PDA

View Full Version : Rod Laver: "I don't think anyone has the title of best ever" ?


rogerfederer26
06-07-2009, 03:53 PM
Let the debate begin: Is Federer now the greatest of all time?

By Douglas Robson, special for USA TODAY
PARIS — Let the debates begin.

Roger Federer's coveted victory at the French Open on Sunday against Sweden's Robin Soderling will launch a cavalcade of bar stool and Internet chat-room discussions about whether he is the greatest male player of all time.

The Swiss No. 2's first Paris win presents a strong case: It tied him on the all-time leaderboard in majors with Pete Sampras at 14, and also pushed him past Sampras as one of six men to complete a career Grand Slam — winning each of the four majors, Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open.

Federer, 27, has done so over an astonishingly short span since winning his first of five Wimbledons in 2003.

"I didn't think it would take seven years to tie it," Sampras said in a statement to ATPWorldTour.com. Sampras won his last major at the 2002 U.S. Open, and he told news organizations the Paris win confirms Federer as the best of all time.


SAMPRAS' ENDORSEMENT: Says Federer is now 'the greatest ever'
If Federer's missing Roland Garros title "settles the debate" according to Tennis Channel analyst Justin Gimelstob, it's an argument that is far from airtight.

"I don't think you can compare eras," said Australian Rod Laver, the only man to win two calendar-year Grand Slams and who is often cited as the standard-bearer of greatness. "You can be the dominant performer of your time, but I don't think anyone has the title of best ever."

Like Laver, Federer accomplished what Sampras never did: A win at Roland Garros. The American had some success on clay but his best result in Paris was the semifinals in 1995.

Federer, of course, has been a force on clay. Were it not for archrival Rafael Nadal, he might own more than one French Open crown.

The Swiss star — whose résumé also includes five Wimbledons, five U.S. Opens and three Australian Open titles — has been the second-best player on clay of his era, reaching the last three Paris finals and the semifinals the year before. Each time, he fell to Spaniard Nadal.

But playing a speculative parlor game of hypotheticals doesn't necessarily provide answers.

"What Laver did is god-like," said Andre Agassi, who completed his career Slam at Roland Garros in 1999 and who handed Federer his coveted Coupe des Mousquetaires men's trophy Sunday. "To win all of them in the same year twice — how do you argue with that?"

At the same time, Agassi said, Federer's consistency across all surfaces — his 20 consecutive appearances in Grand Slam finals is twice as long as the second best — and his Slam mark are unmatched.

"I wouldn't be on that side of the argument," Agassi said of downplaying Federer's greatness.

Many variables come into play when comparing eras.

Laver won his first Slam in 1962 as an amateur and his second as a professional in 1969.

Like many of his peers, the Australian known as the "Rocket" joined the professional barnstorming tours of the day and was ineligible to play the majors for a large chunk of his career because they were reserved for amateurs only until the post-1968 Open era.

Laver might well have won many more than his 11 major titles had he been able to play from 1963-67.

Similarly, some of his greatest rivals such as Ken Rosewall, Lew Hoad and Pancho Gonzalez already had turned pro, meaning Laver faced lighter competition for some of his wins. Players such as Hoad and Gonzalez, meantime, had few chances to stockpile their own cache of majors, even though many consider them among the best of all time.

"I won a lot when Hoad and Rosewall and Gonzalez weren't able to play in those tournaments," Laver said.

It's even dangerous to make comparisons in modern times.

Until it grew into prominence in the 1990s, the Australian Open was often an afterthought. Eight-time major winner Jimmy Connors played it just once more after winning it in his debut in 1974. Bjorn Borg, an 11-time Grand Slam champ, trekked Down Under just once, losing in the third round.

In the last three decades, surfaces have changed.

At one time, three of the four majors — the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the U.S Open — were played on grass. Today, they are played on three different surfaces, clay, grass and hardcourts.

Sampras' coach, Paul Annacone, said: "How many majors would Pete have won if he were playing three out of four on grass?"

Critics could point out at least two glaring holes in Federer's sparkling record: his lack of a Davis Cup title and his 13-7 losing record against main foe Nadal.

"Roger's numbers are hard to disagree with," Agassi said. "And then you have a guy who's beaten him almost twice as much. Sounds like an Achilles' heel."

Though no fault of his, some say Federer has had few great players to push him until Nadal, while Sampras battled numerous multiple major winners such as Agassi, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Sergi Bruguera and Gustavo Kuerten.

