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

[klacr]

That slice serve down the T on the ad side at the 33 second mark from Nastase was gorgeous. Great to see this tennis. Makes us not only appreciate this era, but how how much tennis has changed and the pace of the game and the promise for greater growth. Tennis has changed, for better or worse, that's a matter of opinion. But tennis is still a sport we all love and are willing to share. It's why we are all here in the first place.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[stotty]

That slice serve down the T on the ad side at the 33 second mark from Nastase was gorgeous.
Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

The second serve to bring up match point is the best. He misses the first serve but collects himself well to deliver a vicious, swinging second serve out wide. It catches Ashe and allows Nasty to control the net and win the point.

It was a great second serve because it was brave and it sent out a statement with it: "I'm going to take this match...it's mine"

[klacr]

The second serve to bring up match point is the best. He misses the first serve but collects himself well to deliver a vicious, swinging second serve out wide. It catches Ashe and allows Nasty to control the net and win the point.

It was a great second serve because it was brave and it sent out a statement with it: "I'm going to take this match...it's mine"

Good stuff Stotty. Love a player that can go for that 2nd serve with as much confidence and aggression as their first.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[don_budge]

The Classic Service Motion...

We'd have to look at a lot of video to really see a pattern, but I know we practiced differently. Certainly, I learned to serve by hitting ball after ball after ball..., but as I became a better player I still practiced my serve, but I put a lot of effort in to practicing how far I could get in two steps after the serve. I'm sure I haven't seen anyone practice like that in at least 20 years. That move forward was part of the service motion. Almost incomprehensible today! Don't know, but I would think I would have hit a lot higher percentage of first serves in if all I had to do was hit it and recover for the return instead of hustling to the service line. And there are no records, but I'm sure I was making more than 3 out of 5 first serves.

don

Well it is a huge difference between the service motions of the past and those of today. Studying the classic players of the past it is fairly simple to observe that the motion wasn't designed to produce only speed. It was just as important to generate very accurate placement and spin off of the very same motion. By incorporating the momentum of the forwards movement into the court the serve was a cerebral exercise as well...and as tennis_chiro points out maximizing the distance traveled into the court was paramount. Therefore a well placed serve with big kick at 75% speed allowed you to move in just a bit more. Advantage server.

The biggest common criticism that I would levy at the modern service motions is that they are designed too much on the speed principle. Too much talk of MPH. Smash the serve and retreat back behind the baseline is the current mode of operation. One of my first posts here on this forum was a letter that I wrote to Robin Söderling's father advising him that it would be prudent to retool his high tossing power generating motion to something more along the lines of Richard Gonzales' motion (and tennis_chiro's) in order to maximize his options.

This lack of forward momentum after the service motion is also probably a big reason for the lack of serve and volley in the game today. Granted there are some factors that have been engineered into the game that discourage this sort of play but isn't it also true that those very same factors might be utilized to gain the advantage in service as well if they were combined with the aforementioned forward momentum. I am not so certain that it could not be done...but here is the question of coaching once again. Hijacked into strong forehand grip, two hand backhand and powerful service motion with no regard for tactics or thoughtfulness.

My coach used to stress upwards of 70% first serves in for singles and 90% for doubles. But who plays doubles anymore. Doubles was also a great training ground for the serve too with the aforementioned stressing of high percentage plus the additional requirement of the mandatory move forwards to the net on first and second serves. I think this is where I made my biggest progress with the art of serve and volley...in doubles the risk isn't so high in losing as it is in singles. It was a zone where the pressure was perhaps not so heavy and the rewards were large. I always played doubles in tournaments.

This where that sliding motion with the back foot may have came into play...what are you guys calling it now? The lateral pinpoint?

Great observation regarding the service and the importance of placement...and spin I might add. by serving up the "T" the server takes a bit of the angle away from the receiver. Having the confidence to do this on the second serve is paramount also because both players are routinely following their second serve in to the net. This match between the "Mercurial" Nastase and "Lieutenant" Ashe clearly illustrates a point I was making in response to tennis_chiro's comment in another thread. Where is the kickback? Answer...there is none.

