1984 Super Saturday, or the biggest day in the history of tennis

[Otacon]

There was a time when the US Open distinguished itself from its Grand Slam colleagues by grouping together on the last Saturday not only the women's final, but also the two men's semi-finals. It was the "Super Saturday". The one in 1984 has gone down in the history books of tennis.

After its early days, the US Open has fallen into line, adopting a classic format: women's semi-finals on Thursday, men's on Friday and the finals on the weekend. This is another element that is eroding the DNA of this tournament, which for a long time had its spice from the fact that it did nothing like the others. The US Open was a bit like "Nowhere else". You either loved it or hated it, but New York was different. The night sessions. The tie-break in the deciding set. And Super Saturday. The two men's semifinals and the women's final all in one day. Crazy? Yes. A stroke of genius? Yes.

This crazy idea was born in the middle of the 70s and, as always in the country of Uncle Sam, it all started with an economic consideration. The second week of the US Open is plagued by the "Labor Day", a holiday, usually on Monday in the middle of the tournament. CBS, the historical broadcaster of the tournament, noticed the damage: the men's semi-finals, on Friday, generated little audience. After Labor Day, no one takes Friday off to watch tennis. With the NFL season resuming on Sunday, the broadcaster plans to make Saturday THE event day of the tournament by grouping the men's semi-finals and the women's final.

16 SETS, 165 GAMES AND 979 POINTS

The USTA is excited about the CBS idea. The players, much less so, as they are sacrificing a day of rest before the finals and resent the disparity between the finalist from the morning semifinals and the one who will have to deal with the night session. The latter felt insulted by the fact that they did not have a fixed schedule for the most important match of the fortnight. A compromise was found. The women's final will be held at 4 p.m. local time, if the first half of the men's match is completed. But basically, in the context of the 1970s, everyone accepted with a certain amount of grace, hoping that the tournament, its players and tennis in general would all gain in terms of exposure. In this respect, the gamble will be largely successful.

Just as no one called the Super Bowl by that name when it was first held in 1967, no one spoke of Super Saturday when it was born. That would come with time. But very quickly, this day will become a must of the tennis season and the most cult element of the US Open. Especially on September 8, 1984. A historic day, a tennis orgy and an unequaled peak of drama. "Tennisathlon, Sempiternity Saturday", evoked the American press. But soon, it will be called "The greatest day in tennis history". The greatest day in tennis history. The craziest in any case.

In 1983, CBS found itself at a loss. Super Saturday flopped like never before. The two men's semifinals turned into a slaughter, with Ivan Lendl and Jimmy Connors beating Jimmy Arias and Bill Scanlon. As the women's final was just as quick (6-1, 6-3 for Martina Navratilova against Chris Evert), the channel had to make up for it with reruns. The audience collapses. So CBS took precautions the following year. It asked the USTA to place the semi-final of the over 35 years old tournament between John Newcombe and Stan Smith as a curtain raiser. It was 11:07 a.m. when the two former US Open winners began their match. The day would not end until 11:16 pm after four matches, 16 sets, 165 games and 979 points.

If everyone is waiting for the "real matches", Stan Smith and John Newcombe take their business very seriously. The latter won the first set 6-4, but dropped the second 7-5 after a hard fought battle. Suddenly, CBS began to wonder if it was really a good idea to have scheduled this match as the opening match on the Louis Armstrong... Newcombe, that year, was also a CBS consultant. From the booth at the top of the court, the commentators write a note and pass it to Newcombe. It was passed to the Australian at a side change at the beginning of the third set. On it is written, "What the hell are you doing?" Smith won in three sets, but the day was off to a great start. We haven't seen anything yet, though.

The first men's semifinal pits Ivan Lendl, an unfortunate finalist the previous two years against Connors and Pat Cash. When he was 19, the young Australian is not yet in the Top 10, but he already carries in his game and on his face the charisma that will make him a true character of the second half of the 80s. Hated by all of New York, Lendl was whistled at throughout the match. Flushing crowd supports Cash. Of course, it does. The match would go the distance, going to a tie-break in the fifth set. Fortunately, it lasted "only" 3 hours and 39 minutes, limiting the damage.

This SF reached heights of nervous tension, especially in the last set, completely crazy. The two players don't like each other, and Cash is a bloodthirsty man. At 5-4, he saved a match point before breaking Lendl. He serves for a place in the final. This 12th game will be one of the most tense ever. Cash gets a match point in his turn. Lendl saves it with a breathtaking forehand lob that lands just short of the baseline, a miracle.

