There’s an old adage in gaming circles — the house always wins. In tennis, where there mere mention of betting is a welcome as the prospect of rotator cuff surgery for the Statue of Liberty, this adage is particulary true if the house happens to be in Southern California and Hall of Famer Pancho Segura is the one occupying it.

A legendary player and coach, Segura watches tennis daily from the comfort of his couch on Tennis Channel and remains of the game’s leading analysts. How good is he? In a discussion before the start of the US Open, Segura told Tennis Week “Del Potro will win the US Open. Del Potro’s the one.” He reiterated that prediction during a book signing he conducted during the first week of the Open at the National Tennis Center.

In an interview with Tennis Week last April, Segura not only forecast the rise of del Potro and Caroline Wozniacki, who reached the US Open final before falling to the resurgent Kim Clijsters, he also predicted Rafael Nadal’s reign as World No. 1 might not last too long.

“I hope I am wrong because I am a friend of Rafael Nadal. He is a good person and he is a gentleman. But talking about tennis only, the longevity might be only another two or three years because there are too many guys 6-foot-3 and taller coming up and coming on strong,” Segura said last April. “Let me break down his game for a moment to explain. Does he have a great serve? Questionable. Does he have a great return of serve? Questionable.  He is great on rallies, great on defense, he has the heart of a lion, the conditioning of a giant and he’s got guts, therefore he wins. But look at some of his biggest matches, with the exception of the Federer match in the French Open final last year, he wins many of these matches in tight ways. Look at the scores. He is winning some sets, 7-5 or 7-6. That shows he is a better player, but not a dominant player. When you win a set 7-5 it means you are just a little bit better than the other guy, not a dominant player and when you win a set 7-6 the margin is so small.”

At the age of 88, Segura has been a player, coach and observer of elite tennis for more than a half-century and has seen some of the game’s greatest champions from Bill Tilden to Ellsworth Vines to Don Budge, faced fellow Hall of Famers Pancho Gonzalez, Jack Kramer, Rod Laver and Ken Rosewall and coached two Hall of Famers in Jimmy Connors and Stan Smith.

While Segura’s energy level is not quite what it was when he scraped out of the poverty of a Guayaquil, Ecuador slum and built himself into one of the world’s best players known for his bow-legged burst around the court, all-court acumen and a tremendous two-handed forehand, his exuberance and passion for the game remains undiminished. He chronicles his story and his offers his assessment on some of tennis’ top players in his book, Little Pancho: The Life Of Tennis Legend Pancho Segura.

Tennis Week caught up with Segura on Friday afternoon where before completing this interview, he offered one more prediction: “I like Cilic over Nadal in the (Beijing) semis,” Segura said.

You know the rest of the story.

In this interview, Segura discusses del Potro’s future, speculates on Justine Henin’s comeback and identifies the best server and best fighter he’s ever seen in tennis.

Tennis Week: When we spoke before the Open, you told me del Potro would win the Open. He beat Nadal and Federer in succession to win it. Even back in April, you said del Potro could get to the top. Why did you pick del Potro? What is his potential?

Pancho Segura: Del Potro has an advantage because he is 6-foot-6. If he plays left-handers like Nadal, who play heavy topspin, then the ball bounces high where he likes it and he is hitting downward on every shot due to his height. Del Potro hits the ball hard and clean. He has the potential to be a great player. He has a great backhand, great forehand, he moves rather well, especially for a guy his size, he has a huge serve too and also he is only 20 years old. So he has everything going for him, it’s just a question of time. He can still improve his second serve and his volley game. I believe he will be one of the best players in the world, if not the best player in the world.

Tennis Week: We saw how successful Kim Clijsters was in her comeback. What do you see for Clijsters in 2010 and will Justine Henin win a major in her return next year?

Pancho Segura: Clijsters already showed she can play. She’s got great shots off both sides, she is very fluid and athletically she is one of the best athletes in women’s tennis. She moves awfully well, but don’t forget there are a lot of young kids near the top 10 now. I have questions about Henin. Her second serve needs help and the question is: will Henin be able to win Wimbledon? She is coming back to win Wimbledon. I don’t think she will beat Venus and Serena at Wimbledon unless she can improve her second serve. The unbelievable thing is we’re seeing these women may be revolutionizing the game in taking one year off and two years off and coming back. That surprises me. I don’t see how they can get away with it — taking that kind of break — but they got too much money (at stake) and you see them coming back now and you will see it happen more in the future, I think.

