The Rocket won the Australian, French, Wimbledon and U.S. Open in 1969, the second year of the Open Era, repeating the Grand Slam he won in 1962 as an amateur.  No man has won a calendar year Grand Slam since, and none have really even come close — Sampras, whose 14 individual Grand Slam record number of wins Federer can tie with a victory on Sunday, never even reached a French Open final. (The hoopla around Federer tying Sampras’ record is something of a sham since Laver, who won 11, missed 1963-1967 because he turned pro when only amateurs were allowed to compete in the slams.) Federer has reached the French final, but never won more than a set.  In fact, only one modern player has won the career Grand Slam, with Andre Agassi the only post-Laver player to do so.  But Laver won all four twice in the same year, and forty years ago he did it against all-comers – pros and amateurs alike. 

To his credit, Laver is very gracious, saying that the game was not as good in his day as it is now.  And three of the four slams then were played on grass and one on clay, unlike today’s mixture of two hard courts, one grass and one clay. But the fact is Laver did it, not once, but twice.  Until Federer or Sampras or someone else comes along and lofts all four championship trophies in the same calendar year, Laver will stand alone.

Related posts:

1. 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.

Even if Federer wins five more Wimbledons in a row, his status as the GOAT is dubious without the French, just as Bjorn Borg’s failure to win the U.S. Open excludes him from the conversation, just as Pete Sampras’ failure to win the French hinders his argument. And what about Bill Tilden, winner of six U.S. National Championships (then the U.S. Open) in a row from 1920-26? Or Richard Sears, who in the 1880s won the U.S. title seven times in a row?

Laver, winner of two calendar-year Grand Slams, both as an amateur in 1962 and in the open, professional era in 1969, is still undoubtedly the GOAT to beat. Laver turned pro in 1963 and missed five years of Grand Slams. You can argue that Pancho Gonzalez and Jack Kramer who missed even more years might have surpassed Laver, Emerson and others in Grand Slam titles. We’ll never know, and that’s why the debate sometimes goes in circles and provides John McEnroe endless fodder to talk about instead of the match at hand. Laver’s record, however, is tangible and speaks for itself. He is, for now, the greatest of all time.

If Federer can beat Nadal at Roland Garros, he’ll have legitimate chops in the conversation. As Borg said in a press conference Saturday, “He definitely will be the greatest player ever to play the game.” But even with a win, Federer will have a career losing record against Nadal. He’s 6-10 going into Saturday’s play, including 2-3 in Grand Slam finals. I ask you this: Can you be the greatest of all time and still have a losing record to a peer in your era?

Related posts:

1. 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.