If slams were played on clay, grass AND hard-court in Laver's time?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Same result: Laver wins the Grand Slam.

Laver's mastery of the sport was the result of supreme talent & understanding of the sport, not the wholly fictional "advantage" used to provide excuses for other players.

Very true.

One of the points that Laver emphasizes repeatedly in The Education of a Tennis Player was that there was no similarity at all between the grass at Wimbledon in 1969 and the grass at Forest Hills for the US Open. The former was fast with a true bounce, the latter was rough, gone, divetted, muddy, and "like a swamp" (because of two days on rains).

He makes one of his stranger analogies in this reference, when he speaks about calling them both grass: "When you say that Wimbledon is a grass court tournament and Forest Hills is a grass court tournament--and isnt grass, after all, grass?--you might as well say that Raquel Welch is a woman and Twiggy is a woman., and what's the difference? Wimbledon is so alluring because it is cuddled and cared for more than King Farouk ever was."

"But labor problems and the climate are insuperable. American grass just doesn't hold up long beneath a thundering herd of tournament players."

"But in playing conditions in the day, it [Forest Hills] it was a far-down bush league all its own. The courts are grass, and American grass is for cows and lovers--not tennis players. In fact, American grass courts are so uncertain underfoot that ann unwary cow might break a leg strolling from baseline to net. Or starve. There isn't much grass let on an American court by the time a tournament reaches its climax."

"Uncertainties of American grass made tennis at Forest Hills comparable to driving the Indianapolis 500 on cobblestones. The 1969 Open, practically ruined by record New York rains, made it clear that grass must be replaced by a level, all-weather surface . . ."

[abmk]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

And you blame me for belittleing Federer and belittle Rosewall as a claycourter...

I heavily doubt that Federer would dominate peak Rosewall on clay.

Do you actually realise I was only talking about the RG final in 1969 where rosewall was totally sub-par ?

I wasn't talking about him as a CCer overall ... He's greater and better than federer on clay ....

see, even parts of the final set are available on youtube :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCsIEx7ykDY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO6bDVBiMJ8

rosewall making so many silly errors ......

However while rosewall's longevity on clay was excellent, peak to peak , I do see nadal and borg dominating Rosewall on clay ......

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by timnz

Here's a thought. We could ask 'would Laver have thought it be any more difficult task winning the Grand Slam if two of the events were hard court, with one clay court and one grass'? The answer is no, not a bit.

Very true.

Laver comes pretty close to answering this very question in TEOATP: "In the day, I'd have played Forest Hills if the surface was macaroni and cheese. I'm a professional. The money was there along with a big title. . . . The game I played at Forest Hills--or on any other American grass--was entirely different from how I played on Wimbledon's firm and true grass."

[abmk]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Again, you are missing the crucial point: anti-Laver (pro-Federer) types attempt to suggest Laver enjoyed some advantage, but that is patently impossible, as he played under the same conditions as everyone else in that year, so it came down to talent/mastering the sport.

Moreover, as the majors eventually used four different surfaces, it did not stop Graf from transitioning to win the Grand Slam, so either way, there is no spinning history to protect and/or inflate Federer--or anyone else (as noted earlier), who won three majors in the calendar year.

no, that doesn't make any sense ...... try again ...

if all 4 slams were on clay, we wouldn't be hearing about the talent of the likes of sampras, mac, edberg, connors much ....... instead we'd be hearing much more about how talented bruguera, kuerten , vilas etc were ....

just because conditions are same for everyone doesn't mean a particular type of player doesn't enjoy the advantage .....

Like I said , hard courts allow for a wider range of gamestyles to flourish in comparison to clay or grass ...... so that does make a difference ...

Laver's GS in 69 was a tremendous feat, no doubt .... but it that alone isn't his greatness, not even close .....

it was the fact that he first dominated the amateurs, then the pros and then finally in the open era ,was versatile and consistent @ his peak years ....

by just stating the calendar GS time and time again alone, you're doing him a great disservice ......

would it be very very difficult for anyone to emulate what Laver did in 69 ? absolutely .. but is it more difficult to do it now ? yes ....

to expect federer to complete the toughest part of the calendar GS for him, RG , with prime nadal standing in the way in 2006,07
vs
laver who got to play a sub-par rosewall in the RG finals in 69

is just being plain thick ...

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Concentrated DOMINANCE does not mean, "well, he sort of had a run at the majors in this year, and that year, then failed somwhere along the way at one of them." No, it means winning all four majors in the calendar year, which he did not do, and in that regard, he's in the exact position with the same end result of Wilander: no Grand Slam. Winning 3 in two additional years over Wilander still ends with no Grand Slam.

concentrated dominance means dominance over the tour overall, at all events .....

get this : the tennis world does not revolve around the calendar GS ......

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Originally Posted by abmk

just because conditions are same for everyone doesn't mean a particular type of player doesn't enjoy the advantage .....

