70sHollywood, I'm sorry I have misread your statement (I confused "now" with "not").
Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.
- Thread starter tennissportsrog
- Start date
70sHollywood, I'm sorry I have misread your statement (I confused "now" with "not").
pc1, I'm sorry, I might be able to address you but not directly because every time I log in your posts vanish from my display.
Limpin's question was about the seedings of June 1967. Not about who the greatest chances would have.
I still cannot agree regarding Ashe and Okker who did rather little in the first half of 1967.
Please remember that Hoad was able to reach fourth round in the 1970 French Open. In 1967 he was in better form.
Lew's performance at the 1966 Wembley was fantastic.
Hoad would have trained much for an open 1967 Wimbledon.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's all speculation on my part anyway so it really doesn't matter. To be honest I don't know how much extra training would've done for him considering how much the back injuries must've taken from him. It doesn't matter I concede that Hoad could've been seeded if one used logic but also a logical case could be made for him not being seeded. As you could tell I wasn't sure to begin with and I originally did seed him.
Last edited:
No, where do you get that? Not just "opinions of others", which would be useless, but the opinions of the players themselves, who are the only genuine experts on this question.
The idea of "there are more people playing, they must be better" does not take into account that there are many more sports played today, and more money around, so of course there would be more players.
In the old pre-open era, you had to be a great player to make a career out of tennis, there was little competition for athletes from other sports, so only a few sports had spots for great athletes.
Tennis was certainly a much hotter sport in Australia in the 1946-1970 era, interest fell off drastically after that, motor sports became the great passion of Australians.
There were fewer major sports worldwide then, tennis attracted the better athletes.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
This was more difficult than I expected. Here are my seeds for a hypothetical open Wimbledon 1967:
1. Rod Laver
2. Ken Rosewall
3. Roy Emerson
4. John Newcombe
5. Pancho Gonzalez
6. Andres Gimeno
7. Manuel Santana
8. Tony Roche
9. Arthur Ashe
10. Fred Stolle
11. Dennis Ralston
12. Cliff Drysdale
13. Butch Buchholz
14. Lew Hoad
15. Niki Pilic
16. Clark Gaebner
I have Gonzalez winning 34% of all his career tourneys, which compares very well with modern players. I would have thought you meant that Gonzalez compares poorly to modern players in terms of match percentage, which he does, as do all the greats who spent significant amounts of time on the old pro tour, due to the format being so different from modern formats.
In terms of match winning percentage I agree with all the points you're making.
Wiki has the numbers in majors, counting the 4 Slam events and US/French/Wembley Pros: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics#Performance_timeline
You may have calculated the GS numbers yourself; I haven't, so I'll go with the Wiki numbers here, and compare them with my latest career figures for all matches.
Amateur and Open periods combined:
Majors: 142-29 (83.04%)
All matches: 1150-311 (78.71%)
Old Pro Tour:
Majors: 38-7 (84.44%)
All matches: 451-178 (71.70%)
So yes Laver's match % outside of majors is lower than in majors.
The difference is most pronounced under old pro tour conditions, possibly (and this is just a guess) because so many pro tour tournaments were 4-man events.
But something to keep in mind too is that the old pro tour figure is made up entirely of Laver's prime years, and that may be a factor, too.
I want to change my 16 seeds a bit:
1 Laver
2 Rosewall
3 Gonzalez
4 Gimeno
5 Emerson
6 Stolle
7 Newcombe
8 Santana
9 Roche
10 Ralston
11 Buchholz
12 Hoad
13 Ashe
14 Graebner
15 K. Fletcher
16 Drysdale
I think that the seeding people would have seeded about this way.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I'm not making any strong statements about any of this for the 50s and 60s. But yes, I would absolutely assume that match% and game% are lower, since they are linked statistically, just as point% is also linked to game%.
Tournament% is going to be different because that is based only on finals.
We could, for instance, simply do a comparison of finals today for all categories of tournaments and thus compare majors to M1000s, M500s, and M250s. However, it won't help with most players because you won't have enough data. It would be an interesting thing to compare with Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic except that for Sampras and Agassi I'd probably have to simply go with majors and non-majors. I would not know how to arbitrarily assign those levels to all tourneys in the 90s.
