If Nishikori and Raonic starts to rack up slams in a couple of years I'll admit you were right
Laver was lucky ...
- Thread starter McEnborg
- Start date
BeatlesFan
Bionic Poster
Of course you're disrespecting the most respected and revered tennis champion of all time in your thread title alone. Laver earned all his plaudits, he wasn't "lucky" to become the ATG that he is. For analogy's sake, the game evolves, so in ten years, the 100 ranked male player could bet 2008 Nadal easily.
As for Laver-Nadal comparisons, put a wooden racket in Nadal's hands and watch the match under those circumstances.
Men dont like getting older
. Usain Bolt always believed he would break his records from when he was 22/23, he never did. Sinse he was 26 he wasnt even close. Federer was certainly not at his best at age 35.Federer also had to deal Safin and Agassi who would have done well in this decade during their prime.
Zara
G.O.A.T.
Basically you are saying Federer is goat in a round about and I am sure it's reassuring.
Men dont like getting older
There is no any ground to question his statement. He did not say it when he was out of ATP100. He said it when he was top3 player and when many pundits shared his opinion. Djokovic himself said few months ago that the best hard court version of Federer he played against was USO2015. Without Djokovic that year he would be most likely multi-slam winner.
Purplemonster
Hall of Fame
The most logical post. Unfortunately objectivity can’t be bought by quite a few people on these boards.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
Even if in 2 surfaces, 2 CYGS >>>> 1 NCYGS. Everyvody would take 2 CYGS over 1 NCYGS.
Winning consecutive Majors on 3 surfaces is not exclusive of Djokovic by the way. Nadal won 3 consecutive Majors on 3 surfaces in 2010. The only difference is that Djokovic won one more consecutive GS.
I agree Djokovic is better than Laver though, but because 14 GS >>> 11 GS.
TheGreatOne1997
Rookie
Rosewall says hi. Arguably a better player than Nadal with a better career and more majors.
And lets look at it deeper. Nadal didn't hit his prime until 2008. Fed was already 5 years into his prime at that time
And lets look at it deeper. Nadal didn't hit his prime until 2008. Fed was already 5 years into his prime at that time
boris becker 1
Semi-Pro
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
For his first CYGS he played Emerson three times and once some Mulligan nobody ever remembers anything about these days in an amateur era in a field full of nobodies! LMAO For the second he played Gimeno for AO title, Rosewall for RG title, Newcombe for the Wimbledon and Roche for the USO! Of all these 8 grand slam victories the most impressive ones are against Rosewall and Newcombe all come in his second CYGS in 1969! Djokovic for his NCYGS had to face another member of the big-4 in all four finals he played in 2015 WC and USO against Federer consecutively, in 2016 AO and RG against Murray consecutively! There goes your difference...also one more thing! For both of his CYGS he was lucky enough not to face another ATG, like Borg, Connors and McEnroe as he benefited from transition period between amateur era and an open era! It would be the same if some of the next gen youngsters picked up immediately after all three memebers of big-3 retired and won his CYGS in an absense of another ATG player, which for example wouldn't show up for another 4-5 years! Laver's achievements are impressive, but Djokovic surpassed him already, all three did!
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Just because he beat Rosewall, who by the way by the moment was in decline, he is a GOAT? LMAO stop it! Beating Rosewall back in 1969 final would be the same as beating Federer in the final of 2015, like Novak did! LOL Rosewall started to decline in 1969 and Laver benefited from that!
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
I never said that beating Rosewall is the only factor in Laver's GOAT status.
2 calendar Slams, 11 Slams despite being banned in his prime, 8 Pro Slams including calendar Pro Slam in '67, 200 career titles, etc.
Federer has the Slam record and #1 record, as well as WTF/Wimbledon/USO records, which puts him head and shoulders above all modern tennis players (Nadal and Djokovic aren't even close) but Laver's records are otherworldly.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Nadal and Djokovic aren't even close?! What??! Lmao I stopped taking you seriously as soon as i read that...
