PDA

View Full Version : how can it be called a GOAT-worthy season if you lose 16 times in it? (1969)


tennis-hero
05-16-2009, 07:10 AM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/158539-the-ten-all-time-greatest-single-seasons-in-mens-tennis

Laver lost 16 times in 1969?

in 1962 he wasn't even a top 5 pro player???

give him a case for 1967 (pro slam), maybe

but GOAT?

are you kidding me

losing 16 times in 1969 is worse then all of Sampras's peak years

urban
05-16-2009, 07:23 AM
Simple. If you win 106 matches, 18 tournaments, including all 4 majors to complete the Grand Slam plus 4-5 Super nine events. The match count includes exhibitions, one night stands and third place playoffs. Mac's ratio is nice, but he played almost 40 matches less, and lost two of the biggest of the year, RG final and DC final. In Federer's match counts his one night stand losses to Roddick or Sampras ar not counted. Connors ratio is very good, but he pulled middle out of tournaments (look at his tournament count and the difference to his match losses), and in 3 majors he won, he played top tenners just 3 times: Rosewall twice and Tanner once.

pc1
05-16-2009, 07:31 AM
Simple. If you win 106 matches, 18 tournaments, including all majors to complete the Garnd Slam plus 4-5 Super nine events. The match count includes exhibitions, one night stands and third place playoffs. Mac's ratio is nice, but he played almost 30 matches less, and lost two of the biggest of the year, RG final and DC final.

Laver won 106 of 122 for 86.88% and as you mentioned Urban, the Grand Slam and Super Nine events.

Sampras in his BEST year won two majors and was 77-12 for a 86.51%. That's a lesser winning percentage than Laver in 1969 with far less activity and tournaments won.

You take into account Laver was the dominant player in the old pro tours for most of his time there and that he won the Pro Grand Slam in 1967 against the best players in the world and you have someone way overqualified at least to be considered for the GOAT.

I could argue that Laver played better overall tennis in other years in the pros. I think Laver, from 1964 to 1967 was a superior player to the Laver of 1969, who dominated Open Tennis. Laver was to turn 31 in August of 1969.

Check this youtube video of a 36 about to be 37 that year Laver against Connors and tell me if this old man isn't bad. Picture this same man at 27 and it's very scary how good he was. Laver volleys better at 36 than Federer does now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM

BTURNER
05-16-2009, 08:08 AM
the outstretched half volley forehand dropper over the highest part of the net told me something. Genius in 30 seconds.

hoodjem
05-17-2009, 11:43 AM
Check this youtube video of a 36 about to be 37 that year Laver against Connors and tell me if this old man isn't bad. Picture this same man at 27 and it's very scary how good he was. Laver volleys better at 36 than Federer does now!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SptdffCeVmM
Watch the replay at 2:33: Laver has micro-second quick relexes. Only Edberg or McEnroe could match this level of volleying.

CyBorg
05-17-2009, 12:27 PM
Problematic article, precisely because of the winning percentage part.

Yeah, that benefits Connors quite a bit. Did not play on red clay. Won a lot of mickey mouse events. Won the poorly attended Australian Open (counted as major in that formula).

Looks like a perfect year, but it isn't.

jimbo333
05-17-2009, 05:06 PM
Connors only ever lost 1 match in the Australian Open in the whole of his career!!!

Can any other all-time great match that?

pc1
05-17-2009, 05:50 PM
Problematic article, precisely because of the winning percentage part.

Yeah, that benefits Connors quite a bit. Did not play on red clay. Won a lot of mickey mouse events. Won the poorly attended Australian Open (counted as major in that formula).

Looks like a perfect year, but it isn't.

Admittedly Connors played often on the weak Bill Riordan circuit but he did win a lot of top tournaments aside from his three majors in 1974. He won the U.S. Clay Courts over Orantes and Borg, the South Africa Open over Solomon and Ashe and a tournament in London in which he defeated Solomon, Okker and Gottfried in consecutive rounds.

I actually think that Connors may have had overall better years later when he was playing the strongest circuit but it's hard to equal three majors out of three in one year. And in the mid to late 1970's he had players like Borg, McEnroe, Ashe, Vilas and Nastase (although Nastase did play the Riordan circuit at times) to content with.

I

CyBorg
05-17-2009, 06:48 PM
Admittedly Connors played often on the weak Bill Riordan circuit but he did win a lot of top tournaments aside from his three majors in 1974. He won the U.S. Clay Courts over Orantes and Borg, the South Africa Open over Solomon and Ashe and a tournament in London in which he defeated Solomon, Okker and Gottfried in consecutive rounds.

I actually think that Connors may have had overall better years later when he was playing the strongest circuit but it's hard to equal three majors out of three in one year. And in the mid to late 1970's he had players like Borg, McEnroe, Ashe, Vilas and Nastase (although Nastase did play the Riordan circuit at times) to content with.

I

Okay, it was still a good year. I'm just challenging the ranking and particularly the formula that decides the ranking.

Secondly, it's not really three of three majors. The Australian was far from a 'major'. I mean, Phil Dent - seriously?

