hey i think laver was a great player, but we can't compair to roger. in his time tennis wasn't as competitive as today and as fast as today. I think federer is clearly the greatest of all time, but i am a Nadal's fan.
Unfortunately in this case, Rod was a lefty` so he couldn't hit those wide serves like a Newcombe, Ashe or Gonzales could do. Not even McEnroe couldn't do that.
@Ariamaluum Excellent point! A slice serve out wide to Jimmy's backhand would force him to hit one-handed backhands, or at least to hit two-handers on the stretch. Laver and McEnroe, as left-handers, couldn't do that to him. Ashe and Borg both had success against Jimmy with that serve.
Connors picked up and ran with the Ille Nastase tactic of playing-tennis-as-a-jerk-off and MacEnroe perfected it. Set U.S. tennis back from which it has never recovered.
It is clear from this that Laver was a great among greats. He hung in with Connors even though Connors was in his prime and Laver was more than 5 years past his prime.
@ 2:40 the slow motion has Laver lunging to his right to get one of Jimmy's back-hands. It's not the only time, but Rocket really has GREAT court coverage!
@krosero wow even at 36! he is the best volleyer i ever seen! so quick! and 36, then still competing. most player these days retire much younger, rod must be one of the best to be competing so well at an older tennis age.
Rocket was a genius! His shot selection, placement, reaction times were phenomenal! No wonder he's the only player to win two full grand slams in one calender year. Put a small racquet in any modern player (federer included) and Rod would have given them a lesson or three. In my opinion, he is the greatest player ever.
Speed ok but reflexes? Reflexes dont change that much by age 36 i mean u have lots of pro athletes still competing at a high level at 36 and usually the 80 year olds at the tennis clubs ahve the fastest reflexes
- Connors' parallel BH was even better than his crosscourt BH
-I dont know what was more important to Connors at this time, earn tons of money or demonstrate to world his dominance, I think was a mixture of both.
-Service as strength and Return as strength give us an excellent match nevertheless 14 years make a lot of difference even if one of these guys is on his peak.
- I really apreciate persons like you who make efforts to share this kind of joys that only remains in our minds.
"This edited video is biased and it only shows the Rod's abilities and youtube users have to know."
I'll repeat what I said, Semporini: I don't have the conclusion of the match. I also don't have the first two sets. That was disappointing to me when I made the clip. It was not my goal to make a pro-Laver clip, and I just picked out the best points, as I always do. Laver won more of those because I only own the 3d set (which he won) and a few more games.
Connors was not interested in giving sets away. Millions were watching and he wanted his dominance demonstrated (look at the way he streamrolled Orantes in their challenge match).
Jimmy uses his crosscourt BH because it's his strength. He didn't do it to keep things interesting. He lost the third set not because of the rallies but because Laver started serving better -- as was noted in the Times. What source do u have saying that he was playing to Rod's strengths to keep it interesting?
Connors did that to Rosewall partly because that was a bad matchup. Ken's weak serve went right into Jimmy's strength - the service return. The matchup with Laver was quite different, more strength against strength. But when Laver was serving badly in the first two sets, Jimmy won. When Laver served better, he took a set, and made the fourth set close -- as noted by the Times reporter who saw it.
Connors won in four sets, and as he left the court, he suddenly collapsed, as if shot. He writhed and held his leg. People hurried to him. ''What happened?'' someone asked.
''Cramps,'' came a reply. ''Probably from a draft.''
''No,'' someone else said, ''tension cramps.''
That someone else was Pancho Gonzales. ''It's from the pressure,'' he said. ''And tonight he'll have cramps all night. We've all had it.''
If you are suggesting that JC wasnt under control of this match Im not going to follow you because we are going to fall in hypothetical situations.
It was a Connor's challenge and show, JC always played to win but if you see he rarely hit the ball against Laver's forehand (it was clearly inferior that his backhand).
My old tennis teacher(who was a Rod's admirer) made some comments about JC strategy and he was very angry that JC could destroy Rod but he didnt in order to prepare more exxos.
According to the NY Times, Connors was in control for the first two sets but then Laver started serving better, losing only 3 service pts in the 3rd. After the match Connors left the building with leg cramps, while Laver walked off fine. He'd trained very hard for the match -- later that spring he pushed Borg to five sets on the same surface (nearly beating him in four). So it seems that this four-set match between Connors and Laver fairly represents their abilities in '75.
As for not hitting to Laver's FH, I think Connors just played his game (he often sticks to his strengths stubbornly). His crosscourt BH is his strength, and that goes to Laver's BH, producing quite a few spectacular rallies. He could have picked on Laver's FH in this match, but Jimmy's own crosscourt FH is not his strength or his preferred shot.
This edited video is biased and it only shows the Rod's abilities and youtube users have to know.
Connors could manage his BH as well as he wanted and you wrote it fine, he went to LAver's BH in order to keep this match interesting with a spectacular rallies. I can see that you disrespect JC and it seems that you never watch Connors US Opens victories over Lendl in 82,83. Both were master pieces of strategy.
Actually I have seen those two finals over Lendl, and studied them closely. I've taken stats for those matches and many others, and I've been a fan of Connors for as long as I've been into tennis. I watched his victories in '91 with the same thrills everyone else did.
It`s ok, the problem here is that this video doesnt show the big difference bewtween this two greats at this time, seems that Laver had the same level or even more than Connors and it is tottally wrong. Jimbo`s strategy was play against Laver`s strengths in order to keep the attendence excited. I am open to read your comments and i believe that you will be agree with me. Regards
One problem with the video is that I do not have the conclusion, and if I did it would be clearer that Jimmy won, and what he did to win. About playing to Laver's strengths, I had never heard that was Jimmy's strategy. In an exhibition purely for fun, that sometimes happens. But this was not just for fun, and he just wanted to win, which is why he tried his best to win the first 2 sets. He did not think it was important to split sets. Where did you read that he played to Laver's strengths?
This video was edited with out doubt to watch the best Laver. Connors dominated the entire match and he pressed the acelerator in order to win when he wanted.
Actually I was just trying to show the most exciting points, the ones that seemed most extraordinary. This video has since been regarded as a showcase for Laver, but I did not intend that at all, or even anticipate such a response.
The hard thing to appreciate for novice players in this video is the fact that Laver is using a freaking WOODEN RACQUET!! He's doing things with that racquet that wouldn't become mass-market 'possible' until 10 years later. Absolutely mind blowing just how ahead of his time Laver was.
