BaseLineBash
08-14-2006, 10:13 PM
Brad recently sat down to talk tennis with Rod Laver. Rod is the only men's player to win the Grand Slam twice (1962, 1969), and has 11 overall GS titles (4 AO, 2 FO, 3 W, 2 US).
BG: What's your take on Andre Agassi?
RL: My take is that he's an unbelievable talent, but not necessarily only talent just the way he approaches the game. It's just quite incredible to see him play the brand of tennis that he does consistently. Andre has shown players in tennis that this game needs desire and talent and competitive edges. I think that's what Andre brings to the game. You probably know it better than anybody.
BG: It's interesting, you and Sampras went thru a lot of the same things, both of you had a child at the age of 31 and not sure if you go on or stop.
RL: I think Pete's got the right attitude. In my mind, if you look at the career that he's had. He probably feels like - I like playing so much why can't I keep playing it? He's at a more of a critical zone right now with a family, he's married, kids, probably thinking - hey I like this, why go train? I don't have to travel.
BG: Serena Williams: I think that she's the closest thing to Tiger Woods, maybe Tiger Woods is the closest thing to Serena Williams. In the Open Era, I go back and see old tapes and top guys were good, but you see the gals and it's like in slow motion. I see Serena Williams and I'm just stunned at how high she's raised the bar for women's tennis.
RL: She certainly has and I think they are both great ladies. Venus and Serena have got a good game. They've proved that they can play the game at all levels. The amazing thing that I see is that they hit the ball so hard ground stroke wise, that they don't make a whole lot of errors. It's uncanny that they can beat the ball as well as they are and still just pound away and set points up. I saw Serena play down in Australia this year and even though Kim Clijsters had her, just to see the way she did it.
BG: So you have to remember as a young guy watching the girls in the '60's, women's tennis is just a different sport almost.
RL: It's like watching the first couple of rounds in the men's, watching someone like Jennifer Capriati and Serena Williams play. It's amazing how much talent she's got and she stays fit. Just the way she moves on the court. It's uncanny how she can get to it.
BG: So few people get to genius level. Obviously, you were someone at the genius level and know what it's like...they don't come up very often.
RL: It's the ingredients. You have to have the natural talent, and the gift to go play competitive and the knowledge, or the sixth sense of where you should be on the court…like you can do. A lot of people just haven't got that. You need all three together.
BG: Since you've stopped playing what do you see as the positive aspects of tennis?
RL: I think the tour is certainly more organized. When it comes to the prize structure is certainly the biggest reason why everybody is playing the game. I won Wimbledon a couple of times and got a firm handshake and a ten-pound voucher.
BG: That's rough.
RL: I think the money that's come into the game is incredible. That side of the game, but at the same time you look at the equipment change.
BG: What would you put as the most negative thing... is it the equipment?
RL: In many ways, yes. There are two ways of looking at it. It's so good for the club player...because they never get any speed and this way they can immediately they can play the game the comfort of the racket is so much bigger and easier. but then when you get to the pro level now all of the sudden you've got too much speed. I think it's a detriment to the game to see the big huge serves...with only a few André's around to return the serve. So much of the time it's the ball kicking way up high...someone like Chang and Lleyton they have to be ready on a ladder to bloody return the serve. In my mind the racket has had an adverse effect to the quality of the spectators. They really don't get to see the variety of tennis out there. I think that's the one thing that we had when we were coming up thru the ranks - the variety of play, where a drop shot, could work.
BG: That's funny, like you say the drop shot is good work, but now it's a tough shot to play and pull off now.
RL: It's tough to play...it's not that it's not a good shot, but there's not too many balls you can hit a drop shot off. They hit that heavy top spin, the ball jumps up high and it's not going to work fro you, so that particular one is gone. You can't move the person around as well unless you're like Andre and Andre can do it because he gets the ball so early that he gets the guys - from the very beginning they're on the run.
BG: He takes the ball early, pounds the first ball, cross-court, it's like the left jab in boxing. He immediately makes you work.
RL: You don't get an easy move. Freebie double faults and things.
RL: They're the two things, the prize money and the racket. For the good and bad. the club player it's good but it's bad for the top guys. You can do so much more with the ball. When I played with a dunlop racket, wooden racket. I changed over to a pro Kennex, a thing called the golden ace, I remember it, that was like one of the first mid size the silver ace and the golden ace. And I thought this game is so bloody easy now I can go back on the tour again. I could serve harder. I could smash. I could volley.
BG: So that would have been huge for you when you were playing?
