Was Laverīs 69 season best in open era? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Was Laverīs 69 season best in open era?

romismak
12-08-2011, 04:48 PM
Do you agree or not?

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15346&zoneid=9

Tennis.com made 10 best seasons in open era, i would say Rogerīs 2006 is better, Laver won 3 slams on grass, and lost 16x that season... also in those times the physicall demand on tennis was nothing comparing to now.

Har-Tru
12-08-2011, 04:52 PM
Yes.

Gabe32
12-08-2011, 05:05 PM
I don't know, I wasn't born/know nothing really about it, but it seems like it. 4 slams in one year against those opponents seems pretty impressive.

Also, I always felt like Fed was at his peak in 05-06. Still can't believe Safin snagged that AO in '05.

Dougie
12-08-2011, 05:07 PM
Do you agree or not?

http://www.tennis.com/articles/templates/features.aspx?articleid=15346&zoneid=9

Tennis.com made 10 best seasons in open era, i would say Rogerīs 2006 is better, Laver won 3 slams on grass, and lost 16x that season... also in those times the physicall demand on tennis was nothing comparing to now.

What pisses me off the most, is that the disrespect Laver and his peers receive here at MTF, is mostly based on assumptions like this, that are just plain wrong. Nothing compared to now?? He played 122 matches that year for money that wouldnīt make Fed or Rafa even get out of bed. Also, those guys didnīt have the luxury of tie-breaks, every set was played the long way, so while the game itself might not have been as physical as now, itīs just plain wrong to say Laver & co didnīt ultimately work just as hard.

A calendar GS is a calendar GS, hard to top that.

ssj100
12-08-2011, 05:33 PM
He lost too many times in probably the weakest era in professional tennis on record. So, even in relative terms, I say no way.

romismak
12-08-2011, 05:35 PM
What pisses me off the most, is that the disrespect Laver and his peers receive here at MTF, is mostly based on assumptions like this, that are just plain wrong. Nothing compared to now?? He played 122 matches that year for money that wouldnīt make Fed or Rafa even get out of bed. Also, those guys didnīt have the luxury of tie-breaks, every set was played the long way, so while the game itself might not have been as physical as now, itīs just plain wrong to say Laver & co didnīt ultimately work just as hard.

A calendar GS is a calendar GS, hard to top that.

Maybe i should have wrote it is far more physicall today, what is the truth. You canīt deny it. Yes money in sport and tennis wasnīt such big part of everything like today, but we must take in count inflation, exchange-rates and so on, but still he was earning enough for those times, todayīs sport is just much more about money. Money side we canīt compare, because the difference is enourmnous. WE can compare his season to say Roger 06, Nole 11 and i am not sure if 3/4 slams on grass are good enough to have better season with 16 losses then the way Roger dominated the field in 06 and Nole did in 3/4 of this season, before he injured.

jonathancrane
12-08-2011, 05:41 PM
Do you agree or not?


Yes

Dougie
12-08-2011, 07:05 PM
Maybe i should have wrote it is far more physicall today, what is the truth. You canīt deny it. Yes money in sport and tennis wasnīt such big part of everything like today, but we must take in count inflation, exchange-rates and so on, but still he was earning enough for those times, todayīs sport is just much more about money. Money side we canīt compare, because the difference is enourmnous. WE can compare his season to say Roger 06, Nole 11 and i am not sure if 3/4 slams on grass are good enough to have better season with 16 losses then the way Roger dominated the field in 06 and Nole did in 3/4 of this season, before he injured.

We canīt compare that either, because the whole structure of the tour is so much different nowadays. Back then there were easy matches pretty much only in the first few rounds of the slams ( of which Laver won all, obviously), but other than that, the top guys, Laver, Rosewall, Roche etc. were constantly playing against each other, the draws were much smaller, and there were much more best-of-5 matches. Itīs no wonder Laver lost 16 times.

EddieNero
12-08-2011, 07:27 PM
69' wasn't even in the Open Era.

Dougie
12-08-2011, 07:32 PM
69' wasn't even in the Open Era.

