Dream match-up.

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Paul Murphy, Aug 17, 2012.

  1. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    As strong as Newcombe was-Roche was even stronger before his injury captured him. Roche is vastly underrated.
     
    #51
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Well, I liked Roche a lot and he had a very complete game rounded up by a devastating volley.But, overall, I still pick Newcombe.Newcombe had a better serve, almost as good volley, equal Bh and, even if Roche had an excellent FH, Newk´s was more percutant.Roche, at his best, was able to beat any past or present great, but I think Newcombe was a bit steadier.

    Having said that, the mastership Roche had at the net was something to marvel at.Last time I saw him play, he was around his late 30´s and still a far better volleyer than most of the pro players ( and it was a pro tour loaded with excellent net men)
     
    #52
  3. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,399
    No matter what it would be fun as you wrote. It would tough matches and I love the contrast in styles.
     
    #53
  4. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,399
    Newcombe had probably the superior lifetime record but Roche was so talented that many observers thought he was the heir apparent to Laver. It made sense.

    I think Roche was a bit better at his peak than Newcombe but it's not exactly a slam dunk considering how great Newcombe was. I thought his backhand was better and he had a little better volley, especially that awesome backhand volley which could be the greatest ever.

    Like you wrote Kiki, Newcombe had a sensational serve and a super forehand, one of the best I've seen. He had a solid backhand, not great but very solid and his volley was excellent. Newcombe would be a danger to any player that ever lived on any surface when he was at his peak. He was a big match player and on a fast grass surface at times would seen unbeatable.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
    #54
  5. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I think that Roche had a better backhand.

    I guess that Roche who was so strong in 1969 when he beat Laver 5 times would have become the world's No. 1 after Laver's and Rosewall's decline.
     
    #55
  6. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Nastase won 4 Masters titles.
     
    #56
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    The cocky ( although he had sense of humour) german vs the latin antics of the Romenian.Great.
     
    #57
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    We have talked so much ( deservedly) about the great Ashe vs Laver smeis at 1969 W and FH...but it also happened that , in both events, the other semi were 2 extremely close matches between the double teammates Newcombe and Roche...I´d pay a lot to see those matches, too.

    Look at this, no matter who was better, teaming up both were a machine gun that let opponents without air.Their powers combined so so well.I would have loved so much peak Newcombe/Roche vs Hoad/Rosewall around 1958 or 1959...the best ever doubles match?
     
    #58
  9. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,399
    Nastase against a lot of guys would be great if Nastase was in full flow.

    Would love to see Nastase against Djokovic, Nadal and Federer.
     
    #59
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    In my opinion Newcombe is a bit overrated. Remember that Newk was never ever an undisputed No.1. In fact he ranked at most tied No.1 in 1970, 1971 and 1973.

    Grandpa Rosewall was 4:3 against Newcombe in big events and 14:10 overall...
     
    #60
  11. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    It always seemed very interesting, at least from what he said in his book, that Laver tended to enhance his long time generational mates like Emerson,Rosewall and Hoad against the new generation of great australians like Newcombe and Roche, who kept telling everybody that it was their time ( Ashe could be included in that trio of pretenders to Laver´s crown).It was really a generational battle, very very harsh although the sportmanship was always preserved.But, still, you can notice on Laver´s book that confrontation taking over.I would say from 1968 to 1971 or so.
     
    #61
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I agree that this doubles match would be the all-time greatest match.
     
    #62
  13. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Having said that, the next 2 matches I´d love to see would be Bromwich/Quist vs Hewitt/Mc Millan and Fleming/Mc vs Ken Mc Gregor and Frank Sedgman...
     
    #63
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    I would say that Laver is right that he, Rosewall and Hoad were better than Newcombe and Roche. I just exclude the overrated Emerson.
     
    #64
  15. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    They were but Laver didn´t point it like that, even if he could imply it.As for Emerson, he certainly could compete with them.He was a very good player and a great fighter.
     
    #65
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    You are right.

    By the way, I always found a great doubles match more interesting than a good singles match.
     
    #66
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    ...and never a No.1 to No. 4 player. His best ranking is probably No.5 in 1964
     
    #67
  18. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    If you talk so much about Rosewall´s greatness, I think you should also recognize that Emmo was a legitimate product of the great Hopman factory.even if the best players were pros, there were still very good players, mainly Santana, somehow Stolle and later on Newk and Roche in the amateurs ranks.Emerson beat many times the so called great players...
     
    #68
  19. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    The greatness of a player is mostly measured by his sucesses. Compared with the really great players from Doherty till Djokovic, Emerson failed to achieve great things. As told he never was No. 1 or even No.4 and he never won an open or pro major. I don't value his amateur majors as really great achievements. I concede that Emerson was a bit better than the other top amateurs.
     
