Stats for 1970 USO Final (Rosewall-Roche)

[Moose Malloy]

My stats:

Rosewall d. Roche: 26, 64, 76(5-2), 63

Rosewall had 36 winners: 9 fh, 6 bh, 11 fhv, 5 bhv, 5 ov

Roche had 38: 9 fh, 12 bh, 4 fhv, 8 bhv, 5 ov

Rosewall had 4 aces, 4 doubles
Roche had 6 aces, 1 double

Rosewall had 32 unreturned serves, 2 of which I judged a service winner
Roche had 26 unreturned serves, 5 of which I judged a service winner

Rosewall made 94 of 130 1st serves(72%)
Roche made 78 of 120 (65%)

Rosewall won 69 of 94 points on 1st serve (73%) & 18 of 36 on 2nd (50%)

Roche won 51 of 78 points on 1st serve (65%) & 26 of 42 on 2nd (62%)

Rosewall was 3 of 10 on break points. He broke in 3 of the 7 games he had break point in.

Roche was 3 of 15 on break points. He broke in 3 of the 7 games he had break point in.

Net stats:
Rosewall 84/122(69%)
Roche 69/112(62%)

Unforced errors:
Rosewall 6
Roche 15

Roche had 3 set points at 5-6 in the 3rd set.

This was the first USO that used a tiebreak system. The format was a 9 point sudden death tiebreak. When the score reached 4-4, the winner of the next point would win the set. 2, 2, 2, 3 was the breakdown of serving in the tiebreak(so whoever served 2nd would get a big advantage in getting to serve the last 3 points of the tiebreak. Rosewall got to serve 2nd in the 3rd set tiebreak.) There was no changeover after the tiebreak.

Jack Kramer had an interesting comment during the match, saying that 'grass is no longer a good surface for tennis & it won't be around much longer.'

Roche is the more famous volleyer today, but I was more impressed by Rosewall in this match. If he was anywhere near the ball, he would put it away time & again.

 

[CollegeBound]

Jack Kramer had an interesting comment during the match, saying that 'grass is no longer a good surface for tennis & it won't be around much longer.'

Good old Jack, every time he tried to speak in general he was talking about the USA like it was the only country on earth. Now, if he'd said the grass at WestSide wasn't good for tennis, well we all knew that for years. Worst grass courts in the world. None of the players liked playing there and most of the best would have dodged it if there hadn't been so much cash, even in the amatuer days.

In order to do the stats you'd need access to full coverage of the match. Where did you get that from ?

 

[hoodjem]

Roche is the more famous volleyer today, but I was more impressed by Rosewall in this match. If he was anywhere near the ball, he would put it away time & again.

This is true, primarily because Fed hired Roche to coach his volleys (and maybe because Roche's game was not as well-rounded). The irony is that Rosewall, Laver, or Newcombe, all had volleys easily as good (or perhaps better) as Roche's.

 

[Moose Malloy]

This is true, primarily because Fed hired Roche to coach his volleys (and maybe because Roche's game was not as well-rounded). The irony is that Rosewall, Laver, or Newcombe, all had volleys easily as good (or perhaps better) as Roche's.

I heard about how great Roche's volleys were long before Federer was even on tour. Throughout the 80s & 90s, guys like Cliff Drysdale & Fred Stolle(contemporaries of Roche, Rosewall, etc) would say during commentary that Roche had the best backhand volley they'd ever seen(often this would come up during an Edberg match since his backhand volley was so celebrated. and during Lendl matches when he was with Roche. Tennis magazine called it one of the best shots in the Open Era in an issue in the 80s. I think Laver even talked about Roche's volleys in his book)

I have 4 Roche matches on dvd(one a doubles match) & while he was pretty impressive up there, I don't see him separating himself from other players from that era up there(namely Rosewall & Laver) maybe I need to see more of him.

 

[hoodjem]

MM,
I'm not disagreeing about Roche and the prowess of his volleys. I'd certainly heard of him as a doubles partner with Newcombe, and then again working with Lendl.

