Match Stats/Report - Edmondson vs Newcombe, Australian Open final, 1976

[Waspsting]

Mark Edmondson beat John Newcombe 6-7(5), 6-3, 7-6(6), 6-1 in the Australian Open final, 1976 on grass

It was the unseeded, 212 ranked Edmondson’s only Slam title and he remains the lowest ranked player to win one. Newcombe was the defending champion and second seed. Edmondson also defeated top seed and former champion Ken Rosewall in the semi-final, as well as other seeds in earlier rounds

Edmondson won 149 points, Newcombe 131

Both players serve-volleyed off all serves

(Note: I’ve made educated guesses regarding serve type for 6-10 points)

Serve Stats
Edmondson...
- 1st serve percentage (108/156) 69%
- 1st serve points won (83/108) 77%
- 2nd serve points won (23/48) 48%
- Aces 11 (1 second serve)
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (54/156) 35%

Newcombe...
- 1st serve percentage (57/124) 46%
- 1st serve points won (46/57) 81%
- 2nd serve points won (35/67) 52%
- Aces 7
- Double Faults 9
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (56/124) 45%

Serve Patterns
Edmondson served...
- to FH 34%
- to BH 54%
- to Body 11%

Newcombe served...
- to FH 16%
- to BH 78%
- to Body 6%

Return Stats
Edmondson made...
- 59 (11 FH, 48 BH), including 4 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach
- 10 Winners (3 FH, 7 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 49 Errors, all forced...
- 49 Forced (10 FH, 39 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- Return Rate (59/51) 51%

Newcombe made...
- 97 (34 FH, 63 BH), including 8 runaround FHs
- 8 Winners (5 FH, 3 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 43 Errors, all forced...
- 43 Forced (21 FH, 22 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- Return Rate (97/151) 64%

Break Points
Edmondson 3/9 (5 games)
Newcombe 0/7 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Edmondson 48 (10 FH, 12 BH, 8 FHV, 9 BHV, 9 OH)
Newcombe 21 (6 FH, 4 BH, 8 FHV, 3 BHV)

Edmondson had 29 from serve-volley points
- 11 first 'volleys' (6 FHV, 3 BHV, 2 FH at net)... both FHs at net were drop shots
- 12 second 'volleys' (1 FHV, 4 BHV, 6 OH, 1 FH at net)... 2 OHs were on the bounce
- 6 third volleys (1 FHV, 2 BHV, 3 OH)

- 19 passes - 10 returns (3 FH, 7 BH) & 9 regular (4 FH, 5 BH)
- FH returns -2 cc (1 runaround which Newcombe seems to leave), 1 dtl
- BH returns - 1 cc, 3 dtl (1 bad bounce related), 2 inside-out, 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 cc, 2 inside-out, 1 longline at net (that hits Newcombe)
- regular BHs - 2 cc, 3 dtl

Newcombe had 10 from serve-volley points
- 4 first volleys (3 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 6 second volleys (4 FHV, 2 BHV)

- 10 passes - 8 returns (5 FH, 3 BH) & 2 regular (1 FH, 1 BH)
- FH returns - 2 cc (1 runaround), 3 inside-out (1 runaround)
- BH returns - 1 cc, 1 inside-out (that Edmondson left), 1 down-the-middle/cc (that Edmondson left)
- regular FH - 1 inside-out
- regular BH - 1 cc

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Edmondson 49
- 27 Unforced (3 FH, 1 BH, 10 FHV, 10 BHV, 2 OH, 1 BHOH)... with 1 FH pass attempt at net & 1 BH pass attempt
- 22 Forced (3 FH, 8 BH, 5 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 5 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 54.1

Newcombe 38
- 11 Unforced (6 FHV, 5 BHV)... with 1 BHV pass attempt
- 27 Forced (5 FH, 17 BH, 3 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 54.5

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented for this match are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Edmondson was...
- 97/145 (67%) at net, including...
- 95/140 (68%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 73/98 (74%) off 1st serve and...
- 22/42 (52%) off 2nd serve
---
- 0/1 return-approaching
- 0/1 forced back

Newcombe was...
- 76/113 (67%) at net, including...
- 74/108 (69%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 39/50 (78%) off 1st serve and...
- 35/58 (60%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 forced back

