the green god
Professional
BOO YEAH!!!
Tennis Magazine Tournament of Champions - Men
- Thread starter CEvertFan
- Start date
BOO YEAH!!!
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
If you define Hardcourt narrowly as low bouncing fast hard courts, which roughly mean moquette on which Becker had so much success, while Nadal had so little, then yes.
But if you say "hard court" and you simply decide that your 25 year old memories are the way to go to judge that, then you are nothing more than REKX, who watch 3 mins of highlight on youtube and then discards dozen of all time great. I guess senses never lie.
VolosozharGOAT
Banned
Who said the fastest type of hard court. It would seem a medium paced hard court is the main assumption. However if you are going to focus on fast hard court (not indoors or carpet) compare the U.S Open records of Becker and Nadal. Pretty clear who comes out the winner, even though the competition there today is light years tougher overall than it was during Becker's peak years (85-91).
As for Laver vs McEnroe on grass, McEnroe won 3 Wimbledons and one was over Chris Lewis in the final. Laver was banned from the slams for 5 years in the middle of his peak and won 4 Wimbledons. He would have lost 1 or both of the first 2 had the pros been eligible then, but would have gained atleast 3 or 4 more in the 5 years he had to miss. Given that he won the Wembley Pro every year from 64-67 which had way tougher opponents than any that the amateur Wimbledons had, winning 6 straight Wimbledons from 64-69 would have been more than decent odds. The 84 McEnroe would have a good shot vs anyone on any surface, other than Borg or Nadal on clay. However just for general primes, there is absolutely no indicators or basis that favors McEnroe over Laver on grass.
lud
Hall of Fame
WIMBLEDON:
Federer def. Stolle 6-1,6-4,6-3
Edberg def. Courier 6-2,6-3,6-3
Hewitt def. Rosewall 7-6,4-6,1-6,7-6,7-5
Murray def. Lendl 6-4,6-4,6-4
Borg def. Bruguera 6-0,6-3,6-2
Djokovic def. Ashe 5-7,2-6,6-3,6-4,11-9
Kuerten def. Wilander 6-3,6-1,3-6,6-4
Emerson def. Kafelnikov 7-6,6-3,6-1
Sampras def. Smith 6-7,7-5,6-1,6-2
Santana def. Newcombe 2-6,6-3,6-2,2-6,9-7
McEnroe def. Kodes 6-3,3-6,6-0,6-1
Rafter def. Laver 2-6,3-6,7-6,7-5,6-2
Connors def. Safin 6-3,5-7,6-2,7-5
Kriek def. Agassi 5-7,7-6,6-4,4-6,6-4
Becker def. Vilas 7-5,6-3,6-1
Nadal def. Nastase 6-2,6-4,6-2
Edberg def. Federer 7-6,4-6,2-6,6-3,8-6
Murray def. Hewitt 6-4,4-6,6-4,6-2
Borg def. Djokovic 6-3,6-4,6-4
Emerson def. Kuerten 6-2,6-1,6-7,6-4
Sampras def. Santana 7-5,6-3,6-4
McEnroe def. Rafter 4-6,6-3,6-2,7-5
Kriek def. Connors 4-6,6-7,6-3,6-2,6-1
Becker def. Nadal 6-3,6-4,6-2
Edberg def. Murray 6-3,3-6,7-6,2-6,6-2
Borg def. Emerson 6-4,6-4,6-1
Sampras def. McEnroe 7-6,7-6,6-1
Becker def. Kriek 5-7,6-3,7-6,6-4
Edberg def. Borg 7-5,2-6,6-7,6-1,17-15
Sampras def. Becker 6-4,7-6,6-3
Edberg def. Sampras 4-6,7-6,7-6,7-5
Federer def. Stolle 6-1,6-4,6-3
Edberg def. Courier 6-2,6-3,6-3
Hewitt def. Rosewall 7-6,4-6,1-6,7-6,7-5
Murray def. Lendl 6-4,6-4,6-4
Borg def. Bruguera 6-0,6-3,6-2
Djokovic def. Ashe 5-7,2-6,6-3,6-4,11-9
Kuerten def. Wilander 6-3,6-1,3-6,6-4
Emerson def. Kafelnikov 7-6,6-3,6-1
Sampras def. Smith 6-7,7-5,6-1,6-2
Santana def. Newcombe 2-6,6-3,6-2,2-6,9-7
McEnroe def. Kodes 6-3,3-6,6-0,6-1
Rafter def. Laver 2-6,3-6,7-6,7-5,6-2
