Rosewall > Laver

[BobbyOne]

I think that reaching 5 finals is a good thing in career who shouldn't be used to downgrade a career. For me you can say "X player didn't won Wimbledon which is a weakness in his career" but you can't say "x player reached five wimbledon finals, which is a weakness in his career!" I personally rank Rosewall in the top tier, along Laver, Federer and maybe Gonzales and Tilden (I have some work to do to be sure).

Flash, I agree. I just wondered about five W. finals as a PRO.

 

[hoodjem]

I think the one area in which Rosewall is peerless (even beyond Laver) is Muscles' longevity.

 

[krosero]

All lists about playing strength are "feeled" lists, not arguments.

BobbyOne, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Level of play can be measured in any number of ways.

Match analysis is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and as I mentioned in some other thread there is a wealth of data for modern players.

The argument you made about Federer's peak level of play being lower than Nadal's and Djokovic's was controversial because so much is known about how these players perform and how their level of play measures statistically.

And match analysis is not the only way to judge playing strength. I can think of a handful of other methods, and you have used them yourself.

You can argue by analogy with other players, for example. To argue for Nusslein's superiority over von Cramm, you have connected them through Tilden: the argument is that Tilden defeated von Cramm in 1934, while Nusslein had an edge over Tilden in that year and in subsequent years.

That's similar to the way I connected Federer on the one hand, and Nadal and Djokovic on the other, through Roddick and Hewitt. I noted that Federer defeated peak Roddick and Hewitt more easily than Nadal and Djokovic were able to do in later years.

Then there are a player's yearly win/loss records, which all of us frequently use as a guide to judging when a player reaches his peak and when he starts to decline.

I don't know if you and PC1 saw the questions I put to you both in the other thread, about those last two methods -- but anyway my point here is that ranking players according to playing strength is not an exercise that is merely restricted to feeling. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant by feeled lists.

 

[BTURNER]

BTURNER, Some posters told me there are no people in this forum who denigrate Rosewall, therefore I hesitate to say that YOU denigrate him ("veteran B.J.King")....

LOL, you misunderstood this. Two points: I qualified the stage of BJK's career, because its the stage I could witness. I have not seen much early or mid career tape. So actually I am qualifying my knowledge base not Rosewall. King could have been as strategically immature as anyone at 20 yrs for all I know.

IMO,The 'veteran' BJK was a tactical genius. She got slower, less patient, and less flexible, but BKJ got nothing but smarter and smarter. On the aspects of comparison I was trying to reach, honestly there aren't many higher compliments I can offer. I hold the veteran King's court sense, anticipation and tactical acumen in very high regard, as I do Rosewall. She had the same knack of being where she ought to be, and choosing the right shot at the right time against the right opponent that he seemed to.

 

[BobbyOne]

BobbyOne, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Level of play can be measured in any number of ways.

Match analysis is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and as I mentioned in some other thread there is a wealth of data for modern players.

The argument you made about Federer's peak level of play being lower than Nadal's and Djokovic's was controversial because so much is known about how these players perform and how their level of play measures statistically.

And match analysis is not the only way to judge playing strength. I can think of a handful of other methods, and you have used them yourself.

You can argue by analogy with other players, for example. To argue for Nusslein's superiority over von Cramm, you have connected them through Tilden: the argument is that Tilden defeated von Cramm in 1934, while Nusslein had an edge over Tilden in that year and in subsequent years.

That's similar to the way I connected Federer on the one hand, and Nadal and Djokovic on the other, through Roddick and Hewitt. I noted that Federer defeated peak Roddick and Hewitt more easily than Nadal and Djokovic were able to do in later years.

Then there are a player's yearly win/loss records, which all of us frequently use as a guide to judging when a player reaches his peak and when he starts to decline.

I don't know if you and PC1 saw the questions I put to you both in the other thread, about those last two methods -- but anyway my point here is that ranking players according to playing strength is not an exercise that is merely restricted to feeling. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant by feeled lists.

krosero, I partly can agree. But I still think achievements are easier to compare than playing strength.

