Some stats for 1975 Australian Open final

[Borgforever]

But what in the whole wide world was the Organizing Executive of AO 1975 really thinking? That schedule -- one week grand slam-tourney?! Between Christmas-presents and Champagne on New Years!? Seems to me that he must be a devoted follower of the Kamikaze-method.

I just quote the last lines from one of my favorite movies -- David Lean's THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI:

"Madness... Madness..."

[kiki]

Newk beat the two most feared new comers in 4 sets in two big finals: 1974 WCT vs Borg and 1975 AO vs Connors....had he been like 5 years younger, his rivalries with Borg and Connors, in the second half of the decade, would have been terrific.I think he also played Mac at the 1978 FH Invitational?


Newcombe was a basic part of the chain that linked the old pros of the open era (Laver and Rosewall) and the pros of the golden era (Borg and Connors, later Mac Enroe...)

[Stuart S]

Originally Posted by krosero

Connors was really what you might call a good sport in this match. He was chumming it up with Newcombe (not exactly reciprocated, was my impression) and the linesmen; the announcers said that all week long he'd won many friends in Australia. It was almost weird for me, seeing Connors this jovial. Newcombe was much more serious -- at least on the surface.

I think Connors' image had taken a bit of a knock Down Under the year before.

When he crushed Rosewall at Wimbledon in '74, Connors at the after-match press conference said something like, "I know Ken is the old sentimental favourite. But the thing about today, gentlemen, is that I was just unbelievable out there". And before the match, he'd apparently said, "I'll be going out there to squash him." It was comments like these that made the Australian press, to say the least, very wary of Connors. "Connors typifies a generation that tips its hat to no man," they said.

So maybe Connors was trying to make amends for this.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by krosero

Newcombe won 80% of points started on first serve (67/84) and 45% on second (23/51).

Connors won 64% on first (63/99) and 66% on second (27/41).

Success on serve in rallies of 2 or more good shots (the serve being the first shot):

Newcombe 65% on first serve (31/48 ) and 42% on second (15/36).
Connors 48% on first serve (33/69) and 58% on second (18/31).


So if Connors could return Newcombe’s second serve he had good success, but that was not true at all with Newk’s first serve.

Newk's first serve, even when it was returned, kept Connors off balance.

Besides the rallies, of course, Newk hit a ton of aces and other unreturned serves. But his figure for 1st serve rallies is outstanding. Even when Connors returned the 1st serve he was at a clear disadvantage.

For comparison, when Connors managed to returned Borg's first serve in the '81 Wimbledon semis (a five-setter), he still won 50% of the points.

(However Connors had much lower figures on Borg's 1st serve in two routs at Wimbledon in '78 and '79).

[krosero]

Sports Illustrated had a good report on the match: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...17/1/index.htm

Excerpts:

The occasion was the final round of the $91,000 Marlboro Australian Open, and the first leg of the Grand Slam. Their get-together was to many people the ex post facto 1974 tennis championship of the world, and to a few others simply the best match of the decade: Connors, the awesome young champion and winner of 99 of 103 matches in 1974, against Newcombe, the crafty, charismatic, over-30 champion one year removed. In four sets of superlative tennis Newcombe regained the unofficial title and gave Connors a solid lesson in playing pressure-packed tennis, as well as showing him something about strategy and some good old mix-'em-up and spit-'em-out scrambling and serving. Newcombe saved his best stuff for the end, and kept an ace up the serving sleeve of his untucked tennis shirt. Seventeen aces, to be exact.

….After an easy match against the silver-haired Australian Trevor Fancutt, Newcombe sweated through three five-set matches in his next four rounds.….Those skin-of-the-teeth survivals only served to further endear Newcombe to the partisan crowd, despite his torturing them with his constant, almost deliberate toying with defeat. But Newcombe apparently throve on the pressure, and he knows how to prepare for the big one.

He quietly and intently observed Connors' matches from the stands and on television, while Connors smugly declined to return the compliment.

