the playing quality is 2nd to none! how fast them courts were! Novaxx and Nadal would not stand a chance on that low bouncing surface! Lavers quality was so far ahead of then
For those wondering what the helicopter was doing at the start - they brought it in to try and dry out the court a bit. The weather that year had been terrible, and it had left the courts saturated.
I cannot effin believe I have stumbled upon prime Laver v Roche with Laver going for the calendar slam and in such glorious video quality. Sometimes TH-cam is truly a miracle, fulfilling the greatest potential of the information superhighway, thank you, Al Gore! The court was so slick and muddy Laver wore spiked shoes. Affected his serve because he couldn't drag his back foot, but it helped his movement elsewhere. Tony wore regular shoes and as the court got slicker and muddier from light rain and wear the advantage went to Laver. It's like Formula 1, slicks or wets, LOL.
Most athletes are still done by 30. While modern physiology has greatly improved, professional athletics still takes toll on the body. Federer, Nadal, Djokovich are exceptions to the rule. Although Carlos Alcarez just won the French, the 21-year-old is already battling injury and I think we will see on the men’s side what we see on the women’s, a churn of number ones.
Almost 55 years on, and no other male singles player has achieved a calendar-year "Grand Slam" since. I wonder if anyone in attendance here realized how special this man and his achievements this year (and seven years prior) were and are still.
@@DreamWatcher-h1j Honestly, Laver's aggressive game style was well suited for hard courts; no doubt he would beat anyone on that surface as well. Remember during the pro era, many matches were played on indoor wood surfaces, which is much faster than hard courts, and Laver won them easily.
In the early 2000s, I had a chance to walk into this stadium where Laver won the last match of a men's GS. I was so sad that the stadium was in such a dilapidated condition; looks like it's been neglected for years. I heard that recently the West Side Tennis Club has renovated it and use it for music events.
@@BangNguyen-ux4ie You're absolutely right; even the qualifying rounds for Wimbledon were played on wooden courts. So yes, I think that Rod's game was suited for (faster) hard-surfaced courts as well as grass.
This is something else, I've been looking to watch this final for years. I hope you could post the whole tennis match. Afterall , it was Rod Laver 2nd " Mayor " Grand Slam and the first one in the Open Era. Congratulations and all the best to the U.S.T.A. Thanks a lot.
The pace of play is wonderfully brisk. No “drama,” no long delays after every point, no endless ball bouncing before serving, no having the ball tossed to you by a ball boy or girl because you missed your first serve and can’t find a way to put a second ball in your pocket. They just got on with it. I miss the old days.
I'm a big fan of the "old days" too but I think the disparity in athleticism now vs then in Tennis is even more stark than it is than even Basketball and hockey. I believe a top woman now with modern equipment (guys have the old stuff) could give these guys a run for their money.
Laver's phenomenal career win-loss record and being the only person to win the Grand Slam twice ordinarily would mark him as the greatest exponent of the singles game, but a ban imposed for turning pro messed up the stats. You can only imagine how many of the 20 majors he was not allowed to contest that he would have won to add to his undisputed 11, but you only have to look at the 8 major titles he won from the 14(!) finals he reached of the 15 replacements that were available on the pro tour during the ban to get a hint. He was at the height of his powers after winning the Grand Slam in 1962, then came back and did it again just to underscore his greatness, and he never once threatened to shove a ball down a linesperson's throat in the process.
Gonzalez and Rosewall were hurt much more than Laver from the pro ban. You said that Laver was at his peak in 1962.Well in 1963 when he turned pro he was only the 4th best pro behind Rosewall Hoad and 35 year old Gonzalez. Lakers last slam and final is what you are watching now when Laver just turned 31. Rosewall reached 8 finals and won 4 of them after the age of 33.
Have look at Hoad's record against Laver. After he had won the slam in 62, Hoad beat him 13 times straight, and Hoad at that time would have been carrying a back injury the would ended his career.
Here's my 2 cents on the debate about Laver winning more Slams if there had been no professional ban. Of course he would have won more Slams, and so would Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales. But if we're talking about the Grand Slam (all 4 in same calendar year), he would NOT have won the 1962 GS because he would have been eaten alive my those other pros. Same in 1963 through 1966. Not until 1967 when he started to dominate the field. This is based on examining the pro slam records (Wembly Pro, French Pro, US Pro championships). So I would say, at best, Laver could have won the GS in 1967, 1968, and 1969 (which he did).
While Laver's record in the pre-Open pro circuit is pretty impressive, it's important to remember that he was playing significantly fewer matches to win or reach the finals in those events, only needing three or four wins at most to reach a final/title. With that plus the merged competition from the amateur circuit he would have had his work cut out for him, but it seems pretty certain that he'd have a similar slam count to the big three
Thank you sir, definitely will be looking forward to this! The main Rod Laver full match in solid quality I would love to watch the most is against Bjorn Borg in 1975 WCT Finals :)
These guys waste no time between points. No going to the towel. No long walks. No bouncing the ball multiple times before serving. Very easy to watch this match!
Yeah, what a pleasure. The only one today who still plays reasonably fast is Federer. The infinite bouncing by Nadal and Novak is unbearable. The same is true in baseball. I'm a Met fan and am obviously crazy about the incomparable Jacob deGrom, but the waiting 15 seconds before every pitch drives me nuts.