Also, with majors and non-majors we would have some kind of metric for the whole OE, but with a huge problem: we would then run into the problem of "big money tournaments" vs. majors in the Laver/Rosewall era.
But I may run the numbers for majors/non-majors for all the ATGs of the OE, then run them in detail for this era.
I would expect game% to be higher for non-major finals.
I could also run SFs and Fs. Really I can filter in any way and I'm open to suggestions.
Yes. I'm talking about matches and games.
Wiki has the numbers in majors, counting the 4 Slam events and US/French/Wembley Pros: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Laver_career_statistics#Performance_timeline
141-29 170
82.94%
Either Wiki has an extra match or I'm missing one. I believe I found an error in Wiki's total, which is slightly different from the ATP. My tally matches exactly with the ATP, which I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) at least got the majors right. But we are so close it hardly matters.
I have this for the OE:
59.89% of games
60.10 70
85.71% of matches.
This is more important to me than his amateur record because it should track better against other players in the OE.
What I absolutely do NOT have is anything like a complete record of his matches out of majors, but the data I have suggests that his non-major record is clearly lower, and I believe a more complete list, such as the one you have, pulls that down further.
So right there down about 7% lower than his record in majors...
That's huge. The record in majors is close to his record in the OE. I don't know how many rounds were in the Pro Majors. From that % I would guess more rounds.
Interesting. My assumption at this time is that the non-major matches in the old-pro era were far fewer rounds, and that in and of itself would explain it.
My GUESS is that Laver's numbers should have been higher at his peak but are depressed because of the pro tour conditions. In other words, based on the figures I have for both Laver and Rosewall in majors in the OE, it seems logical to me that they would have had higher numbers in an OE situation. In other words, if the OE had started in '48 instead of '68, Laver and Rosewall would have had numbers during the 60s that would be fully in line with those of modern players.
I can't prove it, of course.
But it is in line with the way the numbers turned out for the OE.
Ok good so in the OE he won 85.7% of all his GS matches, going with your figure. In all matches of every kind, I have him at 606-182 in the OE, or 76.9%. Almost a 9% difference.
More to come.
That's too huge a difference, because I wasn't comparing apples to apples. I should have removed the tour matches (which I can easily do, I just forgot I had that figure calculated in another sheet!). If I do that, we can compare the pro majors against other tournaments only. The tour matches (ie, one-night stands) are depressing the figures even more so than small-draw tournaments are doing, so it's best to remove them.
I've also changed Wiki's figures for the pro majors because I've checked them and they are missing "place" matches, eg, third-place matches. Such matches are foreign to us today but they have to be included in this comparison because place matches were common in old pro tournaments, not just in the pro majors.
So re-doing the numbers for Laver:
Amateur years:
Majors: 82-19 (81.18%)
All matches: 544-129 (80.83%)
Open Era:
Majors: 60-10 (85.71%)
All matches: 606-182 (76.90%)
Old Pro Tour:
Pro Majors: 39-7 (84.78%)
All tournaments (no one-night stands): 339-87 (79.58%)
So this is better; the pro majors still stand out but not quite as much as before.
So the pattern is there: in the OE, Laver did about 9% better in majors than non-majors. On the old pro tour, about 5% better.
Last edited:
However you want to build on my numbers for the old greats and connect them to moderns is fine with me
I'll run the numbers too for Rosewall and Gonzalez. I know you calculated Ken's GS numbers and found a mistake at Wiki for the AO, were the other majors ok?
One note: when I give the figures for "all matches" in the OE, the vast majority are tournament matches but there are a good number of one-night stands in there. Those types of matches did not go away entirely for some time, and Laver, Rosewall and Gonzalez all continued to play them right into the mid-70s, at least.
