I'm guessing you're American? The picture quality was standard for the time in most countries. North America and Japan used a TV system called NTSC which has far fewer pixels and much lower picture quality. Australia, like most of Europe, used the PAL system which has more pixels and therefore significantly better picture quality.
@@zeddeka compared to the picture quality of other youtubes posted from these times, the quality here is HD, some are unwatchable, having to guess where the ball is. Disappointingly though this is from the times when the broadcasters thought the best place to put the cameras was high up in the stands, or the promoters didnt want seats near court level taken up by cameras. Doesnt show the realism of the game up so high and impossible to really see the projectory of the ball and how high across the net it goes.
Standard picture quality in most countries for the TV. The ones that used the PAL tv system that is, which was basically most western countries outside north America
Changed From Grass To Hard Courts in 1988.. Flinders Park Then Later Melbourne Park.. Mats Wilander Only Player to Win On Grass and Hard Court in Winning Australian Open..
If Jimbo had kept playing the AO, how many AOs would he have won? I know it wasn’t a prestigious tournament back then and most of the top pros skipped it for the Boca Ratón Open which was also played in December.
Current hardcourt slams switched because grass isn't necessary, expensive to upkeep (mow, water, pest control, paint lines), just a pain in the rear overall it sounds like. Wimbledon is stubborn/ tradition based. Unpredictable bounces (skids more than other surfaces), lightning quick until they switched to complete rye grass (circa 2002 iirc, use to be a mix), lots of players hated it unless it suited their game. & the u.s. open grass was always crap, couldn't pull it off as good as wimbledon. U.s. open switched to/ experimented with green clay (inferior to european red clay) between 1975- 1977, but then of course been hardcourt since 1978 In theory tournaments Can experiment with surfaces (see madrid 2012 masters 1000 tournament, blue clay... but everybody was slipping, I forget what the technical issue was/ poor planning, but it wasn't the clay itself that was the issue. But many pro's said they wouldn't return the following year unless they ditched the blue clay, which they did). But overall it seems, because tournaments are about making reliable money--- if it isn't broken/ why fix it?- type of thing
@@Dman9fpWimbledon doesnt face these issues? They did and solved these. Can us or Australian open switch to clay if they want? Or tommorow if French open wants to turn to grass? There should be some control of international Tennis Federation that governs the rules for Tennis related to surfaces. I hear that the hard court is also different in US and AO. Also, different playing surfaces is the beuatfy of Lawn Tennis, rare in other sports. And Grass is actually the natural surface as its offical or historical name is "lawn Tenis" and lawns are always made of grass.
@@amritpalsingh3293 Wimbledon clearly doesn't care about making max money (not saying the other slams do, who knows) since all the money in the world cannot buy a wimbledon membership-- there's a waiting list/ virtually impossible. I know there's a quality vid or 2 about it ( Celebs get in to see important matches sometimes via temporary passes that are alotted, but they are the exceptions). Not saying wimbledon is insane, they just Really care about tradition I don't think it's that simple, try contacting Itf or the tournament people if you need to know, I guess. No guarentee they'll even care or give you a perfectly honest answer. I'm just speculating. Just because some organization Can do something, doesn't mean they will. I don't see any compelling reason for them to switch surfaces after decades of success on hardcourts (even circa 07 or 08-- australian open switching away from rebound ace hard court to more traditional hardcourt was controversial for a few years). Takes years to switch even if there's safety issues, unless it's super compelling, then they might cancel something right away (like how Paris 2009 was the last atp indoor tournament on Carpet ever- citing slipping issues even though it was rare). I guess you could get conspiratiorial & say they want homogenized surfaces to promote the same champions winning most of the majors/ to build dedicated player fan bases. At the end of the day, who knows. But for sure, wimbledon specializes in/ does the best with grass courts in the world, and probably same with french open on clay. Would take years and years for other tournaments to get that level of professional level consistency, unless they somehow imported tournament staff from other slams to help with the other slams switching surfaces (likely not practical).
