Whats your top 10 of all time now (men)

A lot of silence here after the stormy months in the last years. :) This allowed me to make long lasted researches in the last 4 months about the 2 tennis giants Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall - more or less underestimated by some posters. I prepared short resumes of both with the main intention that if discussing a player we need to know his career in full details.
Let's start with Ken Rosewall - "loved", hated and maybe most underestimated player by posters.

I think I have discovered 99.99% of the single matches (possibly I could miss a couple of matches which I don’t know) and about 90-95% of the double matches (I don’t have an info whether double matches were played on 104 tournaments Ken has participated + some tour stops). It does not include the matches in the junior sections of the tournaments in the early years as well as the veteran matches.

Ken Rosewall's general career info

Career period - 32 years, 10 months, 5 days
Age at 1st men tournament - 14 years, 5 months, 14 days
Age at last men tournament - 47 years, 3 months, 9 days
Age at last men tournament final - 47 years, 3 months, 9 days
Age at last title - 43 years, 0 months, 25 days

Total career matches played - 3,929 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single matches - 2,583 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles matches - 1,346

Tournament entries - 560 (all time No 1)
Tour entries - 35 (all time No 1 most probably)

Career achievements

Total wins - 2,865 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single matches - 1,853 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles matches - 1,012

Total losses - 1,064
incl. single matches - 730
incl. doubles matches - 334

Total titles - 287 (all time No 2 after Laver)
incl. single titles - 139
incl. doubles titles - 121
incl. team titles - 7
incl. tour titles - 20

Total big titles (best+second best tournaments and tours) - 160 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. single titles - 69
incl. doubles titles - 76
incl. team titles - 7
incl. tour titles - 8

Total majors (pro majors + grand slams + Davis cup + Kramer cup) - 55 (all time No 1)
incl. single titles - 23 (all time No 1)
incl. doubles titles - 25 (all time No 1 most probably)
incl. team titles - 6
incl. tour titles - 1

Total finals (incl. second places) - 199
incl. single finals - 111
incl. doubles finals - 88

Total semis (incl. third places) - 176
incl. single semis - 124
incl. doubles semis - 52

Total quarters (incl. fourth places) - 94
incl. single quarters - 59
incl. doubles quarters - 35

Ranking
Top 20 player - 26 years
Top 10 player - 22 years
Top 5 player - 18 years
Top 3 player - 15 years
No 3 - 2 years
No 2 - 7 years
No 1 - 6 years

Competition
Wins vs Top 10 - 658 (all time No 1)
Losses vs Top 10 - 480
Balance vs Top 10 - +178


Now based on all data I have about all the players I can definitely say that Ken's career is one of the most impressive (could be also the most impressive) in the all-time tennis history. Having already all the figures I am still amazed (shocked) that a player has played nearly 4,000 matches through his career, 2 or 3 times more than most of the tennis legends. The efficiency of these matches is really epic – 267 titles in 560 tournaments (48%) and 20 titles in 35 tours (57%).

I don't pretend about a copyright of the info unlike a poster here does so. The tennis info is for all people. I just wanted to prepare this full collection and to share it in the forum because everyone has the right to know it. As far as I know nobody did such full collection of a pre-OE player before.

The info above will be constantly updated when I found new data. I will highly appreciate if somebody is willing to help me with the doubles matches which I don't have an info for. I can send a list of the tournaments and tour stops where I miss an info.

Later I will post Laver's resume. Unfortunately I need time for editing the format of the info. It appears very chaotic when pasted.
As you have discovered (and BIG laugh on the word "you") almost all Rosewall activity, I guess there is no need to share this with TennisBase, as you for sure have this tournament played in Royan with this nice 5 set final between Ken and Rod......

 
As you have discovered (and BIG laugh on the word "you") almost all Rosewall activity, I guess there is no need to share this with TennisBase, as you for sure have this tournament played in Royan with this nice 5 set final between Ken and Rod......

Thanks for the article. Unfortunately I don't know French. If somebody is able to translate it. And the year is not shown.
 
Thanks for the article. Unfortunately I don't know French. If somebody is able to translate it. And the year is not shown.
Why do you need the year?
You have 99.99% of Ken's matches. You have for sure also this one :D

PS Of course I posted only a page of the book, but again, you don't need more as YOU have discovered almost all Rosewall's career.
Posters will ask you ;)
 
Rosewalls long career is by all standards unbelievable. Certainly on some evaluations, we could reasonably debate. I think, it would be fair and usual in a historical approach, when presenting data, to name and cite the relevant sources and references of data and rankings. Just in the last years, guys like No Mercy, Krosero, Scott Tennis and Andrew Tas did phenomenal things in researching the internet and newspaper archives. And they found so many new matches and tourneys, especially on the old pro tour. Tennis Base set new standards of tennis data, but obviously not all the newly found data has gone into their data base.
 
