The Masterpiece Collection: Nadal v. Laver: A Matter of Greatness

Which achievement was greater?

  • Laver's 1969 "Grand Slam"

    Votes: 39 78.0%

  • Nadal's 2010 of three straight on three different surfaces

    Votes: 11 22.0%
  • Total voters
    50
C

Chopin

Legend
Dear friends,

Fresh off the Master Class I just gave in Chopin: The Official Thread, I bring you my latest creation: Nadal Versus Laver: A Matter of Greatness.

Now, before I begin, I'd like to assure the public that the much anticipated Borg threads are passing through the final stages of conception deep in my mind and will be released following the conclusion of the Australian Open. I'd prefer to wait and see how events unfold "down under" before pulling back the curtain on the legend of Borg with a radical reading of his career. Rest assured though, you boys won't be disappointed.

In this thread, however, I'd like to return to that familiar stream in those shady, quiet woods: Rod Laver. Now, as you all know, there has been much talk going into the year's Open about Nadal's place in history and more specifically, whether winning four slams in succession is an achievement equal to winning the Grand Slam. Laver has explicitly said that it's not, while other have argued the opposite (or take the argument even further):

Laver:
"He's got three under his belt, and he's playing well. There's a good chance he could pull it off. But it's not a Grand Slam, certainly."

In contrast:
"It wouldn't be a grand slam but it would be the greatest achievement I've seen in tennis," Andy Murray's former coach, Brad Gilbert, has said.

http://www.smh.com.au/sport/tennis/nadal-grand-slam-would-trump-lavers-20110116-19skc.html

And John McEnroe is already on record at last year's US Open saying that what Nadal did last year, in winning 3 slams, is greater than Laver's Grand Slam.

It is this last opinion that I write to you about. I offer the opinion, as espoused by McEnroe, that Nadal's achievement last year was greater than Laver's 1969 Grand Slam. The game is played at a higher level now, with a greater depth of competition, on three different surfaces, and with larger draws. The Australian Open was comparable to a Masters tournament, at best, during Laver's day.

Let's hear your thoughts on this matter, ladies and gentleman. Please vote in the poll and keep all discussions civil.

Kind regards,
Chopin

P.S. To those who thought that I'd acquiesced, you've failed, once more. My resolve has never been stronger after Club Chopin' Official Thread. In fact, I post that very thread here for all posters to see and encourage posters to read the now legendary post #135, in which I deliver an unanswerable critique of the Historians and their hypocrisy.


http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=5340138

"Oh, no, he did it again!!"--John, Upper East Side.
 
Last edited:
Laver won 4 grandslams on two surfaces. If Nadal win 4 grandslams on 3 surfaces, it will obviously be a better achievment. That's just a fact.
 
Nadalfan89 said:
Laver won 4 grandslams on two surfaces. If Nadal win 4 grandslams on 3 surfaces, it will obviously be a better achievment. That's just a fact.
Click to expand...



Goes into ********* mode : Laver was facing tougher competition. Federer is a weak champion, Djokovic can't even breathe properly half the time, Murray is the definition of overrated, and Roddick is a one shot pony. Oh did I mention Gael Monfils who has no brain, Nalbandian who gorges in donuts, among the many other losers of this era and of the previous era?



Real Talk :

The eras are just too different to compare. Impossible to compare. You can argue this in so many ways. Because the fact that guys didn't get paid alot in Lavers era, EVERY guy played as hard as they could, with extra determination to get that extra money, unlike guys today who can make a living just getting to round 2 of a slam.
 
NamRanger said:
Goes into ********* mode : Laver was facing tougher competition. Federer is a weak champion, Djokovic can't even breathe properly half the time, Murray is the definition of overrated, and Roddick is a one shot pony. Oh did I mention Gael Monfils who has no brain, Nalbandian who gorges in donuts, among the many other losers of this era and of the previous era?



Real Talk :

The eras are just too different to compare. Impossible to compare. You can argue this in so many ways. Because the fact that guys didn't get paid alot in Lavers era, EVERY guy played as hard as they could, with extra determination to get that extra money, unlike guys today who can make a living just getting to round 2 of a slam.
Click to expand...

Are you implying that a guy with 16 grandslams is not good competition?
 
Nadalfan89 said:
Are you implying that a guy with 16 grandslams is not good competition?
Click to expand...



