The Greatness of Tilden?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by hoodjem, Oct 30, 2013.

  1. urban

    urban Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2005
    Messages:
    4,351
    Its indeed difficult to rate a players game from 90 years ago, because we have not many valid video documents. It would of course be better to trust your own eyes and examine really sharp video material. However, the contemporary writing on Tilden by people like Laney, Danzig, Wind, Maskell or Myers is outstanding, because it describes the style, the techniques and tactics of the players and the courses and the turnabouts of the matches in a very detailled way. The reader gets indeed a perfect picture of players and matches, almost as if he would be himself at courtside. Sadly this brilliant tennis writing, which covers the bread and butter of strokes and games, is gone forever.
    By the way: The 20s is an era, which is quite well covered in written accounts and biographies or video samplers (for instance the Wimbledon video series), better than say the pro tour in the 50s and 60s. By studying all video and written material i could get , Tilden's game is to me more familiar than say the game of peak Hoad or Gonzalez, because we have even less video and written material from the pro tour in the 50s.
     
    #51
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Just as much as I disregard his successors.LOL
     
    #52
  3. ARFED

    ARFED Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    602
    You are missing the point here. I am not saying Tilden was not talented, for all i know he could have been extremely talented and he could be ranked number 1 nowadays or be outside the top 50. You can compare him to the players of his time, maybe the players of the 60`s, but that`s it. Different equipment, stroke mechanics, movement, rules, etc. The problem is not if he was better or worse than Federer, the problem is that it is impossible to tell from any objective point of view his level when we put it against players from the last 30 years or so. For instance i could tell you that Federer has a better backhand than Tilden. Now good luck trying to disprove that...
     
    #53
  4. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Great to see you are not a one dimensioned wiki poster.

    You have broaden your abilities with a great use of youtube-posting
     
    #54
  5. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Tilden serve and forehand are amongs the best ever.
     
    #55
  6. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    ARFED, again wrong: Tilden was not Vines' main competition during the 1930s. It was Perry and Nüsslein. But Ellsworth saw enough from the old Tilden to judge he must have been great in his peak.
     
    #56
  7. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Nadal is more talented than Federer.
     
    #57
  8. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    urban, well written. The Anti-Tilden people ignore the fact that we yet have those many judgments and praises of Tilden's game by acknowledged writers.

    They also ignore the fact that a player who almost beat the World's No.1 at 53 (Tilden in 1946) must have been awesome in his prime.
     
    #58
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    ARFED, It is reported that Tilden had an attitude of arrogance, but you beat Big Bill easily...
     
    #59
  10. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,189
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    lol just about the only thing Nadal does better than Federer is run.
     
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2013
    #60
  11. YaoPau

    YaoPau Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2013
    Messages:
    124
    Geez this thread is starting to circle the drain.
     
    #61
  12. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Have you ever seen Nadal hitting as odd backhands as Federer uses to hit?
     
    #62
  13. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    I strongly disagree here.Fed is miles more talented, but Nadal has a unique tennis body.Maybe only Borg can compare in historical terms but even that I have a doubt...

    IMO, Fed, and late Sampras and Agassi ( and maybe Kuerten) are the only players who played in the last 15 yrs that I would really like to see in the Golden Era, with the Lavers,Rosewalls,Newks,Nastases,Connors,Borg,Macs,Lendls,Wilanders,Beckers,Edbergs and the rest of great players from 1968 ( pre Golden) to 1993 (Post Golden)
     
    #63
  14. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, maybe Nadal does not have better touch shots than Federer (both of them are not typical touch players like Rosewall or Nastase), but Rafa is the more complete player which means that he does not have any weaknesses.Thus Nadal is the stronger player.
     
    #64
  15. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    We disagree here.Anyway, I couldn´t care the less...
     
    #65
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Yes, we agree much more often than we disagree.
     
    #66
  17. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,189
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    There's more to players than backhands. Besides you do realize that Federer stands on the baseline and hits on the rise with heavy topspin? The timing requried to do that is crazy. If he stood several feet behind the baseline he'd have an easier time hitting backhands. I've seen Federer hit more stunning winners with his backhand anyway, more drop shots, harder volleys etc...

