Pat Cash's 1987 Wimbledon win

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Newcombe and Cash don't get on at all.

From Cash's autobiography:

Yes, this is well known; Newk really despised him and had no qualms about saying it to anyone who would listen

[kiki]

It´s not just Wimbledon.Cash beat Lendl on grass at the 1986 AO semis.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Stuart S

I recall Cash at Wimbledon in 1987 very well (doesn't seem like 25 years ago - now that's scary!!).

What struck me most about him in that tournament was his semi v. Connors. Cash, from the net, was just amazing. Connors did NOT have a bad game - he just caught Cash on a very good one.

I recall too, only two weeks previously, Connors had beaten Cash at Queen's Club on grass (7-6, 6-4). Which is why I (a lifelong Connors fan) looked forward to the Wimbledon semi with optimism.

But on the day, Cash dominated from the net as I had never seen before. Time after time, Connors unleashed what looked for all the world like a winning passing shot. But not only would Cash get to the shot, he'd angle it away for a winner. A truly amazing performance for a 6-4, 6-4, 6-1 victory.

The final is what everyone seems to recall... a very long opening set (73 minutes), a tense Lendl throwing away 4 set points in the third, Cash's triumphant clamber into the crowd, etc etc. But as I said, it's that semi that sticks most in my mind.

Cash never really let Jimmy get any momentum and yes, he totally swarmed the net. Nothing got by him, and that's high praise when it's Connors on the other side. Jimmy seemed a bit flat that day, but I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that Cash gave him no openings. To me, he seemed like the best of the 4 players in those semis, on that given day (maybe not every day, but right then, the stars aligned in his favor).

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by kiki

It´s not just Wimbledon.Cash beat Lendl on grass at the 1986 AO semis.

Cash was better on grass than Lendl was, period.

[Moose Malloy]

yes, he won, but not convincingly; as the defending Wimbledon champ and prohibitive favorite, he was on the verge of losing to a 35yr old Connors....not to take anything away from Jimmy, but this is a match Boris should've won in straight sets, if his game was really "on

you should probably watch the match(I did a thread on it recently) before deciding how Becker was playing that day. Sampras layed a big egg at Queens consistently before winning Wimbledon. Many of the favorites over the years just used Queens for practice, even if Becker lost early there, he still would have been a big favorite at Wimbledon.

and what does Connors being 35 have to do with anything? he was the #4 player in the world in 1987, I don't think anyone should be expected to beat him in straight sets anywhere that year.

Top players used to lose sets all the time, this wasn't 2012.

To me, he seemed like the best of the 4 players in those semis, on that given day (maybe not every day, but right then, the stars aligned in his favor).

You should watch the Edberg-Lendl semi. extremely high quality, was considered the real final by many. I don't believe it was aired in its entirety in the US(like Cash Connors was)

Jimmy seemed a bit flat that day, but I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that Cash gave him no openings

Rain affected the schedule in the 2nd week, Connors had to play Pernfors(5 sets) & Bobo on consecutive days to get to semis.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

you should probably watch the match(I did a thread on it recently) before deciding how Becker was playing that day. Sampras layed a big egg at Queens consistently before winning Wimbledon. Many of the favorites over the years just used Queens for practice, even if Becker lost early there, he would have been a big favorite at Wimbledon.

and what does Connors being 35 have to do with anything? he was the #4 player in the world in 1987, I don't think anyone should be expected to beat him in straight sets anywhere that year.

Top players used to lose sets all the time, this wasn't 2012.



You should watch the Edberg-Lendl semi. extremly high quality, was considered the real final by many.

Moose ole pal I'm not sure if many posters around here actually saw tennis back then but they sure like to comment on it.

[Stuart S]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

Rain affected the schedule in the 2nd week, Connors had to play Pernfors(5 sets) & Bobo on consecutive days to get to semis.

Yes, I recall that too. Connors' win over Pernfors has gone down as one of the most eye-popping comebacks ever (he was 1-6, 1-6, 1-4 down, somehow clawed back the third, then was 0-3 down in 4th).

And the fact that he saw off that 6'6" human battering ram the very next day was truly amazing. Bobo whacked 25 aces, as I recall, but didn't even have a set to show for it. Connors prevailed 7-6, 7-5, 6-2.

After watching those two matches 25 years ago, I remember thinking, "Jimbo, you're immortal".

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

Moose ole pal I'm not sure if many posters around here actually saw tennis back then but they sure like to comment on it.

LOL...I actually watched a LOT of tennis in 1987....but back then, HBO did not always show the entire matches at Wimby. Usually just key parts. I would like to go back and watch the Queens Final again....I did watch that but, again 25yrs ago. I suppose it's not that Boris played badly, but as a 2 time champ, he was not expected to have trouble against Connors. But, as I recall, it was one of those days when Jimmy was playing very, very well. So, on some level, he was making Boris look bad. And, 35, is well, 35. You are not going to bring your A game each and every day. To his credit, at that age Connors was not only the #4 player in the world, but the Top US player at that time, while Mac was off on some mental bender.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by Stuart S

Yes, I recall that too. Connors' win over Pernfors has gone down as one of the most eye-popping comebacks ever (he was 1-6, 1-6, 1-4 down, somehow clawed back the third, then was 0-3 down in 4th).

And the fact that he saw off that 6'6" human battering ram the very next day was truly amazing. Bobo whacked 25 aces, as I recall, but didn't even have a set to show for it. Connors prevailed 7-6, 7-5, 6-2.

After watching those two matches 25 years ago, I remember thinking, "Jimbo, you're immortal".

