Jimmy Connors wonders whatever happened to 'killer instinct'

[Posture Guy]

I think to some degree the same thing has happened in American tennis as in American golf. Players aren't as hungry anymore, the money has overwhelmed the sport. You can be a good but not great pro and between prize winnings, appearance fees, etc..., you can make pretty incredible money. And the money the top guys make? It's a whole different era now than it was 30 years ago. I've got a book with a picture of McEnroe being presented the large cardboard check after winning the US Open, I think it's for $60,000.

And the way we train these kids, they are so catered to, so pampered, so enabled.

[gregor.b]

Originally Posted by mad dog1

heftylefty, my explanation was more general and obviously doesn't apply to every single person. i wasn't trying to write a graduate thesis that covers every possible scenario. there will always be those exceptions because people are individuals and individuals are unique. and yes, obviously if you don't have enough talent, you're not going to get to the top of the game regardless of what environment you grow up in. i can certainly agree w/ you there.

Talent is important yes,but the will to achieve is far more important.I have a friend who started speed skating in his early teens (which is fairly late) and he really had very little 'talent' as compared to some of the 'natural' athletes he was up against ( yes,PED'S are rife here too). He was single minded for a number of years,living,breathing,sleeping,eating to achieve the goal of World Champion.It all culminated after 12 years of unbelievable sacrifice against some of your US champs like Hedrick,Parra and Muse,who I think we can agree,all had talent by the truck full.NOTHING is set in stone provided you are prepared to work for it.

[dominikk1985]

Americans are losing ground in nearly all sports. they are still the no.1 sports nation but they have really lost some of their dominance in sports over the last decades.

Just look at tennis, boxing and even american sports like basketball and baseball. of course they are still the no.1 in basketball and baseball but they have lost some matches and have to really fight hard to win now while they were just toying with them and sending the opponents home with 40+ points without even trying.

I think the problem is that america is a wealthy country. most of the richer european countries have the same problem. if a country is wealthy the pressure to get good is not so high because they have a lot of ways to earn their living.

[thor's hammer]

I didn't catch this when broadcast last month, but I have Time Warner Cable, and it's available in the HBO On Demand section under Sports:Sports Series:RS US Tennis. The whole segment is 13 minutes long and is pretty good; here's a 2 minute clip HBO posted on youtube...

http://youtu.be/B5hC0HeJDxY

Right in line with this discussion.

[TMF]

During Connors' year, he wasn't playing against the very best European players in compare to today. It's easy for him to say the American lack killer instinct b/c of what he has accomplished. There's nothing Roddick, Fish, or Ginepri can do when the European rules tennis. The Australian is facing the same situation. I don't hear Laver's complaining. It's a global sports and it's tough for today's player trying to emulate past champions. Fierce competitor like Connors is one thing, but that doesn't translate into slam materials if skills/talent doesn't measure up with the top players, you can't win. Hewitt is a fierce competitor like Connors, but he wasn't good enough. Chang was a fierce competitor, but after his FO win at 17, he didn't win squat afterward.

I wonder if Connors ever thought about being in Roddick's shoes, b/c he would have never accomplished like he did in the 70s/80s. Fed/Nadal and all of the top players wouldn't allowed that to happen.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by TMF

During Connors' year, he wasn't playing against the very best European players in compare to today. It's easy for him to say the American lack killer instinct b/c of what he has accomplished. There's nothing Roddick, Fish, or Ginepri can do when the European rules tennis. The Australian is facing the same situation. I don't hear Laver's complaining. It's a global sports and it's tough for today's player trying to emulate past champions. Fierce competitor like Connors is one thing, but that doesn't translate into slam materials if skills/talent doesn't measure up with the top players, you can't win. Hewitt is a fierce competitor like Connors, but he wasn't good enough. Chang was a fierce competitor, but after his FO win at 17, he didn't win squat afterward.

I wonder if Connors ever thought about being in Roddick's shoes, b/c he would have never accomplished like he did in the 70s/80s. Fed/Nadal and all of the top players wouldn't allowed that to happen.

Wow. You underrate Connors MASSIVELY.

[Posture Guy]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Wow. You underrate Connors MASSIVELY.

Completely agree.

Connors would've won multiple majors if he was in his prime over the last 10 years and using current training methods and equipment.

He was one of the greatest of all time. What he did with that old T-2000 (I think that was the designation) metal racquet was a thing to behold.

[Ramon]

Interesting article. Connors was a true legend. BTW, he did play against some really great Europeans (ex. Borg, Becker, Wilander, Lendl), and I'll admit Borg beat him like a drum. It's tough to compare players in his generation to the ones we have now. When they were in their prime, Borg played with a wooden racquet and Connors played with a T-2000.

