Alan Trengove on Rod Laver. New Article

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by abmk

poorly written and researched IMO .....first off the fact that he speaks so highly of the 62 slam, even though it was only against amateurs and Rod was probably only the 3rd best player in the world at that time ( behind rosewall and hoad ) .....then ....

Wasn't he also behind Lew Hoad (when he was healthy) and Pancho Gonzalez in 1962?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

If 62 not counting them 67 does, you cannot dispise bot

no, it doesn't. 67 was a smaller field ( pros only ) ....... chances of upset are more in a 128 person draw ... see drysdale beating laver in 68 US Open.

Also French Pro in 67 was indoors ...... French Open would be on clay .....Rosewall did beat him @ RG on clay in 68 .... he'd have a good shot at the same in 67 as well ....

so no, the 67 pro slam is not close to the true grand slam ...

Originally Posted by kiki

Laver dominated 5 or 6 yrs in a row from 64 to 70 although I would say in 70 it is too close and that surpasses Federer who dominated 2003-2007

no, it doesn't .... laver never dominated a stretch of years as federer did from 2004-07 ......just being the no 1 player for those years doesn't mean he was as dominant as federer was ....

Originally Posted by kiki

I feel so bad for Fed being so unrespectfully owned by Nadal that I rise him to second tier, don' t ask me for more generousity

he leads nadal H2H outside of clay , both on hard courts and on grass... the only place where nadal leads him is clay, which is not surprising as nadal is the claycourt GOAT ......

reality is you are mad that federer has surpassed crush laver as the GOAT in the eyes of most ...

and of course you have near zero knowledge of tennis

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by abmk

no, it doesn't .... laver never dominated a stretch of years as federer did from 2004-07 ......just being the no 1 player for those years doesn't mean he was as dominant as federer was ....

(I would say 2004, 2006, 2007.)

I guess dominance is in the eye of the beholder.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

(I would say 2004, 2006, 2007.)

I guess dominance is in the eye of the beholder.

How many losses Laver had in one year? His best year(1969) he lost 16 times, far cry from having 90%. Fed had multiple years over 90%.

That's not dominant because his name is Roger Federer.

[hoodjem]

Was 1969 Laver's best year? That's an interesting question.

Originally Posted by TMF

That's not dominant because his name is Roger Federer.

The logic here eludes me.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by TMF

That's not dominant because his name is Roger Federer.

"Dominance, verily thy name is Federer!"

William Shakespeare
Act II, Scene III
of As You Wish It

[TMF]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Was 1969 Laver's best year? That's an interesting question.

I don't see why not. Everyone recognize his best year is 1969, JMac 1984, Fed 2006, Nole 2011, etc.. Of course there's a few minority have different POV.

Originally Posted by hoodjem

The logic here eludes me.

This former pro forum should answer your question.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

(I would say 2004, 2006, 2007.)

I guess dominance is in the eye of the beholder.

he was 81-4 in 2005 , winning 2 slams, being in the semis of the other 2 ( losing the AO semi after having MPs) , and was in the final of the YEC ..

I'd say that's pretty dominant .....

dominance has to be judged both subjectively and objectively .....

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

no, it doesn't. 67 was a smaller field ( pros only ) ....... chances of upset are more in a 128 person draw ... see drysdale beating laver in 68 US Open.

Also French Pro in 67 was indoors ...... French Open would be on clay .....Rosewall did beat him @ RG on clay in 68 .... he'd have a good shot at the same in 67 as well ....

so no, the 67 pro slam is not close to the true grand slam ...



no, it doesn't .... laver never dominated a stretch of years as federer did from 2004-07 ......just being the no 1 player for those years doesn't mean he was as dominant as federer was ....



he leads nadal H2H outside of clay , both on hard courts and on grass... the only place where nadal leads him is clay, which is not surprising as nadal is the claycourt GOAT ......

reality is you are mad that federer has surpassed crush laver as the GOAT in the eyes of most ...

and of course you have near zero knowledge of tennis

The best tournaments, now, before and ever are those competed by the best.No matther the nº of players entering.The best events all throughout the 50´s and 60´s were pros, so most of them are pros.We have to go case per case, anyhow.Maybe a few amateurs traditional slams had a better cast than the early 50´s pros events, so we should go one bu one to be fair.

And there are two things as sure as life about *******s never being able to overcome:

-.freaking Nadal´s ownage
-.Laver´s 3 GS...

There is only two ways to counterbalance it: either Fed starts beating up Nadal, and I think this is the easiest of the two possibilities...and retires winning 3 GS ( of course, only calendar counts) which I don´t think he is able to...in fact, with pathetic 2003-2006 opposition he wasn´t able so figure it now¡¡¡¡

Lots of Love.Keep posting.It´s funny.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by TMF

How many losses Laver had in one year? His best year(1969) he lost 16 times, far cry from having 90%. Fed had multiple years over 90%.

That's not dominant because his name is Roger Federer.

Will you be so gentle to bring up all the events won by Fed and Laver in 1969, I mean including not GS events?.

