Ille Nastase versus Arthur Ashe...1972 U. S. Open Finals

[gzhpcu]

I agree with 10splayer. These old videos are fun to watch to see how the game has changed, but the game has evolved and moved on. Equipment, courts, balls. Note that it has been a progressive change. It was not overnight. Today's style of play is better suited to today's courts, equipment, balls, and vice versa. Think it is comparing apples to oranges.

There were great players in the past, as there are today. The Ashe - Nastase match is a great match, but it is as lopsided technically, as today's matches are. In the Ashe - Nastase match you see no baseline exchanges, in many matches today you see practically no serve and volley. I find them both enjoyable to watch, but today's matches need much more stamina than those played in these old videos. In the old serve and volley videos, it seems that more emphasis is fast reflexes, in today's matches, speed of foot, power and stamina.

The Djokovic - Federer Wimbledon final is just as fascinating as the Ashe - Nastase match.

[stroke]

10splayer has stated before(I believe it was in regard to Dimitrov stroke discussion) that's men's tennis strokes have evolved and are as about as technically sound as they can get. I agree with this and I do not think we will be seeing a breakthrough change in the men's game in the next 15 years. As for the women, as 10splayer has said, that is where the big jumps will come. I think their serves and forehands will move more toward what the men are doing.

[10splayer]

I agree with 10splayer. These old videos are fun to watch to see how the game has changed, but the game has evolved and moved on. Equipment, courts, balls. Note that it has been a progressive change. It was not overnight. Today's style of play is better suited to today's courts, equipment, balls, and vice versa. Think it is comparing apples to oranges.

There were great players in the past, as there are today. The Ashe - Nastase match is a great match, but it is as lopsided technically, as today's matches are. In the Ashe - Nastase match you see no baseline exchanges, in many matches today you see practically no serve and volley. I find them both enjoyable to watch, but today's matches need much more stamina than those played in these old videos. In the old serve and volley videos, it seems that more emphasis is fast reflexes, in today's matches, speed of foot, power and stamina.

The Djokovic - Federer Wimbledon final is just as fascinating as the Ashe - Nastase match.

Agree...And just to clarify. I enjoy these old videos and respect both the talent and what theyve done for the game. (I've not been the one who has trashed ANY era of players) Ashe? Reverent comes to mind. A truly remarkable man in every sense of the word. McEnroe? An absolute genius with a racquet.. But would I teach a person there way of tennis? No.

[hockeyscout]

A revolution is just now starting in my opinion. Everyone always claims in any industry this is the best it will get, and then someone or something comes along and blows it right out of the water. The innovation has only started. In ten years athletes will be bigger, stronger, faster, more equipped, better fed, more rested, able to rejuvenate faster, be able to access better data and understand have more qualified sports science teams around them to make them more efficient.

John Yandell had an interesting article:

http://www.tennisplayer.net/members/avancedtennis/john_yandell/the_myth/the_myth_of_the_tennis_tip_images/the_myth_of_the_tennis_tip.html

[stotty]

Agree...And just to clarify. I enjoy these old videos and respect both the talent and what theyve done for the game. (I've not been the one who has trashed ANY era of players) Ashe? Reverent comes to mind. A truly remarkable man in every sense of the word. McEnroe? An absolute genius with a racquet.. But would I teach a person there way of tennis? No.

And that's the point. It's important to respect previous eras and what they gave to the game.

There is no argument the game has moved forward in many ways. But I still find it irresistible to ponder whether any of the current crop, using a wooden racket, would beat McEnroe at his zenith on a fast grass court? You just have to wonder about that one.

The players (and coaches) of this generation have worked out the best way to win under the current circumstances. You have to think they must be right. You would have to think also those outside the top ten would have figured out another way if there was one. As a result, love or hate it, players have become awfully good at doing what they do.

But while the standard of play in some aspects of the game is the highest ever, other parts of the game, from a skill standpoint, have suffered, even regressed. Players were more skilled at the net in the wooden era, especially when you consider the inferior equipment they were using. Much of the art of volleying has been eroded and lost and that's a great shame.

I don't see things changing because no one seems to want it. I do see an almighty slump once the top three exit the game, which may prompt some tweaking.

I try to encourage people to look at "wood versus modern" as two different games...because they are. The vast difference in equipment alone makes it so. To truly appreciate someone like Nastase you have to view it that way. I watched him first hand. He was out of this world as a talent. Most clips out there aren't of a quality to do him justice.

Would I teach a junior with good potential to play like Nastase or Ashe?...doubtful...but I appreciate their era a great deal because I witnessed it first hand. I have seen both skill sets; those of today and yesterday. There's great merit in both but I miss the quality volleying and net play of the past. I really do.

