How good was John Newcombe?

[sandy mayer]

The difficulty I have rating Newcombe is that his career achievements were affected a great deal by the politics of tennis in his day. His wins at Wimbledon and the US open in 1967 were in the pre-open era with Laver and Rosewall and other pros absent. I doubt he would have won these majors in 67 if tennis was open.
His wins at Wimbledon in 70 and 71 were great wins in a strong field. He lost the opportunity to contest Wimbledon in 72 and 73, and he would have probably been the favourite both years to win. His win in the US Open in 1973 was a great win.
His Australian Open victory in 73 was in a very weak field but I consider his 75 win a great win. Many top pros were absent but he had a very good win over Roche in the semis and a fantastic win over easily the best player in the world at the time: Connors.
Newcombe wasn't great on clay but not hopeless either. He managed 2 quarter finals at Roland Garros. He was at times the best grass court player in the world.
Newcombe won 7 majors. I think this is what he would have roughly won if tennis politics had allowed him to compete in open fields throughout his career.
Newcombe had a great serve and volley game. He had a great first serve and his second serve was the best of his day. His volleys were excellent as was his overhead. He had a big forehand but a very limited backhand. He relied too much on slice and couldn't really hit flat or topspin. It was consistent and he lobbed well off it, and he compensated for this weakness by serve volleying in his service games and running round his backhand in his return games.
Newcombe had a great temperament.
I would say Newcombe was a great champion on about the same level as Becker Edberg and Wilander but below Connors McEnroe, Lendl, Rosewall and certainly below Laver, Borg Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. What do you reckon?

 

[tonylg]

Lendl never won Wimbledon. Nor did Wilander. Newcombe won it 3 times in an era when it was STACKED with great grass courters, Open Era or not. Federer nor Nadal nor ******** have won a proper Wimbledon (not their fault, but they haven't).

Newcombe's weakness was indeed his backhand, but it was stronger than the ******** net game is.

 

[Dan Lobb]

The difficulty I have rating Newcombe is that his career achievements were affected a great deal by the politics of tennis in his day. His wins at Wimbledon and the US open in 1967 were in the pre-open era with Laver and Rosewall and other pros absent. I doubt he would have won these majors in 67 if tennis was open.
His wins at Wimbledon in 70 and 71 were great wins in a strong field. He lost the opportunity to contest Wimbledon in 72 and 73, and he would have probably been the favourite both years to win. His win in the US Open in 1973 was a great win.
His Australian Open victory in 73 was in a very weak field but I consider his 75 win a great win. Many top pros were absent but he had a very good win over Roche in the semis and a fantastic win over easily the best player in the world at the time: Connors.
Newcombe wasn't great on clay but not hopeless either. He managed 2 quarter finals at Roland Garros. He was at times the best grass court player in the world.
Newcombe won 7 majors. I think this is what he would have roughly won if tennis politics had allowed him to compete in open fields throughout his career.
Newcombe had a great serve and volley game. He had a great first serve and his second serve was the best of his day. His volleys were excellent as was his overhead. He had a big forehand but a very limited backhand. He relied too much on slice and couldn't really hit flat or topspin. It was consistent and he lobbed well off it, and he compensated for this weakness by serve volleying in his service games and running round his backhand in his return games.
Newcombe had a great temperament.
I would say Newcombe was a great champion on about the same level as Becker Edberg and Wilander but below Connors McEnroe, Lendl, Rosewall and certainly below Laver, Borg Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. What do you reckon?

Ranking depends on surface for Newk, I use grass as the basic ranking surface, so that would put Newk into a high rank, while Connors, Lendl, Rosewall, Nadal, Djokovic would probably rely on some other surface like rubber for their best ranking.

 

[sandy mayer]

Lendl never won Wimbledon. Nor did Wilander. Newcombe won it 3 times in an era when it was STACKED with great grass courters, Open Era or not. Federer nor Nadal nor ******** have won a proper Wimbledon (not their fault, but they haven't).

