Underrated part 1: John Newcombe

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I disagree with a few points. Newk was much more of a touch player than a power player. Most of all, he was a masterful tactician who knew how to make the most of what he had. He had a great forehand, but, hitting power forehands was not a primary tactic for Newk. This becomes abundantly clear when he played against true power players like Laver and Connors. Both Laver and Connors were more powerful off of both sides. Rather than try to match their power, he played dinks, lobs and angles. I would also say that his serve was a little bigger than Edberg's, but only slightly better, if at all. I think you underestimate Edberg's serve. I consider Edberg's serve to be one of the best S&V serves of all time. But, I also think you underestimate Newk's volleys and net game. IMO, they were nearly as great as Edberg's, and probably as great as Laver's and Rosewall's.

I agree.Edberg´s serve is one of the best ever for S&V, although I think Newk´s was a bit better.And while Edberg or Mac had a slighty more varied volleying touch, Newk´s is just as good as Laver,Hoad or Rosewall.I think Roche´s was just as good, too.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I agree! Emerson is definitely badly underrated on this forum! The problem is that most haven't seen him play, and there is very little online video to look at.

I saw Emmo and I´ll take my shot on him:

He just lacked the bright of a Laver or a Rosewall and was less appealing than Ashe or Newcombe, or even Santana.But he certainly had a very very complete and solid game.Good BH return, extremely steady volleying ( he was the first guy to succesfully volley many times between his legs), good deep first serve ( not as hard as Fraser´s, tough) and one of the greatest athletes int ennis history.He was also a great fighter, that is why he beat almost all top amateurs when it mattered (Mc Kinley,Santana,Stolle,young´s Newcombe and Roche, young Ashe...).

and he was a hell of a party soul and beer drinker¡¡¡¡ in his book, Laver destiles sympathy for Emmo, who was possibly his closest friend ever on tour.

[kiki]

BTW, Emerson was very succesful in doubles with Stolle and, also, with Fraser and Laver.He was adapting to different partners and was succesful¡¡¡.He also won the French with Santana.

[robow7]

Originally Posted by kiki

Oh¡¡ the great John LLoyd, mostly known as one of Chris Evert´s " has been" says so???

Yea, I thought it was a rather arrogant comment at the time for what he personally had achieved but then again, maybe he did have a strong head to head with Newk and could in fact justify the proclamation? Still don't know.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by robow7

Yea, I thought it was a rather arrogant comment at the time for what he personally had achieved but then again, maybe he did have a strong head to head with Newk and could in fact justify the proclamation? Still don't know.

From the ITF website it seems John Lloyd had a 3-0 record against John Newcombe. However Newcombe was just about ready to retire at that point. The matches started in 1977.

NEWCOMBE, John (AUS)

Versus John LLOYD (GBR)
Year Tournament Round Surface Winner Score
1977 Australian Open QF Grass (O) J.LLOYD 6-3 3-6 5-7 5-7
1978 World Team Cup Clay (O) J.LLOYD 6-7 2-6
1978 Queen's 16 Grass (O) J.LLOYD 4-6 4-6

[kiki]

LLoyd´s best - and single- performance came during the 1977 AO, reaching the finals and losing a hard 5 setter then.I have a few memories of LLoyd, who wasn´t a bad player and had a pretty good BH return, low and deep.Possibly, this was his greatest shot and fit in badly for Newcombe ( who was well past his prime, anyway)

[BeHappy]

One player who is massively under rated in my opinion is Emerson. Yes he wouldn't have won as many slams if he'd turned pro, but he was just as good as all the pro's, and his game was very impressive when you watch his matches.

To my eye I think he was a better player than Rosewall was (albeit he didn't have his freakish longevity so by the time open tennis came about he was starting to get slightly over the hill at 31). Big booming flat and very consistent groundstrokes and just as fast and fit as Rosewall.

