it's the first time i see Rod Laver play and oh man he will give the guys of today a run for their money even these so called big 3 (Federer,Rafa & Novac)!!he's simply for me the top 5 best players of all time!!
I was a boy at the time, went to the court on sundays seeing my dad play. Yet I had no real idea of how good Laver was. Seeing this footage after so many decades, I realize what a ttremendous player he is. Reflexes, touch and also a pretty darn good service!
u guys forget, serve and volley was especially effective due to the commonality of flat hitting. the top spin of today makes s and v nearly impossible...just wtach raonic play a djokivic
Lever is a true beast!!! See him at 1:38 or 2:35...and in other tens of points...it's fuckin hard to beat a pure serve and volley player....Connors tries to break w superb passing shots just as Fed or Sapras or Nadal can do today....but see, theres no way to pass Lever. see the shot at 4:32. Extremely hard to do w a wooden racket. I dont know if Fed or Rafa can do the same thing. Or i cannot imagine wat Lever could be in modrn tennis. This is real s&v, not like Berger or Becker's shit
Federer does not have the ability to hit a consistently forceful backhand service return - the majority are chipped or sliced. He gets away with this because the vast majority of his opponents are one dimensional baseliners - Federer knows he can just bunt his backhand into play and then start to work his opponent round. A 37 year old Laver - a Mcenroe, Becker or Edberg - would have crowded the net and been all over his backhand returns. Most of todays players come to the net only to shake hands
@MrJayB1969 This simply isn't true. Federer is great at keeping his backhand returns sharp and low against big servers, and he often comes up with excellent "forceful" returns as well. His backhand returns are at least as good as the vast majority of Laver's opponents'.
Mi sembra che Laver perse in 4 set, comunque si può apprezzare la sua increbibile velocità e il suo tocco a rete.
Laver non ha un servizio come quello dei suoi successori ma credo che sia stato più forte di Borg sull'erba , visto le voleè e l'approccio a rete.
Solo Federer e Sampras possono essere messi in classifica davanti a lui in virtù delle 16 e 14 vittorie Slam, ma lui ha saltato 5 !!!! anni 1963-1967 senza giocare nel Grand Slam...20 tornei saltati.
If memory serves me correctly Laver came out of retirement to play Connors in this match. Laver was 37 years of age and demonstrated that he was still competitive with the best players in the game. At the time Conners was close to no. 1 (before Borg overtook him).
Here age won the test. Given these two had the same age, Laver had more variety and shotmaking ability than Connors in all departments, even speed about the court.
Connors was high up in the ladder , but he got to challenge the Rosewalls and Lavers late in their careers, so it was a bit of a tip in the scales on Connors favor.
Speed is not just how fast you can run but a combination of anticipation, reaction and action. Federer is mentally slow compared to Laver. Laver was close to 40 years old here. When Federer is the same age he'll move even slower than he is now. Any questions? Then just use a stop watch and see how slow ly Nadal and Federer react.
It's important to realize that the new equipment is available to everyone. If the game is easier for you because of your tennis racket, it is also easier for your opponent. You still have to beat the guy.
People today have no clue how difficult it is to play well with a wood racket. I learned some of my early tennis with wood rackets (although mostly with aluminum). Pick up Borg's old racket and compare it to a Wilson Hammer. The difference is night and day.
People today have no clue how difficult it is to play well with a wood racket. I learned some of my early tennis with wood rackets (although mostly with aluminum). Pick up Borg's old racket and compare it to a Wilson Hammer. The difference is night and day.
Those were times when not just tennis was better but many other things. It's EDUCATION. Federer, etc. are relative oafs. Federer is slow and not too adept, while Nadal tries very hard because of his lack of skills,etc. The only reason these athletes shine is just relative to the field. This is the reason Sampras gave Federer such close matches at an exhibition. The idea that Federer was just not trying and being nice is an excuse.
@splendid1000 I bet you were impressed of that shot where Federer hits the ball between his legs. Records only mean something when EVERYONE is in the same field. It may seem like conjecture to debate who is better then, but at least to me Federer looks like a relative clod. Don't fret, Nadal looks like a greater clod...who tries very hard.
Right..... a couple of clods dominating tennis....in a world of almost 7 billion people, the best of the best are just clods... LOL you have no idea how bitter and stagnant you sound. I bet you are old
It's hard to think any of these guys could compete with today's players. The speed, strength, strategy, nutrition, and preparation of today's players is just sooo much more. The rest of the pack outside Conners/Laver/Borg etc were also less competative.
@Reemaskain Well I think if these guys were playing today they would have to adjust. A talented guy like Laver with the proper diet, training and modern equipment would be able to compete in any era. Think about it, Jimmy Connors won Grand Slams in the 1970s and 1980's and he still made it to the semis of the US Open in 1991 at the age of 39 against modern players!
Laver moves inhumanly fast. I can't stand how he stands with his racket at his side but he has an awesome backhand. Such a flexible wrist, he can take the ball late and put it cross court like he meant to do it. No wonder he is so idolized by todays pros. Connors was showing the beginnnings of his greatness too. Wow! Thanks for putting this video up and educating the world on some tennis history.
Wow. Rod Lavers looks amazing playing with that wooden racquet. I can see now why people still think he's better than Federer. He's just lightning quick at the night with the volleys.
I too cannot get over how good Laver is here. I am guessing that this match took place around 1974-75, so a few years after he retired. No wonder McEnroe idolised him!
Last time they used the courts without tramlines was back in 2002., at ATP Masters in Shanghai. I'm not sure if it was in Shanghai, but I'm sure it was without tramlines, cause back in that period, there wasn't Masters event in doubles, just in singles. And in final federer lost to Hewitt. And they played best of five set mach, and in my opinion it was much more elite and interesting when all Masters Series finals events have been played in "best of five".
@Pitonto Most pros don't play with enormous rackets, but they are still larger and better than they used to be. The one's you see in this video are around 70 sq in, and the ones used by most pros today are between 85-100 sq in, although the racket weight is actually about the same or heavier (since most pros add weight to stock rackets). The bigger/lighter rackets are mostly for beginners, since the more power means less control and less feel. It's like using a giant hammer on a small nail.
Love the small headed racquets, i'd like to see some of the current robots competing with them! Laver has to be 37 here, nearly a decade past his prime!
Laver vs Federer = DREAM MATCH!! .. But it would have to be Laver at his peak vs Roger Federer today with the same racquet technology.. that would be a crazy match!! :P
In YOUR silly opinion. Not in the opinion of Sampras, Roddick, Borg, Becker, Murray, and the list of past greats and current greats who adulate his game goes on. I think I'll take those guys' professional opinions over your opinion any day.
@Pydpydper: Did you know that the velocity of the ball in modern tennis is greatly faster than it was in Laver's time. It is very much harder to 'manipulate the ball' when it comes at you twice as fast. The game changes, The way it's played changes. The equipment especially changes. With that in mind, all we can do in terms of comparison is look at the records. Federer does outclass laver at that department, no matter what you say. Period. (Besides, Fed manipulates the ball just as easily.)
yeah rod laver is the best player evar but rod laver wanted some money so he could stil play tennis for money but then he coudn't win the slams roger federer not even can't dream about
@UltimateTopspin Do you ever consider the fact that if Pro's were allowed to compete in slams back then, the competition there would have been tougher too. Surely Laver was the best of his time and surely he woud have won many a more grandslam titles, but I do believe he wouldn't have been able to outperform Fed's records. Then again, we may never know.
