Adriano Panatta vs. Björn Borg...Båstad Final 1974

[don_budge]

Another Swedish venue...The Båstad Open. A very popular stop on the tour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ6BuRtiaxA

Amazing match between a couple of young future stars...Adriano Panatta and Björn Borg. It is surprising to see how much both players attack the net. Pre headband Borg. Borg dressed in Slazenger as is his racquet. Panatta in Fila...racquet unknown. Anyone? Dunlop?

Beautiful stylish tennis. The slower pace of the game allows for the little bit of time that it takes to transition to the net. Today the real reason that the net play has been taken out of the equation is because there is no time to transition. The quickness of the exchange between the approach shot and the passing shot makes the net play possibility a futile tactic...more often than not.

Quite a contrast with today's tennis.

[stotty]

Great find...

Great find. A nice clear picture too.

Panatta was 24 and Borg just 18, and not yet at his zenith. Panatta had the better of Borg early on in their encounters but that was soon to be put right, save the one dramatic upset at Roland Garros when Borg was at the height of his career.

The signs are there in the clip of the player Borg was to become. He was already difficult to out rally, and you can see how his passing shots became the greatest ever. The only route to beat Borg became the route to the net. Borg must have hit more passing shots than any other player...a great way to hone a skill I'd say. Borg's "never miss" forehand was also starting to look very evident. My friend says if you watch any of Borg's clay court matches the forehand errors will be less than you can count on one hand. I might just have to put that to the test.

Panatta was talented and stylish. What an array of shots! He wasn't always credited for being the dogged fighter that he was...those playboy looks were deceiving. He may have been all about power boats and girlfriends off the court, but he had a tenacious side on court. Plus my wife thinks he's beautiful, stylish and sexy. I always ask my wife's take on tennis players even though she's never played the game.

Great find, don budge. I am off to watch a little more of the clip.

About Panatta's racket. I am going purely from memory here but I think he used an obscure brand of wooden racket called "WIP Prestige" for a quite a chunk of his career. He later used Dunlop for quite a while. I think the racket in the clip is the WIP Prestige. He was the only top player I can remember who ever used this brand of wooden racket.

[don_budge]

WIP Prestige...

About Panatta's racket. I am going purely from memory here but I think he used an obscure brand of wooden racket called "WIP Prestige" for a quite a chunk of his career. He later used Dunlop for quite a while. I think the racket in the clip is the WIP Prestige. He was the only top player I can remember who ever used this brand of wooden racket.

WIP Prestige

http://www.80s-tennis.com/pages/wip-prestige-racquet.html

Great comments! But this doesn't look like the racquet.

[don_budge]

Slice backhand...Panatta "Playboy" Style

http://minstrelinthegallery.blogspot.se/2010/08/memories-of-adriano-panatta.html

One of the things that really impressed me in this video was Panatta's slice backhand. He really drove the ball and it was penetrating. The still picture in the article really illustrates how he was "leaning" on the ball.

Plus my wife thinks he's beautiful, stylish and sexy. I always ask my wife's take on tennis players even though she's never played the game.

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

When I saw him in 1978 the day before he played Jimmy Connors in this match I think that I fell in love with him too...and I have NEVER had a gay thought in my life. This guy was just gorgeous...from his looks to the way that he played the game and the way that he conducted himself on the court. He carried himself so elegantly. As fluid as Nastase without the tomfoolery and buffoonery. The article says as much.

We hadn't heard a lot about him in those days but after watching him on the practice courts I said to my buddy...this guy could take Connors tomorrow. He was just a whisker from doing so.

[stotty]

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

We hadn't heard a lot about him in those days but after watching him on the practice courts I said to my buddy...this guy could take Connors tomorrow. He was just a whisker from doing so.

Panatta in that short clip says Connors won that match on a shot you make once in every ten thousand attempts. He's right. But what a shot from Connors...that running backhand down the line.

It was great effort from Panatta. It's never been easy taking on the great American players in their own back yard.

[GeoffWilliams]

It is now. Actors, writers, musicians, all have an easier time buying a house than tennis players!

[tennis_chiro]

Saw that shot from almost court level!

Panatta in that short clip says Connors won that match on a shot you make once in every ten thousand attempts. He's right. But what a shot from Connors...that running backhand down the line.

It was great effort from Panatta. It's never been easy taking on the great American players in their own back yard.