Newcombe's weakness was indeed his backhand, but it was stronger than the ******** net game is.
[/QUOTE
Lendl was alot better on grass than Newcombe was on clay, and Wilander was stronger on grass than Newcombe on clay. We have to look at all achievements when comparing greats, not just achievements at Wimbledon.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Newcombe had some great clay wins, he won the Italian over Roche in 1969, the Canadian over Okker, and beat Rosewall at Roland Garros in 1968 in a marathon match, beat Kodes at Roland Garros in 1969 in another marathon. Not bad at all.

 

[Xavier G]

John Newcombe was very good.

He could play well on all types of courts with the grass courts being the surface which really suited his S&V game and was his most successful, of course. His career spanned the amateur and open era so he was a young player coming through then in that period.
Three of the Slams were played on grass in John's heyday so he was happy about that, I guess. In his time, Davis Cup play meant a lot more than it does now and he was a fierce competitor in that.

He also won the German Open and Italian Open on clay to go along with the couple of Roland Garros appearances and won the WCT Dallas Finals in 1974 on indoor carpet. I think it's fair to say Newk could play good tennis anywhere.

His career is not on the level of Laver or Rosewall, but he was a very fine champion.

 

[Dan Lobb]

John Newcombe was very good.

He could play well on all types of courts with the grass courts being the surface which really suited his S&V game and was his most successful, of course. His career spanned the amateur and open era so he was a young player coming through then in that period.
Three of the Slams were played on grass in John's heyday so he was happy about that, I guess. In his time, Davis Cup play meant a lot more than it does now and he was a fierce competitor in that.

He also won the German Open and Italian Open on clay to go along with the couple of Roland Garros appearances and won the WCT Dallas Finals in 1974 on indoor carpet. I think it's fair to say Newk could play good tennis anywhere.

His career is not on the level of Laver or Rosewall, but he was a very fine champion.

In terms of an achieved level of play, I would rate him equal to Sedgman and Rosewall, and ahead of some other greats on grass.

 

[sandy mayer]

Newcombe had some great clay wins, he won the Italian over Roche in 1969, the Canadian over Okker, and beat Rosewall at Roland Garros in 1968 in a marathon match, beat Kodes at Roland Garros in 1969 in another marathon. Not bad at all.

I didn't know this. My opinion of Newcombe has gone up as a result of your post. There's a good case to put him ahead of Wilander, but not Lendl.

 

[Dan Lobb]

I didn't know this. My opinion of Newcombe has gone up as a result of your post. There's a good case to put him ahead of Wilander, but not Lendl.

Again, it depends on the surface. Connors and Lendl and others might well rank ahead of Newk on rubber or cement/rubber, while Newk would be tough to beat on traditional grass. His style of play was designed for grass.

 

[urban]

Newk was imo among the 5 best grass courters i have seen in my lifetime. His serve and especially his second serve was excellent, maybe only Sampras had a harder and more deadly second serve, but Newk had the better volleys. His forehand drive volley was one of the all time great shots. Hoad once said, that Newks nose was always over the net, when he volleyed with his aggressive style, making no prisoners in the forecourt. Often, when down 0-40, he was the at his most dangerous, hitting perfect serves and volleys to rescue the game. On the baseline, his forehand drive return was feared, and he often ran around his backhand to hit the forehand down the line. He didn't have the deadly topspin backhand, that Laver had, but he used the slice backand to good avail with dink returns, which stayed low on the grass. Underrated is his mentality: He was tactically shreed, using a clever mix of dinks and lobs. He was fearless and confident in crises, often having a grin on his face in regard of adversity, and he was best in crunch situations, very seldom losing a five setter. As written above, he could do well on clay, too, but on grass and carpet he was magistral. A bit after his prime, he still beat Wim Champ Connors at AO in 1975, and in 1977, i think, he beat Wim Champ Borg in a grass exhibition in 3 straight sets.
Like Becker, Newk was a physical and confident player, with a demanding style, who needed the big moment at Wimbledon or in a Davis Cup match, to excel at the right time. He had problems with long tours, to stay consistent and physically fit over a longer period of time. So he had only spurs of time as Nr. 1. But when he was properly prepared, when he was eager and fit, he was a formidable force. He was a natural captain and leader, who had great influence in Aussie Davis Cup teams. His doubles team with Roche was one of the best, if not the best doubles team of all time. He could also hit the grock quite well. I remember that in a TV show, Hoad once spiked a big glass of beer with gin, and Newk gulped it down in one stretch. He could take the liquor better than George W. Bush, who was once arrested for drunken driving, after spending the evening with Newk in Texas.