Cash thinks he's going to get an ace on the T, but the ball is called fault. He rants and raves. Two points later, Lendl breaks and harangues the crowd like Connors. Cash then starts to belch and points his finger at the linesman who had called his serve out. Lendl took it personally and replied, "You're not talking to me," he said to his young rival. You end up wondering if these two are going to get into it. Since his major breakthrough at the French Open three months earlier, the Czechoslovakian is no longer quite the "choker", the "chicken" mocked by all. He won the tie-break and clinched a spot in the final.

Pat Cash would later admit that it would take him "months" to recover from this defeat. On Friday, the two men laughed about it on the set of Eurosport. "It was an interesting match," smiled Lendl. "Ivan," the Australian relaunched, "you know you took advantage of a bad call by the umpire... Do you even agree that this is the luckiest win of your entire career?" "I don't know if it was a bad call, but I'll give you that, I was very lucky. But you know Patrick (yes, he calls him Patrick), lucky or not, it's still a win!" This one cult match would have been enough for the audience's enjoyment, but they will get more than their money's worth. Back then, no double ticketing. Those who paid did so for all four matches. You better like tennis and, above all, have nothing planned for the evening.

 

[Otacon]

THE 61ST NAVRATILOVA - EVERT

The women's final will be magnificent. Martina Navratilova remains on twelve consecutive wins against Chris Evert. She even won the last 16 sets. Once again, the left-hander, at the top of her game and her domination of women's tennis (she had won 254 of her last 260 matches for almost three years and had won 54 times in a row), would win. But she'll have a tough time of it.

This 61st duel between the two legends remains one of the most beautiful and intense in their shared history. They were tied at 30 wins each. After beating her in the 1984 Wimbledon final in the 60th edition, Martina, who had been 20-5 down in their rivalry, said, "Can you believe it? 30 wins each. I wish we could stop right there and never play each other again because it's not fair to say that one of us is stronger or bigger than the other." "Does that mean she's retiring?" replied Evert, half-joking.

The entire Flushing crowd rallied behind "Chrissie," whose love rating was always higher than "Smartina's." When she wins the first set, 6-4, the Louis-Armstrong explodes. "I've never heard so much noise in a few seconds in my life," Evert will admit. For Martina, the experience was painful: "All those people who wanted to see me lose... It's still probably one of the most painful moments of my career."

But she held on. In 1h47, she wins 4-6, 6-4, 6-4 and for the first time, takes the advantage in that historical balance of power against her rival: 31 wins, 30 losses. But this match will boost Evert. In their next match, she will end her losing streak and will win four of their next ten duels, including two finals at Roland Garros in 1985 and 1986. Spectators and television viewers have barely had time to recover from this second monument of the day when the third arrives. The other gigantic rivalry of American tennis: John McEnroe versus Jimmy Connors. The two tough left-handers. 1984 is the year of McEnroe.

Despite the bruising of the French Open final, lost in five sets against Lendl after leading two sets to nothing, he appeared untouchable. Connors is a two-time defending champion, but has lost seven times to Johnny Mac. Two months earlier, at Wimbledon, "Junior" destroyed him by letting him win only four games (6-1, 6-1, 6-2).

1984 ? AN EDITION TINGED WITH BOREDOM

But in Flushing, Jimbo is not ready to let himself be walked over. If, like Evert, he is going to fall, like his ex-girlfriend, it will be with his arms in his hands. The fight is obviously magnificent. At one set all, in the third set, a 31-shot rally where Connors finally breaks puts Armstrong in a trance. John Newcombe, this time at the microphone to comment on the match on CBS, says, "you could teach tennis lessons for years just by studying that point."

This third act had the feel of a Jimmy-Mac rivalry recap. Connors led 3-1, then found himself broken at 3-5. He clawed his way back to finally give up at 7-5. In a last ditch effort, Connors tied the match at two sets apiece for the 16th and final set of this incredible marathon. But he was out of steam. McEnroe won 12 of the first 13 points of the set and held his serve until the end, despite a final break point for Connors at 4-2.

