Originally Posted by SgtJohn
Indeed. Laver also won the Sydney Dunlop Open in 1970 that took place 2 months after the Aussie. It was explicitly considered in the media as the 'unofficial' Australian major (strangely the 1st Australian Open in history in 1969 was not a success financially, so the organizers couldn't offer the same prize money the next year, hence the absence of the top pros; the Dunlop was a WCT event, so no financial issues...). Laver beat Ashe, the Australian Open winner in the final.
He couldn't take part in Roland Garros from 1970 to 1972. Afterwards, only WTT players were banned from 1974 on. But in 1973, though Laver was allowed to play he declined to go, which shows that his commitment to RG or the Australian in the 70s would have been patchy at best even if he could take part every time.
In 1972 and 1973 he wasn't in Wimbledon, the 1st time around because of the professionals' ban, the 2nd time because of the famous boycott.
He was at the Australian in 1971, but that was the last good field of the 70s there and in the following years Laver did not make the trip, though I think there was no ban or limitation of any sort.
Sounds like if he'd been allowed to compete that Laver would have won the AO of 1970 and the FO of 1971. But he wasn't.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are aggressively certain, while the intelligent are full of doubt.
Last edited by hoodjem : 02-11-2010 at 04:41 PM.