Tennis Week: When we spoke in April you said then you did not see Nadal’s reign as World No. 1 lasting very long and indeed he did not hold onto the top spot through the end of the summer. Nadal is such a hard worker and has translated his game to all surfaces yet he has dealt with injuries on almost an annual basis. Will Nadal stay healthy enough to get back to the top and what do you see for Nadal in the coming years?

Pancho Segura: I like Nadal very much. I think Nadal is potentially a great player, but he works too hard for every point. He puts so much effort into every point and that can take a toll. I don’t think he is as fluid as Federer or as fluid as del Potro. You can never count out Nadal, but there are so many other guys coming up. How about Verdasco? How about Soderling? How about Cilic? How good will they get? The big guys are changing the men’s game. That is the sad part of the game. You will not see 5-foot-8 guys like I was at the top of the game in the future because the most important part of the game is the serve and the return of serve. What are you gonna do when you play the big gorillas who serve so big? You see how the bigger guys like del Potro and Cilic can play Nadal and Nadal’s return of serve is average — it is not great.  In the womens’ game, you can get away with being 5-foot-5 or 5-4 like Henin was or like this girl Oudin at the US Open. But who can serve on the women’s side? The Williams sisters are the only ones in women’s tennis who can serve consistently well — that’s one reason why they always have a shot in the majors.

Tennis Week: You’ve been involved in tennis, as a player, coach and viewer, more than a half-century. What do you like about today’s tennis and what don’t you like about today’s tennis?

Pancho Segura: I see a lot of rallies — a lot of ping-pong tennis today — and the amount of rallies is higher than we used to see. I like watching the game, following the game, there are great athletes playing today’s tennis. They play a high level of tennis and that’s exciting. The only thing I don’t like is they don’t attack second serves. Even Nadal, even Federer — they don’t attack second serves.  If you get a mid-court ball in a rally, you attack it right? Then why can’t you attack a second serve? It’s the same thing. Now, today a lot of guys are not comfortable at the net so that is one reason why maybe they don’t want to attack a second serve. But you’ve got to understand: by attacking the second serve you put even more pressure on the guy’s first serve. He doesn’t want to miss that first serve because he knows you will come after the second serve. It’s hard to compare the different eras because the equipment, the surfaces, the competition is so different. No question, the competition is much, much tougher today. The number 50 can beat the top number 10. They have so many good players today, it takes a hell of a player to get to the top. There is a lot more depth in tennis today.

Tennis Week: A lot of people wrote Andy Roddick off as a potential Grand Slam champion at this stage, but the guy played a hell of a match — arguably the best of his life — in the Wimbledon final. Had he made that one high volley he may well have won it. How can Roddick bounce back from that and in generally, how difficult is it for a player who plays a phenomenal match yet still gets beat in a major final like that to come back from that kind of deep disappointment?

Pancho Segura: It is hard for everyone. No matter who you are or no matter when you played it is hard. Look what happened to that kid by the name of Derrick Rostagno. Remember Rostagno? He had Becker in all kinds of trouble, almost had him beat at the Open, gets that net cord it was never the same. Look at Guillermo Coria in the French Open final. Had match points and did not win them and he was never the same. How about Blake? He had Agassi beaten in the quarterfinals of the US Open. Blake had everything going for him. Blake had Agassi beat and Agassi came back and Blake maybe has never played as well in a major since then. Look, even if you think you are over it, it works on your unconscious mind. So you gotta keep playing and psychologically winning is the best thing to help you recover from those kind of losses. But you gotta keep playing.

Tennis Week: As you said, the serve and return are the two most important shots in tennis. Who had the best serve you ever saw?

Pancho Segura: Tough question. If you’re talking about mechanics, the best first serve I’ve seen is maybe Sampras. Remember, the question is not to lose your serve. So when everyone gets hung up on how fast a guy serves, you gotta remember: the bottom line is holding serve and not losing serve. That’s how you measure a good serve. Jack Kramer had a good serve and good game and so did Gonzalez and they put pressure on you.  You see more guys losing serve now. We didn’t lose serve at 5-3 or 5-4. More sets were won by one break then because we played more offensive tennis than they play today. Again, I go back to the point that you should learn to return a second serve. You’ve got guys like John Isner who are hard to break.  Those guys should learn to return the second serve. And that really bothers me because the ball inside the service line should be attacked. If you’re rallying and the ball lands there you have to attack it and come to the net. You have to do the same thing on the second serve. They don’t play the net today as we did. Maybe an advantage is we played on grass more than they do now so you had to attack because we were playing on lousy grass courts so you had to learn to volley because of the bad bounces. And we all played doubles and none of the top guys play doubles now, so you had to learn to volley. But even with all that, it’s a question of mechanics and a question of being more knowledgeable about what to do on court and that’s where these guys today could learn and improve if they learn.

