Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[krosero]

Removing the indoor and cement (which were also indoor?) tournament results gives Hoad a substantial edge through 1960, 19 to 11 on grass and clay. (I exclude the 1951 events, during junior days.)

There were two "unknown" surface matches, both won by Hoad.

I think that Hoad would be happy with 21 to 11 in tournaments on grass and clay, (plus unknown).
There were reports in the media that Hoad would win about 2/3 of his encounters with Rosewall through 1960. This is fairly accurate.

There is no reason to remove the 1951 wins, just because Rosewall won them. They were not junior matches but real tournaments.

There's also no reason to remove every surface that is not grass or clay.

We know now the two previous unknown surfaces: Memphis '57 was clay, Pacific Coast '60 cement. And we know that Tokyo 1960 was not clay but indoor hard. We also know that the early '59 tournies in Australia were not on grass but on a portable wood court.

With those changes, these are the full numbers in tournament meetings from 1951-60:

- Rosewall 2-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in indoor (non-clay) tournaments

- Rosewall 1-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in outdoor wood tournaments

- Rosewall 3-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in cement tournaments

- Rosewall 3-5 Hoad (2-2 as pros) through 1960 in claycourt tournaments

- Rosewall 9-12 Hoad (3-3 as pros) through 1960 in grasscourt tournaments

- Rosewall 18-23 (11-11 as pros) vs. Hoad through 1960 in all tournaments​

These numbers show that Hoad's best edge over Rosewall was in the amateur years, as we already know. You can see now that even though Hoad had an edge over Rosewall as amateurs on your two chosen surfaces (grass and clay), they are tied on both grass and clay as pros from 1957-60.

If anything those numbers show that Hoad's "consistency" dropped as a pro -- but your entire argument is wrongly based on one rivalry. Truly consistent players shine by day-in and day-out excellence against even minor players. That's what consistency means. It is not measured, at all, by performances against top rivals in big matches.

 

[pc1]

There is no reason to remove the 1951 wins, just because Rosewall won them. They were not junior matches but real tournaments.

There's also no reason to remove every surface that is not grass or clay.

We know now the two previous unknown surfaces: Memphis '57 was clay, Pacific Coast '60 cement. And we know that Tokyo 1960 was not clay but indoor hard. We also know that the early '59 tournies in Australia were not on grass but on a portable wood court.

With those changes, these are the full numbers in tournament meetings from 1951-60:

- Rosewall 2-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in indoor (non-clay) tournaments

- Rosewall 1-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in outdoor wood tournaments

- Rosewall 3-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in cement tournaments

- Rosewall 3-5 Hoad (2-2 as pros) through 1960 in claycourt tournaments

- Rosewall 9-12 Hoad (3-3 as pros) through 1960 in grasscourt tournaments

- Rosewall 18-23 (11-11 as pros) vs. Hoad through 1960 in all tournaments​

These numbers show that Hoad's best edge over Rosewall was in the amateur years, as we already know. You can see now that even though Hoad had an edge over Rosewall, as amateurs, on your two chosen surfaces (grass and clay), as pros from 1957-60 they are tied on both grass and clay.

If anything those numbers show that Hoad's "consistency" dropped as a pro -- but your entire argument is wrongly based on one rivalry. Truly consistent players shine by day-in and day-out excellence against even minor players. That's what consistency means. It is not measured, at all, by performances against top rivals in big matches.

I agree with you but (and I'm not using an injury excuse but simply to think of a possibly reason for lesser consistency) as you know Hoad's back was probably getting worse so I would think it had to be a factor. I write this for informational purposes.

Injuries are of course a part of the game so it has be factored in. Nadal for example has had far more injuries I believe than Federer which is one of the reasons Federer imo has a clearly superior record to Nadal as of now and clearly for peak level. It is not a factor to me when I look at career and peak level with the possible exception of a player like Monica Seles.

 

[Dan Lobb]

There is no reason to remove the 1951 wins, just because Rosewall won them. They were not junior matches but real tournaments.

There's also no reason to remove every surface that is not grass or clay.

We know now the two previous unknown surfaces: Memphis '57 was clay, Pacific Coast '60 cement. And we know that Tokyo 1960 was not clay but indoor hard. We also know that the early '59 tournies in Australia were not on grass but on a portable wood court.

With those changes, these are the full numbers in tournament meetings from 1951-60:

- Rosewall 2-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in indoor (non-clay) tournaments

- Rosewall 1-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in outdoor wood tournaments

- Rosewall 3-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in cement tournaments

- Rosewall 3-5 Hoad (2-2 as pros) through 1960 in claycourt tournaments

- Rosewall 9-12 Hoad (3-3 as pros) through 1960 in grasscourt tournaments

- Rosewall 18-23 (11-11 as pros) vs. Hoad through 1960 in all tournaments​

These numbers show that Hoad's best edge over Rosewall was in the amateur years, as we already know. You can see now that even though Hoad had an edge over Rosewall as amateurs on your two chosen surfaces (grass and clay), they are tied on both grass and clay as pros from 1957-60.

If anything those numbers show that Hoad's "consistency" dropped as a pro -- but your entire argument is wrongly based on one rivalry. Truly consistent players shine by day-in and day-out excellence against even minor players. That's what consistency means. It is not measured, at all, by performances against top rivals in big matches.

The 1951 matches were not tour matches but "club" matches, and both Hoad and Rosewall were still juniors.
I am only counting the "adult" results, the "men's" tour. Hoad and Rosewall did not join the tour until 1952.

The majors in tennis, in my book, were on grass and clay, and these would be my choice of defining surfaces, as I clearly indicated above and elsewhere, there is nothing new about that.

