Donald Budge

[krosero]

Originally Posted by WCT

Your point about Agassi could be said for Connors as well. Nowdays a Nadal. They come in on better approach shots. Plenty of matches that I saw where Connors had a better net % than Mcenroe. He wasn't as good a volleyer. In the 1975 US Open telecast, Bill Talbert was in the booth with Summerall and Trabert. At one point Trabert remarks how Connors' approach shots lessen the difficulty of his volleys. Talbert adds, much like the great Don Budge.

There are some passages early in the Drucker book on Connors that speak of how much Gloria Connors liked Budge's game and may have patterned her son's after it. Apparently Budge liked to take the ball on the rise as well.

Yes the point holds for Connors and Nadal too, as well as Agassi. But Connors came in more than the other two.

Of course it depends on what part of Connors' career you're looking at. For example in that '84 USO semifinal against McEnroe he didn't come in that much. But the USO finals on clay, in 1975-77, were another story. In a couple of those finals he had several dozen approaches. Against Krickstein in '91 he came in 137 times. Against Wilander in '88 at Key Biscayne, 111 times.

Those are numbers you just don't see from Agassi or Nadal. Typical numbers for them are 10 to 20 approaches, and 30 is really pushing it.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by WCT

Your point about Agassi could be said for Connors as well. Nowdays a Nadal. They come in on better approach shots. Plenty of matches that I saw where Connors had a better net % than Mcenroe. He wasn't as good a volleyer. In the 1975 US Open telecast, Bill Talbert was in the booth with Summerall and Trabert. At one point Trabert remarks how Connors' approach shots lessen the difficulty of his volleys. Talbert adds, much like the great Don Budge.

There are some passages early in the Drucker book on Connors that speak of how much Gloria Connors liked Budge's game and may have patterned her son's after it. Apparently Budge liked to take the ball on the rise as well.

Originally Posted by krosero

Yes the point holds for Connors and Nadal too, as well as Agassi. But Connors came in more than the other two.

Of course it depends on what part of Connors' career you're looking at. For example in that '84 USO semifinal against McEnroe he didn't come in that much. But the USO finals on clay, in 1975-77, were another story. In a couple of those finals he had several dozen approaches. Against Krickstein in '91 he came in 137 times. Against Wilander in '88 at Key Biscayne, 111 times.

Those are numbers you just don't see from Agassi or Nadal. Typical numbers for them are 10 to 20 approaches, and 30 is really pushing it.

Connors has been compared to Budge as a pure ball striker and as a great returner by many. Jack Kramer the former great was on of them.

Pancho Segura mentioned how Connors was superior to Agassi in his transition from the baseline to the net. I believe a lot of Connors' style was influenced by Segura.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Connors has been compared to Budge as a pure ball striker and as a great returner by many. Jack Kramer the former great was on of them.

Pancho Segura mentioned how Connors was superior to Agassi in his transition from the baseline to the net. I believe a lot of Connors' style was influenced by Segura.

Connors did have great approaches, especially the backhand DTL. Though he did have trouble picking up the short ball on his forehand and getting in on it.

I read something about Budge that was similar, made me think of Connors. In Budge's first Davis Cup match against von Cramm, the one in '35, Danzig wrote that von Cramm "attacked [Budge's] erratic short forehand”. He didn't elaborate, but it's an intriguing little bit. Did Budge have trouble with low forehands? Did he fix that problem after '35?

Something else reminded me of Connors, in Marshall Jon Fisher's book. He wrote about the match that Budge won from Crawford, 13-11 in the fifth, in Davis Cup, 1936. "Throughout the match Crawford had maintained a strategy of patiently hitting slow deep slices that forced Budge to generate his own power."

And Danzig mentioned Budge's approaches in that match: "Budge’s famed backhand creased the lines and paved the way for his winning assaults from the net.”

[kiki]

Connors had a great BH approach.Hitting it flat and deep, he could overcome the shortcomings of having a 2 HBH, when approaching the net.In fact, he beat Borg at the 1976 Forest Hills final, partly because of that shot.

[Frank Silbermann]

Originally Posted by krosero

Connors did have great approaches, especially the backhand DTL. Though he did have trouble picking up the short ball on his forehand and getting in on it.

Only on low ones. The higher forehands he could take on the rise and slide down-the-line with power and side spin or drive cross-court flat.
However, the flat cross-court doesn't give you much time to get into position, so it has to be overpowering. His down-the-line forehand went to his opponent's forehand, which is risky. His backhand approach was better simply because he could go down-the-line to the opponent's backhand.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by pc1

Possibly but maybe not. Nusslein was perhaps the best clay court player in the world. Vines was still Vines and he may have been superior to Budge on fast surfaces when he was healthy, definitely when he was on his game.

The big question is whether Budge would have won the Grand Slam in 1938 with Vines, Perry, Nusslein and von Cramm competing. I would tend to think no but no one can possibly answer that.