Players today do not serve and volley because it's impossible for them to get to the net in time. The rackets are too powerful and the ball travels so fast over the net, that once the returner is striking the ball, the server is only at the service line. Thus, the server would be hitting a volley at his feet as opposed to waist or chest level like Laver is demonstrating. I suppose that today's players could take some pace off and spin or kick their serves in. But pace is more effective.
They returned to the feet much more in the past. We were told return to the servers feet when the chance arises. You can serve and volley if you know how to as Sampras did to Federer in their exhibition. If you serve into the body you will force a weak return. Serve and volley is not impossible, the players service is not skilled enough to pull it off.
I applaud both because like Laver Connors played late into his thirties and still had great fight left. Todays players fundamentally stink at tennis. Off balance and hitting off their heels. Awful weight transfer and strokes. Federers atrocious backhand and especially backhand slice.
Laver was a stud. He's over the hill here and Connors is No. 1 in the world and in his prime but the Rocket doesn't go down without a fight. His net play is sterling
Belle vidéo. Un jeu fluide, les coups sont frappés dans la course, les coureurs vont vite (les balles un peu moins), les gestes sont souples. A cette époque, le tennis ressemblait encore à l'escrime. Merci pour le spectacle.
Rod Laver is a pleasure to watch for those who love and understand tennis.
Although comparing sportsmen from different ages is a rather inappropriate and to an extent futile occupation, Laver would certainly be at the top of the imaginary ranking. He could do things with a wooden racket that most modern players don't even think about with their hi-tech instruments.
And... he completed the slam twice, last one in open era, after having missed slams for 5 seasons!
Laver could serve and volley and play from the back. Players now only play from the back. Sampras is the last serve and volley. Every match is the same now. Laver 2 grand slams and didn't play majors for 5 years. He would have the most majors.
Man it's almost like Rod Laver is a hybrid of Nadal and Federer. Nadal because he's a lefty and his puts heavy topspin on the ball and Federer because of the form and slice. I love Federer but man... Rod Laver was AMAZING!!!
I'm a tennis fanatic. I have played competitive tennis for over 20 years. I follow all of the Majors religiously, I have coached high school tennis teams. But I have never seen Rod Laver play before today..
I can't believe my eyes - as a tennis player or as a spectator. That is the fastest guy I have ever seen playing tennis. And those volleys - are outrageous.
Contrary to popular myth - I assure you the level these guys are playing at would test any player...ever.
I definitely see some similarities to Fed at points in this vid, especially with the feet. Laver's lateral movement for volleys is definitely at a different level to my eye. And of course his left-handedness would've just added to the difficulties of playing him for most guys.
Laver had great anticipation, Federer has poor anticipation. Almost every match I see Federer play he is always off balance. I have seen Laver play Rosewall in an exhibition and Rosewall beat laver. Laver was ticked off when he lost but both were hitting the ball low to cut off the angles but at a tremendous pace. The ball was clearing the net at about 4 to five inches. In the exhibition Sampras beat Federer by taking advantage of his poor anticipation.
tennis has evolved over the years rackets strings training and other factors has enabled tennis players to hit harder run faster and put so much spin on the ball its almost not human but one thing is the same the fundementals and the mental game which is what tennis still is could rod laver play in todays game for sure could nadal play in the past eras probably but either way they would be adjusted to that era of tennis
i wish people on here would quit saying laver is best of all time,,,, even roddick would beat him bad . fed wouldnt even let him take a set,,, nadal probably wouldnt let him win even a single game....
Your full of crap. Laver is from a different era...wood racquets, duh? Laver would have been better with today's racquets than Nadal would be in the wood racquet era. Nadal would suck if he played in Rod's era. Laver would be very good if he competed today. He had the strongest forearm ever, and would impose his game on everyone. Federer would do very well in Laver's era. Please don't mention Nadal in the same sentence as Laver. Nadal has knee issues and career may be over.
@mrbobevans Federer would do well in Lavers era??? Federer would not make it because they would not feed him shots like todays clowns. They would run him ragged.
@mrbobevans Yes, I agree, Rod is the Greatest, no question but what a difference 1 yr. makes - I think you were a little harsh on Mr. Nadal. He's made an amazing recovery and look at his volley now! Superb touch and so natural too (though he lacks Rod's offensive punch). Rafa's added to his serve and succeeded. I wouldn't be surprised if he learned to assert and extend himself with serve and volley tactics given the right direction. Players today should start looking back for some 'new' ideas.
@mrbobevans I don't think so actually. His ground strokes are really nothing special - his net game is of course incredible. He would do well on Grass but based on what I'm seeing here, I question his ability to stay with the hitters of today.
Roddick and Laver in the same sentence. Now that is a good joke. Laver, considered by all experts to be in the top 5 of all time. Roddick may be VERY lucky to make the top 40. Laver had one of the most complete games ever...Roddick is one of the most one-dimensional players of all time. Ha Ha, I needed a good laugh
sigh, everyone does this to roddick, these are silly things to say. now i agree laver is a god and that isn't a title roddick deserves, BUT, roddick not only has brought the game it's most impressive and awe inspiring serve of all time, he is also a large, powerful, serious contender who has maintained a near flawless top10 ranking for nearly a decade now. he is far and away one of the best of all time, no matter who every ignorant fan compares him to. no the best, but one of fo sho~
Just because Roddick can hit a 140 plus bomb serve doesnt make him the "greatest server". Sampras has the greatest serve. WHy? Because he placed it well, and even if he didnt hit an ace, he would volley the weak return and set up for an easy winner. Sampras held his serve like no other. How many Majors has Roddick won? If his serve is the greatest, then why does he always lose in the majors? If his serve was great hed hold his serve. Becker a close second. Becker had an awesome serve.
I was never that in awe of Roddick until his incredible Wimbledon Final performance against Federer, losing 16-14 in the fifth. He played equal to Federer. Unfortunately, missing that volley at 6-5 in the 2nd set tiebreaker probably cost him the match. I just hope he can keep this level going forward. It is a shame he didn't get with Stefanki earlier in his career.
did that guy say nadal and federer are slouches compared to these guys,,,, come on,, nadal or federer would easily beat any of those guys from the 70,s,,,,,
Tennis peaked before. Today the players are mediocre. As a result Nadal and Federer shine. But they are really slouches compared to the great players on the past. Laver is unbelievably gifted.
I agree with you so much. Federer is one of the GOAT - no doubt - but his competition sucks when compared to other eras. When players like Hewitt, Roddick and Davydenko were his top opposition, then no wonder why Fed has dominated. I am hoping for new talent to shine, but Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro do nothing for me. So, it must come from the generation after them to bring the beauty, grace and talent back to the sport. Will we ever see a player like Edberg or McCenroe again?
