Federer not the best ever, says Laver
Rod Laver doesn’t believe that Roger Federer is the greatest ever tennis player. But that’s just because he doesn’t believe in the title.
The Swiss maestro’s capturing of the French Open title bolstered his already considerable case to be viewed as the finest male player in the sport’s history.
But Federer’s claims to be the greatest must be stacked up alongside Laver.
The Queenslander is the only man to win two calendar-year Grand Slams and collected 11 major titles despite losing five years of eligibility in the prime of his career for turning professional.
“I don’t think you can compare eras,” Laver told USA Today.
“You can be the dominant performer of your time, but I don’t think anyone has the title of best ever.”
But eight-time major winner Ivan Lendl put an interesting slant on the argument.
“It’s not Roger’s fault that Laver didn’t play five years,” Lendl told The New York Times.
“But I’ve been thinking about this for a long time and I think the only conclusion you can reach right now is to split it.
“Federer in the modern era and Laver from 1968 and back.
“But if Roger wins the next two or three, well, maybe you give it to him.”
Andre Agassi, who completed his career Slam at Roland Garros in 1999 and handed Federer the trophy on Sunday in Paris, shared his thoughts on Laver.
“What Laver did is god-like,” he said.
“To win all of them in the same year twice – how do you argue with that?”
Roy Emerson, winner of 12 major titles, said Federer’s lofty status couldn’t be denied.
“He’s right there,” Emerson told the New Jersey Newsroom.
“Yeah, I believe he is. Now that he’s won a major on all surfaces, you can’t really argue with it.
“I mean, it’s hard to say because you’re comparing different eras with different equipment, different styles, different conditions.
“But I think after (Sunday), he’s certainly made a really good case. What he’s done is a great achievement.”
But if there are any lingering questions over Federer’s standing, there are none about his class and deep affection for Laver and his feats.
The sensitive soul, who has a deep knowledge of the sport’s history, wept uncontrollably after being handed the Australian Open trophy by Laver in 2006.
“I shook his hand, gave him the trophy, he went to the microphone and couldn’t get any words out,” Laver said of the emotional evening.
“Afterward, when we were inside, he gave me a hug and said, `I’m sorry, I couldn’t help it’.
“But I was touched by how much it meant to him, by how much of a historian he is, how much he knows about the years that I played.”
So it should be no surprise the humble right-hander isn’t ready to anoint himself as the greatest.
“I don’t know if we’ll ever know who was the greatest of all time, but I’m definitely happy to be right up there, that’s for sure,” he said.
A look at the French Open on Sunday:
WEATHER Intermittent rain. High of 18 degrees.
ATTENDANCE: 20,092.
TOTAL TOURNAMENT ATTENDANCE: 424,340 for the main draws.
MEN’S FINAL: No. Roger Federer of Switzerland beat No.23 Robin Soderling of Sweden 6-1 7-6 (7-1) 6-4 to win his first French Open championship and 14th grand slam title overall, equa;;ing Pete Sampras’s career record.
STAT OF THE DAY: 6 – Men who have completed a career grand slam, with Federer joining Don Budge, Fred Perry, Rod Laver, Roy Emerson and Andre Agassi.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: “Regardless if he won there or not, he goes down as the greatest ever. This just confirms it.” – Sampras, speaking about Federer.
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- French Open, Rod Laver, Roger Federer, Tennis
June 9th 2009 @ 1:21am
george haniotis said | June 9th 2009 @ 1:21am | Report comment
Hello,I would like to give my opinion on the matter of Roger Federer being the greatest and best.I believe that Roger federer is the greatest according to his achievements of grand slams and his win loss record in finals and i believe that he will capture many more grand slams by the time he retires.In every era you have a greatest but we all go by achievements and roger federer and pete sampras and rod laver have their arguments.In my opinion roger federer is the greatest !
June 9th 2009 @ 1:45am
ren said | June 9th 2009 @ 1:45am | Report comment
but he hasnt won a calender slam yet, let alone two. only then will he be the most dominant player of the current era. sustained success must also be recognisable. this federer has achieved, but on this note laver won his calender slams either side of his 5 yr hiatus from the grand slams, it makes you wonder how many he could have won had he been allowed to play.
also davis cups should be taken into account.
June 9th 2009 @ 2:10am
ohtani's jacket, said | June 9th 2009 @ 2:10am | Report comment
The Calendar Grand Slam is somewhat overplayed.
For a long time in the 70s and 80s, players opted not to attempt it. I’ve read the argument that if Borg had managed to win the US Open, he would’ve chosen to play in Australia, but who knows. It wasn’t until the late 80s that guys like Lendl, Wilander and Edberg became obsessed with winning every GS possible.
