Thanks for the memories. That is little ol' me at 3.30 when I was 11 in '69. I carried Rod Lavers racquets onto the court for him and was a ball boy for the whole match. We got paid 50c a set back in the day but all the ball boys and linesman were replaced after the shower break for the players probably after the 3rd set. I paid another kid my set money to take his place and went back on and stayed the whole 5 sets - the longest match in Oz Open history. Anymore of these special matches from that open so I can gawk at myself again !! By the way in reference to the camera angle - the old wooden northern stand referred to by the commentators was where the main scoreboard, commentators, international journalists, and cameras were. It was very steep so that's why it looks as though you were on top of the players. They were special days back then - Margaret Court, Stan Smith & Bob Lutz, Billie Jean & Rosie Casals. I remember carrying Pancho Gonzalez' racquets out for him - seven of the bastards all with his name embossed on the covers, a big job for a little kid !! Best memory was coming off with Billie Jean King when she gave me 40c to buy her and me a drink and we sat down together in the players box and chatted. A wonderful lady.
The ball hitting is so ridiculously clean! Without any of the forced spin or pace that the contemporary players try to do, but with true class, talent, and prestige in what they do.
Outstanding quality for 40+ years ago, 90 game battle, and 100+ degree farenheit heat. Wish this were included: Laver states in his autobiography basically Roche lost it mentally while serving at 3-4 15-30 a very questionable backhand chip return by Laver was called in. Laver then quickly took the break and held for the match. If there had been hawkeye, makes me wonder if Laver would've still pulled off his pro grand slam, because this match was incredibly close and this defeat had to have dented Roche's confidence.
@biliev1 I totally agree with you. All the nostalgic geezers on here saying that if you give rafa or federer a wooden racket, they would get crushed by laver are crazy. With all due respect to Rod Laver as he was the greatest of his era, players today are on a whole new level not just because of racket technology, but because they're bigger, stronger, faster, and because of modern tennis training today.
Of course. Two greats from the yesteryear -- Laver still holds the distinction of being the only man in history to win THE Grand Slam (all for majors in a single calendar year) TWICE in '62 and '69.
Wow!As this video shows Laver was a true all rounder..more so then Federer and Sampras. He totally excels in each facet of the game,serve,return,top spin,forhand,backhand,slice,touch,drop,volleys,footwork,anticipation.
Simply the Best. The Roehampton Rocket. George Rodney Laver. Never will be another like him Great Champion Great Gentleman and if possible an even better human being who has always been very gracious with his time and always has a kind word for everyone.
Thanks for sharing this. We need more videos like this to uncover the myth that tennis in past days was slow and boring. Hard to imagine what those guys would have played with today´s hyper-modern equipment. Laver plays just so smart, reminds of Roger Federer indeed.
that semi was played in scorching sun (40 degrees, first time I saw Laver wearing a hat), people barely showed to watch both players (were afraid of sunstroke) but Laver and Roche didn't complain and had a very competetive encounter, beatiful and smooth netplay, I really enjoy watching it
The beauty, romance, and finesse of the wooden racquet days. What has happened to my sport. I'm 56 and against people I know I can beat, I still use my wooden Wilson Jack Kramer model, I keep freshly strung.
They really enjoyed playing at a top level and had some very very fine points. Especially Laver with his all court agressive game and his slashing forhand and backhand topspin winners out of the run are impressive. They both have a great volley and a great tactical skill to build up points intelligently. As I see it both these men were outstanding tennis players with a very good and competitive Tony Roche who simple could not compete more than a single set aggainst the ultimate game of Laver.
Nobody ever did it better than "the Rocket", ONLY two-time winner of the Grand Slam, AND the Slams were seven years apart, AND he did it playing with a standard size wooden racquet.
Thank you so much for uploading this, I love watching Laver. The quality of the upload is good, and the angle of the original filming is exciting, better perhaps than the typical position just above the court.
Those days 3 out of 4 Grand slams were played on grass. Laver would have more problems these days, but with wooden racqutts he still would dispose Nadal or Federer with their limited abilities and their even more limited strategic means.