 

[BobbyOne]

LOL, you misunderstood this. Two points: I qualified the stage of BJK's career, because its the stage I could witness. I have not seen much early or mid career tape. So actually I am qualifying my knowledge base not Rosewall. King could have been as strategically immature as anyone at 20 yrs for all I know.

IMO,The 'veteran' BJK was a tactical genius. She got slower, less patient, and less flexible, but BKJ got nothing but smarter and smarter. On the aspects of comparison I was trying to reach, honestly there aren't many higher compliments I can offer. I hold the veteran King's court sense, anticipation and tactical acumen in very high regard, as I do Rosewall. She had the same knack of being where she ought to be, and choosing the right shot at the right time against the right opponent that he seemed to.

BTURNER, That sounds good.

 

[krosero]

krosero, I partly can agree. But I still think achievements are easier to compare than playing strength.

They might be, but only if achievements are separated entirely from playing strength. In practice we rarely do that; and we wouldn't want to. Nobody considers Emerson's 12 amateur Slams to be of the value of Laver's 11.

Ultimately the two -- achievements and playing level -- are bound up together. Playing to a high level is ultimately an achievement, and one which all of us want to see in any of our choices for GOAT (or other similar honorifics, like best player of the 1980s, or claycourt GOAT, etc.), or when asking which of two players is the greater one.

 

[pc1]

BobbyOne, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Level of play can be measured in any number of ways.

Match analysis is becoming increasingly sophisticated, and as I mentioned in some other thread there is a wealth of data for modern players.

The argument you made about Federer's peak level of play being lower than Nadal's and Djokovic's was controversial because so much is known about how these players perform and how their level of play measures statistically.

And match analysis is not the only way to judge playing strength. I can think of a handful of other methods, and you have used them yourself.

You can argue by analogy with other players, for example. To argue for Nusslein's superiority over von Cramm, you have connected them through Tilden: the argument is that Tilden defeated von Cramm in 1934, while Nusslein had an edge over Tilden in that year and in subsequent years.

That's similar to the way I connected Federer on the one hand, and Nadal and Djokovic on the other, through Roddick and Hewitt. I noted that Federer defeated peak Roddick and Hewitt more easily than Nadal and Djokovic were able to do in later years.

Then there are a player's yearly win/loss records, which all of us frequently use as a guide to judging when a player reaches his peak and when he starts to decline.

I don't know if you and PC1 saw the questions I put to you both in the other thread, about those last two methods -- but anyway my point here is that ranking players according to playing strength is not an exercise that is merely restricted to feeling. Perhaps I've misunderstood what you meant by feeled lists.

Krosero,

Could you give me a link to the posts you wrote that you asked me some questions?

I think when we look at a player's strength of course we look at won-lost record but even that can be deceiving as you pointed out so well in discussing Emerson and Laver. We have to back the statistics in which we analyze the records of the players along with studying the history of the time. If we were just to look at won-lost record we would think Laver in 1962 was superior to Laver in 1963 but that is far from the case. Laver at the end of 1963 was a far superior player to himself in 1962. The stats would not show it except we know from studying tennis history that he played in a far superior league if you can call it a league.

It frankly annoys me when I read some so call experts saying one player is better than another because when they played this great, the great made him feel helpless or that he had beautiful strokes. I used to read of one all time great who from the accounts in the books seemed to be all but unbeatable yet in looking at the records he did lose a lot more than I expected. Don't get me wrong, the guy's record was still fantastic but the books almost indicated that not only did he almost never lose but he crushed everyone. Brad Gilbert was not known for the best looking strokes in the world but the guy became one of the top players in the world. Some players like Leconte look great but they often found a way to lose. Heck I thought Leconte looked better as a player than either Edberg or Becker but his record couldn't even come close to the other two.

 

[FedericRoma83]

Laver at the end of 1963 was a far superior player to himself in 1962. The stats would not show it except we know from studying tennis history that he played in a far superior league if you can call it a league.

