Newcombe's achievements as an Open era player

urban said:

32, sometimes 64 players. Very deep draws with the top players of the time.

Click to expand...

urban said:

I would Newcombe rank at least at the level of Becker or Edberg. The selection of achievements here gives a slightly unclear picture. I think, Newcombe won overall over 70 titles (going by Michel Sutter, can look it up for exact numbers). His open era tally is 32 or something titles. Those Masters equivalents on Wikipedia are not officially selected titles by any institution. In 1971 for instance all 20 WCT events had the same weight (including AO or Italian open, Newk won 4 of them.). Some further won titles like Canadian Open in 1971 or Tucson in 1974 (an ATP event with maybe the best field in whole 1974) are to be regarded, also his fine play in Davis Cup 1973.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Ok thanks. Wish there was better documentation of the tournaments of that era. So many aren't counted. Looking at the list of tournaments he won, just in the finals he beat a lot of very good players.

Hard to balance that with the fact Becker simply has a significantly better record in the majors with 6 slams and 4 indoor majors. I'd say the 1973 Australian Open at least for Newcombe is barely major status.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Ok thanks. Wish there was better documentation of the tournaments of that era. So many aren't counted. Looking at the list of tournaments he won, just in the finals he beat a lot of very good players.

Hard to balance that with the fact Becker simply has a significantly better record in the majors with 6 slams and 4 indoor majors. I'd say the 1973 Australian Open at least for Newcombe is barely major status.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

NatF, The 1970s tournaments are well documented both in the World of Tennis yearbooks and in Sutter's book Winners.

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

I would definitely agree with you about the 1973 Australian.

My first reaction about the best level of play for both is that it's very close. Newcombe, when in shape could beat anyone on any surface. He clearly was a stronger clay player than Becker in my opinion with the Italian and a higher winning percentage. I actually think Newcombe had a better overall serve game when he was in shape than even Boris, although I wouldn't be upset if someone thought Boris had the better service game. He was more solid on the volley and I think had a better forehand. Becker's backhand was far more explosive than Newcombe's backhand although Newcombe's backhand was a very solid baseline shot. Newcombe didn't have a great passing shot off the backhand although he could lob extremely well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k1rVZFgYAw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7P-JfY55cE

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Alas Bobby I have none of those. But I'm glad to know the information is out there



I haven't seen enough of Newcombe to judge his peak play, from what I've read your analysis could well be spot on.

Who had the better movement?

That second video is crazy :lol: Poor Jimmy!

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

Both weren't the greatest movers so I'd say about even. I saw Newcombe at his best in the 1973 US Open. He played Connors and Connors' level in my opinion was the Connors of 1974 which wouldn't be strange since 1974 was only a few months away. Anyway Connors played great tennis when they met in the1973 US Open quarters but never broke Newcombe even once. Newcombe won 6-4 7-6 7-6. It was even closer than the score may suggest since tiebreaks at the US Open in those days were the first to five. Both tiebreakers went to 4-4, simultaneous set points (in the third set it was simultaneous set and match point) so if Connors won both points he would have been ahead two sets to one.

If memory serves Newcombe had more break chances against Connors and was clearly the better player than day. His form was great and of course he went on to win the tournament by beating Rosewall and Kodes.

Newcombe at his best in my opinion was superior to Edberg's best. Bigger serve and forehand although Edberg had the clearly better backhand. Edberg's volley was only a little better than Newcombe's which is saying a lot for Newcombe's great volley.

Click to expand...

urban said:

I would Newcombe rank at least at the level of Becker or Edberg. The selection of achievements here gives a slightly unclear picture. I think.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Thanks, for this pc1. Beating even a 'near' peak Connors in straight sets without being broken is very impressive.

Do you consider the peak play hierarchy to be;

Newcombe > Edberg > Becker

Wilander in 4th?

I still find his achievements lacking a little bit compared to the Edberg, Becker and Wilander. Unless some of those 32 Open Era tournaments he won were very prestigious?

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

Remember Newcombe won a lot of tournaments in the pre-open era too. If Open Tennis was around for the whole of his career I'm sure he would have had a higher level at an earlier age. I think he won about 60 plus tournaments in total if you include the pre-open era.