Very true, the new raquets and the modified surfaces have made the game a little sterile. It used to be a huge difference playing on grass than on clay. This is a perfect example of 'proper' grass court tennis. Short points with masterful volleying. Nowadays grass is slower, points are longer and more power based making grass a lot similar to Clay. Makes Borg's accomplishments of winning 6 French and 5 Wimbledons much more incredible.
Fantastic match. I don't think the classic matches should be lauded just because they are old school. The serve and volley, not to mention the tension, was fabulous.
thanks for such a classic post. the pic quality is amazing. you really get a better feel for their games. will serve and volley tennis ever return to this level of entertainment? i'd love to see the pro tour go back to wooden rascquets for at least one tournament.
Laver's returns remind me of Federer, in the way he chips some back and the way he also sometimes decides to put some juice on it, and the way they always go to the right place. And I'd love to see Rosewall. I think he had the best return ever, or maybe it was Connors. I bet it was a close call between them though. I wonder what these guys could have done with graphites... Modern players could learn a dozen things from these guys; even Federer could get a tip or 2 to improve his game!
@Thutmosis7 are you kidding me? How are you gonna say Federer who has won the most gs and has a career gs is only #10 in history? Federer has the greatest forehand in history, one of the greatest onehand backhands in history, and a great serve. Plus he isn't living in a cupcake era, players like rafa, and del potro would run circles around laver
Many seem upset therobz98's comments. Settle down -- he's just posturing. He was born in the 90's. His perspective is very young. Therobz98 -- may I say to you, it is difficult to judge how champions of today, like Federer, would contend against champions like Laver. There are too many variables like new racket tech and training. But, if Laver would 20 and the playing field used wood on grass cts, Laver would contend. Research Connor, US OPEN 1991. Connors was 39, yet went to the semis.
I know its amazing to think what they could of done, but I think what we are seeing today is the best. Its just not humanly possible to do some of the things they did with the speed of play today, you have to have great prediction like Federer or the top players. But its a shame that hardly anyone attacks the net like these guys did.
This is kind of the Nadal-Verdasco semifinal match of 1969: two top lefties from the same country blast winners for hours. I wonder if Nadal existed in 1969 whether he would be a tennis player - he's such a great athlete he may have found himself playing soccer or something for pay. Although I still think Laver is a better tennis player, I can't see him being really good at anything else. And Roche is all but forgotten, but he was a beast with a backhand chip return that was wondrous.
There is a reason for a lot of old pros be saying that the match between Federer and Nadal at the Wimbledon final in 2008 was the greatest match they had ever witnessed...because it realy was...how can you explain two guys playing in the darkness after 4 hours of heat and rain and all the effort and still hitting winners you have never seen to save match points and stuff...
Very good point, I think then that Borg and Laver would win. If we could somehow pit them against each other at the peak of their forms with a combination of the old and new rackets and courts... I think everyone in the world would pay to watch that doubles match!!!
I've responded a lot to this thread already, but it's interesting how people always seem fixated on comparing how current champions (like Federer) would contend against past champions (like Sampras or Laver), yet I've never heard a discussion about how Joe DiMaggio would fare against Nolan Ryan. Or if Satchel Paige could throw a strike against Barry Bonds. Why is that?
This is grasscourt tennis as it´s meant to be played. It´s a pity that even at Wimbledon hardly anyone is playing serve & volley in these days. I also assume that the higher risk for injuries and overall increasing health problems for nowadays players - leading to earlier burnout - is at least partly due to the fact that we have now lots of slow, grinding hardcourts and almost no grasscourts at all.
Exactly. Success in the junior rankings is how Nick Bollettieri forced the two-hander down the world's throat, to satisfy all those neurotic tennis parents (Jim Pierce anybody?). Instead of waiting until the kid's forearm muscles develop enough to use the one-handed backhand, and have a much more versatile game that lets them come to the net with confidence, "Nick-izing" lets juniors peak earlier, but has hurt the game. A baseline match on grass, now common at Wimbledon, is just ridiculous.