Connors def. Safin 6-3,5-7,6-2,7-5
Kriek def. Agassi 5-7,7-6,6-4,4-6,6-4
Becker def. Vilas 7-5,6-3,6-1
Nadal def. Nastase 6-2,6-4,6-2
Edberg def. Federer 7-6,4-6,2-6,6-3,8-6
Murray def. Hewitt 6-4,4-6,6-4,6-2
Borg def. Djokovic 6-3,6-4,6-4
Emerson def. Kuerten 6-2,6-1,6-7,6-4
Sampras def. Santana 7-5,6-3,6-4
McEnroe def. Rafter 4-6,6-3,6-2,7-5
Kriek def. Connors 4-6,6-7,6-3,6-2,6-1
Becker def. Nadal 6-3,6-4,6-2
Edberg def. Murray 6-3,3-6,7-6,2-6,6-2
Borg def. Emerson 6-4,6-4,6-1
Sampras def. McEnroe 7-6,7-6,6-1
Becker def. Kriek 5-7,6-3,7-6,6-4
Edberg def. Borg 7-5,2-6,6-7,6-1,17-15
Sampras def. Becker 6-4,7-6,6-3
Edberg def. Sampras 4-6,7-6,7-6,7-5
VolosozharGOAT
Banned
Rafter beating Laver is cute. What will be next, Agassi taking out Nadal at Roland Garros.
lud
Hall of Fame
I bet you didn't bet at Dr.Ivo versus Hewitt in 2003. It's called upset.But this isn't upset since these are 32 best ever.
VolosozharGOAT
Banned
Yeah of course or Soderling beating Nadal at RG too. However this is supposed to be the most likely outcomes, the ones that would happen most often. Rafter beating Laver would not happen often at all. Maybe 1 time out of 40. Laver even probably volleyed better than Rafter, along with doing anything else way better.
lud
Hall of Fame
Problem is I never saw Laver playing,not even youtube.Rafter on the other hand ,didn't have serve of Sampras, volleys of Edberg, baseline of Djokovic,talent of Nalbandian or speed of Monfils,but won 2UO and 2 RU at Wimbledon. All by hardwork.
VolosozharGOAT
Banned
Exactly, which is why Rafter would practically never beat Laver. Laver does everything better than Rafter, and is mentally tougher as well. Atleast with Sampras, Rafter volleyed as well or better (still only went 2-11 vs Sampras I think it was).
I cannot see excluding Kramer, Gonzales, Hoad, Budge while including Kafelnikov, Bruguera, Stolle....what in the world....
Let me suggest a better all-time tourney, with 16 seeds, venue Wimbledon.
1. Kramer
2. Gonzales
3. Laver
4. Federer
5. Sampras
6. Budge
7. Vines
8. Sedgman
9. McEnroe
10. Borg
11. Tilden
12. Richard Williams
13. Rosewall (despite his pollen allergy, let's give him a good day)
14. Hoad
15. Trabert (although he was dominant on clay)
16. Newcombe
Apologies to Lacoste, Crawford, Emerson, Ashe, Smith, Connors, Agassi, Djokovic, Murray, Santana. Becker, Edberg.
Impossible to give precise scores, but in the final four we get
Hoad vs. Laver
Gonzales vs. Federer
Final:
Hoad vs. Gonzales, Hoad winning in four sets
A match of our dreams, which actually happened in their second match at Kooyong in 1958, scores were Hoad win by 4-6, 9-7, 11-9, 18-16, an eighty game marathon, with no breaks.
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Logical conclusion.
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Laver tended to be a slow-starter, but Fed would be too nervous to play well in the first set. Seems reasonable
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Federer is a fast starter, why would he be nervous? Playing his idol?
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Yep, exactly. And the third hard-court set would be played on Rod Laver Arena. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annot...&feature=iv&src_vid=INxLlmtk9-I&v=DLtvrv4isLA
"The racquet feels a little bit heavy right now, I must say. [My nerves are] not so good."
