The following article was posted on rec.sport.tennis in March 2002. I remember that the US TV broadcast showed Pancho (I hope it is the right Pancho I am thinking about) in the stands during the 1991 US Open final, when Stefan demolished Jim Courier.
I often wondered how Poncho thought about Stefan's game. It sounds like he really appreciated Edberg. Especially insightful was his comments about Edberg and Becker.

From "Tennis", March, 1986:

Pancho Segura: Meet The Wisest Man In Tennis (Apart, That Is, From Robert W.
Waltz)
by Barry Lorge

Pancho Segura talks the way he plays tennis. He's quick. He keeps moving. He
takes topics on the rise.
     Is he opinionated? Does John McEnroe like Tatum O'Neal movies? [well,
maybe not anymore - Ed]
     Segura, 64, lives just off the golf course at La Costa, the spa and
resort just north of San Diego in Carlsbad, Calif. He has been the resident
tennis guru there for 14 years, teaching hotel guests and touring pros who
come to have him analyze and solidify strokes and strategies.
     He isn't tutoring any of the game's big names as regularly as he did
the young Jimmy Connors in the early 1970's. Segura was hand-picked by
Connors' mother, Gloria, an old friend, to teach her son the fine points of
tactics and match preparation. Segura was in Connors' corner in 1974 when he
won the Australian Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open. The wily little
Ecuadorian, copper-skinned and silver-haired, was like the wise and worldly
old trainer in a champion prizefighter's entourage. Segura and Connors could
often he found huddling around a table before or after matches, Segura
diagramming tactics on a tablecloth or napkin.
     Badly bowlegged as a result of having rickets as a child, Segura was
known as "Parrot Foot" to members of the Tennis Club of Guayaquil, where his
father was caretaker and he was a ballboy. He became an outstanding player
with a devastating two-fisted forehand, one of the great strokes the game
has known. Gardnar Mulloy, a former top-ranked U.S. player, arranged a
tennis scholarship for Segura at the University of Miami, for which he won
the NCAA singles title in 1943, 1944 and 1945 - making him the only
three-time champion in this century.
     Unable to afford to play as an amateur, Segura turned pro shortly
thereafter with Jack Kramer's barnstorming tour as one of the preliminary
players - "the donkey act," in the vernacular of the gypsy pros. He hardly
made enough, he said, to get in the poker games. But he was so good that he
eventually graduated to the main show, unheard of in those dark days of pro
tennis when usually only the reigning amateur champ of Wimbledon or Forest
Hills got to challenge the pro king in a grueling head-to-head "death march"
of one-night stands.
     As a player, Segura has long been admired for his savvy and court
sense. As a coach and confidant to celebrities and the rich and famous, he
is known for his strategic insights and candid observations about his
contemporaries and about the modern game and its stars.
     One recent afternoon, Segura was working with Bonnie Gadusek, who is
ranked No. 12 in the world among the women pros. Sweat dripped from his brow
and pearls of wisdom from his mouth as they labored under the midday
California sun.
     Segura broke for lunch and talked animatedly to me as we ate. As usual,
he covered the court in conversation, moving forward, making points
aggressively:

Question: What are you working on with Gadusek?
SEGURA: I'm checking her game, showing her how to do forehand volleys,
working on her volleying game and utilization of the court. She has to move
up a little farther and play more aggressive. I'd like her to play
aggressive from a little bit above the service line, like on return of a
second serve. The winning zone of the court is inside the service line. If
you're inside the service line, and you don't put the ball away or you don't
put pressure on your opponent, you're not too good. Do you understand? [Er,
I think so - Ed]

Q: Do the modern pros, even the good ones, really understand tactics?
SEGURA: Very few, unfortunately [and this goes even more for today - Ed]. Or
in the heat of competition, they forget. They forget the winning area is
inside the service line. That's where you want to be. You want your opponent
to return your serve inside that line. Or you rally to make the guy hit the
ball a little above the service line so you can hit it on the rise and put
it away, or make it so tough that the guy will give you an easy shot to
volley or hit an overhead. You can even drop shot from there.
     In other words, you're not going to win by making placements from the
baseline. I've never seen it done, with two guys on the baseline and one
making winner after winner from behind the baseline. If you can rally and
force a guy to attempt,too good a shot from the baseline, or give you a
short ball, he'll lose. You lose if you don't have a good approach shot or a
good volleying game.

