I don't think your arguments stand scrutiny. You quote some names for the 60s, but you ignore others like Gonzales (still going strong in the early part), Gimeno, Stolle, Emerson. How do you account for the Wimbledon final of 1971 being between Newcombe and Smith?How do you account for this photograph of the Davis Cup match-up in 1927
http://www.francetvsport.fr/coupe-d...aires_photo_tilden_hunter_borotra_brugnon.jpg
where is the Laver/Rosewall sized player?
How do you account for the top players of the 30s being Vines, Budge, Perry, Von Cramm - where is the Rosewall/Laver sized player there? How do you account for the tallest slam final (Stich v Becker) being in 1991, nearly 25 years ago.
Unless you can show that
consistently in the wooden racket era there was a preference for shorter players to dominate, which I don't think is the case, then all you are doing is saying that a statistical fluctutation now, when there are a few taller players compared with when Rosewall/ Laver played, is some sort of universal truth. I am not sure that the facts on the ground of tennis history support that conclusion.
I have just watched Queen's. Anderson cut a swathe through the field, including Wawrinka who is being touted as the hardest hitter in the game right now. And yet when he came up against Murray, not noted for being the hardest hitter on the tour, he folded. Why? Because it isn't all about power. Murray is a superb returner, and that neutralised Anderson's serving power.
Just as Laver was, and would be now, able to neutralise power because he had superb reflexes and racket control and
enough power on his own shots. That is all you need in any era.
I don't think your arguments stand scrutiny.
Well I disagree and given evidence to show that Laver's size for ability/success was not a "Red Herring". I have identified numerous players that where within 1/2" taller or less than him that literally dominated two decades of tennis, the wooden racquet era. If there was only one or two others that might be considered an anomaly, 1 in 1,000,000, abnormality, etc. But in his era and going up to the end of the wooden era, 1981, I've identified players his size or near too that have won or come runner up in the majority of Majors in the professional league and dominated the open era. He is not a "Red Herring" he was the norm for champions of the 60-81. Ashe was more of an abnormality at 6'2", Necomb was 6'0" which was plentiful in the top 10 but not winning anything near the number of Majors the 5'10" bellow where. When you go back to the 60's which is is before my time Rosewell and Laver both dominated the game with Hoad being a big danger, though the amateur had many taller men.
How do you account for the Wimbledon final of 1971 being between Newcombe and Smith?
from 68-81 (Goldern Era) Finalists at Wimbledon
Players 5'11" bellow 18 players. (Note: I don't know Alex Metreveli height)
Players 6'0" above 10 players.
If you pull 5'11" Borg out as it's a "intermediate" size, then 12 to 10.
In general more players made the final of Wimbledon at 5'10" bellow than 6'0" above. Laver was not a "Red Herring". Rosewall 5'7" was uncommon, though not alone.
How do you account for the top players of the 30s being Vines, Budge, Perry, Von Cramm - where is the Rosewall/Laver sized player there?
That's got nothing to do with my argument or the post which is about Laver and whether he could be dominant or highest level in today's game, and the third point which was Lavers height was about the norm for the game and that the game has changed. This question is not part of this post, and I can't comment because once out of the 70's I have no knowledge.
How do you account for the tallest slam final (Stich v Becker) being in 1991, nearly 25 years ago. This is the Gut/Power era. Other than Chang there where no 5'10" players dominating. Or winning majors that I'm aware off. Laver would perform badly in this era as well as the current poly era. This was a 6'0"+ era, with Lendl, Beck, Stich, Edberg, Sampras, Goran, Rafter, etc.
I'm not sure how this relates to the question other to demonstrate that From the mid 85's once graphite 85" racquets had been optimised that the 5'10" players disappeared.
In regard to how that match matches up to todays matches, Stich 6'4" v Becker 6'3", 2014 Wim Federer 6'1" vs Djokovic 6'2" or 2013 MurraY 6'3" V Djokovic 6'2". Not much in it, you have to go back to 2002 to get a match with anyone under 6'1". Compare that to Lavers era up to 81 there the majority of players where 5'10" bellow and majority of matches had a least someone 5'10" bellow. Compared to 1986 onward with not one single finalist less than 5'11". And only 3x players bellow 6'0", Agassi, Hewitt & Nalbandian (Edit add Washington forgot he made a final!!!)
I have just watched Queen's. Anderson cut a swathe through the field, including Wawrinka who is being touted as the hardest hitter in the game right now. And yet when he came up against Murray, not noted for being the hardest hitter on the tour, he folded. Why? Because it isn't all about power. Murray is a superb returner, and that neutralised Anderson's serving power.
Murray is 6'3" and built like a "brick **** house". Sorry this is not helping your theory that Laver 5'9.5" would also dominate. Or anyone else 5'10" regardless of their "feel".
Just as Laver was, and would be now, able to neutralise power because he had superb reflexes and racket control and enough power on his own shots. That is all you need in any era.
No, there has not been any player with his statue able to compete in the top level since wooden racquet era was replaced with woven graphite era and latter the poly string era. Hewitt was an absolute genius counter puncher, still 2.5" taller and he struggled to hold position. Once poly became popuklar on the professional tour in 2002ish (That was the point Federer identified it as the common string, can prove him otherwise), the 5'11" players started to disappear at the Top 5 level and rarely made it to Major finals.
laver would be like all the 5'10" players of today and fail to make SF & Fin, and likely never win a Major. It's just how it is, the numbers show it, the game style demonstrates it, it just fantasy to believe otherwise. Regardless how talent a 5'10" player is a 6'2" player will have more power, more reach, better defense and stronger serve.
If you want to show me evidence otherwise please indicate a 5'10" player capable of winning a Major or Masters in the last 10 years. Ferrer is about it winning one Masters and making a French Final where he was killed by Nadal. He was the only Top 10 player under 6'0" so was a 'red Herring". Nishikori maybe, he had a USO final but otherwise is physically struggling with the pace of the 6'ers.
