Cheryl, I agree with you completely. It will be a spectacular and historical feat if Nadal can pull it off. It will separate him from everyone else in tennis history. I hope he does. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for him.

Thanks Cheryl.....I was hopping you would write a blog about the signifinance of the "Rafa Slam", regardless of whether Rafa gets to win in Oz or not. And thank you for nailing your flag firmly to the mast, "For the record, I disagree heartily with Rod Laver. I think the prospect of holding all 4 Slams on completely different surfaces far outweighs the fact that it won?t occur in the same calendar year." I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU.

Regarding Laver's comments (which were in the Telegraph, by the way, not the Guardian).....I have been trying to give the champ the benefit of the doubt, but sorry, I am disappointed in his remarks (if indeed he did say so). This was an opportunity for him to show class and be magnanimous about Rafa's imending achievement, instead he chose to come across as a grumpy old man! I do not get it, because I honestly thought he was better than that.

What I found curious was that he did not ONCE mention the differences in playing surfaces.....I think deep down he knows Rafa's achievement (if he wins in Oz) will be the single most significant achievement in the Open era. This does not diminish him or his 2 Grand Slams, but a Rafa Slam would stand alone, and Rafa would be fully deserving of the accolades he would receive.

Good luck to Rafa, but I'm sure Federer wants to play the spoiler as Rafa did to him on 2 consecutive years at the FO. And Fed himself could have done this exact feat a year earlier had he defeated Delpo at the USO in 2009.

rafaisthebest - thanks for the correction. Could have sworn I read it in the Guardian.....

Yep, Fed almost did it last year, with Rafa out of the way at FO and Wimbledon, but Delpo acted as the spoiler and spoilt Fed's chance. Let's see whether Rafa has the ability now to deal with whoever is the spoiler and wins his historic AO. I'm confident that if Rafa is not affected by his illness, and is physically and mentally in tip top condition,he can beat anyone at the AO, Fed included. If Rafa is in top form, he is scarily good and very hard to beat.

Couldn't agree more, Cheryl.

Laver had a chance to be as gracious as Rafa would have been in his place. He could have been straightforward and appreciative of Rafa's accomplishments and of what winning this AO would mean. And as a result come across as a real champion and honorable person. Instead it is a bit of a blemish he's earned himself.

After all, consecutively on 4 surfaces (not services, Cheryl :-), has never been done before. It's true that Laver didn't have a chance... and maybe might have won on all 4 but we will never know. At any rate, why stress the fact that the 4 consecutive majors would not have started ARBITRARILY in January? (Our calendar start is a quirk inherited from the Romans many centuries ago.) And ... in any case Laver will continue to be the only one to have held 4 consecutive (calendar or not) majors TWICE.

As for Roger's chances having been spoiled by Delpo ... you could put it the other way: for some 5 or so years now there have been THREE top-2 male players: Roger, Rafa, and when not absent: Rafa's injuries. When present both Roger and those injuries have been playing for Roger and against Rafa... for example when they injuries prevented Rafa from meeting Roger at RG '09. Without them I am sure that Roger would still be seeking his first RG trophy and Rafa would be looking to win his 7th consecutive RG this spring, and might just have won Wimbledon '09. Don't shoot the messenger: those injuries have been that influential. On the other hand, Roger's 16 majors so far is out of the world...

---The Federer himself---
Yeah, GOD himself... :-D

Yep chloro, that's why I said 'with Rafa out of the way', as he was injured. Rafa did has a chance too in 2008, if not for the Olympics. Can you imagine how many matches Rafa had played that year, 2008, from Toronto to the USO? Won Toronto, 5 matches played, reached SF Cincy, 4 matches, won Olympics, 6 matches, so 15 matches before the USO. He reached the SF of USO and lost to Murray. All in all he played 21 matches, no wonder he was running on fumes at the USO. I know how good Murray and Fed were then, but Rafa had a fair chance of beating them there if he did not compete at the Olympics and won, given how well Rafa played that year. So Rafa missed his chance in 2008.

Come to think of it, both Fed and Rafa are truly in a class of their own, both having chances to do four in a row, with Fed within one match of doing the calendar slam twice. Well if Rafa won the AO this year, it will be something very special.

so true, luckystar, about Rafa and the olympics... they just came in the wrong year (for him :-)... he would have had a decent chance ... I don't know if he could have defeated Federer in a USO final that year but I don't know that he couldn't have had... he was doing so well all around.

