Would Gonzalez Win Roland Garros?

Even there, w Rosewall, a true king of clay, it looks like Gonzalez maintained a slight edge on the dirt through 1961, 10-8. But, of course Kenny whipped him at RG in 1961.
 
Drob said:
9-10

11-9 through 1961


Misleading. You have been inferring Trabert superior to Gonzalez on clay. The only argument for that could be his fifth set victory at ‘56 RG final. The career clay-court head-to-head was 10-9 in favor of Trabert. Trabert would not have been a problem for Richard in ‘59 or ‘60. Rosewall would have been the problem.
Click to expand...
Well, Gonzales would have had multiple problems those 2 years, named Rosewall, Hoad, Trabert, Sedgman…
All great players on clay.

Trabert won the French Pro in 1959, so he was kinda good :D
Gonzales beat him on Har-Tru that year, but it was Har-Tru. And it was the only clay meet that year.

Same for 1960.

Again, Pancho had definitely the potential, but it’s not a sure win for him. In none of his missing clay years.
 
Drob said:
Even there, w Rosewall, a true king of clay, it looks like Gonzalez maintained a slight edge on the dirt through 1961, 10-8. But, of course Kenny whipped him at RG in 1961.
Click to expand...
6-2 on European red clay in 1961 for Rosewall….
 
Well, you are right. About 1959 for sure right. By 1960 don’t think Trabert or Sedgman quite the same. Hoad, hell, sure, any day on any surface - on the wrong day or the right day, I don’t know which, the ☁️ day or the sunny day, the second Sunday after the Summer Moon . . . whatever.
 
Last edited:
Drob said:
Well, you are right. About 1959 for sure right. By 1960 don’t think Trabert or Sedgman quite the same. Hoad, hell, sure, any day on any surface - on the wrong day or the right day, I don’t know which, the ☁ day or the day, the second Sunday after the Summer Moon . . . whatever.
Click to expand...
Sedgman, like Gonzales, was twice runner-up at Roland Garros.
The odd man out was Kovacs, who never played at RG, even though he was probably the best clay player of the late forties early fifties.
Kovacs also skipped the U.S. Clay Court championships after 1938, he might have won the U.S. in 1939, 1940, 1941.
 
NoMercy said:
6-2 on European red clay in 1961 for Rosewall….
Click to expand...

In finding 10-8 for Richard through 1961, I counted 1961 at 3-6, in favor of Kenny, using TB. That probably includes a Har-Tru win for Gorgo, and there are probably a number of Har-Tru matches in that total won by both.
 
Drob said:
In finding 10-8 for Richard through 1961, I counted 1961 at 3-6, in favor of Kenny, using TB. That probably includes a Har-Tru win for Gorgo, and there are probably a number of Har-Tru matches in that total won by both.
Click to expand...
North American, Australian and South African Clay don’t play like red clay.
Again, he was capable of beating everybody, but who knows. You have to play to be able to win.
 
Exactly. You said he certainly had the potential, “definite possibility”, “certainly not a lock.”

I said:

Drob said:
i say “yes”. But it is not clear cut.
Click to expand...


Not too much degree of difference. I guess I am a bit more optimistic. Hero worship you know.

But I asked opinions to try to sort of survey how other students of tennis history see his prospects in a game where things had been more equal, either w a French Pro 1950-55 and ‘57, or an Open tennis situation throughout the 1950s.
 
Drob said:
Exactly. You said he certainly had the potential, “definite possibility”, “certainly not a lock.”

I said:




Not too much degree of difference. I guess I am a bit more optimistic. Hero worship you know.

But I asked opinions to try to sort of survey how other students of tennis history see his prospects in a game where things had been more equal, either w a French Pro 1950-55 and ‘57, or an Open tennis situation throughout the 1950s.
Click to expand...
The clay field was at an all-time high of strength during that 1949-68 era, very difficult for Gonzales to win a title.
 