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
Not close to GOAT......yet. If Djokovic gets to 18 or Nadal wins WTF or another AO, then we'll talk about GOAT. But neither are close to Federer or Laver.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Dude stop with this nonsense, please! You are not making yota of sense! HAHA You want me to remind of Big Titles graph or something??...or you are saying that 14 and 17 slams respectively AREN'T EVEN CLOSE??! Gtfo of here!
King No1e
G.O.A.T.
They're still in the all-time top 5, but that doesn't mean that either has a solid GOAT claim as of now.
Sport
G.O.A.T.
So? Emerson is a great player. Anyhow, by that logic Djokovic's NCYGS was also against a weak field, since he beat old non-peak Federer and didn't face Nadal at Roland Garros 2016 (Nadal was playing much better in 2016 than 2015, but he withdrawed injured from RG 2016). 2 CYGS >>>>> 1 NCYGS.
RF-18
Talk Tennis Guru
The only difference is the last man to do what Djokovic did was Don Budge back in 1937/1938. So it's not ''only'' one more consecutive major like it's something easy to do. Nadal had his one and only chance in AO 11, but couldn't to do it. He fell to freaking David Ferrer in straights.
Nadal, Fed, Djoko are lucky that they didn't have to play with 65 sq wood rackets with full nat gut and bo5 no tiebreak sets without towel servants.
STOP comparing the greats of today with the greats of yesterday using only the parameters of today.
To many parameters have changed in the history of tennis for there to be a GOAT.
STOP comparing the greats of today with the greats of yesterday using only the parameters of today.
To many parameters have changed in the history of tennis for there to be a GOAT.
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Thats what everyone been doing since this sport was invented lmao! Borg was always compared to Laver and it made people argue, who was greater back at the time, then Sampras showed up and people start saying he is better than Borg, then Federer, then Nadal and now Djokovic...etc...question is why are so triggered?! Lol
Rafa's OCD
Semi-Pro
pretty convinced 90% of the accounts on this board are created by Toni Nadal
Djokodalerer31
Hall of Fame
Btw if you want to put it that way, its only faur to do it both ways! Your comparison make it seem pretty one-sided, because of one detail that you miss in your argument! And that important detail is - How would greats of the past do in today's conditions with today's technologies, surfaces variety and courts' speed?! See, you only talk about how things would be different if Big-3 played in 60's-80's with wooden racquets and on much faster courts, but you don't mention anything about opposite case scenario...checkmate!
I never said that the "Big 3" would get destroyed if they had played during the 60-80s with the equipment and conditions of the time. Or that the greats of those times would destroy the "Big 3" if they had played now with the equipment and conditions of today. We will never know, so it is a pointless debate.
Again, to many parameters have changed in the history of tennis for there to be a GOAT.
At least with Laver and Borg a fair comparison could be made of their level of play.
Enceladus
Legend
This is not the only difference - Djoker's series has met the condition for achieving non-CYGS, Nadal's row not. Djokovic was at one moment the defending champion of all 4 GS tournaments, Nadal no.
Laver - 5 years banned from slams
Rosewall- 11 years
Gonzalez- 17 years
The only luck Laver may have had was that Gonzalez was 35 when they first played. Though 3 of the official slams were played on grass, the grass of each was a bit different. While on the pro tour and open era, Ken Rod and Pancho played on grass, clay, carpet over ice and other surfaces, wood and hard courts. Each won on all surfaces, as pros and in OE. Again, one should not compare accomplishments of players from vastly distant eras. Laver, Pancho, Roger are MY tier one ATG players. Slightly below, or tier 1/2 would be: Rosewall, Borg, Sampras, Nadal and Djokovic. Borg because he won on very slow RG and Wimbledon a few times in the same year. The same is true of Rosewall who went from RG to Wembley wood a few times a week apart, in the same year on the pro tour.
abmk
Bionic Poster
1. The 2nd best claycourter of all time is Borg, not Rosewall. Rosewall's longevity was of course clearly better, but doesn't make him the equal of Borg level-wise on clay.
