Laver Rosewall - Roland Garros 1969 - 3rd set p3

[msouzafon1]

Interesting. Contrary to a certain Spanish player, Laver, like Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Lendl, Federer. etc., did not grunt like an animal as he hit the ball...

[AtelierTabulaRasa]

The players didn't have seats at changeovers?! Intense - especially considering that all matches are best of 5 and all sets had to be played out.

[Scoclamor]

Wow! Laver's "worst" surface! And he still dominates!

[Legcut]

The average player is of a better standard today.A champion is a champion in any era though.

[bjornsiborgsi]

rosewal's got shitty body language. someone give him a kick in the ass

[jejesus]

It´s not fair to compare tennis in 70's with today. The only permanent thing is the measure of the court. I grew up seeing Laver, Rosewall, Nastase, Stan Smith and I really love their style an touch...

[New018]

The old greats like Laver are amazing to watch, but be realistic... Today's players would beat them fairly easily, even if the modern players had learned the game and still played with wooden racquets and gut string.

There is no major sport that hasn't pushed the top players to the brink of human potential. Look at any Olympic event and see when the records were set. The training is such that any modern player of any modern sport would crush the old greats and anyone who denies it is a fool.

[drumdude1000]

I agree completely. I thought that I was the only logical thinker out there. Babe Ruth, Jesse Owens, Jim Thorpe etc.. would be ordinary if they played today.

[notthelastword]

@New018

Federer has been beaten by Sampras who has been beaten by Lendl who has been beaten by Borg who has been beaten by Newcombe who has been beaten by Laver who has been beaten by Rosewall who has been beaten by Gonzalez who has been beaten by Kramer. That gets us to the 1940s. I am sure this trail could go back even further!

[New018]

You honestly can say you can watch Federer play, then see old matches with Laver and claim Laver could beat Federer?

And don't tell me about racquet technology, I know it's better. Laver would be free to use new racquets and he would still lose.

Athletes are stronger, more fit, and more serious about their job today.

[aginnsz]

@ New018

How about giving Federer an old wooden racquet and see what happens? Watch Connors vs Laver to get an idea of their speed,precision and power. Gonzalez fastest forehand:120mph Avg 1st serve: 125mph. (at the age of 44!)

[New018]

What I meant was, both players would use what racquet was best for them. I wasn't implying Laver would HAVE to use a modern racquet. The point is, if both players were playing their best possible tennis, Federer would win every time.

[buxaderas1]

Yeah¡¡ Laver would beat Federer 9 out of 10 times with a wood racket, at the inverse, they would probably pitt 5-5 with a modern racket.

Nadal and, maybe Hewitt are the only real champions Fed has had to meet; in Rod´s years the cast was:

Rosewall,Gonzalez,Newcombe,Ash­e,Roche,Smith,Emmo...do you think they are in the same class?

[tennisjedi007]

@New018  Are you a tennis instructor???

[New018]

Nope, haha, just a dedicated player and fan =)

[buxaderas1]

Pure true, just relax, put players in their given contest and appreciate them...if you just look at MPH Serve, MPH Footwork,Wood or modern equipment and so and so you will not enjoy this game in the while

[pablotjob]

no chair to have a break!!!! hehehehe.....very poor!

[mrhydebluevelvet]

such a brief ceremony....strange times!

[NimbleAce]

rafa couldnt murder laver, laver is the greatest.

[tomloft2000]

watch these guys play at nearly 40 years old,and see they were still graet players.

[jdmars02]

Grease monkey Rafa couldn't hold a candle to The King! Rocket Rod Laver!

[Cervicconstruction]

He won this championship after being down Match point in two previous matches.How would the Rocket do against todays players? I belive if there was a player that could adapt to the current game and win it would be the Rocket.

[amount18]

imagine serve and volley play on clay courts today...it is really hard to do lol...yay technology changes

[blaharns]

Björn Borg was the player that ended the complete serve-volley dominance in tennis.

[sebadepa2204]

nobody thougt about some pockets back in those days

[sebadepa2204]

serving while holding two balls, that's something else..