The question could depend on the quality of his groundgame, and how he could have improved or varied it, if he had played more and more systematically on clay. Remember, the clay circuit on the pro tour at least in many years of the 1950s was very sparse. RG was played (when it was played at all) very late in the year in autumn, in between indoor tournaments. I saw pictures of Gonzalez at the Orly airport, when he had just flown in. No comparison to modern preparation with months and several clay tournaments to get the right clay court game. Gonzalez was known for his serve, imo with Sampras and maybe Vines, the best in whole tennis history, and his excellent cat-like net game. On the baseline, he wasn't a big hitter, but relied more on touch and clever mixing up his shots. I read reports by Rosewall (in the Berry book), that in his early days, his forehand was better and more feared, but in his later days his backhand was more reliable. As i wrote, his backhand as it was, was a reliable slice, so that he could held his own on slower courts. There were in his heyday, some players with finer groundies, like Segura with his doublehander forehand, Trabert with his drive backhand, Rosewall with his great backhand, maybe Kovacs with his fine, Budge-like backhand. Some say, Kramers forehand was better, which is discussable. As said, in the amateurs were good clay experts too, with Drobny, Patty, Larsen, Parker (whom he beat serveral time in the US), Sturgess, Asboth, Pietrangeli and later Santana, Lundquist or others.
But what Gonzalez showed over his career, is that he could adapt and improve his shots. Against Hoads aggressive game in 1958, he came up with a new cross court backhand pass. He was clever and could defend himself well, even at a high age. in 1968 at Bournemouth, he lost to Mark Cox, who was not by any means a good clay courter, but at RG, where the field was severely cut down by the student riots, he did much better. So if he had more time to systematically train and play on clay, especially in Europe, i am sure, he would be a factor on clay. If a serve and volleyer like Stolle won the amateur RG (without Santana) or later Noah in open era, he could have won it too, because his groundies were more consistent and cleverly mixed, and he had better footwork (for a big man) too.
 
Last edited:
urban said:
The question could depend on the quality of his groundgame, and how he could have improved or varied it, if he had played more and more systematically on clay. Remember, the clay circuit on the pro tour at least in many years of the 1950s was very sparse. RG was played (when it was played at all) very late in the year in autumn, in between indoor tournaments. I saw pictures of Gonzalez at the Orly airport, when he had just flown in. No comparison to modern preparation with months and several clay tournaments to get the right clay court game. Gonzalez was known for his serve, imo with Sampras and maybe Vines, the best in whole tennis history, and his excellent cat-like net game. On the baseline, he wasn't a big hitter, but relied more on touch and clever mixing up his shots. I read reports by Rosewall (in the Berry book), that in his early days, his forehand was better and more feared, but in his later days his backhand was more reliable. As i wrote, his backhand as it was, was a reliable slice, so that he could held his own on slower courts. There were in his heyday, some players with finer groundies, like Segura with his doublehander forehand, Trabert with his drive backhand, Rosewall with his great backhand, maybe Kovacs with his fine, Budge-like backhand. Some say, Kramers forehand was better, which is discussable. As said, in the amateurs were good clay experts too, with Drobny, Patty, Larsen, Parker (whom he beat serveral time in the US), Sturgess, Asboth, Pietrangeli and later Santana, Lundquist or others.
But what Gonzalez showed over his career, is that he could adapt and improve his shots. Against Hoads aggressive game in 1958, he came up with a new cross court backhand pass. He was clever and could defend himself well, even at a high age. in 1968 at Bournemouth, he lost to Mark Cox, who was not by any means a good clay courter, but at RG, where the field was severely cut down by the student riots, he did much better. So if he had more time to systematically train and play on clay, especially in Europe, i am sure, he would be a factor on clay. If a serve and volleyer like Stolle won the amateur RG (without Santana) or later Noah in open era, he could have won it too, because his groundies were more consistent and cleverly mixed, and he had better footwork (for a big man) too.
Click to expand...
It is no excuse to say that Gonzales did not play the U.S. Clay Court in the early fifties....that was his own choice. You cannot win a tournament if you do not play in it.
Gonzales was runner-up in Paris in 1950, 1952, 1953, two of those at Palais des Sports on indoor surface. Gonzales was runner-up at the pro RG tournaments in 1952, 1956, 1961, the latter was decided by an injury to Gonzales during play. A good but not great record.
 
Dan Lobb said:
It is no excuse to say that Gonzales did not play the U.S. Clay Court in the early fifties....that was his own choice. You cannot win a tournament if you do not play in it.
Gonzales was runner-up in Paris in 1950, 1952, 1953, two of those at Palais des Sports on indoor surface. Gonzales was runner-up at the pro RG tournaments in 1952, 1956, 1961, the latter was decided by an injury to Gonzales during play. A good but not great record.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure I read that Pancho's loss in the 53 French Pro final to Sedgman, was not on a clay court. Also, it was the only French Pro final that was best of 3. There was no French Pro in 52. Probably a typo? In the 61 final Pancho lost to Ken in 4 sets, the final set being 8-6. It is surprising that Pancho never won the French Pro. Chances are though had he played it more often he probably would have won it, at least once.
 
