John Newcombe

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Great description of Newcombe. I might add that his backhand was a relative weakness but it was solid. It was able to withstand pounding from players like Jimmy Connors. He did not have a great offensive backhand although I've bet with today's racquets he could hit one easily.

I think the match I think of most when I think of Newcombe was his epic five setter with Stan Smith in the first match of the Davis Cup final in 1973. It was an extremely well played match but as usual when these two played in a big match, Newcombe got the edge with Smith serving at match point, second serve in the fifth. Newcombe who had one of the all time great forehands moved way over into the doubles alley in the ad court basically saying I'm going to pound your second serve. You have to risk a big serve down the middle or you're in trouble. Smith went for the ace on second serve down the middle, missed, double faulted and lost the match.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...26/2/index.htm

Hoad was interviewed in Sports Illustrated in 1973 about Newk, and he says that the key match of Newk's career was the 1969 Wimbledon final, where Newk had a real chance to establish superiority over Laver.
Hoad claimed that the whole match boiled down to one point, where Newk drew Laver into the net and had a chance to pass him with a cross-court backhand, but since Newk didn't have such a shot, he dinked a short chip shot which Laver just reached and chipped a remarkable winner back.
In other words, Newk just lacked the wide range of shots that Laver (and Hoad earlier) possessed.

[NLBwell]

That's the difference between being the best of his time and perhaps the greatest of all time.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Hoad was interviewed in Sports Illustrated in 1973 about Newk, and he says that the key match of Newk's career was the 1969 Wimbledon final, where Newk had a real chance to establish superiority over Laver.
Hoad claimed that the whole match boiled down to one point, where Newk drew Laver into the net and had a chance to pass him with a cross-court backhand, but since Newk didn't have such a shot, he dinked a short chip shot which Laver just reached and chipped a remarkable winner back.
In other words, Newk just lacked the wide range of shots that Laver (and Hoad earlier) possessed.

Agreed, but you have to admit that Laver and Hoad perhaps had a wider range of shots than perhaps anyone that ever played. Newcombe couldn't pass with a heavy topspin backhand but he could try to pass with a crosscourt flat backhand but it wasn't nearly as effective as Rosewall's flat backhand. It's a shame Newcombe didn't play nowadays because hitting a topspin backhand with today's polystrings and super light racquets is very easy. I think he would have every shot nowadays. Not to say that his backhand would be Murray or Djokovic level but it would be more effective due to the superior technology. I shutter to think how effective Laver's and Hoad's backhands would be today.

Newcombe did have a few shots that were imo superior to Laver. His serve was bigger and overall more powerful. I think his forehand volley was superior to Laver and perhaps (maybe not) his forehand.

One thing that I remember was that Vic Braden wrote that Newcombe (before McEnroe and Edberg) moved in closer for the first volley off the serve than anyone he had ever seen.

[urban]

Newk's serve may have been bigger than Laver's, but in all matches i have seen from Laver, he did hit clearly more aces than Newcombe (or Roche or Smith or Ashe for that matter). Maybe his first serve along the line had more bite than many think. On the forehand, imo Laver was more versatile and deceptive than Newcombe, his sharp cross court forehand, which went low over the net and had a very sharp angle, could be very dangerous. Newcombe had great difficulty to read Laver's passing shots. I think the hth is 16-5 or so.
That said, Newcombe could hit some solid low chips and dinks from the backhand side and could crowd the net with his chip and charge tactics. And on the net he was a towering figure who looked bigger than he was and could frighten his oppenents by looking, as if he was willing to jump over the net right at their faces.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

Newk's serve may have been bigger than Laver's, but in all matches i have seen from Laver, he did hit clearly more aces than Newcombe (or Roche or Smith or Ashe for that matter). Maybe his first serve along the line had more bite than many think. On the forehand, imo Laver was more versatile and deceptive than Newcombe, his sharp cross court forehand, which went low over the net and had a very sharp angle, could be very dangerous. Newcombe had great difficulty to read Laver's passing shots. I think the hth is 16-5 or so.
That said, Newcombe could hit some solid low chips and dinks from the backhand side and could crowd the net with his chip and charge tactics. And on the net he was a towering figure who looked bigger than he was and could frighten his oppenents by looking, as if he was willing to jump over the net right at their faces.

