Time to revisit Rosewall's losses in major finals...
- Thread starter Gary Duane
- Start date
treblings
Hall of Fame
Sports injuries are unfortunately always part of the picture. Not only in tennis, not only in this era.
I see no reason why we shouldn‘t enjoy watching tennis, just because injuries are always possible.
In the end it‘s not something we need to argue about. More a matter of different opinions.
What I like in tennis is the concept of „protected ranking“, making it easier to come back after an injury and also give the players a chance to take their time to heal.
What I don‘t like, and here we can agree, is how many tournaments are played on hard courts. I believe you won‘t find many experts who don‘t agree, that hard courts are punishing for the body.
If they can change grass to a degree where it can be won from the baseline, they can also develop a softer surface that helps prevent injuries.
There are those who claim that what is going on right now is the best ever, with the best trained, most athletic men we've ever seen. I think that is a ridiculous exaggeration.
But you are part of the opposite extreme. For you everything good was in the past, and nothing going on now can compare in any way.
You have the right to view things as you wish, but it does not seem like much fun.[/QUOTE]
It is much fun....not just in tennis, but other sports.
That is the theme of my thread "Tennis in the Second Golden Age of Sports".
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Krosero, don't think your comparisons are really apples to apples comparison. As you pointed out a good portion of Laver's stats are from his first year but you don't include Rosewall's or Gonzalez's first year.
A more apt comparison would be from the second year to the fifth year for each of the players since as Urban pointed out so well since Laver only played five years on the Old Pro Tour.
The other question is how much did the Tours affect the percentages of Gonzalez and Rosewall from the second year onward. For example Gonzalez played a tour against Segura and Sedgman in which he defeated both of them with about a 60% winning percentage. He played around 100 matches against them in total. He played Hoad and defeated Hoad the first time 51 to 36 which is about 58.6% and later he defeated Rosewall around 50 to 26 which is around 65.8%.
This is bound to affect the winning percentages.
Another thing you have to consider is that you also include Rosewall's years in 1962 and 1963 when Ken did not have Gonzalez to play and only rookie Laver in 1963. The Old Pro tour seemed pretty watered thin at that stage at the top. A subjective opinion for sure but I believe it has some truth to it.
Bill James years ago did an analysis of AAA baseball versus the Major Leagues which turned out to be quite accurate in analyzing and converting the stats. I think the Old Pro Tour versus the Amateur Tour in some ways can be worked out in the same way. I'm not sure about 1962 and 1963 but certainly this may be able to done from 1964 onward and I believe probably most of the 1950s.
To be honest I believe there are several better ways to work out the dominance of a player than winning percentage alone although I think winning percentage is an extremely underrated stat. There are other stats we have to look at in conjunction with winning percentage. And of course we have to view it within the context of the times which often isn’t done properly.
Last edited:
Yes I agree fully, these are not apple-to-apple comparisons. The first stats I produced in this thread for Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver were not all the same ages of life as Gary pointed out (not truly apples to apples), so I changed the spans to correspond to the same age of life for all three players. But this still had the problem that Laver's rookie year was being included as Urban pointed out, so I changed that to produce the 4-year stats for all three players (again, all at the same age of life as Laver was in 1964-67). Those numbers are at the top of this post (I think you may have missed it): https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-losses-in-major-finals.621433/#post-12519395
But those stats further had the problem that they were not necessarily the best spans for all the players. For Laver, those years (1964-67) are the best we're going to get, his pro tour stint being relatively short. But I pointed out that Rosewall and Gonzalez might have better 4-spans somewhere. My Excel sheet is not calculated to get the best 4-year periods but I have the 5-year periods calculated, and I pointed out one 5-year span for Gonzalez that was higher, to make it a fairer comparison for him.
But I also noted that even then -- as you've pointed out in your post too -- Gonzalez's best spans have percentages that are particularly depressed because of those long tours that he played. All the formats of the old pro tour tended to produce lower percentages for the top players, but at least the percentages in tournament matches, while still well below OE percentages, are not quite as low as the tours of one-night stands. On those tours, the old pros produced their lowest match winning percentages.
