Laver vs. Roche Wimbledon final 1968

[Limpinhitter]

FYI, I updated the link in the OP. For some reason the old link stopped working.

[kiki]

It was expected to be the match between the King and the Prince but Laver had Roche's number and it was a one sided landslide

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

The amazing part is that the match was over in 60 minutes. Talk about first strike tennis. These two were all time greats at that.

And note the physical differences.

Did Laver have problems with Roche's greater height (5' 11" versus 5' 9") and more muscular physique?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

And note the physical differences.

Did Laver have problems with Roche's greater height and more muscular physique?

Roche was only an inch or two taller. But, he was 30 lbs heavier. Nevertheless, Laver was an amazing physical specimin. All muscle, esepcially his left arm.

[kiki]

As much as I admire Tony Roche game and specially his volleying ability the truth remains that Laver beat him in their 3 main encounters as Ken Rosewall did too
Newcombe, while not an overall better player, was much more of a threat for the Laver-Rosewall hegemony and in fact he was the only player able to break ut

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

As much as I admire Tony Roche game and specially his volleying ability the truth remains that Laver beat him in their 3 main encounters as Ken Rosewall did too
Newcombe, while not an overall better player, was much more of a threat for the Laver-Rosewall hegemony and in fact he was the only player able to break ut

I think that if Roche was not injured he would have eventually taken over from Laver as number one in the world. Look at someone Roche later coached, Ivan Lendl who lost his first four major finals to Borg, McEnroe, Wilander and Connors. Lendl eventually took over and won many majors. To move further ahead perhaps that may happen to the player Lendl is coaching now, Andy Murray who won his first major over Djokovic. He also won the Olympics over his nemesis Roger Federer in a great display of tennis. I guess in a way Roche is almost the grandcoach of Andy Murray.

Newcombe wasn't overall a better player than Roche and I think Roche's best was better but Newcombe on any surface would be a danger to any player that ever lived. He did have a big match aura around him that very few players have had.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by kiki

As much as I admire Tony Roche game and specially his volleying ability the truth remains that Laver beat him in their 3 main encounters as Ken Rosewall did too
Newcombe, while not an overall better player, was much more of a threat for the Laver-Rosewall hegemony and in fact he was the only player able to break ut

kiki, even as a Rosewall admirer (but also a Roche admirer!) I must contradict.

Rosewall did not win the three main encounters against Roche. Roche beat Muscles at Wimbledon in 1968 and 1975.

Roche keeps a 9:7 balance against Rosewall while Newcombe trails 10:14 against Rosewall.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think that if Roche was not injured he would have eventually taken over from Laver as number one in the world. Look at someone Roche later coached, Ivan Lendl who lost his first four major finals to Borg, McEnroe, Wilander and Connors. Lendl eventually took over and won many majors. To move further ahead perhaps that may happen to the player Lendl is coaching now, Andy Murray who won his first major over Djokovic. He also won the Olympics over his nemesis Roger Federer in a great display of tennis. I guess in a way Roche is almost the grandcoach of Andy Murray.

Newcombe wasn't overall a better player than Roche and I think Roche's best was better but Newcombe on any surface would be a danger to any player that ever lived. He did have a big match aura around him that very few players have had.

I said that Newcombe was not overall a better player but he definitely had something else that Roche never had
I always compare them to the other and former twins of aussie tennis Hoad and Rosewall qho nevertheless were completely different players while Newk and Roche looked far more similar
Hoad and Roche were the brilliant and flashy players enduring many injuries while Rosewall and Newk were supersteady guys with no injuries and, at the end both had more succesful careers than their doubles mates

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

kiki, even as a Rosewall admirer (but also a Roche admirer!) I must contradict.

Rosewall did not win the three main encounters against Roche. Roche beat Muscles at Wimbledon in 1968 and 1975.

Roche keeps a 9:7 balance against Rosewall while Newcombe trails 10:14 against Rosewall.

You're correct and I was thinking only about 68 FO as well as 70 Wimbledon and USO
I just consider majors so Rosewall leads Roche 3-2 while Laver leads 3-0

[hoodjem]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think that if Roche was not injured he would have eventually taken over from Laver as number one in the world. Look at someone Roche later coached, Ivan Lendl who lost his first four major finals to Borg, McEnroe, Wilander and Connors. Lendl eventually took over and won many majors. To move further ahead perhaps that may happen to the player Lendl is coaching now, Andy Murray who won his first major over Djokovic. He also won the Olympics over his nemesis Roger Federer in a great display of tennis. I guess in a way Roche is almost the grandcoach of Andy Murray.

