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

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by 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).

Very true, Nadal in 2005 and 2006 was not unbeatable yet by someone good enough on clay, he wasnt the Nadal of 2007-2012 yet. Just like Borg in 1974 and 1975 wasnt unbeatable by someone good enough on clay (he was a better player in 1976 and still lost to Panatta on red clay at RG, then Connors on green at the U.S Open), just in both cases nobody proved to be good enough to do it, Federer included. Laver, a clearly superior clay courter than Federer, with a more diverse and complete game, and less stubborn and more willing to adapt to opponents, would have been more likely to do what Federer failed to do, take out a pre prime Nadal at RG en route to a possible Grand Slam.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by timnz

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)

I once read an interview with Borg in which he said he got tired of his second wife, Loredana Bertè, always wanting sex.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

True enough but that backhand of Guga is something, especially on red clay. That's a big difference maker. Still makes me sad to think of Guga and his bad hip that forced him to retire.

Incidentally Laver could really get red hot on red clay also with no pun intended. I saw him play a young Borg in 1974 when Laver was pass his best and beat Borg in a great match. Great variety by Laver in that match. In 1975 Borg beat Laver on har tru in four sets at the US Open. A match I could have gone to but a friend begged me to play him in singles that day and I give in. It was a bad decision on my part.

[hoodjem]

^^^Really bad decision.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

^^^Really bad decision.

You're being extremely nice when you say bad decision. You can add the fact that my friend is a player who I always beat 6-0 and I mean always. Not fun beating someone so easily when you could watch Borg/Laver.

[hoodjem]

To be able to say now that you saw Borg versus Laver at the US Open on clay: 6-1, 6-4, 2-6, 6-2 to Borg!?

"Priceless."

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Very true, Nadal in 2005 and 2006 was not unbeatable yet by someone good enough on clay, he wasnt the Nadal of 2007-2012 yet. Just like Borg in 1974 and 1975 wasnt unbeatable by someone good enough on clay (he was a better player in 1976 and still lost to Panatta on red clay at RG, then Connors on green at the U.S Open), just in both cases nobody proved to be good enough to do it, Federer included. Laver, a clearly superior clay courter than Federer, with a more diverse and complete game, and less stubborn and more willing to adapt to opponents, would have been more likely to do what Federer failed to do, take out a pre prime Nadal at RG en route to a possible Grand Slam.

NadalAgassi, I agree.

[abmk]

^^^

yeah, only problems with that argument are :

peak safin would've beaten laver @ AO 2005 ......

and laver's main problem, ; at times, going for too much and losing concentration for spells would cost him big time vs nadal who is just too good at focusing on every point and very rarely loses focus

while laver's BH and net play are better than federer's, federer's serve and fh are better ......

also nadal was better on clay in 2006 than he was in 2005 ....

federer/laver are at pretty similar levels on clay IMO, while laver would not face the matchup problem that federer does, still would probably not be enough vs nadal on clay ....especially 2006 onward ...and even in 2005, he'd have to be in absolute top form ....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by abmk

^^^

yeah, only problems with that argument are :

peak safin would've beaten laver @ AO 2005 ......

and laver's main problem, ; at times, going for too much and losing concentration for spells would cost him big time vs nadal who is just too good at focusing on every point and very rarely loses focus

while laver's BH and net play are better than federer's, federer's serve and fh are better ......

also nadal was better on clay in 2006 than he was in 2005 ....

federer/laver are at pretty similar levels on clay IMO, while laver would not face the matchup problem that federer does, still would probably not be enough vs nadal on clay ....especially 2006 onward ...and even in 2005, he'd have to be in absolute top form ....

I think Nadal probably would have beaten Laver most of the time on red clay. It would be interesting in that Laver would have played Nadal very differently than anyone has ever played him. And Laver's forehand was still very powerful especially if he decided to go for that.