Maybe because the intensity is amateur level? Don't get me wrong I respect tbe effort, but you cannot compare the tennis back then to 5 hour thriller GS matches of today's game
After watching Laver relentlessly serve and volley on first and second serves with a wooden racket, I wonder. After watching him move forward and take those forehands early, I wonder. After watching Laver hit amazing backhands like it was taking a drink of water, I no longer wonder. I suspect Rod Laver, all things considered, is The G.O.A.T. More net action in todays tennis would bring a higher level. An all court player looking to move forward gets the Grail. Federer reminds me of Laver in some ways.
Borg also played using wooden racket, but in much higher level. This is semi amateur era, nothing special at all. It is interesting to see how it all started tho.
@@dzonibravo7867 Even if this was at the start of the Open era it was not semi-amateur at all, the best players were among the best the sport has ever seen. Borg was not a revolutionary Improvement, he would have found both surface and weather here challenging. What Borg did was usher in, along with Connors, the era of battling from the baseline instead of serve and volleying. Once the rackets became what they are now it became very difficult to win by rushing the net all the time as we see here, the groundstrokes became too powerful to play that way.
Today´s top players would have great difficulty in handling the small racket heads used by Laver and his generation. It has to be remembered that the smaller the racket head is, the harder it is to hit the ball in the centre. It´s unbelievable the power and accuracy of their shots. Without a doubt if Laver and Roche were playing today with modern equipment and all the other advantages today´s players have, they would still be at the very top of the game and Laver would also win the ´Grand Slam´ in a single year, that he won twice, and to this day is still the only player to achieve this incredible feat.
Both Laver and Roche would have trouble handling the kick serve. They are a bit short. Have you seen a tennis player very successful shorter than 6 feet? Besides, their serve and volley tactics would be a total disaster in modern-day tennis. Also, my personal observation is that the great players such as Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Lendl, Borg, Edberg, or Djokovic are almost the same size. They are like clones.
TonyRoche plays through Fed... he has been his trainer... therefore these ifs and buts dont hold much water...each period has its stars... and its also true that a lot of people took to watching tennis after RafaNadal arrived en scene and after the rafa-roger rivalry set in...
@@benthekeeshond545 "Have you seen a tennis player very successful shorter than 6 feet? " Off the top of my head, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg. And the kick serve is only a problem if you don't catch it on the rise.
lol, it took Rublev and Dimitrov like 5 minutes to get used to old racquets and play higher quality tennis than ever before with them in a video not posted too long ago. A ridiculous argument only used to try and prop up players of that era.
Thank you for this fantastic share. A real treat for us tennis history buffs. Could I ask you to check if you can track down a copy of the Borg-Tanner quarterfinal from the 1980 US Open? That was a terrific match and I'd love to see it on your channel.
Yes, the human element was still there: human hands changed the scorecard, cleaned the dishes, gently clapped at the appropriate times. The lush, rich grass was unkempt, the clean white shorts fit improperly and the mood across the arena was respectfully calm and serene. The players didn’t grunt like animals and the wood racquets limited the shots pace to a pace akin to points made from opposite sides of a scholarly debate. Compare that to today: Hawkeye, graphite and 3D graphics; garish outfits, temper tantrums and grunting. This era is over not only for tennis but (regrettably) also for humanity itself. Ask yourself why and you will feel a deep sense of remorse and sadness.
@@joeschmoe8264 I think you're going a little far there. The outfits are also part of the personality and taste of the player, and grunts make the match intense when not abused of. But in terms of playstyle, it's true that tennis is too much uniformed and one dimensional nowadays. Partly because of the evolution of rackets and slowing down of surfaces.
Love this! The event was so less polished back then. Laver was flicking divots out of the way on the baseline at the start! The odd multicourt layout, the nylon webbing lawn chairs in the first few rows of the stands, the ball boy just kind of standing there waiting to fetch a ball, the wrinkled green tarps around the edge of the stands... and so many more. How about Lavers spiked shoes, the way they had to keep one foot on the ground when serving, and no tiebreaks? Laver was 31 and Roche was 24??? They both look like they're in their late 40's! So different than today. I have great appreciation for the way things were done back then!
pure class, no screaming, no shouting, no ball bashing, no hitting anyone in the throat!! yet at the end of the day, the prize is still the same, the skill then no lesser than todays, in fact some players then had so much more skill than some of todays ball bashers. Laver, Nastase etc
Many talk about Federer being the most elegant player of all time. Those people clearly have forgotten the games of Laver, Newcombe, McEnroe, Sampras, etc. Roger is lovely to watch...but he stole his game from Pete...who stole his game from the guys who came before him. Lets enjoy them all....
Federer is kind of the epitome of that style, while adding great athletic abilities and making the game evolve. He was able to play any shot at a tremendous level in his youth, and doing it with pure class. I think that's why many consider him the goat. But it's also true that when we look at his models and idols, we find Edgerb and ofc the great Sampras, whose inspiration was... Rod laver. So in a way, it's also fair to say that Laver is the goat.
Like the terrific one-handed backhands. You see these guys play and you kind of wonder why anyone would use a two-hander. And the both have great overheads, especially Laver who wasn’t tall.