But I think Roche's name comes up in the last few years (by persons who have never heard of Newk or Lendl) as Fed's former coach.

Isn't there a recent story about a doubles match at Newport with Roche, Agassi, and Mac (and someone else), and someone keeps telling Agassi to keep it away from Roche's BH volley, otherwise point over.

 

[krosero]

Interesting that Roche had a high success on second serve (twelve points higher than Rosewall), but still lost.

Also looks like Rosewall did slightly better at getting serves back.

Just going by the aces and the judgments of service winners, Roche looks like he has the more powerful serve -- but the stats show Rosewall returning better.

(I haven't seen the match, but those are my impressions from reading the numbers.)


Rosewall was 35 and he still wasn't done winning Slams. Roche was 25 and it turned out to be his last Slam final.

I wonder how many times that has happened -- a victory over someone 10 years younger.

 

[krosero]

Roche is the more famous volleyer today, but I was more impressed by Rosewall in this match. If he was anywhere near the ball, he would put it away time & again.

And in the stats Roche has fewer winners from volleys that he does from ground strokes.

A little surprising considering the low-bouncing grass at Forest Hills.

 

[pc1]

This is true, primarily because Fed hired Roche to coach his volleys (and maybe because Roche's game was not as well-rounded). The irony is that Rosewall, Laver, or Newcombe, all had volleys easily as good (or perhaps better) as Roche's.

Roche was always well known for his backhand volley and overall he was a super volleyer but Rosewall's backhand volley was also among the greatest of all time and his forehand volley was a fantastic stroke.

Newcombe was considered to have the best forehand volley by many of his day and many thought his first volley was the best in tennis.

Laver's backhand volley was also legendary (incredible how many great volleyers there were in those days) and his forehand volley was excellent although he could net the low forehand volley at times. When Laver was on his game both volleys could be hit with tremendous speed and angles.

I was never under the impression that history rated Roche's overall volley clearly better than Rosewall's or Laver. Equal perhaps and if it was better, it was only by a fraction.

Roche in his day was a great player. It amazes me that despite the fact that his game was perfect for grass courts, he never won a grass court major. Yet his game was good enough to win the French Championship. He was considered the heir to Laver's throne by many at the time.

And in the stats Roche has fewer winners from volleys that he does from ground strokes.

A little surprising considering the low-bouncing grass at Forest Hills.

Perhaps a little surprising but Roche did have excellent groundstrokes.

 

[krosero]

Some previous stats on Roche, both times vs. Laver:

1969 AO: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=1905663#post1905663.
1969 USO: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=191678.

In both those matches Roche has more volley winners than groundstrokes, especially in that sample from the AO match where he's running neck and neck with Laver (during their 22-20 set).

I can see why maybe this '70 match is not the most impressive for Roche's volleys -- at least in terms of clean winners. (His net-winning percentage is still high).

I'm not surprised to see Rosewall with just 6 unforced errors.

Moose, from your service stats I've got Rosewall leading in total points won by 130-120.

That point margin must have come in the errors, because in the winners and aces the two players are practically running even (in fact Roche has a slight edge). So it looks like Rosewall won this match by keeping his errors low.

 

[krosero]

Moose, do your UE's include the df's?

 

[Moose Malloy]

Just going by the aces and the judgments of service winners, Roche looks like he has the more powerful serve -- but the stats show Rosewall returning better.

Rosewall did return a lot better. There was a stretch where Roche couldn't get a return back in play(with most of them being 2nd serves, I was tempted to call some of them unforced errors, even though Rosewall was coming forward on them. Even the commentators said Roche should be getting more balls in play)

service %'s by set:

Rosewall
14/21 (67%)
22/28 (79%)
25/41 (61%)
33/40 (83%)

Roche
16/23 (70%)
22/31 (71%)
28/47 (60%)
12/19 (63%)

Moose, do your UE's include the df's?