 

[Tshooter]

...He didn't have the deadly topspin backhand, that Laver had, but he used the slice backand to good avail with dink returns, which stayed low on the grass....

He had basically no topspin BH. He could barely hit it flat. But he had a great serve and the FH buggy whip !

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/what-about-the-buggy-whip.653535/

 

[tonylg]

He could also hit the grock quite well. I remember that in a TV show, Hoad once spiked a big glass of beer with gin, and Newk gulped it down in one stretch. He could take the liquor better than George W. Bush, who was once arrested for drunken driving, after spending the evening with Newk in Texas.

Having met him a few times and seen evidence of this, I concur.

By no means a drunk, but could have "one" with the boys.

 

[thrust]

Ranking depends on surface for Newk, I use grass as the basic ranking surface, so that would put Newk into a high rank, while Connors, Lendl, Rosewall, Nadal, Djokovic would probably rely on some other surface like rubber for their best ranking.

Except for Connors, Rosewall could have won either or both the USO and Wimbledon in 74, both of which he beat Newcombe in the semi's. The USO was last played on grass in 74 when Rosewall was 39 years old.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Except for Connors, Rosewall could have won either or both the USO and Wimbledon in 74, both of which he beat Newcombe in the semi's. The USO was last played on grass in 74 when Rosewall was 39 years old.

I think that Rosewall would probably have won Wimbledon in 1970, were it not for a bad bout of hay fever during the mens final against Newk, where Rosewall was clearly affected by his allergies.

 

[DSH]

A question for the connoisseurs of the legends of the past.

I want to know how, 30-year-old Newcombe, still in good shape and being one of the favorites to win Wimbledon (where he had not lost since 1969 against Laver in the final of that edition) and the US Open (where he arrived as a defending champion) in 1974, he lost and forcefully in both tournaments against Rosewal who was about to turn 40, who had not reached a Major tournament final in over two years and who after defeating "Mustache", he was destroyed by Jimmy Connors in both contested finals.

Doesn't that speak more to Newcombe's detriment than Rosewall's favor?

 

[Dan Lobb]

A question for the connoisseurs of the legends of the past.

I want to know how, 30-year-old Newcombe, still in good shape and being one of the favorites to win Wimbledon (where he had not lost since 1969 against Laver in the final of that edition) and the US Open (where he arrived as a defending champion) in 1974, I have lost and forcefully in both tournaments against Rosewall, who was about to turn 40, who had not reached a Major tournament final in over two years and who after defeating "Mustache", he was destroyed by Jimmy Connors in both contested finals.

Doesn't that speak more to Newcombe's detriment than Rosewall's favor?

Rosewall beat more than just Newk, take a look at those wins over Smith, Ashe, others. But in beating Newk, Rosewall gave out the last of his energy, and had nothing left for Connors in the finals.

Rosewall always did well against Newk, had a lifetime hth lead. Newk did well against Connors, at least on grass.

In 1974, Newcombe primed his season to winning the WCT title, which he had never previously won. He was tired the rest of the year, but rebounded at the Aussie Open to win a classic over Connors.

 

[thrust]

Rosewall beat more than just Newk, take a look at those wins over Smith, Ashe, others. But in beating Newk, Rosewall gave out the last of his energy, and had nothing left for Connors in the finals.

