Why Laver didnt win a slam after 1969?

[Rabbit]

I'm currently reading Mr. Nastase. It's evident that the real money in tennis didn't start until after Laver's prime. Really, the real money didn't start until after Nastase's prime. Anyway, Nastase relates several stories about playing in tournaments and having to fly overnight on his day off from say New York to Los Angeles to play World Team Tennis, then having to fly back that night to play the next day in the tournament.

On another occasion, Nastase was playing in Houston and had to fly to South Carolina to play the Pepsi Grand Slam and then back to Houston the next day to finish the other tournament. Nastase relates that he routinely played 25 - 35 tournaments a year. The one thing he does mention is his steadfast devotion to Davis Cup.

The pros back then were trying to maximize their income. When money began to come into the sport, the guys who lived day to day as pros before were intent on making as good a living as they could. I really don't think the majors meant as much to them. Nastase said that he made more money and was in more demand after his best days were behind him. I can only think that Rod Laver enjoyed the same delimma.

The whole major count thing didn't become important until Pete Sampras approached it. Or, the "Career Slam" wasn't important until Agassi achieved it. Or, the clay court win streak that Nadal set, nobody gave Vilas a title when he did it, and nobody gave Borg one when he did it. So, if you look at it in that perspective, for 30 - 40 years of Open tennis, nobody really made big deals out of these type accomplishments. It's only been of late when the money was obscene and the marketing of the ITF and ATP/WTA to increase their exposure came into play.

As to Laver, he played in the WITC event most every year it was held. In some of the interviews, it was pretty clear that he hadn't been playing at all, but the first prize was $50,000, so they definitely had his attention. Borg too played it, I wonder how much it would take to get the top 4 men and top 4 women today, or if there is enough money in the world...

My personal opinion is that the pros back then were more intereted in making a living and bankrolling as much cash as they could. They knew their tennis careers wouldn't go on forever and were like the folks who grew up in the Great Depression when it came to money.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

The pros back then were trying to maximize their income. When money began to come into the sport, the guys who lived day to day as pros before were intent on making as good a living as they could. I really don't think the majors meant as much to them. Nastase said that he made more money and was in more demand after his best days were behind him. I can only think that Rod Laver enjoyed the same delimma.

The whole major count thing didn't become important until Pete Sampras approached it. Or, the "Career Slam" wasn't important until Agassi achieved it. Or, the clay court win streak that Nadal set, nobody gave Vilas a title when he did it, and nobody gave Borg one when he did it. So, if you look at it in that perspective, for 30 - 40 years of Open tennis, nobody really made big deals out of these type accomplishments. It's only been of late when the money was obscene and the marketing of the ITF and ATP/WTA to increase their exposure came into play.

My personal opinion is that the pros back then were more intereted in making a living and bankrolling as much cash as they could. They knew their tennis careers wouldn't go on forever and were like the folks who grew up in the Great Depression when it came to money.

Some excellent points here.

Today's media and public are far more focused on total number of slams than they were back in 1970.

After all (and I've said this before), how many persons were calling Emmo "the GOAT" back in 1970 because he had the highest total number of slams?

Answer: none.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Some excellent points here.

Today's media and public are far more focused on total number of slams than they were back in 1970.

After all (and I've said this before), how many persons were calling Emmo "the GOAT" back in 1970 because he had the highest total number of slams?

Answer: none.

That's why the stuff about the majors, while important is perhaps bit overrated. What's more impressive, winning 5 top tier tournaments that aren't majors but have the best field or one major? I would think the former.

Federer has under 70 tournament victories in his career. Somehow I think accomplishments like Connors and Lendl being in the 140's plus a number of majors should count for something. It amazes me that in the Open Era, virtually every top number one has been called the GOAT by many at one point or another except for Lendl. I think it had a lot to do with the fact Lendl was not liked by the media.

[Mustard]

If we add the 9 professional majors that Laver won between 1964 and 1967 to the 6 he won as an amateur and the 5 he won in the open era, then Laver has 20 slams. Laver also achieved the professional grand slam in 1967.

