2023 ATP General News

[El Dude]

Random picture for this Christmas day. Extra points if you know who they are:

 

[Moxie]

Random picture for this Christmas day. Extra points if you know who they are:

View attachment 8996

Merry Christmas, Dude! I'll take a stab: I think the woman is Suzanne Lenglen. So maybe the man is Rene Lacoste?

 

[El Dude]

Well done, Moxie! And Merry Christmas to you, as well.

 

[Moxie]

Well done, Moxie! And Merry Christmas to you, as well.

It's an excellent action shot! Lenglen is pretty recognizable, esp. as I've googled her more than a few times over the years, given my *ahem* interest in the French Open. Lacoste was the only name I could come up with as one of her French contemporaries, though I know there are other famous ones. But you may have identified a fun game!

 

[El Dude]

It's an excellent action shot! Lenglen is pretty recognizable, esp. as I've googled her more than a few times over the years, given my *ahem* interest in the French Open. Lacoste was the only name I could come up with as one of her French contemporaries, though I know there are other famous ones. But you may have identified a fun game!

Well, they had a nickname - the Four Musketeers, I believe? Rene Lacoste, Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra and...the other guy I forget. I'll look him up...Jacques Brugnon.

Lacoste had an interesting career because it was very short but dominant - he retired early due to illness (a respiratory disease). He played only 305 matches but won 262 of them (85.9%), including 7 Slams and 20 Masters equivalents. Cochet won 8 Slams, a pro Slam, and 27 Masters equivalents, but it was over 800+ matches. Borotra won 4 Slams and 18 Masters equivalents in almost 800 matches. Brugnon was a far lesser player - no Slams, a Masters equiv, and a handful of other minor titles.

 

[Fiero425]

Well, they had a nickname - the Four Musketeers, I believe? Rene Lacoste, Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra and...the other guy I forget. I'll look him up...Jacques Brugnon.

Lacoste had an interesting career because it was very short but dominant - he retired early due to illness (a respiratory disease). He played only 305 matches but won 262 of them (85.9%), including 7 Slams and 20 Masters equivalents. Cochet won 8 Slams, a pro Slam, and 27 Masters equivalents, but it was over 800+ matches. Borotra won 4 Slams and 18 Masters equivalents in almost 800 matches. Brugnon was a far lesser player - no Slams, a Masters equiv, and a handful of other minor titles.

The records are a lot more impressive now w/ jet air-flight, 1st class hotel acccommodations, appearance $$ at every event, & huge paydays to win! Back then it was about the "LOVE of The GAME!" I'm sure they say they "Love" the game today, but it's not the same! Players back then were only appreciated by other tennis players! You could still be anonymous w/ the fame of being #1 in a game like tennis! HOAD could have been huge in the sport but for a hernia showing off lifting heavy weights! In '56 he was in the USO to complete a CYGS, but lost to Rosewall in 4 sets! Back issues restricted & curtailed his career thru the 60's! He went into the military for a while, but managed to play on tour until '73! He owned Laver starting out 8-0 over The Rocket early on!

 

[Moxie]

Well, they had a nickname - the Four Musketeers, I believe? Rene Lacoste, Henri Cochet, Jean Borotra and...the other guy I forget. I'll look him up...Jacques Brugnon.

Lacoste had an interesting career because it was very short but dominant - he retired early due to illness (a respiratory disease). He played only 305 matches but won 262 of them (85.9%), including 7 Slams and 20 Masters equivalents. Cochet won 8 Slams, a pro Slam, and 27 Masters equivalents, but it was over 800+ matches. Borotra won 4 Slams and 18 Masters equivalents in almost 800 matches. Brugnon was a far lesser player - no Slams, a Masters equiv, and a handful of other minor titles.

Absolutely I was thinking of the Four Musketeers. And now I don't wonder that I only had one guess. The other names mean nothing to me, even though I've googled them more than once. The trophy that Rafa has hefted 14 times is called "La Coupe des Mousquetaires," in their honor.

 

[El Dude]

The records are a lot more impressive now w/ jet air-flight, 1st class hotel acccommodations, appearance $$ at every event, & huge paydays to win! Back then it was about the "LOVE of The GAME!" I'm sure they say they "Love" the game today, but it's not the same! Players back then were only appreciated by other tennis players! You could still be anonymous w/ the fame of being #1 in a game like tennis! HOAD could have been huge in the sport but for a hernia showing off lifting heavy weights! In '56 he was in the USO to complete a CYGS, but lost to Rosewall in 4 sets! Back issues restricted & curtailed his career thru the 60's! He went into the military for a while, but managed to play on tour until '73! He owned Laver starting out 8-0 over The Rocket early on!