Here are ten facts 1. Your reading my comment 2. Now your saying/thinking thats a stupid fact. 4. You didnt notice that i skipped 3. 5. Your checking it now. 6. Your smiling. 7. Your still reading my comment. 8. You know all you have read is true. 10. You didn't notice that i skipped 9. 11. Your checking it now. 12. You didn't notice there are only 10 facts Copy and paste to 1 video, tomorrow will be your best day ever! no matter what
Well said, but I think Laver is/was far better on net game than Federer. Federer is not a "natural" serve & volleyer, though he has been trying to improve is volley game for several years.
There's no comparison at the net in terms of touch, anticipation, preparation. That's why, even though he's much shorter than Federer, he actually covers the net better and hits ridiculous volleys off very tough balls, where Federer is quite likely to dump them into the net. Federer's net game has actually deteriorated a great deal over his career from rust and from an unwillingness to get down and dirty instead of just trying to look beautiful...
I agree their games are the most well-rounded in the history of tennis. Laver was mentally tougher than Federer; he was a true warrior. Laver's backhand is the most beautiful shot ever seen on a tennis court - breathtaking.
True, Laver and Federer are some of the best tennis players in history. Jimmy Connors was also quite astonishing, look at the way he tries to beat Laver with the same tactic of moving up close to the net.
Laver is far far(X100) better than Federer who is easily wrong footed by changes in pace and depth. Laver is agile while Federer is a stiff. Please do not compare or utter their names in the same sentence.
... and to think that Laver not only missed about 20 Grand Slams because of being a pro but missed them when he was 24-29 yrs old bracket (i.e. the peak).
his unrelenting aggression, the viciousness of his sliced approach shots ("offensive slice"? what's that, anyone born after 1980 asks!), and of course THAT backhand, crosscourt and down-the-line.
Lendl was supposed to be the godfather of conditioning. BS., look at Borg, Rosewall and Laver. Laver is 38 in this video and is in better shape than 95% of the guys on the current tour. Laver's backhand is the most beautiful looking tennis shot of all time - amazing.
The best players of all time, in no specific order, were: Budge, Gonzalez, Laver and Sampras. Missing out on the top honors for various reasons are Tilden (old timer), Kramer (not as good as Gonzalez), Hoad, Becker, McEnroe (too inconsistent, brief primes),Borg, Connors, Lendl (not complete players), Federer (record v Nadal, Murray), Nadal (too early to tell).
How is Borg not a complete player while Gonzales/Sampras are? Gonzales and Sampras had very similar careers. Dominated on faster surfaces - struggled on clay. Sampras actually more than struggled, he was terrible. I don't follow.
Actually Borg was the player I felt uncomfortable about relegating to the second echelon. Did well on grass and clay obviously and despite his US Open failings had significant success on synthetic. I'll do some more research and get back to you. Gonzalez did beat defending champion Roy Emerson in first pro French Open at an old age. Did he win a French pro slam?
Gonzales never won the French Pro - that was dominated for the longest time by Rosewall. Of course, the French Pro did undergo a switch from clay to the very fast wood in the 1960s.
Probably Kramer, McEnroe belong in the list too. Gonazales is my pick as the greatest of them(just ahead of Laver) all despite clay record. Sampras belongs because of 14 slams and is the greatest player I have seen (since mid 70s). Sampras & Gonzo were #1 for about 6-7 yrs even if they didn't win much on clay
For me the cream fo the crop is Laver, Rosewall, Budge, Tilden, Gonzales, Borg, Federer, Sampras in no particular order. I think Laver's the best of all time, but one can make a great case for Gonzales.
At 37 you are just a Baby !! I have 37 and I play in motion all the time , and I do one day tennis, one day phisical preparation. It is just a matter of WILL
Rod Laver was 37 years old here, Jimmy Connors just 23 ! It gives a good idea just how dominant Laver must have been in his prime (Look at that huge left arm!!). Incredible Tennis. Kudos!!
Actually the question should be not whether players like Borg, Laver and Connors could hit it hard but how hard could the players of today like Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic with the wood rackets of those days.
Hitting hard isn't even always desirable. Connors hit hard, but a player like Orantes would drive him nuts with soft stuff. That's how he beat him at the '75 US Open final.
Check out the foot-speed of Laver! Amazing! Still amazing when he's 100 years old here and he just zooms around the court like a ghost. Great anticipation and reflexes.
Great Video! Great match! Whoever says they didn't hit the ball hard back then never saw this match. Do you have the other winner take all match,another classic, Connors vs. Newcombe?
great video!!!!!!!!different generations as rivals!!! both of them were in top ten tennis players ever!!!!! LAVER with hair. Unbeliveable!!!! hehehehehehe
This is great stuff. Thanks for posting it. I had heard of these "winer take all" matches when I was like 6 years old, but don't remember watching it. awesome.
Obvious that Laver and Connors were far better than the champions that followed them. Sampras,Federer and Nadal no way have the talents of Laver and Connors. Not one of the guys today can drop volley like they did during Lavers and connors era.
I think the best players ever were the pros before the open era came into existence .. Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver - those guys .. they played a gruelling schedule every year with none of the pampering and perks guys get today .. they were the fittest, toughest sons of bitches in history and whenever they played amateurs they destroyed them, because amateurs were much too comfortable and much too rich .. I maintain that there has never been a fitter player than Pancho Gonzales in his prime.
There have been many players fitter that pancho gonzalez in his prime. Lendl,federer,nadal,borg and many others, but the list pf players better than gonzalez is very very short. He's definetly one of the the 5 best players ever!!!!!
You may be absolutely right in your statements here. A shame that it's so difficult to obtain good quality videos of these players -- especially in their prime. Damn shame! This coming from a major Borg-fan...
this exhibition is much different than sampras vs federer. you can plainly see connors is actually putting his guts into the challenge and laver is as well.
isn't laver at least 36 here, and connors is about 24 or 25? Amazing how well Laver covers the court. Connors just won 3 of 4 majors in 74, and didn't get to play the french. LAVER very well may be the GOAT
The thing that always gets me nowadays is how often people call a player like Roger Federer the GOAT without ever seeing footage of the other greats like Laver. If you look at this clip of Laver, ask yourself, is there anyone Federer can do that Laver couldn't? Are there shots Laver can make that Federer can't do? Rod could do everything plus he had speed and great power.
