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

[stotty]

Doubles...what doubles?

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

Just curious...wink, nudge.

The doubles at Wimbledon these days is no longer doubles. I don't know what to call it...maybe a word that encapsulates all four players playing from the baseline. I doubt such a word exists but doubtless bottle could dream a wonderful one up.

The standard of doubles is really quite poor at Wimbledon comparative to the era you describe in Australia 1972. The mixed doubles is even worse. I find it sad. I use to love Newcombe and Roche, Hewitt and McMillan, McEnroe and Flemming.

Singles is the game these days. Doubles is something you turn to if you're hard up.

I see no way back for doubles...none. Sorry to have nothing better to report.

[don_budge]

I have a word...deplorable

The doubles at Wimbledon these days is no longer doubles. I don't know what to call it...maybe a word that encapsulates all four players playing from the baseline.

I see no way back for doubles...none. Sorry to have nothing better to report.

I find this to be a terrible shame...it is deplorable.

[gzhpcu]

Well Djokovic and Wawrinka in Toronto lost their doubles in the second round in two sets against Nestor/Zimonjic. Good singles players, but unable to volley well in doubles. This was not the case earlier with Laver and company...

[klacr]

Nestor and Zimonjic are grand slam champs and two of the best doubles players in history. Wawrinka and Djokovic did not stand a chance. Their lack of volley skills and inability be a force in the forecourt made this match more of an exhibition than a competitive battle. Nestor and Zimonjic won 94% of their first serve points, serving and volleying. 2nd serve points Nestor and Zimonjic won 57% while Djokovic and Wawrinka won just 41% of theirs. Djokovic and Wawrinka never got a sniff of a break point. Not one break point chance the whole match. But, I guess it's tough to do that when you win just 2 of 34 1st return points. 2 of 34!!!!

Nestor and Zimonjic are doubles experts. For them, the tennis Gods were offering up Djokovic and awrinka. Doubles Lambs for the slaughter. Ba Ba Black sheep

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

They should have played from the baseline only. Joker has a 4.5 volley.

[stotty]

Nestor and Zimonjic are grand slam champs and two of the best doubles players in history.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

You cannot be serious.

[don_budge]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cmEH0y0fA0

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lou_yI0C5L4 (no longer available)

1972...I was 18 years old and had spent the summer at The Don Budge Tennis Camp in McDonough, Maryland. Ille Nastase was my favorite player...Mr. Budge was very much impressed by him...maybe just a little uncertain what to make of him. Nastase had lost to Stan Smith at Wimbledon in a five set match.

So it started...in all of its innocence.

[stotty]

Nastase was the first player I witnessed serve four aces in a row to win a service game. His first serve was quite heavy and fast, and yes slippery would be a good way to describe it. But above all he could place it on the lines. The four aces he hit that day all hit a line. He didn't drive up much, and landed on the 'wrong foot' in modern speak, but he had rhythm and forward momentum. His motion was very fluent and had no hitches, none.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4w...se-serve_sport

It was less about driving up back then and more about driving forwards, forwards to the net.

And yes #62...deplorable. I never thought I would live to see the day when doubles was played with all four players were regularly standing on the baseline, and at Wimbledon, on grass.




Stotty

[don_budge]

Phil...

I have about six or seven more posts to go on this subject. Could you kindly refrain from posting your humble opinions until I am done. I would sincerely appreciate it.

Why don't you develop the Nastase/Smith thread that you started? Cast some light on it and clue us in what is going on...behind the scenes. Between the ears. That would be great fun for you. For us as well. It will give me some time to develop my thoughts on what I started here.

Thanks in advance...Saint Phil...Mister Manners!

What a great, great thread this was. The 1972 U. S. Open Final between Ilie Nastase and Arthur Ashe. Talk about two polar opposites. I posted this match again in doctorhl's thread "Pierre-Hugues Herbert Serve". This was my example of "serve and volley" as opposed to the post classic era's rendition of serve and volley as exemplified by Stefan Edberg and Tim Henman.