At 11:16 p.m., after 3 hours and 47 minutes of play, McEnroe advanced to his first New York final in three years. The greatest day in tennis history was over. It had been a long wait," recalls Big Mac. The match had been tough. But I was prepared for a war. I knew it wouldn't be Wimbledon. At the same time, I was playing the best tennis of my life... The atmosphere was electric, I felt a lot of energy coming from the stands. When I left the court, I felt that we had just lived a special moment."

Ivan Lendl, for his part, remembers having fought a memorable battle, but the historical dimension of that Saturday only struck him afterwards. The only thing I was hoping for at the time," he says, "was that John and Jimmy Connors would play as long as possible. They played a long time, but it didn't help me the next day..." On Sunday, McEnroe cruised through his final against Lendl, dismantled in three sets, 6-3, 6-4, 6-1. The magic was gone. Paradoxically, before and after this crazy Saturday, this 1984 edition had been tinged with a certain boredom. But the Super Saturday, in the memory, took everything away.

THE WEATHER AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE GAME HAVE BURIED SUPER SATURDAY

As exciting as it was, this Super Saturday had one big problem: it was always contested by the players as they kept pointing out the blatant disadvantage for the winner of the second semi-final. Leaving the stadium at midnight with a Grand Slam final to play the next day was a concern.

Certainly, McEnroe won the next day, as he had done in 1980 against Borg after beating Connors (already) 7-6 in the fifth set in the night session. "In 1984," McEnroe says, "I was confident, first because I thought I was stronger than Lendl and because, in all likelihood, Ivan had finished at 7-6 in the last set." But the American is convinced that Super Saturday cost him the title a year later against the same Lendl in the final. Pete Sampras will not say anything different after his lost finals in 2000 and 2001. Two matches in two days, as he was approaching 30, had become "too much" for him.

The ladies, on the other hand, have to be satisfied with being part of the show, but not THE show. What was their day in other Majors was only putting them in the middle of the show. Something was being stolen from them. Super Saturday would eventually die, buried by the combined effects of the evolution of the game and the vagaries of the weather. Between 2007 and 2012, when Arthur-Ashe Court did not yet have a roof, the skies prevented the completion of the Saturday's Dantean program almost every year, pushing the end of the tournament to Sunday. Four years in a row, the men's final will have to be held on Monday. And the physical demands of modern tennis will eventually make such a schedule unreasonable.

In 2011, the organizers decided in advance to schedule the final on Monday. After qualifying for the semis, Roger Federer, whose voice obviously resonates, put the final nail in the coffin: "In other Grand Slam tournaments, there isn't such a disparity between the two finalists and I don't see why that would be the case here. I don't like Super Saturday and, in my humble opinion, the Saturday/Sunday sequence was no longer tenable at this point."

A year later, David Brewer, the new tournament boss, officially announced the end of Super Saturday. The end of an era. CBS gives the rights to broadcast the tournament to ESPN. The cable channel has the NFL's "Monday night game" in its portfolio. It was therefore impossible to schedule the men's final on Monday night. Flushing is coming into line. New York, the iconoclast, now does what everyone else does. What remains are the memories of those Saturdays like no other and unlike anything that we will ever see. September 8, 1984 will probably remain forever "the greatest day in the history of tennis."

Super Saturday 1984, ou le plus grand jour de l'histoire du tennis - Eurosport

US OPEN - Samedi, il n'y aura "que" la finale dames à New York. Il fut pourtant un temps où l'US Open se distinguait de ses collèges du Grand Chelem.

www.eurosport.fr

 

[bigbadboaz]

It's true that Super Saturday was a heck of an event. It's also true that it threw a wrench into the men's final the next day. It's too bad it had to end, but it was the right decision.

I still wonder alongside many others if Agassi/Sampras 2001 might have played out differently with a fresher Agassi (who was expected to be fresher anyway due to apparent fitness at that stage of their careers).

 

[medieval_remnant]

1985 would have equally Super if Connors had been 100%. McEnroe/Wilander and Mandlikova/Navratilova were outstanding matches

 

[jrepac]

It's true that Super Saturday was a heck of an event. It's also true that it threw a wrench into the men's final the next day. It's too bad it had to end, but it was the right decision.

I still wonder alongside many others if Agassi/Sampras 2001 might have played out differently with a fresher Agassi (who was expected to be fresher anyway due to apparent fitness at that stage of their careers).

Eh, malarkey. It made the USO different...and sometimes more exciting. I miss my weekend of semis and finals, back to back. And when they push stuff into Monday it's a real downer.

