Tag: roy emerson

  • Open Era Generations, Part Three: Gen 1 (1934-38) – Dominance from Down Under

    Open Era Generations, Part Three: Gen 1 (1934-38) – Dominance from Down Under

    11861575603_154b1987a0_o

    The Great Australians

    The generation of players born between 1934 and 1938 was, in a way, more accurately the last generation before the Open Era as it peaked in the 1960s. Yet it was also the generation that was “in power” when the Open Era began, so I am considering it the first of the Open Era.

    When the Open Era began in 1968, the youngest players of this generation were turning 30 years old. The generation still dominated for the first few years, winning six of the first seven Slams (two to Rosewall, four to Laver) through 1969, but then the decline really started with the new decade in 1970. While Laver remained a strong player for several more years (top 10 through 1975),  he never won another Slam. Rosewall won three more, one in each year during 1970-72, and was in or near the top 10 through 1977, which he finished at #12 at the ripe age of 43, but clearly the baton had been passed in the 70s.

    This first generation was dominated by the Australians, with 66 of the 76 Slams won by the men from Down Under. In tennis history the late 50s and 60s is possibly the greatest period of dominance by a country, perhaps only revivaled by the last and greatest period of American dominance in the 1990s.

    Best Players by Birth Year (with Slam total):
    1934: Ken Rosewall 23 (AUS), Lew Hoad 5 (AUS)
    1935: Mal Anderson 2 (AUS)
    1936: Roy Emerson 12 (AUS), Ashley Cooper 4 (AUS), Alex Olmedo 3 (USA)
    1937: Andres Gimeno 1 (ESP)
    1938: Rod Laver 19 (AUS), Manuel Santana 4 (ESP), Fred Stolle 2 (AUS), Rafael Osuna 1 (MEX)

    Total Slams: 76 (best of the 13 Gens and all-time), including 50 Grand Slams and 26 Pro Slams.

    File:Hoad Rosewall Wimbledon.jpg

    Lew Hoad and Ken Rosewall playing doubles at the Wimbledon Championships in 1954 or 1955. (courtesy Wikimedia Commons: State Library of Victoria).

    Discussion
    It would be hard to argue that this is not the “GGOAT” – greatest generation of all time, in 139 years of tennis history from 1877 to 2015. Rosewall and Laver alone would make it a contender with any generation, but adding in Hoad, Emerson, not to mention Santana, Cooper, Stolle and Olmedo, and it is head and shoulders above every other generation in terms of Slam count. Of course part of this is due to the “doubling up” of Amateur and Pro Slams during the 50s and 60s, but regardless, 76 majors is a lot –  more than double that of any generation of the Open Era.

    Rosewall and Laver are on the very short list of greatest players. Laver had a higher peak, being the dominant player of the 1960s, bookended by Calendar Slams in 1962 (as an Amateur) and 1969 (the first full year of the Open Era), but Rosewall had greater longevity, with an incredible span of 20 years between his first Slam title in 1953 and his last in 1972 – four years longer than the second longest record of Bill Tilden’s sixteen years (1920-35), twice that of contemporary Rod Laver’s ten years (1960-69) and far more than the longest of the Open Era, Pete Sampras’ thirteen years (1990-2002). To put it another way, Rosewall’s first Slam title came seven years before Laver’s first, and his last came three years after Laver’s last. During those 20 years he won 23 majors in all, eclipsing Laver’s 19. Yet at their best, Laver was more dominant, not only over Rosewall but the rest of the sport. Laver won a record 200 titles, well surpassing Rosewall’s 133.

    Roy Emerson is both over and under-rated, depending upon who you ask. All 12 of his Slam titles came before the Open Era, and most when the best players in the sport—including his contemporaries Rosewall and Laver—were on the pro tour. Yet Emerson held his own against the young Laver, and still dominated the amateur tour for a few years. Yet in terms of career greatness he is perhaps more comparable to players with half his Slam count.

    Underachievers and Forgotten Players
    Many who saw Lew Hoad play, or played against him, claim that he is the most talented player in tennis history. For instance, Pancho Gonzales claimed that Hoad’s “game was the best game ever. Better than mine. He was capable of making more shots than anybody. His two volleys were great. His overhead was enormous. He had the most natural tennis mind with the most natural tennis physique.” Gonzales also said that Hoad “was the only guy who, if I was playing my best tennis, could still beat me.”[1]

    Hoad was plagued by injury and, according to Jack Kramer, laziness and lack of interest [1]. Kramer also claimed that despite the mystique around Hoad, saying “when you sum Hoad up, you have to say that he was overrated. He might have been the best, but day-to-day, week-to-week, he was the most inconsistent of all the top players” [1]. In other words, if we read between the lines a bit, it would seem that while Hoad was one of the most talented players of his generation, with his best level being as good or better than anyone, he did not have the consistency and focus to make him a truly great player, which is why he is less remembered than players with higher Slam counts.

