Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by tennissportsrog, Sep 2, 2012.
Likewise for your inept attitude regarding Fed. And btw buy a sarcasm detector.
Don't get testy with me, you geriatric Depends-dependent buffoon. I enjoy civil debate as much as anyone, but I'm more than ready to stand up to crypt keepers lobbing insults at anyone who dares challenge them.
In any case, the previous year, Rosewall reached two major finals and a major tennis journo called him the second best player. Suffice to say, he wasn't far removed from that position when losing a set to Peter Campbell.
Well you certainly had a lot of fervor in your statement
then why did you say you don't agree with rosewall placing him at #4 ?
if you are talking about level of play, krosero has shown you with many arguments , stats that federer's level of play in general at his peak was better than that of nadal/djokovic ...
and most importantly , I quote my own post here :
Bit mean to call the number #128 a nobody. I'd love to be in even his position. Like ambk said Rosewall didn't face 'nobodies' so you can't know...Federer has relatively more mileage than Rosewall would have had at the same age do to the game being more intense.
Maaaaan, get a neutral non biased fan who knows tennis and tennis achievements....make him read the last several pages, if he doesn't get the point, something is seriously wrong
try reading it again and again ...... maybe you'll get it in another 20 days or so that he was being sarcastic ...... or more mercifully for you if he himself posts here soon .......
any mercy here !? :lol:
Rosewall was upset at the 1972 US Open by Mark Cox, and at the 1973 Australian by Karl Meilor.
he lost a set to Herb Fitzgibbon , highest rank of 128 , at age 34 , at Roland Garros 1968, a major that he won ....
let alone what he was doing at 38,39 !
Mr. (or Mrs. or Miss?) abmk. Your arrogant attitude is not okay in such a forum!
Yes, I know, Ladislav Karlovic is a first class Chinese zoologist you lives in Tunisia where he is a good friend of that grand player who won a set from The GOAT.
I don't want to comment on this thread, which is poisened by quite a bit of intolerance, and the phraseology is sometimes surprising ("We gang on him" and so on). But i can assure, that Bobby One has done more for tennis and its history than all others here, by quite a mile.
AS a geriatric I only can say: Learn history (especially about Rosewall's years as a grandpa)!
Yep, keep that fire burning, urban.
I disagree with Rosewall because he refers to peak level and I refer to achievements.
Yes, he is a Rhodes scholar on the invaluable topic of tennis players and their musical counterparts in hierarchal ranking schemata.
Have you known Jaziri before? I confess: I did not.
I strongly doubt that Federer has more mileage than a 31 years old Rosewall.
Cox was a tough player. Rosewall was almost 38.
Meiler (not Meilor) was No.32 that year. Rosewall was ill at the AO.
No reason for you to support those who neglect history...
You are the first one to have ranking for 1968 including 128 players. Great!!!
k, but like I said :
do you really think that ex-players/commentators who rank federer's level of play very high - many of these comments in 2004-07 , when federer wasn't even close to sampras' count of majors , were buffons ?
you conceded you haven't seen much of federer at his peak , didn't you ?
I said highest ranking of 128. That's according to the ATP.
Roland Garros, France; 27.05.1968; GS; Outdoor: Clay; Draw: 128
R16 Herb Fitzgibbon (USA) N/A W 6-1, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4
whatever my attitude is - how is it not "okay" in this forum ? as long as I follow the rules, its fine, its a democracy after all, isn't it ?
I notice you didn't answer the roddick vs rosewall approach shots/volleys comparision either ....
Are you serious ?
urban, Thanks a lot for your words. After all those "tough" comments from the Federer fans they taste like honey for me!
I have posted more than 40 times today and at least it's maybe interesting that I was able to discuss with a large group of Federer worshippers and to bring them out of their shell...
I regret that I have insulted a few of them after they had insulted me.
intolerance ? really ? call it intolerance, but, I, for one, have no qualms in being "intolerant" towards someone who makes ignorant statements like one of federer's weaknesses is lack of touch shots .....
and your basis for that is ?
1973 and later is NOT 1968. Since you are an intelligent man (no irony) you will agree.
Are you, Mr. abmk?
no, abmk is just a username here.
I meant I am a male, not a female ...
abmk, Now it turns absurd. I had asked you if you are serious. I accept that you are male...
