@PArbuckle18 It mostly had to do with racket technology. the sweet spot on wooden rackets is extremely tiny. any miss-hit would go out or into the net. the courts also had something to do with the unforced errors. 3 out of the 4 grand slams were played on grass. the grass at the australian and the us open were apparently pretty bad in terms of bad bounces and movement
@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.
@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
@jeffnsee I agree with everything you said other than the cupcake era. Everyone other than Federer and Nadal are incapable of winning slams. This era is probably the weakest era other than the Rios era.
This is sooooooo boring... Serve and volley. C'mon. This guys wouldnt have a chance against Federer, Nadal or even Borg,Sampras and Agassi.. No strenght, depthness. There serve is soooo weak.Pathetic.
@BorahSpanish Thats why Laver is Sampras hero you idiot. The technology has moved on light years. The skills here are amazing. I suppose you could beat Rod Laver??
@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.
@BorahSpanish These guys would destroy 90% of today's players. There is a lot more than just power, you know. Shot variety, which very few players have anymore, would freak them out.
This is still the best display of tennis around on YT. Every shot they play have such a clear-cut purpose. A stark contrast to the feeling you get when watching many matches today.
Of course I love the feel of my graphite racquet but I think they should never have allowed metal racquets. The game would be more dynamic today. They have kept wooden bats in cricket and in major league baseball the bats are wooden. But now that metal has been introduced there is no going back.
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...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Soft shit. Wouldn't stand a chance against modern players. I can't believe some idiots still entertain the notion of hobbit-sized Laver as GOAT just because he beat some other weaklings during his era for two calendar slams. If Federer is transported to Rod's time, Fed would get like 60 GS consecutively as calendar slams.
You have to understand that back then, they did not have the technological advances and rackets that we have today. If you place Fed in Rod's time with a wooden racket, do you think it would be easy?
Federer would crush Laver. I think some nostalgic people here love to entertain the nostalgic delusion that old generation athletes can compete with modern ones. Uh, no they can't. If you were to bring skinny Dr. J against LeBron it wouldn't even be a game. 5'7 Laver would get crushed by guys like Federer, DelPo, Nadal, Cilic, etc. There are certain standards now in sports that are too high for old generation athletes. It wouldn't even be fair to them.
Yes, because of the huge advancements in technology in 2010 that we didn't have 40 years ago. The game has changed and evolved a lot. Of course, you can't take a player from the 50's and put him in 2010, that wouldn't be fair.
@Fernandez218 Since 02--07 of this era it was the weakest. But after that the competition slowly started to pick up. Back then there were more winners. Today it's just few winners in GS title. I think 23 out the last 28 GS were won by Roger and Rafa.
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
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?
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.
Your full of *&^(. Using wooden racquets, Laver would destroy a 5.0 player, and would trounce a 5.5 player. His shot variety would freak them out. And it is iffy if Fed could beat Laver using a wood racquet. Laver's foreare was huge, which allowed to do almost anyting with the Dunlop Maxpli. Your comment is about as absurd as anything I have come accross on Youtube.
HAHAHAHHAHAA your comment was stupider. federer couldnt beat Laver? ROFL! any player in the top 1000 could beat laver with a wood racquet, Laver would tell you that himself. the modern game is so different from the old game - players hit so much harder, with so much more spin. HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
Your comment is one of the most absurd I have ever heard. Today's players' games are designed around the high-tech racquets. This does not necessarily translate to playing with a wood racquet. Federer would be very strong with a wood racquet. But players like Nadal and even Del Potro wouldn't be near as good with a wood racquet. The wood racquet game demands imagination, touch and placement; whereas today's games is first and foremost about power.
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.
If you seriously think that a 5.5 or 5.0 player can generate enough pace and spin to trouble Laver - and do it consistently enough - you must be kidding.
@mrbobevans Kind of stupid trying to imagine who would win between players from two different eras, very often people assert these opinions because it makes them feel knowledgeable.
Each player was good in their time, and if you got them all together playing with the same rackets and the same balls it would no doubt be some great tennis, and there would be wins and losses all around.
But I always laugh at people that make specific comments on these fantasies like they are some sort of guru.
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.