Illogical. The anti-Laver argument is based on the false surface theory; Laver was on the same playing field as his contemporaries, thus winning goes back to the talent of the man playing. Laver was that man far and above the rest. You also conveniently ignored the Graf situation--she won her Grand Slam in the era of 4 different surfaces, so are you going to say she had an advantage on all four? For your sake, you should not, as all of her opponents were playing on the same surfaces. The difference is in the overwhelming talent of the GS winner--surface does not matter.

concentrated dominance means dominance over the tour overall, at all events .....

get this : the tennis world does not revolve around the calendar GS ......

That's your woefully incorrect fan desire--not recognized history. You have no explanation (or flat out dodge) why players such as Laver and Graf are considered the GOAT over the course of decades--and it has nothing to do with majors count, either.

Winning the Grand Slam is concentrated dominance at the sport's biggest events--the majors. Federer, Hingis, Wilander and Serena all won three in a season, but none were good enough to show supreme dominance over the season's majors. Try and try again, but you will never be able to spin this into an advantage for Federer.

He did not have what it takes to win the Grand Slam in his so-named "prime," and considering his age at present, it is unlikely he ever reach the level required to do it moving forward.

[timnz]

is that Laver wouldn't have found completing his Grand Slam on 3 surfaces rather than 2 any more difficult at all. In fact, given his talent I suspect that he would have found it a bit easier actually. (Some have said that his game is highly suited to Hard Court). Remember Laver won over 30 outdoor hard court titles.

I wonder if he now wishes that some of the Slams would have been on Hard Court during this era - maybe he would have won more still?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by timnz

is that Laver wouldn't have found completing his Grand Slam on 3 surfaces rather than 2 any more difficult at all. In fact, given his talent I suspect that he would have found it a bit easier actually. (Some have said that his game is highly suited to Hard Court). Remember Laver won over 30 outdoor hard court titles.

I wonder if he now wishes that some of the Slams would have been on Hard Court during this era - maybe he would have won more still?

I like the way you put it timnz. We'll never know if Laver would have won a Grand Slam on hard court but we do know that Laver was a great hard court player and it would not have hurt his chances in winning the Grand Slam.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by Flash O'Groove

Sorry, I forgot to mention "in a calendar year". It is strange that I forgot it, considering how often I have read it. At least Agassi and Federer have won 3 different slams on 3 different surfaces in their careers.

Flash, But I believe Agassi and Federer have won the three not in a row as Nadal and Rosewall did.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by abmk

Do you actually realise I was only talking about the RG final in 1969 where rosewall was totally sub-par ?

I wasn't talking about him as a CCer overall ... He's greater and better than federer on clay ....

see, even parts of the final set are available on youtube :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCsIEx7ykDY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO6bDVBiMJ8

rosewall making so many silly errors ......

However while rosewall's longevity on clay was excellent, peak to peak , I do see nadal and borg dominating Rosewall on clay ......

abmk, I understand and agree.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by abmk

Do you actually realise I was only talking about the RG final in 1969 where rosewall was totally sub-par ?

I wasn't talking about him as a CCer overall ... He's greater and better than federer on clay ....

see, even parts of the final set are available on youtube :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCsIEx7ykDY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO6bDVBiMJ8

rosewall making so many silly errors ......

However while rosewall's longevity on clay was excellent, peak to peak , I do see nadal and borg dominating Rosewall on clay ......

Put any right handed single handed backhand player against Rafael Nadal on a clay court and you would know what he is. No one in the history of Tennis had to face the insane topspin generated by Rafa's left forehand directed at the right hand single handed backhand..

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Feather

Put any right handed single handed backhand player against Rafael Nadal on a clay court and you would know what he is. No one in the history of Tennis had to face the insane topspin generated by Rafa's left forehand directed at the right hand single handed backhand..

I would be really curious to see how Guga would have handled it.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by timnz

I would be really curious to see how Guga would have handled it.

Yeah, Nadal v Guga would have been interesting to watch.

I thought about him while posting that. I was expecting abmk to come up and say something about Guga.

[urban]

How old was Nadal when he won his first RG? How many RGs he had played? Did he play in all RGs on the same level he played in 2008 or 2010? I think, Laver would have been glad, to teach a 18 year old some things about clay court tennis. As he lefthander with a great backhand and a strong wrist, he would play Nadal in a similar way, as Puerta did, only with more all court game, and a deadlier finish (and without juice).

[abmk]

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

Illogical. The anti-Laver argument is based on the false surface theory; Laver was on the same playing field as his contemporaries, thus winning goes back to the talent of the man playing. Laver was that man far and above the rest. You also conveniently ignored the Graf situation--she won her Grand Slam in the era of 4 different surfaces, so are you going to say she had an advantage on all four? For your sake, you should not, as all of her opponents were playing on the same surfaces. The difference is in the overwhelming talent of the GS winner--surface does not matter.

again, you are thick if you think talent is the only thing that matters .. of course one has to be darn talented to win the GS, but a combination of other factors are also important including the surfaces and a bit of luck ...like I said, give nadal and borg four slams on clay and they'd be wiping the fields clean for several years at their peaks ... sampras would be a near nobody as far as all time greatness goes in that case ....

coming back to graf, great great feat, no doubt, but many still regard navratilova above her ...

very few regard court above navratilova ...

and much fewer , if any, regard budge as better than federer

its the entire body of work that matters, not just the GS

Originally Posted by THUNDERVOLLEY

That's your woefully incorrect fan desire--not recognized history. You have no explanation (or flat out dodge) why players such as Laver and Graf are considered the GOAT over the course of decades--and it has nothing to do with majors count, either.

