THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
...and Federer could not win the Grand Slam, so he does not measure up to Laver.
...and Federer could not win the Grand Slam, so he does not measure up to Laver.
Do you really believe Rod Laver could beat Rafael Nadal in a French Open final? If you do, you are delusional. Don't give me any BS about "you can only beat the competition in front of you". If Laver had to get through Nadal to win the Grand Slam, he wouldn't have won it either.
If you put a Dunlop Maxply in Nadal's hands -- like Laver used -- I am pretty sure Laver wins that match.
If Nadal was raised and trained in that era, would he have been able to beat Laver? If Laver were raised in this era, would he be able to beat Nadal? Nobody can say one way or the other.
If you put a Dunlop Maxply in Nadal's hands -- like Laver used -- I am pretty sure Laver wins that match.
If Nadal was raised and trained in that era, would he have been able to beat Laver? If Laver were raised in this era, would he be able to beat Nadal? Nobody can say one way or the other.
That may all be true but Nadal has dominated clay like no one else, not even Borg. Laver didn't face such a dominant clay court player when he won the grand slam.
The point is that Laver didn't have to face someone who is as unbeatable as it gets at Roland Garros. Nadal's dominance at that major is greater than anyone else in tennis history, its unfair to fault Federer for being unable to beat him there.
But people cannot sit there and say that Laver faced a weak field in 1969. Good god, the guy played Rosewall, Roche, and Newcombe. Those aren't exactly weak names. Certainly better names than Roddick, Soderling, Baghdatis, Murray, and Hewitt.
Well said. Laver played against many legends.
Do you really believe Rod Laver could beat Rafael Nadal in a French Open final? If you do, you are delusional. Don't give me any BS about "you can only beat the competition in front of you". If Laver had to get through Nadal to win the Grand Slam, he wouldn't have won it either.
Federer dominated everyone he played against in his prime
Anyway bringing competition into the equation is no good thing for Federer. Most of Federer's records on grass and hard courts (especialy grass) are largely based on extremely weak competition, and Federer fanboys dismiss that with the same "you can only beat the competition in front of you" argument, so that is the last place you can go when it comes to Federer.
Roddick in 04 and 09, Rafa in 06 and 07 and Murray in 12 were all good wins against great grass court players. That's 5 of his 7.
Rafa in 2006 a good win, LOL! Murray the guy who was 0-9 in sets in slam finals going into that Wimbledon final. A past his prime Roddick in 2009. At most he had 2 somewhat strong opponents he beat Roddick in 2004 and Nadal in 2007, that is it, and if even peak Roddick is a strong opponent on grass than someone like Ivanisevic who is a much better grass opponent than Roddick would be for anyone who played him.
What kind of a lame field of grass players is it that Nadal with his bazooka of a serve can hold serve 80 straight times, even if it were prime Rafa, let alone diapered grass court novice one. You only help prove my point.
Federer dominated everyone he played against in his prime except for the greatest surface player in the history of the sport. No one comes close to Nadal on clay, not Sampras on grass or Borg on clay. Laver would not be able to win the Grand Slam if he had to go through such a monster at Roland Garros.
Could Laver beat prime Nadal in a RG final? Highly unlikely. Could he beat a 18 and 19 year old nowhere near prime Nadal at RG who peak of peaks Federer still couldnt come close to beating in 2005 and 2006? Quite possibly. We will never know for certain but it is certainly within the realm of possabilities enough to not dismiss Laver's Grand Slams on that basis.
Anyway bringing competition into the equation is no good thing for Federer. Most of Federer's records on grass and hard courts (especialy grass) are largely based on extremely weak competition, and Federer fanboys dismiss that with the same "you can only beat the competition in front of you" argument, so that is the last place you can go when it comes to Federer.
Who was beating 2005 Nadal on clay? IIRC he won every clay tournament he entered that spring clay season.
I'm sorry, but for you to think that Laver beating who he had to beat in his 1969 feat is somehow less difficult than going through Nadal in one final on clay is ridiculous. I mean it is so dumb, that it really boggles the mind.
Do you even know who Laver played. For those who may do no research at all. Here is the list:
1969 Wimbledon
Arthur Ashe
Newcombe
1969 US Open
Emerson
Ashe
Roche
1969 Aussie Open
Emerson
Stolle
Roche
Gimeno
1969 French Open
Gimeno
Rosewall
In 2009, Roger had his real chance. What happened? He lost to Nadal in the AO and then lost to Del Potro. He had his other chance in 2006, but couldn't finish the tie break against Nadal in the 5th.
In 2005, he lost to Safin in the AO semis. In 2005, he lost to Nadal in the FO semis. But there's no telling if Federer would have beaten a Puerta in near god-mode in the finals anyways.
The point? Roger had his chances. As do all of the greats. But to accomplish this feat, you have to put together a long string of unbelievably good matches against unbelievably good players.
Rod Laver did that. Federer did not.
An already fading Coria, who was never this great clay guru he is potrayed as anyway.
Keep telling yourself that.
...and Federer could not win the Grand Slam, so he does not measure up to Laver.
THat's not true. Laver said his 2 GS is equivalent to 1 modern slam because the standard is a lot higher. Plus, he already said Federer is the best.
"Roger Federer certainly is my claim to be the best of all time if there is such a thing," said the 73-year-old.