Rosewalls long career is by all standards unbelievable. Certainly on some evaluations, we could reasonably debate. I think, it would be fair and usual in a historical approach, when presenting data, to name and cite the relevant sources and references of data and rankings. Just in the last years, guys like No Mercy, Krosero, Scott Tennis and Andrew Tas did phenomenal things in researching the internet and newspaper archives. And they found so many new matches and tourneys, especially on the old pro tour. Tennis Base set new standards of tennis data, but obviously not all the newly found data has gone into their data base.
I see you got, as usual, my point :)
 
Rosewalls long career is by all standards unbelievable. Certainly on some evaluations, we could reasonably debate. I think, it would be fair and usual in a historical approach, when presenting data, to name and cite the relevant sources and references of data and rankings. Just in the last years, guys like No Mercy, Krosero, Scott Tennis and Andrew Tas did phenomenal things in researching the internet and newspaper archives. And they found so many new matches and tourneys, especially on the old pro tour. Tennis Base set new standards of tennis data, but obviously not all the newly found data has gone into their data base.
urban, I welcome everybody who wants to add new info. I haven't pretended that the info is full. And it's not my target to hang the title "researcher" or whatever. No. Your comparison between me and other posters is not appropriate. These guys have made a lot lot more researches.
I tried to research and collect all the data about a player in one place. That's it, not more. Till now I haven't seen a thread or website where I could find all the possible info about a player in one place. If you know such please tell me.
 
Now i appreciate this attempt, to present those data here in this forum. Its of course helpful, nothing to say against it. But again, i have worked a quite a lot in scientific historical contexts, and for me, a footnote with the relevant references would be even helpful.
 
This has an update to 9 january ... it may have updated another thread more recently.:oops:
There are some similar threads and I have a tendency to change my opinion often though not radically. Especially when IMHO the differences are minimal.

You are right ... in another thread I updated my ranking while this was some time that was not used and remained hidden. ;)

My ranking GOAT Post War II - MALE
I don't insert Budge and Riggs in Tier 2/3 but only because the ranking concerns the Post WWII period and the career of the two americans is halved.

1) Gonzalez, Laver, Federer T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Djokovic T2
7) Borg T2
8) Sampras T2
9) Connors T2
10) McEnroe T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
12) Kramer T2/T3

My ranking BPOAT Post War II - MALE
1) Laver T1
2) Gonzalez T1
3) Kramer T1
4) Djokovic T1
5) Borg T1
6) Federer T1
7) Hoad T1
8) Sampras T1/T2
9) McEnroe T1/T2
10) Connors T2
11) Nadal T2/T3
12) Lendl T2/T3
13) Rosewall T2/T3
14) Riggs T2/T3

I undoubtedly prefer the GOAT Ranking, it fascinates me less a ranking made only on the perception of the peak (as it used so many years ago).

The only change concerns Djokovic, which I think has overtaken Borg and Sampras (GOAT Ranking). I see the three very close, probably he had overtaken them before, I simply have the feeling that in the last few months, especially after the record in Melbourne Nole can be placed ahead in my GOAT Ranking.

As for the BPOAT Ranking, it is not that Djokovic in Melbourne has become a better player than before, perhaps retracing his career I realized that I had underestimated him. Again I think there are minimal differences with Borg and Federer (and I assume Hoad).
You have a three-way tie for first place...is there any way to resolve the log-jam?
 
Evans list is far more realistic than KG's. To rank Ken at 13 is absurd! Seeing Ivan's stats convinces me that Ken should be ranked #3, at least.
Richard Evans list has the advantage of his own close personal acquaintance with the players themselves, which gives some authenticity to his rankings.

It is somewhat unrealistic for those of us who never saw or played against these greats to attempt to rank them.
 
The informations that you have and the work that you have done is super.

I think that all-time overall career of Rosewall is the most impressive of all, perhaps superior to Laver's. The man was phenomenal.

All the data would need to be commented (positively), we should all be grateful to a champion like that.

Infinite Ken.
No one has more respect for the Little Cornishman than I do, and there is no doubt that Ken should be among the top ten in terms of both achievements and

level of play.

