kiki
Banned
I think he´d be more trashed menthally than tennis wise...he´s never been used to play real men in front of him, not OCD cases
How would Federer do in the 90's?
- Thread starter Anti-Fedal
- Start date
I think he´d be more trashed menthally than tennis wise...he´s never been used to play real men in front of him, not OCD cases
abmk
Bionic Poster
have you even seen lendl's confidence and technique when he was volleying on grass ? far lesser than federer's .. on carpet/indoors, he used to play mostly from the baseline and used to dominate
lendl's success on the fast courts of Flushing, indoors are the biggest proof that federer would be highly successful even while being predominantly a baseliner with all-court tendancies ...
if we come to grass, federer is just much more of a natural than lendl ever was on grass ........
connors was just an opportunistic volleyer , who mainly came in behind excellent approach shots , though a very good one at that . he was not technically better than federer
borg, I've already explained ....... the grass at that time helped his volleying by making his volleys 'dead' ... the same things failed at flushing. Indoors, it was more of serve and forehand ......technically, he wasn't better than federer at volleying, not even close ...
even peak becker found it hard to handle a young agassi on his favourite turf/tournament - davis cup in 89 , was down 2 sets to love
you do realise he thrashed becker in the 90 masters and straight-setted him in 91 masters ?
he also beat stich in straights in 91 Masters ( he owned stich badly , h2h was 5-0 , with stich barely winning sets vs him ) ....... he only lost to sampras in the RR and then to his nemesis at that time, courier .....
except for the 90 masters ? duh , the Masters was the biggest indoor tournament that time ..
won paris twice, madrid once ( both super 9 tournaments indoors ), also won San Jose multiple times ( including beating sampras there )
what else do you expect ? for someone with an average serve, he did well indoors .......
Last edited:
mightyrick
Legend
For you individuals who have absolutely no clue about what Laver dealt with in 1969, let me give you a taste. I seem to have to post this once a month as a reminder. Here's what Laver went through in all four majors:
1969 Wimbledon
Arthur Ashe
Newcombe
1969 US Open
Emerson
Ashe
Roche
1969 Aussie Open
Emerson
Stolle
Roche
Gimeno
1969 French Open
Gimeno
Rosewall
If you don't know who those people are, do some research. Look at the number of majors that these people had. Look at the accomplishments that these players have on grass. These names are among the grass GOATs.
abmk
Bionic Poster
nice try in change of tactics .... nadal, djokovic, hewitt and nadal amongst others are pretty tough, intense competitors
except for nadal on clay, he's had answers to all of them
that includes past his prime federer beating djokovic in 2011 at RG - a major - when prime rafa couldn't come close .......
includes outlasting mentally - at his very best nadal in wimbledon 2007 final ..
including totally taking out djokovic out of his comfort zone on grass in 2012 semi ...
etc etc ...
NatF
Bionic Poster
Depth is the word I used, e.g. the top 100 etc...I didn't say a word about the guys at the very top. How many of those guys were former amateurs anyway? How many were yet to see their greatest years and successes...
Laver's 1969 was the greatest year ever, but the field of the 60's was not deeper than the one today. Today it's more global, more academies, more players etc...If there had been split tours before say 2005, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic would have been beating up players from the amateur circuit with more achievements making their subsequent victories more grand.
abmk
Bionic Poster
while I agree the diversity was clearly more and federer would get upset more in BO3, the chances of upset go down considerably in a BO5 at a major . its just too hard to get 3 sets off him ...
95 was a strong year, but if you examine 93 and 94, they weren't that strong, especially 94 ...of course it got cut down considerably from 96 onwards ...
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Yes, we know the reference disturbs you, because Federer is not celebrated to that deserved degree.
mightyrick
Legend
Ok, do some research. Seriously. This post of yours clearly demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Ohhh, how your butthurt is getting to you. No mere consecutive majors run is considered historically superior to the sport and to a player as the Grand Slam. No one will support your garbage as being the truth where the GS is concerned.
Keep on crying, dreaming and whatever else you do to remain in the land where Captain Incapable is somehow a GOAT sans having to win the prize set that makes one a GOAT.
Meanwhile, Laver won the Grand Slam. Federer's minor run is of no importance, much like the "personal slam" nonsense.
abmk
Bionic Poster
lol, he can do whatever, get nostalgic and all that. Whatever. say he found that era far more interesting than the era today and all that.