 

[Tshooter]

It's true that Super Saturday was a heck of an event. It's also true that it threw a wrench into the men's final the next day. It's too bad it had to end, but it was the right decision.

I still wonder alongside many others if Agassi/Sampras 2001 might have played out differently with a fresher Agassi (who was expected to be fresher anyway due to apparent fitness at that stage of their careers).

Disagree.

I’ve been to Super Saturdays. I’ve been to Fake Super Saturdays (women moved to a Sat. night session). I’ve been to Fri semis. And the new invention this year — Fri semis with one day session match, one night session match.

The real Super Saturday was the best and the best value too.

PS, I think you must mean their 2002 (F) not 2001 (QF).

 

[bigbadboaz]

Yes, of course. The final.

 

[Tshooter]

Yes, of course. The final.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

Far above every match that day was McEnroe vs. Connors. My family watched that and were on the edge of our seats with the kind of thrilling "almost" moments, the amazing contrasts between two magnificent players--only McEnroe steadily proved he was another level.

 

[Mustard]

The first Super Saturday in 1984 aside (which was one of the greatest days in tennis history), Super Saturday was never really a great event at the US Open up to its last proper one in 2007 when the men's singles final would take place the next day on the Sunday. The 2008-2012 US Opens were riddled with rain and wind problems in the latter stages of the tournament and would ruin Super Saturday by causing very little or no tennis to be played on the day, and the men's singles final would finish on the Monday. 2013-2014 saw the men's singles final deliberately scheduled on the Monday, before Super Saturday was scrapped in 2015 with the US Open doing the more conventional Friday for men's semis, Saturday for women's final, Sunday for men's final schedule..

 

[jrepac]

The first Super Saturday in 1984 aside (which was one of the greatest days in tennis history), Super Saturday was never really a great event at the US Open up to its last proper one in 2007 when the men's singles final would take place the next day on the Sunday. The 2008-2012 US Opens were riddled with rain and wind problems in the latter stages of the tournament and would ruin Super Saturday by causing very little or no tennis to be played on the day, and the men's singles final would finish on the Monday. 2013-2014 saw the men's singles final deliberately scheduled on the Monday, before Super Saturday was scrapped in 2015 with the US Open doing the more conventional Friday for men's semis, Saturday for women's final, Sunday for men's final schedule..

Rain really could screw up that weekend big time. Men's finals on Monday were the absolute pits. Still, I loved those Saturdays from start to finish. 1984 was just one of those stellar days where every match was a doozy, including the seniors event! I was exhausted when it was all over (from the tension).

 

[WCT]

It wasn't a straight line of the same format from the mid 70s. There were a couple of exceptions. In 1976 it was the 2 mens semis and then the womens' final. In 78 and 79 the womens' final was played on Sunday. Maybe it had something to do with the move to Flushing Meadow, but it went back in 80.

In my mind, 84 is the first Super Saturday only because of the quality of the matches. The format had been there for it multiple times with the 3 matches. You just didn't get such great matches.

84 is the first year that we saw all of both mens' semis. Because of the seniors match. Starting in 77, we saw one complete semi, but the first match was always joined in progress. Usually in the second set. They might have started at 11 and CBS came on at maybe 12.

They were pretty lucky with the weather most of those years as opposed to that streak in the 2000s with all those Monday finals.

 

[WCT]

1985 would have equally Super if Connors had been 100%. McEnroe/Wilander and Mandlikova/Navratilova were outstanding matches

Not so sure about that. Lendl had beaten Connors 5 or 6 straight times, most badly, going into that match. You never know, though. Connors would still give him the occasional really tough match. He did at the Lipton, on hard courts, in early 86. But this wasn't 1984 where I think Connors would have beaten him. If his body recovered after the Mcenroe match. It was the US Open. It might have held up on adrenaline. Lendl had really turned the corner in their rivalry by 85.

 

[jorjipy]

1980 has something to recommend it, but not as good as 1984, but it did have one match better than 1984 …..Borg wins in 5 sets from 2 sets down, Evert beats Mandlikova from a set down, and then the star match, McEnroe over Connors in a 5th set breaker that included Connors winning a set 6-0….

 

[medieval_remnant]

Not so sure about that. Lendl had beaten Connors 5 or 6 straight times, most badly, going into that match. You never know, though. Connors would still give him the occasional really tough match. He did at the Lipton, on hard courts, in early 86. But this wasn't 1984 where I think Connors would have beaten him. If his body recovered after the Mcenroe match. It was the US Open. It might have held up on adrenaline. Lendl had really turned the corner in their rivalry by 85.

