Ken Rosewall was still in the top 40 in the world as recently as 1978. He was still competitive well into his 40's, long after his Aussie contemporaries had retired from competition.
Absolutely impressive quality of play! to imagine the half-volley pickups and redirections that we all gasp in awe by Roger today were routine for those guys !!
That's primarily because 'back in the day' there was a serve-and-volley game, which doesn't exist today. Tennis was strong serving, groundstrokes, lobs, drops, all the usual stuff, but esp. on grass, serve-and-valley was the mainstay. Shots like half-volleys were routine.
I was a linesman for these two players in about 1980 when they played an exhibition match locally. The standard was still very high and they were real role models to all - compete hard but show respect to each other. Showed courtesy to all around. Note a few things here a younger player might find different. When you served then, a foot had to be on the ground. On grass with less powerful racquets, serve and volley was the name of the game. Player attire had to be nearly exclusively white and the balls were white. Note the superb footwork of Rosewell and the technique of Roche's serve that gave him momentum towards the net.
Big Salmon The foot fault rule was revised in 1959 when Roche was still in short pants. However you can see that Kenny never revised his action to take advantage of it.
Agree wholeheartedly with the assessment of their behavior. I think what might be missed by a lot of modern watchers is the degree of precision and power these guys had with those tiny racquet heads. As a junior player, I caught the tail-end of the wood era (Jack Kramer Pro Staff and Davis Classic). What's also amazing is the grips they used back then were much more tailored to the net game -- i.e., on "top" of the handle, and not "behind" it (ala Nadal or Djokovic). But even with those grips, they still could generate pace and top spin. These guys had forearms like Popeye the Sailor Man to pull that off. Rod Laver, IMHO, is still probably the most talented guy ever to put on sneakers.
@@josephbarbarie692 Joseph, was fortunate to meet, be coached by, and play the odd set with both Rochey and Muscles at the Tennis Fantasies camp at Newk's in the 90s (it's still going, by the way with younger legends now). Spot on about many points, including huge forearms and grips. Aged into their 50s and 60s, their games were so grooved that the stroke production made you feel so inferior next to them. A lot of it was short takebacks and perfect contact. By then, they were playing with composite/graphite rackets with larger heads and you couldn't win a point off them most of the time. They were too accurate, knew how to move you out of your comfort zone and pick you off with precision as opposed to power, like Kenny does a lot in the above clip. In one fantasy set where I played with Tony against another camper and Newk, John served me 4 / 5 serves in one game and I only got my racket on 2 of them because he had spotted where I was standing and where my weight was leaning; he would then serve in the opposite place. You felt like you'd been carved up without them really doing much, but carved up you had been! Best, Mark.
Nothing more exciting than old grass court tennis !! Such legends. Ken Rosewall is a top 7 -10 all time great and Roche is one of the best volleyers ever. Watching 2 masters make it look so easy. See kids.. this is what Grass Court tennis used to be about. Far better than Grass today. 70's and 80's were 2 great decades of great variety and variations in Tennis.
As impressive a display of 50-plus year old tennis as you’re likely to see. Great serving, volleying, touch, returns, etc., all on grass, all with antiquated sticks (by today’s standards).
@@brianboucher4248 It was amazing how effectively he and Laver could serve and volley given their height. They were both flawless. Glad you mentioned Roche too.
I remember watching Tony play at Manly grasscourt tournament in his latter years around 1977. He played and beat a much younger up and comer Chris Lewis from New Zealand ( made Wimbledon final some years later). Tony still had that great serve volley game.
Australian passion at Melbourne centre court. Two styles, Kenny older, a lefty and a one of the greatest right hand players ever. What a tennis lesson guys Thank you so much for this outstanding.tennis footage.
And look at the Roche topspin forehand at the point starting from 2:25 - incredible!And Rosewall - what touches! Anymore matches of these all time greats and others of their era would be most welcome!
Thanks for posting this great tennis (and for posting so many other great tennis videos). I echo all of the highly positive comments about this video (and about Rosewall, Roche, and the other players) that have already been made.
so right! i started watching some of those old retro matches.. this is so much more fun to watch than those baseline bashers of today! so much more thought and accuracy to every shot, much less UE's and mishits.. just beautiful.
i think men's tennis reached it's high water mark for watchability with these two men and ashe and laver. there's a simplicity and classicality to it that can't be beat for pure viewing pleasure. if it was at 720p we'd really have something.
I totally agree. I really wish that TV stations would open their archives someday, and make these great matches of yesteryear available to the public. And I too like the style of Rosewall, Laver and Roche, although I enjoy the play of later generations as well. For example, you really have to adore the talent of guys like Nastase, McEnroe, Mecir and Leconte. I think ;)
Yes and no -- apples and oranges. It is enjoyable to watch, but often the rallies are too short. The athleticism of Nadal vs Djoker is breathtaking -- like table tennis on steroids
Gregoryt700 yes, i agree, but overtime-in the next 5-10 yrs, it's going to get to a point where more and more injuries (knees, ankles, backs) will take their toll on the sport's top players. Something should be done about the length and grueling nature of the ATP schedule. Possibly fewer hard courts as well. You can't use Federer as an example of how long you can play the game today at the top level-Federer is a freak of nature, he doesn't even breathe when his punishing the ball and seems to hover...99.9% of all players are grinder types.
+sharpasaneraser You want top players to last forever like Rosewall ? Tennis is already pretty old as it is. They could play until old age in the past exactly because the intensity was a joke. Look at the movement, it is like they are playing in slow motion. Today you can see amateurs playing a casual game in the park with that intensity ! It is easy to maintain focus and accuracy if you are not under huge physical stress. When you are exhausted you lose plenty of that and more... Connors changed tennis forever. I am not saying he was THE greatest but he was pretty close and tennis really got professional with him. He was the turning point, like Jim Corbet in boxing.
Ivan Joldic i'm talking about the game aesthetically...purely from a viewing standpoint. It's totally subjective, no need to prove or disprove anything to me. All opinions welcome.
Tennis when it mattered. Art, skill, subtly. A true honor to watch. The modern pure power grunt and hit as hard as you can from the baseline game is just a snooze fest, especially in the women's game, pure monotony...
As a youngster I remember watching these two greats on TV during Wimbledon when it became Open in 1968. Even though Rod Laver and John Newcome dominated from 1968 to 1971 the competition was greater that recent decades. Both Ken Rosewall and Tony Roche lost finals in 68, and 70
Fantastic tennis. Tremendous accuracy and consistency, point after point. Wish I'd watched this type of footgae before I tried to learn to volley. techniques aside, their useof the court and tactical savvy and the ability to execute the right shot is brilliant. No antics, no looking up to the box, no towelling, quick speed of play. It's marvellous.
When Tony and the rest of the Australian team (I think there were five of them) beat Sweden in Davis Cup in 1964 (by 5-0) I got all their autographs. Fred Stolle and Roy Emerson played all the matches however. Didn't know that Tony Roche eventually became that good. Was a ball boy for them a couple of times when they practiced. At only age 12, I loved the way these guys played even though they beat my country - they were outstanding. Roy Emerson had a very original serve that can't be forgotten - check it out if you never saw it previously.