As far as peak play is concerned I guess I would go with Newk, Becker, Edberg. Mats is tough to define. I actually think his best year may be 1983 instead of the more famous year of 1988 in which he won three majors. I'll have to think about that.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Yes but you know how I feel about amateur tennis...plenty of light weight players would look great if you removed the top 4 players. The value of amateur tournaments are quite low in my estimation. He at least lags behind Becker in terms of major titles IMO. Even if we accept his tournament total is equivalent considering Amateur titles.

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

Good points but I'm just thinking of a subjective level of play at their best. In that case, that is my opinion.

If you eliminate amateurs and don't assume what would happen if Open Tennis was around for the whole of Newcombe's career, then I agree with you.

Let's put it this way, if I had to pick one play of those guys, not knowing the surface at their best for one match, Newcombe's my choice.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

That's fair enough, in terms of overall greatness peak play is a huge factor. So perhaps that nudges Newcombe a head or at least equal to the players the OP mentions.

Although the OP does specify achievements. In which case I think Newcombe lags behind the other 3 despite having the potential to win as much or more.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

Ok thanks. Wish there was better documentation of the tournaments of that era. So many aren't counted. Looking at the list of tournaments he won, just in the finals he beat a lot of very good players.

Hard to balance that with the fact Becker simply has a significantly better record in the majors with 6 slams and 4 indoor majors. I'd say the 1973 Australian Open at least for Newcombe is barely major status.

Click to expand...

NatF said:

That's fair enough, in terms of overall greatness peak play is a huge factor. So perhaps that nudges Newcombe a head or at least equal to the players the OP mentions.

Although the OP does specify achievements. In which case I think Newcombe lags behind the other 3 despite having the potential to win as much or more.

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

Both weren't the greatest movers so I'd say about even. I saw Newcombe at his best in the 1973 US Open. He played Connors and Connors' level in my opinion was the Connors of 1974 which wouldn't be strange since 1974 was only a few months away. Anyway Connors played great tennis when they met in the1973 US Open quarters but never broke Newcombe even once. Newcombe won 6-4 7-6 7-6. It was even closer than the score may suggest since tiebreaks at the US Open in those days were the first to five. Both tiebreakers went to 4-4, simultaneous set points (in the third set it was simultaneous set and match point) so if Connors won both points he would have been ahead two sets to one.

If memory serves Newcombe had more break chances against Connors and was clearly the better player than day. His form was great and of course he went on to win the tournament by beating Rosewall and Kodes.

Newcombe at his best in my opinion was superior to Edberg's best. Bigger serve and forehand although Edberg had the clearly better backhand. Edberg's volley was only a little better than Newcombe's which is saying a lot for Newcombe's great volley.

Click to expand...

urban said:

The systematic problem, i addressed, is the problem we have always in evaluating history, that we do it post festum with the parameters of today. This constructing aspect has to be dealt with, we cannot do better, but it has to be regarded. We always get only nearing dates, not exact results to compare. It's is the problem with the Masters equivalents and the so called pro majors. Sure the old pros had some more important than others tournaments, but they were embedded in long tours and nobody told them, that they were playing a "real" major which would would lead to some evaluation 50 years later. Another problem is, when those pro champs ended, in reality they were continued after 1967, and for instance Laver won 5, not 3 US pros, Rosewall 3, not 2, Laver won 6 Wembleys, not 4, Rosewall 6, not 5, and Laver won 2 French pros, not 1. That those events had "lost" their "major status", which the officially never had, they "forgot" to tell the players, because the draws were in fact partly better then pre 1967.

Same with the Masters equivalents in early open Tennis. Sure one can single out some 9-10 events, which were close to the traditional 4 Majors, and in some years they were even more eminent in terms of draws than even some Majors like Australia. For instance: The 1968 LA South West Pacific was the last open event of the year, had decisive influence on the World Ranking and was a sort of equivalent if not to a major, than at least to a year end final.
Today we have the fixed Super Nine or Masters concepts, and players know beforehand, for what price they are playing. Newcombe didn't know that, when he entered a tournament, he simply followed his promoter, not an anonymous wikipedia contributor 50 years later, who constructs a Grand Prix Championships series (which was of course another matter, a series organized by the ILTF since 1970, which rivalled the WCT tour).