Laver il più grande di tutti i tempi senza alcun ombra di dubbio
MrConnors74 2 months ago
Funny 1:27: A guy in the polka dot shirt, lighting up a fat cigar
oldpossum 4 months ago
hey i think laver was a great player, but we can't compair to roger. in his time tennis wasn't as competitive as today and as fast as today. I think federer is clearly the greatest of all time, but i am a Nadal's fan.
MegaRiver97 5 months ago
that is a sick half volley
ulizinho 7 months ago
Unfortunately in this case, Rod was a lefty` so he couldn't hit those wide serves like a Newcombe, Ashe or Gonzales could do. Not even McEnroe couldn't do that.
Ariamaluum 7 months ago
@Ariamaluum Excellent point! A slice serve out wide to Jimmy's backhand would force him to hit one-handed backhands, or at least to hit two-handers on the stretch. Laver and McEnroe, as left-handers, couldn't do that to him. Ashe and Borg both had success against Jimmy with that serve.
krosero 7 months ago
Connors picked up and ran with the Ille Nastase tactic of playing-tennis-as-a-jerk-off and MacEnroe perfected it. Set U.S. tennis back from which it has never recovered.
ricvonzipper 7 months ago
rod laver kinda does the same knee or leg motion of taylor dent serve
nice vid.
LFRUIZ15 8 months ago
Awesome footage. Jimmy just RIPPING the ball.
Iwouldnotbealiar 10 months ago
dude get a dvd recorder and stop video the tv. thanks for this post
gasun21 11 months ago
It is clear from this that Laver was a great among greats. He hung in with Connors even though Connors was in his prime and Laver was more than 5 years past his prime.
rdberg1957 1 year ago
based on this short clip:
Laver could serve well, he had excellent volleys, great backhand slice
he had a loopy forehand, tho, and looked like robin hood
89Pleasek 1 year ago
i thougth federer was the greates of all time.
I THOUGHT
ignacioambort 1 year ago
yes, me too, and now I'm SURE that Federer's the goat
89Pleasek 1 year ago
Laver's serve is SICK! He gets it off so fast, you can't read it.
And his volleys! GOOD LORD!
jakemcclain30 1 year ago
holy crap. laver's got an insane volley.
xridethelightningx 1 year ago
Laver holds the racquet like it is a toothpick.
mrbobevans 1 year ago
AMAZING Laver!!! Always the right thing at the right time! What an incredible footwork, and what a hand!
GufusRufus 1 year ago
@ 2:40 the slow motion has Laver lunging to his right to get one of Jimmy's back-hands. It's not the only time, but Rocket really has GREAT court coverage!
goofydog2 1 year ago
serious power, no wimpy tennis here
ttwarrior1 1 year ago
rod laver how old was he in this video?? he looked old but still compete really really well
dorker1992 1 year ago
@dorker1992 He was 36 at the time of this video. Connors was 24.
krosero 1 year ago
@krosero wow even at 36! he is the best volleyer i ever seen! so quick! and 36, then still competing. most player these days retire much younger, rod must be one of the best to be competing so well at an older tennis age.
dorker1992 1 year ago
I love these camera angles, makes everything look so face paced.
smithcm14 1 year ago
This is great tennis
silentflight1 1 year ago
....e vorrei vedere FEDERER con la racchettina di legno !!!!!!!!!!
....I wish to see Mr. FEDERER and NADAL !!!! with a little wooden racquet like this !!!!
Macché 16 tornei del Grand Slam !!!!!
blualberto1966 1 year ago
Wow this is the only footage i have seen of this era where the ball is travelling fast. I underated these guys, a real eye opener krosero.
navnut 1 year ago
wow ! what great volleys by Laver !
And all with those stoneage rackets !
ulizinho 1 year ago
Rocket was a genius! His shot selection, placement, reaction times were phenomenal! No wonder he's the only player to win two full grand slams in one calender year. Put a small racquet in any modern player (federer included) and Rod would have given them a lesson or three. In my opinion, he is the greatest player ever.
goofydog2 1 year ago
@goofydog2
Yes, man.Rod is unique in the sense that he converted defensive into offensive like no one lese ever did
¡ Long Live Rocket¡
kiki82018 1 year ago
screeno distorto baby!
macwhites 1 year ago
Nothing against Jimmy, but Rod in is prime beats Jimmy in his prime. Too much shot variety.
mrbobevans 2 years ago 13
@mrbobevans Cool story bro.
Nigelxman 3 months ago
@mrbobevans
Love Jimmy - my favorite - but you're right, Laver was the greatest, even Fed has'nt his gifts.Mac, Leconte and Arazi were the closest to his talent.
Remember the Budge sentence when rivalry between Jimmy Bjorn and John was rising.
Mac will win for Jim is a beast and Bjorn nothing but a machine, Mac is an artist.
AXOU2203 1 month ago
At 2.22, the volley return is unbelievable. Connors passing attempt is so accurate.
wksoh 2 years ago
The speed and reflexes of laver are ridiculous for a 36 year older, absolutely ridiculous.
sisibilio 2 years ago
Speed ok but reflexes? Reflexes dont change that much by age 36 i mean u have lots of pro athletes still competing at a high level at 36 and usually the 80 year olds at the tennis clubs ahve the fastest reflexes
quiet1234 2 years ago
The only players still able to be competitive at 36 were Connors and Agassi. And both won their last slams at least three years prior.
illogicalman21 2 years ago
Laver's game reminds me of Federer's.
isselman2000 2 years ago
Certainly, Laver is the best combination of talent, variety,risk and spctacularity ever to play tennis
buxaderas1 1 year ago
- Connors' parallel BH was even better than his crosscourt BH
-I dont know what was more important to Connors at this time, earn tons of money or demonstrate to world his dominance, I think was a mixture of both.
-Service as strength and Return as strength give us an excellent match nevertheless 14 years make a lot of difference even if one of these guys is on his peak.
- I really apreciate persons like you who make efforts to share this kind of joys that only remains in our minds.
semporini 2 years ago
@semporini
Yeah¡ memories of the golden era of tennis, when we enjoy one chamipon, and charachter after the other.¿ Does any one has the WCT finals of that era?
It was the best possible tennis: Laver and Rosewall, Newcombe and Borg, mc Enroe and Borg...¿ can someone download?
kiki82018 1 year ago
"This edited video is biased and it only shows the Rod's abilities and youtube users have to know."
I'll repeat what I said, Semporini: I don't have the conclusion of the match. I also don't have the first two sets. That was disappointing to me when I made the clip. It was not my goal to make a pro-Laver clip, and I just picked out the best points, as I always do. Laver won more of those because I only own the 3d set (which he won) and a few more games.