They are both in a class of their own... true... of their own: each one's is different.

And if Rafa wins the AO this year... he will surely go on to have 5 majors in a row come April (injuries notwithstanding) and possibly 6 in a row come the rainy season in Albion.

If I were Rafa (or any other proffesional tennis player) I wouldn't be thinking to much, if at all, nor paying too much attention to all this hype about 4 consecutive slams and such... these are facts that present themselves to a very selected elite of people after playing outstandingly well and being lucky with injuries, a point here and there and whatnot...
The only thing I'd be bothered about if Rafa doesn't win the AO is if he didn't perform according to his standards - couldn't care less (really) about these consecutive slam thing. I insist, this is for other people to talk about before, during and after. The plain truth is that nobody can take away from him the 3 slams won in 2010, including the USO (ironically called a slow fast court slam now since Rafa won it).
If he does win the AO, I bet you that the next day eveybody will be talking about the possibilty of beating Laver's consecutive 4 with 5 and then 6 and so on...
The same goes for Fed's achievements by the way...

I think that these milestones or records are all unofficial so are open to manipulation and interpretation, with the world and his wife having their own criteria on what's what. I can certainly understand why Laver would want to hang on to his record, who wouldn't, but I think he should stay quiet on this one, as he is just highlighting the fact that his Grand Slams shouldn't really be compared to a Grand Slam achieved today, Calendar GS or not, because as Cheryl pointed out Laver only won his on 2 instead of 3 surfaces, or 4 if you split the types of h/c between the USO and OZ. In fact, he should call his GS a Mini Grand Slam, and today's GS a Major GS.

Amen Cheryl. I started to watch tennis in the late 70's so I have never watch Laver played either. Beside the only two different surfaces Rod played in during his time in a major, were they playing in the best of 5 sets back then? Also do they have to win 7 matches in two weeks? You have to be so mentally and physically strong to win a major today and to win it four in a roll on 3/4 different surfaces would be the greatest achievement in men tennis today imo.

Nadline, I agree with you that Laver should call his GS a mini grand slam instead.

I also like to mention if Rafa wins AO, for those who lives in Asia and follow the chinese calendar would say that he has won all four majors in the same year.

Best of Luck to you Rafa!!!

As far as I know, grand slams have always had a 128 man field, so we can't take that away from Laver.

In fact to get his GS Laver won 3 on grass and one on clay so that really is a far cry from what happens today. I honestly quite understand Laver wanting to protect his legacy, no one would want their record smashed before their eyes. I think Borg would also have had a little regret that his successor on clay has infact gone one better by winning the USO which he never managed to do, and I bet Sampras wasn't exactly over the moon when Roger overtook him in GS titles.

If Rafa takes the AO this year, then Roger will be a little concerned that Rafa is overshadowing him on too many fronts, and he won't like that either, nor would Rafa like anyone to eclipse him on his records, it's only human.

Completely agree cheryl, if Rafa wins AO it will be history, end of. It's a shame about Laver being a bit sour because of course, the soon as a record is made someone out there will be having a go at breaking it. Some will last longer than others and I rather think Fed will go on trying to win slams for many years, just to put his own achievements out of reach. Of course, the older he gets, the harder it gets. Bet he really regrets that loss to Tim at Wimbledon all those years ago!

I think a Grand Slam should basically be holding all 4 slams at the same time, whether in a calendar year or not, I don't see what the calendar has got to do with it, after all the 52 weeks that players hold their points for just roll on and on and the anniversary date is the date of that particular tournament, so the tennis year is not really from Jan to Dec, that's what I'm trying to say, although they do talk about the year-end No 1.

I did see Laver play. I grew up watching him. He was my hero. As far as the comment from him, it is true that he is technically correct. However, I am not sure why he would feel the need to quantify this achievement or somehow seek to minimize it. If Rafa can pull this off, it will be a towering accomplishment in the modern era of tennis. I don't know that any male tennis player will ever win the true calendar slam. This may be as close as anyone gets.

I do not agree with those who want to make this a true calendar slam. The real calendar slam has always been winning all four slams in a calendar year. I am not going to rewrite history. I will be happy and thrilled beyond measure if Rafa can pull off this win. I am not going to concern myself will the technicalities.