Match Report
Competitive and below par, full serve-volley match on bad court laden with bad bounces and in at least breezy conditions at best, and at worst, just shy of a gale. Newcombe’s the better volleyer, but his returning is harmless. That might be good enough because Edmondson at times is poor on the volley, but his returning packs a good punch

So that’s the contest, and its at least, interesting

Newcombe returns harmlessly at moderate return rate of 64%… will Edmondson screw up enough easy volleys to get broken? He’d have to miss them outright, because even, indecisive volleying is good enough to win points too. Newks does not pass well. At all. This is one of the feeblest passing showings you’ll ever see, particularly off the BH

(Answer is no, Edmondson goes through the match unbroken. Not for not trying - he’s got 23 volleying UEs, to 11 for Newks, and leaves 2 returns that land well in for winners)

Or will Edmon strike enough winning returns and passes at low 51% return rate to break past a solid enough volleying Newcombe?

Even with answer turning out to be yes, match still stays up in the air, and one could even say Newks chokes it away. He leads second set tiebreak 6-4. After Edmon needs a third volley to save first set point (he has 6 third volley winners, to hint at how he’s not too decisive on the volley - more on that later), Newks misses a regulation BHV, and then double faults, to allow Edmon to take the set

And it takes some luck for Edmon, volleying very poorly, to manage to win the second set, and not break himself before that, though the break he garners his all his own credit
6-1 finale speaks for itself, and is Edmon coming good with this strong passes

Framing all this is the wind. Its breezy at the start and around middle of third set, rises to storm levels, with sun still shining. According to commentary, there’s a half-hour break as it passes, but its still distractingly windy when they resume

In high winds, Edmon does well to serve decently. More so than Newk. The serving from both prior to excess winds though, is disappointing. One reason they can get away with it is because there are all kinds of bad bounces - high jumpers, low scooters, the works. Otherwise, court seems same pace and low bounce as typical Wimbledon

Statistically, match is readily interpretable

1st serve in - Edmon 69%, Newk 46%
1st serve won - Edmon 77%, Newk 81%
2nd serve won - Edmon 48%, Newk 52%

For starters, even when its only breezy, neither serves particularly big first serves. Its breezy enough to likely be a bother, and when breeze turns to gale, it would be next to impossible to serve strongly or regularly

As 1st serve won indicates, getting the first serve in proves important. And very good job by Edmon to get so many in.

Newk’s first serve is a little bigger, with both players in the same boat of strength
First serve ace rate - Edmon 9.3%, Newk 12.3%

Newk delivering challenging wide serves (stuff that has returner lunging and jumping) a little more often too. Newk with slightly bigger serve, but not worth being -23% on in count… Edmon’s doing better here

Both with decent second serves, readily returnable stuff sans serve-volleying (and uneven bounces), no significant difference in serving quality

Second serve double fault rate - Edmon 10%, Newk 13% (Edmon also has an ace)
Potentially problematic there for Newk, given his low in count

Unreturned rates - Edmon 35%, Newk 45%
(conversely, return rates - Edmon 51%, Newk 64%)
1st serve-volleying - Edmon 74%, Newk 78%
2nd serve-volleying - Edmon 52%, Newk 60%

For starters, Newk in particular is slow in moving for return. Edmon is at best average. Some of the aces that go by would are downright returnable let alone reachable. You wouldn’t see Jimmy Connors being aced by serves like this

Edmon stands inside court for both returns, his heels on inside of baseline. Against first serves, he falls back to baseline. Against seconds, he holds his position or even moves in a little as he takes a swing

First of all, Edmon standing so close is indicator of Newk not having too meaty a first serve. Second, taking a step back while returning is odd technique. What does it gain, to compensate for backward momentum in meeting the ball?

Newk takes both returns a pace and half behind baseline, rinky-dink BH pushing while swinging at FHs

First of all, Edmon standing so close is indicator of Newk not having too meaty a first serve. Second, taking a step back while returning is odd technique. What does it gain, to compensate for backward momentum in meeting the ball?

