Originally Posted by Mustard
Had the pattern the rivalry changed? Connors might have been a better grass-court player, but Connors couldn't even win a single game against Lendl in Rotterdam and Forest Hills, yet won their major meeting at Wimbledon in 4 sets. Connors lost to McEnroe in the semi finals of the 1984 US Open, and pushed McEnroe to 5 sets. McEnroe crushed Lendl in the final, when both were very tired. A peak McEnroe was beating everyone, but I don't see anyone else above Connors for the year.
As for the Masters, Lendl would beat Connors there anyway, and had done before. It was a peak McEnroe who beat Connors in the majors (French Open, Wimbledon, US Open) that year, as well as the WCT Dallas event.
You may very well be correct about Connors being the second best player that year but strictly from an observer's point of view I just thought he lost a few steps and his reflexes were a bit slower. That's why I think he lost some of those matches badly. Considering everything I may still amazed at the unbelievable quality of his play against McEnroe in the US Open semi in 1984. That could be my favorite match. Makes you wonder how he would have done if he was 25.