Rosewall and Roche Highlights

[EdWeiss]

Below is a link to highlights from the Roche-Rosewall U.S. Open final in 1970. Great stuff. Two of the best vollyers of all time. Many think Roche had the best backhand volley of all time but Rosewall's was right up there as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJubuKDN7Fk

[gzhpcu]

Another nice find Ed.... just love these old clips....

[chuck62]

Thanks for the Clip Ed. Great stuff. I was impressed by how few unforced errors they made with those little racquets. Solid shot after solid shot, really forcing the other guy to hit a winner to get the point. I don't see how you can watch this clip and think the play was slow back then. Didn't realize Rosewall had such a complete game, always heard about the backhand but everything else was pretty good as well.

[tennis_chiro]

Not just pretty good

Thanks for the Clip Ed. Great stuff. I was impressed by how few unforced errors they made with those little racquets. Solid shot after solid shot, really forcing the other guy to hit a winner to get the point. I don't see how you can watch this clip and think the play was slow back then. Didn't realize Rosewall had such a complete game, always heard about the backhand but everything else was pretty good as well.

I remember reading something from Bobby Riggs where he tried to identify various GOAT's, and he said for an extended period of time (it was for 30 or 40 years; he had others for 5 or 10 or 20; I think Riggs picked himself for the greatest longevity), Rosewall was at the top of the list. He stayed at the top of the game for the longest period of time, especially when you considered how long he was dominant (or at least one of the best) in the senior circuit against much younger players. I remember reading lists in those days of players' choices of best shots in the game. Certainly, Rosewall was recognized as the best backhand, but folks may be surprised to hear that the dimunutive Rosewall was repeatedly identified by his peers as having the best overhead in the game; that is, he was most likely to win the point if you hit a lob, not that he would hit it the hardest.

My old coach, Jerry Alleyne, used to string for the pros in NYC and at Forest Hills (where he was the first black man to play at the US Nationals). Jerry told me he asked Laver who the most aggressive player in the game was. Without hesitation, he answered that it was Rosewall. Watch in that clip how quickly he comes forward anytime Roche floats the ball just a little bit. Ken knew how to be early. I was fortunate to get to know Ken when he played the Huggy Bears in the early 90's and eventually won it in 1993. He was absolutely revered by the other Aussies. He played everyday, literally, until an arm injury(I think it was his arm) waylaid him in the late 90's. Newcombe had the misfortune to live in the same city and Ken would wake him up in the morning, having come over just "looking for a hit". Newc wasn't quite as eager.

Everything else was not just pretty good. The speed of his serve was low even by the standards of that day (he was a natural left hander), but his accuracy enabled him to play aggressively for a very long time. To play with today's players, he would have had to develop a better serve, but I really think he would have. Outside of the serve, everything he did could stand up against anyone of his day and he always made the list in multiple categories as being in the top 5 in other strokes besides the backhand and overhead, in the lists voted on by the other pros. He had to be that good to accomplish what he did. (Hopman gave him the nickname "Muscles" not because he was big and strong; it was for the same reason he tried to spur on the slowest man in the team windsprints by naming him "Rocket".)

He won the first Open tournament; yes, the French Open on red clay, and it wasn't by being a retriever.

And, by the way, he is a wonderful gentleman and continues to be a great ambassador for the sport.

It's sad that we don't have adequate video records to show how great these players really were. They may look slower on celluloid, but don't kid yourself; they could play!

don

[gzhpcu]

Great motion and footwork too...

[llll]

thats some beautiful tennis

[GeoffWilliams]

Their serve speed is topping out at about 100mph. Would get eaten alive by any pro today. If rosewall could only pass with a slice, why didn't they all just attack him to that side only?

[don_budge]

I hate to say it...Classic Tennis

You know it when you see it. It's unmistakable. It's Classic Tennis. The technique and the tactics. Hopman was the coach.

The white clothes. The white balls. Ken Rosewall and Tony Roche. Two great sportsmen...gentlemen, yet grim warriors. The path worn on the grass leading to the net. No tie-breakers.

