Rocket on a mission. 1969

urban

Legend
Rod Laver played a endless summer in 1969, a rainy summer however. After being banned for over 5 of his best pro years, he was eager, to show his class again at the big stages, even at age 30. Now all big events were open, which gave him lots of motivation. After his Wimbledon win of 1968, he set out for his purchase of the Grand Slam again. The other guys knew it and they tried mightily to prevent him from doing so. They were a bunch of hard bred fighters from Laver's own generation like Emerson, Stolle, Gimeno and the ageless Rosewall. And there was a new generation x of younger and hungry stars like Newcombe, Roche, Okker, Ashe and Smith.
In the first quarter of the season, Tony Roche challenged Laver severely, and won tight matches with his lefthanded serve curling into Laver's body. But the big one, the Australian semi was won by Laver in 93 games under extremely hot conditions; the first set went to 22-20, it looked 2-0 on the scoreboard. Laver had problems with his elbow and wrist in spring, but anyway won Johannesburg on hard court, MSG on a slow supreme court, and then - quite easily - Paris. Only Dick Crealy, a big fellow from Down Under had him on the ropes at RG. His finest match probably was his semi with flying Dutchman Tom Okker, a fine slugfest of two fast roadrunners. At the Big W, Laver survived a scare against Indian Lall, losing the first two sets, but winning the last 15 games. Smith, Drysdale, Ashe and Newcombe put him to a severe test, each with different tactics. Ashe tried to overpower him, Newk to outfox him, but in both cases, Laver's supreme shotmaking came through. After Wimbledon, Laver went on a high, winning 31 straight matches in the next weeks up to Forest Hills. Ashe remembered that Laver was scary, because he won week after week, Boston on hard just one week after Wim on grass, although people like Okker, Rosewall and Newcombe challenged him there. On the slippery mud at Forest Hills, Laver overcame strong attacks by Ralston, Emmo, Ashe and Roche. On the internet we can see clips of this final match with Roche. It's suprisingly good, despite the catastrophic surface conditions. A helicopter had tried to dry up the court, but it was so soggy, that Laver was allowed to put on spikes.
So finally Rocket's long summer ended. He had some letdowns afterwards, because he was mentally tired, and his wife was long overdue with a child, his son, who certainly was the most important win of his life. But at Wembley, in a 64 men draw with all the big guns present, he excelled again, destroying Roche, his nemesis from the beginning of the year in 3 straight sets. All in all in 1969, he won 18 events out of 31 played, over all continents and all kinds of surfaces. Although having some mental lapses in some sets, he always stepped on the pedal, found another gear and came through at the right moments. When his serve and backhand began to work, he was unstoppable. Like the Apollo mission the same year, The Rocket flew to the moon.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Laver's 1969 tennis season is obviously considered one of the great seasons of all time, perhaps arguably the greatest but considering that he would be 31 in August of that year you wonder how many majors he missed if he was not banned during the peak of his career.

It's not only the majors but how much more would he have accomplished if Open Tennis was allowed during 1963 to 1967. You wonder the same about Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Sedgman and Kramer for the years they were not allowed to play.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Laver's 1969 tennis season is obviously considered one of the great seasons of all time, perhaps arguably the greatest but considering that he would be 31 in August of that year you wonder how many majors he missed if he was not banned during the peak of his career.

It's not only the majors but how much more would he have accomplished if Open Tennis was allowed during 1963 to 1967. You wonder the same about Gonzalez, Rosewall, Hoad, Segura, Sedgman and Kramer for the years they were not allowed to play.

I don't know if Laver would have won any majors against the top pros before 1963. But, he won 8 out of 15 pro majors against the best of the best. I think he could have won 10-12 out of the 20 majors he missed during that same 5 year stretch. Add that to the 5 he won in 68-69 and you have 15-17 total. And, if the majors paid as much as the top pro events in the beginning of the open era, and there weren't the contract disputes that kept many pros from playing the majors, I think he would have won another 2-3 majors after 1969.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Obviously, a landmark year.

I do wonder what was Laver's win-loss record for 1969. (If he won 18 of 31 tournaments entered, it was far from perfect and had plenty of losses in there.)



One thing I am quite curious about is the number of 31 tournaments entered. Is this possible?

(I just checked the ATP website, and it appears that Djokovic was in 15 tournaments this year.)
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Obviously, a landmark year.

I do wonder what was Laver's win-loss record for 1969. (If he won 18 of 31 tournaments entered, it was far from perfect and had plenty of losses in there.)



