rosewall had an unbelieable career....his first grand slam final was in 1953, and the last one was in 1974; he also reached the AO semifinal in 1976 (42 yrs old)....just AMAZING! impossible to happen in this century....
Thank you so much! I find Ashe and Rosewall the most interesting personalities in modern tennis. No nonsense approach. You always know where Rosewall will put the ball with his first volley but it doesn't help you too much. And when you see Ashe run and hit his forehand down the line, on the line, you feel he's in the middle of the universe saying to himself 'this is just beautiful'. Duell or duetto, call it anything, I call it Living by the rules. They give us something to think about.
I am 42 years old and Ken Rosewall was my favorite tennis player while I grew up in Florida. Obviously, I only was able to watch him during the latter stages of his career. He will always be my favorite tennis player. When I was growing up, I remember watching Rosewall play in some tournament that I'm almost sure was a syndicated television production. I believe that one match would be shown on tv each week. I remember him playing Ilie Nastase in the tournament.
Rosewall is by far in the discussion of greatest players !!! Easily in the top 7 of all time. Such accuracy and precision is utterly off the charts. Did you see how fast Ashe can serve- must be in the 120's with a wooden racket lol
Rosewall defeated Laver in the French Pro final four years running; he won that event 8 times in 9 years. Held at Roland Garros. There is no question who was the greater clay courter. You don't have to do "would have" when talking about Rosewall v Laver. They were both pros in the 60s during their prime years, look up the results! There was no domination by either, they were both awesome and had many victories in their storied rivalry.
@Ariamaluum: Rosewall fared well against Tom Okker. No one did well against Connors in '74, when Rosewall lost to him in the Wimbledon and U.S. finals when Ken was 39 (!). Connors won 3 of the 4 grand slam titles that year and hit the ball harder than anyone, which was one of the problems Rosewall faced at Wimbledon and Forest Hills in '74. The other problems were a grueling 5-set semifinal win over Stan Smith at Wimbledon and a tense, 4-set semifinal win over John Newcombe at the U.S.
They didn't have the power and fitness like they do today. If you had speed, you were at an advantage. Ivan Lendl really brought that power and fitness into tennis.
@Richardhedditch261: Absolutely! Players during Rosewall's time routinely played 30 tournaments a year + doubles(not the 10 - 15 played today), so there were more opportunities for the top players to face off. This rivalry was probably the longest in tennis history (and, quality-wise, the best), and the Wikipedia records don't include the dozens of times they played one another on the senior tour in the '80s & '90s.
@chapaev36: Come on, success in the grand slam events is what ultimately defines careers. I thought we all agreed on that. Shamateurish negatively affected the careers of Rosewall (1957 - 1967, including the years 1960 - 1963 when he was the best pro in the world), as well as Laver, Hoad, Trabert, Gonzales, Segura, Gimeno, and others). The career grand slam title record is what has defined discussions about Fed for a few years now.
If "open" tennis had occurred 5 or 6 years earlier, we might be calling Rosewall the best of all time. First Slam final in 1953, last one in 1974, and still ranked near the top at age 43 should tell you something.
Two-handed backhand of Borg and Connors ended Rosewall's chances of winning another slam which was true with Rod Laver in the mid-70's (Mark Edmonson). Though, John Newcombe beat Connors at the 1975 Australian with his big serve and his reach that took away the two-hander in that match.
You didn't see players like Fabrice Santoro or the clay court specialists with those two-hands backhand then challenging those two in the early rounds.
That is my point: when the pros played then it was the ATP championship of the year every week. So you saw only the best then. Pancho Gonzales was still playing because he was one of the few players that had power and movement. Bob Lutz and Stan Smith?
Billie Jean King's "You come a Long Way, Baby" mentions this. They played and practiced a lot but not the outside conditioning. They played tournaments and doubles to get into shape. They relied on training during their juniors, their genes, and upbringing. Nutrition was non-existent then Martina Navratilova and John Newcombe mention this. The stars players were the exception then and now but please Barry McKay and Marty Mulligan could cover.
Rosewall and Rod Laver had trouble with two-handers before Connors like Pancho Segura. When Ken turned Pro in early 1957, Pancho roughed him up badly. Borg and Connors were only 5'10 and Pancho was 5'5. Ken can handle the power folks like Ashe; speed demons were trouble for him. Had he had a top-spin lob off his backhand, Wow. But Rosewall and other Australians had a certain disrespect for two-handers which cost them matches like Rod Laver against Cliff Drysdale in 1968 U.S. Open.