This isn't entirely true. For the first 50 years, it was just rich (white) people playing tennis against each other. But that changed in 1927, partially due to Lenglen - but also Big Bill Tilden. The pro circuit opened things up a bit for people to make some money. Before then you had to be rich to play tennis, but after you could make a career of it - and almost all of the best players went pro (sorry, Roy Emerson - you get the title of best player to never go pro--at least until the Open Era--but your career numbers are inflated because of it).

Players would cut their teeth on the amateur tour, then almost invariably go play with the big boys on the pro circuit. The World Pro Series and other pro tours were grueling - they'd sometimes play over 100 matches over the course of a few months and against other top guys. Sort of like an ATP Finals, but with 100+ matches. Pancho Gonzales only won two amateur Slams, but he also won 12 Pro Slams and 7 World Pro Championship tours, not to mention a bunch of other pro tours and other big titles.

Anyhow, no need to compare - it was a different world and game. But there's a continuity that verifies that the past greats were truly great. I mean, consider how we can connect all of tennis history in just a handful of players:

Roger or Rafa (1) played Andre Agassi (2), who played Jimmy Connors (3), who played Pancho Gonzales (4) who played Bill Tilden (5) in 1951 when Tilden was 57. Tilden started in 1912 -- so that's 111 years of tennis in just 5 careers that overlapped, if only for a match. "Five Degrees to Bill Tilden."

The game evolved, but it was gradual and through the players, not outside of them. To illustrate this, let's do some match-researching:

Match One (1951): While Bill Tilden faded out in the 1940s, he came back in 1951 at 57 years old (!) for a couple pro tours. In one of them, the American Pro Tour, he faced a 23-year old by the name of Pancho Gonzales, holding his own in a 10-8 7-5 loss. At 57 years old! Gonzales was already a multi-Slam winner and one of the best players in the world. That would be like Stefan Edberg coming back and holding his own against Jannik Sinner.

Match Two (1971): 20 years later in 1971, a 43-year old Gonzales defeated a 19-year old Jimmy Connors in the final of the Pacific Southwest Open (a low level tournament, akin to an ATP 250). Connors wasn't yet an elite player - he finished the year #35 in Ultimate Tennis Statistics pre-ATP rankings - but Gonzales was a good decade past his prime years of 1948-61.

Match Three (1989): We could have gone with Jimmy Connors fabled Semifinal run at the US Open as a wildcard in 1991, but let's go with the QF of the 1989 Semifinal, which was the last year that Connors was in the top 10 - he ended '88 at #7 and '89 at #14, then missed most of 1990 before coming back as a top 50-100 guy for a couple years in 91-92 and the fading out. Anyhow, Connors faced a 19-year old by the name of Andre Agassi, losing in five sets. Connors even doled out a bagel in the third set. Agassi reached (and lost in) his third Slam Semifinal in the last four tries, and had three Masters titles to his name - he wasn't yet in his peak, but he was an elite player who had finished the previous year at #3.

Match Four (2005): Agassi is now 35 and reaches what became his last Slam final, facing a guy who had won four of the previous seven Slams - a peak Roger Federer. He lost to Roger in four sets, but it wasn't a push over.

Match Five (2019): We could take any number of Roger's final few years when he was still a very good player and beating most everyone not named Novak Djokovic. He was losing to the young guys too, though, but holding his own until nearly the very end. But as late as the 2019 Tour Finals he beat Novak and Berrettini in the Round Robin, though lost to Tsitsipas in the SF.

So there you have five matches spread across almost 70 years, from Tilden to Gonzales to Connors to Agassi to Federer to whoever you want. Each previous generation at least held their own when they were in their final years against top young players.

So when I think of Bill Tilden, I don't just think of a "dandy" playing in pants while his underage boy-toy watched on the sidelines. I think of one of the greatest tennis players of all time, who played at an elite for two decades, and at a competitive level for four.

Or I think of Ken Rosewall and I don't think of the guy who got blown away by Jimmy Connors at the US Open in 1974 (6-1 6-0 6-1), or an almost as bad loss in the Wimbledon final. It was Connors' breakout and best year and Rosewall turning 40 years old at the end of the year. I think of a player who won Slams over the course of two decades, his first in 1953 and his last in 1972--including 4 amateur, 15 pro, and 4 Open Era slams--who in his prime was only second fiddle to arguably the GOAT in Rod Laver, winning all three Pro Slams and the last World Pro Championship in 1963.