Q: If you had kept coaching Connors, would he have played the game
differently?
SEGURA: He would have played more net game in the long run. He should have,
and he finally did a bit, and he could do it still more. I hope he does it
more now because he's 33 years old - the best 33-year-old in the world,
maybe the best ever. He's giving guys seven, 10, 12 years. I don't think he
can afford the long rallies, 20 or 30 shots a point, for a week or two,
especially in five-set matches. He's got to he a little spent.
     I don't think a 33-year-old body is going to be as good as a
19-year-old body, like (Stefan) Edberg's or (Boris) Becker's. There's 14
years difference. It's a big difference, you know.
     But I can tell you for sure that those guys - Becker or (Ivan) Lendl or
even (John) McEnroe - will never be as good as Jimbo at 33 [and he was
right - Ed]. That's something people forget. They say Jimbo is going down.
Of course he's going down. That's the elements of nature.

Q: Why won't the others he as good at 33?
SEGURA: They don't hit the ball early enough. They don't hit the ball flat
like Jimbo does. They've got too big a wind up; they take too long to hit
balls. They don't have the inten- sity of concentration or desire that Jimbo
has by nature. Don't forget that Jimbo depends on court coverage, mobility,
hand-eye co-ordination. These other guys have bigger serves, they win the
points with one shot. Jimbo has to win it with four or five shots, and these
guys are not used to doing that, to winning long rallies.

Q: On their best days, if Connors played Bjorn Borg, who would win?
SEGURA: It depends on the surface. I would have thought that Jimbo would
have won most of the time on account of he hits the ball earlier. If they
play 100 matches, I'd like to have Jimbo, particularly indoors. But I think
McEnroe is perhaps the most talented of the three of them, if you talk about
raw talent. He can play the net, he can serve, he can volley.

Q: Where do you put Lendl?
SEGURA: Lendl to me is a stiff player. He finally won the U.S. Open, but
with the equipment he has he should have beaten Jimbo at least twice in the
Open, and he never did. His nerves maybe couldn't take it. I think Jimbo,
Borg and McEnroe are better players with more talent. Lendl has size and
weight but even Wilander, I think, has more talent. Wilander knows how to
serve and volley a little bit more. The thing I don't understand is why guys
like Wilander and Lendl don't come in behind their serves and don't come in
behind their returns of serve. Those are two times when they don't come in.
     McEnroe is better. He is pressing you the minute you miss the first
serve. He's taking advantage of your second serve, picking it up on the rise
and coming in. And so he's pressing you on the first serve. He's saying:
'You better get the first serve in, pal. If you don't, I'm going to come in
on you.' And when he starts coming in on you, you'd better have a great
passing shot or great lob, because he's going to volley on you.

Q: When Borg was winning five consecutive Wimbledons, players of your
generation said the great serve and volleyers of the past wouldn't have let
him camp 10 or 15 feet behind the baseline.
SEGURA: There was no guy playing Borg who had a big serve and who could
move. (Pancho) Gon- zalez, (Lew) Hoad and (Jack) Kramer would have beaten
Borg on grass. They had too big a serve and too big a first volley. Borg
would have beaten them on clay. Borg was one of the best players I ever saw
on clay. Ken Rosewall was awfully good, but Borg was darn good on clay.

Q: What do you think of the modern game and players?
SEGURA: With the incentive ot money, it's surprising there are not better
players. America doesn't have any players coming up, can you believe it?
What have we got? (Aaron) Krickstein and (Eliot) Teltscher. Krickstein, if
he learned to serve and volley, would be good. When he was a kid, he used to
come over here and I'd say, 'You've got to learn how to serve and volley.'
     The best prospect is (Paul) Annacone, I think, of the American-born
players. (Tim) Mayotte serves and volleys well, but he's not that quick,
he's not that agile. Moving straight, everybody is quick, but I'm talking
about shifting. Mayotte, if he doesn't make the volley tough, he's got
trouble. Jimmy Arias can't serve or volley, so what the hell? Teltscher
can't serve and volley. So we don't have any players.
     Annacone is the most talented, I think. He has a good serve, good
mobility. I don't know if he understands the game. There are so many aspects
of the game that people don't understand. Like how to play key points.
     The key points, when you are 30-all or 30-40, that's when you've got to
get the first serve in if you're serving. If you're returning, you've got to
get the serve back into play. Don't try to go for winners. Return to the
center, let the other guy volley. I'm talking about when.the guy gets to
40-30, and it's 3-all or 4-all. That's when you've got to return better. You
cannot afford to go for winners, particularly on first serves. Some guys do.

