View Single Post
Old 01-03-2013, 08:43 AM   #24
abmk
G.O.A.T.
 
abmk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: India
Posts: 14,309
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY View Post
Again, you are missing the crucial point: anti-Laver (pro-Federer) types attempt to suggest Laver enjoyed some advantage, but that is patently impossible, as he played under the same conditions as everyone else in that year, so it came down to talent/mastering the sport.

Moreover, as the majors eventually used four different surfaces, it did not stop Graf from transitioning to win the Grand Slam, so either way, there is no spinning history to protect and/or inflate Federer--or anyone else (as noted earlier), who won three majors in the calendar year.
no, that doesn't make any sense ...... try again ...

if all 4 slams were on clay, we wouldn't be hearing about the talent of the likes of sampras, mac, edberg, connors much ....... instead we'd be hearing much more about how talented bruguera, kuerten , vilas etc were ....

just because conditions are same for everyone doesn't mean a particular type of player doesn't enjoy the advantage .....

Like I said , hard courts allow for a wider range of gamestyles to flourish in comparison to clay or grass ...... so that does make a difference ...

Laver's GS in 69 was a tremendous feat, no doubt .... but it that alone isn't his greatness, not even close .....

it was the fact that he first dominated the amateurs, then the pros and then finally in the open era ,was versatile and consistent @ his peak years ....

by just stating the calendar GS time and time again alone, you're doing him a great disservice ......

would it be very very difficult for anyone to emulate what Laver did in 69 ? absolutely .. but is it more difficult to do it now ? yes ....

to expect federer to complete the toughest part of the calendar GS for him, RG , with prime nadal standing in the way in 2006,07
vs
laver who got to play a sub-par rosewall in the RG finals in 69

is just being plain thick ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY View Post
Concentrated DOMINANCE does not mean, "well, he sort of had a run at the majors in this year, and that year, then failed somwhere along the way at one of them." No, it means winning all four majors in the calendar year, which he did not do, and in that regard, he's in the exact position with the same end result of Wilander: no Grand Slam. Winning 3 in two additional years over Wilander still ends with no Grand Slam.
concentrated dominance means dominance over the tour overall, at all events .....

get this : the tennis world does not revolve around the calendar GS ......
abmk is offline   Reply With Quote