I think the time distance would simply add to Laver's "aura." Maybe a bit like playing Edberg, but worse. (It didn't help Sampras much in the end, but maybe in the first set.)
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Perhaps, but assuming an equal playing field 'mentally' if Rod is a slow starter Roger could break him and serve through the set in a hurry.
I personally see Laver taking the clay set 6-4 or 7-5, with Federer winning the HC set by about the same score. Grass is a toss up - someone wins in a tiebreak.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Lendl I believe met Laver the first time when Laver presented a trophy or award to him on courtside. Lendl said he was shaking when he met Laver.
Three of the final four above actually played many times against other, making it possible to make a rating of peak play.
The problem with rating Federer and Djokovic at one end of the time spectrum against players such as Budge or Richard Williams at the other end, is the changes in equipment and the lack of continuity in player matchups.
Based on sheer physical abilities, one would expect Williams or Budge to do well against today's best.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Agree completely. What lazy, unthinking criterion Sickening, in fact. There is no Gonzalez, no Kramer and no Vines because they played primarily on the Pro circuit, but should be among the 16 seeded players. And even using the magazine's stupid criterion, they left off all-time greats who won enough "traditional Majors" as amateurs to qualify for the tournaments, examples being Lew Hoad (4) Frank Sedgman (5) and Jaroslav Drobny (3), Kramer (3), Vines (3). In fact, Gonzalez's two titles are equal to Rafter, Safin, Kafelnikov, et al.
AND WHERE OH WHERE ARE THE MUSKETEERS? - Cochet (8), Lacoste (7) and Borotra (5)?
Drob
Hall of Fame
Can not agree with you on the details, but this at least is a thinking person's approach to the idea, unlike the thrash Tennis Magazine is trying to sell. Williams choice very interesting indeed, but then why not Maurice McLoughlin, who for a short time was as brilliant as Williams. It seems from your ultimate champion that you go with the highest talent, not necessarily the highest performance.
kiki
Banned
happy to see Kriek´s talent in the last eight
pc1
G.O.A.T.
(1) Roger Federer vs. (9) Ken Rosewall [QF]
Is the next match up to revealed
Is that actually the next matchup??:lol:
It's not that I don't think it's not an interesting matchup, however I think those who post in this forum all have the same thought.
forzamilan90
Legend
(1) Roger Federer vs. (9) Ken Rosewall [QF]
Is the next match up to revealed
Both players have their strengths. Inside out forehand vs 100 mph backhand down the line. This is a tough one.
NatF
Bionic Poster
It is indeed. I'm quite eager to see the write up. Of course a certain someone being around would make the commentary even more juicy :lol:
Yep, I assume Rosewall wins clay and Federer wins HC. Depends which way they go on grass.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It's almost a certainty that the magazine will pick Federer as the winner.
If the magazine wanted to make it interesting they should do these matchups by wood racquets and modern racquets and guess how either player would adapt.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
And they'd almost certainly be right to do so
It's even harder to do that than to look at their shots relative to their peers. It would at least encourage a more thorough debate.
More thorough would mean to me more interesting.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Here's my "speculation" on the strokes of Federer and Rosewall.
Clearly the serve and forehand of Federer are superior to Rosewall overall with the Federer forehand an excellent power putaway shot that Rosewall doesn't have on his very good forehand. With wood Federer's forehand would still be extremely powerful and imo clearly stronger than Rosewall's forehand.
The backhand and volley of Rosewall's imo is superior to Federer.
Both have superb quickness and footwork. I think Rosewall has a better transition game than Federer. I believe Federer has superior stamina.
The key to me is how often Rosewall would be able to get to the net against the superior firepower of Federer. Both also are excellent defensive players.
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Your assessment seems fair. Sounds like you think the backhand and volley are more debatable than the serve and forehand. I would argue Federer is closer on those shots than the other way around.
Anyway, the match has been decided...