Placement. Time and time again you see both of these players strategically carrying out their service tactics on one another. Curiously it is rather apparent that they have different styles within their tactical acumen as well as different styles technically. Nastase is ever the trickster and slyly mixes up his repertoire with equal parts spin, placement and speed. So, so clever. Ashe, on the other hand, relies more on speed in general although he is cleverly mixing it up as well. But perhaps not quite on the level of guile as the tricky Nastase.

Once again here are the singles and the doubles draws for the 1972 U. S. Open Championships. Notice how virtually every single player is also entered in the doubles. Playing the doubles really enabled the players to hone their games and sharpen their serving skills as well as honing their volley skills. Playing doubles used to be an integral part of the game...it sharpened return skills and encourage the chip and charge or any kind of service return and follow to the net.

Modern day tennis aficionado's are probably not really aware of the history as well as they should. Afterall...it also used to be that any coach worth his salt was also a student of the game. This required a lot of laborious studying.

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

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

Thanks for the meaningful discussion by the way.

[don_budge]

Nastase vs. Ashe 1972...pure classic tennis with the modern creeping ever so close

That slice serve down the T on the ad side at the 33 second mark from Nastase was gorgeous. Great to see this tennis. Makes us not only appreciate this era, but how how much tennis has changed and the pace of the game and the promise for greater growth. Tennis has changed, for better or worse, that's a matter of opinion. But tennis is still a sport we all love and are willing to share. It's why we are all here in the first place.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

The second serve to bring up match point is the best. He misses the first serve but collects himself well to deliver a vicious, swinging second serve out wide. It catches Ashe and allows Nasty to control the net and win the point.

It was a great second serve because it was brave and it sent out a statement with it: "I'm going to take this match...it's mine"

Yep, yep and yep again. Tennis has changed...it hasn't been for the better. I can tell you that. I knew it when they suddenly changed the equipment in the late '70s and by the early '80s you could kiss it goodbye. You can try to be diplomatic or perhaps it is only that you never actually experienced it as it was. You're too young...that's your fault klacr.

What a second serve...you're right! Consider the fact that both players followed every single second serve to the net during the entire match without exception. To say that tennis has changed is a drastic understatement. To say that if it was better or for worse isn't so much a matter of opinion...it's a matter of political correctness and other factors. "Who controls the present...controls the past".

You have only to watch this lovely match to see how things have changed. They ruined the game by making it too fast. Then to compensate they slowed down the courts...only to ruin it further. It's ruined alright...consider that the reigning Wimbledon champion looks like a fish out of water when he "attempts" a serve and volley point.

Of course we love tennis. It is only that some of us know better than others. This is the advantage of age and experience. John McEnroe is 55 years old. He straddled the era of classic tennis and the world of modern tennis. He can tell you the whole story and he won't be bashful doing it. I saw his debut to the Grand Slams at the U. S. Open qualifying in 1975. Sixteen year old Johnny Bad Boy. He was bad that's for certain. Michael Jackson sort of "Bad"...that is.

[klacr]

Yep, yep and yep again. Tennis has changed...it hasn't been for the better. I can tell you that. I knew it when they suddenly changed the equipment in the late '70s and by the early '80s you could kiss it goodbye. You can try to be diplomatic or perhaps it is only that you never actually experienced it as it was. You're too young...that's your fault klacr.

Correct on both points. Never witnessed this era first hand. I'll take full blame for that. My loss. And yes, I am being very diplomatic.

But I can identify great tennis when I see it. And this was it.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[GeoffWilliams]

Do you know why no one in track argues whether Jesse Owens was the best sprinter ever? Because his time would not have beaten the women's world record, that's why. It's the same in tennis. The old legends would not be able to beat the top women. The videos prove it. Equipment is irrelevant, as if track shoes were so much better now than then, or stop watches. The only sport where that may not be true is: golf. NOt much running and gunning in golf.

[stroke]

Hin

Do you know why no one in track argues whether Jesse Owens was the best sprinter ever? Because his time would not have beaten the women's world record, that's why. It's the same in tennis. The old legends would not be able to beat the top women. The videos prove it. Equipment is irrelevant, as if track shoes were so much better now than then, or stop watches. The only sport where that may not be true is: golf. NOt much running and gunning in golf.

