Rod Laver vs. Ken Rosewall

[@iainjohnson4105]

Watching old matches are amazing. My parents used to tell me how good players of the past were but I always felt the best players of the present are the greatest. Now I realise there is no point comparing . Great players are great whatever era they play.

[@jackkitchen737]

Completely agree

[@dhanurs8085]

❤❤❤

[@jjanderson8235]

Such exceptional high quality shot making w. little wood racquets between two Australian legends who knew each other inside and out. Tough, tough matches!

[@vinayanv]

Both of them were great classic players, we the tennis fans adorned them in the sixties when in colleges.Laver's strokes were so perfects that every one wanted to emulate them.Laver in his early profession years used to say that Rosewall was like a stone wall no one could pass through.They respected each other well.

[@dbeaton1111]

I saw Rosewall play in the Masters series about 30 years ago. His backhand was like point and shoot, and his serve, although not fast, produced unreal angles. He was an incredible athlete even then, with great balance, and he was fast. Nowadays, modern racquets can overpower that style, but in those days of wooden racquets, the low and angle type of play was very effective. If Rosewall and Laver had been brought up with modern equipment, they would have been great, too.

[@alfredogomez5241]

I don't think they were tall or strong enough. Todays players are outstanding athletes

[@jty9631]

As far as strength goes, Rod Laver had one of the GOAT forearms. He looked like popeye with his left forearm.

[@georgetp1]

alfredo gomez Those were the ideal height for tennis at the time. Players back then had to move all around inside the court and not so much throughout the baseline. And the balls bounced way way way lower compared to today. And they were lighter. So a shorter person would usually do better than a taller one.

[@ZrxGR3Gx]

George Thomas But his point is their height would be a disadvantage in the modern game... which it possibly would however players like Ferrer are hardly tall and they still manage to do well.

[@marcbrandes9682]

Rosewall and Laver were small but they played against great big athletes all the time and beat them regularly such as Ashe, Nastase,Newcombe,Smith, Hoad and dont forget Laver was in his early 30s and Rosewall in his mid to late 30s.

[@markcripps1819]

What can be deceptive when watching these great champions is how brilliantly they moved. They were incredibly accurate and consistent too. I had the good fortune to meet Rosewall and even play a set in doubles with him at the John Newcombe and the Legends Fantasy Camp in Texas one year. Kenny was into his 70's but still hit the ball beautifully, as did all the other legends. I would watch them (Newcombe, Stolle, Emerson etc) and just wonder how fantastic they must have been in their primes in the 60's and 70's. They all had such mastery of the ball and of course, their decision making on what shot to hit i any given circumstance was perfect every time, let alone their execution. PS When living in Sydney in 1991 was a member of the White City club where the above match was played. It oozed tennis.

[@theoriginalthinker9199]

+Mark Cripps Rosewall had the kind of game that didn't take much out of you. So physically, he was well preserved. That's why he played competitive tennis well into his forties. He was just fluid, relaxed. Those smooth, orthodox strokes of his. That ironically you don't see anymore.

[@brianboucher4248]

+Mark Cripps Sweet Jesus, you hit balls w/ Rosewall, my man.... So jealous.... My fav all-time player...IMO, most under-rated player of all time.... saw him beat world #1 at the time Stan Smith at Forest Hills/ US Open, I think it was '71/'72 or' 73 .... Smith won first 2 sets, Ken came back winning 3 in a row in SWELTERING HOT NYC August/Sept weather... AMAZING...

[@tamarexxe]

Thank you for posting this!! WOW what gorgeous tennis. Rod Laver is my idol. I mean after all he did manage to do what no man or woman has ever done before or after. I love todays tennis, but also adore the old wooden raquet style too. I've never played with one but to see Laver do it, just makes my heart flutter. Thank you SO VERY MUCH.

