Would Federer overcome Connors in 5 sets, or is it Connors in 5?

[Nathaniel_Near]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypHBUSl-9IM

Some uploader of Federer videos seems to have cottoned onto some silly Connors in 5 fad and has suggested that Federer would come out on top.

How do you guys see it?:twisted:

 

[SLD76]

Fed in 3

10lols

 

[Sentinel]

Federer in two

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypHBUSl-9IM

Some uploader of Federer videos seems to have cottoned onto some silly Connors in 5 fad and has suggested that Federer would come out on top.

How do you guys see it?:twisted:

Naah that's ridiculous. Roger's just had one too many lucky shorts, as LOLley King would agree.

When will these delusional fanboys stop posting highlights of Federer's lucky shorts ? Hasn't Rafa ever hit anything like this ? I've never seen a video of Rafa's genius in all these years

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Outstanding thread this one, so be sure to check it out. You all know how high my standards are in creating questionable and silly threads. PS, the video is WELL worth the watch (go ooon, I did put *some* effort into it).

 

[Deleted member 21996]

Connors in 3. Fed is a whimp!

in before the subject turns to Fedal....

 

[merlinpinpin]

Naah that's ridiculous. Roger's just had one too many lucky shorts, as LOLley King would agree.

When will these delusional fanboys stop posting highlights of Federer's lucky shorts ? Hasn't Rafa ever hit anything like this ? I've never seen a video of Rafa's genius in all these years

Well, maybe you could ask LOLville to make a video of Rafa's best MTO's, Senti...

 

[tennis_pro]

Too much raw power from Federer.

 

[Zildite]

Fed in 2 is already established, even in best of 5.

 

[jones101]

The $100, 000 question is whether would Connors kick over Nadals water bottles during a changeover?

 

[Mustard]

It depends on the circumstances, but Connors has a better 5-set record than Federer.

Now Krickstein, there's a player you didn't want to face in a fifth set. He won 27 out of 35 matches that went into fifth sets. He seemed to thrive in those tight situations in a match during fourth and fifth sets.

 

[Mustard]

Too much raw power from Federer.

Aren't you aware that Connors loved pace? The more power the better as far as he was concerned. Lendl would try to blast Connors off the court in his early years, and Lendl didn't win a single set in their first 8 meetings.

 

[Cup8489]

The $100, 000 question is whether would Connors kick over Nadals water bottles during a changeover?

Without a doubt.

Hell, I would, just to see what he'd do about it. Lol.

 

[Mustard]

Without a doubt.

Hell, I would, just to see what he'd do about it. Lol.

He'd complain, and stall play until he got all his bottles in perfect order. Then after, he'd say "It wasn't a nice thing for him to do, no?"

 

[tennis_pro]

Aren't you aware that Connors loved pace? The more power the better as far as he was concerned. Lendl would try to blast Connors off the court in his early years, and Lendl didn't win a single set in their first 8 meetings.

He would hate it from the moment he played peak Federer on a fast surface.

Btw as I'm looking at the h2h right now, 1979-1981 doesn't seem like Lendl was anything close to his best years. At least not for another 3-4 years.

 

[Mustard]

He would hate it from the moment he played peak Federer on a fast surface.

Federer would need to hit a lot of short slices to beat Connors. Power won't do it, quite the opposite.

Btw as I'm looking at the h2h right now, 1979-1981 doesn't seem like Lendl was anything close to his best years. At least not for another 3-4 years.

1979-1981 was hardly Connors' best years either, with Borg racing ahead of him and McEnroe also overtaking him.

 

[Cup8489]

He'd complain, and stall play until he got all his bottles in perfect order. Then after, he'd say "It wasn't a nice thing for him to do, no?"

Ah, I could have so much fun with Rafa. Lol.

 

[Biscuitmcgriddleson]

Ah, I could have so much fun with Rafa. Lol.

Agreed. I think if he would have played Sampras, McEnroe, or Connors that he would have had fits. All of them would have been happy to argue with the chair umpire about his gamesmanship all the while engaging in their own. I'd still love to see someone kick those bottles though :twisted:

 

[monfed]

Fed in 2

.....