People say that this is slow and it lacks power. But if you are there live or on the court, that ball has got lots of pace on it. Also there is net play so there is a shorter distance between the players. That would meam there is less time to react so players have to react faster. I would argue that Rosewall vs Roche is a faster game than Murray vs Ferrer. Murray vs Ferrer - those guys have all the time in the world between groundstrokes because they are camped on the baseline metres away!!! Rosewall and Roche and the other guys from that era...they are coming in to put pressure on you!!! Take your time away!
+Alan Chong Grass court, serve and volley game is fast tennis. Nothing faster in surface or technique. But moreover, there is a poetry of motion these guys exhibit that feels foreign, if obsolete, in today's game. There's a different rhythm to this game that is just gorgeous. Great hands, great footwork. Thoroughly entertaining to watch.
+purveyoroffinefoods laszlo Wooden rackets and grass court tennis. It's awesome to watch particularly from the behind the court angle! Feels like the viewer is on the court! Fast as hell! Borg on grass was a revelation as he could play from the baseline.
This is part of the reason why Federer is so great compared to his modern contemporaries. He can play this kind of game as well as the modern game. He is the most versatile player on the planet today.
Only Rosewall is using a wooden racket in this footage. Prior to the introduction of carbon-fibre rackets, metal ones were fairly common. I'm not sure if they were aluminium or some other metal.
This seems much more elegant & dynamic than most of today’s players with the exception of some top players who have incorporated net play into their repertoire
Tony Roche joueur de gazon par excellence,15 ans plus tard ,coach de Lendl ,il fera de ce joueur un très bon joueur sur cette surface,plusieurs fois finaliste à Wimbledon et 2 fois vainqueur au queen s
he missed 10 years... in total he missed 41 Grand Slams during his prime... Pancho Gonzales missed even more... it's too bad open tennis didn't happen much earlier.
This is what you called the golden era of tennis where it is not only about who serves the fastest or hits the hardest. It is all about precision play coupled with superb one touch tennis and excellent control. The Djokovics, Nadals and Murrays would not have accomplished so much if they were to be given the same wooden racquet as back in the 60s and 70s.
Andrew Charles As a tennis coach, I appreciate these videos - and the lessons players today can learn about developing core muscles and full body strength with the wooden racquets - thus relying less on the frames for generating power. But it's unwarranted to marginalize, belittle or dismiss the work of Nadal or even Djokovic or Murray (even though they've won less than Nadal). Players of that caliber would compete in any era with any racquets - can't blame today's big Four for using technology - how would Federer have challenged and beaten Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 I believe it was if Federer hadn't used modern technology to deal with Pete's serve etc? Funny how you didn't put Federer's name on that list when you took shots at Djokovic, Nadal and Murray - Those 3 have all beaten Roger in major tournaments... even when Roger switched to a bigger racquet in recent years to give him more power etc. Now to your point, the junior players 18 and under (especially 12 and under) would be wise to watch these videos and more importantly to use those wooden racquets - so that the weight of those racquets would compel the kids to build core body and arm/wrist strength. Too many kids since the 1990s high tech racquet boom think tennis is boring partly bc they are using racquets to generate ball speed, rather than feeling the thrill of generating ball control and whipping the ball because of your own athletic strength developed through hours/years of conditioning and training.
Rosewall was one great champion! We must to know that rosewall was stopped for 12 years in the circuit for the famous problems tennis professional and dilettants. .........if rosewall play also in this 12 years , he have now , not 8 slams, but 18-20- 22 ....
Effortless... Those crisp deep volleys... Wow! I really miss this form of tennis. Pat Cash beat Lendl in 1986 with this gung ho style....probably one of the last classic serve volleyers...
Don't you think the crispness had a lot to do with the wooden racquets? With the weight and mass I think you got much more pop off the strings, and it allowed for more precision.
This is what tennis use to be. When you had to compete against multiple players all with different styles and strengths to see who was the best. Now I'm not saying tennis today is bad, but it is pretty one dimensional. Everyone in the top 10 more or less plays the exact same way. Tennis has become more of a physical battle then a battle of skill or wit.
+Gregoryt700 Borg and Connors ushered in the double handed backhand. At the time, only they had that weapon, so they 'cleaned up' every time they played. It was revolutionary!
Gregoryt700 They didn't. Rosewall was 39 when Connors kicked his ass in '74, it was the man's age that made him «obsolete», not his tennis. Serve and volley remained a force to be reckoned with till the late eighties-early nineties (although not the only one any longer). Plus, I can understand that you find Rosewall's serve weak (it was), or to some extent his forehand. But his backhand ?!? Man, it's universally considered one of the greatest backhands ever...
+Cyril Brocard I believe Rosewall's finesse game was demolished by Connors' power game. A player needs a different skill set to beat Connors. Lendl, Borg and McEnroe and Newcombe had the necessary skills. Rosewall did not.
In 74: - Connors was going full throttle and he was playing a new, different game: fast, powerful, angular. His opponents didn't know how to play him then (except Nastase). - Rosewall was an older player, slightly slower and with less stamina than in his prime. It showed during the finals at Wimbledon and the US Open. - Their comparative strengths and weaknesses all turned to Jimmy's advantage. Ken had great footwork and hit the ball early ? Jimmy was even faster and hit on the rise, taking off Ken's time on virtually every stroke. Ken played with accuracy ? Connors was equally accurate, plus he had much more power in is strokes. Ken used angles to his advantage ? Jimmy used "super-angles". Ken was a great volley player ? Jimmy never allowed him to play an easy approached and passed/lobed him superbly. O he simply took the net himself. And his superlative returns put Ken's weak serve to a torture. Plus, Ken probably snapped mentally (obvious at Forest Hills, maybe less so at Wimbledon) and the net result is that Connors squashed him flat.
@@john-boy4283 A really fast action from a ball-toss that is much lower than I remember when I was a kid growing up watching these guys on TV when Wimbledon came around.
I wish the year of this match was included. I'm guessing 1970. I was playing in the 10 and unders in 74' at 8 years old. I wanted the Ken rosewall tennis shoe but they didn't make kids tennis shoes back then. I think it would be a good idea to start youngsters out using wood standard head raquets. They will develop better technique and power in the long run.
@rogerlegg. You have to remember too, Pancho Gonzales, Pancho Segura, Frank Sedgeman, and Tony Trabert were denied too. When Pancho G. was in shape, Ken couldn't beat him due to his serve. Tony Trabert found out his forehand weakness by hitting floaters to that side.
Battle of the Backhand Titans. No topspin on Rosewall's, but he could hit it with pace anywhere in the court. Even in today's competition, Roche's backhand volley would be a devastating shot.