[@beavercleaver7848]

After watching all the players on the pro tour on tv when I was a beginner, who didn't start playing until my juniors years were almost over, I decided to model my strokes on Laver's. He'd probably have won more like four grand slams, rather than two, if he hadn't been barred from competing in those tournaments for years, during the prime of his career, because he'd turned pro. He had a book in all the libraries and bookstores in the United States showing with successions of still frame photos how he hit every stroke. He played with a Dunlop Maxply. It and the Wilson Jack Kramer model were the most-used by tour players when the first metal rackets appeared. Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert and Billie Jean King, for example, all used the wooden Wilson Jack Kramer, until Connors started using a round-headed, steel, Wilson T2000 raquet, which was around the first metal raquet anyone used. The Dunlop had lots of power and control, but would break quickly right in the middle of the sides of the head, where the white-painted lower part ended and the polyurethane-covered upper part began.

[@stuartdryer1352]

Rosewall was my hero growing up.

[@pixarmilan]

These two were masters of the game. Absolutely incredible from all areas of the court.

[@PigeonFeathers]

A lot of people think the older game (pre 1980) was slow, but this video proves the players were hitting at a very fast pace and with a flatter ball. Turns out sliding on surfaces other than clay wasn't invented by Gael Monfils. :-P Fantastic viewing. Wish there was footage like this of Tilden, Budge, Lacoste, etc.

[@circuitdesign]

Amazing how much McEnroe plays like Laver. I knew Laver was his idol, but now I can really see the influence. McEnroe was great because he stood on the shoulders of giants...

[@simongleaden2864]

Yes, I used to enjoy watching John McEnroe (I assume you mean John McEnroe, not Patrick McEnroe, who had some success as a professional lawn tennis player). He was great to watch sometimes, but his abrasive personality and rude comments towards officials and fellow players meant I never really liked him, until ha became an "elder statesman" of the game and a throwback to the era of wooden rackets and tactical , clever tennis, instead of "crash-bang-wallop" ace-after-ace of the modern era. The modern carbon fibre rackets improved the women's game as a spectator sport, but it diminished the men's game and stopped it being a thing of beauty, sublety and artifice.

[@SyncopateTheShot]

I don't know why, but this kind of tennis is so much more aesthetically pleasing than today's aggressive baseliners, at least for me.

[@rjamesyork]

Rosewall’s net coverage was out of this world for how short he was.

[@fromanotherstar]

These men were absolute legends....I wouldve loved to have been around to watch this live

[@stephenstephen1505]

Grass court tennis of the highest quality from two of the greats. Perfect behaviour, and attitudes. When the Aussies ruled the world

[@patzeram]

Krosero, thanks for this great video. Two of the greatest players ever.

[@123must]

Wonderful upload: they were the days... A lot of thanks

[@sharpasaneraser]

this is still one of my fav tennis clips of all time -a thing of beauty....so clean

[@garrison968]

What a pleasure to watch these two masters. Every shot you can imagine and then some.

[@Baskerville22]

In 1980 I saw Rosewall play Butch Walts at an indoor match held in Melbourne. Ken was a few weeks short of 46 y.o. and Walts was 25, and stood 6'4' tall. He had a world ranking of 29 at the time. Kenny, at just 5'8" kept 'dinking' Walts' massive serves across court and won the match 6-3. 6-2.

[@sentimentalbloke185]

Was that the tournament held at Frankston indoor centre? I recall going to see Rosewall play that tournament but unfortunately he lost.

[@Baskerville22]

@@sentimentalbloke185 I watched it on TV. I think he lost the semi-final.....to an Australian player . Possibly Paul McNamee.

[@sentimentalbloke185]

@@Baskerville22 Looked it up, yes he lost to McNamee 6-0, 6-3 in the 2nd round. Vitas Gerulaitis def Peter McNamara in the final. Tourney was at Frankston, known as the Melb Indoor Championships, for 2 years (1980-81), then at Festival Hall 3 years (1982, 1984-85). Carpet surface.

