PDA

View Full Version : A RG victory this year would have the greatest impact on whose career (TOP 3)?


powerangle
05-26-2012, 01:10 PM
A RG victory in 2012 would mean the most in whose career?

Djokovic - A career grand slam, joining a select list, plus four-in-a-row, last achieved by Laver in 1969 (and across three different surfaces to boot).

Nadal - Record breaking 7 Roland Garros titles.

Federer - two of each major title, an extremely select list, and only player to do so on three different surfaces.


For me, I would rate Djokovic's victory as having the most impact on his career. Nadal and Federer already have so many accolades and accomplishments, that while great if they win 2012 RG, it wouldn't boost their careers as much as it would boost Novak's.

What do you think?

Rock Strongo
05-26-2012, 01:14 PM
No. They should all just lose in the first round. Seriously, it's time for a new champion.

Mustard
05-26-2012, 01:24 PM
All would be amazing achievements. Djokovic wins it and he becomes the first player since Rod Laver to hold all 4 majors at the same time. Nadal wins it and he overtakes Borg and wins a seventh French Open. Federer wins it and he joins Laver and Emerson as the only players to win all 4 majors at least twice each.

At the drive in
05-26-2012, 02:32 PM
Djokovic.





Federer is seen as the greatest to ever lift a racket by the majority of the tennis world one win won't really do anything significant to the tennis world. Nadal, regardless of how many FO titles he wins he still won't be regarded as a better clay courter than Borg due to how weak this era is on clay and given the age Borg retired.

Evan77
05-26-2012, 02:57 PM
yeah, I guess Novak holding all 4 slams would be an amazing accomplishment. LIKE REALLY, REALLY BIG ...

buttpicker winning another RG, oh, it's like who cares?

Homeboy Hotel
05-26-2012, 03:02 PM
Djokovic > Federer > Nadal

papertank
05-26-2012, 03:06 PM
Nadal's accomplishment is the only one you listed that has never been done before. To me, that makes it the greatest impact.

forzamilan90
05-26-2012, 04:04 PM
three way tie tbh. Fed would basically become even more consensus GOAT than he is now with a 2nd FO (imagine if he beats Nadal too, i mean that would really just about end the debates)

Djokovic would hold all 4 majors, also 4 consecutive majors too. Not too shabby. Instantly gets catapulted amongst some really serious all time greats.

Nadal would become unquestionably (sorry Borg fans) the best on clay ever with another FO.

Really all three guys will up their resume by a considerable margin to something spectacular if they win.

Hood_Man
05-26-2012, 04:09 PM
I voted Djokovic because I want to see someone win 4 in a row, and it might also re-energise him for the rest of the season. It would be remarkable if he then went on to win Wimbledon and the US Open... *comes back down to earth*

Then again, Fed winning it would be wonderful too. I'm not sure how wonderful since he's already had his Ivanisevic moment, and I don't know exactly how I'd feel unless it happens, but it would certainly be a highlight of my year.

...Then again, I'd like to see someone completely new win a major too.

[EDIT]

Djokovic winning would probably be the most historic.

veroniquem
05-26-2012, 06:49 PM
All would be amazing achievements. Djokovic wins it and he becomes the first player since Rod Laver to hold all 4 majors at the same time. Nadal wins it and he overtakes Borg and wins a seventh French Open. Federer wins it and he joins Laver and Emerson as the only players to win all 4 majors at least twice each.



I would like to add that right now all 3 have won 2 tier 1 events in 2012:
- Djoko: AO and Miami
- Fed: IW and Madrid
- Nadal: M-C and Rome


It makes for good suspense that the top 3 have been so competitive so far. It's really not a given yet which one will take a decisive lead and step out of the pack in the end.

veroniquem
05-26-2012, 06:53 PM
Nadal's accomplishment is the only one you listed that has never been done before. To me, that makes it the greatest impact.



Both Nadal and Djoko's attempts have never been done before, so to me they have similar impact. Sure, Laver won the 4 slams in 1 season but only on 2 surfaces. It would be the first time someone wins 4 in a row on hard, grass and clay. That would definitely be a precedent.

sureshs
05-26-2012, 06:54 PM
Undoubtedly Djokovic, because it will propel him to the GOAT #2 status.