Rosewall always did well against Newk, had a lifetime hth lead. Newk did well against Connors, at least on grass.

In 1974, Newcombe primed his season to winning the WCT title, which he had never previously won. He was tired the rest of the year, but rebounded at the Aussie Open to win a classic over Connors.

When was the WCT title played in 74? It is hard to believe that winning one tournament would ruin a players rest of the year. I think Newcombe's problem was a bit like Hoad's, in that on a given day he could beat anyone on grass but was not as consistent as a Laver or Rosewall. I think that his win over Connors in the 75 AO final was Newcombe's last important win as he did not even rank in the top 10 at the end of 75, having been ranked #2 in 73 and 74. Interestingly, the last time Rosewall and Laver were ranked YE in the top ten was in 75, with Ken at #6 and Rod at #10

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Newcombe was a terrific player, an all-time great. He lost the chance to add to his GS haul due to the red-hot political drama going on in tennis during the beginning years of the Open Era (lost the chance to play at Wimby ‘72 and ‘73 among the biggest). Grass was his best surface, but as others have stated...he had some excellent wins on clay and on the quick indoor carpet as well (including winning the Philadelphia Indoors over a two-time defending champion Laver in ‘71)

 

[Cashman]

When was the WCT title played in 74? It is hard to believe that winning one tournament would ruin a players rest of the year.

WCT was a tour, not a tournament. There were 25 events running from January to until the finals in Dallas in May. It was a mammoth slog and players who put a great deal of focus on WCT often saw a big drop-off in their results in the second half of the year.

Borg was heavily committed to WCT for much of his career, and it contributed in no small way to his failure to win the US Open.

 

[Xavier G]

Yes, as has been already noted, the WCT ran a circuit, a tour, so think of a whole load of WCT events in, say, the first four months of the year, culminating in the WCT Finals play-offs tournament, with generally the eight players who had qualified through results on the WCT tour, in the spring, around May and played in Dallas.

The WCT tour led up to the WCT Finals and that WCT Finals Dallas event was the culmination of the WCT tour.

Great times for a tennis fan with the WCT Finals and the Grand Prix Masters (the equivalent of the current ATP Finals). The Grand Prix Masters just seemed to be a much better year end tournament than the one we get these days.

 

[the green god]

How many men have been ranked #1 and have won 7 grand slams? With that short list, he probably should get a little more love than he does.

 

[BorgCash]

Lendl never won Wimbledon. Nor did Wilander. Newcombe won it 3 times in an era when it was STACKED with great grass courters, Open Era or not. Federer nor Nadal nor ******** have won a proper Wimbledon (not their fault, but they haven't).

Newcombe's weakness was indeed his backhand, but it was stronger than the ******** net game is.

Djokovic is poor at the net and especially with overhead.

 

[BorgCash]

I think he was great, classic s&v guy, tall, strong, moustache

 

[BorgCash]

WCT was a tour, not a tournament. There were 25 events running from January to until the finals in Dallas in May. It was a mammoth slog and players who put a great deal of focus on WCT often saw a big drop-off in their results in the second half of the year.

Borg was heavily committed to WCT for much of his career, and it contributed in no small way to his failure to win the US Open.

Great avatar picture, man.

 

[tonylg]

I think he was great, classic s&v guy, tall, strong, moustache

Who, de Minaur?

 

[Dan Lobb]

How many men have been ranked #1 and have won 7 grand slams? With that short list, he probably should get a little more love than he does.

He should probably be ranked #1 for 1971 (alone) and also for 1973.

 

[Im(moral) Winner]

Many say he was the best

 

[tonylg]

 

[Dan Lobb]

The commentator for the above 1975 Aussie broadcast is Frank Sedgman, former world number one player himself.

 

[BorgCash]

Who, de Minaur?

Small, non classic baseliner with a little trace of moustache.