One thing I am quite curious about is the number of 31 tournaments entered. Is this possible?

(I just checked the ATP website, and it appears that Djokovic was in 15 tournaments this year.)

I think it was 106-16 but I'll check later. Too lazy to check now.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Obviously, a landmark year.

I do wonder what was Laver's win-loss record for 1969. (If he won 18 of 31 tournaments entered, it was far from perfect and had plenty of losses in there.)



One thing I am quite curious about is the number of 31 tournaments entered. Is this possible?

(I just checked the ATP website, and it appears that Djokovic was in 15 tournaments this year.)

As I recall, many of the pro events back then were 32 draw one week events. So, it's quite possible.
 

joe sch

Legend
Rod Laver played a endless summer in 1969, a rainy summer however. After being banned for over 5 of his best pro years, he was eager, to show his class again at the big stages, even at age 30. Now all big events were open, which gave him lots of motivation. After his Wimbledon win of 1968, he set out for his purchase of the Grand Slam again. The other guys knew it and they tried mightily to prevent him from doing so. They were a bunch of hard bred fighters from Laver's own generation like Emerson, Stolle, Gimeno and the ageless Rosewall. And there was a new generation x of younger and hungry stars like Newcombe, Roche, Okker, Ashe and Smith.
In the first quarter of the season, Tony Roche challenged Laver severely, and won tight matches with his lefthanded serve curling into Laver's body. But the big one, the Australian semi was won by Laver in 93 games under extremely hot conditions; the first set went to 22-20, it looked 2-0 on the scoreboard. Laver had problems with his elbow and wrist in spring, but anyway won Johannesburg on hard court, MSG on a slow supreme court, and then - quite easily - Paris. Only Dick Crealy, a big fellow from Down Under had him on the ropes at RG. His finest match probably was his semi with flying Dutchman Tom Okker, a fine slugfest of two fast roadrunners. At the Big W, Laver survived a scare against Indian Lall, losing the first two sets, but winning the last 15 games. Smith, Drysdale, Ashe and Newcombe put him to a severe test, each with different tactics. Ashe tried to overpower him, Newk to outfox him, but in both cases, Laver's supreme shotmaking came through. After Wimbledon, Laver went on a high, winning 31 straight matches in the next weeks up to Forest Hills. Ashe remembered that Laver was scary, because he won week after week, Boston on hard just one week after Wim on grass, although people like Okker, Rosewall and Newcombe challenged him there. On the slippery mud at Forest Hills, Laver overcame strong attacks by Ralston, Emmo, Ashe and Roche. On the internet we can see clips of this final match with Roche. It's suprisingly good, despite the catastrophic surface conditions. A helicopter had tried to dry up the court, but it was so soggy, that Laver was allowed to put on spikes.
So finally Rocket's long summer ended. He had some letdowns afterwards, because he was mentally tired, and his wife was long overdue with a child, his son, who certainly was the most important win of his life. But at Wembley, in a 64 men draw with all the big guns present, he excelled again, destroying Roche, his nemesis from the beginning of the year in 3 straight sets. All in all in 1969, he won 18 events out of 31 played, over all continents and all kinds of surfaces. Although having some mental lapses in some sets, he always stepped on the pedal, found another gear and came through at the right moments. When his serve and backhand began to work, he was unstoppable. Like the Apollo mission the same year, The Rocket flew to the moon.

Wonderful nutshell of Lavers 69 grand slam year !
It is amazing that he played 31 tournaments, especially since I know he also played a fair amount of doubles. As Limpinhitter noted, many of those tournies were 32 draws but those are still very busy weeks. I do know that he won the AO doubles and was a finalist in the FO doubles with Roy Emerson. I think the only more recent player that has come close to such domination in both singles and doubles in John McEnroe who won several major championships in both.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
Boy, it truly shows how much the game has changed that a 30 year old could dominate the sport. That would never happen today...no 30 year old would win the Grand Slam, no matter how good he was. If he did, that would be the ultimate sign of a "weak era."
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
^If you're north of 25 now, your best days are likely over. I'm simply pointing out how the game is much more intense now and players aren't able to compete as long due to the grueling schedule, increased competition, more physically demanding game and equipment, ect. so there is no need to get all bent out of shape. Laver was great for his day, but he wouldn't have been able to do what he did in the 90s, for example. Likewise, guys like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi would have very good odds of winning the Grand Slam had they played in Rodney's era. This is my opinion. No one would have seen a serve like Sampras--he'd eat up those grass court tournaments.
 

joe sch

Legend
Boy, it truly shows how much the game has changed that a 30 year old could dominate the sport. That would never happen today...no 30 year old would win the Grand Slam, no matter how good he was. If he did, that would be the ultimate sign of a "weak era."

