Why Laver didnt win a slam after 1969?

[hoodjem]

At which tournament did Laver beat Rosewall in the final at White City "1970 SYDNEY LAVER 3-6, 6-2, 3-6 6-2, 6-3" ?

Was this the Dunlop?

"Being an NTL player at the beginning of 1970 Rosewall didn't play the Australian Open held at the White City courts at Sydney in January because NTL boss McCall and his players thought that the prize money was too low for a Grand Slam tournament. In March, a tournament, sponsored by Dunlop, was organized at the same site, with a much denser field because of better prize-money and a better date. The same class players as in the Australian Open were present and in addition not only the NTL pros participated but even some independent pros, such as Ilie Năstase, who usually did not make the trip to Australia. Many considered this tournament as the unofficial Australian Open with Laver dominating Rosewall in five sets."

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

At which tournament did Laver beat Rosewall in the final at White City "1970 SYDNEY LAVER 3-6, 6-2, 3-6 6-2, 6-3" ?

Was this the Dunlop?

"Being an NTL player at the beginning of 1970 Rosewall didn't play the Australian Open held at the White City courts at Sydney in January because NTL boss McCall and his players thought that the prize money was too low for a Grand Slam tournament. In March, a tournament, sponsored by Dunlop, was organized at the same site, with a much denser field because of better prize-money and a better date. The same class players as in the Australian Open were present and in addition not only the NTL pros participated but even some independent pros, such as Ilie Năstase, who usually did not make the trip to Australia. Many considered this tournament as the unofficial Australian Open with Laver dominating Rosewall in five sets."

That's the one. Check my link to Krosero's highlights of this great match.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8IJ0F01IiU

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by urban

There were some reasons, why Laver lost his grip on the majors in the early 70s. After his Grand Slam, he didn't really focus on the majors, he played only 6 overall 1970 to 74, partly due to promotional troubles between ITF and WCT. Now in his thirties, he went for the money, which was now real money, and played way too much, over 100-125 singles matches from 69 to 71. Going by todays points race standards, he remained the leading player in 70 and even in 71.
For the dollar, he also played with 3 different rackets in Europe, USA and Australia. Since 1971, his back trouble begun, and since 1972 he reduced his schedule to half or 2 thirds of a season. His problems with the serve are also mentioned by Newcombe in his autobiography.

More good reasons.

[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.

Unless I am completely misconstruing, Roger Taylor beat Ashe in the quarters of the Sydney Dunlop: 6-3, 8-6, 6-4.

Laver beat Rosewall in the finals: 3-6 6-2 3-6 6-2 6-3.

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/tourna...nd=3#position3

And I would agree the field looks better than at the AO of 1970. I believe that the Dunlop deserves to be the "Australian slam" of 1970.

[elegos7]

I read somewhere the 1971 French Open was really open to WCT players, but only Ashe has decided to play there, which was one of the causes of the ILTF ban on WCT pros in the first part of 1972.

Laver won in Rome in 1971 a few weeks before, but he was probably injured during the French Open that year.

Can somebody confirm this?

[SgtJohn]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Unless I am completely misconstruing, Roger Taylor beat Ashe in the quarters of the Sydney Dunlop: 6-3, 8-6, 6-4.

Laver beat Rosewall in the finals: 3-6 6-2 3-6 6-2 6-3.

http://www.itftennis.com/mens/tourna...nd=3#position3

And I would agree the field looks better than at the AO of 1970. I believe that the Dunlop deserves to be the "Australian slam" of 1970.

Yes this is correct, sorry I got the results all mixed up, I realize I actually thought of the 1971 Aussie final where Rosewall beat Ashe....

[urban]

I don't think, that Laver was injured for RG 1971. He had back problems at the Chicago WCT event in March 1971 however, when he was rushed to a hospital with a stiff back and couldn't continue. The WCT tournament series with 20 32 men events across all surfaces, all (ecept AO)outside of the majors, was very challenging. The week after winning Rome on clay, Laver had to play Teheran on hard court, 2 weeks later Bristol on grass and so on. Laver and Rosewall skipped RG and Forest Hills in 1971 to focus on that WCT series; they had a good contract with Lamar Hunt and were glad to support this first really solid and well financed tournament series.
To the the tournament wins of Laver, Rosewall or Connors. I often pointed to the Super Nine tournaments or equivalents in the early open era. Connors did win much more than Mickey Mouse events. I must make an exact count of equivalents, based on the ITF or ATP sides, to give exact numbers, but from my memory, he must have won at least some 25 Super Nine equivalents. His wins at South African, Philadelphia, Boston, Dallas, Wembley, Las Vegas in the 70s and early 80s had certainly Super Nine status. Conversely he skipped not only many RG and AO, but also the Masters Cup often in his prime years in the mid 70s.

[CollegeBound]

Originally Posted by CyBorg

I'm not buying this at all. Laver played loaded schedules for years after 1969, constantly travelling. He couldn't spare two weeks for a major? Nah.

