Originally Posted by Limpinhitter
Kros, Just want to say thanks for all of your contributions to this thread. Much appreciated.
You're welcome. For me the biggest surprise was learning that Riggs played well in that match against Budge; he just got crushed. The video, and even the report in the New York Times, tend to focus on what Budge was doing; and they naturally emphasize his spectacular winners.
But then you look at the stats, and Riggs hit 33 winners, plus 4 aces. That's an awful lot of winners for someone who loses 2, 2, and 2.
One similar example: in the '78 Wimbledon final, Connors made 33 winners, but was crushed anyway, 6-2, 6-2, 6-3.
There was not actually a great difference in winners, between Budge and Riggs. There was a larger difference in errors; that's really where Budge made it a dominating performance (similar to Borg, who had a tiny edge over Connors in winners, in the '78 match, but was able to dominate because he made far fewer errors).
I'd have to think of Budge's performance against Riggs as one of the best performances ever in terms of level of play.