Not really, just takes a certain timeslot in tennis history, which usually involves the strongest players slowing down and the younger players not yet finding thier primes. Nadal almost pulled off a grand slam a few years ago and all the modern fans think the level of todays play is stronger than ever. Federer almost pulled it off 1/2 decade ago before Nadal hit his prime.

The competition in 1969 was very strong with many multi slam level champions competing.
 

kiki

Banned
Many people doesn´t realize how difficult it was to face that kind of competition, day in , day out and prevail.It takes, not just talent and a great body but a will beyond the normal.

And he put pressure onto himself when he announced he would go for the Gran Slam that year.Besides, he alos won Souht Africa, Longwood and the MSG event; I am not sure he also added the Wembley title that year, which was considered the unofficial world pro championship.
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Boy, it truly shows how much the game has changed that a 30 year old could dominate the sport. That would never happen today...no 30 year old would win the Grand Slam, no matter how good he was. If he did, that would be the ultimate sign of a "weak era."

You're missing an important distinction. Humans in Laver's era didn't grow up and reach physical maturity as young as they do today. Laver didn't reach his prime in tennis until he was 25. He was on top for 6-7 years. IMO, 30 was, and still is, your physical prime if you are otherwise physically and mentally healthy. But, if you've been on top suffering the wear and tear of the tour from the age of 18, 19, then you can't expect to still be at that level, physically or mentally, when you're 30, the only exceptions I know of being Gonzales and Rosewall.

Having said all that, Fed may yet prove that he has the longevity to get back to the top at 30+. Physically he can definitely do it.
 

NLBwell

Legend
But, if you've been on top suffering the wear and tear of the tour from the age of 18, 19, then you can't expect to still be at that level, physically or mentally, when you're 30, the only exceptions I know of being Gonzales and Rosewall.

Having said all that, Fed may yet prove that he has the longevity to get back to the top at 30+. Physically he can definitely do it.

Gonzales took several breaks where he didn't play tennis and focused on other things. This probably helped his longevity.
 

BTURNER

Legend
Gonzales took several breaks where he didn't play tennis and focused on other things. This probably helped his longevity.

physically maturity has decidedly moved earlier, and those hormonal changes overwith sooner. How has that affected the ideal emotional maturity age for a champion. Has it moved earlier?
I think several potential great champions peaked so early physically, and by the time they had peaked emotionally enough to stay consistent, they had lost their physical edge over competitors, and some confidence, Becker is exhibit A of a gap that was fatal to that sense of invincibility that means so much for a period of years. . Had his physical peak been delayed a few years, he might actually won more with longer dominance.
 

Chopin

Hall of Fame
I'd like to see some statistics on this boys. How many years do you think it's moved? I mean, come on!
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Gonzales took several breaks where he didn't play tennis and focused on other things. This probably helped his longevity.

That's true! But, Rosewall won his first major at 18 and his last major at 36, and played the W and USO final at 39, and he didn't take any significant breaks.
 

adidasman

Professional
^If you're north of 25 now, your best days are likely over. I'm simply pointing out how the game is much more intense now and players aren't able to compete as long due to the grueling schedule, increased competition, more physically demanding game and equipment, ect. so there is no need to get all bent out of shape. Laver was great for his day, but he wouldn't have been able to do what he did in the 90s, for example. Likewise, guys like Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Agassi would have very good odds of winning the Grand Slam had they played in Rodney's era. This is my opinion. No one would have seen a serve like Sampras--he'd eat up those grass court tournaments.
The equipment is more physically demanding? Are you joking? And are you seriously going to suggest that Sampras' serve would have been the same in 1969 if he was hitting with a Kramer Autograph? You make your arguments, as always, twisting the data to support your position. Thankfully, the real Chopin had more than one note in his repertoire...
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Boy, it truly shows how much the game has changed that a 30 year old could dominate the sport. That would never happen today...no 30 year old would win the Grand Slam, no matter how good he was. If he did, that would be the ultimate sign of a "weak era."
Look who's quoting the "weak era" mantra now.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Did anyone ever notice that topics about the past, especially Laver eventually evolve into the same tired stuff?

Wasn't this a topic about Laver and what he accomplished in 1969? Why put it down? If someone wanted a topic about Federer and how great he was in 2006 I wouldn't change it to the same tired stuff.
 

treblings

Hall of Fame
Did anyone ever notice that topics about the past, especially Laver eventually evolve into the same tired stuff?

