In some older threads the names of Budge, Vines and Perry came up. They formed a wonderful trio of contemporary greats like Borg, Connors and Mac later. Throw in people like von Cramm, Nuesslein, Crawford, old Tilden and young Riggs, and you have a most formidable line-up in the 30s. Sadly, due to the amateur-pro-split the picture is somewhat unclear. Although most experts would rank Budge first (due to his Grand Slam), an opinion i would tend to agree with, but some would hold Vines and Perry at least on the same tier.
Vines seems to have been the most talented. When as a kid i got my first book on tennis history by Lance Tingay, the picture, i most admired was a picture of Vines in full flight. What a wing, what a swing, power with grace! In terms of pure shotmaking, especially on serve and forehand, he was the best pre 1940. But, in his best amateur years, he lost some crucial matches in the crunch, to old Borotra, Perry and Crawford, he didn't look as the most robust player physically and mentally.
Perry was this robust player. He emulated Cochet for the early hit forehand drive and played from a crouch position. Frank Sedgman once wrote, that Perry was the only real athletic player pre WWII. He trained with Arsenal, was cocky and ruthless, not very popular among the Sirs of the British establishment. And he was a crunch player par excellence. In a vital DC tie or major final, he normally excelled (he once lost a close DC one to Daniel Prenn at Berlin). In 1936 US final, Budge twice served for the match, only to lose due to lack of stamina. Perry knew it, that he was fitter, and showed it to Budge during the change-overs.
The younger Budge transformed the backhand. His matches with von Cramm were epics. He dominated the amateur scene and topped the pros too since 1939, later was dethroned by Riggs. But were Vines and Perry still at their respective peak in 1939. Its not easy to tell. Who was really the best of the trio say in 1937, when Budge by most accounts had his best year? Sadly, we have not many major matches between those three. If one regards only amateur majors and DC matches, Perry seems to have the best head to head record between this trio. Maybe some other posters weight in and help to clear the picture.
Vines seems to have been the most talented. When as a kid i got my first book on tennis history by Lance Tingay, the picture, i most admired was a picture of Vines in full flight. What a wing, what a swing, power with grace! In terms of pure shotmaking, especially on serve and forehand, he was the best pre 1940. But, in his best amateur years, he lost some crucial matches in the crunch, to old Borotra, Perry and Crawford, he didn't look as the most robust player physically and mentally.
Perry was this robust player. He emulated Cochet for the early hit forehand drive and played from a crouch position. Frank Sedgman once wrote, that Perry was the only real athletic player pre WWII. He trained with Arsenal, was cocky and ruthless, not very popular among the Sirs of the British establishment. And he was a crunch player par excellence. In a vital DC tie or major final, he normally excelled (he once lost a close DC one to Daniel Prenn at Berlin). In 1936 US final, Budge twice served for the match, only to lose due to lack of stamina. Perry knew it, that he was fitter, and showed it to Budge during the change-overs.
The younger Budge transformed the backhand. His matches with von Cramm were epics. He dominated the amateur scene and topped the pros too since 1939, later was dethroned by Riggs. But were Vines and Perry still at their respective peak in 1939. Its not easy to tell. Who was really the best of the trio say in 1937, when Budge by most accounts had his best year? Sadly, we have not many major matches between those three. If one regards only amateur majors and DC matches, Perry seems to have the best head to head record between this trio. Maybe some other posters weight in and help to clear the picture.