Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by urban, Oct 7, 2012.
I knew you just don´t have enough experience to settle up a weightening factor.
Laver meant 63 to 67 amateur slams...you know.
I understand the concept but does anyone truly follow it all the time? If you say you do you are probably the first that I know of.
You know not much about Beethoven. He lived in the 18th and 19th century.
Jesse Owens would match the modern athletes if he would have the same equipment.
at least change it to leD zeppelin, if you want me to take you seriously
kiki, king of typos
treblings, please compare their achievements and their competition...
pc1, You can better explain my opinion than I can. My English is not that good yet.
bobby, please understand that my above comment was made to lighten the mood and not to take sides.
i am not interested in who is the GOAT.
i admire Federer for his sportsmanship, his elegant style, his ability to make extraordinary shots look simple, almost easy.
come to think of it, those are qualities that i think he shares with Rosewall.
I´m quite sure, they admire each others games a lot.
TMF, I do admire Novak Djokovic and to a lesser grade Federer, Nadal and Murray.
Yes, Federer has an elegant style.
I know that Rosewall admires Federer but I'm not sure if Roger knows too much about Muscles. I guess his idol is Laver...
Give Federer some credit. i think of all the current top pros he is probably the one who knows the most about past champions
Perhaps. I think Sampras knew a great amount of the past greats also.
One interesting connection, Andre Agassi was once Pancho Gonzalez's brother in law. I have always found that amazing because Agassi has been called the best service returner of all time and Gonzalez the greatest server of all time. Talk about being connected to tennis history.
Wow! Las Vegas cloud atlas.
to Andre´s sister Rita if i remember correctly. from what i´ve heard, Agassi supported Gonzales financially in his later years. not sure if it´s true.
I suppose so.
It's a sad fact that most current players and fans know at the most Laver but not Rosewall, Gonzalez and other giants of tennis. I have not seen any hint that Federer is an exception.I just find this unfair.
That's true. I think it is because Laver's Grand Slam in 1969 still gets a lot of publicity but it shouldn't get any more than the accomplishments of Gonzalez and Rosewall.
What bothers me is that even without the Open Grand Slam in 1969 Laver would still have a case for being one of the greatest players ever, if not the best. It wouldn't be as strong of course. Problem to me is that many casual fans may know about Laver's 1969 Grand Slam but don't realize how much he accomplished in addition to the Grand Slam in 1969.
Gonzalez's and Rosewall's achievements may very well be every bit as good as Laver's or anyone else. Perhaps better.
I agree. I believe Laver is appreciated and remembered by his two official Grand Slams. But people don't care about his at least 200 tournaments won and other achievements. Similary to this most "officials" neglect Rosewall's 23 major titles and Gonzalez' big world tour wins. Not to speak about Tilden's great career...
It seems that I did hear about Tilden "still having the record for consecutive titles at the US championships" after Fed failed to win in 2009--falling one short of Tilden's record.
He may have had the record for more consecutive Wimbledon titles too if he traveled overseas to Wimbledon.
Of course we should throw Steffi into the mix in the all time tennis royalty area also in that family.
Ooooooooohhhhhh cosmic: "We are all connected."
who has even talked about Margaret Osborne, who outclasses Graf and Navratilova for total singles+doubles major titles?
That is because there is no respect for past greats anymore
It seems to me that the USLTA's attitude after 1921 when Tilden won the WHCC, Wimbledon and the US Championships, was that Tilden was the best player in the world and that challengers should go to him. When Cochet beat Tilden in the quarter finals of the 1926 US Championships and Lacoste won the tournament, Tilden realised that he now had serious competition from overseas, so he started going back to Europe in 1927, playing in the French Championships and at Wimbledon again for the first time since 1921. It took some years before Tilden got the upper hand on the Musketeers.
You know this. It's obvious.
"The game has evolved to be so much better these days: harder, better, faster, stronger."
--TMF and Daft Punk
(But the interesting part of this Theorem of Tennis Evolution is that once Fed retires, tennis will inevitably get weaker and worse.)
Margaret Osborne passed away this past Wednesday at the age of 94.