According to you and Nadal fans Federer won the majority of his slam against incredibly weak competition, even weaker then the likes of Thomas Enquivist, Kafelnikov, Korda, and Rios. So yeah, he's pretty weak according to the logic of many Nadal fans here.
 
I agree totally.

What Laver did was great for his day, but no way can the physicality of today's game be compared to yesteryear. Similarly, I don't think Federer had to have the CGS to be the greatest. Personally, I think all of these things are simply carrots to be dangled in the face of many in order to withhold the appropriate praise.

As of right now, Federer is the most accomplished of them all, and until someone surpasses him, he has earned that.

However, terms such as GOAT need to be abolished because you can only be the greatest of your era, but not across generations.

Personally, I go with the greatest that I have ever seen, since I wasn't around to witness it for myself, and secondhand knowledge has never been my forte.
 
NamRanger said:
According to you and Nadal fans Federer won the majority of his slam against incredibly weak competition, even weaker then the likes of Thomas Enquivist, Kafelnikov, Korda, and Rios. So yeah, he's pretty weak according to the logic of many Nadal fans here.
Click to expand...

I just find it funny that when someone who's decent (Nadal) comes along, Federer starts losing a lot more. Nadal is a pretty bad tennis player, and Federer can't even manage to win against him.
 
Nadalfan89 said:
I just find it funny that when someone who's decent (Nadal) comes along, Federer starts losing a lot more. Nadal is a pretty bad tennis player, and Federer can't even manage to win against him.
Click to expand...



I find it funny that Nadal fans try to use double standards quite often.



"Federer's era is so weak, while Nadal's era is so strong"



But then turn around and say all of a sudden Federer is a tough opponent. Can't have it both ways. I never said Nadal was a bad tennis player, I think he's great. I just find it very funny that Nadal fans always try to use different standards for every discussion they have that remotely involves Federer and Nadal.
 
I'd be with you if he wins the AO.

in terms of greatness, the laver slams in 1962 and 1969 have this legendary touch and will be far more remembered as an achievement than nadal winning his three titles.
despite this, I actually think in terms of "exceptional" and "outstanding effort", nadal accomplished something I'd rate higher.
 
I prefer Nocturnes from Chopin to this thread which won't accomplish anything else than earlier threads with this theme.
 
This is how it works:
If it was Fed who would have done it, all the Nadsyboy ****s would have gone to make it look ordinary and claimed it as immaterial to discuss it. They would also have kissed Mr. Laver's *** on putting Fed's achievement down and on not accepted the achievement (if and when that happens) a grand slam.
But because it is NadsyBoy, they are cursing Laver and they are singing hymns about NadsyBoy.
Not to mention, Fed fans are in the same boat and would have behaved similarly.
 
When Laver was playing tennis was still an almost amateur sport. IF Nadal wins the AO, it's a much bigger accomplishment than Laver's Grand Slams, for sure.
 
Xemi666 said:
When Laver was playing tennis was still an almost amateur sport. IF Nadal wins the AO, it's a much bigger accomplishment than Laver's Grand Slams, for sure.
Click to expand...

what're you smoking? Laver was winning pro slams against Rosewall and Pancho. He and Rosewall both had the Pro Grand Slams, the only ones to do it, on indoor wood and grass. Then he won the Grand Slam on the clay of RG (which was far slower than it is now) then quickly transitioned to the grass of Wimby (which is far different from current grass) and don't forget that grasses of Wimby, USO, and AO were all radically different.

So I go with Laver
 
Calling a it "pro" doesn't make it true. Even Lendl admitted that in his prime he would not beat Nadal and Federer because tennis has evolved so much since then. Of course, I don't expect nostalgiatards to understand those facts, but whatever.
 
Xemi666 said:
Calling a it "pro" doesn't make it true. Even Lendl admitted that in his prime he would not beat Nadal and Federer because tennis has evolved so much since then. Of course, I don't expect nostalgiatards to understand those facts, but whatever.
Click to expand...

I'm not a nostalgiatard first of all

and calling it two surfaces doesn't make it true. The fact is that the surfaces then were more different than the surfaces now, regardless of what people say
 
Xemi666 said:
Calling a it "pro" doesn't make it true. Even Lendl admitted that in his prime he would not beat Nadal and Federer because tennis has evolved so much since then. Of course, I don't expect nostalgiatards to understand those facts, but whatever.
Click to expand...

