Lew Hoad-A discussion on his career

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Dan Lobb

Regarding Connors, Borg, and Vilas, Hoad could have said "I would have MANhandled them." and been more accurate.

Hoad was capable of manhandling anyone on his best days. That includes even Pancho Gonzalez (I had a problem finding the Times report on the '59 Forest Hills final, but you mentioned it was Danzig, so I found it under his name; I'll post from it in another post).

I think Connors, out of the 3 mentioned, might have the best chance of beating Hoad -- particularly on hard courts which were his best surface. I say Connors because he loved pace. Of course if Hoad can blast the ball enough times past Connors, he'll win; but the match would be pure fireworks imo.

Connors' return and passing game were roughly comparable to Rosewall's -- and though Rosewall was surprisingly good at handling pace, I'd still give the nod to Connors for ability to reach, and blast back, unreachable serves.

Connors' service game, too, was roughly comparable to Rosewall's.

Needless to say Rosewall had the winning H2H over Hoad -- but could be decisively beaten by Hoad on Lew's best days, as could practically anyone in tennis history.

In other words I don't think a Hoad/Connors rivalry would have looked dramatically different from the Hoad/Rosewall rivalry.

And for a sheer slugfest you probably couldn't do better than Hoad/Connors.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

Hoad was capable of manhandling anyone on his best days. That includes even Pancho Gonzalez (I had a problem finding the Times report on the '59 Forest Hills final, but you mentioned it was Danzig, so I found it under his name; I'll post from it in another post).

I think Connors, out of the 3 mentioned, might have the best chance of beating Hoad -- particularly on hard courts which were his best surface. I say Connors because he loved pace. Of course if Hoad can blast the ball enough times past Connors, he'll win; but the match would be pure fireworks imo.

Connors' return and passing game were roughly comparable to Rosewall's -- and though Rosewall was surprisingly good at handling pace, I'd still give the nod to Connors for ability to reach, and blast back, unreachable serves.

Connors' service game, too, was roughly comparable to Rosewall's.

Needless to say Rosewall had the winning H2H over Hoad -- but could be decisively beaten by Hoad on Lew's best days, as could practically anyone in tennis history.

In other words I don't think a Hoad/Connors rivalry would have looked dramatically different from the Hoad/Rosewall rivalry.

And for a sheer slugfest you probably couldn't do better than Hoad/Connors.

Connors was a bit inconsistent on his forehand return. Generally spoken I would put Rosewall's return on the same level with Connors' one.

[krosero]

Here's Allison Danzig's report in the NY Times.

With an opening assault of electrifying violence, the blond 24-year-old Australian swept through the last three games of the first set at love and went on to defeat Gonzales in the final of the Tournament of Champions, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1.

A gathering of 5,000 looked on spellbound at the ferocity of the attack that overwhelmed Gonzales in the sixteen-minute opening set. Returning service with blazing winners, and ripping into the ball with his scorching volley behind his high-powered service, Hoad had the champion at his mercy.

The Australian never played quite as well thereafter and yielded the second set as Gonzales improved vastly in his serving and return of service. But Hoad’s superiority was re-established beyond question in the last two sets against his tiring 31-year-old opponent.

The ability of the powerful youth from Down Under to deal drastically with the rangy Californian’s service, the chief instrument of Gonzales’ supremacy for the past five years, left the champion with a sense of futility of his fight. His ground strokes weakened and he could neither return service nor repulse Hoad on his attempted passing shots.

The outcome was seen to be inevitable as Gonzales lost the first foru games of the third set, in which the players donned spiked. In the final set he won the opening game and then yielded the next six, double-faulting three successive times after leading 40-love in the last game.

Victor over Gonzales in fifteen of their twenty-eight matches on tour, Hoad ended the champion’s supremacy at Forest Hills, where the Californian had won the tournaments of 1957 and 1958, both round-robin affairs.

No title was at stake in the Tournament of Champions, and, since Gonzales had won the tournaments at Los Angeles and Toronto this month, neither he nor Hoad now has any clear-cut claim to pre-eminence.

Promoter Jack Kramer said yesterday that he planned in 1960 to arrange with the Professional Lawn Tennis Association to conduct the tournament at Forest Hills as an officially recognized national championship.
Hoad received $3,000 in prize money with his victory yesterday and Gonzales $2,000 as runner-up.

What stands out for me is that Hoad never again reached the level of play that he attained in the first set. At some point Hoad had to come down to earth, and that's perfectly normal.

