Interesting trivia

Taken from the ATP website here's some interesting stats for you.

Novak is now the sixth player in the Open Era to win three slam titles in a single year. Since 2004 it's been achieved at least once by all the big 3 a total of five times. (three times by Federer alone)

Prior to their dominance it was achieved only three times since 1968 by Wilander, Connors and Laver (full grand slam in 1969)



Player/ Year/ Titles
Novak Djokovic 2011 Aust. Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Rafael Nadal 2010 Roland Garros, Wimbledon, US Open
Roger Federer 2007 Aust. Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Roger Federer 2006 Aust. Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Roger Federer 2004 Aust. Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Mats Wilander 1988 Aust. Open, Roland Garros, US Open
Jimmy Connors 1974 Aust. Open, Wimbledon, US Open
Rod Laver (Won Grand Slam) 1969 Aust. Open, Roland Garros, Wimb., US Open


It clearly indicates the total dominance by the big 3 over recent years plus the difficulty other players had to do likewise in earlier years. Borg was stopped by his failure to win the US and (I think) reluctance to play at the Aussie Open. McEnroe likewise with his non appearances at the Aussie Open and Sampras because he never figure out how to play on clay (although given his hard court credentials surprising he didn't win Wimbledon and both hard court titles in the same year). Agassi managed all four at least once but interestingly only two in the same year (French & US Open in 1999).

Also Connors won all three slams he entered in 1974 and wasn't (for various reasons) allowed to play the French Open otherwise he may well have gone on to win the grand slam as he did go on to win the US Open in 1976 when it was played on clay. Wilander often gets forgotten about when it come to all time greats but he has the rare distinction (along with Nadal) of having won at least two titles on all three surfaces (he never won Wimbledon but won the Aussie open twice when it was played on grass). Lendl contested a then record 19 slam finals (only surpassed by Federer in 2009).

Finally Laver the only man to have won the grand slam in the Open era (he also managed it previously as an amateur). For that reason alone an absoluter nailed on cert for GOAT status (well for some of posters anyway).

Can't disagree at all newballs, the big 3 have been more consistently dominant in their best years than other champions of the past. Laver does have a pretty rock solid claim on the goat title. But I just have a very hard time of judging players that I didn't regularly watch play.

socal another way of looking at this is to take McEnroe's viewpoint. Basically he maintains that Djokovic's season with 60 plus wins and 2 losses when he has to play the likes of Federer and Nadal in major finals makes it the best season ever. Certainly three slams and a semi loss with those two around is phenomenal.

Agree with that Newballs, plus lets remember the masters didn't become mandatory until the 90s. So in the past the top guys could and would duck each other. Connors would be playing lowball tournaments all over the states, borg would spend his time on european clay and they wouldn't match up as often. Now the top guys have to play in all the masters or they will get penalized. So even the American players show up for Madrid and Rome, where in the past a lot of them would stay in the states and show up for their first and second round thumping at roland garros.

Just in addition as well but in 1969 was the Australian Open contested by ALL the leading players in the world as for a number of years many top players shunned competing in it due to the distance to travel etc.

On further inspection of this the tournament contained 64 players with ten of the sixteen seeds being Australians.

Another interesting fact that cuts in favor of how dominant this season has been for Djoko, Craig. I didn't know that about the 69 AO.

Can't we just say Laver, Connors, Mac, Fed, Djoko (maybe even include Wilander and Rafa) all had incredible years. Do we really have to rate them in order of incredible-ness, or is that taking things a wee bit too seriously?

I'm sure if we look hard enough we can find ways to lessen every player's achievements to the benefit of our preferred player. Wouldn't we be better off celebrating them all instead? After all, it's not like we're arguing the case for ourselves - they're just a bunch of complete strangers really.

Sadly, it doesn't work like that Julius on here. Many great players are belittled in some way or another.

However, I do agree that those players you mention were legends some were great players (not quite legends) but still monumental figures in tennis. People will have their own interpretation of who is the best and why though.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sadly, it doesn't work like that Julius on here. Many great players are belittled in some way or another.

However, I do agree that those players you mention were legends some were great players (not quite legends) but still monumental figures in tennis. People will have their own interpretation of who is the best and why though.

Fair point CC. It's just the idea of people saying "Oh look, Player A really only did this, but MY player, player B, did THIS!" or "Player C, who I hate, wasn't really that good because....". The longer it goes on, the duller the forum gets.
There was an interesting article on forum behaviour on the BBC web-site yesterday
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14898564
Not that bad on here of course, but some of the same principles apply.

newballs wrote:Taken from the ATP website here's some interesting stats for you.

Finally Laver the only man to have won the grand slam in the Open era (he also manage it previously as an amateur). For that reason alone an absoluter nailed on cert for GOAT status.

