I want to take a look on Roche, in comparison to his buddie Newcombe, which is a bit similar to the Hoad-Rosewall-comparison. End of the 60s, Roche was seen as the heir apparent to Laver, even more so than Newk. He had the sounder, more technical complete game, a nasty lefty slice on serve, which went from his left ear in a sharp angle, almost parallel to the net. Great backhand, especially on the volley and a solid baseline game, which gave him early in his career, big clay titles at RG, Hamburg and Rome. In 1969 he was in all semis of the big tourneys, including majors and other big events on all surfaces (grass, clay, hard, carpet): final at USO (loss to Laver),semis at RG (loss to Rosewall), Australia (Laver), Wimbledon (Newcombe), finals at Rome (Newk), Wembley, Philadelphia (both to Laver), win at Hamburg (over Okker), semi at South African Open (default to Okker). He was 5-4 over Laver in the year (including a 3rd place match in Tokyo), but lost all big events to him. But then he faded away, partly due to a severe elbow problem, which was healed much later by a Manila wonder healer. This is a parallel to Hoad. Also his friendship and doubles partnership with Newk was maybe a bit detrimental. Newk was a born leader, with big confidence in himself,not so sound technically but more resolute and positive thinking. Roche was a more shy, self-critical type. As it happens often in doubles partnerships, one, despite the better talent, will end up with much less success in singles. Smith/ Lutz was another example.