Laver probably would have used various drop shots and angles just to bring Nadal up to net. Nadal imo is a very good volleyer but he still is uncomfortable there where forced to be there. Rod would probably use a lot of different angles, volleys when appropriate.

I think Laver would be able to beat Nadal at times on clay. I don't think he would be embarrassed. I believe for example Laver has defeated Rosewall more times than not on clay so Rod was a great clay court player.

One thing for sure, Nadal would face someone with a huge amount of playing styles. He could not get adjust to one style of play. And yes I do think it's very possible Laver was a better clay court player than Federer. Sorry guys but that's how I feel. More solid on both sides, better volley, a little better variety and Laver's forehand was still considered the best in tennis by many in his day so his forehand isn't exactly chopped liver.

[urban]

Agree. Laver's record on clay is pretty fine, although he didn't play much on European clay after 1964. In 1962 he had one of the best clay seasons ever, comparable to Muster's run in 1995, winning Paris, Rome, Hamburg, Bournemouth, Gstaad, Hilversum, Oslo, Houston and other events, against clay courters of the status of Santana, Pietrangeli, Emerson, Lundquist, Krishnan, Mulligan, Darmon and others. Laver won 2 RG (out of maybe 5 played, including one final), 2 Rome (out of 4 played), 2 Hamburg (out of 3 played). He defeated every great clay courter between 1961 and 1975, and maybe only with Santana, whom he played regularly only until 1962, he has a slightly negative head to head, losing twice 1960 and 1961 at RG, but winning at Rome 1961 and Hamburg 1962. His other hth on clay are in favor of Laver, or at least even. Given that its quite difficult to reconstruct the surfaces on the old pro tour, i have a slight margin 3-1 for Laver over Rosewall on clay. Interesting, that he made his breakthrough against Rosewall in 1963 at Kitzbühel, when he won the clay event in straight sets. In open competition, Laver was 4-4 with Rosewall on clay, with Rosewalls last win coming 1976 at Houston, when both were near retirement. It was a matter between these two, how the clay played. If it was hot, and the court played fast, Laver took advantage. Rosewalls two wins in 1968 at Bournemouth and Paris came on a rain-soaked court, which played quite slow. In the summer 1968 Laver came back to RG and won the French pro over the decent clay courter Newcombe who had beaten Rosewall.
In 1971 Laver was still able to beat Kodes, the reigning RG champ, at Rome in a straight (3) sets final. He beat Borg 1974 on red clay at Houston, "teaching him a clay court lesson", as Arthur Ashe remarked, and lost to him at Forest Hills in four on har tru, when he was 37 and gave away 18 years. In the 70s, when he was past 32, he still coped on clay with the likes of Orantes (1-0), Vilas 1973/1975 (1-1 overall), Panatta in 1975 (at Boston), Solomon, Gerulatis, who all won RG or were runners up there.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by urban

Agree. Laver's record on clay is pretty fine, although he didn't play much on European clay after 1964. In 1962 he had one of the best clay seasons ever, comparable to Muster's run in 1995, winning Paris, Rome, Hamburg, Bournemouth, Gstaad, Hilversum, Oslo, Houston and other events, against clay courters of the status of Santana, Pietrangeli, Emerson, Lundquist, Krishnan, Mulligan, Darmon and others. Laver won 2 RG (out of maybe 5 played, including one final), 2 Rome (out of 4 played), 2 Hamburg (out of 3 played). He defeated every great clay courter between 1961 and 1975, and maybe only with Santana, whom he played regularly only until 1962, he has a slightly negative head to head, losing twice 1960 and 1961 at RG, but winning at Rome 1961 and Hamburg 1962. His other hth on clay are in favor of Laver, or at least even. Given that its quite difficult to reconstruct the surfaces on the old pro tour, i have a slight margin 3-1 for Laver over Rosewall on clay. Interesting, that he made his breakthrough against Rosewall in 1963 at Kitzbühel, when he won the clay event in straight sets. In open competition, Laver was 4-4 with Rosewall on clay, with Rosewalls last win coming 1977 at Houston, when both were near retirement. It was a matter between these two, how the clay played. If it was hot, and the court played fast, Laver took advantage. Rosewalls two wins in 1968 at Bournemouth and Paris came on a rain-soaked court, which played quite slow. In the summer 1968 Laver came back to RG and won the French pro over the decent clay courter Newcombe who had beaten Rosewall.
In 1971 Laver was still able to beat Kodes, the reigning RG champ, at Rome in a straight (3) sets final. He beat Borg 1974 on red clay at Houston, "teaching him a clay court lesson", as Arthur Ashe remarked, and lost to him at Forest Hills in four on har tru, when he was 37 and gave away 18 years. In the 70s, when he was past 32, he still coped on clay with the likes of Orantes (1-0), Vilas 1973/1975 (1-1 overall), Panatta in 1975 (at Boston), Solomon, Gerulatis, who all won RG or were runners up there.