However, a long career brings with it not only many achievements, but many failures.

I am not just thinking about those five Wimbledon runner-up results, because Ken faced strong opposition in them and in the 1970 final Ken would probably have

won over Newcombe if not for a bad day with hay fever.

But also, Ken lost more world series than any other pro player.

He won the world series in 1963 and 1964.

But he lost in 1957, 1959, 1960, ducked 1961, lost in 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970.

So he also has some all-time records in the loss column.
 
Last edited:
You have a three-way tie for first place...is there any way to resolve the log-jam?
It's a temporary situation, I'd like to find a definitive situation because I don't like equality in sport.
I will find a solution sooner or later but I see the three (to tell the truth I perceive that it falls within the restricted group Tilden but I have no necessary knowledge in the pre War II period) very close, I could venture ... 1) Fedr, 2) Gonzalez, 3) Laver but I could reverse the order between a month....
 
Now i appreciate this attempt, to present those data here in this forum. Its of course helpful, nothing to say against it. But again, i have worked a quite a lot in scientific historical contexts, and for me, a footnote with the relevant references would be even helpful.
Well, first of all I am not a scientist. It's not the case. I am just a tennis fan.
A footnote with the references would be a 20-30 pages list. I can mention the main groups of sources:
1. My findings in around 500-700-1000 checked articles (I haven't counted the number) in Australian, American and European newspapers;
2. Postings of krosero, Tas and Bobby;
3. TB
I managed to cross-check most of the info from different sources.
 
This has an update to 9 january ... it may have updated another thread more recently.:oops:
There are some similar threads and I have a tendency to change my opinion often though not radically. Especially when IMHO the differences are minimal.

You are right ... in another thread I updated my ranking while this was some time that was not used and remained hidden. ;)

My ranking GOAT Post War II - MALE
I don't insert Budge and Riggs in Tier 2/3 but only because the ranking concerns the Post WWII period and the career of the two americans is halved.

1) Gonzalez, Laver, Federer T1
4) Rosewall T1/T2
5) Nadal T1/T2
6) Djokovic T2
7) Borg T2
8) Sampras T2
9) Connors T2
10) McEnroe T2/T3
11) Lendl T2/T3
12) Kramer T2/T3

My ranking BPOAT Post War II - MALE
1) Laver T1
2) Gonzalez T1
3) Kramer T1
4) Djokovic T1
5) Borg T1
6) Federer T1
7) Hoad T1
8) Sampras T1/T2
9) McEnroe T1/T2
10) Connors T2
11) Nadal T2/T3
12) Lendl T2/T3
13) Rosewall T2/T3
14) Riggs T2/T3

I undoubtedly prefer the GOAT Ranking, it fascinates me less a ranking made only on the perception of the peak (as it used so many years ago).

The only change concerns Djokovic, which I think has overtaken Borg and Sampras (GOAT Ranking). I see the three very close, probably he had overtaken them before, I simply have the feeling that in the last few months, especially after the record in Melbourne Nole can be placed ahead in my GOAT Ranking.

As for the BPOAT Ranking, it is not that Djokovic in Melbourne has become a better player than before, perhaps retracing his career I realized that I had underestimated him. Again I think there are minimal differences with Borg and Federer (and I assume Hoad).
Interesting, I actually had not seen this updated version of your rankings, but I did figure out it WAS on the other "top 10 all time now" topic after seeing this post:eek:. What I was actually referencing turns out to be a 3rd separate ranking you had made. :-D

This was actually in the "work in progress thread" you posted that we had a nice conversation about in a few days ago:

FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
29,72 NADAL (16,90 + 12 bonus)
...................................................
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,28 DJOKOVIC (18,28 + 8 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)

Obviously you mentioned placing Gonzales in this analysis is too tough, but I find it interesting that you have Rosewall rated so different on this list from your GOAT rankings and that Djokovic has not surpassed Borg on this list, but has on the GOAT one.
 
No one has more respect for the Little Cornishman than I do, and there is no doubt that Ken should be among the top ten in terms of both achievements and

level of play.

However, a long career brings with it not only many achievements, but many failures.

I am not just thinking about those five Wimbledon runner-up results, because Ken faced strong opposition in them and in the 1970 final Ken would probably

have won over Newcombe if not for a bad day with hay fever.

But also, Ken lost more world series than any other pro player.

He won the world series in 1963 and 1964.

But he lost in 1957, 1959, 1960, ducked 1961, lost in 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970.