You can see that effect in the other set of numbers I posted:
Gonzalez 1950-61 (aged 21-33) won 67.6% of all his matches: he was 76.1% in tournament matches, 63.4% in all other matches
Rosewall 1957-67 (aged 22-33) won 67.6% of all his matches: he was 72.8% in tournament matches, 62.4% in all other matches
Laver 1963-67 (aged 24-29) won 72.3% of all his matches: he was 80.3% in tournament matches, 57.7% in all other matches
The "all other matches" category are one-night stands (ONS).
All of these figures, whether from tournaments or ONS, are lower than OE and amateur percentages; but the ONS percentages are the lowest of all. So I agree with you completely there.
The take-away for me is that we can run the numbers in a thousand different ways but there is invariably some factor that makes comparisons problematic. A pure apples-to-apples comparison is difficult, not only because the old pro tour was very different from amateur/OE environments, but also because the old pro tour was made up of two very different formats (tours and tournaments) -- and on top of that the old pro tour changed over the years, with one format gradually giving way to the other. So the careers of any three men who didn't play at the same time can end up looking very different, as you can see in these numbers (covering the entire 1950-67 period):
Player -- ONS Matches -- Tournament Matches
Gonzalez -- 898 -- 591
Rosewall -- 582 -- 589
Laver -- 246 -- 446
Laver's pro tour career was dominated by tournament play, though ONS matches made up a not-insignificant part. The same, but in reverse, can be said for Gonzalez. Rosewall's career featured an equal number of matches from the two formats, poised right in the middle of the evolution toward tournaments.
So I think you can run the numbers in many ways but none of the stats will be definitive.
A further problem, of another kind altogether, is that a great deal of results are still missing from the old pro tour. The big picture won't change much but it makes a difference when you're looking at pieces or details. It seems to me every day @NoMercy and I are finding out how much might still be missing. There could be many missing results from Germany, or not many, but it's a big question mark, because of lack of access to newspapers. Many results from Australia are missing, due to copyright issues that have prevented Trove from archiving tons of material after 1955 (before '55 newspaper coverage is excellent). And so on, though that is a different problem and I don't think by itself it should stop statistical analysis. It just means we have to be extra-careful not to treat any stats as definitive.
A type of analysis of the kind that Bill James created, which could be applied to compare the amateur era with the old pro tour, would be interesting but I'm mildly skeptical it could be done, simply because of the complexity of the old pro tour.
Incidentally, with Gary's help I think I've worked out a formula that correlates Games Won % with Matches Won %, the same one we were talking about finding, a couple of years ago. That's not strictly related to what we're talking about here but I wanted to let you know, and we can talk about it at some point.
Last edited:
You will all find it very interesting that a French book found by NoMercy speaks of a five-set match between Laver and Rosewall, played in Royan sometime in the 60s. No date or even a result is given, only that the match went to 5 sets -- and that the result of the match was the opposite of their recent meeting in Boston. So at the moment our best guess is that the match took place in '65 and that Laver won, since Rosewall won their meeting that year in Boston (US Pro).
The informations in French books are often quite fragmentary. I have the big French tennis History by Christian Quidet (over 400 pages). Of the pro events in France, they only only cover some RG events in the late 50s in pictures, and the Coubertin event of 1967 in words, but not the French Pro, but the spring event, where Ralston beat Gonzalez, and Laver beat Rosewall in the final. On the (very good, but lately not updated) webside Histoire du Tennis, sometimes, contemporary press reports of matches of the French pro have no results or even announcement of the winners.
I have found that too with some French sources, like LeMonde. Fragmentary or inconsistent coverage of tennis. Does not bode well for finding everything but we're going to find what we can.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
God, Krosero's posts are tedious.
NatF
Bionic Poster
We get it, you don't like krosero - no need to be a dick out of the blue, just don't read his posts if you don't like them.