"You have to know how to serve to beat Connors," Newcombe said. "Serving to Jimmy is like pitching to Hank Aaron. If you don't mix up your stuff he'll hit it out of the ball park. He's strong from the service line, but he's got certain weaknesses in his volley. He doesn't disguise his shots, except for his lob. He relies on his power stroke and the brute strength of his forehand. And on his second serve he likes to stay back because he's not sure of it."

.... Newcombe won on the strength of his serve and some smart lobbing, an attack he had planned while watching Connors. One indication of the effort Newcombe put into his serve—his 17 aces aside—was that he also served seven double faults to none, save the intentional one, by Connors.

Later a composed, congratulatory Connors bristled at suggestions that he played at a level below his best. "I tried my butt off out there today," he said graciously if solecistically. "Newcombe has pride in his game and above all pride in himself. But just because I lose one match doesn't mean I'm not No. 1 in the world anymore. I won more tournaments than anyone else in 1974, and I'm still No. 1 until someone disproves it."

But Newcombe's defeat of Connors in seven of the eight sets they have played over the last two years was one indication that it may already have been disproved, at least for the time being....

[pc1]

Originally Posted by krosero

Sports Illustrated had a good report on the match: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...17/1/index.htm

Excerpts:

Connors and Newcombe were both players that make an interesting contrast in styles. Connors as we all know, was arguably the greatest service returner ever versus John Newcombe, who was one of the greatest serve and volleyers of all time and with a huge service game.

Maybe it's so long ago but it always seemed to me that their first meeting at the 1973 US Open was an extremely high quality match and perhaps their best match. I think the people in the stands felt that too overall. Newcombe won in straight sets 6-4 (one break) 7-6 7-6. However but tiebreaks went to 4-4 so it was simultaneous set point in the second and simultaneous set and match point in the third set. It was an extremely close match.

It's a pity they didn't play more matches when both were at or near their peaks.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by pc1

Connors and Newcombe were both players that make an interesting contrast in styles. Connors as we all know, was arguably the greatest service returner ever versus John Newcombe, who was one of the greatest serve and volleyers of all time and with a huge service game.

Maybe it's so long ago but it always seemed to me that their first meeting at the 1973 US Open was an extremely high quality match and perhaps their best match. I think the people in the stands felt that too overall. Newcombe won in straight sets 6-4 (one break) 7-6 7-6. However but tiebreaks went to 4-4 so it was simultaneous set point in the second and simultaneous set and match point in the third set. It was an extremely close match.

It's a pity they didn't play more matches when both were at or near their peaks.

Two 5-4 tiebreaks, that's as thin a margin as you can get.

You're right, they played only a few matches. Only 4 meetings are listed at the ATP and ITF websites. Apart from that Newk took a one-set match in World Team Tennis in '74. Connors beat him 6-2, 6-3 in March '76 as part of a World Cup series, in Hartford.

And of course Connors beat Newk in the Challenge Match in Vegas. But that's it as far as I know.

[Moose Malloy]

the complete match is here

http://vault.australianopentv.com/

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Stuart S

I think Connors' image had taken a bit of a knock Down Under the year before.

When he crushed Rosewall at Wimbledon in '74, Connors at the after-match press conference said something like, "I know Ken is the old sentimental favourite. But the thing about today, gentlemen, is that I was just unbelievable out there". And before the match, he'd apparently said, "I'll be going out there to squash him." It was comments like these that made the Australian press, to say the least, very wary of Connors. "Connors typifies a generation that tips its hat to no man," they said.

So maybe Connors was trying to make amends for this.

Connors also said..." I have seen people pitty Rosewall and see him win in the fifth set".A pretty realistic approach IMO

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

Connors also said..." I have seen people pitty Rosewall and see him win in the fifth set".A pretty realistic approach IMO

I agree. Rosewall would have tried to crush Connors also if he had the chance. The Connors way of thinking to my mind is correct.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

I agree. Rosewall would have tried to crush Connors also if he had the chance. The Connors way of thinking to my mind is correct.

Smith was 1972 nº1, newcombe 1873 nº 1...both got steamrolled by Rosewall, 10 years older, over 5 sets.If Connors hadn´t given his very best, no doubt Rosewall would have been the oldest Wimbledon champion.