The tragedy of Budge's Grand Slam was that he faced an unusually weak amateur field that year, and was never really tested.
Vines, Perry, and Nusslein (who never won a major touornament) were all pros, von Cramm was in jail in Germany, Riggs, Hunt, Bromwich, McNeill, were still developing, Wood, Shields, Crawford were past their prime. Only Parker and Quist were in prime condition, and neither were credible challenges to Budge in a major.
Budge's toughest challenge of the year came in the final of the Czechoslovakian Championship, where he won a very close five-set final against 16 year-old Jaroslav Drobny, still a junior.
I think that if tennis were open in 1938, Budge could have still won the grand slam, although Vines would have had a good chance to beat him at Wimbledon or Forest Hills.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Nusslein (who never won a major touornament) were all pros.

Hans Nusslein won 5 professional majors:

1. 1934 US Pro (clay)
2. 1937 French Pro (clay)
3. 1937 Wembley Pro (indoors)
4. 1938 French Pro (clay)
5. 1938 Wembley Pro (indoors)

He barely played amateur tennis at all, turning professional very early in his career.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Hans Nusslein won 5 professional majors:

1. 1934 US Pro (clay)
2. 1937 French Pro (clay)
3. 1937 Wembley Pro (indoors)
4. 1938 French Pro (clay)
5. 1938 Wembley Pro (indoors)

He barely played amateur tennis at all, turning professional very early in his career.

Nusslein was very respected as a pro. Tilden (before he played Budge) called Nusslein the best player for 365 days a year on level of play.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Hans Nusslein won 5 professional majors:

1. 1934 US Pro (clay)
2. 1937 French Pro (clay)
3. 1937 Wembley Pro (indoors)
4. 1938 French Pro (clay)
5. 1938 Wembley Pro (indoors)

He barely played amateur tennis at all, turning professional very early in his career.

These titles, like many pro titles, sound big, but who did he actually beat in them?

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Hans Nusslein won 5 professional majors:

1. 1934 US Pro (clay)
2. 1937 French Pro (clay)
3. 1937 Wembley Pro (indoors)
4. 1938 French Pro (clay)
5. 1938 Wembley Pro (indoors)

He barely played amateur tennis at all, turning professional very early in his career.

I notice that the reponse you gave isolates a very small proportion of my post, and really does not relate to the main point, that Budge faced a weak field in his Grand Slam.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

I notice that the reponse you gave isolates a very small proportion of my post, and really does not relate to the main point, that Budge faced a weak field in his Grand Slam.

Budge beat the best amateur players in the world in 1938 and dominated the tour, and then turned professional and overtook Nusslein, Perry and Vines to become the best professional player in the world, at least in terms of day to day consistency (as Vines' best game was considered unbeatable). You can't ask for more in those days.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Budge beat the best amateur players in the world in 1938 and dominated the tour, and then turned professional and overtook Nusslein, Perry and Vines to become the best professional player in the world, at least in terms of day to day consistency (as Vines' best game was considered unbeatable). You can't ask for more in those days.

I agree with what you say, but in the Slam year, the toughest opponent he faced all year was 16 year-old junior, Jaroslav Drobny.
And he didn't beat all the best amateurs; von Cramm was in jail, Riggs didn't face Budge on the Slam; Parker, McNeill?
This was not Budge's fault, and he would have had a good chance at a slam even with Vines and Perry in the field, but things broke so that the field he faced was really weak.

[BobbyOne]

Xavier G,

You ask how great Budge was. Surely a great player. To put it into perspective we should consider that Budge realized his Grand Slam when anateur von Cramm and of course pros Vines, Perry, Nüsslein and Tilden were absent. In fact he struggeled against claycourter Kukuljevic at Roland Garros.There probably Nüsslein would have been the favourite.

In his first pro year Budge when at his peak lost at least three times to 46 years old Tilden, once even in the important tournament of Southport (where Nüsslein at last beat Tilden in the final).

[BobbyOne]

Mustard,

I would add some big wins of Nüsslein to those five you have mentioned.

Nüsslein won four times in a row (1936 to 1939) the Southport clay championships which were regarded sometimes as British Pro.

He also won the World's Pro Championships 1933 in Berlin (a round robin against Tilden, K.Kozeluh and Najuch who was feared despite of his age at 40) and the World's Pro Championship 1936 in Paris where he defeated Tilden and in final Cochet. Unfortunately only little footage to the latter.

Thus we get 11 pro majors won by the underrated and almost forgotten German.

[kiki]

Would Budge have won the GS, not if Tilden,Nusslein,Vines were competing but, simply, if Jan Kodes was competing?

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Would Budge have won the GS, not if Tilden,Nusslein,Vines were competing but, simply, if Jan Kodes was competing?

Shouldn't the bolded bit say Gottfried von Cramm?

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Shouldn't the bolded bit say Gottfried von Cramm?

No. Vines and Kodes!

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Shouldn't the bolded bit say Gottfried von Cramm?

Oh¡ I forgot Kodes can´t compete with Vines, much less against Budge¡¡¡

[kiki]

Is it correct that Ellsworth Vines I had czech ancestors?

In that case, it is a tough competition between Lendl,Mandlikova and Vines for all time czech nº 2...

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by kiki

Oh¡ I forgot Kodes can´t compete with Vines, much less against Budge¡¡¡

Kodes is from a totally different era to Vines and Budge.