Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by MonkeyBoy, Mar 16, 2013.
Which of these is the greatest open era accomplishment?
Borg or Federer.
laver 10 char
Federer's records. Nice attempt though.
Laver's Open Era slam.
So many greats have come and gone since, and yet, 44 years on, it remains unmatched.
He will probably go to his grave as the last man to accomplish the feat.
5 straight W and 5 straight USO gets my nod, not on the poll...Atlantic slams yo.
237 weeks without a doubt . And 5 plus major finals in all majors, puts all questions to rest.
Laver's 2 calendar slams. To sustain a high level of play long enough an entire year to win all 4 slams.. And to do it TWICE? Amazing
We have had some dominant players come along after Laver and still no one could manage
What is the pre-homgenised channel slams?
FO and W back to back back in ancient times
Here is Laver's run to the 1969 Grand Slam:
1969 Australian Open (Brisbane, Grass)
R32: Rod Laver def. Massimo Di Domenico (6-2, 6-3, 6-3)
R16: Rod Laver def. Roy Emerson (6-2, 6-4, 3-6, 9-7)
QF: Rod Laver def. Fred Stolle (6-4, 18-16, 6-4)
SF: Rod Laver def. Tony Roche (7-5, 22-20, 9-11, 1-6, 6-3)
FR: Rod Laver def. Andres Gimeno (6-3, 6-4, 7-5)
1969 French Open (Roland Garros, Clay)
R128: Rod Laver def. Koji Watanabe (6-1, 6-1, 6-1)
R64: Rod Laver def. Dick Crealy (3-6, 7-9, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4)
R32: Rod Laver def. Pietro Marzano (6-1, 6-0, 8-6)
R16: Rod Laver def. Stan Smith (6-4, 6-2, 6-4)
QF: Rod Laver def. Andres Gimeno (3-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-3)
SF: Rod Laver def. Tom Okker (4-6, 6-0, 6-2, 6-4)
FR: Rod Laver def. Ken Rosewall (6-4, 6-3, 6-4)
1969 Wimbledon (Wimbledon, Grass)
R128: Rod Laver def. Nicola Pietrangeli (6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
R64: Rod Laver def. Premjit Lall (3-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-0, 6-0)
R32: Rod Laver def. Jan Leschly (6-3, 6-3, 6-3)
R16: Rod Laver def. Stan Smith (6-4, 6-2, 7-9, 3-6, 6-3)
QF: Rod Laver def. Cliff Drysdale (6-4, 6-2, 6-3)
SF: Rod Laver def. Arthur Ashe (2-6, 6-2, 9-7, 6-0)
FR: Rod Laver def. John Newcombe (6-4, 5-7, 6-4, 6-4)
1969 US Open (Forest Hills, Grass)
R128: Rod Laver def. Luis-Augusto Garcia (6-2, 6-4, 6-2)
R64: Rod Laver def. Jaime Pinto-Bravo (6-4, 7-5, 6-2)
R32: Rod Laver def. Jaime Fillol Sr. (8-6, 6-1, 6-2)
R16: Rod Laver def. Dennis Ralston (6-4, 4-6, 4-6, 6-2, 6-3)
QF: Rod Laver def. Roy Emerson (4-6, 8-6, 13-11, 6-4)
SF: Rod Laver def. Arthur Ashe (8-6, 6-3, 14-12)
FR: Rod Laver def. Tony Roche (7-9, 6-1, 6-2, 6-2)
Took out Rosewall on clay too. What a year.
Laver or Borg did not win on hard court, So it pales in comparison to what Fed and for that matter, Sampras achieved.
Being 237 weeks at No.1 and being YE No 1 for 6 years, shows you have been at the top for most part of a decade and there is no one comparable to you.
So out of the achievements listed above, Fed and Sampras's are better.
Laver winning the grand slam is now equivalent to Nadal sweeping all clay court tournaments. The difference is Laver did it for just 2 years, Nadal's is like 8 and counting..
All these pre-open era folks need to take a pill and chill.
True, Fed has many mind boggling streak but it wouldn't look right to have many options for him in the poll. 237 straight weeks is a good option, same with the 5/5 as you've mentioned. I personally think the 23 straight semifinal is the best option for the poll.
