View Single Post
Old 10-14-2012, 05:50 AM   #49
kiki's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 17,797

Originally Posted by abmk View Post
no, it doesn't. 67 was a smaller field ( pros only ) ....... chances of upset are more in a 128 person draw ... see drysdale beating laver in 68 US Open.

Also French Pro in 67 was indoors ...... French Open would be on clay .....Rosewall did beat him @ RG on clay in 68 .... he'd have a good shot at the same in 67 as well ....

so no, the 67 pro slam is not close to the true grand slam ...

no, it doesn't .... laver never dominated a stretch of years as federer did from 2004-07 ......just being the no 1 player for those years doesn't mean he was as dominant as federer was ....

he leads nadal H2H outside of clay , both on hard courts and on grass... the only place where nadal leads him is clay, which is not surprising as nadal is the claycourt GOAT ......

reality is you are mad that federer has surpassed crush laver as the GOAT in the eyes of most ...

and of course you have near zero knowledge of tennis
The best tournaments, now, before and ever are those competed by the best.No matther the nš of players entering.The best events all throughout the 50īs and 60īs were pros, so most of them are pros.We have to go case per case, anyhow.Maybe a few amateurs traditional slams had a better cast than the early 50īs pros events, so we should go one bu one to be fair.

And there are two things as sure as life about *******s never being able to overcome:

-.freaking Nadalīs ownage
-.Laverīs 3 GS...

There is only two ways to counterbalance it: either Fed starts beating up Nadal, and I think this is the easiest of the two possibilities...and retires winning 3 GS ( of course, only calendar counts) which I donīt think he is able fact, with pathetic 2003-2006 opposition he wasnīt able so figure it nowĄĄĄĄ

Lots of Love.Keep posting.Itīs funny.
Whenever I walk in a London street, I am always so careful where I put my feet
kiki is offline   Reply With Quote