But then the minute Connors loses no one gets any credit because Jimmy was old. maybe jimmy should have gone 0-70 in 1987 to spare everyone the supposed embarrassment

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Stuart S

Yes, I recall that too. Connors' win over Pernfors has gone down as one of the most eye-popping comebacks ever (he was 1-6, 1-6, 1-4 down, somehow clawed back the third, then was 0-3 down in 4th).

And the fact that he saw off that 6'6" human battering ram the very next day was truly amazing. Bobo whacked 25 aces, as I recall, but didn't even have a set to show for it. Connors prevailed 7-6, 7-5, 6-2.

After watching those two matches 25 years ago, I remember thinking, "Jimbo, you're immortal".

I saw much of the Pernfors match and was completely amazed; similar to the '91 comeback against Pat Mac, perhaps even more surprising. That is one of the all time comebacks in tennis history. But, that's Connors for you. I did not see the Bobo match, but was completely shocked that he straight-setted the guy; he was incredibly dangerous. Connors had a very good year in '87, even if it did not materialize any titles for him.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by pmerk34

But then the minute Connors loses no one gets any credit because Jimmy was old. maybe jimmy should have gone 0-70 in 1987 to spare everyone the supposed embarrassment

I suppose it's relative to who he was playing at the time...i.e. 35yr old Connors can pull off miracles against a Pernfors and appear ageless, but when he is crushed by top ranked Lendl, he is "old"....But, I think 35 is old, regardless if it's a win or a loss. I think the Lendl comparison is always a thorny one because of when he peaked in his career (i.e. a late bloomer), Connors' best days were behind him. Nonetheless, there were a few close ones against Lendl in the late 80's; they were not all blowouts.

To play that well at that age, well you don't see it all that much in the Open era (particularly when hard surfaces began to dominate--thus, more injuries, less longevity). Only a handful of others were near the top of the game after 30yrs of age. It will be interesting to see how well Fed holds up....

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Stuart S

Yes, I recall that too. Connors' win over Pernfors has gone down as one of the most eye-popping comebacks ever (he was 1-6, 1-6, 1-4 down, somehow clawed back the third, then was 0-3 down in 4th).

It has to be the best comeback. As you say, Connors not only recovered from 1-6, 1-6, 1-4 down to take the third set, but also recovered from 0-3 down in the fourth set as well and ended up taking the match in 5 sets.

Originally Posted by Stuart S

And the fact that he saw off that 6'6" human battering ram the very next day was truly amazing. Bobo whacked 25 aces, as I recall, but didn't even have a set to show for it. Connors prevailed 7-6, 7-5, 6-2.

Wasn't it 6-3 in the third set? My results archive says Connors won 7-6, 7-5, 6-3 against Zivojinovic. An impressive win against a dangerous grass-court player.

Originally Posted by Stuart S

After watching those two matches 25 years ago, I remember thinking, "Jimbo, you're immortal".

Immortalised as a tennis legend, certainly.

[Stuart S]

Originally Posted by Mustard

Wasn't it 6-3 in the third set? My results archive says Connors won 7-6, 7-5, 6-3 against Zivojinovic. An impressive win against a dangerous grass-court player.

Yep, Mustard, thanks for the correction. Thanks also for reminding me of "Bobo's" real name! Seems a lot easier to recall his nickname!

[Mustard]

Originally Posted by Stuart S

Yep, Mustard, thanks for the correction. Thanks also for reminding me of "Bobo's" real name! Seems a lot easier to recall his nickname!

I could be wrong, but isn't Bobo short for Slobodan?

[Stuart S]

Yes, I've checked him out. It was indeed 'Slobodan'. He was 6'6" and used his full height and reach on every serve. I recall he was only 22 when he took on Connors in 1987. A massive 12-year age advantage... and Jimbo still saw him off. Amazing.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by jrepac

Cash was better on grass than Lendl was, period.

By all means...but Lendl defeated a younger Cash at the 1983 AO...

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Stuart S

Yes, I've checked him out. It was indeed 'Slobodan'. He was 6'6" and used his full height and reach on every serve. I recall he was only 22 when he took on Connors in 1987. A massive 12-year age advantage... and Jimbo still saw him off. Amazing.

The same Bobo that almost beats Lendl, one year earlier in a very very tough Wimbledon semifinal.if he had reached the final, he´d have meet his close friend and doubles partner Boris Becker ( what a terrific power doubles team¡¡)

And Zivo, two years earlier, had knocked out from the Australian Open, a peak John mc Enroe, and thus reached hiss econd GS semifinal on grass...

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by kiki

By all means...but Lendl defeated a younger Cash at the 1983 AO...

good point; what was he, 18 then? Lendl was not a bad grass court player, I just always felt the top guys were far more comfortable than him and the best S&V players could certainly outgun him. I was never keen on his strategy to switch to the S&V game on grass; I thought it was absurd, frankly. He was so solid from the back court it just seemed unnatural for him.

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by Stuart S

Yes, I've checked him out. It was indeed 'Slobodan'. He was 6'6" and used his full height and reach on every serve. I recall he was only 22 when he took on Connors in 1987. A massive 12-year age advantage... and Jimbo still saw him off. Amazing.

He was one big dude; I remember seeing him in person and being intimidated....some people felt he was a real contender at Wimbledon. But, a big server running into Connors on a day when his eye is on the ball and he's returning well makes for a tough day for just about anyone playing S&V tennis.

[pmerk34]

Originally Posted by jrepac

good point; what was he, 18 then? Lendl was not a bad grass court player, I just always felt the top guys were far more comfortable than him and the best S&V players could certainly outgun him. I was never keen on his strategy to switch to the S&V game on grass; I thought it was absurd, frankly. He was so solid from the back court it just seemed unnatural for him.

He wasn't so solid from the backcourt at Wimbledon. His return game and passing shots there were not good enought to win it.