 

[kragster]

Outstanding thread this one, so be sure to check it out. You all know how high my standards are in creating questionable and silly threads. PS, the video is WELL worth the watch (go ooon, I did put *some* effort into it).

Best thing I have read. On any forum. Actually not just on any forum but in any book, magazine or document. You sir are a winner.

 

[purge]

lmao

fed in 2 as has been established


really connors face during the AO 07 demolition of roddick said it all -.-

 

[jakemcclain32]

Connors in his prime would harass Feddy on changeovers and engage in brutal psychological warfare. Feddy would **** his pants and lose in 4 sets.

Fed is a psychological giant. He'd laugh Jimmy off before slicing him to death.

Nadal, on the other hand, would be toast. He would just have a field day with umps, then Jimmy would get in his face and threaten him, causing more of a stir.

I'd REALLY get a laugh out of a Connors/Gulbis confrontation, haha.

 

[SLD76]

lmao

fed in 2 as has been established


really connors face during the AO 07 demolition of roddick said it all -.-

hahaha...I remember that.

the look was like ".....well damn"

 

[Joe Cocker]

Since Fed in 2 is already well used, I'm going with Fed in 1.

 

[sunof tennis]

It depends on the circumstances, but Connors has a better 5-set record than Federer.

Now Krickstein, there's a player you didn't want to face in a fifth set. He won 27 out of 35 matches that went into fifth sets. He seemed to thrive in those tight situations in a match during fourth and fifth sets.

All well and good, but it would never go to 5 sets. I admire Jimmy's fighting spirit, but Federer would destroy him. Jimmy's serve would get eaten alive. Federer's only quasi weakness is high balls to his backhand, but Jimmy hit very flat. Bad match up for Connors

 

[RNEast]

The $100, 000 question is whether would Connors kick over Nadals water bottles during a changeover?

I have talked about this exact thing to one of my friends. That would devastate someone with OCD; they'd unravel.

 

[Praetorian]

Doesn't matter. Because the great great great great great grandchild of Jimmy's at 3.5 would would triple bagel Federer. LOL

 

[PCXL-Fan]

Jimmy Connors would get handly defeated in todays game by Federer. The increase racquet speed means that he like all the short players without devistating John isner/milos Raonic level serves would be unable to play serve and volley type games. They would be playing a baseline game where footspeed is one of the key elements.

Jimmy Connors height is a factor in why his serve wouldn't be in the top 4. So he couldn't play his serve and volley style game. He wouldn't be putting his opponent on the defensive enough nor pulling Federer into vulnerable positions on court with that serve to safely move into the net without getting passed by Fed.

Jimmy was only 150lbs, even with good angles he wouldn't be hitting flat backhand balls with the same penetration as players like Djokovic or Nadal, nor with the high bounce topspin that troubles Fed.

If both players have their A game on in their prime.
Fed in 3 or 4 sets. 6-4, 6-4, 7-5 or 6-4, 4-6, 6-4, 6-3.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

Best thing I have read. On any forum. Actually not just on any forum but in any book, magazine or document. You sir are a winner.

It's true that I don't play up until just the ultimate level (the semi-finals). I have, in fact, surpassed the ultimate level, and ascended into a realm of brilliance and genius which can't be demonstrated using mere words.

For anyone who needs proof that the ultimate level is the semi-finals, please refer to this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg56itziNMI

:lol:

 

[kishnabe]

The $100, 000 question is whether would Connors kick over Nadals water bottles during a changeover?

Yes....

Connors spat at McEnroe before.....did all things to look down on McEnroe. Provided by High Strung book.

 

[Magnetite]

To be honest Fed would blow him off the court. It would take a few years for Connors to learn how to play with today's new rackets and strings. He'd also, have to develop new training techniques.

If Connors and Federer both played in the same era, it may be different.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

To be honest Fed would blow him off the court. It would take a few years for Connors to learn how to play with today's new rackets and strings. He'd also, have to develop new training techniques.

If Connors and Federer both played in the same era, it may be different.

Even if Connors started from the ground up being born in 1981. And went through modern training with modern equipment in the 90s if both players at 23-25 met numerous times in 2004-2006 Federer would win most encounters fairly handly regardless of the surface.