The psychological stuff is true, at least in part - Laver struggled big-time with his serving for quite a while in the 70s. Something that suddenly struck him, I don't know for what reason.

I'm really sorry that it doesn't mesh with what you want to believe but that's just bad luck. You blokes put way too much emphasis on the whole psychology angle. That might be true for some nationalities and temperaments but when you're dealing with an Aussie like Laver it's just a waste of time.

What I wrote is based on growing up with the Lavers - Rod, Bob, Brian, Ian and - and getting the story pretty much from the horse's mouth. That's good enough for me, sorry it isn't for you.

[adidasman]

Originally Posted by CollegeBound

Very, very simple answer. Not psychological (he was still the top player on the WCT tour) and no conspiracy. The primary reason, which was obvious to everyone who knew him or his family and is probably touched on in his book, is that is that he didn't want to be away from his wife and children any more than necessary. Unlike Rosewall and others, he had a very young family and had only been married a few years. He felt that his wife had sacrificed enough to get him to the Grand Slam and he owed her the same courtesy. That meant cutting right back on playing the majors and staying as close to home as possible. Simple enough.

Some men are just thoroughly decent and Laver was one of them. End of story.

If you knew the Lavers, I'm happy to believe your version of events. And the fact that Laver was, and is, a truly decent man is undeniable; having met him several times and played with him twice, he's as unassuming and modest as you could want. It still kills me that, at one event, he actually came up to me on his own, stuck out his hand, and said, "Hi, I'm Rod Laver." As if I didn't know...and, hopefully, he couldn't tell I was trembling inside, standing there chatting with my all-time tennis hero. We just stood there and talked, like two buddies waiting for a court to open up. It was amazing.

[jeffreyneave]

laver played wimbledon '70 and us open '70. he played aussie '71 and wimbledon '71. He was barred from playing aussie '70 and french '70 because of his ntl contract. He withdrew from french and us opens in'71 citing mental tiredness. Other wct players played both events, although most top wct players did not played the french. In '72 laver was barred from the french and wimbledon due to his wct contract. He did not enter the aussie in '72 but did play the us open, where a back injury limited his effectiveness and forced him to curtail his schedule for the rest of '72. In '73 laver skipped the aussie, withdrew from the french due to his back problem, missed wimbedon due to his back and the atp boycott, but did play the us open. In '74 laver played no slams as he cut back his schedule to concentrate on his tennis camps.

jeffrey

[pc1]

Originally Posted by adidasman

If you knew the Lavers, I'm happy to believe your version of events. And the fact that Laver was, and is, a truly decent man is undeniable; having met him several times and played with him twice, he's as unassuming and modest as you could want. It still kills me that, at one event, he actually came up to me on his own, stuck out his hand, and said, "Hi, I'm Rod Laver." As if I didn't know...and, hopefully, he couldn't tell I was trembling inside, standing there chatting with my all-time tennis hero. We just stood there and talked, like two buddies waiting for a court to open up. It was amazing.

They don't make them like that anymore.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by adidasman

If you knew the Lavers, I'm happy to believe your version of events. And the fact that Laver was, and is, a truly decent man is undeniable; having met him several times and played with him twice, he's as unassuming and modest as you could want. It still kills me that, at one event, he actually came up to me on his own, stuck out his hand, and said, "Hi, I'm Rod Laver." As if I didn't know...and, hopefully, he couldn't tell I was trembling inside, standing there chatting with my all-time tennis hero. We just stood there and talked, like two buddies waiting for a court to open up. It was amazing.

Reason no. 1 Laver is the GOAT--

1. He was very humble, modest and unassuming (when he had every reason to not be)

[muddlehead]

interesting discussion. thanks all. sweet laver rosewall 1970 dunlop. i can watch them serve all day long...

[adidasman]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Reason no. 1 Laver is the GOAT--

1. He was very humble, modest and unassuming (when he had every reason to not be)

I couldn't agree more. There are few things in life more energizing than meeting your hero and finding out he's not only not an arrogant jerk, but a truly good man. Rod Laver will always be the greatest of all time in my book.

[Steve132]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

No one doubts that Laver, Rosewall, Connors and Lendl won at least some big tournaments or that they are great players. My objection is to the argument that the total number of titles won is a major criterion to be used when comparing players' achievements across generations, and that Federer is to be found wanting because he has not won, and most likely will never win, 100 or more titles. In today's game players - male and female - focus on majors and, to a lesser extent, Masters events for men and Tier 1 tournaments for women. The ITF, ATP and WTA are all happy with this situation. That's why Serena Williams - the closest thing to a Federer counterpart in today's WTA - has won "only" 36 titles, but that total includes 12 majors, 10 tier 1 titles and 2 YEC's.