@3:41 roche grabs a beer from the icebox. lol roche's serve and volley game was as smooth as oiled glass. i thought mcenroe and leconte had the best backhand volleys, but this roche was sick!
Even though the technology has changed the game, this is just another swing ( if you'll pardon the pun ) in the ever changing game. The basic strategy: baseline vs serve/volley has constantly swung back & forth. One of the biggest changes in my mind is that although the larger racket heads have allowed the˜ "ping-pong on the court" to happen, it's much harder to volley with the big heads. They are too unpredictable. This has also contributed to the move away from the serve/volley game.
Sorry mate my bad Rockhampton Rocket was his nickname The Hop gave him that nickname to motivate him no doubt to move a bit quicker on the court.I had the great pleasure of working for Mr. Hopman at his Tennis camp at the Bardmoor in Largo Fl.He was one of a kind a coach The equal to Lombardi and Wooden,in their respective sports.I think the total was 17 Davis Cup's in 36 as captain for Australia's Davis cup teams.Oh btw the temp that day was reported at over 125 degrees F.
There were no official rankings before the Open era, because a number of the best players had turned pro (which Laver did in 1963) and were not allowed to play Grand Slam and other amateur events. A few years after the Open era began, practically everyone was a pro and played against each other, thus a ranking system based on players' records was born. References to "consecutive weeks at number one" go back to Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert.
Laver in his prime using the Maxpli would destroy Nadal using a wood racquet. Except for Federer, Laver would also crush just about every current player if wood racquets are used. It is a different game where touch, placement and shot variety are key.
You're right, but not in the way you think. The two-handed backhand REALLY limits you at the net. A lack of wrist flexibility takes away the angled volleys, and makes low volleys almost impossible. Laver himself, and Federer, Evonne Goolagong, Ivan Lendl, Justine Henin, and Sampras would disagree that the one-hander is defensive. With Eastern grip, the one-hander is a powerful weapon. Don't you remember Lendl destroying McEnroe time after time with lethal down-the-line topspin backhands?
Legends. Hopefully tennis will retain its power but go back to this style one day. They just have to modify the court length, or racquet technology or whatever. This is good tennis, and fun to watch not like most of todays. Its like watching PONG.
Being a crap tennis player, I cant say much about the game in general, but this is a lot more fun than wathcing those boring bassline games. Today's game is pretty uninteresting if you ask me, im 19 by the way so its not like these are the words coming from some older generation player.
@BorahSpanish you are clearly not a player but a spectator ( and a sorry one at that if you think serve and volley is boring) because anyone who has ever played tennis especially with a heavy, stiff wooden racket knows how difficult it is to hit volleys with such depth and placement. these guys' strokes were so polished it takes an imbecile not to see this.
You should check - I don't think there was an "official" rankings list in 1969 (the ATP rankings started a few years later). Having official rankings in 1969 would have been beside the point, everyone knew that Laver was number one. As an amateur or pro, he was the best player in the world for most of the Sixties.
you are obviously a younger person who hasnt seen much tennis, especially of the past. Sit down one day and watch a match from the 70's. you'll come around and realize how exciting it was to watch instead of just watching serve point, serve point,etc.
Yeah Laver was totally dominant during his generation but today's players are on a different level. It's not that Laver isn't good, but modern players have gotten soo much better since Laver's time in every aspect of the game. Sure no one today has a grand slam, but Laver would get torn apart by any top 50 player today if he came to net like he did. You're ignorant if you think anybody, not just Laver, could survive today's game by doing old school serve and volley.
Sadly, the racquet technology changed and the surfaces are slower. Today, you have to be EXCEPTIONAL at the net to play at the net often. Players only go to the net today to finish a well constructed point. It's sad, I wish there was more serve and volleyers or at least players going to the net more often,
Today's tennis is more attractive than these 3-sec serve-volley exchanges. And I guess that this vid already shows the best rallies of the match; many times it would be just serve-return-volley-point. Today's tennis is grounded on the baseline, but has all the other elements like volleys, half-volleys etc. in it too; it is faster and more athletic. There was a time ~7 yrs ago when it was almost only power-baselining, but that changed, and a Fed-Nadal match today is more attractive than this.