I'm glad if YT users know this.
krosero 2 years ago
really was the reason Connors gave on set to Rod because other way he was kicked the Rocket as he did with Ken Roswell in two Major finals.
Borg in 1975 was very young and played on surface where he normally struggled
semporini 2 years ago
Connors was not interested in giving sets away. Millions were watching and he wanted his dominance demonstrated (look at the way he streamrolled Orantes in their challenge match).
Jimmy uses his crosscourt BH because it's his strength. He didn't do it to keep things interesting. He lost the third set not because of the rallies but because Laver started serving better -- as was noted in the Times. What source do u have saying that he was playing to Rod's strengths to keep it interesting?
krosero 2 years ago
Connors did that to Rosewall partly because that was a bad matchup. Ken's weak serve went right into Jimmy's strength - the service return. The matchup with Laver was quite different, more strength against strength. But when Laver was serving badly in the first two sets, Jimmy won. When Laver served better, he took a set, and made the fourth set close -- as noted by the Times reporter who saw it.
krosero 2 years ago
@semporini this low video angle really makes you appreciate how hard pros hit the ball, even in those days with wooden rackets.
surfjabroni 1 year ago
This is what NY Times wrote back in1975
Connors won in four sets, and as he left the court, he suddenly collapsed, as if shot. He writhed and held his leg. People hurried to him. ''What happened?'' someone asked.
''Cramps,'' came a reply. ''Probably from a draft.''
''No,'' someone else said, ''tension cramps.''
That someone else was Pancho Gonzales. ''It's from the pressure,'' he said. ''And tonight he'll have cramps all night. We've all had it.''
Cramps? It was part of show or......
semporini 2 years ago
If you are suggesting that JC wasnt under control of this match Im not going to follow you because we are going to fall in hypothetical situations.
It was a Connor's challenge and show, JC always played to win but if you see he rarely hit the ball against Laver's forehand (it was clearly inferior that his backhand).
My old tennis teacher(who was a Rod's admirer) made some comments about JC strategy and he was very angry that JC could destroy Rod but he didnt in order to prepare more exxos.
semporini 2 years ago
According to the NY Times, Connors was in control for the first two sets but then Laver started serving better, losing only 3 service pts in the 3rd. After the match Connors left the building with leg cramps, while Laver walked off fine. He'd trained very hard for the match -- later that spring he pushed Borg to five sets on the same surface (nearly beating him in four). So it seems that this four-set match between Connors and Laver fairly represents their abilities in '75.
krosero 2 years ago
As for not hitting to Laver's FH, I think Connors just played his game (he often sticks to his strengths stubbornly). His crosscourt BH is his strength, and that goes to Laver's BH, producing quite a few spectacular rallies. He could have picked on Laver's FH in this match, but Jimmy's own crosscourt FH is not his strength or his preferred shot.
krosero 2 years ago
This edited video is biased and it only shows the Rod's abilities and youtube users have to know.
Connors could manage his BH as well as he wanted and you wrote it fine, he went to LAver's BH in order to keep this match interesting with a spectacular rallies. I can see that you disrespect JC and it seems that you never watch Connors US Opens victories over Lendl in 82,83. Both were master pieces of strategy.
semporini 2 years ago
Actually I have seen those two finals over Lendl, and studied them closely. I've taken stats for those matches and many others, and I've been a fan of Connors for as long as I've been into tennis. I watched his victories in '91 with the same thrills everyone else did.
krosero 2 years ago
It`s ok, the problem here is that this video doesnt show the big difference bewtween this two greats at this time, seems that Laver had the same level or even more than Connors and it is tottally wrong. Jimbo`s strategy was play against Laver`s strengths in order to keep the attendence excited. I am open to read your comments and i believe that you will be agree with me. Regards
semporini 2 years ago
One problem with the video is that I do not have the conclusion, and if I did it would be clearer that Jimmy won, and what he did to win. About playing to Laver's strengths, I had never heard that was Jimmy's strategy. In an exhibition purely for fun, that sometimes happens. But this was not just for fun, and he just wanted to win, which is why he tried his best to win the first 2 sets. He did not think it was important to split sets. Where did you read that he played to Laver's strengths?
krosero 2 years ago
This video was edited with out doubt to watch the best Laver. Connors dominated the entire match and he pressed the acelerator in order to win when he wanted.
semporini 2 years ago
Actually I was just trying to show the most exciting points, the ones that seemed most extraordinary. This video has since been regarded as a showcase for Laver, but I did not intend that at all, or even anticipate such a response.
krosero 2 years ago
The hard thing to appreciate for novice players in this video is the fact that Laver is using a freaking WOODEN RACQUET!! He's doing things with that racquet that wouldn't become mass-market 'possible' until 10 years later. Absolutely mind blowing just how ahead of his time Laver was.
kegsterino12 2 years ago
Players today do not serve and volley because it's impossible for them to get to the net in time. The rackets are too powerful and the ball travels so fast over the net, that once the returner is striking the ball, the server is only at the service line. Thus, the server would be hitting a volley at his feet as opposed to waist or chest level like Laver is demonstrating. I suppose that today's players could take some pace off and spin or kick their serves in. But pace is more effective.
drumdude1000 2 years ago
They returned to the feet much more in the past. We were told return to the servers feet when the chance arises. You can serve and volley if you know how to as Sampras did to Federer in their exhibition. If you serve into the body you will force a weak return. Serve and volley is not impossible, the players service is not skilled enough to pull it off.
snoble2k 2 years ago
At which point does Laver hit the first volley above his waist?
ramseszerg 2 years ago
I applaud both because like Laver Connors played late into his thirties and still had great fight left. Todays players fundamentally stink at tennis. Off balance and hitting off their heels. Awful weight transfer and strokes. Federers atrocious backhand and especially backhand slice.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Laver, aka Woody Woodpecker: Strong and elegant.
jejesus 2 years ago
Rod Laver, best net player ever by far..
THEKINKS08 2 years ago 2
Laver was a stud. He's over the hill here and Connors is No. 1 in the world and in his prime but the Rocket doesn't go down without a fight. His net play is sterling
stell29 2 years ago
Belle vidéo. Un jeu fluide, les coups sont frappés dans la course, les coureurs vont vite (les balles un peu moins), les gestes sont souples. A cette époque, le tennis ressemblait encore à l'escrime. Merci pour le spectacle.
sucaumay 2 years ago
Totally awesome upload-great stuff!!
cam230723 2 years ago
Rod Laver is a pleasure to watch for those who love and understand tennis.