I think I see his point when it comes to American players. I see a competitiveness in Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic that I don't see in any Americans. It could just be because Roddick, Fish, Isner, and company just don't have the talent that those guys do and since they can't compete at their level, killer instinct is irrelevant when they play them. Eventually, another Sampras, McEnroe, or Connors will come through. It's just going to take some time.

[Mick]

killer instinct is overrated. let's say player A has a killer instinct and he is playing B who is better. player B would still beat player A.

[BeHappy]

Originally Posted by Mick

killer instinct is overrated. let's say player A has a killer instinct and he is playing B who is better. player B would still beat player A.

Not necessarily, look at Lendl's record in grand slams. He definitely could have used some killer instinct, at least in the first half of his career.

A player with no killer instinct might be good enough to get ten chances (break points, set points, match points, whatever), but might only be able to take one.

A player with a strong killer instinct might only be good enough to earn one such chance, but he might only need one too.

[Ramon]

Originally Posted by BeHappy

Not necessarily, look at Lendl's record in grand slams. He definitely could have used some killer instinct, at least in the first half of his career.

A player with no killer instinct might be good enough to get ten chances (break points, set points, match points, whatever), but might only be able to take one.

A player with a strong killer instinct might only be good enough to earn one such chance, but he might only need one too.

Speaking of Lendl, I remember a round robin tournament where they had "dead rubber" matches that were only used to determine how the top players in their flights would get seeded in the semis. In the first match, Borg was upset by Gene Mayer (most likely because it was a meaningless match). Then Connors and Lendl played next. The winner of the match would play Borg in the semis and the loser would play Mayer. Connors with his "killier instinct" beat Lendl very easily and, of course, Lendl didn't seem to care. The semifinals ended up exactly as you would expect and it was Borg who beat Lendl in the finals. Maybe "killer instinct" isn't always so good! LOL

[msunderland71]

Was that the match where Connors called Lendl a "chicken" for throwing the match? Ha ha things were much more entertaining when the players dissed each other like that!

[Mick]

yeah but in terms of ranking, connors and lendl were pretty close and there's a big gap between the best american male player (fish) and the top european pros. fish could have a great killer instinct but he's not going to upset enough of those top european guys to capture a big title.

[pc1]

Since we're discussing "killer instinct." Jimmy Connors' ex fiancee Chris Evert had about as strong a killer instinct as I've seen.

I'm not sure if killer instinct has gone down at all, I just think people may show it differently now. I think Nadal's will try to crush anyone if he could. He was vicious in crushing Federer for example in the 2008 French.

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by msunderland71

Was that the match where Connors called Lendl a "chicken" for throwing the match? Ha ha things were much more entertaining when the players dissed each other like that!

That's the match

[Gizo]

Connors and Lendl had a very humerous exchange at the net during their 1984 Wimbledon semi-final, 'I didn't call it out'. They dissed each other but had a lot of personality as well.

[Legend of Borg]

Nole has the killer instinct now.

He's made Nadal cry more times than I can remember this year.

No mercy.

[Posture Guy]

yeah, the guys in the older generation DID have personality. So many of the guys today are just boring. There's no flair, no personality. I miss the characters of a few decades ago. One reason why tennis ratings largely suck is the personalities playing today have all the spice and appeal of day-old oatmeal. Boring.

but re Djokovic, yes, he DOES have the killer instinct. At least this year. What he's done this year has been absolutely remarkable. Dude has just stepped on people's throats and not stepped off until they were cold and dead.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Jimmy Connors was one of a kind in the "killer instinct" department. He does, however, have a point in regards to modern day American tennis players. The fact is that Europe rule the roost now when it comes to tennis domination.

Connors is right.But the problem with computers and not doing exercise, is something around the world, not just the US.So, if no american player is dominant anymore, he should look somewhere else (Training conditions,coaches,surfaces, basics,options...)

[kiki]

Originally Posted by mad dog1

heftylefty, my explanation was more general and obviously doesn't apply to every single person. i wasn't trying to write a graduate thesis that covers every possible scenario. there will always be those exceptions because people are individuals and individuals are unique. and yes, obviously if you don't have enough talent, you're not going to get to the top of the game regardless of what environment you grow up in. i can certainly agree w/ you there.

I agree with you, and your overlook explains many things.I also think there are trends and upheavals.Look at Sweden, they are past the post Borg and Post Edberg era, they have the means but no top star...Spain is not poor, at least top spanish players come from middle to high class, still Spain has the greatest amount of top players.I think trneds happen too.

Australia is a pretty well off country, with great weather and sporting conditions.But, after Hewitt and Rafter, nobody shoots the door.And, still, to have a champ like Hewitt or Rafter, they had to wait till Newcombe retired almost 2o years ago.

Maybe, answer is there is not enough money, in terms of sponsors and raising funds to make it appealing for the young americans.Or maybe, the media focus on other sporting figures, which deprives young kids to have a look and develop the will for tennis.