All I am commenting on is the huge developments in technology. Any player in the top 1000 these days could beat Rod Laver if Rod was using the old technology.
this upload never gets old. of all the great uploads of tennis on youtube (through to the present), i think this might be my favorite. its simplicity, grace, crisp audio and style of play is sublime.
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.
laver seems "capitan piluso" an argentinian TV carachter during the 60s, very famous there........TV programmme for kids.........that hat was ridiculous; imagine roger federer or rafa nadal wearing that, hehehehe.........this match sees two old guys who rent the court paying 2€ per hour, hehehehe
wow, you can see the anticipation and quickness. It is the same as Borg had. It is the same that Sampras had. Federer has the same, but laver said, he uses that extra anticipation to create shots nobody has ever thought of. The next great champion is going to have this too, quickness (not speed) and anticipation
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.
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!!!
Laver's record is simply unimpeachable, with his superb all court game and longtevity of his career, he must be the first candidate for the title of greatest player ever.
what vollying what speed around the court,
see wikipedia and other internet sources for his incredibel record between 1963-1967 (he did the professional grand slam in 1967)
His Double grand slam is one of the greatest achivements in sports history,
more power to the great Rod in his old age bless him
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.
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.
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,
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.
Yes I am a bit pissed that Borg is not given credit enough for clinching both french and Wimbledon so many times over. It is the toughest thing in tennis. How many times has Sampras done it and how many times is Federer likely to do it?
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.
just awesome, rare video aye?? u wiill never see these type of style agian, and such perfect volleys. btw at 5:12 is that a piece of pubic hair that just fell??? ahahahahh
There is brilliant strategy at play here. It is more fun to watch when it is not just a muscle contest like it usually is now. I wish modern tennis would mandate wooden or aluminum rackets again, just like pro baseball uses wooden bats. Bring some strategic variety back to the game.
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.
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.
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.
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.
wow Laver is one of the greats, but he would get double bageled by nadal or federer, how can you say they have "limited abilities and strategic means"?
Look, Borg or Connor's couldn't bagel Laver (not even close). The man won TWO Grand Slams !! Nadal and Federer better work on their first. Looks like Laver got the double bagel on that one.
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.
Laver is a champ, winning 2 grand slams. Not a very easy thing to do. Especially with the clay and grass court specialists. As for Laver's style getting killed in this generation of tennis. I have to point out that Pete Sampras got very far with his serve and volley technique. If you watch Sampras he can't do anything from the baseline but at the net he's unstoppable. Also Laver is a lefty, a huge advantage. Just watch Nadal he uses that advantage to its fullest.
In every aspect of the game? This just simply isn't true. The players have gotten better in certain aspects of the game that are favoured by the technology. Guys hit bigger, more powerful groundies with more topspin and guys also hit more lines. This is partly due to the technology and partly due to the players' adjustment to the technology. However due to these changes, players have also become worse volleyers, much worse at lobs, dropshots and arguably tactics.
Sampras did - and he beat Agassi doing it!. Agassi played up to 2006 and ranked up there to the end. Sampras credited Laver with his success and that says something. Laver at age of 36 played Connors, Borg and Nastase successfully (tough sets). ANY of those last 3 players would win today. Dont kid yourself. Tennis is very, very DEEP in legacy and talent. Laver may well be the GREATEST EVER. His record stands.
PS. Laver wasn't a 'Serve and Volley' player he was an 'All Court Player' or complete player who excelled over the entire court and had ALL the shots. Serve and Volley players - Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales, John Newcombe, Stan Smith, Roscoe Tanner - all fearsome servers to name a few. Then came McEnroe (sometimes), Edberg, Becker and Pete Sampras most recently. Someone will bring it back again.
I find it curious that in no professional sport are past greats as disrespected as they are in tennis. Not in baseball, nor basketball, nor hockey, nor football. But in tennis, certain fans - especially young fans - really can't help themselves but to make arrogant statements such as these. Sandy Koufax threw a 96-mph fastball. He must have been pretty good for any era. Laver must have been too.
Yes, brilliant: ""Like all of us he likes a little bit of beer when he is finished a long day." And then he couples it with, "And its Rod laver serving from the Northern end. Just standard commentary of the time. I'll get out my compass and chilly beer mug. (Actually, wish I could, this was tennis worth savoring.)
It is so wonderful that this video exists to show everyone how the game was played, and how it should be played. There is not a top male player today who is even a good volleyer (which means making the vast majority of easy to somewhat more difficult volleys) and at least a significant minority of really tough volleys. None, and I challenge anyone who knows anything about the game to dispute that fact. Disclaimer: Laver is the best play male player of all time, bar none...in my opinion.
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.
The two-handed backhand is the biggest reason why serve-and-volley isn't as effective today, because the BH return is no longer a purely defensive shot (as it is with a one-handed BH). That's why Edberg late in his career started getting owned by Courier and Agassi -- it was all about the return of serve.
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?
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.
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 don't have an emotional investment in any groundstroke...both the 1HBH and 2HBH are beautiful in their own ways.
I'm sorry you have such an emotional investment in degrading the 2HBH. As Borg, Hewitt and Nadal have shown, you can volley well enough to win Wimbledon while having a 2HBH.
The one-handed BH is a defensive shot ON THE RETURN OF SERVE -- none of those players were able to consistently hit BH winners on the return. On the return of serve, the 1HBH is a defensive shot -- that's why serve-volley used to dominate -- you could serve to the 1HBH w/o fear of return winners. You can't get away with now that unless you have a phenomenal serve (Sampras) b/c you'll get smoked by the 2HBH returns at the highest level (i.e Agassi, Courier in the 90s, Nadal, Murray today).
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.
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
I still like playing my old wooden racquet :D its a Adidas Ille Nastase :D I love it because its a challenge to play the modern game with it ( a drop shot is fucking hard xD )
Tennis need more different style now, its cool with the allrounders nowadays but it would be awesome if we had also some fantastic servevandvolley exlusive players, some assholes and not only those super-nice guys :D more charisma, more diversity, more tennis ! less show.
Lucky man!! That's a collector's item (could never get my hands on one) Love the 'zebra' stripes - look after it. Nastase was amazing. Saw him hit an approach shot on clay, flip his racquet as he came in, gripping the racquet by it's head to hit a drop volley OFF THE HANDLE for a winner! Unbelievable talent.
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.
oh well I read wikipedia that's what they said there.. that he never officially reached first place "although he was considered no. 1".. I think it's cause what you're saying, because there were no rankings
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.
It seems odd and it is. As you now know Laver was considered the No. 1 player for 7 consecutive years (64-70). Now imagine a player today missing slam events for 5 of their peak years! Laver came back with a vengence and won a SECOND Grand Slam in '69!! Federer came close 3X.
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.
Okay, thanks for explaining. It's difficult to compare eras like that, with the game constantly changing with new grips, racquet techology, more attention to training, physique and diets and such.
arguably the best player of all time.
Bdubbs09 6 months ago
somehow this steep camera angle is fun to watch.
hifromhenry 1 year ago 2
Goodness, not a lot of unforced errors here.
PArbuckle18 1 year ago
@PArbuckle18 not in this match i guess. these guys, however, did hit way more unforced errors than todays players do
cain2335 1 year ago
@cain2335 Interesting. Do you think it was racket technology, or perhaps an aggressive, net charging strategy?
PArbuckle18 1 year ago
@PArbuckle18 It mostly had to do with racket technology. the sweet spot on wooden rackets is extremely tiny. any miss-hit would go out or into the net. the courts also had something to do with the unforced errors. 3 out of the 4 grand slams were played on grass. the grass at the australian and the us open were apparently pretty bad in terms of bad bounces and movement
cain2335 1 year ago
@cain2335 I guess also this looks like a clip of the best points of this match, rather than a match played in sequential order.
PArbuckle18 1 year ago
@PArbuckle18 i think these clips are in sequential order. the points with errors are just ommited
cain2335 1 year ago
@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.
jeffnsee 1 year ago
@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
jeffnsee 1 year ago
@jeffnsee I agree with everything you said other than the cupcake era. Everyone other than Federer and Nadal are incapable of winning slams. This era is probably the weakest era other than the Rios era.
Anaconda43VR 1 year ago
This is sooooooo boring... Serve and volley. C'mon. This guys wouldnt have a chance against Federer, Nadal or even Borg,Sampras and Agassi.. No strenght, depthness. There serve is soooo weak.Pathetic.
BorahSpanish 1 year ago
@BorahSpanish I understand this comment as that you would be able to beat Laver as well as Roche.
If you are not a world class player, you are not going to beat Laver and Roche, even in their present condition.
y11971alex 1 year ago
@BorahSpanish Thats why Laver is Sampras hero you idiot. The technology has moved on light years. The skills here are amazing. I suppose you could beat Rod Laver??
doubts 1 year ago
@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.
sharpasaneraser 1 year ago
@BorahSpanish These guys would destroy 90% of today's players. There is a lot more than just power, you know. Shot variety, which very few players have anymore, would freak them out.
jakemcclain30 1 year ago
This is still the best display of tennis around on YT. Every shot they play have such a clear-cut purpose. A stark contrast to the feeling you get when watching many matches today.
Nidhogg86 1 year ago
Roche did sure love going to the net a lot.
oobalavivida 1 year ago
Of course I love the feel of my graphite racquet but I think they should never have allowed metal racquets. The game would be more dynamic today. They have kept wooden bats in cricket and in major league baseball the bats are wooden. But now that metal has been introduced there is no going back.
Snaurt 1 year ago
Playing today with those enormous raquets is much easier than in the past. It's only hit and run
Pitonto 1 year ago
Comment removed
oobalavivida 1 year ago
Comment removed
oobalavivida 1 year ago
Comment removed
oobalavivida 1 year ago
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...
Scourgie 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Soft shit. Wouldn't stand a chance against modern players. I can't believe some idiots still entertain the notion of hobbit-sized Laver as GOAT just because he beat some other weaklings during his era for two calendar slams. If Federer is transported to Rod's time, Fed would get like 60 GS consecutively as calendar slams.
biliev1 2 years ago
Be sure to give Federer a wood racket.
jirishanca 2 years ago
Comment removed
oobalavivida 1 year ago
You have to understand that back then, they did not have the technological advances and rackets that we have today. If you place Fed in Rod's time with a wooden racket, do you think it would be easy?
oobalavivida 1 year ago
Federer would crush Laver. I think some nostalgic people here love to entertain the nostalgic delusion that old generation athletes can compete with modern ones. Uh, no they can't. If you were to bring skinny Dr. J against LeBron it wouldn't even be a game. 5'7 Laver would get crushed by guys like Federer, DelPo, Nadal, Cilic, etc. There are certain standards now in sports that are too high for old generation athletes. It wouldn't even be fair to them.
biliev1 1 year ago
Yes, because of the huge advancements in technology in 2010 that we didn't have 40 years ago. The game has changed and evolved a lot. Of course, you can't take a player from the 50's and put him in 2010, that wouldn't be fair.
oobalavivida 1 year ago
@biliev1 I doubt federer would of even win a set off laver. Federer is not in the top 5 great of all time. He is probably number 10.
Thutmosis7 1 year ago
@Thutmosis7 y
Fernandez218 1 year ago
@Fernandez218 Cuz he is playing in a cup cake era.
Thutmosis7 1 year ago
@Thutmosis7 explain please
Fernandez218 1 year ago
@Fernandez218 Since 02--07 of this era it was the weakest. But after that the competition slowly started to pick up. Back then there were more winners. Today it's just few winners in GS title. I think 23 out the last 28 GS were won by Roger and Rafa.
Thutmosis7 1 year ago
@Thutmosis7 so how does more [different] winners back then imply Federer wouldn't have won then if he were magically placed in that era?
Fernandez218 1 year ago
@biliev1 Federer would be a great match, but as I said to the other guy, Laver's shot variety alone would scare the hell out of DelPo and Cilic.
jakemcclain30 1 year ago
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
andrewblastoff 2 years ago 2
Spell binding pace!
mathurbn 2 years ago
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?
siegeperilous 2 years ago
Does anyone know these people?
spchild 2 years ago
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.
siegeperilous 2 years ago
*four
siegeperilous 2 years ago
well i have little idea about laver ( i was born in the 90s) so i speak from watching this video.
therobz98 2 years ago
These guys are not bad, although a 5.0 these days could beat them, and a 5.5 would thrash them.
therobz98 2 years ago
not with wooden racquets for sure
THEKINKS08 2 years ago
no kidding, but with the tech these day...
therobz98 2 years ago
How would it be fair for Laver to face off with a modern player with wood? What you're saying is irrelevant.
chapaev36 2 years ago
irrelevant? im just stating my opinion about advances in technology
therobz98 2 years ago
It's irrelevant because you're not saying anything interesting or unusual and diminishing the greatness of past stars like Laver all at once.
chapaev36 2 years ago
Your full of *&^(. Using wooden racquets, Laver would destroy a 5.0 player, and would trounce a 5.5 player. His shot variety would freak them out. And it is iffy if Fed could beat Laver using a wood racquet. Laver's foreare was huge, which allowed to do almost anyting with the Dunlop Maxpli. Your comment is about as absurd as anything I have come accross on Youtube.
mrbobevans 2 years ago 9
HAHAHAHHAHAA your comment was stupider. federer couldnt beat Laver? ROFL! any player in the top 1000 could beat laver with a wood racquet, Laver would tell you that himself. the modern game is so different from the old game - players hit so much harder, with so much more spin. HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA
therobz98 2 years ago
NB: im referring to todays players using modern racquets, laver using woodies.
therobz98 2 years ago
Your comment is one of the most absurd I have ever heard. Today's players' games are designed around the high-tech racquets. This does not necessarily translate to playing with a wood racquet. Federer would be very strong with a wood racquet. But players like Nadal and even Del Potro wouldn't be near as good with a wood racquet. The wood racquet game demands imagination, touch and placement; whereas today's games is first and foremost about power.
mrbobevans 2 years ago
obviously you cant read
therobz98 2 years ago
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.
mrbobevans 2 years ago 2
duh of course
therobz98 2 years ago
If you seriously think that a 5.5 or 5.0 player can generate enough pace and spin to trouble Laver - and do it consistently enough - you must be kidding.
TWKang 2 years ago
If the modern game didn't require touch and imagination, explain Federer.
And explain why Roddick, with a 150mph serve, isn't #1.
siegeperilous 2 years ago
Rodick has got bad tecnique. Especially forehand.
Great athlete.
Luciek69 2 years ago
Laver is still alive, you can ask him!
y11971alex 2 years ago
oh, and as if a big arm means you can hit any shot. ROFL.
therobz98 2 years ago
@mrbobevans Laver's shotmaking was really something.....
oobalavivida 1 year ago
@mrbobevans Kind of stupid trying to imagine who would win between players from two different eras, very often people assert these opinions because it makes them feel knowledgeable.
Each player was good in their time, and if you got them all together playing with the same rackets and the same balls it would no doubt be some great tennis, and there would be wins and losses all around.
But I always laugh at people that make specific comments on these fantasies like they are some sort of guru.
spacecowboy95 1 year ago 2
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.
siegeperilous 2 years ago
Of course.
All I am commenting on is the huge developments in technology. Any player in the top 1000 these days could beat Rod Laver if Rod was using the old technology.
therobz98 2 years ago
this upload never gets old. of all the great uploads of tennis on youtube (through to the present), i think this might be my favorite. its simplicity, grace, crisp audio and style of play is sublime.
angryniggah 2 years ago
laver was 30 years old in 1969; he seems older, like 50 years of age..ridiculous hat!!!
pablotjob 2 years ago
Heavenly grass-court tennis..
Thetoughestweight1 2 years ago 8
great move nice touch
gunmenow 2 years ago
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.
alkh3myst 2 years ago
I find they come up to the net alot after they serve
nandybrandyboo 2 years ago 2
look at tat at! ridiculous!
pablotjob 2 years ago
Really open my eyes. Sampras is not even comparable
wind1357 2 years ago
my kids are 6 and 8 and they will watch this video. this is how the game should be played.
rmelono 2 years ago 4
1:09 great point juts in the corner a impossible shot for a lot of people
Gamma576 2 years ago
extraordinary!
footale 2 years ago
this is tennis at its best
claroqueyes 2 years ago 3
laver seems "capitan piluso" an argentinian TV carachter during the 60s, very famous there........TV programmme for kids.........that hat was ridiculous; imagine roger federer or rafa nadal wearing that, hehehehe.........this match sees two old guys who rent the court paying 2€ per hour, hehehehe
pablotjob 2 years ago
ya lol . but respect for them :D
kiemsivn 2 years ago
i`m surprised looking this great points..those are true champions for that though era of tennis when the tennis was anonymous sport
emran90 2 years ago
wow, you can see the anticipation and quickness. It is the same as Borg had. It is the same that Sampras had. Federer has the same, but laver said, he uses that extra anticipation to create shots nobody has ever thought of. The next great champion is going to have this too, quickness (not speed) and anticipation
usamaj 2 years ago
Laver at his peak vs Federer at his peak would have been one for the ages. As would Borg at his peak vs Nadal at his peak.
