would be entertaining

Awesome videos thanks! Orantes was a superb player. If you had to pick one attribute that for you defined touch what would it be?