‘Roger Federer is the greatest of his era,’ says Rod Laver

Hitman said:
About the problems of comparing eras? It is true, and Laver mentions it in his post above.

Anyways, regarding quotes, those that have been here a long time will clearly know what I have been saying from start.
Click to expand...
That goat is the one with most slams...
 
beard said:
You were saying exactly the same some time ago, that is point of my first post quoting you... It's ok you changed opinion... Now I'm finished about topic...
Click to expand...

I have also said if Nadal gets to 21 slams, even if they rest are all RG titles then he will be seen as the GOAT. Because the GOAT in today's world is dictated by who has the most slams.

Interesting how you specifically recall that post you mention, but don't recall the numerous posts I made in the past ten years where I said that Sampras was the one that changed things by making it all about the slams, and then giving targets to guys like Federer or how I have often said that even back in the 80s the top guys missed out on AO, and numerous times stated Borg only played there once and if the slam race was the be and end all of who is GOAT, he would have made more attempts, and so would McEnroe. Or how Connors and others skipped slams to play world team events. I have spoken about racket technology, sports nutrition, medicine that allows players to play for longer than years gone by. I know what I have said over the past, so have many others. So please don't tell me my opinon has changed, when I was saying this while Djokovic sat at one slam here, my opinion has always been the same....and if we're finished with the narrative you are trying to push here, then all good.
 
Federer's era does not include Nadal or Djokovic, because of the age difference. Also, I would add that string tech has had an even bigger influence than racket tech since monofilaments came long, and the use of gut declined. The string tech is what has encouraged 360 degree overswinging, which would be impossible without monofilaments.
 
Hitman said:
I have also said if Nadal gets to 21 slams, even if they rest are all RG titles then he will be seen as the GOAT. Because the GOAT in today's world is dictated by who has the most slams.

Interesting how you specifically recall that post you mention, but don't recall the numerous posts I made in the past ten years where I said that Sampras was the one that changed things by making it all about the slams, and then giving targets to guys like Federer or how I have often said that even back in the 80s the top guys missed out on AO, and numerous times stated Borg only played there once and if the slam race was the be and end all of who is GOAT, he would have made more attempts, and so would McEnroe. Or how Connors and others skipped slams to play world team events. I have spoken about racket technology, sports nutrition, medicine that allows players to play for longer than years gone by. I know what I have said over the past, so have many others. So please don't tell me my opinon has changed, when I was saying this while Djokovic sat at one slam here, my opinion has always been the same....and if we're finished with the narrative you are trying to push here, then all good.
Click to expand...
Bolded...
That is narrative I remember from you... Good you remember too..
Other things I remember too, but was talking about bolded one... All good
 
beard said:
Bolded...
That is narrative I remember from you... Good you remember too..
Other things I remember too, but was talking about bolded one... All good
Click to expand...

Of course, I don't need to pretend I didn't say anything that I actually did. I am very open about what I say. The statement was clear, today's world sees whoever holds the most slams as the GOAT, because that is how it is portrayed to the people, and if Nadal got there only with RG it is still 21 slams and he will be seen as greater. That is the simple truth.

However, it doesn't change my personal opinion and feelings, which I have gone into depth for ten years on these boards, saying you cannot compare eras, giving you examples above and also things like Agassi skipped W from 1988 to 1990, and didn't play AO until 95, Borg quit tennis when he was one slam away from Emerson. The year end championships at one time were considered more important than the AO. It was when Sampras said he wanted the most slams and the US Media turned that into Sampras' road to GOAThood that slams started to become the thing and I saw Pete's career from start to finish, he was my fav player. But tennis did not start with Pete, he did change the game, but there is a whole history of tennis players that came before him.
 
Very humble of Rocket -considering we all know he is the GOAT.

But he's certainly right. Federer was (note Laver's past tense) the best of the era he dominated- the 2003-07 Hewitt/Baghdatis Years.
 
junior74 said:
12framesaday_saltshakertwerkdance_800x600.gif
Click to expand...
ok that’s funny
 
Maybe if he had won Wimbledon 2019 he'd have a case but the masses will recognize the truth once he gets passed by BOTH his rivals in the next two years smh
 
ABCD said:
I can't argue with Roger Federer about Roger Federer.