Q&M son
05-18-2009, 06:00 AM
Simple. If you win 106 matches, 18 tournaments, including all 4 majors to complete the Grand Slam plus 4-5 Super nine events. The match count includes exhibitions, one night stands and third place playoffs. Mac's ratio is nice, but he played almost 40 matches less, and lost two of the biggest of the year, RG final and DC final. In Federer's match counts his one night stand losses to Roddick or Sampras ar not counted. Connors ratio is very good, but he pulled middle out of tournaments (look at his tournament count and the difference to his match losses), and in 3 majors he won, he played top tenners just 3 times: Rosewall twice and Tanner once.

Fully agree.
Making a joke, if somebody lost 40 matches but played 290...

pc1
05-18-2009, 06:23 AM
Okay, it was still a good year. I'm just challenging the ranking and particularly the formula that decides the ranking.

Secondly, it's not really three of three majors. The Australian was far from a 'major'. I mean, Phil Dent - seriously?

Good point.

urban
05-18-2009, 07:41 AM
Connors - besides the Riordan tour -played also WTT matches in 1974. I never found out, what his match record was there. I once read, that he lost a one set match to Newcombe.

pc1
05-18-2009, 08:06 AM
Connors - besides the Riordan tour -played also WTT matches in 1974. I never found out, what his match record was there. I once read, that he lost a one set match to Newcombe.
I think Connors lost 7-6 to John Newcombe in that match.

According to a website about WTT, Connors was the scoring leader that year but they don't have his won-lost record.

hoodjem
02-03-2014, 10:24 AM
Connors only ever lost 1 match in the Australian Open in the whole of his career!!!

Can any other all-time great match that?How many times did he enter?

NatF
02-03-2014, 10:33 AM
How can it not be a GOAT worthy season when you win ALL the major championships? When you play as many matches in a season as Laver did in 1969 you're bound to have some more losses too. Not to mention Laver was 30 years old!

kiki
02-03-2014, 12:41 PM
Connors was claimed to be the biggest risk taker ever...now, look at 37 yrs old Laver

kiki
02-03-2014, 12:41 PM
Laver took any risk at the biggest risk taker known (Connors)

What sets Laver apart of anybody else is that he is/was the supreme risk taker.

That is the deal

90's Clay
02-03-2014, 04:00 PM
..... Because you win all 4 grand slams in a calendar year? :shock::shock::shock:

When has it been done since?? Pete is my favorite ever, but he doesn't have ONE season that can hold a candle to Laver's GOAT 1969 season.

Nor does anyone else. The Calendar Slam is the holy grail of tennis and the most DIFFICULT to attain. A big reason which keeps Laver at the top of the heap as greatest ever (Among other achievements of course like his 200 Career titles. Something that will never be matched as well)

kiki
02-04-2014, 02:02 PM
Connors - besides the Riordan tour -played also WTT matches in 1974. I never found out, what his match record was there. I once read, that he lost a one set match to Newcombe.

Well, the Riordan show not only had Jimbo.Nastase,Gerulaitis,Amritraj and some other good folks like Sandy Mayer and Karl Meiler used to be addicts to it.

Sandy was a 1973 W SF and Karl a 73 AO semifinalist as well.

BobbyOne
02-04-2014, 05:34 PM
Connors - besides the Riordan tour -played also WTT matches in 1974. I never found out, what his match record was there. I once read, that he lost a one set match to Newcombe.

urban, Connors won a match on WTT against Rosewall only by 5-7.

Edit: I meant 7-5...

Vensai
02-04-2014, 09:41 PM
As was mentioned, Laver was not exactly in his prime when that happened, and he played quite a few matches.

kiki
02-05-2014, 02:58 PM
urban, Connors won a match on WTT against Rosewall only by 5-7.

Edit: I meant 7-5...

1975.North Conway.Both playing again.

BobbyOne
02-05-2014, 04:30 PM
1975.North Conway.Both playing again.

kiki, At North Conway Connors won by 6-2,6-2 in the final.

Vensai
02-05-2014, 07:18 PM
It doesn't really matter how much you lose, as long as you win more and in the big moments at slams in my opinion. Players who could raise their level on the big stage tended to succeed.

BobbyOne
02-06-2014, 05:02 AM
It doesn't really matter how much you lose, as long as you win more and in the big moments at slams in my opinion. Players who could raise their level on the big stage tended to succeed.

Vensai, It's not the same if you lose 1-6, 0-6, 1-6 or 5-7 as a 39 years old against the world champion...

monfed
02-06-2014, 11:10 AM
Yup it's just luck, all things fell into place for him to win his 4 slams. Overhyped season.

kiki
02-06-2014, 12:33 PM
Yup it's just luck, all things fell into place for him to win his 4 slams. Overhyped season.

Yes, Mercure and Uranus just got aligned in 1969.

Then man stepped onto the moon

So the logical conclusion is that it had to be the Rocketīs year.

BobbyOne
02-06-2014, 05:05 PM
Yup it's just luck, all things fell into place for him to win his 4 slams. Overhyped season.

monfed, Federer had several overhyped seasons...