The 1930s and 1940s plus the 1950s for the Women players.

pc1

G.O.A.T.
The Thirties and Forties in World Tennis

NatF and Krosero brought out an excellent point that we tend to discuss the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s too much on the Former Player’s forum and that we should discuss other eras in tennis.

So I think discussing the 1930s and 1940s would be a source of interesting discussion. The 1930s still had some superstars from the 1920s in Bill Tilden, arguably the GOAT and a player ranked in a poll of tennis experts in 1969 as easily the top player in tennis history, Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra, John Doeg who apparently had one of the greatest serves ever, Bunny Austin, George Lott and others.

There were new superstars during the 1930s in Ellsworth Vines, often argued to be the greatest of all time when on his game and perhaps the most powerful hitter ever, Fred Perry with the great continental forehand and winner of three straight Wimbledons among his many majors, Jack Crawford, the almost winner of the first Grand Slam even though I’m not sure there was such a term then, Don Budge, the player who many have called the GOAT and the first winner of the Grand Slam as we know it today, Bobby Riggs, the great stylist, hustler and loser to BJ King (unless he threw the match), John Bromwich with the unusual hitting style but a great player nevertheless, Frank Shields (grandfather of Brooke), Nusslein, and Frank Parker. There is a lot of fascinating players here.

World War II interrupted tennis for a number of years but from the 1940s emerged greats like Ted Schroeder, Jack Kramer, the player who popularized the serve and volley, Drobny, one of the great winners of all time, Gardner Mulloy who was a superb player until the end of his life which was only recently, Bob Falkenburg, Bill Talbert (later US Open tournament director) as well as some leftovers from the 1930s, specifically Bobby Riggs who was Pro Champion in the later 1940s.

The women in the 1930s still had the great Helen Wills who won 19 majors out of 24 played, Helen Jacobs who was Wills’ rival, Cilly Aussem, Elizabeth Ryan, Dorothy Round, Lili de Alvarez as well as the great Alice Marble whose life story is something out of fantasy movies.

The 1940s had Pauline Betz, who had a super backhand modelled after Budge but also the winner of a number of majors, Louise Brough, Margaret Osborne, Doris Hart, Beverley Baker who had no backhand only a forehand.

Actually I think we should discuss the 1950s for the women. The 1950s had the great Maureen Connolly who won the Grand Slam and 9 straight majors that she enter, Althea Gibson, the first top African American female player, Christine Truman, Maria Bueno, Shirley Fry among the many great and interesting players.

Please discuss.
 
Last edited:
My guess on how experts rated some of the top strokes of the 1930s
Serve-Vines, Doeg, Shields, von Cramm (great second serve), Tilden (for early 1930s)
Backhand-Clearly Budge is number one, Bromwich, Riggs, Tilden (early 1930s)
Forehand-Perry, Vines, Tilden, Riggs, von Cramm
Volley-Cochet, Borotra, Vines, Perry
Lob-Riggs
Return of serve-Budge, Vines, Tilden, Riggs
 
Come on guys, there has to be some interesting stuff on people like Riggs, Marble, Wills and Lenglen.

I'll give you something, Alice Marble apparently was a spy during WWII. It was a real life version of the old TV show I Spy starting Robert Culp in which he played a tennis player who was really a spy.
 
My guess on how experts rated some of the top strokes of the 1930s
Serve-Vines, Doeg, Shields, von Cramm (great second serve), Tilden (for early 1930s)
Backhand-Clearly Budge is number one, Bromwich, Riggs, Tilden (early 1930s)
Forehand-Perry, Vines, Tilden, Riggs, von Cramm
Volley-Cochet, Borotra, Vines, Perry
Lob-Riggs
Return of serve-Budge, Vines, Tilden, Riggs
For return of serve I'd put Perry right in there after Budge. Very hard to say with so little video, but news reports talk about how well Perry was able to return Vines' serve -- when he could get his racquet on it! I recall one report from '39 marveling that Budge could return Vines' serve even better than Perry had been able to do.

That one I remember clearly. Another one I'm less sure of, whether it was said about Perry or Budge: but it was something about taking Vines' serve from what seemed to be an impossibly close position on top of the baseline or even in front of it. I think it was Perry but this one I'm not 100% certain.
 