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015/04/quarterfinal-1-roger-federer-vs-9-ken-rosewall/54545/#.VSRDbfnF-6M
Interesting conclusion. Essentially Federer beats him with heavy topspin after struggling in the 'ball striking' contest.
forzamilan90
Legend
I have the utmost respect for Ken Rosewall, he's a legend and his longevity is otherworldly and he is easily IMMORTAL in tennis terms. I have read and read and read comments from members and info from articles online (even watched some footage)...but to me I think this is an easy matchup for Federer (compared to the below guys I will mention). Both guys in their God modes, Rosewall cannot blow Federer off the court (he might slice him to death but that's about it) while Federer can and to me most likely will. Full flight Fed to me in untouchable (best combo of defense and offense, you know what I am talking: dancing around defending like a maniac and blasting winners in amazing points)
Here's some historical legendary guys who I think can make it tough on Fed and offer a good competitive match
Pancho Gonzales - has firepower and size and all around tennis package and ferocity...this is easy I don't care how ancient his racquets were, this kind of physical attributes translate universally well across eras, and I believe this dude is easily top tier in any era. This guy in full flight mode might be up there with God mode Federer, but who knows really. He might even be scarier, who knows. Probably. I like him. Like Federer better though.
Bjorn Borg or Jimmy Connors or Ivan Lendl - modern day athletes, incredibly fit, consistent, could be a major annoyance to Federer. Sheer will and defense could keep them competitive. Very well rounded games. Put them in any era and they are a pain to deal with. Borg especially, to me he is special and very interesting to me. He was a beast, best in world, and then just quits. Lots of how much better could he have been potential. Marco van Basten in soccer in a way is similar to me that he could be probably the GOAT Forward if he had a full career (retired in his 20s due to injury, Borg didn't have injuries, just think both of these guys could have been The Best instead of just in the conversation if one had not quit, and the other stayed healthy).
Pete Sampras - obvious choice. He's got firepower, he's got desire for greatness, he was the modern day greatest until Federer came along. Fed beat him at Wimbledon using S&V, but I still think God Mode Sampras vs God Mode Federer is a spectacle for the ages. Lots of winners. Lots of aces. This would have been amazing to watch, ugh.
Andre Agassi was competitive too, he can a pain for Federer.
Rod Laver is also interesting. He might be doing damage to Federer (big strong lefty arm....sounds like a recipe for success against him especially if you give him a modern racquet...though is he as good of a defender and as annoying as The Nadal?). Complete skill set, competitive spirit. In a way he's probably the toughest matchup for Fed. As far as legacies go this is the battle Federer vs Laver. I know where I stand I just like how Federer plays so much I can't find anything wrong with his style (unless you abuse the backhand with the Nadal forehand). To me is just built to win and last, which is the best combination.
Here's some historical legendary guys who I think can make it tough on Fed and offer a good competitive match
Pancho Gonzales - has firepower and size and all around tennis package and ferocity...this is easy I don't care how ancient his racquets were, this kind of physical attributes translate universally well across eras, and I believe this dude is easily top tier in any era. This guy in full flight mode might be up there with God mode Federer, but who knows really. He might even be scarier, who knows. Probably. I like him. Like Federer better though.
Bjorn Borg or Jimmy Connors or Ivan Lendl - modern day athletes, incredibly fit, consistent, could be a major annoyance to Federer. Sheer will and defense could keep them competitive. Very well rounded games. Put them in any era and they are a pain to deal with. Borg especially, to me he is special and very interesting to me. He was a beast, best in world, and then just quits. Lots of how much better could he have been potential. Marco van Basten in soccer in a way is similar to me that he could be probably the GOAT Forward if he had a full career (retired in his 20s due to injury, Borg didn't have injuries, just think both of these guys could have been The Best instead of just in the conversation if one had not quit, and the other stayed healthy).
Pete Sampras - obvious choice. He's got firepower, he's got desire for greatness, he was the modern day greatest until Federer came along. Fed beat him at Wimbledon using S&V, but I still think God Mode Sampras vs God Mode Federer is a spectacle for the ages. Lots of winners. Lots of aces. This would have been amazing to watch, ugh.
Andre Agassi was competitive too, he can a pain for Federer.