If you ask me to explain how he had better statistics in 2005 than in 2015 and he was better player in 2015 than in 2005 that is easy. In 2015 he played much stronger field and although he was better in 2015 his results were worse. Do not confuse level of performance with the outcome of performance. As an example, I am now better scientist than I ever was, but my grant income is lower than 20 years ago as I play stronger field nowadays.
Click to expand...
You do realize that this line of reasoning means that peak Murray is better than any version of Federer up to 2017, correct?
 
Third Serve said:
You do realize that this line of reasoning means that peak Murray is better than any version of Federer up to 2017, correct?
Click to expand...

You have to expand on that (how you come to that conclusion) as I don't follow you.

The most difficult thing is to assess strength of the field in absolute terms (what would happen if you take Medvedev 2020 in a time travailing machine to 2002 and organize match, as an example, against Hewitt; Medvedev plays with his 2020 equipment, Hewitt plays with his 2002 equipment). I don't know that anyone has resolved this issue (determination of an absolute level of play). Under such circumstances, by far the best measure of an absolute peak is a player himself. If you ask me when was my best, I will know to tell you.
 
Last edited:
Have it sunk in yet that we've been in the 'slow-court' era for over a decade now?

All of the ones gloating over an ANCIENT 'weak-era-champ', just wait and see. If a new NextGen Djokr appears, he'll end his career with 30+ slams. I mean, 30-32yo old-Djokr won 5 of the last 7 slams. Is it that hard to imagine then? Well, imagine implanting 2011-2020-Djokr into the current tour, starting from this year to 2029. :eek:
 
Gotta love that even influential legends such as Laver are joining the ranks of «Fedr goat no matter the achievements».

Our message is spreading like fire thru dry grass.

Soon he will tout the importance of a pretty backhand and suggest that Fed's rivals must raise the slam record by more than 6 majors to be goat.
 
ABCD said:
You have to expand on that (how you come to that conclusion) as I don't follow you.

The most difficult thing is to assess strength of the field in absolute terms (what would happen if you take Medvedev 2020 in a time travailing machine to 2002 and organize match, as an example, against Hewitt; Medvedev plays with his 2020 equipment, Hewitt plays with his 2002 equipment). I don't know that anyone has resolved this issue (determination of an absolute level of play). Under such circumstances, by far the best measure of an absolute peak is a player himself. If you ask me when was my best, I will know to tell you.
Click to expand...
Simple. Murray was ranked higher than Federer in 2015, the year Fed said he was playing his best, so that indicates that that version of Murray (who became even better the next year) is therefore better than all of the weaker versions of Federer prior to 2015 and even 2016.
 
I don't think it's true that modern racquets have made the game easier. It's definitely different (and probably impossible to compare because of the differences). But while it's easier to execute certain shots with newer racquets, the consequence of that is players have to return a higher caliber of shots. Modern tennis tests players' movement, fitness, physical strength, ability to handle pace/spin, etc. in ways that Laver's era didn't.

But yes, it's true that you get more pace and spin with modern racquets.
 
Third Serve said:
Simple. Murray was ranked higher than Federer in 2015, the year Fed said he was playing his best, so that indicates that that version of Murray (who became even better the next year) is therefore better than all of the weaker versions of Federer prior to 2015 and even 2016.
Click to expand...

The difference between ranks 2 and 3 were small and they were roughly equal and you remember W2015 SF where Federe beat Murray etc. In principle, I agree with you that this logic leads to the conclusion that Murray2015 is better player than Federer2005 and I think that this conclusion is right. We are talking about absolute level of play.
 
ABCD said:
The difference between ranks 2 and 3 were small and they were roughly equal and you remember W2015 SF where Federe beat Murray etc. In principle, I agree with you that this logic leads to the conclusion that Murray2015 is better player than Federer2005 and I think that this conclusion is right. We are talking about absolute level of play.
Click to expand...
You’re consistent, I’ll give you that.
 
Third Serve said:
You’re consistent, I’ll give you that.
Click to expand...
He mentions what Federer said on those interviews, but when at the same time Fed said at the AO that a 36 years old should not be the favorite to win a slam, of course you won't see him citing Fed saying that.I did a while ago and I exposed his biased agenda.Like the famous quote from Lethal Weapon says "I'm too old for this sh8t".
 