RL: Oh, all of the sudden I had this in my hand. I never played on the Senior Tour, Rosewall , Tony and John Newcombe had the Camel, so it was unbelievable how easy it was - you could speed up and hit a top spin on the ball, when I guys coming in you could whip it down to their feet. come in and bloody wait for one shoulder high and you get a volley. I wouldn't - for me, playing today's game would be difficult.
BG: What's your most memorable match?
RL: I guess the WCT Final in 1972 would be one, even though I lost, I think it was important for the game. At Wimbledon, when I won in 1969 against Newcombe. You like to play the best guys and that's whom I was going to play. Those two matches.
BG: Those two matches and the WCT what was that a tiebreaker in the fifth?
RL: Tiebreaker in the fifth.
BG: If you were Commissioner of tennis for a Day, if you were the man and you could change something, make a big change, what would it be?
RL: I'd like to be able to say make a rule change that says -let's make it so that we see a variety of tennis for the spectator rather than just a serve/volley. Something in there. There's lots of different ways to try and do it. I know a lot of players would hate the idea of my saying - ok slow the ball up.
BG: Play with a bigger ball, play with a heavier ball?
RL: No, I don't want to do that. You know when you hit a ping-pong ball? You can hit it as hard as you want, but it doesn't go very fast. Once you hit it, it stops. So even a light ball, a real light ball that doesn't have as much weight in it. I don't know if anyone's tried the whole thing. You can certainly get some speed off of it to begin with, but then all of the sudden it slows up.
BG: In Wimbledon they've made a heavier ball, so they've tried to slow it up - hence, Lleyton winning on grass, the grass now is a lot slower.
RL: He never went to the net did he?
BG: No. It shows that it can be done.
RL: I think they changed the texture of the grass supposedly.
BG: Like McEnroe, he's saying the guys should have to go back to a wood racket or one serve or make the service box smaller.
RL: One time I founded the idea that you only get so many second serves...You get 4 first serves, but once you run out of those four serves you now only have your second serve. there's only one serve left when you're playing your point. The first four - if you miss you first serve you get a second serve, four times, once you've gone thru the first four serves, then you only get second serves, that's all there is left.
BG: So if you're in a deuce ad point you're down to one serve?
RL: You're spinning a second serve in at the guy that allows him now to be on the aggressive.
BG: All right, we'll call it the Rod Rule, you want to see more breaks. You can neutralize the serve.
RL: That way, you neutralize the server, but still you're not neutralizing him to the point. Where you can say hey but I'll just use my 3/4 serve all the time until I really needed one and that way I'll still have my four serves up on the plate.
BG: The Rod Rule.
BG: What's your take on Andre Agassi?
RL: My take is that he's an unbelievable talent, but not necessarily only talent just the way he approaches the game. It's just quite incredible to see him play the brand of tennis that he does consistently. Andre has shown players in tennis that this game needs desire and talent and competitive edges. I think that's what Andre brings to the game. You probably know it better than anybody.
BG: It's interesting, you and Sampras went thru a lot of the same things, both of you had a child at the age of 31 and not sure if you go on or stop.
RL: I think Pete's got the right attitude. In my mind, if you look at the career that he's had. He probably feels like - I like playing so much why can't I keep playing it? He's at a more of a critical zone right now with a family, he's married, kids, probably thinking - hey I like this, why go train? I don't have to travel.
BG: Serena Williams: I think that she's the closest thing to Tiger Woods, maybe Tiger Woods is the closest thing to Serena Williams. In the Open Era, I go back and see old tapes and top guys were good, but you see the gals and it's like in slow motion. I see Serena Williams and I'm just stunned at how high she's raised the bar for women's tennis.
RL: She certainly has and I think they are both great ladies. Venus and Serena have got a good game. They've proved that they can play the game at all levels. The amazing thing that I see is that they hit the ball so hard ground stroke wise, that they don't make a whole lot of errors. It's uncanny that they can beat the ball as well as they are and still just pound away and set points up. I saw Serena play down in Australia this year and even though Kim Clijsters had her, just to see the way she did it.
BG: So you have to remember as a young guy watching the girls in the '60's, women's tennis is just a different sport almost.
RL: It's like watching the first couple of rounds in the men's, watching someone like Jennifer Capriati and Serena Williams play. It's amazing how much talent she's got and she stays fit. Just the way she moves on the court. It's uncanny how she can get to it.
BG: So few people get to genius level. Obviously, you were someone at the genius level and know what it's like...they don't come up very often.
RL: It's the ingredients. You have to have the natural talent, and the gift to go play competitive and the knowledge, or the sixth sense of where you should be on the court…like you can do. A lot of people just haven't got that. You need all three together.
BG: Since you've stopped playing what do you see as the positive aspects of tennis?