Wasn't this a topic about Laver and what he accomplished in 1969? Why put it down? If someone wanted a topic about Federer and how great he was in 2006 I wouldn't change it to the same tired stuff.

i notice it frequently.
it reminds me of a group of people who meet at the local pub every evening and who talk about the same things every evening and eventually you know what everybody´s going to say before they actually say it:)
usually once the thread has been going on for some time you can´t even tell the original topic
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
i notice it frequently.
it reminds me of a group of people who meet at the local pub every evening and who talk about the same things every evening and eventually you know what everybody´s going to say before they actually say it:)
usually once the thread has been going on for some time you can´t even tell the original topic

True. People of course have their right to say whatever they want but I think the purpose of these threads were to comment and give information on the topic. Yet you know some are going to write certain things if a player if named in the topic. I've done it when I've defended Laver for example.

I've gotten used to it and expect it now but it is disappointing to me that an excellent topic like this can deteriorate in the usual regular argument that we've seen in what seems like a billion Former Pro Player Talk discussion.

Anyway to get back on topic. There are some questions about the won-lost record of Laver not being as dominant as far as winning percentage is concerned. That is an excellent point. However I believe it is reasonable to think that when a player plays so many tournaments (didn't Laver play some one nighters also that year?) and matches that it is natural for the winning percentage to go down. There is no time to rest so there is injury and exhaustion that will cause some additional losses.

I believe Laver was an extremely dominant player into his early thirties. The 1971 Tennis Champions Classic is a perfect example of this in which he won 13 without a loss to win that tournament. It was not expected that anyone would win that tournament without a loss. It was expected to be more like a round robin type format but Laver changed that by not losing against great players like Rosewall, Roche, Newcombe, Ashe, Okker, Ralston, Taylor, Emerson. Some of these opponents lost more than once to Laver during this streak. The match I am curious about in that tournament is one where Okker said he played the finest match of his life and got crushed by Laver in three straight sets. There was a description of one point during that match if I recall in which Okker caught Laver flatfooted in the forecourt and somehow Laver ran back, got to the ball and passed Okker. The crowd and even the umpire was stunned by that shot. Can we think of many players who could go 13-0 against that competition? Not too many in the history of tennis could do that.

Laver's winning percentage that year I believe was very close to Pete Sampras' best year in 1994 in terms of winning percentage and Games Won Percentage but he did in with a much larger amount of matches played. Sampras was 77-12 and Laver 106-16. Very comparable percentages.

I truly believe that a younger Laver would have been even more dominant but he never had the chance to prove it because there was no Open Tennis.

As far as the argument about how physical the game is, from my own experience it's far harder to play with a wood racquet as opposed to the ones we play with today. The tennis shoes are also far better today. I used to get blisters all the time and I never get that now. Trust me, when I play I do a lot of running and you figure I would get some blisters on occasion but I just don't anymore.

