Dare to Compare? Rod Laver vs. Roger Federer
By TIM RUFFIN
Featured Columnist
Written on February 05, 2010
MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA - FEBRUARY 01:
I come to you in the spirit of reason, and understanding. Fascinated by the constant debate over whether Roger Federer is the single greatest player of all-time or not, I have decided to examine the compare him to nine players who are also on that top level of all-time greats.
In the minds hearts and minds of millions of fans, Roger Federer is without peer. Federer is loved unconditionally, his dominance unquestioned and his humanity is often questioned. After-all, only a divine being, a son of the tennis god’s could do such things as he. Only a superior being could string together his run of Major finals and an even more ridiculous run of consecutive semifinal appearances.
If the people want to crown him, then let’s go ahead and crown him! Let us initiate the process of anointing Roger Federer the greatest tennis player of all time. But, before any coronation or inauguration, there must be a vetting process.
Numbers do not lie. They are constant and they are enduring. They are a traceable, quantifiable marker that can be used to substantiate any claim. But, while numerical statistics certainly have their role, we must not give in to the temptation to believe that they alone are capable of telling the whole story. Only the simplest mind would believe so. There are also intangibles to consider. Health, longevity, competition, heart and desire. All of these things factor into building a legend, a legacy.
Let’s meet the contenders. The ten players nearly universally agreed upon as the crème de la crème of the tennis world. To be fair, only player from the Open Era have been included. After-all, few have lived to see Bill Tilden or Don Budge play live. We honor their genius, but for the purposes of this exercise they will be excluded. The list looks like this: Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander, Becker, Agassi, Sampras, Federer .
The Maestro vs. The Rocket
Federer boasts 16 slam singles titles to Rod Laver’s 11. Federer enjoys 62 ATP titles, compared to 40 ATP wins for Laver. Both players have won all four majors. Federer has won four on four different surfaces, he is only the second man ever to do that (behind Agassi). Laver is the only player ever to have won the Calendar Slam twice, a feat that Federer has fallen shot by only one match in both 2006, and 2007 (both to Nadal). Both players have a career winning percentage of about 80%.
According to the ATP numbers, Federer has the edge. 16 is greater than 11, right? But wait, there’s more. After winning the calendar slam in 1962, Laver turned professional in 1963. As a pro, he faced the men considered to be the best players in the world at the time on the professional circuit. In these pre-open era days, only amateurs were permitted to compete in Grand Slam competition.
Therefore, Laver lost his Grand Slam eligibility during his best years from 1963-1968. However, during that span he managed to capture the Professional equivalent of Wimbledon, the Wembly Pro Championship (four times) and the U.S. Open, the U.S. Pro Championships (three times) as well as the French Pro Championship (one time). In these finals he defeated the likes of multiple slam winners Ken Rosewall, and Pancho Gonzales.
When the ATP was first established in 1973, Laver was already 34-years old. Despite his advanced age, he managed to win 40 events over the next six years (more than six titles a year from the age of 34 on). The 40 titles doesn’t tell half of Laver’s story. It is estimated that overall, the Australian won at least 198 events. Even more telling are his head to head records against his rivals. Laver’s greatest rival was the genius Ken Rosewall. Rosewall, an eight-time Grand Slam winner himself (plus 15 professional slams), won 33 of the pairs first 46 matches in 1963.
However, an older and more mature Laver turned the series around dramatically after that. Laver eventually went on to take over the overall head to head, 76-61. The Rocket also enjoyed a commanding 47-18 head to head edge against 12-time Major winner, Roy Emerson.
He also holds a 35-19 head-to-head lead over the older, but ever dangerous Pancho Gonzales, a two-time grand slam winner (with11 professional slams). Laver also enjoyed a dominant 37-16 head to head record against fellow Aussie and five-time grand slam winner, Lew Hoad (a man who stood 6’3 and nearly 200 pounds, Laver was 5’8” ).