I like this part.

 

[krosero]

Krosero,

Could you give me a link to the posts you wrote that you asked me some questions?

I think when we look at a player's strength of course we look at won-lost record but even that can be deceiving as you pointed out so well in discussing Emerson and Laver. We have to back the statistics in which we analyze the records of the players along with studying the history of the time. If we were just to look at won-lost record we would think Laver in 1962 was superior to Laver in 1963 but that is far from the case. Laver at the end of 1963 was a far superior player to himself in 1962. The stats would not show it except we know from studying tennis history that he played in a far superior league if you can call it a league.

It frankly annoys me when I read some so call experts saying one player is better than another because when they played this great, the great made him feel helpless or that he had beautiful strokes. I used to read of one all time great who from the accounts in the books seemed to be all but unbeatable yet in looking at the records he did lose a lot more than I expected. Don't get me wrong, the guy's record was still fantastic but the books almost indicated that not only did he almost never lose but he crushed everyone. Brad Gilbert was not known for the best looking strokes in the world but the guy became one of the top players in the world.

My questions were in this post: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7098680#post7098680

Those questions had to do with Federer and the current era, though of course I agree with what you say about past eras when circumstances were not uniform. The amateur and pro games barely had anything in common, so the yearly W/L records cannot be used across that divide. You'd be much safer comparing within one or the other -- for example, looking at Emmo's yearly W/L records on the amateur tour.

But even then the numbers get distorted, because if you're an amateur, one day your greatest rival might disappear into the pro tour.

Today circumstances are uniform, and changes in rivalries are more gradual.

As far as Budge, I get what you're saying, but I have a hard time identifying with it, because I just never got exposed to all those stories about his invincibility. That may be because I didn't get into tennis until '85; and I studied other past greats more than Budge. Maybe if I was following tennis in the 70s like you were I would have been more exposed to stories about his legend.

For me Budge was just the first guy who won the Grand Slam, but a guy who won only 6 Slam titles in all and then sort of disappeared into the mists of a world war and later the pro scene. In other words I never had the impression that he was The Greatest, or something like that. Again, that's probably just due to not coming across the same things you did.

Some players like Leconte look great but they often found a way to lose.

Got a good chuckle from this

 

[BobbyOne]

They might be, but only if achievements are separated entirely from playing strength. In practice we rarely do that; and we wouldn't want to. Nobody considers Emerson's 12 amateur Slams to be of the value of Laver's 11.

Ultimately the two -- achievements and playing level -- are bound up together. Playing to a high level is ultimately an achievement, and one which all of us want to see in any of our choices for GOAT (or other similar honorifics, like best player of the 1980s, or claycourt GOAT, etc.), or when asking which of two players is the greater one.

krosero, I agree.

 

[abmk]

(I stress, I also admire Laver and, to a certain degree, Federer).

if so, you've done a brilliant job at hiding it !

Give me a break ! Someone who thinks nadal's/djoker's peak level of play is MUCH better, I repeat MUCH better than federer's is just outright spiteful/jealous/ignorant of federer ....

Atleast many who don't like federer openly admit so ....

 

[abmk]

@ the thread, a huge no , laver > rosewall ......

laver was the better player at his peak, more versatile, had more firepower , had that je ne sais quoi that rosewall simply didn't ....

only edge rosewall has is his longevity ....

 

[pc1]

@ the thread, a huge no , laver > rosewall ......

laver was the better player at his peak, more versatile, had more firepower , had that je ne sais quoi that rosewall simply didn't ....

only edge rosewall has is his longevity ....

While I agree with you about Laver being a little better than Rosewall, Muscles had a number of advantages over Laver.

First of all Rosewall was the more consistent player for level of play, had the slightly superior backhand, perhaps a slightly (debatable here) better volley and a little better touch. Rosewall did win more overall majors than Laver also.

To me it's close enough that it is reason for debate.

 

[BobbyOne]

if so, you've done a brilliant job at hiding it !