Danzig writes that Gonzalez improved after the first set. I think he might have been able to take advantage of a normal downturn in Hoad's play, if he had been in physical condition to do so. But even if he'd been in perfect condition it would not necessarily have made a difference in the result, obviously, since this was one of Hoad's best days.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

Connors was a bit inconsistent on his forehand return. Generally spoken I would put Rosewall's return on the same level with Connors' one.

I think Connors' forehand was more inconsistent in rallies, particularly soft rallies, than it was on the return, though I agree his BH return was better and more consistent.

Yes in general terms Connors and Rosewall's returns must be on the same level.

What I think about, though, are all the powerful serves that I saw Connors blast back with interest even in his 30s. I remember him facing monster serves from Bobo Zivojinovic, serves that looked like no one could get them back -- and he'd not only reach them but send them back for winners.

To repeat, Rosewall's ability to deal with power is too often underestimated, and I don't want to do that; but I can't imagine anyone better at dealing with powerful serves than Connors.

This is where I would want some footage of Rosewall/Hoad matches, to be able to compare more specifically. We know Rosewall could handle Hoad's serve phenomenally well; but you'd still love to have the footage showing exactly how he did it.

[BobbyOne]

Originally Posted by krosero

Here's Allison Danzig's report in the NY Times.

With an opening assault of electrifying violence, the blond 24-year-old Australian swept through the last three games of the first set at love and went on to defeat Gonzales in the final of the Tournament of Champions, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1.

A gathering of 5,000 looked on spellbound at the ferocity of the attack that overwhelmed Gonzales in the sixteen-minute opening set. Returning service with blazing winners, and ripping into the ball with his scorching volley behind his high-powered service, Hoad had the champion at his mercy.

The Australian never played quite as well thereafter and yielded the second set as Gonzales improved vastly in his serving and return of service. But Hoad’s superiority was re-established beyond question in the last two sets against his tiring 31-year-old opponent.

The ability of the powerful youth from Down Under to deal drastically with the rangy Californian’s service, the chief instrument of Gonzales’ supremacy for the past five years, left the champion with a sense of futility of his fight. His ground strokes weakened and he could neither return service nor repulse Hoad on his attempted passing shots.

The outcome was seen to be inevitable as Gonzales lost the first foru games of the third set, in which the players donned spiked. In the final set he won the opening game and then yielded the next six, double-faulting three successive times after leading 40-love in the last game.

Victor over Gonzales in fifteen of their twenty-eight matches on tour, Hoad ended the champion’s supremacy at Forest Hills, where the Californian had won the tournaments of 1957 and 1958, both round-robin affairs.

No title was at stake in the Tournament of Champions, and, since Gonzales had won the tournaments at Los Angeles and Toronto this month, neither he nor Hoad now has any clear-cut claim to pre-eminence.

Promoter Jack Kramer said yesterday that he planned in 1960 to arrange with the Professional Lawn Tennis Association to conduct the tournament at Forest Hills as an officially recognized national championship.
Hoad received $3,000 in prize money with his victory yesterday and Gonzales $2,000 as runner-up.

What stands out for me is that Hoad never again reached the level of play that he attained in the first set. At some point Hoad had to come down to earth, and that's perfectly normal.

Danzig writes that Gonzalez improved after the first set. I think he might have been able to take advantage of a normal downturn in Hoad's play, if he had been in physical condition to do so. But even if he'd been in perfect condition it would not necessarily have made a difference in the result, obviously, since this was one of Hoad's best days.

krosero, thanks for giving the report.

I wonder that Gonzales tired in that rather short match considering that he won tough five-setters in 1964 (beating Rosewall after 73 games), 1970 (defeating Laver) and as late as 1972 (beating Goven).

[treblings]

i find it remarkable that Gonzales would double-fault three consecutive times from 40-0. goes so much against the image he holds as being nearly impossible to break.

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by krosero

I think Connors' forehand was more inconsistent in rallies, particularly soft rallies, than it was on the return, though I agree his BH return was better and more consistent.

Yes in general terms Connors and Rosewall's returns must be on the same level.

What I think about, though, are all the powerful serves that I saw Connors blast back with interest even in his 30s. I remember him facing monster serves from Bobo Zivojinovic, serves that looked like no one could get them back -- and he'd not only reach them but send them back for winners.

To repeat, Rosewall's ability to deal with power is too often underestimated, and I don't want to do that; but I can't imagine anyone better at dealing with powerful serves than Connors.

This is where I would want some footage of Rosewall/Hoad matches, to be able to compare more specifically. We know Rosewall could handle Hoad's serve phenomenally well; but you'd still love to have the footage showing exactly how he did it.

