Federer Makes History, But Laver Still the Greatest
Roger Federer’s game is without question at an historic level, but the talk of him claiming the greatest of all time based on his French Open win is premature. To be the one player better than all the others in tennis history, you have to hold a true Grand Slam – all four majors in one year, the pinnacle of tennis. Only Don Budge in 1938 and Rod Laver in 1962 as an amateur AND in 1969 as a professional in the Open era have won a Grand Slam. Until Federer, or maybe Nadal, does that, Laver is still the king. He did twice what only one other player in history has done, and until then stands alone.
Link To Top Spin Blog
Copy and paste the code below into your website, myspace or facebook pages to spread the word about this post.
Related posts:
- Greatest Tennis Player of All Time? Roger, Of Course, Despite the Fact I’ve Beaten Him 17 Times The GOAT discussion reached its most ludicrous point yesterday when...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Jun 8th, 2009 at 2:05 am
Agreed , but Pancho Gonzalez beat Rod Laver when he was forty,
and was pro king eight years, a contender, Lew Hoad, Pancho said, was the best, Laver said Sampras could beat him, so who was the best of their era might be a more sensible question, but yes, time will tell.
Jun 8th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Did Rod Laver have the kind of rivalry with another player that Federer has with Nadal, or that Agassi and Sampras had, Borg and McEnroe, etc.? Did he have someone that consistently challenged his game? Are there other factors besides winning a true Grand Slam that determine who gets crowned greatest (male) player of all time? Speaking of which, why have women players been able to accomplish this feat more than men? And should Steffi Graf’s “Golden Slam” set the bar for what a player needs to achieve to be named greatest of all time? Is the game and the field of competitors so different from Laver’s era that another male player simply cannot pull it off?
Jun 8th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Agreed it’s premature, Federer still needs to prove he’s the best in the current era…ie. beat Nadal consistently. I don’t think winning the Grand Slam has to be the benchmark. Racking up 2 or 3 slam wins each year over the next few years including beating Nadal on a more regular basis would give him the nod in my mind. Thanks for all the interesting reading…
Jun 8th, 2009 at 6:38 pm
In his 1969, Laver beat the best of the day, some twice, legends all: Stan Smith at the French Open and Wimbledon; Arthur Ashe at Wimbledon and the U.S. Open; Ken Rosewall at the French; Tony Roche at the Australian and U.S. Open, including a 7-5, 22-20, 9-11, 1-6, 6-3 marathon down under. Laver went 106-16 and won 18 of 32 tournaments. Many have made the argument to me that the game was different than, that a Grand Slam wasn’t as hard. Maybe. But still no one else in the history of the game has won a calendar year Grand Slam than Laver other than Don Budge. In the women’s game, there are several, and Graff’s accomplishments, as are Margaret Court’s, Chris Evert’s and Martina Navratilova are without peer on the men’s side. I also agree that Pancho could have been the best ever, but we’ll never really know.
Jul 7th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
What all of you forget to mention regarding Rod Laver and the topic how many GS he would have won if he would have played from ‘63 to ‘67 is the follwoing point:
How many of his 6(from a total of 11) GS titles he earned during his amateur time would he have won if the pros from that time would have played?! Maybe none, maybe 1.. Pancho Gonzalez was then a little younger, Lew Hoad and Ken Rosewall at their pick only to mention some of them.. or do you see Rod Laver beating Pancho Segura every time..?!
So.. if you ask the question how many he would have won, you must question how many he woudnt have won as well..
Think about that.
Jul 15th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
This post is nonsense. When Laver played, all Grand Slam events except the French was played on grass, his favourite surface. Today’s pros play on three surfaces – a far greater challenge. Also, back then the Australian Open wasn’t taken seriously and very few top players made the trek down under to compete there.
Mar 18th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Dear all,
I think very seriously that, when we are judging who is the GOAT, we are forgetting something basic to me: tennis is not just a sport, but a visual spectacle.
On that basis, a champion´s greatness is definitely defined by the emotion that he or she can take off us when watching him/her.
If you judge an actor or an actress, then you must consider the script, the cameramen motion, the director…fortunately, with a tennis player it is very simple…¿which tennis player have you enjoyed watching during more hours?
Rod´s sense of spectacle was unique, so was Mc Enroe ´s unbelievable shootmaking, Jimmy´s sense of risk and Pete´s ” poise”.never have Roger or Rafael achieved that level of emotion, in my very modest opinion.They are uncredible tennis players, probably the best from the phisical or technichal point of view.
…But I´am sorry, they are not up to that level yet—¿may be it is not their fault but rather it is due to the very so and so standart of play of nº3, nº4,nº5,nº6…?
May 3rd, 2011 at 3:53 pm
Brillliant point Christian