That's great thanks Gamma. The court looks like it's had a heavy dose of rain, it's so chopped up, keeping your footing and ball bounce would have been a nightmare.....lol
This is the final of the US Pro Tennis Championships of 1968 played at the Longwood Cricket Club Chestnut Hill Massachusetts. The first of the Open era. Played on 10 September two days after the first US Open. Laver versus Newcombe. No tiebreaks. The shot of the scoreboard shows Laver leading 2 sets to love but down in the third set 67. Laver wins the next three games to take the match in straight sets 64 64 97.
I’ll be honest, Newcombe’s form looks more effective to my eye, particularly the serve. But looking good doesn’t guarantee wins. Though the scoreboard only shows Newcombe winning the first set, and down a break in the 2nd. But the handshake implies laver came back to win the match.
Laver won in straight sets. No tiebreaks. The shot of the scoreboard shows Laver leading 2 sets to love but down 67 in the third. Laver takes the next three games to win 64 64 97.
The standard of this looks pretty poor if we are being honest. Laver, Newcombe and co played the same type of game as a good county player or US college player, but just to a higher standard. It took Nastase, Connors and especially Borg to raise the level considerably to what we have today. On top of that, the Aussies were as dull as ditchwater, none more so than Laver, who was a charisma bypass.
Your observations are correct, sort of. Laver and Newcombe did indeed play the style of game of a Club County or College player of the time. But at an extremely higher level of speed accuracy and consistency. These two players plus Tony Roche and Ken Rosewall were the top four seeds at the first US Open played the week before this match. Therefore arguably the best four players in the world. This style of play guaranteed a higher win percentage on the lawn courts of the Australian British and US majors and all the lead in and lead out tournaments. The skill set required high competency on every stroke from the serve to off the ground and in the air from the backcourt to the midcourt to the frontcourt. It was played fast at close quarters. 80% plus of play was played inside the court. Intuitive reactionary tennis.
@@markmurray7043 Noted and agreed. I guess the number of what look like fairly easy errors when watching old clips of these guys is accounted for by the fact that it was reactionary tennis.There's a UA-cam video of a very young Borg easily beating an admittedly well past his best Laver, he couldn't cope with Borg's game.Equally a 44 year old Gonzalez beat the young Jimmy Connors in the final of a the LA tournament in 1971. Gonzalez was though I think a considerable cut above those sturdy, rather dour, Aussies.
Fantastic. It’s crazy how recent old footage looks when it’s modernized.
Dazzling and very special - thank you
That's great thanks Gamma. The court looks like it's had a heavy dose of rain, it's so chopped up, keeping your footing and ball bounce would have been a nightmare.....lol
This is excellent footage of two of the greats!
Magical footage! My God, those courts were horrendous!
This is the final of the US Pro Tennis Championships of 1968 played at the Longwood Cricket Club Chestnut Hill Massachusetts. The first of the Open era. Played on 10 September two days after the first US Open. Laver versus Newcombe. No tiebreaks. The shot of the scoreboard shows Laver leading 2 sets to love but down in the third set 67. Laver wins the next three games to take the match in straight sets 64 64 97.
Great tennis. Thank you so much!
Glad you like them!
Look at how dirty and gooey that ball is getting. I'll bet it was like hitting a rolled up sock.
I’ll be honest, Newcombe’s form looks more effective to my eye, particularly the serve. But looking good doesn’t guarantee wins. Though the scoreboard only shows Newcombe winning the first set, and down a break in the 2nd. But the handshake implies laver came back to win the match.
Laver won in straight sets. No tiebreaks. The shot of the scoreboard shows Laver leading 2 sets to love but down 67 in the third. Laver takes the next three games to win 64 64 97.
How does the ball even bounce on that court
The standard of this looks pretty poor if we are being honest. Laver, Newcombe and co played the same type of game as a good county player or US college player, but just to a higher standard. It took Nastase, Connors and especially Borg to raise the level considerably to what we have today. On top of that, the Aussies were as dull as ditchwater, none more so than Laver, who was a charisma bypass.
Such rubbish!
Your observations are correct, sort of. Laver and Newcombe did indeed play the style of game of a Club County or College player of the time. But at an extremely higher level of speed accuracy and consistency. These two players plus Tony Roche and Ken Rosewall were the top four seeds at the first US Open played the week before this match. Therefore arguably the best four players in the world. This style of play guaranteed a higher win percentage on the lawn courts of the Australian British and US majors and all the lead in and lead out tournaments. The skill set required high competency on every stroke from the serve to off the ground and in the air from the backcourt to the midcourt to the frontcourt. It was played fast at close quarters. 80% plus of play was played inside the court. Intuitive reactionary tennis.
@@markmurray7043 Noted and agreed. I guess the number of what look like fairly easy errors when watching old clips of these guys is accounted for by the fact that it was reactionary tennis.There's a UA-cam video of a very young Borg easily beating an admittedly well past his best Laver, he couldn't cope with Borg's game.Equally a 44 year old Gonzalez beat the young Jimmy Connors in the final of a the LA tournament in 1971. Gonzalez was though I think a considerable cut above those sturdy, rather dour, Aussies.
@@jeremyd1021How have you become such an utter drongo?
You don't know what you're talking about.