Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by urban, Jul 15, 2014.
Dan, Sedgman ahead of Rosewall regarding talent can only be a bad joke...
I was thinking mainly of majors and Davis Cup, where I think Newcombe has the edge.
They are very close, although Sedgman was less consistent.
I am thinking of a pumped Sedge.
Dan, Rosewall is one of the very greatest among the most talented players. Sedgman is not close to him. He more played with power than with skills.
why did you mention me, bobbyone?
I don´t need to be convinced about this issue.
kiki, I'm sorry, it was a mistake maybe caused by tiredness or even age...
I do know that you are not as stubborn as Dan is ;-)
But Sedgman´s peak was really great and he could trash Gonzales as only Hoad could on a very special day.
Sedgman could whip Gonzales in a major final, which he did twice.
Rosewall took out Laver in two major finals in 1963 and 1965, very impressive.
I am more impressed with the Sedgman showing.
kiki, I agree.
Dan, we spoke about talend and skills, not about peak level.
If we talk about pure talent, Sedgman had a very strong serve plus perhaps the greatest volley of all time. It's up there or perhaps even better than great volleyers like Edberg or McEnroe. His reflexes were uncanny and he had good groundies. He was one of the fastest players of all time also and often would half volley shots in no man's land to approach the net.
He was great on the old pro tour but was overshadowed by Pancho Gonzalez and Jack Kramer when he was at his peak. That's nothing to be ashamed of. The other Pancho, Segura was at his peak also and gave Sedgman tough battles. Sedgman reached many finals in Pro Majors but very often found Gonzalez on the other side of the net.
Sedgman was super gifted as a player and should not be underestimated. No one was far more talented than the great Frank Sedgman.
Bobby, you need talent to beat Gonzales in major finals.
When did Rosewall ever do this to Gonzales?
Dan, I never said that Sedgman did not have talent.
Rosewall beat Gonzalez in the 1961 French Pro final and twice in majors' SFs. It's not Ken's fault that they met already in SFs.
Sedgman beat an out of shape Pancho in the 1953 Wembley.
I was wondering if you would mention 1961 RG.
Of course, Gonzales lost that.
When did Gonzales ever win a clay major?
"Major SF's"? When? late sixties?
Gonzales played several warmups prior to the 1953 Wembley, and was sharp.
Gonzales won his 1953 Wembley semi against Segura 6-1, 9-7, 7-5.
Segura had beaten Sedgman at the Slazenger in August.
Obviously, Gonzales was sharp at Wembley.
Was Gonzales "out of shape" when he won your coveted Cleveland event that year?
Dan, Again, Gonzalez did not play a big tournament before Wembley 1953.
Gonzalez reached the 1964 French pro SF where he lost a five-setter to Rosewall. He also reached the SF of the 1965 US Pro losing to Rosewall.
You are saying that Cleveland is NOT a big tournament?
Gonzales was well past peak in 1964-65, when he was 36 and 37 years old.
Even Rosewall was past peak at that age.
Dan, No comment anymore about Wembley 1953. You will never understand...
You concede that Cleveland was not a major tournament?
Dan, I already explained to you curious man that US Pro was in June, Wembley in November. Please accept it.
Gonzales won at Cleveland, then played other tournaments.
He beat Segura in three straight sets in the Wembley semi, proving that he was sharp.
Obvious to anyone.
Dan, Pancho G. was out of shape (far from his best) because he did not play a tough tournament before Wembley (in the last months before W.).
Gonzales obviously was playing sharp at Wembley, beating Segura in straight sets in the semi.
The final was a brief three set massacre.
No time for Gonzales to get tired.
Expert Dan, Even if you are out of shape you can beat one tough player before losing to another.
Do you really think that a top form Gonzalez would allow Sedgman to demolish him that way?
In the 1970 W final Newk served 64 of 83 serves to Rosewall's BH, in a stretch lasting about three sets.
Throughout the match as a whole Rosewall made 86% of all his return errors (24 of 28 ) on his BH side.
Vines wrote in his book that you should always serve to the backhand even if that is the receiver’s stronger side.
Rosewall even ran around his BH a few times during this stretch.
That is what happened, and happened again in the 1959 Kooyong final.
NOT a one-time occurrence.
Dan, 6-4,9-7,6-4 is NOT a demolishing!
Straight sets is straight sets.
Can't do better than that.
Funny Dan, We spoke about demolishing. 6-0,6-0,6-0 is straight sets and 7-6,7-6,7-6 is straight sets. But it's a huge difference between them.
6-4,9-7,6-4 is not demolishing, rather a tough match.
I think that even with Don Budge's legendary backhand they said that if you served to his forehand it was even worse so they usually served to Budge's backhand and stayed back.
If I had to guess a possible exception it would be the Connors backhand. Did you find the stats for the Connors backhand return to be superior to the forehand return in the matches you charted?
Djokovic could be another exception. Nadal, at least, has had some success by serving more often to the FH; I've seen some stats on this but I haven't taken them down.
Hard to summarize the stats we have for Connors. We don't have that many counts of return winners. Against Rosewall, most of his return winners were BH's; that was true also against Newk in their AO final, but not true against Ashe at Wimbledon. Most of Jimmy's return winners in the latter match were FH's (which makes sense given how sharply Ashe was slicing serves out wide, essentially preventing BH return winners).
I have two Connors matches in which I divided up his failed returns by wing; both of them are USO losses to Lendl.
In '87: 8 FH, 9 BH
In '92: 11 FH, 6 BH
Still, it's a limited stat because I didn't count how many serves were directed to each wing. That's something I've only done for Newk-Rosewall and a couple of other matches.
BTW, in the Newk-Rosewall match I mentioned the errors but I should also mention the winners:
Rosewall made 9 clean service return winners (7 BH). Newk made 7 himself (3 BH).
Good to have the stats for those matches but those matches were way pass Connors' prime. I'd be interested in checking out the Connors from 1973 to 1983. I felt and I know there is debate there but I thought Connors lost a bit starting in 1984. That's just my subjective observation.
Incidentally Connors apparently used to get on Newcombe in later years on Newk hitting a big powerful winner (was it on match point?) off his far weaker backhand off a Connors' serve in the final of the 1975 Australian.
Here was my count on his missed returns in a win over Tanner at 1980 Wimbledon:
6 fh, 25 bh
A straight sets win over Gonzales.
And Gonzales was sharp, coming off a great win over Hoad in the semi.
Gonzales was also sharp at the 1953 Wembley, roasting a peak Segura in straight sets in the semi.
Dan, Gonzalez did not roast Segura in 1953 Wembley.
The score of that match at Wembley in 1953 was 6-1 9-7 7-5. Gonzalez over Segura as you wrote Dan, in the semi.
That sounds like a convincing, straight-sets win.
Segura was at his absolute peak in the early fifties.
Dan, I would rather say a tough match (only the first set was an easy one for Gonzalez).
Bobby, if Gonzales could win a tough match against peak Segura, he must have been sharp at Wembley that year.
Dan, Be happy with your logic.
I thought Mac and Tanner served fairly often to Connors' BH. They didn't seem afraid of it.
Or perhaps they were, and they just knew they had to mix it up against Connors who would easily start to knock off return winners if he knew what was coming.
Separate names with a comma.