What did Jack Kramer have against Laver?

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by Phoenix1983, Sep 3, 2013.

  1. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Yes, Laver never lost to Stolle a big match, at least.Maybe a minro event like the Irish...truth is Roche lacked the guts to win big and Laver was far more confident playing Roche than playing Newcombe.I bet you on that.
     
  2. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    In any case, a pitty Laver and Newcombe never played a major final other than the 69 Wimbledon match.A good one but I think Newks win in 1971 Philadelphia was a better match.

    Philadelphia was the biggest indoor tournament in the world and the biggest WCT event, excepting, of course, the Finals.it was similar to a world indoor championships, with all WCT players entering the 64 men draw.Big win for Newcombe.
     
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Bobby one, you the perfect historian.I always had curiousity to know more about Roy Barth and Tom Edlefsen, who were signed to play the first WCT tours.maybe they were big NCAA players but they look completley strange to me amongs the great colection of names that Hunt had signed.What was the motivation to sign them for a tour that, except 3 or 4 players, had absolutely the best players in the world?
     
  4. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    kiki, Thanks but of course I'm not perfect ;-).

    Hunt had to fill up the field also with lesser players. WCT did not have all top players. Smith, Nastase, Kodes and Orantes stayed amateurs for a while.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  5. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Bobby, you're bouncing around.

    Without the amateur slams, Roche gets a grand ZERO if we take away his French win.
    Why did Roche fall short in 1967, while Newk won the two biggies?
    And didn't Roche and Newk play against each other at Wimbledon in 1969, the same year that Newk won the Italian?
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  6. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Haven't heard a reasonable objection to it.
     
  7. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    I thought that Roche was a crippled old guy in 1970?

    Seriously, Roche doesn't deserve to make the top 16 seeds ahead of such players as Williams, Becker, Trabert, Edberg, Rafter, Smith, Ashe, Crawford, Santana, Gimeno, Cochet, and others who all won slam events.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2013
  8. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Yes they were considered players while WCT were professionals in the terminology
    Borowiak was also unknown whem he won a title
     
  9. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Smart Dan, Why did Roche reach the 1968's Wimbeldon final and not Newcombe? Why was he ranked ahead of Newk in the first two open era years when he was healthy???

    Why did Roche give Laver better opposition in 1969 than Newcombe???

    Why has Roche a better hth against Laver & Rosewall than Newcombe???
     
  10. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    There is no need to object stupid claims!
     
  11. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    It's understandable that Roche did not win majors against peak Laver. Most players would not have won any.

    In 1970 Roche suffered from his elbow injury but not as much as in the following years.
     
  12. abmk

    abmk G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Messages:
    15,980
    Location:
    U.S
    you are welcome :)

    yeah, Rosewall beat smith and Newk beat Ashe in the QFs of 1970 US Open
     
  13. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Compare Roche's performance in the 1968 Wimbledon final to Newcombe's in the 1969 final.
    No comparison.

    Roche played well at the Australian in 1969, but faded at Wimbledon and at Forest Hills barely showed up in the final against Laver.

    Newk has a lesser record than Roche at this time on the weekly tour, but in the majors, it is Newcombe three to one over Roche from 1966 to 1970.
     
  14. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    I guess you have a low opinion of the great tennis writers at the London Times.
     
  15. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Kodes enjoyed playing Roche, but he hated playing Newcombe¬°¬°¬°
     
  16. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    abmk, Thanks. Let us discuss in the future rather as friends than as enemies.

    I'm ready for it. ;-)
     
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    Dan, It's always a fine achievement to win a set from Laver at the US Open (and a set from Rosewall at Wimbledon and at the US Open).
     
  18. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    At least I have a low opinion of people who claim that a few centimeters more are the reason that Hoad lost in that "smoky air".

    You also have mentioned that Rosewall lost the 1964 Wembley final even though he was a bit smaller than Laver...
     
  19. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    "A few centimetres"?

    Body mass is determined by more than height.
    Hoad was considerably larger than Rosewall, and so were Gonzales and the other pros.

    By 1964, the years were creeping up on Rosewall, and the younger man was still breathing at the end.
     
  20. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Roche dogged it in the other sets.
     
  21. accidental

    accidental Professional

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    932
    I would probably say it had something to do with Lavers continental forehand and short stature.

    There is no way Laver would have been successful in the modern game with those liabilities, although someone like Gonzales would have transferred quite well.

    its nothing personal im sure
     
  22. Dan Lobb

    Dan Lobb Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,004
    Laver had wrists of steel and could make his choice of grip work for him.

    Hoad used the same grip for every shot, which required enormous strength, and used a shortened handle, which allowed him to whip the racquet like a Ping-Pong bat.
    This required the strength of a weight-lifter.
     

Share This Page