Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by arnab. » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:04:07


Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
because standards are much higher these days.

-- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
Fernando Gonzalez.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm

 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by EFill4Zaggi » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:07:18

Quote:

> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
> because standards are much higher these days.

I think it's a fair comment. The depth in the men's game in terms of the
top 200 has never been stronger. Strength of competition in the top 20
itself is open to debate, but imo, the overall depth isn't.

 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by Dave Hazelwoo » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 08:28:22


Quote:

>Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
>if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
>because standards are much higher these days.

>-- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
>Fernando Gonzalez.
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm

How do they both compare to the zero that Sampras on ? Sampras was
totally incapable of winning the GS because he sucked on clay. A goat
who was less capable of winning a GS than Lendl can't be goat. Yes,
Lendl could have, Borg could have, Agassi could have but not Pete.
Ergo, he can't be goat because he had such a major flaw in his game
that none of the others did.

 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by Whispe » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:49:52

Quote:

> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
> because standards are much higher these days.

> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
> Fernando Gonzalez.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm

I wouldn't go that far.  I think Laver's 2 GS would be worth 1.2 of
Fed's 1 - if he wins it.
 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by arnab. » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:15:48


Quote:

> > Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
> > if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
> > because standards are much higher these days.

> > -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
> > Fernando Gonzalez.
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm

> I wouldn't go that far.  I think Laver's 2 GS would be worth 1.2 of
> Fed's 1 - if he wins it.

Why 1.2? Is that a troll number?
 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by Whispe » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:49:49

Quote:



>> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
>> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
>> because standards are much higher these days.

>> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
>> Fernando Gonzalez.
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm

> How do they both compare to the zero that Sampras on ? Sampras was
> totally incapable of winning the GS because he sucked on clay. A goat
> who was less capable of winning a GS than Lendl can't be goat. Yes,
> Lendl could have, Borg could have, Agassi could have but not Pete.
> Ergo, he can't be goat because he had such a major flaw in his game
> that none of the others did.

Depends how you look at it.  I think winning 2 Wimbledons is a flaw next
to winning it 4 times etc

Essentially I'm saying you can't give Sampras & Edberg a 'tick' for
Wimbledon as they both won multiple times - implies they both satisfy
this criteria & we move on to something else.  This is something so
basic I'm surprised non-retards struggle with it - then again they
probably don't...

 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by Whispe » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:52:22

Quote:



>>> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
>>> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
>>> because standards are much higher these days.
>>> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
>>> Fernando Gonzalez.
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm
>> I wouldn't go that far.  I think Laver's 2 GS would be worth 1.2 of
>> Fed's 1 - if he wins it.

> Why 1.2? Is that a troll number?

Factoring amateur status of 1st GS, & more surfaces in modern era.
 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by arnab. » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:58:49


Quote:



> >>> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
> >>> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
> >>> because standards are much higher these days.
> >>> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
> >>> Fernando Gonzalez.
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm
> >> I wouldn't go that far.  I think Laver's 2 GS would be worth 1.2 of
> >> Fed's 1 - if he wins it.

> > Why 1.2? Is that a troll number?

> Factoring amateur status of 1st GS, & more surfaces in modern era.

Why 1.2?
 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by fearsomeforehan » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:02:44


Quote:




> > >>> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
> > >>> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
> > >>> because standards are much higher these days.
> > >>> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
> > >>> Fernando Gonzalez.
> > >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm
> > >> I wouldn't go that far.  I think Laver's 2 GS would be worth 1.2 of
> > >> Fed's 1 - if he wins it.

> > > Why 1.2? Is that a troll number?

> > Factoring amateur status of 1st GS, & more surfaces in modern era.

> Why 1.2?

Why 7543? The meaning of these Great Numbers can be fathomed only by
Whisper's 159 IQ brain.
 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by Whispe » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:05:19

Quote:





>>>>> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
>>>>> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
>>>>> because standards are much higher these days.
>>>>> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
>>>>> Fernando Gonzalez.
>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm
>>>> I wouldn't go that far.  I think Laver's 2 GS would be worth 1.2 of
>>>> Fed's 1 - if he wins it.
>>> Why 1.2? Is that a troll number?
>> Factoring amateur status of 1st GS, & more surfaces in modern era.

> Why 1.2?

Because Fed's potential calendar slam would be on 3 different surfaces v
2 for Laver, & 3 were on his favoured grass surface.  Thus it would be
worth more than Laver's '69, but '62 would give Rod advantage overall.
 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by arnab. » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:18:36


Quote:





> >>>>> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
> >>>>> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
> >>>>> because standards are much higher these days.
> >>>>> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
> >>>>> Fernando Gonzalez.
> >>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm
> >>>> I wouldn't go that far.  I think Laver's 2 GS would be worth 1.2 of
> >>>> Fed's 1 - if he wins it.
> >>> Why 1.2? Is that a troll number?
> >> Factoring amateur status of 1st GS, & more surfaces in modern era.