Yes, it was.

MIMIC
12-08-2011, 07:34 PM
Why are so many people infatuated with how often you lose? It's where you WIN that matters most.

Johnny Groove
12-08-2011, 07:49 PM
Laver 69 the best year of Open Era so far, yes.

asmazif
12-08-2011, 08:01 PM
yep.

JurajCrane
12-08-2011, 08:26 PM
If Fed would beat Nadal in Paris 2006 after first set 6-1 - then I say Fed 2006, no doubt about it.

But I can barely pick one year and say thatīs the best. 69 - three (!) grandslams played on grass, although I like Laver as a personality.

SetSampras
12-08-2011, 08:34 PM
Definitely... Laver showed just how hard it is to grab the calendar slam. 42 years later and no one has managed it. Pure domination. Sure it was only grass and clay, but Laver has a ton of other titles on Hard and wood etc.

GOAT season for the greatest to ever play the game of tennis

stewietennis
12-08-2011, 08:55 PM
Four majors in a year is still unmatched. It doesn't matter if three of those were played on grass because Laver had no control over that, what counts is that he won them. If, sometime in the future, one of the hardcourt majors was changed to a different surface, do we discount the achievements before the surface change?

As the article says, do you think Federer, Djokovic,, McEnroe, Connors and everyone else on the list would trade their best season for Laver's Calendar Grand Slam season? The answer would be yes.

Sunset of Age
12-08-2011, 08:58 PM
Absolutely, I don't even see why this would be a point of discussion.
The eventual, total achievements/results of any player in a given season is the only objective thing available to designate this, and a complete CYGS season goes above all other achievements. At least imho.

swisht4u
12-08-2011, 10:31 PM
Laver lost 16 matches.
In comparing best year ever this is just too many losses.

Topspindoctor
12-08-2011, 11:26 PM
No, because Laver played in an era of mugs with less surface variation. Nadal's 2010>Laver's '69

Hewitt =Legend
12-08-2011, 11:30 PM
No, because Laver played in an era of mugs with less surface variation. Nadal's 2010>Laver's '69

Too obvious bro, you're better than that.

SetSampras
12-08-2011, 11:32 PM
Laver's era had all the surfaces.. It had Hard, Grass, Clay, Wood, I think carpet... He won on everything. He played all the top names as well.. Newcombe, Ashe, Rosewall, Pancho, even Borg and Connors later on. You name it, Laver played it

fmolinari2005
12-08-2011, 11:42 PM
No doubt. Winning the CYGS makes it the best season ever. I don't care if he lost all the other matches he played.

ssj100
12-08-2011, 11:43 PM
Definitely... Laver showed just how hard it is to grab the calendar slam. 42 years later and no one has managed it. Pure domination. Sure it was only grass and clay, but Laver has a ton of other titles on Hard and wood etc.

GOAT season for the greatest to ever play the game of tennis

The reason why he managed to win the calender slam is because of the incredibly weak field. Same as why Sampras won so many Grand Slams. Although I have to admit that Sampras's competition was head and shoulders above Laver's.

Action Jackson
12-08-2011, 11:47 PM
Some people need to get educated about tennis history. Can't compare what happened in Laver's time to the same conditions now.

3 Slams were played on grass, but there were tournaments on wood, clay, hardcourts. The surfaces play the same today besides the different movement. Can't have it both ways discounting Laver, while lauding Federer, Djokovic and Nadal winning 3 Slams a year.

green25814
12-08-2011, 11:57 PM
He lost too many times in probably the weakest era in professional tennis on record. So, even in relative terms, I say no way.

Eh? What makes you think that?

AJ is right, you can't compare such drastically different eras

SetSampras
12-08-2011, 11:57 PM
The reason why he managed to win the calender slam is because of the incredibly weak field. Same as why Sampras won so many Grand Slams. Although I have to admit that Sampras's competition was head and shoulders above Laver's.

Well one has to wonder how Pete would enjoy having 3 slams played on grass.. But I don't know. Tough to top a calendar season slams.. And Laver certainly didn't play tennis scrubs to get it either.