Urban,

There is no doubt in my mind that Laver was clearly a superior player to John Newcombe. Anyone who believes otherwise would be foolish. However I do believe if you mean that Laver was rarely outaced I think it is a combination of factors. One is that Laver was incredibly quick and hard to ace, much like Federer is today. I remember watching Laver in his later thirties playing Roscoe Tanner in a match and Tanner only had something like two or three aces for the match. Tanner could serve big numbers in aces against almost anyone. Second is that Laver was just an excellent server who could serve a good amount of ace.

You may be correct that Laver's forehand was as good as Newcombe's or better. I'm not really sure to be honest. Laver's heavy topspin forehand could hit angles that Newcombe's could not even though Newcombe could hit some pretty sharp angles.

[Gonzalito17]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

interesting how he says Gonzales was the most ferocious competitor he faced, even more so than the likes of Connors and Mac. I have heard this a few times about Gonzales now - what must he have been like?

Gonzales was a beast. Did you see the doc the Tennis Channel did on him? It was an older documentary. Really an intimidating tough guy. He makes Nadal and Djokovic look like kittens in comparison.

[Gonzalito17]

Agree, tennis was so poetic and graceful back then in the 70s, now it's more violent and physical.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

interesting how he says Gonzales was the most ferocious competitor he faced, even more so than the likes of Connors and Mac. I have heard this a few times about Gonzales now - what must he have been like?

Pancho Gonzales became extremely tough both mentally and physically after making a lot of sacrifices following the beating that Jack Kramer gave him on their 1950 world pro tour. Kramer won 96-27. Gonzales got a good payday for that 1950 world pro tour, but was "dead meat" as a pro tennis attraction immediately afterwards (as Bobby Riggs, the promoter, put it). Gonzales' personality changed from an easy going youngster to a hardbitten loner with few friends, and he was determined to seize his next chance and never let it go again. Gonzales made huge sacrifices to become the very best at his sport for years on end, which only made him even more moody.

Jimmy Connors regularly sites his old coach Pancho Segura, and Pancho Gonzales, as the best tennis players.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by mattennis

I get very nostalgic everytime I re-watch a tennis match from the 70s or the 80s (or even the 90s).

That clip of Newcombe-Kodes...how beautiful tennis was back then, almost like a totally different sport.

Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, Kodes, Ashe, Nastase, Okker, Roche, Emerson, Gimeno, Smith...and then Connors, Vilas and Borg (and Tanner, Gerulaitis...).

The first half of the 70s had so many great players.

Great post.I fully agree.I don´t think there´s ever been better tennis than that played by the top players of the 70´s.Extremely rich and diverse and, of course, extremely competitive too.

PC1, even on current grass??? conditions, neither Newk or Kodes´d play like a Djokovic-Murray match.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, Newcombe might be underrated by the current experts and fans, just as all players of older times are now underrated or even forgotten. But he is not underrated in comparison to Laver and Rosewall. Remember that these two giants have won much more than Newcombe. Rosewall keeps 23 majors, Laver 19 while Newk only keeps 7. A huge difference.

Laver has a hth against Newcombe of about 12:5, Rosewall leads 14:10 even though the former was a grandpa when they met.

And Newcombe is in fact overrated in comparison to his doubles partner, Roche. As long as both were healthy, Roche was the stronger player in open era.

You are totally wrong, my friend.Roche never had newcomb´´s winning ability.In fact, Newk had to fire up his lanky doubles partner many times..

Newcombe trashed Rosewall in big events...