2. And the bold part is so incorrect. A look at recent events before researching history ?
Federer beat Agassi, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin in 2004,06,07 (apart from the others in Nalbandian, Davydenko, Djokovic, Ferrero, Gonzalez etc.) to win his slams.
Nadal made the finals of Wimbledon in 06,07, including taking Fed to 5 sets in 07. Won 2 HC masters in 05 (Canada, Madrid), won Dubai beating FEd (in 06), won Indian Wells in 07. If that's mainly claycourter ......
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Obviously anyone that plays in an era of big time homogenization is to some degree lucky (pre mid/late 70s, post early 2000s), especially when the homogenization suits their natural game. Laver was still the dominant player of his era though and proved his worth several times as an old man against the next generation so he's still one of the greatest.
But it's telling how people usually consider the 4 guys to play in the most homogenized eras to be the 4 greatest ever. Little too coincidental for me.
But it's telling how people usually consider the 4 guys to play in the most homogenized eras to be the 4 greatest ever. Little too coincidental for me.
Rosewall at 34 may have been in decline, but the year before at 33, he beat Laver in the FO final. Ken also beat the likes of: Newcombe, Roche, Emerson, Smith Laver and Ashe to win slams at 35,36, and 37 as well as Laver in two WCT finals at 37 and nearly 38. What great players or slam winners did Nadal beat to win this year's FO at 33? To win his 4 French Pro titles, Ken had to beat: Gonzalez twice, Hoad twice, Gimeno an outstanding clay court player and other top pros. By age 27, Borg was washed up! Also, Roswall won the USO and reached the Wimbledon final in 70. He won a very competitive AO in 71 and two WCT finals in 71-72 as well as an AO in 72. Not bad results for a player in decline in 1969. Fact is, whether you want to believe it or not, Ken and Roger often played at their near peak into their late thirties, which for sure, is rare for pro tennis players.
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
I disagree on all points. Firstly, you are considering Rosewall's career and ignoring his pro results. I am not. Had the game been open throughout Rosewall's career it is probable he would have won 8 French Opens (maybe more). I doubt Rosewall would have reached Nadal's eleven, but he certainly would have surpassed Borg's six.
I know full well who Federer beat to win his majors. Agassi was over the hill when Fed beat him in 2004 US Open and Safin didn't show up to play his best tennis at Australian in 2004. Djokovic was young in 2007 and not anywhere near the great player he became. Only Nadal (and in those days mainly on clay) could provide stern resistance to Fed in those years. Fed never even faced Nadal at the Australian and US Opens in those years. The others I consider second rate players compared to the standard of players Laver faced.
Even a player like Roche, with 1 major, put an amazing performance on a sweltering day in Brisbane against Laver at the Australian Open 1969. I never saw Hewitt or Roddick play like that against Federer (even in 2009 Wimbledon final, that was more to do with Federer's poor play than Roddick's great play). At the 1969 Australian Open Laver beat Stolle, Emerson, Roche and Gimeno, all major winners. At the 1969 French Laver beat Smith, Gimeno and Rosewall, all majors winners and Rosewall was a legend. At Wimbledon Laver beat Pietrangeli, Smith, Ashe and the great John Newcombe, all major winners. At US Open Laver beat Emerson, Ashe and Roche, all major winners. That is why I and many others consider Laver's 1969 slam to be the biggest single year achievement in men's tennis history.
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
Generally, really good post. I take issues with just a few things though
1) Laver can't have his cake and eat it too. Meaning: Fair enough to count the 67 pro slam, but why on earth count the 1962 amateur slam? There were better players than Laver that year and he wouldn't have come anywhere near winning it had he been playing the pro's in 62 (just look at his intro to the pro's in 63).
2) Likewise, you're overrating Emerson a lot imo. The fact that he got beaten in 5 by 39 (or was he already 40?) year old Gonzales, who's best surface def. wasn't clay as the reigning FO champ tells us a bit about the difference between his amateur slams and the pro slams. An analogy: Imagine if you in 2009 made a tour of David Ferrer, Tomas Berdych and say, 50 % of the top-100. But the Big 4 stayed at the ATP-tour. Would Ferrer and Berdych win slams on this new tour? Hell yes. Would they be worth a 'real' slam? Not quite.