@amritpalsingh3293 & I agree that there's beauty in natural / less harsh surfaces, and more variety of surfaces... At the same time though, U.s. open is part of the "american hardcourt series", would likely be much harder to get them to change than the Australian- which seems more open/ fan friendly But ultimately boils down to (I bet) they would say A) who are you to tell us to change our winning formula .. and B) Give us compelling undeniable reasons why hardcourts need to go, and very compelling reasons how alternative surfaces are much much better (and even then, might not listen unless they want to) 'Lord knows' it took way too long for the slams to even install roofs to continue match play when it rains lol... Reminds me, I've wised for a while for one atp tournament to be classic rackets only (like 250 level, no graphite or oversize rackets allowed) but legit pro tournament not exhibitions. I get that tennis tv poked fun at the idea once via having pros play a fun little game with wooden rackets. And likely still wouldn't be as exciting as seeing these old pros who mastered winning tennis with the old time sticks.... still, maybe one day if people stop making fun of how funny looking wooden/ steel/ aluminum rackets look, and fan/ consumer interest picked up in that area, it could become a reality one of these days.. or something close to it
@@Dman9fp I think uptill the mid 90s, serve and volley was very common. Since rackets have gone larger in size, serve and volley is now very uncommon. for any youngster now, Lawn Tennis is meant to be played on the baseline and only sideways movement. Though in women's tennis(have not watched recently) we might still see serve and volley.
Connors nel 1974/75 tirava la prima di servizio ( risulta evidente dai filmati di repertorio ) , con innegabile vantaggio . Dopodiche` fino a Wimbledon 1982 ha smesso di tirare una prima incisiva e pressoche` piatta , optando per una prima tagliata con diversi effetti e angolazioni . Le ipotesi sono 2 : scelta strategica infruttuosa soprattutto su erba ( altresi` su sintetico e cemento , ma in misura minore ... ) , oppure problemi alla schiena . Sta di fatto che per rivincere Wimbledon nel 1982 ha dovuto tirare la prima al fine di conquistare punti economici ( e sicuramente avra` effettuare allenamenti specifici per riabituarsi ad una prima di servizio piatta , oltreche` allenarsi ad evitare evitare doppi falli , passando da una prima piatta ad una seconda tagliata ) .
Odd to me, how Connors early in his career served and volleyed when his serve nor his volley was known as being great, later in his career he became a strict if albeit attacking baseliner... Was it simply getting older the change of gamestyles?
I think Connor's volleying is very under-rated. He played S&V at Wimbledon every time he showed up, including his last title in 1982 against JP McEnroe, and at the Australian too, as you see here. And at Forest Hills when it was on grass. He was very capable, if not exactly a touch volleyer.
I think Pancho Segura was the difference. When he had real influence Connors came in more. He's not pure s/v in 74/75 either. He s/v 60% to maybe 2/3 of the serves over the 74/75 grass matches that are available. A little over 60% in this match. It's not just the s/v though, it's off the ground. When they rally in this match, and one or the other comes in it's almost always Connors. How many balls that landed on the service line or inside does he stay back on in this match? Pretty much none. Actually, it's more like anything that lands within a couple feet of the service line that he comes in. Now go look at a 1980s match and count how many balls or at or inside the service line and he stays back. In his 1981 Wimbledon semi with Borg he s/v 1 time in 5 sets. I first noticed it in 1979. It was SO obvious how much more he stayed back. I would never call mid 70s Connors a baseliner. He is an all court player. While not a traditionally great volleyer, he was an exceptionally aggressive, decisive volleyer. Not everyone puts away high volleys. I don't think it had anything to do with age. Connors was still in his 20s when I noticed the change. There are a bunch of 76-78 matches where he comes in a bunch, but I don't think he was ever as aggressive about coming in as this era. Again, a ball lands at the service line and this guy is coming in. And I don't mean just on grass,
@@EJP286CRSKW Connors did not s/v close to the amount he did here in the 82 final. He absolutely came in far less, at times, by the late 70s going into the 80s. Believe me, I know. It was a huge pet peeve of mine going back 45 years ago.
@@haroldsmyth6685 Borg and Mcenroe, that's no secret. But that wasn't the discussion. The discussion, at least my part, was how much he did or didn't s/v, particularly on grass.
It was modern day rackets then & the best. Composite had yet to be invented nearly 20yrs away. They should have one event with wooden rackets & see how players manage. I think Alcaraz & that new bunch would adjust to it.
Newk only narrowly got past Geoff Masters and Tony Roche, Rosewall didnt play that year, Masters and Roche would have been whipped by Connors. Interestingly looking at the entire field for the Aus Open back then Frank Sedgman(52 wimbledon champ)(and commentator on this match) was 48 years of age and made it into the 2nd round!