Incidentally did anyone consider that the reason some greats like Laver, Rosewall, Connors, Gonzalez and nowadays Federer did so well into their thirties is because they were so great that even in a decline stage they were still more than capable of winning? For the Women Martina Navratilova was pretty great into her late thirties and the obvious reason is while she declined she was so good she could beat anyone, even Steffi Graf at times.
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
Good points pc1. I don't want to defend Laver and i don't need to defend him for his percentage. Given the 122 matches played, it is still a fine percentage. Who has won 106 matches in a season. Maybe Vilas? In 1962, Laver won 22 tournaments and i think 150-14 matches. Also excellent is Laver's match loss percentage overall in open era, when he was 30-40 years, which is 80% and in the range of the very best.
In those times players had to play against their guarranties. Laver had a contract with George McCall, who sent him all over the world as the highlight of the NTL pro group. There was no rest or injury lay off. And all matches played are counted. Modern players have not all matches counted. Federer for instance in his great years 2004-7 played some invitationals like the Koyong Classic, where he lost to Agassi, Haas and Roddick. But those losses are not counted in most lists i have seen (there is a great thread on another mens forum (history department) about important invitationals with complete lists). Look now at Djokovic. The modern player can regulate his schedule more. When he was struggling with exhaustion at seasons end, he didn't play at tournaments like the Asia tour, or scratched in the middle of a tournaments, see Paris. So he can officially avoid losses, and can behold his good percentage (which is greatly depending on the loss number). Which numbers has Djoker now: 70-6? or something. That is almost 50 matches in the season minor to the amount Laver played in 1969. And Djoker is grasping for air like a dog. Also Nadal or Federer have skipped several times events like Paris, Halle or Basle, when feeling exhaustion or had injury problems. This is a luxury, modern players have, while the old pros, with comparatively little money at stake, really had to play week in week out for their existence.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Good points pc1. I don't want to defend Laver and i don't need to defend him for his percentage. Given the 122 matches played, it is still a fine percentage. Who has won 106 matches in a season. Maybe Vilas? In 1962, Laver won 22 tournaments and i think 150-14 matches. Also excellent is Laver's match loss percentage overall in open era, when he was 30-40 years, which is 80% and in the range of the very best.
In those times players had to play against their guarranties. Laver had a contract with George McCall, who sent him all over the world as the highlight of the NTL pro group. There was no rest or injury lay off. And all matches played are counted. Modern players have not all matches counted. Federer for instance in his great years 2004-7 played some invitationals like the Koyong Classic, where he lost to Agassi, Haas and Roddick. But those losses are not counted in most lists i have seen (there is a great thread on another mens forum (history department) about important invitationals with complete lists). Look now at Djokovic. The modern player can regulate his schedule more. When he was struggling with exhaustion at seasons end, he didn't play at tournaments like the Asia tour, or scratched in the middle of a tournaments, see Paris. So he can officially avoid losses, and can behold his good percentage (which is greatly depending on the loss number). Which numbers has Djoker now: 70-6? or something. That is almost 50 matches in the season minor to the amount Laver played in 1969. And Djoker is grasping for air like a dog. Also Nadal or Federer have skipped several times events like Paris, Halle or Basle, when feeling exhaustion or had injury problems. This is a luxury, modern players have, while the old pros, with comparatively little money at stake, really had to play week in week out for their existence.

Of course and when you consider that Laver and many of the Old Pro Tour group used to drive on occasion to their destinations to play the next day among other things you realize what a tough nomadic life they led. Nowadays they fly first class or have perhaps a personal jet. They have teams of coaches, people to check what they eat and personal trainers. The hotels they stay in are always top notch today.

The lack of tiebreakers were also an big problem because a Laver can have some extremely long sets like the one Laver had in 1969 in the Australian Open semi against Tony Roche. I believe the score was 22 to 20. You can't have 22-20 sets now except in the fifth set of some majors. Laver won the first two sets, lost the next two and barely survived against Tony Roche who was at or near the top of his game. Two players who I am disappointed didn't accomplish as much as they should have due to injury were Tony Roche and Miloslav Mecir. Roche from what I heard was beating Lendl in practice sets on grass in the early 1980's. He was a gifted talent. So many thought he would succeed Laver.

Still Roche did extremely well in his career. He did win one major and he won about 45 tournaments in his career I believe according to Vainquers.

I understand that it's tough today also but for some to say it's a more physical game today, well to me that's very debatable.
 
Last edited:

timnz

Legend
The Myth exploded

Good points pc1. I don't want to defend Laver and i don't need to defend him for his percentage. Given the 122 matches played, it is still a fine percentage. Who has won 106 matches in a season. Maybe Vilas? In 1962, Laver won 22 tournaments and i think 150-14 matches. Also excellent is Laver's match loss percentage overall in open era, when he was 30-40 years, which is 80% and in the range of the very best.
In those times players had to play against their guarranties. Laver had a contract with George McCall, who sent him all over the world as the highlight of the NTL pro group. There was no rest or injury lay off. And all matches played are counted. Modern players have not all matches counted. Federer for instance in his great years 2004-7 played some invitationals like the Koyong Classic, where he lost to Agassi, Haas and Roddick. But those losses are not counted in most lists i have seen (there is a great thread on another mens forum (history department) about important invitationals with complete lists). Look now at Djokovic. The modern player can regulate his schedule more. When he was struggling with exhaustion at seasons end, he didn't play at tournaments like the Asia tour, or scratched in the middle of a tournaments, see Paris. So he can officially avoid losses, and can behold his good percentage (which is greatly depending on the loss number). Which numbers has Djoker now: 70-6? or something. That is almost 50 matches in the season minor to the amount Laver played in 1969. And Djoker is grasping for air like a dog. Also Nadal or Federer have skipped several times events like Paris, Halle or Basle, when feeling exhaustion or had injury problems. This is a luxury, modern players have, while the old pros, with comparatively little money at stake, really had to play week in week out for their existence.

