He set the bar too high.

Was Laver's 1969 season the best season in history?

  • Total voters
    17
Pheasant

Pheasant

Legend
I was just combing through Laver's 1969 season. His competition was quite tough that year. Everybody that he beat in the final is in the Hall of Fame. It's 50 years later and nobody has matched his feat in men's tennis. To recap:

AO: Laver won this final in straight sets over Gimeno. Gimeno has 1 Open Era slam title. Laver beat Emerson, Stolle, and Roche in this tourney as well.
FO: Laver beat defending champion Rosewall in straight sets in the final. Rosewall won a slam title each year from 1968-1972, except for Laver's 1969 season.
Wimbledon: Laver beat Newcome in 4 sets. Newcombe won the next two Wimbledon titles. Newcombe also won in 1967
USO: Laver won in 4 sets over Roche. More impressively, Laver beat Emerson in the quarters, then beat the defending-USO champ Ashe in straight sets in the semi.

To sum up, Laver beat the defending champ in the FO final, the defending champ in the USO semi, and Newcombe in the final of Wimbledon. Newcombe won 3 Wimbledon titles in 5 years while Laver won 2 right smack in the middle of that awesome 5 year run by Newcombe.
 
Krish872007

Krish872007

Talk Tennis Guru
The longer it takes for someone to accomplish something, the greater the respect for the last person to achieve the feat in question.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Not sure. The real Open Grand Slam is supremely impressive; at the same time, would likely never happen if Rosewall was the younger one; also Laver wasn't very dominant outside of the Slam legs; but then he played a great deal of tournaments and still won a ton, something like 18 of 32 - keeping in mind that half of those were in the old pro format with 2-3 matches to win; match record was reported as 106-16 not including several one-night stands, though a few more wins have been uncovered since then, apparently.

If not for the man in your avatar performing one of the greatest trolleries in tennis history, I wouldn't hesitate to name Mac's 1984, given his enormous dominance that season (highest match, set and game % win in the OE). As it is, a kind of four-way tie between Rocket '69, Johnnyboi '84, Fedr '06 and Joe '15, with each season having different arguments.
 
D

Deleted member 764118

Guest
I wasn’t alive in 1969 so not really sure. I still don’t think it’s as good as Fed’s 06 and Djoko’s 15.
 
Pheasant

Pheasant

Legend
Krish872007 said:
The longer it takes for someone to accomplish something, the greater the respect for the last person to achieve the feat in question.
Click to expand...

Djokovic thinks so:

So could he become the first man since Rod Laver in 1969 and only the third man ever to win the elusive calendar Grand Slam?
“I’ve got to get Rod Laver in my team in order to achieve that,” said Djokovic. “He’s the only one that has managed to do the impossible challenge, probably the ultimate challenge of tennis.
“We’ll see. Obviously it’s just the beginning of the season. I know there’s a lot of tournaments to play before Roland Garros, so I have plenty of time to build my form slowly.
 
metsman

metsman

G.O.A.T.
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Not sure. The real Open Grand Slam is supremely impressive; at the same time, would likely never happen if Rosewall was the younger one; also Laver wasn't very dominant outside of the Slam legs; but then he played a great deal of tournaments and still won a ton, something like 18 of 32 - keeping in mind that half of those were in the old pro format with 2-3 matches to win; match record was reported as 106-16 not including several one-night stands, though a few more wins have been uncovered since then, apparently.

If not for the man in your avatar performing one of the greatest trolleries in tennis history, I wouldn't hesitate to name Mac's 1984, given his enormous dominance that season (highest match, set and game % win in the OE). As it is, a kind of four-way tie between Rocket '69, Johnnyboi '84, Fedr '06 and Joe '15, with each season having different arguments.
Click to expand...
1969 was also a pretty homogenized setting, pretty similar to today. Constant meetings between top players, 3 majors on grass, no topspin heavy play on clay (just how today there isn't actual fast court play on faster surfaces).

I'd throw in Borg 1980 onto that list too without question. He won 3 of the 4 big events (against tougher competition than 84, 06, 15), reached the final of the 4th, huge win loss record, actually played and against several different styles to win his titles. I never get why he isn't included in these conversations, just because the AO wasn't a real major then. Pretty much sums up the whole state of tennis evaluation I guess. Bean counting, bean counting, and more bean counting.
 
