"Big" Matches: Connors/Borg/McEnroe and Connors/McEnroe/Lendl

[chaognosis]

As usual there have been many recent debates on this forum concerning the two great three-man rivalries of the late 1970s and early '80s: Connors/Borg/McEnroe and Connors/McEnroe/Lendl. Of course, there are nearly infinite ways of looking at the data, and of spinning an argument in favor of one player or the other. On a whim I thought that the following might be an interesting, though by no means conclusive, approach: a comparison of how these players fared against one another in "big" matches (finals and semifinals) at the then-biggest events, Wimbledon and the US Open. (For a variety of reasons I chose not to include, e.g., the 1980 US Open QF, where McEnroe beat Lendl, or the 1987 US Open QF, where Lendl beat McEnroe. These two meetings would effectively cancel each other out, anyway...)

First the data, then the (modest) conclusions.

1975 US Open SF, Connors def. Borg
1976 US Open F, Connors def. Borg
1977 Wimbledon F, Borg def. Connors
1978 Wimbledon F, Borg def. Connors
1978 US Open F, Connors def. Borg
1979 Wimbledon SF, Borg def. Connors
1981 Wimbledon SF, Borg def. Connors
1981 US Open SF, Borg def. Connors
OVERALL: Borg def. Connors, 5-3

1980 Wimbledon F, Borg def. McEnroe
1980 US Open F, McEnroe def. Borg
1981 Wimbledon F, McEnroe def. Borg
1981 US Open F, McEnroe def. Borg
OVERALL: McEnroe def. Borg, 3-1

1977 Wimbledon SF, Connors def. McEnroe
1978 US Open SF, Connors def. McEnroe
1979 US Open SF, McEnroe def. Connors
1980 Wimbledon SF, McEnroe def. Connors
1980 US Open SF, McEnroe def. Connors
1982 Wimbledon F, Connors def. McEnroe
1984 Wimbledon F, McEnroe def. Connors
1984 US Open SF, McEnroe def. Connors
OVERALL: McEnroe def. Connors, 5-3

1982 US Open SF, Lendl def. McEnroe
1983 Wimbledon SF, McEnroe def. Lendl
1984 US Open F, McEnroe def. Lendl
1985 US Open F, Lendl def. McEnroe
OVERALL: McEnroe and Lendl tied, 2-2

1982 US Open F, Connors def. Lendl
1983 US Open F, Connors def. Lendl
1984 Wimbledon SF, Connors def. Lendl
1985 US Open SF, Lendl def. Connors
1987 US Open SF, Lendl def. Connors
OVERALL: Connors def. Lendl, 3-2

For the Connors-Borg-McEnroe rivalry, then, the following "ranking" emerges:

1. McEnroe, 2 wins (+2)
2. Borg, 1 win / 1 loss (0)
3. Connors, 2 losses (-2)

And for the Connors-McEnroe-Lendl rivalry:

1. McEnroe, 1 win / 1 tie (+1)
2. Connors, 1 win / 1 loss (0)
3. Lendl, 1 tie / 1 loss (-1)

Now, by no means do I pretend that this big-match perspective proves McEnroe > Borg > Connors > Lendl. (Personally I would rate Borg, at the very least, on par with McEnroe.) It only shows how these players stacked up against one another when reaching the final four at these two major tournaments. This is merely one possible angle from which to view things, albeit, I believe, an interesting and perhaps important one.

Any and all thoughts appreciated.

 

[CyBorg]

My only thought is that this is all highly irrelevant, considering that a h2h can turn around considerably if a player keeps performing for some time post his peak. Like Connors did.

 

[chaognosis]

My only thought is that this is all highly irrelevant, considering that a h2h can turn around considerably if a player keeps performing for some time post his peak. Like Connors did.

Actually, that's one of several reasons why I think this is MORE relevant than a career head-to-head record: by focusing on occasions where both players are strong enough to make the final four, we avoid the less meaningful losses that may have occurred when one player or another either (a) had not yet hit his stride, or (b) was somewhat over the hill. And I think the real value is in highlighting the most significant meetings at the grandest stages, where most was on the table, the players desired a victory most, the tennis world was paying closest attention to the match, and, thus, the pressure to win was greatest. This, I think, is a critical component of athletics in general.

 

[krosero]

How do you feel about including Lendl's victory over McEnroe in Davis Cup?

(I know Connors defeated Lendl in the same tie, but in a meaninless rubber).

 

[chaognosis]

How do you feel about including Lendl's victory over McEnroe in Davis Cup?

(I know Connors defeated Lendl in the same tie, but in a meaninless rubber).

Ooh, good question. I'm not sure if all parties would agree that Davis Cup was the third most important event in the 1970s/'80s--certainly it would have been universally regarded as "elite" among prior generations (in the 1920s and '30s, for example, it was clearly the No. 1 event, even ahead of Wimbledon). However, I don't believe that all McEnroe's peers accorded Davis Cup the same prestige and significance that McEnroe himself did, for example. In any case, as I said before, I would never argue that the above gives a comprehensive picture of these rivalries; it is, by definition, a selective snapshot.

 

[CyBorg]

Actually, that's one of several reasons why I think this is MORE relevant than a career head-to-head record: by focusing on occasions where both players are strong enough to make the final four, we avoid the less meaningful losses that may have occurred when one player or another either (a) had not yet hit his stride, or (b) was somewhat over the hill. And I think the real value is in highlighting the most significant meetings at the grandest stages, where most was on the table, the players desired a victory most, the tennis world was paying closest attention to the match, and, thus, the pressure to win was greatest. This, I think, is a critical component of athletics in general.

It's interesting but the results don't account for differing ages and peak levels.

This means that you draw conclusions the same way for Lendl/McEnroe as you would for Connors/McEnroe, even though the two formers have about eight years separating them.

What is truly interesting is when two guys play each other at their respective peaks or close. But things get more complicated when one player is either too young or two old. Things sometimes turn around when the younger player reaches his peak and the older regresses, but not always.

The other factor is surfaces, which is very important. Borg and McEnroe, for example, not once played each other on clay. We have the same story with Connors and Borg - at least in terms of 'red' clay results.

Back to the drawing board I guess.

 

[chaognosis]

I see your points, but you want this exercise to be something it's not. Of course, defining a player's "peak" period requires artificial parameters in any event--in this case my parameters are very artificial (I've chosen to look at only the final two rounds at the top two tournaments... it doesn't get much more selective than that, though I've explained why I made this decision several times). I am not asking you to accept this as the "GOAT" standard. It has nothing to do with calibrating age and performance, and it has nothing to do with surface-specific abilities/achievements. It simply presents how these two groups of three players did against one another in semifinals and finals at Wimbledon and the US Open. I do not treat these players as robots, and pretend that universal, scientific conclusions about their overall standard relative to one another can be determined from what I've shown here. It is merely one possible analysis of certain data among a nearly infinite number of possible analyses that one could make with respect to these four players. The reason I have put it forth, is because I believe these particular results have a special, subjective significance, in that these are big, late round matches where the two most desirable titles in the tennis world at that time were on the line. Nothing less, nothing more.

 

[krosero]

Ooh, good question. I'm not sure if all parties would agree that Davis Cup was the third most important event in the 1970s/'80s--certainly it would have been universally regarded as "elite" among prior generations (in the 1920s and '30s, for example, it was clearly the No. 1 event, even ahead of Wimbledon). However, I don't believe that all McEnroe's peers accorded Davis Cup the same prestige and significance that McEnroe himself did, for example. In any case, as I said before, I would never argue that the above gives a comprehensive picture of these rivalries; it is, by definition, a selective snapshot.

I probably would not have thought of Davis Cup at all except that the idea of big matches is about the pressure, as you described above. Davis Cup might be placed very high or very low in its importance as a general event, but for the individual player the pressure at his back to win a rubber can be hot. Not to mention the hostile stadium you might be facing.

The 1980 USO QF was probably not a "big" match, but their 1987 QF had this prizefight atmosphere, a marquee night match that everyone was watching. And for Lendl it had a bit of Davis Cup atmosphere to it; the fans got nasty enough to cheer his missed first serves and things like that.

Borg and McEnroe's second Masters meeting at MSG had a sold-out crowd and was highly anticipated. And though it was just a round-robin match I think it threatened both of them with elimination from the tournament.

However what you have is a snapshot, as you say, and as long as it's presented that way I don't see a problem.

 

[CyBorg]

I see your points, but you want this exercise to be something it's not. Of course, defining a player's "peak" period requires artificial parameters in any event--in this case my parameters are very artificial (I've chosen to look at only the final two rounds and the top two tournaments... it doesn't get much more selective than that, though I've explained why I made this decision several times). I am not asking you to accept this as the "GOAT" standard. It has nothing to do with calibrating age and performance, and it has nothing to do with surface-specific abilities/achievements. It simply presents how these two groups of three players did against one another in semifinals and finals at Wimbledon and the US Open. I do not treat these players as robots, and pretend that universal, scientific conclusions about their overall standard relative to one another can be determined from what I've shown here. It is merely one possible analysis of certain data among a nearly infinite numbers of possible analyses that one could make with respect to these four players. The reason I have put it forth, is because I believe these particular results have a special, subjective significance, in that these are big, late round matches where the two most desirable titles in the tennis world at that time were on the line. Nothing less, nothing more.

You're right. I'm being a bit too anal about this.

 

[chaognosis]

I probably would not have thought of Davis Cup at all except that the idea of big matches is about the pressure, as you described above. Davis Cup might be placed very high or very low in its importance as a general event, but for the individual player the pressure at his back to win a rubber can be hot. Not to mention the hostile stadium you might be facing.

The 1980 USO QF was probably not a "big" match, but their 1987 QF had this prizefight atmosphere, a marquee night match that everyone was watching. And for Lendl it had a bit of Davis Cup atmosphere to it; the fans got nasty enough to cheer his missed first serves and things like that.

Borg and McEnroe's second Masters meeting at MSG had a sold-out crowd and was highly anticipated. And though it was just a round-robin match I think it threatened both of them with elimination from the tournament.

However what you have is a snapshot, as you say, and as long as it's presented that way I don't see a problem.

Good points, all. I obviously went for a more limited approach here, but it would be interesting (though subjective, of course) to determine a set number of the most significant matches in some of the greatest tennis rivalries: Tilden/Lacoste, Crawford/Perry, Von Cramm/Budge, Rosewall/Laver, and so on. You know, compare how the best players competed against their biggest rivals when a lot was on the line. I like your "prizefight" analogy--that is very much what I am going for with this sort of thing. Tennis used to have much more of a boxing-style feel, especially among the Kramer pros, but even before that. Tilden couldn't be dethroned by a numbers game, for example; the Musketeers had to beat him one-on-one (or in this case, four-on-one) at the US Championships and, especially, for the Davis Cup.