[Doug_Hartley_2012]

NEWK isn't much of a fortune teller though. He's made so many outrageous predictions about Rafter, Hewitt, etc but to little effect. I remember the AO 75 final well. NEWK was so determined to win. It was inspirational S & V as much as Ashe's Wimbledon final performance was seemingly Zen inspired. Jimmy did in fact concede a double fault because he agreed Newk had been robbed of a point. Newk did not show hint of appreciation but it was the first moment that I thought Connors had some grace and sportsmanship in him. I started liking him at that final, although I wanted Newk to win soooo bad.

[kiki]

Connors could be genuine, even if sometimes it looked like part of a plan to get into the other guy´s mind.He teased the crowds like few sportsmen (Ali,Nastase,Magic) have been able to do.

I think Connors really liked Newcombe and, a few years later,were on dealing terms for him to be his coach.I also think Newcombe didn´t have too many bad feelings about the spoilt Connors of 1974-75, but a sincere admiration for his unique style of play.At least, not in the way of an Arthur Ashe, for example.Do you know something about both champion´s relationship?

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Doug_Hartley_2012

I remember the AO 75 final well. NEWK was so determined to win. It was inspirational S & V as much as Ashe's Wimbledon final performance was seemingly Zen inspired.

It really was. Connors seems to have overwhelmed and shocked Rosewall with his power, but Newcombe knew exactly how to deal with Connors' game.

[kiki]

Connors did respect Newcombe so much...after all, he owned the eastern st Louis kid in real tennis...

[krosero]

One of the quirks of this match is how Newcombe was well below 50% success on second serve, while Connors, with the much weaker service, was winning about two-thirds of all points on his own second serve.

A few months later Connors d. Newcombe in a Challenge Match in Las Vegas, 6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 6-4. Vines, writing in 1978, thought that Newcombe lost that match because he came in too much behind his second serve.

The Connors-Newcombe $250,000 showdown at Caesar’s Palace ... served to dramatize a salient tactical weakness in the “big game” method of attaining the net. Newcombe lost because he invariably followed in his second serve in the deuce court. This was the tragic flaw – in an otherwise outstanding performance – that allowed Connors to break serve and turn the tide. In fact, I think Newcombe might well have won if he had avoided this tactic; his mighty second serve could have given him the offensive jump on his first groundstroke. As it was, he actually outsteadied Jimmy in most of their rallies. But when Newk failed to mix up his serving tactics, Jimmy could concentrate all his efforts on making an offensive passing shot.

Another drawback of the “big game” can be inferred from this match. Newk double-faulted nine times, not because he was serving badly, but because of his total commitment to the “big game.” In the light of Connors’ awesome ability to return, Newcombe was forced to attempt too much with his serve.

Ironically, Connors hit more aces and double-faulted only a third as much, even though Connors’ delivery isn’t in the same league with Newcombe’s. But Jimmy had the advantage of not having to worry about following in his serve. And because he seldom took the net on service, he could relax and be content with placing it well … and deep. On the other hand Newcombe, who perhaps has the best second serve in the world, couldn’t transcend the basic advantage a greater returner has against a net attack. All I can say is, if you are one of those rare creatures blessed with a strong second serve, the “big game” can be a fine strategy against an average groundstroker. But when you face a great returner, the lesson is clear: be wary of the net on your second serve in the deuce court.

[BTURNER]

Admittedly off topic but has anyone seen any clips or read a word about Evert's first Australian Open where she got to the final vs Goolagong 74 0r 75. Its like that tournament final and neither semifinal never got so much as a poloraid or sentence of coverage. She might as well not have gone down at all and Evonee had a walkover. Anything written at all?

[Limpinhitter]

Originally Posted by krosero

One of the quirks of this match is how Newcombe was well below 50% success on second serve, while Connors, with the much weaker service, was winning about two-thirds of all points on his own second serve.

A few months later Connors d. Newcombe in a Challenge Match in Las Vegas, 6-3, 4-6, 6-2, 6-4. Vines, writing in 1978, thought that Newcombe lost that match because he came in too much behind his second serve.