Interesting you can see at the end what a self effacing type of person Laver is. Zero ego, he seems almost embarrassed to be receiving the winners rewards, for him it's just the love of the game and competing at the highest level. Still like that today from what you see in interviews. Enormous achievement, you can see why he was idolised by the top players who came after him and still to this day by those at the top.
look at the state of that pitch! like the English football league of the time.....and gee, no one is screaming or cursing or acting out...they actually seem like adults...
Laver was 31 years old here. This was OLD for a tennis player back then. Not so much nowadays (2024), but retirement age up until 2000 ish. To win the calendar year Grand Slam at 31 is legendary. Seeing old videos of how he played into his late 30s is insane. No wonder he's in the conversation for THEEEEE GOAT. My GOAT list: Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Connors (an argument for each). My Top 20: 1. Djokovic (and he's a long way from my favorite player. But it's hard to argue with numbers & results, unless you're a politician ;-) 2. Federer 3. Nadal 4. Laver 5. Sampras 6. Borg 7. Connors 8. McEnroe 9. Lendl 10. Agassi 11. Elsworth Vines 12. Rosewall 13. Wilander 14. Becker 15. Edberg 16. Hoad 17. Newcombe 18. Lleyton Hewitt 19. Vilas 20. Courier On their Best Day (most talented: 1. Federer 2. McEnroe 3. Pancho Gonzalez 4. Lew Hoad 5. Elsworth Vines 6. Laver 7. Sampras 8. Ashe 9. Ivanisevic 10. Del Potro
I honestly think yout list is lacking as you have players in your top 20 who I would call 3rd level players and you excluded top shelf players completely. For example you have Lleyton Hewitt on your list, who was certainly a fine player but not nearly as great as Frank Sedgman another Australian, and there were other Australians as well such as Crawford who were greater than Lleyton. You have one pre war player on your list which means you have excluded legends. Don Budge won the first calender Grand Slam and still holds the record for 6 slams in a row. You have excluded Bill Tilden, the first superstar of the sport whi could still beat anybody in his 40s and you have Pancho on one list but not your top 20 list. Here is my list of 13 in Alphabetical order because I dont helieve in comparing eras. Borg..Budge..Cochet..Djokovic..Federer..Gonzalez..Laver..Nadal..Perry..Rosewall..Sampras..Bill Tilden. Vines. The Pro.Amateur divide and WW2 make it if course difficult to make this list.
@@Marc-rf9ei Let's not forget NOBODY ( amongst the men) has won the calendar slam on the three different court surfaces ( four surfaces if you allow for the fact one of the hard court surfaces is slower than the other one). I think Budge and Laver pulled off their calendar slam feats strictly on GRASS.😮
There were lots of complaints from Roche about foul calls, and he appeared to have a beef on some of them, but the most incomprehensible one to me was at 1:28:10, when the ball was called out even though it was clearly in, and it was on a high lob, so there was plenty of time to focus the eye.
Thanks for this amazing historical video. Looks like they play Serve and volley. They don’t play other parts of tennis at all. Just going for fast points. I assume the rackets were limiting factor, but I would love to see some longer rallies.
Tennis has come a long way since 1969. Credit to these guys for paving the way for the players today. A lot of improvement has been made in every aspect of tennis training and tournament organization in the last 54 years.
Excellent quality video. Roche never really fulfilled his potential in singles tennis: I do wonder if his temperament let him down, on occasions, since he did seem to let things get to him, questionable calls and linesmen especially.
He developed elbow problems when he was at his peak. Still, lost 68 Wimbledon Finals to Laver, 69 US Open Finals to Laver and 70 US Open Finals to Rosewall.
After Djokovic vs Medevev, it's pretty much show how difficult it is to win calendar slam. Djokovic, like Laver here, finally had a chance to be one of the immortal with Laver as the only 2 male players to win calendar slam, but came up short in possibly one of upsets of 2020s decade
this year as well. Nadal won the Australian open, the french open, and was a likely favorite had he been able to play in the semi final match against Nick Kyrgios. The toll it takes on the body in today's era of tennis makes it even more difficult to achieve this feat imo
So amazing to see this! I had such a crush on Tony Roche, back in the day. I had forgotten they were both southpaws. Didn't Roche win at Wimbledon? But not this year, if Laver got the GS.
Tony Roche won the French in 1966 - his only GS singles title . He lost the other 5 GS singles finals he appeared in including Wimbledon in 1969 to Laver in his 2nd GS year . Roche was one of the all time great doubles players winning 15 GS titles 12 of which were with John Newcome .
The state of the court with huge chunks taken out of it makes this feat even more impressive. The ballkids trying to flatten the huge clumps of grass back down is hilarious. 😂 Forgot they were allowed to use spiked shoes back then. No wonder the grass is in such terrible condition. A young Pete Sampras taking Rods photo at 1:39.
Laver, Roche, Nastase and many others rarely bounced the ball before the service toss. They really should have put a rule in place many years ago but that would have changed the entire tennis landscape of today because Djokovic and Nadal rely heavily on the excessive, distracting, time consuming bounce to win their serves.