I completely agree with you that the game has evolved. I am not so certain that the old legends could beat the top women. I personally McEnroe, even now, could still defeat the top women.

[gzhpcu]

Hin

I completely agree with you that the game has evolved. I am not so certain that the old legends could beat the top women. I personally McEnroe, even now, could still defeat the top women.

Well, McEnroe is not exactly an "old legend". Think we are talking more about the 1930's and 1940's here...


Oops.... sorry for posting in your thread don_budge...

[stotty]

One thing I know for sure from frequenting Wimbledon for forty years is this: The clean ball-striking of a world-class player is both unforgettable and unmistakeable. Throughout the ages this is one quality that has never changed amongst the best...whatever era, whatever racket. Even the best amateur players don't have this kind of timing or anything close to it.

Nastase hit the ball just as cleanly as Federer, and I know this for sure because I have seen both men play at their best. It's the quality of ball striking that really counts.

[don_budge]

Eye witness account...the verdict is "devolution".

One thing I know for sure from frequenting Wimbledon for forty years is this: The clean ball-striking of a world-class player is both unforgettable and unmistakeable. Throughout the ages this is one quality that has never changed amongst the best...whatever era, whatever racket. Even the best amateur players don't have this kind of timing or anything close to it.

Nastase hit the ball just as cleanly as Federer, and I know this for sure because I have seen both men play at their best. It's the quality of ball striking that really counts.

Forty years? Let's see...that takes us back to 1974. Not bad Old Boy. That kind of eye witness experience is absolutely priceless. Too many of the coaches do not have the years to have really understood what this kind of tennis was really like.

If you take this match between Ille Nastase and Arthur Ashe and you are not impressed with the shot making and ball striking capability it is only testimony that you have personally not only not witnessed it but you have never played this kind of tennis. What is going on these days in tennis and in the news in general is very deceptive and not inclined to represent the truth of the matter historically speaking.

It's a short post but it speaks mouthfuls...the ball striking in general was better back then. Most importantly the obvious fact is that when playing on grass in the past if you were not going to the net on every single opportunity you were going to finish second in any given match. Djokovic playing with a wood racquet in 1972 with his strokes would most likely have been a first round loser nearly every single time. Those players under those conditions would have been licking their chops to have an opponent that never made the journey to the net.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news guys...that is not what I would call evolution. That is what I would call a clear case of devolution. This statement is made with a clear sense of observation and a keen sense of tennis tactics as well as tennis technique.

[don_budge]

The Forehand Volley of Arthur Ashe...tennis_chiro on the drive volley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lou_yI0C5L4

Throughout this wonderful tennis match that takes place at the West Side Tennis Club otherwise known as Forest Hills located in Queens New York in 1972...Arthur Ashe is following every single serve to the net. This includes every single second serve as well as every single first serve.

I have studied this 4 or 5 times since posting it...trying to glean more and more information from the splendid play of these two polar opposites. Ille Nastase is fluid and mercurial. His entire being in perfect orchestration with his racquet. He appears to be wielding the conductors baton much of the time and he glides and slides and slithers to the ball in a form that is rarely seen. Maybe it never has been seen.

But Arthur Ashe in his own right is equally unique in his individualistic style of play. While Nastase wears his heart on his sleeve, Ashe has learned to bury his emotions and never reveals what he is feeling to those that are watching the match. Kramer makes a great comment about Arthur being a great match player because of this attribute but one wonders what he may have been like if he had just learned to let it go...just a bit. It's a bit unfair to ask this...it would be like asking what would Nastase have been like if he had learned to reign it in.

It is the forehand volley of Ashe that sort of gives some of the inner demons away...I think. He has a bit of a Jekyll and Hyde personality on balls that get just slightly high on his forehand side. He tends to take a bit of a swing. Since we had a rather animated discussion about swinging forehand volleys this aspect of the match really drew my attention. But after viewing it several times it became more or less apparent to me that Ashe wasn't so much swinging at the ball as he was attempting the "drive volley" that tennis_chiro was writing about and advocating in the place of the swinging volley when the situation correctly called for it.