They could be filtered out but I have not done that breakdown yet. I did it for the old pro tour because obviously the one-night stand was a dominant feature then. And such matches depressed the players' stats to a great degree. Did they do so in the OE? I would assume that they did but without a breakdown we don't know for sure. And anyway there weren't that many -- but keep in mind that they are there, in my figures.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I know that it took me a LONG time to reconcile the ATP data with TA and then with you, if I remember correctly. As you know, there are errors everywhere. It sounds like Tennis Base is now getting it right if the owner is syncing with your data. Probably it is a matter of getting closer and closer to the full picture, and at some point you will be so close that getting closer won't change anything. You are probably already there.However you want to build on my numbers for the old greats and connect them to moderns is fine with me
I'll run the numbers too for Rosewall and Gonzalez. I know you calculated Ken's GS numbers and found a mistake at Wiki for the AO, were the other majors ok?
I can't say for certain that the extra match Wiki is has is wrong and what I have is right. I'm only pretty sure it matches what the ATP has. To reconcile I'd have to check the majors every year, both in the amateur and OE periods. The missing match could be anywhere. If what you have matches with what Wiki has, I'd go with you in a heartbeat, then try to find out what year I am missing a major match.
Yes. Those are the matches I am missing, totally. I THINK that going only by the matches counted by the ATP it favors the stats some, because those tourneys all seem to have a minimum of 4 to 5 rounds. In other words, the number of rounds favors the stats a bit, but not as much as majors. The extra matches you have would logically drive down the stats more.
I would DEFINITELY go by your stats, not mine, for all the guys who played on the pro tour and then moved into the OE.
I know I am missing matches for all the guys like Connors too. It is the same problem, competing tennis organizations. For the time being I'm using non-major matches only as a kind of check against majors, as a comparison.
I'm troubled by the figures for Connors and McEnroe. For both of them results outside of majors are very close to results in majors, usually not true at all for later ATGs, and quite obviously NOT true for Borg.
Connors is about 1% higher in majors than outside of majors. McEnroe is about .1% lower.
Rosewall is almost 10% higher, Sampras 9% even rounded off to the closest 1/100th of a percent.
Lendl only about .5% higher, but Borg 8%.
I can't fully explain this except to say that Lendl's reputation for being very consistent but a bit weak in majors might be true, and perhaps both Connors and McEnroe did will in small tourneys. I don't have invitationals and 4 men tournaments in my list, so the difference is striking.
I never got around to posting a chart showing my results.
[/quote]
My own data is extremely flexible because of the way I set it up. There is a quirk in my spread sheet that allows me to filter - which will not recompute for what I filter - then simply do a mass copy paste to a new screen, and the figures are instantly recomputed. My formulas are all in the first line, and the moment I copy to a new file they automatically only take into consideration the rows that are copied.
I then have to record the results. It's not fully automatic, unfortunately, but it's close.
The problem is that I do not have your complete data. I do for modern players. Going back into the 80s can get a bit dicey, the farther back, the worse.
I also don't know the exact history of when the kind of small tourneys of the late 60s and early 70s mostly stopped. I'm assuming it would have been when the ATP was fully established and there were no longer competing organizations splitting the field. My focus started totally from 1991 to the present, and that's where me data is solid. I've been gradually moving back because I wanted to see how the trends going on right now compare going back in time.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Limpinhitter,
Is this what you thought the seedings would be or is this what you think the seedings SHOULD BE?
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Update: Apparently the Wiki total for majors lists one extra W for the AO, and that is where the error is. You and I cross checked the numbers for Laver at the AO.
So at least my Laver data for majors is 100% complete and correct, I believe.
tom williams
Rookie
I agree with that .TWWhen golden tennis I could watch a5 hrs match and at the end I wanted more
Now, after 45 minutes I need a water splash to wake me up
Here my seeded players of an open 1964 Wimbledon as maybe the committee would have ranked.
1 Rosewall
2 Laver
3 Gonzalez
4 Gimeno
5 Emerson
6 Buchholz
7 Hoad
8 McKinley (holder of the amateur event)
9 Sedgman
10 Olmedo
11 Santana
12 Osuna
13 Anderson
14 MacKay
15 Ralston
16 Stolle
Thus 10 pros and 6 amateurs
Drob
Hall of Fame
Mr. Colussi: You are a brilliant tennis historian and I agree with you on many things. But I must take issue on your Nadal-Federer analysis.
One point: your general assertion that peak Nadal better than peak Federer on most surfaces. Except for slow hardcourt, you did not specify "most surfaces." But besides Clay Obviously, what are the other surfaces you refer to?
