There are a lot of threads concerning the Greats of the Game and Laver is always among them. A lot of tennis fans rank Laver above Federer because he won the calendar slam twice!

Just ... who really knows Laver and the competition he faced that time. I must admit, that I've never seen an entire Match of Laver on TV. I believe that's also the case for most users of this board. We just know the names of the Greats from the past like Laver, Rosewall, Budge, Tilden and some of their achievements. That's why we take just the facts (titles) into our judgements for comparisons of different eras and G.O.A.T. discussions.

But ... does for example everybody know, that during the days of Laver and Rosewall three of the four Grand Slams were played on grass? And was the competition really as tough as nowadays? Tony Roche for example admitted, that the field during his days wasn't as strong as it is now. Okay, that's just his opininion, but Roche knows what he's speaking of, not like a lot of young tennis fans who root against Federer (and the weak competition) without ever seeing Laver, Budge, Tilden play. And ... how can you speak of a week era, without really knowing the past?

The fact that the game has changed so much and that the slams are played on a variety of surfaces makes it impossible to compare Fed and Laver IMO,but reading these facts might make you think that Fed must be better. ;)

You post makes a lot of sense to me Erico. Many discuss this pre-open era but very few of us have actually watched older players in action and the clips available on the net are rare.

But in fact it does not matter that much, it would be simply unfair to compare how their games would match against each other as Fedrules said, so may things have changed and Laver had no chance to play with modern rackets or even trained with "better player", better technics etc....

This is why to answer your question, it is only fair to say that Federer is a "better" tennis player than Laver was but you could probably say the same of the current top 100th if not 500th and show the absurditity of such comparison. But that does not certainly make Federer Greater than Laver. This is why there are record books.

I however think - to support Tony Roche's view - that a GS now is more difficult to achieve than a GS then.

Tenez, you're right!

Laver with his wooden racket (and the fitting technique) surely would have no chance against a current top player and nevertheless he remains a great player, although I did not see him in action. I just see his achievements and trust in people like Roche and McEnroe who did know him better.

But the question remains: What makes a player great?
His number of (slam) titles? Back to back titles (Borg) or career slam (Agassi)? His mastering of different surfaces? His domination and intimidating factor? His tennis skills (shotmaking, movement, mental part ...)? His personality and charisma? His popularity? His unforgotten battles for titles, like Borg-McEnroe in 1980?
And does judging greatness needs to include comparisons with other great player in other eras?

IMO it's a mix of everything and for me Federer is already up there in the Pantheon, but of course nobody has to share my opinion. I just think it's not right rooting for a current weak era and ranking Laver higher than Federer, without ever seeing Laver play.

It is for sure only a matter of opinion what makes the greatest. No fixed rules, no official book, no proof. Only what "we" think.

It seems so far that amongst many of us we don't seem ready to replace Laver with Federer yet. The question will certainly be raised again in one year.

Concerning this GOAT discussion..My idea is more to have a short list of all great and then each of us take the one who he likes more based on personal factors, i.e. might be as well the impact of his game in our "eyes" the fact that we like more the current style of game (i.e. aggressive baseline in which players try to close with a winner after the serve but the winner is played one step inside the baseline instead of the serve & volley technique in which players were literally flying to the net after the serve)...

Now, our current experience is based on the aggressive baseline technique, few players are still doing the serve & volley (but this is another subject of discussion: why the serve& volley is almost died).

Back to the original idea my short list being as follow:

1 - Laver
2 - Sampras
3 - Borg =Federer (now..End of career?? No.2-1??)
5 - Lendl
6 - McEnroe (ok I did not agree with his behaviour still a great player)
7 - Agassi
8 - Connors
9 - Rosewall ( only based on numbers and readings..i.e. mainly what he did for the "evolution" of Tennis technique)
10- Edberg

But Is it really so important to have a straight classification in term of position 1/2/3/...IMO we can definitely drop the numbers in front of the first 6 entries and simply say all of them are GOAT of Tennis...In other terms, who really cares to have a single over "eras" GOAT...Is it not possible to live with several great instead of a unique GOAT? Opinions... :rolleyes:

Ciao TennisVeritas

PS once again: Montaigne: We can be knowledgeable with other men's knowledge, we can only be wise with our own wisdom :bow: :bow:

As already mentioned, comparisons are impossible. There's just one thing I'd like to add: In Laver's day, all GSs but the FO were played on Grass. Were this still the case today, the game would be very, very different. For all we know, Fed might already have a calendar slam. Rafa would be struggling. Times change, equipment changes, technique developes.

Conclusion:

:bow: Laver
:bow: Borg
:bow: Sampras
:bow: Federer

I remember Tenez asked us to compile our greatest list on the BBC.To be fair I only personally included those players I had actually seen play.I would loved to have seen The Rocket play,by all accounts he was talented in every area of the court.
I think Rosewall is another player who gets a bum deal when these lists are compiled as his H2H with Laver is exceptionally close and both missed out on a large chunk of their professional years.So someone like Rosewall may have had more slams moving him up the various Greatest lists.