The first hardcourt open era major was in 1978, and Borg reached the final of the US Open 3 times out of 4 when he played it on hardcourt. Laver won the biggest tournaments in 1969 on all surfaces, including hardcourt (which was FAR less prevalent on tour back then).
The OP is referring to the "true" GS in 1969, not 1962 since it was a weak amateur field. 1962 doesn't deserve to be included in the poll since many streaks/records are more impressive.
Ok, but still it was outside of the slam. Who knows if he could have won had the USO or AO was played on hc. Rosewall was winning on grass events and at the same period while failed to win Wimbledon. Each tournament is not the same despite it's the same surface.
Exactly Mustard. Laver did win quite a bit on hard courts, though the US Open and the AO were not played on hard courts in his era. Borg won 6 hardcourt titles at a time, when indoor tournaments were numerous, while there were fewer hard court tournaments, relative today. Also, no slow hard courts back then and you didn't have two chances a year to win a hard court major. The options here are very good. I'd say the top 3 accomplishments are from Laver, Borg, and Sampras, in no particular order for me.
Fed's semi streak. Because consistency is the hardest thing to achieve in sport, ask anyone.
Of that list Laver first, Nadal second, Sampras and Borg tied for third, Federer fifth, and Vilas bringing up the rear. Connors actually would have obliterated Federer's consecutive weeks at #1 had he not lost #1 for a mere 1 week to Borg at one point, as he was close to 300 otherwise.
Tough to call which is the most impressive of those, but another one that I'd add to the list as Federer's 23 consecutive GS semifinal appearances
That Fed semi streak is overrated.
Someone could come along and reach 24 consecutive semis but not win a single slam (either because they're playing in a weak era or are an incredible choker).
Would we then talk about that guy as the GOAT?
Didn't think so.
The most important thing is winning, not consistently getting close. (I know Fed often did win the tournaments as well, just pointing out the semi streak isn't as great as some make it out to be...)
Yea and the world could end too.
Whatever dude, if you expect a player to win 23 consecutive slams then you need counselling because that's essentially what you're implying.
Laver of course
Fed's semifinal streak is one of the greatest in sport. It rival with DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak or Edwin Moses' 107 consecutive victories in 400-meter.
See full article below(at that time Fed had 21).
The slam is the ultimate in tennis. Gotta be Laver.
And, to me, Federer's 237 weeks may not even be his best achievement.
17 majors, which you omitted on purpose.
I didn't say I expect a player to win 23 straight slams.
I said that the consecutive semi streak in and of itself is overrated - if Fed hadn't converted any of those into wins, or if he'd only won a few slams in that period, while consistently losing in the finals and semis, no-one would consider him GOAT.
Again, it's the winning titles that matters.
I realise I am in a small minority regarding this record, which many believe is one of the most jaw-dropping in sports, but I stand by my perspective.
I think Fed's semi streak is incredible but only because that semi streak is also what enabled him to win 17 slams. THAT (17 slams) is the real incredible achievement.
As a similar example, on it's own someone's years spent in top 3 may not be considered the greatest achievement. But now if this same person also has the most years spent at no 1 THEN the years in top 3 becomes more incredible.
Indeed you are.
The fact that the closest anyone has come to his 23 is 10, makes it a strong record imo.
Actually Connors never even had 2 consecutive years as number one (74,76,82) were his only years as number one. Unless you are following ATP rankings as the ultimate truth back then. So hardly he could obliterate Fed`s record in that regard.
I think Laver`s slam, Borg`s feat and Fed making 18 out of 19 majors finals are the best. I just can`t make a pick
I am going by the official rankings. I am not sure what you are going by but if it ïs Player of the Year awards keep in mind the ATP hated Connors with a passion and were never going to give him recognition. Even in 1976 when he was far and none the Worlds best they still gave Borg Player of the Year, a true joke.
1) Laver's Calendar GS in 1969. That was amazing (given that there were so many great players playing back then, and Laver had to come back from two sets to love down and two sets to one down several times in those four Majors).
2) Federer's 237 consecutive weeks at nº1 and Sampras's 6 consecutive Year-End-Nº1.