Q: Is that the sort of thing you used to diagram for Connors on napkins?
SEGURA: Yeah. Where to serve, where to return.

Q: Was he a good student?
SEGURA: Hell, yes. The best.

Q: What about the women players? Other than Martina Navratilova and Chris
Evert Lloyd, who impresses you?
SEGURA: (Gabriela) Sabatini, when she has a little more understanding of the
game. She's too young yet, but she promises to be a very good player. She's
got the talent, I think. She's only 15.
     It's too bad Hana Mandlikova doesn't play points properly. Otherwise,
she would he tough. She's better than everybody, but she doesn't play the
points right, the court right. Fundamentally, she's talented. Great
footwork. She's loose, she's limber, she has good hand-eye coordination, but
no good selection of shots. In other words, when she's two feet behind the
baseline, she might go for a passing shot when the score is 30-all or 30-40,
and the other girl is two feet from the net, and she should just lob [shades
of Henin? - Ed].
    Chrissie, with the game she's got, has been in the first three in the
world for a dozen years, with no serve to speak of! Tremendous ground
strokes and mental toughness and good conditioning. That's a wonderful
accomplishment. The only girl who plays Chrissie right is Martina. She is
always pressing her by coming in.

Q: How would you do against Martina?
SEGURA: On any given day on cement, I might beat her. She is no cinch. And
I'm 64. If I was 54, I'd beat the daylights out of her. I know Rosewall
would beat the daylights out of her, and Kenny is 50. I'm not trying to
demean Martina. We're talking about tennis. It's a different ball game
playing men.

Q: The doubles match Martina and Pam Shriver played against Vitas Gerulaitis
and Bobby Riggs last year was a farce.
SEGURA: Riggs, he's a big scam.

Q: How did you do against him?
SEGURA: He was better than I was when I was an amateur. Bobby was a helluva
tennis player. He is one of the few guys who doesn't get enough credit
because he came in between (Don) Budge and Kramer. He knew the court as well
as anybody and he had nerves of steel - better than anybody I ever saw.
     If he thought he could beat you, he would bet you $10,000 a set. That
takes courage. The tougher the situation, the better for Bobby. People
forget, but all of us came from an era when there was no money, so we used
to bet among ourselves. We'd play matches for $50 or $,100. Today, they get
$60,000 for an exhibition.

Q: If you had to bet your life on one match, who would you want playing for
you?
SEGURA: Kramer was the toughest competitor I ever played, mentally. He was
ruthless. He'd beat you love, love and love if he could. His concentration
and determination were as tough as anybody's. He had a great first and
second serve. Consistency, too.
     Gonzalez could produce tennis that was unbelievable. He had a helluva
serve, too. His motion was more fluid - not as sound, as pure as


Kramer's in the sense of orthodoxy, but he was very natural, fluent.
Everything was rhythmical. He didn't look like he was moving on the court.
He had a perfect build for the game - long arms, long legs, and strong.
     My idea of the game is the guys who don't have any strain on the body,
who have natural rhythm. Edberg has that. To me, Becker doesn't have that.
He's not that flexible and lacks an elastic mobility. You know who has that?
(Johan) Krick, but he doesn't have the temperament to control his emotions
on the court, and his selection of shots is so atrocious that he never will
win big matches. (Ilie) Nastase is the type of guy I like; he has a natural
fluidity and rhythm. Nastase and Gonzalez are the two best I've seen that
way.