I'm not sure either. Just a possibility. Connors held his own in that 85 match. Lendl owning Connors in 85? Don't forget that Lendl had some very decisive wins over Connors in 82 and 83. AND I'm not sure Lendl was better than in 1985 than 1984. I thought he played well in losing to McEnroe in 84 Open final. Lendl won in 85 because McEnroe was tired

 

[BGod]

Practically ruined several Finals like 2001.

 

[WCT]

I'm not sure either. Just a possibility. Connors held his own in that 85 match. Lendl owning Connors in 85? Don't forget that Lendl had some very decisive wins over Connors in 82 and 83. AND I'm not sure Lendl was better than in 1985 than 1984. I thought he played well in losing to McEnroe in 84 Open final. Lendl won in 85 because McEnroe was tired

Come on. Lendl played SO much better in the 85 final. Mcenroe played the first match of the day in 85 and it cost him the final? Yet playing to 11 at night the year before didn't keep him from winning in straight sets?

Yes, Connors and Lendl, a few weeks before, went 3 sets at Stratton Mountain. That is one match. He killed him in several other matches. Fort Myers on hard courts. Killed him at the French. Was beating him decisively in Dallas when Connors retired.

Lendl beat Connors once badly in 82. Cincy and that was the first time he ever beat him. He beat Connors badly twice in 83, but Connors killed him at Queens. He was still beating him, not losing 5 or 6 straight times.

Obviously, it's conjecture. There have been a whole lot of players I gave little chance to win who won titles. Still, the fact is Connors never beat Lendl again. And, IMO, 84 Connors was playing as well as he had in a couple years with that new racket. It's not just Lendl playing better in 84. Connors wasn't playing as well.

Certainly, Mcenroe didn't play like he did at Wimbledon, but he still played very well and Connors came pretty close to beating him. That is why I thought he would have won the final.

 

[jrepac]

Not so sure about that. Lendl had beaten Connors 5 or 6 straight times, most badly, going into that match. You never know, though. Connors would still give him the occasional really tough match. He did at the Lipton, on hard courts, in early 86. But this wasn't 1984 where I think Connors would have beaten him. If his body recovered after the Mcenroe match. It was the US Open. It might have held up on adrenaline. Lendl had really turned the corner in their rivalry by 85.

Yeah, I would not have bet against Ivan in '85. But the bum ankle made it impossible for Jimmy. But you never know, it was NYC. He had Ivan on the ropes earlier in the year at the Masters, but let it slip away. Was still playing w/PS85 then as well. Dropping it in the Spring was a bad move. His '85 was not bad tho', 3 GS semis....no tournament wins unfortunately

 

[jrepac]

Come on. Lendl played SO much better in the 85 final. Mcenroe played the first match of the day in 85 and it cost him the final? Yet playing to 11 at night the year before didn't keep him from winning in straight sets?

Yes, Connors and Lendl, a few weeks before, went 3 sets at Stratton Mountain. That is one match. He killed him in several other matches. Fort Myers on hard courts. Killed him at the French. Was beating him decisively in Dallas when Connors retired.

Lendl beat Connors once badly in 82. Cincy and that was the first time he ever beat him. He beat Connors badly twice in 83, but Connors killed him at Queens. He was still beating him, not losing 5 or 6 straight times.

Obviously, it's conjecture. There have been a whole lot of players I gave little chance to win who won titles. Still, the fact is Connors never beat Lendl again. And, IMO, 84 Connors was playing as well as he had in a couple years with that new racket. It's not just Lendl playing better in 84. Connors wasn't playing as well.

Certainly, Mcenroe didn't play like he did at Wimbledon, but he still played very well and Connors came pretty close to beating him. That is why I thought he would have won the final.

In '85, I will always maintain that Wilander won that final for Lendl. He pushed Mac to the brink in the semis and Mac was spent. He had very little left to fend off Lendl. Mac had outplayed Lendl in other tournaments that year, most recently in straights at Stratton Mtn. and Montreal. I fully expected Mac to win that USO. But, it became clear to me that he was off the mark w/few reserves in the gas tank. Connors/Lendl in '85 was when it really started to tip toward Ivan, certainly on hard courts. But, Jimmy was a step down from '84 levels (where he reached #2) no question. Through '84, the pattern was that Jimmy won the most important matches, but Ivan was scooping up a lot of the smaller wins against him; in '84 I would have picked Connors over Lendl in a USO final.

