Originally Posted by Chopin
No, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all had "greater" seasons than Laver's '69 season. Laver's '69 season was fine, but it was from another era where the Australian Open was smaller than many Masters Series titles and three out of four slams were played on grass. There's no comparison, what Federer, Nadal and Djokvoic have done winning three slams in a year is more impressive than what Laver did.
Mac and Becker understand this. Laver was a fine player in his day, but he was playing in an era much weaker than today. Laver would be a top 50 player today, maybe crack the top 20, but he'd never be a slam champion.
Your basing this on what evidence? Throughout tennis history top players with long playing lives have done well against the younger competition late in their careers eg connors, pancho gonzales, agassi. That tells me that at the top level things are not hugely better.
There the myth that the cuurent player is so much stronger, fiitter and faster than the players of old -never substatinated with any evidence. The mile record hasnt improved for 12 years and the 100 metres record has only improved by a fraction of a second in 30 years -so we know that athletes arent much better.