[@Baskerville22]

@@sentimentalbloke185 Sounds right. The two Maccas won dozens of Doubles titles together. Vitas Gerulaitis had a sad death. Carbon monoxide poisoning while he slept due to an improperly installed propane pool heater at the house of a friend he was staying with.

[@sentimentalbloke185]

@@Baskerville22 Yes, good player to watch. IIRC, when they wanted to bring in random testing for recreational drugs he quit the game. Liked a toot apparently.

[@aleksandrpondios]

A 42 years old Ken was near top 10, in 1980 he was 46 and was good enough to have won game against 20 years John Fitzerald who later in his career will win Lendl and Edberg in their prime,and also Wilander,Noah,Leconte,Unbelievable!!!To say how great player from the past would have done it today.

[@ChristineCAlb1]

Lovely. You don't see tennis played like that very often. I like how Rod and Ken cover the whole court-they're not hanging out at the baseline. Don't know how anybody can think that was/is boring....

[@brianboucher4248]

Rosewall, prob most under-rated great player of all time.

[@joekavanagh7171]

I don't think he is underrated. Most knowledgeable fans rate him as one of the all-time greats.

[@rjamesyork]

@@joekavanagh7171I think it’s fair to call him underrated. Laver is far more highly regarded because he won the grand slam but if you account for their results in the pre-slam days Rosewall’s achievements are arguably greater.

[@PaoloPalarini]

' Fully agree​ with you@@joekavanagh7171

[@michaelprobert7820]

.....under appreciated as well, maybe.

[@Gynra]

They played beautiful tennis.

[@joekavanagh7171]

Rod Laver was the greatest tennis player of all time. This has been reinforced by Djokovic's failure to win the 2021 grand slam, a feat that Laver achieved twice, and only one other player achieved once. People who haven't seen Laver think that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic are better, but there are no other greats today. Laver had to contend with greats like Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Emerson, Ashe, Newcombe, Roche, Santana and other legends of the game

[@brianboucher4248]

Your opinion. I do not share your view, though I saw Laver play several times. There is no 'GOAT'. You cannot compare different eras. Selecting a 'top 10' list of the all-time greats is the fairest to all players considered.

[@andrewblastoff]

thanx for upload, this is simply beatiful tennis, so hard to execute with that small wooden rackets Laver, Tilden, Borg and Pancho Gonzalez were the best during the 'wooden' era, unfortunately Tilden's and Pancho's matches are almost completely unavailable

[@johnnyhandegg4168]

Ken Rosewall = thee most underrated tennis champion EVER

[@AlexanderArsov]

Johnny Handegg, Ken Rosewall is underrated only by people who know nothing about tennis history. We can afford not to care about them. :-)

[@AlexanderArsov]

Obi Wan, No one mentions him anywhere? I hope you're joking. He was named to International Hall of Fame in 1980 and the Australian Hall of Fame in 1995. Bud Collins calls him "the Doomsday Stroking Machine" and "a factor in three decades of tennis". Recognition in the tennis world doesn't get much better than this.

[@AlexanderArsov]

Obi Wan, Nothing's wrong with that, of course. I'm neither a Laver nor a Rosewall fan. I'm a tennis fan. I respect and admire all great players from all eras. The point was about Rosewall being underappreciated. I just don't think this is the case. That's all.

[@alfredogomez5241]

Johnny Handegg Also, he was active, winning for a very long time. From the 50's to the 70's

[@Baskerville22]

+alfredo gomez I saw Kenny (46) thrash Butch Walts (25, and 6'4") in 1980.

[@ManiPulatoR84]

Great players, great quality (image and the match itself), thx for uploading it!

[@tsalomon]

Thank you for uploading this!

[@MKD1101]

*This is Very old comment!*

[@jyy82993]

Technique, footwork, and accuracy was everything during this time. Power was more of a wild card during this era of tennis.

[@teflonmagnet]

so fun to watch these two. the upload is first rate.

[@sidmute00]

Look at the shotmaking, man....these guys have finesse..I like tennis today, but the game they played wasn't easy. They just make it look easy..

