[romismak]

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 Roger´s 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]

Yes.

 

[Gabe32]

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]

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 Roger´s 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 wouldn´t make Fed or Rafa even get out of bed. Also, those guys didn´t 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, it´s just plain wrong to say Laver & co didn´t ultimately work just as hard.

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

 

[ssj100]

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]

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 wouldn´t make Fed or Rafa even get out of bed. Also, those guys didn´t 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, it´s just plain wrong to say Laver & co didn´t 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 can´t deny it. Yes money in sport and tennis wasn´t 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, today´s sport is just much more about money. Money side we can´t 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]

Do you agree or not?

Yes

 

[Dougie]

Maybe i should have wrote it is far more physicall today, what is the truth. You can´t deny it. Yes money in sport and tennis wasn´t 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, today´s sport is just much more about money. Money side we can´t 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 can´t 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. It´s no wonder Laver lost 16 times.

 

[EddieNero]

69' wasn't even in the Open Era.

 

[Dougie]

69' wasn't even in the Open Era.

Yes, it was.

 

[MIMIC]

Why are so many people infatuated with how often you lose? It's where you WIN that matters most.

 

[Johnny Groove]

Laver 69 the best year of Open Era so far, yes.

 

[asmazif]

yep.

 

[JurajCrane]

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 that´s the best. 69 - three (!) grandslams played on grass, although I like Laver as a personality.

 

[SetSampras]

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]

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]

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]

Laver lost 16 matches.
In comparing best year ever this is just too many losses.

 

[Topspindoctor]

No, because Laver played in an era of mugs with less surface variation. Nadal's 2010>Laver's '69

 

[Hewitt =Legend]

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.