Rosewall > Laver

krosero said:
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.
Click to expand...

look, I'll differentiate b/w two cases here :

when opinions are somewhere near reality and could be debated upon ... , for example, I'd say safin's level of play at the AO when playing well is up there with anyone else, including federer, agassi, djoker and better than that of lendl ,sampras, becker etc ..... this is well backed up by his performances at AO 2004,05 ...even if he has only one AO ...

but if someone were to say that safin, when playing well would defeat anyone on grass including federer, sampras, mac, becker, borg etc ... well then there's bound to be some laughter and criticism ...

BobbyOne's opinion is like the 2nd kind ...

if BobbyOne *actually* did some more research on the records on his own and said that he did so or admitted he hasn't watched many matches of federer at his peak or said he'd like to watch more matches before getting back on that, I'd say *that* takes some character. Not just changing views because a few of us here told so ...

reading and thinking on others PoVs is well and good, that's just one step, but one needs to actually do some research on their own .....

just for another example, I think some of TMF's points on tennis history and players of the history are plainly laughable ..he's seen quite a bit in the 2000s , but not before ... Therefore I wouldn't pay that much attention to his points regarding tennis before 2000 or so .....

only in BobbyOne's case, its worse as he claims he's "studied" players from many generations , including the present one .. yet if he comes up with points like nadal's/djoker's peak level of play is much better than federer's (can you imagine the laughter from nadal/djoker if they ever heard anything like that !? :) ) ,well ......
 
Last edited:
abmk said:
look, I'll differentiate b/w two cases here :

when opinions are somewhere near reality and could be debated upon ... , for example, I'd say safin's level of play at the AO when playing well is up there with anyone else, including federer, agassi, djoker and better than that of lendl ,sampras, becker etc ..... this is well backed up by his performances at AO 2004,05 ...even if he has only one AO ...

but if someone were to say that safin, when playing well would defeat anyone on grass including federer, sampras, mac, becker, borg etc ... well then there's bound to be some laughter and criticism ...

BobbyOne's opinion is like the 2nd kind ...

if BobbyOne *actually* did some more research on the records on his own and said that he did so or admitted he hasn't watched many matches of federer at his peak or said he'd like to watch more matches before getting back on that, I'd say *that* takes some character. Not just changing views because a few of us here told so ...

reading and thinking on others PoVs is well and good, that's just one step, but one needs to actually do some research on their own .....

just for another example, I think some of TMF's points on tennis history and players of the history are plainly laughable ..he's seen quite a bit in the 2000s , but not before ... Therefore I wouldn't pay that much attention to his points regarding tennis before 2000 or so .....

only in BobbyOne's case, its worse as he claims he's "studied" players from many generations , including the present one .. yet if he comes up with points like nadal's/djoker's peak level of play is much better than federer's (can you imagine the laughter from nadal/djoker if they ever heard anything like that !? :) ) ,well ......
Click to expand...
You'd like to differentiate between the laughable and the non-laughable. That's your choice; I do it too. But I've seen laughter and ridicule, on discussion boards, have far more negative effects than positive ones.
 
abmk said:
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 ...
Click to expand...

I've seen Laver and Rosewall during their playing days and I can tell you that Rosewall's volley was quite amazing. My favorite Rosewall volley was when it seemed like the ball passed him on the backhand side when somehow he seemed to hit the ball when it was slightly behind him for an angled backhand crosscourt drop shot winner. Rosewall was more solid on the forehand volley and he missed fewer volleys in my opinion.

We're talking fractions here. There's really not much difference but I can write that a tennis magazine (I think it was World Tennis) ranked Rosewall as higher than Laver on the volley in I believe a poll of the players.
 
Rosewall was the best ever technician master and first time I watched him, being so much focused on his bh,I found amazing how clean and perfect struck his volleys were
Laver was a crush net player and he also had enormous touch and feeling
Both won many points at the net so it makes no sense to compare
 
kiki said:
Rosewall was the best ever technician master and first time I watched him, being so much focused on his bh,I found amazing how clean and perfect struck his volleys were
Laver was a crush net player and he also had enormous touch and feeling
Both won many points at the net so it makes no sense to compare
Click to expand...

I agree with you there.

But to show how great the Rosewall volley, Rosewall in the mid to late 1970's when he was around 40 was named by World Tennis Magazine to have the second best backhand volley and second best forehand.

I'm a big Rosewall admirer. He is perhaps the perfect example of smooth efficiency in tennis.
 
