Stats for Olmedo-Laver (1959 W final)

[krosero]

Well now I feel like I’m in ancient times. This match is ten years older than anything I'd seen before. And it feels so different, not just compared to our time but also to the late 60s.

Olmedo d. Laver 6-4, 6-3, 6-4

Alejandro “Alex” (The Chief) Olmedo was 23 and a USC senior. He made three Slam finals in his career, all in 1959: winning in Australia over Fraser, and Laver at Wimbledon, but losing to Fraser at Forest Hills. He was from Peru but in 1958-59 he represented the U.S. in Davis Cup.

Laver was almost 21 and playing in his first Slam final. It lasted 71 minutes.

Laver here is just a germ of his '69 self. He doesn't even seem as fast, even though he’s so young. The New York Times report did say he’d played long singles matches as well as doubles and mixed here, so some fatigue could be showing. But, he doesn't get on top of the ball the way he does in the '69 matches, or hit it as hard. He's certainly not as muscular.

Both he and Olmedo seem to be playing tennis at a slower pace and lower level than, for example, the 1969 finalists. It just seems to take less to induce errors from them. It's impossible to judge a whole era on one match, but I can see why it's widely agreed that the pros of that time were clearly a level above the amateurs.

The BBC coverage of this match was broadcast on Italian TV. Rino Tommasi was the host, for a show called Il Grande Tennis, on a channel or network called Koper Capodistria.

In the first game, a Laver serve forces a return error on break point but is called out; Olmedo sees that it was good and gives away the point, walking over to the ad court.

The coverage is broken right before Olmedo successfully hold for 3-all in the second set. I don't know Italian but it sounds like Tommasi is saying that there was a problem with the film. In any case, Laver’s service game is missing entirely (the Times said it was a break at love, with Olmedo lobbing successfully), plus five points from the next game – the equivalent of two games between them.

The third game of the third set, a hold by Olmedo, is also missing. And after Olmedo holds for 4-3, the next two games are missing (both of them holds, per the Times). The show resumes with the following game, the last of the match, a break by Olmedo.

All in all, using the tv coverage and the Times report, Olmedo was broken once, Laver 5 times.

In the 24 games I saw, I have Olmedo hitting 22 winners apart from service (including three returns in the last game): 5 FH, 2 BH, 5 FHV, 7 BHV, 3 smashes. I have Laver hitting 19 winners: 2 FH, 1 BH, 7 FHV, 5 BHV, 4 smashes. All of the ground stroke winners that I saw in the match were passes.

(It's unusual for me to see Laver with so few ground-stroke winners, except in the '76 loss to Borg at Hilton Head, and the '75 loss to Connors).

Again in the 24 games I saw, Olmedo made 31 of 60 first serves (or 52%), and Laver 50 of 82 (or 61%). Olmedo hit 1 ace, 16 other unreturned serves (including 2 that I judged as service winners), and 3 doubles. Laver hit 1 ace, 20 other unreturned serves (including 3 that I judged as service winners), and 6 doubles.

I'm also going to post stats for the 1960 final. And that actually was a much closer and higher-quality match.

[Tennis old man]

Thanks for this krosero!

[treblings]

Yes, thank you for posting this thread.

[hoodjem]

Krosero,

Can you get a good look at Laver's left arm? Was it as big as later?

[krosero]

Krosero,

Can you get a good look at Laver's left arm? Was it as big as later?From what I remember he was just skinnier all around, arm included.

[AndrewD]

It's impossible to judge a whole era on one match, but I can see why it's widely agreed that the pros of that time were clearly a level above the amateurs.

It's impossible (more pointless than impossible) to make that judgement, but you did it anyway.

Cooper (who turned pro in 59), Rose, Emerson, Fraser, Olmedo, Pietrangeli, etc were all capable of handling the professionals and producing tennis of a similar calibre. The only difference is that the pros were men in their prime whereas most of the amateurs hadn't hit theirs yet. Doesn't mean one was clearly a level above the other though, just that some were at that point.

[krosero]

It's impossible (more pointless than impossible) to make that judgement, but you did it anyway.

Cooper (who turned pro in 59), Rose, Emerson, Fraser, Olmedo, Pietrangeli, etc were all capable of handling the professionals and producing tennis of a similar calibre. The only difference is that the pros were men in their prime whereas most of the amateurs hadn't hit theirs yet. Doesn't mean one was clearly a level above the other though, just that some were at that point.Andrew, it's difficult to find anything in this that I disagree with, so I'm not sure what the objection is. It's my understanding that Laver became better even than his 1962 caliber, in the mid-60s, in his prime years. Amateurs became professionals and developed as they grew older. I have not doubted, though, that amateurs who stayed amateurs, like Emerson, also matured as tennis players, simply because I assume a great player like him didn't stagnate.

I have never been under the impression that merely being a professional made you a better player than the average amateur -- if this is what you understood in my comments. It's not entirely clear.

Nor am I am clear on what exactly you're saying about the best of the amateurs. You list of a few of the best and say that they could handle "the professionals." Do you mean that the best of the amateurs could handle professionals generally -- could handle most pros? Or could they handle even more? I've always understood that the best of the amateurs -- when they were still amateurs -- were not the equal of the best of the professionals; Laver was the best of the amateurs in 1962, and dominated the amateur world with a Grand Slam, but was not the best in the whole tennis world. Is your understanding different in any way?

I'm asking for clarification. Your posts are often shorter than they need to be; it's apparent that you're speaking from a well of knowledge, but your knowledge often is behind your words, not in them.

[jeffreyneave]

I totally diagree that copper, rose and olmedo could compete with the top pros. Cooper did not win a match against gonzales and only very few against hoad in the 62 match four man world series of 1959. Olmedo turned turned pro and in a 57 match series round robin in 1960 only won 10 matches. Gonzales won 49, rosewall 32, sequra 22. Rose was not thought good enough to challenge for a world series. rose never won a pro tourney and retired very quickly. if your uncompetive you retire; rose turned pro in 1959 and was retired by 1961.

Even a top player like laver found the pros difficult at first. After his '62 slam he only won 2 of his first 19 matches against Rosewall and hoad and these were on grass - a surface laver was very familiar with. It took laver 6 months to rase his game to be competitive with the best pros. That's the usual length of time for all amateurs who turned pro after ww2. Only kramer succeeded immediately.

players like rose, cooper and olmedo never succeeded even after 6 months.
in the late 50s the pros were fantastically strong with a top 6 of gonzales, rosewall , sedgman, segura, hoad and trabert who dominated tennis between 1955-60. ; they were all great players and not until laver's emergence in '61 as a really strong force would it be broken; some of those pros were feeling there age by '61, particularly sedgman who was 34 at the time.


jeffrey

[chaognosis]

Only kramer succeeded immediately.

Well, almost immediately...

Riggs did win their big opening match at MSG, after all.