Rafa will have done something that NO other men's tennis player has ever done. It would be nice if Laver is respectful enough to acknowledge the feat of winning all four slams in a row on ALL surfaces! He has always had a reputation as a true gentleman and sportsman. I would hope that he will be gracious enough to give Rafa his due should he manage to win this year's AO.

NNY -
Lucky you! I wish I'd seen the legends. The best I can say is that I DID watch Borg and McEnroe, though I wasn't a tennis fan until later.

cheryl,

I don't know if it makes me lucky as much as older than you! :)

I guess it's worth it to have seen Laver in action. Of course, television coverage in those days left a lot to be desired! He really was like no one else I had ever seen.

Borg was my first tennis love and broke my heart when he left the game too young. I loved watching his great rivalry with McEnroe. When I saw Borg walk off the court after losing to McEnroe yet again at the USO, I had this bad feeling that I would never see him play again.

I have been fortunate to see them all - Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Gonzales, Ashe, and on and on.

I do believe that you are absolutely correct in taking Laver to task for his comment about a possible Rafa win at the AO as a "mini" slam. I think the world of him, but I just wish that he would have remained silent. Even though he is my hero, you were spot on in your comments!

It's fair game to come back and say that Rafa will have done something that Laver never did, in winning four straight slams on ALL surfaces. I sincerely hope that if it happens, Laver will be appropriately gracious, reflecting the great champion he has always been.

Rafa has encountered an unusual resistance to being accepted as what he already is: One of the greatest male players of all time in any era and in any surface. Guillermo Vilas tried to minimize Rafa's accomplishments on clay. There was Pat Cash, Roger himself, then Bjorn Borg and many others to which we can now add Rod Laver. I can't think of any of the legends who while on the rise encountered so many detractors and nay-sayers. Even Mcenroe and Connors had their rude behavior forgiven because of their genius. There were all accolades instead.

In the meantime, the general public welcomed Rafa with open arms. Fans by the millions all over the world couldn't get enough, elevating him to Rock superstar status. Federer was fabulous with those who already loved tennis, but Rafa brought in a whole new crowd, creating the electrifying rivalry with the man nobody else could challenge, making everyone involved in the sport a little richer in the process.

Yet here we are, in the brink of seeing Rafa make history once again. I have no question he will continue to shatter records and at every step there will be someone trying to minimize them. Thanks for the great post, Cheryl!

Cheryl, Completely agree with u. Laver could have been a little more appreciative.

I have always felt Rafa was very special ever since I saw him play, and that he was destined to rewrite tennis history. On the eve of AO I hope & pray more than ever that he does get the chance to be the last man standing & complete the RAFA SLAM, a feat no one has achieved in the OPEN ERA. Oh my God...the thought of it makes my hair stand up... it will be truly amazing.

I don't know that any male tennis player will ever win the true calendar slam. This may be as close as anyone gets.
Nativenewyorker, 1/11/11 8:32 PM

Fed nearly did it 2 years in a row (2006-2007) if it weren't for Rafa. That was at the height of his powers and he made 10 GS finals in a row. I know you are not a Fed fan but at least acknowledge that achievement itself is worthy of a mention. Rafa has yet to make it to 4 GS finals in a row.

I don't think Laver's achievements back then cannot be compared to today. That was a very different period when travelling took much longer with less comfort.

cable - Fed did it only on 2 surfaces Hard court & grass.

cable:
"That was a very different period when traveling took much longer with less comfort"
LOL!
You must be very young. We are not talking the times of horse-drawn carriages here. Rod Laver "back then" won his majors between 1960 and 1969. Luxury cars (with less traffic) and the Boeing 707 had been around for years and they where no less comfortable than today's modes of transportation. Highways and freeways where about a decade old and in better shape than today. Flying is probably more of a pain today with many more delays, security measures, etc., than it was then, unless you are Federer and own your own jet.

cable - you are absolutely correct that what Federer accomplished was extraordinary...it might even be the sort of feat that will never be matched again. Certainly, I can't imagine somebody displaying the sort of dominance that Federer has ever again...though Nadal continues to surprise and impress me, so I'll never say never with him.

grafight, I was definitely not even born back then... LOL
Perhaps my view of the world back then may be a little out, but I do believe the top players today earned far more with endorsements included than the players back then and can afford to travel with relatively more comfort with personal entertainment at their seats.

