Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by 90's Clay, Aug 22, 2012.
So a player cannot be beaten in his prime? Is "GOAT" Rosewell unbeaten in his prime?
Firstly, please write Rosewall.
Secondly, there is a big difference between Rosewall and Federer: While Rosewall is seldom till never mentioned as GOAT or even as GOAT candidate, most "modern" fans and experts claim Federer is the GOAT who seems to them to be unbeatable.
Thirdly, Rosewall lost seldom a major in his prime (he actually was unbeaten in majors for four years), Federer lost several big tournaments to Nadal and Djokovic.
The same people who blame Muscles for never winning Wimbledon use to put Federer on top place even though Federer won 17 majors and Rosewall won 23...
You want to sell him as the GOAT or better than Federer so he must be unbeaten if he is to be better than Federer, right?
And why limit to majors, when you are talking about Rosewall but not when you are talking about Federer? Pretty convenient
What were the 4 years Rosewall went unbeaten in majors please?
Where is your logic? Why must a player be unbeaten to be better than Federer?
I can give you at least four players (Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Laver) who have a better record than Roger even though they all were not unbeaten!
Apart from the majors, Rosewall won at least 137 tournaments and Federer won 78 if I rightly remember. Of course Roger will yet win a few more events...
1960 to 1963 which is nine majors where Rosewall participated (it's still record).
Where is my logic?
I am not the one that brought up the fact Federer was beaten by this or that player in his prime. It's pretty idiotic to expect a player not to be beaten in 4-5 year time. I really don't see anything constructive in your attacks towards Federer. You would have been better off by stating the argument for the 137 vs 78 wins in the first place, even though you yourself realise it's not compatible due to the million mickey-mouse-ish events
Does anyone have a % of tournaments entered / won?
I will sart with Lendl era, Sampra, and Federer
2030s- my future son
billnepill, I have not attacked Federer. I gave you a few arguments.
BUt many fans attack the older players to push their darling, Federer...
Rosewall seldom won Mickey-Mouse events. He only won a few 4 man tournaments and even there it's the question which tournament was more difficult to win: a 32 man event against lesser players or a 4 man event against Laver and Hoad.
It's interesting since you trump the weak era card - who was the competition of Rosewall during those years? Where were Gonzales and Laver? Luckily Gonzales retired and his retirement is widely considered as clearing the path for Rosewall as the former was smashing the competition in 1960
Rosewall beat Gonzales in the 1961 French Pro final at Roland Garros. The score was 2-6, 6-4, 6-3, 8-6. Gonzales went into retirement at the end of 1961, and it lasted 18 months before Gonzales returned at the 1963 US Pro.
That's right, esp. considering how depleted Rosewall was by the time he got to the final round at Wimbledon and USO, only one year later. Seven rounds on clay in best of 5 matches is only going to be harder on someone that age.
Sorry strongly disagree with some of these. No way is Seles anywhere near Court. King could never be ahead of Lenglen, and neither Seles or Venus could be ahead of Connolly either.
Ranking Serena ahead of Graf and Evert is ridiculous.
For career accomplishments it makes no logical sense. However I know a number of long time expert observers who believe Serena may have the highest level of play when she is on her game. Of course you can argue that for a few players.
i see so you are awarding serena some extra majors/ big tourney wins that she didnt actually win because she was 'injured' or because she preferred to go shopping..hmm ok then. :neutral:
also martina and evert were on the same level..they took majors off each other for about 11 yrs, so why is one of them lower dodgy list you got there..not based in reality.
I think you read my post incorrectly. I don't think Serena is ahead of Evert, Graf and Navratilova.
I think BobbyOne is simply trying to write the Rosewall is a GOAT candidate as is Federer. The idea that a player has to be unbeaten to be better than Federer is a false assumption I believe by the way.
And if you look at the career of Rosewall I do believe he has a right to be considered a GOAT candidate.
You asked for percentage of majors won versus majors entered. Here it is--Rosewall-23 majors in 69 attempts and Federer currently is 17 in 54.
Newk was there?
How old was Buchholz in 1968?
Rosewall was more formidable on clay than on grass at this time.
It is a mystery to me why he did not play RG after 1969.
oop soz..i was looking at terrastars18 list.
Peak Martina was much better than Evert. She beat Evert 13 times in a row at one point. She was far more dominant at her peak, losing only 1 or 2 matches a year. Evert didnt even deny Martina many majors, only 3 or 4, Martina by contrast denied Evert about 8-10.
I fully agree with you, but Nastase deefated Orantes easily for two consecutive years Orantes in Barcelona (73 and 74) and if memory serves, I think he also handled hin at the 1973 IO.
1973 Nastase was almost unbeatable on clay.You can never count Rosewall out but Nastase would be the favourite, anyhow.
Nastase was not at all unbeatable on clay.
In the 1972 French Open, he lost in the first round, giving Gimeno an easy path to victory.
In the 1975 Canadian Open final on clay, he lost in straight sets to Orantes, the key being a close line-call in the first set tiebreaker which went against Nastase (rightfully) and upset his concentration, and he made no effort to play after that, letting routine shots go by him. He was fined by the Tennis Council after the season for lack of effort.
In the 1973 French Open, Nastase did not face a tough match in the tournament.
orantes would beat any player on clay if he was on, so no shame to Ilie.
I mentioned 1973, when he was on zone for the first half of the year.he just threw away his chances at Wimbledon because he was the only guy ( Kodes came second) to have a lock on that tournament.And, when being a favourite, Nasatse seldom delivered.Like in the 1972 Wimbledon final.