Newk takes both returns a pace and half behind baseline, rinky-dink BH pushing while swinging at FHs

Serve directions are interesting, without any clear indicator of good or bad choices. As both hold regularly, it works for both servers

Edmon directing 34% to FH, 54% to BH. With BH being so feeble, he might be tempted to serve more there, but he has drawn disproportionately higher lot of FH errors (20 FHs, to 22 BH, excluding a runaround FH). So he’s getting lots of FH errors, at cost that the FH returns tend to be damaging. BH returns are harmless by contrast, but Edmon’s volleying is quite capable to making a mess of routine and easy volleys that even that might work out for Newk. It seems unlikely Edmon would have factored in missing easy volleys into his serve direction choices - so likely, choices are made based on drawing good lot of FH errors

Newk more classix in directing 16% to FH, a whopping 78% to BH. Doesn’t hurt. He’s drawn errors across wings in same proportion and Edmon gets lusty BH returns off, but FH is probably even lustier

 

[Waspsting]

Some runaround FH returning by both players (Edmon 4 times, Newk 8). Given how feeble his BH return is, would be good for Newk in particular to runaround more, but his footwork isn’t good enough for that to be an obvious choice (and he’s not facing too many second serves). Edmon has much more chances to runaround, but he’s strong enough of the BH for there to be not much need for it

Next, the ‘volleying’ (including half-volleys and groundstrokes at net serve-volleying) and passing

Volley winners - Edmon 29, Newk 11
Volley UEs - Edmon 23, Newk 11
Volley FEs - Edmon 11, Newk 5

Return pass winners - Edmon 10, Newk 8
Non-return pass winners - Edmon 9, Newk 2
Ground FEs - Edmon 11, Newk 22

Edmon with his lower freebie rate with a lot more volleying to do. Much of it easy work, but he misses lots of easy or routine volleys. He doesn’t not get down for volleys well. Strangely, he’s relatively good at the low stuff, which occasionally come about from Newk’s light BH returns

Volleys don’t have to be too good because Newk’s passing makes his returning look wonderful. 2 passing winners, 22 ground FEs. Normal looks at pass, with Edmon not being too decisive in is volleying

6 third volley winners is very rare. Slightly deceptive indicator of how decisive Edmon is. Like much of his game, his volleying is a mixed bag - some perfectly punched away volleys, others not. He’s no plonk volleyer though, but does leave Newk decent chances on the pass

Just as a percentage, 22 FEs for 2 winners is terrible passing from Newk. Good job by Edmon to get so much of it to his BH (BH has 17 FEs, FH 5)

Newk volleys better than his numbers look and better than Edmon. For starters, he’s good at making the shoelace stuff, which Edmon isn’t particularly. And of course, he’s facing tougher, more powerful returns than Edmon is

Still, 11 winners, 11 UEs and Edmon with just 2 more ground FEs than passing winners is recipe for Edmon winning this tussle. Newk is also slow in moving sideways and some of the volleys he makes look difficult would be almost routine with good movement

All this is against back-drop of Newk getting a lot more freebies, so he has a head start before the volley-pass duels start

Gist of all this is Edmon sacrificing consistency for power on the return and the power he has both on return and the pass doing its job to get better of solid, could do better volleying from Newk
On flip side, Newk feeble with returns but getting a good lot more in play, which might be good to break with Edmon unpredictably shakey on routine volleys. But Newk is awful on the follow-up pass

Match Progression
Nice, even set of tennis to start off. No breaks, both players having 2 break points in one game going into tiebreak. Newk with slightly better of things - he serves 37 points for his 6 holds, to Edmon’s 41 and Edmon faces more half-volleys and low ones, which he manages to put in play

Comfy holds to 4-3 for Newk, before 3 deuce games in a row. Edmon’s not in much trouble in holding for 4-4 (he’s up 40-15 before games goes to deuce), but next 2 games both have 2 break points in them

Powerful BH returns (including 2 winners - cc and inside-in) to the feet give Edmon his chances and return errors thwart him. On second break point, Newk makes a difficult shoelace volley first up before drawing passing error. He holds when Edmon’s BH dtl return winner attempt misses

Its Edmon’s turn in the kitchen next, with double faults and volleys getting him in trouble. Curiously, Newk remains on the baseline after forcing Edmon back from net - something he did regularly in previous years final. Like Newk, serves get Edmon out of trouble - his ones stronger than the ones Newk relied on