TnsGuru

TnsGuru

Professional
If I'm not mistaken, I think three of the Grand slams at that time was played on grass and of course the French was still clay. Not to downplay his achievements, but he didn't play on a hard court to achieve the GS like players of today have to accomplish.

To win the calendar Grand Slam would be the ultimate test of a player today to be equally good on all surfaces but some players are surface specialist i.e Nadal and that is why we haven't seen it since 1969.

Laver happened to be an all court player on all surfaces but what if he had to play on a hard court for two of the slams? It might have been a different story but we will never know, we can only speculate. Djokovic seems to be the player that can achieve this as he has shown his prowess on all surfaces.
 
Last edited:
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
metsman said:
1969 was also a pretty homogenized setting, pretty similar to today. Constant meetings between top players, 3 majors on grass, no topspin heavy play on clay (just how today there isn't actual fast court play on faster surfaces).
Click to expand...

Laver played and won good stuff on hard, carpet, wood as well. In terms of style your point stands though.

I'd throw in Borg 1980 onto that list too without question. He won 3 of the 4 big events (against tougher competition than 84, 06, 15), reached the final of the 4th, huge win loss record, actually played and against several different styles to win his titles. I never get why he isn't included in these conversations, just because the AO wasn't a real major then. Pretty much sums up the whole state of tennis evaluation I guess. Bean counting, bean counting, and more bean counting.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Four straight losses is why, I suppose. Retirement, McEnroe, and Lendl, sure, but still it's four consecutive tournaments not won. Also, while Mac was of course a great hurdle to overcome in a USO final, that one was not dissimilar to Wimbledon 08, in that Borg mucked up the first two sets (choked serving for the first after Mac goated on the opening point, then lost the plot and couldn't hold serve once in the second), mounted an epic comeback but didn't have much chance in the fifth.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
TnsGuru said:
If I'm not mistaken, I think three of the Grand slams at that time was played on grass and of course the French was still clay. Not to downplay his achievements, but he didn't play on a hard court to achieve the GS like players of today have to accomplish.
To win the calendar Grand Slam would be the ultimate test of a player today to be equally good on all surfaces but some players are surface specialist i.e Nadal and that is why we haven't seen it since 1969.

Laver happened to be an all court player on all surfaces but what if he had to play on a hard court for two of the slams? It might have been a different story but we will never know, we can only speculate. Djokovic seems to be the player that can achieve this as he has shown his prowess on all surfaces.
Click to expand...

There were hard surfaces in Laver's time, just not the slams. He was as successful on them as anywhere, a real all-courter.
 
Pheasant

Pheasant

Legend
Does anybody have Laver's winning percentage in the Open Era(starting in 1968)? Granted, Laver turned 30 in 1968, which was old for tennis back then. But I'd be curious to see if he broke .750. .750 ball 30+ years of age would be incredible.

Either way, Laver won tourneys on grass, clay, hard courts, and wood courts.
 
jm1980

jm1980

Talk Tennis Guru
Pheasant said:
Does anybody have Laver's winning percentage in the Open Era(starting in 1968)? Granted, Laver turned 30 in 1968, which was old for tennis back then. But I'd be curious to see if he broke .750. .750 ball 30+ years of age would be incredible.

Either way, Laver won tourneys on grass, clay, hard courts, and wood courts.
Click to expand...
402-104 (79%) according to tennis abstract:

http://www.tennisabstract.com/cgi-bin/player.cgi?p=RodLaver&f=ACareerqq

Of course records from this era aren't 100% correct, but still pretty close
 
bjsnider

bjsnider

Hall of Fame
AnOctorokForDinner said:
I wouldn't hesitate to name Mac's 1984
Click to expand...
The caveat to Mac's '84 is that he was an early adopter of the new racket tech, and it obviously worked very well against a field that was still largely playing with 1970s tech. The lopsided Wimbledon final inspired Connors to switch to the Pro Staff, which at that time was brand new (exactly the same thing happened when Chris Evert lost that year's RG final to Navratilova, who was using new tech; Evert switched to the Pro Staff and won the '85 final). I still think Mac would have dominated in 1984, but to a lesser degree.
 