I agree with your point about consistency, which is why when we compare Hoad and Rosewall's numbers against Gonzales, there is a startling edge in consistency for Hoad as opposed to Rosewall.

Consider, along the lines you suggested above,

Gonzales vs. Hoad lifetime hth 95 to 73
Gonzales vs. Rosewall lifetime hth 103 to 71

Gonzales vs. Hoad lifetime hth on grass 17 to 22
Gonzales vs.Rosewall lifetime hth on grass 20 to 12

Clearly, Hoad was more consistent against Gonzales than Rosewall was, and these numbers included long stretches where Hoad was playing below form due to injury.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I agree with you but (and I'm not using an injury excuse but simply to think of a possibly reason for lesser consistency) as you know Hoad's back was probably getting worse so I would think it had to be a factor. I write this for informational purposes.

Injuries are of course a part of the game so it has be factored in. Nadal for example has had far more injuries I believe than Federer which is one of the reasons Federer imo has a clearly superior record to Nadal as of now and clearly for peak level. It is not a factor to me when I look at career and peak level with the possible exception of a player like Monica Seles.

Even with Hoad's injury, he was more consistent against Gonzales than Rosewall was, and by a huge margin on grass.

 

[krosero]

The 1951 matches were not tour matches but "club" matches, and both Hoad and Rosewall were still juniors.
I am only counting the "adult" results, the "men's" tour. Hoad and Rosewall did not join the tour until 1952.

The majors in tennis, in my book, were on grass and clay, and these would be my choice of defining surfaces, as I clearly indicated above and elsewhere, there is nothing new about that.

I agree with your point about consistency, which is why when we compare Hoad and Rosewall's numbers against Gonzales, there is a startling edge in consistency for Hoad as opposed to Rosewall.

Consider, along the lines you suggested above,

Gonzales vs. Hoad lifetime hth 95 to 73
Gonzales vs. Rosewall lifetime hth 103 to 71

Gonzales vs. Hoad lifetime hth on grass 17 to 22
Gonzales vs.Rosewall lifetime hth on grass 20 to 12

Clearly, Hoad was more consistent against Gonzales than Rosewall was, and these numbers included long stretches where Hoad was playing below form due to injury.

Those matches from '51 are, again, not junior matches; they are part of Andrew Tas' record of all of Rosewall's adult matches; they are also listed as such at Tennis Base, whose researcher got detailed information about all the early Aussie results specifically, from Andrew.

Your lifetime H2H numbers are off; the actual numbers show Gonzalez winning 57% of all his matches against Hoad and also 57% against Rosewall; even your incorrect numbers show a difference of only 3%.

Your grass numbers are presumably from TB and per their database Rosewall leads Hoad 28-18 lifetime on grass.

But the real problem here is that consistency is best measured in a player's record against even minor players -- an area in which Hoad will never excel -- not his record against his top rivals in important matches (you don't consider the '51 matches as important, for whatever reasons -- well if in your view they were "minor" then you should be counting them, to accurately measure how consistent Hoad was).

I said as much in my last post and yet here you are in this post talking about H2H against another big rival (Gonzalez), and even claiming that such an approach was "along the lines" that I suggested. I suggested the exact opposite!

From 1957-60 as pros Rosewall won more matches against everyone (overall win/loss in all pro matches) than Hoad did. Check those numbers.

Hoad has a case with his play against top opponents, at his peak -- but leave off this business about him being consistent from day to day. Vines had that, and showed it; Hoad did not.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Those matches from '51 are, again, not junior matches; they are part of Andrew Tas' record of all of Rosewall's adult matches; they are also listed as such at Tennis Base, whose researcher got detailed information about all the early Aussie results specifically, from Andrew.

Your lifetime H2H numbers are off; the actual numbers show Gonzalez winning 57% of all his matches against Hoad and also 57% against Rosewall; even your incorrect numbers show a difference of only 3%.

Your grass numbers are presumably from TB and per their database Rosewall leads Hoad 28-18 lifetime on grass.

But the real problem here is that consistency is best measured in a player's record against even minor players -- an area in which Hoad will never excel -- not his record against his top rivals in important matches (you don't consider the '51 matches as important, for whatever reasons -- well if in your view they were "minor" then you should be counting them, to accurately measure how consistent Hoad was).

I said as much in my last post and yet here you are in this post talking about H2H against another big rival (Gonzalez), and even claiming that such an approach was "along the lines" that I suggested. I suggested the exact opposite!

From 1957-60 as pros Rosewall won more matches against everyone (overall win/loss in all pro matches) than Hoad did. Check those numbers.

Hoad has a case with his play against top opponents, at his peak -- but leave off this business about him being consistent from day to day. Vines had that, and showed it; Hoad did not.

The point is, Hoad and Rosewall were "juniors" until they joined the mens' tour in 1952, and that is where I begin to count their serious matches.
No, I do not count "club" matches off the tour, or unofficial matches, such as the series Hoad and Laver apparently played in 1963, but which is not accepted by most tallies. Likewise, ad hoc "exhibition" matches do not usually get counted in totals.

I believe that I used TB numbers for those totals.

Where did you get your numbers? The TB results show Hoad with a more consistent result against Gonzales than Rosewall, of course, Hoad showing a lifetime hth edge over Gonzales on grass, 22 to 17 at at last count, Rosewall losing to Gonzales 20 to 12.

Do you have a problem with the grass numbers?

No, the efforts which Hoad and Rosewall showed against Gonzales are crucial in assessing consistency, and they show strongly in Hoad's favour...
Also the career wins against top twenty players show Hoad near the top of all players, certainly adjusted for number of active years and matches played, which would put Hoad perhaps at the top, not just for the fifties, but all time.
That is probably the best overall test of consistency, performance against top twenty players.