urban, great list. Laver is really underrated on clay. I agree with pc1 that Laver was stronger on clay than Federer.

Laver lost to Rosewall at Houston in 1976.

I do know (thanks to Ray Bowers) that Rosewall defeated Laver in the 1965 Reston tournament on clay (probably green clay).

[zagor]

Originally Posted by 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 ?

Yes, but the main difference between Fed and Guga vs Nadal match-up on clay is that Nadal's bread and butter tactic works against Fed but wouldn't work against Guga (which means Nadal would have to outgrind him to win or outplay him on big points).

Guga's BH is better overall shot than Fed's but by a smaller margin than his BH being better for handling high balls off that side.

With Nadal's main tactic being nullified (to a degree anyway), Guga's advantage in power (though it's slight IMO, Nadal's FH is a monster) and serve would be more pronounced IMO than in Fed's match-up against Nadal on clay.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

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?

I was surprised at your asking that question to me. No offence meant but I thought you would have known that I don't know much about Laver's play.

Since Laver was left handed, he wouldn't have had the disadvantage that Roger had. I don't think Roger is as bad a clay courter as his results against Rafa prove it to be. I mean he beat Djokovic in RG when Rafa failed to beat Djokovic twice on clay in 2011. Rafa is a terrible match up for Roger especially on clay

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by zagor

Yes, but the main difference between Fed and Guga vs Nadal match-up on clay is that Nadal's bread and butter tactic works against Fed but wouldn't work against Guga (which means Nadal would have to outgrind him to win or outplay him on big points).

Guga's BH is better overall shot than Fed's but by a smaller margin than his BH being better for handling high balls off that side.

With Nadal's main tactic being nullified (to a degree anyway), Guga's advantage in power (though it's slight IMO, Nadal's FH is a monster) and serve would be more pronounced IMO than in Fed's match-up against Nadal on clay.

Guga had à slightly better bh but fed's fh is out of this world. Don't forget fed moves à lot better as well.

[urban]

Yes Bobby One, the Houston match was 1976, corrected it. On the clay matches of the old pro tour, i did some research, and i can tell its awfully difficult to reconstruct them. The Brits called all non- lawn events hard courts, and i went back to tennis club books in the Netherlands or Germany or even some event programs like Geneva, one could buy on the internet. We can assume, that the summer pro events in Continental Europe, in France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Spain or Austria were mostly on clay, but we cannot be sure in all aspects. In France, the pros also played a lot indoors, at the Cannes Palais du sport for instance. There were also very late autumn events, like Rome in 1963, where we only can speculate, if it was outdoor clay or indoor. Yet a bigger problem are the US events, i would assume that some in Florida or California or on the Caribian tour were played on clay. It could well be, that Reston was on clay, i have had credible information (by Jeffrey Neave), that Oklahoma was on clay, too. I am glad for all further informations, i can get.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by urban