Of course, 1969 Laver beat him handily at Wimbledon.But Laver is just...Laver.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Agreed, but you have to admit that Laver and Hoad perhaps had a wider range of shots than perhaps anyone that ever played. Newcombe couldn't pass with a heavy topspin backhand but he could try to pass with a crosscourt flat backhand but it wasn't nearly as effective as Rosewall's flat backhand. It's a shame Newcombe didn't play nowadays because hitting a topspin backhand with today's polystrings and super light racquets is very easy. I think he would have every shot nowadays. Not to say that his backhand would be Murray or Djokovic level but it would be more effective due to the superior technology. I shutter to think how effective Laver's and Hoad's backhands would be today.

Newcombe did have a few shots that were imo superior to Laver. His serve was bigger and overall more powerful. I think his forehand volley was superior to Laver and perhaps (maybe not) his forehand.

One thing that I remember was that Vic Braden wrote that Newcombe (before McEnroe and Edberg) moved in closer for the first volley off the serve than anyone he had ever seen.

seemed to volley from the other side of the court, sometimes...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Agreed, but you have to admit that Laver and Hoad perhaps had a wider range of shots than perhaps anyone that ever played. Newcombe couldn't pass with a heavy topspin backhand but he could try to pass with a crosscourt flat backhand but it wasn't nearly as effective as Rosewall's flat backhand. It's a shame Newcombe didn't play nowadays because hitting a topspin backhand with today's polystrings and super light racquets is very easy. I think he would have every shot nowadays. Not to say that his backhand would be Murray or Djokovic level but it would be more effective due to the superior technology. I shutter to think how effective Laver's and Hoad's backhands would be today.

Newcombe did have a few shots that were imo superior to Laver. His serve was bigger and overall more powerful. I think his forehand volley was superior to Laver and perhaps (maybe not) his forehand.

One thing that I remember was that Vic Braden wrote that Newcombe (before McEnroe and Edberg) moved in closer for the first volley off the serve than anyone he had ever seen.

Right.Easy to say so when you are Lew Hoad...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

mattennis, I just agree.

Laver,Nastase,Newcombe,Ashe,Rosewall,Roche,Kodes,S mith, late Santana and Gimeno,Okker,Orantes,Panatta,Mc Enroe,Vilas,Borg,Connors,Tanner, Gerulaitis and second stringers like Lutz,Pecci,Gottfried,Ramirez,Dibbs,Barazutti,Solom on,Richey,Gorman,Franulovic,Riessen,Pilic,Barthes, Jauffret,Dent,Fibak,Alexander,Taroczy,Cox,LLoyd,St ockton,Taylor,Metrevali,Amritraj,Higueras,Clerc,Gu nthardt,Scanlon,Sadri,Gildemeister,Fillol,Meiler,B ungert,Gisbert,Tiriac,Pala..that is what make 1970´s and 80´s (Lendl,Becker,Cash,Wilander,Edberg,Kriek,Noah,Gome z,Curren,Leconte,Mecir,Jarryd, youngs Agassi,Courier,Chang and Sampras, Mayotte,Gilbert,Jaite,Mancini,Hlasek,Forget,Sanche z,Sundstrom...) the GOLDEN ERA OF TENNIS

Same happened with rock, blues, folk and jazz music.But that is for another thread...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Newcombe trashed Rosewall in big events...

Yet Newcombe was twice beaten by Rosewall in majors in 1974, a time when Newcombe was desperate to face Jimmy Connors.

I think Newcombe is similar to Wilander in terms of mentality. Both were capable of being brilliant at their best and were usually well up for the big matches and the big events, but both definitely struggled to keep it up on a week-on-week, month-on-month basis without motivational issues.

[kiki]

Newcombe-Kodes, one of the best rivalries of the golden era.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

pc1, Newcombe might be underrated by the current experts and fans, just as all players of older times are now underrated or even forgotten. But he is not underrated in comparison to Laver and Rosewall. Remember that these two giants have won much more than Newcombe. Rosewall keeps 23 majors, Laver 19 while Newk only keeps 7. A huge difference.