Laver I'm sure is, this was at the end of his career but it was the start of Conners career. Conners actually looks great and kicks butt in the senior tour, but he is still smashing the ball.
@longtalltexan63: You also have to have incredible skills to place the ball like Fed does with modern equipment, Seeing as the opponent has similar equipment and can deliver the ball with considerably more force than opponents in Laver's time could.
@longtalltexan63 Yes, incredible skills. Their ANTICIPATION was incredible, unlike the oafs today. Just look at how long it takes Federer and Nadal to react. They need to wait to see where the ball is going. Laver, Borg, etc. read the body...just like Mohammed Ali did.
@longtalltexan63 Meh, my friend and I play with wood and metal rackets all the time. Other than power and volleying there's not much difference in my opinion.
I know Oliver Rochus is a good and tenacious player but find it incredible that someone actually compares him with the magnificent Rod Laver. If Laver had not turned pro for a while to make some money he would have probably set a Grand Slam total that Federer could never have reached.
Intersting point. The counter argument would be the Grand Slams he probably would have won if had not turned pro. You can only beat who is put in front of you. Be interested to know who turned pro wile he was an amateur.
Yeah, and although this is a hardcourt, the ball bounces not so high because they apply very little topspin. That's just impossible with those rackets. But once you have a modern racket, you need to grow a few inches higher to be able to respond to the high bounce of the topspin.
Leg speed: Laver is quick, but shorter than today's players. He would find it hard to handle the high bouncing groundshots of today.
Precision: Laver has time to prepare for his shots, with the game being slower overall. And the ball bounce is lower since they let the grass grow thicker those days, which helps his net play.
Shot speed: Would be great fun to see how much speed Federer or Nadal would be able to generate with a wooden racket. Would be close to what we see on this video, I guess.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Federer or anyone else today cannot possibly make these incredible shots that Laver is making. Laver is so quick and has so much anticipation that he comes in on approaches that Federer,etc. could never make. This is a gift that one has or has not. Players today are like senile old men in comparison. Look at those incredible sharp and angled volleys of Laver.
Get real mate. Federer admires,cherishes,cry his eyes out in front of Laver because of respect. Roger knows what Laver achieved in tennis as Agassi said of Laver "is god like of tennis".Let me remind you this is Laver is 38 semi retired againt a 20's Connors in the prime of his life reigning Wimbledon,Aus,U.S open winner and Laver is holding his own?
I have nothing vs Laver. He's an all time great. This match vs Connors was when he was past his peak i know. Laver's better than Connors in their primes. Federer i believe is the best ever overall though. I shouldn't have said 62 62 though. If they play ten times i thk Fed would have won the majority (not all) . But i agree Laver was great. I exaggerated before to make a point, but went too far. good day mate!
Some of you post that Federer is the greatest of all time which means he played and defeated every past champion that ever existed. The guy is in luck to be at the right place at the right time and that is the talent void in tennis. His opponents are no way of the calibre of the opponents of past champions. Those comparing him to Laver or others know zero about tennis.
Look at the Wimbledon center court surface of past finals compared to today. A greater amount of court area was used then where today baseline and deep behind it is worn. A clear measurement in the decay of the game, can't argue that and don't try.
Sorry but writing in the dark causing spelling mistakes. You guys really think you can not compare one tennis era with another? Tennis today is stupid western grip clones hitting to one another, where past tennis was strategy and yes they did hi just as hard. You can compare service and stroke speed just from a video clip with a stop watch and some math from when the ball is struck on service to when it lands on the line. It won't be 100 percent but good enough to prove my point.
Federer and Sampras are the 2 best ever. Next in order are; 3 Laver; 4 Borg; Then you have 5-10. In any order; Connors, Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, and Becker. Nadal is going to certainly be here in a few yrs. Maybe top 4 or 5.
Federers back hand stinks and his serve is so obvious. Sampras on wide high balls to the back hand stinks and without his serve his game is nothing. Nadal? without hard work he would not exist and that is why he had knee injuries. Look at the video of Arthur Ashe kids day of Federer missing targets for charity, he is awful. Federer is inflated by the tennis industry because tennis went down hill. Major TV no longer shows tennis in the was it did in the plast. You are funny.
I may be funny but you are clueless. Federer "awful". You sound like the idiot in the corner of the room who just to get attention says the dumbest things to at least get noticed. Ask Sampras, Agassi, Laver, McEnroe, Borg and others (who know a little more than you) what they think of Federer. Because he missed targets on "A. Ashe" day that wipes 15 grand slam titles and 6 yrs no 1. You need your head examined. His b.hand doesn't suck. It's just not as great as his other shots. snoble2k-dopey2k.
Yeah ask Sampras who said recently he felt like coming out of retirement looking at the current state of professional Tennis but physically he felt it would be too much. The others you mentioned make money supporting the sport that they live off so you could get them to say anything. Change you profile to "iamwoman2" because you act like one. Federer was distrout after balding, belly, 5 years retired Sampras exposed how bad young Roger is. After reality set in Roger was no the same.
you're real mature! Federer before he was even FEDERER beat Sampras at the 2001 Wimbledon. That's much more imp than a stupid exhibition. Federer was hardly distraught. What are you talking about? Noone is saying nice things about Fed because of making $ of the sport. You don't have a clue. Your anti Fed bias is ridiculous. Actually your anti modern player bias is ridiculous. I started following tennis in 1975. Roger is the best i've ever seen. Sampras no 2.
Federer is the Mike Tyson of Tennis. Everyone was holding Tyson on a pedestal as the greatest of all time then came along Buster Douglas who knew a little boxing and ended Tysons career which will be what happens to Federer. Federer took that exhibition serious enough that he fell in a hole after it and that was widely mentioned. Sampras in 2001 was finished mentally which is why he lost to Federer. Hey after retirement and relaxed away from the game McEnroe beat Aggassi badly.
Federer is "NOT" the Tyson of tennis. Tyson was never considered the best ever by knowledgable boxing people. Federer is considered the best (and is) by experts. You want to take a couple of exhibitions seriously, but not a Wimbledon match. Nice try.
Sorry many did consider Tyson greatest but I guess you are too young to know that(only reason I can see what your saying) and that is why you create these experts.I take seriously the fact that the top ten throughout Laver and Connors era were far far (not enough characters to keep repeating far) better that the top ten of Federers era, fact.
not one list of all-time greats ever rated Tyson no1. Many lists today rate Fed no1. This is a far deeper and more competitive era than back in the 70's. Fed would have destroyed Connors.
These Pro's that say Federer is the greatest of all time are they actually Prozac? Cause you should be on Prozac if you really think Federer is the greatest of all time and you truly believe he would beat Connors in his prime. McEnroe and gang make money off of tennis they're kissing up to the cash. Your either a dope addict or just a dope, which is it?
Federer would have NO trouble on any surface vs Connors. I admire Connors as a great champ. But the only player in Fed's class all-time is Sampras. That doesn't mean he can't lose here and there. Of course anyone can. But on balance Fed is GOAT!
Connor would destroy both Federer and Sampras. I now understand where your ideas come from and excuse you on the fact that you know nothing about tennis.