Then there is the game itself being played out on the stage of center court...an empty court on either side of the one in play. Dueling maestros. Offense, now defense. Feathery touch mixed with blazing speed. Parry...thrust. Pedaling backwards for the lob. Smash. Scurrying about to retrieve. Spinning serves in the corners. Penetrating volleys. Clever angles mixed with subtle spin. Smack...down the line. Crosscourt. Anticipation. Playing the percentages all the time...nothing stupid. The power is definitely there and it is manifested in the control as well, yet the camera disguises the speed of play. And yeah, the footwork. Sigh...those were the days.

From Psychology Today...some 35 years ago in yesteryear.

"Tennis is a game that symbolically can be viewed as two swordsman trying to castrate each other. The racquets are symbolic of the rapiers, the balls represent the testicles and the way the game is played both players are probing the others strengths and weaknesses. Visceral dueling."

"Golf is a game where the player is trying to avoid committing suicide."

I think that sort of sums it up nicely.

[GeoffWilliams]

?Far more visceral now. Way stronger, faster, heavier shots, more spin/power/control/offense than ever in history. It's a game of guts, often without glory.

[gzhpcu]

Their serve speed is topping out at about 100mph. Would get eaten alive by any pro today. If rosewall could only pass with a slice, why didn't they all just attack him to that side only?

The comparison only holds if they are playing with the same equipment. Get today's pros to use wooden rackets, and lets see who eats who...

Hey Geoff, you the equipment guru surely knows the difference the racket makes right?

[moderntennis]

The comparison only holds if they are playing with the same equipment. Get today's pros to use wooden rackets, and lets see who eats who...

Hey Geoff, you the equipment guru surely knows the difference the racket makes right?

McEnroe does not get eaten alive even at age 52 by today's players, and his serve is only 100 at best on a real radar gun. Sharapova serves 130 on the juiced WTT radar, so don't believe the 115 figure for him

[tennis_chiro]

different ball

McEnroe does not get eaten alive even at age 52 by today's players, and his serve is only 100 at best on a real radar gun. Sharapova serves 130 on the juiced WTT radar, so don't believe the 115 figure for him

You may not have realized it, but the women play with a different ball. They use what used to be a "Regular duty" ball which is never used by men's tournaments anymore, at least that I am aware of. It's a little lighter and goes a little faster, but the 130mph still seems a little bogus.

don

[chuck62]

Big difference on the volleys

Did anybody else notice how much better the volleys were in this clip vs todays players ? Most of the volleys in this match were solid unreturnable shots to the corners, whereas most of the top pros these days opt for little touch volleys around the net that often get smashed back at them. Geoff, you might be right about todays game being faster in many ways, but not in terms of the net game, which was much better back then.

[tennis_chiro]

volleying well takes time

Did anybody else notice how much better the volleys were in this clip vs todays players ? Most of the volleys in this match were solid unreturnable shots to the corners, whereas most of the top pros these days opt for little touch volleys around the net that often get smashed back at them. Geoff, you might be right about todays game being faster in many ways, but not in terms of the net game, which was much better back then.

There's no way in the world you can learn to volley well if you don't use it in match play... a lot. Outside of doubles specialists, none of today's players volley all that much. You can volley all you want on a practice court, but if you don't volley in a singles match, you won't be able to volley in a singles match. It is different from doubles. And if you don't practice it a lot, your skill will diminish, as has happened to many players who used to serve and volley a lot more than they do today. Sure it's harder against today's passing shots, but if you don't work it a lot early, you can't learn the skill. Rafter was good, but not good enough until after he was about 23 or 24. It takes a long time to develop that skill. You can't become a serve and volleyer at 21; you have to be doing it a lot when you are 15 and 16 to ever have a chance. Almost no one does.

That's why it's so much fun to watch someone like Llodra who volleys well and plays singles. But even he was on the radar as an accomplished doubles player for a long time before he figured out how to serve and volley effectively (granted, not as much as earlier generations, but he probably does it more than any player who even flirts with the top 30 in singles).