Mustard
05-26-2012, 06:57 PM
Both Nadal and Djoko's attempts have never been done before, so to me they have similar impact. Sure, Laver won the 4 slams in 1 season but only on 2 surfaces. It would be the first time someone wins 4 in a row on hard, grass and clay. That would definitely be a precedent.

The thing is, though, Laver won the biggest titles on all surfaces in 1969. Hardcourt was arguably Laver's best surface and there weren't many tournaments on hardcourt back then. And the grass of the US Open was very different from the grass at Wimbledon.

Apun94
05-26-2012, 08:37 PM
Djokovic.





Federer is seen as the greatest to ever lift a racket by the majority of the tennis world one win won't really do anything significant to the tennis world. Nadal, regardless of how many FO titles he wins he still won't be regarded as a better clay courter than Borg due to how weak this era is on clay and given the age Borg retired.

Hahahaha, good one. Do you think that i Nadal wins 10 RG(quite possible) Borg would still be considered better????!!!

Mike Sams
05-26-2012, 09:40 PM
The problem with Nadal winning RG is that he's not really winning anything else other than clay titles. So who really cares? He's already the king of clay as it is. People are already fully aware that he's only winning on clay and winning nothing else, no matter how many finals he's making. Basically the finals is where the tournament begins for the top 3 guys so Nadal losing in the final is basically the same as losing in the first round. He's still as far away as possible from winning the tournament until he's actually holding up the trophy. :lol:
Djokovic winning 4 Slams in a row, which Federer and Nadal could not do, is probably nothing short of phenomenal.
I think when Djokovic gets into week 2, he's going to be increasing his level. Whoever is going to beat him is going to have to play nothing less than their absolute best and that includes Nadal.
This isn't going to be Rome where Djokovic is having tantrums and smashing racquets because of 1 point. He knows what's at stake and will be mature enough to keep his focus and his mind on the task. It's going to be a very interesting tournament regardless of how poor Nadal's side of the draw is.

Mike Sams
05-26-2012, 09:42 PM
Undoubtedly Djokovic, because it will propel him to the GOAT #2 status.

It puts Djokovic on the status of Legend.

Mike Sams
05-26-2012, 09:43 PM
The thing is, though, Laver won the biggest titles on all surfaces in 1969. Hardcourt was arguably Laver's best surface and there weren't many tournaments on hardcourt back then. And the grass of the US Open was very different from the grass at Wimbledon.

Nobody cares about what Laver did. It's a whole different sport now. He's too small to have been any kind of threat to Nadal on clay. He'd have no shot.

Tennis_Hands
05-26-2012, 10:04 PM
Djokovic's achievement would be most impressive. Then Federer's. Then Nadal's.

Although I wouldn't sweat it. The homogenization of the surfaces at the big 4 takes care, that the achiievement is somewhat diminished in its significance.

I would like to add that right now all 3 have won 2 tier 1 events in 2012:
- Djoko: AO and Miami
- Fed: IW and Madrid
- Nadal: M-C and Rome

LOL at AO and MC being in the same boat. Or any of the M1000 tournaments for that matter.

joeri888
05-26-2012, 11:43 PM
For Federer only the fact that hč is still so good would be valuable, and i think it would be big If he beats rafa to do it. But his career can Hardly be impacted aanymore. Same goes even more for rafa on
Clay. 6 or 7 FO is just amazing

So Djokovic it is.

joeri888
05-26-2012, 11:45 PM
Both Nadal and Djoko's attempts have never been done before, so to me they have similar impact. Sure, Laver won the 4 slams in 1 season but only on 2 surfaces. It would be the first time someone wins 4 in a row on hard, grass and clay. That would definitely be a precedent.

There are Hardly different surfaces today.

Gizo
05-26-2012, 11:59 PM
I don't think Djokovic will be able to catch either Federer or Nadal in the grand slam count (maybe he'll prove me wrong but I don't see it at this point in time).

Therefore it would be quite cool if he was able to achieve something significant and amazing that neither Federer or Nadal were able to do. Federer was 2 sets away from holding all 4 slams simultaneously in 2006 and 2007 French Opens, while Nadal was 3 matches away at the 2011 Australian Open. Sampras was also 3 matches away at the 1994 French Open.

Then again the best thing for tennis would probably be to have 4 different grand slam champions this year for the first time since 2003, with a preferably a brand new grand slam champion from outside the big three along the way.