As Annacone points out, records and best-ever discussions come with a built-in escalation factor. Who's to say whether Federer's 14 majors are superior to Sampras' unprecedented six-year run of finishing the season No. 1 from 1993-98, or whether the measuring stick of greatness will shift?

"To me, that's more impressive than 14 grand Slam titles," Annacone said.

Roy Emerson of Australia was infrequently mentioned as the greatest of all time when Sampras passed his mark at the 2000 Wimbledon, largely because he won his 12 majors as an amateur in the pre-1968 era when professionals were competing elsewhere.

This much is certain: there can no longer be any shortlists of greats without Federer's name attached. He joins Fred Perry, Donald Budge, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson and Agassi as the only men to win all four majors in their careers. Only Agassi and Federer did so on three different surfaces.

Asked in his postmatch news conference where he stands in history, a proud Federer mostly dodged the question.

"I don't know if we'll ever know who was the greatest of all time, but I'm definitely happy to be right up there, that's for sure," he said.

Purostaff
06-07-2009, 04:15 PM
Laver, like most other tennis legends, are still in denial.

Fed is the GOAT and everyone knows it.

Cenc
06-08-2009, 02:03 AM
Laver, like most other tennis legends, are still in denial.

Fed is the GOAT and everyone knows it.

or YOU think YOU know it because YOU like him

adidas_wilson
06-08-2009, 02:04 AM
or YOU think YOU know it because YOU like him

Agreed,

Purostaff is a goose....

crosscourt
06-08-2009, 02:27 AM
I agree with Laver. If you look at this in terms of Grand Slams, Federer has a very good claim to be as good as anyone you can realistically compare him with, if not better. But best of all time? Who knows?

cc

adidas_wilson
06-08-2009, 02:43 AM
I agree with Laver. If you look at this in terms of Grand Slams, Federer has a very good claim to be as good as anyone you can realistically compare him with, if not better. But best of all time? Who knows?

cc

A good point. But you really don't know who to believe..

Everyone talks about the players of old not being the players of today, or the titles they won were not Pro titles. Yet when Sampras was being calculated as a great. The commentators used Roy Emerson ( a fellow Queenslander and for that matter an amature) as his yard stick..

Yet when it comes down to Laver and Court. Everyone runs around the place claiming that their legacies are tarnished because they played on grass and with lesser fields ect ect?

So if you want to use Emerson to Sampras, then you simply have to refer Federer to Laver, and Navratilova to Court Graf and the like...

Leublu tennis
06-08-2009, 02:51 AM
Laver, like most other tennis legends, are still in denial.

Fed is the GOAT and everyone knows it.I didn't know that? Maybe I am now in denial?

Dean
06-08-2009, 03:27 AM
I agree with Laver. If you look at this in terms of Grand Slams, Federer has a very good claim to be as good as anyone you can realistically compare him with, if not better. But best of all time? Who knows?

cc

I agree with Laver as well. It's impossible to compare eras fairly.

I wrote this in another thread:

These discussions about who's the GOAT really are a waste of time. The only way you can look at it is by finding the best of his generation or decade.

Here's the proper list of the greats of the game

1920's - Tilden
1930's - Budge
1940's - Kramer
1950's - Gonzales
1960's - Laver (Rosewall an honourable mention)
1970's - Borg (Connors an honourable mention)
1980's - Lendl (McEnroe an honourable mention)
1990's - Sampras
2000's - Federer (Nadal an honourable mention)

[/QUOTE]

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 05:53 AM
Sampras' coach, Paul Annacone, said: "How many majors would Pete have won if he were playing three out of four on grass?"

Probably the same amount. God, what a dumb thing to say.

I didn't know Pete was bad on hardcourts.

P_Agony
06-08-2009, 06:01 AM
I agree with Federer - he's not the GOAT - neither are Laver and Sampras. Nobody is IMO. Federer is my favorite player and that's what counts for me.

heninfan99
06-08-2009, 06:28 AM
I definitely believe you cannot decide the Greatest of All Time by Slam totals as people like Connors & Borg didn't play the Australian much. The Australian wasn't taken seriously until the late 80s. Before then they had to offer money guarantees to the top players to get them to play there.

My question is what if Nadal knees turn out to be healing and he wins more slams than Federer and wins the US Open. Is he suddenly the best?

I like the year end ranking as a guide & taking into account the opposition a player faced. But when I see the Laver footage I'm blown away with how natural and fluid he played the game. Fed is right. It's probably impossible to know.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 06:33 AM
Ambiguity!