Q: What about one woman to play a match for your life?
SEGURA: Martina is perhaps the best woman I've ever seen play - better, I
think, than Billie Jean King. She's the best athlete to play the game for a
long while. Billie Jean was outstanding, too. But Martina is a better
all-around player - better approach, better volley, big overhead, good
serve. Plus, she's left-handed.
     A left-handed player has an advantage in tennis because, by nature, he
can force you out of the court. On 40-30 or 30-15, he's playing on the left
side of the court, and he's got a natural angle on you. He can short-angle
you or deep-angle you. Like McEnroe, he can push you in the alley, and that
opens the court for a backhand crosscourt volley. If a left-hander has a
good serve, he's got the advantage on those key points. I'm not saying a
right-hander cannot do it, but he cannot do it with consistency.
     A right-hander can short-angle you, like (Kevin) Curren does. Curren
has the best right-handed short-angled serve I've ever seen, but he's the
only one. McEnroe has the best left-handed first serve I've seen. I don't
think his second serve is any better than a lot of others. For speed, the
best, most powerful first serve was (Roscoe) Tanner's, but his second ball
left a little bit to be desired.
     For right-handers, Curren has the best serve today, because of its
angle and power. Edberg has the best second serve, for depth. I like
Edberg's serve better than Lendl's.

Q: How do you rate Becker?
SEGURA: We'll know more about it by the end of 1986, but I think Edberg has
just as much talent. If Edberg had a better forehand, he would beat the
daylights out of everybody. To me, he is much better than Becker. I think
Becker might be a little tougher mentally. (Henri) Leconte has a lot of
talent, too.

Q: Do you think the modern players are spoiled?
SEGURA: That's the story of life. It's not their fault, is it? It's the
system. I don't mind the guys getting all the money; what I mind is when
they're not real professionals. They don't become complete players. If I was
a baseliner, I'd learn to play the net. If I was only a net player, I'd
learn to play baseline. That's my objection. I like to see a guy produce his
best, and not have that kind of a mentality that says. 'I cannot play on
grass, I cannot play on clay.' That's bull. A good athlete should be able to
play on anything. It's your mental approach and your motivation and your
pride. If you don't play on clay enough, well, find time to play on clay for
three months [Sampras, please note - Ed].

Q: How much have styles of play changed?
SEGURA: I don't see that much change. It's just that everybody uses topspin
now. Topspin gives you a margin of safety on your shots, but the ball goes
too high over the net and it takes too long a time to execute. It's hard to
hit a ball on the rise with topspin. You've got to hit it flat.
     A complete player should be able to do everything - hit topspin, flat,
slice. It's a question of knowing how to play, and when to play a shot. If
you get a short ball, you should use flat or slice. If you get a deep ball,
you can topspin it. The idea is to know who you're playing, what's the score
and where you are in relation to the center of the court. It becomes
automatic after a while.

Q: Why do so many players not bother to learn?
SEGURA: Because they're making so much money and doing so well with what
they've got. Take the South Americans. They come from humble families, they
make $500,000 a year. In buying power down there, that's about $6 million.
And the guy is typically just a human backboard. He gets every ball back. He
can't play worth a damn on a fast court or indoors. He's rough on clay
because he's got great legs, great wheels, and he can get everything back.
Does that make sense? There are several of those around.

Q: If you could have played all the tournaments in your prime, where would
you have ranked? SEGURA: In the first four, three, two. I could have won
some majors, too. I had speed, intuition, good hand-eye coordination, I was
a tough competitor. I would have been in the first three.

Q: Was your forehand the best?
SEGURA: My forehand, yeah, because I could hit it on the rise. I could drop
shot with it, I could lob. I could do three things with it, from the same
motion, from any position. I could fake you out with it because of the
motion of the shot, the footwork and the pivot. I could pivot, fake and at
the last second change with full control of the tempo and the motion. I had
full control of the follow-through.

Q: Why have so few players used a two-handed forehand?
SEGURA: It doesn't come naturally. I was given a tennis racquet when I
didn't know anything about it. The forehand just came by luck. It's a
natural shot for me, not a perfected or manufactured shot. A lot of
two-handed shots are manufactured.

Q: What percentage of your students now are serious players?
SEGURA: The percentage is low; good players, maybe 20 or 25 percent. Most of
them are hotel guests.

Q: Do you regret that?
SEGURA: That's the story of life. I'd like to be able to say I teach all
champions, but the trouble is tennis players don't like to spend money.
Believe me, it's more take than give. Seriously. Tennis players are not like
golfers. They're not used to spending money.