[@sharpasaneraser]

tennis at its prettiest. MAGNIFICENT

[@lunaticandaristocratic]

That’s art

[@Picklejam08]

Rosewall is known for his legendary slice backhand. It was low, driven with great force and pinpoint accuracy down the lines. On the old grass courts his slice ball would not bounce up, but squirt low and fast causing an opponent unforced error. He could pass you at the net or hit outright baseline winners with that slice backhand. A truly offensive weapon.

[@rlagywns]

Tennis is truly a beautiful sport

[@bierbaron6666]

Thanks for this wonderful video of a wonderful tennis classic! But if you have more than just these highlight points or even the whole match please post it. It would be much appreciated from all fans of the old true fassion of tennis. Those matches are a showcase óf the genius of the old players such as laver,emerson,fraser,rosewall,newcombe,ashe, gonzales and open a window into the high tennis level of the past.It would be such a pleasure to have more of those on youtube.

[@CharlotteinWeimar]

It's so much more fun to watch than the baseline slogging

[@alexs7080]

CharlotteinWeimar your right

[@xiandarkthorne]

Oh yes. Dingledonglepinglepongling has killed my interest in watching most tennis nowadays.

[@Glider324]

Agree but the exceptionally high standard of Rosewall and Laver quickly dropped off down the ranking and then the games became less fun to watch because of the mishits and short points. Definitely though, the modern game is too fast to explore the richness of shots the old players used.

[@pgmisha]

...I love the giggling in the back ground ....these are awesome points ....

[@meettheturc]

Just observe Laver's footwork and Rosewall's volleys. Not even Fed, Pete, Nadal are match to that. Insane.

[@jjanderson8235]

Rod's footwork was amazing .. esp. indoors on rubberized surfaces. To be fair in comparison, it's harder for bigger taller players to move as well though they're truly amazing today. Just size makes a difference.

[@72fordgrantorino]

It is next to impossible to compare players from different eras. But what's most interesting about those who try to do it is that they always impose today's standards on the players of yesterday. Let's say we flip that. Let's say we make today's players play with the equipment of Rosewall's and Laver's time (wood rackets, gut strings, only 70 square inches of hitting surface). Let's say we only make available to them the training methods of Ken's and Rod's time. It might be interesting to see what would happen then.

[@HankFinkle11]

72fordgrantorino I think the "training methods" is overrated. There is no substitute for hitting a million balls during drills.

[@allend2749]

like comparing the modern 2018 military power of the united states fighting against the union forces of the united states of 1860. I wonder who would have won.

[@EJP286CRSKW]

Raylan Givens Exactly so, but anyone who thinks these guys weren't doing plenty of gym work is deluded. Hopman had them all at the gym from Sedgeman onwards, around 1949.

[@anonymousLeroy]

Back then was when tennis was in an age of extreme court intelligence and tactical mastery. Now is the age of strength and physical prowess. Both are an absolute joy to watch, although I must say I still enjoy these older matches more.

[@johnsmith56920]

Does anyone anywhere got the whole match? In a video where we can see the ball? My wife just saw this and she said "My God, they play really well... And we will never be able to see that? What a pity!" I'm with her here.

[@kjetin99]

Thanks for a good comment! Rosewall was not allowed to play for 12 years.Laver 5 years. Rosewall won the French -53 and played two GrandSlam finals -74. One word: Respect!

[@LuLu-nw6bi]

Now this is tennis, not the boring who is fitter/who will hit harder from the baseline Nadal-Djokovic matches...

[@krosero]

@vivascargill1 No these are the grasscourts in White City, Sydney, where the Australian was also played, in some years.

[@tomloft2000]

nice video.wish someone had the 1972 WCT finals.