Although comparing sportsmen from different ages is a rather inappropriate and to an extent futile occupation, Laver would certainly be at the top of the imaginary ranking. He could do things with a wooden racket that most modern players don't even think about with their hi-tech instruments.
And... he completed the slam twice, last one in open era, after having missed slams for 5 seasons!
vincenzobavoso 2 years ago
Laver is like a bullet, bet I'd beat him in a sprint tho!
eoinroe47 2 years ago
Laver was number 3 in the world on his 36th Birthday. Match that Roger Federer!
timthemartin 2 years ago
two greats, but jimmy connors is alot older than rod. Rod laver is the best becuase hes the only won to win all four grandslams in 1 year
showboballer 2 years ago
No, Rod Laver is alot older than Jimmy Connors, i'm sure you knew this.
Canamana42 2 years ago
Think you have made a mistake here. Jimmy Connors is 14 years younger than Rod Laver.
timthemartin 2 years ago
Laver could serve and volley and play from the back. Players now only play from the back. Sampras is the last serve and volley. Every match is the same now. Laver 2 grand slams and didn't play majors for 5 years. He would have the most majors.
spjfrat 2 years ago
Is it just me, or is Laver's style ahead of his time?
pyroseed13 2 years ago
If only the whole match was posted. It's the most INTENSE match i've seen in a while. OLD SCHOOL!
thecoolestkid514 2 years ago
Man it's almost like Rod Laver is a hybrid of Nadal and Federer. Nadal because he's a lefty and his puts heavy topspin on the ball and Federer because of the form and slice. I love Federer but man... Rod Laver was AMAZING!!!
thecoolestkid514 2 years ago 4
Oh my. I am ashamed.
I'm a tennis fanatic. I have played competitive tennis for over 20 years. I follow all of the Majors religiously, I have coached high school tennis teams. But I have never seen Rod Laver play before today..
I can't believe my eyes - as a tennis player or as a spectator. That is the fastest guy I have ever seen playing tennis. And those volleys - are outrageous.
Contrary to popular myth - I assure you the level these guys are playing at would test any player...ever.
aerogami02 2 years ago 3
His movement is very similar to Federer.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
I definitely see some similarities to Fed at points in this vid, especially with the feet. Laver's lateral movement for volleys is definitely at a different level to my eye. And of course his left-handedness would've just added to the difficulties of playing him for most guys.
aerogami02 2 years ago
Laver had great anticipation, Federer has poor anticipation. Almost every match I see Federer play he is always off balance. I have seen Laver play Rosewall in an exhibition and Rosewall beat laver. Laver was ticked off when he lost but both were hitting the ball low to cut off the angles but at a tremendous pace. The ball was clearing the net at about 4 to five inches. In the exhibition Sampras beat Federer by taking advantage of his poor anticipation.
snoble2k 2 years ago
@aerogami02 And just think of this.....Laver's generating that power and accuracy with WOOD rackets.
jakemcclain30 1 year ago
Everybody who plays tennis and/or thinks they know anything about tennis needs to see this video.
I don't believe there is such a thing as a greatest of all time..but I never expected the guy to exceed my expectations like this.
aerogami02 2 years ago 3
tennis has evolved over the years rackets strings training and other factors has enabled tennis players to hit harder run faster and put so much spin on the ball its almost not human but one thing is the same the fundementals and the mental game which is what tennis still is could rod laver play in todays game for sure could nadal play in the past eras probably but either way they would be adjusted to that era of tennis
SILK334 2 years ago
Laver, el mas grande de todos los tiempos, Greatest of all times, by far.
juansebastiancala 2 years ago
i wish people on here would quit saying laver is best of all time,,,, even roddick would beat him bad . fed wouldnt even let him take a set,,, nadal probably wouldnt let him win even a single game....
sandmn23 2 years ago
Your full of crap. Laver is from a different era...wood racquets, duh? Laver would have been better with today's racquets than Nadal would be in the wood racquet era. Nadal would suck if he played in Rod's era. Laver would be very good if he competed today. He had the strongest forearm ever, and would impose his game on everyone. Federer would do very well in Laver's era. Please don't mention Nadal in the same sentence as Laver. Nadal has knee issues and career may be over.
mrbobevans 2 years ago 4
@mrbobevans Federer would do well in Lavers era??? Federer would not make it because they would not feed him shots like todays clowns. They would run him ragged.
snoble2k 1 year ago
@mrbobevans Yes, I agree, Rod is the Greatest, no question but what a difference 1 yr. makes - I think you were a little harsh on Mr. Nadal. He's made an amazing recovery and look at his volley now! Superb touch and so natural too (though he lacks Rod's offensive punch). Rafa's added to his serve and succeeded. I wouldn't be surprised if he learned to assert and extend himself with serve and volley tactics given the right direction. Players today should start looking back for some 'new' ideas.
JJLOB 1 year ago
@mrbobevans I don't think so actually. His ground strokes are really nothing special - his net game is of course incredible. He would do well on Grass but based on what I'm seeing here, I question his ability to stay with the hitters of today.
templars83 7 months ago
Roddick and Laver in the same sentence. Now that is a good joke. Laver, considered by all experts to be in the top 5 of all time. Roddick may be VERY lucky to make the top 40. Laver had one of the most complete games ever...Roddick is one of the most one-dimensional players of all time. Ha Ha, I needed a good laugh
mrbobevans 2 years ago 3
mrbobevans-
sigh, everyone does this to roddick, these are silly things to say. now i agree laver is a god and that isn't a title roddick deserves, BUT, roddick not only has brought the game it's most impressive and awe inspiring serve of all time, he is also a large, powerful, serious contender who has maintained a near flawless top10 ranking for nearly a decade now. he is far and away one of the best of all time, no matter who every ignorant fan compares him to. no the best, but one of fo sho~
risenloudly 2 years ago
Just because Roddick can hit a 140 plus bomb serve doesnt make him the "greatest server". Sampras has the greatest serve. WHy? Because he placed it well, and even if he didnt hit an ace, he would volley the weak return and set up for an easy winner. Sampras held his serve like no other. How many Majors has Roddick won? If his serve is the greatest, then why does he always lose in the majors? If his serve was great hed hold his serve. Becker a close second. Becker had an awesome serve.
rmrooster01 2 years ago
I was never that in awe of Roddick until his incredible Wimbledon Final performance against Federer, losing 16-14 in the fifth. He played equal to Federer. Unfortunately, missing that volley at 6-5 in the 2nd set tiebreaker probably cost him the match. I just hope he can keep this level going forward. It is a shame he didn't get with Stefanki earlier in his career.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
@sandmn23 Oh please! Laver would slaughter Roddick. The guy's way too intelligent for Andy Roddick to even take a set off of.
