A funny Rosewall stat you probably didn't know

[AnOctorokForDinner]

With all the Old 3 discussion going on, I haven't noticed anyone mention that, so perhaps it's genuinely overlooked even by the esteemed connoisseurs of the FPP matters...

Ken Rosewall boasts an excellent 21-5 tiebreak record in the majors/GS tournaments. Considering that tiebreaks were introduced in 1970, the record was achieved entirely in the 'old' phase of Rosewall's career, when he was 35 and older. This is absolutely amazing, and garners extra respect for the old man's clutchness. Him besting Laver in tiebreaks in WCT '71/'72 finals was no fluke.

(Btw, Fedmug was 11-2 in TBs in AO/Wim '16-'17 combined, but going 0-2 at the USO dragged the % down, still it's great for an old man as well.)

 

[NatF]

Very clutch from Rosewall considering he didn't have a big serve.

 

[Waspsting]

I'm getting 22-7 at the Slam events, plus 4-2 at the WCT Finals and 2-2 at the Masters

Still splendid

A touch odd, given Rosewall's reputed underwhelming serve

Was it commonly known/accepted that the forehand was the go-to spot against Ken?

Pre internet age, my guess would be no based on the famous Amritraj - Pancho Gonzales story where Pancho repeatedly stressed avoiding the backhand but Vijay went to it anyway, with disastrous effect

Why would Pancho have had to stress it so strongly if it was common knowledge?

Maybe a few others caught out in tiebreaks serving to the now accepted killer backhand, as would be standard operating procedure against most...though one would think they'd figure it out as they played

Also suspect Rosewall had a tip top forehand to boot, just less celebrated... like say, Novak Djokovic today

 

[Gary Duane]

Regardless, that TB stat is huge. It points to incredible dominance under pressure and probably to an insanely good return game.

 

[NatF]

Regardless, that TB stat is huge. It points to incredible dominance under pressure and probably to an insanely good return game.

Return game and play under pressure is where it's at I imagine, IIRC Rosewall's serve was supposedly weaker in his mid-late 30's. Guy was definitely one of the GOAT returners.

 

[Gary Duane]

Return game and play under pressure is where it's at I imagine, IIRC Rosewall's serve was supposedly weaker in his mid-late 30's. Guy was definitely one of the GOAT returners.

The Rosewall serve to me is one of the great mysteries of tennis. When I look at old matches, it looks like anyone could attack it, absolutely kill him by attacking that serve, yet apparently it was good enough to win points.

Normally points and games retain a tight relationship, meaning that a guy who wins 58% of games will usually win close to 54% of all points. I have no stats on points from that era, but Ken's game% remained quite good in the OE, as you would expect.

I think they guy was an anomaly. Sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the parts. If there were many whole matches to watch of Ken playing, I'd be lost for hours trying to figure it all out.

 

[NatF]

The Rosewall serve to me is one of the great mysteries of tennis. When I look at old matches, it looks like anyone could attack it, absolutely kill him by attacking that serve, yet apparently it was good enough to win points.

Normally points and games retain a tight relationship, meaning that a guy who wins 58% of games will usually win close to 54% of all points. I have no stats on points from that era, but Ken's game% remained quite good in the OE, as you would expect.

I think they guy was an anomaly. Sometimes the whole is more than the sum of the parts. If there were many whole matches to watch of Ken playing, I'd be lost for hours trying to figure it all out.

Maybe the lower trajectory of his serve was a pain in the backside to attack?

It was attacked very successfully by another super returner like Connors, maybe there weren't many consistently strong returners in those days.

 

[Gary Duane]

Maybe the lower trajectory of his serve was a pain in the backside to attack?

It was attacked very successfully by another super returner like Connors, maybe there weren't many consistently strong returners in those days.

You are probably thinking of the famous matches with Connors in majors, where he was really killed. But those were very late in his career and after tough matches, I believe. I don't think matches in majors at that point are a fair test, because very old players will have incredibly good days but tend to fade when they have to play day after day. It's fairer to compare Connors, at the same age, and how well he was able to play during the twilight of his career.

As you know, I don't have complete lists of matches played by those guys. @NoMercy has a ton of Borg matches I don't have, though the ones that are more or less "official" seem to match his tally, the ones I have.

Of the ones I have, Connors and Rosewall, the only one that Rosewall won was in 72, LA WTC, in September. Connors would have been 20. But even then, Ken was already almost 34 years old. In Oct. of 77 Rosewall, now almost 39, lost to Jimmy 7-5 6-4 6-2 at the Sydney Indoors, in the finals.