I'm not a nostalgiatard first of all

and calling it two surfaces doesn't make it true. The fact is that the surfaces then were more different than the surfaces now, regardless of what people say
 
Both are great achievements but both have a few arguments against them.

Nadal: Surfaces are slowed down and grass is no longer the true grass of 90s and before. Technology has played a big part in this.

Laver: Only won his slams on 2 surfaces.

It really is a futile debate but kinda fun anyways. Much like the "GOAT" debate where ****wars insue.
 
Manus Domini said:
I'm not a nostalgiatard first of all

and calling it two surfaces doesn't make it true. The fact is that the surfaces then were more different than the surfaces now, regardless of what people say
Click to expand...

Of course, they had jungle grass, mountain grass and hill grass, three completely different surfaces. But I'm not talking about surfaces only, I'm talking about the fact that during many years tennis was divided in two tours (amateur and pro), that the level of training and conditioning wasn't even close to what it is today, nor was the talent pool of potential tennis players, etc, etc. Laver himself said, when it looked like Federer would complete a Grand Slam, that it would mean more than his two slams because it's much more difficult to win in tennis right now because it has evolved so much.

But disregard all that, no problem :)
 
1} a Grand Slam trumps a NCYGrand Slam in my opinion by far
2} main arguments are always surface. If that is taken out, you *******s find some other thing to try to make it look better
3} the talent pool was large then, to compete with the pros an amateur had to adapt and often make a 180 turn around. Rosewall came to net to survive instead of playing back. Laver bettered his serve
 
Manus Domini said:
1} a Grand Slam trumps a NCYGrand Slam in my opinion by far
2} main arguments are always surface. If that is taken out, you *******s find some other thing to try to make it look better
3} the talent pool was large then, to compete with the pros an amateur had to adapt and often make a 180 turn around. Rosewall came to net to survive instead of playing back. Laver bettered his serve
Click to expand...

Lol, yeah, it was much better an era when the tour was divided in two, no doubt there were so many ATGs then, imagine if Nadal and Djokovic were playing in one tour nowadays and Murray and Federer in another, each with its own slams, no doubt they would all have a lot more slams than they do now :lol:
 
back then it would be the top 10-15 in one tour and everyone else in another. still would change nothing in who has the real slams (the three pro slams) as only the top few would be able to vie for them
 
I don't see why Laver should get penalized for things he couldn't control. He won the Grand Slam as it was defined in his era. Rafa has not done it yet (with or without this year's AO). All the arguments about tennis being much more physical now, more depth, etc, etc are BS, because they all have counter arguments which are not based on actual data. The data say this: Laver accomplished the Grand Slam as it was defined in his era. Rafa has not.

Is the Rafa slam a greater achievement because it is over more surfaces, more competitive players, etc? Maybe or maybe not. Again all of that is subjective. Some might argue that what Borg did was even more immense, winning the FO-W double when the surfaces were even more vastly different. When it comes down to it, all we have are the data. The data say Laver completed the Grand Slam and Rafa did not. Period. Whether one is superior to the other is in the eye of the beholder and therefore objectively meaningless.
 
Training, equipment, ease of travel, evolution of playing styles - all favor the modern player. To me, you have to forget the "which era was better?" question and just look at an apples-to-apples comparison. Does winning four consecutive majors compare to winning a calendar-year Grand Slam? No, it doesn't, and here's why. When Laver got to Forest Hills, the pressure was on - really on. He knew he was one tournament away from accomplishing something only one other man had ever achieved - and he did it twice. TWICE. Does Nadal have anything even remotely like that kind of pressure on him at the moment? Of course not. It'd be nice for him to win all four in a row, but it won't go down in any record books. Game, set, and match - Laver.
 
Manus Domini said:
back then it would be the top 10-15 in one tour and everyone else in another. still would change nothing in who has the real slams (the three pro slams) as only the top few would be able to vie for them
Click to expand...