Met laver while in the biz along with many others,this match is all serve & volley,most of these players didnt have much of a backhand,was mostly serve & forehand,todays players are like machines & have it all
You don't know about the factors of court surface effects, racquet technology effects and therefore you come off looking like you have a limited and overly simplistic view . Todays players are not supermen -- the era circumstances are different.😮
Today's players for the most part don't have a backhand at all-- what most of them have is a TWO-HANDED BACKHAND. THOSE AREN'T "REAL" BACKHANDS. There's a difference. 😮😮😮😮
Wimbledon, 1975. Arthur Ashe upsets Jimmy Conners in the final. Ashe stops Bjorn Borg in the quarters. Borg would not lose again on the grass for 5 years. Tony Roche took
Can we all take a moment to appreciate the video quality? Two moments for the playing quality.
probably cinema
the playing quality is 2nd to none! how fast them courts were! Novaxx and Nadal would not stand a chance on that low bouncing surface! Lavers quality was so far ahead of then
@@alessandroalessandro6771 No, that's video. You can tell by the colour fringing on the cameras.
Wideo quality is great but coart... like some sort of mug....
Also, how they hit shots that fast with those old wooden rackets
I've never seen quality like this in a full video of a Laver match! Thank you--more please!
The serving, lobs and slices that these guys can produce with those rackets is incredible
I was just thinking this as well. Tennis is a very difficult sport even with the modern equipment.
For those wondering what the helicopter was doing at the start - they brought it in to try and dry out the court a bit. The weather that year had been terrible, and it had left the courts saturated.
Plastic tarps weren't invented yet ;)
@@kayanoreeves1949 I saw the tarps lining the court -- I guess there was too much rain for them to be effective. 😮😮
Love the sound of dishes being cleared away in the background
I cannot effin believe I have stumbled upon prime Laver v Roche with Laver going for the calendar slam and in such glorious video quality. Sometimes TH-cam is truly a miracle, fulfilling the greatest potential of the information superhighway, thank you, Al Gore!
The court was so slick and muddy Laver wore spiked shoes. Affected his serve because he couldn't drag his back foot, but it helped his movement elsewhere. Tony wore regular shoes and as the court got slicker and muddier from light rain and wear the advantage went to Laver. It's like Formula 1, slicks or wets, LOL.
Roche i s 24 yrs old here and Laver 31 - they both look mid 50's! Great to see these old matches, fascinating to see the game played back then.
Folks looked older back then...athletes normally were finished by age 30.
That's what no suncream does
Roche is 24? He looks more like 60 somehow.
Nowadays 30 year olds looks like 18 year olds
Most athletes are still done by 30. While modern physiology has greatly improved, professional athletics still takes toll on the body. Federer, Nadal, Djokovich are exceptions to the rule. Although Carlos Alcarez just won the French, the 21-year-old is already battling injury and I think we will see on the men’s side what we see on the women’s, a churn of number ones.
Wow… Laver truly was something else
It's unbelievable how well these players play, given the old technology. "A+" for finesse
Exactly!
Laver was a great player, as you can see here..
Almost 55 years on, and no other male singles player has achieved a calendar-year "Grand Slam" since. I wonder if anyone in attendance here realized how special this man and his achievements this year (and seven years prior) were and are still.
There were no hard courts man
@@DreamWatcher-h1j Honestly, Laver's aggressive game style was well suited for hard courts; no doubt he would beat anyone on that surface as well. Remember during the pro era, many matches were played on indoor wood surfaces, which is much faster than hard courts, and Laver won them easily.
In the early 2000s, I had a chance to walk into this stadium where Laver won the last match of a men's GS. I was so sad that the stadium was in such a dilapidated condition; looks like it's been neglected for years. I heard that recently the West Side Tennis Club has renovated it and use it for music events.
@@BangNguyen-ux4ie You're absolutely right; even the qualifying rounds for Wimbledon were played on wooden courts. So yes, I think that Rod's game was suited for (faster) hard-surfaced courts as well as grass.
@@BangNguyen-ux4ie I have heard such a story regarding the renovation of the old Forest Hills Stadium as well.
The quality is incredible, imagine what they can do with next gen racquets back then.
Yes, but tennis was much more beautiful to watch in the woodden raquets era
Looking forward to this famous match which was played on something akin to a rugby field
Forest Hills + a ton of rain
This match has been available for years but never in such sharp quality. Incredible. Thank you! There are other matches we could use it on!
Heading into the 1970's this was the golden era of tennis.
Would love to see the 1968 Ashe vs Okker final in full.
This is something else, I've been looking to watch this final for years. I hope you could post the whole tennis match. Afterall , it was Rod Laver 2nd " Mayor " Grand Slam and the first one in the Open Era. Congratulations and all the best to the U.S.T.A. Thanks a lot.
no twenty million bounces before the serve, no groaning and moaning, no fuss over anything, .... wonderful!
Keep crying widow xdddddd
slightly less money to play over compared to nowadays
Those Aussie serves of the 50s-70s are a thing of beauty
Fantastic post. Rod lavers spikes in his shoes were really tearing up the grass
The pace of play is wonderfully brisk. No “drama,” no long delays after every point, no endless ball bouncing before serving, no having the ball tossed to you by a ball boy or girl because you missed your first serve and can’t find a way to put a second ball in your pocket.