[@davidsutton6953]

I agree! It was, to me, the best and most aesthetically pleasing display of fine stroke-play and "no nonsense" competitive tennis at its most superlative. I thank God that I was fortunate to have lived at a time to have seen Rosewall and Laver still providing vintage "true" tennis. Today's power game with the exception, perhaps of Federer, is only available to, and playable by, ectomorphic physical "giants" (this applies to the women, too). As such it is a limited to an "elite" -- those fortunate to have been born with exceptional physical height and who are destined to end their playing careers quite early (thought, nevertheless, VERY rich!) and who (the majority, that is) fade from memory. Not so the "Rosewalls" and "Lavers". . .

[@kjetin99]

Oh,thank you for a comment with knowledge! The difference with yesterdays rackets compared to todays rackets is like comparing waterguns with Kalaschnikovs.

[@JangshinKwak]

so much fun to watch!!! good tennis.

[@Slaphappy1975]

Such delicate touch. Amazing tennis in its own way.

[@deand.l.2049]

The ball is moving fairly fast and it doesn’t even look like they’re taking a huge whack at it. Shows how different the courts were as well as the heaviness of the racquets.

[@gabyhelffhrittz]

in fact, Rosewall, not only played the finals of 74 of Wimbledon and U.S. Open), since the Open Era began, won Roland Garros in 1968, played the U.S. Open final in 1970, won the Australian Open in 1971 and 1972 (This eventually became the oldest to date to win a Grand slam title at the Open Era) and reached semifinals in Australia in 76 and 77 ....

[@keithmckeith]

Ken Rosewall has a very strong case as the greatest tennis player of all time.

[@alfredogomez5241]

I agree. He also lasted a long time. I can't remember now but I know no player has won Grand Slams in such a large span of time.

[@EJP286CRSKW]

Agreed but so does Gonzales: #1 for ten years, too 10 for twenty years, ...

[@joekavanagh7171]

Laver 2 grand slams. Says it all

[@cpthurme]

what a point at 4:22

[@jzrnsk]

classic serve and volley! I love it! So much good touch. The last decade was the great nadal and federer and agassi era, with their brilliant groundstrokes. but i get tired of them after watching them. it's a nice change here. this new era, we're getting into the power generation, where a big serve and a big forehand may be enough to win a grand slam, or at least gets close. currently, the only people stopping del potro, soderling, berdych, et al. from winning everything are nadal ,possibly fed.

[@dpa71999]

You didn't see djokovic coming😁😁😁

[@pablotupone4190]

rosewall was 36 in 1970....don t forget he won AO in 1953 and was running in Wimbledon in 1954!!!...and he also reached Wimbledon and US open final in 1974!!!!

[@N0riab_Aliste]

Its really cool to see that old tennis was about precision. Nowdays tennis is all about who hits the ball harder. Dont get me wrong, I still enjoy watching tennis, but its kinda boring that almost all matches are baseline wars.

[@kjetin99]

Fantastic tennis!

[@meettheturc]

@Th3BlackReaper Edberg was a class of his own, İ can easily say that his chip and charge style is by far the best in open era. Agreed on that.

[@krosero]

@TheKPRZ Search for "Laver Roche Australian Open". It took place one year earlier. Does that look like amateur tennis?

[@jonathanvelasco8421]

Ok. So you can't see much but wow! I've never seen Laver til now.

[@sailingatw]

La facilità di gioco, il controllo di palla e la velocità di questi 2 fenomeni è davvero impressionante: con tutto il rispetto x gli altri fuoriclasse del tennis, ma penso proprio che Rod e Ken siano stati indiscutibilmente i più grandi di tutti i tempi! Non oso immaginarli con le racchette moderne cosa avrebbero potuto fare.......

[@rikiwoods6987]

At there peak Australia dominated world tennis during the 60s and early 70s with a great climate they produced a raft of legends, ie Rod laver, Ken Rosewall, Tony Roche,Roy Emerson, Fred Stolle, John Newcombe, Neal Fraser

[@dustyterranova6869]

Someone to remember is Frank Sedgeman. Please look at his results. But you are on the mark.

