Originally Posted by pc1
Of course Laver's career is not beyond scrutiny but as Urban did point out he certainly has a huge amount of pluses in so many areas.
But you can say the same for Tilden, Gonzalez, Rosewall and Borg among others.
I thought I had raised a fair point of discussion about the how it wouldn't have been so easy for Laver to rack up 20+ GS tournament wins had Open Era started much earlier, based on the illogical "Laver's career was X and he won Z, but if his career was Y, he still would have won Z" post. Instead, I got a derisive and didactic recitation of Laver's résumé, not unlike TMF's incessant repostings of Federer's list of achievements.
This forum is supposed to be a more mature discussion of tennis and historical cognizance. Yet anytime Laver gets put under the microscope, it goes to the triarii
who absolutely refuse to accept critique of the man. Kudos to hoodjem for actually engaging in a dialogue.
Federer is routinely nitpicked for his H2H with Rafa, how he wouldn't have won the FO if Rafa was healthy, etc. - and fairly so. Anyone with that staggering of a career should be looked at, dissected, and argued about. Laver is no exception. Is it at all possible he could have won 20 majors entirely in the Open Era? Sure. Do I personally believe it? No.
I'm not TMF. I'm not asking questions simply to denigrate Laver's achievements. He's one of the greatest ever, possibly the
greatest. I just think some of the posters here need to be a little more open-minded when talking about Laver.