Djoker
05-27-2012, 12:40 AM
The greatest impact would be for Djokovic.
This shouldn't really be even up for debate.

abmk
05-27-2012, 05:36 AM
djoker, federer and nadal in that order ...

Cesc Fabregas
05-27-2012, 05:40 AM
djoker, federer and nadal in that order ...

7 Roland Garros's says otherwise.

NatF
05-27-2012, 05:43 AM
I don't see how 7 French opens will establish Nadal as better clay courter than he is already with 6.

abmk
05-27-2012, 05:43 AM
7 Roland Garros's says otherwise.

holding all 4 slams at once and having 2 of every slam & winning a slam after 2 and half years have a stronger say .....

Cesc Fabregas
05-27-2012, 05:44 AM
holding all 4 slams at once and having 2 of every slam & winning a slam after 2 and half years have a stronger say .....

The 4 in a row I agree with but Nadal beating Borg's 6 French Open's would be more memorable than Federer winning atleast 2 at every slam.

Sentinel
05-27-2012, 05:48 AM
Looking at it another way ...
Nadal - for if Joker beats him it would shut out Nadal totally. Nadal needs to win this to prove he's still relevant.

NatF
05-27-2012, 05:48 AM
With Federer it's not so much 2 of every slam as it is about his legacy. If he were to go through say Nadal at the French at age 30 it would further cement his place among the all time greats.

abmk
05-27-2012, 05:50 AM
The 4 in a row I agree with but Nadal beating Borg's 6 French Open's would be more memorable than Federer winning atleast 2 at every slam.

not quite ... especially considering federer hasn't won a major in a while ...

and if he beats both nole and nadal or even just nadal, that'd be huge ...

pvaudio
05-27-2012, 06:15 AM
Djokovic easily. Federer has nothing to prove anywhere. Nadal has nothing to prove by winning his favorite tournament again. Neither has won all four in a row, and it would also give Djokovic a career slam in addition to 4 consecutive.

jelle v
05-27-2012, 06:15 AM
I cannot make a choice so I voted that they are all about equal..

If you were to hold a gun to my head and make me make a choice, I think i would say Federer.

Federer winning Roland Garros at this point in his career would imply that at 30 (?) he is still capable of winning slams on his "worst" suface, taking his slam count to 17, with Djokovic and Nadal at the peak of their careers.

Taking into account how long Federer as been at the top of the game and the point in his career, him winning RG would probably make him -without a doubt- the GOAT. I think that even Nadal fans wouldn't argue with that anymore with always the same argument.

Ofcourse.. I fully expect Nadal to win RG 2012..

pvaudio
05-27-2012, 06:18 AM
The 4 in a row I agree with but Nadal beating Borg's 6 French Open's would be more memorable than Federer winning atleast 2 at every slam.Not really no. Borg never even played an entire career, so there's always that excuse to use as a what if. Nadal is already the greatest clay court player ever, so even if he does win RG, all it does is give him another title and cement him as being able to only defend clay titles. Nothing more. Federer winning at 30 on his worst surface and Djokovic completing the Djoker-slam are more significant.

pvaudio
05-27-2012, 06:19 AM
I cannot make a choice so I voted that they are all about equal..

If you were to hold a gun to my head and make me make a choice, I think i would say Federer.

Federer winning Roland Garros at this point in his career would imply that at 30 (?) he is still capable of winning slams on his "worst" suface, taking his slam count to 17, with Djokovic and Nadal at the peak of their careers.

Taking into account how long Federer as been at the top of the game and the point in his career, him winning RG would probably make him -without a doubt- the GOAT. I think that even Nadal fans wouldn't argue with that anymore with always the same argument.

Ofcourse.. I fully expect Nadal to win RG 2012..
Head-to-head bro, all that matters. Especially so if Fed wins "because" Rafa exited early.

nadal_GOAT_king
05-27-2012, 06:21 AM
Nadal, nadal_slam_king and me

jelle v
05-27-2012, 06:24 AM
Head-to-head bro, all that matters. Especially so if Fed wins "because" Rafa exited early.

Slam count all that matters..? Strange idea to make one aspect the deciding factor.