 

[KG1965]

The difficulty I have rating Newcombe is that his career achievements were affected a great deal by the politics of tennis in his day. His wins at Wimbledon and the US open in 1967 were in the pre-open era with Laver and Rosewall and other pros absent. I doubt he would have won these majors in 67 if tennis was open.
His wins at Wimbledon in 70 and 71 were great wins in a strong field. He lost the opportunity to contest Wimbledon in 72 and 73, and he would have probably been the favourite both years to win. His win in the US Open in 1973 was a great win.
His Australian Open victory in 73 was in a very weak field but I consider his 75 win a great win. Many top pros were absent but he had a very good win over Roche in the semis and a fantastic win over easily the best player in the world at the time: Connors.
Newcombe wasn't great on clay but not hopeless either. He managed 2 quarter finals at Roland Garros. He was at times the best grass court player in the world.
Newcombe won 7 majors. I think this is what he would have roughly won if tennis politics had allowed him to compete in open fields throughout his career.
Newcombe had a great serve and volley game. He had a great first serve and his second serve was the best of his day. His volleys were excellent as was his overhead. He had a big forehand but a very limited backhand. He relied too much on slice and couldn't really hit flat or topspin. It was consistent and he lobbed well off it, and he compensated for this weakness by serve volleying in his service games and running round his backhand in his return games.
Newcombe had a great temperament.
I would say Newcombe was a great champion on about the same level as Becker Edberg and Wilander but below Connors McEnroe, Lendl, Rosewall and certainly below Laver, Borg Sampras, Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. What do you reckon?

I agree with everything you describe. Newcombe was a great champion and it is very difficult to analyze his career.
I think that he had a great serve and excellent volley, a great physique and great temperament.

I think he had two big problems in order to be considered a player close to the GOAT contenders:
1) John was not continuous, he reminds me a bit of Becker, could play an excellent slam then he lost in the first rounds in 3 tournaments;
2) suffered from the great technique of Laver and Rosewall which were superior to him even in old age.

Big Titles
Clarification: I do not insert
- any amateur titles that have no value for me. Not even the amateurs slams;
- 2 Melbourne, which for me are not big titles.

3 slam... 2 Wimbly (70-71) + 1 USO (73)
+
Hamburg 69
Bournemouth 69
Rome 69
Philadelphia 70
14 WCT tournaments
WCT Finals 74
South African Open 72
Tucson 74

= 24

 

[sandy mayer]

I agree with everything you describe. Newcombe was a great champion and it is very difficult to analyze his career.
I think that he had a great serve and excellent volley, a great physique and great temperament.

I think he had two big problems in order to be considered a player close to the GOAT contenders:
1) John was not continuous, he reminds me a bit of Becker, could play an excellent slam then he lost in the first rounds in 3 tournaments;
2) suffered from the great technique of Laver and Rosewall which were superior to him even in old age.

Big Titles
Clarification: I do not insert
- any amateur titles that have no value for me. Not even the amateurs slams;
- 2 Melbourne, which for me are not big titles.

3 slam... 2 Wimbly (70-71) + 1 USO (73)
+
Hamburg 69
Bournemouth 69
Rome 69
Philadelphia 70
14 WCT tournaments
WCT Finals 74
South African Open 72
Tucson 74

= 24

I agree that Newcombe was similar to Becker in many ways. I put them on a par, though I wonder if Newcombe was number 1 longer than Becker?

 

[KG1965]

I agree that Newcombe was similar to Becker in many ways. I put them on a par, though I wonder if Newcombe was number 1 longer than Becker?

6 slam, 2 Indian Wells, 3 ATP Finals, Canada & Cincy, others 9 masters (all indoor).
Boris has won a lot but he could have won more; its value, its potential are higher, almost double. Newk too.
Both were not as continuous as Rosewall and Laver were, or as Lendl (compared to Boris).
It's hard to say how number one Newk was because ATP ranking starts in 1973 when John declines. IMHO little. Like Boris (Lendl always reached the semifinals, Boris didn't).
If there had been a ranking before 1973, Laver would have always been number one until 1972.
Maybe John was number one a few months back in 1972.
Great player, truly excellent. But Laver was too strong.