Nadal and Federer would kill them though, it's just the progression of the game, fitter, better equipment, modern strategy... It's a different game. Laver and Borg would have had to have trained at the same time as Federer and Nadal to be able to oppose them. My two cents.
I personally feel that the modern racquets have wrecked a once beautiful and graceful sport. Tennis made a big mistake getting rid of the wooden racquets. The USTA should have found some "disbarred landscaper" to officially say "Yes, on grass courts, you still have to use a wooden racquet". That would have left them in production and kept the romance in the sport.
I have to disagree. It looks to me like net play is making its overdue comeback. Murray and Djokovic have true flair at the net, and Serena Williams in particular, despite that aberration of the "swinging volley", has never hesitated to come in. Over-cautious "by the book" coaching is more to blame than any thing else. Let's not forget that wretched two-handed backhand.
i guess you havent seen federer play,or the amount of up and coming players whose game now resembles his style yes tennis did go through a patch where it was just about seeing a good powerful fast serve and nothing else,but federer really did change it all again.look at how roddicks game has deteriorated from a few years ago,because everyone can return his serve and they serve almost as good.its not really a weapon at all anymore
I'm sorry to hear that you have such an emotional investment in a tennis groundstroke. The reason you can get more winners serving to a one-handed backhand is that you have less preparation time than with any other shot. The one-hander has to be hit farther in front of your body than any other shot, or "early". The two-hander's minor advantage on service returns doesn't compensate for it's HUGE liability at the net.
I apologize for replying two years after your initial commenting, but I must say that your last sentence is wholeheartedly wrong, at least with Rafa. Most certainly he would defeat Laver with today's modern technology: Laver never used it, and the modern technology (strings) is the sole reason Nadal's balls are so penetrating (as they enable him to get that ridiculous topspin). With wooden rackets, Laver would destroy him, as Nadal's shots wouldn't be anywhere near as good, and Laver is a master
Its not the racquets, its the coaching. Racquets have actually allowed for good hitting. Only problem is, coaches are teaching kids to learn the 2 handed backhand, and use a western grip. Blame the spaniards haha, they modernised tennis with that silly grip
WOAH...There's actually A LOT of topspin going on there, Laver was famous for it. If you see Laver play with a different camera angle you'll see it.
Laver's ball placement is fantastically superior to any current tennis player.
Thanks for the memories. That is little ol' me at 3.30 when I was 11 in '69. I carried Rod Lavers racquets onto the court for him and was a ball boy for the whole match. We got paid 50c a set back in the day but all the ball boys and linesman were replaced after the shower break for the players probably after the 3rd set. I paid another kid my set money to take his place and went back on and stayed the whole 5 sets - the longest match in Oz Open history. Anymore of these special matches from that open so I can gawk at myself again !!
By the way in reference to the camera angle - the old wooden northern stand referred to by the commentators was where the main scoreboard, commentators, international journalists, and cameras were. It was very steep so that's why it looks as though you were on top of the players.
They were special days back then - Margaret Court, Stan Smith & Bob Lutz, Billie Jean & Rosie Casals. I remember carrying Pancho Gonzalez' racquets out for him - seven of the bastards all with his name embossed on the covers, a big job for a little kid !! Best memory was coming off with Billie Jean King when she gave me 40c to buy her and me a drink and we sat down together in the players box and chatted.
A wonderful lady.
The ball hitting is so ridiculously clean!
Without any of the forced spin or pace that the contemporary players try to do,
but with true class, talent, and prestige in what they do.
Outstanding quality for 40+ years ago, 90 game battle, and 100+ degree farenheit heat. Wish this were included: Laver states in his autobiography basically Roche lost it mentally while serving at 3-4 15-30 a very questionable backhand chip return by Laver was called in. Laver then quickly took the break and held for the match. If there had been hawkeye, makes me wonder if Laver would've still pulled off his pro grand slam, because this match was incredibly close and this defeat had to have dented Roche's confidence.