Ray Bowers did a monumental work on the 1930s:

1926: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_99_10_31.html

1927-28: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_01_03_01.html

1931: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_02_03_03.html

1932-33: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_02_10_05.html

1934: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_03_03_01.html

1935: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_03_12_01.html

1936: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_04_07_25.html

1937: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_04_12_03.html

1938: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_05_07_30.html

1939: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_05_11_22.html

1940-41: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_06_10_01.html

1942: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_07_03_19.html

1943-45: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_07_10_27.html

I know that Bowers can be dry, but really if we're going to talk about pro tennis in the 30s we should at least have a link to the man's work.

Before him we really only had McCauley to go on, and though Joe did what he could we really were in the dark even about the basic scores of many tours, which Bowers did a ton to rectify.
 
For return of serve I'd put Perry right in there after Budge. Very hard to say with so little video, but news reports talk about how well Perry was able to return Vines' serve -- when he could get his racquet on it! I recall one report from '39 marveling that Budge could return Vines' serve even better than Perry had been able to do.

That one I remember clearly. Another one I'm less sure of, whether it was said about Perry or Budge: but it was something about taking Vines' serve from what seemed to be an impossibly close position on top of the baseline or even in front of it. I think it was Perry but this one I'm not 100% certain.
I think it is Perry also. I think Perry called it fiddling it back. Perry apparently had fantastic reflexes at the net and he was legendary for his on the rise strokes on the forehand, almost on the half volley. So if he could do that I see no reason with his quickness and reflexes that it could be possible for Perry to handle Vines’ serve standing so close in.
 
Last edited:
Ray Bowers did a monumental work on the 1930s:

1926: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_99_10_31.html

1927-28: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_01_03_01.html

1931: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_02_03_03.html

1932-33: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_02_10_05.html

1934: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_03_03_01.html

1935: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_03_12_01.html

1936: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_04_07_25.html

1937: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_04_12_03.html

1938: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_05_07_30.html

1939: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_05_11_22.html

1940-41: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_06_10_01.html

1942: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_07_03_19.html

1943-45: http://www.tennisserver.com/lines/lines_07_10_27.html

I know that Bowers can be dry, but really if we're going to talk about pro tennis in the 30s we should at least have a link to the man's work.

Before him we really only had McCauley to go on, and though Joe did what he could we really were in the dark even about the basic scores of many tours, which Bowers did a ton to rectify.
I actually think Bowers is fascinating.

I’ll discuss the Women later. At a nice Italian restaurant now.
 
I actually think Bowers is fascinating.

I’ll discuss the Women later. At a nice Italian restaurant now.
Manhattan, right?

If you saw my post elsewhere, Manhattan is getting a shot in the arm with the new music directors at the Philharmonic and the MET, one a Canuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
For return of serve I'd put Perry right in there after Budge. Very hard to say with so little video, but news reports talk about how well Perry was able to return Vines' serve -- when he could get his racquet on it! I recall one report from '39 marveling that Budge could return Vines' serve even better than Perry had been able to do.

That one I remember clearly. Another one I'm less sure of, whether it was said about Perry or Budge: but it was something about taking Vines' serve from what seemed to be an impossibly close position on top of the baseline or even in front of it. I think it was Perry but this one I'm not 100% certain.

Roderich Menzel wrote in one of his books that as good as Borg was, Henri Cochet would have returned his serves from inside the base line.
i found that claim outrageous, but then Menzel saw both of them play in their peak and he must have played against Cochet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
I think it is Perry also. I think Perry called it fiddling it back. Perry apparently had fantastic reflexes at the net and he was legendary for his on the rise strokes on the forehand, almost on the half volley. So if he could do that I see no reason with his quickness and reflexes that it could be possible for Perry to handle Vines’ serve standing so close in.