Give me a break ! Someone who thinks nadal's/djoker's peak level of play is MUCH better, I repeat MUCH better than federer's is just outright spiteful/jealous/ignorant of federer ....

Atleast many who don't like federer openly admit so ....

abmk, SPITEFUL are only YOU with your hate against my person!!

If I can calm you: I don't think that Nadal and Djokovic are much better than Federer. I admit that I have underrated Federer or overrated the two others.

I think every player among the top ten or 15 is worth to be admired. I just see a few weaknesses in Roger's game. That's all, Federer fanatic...

 

[BobbyOne]

@ the thread, a huge no , laver > rosewall ......

laver was the better player at his peak, more versatile, had more firepower , had that je ne sais quoi that rosewall simply didn't ....

only edge rosewall has is his longevity ....

Only an ignorant would say that Rosewall's edge is only his longevity.

There are several fields where Rosewall is greater than Laver but I'm tired to repeat them again and again. You would never be ready to believe me...

I strongly would suggest you to stay on fields where you are an expert, i.e. at the question who had more successful second services, Federer or Nadal in the 2005 to 2009 period or similar topics. In tennis HISTORY you are not an expert, I'm afraid...

 

[BobbyOne]

While I agree with you about Laver being a little better than Rosewall, Muscles had a number of advantages over Laver.

First of all Rosewall was the more consistent player for level of play, had the slightly superior backhand, perhaps a slightly (debatable here) better volley and a little better touch. Rosewall did win more overall majors than Laver also.

To me it's close enough that it is reason for debate.

pc1, It's just rather difficult to discuss with biased people.

 

[TMF]

pc1, It's just rather difficult to discuss with biased people.

LOL...that's like Terrell Owens saying Randy Moss is a locker room distraction, bad team chemistry.

 

[pc1]

LOL...that's like Terrell Owens saying Randy Moss is a locker room distraction, bad team chemistry.

TMF,

I have noticed, despite the criticisms of BobbyOne that he does change his opinions and seems to listen. For example he ranks Laver as co number one.

When someone said Rosewall was clearly superior to Laver, BobbyOne fought for Laver as Rosewall's equal.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

TMF,

I have noticed, despite the criticisms of BobbyOne that he does change his opinions and seems to listen. For example he ranks Laver as co number one.

When someone said Rosewall was clearly superior to Laver, BobbyOne fought for Laver as Rosewall's equal.

To be fair, his stance has pretty much always been that. Laver and Rosewall close together at the top. There isn't anything wrong with that, but there is no need to stretch the truth on your part.

The only reason I say anything is because you seem to really have it out for TMF lately. So what if he thinks Federer is the best ever, many people, experts included, do as well.

 

[FedericRoma83]

The only reason I say anything is because you seem to really have it out for TMF lately. So what if he thinks Federer is the best ever, many people, experts included, do as well.

Well said. Even if I totally disagree with TMF (in my opinion he wastely underrates Rosewall and Tilden, and overrates other players), I have to admit that sometimes BobbyOne seems to disregard other people's opinion. I've had the same problem in the "all times top-10" thread. Nothing personal, maybe these are just misunderstandings, they're habitual on virtual forums, this is just an invitation to calm us down

 

[pc1]

To be fair, his stance has pretty much always been that. Laver and Rosewall close together at the top. There isn't anything wrong with that, but there is no need to stretch the truth on your part.

The only reason I say anything is because you seem to really have it out for TMF lately. So what if he thinks Federer is the best ever, many people, experts included, do as well.

As I wrote in a few posts, it's okay for him to write Federer is the best. That doesn't annoy me. I'm just trying to figure out how he makes his lists. I really don't want him to pick Rosewall if he truly doesn't believe him to be top ten. What I would like to do is explain how by accomplishments that I believe (not just me but others too) that Rosewall is deserving just to use that as an example.

Honestly I would prefer if he leaves Rosewall or others out because I don't want him to give in other people's opinions. I would hope he would pick some of these greats only he thought they deserved it.