Last edited:
ForehandRF said:
He mentions what Federer said on those interviews, but when at the same time Fed said at the AO that a 36 years old should not be the favorite to win a slam, of course you won't see him citing Fed saying that.I did a while ago and I exposed his biased agenda.Like the famous quote from Lethal Weapon says "I'm too old for this sh8t".
Click to expand...

I don't know who you are nor I recall that we ever discussed anything. There are many statements of many players I did not cite, but Federer statements I cited are his statements word by word.
 
ABCD said:
I don't know who you are nor I recall that we ever discussed anything. There are many statements of many players I did not cite, but Federer statements I cited are his statements word by word.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't recall because it's inconvenient for you.Let me refresh your memory though, we discussed the subject multiple times and the last time you lost in straight sets :sneaky: I won't play this game with you anymore.
 
ForehandRF said:
Of course you don't recall because it's inconvenient for you.Let me refresh your memory though, we discussed the subject multiple times and the last time you lost in straight sets :sneaky: I won't play this game with you anymore.
Click to expand...

Never heard of you. There are only few people here I discussed with and you are not one of them
 
Indigo said:
February 8, 2020

‘Roger Federer is the greatest of his era,’ says Rod Laver in snub to Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic

Rod Laver says Roger Federer is the ‘greatest of his era,’ no matter what Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic might achieve.
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are battling it out to see who finishes their career with most Grand Slam titles, with Federer currently leading the way on 20.
Both Nadal and Djokovic are younger than the Swiss star, though, and expected to surpass his tally before they are done.
However, Laver is having none of it, claiming that racket innovations make it impossible to compare players from different eras, but Federer is the best of his.

“Modern racket technology has definitely made the game easier,” Laver is quoted as saying in the Herald and Times.

“If Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic were playing with wooden rackets, they couldn’t play some of the shots they can execute now.

That’s why comparing players of different eras and claiming particular players’ as the greatest of all time is a pointless exercise.
“All you can really say is that certain players were the greatest of their era and I would put Roger in that category.”
Click to expand...
Spoken like a true Fedfan fanboi.

Laver also said Murray could have won CYGS in 2017 without the injury.

Laver is either senile or walks around the house waving a Swiss flag...
 
"God Messiah Federer is GOAT regardless what Rafa or Novak do".

Translated from fanboiese: "He plays with grace and in tennis results don't count as much as the points allocated by the GRACE BALLET JURY"

Tennis going the way of ice-skating?
 
Indigo said:
February 8, 2020

‘Roger Federer is the greatest of his era,’ says Rod Laver in snub to Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic

Rod Laver says Roger Federer is the ‘greatest of his era,’ no matter what Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic might achieve.
Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic are battling it out to see who finishes their career with most Grand Slam titles, with Federer currently leading the way on 20.
Both Nadal and Djokovic are younger than the Swiss star, though, and expected to surpass his tally before they are done.
However, Laver is having none of it, claiming that racket innovations make it impossible to compare players from different eras, but Federer is the best of his.

“Modern racket technology has definitely made the game easier,” Laver is quoted as saying in the Herald and Times.

“If Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic were playing with wooden rackets, they couldn’t play some of the shots they can execute now.

That’s why comparing players of different eras and claiming particular players’ as the greatest of all time is a pointless exercise.
“All you can really say is that certain players were the greatest of their era and I would put Roger in that category.”
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Sysyphus said:
Gotta love that even influential legends such as Laver are joining the ranks of «Fedr goat no matter the achievements».

Our message is spreading like fire thru dry grass.

Soon he will tout the importance of a pretty backhand and suggest that Fed's rivals must raise the slam record by more than 6 majors to be goat.
Click to expand...
Hello, is this tennisaddict? :D
 
BeatlesFan said:
Brilliant notion.

And Nadal would be effortlessly beaten by a woman at RG 2035. Djokovic would lose to a 12 year old in 2040.

You judge Rod Laver, a legend of the game by making the asinine remark, "he wouldn't make it past Challengers today?"
Click to expand...
Well, he is 81 years old.
 
BeatlesFan said:
And Nadal would be effortlessly beaten by a woman at RG 2035. Djokovic would lose to a 12 year old in 2040.
Click to expand...
Hope this is sarcasm. No woman or 12 year old will ever beat Nadal much less so in 15 years from now. Going by this logic Serena from 2019 would beat Federer from 2004.
Edit: or do you mean Nadal in 2035 when he is 48. Even then I doubt it though, if his body hasn’t fallen completely apart.
 