You want to highlight winning that 4 majors as an amateur in one calender year for Laver's greatness. This is almost like highlighting 4 championships in a year in my local club. Okay Laver won 4 majors in 1969, that was great. But How many of those did he defended successfully the following year? A big Zero. Why he couldn't do it? How many times he was able to defend any major? only once as a pro and once as an amateur. He won 4 majors in 1969 yet he could only win 18 of the 32 tournaments that he entered that year and had a 106–16 win-loss record. Does that sounds like "absoluter nailed on cert for GOAT status." Not hardly.

Its futile to compare era. One can't know how well the like of Pete, Federer, agassi, nadal, Djo etc would have played if they were in laver's times. So its not right to put player who achieved great in 1969 only to be GOAT.

People will always look to promote their own favourite player but I like to think I don't do it to the detriment of other players. I see the strengths/limitations of my favourite player but can equally recognise other players immense achievements ie the recent domination of Nadal and Djokovic and before that the likes of Roger Federer and those further back in time.

Its easier to achieve great success in one year alone than keep doing something big in a long run of time. In one year there can be circumstantial benefits that a player can get, like injuries to major opponents, poor form of the rivals, some major upsets opening the draw, or easy route in a draw etc etc. I can give scores of such examples but its not needed. But this circumstantial factor can't last for long. Thats why its possible to achieve a huge success in 1 short span of time than being able to repeat it over many years.

Laver won 4 majors in 1969, but just couldn't defend any of them the following year? Even in 1969 his win-loss percentage wasn't any thing like what Roger in 2005 or Jonny mac in 1984 or what Djo is having at the moment. In 1963 he was completely being dominated by Rosewall and Hoad. What does that tell you about his great success that he got in 1962 when Rosewall and Hoad couldn't play in the Grand Slams?

Laver had 1969 as one great year but could never find domination and consitency that some other players have shown. I'm not comparing eras but looks like even in his times Laver wasn't that great as he is sometimes mentioned.

I would agree with that raiders_of_the_lost_ark as in greatness really depends on longevity. Dominance over a period of say 3 to 5 years is ideal as it takes into account that player's dominance over a greater number of players and through bouts of injuries etc and also rules out any element of fortune.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:Its easier to achieve great success in one year alone than keep doing something big in a long run of time. In one year there can be circumstantial benefits that a player can get, like injuries to major opponents, poor form of the rivals, some major upsets opening the draw, or easy route in a draw etc etc. I can give scores of such examples but its not needed. But this circumstantial factor can't last for long. Thats why its possible to achieve a huge success in 1 short span of time than being able to repeat it over many years.

Laver won 4 majors in 1969, but just couldn't defend any of them the following year? Even in 1969 his win-loss percentage wasn't any thing like what Roger in 2005 or Jonny mac in 1984 or what Djo is having at the moment. In 1963 he was completely being dominated by Rosewall and Hoad. What does that tell you about his great success that he got in 1962 when Rosewall and Hoad couldn't play in the Grand Slams?

Laver had 1969 as one great year but could never find domination and consitency that some other players have shown. I'm not comparing eras but looks like even in his times Laver wasn't that great as he is sometimes mentioned.

Yes, again, completely agree with that. This is what I was talking about it the other thread (defining greatness).

Guys firstly about internet forums. Thankfully most of the trolls disappeared with the demise of 606 on the BBC website so the quality of discussion here tends to be better.

Now onto Laver. My bit about GOAT status was a little bit tongue-in-cheek. He actually was a professional when he did the grand slam in 1969 having previously won it as an amateur in 1962. Now that's a remarkable achievement in itself. The fact that Federer or Nadal or Djokovic weren't around isn't his problem as he could only beat whoever else was. So he remains an all time great whatever criteria are used and whether that entitles him to GOAT status a matter for debate.

Finally it's like the latest fashion this debate anyway. People only vote for the latest guy i.e. in 2-3 years time everybody will no doubt say Djokovic. Tilden, Budge and Gonzalez may just as well never have played the game because their relative merits have long since being dumped in the vaults of tennishistory.

newballs wrote:Guys firstly about internet forums. Thankfully most of the trolls disappeared with the demise of 606 on the BBC website so the quality of discussion here tends to be better.

Now onto Laver. My bit about GOAT status was a little bit tongue-in-cheek. He actually was a professional when he did the grand slam in 1969 having previously won it as an amateur in 1962. Now that's a remarkable achievement in itself. The fact that Federer or Nadal or Djokovic weren't around isn't his problem as he could only beat whoever else was. So he remains an all time great whatever criteria are used and whether that entitles him to GOAT status a matter for debate.

Finally it's like the latest fashion this debate anyway. People only vote for the latest guy i.e. in 2-3 years time everybody will no doubt say Djokovic. Tilden, Budge and Gonzalez may just as well never have played the game because their relative merits have long since being dumped in the vaults of tennishistory.

newballs,
You are repeating what you already said before. But if you think Laver as GOAT then you try to answer the questions I put to you? Else wise your points won't have to count anything more than some kid from London telling Murray is GOAT because he likes him. If you think his 1962 achievement qualifies him to for a GOAT debate then please answer why was is losing badly to Rosewall and Hoad the in 1963. This almost largely means he did benefit big from their absence from GS in 1962.

