- Hardcover: 242 pages
- Publisher: Stein & Day Pub; First American Edition edition (February 1979)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0812825403
- ISBN-13: 978-0812825404
- Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.4 x 1.1 inches
- Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds
- Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #4,997,470 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your email address or mobile phone number.
Nasty Hardcover – February, 1979
Top 20 lists in Books
View the top 20 best sellers of all time, the most reviewed books of all time and some of our editors' favorite picks. Learn more
More About the Author
Top Customer Reviews
From the summer of 1972 until the end of 1973 the richly gifted Nastase was the best player in the world. The United States champion of 1972 and the French champion of 1973, he was also the runner-up in three other Grand Slam finals, one of these being the memorable 1972 Wimbledon final. In doubles and mixed doubles Nastase shared a total of five Grand Slam titles. Nastase won Grand Prix Masters tournament four years out of five, a record only surpassed by Ivan Lendl and Pete Sampras. His Davis Cup record is also phenomenal, playing and wining more Davis Cup matches than anybody else except Nikki Pietrangeli. His combined singles titles (57) and doubles (51) of Grand Prix, WCT and ATP sanctioned tournaments of Open Tennis is only surpassed by John McEnroe: no coincidence here since they are the two greatest natural talents seen in 35 years of Open Tennis.
Despite such an impressive career, still regarded by some to be an underachievement considering such a vast potential and natural talent, is sad that Nastase is still remembered by some, particularly in the United States, mostly for his antics rather than for his brilliance and pure artistry displayed on the tennis court. To some extent this is his own fault for being at times too eager to cultivate his image of enfant terrible to an American audience all too enthusiastic to indulge in show business.Read more ›
Although in those days I had no means to see him play except at Wimbledon or the slight amount of tennis shown by the BBC other than Wimbledon, I learned, much to my surprise as a Brit, that he was not so popular in say the USA as he was in the UK. But reading Richard Evans' book about Ilie, I realised this is due to the very different sense of humour in the USA compared to the UK. Brits can be very anarchic, and because Ilie made us laugh so much, we didn't see so much of the temperament. Americans are undoubtedly very puritanical. Just one of those things. Sad for Ilie but I am proud that in the UK he was very popular - he deserved to be. He was awesome to watch even when behaving badly. For me he has only been superseded in exciting and "beautiful" play in more recent years by the most amazing and best, of course Roger Federer, and earlier by Rod Laver. This doesn't mean Ilie was the No.3 greatest ever although he's in my top 10. I am referring to artistry as well as ability.
I can't possibly however agree with the petulant reviewer who has criticised Ilie so much. I get the impression this reviewer never even saw Ilie play if he didn't even know Ilie's age.