But if he comes up with BS like any of connors, borg, lendl, agassi were expert SnVers all year around and far better at the net than federer , I am obviously going to ridicule.
the dumbest of all statements was that becker, sampras, edberg would bagel federer on fast surfaces ...... he actually said that .....
federer has been bagelled only once in the past 13 years...... and this fella thinks these guys would do it on a fast surface. He's that delusional ...........
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
I've done some research. Explain it to me instead of lecturing.
- Emerson amateur who never won an open era major.
- Roche one major on clay.
- Ashe won a grand slam in 1968, but most of his success came in the early 70's.
- Newcombe also experienced most of his success in the 70's, he was an amateur before the Open Era. Albeit he had a lot of success and is one of the all time greats on grass.
- Stolle was an amateur who last won an amateur major in 1966.
- Rosewall was getting on a bit, but he was a true great. Still I don't rank an older Rosewall higher than getting by Nadal or Djokovic at their peaks.
- Gimeno won a single French Open in 1972 and made the one final at the AO.
Now that's just their achievements, their peak level may have been superb. Did you watch any of these matches? I'm guessing not. How is this crop of players superior to what their is today?
abmk
Bionic Poster
I called it BS because there is no clearly defined time-frame for the so called golden era. you could put it in the mid 70s, late 70s at the time of the tennis boom or when you had lendl/becker/wilander/edberg amongst others in the mid to late 80s ...
I , for one, never claimed that the present era is the golden era or anything like that ...
Besides its the rest of the post that needs addressing , not that part ....
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
If you are too immature to post sans flaming members of this board then you will be called out on it. Last anyone checked, Nalbandian is not a member here, nor is "hack" a flame, but a designation referring to his tennis level.
Grow up. It is really that easy.
If you thought you could refer to Hewitt in the first place, you would have, so this calls his 1th hour entry a bit suspect--as in, you can no longer use/defend the likes of Nalbandian, Tsonga, et al.
No. In fact, in a recent thread, I said he was talented, but he did not live up to his clear potential (when injuries did not stop his career cold). Additionally, I cited one of his matches as one of the best men's matches of the 2000s. Not a double standard.
You do realize that 1996 comes after 1993 on the calendar, right? Becker won the 1996 AO. Yeah, real big indoor event of the 90s...not.
Wrong. Courier--like Nadal would eventually do in this era--had to modify his game from being a hard baseliner in order to beat a player (or in Jim's case, playerS) who used the entire court. This is evident in the 1993 Wimbledon semifinal, where I watched him actually outplay the great Edberg. He achieved this not by grinding at the baseline, but essentially, playing court chess against one was certainly going to attempt the same. Courier's changes worked on that fateful day. Although it was not enough for an all-firing Sampras in the final, Courier still illustrated he was not just "some baseliner."
He's a one-dimensional baseliner. He is the poster child for the majority of this generation.
11th hour references...and some are not even worth noting in the first place.
BTW, Agassi is another generation (nice try, kid!), while Henman is on the late end of the generation discussed in this thread.
Last edited:
mightyrick
Legend
Ok, let's approach this another way. It might be easier.
Ask yourself what player, other than Laver, has went through such a deep field in a single calendar year in every single major? To do that, you need to look at this person's opponents in each round of their run.
Federer's run does not match up from that perspective.
There is a stark reality here. Nadal is 12-2 over Federer on clay. That is absolutely inexcusable. All of this happened during Federer's prime. Djokovic has already beaten Nadal on clay 3 times in 3 years during his prime. Federer has had several opportunities to beat him on the biggest stages and has not.
I'm sorry that you Fed fans cannot claim the Grand Slam for your guy. I'm sorry that you guys had three years worth of opportunities and couldn't come through. I'm sorry that your guy didn't come through the one year that he actually did win the FO.
But this is all on Federer. And that is reality. He had several chances do it it. And he could not.
It isn't like this makes Federer a bad player or anything. The guy is clearly at GOAT level. There is no question.
You don't need to try to diminish Laver's GOATness to make your guy look better. Federer is absolutely awesome. Both players are/were absolutely awesome.
Just leave it at that.
NatF
Bionic Poster
So patronising. You say research these giants and I research them, they're not exactly a level above the kind of guys Federer had to deal with like you said. And then you ignore that completely and start trying talking about how Federer wasn't good enough to do the Grand Slam...
Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer, Djokovic has faced a weaker Nadal too. I doubt Laver's ability to beat Nadal on clay anyway.
I think Laver is probably the GOAT. Never claimed otherwise. That doesn't make the 60's field deeper than todays. I asked you why these players were so good compared todays players, and you haven't answered...
The only butt hurt is you who has no life except spending your time bashing/hating Federer. No one supports your garbage in an desperate attempt to disparage Roger's 5 consecutive Wimbledon/USO win.