Thanks for exposing the myth that 'Players today are so much better conditioned, and tougher...!' Even though there is no evidence for that whatsoever. Players today only have to play best of five sets in Slams and Davis Cup - whereas in Lavers day best of 5 set tournaments were common. As you have seen the top players played a lot more tennis than current players. There was no sitting down on change of ends. Players often drove between tournaments rather than flew. No personal trainers, physic's etc.
What I can't work out to be blunt, why are players today so much less fit than the players of the past?
 

joe sch

Legend
Thanks for exposing the myth that 'Players today are so much better conditioned, and tougher...!' Even though there is no evidence for that whatsoever. Players today only have to play best of five sets in Slams and Davis Cup - whereas in Lavers day best of 5 set tournaments were common. As you have seen the top players played a lot more tennis than current players. There was no sitting down on change of ends. Players often drove between tournaments rather than flew. No personal trainers, physic's etc.
What I can't work out to be blunt, why are players today so much less fit than the players of the past?

Its really simple, today players are playing lots more on hard courts with stiff rackets. The players in Lavers era played many more tennis matches, especially considering the doubles. Todays players are stronger and can baseline bash better but also as a result of these conditions (courts, equipment) breakdown sooner and retire younger. Bring back more slower courts and the game will be rewarded with more allcourt play and players that last longer. Many players may even decide to play softer more flexible rackets that are better performing for allcourt play. Ofcourse the manufactures would have start making more varied rackets like in the 80s and 90s and this would cut down profit margins and raise the prices of rackets. Sorry, Im really starting to go off tangent now :)
 
Last edited:

urban

Legend
Yep. Joe is right, i forgot the full doubles schedule. Many tournaments in 1969 like the Spoga Cup at Cologne, promoted by Juergen Grosse, were originated because Laver played there. He was the big drawing card, the first open era superstar, the first who, despite being not so handsome, got marketing contracts for extra tennis products like peanuts or razors. Later Newcombe with his Magnum Tom Selleck charme and Ashe with his special charisma got good marketing money, too. Rosewall for instance never was a great drawing card. Since the mid 70s the bad boys (Jimbo, Nasty, Mac) took over, who were popular but not beloved. Borg built the marketing contrast, especially in Europe.
 
Rocket on a mission. 1969. That's a very nice thread title Urban that's so apt, given what Laver accomplished that year. As you have described so well, it was more than him just winning all four majors. He showed remarkable consistency, but was still able to raise his level during the biggest matches. Urban, I also appreciate your take on things in post #23 especially. Your descriptions of what his year must have been like add a lot of context. The top players then had heavier playing schedule, much tougher travel, less "flexibility" in scheduling, less money all the way around, shorter time between points, and the list goes on. Also, even if there were fewer pros in total, Laver had a "dense" schedule, packed with matches against other top flight players, who went toe to toe with him on a very regular basis. That cannot be easy to say the least. It was very different. The political angle is also fascinating. So much was out of Laver's hands. So, it's not as simple as saying "the game is tougher and more physical" today. Well, what exactly does that mean? It is tougher perhaps in certain ways, but less so in others. It is more physical in some ways, but less so in others. There were certainly fewer loud grunts, fist pumps, and shouts.

So, the context added to the discussion is really superb in my opinion. Mr. Laver had many great years of tennis besides 1969 as has been discussed, but what about 1968 may have propelled him somewhat? The year 1968 marked the beginning of the Open Era in tennis. I see that he lost to Cliff Drysdale at the '68 US Open (4th rd.) but won Wimbledon by beating Tony Roche in the final. The 1968 French Open was the first major to allow pros to compete. Rosewall beat Laver in the final of that tournament in 4 sets. Meanwhile, in 1968, there was no Australian "Open" as pros were still not able to compete in those Australian Championships. So, you have Laver getting to the FO final, winning Wimbledon, and then being upset at the US Open as the Open Era kicked off. Yet, was it a case of Laver really being "extra motivated" due to results that were not up to par in his estimation? Fewer injuries perhaps? I'm curious as to how he transitioned so well from 1968 into 1969. Perhaps that first Australian Open in 1969 gave him just the right kick off to his stellar campaign?
 
Last edited:
Here is a clip from that 1969 Australian Open SF, followed by clips from the '69 FO, W, and the US Open finals.

aaLAVER_wideweb__470x332,0.jpg


0826_large.jpg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FquHcwZByWE ('69 AO SF, a classic encounter against Roche that is just beautiful to watch.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvK-1tUvQM ('69 FO)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePo6KcGQd4M ('69 W Final, beats Newcombe in 4 sets. Thanks Krosero)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y2CpBpV5pg&feature=related ('69 US Open, Thanks BorgForever)
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
I want to comment on Laver's winning percentage and why it was never quite as high as some of his fellow all time greats. For those who remember him in his prime, Laver's relentless high powered, highly aggressive, game was a double edged sword. When "on" (which he almost always was), he played the highest level of tennis ever seen. When off, he was vulnerable to players he would ordinarily dominate. Laver's mindset was to never temporize his stroke production or his game. And he never did. The fact is, when Laver was on, he was simply unbeatable. And, when he went down, he went down swinging.