AnOctorokForDinner

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
bjsnider said:
The caveat to Mac's '84 is that he was an early adopter of the new racket tech, and it obviously worked very well against a field that was still largely playing with 1970s tech. The lopsided Wimbledon final inspired Connors to switch to the Pro Staff, which at that time was brand new (exactly the same thing happened when Chris Evert lost that year's RG final to Navratilova, who was using new tech; Evert switched to the Pro Staff and won the '85 final). I still think Mac would have dominated in 1984, but to a lesser degree.
Click to expand...

Lendl and Connors weren't using '70s tech' by then.
 
Raul_SJ

Raul_SJ

G.O.A.T.
If Djok wins The French, he'd be holding all four GS titles. A NCYGS for the second time.

A NCYGS is good enough for me. Very few men have achieved that. Laver and Djok in recent times. Don't think Rafa and Fed have done it.
 
metsman

metsman

G.O.A.T.
AnOctorokForDinner said:
Laver played and won good stuff on hard, carpet, wood as well. In terms of style your point stands though.
Click to expand...

Four straight losses is why, I suppose. Retirement, McEnroe, and Lendl, sure, but still it's four consecutive tournaments not won. Also, while Mac was of course a great hurdle to overcome in a USO final, that one was not dissimilar to Wimbledon 08, in that Borg mucked up the first two sets (choked serving for the first after Mac goated on the opening point, then lost the plot and couldn't hold serve once in the second), mounted an epic comeback but didn't have much chance in the fifth.[/QUOTE]
USO final can't be any worse than the Fedovic RG losses in their years. Not much worse than losing to Lendl either.

At the end of the day he still lost only 6 times, won 3 of the 4 biggest while being inches away from the fourth, did it playing different styles against better competition. Definitely deserves to be up there.
 
BGod

BGod

G.O.A.T.
The AO was 5 rounds and lacked some top players (Ashe and Smith basically). 3 of the 4 Slams were played on grass and although difference existed it was still not the same as slow or fast hard.

I think it also says something when Laver couldn't make a the quarters at Wimbledon or USO next year and lost to his only Slam quarter after 69 at Wimbledon to Gorman. He won 14 additional tournaments in 69 but most were low tier.

By comparison, Connors in 74 went 93-4 and 20-0 in Slam matches. McEnroe in 84 went 82-3 and of course Federer's insane 06-07 seasons followed by Novak's 11 & 15.

That places Laver's at 7th for me.

You could even argue Borg 1980 going 70-6 and 61-4 in upper tournaments with 1 loss a retirement, 1 loss in 5 sets and 1 loss in the RR of the tour finals. He won 2 of the 3 Slams and WTF losing the USO in the final in 5. I'm not arguing it's better but one could given the only big blemish was USO loss to McEnroe.
 
Flash O'Groove

Flash O'Groove

Hall of Fame
TnsGuru said:
If I'm not mistaken, I think three of the Grand slams at that time was played on grass and of course the French was still clay. Not to downplay his achievements, but he didn't play on a hard court to achieve the GS like players of today have to accomplish.
To win the calendar Grand Slam would be the ultimate test of a player today to be equally good on all surfaces but some players are surface specialist i.e Nadal and that is why we haven't seen it since 1969.

Laver happened to be an all court player on all surfaces but what if he had to play on a hard court for two of the slams? It might have been a different story but we will never know, we can only speculate. Djokovic seems to be the player that can achieve this as he has shown his prowess on all surfaces.
Click to expand...

Counter argument is that Djokovic can never prove his versatility because despite that there is now 3 surfaces, they play quite similar to each others. That's why you have a lot of people who believe Djokovic wouldn't stand a chance against Becker at Wimbledon for example. In addition, surfaces are likely to change in the future. Will it invalidate today's achievements?

At the end Laver was the best player, he could play on all surfaces and would certainly have done well on hard.

To me the only "blemish" on his calendar slam was that it happened in the first year of the open era. In the prior years, the best amateurs had been shielded from the competition of the top pros and they needed time to progress to the new level of competition that aging Laver and Rosewall could still provide. Newcombe won Wimbledon 1967 against a Wilhelm Bungert in the final and a draw full of amateur who hardly anyone remember / didn't succeed in the open era. Meanwhile Laver defeated Rosewall at Wembley in a draw full of good players like Gimeno, Hoad, Bucholz, Raltson. When suddenly Rosewall had to play Laver instead of Bungert, it was too much.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Pheasant said:
I was just combing through Laver's 1969 season. His competition was quite tough that year. Everybody that he beat in the final is in the Hall of Fame. It's 50 years later and nobody has matched his feat in men's tennis. To recap:

AO: Laver won this final in straight sets over Gimeno. Gimeno has 1 Open Era slam title. Laver beat Emerson, Stolle, and Roche in this tourney as well.
FO: Laver beat defending champion Rosewall in straight sets in the final. Rosewall won a slam title each year from 1968-1972, except for Laver's 1969 season.
Wimbledon: Laver beat Newcome in 4 sets. Newcombe won the next two Wimbledon titles. Newcombe also won in 1967
USO: Laver won in 4 sets over Roche. More impressively, Laver beat Emerson in the quarters, then beat the defending-USO champ Ashe in straight sets in the semi.

To sum up, Laver beat the defending champ in the FO final, the defending champ in the USO semi, and Newcombe in the final of Wimbledon. Newcombe won 3 Wimbledon titles in 5 years while Laver won 2 right smack in the middle of that awesome 5 year run by Newcombe.
Click to expand...
It is debatable but 1969 may have been Laver's second best year. He was slightly past his peak, but still good enough to win all slams.

In 1967 he won 19 tournaments. In 1969 he won 18 tournaments.
 
hoodjem

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Benben245 said:
I would like to correct myself, he is listed as 5'8 but according to many maybe 5'7
Click to expand...
(Not this again.)
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/lavers-height.286766/

Laver is listed as 5' 8" today, but that is because of osteoporosis. He was listed as 5' 9" during his career and later.

"According to many" he was 5' 7" but that is because they are probably confusing him with Roewall, who was 5' 7". No one who knows better ever thinks Laver was 5' 7".

https://www.atptour.com/en/news/laver-1969-grand-slam-australian-open-feature
Take a look at this recent photo.
Gimeno is listed as 6' 1".
Newk as 6' 0".
Roche at 5' 10".
Laver is 5' 8" (today).
Rosewall as 5' 7".
Compare Laver's height to Rosewall's.
 
Last edited:
U

urban

Legend
Pretty much nonsense written here, not by all, but by several people. Laver won 108-16 in 1969, including some one-night stands. He topped the 100 wins in a season mark in 8 different seasons, which is a history record. Emerson, who played only in the amateurs topped the mark in 5 seasons. For comparison: Gonzalez made 3 over 100 wins seasons, Rosewall 0, in modern open times, only Connors Lendl and Borg made over 100 wins seasons. Fed, Nadal or Djokovic never reached the mark even once. In the Grand Slam 1969, out of 26 match wins, 17 came against hall of famers, who were winners or finalists of major tournaments. Out of the 124 matches played in 1969, ca. 45 were against top tenners. It depends whose top ten rankings you like. Connors in 1974 was lucky to have close to 10 matches vs. fellow top tenners.
Outside the Grand Slam, Laver won the two foremost indoor tourneys with best of 5 finals, at Philadelphia US pro indoor, winning over Ralston, Rosewall and Roche, and Wembley British covered court, winning over Taylor, Gimeno and Roche. Laver also won the richest indoor event, the Madison Square Garden pro with a win over Emerson in the final. Laver won two of the biggest hard court events in 1969, too: The South African Open, a 96 men field with all rounds best of 5, with wins over Hewitt, Drydale and Okker, and the US pro at Boston, last rounds with best of 5, with wins over Okker, Rosewall and Newcombe. Going by the ATP Laver has still the best winning percentage in hard court finals in opene era, with a 18-2 margin. That makes 5 out of big 9 events in 1969 outside the Grand Slam. He didn't play the German and Italian opens, and was still celebrating the Grand Slam and the birth of his son, when losing at Los Angeles and Las Vegas late in the year.
 
BGod

BGod

G.O.A.T.
By the by, inflation adjusted Laver's wimbledon prize money was around $18,000.

Why do we even compare?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Who was number 1 for 1970?
15 16 17
Replies
829
Views
36K
hoodjem
hoodjem
S
Key events of 1969
Replies
14
Views
4K
kiki
kiki
T
Looking again at Laver's 1969 - Exploding the Grass/Clay only Myth
2
Replies
76
Views
11K
urban
U
hoodjem
Laver's Clay-Court Record
Replies
20
Views
2K
NatF
NatF
U
Rocket on a mission. 1969
Replies
36
Views
3K
kiki
kiki
Top