So he also has some all-time records in the loss column.
That world series record for the Little Cornishman is not a good percentage, 2 for 12, or 17%.

For Kramer, the percentage is 5 wins in 5 attempts, or 100%.

For Gonzales, the percentage is 7 wins in 9 attempts, or 78%.

For Laver, 6 wins in 8 attempts, or 75%.

For Hoad, 1 win in 3 attempts, or 33%.

So on this rating, the Tennis Twins come out on the bottom,

1) Kramer 100%

2) Gonzales 78%

3) Laver 75%

4) Hoad 33%

5) Rosewall 17%
 
Interesting, I actually had not seen this updated version of your rankings, but I did figure out it WAS on the other "top 10 all time now" topic after seeing this post:eek:. What I was actually referencing turns out to be a 3rd separate ranking you had made. :-D

This was actually in the "work in progress thread" you posted that we had a nice conversation about in a few days ago:

FINAL RANKING (RESULTS + EXTRA)
36,39 FEDERER (20,39 + 16 bonus points)
35,00 LAVER (20,00 + 15 bonus points)
...................................................
29,72 NADAL (16,90 + 12 bonus)
...................................................
26,58 BORG (13,58 + 13 bonus)
26,28 DJOKOVIC (18,28 + 8 bonus)
26,21 SAMPRAS (15,21 + 11 bonus)
25,60 CONNORS (16,60 + 9 bonus)
22,25 ROSEWALL (18,25 + 4 bonus)
22,02 MCENROE (15,02 + 7 bonus)
21,25 LENDL (16,25 + 5 bonus)

Obviously you mentioned placing Gonzales in this analysis is too tough, but I find it interesting that you have Rosewall rated so different on this list from your GOAT rankings and that Djokovic has not surpassed Borg on this list, but has on the GOAT one.
There are actually 3 separate rankings even if in reality 2 are less separated than it seems.

The "BIG TITLES ranking" is a numeric thread, which is not conclusive but should only help me to reach a conclusion and is composed of two parts:
1) results (basically they only have the possibility to increase Fedr, Nadal and Djokovic and some data from the old champions are subject to change due to possible errors in my evaluation);
2) bonus related to extra aspects (which I consider very relevant and for many fans are not relevant) but which are not points that I attribute on what I think, but points that I attribute on what it seems to me that the judgment of " people "(this is the decisive point on which you have rightly pointed out some differences).

The two rankings instead that I try to bring back (when I modify them) in the two threads "Whats your top 10 of alltime ..." sometimes I forget to bring them back on both threads they completely differentiate because one concerns the GOAT and should be quite similar to the "BIG TITLES ranking", the other only measures the perception I have of the best players I have known.

I try to answer you on the three points:
1) yes, I cannot numerically analyze Gonzales' career, in a nutshell because it is difficult for me to compute the World Tours numerically, which he dominated in the 50s;
2) I have inserted Rosewall 4 ° while in the "BEST TITLES" he is lower because the part of the bonus is essentially my numerical evaluation not on what I think, but on what I think people think, while 4th is that that I think of Ken;
3) I have the feeling that the "people" think Borg still in front of Djokovic (maybe it's a speech already done ..) while I think that maybe the serbian has exceeded the sweden.

Summing up:
a ranking allowed me to understand that various other aspects that are consciously or not consciously evaluated by people integrate the achievements and change the overall result; I gave value to these aspects. So the result is acceptable to me but only for a percentage (90%, 95%? I don't know ..)

another ranking incorporates the numerical data of the previous one, it guides me in the choice but ultimately it is I who choose, this is my real ranking.

the third is simply my assessment of the best players I've seen, where achievements are important, but not too much. (it is the son of the old evaluation method used in the years before the 90s) .... "Who is the best player? Jack Kramer. What did he win? I don't know, but he was the best player".
 
Last edited:
There are actually 3 separate rankings even if in reality 2 are less separated than it seems.

The "BIG TITLES ranking" is a numeric thread, which is not conclusive but should only help me to reach a conclusion and is composed of two parts:
1) results (basically they only have the possibility to increase Fedr, Nadal and Djokovic and some data from the old champions are subject to change due to possible errors in my evaluation);
2) bonus related to extra aspects (which I consider very relevant and for many fans are not relevant) but which are not points that I attribute on what I think, but points that I attribute on what it seems to me that the judgment of " people "(this is the decisive point on which you have rightly pointed out some differences).

