Originally Posted by hoodjem
Simply put--age. Connors is 12 years older.
They first played when Wilander was in 1984, nearly in his prime. Wilander was 20 and had won three slams, Connors was 32. After that it just got worse.
Connors was on the way down by then.
Imagine two overlapping career curves: Connors's career is descending 1984-88. Wilander's is peaking in 1988 when he won three slams. By 1988 Wilander is 24; Connors is 36.
The odds were stacked against Connors.
Laver was 18 years older than Borg and had a few wins over him.