Alan Trengove on Rod Laver. New Article

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by abmk

the wimbledon 2006 final wasn't close ....

It was after the first set. Nadal broke in the first game of the second set and was still a break up at 5-4, but ended up losing the set in a tiebreak. Nadal did win the third set.

[krosero]

Nadal may have adapted well to the old grass at Wimbledon, but he said last year, I think, that SV tennis the way it used to be played by Sampras and Ivanisevic was "not tennis." Of course, nobody liked the Sampras-Ivanisevic matches, but Nadal's comments make me wonder how enthusiastic he would have been about the prospect of SVing on every serve, for example. Whereas we have seen Federer to do that, and do it well (perhaps not coming in behind every 1st and 2nd serve, but certainly following in every 1st serve and many 2nd serves).

Federer is pretty much a baseliner nowadays but historically he has spent far more time at the net than Nadal.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Mustard

It was after the first set. Nadal broke in the first game of the second set and was still a break up at 5-4, but ended up losing the set in a tiebreak. Nadal did win the third set.

Nadal could have lost in straight. And the 4th set was a beat down anyway, so it wasn't close.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by zagor

Nadal's 2010 USO's serve has become a bit of a myth on this forums, one of his best serving performances no doubt but for example he served better in 2011 Wimbledon final than 2010 USO final.

Just had a look at the stats on this.

Here's Nadal's average 1st serve speed in all his GS finals against Djokovic:

2010 USO - 116 mph -- made 67% of 1st serves
2011 W -118 mph -- made 78%
2011 USO - 107 mph -- made 68%
2012 AO - 114 mph -- made 67%
2012 RG - 115 mph -- made 62%

So he was serving fastest in the 2011 Wimbledon final, and somehow also making nearly 80% of his first serves. Looks like his top serving performance against Novak.

Stephen Tignor mentioned Nadal's serving in that Wimby final:

Nadal came out determined to change the dynamic of their rallies by going down the line with his forehand, to Djokovic’s forehand, rather than letting the Serb beat him with his best shot, his backhand. It didn’t work. After five games Djokovic was moving instinctively in that direction and answering with his own down the line forehand winners. Even more decisive, though, was Djokovic’s return of serve. Nadal served brilliantly through much of the first set. In his last two service games, he made nine of 10 first serves at one stage, most in the 125-m.p.h. range, but where did they get him? Down set point at 4-5, 30-40 is where. On that point, Nadal tried another down the line forehand, but, having been burned by Djokovic too many times, he went for too much and hit it wide. The tone was set.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by krosero

Nadal may have adapted well to the old grass at Wimbledon, but he said last year, I think, that SV tennis the way it used to be played by Sampras and Ivanisevic was "not tennis." Of course, nobody liked the Sampras-Ivanisevic matches, but Nadal's comments make me wonder how enthusiastic he would have been about the prospect of SVing on every serve, for example. Whereas we have seen Federer to do that, and do it well (perhaps not coming in behind every 1st and 2nd serve, but certainly following in every 1st serve and many 2nd serves).

Federer is pretty much a baseliner nowadays but historically he has spent far more time at the net than Nadal.

I thought only the 1994 final was a bad match out of the Sampras vs. Ivanisevic Wimbledon matches. That final was a total dud and a big disappointment after the way Goran had beaten Boris in the semi finals. The others were entertaining grass-court spectacles, I thought. Goran was at the peak of his form in their 1992 semi final, firing around 36 aces and not even facing a break point in the entire match. Goran blew big chances to win their 1995 semi final and 1998 final as well. Sampras just had the cooler head under pressure.

Nadal is pretty good at adapting his game if he really wants to win something, at least when given time to change the necessary things in his game.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

I thought only the 1994 final was a bad match out of the Sampras vs. Ivanisevic Wimbledon matches. That final was a total dud and a big disappointment after the way Goran had beaten Boris in the semi finals. The others were entertaining grass-court spectacles, I thought. Goran was at the peak of his form in their 1992 semi final, firing around 36 aces and not even facing a break point in the entire match. Goran blew big chances to win their 1995 semi final and 1998 final as well. Sampras just had the cooler head under pressure.

Nadal is pretty good at adapting his game if he really wants to win something, at least when given time to change the necessary things in his game.

Nadal has said that Wimbledon was the tournament he always wanted to win more than any other. Many tennis players grow up feeling that way about Wimbledon, but maybe it's a surprise coming from someone who's practically identified with RG.

So if you picture him on the old grass in the '90s, he'd be highly motivated. Unlike many others he'd show up, and play to win.

But I was struck by how negative his comments were in that interview. Anyone have the transcript? I just remember thinking that he went well beyond stating that some Sampras/Goran matches were boring (which is a common opinion); it seemed he was going farther and showing little if any appreciation for SV tennis in general. Could be wrong, I don't have the transcript.

[Mustard]

According to Crisstti, a Chilean poster, Nadal said:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=441753

This is a matter of personal taste. For me, personally, to watch a Sampras - Ivanisevic or that kind of players, well... I from home appreciated what they were doing, but didn't enjoy it, because, at the end, you see no play.

Of course, some people seemed to think that Nadal was saying that it "wasn't tennis".

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Mustard

According to Crisstti, a Chilean poster, Nadal said:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=441753


Of course, some people seemed to think that Nadal was saying that it "wasn't tennis".

I thought he said it wasn't tennis, so I got that wrong. Thanks for the link, I read the Spanish original, and he's definitely not saying that it wasn't tennis.