 

[pc1]

Those matches from '51 are, again, not junior matches; they are part of Andrew Tas' record of all of Rosewall's adult matches; they are also listed as such at Tennis Base, whose researcher got detailed information about all the early Aussie results specifically, from Andrew.

Your lifetime H2H numbers are off; the actual numbers show Gonzalez winning 57% of all his matches against Hoad and also 57% against Rosewall; even your incorrect numbers show a difference of only 3%.

Your grass numbers are presumably from TB and per their database Rosewall leads Hoad 28-18 lifetime on grass.

But the real problem here is that consistency is best measured in a player's record against even minor players -- an area in which Hoad will never excel -- not his record against his top rivals in important matches (you don't consider the '51 matches as important, for whatever reasons -- well if in your view they were "minor" then you should be counting them, to accurately measure how consistent Hoad was).

I said as much in my last post and yet here you are in this post talking about H2H against another big rival (Gonzalez), and even claiming that such an approach was "along the lines" that I suggested. I suggested the exact opposite!

From 1957-60 as pros Rosewall won more matches against everyone (overall win/loss in all pro matches) than Hoad did. Check those numbers.

Hoad has a case with his play against top opponents, at his peak -- but leave off this business about him being consistent from day to day. Vines had that, and showed it; Hoad did not.

The part I have in bold is what separates the all time greats. There are some players that never ever seen to lose to people they should beat. They are players like Connors, Federer, Lendl, Tilden, Chris Evert and during his peak period Djokovic. Yes there will be the occasional upset but they are few and far between. I believe Gonzalez and Rosewall were that also but since they played in a closed Pro Tour it's a little harder to evaluate. I know Gonzalez was an amazing 34-0 against Cooper and Anderson (sounds like an accounting firm) during their tour. Hoad lost a number of matches to that pair and so Gonzalez emerged with the best won-lost record on the tour despite losing 15-13 to Hoad in their individual matches.

I think Vines during his best years rarely was upset in tournaments although of course he lost on his Pro Tours at times.

Chris Evert to me is perhaps the ultimate in consistency in majors for the Open Era. I believe she was in 34 consecutive majors in which she NEVER failed to reach at least the semifinals.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The part I have in bold is what separates the all time greats. There are some players that never ever seen to lose to people they should beat. They are players like Connors, Federer, Lendl, Tilden, Chris Evert and during his peak period Djokovic. Yes there will be the occasional upset but they are few and far between. I believe Gonzalez and Rosewall were that also but since they played in a closed Pro Tour it's a little harder to evaluate. I know Gonzalez was an amazing 34-0 against Cooper and Anderson (sounds like an accounting firm) during their tour. Hoad lost a number of matches to that pair and so Gonzalez emerged with the best won-lost record on the tour despite losing 15-13 to Hoad in their individual matches.

I think Vines during his best years rarely was upset in tournaments although of course he lost on his Pro Tours at times.

Chris Evert to me is perhaps the ultimate in consistency in majors for the Open Era. I believe she was in 34 consecutive majors in which she NEVER failed to reach at least the semifinals.

The more I consider it, I think that the best test of consistency is wins against top twenty players, where Hoad, adjusted for matches played, may well have the greatest record of all time.

 

[krosero]

The part I have in bold is what separates the all time greats. There are some players that never ever seen to lose to people they should beat. They are players like Connors, Federer, Lendl, Tilden, Chris Evert and during his peak period Djokovic. Yes there will be the occasional upset but they are few and far between. I believe Gonzalez and Rosewall were that also but since they played in a closed Pro Tour it's a little harder to evaluate. I know Gonzalez was an amazing 34-0 against Cooper and Anderson (sounds like an accounting firm) during their tour. Hoad lost a number of matches to that pair and so Gonzalez emerged with the best won-lost record on the tour despite losing 15-13 to Hoad in their individual matches.

I think Vines during his best years rarely was upset in tournaments although of course he lost on his Pro Tours at times.

Chris Evert to me is perhaps the ultimate in consistency in majors for the Open Era. I believe she was in 34 consecutive majors in which she NEVER failed to reach at least the semifinals.

Yes and after all it was Hoad's lack of consistency against the lesser players (Cooper and Anderson) that cost him the world championship H2H tour in '59.

There's no better illustration of the Hoad career, in a nutshell, than that Series: great against the top player, but can't (or won't) bring it against everyone else.

Vines really was not often defeated on the pro tours. His percentages are not quite as high as Budge's, but it was really tough to beat him -- at least after he became a pro. Here and there he had what you might call bad losses, but honestly I've run across very few such instances in his pro career, and no more than I have for other players.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yes and after all it was Hoad's lack of consistency against the lesser players (Cooper and Anderson) that cost him the world championship H2H tour in '59.

There's no better illustration of the Hoad career, in a nutshell, than that Series: great against the top player, but can't (or won't) bring it against everyone else.

Vines really was not often defeated on the pro tours. His percentages are not quite as high as Budge's, but it was really tough to beat him -- at least after he became a pro. Here and there he had what you might call bad losses, but honestly I've run across very few such instances in his pro career, and no more than I have for other players.