 

[Mustard]

Not so sure about that. Lendl had beaten Connors 5 or 6 straight times, most badly, going into that match.

The shame is that we were denied the opportunity to see what would happen. Connors didn't have a chance with that sprained ankle in the 1985 US Open semi. Connors had beaten Lendl in majors before after being badly beaten in their previous match(es), including a double bagel that Lendl gave Connors at 1984 Forest Hills.

Come on. Lendl played SO much better in the 85 final. Mcenroe played the first match of the day in 85 and it cost him the final? Yet playing to 11 at night the year before didn't keep him from winning in straight sets?

McEnroe blew the 1985 US Open final by not winning the first set (he had set points). Lendl surged in the second and third sets. The tennis world changed then.

 

[WCT]

He had come back before to beat after getting thumped once. This was different. He had lost 5 or 6 matches in a row to him. Frankly, Connors was declining a bit and Lendl was getting better.

I didn't think he would beat him that night, healthy or otherwise(although I sure would have liked to have seen it). But that is why they play the matches.

 

[WCT]

In '85, I will always maintain that Wilander won that final for Lendl. He pushed Mac to the brink in the semis and Mac was spent. He had very little left to fend off Lendl. Mac had outplayed Lendl in other tournaments that year, most recently in straights at Stratton Mtn. and Montreal. I fully expected Mac to win that USO. But, it became clear to me that he was off the mark w/few reserves in the gas tank. Connors/Lendl in '85 was when it really started to tip toward Ivan, certainly on hard courts. But, Jimmy was a step down from '84 levels (where he reached #2) no question. Through '84, the pattern was that Jimmy won the most important matches, but Ivan was scooping up a lot of the smaller wins against him; in '84 I would have picked Connors over Lendl in a USO final.

Again, he played the first match on Saturday. That Wilander match was no tougher than the 84 Lendl match. Like Mustard said, Lendl really took off those last 2 sets. I have heard him call that like he was in the zone.

Lendl didn't ever have a bunch of consecutive wins vs Connors until this point. They were 2 and 2 in 84. Lendl won in JAanuary at the Masters and Forest Hills, Connors won Wimbledon and his lat tournament title for 3 1/2 plus years, Tokyo. Played great that match too with the new racket.

 

[Mustard]

He had come back before to beat after getting thumped once. This was different. He had lost 5 or 6 matches in a row to him. Frankly, Connors was declining a bit and Lendl was getting better.

I didn't think he would beat him that night, healthy or otherwise(although I sure would have liked to have seen it). But that is why they play the matches.

Lendl had won their two previous matches before their 1984 Wimbledon semi. 6-0, 6-0 and 6-3, 6-4. There's no bigger hammering than 6-0, 6-0, but Connors won the Wimbledon match 6-7, 6-3, 7-5, 6-1. Their previous match going into the 1985 US Open was at 1985 Stratton Mountain, which Lendl won 6-0, 4-6, 6-4. Their 1985 US Open semi was an intriguing matchup until that ankle sprain hours before the match was due to start. Lendl won 6-2, 6-3, 7-5 against that hampered Connors.

 

[jrepac]

Again, he played the first match on Saturday. That Wilander match was no tougher than the 84 Lendl match. Like Mustard said, Lendl really took off those last 2 sets. I have heard him call that like he was in the zone.

Lendl didn't ever have a bunch of consecutive wins vs Connors until this point. They were 2 and 2 in 84. Lendl won in JAanuary at the Masters and Forest Hills, Connors won Wimbledon and his last tournament title for 3 1/2 plus years, Tokyo. Played great that match too with the new racket.

I just recall the Mac-Wilander semi as being very long, on a very hot afternoon.
Mac was not the fittest, either!
Lendl was in the midst of his physical fitness effort, so I'm sure that helped.
But, Mac did blow it by dropping the 1st set; momentum surely helped Ivan

 

[WCT]

Lendl had won their two previous matches before their 1984 Wimbledon semi. 6-0, 6-0 and 6-3, 6-4. There's no bigger hammering than 6-0, 6-0, but Connors won the Wimbledon match 6-7, 6-3, 7-5, 6-1. Their previous match going into the 1985 US Open was at 1985 Stratton Mountain, which Lendl won 6-0, 4-6, 6-4. Their 1985 US Open semi was an intriguing matchup until that ankle sprain hours before the match was due to start. Lendl won 6-2, 6-3, 7-5 against that hampered Connors.