It was a grass event at the old Kooyong grass courts before it moved to the newly constructed hard courts of Melbourne Park (then known as Flinders Park) in 1988.
@@tqsuited And it was a grass court event before the Open era all the way back to the beginning in 1921 or so. It was played in a different city every year pre-Open.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
So nice to watch a high quality video from this era. Thank you
Good thing they are using yellow balls.
That backhand lob of Newcombe's --- I love the fact that he used it so much.
the technical skills of these guys are out of this world
Indeed. Connors’ flat hitting was an art form.
Newcombe was a wonderful player. So skilful.
Fantastic picture quality , much better than matches from the 80s, 90s
I'm guessing you're American? The picture quality was standard for the time in most countries. North America and Japan used a TV system called NTSC which has far fewer pixels and much lower picture quality. Australia, like most of Europe, used the PAL system which has more pixels and therefore significantly better picture quality.
@@zeddeka No, I am german haha
@@zeddeka compared to the picture quality of other youtubes posted from these times, the quality here is HD, some are unwatchable, having to guess where the ball is. Disappointingly though this is from the times when the broadcasters thought the best place to put the cameras was high up in the stands, or the promoters didnt want seats near court level taken up by cameras.
Doesnt show the realism of the game up so high and impossible to really see the projectory of the ball and how high across the net it goes.
Amazing TV quality!!! Thank you for sharing this
Standard picture quality in most countries for the TV. The ones that used the PAL tv system that is, which was basically most western countries outside north America
This is wonderful, thank you for doing this, much to learn from the classic game!
Worth remembering Connors was still tearing it up in 1991 at the US Open.
He won three slams in 74 and lost the same three slam finals in 75
Thanks for all the full matches.. bring them more
Great quality of the video , great match , and great newcombe
Changed From Grass To Hard Courts in 1988.. Flinders Park Then
Later Melbourne Park..
Mats Wilander Only Player to Win On Grass and Hard Court in Winning Australian Open..
Bravo Upload..
John Newcombe Serves And has A Ball in hand Whilst Playing..
Steffi Graf did The Same Thing..
Practically everyone from the golden age did, all the way back to Tilden at least. I still do it now. Never have to think about it.
yes, most of us did in those days, no double-hander, so didnt need the other hand, and the ball actually helps with balance as you run forward
This was a great match. Thanks for uploading.
A/O was very rough & ready then, unlike now the best Slam I'd say.
A poll of the players a few years ago, said the AO at Melbourne Park was their favourite GS tournament.
Classic,outstanding tennis matches by legends of the court.
Please upload the 1976 Australian Open Final between Mark Edmondson and John Newcombe
If Jimbo had kept playing the AO, how many AOs would he have won? I know it wasn’t a prestigious tournament back then and most of the top pros skipped it for the Boca Ratón Open which was also played in December.
Top!
And Connors vs Dent AO 1974?
“They queued up outside the gates at 5am.”
Wimbledon: “😂”
Give John a racket they make today
What month was Aus open at Kooyong?
It varied a lot in the 70' and 80s - from late November to January. From 1987 (last year at Kooyong) it's been the final two weeks of January.
Back around this time you didn’t see all the top players at the Australian Open. I don’t know. I think it was played around Christmas
All the grand slams barring Rolland Garros were on Grass courts.
Why they changed?
And can any tournament change the surface at any time?
Current hardcourt slams switched because grass isn't necessary, expensive to upkeep (mow, water, pest control, paint lines), just a pain in the rear overall it sounds like. Wimbledon is stubborn/ tradition based. Unpredictable bounces (skids more than other surfaces), lightning quick until they switched to complete rye grass (circa 2002 iirc, use to be a mix), lots of players hated it unless it suited their game. & the u.s. open grass was always crap, couldn't pull it off as good as wimbledon. U.s. open switched to/ experimented with green clay (inferior to european red clay) between 1975- 1977, but then of course been hardcourt since 1978
In theory tournaments Can experiment with surfaces (see madrid 2012 masters 1000 tournament, blue clay... but everybody was slipping, I forget what the technical issue was/ poor planning, but it wasn't the clay itself that was the issue. But many pro's said they wouldn't return the following year unless they ditched the blue clay, which they did). But overall it seems, because tournaments are about making reliable money--- if it isn't broken/ why fix it?- type of thing
@@Dman9fpWimbledon doesnt face these issues? They did and solved these.