LoafOfPint 2 years ago
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.
Sandcat87 2 years ago
It's all relative though, give Federer and Nadal wooden rackets and put them on this fast playing grass.
pugilistofpower 2 years ago 8
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!!!
Sandcat87 2 years ago
I'd empty my bank account for seats at that match!
pugilistofpower 2 years ago
lol .
kiemsivn 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
what a load of shit
relyanddefy 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
boring...
zhouzhiliang 2 years ago
Laver's record is simply unimpeachable, with his superb all court game and longtevity of his career, he must be the first candidate for the title of greatest player ever.
what vollying what speed around the court,
see wikipedia and other internet sources for his incredibel record between 1963-1967 (he did the professional grand slam in 1967)
His Double grand slam is one of the greatest achivements in sports history,
more power to the great Rod in his old age bless him
thatwilldonicely 2 years ago
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.
dzee127 2 years ago
So graceful
bergkampmagic 2 years ago
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.
hyperthreaded 2 years ago
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,
Zozim57 2 years ago 8
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.
pugilistofpower 2 years ago
Yes I am a bit pissed that Borg is not given credit enough for clinching both french and Wimbledon so many times over. It is the toughest thing in tennis. How many times has Sampras done it and how many times is Federer likely to do it?
mulan400 2 years ago
True, but Borg never won the US Open -- Fed and Sampras each have won it 5 times.
drwood04 2 years ago
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.
Folkstone57 1 year ago
Damn, finesse at it's best.
oscarmex 2 years ago 3
1:56, Rod Laver actually making an error!
Samprasisthebest 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
serve and volley matches are so boring
toimoi0youme 2 years ago
What a beautiful tennis they both play.
DiegoElArbol 2 years ago 2
Is Laver's backhand a topspin or a slice? Looks like some weird chimera of both.
hyperthreaded 2 years ago
just awesome, rare video aye?? u wiill never see these type of style agian, and such perfect volleys. btw at 5:12 is that a piece of pubic hair that just fell??? ahahahahh
cbee69 2 years ago
There is brilliant strategy at play here. It is more fun to watch when it is not just a muscle contest like it usually is now. I wish modern tennis would mandate wooden or aluminum rackets again, just like pro baseball uses wooden bats. Bring some strategic variety back to the game.
hufarted 2 years ago
The rally at 455 with TR's low backhand volley from the mid-court is extraordinary
saurau 2 years ago 2
Wonderful glimpse of that tennis era. Boy, did those men know how to volley!
adimg21 2 years ago 2
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.
Cervicconstruction 2 years ago
Rockhampton
notthelastword 2 years ago
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.
Cervicconstruction 2 years ago
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.
davisracquet 2 years ago
Ho mon dieu ! La qualité est tellement bonne, c'est génial !
cestmoi974 2 years ago
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.
schusterlehrling 2 years ago
wow Laver is one of the greats, but he would get double bageled by nadal or federer, how can you say they have "limited abilities and strategic means"?
jeffnsee 2 years ago
Look, Borg or Connor's couldn't bagel Laver (not even close). The man won TWO Grand Slams !! Nadal and Federer better work on their first. Looks like Laver got the double bagel on that one.
JJLOB 2 years ago
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.
jeffnsee 2 years ago
Laver is a champ, winning 2 grand slams. Not a very easy thing to do. Especially with the clay and grass court specialists. As for Laver's style getting killed in this generation of tennis. I have to point out that Pete Sampras got very far with his serve and volley technique. If you watch Sampras he can't do anything from the baseline but at the net he's unstoppable. Also Laver is a lefty, a huge advantage. Just watch Nadal he uses that advantage to its fullest.
19skywalker91 2 years ago
In every aspect of the game? This just simply isn't true. The players have gotten better in certain aspects of the game that are favoured by the technology. Guys hit bigger, more powerful groundies with more topspin and guys also hit more lines. This is partly due to the technology and partly due to the players' adjustment to the technology. However due to these changes, players have also become worse volleyers, much worse at lobs, dropshots and arguably tactics.
chapaev36 2 years ago 3
Sampras did - and he beat Agassi doing it!. Agassi played up to 2006 and ranked up there to the end. Sampras credited Laver with his success and that says something. Laver at age of 36 played Connors, Borg and Nastase successfully (tough sets). ANY of those last 3 players would win today. Dont kid yourself. Tennis is very, very DEEP in legacy and talent. Laver may well be the GREATEST EVER. His record stands.
JJLOB 2 years ago 2
PS. Laver wasn't a 'Serve and Volley' player he was an 'All Court Player' or complete player who excelled over the entire court and had ALL the shots. Serve and Volley players - Jack Kramer, Pancho Gonzales, John Newcombe, Stan Smith, Roscoe Tanner - all fearsome servers to name a few. Then came McEnroe (sometimes), Edberg, Becker and Pete Sampras most recently. Someone will bring it back again.
JJLOB 2 years ago
I find it curious that in no professional sport are past greats as disrespected as they are in tennis. Not in baseball, nor basketball, nor hockey, nor football. But in tennis, certain fans - especially young fans - really can't help themselves but to make arrogant statements such as these. Sandy Koufax threw a 96-mph fastball. He must have been pretty good for any era. Laver must have been too.
chapaev36 2 years ago 2
Yes, brilliant: ""Like all of us he likes a little bit of beer when he is finished a long day." And then he couples it with, "And its Rod laver serving from the Northern end. Just standard commentary of the time. I'll get out my compass and chilly beer mug. (Actually, wish I could, this was tennis worth savoring.)
billgordon37 2 years ago 2
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
timmybassett 2 years ago
see this is the beauty of tennis nice Serve and Volley not baseline exchange
nitrousdaking 2 years ago 4
"like all of us he likes a little bit of beer when he is finished a long day"
What commentary. lol
amount18 2 years ago
It is so wonderful that this video exists to show everyone how the game was played, and how it should be played. There is not a top male player today who is even a good volleyer (which means making the vast majority of easy to somewhat more difficult volleys) and at least a significant minority of really tough volleys. None, and I challenge anyone who knows anything about the game to dispute that fact. Disclaimer: Laver is the best play male player of all time, bar none...in my opinion.
paqumike53 2 years ago 4
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.
alkh3myst 2 years ago
The two-handed backhand is the biggest reason why serve-and-volley isn't as effective today, because the BH return is no longer a purely defensive shot (as it is with a one-handed BH). That's why Edberg late in his career started getting owned by Courier and Agassi -- it was all about the return of serve.
drwood04 2 years ago
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?
alkh3myst 2 years ago
I agree with you. Federer is a perfect example of how the one-hand backhand opens up the entirety of the court.
Quite frankly, I think today's 2 handed players are just juniors with muscle.
rm1725 2 years ago
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.
alkh3myst 2 years ago
Lot of 2HBH hating going on here...very sad.
drwood04 2 years ago
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.
alkh3myst 2 years ago
I don't have an emotional investment in any groundstroke...both the 1HBH and 2HBH are beautiful in their own ways.
I'm sorry you have such an emotional investment in degrading the 2HBH. As Borg, Hewitt and Nadal have shown, you can volley well enough to win Wimbledon while having a 2HBH.
drwood04 2 years ago
@rm1725 True.
Rosewall spent his 30 year career using backspin backhands.
y11971alex 1 year ago
@y11971alex Rosewall hit flat vackhands, geez everyone knows that
idoggie2 1 year ago
The one-handed BH is a defensive shot ON THE RETURN OF SERVE -- none of those players were able to consistently hit BH winners on the return. On the return of serve, the 1HBH is a defensive shot -- that's why serve-volley used to dominate -- you could serve to the 1HBH w/o fear of return winners. You can't get away with now that unless you have a phenomenal serve (Sampras) b/c you'll get smoked by the 2HBH returns at the highest level (i.e Agassi, Courier in the 90s, Nadal, Murray today).
drwood04 2 years ago
@drwood04 Not true.