A 5ft9 150lbs player would likely have the modern game style of Hewitt, Davydenko or Ferrer and would not be able to play a serve and volley style game because of a lack of stupendous serve (serve and volley is now something used even by big guys like Isner use slightly over half their service points).

 

[Mustard]

Even if Connors started from the ground up being born in 1981. And went through modern training with modern equipment in the 90s if both players at 23-25 met numerous times in 2004-2006 Federer would win most encounters fairly handly regardless of the surface.

A 5ft9 150lbs player would likely have the modern game style of Hewitt, Davydenko or Ferrer and would not be able to play a serve and volley style game because of a lack of stupendous serve (serve and volley is now something used even by big guys like Isner use slightly over half their service points).

Well I think Connors would have loved today's game, with all its power, even more than how tennis was during his own prime years of 1974-1984. Connors' game would be high risk, as it always was, but very hard to beat if he was on. He also had a mentality of arguably the greatest fighter in the history of the game. He'd be trying to get at Federer in every way he can, using mind games, fist pumps etc. Oh, and then there's the crowd factor. Connors always had the crowd in the palm of his hands and fed off energy from them, whether he was the pantomime villain, the crowd favourite or the underdog rallying against the odds.

 

[DolgoSantoro]

Naah that's ridiculous. Roger's just had one too many lucky shorts, as LOLley King would agree.

When will these delusional fanboys stop posting highlights of Federer's lucky shorts ? Hasn't Rafa ever hit anything like this ? I've never seen a video of Rafa's genius in all these years

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8fOkWrPuFw&feature=my_liked_videos&list=LL-Iw7ny-pLDiVmb_zoOsEzA

But in any case, how often does one have to hit "lucky shots" before they just become evidence of talent?

 

[BevelDevil]

Federer's only quasi weakness is high balls to his backhand, but Jimmy hit very flat. Bad match up for Connors

Yup, Fed's getting balls in his own wheelhouse on both sides most the time, which is bad news for anyone.

Also, Connors is getting passed a lot.

Of course, if it's a 5-setter, maybe that means Fed has mono or a back problem...

 

[VOLLEY KING]

"(Federer's) not the best player ever, by a long shot, yet. You face him against the likes of Jimmy Connors and I don't know that he's going to beat Jimmy Connors for two reasons here (Wilander points to groin) …

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time." MATS WILANDER

 

[big_bill]

Fact: Connors in his prime would abuse boy Weeperer.

 

[Mustard]

"(Federer's) not the best player ever, by a long shot, yet. You face him against the likes of Jimmy Connors and I don't know that he's going to beat Jimmy Connors for two reasons here (Wilander points to groin) …

"Sports is about balls and about heart and you don't find too many champions in any sport in the world without heart or balls. He might have them, but against Nadal they shrink to a very small size and it's not once, it's every time." MATS WILANDER

That was after the 2006 French Open final.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I appreciate all the serious discussion but I thought it was common knowledge that Connors wins in 5...?

Sheesh.

 

[monfed]

Federer in 2.

 

[NadalAgassi]

If we are talking peaks, the only surface their matches would even go 5 sets is hard courts. Federer is much better on all other courts. Connors is most remarkable for his longevity and dominating a field of 40 year old men in 1974.

 

[li0scc0]

Grass - Federer in 3-4
Clay - Federer in 3-4
Hard courts - Federer in 4

Assuming we are talking prime Federer vs prime Connors.

 

[VOLLEY KING]

Grass - Federer in 3-4
Clay - Federer in 3-4
Hard courts - Federer in 4

Assuming we are talking prime Federer vs prime Connors.

You can't play tennis without balls.....Connors has a pair but Fed doesn't .

 

[jackson vile]

You can't play tennis without balls.....Connors has a pair but Fed doesn't .

You know, you could be keeping them in his purse.

 

[decades]

connors has a lot of trouble with Nastase. Federer is Nastase squared.

 

[90's Clay]

Fed doesn't like going 5 sets and having the pressure put on him. His record in the 5th set aint that great

 

[DjokovicForTheWin]

Connors is the toughest opponent to beat on Dream Match Pro.