Continuing on with my passionate dislike for commentators and experts whose views are predicated on a ’five minute time span’,  the argument rages as to who is the greatest male tennis player of all time?

Unlike cricket, where statistics validate the proposition that Don Bradman was the greatest batsman of all time, if not for any other reason then the fact that his average is twice that of anyone else who has have ever played cricket.

The tennis debate usually revolves around the number of “grand slam championships “ won by a player — and as a result, the winner of the most grand slam championships (ie, Wimbledon, Australian , French and American ) would be ‘ipso facto’ the greatest player of all time.

So, if Federer has won more grand slam championships than Sampras then Federer must be greater than Sampras. However if Federer cannot beat Nadal, who has not won as many grand slam championships as Federer – what then?

What a shallow basis for critical evaluation.

Now let us talk about Rodney Laver.

In 1962, Laver not only won some grand slam championships, he won all of them and in fact was only the second player in history to win the ‘Grand Slam’ that is all of the championships in one calendar year. (Bobby Riggs was the other player)

Rodney then turned professional and in those days professional tennis players were banned from competing in grand slam championships.

During the next seven years or so Rod, on the ‘professional circuit’, which then included the best players of their era, left nobody in doubt that he was the greatest player in the world.

In 1969, seven years after he won the Grand Slam, the ban on professional players was lifted and Rod was now permitted to enter grand slam championships again.

In that year Rodney Laver won the Grand Slam, that is, he won the Australian, French, Wimbledon and American Open Championships to become the only player to win the Grand Slam twice and until this day the winning of the Grand Slam has not been replicated once, let alone twice.

I wonder how many grand slam championships, Laver would have won over the period of seven years in which he was not allowed to compete. A period during which, he was regarded, without qualification, as the world’s best player.

Rebecca Wilson a ‘sporting’ journalist for the Daily Telegraph stated recently about the
Gentleman’s pastime of cricket:

The game as it is played now is much, much tougher than before.  Bowlers consistently  deliver 130km/h balls six times an over.  Fieldsmen encounter missiles when they stand close to the wicket.

Now this demanded a response.

Dear Rebecca,

I respect your right to an opinion, that indeed is your role as a journalist, but!!!!

I have had the monumental pleasure of watching cricket since, but more importantly including, the Bradman era.

I have played many years of cricket, albeit without a great deal of success, however I certainly know what it was like to bat on a damp wicket when the sun comes out with balls rearing up off a good length breaking fingers or ribs or having your eye closed for weeks with internal bleeding.

My lifelong passion for cricket combined with the above are, I submit, sufficient credentials to make the observation that your proposition is unfathomable and beyond comprehension.

“than before” presumably means the era of:

• unprotected wickets as compared with benign ‘drop in pitches’;

• unrestricted field placing;

• no helmets , no arm guards, thigh guards or chest guards; and

• 8 ball overs in Australia from 1920 -1979 and at various times in other countries;

So what we have in Australia during that latter period in particular, is batsmen without any protection facing Jeff Thomson 8 balls an over at speeds up to 180km/h, Dennis Lillee, Frank Tyson, John Snow, Wesley Hall, Ray Lindwall, Keith Miller and  Michael Holding, to name just but a few.

As for missiles for fieldsman near the wicket, do you really think that it was easier for Simpson, Taylor, Mark Waugh and the Chappells’ etc?

Surely a knowledge of the history of the game is the ‘sine qua non’ for making statements which purport to have such absolute authority.

I think you would find it interesting to have a look at some of the Aus/England, Aus/West Indies tests of the early to mid 70’s in particular.  If you did, you would recant your proposition on reflection.

Oh yes, Australian batsmen faced Larwood and Voce on unprotected wickets, with unrestricted field placements without the armour of today, 8 times each over.

Kindest regards,

Max Lewis