Right, I'm sure you have conducted extensive research on this instead of pulling it out of your ass :rolleyes:
 
adidasman said:
Training, equipment, ease of travel, evolution of playing styles - all favor the modern player. To me, you have to forget the "which era was better?" question and just look at an apples-to-apples comparison. Does winning four consecutive majors compare to winning a calendar-year Grand Slam? No, it doesn't, and here's why. When Laver got to Forest Hills, the pressure was on - really on. He knew he was one tournament away from accomplishing something only one other man had ever achieved - and he did it twice. TWICE. Does Nadal have anything even remotely like that kind of pressure on him at the moment? Of course not. It'd be nice for him to win all four in a row, but it won't go down in any record books. Game, set, and match - Laver.
Click to expand...

Riiiiiiiight, a really unbiased analysis here :lol:
 
Looking at the poll results Im real suprised at the ones who voted for Rafa:rolleyes:

Look on a scale of 1-10 (10 being greatest):

CYGS = 10
4 consecutive GS = 9.5


That is just the way it is, well unless your a die hard *******.
 
Xemi666 said:
Riiiiiiiight, a really unbiased analysis here :lol:
Click to expand...
And your opinion, Mister Nadal Avatar, is supposed to be objective? Come on. Do you honestly think Nadal winning four consecutive majors is going to be compared favorably by tennis historians to Laver's (or Budge's) Grand Slams? Really??? You know it won't. Is that right or wrong? I can't answer that. But you know it won't.
 
Nadalfan89 said:
Are you implying that a guy with 16 grandslams is not good competition?
Click to expand...

Since a lot of *******s think Federer is weak (only got 16 slams due to incredibly weak competition)...it is only logical, that by extension, Nadal has weak opponents (ie: Federer). They must just all be weak then.
 
TheTruth said:
I agree totally.

What Laver did was great for his day, but no way can the physicality of today's game be compared to yesteryear. Similarly, I don't think Federer had to have the CGS to be the greatest. Personally, I think all of these things are simply carrots to be dangled in the face of many in order to withhold the appropriate praise.

As of right now, Federer is the most accomplished of them all, and until someone surpasses him, he has earned that.

However, terms such as GOAT need to be abolished because you can only be the greatest of your era, but not across generations.

Personally, I go with the greatest that I have ever seen, since I wasn't around to witness it for myself, and secondhand knowledge has never been my forte.
Click to expand...

Well said, particulalry about the eras. From my perspective, I watched the Mac, Borg, Connors, and Lendl era and think it was a much stronger era than today. As such, I think the GOAT stuff is very unfair to all of the older players but I think tennis has realized that it is a promotional tool.....much like baseball used the Mark McGwire/Sammy Sosa race as a monster promotion (only of course to be exposed later as a massive steroid/PED scam). In any case, the late 70's and 80's had alot of players who had true championship mentality (i.e., wouldn't crack under pressure). Today's era has relatively few of them, IMO.

In any case, the eras seems to be running in almost 4-5 year spans these days which, not coincidentally is about the range of a player's prime years. I am sure there will be a player in the next 5-10 years who would be able to beat both NAdal and Fed....it's the natural progression.
 
According to sureshs (The Greatest Tennis Analyst Of All Time) only slams won against real competition matter. Nadal didn't play Fed in last 3 slams and thus those slams didn't count.
 
Manus Domini said:
I'm not a nostalgiatard first of all

and calling it two surfaces doesn't make it true. The fact is that the surfaces then were more different than the surfaces now, regardless of what people say
Click to expand...

My boy, let's be specific here. The grass was faster then, yes (which, consequently, lead to less grueling points) and was quite different from the clay. So, in that sense, the surfaces were more different.

However, three out of four slams were played on grass and were more similar than different. Surely the Australian Open is great contrast to Wimbledon today than it was during the country club era.
 
8PAQ said:
According to sureshs (The Greatest Tennis World Analyst Of All Time) only slams won against real competition matter. Nadal didn't play Fed in last 3 slams and thus those slams didn't count.
Click to expand...

Corrected that for you....
 
adidasman said:
And your opinion, Mister Nadal Avatar, is supposed to be objective? Come on. Do you honestly think Nadal winning four consecutive majors is going to be compared favorably by tennis historians to Laver's (or Budge's) Grand Slams? Really??? You know it won't. Is that right or wrong? I can't answer that. But you know it won't.
Click to expand...

McEnroe already said that he considers Nadal's 3 consecutive slams bigger than one of Laver's slams.