They just got on with it.
I miss the old days.
Very respectful crowd too
amen!
I'm a big fan of the "old days" too but I think the disparity in athleticism now vs then in Tennis is even more stark than it is than even Basketball and hockey. I believe a top woman now with modern equipment (guys have the old stuff) could give these guys a run for their money.
1969. Including Hippies and Woodstock?
@@philobeddoe5214 I don’t think they could handle the serve and volley game on this the grass. Don’t think they’d win a set.
Nobody here will believe this, but I hit with the rocket a few times. What a class guy!
You're right!
Wel done us open channel, great to see you are still uploading classics. Wimbledon Chanel seems to have stopped. Great quality, great tennis.
Rod Laver was and is a champion on and off the court.... never to be duplicated in ANY era.....imho
Rosewall is the best!
Totally agree. Laver is in a class of his own.
To play that caliber of tennis with wood racquets is amazing
Man they hit so hard!
35:20 first banana shot Nadal' s. All match serve and volley?
@@jjfutbol11 No recuerdo ese punto, cómo iba el score para buscarlo?
@@jjfutbol11 lo acabo de ver y es identico!!!
Laver's phenomenal career win-loss record and being the only person to win the Grand Slam twice ordinarily would mark him as the greatest exponent of the singles game, but a ban imposed for turning pro messed up the stats. You can only imagine how many of the 20 majors he was not allowed to contest that he would have won to add to his undisputed 11, but you only have to look at the 8 major titles he won from the 14(!) finals he reached of the 15 replacements that were available on the pro tour during the ban to get a hint. He was at the height of his powers after winning the Grand Slam in 1962, then came back and did it again just to underscore his greatness, and he never once threatened to shove a ball down a linesperson's throat in the process.
Gonzalez and Rosewall were hurt much more than Laver from the pro ban. You said that Laver was at his peak in 1962.Well in 1963 when he turned pro he was only the 4th best pro behind Rosewall Hoad and 35 year old Gonzalez. Lakers last slam and final is what you are watching now when Laver just turned 31. Rosewall reached 8 finals and won 4 of them after the age of 33.
Have look at Hoad's record against Laver. After he had won the slam in 62, Hoad beat him 13 times straight, and Hoad at that time would have been carrying a back injury the would ended his career.
Here's my 2 cents on the debate about Laver winning more Slams if there had been no professional ban. Of course he would have won more Slams, and so would Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales. But if we're talking about the Grand Slam (all 4 in same calendar year), he would NOT have won the 1962 GS because he would have been eaten alive my those other pros. Same in 1963 through 1966. Not until 1967 when he started to dominate the field. This is based on examining the pro slam records (Wembly Pro, French Pro, US Pro championships). So I would say, at best, Laver could have won the GS in 1967, 1968, and 1969 (which he did).
Laver won Wimbledon in 68, he didnt win the grand slam.
While Laver's record in the pre-Open pro circuit is pretty impressive, it's important to remember that he was playing significantly fewer matches to win or reach the finals in those events, only needing three or four wins at most to reach a final/title. With that plus the merged competition from the amateur circuit he would have had his work cut out for him, but it seems pretty certain that he'd have a similar slam count to the big three
Thank you sir, definitely will be looking forward to this! The main Rod Laver full match in solid quality I would love to watch the most is against Bjorn Borg in 1975 WCT Finals :)
Yes indeed. I’m loving watching Laver’s pinpoint volleys, speed and grace.
These guys waste no time between points. No going to the towel. No long walks. No bouncing the ball multiple times before serving. Very easy to watch this match!
I haven't seen a rally over 3 shots lol
True, they weren't exactly breaking a sweat.
Yeah, what a pleasure. The only one today who still plays reasonably fast is Federer. The infinite bouncing by Nadal and Novak is unbearable. The same is true in baseball. I'm a Met fan and am obviously crazy about the incomparable Jacob deGrom, but the waiting 15 seconds before every pitch drives me nuts.
Maybe because the intensity is amateur level? Don't get me wrong I respect tbe effort, but you cannot compare the tennis back then to 5 hour thriller GS matches of today's game
Roche was 24 here and has the face of what today would look like a 40 year old.
Wow Thank you for US Open to upload this Masterpiece 🎉
i was there for this, can u imagine these guys using the space aged racquets of today?
Forget about them using space age racquets, imagine today's player playing with wooding ones, they would have to move off the base line.
After watching Laver relentlessly serve and volley on first and second serves with a wooden racket, I wonder. After watching him move forward and take those forehands early, I wonder. After watching Laver hit amazing backhands like it was taking a drink of water, I no longer wonder. I suspect Rod Laver, all things considered, is The G.O.A.T.
More net action in todays tennis would bring a higher level. An all court player looking to move forward gets the Grail. Federer reminds me of Laver in some ways.
Imagine if he hadn't missed 5 years at his peak by being professional!! He could have won 25 Grand Slams!!
Yeah, totally dominant in his era!!
Borg also played using wooden racket, but in much higher level. This is semi amateur era, nothing special at all. It is interesting to see how it all started tho.