+Miles Montemore I recall seeing an indoor tournament in Melbourne (Australia) in 1980 where Ken Rosewall (46) played American Butch Walts (25). Butch was around 6'5" and Kenny was a midget by comparison. Poor Butch, Kenny chipped and sliced him to pieces.
man, Rochey had a great service motion, didn't put the ball one inch above where he made contact with it, and he's practically half way to the service line by the time he finishes his motion. so sick of seeing today's players who toss the ball half way to the moon, then answer emails and make coffee before the ball comes down to hit it. wonder how he felt about Lendl's serve; Lendl was a super high ball tosser. i know Lendl hired him to improve his volley, but Lendl never got into the net off the serve like Roche.
Racquet technology changed the game a lot. Also, we once played a lot on grass. I recall it being quite common to see lawn tennis courts at people's homes and tennis clubs. It is still the best to play on, just a little impractical.
QuadMaestro oh, sorry. yes, he really cranked it. you wonder why he didn't play that shot more often like Laver. i mean his slice is just a thing of beauty but that topspin backhand (almost looked flat really) had some juice on it.
I could not agree more Roz. And all that with tiny wood rackets! It really pisses me off that so many younger tennis fans today seem have zero appreciation for the greats of yesterday. Nothing against a guy like Nadal, but could you imagine him attempting to hit extreme topspin with a wood racket? :-) I know it will never happen, but I would love to see a wood racket tournament for today's pro's. I'd be Fed to excel. :-) Cheers.
So agree with you Matt! Glorious tennis, no fist pumping, no time wasting drama between each point, and certainly no sobbing at the end of a match! Real men who were ALSO world class doubles champions. Too much for the lazy youngsters of today! If the likes of Roche and Rosewall (Laver et al....) were young today with all the advantages of the equipment, conditions and material luxuries tennis players have now, they would trounce Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray.
It's difficult to compare great players from different eras. The scenario most set up is to have the greats of yesterday play with today's equipment, conditions and training. I'd like to set it up so that the greats of today had to play with wood rackets with 70-square-inch heads, gut strings, conditions, and the training habits common then. There'd be no contest. The pace and spins of today's game would be impossible with the equipment from then. Also, players of yore had to be thinkers because it was harder to hit winners from anywhere on the court, which would be yet another challenge for today's players making the transition to the way the game was played then.
+Mr425360 Trounce Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray ? You have no idea what you are talking about. Lazy younsters ? Simple laws of physics will tell you that in modern tennis, swimming, sprinting, etc., physically limited players like Laver and others would never even be in the top 10 regardless of the equipment used. At 5 foot 9 inches Laver would serve like an average woman of today and be broken by Murray and Djokovic almost every time. He could never take the intensity or even play average tennis after 2 sets with these guys, regardless of training (too fragile). Like every other sport tennis has advanced. Also, NEVER forget that tennis in the "good old days" was played by Australians and a bunch of Americans. Who else ? The competition is much stronger now because the whole world plays. Now there are NO Australians or Americans in the top 10 (can that be an ABSOLUTE coincidence ?). It was a rich man`s sport and not too many people played in the past to begin with.
+Ivan Joldic If you see the background of Roche, for example, hardly rich as a son of a butcher in an outback little town - unless you know different about butchers......The Aussies of the 50s and 60s and 70s were simply much fitter than everyone else at the time, under the rigours of Harry Hopman - for sure, the rest of the world has caught up, and now it is the Eastern Bloc that dominate women's tennis for example, doing considerably more training and preparation than the Brits - Andy Murray is a great player, but a one-off as far as Brits are concerned. As for intensity - today's players sit down for two minutes plus every five minutes (to ensure TV adverts are aired - and contractual obligations are met by the players fro sponsorship purposes). You get these big 6'6"+ servers - the opponents do nothing for that game! Hardly intense! In fact, boring after a while.Remember that players can serve with both feet off the ground now, and have rackets that are half the weight of the wooden ones of the 50s and 60s and early 70s - would love to see Nadal, Federer and Djokovic play with those rackets, and play as much doubles as the Aussies (and others of the time) did back then.......playing up to nine-ten hours a day in any of the grand slam events - they would be weeping in their Evian water.....! Playing the occasional Davis Cup doubles match hardly counts....As for non-Aussies, are you dismissing grand slam event champions like Nastase, Kodes, Gimeno, Santana, and a fair few others?No Americans or Aussies in the top ten? Fitness is much more even in the men's came across the world, and sorry to say, but you can get a good living from minor tournaments and third or fourth round eliminations in the grand slam events nowadays - the incentive, part from the top few, simply isn't there anymore - have a look at British football and the last couple of world cups.......the players didn't even care - would anyone on £5,000,000 a year plus?
National programs in recent years are now heavily funded in countries like Russia, France, Spain etc. Australian children choose other sports and it's not heavily funded or in the national interest to waste money on an assembly line of potential stars in tennis. Your smug 'trounce' comment is quite shallow and i'm guessing you watch old clips and expect them to be using 2016/17 rackets.
@@ivanjoldic2567 Thomas Johansson from Sweden is a former pro who won the Australian Open, beat Marat Safin in the final, when Safin was in his peak years, as sketchy of a top player as he was, but nevertheless... Jim Courier, no slouch in any tennis department, asked Thomas directly on one occasion how he can have such helluva serve, so much pace on the serve, being so short (Laverish, if not even shorter in stature - I have seen the man live in close by, on more than one occasion). Look up his match on youtube (20 - something minutes of him vs. Richard Krajicek, where he traded blow with the tall dutch, who was one of the heaviest servers in the era of some among the biggest servers - Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, etc. ). Regarding the law of physics and sprinting (could easily translate into tennis as well) - find the TED Talk on youtube devoted to that very theme. The detailed scientific study, with thorough measurements has been done on how Jesse Owens would fare today, given today's sprinter shoes and modern track of the type 2009. - onwards. You might be surprised at results. Ben Johnson run on the track that was significantly slower than today's tracks in 1998. in Seoul. When it comes to tennis, the most significant changes are the grips and how the ball is hit on both wings on ground strokes. Tennis displayed in this video is remarkable, both in quality, pace, variation and intelligence of both players. Laver as well as any of the Aussie players back then were far from fragile and went through Hopman's training regime, which stressed the importance of the physical preparation. Laver was physically strong, with well developed musculature.
This is the West Side Tennis Club where the U.S. Open was held for many years so the set up of several courts was without question unusual yet this is where it was held.
Pancho also didnt win Wimbledon. Kenny did make 2 finals before the age of 22 and 2 more after the age of 33. He missed 11 of his prime years and Pancho missed 18 or 19 years. They each would have won multiple Wimbys.
You don't need to go out on a limb; no disputes that they had great backhands. And all-court demeanour. Note the lack of fist-pumping? Those were the days.
Oh for the disappearance of the fist-pump. It's become part of this outward demonstration of aggressive competitive behaviour which current players all believe they must do. You can't find a photo of a current player when not in stroke production mode where they are not fist pumping. Please players, just stop it.
Look at the elegance and deftness of these guys. If Nadal had pursed that type of game he would still be playing into his forties instead of all his thumping around.
Yeah I agree. I remember playing with poly strings for the first time and it blew me away how much controlled power they gave. My arm didn't like it too much though. I'll stick with gut. Feels a million times better and lasts so much longer. :-) Hey, by the way, are you by chance RozRoz from Talk Tennis?
