Which Player Creates The Worst Matchups Ever

[SusanDK]

I didn´t recall that win.Sydney Indoors was a pretty big event those days and Jarryd a great indoors player.Nice to see he beat Ivan so handily.What´s his record vs Jimmy Connors? Did they ever meet?

Connors was another terrible match up for Jarryd. I don't recall Jarryd ever beating him in the few matches they played despite a 9-year age difference and most of their meetings occurring when Jarryd had a quite high singles ranking.

In some ways, they had similar styles from the perspective of both being all-courters who played primarily from the baseline but always looking for the opening to move into the net and hit a volley winner. And both would sometimes surprise their opponents with serve and volley, despite not having particularly strong serves.

I think the problem with the lopsided match up is that Connors just played that style a whole lot better.

 

[kiki]

Connors was another terrible match up for Jarryd. I don't recall Jarryd ever beating him in the few matches they played despite a 9-year age difference and most of their meetings occurring when Jarryd had a quite high singles ranking.

In some ways, they had similar styles from the perspective of both being all-courters who played primarily from the baseline but always looking for the opening to move into the net and hit a volley winner. And both would sometimes surprise their opponents with serve and volley, despite not having particularly strong serves.

I think the problem with the lopsided match up is that Connors just played that style a whole lot better.

Indeed, that is the reason.Jarryd was a counterpuncher, thus Becker,Edberg and Mac were players he ssomewhat felt comfortable playing.He also beat Wilander several times, mostly because they practised together and knew Mats game perfectly...and Mats was never the same player when facing another swede ( friend).But Jarryd was in trouble against players like Lendl and Connors.

 

[WCT]

I am not as much a Wilander fan as I was a Connors fan.But, be honest, Wilander was the worst match up Connors had since Borg...both iced cool swedes, BTW...remember 1984 DC finals?

I'll admit it doesn't look like a good matchup, but it's nowhere near a prime Connors. I would never claim that Connors owned Rosewall, period. He owned a 39+ Rosewall clearly. I'm not prepared to say he was a nightmare matchup for him in his prime because I don't think we have that info. I'm also aware that this example is more extreme. 32 is not 39, but Connors was on his way down.

How fast and nimble was Jarryd? Not recalling off hand. If you were staying back with Connors you want consistency and retrieving ability because he would miss if the point went on long enough.

That 92 match Connors was 40 and really hadn't played that much. He was coming in so quickly in that first set because I don't think he had it in him to do 4-5 sets of extended rallies.

Generally speaking, though, Lendl came to dominate Connors not by overpowering him off the ground. Off the serve somewhat. Off the ground, he slices 80-90% of his backhands unless he's trying to pass. He's not quite as aggressive with the forehand either. I mean not as aggressive as he'd be against other players.

Get a 1987-88 match of his versus Connors. Then get one versus Wilander.
He's so much more aggressive off the ground against Wilander because Mats can stay out there all day without missing whereas Connors would miss after x amount of strokes.

Not claiming that was Wilander's startegy in it's entirety either. Sometimes he came in a lot against Lendl. The US Open final that he beat him. But when they were rallying from the baseline Lendl knew he had to do more. He had to do more to penetrate Wilander. Which was really more his natural style. His natural style wasn't to slice backhand after backhand. That was done more as a reaction to Connors' game.

 

[kiki]

I'll admit it doesn't look like a good matchup, but it's nowhere near a prime Connors. I would never claim that Connors owned Rosewall, period. He owned a 39+ Rosewall clearly. I'm not prepared to say he was a nightmare matchup for him in his prime because I don't think we have that info. I'm also aware that this example is more extreme. 32 is not 39, but Connors was on his way down.

How fast and nimble was Jarryd? Not recalling off hand. If you were staying back with Connors you want consistency and retrieving ability because he would miss if the point went on long enough.

That 92 match Connors was 40 and really hadn't played that much. He was coming in so quickly in that first set because I don't think he had it in him to do 4-5 sets of extended rallies.

Generally speaking, though, Lendl came to dominate Connors not by overpowering him off the ground. Off the serve somewhat. Off the ground, he slices 80-90% of his backhands unless he's trying to pass. He's not quite as aggressive with the forehand either. I mean not as aggressive as he'd be against other players.