[10splayer]

And that's the point. It's important to respect previous eras and what they gave to the game.

There is no argument the game has moved forward in many ways. But I still find it irresistible to ponder whether any of the current crop, using a wooden racket, would beat McEnroe at his zenith on a fast grass court? You just have to wonder about that one.

The players (and coaches) of this generation have worked out the best way to win under the current circumstances. You have to think they must be right. You would have to think also those outside the top ten would have figured out another way if there was one. As a result, love or hate it, players have become awfully good at doing what they do.

But while the standard of play in some aspects of the game is the highest ever, other parts of the game, from a skill standpoint, have suffered, even regressed. Players were more skilled at the net in the wooden era, especially when you consider the inferior equipment they were using. Much of the art of volleying has been eroded and lost and that's a great shame.

I don't see things changing because no one seems to want it. I do see an almighty slump once the top three exit the game, which may prompt some tweaking.

I try to encourage people to look at "wood versus modern" as two different games...because they are. The vast difference in equipment alone makes it so. To truly appreciate someone like Nastase you have to view it that way. I watched him first hand. He was out of this world as a talent. Most clips out there aren't of a quality to do him justice.

Would I teach a junior with good potential to play like Nastase or Ashe?...doubtful...but I appreciate their era a great deal because I witnessed it first hand. I have seen both skill sets; those of today and yesterday. There's great merit in both but I miss the quality volleying and net play of the past. I really do.

What a terrific post.

[bobbyswift]

The biggest change for the modern volley is the ball coming in has changed so drastically. The incredible backhand of Ken Rosewall in the past or Nadal in the present is to me the difference. One hundred mile an hour 4800 rpms of spin and curving is a nightmare at net. Tactically back in the day getting to net was relatively easy proposition. Today tricky to find repeated attempts. They have to be set up with dominant court position and power and even then the counter-punch is nasty.

[klacr]

The biggest change for the modern volley is the ball coming in has changed so drastically. The incredible backhand of Ken Rosewall in the past or Nadal in the present is to me the difference. One hundred mile an hour 4800 rpms of spin and curving is a nightmare at net. Tactically back in the day getting to net was relatively easy proposition. Today tricky to find repeated attempts. They have to be set up with dominant court position and power and even then the counter-punch is nasty.

strong approach shots is key. And by strong, I don't mean overwhelming powerful, just smart. An effective, biting, skidding slice out of opponents strike zone or a ball that is thumped but bounces up into a player's hitting pocket? Serves are great and volleys are sufficient, but the proper decision making in between these two shots are where bad things can happen. No doubt the heaviness of the ball with the rpms are tough to handle, but so is a tactically effective set up and an opponent that actually knows how to volley and embraces the net.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

The biggest change for the modern volley is the ball coming in has changed so drastically. The incredible backhand of Ken Rosewall in the past or Nadal in the present is to me the difference. One hundred mile an hour 4800 rpms of spin and curving is a nightmare at net. Tactically back in the day getting to net was relatively easy proposition. Today tricky to find repeated attempts. They have to be set up with dominant court position and power and even then the counter-punch is nasty.

This has been a great thread;controversial and full of opinion. I feel we've got somewhere with it...one way or another.

A few players may hit 4800 rpms but not many. And most players are nowhere that on the backhand. Many two-handed players don't hit that much topspin at all. Dolgopolov for example hits virtually dead flat on his backhand. So spin needn't be the excuse for players not to come in...but, yes, pace is.

I was at Wimbledon this year and the main problem wasn't spin. It was because most players strike the ball so hard off the ground the volleyer cannot get from A to B quick enough to get in position. Even the best volleyers of the past needed to be composed, something often denied these days by the sheer velocity of the incoming ball.

A yes the volleyer must ensure he is an overwhelmingly dominant position so as to be assured an easy put away.

But it's also because players aren't skilled enough these days to deal with low and more intricate volleys. It's become a catch 22 situation in a way. You cannot see it changing because it's doubtful players will be taught the net skills required. It will take a brave coach and player to have a go changing the trend.

I don't know if you saw Federer play Murray in the Aussie Open earlier this year, but that was one match which restored my faith that an all out net attack is still feasible...at least for spells.

[bobbyswift]

Absolutely agree with everything said. However if you have to deal with low and intricate volleys over and over in todays game something is wrong in transition. Not the goal of any players tactics.

[don_budge]

Therein lies the problem...of modern tennis. Do the math...stupid! The Catch-22.

