Rosewall was 29 when he first played Laver, in the most important matches: the pro slams Ken leads 6-4, open era slams when Ken was 33 they are 1-1. In two WCT finals, Ken who was 36-37 leads 2-0. As Bud Collins said, Laver had the better overall H-H but in the most important matches Rosewall was Laver's equal, at least. Again, I am not saying that Rosewall was better than Laver, but his equal, overall. Like it or not, Rosewall was #1 in 1960,61,62,63,64 and in several experts #1 or joint #1 1n 1970. Ken was ranked higher than Laver in: 1970, 71,72,73, and 75 which was the last year both were ranked YE in the top ten. Ken, past 40 was ranked #6, Laver was at #10. Rosewall was first ranked in the top 10 in 1952.
Ken Rosewall vs. Rod Laver?
- Thread starter BGod
- Start date
NatF
Bionic Poster
My views have evolved a bit since that post...
I think Rosewall was potentially #1 in 1964 - he was at least acknowledged that way. As far as 1960 and 1961 go I disagree and several experts do as well. There's a thread for this as well if you want to discuss it.
Your superficial counting of the biggest matches is nonsense to me. What about Dunlop? The TCC in 1971? Are you including the Wimbledon Pro in that breakdown?
Laver leads in finals and best of 5 set matches. Rosewall is mostly only close in the h2h because of the sheer number of meetings in 1963. You say Rosewall was 29 when they first played but 1962 and 1963 were Rosewall's most successful years. It seems likely his best play was when he was around 28-29.
Rosewall clearly had much better longevity which is a plus in his resume. I'm confident that Laver had the stronger and more dominant peak though.
Last edited:
The TCC in 71 is hardly remembered by anyone and I think a one year event. The 69 Dunlop was also a 1 year event, that few recall. The same is true of the Wimbledon Pro. The WCT was a multi year event with all matches, in 71-72, best of 5 sets. Rosewall's best tennis was 1960-64, but relatively few saw him play those years. Ken and Roger were exceptional players who due to their style of play, physical make up, or luck, were able to play close to their prime longer than most other great players. Few would say the Roger is as good today as he was 5 or more years ago. The same is true of Rosewall 30-35. Many of Ken's wins of Laver may have been in 63, but I would think more of Rod's wins were from mid 64 when Ken was past 30. Again, IMHO, they are equal, or at least very close achievement wise and greatness of play.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The Pro Majors themselves are hardly remembered by anyone anyway
Feel free to carry on making excuses for why these big tournaments don't count, it doesn't reveal your bias at all
So Rosewall was at his best when Gonzalez chewed him out on that World Championship Tour 19-5? Good to know.Look I don't want to put down Rosewall - contrary to belief on here, I have him #4-#7 or all time with a very select and great group of players. I just find some of the arguments for him misleading, such as h2h in big events. Laver led in finals and best of 5 matches, I'm sure there were plenty of big events that your selective counting misses. If you think Rosewall was as great as Laver that's fine, it depends on your criteria. I disagree with you on what the facts were though. If I believed most of the stuff you wrote likes Rosewall being #1 for 5 years straight I would probably rank him higher
Laver started winning the majority of matches right from the beginning of 1964 BTW.
thrust, You cannot take 1952 because it was only amateur ranking.
Rosewall was only No.8 in 1974 because he played only 7 tournaments. Laver played 13. 12 was the cut.
I follow Lance Tingay and rank Rosewall higher than Laver for 1974.
I rank Muscles No.1 for 1971 tied with Smith and Newcombe. I have explained that detailed in another thread.
Rosewall leads Laver by 10:7 in classic majors (pro majors, open majors, WCT Finals and Masters).
The Pro Majors themselves are hardly remembered by anyone anyway
Feel free to carry on making excuses for why these big tournaments don't count, it doesn't reveal your bias at all
Look I don't want to put down Rosewall - contrary to belief on here, I have him #4-#7 or all time with a very select and great group of players. I just find some of the arguments for him misleading, such as h2h in big events. Laver led in finals and best of 5 matches, I'm sure there were plenty of big events that your selective counting misses. If you think Rosewall was as great as Laver that's fine, it depends on your criteria. I disagree with you on what the facts were though. If I believed most of the stuff you wrote likes Rosewall being #1 for 5 years straight I would probably rank him higher
Laver started winning the majority of matches right from the beginning of 1964 BTW.
NatF, Just two points.
Rosewall had the big disadvantage to meet in Laver a leftie (the only one at the old pros) while Laver met only righties!!!
Tennis Base has Rosewall as No.1 from 1960 till 1964. Neither thrust nor I have made that TB list.
I told you that about Tennis Base but that was my mistake. TB has Rosewall at #1 from 1960-64 inclusive, with the exception of 1961. On their points system, Ken easily tops Gorgo in 1960, and Gonzalez is similarly far ahead of Muscles in '61. That's due to inactivity. Gonzalez, taking a half-year off in 1960, just couldn't accumulate as many points as Rosewall; and the situation is reversed in '61, with Ken taking 6 months off.
Just an off point I have been wanting to make somewhere. I think the leftie advantage is far more pronounced in 2 of three sets as opposed to 3 of five sets. you get used to the spin reversal after a set or less.
Just to complete the picture of tennis base. According to the much cited tennis base, Laver was Nr. 1 for 402 weeks, if i read it right. Somewhere i read (i think in Dan Lobb's Golden era thread), that Laver held 31 Nr. 1 positions in their point system, Gonzalez 22, and Rosewall 12, Kramer 9, Hoad one.
Yes, I felt he would win the 82 French open as he was beating Wilander easily in practice that year. And perhaps the 83 us open as Connors and Lendl weren’t as strong as in 82. Perhaps the 83 French open but less certain against Noah