Federer’s had three years where he could’ve accomplished a Calendar Grand Slam (2004, 2006 and 2007). In 2004, he lost to Kuerten and the other two losses were to Nadal. There’s no shame in that. Those are the two best clay courters of the past decade. Laver beat Emerson and Rosewall, which is a whole different kettle of fish. If Federer had faced all-courters in those French Open finals, I’d say he’d have won in either 2006 or 07.
June 9th 2009 @ 9:34am
eric said | June 9th 2009 @ 9:34am | Report comment
I think that Lavers two calender Grand Slams puts him ahead of Federer and Sampras. In effect, Laver won eight consecutive grand slam tournaments either side of his professional ban.
I would concede that Laver didn’t have to play many Eastern Europeans and not many Swedes (ditto Margaret Court). On the other hand he did have to deal with the extraordinary run of Australian players.
Other changes to the game that are relevant to the debate include the change to hard courts in Aust & US, and the extra round. I think at some stage the draw went from 64 to 128 players. Also, the Aust Open was not highly contested by foreign players, making it easier for Aussies to win.
June 9th 2009 @ 10:07am
Justin said | June 9th 2009 @ 10:07am | Report comment
Was it not 3 grass GS’s and the clay of RG when Laver played? Now its 4 different surfaces, although AUS has become closer to US now with no rebound ace.
June 9th 2009 @ 10:16am
sheek said | June 9th 2009 @ 10:16am | Report comment
As I heard on the radio this morning, Ken Rosewell missed 44 majors when banned as a professional. This was from 1956 to 67 when he was aged 23 to 34. How many other majors might he have won?
Similarly, Rod Laver missed 20 majors from 1963 to 67 when he would have been 25 to 29. Again, how many of these majors might he have won.
The big beneficiary during these years (late 50 through 60s) was Roy Emerson, but most tennis pundits agree Emmo wasn’t as good as either ‘muscles’ or ‘rocket’.
Confusing the comparisons even further is the fact Rosewell-Emerson-Laver played in the days when 3 of 4 majors were played on grass. In the Samprass-Agassi-Federer era, each major is played on a different surface.
There are other ways of providing comparisons. That is, by including the 3 majors from the professional era (1934-67), & adding them to the majors players from that era (1934-67) also won in the amateurs.
There’s a sight in wikipedia, where they’ve calculated Rosewell ends up with 23 majors, followed by Laver on 19, & Gonzales, Sampras & Federer all on 14.
June 9th 2009 @ 2:58pm
Greg Russell said | June 9th 2009 @ 2:58pm | Report comment
Sheek – so all your info comes from obscure Wikipedia sites! And here I was thinking that you beavered away to uncover it yourself! (just joking). (I rely only on my memory, but I always check anything I’m unsure of before writing it.)
Those of you who read my postings on cricket and rugby will know that I personally am extremely reluctant to compare players I have seen with players I have not seen. Rosewall and Laver were just fading out as my sporting consciousness was coming to life, so it’s easy for me to make the simple statement that Federer is the greatest male player I have seen, and leave it at that.
I actually don’t think anyone should try to go beyond this, not just because the professional era has changed so much in terms of the geographic spread of players on the tours, but also because of Sheek’s point about the surfaces changing for the majors (from 3 on grass to all 4 different).
Amongst the morass of statistics unleashed by Fed’s win, here’s one of my own that I haven’t seen anywhere: against players other than Nadal, Federer is currently on a streak of 30 consecutive wins at Roland Garros. That’s pretty impressive, isn’t it.
Given this and that many people regard Nadal as the greatest clay-court player of all time, one wonders how many French Open titles Federer would have notched but for being a contemporary of the amazing Mallorcan.
June 9th 2009 @ 3:08pm
sheek said | June 9th 2009 @ 3:08pm | Report comment
Greg,
Didn’t you know………. wikipedia always consults me!!!!!
June 9th 2009 @ 3:39pm
Harry said | June 9th 2009 @ 3:39pm | Report comment
As fantastic a player as Federer is, and a truly great and gracious champion, the fact remains he has been beaten – and one was a straight sets thrashing – by Nadal in their past 3 grand slam finals.
What does the computer say for world number one at the moment – Nadal or Federer?
June 9th 2009 @ 4:53pm
ohtani's jacket, said | June 9th 2009 @ 4:53pm | Report comment
I don’t see how that’s relevant Harry.
Have a look at what happened to Borg when McEnroe finally beat him and he couldn’t win the US. He threw the game away at age 26. Federer hadn’t won a title all year, but beat Nadal and won RG in the span of a month.
There’s always going to be people who say, “well, he didn’t beat Nadal.” So what? Nadal went out in the fourth round. A Grand Slam title is a Grand Slam title whether you beat Robin Soderling or Rafael Nadal. This wasn’t an easy title for Federer to win — he actually dropped more sets than any other GS victory — but he took his opportunity.
If Nadal and Federer meet again in a GS final, there will be a question mark over Federer regardless of surface, but for now Federer gets the kudos.