Tiebreak. Whopping FH inside-out return pass winner against first serve put Newk up 2-0 and he stays ahead til the end, answering mini-break with mini-break when they occur. Newk double fault makes it 4-4. Edmon returns the gift to fall behind 4-6. Down set point, he misses a dtl return

Weird second set. Edmon goes on a haphazard volleying UE show, regularly missing routine ones to get into trouble, but just about managing to hold onto serve. If that weren’t enough, he misjudges and lets a couple of returns go that land in very comfortably for winners. Almost every one of his service games become a tussle while Newk holds easily

Until he doesn’t, and is broken to 30 in an all 2nd serve game, with Edmon striking BH dtl passing winners and forcing a wide FHV error. The last of the them is a return that takes a bad bounce, with Newk whiffing his attempted FH

Meanwhile, Edmon has to save 2 break points in 2 different games, including the serve out, in which on top of his sloppy volleying misses, Newk gets a couple good returns off. He manages, and endures 2 deuce holds where he doesn’t face break points too

Edmon serves 46 points or 9.2 per game in the set. Newk 21 or 5.25

By contrast, its Edmon who has better of third set. Winds pick up until it’s a full on storm (with sun still bright), which causes a half-hour delay in middle of set, with Edmon playing in his track-suit jacket on resumption for a game

Just the one break point and its in opening game, before the winds wreck havoc. Among other things, Edmon missing a lined up pass from inside court that’s easy enough to have been marked UE proves crucial as Newk goes on to hold the 12 point game

If precision serving is hard work in the wind, returning proves even harder for both players. Edmon serves 30 points for his 6 holds, Newk 41. He’s more secure on the volley than in previous set (which isn’t necessarily saying much, but its solid by a general standard and not just the woefully low one of second set)

Tiebreak looks like a repeat of the previous one, with Newk taking early lead 2-0, having made a tough half-volley to win the first point, and Edmon missing a straightforward BHV

Its Newk’s turn to leav a return that lands in for winner, but he answers with a rare passing winner, though it’s a relatively simple one from well in court to stay ahead 4-2

Edmon missing an OH sets him down 4-6, and he needs a third volley OH to thwart the first set point, but the next one is one return

Newk misses routine BHV and double faults. His low in count and double faulting tendancy has been precarious all match, and this is it coming home to roost. Good volley to force a running FH passing error to wrap up by Edmon, who’s wisely, avoided FH of Newk as much as possible all match

What turns out to be the final set starts off brightly, with Newk striking a pair of FH return pass winners in opening game and holding to 15 to level at 1-1
He doesn’t win another game. He’s broken to love next time around - double fault, 2 passing winners (BH dtl return and FH inside-out), with a low-ish FHV miss that’s been marked an FE

And next break is a bad game from him - another double fault, couple of routine volley misses, with Edmon throwing in another FH inside-out passing winner

Edmon faces break point in serving out. Pair of FHV UEs (the second against above average powerful return) set him down 15-30 and a runaround FH cc return pass winner brings up break point at 30-40. 3 unreturned serves later, match is done

Summing up, a craggy affair with strong winds and chewed up, irregularly bouncing court not helping. Both serve-volleyers manage to hold serve most of the time, but go about their business in different ways

Edmondson…
- gets high lot of first serves in (well done, in windy conditions)
- does not volley well, missing all kinds of routine and easy ones, even misjudging balls and letting winners through uncontested
- takes lusty swings on the return and the pass - misses a lot of returns, but gets testingly powerful ones off when he doesn’t
- movement is average

Newcombe…
- has slightly better serve, but dishes out a problematically low in-count and has some double faulting trouble
- volleys solidly, with room for improvement against good returns. He’s a bit more vulnerable to slightly powerful, net high balls than what constitutes good play, but is good at making the difficult low stuff
- returns feebly off the BH and his BH passing makes the returning look strong. His showing is lead contender for most hopeless passing display in a Slam final ever. FH return is strong though, but he doesn’t get to use it for passes much, with opponent careful to stay on the weak BH
- is slow of movement - on the return, getting to and even around the net, on the baseline

Things stay even-stevens for 3 sets, with Edmondson taking 2 of them because someone has to, and then running away with the next one to seal the result

@Drob @Pro tennis historian

 

[Drob]

Newks does not pass well. At all. This is one of the feeblest passing showings you’ll ever see, particularly off the BH

It is really great to do an in-depth on this match. We see an ATG at sundown. The comparison with his big wins must be sad. He is barely 31 at this time, but that could be old in those days (and still can be - or until very recently). In Newk's case it is old.