Keep crying me a river all you like because Roger will remember for all of his achievements like the one I've mentioned above.
Meanwhile, Federer is widely considered the greatest player of all time. Too bad for you since even Laver have said the same thing.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
You do realise that "GOAT" is an arbitrary distinction, right? There is no law that says to be GOAT, one has to have won the CYGS.
And, as I have mentioned often before, Laver would very likely not have won the CYGS if he had to face peak Nadal (rather than ageing Rosewall) in the FO final.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Fascinating.
Well said, and all true.
Unfortunately, his defenders believe if he is not crowned the GOAT, then that means he is somehow under attack---not from observers, but from a history they cannot ignore. This is why they have to make some highly questionalbe statements / padding his resume while attempting to tear down Laver's historically acknowledged accomplishment.
mightyrick
Legend
You say you researched. Your conclusion is that Laver's competition in his majors in 1969 was not at a higher level than Federer's competition. So there's nothing more to say.
We disagree.
If you want to know why I think Laver's accomplishment is still the best tennis accomplishment ever, it is because I have looked at every single major bracket of 1969 and every single one of Federer's major brackets in the years when he could have won it. I've listed those players out and I've looked at them. My own conclusion was that Laver's 1969 brackets were tougher than Federer's brackets.
So that's it.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
Federer would have done much worse mainly from the fact of having to deal with higher level competition than he did during much of his slam winning career and Federer has benefitted more than anyone by the current homogenized surfaces.
FYI, he didn't start winning Wimbledon until the grass was changed to a firmer more consistent bounce. there were very few primary baseliners that did well at pre-firm bounce grass at Wimbledon ala Agassi...
FYI, he didn't start winning Wimbledon until the grass was changed to a firmer more consistent bounce. there were very few primary baseliners that did well at pre-firm bounce grass at Wimbledon ala Agassi...
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
Meh, I've said already Laver's accomplishment is the greatest of all time, if not in this thread than in others. We're basically just splitting hairs over whether or not it was the competition that made it so remarkable. I don't think the competition was as grand as made out to be, just going by the list of names you gave. That doesn't mean I don't think it was an incredible achievement...
Over half of the players from the Aussie that represent the 1969 AO draw. That's a joke. Strength/depth of the field is nowhere near as great as today since tennis is a global sport.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Although Laver's 1969 remains the greatest season in the Open Era, Federer's 2006 was essentially just as good. It's just that he had to face the clay court GOAT (Nadal) so could not win the FO.
Laver had no such titan to face.
Laver had no such titan to face.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Was Nadal the clay GOAT at the time of the 2006 French Open? There's no point in using hindsight.
Laver faced tough opponents during his 1969 Grand Slam run, players like Stolle, Emerson, Roche, Gimeno, Drysdale, Smith, Ralston, Ashe, Newcombe.
Phoenix1983
G.O.A.T.
Semantics. He was the greatest clay courter in history, who had not yet had the time on tour to statistically prove it.
Also, I never said Laver didn't have tough competition in 1969. I'm saying the only difference between the Laver 1969/Fed 2006 seasons was the FO final, and Laver would very likely not have beaten Nadal if he had faced him.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
I would bet a large sum of money that if Laver had to face Nadal at the FO he would say goodbye to the CYGS.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Phoenix1983, i'm sorry, but your statement makes no sense; either you have the greatest season ever in winning the Grand Slam--the criteria for such a distinction--or you do not. There is no "just as good." If Federer truly had as good a season, then he would have elevated his game to GOAT levels to defeat Nadal, no matter how strong the latter was that day. That's the point: a true GOAT is the man (or woman) who generates such concentrated dominance in the year, that no one in his or her way to win the true prize of a GOAT--the Grand Slam.
Federer was not equipped to do that, so his season (and status) is not on the level of Laver.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
LOL at the vast majority of that!
guess you're forgetting about Kuerten >> Muster, Bruguera and even Ferrero, Agassi or Courier at RG.
and Sampras >> Agassi, Ivanecivic, Krajicek, Rafter, Henman on pre-firm grass Wimby.
and Sampras, Agassi (who even gave Federer fits on HC post his prime) at HC slams...
kiki
Banned
You never watched that era so don´t make a clown out of yourself
Never said Borg,Connors and Lendl were S&V players, never.Just that they have repeteadly shown they felt more at ease at the net than federer.or, if not, they went there muuuuuch more than your fanboy.