[aerogami02]

Most, if not all male players hit one-handed backhand back then, no problem holding a ball after 1st serve.

You definitely don't see that much anymore, since nearly everyone has been taught to hit 2-handed backhand.

[mitroveca]

sadly

[turtlecutches]

talk about holding your service Laver had a 97% chance of getting his first serve in he rarely hit second serves as you can see.

[habsallways]

Nobody was better than Laver........Nobody

[stealthpakfa]

king rafa is WAY better than this laver guy!

[hi1tman]

no.

[stealthpakfa]

look at these 2 fools, king rafa would eat these 2 alive!

[bassidol]

With a wood racket Rafa would be lower down the royalty ladder, sorry. Nadal's game would look more like what you see here, but you really can't compare eras. Why not just conclude that they were all among the best of their respective eras?

[JJLOB]

stealthpakfa's CLUELESS. He has no idea what playing with a little wooden racquet is like and just how amazing these players were back then. I know - someone should hand Rafa a wooden racquest NOW and ask him hit with it !! LOL. (I have a fine vintage collection and he's welcome to any racquet)

[dogshouse]

ur talking about ROD LAVER BOY

[stealthpakfa]

yea and im saying this laver guy would get murdered if he played king rafa, king rafa would pass laver's serve and volley all day long!

[AceGuitarR7]

laver would destroy nadal, show some respect for the greatest player ever.

[stealthpakfa]

rafa would mug laver, laver was a weak era bully, he never had any competition or media pressure to perform. rafa would murder laver.

[supertrex2]

you idiot. if they play Rafa dont even have a chance, Laver days they only use 75" headsize/ Rafa uses 100 lol... u idiot dude.

[stealthpakfa]

nadal is way more talented than mug laver, laver would suck in the modern game, tennis back then was a hit and giggle activity.

[supertrex2]

lol why u comparing the modern game? modern game would have not exist if not bcoz of this people???? dont u know that Nadal would not even hit the ball in Laver times?

[mitroveca]

and thats why nadal's fans are assholes that know nothing about tennis. only some fuckedup teens talking crap. how can you possibly talk so much shit about one of the greatest players of all time you fuckin idiot?! there are other great players besides rafa and trying to make them look like shit wont make your man any better

[notthelastword]

@mitroveca

Rafa owned Federer. Fact

[mitroveca]

@notthelastword thats all left for you nadal-crybabies to be cheerful - the head 2 head. although at the end federer is the all-time greatest player grandslam record-holder and nadal is getting trashed by everybody in top10 and i guess soon federer will have his fair share of victories over your boy nadal

[aginnsz]

Nadal seems like a really nice guy, but really his game is boring, like most other top players right now. Strategy is poor. As for power, give Poncho Gonzales' wooden racket to Nadal, wait until Nadal turns 44, and see if he can hit 125MPH serves and 120MPH FOREHANDS!!!!!!!!! (I'm not kidding). Let's cut the BS, and just watch and learn from these masters

[Toblakai81]

on clay rafa would crush laver, but on other surfaces laver would win...

however Roger Federer would beat laver on all surfaces, majority of the times

[66763483]

anybody knows how to get videos of Laver vs. Rosewall in the WCT Tournaments of 71 - 72 in Dallas Txas ???

[treemania]

I wish we dominated tennis like we did back then. We had a whole generation of champion Australian tennis players and nothing really followed.

[IricForset]

ahh...when aussies appeared in finals year in year out, good times.

[supertrex2]

is it just me or the court is really big?

[ozonese7en]

i think it's because ken and rod stood at 5'7" and 5'8" respectively, as opposed to the modern 6-foot+ pros we have today..

[Tilly1992]

Ken Rosewall is my Grandpas cousin i have got to meet him a few times.

[YooTuberrrr]

What, no chairs for the players? Was that typical for that era?

[supertrex2]

lol i guess.