My ideas come from logic, and common sense. Yours come from emotion. I understand growing up with your heroes. Connors was a great champ. I started following tennis since about 1973. I've seen all the greats since. Federer and Sampras tower over the rest. You are one of well one who thinks Connors was better. Noone but you (not even Connors) would place him above Fed, Sampras, Borg, or Laver. He's in the mix with Lendl, Edberg, Agassi, and McEnroe. That's no insult. Stop the insults.
"Noone but you (not even Connors) would place him above Fed, Sampras, Borg, or Laver." LOL. Growup.. He loses to Nadal and the absents of Nadal along with Roddicks choke gave him the wimbledon title. Logic? Analog or Linear? LOL. You spectator you lol.
Lol you kidding! Even with Nadal in pict Fed had the number 1 rank since 04. And by the way, Nastase, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg all had winning records vs Connors for their career. So i guess you think all were better than Jimbo right! The Wimbledon win wasn't luck. It was an epic match. How about the other 5 Wimbledon titles, luck? How about the other 14 majors he won. Stop your ridic jealousy. Fed GOAT.
15 slams means nothing when the opponents still. To prove that Mac and Pete compliment Federer solely for business, Connors said Federer was great after landing the Tennis Channel Commentator job. It is a business.... Federers opponents are awful and you can not tell me that. There are artists out selling Picaso does thst make them better? There are those out selling Elvis and the beatles are they better? Your logic is yes, you are going by numbers not by comparison of abilities.
Fist sentence correction cause I am busy. "15 slams means nothing when the opponents still stink". Stop acting like an angry spectator and learn about tennis. You are probably a fan of tabloid tv.
you sound like a bitter guy who can't let go of your childhood. I grew up watching all those players you love(and so did i). But Fed's peak was better than theirs. And i'm not making $ on saying that. Since you think all pro Fed comments are by players with business interests. Did Fed screw you out of so something important. Otherwise your total hatred for the "GOAT" makes no sense. You remind me of the Muhammad Ali haters in the 60's. Denying the obvious greatness of a legend.
Now I know your no way near my age just by saying people in the 60's were denying Ali's greatness. That was the seventies and that was because he converted to Islam that so many got bent out of shape kid. I talk from experience not from sales pitches. Legends are made from other legends and so is not the case for Federer. Sampras was mentally washed up and was on the way out and that is why Federer beat him, Nothing more..
so Sampras at 30 was washed up, but Connors beating 39 year old little Rosewall for his first 2 majors wasn't? Legends, in fact the greatest legends; Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Laver, and Borg have all said Roger is the "GOAT". But you can keep saying Connors. That's like saying a typewriter is beter than a computer. The biggest problem with you is not that you don't think Fed is the best ever, but that you don't even acknowledge he's great. You are fooling yourself.
Type write compared to a computer? But you can say during the type writer there were millions of better writers and you had to have great grammer and vocabulary because there was not spell check. Oh man are you pathetic. Sampras and the rest of those guys make money "commentating"(has it sunken in yet). You could like Federer all you want but my opinion is my opinion simpleton. Mentally finished is what Sampras was. Life comes into front view and tennis fades into the back ground. Life.
Sampras doesn't need to make money by saying Fed is better than him. Pete's already a multimillionaire. You've got to stop your ridic conspiracy theories. Sampras was so finished that 2 months later he was in the US. Open final right! And soooo finished, that the next year he would go on to win the US. Open. Connors (who i respect, but know his limitations) beat Phil Dent, and 39yr old Rosewall twice for his 3 1974 majors. And you are talking about depth!!! Roddick, Nadal, Djok, bt dent 60,60
i was ranked 40 in the nation in the 18 and under, and played P. McEnroe twice, and A. Krickstein in singles as well as doubles. So you should shut up. And like them, i know Federer would crush Connors 8 times a week.
Lol all you want fact is fact. fiction (like Connors beating Federer) is fiction. I played P McEnroe at the Easter Bowl, and Nat'l Hardcourts. (Split 2 mtgs with him). I also lost to Krickstein at the Western Open in Ohio in the 4th rd. And the semis (To Krickstein-Robbie Weiss) in the doubles semi's. Lol all you want!!!
I didn't respond late. Unlike you i have other things to do. I'm not sitting by the computer all day. You don't bel me, i could care less. Again fact is fact. Fiction (Connors top 5 ever) is fiction. Ps. I also played Amos Mansdorf, Chris Garner, and Richey Renenberg.
I enjoy stringing your ego along. Man are you weak minded. All because I state the visible obvious fact that Federer is no true great and you don't like it. You try comparing Laver, a man that played legends to a guy winning close matches with mediocre opponents. You are the pathetic laugh chasing me out of fear I am up one on you all the time in the argument. Becker, Borg, Connors, Edberg,Laver, Lendl etc..would eat Federer alive.
Federer is a fucking hack. He's only good at beating chumps like Baghdatis and Phillipousis in Grand Slam finals. Then someone half decent like Nadal comes along and he struggles majorly, hell, even Andy Murray has a winning record agaisnt Fed.
Ha ha Fed a hack! You're an idiot! He's also beaten Nadal, Roddick, Murray (when it counts), Gonzales, Hewitt, Agassi in finals of majors. He's also got the longest streak of reaching major s. finals in history. Yeah some hack. Again, you're an idiot!
Federer is 2 and 5 in GS finals vs Nadal, and he only beat a young Nadal on Fed's favourite surface. Gonzales, not a great player. I'm Australian and I can admit Hewitt was never amazing. Agassi was well past it when he beat him. Roddick, also sucks pretty hard. He's 3 and 6 against Murray (from memory) and has only played him once in GS, but I assure you Murray will beat Fed in a GS final sometime soon. He's pretty damn over rated, he can't even beat a 20 year old Del Potro.
you are laughable. He's 1-0 vs Murray when it counts. Murray can't win the big one's. He's a Scott choker. Ask Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe, they all say Fed is greatest ever. Nadal has a troublesome game for Federer. That's a match up problem. But overall Fed is the far superior player. On the most complete major (clay, and grass, and hard ct players all play) the US> Open Fed won 5 in a row. Nadal not even a final. Fed is the best ever to pick up a racquet.
I hate Murray as well but how many Grand Slams had Federer won when he was 22, how many finals had he made? 0. Give him time though. You are quite laughable yourself, "Fed is the best to ever pick up a racquet". Saying it like it's cold hard fact because a few players say so.
It took Federer til the age of 28 to win a RG. Match up problem? If he was the best ever he should be able to do much better, he has lost 5 times in a GS Final to the same player. Federer, great yes, one of the best, yes, the best ever? I don't think so.
Yeah really terrible. It took Federer till 28 to win all 4 majors. That's terrible. How dare he. He's only won 15. What's wrong with him. His record vs Nadal would be much better if most of the matches weren't on clay. Fed is 2-1 on grass; and 3-2 on hard over Nadal. The diff is that unlike Nadal, Fed woll get to the final on his worst surface. Nadal usually vanishes (as US. Open shows) if everything doesn't go his way. Fed is ALWAYS there in the end, winning, or finalist. G.O.A.T
Yeah it is terrible, Nadal was like 24. What are you trying to downplay the importance of clay? Like the matches don't count for as much. How many tournament a year are held on grass? Like 2, so all Fed's wins on grass don't mean much. Yes well Nadal goes hard all year, it's no surprise he can't walk, so I would imagine the last grand slam of the year would be the hardest.