Also in what happened in 1970? What happend in any of the years after 1969 till 1979 when he retired? Why couldn't he he repeat anything even close to what he did in 1962 or 1969?

I never said anything about how Federer or Pete or Nadal would have played against Laver. I don't compare eras, but I can comapre Laver with his own playing field and how well he dominated those. I don't find it impressive enough for anything like being called GOAT. 2 great years and nothing much in a career spanning about 20 years is not at all for GOAT.

I agree people have poor memories and only like what is hot at the moment. But its not with everyone.

Interesting views Raiders. It's before my time so this is why I did not mention him in my post. What I was told hower by people who were following closely at the time is that Pancho was probably the greatest of the post war - pre open era.

But in anycase, it's a bit irrelevant as tennis was so different then.

Tenez wrote:Interesting views Raiders. It's before my time so this is why I did not mention him in my post. What I was told hower by people who were following closely at the time is that Pancho was probably the greatest of the post war - pre open era.

But in anycase, it's a bit irrelevant as tennis was so different then.

I've heard that too about Gonzalez. Most people are noephiles, driven on by a press which wants people to believe that they are reading about something historic all the time. If it is true that standards improve (that is obscured by changing conditions and equipment), Aquinas pointed out that later 'greats' are often merely sitting on the shoulders of the true giants and exploiting the better view they gain from their predecessors' efforts. It's the subjectivity of these matters that keep us talking.

Tenez wrote:Interesting views Raiders. It's before my time so this is why I did not mention him in my post. What I was told hower by people who were following closely at the time is that Pancho was probably the greatest of the post war - pre open era.

But in anycase, it's a bit irrelevant as tennis was so different then.

Pancho is definetly up there but it is so hard for all of us to rate the guys we didn't grow up watching. Laverfan is a big proponent of laver and the old timers. But as newballs has stated there accomplishments don't get talked about today because most of us just aren't that old. I don't even really remember Borg, Connors and Mac were the first great champs I really watched regularly.

By the way pancho is definetly a goat, he is agassi's brother in law an married his sister nearly 35 years younger. Now that is a good old goat for me.

Agree that it's hard to judge players we never saw, but Laver has to be right up there as a GOAT candidate. 2 GS (it's not like anyone else did it at the time), he also won slams in '60, '61 and '68, and won a huge about of other tournaments as amateur and pro. At age 36 he was ranked No 4 on the computer rankings at the end of 1974. And he had a big H2H lead vs Gonzales, if that matters.
So I can't agree with Raiders.

"newballs,
You are repeating what you already said before. But if you think Laver as GOAT then you try to answer the questions I put to you? Else wise your points won't have to count anything more than some kid from London telling Murray is GOAT because he likes him. If you think his 1962 achievement qualifies him to for a GOAT debate then please answer why was is losing badly to Rosewall and Hoad the in 1963. This almost largely means he did benefit big from their absence from GS in 1962.

Also in what happened in 1970? What happend in any of the years after 1969 till 1979 when he retired? Why couldn't he he repeat anything even close to what he did in 1962 or 1969?"

===================================================

raiders whilst I can't answer all your questions as most of his achievements are before my time I'll do my best.

When Laver made the transition from amateur to pro he started off losing to both Hoad and Rosewall (he was a lot younger like Novak taking on Federer and Nadal when he first came on tour) but by 1965 he was clearly the professional no.1 regularly beating both Roswall and Gonzales (Hoad retired in the mid 60s from back problems).

In 1969 he won a second grand slam to go with the one he won as an amateu in 1962 and it is generally agreed that he was the best player of his era from 1964-70. Why he never won another slam after 1970 is a mystery to me. He'd turned 30 but back then that probably wasn't as big a barrier to winning a slam as it is now so perhaps he'd lost some of his speed or strength by then..

Fellow former pos rate him as one of and often the best player of all time (yes they are often taking about the period before Federer and Nadal came along) but the criteria they use are - longevity (you can't ignore the fact that his amateur period started in 1959 so by 1970 that's already 11 years on tour), ability on both grass and clay 9no hard courts back then) and record both as an amateur and a professional.

What impressed others about him were- natural serve, volleyer, technically flawless, quick & strong, left arm serve with disguise and slice, aggressive groundstrokes. In effect the complete package.

It would appear that even now you can look at the triumverate of three - Laver,Federer and Sampras and argue the case for each as best of all time. You then have to look at Nadal and wait to see what he's achieved by the end of his career and now the same for Djokovic. Gonzalez, Tilden, Borg...etc also have their advocates.

You still have to (in my opinion) add real weight to the fact that he won all four tites in the same year as a professional in the Open era remaining the only man to have done so. Whether that makes him a stand out candidate for GOAT or not is perhaps debatable but hopefully I've not repeated myself too much for you!