I was trying to convince him (and others too) that Tilden is clearly deserving because of his great accomplishments. What else could Tilden do but be virtually unbeatable? To me it's not right that just because he played years ago that people diminish his great accomplishment. But honestly I know he believes the past cannot be close to the present (I disagree) so I have pretty much given up there.

Anyway it would be boring if everyone agreed with everyone else.

I'm half asleep now at a little past 1 am and I have to get up in a few hours.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

Only an ignorant would say that Rosewall's edge is only his longevity.

There are several fields where Rosewall is greater than Laver but I'm tired to repeat them again and again. You would never be ready to believe me...

I strongly would suggest you to stay on fields where you are an expert, i.e. at the question who had more successful second services, Federer or Nadal in the 2005 to 2009 period or similar topics. In tennis HISTORY you are not an expert, I'm afraid...

Nor are you, by the sound of it.

 

[TomT]

Since Rosewall is my favorite player of all time, I figure I should post here.

I have no opinion on who is better, Rosewall vs Laver. (Complicated question involving lots of justifiable criteria.) They each won enough matches against the other that I call it anybody's match on any given day.

For me it's just a very clear, yet subjective, esthetic preference for Rosewall's game (with the exception of his serve ).

It is nonetheless interesting and enjoyable to read the various (objective) arguments for one or the other.

 

[BobbyOne]

TMF,

I have noticed, despite the criticisms of BobbyOne that he does change his opinions and seems to listen. For example he ranks Laver as co number one.

When someone said Rosewall was clearly superior to Laver, BobbyOne fought for Laver as Rosewall's equal.

pc1, Thanks for understanding my kind of objectivity.

 

[BobbyOne]

To be fair, his stance has pretty much always been that. Laver and Rosewall close together at the top. There isn't anything wrong with that, but there is no need to stretch the truth on your part.

The only reason I say anything is because you seem to really have it out for TMF lately. So what if he thinks Federer is the best ever, many people, experts included, do as well.

NadalDramaQueen, pc1 is right that I originally had Rosewall ahead of Laver. That was also the reason why I got punishment from several posters.

 

[BobbyOne]

Well said. Even if I totally disagree with TMF (in my opinion he wastely underrates Rosewall and Tilden, and overrates other players), I have to admit that sometimes BobbyOne seems to disregard other people's opinion. I've had the same problem in the "all times top-10" thread. Nothing personal, maybe these are just misunderstandings, they're habitual on virtual forums, this is just an invitation to calm us down

Federic, I of course accept other people's opinions. But I can't stand if a poster has extremely strange opinions such as Emerson ahead of Rosewall.

In the discussion with you I just defended Laver against your low opinion about Rod. Thus you called me a Laver fanatic...

I'm glad about any list where Rosewall and Laver are ranked among the top five. I only regret that this forum is widely a Federer and Laver forum and that Rosewall is underrated be many posters. Is n't this in your sense?

 

[BobbyOne]

Since Rosewall is my favorite player of all time, I figure I should post here.

I have no opinion on who is better, Rosewall vs Laver. (Complicated question involving lots of justifiable criteria.) They each won enough matches against the other that I call it anybody's match on any given day.

For me it's just a very clear, yet subjective, esthetic preference for Rosewall's game (with the exception of his serve ).

It is nonetheless interesting and enjoyable to read the various (objective) arguments for one or the other.

TomT, I'm convinced that it was a pity for both Aussies that their careers concured to a great amount. These two maybe all-time greatest have "stolen" majors from each other. Otherwise their tally would have even greater than it is actually.

 

[FedericRoma83]

In the discussion with you I just defended Laver against your low opinion about Rod. Thus you called me a Laver fanatic...

He is my all times no. 4 and you call it LOW OPINION!
What are we talking about, seriously? How can I consider you not a fanatic if you say that a no. 4 placement in an all times chart is a low opinion?

 

[BobbyOne]

He is my all times no. 4 and you call it LOW OPINION!
What are we talking about, seriously? How can I consider you not a fanatic if you say that a no. 4 placement in an all times chart is a low opinion?