[jeffreyneave]

PC1,
Your assertion that to be ranked number one in the world you have to win the world tour is just wrong. In 1961 Rosewall was ranked number one in the world by many sources including L'equipe, Phillipe Chatrier , sutter, Christian boussus, peter rowley, Geist, tony trabert , john Newcombe, rod laver and Joe McCauley plus the New york times and World tennis magazine. Gonzales argued in a 1963 interviw that he was number one in 1961 but he based his argument on the fact that he won 5 out of 8 touranments and rosewall won 2 out of 6 (in fact Rosewall won 4 out of 9 events). Gonzales knew what counted in 1961 was the tournament circuit which brought all best players together not the world tour which failed to do that. Remember Gonzales played the tournament circuit and pro majors every year between 1954 and 1961 except in 1960 when he got into an argument with kramer and refused to play. The tournament circuit and pro majors were just as important as the world tour because they gave every pro not just the restricted number of the world tour to be number one.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

PC1,
Your assertion that to be ranked number one in the world you have to win the world tour is just wrong. In 1961 Rosewall was ranked number one in the world by many sources including L'equipe, Phillipe Chatrier , sutter, Christian boussus, peter rowley, Geist, tony trabert , john Newcombe, rod laver and Joe McCauley plus the New york times and World tennis magazine. Gonzales argued in a 1963 interviw that he was number one in 1961 but he based his argument on the fact that he won 5 out of 8 touranments and rosewall won 2 out of 6 (in fact Rosewall won 4 out of 9 events). Gonzales knew what counted in 1961 was the tournament circuit which brought all best players together not the world tour which failed to do that. Remember Gonzales played the tournament circuit and pro majors every year between 1954 and 1961 except in 1960 when he got into an argument with kramer and refused to play. The tournament circuit and pro majors were just as important as the world tour because they gave every pro not just the restricted number of the world tour to be number one.

jeffrey, Regarding 1961 you might be right, but I think that pc1 is right regarding the world tours generally. Maybe, 1959 might be another exception as there was a long tournament series unlike to other years.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by jeffreyneave

PC1,
Your assertion that to be ranked number one in the world you have to win the world tour is just wrong. In 1961 Rosewall was ranked number one in the world by many sources including L'equipe, Phillipe Chatrier , sutter, Christian boussus, peter rowley, Geist, tony trabert , john Newcombe, rod laver and Joe McCauley plus the New york times and World tennis magazine. Gonzales argued in a 1963 interviw that he was number one in 1961 but he based his argument on the fact that he won 5 out of 8 touranments and rosewall won 2 out of 6 (in fact Rosewall won 4 out of 9 events). Gonzales knew what counted in 1961 was the tournament circuit which brought all best players together not the world tour which failed to do that. Remember Gonzales played the tournament circuit and pro majors every year between 1954 and 1961 except in 1960 when he got into an argument with kramer and refused to play. The tournament circuit and pro majors were just as important as the world tour because they gave every pro not just the restricted number of the world tour to be number one.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

jeffrey, Regarding 1961 you might be right, but I think that pc1 is right regarding the world tours generally. Maybe, 1959 might be another exception as there was a long tournament series unlike to other years.

The 1959 world pro tour was a 4-man tour, with Gonzales and Hoad alongside 2 new pros in Cooper and Anderson. The new boys promptly got thrashed, not winning a single match against Gonzales, but they won enough matches against Hoad to give Gonzales the victory. That was the format. Gonzales won this tour, and thrashed Hoad in the US Pro final, although Hoad got revenge at the Tournament of Champions.

In 1960, Gonzales barely played a tournament due to the end of that long contract with Kramer, but he dominated the 4-man tour involving Rosewall, Segura, and the newly turned pro, Olmedo.

1961 had a lot of players involved on the tour (although Rosewall was absent), and Gonzales won that with ease. Gonzales won his 8th US Pro title.

Rosewall admittedly did better overall in the tournament scene in 1960 and 1961, but the tours were the most important then. In 1960, he did a number on Rosewall on the 4-man tour, and in 1961 beat a lot of pros except Rosewall on the tour and backed it up with an 8th US Pro triumph.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

The 1959 world pro tour was a 4-man tour, with Gonzales and Hoad alongside 2 new pros in Cooper and Anderson. The new boys promptly got thrashed, not winning a single match against Gonzales, but they won enough matches against Hoad to give Gonzales the victory. That was the format. Gonzales won this tour, and thrashed Hoad in the US Pro final, although Hoad got revenge at the Tournament of Champions.

In 1960, Gonzales barely played a tournament due to the end of that long contract with Kramer, but he dominated the 4-man tour involving Rosewall, Segura, and the newly turned pro, Olmedo.

1961 had a lot of players involved on the tour (although Rosewall was absent), and Gonzales won that with ease. Gonzales won his 8th US Pro title.

Rosewall admittedly did better overall in the tournament scene in 1960 and 1961, but the tours were the most important then. In 1960, he did a number on Rosewall on the 4-man tour, and in 1961 beat a lot of pros except Rosewall on the tour and backed it up with an 8th US Pro triumph.

Actually, there was a second world pro championship in 1958 and 1959 with a bonus money pool, both of which were won by Hoad. The Forest Hills event was a part of these tours, which consisted of major tournaments around the world, although the US Pro and Wembley, run by independent management, were not included in the circuit. Hoad defeated Gonzales in both Forest Hills events, and his combined record against Gonzales for the two tours was 6 wins and 6 losses, against Rosewall 7 wins and 5 losses. The 1958 tour consisted of five tournaments, the 1959 tour consisted of 14 tournaments.