[@rikiwoods6987]

yes his name does ring a bell also the two woodies doubles team. Also Margret court and Yvonne goologong also Leyton Hewiit 2002 wimbleldon winner and last but not least sam stousur

[@m0nNickneim]

I used to love hitting hard, but my dad scolded me saying that where you want to place the ball is more important than power. After watching this video, I know why.

[@BruceBanner-eg8vs]

Two masterful touch players.

[@BLACKTREAT]

are they PLAYING ON CLAY OR GRASS? IT LOOKS LIKE CLAY BY THE SLIDE, BUT YOU CAN ALSO SLIDE ON GRASS WHEN ITS WET

[@Trystaticus]

@rondelego2 The camera is angled down more sharply.

[@abxyz9346]

Watching old clips like this highlights I think what tennis has lost. It's a wonderful sport and I grew up as Borg was coming up to take over the tennis world. It was a wonderful time to see him then come up against McEnroe. Two players who had such contrasting styles. It made for captivating watching. I do admire the modern game but it has become a taller man's game where the ball is pounded from the back of the court. It is not as interesting to watch, and the finer skills are not as relevant as they once were.

[@kjetin99]

Where does he play? at White City! Together with Hoad he is my favourite player.

[@johnfreeland9065]

Rosewall's hardest serve was ... maybe ... 75 mph. And he won so much!

[@kjetin99]

Thats a good point! Exactly what we say today about todays tennis, people said 90 years ago when Tilden,Lacoste, Borotra played.

[@iiYaMa72]

@TheKPRZ well look up the Rod laver interview he did with the Aussie open last week or so, like Laver said, back then it was just amateur tennis... Looking back you can see just how much the game has developed

[@isselman2000]

@rondelego2 Huge?? It looks like a normal court to me.

[@aberjed]

The best in history does exist Laver won two grand slams

[@ais6863]

1962 was amateur, best players were on the pro circuit... 1969, great achievement, but Australia and US open were played on grass... and the Australian Open was really a "small" Slam back then, with some of the best players in the world not bothering to play it.

[@joekavanagh7171]

@@ais6863 None of the other greats managed to win the grand slam once, as either amateurs or professionals. Laver is GOAT

[@dawgage]

should I buy these $30 rod laver addidas?

[@pmo1983]

BTW Rosewell still plays and sometimes has a hit with kids at local tennis clubs i watched him play a couple of months ago. amazing

[@keithmckeith]

...Ken won a record 15 pro Slams (the absolute elite tennis of the day) including the pro grand slam in 1963. This tied with Gonzales, and well exceeded Laver. He defeated Laver in six out of the eleven pro slam finals they met in. He was ranked number one in the world for six years. Then he won eight grand slams....missing ELEVEN Wimbledons at his peak in the process. Four to five were his minimum. Then there was his incredible doubles and Davis cup career.....

[@Rockystoneplays]

There are too many factors to at play to clearly state Laver is better than Rosewall or that Rosewall is better than Laver. Based on the facts I draw the opposite conclusion to you and can state countless stats to support this but it is futile, it is simply Federer or Nadal but a different era. Both are true legends just leave it at that.

[@Richard-g4u1r]

Laver with the Dunlop Maxply. That and the Wilson Jack Kramer were probably the most popular rackets of that time. Jimmy Connors was using the Kramer at the beginning of his pro career. Then he switched to about the first metal racket - The Wilson T2000. The Maxply, with gut stringing, actually gave you a lot of power and control. But is was fragile. The frame would crack at the points where the white paint met the plain wood, below the middle point of the racket face, after a few months of regular, normal use.

[@juliomunzc]

Clay ir grass ?

[@canozcivelek]

Hahaha 5:27 first ever example of the banana shot from Laver. Fantastic! :D

[@depor23]

Does Laver say 'well done!' at 1.15?