Actually, Cooper and Anderson were not exactly "lesser" players...Anderson won that year's Wembley and pushed Hoad hard at Forest Hills, Cooper won the Slazenger Pro beating both Hoad and Trabert.
Many players would love to be "lesser" like that.
As you know, Krosero, Hoad started that tour well but the daily grind caused his disc problem to flare up, and he had to scale back on his efforts, and was losing for a time to all three opponents. Getting the hth win over Gonzales 15-13 was remarkable under the circumstances, had nothing to do with inconsistency.
Hoad won the Ampol tournament tour that year with a 72% match winning average, better than Gonzales' 71%, and Gonzales played fewer matches on that tour than Hoad.
The Ampol tour had a much stronger field than the 4-man American tour, so the percentage wins on the Ampol give us a better indicator of consistency against the pro field.

Below shows what consistency is really all about for the all-time greats, and this stat allows us to compare current with older champions.

 

[pc1]

Yes and after all it was Hoad's lack of consistency against the lesser players (Cooper and Anderson) that cost him the world championship H2H tour in '59.

There's no better illustration of the Hoad career, in a nutshell, than that Series: great against the top player, but can't (or won't) bring it against everyone else.

Vines really was not often defeated on the pro tours. His percentages are not quite as high as Budge's, but it was really tough to beat him -- at least after he became a pro. Here and there he had what you might call bad losses, but honestly I've run across very few such instances in his pro career, and no more than I have for other players.

It strikes me as funny that they call a guy who wins almost all the time inconsistent. I would guess it had to do it his ability to win while being perhaps on occasion inconsistent during the match.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here are the matches won against top twenty players, comparing present with older champions, from TB.

I have added 7 matches to Hoad's total to represent the 1964 New Zealand tour.

Rosewall 780 ... 25 years
Gonzales 721... 25 years
Segura 524 ... 25 years
Hoad 416 ... 11 years
Kramer 404 ... 20 years
Gimeno 362... 20 years
Federer 326 ... 17 years
Tilden 324 ... 35 years
Lendl 303 ... 15 years
Connors 299 ... 23 years
Sedgman 294 . .. 20 years
Trabert 282... 15 years
Djokovic 271... 12 years
Nadal 255 ... 13 years
Vines 255 ... 11 years

Vines did well overall, Budge only made 235, so Vines looks like he belongs on this list of warriors.
Of course, Hoad at 416 for such a short prime career of about ten years, is incredible.
Rosewall and Gonzales soldiered on at a high level for 25 years winning tournaments, so their totals are at the top.

This shows consistency in spades.

 

[pc1]

Yes and after all it was Hoad's lack of consistency against the lesser players (Cooper and Anderson) that cost him the world championship H2H tour in '59.

There's no better illustration of the Hoad career, in a nutshell, than that Series: great against the top player, but can't (or won't) bring it against everyone else.

Vines really was not often defeated on the pro tours. His percentages are not quite as high as Budge's, but it was really tough to beat him -- at least after he became a pro. Here and there he had what you might call bad losses, but honestly I've run across very few such instances in his pro career, and no more than I have for other players.

It strikes me as funny that they call a guy who wins almost all the time inconsistent. I would guess it had to do it his ability to win while being perhaps on occasion inconsistent during the match.

I figure this way with Vines.

Was he a dominant player during his peak?
I think considering the winning percentages, the Tours won, the important tournaments won that the answer is yes.

Was he a dominant player for his career?
Considering the amount of years he was number one and his winning percentages for his career I would say yes.

Did he have any thing that some people would call a stroke weakness? The answer is from all accounts..No! He had a huge serve, a huge forehand, excellent overhead and volley. He was also very quick and a gifted athlete. Of course this part is very subjective.

So I figure with checkmarks of yes to all of this and a decent amount of years played that people can easily argue he was the GOAT. And many people have. I don't think he's the GOAT as of now but I would never go crazy if somebody said he was.

 

[Dan Lobb]

............

 

[Dan Lobb]

Oops! Forgot Laver.

Here is the corrected list, Hoad still well out in front on an annual basis, the greatest record ever.

Rosewall 780 ... 25 years
Gonzales 721... 25 years
Laver 592.... 20 years
Segura 524 ... 25 years
Hoad 416 ... 11 years
Kramer 404 ... 20 years
Gimeno 362... 20 years
Federer 326 ... 17 years
Tilden 324 ... 35 years
Lendl 303 ... 15 years
Connors 299 ... 23 years
Sedgman 294 . .. 20 years
Trabert 282... 15 years
Djokovic 271... 12 years
Nadal 255 ... 13 years
Vines 255 ... 11 years

Vines did well overall, Budge only made 235, so Vines looks like he belongs on this list of warriors.
Of course, Hoad at 416 for such a short prime career of about ten years, is incredible.
Rosewall and Gonzales soldiered on at a high level for 25 years winning tournaments, so their totals are at the top.

This shows consistency in spades.

For Vines, like Hoad a fairly brief period of prime play, about 11 years for both Vines and Hoad, and yet a very strong showing in total wins against top twenty players.

The length of time playing should be factored in to determine consistency.
Wins over top twenty shows a high level of play, and to concentrate high totals in only 11 years is an unparalleled achievement for these two players.

 

[BobbyOne]

There is no reason to remove the 1951 wins, just because Rosewall won them. They were not junior matches but real tournaments.

There's also no reason to remove every surface that is not grass or clay.

We know now the two previous unknown surfaces: Memphis '57 was clay, Pacific Coast '60 cement. And we know that Tokyo 1960 was not clay but indoor hard. We also know that the early '59 tournies in Australia were not on grass but on a portable wood court.

