Laver vs. Roche
Posted on December 30, 2009
Filed Under Videos
Rod Laver vs. Tony Roche 1969 Australian Open SF. Laver (in white hat) begins his journey to the Grand Slam.
Comments
25 Responses to “Laver vs. Roche”
Leave a Reply
Posted on December 30, 2009
Filed Under Videos
Rod Laver vs. Tony Roche 1969 Australian Open SF. Laver (in white hat) begins his journey to the Grand Slam.
25 Responses to “Laver vs. Roche”
Leave a Reply
Powered By Wordpress - Theme Provided By Wordpress Themes - Colon Clean
Laver is still alive, you can ask him!
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.
Does anyone know these people?
duh of course
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.
obviously you cant read
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.
NB: im referring to todays players using modern racquets, laver using woodies.
oh, and as if a big arm means you can hit any shot. ROFL.
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 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.
well i have little idea about laver ( i was born in the 90s) so i speak from watching this video.
It’s irrelevant because you’re not saying anything interesting or unusual and diminishing the greatness of past stars like Laver all at once.
irrelevant? im just stating my opinion about advances in technology
How would it be fair for Laver to face off with a modern player with wood? What you’re saying is irrelevant.
no kidding, but with the tech these day…
not with wooden racquets for sure
These guys are not bad, although a 5.0 these days could beat them, and a 5.5 would thrash them.
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.
laver was 30 years old in 1969; he seems older, like 50 years of age..ridiculous hat!!!
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.
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.
Lot of 2HBH hating going on here…very sad.
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).
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.