@@dzonibravo7867 Even if this was at the start of the Open era it was not semi-amateur at all, the best players were among the best the sport has ever seen. Borg was not a revolutionary Improvement, he would have found both surface and weather here challenging. What Borg did was usher in, along with Connors, the era of battling from the baseline instead of serve and volleying. Once the rackets became what they are now it became very difficult to win by rushing the net all the time as we see here, the groundstrokes became too powerful to play that way.
@@RobertKekuna yes, it was semi-amateur. It was competition between 40-50 rich guys. Nowhere near modern competition.
@@dzonibravo7867 You obviously do not understand tennis. Just another blowhard barking into the wind.
Thanks a million
Today´s top players would have great difficulty in handling the small racket heads used by Laver and his generation. It has to be remembered that the smaller the racket head is, the harder it is to hit the ball in the centre. It´s unbelievable the power and accuracy of their shots. Without a doubt if Laver and Roche were playing today with modern equipment and all the other advantages today´s players have, they would still be at the very top of the game and Laver would also win the ´Grand Slam´ in a single year, that he won twice, and to this day is still the only player to achieve this incredible feat.
Both Laver and Roche would have trouble handling the kick serve. They are a bit short. Have you seen a tennis player very successful shorter than 6 feet? Besides, their serve and volley tactics would be a total disaster in modern-day tennis. Also, my personal observation is that the great players such as Federer, Nadal, Sampras, Lendl, Borg, Edberg, or Djokovic are almost the same size. They are like clones.
TonyRoche plays through Fed... he has been his trainer... therefore these ifs and buts dont hold much water...each period has its stars... and its also true that a lot of people took to watching tennis after RafaNadal arrived en scene and after the rafa-roger rivalry set in...
@@benthekeeshond545 "Have you seen a tennis player very successful shorter than 6 feet? " Off the top of my head, John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Borg. And the kick serve is only a problem if you don't catch it on the rise.
They'd adjust like to small racket heads like anyone else.
lol, it took Rublev and Dimitrov like 5 minutes to get used to old racquets and play higher quality tennis than ever before with them in a video not posted too long ago. A ridiculous argument only used to try and prop up players of that era.
Thank you for this fantastic share. A real treat for us tennis history buffs. Could I ask you to check if you can track down a copy of the Borg-Tanner quarterfinal from the 1980 US Open? That was a terrific match and I'd love to see it on your channel.
Wow how much the game has changed is amazing!
Hah yes they wouldnt last 20min wth rafa or novak
@@Stolencamaro I would like to see Rafa or Novak with one of those tiny heavy wooden racquets... how long would they last?
It felt so peaceful to watch this match.
Yes, the human element was still there: human hands changed the scorecard, cleaned the dishes, gently clapped at the appropriate times. The lush, rich grass was unkempt, the clean white shorts fit improperly and the mood across the arena was respectfully calm and serene. The players didn’t grunt like animals and the wood racquets limited the shots pace to a pace akin to points made from opposite sides of a scholarly debate.
Compare that to today: Hawkeye, graphite and 3D graphics; garish outfits, temper tantrums and grunting. This era is over not only for tennis but (regrettably) also for humanity itself.
Ask yourself why and you will feel a deep sense of remorse and sadness.
@@joeschmoe8264 I think you're going a little far there. The outfits are also part of the personality and taste of the player, and grunts make the match intense when not abused of.
But in terms of playstyle, it's true that tennis is too much uniformed and one dimensional nowadays.
Partly because of the evolution of rackets and slowing down of surfaces.
Love this! The event was so less polished back then. Laver was flicking divots out of the way on the baseline at the start! The odd multicourt layout, the nylon webbing lawn chairs in the first few rows of the stands, the ball boy just kind of standing there waiting to fetch a ball, the wrinkled green tarps around the edge of the stands... and so many more. How about Lavers spiked shoes, the way they had to keep one foot on the ground when serving, and no tiebreaks? Laver was 31 and Roche was 24??? They both look like they're in their late 40's! So different than today. I have great appreciation for the way things were done back then!
Spot on
Dos caballeros en la final y un señor campeón todoterreno.
Laver's ability to inside-out volley at the net (e.g., at 26:49) is something I do not recall seeing from any player in any era.
That was like a cricket shot
It is quite common
That was the only shot he could play from that position. Not a big deal. Any player today could do it.
Any player can do it plus these players are extremely slow
That volley shouldn’t be too challenging
pure class, no screaming, no shouting, no ball bashing, no hitting anyone in the throat!! yet at the end of the day, the prize is still the same, the skill then no lesser than todays, in fact some players then had so much more skill than some of todays ball bashers. Laver, Nastase etc
today's player are indeed great, but not better because the ball goes faster, as some people equate it to be
looking at the court I understand why they developed the serve and volley meta back in the days.
The real GOAT.
Rare form that year.
This video is a treasure! Really!
Roche is 24 on this video, Federer looks younger at 39. Different times, our lives are less rough.
Rod Laver was 31 in 1969, slightly past his prime.
He does look old for 24
@@Lava1964 the guy wins the grand slam at 31 but he is slightly past his prime... that's some galactic thinking
not like those guys had to work on fields tho..
Many talk about Federer being the most elegant player of all time. Those people clearly have forgotten the games of Laver, Newcombe, McEnroe, Sampras, etc. Roger is lovely to watch...but he stole his game from Pete...who stole his game from the guys who came before him. Lets enjoy them all....
