Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY
Same result: Laver wins the Grand Slam.
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.
One of the points that Laver emphasizes repeatedly in The Education of a Tennis Player
was that there was no similarity at all between the grass at Wimbledon in 1969 and the grass at Forest Hills for the US Open
. The former was fast with a true bounce, the latter was rough, gone, divetted, muddy, and "like a swamp" (because of two days on rains).
He makes one of his stranger analogies in this reference, when he speaks about calling them both grass: "When you say that Wimbledon is a grass court tournament and Forest Hills is a grass court tournament--and isnt grass, after all, grass?--you might as well say that Raquel Welch is a woman and Twiggy is a woman., and what's the difference? Wimbledon is so alluring because it is cuddled and cared for more than King Farouk ever was."
"But labor problems and the climate are insuperable. American grass just doesn't hold up long beneath a thundering herd of tournament players."
"But in playing conditions in the day, it [Forest Hills] it was a far-down bush league all its own. The courts are grass, and American grass is for cows and lovers--not tennis players. In fact, American grass courts are so uncertain underfoot that ann unwary cow might break a leg strolling from baseline to net. Or starve. There isn't much grass let on an American court by the time a tournament reaches its climax."
"Uncertainties of American grass made tennis at Forest Hills comparable to driving the Indianapolis 500 on cobblestones. The 1969 Open, practically ruined by record New York rains, made it clear that grass must be replaced by a level, all-weather surface . . ."