    While a career that included five Slams can hardly be considered disappointing, we can easily see a player in Hoad that was as talented as his more successful contemporaries in Gonzales, Rosewall and Laver, yet without the career achievements.

    Did You Know?:  Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall played each other 144 times in all, including 46 times in 1963. Laver won the head-to-head 80-64. Rosewall led 34-12 their first year of playing each other in 1963, with Laver dominating most years after. However, Rosewall won their last two matches in 1976. For some of the only available footage of this great rivalry, check out this video here.

    File:Rod Laver 1976.jpg

    Rod Laver at the 1976 ABN World Tennis Tournament in Rotterdam (courtesy Wikimedia Commons: Rob Bogaerts, Nationaal Archief Fotocollectie Anefo)

    Top Ten Players of Generation One

    1. Rod Laver (AUS)
    2. Ken Rosewall (AUS)
    3. Lew Hoad (AUS)
    4. Roy Emerson (AUS)
    5. Manuel Santana (ESP)
    6. Ashley Cooper (AUS)
    7. Alex Olmedo (USA)
    8. Fred Stolle (AUS)
    9. Mal Anderson (AUS)
    10. Andres Gimeno (MEX)

    Honorable Mention: Rafael Osuna (Mex).

    Due to limited records it is difficult to give accurate rankings before the Open Era. But it is relatively easy to see the above players in groups. The first group is comprised of Laver and Rosewall; the two are very close, with Rosewall having superior longevity but Laver having a higher peak. Actually, Rosewall—along with Pancho Gonzales–is perhaps the least mentioned inner circle great, but by any reasonable way of accounting he is certainingly one of the five or so greatest players of all time – this despite the Tennis Channel’s egregious ranking of him as only the 13th greatest male tennis player of all time in their “100 Greatest of All Time” in 2012, behind the likes of Roy Emerson and Andre Agassi, among others [2].

    The next group is another pair, Hoad and Emerson. Many would rank Emerson over Hoad, but Hoad was a much better player. Then we have another pair, “Manolo” Santana and Ashley Cooper, both with four amateur Slams, both very strong players but not the very best of the generation, the Andy Murrays and Guillermo Vilases of their time.

    The final group includes Olmedo, Stolle, Anderson and Gimeno. Olmedo has the edge in Slam totals with three, Stolle and Anderson with two each, and Gimeno with only one – that one being the 1972 French Open which he won at 34 years of age. Actually, Gimeno is the only player other than Rosewall who who won a Slam after the age of 32 during the Open Era. Anderson had a long and storied career. He won only two Slams – the 1957 US Open and the 1959 Wembley Pro, but made a Slam final as late as 1972 at age 36, losing to the 37-year old Ken Rosewall in the Australian Open.

    Regardless of the exact ranking, it is a very strong group – dominating tennis from the late 50s into the 70s, perhaps partially due to the weakness of the following generation, which we will look at in the next installment.

    Works Cited:
    [1] Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Hoad
    [2] http://admin.tennischannel.com/goat/71.aspx

    [divider]

    Cover Photo (Creative Commons License): State Library Victoria Collections

    Hoad/Rosewall and Rod Laver photos: Wikimedia Commons

  • Roger Federer’s Yesterdays and Tomorrows – A Champion’s Fate

    Roger Federer’s Yesterdays and Tomorrows – A Champion’s Fate

    Roger Federer has achieved so much in his career it boggles the mind. He holds or shares hundreds of records, achievements, and awards in tennis. Led by his record 17 Major titles in the Grand Slam arena, and over 300 weeks ranked the No. 1 player in the world, one wonders what is left for him to do in the future? What is his motivation to continue? He has said he loves the sport, so one might think he will play as long as he is physically able to play, within the limits of his family priorities, and as long as he is happy playing.

    [divider]

    Discuss this article with fellow tennis fans in the tennis forums

    [divider]

    I would not be surprised to see Roger play more doubles as he ages.  I think it benefits and compliments his particular game. There is much more precision required in doubles, including serving and returns.  If played correctly, it obviously helps one’s net play and confidence at the net. Quick thinking tactics and execution are extremely important to set up a winner. Quick footwork and agility are more at a premium in doubles than pure side-to-side movement.

    Overall, I think some more doubles play would help him accentuate his strengths and improve some of his weaknesses.

    Doubles obviously doesn’t require nor would it help much with fitness or endurance, but Federer’s game was never really based on that, and at this stage in his career, I don’t see that changing.  He doesn’t have to change his game to a grinding style and constantly rally for 15+ shots as that isn’t his strength. My guess is that he will work on as many of his strengths as his health allows. These strengths are what set him apart and made him the competitor he is.