3) I think it's safe to say Rosewall is top-3 on clay. But saying that 'Federer wasn't going to beat a guy like Rosewall at RG. Laver pulled it off in spades.' is overstating it again, when
3a) Fed has beaten Rafa on clay, just not at RG.
3b) Fed's had MP against Rafa in best of 5 on clay and
3c) Fed's had quite a few matches, where he stood a chance vs. Rafa at RG, but where the match-up problem and Fed's mental demons vs. Rafa played a role as well. He wouldn't have those vs. Rosewall.
All this is not to say Fed would clean Rosewall's clock on clay, he wouldn't. But - forgetting all the caveats about comparing across eras - I don't see a reason, why he couldn't beat him on clay every now and again had they played.
Last edited:
Chanwan
G.O.A.T.
???
You do realize that that's an extremely odd way to count Laver's GS titles right? You're counting his first 6 amateur slams, which aren't real slams (not to be mistaken for the real slam either), cause the best players were playing pro. And forgetting his pro slams from 64 onwards. Remember, he turned 30 the year, the Open era began.
abmk
Bionic Poster
No, I'm not ignoring Rosewall pro career. I'm saying his prime/peak level level of play was not on par with Borg's on clay.
Read again , " Rosewall's longevity was of course clearly better, but doesn't make him the equal of Borg level-wise on clay."
Even if Rosewall won 8 French Opens in a fully open era, that'd only make him more achieved than Borg, not better level wise. (prime to prime or peak to peak)
For Nadal : from clay only to not even faced at AO and USO.
So skirting over the mistake of not considering Wimbledon 06 and 07 encounters, I see.
As far as Hewitt or Roddick playing great vs Federer is concerned , for Roddick : Wim 04 final, Wim 09 final, USO 07 QF, Canada 03 SF.
for Hewitt : USO 2005 SF, 's-Hertogenbosch 01, Paris 02 QF, YEC 02 SF...also great comeback in Davis up 03.
Federer played pretty well in Wim 09 final. Many get the impression he didn't play well in that final because he struggled vs a really excellent Roddick,whom he normally dealt with easily.
Re-watch it and you'll see it was a very well played final.
So if Federer beats Roddick convincingly, Roddick is useless, just a pigeon. If Federer struggles, its because he played poor.
So neither guy can win in any case.
Agassi played great at Australian Open (took peak Safin 5 sets in a titanic battle to beat him), US Open (took peak Fed 5 sets to beat him in a very good match), IW (took Fed 3 sets to beat him in the semi), Cincy (won it beating Roddick & Hewitt b2b, the match vs Roddick was a classic). Clearly better level of tennis than Rosewall in 69 who had a clear slump in 69 (compared to 68 and 70).
Safin in AO 04 final didn't play that great due to time spent on court before the final. Still he hung in there for 2 sets.
Don't see you mentioning the same for Roche in USO 70 final. Fell away big time after set1.
Don't see you mentioning Emerson being clearly past it in 69. (his last really good year was 67).
Smith was barely 16th seed in FO 69. and was hardly great on clay. Why are you bothering mentioning him at RG in 69 ?
Again 16th seed at Wimbledon.
He showed flashes of good play in 69, but his first real good year was 70.
Piettrangeli at Wimbledon ?really ?
This was the guy's record at Wimbledon in the amateurs (and one year in open era) from 61-68 :
3R 3R 3R 2R 4R 1R 2R 1R
Its like throwing in a win against major winner Roddick at RG as something significant.
As far as AO 69 is concerned, Stolle wasn't that good a player. Would've won 0 slams if tennis had been fully open.
Guys like Nalbandian in AO 04, Davydenko in AO 06, Gonzalez in AO 07 by all accounts played clearly better/were more threatening than him in AO 69.