With those changes, these are the full numbers in tournament meetings from 1951-60:

- Rosewall 2-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in indoor (non-clay) tournaments

- Rosewall 1-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in outdoor wood tournaments

- Rosewall 3-2 Hoad (all as pros) through 1960 in cement tournaments

- Rosewall 3-5 Hoad (2-2 as pros) through 1960 in claycourt tournaments

- Rosewall 9-12 Hoad (3-3 as pros) through 1960 in grasscourt tournaments

- Rosewall 18-23 (11-11 as pros) vs. Hoad through 1960 in all tournaments​

These numbers show that Hoad's best edge over Rosewall was in the amateur years, as we already know. You can see now that even though Hoad had an edge over Rosewall as amateurs on your two chosen surfaces (grass and clay), they are tied on both grass and clay as pros from 1957-60.

If anything those numbers show that Hoad's "consistency" dropped as a pro -- but your entire argument is wrongly based on one rivalry. Truly consistent players shine by day-in and day-out excellence against even minor players. That's what consistency means. It is not measured, at all, by performances against top rivals in big matches.

krosero, Thanks for these numbers.

I agree regarding consistency generally but I would say that success against top players in big matches is yet significant for a true top player, see Steve Flink's format in the World of Tennis "world comparisons".

 

[BobbyOne]

The 1951 matches were not tour matches but "club" matches, and both Hoad and Rosewall were still juniors.
I am only counting the "adult" results, the "men's" tour. Hoad and Rosewall did not join the tour until 1952.

The majors in tennis, in my book, were on grass and clay, and these would be my choice of defining surfaces, as I clearly indicated above and elsewhere, there is nothing new about that.

I agree with your point about consistency, which is why when we compare Hoad and Rosewall's numbers against Gonzales, there is a startling edge in consistency for Hoad as opposed to Rosewall.

Consider, along the lines you suggested above,

Gonzales vs. Hoad lifetime hth 95 to 73
Gonzales vs. Rosewall lifetime hth 103 to 71

Gonzales vs. Hoad lifetime hth on grass 17 to 22
Gonzales vs.Rosewall lifetime hth on grass 20 to 12

Clearly, Hoad was more consistent against Gonzales than Rosewall was, and these numbers included long stretches where Hoad was playing below form due to injury.

Dan, Have you understood krosero's statement about consistency??

 

[BobbyOne]

The point is, Hoad and Rosewall were "juniors" until they joined the mens' tour in 1952, and that is where I begin to count their serious matches.
No, I do not count "club" matches off the tour, or unofficial matches, such as the series Hoad and Laver apparently played in 1963, but which is not accepted by most tallies. Likewise, ad hoc "exhibition" matches do not usually get counted in totals.

I believe that I used TB numbers for those totals.

Where did you get your numbers? The TB results show Hoad with a more consistent result against Gonzales than Rosewall, of course, Hoad showing a lifetime hth edge over Gonzales on grass, 22 to 17 at at last count, Rosewall losing to Gonzales 20 to 12.

Do you have a problem with the grass numbers?

No, the efforts which Hoad and Rosewall showed against Gonzales are crucial in assessing consistency, and they show strongly in Hoad's favour...
Also the career wins against top twenty players show Hoad near the top of all players, certainly adjusted for number of active years and matches played, which would put Hoad perhaps at the top, not just for the fifties, but all time.
That is probably the best overall test of consistency, performance against top twenty players.

Dan, You don't count the ominous Hoad/Laver matches but you use to give us their 13:0 or 14:0 balance about every three months...

 

[krosero]

Dan, Have you understood krosero's statement about consistency??

No.

 

[Dan Lobb]

No.

Krosero, I should think that such an unparalleled achievement would impress anyone.

 

[krosero]

Krosero, I should think that such an unparalleled achievement would impress anyone.

I was replying to a question made by Bobby (maybe you don't know because you have him on ignore).

 

[BobbyOne]

Oops! Forgot Laver.

Here is the corrected list, Hoad still well out in front on an annual basis, the greatest record ever.

Rosewall 780 ... 25 years
Gonzales 721... 25 years
Laver 592.... 20 years
Segura 524 ... 25 years
Hoad 416 ... 11 years
Kramer 404 ... 20 years
Gimeno 362... 20 years
Federer 326 ... 17 years
Tilden 324 ... 35 years
Lendl 303 ... 15 years
Connors 299 ... 23 years
Sedgman 294 . .. 20 years
Trabert 282... 15 years
Djokovic 271... 12 years
Nadal 255 ... 13 years
Vines 255 ... 11 years

Vines did well overall, Budge only made 235, so Vines looks like he belongs on this list of warriors.
Of course, Hoad at 416 for such a short prime career of about ten years, is incredible.
Rosewall and Gonzales soldiered on at a high level for 25 years winning tournaments, so their totals are at the top.

This shows consistency in spades.

For Vines, like Hoad a fairly brief period of prime play, about 11 years for both Vines and Hoad, and yet a very strong showing in total wins against top twenty players.

The length of time playing should be factored in to determine consistency.
Wins over top twenty shows a high level of play, and to concentrate high totals in only 11 years is an unparalleled achievement for these two players.

Dan, I don't understand Hoad's only 11 years. As far as I know Lew won against top twenty players at least during a 16 years period.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I was replying to a question made by Bobby (maybe you don't know because you have him on ignore).

Hope Bobby is OK these days.

 

[70sHollywood]

I figure this way with Vines.

Was he a dominant player during his peak?
I think considering the winning percentages, the Tours won, the important tournaments won that the answer is yes.

Was he a dominant player for his career?
Considering the amount of years he was number one and his winning percentages for his career I would say yes.

Did he have any thing that some people would call a stroke weakness? The answer is from all accounts..No! He had a huge serve, a huge forehand, excellent overhead and volley. He was also very quick and a gifted athlete. Of course this part is very subjective.

