As promised, here are the results of TENNIS WEEK magazine's "A Tourney for All Time" fantasy men's tennis tournament. In brackets are my picks, round by round. (Note: Names only appear in the brackets if I picked a different winner, loser, or both.)
TW's Seeded Players:
1. Roger Federer
2. Rod Laver
3. Pete Sampras
4. Bjorn Borg
5. Bill Tilden
6. Don Budge
7. Jack Kramer
8. John McEnroe
First Round (32 players)
1. Federer d. Newcombe 7-6, 7-5, 6-3 (4-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-4)
2. Rosewall d. Nastase 4-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-2 (7-6, 3-6, 7-5, 6-4)
3. Emerson d. Sedgman 7-6, 5-7, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. Becker d. Budge 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (6-3, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4)
5. Borg d. Trabert 6-7, 6-4, 6-3, 7-6 (6-4, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Vilas d. Borotra 3-6, 6-2, 7-6, 2-6, 7-5 (4-6, 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
7. Gonzalez d. Courier 7-6, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 7-5, 3-6, 7-5)
8. McEnroe d. Hoad 6-7, 7-5, 7-6, 4-6, 6-2 (4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3)
9. Kramer d. Ashe 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3 (Ashe 5-7, 6-4, 4-6, 7-5, 6-4)
10. Lacoste d. Cochet 6-4, 2-6, 7-5, 1-6, 6-4 (Cochet 4-6, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
11. Connors d. Vines 3-6, 6-4, 7-6, 6-3 (5-7, 7-5, 7-6, 6-4)
12. Sampras d. Edberg 7-6, 4-6, 7-5, 6-3 (7-5, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
13. Tilden d. Riggs 4-6, 6-1, 6-3, 2-6, 7-5 (6-4, 6-4, 6-3)
14. Santana d. Wilander 5-7, 6-3, 7-6, 6-4 (Wilander 5-7, 7-5, 6-4, 6-3)
15. Agassi d. Lendl 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3(sic) , 9-7 (5-7, 7-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-3)
16. Laver d. Perry 2-6, 6-2, 7-5, 4-6, 8-6 (7-5, 7-5, 6-4)
Second Round (16 players)
1. Federer d. Rosewall 7-5, 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 (5-7, 6-4, 6-7, 7-5, 6-4)
2. Becker d. Emerson 3-6, 7-5, 6-4, 7-5 (6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 8-6)
3. Borg d. Vilas 6-3, 6-4, 6-3 (6-4, 7-5, 6-4)
4. McEnroe d. Gonzalez 6-7, 7-5, 4-6, 7-6, 9-7 (Gonzalez 6-7, 7-6, 5-7, 7-5, 8-6)
5. Kramer d. Lacoste 6-4, 3-6, 7-5, 6-2 (Ashe d. Cochet 7-5, 5-7, 4-6, 6-4, 6-4)
6. Sampras d. Connors 7-5, 6-4, 3-6, 7-6 (7-5, 6-4, 4-6, 6-3)
7. Tilden d. Santana 3-6, 6-3, 7-6, 2-6, 6-4 (Tilden d. Wilander 7-5, 4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
8. Laver d. Agassi 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (5-7, 6-4, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4)
Third Round (8 players)
1. Federer d. Becker 7-6, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4 (4-6, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4, 6-2)
2. McEnroe d. Borg 7-6, 3-6, 6-4, 6-7, 6-4 (Gonzalez d. Borg 5-7, 6-4, 5-7, 7-6, 6-4)
3. Sampras d. Kramer 7-5, 7-6, 3-6, 6-4 (Sampras d. Ashe 6-4, 6-3, 6-7, 6-3)
4. Laver d. Tilden 5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (4-6, 7-5, 6-7, 6-4, 6-4)
Semi-Finals
1. Federer d. McEnroe 6-4, 6-7, 7-6, 3-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Gonzalez 5-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-3)
2. Laver d. Sampras (5-7, 7-6, 7-6, 4-6, 8-6 (Sampras d. Laver 6-4, 7-5, 4-6, 6-4)
Final
Federer d. Laver 6-4, 5-7, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5 (Federer d. Sampras 6-7, 7-5, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5)
As you can see, the TENNIS WEEK panel picked #8 seed McEnroe to upset #4 seed Borg in the 3rd round (quarterfinals), whereas I had Gonzalez knocking out McEnroe in the 2nd round (round of 16). Also, I picked #3 seed Sampras to beat #2 seed Laver in the semifinals, whereas TW picked Laver to prevail. In most other respects, we saw things very similarly. I'm not sure what the TW panel intended the score between Agassi and Lendl to be, for it appeared in print as 4-6, 7-5, 7-6, 6-3, 9-7. One must assume that either the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th set score was to have been reversed, going to Lendl. We both saw that as a 5-set thriller.