The thing is when equating achievements everything needs to be taken into account. It is a clear fact that that in 1969 winning the Australian Open was a much easier achievement with only 64 entrants and over a quarter of the entrants being Australian so evidently not contested by all of the top players in the world. If it had been in todays day and age when ALL of the players compete in Melbourne then his achievement would mean so much more.

CaledonianCraig wrote:The thing is when equating achievements everything needs to be taken into account.

Is anyone taking into account that today's GS have 32 seeds. That's got to make it easier for the top players than meeting the world No. 17 in round 1.

When Laver made the transition from amateur to pro he started off losing to both Hoad and Rosewall (he was a lot younger like Novak taking on Federer and Nadal when he first came on tour) but by 1965 he was clearly the professional no.1 regularly beating both Roswall and Gonzales (Hoad retired in the mid 60s from back problems).

In 1969 he won a second grand slam to go with the one he won as an amateu in 1962 and it is generally agreed that he was the best player of his era from 1964-70. Why he never won another slam after 1970 is a mystery to me. He'd turned 30 but back then that probably wasn't as big a barrier to winning a slam as it is now so perhaps he'd lost some of his speed or strength by then..

==============================================

newballs,

In 1963 when Laver turned pro, he was already 25 years old, won 6 GS and 5 GS finals and was coming out of a spectacular 1962 season. Rosewall that time was 29 and Hoad was 29 as well. Do you want to suggest that for a player who has already achieved what Laver had done till 1962 was struggling badly against 2 29 year old pros just because he was young in age? Is 25 a young age in any sport? No way. I could have agreed if Laver was 17-20 years and Rosewall & Hoad about 23-26 that they did have an advantage of physical maturity that one doesn't really have as a teenager. But age as excuse for a 25 year old playing against 2 29 year oldies sounds strange.

Also while you use 29 years of age as an advantage for Rosewall and Hoad in beating Laver regularly in 1963, but you put this 30 about years of age as a massive disadvantage for Laver's not being able to do well after 1969. This is not going well, isn't it?

You can say in 1963 Laver was transitioning from Amateur to pro. Now what actually changed for Laver from 1962 to 1963 so much he was absolutely struggling the very next year. Till 1962 he had a great record with 6 GS wins and 5 GS finals already. If he was great player of caliber to be called GOAT then he should have rolled down well even with the pros beating them like he did to other amateurs. So it was not the balls, not the playing surface, nothing much changed for him. Only thing that changed was the playing field. Earlier all the top players were playing as pros and while they were not able to play in Slams, it was for Laver's advantage. Thats why I don't regard his 1962 4 majors in a row as achievement that can put any case for him for the GOAT title. It was a great performance but we are talking about GOAT, not just great.


After 1969 Laver never won a GS. In 1970 he couldn't defend any of his slams won in 1969 and lost each of them easily( he didn't play AO or FO but that is no excuse). In fact after the 1969's 4 major wins he didn't play even a single GS final, and his best performance was one solitary wimbledon qtrs.


What does this indicate? I'm not 100% on as as I didn't see those times but does it not look like some circumstantial advantage that I mentioned earlier that worked in favor of a player who made a great success in one year and the the very next year on wards fell absolutely to dust. If Laver was so great as to be a GOAT, then he would have needed to do this far more consistently. In 1963 and 1970 he was coming out of absolutely stunning 4 majors in 1 calender year. That should in itself given him a prime confidence and an aura of invincibility that a player will have after such performances. Yet he struggled ( what ever be the reasons). In 1970 a 41 year old Pancho Gonzalez defeated Laver in $10,000 winner takes all match. See this now. A 41 year old pre open era pro defeating a double calender GS winner in the most immediate year in bet and losing in 5 sets? You still put him for a GOAT. Not hardly for me.


Fellow former pos rate him as one of and often the best player of all time


===========================

This point is just like Arthur Ash must be grater player than Pete as he has a center court of US Open named after him and Pete doesn't have anything like that. The thing is such things are said as token of respect more than anything else. Those ol' boys were the pioneers of the great game and just for that they are often regarded so highly. This doesn't mean they can be GOAT.

Re Laver, 1963 is easy to explain - when Laver went pro he faced a calibre of opponent that he had not had to face before so his game was not adapted to them. They wiped the floor with him to start with until he got used to the higher standards he'd have to meet, then for about 5 years on the pro-circuit he wiped the floor with everyone else. It was very common for amateur players to struggle when they started playing pro's - the standard was just much higher. I think that his legend amongst pro tennis players comes from the fact that they know this about Laver:

a. He was king of the amateur game when he turned pro
b. He became king of the pro game during the 5-6 years he was on the pro circuit
c. He managed to be king of the Open Era when it began - and whilst he did not repeat any leg of the 1969 Grandslam feat he still carried on winning pro tournaments until 1975 - 40 in all during his 30's at a time when slams were probably less important than they are now - see http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/La/R/Rod-G-Laver.aspx?t=tf

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The thing is when equating achievements everything needs to be taken into account.

Is anyone taking into account that today's GS have 32 seeds. That's got to make it easier for the top players than meeting the world No. 17 in round 1.