Here is what he had to say...

Seriously, who the hell do you think you are? This is a forum. Got it? I have to say, you are an incredible hypocrite. You come across as some sort of champion of free speech, but if anyone disagrees u become venemous or whine like a little bitch. I actually find your opinions highly unimpressive, and would like to hear others point of view. Quit trying to run the show.

Whoops...sorry. That was 10splayer by the way. Here is what the "other don" had to say about the swinging and drive volley which I think was very apropos to this match when in the final analysis not much separated Nastase and Ashe on this particular day. One loose volley here or there may have swung the match.

I agree. There is a small place where a swinging volley is appropriate. A no-man's-land floater from a moonballer would be a good example. But if the player has to move quickly to a spot to execute a swinging volley the percentages of making the shot well enough to win the point go way down. On the other hand, if you want to transition through no-man's-land and take a ball floating at the "T" and you are starting just inside the baseline, what you need is the now nearly extinct "drive volley". That is a volley stroke with a slightly larger backswing and still very little follow through, although more than a regular volley. This ball can be hit sharply enough by the adept practitioner (non-existent these days) to force the opponent to miss or give you a ball you can put away with your next volley. Of course, to be able to execute that next volley off a well struck ball, the net player better be an accomplished volleyer (also nearly non-existent, at least among singles players these days).

I think one of the main reasons that players today can't transition effectively and therefore do not try, is that they don't possess a decent drive volley to pick off the opportunities that float over the service line and then die deep in the court and challenge baseline players to overhit for advantage on a ball that has little or no pace on it. Yes, players today can do this in a way that players 30 or 40 years ago wouldn't have dreamed possible, but if someone could execute a decent drive volley from the service line when they were moving fast, that player would find a new dimension of offense that is largely overlooked today. No, the drive volley will not be as fast as a swinging volley, but as don_budge will quickly point out, it will not sit up the way a topspin shot will; furthermore, the degree of accuracy and consistency attainable with a drive volley outweighs the power of the swing volley in this instance when a player has to move quickly to the ball.

A swing volley will be effective if you are within one or two steps of your hitting position, but try to make an aggressive transition from the baseline to a shoulder high floater at the service line and your odds of success on a swinging volley will plummet; accordingly, today's players (without drive volley or even volleying skills) stay back and try to pound a ball with nothing on it. It's amazing how well they can do that, but a truly complete player would create so much more pressure on his opponents by giving them something they were not used to. I think this is a little bit of what Fish does when he is playing aggressively and getting to the net; but not as much as he could with his volleying skills. Also, I think there is a little bit of throwback to this tactic in the success of Brian Baker.

I must add that what really irks me is to see a player take a ball inside the service line above head height with a swinging volley when they could easily crouch just a little bit and hit a much more effective and accurate and powerful overhead (especially Sharapova). Of course, that assumes that the player has the necessary skill and comfort level with such a shot. It's really a lot easier to hit than a swinging volley. Drives me nuts. Sharapova does it even on balls she could hit an overhead on without crouching.

So, yes, a swinging volley has its place in the game, but that doesn't include displacing a true transition "drive volley" which is largely MIA in any case.

don

Throughout this match Arthur Ashe oscillates from making a host of scintillating textbook forehand volleys and ending up with a mixed bag of results when it came to his "drive" volley. Since Arthur is following every single serve to the net you have only to tune in at any point in the video to observe what I am talking about. I recommend that you watch the whole match...this is a very, very good tennis match in terms of the quality of serving and the quality of volleying.