You are listing the one close match, now how about the others? There is a difference between 2 matches in a row and 5 matches in a row. One or two matches is another matter. If you are going to go by previous match, Lendl beat him 1 and 1 in Cincy a week before the US Open and on the same surface. But that was one match and the first time he ever beat the guy. Frankly, I always felt Lendl just didn't play up to par in either 82 or 83. Mcenroe was in the tv booth for a bi during the love and love match and flat out said he thought Connors only won those 2 years because Lendl choked. I wouldn't go that far, but he isn't playing anywhere close to top form in the first 2 plus sets of the 82 match. He does raise it some after that. In 83, I think he was exhausted at the end on that brutally hot day. I say all this as a huge Connors fan back then. In the interests of an attempt at objectivity, though.

I know the circumstances of the injury and the score of the match. I watched the first set not that long ago. Connors isn't that visibly hampered. He is just making a lot of errors.

 

[WCT]

I just recall the Mac-Wilander semi as being very long, on a very hot afternoon.
Mac was not the fittest, either!
Lendl was in the midst of his physical fitness effort, so I'm sure that helped.
But, Mac did blow it by dropping the 1st set; momentum surely helped Ivan

You have to weigh the heat against the getting off court 8 or 9 hours earlier. Mcenroe was never famous for his fitness. In 84 Lendl is probably in better physical condition than him. I'm speaking in general term, not that tournament specifically.

Yeah, Mcenroe wins that set and it might be straight sets the other way. A few points, games change all the momentum. That's tennis, though. Sports in general. Ebbs and flows based on circumstance.

 

[BTURNER]

Our family used to gather every Saturday to eat chat, eat dinner and play bridge. The television was basically locked on CBS out of habit This September day, all of the usuals were preempted by tennis, a sport virtually none of us paid the least attention to. I'd never seen a tennis match before. We had a know-it-all third cousin, who was an almost professional everything - singer ( he recorded a couple of 78's at the age 8 years old) , golf, horsejumping, boxing, and of course he's expertise on tennis was second only to Dan Maskell! We put up with him - family!. Well I recall the boisterous fans of New York, the sunken cheeked 'Commie'( a pretty pissed off commie at that!) vs the Aussie who came up at net and somehow, the bridge table never came out. We sat and watched, and watched. I definitely recalled the two American men. They were rude, they were temperamental jerks but this was dramatic and by this time we knew the names of the shots, and the basic strategy ( third cousin was not helpful!) and it was fun and exciting.

what I was most struck by that day, was the woman who's voice I never heard. Her extraverted opponent was as boisterous as the first two guys but this American woman spent 2+ hours out there, and seemed almost serene, in her own mind . I was a very ADHD teen, and I just could not figure her out. She seemed to care so very much about the point while she played it, trying as hard as everyone else, but she seemed completely indifferent to it soon after it finished. Points were like bubble gum wrappers, to be tossed to the ground. How can you care so much before and during a point, and barely care at all what just finished happening after it was over?

That's the player I came to root for, and that's where my interest stems from. By the way, the guy with the sunken cheeks turned out not be a commie after all! he was just a sour-puss.

 

[WCT]

Here is a reminder of the contempt that Connors used to feel for Lendl. I had forgotten about this. Searching around about this match the other day. I mean their 85 semi. I saw a newspaper account. After the match, Connors said that he thought that Mcenroe would win the final. That he thought that Lendl would not play as well in the final as he had against him. When asked why he thought that, Connors said, because he never does. Damn, that's cold.

 

[jrepac]

Here is a reminder of the contempt that Connors used to feel for Lendl. I had forgotten about this. Searching around about this match the other day. I mean their 85 semi. I saw a newspaper account. After the match, Connors said that he thought that Mcenroe would win the final. That he thought that Lendl would not play as well in the final as he had against him. When asked why he thought that, Connors said, because he never does. Damn, that's cold.

Mac and Jimmy had tons of contempt for Ivan back then...and some with good reason. Guy tanked matches, was a headhunter and collapsed in GS events under pressure. He was horrible in his press interviews and alienated folks. (This is NOT the Ivan everyone knows today, obviously) In '85 Mac was having a fantastic year still...Wimbledon was viewed as something of an aberration (thanks to Curren & Becker). Mac was having a fantastic summer other than that and had won most of his matches against Ivan. Why would anyone expect a change?