Also, the game was played very different then with wooden racquets and serve volley. Lets not compare eras. Each player can only control the match they are playing on the surface/weather/venue/technology that is available to them. Would Rafa be as effective without the racquet technology in an era where serve volley ruled? Federer apparently still plays with old racquet technology but is still matches well against his opponents. It is a testament to his skills IMO.

cable,
you're making great points
I wrote in my post earlier that Federer 16 majors (among so many other records) are out of this world... when comparing Laver, Federer and Rafa (among others) you'll always end up comparing apples and oranges and peaches... some of their accomplishments are comparable to each other, many are not ... they all have achieved different things that virtually noone else has, and for this those short-forms of greatness are just that: a short form, e.g. the man who got 16 majors, the man who got 2 calendar slams, etc.

Cable,
For someone as caliber as Rafa of course he can be effective with any kind of racquet technology. Is not the racquet that make him no 1.... it is his ability, strength, mind...

Fed is not using wooden racket and old technology, mind you. His racket is a modern one only with smaller racket head. Don't talk as if he is using old technology vs Rafa's modern technology.

I agree it is not the racket that made the no.1 player; it's the player himself that's the difference. The point about Rafa won't be what he is with a wooden racket is moot, as given Rafa's tenacity and adaptibily, even if he was in the era where only wooden rackets were used, most likely he would be a S&V player like anyone else, and will not use that much spin. Rafa can volley very well, even John Mac was impressed, and right now he has impoved on his serve, so I don't see why Rafa can't survive in the S&V and wooden rackets era. If Borg can survive then and won both FO and Wimbledon, I don't see why Rafa can't do the same.(as I understand Borg did impart spins on the ball using wooden racket and was playing more effectively at the baseline than at the net, if I'm not wrong).

If Rafa can win this AO, then we talk about winning other consecutive slams or getting into consecutive finals later.

cable, by making those comments Laver himself was comparing eras! He opened the door...............

@tettylds and luckystar

About Rafa being effective with racquet and being S&V. That is a moot point, we don't and will never know that. Laver's era was played when the grass was faster, something Rafa would probably struggle with against the S&V players back then. We don't even know how Federer would have done because all his wins came after they made changes to the grass at Wimbledon. Also grass was a very common surface but now there are less than a handful of notable tournaments played on it, far less than Rafa's beloved clay. Times have really changed. There's no grass court specialists anymore like there used to be.

Exactly cable. Nobody can say that Rafa would definitely play well enough to beat the likes of Laver during that S&V and wooden rackets era. However nobody can say that Rafa wouldn't do well either; if Rafa was raised and played during that era, he would be doing what others were doing, ie S&V and had a playing style very different from what he has now.

So, there's no point comparing eras and what ifs and therfore the goat debate is also moot.

@grafight , 1/11/11 10:59 PM


I couldn't have put it better.

There are loads of people who, though on the whole accept Rafa's achievements, are inconsistent in their appreciation of him and cannot resist picking holes from time to time as if there is some kind of resistance to bursting the Roger bubble

I hate it when people patronize Rafa by saying he's is not technically as good as others just more determined. That is such a slap in the face.

Deama and nadline, well said. You don't get to #1 in the world and dominate a field which includes perhaps the greatest player of all time so far, without some real top notch skills, to go along with the mental toughness, fitness, etc. Rafa is the total package.
And by the way, Rafa CAN serve and volley. He doesn't specialize on that because if he did he wouldn't be #1. He would be another Roddick or Tsonga. S&V alone just doesn't cut it anymore. Thank goodness.

grafight, you need a mixture, don't you? which is why Llodra v. Soderling was such a classic and why Haase gave Rafa such a fright last year.

There is no question that holding all four slam titles at once would be a magnificent achievement, whatever you want to call it. "Rafa slam" works for me.

It's a bit ironic that Laver's grand slams, in fact, began with the FO and ended with the AO. The AO was played in Dec until a decade or two back. So the quibbling is about a couple of weeks off before the AO. Hardly significant, given that most players, including Rafa, take a couple of weeks off during the "season", as Rafa did this year after Wimbledon. In fact I don't think Rafa EVER willingly takes a longer vac than a week or two.

