Rod Laver vs. Neale Fraser

[whattubeaccount]

fraser was remarkable. better than newcombe and roche perhaps. do you own the whole match?

[thefedxfan]

Just LEGENDRY!!!.Bye the way who is that who gave the trophy?

[malovepumato]

incredibile la voce di rino tommasi a capodistria!!!

ma quanti anni ha???!!!

[Scoclamor]

The first of 11 slams for Laver. Imagine if he hadn't missed TWENTY grand slams from 1963 to 1967. Plus the 1968 Australian Open was not open. 21!

[krosero]

@Scoclamor He didn't win this one, Fraser did.

[Scoclamor]

@krosero Right! Sorry, why did I think Australian Open 1960? Wish someone could post THAT. Awesome match!

[krosero]

@Scoclamor What a match that was: Laver came back from two sets down, won 8-6 in the fifth.  I hope someday the footage turns up.

[Scoclamor]

@krosero Got something about it in a book at home. But videos beat books any day!

[BeemerryNYC]

Laver lacking in footspeed? That is nonsense. Did any of you actually see him play in person?

[MARKBPHARM]

The name 'rocket' was given to Laver by Australian Davis Cup Captain Harry Hopman, but Laver was still a junior at that point in time and Harry had been giving lessons to some of the top juniors of the time which included Laver. It was Harry Hopman's way of telling Laver he needed to improve his foot speed - the name stuck!

[FermentedBeancurd92]

such skill!

[jameszbn]

Imagine if Federer or Nadal were to play today with those small wooden rackets !

[1080portal]

They depnded on tactics back then instead of power nowadays, really, federer is a clasic old school type and nadal is modern new school type both has there vantage points

[cathwitness]

Rembember there weilding super heavy wooden sticks, with a ant-size racquet head.

Give these two individuals modern racquets, and they would show today's bangers what real tennis is all about.

[Czerniakowska]

Fraser lost a small fortune by not turning professional when Jack Kramer demanded it.

[SapersteinMD]

Not only was Laver fast, they (did not call him "rocket ROD" for nothing), he had such a great variety in his arsenal of tactics and weapons. It must have been major bad news playing against him. I saw him In a LA tourney against Borg -- using that huge forearm of his--he sliced the ball so low it literally rolled when it hit cemet.

[brettolius]

In reality, Laver was considered a bit slow. The Aussies were a bit on the facetious side, calling Rod "rocket" and Rosewall "muscles", for instance. Rosewall was a tiny guy!

[SapersteinMD]

HA HA. Laver known to be slow?

"..a bit on the facetious side..."

ummmm.

Thank you for your comment.

[Ariamaluum]

What brettolius meant, was that Rod was a bit too casual in getting to the ball.

[brettolius]

that's right. laver was not the speediest guy around the court. good instincts and knew where to be, but he did not have great footspeed

[BeemerryNYC]

@brettolius I take it you never saw him play in person?

[Ariamaluum]

Rod's problem was not the racket but his stubborness in playing two-handed backhanded players. He tried to blow by people instead of slice and dice.

[IricForset]

bloody good tennis.

[alucoq]

The athleticism of Nadal can not be compared with this relative skinny guys they were masters at that time, Nadal Federer etc are masters now with more power and fitness

[vgoodperson23]

People keep comparing the game and players then and now--but to me it is rather pointless. If you ever had to learn the game the "right" way with a wood racket and hours of perfection to hit in the small sweet spot, you realize the new rackets have changed everything--those guys back then were in excellent conditon, but they did not need the extra bulk, weight and strength--it had more to do with endurance as well as agility--which to me is more "athletic."

[lobextomy]

the new rackets and strings, along with the athleticism that the new equipment requires, has actually ruined a good thing. Tennis wasnt going to out "athleticize" games like basketball or football. I would much rather see these two play tennis with their point constuctions and smooth strokes, than 90 per cent of the mindless ball bashers today. Tennis popularity is in jeopardy as a result

[billgordon37]

I agree with you and vgoodperson23 completely. Technology has empowered an entirely different type of personality and athlete. And the whole point is lost. Tennis used to be about touch, style, skill, angle, grace, precision. Smooth, intelligent players like Ashe and Nastase -- even the great Rod Laver -- would be lost today. Same on the womens side: can you imagine Evonne Goolagong bashing it out with the Williams sisters?

[Folkstone57]

@vgoodperson23 Laver certainly had strength & as for endurance, I would say it had that in great supply.

[crimsonwizard1988]

@vgoodperson23 well then you are actually comparing the game then and now lol

[BeemerryNYC]

@crimsonwizard1988 it is a different game... that is the point

[aladino9778]

Nadal would not feel confortable since he would not have chance to use his groundstrokes. Federer is complete so he might manage it after all.

Remember that Sampras was 6 yearsN1 with serve&volley, and guess who did he learn from, Yes he studied Lavers videos and mastered the volley style to make it unbeatable combination with his powerful serve.

[aladino9778]

I do not think it would be so easy like 6-0, 6-0. These guys were masters of the serve&volley game and Laver is perhaps

the best in history so he would not find it difficult to get todays opponents to the net in disadvantage

[purostaff]

man, they were pretty good

[Gman6755]

Laver, best of his day for sure but no match for guys like Federer and Nadal. They would beat Laver 6-0,6-0 if they could play in their primes. The game has changed that much. No disrespect intended to Laver.

[ZebZachary]

maybe...but how would they fare against Laver in his prime if they had to use wooden racquets?

or...vice versa...give Laver one of today's top racquets.

[Gman6755]

IMHO, the racquets would not matter. The style of shots is so much more aggressive today that the older guys would be overwhelmed. Tennis has evolved since then.

[chapaev36]

The styles of shots we have today would be impossible to achieve with wooden racquets. Guys swing with extreme windups that wouldn't work with smaller, older frames. They wouldn't be able to keep the ball in play. This is why when you watch this clip you see a lot of crafty flick shots and lobs. This is what tennis was all about. Being able to play in more ways than one. More than power alone.

[robinho1979]

Laver longevity lasted 3 decades, he played in a era which was far more taxing on the body. His record on all surfaces is un-matched,his achievement in Tennis will never be repeated,a semi retired 36 year old Laver was able to whooped Bjorn Borg on clay the same year he won the French Open.Give Laver Millions in dollars in endorsement,trainers,a graphite racquet he will totally own federer on grass and nadal on clay!

[chapaev36]

You're exagerrating. Laver beat a 17-year old Borg on clay. Yes. The same year Borg won the French Open. But he beat Borg on green clay - a vastly different clay. And Borg made great strides in his development in months after to win RG. Laver was great on grass, but Borg was superior on clay.

[chapaev36]

These kinds of postings are pure trolling. Now, I'm all for people having an opinion, but this is clearly intended to piss some people off. 6-0 6-0? Are you kidding? The woodies necessitate that a player plays a small game.  They limit power and thus it becomes that much more paramount that the player can do the little things, like volley. Laver may be the greatest volleyer in history. This skill may be of less importance today, but not in his day. Laver in his prime with wood was the best.

[robinho1979]

Roger was balling his eyes out when he recieved the trophy from Laver. Roger knows who's the Ultimate in tennis!!Roger a Prince who may one day become king but till now Laver still owns the crown!

[robinho1979]

Thanks Krosero....the more I watch Laver, the more it confirms in my belief he is GOAT.