No

 

[krosero]

There was a stretch where Roche couldn't get a return back in play(with most of them being 2nd serves, I was tempted to call some of them unforced errors, even though Rosewall was coming forward on them. Even the commentators said Roche should be getting more balls in play)

Maybe these type of errors should be called unforced. The usual rule is that if you make an error while your opponent is at net, the error is forced. That's fine in general, but I'm wondering. For example if you have a clear shot to pass someone, a big opening to drive into, but you dump it in the net, I think it could be an unforced error.

The idea is that someone at net puts pressure on you. But let's say with a series of strong ground strokes you've got that person lunging and clearly on the defensive, or out of position. The time when he was in control and applying pressure is gone. Now you're in control. If you fail to pass successfully it's because you're pressing, or not concentrating on the ball, or some other reason -- but those are reasons for errors in baseline rallies, too. And when those errors happen in baseline rallies -- when you're in control but you just net the ball or drive it out -- it's always called an unforced error.

So why shouldn't it be called unforced when you make a similar type of error while trying to pass your opponent? I'm talking about when your opponent at net is clearly on the defensive, not when he's hurt you with his approach and is ready to volley.

I'm not saying that the rule about passing errors being forced is a bad rule. In general, it's obvious that most missed passes are forced errors.

But last week on TC they showed Goolagong-Reid at Hilton Head in '77. Kerry approached, and Evonne dumped a FH limply into the net. Pancho was commentating and he said he thought it was a very bad error. He didn't call it unforced, but there was nothing on that pass attempt; it was a poor shot.

So was it really forced? Well, someone was at net. The person attempting to pass felt some pressure. But you feel pressure, and choke, in baseline rallies too.

I'm just thinking the rule should be flexible. Probably a lot of people already see many missed passes as unforced errors.

 

[krosero]

Rosewall had 4 aces, 4 doubles
Roche had 6 aces, 1 double

Rosewall won 69 of 94 points on 1st serve (73%) & 18 of 36 on 2nd (50%)

Roche won 51 of 78 points on 1st serve (65%) & 26 of 42 on 2nd (62%)

Unforced errors:
Rosewall 6
Roche 15

So Rosewall led 130-120 in overall points.

Rosewall’s Aggressive Margin was 41.6%, Roche’s 37.6%.

 

[krosero]

By my count, in the tiebreak:

Rosewall made 1 of 3 first serves.

Roche made 2 of 4 first serves (the only point he won was on a second serve).

 

[BobbyOne]

My stats:

Rosewall d. Roche: 26, 64, 76(5-2), 63

Rosewall had 36 winners: 9 fh, 6 bh, 11 fhv, 5 bhv, 5 ov

Roche had 38: 9 fh, 12 bh, 4 fhv, 8 bhv, 5 ov

Rosewall had 4 aces, 4 doubles
Roche had 6 aces, 1 double

Rosewall had 32 unreturned serves, 2 of which I judged a service winner
Roche had 26 unreturned serves, 5 of which I judged a service winner

Rosewall made 94 of 130 1st serves(72%)
Roche made 78 of 120 (65%)

Rosewall won 69 of 94 points on 1st serve (73%) & 18 of 36 on 2nd (50%)

Roche won 51 of 78 points on 1st serve (65%) & 26 of 42 on 2nd (62%)

Rosewall was 3 of 10 on break points. He broke in 3 of the 7 games he had break point in.

Roche was 3 of 15 on break points. He broke in 3 of the 7 games he had break point in.

Net stats:
Rosewall 84/122(69%)
Roche 69/112(62%)

Unforced errors:
Rosewall 6
Roche 15

Roche had 3 set points at 5-6 in the 3rd set.

This was the first USO that used a tiebreak system. The format was a 9 point sudden death tiebreak. When the score reached 4-4, the winner of the next point would win the set. 2, 2, 2, 3 was the breakdown of serving in the tiebreak(so whoever served 2nd would get a big advantage in getting to serve the last 3 points of the tiebreak. Rosewall got to serve 2nd in the 3rd set tiebreak.) There was no changeover after the tiebreak.