@biliev1 I totally agree with you. All the nostalgic geezers on here saying that if you give rafa or federer a wooden racket, they would get crushed by laver are crazy. With all due respect to Rod Laver as he was the greatest of his era, players today are on a whole new level not just because of racket technology, but because they're bigger, stronger, faster, and because of modern tennis training today.
Buenisimo el video! este es el verdadero tenis, puro toque y volea, hermoso ver esto con sonido y todo! Gracias!
This was one of the greatest match's ever. It is also one of the longest match's in tennis history. The final score was 7-5, 22-20, 9-11, 1-6, 6-3
Of course. Two greats from the yesteryear -- Laver still holds the distinction of being the only man in history to win THE Grand Slam (all for majors in a single calendar year) TWICE in '62 and '69.
Wow!As this video shows Laver was a true all rounder..more so then Federer and Sampras. He totally excels in each facet of the game,serve,return,top spin,forhand,backhand,slice,touch,drop,volleys,footwork,anticipation.
Simply the Best.
The Roehampton Rocket.
George Rodney Laver.
Never will be another like him Great Champion Great Gentleman and if possible an even better human being who has always been very gracious with his time and always has a kind word for everyone.
It's amazing to see how much the players served and volleyed in that time.
fast grass courts and wooden rackets, you had no choice but to play serve and volley i you wanted to win
Thanks for sharing this. We need more videos like this to uncover the myth that tennis in past days was slow and boring. Hard to imagine what those guys would have played with today´s hyper-modern equipment. Laver plays just so smart, reminds of Roger Federer indeed.
that semi was played in scorching sun (40 degrees, first time I saw Laver wearing a hat), people barely showed to watch both players (were afraid of sunstroke) but Laver and Roche didn't complain and had a very competetive encounter, beatiful and smooth netplay, I really enjoy watching it
laver won all four grad slam events this year. greatest player ever
my kids are 6 and 8 and they will watch this video. this is how the game should be played.
The beauty, romance, and finesse of the wooden racquet days. What has happened to my sport. I'm 56 and against people I know I can beat, I still use my wooden Wilson Jack Kramer model, I keep freshly strung.
"Like all of us he likes a little bit of beer when hes finished a long day" hahaha nice
They really enjoyed playing at a top level and had some very very fine points. Especially Laver with his all court agressive game and his slashing forhand and backhand topspin winners out of the run are impressive. They both have a great volley and a great tactical skill to build up points intelligently. As I see it both these men were outstanding tennis players with a very good and competitive Tony Roche who simple could not compete more than a single set aggainst the ultimate game of Laver.
Nobody ever did it better than "the Rocket", ONLY two-time winner of the Grand Slam, AND the Slams were seven years apart, AND he did it playing with a standard size wooden racquet.
Thank you so much for uploading this, I love watching Laver. The quality of the upload is good, and the angle of the original filming is exciting, better perhaps than the typical position just above the court.
Those days 3 out of 4 Grand slams were played on grass.
Laver would have more problems these days, but with wooden racqutts he still would dispose Nadal or Federer with their limited abilities and their even more limited strategic means.
and novak wouldn't even make the top 20
Great tennis by two legends Mercurial Rod laver and equally powerful Tony Roche both left handers
Very true, the new raquets and the modified surfaces have made the game a little sterile. It used to be a huge difference playing on grass than on clay. This is a perfect example of 'proper' grass court tennis. Short points with masterful volleying. Nowadays grass is slower, points are longer and more power based making grass a lot similar to Clay. Makes Borg's accomplishments of winning 6 French and 5 Wimbledons much more incredible.
Fantastic match. I don't think the classic matches should be lauded just because they are old school. The serve and volley, not to mention the tension, was fabulous.
thanks for such a classic post. the pic quality is amazing. you really get a better feel for their games. will serve and volley tennis ever return to this level of entertainment? i'd love to see the pro tour go back to wooden rascquets for at least one tournament.