"Roger's got all the shots, his anticipation is unbelievable, his timing off the groundstrokes with his shots, his single-handed backhand is one of the best there is".
Roger Federer said (when he was 29 or 30 can't quite remember) that he is definitely a better player now than in 2005. So this must be true too right? Nobody knows better than Rog himself correct?
What do you expect an active player to say? That's he's getting worse and worse by the year? Of course you don't say that. Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Iverson doesn't admitted either in their late career.
Laver is 73 years old retired player. You're comparing apple to orange.
Players has to say it to boost their confident, like other athletes normally would do. You would say the same too if you are in their shoes.He didn't have to say anything in that regard. The fact that he even said it proves that he actually believed it.
Thanks for posting this, because it is mind boggling that anyone woud even need to be reminded of this well-known history.
..and there rests the irrefutable difference between one who mastered the sport, and a guy who was hit and miss.
Roger Federer said (when he was 29 or 30 can't quite remember) that he is definitely a better player now than in 2005. So this must be true too right? Nobody knows better than Rog himself correct?
Players has to say it to boost their confident, like other athletes normally would do. You would say the same too if you are in their shoes.
Do you believe what he said? Lol.
So, Fed needed to say that publicly to boost his confidence? LOL, good one.
I also like the way you completely avoided how Agassi said the same thing. Maybe Agassi said it to boost his own confidence for his planned come back...
I guess the other little fact that it was three slams on grass and one on clay wasn't worth bring up.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/467977-rod-lavers-grand-slam-what-does-it-mean-in-todays-game
... the fact is that the calendar slams changed from 2 surface to 3 surface, which more or less rendered Laver's grand slam record moot...
It is a fact that it went from 2 to 3 surface. Yes. It is not a fact that it rendered Laver's record moot. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about it. Otherwise, many experts wouldn't still be saying that Laver was the best ever. Otherwise, many experts wouldn't still be saying that Laver's accomplishment is still the greatest ever.
I could drone on about how different the surfaces were back then. Slow vs fast grass. Grass that turned to dirt. Or how the modern surfaces are actually extremely similar and homogeneous.
Nothing is going to convince you either way.
I mean we've gotten to a point now where you're saying the players didn't care as much about slams back then... as they do now. I mean jeez... who can argue with speculation like that.
I'll just end by saying that I once thought that Federer was the absolute best ever -- hands down. Until I got a little older and wiser. I did some research. I looked at it objectively and I changed my mind.
Yeah but you can't hold his GS to today's standard because of the difference surfaces. His feat is applicable to compare during the period when slams was competed on 3 grass and 1 clay.
We've been through this so often.
I thought my statement including the word moot was pretty clear with respect to what is fact. Not sure how you are confused to what I claimed as fact. Of course you have a legitimate point about fast vs slow grass, as well as the bald points (hint hint clay?), but come on, you really can't see the distinct nature of concrete from grass or dirt?It is a fact that it went from 2 to 3 surface. Yes. It is not a fact that it rendered Laver's record moot. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about it. Otherwise, many experts wouldn't still be saying that Laver was the best ever. Otherwise, many experts wouldn't still be saying that Laver's accomplishment is still the greatest ever.
I could drone on about how different the surfaces were back then. Slow vs fast grass. Grass that turned to dirt. Or how the modern surfaces are actually extremely similar and homogeneous.
Nothing is going to convince you either way.
I mean we've gotten to a point now where you're saying the players didn't care as much about slams back then... as they do now. I mean jeez... who can argue with speculation like that.
I'll just end by saying that I once thought that Federer was the absolute best ever -- hands down. Until I got a little older and wiser. I did some research. I looked at it objectively and I changed my mind.
Laver played under the same conditions as his rivals, so it is patently illogical for anyone to attempt to question major surfaces, as though there was some advantage to one player....
We've been through this so often. Laver in 1969 won the biggest tournaments on all surfaces, hardcourt included. And the grass-courts of Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills were all considerably different.
I just can't see him win 4 slams in this generations with 2 hc, 1 grass and 1 clay.
The modern GS would be a bigger feat. That's why I don't agree his GS can holds against the modern players. If you do that, you're selling the modern players short, because GS today is an uphill battle. Just think, going against Nadal at the FO and Fed at Wimbledon. That's a nightmare!
Take nothing away from Laver...I think it's fair to compare his GS against his generation.
It is a fact that it went from 2 to 3 surface. Yes. It is not a fact that it rendered Laver's record moot. Otherwise, we wouldn't be talking about it. Otherwise, many experts wouldn't still be saying that Laver was the best ever. Otherwise, many experts wouldn't still be saying that Laver's accomplishment is still the greatest ever.
I'll just end by saying that I once thought that Federer was the absolute best ever -- hands down. Until I got a little older and wiser. I did some research. I looked at it objectively and I changed my mind.
I'll just end by saying that I once thought that Federer was the absolute best ever -- hands down. Until I got a little older and wiser. I did some research. I looked at it objectively and I changed my mind.
Well said.
Both have flip flopped, and Laver has said (paraphrasing) "who can know that?" but history does not flip flop. Federer is out of history's consideration.
Laver would be taken to the woodshed by any number of todays players.
Just look at the old films, that tennis was a joke compared to today.
different racquets, different balls, different courts. The mechanics of the game were completely different really.