@Ariamaluum: Rosewall's first year as a pro was his first year as a pro. Of course Segoo roughed him up. So did Gonzalez. Later, however, Rosewall returned the favor to both. Later Rosewall owned Drysdale, and that was after Ken's peak years. Which "speed demons" gave Rosewall trouble? Aussie Adrian Quist hit with 2 hands, so did "Rosewall and other Australians" disrespect their countryman? And Cliff Drysdale was consistently ranked in the top 10 during the late '60s and early '70s.
Man I know old folk try to compare the old game with today saying how it was harder back then but come off it. Compare the speed of those rallies with today
@72fordgrantorino. Tom Okker and Jimmy Connors when he was young. Cliff Drysdale didn't give him any trouble but he did give trouble to Rod Laver. Main point: Ken would rather deal with hard-hitters than speed demons like him. Arthur Ashe was pretty powerful but no margin of error in his shots. Likewise, he was slow.
Ashe had a lot of trouble with Rosewall. It didn't matter that Rosewall was already in his late 30s or early 40s. Their final match was in 1978 when Rosewall was 43 years old. He beat Ashe anyway! www.atptour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/arthur-ashe-vs-ken-rosewall/A063/R075 Of course Rod Laver beat Ashe almost every time they played. www.atptour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/arthur-ashe-vs-rod-laver/A063/L058 Ashe was a great player in spite of these 1-sided rivalries.
Yeah, they definitely had better strategy back then. Ive learned a lot in the space of a month ha ha, I must of been negative about those guys, anyway, players these days couldnt formulate a plan or point if they had a formulating machine
I disagree, Ken was pushin forty man, I think that was a bigger factor, borg and connors were bigger and faster, stronger. However if ken had played with his left (Natural) hand instead of being forced to play right handed, he and laver would have traded places in history.
Wha? Stepanek has beaten Federer twice, 2008 Rome being the last time. Laver won the slam in '69, so much for the depth of the game taking him over. Rosewall & Laver were cheated out of their great prime years by the fools who insisted that the slams remain amateur events. Rosewall won the French Pro 8 times in 9 years in the '60s, defeating Laver in the final 4 times; he sandwiched this with his French Amateur title in '53 and his French Open in '68.
They were strong but when they try to hit with power, they were out of position and off-balanced. Court coverage was poor and return game was non-existent until Borg and Connors. Rod and Ken were exceptions. Nancy Richey who through blog wtaworld said about wood; It creates power but less spin than metal or graphite. As for fitness, steak and eggs for three meals a day.
Rosewall made a lot of good players look stupid back then. He was quite quick around the court (he moved in little half-steps), anticipated really well, had a smart, no-nonsense shot selection and managed to put the ball in places his opponent least wanted it (considering he couldn't often play Laver or Nastase type winners). Ken had the best and most stylish slice backhand you could ever see and probably had the best lob of all time. Lobs were played more often in the serve-and-volley days. If you watch the whole match he played against Laver in the second WCT final (1972), count the number of backhand half volley winners he hit coming into the net - a really courageous shot, and very difficult against Laver's heavy topspin returns. I was in the stands and watched the whole Ashe-Rosewall AO final. Arthur always had a game based around his very, very fast service (maybe only Mike Sangster was faster at the time). Ashe's serve was really off that day - he was having trouble with his ball toss - and he didn't trouble Ken at all; an easy straight sets victory. On and off the court, these guys were true gentlemen.
![BAK Jay - Find Out (For Your Love) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/10FJO_XBCvY/mqdefault.jpg)
Rosewall's backhand, especially the slice, was one of the best in the history of the sport.
rosewall had an unbelieable career....his first grand slam final was in 1953, and the last one was in 1974; he also reached the AO semifinal in 1976 (42 yrs old)....just AMAZING! impossible to happen in this century....
Thank you so much! I find Ashe and Rosewall the most interesting personalities in modern tennis. No nonsense approach. You always know where Rosewall will put the ball with his first volley but it doesn't help you too much. And when you see Ashe run and hit his forehand down the line, on the line, you feel he's in the middle of the universe saying to himself 'this is just beautiful'. Duell or duetto, call it anything, I call it Living by the rules. They give us something to think about.
You raise a very good point.