Maybe Perry´s past as a table tennis champion helped him with his reflex returns?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
PC - I'm mostly going to shut up, listen and hopefully learn from this fresh thread you've been good enough to put together... the most useful contribution I can probably make is in critiquing arguments as they come up, based on principles of rationality and maybe raising the odd question

You couldn't fill a postage stamp with what I know about this era or these players

To illustrate, intellectual curiosity aside, the first though that occurred to me reading the OP was -

There were new superstars during the 1930s (including) Frank Shields (grandfather of Brooke)

- was noting that it'd have been interesting to see the physical proclivities demonstrated (preferably via tennis) by hypothetical children of Andre Agassi and Brooke

A magnificent question, if I do say so myself:cool:, but probably not the direction you want the thread going just yet :)

---

I take it if there had been such a concept, Bill Tilden would have been the outstanding GOAT candidate in 1930?

At some point, maybe you can get around to pinpointing the who's, when's and how's of those in the 30-40 era who grew in stature to potentially challenge that - Vines and Budge you've mentioned... Perry? Kramer?

Basically, make a GOAT case for those you think worthy, excluding all who came after
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
For return of serve I'd put Perry right in there after Budge. Very hard to say with so little video, but news reports talk about how well Perry was able to return Vines' serve -- when he could get his racquet on it! I recall one report from '39 marveling that Budge could return Vines' serve even better than Perry had been able to do.

That one I remember clearly. Another one I'm less sure of, whether it was said about Perry or Budge: but it was something about taking Vines' serve from what seemed to be an impossibly close position on top of the baseline or even in front of it. I think it was Perry but this one I'm not 100% certain.

Crawford?

It sounds like a great resource, I should have put my hands on it long ago :)

Vines was surely the great athlete referred to.

There's a striking detail in the reports from the '30s, I wonder if the WOT article will mention it. American Lawn Tennis reported that as Crawford grew more confident in returning Vines' service, he got bolder and started edging in, sometimes returning from three to five feet inside the baseline.

It reminded the ALT author of how Lacoste and Cochet had learned to do the same against Tilden's cannonball serves.

I had heard of Budge taking Vines' serves from within the baseline but was not aware of anyone else who had managed to do it.

Cochet reportedly had done it against TIlden, I wonder whether he attempted to do so against Vines (to whom Cochet lost all 14 times they played).
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
Suzanne Lenglen

Suzanne Lenglen, at least to me and I am sure many others in the past is one of the most interesting figures that ever played at the top levels of tennis. I would venture to say that no player was ever more dominant than Suzanne Lenglen in tennis history. The Lenglen record is unparalleled in Tennis History. Lenglen barely lost games at times, let alone any matches.

Suzanne was known as a bit of a diva and you can tell from the video that some of the excess movement like kicking her feet up in the air is for the cameras. Suzanne was considered a player without weakness, with absolute control over all her shots. Her footwork was immaculate and her overall mobility was fantastic. She was called a ballerina on the court. Elizabeth Ryan, who was Suzanne's doubles partner thought Suzanne had a stride a foot and a half longer than any known woman who ever ran.

Suzanne's matches rarely lasted that long but in the occasional match she was in trouble she wasn't beyond having brandy or wine during her matches. She smoked also. This is not exactly what a great athlete would have nowadays in this age of dieticians setting up a menu of the proper foods to eat for a top tennis player. She was, to put it nicely a diva due to her superstar status in tennis. The story goes that Suzanne found another player's clothes in the dressing cubicle she selected for herself. Suzanne threw all the clothing out the window.

All and all she was one of the most interesting characters in the world imo. People around the world were interested in what Suzanne Lenglen wore and well as her every move. She was in some ways sort of like a great media star of today in how people followed her.

Her backhand was the stuff of legend, with her great control and power if she needed it. She was able to consistently hit her backhand down the line which as we all known is one of the toughest shots in tennis.


Perhaps the most ballyhooed match of all time was Lenglen's match against Helen Wills in 1926 at Cannes. Wills later would almost be as unbeatable as Lenglen. Lenglen eventually won the match over the powerful Wills 6-3 8-6.
https://www.si.com/vault/1991/10/16...iera-in-1926-the-whole-world-awaited-the-news

She won 12 majors if you count the 4 World Hardcourts that she won. She won 83 singles titles including seven without the loss of one game, 74 doubles and 93 mixed doubles for 250 total titles in her career. She had winning streaks of 116 and 182.
 