Laver has a hth against Newcombe of about 12:5, Rosewall leads 14:10 even though the former was a grandpa when they met.

Of course Laver and Rosewall are superior to Newcombe. This thread was NEVER intend to make it seem like Newcombe was better. Even Newcombe would probably admit that. But I do think Newcombe is worthy of great respect and he is rarely mentioned today. When I read about great serves and forehands I never see Newcombe mentioned nowadays and he should be. He was an interesting character and a terrific player.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Yet Newcombe was twice beaten by Rosewall in majors in 1974, a time when Newcombe was desperate to face Jimmy Connors.

I think Newcombe is similar to Wilander in terms of mentality. Both were capable of being brilliant at their best and were usually well up for the big matches and the big events, but both definitely struggled to keep it up on a week-on-week, month-on-month basis without motivational issues.

I would agree with that. Would have been great to see Connors against Newcombe for example in the 1974 US Open final? Anyway we did see it in the 1975 Australian Open final and it was a great match.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

You are totally wrong, my friend.Roche never had newcomb´´s winning ability.In fact, Newk had to fire up his lanky doubles partner many times..

Newcombe trashed Rosewall in big events...

Of course, 1969 Laver beat him handily at Wimbledon.But Laver is just...Laver.

kiki, You don't accept history. It's a pity for such a serious and expert man you are.

Newcombe trailed Rosewall in big events (3:4).

Most signifant are the hths of Newcombe and Roche against Laver and Rosewall: Newcombe-Laver 5:12; Newcombe-Rosewall 10:14 (Rosewall 33 to 41 years old). Roche -Laver 9:11; Roche -Rosewall 9:7.

You cannot disprove me that Roche was stronger than Newcombe in 1968 and 1969 and about equal in 1970 before Roche got his arm troubles and did virtually not play for three full years...

Roche lost to Laver and Rosewall in 1968 to 1970 because they were the giants of tennis then.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

Laver,Nastase,Newcombe,Ashe,Rosewall,Roche,Kodes,S mith, late Santana and Gimeno,Okker,Orantes,Panatta,Mc Enroe,Vilas,Borg,Connors,Tanner, Gerulaitis and second stringers like Lutz,Pecci,Gottfried,Ramirez,Dibbs,Barazutti,Solom on,Richey,Gorman,Franulovic,Riessen,Pilic,Barthes, Jauffret,Dent,Fibak,Alexander,Taroczy,Cox,LLoyd,St ockton,Taylor,Metrevali,Amritraj,Higueras,Clerc,Gu nthardt,Scanlon,Sadri,Gildemeister,Fillol,Meiler,B ungert,Gisbert,Tiriac,Pala..that is what make 1970´s and 80´s (Lendl,Becker,Cash,Wilander,Edberg,Kriek,Noah,Gome z,Curren,Leconte,Mecir,Jarryd, youngs Agassi,Courier,Chang and Sampras, Mayotte,Gilbert,Jaite,Mancini,Hlasek,Forget,Sanche z,Sundstrom...) the GOLDEN ERA OF TENNIS

Same happened with rock, blues, folk and jazz music.But that is for another thread...

kiki, Are you the walking encyclopedia? I had thought Bud Collins was...

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by pc1

Of course Laver and Rosewall are superior to Newcombe. This thread was NEVER intend to make it seem like Newcombe was better. Even Newcombe would probably admit that. But I do think Newcombe is worthy of great respect and he is rarely mentioned today. When I read about great serves and forehands I never see Newcombe mentioned nowadays and he should be. He was an interesting character and a terrific player.

pc1, That's okay. I just cannot stand kiki when he claims Newcombe was better in big events than Rosewall even though Muscles leads 4:3 there.