Fed has won 15 majors. Case closed! I'm not minimizing anything on clay. Federer has won 8 hard court majors by the way. So trying to belittle his grass record is ridic. Fed unlike Nadal has been great consistently. A bad tournament for Fed is a loss in a final. A bad tourn for Nadal is a early exit, or a blowout defeat like Del P at US. Open. Naal will never accomplish all that Fed has. You tell someone Fed's wins on grass don't count much Ha ha! Your effort to minimize Fed's greatness is ridic
Well if you just want to look at it that way then obviously Laver is the best, 2 Grand Slams, Fed has none. I'm not doubting that Federer is a great player, or that Nadal will achieve more but fact is he can't consistently match it with Nadal.
Ha ha! If Fed could play 3 out of 4 slams a year on grass like Laver did, he would have at least 20 majors by now. Federer can consistently match and beat Nadal on all surfaces except clay were clearly (until this yr) Nadal was beter. Laver had a losing rec vs Cliff Drysdale even in the 1960's. Does that mean Drysdale was better? Of course not. But Drysdale's game matched up well with Laver. Rosewall who was far better than Drysdale would get killed by Laver. Krajicek/ Ferrera win rec vs Sampras
that doesn't inc record pre 1969. the point is styles make matches. Some guys have trouble beating guys who aren't as good overall, but match up well against them.
it's the first time i see Rod Laver play and oh man he will give the guys of today a run for their money even these so called big 3 (Federer,Rafa & Novac)!!he's simply for me the top 5 best players of all time!!
talisayon23 2 hours ago
@mrjayb1969 this is by far the most stupid comment i ever read in all those years on youtube
OfficialWarns 3 hours ago
I was a boy at the time, went to the court on sundays seeing my dad play. Yet I had no real idea of how good Laver was. Seeing this footage after so many decades, I realize what a ttremendous player he is. Reflexes, touch and also a pretty darn good service!
TheMrBennito 3 months ago
in other innovations... playing with aero-dynamic shirt collars helps with lateral movement and helps wick moisture... from the whole arena.
seriously though Laver's one of the greatest that ever played.
jaynerf 5 months ago
before they had speed guns the commentators would estimate the speed of the ball
"smoke city, 400 miles an hour" 0:52
bigmoslim 6 months ago 2
@bigmoslim LMAO
Pundit2k 3 months ago
Beautiful tennis back in those days!
giorgino7474 6 months ago
what year was this? 74?
cbarrett34 7 months ago
lighter balls were used back then
robertk2007 7 months ago
who says the old guys couldnt put pace on the ball? these guys are knocking the living shit out of the ball....two great legends
fromanotherstar 7 months ago
u guys forget, serve and volley was especially effective due to the commonality of flat hitting. the top spin of today makes s and v nearly impossible...just wtach raonic play a djokivic
DeepSnowMan 7 months ago
Laver had a nose for tennis. And a face for radio. The Larry Fine of tennis.
DexterHaven49 7 months ago
Its like watching Federer play left handed
IricForset 9 months ago
@IricForset hell no.
theageofthefallhasbe 8 months ago
Lever is a true beast!!! See him at 1:38 or 2:35...and in other tens of points...it's fuckin hard to beat a pure serve and volley player....Connors tries to break w superb passing shots just as Fed or Sapras or Nadal can do today....but see, theres no way to pass Lever. see the shot at 4:32. Extremely hard to do w a wooden racket. I dont know if Fed or Rafa can do the same thing. Or i cannot imagine wat Lever could be in modrn tennis. This is real s&v, not like Berger or Becker's shit
ale882xxx 10 months ago 2
when was this?
Robearwgl 11 months ago
they need a wooden racquet league or tournament. todays players but just wooden racquets.
Robearwgl 11 months ago
Federer does not have the ability to hit a consistently forceful backhand service return - the majority are chipped or sliced. He gets away with this because the vast majority of his opponents are one dimensional baseliners - Federer knows he can just bunt his backhand into play and then start to work his opponent round. A 37 year old Laver - a Mcenroe, Becker or Edberg - would have crowded the net and been all over his backhand returns. Most of todays players come to the net only to shake hands
MrJayB1969 11 months ago 5
@MrJayB1969 This simply isn't true. Federer is great at keeping his backhand returns sharp and low against big servers, and he often comes up with excellent "forceful" returns as well. His backhand returns are at least as good as the vast majority of Laver's opponents'.
mikatagahara1212 2 days ago
Mi sembra che Laver perse in 4 set, comunque si può apprezzare la sua increbibile velocità e il suo tocco a rete.
Laver non ha un servizio come quello dei suoi successori ma credo che sia stato più forte di Borg sull'erba , visto le voleè e l'approccio a rete.
Solo Federer e Sampras possono essere messi in classifica davanti a lui in virtù delle 16 e 14 vittorie Slam, ma lui ha saltato 5 !!!! anni 1963-1967 senza giocare nel Grand Slam...20 tornei saltati.
blualberto1966 11 months ago
what are the odds. two left handed players that great...
ultraverydeepfield 1 year ago
If memory serves me correctly Laver came out of retirement to play Connors in this match. Laver was 37 years of age and demonstrated that he was still competitive with the best players in the game. At the time Conners was close to no. 1 (before Borg overtook him).
rod280459 1 year ago
Poor guys... not only the had to put up with those awful wooden rackets, but those shorts...
Grafight2 1 year ago
Here age won the test. Given these two had the same age, Laver had more variety and shotmaking ability than Connors in all departments, even speed about the court.
Connors was high up in the ladder , but he got to challenge the Rosewalls and Lavers late in their careers, so it was a bit of a tip in the scales on Connors favor.
atele6 1 year ago
Anyone noticed Mustache Guy at 2:29?
vulyone1 1 year ago
Great Tennisplayers and great soccer players are named with a name that starts with an R.
ulizinho 1 year ago
@ulizinho Richael Jordan?
1hbackhand 1 year ago
@1hbackhand
I was referring to Rafael, Roger, Rod and the three Ronaldos...
Yeah, Michael was the best.
ulizinho 1 year ago
@ulizinho I know I was just playing around lol :)
1hbackhand 1 year ago
@1hbackhand
Yeah, I got it. Raradona, Rirk Rowitski and Randy Rroddick are cool, too.
ulizinho 1 year ago
@ulizinho ahahahaha lol too funny At first I was like what? then I saw roddick lol :)
1hbackhand 1 year ago
man.. those shots are thunderous.
meettheturc 1 year ago
Speed is not just how fast you can run but a combination of anticipation, reaction and action. Federer is mentally slow compared to Laver. Laver was close to 40 years old here. When Federer is the same age he'll move even slower than he is now. Any questions? Then just use a stop watch and see how slow ly Nadal and Federer react.
pydpydper 1 year ago
It's important to realize that the new equipment is available to everyone. If the game is easier for you because of your tennis racket, it is also easier for your opponent. You still have to beat the guy.
