Newcombe

Roscoe Tanner. Connors beat him badly.

It's a Yonex racket.

@@Tyronepeader, thank you!

Yeah Imagine a flat tube of bent into a racket shape ,the two ends going apart into the handle , metal rings going round the frame heads circumference 'strings looped through them. Connors used a Wilson version and made the type of racket famous... Ashe was using a ''boron flex' 'The sales pitch that material was the same used for 'Space satellites... Don't forget Bjorn Borg carried out his successes using a 'wooden racquet!

What does this have to do with Rosewall v Richey?

I think you are confusing two years. That was the 1978 final, three years later. Riordan bet on Borg to win in straight sets, which he did. Connors had appeared to be on the top of his game all through the 1975 tournament, most of which I saw in London.

@@davidkaiser It is in his book, 75 final Riodan bet against Connors

@@davidkaiser Jimmy is a good man lives near me I spoke to him Never an excuse If I was his coach I would have pulled him out 75 77 Wimbledon would never have had a final..

Whose book? @@kingarthurusatenniscoach1415

I believe that he is, yes. Laver also used them briefly around this time but didn't like them--they broke.

@@davidkaiser Thanks! The bolts in the Chemold throat piece would become loose!

On grass? Really? and these pros spent most of their time on stretched canvas. At least as fast.

I thought they changed the rules, but there was never any rule about the size of the racket head. It's just that the wooden tennis racket couldn't get any bigger due to the limitations of the material. Then along come metal rackets, and it's a piece of cake to make one with twice the hitting area of the wooden racket, and string tension could be higher, and now baseline tennis makes much more sense. Players could generate so much power standing on the baseline that coming in to the net to volley the ball was suddenly far more risky than before, you had to be certain that your opponent was in difficulties because of your approach shot otherwise the winner would fizz past you.

I don't find it hard, or at least I don't find it the hardest shot. FH volley is hard for me, and Ken was a master of that too. Kramer didn't say 'easy', he said 'relatively easy'. Mostly because of Ken's foot speed.

Yes it was, although they didn't have the speed of today's game they made up for it with massive rallies and deadly accuracy down the lines.

You say that as though boxing itself doesn’t require strategy and finesse.

I hope you have caught the 1970 US Open final with Roche which I posted myself.

That was quite a championship match, 54 years young.

He made the final in 1968 but lost badly to Laver. He was a semifinalist in 1969 also.

yes thats riight, and from wqhat i recall he also had a bad elbow? tennis elbow? @@davidkaiser

You are mistaken if you believe Kenny Rosewall only had a "slice". His backhand was extremely versatile and he could hit it any way he wanted. Mostly with underspin, but it was not a defensive slice but a very flat and pentrating shot.

@TheMightySandow We mostly agree, however no where did I say it was "defensive".

Rosewall v Laver in the WCT final of 1972 is a match to watch that displays the talents of Rosewall far better. Regrettably, Rosewall's best years were in the pro ranks, and very little TV coverage exists of those years.

How would Nadal go on those old grass courts?!

@@Ronnie-k6mNadal probably wouldn’t have learned to play the way he does now had the courts of his childhood been grass courts though 😅

Yup, I remember them in the early 80s.