Jimmy would have been 25 then and should have been close to his peak. Since Rosewall was giving away 14 years, that suggests to me that a much younger Rosewall might have been a handful for Connors.

 

[treblings]

You are probably thinking of the famous matches with Connors in majors, where he was really killed. But those were very late in his career and after tough matches, I believe. I don't think matches in majors at that point are a fair test, because very old players will have incredibly good days but tend to fade when they have to play day after day. It's fairer to compare Connors, at the same age, and how well he was able to play during the twilight of his career.

As you know, I don't have complete lists of matches played by those guys. @NoMercy has a ton of Borg matches I don't have, though the ones that are more or less "official" seem to match his tally, the ones I have.

Of the ones I have, Connors and Rosewall, the only one that Rosewall won was in 72, LA WTC, in September. Connors would have been 20. But even then, Ken was already almost 34 years old. In Oct. of 77 Rosewall, now almost 39, lost to Jimmy 7-5 6-4 6-2 at the Sydney Indoors, in the finals.

Jimmy would have been 25 then and should have been close to his peak. Since Rosewall was giving away 14 years, that suggests to me that a much younger Rosewall might have been a handful for Connors.

I believe Rosewall was born in November of 1934, so he should have been almost 43 at the Sidney indoors of 1977

 

[Gary Duane]

I believe Rosewall was born in November of 1934, so he should have been almost 43 at the Sidney indoors of 1977

Damn!!! I was using Laver's age.

Senior moment...

Let me recompute. 1972, Rosewall was almost 38. 1977, Rosewall was almost 43.

So it's more like Fed, at almost age 38, beating someone like Zverev, then presenting himself very well at almost age 43.

The more I look at Rosewall's play late in his career, the more it amazes me.

18 years difference, Rosewall biologically could have had a kid Connors's age.

 

[NatF]

You are probably thinking of the famous matches with Connors in majors, where he was really killed. But those were very late in his career and after tough matches, I believe. I don't think matches in majors at that point are a fair test, because very old players will have incredibly good days but tend to fade when they have to play day after day. It's fairer to compare Connors, at the same age, and how well he was able to play during the twilight of his career.

As you know, I don't have complete lists of matches played by those guys. @NoMercy has a ton of Borg matches I don't have, though the ones that are more or less "official" seem to match his tally, the ones I have.

Of the ones I have, Connors and Rosewall, the only one that Rosewall won was in 72, LA WTC, in September. Connors would have been 20. But even then, Ken was already almost 34 years old. In Oct. of 77 Rosewall, now almost 39, lost to Jimmy 7-5 6-4 6-2 at the Sydney Indoors, in the finals.

Jimmy would have been 25 then and should have been close to his peak. Since Rosewall was giving away 14 years, that suggests to me that a much younger Rosewall might have been a handful for Connors.

I don't think you got my point. Rosewall despite his advanced age was performing very well in tiebreaks and winning some big matches. It's not about whether Rosewall was at a disadvantage compared to his best years - that should be obvious and go without saying. However despite this he was able to score wins against top opponents and boost a very strong tiebreak record. Evidently Connors attacked his serve better than pretty much anyone else at the time at least in big slam matches.

Also Rosewall was 42/43 in 1977 - which is even more incredible.

 

[thrust]

I'm getting 22-7 at the Slam events, plus 4-2 at the WCT Finals and 2-2 at the Masters

Still splendid

A touch odd, given Rosewall's reputed underwhelming serve

Was it commonly known/accepted that the forehand was the go-to spot against Ken?

Pre internet age, my guess would be no based on the famous Amritraj - Pancho Gonzales story where Pancho repeatedly stressed avoiding the backhand but Vijay went to it anyway, with disastrous effect

Why would Pancho have had to stress it so strongly if it was common knowledge?

Maybe a few others caught out in tiebreaks serving to the now accepted killer backhand, as would be standard operating procedure against most...though one would think they'd figure it out as they played

Also suspect Rosewall had a tip top forehand to boot, just less celebrated... like say, Novak Djokovic today

Certainly Laver knew Rosewall's backhand very well, but he went to it twice in a row in that fifth set tie break in the 72 WCT final. After losing the first backhand return I think Laver thought that Ken would expect a serve to his forehand, so served to the backhand again but lost that point too. IMO, either Ken expected that second backhand serve or his reflexes were so good that he was able to make the adjustment. I think that Ken knew Laver's game well enough to expect the serve to his backhand. When Ken served for the match, he barely got his serve over the net but Rod was so dazed he barely got his racket on the ball. Needless to say, that was my favorite tennis moment of all time. Rosewall's forehand was effective but was rather stiff looking, if I recall correctly. Though Ken's serve was not powerful, it was usually very well placed. I love that Gonzalez-VJ story, some kids just never listen-LOL!