HBNplague 1 year ago
People today have no clue how difficult it is to play well with a wood racket. I learned some of my early tennis with wood rackets (although mostly with aluminum). Pick up Borg's old racket and compare it to a Wilson Hammer. The difference is night and day.
edbruby 1 year ago
People today have no clue how difficult it is to play well with a wood racket. I learned some of my early tennis with wood rackets (although mostly with aluminum). Pick up Borg's old racket and compare it to a Wilson Hammer. The difference is night and day.
edbruby 1 year ago
Those were times when not just tennis was better but many other things. It's EDUCATION. Federer, etc. are relative oafs. Federer is slow and not too adept, while Nadal tries very hard because of his lack of skills,etc. The only reason these athletes shine is just relative to the field. This is the reason Sampras gave Federer such close matches at an exhibition. The idea that Federer was just not trying and being nice is an excuse.
pydpydper 1 year ago
@pydpydper
Federer is faster than either of these two guys lol!!!!
the reason they dont serve and volley now is because the courts are slower
splendid1000 1 year ago
@splendid1000 I bet you were impressed of that shot where Federer hits the ball between his legs. Records only mean something when EVERYONE is in the same field. It may seem like conjecture to debate who is better then, but at least to me Federer looks like a relative clod. Don't fret, Nadal looks like a greater clod...who tries very hard.
pydpydper 1 year ago
@pydpydper but look what fed did from 2004 to wimbledon in 2009.
besides clay he dominated the game.
i mean really just win just about everything.
that's no clod my friend
cj397 1 year ago
Right..... a couple of clods dominating tennis....in a world of almost 7 billion people, the best of the best are just clods... LOL you have no idea how bitter and stagnant you sound. I bet you are old
splendid1000 1 year ago
@pydpydper man you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT in every single word. I totally agree with you.
drugstoremarc 1 year ago
This is the legend himself! Rod "Rocket" Laver. A GOAT candidate.
Ignozi 1 year ago
It's hard to think any of these guys could compete with today's players. The speed, strength, strategy, nutrition, and preparation of today's players is just sooo much more. The rest of the pack outside Conners/Laver/Borg etc were also less competative.
Reemaskain 1 year ago
@Reemaskain Well I think if these guys were playing today they would have to adjust. A talented guy like Laver with the proper diet, training and modern equipment would be able to compete in any era. Think about it, Jimmy Connors won Grand Slams in the 1970s and 1980's and he still made it to the semis of the US Open in 1991 at the age of 39 against modern players!
TheTopspin77 1 year ago
inhuman
l0bsterslayer 1 year ago
Did Connors win the match?
ace942 1 year ago
Laver moves inhumanly fast. I can't stand how he stands with his racket at his side but he has an awesome backhand. Such a flexible wrist, he can take the ball late and put it cross court like he meant to do it. No wonder he is so idolized by todays pros. Connors was showing the beginnnings of his greatness too. Wow! Thanks for putting this video up and educating the world on some tennis history.
stormrider008 1 year ago 3
@stormrider008 Totally agree with your comment - ditto
tvelea 1 year ago
Laver was all arm...but what an arm !!
FairwayJack 1 year ago
my god how they do that with that raquets!
ffallenaangel 1 year ago
Wow. Rod Lavers looks amazing playing with that wooden racquet. I can see now why people still think he's better than Federer. He's just lightning quick at the night with the volleys.
mao12345 1 year ago
Laver was very very quick for his age...connors was also quick, but younger.
This match seems very very good.
very good video. thanks
bidulau 1 year ago
I too cannot get over how good Laver is here. I am guessing that this match took place around 1974-75, so a few years after he retired. No wonder McEnroe idolised him!
converse91970 1 year ago
Laver made the same plays federer does now. for they are the greatest ever.
patolake 1 year ago
I mention Rod Laver in The History Song.
superdavid002 1 year ago
Last time they used the courts without tramlines was back in 2002., at ATP Masters in Shanghai. I'm not sure if it was in Shanghai, but I'm sure it was without tramlines, cause back in that period, there wasn't Masters event in doubles, just in singles. And in final federer lost to Hewitt. And they played best of five set mach, and in my opinion it was much more elite and interesting when all Masters Series finals events have been played in "best of five".
viktorobrol 1 year ago
@viktorobrol Not true. watch Guga Kuerten v Sampras (MC2000). They didn't use tramlines then.
Anaconda43VR 1 year ago
@Anaconda43VR That's true, but the last time they used court without tramlines was 2002. when Hewitt defeated Federer in final.
viktorobrol 1 year ago
@viktorobrol
My bad, sorry. Got mixed up.
Anaconda43VR 1 year ago
wow its so weird to see a court without doubles alleys
tylergaylord 1 year ago
Playing today with those raquets is much easier than in the past. It's only hit and run.
Pitonto 1 year ago
@Pitonto Are you stupid?
Juanchorock21 1 year ago
Playin today with those enormous raquets and those strings is much much easier than in the past.
Pitonto 1 year ago 13
@Pitonto Most pros don't play with enormous rackets, but they are still larger and better than they used to be. The one's you see in this video are around 70 sq in, and the ones used by most pros today are between 85-100 sq in, although the racket weight is actually about the same or heavier (since most pros add weight to stock rackets). The bigger/lighter rackets are mostly for beginners, since the more power means less control and less feel. It's like using a giant hammer on a small nail.
iamroma 10 months ago
Love the small headed racquets, i'd like to see some of the current robots competing with them! Laver has to be 37 here, nearly a decade past his prime!
absolutebore 1 year ago
Laver vs Federer = DREAM MATCH!! .. But it would have to be Laver at his peak vs Roger Federer today with the same racquet technology.. that would be a crazy match!! :P
bouncingsiopao 1 year ago
@bouncingsiopao Well if Laver's at this peak, then it should be 2006 Federer. :D
ShadeXH 1 year ago
Which one is Rod Laver, the red or the white?
cookiesummon 1 year ago
red
fungamesss 1 year ago
You can't really look at records. Just look at the players. No way does Federer manipulate a ball like Laver....period.
pydpydper 2 years ago
In YOUR silly opinion. Not in the opinion of Sampras, Roddick, Borg, Becker, Murray, and the list of past greats and current greats who adulate his game goes on. I think I'll take those guys' professional opinions over your opinion any day.
biliev1 1 year ago
@Pydpydper: Did you know that the velocity of the ball in modern tennis is greatly faster than it was in Laver's time. It is very much harder to 'manipulate the ball' when it comes at you twice as fast. The game changes, The way it's played changes. The equipment especially changes. With that in mind, all we can do in terms of comparison is look at the records. Federer does outclass laver at that department, no matter what you say. Period. (Besides, Fed manipulates the ball just as easily.)
Darenimo 1 year ago
obviously you've never seen federer play.
come out from under your rock. the weather is beautiful
pmo1983 1 year ago
Laver = incredible player, Federer = godmode
NMoulana 2 years ago
Incredible reflexes at the net.
lupejl 2 years ago
laver the greatest of all time. laver, sampras, federer,lendl,connors the greatest of all time.
themios72 2 years ago 2
lmao, 400 miles per hour my ass.
well at least that's what i heard, correct me if i\m wrong
gabe228 2 years ago
yeah rod laver is the best player evar but rod laver wanted some money so he could stil play tennis for money but then he coudn't win the slams roger federer not even can't dream about
UltimateTopspin 2 years ago
@UltimateTopspin Do you ever consider the fact that if Pro's were allowed to compete in slams back then, the competition there would have been tougher too. Surely Laver was the best of his time and surely he woud have won many a more grandslam titles, but I do believe he wouldn't have been able to outperform Fed's records. Then again, we may never know.