Take everything into account. Imo H2H is not everything that matters, especially when you're facing possibly the GCOAT and the match up couldn't be any worse.

underground
05-27-2012, 06:25 AM
Nadal, nadal_slam_king and me

Hi ***, I see you like posting in your new account.

Sentinel
05-27-2012, 06:32 AM
^ They aren't the same. nGk guy rocks. Don't you get yourself banned, NGK.

pvaudio
05-27-2012, 06:35 AM
Slam count all that matters..? Strange idea to make one aspect the deciding factor.

Take everything into account. Imo H2H is not everything that matters, especially when you're facing possibly the GCOAT and the match up couldn't be any worse.*facepalm* I was imitating the nadal-ites. Head to head is next to meaningless to anyone who actually considers success.

jelle v
05-27-2012, 06:37 AM
*facepalm* I was imitating the nadal-ites. Head to head is next to meaningless to anyone who actually considers success.

Oh sorry pvaudio.. I don't know everybody's opinion about this and I didn't get your sarcasm. But in hindsight I could have.. :oops:

Evan77
05-27-2012, 06:46 AM
Hi ***, I see you like posting in your new account.
lol, I was just thinking, what the hell, he managed to open another account ... haha, *** is good

nadal_slam_king
05-27-2012, 07:05 AM
Djokovic.





Federer is seen as the greatest to ever lift a racket by the majority of the tennis world one win won't really do anything significant to the tennis world. Nadal, regardless of how many FO titles he wins he still won't be regarded as a better clay courter than Borg due to how weak this era is on clay and given the age Borg retired.

Who were the great claycourters Borg faced? Anyone of them as good as Federer/Djokovic?

Mustard
05-27-2012, 07:40 AM
Who were the great claycourters Borg faced? Anyone of them as good as Federer/Djokovic?

The best clay-courters Borg faced were Vilas, Connors, Panatta, Solomon, Gerulaitis, Pecci, Orantes, Ramirez, Dibbs.

abmk
05-27-2012, 07:58 AM
^^

add lendl to that list ...

TMF
05-27-2012, 09:49 AM
three way tie tbh. Fed would basically become even more consensus GOAT than he is now with a 2nd FO (imagine if he beats Nadal too, i mean that would really just about end the debates)
Fed adding one more slam will certainly widen the gap. But don't expect the debates end because there's always Fed's detractors out there.

Djokovic would hold all 4 majors, also 4 consecutive majors too. Not too shabby. Instantly gets catapulted amongst some really serious all time greats.
Yes, if he wins the FO then there will be a debate as to who was more impressive...Laver in 69 or the present Nole. Some will say it's Laver because it's in a calendar year, but others will argue that Nole won his 4 slams on all 3 surfaces + in a modern time.

Nadal would become unquestionably (sorry Borg fans) the best on clay ever with another FO.
7>6. Even if you are not a rafa fan.

Really all three guys will up their resume by a considerable margin to something spectacular if they win.[/QUOTE]
True, but I believe this title will have more influence on 1)Rafa, 2)Nole, 3)Fed.

TMF
05-27-2012, 09:56 AM
The thing is, though, Laver won the biggest titles on all surfaces in 1969. Hardcourt was arguably Laver's best surface and there weren't many tournaments on hardcourt back then. And the grass of the US Open was very different from the grass at Wimbledon.

But the fact is he didn't win a slam on hc. Just because you said he was great on hc doesn't necessary means he would have won the slam on hc. There are players who are the favorite to win when they happen to be a better player but still lost(i.e Connors in 75 WB, Lendl in 89 FO, Fed in 2005 AO, Sampras 96 WB, etc..)

TMF
05-27-2012, 09:58 AM
Nobody cares about what Laver did. It's a whole different sport now. He's too small to have been any kind of threat to Nadal on clay. He'd have no shot.

LOL...surprise that kiki didn't respond to your post. I guess he must you on his ignore list.

Mustard
05-27-2012, 10:13 AM
But the fact is he didn't win a slam on hc. Just because you said he was great on hc doesn't necessary means he would have won the slam on hc.

Laver never had that opportunity, just as Federer hasn't had the opportunity to win tournaments on indoor wood.

TMF
05-27-2012, 10:21 AM
Laver never had that opportunity, just as Federer hasn't had the opportunity to win tournaments on indoor wood.