Jack Kramer had an interesting comment during the match, saying that 'grass is no longer a good surface for tennis & it won't be around much longer.'

Roche is the more famous volleyer today, but I was more impressed by Rosewall in this match. If he was anywhere near the ball, he would put it away time & again.

Moose, I'm not sure if Roche is the more famous volleyer today. Rosewall's volleys are also legendary, at least his backhand v. It's interesting that Muscles made more winning forehand volleys than backhand volleys in that match. I cannot decide which of these two volleys should I admire more...

 

[kiki]

MM,
I'm not disagreeing about Roche and the prowess of his volleys. I'd certainly heard of him as a doubles partner with Newcombe, and then again working with Lendl.

But I think Roche's name comes up in the last few years (by persons who have never heard of Newk or Lendl) as Fed's former coach.

Isn't there a recent story about a doubles match at Newport with Roche, Agassi, and Mac (and someone else), and someone keeps telling Agassi to keep it away from Roche's BH volley, otherwise point over.

Few players have stunned me live than Roche
But think about that: his only major came against unknown Guylas
Much like Gimeno (Proisy)

 

[BobbyOne]

Few players have stunned me live than Roche
But think about that: his only major came against unknown Guylas
Much like Gimeno (Proisy)

kiki, the unknown Gulyas was one of the best claycourters in the world.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Moose, I'm not sure if Roche is the more famous volleyer today. Rosewall's volleys are also legendary, at least his backhand v. It's interesting that Muscles made more winning forehand volleys than backhand volleys in that match. I cannot decide which of these two volleys should I admire more...

It's likely that Roche was aiming at the forehand side of Rosewall for his passing shot, thus Rosewall played more forehand volleys.

 

[kiki]

kiki, the unknown Gulyas was one of the best claycourters in the world.

Maybe better than Plaa?

 

[BobbyOne]

It's likely that Roche was aiming at the forehand side of Rosewall for his passing shot, thus Rosewall played more forehand volleys.

Flash, I agree.

 

[BobbyOne]

Maybe better than Plaa?

kiki, It's hard to say. Plaa was world champion on clay in 1932 when he beat both Tilden and Nüsslein.

Gulyas was also semifinalist of Paris in 1967...

 

[Moose Malloy]

Rosewall was 3 of 10 on break points. He broke in 3 of the 7 games he had break point in.

Roche was 3 of 15 on break points. He broke in 3 of the 7 games he had break point in.

Rosewall made 1st serves on 12 of the 15 break points he faced. Roche - 8 of 10.

 

[BobbyOne]

Rosewall made 1st serves on 12 of the 15 break points he faced. Roche - 8 of 10.

Moose, Not too bad balances. Thanks.

 

[kiki]

This was to be the last surprisng defeat Newk would have till 1974.He dominated the world like few have done, with such a strong presence.Everybody´s balls ( bar Laver) were shrugging at the prospect to play Newcombe in a fifth set, since he never lost once it went to 5.Ask those two great fighters, Kodes and Smith, ask that fine analiser called Arthur Ashe ( " of all the great aussies, Newcombe is the one with the most intimidating presence" ) and ask those two new monsters like Borg and Connors, who would dominate from 1974 till 1979.


One of the best ever serves, be it first or second, great net game, excellent offensive FH, smart tactics and great physichal and menthal presence.But also one of the nicest characters and ssportsmen ever seen on a tennis court.

He was a Hollywood character.

And he won 8 majors ( but lost three finals, to Laver,Stolle and surprising Mark Edmondson)

 

[krosero]

This was to be the last surprisng defeat Newk would have till 1974.He dominated the world like few have done, with such a strong presence.Everybody´s balls ( bar Laver) were shrugging at the prospect to play Newcombe in a fifth set, since he never lost once it went to 5.Ask those two great fighters, Kodes and Smith, ask that fine analiser called Arthur Ashe ( " of all the great aussies, Newcombe is the one with the most intimidating presence" ) and ask those two new monsters like Borg and Connors, who would dominate from 1974 till 1979.