Darenimo 1 year ago
True, as Laver won five majors as an amateur, with Rosewall, Gonzalez, Hoad, Segura, Sedgman, etc. on the sidelines.
jirishanca 1 year ago
Hey do me a favor and don't steal other people's videos. Thanks.
fungamesss 2 years ago 2
Tennis from the 1950s
jhrockgod 2 years ago
This isn't the 50's, how old do you think Conners is? Good grief.
longtalltexan63 2 years ago
These guys must be at least in their 80s if still alive.
jhrockgod 2 years ago
Laver I'm sure is, this was at the end of his career but it was the start of Conners career. Conners actually looks great and kicks butt in the senior tour, but he is still smashing the ball.
longtalltexan63 2 years ago
@jhrockgod Connors has 57 years.... ¬¬
luisdjokovic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jhrockgod Connors has 57 years.... ¬¬
luisdjokovic 1 year ago
Notice Laver is playing with one of those old skinny wood rackets. You have to have incredible skills to place the ball the way he did.
longtalltexan63 2 years ago 8
@longtalltexan63: You also have to have incredible skills to place the ball like Fed does with modern equipment, Seeing as the opponent has similar equipment and can deliver the ball with considerably more force than opponents in Laver's time could.
Darenimo 1 year ago
@longtalltexan63 Yes, incredible skills. Their ANTICIPATION was incredible, unlike the oafs today. Just look at how long it takes Federer and Nadal to react. They need to wait to see where the ball is going. Laver, Borg, etc. read the body...just like Mohammed Ali did.
pydpydper 1 year ago
@longtalltexan63 Meh, my friend and I play with wood and metal rackets all the time. Other than power and volleying there's not much difference in my opinion.
DanimalLawlz 11 months ago
I know Oliver Rochus is a good and tenacious player but find it incredible that someone actually compares him with the magnificent Rod Laver. If Laver had not turned pro for a while to make some money he would have probably set a Grand Slam total that Federer could never have reached.
KETTLEPLUG 2 years ago
But if Laver hadn't missed all the great opponents that turned pro when he was an amateur, he would have won far less Grand Slams.
MMilon 2 years ago
Intersting point. The counter argument would be the Grand Slams he probably would have won if had not turned pro. You can only beat who is put in front of you. Be interested to know who turned pro wile he was an amateur.
KETTLEPLUG 2 years ago
400 miles per hour my ass lol.... that commentator is out of his mind.
gabe228 2 years ago
to griffen427-yes I can. Oliver Rochus was successful and he was five feet , five inches.
yaytennis 2 years ago
"Rocket" Rod Laver was on 5' 7"...can you imagine any player of similar height being as successful as him?
Griffen427 2 years ago
he was 5"8, 173 cm is 5"8
gabe228 2 years ago
1" off, sorry. Considering the "ideal" tennis height is 6' to 6' 3"
Griffen427 2 years ago
yea, it IS the ideal height, you are right, it IS, but it WASN'T.
5"8 was not below average in the 60s-70s
gabe228 2 years ago
when was it? year was it an offcial match or an exhibition????..........greetings from Spain.
pablotjob 2 years ago
so much can be learned and applied to your own game in watching these old tapes.
Bobby61189 2 years ago
well it is'nt hardcourt because laver never won a title on hardcourt as most of them were played on grass back then it is most likely carpet
shamanofsexy90 2 years ago
Or is it carpet?
gyuszko2000 2 years ago
Yeah, and although this is a hardcourt, the ball bounces not so high because they apply very little topspin. That's just impossible with those rackets. But once you have a modern racket, you need to grow a few inches higher to be able to respond to the high bounce of the topspin.
gyuszko2000 2 years ago
Leg speed: Laver is quick, but shorter than today's players. He would find it hard to handle the high bouncing groundshots of today.
Precision: Laver has time to prepare for his shots, with the game being slower overall. And the ball bounce is lower since they let the grass grow thicker those days, which helps his net play.
Shot speed: Would be great fun to see how much speed Federer or Nadal would be able to generate with a wooden racket. Would be close to what we see on this video, I guess.
gyuszko2000 2 years ago
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Federer or anyone else today cannot possibly make these incredible shots that Laver is making. Laver is so quick and has so much anticipation that he comes in on approaches that Federer,etc. could never make. This is a gift that one has or has not. Players today are like senile old men in comparison. Look at those incredible sharp and angled volleys of Laver.
pydpydper 2 years ago
And Laver is 38 years old here! Federer will be out to pasture at that age.
pydpydper 2 years ago
Fed on his worst day beats Laver 62 62.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Get real mate. Federer admires,cherishes,cry his eyes out in front of Laver because of respect. Roger knows what Laver achieved in tennis as Agassi said of Laver "is god like of tennis".Let me remind you this is Laver is 38 semi retired againt a 20's Connors in the prime of his life reigning Wimbledon,Aus,U.S open winner and Laver is holding his own?
robinho1979 2 years ago
I have nothing vs Laver. He's an all time great. This match vs Connors was when he was past his peak i know. Laver's better than Connors in their primes. Federer i believe is the best ever overall though. I shouldn't have said 62 62 though. If they play ten times i thk Fed would have won the majority (not all) . But i agree Laver was great. I exaggerated before to make a point, but went too far. good day mate!
iamtman1 2 years ago
Some of you post that Federer is the greatest of all time which means he played and defeated every past champion that ever existed. The guy is in luck to be at the right place at the right time and that is the talent void in tennis. His opponents are no way of the calibre of the opponents of past champions. Those comparing him to Laver or others know zero about tennis.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Look at the Wimbledon center court surface of past finals compared to today. A greater amount of court area was used then where today baseline and deep behind it is worn. A clear measurement in the decay of the game, can't argue that and don't try.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Sorry but writing in the dark causing spelling mistakes. You guys really think you can not compare one tennis era with another? Tennis today is stupid western grip clones hitting to one another, where past tennis was strategy and yes they did hi just as hard. You can compare service and stroke speed just from a video clip with a stop watch and some math from when the ball is struck on service to when it lands on the line. It won't be 100 percent but good enough to prove my point.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Federer and Sampras are the 2 best ever. Next in order are; 3 Laver; 4 Borg; Then you have 5-10. In any order; Connors, Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, Edberg, and Becker. Nadal is going to certainly be here in a few yrs. Maybe top 4 or 5.
iamtman1 2 years ago
wheres becker
amzee2 2 years ago
He's on the list. Didn't you see?
iamtman1 2 years ago
Federers back hand stinks and his serve is so obvious. Sampras on wide high balls to the back hand stinks and without his serve his game is nothing. Nadal? without hard work he would not exist and that is why he had knee injuries. Look at the video of Arthur Ashe kids day of Federer missing targets for charity, he is awful. Federer is inflated by the tennis industry because tennis went down hill. Major TV no longer shows tennis in the was it did in the plast. You are funny.