Federic, No.4 for Laver is relatively low but still rather good. I referred rather to your statement that Laver's first GS does not count...

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

HadalDramaQueen, pc1 is right that I originally had Rosewall ahead of Laver. That was also the reason why I got punishment from several posters.

Was Laver not always your close number two? You don't berate Laver like you do other players, you only speak of how Rosewall is as good if not better (a model you should use when you speak about other players as well).

It is true that some posters consider the ranking of Rosewall above or even on par with Laver as a crime, and you did receive punishment for that (from some posters more than others :lol: ). There is no denying that.

 

[FedericRoma83]

Federic, No.4 for Laver is relatively low but still rather good. I referred rather to your statement that Laver's first GS does not count...

Oh, well I'm sorry but I won't change my opinion. No way that I can give my personal credit to a Grand Slam achieved without Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno, and all the best Pros around.

Moreover, I really can't understand how can a no. 4 placement be "relatively low". I placed my favourite tennis player ever, Ivan Lendl, at no. 6... so just think how I consider the players I ranked above him.

 

[TMF]

Being ranked #4 greatest of all time isn't to be ashame of, but an honor. Chris Evert is considered by many as the #4, and I don't see fans getting all upset, and Chris have accomplished more than Laver.

 

[BobbyOne]

Was Laver not always your close number two? You don't berate Laver like you do other players, you only speak of how Rosewall is as good if not better (a model you should use when you speak about other players as well).

It is true that some posters consider the ranking of Rosewall above or even on par with Laver as a crime, and you did receive punishment for that (from some posters more than others :lol: ). There is no denying that.

NadalDramaQueen, I originally had Laver on second place and now have him on first, tied with Rosewall.

 

[BobbyOne]

Oh, well I'm sorry but I won't change my opinion. No way that I can give my personal credit to a Grand Slam achieved without Rosewall, Hoad, Gimeno, and all the best Pros around.

Moreover, I really can't understand how can a no. 4 placement be "relatively low". I placed my favourite tennis player ever, Ivan Lendl, at no. 6... so just think how I consider the players I ranked above him.

In my opinion both Laver and Rosewall deserve a higher place than No.4.

 

[BobbyOne]

Being ranked #4 greatest of all time isn't to be ashame of, but an honor. Chris Evert is considered by many as the #4, and I don't see fans getting all upset, and Chris have accomplished more than Laver.

TMF, I did not know that Chrissie has realized three or four Grand Slams. Thanks for this information.

 

[kiki]

BTURNER, Some posters told me there are no people in this forum who denigrate Rosewall, therefore I hesitate to say that YOU denigrate him ("veteran B.J.King")....

Somehow, BTurner has a point.But I´d rather compare King to Nastase rather than Rosewall.Bturner is a good poster on women´s tennis although she doesn´t have Martina Hingis in great esteem...

 

[kiki]

Federic, I appreciate the fresh wind coming from Rome now. It's good to have at least a few colleagues who counter the huge amount of Federer and Laver admirers (I stress, I also admire Laver and, to a certain degree, Federer).

You can have the highest regard for both, laver and Rosewall AT THE SAME TIME.At least, I certainly do.As for comparisons, lets´give to them their fierce rivalry and just enjoy both of them.

 

[kiki]

Federic, I of course accept other people's opinions. But I can't stand if a poster has extremely strange opinions such as Emerson ahead of Rosewall.

In the discussion with you I just defended Laver against your low opinion about Rod. Thus you called me a Laver fanatic...

I'm glad about any list where Rosewall and Laver are ranked among the top five. I only regret that this forum is widely a Federer and Laver forum and that Rosewall is underrated be many posters. Is n't this in your sense?

You are completely right.The forum is for former pro players so we should only discuss Laver and Rosewall ( and others, from Sampras tob Renshaw) and leave the fedfans to go to their church in the 99,9% of the forums that load TT...

 

[TMF]

TMF, I did not know that Chrissie has realized three or four Grand Slams. Thanks for this information.