The overall record compiled is 75-66 to Laver,but the open-era record is 22-9 to Laver.
I posted this article a long while ago now,but can't find it in the forum now,but for those interested in it.

http://www.budcollinstennis.com/notes-main.html

As we have said,it's almost an impossible task to compile a fair list,time is the enemy,and many things change.Of course many of the various lists compiled on tennis players are from ones own preferences too so it's hard,but they are always fun to partake in.

Yes I was meant to compile a BBC's members 10 greatest but did not really get the time to do it at first then I lost interest but here is the link. It was a good thread with a nice discussion flowing. But we shoudl be able to create one from the CC members.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/mbfivelive/F2148567?thread=3497789

I tried to llok at some laver/ rosewall clips on Youtube and you get very little glimps but I guess it is good enough to give us a clue. The bottom line, I think it does not matter that much as the game changed considerably and it is impossible to compare games from such different eras. If I had too, I would like to see more of those old guys touch, "hear" the sound of the ball on the racket as it gives you a clue of how those guys timed the ball, and of course how they managed pressure.

I guess we will have to rely on the record books. And though I understand the difficulty to rank someone we have hardly seen play, I would find it difficult not to include Laver in this list as he won a slam in the open era. Besides, I refreshed my memory by watching a bit of the Lendl Borg first final at the FO on youtube (that was about 13 years after Laver's open slam) and I am convinvced that the game had not changed as much in these 13 years than it chanched in the following 2 or 3 years after 81 due to the rackets larger frame.

Interesting, what Tony Roche said a few days ago in an interview with Rene Stauffer in a swiss newspaper (Sonntagszeitung). I translate it for you (as good as I can):

Stauffer: What was for you the most impressive (Concerning Roger and the last year)?

Roche: His consistency. His win-loss stats. He has won 3 Grand Slam and reached the final in the 4th and just had 1 bad tournament. I was a player during the times of Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall, who belong in my opinion to the greatest champions in this sport, but they were not near to that what achieved Roger. I know how difficult it is.

Stauffer: Do you want to say that Roger is more dominant than Laver in his time?

Roche: If you look at the stats ... okay, Laver won the Grand Slam twice. But the game changed very much. The power density ("Leistungsdichte" in German) is much bigger now. That time three of the four Grand Slam Tournaments were played on grass. I don't want to depreciate Laver, but what Roger achieved is at least as good as what Laver achieved.


By the way: On YouTube you find some points of the final in Wimbledon in 1968 between Laver and Roche.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7YVWYr4hQLE

Thanks for the translation - I agree with Roche.

I saw the 68 Wimby summary on youtube. I could not make much of it except that the best points were nice but it is difficult to get an idea of the whole level.

That's the point. In summaries you normally just see the best and most important points. It would be much more significant to see at least one entire match on YouTube. It would be great if somebody possesses a video of a Laver match at home could upload it ...

That what Roche said makes sense and is a great compliment. Although he is actually Roger's coach I believe he really means it that way.

Little Appendix to the (quite long) Roche Interview. They were speaking about Rogers chances at the FO.

Roche: ... For me it's clear that Rogers game on clay improved the last two years ... with his talent and capability it's almost impossible, that he cannot win Paris.


One man, one word! That sounds very optimistic :)
Okay, he's the expert. Roger surely has a good chance to win it in the next couple of years, but I'm not that convinced yet. Nadal is young and can also improve even on clay ...

Meant that way:

Roche: ... with his talent and capability it's almost impossible, that he will not win Paris.[B]

:ok: Thanks a lot erico77 for these very interesting posts...

Well it would be very interesting to know if Roche was thinking the same way when he was the trainer of Lendl: Did he expect as well Lendl winning Wimbledon?

I am quite sure his answer at that time would have been less straightforward. :rolleyes: ..

Simply let :pray: with him that FED will be able to achieve this last great objective win at least once RG

Its an interesting comment from Roche, given that Lendl wasnt a natural grass court player, who he greatly improved his volleying skills, he still never won Wimbledon because he was up against so many great grass players at the time.
On the other hand, has Roche really made much difference to Federers clay court game , since he was brought up on the stuff?
Federer is up against one of the best ever on clay, Nadal . Even so I have very little doubt he will win the French at least once. Nadal will find it hard to keep to this level year after year on clay with the type of game he plays . Federers game is much more economical . :D

Concerning the FO, Nadal still has to play every year. Tennis is not only about winning matches, but also about avoiding injuries. Fed still seems more likely to remain injury-free.

Thanks for this! It makes for interesting reading. I am posting a link to the full interview for those of us who understand German. :)