Federer is kind of the epitome of that style, while adding great athletic abilities and making the game evolve. He was able to play any shot at a tremendous level in his youth, and doing it with pure class. I think that's why many consider him the goat.
But it's also true that when we look at his models and idols, we find Edgerb and ofc the great Sampras, whose inspiration was... Rod laver.
So in a way, it's also fair to say that Laver is the goat.
Like the terrific one-handed backhands. You see these guys play and you kind of wonder why anyone would use a two-hander. And the both have great overheads, especially Laver who wasn’t tall.
Powerful serve. I would struggle to make a return.
interesting that they keep the other ball in hand while serving...
Interesting you can see at the end what a self effacing type of person Laver is. Zero ego, he seems almost embarrassed to be receiving the winners rewards, for him it's just the love of the game and competing at the highest level. Still like that today from what you see in interviews. Enormous achievement, you can see why he was idolised by the top players who came after him and still to this day by those at the top.
Tennis was about to boom
look at the state of that pitch! like the English football league of the time.....and gee, no one is screaming or cursing or acting out...they actually seem like adults...
The time machine is real
Laver was 31 years old here. This was OLD for a tennis player back then. Not so much nowadays (2024), but retirement age up until 2000 ish. To win the calendar year Grand Slam at 31 is legendary. Seeing old videos of how he played into his late 30s is insane. No wonder he's in the conversation for THEEEEE GOAT.
My GOAT list:
Djokovic, Federer, Nadal, Laver, Sampras, Borg, Connors (an argument for each).
My Top 20:
1. Djokovic (and he's a long way from my favorite player. But it's hard to argue with numbers & results, unless you're a politician ;-)
2. Federer
3. Nadal
4. Laver
5. Sampras
6. Borg
7. Connors
8. McEnroe
9. Lendl
10. Agassi
11. Elsworth Vines
12. Rosewall
13. Wilander
14. Becker
15. Edberg
16. Hoad
17. Newcombe
18. Lleyton Hewitt
19. Vilas
20. Courier
On their Best Day (most talented:
1. Federer
2. McEnroe
3. Pancho Gonzalez
4. Lew Hoad
5. Elsworth Vines
6. Laver
7. Sampras
8. Ashe
9. Ivanisevic
10. Del Potro
I honestly think yout list is lacking as you have players in your top 20 who I would call 3rd level players and you excluded top shelf players completely. For example you have Lleyton Hewitt on your list, who was certainly a fine player but not nearly as great as Frank Sedgman another Australian, and there were other Australians as well such as Crawford who were greater than Lleyton. You have one pre war player on your list which means you have excluded legends. Don Budge won the first calender Grand Slam and still holds the record for 6 slams in a row. You have excluded Bill Tilden, the first superstar of the sport whi could still beat anybody in his 40s and you have Pancho on one list but not your top 20 list. Here is my list of 13 in Alphabetical order because I dont helieve in comparing eras. Borg..Budge..Cochet..Djokovic..Federer..Gonzalez..Laver..Nadal..Perry..Rosewall..Sampras..Bill Tilden. Vines. The Pro.Amateur divide and WW2 make it if course difficult to make this list.
@@Marc-rf9ei Let's not forget NOBODY ( amongst the men) has won the calendar slam on the three different court surfaces ( four surfaces if you allow for the fact one of the hard court surfaces is slower than the other one). I think Budge and Laver pulled off their calendar slam feats strictly on GRASS.😮
There were lots of complaints from Roche about foul calls, and he appeared to have a beef on some of them, but the most incomprehensible one to me was at 1:28:10, when the ball was called out even though it was clearly in, and it was on a high lob, so there was plenty of time to focus the eye.
Last decent serve and volley player was Pat Rafter. Great style to watch. Geez, Laver's backhand is brilliant!!
imagine a 25 year old Laver playing today with these super racquets---scary
Roger Federer was a capable Serve & Volley player if courts allowed him...
@@richardcolton4125 The guy is 5'8, there's only so much he would be able to do in todays tennis lol
44:50 Such nice serve!
Check Roche's pickup at 5:22. Lovely stuff.
Thanks for this amazing historical video. Looks like they play Serve and volley. They don’t play other parts of tennis at all. Just going for fast points. I assume the rackets were limiting factor, but I would love to see some longer rallies.
They did play longer rallies at Roland Garros. (And presumably at other clay court events.) They played S&V on grass because bounces were uneven.
@@tnomi1965 Aha, that sounds logical. Thanks for explaining.
More to the point : the bounces were/are uneven on grass which is the fastest and slickest surface.
I've seen fields in County Donegal that look smoother than that tennis court!
Beautiful tennis.
Excelente calidad de imagen. Tenis de antología.
A lot of errors from both players. Still Laver got an amazing smooth playing style with a great wrist.
Tennis has come a long way since 1969. Credit to these guys for paving the way for the players today. A lot of improvement has been made in every aspect of tennis training and tournament organization in the last 54 years.
This why baseline play was unpopular on grass court. Bad bounces, unreliable bounces, fast, and slippery
Excellent quality video. Roche never really fulfilled his potential in singles tennis: I do wonder if his temperament let him down, on occasions, since he did seem to let things get to him, questionable calls and linesmen especially.
