Random Questions

[El Dude]

The point of this thread is to ask (and answer) random tennis-related questions. I'm starting this out of my own interest, because I'm always trying to deepen my knowledge and many of the folks on this forum have FAR more knowledge of the game, both historically but also technically, and there are often questions I have that I'd love to have someone answer. But I'm also guessing that some of you have questions that you'd like to see discussed.

So let's see how it goes. I imagine that this could get quite chaotic, with numerous mini-conversations occurring. Or it could just fall flat with me having a masturbatory statistical orgy. Let's just see how it goes!

OK, so here are some questions to get us started:

What happened to Stan Smith? For a few years there, 1971 and '72 in particular, he looked great, but then he sputtered and spent the last ten years of his career in relative mediocrity. I was actually surprised to see that he played in Slams up until 1983, the year he turned 37. Anyhow, he just seemed to peak late (not really breaking out as a star until 24 or so) and then fall off quickly. The same is also somewhat true of his similarly near-great contemporaries, Jan Kodes and Ilie Nastase. Both had a bit greater longevity in terms of peak level, but all three seemed to fade rather quickly with the rise of Connors, Vilas, and then Borg. Maybe I answered my own question? Anyhow, I find them an interesting trio in that they dominated tennis for a few years in the early 70s between different generations of greats.

I'm sure I'll think of more, but let's get it started with that one.

 

[Kieran]

I think for guys like this, who were around when the amateur days ended and were basically the original pros, the arrival of the likes of Connors and Borg was a death knell of sorts, because these newbies represented the absolutely professional future of the sport, ruthless, and selfishly pursuing greatness. But of course, there were differences between all of these guys. Nastase found the sudden media intrusion in tennis - which was huge in the seventies - to be a bit of a poisoned chalice. He was supremely gifted, but equally undisciplined. This is a guy who met his future wife by leering greedily at her in the crowd during one of his games. I loved Nastase, because he was funny, volatile, charming, but he wasn't cut-out for the cut-throat stuff that was coming.

Not sure what happened to Stan Smith, but he wouldn't be too many people's idea of a true great. John Newcombe was of similar style, but greater and tougher. It was just difficult for some guys to make the grade once uber-professionalism kicked in. There's also the fact that this was a period of transition, kinda like Courier, or Hewitt, but 20 or 30 years previously...

 

[Kirijax]

I think for guys like this, who were around when the amateur days ended and were basically the original pros, the arrival of the likes of Connors and Borg was a death knell of sorts, because these newbies represented the absolutely professional future of the sport, ruthless, and selfishly pursuing greatness. But of course, there were differences between all of these guys. Nastase found the sudden media intrusion in tennis - which was huge in the seventies - to be a bit of a poisoned chalice. He was supremely gifted, but equally undisciplined. This is a guy who met his future wife by leering greedily at her in the crowd during one of his games. I loved Nastase, because he was funny, volatile, charming, but he wasn't cut-out for the cut-throat stuff that was coming.

Not sure what happened to Stan Smith, but he wouldn't be too many people's idea of a true great. John Newcombe was of similar style, but greater and tougher. It was just difficult for some guys to make the grade once uber-professionalism kicked in. There's also the fact that this was a period of transition, kinda like Courier, or Hewitt, but 20 or 30 years previously...

Very good point. Smith and Nastase were at the top of their game when the game was changing in ways no one could predict. Are there any books out there that focus on the late 60s/early 70s era of professional tennis? That would be a very interesting read.

 

[El Dude]

Great post, Kieran - you're older than I thought! But seriously, you covered a lot of bases there and pretty much affirmed and filled out my initial impressions.

In my "generational theory," Newcombe, Kodes, Nastase, and Smith are all of the same generation (along with Tom Okker and Tony Roche), players born in the five-year span of 1944-48. Newcombe was the best of his generation and a couple years older than the other three and also faded around the same time. Interestingly enough, Newcombe's last Slam title was the 1975 AO in which he defeated Jimmy Connors in his prime; it was the second and last time Connors would play in Australia.

Anyhow, there seem to be these "axial periods" - the early 70s, the late 90s/early 00s, and perhaps in two or three years when Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are fading.