Rosewall never overdid anything
Never wasted timing or energy
Is that the reason he was known as Pockets ( mean man)?
 
Prisoner of Birth said:
In the Open Era :
Rosewall has 4 Grand Slams
Laver has 5 (including the calendar year Grand Slam)

Pro Slams :
Rosewall has 15
Laver has 8

So Rosewall has 19 Majors compared to Laver's 13.


It's obvious Rosewall is far more successful. And these are some ways in which he is statistically better :

Dominance - Rosewall won 9 consecutive Pro Slams that he participated in. Laver only ever managed 4 Pro Slams in a row and 4 Open Era Grand Slams in a row. His 4 in a row against amateurs isn't comparable.

Longevity - Rosewall won his first Major in 1957 and his last Major in 1972. That's 15 years apart. Laver won his first in 1964 and his last in 1969. Just 5 years apart.

Versatility - Rosewall has 5 Grasscourt Majors, 5 Claycourt Majors, 5 Indoorcourt Majors, 4 Woodcourt Majors. That's 5-5-5-4. Very balanced, showing he was a versatile player. Laver has 8 Grasscourt Majors, 1 Claycourt Major, 4 Indoorcourt Majors, 1 Woodcourt Major. That's 8-1-4-1. Very lopsided and grass/indoor heavy, showing he was more of a fastcourt player and not as versatile.


I think Rosewall is head and shoulders above Laver, in almost every way. I don't even see it as debatable, statistically.
Click to expand...
You're a prisoner of your mind.
 
There´d be no doubts if Laver had just taken the last two points of their frentic Dallas final in 72.
 
BobbyOne said:
Several posters do denigrate Rosewall without giving any arguments (or pseudo-arguments such as Rosewall not winning Wimbledon).
Click to expand...

It's not a pseudo-argument.

When are you going to accept that a man who loses FIVE times in the final of the world's biggest tournament, when he was dominating and winning majors elsewhere, cannot possibly be GOAT?

It's like saying a football (soccer) team can be the greatest of all time when they keep losing World Cup finals. Or a baseball team keep losing the World Series final. Or an athlete keep winning all other races but then keep getting silver in the Olympic final.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
It's not a pseudo-argument.

When are you going to accept that a man who loses FIVE times in the final of the world's biggest tournament, when he was dominating and winning majors elsewhere, cannot possibly be GOAT?

It's like saying a football (soccer) team can be the greatest of all time when they keep losing World Cup finals. Or a baseball team keep losing the World Series final. Or an athlete keep winning all other races but then keep getting silver in the Olympic final.
Click to expand...

It is very much a pseudo-argument, assuming a pseudo-argument is one that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Your analogies are poor. Unlike Wimbledon, none of these stages were devalued by a pro/amateur split, in which certain players were banned from participating.

So either you are engaging in bad argumentation on purpose or out of ignorance.
 
CyBorg said:
It is very much a pseudo-argument, assuming a pseudo-argument is one that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Your analogies are poor. Unlike Wimbledon, none of these stages were devalued by a pro/amateur split, in which certain players were banned from participating.

So either you are engaging in bad argumentation on purpose or out of ignorance.
Click to expand...

Er.....what?

You do realise that the pro-amateur split which existed when Rosewall reached his first 2 Wimbledon finals should have made it EASIER for him to win the title - as many of the top players, notably Gonzales, were not there. Yet he still couldn't get the job done.

The third and fourth times he reached the W final, the pro/am split didn't exist. It was the Open Era.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Er.....what?

You do realise that the pro-amateur split which existed when Rosewall reached his first 2 Wimbledon finals should have made it EASIER for him to win the title - as many of the top players, notably Gonzales, were not there. Yet he still couldn't get the job done.

The third and fourth times he reached the W final, the pro/am split didn't exist. It was the Open Era.
Click to expand...

Phoenix, You change from five to four Wimbledon failures. That's a little mistake. A greater one is your stubborness in blaming Rosewall without any reason.
 
CyBorg said:
It is very much a pseudo-argument, assuming a pseudo-argument is one that doesn't have a leg to stand on.

Your analogies are poor. Unlike Wimbledon, none of these stages were devalued by a pro/amateur split, in which certain players were banned from participating.

So either you are engaging in bad argumentation on purpose or out of ignorance.
Click to expand...

but who could have beaten the 1970-1971 John Newcombe on fast grass?

It was not Rosewall´s fault that Newk had SUCH peak
 
Phoenix1983 and BobbyOne,

Frankly I don't think either of you are going to change your minds. It's getting rather boring because it's the same statements.