    #69
  20. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    5,011
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Navratilova v Lenglen at Wimbledon

    Roddick v Ivanisevic at Wimbledon- I know they played there in 2001, but Andy was 2 years shy of his US Open and in his first Wimbledon I think, I think them at their best would be intense...can you say multiple tiebreaks?

    Borg vs Fed at Wimbledon

    Clijsters vs Goolagong at the US Open

    Austin vs Sabatini at the US Open
     
    #70
  21. rdis10093

    rdis10093 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,879
    Location:
    states
    hewitt vs chang
     
    #71
  22. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Laver and Hoad would beat Fed and Nadal.

    Poof!
     
    #72
  23. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,615
    You are correct, it was 4.

    Nastase's great record at the Masters is the reason I think he would produce great tennis against Becker in any indoor series. Becker was at his best indoors so I see him with a solid edge over Nastase in such a series; but it's indoors that I see their matches reaching the highest level of play.
     
    #73
  24. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    1,978
    Correct. Very true.
     
    #74
  25. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Nastase beat Smith,Okker,BORG and, again Smith, while Becker beat Lend,Edberg,Courier and Chang.You cannot point out Boris edge, if you are honest, you know...
     
    #75
  26. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,615
    This looks like a list of the men that Nastase and Becker beat in Masters finals, but I did not claim that Becker's edge over Nastase was in his Masters record. I said I see him with a solid edge over Nastase in an imaginary series indoors.

    Becker was one of the few to beat peak Sampras indoors, in the '96 Stuttgart final over five sets (and in a few round-robin matches at the Masters). In all matches indoors he finished with a 7-6 lifetime edge over Sampras (a five-time Masters winner); and he leads Sampras in indoor titles 37-23.

    And even in your list above, Becker's win over Lendl in a Masters final is better than any of Nastase's wins, given that Lendl has probably the best indoor record of all time.

    Nastase is no pushover on any surface and certainly not indoors. And when in the zone he could beat anybody. But Becker's "zone" level, especially indoors, was at least as great. Becker beat Wilander indoors in Davis Cup ('89) with the loss of only 4 games, which I think might still be the record for the shortest rubber in a Davis Cup final.

    Wilander said it was the best anyone had ever played against him. Which is high praise considering how long Wilander had been playing -- and if you recall that Wilander had been beaten by peak Lendl in a Masters final 6-2, 6-2, 6-3.
     
    #76
  27. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,399
    Lots of great indoor players that are named here with Lendl, Becker, Nastase, Borg. I believe Nastase defeated a Borg not in his prime here while Becker defeated a prime Lendl so a bit of an edge to Becker there.

    It's hard for me to pick who has the greater peak level between Becker and Nastase indoors. Becker was awesome indoors and Nastase at times seemed to be able to do anything with the ball.
     
    #77
  28. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,615
    Yeah, Nastase had that dominant win over Borg, but I can't see him beating peak Borg like that.

    And you may know of other indoor victories that he had over Borg, but that is the only one listed at the ATP. They have Borg beating Nastase four times indoors, including victories in Stockholm in '73 (Nastase's best year) and '75. Ironically that '75 victory was a straight-set victory for Borg (4,4) -- just weeks before Nastase crushed him at the Masters.

    I just don't see Nastase having an indoor record against anyone that matches Becker's record against Sampras. Even more than the Lendl factor, I think that is what separates Becker and Nastase.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2012
    #78
  29. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Stich vs Roche,two megatalented one timers
     
    #79
  30. galain

    galain Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    2,007
    I've always wondered how a peak Jim Courier would fare against an in form Nadal at the Oz Open. That's a match I'd like to see.
     
    #80
  31. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Small edge to Becker, agreed.But on for the rest.Borg won the DC indoors on the same scenario Nastase trashed him, and I wouldn´t call " a weak " Borg his 1975 version.finals at Dallas, semis at FH, qf at W and a second title at RG plus DC and other titles such as Boston or Barcelona is not my idea of a bad player.
     
    #81
  32. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,740
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    Yes, grinder versus grinder, forehand versus forehand.
     
    #82
  33. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,615
    Borg was not weak in '75 but I did not call him so. I just think he wasn't at his peak. Peak Borg, even on clay, did not really arrive until '78 (when he swept RG in straight sets). I think he hit his peak on grass that year, too. I'm less certain about when he produced his peak play indoors, but that was probably not until the 1979 Masters.
     
    #83
  34. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    That thing about peak and peak is just annoying.It is like a player´s career and record are just worth around 3-4 years and that is it.it is very hard to find two players peak vs peak and if we consider a great era is defined by 10 or 15 players, most of them never play peak to peak.
     
    #84
  35. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,615
    I understand, but you have used the concept yourself, sometimes (I don't recall exactly where) mentioning how so-and-so beat near-peak Borg, or words to that effect. If you bring that concept to the conversation, then expect peaks and dates to be debated. If you really find the concept annoying, then please don't use it.
     
    #85

Share This Page