Winning the Grand Slam is concentrated dominance at the sport's biggest events--the majors. Federer, Hingis, Wilander and Serena all won three in a season, but none were good enough to show supreme dominance over the season's majors. Try and try again, but you will never be able to spin this into an advantage for Federer.

He did not have what it takes to win the Grand Slam in his so-named "prime," and considering his age at present, it is unlikely he ever reach the level required to do it moving forward.

that is just again you being downright thick ..... dominance is dominance over the field over an entire year ...... again you do not understand because you are obsessed with the calendar GS and your favourite serena has negligible amount of titles overall even when compared to the other modern great players ....

the parameters of greatness in tennis change quite a bit with time ......

in the early years, Davis Cup was perhaps the most important event ... at that time, I doubt if the term grand slam was used in tennis .... only probably came into the picture in the 30s ......

then the best players were in the pros and pro majors held more significance than the amateur majors and h2h battles were of high significance

If the calendar GS were the only important thing in history the likes of vines, gonzales, rosewall, hoad etc. wouldn't have joined the pros

then with the open era, the calendar GS assumed more importance ..... then slowly towards the end of lendl era till now, the no of majors has become a much more important parameter ........ pretty sure borg didn't care about inflating his no of majors by going to Australia in his prime years ....
now Davis Cup is of much less importance ......

the greatness of players should be evaluated on multiple parameters based on the importance of the events at those times .....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by timnz

I would be really curious to see how Guga would have handled it.

Originally Posted by Feather

Yeah, Nadal v Guga would have been interesting to watch.

I thought about him while posting that. I was expecting abmk to come up and say something about Guga.

if nadal were slightly below par, I could see something like the FO 2009 4R match happening, only kuerten with better movement than soderling and lesser firepower .... essentially nadal getting over-powered ...

prime to prime, IMO, kuerten would do well in the rallies ..... he wouldn't have that much of trouble with nadal's action on his FH as he'd probably have with his defense and determination

nadal would be ruthless and take every chance he'd get as a result of kuerten's inconsistent play .... nadal would still win the majority of the matches, but kuerten would win a few as well ....... bar borg, I don't see anyone consistently challenging nadal on clay as kuerten could ....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

if nadal were slightly below par, I could see something like the FO 2009 4R match happening, only kuerten with better movement than soderling and lesser firepower .... essentially nadal getting over-powered ...

prime to prime, IMO, kuerten would do well in the rallies ..... he wouldn't have that much of trouble with nadal's action on his FH as he'd probably have with his defense and determination

nadal would be ruthless and take every chance he'd get as a result of kuerten's inconsistent play .... nadal would still win the majority of the matches, but kuerten would win a few as well ....... bar borg, I don't see anyone consistently challenging nadal on clay as kuerten could ....

Almost my thoughts exactly.

I actually think Kuerten has more firepower on clay than Nadal. What are your thoughts on that abmk?

[abmk]

Originally Posted by pc1

Almost my thoughts exactly.

I actually think Kuerten has more firepower on clay than Nadal. What are your thoughts on that abmk?

yeah, absolutely, serve is quite a bit more powerful , groundstrokes a bit more powerful as well ....

but then federer has quite a bit more powerful serve and more powerful FH but it hasn't done him a whole lot of good against nadal on clay, has it ?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Feather

Put any right handed single handed backhand player against Rafael Nadal on a clay court and you would know what he is. No one in the history of Tennis had to face the insane topspin generated by Rafa's left forehand directed at the right hand single handed backhand..

Interesting point.

Would Laver have had the advantage here also--being a lefty with an incredibly strong backhand (and not to mention, forehand) of his own?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by abmk

bar borg, I don't see anyone consistently challenging nadal on clay as kuerten could ....

Oooohhh! That would be a helluva match: Borg versus Nadal at RG.

With Borg's incredible stamina and speed, Nadal would have to be at the top of his game, and hit a lot of outright winners.

No easy shanking backhands from Borg--everything comes back. (Bring your pillows and sleeping bags.)

[timnz]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Oooohhh! That would be a helluva match: Borg versus Nadal at RG.

With Borg's incredible stamina and speed, Nadal would have to be at the top of his game, and hit a lot of outright winners.

No easy shanking backhands from Borg--everything comes back. (Bring your pillows and sleeping bags.)

Yes, those who write off Borg don't reflect on the following - how do you hit a ball past the fastest and fittest guy ever. Wide to his backhand - he is there in an instant. His ground strokes so solid he could stay with you for hours and hours. He never gets tired or weary. (I remember Borg saying that recently that he never got tired ever)