3) Borg's Roland Garros+Wimbledon double three consecutive years, when they were actually played on totally polarized conditions.
That's kind of the point, though, isn't it? Federer didn't drop it for even a week.
I voted for Laver's slam. Nothing tops that. Second would be Sampras's six consecutive year-end number one finishes. After that, it gets a lot harder to rank, especially since these feats are so different.
Let's not forget
Pre-homogenized career slam by Agassi.
plus he won the 5th slam tour championship on REAL carpet.
These days, it's just a matter of time for #1 to achieve career slam.
But Agassi is the only one in history who holds this records on truely 4 different surfaces, AFAIK.
If this is this much important, you gotta put Lendle somewhere in the GOAT list.
Now it is year around homogeneous tennis, #1 stays there much more weeks.
When Sampras broke Lendle's record on it, it was a nearly a non-issue.
It's the 6 straight YE #1 that Sampras was defined for.
Agree. What Agassi did was way greater than Nadal or Federer winning GS on clay, grass and hard.
Agassi won Wimbledon in 1992 defeating great grass court players on a very fast and low-bouncing grass.
When Agassi won the Masters (WTF) in 1990, it was on a very very fast and skidding carpet (much faster than the carpet they used in the mid 90s and obviously much much much faster than the hard courts they used in the WTF at the end of the 90s). To beat Becker and Edberg back to back in SF and Final the way he did on that so fast and low-bouncing carpet, was at least as difficult as what he did to win Wimbledon.
Yes, I've said so many times that for me there is no GOAT because what a player achieves in his era depends totally on conditions and multiple factors of that era, and it is impossible to know what he could have achieved in any other era.
So for me there are only Greatest Of Their Era (or something like that, great players from different times if you want).
So yes, for me Lendl is up there with several great players from different times (Tilden, Kramer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal.....I could add some more too...).
Agree that in the current homogeneous era the very best player will achieve way more than the very best player from previous eras (and have explained several times with the "decathlon example"). That is why is senseless to try to compare numbers from different eras.
It was known, but it is true that even in the late 90s the importance was given to "Year-End-Nº1" because that was how tennis players were rated always, at the end of each year (there were no weekly official rankings prior to 1973, and the weekly ranking was created mainly to do the seeds in tournaments )
That is just one more reason why it is senseless to compare achievements from different eras.
Another one is M-1000 tournaments. Now they give you double of points than any other non-Slam-non-M-1000-non-WTF tournament, that is why in the current era some people give some weight to M-1000 tournaments won, whereas prior to 2000 nobody knew how many of those tournaments any player had won, because they gave virtually the same amount of points (370 during some years in the 90s) as many other non-M-1000-equivalent tournaments (that gave 360 points those same years).
Good point on Agassi. Really the only man in history to win on 4 truly different surfaces when the surfaces were more different and varied than any time in history. An incredible feat but an incredibly talented player.
How on earth is a career slam really getting this much praise??
A career slam involves getting hot for 2 weeks at each of the 4 slams once in your career. Agassi won his Wimbledon and French Open 7 years apart, he was a completely different player.
Laver's Grand Slam has not been matched. And before anyone mentions no HC slams at the time, it should be noted he won the Pro slam in 67, winning 2 pro majors on indoor courts and one on grass. That same year he won the one and only Wimbledon pro, at the All England club beating Fred Stolle, Andres Gimeno and Ken Rosewall all without losing a set
Two words: THE DONALD.
People who say that Laver's 1969 Grand Slam had 3 majors on grass don't seem realise how very different the grass conditions were in Brisbane, Wimbledon and Forest Hills.
Rightful end of thread.
Nadal's FO08, Wim08 and Olympics08 Combo deserves a mention.
Federer's greatest achievement is winning 5 consecutive Wimbledon and USO
A career slam these days is a dime a dozen and probably will only been even more of the norm if the conditions stay homogenized.
What Agassi did was the most special because it was done on all distinctly different surfaces.
I agree Laver's calendar slam is more impressive. But Andre's career slam is up there
A dime a dozen? :lol:
Only two players have done it since Agassi, and both of them are among the greatest players to ever pick up a racquet.
Separate names with a comma.