The two rankings instead that I try to bring back (when I modify them) in the two threads "Whats your top 10 of alltime ..." sometimes I forget to bring them back on both threads they completely differentiate because one concerns the GOAT and should be quite similar to the "BIG TITLES ranking", the other only measures the perception I have of the best players I have known.

I try to answer you on the three points:
1) yes, I cannot numerically analyze Gonzales' career, in a nutshell because it is difficult for me to compute the World Tours numerically, which he dominated in the 50s;
2) I have inserted Rosewall 4 ° while in the "BEST TITLES" it is lower because the part of the bonus is essentially my numerical evaluation not on what I think, but on what I think people think, while 4th is that that I think of him.
3) I have the feeling that the "people" think Borg still in front of Djokovic (maybe it's a speech already done ..) while I think that maybe the serbian has exceeded the swedish.
Ah gotcha that makes sense so your 3 rankings are:

1)The rankings according to your opinion of the best career (GOAT)
2)The rankings according to your opinion of the highest playing level (BOAT)
3)The rankings according to your perception of the public's opinion ("Work in Progress") - where Gonzales can't be rated and "public opinion" reflects an equitable distribution of public across tennis history to avoid modern bias and hence does not correlate to just current public opinion

In that case everything makes sense. I think the most important of these rankings is #1 (GOAT) and my list is quite similar to yours in that regard:

Disregarding pre-WW2 players - (Budge, Tilden, Vines, Perry, Cochet, Lacoste), I have the same top 12 as you with a slightly different order:

1)Laver T1
2)Gonzales T1
3)Federer T1
4)Djokovic T2
5)Nadal T2
6)Rosewall T2
7)Sampras T2
8)Borg T2
9) Kramer T3
10) Connors T3
11) Lendl T3
12) McEnroe T3/T4

Only major disagreement I would have is putting Connors in T2 with Borg/Sampras instead of with Kramer/Lendl/McEnroe in T2/T3 (I also would clearly place McEnroe last of the 12 as I think he's arguably even in the next tier down with Agassi and Hoad).
 
Any serious rating has to incorporate a list of failures as well as a list of achievements, you need to get a relative ranking to compare with other players.

Although I have the greatest respect for Rosewall, his world series percentage wins are in fifth place, trailing Hoad, Laver, Gonzales, and Kramer.

In the classic era of tennis, the world series tours composed the summit of tennis achievement.
 
Any serious rating has to incorporate a list of failures as well as a list of achievements, you need to get a relative ranking to compare with other players.

Although I have the greatest respect for Rosewall, his world series percentage wins are in fifth place, trailing Hoad, Laver, Gonzales, and Kramer.

In the classic era of tennis, the world series tours composed the summit of tennis achievement.
It seems to me the World Series event were basically one night stands, which no doubt were important, but not as much as the pro majors and other important TOURNAMENTS. While Hoad had the advantage in the WS, Rosewall was far superior to Hoad in pro major finals, number of tournaments won and more years ranked at #1 along with Ken's vastly superior H-H vs Hoad.
 
It seems to me the World Series event were basically one night stands, which no doubt were important, but not as much as the pro majors and other important TOURNAMENTS. While Hoad had the advantage in the WS, Rosewall was far superior to Hoad in pro major finals, number of tournaments won and more years ranked at #1 along with Ken's vastly superior H-H vs Hoad.
The world series were designed to determine the official world pro champion (not necessarily the world #1), and gave access to the foremost money making opportunity of the season.

Money was important for the pros in those days.

To say that Hoad had the advantage over Rosewall in the world series of the late fifties is a mouthful, and a fact which is rarely acknowledged.

Of course, Ken had a much longer career than Hoad, but that length included a very long list of second place finishes in world series, to both Gonzales and

Laver.

I agree with you that it was necessary for the top pros to have success in the most important pro tournaments, which I think should be the ultimate determinant

of #1, but the pro majors tended to change identity from year to year.

I would give Hoad the edge in pro majors during his prime pro years from 1958 to 1960.
 
Last edited:
Richard Evans 2019 ranking list for all-time greats is

1) Federer
2) Hoad
3) Laver
4) Rosewall
5) McEnroe
6) Borg
7) Sampras
8) Kramer
9) Agassi
10) Connors

Evans was personally familiar with all of these greats, which gives his list a special credibility.

It would appear that Evans is ranking only those players with whom he has had close personal observation or personal contact.