I reread the thread in its entirety and found it to be as interesting a thread as any on this forum. When I wrote about the final between these two classic tennis players there was some push back. Some very interesting push back. Fascinating stuff. Within this thread is the above quote that comes as near as possible for me to say that I regret writing it. I remember back when I wrote it...looking back in retrospect all I can say is "how amusing". Phil, aka gzhpcu, had made some comments about comments that I had written about John McEnroe. When I wrote this thread obviously those comments were still fresh in my mind. It's funny how he and I managed to work it out. But that was the one comment in the 5,600 something that I have written that I almost regret writing.

But the thing is after I wrote this comment I drew fire from several on the forum for what I said. It's interesting how I chose to handle it. I never said that one was wrong or I was right. I just kept writing through it...just trying to express myself to the best of my ability. 10splayer and hockeyscout came down on me a bit in this thread but I didn't take any of it personally. In fact...I do believe that I relished their comments and I fully understood why they made them. What a great thread. I love that I have been consistent for the ten years I have written about tennis here. It was nearly fifty years ago that my vendetta started with the game of tennis. I was there when the cheating was made legal. Those infernal racquets. I'm laughing now...but I am still quite serious.

But the beautiful thing about this thread too is that there were those who openly called me out for my "shenanigans". A couple were rather serious and pointed in their comments. All that I can say is that today I am on beautiful terms with all of these guys. I respect guys who come out and say what is on their minds. I don't have to agree with them. I don't even have to disagree. But they have my respect. This how men operate. What I cannot respect is a guy who gives another the silent treatment. That is a pussy way out.

But I encourage the guys on the forum now that weren't around back then to read it in its entirety. It is a fascinating discussion about one of my favourite subjects on the face of the planet. The relative merits of Classic Tennis as opposed to its modern day facsimile...Modern Tennis.

I was a little touchy with Phil but I didn't lose my focus. I took my shots and didn't lose my balance. A great thread...about a truly great, great tennis match. Way back when.

[doctorhl]

I suspect that there is a similar thread out there somewhere in a pro golf or badminton forum as these two sports have traveled a similar road to tennis. I have seen equipment change favor power over touch in these sports. Athleticism plays a larger role. Sportsmanship and tradition have dissipated. Money plays a larger role in dictating the way forward. My little time spent in Britain in the 70’s observing racket sports( even real tennis and squash) gave me a fascinating peek( and admiration) into the historical roots and tradition of racket sports. But...I suppose we should live in the present, with a vision of the future, anchored by a foot resting on the shoulders of the giants in the past. DB and Scotty are better suited to speak to these observations than me. What say you or has it all been rehashed in previous threads?

[stotty]

My little time spent in Britain in the 70’s observing racket sports( even real tennis and squash) gave me a fascinating peek( and admiration) into the historical roots and tradition of racket sports. But...I suppose we should live in the present, with a vision of the future, anchored by a foot resting on the shoulders of the giants in the past. DB and Scotty are better suited to speak to these observations than me. What say you or has it all been rehashed in previous threads?

The past is the past. Wooden rackets have gone and they are never coming back. It was a beautiful game back then and it can still at times be a beautiful game today. Few would argue that Roger plays the game as beautifully as anyone who has gone before him. This is just a fact.

I see it the classic era and modern tennis as two different games. It's the best way to look at it. The impact of increasingly superior equipment has rendered the game unrecognisable from what it once was. But there are still some very watchable players. The Big three are very watchable as is Tsitsipas, Fognini and Kyrgios.

Comparing the classic and the modern game is a pointless exercise. Like I said, they are two different games.

This is the most wonderful classic tennis clip out there and features the great Frank Sedgman volleying like no one has before or since. https://commerce.veritone.com/search/asset/8903884

And here is one of the more unusual write-ups about Bjorn Borg. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20...nnis.features1

[doctorhl]

Well said Stotty!

[don_budge]

"“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.”"

― Plato (428/427 or 424/423 – 348/347 BC)