And the elephant in the room when it comes to GOAT debate is...

...net play.

There are no more net players like there still used to be in the 90's.

Henman was an excellent netplayer and he regularly bounced Federer all over the courts, because Fed's slices would be countered with a drop shot, something today's player avoid by fear of being forced to follow it at the net.

Fed's not a fool and he's used and abused that slice for the last 15 years.

So it's easy to look the GOAT while all the opposition knows only one way to play.

While they scramble to the 4 corners of the court, you're looking like a million bucks slicing and directing the game from the back without ever worrying about drop shots or being forced to pass.

There's a reason Stakhovsky won in 3 sets at W vs Roger.
 
terribleIVAN said:
Henman was an excellent netplayer and he regularly bounced Federer all over the courts, because Fed's slices would be countered with a drop shot, something today's player avoid by fear of being forced to follow it at the net.
Click to expand...
Henman dominated Federer at the beginning when Federer had bad H2H against many players he later surpassed (Agassi, Hewitt, Nalby etc.). Even with Henman he reversed it and in the end it was 9-5. sure Henman was past prime then but nevertheless o would not read too much into the fact that Fed was trailing him at the beginning.
 
BorgTheGOAT said:
Henman dominated Federer at the beginning when Federer had bad H2H against many players he later surpassed (Agassi, Hewitt, Nalby etc.). Even with Henman he reversed it and in the end it was 9-5. sure Henman was past prime then but nevertheless o would not read too much into the fact that Fed was trailing him at the beginning.
Click to expand...

Henman was an example how today's players can't use anymore the whole geometry of the court while Fed still can.

The whole shot selection category is skewed once you avoid the net: the right shot at the right time has become a lost art, thanks to modern coaches.

Same thing happens with the ladies.
 
terribleIVAN said:
After Fed upset Sampras at W, Henman in the following rd left him a single set.

Henman might have cost Fed a W title.
Click to expand...
This is typical behavior of young upcoming stars. Playing a great match beating the fav and then loosing in the next round against an inferior player. The Henman match was tough, Federer hat chances in both tie breaks but choked a little on deciding points. Could have gone the other way though.
 
upchuck said:
Literally none of the quotes in that story supports this line:
"Rod Laver says Roger Federer is the ‘greatest of his era,’ no matter what Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic might achieve."
Click to expand...
This headline is tennis clickbait at its worst :sick:

If anything, Laver is looking out for himself and other greats of the past. He's right though, you can't compare different eras. Fedalovic's Slam counts are definitely inflated compared to past greats.

Of course 90% of people on the thread are pointlessly arguing over something Laver didn't actually say, smh
 
Third Serve said:
Lol he didn’t even reply once you met his demands.
Click to expand...
tennisaddict said:
@ABCD is a troll from the Lewesian School. What else can we expect ?
Click to expand...
Yep, he didn't reply and now he acts like he never argued/discussed with me on this forum.No wonder, the last time things didn't went too well for him on the subject.He was getting annoying with the trolling on the same old things, just like these days.I just felt the need to exposed his biased agenda yet again.
 
terribleIVAN said:
Henman was an example how today's players can't use anymore the whole geometry of the court while Fed still can.

The whole shot selection category is skewed once you avoid the net: the right shot at the right time has become a lost art, thanks to modern coaches.
Click to expand...

Just a recent example: it took Novak 15 years to develop a drop shot off a short ball/ slice to his BH because he understood doing so would be a better use of the geometry of the court.

Think about it for a minute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Brad Gilbert's Top 10 of the "Open Era"
Replies
0
Views
625
Limpinhitter
L
L
Brad Gilbert's top 10 Men of the "Open Era"
Replies
1
Views
430
Charlemagne
Charlemagne
L
Brad Gilbert's top 10 Men of the "Open Era"
Replies
0
Views
312
Limpinhitter
L
L
Brad Gilbert's top 10 Men of the "Open Era"
Replies
0
Views
414
Limpinhitter
L
L
Brad Gilbert's top 10 Men of the "Open Era"
Replies
0
Views
286
Limpinhitter
L
Back
Top