As far as Gimeno is concerned, not great on grass. Laver himself says in his book that he thought he'd be easy for him on grass (something like that) and it proved so.
The fact that Rosewall lost to Gimeno at that AO is an indication of the slump Rosewall had in 69.
I have no problem in anyone considering Laver's 69 as the greatest single year feat, but lets not over-rate his competition or way under-rate Federer's competition in 2004, 06, 07.
Last edited:
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
Firstly, I disagree on Rosewall's clay court level of play being lower than Borg's.No, I'm not ignoring Rosewall pro career. I'm saying his prime/peak level level of play was not on par with Borg's on clay.
Read again , " Rosewall's longevity was of course clearly better, but doesn't make him the equal of Borg level-wise on clay."
Even if Rosewall won 8 French Opens in a fully open era, that'd only make him more achieved than Borg, not better level wise. (prime to prime or peak to peak)
For Nadal : from clay only to not even faced at AO and USO.
So skirting over the mistake of not considering Wimbledon 06 and 07 encounters, I see.
As far as Hewitt or Roddick playing great vs Federer is concerned , for Roddick : Wim 04 final, Wim 09 final, USO 07 QF, Canada 03 SF.
for Hewitt : USO 2005 SF, 's-Hertogenbosch 01, Paris 02 QF, YEC 02 SF...also great comeback in Davis up 03.
Federer played pretty well in Wim 09 final. Many get the impression he didn't play well in that final because he struggled vs a really excellent Roddick,whom he normally dealt with easily.
Re-watch it and you'll see it was a very well played final.
So if Federer beats Roddick convincingly, Roddick is useless, just a pigeon. If Federer struggles, its because he played poor.
So neither guy can win in any case.
Agassi played great at Australian Open (took peak Safin 5 sets in a titanic battle to beat him), US Open (took peak Fed 5 sets to beat him in a very good match), IW (took Fed 3 sets to beat him in the semi), Cincy (won it beating Roddick & Hewitt b2b, the match vs Roddick was a classic). Clearly better level of tennis than Rosewall in 69 who had a clear slump in 69 (compared to 68 and 70).
Safin in AO 04 final didn't play that great due to time spent on court before the final. Still he hung in there for 2 sets.
Don't see you mentioning the same for Roche in USO 70 final. Fell away big time after set1.
Don't see you mentioning Emerson being clearly past it in 69. (his last really good year was 67).
Smith was barely 16th seed in FO 69. and was hardly great on clay. Why are you bothering mentioning him at RG in 69 ?
Again 16th seed at Wimbledon.
He showed flashes of good play in 69, but his first real good year was 70.
Piettrangeli at Wimbledon ?really ?
This was the guy's record at Wimbledon in the amateurs (and one year in open era) from 61-68 :
3R 3R 3R 2R 4R 1R 2R 1R
Its like throwing in a win against major winner Roddick at RG as something significant.
As far as AO 69 is concerned, Stolle wasn't that good a player. Would've won 0 slams if tennis had been fully open.
Guys like Nalbandian in AO 04, Davydenko in AO 06, Gonzalez in AO 07 by all accounts played clearly better/were more threatening than him in AO 69.
As far as Gimeno is concerned, not great on grass. Laver himself says in his book that he thought he'd be easy for him on grass (something like that) and it proved so.
The fact that Rosewall lost to Gimeno at that AO is an indication of the slump Rosewall had in 69.
I have no problem in anyone considering Laver's 69 as the greatest single year feat, but lets not over-rate his competition or way under-rate Federer's competition in 2004, 06, 07.
Roddick never beat Federer in eight Grand Slam encounters, neither did Hewitt. I saw all those matches on TV. Roddick played his best and Federer, if not his worst, certainly below his usual standard at Wimbledon 2009 and Roddick still didn't win! I have also seen what is available of Laver's matches. There is a portion of that Laver Roche Ausy match online, shot in grainy black and white from a strange angle. How well Roche played and how hard Laver worked to beat him. How well Laver played to beat Ashe in the Wimbledon semis. Newcombe was a set all with Laver and Newk led 4-1 in the third before Laver reeled of a succession of awesome winners I have seen rarely equalled.