LOL,but you guys holds Laver's 69 to today's standard but yet you ignore the fact that today's players don't have a chance to play on only 2 surfaces at the slams. So Nole(if he does win the FO) he should hold the standard to past. Let's be fair.

Mustard
05-27-2012, 10:30 AM
LOL,but you guys holds Laver's 69 to today's standard

The point is that Laver won the best titles on all surfaces. The biggest hardcourt tournament in 1969 was the South African Open. Laver won it by beating Okker in the final. The first hardcourt major, unless we are counting the 1939 US Pro and 1956 Tournament of Champions, was the 1978 US Open.

kiki
05-27-2012, 12:18 PM
LOL...surprise that kiki didn't respond to your post. I guess he must you on his ignore list.

Believe me, it is not nice to beat you left right and expose your complete and almost unhuman cluelessness and uncompetency in front of millions of posters...Laver won 3 times the big 4 events of the year and THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SIZES...NOBODY ELSE HAS DONE IT AND THERE HAVE BEEN PLENTY OF TALLER PLAYERS THAN HIM...I guess, you still think tennis= basketball, the sport where you may have a clue (of course, just NBA)

kiki
05-27-2012, 12:21 PM
The best clay-courters Borg faced were Vilas, Connors, Panatta, Solomon, Gerulaitis, Pecci, Orantes, Ramirez, Dibbs.

+ Nastase,Lendl,Kodes and solids Barazutti,Higueras and Gildemeister

kiki
05-27-2012, 12:25 PM
Both Nadal and Djoko's attempts have never been done before, so to me they have similar impact. Sure, Laver won the 4 slams in 1 season but only on 2 surfaces. It would be the first time someone wins 4 in a row on hard, grass and clay. That would definitely be a precedent.

The 3 grass courts he played were much more different than the current 4 majors courts.Not even a hint of comparison.

BeHappy
05-27-2012, 12:27 PM
Obviously Federer's career. It would be the biggest and most impressive grand slam win in his entire career in my opinion.

Gizo
05-27-2012, 01:32 PM
I wonder if the 2009 French Open will come back to haunt Djokovic. He had played very well during the clay court season, finishing as the runner-up to Nadal at Monte-Carlo and Rome, winning his home title in Belgrade, and of course losing that epic semi-final at Madrid to Nadal.

Then in RG he lost in the 3rd round to Kohlschreiber. One day later Nadal, who in addition to beating him 4 times on clay that year (including a Davis Cup rubber), had eliminated him from the French Open every year from 2006-2008, lost to Soderling.

Djokovic must really have been kicking himself after those 2 results.

veroniquem
05-27-2012, 01:38 PM
The 3 grass courts he played were much more different than the current 4 majors courts.Not even a hint of comparison.


It doesn't matter. The point is no one has done it on clay, grass and hard.
And I've been waiting all my life to see it. A few players were close but somehow never pulled it off.

Evan77
05-27-2012, 01:39 PM
I wonder if the 2009 French Open will come back to haunt Djokovic. He had played very well during the clay court season, finishing as the runner-up to Nadal at Monte-Carlo and Rome, winning his home title in Belgrade, and of course losing that epic semi-final at Madrid to Nadal.

Then in RG he lost in the 3rd round to Kohlschreiber. One day later Nadal, who in addition to beating him 4 times on clay that year (including a Davis Cup rubber), had eliminated him from the French Open every year from 2006-2008, lost to Soderling.

Djokovic must really have been kicking himself after those 2 results.
you have a very good point, as Djoko should have never lost to Koli ... but what do you do? all top players will lose here and there ... I think that was the best chance for Djoko to win RG, but he failed really badly ...

kiki
05-27-2012, 01:43 PM
It doesn't matter. The point is no one has done it on clay, grass and hard.
And I've been waiting all my life to see it. A few players were close but somehow never pulled it off.

It is a fact that the 1969 GS included clay and 3 different kind of grass.Nowadays, courts are very very similar, no matter how you call them.So, a GS win will be huge because it means the big 4 the same year, but still short of Laverīs accomplishment....

