[Burrow]

Rod Laver: Andy Murray could have won a calendar slam

Tennis: Laver spoke about the Big 3 as well

www.tennisworldusa.org

"I think Andy could have won a calendar Grand Slam if he hadn't been injured,” Laver told Herald and Times Sport. “He learned to play more 'kill shots' when he had his opponent down and although the French Open might have been the biggest challenge he definitely had the game to win on clay”.

He also states: “If Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, were playing with wooden racquets, they couldn’t play some of the shots they can execute now. That’s why comparing players of different eras and claiming particular players’ as the greatest of all time is a pointless exercise. All you can really say is that certain players were the greatest of their era and I would put Roger in that category."

 

[A_Skywalker]

Dementia.

 

[swissmaestro92]

Dementia.

I dont agree with Laver, but come on have some respect

 

[fab1]

Which year exactly? Or does he mean career slam? Cause I don't see any year where he was even close to winning all four.

Like yeah in 2016 he could've won AO and RG if it weren't for Djokovic, and the USO if he hadn't choked his QF.. but that's way too many ifs.

 

[WhistleCleaner]

Career slam possibly but no to the Calendar slam - and I am a Murray fan!

I agree with the rest of Rod's musings. There is no such thing as a GOAT. There are too many variables and anomalies. Eras yes, but not All Time.

And Rod's right, Roger is ONE of the greatest of his era, but his deification has taken a life of its own. Rafa and Novak have many accomplishments which equal and even surpass Roger. Just because some people don't like Noval or Rafa does not mean Roger is greater.

 

[Kowchi]

If he would have been around for 2017... do we really think he would have beaten Neo Fed and revitalized Nadal?

Federer and Nadal were pretty crap for 2016 and came back with a vengeance

 

[ssynhtn]

Old man playing down the importance of Big3, insecurity much?

 

[WhatdidIdo]

Murray wouldn't have won the french for sure, and probably not an AO as well. Its possible he would have gone slamless in 2017-now anyway with nadal, federer and djokovic back at a very high level.

Regarding the GOAT comment, I agree with laver, you can't compare players of 19th century to players in mid 20th to players of this era, technology and even the courts themselves changed so much. You can only compare accomplishments, I say there is the most successful of all time but you can't compare level of play of different eras.

 

[Budadiii]

Laver is old as fck, he probably doesn't even know what year that would be.

He's just throwing shit out there without thinking it through.

Plus, that website is sketchy.

Nothing to see here folks.

 

[Steffi4ever]

Showing a sign of oldness? I suspect he's losing himself especially about the part where he said Murray could have won the all four majors in the same year. As somone put, he had never been even close to winning all with an injury or not. As much as I respect Laver for all the achievements he had in his career, his down playing the era where he would have had no chance of winning even a major is just sad. I guess his age is playing a part in this ridiculous statement. I don't take his words seriously at all. I'm just upset to hear what he said.

 

[JediFed]

Career slam, sure. Calendar, no. He really did well to achieve what he achieved. Examining the calendar slam has us consider 2011, 2012 and 2016. 2011 was the only year in which he made all 4 semifinals in the same calendar year, but in every SF he faced either Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, and had either Federer, Nadal or Djokovic in the finals. He was clearly a step below the big 3.

 

[Jolyon]

Laver Rodpa is just being nice to Andy, and even Andy knows that.

At this age, Rodpa just feels good to say good things about everyone. He probably says nice things about the guy that comes to pickup his daily trash too.

 

[MIMIC]

LOL I think (at least I hope) he means "Career Slam."

 

[Johnny Groove]

Laver always has been Yoda in terms of the trolling of the current players, heaping pressure on whoever is getting closest to his own records and in this case, praising the player who seems to be done

Very very clever by the old man. I do not think he is losing it at all, he sounds very sharp to me. He knows what he is doing.

 

[DjokoKing]

In mixed doubles? He tried vulturing that shit at Wimbledon and got his ass handed to him in embarrassing fashion.

 

[Cloren]

Dementia.

Horrible comment and lack of respect.

 

[Rik1001]

I would be happy if Murray won one of the four majors in a calender year nevermind all four. Only Djokovic (out of the big 3) has managed to win all four in a row with a non-calender year Grand Slam in 2015/2016; which IMO is the same result as a CYGS.

 

[Break point Dom.]

Showing a sign of oldness? I suspect he's losing himself especially about the part where he said Murray could have won the all four majors in the same year. As somone put, he had never been even close to winning all with an injury or not. As much as I respect Laver for all the achievements he had in his career, his down playing the era where he would have had no chance of winning even a major is just sad. I guess his age is playing a part in this ridiculous statement. I don't take his words seriously at all. I'm just upset to hear what he said.

In the 2012-13 period he held two slams and also lost in 2013 AO so that was very close to holding 3 of the 4 at one time.

I agree if Laver had said career slam it would've made a little more sense as I'm pretty sure Andy would've had one more good run at least at the AO. He was regularly making semi finals at FO aswell although couldn't really see him ever beating Nadal or Djokovic there even if he'd stayed healthy.

 

[VamosRafaSince02]

Career slam, sure. Calendar, no. He really did well to achieve what he achieved. Examining the calendar slam has us consider 2011, 2012 and 2016. 2011 was the only year in which he made all 4 semifinals in the same calendar year, but in every SF he faced either Federer, Nadal or Djokovic, and had either Federer, Nadal or Djokovic in the finals. He was clearly a step below the big 3.

No way on the career slam either. The closest he ever came was losing to Djokovic in a French Open that Rafa pulled out of due to injury and Fed didn’t even play in. He was several miles below Rafa on clay, miles below Nole and Fed. Not as good as Stan when he was on, and in more recent times isn’t near as good as Thiem on clay.

So to recap, yes Murray could’ve won the calendar slam and career slam if Rafa, Nole, and Fed didn’t exist and they used different rackets. Aside from that he was right there lol

 

[NADALalot]

Roger was the greatest of the Roddick era yes.