Then, we will see whom they played against...

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

The best tournaments, now, before and ever are those competed by the best.No matther the nº of players entering.

The best events all throughout the 50´s and 60´s were pros, so most of them are pros.We have to go case per case, anyhow.Maybe a few amateurs traditional slams had a better cast than the early 50´s pros events, so we should go one bu one to be fair.

laver lost to drysdale at the USO 68 ... rosewall beat him at Rg 68 .... why on earth wouldn't rosewall have a shot at taking him out at RG in 67 ? how on earth is the 67 pro slam even close to a true slam when it had shallow fields ? when the french pro was indoors and not on clay ...

also we know laver in 62 wasn't even close to the best player in the world ...

Laver has one GS, that's it .... Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know their tennis ....

the Year ending championships have the best players in the world ... federer has beaten nadal four times there, including bagels and breadsticks thrown in , and losing only one set total in 4 matches ... yet you totally seem to ignore that .... why ? because it hurts your delusion that nadal owns federer everywhere .... nadal only has the edge on clay, nowhere else .......

Originally Posted by kiki

And there are two things as sure as life about *******s never being able to overcome:

-.freaking Nadal´s ownage
-.Laver´s 3 GS...

There is only two ways to counterbalance it: either Fed starts beating up Nadal, and I think this is the easiest of the two possibilities...and retires winning 3 GS ( of course, only calendar counts) which I don´t think he is able to...in fact, with pathetic 2003-2006 opposition he wasn´t able so figure it now¡¡¡¡

Lots of Love.Keep posting.It´s funny.

laver has one GS, that's it ... federer has plenty of things that top that ..... dominance over a 4 year period is unparalleled. 5 consecutive years of winning wimbledon and USO , 17 majors overall , 6 YECs etc etc ....

what is funny is how bitter you are that federer has surpassed laver in the GOAT discussions in the eyes of many.... You try to make one stupid excuse after the other to try to cover that up ..... give it up .... anyone sane and with tennis knowledge can detect within a couple of days that you have near zero knowledge of tennis ........

oh and your precious laver wouldn't do any better than federer did against nadal on clay ... deal with it ....

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

laver lost to drysdale at the USO 68 ... rosewall beat him at Rg 68 .... why on earth wouldn't rosewall have a shot at taking him out at RG in 67 ? how on earth is the 67 pro slam even close to a true slam when it had shallow fields ? when the french pro was indoors and not on clay ...

also we know laver in 62 wasn't even close to the best player in the world ...

Laver has one GS, that's it .... Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't know their tennis ....

the Year ending championships have the best players in the world ... federer has beaten nadal four times there, including bagels and breadsticks thrown in , and losing only one set total in 4 matches ... yet you totally seem to ignore that .... why ? because it hurts your delusion that nadal owns federer everywhere .... nadal only has the edge on clay, nowhere else .......




laver has one GS, that's it ... federer has plenty of things that top that ..... dominance over a 4 year period is unparalleled. 5 consecutive years of winning wimbledon and USO , 17 majors overall , 6 YECs etc etc ....

what is funny is how bitter you are that federer has surpassed laver in the GOAT discussions in the eyes of many.... You try to make one stupid excuse after the other to try to cover that up ..... give it up .... anyone sane and with tennis knowledge can detect within a couple of days that you have near zero knowledge of tennis ........

oh and your precious laver wouldn't do any better than federer did against nadal on clay ... deal with it ....

Just another public display of *******s bitterness and complex vs Laver

[kiki]

Federer is a transiction era champion between the last dinosaurs of the 90´s (Sampras,Agassi,Kuerten,Rafter,Goran) and the big bashing baseliners like Murray,Nadal,Djokovic,Del Potro

Federer is in the transiction era, with guys like Roddick,Safin and Hewitt rounding up this transiction era.

It is like the second half of the early 70´s, which was a transiction era between Laver,Hoad,Gonzales and Rosewall prime and the arrival of the two handed Bh and top spin era marked by Borg,Vilas and Jimmy Connors around the middle 70´s.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Federer is a transiction era champion between the last dinosaurs of the 90´s (Sampras,Agassi,Kuerten,Rafter,Goran) and the big bashing baseliners like Murray,Nadal,Djokovic,Del Potro

Federer is in the transiction era, with guys like Roddick,Safin and Hewitt rounding up this transiction era.

It is like the second half of the early 70´s, which was a transiction era between Laver,Hoad,Gonzales and Rosewall prime and the arrival of the two handed Bh and top spin era marked by Borg,Vilas and Jimmy Connors around the middle 70´s.

there is no world called "transiction"

your last sentence makes as much sense as this :

laver was the the huge beneficiary to be in the transitional era b/w gonzales/hoad and connors/borg .......

oh and one last thing, federer has as many majors as nadal, djoker, murray combined ....and yes, he's surprassed your crush laver as the GOAT ...deal with it ........

