Rios as Laver Proxy

[NLBwell]

In the Arias/Laver thread someone compared Rios to Laver and I decided that I liked that comparison and postulated that Laver would be comparable to Rios in his size and talent (of course their games were different). So here is the question:

If Rios, who reached number one in the world, had the mental strength of a multiple Grand Slam (2x) time winner such as Laver, and had a long and heathy career - how many Slam tournaments could he have won?

 

[NLBwell]

I figure maybe 4 Australians (best surface - certainly wouldn't have lost to Korda) couple of French (during the Moya-Gaudio era). Probably a US Open or two. Beating Hewitt at Wimbledon? Maybe. Could be 8.

 

[pc1]

I figure maybe 4 Australians (best surface - certainly wouldn't have lost to Korda) couple of French (during the Moya-Gaudio era). Probably a US Open or two. Beating Hewitt at Wimbledon? Maybe. Could be 8.

It's funny you mentioned Korda because I think of Korda as more similar to Laver than Rios, although both are very talented. Korda was fantastic when on his game but the steroid controversy hurt him.

 

[pjonesy]

It's funny you mentioned Korda because I think of Korda as more similar to Laver than Rios, although both are very talented. Korda was fantastic when on his game but the steroid controversy hurt him.

The thing that I have difficulty with is how different Laver and Rios played the game. I think you are right in considering the comparison between Laver and Korda. Although Korda was 6'4", he had a powerful, precise, straight ahead game, similar in many ways to Laver. Rios had a smooth topspin baseline game, and moved like a cat on the court. He had a sneaky left handed serve, returned well and was underrated as a volleyer. Laver's game was based more on precision and power. He was capable of playing beautiful tennis but I would not say that he his style of play was the most beautiful. It took quite a bit more force and strength to serve with spin and hit topspin off the ground with a wooden racquet. Laver also needed to have virtually perfect footwork to hit the kind of groundstrokes and volleys he was able to hit. Rios had a higher margin for error and did not need to take as many risks as Laver to win matches. However, even with the advances in racquet technology, Korda rarely had consistent results. Korda, with his relatively flat serve and his hard, flat, precise groundstrokes, needed to be almost perfect with his timing and rhythm. Basically, his timing had to be perfect in order to play his most effective game. Considering what Laver had to work with, that is what makes his ability (at 5'8") so impressive.

 

[kiki]

I´ve seen Rios play often and so Laver and Rios could, at his very best, be able to do 40% of what Laver was.It´d have taken much more than Laver´s mind, it´d have taken Laver´s speed,Laver´s judgement, Laver´s volley,Laver´s wrist, Laver´s serve, Laver´s....well, Laver´s talent.

 

[hoodjem]

Laver's will was huge, but so was his talent. He worked harder than anyone and everyone, and still loved to practice.

Laver was the very best. He knew it, and with the utmost humility he demanded it of himself.

 

[borg number one]

I'll post this video in a couple of spots, because it really should be appreciated. See Laver vs. Ashe in the 1969 SF, with extremely good quality. Hope you enjoy it. It's about 10 minutes packed with shotmaking action.


http://vimeo.com/16356578

 

[Devilito]

I´ve seen Rios play often and so Laver and Rios could, at his very best, be able to do 40% of what Laver was.It´d have taken much more than Laver´s mind, it´d have taken Laver´s speed,Laver´s judgement, Laver´s volley,Laver´s wrist, Laver´s serve, Laver´s....well, Laver´s talent.

I'd take Rios at his best against anyone on tour today sans the top 3 which would be competitive. Rios had insane talent. His mental aspect killed him yet he still managed a number 1 world ranking on pretty much talent alone. Laver's speed, you kidding? Rios was lightning fast

 

[borg number one]

I'd take Rios at his best against anyone on tour today sans the top 3 which would be competitive. Rios had insane talent. His mental aspect killed him yet he still managed a number 1 world ranking on pretty much talent alone. Laver's speed, you kidding? Rios was lightning fast

Tennis is a very mental sport and Laver and Rios are not even in the same stratosphere when it comes to mental toughness. Then, you can go down the list and Laver trumps him on so many counts. On a fast court, I don't think Rios could really push him. On a slow clay court, more competitive, but Laver had much too much skill, talent, brains, you name it.

 

[Devilito]

Tennis is a very mental sport and Laver and Rios are not even in the same stratosphere when it comes to mental toughness.

ummm that's the whole point of this thread. That was my point. What's your point?

 

[borg number one]

ummm that's the whole point of this thread. That was my point. What's your point?