If Rosewall gave the interview at the 2010 Australian Open (as in before the finals were completed), then Federer has two more slams and been a finalist in another since that time as well as having broken the record for weeks at #1. Perhaps as a result Rosewall's changed his mind. If not, I wonder what Federer would have to do to move higher up in Rosewall's GOAT list.
beernutz: I'm sure Rosewall did not refer to the players' achievements which we can see in the fact that he ranked Hoad first who hardly is a GOAT candidate regarding achievemets. But Federer's place at No.4 is pretty fair, I think.
teens always have the need to be accepted and protected by the group while mature individuals don´t care.That is why some posters are always refeering to " vast majority" " channel of experts" and concepts like those...
That sounds very reasonable for Federer.
While I am not very popular because of being reluctanct to get on my knees on him, I´ll repeat that he and safin are the only players " exportable" to the golden era.The rest, from Hewitt to Djokovic, as great players as they may be , and I am not denying it, they have nothing to give.Absolutely nothing and are completely spendable.Completely.
kiki, Yes, and the majority can be totally wrong. For instance the majority of Austrians in 1938 voted for the annexion of my country by Germany...
Good one.I hope it doesn´t happen again, at least not that way.
kiki, Here I disagree. I believe that also Djokovic and Murray are very talented and fitting to older times.
kiki, Those are the real problems of the world, not the question if Federer is the GOAT or not...
I just don´t get too much passionate with both of them.Only Federer and Safin, and some Nadal vs Fed matches have been worthy since Sampras retired.
There's been some misunderstanding: I have not said anything conceding that Murray would have beaten a non-exhausted Federer. All I would say there is that it would have been close, and Federer would be the slight favorite.
Murray may or may not have improved between the matches, but if he did it was only by a little, as you say, so I can agree to that.
The three of us would have been a better description. Murray is far and away below the other three greats. If we talk only about the three greats, they could be the best trio ever.
In Federer's case the new losses to lower-ranked players matter, I think, simply because they were new losses: they were the kind of losses he wasn't having before. I doubt that you could depend on this method for another type of player who may be great but who does lose to lower-ranked players occasionally or even perhaps with some regularity.
I agree with ABMK that no single method should be used across the board. I was talking about yearly win/loss records as one method, and here are the numbers:
2003: 75-16 (.824)
2004: 74-6 (.925)
2005: 81-4 (.953)
2006: 92-5 (.948 )
2007: 68-9 (.883)
2008: 66-15 (.814)
2009: 61-12 (.836)
2010: 65-13 (.833)
2011: 64-12 (.842)
2012: 71-12 (.855)
2005: 79-10 (.888 )
2006: 59-12 (.831)
2007: 70-15 (.824)
2008: 82-11 (.882)
2009: 66-14 (.825)
2010: 71-10 (.877)
2011: 69-15 (.821)
2012: 42-6 (.875)
With Federer there's a general trend downwards starting in '07. There have been a few upticks since then, but nothing major: the general trend downward still applies.
With Nadal this method doesn't reveal much. He may have been peaking and declining, but this particular method doesn't reveal it. Why, I don't know exactly. His best win/loss record is in 2005. Nobody thinks he was at his peak then.
His career is somewhat different from Federer's. First of all he's an early bloomer: his talent matured while he was still young and completely healthy. His win/loss rates seem to jump up and down over the years: maybe that reflects periods of injury or other types of inconsistency.
Federer in a way is just easier to measure with win/loss records, because he's always been good on all surfaces so he typically doesn't have early-round losses anywhere, and he's just very consistent and injury-free.
I'm not sure when to identify Nadal's peak. People generally say he reached his peak in '08, and that's probably right. But not on all surfaces. He didn't reach his hardcourt peak -- at least at the Slams -- until 2009-10. He was always good on clay and grass, so on those surfaces I think he probably peaked in '08 though I think in '06 and '07 he was already closer to his grasscourt peak than is typically assumed.
Thank you for your answer. I failed to think about specific surfaces peak, which is probably an important notion for most players, even if I'm a bit uneasy with it. But if we make this distinction, lets have a look by surfaces as when Nadal could have began his peak. I won't look at when he could have finished his peak because we don't have enough distance to judge.