I can tell you how he did it. He stood in close and blocked the ball back using his opponent's power against him with immaculate timing and technique. That's one reason Rosewall wasn't as effective against Connors' serve as he was against others like Ashe, Newcombe and Smith. Connors' didn't have that much power for Rosewall to work with, and it had a big lefty curve on it.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by kiki

You are a genious of philosophy
When did your passion for Hoad begin?

"Passion" is perhaps the wrong word.
I became convinced that Hoad was number one when I investigated the records of the greats and compared peak performances, sometime in the 1970's.
You don't have to be a genius to look at the numbers.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Hoad was capable of manhandling anyone on his best days. That includes even Pancho Gonzalez (I had a problem finding the Times report on the '59 Forest Hills final, but you mentioned it was Danzig, so I found it under his name; I'll post from it in another post).

I think Connors, out of the 3 mentioned, might have the best chance of beating Hoad -- particularly on hard courts which were his best surface. I say Connors because he loved pace. Of course if Hoad can blast the ball enough times past Connors, he'll win; but the match would be pure fireworks imo.

Connors' return and passing game were roughly comparable to Rosewall's -- and though Rosewall was surprisingly good at handling pace, I'd still give the nod to Connors for ability to reach, and blast back, unreachable serves.

Connors' service game, too, was roughly comparable to Rosewall's.

Needless to say Rosewall had the winning H2H over Hoad -- but could be decisively beaten by Hoad on Lew's best days, as could practically anyone in tennis history.

In other words I don't think a Hoad/Connors rivalry would have looked dramatically different from the Hoad/Rosewall rivalry.

And for a sheer slugfest you probably couldn't do better than Hoad/Connors.

Interesting comparison between Rosewall and Connors, two players who relied on return of serve and groundstrokes, and accuracy of serve.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

Here's Allison Danzig's report in the NY Times.

With an opening assault of electrifying violence, the blond 24-year-old Australian swept through the last three games of the first set at love and went on to defeat Gonzales in the final of the Tournament of Champions, 6-1, 5-7, 6-2, 6-1.

A gathering of 5,000 looked on spellbound at the ferocity of the attack that overwhelmed Gonzales in the sixteen-minute opening set. Returning service with blazing winners, and ripping into the ball with his scorching volley behind his high-powered service, Hoad had the champion at his mercy.

The Australian never played quite as well thereafter and yielded the second set as Gonzales improved vastly in his serving and return of service. But Hoad’s superiority was re-established beyond question in the last two sets against his tiring 31-year-old opponent.

The ability of the powerful youth from Down Under to deal drastically with the rangy Californian’s service, the chief instrument of Gonzales’ supremacy for the past five years, left the champion with a sense of futility of his fight. His ground strokes weakened and he could neither return service nor repulse Hoad on his attempted passing shots.

The outcome was seen to be inevitable as Gonzales lost the first foru games of the third set, in which the players donned spiked. In the final set he won the opening game and then yielded the next six, double-faulting three successive times after leading 40-love in the last game.

Victor over Gonzales in fifteen of their twenty-eight matches on tour, Hoad ended the champion’s supremacy at Forest Hills, where the Californian had won the tournaments of 1957 and 1958, both round-robin affairs.

No title was at stake in the Tournament of Champions, and, since Gonzales had won the tournaments at Los Angeles and Toronto this month, neither he nor Hoad now has any clear-cut claim to pre-eminence.

Promoter Jack Kramer said yesterday that he planned in 1960 to arrange with the Professional Lawn Tennis Association to conduct the tournament at Forest Hills as an officially recognized national championship.
Hoad received $3,000 in prize money with his victory yesterday and Gonzales $2,000 as runner-up.

What stands out for me is that Hoad never again reached the level of play that he attained in the first set. At some point Hoad had to come down to earth, and that's perfectly normal.

Danzig writes that Gonzalez improved after the first set. I think he might have been able to take advantage of a normal downturn in Hoad's play, if he had been in physical condition to do so. But even if he'd been in perfect condition it would not necessarily have made a difference in the result, obviously, since this was one of Hoad's best days.

I read this article excerpted in the early 1970's, and not since, but I can recall every word.
Thanks for finding it.

[Dan Lobb]

Originally Posted by krosero

I think Connors' forehand was more inconsistent in rallies, particularly soft rallies, than it was on the return, though I agree his BH return was better and more consistent.

Yes in general terms Connors and Rosewall's returns must be on the same level.

What I think about, though, are all the powerful serves that I saw Connors blast back with interest even in his 30s. I remember him facing monster serves from Bobo Zivojinovic, serves that looked like no one could get them back -- and he'd not only reach them but send them back for winners.

To repeat, Rosewall's ability to deal with power is too often underestimated, and I don't want to do that; but I can't imagine anyone better at dealing with powerful serves than Connors.