snoble2k 2 years ago
I may be funny but you are clueless. Federer "awful". You sound like the idiot in the corner of the room who just to get attention says the dumbest things to at least get noticed. Ask Sampras, Agassi, Laver, McEnroe, Borg and others (who know a little more than you) what they think of Federer. Because he missed targets on "A. Ashe" day that wipes 15 grand slam titles and 6 yrs no 1. You need your head examined. His b.hand doesn't suck. It's just not as great as his other shots. snoble2k-dopey2k.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Yeah ask Sampras who said recently he felt like coming out of retirement looking at the current state of professional Tennis but physically he felt it would be too much. The others you mentioned make money supporting the sport that they live off so you could get them to say anything. Change you profile to "iamwoman2" because you act like one. Federer was distrout after balding, belly, 5 years retired Sampras exposed how bad young Roger is. After reality set in Roger was no the same.
snoble2k 2 years ago
you're real mature! Federer before he was even FEDERER beat Sampras at the 2001 Wimbledon. That's much more imp than a stupid exhibition. Federer was hardly distraught. What are you talking about? Noone is saying nice things about Fed because of making $ of the sport. You don't have a clue. Your anti Fed bias is ridiculous. Actually your anti modern player bias is ridiculous. I started following tennis in 1975. Roger is the best i've ever seen. Sampras no 2.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Federer is the Mike Tyson of Tennis. Everyone was holding Tyson on a pedestal as the greatest of all time then came along Buster Douglas who knew a little boxing and ended Tysons career which will be what happens to Federer. Federer took that exhibition serious enough that he fell in a hole after it and that was widely mentioned. Sampras in 2001 was finished mentally which is why he lost to Federer. Hey after retirement and relaxed away from the game McEnroe beat Aggassi badly.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Federer is "NOT" the Tyson of tennis. Tyson was never considered the best ever by knowledgable boxing people. Federer is considered the best (and is) by experts. You want to take a couple of exhibitions seriously, but not a Wimbledon match. Nice try.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Sorry many did consider Tyson greatest but I guess you are too young to know that(only reason I can see what your saying) and that is why you create these experts.I take seriously the fact that the top ten throughout Laver and Connors era were far far (not enough characters to keep repeating far) better that the top ten of Federers era, fact.
snoble2k 2 years ago
not one list of all-time greats ever rated Tyson no1. Many lists today rate Fed no1. This is a far deeper and more competitive era than back in the 70's. Fed would have destroyed Connors.
iamtman1 2 years ago
These Pro's that say Federer is the greatest of all time are they actually Prozac? Cause you should be on Prozac if you really think Federer is the greatest of all time and you truly believe he would beat Connors in his prime. McEnroe and gang make money off of tennis they're kissing up to the cash. Your either a dope addict or just a dope, which is it?
snoble2k 2 years ago
Federer would have NO trouble on any surface vs Connors. I admire Connors as a great champ. But the only player in Fed's class all-time is Sampras. That doesn't mean he can't lose here and there. Of course anyone can. But on balance Fed is GOAT!
iamtman1 2 years ago
Connor would destroy both Federer and Sampras. I now understand where your ideas come from and excuse you on the fact that you know nothing about tennis.
snoble2k 2 years ago
My ideas come from logic, and common sense. Yours come from emotion. I understand growing up with your heroes. Connors was a great champ. I started following tennis since about 1973. I've seen all the greats since. Federer and Sampras tower over the rest. You are one of well one who thinks Connors was better. Noone but you (not even Connors) would place him above Fed, Sampras, Borg, or Laver. He's in the mix with Lendl, Edberg, Agassi, and McEnroe. That's no insult. Stop the insults.
iamtman1 2 years ago
"Noone but you (not even Connors) would place him above Fed, Sampras, Borg, or Laver." LOL. Growup.. He loses to Nadal and the absents of Nadal along with Roddicks choke gave him the wimbledon title. Logic? Analog or Linear? LOL. You spectator you lol.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Lol you kidding! Even with Nadal in pict Fed had the number 1 rank since 04. And by the way, Nastase, Lendl, McEnroe, Borg all had winning records vs Connors for their career. So i guess you think all were better than Jimbo right! The Wimbledon win wasn't luck. It was an epic match. How about the other 5 Wimbledon titles, luck? How about the other 14 majors he won. Stop your ridic jealousy. Fed GOAT.
iamtman1 2 years ago
15 slams means nothing when the opponents still. To prove that Mac and Pete compliment Federer solely for business, Connors said Federer was great after landing the Tennis Channel Commentator job. It is a business.... Federers opponents are awful and you can not tell me that. There are artists out selling Picaso does thst make them better? There are those out selling Elvis and the beatles are they better? Your logic is yes, you are going by numbers not by comparison of abilities.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Fist sentence correction cause I am busy. "15 slams means nothing when the opponents still stink". Stop acting like an angry spectator and learn about tennis. You are probably a fan of tabloid tv.
snoble2k 2 years ago
you sound like a bitter guy who can't let go of your childhood. I grew up watching all those players you love(and so did i). But Fed's peak was better than theirs. And i'm not making $ on saying that. Since you think all pro Fed comments are by players with business interests. Did Fed screw you out of so something important. Otherwise your total hatred for the "GOAT" makes no sense. You remind me of the Muhammad Ali haters in the 60's. Denying the obvious greatness of a legend.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Now I know your no way near my age just by saying people in the 60's were denying Ali's greatness. That was the seventies and that was because he converted to Islam that so many got bent out of shape kid. I talk from experience not from sales pitches. Legends are made from other legends and so is not the case for Federer. Sampras was mentally washed up and was on the way out and that is why Federer beat him, Nothing more..
snoble2k 2 years ago
so Sampras at 30 was washed up, but Connors beating 39 year old little Rosewall for his first 2 majors wasn't? Legends, in fact the greatest legends; Sampras, McEnroe, Agassi, Laver, and Borg have all said Roger is the "GOAT". But you can keep saying Connors. That's like saying a typewriter is beter than a computer. The biggest problem with you is not that you don't think Fed is the best ever, but that you don't even acknowledge he's great. You are fooling yourself.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Type write compared to a computer? But you can say during the type writer there were millions of better writers and you had to have great grammer and vocabulary because there was not spell check. Oh man are you pathetic. Sampras and the rest of those guys make money "commentating"(has it sunken in yet). You could like Federer all you want but my opinion is my opinion simpleton. Mentally finished is what Sampras was. Life comes into front view and tennis fades into the back ground. Life.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Sampras doesn't need to make money by saying Fed is better than him. Pete's already a multimillionaire. You've got to stop your ridic conspiracy theories. Sampras was so finished that 2 months later he was in the US. Open final right! And soooo finished, that the next year he would go on to win the US. Open. Connors (who i respect, but know his limitations) beat Phil Dent, and 39yr old Rosewall twice for his 3 1974 majors. And you are talking about depth!!! Roddick, Nadal, Djok, bt dent 60,60
iamtman1 2 years ago
You know Connors limitations? When did you play him?
snoble2k 2 years ago
I played him as many times as you played Fed.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Masterbation is one thing, I am talking tennis so what ever name you give your hand keep it to yourself. I know your limitations and that is Tennis.
snoble2k 2 years ago
you are a sick pupp! Anyway i obviously have more tennis knowledge in my finger tips than you will ever have in your lifetime.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Who did you play that is known? What is your highest ranking? If the answer is neither then shut up little girl.
snoble2k 2 years ago
i was ranked 40 in the nation in the 18 and under, and played P. McEnroe twice, and A. Krickstein in singles as well as doubles. So you should shut up. And like them, i know Federer would crush Connors 8 times a week.