At age 29 (1974), he had a PRODIGIOUS year, winning 10 tournaments on a 90-14 record, including the WCT Finals, which was his biggest goal at that time (above Wimbledon), and the super-duper Tucson ATP. He played well at the Slams, losing to Rosewall at Wimbledon and USO, the latter in a tight SF.

We tend to think of 1975 as a good year for Newcombe, with the big victory over Connors at AO. But his overall record was 29-11, he was not very competitive in other tournaments, skipped the other Slams, and I am guessing was losing interest rapidly. And, with losing interest, probably not training and not maintaining. And getting "old-ish".

As you might imagine, 1976 is a hard slog. 34-29, out early at Wimbledon and every other tournament he plays. His best showing is Italian Open SF, where he was champion in 1969.

1977 he is out-of-the-game. 8-7 record.

1978 some sort of attempted something. 31-28, makes two finals. Not sure what is going on here. I guess regret at stepping away from the game too early, after the 1974 season.

It is known he was slacking off a bit toward end of 1974, but he got really serious about training in run-up to the AO. He wanted badly to beat Connors, and did. From then on, I don't think he had much motivation. He had a lot of good business enterprises going on, and he had been competing full time at the elite level since 1962.

A really good match to have, this one, for peculiar reason. It is like Clark Gable in The Misfits, kind-of, only Newk does not die, but goes on to a rich, rewarding, happy life.

 

[WCT]

Just short of a gale is right. It was ridiculously windy by the end of this match.

 

[Dan Lobb]

It is really great to do an in-depth on this match. We see an ATG at sundown. The comparison with his big wins must be sad. He is barely 31 at this time, but that could be old in those days (and still can be - or until very recently). In Newk's case it is old.

At age 29 (1974), he had a PRODIGIOUS year, winning 10 tournaments on a 90-14 record, including the WCT Finals, which was his biggest goal at that time (above Wimbledon), and the super-duper Tucson ATP. He played well at the Slams, losing to Rosewall at Wimbledon and USO, the latter in a tight SF.

We tend to think of 1975 as a good year for Newcombe, with the big victory over Connors at AO. But his overall record was 29-11, he was not very competitive in other tournaments, skipped the other Slams, and I am guessing was losing interest rapidly. And, with losing interest, probably not training and not maintaining. And getting "old-ish".

As you might imagine, 1976 is a hard slog. 34-29, out early at Wimbledon and every other tournament he plays. His best showing is Italian Open SF, where he was champion in 1969.

1977 he is out-of-the-game. 8-7 record.

1978 some sort of attempted something. 31-28, makes two finals. Not sure what is going on here. I guess regret at stepping away from the game too early, after the 1974 season.

It is known he was slacking off a bit toward end of 1974, but he got really serious about training in run-up to the AO. He wanted badly to beat Connors, and did. From then on, I don't think he had much motivation. He had a lot of good business enterprises going on, and he had been competing full time at the elite level since 1962.

A really good match to have, this one, for peculiar reason. It is like Clark Gable in The Misfits, kind-of, only Newk does not die, but goes on to a rich, rewarding, happy life.

Actually, 1975 was not a bad year for Newcombe through the first part of the year. He won his best win ever at the Australian, just squeeking through over Roche and Connors.

He lost the challenge match over Connors on a rubber surface, not his best. But then he was injured, a leg injury, from which he never fully recovered, and that reduced his playing time for 1975.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Here is the final.

 

[Waspsting]

It is really great to do an in-depth on this match. We see an ATG at sundown. The comparison with his big wins must be sad. He is barely 31 at this time, but that could be old in those days (and still can be - or until very recently). In Newk's case it is old.

At age 29 (1974), he had a PRODIGIOUS year, winning 10 tournaments on a 90-14 record, including the WCT Finals, which was his biggest goal at that time (above Wimbledon), and the super-duper Tucson ATP. He played well at the Slams, losing to Rosewall at Wimbledon and USO, the latter in a tight SF.