Err no as the draw never worked like that and like I said earlier not all the top players entered the Australian Open. Missing were Arthur Ashe (No.5 in world), Clark Graebner (No.7 in world) and others. Also Rod Laver got a bye through the First Round so won four matches to reach the final unlike nowadays when they need to win six matches to reach the final with a full quota of top players in the world attending.

When a totally useless player eons past his best like Youzhny is making semi's of USO then you know that Rod Laver would dominate this era..

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The thing is when equating achievements everything needs to be taken into account.

Is anyone taking into account that today's GS have 32 seeds. That's got to make it easier for the top players than meeting the world No. 17 in round 1.

Err no as the draw never worked like that...

In the first round of the USO 1988, Lendl (no 1 seed) drew Mansdorf (ranked 24) in the first round. Nowadays the No 1. seed can only play someone outside the top 32 in the first round.

Yes but still in 1988 it was a full quota of the world's very best players at that time who were competing unlike the Australian Open in 1969 with 64 entrants and two thirds of the top seeds being Australian.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:The thing is when equating achievements everything needs to be taken into account.

Is anyone taking into account that today's GS have 32 seeds. That's got to make it easier for the top players than meeting the world No. 17 in round 1.

Err no as the draw never worked like that...

In the first round of the USO 1988, Lendl (no 1 seed) drew Mansdorf (ranked 24) in the first round. Nowadays the No 1. seed can only play someone outside the top 32 in the first round.

I remember speculation about who would draw high-ranking non-seeds before Wimbledon when they had only 16 seeds. I thought that after the 16 seeds the other names were just drawn entirely at random so the 1st seed might face anyone from nominal 17th seed down.

raiders looks like you're casting just an element of doubt on myclaims regarding the Rockhampton Rocket. As barrystar says the pro and amateur games were like chalk and cheese. The reality is all the top players went pro for the money so obviously there came a time when Laver decided to do so too.

The quality of opposition was much higher therefore the learning curve before he won . Also Emerson won loads of slam towards the end of the so-called amateur era but is regarded as a great player but not a GOAT candidate for obvious reasons.

You appear fixated by the fact that he almost disappeared off the radar come 1970 and lost a winner takes all matrch to Gonzalez. Well even Federer managed to lose an exhibition match to a retired Sampras so what does that tell you?

Paraphrasing wiki - Laver came top amongst various experts polled. In 1986, the US magazine Inside Tennis polled 37 experts resulting in a "virtual reality" computerised tournament. Laver was ranked first list ahead of McEnroe, Budge, Kramer, Borg, Gonzales, Tilden, Connors, Perry, and Hoad.
In a poll by the Associated Press in 2000, Laver was voted "The Male Tennis Player of the Century", ahead of Sampras, Tilden, Borg, Budge, McEnroe and Hoad (tied), Rosewall and Roy Emerson (tied), and Kramer.
In an article in Tennis Week in 2007 Raymond Lee (a tennis historian) analysed the all-time greats. Surprise,surprise Laver came first ahead of Tilden and Borg (tied), Federer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, McEnroe, and Kramer.

To bring you more up to date I've also looked at the Sports Illustrated top 10 to include Federer and Nadal in the for completeness. This came out (I believe) after Nadal's US Open win last year so is fairly up to date.Their order is - and to be fair Rod isn't first- Federer, Sampras, Laver, Nadal, Borg,Gonzalez, Agassi, Tilden, McEnroe,Lendl.

Third pace - not bad for an old timer and pioneer as you so lightly dismiss him.

raiders looks like you're casting just an element of doubt on myclaims regarding the Rockhampton Rocket. As barrystar says the pro and amateur games were like chalk and cheese. The reality is all the top players went pro for the money so obviously there came a time when Laver decided to do so too.

The quality of opposition was much higher therefore the learning curve before he won .

===========================================


newballs,

Now you and me and seemingly all of us agreed that the level of play in amateur days was very low and the level of play was easy. This means Laver's 1962 4 majors in 1 calender year don't count for any value as you initially were putting in argument for his GOAT case. In fact till 1962 he had won 6 GS and 5 GS finals so none of them are not much worth than a club level wins. So I can say that his case for real worth as a Tennis GOAT starts from 1963.

You appear fixated by the fact that he almost disappeared off the radar come 1970 and lost a winner takes all matrch to Gonzalez. Well even Federer managed to lose an exhibition match to a retired Sampras so what does that tell you?

========================================

You call me fixed?? Aren't you or anyone who claims for Laver's GOAT status just as fixed on the 4 slams in one calender year thing and regard it so highly as to put him for GOAT status? Any one who puts Laver for GOAT says one and the same thing. 4 majors in 1969. What has Laver got to show apart from that 1 year's of great performance? I already said its esier to win super huge in a short span of time that to keep doing consistently great for years. Even in 1969 his win-loss percentage was nothing like the greatest ever, it was only some ~87%. Laver's record in defending a GS was very poor and he could only do it twice at wimbledon. Defending a GS title successfully takes much greater effort than winning it because of the immense pressure to hold on to something the one is already having. People question Nadal's all surface play despite a career slam because desipte winning all the slams, he has never defended any Slam outside of FO . ( I think he has never defended any title outside of clay).