That would explain the absence of Gonzales, Budge, Vines, Tilden.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
It seems to me the World Series event were basically one night stands, which no doubt were important, but not as much as the pro majors and other important TOURNAMENTS. While Hoad had the advantage in the WS, Rosewall was far superior to Hoad in pro major finals, number of tournaments won and more years ranked at #1 along with Ken's vastly superior H-H vs Hoad.
World series considerably more important than any single pro major or any other tournament.
There's ton of evidence for that and its obvious. If you actually care about having an accurate assessment.
 
World series considerably more important than any single pro major or any other tournament.
There's ton of evidence for that and its obvious. If you actually care about having an accurate assessment.
Not always the case, but usually.

The world series was basically the best way for the pros to make a lot of money, millions by today's standard.

For 1958-59 Hoad made about $15,000,000, making him by far the highest paid athlete on the planet, and that was done by those marathon tours going into

small towns across America, playing in high school gyms to people who could not get to New York for Forest Hills.

The world series did not necessarily have the best players, so it was not a comprehensive world championship.

When the world series consisted of tournaments (1946, 1959, 1964) then it would be a comprehensive championship.

The major tournaments had a full field, so their results should also be taken into account in determining the world number one.

In 1946, 1959, 1964 the major tournaments were part of the world series.

Otherwise, you get some strange results, like 1953 when Kramer won the world tour over an injured Sedgman, but was not able to win a major tournament.

Or 1961, when Gonzales beat Gimeno in the world tour, but did not succeed at the major tournaments.

Or 1964, when Rosewall won the world tour, but lost to Laver in the two biggest tournaments.
 
Last edited:
Rod Laver's career resume

General career info

Career period - 26 years, 1 month
Age at 1st men tournament - 14 years, 7 months, 24 days
Age at last men tournament - 40 years, 8 months, 23 days
Age at last men tournament final - 38 years, 6 months, 3 days
Age at last title - 37 years, 8 months, 3 days

Total career matches played - 3,161
incl. single matches - 2,272
incl. doubles matches - 889

Tournament entries - 543
Tour entries - 20

Career achievements

Total wins - 2,423
incl. single matches - 1,710
incl. doubles matches - 713

Total losses - 738
incl. single matches - 562
incl. doubles matches - 176

Total titles - 334 (all time No 1)
incl. single titles - 211
incl. doubles titles - 104
incl. team titles - 6
incl. tour titles - 13

Total big titles (best+second best tournaments and tours) - 118
incl. single titles - 71
incl. doubles titles - 39
incl. team titles - 6
incl. tour titles - 2

Total majors (pro majors + grand slams + Davis cup + Kramer cup) - 40
incl. single titles - 20
incl. doubles titles - 14
incl. team titles - 6
incl. tour titles - 0

Total finals (incl. second places) - 136
incl. single finals - 90
incl. doubles finals - 46

Total semis (incl. third places) - 102
incl. single semis - 68
incl. doubles semis - 34

Total quarters (incl. fourth places) - 97
incl. single quarters - 67
incl. doubles quarters - 30

Ranking
Top 20 player - 17 years
Top 10 player - 15 years
Top 5 player - 12 years
Top 3 player - 11 years
No 3 - 2 years
No 2 - 2 years
No 1 - 7 years

Competition
Wins vs Top 10 - 492
Losses vs Top 10 - 284
Balance vs Top 10 - +208

Similarly to the career of Rosewall the career of Laver is unique and practically unreachable. 321 tournament titles in 543 tournaments (59%) and 13 tour titles in 20 tours (65%) is an incredible efficiency.

Similarly to the Rosewall's data I may miss Laver's matches. I will appreciate any help for adding.

Breakdown by surface

Singles' Tournament matches
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 60 396 110 78%
Grass 44 403 89 82%
Hardcourt 53 309 71 81%
Indoor 54 333 103 76%
TOTAL 211 1441 373 79%

Doubles matches
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 29 195 42 82%
Grass 24 232 48 83%
Hardcourt 32 129 24 84%
Indoor 19 157 62 72%
TOTAL 104 713 176 80%

Team Tournaments (singles matches)
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 5 4 56%
Grass 5 18 4 82%
Hardcourt
Indoor 1 76 48 61%
TOTAL 6 99 56 64%

Tours (singles matches)
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 5 33 10 77%
Grass 17 25 40%
Hardcourt 1 12 6 67%
Indoor 7 67 49 58%
TOTAL 13 129 90 59%

One-night stands & exhibitions
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 7 6 54%
Grass 7 3 70%
Hardcourt 8 8 50%
Indoor 19 26 42%
TOTAL 0 41 43 49%

TOTAL CAREER MATCHES
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 94 636 172 79%
Grass 73 677 169 80%
Hardcourt 86 458 109 81%
Indoor 81 652 288 69%
TOTAL 334 2423 738 77%
 
Last edited:
As you have discovered (and BIG laugh on the word "you") almost all Rosewall activity, I guess there is no need to share this with TennisBase, as you for sure have this tournament played in Royan with this nice 5 set final between Ken and Rod......