People say Rosewall's backhand slice was so amazing, when you watch his matches people were approaching his backhand all day. He only got away with it because he was so incredibly fast, although he could drive it well when it was above chest height. Nevertheless everyone's game plan against him seems to have been to approach it low so he'd have to lob or dink it.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

One player who is massively under rated in my opinion is Emerson. Yes he wouldn't have won as many slams if he'd turned pro, but he was just as good as all the pro's, and his game was very impressive when you watch his matches.

To my eye I think he was a better player than Rosewall was (albeit he didn't have his freakish longevity so by the time open tennis came about he was starting to get slightly over the hill at 31). Big booming flat and very consistent groundstrokes and just as fast and fit as Rosewall.

People say Rosewall's backhand slice was so amazing, when you watch his matches people were approaching his backhand all day. He only got away with it because he was so incredibly fast, although he could drive it well when it was above chest height. Nevertheless everyone's game plan against him seems to have been to approach it low so he'd have to lob or dink it.

I have watched closely and live both guys and, believe me, from the technichal point of view, there is no colour...Rosewall was far a better player although Emerson was pretty steady and had no weakness ( but no major strength , too).

But I agree that Emerson, as I posted a few times is underrated here.It is just that 95% of TT posters know tennis from 1990´s on.Few watched 1980´s tennis and even less 1970´s or even before.

BTW, to say that Rosewall´s BH was weak proves you have no idea about his game and you probably watched it on some bad quality tapes.I watched it meters away from him...

[BeHappy]

Originally Posted by kiki

I have watched closely and live both guys and, believe me, from the technichal point of view, there is no colour...Rosewall was far a better player although Emerson was pretty steady and had no weakness ( but no major strength , too).

But I agree that Emerson, as I posted a few times is underrated here.It is just that 95% of TT posters know tennis from 1990´s on.Few watched 1980´s tennis and even less 1970´s or even before.

BTW, to say that Rosewall´s BH was weak proves you have no idea about his game and you probably watched it on some bad quality tapes.I watched it meters away from him...

Rosewall is so far before my time it's ridiculous, I have only seen his RG final against Laver, some other early 70's tournament final against laver, and the matches where he was annihalated by Connors. Still, in all those matches players were serving to his backhand and when they sliced their approaches low he seemed unable to respond with anything other than a lob or a dink because he couldn't hit it with topspin.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

Rosewall is so far before my time it's ridiculous, I have only seen his RG final against Laver, some other early 70's tournament final against laver, and the matches where he was annihalated by Connors. Still, in all those matches players were serving to his backhand and when they sliced their approaches low he seemed unable to respond with anything other than a lob or a dink because he couldn't hit it with topspin.

Ask some of the greatest servers anytime, Tanner,Smith and Newcombe about that sliced BH return that killed them in the 1974 year.Connors never was a good server so he didn´t have the same problem to face.

[BeHappy]

Originally Posted by kiki

Ask some of the greatest servers anytime, Tanner,Smith and Newcombe about that sliced BH return that killed them in the 1974 year.Connors never was a good server so he didn´t have the same problem to face.

Watching those matches, Connors serve and forehand were great, they both seemed to get worse and worse and worse until 1982 where they recovered somewhat. He was hitting great big flat serves against Rosewall in the USO and Wimbledon finals.

[robow7]

Muscles, errr I mean Rosewall had such a deceiving backhand. It looked like a slice the way he would strike the ball but he didn't float it, it really was a stinging slice and if you watch enough of his old matches you will see he surgically dissected his opponents with that thing. His margin for error was nil.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by kiki

I agree.Edberg´s serve is one of the best ever for S&V, although I think Newk´s was a bit better.And while Edberg or Mac had a slighty more varied volleying touch, Newk´s is just as good as Laver,Hoad or Rosewall.I think Roche´s was just as good, too.

IMO, Roche was the best volleyer of all time. His serve and groundies were great too. I would also say that, had Roche remained healthy, he would have been the next Laver, and Smith, Nastase and Connors may never have been #1.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by kiki

I have watched closely and live both guys and, believe me, from the technichal point of view, there is no colour...Rosewall was far a better player although Emerson was pretty steady and had no weakness ( but no major strength , too).