Honestly the key to a great player is the ability to win on all surfaces. Rosewall won on grass, clay, wood, indoor canvas etc.

Tilden technically did not win any of the current recognized clay court majors so technically he did not win by today's standards a clay major but he won so many US Claycourts and other great clay events that you couldn't deny his greatness. However he actually won a red clay major in the World Hardcourt which was the clay court championship of the world because the French was only Open to French people. Does a person deny the greatness of Tilden because he technically did not win a classic major? Just my two cents and considering inflation it's probably negative value.

Guys just switch to another topic. It's really not a discussion anymore because no one is giving in on any points.
 
Last edited:
pc1 said:
Phoenix1983 and BobbyOne,

Frankly I don't think either of you are going to change your minds. It's getting rather boring because it's the same statements.

Honestly the key to a great player is the ability to win on all surfaces. Rosewall won on grass, clay, wood, indoor canvas etc.

Tilden technically did not win any of the current recognized majors so technically he did not win by today's standards a clay major but he won so many US Claycourts and other great clay events that you couldn't deny his greatness. However he actually won a red clay major in the World Hardcourt which was the clay court championship of the world because the French was only Open to French people. Does a person deny the greatness of Tilden because he technically did not win a classic major? Just my two cents and considering inflation it's probably negative value.

Guys just switch to another topic. It's really not a discussion anymore because no one is giving in on any points.
Click to expand...

Lets elaborate on Newcombe grass peak making him the alfa male in early 70
 
pc1 said:
Tilden technically did not win any of the current recognized majors so technically he did not win by today's standards a clay major but he won so many US Claycourts and other great clay events that you couldn't deny his greatness. However he actually won a red clay major in the World Hardcourt which was the clay court championship of the world because the French was only Open to French people. Does a person deny the greatness of Tilden because he technically did not win a classic major? Just my two cents and considering inflation it's probably negative value.
Click to expand...

Tilden won 3 Wimbledons and 7 US Championships. They are current recognised majors.
 
POB.....nice thread. Rosewall deserves to be call one of the greats.....and I believe is a better player than Laver at their peaks.
 
I also happen to think Rosewall´s FH, while not that uncomparable BH stroke was terrific.perfect timing, perfect swing at the ball, perfect follow through.He made it look so easy¡¡¡

The basic for his brilliant play, of course, was his unmatched positional sense.He seemed like an orchestra director.
 
kiki said:
I also happen to think Rosewall´s FH, while not that uncomparable BH stroke was terrific.perfect timing, perfect swing at the ball, perfect follow through.He made it look so easy¡¡¡

The basic for his brilliant play, of course, was his unmatched positional sense.He seemed like an orchestra director.
Click to expand...

kiki, Thanks for the praise of Rosewall's forehand. I especially admire his forehand volley...
 
kiki said:
Yes, could be the best ever FH volley
Hoad' s and Newcombe' s were also great as well as Mac' s
Hard choice
Click to expand...

kiki, Yes this sounds curious because usually Rosewall is famous for having the best backhand volley, together with Roche...
 
BobbyOne said:
kiki, Yes this sounds curious because usually Rosewall is famous for having the best backhand volley, together with Roche...
Click to expand...

Edberg,Mac,Laver,Ashe all had great BH volleys, and of course Roche.I don´t think Rosewall´s was any better although it was a masterful shot.hey¡ we talk about the top 5-6 volleyers of the last 50 years¡¡

Adriano Panatta had also a marvelous FH volley and an excellent drop volley on the BH side.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Er.....what?

You do realise that the pro-amateur split which existed when Rosewall reached his first 2 Wimbledon finals should have made it EASIER for him to win the title - as many of the top players, notably Gonzales, were not there. Yet he still couldn't get the job done.

The third and fourth times he reached the W final, the pro/am split didn't exist. It was the Open Era.
Click to expand...

How does the pro-amateur split help Rosewall when he spent his peak years on the professional tour, banned from Wimbledon?

You post nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Rosewall & Laver
2
Replies
66
Views
7K
kiki
kiki
BGod
Ken Rosewall vs. Rod Laver?
2
Replies
59
Views
7K
timnz
T
Gaelle Caplier
Laver-Rosewall stats that will blow your mind!(Srsly!)
2
Replies
63
Views
4K
BobbyOne
B
T
Who is the man with the most majors
2 3
Replies
107
Views
7K
Dan Lobb
D
T
1963 World Series
2
Replies
93
Views
7K
Dan Lobb
D
Back
Top