Most interesting. I cannot find any match at Royan, France listed among their 1963-77 head-to-head rivalry, here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver–Rosewall_rivalry

Because there is a picture of Trabert in the article and he retired in 1963, perhaps this match was in 1963.?
But there is mention of one player having beaten the other in Boston. Could this be a reference to the US Pro Tournament at the Longwood Cricket Club in Chestnut Hill (a suburb of Boston) 1964-66?

They met there in the semis 1964: Laver won in four.
Finals 1965: Rosewall won in three.
Finals 1966: Lager won in five.
In 1967, they did not meet.
 
Last edited:
Most interesting. I cannot find any match at Royan, France listed among their 1963-77 head-to-head rivalry, here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver–Rosewall_rivalry

Because there is a picture of Trabert in the article and he retired in 1963, perhaps this match was in 1963.?
They went to Royan almost every year from 1957 to 1967. That picture is from the previous page of the book, Trabert was there in 1960
 
It is.
They played in Boston ;)
I thought you were French...
Pas de moi.

So this quotation is probably a reference to the US Pro Tournament at the Longwood Cricket Club in Chestnut Hill, MA (a suburb of Boston) played in July of 1964-66.

They met there in the semis 1964: Laver won in four.
Finals 1965: Rosewall won in three.
Finals 1966: Laver won in five.
In 1967, they did not meet.
 
Last edited:
Pas de moi.

So this quotation is probably a reference to the US Pro Tournament at the Longwood Cricket Club in Chestnut Hill, MA (a suburb of Boston) played in July of 1964-66.

They met there in the semis 1964: Laver won in four.
Finals 1965: Rosewall won in three.
Finals 1966: Laver won in five.
In 1967, they did not meet.
We are getting closer....
It seems it is 1965 or 1966 :D
 
Most interesting. I cannot find any match at Royan, France listed among their 1963-77 head-to-head rivalry, here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laver–Rosewall_rivalry

Because there is a picture of Trabert in the article and he retired in 1963, perhaps this match was in 1963.?
But there is mention of one player having beaten the other in Boston. Could this be a reference to the US Pro Tournament at the Longwood Cricket Club in Chestnut Hill (a suburb of Boston) 1964-66?

They met there in the semis 1964: Laver won in four.
Finals 1965: Rosewall won in three.
Finals 1966: Lager won in five.
In 1967, they did not meet.
Bobby remembers words of Laver saying: "He (Rosewall) beat me in Boston, I beat him in Royan." If Bobby recalls correctly, this match in Royan is maybe held somewhere in Aug-Sep 1965.
 
US Pro Tournament at the Longwood Cricket Club in Chestnut Hill, MA (a suburb of Boston) played in July of 1964-66.

They met there in the semis 1964: Laver won in four.
Finals 1965: Rosewall won in three.
Finals 1966: Laver won in five.
In 1967, they did not meet.
Bobby remembers words of Laver saying: "He (Rosewall) beat me in Boston, I beat him in Royan." If Bobby recalls correctly, this match in Royan is maybe held somewhere in Aug-Sep 1965.
Yep. 1965 makes sense. Rosewall won in Boston that year.
 
Last edited:
Added to Rosewall's resume - post https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...p-10-of-all-time-now-men.474196/post-13268472

Rosewall's career - breakdown by surface

Singles' Tournament matches
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 35 292 84 78%
Grass 37 500 127 80%
Hardcourt 29 259 89 74%
Indoor 38 290 132 69%
TOTAL 139 1341 432 76%

Doubles matches
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 28 227 76 75%
Grass 43 417 114 79%
Hardcourt 19 154 54 74%
Indoor 31 214 90 70%
TOTAL 121 1012 334 75%

Team Tournaments (singles matches)
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 20 8 71%
Grass 5 46 13 78%
Hardcourt 1 3 1 75%
Indoor 1 39 30 57%
TOTAL 7 108 52 68%