Suzanne Lenglen

Suzanne Lenglen, at least to me and I am sure many others in the past is one of the most interesting figures that ever played at the top levels of tennis. I would venture to say that no player was ever more dominant than Suzanne Lenglen in tennis history. The Lenglen record is unparalleled in Tennis History. Lenglen barely lost games at times, let alone any matches.

Suzanne was known as a bit of a diva and you can tell from the video that some of the excess movement like kicking her feet up in the air is for the cameras. Suzanne was considered a player without weakness, with absolute control over all her shots. Her footwork was immaculate and her overall mobility was fantastic. She was called a ballerina on the court. Elizabeth Ryan, who was Suzanne's doubles partner thought Suzanne had a stride a foot and a half longer than any known woman who ever ran.

Suzanne's matches rarely lasted that long but in the occasional match she was in trouble she wasn't beyond having brandy or wine during her matches. She smoked also. This is not exactly what a great athlete would have nowadays in this age of dieticians setting up a menu of the proper foods to eat for a top tennis player. She was, to put it nicely a diva due to her superstar status in tennis. The story goes that Suzanne found another player's clothes in the dressing cubicle she selected for herself. Suzanne threw all the clothing out the window.

All and all she was one of the most interesting characters in the world imo. People around the world were interested in what Suzanne Lenglen wore and well as her every move. She was in some ways sort of like a great media star of today in how people followed her.

Her backhand was the stuff of legend, with her great control and power if she needed it. She was able to consistently hit her backhand down the line which as we all known is one of the toughest shots in tennis.


Perhaps the most ballyhooed match of all time was Lenglen's match against Helen Wills in 1926 at Cannes. Wills later would almost be as unbeatable as Lenglen. Lenglen eventually won the match over the powerful Wills 6-3 8-6.
https://www.si.com/vault/1991/10/16...iera-in-1926-the-whole-world-awaited-the-news

She won 12 majors if you count the 4 World Hardcourts that she won. She won 83 singles titles including seven without the loss of one game, 74 doubles and 93 mixed doubles for 250 total titles in her career. She had winning streaks of 116 and 182.
She would do well today, perhaps number one.
 
My guess on how experts rated some of the top strokes of the 1930s
Serve-Vines, Doeg, Shields, von Cramm (great second serve), Tilden (for early 1930s)
Backhand-Clearly Budge is number one, Bromwich, Riggs, Tilden (early 1930s)
Forehand-Perry, Vines, Tilden, Riggs, von Cramm
Volley-Cochet, Borotra, Vines, Perry
Lob-Riggs
Return of serve-Budge, Vines, Tilden, Riggs

Are these your ratings or your understanding of contemporaneous experts' opinions.
 
Are these your ratings or your understanding of contemporaneous experts' opinions.
These were some of the rankings that I read about in books and articles during those times and those familiar with those players afterwards. For example Kramer thought Vines had the best serve ever even up to the late 1970s.

Budge's backhand was a no brainer. Just about everyone ranked Budge's backhand as the greatest ever for those who saw it.
 
Last edited:
would be interesting to know whether Kramer really meant that about Vines serve being superior to Gonzalez
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
would be interesting to know whether Kramer really meant that about Vines serve being superior to Gonzalez
Well I do believe the general consensus is that Vines' serve was actually faster than Gonzalez's serve. Both had excellent second serves so I do believe it's reasonable. If someone wrote that Trabert's serve was superior to Gonzalez I would not believe it. Even Trabert wrote that if he practiced forever (words to that effect anyway) he could never serve like Gonzalez.
 
Well I do believe the general consensus is that Vines' serve was actually faster than Gonzalez's serve. Both had excellent second serves so I do believe it's reasonable. If someone wrote that Trabert's serve was superior to Gonzalez I would not believe it. Even Trabert wrote that if he practiced forever (words to that effect anyway) he could never serve like Gonzalez.

i wonder what Kramer thought about the general level of play amongst the top players of the 20´s and 30´s vs the 50´s and 60´s.
would a hypothetical Davis Cup team from the 30´s stand a chance against one from the 50´s?
 
i wonder what Kramer thought about the general level of play amongst the top players of the 20´s and 30´s vs the 50´s and 60´s.
would a hypothetical Davis Cup team from the 30´s stand a chance against one from the 50´s?
Well since Kramer ranked Budge, Vines and Perry as perhaps the three best ever I would think it possible. However I'm fairly certain that Kramer thought Kramer was the best ever which is not unreasonable imo. So I would guess that Kramer and Gonzalez against a Budge and Vines team would be a very interesting match.