Rosewall at his peak ,could slice and dice opponents with a stunning array of effortless shot making. No one painted the line like him. Only Federer is his equal in that department .
no body has given Bud Collins any credit for calling this match with Tony Trabert...now the announcers talk during points about non related subjects it seems...is Winning Gallery related to Allison Danzig?
Amazing wonderful tennis, preferable to the current game for sure. But in the current players’ defense, it’s a brutal physical thing, they love the sport and are dealing with it.
+purveyoroffinefoods laszlo Tony Roche was my favorite player back in those days and it always frustrated me that he didn't win the big ones. He always seemed to get injured at the vital moment; a twinge in the hamstring, a stomach pull, elbow soreness, you name it, he would get it at the wrong time. I also wouldn't call him a clever player. I sat in the stands at Kooyong in 1975 to watch him blow 5 match points against John Newcombe in the semi finals of the Australian Open. Newk went on to the final as the underdog against Jimmy Connors and took the title by outsmarting him. As much as I wanted Rochie to beat Newk in that semi, I doubt if he would have had the tactical smarts to beat JC had he made the final.
+Peter Bloink You were in the stands? Wow! Did you have tickets for Newk vs Connors? To this day, that's still the greatest Aussie Open final! At least Roche won a major and a stack of doubles with Newk!
I can only imagine how they would play today with the modern technology and style of play in the modern heavy topspin game. I'm sure they would have done the same things the modern players do today. But Rosewall's backhand would be even more devastating now. But both of these guys would have to get with the modern game.
US, AELTC, Kooyong - all on the grass. This was grass court tennis minus today's A) better grass strains - the All England now employs a rye strain as opposed to the bent grass most grass clubs used back then, and B) the equipment and techniques used to keep the grass short, sturdy, and ground firm. Back in the old days, It was always better to try to avoid the 'adventure' of a baseline rally. Not for nothing, but on more than one occasion at Forest Hills folks would come up to my late brothe
with wooden small head racquets today's pros will have to turn down spin levels and go back to a more precise and thoughtful game, which will eliminate some of them ;) i mean, as a player i do like to smash balls and feel the power but i will gladly accept adjusting and going back to the oldschool game.
I don't post on Talk Tennis (too much of a madhouse :-)) but I've been lurking there for years. You actually seem like one of the good guys there. As far as having moral issues about using gut strings, I don't have a problem with it. How many millions of cows are slaughtered every year for food? As far as I know, there isn't a huge demand for cow intestines as a food item. Perhaps if I was a strict Vegan, I would feel differently but that would mean no more carne asada burritos. Fuck that. :-)
So todays game is more powerful due to racket technology BUT the game in the 1960s and 70s was faster as the distance between the net player and player on the baseline was shorter. You had less time between shots!!!
+Alberto Stanghellini We don't see it full stop. Federer never volleys. Maybe only Radek Stephanek does it. Stephanek is quite good to watch. He beat Almalgro in a Davis Cup final playing serve and volley. It was awesome.
+Alberto Stanghellini Tony Roche is underated. I have seen him a few times in the streets. I should have asked for an autograph but I left him alone. I am serious. He lives in Sydney.
Rochey is definitely underrated. That could happen when you were an Aussie in the 60's-early 70's, among the Lavers, Rosewalls, Emersons and Newks, and you maybe lacked their elegant, somewhat aristocratic looks... A bit like being a Swede in the mid-late 80s :-) But the man knew his tennis, no doubt. And, which is a big plus in my opinion, he also had a great career as a coach.
+Cyril Brocard I've walked past him a few times on the North Shore of Sydney. Didn't want to interrupt his weekend by throwing a Lendl, Rafter or Federer question at him! Haha.
Simply a briljant game of two masters.
Thank you for this historical document.This was real Tennis, a game of Grace power and strategy. Not these too handed slug fests , we have today.
Rosewall was the most elegant and graceful of players. Great balance and positioning.
Ken Rosewall was still in the top 40 in the world as recently as 1978. He was still competitive well into his 40's, long after his Aussie contemporaries had retired from competition.
Absolutely impressive quality of play! to imagine the half-volley pickups and redirections that we all gasp in awe by Roger today were routine for those guys !!
That's primarily because 'back in the day' there was a serve-and-volley game, which doesn't exist today. Tennis was strong serving, groundstrokes, lobs, drops, all the usual stuff, but esp. on grass, serve-and-valley was the mainstay. Shots like half-volleys were routine.
This is spectacular tennis - so much fun to watch how the game was played in an earlier era!
precision is the word. As mentioned below it is the Best 7 minutes of classic tennis on youtube
I love to watch the true serve and volleyers but usually can't see the ball on the old film. This was a great clip. Would live to see more. Thx
This is so great to watch! Listen to the sound of impact! So skilled they are with those small racket heads. Lovely!
1
I was a linesman for these two players in about 1980 when they played an exhibition match locally. The standard was still very high and they were real role models to all - compete hard but show respect to each other. Showed courtesy to all around. Note a few things here a younger player might find different. When you served then, a foot had to be on the ground. On grass with less powerful racquets, serve and volley was the name of the game. Player attire had to be nearly exclusively white and the balls were white. Note the superb footwork of Rosewell and the technique of Roche's serve that gave him momentum towards the net.
Big Salmon The foot fault rule was revised in 1959 when Roche was still in short pants. However you can see that Kenny never revised his action to take advantage of it.
Agree wholeheartedly with the assessment of their behavior. I think what might be missed by a lot of modern watchers is the degree of precision and power these guys had with those tiny racquet heads. As a junior player, I caught the tail-end of the wood era (Jack Kramer Pro Staff and Davis Classic). What's also amazing is the grips they used back then were much more tailored to the net game -- i.e., on "top" of the handle, and not "behind" it (ala Nadal or Djokovic). But even with those grips, they still could generate pace and top spin. These guys had forearms like Popeye the Sailor Man to pull that off.
Rod Laver, IMHO, is still probably the most talented guy ever to put on sneakers.
Glad these days are over. I will take todays players over this crap.
@@josephbarbarie692 Joseph, was fortunate to meet, be coached by, and play the odd set with both Rochey and Muscles at the Tennis Fantasies camp at Newk's in the 90s (it's still going, by the way with younger legends now). Spot on about many points, including huge forearms and grips. Aged into their 50s and 60s, their games were so grooved that the stroke production made you feel so inferior next to them. A lot of it was short takebacks and perfect contact. By then, they were playing with composite/graphite rackets with larger heads and you couldn't win a point off them most of the time. They were too accurate, knew how to move you out of your comfort zone and pick you off with precision as opposed to power, like Kenny does a lot in the above clip. In one fantasy set where I played with Tony against another camper and Newk, John served me 4 / 5 serves in one game and I only got my racket on 2 of them because he had spotted where I was standing and where my weight was leaning; he would then serve in the opposite place. You felt like you'd been carved up without them really doing much, but carved up you had been! Best, Mark.
I saw them play an exhibition around that time in Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
Nothing more exciting than old grass court tennis !! Such legends. Ken Rosewall is a top 7 -10 all time great and Roche is one of the best volleyers ever.