I am 42 years old and Ken Rosewall was my favorite tennis player while I grew up in Florida. Obviously, I only was able to watch him during the latter stages of his career. He will always be my favorite tennis player.
When I was growing up, I remember watching Rosewall play in some tournament that I'm almost sure was a syndicated television production. I believe that one match would be shown on tv each week. I remember him playing Ilie Nastase in the tournament.
Ken Rosewall is my grandpa's cousin. I hav met him a few times.
Rosewall is by far in the discussion of greatest players !!! Easily in the top 7 of all time.
Such accuracy and precision is utterly off the charts.
Did you see how fast Ashe can serve- must be in the 120's with a wooden racket lol
Rosewall defeated Laver in the French Pro final four years running; he won that event 8 times in 9 years. Held at Roland Garros.
There is no question who was the greater clay courter.
You don't have to do "would have" when talking about Rosewall v Laver. They were both pros in the 60s during their prime years, look up the results! There was no domination by either, they were both awesome and had many victories in their storied rivalry.
Thank you for sharing great source.
I miss the Continental grip players.
Unfortunately, no - the only other footage of Rosewall I have is his interview after this match which I have also uploaded.
How tennis has changed over the decades.....
Awesome! I did not know Artie's racket was already out by '71, WOW.
So cool watching old matches, thanks.
You are absolutely right!
ahhh good ole' classic tennis
Serve and volly =]
@Ariamaluum: Rosewall fared well against Tom Okker. No one did well against Connors in '74, when Rosewall lost to him in the Wimbledon and U.S. finals when Ken was 39 (!). Connors won 3 of the 4 grand slam titles that year and hit the ball harder than anyone, which was one of the problems Rosewall faced at Wimbledon and Forest Hills in '74. The other problems were a grueling 5-set semifinal win over Stan Smith at Wimbledon and a tense, 4-set semifinal win over John Newcombe at the U.S.
An unbelievable backhand pass at 3:15. Impossible, i don't think Federer could do that.
They didn't have the power and fitness like they do today. If you had speed, you were at an advantage. Ivan Lendl really brought that power and fitness into tennis.
Rosewall beat Ashe and Nastase when he was 43. Gonzalez won 6 tournamounts in his 40s. They were every bit as fit as todays players.
rosewalls backhand? WOW
@Richardhedditch261: Absolutely! Players during Rosewall's time routinely played 30 tournaments a year + doubles(not the 10 - 15 played today), so there were more opportunities for the top players to face off. This rivalry was probably the longest in tennis history (and, quality-wise, the best), and the Wikipedia records don't include the dozens of times they played one another on the senior tour in the '80s & '90s.
Thanks for great footage!Nobody played the game as beautiful as Rosewall did! Do you have more from him? I would love to see it!
Nice, I just wish I could see the ball!
Nancy Richey who through the blog wtaworld said about wood; It creates power but less spin than metal or graphite.
@chapaev36: Come on, success in the grand slam events is what ultimately defines careers. I thought we all agreed on that. Shamateurish negatively affected the careers of Rosewall (1957 - 1967, including the years 1960 - 1963 when he was the best pro in the world), as well as Laver, Hoad, Trabert, Gonzales, Segura, Gimeno, and others). The career grand slam title record is what has defined discussions about Fed for a few years now.
If "open" tennis had occurred 5 or 6 years earlier, we might be calling Rosewall the best of all time. First Slam final in 1953, last one in 1974, and still ranked near the top at age 43 should tell you something.
Two-handed backhand of Borg and Connors ended Rosewall's chances of winning another slam which was true with Rod Laver in the mid-70's (Mark Edmonson). Though, John Newcombe beat Connors at the 1975 Australian with his big serve and his reach that took away the two-hander in that match.
You didn't see players like Fabrice Santoro or the clay court specialists with those two-hands backhand then challenging those two in the early rounds.
That is my point: when the pros played then it was the ATP championship of the year every week. So you saw only the best then. Pancho Gonzales was still playing because he was one of the few players that had power and movement. Bob Lutz and Stan Smith?
Billie Jean King's "You come a Long Way, Baby" mentions this. They played and practiced a lot but not the outside conditioning. They played tournaments and doubles to get into shape. They relied on training during their juniors, their genes, and upbringing.
Nutrition was non-existent then Martina Navratilova and John Newcombe mention this.
The stars players were the exception then and now but please Barry McKay and Marty Mulligan could cover.