Laver's returns remind me of Federer, in the way he chips some back and the way he also sometimes decides to put some juice on it, and the way they always go to the right place.
And I'd love to see Rosewall. I think he had the best return ever, or maybe it was Connors. I bet it was a close call between them though.
I wonder what these guys could have done with graphites... Modern players could learn a dozen things from these guys; even Federer could get a tip or 2 to improve his game!
@Thutmosis7 are you kidding me? How are you gonna say Federer who has won the most gs and has a career gs is only #10 in history? Federer has the greatest forehand in history, one of the greatest onehand backhands in history, and a great serve. Plus he isn't living in a cupcake era, players like rafa, and del potro would run circles around laver
there were at least 20 guys as good as fed in that era, the strongest field men's tennis has known
Roche had this best backhand volley maybe of all-time
the standard is surprisingly a lot higher then i expected
Many seem upset therobz98's comments. Settle down -- he's just posturing. He was born in the 90's. His perspective is very young.
Therobz98 -- may I say to you, it is difficult to judge how champions of today, like Federer, would contend against champions like Laver. There are too many variables like new racket tech and training.
But, if Laver would 20 and the playing field used wood on grass cts, Laver would contend.
Research Connor, US OPEN 1991. Connors was 39, yet went to the semis.
I know its amazing to think what they could of done, but I think what we are seeing today is the best. Its just not humanly possible to do some of the things they did with the speed of play today, you have to have great prediction like Federer or the top players. But its a shame that hardly anyone attacks the net like these guys did.
Amazing tennis!! How can do this with wooden rackets? Thank you for posting
This is kind of the Nadal-Verdasco semifinal match of 1969: two top lefties from the same country blast winners for hours. I wonder if Nadal existed in 1969 whether he would be a tennis player - he's such a great athlete he may have found himself playing soccer or something for pay. Although I still think Laver is a better tennis player, I can't see him being really good at anything else. And Roche is all but forgotten, but he was a beast with a backhand chip return that was wondrous.
That's some beautiful tennis.
So different. No topspin, amazing slices.
laver used loads of topspin on both wings
There is a reason for a lot of old pros be saying that the match between Federer and Nadal at the Wimbledon final in 2008 was the greatest match they had ever witnessed...because it realy was...how can you explain two guys playing in the darkness after 4 hours of heat and rain and all the effort and still hitting winners you have never seen to save match points and stuff...
i`m surprised looking this great points..those are true champions for that though era of tennis when the tennis was anonymous sport
Very good point, I think then that Borg and Laver would win. If we could somehow pit them against each other at the peak of their forms with a combination of the old and new rackets and courts... I think everyone in the world would pay to watch that doubles match!!!
thank you DenBroncfan! do you have anymore footage of old school tennis?
I've responded a lot to this thread already, but it's interesting how people always seem fixated on comparing how current champions (like Federer) would contend against past champions (like Sampras or Laver), yet I've never heard a discussion about how Joe DiMaggio would fare against Nolan Ryan. Or if Satchel Paige could throw a strike against Barry Bonds. Why is that?
This is grasscourt tennis as it´s meant to be played. It´s a pity that even at Wimbledon hardly anyone is playing serve & volley in these days. I also assume that the higher risk for injuries and overall increasing health problems for nowadays players - leading to earlier burnout - is at least partly due to the fact that we have now lots of slow, grinding hardcourts and almost no grasscourts at all.
this is tennis at its best
Is Laver's backhand a topspin or a slice? Looks like some weird chimera of both.
Exactly. Success in the junior rankings is how Nick Bollettieri forced the two-hander down the world's throat, to satisfy all those neurotic tennis parents (Jim Pierce anybody?). Instead of waiting until the kid's forearm muscles develop enough to use the one-handed backhand, and have a much more versatile game that lets them come to the net with confidence, "Nick-izing" lets juniors peak earlier, but has hurt the game. A baseline match on grass, now common at Wimbledon, is just ridiculous.
@3:41 roche grabs a beer from the icebox. lol roche's serve and volley game was as smooth as oiled glass. i thought mcenroe and leconte had the best backhand volleys, but this roche was sick!