That is what I meant.Just some words at papers when she is one of the best ever women players of anytime.
well laver would likely have won 20 plus slams and maybe a 3rd calender slam without the ban but you have to consider that roger faced a lot better competition. who did laver have to beat?
03-06 was similarly weak but fed also won slams later against nadal, murray and djokovic who were all better than anyone laver ever faced.
Who did Laver have to beat? Only players like Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, Gimeno, Roche, Newcombe, Ashe, Emerson, Stolle etc. Easy :-?
...Fraser,Santana,Smith,Pietrangeli,Okker;Drysdale,Ralston plus others he didn´t beat but played the events like Nastase,Kodes,Lutz...
kiki, You speak from my heart, as we say in German. That's why I often post about Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and others. I just omit Laver because the Rocket often gets his due respect.
You could say Fed would have won 30+ slam if the pool was very small. With lacks of athletes, there might not be a Nole, Murray, Safin, Nadal, etc. around. The lesser players would take their position as the top ranked players. And since we base on achievement, these lesser players are equal to Laver's top adversaries. Plus, having a split field Fed wouldn't have do deal with some of the best players.
Now let's have Laver playing in a much bigger pool, and NO split fields. No question he would have accomplished much less than he did in the '60.
No he didn't. Further proof you don't watch tennis thus don't know what's going on.
TMF, At least regarding Laver's pro majors won we can be sure that he would have won them even if the amateurs like Emerson would have participated.
And yet Federer has a negative record against all of these guys.
Laver had incredible competition to face dominkk1985. Those guys that Mustard mentioned were fantastic. I might toss in the great Sedgman, Trabert, Borg, Smith and Segura. Sedgman volleyed like Edberg but with a much better forehand but a weaker backhand but still a solid backhand. I've seen Nadal, Djokovic and Murray and I think they are great but I've seen many of the guys Mustard mentioned and they were incredible. A young Borg would have been major problems for all of them and yet Laver was able to beat him. Roche was unbelievable and while Roche could beat Laver, Rod did very well against Roche. Rosewall may be as great as anyone that ever live. Newcombe is one of the all time greats with a serve up there with anyone's. Gonzalez was of course super and a GOAT candidate but to be fair he was past his prime when he faced the Rocket. Laver even faced Connors and gave him problems but Laver never beat Connors.
Here's a vid of their match
Now bear in mind this was in 1975 and Laver was 36 able to be 37. Check out the speed and reflexes of an old Laver and ask how good he was at 25. Connors was clearly the superior player at this point in time.
No, he doesn't. He has a positive record vs. Djokovic and a slightly negative record vs. Murray (but he leads at the majors). If you watch tennis, you can see that even now Fed is able to deal with those two (for the most part) when it counts. The exception being Djoker in 2011, and even then Fed was the only one who beat him in a major that year.
Nadal is Fed's problem, not the other two.
I would think both Djokovic and Murray are problems too in any circumstance. Murray recently and definitely Djokovic the last few years. To say the other two are not problems is very unrealistic. And combined against these three he had a total record of 10-18 against Nadal, a record of 16-12 against Djokovic and finally a record of 8-10 against Murray for a combined total of 34-40. Now whether it's because Federer has declined or whether these players provided better competition is a matter of debate. It's probably a combination of the two.
Murray was always a problem for Federer but not in big tournaments until recently. Whether he can keep it up is debatable but he is a gifted player and a danger against anyone. He has beaten Federer at the Olympics which is a big title Federer wanted badly.
Djokovic has beaten Federer at numerous majors so again to say he's not a problem makes absolutely no sense at all.
To not quote Richard Feynman (or is he Matthew Broderick) "It ain't over til it's over." Yes the quote makes no sense in the context of this post but I just like to write it.
Yes, a young Laver would rate higher than Connors, with much more variety of weapons. Also, the two-hand shot reduces reach on volleys, and this counts on grass.
In fact, I would not rate Connors ahead of Crawford, Trabert, Newcombe, all of whom had great all-round games. Newcombe would rate ahead of Connors on grass (witness Forest Hills 1973, Australian Open 1975), but probably below Connors on rubber or clay.