Further, by wood racquet standards, Laver's game would would have been a low percentage game but for two factors: (1) his heavy topspin groundies, and (2) his unmatched talent and athleticism. Among all of the great wood racquet era champions, IMO, Laver would have been the one who would have been the most successful with modern racquets. His stroke production was very modern and the larger sweet spot and lighter weight racquets would have suited Laver more than anyone else of his era. All this to say that, with a modern racquet, even in the modern era, I believe that Laver's winning percentage would have been among the best ever.
 

urban

Legend
True, Laver was always a bit of a flashy player. He needed timing for his risky, wristy game, and could have within his matches some walkabouts (not so much as Evonne), when his concentration wavered a bit. Also he was a quite bad, lazy starter, who needed some time for his left arm to get warm - in a match or in a tournament series. But when he got into his form after two or three tournaments, he could really go nuts, making long streaks of unbeaten runs. In 1962, he won virtually all significant tournaments he entered, in 1965 and 1967 on the pro tour, he each year won 8 or 9 pro events en suite on a streak, in 1969 he was unbeaten against strongest opposition for 31 matches in the deep summer season between Wim and Forest Hills. He was the first to win 3 WCT events in 3 weeks (1972), and even in 1975 at age 37, he still won a record of 23 matches and 4 tournaments en suite in 4 weeks of the WCT tour.
Comparing his overall percentages against contemporaries as Gonzalez, Hoad, Emerson, Newcombe, Ashe and Rosewall, his percentage is, as far as i know, is clearly the highest.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Boy, it truly shows how much the game has changed that a 30 year old could dominate the sport. That would never happen today...no 30 year old would win the Grand Slam, no matter how good he was. If he did, that would be the ultimate sign of a "weak era."
Did anyone ever notice that topics about the past, especially Laver eventually evolve into the same tired stuff?

Wasn't this a topic about Laver and what he accomplished in 1969? Why put it down? If someone wanted a topic about Federer and how great he was in 2006 I wouldn't change it to the same tired stuff.
Quoted for truth.

Of course we realize that if Fed wins a Grand Slam this year at age 30-31, then these same people will trumpet it as unassailable proof that Federer's supreme greatness has triumphed, and it demonstrates absolutely how strong is this era.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Of course and when you consider that Laver and many of the Old Pro Tour group used to drive on occasion to their destinations to play the next day among other things you realize what a tough nomadic life they led. Nowadays they fly first class or have perhaps a personal jet. They have teams of coaches, people to check what they eat and personal trainers. The hotels they stay in are always top notch today.

The lack of tiebreakers were also an big problem because a Laver can have some extremely long sets like the one Laver had in 1969 in the Australian Open semi against Tony Roche. I believe the score was 22 to 20. You can't have 22-20 sets now except in the fifth set of some majors. Laver won the first two sets, lost the next two and barely survived against Tony Roche who was at or near the top of his game. Two players who I am disappointed didn't accomplish as much as they should have due to injury were Tony Roche and Miloslav Mecir. Roche from what I heard was beating Lendl in practice sets on grass in the early 1980's. He was a gifted talent. So many thought he would succeed Laver.

Still Roche did extremely well in his career. He did win one major and he won about 45 tournaments in his career I believe according to Vainquers.

I understand that it's tough today also but for some to say it's a more physical game today, well to me that's very debatable.

I personally saw Roche in the early 80´s and, sure, at that point, he was far better than 21 years old Lendl on grass.No doubt about.
 

kiki

Banned
Rocket on a mission. 1969. That's a very nice thread title Urban that's so apt, given what Laver accomplished that year. As you have described so well, it was more than him just winning all four majors. He showed remarkable consistency, but was still able to raise his level during the biggest matches. Urban, I also appreciate your take on things in post #23 especially. Your descriptions of what his year must have been like add a lot of context. The top players then had heavier playing schedule, much tougher travel, less "flexibility" in scheduling, less money all the way around, shorter time between points, and the list goes on. Also, even if there were fewer pros in total, Laver had a "dense" schedule, packed with matches against other top flight players, who went toe to toe with him on a very regular basis. That cannot be easy to say the least. It was very different. The political angle is also fascinating. So much was out of Laver's hands. So, it's not as simple as saying "the game is tougher and more physical" today. Well, what exactly does that mean? It is tougher perhaps in certain ways, but less so in others. It is more physical in some ways, but less so in others. There were certainly fewer loud grunts, fist pumps, and shouts.