So I figure with checkmarks of yes to all of this and a decent amount of years played that people can easily argue he was the GOAT. And many people have. I don't think he's the GOAT as of now but I would never go crazy if somebody said he was.

He may have had a backhand weakness. It seems from reports this was the case. Unlike Federer for example, it appears to have been exploited by multiple players.

Also, standing so far behind the baseline may have been a problem.

 

[pc1]

He may have had a backhand weakness. It seems from reports this was the case. Unlike Federer for example, it appears to have been exploited by multiple players.

Also, standing so far behind the baseline may have been a problem.

I don't think he had a backhand weakness but it was relatively a weakness compared to his forehand. There are reports that Vines could drive his backhand as hard as Tilden's forehand so it was a weapon.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/03/20/o...tennis-star-of-1930-s-dies-at-82.html?mcubz=0

Funny you mention Federer because I think of the both of them as similar in style.

 

[krosero]

He may have had a backhand weakness. It seems from reports this was the case. Unlike Federer for example, it appears to have been exploited by multiple players.

Also, standing so far behind the baseline may have been a problem.

I'm not sure I posted it but there was an event in 1932, in Pasadena, in which Vines lost to Bud Chandler; and American Lawn Tennis wrote that Chandler, "who appeared to be at home on the slow asphalt courts at the Huntington, employed a slow, soft high ball to Vines’s backhand as his most telling shot."

Now that was somewhat early in his career. And Vines did make improvements to his game, particularly after he turned pro.

 

[thrust]

Oops! Forgot Laver.

Here is the corrected list, Hoad still well out in front on an annual basis, the greatest record ever.

Rosewall 780 ... 25 years
Gonzales 721... 25 years
Laver 592.... 20 years
Segura 524 ... 25 years
Hoad 416 ... 11 years
Kramer 404 ... 20 years
Gimeno 362... 20 years
Federer 326 ... 17 years
Tilden 324 ... 35 years
Lendl 303 ... 15 years
Connors 299 ... 23 years
Sedgman 294 . .. 20 years
Trabert 282... 15 years
Djokovic 271... 12 years
Nadal 255 ... 13 years
Vines 255 ... 11 years

Vines did well overall, Budge only made 235, so Vines looks like he belongs on this list of warriors.
Of course, Hoad at 416 for such a short prime career of about ten years, is incredible.
Rosewall and Gonzales soldiered on at a high level for 25 years winning tournaments, so their totals are at the top.

This shows consistency in spades.

For Vines, like Hoad a fairly brief period of prime play, about 11 years for both Vines and Hoad, and yet a very strong showing in total wins against top twenty players.

The length of time playing should be factored in to determine consistency.
Wins over top twenty shows a high level of play, and to concentrate high totals in only 11 years is an unparalleled achievement for these two players.

Another list of facts which shows that Rosewall has to be considered in the top five of all time great players. IMO, Ken is #2 pre open era after Gonzalez and # 3 or 4 all time. I am inclined to put Ken over Pancho, all time, because of his success in winning slams or majors till age 37. Pancho won his last pro major at 33.

 

[70sHollywood]

I'm not sure I posted it but there was an event in 1932, in Pasadena, in which Vines lost to Bud Chandler; and American Lawn Tennis wrote that Chandler, "who appeared to be at home on the slow asphalt courts at the Huntington, employed a slow, soft high ball to Vines’s backhand as his most telling shot."

Now that was somewhat early in his career. And Vines did make improvements to his game, particularly after he turned pro.

Bowers writes/quotes very similar comments about Kozeluh in his victory over Vines in 1934.

 

[pc1]

I'm not sure I posted it but there was an event in 1932, in Pasadena, in which Vines lost to Bud Chandler; and American Lawn Tennis wrote that Chandler, "who appeared to be at home on the slow asphalt courts at the Huntington, employed a slow, soft high ball to Vines’s backhand as his most telling shot."

Now that was somewhat early in his career. And Vines did make improvements to his game, particularly after he turned pro.

Not to mention that the slow (or fast) high ball is a shot virtually every one hander has problems with. The thing I do wonder about is the times that Vines encountered this and handled it easily. I'm sure it wasn't mentioned. The old high ball to the one hander tactic is as old as time memorial. I'm sure it was tried before against Vines.

Laver for example used to on occasion do that against Rosewall. We know Nadal did that against Federer.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Another list of facts which shows that Rosewall has to be considered in the top five of all time great players. IMO, Ken is #2 pre open era after Gonzalez and # 3 or 4 all time. I am inclined to put Ken over Pancho, all time, because of his success in winning slams or majors till age 37. Pancho won his last pro major at 33.

I have never disputed Rosewall's status as a possible top 5 all-time player (remember, the history of tennis has not quite come to an end yet).

I rate Rosewall about tied for 5th or 6th spot with Sedgman, whose performance was more inconsistent than Rosewall's, but may have reached greater highs.

 

[Fiero425]

Not to mention that the slow (or fast) high ball is a shot virtually every one hander has problems with. The thing I do wonder about is the times that Vines encountered this and handled it easily. I'm sure it wasn't mentioned. The old high ball to the one hander tactic is as old as time memorial. I'm sure it was tried before against Vines.

Laver for example used to on occasionally do that against Rosewall. We know Nadal did that against Federer.