iamtman1 2 years ago
In which tournaments?
snoble2k 2 years ago
I will give you a minute to sum up those memories lol.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Times up. You can stop searching the web now.
snoble2k 2 years ago
Lol all you want fact is fact. fiction (like Connors beating Federer) is fiction. I played P McEnroe at the Easter Bowl, and Nat'l Hardcourts. (Split 2 mtgs with him). I also lost to Krickstein at the Western Open in Ohio in the 4th rd. And the semis (To Krickstein-Robbie Weiss) in the doubles semi's. Lol all you want!!!
iamtman1 2 years ago
Really and I am going to believe you lol. You responded too late and were not that creative. You are a joke.
snoble2k 2 years ago
I didn't respond late. Unlike you i have other things to do. I'm not sitting by the computer all day. You don't bel me, i could care less. Again fact is fact. Fiction (Connors top 5 ever) is fiction. Ps. I also played Amos Mansdorf, Chris Garner, and Richey Renenberg.
iamtman1 2 years ago
When you add Fred Perry then I will believe you but till then enjoy your fantasy.
snoble2k 2 years ago
I think the only person here suffering from fantasy and delusion is you. And most on this and other tennis sights would and do agree with me.
iamtman1 2 years ago
I enjoy stringing your ego along. Man are you weak minded. All because I state the visible obvious fact that Federer is no true great and you don't like it. You try comparing Laver, a man that played legends to a guy winning close matches with mediocre opponents. You are the pathetic laugh chasing me out of fear I am up one on you all the time in the argument. Becker, Borg, Connors, Edberg,Laver, Lendl etc..would eat Federer alive.
snoble2k 2 years ago
The only thing obvious is that you are clueless. And most who see all our exchanges would agree with me.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Lifetime record McEnroe vs Conners...McEnroe 20 Conners 13. You can look it up.
clu4u 2 years ago
Ali won the Rome Olympics in 1960, beat Liston in 62? I shook his hand when his bio was written. The Greatest!
clu4u 2 years ago
Federer is a fucking hack. He's only good at beating chumps like Baghdatis and Phillipousis in Grand Slam finals. Then someone half decent like Nadal comes along and he struggles majorly, hell, even Andy Murray has a winning record agaisnt Fed.
davenavarroforpm 2 years ago
Ha ha Fed a hack! You're an idiot! He's also beaten Nadal, Roddick, Murray (when it counts), Gonzales, Hewitt, Agassi in finals of majors. He's also got the longest streak of reaching major s. finals in history. Yeah some hack. Again, you're an idiot!
iamtman1 2 years ago
Federer is 2 and 5 in GS finals vs Nadal, and he only beat a young Nadal on Fed's favourite surface. Gonzales, not a great player. I'm Australian and I can admit Hewitt was never amazing. Agassi was well past it when he beat him. Roddick, also sucks pretty hard. He's 3 and 6 against Murray (from memory) and has only played him once in GS, but I assure you Murray will beat Fed in a GS final sometime soon. He's pretty damn over rated, he can't even beat a 20 year old Del Potro.
davenavarroforpm 2 years ago
you are laughable. He's 1-0 vs Murray when it counts. Murray can't win the big one's. He's a Scott choker. Ask Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe, they all say Fed is greatest ever. Nadal has a troublesome game for Federer. That's a match up problem. But overall Fed is the far superior player. On the most complete major (clay, and grass, and hard ct players all play) the US> Open Fed won 5 in a row. Nadal not even a final. Fed is the best ever to pick up a racquet.
iamtman1 2 years ago
I hate Murray as well but how many Grand Slams had Federer won when he was 22, how many finals had he made? 0. Give him time though. You are quite laughable yourself, "Fed is the best to ever pick up a racquet". Saying it like it's cold hard fact because a few players say so.
davenavarroforpm 2 years ago
It took Federer til the age of 28 to win a RG. Match up problem? If he was the best ever he should be able to do much better, he has lost 5 times in a GS Final to the same player. Federer, great yes, one of the best, yes, the best ever? I don't think so.
davenavarroforpm 2 years ago
Yeah really terrible. It took Federer till 28 to win all 4 majors. That's terrible. How dare he. He's only won 15. What's wrong with him. His record vs Nadal would be much better if most of the matches weren't on clay. Fed is 2-1 on grass; and 3-2 on hard over Nadal. The diff is that unlike Nadal, Fed woll get to the final on his worst surface. Nadal usually vanishes (as US. Open shows) if everything doesn't go his way. Fed is ALWAYS there in the end, winning, or finalist. G.O.A.T
iamtman1 2 years ago
Yeah it is terrible, Nadal was like 24. What are you trying to downplay the importance of clay? Like the matches don't count for as much. How many tournament a year are held on grass? Like 2, so all Fed's wins on grass don't mean much. Yes well Nadal goes hard all year, it's no surprise he can't walk, so I would imagine the last grand slam of the year would be the hardest.
davenavarroforpm 2 years ago
Fed has won 15 majors. Case closed! I'm not minimizing anything on clay. Federer has won 8 hard court majors by the way. So trying to belittle his grass record is ridic. Fed unlike Nadal has been great consistently. A bad tournament for Fed is a loss in a final. A bad tourn for Nadal is a early exit, or a blowout defeat like Del P at US. Open. Naal will never accomplish all that Fed has. You tell someone Fed's wins on grass don't count much Ha ha! Your effort to minimize Fed's greatness is ridic
iamtman1 2 years ago
Well if you just want to look at it that way then obviously Laver is the best, 2 Grand Slams, Fed has none. I'm not doubting that Federer is a great player, or that Nadal will achieve more but fact is he can't consistently match it with Nadal.
davenavarroforpm 2 years ago
Ha ha! If Fed could play 3 out of 4 slams a year on grass like Laver did, he would have at least 20 majors by now. Federer can consistently match and beat Nadal on all surfaces except clay were clearly (until this yr) Nadal was beter. Laver had a losing rec vs Cliff Drysdale even in the 1960's. Does that mean Drysdale was better? Of course not. But Drysdale's game matched up well with Laver. Rosewall who was far better than Drysdale would get killed by Laver. Krajicek/ Ferrera win rec vs Sampras
iamtman1 2 years ago
Man Laver has a 10-3 record against Dryslade according to the ATP Web Site. You should check your data before posting.
lk5356 2 years ago
that doesn't inc record pre 1969. the point is styles make matches. Some guys have trouble beating guys who aren't as good overall, but match up well against them.
iamtman1 2 years ago
There you go, Laver had a winning record against him anyway. Whatever, go on believing Fed is the best you fool.
davenavarroforpm 2 years ago
Calling someone a fool when you referred to Federer as a hacker is comical. I think it's obvious who the fool is. It is YOU!
iamtman1 2 years ago
I called him a hack, not a hacker. Meh everyones got their opinion, maybe one day you'll see the light.
davenavarroforpm 2 years ago
Lol! i think McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi, Laver, all would agree (based on their opinion on Federer) that it is you who needs to see the light.
iamtman1 2 years ago
Also this is what Agassi said about 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?"
davenavarroforpm 2 years ago
who's arguing what? Laver was great ahead of his time. Federer is superior though. No disrespect to Rocket. Top 3 players ever no doubt.
iamtman1 2 years ago