> > Why 1.2?

> Because Fed's potential calendar slam would be on 3 different surfaces

Four. Rebound Ace is technically different. Favors a different set of
players than those who do well on USO decoturf.

Quote:
> v
> 2 for Laver, & 3 were on his favoured grass surface.  Thus it would be
> worth more than Laver's '69, but '62 would give Rod advantage overall.

But how did you crunch 1.2?
 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by Whispe » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:42:13

Quote:







>>>>>>> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
>>>>>>> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
>>>>>>> because standards are much higher these days.
>>>>>>> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
>>>>>>> Fernando Gonzalez.
>>>>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm
>>>>>> I wouldn't go that far.  I think Laver's 2 GS would be worth 1.2 of
>>>>>> Fed's 1 - if he wins it.
>>>>> Why 1.2? Is that a troll number?
>>>> Factoring amateur status of 1st GS, & more surfaces in modern era.
>>> Why 1.2?
>> Because Fed's potential calendar slam would be on 3 different surfaces

> Four. Rebound Ace is technically different. Favors a different set of
> players than those who do well on USO decoturf.

Tecnically it's the same surface, & the same players do well at both slams.

Quote:

>> v
>> 2 for Laver, & 3 were on his favoured grass surface.  Thus it would be
>> worth more than Laver's '69, but '62 would give Rod advantage overall.

> But how did you crunch 1.2?

You wouldn't understand.
 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by arnab. » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:19:46


Quote:







> >>>>>>> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
> >>>>>>> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
> >>>>>>> because standards are much higher these days.
> >>>>>>> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
> >>>>>>> Fernando Gonzalez.
> >>>>>>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm
> >>>>>> I wouldn't go that far.  I think Laver's 2 GS would be worth 1.2 of
> >>>>>> Fed's 1 - if he wins it.
> >>>>> Why 1.2? Is that a troll number?
> >>>> Factoring amateur status of 1st GS, & more surfaces in modern era.
> >>> Why 1.2?
> >> Because Fed's potential calendar slam would be on 3 different surfaces

> > Four. Rebound Ace is technically different. Favors a different set of
> > players than those who do well on USO decoturf.

> Tecnically it's the same surface, & the same players do well at both slams.

Not really.

Quote:

> >> v
> >> 2 for Laver, & 3 were on his favoured grass surface.  Thus it would be
> >> worth more than Laver's '69, but '62 would give Rod advantage overall.

> > But how did you crunch 1.2?

> You wouldn't understand.

Can't explain? Cat got your tongue?
 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by blanders0.. » Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:59:11


Quote:
> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
> because standards are much higher these days.

> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
> Fernando Gonzalez.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm

Each would have won in a fairly homegeneous era of play--Laver's
mainly featured grass courts tennis and attacking style where the
current era is almost entirely about baseline tennis.  In other words,
tennis is played very much the same across all surfaces.  Laver beat
Aussies Emerson and Rosewall to win his FO titles--not exactly in the
Borg/Vilas/Nadal mode those 2--or Guga or Muster for that matter.
Both Laver and Fed are best on fast surfaces, but I would find Fed's
win at FO more impressive than Laver winning it twice--especially if
he gets through Nadal.
 
 
 

Laver says Federer's Grand Slam = Laver's 2 Grand Slams

Post by Whispe » Sat, 17 Mar 2007 04:18:35

Quote:


>> Roger could win the Grand Slam if he keeps playing the way he is and,
>> if he does that, it will equate to the two Grand Slams that I won
>> because standards are much higher these days.

>> -- Rod Laver, speaking ahead of the 2007 Australian Open final against
>> Fernando Gonzalez.http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/tennis/6306913.stm

> Each would have won in a fairly homegeneous era of play--Laver's
> mainly featured grass courts tennis and attacking style where the
> current era is almost entirely about baseline tennis.  In other words,
> tennis is played very much the same across all surfaces.  Laver beat
> Aussies Emerson and Rosewall to win his FO titles--not exactly in the
> Borg/Vilas/Nadal mode those 2--or Guga or Muster for that matter.
> Both Laver and Fed are best on fast surfaces, but I would find Fed's
> win at FO more impressive than Laver winning it twice--especially if
> he gets through Nadal.

I wouldn't.  Rod had better competition.  It is tempting to crown
current ceibs guys as best ever, but looking back in 50yrs that won't be
a factor.