1978 US Open. I had given up trying to play the circuit (satellites). I was going to turn 30 later that month and it was my first or second week as a stockbroker (in training) at Bear Stearns. I was hanging around with a friend from Eastern tennis, Josh Siegel. His brother was a producer with CBS Sports, Abby Siegel. So I was standing on the CBS deck right behind Connors as he made that shot. The place went wild.

As for Panatta, we thought Dick Stockton was a pretty complete and powerful player and also very smooth. I don't remember which year it was, but it was on HarTru at Forest Hills so it had to be 75, 76 or 77. I had a center court seat for the Stockton-Panatta match. Panatta made Stockton look like a weekend hacker by comparison and he did it with such ease.

As for the Maxply Fort, I couldn't play with it to save my life. I tried, but I hated it. Nevertheless, more people saw me play with it than anything else. I did a commercial for it in 1975. It was a 30 second shot of me hitting one serve. But they only played in a half a dozen times including twice during Wimbledon and US Open broadcasts on NBC and CBS that year. I walked in for the tryout for the commercial and boldly said I couldn't play with the racket; then proceded to ace the creative director a couple of times to show him I could hit the serve. They had asked me to come in because I had a reputation for a nice service motion. It helped a lot that that creative director (I think Ed Gori) had been a student at the Tennis Academy I had started in Grand Central Station. I wish I could find a recording of that commercial. Video recorders were pretty rare in those days.

But no question, that kind of artistry has been largely lost, overwhelmed by power. Also no question today's players are better athletes in that they can jump higher, run faster, last longer and hit harder than the players of the past; but there is a very strong argument to be made that those classic players developed and displayed much greater artistry in their tennis games.

don

[stotty]

Not sure about this...

Also no question today's players are better athletes in that they can jump higher, run faster, last longer and hit harder than the players of the past; but there is a very strong argument to be made that those classic players developed and displayed much greater artistry in their tennis games.

don

Nice story about the Dunlop ad. Such a shame if the clip is lost forever. We never think of these things at the time, do we?

I have never bought in to this argument that players are faster and more athletic than those who have gone before. Panatta and Nastase could launch upwards for backhand smashes better than any players could today. They mover BETTER at the net than today's players if anything...down to low volleys...up to high ones...off to the side. In this kind of movement they are superior. And Borg's all court movement was as good as anyone's today. He was tremendously quick...perfect footwork.

I'll grant you Djokovic and Murray's baseline court coverage is amazing. I call them the "court shrinkers". But it's a very specific kind of movement...defense to attack stuff. When Djokovic comes to the net it's like watching Mr Plod. He can't back up and elevate for a smash like a Nastase or a Panatta...no way. The closest we have these days to a player being able to that is Nadal...who is really good at it...but he, and perhaps Federer, are the only ones.

I just think the demands for movement have changed just like the other skill sets have. I doubt anyone today is as quick as McEnroe or Nastase were at the net (the first yard is in your head anyway). I doubt anyone back then could withstand a full pelt 54 stroke baseline rally either. But it's all to easy to forget and dismiss the past. No one admires more than me what's gone on with the top four over the past five years, and they are awfully good at what they do, but they can't volley, and they aren't anywhere near as good athletically as they are at the baseline...in fact, athletically, they are quite wooden (pardon the pun) in the forecourt.

[don_budge]

Today's athletes vs. Yesterday's athletes. Panatta and Connors.

So I was standing on the CBS deck right behind Connors as he made that shot. The place went wild.

But no question, that kind of artistry has been largely lost, overwhelmed by power. Also no question today's players are better athletes in that they can jump higher, run faster, last longer and hit harder than the players of the past; but there is a very strong argument to be made that those classic players developed and displayed much greater artistry in their tennis games.

don

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

I was sitting at the very top row of the stadium...a bird's eye view. To say that I was a little high would be an understatement. But the view from up there was just fine. I will never forget what a beautiful day it was and what a beautiful tennis match it was way down there on the court. Completely captivating...the Panatta serve and volley against the counter puncher Connors. Panatta was really bearing down on Connors...the final score was 4-6, 6-4, 6-1, 1-6, 7-5. That match was see sawing back and forth with Panatta seeming to get the upper hand in the later stages of the match.

This phenomenal point was at 5-4 and 40-40...Panatta serving. If he wins the point it is his match point...serving for the match. But instead Connors pulls of this impossible lunging one handed effort and he ends up breaking Panatta and serving out the match himself. From up top there in the stadium you could feel the energy that had been building throughout the entire match come swelling up like a blast of waves. It was a magical moment in tennis history. As it turned out Connors went out and dominated John McEnroe in the semi finals in straight sets and he defeated Björn Borg also in straight sets.