I take it that you believe that Laver having a losing record against some of his younger opponents means that it was a combination of them being better competition in addition to Laver's decline, or is that the type of talk you reserve for Federer alone? Is it probably a combination of the two? :lol:
You may cite a larger age difference but that could be easily countered with a more physical game where age is more easily exposed. If you step on the court, must you not be willing to accept your defeats as well as your victories? I just don't see it as a negative to accumulate more losses as you play past your prime. That is the way it works, the only way around it is to retire at the top, which is not something that fans want to see.
I suppose we'll see where Murray and Djokovic are generally ranked as compared to Federer when all is said and done.
I already mentioned the age decline with Federer already. Read my post carefully. You were the one who wrote that Djokovic and Murray are no problem.
Notice I never wrote Djokovic and Murray were superior players to Federer but just that they provide superior competition to what he had in the past.
Clearly in Laver's case and in the age of almost all the greats, youth must step forward. Of course he eventually had problems with youth and of course Federer does also. You were the one who wrote Federer only has problems with Nadal. Laver had problems with Rosewall and Gonzalez, later Connors, Borg, Smith and a number of others. Fact is that greats of course have problems with other greats.
Check out the post you're discussed and noticed the part in bold.
I understand, pc1, I just don't agree that the competition has magically gotten stronger. Fed (or any other great player) is going to start losing more often to anyone as he ages. It would have happened with the same players he used to crush if they were somehow immune to the effects of aging. I only ask how you know how "strong" a player is. It seems like you can tell, as you claim to know for a fact the level of play of the players.
As to the bolded part, the first part of my previous post was simply making fun of what you mentioned about Federer aging.
Perhaps I can't tell. Maybe I'm wrong but I do believe that Djokovic, Murray and Nadal are superior competition to Andy Roddick who was number one in 2003 and a major foe of Federer's. I can't prove it but I would tend to think that most are fairly certain that the overall game of Nadal and Djokovic are clearly superior to anything a peak Roddick would have done. I'm not saying Roddick was awful but he's just not on the level of Nadal and Djokovic. I don't think he's on the level of Murray when Murray is playing at top form.
What do you think? Is Federer's competition better now or in 2005 when the top five were Federer, a young Nadal, Roddick, Hewitt and Davydenko.
Of course it is quite possible that Federer in 2005 would have dominated the competition of today also. We don't know and will never know. We do know for a fact that Federer did dominate in 2005 and that's all he could do.
I'm not sure. I just don't think that some of the players back then were too bad. I have seen the likes of Davydenko, Roddick, Safin, and Nalbandian not only beat players like Nadal, Murray, and Djokovic but make them look pretty foolish. Growing pains, maybe, but some of the beatdowns came after those three were slam winners or at least slam finalists.
My biggest issue with these types of arguments is that they are not carried out fairly in general. They are mostly knee jerk reactions to all the finals where people get tired of seeing Federer blow everyone off the court.
If I were a professional tennis player and I was good enough to be in some type of GOAT contention, I would have thought that destroying my competition was a prerequisite for being placed at the top. That is where Fed fails for me, as he was never able to exert true dominance over everyone on every surface. I would think that the true GOAT would retire simply because he has no worthy adversary to face, is bored, and wants to allow the fans to see some other winners. Epic battles, while entertaining, only show that your fellow players are close.
True. Luckily, knowing these things for sure isn't all that important.
Since Laver was excluded from amateur majors AT HIS PEAK one has to resort to. Pro slams with the better fields.Laver took a bunch of them
True but clueless TMF never heard of them
Why did you forget other greats Rocket faced and defeat such as Emerson,Hoad,Fraser,Ashe, Nastase,Gimeno,Kodes,Santana,Pietrangeli,Stolle,Anderson,Cooper?
Hey, slow down.
Laver did not really face Hoad, Nastase, Anderson, Cooper at their peak form. And in 1963 and 1964, Laver lost two tours to Hoad. Not impressive.
Didn't he win a tour against Hoad begin 1964 with 7-1 or 8-0, and hadn't he a head to head with Hoad of 37-15 (if i remember Andrew Tas numbers correctly).
You don't get my point and/or just ignore my post.
Separate names with a comma.