treblings, Thanks. But I strongly fear that soon Phoenix will call also you my lackey...
Ken Rosewall
- Thread starter StanTheMan
- Start date
treblings, Thanks. But I strongly fear that soon Phoenix will call also you my lackey...
Limpinhitter, I agree: Rosewall was mostly ranked No.4, No.7 and No. 27!
laverian, That's fine. Did you know that Gene Kelly once compared Muscles with a ballet dancer?
The_18th_Slam
Hall of Fame
Big whoop.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Rosewall is considered to be one of the top baseliners ever so he did have a good forehand. It just wasn't as good as his backhand as you wrote. To achieve his record he had to have a lot of pluses in his game.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Your question is pretty much what this entire section of TW is all about. To respond to your question, it helps if you have been around for a long time and have had the privilege of seeing the past and present greats play. But, there is relevance and there is also resemblance. It may take some time for someone who hasn't had that privilege to appreciate the relevance and resemblance. But, it can be done with some effort and patience if you have the interest in taking the time and making the effort in good faith.
Rosewall lacks of.. dominance.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Welcome to the board. Love the handle. It reminds me of a commentator describing a screaming, cross court, backhand, passing shot, at an impossible angle hit by Laver as "strictly Laverian."
Regarding Rosewall's return, yes it was great. But, in my view, Laver's was greater. Accord Connors' return if you include him in Rosewall's extended era.
BTW, you may know that Nadal is a natural righty.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
It depends on how you define dominance. If by dominance you mean being the best player in the world, then, certainly, Chris Evert was the best player in the world for much longer than Rosewall. In my view, Rosewall only dominated during the two year gap between the decline of Gonzalez and the rise of Laver. Other than that, he was never the best player.
PS: Having said that, Rosewall was very close to the best players for an extraordinarily long time.
Last edited:
bjsnider
Hall of Fame
"there is relevance and there is also resemblance" is a statement, not an argument. You have not said anything of substance.
KG, Rosewall was dominant enough to win more majors than Laver and Federer...
laverian, I agree. Rosewall did not outplay his opponents by power but by consistency, technique and tactics.
Limpin, Most experts said that Rosewall had the best return of his time.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
That is true about all aspects of Laver's game. Yet, his winning percentage was remarkable.
Limpin, Rosewall was called (by several experts) the best player also for 1960, 1961, 1964 and 1970. And it's true: No player was better than him in 1961, 1964 and 1970. I also would add 1971.
laverian, Rosewall also had a good second half in 1971 winning the big Dallas finals where he beat Newcombe in four and Laver in four.
ArcspacE
G.O.A.T.
Facts hurt, I know
No, in 1971 it was played in November.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
The ATP ranking is not so relevant as the number of GS titles. Djokovic has been more weeks at number one than Nadal but has 3 GS less. I am sure Djokovic would change his extra weeks at number 1 for those 3 GS more.
On topic, why is Rosewall supposedly the number 2 of his era? Because he lacks Wimbledon? Well, you can make an argument for that, but he wasn't allowed to play the tournament for 10 years, yet he managed to arrive to 4 finals. Rosewall won 8 Majors on grass, and won even more Majors than Laver (23> 19). So why is Rosewall the second best of his era? Because Laver dominates the h2h? I think the number of Majors is more relevant than the h2h.
In my opinion, it's not so clear that Rosewall was "worse" than Laver. This specific topic is both highly debatable and fascinating.
In five Wimbledon finals, he did not play well, except for the 1956 final.
Rosewall was banned from Wimbledon for 11 years, ages 22-33. He was also banned for one or two years in the open era, due to tour contracts. Despite missing competing there so may years he reached two finals by 22 and another 2, ages 35 and 39. He won more pro majors than anyone, including Gonzalez who was on the tour several more years than Ken. Rosewall was a great clay and grass court player. He won 4 Aussie and 2 US titles on grass as well as beating Laver in 2 US pro finals in 63 and 65 on grass. He won 2 French and 4 French Pro titles at RG. Had the French Pro not have been moved indoors in 63, he most likely would have won another 4 French Pro titles on clay. In the finals of the Pro French 63-66 he beat Laver on a very fast wood court, which was Laver's preferred surface.
I agree with Collins.
Probably the Dumbest post Ever! You are either stupid,ignorant or senile. Hopefully, you are joking?
Sport, Thanks for your input. Yes, the fact of Rosewall winning more majors than Laver (who made two or three Grand Slams though and won many more tournaments) is often underrated. The gap there between the two Aussies is even wider if we omit the amateur majors (then it would be 19: 13).
People also seem often to forget that Rosewall had a positive hth against Laver in major encounters: 10:7 or 10:9 if we include Laver's wins in the 1967 Wimbledon Pro and the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic.
It's clear than Laver had a longer period of clear domination than Rosewall had (5 years to 2 years) but they are pretty even if we add the tied No.1 places (7:7).
Additionally but a perhaps bit cynically we could say that Rosewall and Laver were active at the same time during a 26 years period (1954 to 1979). Rosewall was the stronger player in 18 years and Laver was stronger only during five years (in three years they were even). Rosewall has here such a big edge because he had a longer prime than Laver. He peaked earlier and declined later.
Yes, it's a fascinating topic. I have studied tennis history for decades but I still cannot say who of the two small built Aussies was really greater...