The Connors-Newcombe $250,000 showdown at Caesar’s Palace ... served to dramatize a salient tactical weakness in the “big game” method of attaining the net. Newcombe lost because he invariably followed in his second serve in the deuce court. This was the tragic flaw – in an otherwise outstanding performance – that allowed Connors to break serve and turn the tide. In fact, I think Newcombe might well have won if he had avoided this tactic; his mighty second serve could have given him the offensive jump on his first groundstroke. As it was, he actually outsteadied Jimmy in most of their rallies. But when Newk failed to mix up his serving tactics, Jimmy could concentrate all his efforts on making an offensive passing shot.

Another drawback of the “big game” can be inferred from this match. Newk double-faulted nine times, not because he was serving badly, but because of his total commitment to the “big game.” In the light of Connors’ awesome ability to return, Newcombe was forced to attempt too much with his serve.

Ironically, Connors hit more aces and double-faulted only a third as much, even though Connors’ delivery isn’t in the same league with Newcombe’s. But Jimmy had the advantage of not having to worry about following in his serve. And because he seldom took the net on service, he could relax and be content with placing it well … and deep. On the other hand Newcombe, who perhaps has the best second serve in the world, couldn’t transcend the basic advantage a greater returner has against a net attack. All I can say is, if you are one of those rare creatures blessed with a strong second serve, the “big game” can be a fine strategy against an average groundstroker. But when you face a great returner, the lesson is clear: be wary of the net on your second serve in the deuce court.

No mention of the fact that Newk's win at Kooyong was on grass and his loss on carpet. That had to be a significant factor in Connors' ability to attack Newk's second serve in the exo.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by Limpinhitter

No mention of the fact that Newk's win at Kooyong was on grass and his loss on carpet. That had to be a significant factor in Connors' ability to attack Newk's second serve in the exo.

That's true, the surface probably would make a difference in favor of Connors.

I think Vines is saying something true about the second serve, but I'm not sure how much weight can be placed on that factor. Connors broke 4 times in the Challenge Match, 3 times in the AO final -- not a great difference.

It seems that Newk's ability to break Connors changed the most, between the two matches. In AO Newcombe broke 4 times, in Vegas only once. In fact over the course of the first two sets in Vegas he converted only 1 of 11 break points.

Connors did serve well in the challenge match, as Vines said. He out-aced Newk 8 to 6 per press reports.

Newk thought it was his first serve that was the problem; he said it deserted him.

[WCT]

All that exists of that challenge match is the 4th set, 10 games. All that I've seen, anyway. I did stats for it and they don't match up with Vines recollection. Granted, it's only one set. Perhaps the others played out the way Vines described.

Connors had 11 free points to Newcombe's 7. Connors served and volleyed 10 times in the 4th set, and he was winning his service games EASILY. Newcombe never got past 30. When Connors does stay back there isn't much of a rally. As pretty much happened the times he stays back at the Australian, it winds up Newcombe chipping to Connors forehand and Connors approaching after a couple shots. One thing. at the Australian, he lobbed Connors a lot. Not so much in Las Vegas. Again, though, it was only a set and Connors was winning his service games, the only time he would be at net, so easily. There weren't that many points for there to be a lot of lobs.

This was Segura's Connors. Knowing that, based on how he played in the other 74-75 Connors matches I have, I tend to think Connors mixed it up the entire match. That he was never consistently serving and staying back which is how I read Vines' take on the match.

Segura, in his book with Gladys Heldman, expresses some similar sentiments about serving and volleying on both serves simply because that was the way it was supposed to be done. Segura was talking more about taller players with less agility. The Stan Smiths and Clark Graebners. That they would be better off not consistently serving and volleying on second serves against elite returners. Better to work their way in on subsequent shots.

At the end of that book Segura breaks down, in depth, 4 of Connors' main matches in 1975. The 2 challenge matches and The US and Wimbledon finals.
My recollection was that he thought Connors served as well as he ever had in the Newcombe match. Just using the 4th set, I wouldn't argue. And he served big. Relatively speaking, I mean. Not big by Roscoe Tanner standards. Big, I think, by later Jimmy Connors standards.