Tennis Week: You coached the young Connors, you worked with Stan Smith too. What qualities define a good coach? What does a good coach bring to the player? Who are the good coaches today?

Pancho Segura: That’s so tough to answer in a few sentences because there are a lot of things that go into being a great coach. To be a great coach, you can be a guy who teaches fundamentals, who can teach the grips, help the eye-hand coordination and balance. Or you can be a guy who teaches you tactics and how to win the key points. I appreciate a guy who teaches you how to play key points so you don’t miss the first serve at 30-all. I think that in order to be that good of a coach and to understand the elite players who are playing for Grand Slam titles you had to be a hell of a player. A guy like Laver or Rosewall or McEnroe or Connors — they have an understanding of the game and for how to play the right shot and make the right play and play winning tennis. They were champions who played smart tennis. They did not do dumb things on the court. There should be more great coaches because it would make for better tennis, but maybe nobody wants to pay the coaches today. When you look at other sports like football that has an offensive coach and a defensive coach or baseball that has a batting coach and a pitching coach, it is sad that we don’t have that type of specialization in tennis. But that will come, I believe. I think you will see coaches who specialize in the serve, in the return, in the net game. One thing you should be writing about is why aren’t some of these guys called in to coach for a big tournament?  How would you like to have a guy like Laver or Rosewall or Connors or Pancho Segura to help coach the player in the semifinals or finals? It would create more interest, bring more attention to the game and these guys know how to play winning tennis, they have experience. When you have an experienced coach who can show the kid how to play winning tennis, how to work on his concentration, how to recognize and play the big point, then the player will play better tennis, the fans will enjoy it more and you will have closer matches and better tennis. But for all the talk about tradition and mano a mano, there’s still a lot of bullshit that goes on. The game has become a business now. It’s entertainment — there’s so much money at stake.

Tennis Week: As a player you were known for your great two-handed forehand, your tactical intelligence and the fact you were a fighter who never quit. Who is the best fighter you ever saw on the tennis court?

Pancho Segura: There’s too many for me to pick one. Jimmy Connors, my pupil, was a great, great fighter. Jimbo had the balls and the heart and was a great fighter. Michael Chang was a great fighter — Chang never quit. Rafael Nadal gives 100 percent every time he plays and Rafael Nadal is a great fighter. Look, there are so many players and today there are a lot of fighters, a lot of guys who give 100 percent. The question is some of these guys don’t understand how to play winning tennis. Soderling should be a hell of a tennis player, he should be winning more if he had any brains out on the court. That kid from Latvia, Gulbis, this kid has every shot. He should be a winning player, but the kid plays like a man with no head on his shoulders. How do you win with no head? Because of the tie breaker tennis is the only sport where you can lose more games than you win and still win the match, but that takes some brains. What counts is who wins the key points and how do you play the key points? A lot of these guys have the talent but don’t understand how to use it and how to play the key points.

Tennis Week: The late, great Carole Graebner, former US finalist, used to tell us the most under-used shot in pro tennis today is the short angle forehand. That players today drive every ball deep and don’t open the court with the short-angle forehand which would make the deep ball so much more meaningful and stretch the defense. Obviously, Federer can hit that shot and uses the short-angle slice backhand, but who had the best short-angle forehand you ever saw?

Pancho Segura: I saw Tilden play. Tilden had one shot no one else had. Tilden had a forehand slice on the run he could hit from behind the baseline. No one else could do that. Everyone has a backhand slice, but Tilden could hit a forehand slice on the run from behind the baseline that could really hurt you. I went to his funeral, was one of the few who did go. Gussie Moran was there too.  The short-angled forehand, I would say Bobby Riggs and Nastase were both great hitting that short angle while moving sideways. Bobby maybe did it the best. If Bobby saw the other guy coming, he would move in and hit that short angle.

Tennis Week: Last question: who had the best hands you ever saw in tennis?

Pancho Segura: It’s tough today because not a lot of guys come to the net and when they do the ball is often traveling 100 miles an hour so that’s hard to handle. I would have to say, as far as net play goes, Edberg and McEnroe probably had the best hands. There were a lot of guys with good hands, but I would say Edberg and McEnroe were the best and Rafter is a guy who played more recently who also had great hands.