Tours (singles matches)
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 4 85 42 67%
Grass 4 46 29 61%
Hardcourt 1 28 18 61%
Indoor 11 179 120 60%
TOTAL 20 338 209 62%

One-night stands & exhibitions
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 17 12 59%
Grass 23 12 66%
Hardcourt 13 4 76%
Indoor 13 9 59%
TOTAL 0 66 37 64%

TOTAL CAREER MATCHES
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 67 641 222 74%
Grass 89 1032 295 78%
Hardcourt 50 457 166 73%
Indoor 81 735 381 66%
TOTAL 287 2865 1064 73%
 
Added to Laver's resume - post https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...p-10-of-all-time-now-men.474196/post-13271630

Laver's career - breakdown by surface

Singles' Tournament matches
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 60 396 110 78%
Grass 44 403 89 82%
Hardcourt 53 309 71 81%
Indoor 54 333 103 76%
TOTAL 211 1441 373 79%

Doubles matches
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 29 195 42 82%
Grass 24 232 48 83%
Hardcourt 32 129 24 84%
Indoor 19 157 62 72%
TOTAL 104 713 176 80%

Team Tournaments (singles matches)
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 5 4 56%
Grass 5 18 4 82%
Hardcourt
Indoor 1 76 48 61%
TOTAL 6 99 56 64%

Tours (singles matches)
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 5 33 10 77%
Grass 17 25 40%
Hardcourt 1 12 6 67%
Indoor 7 67 49 58%
TOTAL 13 129 90 59%

One-night stands & exhibitions
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 7 6 54%
Grass 7 3 70%
Hardcourt 8 8 50%
Indoor 19 26 42%
TOTAL 0 41 43 49%

TOTAL CAREER MATCHES
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 94 636 172 79%
Grass 73 677 169 80%
Hardcourt 86 458 109 81%
Indoor 81 652 288 69%
TOTAL 334 2423 738 77%
 
The analysis of Rosewall's and Laver's careers by surface above clearly shows that these 2 guys are one of the very very few players all-time with huge success on all surfaces.
 
Not always the case, but usually.

The world series was basically the best way for the pros to make a lot of money, millions by today's standard.

For 1958-59 Hoad made about $15,000,000, making him by far the highest paid athlete on the planet, and that was done by those marathon tours going into

small towns across America, playing in high school gyms to people who could not get to New York for Forest Hills.

The world series did not necessarily have the best players, so it was not a comprehensive world championship.

When the world series consisted of tournaments (1946, 1959, 1964) then it would be a comprehensive championship.

The major tournaments had a full field, so their results should also be taken into account in determining the world number one.

In 1946, 1959, 1964 the major tournaments were part of the world series.

Otherwise, you get some strange results, like 1953 when Kramer won the world tour over an injured Sedgman, but was not able to win a major tournament.

Or 1961, when Gonzales beat Gimeno in the world tour, but did not succeed at the major tournaments.

Or 1964, when Rosewall won the world tour, but lost to Laver in the two biggest tournaments.
This point is worthy of emphasis, even of extension.

The only objective measures of tennis ranking in the old pro era were 1942 (because the tour contained a representative field of top pros), 1946 (with a

complete and comprehensive ranking by points of all the pros), 1959 (with again a comprehensive ranking system by points), and 1964 (again, a

comprehensive points system).

All other ranking systems for the other years are purely subjective and essentially worthless.

It is of some value to identify, if we can, the top tournaments of those other years, and get some impression from that.

But it is all subjective, and pointless.
 
Rosewall's career - breakdown by surface
Singles' Tournament matches

Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 35 292 84 78%
Grass 37 500 127 80%
TOTAL CAREER MATCHES
Surface Titles Wins Losses Win %
Clay 67 641 222 74%
Grass 89 1032 295 78%
Most interesting.
I would have thought that Ken's best surface was clay.

(Maybe Muscles was, quite simply, rather unlucky when it came to Wimbledon.)
 
Most interesting.
I would have thought that Ken's best surface was clay.

(Maybe Muscles was, quite simply, rather unlucky when it came to Wimbledon.)
Both Segura and Rosewall, both thought of as clay specialists, achieved their greatest wins on grass.

Segura at Forest Hills in 1951, Scarborough in 1953, White City in 1957.

Rosewall at the Australian in 1953, 1955, 1971, 1972, Forest Hills in 1956, 1963, 1970, Longwood in 1965, Kooyong Pro in 1962, Brisbane Pro in 1959.
 
Top