Rod Laver is also interesting. He might be doing damage to Federer (big strong lefty arm....sounds like a recipe for success against him especially if you give him a modern racquet...though is he as good of a defender and as annoying as The Nadal?). Complete skill set, competitive spirit. In a way he's probably the toughest matchup for Fed. As far as legacies go this is the battle Federer vs Laver. I know where I stand I just like how Federer plays so much I can't find anything wrong with his style (unless you abuse the backhand with the Nadal forehand). To me is just built to win and last, which is the best combination.
forzamilan90
Legend
honorable mention: Lew Hoad.....personally I think he's completely overrated in historical GOAT conversation (I honestly have more issue with saying this guy belongs in the GOAT conversation than I do with saying something like Laver is better than Federer) , but apparently he had power and could blow you off the court. I respect that kind of game and he could also translate well in any era. Could give Fed some trouble from a playing style standpoint with modern technology and physique...with that being said Hoad doesn't belong in any GOAT conversation cause his result pale in comparison to the greats, and I said it before I will say it again Djokovic>Hoad, and the gap is only widening at this point
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Any of these guys would be a tough matchup for anyone else but Gonzalez to me is a very interesting matchup against Federer. Huge serve, perhaps the greatest of all time which alone would make him very tough but he also had super mobility and great smoothness. Big powerful forehand also. In these ways he's sort of similar to Federer. Gonzalez also had a topspin backhand but it was not as good as Laver's. He was almost 6'4" tall with a very easy on the body service motion which means he could serve very powerfully in the fifth set also. He was also a great touch player with deceptive shots. Players would often be running the wrong way for one of his groundies because they could tell where he was going to hit it.
Let's put it this way, Andy Roddick was a great player and very competitive with almost anyone today in his prime. I'm not sure if he has any stroke, including serve that's superior to Gonzalez. Gonzalez is also much faster and much better defensively.
This match would be placed with different styles. Gonzalez would often serve and volley but he is also very comfortable staying back. Federer of course would pulverize his forehands to get Gonzalez out of position. He (Federer) may approach the net a decent amount if necessary. Both were very elegant movers so the rallies would be probably very wonderful to watch.
By the way SUPER POST forzamilan90.
Last edited:
Great comments about all these players. But I do think Rosewall could be tough for Federer. Obviously it's unknowable so all it can be is opinion, but if I match up their strokes it doesn't seem like a bad matchup for Rosewall. For example Federer's favorite forehand, the inside-out, goes to Rosewall's stronger side (just like it goes to Nadal's stronger side).
Connors was a terrible matchup for Rosewall because he could pound service returns in a way that Rosewall had never seen before; he could make Rosewall pay for his weakest stroke. Federer's a great returner but often, you've seen it, his inclination is not to rip it, and he can even get passive with it.
Agassi caused some trouble for Fed in their USO final by serving deliberately soft serves; I think, was it Robbie Koenig who said that Federer doesn't like to generate his own pace on the return?
Federer did come over his returns when facing Sampras; he likes a target; but Rosewall was the one all-time great of that time period who didn't relentlessly come in all the time behind the serve; he often stayed back, even on grass.
I still would pick Federer in this matchup, for other reasons (principally Federer's serve), but I'm not sure it's a bad matchup for Ken.
Rosewall's style gives the impression that he could be defeated by being overpowered, but he was very difficult to straight-set. Laver, with his power and his winner-heavy style, you would think, had the game to do it. (His game was even more aggressive and winner-heavy than Federer's.) But in their pro major finals, he straight-setted Rosewall only once, at '66 Wembley. Rosewall did it to him 3 times: at '63 US Pro (grass), '65 French Pro (indoor wood), '65 US Pro (grass).
pc1
G.O.A.T.
No doubt. Spadea would defeat Gonzalez, McEnroe, Federer and Nadal all by himself, one against four!
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Krosero, disagree with you a little bit on why Laver couldn't straight set Rosewall. Laver's game in general was much higher risk than Rosewall's game. Rosewall had the advantage of consistency in most of their matches. Rod often couldn't keep it up for three straight sets. He was bound to come down to earth and Rosewall would take advantage of that.
With Connors it was different. Connors had great consistency in his level of play throughout the match and his overall power could overwhelm Rosewall leaving Rosewall no room to pounce on any let up in level of play. I agree with you on Connors' great return hurting Rosewall because of his weak serve. Connors' serve, while not great was stronger than Rosewall's with more spin plus he was a lefty. It was hard for Rosewall to turn the tables. There was no breather for Rosewall. Rosewall would probably do better against McEnroe because McEnroe would provide a target at the net and his groundies weren't as forcing as Connors.