Can us or Australian open switch to clay if they want?
Or tommorow if French open wants to turn to grass?
There should be some control of international Tennis Federation that governs the rules for Tennis related to surfaces. I hear that the hard court is also different in US and AO. Also, different playing surfaces is the beuatfy of Lawn Tennis, rare in other sports.
And Grass is actually the natural surface as its offical or historical name is "lawn Tenis" and lawns are always made of grass.
@@amritpalsingh3293 Wimbledon clearly doesn't care about making max money (not saying the other slams do, who knows) since all the money in the world cannot buy a wimbledon membership-- there's a waiting list/ virtually impossible. I know there's a quality vid or 2 about it ( Celebs get in to see important matches sometimes via temporary passes that are alotted, but they are the exceptions). Not saying wimbledon is insane, they just Really care about tradition
I don't think it's that simple, try contacting Itf or the tournament people if you need to know, I guess. No guarentee they'll even care or give you a perfectly honest answer. I'm just speculating. Just because some organization Can do something, doesn't mean they will. I don't see any compelling reason for them to switch surfaces after decades of success on hardcourts (even circa 07 or 08-- australian open switching away from rebound ace hard court to more traditional hardcourt was controversial for a few years). Takes years to switch even if there's safety issues, unless it's super compelling, then they might cancel something right away (like how Paris 2009 was the last atp indoor tournament on Carpet ever- citing slipping issues even though it was rare).
I guess you could get conspiratiorial & say they want homogenized surfaces to promote the same champions winning most of the majors/ to build dedicated player fan bases. At the end of the day, who knows. But for sure, wimbledon specializes in/ does the best with grass courts in the world, and probably same with french open on clay. Would take years and years for other tournaments to get that level of professional level consistency, unless they somehow imported tournament staff from other slams to help with the other slams switching surfaces (likely not practical).
@amritpalsingh3293 & I agree that there's beauty in natural / less harsh surfaces, and more variety of surfaces...
At the same time though, U.s. open is part of the "american hardcourt series", would likely be much harder to get them to change than the Australian- which seems more open/ fan friendly
But ultimately boils down to (I bet) they would say A) who are you to tell us to change our winning formula
.. and B) Give us compelling undeniable reasons why hardcourts need to go, and very compelling reasons how alternative surfaces are much much better (and even then, might not listen unless they want to)
'Lord knows' it took way too long for the slams to even install roofs to continue match play when it rains lol...
Reminds me, I've wised for a while for one atp tournament to be classic rackets only (like 250 level, no graphite or oversize rackets allowed) but legit pro tournament not exhibitions. I get that tennis tv poked fun at the idea once via having pros play a fun little game with wooden rackets. And likely still wouldn't be as exciting as seeing these old pros who mastered winning tennis with the old time sticks.... still, maybe one day if people stop making fun of how funny looking wooden/ steel/ aluminum rackets look, and fan/ consumer interest picked up in that area, it could become a reality one of these days.. or something close to it
@@Dman9fp I think uptill the mid 90s, serve and volley was very common. Since rackets have gone larger in size, serve and volley is now very uncommon. for any youngster now, Lawn Tennis is meant to be played on the baseline and only sideways movement.
Though in women's tennis(have not watched recently) we might still see serve and volley.
The level at the end of this match is impressive. Folks these days have no idea what these guys were dealing each other on that grass court.
The points are quite short overall.
Some notes to self:
11:12, 12:56, 13:26, 13:58,
Best motion service ...
Or give people playing today, wooden rackets.
Connors nel 1974/75 tirava la prima di servizio ( risulta evidente dai filmati di repertorio ) , con innegabile vantaggio .
Dopodiche` fino a Wimbledon 1982 ha smesso di tirare una prima incisiva e pressoche` piatta , optando per una prima tagliata con diversi effetti e angolazioni .
Le ipotesi sono 2 :
scelta strategica infruttuosa soprattutto su erba ( altresi` su sintetico e cemento , ma in misura minore ... ) , oppure problemi alla schiena .
Sta di fatto che per rivincere Wimbledon nel 1982 ha dovuto tirare la prima al fine di conquistare punti economici ( e sicuramente avra` effettuare allenamenti specifici per riabituarsi ad una prima di servizio piatta , oltreche` allenarsi ad evitare evitare doppi falli , passando da una prima piatta ad una seconda tagliata ) .