[JJLOB]

I think they were allowed water. =)

[Richardhedditch261]

Ken Rosewall does have a claim to be the greatest,in spite of the winning sequences of many other greats and the fact that Rosewall never won Wimbledon.And that is: the now unassailable time distance between his earliest and latest Major victories,and Wimbledon finals.

[splendid1000]

rosewall kinda reminds me of federer the way he hits and moves, especially his serve

[Ariamaluum]

Laver is probably the best all-round player in doubles, singles, and mixed doubles. I would say FEDX is the best singles player ever.

[susdlnskafw]

Samprasisthebest, try this on for size: the Federer of today would whip the Pete Sampras of 1998 - just as the superstars of tomorrow will easily be the better of anything Federer has to offer (believe it or not). Athletes evolve, dummy; its called better nutrition and training. That said, we judge athletes on what they give to the sport and how they enrich it; we also judge athletes within the context of their times. By that measurement, Laver and Rosewall are two of the greatest ever.

[ponetak]

laver is one of the greatest ever even out of context. his speed, point construction, and shot variety are better than anyone today except maybe federer and his power is incredible given his wooden racket. he'd kick today's players' asses if they used wood or he used composite. ps his fiftness was unbelievable even into his late thirties.

[splendid1000]

Keep dreaming, Sampras would own Fed on a 1990s fast paced grass or hard court. Fed would win on slower surfaces.

[splendid1000]

xibaryon, i give YOU -10! What do you think about that my friend?!

[splendid1000]

and sorry but athletes may train harder now and have better nutrition, but they havent "evolved" within a ten year time period...if Sampras or Federer played now or in twenty years from now, theyd train just as hard as their opponents and they would still have that raw talent and touch that noone else has. Look at Roddick, he hits harder, trains harder, has better stamina than Federer, yet he cant beat him. Its a combination of talent and training, and only one of those two are optional.

[splendid1000]

many players are stronger, faster, train harder than Federer, yet they cant come close to him.

[XrenegadeZ]

Nope... Federer has made it to 8 grandslam finals in 2 years... that takes a lot more training to get to that level. So federer in every way fitter than any of his opponents and So think hard... before making such silly analysis.

[splendid1000]

Nope.....Just cuz Fed went to 8 Finals doesnt mean hes the fittest player out there, it means hes the most talented. Fed actually is known for not training as hard as you would expect from a world #1. You really think theres not a single player out there that trains harder than Fed? Think hard...before making such silly analysis.

[XrenegadeZ]

You are wrong, So very Wrong... Fed is known for working hard and improving every year, always with new techniques to outwit his opponents. If he was lazy, he wouldn't be taking part in alot of tournaments, he'd just appear in grandslam events and nothing else. So think harder before making such silly analysis.

[splendid1000]

Dude ur missing the point. Of course he works hard, just like any pro athlete. But he doesnt train the hardest out of every single player on the ciruit. Which is all my original comment said.

[splendid1000]

So try thinking logically, and maybe take some reading comprehension courses.

[XrenegadeZ]

It seems your the one who needs reading comprehension courses. You were trying to prove that other players work harder than fed, which i tried to disprove by saying he takes part in all grand slam events and many tournaments, whereas other players take part in 10 tournament throughout a year.

[XrenegadeZ]

What i am trying to say in laymans terms is that, if other players worked as hard as fed by playing more tournaments like djokovic did last year, they'd be equally skilled, fitter and experienced with winning tournaments. so yes... think logically, and try to understand posts before making silly analysis.

[splendid1000]

Sorry bro but there are other players who take part in just as many tournaments as Federer. Practice does not produce god given talent. It makes u a better player, but the game is not measured by training alone, and number of tournaments dont determine one's degree of training either. Some players are simply more talented than others. Thats ridiculous that u dont understand that. Sampras didnt train the hardest of any player on the circuit and he was #1 for 6 years.

[splendid1000]

i play against guys who practice much more than i do and i continually beat them the majority of the time...