 

[urban]

Newk always had a great half year on the pro tour, but couldn't complete a whole year. In 1971, he became Nr. 1 after Wimbledon, when he lead the WCT points race, but then lost early at Forest HIlls (1th round against Kodes, tough first round) and missed parts of the WCT tour due to injury, and ended at Nr. 6 in the WCT race with 60 points (4 wins) behind Nr. 1 Laver (87,25 points), Okker (75), Rosewall (74), Drysdale (69,25), Ashe (68, 25). In 1972, he played pretty bad in the first half on the main WCT tour, ending Nr. 8 on the points table with 39 points. Laver at the top had 112 points. But on the WCT "winter circuit" August- November 1972, he won the points race. In 1973, he skipped the WCT tour, played badly on the ILTF Grand Prix circuit in Europe (losing to Szoeke and others), but in the second half he came back strongly, winning Forest Hills and Davis Cup and finishing Nr. 2 in the ATP ranking behind Nastase. In 1973, he was Nr. 4 in prize money with 133.050 $. In 1974, he played dominant at the (3 part) WCT tour, won his group over Stan Smith with 4 tournament wins, and the Dallas event, and then was leading the ATP ranking. But then he had shot his arsenal, and lost pretty badly to Rosewall (who had skipped the WCT tour) at Wim and Forest Hills. In the ATP ranking, he finished 2nd behind Connors. The 1975 AO win was his last Hurrah.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Newk always had a great half year on the pro tour, but couldn't complete a whole year. In 1971, he became Nr. 1 after Wimbledon, when he lead the WCT points race, but then lost early at Forest HIlls (1th round against Kodes, tough first round) and missed parts of the WCT tour due to injury, and ended at Nr. 6 in the WCT race with 60 points (4 wins) behind Nr. 1 Laver (87,25 points), Okker (75), Rosewall (74), Drysdale (69,25), Ashe (68, 25). In 1972, he played pretty bad in the first half on the main WCT tour, ending Nr. 8 on the points table with 39 points. Laver at the top had 112 points. But on the WCT "winter circuit" August- November 1972, he won the points race. In 1973, he skipped the WCT tour, played badly on the ILTF Grand Prix circuit in Europe (losing to Szoeke and others), but in the second half he came back strongly, winning Forest Hills and Davis Cup and finishing Nr. 2 in the ATP ranking behind Nastase. In 1973, he was Nr. 4 in prize money with 133.050 $. In 1974, he played dominant at the (3 part) WCT tour, won his group over Stan Smith with 4 tournament wins, and the Dallas event, and then was leading the ATP ranking. But then he had shot his arsenal, and lost pretty badly to Rosewall (who had skipped the WCT tour) at Wim and Forest Hills. In the ATP ranking, he finished 2nd behind Connors. The 1975 AO win was his last Hurrah.

Newk seems to have peaked for the big tournament titles, only in 1974 did he try and plan to win a tour series.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here is another upload, clearer?

 

[urban]

I looked up the weekly ratings 1968-1973, which were reconstructed by Marian Ciulpan, following the ATP standards of 1973. Newcombe was overall Nr. 1 by ATP standards for 52 weeks 1971-1974, Nastase for 47 weeks 1972-1974, Stan Smith for 37 weeks 1972-1973, and Laver for 187 weeks 1968-1972.

 

[DSH]

I looked up the weekly ratings 1968-1973, which were reconstructed by Marian Ciulpan, following the ATP standards of 1973. Newcombe was overall Nr. 1 by ATP standards for 52 weeks 1971-1974, Nastase for 47 weeks 1972-1974, Stan Smith for 37 weeks 1972-1973, and Laver for 187 weeks 1968-1972.

Didn't Rosewall amass a few weeks as world number 1 in that period?

 

[CyBorg]

In terms of an achieved level of play, I would rate him equal to Sedgman and Rosewall, and ahead of some other greats on grass.