It's sort of funny to think that my path sort of crossed with tennis_chiro's on that particular day in New York City. It's only degrees of separation.

The athletes that play tennis today are not necessarily better than the athletes that played classic tennis...they are just different. The game was "reinvented" just around the time that this match was taking place...ironically enough. Those of us that were around can really appreciate what actually happened to the sport of tennis. The hijacking...the selling down the river.

http://minstrelinthegallery.blogspot.se/2010/08/memories-of-adriano-panatta.html

The difference in the classic game and the modern game is a fundamental one. The athletes that participated in the classic game were almost out of the mode of longer distance runners. The speed that was applied to the ball was less so it gave the players many more opportunities to run down balls yet at the same time the racquets were not designed for all of the infernal power that todays equipment is. Therefore they were not built like robocops and the like. Todays players are built more like power sprinters with the bulk of their running done in short quick spurts side to side on the baseline...whereas the classic players had to use all of the court. Going forwards and backwards is much more energy intensive. Doubt it? Try drilling going to the net and back for fifteen minutes compared to rallying from the baseline for ten minutes. Nobody is going to convince me that these guys today are better athletes. It would be so interesting to see these players match up against classic players using wood racquets.

For instance...I would love to see McEnroe play any of the current one trick ponies with both competitors using Dunlop Maxply's....the results might just surprise a lot of people. It used to be that players could stay competitive longer because of the difference in the game. Since nowadays...brute force and speed are the characteristics it rules out older participants. But back then...guile and anticipation could often make up for that half step of speed lost to the years which allowed for players to stay competitive longer.

The athletes today are not necessarily better...but they are certainly different. Another major difference going on behind the scenes too that we are not privy to all of the information is that of designer drugs. This area of sports is a giant chess game with the players always one step ahead of the authorities. You never used to see players built like robocops before. This phenomena started to appear only recently. I think that the storyline behind the drug scene is infinitely more complex than we even dream. There is a lot of money at stake. Only the insiders really know what is going on.

[don_budge]

Björn Borg vs. Adriano Panatta head to head...

http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-head/men/Bjorn_Borg/Adriano_Panatta/

Interesting that the Båstad match was not included in these results.

The tally is a little different on the ATP website...

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=P059&oId=B058

Interesting to see Borg's last matches...played with a wood racquet against the modern equipment. He won several sets...I had always heard that he had only one the one against Volkov. Question to all those tennis historians and tennis students out there...why in the hell did he try to comeback with a wood racquet?

Let's assume that he was not out of his mind. Ten first round losses in a row. Was he just a glutton for punishment?

[klacr]

http://www.stevegtennis.com/head-to-...riano_Panatta/

Interesting that the Båstad match was not included in these results.

Interesting to see Borg's last matches...played with a wood racquet against the modern equipment. He won several sets...I had always heard that he had only one the one against Volkov. Question to all those tennis historians and tennis students out there...why in the hell did he try to comeback with a wood racquet?

Let's assume that he was not out of his mind. Ten first round losses in a row. Was he just a glutton for punishment?

To answer your question, he was a stubborn fool. All tennis players have that side of them. Not willing to make the adjustment. Sticking to your guns. Cutting off the nose to spite the face. Not supporting it. That's just how it goes.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

Klarc is right on the money...stubborn he was...as a mule.

An article in a British newspaper, The Guardian, written in 2007 has Borg speaking candidly about his return and why he stuck with his wooden racket.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2007/jan/07/tennis.features2

[GeoffWilliams]

I don't keep any trophies, just throw them out. Borg felt they were not worth keeping. Same reason Blake never learned to neutralize, only to blast the ball.

[klacr]

Klarc is right on the money...stubborn he was...as a mule.

An article in a British newspaper, The Guardian, written in 2007 has Borg speaking candidly about his return and why he stuck with his wooden racket.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/200...nnis.features2

This is a quote from Borg in that article...

'Well, I had never played with anything else. I knew that if I wanted to do well I had to use another racket but I thought, you know: why change?'

Put yourself in his shoes...you've won 11 grand slam titles, you know your game better than anyone else. Getting advice or recommendations from people who haven't won 11 grand slams, you'd brush them off as well.

As of today, I currently have 0 grand slam titles (I'm working on it ) and even I can be a bit stubborn on my game. If I had 11 grand slams titles, I'm doing the exact same thing that got me those 11. We are tennis players. Creatures of habit and curators of past successes. Change is difficult. I never say the word change around my students when discussing strokes. I mention the words adjustments, refinements or evolutions.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton