What did Pancho Gonzales mean when said this?

[akv89]

"At his (Rod Laver's) best, I think I might've had too much court coverage for him. He was a great athlete, but he didn't have the thinking part."

From what I've read about Laver, my impression was of him was that he had great variety and was a very cerebral player. I had never thought of him as someone who won because of his athleticism rather than his tactics, so this quote from Pancho Gonzales is somewhat confusing. Can anyone explain the context behind this quote?

[Rabbit]

Gonzalez didn't consider Laver a "thinking" player. I think this was largely due to Laver's first instinct when in trouble, which was to hit the ball harder. Laver generally was able to overpower his opponents off the ground and keep them on the defensive.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

Gonzalez didn't consider Laver a "thinking" player. I think this was largely due to Laver's first instinct when in trouble, which was to hit the ball harder. Laver generally was able to overpower his opponents off the ground and keep them on the defensive.

And we have to remember that Laver's instinct to hit more aggressively with topspin when in trouble wasn't considered to be an intelligent response. Today, we can see that it is THE intelligent response.

You also have to take into account that Gonzalez only considered one player (Lew Hoad) to have been better than himself. However, Hoad was a purely instinctive player. So any argument about Laver not being a 'thinker' has more to do with Gonzalez' complete unwilllingness to praise anyone other than himself than any real truth about Rod Laver's game.

In other words, when Pancho compares other players to himself, imagine you're listening to Serena Williams.

[Chopin]

^^Agree 100%. Gonzales was not exactly the most humble of champions.

[Dean]

Originally Posted by Chopin

^^Agree 100%. Gonzales was not exactly the most humble of champions.

Most of the Americans were similar, especially Jack Kramer. I think he even called Laver a '2nd tier player' or '2nd echelon player' and placed him after several of the American champions. Even after Laver had completed his second Grand Slam. Sour grapes i think.

Gonzales had some early success against laver in '63 when he first turned pro, but after that Laver mostly dismantled his game and their H2H, was in the end, very one sided.

[joe sch]

Originally Posted by Dean

Most of the Americans were similar, especially Jack Kramer. I think he even called Laver a '2nd tier player' or '2nd echelon player' and placed him after several of the American champions. Even after Laver had completed his second Grand Slam. Sour grapes i think.

Gonzales had some early success against laver in '63 when he first turned pro, but after that Laver mostly dismantled his game and their H2H, was in the end, very one sided.

A big part of Pancho Gonzales negativity resulted from being subject to Jack Kramers organization and contracting of the barnstorming tours in Pancho early years. He was not given the opportunity to play for the big bucks. It is also not soo much American but just certain champions that dont give respect to the new generations. Both Kramer and Gonzales felt the newer gererations were baseline bashers rather than skilled all court players that used tennis smarts to play allcourt agressive games. The same thinking is now common in camparing the players post 2000 with those of the earlier decades. One great quality of Laver is he never disrespects any of the more current champions and always agrees with the public that the new players like Sampras and Federer are the GOATS.

[Chopin]

Originally Posted by joe sch

A big part of Pancho Gonzales negativity resulted from being subject to Jack Kramers organization and contracting of the barnstorming tours in Pancho early years. He was not given the opportunity to play for the big bucks. It is also not soo much American but just certain champions that dont give respect to the new generations. Both Kramer and Gonzales felt the newer gererations were baseline bashers rather than skilled all court players that used tennis smarts to play allcourt agressive games. The same thinking is now common in camparing the players post 2000 with those of the earlier decades. One great quality of Laver is he never disrespects any of the more current champions and always agrees with the public that the new players like Sampras and Federer are the GOATS.

I agree that Laver is humble, but I personally think it's kind of odd to keep saying, "Oh Rodney, thanks but we know you really don't mean that." No matter what Laver says, it seems like people want to bend his words to fit their own opinions. Laver does not have to answer to anyone. Let's take the guy's words at face value. I think it's pretty clear that Laver has enormous respect for Sampras and Federer and views them as two of the greatest players to ever play (maybe even the GOATS).