 

[thrust]

Damn!!! I was using Laver's age.

Senior moment...

Let me recompute. 1972, Rosewall was almost 38. 1977, Rosewall was almost 43.

So it's more like Fed, at almost age 38, beating someone like Zverev, then presenting himself very well at almost age 43.

The more I look at Rosewall's play late in his career, the more it amazes me.

18 years difference, Rosewall biologically could have had a kid Connors's age.

I often get their ages mixed up too-LOL!

 

[Gary Duane]

I don't think you got my point. Rosewall despite his advanced age was performing very well in tiebreaks and winning some big matches. It's not about whether Rosewall was at a disadvantage compared to his best years - that should be obvious and go without saying. However despite this he was able to score wins against top opponents and boost a very strong tiebreak record. Evidently Connors attacked his serve better than pretty much anyone else at the time at least in big slam matches.

Also Rosewall was 42/43 in 1977 - which is even more incredible.

OK. But I would also think that young Connors would have an additional advantage even in returning serve against old Rosewall, since obviously his ability to hold serve was very much connected to his non-service game.

And yes, 42/43 in 1977 - that IS astounding and I think highlights the fact that old players could continue to be extremely dangerous on good days.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

It appears the underrated Roche also had a great GS TB record of 19-7. Meanwhile, Laver's figure is a feeble 4-6. He lost a lot of close matches after achieving the (actual) Grand Slam, actually almost all of his subsequent GS losses were close.

Speaking of Roche, his five-set record is quite interesting. Based on tennisabstract-provided stats, he played 90 matches in Open GS tournaments (67-23), of which 19 were played over 5 sets (8-11). The catch is, in 1969 - his best year, unfortunate to coincide with Laver's epic season - Roche's 5-set record over the 4 GS tournaments was 5-1, with the one loss being the legendary AO SF vs Laver; in all other years combined since 1968, it was 3-10. Amazingly, out of his last 12 GS participations/losses (starting from AO 74), 9 were five-setters + 1 close four-set loss to Newcombe; only twice did Roche lose badly. What does it tell us?

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

OK. But I would also think that young Connors would have an additional advantage even in returning serve against old Rosewall, since obviously his ability to hold serve was very much connected to his non-service game.

And yes, 42/43 in 1977 - that IS astounding and I think highlights the fact that old players could continue to be extremely dangerous on good days.

One of the most puzzling scores is Rosewall bagelling and breadsticking then-No.1 Newcombe on the way to '74 Wim final (soon after which Connors would overtake Newcombe for the top spot), 6-1 1-6 6-0 7-5 being the scoreline of his victory. What the hell happened there? Must have been a very up and down match. Does anyone have any comments on that? (Imagine Federer scoring a similar win at 39, the loud cries of 'WEAK ERA!!' and even louder yells of 'unrivalled GOAT!!!'.)

 

[krosero]

With all the Old 3 discussion going on, I haven't noticed anyone mention that, so perhaps it's genuinely overlooked even by the esteemed connoisseurs of the FPP matters...

Ken Rosewall boasts an excellent 21-5 tiebreak record in the majors/GS tournaments. Considering that tiebreaks were introduced in 1970, the record was achieved entirely in the 'old' phase of Rosewall's career, when he was 35 and older. This is absolutely amazing, and garners extra respect for the old man's clutchness. Him besting Laver in tiebreaks in WCT '71/'72 finals was no fluke.

(Btw, Fedmug was 11-2 in TBs in AO/Wim '16-'17 combined, but going 0-2 at the USO dragged the % down, still it's great for an old man as well.)

Nice stat, I don't recall anyone ever doing this before. I did something similar once but it was restricted to GS finals: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/best-career-tie-break-records.436786/#post-6834107

I think it's often said that the best tiebreak players are the biggest servers. I think these stats call that idea into question a little bit. Or maybe the idea is valid for recent years, but not as far back as we're looking here.

I don't know, but nice stat regardless.

