Originally Posted by dima
I mean, did he win slams on clay, hardcourts, and grass on the same year? No he didn't, thus making it not that good.
Could he win "slams" on hard courts in 1969? Was it even possible?
If you want to take something away from Laver, then take it away because he failed or he stumbled, not because it did not exist or the world did not offer it.
He played all four slams. He won all four slams. Did he lose a match at the "slams" that year?