[XrenegadeZ]

To better explain it to you... His ability to come out and play in every tournament and grand slam, is a sure sign that he works harder than any other player in the circuit... thank you. If you still dont understand... then we'd agree to disagree

[splendid1000]

To better explain it to you, he doesnt play in every tournament. And number of tournaments doesnt determine degree of training. Lots of players purposely exempt themselves from tournaments in order to continue their own practice regiment which is often much more intense than any tournament....

[XrenegadeZ]

I am telling you that it does. Djokovic is prove of that, so is Joe Wilfred Tsonga who got better as he played more tournaments at the Ausie Open. Seriously, you got to remember that just like education, if you miss classes and never turn up, you will remain dumber than the rest of the class.

[XrenegadeZ]

Just like you get better when you read alot, or type faster when you chat online more often. If you still dont understand the point i am making, then you will never understand why Roger has a better court vision than anyone in the game. He plays more matches to help him read the game better and have a better vision of the Court. You cant get anywhere without working hard and even if you have the talent, you need the fitness to go with it as well.

[splendid1000]

i agree it helps, but to be a world #1, you gotta have both.

[splendid1000]

there are just too many players out there training just as hard as the next willing to give everything

[splendid1000]

as for Djokovic and Tsonga, just like any other young players on the circuit, they were bound to get better with experience. Playing more tournaments helped them get better, but how are these two kids in the position they are, and rising to the top when there are thousands of others out there training just as hard, and there are, i played college tennis and saw how hard they all trained, and they all trained about the same, yet some were better than others.

[OblivionKBB44]

Ken's service motion makes it look like he is hitting warm up serves!!! They both are playing exceptionally!

[Samprasisthebest]

Furthermore, Laver only had to win his slams on two surfaces, grass and clay. Who knows if he would have won the Aussie Open if it was played on the rubber layered courts it was (until recently) or the US Open. hardcourts? The only player who should be thought of as a complete player on all surfaces is Andre Agassi, due to winning 4 slams on 4 surfaces. How people think that Laver is even comparable to Agassi,Sampras,Federer is beyond me. And for the record, Mcenroe would own Laver as well.

[walliegirl2]

I am a Sampras fan. But Laver is the greatest. I could go on and on, but basically he had it all. Just like Keith Richards said about Buddy Holly. Watching his videos, I can't imagine what he was able to do with a wood racquet. Mac and Borg were always in awe of Laver.

[Samprasisthebest]

Umm... OK. Just keep telling yourself that.

[Samprasisthebest]

Bah, Pete Sampras would own both of them with the sheer power of his game. Rod Laver himself remarked (when Pete won Wimbledon in 2000) that he had never seen such a beautiful serve and that (when asked who he thought was better, him or Pete) he was humbled to be compared to such a great player. I believe he recently said the same thing about Federer. By the way, if he had played in Pete or Roger's era, he would not have won on clay. Kuerten and Nadal would crush Laver and Rosewall on clay.

[apusbass]

5 sets matches, no tiebreaks... and no seats for resting!!! OMG!! tennis was so hard.

[susdlnskafw]

laver + rosewall = two of the greatest ever.

BTW, Laver was fairly competitive with Borg in '76 and '77 even though he was years past his prime.

BTW II: do you think "McEnbrat" would have been as composed as Rosewall was there if he'd just lost a big grand slam match to his biggest rival? Uh, you know the answer (rhetorical question).

These two guys were fierce competitors who didn't have to play the ogre.

[ZebZachary]

hmmm..i don't recall ever seeing John McEnroe losing composure after losing a grand slam match.

during a grand slam match, yes. after losing a grand slam match, no.

laver & rosewall= 2 of the greatest ever?

i completely agree.

laver was mcenroe's idol, by the way.

[sibetsure]

Thank you for posting this video. It is interesting to note the seemingly slower pace of the ball and the slower play compared to todays matches. I saw Laver play live on clay, and his ability was magical. Take a look at the video of him playing Borg ten years later to see how the game had changed even before modern raquet technology had taken hold. I wonder if today's athletes can have such long careers as Laver's with the level of abuse their body has to absorb at today's pace.

[Lorinand]

Laver was a genius

[sampras19]

of course