 

[BeatlesFan]

I watched every second of every match. Lendl's lob on MP against Cash has to be the greatest lob ever.

 

[jrepac]

I watched every second of every match. Lendl's lob on MP against Cash has to be the greatest lob ever.

that was a seriously gutsy shot

 

[WCT]

I watched every second of every match. Lendl's lob on MP against Cash has to be the greatest lob ever.

Same here. Watched all 3 matches. Watched the senior match which was the first of the day. Or watched the part of it that CBS showed. It was joined in progress.

 

[laver37]

Same here. Watched all 3 matches. Watched the senior match which was the first of the day. Or watched the part of it that CBS showed. It was joined in progress.

i have part of the match Smith / Newcombe

 

[jrepac]

Same here. Watched all 3 matches. Watched the senior match which was the first of the day. Or watched the part of it that CBS showed. It was joined in progress.

Yes, it was midway through...was a good match. Who knew what was to come?

 

[WCT]

Who indeed. Going in, there has been a bunch of decisive victories of Martina over Evert and Mcenroe over Connors. But we got 3 classics.

 

[BTURNER]

Who indeed. Going in, there has been a bunch of decisive victories of Martina over Evert and Mcenroe over Connors. But we got 3 classics.

Lendl, Evert, and Connors re-weaponized the return of serve/ passing shot and reminded the world that volleys are not inherently easy shots. Two people on court, are in control of whether the volleys do or do not, go back over the net and, inside those lines.

 

[Mustard]

Here is a reminder of the contempt that Connors used to feel for Lendl. I had forgotten about this. Searching around about this match the other day. I mean their 85 semi. I saw a newspaper account. After the match, Connors said that he thought that Mcenroe would win the final. That he thought that Lendl would not play as well in the final as he had against him. When asked why he thought that, Connors said, because he never does. Damn, that's cold.

Well, it's true. Most people had predicted McEnroe as the winner going into the 1985 US Open final, and the old stereotype about Lendl choking in the biggest matches was starting to return, because the 1984 French Open final had been well over a year previously. McEnroe himself never missed an opportunity to say how he felt that he had "choked" that 1984 French Open final, although I don't agree.

Also, as mentioned many times before in this thread, Connors was bitter at the time of the 1985 US Open semi final, because he had badly sprained his ankle just hours before the match and it had wrecked his chances against Lendl. That would have removed any subtleties in Connors' post-match comments.

 

[jrepac]

Well, it's true. Most people had predicted McEnroe as the winner going into the 1985 US Open final, and the old stereotype about Lendl choking in the biggest matches was starting to return, because the 1984 French Open final had been well over a year previously. McEnroe himself never missed an opportunity to say how he felt that he had "choked" that 1984 French Open final, although I don't agree.

Mac was the clear favorite in the USO re-match. I don't think Connors would've beaten Lendl, but would've been more competitive if his ankle was not messed up.

 

[WCT]

Well, it's true. Most people had predicted McEnroe as the winner going into the 1985 US Open final, and the old stereotype about Lendl choking in the biggest matches was starting to return, because the 1984 French Open final had been well over a year previously. McEnroe himself never missed an opportunity to say how he felt that he had "choked" that 1984 French Open final, although I don't agree.

Also, as mentioned many times before in this thread, Connors was bitter at the time of the 1985 US Open semi final, because he had badly sprained his ankle just hours before the match and it had wrecked his chances against Lendl. That would have removed any subtleties in Connors' post-match comments.

Let's face fact. The term grudging respect was probably overstating it in anything remotely positive he had to say about Lendl while they were playing. I don't think he was overly subtle, but the comments here lacked ANY subtlety. This was brutally honest.

 

[NicoMK]

Certainly one of the greatest days in tennis history.

Coincidentally I came across this one:

I love these guys, all being really cool in the end.

Apparently you can't watch it from here - phew - but it's basically an interview of Ivan with Mats about this Super Saturday + a special guest at the end of the video.

 

[WCT]

I liked that although Lendl got a couple details wrong on all the matched. 7-6 in the 5th was 1980 not 84. He sure has no problem showing his sense of humor nowdays. And imagine saving a match point when you are using the wrong grip.