Originally Posted by krosero
Lendl's 82 is inferior to Connors' 76. Lendl was winless in the top three events of the year: he lost in the USO final, was upset by Wilander at RG and didn't even try at the biggest event of all (he skipped Wimbledon entirely).
Connors won the USO in '76 and he won the final over Borg when facing the greatest pressure. He produced his best under pressure -- AND he was more consistent than Borg from day to day in the smaller events, winning far more titles and taking fewer losses.
Lendl in '82 was more consistent than Connors in the smaller events, but at the biggest events of the year he faltered (or didn't even try) while Connors won them. Totally different story.
I do think that Lendl is closer to Connors in '82 than he is normally given credit for. I say that not because Lendl won a huge haul of titles; I don't necessarily find a high number of titles, by itself and without context, to be impressive. I say that Lendl is close because he won Dallas and the Masters, and those were high-pressure events. They did not carry the pressure of the Slams, but they were nevertheless important events and Lendl won them.
and he beat Connors 6-1, 6-1 at Cincinnatti.
" And when the bullied american saved his three death penalties, the steeled arm of the young swede began to shiver like it never did before"