rocket laver was denied to play in the slams from aussie open 63 to aussie 68 in his prime coz he turned pro and in sevral slams in the 70s coz he was a contracted pro
yet he swept all slams in 62 and 69 and also won wimbledon in 61 and 68 and aussie open in 60
laver has this amazing habit of constantly downplaying his achievements and overplaying achievements of others
he was a perfect gentleman and an unbelievable champion
he was equally comfortable on all surfaces
he won a record atleast 185 singles titles, there could be more as the list might not be complete
the list of great players in laver's era was the best and it further made more difficult to dominate tennis because of lack of money and facilities
history forgets the past(apart from the modern past)
god knows how many more slams laver would have won, really?
Re: donation
by Dare Devil Dragon on Oct 17, 2008 01:01 PM
Raja: May be you might not aware OR you might have forget the fact that Roger Federer visited India (Tamilnadu) in 2005 after coastal areas of Tamilnadu were severly hit by Tsunami and RF visted those places and donated so much money from his foundation. RF has been doing these kind of humanitory things without any publicity as he doesnot need publicity for these donations as he got enough fame thru Tennis. Let's salute RF for his generosity, sportsmanship, talent, attitude, good manners he has been showing both ON & OFF the Tennis court. May GOD Bless him with much more victories.
Re: donation
by Yogendra Harchilkar on Oct 17, 2008 02:31 PM
Why is it that ppl always assume that just because a player/person has plenty of money, it means he has to donate money to the needy and poor? Who are we to tell him or pass judgements on him.
They do donate money, most of the times keeping it anonymous and out of media glare to avoid unnecessary publicity.
RF for sure had donated a huge amount, from his personal earnings and not by organising some concert or playing a charity match, to the Tsunami relief in Tamil Nadu.
The guy is in all probability "THE GREATEST" tennis player. Lets feel lucky and watch his game, rather than comment on him donating money.
And raja, kindly advertise your stupid stuff some place else. Stop being so cheap.
"I guess this is also the moment when you can thank the all-time greats"...How many can say these words after achieving so much. Its not only the Success and Talent but also the Humility that makes this man Great!
Last year , Pete Sampras beat Roger Federer in an hardcourt , although federer won that match series 2-1. It clearly points that Sampras is a better player than Federer except in Clay court. When Sampras came to scene, there were great players like Boris Becker, Stefan Edberg and Andre Agassi. But in Federers case , only Nadal is there. Rest are quite ordinary players.
Re: Pete is king
by Vikas D on Oct 17, 2008 07:15 PM
Those were exhibition matches you twit.. did you actually see those matches???
For one full game, Federer didn't use the forehand at all. They were not competing, they were performing for the crowds. they were entertaining. When Federer hit 4 aces in a row, you know what Pete Sampras did? He gave the racquet to a ball boy and he played the last point against Fed. On one point, Fed rallied the ball from the back of his stance, hit a few between the legs... the point is... they were not serious about the game at all...
Re: Pete is king
by Govind Patel on Oct 17, 2008 01:31 PM
People like u come up with all sorts of self analysis and brush aside all his achievements.
Remember that Federer won admiration of past tennis greats; I am sure they know more than u do and surely they considered who the contemporary players of Federer are.
And the point of the article is not to determine who is better - Federer or Sampras
Re: Pete is king
by bhaskar on Oct 17, 2008 01:54 PM
that's not the real problem . The problem is with the ball. The ball has been changed after Pete Sampras era. Now the ball is more soft and that is why u r seeing clay court like tennis been played even in wimbledon. the fact is simple, more time to hit the ball and therefore less power to ur powerful strokes. If Sampras was playing now , he would not even qualify for quarterfinal birth because his court game was apalling and short.
Re: Pete is king
by Vikas D on Oct 17, 2008 07:15 PM
Those were exhibition matches you twit.. did you actually see those matches???
For one full game, Federer didn't use the forehand at all. They were not competing, they were performing for the crowds. they were entertaining. When Federer hit 4 aces in a row, you know what Pete Sampras did? He gave the racquet to a ball boy and he played the last point against Fed. On one point, Fed rallied the ball from the back of his stance, hit a few between the legs... the point is... they were not serious about the game at all...
Re: Pete is king
by P ROHIT on Oct 17, 2008 01:07 PM
so what....can u maintain the no 1 ranking in the world for 4.5 years just like that?? let me see u do that then i'll say whos better....and federer is the most graceful tennis player to ever have picked up a racquet
Re: Pete is king
by abhiram hariharan on Oct 17, 2008 03:09 PM
Both are great players , no doubt. But in sampras era , there are a lot of great players. Except nadal , all are quite ordinary. IN ATP circuit, Except nadal-federer matches , nothing has got the crowd going.
We have infinite cricket bashers in our country..who mock our players for making money from Ads. But roger federers ichness shows if ur a gr8 player..u make money. same for beckham, woods etc. Our fab 4 have 40000 runs among them, so they are as great as federer. SO we shud not blame them for making money
Re: Lesson to all cricket bashers!
by parthasarathy sarathy on Oct 17, 2008 12:16 PM
Individual sports and team sports can not be compared. There is nothing wrong in an individual player in an individual event playing for himself and his records. But, in a team game, this motive will let the team down. Our Fab Four - the so called fab four - are not a patch on Federer (barring Tendulkar and Laxman to a far lesser extent in terms of brilliance). Federer is in a world of his own even if the shortlist is the very best players from each sport. In a cricketing sense, he is in the Viv Richards class and not the Tendulkar class. The difference between Richards and Tendulkar is that he redefined batting against the best of opposition each time and every time, never played for records and is different from Tendulkar. Otherwise, Tendulkar is a great player.
Re: Lesson to all cricket bashers!
by Rishi on Oct 17, 2008 01:58 PM
did viv richards play the best reverse swinger of all time - waqar, left armer - wasim, most unforgiving - glenn mcgrath, fastest of all - brett lee, spinner - shane warne.. and still people say tendulkar is not in same class, yes you are are right he is not in the same class as richards as he is better ... and best tributes for sachin have come from brett lee and shane warne.. this smacks of typical indian mentality of burying our heroes in muck cuase people cant tolerate their success
Re: Lesson to all cricket bashers!
by himanshu shekhar on Oct 17, 2008 12:17 PM
good point! mindset of people in our country is like this, be it media or general people. If your neighbour is earning more money than you it is very hard to accept here.These players are nt taking anything from these people then why so fuss!
Re: Lesson to all cricket bashers!
by mahim on Oct 17, 2008 04:11 PM
its a joke to compare a non global sport like cricket with tennis, golf, football, basketball that are global and more competitive than cricket
are u out of your mind to say that sachin, laxman, ganguly and dravid are as good as federer
federer has been laureus sportsman of the year four times, these indian cricketers have never been even nominated
the indian cricketers perform averagely in a non-global sport whereas federer is arguably the 2nd greatest ever(after rod laver)in a global sport
ricky ponting(he is a great player)has been involved in 84 test wins whereas india in it's entire history have won only 95 test matches
there are any number of cricketers of the same level as any indian cricketer
Re: Agree & Happy
by Rajesh Iyer on Oct 17, 2008 04:56 PM
Roger is good on all the courts... Even in French Open is the 2nd best. But Pete Sampras never went beyond Round 4.
I am big fan of Pete Sampras and in a Roger Federer - Pete Sampras game would be on Sampras' side. But Roger is the King no doubts about that. Hope he was in Sampras' era and the critics could have been answered.