Grass? 7 Wimbledons to 2; 8 titles at Halle versus 1 Queens and 1 Stuggart
Fast Hardcourt - 7 Cinncinnati Masters 1000 to 1
Medium Hardcourt - 5 U.S. Opens to 2
Slow Hardcourt - 3 Sunshine Doubles to zero; 4 AO to 1 (they say this year's AO was fast so I don't count it in Federer's
favor)
Indoors: 4 of Roger's 6 WTF or Masters Cups won indoors versus zero WTFs for Rafa; Federer 22 Indoor titles versus 2 (yes, two) for Nadal.
Another point you assert: Nadal peak superior on slow hardcourt. See above, three Sunshine Doubles to zero. (And, I might add, "slow hardcourt" is a contemporary phenomenon, what we now call hardcourts hardly existed as significant tournament surfaces until well into the 1970s, with the Pacific Southwest and Pacific Coast Championships practically the only two cement-based tournaments of note before the open era. And the hardcourt tournaments were generally fast courts from 1970s until early this century. My point being, the slow hardcourt may be very much of the moment, but it doesn't have historical pedigree, and, as shown above, it looks like Rafa would not have done so well on fast indoor courts (or fast outdoor courts) that made up the vast majority of top-flight tennis traditionally [obviously I am talking mostly "Pro" tennis here in pre-Open terms]. Rafa is a great, extraordinary player and fighter and tactician,and would have adjusted, but I don't think the ultra-fast indoor wood courts of the later French Pro, or the canvass laid over ice rinks of the Pro Tours would have been Rafa's thing. Federer, on the other hand, would have thrived on such surfaces.
Third: Nadal Clear Davis Cup superiority. Technically accurate but problematic. Nadal has been stingy, Federer giving. Nadal has best historical singles percentage in Davis Cup, but only 23 matches (give or take one) versus nearly 50 Federer singles matches; Federer plays D.C. doubles (successfully), Nadal only singles. Of the four Cups generally credited to Nadal (without looking at the actual round-by-round records), he led the team only once (2011), the other three times he was a successful contributor (mostly part-time), but did not lead the charge. Nadal's D.C. singles record certainly shows what a preternatural competitor he is, but part of the D.C. analysis is your contribution to your country over your own personal tournament goals. For years and years at his peak, Fed never shirked the call.
One point: your general assertion that peak Nadal better than peak Federer on most surfaces. Except for slow hardcourt, you did not specify "most surfaces." But besides Clay Obviously, what are the other surfaces you refer to?
Grass? 7 Wimbledons to 2; 8 titles at Halle versus 1 Queens and 1 Stuggart
Fast Hardcourt - 7 Cinncinnati Masters 1000 to 1
Medium Hardcourt - 5 U.S. Opens to 2
Slow Hardcourt - 3 Sunshine Doubles to zero; 4 AO to 1 (they say this year's AO was fast so I don't count it in Federer's
favor)
Indoors: 4 of Roger's 6 WTF or Masters Cups won indoors versus zero WTFs for Rafa; Federer 22 Indoor titles versus 2 (yes, two) for Nadal.
Another point you assert: Nadal peak superior on slow hardcourt. See above, three Sunshine Doubles to zero. (And, I might add, "slow hardcourt" is a contemporary phenomenon, what we now call hardcourts hardly existed as significant tournament surfaces until well into the 1970s, with the Pacific Southwest and Pacific Coast Championships practically the only two cement-based tournaments of note before the open era. And the hardcourt tournaments were generally fast courts from 1970s until early this century. My point being, the slow hardcourt may be very much of the moment, but it doesn't have historical pedigree, and, as shown above, it looks like Rafa would not have done so well on fast indoor courts (or fast outdoor courts) that made up the vast majority of top-flight tennis traditionally [obviously I am talking mostly "Pro" tennis here in pre-Open terms]. Rafa is a great, extraordinary player and fighter and tactician,and would have adjusted, but I don't think the ultra-fast indoor wood courts of the later French Pro, or the canvass laid over ice rinks of the Pro Tours would have been Rafa's thing. Federer, on the other hand, would have thrived on such surfaces.