Last edited:
I have Laver winning 11 straight set matches (best of five) against Rosewall, losing 8, including the Wim pro in 1967. The pros mostly played best of three or sometimes one long setters, in 1963 they won 3 each in 3 straight sets. Rosewalls Problem was imo (as mentioned above by krosero and pc1 ) aggressive returning. He could be overwhelmed by Hoad, Laver and later Connors (not to forget his early troubles with Segura, who had a great forehand return). Although going by my memory, the 1974 Wim final was closer than the score indicates. Especially in the last set, when Rosewall woke up from his stiffness (with 39, he had hard matches on his way to the final), the match wasn't that clear.
The Fed-Rosewall matchup could be closer than many believe. I think, Agassi' return game would give Rosewall more fits than the return of Federer. On the other hand, Federer has superior serve to Agassi and Connors, and a court opening forehand. But Rosewall could make the court small, and crowd opponents wth his deep backhand, a bit maybe like Nalbandian.
The Fed-Rosewall matchup could be closer than many believe. I think, Agassi' return game would give Rosewall more fits than the return of Federer. On the other hand, Federer has superior serve to Agassi and Connors, and a court opening forehand. But Rosewall could make the court small, and crowd opponents wth his deep backhand, a bit maybe like Nalbandian.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
A
Rosewall did have an excellent down the line backhand which may give Federer some problems when he runs around his backhand to hit the inside out forehand. Nadal and Djokovic are very successful when they attempt that as Nalbanian used to. I doubt if Rosewall's backhand down the line would go often for an outright winner as Nadal's forehand and Nalbanian's and Djokovic backhand often does but it may put Federer on the defensive enough for Rosewall to perhaps hit a strong volley.
Rosewall did have an excellent down the line backhand which may give Federer some problems when he runs around his backhand to hit the inside out forehand. Nadal and Djokovic are very successful when they attempt that as Nalbanian used to. I doubt if Rosewall's backhand down the line would go often for an outright winner as Nadal's forehand and Nalbanian's and Djokovic backhand often does but it may put Federer on the defensive enough for Rosewall to perhaps hit a strong volley.
Last edited:
Laver's game was more high-risk and that makes sense to me as an explanation, although now we have Urban's stats showing Laver's straight-set defeats of Rosewall. Laver has enough such wins to show that straight-setting Rosewall was not a particular problem for him.
Thanks Urban, I was wondering what their overall stats looked like. So Laver has an 11-8 edge in these types of wins (3 straight sets), which is more or less the same as Laver's overall edge in all matches lifetime. So Laver was able to shut out Rosewall about as many times as we would expect him to, just going by their general record.
In finals of all majors (amateur, pro, Open Era), they are 3-3 in such matches (including Wimbledon Pro and '69 RG).
The numbers reflect well on Rosewall overall, and if we assume that Federer is more or less on the same level as Laver, then Federer-Rosewall might look similar, ie, Federer might be able to shut out (overpower) Rosewall a little more than Rosewall would do to him.
As PC1 mentioned a big question here is the equipment, the surfaces and environments. If Rosewall were to try to adapt to today's game, then maybe Federer overpowers him. Not sure that would happen, but I'd say that would be more likely than if Federer were playing in Rosewall's era; in that case I'd imagine their matches full of long rallies on any surface, and highlighted by great touch from both players.
In Rosewall's day, with the wood racquets and the particular surfaces they used, you didn't overpower from the baseline. The overpowering game then was the Big Game of SV on both serves, with chip-and-charge thrown in. Now I've always said Federer would be a great volleyer in those days, but I don't know if he'd be the full-on Big Game player that Kramer was (I could see Federer being more of a Rosewall-type player, in those days).
Remember that Laver only played Rosewall when Rosewall was in his 29th year. Reading the speculations in the thread I wonder what the arguments would be for
Rosewall v Laver v Connors v Sampras v Federer all aged 25.
