Laver's reflections on the 1972 WCT Finals '...that bloody thief Rosewall'

[BobbyOne]

timnz,

Bud Collins once said that the 1966 US Pro final was the best of the many big Laver/Rosewall finals. I trust him because in the famous 1972 Dallas final both players were past their prime (but still overwhelming).

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

timnz,

Bud Collins once said that the 1966 US Pro final was the best of the many big Laver/Rosewall finals. I trust him because in the famous 1972 Dallas final both players were past their prime (but still overwhelming).

Maybe not. Sure, they probably were able to run faster back then, but their strokes in 1972 might have been better -- and that's what counts, isn't it. If all you care about is watching people who can run fast, track-and-field is for you.

[BobbyOne]

Frank Silbermann,

I can't agree. I don't think that Laver in 1972 had better strokes than in his prime years, 1965 till 1967. The same with Rosewall.

[timnz]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

It paid 10 times more than the 4 tournaments of the Grand Slam, drew the best players, and was more prestigious and hard fought than the majors. Perhaps only Wimbledon was more important between 71' and 75'.

If that isthe case, was it the mosimportant tornament of 1972 and 1973, given that wimbledon was so weak in field depth in those years?

[BobbyOne]

timnz,

I would rank the importnace of the top tournaments for 1971 till 1973 as follows:

1971

1) Wimbledon
2) WCT finals
3) Australian Open
4) US Open without Laver & Rosewall

1972

1) US Open
2) WCT finals
3) Wimbledon
4) Masters

1973

1) US Open
2) WCT finals
3) French Open
4) Masters

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by timnz

If that isthe case, was it the mosimportant tornament of 1972 and 1973, given that wimbledon was so weak in field depth in those years?

Wimbledon is Wimbledon.

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

1973

1) US Open
2) WCT finals
3) French Open
4) Masters

Very interesting: no Wimbledon among the top four.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Very interesting: no Wimbledon among the top four.

Boycott that year. Very few of the top players competed. That's why it was won by Jan Kodes.

I don't think players like Stan Smith (top player at that point), Rod Laver, John Newcombe, Ken Rosewall, Arthur Ashe competed.

The top seed was Nastase, followed by Kodes, Roger Taylor, Metreveli and Jimmy Connors.

Nastase was upset by Alex Mayer and Connors was defeated by Metreveli. Would Kodes have won if a full field competed? Perhaps but I think not.

[Mustard]

Nikola Pilic was banned from 1973 Wimbledon due to his alleged refusal to compete in Yugoslavia's Davis Cup tie against New Zealand. As a result, 81 out of the other 84 ATP players, decided to boycott 1973 Wimbledon in protest, saying that professional tennis players should be able to pick and choose when to play Davis Cup. Of course, 3 ATP players refused to boycott (Nastase, Taylor, Keldie), and were later fined by the ATP for their participation in the tournament.

As regards to 1972 Wimbledon, all the WCT players were banned from ILTF Grand Prix tournaments from January until July that year, which included the French Open and Wimbledon. Andres Gimeno, the 1972 French Open champion, who had previously been a contract pro, had gone freelance at the end of the previous year.

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Frank Silbermann,

I can't agree. I don't think that Laver in 1972 had better strokes than in his prime years, 1965 till 1967. The same with Rosewall.

And what's your basis for thinking that? Just a wild-*ss guess?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

Boycott that year. Very few of the top players competed.

Yes, I knew that. What I find interesting is the logic behind not including Wimbledon, in spite of its heritage.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

Wimbledon is Wimbledon.

But maybe not--I guess tradition and reputation are not everything.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Frank Silbermann

Maybe not. Sure, they probably were able to run faster back then, but their strokes in 1972 might have been better -- and that's what counts, isn't it. If all you care about is watching people who can run fast, track-and-field is for you.

I think the general impression of most people is that Laver and Rosewall were superior players a number of years before 1972. In 1972 Laver would be 34 and Rosewall would be 38 which is really old age by tennis standards although I believe they were 33 and 37 when the match was played.

Newcombe was of the impression that Laver's serve could be attacked at that point for example than in earlier years.

The 1972 match was great and I saw it on television live. It was a stunning exhibition of tennis by both sides. However if I had to guess and it's strictly an educated guess the best matches that Laver and Rosewall played were when they both were younger, faster and had better reflexes.

[BobbyOne]

Frank Silbermann,

My basis is logic and experience. There was never a player stronger at 33 and 37 than between 26 and 30. Just believe me and others. An exception may have been Tilden but even he was better till only 32. After that he declined...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by pc1

The 1972 match was great and I saw it on television live. It was a stunning exhibition of tennis by both sides. However if I had to guess and it's strictly an educated guess the best matches that Laver and Rosewall played were when they both were younger, faster and had better reflexes.

It's a real shame that the whole match doesn't seem to exist on tape anymore.

[TomT]

Thanks timnz. That was interesting to hear Laver's account of things. I love watching both Laver and Rosewall's playing. True masters of the game. Wish there were more videos commonly available.

Also, interesting comments by others. Food for thought and research.

[BobbyOne]

Dan Lobb,

You refuse to give the WCT final of 1972 the status of a major and I agree. But why then you say that Forest Hills pro tournament which also disappeared did be a major?. WCT lasted longer than F.H.Pro.