Two things; I can still hear BJK saying 'about a high ball to the backhand,' "back in the day playing with a wood racket you couldn't crack an egg!" The 2nd is more of an example; there was a "battle of the sexes" where Virginia Wade had to play against Bjorn Borg! All she could do was hang back near the fences dealing with his high bouncing shots on both sides! Her only other alternative was to take them in the air and come into net which she did successfully, but just not enough; losing set 6-3! She had the advantage of being able to use the doubles lines and was able to run him quite a bit to his amusement! You never saw Borg smile that much on court, but he thought it funny! In another match Evonne Goolagong beat Ilie Nastase! He didn't take it seriously and didn't rant; just went to his knees to kiss her hand at the net! Those were the days when tennis was fun and I miss it so much!

 

[pc1]

Two things; I can still hear BJK saying 'about a high ball to the backhand,' "back in the day playing with a wood racket you couldn't crack an egg!" The 2nd is more of an example; there was a "battle of the sexes" where Virginia Wade had to play against Bjorn Borg! All she could do was hang back near the fences dealing with his high bouncing shots on both sides! Her only other alternative was to take them in the air and come into net which she did successfully, but just not enough; losing set 6-3! She had the advantage of being able to use the doubles lines and was able to run him quite a bit to his amusement! You never saw Borg smile that much on court, but he thought it funny! In another match Evonne Goolagong beat Ilie Nastase! He didn't take it seriously and didn't rant; just went to his knees to kiss her hand at the net! Those were the days when tennis was fun and I miss it so much!

I remember watching those matches. It was fun.

 

[pc1]

Two things; I can still hear BJK saying 'about a high ball to the backhand,' "back in the day playing with a wood racket you couldn't crack an egg!" The 2nd is more of an example; there was a "battle of the sexes" where Virginia Wade had to play against Bjorn Borg! All she could do was hang back near the fences dealing with his high bouncing shots on both sides! Her only other alternative was to take them in the air and come into net which she did successfully, but just not enough; losing set 6-3! She had the advantage of being able to use the doubles lines and was able to run him quite a bit to his amusement! You never saw Borg smile that much on court, but he thought it funny! In another match Evonne Goolagong beat Ilie Nastase! He didn't take it seriously and didn't rant; just went to his knees to kiss her hand at the net! Those were the days when tennis was fun and I miss it so much!

Incidentally I remember Goolagong trailed Nastase 3-5 before winning 7-5 if memory serve. I think Nastase joked about being exhausted being run around so much.

 

[Fiero425]

I remember watching those matches. It was fun.

IDK why, but I just get so "verklempt" thinking about those days and the special events they created for entertainment purposes; the 11 weeks of WITC was the best back in the 70's! I haven't particularly cared much for watching tennis since Hingis & Henin retired! The "Big 4" contributed to my ennui because of them taking just about every major event for over 10 years!

 

[Fiero425]

Incidentally I remember Goolagong trailed Nastase 3-5 before winning 7-5 if memory serve. I think Nastase joked about being exhausted being run around so much.

Nastase was infinitely beatable due to his pitty-pat type of play; just not hitting the ball hard! That wasn't his game, but he was like death to Jimmy Connors who he owned when he had his mind in his game!

 

[pc1]

Nastase was infinitely beatable due to his pitty-pat type of play; just not hitting the ball hard! That wasn't his game, but he was like death to Jimmy Connors who he owned when he had his mind in his game!

Yes Nastase did give Connors trouble but a number of the wins were early in Connors career. They did have a lot of interesting matches. The Nastase touch versus the Connors power.

The guy that had the most interesting matches with Nastase was perhaps Stan Smith. They had a lot of important dramatic matches.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Yes Nastase did give Connors trouble but a number of the wins were early in Connors career. They did have a lot of interesting matches. The Nastase touch versus the Connors power.

The guy that had the most interesting matches with Nastase was perhaps Stan Smith. They had a lot of important dramatic matches.

Smith seemed to have the edge in the biggest ones, Wimbledon and Davis Cup.

 

[BobbyOne]

I have never disputed Rosewall's status as a possible top 5 all-time player (remember, the history of tennis has not quite come to an end yet).

I rate Rosewall about tied for 5th or 6th spot with Sedgman, whose performance was more inconsistent than Rosewall's, but may have reached greater highs.

Dan, Greater heights than Rosewall's performances against peak Laver in 1965 and 1966?

 

[BobbyOne]

IDK why, but I just get so "verklempt" thinking about those days and the special events they created for entertainment purposes; the 11 weeks of WITC was the best back in the 70's! I haven't particularly cared much for watching tennis since Hingis & Henin retired! The "Big 4" contributed to my ennui because of them taking just about every major event for over 10 years!

Fiero, "verklempt"? I never heard that word.

 

[Fiero425]

Fiero, "verklempt"? I never heard that word.

I take it as Yiddish for being a "little weepy!" My step-dad was Jewish! I get misty or a bit "choked up" over "better times!"

 

[thrust]

Dan, Greater heights than Rosewall's performances against peak Laver in 1965 and 1966?

Bobby, only Dan would rank Sedgman with Rosewall, which is total nonsense. I do think Dan make some of his silly statements just to p--s you off. I think on the Tennisbase list of ATG players, Sedgman is around 20, Rosewall is #3.

 

[BobbyOne]

Bobby, only Dan would rank Sedgman with Rosewall, which is total nonsense. I do think Dan make some of his silly statements just to p--s you off. I think on the Tennisbase list of ATG players, Sedgman is around 20, Rosewall is #3.

thrust, You could be right about Dan's intention. He seems to be one of a small group that often has similar intentions...

 

[Dan Lobb]

Bobby, only Dan would rank Sedgman with Rosewall, which is total nonsense. I do think Dan make some of his silly statements just to p--s you off. I think on the Tennisbase list of ATG players, Sedgman is around 20, Rosewall is #3.

Perhaps I use different criteria than Tennis Base.

 

[BobbyOne]

Perhaps I use different criteria than Tennis Base.