All in all, Laver was the player of the 1960’s. If he’d been allowed to play the Majors from 1963 to 1968, he would have amassed a total 19 grand slam singles titles. Okay, the argument will always arise that the players from the 1960’s played three out of four Majors on grass. This is a true, somewhat valid argument. But to counter, answer this: which is an easier transition? Moving from fast grass, to hard courts? Or making the move from slow red clay to grass?
The latter has been proven tougher over and over again. Recently only Borg, Nadal, and Federer have accomplished this. Laver and Rosewall did this consistently . One must also not allow themselves to be duped into thinking that Laver never played on hard-courts. In fact, he won many tournaments on hard-courts even though the U.S. and Australian Open’s simply were not contested on hard court surfaces during his time.
Not to be outdone, Federer has a sterling resume of his own. Let's compare streaks. Federer won five consecutive Wimbledons and six consecutive U.S. Open finals (five titles). Rare air, no doubt. However, for anyone to claim that such a feat has never been approached before is slightly misleading. Laver won four consecutive U.S. Professional championships starting in 1966 at a time when the competition on the pro circut was far stiffer than at the Grand Slams.
Laver also won Wimbledon all three times he played it during the 1960’s (1962, 1968, 1969), as well as the Wembly Professional championships three times during his leave from the Grand Slams. This adds up to six titles in a ten year span.
Federer has set new marks in both grand slam final appearances (22) and consecutive semifinals appearances (23). Laver appeared in 17 grand slam finals with a record of 11-6, compared to Federer’s 16-6. But add in Laver’s professional “slam” finals record and the more realistic record is 19-12, with 31 finals appearances.
In essence, Roger frequently appears in Majors finals and has really only been stopped by a six-time slam winner, predominately on clay. Laver did the losing primarily on clay, to an eight-time slam winner and 23-time Major championship winner.
In examining the competition, a lot of the story can be told. Federer has benefited from modern physical training methods, racquet technology and footwear. However, at the same time, Roger has had to deal with a much deeper field. From #100 right on up to the very top (we’ll say #8 or #10) the competition is as strong as its ever been. Players are stronger and much more dangerous in the early rounds of tournaments.
Federer must receive special consideration for wading through the masses of potential upsets with alarming regularity. But for every pro, there is a con. At the business end of the big events, Roger has successfully faced a three- time or greater grand slam champion only six times. If we dig deeper, and see that his first victim was a 30-year old Pete Sampras who was well past his prime in 2001(only a year from retirement). Additionally, another three wins came over a 34+ year old Andre Agassi, who was forced out of the game by back problem.
Federer is left with exactly two grand slam victories over players who have serious grand slam credentials. Not so with Rod Laver. Laver’s Grand Slam final victories read like a who’s who of tennis legends. There were thee Finals victories over Roy Emerson, as well as wins over Neale Frasier, Ken Rosewall, John Newcombe and Tony Roche. Now those may not be names that ring a bell to the modern ear, but they were without question at the very top of the sport in their own era.
Laver’s battles with Rosewall are comparable to Federer’s wars with Nadal. Rosewall was the premier clay court player of the 1960’s. Laver lost four French Pro Championships and one French Open Final to Rosewall, as he, like Federer, had the experience of having to play a clay court genius during his career. The difference is that Rosewall’s dominance over Laver never extended past the clay.
Despite the fact that Rosewall himself was a very accomplished fast court player, probably second only to Laver during the 1960’s, Laver had the edge on the grass and hard courts. Federer has had no such luck, losing five of seven Majors finals to his greatest rival, including relinquishing his beloved Wimbledon title and a Major hard court loss at the Australian Open.
The major difference here is that Rosewall and Laver had an entire career of back and forth in their rivalry. But in the end, Laver came out the better. Federer currently trails Nadal 7-13 all time, but more notable, 2-6 in Grand Slam play. In all fairness, both Federer and Nadal are in their 20’s and should have many more opportunities to square off. Federer will have his chance to bridge the gap.