Anyhoo, Djoko, Muzz and TMF all look to be in fine fettle so it's hardly a foregone conclusion.

Laver is not alone in making that opinion. Steffi Graf won the golden Grand Slam in 1988 and she also considers a true Grand Slam as 4 majors won in a calender year. I think she made the comment after Serena Williams won 4 on the trot in 2 seasons. I think these tennis legend just want to preserve their place in tennis history.

Not trying to belittle anyone's achievements here. I actually do think winning 4 in a row should be considered the same as the Grand Slam.

cable - Graf has more right than ANYONE ever to pass judgment because she actually accomplished the feat AND won the Olympics in the same year in the 4-surface era.

Nevertheless, I still think it's dismissive. What Serena accomplished was impressive and should be acknowledged as such.

Lots of people try to make Rafa's achievement less precious.. He won 3 slams in a row, in different surfaces in a calendar year.... No one in this planet did it before.... Rafa is the one and only.... VAMOS RAFA!!!!

Thanks for the well written piece Cheryl.

Obviously a calender slams is way tougher than a (potential) Rafa slam. In a calender slam, you lose one slam and you lose the opportunity for that year. Whereas in a Rafa/Serena slam one can win 4 consecutive slams starting from AO, FO, Wimb or the UsOpen. So there are 4 different ways to win it, and if you lose a slam you can build 4 consecutive from the next one, and do not have to wait for a year.

That said, it is also true that Nadal's (potential) achievement could be much greater than Laver implies because of different surfaces, competition and the more strenuous ATP tour w.r.t Laver's time.

Comparing era's is futile. There are just too many factors to consider. If Nadal/Federer were in Laver's era, they would surely do well, because they would adjust accordingly. Similarly if Laver played today, he wouldn't be 5 ft 8 inches - he would be bigger and stronger, and use technology as others do.
The great players remain GREAT, no matter when they play.

However it's hard to quantify that. Alexander was a great fighter, but how would be cope with the planes and marine warfare today?

Finally, I am a little disappointed with Laver's remarks. While it's understandable of the need to protect his records, he almost seems to belittle Nadal's achievements. Of course, he's a Federer fan, but the other greats in a similar situation (Pete Sampras for ex) are much classier in their comments.

I suppose many of these legends would prefer Fed's classic style over Rafa's unorthodox style. Fed's style was considered graceful and elegant, whilst Rafa's is something they may have seen for the first time and so hard to identify with. Furthermore Fed has incredible shotmaking ability that so far none could match ( though I feel the likes of Rafa and Murray, when given more time to improve, may be able to produce shots close to what Fed can produce, and may even have shots that Fed can't match) and is very good and can win on all surfaces. It's easy to understand why they prefer Fed over Rafa. One day if Rafa's achievements exceed that of Fed's maybe they'll learn to appreciate the greatness of Rafa and give him the respect and credit that he so deserves.

Luckystar, I really dont CARE if people dont acknowledge Rafa's achievments at all!!! Not because Rafa's achievements are not acknowledged does not mean that they arent REAL!!!

However, there is one thing for sure that all this 'mini-slam' debate brings to the fore.

If Rafa indeed wins four in a row at the AO..........it will just only emphasize the old saying......."A good deed never goes unpunished"............lol!!!

Monalysa, agree with you. I don't care whether all these legends acknowledge Rafa's greatness and achievements, as long as Rafa keeps winning, stays motivated and enjoys the game. We are happy to watch him play and to see him feeling so happy when he wins.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/nadal-this-will-be-my-only-s hot-at-doing-the-grand-slam-2183008.html

Paul Newman?s article in the Independent newspaper provides a good analysis of what Rafa?s achievement, should he win the Australian Open, should be called.

