He's the "Wilt Chamberlain" of tennis.Laver.
Lefty one hand backhand
200 titles
3 Australian, 2 French, 2 US Open, 4 Wimbledon
1st man to a million
Tennis in this era is essentially not the same sport it was in the 60s. He used a wooden racquet. As a 5’8” serve and volley player he’d be overpowered. It’s hard to say whether he could compete in the modern era, but it’s a fact that he’d have to play an entirely different game than he did.
Last year an American male won a slam was the same year Agassi won a slam. It’s ridiculous.
If Bobby Fischer would have just beaten Billie Jean it would have been game over. In other words, Checkmate.
To be fair to Novak, you could equally say Roger stopped rolling as soon as the other two got good.
I can get on board with anyone who says Fed is the GOAT. However, Djokovic, in my opinion, has been the most dominant player (when healthy) over the last 10 years during an era with 3 other high end HOFers (Fed, Rafa, Murray). You can also look at 2011-2014 when both would be around their prime and Djok owns a 12-6 advantage over Federer. Federer absolutely dominated everything before Rafa and Djok. Djok is actually only 1 year younger than Rafa, but Rafa became great at a younger age. Djok will likely finish with the most Grand Slams. Nadal is the greatest player on Clay by a mile, but when you factor in all surfaces, he can’t best either guy.
I think 9x Wimbledon champ Martina could make a serious case vs. Serena
Roger in the mid-2000s was ridiculously dominant….the only issue I have with putting his prime ahead of Djok’s was his lack of success at the French. He had time before Nadal came onto the scene and he could only get it done once and that was when Nadal had been upset in the 4th round to Soderling and didn’t have to face him.
I'm by no means an expert in Tennis.. but stupid logic coupled by quite a few beers right now... wouldn't "Clay" be the lesser of courts. Can Clay courts truly be dominated by more powerful swings and not say "skill"
Clay actually requires more skill because the surface creates a higher bounce and is less susceptible to overpowering shots. When considering the greatest of all time I think you have to look at all 3 surfaces and factor in their success on each. Djokovic hasn’t been dominant on clay, but beating Nadal at the French is a major separator in my opinion.
I play on both surfaces, clay absorbs more of the balls energy so your shots normally don't have as much pace. At the pro level it works against the big hitters and favors the position players. At the club level I've noticed that the ball does not always bounce true off of clay like it does off of hard surface, one particular annoying thing is if the ball partially hits the tape on the singles line (I play doubles) it can take a funny bunce. To me it seems spin is more effective on clay.
Have to disagree. Stats in today's tennis bear out the fact that the players who come to the net tend to win more. Not many true s/v players around but most points on ATP tour are won within 5 shots. There is a myth surrounding tennis that many points are long, long baseline rallies and that's just not so. Laver would change his game, I believe, but coming to the net is still a very successful and effective strategy.
