FM: Trabert vs Roche

[kiki]

That would be very interesting.Trabert had the steadier backcourt game, he was a good but not great server ( like Roche) and had stamina and better mental focus than the most overall talented Roche.

On carpet and grass, Roche had the perfect S&V game to dominate most of their encounters, but on clay and hard, Trabert´s more compact baseline game and better ROS should make him prevail.It is close, maybe the fact that Trabert was a tougher player mentally and physically would make him a close winner of a long series between both players.

Do you agree?

 

[Dan L]

That would be very interesting.Trabert had the steadier backcourt game, he was a good but not great server ( like Roche) and had stamina and better mental focus than the most overall talented Roche.

On carpet and grass, Roche had the perfect S&V game to dominate most of their encounters, but on clay and hard, Traberts more compact baseline game and better ROS should make him prevail.It is close, maybe the fact that Trabert was a tougher player mentally and physically would make him a close winner of a long series between both players.

Do you agree?

Trabert had a pretty good grass record as well, winning twice at FH and once at Wimbledon.

I thought that Trabert's serve was also a strong one.

Roche was good on clay, too, but his best showings at Roland Garros were 1966 and 1967.

 

[kiki]

In 66 he was steamrolled by Stolle and he won in 67 against a relatively weak opponent (Guylas)

Trabert was one of the top 6-7 pros in the late 50´s, one of the toughest eras ever lived in the game´s history.He is my favourite, but of course, the australian Tony should make it really close.

As for serving, yes, both had a very similar, tough and angled first serve but they cannot compare to Pancho´s or Newcombe´s serves, which are the kings of serve in the 50´s, when Trabert played, and 60´s, when Roche played.