I quote, from the Independent Newspaper dated 13 January, 2011:
?Most traditionalists insist that the "Grand Slam" should refer only to winning all four titles in a calendar year, although the constitution of the International Tennis Federation, the sport's governing body, spells out that "players who hold all four of these titles at the same time achieve the Grand Slam".
The only women to have won the "calendar Grand Slam" ? all four majors in the same year ? are Maureen Connolly (in 1953), Margaret Court (1970) and Steffi Graf (1988), whose achievement was labelled a "Golden Slam" after her victory in the Olympics in the same year. Martina Navratilova won six consecutive majors between 1983 and 1984 and Serena Williams held all four crowns after winning the Australian Open in 2003 ? a "Serena Slam" ? but neither won all four in a calendar year.
"What happens if Rafa wins the Australian Open?" Ivan Lendl, a winner of eight major titles, asked recently. "I'd call it a Grand Slam. To me you have the career Grand Slam, the Grand Slam that Rafa could win now, then you have the calendar Grand Slam. There's also the Golden Slam that Steffi had. I don't think we will ever see that again, but I would love to see that. I think there deserves to be a distinction. Those are fascinating discussions."
If Nadal were to take possession of the full set of major titles what nobody would dispute would be the enormity of the achievement. The 24-year-old Spaniard is already one of only seven men, alongside Perry, Budge, Laver, Roy Emerson, Andre Agassi and Roger Federer, to have won a "career Grand Slam" ? all four majors but not in the same year.?
So there you have it ladies and gentlemen. In accordance with the ITF constitution, if Rafa wins in Oz he will have achieved a Grand Slam, not a Rafa Slam, not a mini slam or whatever. What Rod Laver achieved was a Calendar Grand Slam. End of.
This makes sense to me and I most certainly agree with Lendl?s interpretation.
Laver needs to grow up!

Yep happy to hear about what the ITF and Lendl would call it if Rafa wins this AO - the Grand Slam, definitely sounds better than 'the mini slam'. In the first place I don't understand why 'mini', when holding all four slams at the same time is certainly nothing 'mini'; in fact it is something 'grand' and so 'the Grand Slam' is the most appropriate. It is different from a career slam, a calendar grand slam or a golden slam. If Rafa can win this AO, he would have two of those four types of slams, and the other two, calendar slam and golden slam, are still possible though very very difficult to achieve.

Interesting stuff from the ITF.

seems like Laver really doesn't like Rafa or his chance to exclipsed the record. No wonder the AO organisers are so biased against rafa, the way they set roger up for the 2009 win and always letting him play on day 1. self proclaimed elitists. all of a sudden, tomic is now a hero despite his embarrasing past behaviour and lying to TA authorities when skipping the WC playoffs. and nevermind that rafa's sick, the aussie player is always better!!


Tomic embarrassed Nadal says Laver
23 January 2011 05:55PM EST

AUSTRALIA tennis greats have praised the efforts of Bernard Tomic at the season's opening grand slam with Rod Laver saying the 18-year-old had "embarrassed" Rafael Nadal in their third-round clash.

Two-time junior grand slam champion Tomic pushed the world No.1 over three sets at the Australian Open on Saturday night, even going to a 4-0 lead in the second set.

It prompted some kind words from Laver and Roy Emerson at the G'Day USA Ball in Los Angeles.

"At 18 he's really showing a lot of class," Laver said.

"I watched him play Nadal and he showed some good form all the way through.

"He wasn't embarrassed playing Nadal and I think Nadal was a little embarrassed with what Tomic had done to him."

Emerson said the world No.199 had the potential to be among the top players on the tour.

"Nadal seemed to be a little worried particularly in the second set with the change of pace that young Bernard was doing and it was upsetting the rhythm of Nadal," Emerson said.

"I think he has a great future and if he keeps in shape I can't see why he can't get in the top 10 in a couple of years."

Meanwhile Emerson joined Laver in talking down the importance of Rafael Nadal's bid for a non-calendar grand slam.

A win at Melbourne Park would see the Spaniard holding the four major titles at the same time in what pundits are dubbing the `Rafa slam'.

But Emerson said Nadal must win the Australian, French, Wimbledon and the US titles in a calendar year for it to rate as a true grand slam.

Laver won calendar year grand slams in 1962 and 1969 and has been vocal about Nadal's need to hold the four majors in the same year.

Another retired tennis great, Andre Agassi, presented Emerson with his award at the G'Day Ball and took a less hardline approach.

Agassi was full of praise for Nadal's ability to be close to claiming the four majors at the same time.

"To own all of them is quite an amazing accomplishment," the American said.

"To get them all in the same year is slightly more amazing. I don't know how you want to call it, but what he is doing is incredible."

http://www.sportsnewsfirst.com.au/articles/2011/01/23/ tomic-embarrassed-nadal-says-laver/