This is where I would want some footage of Rosewall/Hoad matches, to be able to compare more specifically. We know Rosewall could handle Hoad's serve phenomenally well; but you'd still love to have the footage showing exactly how he did it.

There is a 20-minute section of the 1956 Wimbledon final, which shows the contrasting styles, of Hoad and Rosewall. Available on the internet.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

I think Connors' forehand was more inconsistent in rallies, particularly soft rallies, than it was on the return, though I agree his BH return was better and more consistent.

Yes in general terms Connors and Rosewall's returns must be on the same level.

What I think about, though, are all the powerful serves that I saw Connors blast back with interest even in his 30s. I remember him facing monster serves from Bobo Zivojinovic, serves that looked like no one could get them back -- and he'd not only reach them but send them back for winners.

To repeat, Rosewall's ability to deal with power is too often underestimated, and I don't want to do that; but I can't imagine anyone better at dealing with powerful serves than Connors.

This is where I would want some footage of Rosewall/Hoad matches, to be able to compare more specifically. We know Rosewall could handle Hoad's serve phenomenally well; but you'd still love to have the footage showing exactly how he did it.

Here's some footage of Rosewall returning Hoad's serve.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5V7qMREdKk

[kiki]

Talking about the huge aussie troop of champions im the 50 and 60 there has never been a mention about Mervyn Rose, who won Roland Garros and had great results at other cc events of that time
He was also part of a very good team along Rex Hartwig and a Hoad and Rosewall contemporary.Does anybody recall Mervyn Rose?

[Virginia]

Definitely. He was very good looking too, tall, dark and handsome!

[krosero]

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

krosero, thanks for giving the report.

I wonder that Gonzales tired in that rather short match considering that he won tough five-setters in 1964 (beating Rosewall after 73 games), 1970 (defeating Laver) and as late as 1972 (beating Goven).

Endurance was normally not his weakness, so it must have been the attack of "heat prostration" (something short of heat stroke, as I understand) in the Trabert semifinal. Danzig does not mention that, however, despite giving a detailed report on their semi.

Originally Posted by treblings

i find it remarkable that Gonzales would double-fault three consecutive times from 40-0. goes so much against the image he holds as being nearly impossible to break.

Against Pasarell in '69, in the last game of the 24-22 first set, he lost his serve from 40-love up. That was with only 1 double-fault, though.

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

I can tell you how he did it. He stood in close and blocked the ball back using his opponent's power against him with immaculate timing and technique. That's one reason Rosewall wasn't as effective against Connors' serve as he was against others like Ashe, Newcombe and Smith. Connors' didn't have that much power for Rosewall to work with, and it had a big lefty curve on it.

True, and another reason was that Connors did not come in very much behind his serve. If he had tried coming in all the time behind that off-pace serve of his, he would have been more vulnerable to getting passed on the return.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Virginia

Definitely. He was very good looking too, tall, dark and handsome!

It is incredible how dense was Hopman's troop
A country with much less of 10% US population literally vomiting seas of champions during 25 consecutive years!!!
Nobody talks about secondary yet true champions such as Rose,Quist,Mc Gregor or Stolle to name a very few
There has never been anything like that, either you like it or not, in the whole history of sports.There should be an only down under HOF

[8F93W5]

I bet most of you don't know, Hoad tried cocaine during his playing days. He mentions it on page 186 of his autobiography My Game published in 1958

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by 8F93W5

I bet most of you don't know, Hoad tried cocaine during his playing days. He mentions it on page 186 of his autobiography My Game published in 1958

I'll bet Gonzales never knew about it.

[urban]

I once read that Mervyn Rose could do the best spring and jump ups during Hopman's training regimen. He was a tricky lefthander, who could do well on all surfaces. In the book Tennis-the Australian Way, he wrote the chapter on surfaces.

Some other thing regarding Danzig. Its quite weird, that Danzig, who saw the pros so much in their heydays, rated them so low. Laver is 8 th, Gonzalez 10 th (equal with Emerson), Hoad Rosewall are not rated alltogether.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by urban

I once read that Mervyn Rose could do the best spring and jump ups during Hopman's training regimen. He was a tricky lefthander, who could do well on all surfaces. In the book Tennis-the Australian Way, he wrote the chapter on surfaces.

Some other thing regarding Danzig. Its quite weird, that Danzig, who saw the pros so much in their heydays, rated them so low. Laver is 8 th, Gonzalez 10 th (equal with Emerson), Hoad Rosewall are not rated alltogether.

I think Danzig preferred top baseliners to top serve and volleryer. Tilden was his top choice followed by Cochet, Budge and Lacoste. The first serve and volleyer was Kramer who also had very good groundstrokes.