Watching 2 masters make it look so easy. See kids.. this is what Grass Court tennis used to be about. Far better than Grass today.
70's and 80's were 2 great decades of great variety and variations in Tennis.
Great comment. The game has moved away from something that was so wonderful. "You don't appreciate what you have until you've lost it."
As impressive a display of 50-plus year old tennis as you’re likely to see. Great serving, volleying, touch, returns, etc., all on grass, all with antiquated sticks (by today’s standards).
Wonderful style of gameplay. 2 great players.
Rosewall my favorite all-time player.
Mine too.
@@stuartdryer1352 Rosewall, best return of serve, best slice/flat BH, and best BH volley (with Roche) of that era.
@@brianboucher4248 It was amazing how effectively he and Laver could serve and volley given their height. They were both flawless. Glad you mentioned Roche too.
@@stuartdryer1352 mine too
I remember watching Tony play at Manly grasscourt tournament in his latter years around 1977.
He played and beat a much younger up and comer Chris Lewis from New Zealand ( made Wimbledon final some years later).
Tony still had that great serve volley game.
Australian passion at Melbourne centre court. Two styles, Kenny older, a lefty and a one of the greatest right hand players ever. What a tennis lesson guys
Thank you so much for this outstanding.tennis footage.
Forest Hills, not Melbourne.
@@robertbyrne9530 You are right, one of the best clips uploaded in RUclips.
Thanks
Love the backhand at 3:07. Nice to revisit the classic strokes from yesteryear.
And look at the Roche topspin forehand at the point starting from 2:25 - incredible!And Rosewall - what touches! Anymore matches of these all time greats and others of their era would be most welcome!
Federer. That's it.
Rosewall and Roche.... the two best all-time backhand volleys.... WORD... Rosewall, the most graceful player I ever saw.
rosewall was silky smooth.
And would have say Goolagong in the woman's.
Thanks for posting this great tennis (and for posting so many other great tennis videos). I echo all of the highly positive comments about this video (and about Rosewall, Roche, and the other players) that have already been made.
so right!
i started watching some of those old retro matches..
this is so much more fun to watch than those baseline bashers of today!
so much more thought and accuracy to every shot, much less UE's and mishits..
just beautiful.
Utterly amazing precision!!
Just WOW.
The power and placement of those volleys...wow!
..beautiful tennis..
i think men's tennis reached it's high water mark for watchability with these two men and ashe and laver. there's a simplicity and classicality to it that can't be beat for pure viewing pleasure. if it was at 720p we'd really have something.
I totally agree. I really wish that TV stations would open their archives someday, and make these great matches of yesteryear available to the public.
And I too like the style of Rosewall, Laver and Roche, although I enjoy the play of later generations as well. For example, you really have to adore the talent of guys like Nastase, McEnroe, Mecir and Leconte. I think ;)
Yes and no -- apples and oranges. It is enjoyable to watch, but often the rallies are too short. The athleticism of Nadal vs Djoker is breathtaking -- like table tennis on steroids
Gregoryt700 yes, i agree, but overtime-in the next 5-10 yrs, it's going to get to a point where more and more injuries (knees, ankles, backs) will take their toll on the sport's top players. Something should be done about the length and grueling nature of the ATP schedule. Possibly fewer hard courts as well. You can't use Federer as an example of how long you can play the game today at the top level-Federer is a freak of nature, he doesn't even breathe when his punishing the ball and seems to hover...99.9% of all players are grinder types.
+sharpasaneraser You want top players to last forever like Rosewall ? Tennis is already pretty old as it is. They could play until old age in the past exactly because the intensity was a joke. Look at the movement, it is like they are playing in slow motion. Today you can see amateurs playing a casual game in the park with that intensity ! It is easy to maintain focus and accuracy if you are not under huge physical stress. When you are exhausted you lose plenty of that and more... Connors changed tennis forever. I am not saying he was THE greatest but he was pretty close and tennis really got professional with him. He was the turning point, like Jim Corbet in boxing.
Ivan Joldic i'm talking about the game aesthetically...purely from a viewing standpoint. It's totally subjective, no need to prove or disprove anything to me. All opinions welcome.
Glorious tennis
Seems that Roscoe Tanner emulated Tony Roche's service motion. Beautiful serve
these are at the "west side tennis club" at New York. the film is 42 years old.
Tennis when it mattered. Art, skill, subtly. A true honor to watch.
The modern pure power grunt and hit as hard as you can from the baseline game is just a snooze fest, especially in the women's game, pure monotony...
Despite the "technology" discussions...these guys hit the ball pretty hard.
Fantastic stuff. Back when tennis there was true artistry in tennis.
That was one great match. Grace and elegance. I think Fed took serious notes =)
As a youngster I remember watching these two greats on TV during Wimbledon when it became Open in 1968. Even though Rod Laver and John Newcome dominated from 1968 to 1971 the competition was greater that recent decades. Both Ken Rosewall and Tony Roche lost finals in 68, and 70
Fantastic tennis. Tremendous accuracy and consistency, point after point. Wish I'd watched this type of footgae before I tried to learn to volley. techniques aside, their useof the court and tactical savvy and the ability to execute the right shot is brilliant. No antics, no looking up to the box, no towelling, quick speed of play. It's marvellous.
My favorite lefty along with Laver. Favorite righty: John Newcombe and Stan Smith
Ken was a natural left hander who was made to change early in life( hence his great backhand)
The reason why Rosewalll was able to play well into his 40s was because his game was so smooth, and effortless.
Still he and Gonzales were the only two ones to play that well at that age.
Tilden won a pro slam in his early 40s and got to two finals in his mid 40s. He was like Gordie Howe in hockey a freak of nature.
Connors could as well. Not exactly smooth though..
When Tony and the rest of the Australian team (I think there were five of them) beat Sweden in Davis Cup in 1964 (by 5-0) I got all their autographs. Fred Stolle and Roy Emerson played all the matches however. Didn't know that Tony Roche eventually became that good. Was a ball boy for them a couple of times when they practiced. At only age 12, I loved the way these guys played even though they beat my country - they were outstanding. Roy Emerson had a very original serve that can't be forgotten - check it out if you never saw it previously.
Yes, Emmo's service motion was something else. Once seen, never forgotten!
You can hear how clean they are hitting the ball. Returns and First volleys are all precision . Australian players had it all....
When the backhand slice was a weapon
People say that this is slow and it lacks power. But if you are there live or on the court, that ball has got lots of pace on it. Also there is net play so there is a shorter distance between the players. That would meam there is less time to react so players have to react faster. I would argue that Rosewall vs Roche is a faster game than Murray vs Ferrer. Murray vs Ferrer - those guys have all the time in the world between groundstrokes because they are camped on the baseline metres away!!! Rosewall and Roche and the other guys from that era...they are coming in to put pressure on you!!! Take your time away!
+Alan Chong Grass court, serve and volley game is fast tennis. Nothing faster in surface or technique. But moreover, there is a poetry of motion these guys exhibit that feels foreign, if obsolete, in today's game. There's a different rhythm to this game that is just gorgeous. Great hands, great footwork. Thoroughly entertaining to watch.