 

[krosero]

It appears the underrated Roche also had a great GS TB record of 19-7. Meanwhile, Laver's figure is a feeble 4-6. He lost a lot of close matches after achieving the (actual) Grand Slam, actually almost all of his subsequent GS losses were close.

Speaking of Roche, his five-set record is quite interesting. Based on tennisabstract-provided stats, he played 90 matches in Open GS tournaments (67-23), of which 19 were played over 5 sets (8-11). The catch is, in 1969 - his best year, unfortunate to coincide with Laver's epic season - Roche's 5-set record over the 4 GS tournaments was 5-1, with the one loss being the legendary AO SF vs Laver; in all other years combined since 1968, it was 3-10. Amazingly, out of his last 12 GS participations/losses (starting from AO 74), 9 were five-setters + 1 close four-set loss to Newcombe; only twice did Roche lose badly. What does it tell us?

If someone is losing only in close matches, and rarely is blown out in straights, I think it suggests that his skill level is closer to the players he is losing to, than would be suggested by only looking at the win/loss record. In that case he's getting close but not quite getting there at the end, maybe for a physical or mental factor, or something.

That's just a possibility because we're only looking at losses; you'd have to look at everything to know for sure.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

If someone is losing only in close matches, and rarely is blown out in straights, I think it suggests that their skill level is closer to the players he is losing to, than would be suggested by only looking at the win/loss record. In that case he's getting close but not quite getting there at the end, maybe for a physical or mental factor, or something.

That's my hunch as well - I wonder if Roche had any endurance troubles because of tennis elbow, or just was not firm enough in key moments. With Laver, must be a totally mental thing, he was still very successful elsewhere for several years, but I think made some references to the pressure weighing on him at Wimbledon/USO, or something? Winning four in a row seems to put a special mental strain on the player.

 

[Gary Duane]

One of the most puzzling scores is Rosewall bagelling and breadsticking then-No.1 Newcombe on the way to '74 Wim final (soon after which Connors would overtake Newcombe for the top spot), 6-1 1-6 6-0 7-5 being the scoreline of his victory. What the hell happened there? Must have been a very up and down match. Does anyone have any comments on that? (Imagine Federer scoring a similar win at 39, the loud cries of 'WEAK ERA!!' and even louder yells of 'unrivalled GOAT!!!'.)

When you think about it, just letting a set go can be an excellent tactic for saving energy. When you think about it, a set can get to 3/0 in a flash, just one break of serve, and if it keeps going like that it is soon 5/2. How hard is the guy with 2 going to fight to get to 3 before losing the set?

6/1 is just the next step. 3/0, hold hold to 4/1, then the player gets broken again, maybe still trying to get even but the second break is like the nail in a mini-coffin. So a 6/1 score is not as one-sided as it looks when the guy who gets to 6 serves first. 6/4 is one break, 6/2 is two, but 6/3 and 6/1 is very different, depending on who is serving first.

6-0 in the 3rd set is a lot worse. No one wants to be down 2 sets to 1 that way.

 

[Gary Duane]

Return game and play under pressure is where it's at I imagine, IIRC Rosewall's serve was supposedly weaker in his mid-late 30's. Guy was definitely one of the GOAT returners.

I was thinking about this on and off today.

If I had to pick one modern player whose serve, I think, is comparatively weak in relationship to his overall game, it would be Nadal. It's been better this year, with more serves to the forehand.

We're talking about a man who has won around 85% of his service games on HCs, career.

Murray is 82%. Of course, we all know about Murray's 3nd serve.

But Fed is only around 89%, meaning that he's only 4% higher on a surface that he excels on.

You look at a guy like Querry, also 85%, or Anderson at 86%, and you have to ask yourself how much of the service game of an ATG actually depends on what looks to be a great serve. Seems like really good spot serving and great tactics are the most important thing. When you have a guy like Nadal, who in 2008 won 51% of his return games on clay, 50% of his return points, and converted 52% of his BPs, just how well did he have to serve to win 84% of his service games? I'd wager he could have won 70% of his service games that year serving nothing but 2nd serves.

So that's what I imagine was going on with Rosewall, and why I deeply regret we can't watch a bunch of his matches, from start to finish. He must have driven his opponents nuts not only getting everything back but by placing the ball very well.

Doesn't it seem like his tactics must have been amazing to get the results he achieved? He had to have been one of the most mentally strong guys ever to play the game, yet I have not heard that mentioned.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Maybe the lower trajectory of his serve was a pain in the backside to attack?

It was attacked very successfully by another super returner like Connors, maybe there weren't many consistently strong returners in those days.