I would like to have seen Safin try to develop his serve and volley skills more when he was 18, 19 and 20. With his speed and athleticism, he could have been a true complete player, big enough and fast enough to serve and volley a good percentage of the time. He might not have won the US Open at 21, but he would have been a much more awesome player at 23 or 24. But you have to remember, one of the reasons Rafter quit, it took so much fitness for him to do what he was doing that he had to train so hard or he would just be another top 40 player instead of a top 5. (He also had the sweating and cramping problem which he couldn't overcome.) I don't think Safin could maintain a work ethic that tough. But I still have hopes someone will come along. But he's going to have to be an NBA point guard type of athlete with phenomenal fundamentals and probably, a vision and coach who seem as much out of the mainstream as Bartoli and her dad. That's a tall order. For a while, I thought Murray might be the one, but he likes to counterpunch too much. Another one I thought had a chance was Fish when he was about 19. I saw him dismantle Phillipousis at Indian Wells when Fish was just coming on the scene. He had the float-and-break move down because he had done a lot of serve-and-volleying, but he got away from it. He's not quite big enough or fast enough; might have been, if he'd been commited to a more aggressive style at 19 and 20 with the work ethic he has today. But there is a reason he did as well as he has on a lot of big stages. He serves and volleys really well relative to the rest of today's players.

The success of Karlovic tells you something about the serve and volley. Don't kid yourself. He is a great player. If any 5.0 or 5.5 player was serving balls to him, he would break almost every game. But against the super athletes that populate the top 100 in the men's pro game, he is just too slow to break serve. But you don't have to be 6'10" to serve unbelieveable. What if Roddick had learned good volley grips and or maybe just a continental for everything once he got past no-man's land and had been serving and volleying on his second serve in juniors from the time he was 14?! He can serve 155 and consistent 2nds over 120 at 6'2" tall. But I don't think he is as quick as a Safin. But with that serve and really fluid movement and good grips, he wouldn't have had to be that quick with that serve. But we'll never know.

I just hope there's some crazy coach out there who can convince a kid that has a real chance to take the long hard road to become a really complete player...but I sure don't see him out there right now. Nole hits his groundies too well to take the losses he would have to take developing the skills to make the fluid move to the net that sets apart an Edberg or Rafter or even a Sampras (who didn't really volley anywhere near as well as either of those guys, but with that serve...he SERVE-and-volleyed his way to 14 slams) . Imagine an Edberg 2" taller like Safin (who was almost as quick), but with Safin's first serve and forehand...of course, he would need Agassi's eyes, but...there I go again

don

[don_budge]

Looks like we got you started...Don

Don...You make some good points there. It looks like we've really got you started. Don't let up. It seems people listen to you around here. Keep firing! I am that crazy coach btw.

Chuck...you are right about things as well. Players today do not volley and perhaps the biggest factor is they don't know how to get to the net. Moving side to side is one thing...moving forward is quite another. Approaching the net is a game in itself and it requires another set of shots along with a completely different mentality. This takes a tremendous amount of teaching and a tremendous amount of practice. To teach this takes knowledge. That knowledge is becoming a thing of the past.

I love playing doubles with my students once they are old enough and good enough. This is where their baptism at the net occurs with me. Here they can begin to toy with serve and volley, volleys, half volleys, overheads, lobbing and the rest of the shots that make up the all court game. I remember one poster asking, "what about the doubles?".

Phil...of course you are right, he should know better.

Geoff...just keep firing. It's entertaining.

Perhaps Safin was a good candidate and so was Roddick. Ditto Söderling. It's easy to imagine these guys being dominant serve and volley players given the proper education and training. Just think if they were to combine these elements with their solid backcourt play. This was my point in my letter to Söderling's father. Athletically and physique wise they were ideal candidates but at some point they were all indoctrinated in the two hand backhand backcourt school of tennis. It is a different mentality. It was too late for them.

The idea of winning at the net is something that should be part of the education of every tennis player starting around the age of sixteen or seventeen. Maybe earlier of later depending on the student. The paradigm is going to have to be rethought and then you are going to have to get the right people in the right position to change this fallacy. Things are going to have to change. Revolution's in the air!

Patrick McEnroe is the wrong man for the job of player development in my opinion. He is a two handed player with two handed mentality. John is a better choice but perhaps his reputation prevents him from being a proper role model in the eyes of the establishment. Patrick did not once talk about serving, serving tactics or net play in his article here on Tennisplayer. He is babbling about playing in a circle or some other modern gibberish. Instead he hired Jose Higueras so that we Americans can start chasing the Spanish style of play. We should want our style of tennis to be the all court game. We should be able to compete with the Europeans on clay and at the same time take them to school on the faster surfaces. We should take the lead.

Bring in one of these two old Aussies, or somebody out of their mold, and within five years you will see a difference. And a favorable one at that.