RL: I think the tour is certainly more organized. When it comes to the prize structure is certainly the biggest reason why everybody is playing the game. I won Wimbledon a couple of times and got a firm handshake and a ten-pound voucher.
BG: That's rough.
RL: I think the money that's come into the game is incredible. That side of the game, but at the same time you look at the equipment change.
BG: What would you put as the most negative thing... is it the equipment?
RL: In many ways, yes. There are two ways of looking at it. It's so good for the club player...because they never get any speed and this way they can immediately they can play the game the comfort of the racket is so much bigger and easier. but then when you get to the pro level now all of the sudden you've got too much speed. I think it's a detriment to the game to see the big huge serves...with only a few André's around to return the serve. So much of the time it's the ball kicking way up high...someone like Chang and Lleyton they have to be ready on a ladder to bloody return the serve. In my mind the racket has had an adverse effect to the quality of the spectators. They really don't get to see the variety of tennis out there. I think that's the one thing that we had when we were coming up thru the ranks - the variety of play, where a drop shot, could work.
BG: That's funny, like you say the drop shot is good work, but now it's a tough shot to play and pull off now.
RL: It's tough to play...it's not that it's not a good shot, but there's not too many balls you can hit a drop shot off. They hit that heavy top spin, the ball jumps up high and it's not going to work fro you, so that particular one is gone. You can't move the person around as well unless you're like Andre and Andre can do it because he gets the ball so early that he gets the guys - from the very beginning they're on the run.
BG: He takes the ball early, pounds the first ball, cross-court, it's like the left jab in boxing. He immediately makes you work.
RL: You don't get an easy move. Freebie double faults and things.
RL: They're the two things, the prize money and the racket. For the good and bad. the club player it's good but it's bad for the top guys. You can do so much more with the ball. When I played with a dunlop racket, wooden racket. I changed over to a pro Kennex, a thing called the golden ace, I remember it, that was like one of the first mid size the silver ace and the golden ace. And I thought this game is so bloody easy now I can go back on the tour again. I could serve harder. I could smash. I could volley.
BG: So that would have been huge for you when you were playing?
RL: Oh, all of the sudden I had this in my hand. I never played on the Senior Tour, Rosewall , Tony and John Newcombe had the Camel, so it was unbelievable how easy it was - you could speed up and hit a top spin on the ball, when I guys coming in you could whip it down to their feet. come in and bloody wait for one shoulder high and you get a volley. I wouldn't - for me, playing today's game would be difficult.
BG: What's your most memorable match?
RL: I guess the WCT Final in 1972 would be one, even though I lost, I think it was important for the game. At Wimbledon, when I won in 1969 against Newcombe. You like to play the best guys and that's whom I was going to play. Those two matches.
BG: Those two matches and the WCT what was that a tiebreaker in the fifth?
RL: Tiebreaker in the fifth.
BG: If you were Commissioner of tennis for a Day, if you were the man and you could change something, make a big change, what would it be?
RL: I'd like to be able to say make a rule change that says -let's make it so that we see a variety of tennis for the spectator rather than just a serve/volley. Something in there. There's lots of different ways to try and do it. I know a lot of players would hate the idea of my saying - ok slow the ball up.
BG: Play with a bigger ball, play with a heavier ball?
RL: No, I don't want to do that. You know when you hit a ping-pong ball? You can hit it as hard as you want, but it doesn't go very fast. Once you hit it, it stops. So even a light ball, a real light ball that doesn't have as much weight in it. I don't know if anyone's tried the whole thing. You can certainly get some speed off of it to begin with, but then all of the sudden it slows up.
BG: In Wimbledon they've made a heavier ball, so they've tried to slow it up - hence, Lleyton winning on grass, the grass now is a lot slower.
RL: He never went to the net did he?
BG: No. It shows that it can be done.
RL: I think they changed the texture of the grass supposedly.
BG: Like McEnroe, he's saying the guys should have to go back to a wood racket or one serve or make the service box smaller.
RL: One time I founded the idea that you only get so many second serves...You get 4 first serves, but once you run out of those four serves you now only have your second serve. there's only one serve left when you're playing your point. The first four - if you miss you first serve you get a second serve, four times, once you've gone thru the first four serves, then you only get second serves, that's all there is left.
BG: So if you're in a deuce ad point you're down to one serve?
RL: You're spinning a second serve in at the guy that allows him now to be on the aggressive.
BG: All right, we'll call it the Rod Rule, you want to see more breaks. You can neutralize the serve.
RL: That way, you neutralize the server, but still you're not neutralizing him to the point. Where you can say hey but I'll just use my 3/4 serve all the time until I really needed one and that way I'll still have my four serves up on the plate.
BG: The Rod Rule.