thrust said:
I am pretty sure I read that Pancho's loss in the 53 French Pro final to Sedgman, was not on a clay court. Also, it was the only French Pro final that was best of 3. There was no French Pro in 52. Probably a typo? In the 61 final Pancho lost to Ken in 4 sets, the final set being 8-6. It is surprising that Pancho never won the French Pro. Chances are though had he played it more often he probably would have won it, at least once.
Click to expand...
There was no official French Pro in 1950, 1952, 1953 but there was a pro tournament at Roland Garros in 1952 with Segura beating Gonzales in the deciding match, Gonzales was runner-up.
If you want to call the Cleveland World Pro the U.S. Pro, then you are entitled to call the 1952 Roland Garros Pro the French Pro. I would have no objection to you doing that.
In the 1961 RG final Gonzales was playing injured, the injury incurred during the tournament.
Gonzales decided of his own free will not to challenge for the U.S. Pro Clay Court against some very tough clay champions like Kovacs (who won it five times) Riggs (one win) and Segura (one win).
 
Dan Lobb said:
There was no official French Pro in 1950, 1952, 1953 but there was a pro tournament at Roland Garros in 1952 with Segura beating Gonzales in the deciding match, Gonzales was runner-up.
If you want to call the Cleveland World Pro the U.S. Pro, then you are entitled to call the 1952 Roland Garros Pro the French Pro. I would have no objection to you doing that.
In the 1961 RG final Gonzales was playing injured, the injury incurred during the tournament.
Gonzales decided of his own free will not to challenge for the U.S. Pro Clay Court against some very tough clay champions like Kovacs (who won it five times) Riggs (one win) and Segura (one win).
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I did not know of that non-French Pro tournament at RG in 52. Where does one get results or know of all those pro tournaments? Whether he was injured or not in the 53 French Pro, he managed to beat everyone he played, except Rosewall. It seems that, with some here, Ken only wins when Hoad or Pancho were injured. Like it or not, injuries are part of the game. Not only did Rosewall had hay fever problems, but he also played with severe skin irritation problems which was stated in a book by an American pro player, I think Buckholtz.
 
thrust said:
I am pretty sure I read that Pancho's loss in the 53 French Pro final to Sedgman, was not on a clay court. Also, it was the only French Pro final that was best of 3. There was no French Pro in 52. Probably a typo? In the 61 final Pancho lost to Ken in 4 sets, the final set being 8-6. It is surprising that Pancho never won the French Pro. Chances are though had he played it more often he probably would have won it, at least once.
Click to expand...

it wasn’t even a French Pro
 
urban said:
The question could depend on the quality of his groundgame, and how he could have improved or varied it, if he had played more and more systematically on clay. Remember, the clay circuit on the pro tour at least in many years of the 1950s was very sparse. RG was played (when it was played at all) very late in the year in autumn, in between indoor tournaments. I saw pictures of Gonzalez at the Orly airport, when he had just flown in. No comparison to modern preparation with months and several clay tournaments to get the right clay court game. Gonzalez was known for his serve, imo with Sampras and maybe Vines, the best in whole tennis history, and his excellent cat-like net game. On the baseline, he wasn't a big hitter, but relied more on touch and clever mixing up his shots. I read reports by Rosewall (in the Berry book), that in his early days, his forehand was better and more feared, but in his later days his backhand was more reliable. As i wrote, his backhand as it was, was a reliable slice, so that he could held his own on slower courts. There were in his heyday, some players with finer groundies, like Segura with his doublehander forehand, Trabert with his drive backhand, Rosewall with his great backhand, maybe Kovacs with his fine, Budge-like backhand. Some say, Kramers forehand was better, which is discussable. As said, in the amateurs were good clay experts too, with Drobny, Patty, Larsen, Parker (whom he beat serveral time in the US), Sturgess, Asboth, Pietrangeli and later Santana, Lundquist or others.
But what Gonzalez showed over his career, is that he could adapt and improve his shots. Against Hoads aggressive game in 1958, he came up with a new cross court backhand pass. He was clever and could defend himself well, even at a high age. in 1968 at Bournemouth, he lost to Mark Cox, who was not by any means a good clay courter, but at RG, where the field was severely cut down by the student riots, he did much better. So if he had more time to systematically train and play on clay, especially in Europe, i am sure, he would be a factor on clay. If a serve and volleyer like Stolle won the amateur RG (without Santana) or later Noah in open era, he could have won it too, because his groundies were more consistent and cleverly mixed, and he had better footwork (for a big man) too.
Click to expand...