We tend to think of 1975 as a good year for Newcombe, with the big victory over Connors at AO. But his overall record was 29-11, he was not very competitive in other tournaments, skipped the other Slams, and I am guessing was losing interest rapidly. And, with losing interest, probably not training and not maintaining. And getting "old-ish".

As you might imagine, 1976 is a hard slog. 34-29, out early at Wimbledon and every other tournament he plays. His best showing is Italian Open SF, where he was champion in 1969.

1977 he is out-of-the-game. 8-7 record.

1978 some sort of attempted something. 31-28, makes two finals. Not sure what is going on here. I guess regret at stepping away from the game too early, after the 1974 season.

It is known he was slacking off a bit toward end of 1974, but he got really serious about training in run-up to the AO. He wanted badly to beat Connors, and did. From then on, I don't think he had much motivation. He had a lot of good business enterprises going on, and he had been competing full time at the elite level since 1962.

A really good match to have, this one, for peculiar reason. It is like Clark Gable in The Misfits, kind-of, only Newk does not die, but goes on to a rich, rewarding, happy life.

Just going by the post-match interview, he seems past it, like an old hand, talking like an old hand, not someone with plans to compete hard with the best in teh world

Seems quite happy to have lost to a young Australian and says something about the "young American boy" (or words to that effect) he beat previous year
Its good naturedly said but still comes off a little condescending, or at least, as if he's beyond or past these guys. Not their competitor. And crowd seem to feel it to because they react to his choice of words

I imagine the 'young American boy' coming into his head on the occasion is itself a sign that he's rather proud of the win. Would he have thought about or mentioned it if he had beaten Brian Gottfried?

I'm trying to imagine Andre Agassi referring to Roger Federer that way in say 2005 or 2004... and failing. Its not the way equal competitors talk about one another (unless they're trying to do something weird

 

[WCT]

It is really great to do an in-depth on this match. We see an ATG at sundown. The comparison with his big wins must be sad. He is barely 31 at this time, but that could be old in those days (and still can be - or until very recently). In Newk's case it is old.

At age 29 (1974), he had a PRODIGIOUS year, winning 10 tournaments on a 90-14 record, including the WCT Finals, which was his biggest goal at that time (above Wimbledon), and the super-duper Tucson ATP. He played well at the Slams, losing to Rosewall at Wimbledon and USO, the latter in a tight SF.

We tend to think of 1975 as a good year for Newcombe, with the big victory over Connors at AO. But his overall record was 29-11, he was not very competitive in other tournaments, skipped the other Slams, and I am guessing was losing interest rapidly. And, with losing interest, probably not training and not maintaining. And getting "old-ish".

As you might imagine, 1976 is a hard slog. 34-29, out early at Wimbledon and every other tournament he plays. His best showing is Italian Open SF, where he was champion in 1969.

1977 he is out-of-the-game. 8-7 record.

1978 some sort of attempted something. 31-28, makes two finals. Not sure what is going on here. I guess regret at stepping away from the game too early, after the 1974 season.

It is known he was slacking off a bit toward end of 1974, but he got really serious about training in run-up to the AO. He wanted badly to beat Connors, and did. From then on, I don't think he had much motivation. He had a lot of good business enterprises going on, and he had been competing full time at the elite level since 1962.

A really good match to have, this one, for peculiar reason. It is like Clark Gable in The Misfits, kind-of, only Newk does not die, but goes on to a rich, rewarding, happy life.

He had no intention of playing there in 1975. Connors entered late and when he heard about that then he entered. That is when he started training frantically. So, he really wasn't in tip top shape. I have heard him talk about this in interviews several times.

I think it was as far back as 1973 that he was considering quitting. Then he decided to really go for it that yeat, and full bore. I don't think his business interests started to lessen his committment to winning. Then he got into broadcasting. He kept playing, but I don't think with the same zeal. I think there may have been exceptions. I think he was all in on trying to win that challlenge match with Connors. He prepared fully for that.

I wouldn't think he'd lose to somone like Edmondson if he was 100% invested in the tennis. Those conditions got pretty brutal, though.