And I'm not going to let you avoid what you said, which is something of the highest level of stupidity: that Nadal winning 4 slams in a row would not get in the recordbooks. Explain that one, my dear dumbass.
 
Chopin said:
My boy, let's be specific here. The grass was faster then, yes (which, consequently, lead to less grueling points) and was quite different from the clay. So, in that sense, the surfaces were more different.

However, three out of four slams were played on grass and were more similar than different. Surely the Australian Open is great contrast to Wimbledon today than it was during the country club era.
Click to expand...

Are you telling us all that different varieties of grass that are also grown in different climates, cultivated differently, and are in different parts of the world are going to grow the same way and act the same way? I can tell you from experience in soccer, the grass matters big time. Grass can either be slower or faster, higher bouncing or less high bouncing. It is with soccer fields, and would be moreso with tennis.

If that is the case, how come Borg couldn't ever win the USO when he could win the WC?
 
Manus Domini said:
Are you telling us all that different varieties of grass that are also grown in different climates, cultivated differently, and are in different parts of the world are going to grow the same way and act the same way? I can tell you from experience in soccer, the grass matters big time. Grass can either be slower or faster, higher bouncing or less high bouncing. It is with soccer fields, and would be moreso with tennis.

If that is the case, how come Borg couldn't ever win the USO when he could win the WC?
Click to expand...

No one would deny there is variation in any surface, but surfaces of the same materials are going to play more similar than those of different materials. That's the key distinction that must be observed. You can subdivide it any number of ways to fit your argument, but all the grass was very fast in Laver's day and as Mac and others have said, the slams were more similar in terms of surfaces during Laver's day. This should not be much of an argument as many greats have said as much.
 
Chopin said:
No one would deny there is variation in any surface, but surfaces of the same materials are going to play more similar than those of different materials. That's the key distinction that must be observed. You can subdivide it any number of ways to fit your argument, but all the grass was very fast in Laver's day and as Mac and others have said, the slams were more similar in terms of surfaces during Laver's day. This should not be much of an argument as many greats have said as much.
Click to expand...

If they are played so differently even though grass will always play like grass, how come you can just baseline bash at this WC grass and you couldn't during the 60s? Because the type of grass does matter
 
let's wait till the eventual winner is crowned to see whose masterpiece is better....sooooo many of these rafa threads about this topic
 
Manus Domini said:
If they are played so differently even though grass will always play like grass, how come you can just baseline bash at this WC grass and you couldn't during the 60s? Because the type of grass does matter
Click to expand...

I'm having trouble with your post. Could you rephrase what you're saying?

As I said, the old grass was much faster all around, in addition to being lower bouncing. This combined with the grips and style of play lead to serve and volley play as opposed to the baseline play of today. So, the point remains that you had three fast grass surfaces during Laver's day at the slams. The point also stands that Wimbledon and the Australian Open were much more similar in terms of court conditions during Laver's day than they are today. Mac pointed this out when he said that what Nadal said in winning three in a row was more impressive/harder than what Laver did in winning four in a row.
 
Chopin said:
I'm having trouble with your post. Could you rephrase what you're saying?

As I said, the old grass was much faster all around, in addition to being lower bouncing. This combined with the grips and style of play lead to serve and volley play as opposed to the baseline play of today. So, the point remains that you had three fast grass surfaces during Laver's day at the slams. The point also stands that Wimbledon and the Australian Open were much more similar in terms of court conditions during Laver's day than they are today. Mac pointed this out when he said that what Nadal said in winning three in a row was more impressive/harder than what Laver did in winning four in a row.
Click to expand...

the opinion of a ******* means little if that is being used for expert advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Laver: "It would be a mini-slam... but not the grand slam"
13 14 15
Replies
702
Views
42K
Forehand Avenger
Forehand Avenger
M
Once Again Federer's GOATness Overshadows a Player's Greatness
2
Replies
65
Views
7K
Love all
Love all
M
If Novak doesn't in U.S. Open, greater appreciation for Federer's greatness
Replies
13
Views
2K
jackson vile
jackson vile
Rhino
Rod Lavers Grand Slams
Replies
34
Views
3K
rwn
R
R
Djokovic has best chance of winning true Grand Slam since Laver
Replies
34
Views
3K
Joe Pike
Joe Pike
Back
Top