The biggest change for the modern volley is the ball coming in has changed so drastically. The incredible backhand of Ken Rosewall in the past or Nadal in the present is to me the difference. One hundred mile an hour 4800 rpms of spin and curving is a nightmare at net. Tactically back in the day getting to net was relatively easy proposition. Today tricky to find repeated attempts. They have to be set up with dominant court position and power and even then the counter-punch is nasty.

strong approach shots is key. And by strong, I don't mean overwhelming powerful, just smart. An effective, biting, skidding slice out of opponents strike zone or a ball that is thumped but bounces up into a player's hitting pocket? Serves are great and volleys are sufficient, but the proper decision making in between these two shots are where bad things can happen. No doubt the heaviness of the ball with the rpms are tough to handle, but so is a tactically effective set up and an opponent that actually knows how to volley and embraces the net.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

It's become a catch 22 situation in a way.

Therein lies the problem with the modern game...betwixt and between these two comments. There is a lack of balance. It's a catch-22 as Stotty suggests. The overemphasis on speed that goes with the bigger equipment and the slower courts has more or less rendered the approach to the net extinct...a low percentage play. There is no adjustment to be made for the lack of touch and feel when you tip the scale so radically in the direction of speed and brute force.

Just as there was the problem when the bigger equipment was introduced and the courts remained the same...the backcourt game was nullified on the faster surfaces. The engineered equation did not take in the necessary consideration for the variables in the game. Is this satisfactory? Is there any viable solution? Or is this another case where in modern existence...the problems are too big to have any viable solution? Thus the metaphorical nature of tennis.

You won't like the answer either...it wasn't broken. Why did "they" try to fix it? Take this match for instance between the "mercurial" Nastase and the "stoic" Ashe...there certainly is a balance to it...isn't there? That's a rhetorical question by the way. On grass it was all serve and volley...as it was here. But the game as it was played dictated that players were playing a game that could be altered or adapted to be played on any surface. Grass, clay or hard court. All the surfaces were inherently different and unique as well. Not the generic and modified surfaces of today that insure that one size fits all.

[don_budge]

Catch-22

...a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.

Origin 1970's. The title of a novel by Joseph Heller (1961), in which the main character feigns madness in order to avoid dangerous combat missions, but his desire to avoid them is taken to prove his sanity.

[don_budge]

Let the game come to you...

...a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions.

Origin 1970's. The title of a novel by Joseph Heller (1961), in which the main character feigns madness in order to avoid dangerous combat missions, but his desire to avoid them is taken to prove his sanity.

The Catch-22. Look at it again...here is a highlight video.

Read the comments below the video...consider this one. I thought about this before I read it...because I know European tennis. Nastase considered himself to be more of a clay court player. Here he is...painting a masterpiece on the lawn of the Westside Tennis Club in Forest Hills in Queens, New York. It's really a beautiful thing...if you stop and think about it. The feathery touch...the sudden power. Everything in between.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf4wrrpzdYc

Breath deep...let it just sink in. Tennis...let the game come to you.

[don_budge]

Australian Doubles...1972 U. S. Open style

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Share/Event-Draws.aspx?Year=1972&EventId=560&Draw=md

I just love this section of the 1972 U. S. Open doubles draw. Positions 17-32. The lower half of the upper half of the draw. Incredible that so many Australian teams were in this one section. Arthur Ashe and Robert Lutz, the fourth seeds immediately ousted by the unseeded Australian pair of Ross Case and Geoff Masters in five tough sets. Cut short by the 9-point sudden death tie-breaker. Double set point at 4 all. Receiving team gets the choice of side to return from. Remember that one...of course you do. Because everyone is a student of the game...aren't we?

Down in the next four brackets are a couple more Aussie pairs...Owen Davidson/John Newcombe and Terry Addison/Bob Carmichael who both manage to win their first round match to meet in an all-Aussie doubles fest. In the bottom section of this particular part of the draw are two more Australian doubles teams...Ken Rosewall/Fred Stolle and John Alexander/Phil Dent who manage to slug their way out to meet each other. Phil Dent incidentally the the father of Trevor Dent...the stocky American with the big serve. One of the last serve and volleyers in America ironically an Australian.

The Australians end up having a sort of mini tournament amongst themselves inside of the main doubles draw. Davidson and Newcombe eventually win the Australian end of things and defeat a great American team in Stan Smith and Erik Van Dillen in the semis before losing to the eventual champions Cliff Drysdale and Roger Taylor.

Australian doubles Harry Hopman style. What a great era of tennis! The Americans learned a bunch from the Aussies plus they had a legacy all of their own. This is how great tennis dynasties evolve...based on tradition.

Did you hear...TRADITION.

[don_budge]

Another question for Stotty...

What about the doubles at Wimbledon? Has the integrity of the doubles game been maintained up to this point?

Just curious...wink, nudge.