Agreed by all decent human beings.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Krosero ain't above criticism so I'll continue saying what I like, thanks.
NatF
Bionic Poster
That wasn't criticism that was snark. You're getting close to 40 right? But keep acting like a child
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
That wasn't criticism that was snark. You're getting close to 40 right? But keep acting like a child
Incorrect analysis - I am many moons away from my 40th birthday, not that this is relevant to the discussion at all.
Krosero OTOH is ageless and timeless according to many here. Yet I shall continue to show that she is just like the rest of us.
So be it.
treblings
Hall of Fame
That is how i see it as well. The level of play that the professionals had was higher than that of the amateurs. For two reasons mostly.
First, most of the best players continued to turn professional.
Second, by having to face the toughest competition every week, obviously the best players improved.
The Amateurs in the early open era didn´t face the top pro players every week. They couldn´t improve fast.
I agree, and i see this in other sports as well. This changing of the guard has to happen in order for the young players to take over.
And it often happens because the old guard is getting worse.
But if the "younger players" never do take over, in fact, if the younger players themselves get worse instead of better, that argues for a weak field.
At some point, the younger players have to do something, otherwise we must conclude that they never had it to begin with.
NatF
Bionic Poster
But the young players can't even make SF's consistently - there's no getting around the fact that there's been a black hole as far as emerging top talent goes since the 1985'ish crew emerged. The old guard is still remarkably strong but they're also noticeably worse than their best years, so far the 90's hasn't produced a champion fit to shine the boots of even players like Murray, Hewitt or even the much maligned (and underrated) Roddick - the likes of Raonic, Dimitrov and Nishikori are 27 and they have a handful of major SF's between them. They're just poor.
treblings
Hall of Fame
At some point, if the young ones can‘t take over, they lose the necessary self-belief that they ever will.
For the observing public, it even looks as if those players get worse because they lose some focus.
treblings
Hall of Fame
If you‘re saying that we have a weak field today just because the top players are all over 30, i don‘t see it that way.
No, I am looking at the "younger" players, and how they have failed to step up and take control.
That defines a weak field.
If Laver and Rosewall had continued to dominate the majors into 1974 or 1975, that would have indicated a weak field.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I think you're being too kind here
I do think there's too much professionalism in the game today for it to ever truly be a weak field but right now comes close IMO
treblings
Hall of Fame
But you aren‘t comparing your hypothetical 74/75 scenario with today’s situation, or are you?
treblings
Hall of Fame
I think you're being too kind here
I think most of us are looking for a new champion to emerge. I know I am.
Yes, I was suggesting that if Laver and Rosewall had dominated the majors right through to 1974/75, that would be similar to what we see today, an entire generation of younger players shut out of mature championship success.
Of course, that did not happen in the early seventies. Instead, the next generation of major champions emerged and won majors, Newcombe, Ashe, Smith, Nastase, Kodes....only Roche was shut out of the big prizes. And Roche had the talent, lacked good health.
Today we have a bunch of Roche's, players who were expected to grab the big ones, but did not. And they lack the talent of Roche.
treblings
Hall of Fame
The average age of today’s top ten is 29,4 years. So I don‘t think today’s situation is similar to your scenario.
Well, in 1974 Newk was 30, Ashe was in his early thirties, Nastase and Smith were late twenties....Laver was 35, Rosewall was 39.
So if Laver and Rosewall were still dominant in 1974, and that younger group were still shut out of majors, that would be similar to today.
Of course, that didn't happen, so today's up-and-coming group has already come-and-gone.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Because he presents great depth, and you have attention deficit disorder.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
The difference being that you aren't above criticism either, but we don't go out of our way to trash your posts just to be consistently snotty.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
We need at least another decade to put what is happening right now in perspective.I think you're being too kind here
If, for example, we seed the Big Three fade away and a return to an earlier time, where young guns start to take back their turf, we will know what we are seeing right now is temporary, as was true of the early OE up to around the time of Connors.
If the average age of slam winners remains high for at least another decade, we will know that we witnessed what is most likely a permanent change.
My money would be on a continuation of older players winning, but not as extreme as what we are seeing right now. For example, 24-25 was quite clearly the sweet spot for winning slams. You could see careers peak around that point, and it works out for the whole OE. My guess at this moment is that will change to something like 27-28. The structure of the modern tour is encouraging this.
But we need another decade to get a larger view.
Gary Duane
G.O.A.T.
Stats are useless without an overview and a good bit of common sense. 60% of Gonzalez's matches were in ONSs.
Laver's balance is 36% of ONSs. That's an overwhelming difference, and with Ken roughly in the middle, we can see how things were changing.
The switch from a time when there were more one night stands than tournaments matches to another where there were almost twice as many should be obvious, as should be why winning % was lower in ONSs.
It's much the same as comparing 250s, 500s, 1000s and majors, then comparing with WTFs. First you want to see how the stats compare, then you have to think about how and why. Who is playing? How many rounds? Now many easy matches? How do the final three rounds in each compare?
We still have a woeful lack of easy to find data. I can give you game% in all these categories. I can also compare how ATGs do in the final rounds of all events. Off the top of my head I can say with confidence that Fed's records in early rounds in slams is better than Fed's, even true at Wimbledon. I can also say with absolute confidence that Sampras's record in the final three rounds of majors is better. We can debate why this is, but the numbers are there. Unfortunately we can't then instantly get at all the other data, 1st and 2nd serve point %, same on return. Before 1991 we are in the dark, which makes talking about stats in the 50s and 60s ridiculously frustrating.
What I WOULD say is that your above data is important.
I dont think anyone faults Rosewall for losing to Connors in his two 74 slam finals. People fault him for not winning some of the other Wimbledon finals he was in, especialy the one vs Drobny. Or see that as a mark of him not being the greatest player, and that people like Laver and Gonzales generally got the better of him in bigger matches more often than that. Which is completely fair.
Yeah I think this is the first such breakdown along these lines, into ONS and tournament play, for any players. And the breakdown illustrates quite nicely the progression from one format to another; that's something that was known before, and illustrated in other ways, but not with these stats.
I first separated ONS from tournament play in my Excel data, not to paint a big picture of progression, because I could not really know what the numbers were going to show. At first I just did the breakdown to see which was more detrimental to win/loss percentages, the ONS or the small-draw tournaments common on the old pro tour. And a pattern did emerge, showing that both were detrimental, but the ONS somewhat more so.
why exactly those formats were detrimental to W/L % is up for debate. But I think you and I agree that the number of rounds is a critical factor. In a 4-man or 8-man tournament such as was common on the old pro tour, if you were Pancho Gonzalez and #1 in the world, you'd get 1 or 2 rounds against relatively inferior players, before meeting someone really tough in the final. That's not much; a top player today can have 4 rounds, or 6 in Slams, against players with a significantly lower-ranking, before meeting someone of his same level in the final. So it's tough to build up high match percentages, in small draws. In such an environment, every third match you play, you're scheduled to meet the #2 in the world. In 5-round tourneys, it's every fifth match you play, before you're scheduled to meet your top rival.
But in an ONS tour, you might be scheduled to meet your top rival every day, if it's a 2-man tour. If it's a 4-man tour, like the '59 World Series, Gonzalez could enjoy one day or relative rest against Cooper or Anderson, but every other day he'd be facing Hoad.
All of that shows why you can't use career percentages to judge players across eras -- or they can be used only in the most limited way.
One stat that I had hoped could still be used across eras was percentage of tournaments entered/won. I thought that was relatively stable across eras, when I first collected that stat for about a dozen ATG's. But last year I got that stat for several more ATG's and I found that some very early greats, from the 1930s, are simply off the charts, in this category. Per Tennis Base, Riggs won 51% of all the tourneys he entered, Vines 45%, Perry 38%. But Laver is at 37.5% by my latest count, Lendl at 29, Federer at only 27. So right there you see, a difference of 2 to 1 between Riggs and Federer, so how useful is this stat? And what is going on, why are the early numbers so high?
If you use this same stat but restrict it to a player's best 5 years, there are still these dramatic differences. This stat, I thought was likely to remain stable, because it's restricted to prime years, for all players: it kind of evens the playing field, for all players, regardless of whether they retired very early at the height of their powers, or retired at a "normal" age, or finally put down their racquet as tennis grandpas.
So I thought the 5-year stat it might be stable because the first ones I collected all seemed to be in the same range. In their best 5-year periods, Rosewall won 50.7% of all the tourneys he entered, Laver 54.8%, Gonzalez 55.4%. And a bunch of modern greats were right in that range, Connors at 55, Mac at 52, Fed 56, Borg 56, Vines 58. All seemed rather similar. There were only a couple of outliers (Sampras at 40%, Nadal at 38%), but you figure any stat will have particular outliers, for reasons particular to those players.
However, when I did the stat for early ATG's, again there were these surprisingly high figures: Riggs 65%, Kramer 65, Perry 67. Don Budge -- 73%.
Now we're starting again to see such a difference between the top number (Budge's 73) and the bottom (Nadal's 38) that you have to question the validity of the stat, used across eras.
And again it's those early players, with those huge numbers. My best conclusion is that in the early amateur era, it was relatively easy to rack up tournament titles -- but I mean that in a specific way. I think the competition was weaker, not necessarily at the top, among the top rivals, but in the early rounds. Countless reports from those very early eras speak of how easy it was for top players to go through those early rounds. And sometimes the scores tell it all: top player cutting through Rounds 1-3 with 6-1, 6-0 scores.
They cut through those lower-ranked players like butter, and they could have done it in their sleep.
Those early champions had tough rivals at the top, but they were very rarely upset in early rounds.
Or anyway that's the best answer I have so far.
There's a lot of things that Rosewall 'somehow' did, but I never figured out how. I never understood how that man could manage to be places without making grand runs to get there; how he managed to get pace on shots without taking great swings or return/ redirect cannonballs without any apparent disturbance at all.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Because he presents great depth, and you have attention deficit disorder.
Ha - that’s a great online psychoanalysis based solely on an internet persona. Obviously I don’t have ADD, but thanks for the laugh.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
No one is above criticism, of course. Yet many here act like Krosero is a saint. It’s my job to bring Krosero down to earth.
LOL! That statement actually made me laugh. If Krosero's posts bother you so much, Do not read them.No one is above criticism, of course. Yet many here act like Krosero is a saint. It’s my job to bring Krosero down to earth.
Like Federer, Ken had great anticipation, movement and reflexes. These outstanding qualities allowed them to get to just about any shot and return the ball accurately with a minimum amount of effort.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
People say Rosewall’s best “asset” was his backhand but I think his anticipation and reflexes may be a greater plus and perhaps his best asset even over his backhand.
Rosewall, like players like Connors and Borg could almost know what the opponent would do before they did it.
There was a famous story of when Rosewall was the coach of the Pittsburgh Triangles in which Ken was teaching the players the importance of positioning on the court. I believe one of the players mentioned how it was easy for Rosewall but not for others!
His anticipation, footwork and overall mobility helped his disguise and power because he was there so early to prepare for his shot.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
There are some logical reasons I believe to your questions which I may try to get into later.
Drob
Hall of Fame
Bascially, it is true. Kenny would have a beer with the others, maybe as many as two, and call it a night around 10:00 pm. Then he would read a little (mysteries, best sellers and the Bible) and lights out at 11 pm. That was his routine on the road.