+purveyoroffinefoods laszlo Wooden rackets and grass court tennis. It's awesome to watch particularly from the behind the court angle! Feels like the viewer is on the court! Fast as hell! Borg on grass was a revelation as he could play from the baseline.
totally agree Alan! the skill level is right there!! :-)
This is part of the reason why Federer is so great compared to his modern contemporaries. He can play this kind of game as well as the modern game. He is the most versatile player on the planet today.
Only Rosewall is using a wooden racket in this footage. Prior to the introduction of carbon-fibre rackets, metal ones were fairly common. I'm not sure if they were aluminium or some other metal.
Best! Best! Best clip on youtube.
This seems much more elegant & dynamic than most of today’s players with the exception of some top players who have incorporated net play into their repertoire
Thanks for this great video.
Tony Roche joueur de gazon par excellence,15 ans plus tard ,coach de Lendl ,il fera de ce joueur un très bon joueur sur cette surface,plusieurs fois finaliste à Wimbledon et 2 fois vainqueur au queen s
Legends both...
Rosewall was actually a natural left hander made to play with his right hand. He could throw a ball twice as far with his left hand.
Considering Rosewall missed about 7-9 years (approx) of competing for grand slam titles because he turned pro is crazy and Laver too!
he missed 10 years... in total he missed 41 Grand Slams during his prime... Pancho Gonzales missed even more... it's too bad open tennis didn't happen much earlier.
This is what you called the golden era of tennis where it is not only about who serves the fastest or hits the hardest. It is all about precision play coupled with superb one touch tennis and excellent control. The Djokovics, Nadals and Murrays would not have accomplished so much if they were to be given the same wooden racquet as back in the 60s and 70s.
correct about Nadal and Djokovic, not correct about Murray, he's really talented.
Andrew Charles
As a tennis coach, I appreciate these videos - and the lessons players today can learn about developing core muscles and full body strength with the wooden racquets - thus relying less on the frames for generating power.
But it's unwarranted to marginalize, belittle or dismiss the work of Nadal or even Djokovic or Murray (even though they've won less than Nadal).
Players of that caliber would compete in any era with any racquets - can't blame today's big Four for using technology - how would Federer have challenged and beaten Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001 I believe it was if Federer hadn't used modern technology to deal with Pete's serve etc?
Funny how you didn't put Federer's name on that list when you took shots at Djokovic, Nadal and Murray - Those 3 have all beaten Roger in major tournaments... even when Roger switched to a bigger racquet in recent years to give him more power etc.
Now to your point, the junior players 18 and under (especially 12 and under) would be wise to watch these videos and more importantly to use those wooden racquets - so that the weight of those racquets would compel the kids to build core body and arm/wrist strength.
Too many kids since the 1990s high tech racquet boom think tennis is boring partly bc they are using racquets to generate ball speed, rather than feeling the thrill of generating ball control and whipping the ball because of your own athletic strength developed through hours/years of conditioning and training.
I concur. Love watching these old school vids
Great to read your comment! You know your tennis- You even put in 72 and 73! Respect! Cheers
Rosewall was one great champion! We must to know that rosewall was stopped for 12 years in the circuit for the famous problems tennis professional and dilettants. .........if rosewall play also in this 12 years , he have now , not 8 slams, but 18-20- 22 ....
His wins in the WGC finals in the early 70's said a lot.
As did playing on the circuit and still winning tournaments at 43.
@@coastallad1010He best Nastase and Ashe when he was 43.
Effortless... Those crisp deep volleys... Wow! I really miss this form of tennis. Pat Cash beat Lendl in 1986 with this gung ho style....probably one of the last classic
serve volleyers...
Don't you think the crispness had a lot to do with the wooden racquets? With the weight and mass I think you got much more pop off the strings, and it allowed for more precision.
Probably 87, because Becker beat Lendl that year.
This is what tennis use to be. When you had to compete against multiple players all with different styles and strengths to see who was the best. Now I'm not saying tennis today is bad, but it is pretty one dimensional. Everyone in the top 10 more or less plays the exact same way. Tennis has become more of a physical battle then a battle of skill or wit.
Amazing to me that, aside from Laver, everyone had such weak backhands. No wonder Connors Vilas and Borg made this style of play obsolete
+Gregoryt700 Borg and Connors ushered in the double handed backhand. At the time, only they had that weapon, so they 'cleaned up' every time they played. It was revolutionary!
Gregoryt700 They didn't. Rosewall was 39 when Connors kicked his ass in '74, it was the man's age that made him «obsolete», not his tennis.
Serve and volley remained a force to be reckoned with till the late eighties-early nineties (although not the only one any longer).
Plus, I can understand that you find Rosewall's serve weak (it was), or to some extent his forehand. But his backhand ?!? Man, it's universally considered one of the greatest backhands ever...
+Cyril Brocard I believe Rosewall's finesse game was demolished by Connors' power game. A player needs a different skill set to beat Connors. Lendl, Borg and McEnroe and Newcombe had the necessary skills. Rosewall did not.
In 74:
- Connors was going full throttle and he was playing a new, different game: fast, powerful, angular. His opponents didn't know how to play him then (except Nastase).
- Rosewall was an older player, slightly slower and with less stamina than in his prime. It showed during the finals at Wimbledon and the US Open.
- Their comparative strengths and weaknesses all turned to Jimmy's advantage. Ken had great footwork and hit the ball early ? Jimmy was even faster and hit on the rise, taking off Ken's time on virtually every stroke. Ken played with accuracy ? Connors was equally accurate, plus he had much more power in is strokes. Ken used angles to his advantage ? Jimmy used "super-angles". Ken was a great volley player ? Jimmy never allowed him to play an easy approached and passed/lobed him superbly. O he simply took the net himself. And his superlative returns put Ken's weak serve to a torture.
Plus, Ken probably snapped mentally (obvious at Forest Hills, maybe less so at Wimbledon) and the net result is that Connors squashed him flat.
Roche had one heck of a serve
I always loved his serve
@@john-boy4283 A really fast action from a ball-toss that is much lower than I remember when I was a kid growing up watching these guys on TV when Wimbledon came around.
@@markcripps1819 I pictured his serve when I wanted to get one in as it was so consistent and easy to repeat
I wish the year of this match was included. I'm guessing 1970. I was playing in the 10 and unders in 74' at 8 years old. I wanted the Ken rosewall tennis shoe but they didn't make kids tennis shoes back then. I think it would be a good idea to start youngsters out using wood standard head raquets. They will develop better technique and power in the long run.
Tony Roche is one of the all time great coaches - helped Lendl reach No. 1, helped Rafter - among others.
Also Federer's first coach.
@rogerlegg. You have to remember too, Pancho Gonzales, Pancho Segura, Frank Sedgeman, and Tony Trabert were denied too. When Pancho G. was in shape, Ken couldn't beat him due to his serve. Tony Trabert found out his forehand weakness by hitting floaters to that side.