Evan77
05-27-2012, 01:53 PM
The point is that Laver won the best titles on all surfaces. The biggest hardcourt tournament in 1969 was the South African Open. Laver won it by beating Okker in the final. The first hardcourt major, unless we are counting the 1939 US Pro and 1956 Tournament of Champions, was the 1978 US Open.
bud, with all respect, he won on grass, clay, grass and grass again (slams wise) . LOTS OF GRASS, so please ... things are much more complicated nowadays. now, I expect someone to post something how all surfaces are homogenized (I'll puke, but that's OK), and here we go again :)

kiki
05-27-2012, 02:00 PM
bud, with all respect, he won on grass, clay, grass and grass again (slams wise) . LOTS OF GRASS, so please ... things are much more complicated nowadays. now, I expect someone to post something how all surfaces are homogenized (I'll puke, but that's OK), and here we go again :)

You said it yourself: courts are the same ( plus no depth in terms of true champions)

forzamilan90
05-27-2012, 02:02 PM
It is a fact that the 1969 GS included clay and 3 different kind of grass.Nowadays, courts are very very similar, no matter how you call them.So, a GS win will be huge because it means the big 4 the same year, but still short of Laverīs accomplishment....

Nobody in their right mind (except you or a few others from Former Pro section) would say that considering the competitive evolution of the sport today, let alone current GS be seen as inferior to Laver's back in the day. With due respect cause I've read a lot of the crap you post, you are not very objective and flat out spit putrid on this ear a bit too much. It seems that just about anything a pro does nowadays will be inferior just cause it wouldn't be "the way of the old/or be done the way they did it back then."

kiki
05-27-2012, 02:11 PM
Nobody in their right mind (except you or a few others from Former Pro section) would say that considering the competitive evolution of the sport today, let alone current GS be seen as inferior to Laver's back in the day. With due respect cause I've read a lot of the crap you post, you are not very objective and flat out spit putrid on this ear a bit too much. It seems that just about anything a pro does nowadays will be inferior just cause it wouldn't be "the way of the old/or be done the way they did it back then."

AC Milan was much better in former times than now, with all the pensionist of their roster.Do you agree?

forzamilan90
05-27-2012, 02:19 PM
AC Milan was much better in former times than now, with all the pensionist of their roster.Do you agree?

what does that have to do with tennis and you saying just cause it's done in the past makes it better than now?

kiki
05-27-2012, 10:25 PM
what does that have to do with tennis and you saying just cause it's done in the past makes it better than now?

I am not a past oriented person, I jst happen to like more former tennis, which as an opinion many others have, whether they post it or not.And, I still think the greatest ever achievement in this sport was done by Rod Laver, back in 1969.Yes, it was in the past and, till now, hasnīt been done again.Whether you accept it or not.Hypocresy is big big big asset for todays generations...

TMF
05-28-2012, 07:53 AM
The point is that Laver won the best titles on all surfaces. The biggest hardcourt tournament in 1969 was the South African Open. Laver won it by beating Okker in the final. The first hardcourt major, unless we are counting the 1939 US Pro and 1956 Tournament of Champions, was the 1978 US Open.

No. His grand slam is base from the 4 slam events and nothing more, which he won 3 grass and 1 clay. It's not the same as today.

SStrikerR
05-28-2012, 08:03 AM
Federer, assuming he beats both djokovic and nadal

TMF
05-28-2012, 08:17 AM
Believe me, it is not nice to beat you left right and expose your complete and almost unhuman cluelessness and uncompetency in front of millions of posters...Laver won 3 times the big 4 events of the year and THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SIZES...NOBODY ELSE HAS DONE IT AND THERE HAVE BEEN PLENTY OF TALLER PLAYERS THAN HIM...I guess, you still think tennis= basketball, the sport where you may have a clue (of course, just NBA)

LOL...no one needs to beat you because you keep beating yourself !
Self-proclaimed knowledgeable person but yet many members disagree with you.:oops:

How many time have I said that Laver's size is not an issue during his heyday but it's a disadvantage in modern tennis ? Plenty of time, but yet you keep forgetting. You're getting old. It doesn't matter how loud you scream because it's not going to change the fact that 20 years ago the great players are hovering around 6", not 5'7". If you watch tennis you'll understand that having an ideal size for balance game(power, movement, reach, serve, speed)is a prerequisite to be the best player. Since you don't watch tennis I don't expect you to know, but do continue to self-proclaim yourself to know so much if it helps you sleep well at night.