Third: Nadal Clear Davis Cup superiority. Technically accurate but problematic. Nadal has been stingy, Federer giving. Nadal has best historical singles percentage in Davis Cup, but only 23 matches (give or take one) versus nearly 50 Federer singles matches; Federer plays D.C. doubles (successfully), Nadal only singles. Of the four Cups generally credited to Nadal (without looking at the actual round-by-round records), he led the team only once (2011), the other three times he was a successful contributor (mostly part-time), but did not lead the charge. Nadal's D.C. singles record certainly shows what a preternatural competitor he is, but part of the D.C. analysis is your contribution to your country over your own personal tournament goals. For years and years at his peak, Fed never shirked the call.
And here the seedings for an open 1960 Wimbledon.
1 Gonzalez
2 Rosewall
3 Hoad
4 Sedgman
5 Cooper
6 Olmedo (holder)
7 Fraser
8 Trabert
9 Segura
10 MacKay
11 Laver
12 Anderson
13 Ayala
14 Pietrangeli
15 Emerson
16 Gimeno
Thus 9 pros and 7 amateurs
Drob, Good points.
A minor point: The Germans may say "Stuggart" but the correct name is Stuttgart.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Here, let me help: Murray is a mug, Djoker is a has-been. So, maybe you and Rafa are still pretty good, but the four of you?
Nope.
The four best ever?
Laver, Gonzales, Tilden, and Connolly.
Hoad could not be seeded at all....he had officially retired in the fall of 1966, and played only briefly in 1967 at the Wimbledon Pro event, about two weeks more after that, hardly at all in 1968, mainly for Wimbledon.
In late 1969, he unretired and played a few more events.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Little Mo Connolly, inch for inch maybe the best.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Safe to assume he would have come out of retirement for an Open Wimbledon. Considering his high seeding in 1968 lack of activity would not have been an issue.
Dan Lobb, You blame yourself as a Hoad expert. Hoad did play also the 1967 South African circuit (six tournaments) and the Wembley tournament where he won a set from Buchholz and reached the doubles final. In 1968 he played five tournaments.
It was a gift.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's highly debatable whether Hoad would be been seeded if they did it the way they do it now.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
That's why I debated on whether Hoad should be seeded at all. The injuries and lack of a full tournament schedule plus the age is tough for anyone, even a person who began with the great physical and skill talent of Lew Hoad. Sure I took into consideration I felt the pros were tougher than the amateurs but Hoad did not do much at that point. Any player can have some close matches with top players but in a long five set match would people really take Hoad over Okker or Ashe or Emerson in 1967? I don't think they would although I can see the other side.
Last edited:
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Then it could have been a gift in 1967 too.
But why gift somebody the number 7 seed? Why not 16? Why the randomness of number 7?
Well he definitely wouldn't. They have a points system now. Depending on how they implemented such a system back then it is possible Rosewall and not Laver would have been the number 1 seed in 1968.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
They probably seeded him number seven mainly due to his name and what they felt his strength was as a player. Seeding was so random in those days and based on opinion.
Last edited:
pc1, Regarding Hoad: Lew would not have to play five sets against Okker or Ashe. He probably would beat Okker in 3 and Ashe in 3 or 4 sets.
tom williams
Rookie
pc1
G.O.A.T.
And that was superb but I was thinking of a reasonable seeding and whether an injured old Hoad would do well at an Open Wimbledon in 1967. I'm of the opinion that Hoad shouldn't be seeded but it's all speculation anyway. Unless we had a magic genie no one will know.
My first thought was that Hoad should be seeded but I thought to myself whether that was reasonable or was I just being impressed by the name. I looked at his results and concluded that I couldn't reasonably seed him. No big deal either way.
tom williams
Rookie
tom williams
Rookie
Does anyone have a seeding list for a 1958/9 Open Wimbledon. I think you would have to have Lew at no 1 for those 2 years. TW
tom, Yes, a strong performance of Lew's against still strong Gonzalez. But the correct score was 3-6, 11-9, 8-6.
tom, I'm not sure if Hoad or Gonzalez would have been seeded No.1 that year. Both players are a good choice.
Here my seeded players of 1939 as the committee could have ranked. I used the original seeding list (8 amateurs).