Click to expand...

urban said:

The systematic problem, i addressed, is the problem we have always in evaluating history, that we do it post festum with the parameters of today. This constructing aspect has to be dealt with, we cannot do better, but it has to be regarded. We always get only nearing dates, not exact results to compare. It's is the problem with the Masters equivalents and the so called pro majors. Sure the old pros had some more important than others tournaments, but they were embedded in long tours and nobody told them, that they were playing a "real" major which would would lead to some evaluation 50 years later. Another problem is, when those pro champs ended, in reality they were continued after 1967, and for instance Laver won 5, not 3 US pros, Rosewall 3, not 2, Laver won 6 Wembleys, not 4, Rosewall 6, not 5, and Laver won 2 French pros, not 1. That those events had "lost" their "major status", which the officially never had, they "forgot" to tell the players, because the draws were in fact partly better then pre 1967.

Same with the Masters equivalents in early open Tennis. Sure one can single out some 9-10 events, which were close to the traditional 4 Majors, and in some years they were even more eminent in terms of draws than even some Majors like Australia. For instance: The 1968 LA South West Pacific was the last open event of the year, had decisive influence on the World Ranking and was a sort of equivalent if not to a major, than at least to a year end final.
Today we have the fixed Super Nine or Masters concepts, and players know beforehand, for what price they are playing. Newcombe didn't know that, when he entered a tournament, he simply followed his promoter, not an anonymous wikipedia contributor 50 years later, who constructs a Grand Prix Championships series (which was of course another matter, a series organized by the ILTF since 1970, which rivalled the WCT tour).

Click to expand...

DMP said:

Yes, just...yes.

I think it is impossible to really recreate now what was important then. And of course the players then played what was important then. That is why any tournament counting method is doomed to be inaccurate, imo. It is also why I think the best judgement was the rankings created by the experienced and knowledgeable tennis watchers of the time, because they knew, were immersed in, what was important at that time. Of course it has become simpler since 1990 as players have aligned what they see as important with the agreed ranking system, but even here it is only an approximation, because not all players play exactly the same tournaments.

FWIW my recollection is that Newcombe was viewed at the time as a more commanding figure than Becker was in his time.

Click to expand...

kiki said:

Pc1,
Great comparative vs Becker and vs Edberg and I fully agree
In your opinion,What made Newk vs Kodes such exciting matches?
Both seem to take off the best of the other,such as Lendl vs Clerc.for example..isn' t it?

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

urban, I must contradict: The old pro majors were really majors for the pros. For instance Rosewall said in the great World Tennis 1963 interview that Roland Garros, Wembley and partly Forest Hills were the big pro tournaments even though he did not call them Pro GS tournaments or pro majors as some experts now do.

These pro majors lost their importance with the begin of open era because they lost their status as the most important events of the year, even though they had sometimes better fields than before open era.

Frank Sedgman confirmed my assumption that Wembley was the world's pro championship.

When Rosewall won at Roland Garros in 1961 New York Times wrote:"Aussie Captures World Pro Title". This sounds contradictory but at least it shows how important these events have been and how significant they were in the players' and public's recognition.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

DMP, Nobody is recreating now what was important then.

Click to expand...

The serious experts just research what was important then. Where is the problem?

Click to expand...

Dan L said:

Laver and Rosewall were great players, but lacked box office power.

Click to expand...

DMP said:

Really? In Australia? In the UK? In continental Europe?

Click to expand...

Dan L said:

In Australia, they were banned from playing in major venues.

In U.S., they lacked drawing power.

Also in Europe, where they could no longer attract crowds to Roland Garros or Scarborough.

Click to expand...

pc1 said:

Newcombe as you know, when in shape was almost the perfect serve and volley player. Big first serve and a great second serve with the best first volley in the game. I think Vic Braden said that until Edberg he never saw a player get so close to the net on the serve and volley for the first volley as Newcombe. Huge overhead.

