View Single Post
Old 01-03-2013, 05:01 AM   #14
abmk's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: U.S
Posts: 15,045

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY View Post
Same result: Laver wins the Grand Slam. Some TW members with a glass-clear agenda wish to reduce Laver's historic accomplishments by suggesting he had some sort of "advantage" due to surface. This irrational theory conveniently forgets that his rivals all played on the same surfaces, so they were as experienced on/exposed to the surfaces at the same time, just as it would be in a 4-surface era. There's no getting around that level playinf field.
so having 4 slams on clay/grass in comparision to having 4 slams on HC is the very same ?

that more styles of play can succeed on HC than on either clay or grass isn't a factor at all ?????

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY View Post
Laver's mastery of the sport was the result of supreme talent & understanding of the sport, not the wholly fictional "advantage" used to provide excuses for other players.
so is federer's

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY View Post
Federer--like Wilander before him--could not win the Grand Slam not due to surface changes (otherwise, it would have prevented Graf from winning her Grand Slam) but both being incapable of concentrated dominance in the calendar year--destined to fall short somewhere along the way.
federer's seasons in 2004,2006 and 2007 ( 3 slam years ) are wayyy ahead of wilander's when in comes to dominance ( see win-loss % )

federer had a win loss record of

74-6 in 2004 (3 slams+YEC)
81-4 in 2005 (2 slams+2 slam semis)
92-5 in 2006 (3 slams+1 slam final+YEC)
68-9 in 2007 ( 3 slams+1 slam final+YEC)

that is concentrated dominance in a calendar year unless you are thick ...only reason he didn't win the GS is in 2006/07 is a certain rafael nadal, the CC GOAT.

Give him instead a totally sub-par Rosewall in a Roland Garros final and he also wins RG in 2006/07 making a clean sweep ...
abmk is offline   Reply With Quote