The Case for Rod Laver as GOAT - 25 Dec 2010

The Case for Rod Laver

Two grand slams.  When one considers the near impossibility of winning a calendar year grand slam in this day and age, the thought of one player winning two boggles the mind.  It’s difficult enough to win the career slam – only 7 men have ever done it and only 4 in the Open era.  Winning a non-calendar slam is even more difficult and many great players have won three in a row and fallen just short:  like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, and Pete Sampras.

So Rod Laver should be an open and shut case for the greatest of all time.  But it’s not that simple.  His first grand slam is really negligible and doesn’t count.  It was an amateur slam won in an era when the best players were professionals.  Especially in the 1960’s the pros were gaining more and more credibility.  The sheer number of pros was increasing as more and more tournaments began to be established for pro players.  Laver was by no means considered the best player of 1962 and some experts didn’t even rank him in the top 10 for that year.  In 1963 Laver played his first full year as a pro and was judged to rank in the top 3 but still not #1.

The amateur slam was a good accomplishment and proved Laver was ready to step up to the next level.  But in some ways it was similar to the junior grand slam Stefan Edberg won in 1983 – maybe slightly more significant because the players were older, but not much.  No one is suggesting that Edberg is the GOAT because of it, even though it was a great accomplishment.  Edberg had yet to prove himself on the pro stage, just like Laver at the end of 1962.  He was 24 and so by modern standards he was a bit of a late developer.  Many modern pros have their best years aged 22-25.  Of the great multi-slam winners in the Open era, only Lendl showed his hand as a champ as late as 24 when he won the French Open at that age.

In 1964 at age 26, Laver was very close to Ken Rosewall as #1 for the year.  Laver bested Rosewall in their head to head for that year, but most agreed, including Laver, that Rosewall was #1 for the year.  It was not until 1965 at age 27, that Laver was generally acknowledged as the best in the world.  His dominance over the next five years is the major argument for his GOAT status.

It was a transitional time.  The amateur tournaments were well-followed by the public, especially the grand slams, but increasingly there was a hunger to see the best in the world.  When tournaments first went open in 1968, they really were open to all.  The amateurs did surprisingly well in competition at first, but the pros soon showed they were the best.

The concept of pro tours had become somewhat embedded in the pros’ consciousness during the travelling circuit era, and there was quickly a move to set up circuits of pro tournaments.  These cooperated to some extent but soon ended up competing with each other for players and time slots on the calendar.  A player would sign a contract with a particular tour and agreed to play its tournaments.  Tournaments, even the grand slam tournaments formed alignments and inevitably some players would not be allowed to play some tournaments.  Thus John Newcombe was not allowed to play Wimbledon in 1972 despite being the two-time defending champion.

There was also a lot of uncertainty among the players as to what were the important tournaments and how important they were.  Was the US Open really more important that the US Pro Championships.  Based on the size of the fields and the prize money in the early years it was hard to tell.  The players did not seem quite sure either.

Before 1968 the amateur game did not have nearly the depth of today’s professional circuit.  Players did not make much more than subsistence from billets and tournament “bonuses”.  The very few of the best players turned pro, really only 1 or 2 per year, and most of the rest left tennis and got jobs.  There were a few older players who played into their late 20’s or 30’s in the amateur ranks like Jaroslav Drobny, Manuel Santana, and Roy Emerson, and although they were very good, they were generally not considered the best of their generation.

The pro ranks before 1968 were also shallow and lacking depth.  True, they had the best players, but there was not sufficient prize money to support much more than a few players.

When the open era began, the existing pro and amateur players were joined together.  They were also joined by a lot of old pros who had not played for awhile or played very infrequently, players in their 40’s and 50’s like Frank Sedgman, Ted Schroeder, and Pancho Gonzalez, arguably the best of the lot and not far removed from the upper echelon of the pro game.  The fact that these over the hill players were able to enjoy some limited success in the new-found open era, showed just how widespread, loose, and ultimately shallow the game was at that time compared to the ultra-competitive modern game.

Laver was unarguably the best from 1965-67, winning many of the biggest pro tournaments, including the three pro majors.  He was best on grass and indoor carpet, the dominant surfaces of the pros, but was probably only second best on clay to Ken Rosewall.  In 1968, Rosewall won the first pro grand slam title on clay at the French, defeating Laver in the final.  Laver reversed the result at Wimbledon beating Rosewall in the final.  Clearly these two were the best and because of his record at other tournaments Laver was generally credited as #1 for the year.

1969 was the year of Laver’s domination.  He won the grand slam facing all comers, no asterisks necessary.  Granted the field was not nearly as deep as it is now when there are literally thousands of players on the ATP computer.  But at the time, there is no question that Laver had become the best on all surfaces.

In 1970, Laver did not defend two of his GS titles – unthinkable now – but their importance in the Open era was not yet fully established.  Certainly the Australian was not regarded as a very significant tournament and was not well-attended by those members of the upper echelon who were not Australian.  There was certainly some debate at year’s end about who was #1 for 1970 – with the leading contenders being Laver, Rosewall, and Newcombe.  Laver had won the most prize money, Rosewall the most tournaments, but most experts gave the nod to Newcombe who had won Wimbledon.  Wimbledon was still considered the biggest tournament and by some a de facto world championship in an era when 3 of the 4 GS events were still played on grass.

Although his record is impressive and his open era grand slam remains a singular achievement among the men, much of why his contemporaries regarded Laver as the best ever has to do with the way he played.  He was relentlessly aggressive, storming the net at every opportunity and putting away deft volleys.  But he could also play on clay and was able to develop the patience to transform his attacking style to clay.  Despite the nickname “Rocket” given in irony by coach Harry Hopman, Laver was quick around the court, avoided error, put enormous pressure on his opponent by constantly attacking, and hit truckfuls of winners.

The age at which he won the grand slam is also amazing, 31.  Well past the prime of most players.  One wonders what he might have accomplished if he had been able to play his whole career in the open era.  Laver remained a force for years to come, finishing in the top 10 at #6 in 1974 at age 36.  He challenged and won matches from the new up and comer, Jimmy Connors, who was the dominant #1 for the mid-1970’s, despite giving away 14 years to Connors. 

Most telling perhaps is how many analysts considered Laver the greatest ever.  He may have only one legitimate grand slam, but that alone is one more than all the other GOAT contenders.  Because of his prolonged dominance, ability on every surface, and attacking style, Laver was generally regarded as the best of all time for about 40 years until Roger Federer completed the career slam in 2009.

Who was more dominant between Laver and Federer is arguable – but the greater depth of competition Federer faces, tips the argument in his favour.  Does it overcome Laver’s Grand Slam?  I think so, but many would differ.