Last edited:
Dan Lobb, He also played well also in the 1954 final. Ask experts of that time!
thrust, I only would disagree that Rosewall would have won all four theoretical French Pro events on clay from 1963 to 1966. At least one or two could easily Laver and/or Gimeno have won. Gimeno was best claycourter in 1966.
According to tennisbase, Rosewall was ranked #1 for 3 years and #2 for 8 years. He was a top 10 player from 1952-1975
NatF
Bionic Poster
Best player =/= dominant
He was the best player from 1962-1964, but he wasn't dominant in 1964 despite being #1. He was dominant in the biggest pro events of 1960-1963 (4 years) but Gonzalez dominated him h2h in 1960 and 1961 he didn't win many events outside of the 2 big Pro majors - partly because he skipped half the year.
He was certainly dominant in 1962-1963 but by my definition no other years. Still back to back years like that haven't been had by too many players.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
You can make a reasonable agument that Rosewall was year end #1 for 62 and 63, but by year end 64 Laver took the #1 spot. I would also say that Rosewall was probably top 5 from about 57 through 74.
thrust, Rosewall was not a top ten player in 1952. Only in the amateur rankings. Overall about No.18 only.
NatF, "dominant in the biggest pro events of 1960 to 1963" makes me smile a bit. In fact Rosewall won all those nine majors which is all-time record for consecutive majors won (where he participated).
NatF
Bionic Poster
Are you amused that I said dominant instead of "total master" ?
I was just trying to separate his dominance in the pro majors from the rest of the tour where he wasn't quite so relentless.
Limpin, Yes, we "can make a reasonable argument". Even more: Rosewall was a clear No. 1 without any doubt. You once claimed he was No.1 only for 18 months even though Muscles was No.1 for many (seven) years...
You must have slept the "sleep of the unjust" for many weeks last year when krosero proved (by providing many contemporary sources) that Rosewall was the undisputed No.1 pro by end-1964.
By the way, "unjust": It's proper time now for you to apologized finally for your bad lies! How is the sleep of a notorious liar, Limpin?
7
70sHollywood
Guest
How cool does Kenny look in his shades?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Very. Great to see him at Wimbledon the past few days.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Just to clear something up - I thought he or Laver could no longer travel?
NatF
Bionic Poster
I didn't know that? Both are there so I guess they can.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
I might be thinking of someone/something else. Hopefully someone can tell me what I'm thinking of!
forzamilan90
Legend
I've seen his draws, lots of fellow Aussies and shorter round tournaments. It absolutely is not the same standard compared to modern draws.
Rosewall is an all time great, no doubt, but honestly the way you hype him up, and Dan hypes up Lew Hoad is ridiculous. You just cannot justify your hype for them, facts say otherwise.
NatF
Bionic Poster
it´s good to see the little master alive and well in Wimbledon watching Roger
i hope they get a chance to talk
Travesty that his name isn't on the winners roll.
He has a good relationship with Roger so hopefully they catch up.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
it´s good to see the little master alive and well in Wimbledon watching Roger
i hope they get a chance to talk
Obviously Roger is a huge favorite to win Wimbledon on Saturday. Roger, like Rosewall is turning out to be a super older player. Can't believe Federer is almost 36 now.
Let us not forget the 1967 Wimbledon Pro in which the Old Pro Tour put on a great show which paved the way to an Open Wimbledon in 1968. I have it on good authority that after the 1967 Wimbledon Pro was over, the players KNEW they would be an Open Wimbledon the next year. In that way Federer and all the pros today have a great deal to thank players like Rosewall, Laver, Gonzalez, Hoad, Buchholz, Gimeno, Stolle, Ralston who participated in the tournament among others.
If Federer wins the 2017 Wimbledon I would say it's up there or superior to any older player winning in the majors like Tilden in 1930 at age 37 winning Wimbledon.
Your point is only valid if you rely on looking at those long lists of 4 and 6 man tournament results, which really look like a small travelling circus.
What I am concerned about is something more significant, evaluating the level of play attained by these older greats in absolute terms, and we have very good contemporary evaluations by the players themselves to work with.
Why a "travesty"?
Rosewall was five times runner-up at Wimbledon over a twenty year span...not bad.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I'm not totally convinced by Federer's play but I think he will get it done - assuming his cold doesn't get worse. He may even do it without dropping a set which would be incredible.
Indeed, the 1967 Wimbledon Pro was a pivotal moment in tennis history. Federer may owe his livelyhood to the likes of Rosewall, Laver etc...
2017 for Federer is turning into one of the great feats for an oldie but I don't want to get a head of myself. One more match to go and Cilic can be dangerous.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I suppose travesty is the wrong word but I understand what Nat means. It is a shame he never was a champion at Wimbledon.
I would also say that for Pancho Gonzalez. Gonzalez, up to his early thirties would have been one of if not THE top seed at Wimbledon. It is possible he would have been one the high seeds up to his late thirties.
I think that in an open tennis world, Gonzales and Rosewall would have won more than one Wimbledon each, but not as many as some commentators assume.
Wimbledon was not the best venue for either player. I give Gozales four (1950, 1952, 1954, 1955) and Rosewall two (1963, 1965) in an open Wimbledon world.
Similar threads