Dulu... Out.. Out.. Out...
Gitu ya maennya. Era roger ssampe skrg.. Seruuuu
Venus Vs Raymond 2004 R3 plz😊😊😊
Odd to me, how Connors early in his career served and volleyed when his serve nor his volley was known as being great, later in his career he became a strict if albeit attacking baseliner... Was it simply getting older the change of gamestyles?
I think Connor's volleying is very under-rated. He played S&V at Wimbledon every time he showed up, including his last title in 1982 against JP McEnroe, and at the Australian too, as you see here. And at Forest Hills when it was on grass. He was very capable, if not exactly a touch volleyer.
I think Pancho Segura was the difference. When he had real influence Connors came in more. He's not pure s/v in 74/75 either. He s/v 60% to maybe 2/3 of the serves over the 74/75 grass matches that are available. A little over 60% in this match.
It's not just the s/v though, it's off the ground. When they rally in this match, and one or the other comes in it's almost always Connors. How many balls that landed on the service line or inside does he stay back on in this match? Pretty much none. Actually, it's more like anything that lands within a couple feet of the service line that he comes in. Now go look at a 1980s match and count how many balls or at or inside the service line and he stays back. In his 1981 Wimbledon semi with Borg he s/v 1 time in 5 sets.
I first noticed it in 1979. It was SO obvious how much more he stayed back. I would never call mid 70s Connors a baseliner. He is an all court player. While not a traditionally great volleyer, he was an exceptionally aggressive, decisive volleyer. Not everyone puts away high volleys.
I don't think it had anything to do with age. Connors was still in his 20s when I noticed the change. There are a bunch of 76-78 matches where he comes in a bunch, but I don't think he was ever as aggressive about coming in as this era. Again, a ball lands at the service line and this guy is coming in. And I don't mean just on grass,
@@EJP286CRSKW Connors did not s/v close to the amount he did here in the 82 final.
He absolutely came in far less, at times, by the late 70s going into the 80s. Believe me, I know. It was a huge pet peeve of mine going back 45 years ago.
@@lancer3412 79- 81 he couldnt win a semi either at least in slams. Thanks to you know who
@@haroldsmyth6685 Borg and Mcenroe, that's no secret. But that wasn't the discussion. The discussion, at least my part, was how much he did or didn't s/v, particularly on grass.
Imagine what they couldve done with modern day rackets.
It was modern day rackets then & the best. Composite had yet to be invented nearly 20yrs away. They should have one event with wooden rackets & see how players manage. I think Alcaraz & that new bunch would adjust to it.
@@seltaeb3302 alacrez would break those rackets and strings if he didnt change to continental or eastern grip.
Marlboro adds! LOL
WEIRD tennis match-ups... rosewall always beat newcombe, newcombe beat connors here and connors routinely whipped rosewall easily....
Newk beat Rosewall for Wimbledon 1970. Connors only played Ken a couple of times.
Rosewall beat Connors their first meeting at age 37 but than lost rest when he was 38 thru 40.
Newk only narrowly got past Geoff Masters and Tony Roche, Rosewall didnt play that year, Masters and Roche would have been whipped by Connors. Interestingly looking at the entire field for the Aus Open back then Frank Sedgman(52 wimbledon champ)(and commentator on this match) was 48 years of age and made it into the 2nd round!
@@EJP286CRSKW Rosewall beat Newk at wimbledon and Us open in 74 on route to his whippings by Connors
They were real men back in the '70s.
True icons of the 90s, men's tennis. 💪🔥🌟⭐
90s? It's 1975!
What? It’s 75
"
Hu
australian on grass?
It was a grass event at the old Kooyong grass courts before it moved to the newly constructed hard courts of Melbourne Park (then known as Flinders Park) in 1988.
Well, you must be a true tennis lover
@@tqsuited And it was a grass court event before the Open era all the way back to the beginning in 1921 or so. It was played in a different city every year pre-Open.
3 out of 4 majors were on grass until the mid-70s.
I remember that era but I’m surprised how poor they are compared to today. Neither of them would’ve stood a chance against Sinner or Alcaraz.
Big difference in rocket technology strings and racquet size as well as speed and bounce of the courts
Tell me you don’t know how racket and string technology have changed the game without telling me
what a silly comment ... good lord
@@doctorgrigori585exactly
The speed of today's pro players is far faster.