He's not a pushover and besides, he never said "Federer is GOAT," he merely said that Federer is the greatest of his generation and that's it's difficult to call someone the greatest ever. Seems like a reasonable response, no? I don't think it has anything to do with "agreeing with the public."

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

And we have to remember that Laver's instinct to hit more aggressively with topspin when in trouble wasn't considered to be an intelligent response. Today, we can see that it is THE intelligent response.

You also have to take into account that Gonzalez only considered one player (Lew Hoad) to have been better than himself. However, Hoad was a purely instinctive player. So any argument about Laver not being a 'thinker' has more to do with Gonzalez' complete unwilllingness to praise anyone other than himself than any real truth about Rod Laver's game.

In other words, when Pancho compares other players to himself, imagine you're listening to Serena Williams.

Oh, trust me, I in no way meant to imply that I agreed with Gonzalez's estimation. I think the point comes more from the fact that Gonzalez was not paid on an equitable basis with Tony Trabert of Rod Laver in Kramer's business. I think that was a terrible discrimination on Kramer's part as well.

Gonzalez had nothing but praise for Borg however, and he mellowed toward Laver as well. In one of Laver's books, cowritten with Bud Collins, Laver referred to Gonzalez as "that b@s****", so there was never any love lost between the two men.

Originally Posted by Chopin

I agree that Laver is humble, but I personally think it's kind of odd to keep saying, "Oh Rodney, thanks but we know you really don't mean that." No matter what Laver says, it seems like people want to bend his words to fit their own opinions. Laver does not have to answer to anyone. Let's take the guy's words at face value. I think it's pretty clear that Laver has enormous respect for Sampras and Federer and views them as two of the greatest players to ever play (maybe even the GOATS).

Laver has said nothing but good things about every #1 since him. He said he was "honored to be mentioned in the same breath as John McEnroe" when McEnroe was #1. So yes, Laver's words are self-effacing and directed toward the current #1 as was the Aussie way. Laver does deflect from himself. But, everyone knows Laver was/is the man.

This is not to denigrate Federer, but I think am coming to the conclusion that comparing different eras is pointless and without any basis whatsoever.

[gpt]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

This is not to denigrate Federer, but I think am coming to the conclusion that comparing different eras is pointless and without any basis whatsoever.

indeed, i agree

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by Chopin

I agree that Laver is humble, but I personally think it's kind of odd to keep saying, "Oh Rodney, thanks but we know you really don't mean that." No matter what Laver says, it seems like people want to bend his words to fit their own opinions. Laver does not have to answer to anyone. Let's take the guy's words at face value. I think it's pretty clear that Laver has enormous respect for Sampras and Federer and views them as two of the greatest players to ever play (maybe even the GOATS).

He's not a pushover and besides, he never said "Federer is GOAT," he merely said that Federer is the greatest of his generation and that's it's difficult to call someone the greatest ever. Seems like a reasonable response, no? I don't think it has anything to do with "agreeing with the public."

Laver has said his height would be a problem in this era. I'm sure Laver, when he makes this statement, is aware he dominated taller players in his era. Laver realizes the power in the game has changed the equation even if his supporters do not.

[Wuornos]

The skills necessary for the Pro Game and Amateur game at this time were different.

In the Amateur game then, like the Open Era today, it was necessary to be able to adapt your game on the hoof to find the relative weaknesses and strengths of many different players some of whom you may never have faced before and know very little about.

In the Pro game at that time the playing population was much smaller and in some circumstances long series of matches were played between two players. This enabled a player more time to think and adapt his game to the relevant opposition.

The cerebral aspect existed in both games at this times but with a different emphases.

It may be Gonzales wasn't refering to Laver's response to differing conditions and players in the short term individual matches, which I think lay beyond doubt, but was instead commenting on his longer term adaptability and analysis.