Get a 1987-88 match of his versus Connors. Then get one versus Wilander.
He's so much more aggressive off the ground against Wilander because Mats can stay out there all day without missing whereas Connors would miss after x amount of strokes.

Not claiming that was Wilander's startegy in it's entirety either. Sometimes he came in a lot against Lendl. The US Open final that he beat him. But when they were rallying from the baseline Lendl knew he had to do more. He had to do more to penetrate Wilander. Which was really more his natural style. His natural style wasn't to slice backhand after backhand. That was done more as a reaction to Connors' game.

I reckon I agree with your post.But it doesn´t change the fact that Wilander was possibly the worst match up for Jimmy since Borg retirement.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I remember a few of the long rallies he had with Becker indoors at the WCT Dallas tournament where he and Becker would exchange cross-court shots for ages, then Jarryd would let loose an inside out backhand for the winner, often when Becker was trying to sneak in

Jarryd's 1st round 3-6 7-5 3-6 6-3 6-2 win over Becker at the '93 AO is viewable here. looks like he was S&Ving a lot that day(and coming in off Becker's serve as well)

http://vault.australianopentv.com/

 

[The-Champ]

A better player doesn't necessary means he will win most of the time, and one of the main reason is match up problem. Never in the history of tennis I find Nadal has so many advantage over Federer. Not just because he's a lefty, but his unique style that suits perfectly against Roger's style. Added to the fact this era also suits Nadal with the heavy ball, high bounce and slower court.

Does anyone find any player in the past that possess such huge match up issues like Roger and Rafa? I can't see any past great players has this problem, at least not even close to this level.

Yes, it's quite remarkable that Nadal has been able to beat Federer. Federer is the most complete player ever and has every shot in his arsenal. Federer has a big advantage everytime he plays the one dimensional Nadal.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Early in Federer's career Hewitt and Safin were a problem for him, while later in his career Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are a problem for him.

 

[zagor]

Early in Federer's career Hewitt and Safin were a problem for him, while later in his career Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are a problem for him.

Nope .

 

[Dan Lobb]

From what I have read, I got the feeling Kramer won the huge majority of the matches between him and Budge. But Budge was older than Kramer so that may not be fair. The big match between the two was I think (could be wrong about the year) the 1948 US Pro in which Kramer won in five sets. Budge won only one point in the entire fifth set according to accounts.

It's very possible that despite the priestige of the Budge Grand Slam in 1938, that Kramer may have been an overall better player when both were at their peaks. Steve Flink wrote that in one of his books.

Budge was way out of shape, and had cramps which crumpled him to the court, he could not move in the final set.
A fit Budge would have won that match.

 

[BTURNER]

Mary Jo Fernandez was a worse match-up to Sabatini than the far superior Evert with basically carbon copy strokes/ tactics. The difference was a couple of inches taller in body height and stroke comfort zone. Those topspinners that drove other base-liners including Graf back, esp on the backhand wing, Fernandez could hit closer in. Of course Seles had such perfect timing, she do it even closer.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Does anyone know the lifetime Rosewall/Nastase score? Nastase seems to have had great trouble with Rosewall in 1976 and 1977, losing two big finals to him in Hong Kong and Tokyo.
Nastase seems to have been intimidated by Rosewall.

 

[BobbyOne]

Budge was way out of shape, and had cramps which crumpled him to the court, he could not move in the final set.
A fit Budge would have won that match.

Dan, you are very bold...

 

[BobbyOne]

Does anyone know the lifetime Rosewall/Nastase score? Nastase seems to have had great trouble with Rosewall in 1976 and 1977, losing two big finals to him in Hong Kong and Tokyo.
Nastase seems to have been intimidated by Rosewall.

Dan, Rosewall leads 7:3, in big events 1:0. This even though Rosewall was 34 to 43 years old.

 

[kiki]

Kodes vs Rosewall?

 

[Dan Lobb]

Dan, Rosewall leads 7:3, in big events 1:0. This even though Rosewall was 34 to 43 years old.

Complete dominance by Muscles.