Even though the technology has changed the game, this is just another swing ( if you'll pardon the pun ) in the ever changing game. The basic strategy: baseline vs serve/volley has constantly swung back & forth. One of the biggest changes in my mind is that although the larger racket heads have allowed the˜ "ping-pong on the court" to happen, it's much harder to volley with the big heads. They are too unpredictable. This has also contributed to the move away from the serve/volley game.
Sorry mate my bad Rockhampton Rocket was his nickname The Hop gave him that nickname to motivate him no doubt to move a bit quicker on the court.I had the great pleasure of working for Mr. Hopman at his Tennis camp at the Bardmoor in Largo Fl.He was one of a kind a coach The equal to Lombardi and Wooden,in their respective sports.I think the total was 17 Davis Cup's in 36 as captain for Australia's Davis cup teams.Oh btw the temp that day was reported at over 125 degrees F.
There were no official rankings before the Open era, because a number of the best players had turned pro (which Laver did in 1963) and were not allowed to play Grand Slam and other amateur events. A few years after the Open era began, practically everyone was a pro and played against each other, thus a ranking system based on players' records was born. References to "consecutive weeks at number one" go back to Jimmy Connors and Chris Evert.
Laver in his prime using the Maxpli would destroy Nadal using a wood racquet. Except for Federer, Laver would also crush just about every current player if wood racquets are used. It is a different game where touch, placement and shot variety are key.
You're right, but not in the way you think. The two-handed backhand REALLY limits you at the net. A lack of wrist flexibility takes away the angled volleys, and makes low volleys almost impossible.
Laver himself, and Federer, Evonne Goolagong, Ivan Lendl, Justine Henin, and Sampras would disagree that the one-hander is defensive. With Eastern grip, the one-hander is a powerful weapon. Don't you remember Lendl destroying McEnroe time after time with lethal down-the-line topspin backhands?
Legends. Hopefully tennis will retain its power but go back to this style one day. They just have to modify the court length, or racquet technology or whatever. This is good tennis, and fun to watch not like most of todays. Its like watching PONG.
WHOOOOOOOOOOO old school tennis
I find they come up to the net alot after they serve
is this a grass court?
laver was 30 years old in 1969; he seems older, like 50 years of age..ridiculous hat!!!
Being a crap tennis player, I cant say much about the game in general, but this is a lot more fun than wathcing those boring bassline games. Today's game is pretty uninteresting if you ask me, im 19 by the way so its not like these are the words coming from some older generation player.
which player is which???
@BorahSpanish you are clearly not a player but a spectator ( and a sorry one at that if you think serve and volley is boring) because anyone who has ever played tennis especially with a heavy, stiff wooden racket knows how difficult it is to hit volleys with such depth and placement. these guys' strokes were so polished it takes an imbecile not to see this.
The one with the hat on is Laver.
You should check - I don't think there was an "official" rankings list in 1969 (the ATP rankings started a few years later). Having official rankings in 1969 would have been beside the point, everyone knew that Laver was number one. As an amateur or pro, he was the best player in the world for most of the Sixties.
federer play in the baseline , laver and rosewall played in the net
extraordinary!
you are obviously a younger person who hasnt seen much tennis, especially of the past. Sit down one day and watch a match from the 70's. you'll come around and realize how exciting it was to watch instead of just watching serve point, serve point,etc.
its like watching super tennis for nintendo
Laver is 30 here and Roche 23, so perhaps Laver was just past his prime and Roche was just entering his own.
Laver is still alive, you can ask him!
Yeah Laver was totally dominant during his generation but today's players are on a different level. It's not that Laver isn't good, but modern players have gotten soo much better since Laver's time in every aspect of the game. Sure no one today has a grand slam, but Laver would get torn apart by any top 50 player today if he came to net like he did. You're ignorant if you think anybody, not just Laver, could survive today's game by doing old school serve and volley.
Sadly, the racquet technology changed and the surfaces are slower. Today, you have to be EXCEPTIONAL at the net to play at the net often. Players only go to the net today to finish a well constructed point. It's sad, I wish there was more serve and volleyers or at least players going to the net more often,
@rm1725 True.