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

Just another public display of *******s bitterness and complex vs Laver

actually those are facts ....

fact: rosewall beat him in RG 68 on clay
fact: French pro in 67 was indoors
fact: pro majors had didn't have the depth
fact: drysdale, nowhere close to being a major winner, beat laver in USO 68 , so don't give me that the depth of the field and possibility of an upset isn't there ....... laver is no federer who had a streak of 23 consecutive major semis ......
fact: pro majors are not equivalent of a full major


things that you lavertard cannot accept ....it hurts doesn't it ?

of course, it does ....... now stop crying ......and come up with one more of those hilariously dumb statements of yours ...... its fun ......

[Steve0904]

It seems we need an unbiased party in here. I haven't read the article, and I'm not going to as I have heard that it is poorly written. I don't see how any sane person can debate that considering the quotes I've seen from the article. Fans of Laver, or people that are not fans of Federer will keep saying that Laver is the greatest, and Fed fans will do the opposite. Every discussion that revolves around the GOAT in tennis is exactly the same. IMO (I'm biased too) Federer is the greatest because the numbers he's put up over an extended period are beyond ridiculous. The best IMO. Nobody can argue that unless you're a troll no matter how much anybody hates the guy.

I've seen it many times before. People will start posting saying what kind of numbers? Somebody (perhaps me) will give a rundown of Federer's numbers. Then somebody else will say, but Laver did this, or he has a losing record against Nadal, or I don't care about those numbers which is beyond stupid because if we can't base it on numbers it leaves little to argue about. And my all time personal favourite "He played in a weak era." This argument has more holes than swiss cheese (pun intended) and is very subjective.

Who's to say Federer just didn't dominate that much. Nobody can prove I'm wrong really. I also laugh when people talk about the competition nowadays. If Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray couldn't beat Federer they wouldn't be competition, and then the people that go on and on about weak eras would have a more convincing argument, since none of those guys would be half as good today if they couldn't beat Federer in the first place.

Like the fact that if Federer beat Novak at RG in 2011, and near beat him at the USO, what in god's name makes anybody think he wouldn't beat him at most of the slams if they played in their primes. Not to mention that he's #1 right now at 31, but I digress.

For the writer to use the age old argument about Federer not even being the best of his era is weak, considering by that logic that Nadal is not really the "best" of his era if you factor in Djokovic. Just because Alan is well respected does not mean that he's right all the time. I always hate it when people say that.

And then I've also seen that he said that Federer wasn't comfortable at RG until 2009. That's BS. If anything Federer was at his most uncomfortable that year considering he played 2 five setters and lost other sets to PH Mathieu and Acasuso.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by kiki

Federer is a transiction era champion between the last dinosaurs of the 90´s (Sampras,Agassi,Kuerten,Rafter,Goran) and the big bashing baseliners like Murray,Nadal,Djokovic,Del Potro

Federer is in the transiction era, with guys like Roddick,Safin and Hewitt rounding up this transiction era.

It is like the second half of the early 70´s, which was a transiction era between Laver,Hoad,Gonzales and Rosewall prime and the arrival of the two handed Bh and top spin era marked by Borg,Vilas and Jimmy Connors around the middle 70´s.

You're going to have to live with the fact that Federer's playing field is much stronger than Laver's field.

[Steve0904]

I will also never understand why people say Fed had weak competition, and then say Nadal beat Fed to win most of his slams. By that logic, because Fed had weak competition he's "not that good", therefore making Nadal "not that good." Not to mention that Federer has beaten Nadal himself to win 2 slams, and he's beaten the guy that's beaten Nadal many times.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Steve0904

I will also never understand why people say Fed had weak competition, and then say Nadal beat Fed to win most of his slams. By that logic, because Fed had weak competition he's "not that good", therefore making Nadal "not that good." Not to mention that Federer has beaten Nadal himself to win 2 slams, and he's beaten the guy that's beaten Nadal many times.

Do you know why?

Because the fact is he's has greater competition than any past generations, and that's just about in every sports. The old-timers are saying the opposite but deep down they know it isn't true. They hated the when experts/ex-players/general fans keep mentioned about tennis played at a higher level, more depth, more talented players, more quality....

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

there is no world called "transiction"

your last sentence makes as much sense as this :

laver was the the huge beneficiary to be in the transitional era b/w gonzales/hoad and connors/borg .......

oh and one last thing, federer has as many majors as nadal, djoker, murray combined ....and yes, he's surprassed your crush laver as the GOAT ...deal with it ........

You know that I perfectly meant Laver/Hoad/Gonzales/Rosewall, then transition (Newcombe and nastase leading a very good group with Ashe,Roche,Kodes,Smith...) and then Connors/Borg/Vilas.The two big eras were Laver and Rosewall and then Borg and Connors although the early 70´s were really exciting...

not like the very boring Federer dominance transitional era, in between the great Agassi/sampras/rafter rivalry and the stronger Djokovic/Nadal/Federer trio of nowadays.

That Roddick and Hewitt were the biggest threats to Federer says it all...

I won´t discuss about Federer and Laver.Federer is a modern Emerson and Laver won the big thing about 3 times...