Newcombe wasn't overall a better player than Roche and I think Roche's best was better but Newcombe on any surface would be a danger to any player that ever lived. He did have a big match aura around him that very few players have had.

Roche coached Federer, also. You knew that.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think that if Roche was not injured he would have eventually taken over from Laver as number one in the world. Look at someone Roche later coached, Ivan Lendl who lost his first four major finals to Borg, McEnroe, Wilander and Connors. Lendl eventually took over and won many majors. To move further ahead perhaps that may happen to the player Lendl is coaching now, Andy Murray who won his first major over Djokovic. He also won the Olympics over his nemesis Roger Federer in a great display of tennis. I guess in a way Roche is almost the grandcoach of Andy Murray.

Newcombe wasn't overall a better player than Roche and I think Roche's best was better but Newcombe on any surface would be a danger to any player that ever lived. He did have a big match aura around him that very few players have had.

I think Roche was a better shotmaker than Newcombe all the way around. But, Newcombe was very mentally tough. Roche had a tendency to get down on himself.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

I guess in a way Roche is almost the grandcoach of Andy Murray.

Nice way of putting it, interesting links between the three.

[kiki]

Interesting to compare the truly last aussie twins
Roche had a bit better volley,overhead and backhand while Newcombe had a slughty better lob,forehand and serve.Their matches had unsurpassed density and were as tough as Connors vs Mac matches although well spirited
Newk advantage over Tony was being mentally quite stronger and free of injurues, which can make the difference (IMO even if Roche was never injuried he would never have Newcombe' s record due to the mental strengh gap between both)
Now, put them together and you easily have the most formidable doubles machine of all time.
I always had that strong feeling that both were great by separate but they were unbeatable together.like Dumas mousketeers or like Sundance and Butch

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

Nice way of putting it, interesting links between the three.

What H2H Roche vs Kodes?

[urban]

Newcombe was called a natural captain, i think his father was a cricket captain. Maybe this leader mentality took over in the doubles pairiing and in the rivalry. Some other doubles teams had a similar structure. Stan Smith was way more successful than Bob Lutz, while Lutz was probably the more complete player. Also in the pairing of Emerson and Stolle the roles were clearly divided.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by hoodjem

Roche coached Federer, also. You knew that.

I knew that but forgot about it. For some reason it didn't work out. Too bad because I think Federer may have benefited greatly from Roche, especially at the net. I guess you can't argue with success.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

Newcombe was called a natural captain, i think his father was a cricket captain. Maybe this leader mentality took over in the doubles pairiing and in the rivalry. Some other doubles teams had a similar structure. Stan Smith was way more successful than Bob Lutz, while Lutz was probably the more complete player. Also in the pairing of Emerson and Stolle the roles were clearly divided.

I think Ashe mentioned in one of his books that Newcombe had a presence about him when he played. Ashe wrote that very few had that but one of the others was Bjorn Borg.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

I think Ashe mentioned in one of his books that Newcombe had a presence about him when he played. Ashe wrote that very few had that but one of the others was Bjorn Borg.

Ashe said that no aussie had his presence.In fact he said that while he was not as brilliant asLaver and Rosewall, Newcombe was solid and specially intimidating

You know, there was just one only player who could beat Newk on a major's five setter as rexords prove.Yes, you guessed right, Jan Kodes

So much for the legion of Kodes haters here!!!!

[kiki]

Can anybody report a 5 sets defeat of Newcombe at a true major?

Other than Kodes, maybe Roche at 1969 USO but Roche was John's half orange in tennis terms

Kodes also bested him in a long RG match back in 1969

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Can anybody report a 5 sets defeat of Newcombe at a true major?

Other than Kodes, maybe Roche at 1969 USO but Roche was John's half orange in tennis terms

Kodes also bested him in a long RG match back in 1969

Can't think of one in a major final. But to be fair Laver did beat Newcombe in some really big five set matches like in the 1971 Tennis Champions Classic.

Now are you only counting finals? Tom Okker beat Newcombe in five sets at the French Open in 1969. Okker lost in the next round in four sets to that man again, Laver. Roche beat Newk at the Australian in 1969 in the quarters in five sets only to lose to...guess who--Laver in five sets.

Still you're right Newcombe was great in five set matches. He seemed to beat Smith all the time in big five set matches like at Wimbledon and the 1973 Davis Cup final. Some have said that Newk would be their choice to play for their life in a single match.