Laver dealt with a buttload of talent as I mentioned before (Ashe, Newcombe, Nastase, Borg, Pancho, Connors, and Rosewall).. I wouldn't call that field "weak" by any means. He played some of the all time greats to ever play the game. Plus he was banned from playing the majors in his prime and STILL won 11 slams. Had he played them, he probably has 20 slams.. Maybe more

tripwires
12-09-2011, 12:48 AM
Absolutely YES.

Calendar Year Grand Slam. Hasn't been achieved since 1969, not even by someone like Fed. Enough said.

mark73
12-09-2011, 12:54 AM
The competition in 1969 was the highest since 1869. In 1869 they were just AWESOME.

Topspindoctor
12-09-2011, 12:54 AM
Absolutely YES.

Calendar Year Grand Slam. Hasn't been achieved since 1969, not even by someone like Fed. Enough said.

Olderer had to face Nadal on clay though.. If Laver had to face the Clay GOAT, he wouldn't have a calendar grand slam either.

Har-Tru
12-09-2011, 03:41 AM
69' wasn't even in the Open Era.

Lol.

Sophocles
12-09-2011, 04:19 AM
This shouldn't even be a question. Ffs he won 18 tournaments that year, on all surfaces. If there'd been slams on hard or indoors he'd have won them as well. He lost 16 matches - so what? He won 120 and he won 18 tournaments including 4 slams.

The results of the poll are an embarrassment to MTF.

SetSampras
12-09-2011, 04:28 AM
this thread is definitely furthering my speculation, people here didn't begin watching tennis until Fed entered his prime.. Ridiculous

SaFed2005
12-09-2011, 04:30 AM
Laver played back when only the biggest of nations even played tennis. I would not really have called tennis a WORLD sport back in 69. But that is my opinion. I just feel that the only people who really played were either English or Australian or American. Again its my opinion... just writing my 2 cents. I did not exist in 69 so I can't really say how the quality of play was. I started watching tennis when Agassi and Sampras started playing.

rickcastle
12-09-2011, 04:34 AM
this thread is definitely furthering my speculation, people here didn't begin watching tennis until Fed entered his prime.. Ridiculous

I answered yes on the poll but this is ridiculous, another excuse of yours to blame Fedtards again for everything. Many people who are watching tennis now probably weren't even born in 1969... heck my mother was 9 years old in 1969 so it is not a question if people were able to watch Laver in his prime because lots of people probably weren't able to.

It's a question of knowing your tennis history, reading up on things, watching old clips on Youtube. Even if people began watching tennis when Sampras entered his prime or during the Borg-McEnroe era, they still wouldn't have witnessed Laver in action. 1969 is too far back to expect everyone here to have watched this.

tripwires
12-09-2011, 04:52 AM
69' wasn't even in the Open Era.

The Open Era began in 1968, when the Grand Slam tournaments agreed to allow professional players to compete with amateurs. Since the beginning of this era, professionals have been able to compete alongside amateurs in all tournaments. This has allowed tennis players the opportunity to make a good living playing tennis. The first event to go "open" was held on April 28, 1968 at The West Hants Club in Bournemouth, England,[53] while the first Grand Slam tournament to do so was the 1968 French Open (Roland Garros)[54] starting May 27.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tennis#Open_Era

Google is your friend.

I'm not surprised by the poll results or posts like EddieNero's. MTF is full of idiots half the time anyway.

Benny_Maths
12-09-2011, 07:16 AM
No, because Laver played in an era of mugs with less surface variation. Nadal's 2010>Laver's '69

Furthermore, to argue that smaller draws leads to top players meeting more often and hence there being more competition is to completely miss the point. Take today's tour, remove players ranked 1 to 992, and make all tournaments 8-man draws. You'll then have the 8 'top' players meeting all the time. But the actual competition that the eventual winner will have faced would still be nowhere near the toughest that today's era has to offer.

