Maybe my definition of psychological is too broad:
"He felt that his wife had sacrificed enough to get him to the Grand Slam and he owed her the same courtesy."
"I had no thought of another Grand Slam in 1970"
"cost him a certain physical and more a mental freshness,"
"relieved to finally lose at Wim, where he was unbeaten since 10 years"
I would call all of these factors psychological.
I believe that the motivation to do what it takes to win just one slam was not there, after (because of contract deals) he could not win the calendar Grand Slam (because he could not enter the Australian Open).
In other words, after you've won all four in one year, can you really get yourself motivated to worry about just one?
(Also by 1970 Laver was supremely focused on making money? I believe that the emphasis on the greater significance of the slams that we have today was not quite so all-consuming in 1970 as it is now. Did the slams offer the highest purses of the time?)
Step 1: Refute content of argument. If that fails, Step 2: question intelligence of the author. If that fails, Step 3: demonize the messenger.
Last edited by hoodjem; 10-01-2012 at 10:24 AM.