Losing to Laver and Rosewall is not exactly a character defect.
He developed elbow problems when he was at his peak. Still, lost 68 Wimbledon Finals to Laver, 69 US Open Finals to Laver and 70 US Open Finals to Rosewall.
se jugaba muy difernte al tennis se subian mas rapido a la red , ahora es de golpes mas desde la linea de saque que interesante❤
Not just interesting-- VERY MUCH MORE INTERESTING than today's high tech racquets making it easier to hit passing shots !?!😮😅😮😅😮
After Djokovic vs Medevev, it's pretty much show how difficult it is to win calendar slam. Djokovic, like Laver here, finally had a chance to be one of the immortal with Laver as the only 2 male players to win calendar slam, but came up short in possibly one of upsets of 2020s decade
this year as well. Nadal won the Australian open, the french open, and was a likely favorite had he been able to play in the semi final match against Nick Kyrgios. The toll it takes on the body in today's era of tennis makes it even more difficult to achieve this feat imo
Don Budge achieved the grand slam first
Historical moment .
So amazing to see this! I had such a crush on Tony Roche, back in the day. I had forgotten they were both southpaws. Didn't Roche win at Wimbledon? But not this year, if Laver got the GS.
Tony Roche won the French in 1966 - his only GS singles title . He lost the other 5 GS singles finals he appeared in including Wimbledon in 1969 to Laver in his 2nd GS year . Roche was one of the all time great doubles players winning 15 GS titles 12 of which were with John Newcome .
Nick Kyrgios's serve looks a lot like Tony Roche's...thx for the great match
Oh my. i just figured out that 16,000 back in 1969, In todays times in worth a little over 130,000 😅😅
Rod was there 31 years 24 years old. Both looked out very old!
Old film/ video technology did that before the seventies-- everyone looked older.😮😅
What is it, a tennis court or a potato field?
Must have been abysmal weather and/or mismanaged turf. Never seen a grass court in such poor condition.
Not very often you see two lefty’s playing each other, especially not in a grand slam…
The state of the court with huge chunks taken out of it makes this feat even more impressive. The ballkids trying to flatten the huge clumps of grass back down is hilarious. 😂 Forgot they were allowed to use spiked shoes back then. No wonder the grass is in such terrible condition. A young Pete Sampras taking Rods photo at 1:39.
This place would be a most effective way to make djokovic stop bouncing the ball to many times before the service
Laver, Roche, Nastase and many others rarely bounced the ball before the service toss. They really should have put a rule in place many years ago but that would have changed the entire tennis landscape of today because Djokovic and Nadal rely heavily on the excessive, distracting, time consuming bounce to win their serves.
it has most probably been digitally remastered.
Tony Roche is 24 here and looks like 41.
35'25'' epic pass by laver
I can't believe the state of the court, imagine that at Wimbledon these days!
Then tennis wasn’t anywhere popular as today therfore less $$
Average rally length? 1.4 shots?
this isnt the the modern tennis grand slam though , because the surfaces on some of them were similar
Fun fact: Alcaraz wasnt even born when this final happened.
Crazy that the U.S. Open used to be played on grass and clay before the hard court era.
there were 4 majors then, 3 on grass and 1 on red clay
Although passing shots were being experimented with, it seems lobs and drop shots hadn't been invented yet at the time.
17:45 casual cigarette ad... definitely another era^^
For years the Canadian Open was sponsored by DuMaurier, a Canadian tobacco company.
I guess that’s why they don’t play long rallies.😂
Roche just told a flag to stop rippling in the breeze, it stopped immediately.
Met laver while in the biz along with many others,this match is all serve & volley,most of these players didnt have much of a backhand,was mostly serve & forehand,todays players are like machines & have it all
You don't know about the factors of court surface effects, racquet technology effects and therefore you come off looking like you have a limited and overly simplistic view . Todays players are not supermen -- the era circumstances are different.😮
Today's players for the most part don't have a backhand at all-- what most of them have is a TWO-HANDED BACKHAND. THOSE AREN'T "REAL" BACKHANDS. There's a difference. 😮😮😮😮
Grand slam final….50% attendance, court like a field in places….changed days indeed.
I noticed that too and assumed it was because BIG MONEY had yet to appear in tennis.😮
What was it like playing on what looks like a horse race track?
they both went to the net before the ball would take a bad bounce---the way the game was designed
@@richardcolton4125
Yea..... ground strokes were not part of the game back then. 😂😂😂
The grass today plays like a hard court. Not like this.
Yeah you couldn’t play too much baseline on a court like this. It’s a shame they changed Wimbledon. Everything is long baseline rally’s today.
Laver was 31 and Roche 24 ? Wow.
Who plowed that field? Who graded it and what crop was planned?
Wimbledon, 1975. Arthur Ashe upsets Jimmy Conners in the final. Ashe stops Bjorn Borg in the quarters. Borg would not lose again on the grass for 5 years. Tony Roche took
Tony Roche took Ashe to a 5 set semi- finals
These guys must have been better than these days elite, serving/playing like that with wooden rackets.
Che braccio❤️
They need to bring back wood rackets.
So leisurely back then haha
love it!