Tilden and Rosewall deserve to be on the short list of greatest male tennis players in tennis history, regardless of the era they played in. Only Gonzales, Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic could really be considered in the same category (or maybe Tony Wilding if we want to go way back, or for peak levels we could add in guys like Vines, Kramer, and Budge), and really I think they deserve be above half of those guys (Tennis Abstract has Tilden 4th behind only Laver, Djokovic, and Federer; and Rosewall 8th...I'd put Nadal ahead of both, but might put Tilden and Rosewall 5th and 6th all-time).

 

[the AntiPusher]

Holger Rune adds long time Federer coach Severin Luthi to his team, joining new coach Boris Becker
Interesting new challenge for Severin Luthi. He was approached by many players in the last 15 months. Holger was one of the few he considered. He likes his potential and fire.And Severin has a very good relationship with Boris Becker. He is one of his childhood idols ( source Simon Graf)

I'm surprised I thought he was going to add Lubic to the team because I seen him sitting close to the players team box a few times.

 

[the AntiPusher]

This isn't entirely true. For the first 50 years, it was just rich (white) people playing tennis against each other. But that changed in 1927, partially due to Lenglen - but also Big Bill Tilden. The pro circuit opened things up a bit for people to make some money. Before then you had to be rich to play tennis, but after you could make a career of it - and almost all of the best players went pro (sorry, Roy Emerson - you get the title of best player to never go pro--at least until the Open Era--but your career numbers are inflated because of it).

Players would cut their teeth on the amateur tour, then almost invariably go play with the big boys on the pro circuit. The World Pro Series and other pro tours were grueling - they'd sometimes play over 100 matches over the course of a few months and against other top guys. Sort of like an ATP Finals, but with 100+ matches. Pancho Gonzales only won two amateur Slams, but he also won 12 Pro Slams and 7 World Pro Championship tours, not to mention a bunch of other pro tours and other big titles.

Anyhow, no need to compare - it was a different world and game. But there's a continuity that verifies that the past greats were truly great. I mean, consider how we can connect all of tennis history in just a handful of players:

Roger or Rafa (1) played Andre Agassi (2), who played Jimmy Connors (3), who played Pancho Gonzales (4) who played Bill Tilden (5) in 1951 when Tilden was 57. Tilden started in 1912 -- so that's 111 years of tennis in just 5 careers that overlapped, if only for a match. "Five Degrees to Bill Tilden."

The game evolved, but it was gradual and through the players, not outside of them. To illustrate this, let's do some match-researching:

Match One (1951): While Bill Tilden faded out in the 1940s, he came back in 1951 at 57 years old (!) for a couple pro tours. In one of them, the American Pro Tour, he faced a 23-year old by the name of Pancho Gonzales, holding his own in a 10-8 7-5 loss. At 57 years old! Gonzales was already a multi-Slam winner and one of the best players in the world. That would be like Stefan Edberg coming back and holding his own against Jannik Sinner.

Match Two (1971): 20 years later in 1971, a 43-year old Gonzales defeated a 19-year old Jimmy Connors in the final of the Pacific Southwest Open (a low level tournament, akin to an ATP 250). Connors wasn't yet an elite player - he finished the year #35 in Ultimate Tennis Statistics pre-ATP rankings - but Gonzales was a good decade past his prime years of 1948-61.

Match Three (1989): We could have gone with Jimmy Connors fabled Semifinal run at the US Open as a wildcard in 1991, but let's go with the QF of the 1989 Semifinal, which was the last year that Connors was in the top 10 - he ended '88 at #7 and '89 at #14, then missed most of 1990 before coming back as a top 50-100 guy for a couple years in 91-92 and the fading out. Anyhow, Connors faced a 19-year old by the name of Andre Agassi, losing in five sets. Connors even doled out a bagel in the third set. Agassi reached (and lost in) his third Slam Semifinal in the last four tries, and had three Masters titles to his name - he wasn't yet in his peak, but he was an elite player who had finished the previous year at #3.

Match Four (2005): Agassi is now 35 and reaches what became his last Slam final, facing a guy who had won four of the previous seven Slams - a peak Roger Federer. He lost to Roger in four sets, but it wasn't a push over.