True, but it's so difficult to separate that component out from the rest. Then, even without that advantage, I think Laver had too much skill, talent, and "court smarts", not just "mental toughness". So, when I talk about the mental aspect, it's not just "drive", ability under fire, etc, but Laver could solve "player puzzles" so to speak. When I watch him play, he looks like he's thinking 2-3 shots ahead constantly.

 

[dominikk1985]

wow rios and laver in the same sentence.

rios for sure had some talent and was a good player, but laver is at least top3 all time, maybe even the goat (considering he didn't play the GS in maybe his 5 best years-take away nadals or federers 5 best years and see what is left. but this is not the point here even if you rank fed and sampras ahead of him he is still one of the very best).

rios was a fine player, but I think one could even say he was the weakest no.1 of all time. he could have one a slam or two in that weak period (I would say the period from about 98-05 was very weak-sampras and agassi were in the decline and federer and nadal just arrived so it was kind of a in between era with weak no.1 guys like moya, kafelnikov, rios, kuerten, ferrero).

but I would say that rios just benefited from his weak period in the late 90s/early00s. in the fedal era or the sampras era he likely would have only been a bottom half of the top10 player (or maybe top5 at best).

the only thing rios and laver have in common is that they both had fantastic BHs. Rios BH was certainly a thing of beauty. maybe one of the best ever coupled with ability to hit the ball extremely early made him a dangerous player. But I think his FH and serve lacked compared to real great players.

 

[kiki]

True, but it's so difficult to separate that component out from the rest. Then, even without that advantage, I think Laver had too much skill, talent, and "court smarts", not just "mental toughness". So, when I talk about the mental aspect, it's not just "drive", ability under fire, etc, but Laver could solve "player puzzles" so to speak. When I watch him play, he looks like he's thinking 2-3 shots ahead constantly.

True.I´ve stated before that, of the many talents one discovers every time one sees Laver , that one most amazing for me is his ability to think beforehanded and the ability to switch tactics no matter when.A Chess master with a massive wrist and the greatest shotmaking ability.


( by the way, great match vs Arthur, the first 3 sets are considered among the greatest motions of tennis ever, no doubt why).

 

[hoodjem]

I'll post this video in a couple of spots, because it really should be appreciated. See Laver vs. Ashe in the 1969 SF, with extremely good quality. Hope you enjoy it. It's about 10 minutes packed with shotmaking action.

http://vimeo.com/16356578

Damn that is some good stuff!

 

[pc1]

I'll post this video in a couple of spots, because it really should be appreciated. See Laver vs. Ashe in the 1969 SF, with extremely good quality. Hope you enjoy it. It's about 10 minutes packed with shotmaking action.


http://vimeo.com/16356578

Jack Kramer wrote that either man couldn't have beaten anyone who ever lived in the first two sets.

Incidentally I think some here didn't realize Ashe's firepower. He had a very powerful flat serve but he complimented it with a great slice serve which could really pull you wide. He had a great backhand and backhand volley. His backhand could be hit like lightning and his versatility on his backhand was second to none. His forehand was very powerful but his forehand volley was a bit error prone for those times but it would be considered excellent today. Ashe's problem was that he just played too low percentage in going for too many winners.

Ashe blasted Laver off the court in the first set. People at Wimbledon were in awe of that set. Laver thought that he (Laver) played very well in that set but Ashe was just too good.

I can't think of many players in tennis history who had the so much power in so many strokes.

 

[urban]

Nice backhand there from Arthur at ca. 1 minute, clean through Laver's bow legs. I once made stats from the whole video, which is available. Despite losing the first set 2-6, Laver made 11 clean no service winners to Arthur's 13 or so in that first set. Some fireworks there.

 

[hoodjem]

Jack Kramer wrote that either man couldn't have beaten anyone who ever lived in the first two sets.

Incidentally I think some here didn't realize Ashe's firepower. He had a
Ashe blasted Laver off the court in the first set. People at Wimbledon were in awe of that set. Laver thought that he (Laver) played very well in that set but Ashe was just too good.

I believe that later in his career, Ashe said that that first set was the best he ever played.




I think it is a measure of Laver's greatness that in the the second and third sets he found a way to either rise to Ashe's level, or to "bring him down to earth." In the fourth set, he crushed Ashe.

 

[kiki]

In his book Laver describes that match as the challenge point of the new generation (Ashe,Roche and Newcombe) over the former one (Laver,Rosewall and Emerson), and how bad Ashe wanted to beat him and make the torch change hands.