Gonzales, Hoad and Laver had good returns, also Trabert, and they all posted big wins over Ken.

 

[abmk]

Nice stat, I don't recall anyone ever doing this before. I did something similar once but it was restricted to GS finals: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/best-career-tie-break-records.436786/#post-6834107

I think it's often said that the best tiebreak players are the biggest servers. I think these stats call that idea into question a little bit. Or maybe the idea is valid for recent years, but not as far back as we're looking here.

I don't know, but nice stat regardless.

All the stats are from TennisAbstract

Tie-break records

Federer : 427-232 (65%)
Nadal : 233-146 (61%) (was clearly better before, went down in 14, 15, 16 , was 35-36 combined in these 3 years)
Djokovic : 229-133 (63%)
Murray : 202-123 (62%)
Safin: 220-191 (54%)
Hewitt : 176-160 (52%)
Roddick : 306-188 (62%)
Del potro : 143-111 (56%)
Wawrinka : 224-193 (54%)


Kuerten : 169-156 (52%)
Kafelnikov : 113-92 (55%)

Sampras : 326-194 (63%)
Agassi : 201-156 (56%)
Courier : 185-129 (59%)
Chang : 160-163 (50%)
Krajicek : 179-166 (52%)
Stich : 167-115 (59%)
Rafter : 163-147 (53%)

Becker : 240-163 (60%)
Edberg : 246-161 (60%)
Wilander : 125-96 (57%)
Lendl : 238-155 (61%)
Borg : 93-76 (55%)
Connors :214-155 (58%)
Mac : 187-117 (62%)
Vilas : 153-121 (56%)

I think a slight edge for the good servers is warranted in TBs, but its not a big one for sure.
The bold ones are the 2 biggest anamolies .
You'd expect both Borg and Agassi to have better stats.

 

[Mainad]

One of the most puzzling scores is Rosewall bagelling and breadsticking then-No.1 Newcombe on the way to '74 Wim final (soon after which Connors would overtake Newcombe for the top spot), 6-1 1-6 6-0 7-5 being the scoreline of his victory. What the hell happened there? Must have been a very up and down match. Does anyone have any comments on that? (Imagine Federer scoring a similar win at 39, the loud cries of 'WEAK ERA!!' and even louder yells of 'unrivalled GOAT!!!'.)

Maybe Newcombe, already a 3 time winner at Wimbledon, wanted to give dear old Ken one last chance at getting a Wimby title under his belt?

Alternatively, it's possible that Rosewall had got into the heads of many of his opponents especially his fellow Aussies? They were all wary of him and may have been just a bit too overly respectful of him at times. A brash young Yank like Connors however probably had no such respect!

 

[Moose Malloy]

One of the most puzzling scores is Rosewall bagelling and breadsticking then-No.1 Newcombe on the way to '74 Wim final (soon after which Connors would overtake Newcombe for the top spot), 6-1 1-6 6-0 7-5 being the scoreline of his victory. What the hell happened there? Must have been a very up and down match. Does anyone have any comments on that? (Imagine Federer scoring a similar win at 39, the loud cries of 'WEAK ERA!!' and even louder yells of 'unrivalled GOAT!!!'.)

While I haven't seen this match(it's among my most wanted matches) there were a lot of strange scores from
that era so I wouldn't read too much into it. Letting sets go when you were down 2 breaks was pretty common, I have many old matches where the commentators basically say the player who's down should do that.

Another important thing about Wimbledon back then(this is directed to all) is that it was only a 12 day event. And it rained a lot. And everyone played singles and doubles(because prize money was such a new thing, you'd sort of be stupid not to play doubles, since players didn't get big endorsements back then)

So saying Rosewall had a tough schedule in 1974 is a big understatement. I wish I could find the order of play, but from what the commentators say and my own research, I'm betting he played a singles or doubles match every day of the event(and doubles was best of 5), often had to play singles matches on consecutive days, and Probably played doubles and singles on same day sometimes(I gather this was not uncommon)
and I doubt he even mentioned it at all. Again, these guys were just so happy to play at Wimbledon again(and get paid!)

Connors also had a tough schedule as well that year.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

While I haven't seen this match(it's among my most wanted matches) there were a lot of strange scores from
that era so I wouldn't read too much into it. Letting sets go when you were down 2 breaks was pretty common, I have many old matches where the commentators basically say the player who's down should do that.