jakemcclain30 1 year ago
did that guy say nadal and federer are slouches compared to these guys,,,, come on,, nadal or federer would easily beat any of those guys from the 70,s,,,,,
sandmn23 2 years ago
Tennis peaked before. Today the players are mediocre. As a result Nadal and Federer shine. But they are really slouches compared to the great players on the past. Laver is unbelievably gifted.
pydpydper 2 years ago
I agree with you so much. Federer is one of the GOAT - no doubt - but his competition sucks when compared to other eras. When players like Hewitt, Roddick and Davydenko were his top opposition, then no wonder why Fed has dominated. I am hoping for new talent to shine, but Murray, Djokovic and Del Potro do nothing for me. So, it must come from the generation after them to bring the beauty, grace and talent back to the sport. Will we ever see a player like Edberg or McCenroe again?
mrbobevans 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BIGcheeeeese 2 years ago
The backhand of Laver is the most beautiful shot of all time and the greatest of all time.
Connors conducted himself in this match with class. He knew he was facing the GOAT.
Borg once said he never gets tired watching Laver hit the ball. The ultimate compliment.
mrbobevans 2 years ago 3
laver plays much like roger federer does now. watch how both come up forward to the net to a deliver hard to reach shot.
Beautiful
NimbleAce 2 years ago
Well said, but I think Laver is/was far better on net game than Federer. Federer is not a "natural" serve & volleyer, though he has been trying to improve is volley game for several years.
ChristianPaul75 2 years ago
There's no comparison at the net in terms of touch, anticipation, preparation. That's why, even though he's much shorter than Federer, he actually covers the net better and hits ridiculous volleys off very tough balls, where Federer is quite likely to dump them into the net. Federer's net game has actually deteriorated a great deal over his career from rust and from an unwillingness to get down and dirty instead of just trying to look beautiful...
datacipher 2 years ago
I agree their games are the most well-rounded in the history of tennis. Laver was mentally tougher than Federer; he was a true warrior. Laver's backhand is the most beautiful shot ever seen on a tennis court - breathtaking.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
True, Laver and Federer are some of the best tennis players in history. Jimmy Connors was also quite astonishing, look at the way he tries to beat Laver with the same tactic of moving up close to the net.
NimbleAce 2 years ago
Federer is the best of today, his generation not at all in the history of tennis.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Laver is far far(X100) better than Federer who is easily wrong footed by changes in pace and depth. Laver is agile while Federer is a stiff. Please do not compare or utter their names in the same sentence.
snoble2k 2 years ago
... and to think that Laver not only missed about 20 Grand Slams because of being a pro but missed them when he was 24-29 yrs old bracket (i.e. the peak).
his unrelenting aggression, the viciousness of his sliced approach shots ("offensive slice"? what's that, anyone born after 1980 asks!), and of course THAT backhand, crosscourt and down-the-line.
astonishing.
AdamJamesTebble 2 years ago
Lendl was supposed to be the godfather of conditioning. BS., look at Borg, Rosewall and Laver. Laver is 38 in this video and is in better shape than 95% of the guys on the current tour. Laver's backhand is the most beautiful looking tennis shot of all time - amazing.
mrbobevans 2 years ago 2
Laver is like the best qualities of Sampras and Rafter. Laver holds the racquet like its a fork.
walliegirl2 2 years ago
Watching this video, I can only say that Laver is the greatest of all time. Had he played the GS in his career he could have won 20.
walliegirl2 2 years ago
Laver was, and will always be THE MAN!!
vidpro007 2 years ago
Laver and Borg were the best wooden raquet players of all time.Laver gave away 14 years to connors here and nearly beat him.
john19712 2 years ago
what a concept? serve and volley. This makes the latest batch of groundstroke players seem pretty boring.
Chlobug123 2 years ago 2
Look at Laver's forearm...damn its huge!
dhxon 2 years ago
The best players of all time, in no specific order, were: Budge, Gonzalez, Laver and Sampras. Missing out on the top honors for various reasons are Tilden (old timer), Kramer (not as good as Gonzalez), Hoad, Becker, McEnroe (too inconsistent, brief primes),Borg, Connors, Lendl (not complete players), Federer (record v Nadal, Murray), Nadal (too early to tell).
notthelastword 2 years ago
How is Borg not a complete player while Gonzales/Sampras are? Gonzales and Sampras had very similar careers. Dominated on faster surfaces - struggled on clay. Sampras actually more than struggled, he was terrible. I don't follow.
chapaev36 2 years ago
Actually Borg was the player I felt uncomfortable about relegating to the second echelon. Did well on grass and clay obviously and despite his US Open failings had significant success on synthetic. I'll do some more research and get back to you. Gonzalez did beat defending champion Roy Emerson in first pro French Open at an old age. Did he win a French pro slam?
notthelastword 2 years ago
Gonzales never won the French Pro - that was dominated for the longest time by Rosewall. Of course, the French Pro did undergo a switch from clay to the very fast wood in the 1960s.
chapaev36 2 years ago
Probably Kramer, McEnroe belong in the list too. Gonazales is my pick as the greatest of them(just ahead of Laver) all despite clay record. Sampras belongs because of 14 slams and is the greatest player I have seen (since mid 70s). Sampras & Gonzo were #1 for about 6-7 yrs even if they didn't win much on clay
notthelastword 2 years ago
And I would add Borg to the list too..11slams in a short career!
notthelastword 2 years ago
For me the cream fo the crop is Laver, Rosewall, Budge, Tilden, Gonzales, Borg, Federer, Sampras in no particular order. I think Laver's the best of all time, but one can make a great case for Gonzales.
chapaev36 2 years ago
Well, Niuesslein and others could alos be mentioned.
schusterlehrling 2 years ago
rod laver - best tennis player EVER
LuCaRiOfan94 2 years ago 2
wooo Rod Laver rules!!!!!!!!!!!!
satriani20gc 2 years ago
THE ROCKET!!!
theatlantean1 2 years ago
So huge that almost unbelievable !
AXOU2203 2 years ago
god rod laver is fast as hell.
thegarbageman21 2 years ago
wow, best volleying I've ever seen, unreal!
advancerv12 2 years ago 2
wow they sure do hit soo hard with wooden rackets
dorker1992 2 years ago 2
Jimmy Connors used a metal T2000.
lattesleeper 2 years ago
At 37 you are just a Baby !! I have 37 and I play in motion all the time , and I do one day tennis, one day phisical preparation. It is just a matter of WILL
You CAN, If you Believe You CAN !!
andreaoffshore 2 years ago
Rod Laver was 37 years old here, Jimmy Connors just 23 ! It gives a good idea just how dominant Laver must have been in his prime (Look at that huge left arm!!). Incredible Tennis. Kudos!!