Newk has a great five-set record but he was hardly invincible in long matches. The ATP has him at 32-15 in five-set matches, which is a very fine record, and that puts him at #29 on the ATP list.

But of course that still leaves 28 players in front of him, including a number of lesser players and mental weaklings from this modern era that you love so much (Andy Murray, Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin).

And what is this surprising defeat you're referring to? You mean Rosewall's defeat of Newk in the semis of 70USO? We haven't even mentioned it in this thread.

But why would you call it surprising? Is there something so surprising about the third seed beating the second seed? Not very surprising at all, considering Rosewall, in the quarters, had overwhelmed Stan Smith 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 while Newcombe had a much tougher match with Ashe.

As for Newk not having any surprising defeats between 1971 and 1974, that is flat-out wrong. At the '71 AO he lost to Marty Riessen in the R16. Next year's AO he was upset by Mal Anderson: 9-7 in the fifth set. Later that year he lost to Fred Stolle at the USO, in the third round. He got clobbered by a nearly unknown Milan Holocek at '73 RG.

Lots of surprising losses there. Losing to Rosewall should not be compared to those kinds of losses.

 

[krosero]

New York Times report on Rosewall's win over Newcombe at this '70 USO (6-3, 6-4, 6-3):

In his 86-minute victory over Newcombe, Rosewall displayed the numerous qualities that have endeared him to the aficionado: the impeccable return of serve; graceful ground strokes; consistent if unspectacular volley; depth and angle on the overhead, and deft touch.

Rosewall’s service return is the finest in the game. His angled returns, particularly down the line, forced Newcombe to stretch for the first volley rather than puch through it for the winner.

“The biggest difference between my play here and at Wimbledon was in moving,” Newcombe said. “I wasn’t at the ball when he was going wide. I was always stretching and he was hitting those winners. It was like trying to hit through a brick wall.”

At 5 feet 7 inches and 140 pounds, the dark-haired Rosewall is hardly the overpowering type. His nickname, given to him by the players, is Muscles, a throwback to his slight frame.

On the court, his trudging gait, stooped shoulders and often slow, mechanical movements disguise his intensity and determination.

When he wants to remind himself to concentrate, he will slap his hips a few times or stare at the ground before serving. His concentration is responsible for his consistency over the years, dating as far back as 1953, when he first reached the semifinals here as an 18-year-old phenomenon against such Americans as Tony Trabert and Vic Seixas.

Newcombe had 2 points for a service break in the opening game and another at 30-40 in the third. Each time Rosewall extricated himself with deep serves to the backhand.

“The ball sits lower on your serve on the center court,” Newcombe said.

The first service break did not come until the eighth game. Newcombe opened with a double-fault, volleyed a winner for 15-all, but lost the next 3 points on two volleying errors and Rosewall’s forehand volley placement after Kenny’s forehand lob had drive Newcombe back to the baseline.

In the third game of the second set, Rosewall broke Newcombe at love. The last point was an offspeed backhand service return sliced cross-court, on which Newcombe pushed a backhand volley into the net. It was a shot that captured the crowd’s fancy, and it “oohed” and “aahed” at Rosewall’s execution.

At 5-4, serving for the set, Rosewall recovered from 15-40 to win 4 straight points, all on errors by Newcombe -- two on service returns and two more off the forehand, John’s best stroke. That may have been the decisive game of the match.​

Rosewall did not drop serve and held 14 times.

 

[kiki]

Newk has a great five-set record but he was hardly invincible in long matches. The ATP has him at 32-15 in five-set matches, which is a very fine record, and that puts him at #29 on the ATP list.

But of course that still leaves 28 players in front of him, including a number of lesser players and mental weaklings from this modern era that you love so much (Andy Murray, Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin).