I'm sorry, what?

Rosewall is miles better than Newcombe. Rosewall dominated tennis. Was the best in the world in '62 and '63 by miles and arguably the best in '61, '65 and '70. And he won more big professional events in his career than Laver.

 

[PDJ]

My Grandmother and Mother thought he was great. And "dishy".
Good enough for me.

 

[urban]

Following those reconstructed rankings 1968-1973 plus the later actual ATP rankings (both strictly along the lines of the ATP computer rankings then), Rosewall was 1968-1976, Nr. 2 for 73 weeks, top 3 for 154 weeks, top 5 for 272 weeks, and top 10 for 414 weeks, which is astonishing longevity.

 

[Larry Duff]

My Grandmother and Mother thought he was great. And "dishy".
Good enough for me.

That's funny. my grandmother could rival his moustache in her later years.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Following those reconstructed rankings 1968-1973 plus the later actual ATP rankings (both strictly along the lines of the ATP computer rankings then), Rosewall was 1968-1976, Nr. 2 for 73 weeks, top 3 for 154 weeks, top 5 for 272 weeks, and top 10 for 414 weeks, which is astonishing longevity.

In other words, no No. 1?

 

[Scott_tennis]

John Newcombe was one of the original “Handsome Eight” in 1968 and he participated in WCT events from 1968-1972, skipped 1973, and returned in 1974
In 1974 the full WCT schedule including tour events, playoffs and special events lasted for 17 weeks, from mid-January to mid-May. Newcombe was part of WCT’s “Blue Group” that year, which had eight events. The US Pro Indoors in Philadelphia involved all three groups. The special events were the CBS Classic (Newcombe was invited but did not participate) and the World Cup (he did participate). The playoffs were the doubles event in Montreal and the singles event in Dallas.

Here are his results week-by-week during the WCT season in 1974:

Week starting Monday
1 – 1/14 CBS Classic at Lakeway Texas (16 man event) - DNP
2 – 1/21 US Pro Indoor at Philadelphia (all groups) - WD – default to Bengston
3 – 1/28 Blue Group rest week
4 – 2/4 Blue Group – St Petersburg FL
W – D Holecek, Jovanovic, Stockton, Case, Metreveli (5-0)
5 – 2/11 Blue Group rest week
6 – 2/18 Blue Group – Nassau Coliseum Long Island NY
RU D Froehling, Phillips-Moore, Hrebec, Fairlie, L Smith (4-1)
7 – 2/25 Blue Group – La Costa CA
W – D Machette, Emerson, Gottfried, Cornejo, Smith (5-0)
8 – ‘3/4 World Cup -Hartford CT
D Ashe and Smith (2-0). Also doubles with Roche d Ashe/Smith
9 – 3/11 Blue Group rest week
10 – 3/18 Blue Group rest week
Newcombe played in the American Airlines Tennis Games – Tucson AZ which was an ATP event, and not a WCT event
W - D Borowiak, Tiriac, Gottfried, Smith, Ashe (5-0)
11 – 3/25 Blue Group Atlanta GA
QF – D Richey, Pasarell, L Stockton (2-1)
12 – 4/1 Blue Group New Orleans LA
W – D Davidson, Richey, Lutz, Franulovic, Borowiak (5-0)
13 – 4/8 Blue Group Orlando FL
W – D Froehing, Masters, Ramirez, Mottram, Fillol (5-0)
14 – 4/15 Blue Group Charlotte NC
QF – D Fairlie, Crealy, L Borowiak (2-1)
15 – 4/22 Blue Group St Louis MO
SF – D Fairlie, Mottram, El Shafei, L Metreveli (3-1)
16 – 4/29 WCT Doubles - Montreal
RU W Davidson – D Graebner/Pasarell and Lutz/Smith and L to Hewitt/McMillan (2-1)
17 – 5/6 WCT Singles – Dallas
W – D Okker, Smith, Borg (3-0)