On clay, their is no evidence that Nadal did not already peaked on clay in 2005. He was already as dominant as ever, against opponent as good as the current ones (Coria, Federer, Davydenko). I know it makes sense in theory that he would only improve with more experience and the entrance in his best physical years. On the other hand, we can also consider that the adjustment he made to improve on other surfaces could have hurt his clay court game, or that neither of my two proposition matter because he has too much margin. In this last case, it is useless to seek to identify the beginning of Nadal clay peak because it won't help us to assess the level of either Nadal or his opponents.
On grass I agree with you. His peak began probably in 2006 or 2007. As you showed elsewhere, the evidence are that the difference between victory and defeat was very small between 2007 and 2008. Beside, the concept of peak is more solid if we can abstain to layer it exclusively on the victories or the defeats.
On hard court it is harder, and I'm not sure that his peak began only in 2009 with his win in AO. Remember that in 2008 he lost in AO to Tsonga, won the olympics on hard court, won Canada on hard courts, and he had solid result in every HC master 1000, winning only against great hard court players. Here are the winning percentage for Nadal on HC:
So his peak could have began in 2008 already. His loss in AO to a red hot Tsonga and in USO on a faster court don't seems too significant to me. After all he also lost in USO in 2009. For the AO SF, I was lazy and didn't look at your aggressive margins for Nadal in AO 2008 and 2009. Anyway I think he really hit his hard court peak in 2010 when he was able to become a great hard court player on slow and fast surfaces, as show his results at the USO but also at the WTF.
2008 and 2010, those are widely considered to be Nadal's best years and are to date the only years in which he won more than one slam in a given year.
Just focusing on his level of play, I'd say he played the best tennis of his career on clay and grass in 2008 FO and Wimbledon and in 2010 USO he played his best career tennis on HC (especially his serve was amazing that tourney, which coupled with his already lethal ground game spelled trouble for the competition).
BTW. There's a full 2012 Wimbledon final match on youtube in case you get interested in checking it out:
I know tennis coverage can be tricky (though since 2005 atleast it has been downright amazing in my country so I can't complain).
krosero, You seem to agree that Nadal reached his peak only after Federer have had a few peak years. And: Win/Loss record is not always the measure.
zagor, Thanks for the W. match. I will watch it.
I must again say a great Thank You for your recent statement. It caused an immediate end of insults by the Federer armada...
By the way, Where do you rank Federer among the all-time greats? I rank him fourth re achievements and (that's new) tenth re peak level. I know the latter sounds irreal but at least I have put now Federer into the top ten also in this list.
Here my list of accomplishments:
1 Laver tied
4 Federer tied
6 Borg tied
I don't care what he's done for tennis history and nobody should be defending him. Fact is, he's blatantly ignoring (or trying to) arguably the biggest part of tennis history, and if you've read the last several pages as I have and are a rational person you can come to one conclusion and one conclusion only no matter what player you like or don't like. I won't outright say what that conclusion is for fear of being overly insulting, but if any sane person (not even necessarily a hardcore tennis fan) comes to a different conclusion they need to be whacked up the side of the head hard and repeatedly with multiple blunt objects.
Hoad? Perry? Kramer? Borg lower than Connors?
I cannot discuss your Rosewallism but at least yes those question marks
How can you put someone who never won the most historic tennis tournament at number 1? Zero for 4 and his loss to Lew Hoad is completely inexcusable since they were the same age. That was his chance to make history and to have ANY argument for being the GOAT and he blew it.
Steve0904, Where do I ignore the biggest part of tennis history?
You are quite funny: You fear to be insulting, but in the same sentence you plead for actions used by bloody criminals ("whacking up") and so on...
You not only should learn tennis history but most of all the correct way to communicate in an internet forum or elsewhere!
kiki, I'm sorry for my mistake regarding Borg and Connors. It happened because I wrote in a hurry. By the way, even with that mistake I did NOT rank Borg lower than Connors but equal.
Hoad disqualifies for this list. His record is not top ten. Perry is overrated.
I rank Kramer, together with Vines (Yes!) and Lendl at place 11.
beernutz, How often shall I and others explain the matter? To understand the case one needs a certain amount of intelligence. I hope you have it and the right insight after considering the fact that Rosewall lost 13 (in words: THIRTEEN) years to compete at Wimbledon, among them the years 1961 till 1963 when Muscles was at his peak!
Separate names with a comma.