Rosewall and Rod Laver had trouble with two-handers before Connors like Pancho Segura. When Ken turned Pro in early 1957, Pancho roughed him up badly. Borg and Connors were only 5'10 and Pancho was 5'5. Ken can handle the power folks like Ashe; speed demons were trouble for him. Had he had a top-spin lob off his backhand, Wow. But Rosewall and other Australians had a certain disrespect for two-handers which cost them matches like Rod Laver against Cliff Drysdale in 1968 U.S. Open.
Segura had a two-handed forehand.
@Ariamaluum: Rosewall's first year as a pro was his first year as a pro. Of course Segoo roughed him up. So did Gonzalez. Later, however, Rosewall returned the favor to both. Later Rosewall owned Drysdale, and that was after Ken's peak years. Which "speed demons" gave Rosewall trouble? Aussie Adrian Quist hit with 2 hands, so did "Rosewall and other Australians" disrespect their countryman? And Cliff Drysdale was consistently ranked in the top 10 during the late '60s and early '70s.
Man I know old folk try to compare the old game with today saying how it was harder back then but come off it. Compare the speed of those rallies with today
I'm not talking about Laver and Hoad. Guys like Stolle and Newcombe is what I'm talking about.
10 years before, we might consider Pancho Gonzales.
@72fordgrantorino. Tom Okker and Jimmy Connors when he was young. Cliff Drysdale didn't give him any trouble but he did give trouble to Rod Laver. Main point: Ken would rather deal with hard-hitters than speed demons like him. Arthur Ashe was pretty powerful but no margin of error in his shots. Likewise, he was slow.
Ashe had a lot of trouble with Rosewall. It didn't matter that Rosewall was already in his late 30s or early 40s. Their final match was in 1978 when Rosewall was 43 years old. He beat Ashe anyway!
www.atptour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/arthur-ashe-vs-ken-rosewall/A063/R075
Of course Rod Laver beat Ashe almost every time they played.
www.atptour.com/en/players/fedex-head-2-head/arthur-ashe-vs-rod-laver/A063/L058
Ashe was a great player in spite of these 1-sided rivalries.
Yeah, they definitely had better strategy back then. Ive learned a lot in the space of a month ha ha, I must of been negative about those guys, anyway, players these days couldnt formulate a plan or point if they had a formulating machine
The stars players were the exception then and now but please Barry McKay and Marty Mulligan could cover?
I disagree, Ken was pushin forty man, I think that was a bigger factor, borg and connors were bigger and faster, stronger. However if ken had played with his left (Natural) hand instead of being forced to play right handed, he and laver would have traded places in history.
Wha? Stepanek has beaten Federer twice, 2008 Rome being the last time.
Laver won the slam in '69, so much for the depth of the game taking him over.
Rosewall & Laver were cheated out of their great prime years by the fools who insisted that the slams remain amateur events. Rosewall won the French Pro 8 times in 9 years in the '60s, defeating Laver in the final 4 times; he sandwiched this with his French Amateur title in '53 and his French Open in '68.
They were strong but when they try to hit with power, they were out of position and off-balanced. Court coverage was poor and return game was non-existent until Borg and Connors. Rod and Ken were exceptions. Nancy Richey who through blog wtaworld said about wood; It creates power but less spin than metal or graphite.
As for fitness, steak and eggs for three meals a day.
Rosewall made Ashe just look plain stupid. Wow. Totally outsmarted the black talented athlete.
Rosewall made a lot of good players look stupid back then. He was quite quick around the court (he moved in little half-steps), anticipated really well, had a smart, no-nonsense shot selection and managed to put the ball in places his opponent least wanted it (considering he couldn't often play Laver or Nastase type winners). Ken had the best and most stylish slice backhand you could ever see and probably had the best lob of all time. Lobs were played more often in the serve-and-volley days. If you watch the whole match he played against Laver in the second WCT final (1972), count the number of backhand half volley winners he hit coming into the net - a really courageous shot, and very difficult against Laver's heavy topspin returns. I was in the stands and watched the whole Ashe-Rosewall AO final. Arthur always had a game based around his very, very fast service (maybe only Mike Sangster was faster at the time). Ashe's serve was really off that day - he was having trouble with his ball toss - and he didn't trouble Ken at all; an easy straight sets victory. On and off the court, these guys were true gentlemen.
Really really