And what is this surprising defeat you're referring to? You mean Rosewall's defeat of Newk in the semis of 70USO? We haven't even mentioned it in this thread.

But why would you call it surprising? Is there something so surprising about the third seed beating the second seed? Not very surprising at all, considering Rosewall, in the quarters, had overwhelmed Stan Smith 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 while Newcombe had a much tougher match with Ashe.

As for Newk not having any surprising defeats between 1971 and 1974, that is flat-out wrong. At the '71 AO he lost to Marty Riessen in the R16. Next year's AO he was upset by Mal Anderson: 9-7 in the fifth set. Later that year he lost to Fred Stolle at the USO, in the third round. He got clobbered by a nearly unknown Milan Holocek at '73 RG.

Lots of surprising losses there. Losing to Rosewall should not be compared to those kinds of losses.

I´d ask Kodes ( and Smith,Rosewall etc) because of what I said before, that is, he seldom lost a title - major- in the fifth set.

Newcombe used to whipp Rosewall on grass, that is the reason I found somewhat surprising, but in any case, Rosewall was a great player and you had to really beat him...

 

[kiki]

Newk has a great five-set record but he was hardly invincible in long matches. The ATP has him at 32-15 in five-set matches, which is a very fine record, and that puts him at #29 on the ATP list.

But of course that still leaves 28 players in front of him, including a number of lesser players and mental weaklings from this modern era that you love so much (Andy Murray, Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin).

And what is this surprising defeat you're referring to? You mean Rosewall's defeat of Newk in the semis of 70USO? We haven't even mentioned it in this thread.

But why would you call it surprising? Is there something so surprising about the third seed beating the second seed? Not very surprising at all, considering Rosewall, in the quarters, had overwhelmed Stan Smith 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 while Newcombe had a much tougher match with Ashe.

As for Newk not having any surprising defeats between 1971 and 1974, that is flat-out wrong. At the '71 AO he lost to Marty Riessen in the R16. Next year's AO he was upset by Mal Anderson: 9-7 in the fifth set. Later that year he lost to Fred Stolle at the USO, in the third round. He got clobbered by a nearly unknown Milan Holocek at '73 RG.

Lots of surprising losses there. Losing to Rosewall should not be compared to those kinds of losses.

...and, please don´t compare...beating a menthal giant in the fifth is completely opposite to beating a menthal midget in the fifth...

 

[krosero]

I´d ask Kodes ( and Smith,Rosewall etc) because of what I said before, that is, he seldom lost a title - major- in the fifth set.

He lost a number of five-set matches in Slams: '68 Wimbledon, '69 AO, '69 RG, '69 USO, '71 AO.

He also lost extraordinarily long four-set matches at '70 AO (93 games) and '67 AO (81 games).

And he lost two five-setters in Davis Cup.

That's not a bad record but it's hardly true that he seldom lost five-setters in majors.

Having said that, yes of course he was one of the tougher champions to beat in long matches: but please there's no reason to exaggerate it.

Newcombe used to whipp Rosewall on grass, that is the reason I found somewhat surprising, but in any case, Rosewall was a great player and you had to really beat him...

That was a general theme in Rosewall's career, though: he was often overlooked. People overlooked him, perhaps subconsciously, or consciously, because of his size -- not to mention his style which was not "spectacular". A lot of players like that get overlooked, and then people act all surprised when they win. Wilander was somewhat like that too.

...and, please don´t compare...beating a menthal giant in the fifth is completely opposite to beating a menthal midget in the fifth...

I'd take your own advice here: don't compare. Comparing eras is an invitation to indulge in personal bias.

 

[BobbyOne]

Newk has a great five-set record but he was hardly invincible in long matches. The ATP has him at 32-15 in five-set matches, which is a very fine record, and that puts him at #29 on the ATP list.

But of course that still leaves 28 players in front of him, including a number of lesser players and mental weaklings from this modern era that you love so much (Andy Murray, Mark Philippoussis, Marat Safin).

