They will hold a ceremony at Flushing, to honor the 40 years of open US championships. The one in the middle of this ceremony is the 1968 champ, the late Arthur Ashe. Ashe was an icon and political voice, his cool demeanor reminds me a bit of Barack Obama.
I want to concentrate on his playing style and career. He was lean and tall. On grass and fast courts he was a powerhouse. His power was generated by fast swings and an elegant service action. Best weapons were his ultra-fast first serve and his sniping cross court backhand, which could be deadly. His one weakness was his low forehand volley. He was made for fast courts, gliding with fine movement around the court. They called him Mr. Shadow. On clay, his long legs looked a bit stiff and arcward.
By most experts, Ashe is regarded as just a step behind the real greats of the game. Too often he was the bridesmaid, losing quite many finals, mostly to the mentally strong Australians like Laver and Newcombe. Was he too nice, to win more? Certainly he had chances to win more than one USO: In 1971 he lost a close sf to Jan Kodes, when rain poured down on his eye glasses. In 1972 he lead Ilie Nastase 2-1 in the final, when he got disturbed by Nasty's antics.
Certainly, he was a hit or miss player at his younger age. Famous was his 1969 wim sf with Laver, when he tried to overpower the hardhitter Laver (which resulted in a slugfest and succeeded only in the first set). Only in later years he played a tactical game, as in his memorable Wimbledon final with Connors on 1975, when he outfoxed the younger favorite. To underscore his class in those years: He lead the near peak Bjorn Borg in a long series of matches on the WCT tour in 1975/76.
Overall, i think, what prevented him from winning more than three majors, was the fact, that he played too much in his peak years. The gruelling WCT series, the constant travel, the year long schedule didn't let players focus on the big events. It is described in the outstanding book with Frank Deford, Portrait in Motion. This was a problem with other players of this era, too, as with Tom Okker, his final opponent in the 68 Forest Hills.
I want to concentrate on his playing style and career. He was lean and tall. On grass and fast courts he was a powerhouse. His power was generated by fast swings and an elegant service action. Best weapons were his ultra-fast first serve and his sniping cross court backhand, which could be deadly. His one weakness was his low forehand volley. He was made for fast courts, gliding with fine movement around the court. They called him Mr. Shadow. On clay, his long legs looked a bit stiff and arcward.
By most experts, Ashe is regarded as just a step behind the real greats of the game. Too often he was the bridesmaid, losing quite many finals, mostly to the mentally strong Australians like Laver and Newcombe. Was he too nice, to win more? Certainly he had chances to win more than one USO: In 1971 he lost a close sf to Jan Kodes, when rain poured down on his eye glasses. In 1972 he lead Ilie Nastase 2-1 in the final, when he got disturbed by Nasty's antics.
Certainly, he was a hit or miss player at his younger age. Famous was his 1969 wim sf with Laver, when he tried to overpower the hardhitter Laver (which resulted in a slugfest and succeeded only in the first set). Only in later years he played a tactical game, as in his memorable Wimbledon final with Connors on 1975, when he outfoxed the younger favorite. To underscore his class in those years: He lead the near peak Bjorn Borg in a long series of matches on the WCT tour in 1975/76.
Overall, i think, what prevented him from winning more than three majors, was the fact, that he played too much in his peak years. The gruelling WCT series, the constant travel, the year long schedule didn't let players focus on the big events. It is described in the outstanding book with Frank Deford, Portrait in Motion. This was a problem with other players of this era, too, as with Tom Okker, his final opponent in the 68 Forest Hills.
Last edited:
