Originally Posted by daze11
chris, sometimes i think thats why john lloyd got such a rush experiencing chrissie's success vicariously. he was more than willing to give up the pressure of his own success and have chris do all the winning for him. And he still to this day says, maybe some people cant understand it, but it was entirely fulfilling being part of her victories. EVERT was not so happy he didnt have more success of his own, but of course she came from the american ideal of being a 'winner'...do you think that has a role in it?
john lloyd, by the way, was just last year saying he thought the quality of play at wimbledon was the worst of the grand slams BY FAR, and thats because grass is the worst most old fashioned surface to play on, and suggested wimbledon change from being played on GRASS! did everybody over there just go ape on him about it or did it totally blow over? AND...is this another incarnation of the inferiority trip or do you think he really just doesnt like grass court tennis? very curious about all that.
I suppose John did have a certain amount of success, Daze. He made the top 30 I think. Not spectacular but probably as good as any Brit of the time. I think Buster Motrram might have made 20 and of course John had a successful mixed doubles partnership with Wendy Turnbull. I don't think, however, the public as a whole expected too much from him. Maybe the Press did put too much pressure on him when it came to Wimbledon and too much was made of his reaching the Aussie final in 1977.( We won't go into the strength of field again!) They always are unrealistic, anyway.
You probably would get a thrill from the successes at top level of your partner but to the extent which John apparently did, I don't understand. It must just be part of the psyche. Sometimes it can be quite unhealthy a la father of Jelena Dokic and IMO Yuri Sharapova'a reactions especially at Wimbledon are quite nauseating. Not that I know anything about psychology but my reading of John's attitude would be an inferiority complex.
I remember the remark getting newspaper headlines for one day but was then quickly forgotten about. Our national station the BBC regard him as one of the top "commentators" and often interview him for an opinion. He and Sue Barker have a yearly love-in during Wimbledon about how THIS is Tim Henman's year and make wildly optimistic but unrealistic predictions. Obviously you have to encourage and support the home players BUT.....
Wimbledon is a peculiarity in the UK. For two weeks of the year most of the public live and breathe it, it fills the newspapers, the public courts (not that there are many, most tennis is played by the middle class in private clubs) are full and the streets are full of kids with a racquet. A week later all this has disappeared. It is rare to get coverage on TV apart from this. For a few years while Henman and Rusedski were both high up the rankings the World Group Davis Cup was broadcast (the sad fact is they never won a World Group match) and this year there was a 4 or 5 day hiatus when Henman progressed to the French semis. This is obviously men's tennis but the position would be the same for the women.
The Brits still jealously guard Wimby as the World's leading tournament. I tend to think the four Slams are more or less all equal now. There have been some disparaging remarks from players with clay-court pedigree about it although I do have an idea that if the world's top 100 players were polled and given the "guarantee" of just one Slam singles titles during their career the majority would actually still choose Wimbledon.
I remember Lindsay Davenport, whose ambition, quite rightly, was to win the USO, saying that she never realised the importance of Wimbledon until she had won it. After her US victory she was still relatively unknown but after her Wimby title she said people would have looked at her and recognised her and said "there's the Wimbledon Champion".
I feel it is great that the four Slams are on different surfaces. To devote one month in eleven to grass can hardly be called excessive and remember the game was originally called Lawn Tennis with three of the four majors on that surface. Why should those suited to grass courts not have a surface to suit them just as others will be better on clay courts or cement, or hard etc. I cannot see Wimbledon deserting grass. Despite all the problems with the weather the tournament rarely overruns! Plus the advent of the roof cover means that there will always be play guaranteed, good from the spectators point of view but more importantly from the commercial aspect the TV companies will always have live tennis. It remains to be seen how the roof might affect the surface although it is said it should not make a big difference. Although Wimbledon have said they have not altered the conditions, I think the players know what they are talking about when they say the ball weight and cutting the grass to a different level is making the ball bounce higher and generally giving baseliners a better shout.
There is no better tennis match than a classic serve-volleyer v a top baseliner such as recent matches between say Rafter and Agassi.
Interestingly too Grermany and the Netherlands have made investments in grass courts recently. From time to time the suggestion is made that they change from grass. Depending on who said it and whether they want to cause some controversey the Press will headline it but then it's forgotten about overnight - for those 50 weeks of the year the public forgets tennis!
Was he really serious? Maybe a publicity stunt? I don't know. I can't see that the play at Wimbledon was any worse than the other Slams this year for example. Unfortunately in the women's game the overall standard has been quite poor. So many points have been won by losing rather than winning shots and a big proportion of these unforced.
IMO John loves to box above his weight!