Laver's close era CYGS should, remain closed. Even his open era CYGS, let's be open about it.

[thrust]

Including Laver in the same breath as even Murray is an insult to modern tennis. The game has moved on in a huge way, and tennis was a grasscourt game in every event other than RG, playing in long slacks with jumpers and whereby tennis etiquette was such that hitting winners from the baseline was considered "rude" and "unsportsmanlike", one had to approach the net to put the ball away, tennis really started in the 80's.

Not true in the Laver-Rosewall era, especially on the pro tour, where they played on all surfaces.

 

[DSH]

Come on, this "homogenisation" argument can only be an excuse for those who failed to win single important tournaments like Sampras and Borg. But what does that mean for total Slam count? Nothing, it all cancels each other out in the end. Because now you have to beat every contender everywhere while back than some were especially difficult and some especially easy (and elsewhere the other way around).

To say today it’s generally easier to win Slams is a joke. Imagine what it means if really everything would play the same and you would only play against “specialists” who built their whole game for exactly those conditions. You have to be the ovreall best to dominate and cannot create niches for yourself.

But while I agree though that courts are more similar to each other than in the 90s, homogenisation is still a bit overrated. Just look at Nadal on clay and off clay, and you will see it it not the same.

and federer on grass and see the difference him playing on clay.

 

[DSH]

Haha, quite true. Only in the last months he adjusted his game a bit to grass and faster hardcourts.

But the difference is the outcome. He totally dominates clay with this game but struggles a lot everywhere else. So surfaces are not the same.

his problem is djokovic!