several good points
 
thrust said:
Sorry, but I did not know of that non-French Pro tournament at RG in 52. Where does one get results or know of all those pro tournaments? Whether he was injured or not in the 53 French Pro, he managed to beat everyone he played, except Rosewall. It seems that, with some here, Ken only wins when Hoad or Pancho were injured. Like it or not, injuries are part of the game. Not only did Rosewall had hay fever problems, but he also played with severe skin irritation problems which was stated in a book by an American pro player, I think Buckholtz.
Click to expand...
Yes, injuries are part of the game. Rosewall's hay fever probably cost him the 1970 Wimbledon final against Newcombe.
 
urban said:
The question could depend on the quality of his groundgame, and how he could have improved or varied it, if he had played more and more systematically on clay. Remember, the clay circuit on the pro tour at least in many years of the 1950s was very sparse. RG was played (when it was played at all) very late in the year in autumn, in between indoor tournaments. I saw pictures of Gonzalez at the Orly airport, when he had just flown in. No comparison to modern preparation with months and several clay tournaments to get the right clay court game. Gonzalez was known for his serve, imo with Sampras and maybe Vines, the best in whole tennis history, and his excellent cat-like net game. On the baseline, he wasn't a big hitter, but relied more on touch and clever mixing up his shots. I read reports by Rosewall (in the Berry book), that in his early days, his forehand was better and more feared, but in his later days his backhand was more reliable. As i wrote, his backhand as it was, was a reliable slice, so that he could held his own on slower courts. There were in his heyday, some players with finer groundies, like Segura with his doublehander forehand, Trabert with his drive backhand, Rosewall with his great backhand, maybe Kovacs with his fine, Budge-like backhand. Some say, Kramers forehand was better, which is discussable. As said, in the amateurs were good clay experts too, with Drobny, Patty, Larsen, Parker (whom he beat serveral time in the US), Sturgess, Asboth, Pietrangeli and later Santana, Lundquist or others.
But what Gonzalez showed over his career, is that he could adapt and improve his shots. Against Hoads aggressive game in 1958, he came up with a new cross court backhand pass. He was clever and could defend himself well, even at a high age. in 1968 at Bournemouth, he lost to Mark Cox, who was not by any means a good clay courter, but at RG, where the field was severely cut down by the student riots, he did much better. So if he had more time to systematically train and play on clay, especially in Europe, i am sure, he would be a factor on clay. If a serve and volleyer like Stolle won the amateur RG (without Santana) or later Noah in open era, he could have won it too, because his groundies were more consistent and cleverly mixed, and he had better footwork (for a big man) too.
Click to expand...
Hoad won RG in 1956 with a serve and volley style, and Toto Brugnon stated right after the final that Tilden and the Musketeers would have won only a handful of games in a clay match against Hoad.
 
Hoad had explosive groundstrokes, and could get much spin on the ball. In 1956, played a lot on clay, in Europe and Egypt, winning Rome and later Hamburg, and had the right clay rhythm coming in RG. I don't think, that Gonzalez ever got that much clay exercise in a season.
 
urban said:
Hoad had explosive groundstrokes, and could get much spin on the ball. In 1956, played a lot on clay, in Europe and Egypt, winning Rome and later Hamburg, and had the right clay rhythm coming in RG. I don't think, that Gonzalez ever got that much clay exercise in a season.
Click to expand...
True, but that was Gonzales' own choice. He skipped the U.S. Pro Clay Court Championships, although the field there was very strong, which might have discouraged Gonzales from playing. If Gonzales had played the U.S. Pro Clay, then perhaps his results at Roland Garros in the fifties and sixties would have been better.
 
In his prime, Pancho would and could beat anyone on any surface--if he wanted it badly enough.

Only Hoad could challenge him--for a brief period.
 
hoodjem said:
Ho ho. 8-B
I figured 1958 and 1959.
Seems like in early 1960 Hoad took time off because of back problems, and was never as dominant after. Not true?
Click to expand...
True, but Hoad still had a good record in tournaments against Gonzales. In tours it was 57-68. The hth on grass, which usually meant the major venues was in Hoad's favour, 21-14 lifetime.
Gonzales' lifetime hth edge was mainly due to the long 1958 tour, where Hoad was injured much of the time. For 1958 tournaments Hoad had the edge.
 
Drob said:
Something like that, or Geneva, or Ostend. Maybe Paris Pro Indoor but indoor clay just sounds strange . . . never seen it. I just can’t spot a single clay tourney of real significance bet. 1950 and 1955.
Click to expand...