As for your comments on Agassi, I disagree. Firstly, Federer only played Agassi in 2004, not in the course of his 2006 or 2007 major wins. Agassi's movement in the later stages of his career was poor. He compensated for this somewhat with his style of play, dictating from the baseline taking the ball on the rise, but he was not the peak Agassi of 1999-2001 (also Agassi's stamina was not great by 2004. In 2005 he basically ran out of gas against Federer in the US final). The fact he and Sampras won their last majors in 2002 and 2003 was largely due to the drop in standard, as many of the best players of the 90s had retired by then. Rosewall, even at 39 in 1974, still moved great. He was still an awesome player in 1969 (even though past his peak). Ashe was in his prime in 1969, Newcombe virtually at his peak. Smith was approaching his peak. Roche was at his peak.
I agree with you on Pietrangeli, he was way past his best by 1969 and a clay courter (I had to list him, because I was listing all major winners Laver played). Stolle was one of the lesser major winners, but still a tougher player than many Federer faced. You say Gimeno was not good on grass, but he was good enough to reach the Australian singles final (and 1969 was an unusually strong field at the Australian). Laver also faced him at the French. Actually Gimeno is often underrated. Take a look at his results in his pro years in the 1960s.
I suppose at the end of the day it comes down to how you rate Laver's 1969 era as opposed to Federer's 2004-07 era. Personally I believe the period 2001-03 was the worst era in the open era, with 2004-07 just behind. You obviously see things differently and I can't prove your wrong. But before dismissing my opinion entirely, take a look at Laver's 1969 Wimbledon final with Newcombe, take a look at his match against Roche in the Australian and ask yourself this: apart from maybe Nadal at Wimbledon 06 and 07, who did Federer play that could put such resistance as those guys did in his nine (3 slams per year) slam victories in 2004, 2006 and 2007? And remember also there were several tough opponents Laver had to win each of the four slams in 1969.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
Slams are not everything though. Laver missed so many slams in his peak anyway.If you include pro slams then Laver has 19 anyway.
Last edited:
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Actually he was 26-1 in 2007, as he was a given a walkover by Haas at 2007 Wimb.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
True. True.
Funny how technically you can win all four slams in a season without having to win a single match...28 walkovers. LOL
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
All history of tennis has been a neverending weak era.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Yeah, I know
And yet people never mention this, but always jump to criticize the WTF because you can win the title after losing a match.
D
Deleted member 77403
Guest
Yeah, I know
And yet people never mention this, but always jump to criticize the WTF because you can win the title after losing a match.
That's life on the internet for you.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
What about Federer also beating Hewitt, Roddick, Safin and Agassi to win his majors?
And Borg is arguably the second best on clay, not Rosewall.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
More than compensated by Nadal winning slams at a much earlier age than Federer.
Pro tennis historian
Rookie
I am not repeating my most recent post again, so please see above.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Fed has more than just the slam count in his favor, it would be dishonesty to say otherwise.
And the young players are bad not because of the Big 3 + Murray + Stan. They aren't even losing to them that often.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The bolded is easy. They simply suckYeah i think we mostly agree. People that dont like Rafa will say the clay field was weak, the VB will say Rafa made it weak. The same can be said about 2004-2007 and 2014-now. What about the LostGen (Nishi, Dimi, Raonic) and NextGen (Zverev, Thiem etc)? Do they really su1k or are Big4 too good? And as you say, If Zverev becomes a multiple slam winner, is it because he peaked or because Big4 declined? This is where Fedovic fans disagree, did Federer decline or did Djoko peak , or something in between? You can pretty much choose your reality here
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Facing Rosewall in decline is still not the same herculean task as facing 2005-2014 Nadal on clay.
Respect for big 5
Rookie
Not sure, but kyrigos's whipped cream is the best thing since sliced bread
Similar threads
