Why Laver didnt win a slam after 1969?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

But he was a very well paid journeyman, isn´t it?

I must contradict: The Little Nut earned rather little. He claimed that he got only 300 "Reichsmark" (D-Mark) for his first world championship title in Berlin.

He also said that "money spoils character"- even though he did not even know Mitt Romney...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I must contradict: The Little Nut earned rather little. He claimed that he got only 300 "Reichsmark" (D-Mark) for his first world championship title in Berlin.

He also said that "money spoils character"- even though he did not even know Mitt Romney...

Good quote on Romney¡¡¡

Considering the inflation of the 30´s in Germany, no wonder Nusslein was complaining about his 300 DM

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Good quote on Romney¡¡¡

Considering the inflation of the 30´s in Germany, no wonder Nusslein was complaining about his 300 DM

I think that was after the time of high inflation...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I think that was after the time of high inflation...

The year of the German hyperinflation was 1923.

[kiki]

The incredible fact about post 69 Laver is not that he didn´t win a major or get to play a final...the man that had won everything on sight in 69 DID NOT EVEN REACH A SINGLE SEMIFINAL from 1970 till 1977, when he retired.I mean, based on that, a guy like Davidenkho or Verdasco could claim to be better than laver for a while.

So, there must be another serious reason, other than injuries.IMO it is the pursue of money plus the fact that he felt, as he wrotte, so much released after taking his second GS that he literally didn´t care ( which is hard to believe from such a hungry competitor as the rocket)

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

The incredible fact about post 69 Laver is not that he didn´t win a major or get to play a final...the man that had won everything on sight in 69 DID NOT EVEN REACH A SINGLE SEMIFINAL from 1970 till 1977, when he retired.I mean, based on that, a guy like Davidenkho or Verdasco could claim to be better than laver for a while.

So, there must be another serious reason, other than injuries.IMO it is the pursue of money plus the fact that he felt, as he wrotte, so much released after taking his second GS that he literally didn´t care ( which is hard to believe from such a hungry competitor as the rocket)

He just played badly in the majors that he played in the 1970s, as simple as that. In the 1960s, Laver had many close matches in the majors, but would nearly always find a way to win them. In the 1970s, the opposite would be true when it came to the majors and he'd lose.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

He just played badly in the majors that he played in the 1970s, as simple as that. In the 1960s, Laver had many close matches in the majors, but would nearly always find a way to win them. In the 1970s, the opposite would be true when it came to the majors and he'd lose.

I agree. I could not imagine that a true professional like Laver would not try to give his best when playing a major.

Their achievements in the 1970s in majors are a certain blame in Laver's career and a plus in Rosewall's.

It's really astonishing that Laver did not reach a big SF while older Rosewall reached 10 of them.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

He just played badly in the majors that he played in the 1970s, as simple as that. In the 1960s, Laver had many close matches in the majors, but would nearly always find a way to win them. In the 1970s, the opposite would be true when it came to the majors and he'd lose.

You don´t dominate the regular events the way he did ( he also beat Borg in WCT tournaments) and lose so big time at the majors without a very good reason.Specially when you come out of the most succesful single season any player any time has had.There must be something else, and I cannot find other explanation...than that provided by Laver himself.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

I agree. I could not imagine that a true professional like Laver would not try to give his best when playing a major.

Their achievements in the 1970s in majors are a certain blame in Laver's career and a plus in Rosewall's.

It's really astonishing that Laver did not reach a big SF while older Rosewall reached 10 of them.

A certain player called Patrick Proisy reached a major final and a major semi.Cliff Richey and Roger Taylor played several major semis...and Laver all of a sudden is unable to get past the quarters against players he´s roundly beaten in 69?

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

A certain player called Patrick Proisy reached a major final and a major semi.Cliff Richey and Roger Taylor played several major semis...and Laver all of a sudden is unable to get past the quarters against players he´s roundly beaten in 69?

Maybe you and others are right that this case is a riddle not yet solved.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by kiki

A certain player called Patrick Proisy reached a major final and a major semi.Cliff Richey and Roger Taylor played several major semis...and Laver all of a sudden is unable to get past the quarters against players he´s roundly beaten in 69?

Maybe you're on to something. An international conspiracy, perhaps.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

You don´t dominate the regular events the way he did ( he also beat Borg in WCT tournaments) and lose so big time at the majors without a very good reason.Specially when you come out of the most succesful single season any player any time has had.There must be something else, and I cannot find other explanation...than that provided by Laver himself.

I'll use an example:

1969 US Open R16: Rod Laver def. Dennis Ralston (6-4, 4-6, 4-6, 6-2, 6-3)
1970 US Open R16: Dennis Ralston def. Rod Laver (7-6, 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-3)

This is what I meant by Laver finding a way to win tough matches in the majors in the 1960s, and then losing that nack in the majors in the 1970s.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I'll use an example:

1969 US Open R16: Rod Laver def. Dennis Ralston (6-4, 4-6, 4-6, 6-2, 6-3)
1970 US Open R16: Dennis Ralston def. Rod Laver (7-6, 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-3)

This is what I meant by Laver finding a way to win tough matches in the majors in the 1960s, and then losing that nack in the majors in the 1970s.

Good example. Another one could be the 1972 WCT Finals. Laver usually beat Rosewall in the previous years (and in the same also)

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by kiki

The incredible fact about post 69 Laver is not that he didn´t win a major or get to play a final...the man that had won everything on sight in 69 DID NOT EVEN REACH A SINGLE SEMIFINAL from 1970 till 1977, when he retired.I mean, based on that, a guy like Davidenkho or Verdasco could claim to be better than laver for a while.

So, there must be another serious reason, other than injuries.IMO it is the pursue of money plus the fact that he felt, as he wrotte, so much released after taking his second GS that he literally didn´t care ( which is hard to believe from such a hungry competitor as the rocket)

Once one has climbed Everest, is there really much motivation to go back and do it again?

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Maybe you're on to something. An international conspiracy, perhaps.

Probably the Soviet bloc didn´t want Australia become a worldwide threat.Their bet on Kodes turned out a wrong one since the czech hated them.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Once one has climbed Everest, is there really much motivation to go back and do it again?

That is my point, too.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I'll use an example:

1969 US Open R16: Rod Laver def. Dennis Ralston (6-4, 4-6, 4-6, 6-2, 6-3)
1970 US Open R16: Dennis Ralston def. Rod Laver (7-6, 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-3)

This is what I meant by Laver finding a way to win tough matches in the majors in the 1960s, and then losing that nack in the majors in the 1970s.

That is the difference between being hungry and being fed up.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Good example. Another one could be the 1972 WCT Finals. Laver usually beat Rosewall in the previous years (and in the same also)

If Laver really wanted to win an event in the 70´s, it was clearly WCT finals.He saved what was left of motivation for that.

[kiki]

1969 was just an unforgattable year with 3 milestones in mankind .

1/Laver won the open slam
2/Led Zeppelin was formed
3/ some guy put his feer on the moon

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

1969 was just an unforgattable year with 3 milestones in mankind .

1/Laver won the open slam
2/Led Zeppelin was formed
3/ some guy put his feer on the moon

David Bowie arrived with Space Oddity