I suppose Sedgman and McGregor would be the doubles in the 1950s or Hoad and Rosewall. For the 1930s I would guess that it would be Bromwich and Quist.
 
Well since Kramer ranked Budge, Vines and Perry as perhaps the three best ever I would think it possible. However I'm fairly certain that Kramer thought Kramer was the best ever which is not unreasonable imo. So I would guess that Kramer and Gonzalez against a Budge and Vines team would be a very interesting match.

I suppose Sedgman and McGregor would be the doubles in the 1950s or Hoad and Rosewall. For the 1930s I would guess that it would be Bromwich and Quist.

from what i´ve read here, i believe Kramer had that kind of ego:)maybe Budge had that ego as well?
i´d very much like to see extensive video coverage of Bromwich/Quist. they would be the obvious choice for the 30´s team
 
from what i´ve read here, i believe Kramer had that kind of ego:)maybe Budge had that ego as well?
i´d very much like to see extensive video coverage of Bromwich/Quist. they would be the obvious choice for the 30´s team
Kramer as with all greats do have an ego about their play. Laver for example is known for being very humble but you can't imo be great if you don't have confidence in your play. Laver for example wrote in his autobiography that in the finals of Wimbledon that he felt he could be anyone, Tilden's ghost, Budge, Gonzalez, anyone. Laver also said that with wood he would fear no one.

Yes it is clear (at least to me) that Budge thought Budge was the best ever.

I have noticed that it seems to me that more players and experts seem to rank Kramer as the best ever. They include Budge (although Budge really thought Budge was the best imo), Riggs, Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert (tied with Laver), Segura, Paul Metzler. Gonzalez ranks Kramer second to Hoad. Perhaps Tilden would also rival Kramer in that area of expert opinions.

Nowadays it would be Federer and Laver.
 
Sedgman-McGregor

Rosewall-Hoad vs. Seixas-Trabert
I noticed many in the past called Seixas western or semi-western forehand odd but I noticed in this clip that he hit it well with great topspin. Seems to me at least from this clip it was a great shot and ahead of his time.
 
Kramer as with all greats do have an ego about their play. Laver for example is known for being very humble but you can't imo be great if you don't have confidence in your play. Laver for example wrote in his autobiography that in the finals of Wimbledon that he felt he could be anyone, Tilden's ghost, Budge, Gonzalez, anyone. Laver also said that with wood he would fear no one.

Yes it is clear (at least to me) that Budge thought Budge was the best ever.

I have noticed that it seems to me that more players and experts seem to rank Kramer as the best ever. They include Budge (although Budge really thought Budge was the best imo), Riggs, Sedgman, Hoad, Trabert (tied with Laver), Segura, Paul Metzler. Gonzalez ranks Kramer second to Hoad. Perhaps Tilden would also rival Kramer in that area of expert opinions.

Nowadays it would be Federer and Laver.

that kind of self-belief is imo necessary to become a champion.
i look out for that in young players.
 
Sedgman-McGregor

Rosewall-Hoad vs. Seixas-Trabert
I noticed many in the past called Seixas western or semi-western forehand odd but I noticed in this clip that he hit it well with great topspin. Seems to me at least from this clip it was a great shot and ahead of his time.

that´s an extreme grip for that time. you would need a strong wrist to hit with that grip without getting injured
 
that kind of self-belief is imo necessary to become a champion.
i look out for that in young players.
I used to know a player in chess on one of the chess teams I used to play on who had an incredible NEGATIVE attitude toward his own game. While most of the players felt confident in their own abilities he told me he had to convince himself that he would lose so he would not!! A couple of his teammates could not believe it but he was that type of person. So naturally he lost virtually all the time in the beginning. We finally worked with him on his game so eventually he became virtually unbeatable on his board which was sixth board. Essentially he became the best of the worst!