So, the context added to the discussion is really superb in my opinion. Mr. Laver had many great years of tennis besides 1969 as has been discussed, but what about 1968 may have propelled him somewhat? The year 1968 marked the beginning of the Open Era in tennis. I see that he lost to Cliff Drysdale at the '68 US Open (4th rd.) but won Wimbledon by beating Tony Roche in the final. The 1968 French Open was the first major to allow pros to compete. Rosewall beat Laver in the final of that tournament in 4 sets. Meanwhile, in 1968, there was no Australian "Open" as pros were still not able to compete in those Australian Championships. So, you have Laver getting to the FO final, winning Wimbledon, and then being upset at the US Open as the Open Era kicked off. Yet, was it a case of Laver really being "extra motivated" due to results that were not up to par in his estimation? Fewer injuries perhaps? I'm curious as to how he transitioned so well from 1968 into 1969. Perhaps that first Australian Open in 1969 gave him just the right kick off to his stellar campaign?

Excelent post, BNº1.Certainly, his AO win gave him a boost but, according to himself, he used 1968 as an adjustment year and set in his mind the GS as his only goal for 1969.Which he accomplished.

And, in that AO, Tony Roche pushed him to the limits.Roche was, right then, the favourite and possibly, the only guy that could challenge Laver, along Newcombe, in 69.But having lost that dramatic 5 setter, he found himself empty of fuel and lost again the Finals at F Hills.
 
Excelent post, BNº1.Certainly, his AO win gave him a boost but, according to himself, he used 1968 as an adjustment year and set in his mind the GS as his only goal for 1969.Which he accomplished.

And, in that AO, Tony Roche pushed him to the limits.Roche was, right then, the favourite and possibly, the only guy that could challenge Laver, along Newcombe, in 69.But having lost that dramatic 5 setter, he found himself empty of fuel and lost again the Finals at F Hills.

Thank you Kiki, that's very interesting. Roche and Newcombe were tough customers obviously. Beautiful net play.I really enjoy watching the 5 setter in the AO SF. He certainly did everything you could ask of a tennis player that year. What an effort. That makes perfect sense. Tennis certainly changed everything for me when I learned to play and was watching Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Gerulaitis, Tanner, Kriek, Pecci, Dibbs, Solomon, Gottfried, Mayer, etc. So, I'm so fascinated as to what happened in those years before I started playing it and following it.Thanks.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Thank you Kiki, that's very interesting. Roche and Newcombe were tough customers obviously. Beautiful net play.I really enjoy watching the 5 setter in the AO SF. He certainly did everything you could ask of a tennis player that year. What an effort. That makes perfect sense. Tennis certainly changed everything for me when I learned to play and was watching Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Gerulaitis, Tanner, Kriek, Pecci, Dibbs, Solomon, Gottfried, Mayer, etc. So, I'm so fascinated as to what happened in those years before I started playing it and following it.Thanks.

Feel the same way.I grew up with the likes of Newc,Kodes,Nasty,Godzila,Ashe,Laver and Rosewall...then, all of a sudden, a new generation of guys took over..Connors,Borg and Vilas ( and Orantes,Panatta,Tanner,Gerulaitis) , so similar yet so different...and then Mac,Lendl...plus Wilander,Edberg,Becker and Cash in the mid 80´s.Tennis moved at an unbelievable speed, and it was the most profitable sport business.
 

kiki

Banned
Thank you Kiki, that's very interesting. Roche and Newcombe were tough customers obviously. Beautiful net play.I really enjoy watching the 5 setter in the AO SF. He certainly did everything you could ask of a tennis player that year. What an effort. That makes perfect sense. Tennis certainly changed everything for me when I learned to play and was watching Connors, Vilas, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Gerulaitis, Tanner, Kriek, Pecci, Dibbs, Solomon, Gottfried, Mayer, etc. So, I'm so fascinated as to what happened in those years before I started playing it and following it.Thanks.

Roche, according to Laver, was the guy to dethrone him.That proves how competitive Laver was.Beat his 3 successors, one after the other (Roche 2 times, Ashe 2 times, Newcombe once...and then old peers Gimeno and Rosewall)
 
Top