To be honest, I'm surprised that the professional slams are not counted towards a player's slam total when a player turned professional before the start of the open era.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

If we add the 8 professional slams that Laver won between 1964 and 1967 to the 6 he won as an amateur and the 5 he won in the open era, then Laver has 19 slams. Laver also achieved the professional grand slam in 1967.

To be honest, I'm surprised that the professional slams are not counted towards a player's slam total when a player turned professional before the start of the open era.

Many tennis historian do count it. Rosewall would be the leader with 23.

[KAndersonFan]

Yes, I think Laver's pro majors should be tallied to his record...but what about his Grand Slams before 1963?? He didn't have to play the three best players in the world, and that certainly made a difference because he was dominated by all three in '63. His amateur Slams are almost comparable to what Brian Teacher and Johan Kriek did. Sure, there were a couple of really good players in the draw (like Newcombe for Laver and Vilas, Tanner, and Lendl for Teacher/Kriek) but they didn't have to face the best in world at the time (Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez / Borg, McEnroe, Connors). Does Teacher ever get legitimate credit for his win? Laver's wins are more credible as displayed by his wins in the pro and Open era, but I don't think his amateur Slams should be given the same weight as his other majors IMO.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by KAndersonFan

Yes, I think Laver's pro majors should be tallied to his record...but what about his Grand Slams before 1963?? He didn't have to play the three best players in the world, and that certainly made a difference because he was dominated by all three in '63. His amateur Slams are almost comparable to what Brian Teacher and Johan Kriek did. Sure, there were a couple of really good players in the draw (like Newcombe for Laver and Vilas, Tanner, and Lendl for Teacher/Kriek) but they didn't have to face the best in world at the time (Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzalez / Borg, McEnroe, Connors). Does Teacher ever get legitimate credit for his win? Laver's wins are more credible as displayed by his wins in the pro and Open era, but I don't think his amateur Slams should be given the same weight as his other majors IMO.

Yeah, but this isn't supported by the advent of Open tennis. When Open tennis hit, the top "amateurs" of the day were in the QF's and above. For instance, in the 1968 Wimbledon, Arthur Ashe lost to his idol Rod Laver in the semis, Dennis Ralston made the QF's to lose against Laver, Gonzalez lost in the 2nd round.

In the US Open Arthur Ashe defeated Tom Okker. Both these guys were amateurs prior to. John Newcombe was an amateur and the last amateur to win Wimbledon in 1967. He did well as a pro.

IMO, Laver's 1962 Slam may not have had the depth his 1969 Slam did but to say it's not legit just isn't right. The top players in the amateur ranks held their own with the pros when they combined.

[urban]

Agree with Rabbit. While the open era Grand Slam of 1969 certainly counts more than the 1962 version, the draws Laver had to play in 1962 had depth. For his Wim win in 1962 Laver had to play people like Pierre Darmon, Whitney Reed, who were major finalists or US Nr.1, and Manuel Santana, and Neale Fraser (two Wim winners). Mulligan in the final was easy, he was better on clay (several Italian Champs wins), and had a match point vs. Laver at RG in 1962 in the quarters.

[timnz]

A lot of people talk about the Majors in the 60's that Laver couldn't compete in and therefore missed out on Grand Slam events then. But can we compile a list of those majors of which he was barred in the first 1/2 of the 1970's (and couldn't compete due to political, contract or other reasons?) eg Australian Open 1970 and the French Open 1970 & 1971. And of those events which ones was he a possible contender for the title. (I think he had a strong chance of winning all three of the above titles).

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by timnz

A lot of people talk about the Majors in the 60's that Laver couldn't compete in and therefore missed out on Grand Slam events then. But can we compile a list of those majors of which he was barred in the first 1/2 of the 1970's (and couldn't compete due to political, contract or other reasons?) eg Australian Open 1970 and the French Open 1970 & 1971. And of those events which ones was he a possible contender for the title. (I think he had a strong chance of winning all three of the above titles).

I don't know about that. I can speak to the barring though. Again from Ilie Nastase, the pros had a choice to make. They could either play WTT or two of the majors, the Oz and the French. Nastase was the defending champion and chose to take the WTT deal because it was more lucrative financially. I'm quite sure Laver did the same thing. There was some real resentment from the players against the ITF back then because the ITF tried to keep the players as amateurs.