He also played tennis with me and won one game ever against me in hundreds of sets played. I wasn't that good but he decided he had no chance against me so all he did was go for winners on the lines. Because of that he made so many unforced errors that it was easy for me. Against others he would be fine because he didn't play that way.
 
that´s an extreme grip for that time. you would need a strong wrist to hit with that grip without getting injured

You might be right but I believe Bill Johnston also had that grip and he had a super forehand considered the best in the world as did Borg later with a semi-western.
 
I used to know a player in chess on one of the chess teams I used to play on who had an incredible NEGATIVE attitude toward his own game. While most of the players felt confident in their own abilities he told me he had to convince himself that he would lose so he would not!! A couple of his teammates could not believe it but he was that type of person. So naturally he lost virtually all the time in the beginning. We finally worked with him on his game so eventually he became virtually unbeatable on his board which was sixth board. Essentially he became the best of the worst!

He also played tennis with me and won one game ever against me in hundreds of sets played. I wasn't that good but he decided he had no chance against me so all he did was go for winners on the lines. Because of that he made so many unforced errors that it was easy for me. Against others he would be fine because he didn't play that way.

some players need to win a lot before they can convince themselves that they´re not all bad. others believe in themselves from early on.
i don´t want to hijack this thread but i believe that Zverev has that believe and i don´t think Thiem has it.
 
You might be right but I believe Bill Johnston also had that grip and he had a super forehand considered the best in the world as did Borg later with a semi-western.

amazing, and he was Little Bill not Big Bill.
seriously, i didn´t know that about Seixas and Johnston
 
some players need to win a lot before they can convince themselves that they´re not all bad. others believe in themselves from early on.
i don´t want to hijack this thread but i believe that Zverev has that believe and i don´t think Thiem has it.
You can never hijack a thread because you contribute so much.
 
@treblings I believe Bill Johnston's forehand was considered by many to be the best forehand in the world. He used to pound Tilden's backhand with it leading Tilden to work on getting a more offensive backhand which of course he did.

Tilden's forehand incidentally is also considered one of the great all time forehands as well as his serve. All his other shots were merely superb with the possible exception of his volley which was very good.
 
@treblings I believe Bill Johnston's forehand was considered by many to be the best forehand in the world. He used to pound Tilden's backhand with it leading Tilden to work on getting a more offensive backhand which of course he did.

Tilden's forehand incidentally is also considered one of the great all time forehands as well as his serve. All his other shots were merely superb with the possible exception of his volley which was very good.
what´s especially astonishing about Johnstons grip is that the wooden racquets of that era were considerably heavier than those of the 50´s
at least that is my understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pc1
Helen Wills

It always seemed to me in reading about the great Women players of the past that Suzanne Lenglen and Helen Wills stood out as giants above all others. Lenglen as I wrote earlier was virtually invincible and I would think an extrovert while Wills was a very guarded person who they called "Little Miss Poker Face" which is hardly a compliment in referring the opinion that Wills rarely smiled. Wills won 19 majors out of 24 entered but considered she had to default due to illness twice you could say she won 19 majors out of 22 which is superhuman. Wills had an appendectomy that forced her to default in the French Championship in 1926 and she was officially defaulted in the first round of Wimbledon that same year even though she did informed the Wimbledon officials way ahead of time.

I guess in a way Lenglen was the equivalent of Bill Tilden except imo she was even more invincible and Wills was the equivalent of Don Budge.

Wills' record according to sources was great but it doesn't seem she was that close to Lenglen's record as far as winning percentage is concerned. I don't recall the exact numbers but I seem to remember that her career winning percentage were around that of Chris Evert. I could be wrong.

Anyway despite that Wills apparently won every set she played for seven years and at least 158 matches. Wills have a great forehand and a very strong sliced crosscourt backhand. Some seemed to think she was incapable of hitting a backhand down the line. Wills' serve was very strong and her sliced serve was superb. She also had an excellent lob. She was primarily a backcourt player who didn't like to approach the net.
 
Back
Top