Battle of the Backhand Titans. No topspin on Rosewall's, but he could hit it with pace anywhere in the court. Even in today's competition, Roche's backhand volley would be a devastating shot.
+Miles Montemore I recall seeing an indoor tournament in Melbourne (Australia) in 1980 where Ken Rosewall (46) played American Butch Walts (25). Butch was around 6'5" and Kenny was a midget by comparison. Poor Butch, Kenny chipped and sliced him to pieces.
+Baskerville22 Kenny could deal with height and power. Speed with backhands is what he detested.
The 2 greatest backhand volleys of all time!
The only modern player to have Rosewall's backhand is Federer. His is the best backhand in the modern game.
Is that why Nadal and Djoker relentlessly attack it, knowing it will crumble sooner or later? Wawrinka and Gasquet have far better backhands, imo.
@@michelez715 I have heard great things about Warwrinka's backhand.
man, Rochey had a great service motion, didn't put the ball one inch above where he made contact with it, and he's practically half way to the service line by the time he finishes his motion. so sick of seeing today's players who toss the ball half way to the moon, then answer emails and make coffee before the ball comes down to hit it. wonder how he felt about Lendl's serve; Lendl was a super high ball tosser. i know Lendl hired him to improve his volley, but Lendl never got into the net off the serve like Roche.
Relentless aggression versus relentless caginess. A pleasure to watch!
That volley by Roche at 1:01....WOW
Racquet technology changed the game a lot. Also, we once played a lot on grass. I recall it being quite common to see lawn tennis courts at people's homes and tennis clubs. It is still the best to play on, just a little impractical.
Muscles plays a topspin backhand at 4:11
slice block return
+gardenvarietypenis Not the return, the passing shot from off his toes. Rochey has to dive for it.
QuadMaestro oh, sorry. yes, he really cranked it. you wonder why he didn't play that shot more often like Laver. i mean his slice is just a thing of beauty but that topspin backhand (almost looked flat really) had some juice on it.
gardenvarietypenis it was flat. He pretty much just slapped it
It looks like it, but it's not. He just drove through the ball. More like a flat backhand. "Muscles" NEVER hit a topspin backhand.
I could not agree more Roz. And all that with tiny wood rackets! It really pisses me off that so many younger tennis fans today seem have zero appreciation for the greats of yesterday. Nothing against a guy like Nadal, but could you imagine him attempting to hit extreme topspin with a wood racket? :-) I know it will never happen, but I would love to see a wood racket tournament for today's pro's. I'd be Fed to excel. :-) Cheers.
Quad maestro. Great that you saw that! I got also surprised. Ive seen it a couple of times before,but very very rare!
Rosewall came off with some very clever shots and could return serves very well.
So agree with you Matt! Glorious tennis, no fist pumping, no time wasting drama between each point, and certainly no sobbing at the end of a match! Real men who were ALSO world class doubles champions. Too much for the lazy youngsters of today! If the likes of Roche and Rosewall (Laver et al....) were young today with all the advantages of the equipment, conditions and material luxuries tennis players have now, they would trounce Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray.
It's difficult to compare great players from different eras. The scenario most set up is to have the greats of yesterday play with today's equipment, conditions and training. I'd like to set it up so that the greats of today had to play with wood rackets with 70-square-inch heads, gut strings, conditions, and the training habits common then. There'd be no contest. The pace and spins of today's game would be impossible with the equipment from then. Also, players of yore had to be thinkers because it was harder to hit winners from anywhere on the court, which would be yet another challenge for today's players making the transition to the way the game was played then.
+Mr425360 Trounce Nadal, Federer, Djokovic and Murray ? You have no idea what you are talking about. Lazy younsters ? Simple laws of physics will tell you that in modern tennis, swimming, sprinting, etc., physically limited players like Laver and others would never even be in the top 10 regardless of the equipment used. At 5 foot 9 inches Laver would serve like an average woman of today and be broken by Murray and Djokovic almost every time. He could never take the intensity or even play average tennis after 2 sets with these guys, regardless of training (too fragile). Like every other sport tennis has advanced. Also, NEVER forget that tennis in the "good old days" was played by Australians and a bunch of Americans. Who else ? The competition is much stronger now because the whole world plays. Now there are NO Australians or Americans in the top 10 (can that be an ABSOLUTE coincidence ?). It was a rich man`s sport and not too many people played in the past to begin with.
+Ivan Joldic If you see the background of Roche, for example, hardly rich as a son of a butcher in an outback little town - unless you know different about butchers......The Aussies of the 50s and 60s and 70s were simply much fitter than everyone else at the time, under the rigours of Harry Hopman - for sure, the rest of the world has caught up, and now it is the Eastern Bloc that dominate women's tennis for example, doing considerably more training and preparation than the Brits - Andy Murray is a great player, but a one-off as far as Brits are concerned. As for intensity - today's players sit down for two minutes plus every five minutes (to ensure TV adverts are aired - and contractual obligations are met by the players fro sponsorship purposes). You get these big 6'6"+ servers - the opponents do nothing for that game! Hardly intense! In fact, boring after a while.Remember that players can serve with both feet off the ground now, and have rackets that are half the weight of the wooden ones of the 50s and 60s and early 70s - would love to see Nadal, Federer and Djokovic play with those rackets, and play as much doubles as the Aussies (and others of the time) did back then.......playing up to nine-ten hours a day in any of the grand slam events - they would be weeping in their Evian water.....! Playing the occasional Davis Cup doubles match hardly counts....As for non-Aussies, are you dismissing grand slam event champions like Nastase, Kodes, Gimeno, Santana, and a fair few others?No Americans or Aussies in the top ten? Fitness is much more even in the men's came across the world, and sorry to say, but you can get a good living from minor tournaments and third or fourth round eliminations in the grand slam events nowadays - the incentive, part from the top few, simply isn't there anymore - have a look at British football and the last couple of world cups.......the players didn't even care - would anyone on £5,000,000 a year plus?
National programs in recent years are now heavily funded in countries like Russia, France, Spain etc. Australian children choose other sports and it's not heavily funded or in the national interest to waste money on an assembly line of potential stars in tennis. Your smug 'trounce' comment is quite shallow and i'm guessing you watch old clips and expect them to be using 2016/17 rackets.
@@ivanjoldic2567 Thomas Johansson from Sweden is a former pro who won the Australian Open, beat Marat Safin in the final, when Safin was in his peak years, as sketchy of a top player as he was, but nevertheless...
Jim Courier, no slouch in any tennis department, asked Thomas directly on one occasion how he can have such helluva serve, so much pace on the serve, being so short (Laverish, if not even shorter in stature - I have seen the man live in close by, on more than one occasion). Look up his match on youtube (20 - something minutes of him vs. Richard Krajicek, where he traded blow with the tall dutch, who was one of the heaviest servers in the era of some among the biggest servers - Becker, Sampras, Ivanisevic, etc. ).
Regarding the law of physics and sprinting (could easily translate into tennis as well) - find the TED Talk on youtube devoted to that very theme.
The detailed scientific study, with thorough measurements has been done on how Jesse Owens would fare today, given today's sprinter shoes and modern track of the type 2009. - onwards.