And what is this surprising defeat you're referring to? You mean Rosewall's defeat of Newk in the semis of 70USO? We haven't even mentioned it in this thread.

But why would you call it surprising? Is there something so surprising about the third seed beating the second seed? Not very surprising at all, considering Rosewall, in the quarters, had overwhelmed Stan Smith 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 while Newcombe had a much tougher match with Ashe.

As for Newk not having any surprising defeats between 1971 and 1974, that is flat-out wrong. At the '71 AO he lost to Marty Riessen in the R16. Next year's AO he was upset by Mal Anderson: 9-7 in the fifth set. Later that year he lost to Fred Stolle at the USO, in the third round. He got clobbered by a nearly unknown Milan Holocek at '73 RG.

Lots of surprising losses there. Losing to Rosewall should not be compared to those kinds of losses.

krosero, Thanks for explaining that matter.

By the way, the name of that Czechoslovakian player was Holecek.

 

[BobbyOne]

I´d ask Kodes ( and Smith,Rosewall etc) because of what I said before, that is, he seldom lost a title - major- in the fifth set.

Newcombe used to whipp Rosewall on grass, that is the reason I found somewhat surprising, but in any case, Rosewall was a great player and you had to really beat him...

kiki, As a true expert you should avoid to write that Newcombe used to whip Rosewall on grass. In fact he only whipped him in the 1971 W. SF after that long match Rosewall had played against Richey.

 

[krosero]

kiki, As a true expert you should avoid to write that Newcombe used to whip Rosewall on grass. In fact he only whipped him in the 1971 W. SF after that long match Rosewall had played against Richey.

Yes, that was the only blowout, and Rosewall's QF marathon was a good reason for it. Other than that they both had straight-set victories over each other on grass (70USO, 73USO).

Newcombe, not Rosewall, was the one who had the most difficult victory (at 1970 W) -- or to put it another way, the smallest margin of victory.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N044&oId=R075

Right about Holecek.

 

[abmk]

I´d ask Kodes ( and Smith,Rosewall etc) because of what I said before, that is, he seldom lost a title - major- in the fifth set.

Newcombe used to whipp Rosewall on grass, that is the reason I found somewhat surprising, but in any case, Rosewall was a great player and you had to really beat him...

you need to get real - the likes of borg, nadal, djokovic are clearly above newk in a 5th set. their play in the 5th set and their 5th set records are a testament to this.

 

[BobbyOne]

Yes, that was the only blowout, and Rosewall's QF marathon was a good reason for it. Other than that they both had straight-set victories over each other on grass (70USO, 73USO).

Newcombe, not Rosewall, was the one who had the most difficult victory (at 1970 W) -- or to put it another way, the smallest margin of victory.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N044&oId=R075

Right about Holecek.

krosero, It's maybe interesting that even the last set of the 1970 W. final was competitive. Even a tired Rosewall played better than the score indicates. Several games went to deuce.

 

[kiki]

you need to get real - the likes of borg, nadal, djokovic are clearly above newk in a 5th set. their play in the 5th set and their 5th set records are a testament to this.

Newcombe played menthal giants not menthal midgets

 

[kiki]

Yes, that was the only blowout, and Rosewall's QF marathon was a good reason for it. Other than that they both had straight-set victories over each other on grass (70USO, 73USO).

Newcombe, not Rosewall, was the one who had the most difficult victory (at 1970 W) -- or to put it another way, the smallest margin of victory.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=N044&oId=R075

Right about Holecek.

victory was never in discussion in 1970 Wimbledon.Specially in a fifth set...

 

[krosero]

krosero, It's maybe interesting that even the last set of the 1970 W. final was competitive. Even a tired Rosewall played better than the score indicates. Several games went to deuce.

True, there were 49 points, more than you would normally expect in a 6-1 set.