[@teflonmagnet]

"In applauding Federer, the commentators ignored Laver’s empty years from 1963 to 1967, when he disappeared into that era’s all but invisible professional tour. In those five years, Laver, a 5-foot-10, 160-pound red-headed Australian left-hander, could have won 10, if not more, of the 20 Grand Slam events, which were open only to amateurs. If Laver had 21 or more major titles, Federer would still be chasing Laver. Laver would rightfully reign as the best tennis player in history, no arguments."

[@dpa71999]

Rosewall didn't play Wimbledon for 11 years when he was in his prime. He has the most versatile all-court player the world has seen.

[@markusantonious8192]

When placement was everything...and power was nothing.

[@user-em4wh5ji3w]

Lmao that’s ridiculous. Djokovic is the greatest ball locator in tennis history and has become the goat prioritizing that over power.

[@DexterHaven]

This guy is good. Might even win the Grand Slam one day.

[@mig1nc]

Which guy is which?

[@RobertKekuna]

Rod Laver is still the consensus GOAT, even Federer will tell you that. Having said that, the pros of today are, collectively, better athletes than the players of the '50s and '60s. Why? Money. Until 1968 pros were not allowed to play amateur events, like the Grand Slam tourneys. Thus, many of the best players in the world could not add to their Grand Slam records. If Laver were allowed to play the GS events between 1963 to 1967 he may have had even more GS titles and perhaps another Grand Slam or two. Rosewall could have won more, too. Their peak years occurred before the Open era. Another factor is that not everyone played the Australian Open back then, before the advent of modern air transportation. With the advent of big money athletes who normally would play other sports, like football (soccer), became tennis players. Not to say that pride doesn't play a role, but money is a great incentive to take your skills to the limit. Since all players play the GS tournaments nowadays, it is a more competitive environment than back in the '60s. The best players from any era played the best under the conditions they faced at the time. They are all champions, regardless of when they played.

[@stephanesurprenant60]

As far as I can tell, the best measure of a player's dominance is his ELO rating, the reason being that it is based on estimated probabilities of gains and losses for each matches and, hence, evaluates the performance of all players within the broader context of their environment. By this standard, the two most dominant players of all time are Federer and Djokovic (the Joker has a slight edge on the best moments of Federer). If you look at the evolution of this rating over the span of the best players' career, Federer's career is definitely the most exceptional: his rating dipped after his peek, but it seemed to have stabilized high late in his career, unlike all other GOAT contenders. Federer is the GOAT, in my opinion, because there is nothing you can find in tennis history that can genuinely compare to his career. Nobody has ever been this good for that long -- and he managed to do so in the most physical and power dominated environment of all.

[@RobertKekuna]

+10is Maestro When I posted my comment, for some reason I forgot Federer. I would tend to agree that Federer is the GOAT, in that he has been at or close to his peak for a long time. However, so was Laver who arguably was at or close to his peak from 1960 to 1971 or thereabouts. In some years he dominated at a level that even Roger and the Joker hadn't done. Laver won 22 tournaments in his GS year of 1962. OK, the pros weren't there, but as a pro in 1968 he won all the "grand slam" professional tournaments. And then there was 1969. But I stand corrected.

[@calugcug21]

Unfortunately Laver himself said Fed is GOAT lol

[@rondelego2]

why does the court seem so huge

[@circuitdesign]

@MrRalphNadal Yes, they did. And they talked about how the sun never sets on the British empire. But, like all things, things change...

[@BrainSane237]

@rondelego2 The angle of the camera... Also, these are two pretty small guys compared to the modern average tennis player.

[@stuartdryer1352]

Even for their era actually.

[@theoriginalthinker9199]

Would be great if you could see something.

[@stevehughes1510]

Another thing with the old rackets(to a certain degree) and serve volley game was the number of offensive and defensive lobs played...........not seen these days that much.

[@purplebondsaiyan2987]

What Surface is that Grass? It sure is not Clay because they are not Sliding

[@aleksandrpondios]

Great net game by both,god tennis even for today standard

[@gustavodukesalazar2123]

Que delicia poder ver esto. VIVA EL TENIS.