    It's also widely known that Nadal practices alot harder than Federer. Federer has more natural talent. Again lol at Nadal being more complete, Federer would have the edge in most categories. Nadal has him beat in intensity and defence.
     
    #67
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, Nadal is also superior at the volley.

    Please explain me why Federer loses so often to Nadal and others. He lost to Rafa even in his peak years.
     
    #68
  19. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,189
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    Federer is superior on the volley. This has been explain to you before.

    Federer is an old man now, he lost to virtually no one at his peak. He lead Nadal off clay up until this year, no one would have a winning h2h with Nadal if they played 16 times on clay.
     
    #69
  20. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, "explained to me" does not mean that the Federer armada is right in this point (or regarding bh, touch).
     
    #70
  21. NatF

    NatF G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    May 10, 2012
    Messages:
    13,189
    Location:
    On the road from would of to would have
    We are right though. In big matches Federer generally comes to the net more and has more success. This is also true in more minor matches also. Backhand wise I've seen Nadal hitting tons of backhands into the net or short ready to be attacked. He doesn't stand on the baseline and take it on the rise like Federer so obviously produces less shanks. However peak Federer had a very good backhand. Touch is obvious, coming up with crazy touch shots etc...was Federer trademark. But not in your world right? In your world all the talk of him being a genius or a magician is just made up...

    This is off topic anyway. You have nothing in the way of evidence to back up your silly hate filled claims.
     
    #71
  22. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    NatF, I knew you would fall back into nasty behaviour and pure hate.

    I have seen enough ugly shots by Roger to judge. Yes, Federer is the most overrated player in history (even ahead of weak Emerson)!

    You don't have more proofs than I have. We just interpret the Federer matches differently.

    It's not off topic: It was the Federer armada which insulted Tilden!

    It's time now to put you again on my ignore list.
     
    #72
  23. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,699
    Location:
    U.S
    [​IMG]
     
    #73
  24. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,715
    Old posters, don´t get trolled by those who want to make it a Fed vs Nadal thread.It is about Tilden,guys.
     
    #74
  25. krosero

    krosero Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2006
    Messages:
    5,579
    Some news reports on Tilden's five-set defeat of Lacoste at Roland Garros for the 1928 Davis Cup:

    The Sydney Mail:

    Wallis Myers, the world’s leading critic, says that Tilden’s change of tactics came after winning the first game in the second set, after being behind at 0-40. “He then revealed infinitely more variety in defence, while selecting moments of aggression with consummate judgment. At one moment he sliced every ball, and then changed to overspin drives after the style of Norman Brookes. Lacoste never knew which was coming, and was beaten outright many times. It was the mixture that won.”

    It was thought that Lacoste would tire him out, but Tilden was most brilliant in the last three games, when he served, and drove, and volleyed as never before, and entirely puzzled the world’s champion of the last twelve months by his variety and skill. He changed on the instant from cunning trick strokes to drives of great severity, and his famous cannonball services were too severe for Lacoste, despite the fact that the Frenchman uses a special tennis machine to become used to such services.​

    An AP story in the Schenectady Gazette:

    The lanky American served with less exertion than usual, husbanding his strength, and he flashed his famous cannon ball delivery only when in dire need. When an opening came he did not fail to take the net and pound the point home with a thrilling volley.​

    TIME magazine’s brief report:

    Tilden, against Lacoste, was the oldtime wizard. He was at the net killing the ball, at the baseline angling Lacoste out of position.​

    The Bud Collins History of Tennis:

    Then 35, Tilden went out and played what teammate George Lott called his greatest match ever. He defeated Lacoste on clay – the first time that grass hadn’t been the surface for the Cup-deciding round – 1-6, 6-4, 6-4, 2-6, 6-3. Afterward, Lacoste said: “Two years ago I knew at last how to beat him. Now, he beats me. I never knew how the ball would come off the court; he concealed it so well. I had to wait to see how much it was spinning – and sometimes it didn’t spin at all. Is he not the greatest player of all time?”​
     
    #75
  26. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    krosero, Thanks for these statements about a giant of tennis.
     
    #76

Share This Page