Dan, You really do!

 

[Dan Lobb]

Bobby, only Dan would rank Sedgman with Rosewall, which is total nonsense. I do think Dan make some of his silly statements just to p--s you off. I think on the Tennisbase list of ATG players, Sedgman is around 20, Rosewall is #3.

Gonzales rated Sedgman ahead of Rosewall....was he "total nonsense"?

I guess you don' t like all of the TB results, right?

I like the TB list of top twenty wins, the best.

 

[thrust]

The 1951 matches were not tour matches but "club" matches, and both Hoad and Rosewall were still juniors.
I am only counting the "adult" results, the "men's" tour. Hoad and Rosewall did not join the tour until 1952.

The majors in tennis, in my book, were on grass and clay, and these would be my choice of defining surfaces, as I clearly indicated above and elsewhere, there is nothing new about that.

I agree with your point about consistency, which is why when we compare Hoad and Rosewall's numbers against Gonzales, there is a startling edge in consistency for Hoad as opposed to Rosewall.

Consider, along the lines you suggested above,

Gonzales vs. Hoad lifetime hth 95 to 73
Gonzales vs. Rosewall lifetime hth 103 to 71

Gonzales vs. Hoad lifetime hth on grass 17 to 22
Gonzales vs.Rosewall lifetime hth on grass 20 to 12

Clearly, Hoad was more consistent against Gonzales than Rosewall was, and these numbers included long stretches where Hoad was playing below form due to injury.

What was Hoad's lifetime H-H vs Rosewall? No doubt Hoad had the power to trouble Pancho more than Ken did, yet Ken was able to have the superior H-H vs Hoad. Federer has a bad H-H vs Nadal, while Novak leads Federer by 1 and Nadal by 2. It seems to have a lot to do with match ups.

 

[Dan Lobb]

What was Hoad's lifetime H-H vs Rosewall? No doubt Hoad had the power to trouble Pancho more than Ken did, yet Ken was able to have the superior H-H vs Hoad. Federer has a bad H-H vs Nadal, while Novak leads Federer by 1 and Nadal by 2. It seems to have a lot to do with match ups.

Through 1960, Hoad had edge on Ken hth on grass and clay, but not indoor.
After 1960, Hoad's game declined and he had a poor hth against both Ken and Gonzales (after 1961).

 

[Fiero425]

Through 1960, Hoad had edge on Ken hth on grass and clay, but not indoor.
After 1960, Hoad's game declined and he had a poor hth against both Ken and Gonzales (after 1961).

...and Laver! I haven't read much about HOAD in years, but from what little I do remember, he took out "The Rocket" their first 7 or 8 matches! Not sure anyone cares, but it's what I remember OTTH! I also figured he was no longer as serious about the game after coming within a match of completing his own CYGS in '59! I thought he had some sort of health issue, got married, had kids, & joined the armed forces of some kind! I'd think he became more apathetic toward the game which is why his results were less than brilliant! I can visualize him in a uniform of some kind; maybe a foreign legion with a hat instead of helmet!

 

[abmk]

What was Hoad's lifetime H-H vs Rosewall? No doubt Hoad had the power to trouble Pancho more than Ken did, yet Ken was able to have the superior H-H vs Hoad. Federer has a bad H-H vs Nadal, while Novak leads Federer by 1 and Nadal by 2. It seems to have a lot to do with match ups.

I was under that impression as well. Then I looked into it in detail. That was not the not the case, atleast nowhere near what I thought it was:
(the h2h stats from TennisBase)

in the amateurs, from 51 to 56 : Hoad lead Rosewall 13-7
in the pros :
57 - Rosewall lead Hoad 16-15
58 - Rosewall lead Hoad 10-2 (major part of this was due to Hoad's injury problems)
59 - Tied 8 all in h2h
60 - Tied 4 all in the h2h

So in the pros , from 57-60, Rosewall lead 38-29. Basically neck to neck in every year apart from 58 (which was really due to injuries)

So by the end of 1960, the h2h was 45-42 in favour of Rosewall.


After that, Hoad was affected by injuries and declined considerably. From then on, it was 33-3 in favour of Rosewall to make it 78-45 finally.

 

[Dan Lobb]

...and Laver! I haven't read much about HOAD in years, but from what little I do remember, he took out "The Rocket" their first 7 or 8 matches! Not sure anyone cares, but it's what I remember OTTH! I also figured he was no longer as serious about the game after coming within a match of completing his own CYGS in '59! I thought he had some sort of health issue, got married, had kids, & joined the armed forces of some kind! I'd think he became more apathetic toward the game which is why his results were less than brilliant! I can visualize him in a uniform of some kind; maybe a foreign legion with a hat instead of helmet!

You've got the facts there, but in the wrong order.

Hoad became a national hero with his performance in the 1953 Davis Cup final, a few weeks later he did his army service in New Guinea. While there he had major health trouble, developing a show-off weight lifting exercise, push ups with 50 pound weights on his back, which caused two ruptured discs in his back, interrupting his play over the rest of his playing years. He also was bit by a poisonous spider and nearly died.

In 1955 he suffered from back pain, and despite a strong year in the first half of 1956, was bed-ridden with back pain right after Wimbledon. In early 1957 took some months off for treatment, was in an upper body cast for six weeks, and then had about 12 months of pain-free play.

Had some great results in 1958 and 1959, during which he played about 300 matches.

In late 1962, trained hard to play against Laver, and won (according to Laver and Buchholz, who were on that tour) 13 or 14 straight matches against Laver, at the same time when Laver was whipping Rosewall at Kooyong and Adelaide.