I never said that.:?

 

[BobbyOne]

I never said that.:?

TMF, You insinuated it when you wrote that Evert achieved more than Laver...

 

[FedericRoma83]

TMF, You insinuated it when you wrote that Evert achieved more than Laver...

I think he wanted to say that she has won more Majors, which is true.

 

[pc1]

Delete. Not worth it.

 

[TMF]

I think he wanted to say that she has won more Majors, which is true.

Yes, she won 18 grand slam titles, 34 slam finals:shock:, 94% winning on clay. It's ridiculous.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7072221&postcount=22

 

[TMF]

TMF, You insinuated it when you wrote that Evert achieved more than Laver...

Bobby, whether you agree or not about who's more achieved isn't that big a deal. The point is if both Rod and Chris is ranked #4 greatest of all time is remarkable, not something to be disgruntled about.

It's players like Lendl or Agassi are the one who doesn't get much respect.

 

[TMF]

Delete. Not worth it.

Must be something about my opinion ?

 

[pc1]

Must be something about my opinion ?

Yes actually but to be honest just write what you write. The only thing I ask of you is to occasionally please try to keep an open mind on what I write. Last thing, just write what you believe on the lists. Don't feel pressure because of what people think. I for example may disagree but I don't want you to write something you don't want to write.

It was something I've written already numerous times so I felt it wasn't worth repeating. It was something I've written which I'm sure you've seen but noticed you ignored when you've given some of your arguments.

Honestly if you think Rosewall doesn't belong, then don't put him on the list. Now I believe he's among the top few on record and personal viewing of his matches but hey if you disagree, fine.

 

[abmk]

abmk, SPITEFUL are only YOU with your hate against my person!!

If I can calm you: I don't think that Nadal and Djokovic are much better than Federer. I admit that I have underrated Federer or overrated the two others.

you did say that ... which makes your opinion regarding modern day tennis totally worthless ; even if you've changed it now just because few others have said so to you ... it just shows you just haven't watched modern day tennis ....

I think every player among the top ten or 15 is worth to be admired. I just see a few weaknesses in Roger's game. That's all, Federer fanatic...

yeah, so do I , just that I see plenty more weaknesses in rosewall's and most of the others ? your point being ?

and I admire *any* player's good tennis , even if it is #100 ranked rosol or #43 peter doohan ...

 

[abmk]

While I agree with you about Laver being a little better than Rosewall, Muscles had a number of advantages over Laver.

First of all Rosewall was the more consistent player for level of play, had the slightly superior backhand, perhaps a slightly (debatable here) better volley and a little better touch. Rosewall did win more overall majors than Laver also.

To me it's close enough that it is reason for debate.

I'd say rosewall had the better BH, better return and better touch , but that's it .... better volley, nah ....rosewall's level was more consistent , but that was probably significant the most on clay ...... on other surfaces, I'd take laver's brilliance and higher level of play ...

regarding majors won... with all respect , the pro tour in 61-63 @ rosewall's peak was considerably weaker than it was in the 50s and later half of 60s ... here a single player can make more of a difference as the fields were limited ...

gonzales retiring, hoad's injuries and laver not yet in the pros ( till 62 and still getting adjusted in 63 )

again, I'm not just going to add up the amateur, pro and open majors ...

 

[krosero]

you did say that ... which makes your opinion regarding modern day tennis totally worthless ; even if you've changed it now just because few others have said so to you ... it just shows you just haven't watched modern day tennis ....

We've both been debating BobbyOne about Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, so I'm just going to give my own two cents here and say that I do not consider his opinions on modern tennis to be worthless. If I had thought the view to be worthless, I would not have engaged it as far as I did.

Thinking an opinion is wrong is not the same thing as thinking it worthless.

Of course there's a LOT of distance between my views on Fed/Nad/Djok and BobbyOne's view. But I'm happy to say now that he's admitted some error (which takes some character), there is LESS distance between our views. That's enough for me.

Just my two cents.