I don't buy the difference regarding win-loss percentages, which is made in posts above about One Night stands and small tourneys on the pro tour. Rosewalls numbers, going by Andrew Tas numbers and Kroseros newer numbers on another thread, were very stable throughout his whole pro career, always in the 60/70 to 20/30 range, with few exceptions like his first pro year 1957, when his percentage was negative, or 1962, when the whole activity of the circuit was low. His worst percentage and worst win-loss difference was probably 1965, when he was 52-32 or something, and that was already in a period, when the pros played mainly a 8 or 4 men tournament schedule. Much more relevant regarding percentages is the sheer amount of matches played. Gonzalez had a pretty bad percentage in 1956, which was however by all accounts his best pro year, but he had a monstrous win-loss difference of ca. 90 matches. Also the early open era generated not automatically a jump in percentages. Gonzalez had his worst pro year percentage wise (his debut 1950 aside) in 1968 with a 33-32 margin, and that was mostly played on small tourneys on the NTL tour. So imo the absolute stats are more significant, especially the win-loss difference for each year. Gonzalez and Laver won over 100 matches in a year several times on the old pro tour, Gonzalez 3 times, Laver 3 or 4 times, who had a win-loss difference of 50 plus in all pro years 1964-1971. In matches played and matches won, this is almost double the numbers of modern players, especially in the last years with very selective play by top players.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
It makes a lot of sense and it is another way to look at the value of the year of the player on the Old Pro Tour.
Urban there is actually a lot more variability in Rosewall’s numbers (not much less than in Gorgo’s numbers). You’ve removed Ken’s rookie pro year (’57) and his best year (’62): in the years that remain he was as low as 63% and as high as 77%. And he was at 88% in ’62, which I see no reason to exclude. The activity of the pro tour as a whole was low as you say, but that would not mean that the top player’s percentage will benefit (if that's your argument?). You’ve been arguing that low activity can help a player’s percentage (as high activity can hurt it), and that can certainly be true for one player. But if everyone on the tour is having low activity then we should not expect any special benefit for one player.
Yes ’65 was his worst year apart from his rookie season, but I was laying out general trends; one year can mean anything. Rosewall’s percentages in ’65 dropped from ’64, both in ONS and in tournaments. So ’65 is not a year in which we would expect a general change in format to help his overall percentages; ’65 just looks like a drop for him, in all formats.
Again this is just one year; and it is not a particularly good example of high activity producing low percentages. Gonzalez played about 190 matches that year, a tremendous amount of activity – but his percentage was 73.5, which is a good deal higher than his overall winning percentage of 67.6% in the entire period 1950-61 (his prime years). Remove that ghastly rookie year, and his overall number for 1951-61 goes up to 72.2% -- and his ’56 figure is still slightly better than that.
So a slightly above-average year in terms of performance, despite being one of his very busiest.
Exactly so! This is what I noted above, namely that tournaments with small draws will depress the winning percentages of any top player.
No one could amass a great percentage in those small NTL tournaments which were generally 2-round and 3-round events. Laver played the NTL tour and his tournament record for ‘1968 is 44-15 [74.6%] in the NTL and other small tourneys throughout the year. There were 6 other tournaments he played with larger draws (Rod starting play in either R64 or R128): the 3 Grand Slams, plus Bournemouth, Queens and Los Angeles. In that group of large-draw tournies, his match record was much better: 29-4 (87.9%).
Gonzalez was 14-5 (73.7%) in that latter group (minus Queens which he skipped), far better than his overall year performance which was spent mostly in small-draw tournaments.
At NTL Oakland, Pancho played the final and lost to Stolle, and his total record for the event was 0-1, due to being given a bye in the semis.
We debated this once and as I said then, I think there is something to the argument that higher activity depresses percentages, and lower activity can benefit it – but most of the percentages I’ve collected show the opposite correlation. That is, player’s best percentages are often in their years of greatest activity, like Vilas in ’77 (a year every bit as packed as Laver’s and Gorgo’s busiest seasons). Same with Wilander in ’83: it was his most active season (93 matches) and his best percentage (88.2%). In ’88 Mats entered fewer tournaments and played only 64 matches, but his percentage was lower (82.8%). Laver’s best percentage of the OE is 86.9% in ’69, his busiest season (122 matches). And so on.