Charity and exhibition matches are different. No one plays it seriously. Do also want to talk about exhibition wins?? Don't do that. Are you suggesting the 1970 winner takes all $10,000 match between Pancho and Laver as an exhibition match that the result wouldn't matter? It was no exhibition or charity. It was an ego clash match between the two great Pancho and Laver for their claim to superiority. Why else would it have to be a 5 setter, intensely fought match? It could have been a 1 or 3 setter at max lightly played match were player were laughing and smiling all the while. The stake was more than $ 10,000. Why did it happen in 1970 just after Laver's 4 majors win? Pancho wanted to show that even at 41 being 10 years older to Laver and despite Laver coming out of a fantastic year, Pancho could still beat him, and he did exactly that.


Paraphrasing wiki - Laver came top amongst various experts polled. In 1986, the US magazine Inside Tennis polled 37 experts resulting in a "virtual reality" computerised tournament. Laver was ranked first list ahead of McEnroe, Budge, Kramer, Borg, Gonzales, Tilden, Connors, Perry, and Hoad.
In a poll by the Associated Press in 2000, Laver was voted "The Male Tennis Player of the Century", ahead of Sampras, Tilden, Borg, Budge, McEnroe and Hoad (tied), Rosewall and Roy Emerson (tied), and Kramer.
In an article in Tennis Week in 2007 Raymond Lee (a tennis historian) analysed the all-time greats. Surprise,surprise Laver came first ahead of Tilden and Borg (tied), Federer, Gonzales, Rosewall, Budge, Lendl, Connors, Sampras, McEnroe, and Kramer.

To bring you more up to date I've also looked at the Sports Illustrated top 10 to include Federer and Nadal in the for completeness. This came out (I believe) after Nadal's US Open win last year so is fairly up to date.Their order is - and to be fair Rod isn't first- Federer, Sampras, Laver, Nadal, Borg,Gonzalez, Agassi, Tilden, McEnroe,Lendl.


====================================

If you have been reading most topics on this forum you'd know that I never used words or quotes on some player from famous pros and former pros as a support to my argument. This is no way to put a point by giving references to what someone else think. Lot of great players will have their opinion and its theirs and they are correct in their own ways. But You bringing those out in support to your point seems useless. Why you needed to bring those out.? I never did anything like that. You had to because you couldn't answer the questions. Possibly even the great tennis players and tennis historians might not have been able to answer had those been put to them like this. But we can't know about it, can we? So lets only talk about what you and me and everyone else on 606v2 think and on what basis. You putting someone else's opinion to form your own seems immature. I like people who can think for themselves and build opinions one their own judgements. So think for yourself.

Third pace - not bad for an old timer and pioneer as you so lightly dismiss him.


Third place in no place for GOAT. It has to be at the top. You keep forgetting we are not talking about great players. I have always agreed Laver as great. But GOAT?? Not enough.

You want to talk about his great performances as a pro during 1963 -67. Well there are many points.

raiders we beg to differ.

His amateur 1962 slam was hardly mentioned - i put much more emphasis on the 1969 one.

Also 3rd place is nowhere? Tell that to the likes of Nadal and Agassi below him on that list.

Finally what can I say? If you look historically at how players were you have to rely on a mixture of old footage and what their peers had to say about that. The fact that he looked lightweight using an old wooden racket and playing with his chums as opposed to the physical game played nowadays was because he was a product of his time.

If he had been born 40-50 years later into this era my surmise would be he would have the game and agility to compete and beat the best. That's my opinion and I trust it's a reasonable "mature" one you can accept.

Raiders - what do you think were Laver's weaknesses and why do you think his status of GOAT is not merited?

Winning all 4 in a year is a good achievement though I agree it was much easier to do then...yet the others did not. I also find it difficult to explain why he could not retain a single title the following year...but could have been injuries or else.

With regards to the late amateur and early Open era, as none of us here (I believe) were actually watching tennis at the time, or are tennis historians, it is perfectly valid to detail and even accept, the views of those around at the time who have a far greater knowledge of it.
Raiders, if it is almost unanimously agreed in say, the year 2000, by experts, commentators and players who were around at the time, that Laver was the best player ever, or close to it, then there is a good chance that he is not as easily dismissed as you seem to think he is.

JuliusHMarx wrote:With regards to the late amateur and early Open era, as none of us here (I believe) were actually watching tennis at the time, or are tennis historians, it is perfectly valid to detail and even accept, the views of those around at the time who have a far greater knowledge of it.

