Quotes of the Day

No discussion about who might be the all-time greatest tennis player would be complete without mention of Rod Laver, the leftie from Rockhampton, Australia, who twice in the 1960s won the grand slam (taking all four of tennis's major singles titles — the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon and the U.S Open — in the same year). No other male player of the Open era has managed the feat. Laver, who suffered a stroke 10 years ago, will turn 70 in August and has lived in California since 1966. On the eve of the Australian Open, he gave a rare interview from his home in Carlsbad to TIME's Daniel Williams.

TIME: What do you do these days?
LAVER: I don't have any set plans. Depends what the day brings. They have an Adidas shoe in my name and that encompasses going to a few places during the year, but nothing too earth-shattering in the tennis world.

How is your health?
Yeah, my fitness could be a little better, otherwise I'm okay. I don't play very much at all now. I get a little arthritis in the wrist. I guess I've hit a few too many tennis balls.

So much has been written and spoken about world No. 1 Roger Federer's attributes. What part of his game most impresses you?
Well, he's got all the shots, but it's his court coverage and anticipation. He has this sense of where the ball is going to come back. Quite amazing. He's facing these big-hitting guys, but he has what seems to be a ton of time. No one's able to rush him that much. There's also his concentration: it doesn't waver. He looks like he's always up for any match. He's aware of the game's history, which I think he respects very much. He wants to leave behind a record.

When Federer cried on your shoulder as you presented the trophy to him at the Australian Open two years ago, there seemed to be a kinship between you. Do you two talk much?
Yeah, we've chatted. Whenever I get to any of the tournaments where he's at, I try to make a point of finding him — not bothering him, but to chat with him. There's no ego in Roger. The way he seems is the way he is, and I think that's unbelievable in someone who's done so much.

Have you ever thought about how you might have played him in your prime?
Not really. Because of the equipment differences [between our eras]... there's not much point. He doesn't have a weakness, so it becomes more of a mental game. You'd have to tell yourself, "Well, maybe I'm mentally stronger."

If you were 25 again, handed a modern racquet and given six months to practice with it and whip yourself into shape, could you excel in the current era? Is there anything about the demands of modern tennis that you couldn't have coped with?
These hypotheticals can come from a hundred different directions. But I finished my career in the seniors playing with a larger-headed racquet — it was wood and graphite. And I went back about 10 years! It was, "Hey, I can serve, I can volley." I had a bigger surface to play with and could put more spin on the ball. But because of the spin, the ball bounces a lot higher. I'm not so tall... maybe you'd have to meet the ball a little earlier, I don't know.

There's some fascinating YouTube footage of you playing Bjorn Borg in the 1970s when you were in your late 30s.
Yeah, I beat him a couple of times, once on clay. He was a great counterpuncher, had a lot of speed, a lot of footwork. That was a lot of fun. I enjoyed competition. Got the adrenaline going. You get out there and do the best you can. Against Borg, I came to the net... had to volley aggressively and keep him off balance. And you had to cut out errors. That's the thing that everybody has to do: gotta cut out your errors but still hit with power and spin. You can't just play safe.

What are your thoughts on where Federer stands among the all-time greats of the game?
Well, he's one of them already. But I don't know that anyone can wear the title of "best ever." I mean, [Andre] Agassi and [Pete] Sampras played some unbelievable matches. The most you can say is, "I was the best in my era." Roger can say that.

Who else do you enjoy watching these days?
[Novak] Djokovic, I like. He's got a great game. Lleyton Hewitt... he's in there with a chance to prove that he's not over the hill. Maybe [coach] Tony Roche can turn him around. I like a lot of the players. I guess I look with a different set of eyes. I've been out there. What will they do in that situation? It's not to do with their rackets; it's what they do under competitive stress.

What's your take on Andy Roddick's game?
Andy's got talent. I think he tries to blast winners rather than wait for the right ball to blast. He's got that big forehand and that big serve, but for some reason... What I think he should do is serve and volley. Just come in and learn to hit some low volleys and put some pressure on an opponent, because all his opponents do is float that first ball back, and he hasn't taken advantage of that huge first serve that he has.

Who's your dark horse for the Australian Open?
The dark horse would be Djokovic. He hasn't risen to the heights of winning a grand slam event yet, but he's got that experience now. [Maria] Sharapova is interesting on the women's side. She's put on so much height recently, and that changes your game. You wouldn't think by much, but when you hit groundstrokes, you've got to get down to the ball now.

What do you like least about modern tennis?
I think probably just the lack of variety of play. There's not much variety, other than from Federer, who's got plenty. You don't see drop shots, you don't see players being moved around much. We didn't have the powerful rackets, you see. A lot of the artistry has been replaced by blasting away with groundstrokes.

Could the sport do with another John McEnroe, do you think?
Well, personalities are good. The crowds can decide in their own minds whether they like him or hate him. Getting angry... I'm okay with it. Get angry, throw your racket — shows you care. I like John. John's a nice individual. He was a competitor. We talked about artistry. Well, his racket control was superb. He was just a natural. You can't teach people that kind of racket work.

• Daniel Williams