Of course example can be found in the opposite direction as well. But at best, I think the evidence is ambiguous, in terms of how much the percentages on the old pro tour can be explained by level of activity.
And even if the explanation could work, it would only apply to the busiest players, like Gonzalez or Laver. But how do we then explain the low percentages for someone like Vines, who did not play an extraordinary number of matches per season?
Vines' activity was comparable to that of many modern players but his percentages are not as good as the best of those -- and of course they're not as good as the best amateur percentages of the time period including his own through the '33 season.
Full percentage numbers, updated now with Vines:
Vines 1934-40 (aged 19-26) won 67.6% of all his matches: he was 79.2% in tournament matches, 65.8% in all other matches (that last category includes a 64.2% record in World Series)
Gonzalez 1950-61 (aged 21-33) won 67.6% of all his matches: he was 76.1% in tournament matches, 63.3% in all other matches (that last category includes a 61.0% record in WS)
Rosewall 1957-67 (aged 22-33) won 67.6% of all his matches: he was 72.8% in tournament matches, 62.4% in all other matches (last category includes a 53.7% record in WS)
Laver 1963-67 (aged 24-29) won 72.3% of all his matches: he was 80.3% in tournament matches, 57.7% in all other matches (last category includes a 49.2% record in WS)
Note:
Vines from 1934-39 played an average of 92 matches per season
Gonzalez from 1950-61 played an average of 106 (actually Rosewall is at 106 too! from 1957-67)
Laver from 1963-67 played an average of 138
Drob
Hall of Fame
Excellent analysis.
But isn't the Gonzalez percentage uniquely impacted by the fact that he had to play Rosewall every day or two for several months, or Sedgman, or Segura, or Hoad, et al., as the case may be. In other words, if Djokovic had to spend half of each season on a tour against the likes of Nadal, Federer, del Potro and so on, what can of a percentage could he expect?
But isn't the Gonzalez percentage uniquely impacted by the fact that he had to play Rosewall every day or two for several months, or Sedgman, or Segura, or Hoad, et al., as the case may be. In other words, if Djokovic had to spend half of each season on a tour against the likes of Nadal, Federer, del Potro and so on, what can of a percentage could he expect?
Yes, beyond any doubt. The 2-man tours hurt the percentages the most because then you had to face a top rival every day. On a 4-man tour, you'd face him every other day, and you MIGHT get relatively easy opponents in the remaining matches, but then again your 4-man tour might also have 4 very tough players.
The small sizes of the tournaments also hurt the percentages, because you might have only 1 or 2 rounds before facing the #2 seed, or in a 4-man tourney, just 1 match before facing him. But there was just a little more room to breathe in the tournament format; the draws were not very big but still they offered some relatively easy first or second rounds.
That is why in the numbers above, all the players have low percentages no matter the format -- low compared to the best modern numbers, and compared to the players' own years as amateurs or Open-era pros -- but the tournament format was somewhat less harmful to the winning percentages.
What the players' percentages would have been under "normal" Open conditions, playing tournaments year-round, with draws large enough to provide easy matches at the start of events, can only be a guess. But all four of the players above, Elly, Pancho, Ken and Rod, had seasons with 90% winning percentage, or close to that, as amateurs or Open-era pros.
And what the pro percentages would have been if the old pro tour had switched to a tournament-based format (no long H2H tours) during these players' careers, is anyone's guess. Of course from the numbers above I think we can safely say that their overall percentages would have been higher, but what the final numbers would have been is pure guesswork.
What we can show is how much of each player's careers was spent in ONS (the format most hurtful to overall percentages), and how much in tournaments.