Of course, in a weak era like last 13 years federer never gets bagelled...so what? try harder next time
kiki
Banned
nO, LAVER HAD LIKE 5 OR 6 TITANS TO FACE.
kiki
Banned
... as well as Rosewall...
kiki
Banned
if Federer had play in the 70´s, he would be very lucky to have one single Wimbledon title.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
Agassi disproved that in 1992. In 92 he could barely volley, let alone serve and volley.
It does matter when comparing a small pool to a bigger pool. Take top 10 college basketball players from one state and take the top 10 players in the nation, which 10 players are the better players?
American Football only played in USA, so it's not a global sport. But if it's basketball, tennis, hockey...now you're talking !
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
...and to think, some did not know that. Astounding.
mightyrick
Legend
Just for some more information to those who continue to question Laver's abilities or his achievements, I thought I'd post a pretty good video demonstrating it. This has been posted before on TTW, but like many things, it bears repeating because people forget.
This highlight video is taken from a match between Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver in 1976 at Hilton Head. Borg won this match 6-3, 7-5. Something to keep in mind while watching this great clip. Laver is 38 years old. Borg is 20. And they are playing on green clay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiSakiF4jzk
Laver doesn't do too bad for a guy who is eighteen years older than the second greatest clay court player ever.
Now, rewind. Laver 7 years younger in 1969. Go watch some videos of Laver in 1969 picking apart Roche, Newcombe, and Rosewall. It is a sight to see.
This highlight video is taken from a match between Bjorn Borg and Rod Laver in 1976 at Hilton Head. Borg won this match 6-3, 7-5. Something to keep in mind while watching this great clip. Laver is 38 years old. Borg is 20. And they are playing on green clay.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiSakiF4jzk
Laver doesn't do too bad for a guy who is eighteen years older than the second greatest clay court player ever.
Now, rewind. Laver 7 years younger in 1969. Go watch some videos of Laver in 1969 picking apart Roche, Newcombe, and Rosewall. It is a sight to see.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Perhaps it is because he is a good player.
I have a hunch that the weak era will not stop in Kikis time.
Last edited:
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Back to arguing with what you "think"?
Povl Carstensen
Legend
Great to have knowledgeable people like you guys to inform us.
Povl Carstensen
Legend
abmk
Bionic Poster
actually, its you who has near zero knowledge and perspective of the tennis @ that time . I've watched many of the matches in that time-frame
lol, in which la la land did borg, connors, lendl @ far more ease at the net than federer ?
federer actually won a wimbledon SnVing plenty of times - in 2003 ..but then of course you don't have a clue because you don't watch tennis
federer has put in excellent performances at the net on all surfaces including vs rafa on clay. But you wouldn't know cos' you are clueless.
the one and only reason why they came to the net more often than federer is
because it was far easier to volley , back then ....with the amount of topspin and the slowed down conditions, returning/passing vs SnVers or net approaches is far easier now ....
what a load of cr*p .... fact is federer is quite easily the toughest player of all time to bagel. that's because he's that good.
sampras couldn't even bagel these guys once on any surface :
agassi in 34 matches
courier in 20 matches
chang in 20 matches
hewitt once in 9 matches
etc etc and he's going to bagel federer ........... LOL...
Do you even understand how difficult it is to break federer once in a set on a fast surface, let alone 3 times ?
the weak era is when all the fields were split and the tennis boom had not yet happened i.e. the 50s and the 60s. deal with it ...
Last edited:
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
There's a different between being open to all countries and being a global sport.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
More flames.
Aside from your flaming...
Unlike your false "god" Federer, across their careers, Borg and Connors had to deal with numerous S&V players--some among the best ever, and that required doing more than staying at the baseline (a point illustrated time and again throughout history), so being able to play at net--effectively (not just getting there for the occasional put away like today's players) was necessary.
If you were there to see their endless matches, you would know this.
...then, by your own criteria, this era--the Federer era--would also be weak, as it is certainly not a period like the Tennis Boom. It is a "boom" for anyone interested in one-dimensional baseline obsessed play.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
A second look at his member's great points...
True.
They are eternally pissed that they cannot do anything--including pad Federer's career with meaningless trivia--to elevate him to GOAT status...the status reserved for the winners of the Grand Slam, so they have to try (in pure comedic fashion) to attack Laver, his legendary competitors and era in order to give Federer a chance he did not earn.
True.
They are eternally pissed that they cannot do anything--including pad Federer's career with meaningless trivia--to elevate him to GOAT status...the status reserved for the winners of the Grand Slam, so they have to try (in pure comedic fashion) to attack Laver, his legendary competitors and era in order to give Federer a chance he did not earn.
Similar threads