We can also look at the results - Laver got to the top of every facet of the game he competed in - he was top Amateur in 1962 with a calender slam, he then worked his way to the top of the pure pro game in the 1960's when he was barred from playing in slams, he then started the Open Era against all-comers with 5 slams including another calender slam before making an extremely good account of himself in the Open era during his 30's at a time when slam wins were not the be-all and end-all as they are now.

That looks like the record of someone with a solid claim to GOAT, and I'm not the only one who thinks so.

His amateur 1962 slam was hardly mentioned - i put much more emphasis on the 1969 one.


Did you not mentioned the following in your original post.

Finally Laver the only man to have won the grand slam in the Open era (he also manage it previously as an amateur). For that reason alone an absoluter nailed on cert for GOAT status.

Thats why that talk about 1962 4 gs wins.


Also 3rd place is nowhere? Tell that to the likes of Nadal and Agassi below him on that list.

==================


I never said 3rd place is nowhere? I just said 3rd place is no place for GOAT. it has to be at the top. 3rd place is there at its right place i.e. 3rd and not GOAT. I don't put any claims for Agassi's claim for GOAT either. A player who needs drugs to win is not in my list of any GOAT. Nadal's claim is so greatly based on clay that it still can't come close for GOAT. He needs to defend some non clay slams. Then maybe we can see.


If he had been born 40-50 years later into this era my surmise would be he would have the game and agility to compete and beat the best.
=============================================================

If he was born 40-50 years later?? You want to say if he was born in say 1990-2000s or between 2000-2011 he would have had the game and agility to beat the best ? On what basis sir? 1990s was dominated by great servers. What chance do you think a 5 7' laver's serve would have had when compared to guys like Goran, Boris, Pete etc who were hitting bombs and un-returnables almost at will. Do you think a 5 7' guy has the reach to face those serves return them well? Not hardly. Do you think a 5 7' guy can serve any bit to be called great??

And 2000s-2011 was mainly dominated by baseliners with supreme physical ability. Do you want to say Laver's game would have had any chance with the strength and stamina of Nadal, Djo or even Hewitt in early 2000s. Even with any the modern equipment he wouldn't have been anything like GOAT.


I don't compare eras. I don't compare how they would have played in the modern game. Its impossible to to know. I brought the above points because you wanted to say Laver would have beaten the best even if he was born 40-50 years later. Laver was great player of his days, tennis was very different then. But just because we won 4 majors in year he doesn't become GOAT. Even in his time, he needed to do better. And I'm not agreeing for his GOAT just because some historian thinks he is. I have my power of reasoning to build my own opinion.

Anyone is entitled to an opinion , but for adults as I believe most people are here, it should always be backed up with proper reasoning as to why one has that opinion. Else like I said before, they don't count more than what a kid in London saying Murray is GOAT because he likes him.

Tenez wrote:Raiders - what do you think were Laver's weaknesses and why do you think his status of GOAT is not merited?

Winning all 4 in a year is a good achievement though I agree it was much easier to do then...yet the others did not. I also find it difficult to explain why he could not retain a single title the following year...but could have been injuries or else.

Tenez,
One very important fact that I don't consider him as GOAT was his record as the defending champion. He in his whole tennis career he only defended a GS win on only 2 occasions, 1961-62 and 1968-69 wimbledon. I already said defending a title is much more difficult than winning it and I believe most people here will agree to it, because of the sheer pressure of holding on to something one already has. Its difficult to find why he couldn't defend any of his 1969 wins, maybe injuries who knows. But the injuries excuse can't last for another 10 years till he retired in 1970. After the great 1969 season, what has been his performance in any GS. One solitary wimbledon qtrs?? Does it now not look like in 1969 he did have circumstantial advantage that helped those 4 major wins and when he didn't have them and new players coming up, he was constantly losing in every GS. How can a player with the game of GOAT level and still playing for another 10 years, yet his GOAT game suddenly deserted him completely that he can't even reach a GS final. If this is the case he is not GOAT in my book just for this one enough reason. And it wasn't even like he was constantly losing to only few players who were his bad match-ups? He was losing to almost every top player. Such a sudden fall can't be for a GOAT.

raiders I concede that if Laver were today to play any of the big 3 he would struggle to win a set. Then again at 73 years old I guess that would be asking a little too much even of the maestro himself!

No disrespect, but I suspect tennis historians, and people who spent their entire careers watching and writing about tennis have considerably more knowledge of the 1960 - 1975 years than anyone on this board.
Unless you've watched old videos, judges playing styles of the time, analysed all the stats (all tournaments, all entrants, all H2H etc) and done extensive research, then I'm more likely to accept their views than yours.

I see no reason not to place Laver in a top 5 of all-time list - a list which I never put in any order, as it doesn't seem necessary - Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer, Nadal.

JHM my sentiments entirely.

The only reasons I'd hesitate to put Borg in the top 5 are the shortness of his career and lack of a hard court slam title.