FWIW the only things I would say with confidence
- any player who ever ever lived would have problems with Rosewall's backhand, lob, and volleying
- any player who ever lived would have problems with Laver's all-round game,
- any player who ever lived would have problems with Connors returning, match aggression, and flat hitting
- any player who ever lived would have problems with Sampras's serve and forehand
- any player who ever lived would have problems with Federer's forehand and ability to transtition from defence to attack by taking the ball very early
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Obviously the players would become what the conditions would dictate that they become. I have a hunch that if Rosewall played today he would have an excellent topspin backhand but it may be two handed. He also would not be forced to be a righty but he would use his natural left handed side. Would his forehand become his stronger side in this scenario, who knows? I think he would be a good volleyer but I doubt if he would volley as well as he would have in the past.
Now if Rosewall was magically switched to the present when he was 20. He probably would easily learn the topspin backhand (I heard he used topspin backhands for fun in practice anyway) and it probably would be one of the best if not the best in the game. The velocity would be higher also. I have a hunch he would have Agassi type strokes but with less speed but more variety. He probably would get more returns into play than Agassi but may hit less outright winners.
With Laver (if he time traveled here when he was 20) I have doubts whether his overall game would need to change much. It's very modern. He would serve better and hit with even greater velocity because of the racquet. Of course greater spin for safety. Laver admitted he may switch to the semi-western grip if he played today.
I think you're right that Federer would be a better volleyer in the past than he is today. He would have to be to compete in those days. I agree with you that he probably would play much like Rosewall, but with a lesser backhand and a superior forehand. From the baseline he may be more similar to a Segura than a Rosewall now that I think of it. Segura had an super forehand and one of the best if not the best forehand of all time. Like Federer, Segura ran around his very good backhand to hit his great forehand often. Federer would have the clearly much superior serve over either player. I would think relatively speaking that Federer's serve would be along the lines of a Trabert or Sedgman, both of whom had superb serves but not at the level of Kramer, Vines or Gonzalez.
Last edited:
forzamilan90
Legend
how do you see Rosewall vs Djokovic match up? Battle of the neat, nice, dark hair
It's true about Rosewall, what impresses me the most about his 3 shutout wins over Laver in major finals is that they occurred in 1963-65 when Laver was young and, if not yet at his peak, not far from it.
Yeah when you start imagining a player growing up in another era you have to admit that the player may become something we wouldn't recognize. Though I do think that Laver, however much he may have to adapt in today's game, seems to have less adapting to do than others.
Now that you mention Segura, I wonder if he was a difficult opponent for Rosewall for the same reasons that Connors was. Segura and Connors have similar games and maybe there's some common dynamic there, something (or things) that Rosewall found difficult.
Connors and Segura both had service returns among the best of all time. The more I've studied Segura the more I'm convinced that he's first-tier, all time, in this category. Everyone spoke about his return with great respect. It's been surprising to me, reading about how Segura was able to break Gonzalez's serve at critical moments in their matches. Video is scarce but we know he often stepped in to take the return on the rise, including against Gonzalez's serve.
Segura's forehand, physically, was identical to Connors' two-handed backhand. I've been studying 1957 very closely and maybe you remember my post about the 5-set final at Wembley between Rosewall and Segura. They said that Segura drove the ball crosscourt to Rosewall's FH (again, strength against weakness), and Rosewall tended at times to reply with errors down-the-line (he obviously was trying to get away from the Segura forehand).
A little excerpt, among my favorite pieces of analysis from that year:
As Segura was to show in the final, Rosewall can be hustled into forehand errors, but only if he is forced to scamper by speed or disguised direction. Segura's double-fisted forehand contains both elements. Kramer's technical precision makes his shots far easier to "pick" and he was seldom able to hustle Rosewall, never able to wrong-foot him
Recently I found a complete tally for the Segura-Rosewall H2H in their South American tour of '57: it was reported as 13-4 in Segura's favor.
Now of course Rosewall was still a newcomer to the pros. But he wasn't that new. He'd already played a long tour against Gonzalez. After South American he improved significantly, but he continued having tough battles against Segura, including that 5-set final at Wembley. I've documented almost all of their meetings for 1957, and I still have Segura ahead 27-23.
Anti-Fedal
Professional
Sampras beats Federer in the final 3-6, 7-6 (5), 6-4
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015...federer-vs-3-pete-sampras/54662/#.VTNE_GZYVE4
http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2015...federer-vs-3-pete-sampras/54662/#.VTNE_GZYVE4