Not really relevant to the actual topic being discussed, but I remember the US played a few Davis Cup ties on indoor clay in the early 1990s. Presumably their team (definitely Agassi, likely also either Chang or Courier) preferred the surface but the dates of the ties prevented it being played outdoors?

Edit: on Youtube, and Wikipedia. The 1990 final and 1991 semi-final were both on indoor clay. The second video in particular has a wide shot of the crowd at the start and you can see it's an indoor venue. Can't find confirmation online, but I seem to recall at the time that the court was specially laid down at significant expense.


 
Mac won a Davis Cup final for the US in 1981 i think, vs. France on indoor clay, beating Noah and young Leconte. Sampras in 1996 also vs Russia vs. Kafelnikov and Chesnokov.
 
There were lots of tournaments or events played indoor clay. Even in recent years.
Nadal won a tournament in 2013 played indoor clay.
During the 50s and the 60s, the pros played multiple times indoor on clay, even in important events like the Kramer Cup.
Or São Paulo, Bogota, Manila…
All indoor clay venues used by the pros in the 50s/60s but also by ATP in the 70s.
1970 edition of WCT Cup was indoor clay.
But many many more to list all of them.
 
Last edited:
Probably. Those two semi-finals either side of his pro-years are pretty convincing. It's just so hard to judge. I mean the titles you mention, are they red clay? Or all har-tru tournaments in the US? There was no Rome during his amateur years, and no Hamburg till literally the last couple. That only gives you Monte Carlo to go on, and he never did anything there, but it's too small a sample size to gauge much from.

The whole WHAT IF of it is the reason I don't rank him as highly as so many others do. The fact is in his 5 most successful major clay events (the two Roland Garros semi-final runs and the 3 French Pro runs) he was beaten by a different guy on each occasion. Granted, all 5 of those guys were very, very good, but still.
 
Drob said:
St. Louis (US Pro Hardcourt) was clay is my understanding (think it continued into Open era). TB lists it as clay. I thought this was talked about at one time on the threads, that In the absence of a clay slam 1963-65 and ‘67, St. Louis was the top clay-court tournament.

I am not 100 percent sure.
Click to expand...
What years was that ?
 
timnz said:
What years was that ?
Click to expand...
not sure understand question, Timnz.

I remember that i thought St Louis was clay or Har-Tru in all its Pro editions thru 1967, but Elegos7 said it was switched to hard court (as in concrete or asphalt based w composites) in 1966. He usually knows these details much better than me, so i accept that St Louis was not "clay" after 1965.
 
King_olaf_the_hairy said:
...The 1990 final and 1991 semi-final (Davis Cup) were both on indoor clay. The second video in particular has a wide shot of the crowd at the start and you can see it's an indoor venue. Can't find confirmation online, but I seem to recall at the time that the court was specially laid down at significant expense.
Click to expand...

Probably less expensive than what they'd initially planned for 1990

USTA originally proposed court to be made from imported, South American clay
Aussies objected, citing Davis Cup regulations that stated something like "... the surface shall be one in common use in the country" (my words)
USTA didn't make much fuss and made do with local clay

Before that, USTA got fined for twice missing the deadline for announcing/proposing venue, surface and conditions for the final

I remember the '90 Davis Cup final well. There was a lot of hullabaloo about it because it was the classic, traditional rivalry of USA vs Australia after along time (though in 1990, Mongolia would do just as well as Australia)
USA opting for clay for the final created some buzz, with talk of it being almost unsporting to put Aussies on their worst surface, which I found confusing. Isn't that just the normal, done thing? - probably goes to show just outmatched Aussies were, if they'd been competitive, would anyone call putting them on their worst surface unsporting? Twice missing deadline for choosing surface hints at not being a choice that was made carelessly

@Drob - I don't know of any tournaments but there was a lot of indoor clay in Davis Cup - '88 West Germany vs Swedan, '84 final, '95 final
I wonder if choice of indoor is influenced by consideration of how big a role the crowd will have on visitors
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Gonzales vs Trabert 1955 Tour
Replies
30
Views
2K
Oval_Solid
O
noeledmonds
How do you rate Ken Rosewall among the great clay courters?
Replies
17
Views
4K
Rabbit
Rabbit
N
Was Pancho Gonzales good on clay?
2
Replies
66
Views
5K
Dan Lobb
D
M
Ken Rosewall had the Pro Grand Slam in 1963?
2 3
Replies
146
Views
9K
Dan Lobb
D
hoodjem
Laver's Clay-Court Record
Replies
20
Views
2K
NatF
NatF
Back
Top