The Sports Illustrated publication certainly came to the same conclusion as you.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1009/top.ten.tennis/content.1.html

Having been in 4 USO finals it's not as if Borg was a novice at HC level.. infact he's been in more HC finals than 'GOAT candidate' Rafa Nadal

Laver only played in 5 GS in 1970 - 1972, which would explain his lack of success in them a bit!
He only ever attempted to defend 5 of his GS wins - and was successful in 2 of those defences. That's not too bad.

From Wiki -
In 1970 he won 15 titles, including 5 Masters series equivalents and had a had 3–0 record against Newcombe and a 5–0 record against Rosewall.
In 1971, Laver successfully defended his title at the "Tennis Champions Classic", winning 13 consecutive winner-take-all matches against top opponents

JHM it is difficult to work out what happened to Laver post 1970. As you point out he didn't appear in too many more slams it seems.

The ATP website current lists him as "inactive" leading no doubt to countless wild rumours of a Lazarus type return to the game.

raiders_of_the_lost_ark wrote:

Tenez wrote:Raiders - what do you think were Laver's weaknesses and why do you think his status of GOAT is not merited?

Winning all 4 in a year is a good achievement though I agree it was much easier to do then...yet the others did not. I also find it difficult to explain why he could not retain a single title the following year...but could have been injuries or else.

Tenez,
One very important fact that I don't consider him as GOAT was his record as the defending champion. He in his whole tennis career he only defended a GS win on only 2 occasions, 1961-62 and 1968-69 wimbledon. I already said defending a title is much more difficult than winning it and I believe most people here will agree to it, because of the sheer pressure of holding on to something one already has. Its difficult to find why he couldn't defend any of his 1969 wins, maybe injuries who knows. But the injuries excuse can't last for another 10 years till he retired in 1970. After the great 1969 season, what has been his performance in any GS. One solitary wimbledon qtrs?? Does it now not look like in 1969 he did have circumstantial advantage that helped those 4 major wins and when he didn't have them and new players coming up, he was constantly losing in every GS. How can a player with the game of GOAT level and still playing for another 10 years, yet his GOAT game suddenly deserted him completely that he can't even reach a GS final. If this is the case he is not GOAT in my book just for this one enough reason. And it wasn't even like he was constantly losing to only few players who were his bad match-ups? He was losing to almost every top player. Such a sudden fall can't be for a GOAT.

Ah Ok I understand and respect your view though I do not share it. He retained 2 slams it seems, including one when he was still young. That's kind of good enough for me. Again I don;t know the player much but there must be some pressure in achieving the 4 in a row and he held his own there...twice. You coudl say the other players of his time managed to retain slams but failed to win 4 in a row. I am not sure retaining a slam adds more pressure, especially if you have done it. Look at today's players, they find it harder to win 4 slams in a row than retaining any of them. We might say that Nadal never retained a tournament outside clay but that has, imo, little to do with the added pressure, just that he was injured or simply played a better player as was the case again last week.

Having said that I am not particularly impressed by the way tennis was played at that time...including the clips I have seen of Laver. It was clearly a small and priviledged team who could make a living hitting the ball all day long against each other with very few players having the chance and money to enter that small circle.

Tennis started to get serious with Nastase (yep ) and then Borg sorted the boys from teh men in terms of professionalism. But sadly, even them look amateurish compared to today's game.

JuliusHMarx wrote:No disrespect, but I suspect tennis historians, and people who spent their entire careers watching and writing about tennis have considerably more knowledge of the 1960 - 1975 years than anyone on this board.

I would not be convinced with that. You have some cooks spending their life time cooking and the result is

I have read some absurd comments by famous commentators and coaches. I have heard Mark Woodforde and McEnroe arguing over modern game, conds etc...and Mark was right, McEnroe wrong, despite McEnroe having won more slams. McEnroe is an excellent commentator BTW but he has come with the weird comment too...or maybe the comment people wanted to hear.

And how many more times COULD Laver have done in during 63-67 too? Well we know he won US Pro, Wembley Pro, French Pro and Wimbledon Pro 11 times during 63-67 - which indicates he might have been on around 22 slams ordinarily (as dont see the amateurs as having beaten him also).

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:No disrespect, but I suspect tennis historians, and people who spent their entire careers watching and writing about tennis have considerably more knowledge of the 1960 - 1975 years than anyone on this board.

I would not be convinced with that. You have some cooks spending their life time cooking and the result is

I have read some absurd comments by famous commentators and coaches. I have heard Mark Woodforde and McEnroe arguing over modern game, conds etc...and Mark was right, McEnroe wrong, despite McEnroe having won more slams. McEnroe is an excellent commentator BTW but he has come with the weird comment too...or maybe the comment people wanted to hear.

True Tenez, but in the case of Laver, it's almost unanimous that he was one of, if not the greatest - a general consensus.

JuliusHMarx wrote:True Tenez, but in the case of Laver, it's almost unanimous that he was one of, if not the greatest - a general consensus.

Yes but we really have to understand that he was a GOAT in a pretty small, priviledge club. A great player FOR HIS TIME. I tend to agree with Raiders and even add that was he born in 1980 or after he may not even have pursued a tennis career.