 

[abmk]

Newcombe played menthal giants not menthal midgets

LOL, what a load of bu** and in what sort of a delusional world do you live in ?

okker,ralston,anderson, ashe - losses in 5-set matches in majors

ralston, toshiro - losses in Davis Cup in 5-set matches

none of them close to being mental giants of the game.

duh

likes of borg, djokovic, nadal are *EASILY* better

 

[kiki]

LOL, what a load of bu** and in what sort of a delusional world do you live in ?

okker,ralston,anderson, ashe - losses in 5-set matches in majors

ralston, toshiro - losses in Davis Cup in 5-set matches

none of them close to being mental giants of the game.

duh

likes of borg, djokovic, nadal are *EASILY* better

beat Jan Kodes, Ken Rosewall, Stan Smith, Bjorn Borg ( one of those you mention) and Jimmy Connors....

 

[Dan Lobb]

LOL, what a load of bu** and in what sort of a delusional world do you live in ?

okker,ralston,anderson, ashe - losses in 5-set matches in majors

ralston, toshiro - losses in Davis Cup in 5-set matches

none of them close to being mental giants of the game.

duh

likes of borg, djokovic, nadal are *EASILY* better

Lost in 5 to Ralston when Newk was 19!

 

[kiki]

Lost in 5 to Ralston when Newk was 19!

oh¡ ABMK never lets reality interfere with his agenda.

 

[abmk]

beat Jan Kodes, Ken Rosewall, Stan Smith, Bjorn Borg ( one of those you mention) and Jimmy Connors....

he didn't beat borg in a 5th set, didn't beat connors in a 5th set either ..

again, I've shown many losses to the not so mentally tough players. he's nowhere the mental giant you make him out to be.

okker,ralston,anderson, ashe - losses in 5-set matches in majors

ralston, toshiro - losses in Davis Cup in 5-set matches

borg, nadal, djokovic are clearly better in a 5th set situation.

 

[abmk]

oh¡ ABMK never lets reality interfere with his agenda.

ah ha ha ha ha

oh wait

ha ha ha ha ha

 

[abmk]

Lost in 5 to Ralston when Newk was 19!

I was simply giving the list of the not so mentally tough players who defeated newk in the 5th set.

if we include the mentally tough players, he's had quite a few more losses, including in his prime.

 

[kiki]

he didn't beat borg in a 5th set, didn't beat connors in a 5th set either ..

again, I've shown many losses to the not so mentally tough players. he's nowhere the mental giant you make him out to be.

okker,ralston,anderson, ashe - losses in 5-set matches in majors

ralston, toshiro - losses in Davis Cup in 5-set matches

borg, nadal, djokovic are clearly better in a 5th set situation.

He was called Mr Fifth set by unsuspectable guys such as Ashe.

Good try with wiki, anyway

 

[kiki]

Anyway, He and Roche had one of the hottest rivalries that i remember with almost all their big clashes getting to full stretch.

AO 69,Wimbledon 68, Wimbledon 69,USO 69,AO 75... little doubt that being doubles partners made those matches torrid.perfect knowledge of each other´s games...

 

[Moose Malloy]

thanks for ruining my thread guys. this is why I don't post more stats here, I know there's a pretty good chance that someone will say something completely off topic & get into a ******* contest. its like groundhog day, happens over & over again.

I hate what's happened to this section, its really no different than general pro player discussion.

 

[kiki]

thanks for ruining my thread guys. this is why I don't post more stats here, I know there's a pretty good chance that someone will say something completely off topic & get into a ******* contest. its like groundhog day, happens over & over again.

I hate what's happened to this section, its really no different than general pro player discussion.

Sorry, we did a bad job spoiling your thread...but I have lost the account of spoilt threads I did open ( it usually happens with trolls like ABMK )

 

[abmk]

thanks for ruining my thread guys. this is why I don't post more stats here, I know there's a pretty good chance that someone will say something completely off topic & get into a ******* contest. its like groundhog day, happens over & over again.

I hate what's happened to this section, its really no different than general pro player discussion.

will try my best to avoid these. Sometimes can't help when BS is spoken of as facts/reality.