Why Laver didnt win a slam after 1969?

[timnz]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Limpinhitter, Laver was not regarded the best player in the early 1970's.

Laver was not among the top five in 1975.

Laver was number 3 in August of 1974, so not too long before.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Limpinhitter, Laver was not regarded the best player in the early 1970's.

Laver was not among the top five in 1975.

Laver was number 3 in August of 1974, so not too long before.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by timnz

Laver was number 3 in August of 1974, so not too long before.

August 1974 is not 1975. Why do you defend a wrong statement?

I'm aware that Former pro Player Talk is a Laver forum but my request to the posters is: Please try to stay reasonable and objective!

Laver just was not the best player in the early 1970s.

The Rocket is great enough. He does not need any exaggeration of his great achievements.

BobbyOne, once called "The Vienna Visionary" by Bud Collins.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Dean

It's pretty clear cut he was the top player from 1964-70. Again he knew his time was up sooner or later and since the Grand Slams were all over the place in terms of who could play and who couldn't, and with the general lack of money on offer, he played for the money.

He won 5 Masters equivalents in 1970 and was R/U in another and was easily the biggest money winner. In 1974 he was still good enough to win 2 Masters titles.

Clear cut? Rosewall was officially ranked No.1 for 1964 because he won the long world tour. In 1965 Rosewall won two of the three majors. Most experts ranked Laver No.3 or 4 for 1970. I rank Rosewall and Laver tied No.1 with Newcombe as Co.-No.1.

It's a blame for any player to fail at the majors. Laver lost 7 out of 7 majors in the 1970s and even did not reach a SF. All only by injuries and little money involved?? Laver lost also the events with the most money involved at Dallas.

Laver was arguably the greatest (and is in my opinion equal with Rosewall as No.1), but he was not superhuman...

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

* * *

Laver just was not the best player in the early 1970s.

* * *

Yes he was.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Yes he was.

Do you have any proof or argument for this claim?

Regarding 1970 to 1974: Rosewall reached 8 out of 8 major SFs while Laver reached 0 out of 6....

Your claim that Laver did not win the majors (or even did not reach a SF) because he wanted to get the big money is a case of sour grapes and a blame of yours for Rod. Do you really think that Laver voluntarily did not try to win the damned things (majors and WCT Finals)?

Rod was very upset to lose the first two Dallas finals to Rosewall.

[kiki]

Rosewall has a much better record than laver at majors starting in 1970 onwards.he was probably the best player from 1970 till 1972 although newcombe can have a claim to be the best in 1970 and 1971 and Nastase in 1972.

But laver had won the greatest prize in tennis in 1969 and he just wanted to make as much money as possible as he could before his time was over.This could also be the main motivation for Rosewall but the big difference is, Rosewall had missed many majors due to his becoming a pro in 1957 and wanted some reward in terms of the traditional major titles.

Laver, instead, was motivated exclusively for the pursue of the big backs since his record at majors was, at that point, arguably the best for a tennis male in the history of the game.I think I am serious enough when affirming that the Rocket´s only aim for titles were the WCT finals, from 1970 onwards, and he felt much more dissapointed losing the 1971 and 1972 finals ( to Rosewall) than losing to Gorman and Taylor at Wimbledon or Ralston at Forest Hills.He just didn´t feel so bad there because his focus was, exclusively on money and ,maybe, the Dallas major.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Do you have any proof or argument for this claim?

Regarding 1970 to 1974: Rosewall reached 8 out of 8 major SFs while Laver reached 0 out of 6....

Your claim that Laver did not win the majors (or even did not reach a SF) because he wanted to get the big money is a case of sour grapes and a blame of yours for Rod. Do you really think that Laver voluntarily did not try to win the damned things (majors and WCT Finals)?

Rod was very upset to lose the first two Dallas finals to Rosewall.

I provided the proof in the other thread and you responded to it. Yes, Laver was upset to lose the two WCT finals in Dallas because it was the highest paying event in tennis history and more prestigious than the majors at that time. You'll note that, in both matches, Laver was the heavy favorite because of his record during the WCT season. Those were great wins for Rosewall and they surely support Rosewall's greatness into his late 30's. But, IMO, Laver was still the greater player in early 70's.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Rosewall has a much better record than laver at majors starting in 1970 onwards.he was probably the best player from 1970 till 1972 although newcombe can have a claim to be the best in 1970 and 1971 and Nastase in 1972.

But laver had won the greatest prize in tennis in 1969 and he just wanted to make as much money as possible as he could before his time was over.This could also be the main motivation for Rosewall but the big difference is, Rosewall had missed many majors due to his becoming a pro in 1957 and wanted some reward in terms of the traditional major titles.

Laver, instead, was motivated exclusively for the pursue of the big backs since his record at majors was, at that point, arguably the best for a tennis male in the history of the game.I think I am serious enough when affirming that the Rocket´s only aim for titles were the WCT finals, from 1970 onwards, and he felt much more dissapointed losing the 1971 and 1972 finals ( to Rosewall) than losing to Gorman and Taylor at Wimbledon or Ralston at Forest Hills.He just didn´t feel so bad there because his focus was, exclusively on money and ,maybe, the Dallas major.

Thanks , kiki, that you rank Rosewall maybe as the top player for the 1970 to 1972 period. You learnt history...

Yes, Rosewall won 5 big events in that period. No other player could claim this.

And thanks that you write that Laver severely wanted to win at Dallas.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I provided the proof in the other thread and you responded to it. Yes, Laver was upset to lose the two WCT finals in Dallas because it was the highest paying event in tennis history and more prestigious than the majors at that time. You'll note that, in both matches, Laver was the heavy favorite because of his record during the WCT season. Those were great wins for Rosewall and they surely support Rosewall's greatness into his late 30's. But, IMO, Laver was still the greater player in early 70's.