Rosewall spent his 30 year career using backspin backhands.
see this is the beauty of tennis nice Serve and Volley not baseline exchange
Today's tennis is more attractive than these 3-sec serve-volley exchanges. And I guess that this vid already shows the best rallies of the match; many times it would be just serve-return-volley-point. Today's tennis is grounded on the baseline, but has all the other elements like volleys, half-volleys etc. in it too; it is faster and more athletic. There was a time ~7 yrs ago when it was almost only power-baselining, but that changed, and a Fed-Nadal match today is more attractive than this.
Nadal and Federer would kill them though, it's just the progression of the game, fitter, better equipment, modern strategy... It's a different game. Laver and Borg would have had to have trained at the same time as Federer and Nadal to be able to oppose them. My two cents.
Slow camera?
In those days these guys was going very slowly
I personally feel that the modern racquets have wrecked a once beautiful and graceful sport. Tennis made a big mistake getting rid of the wooden racquets. The USTA should have found some "disbarred landscaper" to officially say "Yes, on grass courts, you still have to use a wooden racquet". That would have left them in production and kept the romance in the sport.
rod laver is the best
you say that because the unics good french players was jean borotra henri cochet and rene lacoste
in the past the drive and the backhand was not perfect but the volleys yes.
It's all relative though, give Federer and Nadal wooden rackets and put them on this fast playing grass.
novak would've really struggled
i agree
its like putting a 100 meter sprinter from the 60's against someone like tyson gay
If the modern game didn't require touch and imagination, explain Federer.
And explain why Roddick, with a 150mph serve, isn't #1.
well he does play like laver though. And looks like him too
because the serve was very goods
I agree
if you put laver in his prime with a mid size racket and play against maybe nadal. laver might even win.
I have to disagree. It looks to me like net play is making its overdue comeback. Murray and Djokovic have true flair at the net, and Serena Williams in particular, despite that aberration of the "swinging volley", has never hesitated to come in. Over-cautious "by the book" coaching is more to blame than any thing else. Let's not forget that wretched two-handed backhand.
hahaha pre tiebreak era...pretty funny to hear '21 games to 20'
this tennis is so much fun to watch. Today's is almost like watching Pong (beep..boop....beep....boop EH EH!)
i guess you havent seen federer play,or the amount of up and coming players whose game now resembles his style
yes tennis did go through a patch where it was just about seeing a good powerful fast serve and nothing else,but federer really did change it all again.look at how roddicks game has deteriorated from a few years ago,because everyone can return his serve and they serve almost as good.its not really a weapon at all anymore
I'm sorry to hear that you have such an emotional investment in a tennis groundstroke. The reason you can get more winners serving to a one-handed backhand is that you have less preparation time than with any other shot. The one-hander has to be hit farther in front of your body than any other shot, or "early". The two-hander's minor advantage on service returns doesn't compensate for it's HUGE liability at the net.
I'd empty my bank account for seats at that match!
yes, If Nadal existed back in 1969 he wouldn't win the Australian Open!! (I LOVE ROGER FEDERER_
I apologize for replying two years after your initial commenting, but I must say that your last sentence is wholeheartedly wrong, at least with Rafa. Most certainly he would defeat Laver with today's modern technology: Laver never used it, and the modern technology (strings) is the sole reason Nadal's balls are so penetrating (as they enable him to get that ridiculous topspin). With wooden rackets, Laver would destroy him, as Nadal's shots wouldn't be anywhere near as good, and Laver is a master
Its not the racquets, its the coaching. Racquets have actually allowed for good hitting. Only problem is, coaches are teaching kids to learn the 2 handed backhand, and use a western grip. Blame the spaniards haha, they modernised tennis with that silly grip
@Fernandez218 Cuz he is playing in a cup cake era.
not with wooden racquets for sure
@drwood04 Not true.
1:31
fun.
*four
Rodick has got bad tecnique. Especially forehand.
Great athlete.