JJLOB 2 years ago 5
look at connor's footwork on that second point. All small steps.
adrianyuen1906 3 years ago
unbelievable laver is nearly 40 playing a young connors tennis at the highest level with 60 head raquets unbelievable
themios72 3 years ago 2
laver was closer to 35 than 40 here
still unbelieveable, but i think there's a diff
mephatboi 3 years ago
they could remaster this to bluray could they not? it was shot on film?
hotty198 3 years ago
if laver was born some 50 years later, i dont think federer or nadal will be the top player.
serious22222 3 years ago 2
Rod LAver- Best volleys ever!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tennis4213 3 years ago 3
NOBODY has ever come in and rifled offensive volleys like Laver! Not even Sampras.
JJLOB 2 years ago 5
Actually the question should be not whether players like Borg, Laver and Connors could hit it hard but how hard could the players of today like Nadal, Federer, Murray and Djokovic with the wood rackets of those days.
patzeram 3 years ago 2
Hitting hard isn't even always desirable. Connors hit hard, but a player like Orantes would drive him nuts with soft stuff. That's how he beat him at the '75 US Open final.
chapaev36 3 years ago
but how many times Orantes won the us open? i dont think he have more titles then Connors
djnextex 3 years ago
He won the US Open once.
chapaev36 3 years ago
Jimmy Connors won the use open 5 times, i think theres not comparation with Orantes
djnextex 3 years ago
I wasn't comparing him to Orantes. You missed the point.
chapaev36 3 years ago
Wow, Laver could still really move. His hands were still as good as ever.
monthejoe 3 years ago
Check out the foot-speed of Laver! Amazing! Still amazing when he's 100 years old here and he just zooms around the court like a ghost. Great anticipation and reflexes.
Borgforever 3 years ago
wow great players,
so early
jembozzo 3 years ago
Great Video! Great match! Whoever says they didn't hit the ball hard back then never saw this match. Do you have the other winner take all match,another classic, Connors vs. Newcombe?
fireace10s 3 years ago
Sorry I don't have that one.
krosero 3 years ago
Type "Newcombe and Connors (1 of 3)" and you should find what you're looking for.
newmark401 3 years ago
Me reading Connors´ mind: "Damn, this old man is tough. Thank god it´s 1975, not 65."
ChristianPaul75 3 years ago
great video!!!!!!!!different generations as rivals!!! both of them were in top ten tennis players ever!!!!! LAVER with hair. Unbeliveable!!!! hehehehehehe
pablotjob 3 years ago
This is great stuff. Thanks for posting it. I had heard of these "winer take all" matches when I was like 6 years old, but don't remember watching it. awesome.
casheasy 3 years ago
rod laver is a BEAST
he's like 15 years older than connors
eaterofcandy 3 years ago
15 yrs and several years past his prime. Maybe the best ever, but Mcenroe probably has something to say about that.
tommie66tx 3 years ago
Obvious that Laver and Connors were far better than the champions that followed them. Sampras,Federer and Nadal no way have the talents of Laver and Connors. Not one of the guys today can drop volley like they did during Lavers and connors era.
snoble2k 3 years ago
I think the best players ever were the pros before the open era came into existence .. Gonzales, Rosewall, Laver - those guys .. they played a gruelling schedule every year with none of the pampering and perks guys get today .. they were the fittest, toughest sons of bitches in history and whenever they played amateurs they destroyed them, because amateurs were much too comfortable and much too rich .. I maintain that there has never been a fitter player than Pancho Gonzales in his prime.
chapaev36 3 years ago
There have been many players fitter that pancho gonzalez in his prime. Lendl,federer,nadal,borg and many others, but the list pf players better than gonzalez is very very short. He's definetly one of the the 5 best players ever!!!!!
tommie66tx 3 years ago
Many others? Fitter than Pancho? Maybe the old Pancho.
chapaev36 3 years ago
You may be absolutely right in your statements here. A shame that it's so difficult to obtain good quality videos of these players -- especially in their prime. Damn shame! This coming from a major Borg-fan...
Borgforever 3 years ago
How many Grand Slam singles titles did Pancho Gonzales win?
newmark401 3 years ago
Two as an amateur.
chapaev36 3 years ago
Unless we count doubles, of course. That's two US championships titles in 1948/49. Then he turned pro.
chapaev36 3 years ago
I'd love to see Nadal and Federer play with the rackets that these pros played with. Laver, Connors, McEnroe and the rest would kick their asses!!!
caml06 3 years ago 2
this exhibition is much different than sampras vs federer. you can plainly see connors is actually putting his guts into the challenge and laver is as well.
angryniggah 3 years ago
What a testament to an over the hill Laver!
At 37 gave Connors everything he wanted.
What would have happened if Laver was 10 yrs younger?
mucklebones1 3 years ago
Connors would of had to pick up the soap if Laver was younger haha. to put it politely.
IricForset 3 years ago 2
Crazy, Laver had some amazing reflexes for a 37 yr old.
CleckleysProof 3 years ago 4
isn't laver at least 36 here, and connors is about 24 or 25? Amazing how well Laver covers the court. Connors just won 3 of 4 majors in 74, and didn't get to play the french. LAVER very well may be the GOAT
tommie66tx 3 years ago
Connors is 22, Laver 36, and Connors was n.1 and the defending champion of 3 of the 4 slams.
staccato1975 3 years ago
Thanks for the clarification. I'm pretty sure that's the same thing I already said!!
tommie66tx 3 years ago
Connors played like a warrior, full of ferocious drive and spirit. There's never been any player I've supported as much as him.
andrewelo 3 years ago
The thing that always gets me nowadays is how often people call a player like Roger Federer the GOAT without ever seeing footage of the other greats like Laver. If you look at this clip of Laver, ask yourself, is there anyone Federer can do that Laver couldn't? Are there shots Laver can make that Federer can't do? Rod could do everything plus he had speed and great power.
patzeram 3 years ago 4
his backhand does that too, just noticed around 04:48
darthhelmethead 3 years ago
watch the way that laver's forehand dips.
That topspin is very difficult to get with a continental grip, wood racquet or no wood racquet. Laver could very well be the GOAT
darthhelmethead 3 years ago