Haelfix
12-09-2011, 07:54 AM
Laver was 31 years old at the time and the amusing thing is, he achieved the calendar slam when he wasn't even at his peak! So in a sense, the year is quite significantly overvalued.

It will always stand on its own, but imo the tour was just too different to really rank it against more modern years.

buzz
12-09-2011, 08:47 AM
The best season ever. Yes he won all 4 GS.

The most impressive season ever. No, tennis was different then.

Orka_n
12-09-2011, 10:56 AM
Can't argue with the CYGS. Even if 3 of them were on grass. 18 tournament wins, 120 matches won. Sure, 16 matches lost was it? But there is no such thing as perfect. This is the closest we have come to it as of now.

Federer might have been 1 match away in 2006 (& 2007 too probably) to make his season the best ever, but that's how it goes sometimes.

Egreen
12-09-2011, 11:43 AM
Yep.

CYGS = Holy Grail of tennis.

noddzy
12-09-2011, 11:50 AM
Rod Laver = Don Bradman of tennis. Hmm, both are Aussies :D Forgive my cricket reference all ye non-cricket peasantry :D

Har-Tru
12-09-2011, 12:47 PM
Absolutely, I don't even see why this would be a point of discussion.
The eventual, total achievements/results of any player in a given season is the only objective thing available to designate this, and a complete CYGS season goes above all other achievements. At least imho.

:yeah:

ossie
12-09-2011, 12:49 PM
tennis in those days is like wta tennis compared to nowadays.

nalbyfan
12-09-2011, 01:40 PM
Yes and none of today's players can even make a single GS and Laver made 2 GS so he's the best of all

thrust
12-09-2011, 01:45 PM
I don't know, I wasn't born/know nothing really about it, but it seems like it. 4 slams in one year against those opponents seems pretty impressive.

Also, I always felt like Fed was at his peak in 05-06. Still can't believe Safin snagged that AO in '05.

LAVER, for sure. Not only did he win the Grand Slam, he did it against Much Tougher Competition than Roger had.

Djokovic- McEnroe said Nole's year was better than his in 84, so I take his word for it.

McEnroe 84- Also much tougher competiton than Fed 06, destroying Connors at Wimbledon. Connors had beat him in 5 the year before.

Orka_n
12-09-2011, 02:44 PM
tennis in those days is like wta tennis compared to nowadays.According to you the current era is the strongest ever... so your words don't really have much weight.

r2473
12-09-2011, 05:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9f06QZCVUHg

thrust
12-09-2011, 07:22 PM
Laver played back when only the biggest of nations even played tennis. I would not really have called tennis a WORLD sport back in 69. But that is my opinion. I just feel that the only people who really played were either English or Australian or American. Again its my opinion... just writing my 2 cents. I did not exist in 69 so I can't really say how the quality of play was. I started watching tennis when Agassi and Sampras started playing.

Much of what you say it ture, but the fact is Laver played and won against the best players of his era and all-time great players. There was not the variety of Nations but there were very good players from South America and Eastern Europe playing then too.

Sophocles
12-09-2011, 07:25 PM
Don Bradman played when there were - what? - 3 or 4 Test nations at most. He's still the greatest batsman of all time.

ossie
12-10-2011, 12:31 AM
According to you the current era is the strongest ever... so your words don't really have much weight.you are a flukerling fan so your words hold even less weight

Topspindoctor
12-10-2011, 01:02 AM
tennis in those days is like wta tennis compared to nowadays.

You are quickly becoming one of my favorite posters.

guga2120
12-10-2011, 03:19 AM
It and Novak this year are the two best.

swisht4u
12-10-2011, 04:35 AM
The best season should have very few flaws and show a high level through most of the year.

This is the problem with Laver's year.

The 16 losses shows he didn't keep a high level throughout the year.
I would guess he lost in 16 tournaments that year, this isn't the kind of year that would be the best.
His record would be 18 tournament wins out of 34 tournaments.


The CYGS is important but having very few losses is just as important.
All stats have to be looked at, not just one.

McEnroe only lost in 3 tournaments all year for example, now that is a dominant year.