Djokovic vs Laver

  • Thread starter Deleted member 748597
  • Start date

Who is greater?


  • Total voters
    69

40L0VE

Professional
A lot of people argued for Laver being better than Federer because of 2 Grand slams and other reasons. So those same people would still put
When Federer was sitting at 17 slams then it was undisputed that Federer is greater than all which includes Laver too.

Now that Djokovic has 17 slams it is still Laver > Djokovic just because his name is Djokovic.

8-B

Federer was not undisputed. One camp put Laver ahead due to 2 calender slams in 1962 and 1969. So until Novak wins 2 calendar slams he'll have the same arguments as Federer had against him.
 
Part of the reasons why Federer was put behind Laver was his problem with Nadal.

"He has to figure that kid out".

That part of the argumentation died, for obvious reasons. At the time those people were beating Federer with a stick that they thought was long enough. Oh, how little they knew!

Djokovic doesn't even have some kid to figure him out.

smiley_emoticons_santagrin.gif
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 748597

Guest
A lot of people argued for Laver being better than Federer because of 2 Grand slams and other reasons. So those same people would still put


Federer was not undisputed. One camp put Laver ahead due to 2 calender slams in 1962 and 1969. So until Novak wins 2 calendar slams he'll have the same arguments as Federer had against him.
Novak's NCYGS should at least mean something.
 

Lew II

G.O.A.T.
Tennis before Open Era was not great. An awesome player like Pancho Gonzales spent most of his career playing exhibitions, basically.

Therefore the GOAT has to be found in the Open Era.

I think Big3, Sampras and Borg are pretty much equally great. Big3 had better results but Sampras and Borg were the best in their era. Now if someone becomes the clear best among Big3... now THAT would be some GOAT material.
 
D

Deleted member 744633

Guest
When Federer was sitting at 17 slams then it was undisputed that Federer is greater than all which includes Laver too.

Now that Djokovic has 17 slams it is still Laver > Djokovic just because his name is Djokovic.

8-B

LOL, nailed it! :-D
 

40L0VE

Professional
Novak's NCYGS should at least mean something.

That's a point those who argued in favour of Laver need to address. Some how I don't think they will or they'll change their viewpoint for various reasons I won't mention. Novak's NCYGS is something Federer and Nadal never achieved. It is special to hold all 4 slams at the same time because until the time he lost one of them no other man could say they were a current holder of a slam title in singles.
 

canta_Brian

Hall of Fame
Either Era based or overall goatness should include some reference to how a player has taken the game forward from the era that proceeded it.

Where this is difficult is when new technologies allow less talented players to play at a level higher than that achievable with the old tech. Comparing players using tiny headed wooden racquets, with all gut strings and old tennis balls to any current player is fatuous at best.

So looking at big three it’s hard to dispute the Federer’s all court game was next level even from Sampras. Nadal has used the new tech in a way that allowed him to take the sport on clay to places it hadn’t been before.

So what has Djokovic done to take the game forward. He is very bendy? He returns as well as Murray and Agassi? He misses as few balls as Matts Wilander? What Djokovic does is impressive and effective in the round, but it is not paradigm shifting. All he has done is caught up with his peers, never taken the game on.
 

Spider

Hall of Fame
A lot of people argued for Laver being better than Federer because of 2 Grand slams and other reasons. So those same people would still put


Federer was not undisputed. One camp put Laver ahead due to 2 calender slams in 1962 and 1969. So until Novak wins 2 calendar slams he'll have the same arguments as Federer had against him.

Novak won 4 slams in a row too. That was a huge moment in history.
 

daddy

Legend
poll says it all, by a dozen country miles. the competition, the level of sports now ... we really shouldn't be comparing these two but if we have to, there's one obvious winner.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Tennis before Open Era was not great. An awesome player like Pancho Gonzales spent most of his career playing exhibitions, basically.

Therefore the GOAT has to be found in the Open Era.

I think Big3, Sampras and Borg are pretty much equally great. Big3 had better results but Sampras and Borg were the best in their era. Now if someone becomes the clear best among Big3... now THAT would be some GOAT material.

Comparing the pro tour to exhos, oh no you ded.
 

RF-18

Talk Tennis Guru
That's fine. He was the best of his time. But he wasn't the best of ALL time was he? The sport has evolved and today's players should be in the discussion for being GOAT. Players like Nadal, Federer, Djokovic, Sampras, etc. Laver isn't anywhere in that discussion. His era was garbage and any of the big 3 would wipe their butts with him and his rivals.

That's why it is hard to compare eras and why some suggest that there is no GOAT.
 

SonnyT

Legend
The wisest comment came from Martina Navratilova. I think she was asked, during the heights of Steffi Graf's championship days, if she could beat Steffi. Martina replied to the effect,

"No, but if I'm playing right now, I'd be better than what I was!"
 

vex

Legend
Comparing Laver to any of the big 3 is nonsense. Things have changed so much the sport is hardly recognizable. Laver was the GOAT of his version of the sport. Give him his respect and don’t care him to modern players.
 

SonnyT

Legend
"Comparing Laver to any of the big 3 is nonsense"

The fastest serve Laver ever saw probably came from Newcombe or Roche. Top speed was sub 100 mph. He certainly never saw 140+ missiles from Karlovic, Kandy or Isner.
 
Top