1 Budge (holder)
2 Vines
3 Perry
4 Nüsslein
5 Von Cramm
6 Austin
7 Riggs
8 McNeill
9 Puncec
10 Tilden
11 Henkel
12 Cooke
13 Cochet
14 Stoefen
15 Menzel
16 Ramillon or Tloczynski
Thus 8 or 7 pros and 8 or 9 amateurs.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Then in the next round, Muscles smushed his old Davis Cup doubles partner: 6-2, 6-3.
hoodjem, Yes (correct score 6-2, 6-2). Hoad did rather badly against Rosewall after 1960, i. e. worse than against Laver. Maybe a case of psychology.
Yeah the small tourneys continued well into the 80s. I'm more familiar with the ones from the early 70s but Lendl, Mac, Borg, Connors all played plenty of "invitationals", many of them 4-man events. The administration of these events is another question and they may not have been the same ones that Laver and Rosewall played in the early 70s but yeah in general you can say that "small-draw" events continued right through the 80s.
To get some idea of how vast all this activity was, just compare the official ATP tournament totals for Connors and Lendl against their true totals. With older players the gap is even larger, for a number of reasons.
Anyway I've run the same numbers for Gonzalez that I did for Laver above, comparing win % in majors against non-majors.
Again I'm following very generally the format at Wiki, with 4 GS majors and 3 pro majors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales#Performance_timeline_for_major_tournaments
But the numbers are my own, using my own sources.
Amateur years:
All matches: 211-34 (86.12%)
Majors: 20-3 (86.96%)
Open Era:
All matches: 174-112 (60.84%)
Majors: 24-12 (66.67%)
Old Pro Tour:
All matches: 436-154 (73.90%) (tournaments only; no one-night stands)
Pro Majors: 67-16 (80.72%) [9-4 French, 24-7 Wembley, 34-5 US]
So in the OE his win percentage was about 6 points higher in majors than in non-majors. On the old pro tour, about 7 points higher. In the amateurs, not much of a difference at all.
We saw that with Laver too. I think that may be because the amateur game just didn't have the type of small-draw tournaments that dominated the old pro tour and still proliferated in the early Open Era. The amateur game had no shortage of players and it was not uncommon for purely local, city championships to have 6 or even 7 rounds.
I've got numbers for Rosewall but I just need to break down his GS numbers into amateur and Open.
Lucky for Ken he didn't have to take out Gonzales in that first round, thanks to his old buddy, eh?
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
I don't have the full list for any of these players, but I know that when you include invitationals and such the numbers go down. That's pretty clear. For instance, if I take all your matches in the OE for guys like Mac and Connors and compare them with all matches counted by the ATP, your list will be lower in match% and game%. It's pretty clear why that is - fewer rounds.
But I'm also very iffy about the importance of those invitationals. If they paid a lot of money AND had a huge amount of press, then I would tend to think they were important. However, today we know that guys get matches that are more or less expos. There may be a lot of money involved, but does anyone take them seriously?
The difference to me is that in the 50s and 60s there may not have been huge crowds at almost any given event, and we more or less have to take them into consideration.
I'm not sure if their importance diminished quickly, nor do I know at what point we could consider them no longer important. I'm guess that over time they were more or less phased out so far as importance is concerned.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
As you say later, no small fields in those amateur years...
No surprise there. His record follows the pattern of most of the ATGs in the OE, and everything is much lower because of his age.
That's your area. I don't have any data for that period. But doesn't it follow the norm for that period?
The only surprise there is that the non-majors are not a bit lower, but then again we might not expect very young players to be marshaling their strength and energy for majors, much more likely and common for aging players, I think.
I'll be interested in those results. So far I think we are seeing that in the OE it is normal for top players to have better stats in majors than outside of them. It appears that the same idea is true of the pro-era.
tom williams
Rookie
Yes as a matter of fact i can recall it and they were saying they had Lew as favorite but they did not realise that Lew s fuel tank was empty.!!! TW
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yep. Gonzales was a fierce competitor.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Agreed.
Between his bad back and time away from the tour, Hoad was a shadow of his former greatness, with only occasional flashes of brilliance.
Similar threads