Vines (1934-40) played 555 documented matches in his pro tour career, of which 87% (483 matches) were ONS (one-night stands), the rest in tournaments
Gonzalez (1950-61) played 1277 documented matches as a pro, of which 67% (851 matches) were ONS
Rosewall (1957-67) played 1171 documented matches as a pro, of which 50% (584 matches) were ONS
Laver (1963-67) played 692 documented matches as a pro, of which 36% (246 matches) were ONS
Last edited:
The percentages are strongly affected by the strength of the opposition, whether you look at ONS or tournaments play.
Rosewall's best year 1962 in % wins was a year when the opposition was weak.
Last edited:
hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
"Vitamins." Ha ha.
Drob
Hall of Fame
I think that is essentially correct as both a statistical affirmation and an evaluation of the overall competition in that particular year, in comparison to the rest of Rosewall's career, more-or-less (I would have to look again to endorse your affirmation completely). But 1963 is a stronger year and Kenny wins the Grand Slam (WCS, US Pro, Wembley, French Pro) w Laver on tour, Hoad playing very strong for much of the tour, Gimeno grooving up, & c. Wembely draw for '63 was Trabert, Nielsen, Olmedo, Sedgman, Anderson, MacKay, Hoad, Ayala, Gimeno, Mike Davies, Buchholz, Robert Halliet, Laver, Rosewall. Damn good draw. And you can only beat whom you can face. You cannot be diminished for peaking "at the wrong time." In '63 there isn't any amateur threat lurking off-stage. The Pros in '63 are the best (Gimeno is Emerson's equal or [IMO] superior; Hoad is having his "Indian Summer").
Fact: Rosewall is Co-No. 1 w Gonzalez in 1960 and 1961. He is No. 1 in 1962 and 1963, alone, himself No. 1 in the World. Minimize Muscles to the most "Mini-Me" version of the master, I don't care. At the most minimum, is he No. 1 two years and co No. 1 two years (and I would say 1964 also, Co-No. 1). Several other players have been the World No. 1 in years with lower competition than Rosewall faced the years when he was No. 1.
I can't believe I am actually feeling I need to "defend" Rosewall. Can we just drop it? Please? Can we all just leave Rosewall alone? How in heaven did this diminutive, graceful, gracious, modest man and lethal, super-clutch, all-courter become the biggest controversy on these threads? WTF?
There is no one who has greater respect for the Little Cornishman than yours truly.
He should be in any list of top ten, I rate him about a tie for 5-7 with Sedgman and Newcombe (a grass rating).
Great post, fair and accurate! The problem for Ken was that since the beginning he was never given the publicity or credit for his victories. In the early fifties, Hoad was the Australian Golden Boy, even though Ken was ranked above him 53,54 and 55. Lew did have his great amateur year in 56, then 58 and 59 on the pro tour. From 60 on, Ken's overall record was superior to Lew's and equal, at least, then superior to Pancho's. People like to call Ken's peak years weak, however IMO, Pancho's early-mid fifties competition was weaker. In the early fifties his main competition was old and past prime Budge and Riggs. Segura was always tough but not big or powerful enough to keep up with Gonzalez in the mid-late fifties. Sedgman and Trabert were tough but not in the same league as prime Pancho, Ken or Rod. Throughout his career Ken had to deal with peak: Gonzalez, Segura, Sedgman, Hoad and Laver from 52-68 alone. Gonzalez was 35 or 36 when Laver first played him. Segura was past his peak as was Sedgman and Trabert by 63-64. Again, I am not saying that Ken was superior to Laver or Gonzalez but accomplishment wise, he was very close deserving much more credit than he got in the press and among some of the bigger and jealous lesser older pro players Your description of Ken and his game is perfect!
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
Distortion by the medias/ruling organisation is an important component and can strongly influence the perception of a player. Lendl suffered from that, Djokovic too, although to a lesser extend.
At the end Ken suffer from the importance given to peak play over consistent play/longevity. It might be absolutely true than Ken's peak was lower than Laver, Hoad, others, etc., that he didn't have period of sustained dominance as others had, but to me that's not too important: at the end of his career, Ken was the one who achieved the most of all players.
PS: I love Rosewall.