Some examples of Arthur Ashe forehand volleys:

34.50 blown drive/swing volley

35.30 beautiful low forehand touch volley

36.20 successful high drive/swing volley

37.00 textbook forehand volley

38.59 ashe tries without success a swinging topspin forehand volley

39.00 unsuccessful high drive/swing volley

39.50 slightly off balance forehand volley

106.50 successful high drive/swing forehand volley

From post #3 in this thread...listen to what Jack Kramer says in response to a Bud Collins remark when Arthur appears to miss a volley because of too much swing:

At 4-4 in the third set with Arthur serving...Arthur spins a second serve into the deuce court and Nastase hits a backhand drive return low. Ashe makes an excellent low forehand volley deep and near the sideline into Nastase’s backhand where Ille hits a pretty good down the line pass. Arthur appears to be there in time but he has taken a pretty good sized swing at the forehand volley and he really muffs it. Almost a total miss. Bud Collins says to Jack Kramer that Ashe took his eyes off of the ball but Kramer corrects him...saying, “he takes those very long swings on those (forehand) volley’s sometimes. Hard to coordinate it”. Speaking of swinging volleys...keep in mind we are talking about standard sized tennis racquets. Only seventy square inches. On the next point Ashe comes in and makes a lovely text book low forehand volley and he deftly backhands the reply into the open court for a winner. Nastase claps with his racquet...after he lifts himself off of the grass where he had slipped after making his pass attempt. Truly a classically beautiful serve and volley game...Ashe holds serve for a 5-4 lead. No breaks so far in the third set.

[klacr]

This never gets old. Volleys are quintessential tennis shots. You can tell a lot about a person by the way they hit or don't hit their volleys. Fascinating stuff. The mind of a tennis player. The mind of a volleyer.

Kyle LaCroix USPTA
Boca Raton

[tennis_chiro]

Reference to my Drive Volley post in post #27

I really thought my little exposition on the drive volley vs the swing volley was one of my best, but it seemed to me my thoughts got very little traction.

I make a clear distinction between a "swing volley" and a "drive volley", but Stotty pointed out that on the other side of the pond, they don't make that distinction at all. Over here, there just are no "drive" volleys.

To restate my points briefly,

I don't think you can hit a swinging volley when you have to take more than a couple of steps to get into position to hit it.

I don't think you can hit a swinging volley when you are in a big hurry and don't have time to implement the whole thing complete with its SSC loop.

I don't think you can hit swinging volleys effectively in defense of a ball you have to move to and take at the outside corners of the service boxes; and this area must be properly defended against floaters down the sidelines if you hope to close on anything other than a really short ball.

So my question is, do you, as coaches, advise your players to "perfect" their swinging volleys for these situations (I don't think it can be done; looks great when it works, but I think it will cost you too many errors as well as instances where you get passed because the shot wasn't accurate enough)? It's clear that no one is teaching anyone to develop what I call the drive volley.

But if you aren't sending your players down this rather risky road, and you are not teaching them to master the "drive" volley, then are you keeping them off the net except when they get a really short ball to invite them in or play the "change of pace" approach/serve and volley point? Sure looks that way.

And, finally, doesn't it drive you nuts when pro tennis players fail to execute a crouch overhead or even a regular overhead in favor of a swinging volley?

don

[hockeyscout]

Djokovic playing with a wood racket in 1972 with his strokes would most likely have been a first round loser nearly every single time. Those players under those conditions would have been licking their chops to have an opponent that never made the journey to the net. I hate to be the bearer of bad news guys...that is not what I would call evolution. That is what I would call a clear case of devolution. This statement is made with a clear sense of observation and a keen sense of tennis tactics as well as tennis technique.

I hate to be the bearer of even more bad news, and wake you from the land of fantasy, however, don_budge, please, I am begging you, listen to the respected tennis guys on this forum like Geoff Williams who know the sport inside and out.

Firstly, no player in 1972 is playing at Djokovic's level. He's a WIMBLEDON champion. Does that not mean anything to you?

His first round match would have been reminiscent of watching someone clubbing a cute baby seal to death

If Novak he did not overpower them (which he would) with his modern day technique and physical strength (yes, he's trained more hours in the gym, taken more supplements and worked out on better equipment), he'd find a way to win by running them into the ground and toying with them tactically (no player back then is even close to his fitness level).

Like come on tennis players in the 70's drank, smoke, ate bad and didn't train much in the gym.

6-0, 6-0 and 6-0 ... it would be an ABC lesson in tennis.

I think Martina Navratolova is the only tennis player who could compete in any generation. I think Ali and Gretzky are the only two who could dominate in any generation.