1:31
y11971alex 1 year ago
if you put laver in his prime with a mid size racket and play against maybe nadal. laver might even win.
jbug300 2 years ago
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.
davisracquet 2 years ago
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
IricForset 2 years ago
I still like playing my old wooden racquet :D its a Adidas Ille Nastase :D I love it because its a challenge to play the modern game with it ( a drop shot is fucking hard xD )
Tennis need more different style now, its cool with the allrounders nowadays but it would be awesome if we had also some fantastic servevandvolley exlusive players, some assholes and not only those super-nice guys :D more charisma, more diversity, more tennis ! less show.
LesYeuxDeDarius 2 years ago
Lucky man!! That's a collector's item (could never get my hands on one) Love the 'zebra' stripes - look after it. Nastase was amazing. Saw him hit an approach shot on clay, flip his racquet as he came in, gripping the racquet by it's head to hit a drop volley OFF THE HANDLE for a winner! Unbelievable talent.
JJLOB 2 years ago
I found it when i moved into a new place, it was behind some ooooold stuff :D I guess im really lucky :D
acutally i never saw him playing, i just heard that he was a playboy :D
LesYeuxDeDarius 2 years ago
Yes, the racquet is an old playboy charm. :D Look after it and it will look after you! Good Luck !!
JJLOB 2 years ago
man how hard do they hit with those wooden rackets!! they actually hit soo hard!
dorker1992 2 years ago 2
Love the comment about having a beer at the end of the day. It were a mans world back then lad
doubts 2 years ago 2
is Roche the guy with black hair cos he kinda reminds me of federer
PassionNTennis 2 years ago
Lavers backhand is just beauty.
turtlecutches 3 years ago 5
pure gold .. this is just amazing :O
equinoxe102 3 years ago
Great! No rally without serve n volley
johnnyw96 3 years ago
I don't get it... rod laver won 4 grand slams in the same year twice and officially he never reached first place... that's gay, don't you think?
giancarlog89 3 years ago
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.
bassidol 3 years ago
oh well I read wikipedia that's what they said there.. that he never officially reached first place "although he was considered no. 1".. I think it's cause what you're saying, because there were no rankings
giancarlog89 3 years ago
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.
bassidol 3 years ago
Official rankings started in 1974, Ilie Nastase was the first official number 1
WikipediaRules 2 years ago
actually, in 1973
misumisu2007 2 years ago
i mean nastase nr 1
misumisu2007 2 years ago
It seems odd and it is. As you now know Laver was considered the No. 1 player for 7 consecutive years (64-70). Now imagine a player today missing slam events for 5 of their peak years! Laver came back with a vengence and won a SECOND Grand Slam in '69!! Federer came close 3X.
JJLOB 2 years ago
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.
bassidol 3 years ago
yes, If Nadal existed back in 1969 he wouldn't win the Australian Open!! (I LOVE ROGER FEDERER_
TTFAFF 3 years ago
Lavern the great
IKurtC 3 years ago 2
A real eye opener. Amazing skill
doubts 3 years ago
God I wish the game today were like it was then. It's just a wham-slam canon-fire nowadays, quite boring and lacking in finesse and skill.
greasegunx 3 years ago
imagine to nadal in that epoch, he wouldt have oportunnity
craack100 3 years ago
"imagine to nadal in that epoch, he wouldt have oportunnity"
Say what? I don't get your english.
Nidhogg86 3 years ago
sorry, im not very good, i just used a translator.
i said that nadal in that times, we wouldnt have an oportunty.
craack100 3 years ago
HE wouldnt have an oportunity
craack100 3 years ago
Okay, thanks for explaining. It's difficult to compare eras like that, with the game constantly changing with new grips, racquet techology, more attention to training, physique and diets and such.
Nidhogg86 3 years ago
WHOOOOOOOOOOO old school tennis
georgina168 3 years ago
the angle of the camera is the best ive seen. It allows you to sse the complete trayectory of the ball. Tv should use that view nowadays.
chrstn333 3 years ago
So different. No topspin, amazing slices.
IvanAndreevich 3 years ago 2
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.
robotontoilet 3 years ago
that's not tennis. that is art.
AirForehand 3 years ago 11
Amazing tennis!! How can do this with wooden rackets? Thank you for posting
falbendea 3 years ago