In the 17 weeks from start of WCT CBS Lakeway to end of WCT Dallas: Newcombe participated in WCT nine singles events – and won five with an overall 34-4 match record (not counting Philadelphia default, World Cup matches, Montreal doubles or the ATP American Airlines event)

 

[Dan Lobb]

John Newcombe was one of the original “Handsome Eight” in 1968 and he participated in WCT events from 1968-1972, skipped 1973, and returned in 1974
In 1974 the full WCT schedule including tour events, playoffs and special events lasted for 17 weeks, from mid-January to mid-May. Newcombe was part of WCT’s “Blue Group” that year, which had eight events. The US Pro Indoors in Philadelphia involved all three groups. The special events were the CBS Classic (Newcombe was invited but did not participate) and the World Cup (he did participate). The playoffs were the doubles event in Montreal and the singles event in Dallas.

Here are his results week-by-week during the WCT season in 1974:

Week starting Monday
1 – 1/14 CBS Classic at Lakeway Texas (16 man event) - DNP
2 – 1/21 US Pro Indoor at Philadelphia (all groups) - WD – default to Bengston
3 – 1/28 Blue Group rest week
4 – 2/4 Blue Group – St Petersburg FL
W – D Holecek, Jovanovic, Stockton, Case, Metreveli (5-0)
5 – 2/11 Blue Group rest week
6 – 2/18 Blue Group – Nassau Coliseum Long Island NY
RU D Froehling, Phillips-Moore, Hrebec, Fairlie, L Smith (4-1)
7 – 2/25 Blue Group – La Costa CA
W – D Machette, Emerson, Gottfried, Cornejo, Smith (5-0)
8 – ‘3/4 World Cup -Hartford CT
D Ashe and Smith (2-0). Also doubles with Roche d Ashe/Smith
9 – 3/11 Blue Group rest week
10 – 3/18 Blue Group rest week
Newcombe played in the American Airlines Tennis Games – Tucson AZ which was an ATP event, and not a WCT event
W - D Borowiak, Tiriac, Gottfried, Smith, Ashe (5-0)
11 – 3/25 Blue Group Atlanta GA
QF – D Richey, Pasarell, L Stockton (2-1)
12 – 4/1 Blue Group New Orleans LA
W – D Davidson, Richey, Lutz, Franulovic, Borowiak (5-0)
13 – 4/8 Blue Group Orlando FL
W – D Froehing, Masters, Ramirez, Mottram, Fillol (5-0)
14 – 4/15 Blue Group Charlotte NC
QF – D Fairlie, Crealy, L Borowiak (2-1)
15 – 4/22 Blue Group St Louis MO
SF – D Fairlie, Mottram, El Shafei, L Metreveli (3-1)
16 – 4/29 WCT Doubles - Montreal
RU W Davidson – D Graebner/Pasarell and Lutz/Smith and L to Hewitt/McMillan (2-1)
17 – 5/6 WCT Singles – Dallas
W – D Okker, Smith, Borg (3-0)

In the 17 weeks from start of WCT CBS Lakeway to end of WCT Dallas: Newcombe participated in WCT nine singles events – and won five with an overall 34-4 match record (not counting Philadelphia default, World Cup matches, Montreal doubles or the ATP American Airlines event)

I have some recollection of these, many were televised.
In particular, the ATP event was labelled the "ATP Championship". Jack Kramer presented the trophy, and Orson Welles did television commentary, the final against Ashe was a classic, with Ashe having a strong showing, despite the loss, winning six straight games against Newk in the second set, Newk just winning the third. Orson Welles described Newcombe as "like a bulldog, hanging on no matter how much he gets tossed around."

 

[goldenera]

Best second serve all time,great first serve,Fh volley,Fh goundies,suspect bh..and a great athleye,sportsman and champ
Best early 70 player

 

[goldenera]

Only top Nasty could beat him.not in the long run,however

 

[goldenera]

Only top Nasty could beat him.not in the long run,however isn t it?