You guys should work on uploading them for us newbs to see rather than keeping everything by yourselves

Another important thing about Wimbledon back then(this is directed to all) is that it was only a 12 day event. And it rained a lot. And everyone played singles and doubles(because prize money was such a new thing, you'd sort of be stupid not to play doubles, since players didn't get big endorsements back then)

So saying Rosewall had a tough schedule in 1974 is a big understatement. I wish I could find the order of play, but from what the commentators say and my own research, I'm betting he played a singles or doubles match every day of the event(and doubles was best of 5), often had to play singles matches on consecutive days, and Probably played doubles and singles on same day sometimes(I gather this was not uncommon)
and I doubt he even mentioned it at all. Again, these guys were just so happy to play at Wimbledon again(and get paid!)

Connors also had a tough schedule as well that year.

The amount of tennis the leading pros played until it seems as late as early 90s was huge, and coupled with the packed tournament schedules you speak of, it must have been insane. Good thing the s&v style allowed for quick points.

 

[DMP]

While I haven't seen this match(it's among my most wanted matches) there were a lot of strange scores from
that era so I wouldn't read too much into it. Letting sets go when you were down 2 breaks was pretty common, I have many old matches where the commentators basically say the player who's down should do that.

Another important thing about Wimbledon back then(this is directed to all) is that it was only a 12 day event. And it rained a lot. And everyone played singles and doubles(because prize money was such a new thing, you'd sort of be stupid not to play doubles, since players didn't get big endorsements back then)

So saying Rosewall had a tough schedule in 1974 is a big understatement. I wish I could find the order of play, but from what the commentators say and my own research, I'm betting he played a singles or doubles match every day of the event(and doubles was best of 5), often had to play singles matches on consecutive days, and Probably played doubles and singles on same day sometimes(I gather this was not uncommon)
and I doubt he even mentioned it at all. Again, these guys were just so happy to play at Wimbledon again(and get paid!)

Connors also had a tough schedule as well that year.

Gonzales was the master at letting sets go, but also at getting a break up and then coasting on his opponents serve. Yes, you are correct about the way players used to pace themselves. It was common also to see the top players play a singles in the afternoon, then come out for a doubles in the evening. It was Borg for the men and really Graf for the women who first started the practice of playing singles only.

 

[treblings]

Gonzales was the master at letting sets go, but also at getting a break up and then coasting on his opponents serve. Yes, you are correct about the way players used to pace themselves. It was common also to see the top players play a singles in the afternoon, then come out for a doubles in the evening. It was Borg for the men and really Graf for the women who first started the practice of playing singles only.

interesting point about Borg and Graf playing singles only.
i´ve always held the belief, that players choose to abandon doubles once they made more than enough money playing singles only.

 

[thrust]

While I haven't seen this match(it's among my most wanted matches) there were a lot of strange scores from
that era so I wouldn't read too much into it. Letting sets go when you were down 2 breaks was pretty common, I have many old matches where the commentators basically say the player who's down should do that.

Another important thing about Wimbledon back then(this is directed to all) is that it was only a 12 day event. And it rained a lot. And everyone played singles and doubles(because prize money was such a new thing, you'd sort of be stupid not to play doubles, since players didn't get big endorsements back then)

So saying Rosewall had a tough schedule in 1974 is a big understatement. I wish I could find the order of play, but from what the commentators say and my own research, I'm betting he played a singles or doubles match every day of the event(and doubles was best of 5), often had to play singles matches on consecutive days, and Probably played doubles and singles on same day sometimes(I gather this was not uncommon)
and I doubt he even mentioned it at all. Again, these guys were just so happy to play at Wimbledon again(and get paid!)

Connors also had a tough schedule as well that year.

Of course, being 39 in did not help Ken's chances with that Wimbledon schedule. I had the opinion that Ken only played doubles, in 74, because he never thought he had a real chance to get near the final.

 

[Waspsting]

Another important thing about Wimbledon back then(this is directed to all) is that it was only a 12 day event. And it rained a lot. And everyone played singles and doubles...

So saying Rosewall had a tough schedule in 1974 is a big understatement.

Rosewall went out in the second round in the doubles and didn't enter the mixed - so by the singles quarter, don't think that would have been too much of a factor

It might explain the scoreline for the quarter though - Newcombe went on to win the doubles, and would presumably have had half an eye on it while in the single's semi

and it would have been a factor for Connors too, who reached the doubles semis, while he and Evert withdrew from the mixed (wonder who made that decision)

Broader point about taking into consideration of doubles duty taken... an outdated hardship now