Yes, Laver dominated the 1971 and 1972 WCT circuit. But Rosewall was a typical player for big events. Look at 1965: Laver won more tournaments than Rosewall but the latter won two pro majors, Laver only one.

I'm sure the Rocket would have given away his 1971 and 1972 WCT victories glady in order to get Rosewall's two Dallas wins...

[ollinger]

Strange to see a thread wondering why a guy didn't win a slam after the year he turned 31.

[sureshs]

Originally Posted by ollinger

Strange to see a thread wondering why a guy didn't win a slam after the year he turned 31.

It is relevant though, isn't it? Fed turned 31.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by ollinger

Strange to see a thread wondering why a guy didn't win a slam after the year he turned 31.

Of course it's not a shame for any player not to win a major after 31. But maybe for a GOAT candidate (or the all-time greatest) Laver it looks like a shame considering that his closest rival, Rosewall has won 5 majors after 31.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by sureshs

It is relevant though, isn't it? Fed turned 31.

And if Nadal comes back it's unlikely that Federer wins another one.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by ollinger

Strange to see a thread wondering why a guy didn't win a slam after the year he turned 31.

Well, Ken Rosewall was Laver's biggest rival, and Rosewall won 4 majors after turning 31, and was in 2 finals at the age of 39. However, BobbyOne is on a crusade to lobby for more respect and prestige for Rosewall as "the GOAT." True he had more success at the majors in his late 30's than Laver did. He was a great player whose game was not particularly physically demanding, as Laver's was, and he was fortunate to be relatively injury free. But, IMO, Laver was still the better player from 1964 until his retirement.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Of course it's not a shame for any player not to win a major after 31. But maybe for a GOAT candidate (or the all-time greatest) Laver it looks like a shame considering that his closest rival, Rosewall has won 5 majors after 31.

Easy there, buckwheat! I know you're an enthusiastic advocate. But, Rosewall turned 31 in 1965. He won 4 majors after that.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by sureshs

It is relevant though, isn't it? Fed turned 31.

For sureshs, all things are relevant only in relation to "The Fed."

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Well, Ken Rosewall was Laver's biggest rival, and Rosewall won 4 majors after turning 31, and was in 2 finals at the age of 39. However, BobbyOne is on a crusade to lobby for more respect and prestige for Rosewall as "the GOAT." True he had more success at the majors in his late 30's than Laver did. He was a great player whose game was not particularly physically demanding, as Laver's was, and he was fortunate to be relatively injury free. But, IMO, Laver was still the better player from 1964 until his retirement.



Easy there, buckwheat! I know you're an enthusiastic advocate. But, Rosewall turned 31 in 1965. He won 4 majors after that.

I have written that I rank Rosewall equal with Laver. Be exact. I'm not on a crusade. I just ask my readers to consider the facts.

You forgot French Pro 1966.

You can't be serious that Laver was the better player till his retirement which came in 1979. Rosewall was better in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. You put the facts of history away!!!

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I have written that I rank Rosewall equal with Laver. Be exact. I'm not on a crusade. I just ask my readers to consider the facts.

You forgot French Pro 1966.

You can't be serious that Laver was the better player till his retirement which came in 1979. Rosewall was better in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979. You put the facts of history away!!!

That's a hard argument to make in light of the "facts." The facts are that Laver was the greater player by virtually every measure, including their H2H record in which Laver was 80-63 including before Laver was in his prime.

I meant until Laver's semi retirement. Here's the Laver/Rosewall H2H in the decade of the 70's. Laver has a 12-6 advantage, with 2 losses coming after Laver's semi retirement in 1976, despite the fact that Laver was injured and cut back on his schedule beginning in 1972:

1970: 5-0
1971: 3-2
1972: 3-1
1973: 1-1
1976: 0-2
Total: 12-6 in favor of Laver

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

That's a hard argument to make in light of the "facts." The facts are that Laver was the greater player by virtually every measure, including their H2H record in which Laver was 80-63 including before Laver was in his prime.

I meant until Laver's semi retirement. Here's the Laver/Rosewall H2H in the decade of the 70's. Laver has a 12-6 advantage, with 2 losses coming after Laver's semi retirement in 1976, despite the fact that Laver was injured and cut back on his schedule beginning in 1972:

1970: 5-0
1971: 3-2
1972: 3-1
1973: 1-1
1976: 0-2
Total: 12-6 in favor of Laver

Rosewall has many categories where he leads against Laver (winning majors in a row, years in top ten, record as a young player, record as an old player,WINNING MAJORS and so on).

HtH is not the only measure for dominating of a player. More important is ranking in the top ten! You should know this. Laver was ranked below Rosewall in most years of the 1970s.

Laver played against Rosewall mostly when the age was a handicap for Rosewall. Remember that Rosewall was already 28 when they first met. From 1965 onward Rosewall had that handicap.

You seem as stubborn as Dan Lobb in your idolization of your darling...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Thanks , kiki, that you rank Rosewall maybe as the top player for the 1970 to 1972 period. You learnt history...

Yes, Rosewall won 5 big events in that period. No other player could claim this.

And thanks that you write that Laver severely wanted to win at Dallas.

I watched more tennis in the 70´s than now, so I now what I am talking about.I didn´t think so to please your stubborn passion for Rosewall.I admire Rosewall as I admire Laver but still no player is perfect and themselves will aknowledge that ( both classy sportsmen)

IMO, the peakest Laver surpasses peakest Rosewall but it is fair to assume that records will tell that Rosewall had much better results than Laver, and the two Dallas finals were probably the biggest matches from 1970 to 1975 or 1976, as I recall.