Roger Federer Magical Tennis: Roger Federer vs. Rod Laver

Laver and Federer were both born in August 43 years apart. Federer's birthday is August 08, 1981, while Laver's is August 09, 1938. It makes comparing them straightforward as the grand slams make up this way too. For example, Federer won Wimbledon 2005 at the age of 23, while Laver won his first Wimbledon 1961, at the same age of 23. And so on.. get the drift?

Laver	1956	1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	Career
Australian	r32	r32	r16	r16	W	F	W							W	-	r16	-	-	-	-	-	-	3
French	r128	-	r64	r32	r32	SF	W	F	F	F	F	W	F	W	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	3
Wimbledon	r128	-	r32	F	F	W	W	QF	W	W	W	W	W	W	r16	QF	-	-	-	-	-	r64	8
US Open	r128	-	r16	QF	F	F	W	F	W	F	W	W	r16	W	r16	-	r16	r32	-	r16	-	-	5
RF/RR age	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38

Federer	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007	2008	Career
Australian	q1	3r	3r	4r	4r	W	SF	W	W	SF	3
French	1r^w	4r	QF	1r	1r	3r	SF	F	F		0
Wimbledon	1r^w	1r	QF	1r	W	W	W	W	W		5
US Open	q2	3r	4r	4r	4r	W	W	W	W		4

Green shaded boxes represent Rod Laver playing in Pre-open Era amateur division. Blue boxes represent Rod Laver playing in Pre-open Era under Pro division, whose 3 Grand slam equivalents were French Pro, Wembley and US Pro. These divisions were eliminated in 1968 French Open with Open Era.

Note: RF/RR age is the age of both Roger Federer and Rod Laver when the tennis season starts (Jan 1). By the time they play US Open, they would have had their birthday and older by one year. (Like Federer won his first US Open at age 23, though he was 22 when the tennis season started).

Data by Wikipedia, ITF & ATP.

Also see, Federer at Grand slam Singles Main draw.

Translate into: Español | Deutsche | Français | Italiano | Português | 简体字 | 日本語 | 한국말 | русский язык

At 16 October, 2007 08:12, Nikmad said...: First sentence mentions "Sampras's birthday" instead of "Laver's birthday"
At 29 November, 2007 10:11, TennisMasta said...: It amazes me that the media doesn't talk about the 18 grandslams of Laver.
If Laver were American, there would certainly have been a drumbeat of his phenomenal accomplishment and there would be unanimous agreement that this is the benchmark to beat.

Similarily, the media never mentioned the 12 grandslams of Emerson as being the benchmark for greatness until Sampras passed it. Suddenly 14 is the only number ringing loudly in our ears all day.

It is no wonder then that we are having a hard time getting behind Roger. Even greats in other sports are in awe of his talent and accomplishments, but yet most people in the biggest sports market in the world do not even know him.

It is high time the media credit Laver just as much as they do Nicklaus.

Incidentally they both have the same number of slams/majors - 18.
At 05 December, 2007 21:44, Anonymous said...: I agree. The benchmark is 14 because Sampras is US citizen not an american.Laver won on everything. Fed is a lot better than Sampras and in my opinion better than Laver and I think Laver agrees.

The problem is that Laver won 7 Sñams in the Pro circuit and so they do not count them. Budge was great also but the war stole its place in the rankings. All in all, I think Fed will beat Laver if both were to meet at their primes.
At 17 December, 2007 19:49, Anonymous said...: I do agree with both of the previous comments. Most US citizens fans are sore by the fact that no US citizen has been number one for a longtime. But I do consider Fed the bewst. His versatility and acomplishments speak out for themselves. Of course it is difficult for Sampras to agree, but to put the benchmark in 14 Slams is because he got 14. Why not on 18 ad Laver did or why not in the 8 years Pancho Gonzalez was number one. I remember that the rules were changed during Pancho`s prime to serve an volley. He had to serve and wait for the ball to bounce back on his side of the court before going to the ney. Imagine his domintation., No wonder his serve was ranked the best of all time by tennis magazine. Look at Roger he beat Nadal on clay and the last set was a bagel, and I think that most people will agree that Nadal is a modern Borg on clay. Who can say that of Sampras in his prime. If he had had such great groundies, he should have gotten to the final of the French. Laver was a great all around champ, but I think that he could not match Fed variety and power. Even he places Fed ahead now.

Federer Stuff

Mirka Stuff

Making of the Magician

Current Tennis Events

Helpful Bookmarks

Extra Tennis

Roger Federer vs. Rod Laver

Translate into: Español | Deutsche | Français | Italiano | Português | 简体字 | 日本語 | 한국말 | русский язык

Federer Magic