This is very strange. Nastase was much more comfortable in the season-ending events, where, frankly, there was, and is, LESS pressure than at Wimbledon or Forest Hills, the two premiere events in the game.
Right, played 5 consecutive Masters finals ( so did Lendl, who also won a couple of Dallas titles), and he only lost one, over 5 sets.
I still recall that famous 1972 final at London .
they both won 18 majors..
Evert beat Navratilova 8 times at the buisiness end of majors..(4F, 4SF).
I guess we both agree that Orantes at that point would have been Nastase's toughest competition although Nastase would have been favored. Orantes defeated Nastase in four sets at the 1975 US Open in a match I was privileged to see in person. Nastase played well imo in that match but Orantes I believe was playing the best tennis of the tournament. Two of the greatest touch players in the history of tennis. I don't recall Nastase acting up in that match.
NadalAgassi, I agree that peak Navratilova was better than peak Evert but it may not have been as one sided as you may think. A good friend of mine pointed out that Navratilova was using the new racquets during most of those 13 straight matches that Navratilova won while Evert stuck to a wood racquet. After Evert switched to the new racquets of the time the matches were closer and Evert was able to defeat Navratilova.
My friend really knows tennis and I do think he has a decent argument.
billnepill, Rosewall beat Laver, Gonzalez, Segura, Sedgman, Trabert, Hoad, Anderson, Cooper, Olmedo in his sensational nine majors winning streak. I would say that was a field not too bad...
Dan, Newcombe was NOT a top ten claycourter in 1973. For instance he lost to Rosewall clearly at the Japanese Open.
Newcombe WAS there as he lost to Milan Holecek 5-7,1-6 in the first round...
28 and a top player (winning 5 WCT tournaments, beating Roche several times).
Dan, I again contradict: Rosewall seems to having been stronger on grass those years, see his runs in 1974.
kiki, thanks that you teached Dan tennis history!
because he was awesome...
Yes Newcombe was there. As was Kodes (that was for you Kiki), Panatta, Okker, Dibbs, Vilas, Metrevelli, Proisy, Connors, Ramirez, Orantes, Cox, Solomon, Ashe, Stan Smith, Borg, Richey Gimeno, Pilic, Taylor. Some of these players were not in their primes yet or past their primes but still excellent players. Borg for example beat the 9th seeded Richey in the first round. A sign of things to come I suppose.
I think it was an extremely strong field. To be honest while Laver and Rosewall could have won this tournament, it's very doubtful at their advanced ages. Laver was having some physical problems also.
I would think that Nastase won an impressive victory.
And of course Nastase was not unbeatable on clay but he was at his peak in 1973 and was a great clay court player.
Quick question. If peak Orantes played peak Kodes in the finals of the French, who is the favorite? I won't give my opinion but I'm curious about your answer. I'm not joking. Just wondering what you think.
My 10, not by acievements, but who I cheered for, over the years:
Nice that you mentioned Bobo. He had a huge serve.
The most fun doubles match I've seen was Zivojinovic and Becker against Noah and Leconte at the US Open. What power and great angle volleys from Leconte? It was in the Grandstand and it was packed. People talked about that match for years.
He would have been stronger on clay.
He faced an awsomely weak path to victory.
How many of these "great" clay players did Nastase meet en route to victory?
Dan, Tingay ranked Rosewall at No.2 in 1974. If he played great claycourt events, would you give Rosewall even a better ranking?? LOL.
I think that Rosewall had a better chance to win at RG in 1974 than at Wimbledon or Forest Hills.
I think that he skipped RG after 1969 to better prepare for Wimbledon, a strategy which did not quite work. Better to have played at RG.
As far as Tingay, wasn't he the guy who ranked Hoad at #5 for 1953? I would have put Hoad at #1 for that year. I guess Tingay and I use different criteria.
Dan, Rosewall would not have beaten Borg in a Paris final in 1974.
Yes, you would have put Hoad at No.1 for 1953. I guess you even would have ranked Hoad at No.1 also for 1954, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959 and 1960.
Did I forget 1961, 1962 and 1963??
Yes, I finally agree: Tingay and you have actually used different criteria........
Whoa, don't get carried away.
But since you ask, here it goes.
1953: 1) Hoad 2) Trabert 3) Rosewall 4) Seixas
Key to this is the hth between Hoad and Trabert (2 and 0 for Hoad), and Rosewall (5 and 0 for Hoad, wow!), and the Davis Cup final (Tingay does not include the Cup play in his rankings) (there is a point in the first set against Seixas where Hoad hits a strong groundstroke and Seixas underestimates the power, and is actually knocked off his feet)
Following the 1953 season, Kramer offered a contract to only ONE amateur player, Hoad, to play against himself in 1954. Hoad stated that he wanted to win Wimbledon twice before turning pro. Some prophecy.
1954: 1) Drobny 2) Seixas 3) Trabert
1955: 1) Trabert 2) Hoad (based on Davis Cup, despite Tingay) 3) Rosewall
1956: 1) Hoad 2) Rosewall
1957: 1) Gonzales 2) Sedgman 3) Rosewall
1958: 1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Rosewall 4) Sedgman 5) Trabert
1959: 1) Hoad 2) Gonzales 3) Rosewall 4) Sedgman 5) Trabert
1960: 1) Gonzales 2) Rosewall 3) Hoad
1961: 1) Rosewall 2) Gonzales 3) Hoad
1962: 1) Rosewall 2) Hoad
1963: 1) Rosewall 2) Hoad 3) Laver
I believe that these are very fair and objective rankings, based upon a very sober consideration of available data.
Separate names with a comma.