Mustard
05-28-2012, 09:48 AM
No. His grand slam is base from the 4 slam events and nothing more, which he won 3 grass and 1 clay. It's not the same as today.

Sorry, but Laver won the Grand Slam on grass and clay, and the South African Open on hardcourt, all in 1969. Laver couldn't win a major on hardcourt because he never had that opportunity, just like Federer hasn't had the opportunity to win tournaments on indoor wood.

mcenroefan
05-28-2012, 11:26 AM
Nole, then Fed, then Nadal.

mcenroefan
05-28-2012, 11:28 AM
Sorry, but Laver won the Grand Slam on grass and clay, and the South African Open on hardcourt, all in 1969. Laver couldn't win a major on hardcourt because he never had that opportunity, just like Federer hasn't had the opportunity to win tournaments on indoor wood.

I wonder.....Who would be happier if they changed the AO to indoor wood....Fed or Isner?

I'd love to see a tourney played on it just to see what would happen.

mcenroefan
05-28-2012, 11:32 AM
I am not a past oriented person, I jst happen to like more former tennis, which as an opinion many others have, whether they post it or not.And, I still think the greatest ever achievement in this sport was done by Rod Laver, back in 1969.Yes, it was in the past and, till now, hasnīt been done again.Whether you accept it or not.Hypocresy is big big big asset for todays generations...

I think it's a very fair point....if Fed and Nadal are the greatest of all time....why can't they do what Laver did...twice?

As an aside, I think Secretariat's performance in the Belmont was even better than Laver's Grand Slams.

kiki
05-29-2012, 02:20 PM
I think it's a very fair point....if Fed and Nadal are the greatest of all time....why can't they do what Laver did...twice?

As an aside, I think Secretariat's performance in the Belmont was even better than Laver's Grand Slams.

Yes, thatīs the point.If it is so easy, why they donīt do it? they just have Djokovic as a serious foe...which Laver was never fortunate enough to have ( just 2 guys to beat 9

BlueClayIsRealClay
05-29-2012, 02:21 PM
Biggest impact would be for Murray. His first slam and it would give him the confidence to compete with the other 3 at the slams.

kiki
05-29-2012, 02:52 PM
No. His grand slam is base from the 4 slam events and nothing more, which he won 3 grass and 1 clay. It's not the same as today.

Laver played 3 different types of grass and a slow clay as opposed to very similar turf today for the big 4, be it called grass, clay or hard.

kiki
05-29-2012, 02:54 PM
LOL...no one needs to beat you because you keep beating yourself !
Self-proclaimed knowledgeable person but yet many members disagree with you.:oops:

How many time have I said that Laver's size is not an issue during his heyday but it's a disadvantage in modern tennis ? Plenty of time, but yet you keep forgetting. You're getting old. It doesn't matter how loud you scream because it's not going to change the fact that 20 years ago the great players are hovering around 6", not 5'7". If you watch tennis you'll understand that having an ideal size for balance game(power, movement, reach, serve, speed)is a prerequisite to be the best player. Since you don't watch tennis I don't expect you to know, but do continue to self-proclaim yourself to know so much if it helps you sleep well at night.

Them how comes a 5,7 player wins the big 4in the same year and taller guys donīt.In fact, Laver was already very short compared to his own peers.it wouldnīt make any difference...

Federererer
05-29-2012, 02:57 PM
Would be amazing if Federer could get 2 grand slams, tying him with the great Rod Laver.

The Gentleman's Sport
05-29-2012, 07:07 PM
In terms of record-breaking impact: Djokovic, since it's the greatest of all those achievements.
In terms of mental impact (resulting from the Djokovic victory): Nadal. When he loses to Djokovic here, in his fortress, he's never going to recover.

bullfan
05-29-2012, 07:12 PM
All would be amazing achievements. Djokovic wins it and he becomes the first player since Rod Laver to hold all 4 majors at the same time. Nadal wins it and he overtakes Borg and wins a seventh French Open. Federer wins it and he joins Laver and Emerson as the only players to win all 4 majors at least twice each.

It's amazing how a win could be a major milestone in 3 different careers other than simply winning a GS for the first time!

sonicare
05-29-2012, 07:34 PM
Laver played 3 different types of grass and a slow clay as opposed to very similar turf today for the big 4, be it called grass, clay or hard.

Just when I thought I had heard everything.