Cesc Fabregas
06-08-2009, 06:37 AM
Probably the same amount. God, what a dumb thing to say.

I didn't know Pete was bad on hardcourts.

He wasn't bad on hardcourts but he was better on grass so he would have had more slams if 3 out of 4 were played on grass.

hoodjem
06-08-2009, 06:38 AM
"What Laver did is god-like," said Andre Agassi, who completed his career Slam at Roland Garros in 1999 and who handed Federer his coveted Coupe des Mousquetaires men's trophy Sunday. "To win all of them in the same year twice — how do you argue with that?"

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 06:45 AM
He wasn't bad on hardcourts but he was better on grass so he would have had more slams if 3 out of 4 were played on grass.

I doubt it. Pete had more competition on hardcourts, but I don't think he was any worse on it than on grass. Pete also got injured a couple of times going into the US Open.

If 3 of the 4 majors were on grass, there would be more grass courters and thus better competition for Pete.

CyBorg
06-08-2009, 06:45 AM
"What Laver did is god-like," said Andre Agassi, who completed his career Slam at Roland Garros in 1999 and who handed Federer his coveted Coupe des Mousquetaires men's trophy Sunday. "To win all of them in the same year twice — how do you argue with that?"

Agassi loves to say superficial, obvious things. He's intolerable.

bembi_a
06-08-2009, 06:46 AM
"As Annacone points out, records and best-ever discussions come with a built-in escalation factor. Who's to say whether Federer's 14 majors are superior to Sampras' unprecedented six-year run of finishing the season No. 1 from 1993-98, or whether the measuring stick of greatness will shift?

"To me, that's more impressive than 14 grand Slam titles," Annacone said."

- That is a biased statement considering that he was Sampras' coach. On the other hand, Federer had no coach to make such biased statements

Dutch-Guy
06-08-2009, 07:06 AM
Laver, like most other tennis legends, are still in denial.

Fed is the GOAT and everyone knows it.

Still obsessed with the "GOAT" thing? lmao

xube0001
06-08-2009, 07:08 AM
Though no fault of his, some say Federer has had few great players to push him until Nadal, while Sampras battled numerous multiple major winners such as Agassi, Jim Courier, Stefan Edberg, Boris Becker, Sergi Bruguera and Gustavo Kuerten.



I think this is the misconception and probably by many others too. Numerous multiple major winners such as Agassi, Jim Courier, etc, who appeared in Sampras' era does not mean Federer's era has few great players to push over other than Nadal. Think again, what if Sampras was to dominate the majors like Fed did in shorter span of years, nobody would say Sampras' time has more great players.

It is never easy to compare players from different times.

ATXtennisaddict
06-08-2009, 07:22 AM
These discussions about who's the GOAT really are a waste of time. The only way you can look at it is by finding the best of his generation or decade.

Here's the proper list of the greats of the game

1920's - Tilden
1930's - Budge
1940's - Kramer
1950's - Gonzales
1960's - Laver (Rosewall an honourable mention)
1970's - Borg (Connors an honourable mention)
1980's - Lendl (McEnroe an honourable mention)
1990's - Sampras
2000's - Federer (Nadal an honourable mention)

This is pretty much the best way to settle this discussion. There is absolutely NO WAY to say who's the GOAT.

Purostaff
06-08-2009, 07:32 AM
why so srs guise? I posted that as a sarcasm for the lulz

But you still can't deny the fact that Fed is the GOAT though :)

racquetfreak
06-08-2009, 07:34 AM
I think this is the misconception and probably by many others too. Numerous multiple major winners such as Agassi, Jim Courier, etc, who appeared in Sampras' era does not mean Federer's era has few great players to push over other than Nadal. Think again, what if Sampras was to dominate the majors like Fed did in shorter span of years, nobody would say Sampras' time has more great players.

It is never easy to compare players from different times.

with such complete domination of the slams by federer and nadal, the depth of the current mens tennis talent is obscured. imho, the there are several truly great players beneath the oil slick of ultra greatness that is the FEDAL monopoly.

i agree comparisons of players from different eras is not easy and to take it a step further, pure whimsy.

tahiti
06-08-2009, 10:37 AM
How old are you guys? Do you really think someone at Rod Laver's age worries about the things you think they do? obviously at your age that's how you rationalise things.

Laver's opinion has more weight than anyone on this board. He's a legend in his own right as others are and will be.