Match Five (2019): We could take any number of Roger's final few years when he was still a very good player and beating most everyone not named Novak Djokovic. He was losing to the young guys too, though, but holding his own until nearly the very end. But as late as the 2019 Tour Finals he beat Novak and Berrettini in the Round Robin, though lost to Tsitsipas in the SF.

So there you have five matches spread across almost 70 years, from Tilden to Gonzales to Connors to Agassi to Federer to whoever you want. Each previous generation at least held their own when they were in their final years against top young players.

So when I think of Bill Tilden, I don't just think of a "dandy" playing in pants while his underage boy-toy watched on the sidelines. I think of one of the greatest tennis players of all time, who played at an elite for two decades, and at a competitive level for four.

Or I think of Ken Rosewall and I don't think of the guy who got blown away by Jimmy Connors at the US Open in 1974 (6-1 6-0 6-1), or an almost as bad loss in the Wimbledon final. It was Connors' breakout and best year and Rosewall turning 40 years old at the end of the year. I think of a player who won Slams over the course of two decades, his first in 1953 and his last in 1972--including 4 amateur, 15 pro, and 4 Open Era slams--who in his prime was only second fiddle to arguably the GOAT in Rod Laver, winning all three Pro Slams and the last World Pro Championship in 1963.

Tilden and Rosewall deserve to be on the short list of greatest male tennis players in tennis history, regardless of the era they played in. Only Gonzales, Laver, Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic could really be considered in the same category (or maybe Tony Wilding if we want to go way back, or for peak levels we could add in guys like Vines, Kramer, and Budge), and rally I think they deserve be above half of those guys (Tennis Abstract his Tilden 4th behind only Laver, Djokovic, and Federer; and Rosewall 8th...I'd put Nadal ahead of both, but might put Tilden and Rosewall 5th and 6th all-time).

My LORD dude you really know your tennis history. A pure tennis historian. I may not WANT to agree with you because it doesn't always fit my perspective but the numbers are on your side. BRAVO..cheers and keep analyzing the data!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Draw ceremony Brisbane International will take place on Saturday 30th December at 9am AEST

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Can Matteo Berrettini ever get a break? he has withdrawn from qualies in Brisbane International, he injured himself in practice, won't be back on court next week

 

[El Dude]

My LORD dude you really know your tennis history. A pure tennis historian. I may not WANT to agree with you because it doesn't always fit my perspective but the numbers are on your side. BRAVO..cheers and keep analyzing the data!

Ah, thanks. My enjoyment of tennis has three facets: the actual play on court and tour as it is happening; the stats; and the history.

Rather than continue to clog up this thread, I've started a new one. Here is a long-winded post that goes further, and a new thread on tennis history:

Ruminations on Tennis History

Rather than clogging up the General thread with my various historical odds and ends, I thought I'd start a thread in which to place random thoughts about tennis history. Feel free to contribute - either through response or posting your own stuff. To start, here is a response to @the AntiPusher...

www.tennisfrontier.com

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Watched the exhibition match in Riyadh between Alcaraz v Djokovic, quite frankly it wasn't a exhibition match at al,
Shot of the Match was a Alcaraz fhand down the line winner from out of the court, all Djokovic could do was a 'wry smile'
Alcaraz d Djokovic 46 64 64

Alcaraz will not be playing a warm up tournament for the AO in 2024, as I previously posted JCF will not be in Australia with Alcaraz as he is recovering from knee surgery

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

The ATP season starts in 24 hours with the United Cup.
Crazy!

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

ATP Wild Cards Brisbane,
Singles
Rafa Nadal (ESP)
Jason Kubler (AUS)
Rinky Hijikata (AUS)
Doubles,
Rafa Nadal/ Marc Lopez

 

[the AntiPusher]

Draw ceremony Brisbane International will take place on Saturday 30th December at 9am AEST

Isnt it Saturday morning in Aussy now?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Isnt it Saturday morning in Aussy now?

Yes lol! it is 4.00am the draw for Brisbane should be taking place around 9am, though Brisbane is not on daylight saving time like Sydney, so it is 3am in Brisbane at the present time
The drawn ceremony for Brisbane International is 9am AEST, Saturday 30th December

 

[the AntiPusher]

Yes lol! it is 4.00am the draw for Brisbane should be taking place around 9am, though Brisbane is not on daylight saving time like Sydney, so it is 3am in Brisbane at the present time
The drawn ceremony for Brisbane International is 9am AEST, Saturday 30th December

It's 9 am @MargaretMcAleer MM

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

It's 9 am @MargaretMcAleer MM

Yes I just got back from grocery shopping, let me check