Laver signed to play WCT. He did so knowing that Lamar Hunt ran his tour in competition with the ITF. That meant that Laver was contractually obligated to play WCT and could not play majors. Laver & Rosewall both chose WCT because the money was better. Nastase signed with them as well. After a period, Hunt signed an agreement with the ITF which allowed "his" players to compete.

And again, the commitment to Davis Cup is evident as the most important to the players as Nastase missed both WCT commitments and the Alan King Classic (one of the highest paying at the time) to play Davis Cup. So it is clear that the priorities of the pros at the dawn of professional tennis were vastly different than those of the last 20 years.

[adidasman]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

I'm currently reading Mr. Nastase. It's evident that the real money in tennis didn't start until after Laver's prime. Really, the real money didn't start until after Nastase's prime. Anyway, Nastase relates several stories about playing in tournaments and having to fly overnight on his day off from say New York to Los Angeles to play World Team Tennis, then having to fly back that night to play the next day in the tournament.

On another occasion, Nastase was playing in Houston and had to fly to South Carolina to play the Pepsi Grand Slam and then back to Houston the next day to finish the other tournament. Nastase relates that he routinely played 25 - 35 tournaments a year. The one thing he does mention is his steadfast devotion to Davis Cup.

The pros back then were trying to maximize their income. When money began to come into the sport, the guys who lived day to day as pros before were intent on making as good a living as they could. I really don't think the majors meant as much to them. Nastase said that he made more money and was in more demand after his best days were behind him. I can only think that Rod Laver enjoyed the same delimma.

The whole major count thing didn't become important until Pete Sampras approached it. Or, the "Career Slam" wasn't important until Agassi achieved it. Or, the clay court win streak that Nadal set, nobody gave Vilas a title when he did it, and nobody gave Borg one when he did it. So, if you look at it in that perspective, for 30 - 40 years of Open tennis, nobody really made big deals out of these type accomplishments. It's only been of late when the money was obscene and the marketing of the ITF and ATP/WTA to increase their exposure came into play.

As to Laver, he played in the WITC event most every year it was held. In some of the interviews, it was pretty clear that he hadn't been playing at all, but the first prize was $50,000, so they definitely had his attention. Borg too played it, I wonder how much it would take to get the top 4 men and top 4 women today, or if there is enough money in the world...

My personal opinion is that the pros back then were more intereted in making a living and bankrolling as much cash as they could. They knew their tennis careers wouldn't go on forever and were like the folks who grew up in the Great Depression when it came to money.

Yeah, the one time I saw Nastase play was a WTT match in Fresno, CA in 1976 or something like that; he had flown in directly from Rumania, where he'd played a Davis Cup tie the day before. He played part of a set, was pretty obviously a mess, and was replaced. It was still great seeing him play, though, and he still signed autographs for starry-eyed fans like me after the match was over.

[adidasman]

It's always been obvious to me that the pros of Laver's day didn't have the luxury of being able to focus on preparing for the majors; they had to play wherever the money was best. Think about how long it took Laver to make his first million - and I'm sure that, at the time, he wouldn't have thought twice about sacrificing a chance at more major titles in exchange for bigger paydays. He knew what he needed to do to attain a comfortable life for him and his family, and that's what he (and lots of other guys) did. How many majors would he have won had things been different? Several, without a doubt. But I do also think that, after that second Slam, he lost the burning desire to win in those big events (or maybe it just didn't make financial sense for him to spend too much time preparing for an event that didn't pay as well as the CBS Tennis Classic or something like that). It has always amazed me, though, that, as good as he still was in the early Seventies, he didn't catch fire for a few days and win another Wimbledon or US Open.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by adidasman

Yeah, the one time I saw Nastase play was a WTT match in Fresno, CA in 1976 or something like that; he had flown in directly from Rumania, where he'd played a Davis Cup tie the day before. He played part of a set, was pretty obviously a mess, and was replaced. It was still great seeing him play, though, and he still signed autographs for starry-eyed fans like me after the match was over.