Kodes had an excellent attacking return on both sides but particularly on the backhand side. Very few one handers have a great attacking backhand return. He also was very fast and could hit amazing winners when he was on.

So you have Newcombe, a great player who also was capable of improvising on the court but basically a powerful player who burgeoned opponents versus a very quick agile player in Kodes who could somewhat neutralize the awesome Newcombe serve and volley game. Kodes was dangerous on both sides and capable of hitting winners from everywhere.

If both were playing well it was made for great tennis.

I remember my old friend Jimmy mentioning to me after that US Open match that he thought Kodes was the best when on. I disagreed and still thought it was Laver but it just shows how impressive Kodes was in that match.

Laver was fairly old in 1973. I wonder who was the best when "on" their game in 1973. I think on medium to fast it may be Arthur Ashe. It could be Nastase overall in 1973. Maybe it was Jimmy Connors. Maybe even Newk. Maybe on slow surfaces it could be Orantes.

Any ideas Kiki?

Click to expand...

urban said:

Bobby, i agree that those venues were very important for the pros. It makes sense, because London, Paris and New York were the classic settings for tennis, as it was established on the amateur scene in the 20s, and somehow the pros followed this concept, albeit very loosely. Wembley as an Olympic venue was a well implemented substitute for Wimbledon, Roland Garros and Forest Hills were established venues. But what is with the Cleveland event, or even the Coubertin event? What was with the public attendance or the media coverage in those years? On the fine French webside
www.histoiredugrandslam.com
is a contemporary French article about the Coubertin final in 1964 or 1965 cited, where no result nor the winner is given.
I don't think, that the old pros organized their circuit around the cornerstones, like the 4 Majors are today, with preparation time, build up tournaments and so on. I read, that the US pro at Boston in 1964 was played in the rain, because the finalists had a commitment to play in Edinburgh the next day. No USO final today would be played in the rain because of Edinburgh (nothing against this fine City).
Even in the sources you cited, as helpful they may be, there is indeed some contradiction and no cristal clear definition of pro Majors. Also in McCauley's book, who includes the 1968 pro champs, or Bud Collins Encyclopedia, who includes even further pro champs results, the matter isn't clear.

Click to expand...

Dan L said:

But there was no consistency.

Wembley was not the premier event EVERY year.

It was overshadowed by Forest Hills in 1957, 1958, 1959, even 1963.

Sedgman's opinion conflicts with the media coverage of the time, which emphasized Forest Hills.

Of course, Sedgman won Wembley twice, in 1953, when it was the most important tournament, and 1958, when it was outranked by Forest Hills, Roland Garros, and even Kooyong in money power for the players.

Gonzales' biography of 1959 emphasizes that the Australian tournaments were the most prized by the players, because the gates were higher, the stadiums filled to see the pros, unlike the U.S., where major venues like Forest Hills were mostly empty for pro tennis.

The 1963 Forest Hills Pro final between Laver and Rosewall was played for NO MONEY, because of light attendance.

Laver and Rosewall were great players, but lacked box office power.

Click to expand...

DMP said:

You obviously don't read beyond a few select threads



I don't say there is a problem. Just that it is difficult to exactly get a sense now of how things were then. I often hear something described about tennis which I remember experiencing, even by posters I consider knowledgeable, and I think 'well that is not how I remember it being viewed at the time'.

I can illustrate with a hypothetical example. Suppose some time in the period 2007-9, when Federer and Nadal were really slugging it out, they had shared the four majors between them (interestingly something they never did), and they had both reached the WTF finals with only a few ranking points between them, and both in good form and healthy (again something that never happened). How would the WTF have been seen at the time?

I say it would have been seen as a huge thing, resolving a huge rivalry for the year, deciding the #1 ranking, etc. Basically the biggest event of the year. And yet for ranking purposes it would have been just as normal, behind the slams and ahead of Masters.

So the sense at the time, would have been quite different from how it seen now. It surely wouldn't have been seen as the fifth most important event (and really, is it seen as that?) as it is officially assessed right now.

Click to expand...

DMP said:

Wasn't that more about the pro circuit losing drawing power as it ran out of steam and we could see there was going to be a rapprochement between the pro and amateur games? So it was more about the the pro tour losing its special cachet than about Rosewall and Laver. I certainly don't remember Rosewall and Laver ever being other than big names here in the UK.

