tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29213404.post8160871582787578477..comments2023-09-16T07:45:45.305-04:00Comments on Gronktastic: Has Federer surpassed Laver?Aaron_Strouthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09964204478772858370noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29213404.post-70966672890602726102010-02-02T23:07:15.946-05:002010-02-02T23:07:15.946-05:00Federer had ZERO competition and plays in a time o...Federer had ZERO competition and plays in a time of mediocre talent. Even a healthy Nadal only competes on one surface. I just can't see the point in following men's tennis during this time period. This coming from a person who drove to the U.S. Open many, many times and has spent hours upon hours at the Tennis hall of fame in Newport.<br /><br />Overall I don't think Federer is as good as his numbers suggest, rather that he came along at the right time...when he had ZERO competition.<br /><br />And yes, I like to play the contrarian role on this blog ;)Kyle Flahertyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00370708864042561084noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29213404.post-49425559030227250092010-02-02T17:58:18.937-05:002010-02-02T17:58:18.937-05:00A few points were left out: Laver of course had th...A few points were left out: Laver of course had the advantage of playing three out of 4 majors on grass. How Sampras and Fed would have matched up would have depended on the circumstances: in Sampras's days conditions were much faster and better suited to s&v players with big serves, these days it's impossible to play like that with the slower courts and balls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29213404.post-28788994381809142912010-02-02T07:57:16.263-05:002010-02-02T07:57:16.263-05:00Thanks for the great comments, guys.
Bryan -- &qu...Thanks for the great comments, guys.<br /><br />Bryan -- ". . . but I'm not sure we have a choice." Au contraire. If Laver had been banned from tennis as a whole, or if he'd had to play in an entirely separate league -- like Josh Gibson et al. had to -- then, yes, we'd be forced to scratch our heads and wonder.<br /><br />But in fact, Laver faced off against all the best players of his era, even during 1963 - 1968, and he beat them all pretty regularly. He just wasn't allowed to do it in the majors because of the pro/amateur split.<br /><br />So we *do* have a good basis for comparison.<br /><br />Jim -- I'm convinced that Federer would have adapted to Sampras's style. Fed is SO fast and SO smart that he's been able to fit his game to everyone's except (in some cases, esp. on clay) Nadal's. Given Pete's style, a lot of the Fed/Sampras points might have lasted six strokes or less, but I'm seeing five-setters galore.<br /><br />Lendl would have been a good matchup because of his mechanical flawlessness from the baseline. A Lendl/Federer U.S. Open final might have lasted five hours. (Shades of Lendl/Wilander.)<br /><br />By the way, you'll like the choice statement from Lendl <a href="http://tewalkerjr.com/blog/?p=840" rel="nofollow">that I quoted here</a>.Tim Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03081770448216226755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29213404.post-16881118171436793842010-02-01T23:25:27.455-05:002010-02-01T23:25:27.455-05:00The real question is... Should I pack my racket an...The real question is... Should I pack my racket and sneakers for SXSW? Doubles anyone? <br /><br />Great post Tim. I learned a lot about Rod Laver that I didn't know. I agree that he would have probably bagged 20 grad slam titles if he'd had the opportunity to compete from 63-68. <br /><br />While it would have been interesting to see Sampras and Federer play one another in their respective prime, it may not have been good tennis. Sampras was such a serve and volley monster and Federer loves to hit from the baseline. We probably wouldn't have had the awesome displays we saw the other night from Federer because he never would have developed the same rhythm against Sampras. <br /><br />A guy I think would be better matched for Federer would be Ivan Lendl. He played a similar game to Federer and while he's not quite as good, he had quite a run himself. <br /><br />- 270 weeks at #1 (since eclipsed by Sampras & Federer)<br />- Played in 19 singles grand slam finals (eclipsed by Federer in 2009)<br />- Lost grand slam matches early in his career to guys named Borg, McEnroe & Connors before owning the men's game in the mid- to late-80s. <br /><br />Anyhow, fun discussion and trip down memory lane. <br /><br />Thanks TIm!Jim Storerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02319071534216133962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29213404.post-37771102393137958632010-02-01T13:02:35.808-05:002010-02-01T13:02:35.808-05:00Another great post, Tim. It has me fired up to get...Another great post, Tim. It has me fired up to get back outside and resume my own game (admittedly a very mediocre one).<br /><br />Federer is in the throes of the single most dominant stretch in the history of the game (18 finals appearances--12 of 'em wins--in the last 19 Grand Slams tournaments). As your analysis shows, he's not a slam dunk (mixing sports metaphors here for ya!) as the BEST EVER yet, but he's close. Another year or two of this high level of play, and a few more Slams, from Federer, and this discussion is closed.<br /><br />It's hard to penalize Laver in the greatest-ever discussion because of his ineligibility during his prime years, but I'm not sure we have a choice. His Slam record is just ... incomplete.Bryan Personhttp://www.bryanperson.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29213404.post-90712503136625176732010-01-31T21:45:22.745-05:002010-01-31T21:45:22.745-05:00The point I was trying to make is that today's...The point I was trying to make is that today's players have luxuries that should make it easier for a standout like Federer to remain on top of his game for longer.Tim Walkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03081770448216226755noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29213404.post-47533637053937089602010-01-31T21:25:36.242-05:002010-01-31T21:25:36.242-05:00Interesting debate...In theory racket technology, ...Interesting debate...In theory racket technology, private jets and fitness shouldn't matter because these are things that have changed just as much for federer as for his opponents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com