You too? I saw Nastase play here in 1977, the match was here because Chris Evert has a niece living here. He played Buch Bucholtz in singles. I would have gotten an autograph, but Nastase was so incensed after the match was over he was still ranting and raving about something leaving the building. I managed to get down on the floor and yelled "Hey, Ilie!". As if by magic, he stopped in mid-sentence, looked at me, smiled and said "Hello...." and then went right back to ranting.... That was Nastase to me...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

You too? I saw Nastase play here in 1977, the match was here because Chris Evert has a niece living here. He played Buch Bucholtz in singles. I would have gotten an autograph, but Nastase was so incensed after the match was over he was still ranting and raving about something leaving the building. I managed to get down on the floor and yelled "Hey, Ilie!". As if by magic, he stopped in mid-sentence, looked at me, smiled and said "Hello...." and then went right back to ranting.... That was Nastase to me...

And that's why, as crazy as Nastase could be, I love watching him in action, aside from his beautiful game of course. Great story Rabbit.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by timnz

A lot of people talk about the Majors in the 60's that Laver couldn't compete in and therefore missed out on Grand Slam events then. But can we compile a list of those majors of which he was barred in the first 1/2 of the 1970's (and couldn't compete due to political, contract or other reasons?) eg Australian Open 1970 and the French Open 1970 & 1971. And of those events which ones was he a possible contender for the title. (I think he had a strong chance of winning all three of the above titles).

Yes, let's do this list. It would be very useful.

Who knows this stuff?




(Wasn't it Jan Kodes who won the 1970 and 1971 FO, who Laver beat handily [7-5, 6-3, 6-3] in Rome in 1971 on clay? Wasn't this just a few weeks before the FO? So hypothetically Laver might have won the FO in 1971. Who else was barred and therefore could not play who also might have beaten Kodes?)

[Steve132]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's why the stuff about the majors, while important is perhaps bit overrated. What's more impressive, winning 5 top tier tournaments that aren't majors but have the best field or one major? I would think the former.

Federer has under 70 tournament victories in his career. Somehow I think accomplishments like Connors and Lendl being in the 140's plus a number of majors should count for something. It amazes me that in the Open Era, virtually every top number one has been called the GOAT by many at one point or another except for Lendl. I think it had a lot to do with the fact Lendl was not liked by the media.

Federer's 62 tournament titles include 16 majors, 16 Masters titles and 4 year end championships. Most tennis analysts consider his achievements to be more remarkable than those of either Connors or Lendl.

The structure of today's game encourages players to be far more focused on winning big events than on piling up victories in Mickey Mouse tournaments. As such, you can't use number of tournaments won to compare players across generations.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Steve132

Federer's 62 tournament titles include 16 majors, 16 Masters titles and 4 year end championships. Most tennis analysts consider his achievements to be more remarkable than those of either Connors or Lendl.

The structure of today's game encourages players to be far more focused on winning big events than on piling up victories in Mickey Mouse tournaments. As such, you can't use number of tournaments won to compare players across generations.

Well I think the lead up tournaments is more due to a concerted effort between the WTA/ATP and ITF to "play nice" with each other. The effort is from a combined need for both to maximize earnings rather than competing with one another. I think the pros themselves suffer from a monopoly of sorts. The WCT was great for the pros who signed.

With regard to Connors and Lendl, sadly they fall into the category as any other sports legend. Time dimishes their achievements. I think that Connors and Lendl were extraordinary champions in their own rights and contributed far more to the game than today's players. Connors is almost single handedly responsible for the tennis boom of the 70s (well he and Evert) IMO. No other pro until Borg/McEnroe drew the attention and ratings that Connors did. And, for all the talk of his brashness, in his early career, he was a consummate professional when playing singles. His singleminded purpose was winning a match as one-sided as he could.

I think pros of the first twenty years of Open tennis had way more to deal with. Their schedules were predicated on need, not achievement and they didn't have agents or entourages. The travel they endured was more hectic and last minute.

Tennis is still a relatively new professional sport and IMO still experiencing growing pains.

[SgtJohn]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Yes, let's do this list. It would be very useful.