Click to expand...

DMP said:

Wasn't that more about the pro circuit losing drawing power as it ran out of steam and we could see there was going to be a rapprochement between the pro and amateur games? So it was more about the the pro tour losing its special cachet than about Rosewall and Laver. I certainly don't remember Rosewall and Laver ever being other than big names here in the UK.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

urban, I think you are too much doubtful.

Even though the old pros did not have build up tournaments and so on, the pro majors were acknowledged by the players as the big ones. They did not need cristal clear definitions to do this.

Also the amateur GS tournaments were not described anywhere as the four biggest events.

Tennis de France brought two full pages on the 1965 French Pro at Coubertin plus all results. I guess it was similary in the other years.

The US Pro at Cleveland was always considered as an important event ("World's Pro Championships").

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Dan, It's your fault that you are obsessed by prize money.

World Tennis brought several pages about the 1963 US Pro.

Click to expand...

Dan L said:

The point is that pro tennis declined after the heyday of the late fifties.

Laver and Rosewall lacked box office clout.

Click to expand...

DMP said:

Maybe in the US, but that was because they weren't US players. Just look at Neilsen ratings nowadays for finals where there isn't a US competitor. In the 50s and early 60s that was important because the US was a continent-sized economy and Europe was slowly recovering from the ravages of WW2. However I have no doubt that they were box office in the UK and Europe, else how do you explain they managed to survive as long as they did?

I don't know about Roland Garros, but I am underwhelmed by your quote of Scarborough as an indicator of lacking box office. Do you know what Scarborough is? It is a seaside retirement/holiday resort. It is about as much a tennis hotspot as Kelowna. I fell off my chair laughing when you quoted it as an example of lacking box office clout.

Re Australia, they may have been banned from major venues, but that was more about the establishment closing ranks against them. I simply don't believe they lacked box office clout in their own homeland.

I think instead of, wrongly, trying to tear down Rosewall and Laver you would be better praising the box office clout of Hoad. Now he was box office. When you went to see Rosewall and Laver you went to see the best players in the world. When you went to see Hoad you went to see a charismatic star. A bit like Usain Bolt these days.

Click to expand...

Dan L said:

No, the pros did not consider Cleveland a major.

Only the small tour stopped there.

And it was NOT the U.S. Pro, which was not held between 1952 and 1961.

Even Jack March did not call it the "U.S. Pro".

Why?

Because he had no permission to do so.

Click to expand...

DMP said:

Maybe in the US, but that was because they weren't US players. Just look at Neilsen ratings nowadays for finals where there isn't a US competitor. In the 50s and early 60s that was important because the US was a continent-sized economy and Europe was slowly recovering from the ravages of WW2. However I have no doubt that they were box office in the UK and Europe, else how do you explain they managed to survive as long as they did?

I don't know about Roland Garros, but I am underwhelmed by your quote of Scarborough as an indicator of lacking box office. Do you know what Scarborough is? It is a seaside retirement/holiday resort. It is about as much a tennis hotspot as Kelowna. I fell off my chair laughing when you quoted it as an example of lacking box office clout.

Re Australia, they may have been banned from major venues, but that was more about the establishment closing ranks against them. I simply don't believe they lacked box office clout in their own homeland.

I think instead of, wrongly, trying to tear down Rosewall and Laver you would be better praising the box office clout of Hoad. Now he was box office. When you went to see Rosewall and Laver you went to see the best players in the world. When you went to see Hoad you went to see a charismatic star. A bit like Usain Bolt these days.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

DMP, Thanks for this expanation. I agree.

Wembley f.i. had mosty big attendance.

Scarborough was a minor event. The top pros mostly avoided it.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

Dan, The issues of USPLTA don't mean too much. Gonzalez's eight US Pro wins were mentioned in all Gonzalez obituaries.

Click to expand...

BobbyOne said:

DMP, Thanks for this expanation. I agree.

Wembley f.i. had mosty big attendance.

Scarborough was a minor event. The top pros mostly avoided it.

Click to expand...