    First, he can work on his serve. According to the ATP’s Match Facts statistics, as recently as 2012, he won 91% of his service games, third highest on the tour, while playing 80 matches. (Raonic was first with 93%, and Isner second with 92% but playing fewer matches — 62 and 60, respectively.)  Federer’s 91% last year was higher than his career average of 88%, and the second highest in his career (92% in 2004).  This year, Federer has won 88% of his service games. Yes, it is his career average, but I think it needs to be higher to have an edge these days.  And if one looks inside the numbers, the biggest difference is his second serve winning percentage. Last year, he topped all players on tour with an excellent 60% of second serves won.  (Nadal was second with 57%.)  So far this year, Federer has dropped to 56% (his career avg.-2nd), while Nadal is second with 57% (his career avg.- 1st) and Djokovic leads with 59% (career avg. 55%-6th).  Interestingly, Murray and Berdych are 26th and 27th with only 52% (also their career avg.).  These percentage differences may look small, but the differences are small among the top players and any edge is vital.  Finally, serving well gives Federer confidence in the rest of his game. Confidence is obviously important.

    Second, Federer undoubtedly realizes that he needs to focus on the key points more. His break points converted (39%) and break points saved (65%) this year have both dipped. Last year, they were 42% and 69%. Career wise, he has averaged 41% and 67%.

    Curiously, his return statistics this year are about the same as last year and for his career, maybe even very slightly better.

    Federer does have to have enough fortitude to have the patience when required to set up a point and then go for the clean winner when there is an opening.  But even then, his tactics and execution have to improve from some of the play he has recently exhibited.  He can’t set up the point perfectly, and then hit right back to the opponent instead of the open court.  The “hit behind the player” tactic should be used more sparingly to surprise a player. He also can’t bungle shots when he has the opponent at his mercy.  He did this kind of thing against Robredo, and it cost him the match as he admittedly self-destructed.

    Despite that result, I don’t think he is far off the mark; just more inconsistent and a bit below normal. Perhaps that can partially be explained by his not playing as much this year.  His back appears to have bothered him more during the year.  He also announced that this would be a transition year (whatever that means), so perhaps some of this is self-imposed.

    Will Roger Federer turn it around in 2014?  Only time will tell.  One day, no one can say for sure when, he won’t be able to play at a high enough level to win big tournaments or remain near the top.  Some believe it has already happened this year, and perhaps it has, but only history will tell us for sure.  I, for one, believe it’s pretty unreasonable to say that “he is finished” less than a year after he was No. 1 in the world. After all, people have been predicting his imminent demise since 2008 when he “only” won one Major and again in 2011, when he hadn’t won a Major since the 2010 Australian Open, and look what happened in 2012.  Though he could win anywhere with some fortune, one would think that the Wimbledon lawn is his best chance to win another Major. The competitive ability on it is more sparse, the surface suits his game, especially if it is not too sun-baked and high bouncing, and he is co-record holder along with Pete Sampras with seven winner’s trophies.

    Still, he is 32 years old and has some high mileage, fifth (only 21 matches short of Agassi) in the Open Era in matches played, and what is certain is that nobody plays men’s singles on this tour forever.

    But even when Roger Federer can no longer reach the highest levels consistently, what is wrong with Roger playing on for the love of the game?  Unfortunately, I believe that there are too many these days that cannot accept or appreciate performances that don’t continuously match or exceed a player’s best.  Media, fans, and even the tour promoters alike seem only too eager to look at the most recent results – in a “what have you done lately” syndrome – and bury champions that still have exciting moments to give to the sport. In this writer’s eyes that is just plain wrong.

    One mustn’t forget that some of the great players in the game have risen to the heights on occasion, even in the dimming twilight of their careers.

    In my fading memories, I still recall a nervous almost 42-year-old Richard “Pancho” Gonzalez beating 1969 Grand Slam Champion Laver in a winner-take-all best-of-five set match in 1970 at Madison Square Garden.  Gonzalez said that night he was always frightened of playing there, because it was frightening to think he might play a bad match at MSG.

    Gonzalez taping his fingers before Laver MSG match

    I recall 36-year-old Ken Rosewall winning the 1971 Australian Open against a strong field (he would win again at 37, but against a very depleted field), beating Emerson in the quarterfinals, Okker in the semifinals, and Ashe in straight sets in the final.  At 41 and 42, in 1976 and 1977, Rosewall would make it to the semifinals in Australia.

    1971 Australian Open Final – Rosewall beats Arthur Ashe

    And who can forget 39-year-old Jimmy Connors’s run in the 1991 US Open coming from two sets to one down to beat Aaron Krickstein in the deciding set tiebreaker in the fourth round, then playing Paul Haarhuis at night in the quarterfinals, and whipping the crowd into a frenzy behind some incredible defending to break Haarhuis serving for a 2-0 lead, to tie the set, and eventually win the match in four sets. He finally succumbed to Jim Courier in the semifinal, but it was a most memorable run.

    1991 US Open – Amazing point where Connors breaks Haarhuis in the second set to begin comeback

    Enjoy them all while you still can. Like our children, they learn, they play, they struggle, they succeed to our delight much more than they fail to our sorrow, and finally they get older and leave our admiring gaze.  ‘Tis ever a champion’s fate.

    Credits: Cover Photo: anonlinegreenworld (Creative Commons License)