Yes Bobby One, the Houston match was 1976, corrected it. On the clay matches of the old pro tour, i did some research, and i can tell its awfully difficult to reconstruct them. The Brits called all non- lawn events hard courts, and i went back to tennis club books in the Netherlands or Germany or even some event programs like Geneva, one could buy on the internet. We can assume, that the summer pro events in Continental Europe, in France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Spain or Austria were mostly on clay, but we cannot be sure in all aspects. In France, the pros also played a lot indoors, at the Cannes Palais du sport for instance. There were also very late autumn events, like Rome in 1963, where we only can speculate, if it was outdoor clay or indoor. Yet a bigger problem are the US events, i would assume that some in Florida or California or on the Caribian tour were played on clay. It could well be, that Reston was on clay, i have had credible information (by Jeffrey Neave), that Oklahoma was on clay, too. I am glad for all further informations, i can get.

urban, I agree that usually the European summer events were played on clay even though Dan is refusing this...

It also could be that a few indoor tournaments were yet played on clay as it was true with the 1959 Vienna indoor event.

In Florida there were many claycourt events.

Rosewall once told me that the Oklahoma tourney was played on har-tru which is green clay, as far as I know.

Thanks for your research!

[abmk]

Originally Posted by zagor

Yes, but the main difference between Fed and Guga vs Nadal match-up on clay is that Nadal's bread and butter tactic works against Fed but wouldn't work against Guga (which means Nadal would have to outgrind him to win or outplay him on big points).

Guga's BH is better overall shot than Fed's but by a smaller margin than his BH being better for handling high balls off that side.

With Nadal's main tactic being nullified (to a degree anyway), Guga's advantage in power (though it's slight IMO, Nadal's FH is a monster) and serve would be more pronounced IMO than in Fed's match-up against Nadal on clay.

yeah, I know, which is why I said that bar borg, kuerten would provide the most challenge for nadal in the open era ... just saying only power wouldn't be enough vs nadal on clay ....

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

urban, great list. Laver is really underrated on clay. I agree with pc1 that Laver was stronger on clay than Federer.

Laver lost to Rosewall at Houston in 1976.

I do know (thanks to Ray Bowers) that Rosewall defeated Laver in the 1965 Reston tournament on clay (probably green clay).

Laver may have been better than Fed on clay, but beating post-2005 Nadal at RG is still a very tough order for anyone.

Laver wrote about beating Rosewall in the finals of the 1969 FO: "He had his shot at me in the final of the French, but I played the clay court match of my life and avoided the treatment he gave Lew [at Forest Hills in 1956]."

In 1969 Laver played a great all-court match, taking the net and being aggressive whenever possible. Rosewall was very fast, but so is Nadal. This strategy may shock Nadal for a while, but I'm not sure that taking the net on clay is a great strategy with present racquets and strings.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Laver may have been better than Fed on clay, but beating post-2005 Nadal at RG is still a very tough order for anyone.

Laver wrote about beating Rosewall in the finals of the 1969 FO: "He had his shot at me in the final of the French, but I played the clay court match of my life and avoided the treatment he gave Lew [at Forest Hills in 1956]."

In 1969 Laver played a great all-court match, taking the net and being aggressive whenever possible. Rosewall was very fast, but so is Nadal. This strategy may shock Nadal for a while, but I'm not sure that taking the net on clay is a great strategy with present racquets and strings.

It would be tough and that is why I would favor Nadal against Laver on red clay. I could see Laver getting Nadal out of position and you know he would feel that he would have to make sure the volleys are very penetrating at least to hurt Nadal. The pressure to make the perfect volley would probably lead to more errors.

[President]

Nadal's forehand is a HUUUGE shot, one of the biggest forehands of all time (and IMO the best, even better than peak Federer) in terms of the energy put into it. Remember that spin is a form of power as well. It's not easy to get that many RPM's and still get decent pace on the ball. Federer is not capable of that. When Nadal hits even a little less spin he is capable of consistently hitting more pace than anyone else in the current mens top 4. Nadal would not be getting overpowered by Kuerten on clay IMO.