You might be surprised at results.
Ben Johnson run on the track that was significantly slower than today's tracks in 1998. in Seoul.
When it comes to tennis, the most significant changes are the grips and how the ball is hit on both wings on ground strokes.
Tennis displayed in this video is remarkable, both in quality, pace, variation and intelligence of both players.
Laver as well as any of the Aussie players back then were far from fragile and went through Hopman's training regime, which stressed the importance of the physical preparation. Laver was physically strong, with well developed musculature.
Tony Roche, great player, great volley. A poor man's Rod Laver. His career was cut short by tennis elbow.
6:41. And most people think Rafa Nadal invented reverse forehand (finish over the head and in the same side of the body)
This is the West Side Tennis Club where the U.S. Open was held for many years so the set up of several courts was without question unusual yet this is where it was held.
4:53 a "banana" backhand slice passing shot.
This is the tennis game. Today what they call tennis is oversized ping pong. :)
@rogerlegg. With that, I have seen projectionists say that Rosewall would have won 21-24 majors.
Ken was arguably the best player never to win Wimbledon.
Pancho also didnt win Wimbledon. Kenny did make 2 finals before the age of 22 and 2 more after the age of 33. He missed 11 of his prime years and Pancho missed 18 or 19 years. They each would have won multiple Wimbys.
Funny how people from the past seemed to look older than people of the same age today.
You don't need to go out on a limb; no disputes that they had great backhands. And all-court demeanour. Note the lack of fist-pumping?
Those were the days.
Oh for the disappearance of the fist-pump. It's become part of this outward demonstration of aggressive competitive behaviour which current players all believe they must do. You can't find a photo of a current player when not in stroke production mode where they are not fist pumping. Please players, just stop it.
The ability to volley likebthat is a lost art.
Roche arguably the best backhand volley of all time!
More interesting play than current (2023) 3 second duration games. The ball speed, accuracy and placement looks pretty impressive too.
Amazing backhand at 3:07
Imagine how good Kenny would have been had he been allowed to learn the game left handed as he was naturally born.
Look at the elegance and deftness of these guys. If Nadal had pursed that type of game he would still be playing into his forties instead of all his thumping around.
Yeah I agree. I remember playing with poly strings for the first time and it blew me away how much controlled power they gave. My arm didn't like it too much though. I'll stick with gut. Feels a million times better and lasts so much longer. :-) Hey, by the way, are you by chance RozRoz from Talk Tennis?
Rosewall at his peak ,could slice and dice opponents with a stunning array of effortless shot making. No one painted the line like him. Only Federer is his equal in that department .
no body has given Bud Collins any credit for calling this match with Tony Trabert...now the announcers talk during points about non related subjects it seems...is Winning Gallery related to Allison Danzig?
Amazing wonderful tennis, preferable to the current game for sure. But in the current players’ defense, it’s a brutal physical thing, they love the sport and are dealing with it.
Roche best backhand volley ever
Rosewall best slice backhand ever
Tony Roche would've had a few more slams if it weren't for Rosewall and Laver.
Tremendous vollyers. And Roche's serve is strong. Can't believe he didn't win more. Aggresive game. Very strong backhand - in any era.
+purveyoroffinefoods laszlo Tony Roche was my favorite player back in those days and it always frustrated me that he didn't win the big ones. He always seemed to get injured at the vital moment; a twinge in the hamstring, a stomach pull, elbow soreness, you name it, he would get it at the wrong time. I also wouldn't call him a clever player. I sat in the stands at Kooyong in 1975 to watch him blow 5 match points against John Newcombe in the semi finals of the Australian Open. Newk went on to the final as the underdog against Jimmy Connors and took the title by outsmarting him. As much as I wanted Rochie to beat Newk in that semi, I doubt if he would have had the tactical smarts to beat JC had he made the final.
+Peter Bloink I envy that you were able to see these guys live. I saw Sampras at the '98 Wimbeldon and thought that was special.
+Peter Bloink You were in the stands? Wow! Did you have tickets for Newk vs Connors? To this day, that's still the greatest Aussie Open final! At least Roche won a major and a stack of doubles with Newk!
The Master in action
I can only imagine how they would play today with the modern technology and style of play in the modern heavy topspin game. I'm sure they would have done the same things the modern players do today. But Rosewall's backhand would be even more devastating now. But both of these guys would have to get with the modern game.
US, AELTC, Kooyong - all on the grass. This was grass court tennis minus today's A) better grass strains - the All England now employs a rye strain as opposed to the bent grass most grass clubs used back then, and B) the equipment and techniques used to keep the grass short, sturdy, and ground firm. Back in the old days,
It was always better to try to avoid the 'adventure' of a baseline rally.
Not for nothing, but on more than one occasion at Forest Hills folks would come up to my late brothe
Roche hit the Rose Wall.
with wooden small head racquets today's pros will have to turn down spin levels and go back to a more precise and thoughtful game, which will eliminate some of them ;)
i mean, as a player i do like to smash balls and feel the power but i will gladly accept adjusting and going back to the oldschool game.
Lawn tennis. On grass. In daylight. As God and Nature intended.
Ken was my favorite player the maches with Laver are incomperable Roger sorry nope
just curious, back in those days were there any baseline rallies at all?
On Clay, and a few on grass.
The bounce was too inconsistent to play baseline, and back then, return of serve was not considered a weapon
I don't post on Talk Tennis (too much of a madhouse :-)) but I've been lurking there for years. You actually seem like one of the good guys there. As far as having moral issues about using gut strings, I don't have a problem with it. How many millions of cows are slaughtered every year for food? As far as I know, there isn't a huge demand for cow intestines as a food item. Perhaps if I was a strict Vegan, I would feel differently but that would mean no more carne asada burritos. Fuck that. :-)
So todays game is more powerful due to racket technology BUT the game in the 1960s and 70s was faster as the distance between the net player and player on the baseline was shorter. You had less time between shots!!!
+Alberto Stanghellini We don't see it full stop. Federer never volleys. Maybe only Radek Stephanek does it. Stephanek is quite good to watch. He beat Almalgro in a Davis Cup final playing serve and volley. It was awesome.
+Alberto Stanghellini Tony Roche is underated. I have seen him a few times in the streets. I should have asked for an autograph but I left him alone. I am serious. He lives in Sydney.
Rochey is definitely underrated.
That could happen when you were an Aussie in the 60's-early 70's, among the Lavers, Rosewalls, Emersons and Newks, and you maybe lacked their elegant, somewhat aristocratic looks... A bit like being a Swede in the mid-late 80s :-)
But the man knew his tennis, no doubt. And, which is a big plus in my opinion, he also had a great career as a coach.
+Cyril Brocard I've walked past him a few times on the North Shore of Sydney. Didn't want to interrupt his weekend by throwing a Lendl, Rafter or Federer question at him! Haha.
You're good in my book, my man ;)
Great lawn tennis, once upon a time, today only known as an ancient non material world heritage art
Roche with a modern day racquet would have been near unbeatable.
Is Tony Roche more famous for his tennis or for inventing the Roche clip?