[@gustavodukesalazar2123]

Y tambien youtube por permitirlo.

[@guimov1984]

nice tennis. yes they were less powerful than today's players but what a class, what an accuracy with the groundstroke, and the ran to the net at almost every points!! the last player who did the kind of tennis (huge forehand and volley i mean) was sampras and he retired in 2003 :(

[@brianboucher4248]

+guillaume tbk Not quite accurate my friend... Racquet and string technology in many ways has taken away much of the subtlety/beauty of the sport. A great player from one era is as good as the players from other eras.... can't really compare....

[@guimov1984]

yes we can't compare but i imagine rod laver in his 20's with the today technology.... "boucher" you are french? :)

[@orangeprimate2633]

as a Racquet Heads get bigger. Players instead of hitting serve and volley can hit heavy topspin shots from the baseline. Some even only go to the net to shake hands.

[@MrRazorblade999]

If we had a time machine, how many games would these guys win against Djokovic?

[@amansaxena7872]

0

[@MrRazorblade999]

Aman Saxena You are probably right.

[@alanfrost75]

It would all depend who is going where. There is no way in hell Novak could play with this equipment, so if we are bringing him back in time, he would lose almost all the games. If we bring these guys forward, they would lose everything.

[@MrRazorblade999]

Give Djokovic a couple of months with their equipment and he would win.

[@alanfrost75]

Not a chance. There is nothing about the way he strikes the ball that would work with those racquets. Nothing. These are even worse pieces of stiff wood than the crap Mac used to play with. The sweet spot is the size of an acorn, so you cannot even strike the ball the same way and you cannot apply a fraction of the top spin. The modern swing would simply result in mishit after mishit. Also, here you need net skills. And because power is largely irrelevant (top spin is necessary for power otherwise the ball just flies out), it pays more to be nimble. Not to mention that the overall shot repertoire that you needed back then - actually right up until the modern era - was much greater. Today, because of all the lousy technology they basically all just play the same shots off the back court. So not a chance. None at all. But it goes both ways. They could not play the modern era either.

[@7Lukibi99Tore7]

@ Mitch Deschambault. It is also important for tennis fans to remember that (1) Borg would have won the 1977 French Open Men's Singles title, but was not permitted to play the French Open that year because players who played World Team Tennis were prohibited from playing the French Open back then, and (2) if Borg had not essentially retired from pro tennis after 1981, he probably would have won the 1982, 1983 and 1984 French Opens, although McEnroe might have defeated Borg in the 1984 French Open if Borg had played the French Open that year because McEnroe was at the peak of his tennis prime that year. Borg might have even won the 1985 and 1986 French Opens if he had played in them, but Wilander and Lendl would have given Borg very tough matches those two years.

[@gabyhelffhrittz]

In fact Rosewall played 16 Grand Slam final, won 8 and lost 8, 8 in the 50's, 2 of which were won in Australia; 53 and 55, France at 53, and the U.S. Open 56. the other four were lost were: final at Wimbledon twice, once in Australia and the U.S. Open, again played a final in 68 (12 years after the last) in France (finalist agian in 69), where he won. and won again in Australia 1971 and 1972 (aged 37) and a U.S. Open final in 1970 was also a finalist at Wimbledon in 1970 and 1974 (continue...)

[@marcbrandes9682]

Rosewall 25. Wins 12 losses in historical best of 5 championships. Laver 19 wins 14 losses.

[@sharpasaneraser]

Rosewall was silky fine as smooth as oiled glass, but Laver was on another plane altogether.

[@slicusdadon]

They even had the split step them days👍🏿👍🏿👍🏿

[@pmo1983]

i dont think the game is that different. i really enjoyed watching that. Watching this reminded me of the Edberg/ Becker matches that i grew up watching. both charging at the net and touch was more important than power. i think fabrice santoro may have been born in the wrong era. lol