Who knows this stuff?




(Wasn't it Jan Kodes who won the 1970 and 1971 FO, who Laver beat handily [7-5, 6-3, 6-3] in Rome in 1971 on clay? Wasn't this just a few weeks before the FO? So hypothetically Laver might have won the FO in 1971. Who else was barred and therefore could not play who also might have beaten Kodes?)

Indeed. Laver also won the Sydney Dunlop Open in 1970 that took place 2 months after the Aussie. It was explicitly considered in the media as the 'unofficial' Australian major (strangely the 1st Australian Open in history in 1969 was not a success financially, so the organizers couldn't offer the same prize money the next year, hence the absence of the top pros; the Dunlop was a WCT event, so no financial issues...). Laver beat Ashe, the Australian Open winner in the final.
He couldn't take part in Roland Garros from 1970 to 1972. Afterwards, only WTT players were banned from 1974 on. But in 1973, though Laver was allowed to play he declined to go, which shows that his commitment to RG or the Australian in the 70s would have been patchy at best even if he could take part every time.
In 1972 and 1973 he wasn't in Wimbledon, the 1st time around because of the professionals' ban, the 2nd time because of the famous boycott.
He was at the Australian in 1971, but that was the last good field of the 70s there and in the following years Laver did not make the trip, though I think there was no ban or limitation of any sort.

Jonathan

[pc1]

Originally Posted by pc1

That's why the stuff about the majors, while important is perhaps bit overrated. What's more impressive, winning 5 top tier tournaments that aren't majors but have the best field or one major? I would think the former.

Federer has under 70 tournament victories in his career. Somehow I think accomplishments like Connors and Lendl being in the 140's plus a number of majors should count for something. It amazes me that in the Open Era, virtually every top number one has been called the GOAT by many at one point or another except for Lendl. I think it had a lot to do with the fact Lendl was not liked by the media.

Originally Posted by Steve132

Federer's 62 tournament titles include 16 majors, 16 Masters titles and 4 year end championships. Most tennis analysts consider his achievements to be more remarkable than those of either Connors or Lendl.

The structure of today's game encourages players to be far more focused on winning big events than on piling up victories in Mickey Mouse tournaments. As such, you can't use number of tournaments won to compare players across generations.

Laver defeating Rosewall, Gimeno, Hoad and Gonzalez doesn't qualify as Mickey Mouse. Or Rosewall or the others doing the same is pretty good I would say. Laver also win a ton of top tier Open Tournaments that didn't include top level tournaments like the 1970 Sydney Dunlop in which he defeated Rosewall in the final.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IJ0F01IiU

I am not necessarily writing that Connors or Lendl should be rated ahead of Federer but I am writing that their great achievements in tournaments and their great consistency should count for something. Majors, while exceptionally important is not the end all in evaluating players and that is all I am writing.

Mats Wilander won three majors in 1988 but didn't win many other tournaments. Is that superior to McEnroe's year in 1984 in which McEnroe won two majors but he won virtually everything else?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by SgtJohn

Indeed. Laver also won the Sydney Dunlop Open in 1970 that took place 2 months after the Aussie. It was explicitly considered in the media as the 'unofficial' Australian major (strangely the 1st Australian Open in history in 1969 was not a success financially, so the organizers couldn't offer the same prize money the next year, hence the absence of the top pros; the Dunlop was a WCT event, so no financial issues...). Laver beat Ashe, the Australian Open winner in the final.
He couldn't take part in Roland Garros from 1970 to 1972. Afterwards, only WTT players were banned from 1974 on. But in 1973, though Laver was allowed to play he declined to go, which shows that his commitment to RG or the Australian in the 70s would have been patchy at best even if he could take part every time.
In 1972 and 1973 he wasn't in Wimbledon, the 1st time around because of the professionals' ban, the 2nd time because of the famous boycott.
He was at the Australian in 1971, but that was the last good field of the 70s there and in the following years Laver did not make the trip, though I think there was no ban or limitation of any sort.
Jonathan

Sounds like if he'd been allowed to compete that Laver would have won the AO of 1970 and the FO of 1971. But he wasn't.