Incidentally, Federer's claims to greatness do not by any means depend exclusively on his number of major titles, or even his performance in majors (winning 11 majors in 4 years, reaching 18 of 19 major finals, 23 consecutive semi final appearances, etc.). He also has 237 consecutive weeks at no. 1 (the record for both male and female players since weekly rankings were introduced in the mid 1970's), as well as Open era record winning streaks on both grass (65 matches) and hard courts (56 matches).

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?

No, it isn't, but nothing that I wrote suggests otherwise. McEnroe was far more consistently successful in 1984 than Wilander in 1988, and his 1984 season ranks with Laver's 1969 and Federer's 2006 as the best of the Open era. But none of this has anything to do with the issue under discussion - the use of number of titles won to compare players across generations.

[davey25]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Reason no. 1 Laver is the GOAT--

1. He was very humble, modest and unassuming (when he had every reason to not be)

Traits that will likely never be applied to Federer, as great as he is, except in a sort of Faux pas sense.

[Rabbit]

Originally Posted by Steve132

No one doubts that Laver, Rosewall, Connors and Lendl won at least some big tournaments or that they are great players. My objection is to the argument that the total number of titles won is a major criterion to be used when comparing players' achievements across generations, and that Federer is to be found wanting because he has not won, and most likely will never win, 100 or more titles. In today's game players - male and female - focus on majors and, to a lesser extent, Masters events for men and Tier 1 tournaments for women. The ITF, ATP and WTA are all happy with this situation. That's why Serena Williams - the closest thing to a Federer counterpart in today's WTA - has won "only" 36 titles, but that total includes 12 majors, 10 tier 1 titles and 2 YEC's.

Incidentally, Federer's claims to greatness do not by any means depend exclusively on his number of major titles, or even his performance in majors (winning 11 majors in 4 years, reaching 18 of 19 major finals, 23 consecutive semi final appearances, etc.). He also has 237 consecutive weeks at no. 1 (the record for both male and female players since weekly rankings were introduced in the mid 1970's), as well as Open era record winning streaks on both grass (65 matches) and hard courts (56 matches).



No, it isn't, but nothing that I wrote suggests otherwise. McEnroe was far more consistently successful in 1984 than Wilander in 1988, and his 1984 season ranks with Laver's 1969 and Federer's 2006 as the best of the Open era. But none of this has anything to do with the issue under discussion - the use of number of titles won to compare players across generations.

Truth be told, Federer doesn't play that many events because he doesn't have to from a financial standpoint. In that regard, he owes Laver et al a cut of everything he wins. If the earnings were constant, adjusted for today's dollars, Federer would have to play every week in "Mickey Mouse" events.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Steve132

No one doubts that Laver, Rosewall, Connors and Lendl won at least some big tournaments or that they are great players. My objection is to the argument that the total number of titles won is a major criterion to be used when comparing players' achievements across generations, and that Federer is to be found wanting because he has not won, and most likely will never win, 100 or more titles. In today's game players - male and female - focus on majors and, to a lesser extent, Masters events for men and Tier 1 tournaments for women. The ITF, ATP and WTA are all happy with this situation. That's why Serena Williams - the closest thing to a Federer counterpart in today's WTA - has won "only" 36 titles, but that total includes 12 majors, 10 tier 1 titles and 2 YEC's.

Incidentally, Federer's claims to greatness do not by any means depend exclusively on his number of major titles, or even his performance in majors (winning 11 majors in 4 years, reaching 18 of 19 major finals, 23 consecutive semi final appearances, etc.). He also has 237 consecutive weeks at no. 1 (the record for both male and female players since weekly rankings were introduced in the mid 1970's), as well as Open era record winning streaks on both grass (65 matches) and hard courts (56 matches).



No, it isn't, but nothing that I wrote suggests otherwise. McEnroe was far more consistently successful in 1984 than Wilander in 1988, and his 1984 season ranks with Laver's 1969 and Federer's 2006 as the best of the Open era. But none of this has anything to do with the issue under discussion - the use of number of titles won to compare players across generations.

Needless to say I disagree but I'll leave it at that.

[jimbo333]

Originally Posted by Rabbit

Truth be told, Federer doesn't play that many events because he doesn't have to from a financial standpoint. In that regard, he owes Laver et al a cut of everything he wins. If the earnings were constant, adjusted for today's dollars, Federer would have to play every week in "Mickey Mouse" events.

Yes, exactly!

Federer doesn't have to play the smaller events and can concentrate on the Grand Slam Tournaments!

Connors, Borg, McEnroe etc regularly missed Grand Slam tournaments in their time (mainly Australian), which they would have won. They are just as great as Federer in my opinion. If they just concentrated on GS's then their numbers would be comparable to Federer. If Federer goes on to win over 20 Grand Slam tournaments after he has retired, then I really will be impressed

[jimbo333]

Great thread by the way!

And something that hasn't been mentioned, in answer to the question. After winning the Grand Slam in 1969 with his Dunlop Maxply, didn't Laver change to a metal racquet in 1970?