But I agree that Emerson, as I posted a few times is underrated here.It is just that 95% of TT posters know tennis from 1990´s on.Few watched 1980´s tennis and even less 1970´s or even before.

BTW, to say that Rosewall´s BH was weak proves you have no idea about his game and you probably watched it on some bad quality tapes.I watched it meters away from him...

I wouldn't say that. IMO, there is no one in the history of tennis who was "far greater" than Emerson. He was a great shotmaker in every respect. He was supremely confident, considered himself to be a champion and expected to win every match. He had one of the best 1hb's of all time, and was one of the greatest athletes to every play, he won 12 major singles titles and 14 major doubles titles.

BTW, my recollection is that Emmo had a huge H2H winning record over Newcombe.

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

People say Rosewall's backhand slice was so amazing, when you watch his matches people were approaching his backhand all day. He only got away with it because he was so incredibly fast, although he could drive it well when it was above chest height. Nevertheless everyone's game plan against him seems to have been to approach it low so he'd have to lob or dink it.

What made his backhand great is that you could rally all day against it and never get a short ball (unless he wanted to tease you with a sharp cross-court dink). And if you were unlucky enough to hit short to his backhand, well, even though he couldn't put it away, what he _would_ do is take it on the rise to make it even shorter and be in position at net before the ball even bounced on your side. And Rosewall had an _incredibly_ good net game. (In the days of standard-sized rackets, being able to take the ball on-the-rise was a major big deal even at tennis' highest levels.)

Back then, when players were said to have better backhands than forehands it meant that their backhand slices were steadier, more accurate, and more consistent. As most pupils tended to hit harder then they were able to control the ball, teaching pros emphasized that power was of little importance -- accuracy and control were everything.

Of course, in top level tennis _everyone's_ strategy against everyone else was to approach low to the backhand and take the net. Even if you had a topspin backhand, a third of the time it would likely result in an unforced error. (Backhand topspin may come naturally if you use a semi-western grip, but with the correct technique the shot becomes extremely difficult.) You'd just hope that you could gather a few successful passes together to break serve once each set while you held your own serve playing S&V.

[WCT]

Originally Posted by robow7

Muscles, errr I mean Rosewall had such a deceiving backhand. It looked like a slice the way he would strike the ball but he didn't float it, it really was a stinging slice and if you watch enough of his old matches you will see he surgically dissected his opponents with that thing. His margin for error was nil.

Yeah, from what I've seen, it's not just a defensive slice. Sometimes it's flatter and very penetrating. It could be just as offensive as defensive.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

IMO, Roche was the best volleyer of all time. His serve and groundies were great too. I would also say that, had Roche remained healthy, he would have been the next Laver, and Smith, Nastase and Connors may never have been #1.

When Tony was playing his best, only the best Laver or Hoad had enough inside to beat him.But Roche never achieved what his talent demanded.

I liked a lot his duels with Newc, plenty of passion, schrewdness and tactics.Almost all of them went to 5 sets.

[kiki]

Rosewall´s slice was really a semiflat shot disguissed into slice because of the hand paralel to the racket and retroimpulsion, finishing with the racket completely paralel to the floor and at the knees level.

Coming back to topic, Newcombe´s last 2 big titles were dallas 74 and Melbourne 75.Beating in 4 sets the two players that would dominate the tennis world in the next years.That proves that his game was equally efficient vs old school guys like Rosewall or Roche or Ashe as with the modern guys.I am not sure he had a good HtH with Vilas, tough.

[kiki]

BTW, is there anybody with the tape of the 1974 Newcombe/Borg final? Thanks a lot¡¡¡

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by kiki

BTW, is there anybody with the tape of the 1974 Newcombe/Borg final? Thanks a lot¡¡¡

The WCT Final in Dallas? I'd love to see that again.