In closing, I believe much of the tennis community has severely underestimated the abilities and combativeness of Pancho Gonzalez. I would argue that at his best he should easily be in the top 8, and with the right draw, perhaps the top 4. In the scenario above, I would have him taking down two of the best ever, McEnroe and Borg, in succession! Call me crazy, but that's the way I see it.
AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Don,
Great picks. I think you can argue it both ways; but, as a kid I saw Gonzalez playing Rosewald and Laver and Santana and those early pros as they went from small city USA to small city USA.
I was impressed with Gonzalez, he had huge overheads and anything sent skyward was a lost point against him; and, he made you lob him with his constant net rushing play. He also seemed to be out there to win, no matter what the cost as the other guys, though competetive for sure seemed not to take it quite as seriously. Anyway thats how I remember it.
I also agree with your final four and the championship match as well.....Federer would prevail over Mac and I agree Sampras would prevail over Laver evn though Laver is my all time favorite I still think Pete would get the best of him eventually.
Good picks and kinda makes you think a little about the various different styles of play that have all been successful at one time or another.
I'd like to see Federer play some serve and volley stuff just to see if its possible against todays accurate baseliners....what do you think about that????
TWR
Well, TWR, I picked Gonzalez to make the semifinals, beating McEnroe and Borg along the way, but eventually losing to Federer in a thriller. I agree that he was a ruthless competitor, which is one reason I picked him to beat McEnroe, contrary to the wisdom of the 7-person panel that TENNIS WEEK (TW) put together for this exercise. I also think that Sampras would take Laver, even though I, too, am a HUGE Laver fan, believing him really to be the consummate professional and ultimate Grand Slam champion. We often forget that Laver capture all four Grand Slam championships in 1962 as an amateur, and then again in 1969 as a pro, after the game had been "opened" to professional athletes. How many more would he have amassed during that 6-year stretch from 1963 through 1968 had he been allowed to compete at Wimbledon, Roland Garros, Forest Hills and Melbourne? We'll never know, but I think a safe bet would be 4-5 more titles, at the very least, which would eclipse Sampras' 14 titles!
That said, Pete played in a different era. He brought a huge serve, and not just his first. His second was deadly accurate and came in at between 107 and 121 mph! He had a running forehand like nobody's business, a very solid backhand with a great chip-and-charge attack, superb volleys off both sides and an overhead to back them up, and he half-volleyed better than anyone before or since. On top of all that, he had courage and guts, often willing his body thorugh the battle to emerge victorious.
Now, what I think is interesting is that all four semifinalists, whether you take my picks or go with those offered up by TW, had one-handed backhands! In fact, all of my top-8 had one-handed backhands except Bjorn Borg, and 12 of my top-16 (13 of TW's top-16) had one-handed backhands! That is something to really consider carefully, and something I will talk more about in a future blog entry.
So, read on, brother.....
--Don
P.S. Can Federer win against today's sharpshooters playing serve-and-voley? I think the answer is yes, IF he develops a killer half-volley like Sampras had and if he is willing to be relentless with his attack.
Wow Don,
Good point abouit the one-handed backhand.......its the most beautiful shot in tennis in my opinion. look forward to your analysis of that stroke.
Sampras had a great one as did Laver and Rosewall who BTW I think had the best half-volley in the game ever....including Sampras. TWR
You make a goof point about Rosewall's half-volley, TWR. But I have to go with Sampras there still, as his came off his racquet like a cannon. Rosewall was a bit like Todd Woodbridge around the net: quick and crafty with catlike balance, but not necessarily overpowering. Sampras had the quickness and the power, plus some pretty decent touch. But I did like old "Muscles" -- and what a rivalry he had going with Laver. Now, what did you think of Pancho Gonzalez, who had few opportunities to compete on the same courts as Laver and Rosewall, as he turned pro very young when h ejoined Jack Kramer's touring group. By the way, he owned nearly everyone. Yoiu may have to wait a bit for the one-handed backhand analysis, as I'm working on another piece for submission.
--Don
Post a Comment