82 wimbledon and complacency

[Superbrat4Ever]

I was watching the 82 Wimbledon final. It seems to me that Mac lost because he was far too complacent. After taking the first set 6-3, he seemed almost to be toying with Connors, hitting drop shots from the baseline!! It was almost as if he thought it was a walk-over, and as history will point out: Nobody does that to the animal called James Scott Connors. Any thoughts?

[timnz]

Can't see how McEnroe would be taking Connors lightly when Connors had just beaten Mcenroe in straight sets on grass at Queens Club only a few weeks before.

[kiki]

It seemed to me possible but not when the match reached that dramatic 4 th set where mc Enroe was just a couple of points from the cup.

[Xavier G]

The 82 Wimbledon final wasn't a classic in terms of tennis, but it was still gripping. Mac wasn't quite the force in 82 he had been the year before. Jimmy knew this was his big chance to win Wimbledon again with Borg absent and Lendl not yet a grass-court force. Maybe Mac's focus wasn't quite there, or whatever, I don't know, but Jimmy had beaten him at Queen's a few weeks earlier. Jimmy was still a threat to John on grass back then. Just not a great match, uneven quality, up and down.

[pjonesy]

Originally Posted by Xavier G

The 82 Wimbledon final wasn't a classic in terms of tennis, but it was still gripping. Mac wasn't quite the force in 82 he had been the year before. Jimmy knew this was his big chance to win Wimbledon again with Borg absent and Lendl not yet a grass-court force. Maybe Mac's focus wasn't quite there, or whatever, I don't know, but Jimmy had beaten him at Queen's a few weeks earlier. Jimmy was still a threat to John on grass back then. Just not a great match, uneven quality, up and down.

Wasn't McEnroe injured? What looked desperate to the public, may have been Mac's only way to win, considering how limited he may have been during the match.

Connors was no joke, though. Best competitor this sport has ever seen.

[kiki]

Mac injured?
He lost just a set to Kriek ( best match of the tourney with finals)

[Orion3]

If my memory serves me right...

I recall reading in the papers/magazines at the time that prior to the grass court season Mac/Connors had practised intensively as part of the Davis cup team. Connors was noted as saying if he hadn't had that practice he wouldn't have been able to read Mac's serve as well as he did.

[kiki]

Connors played no DC in 82

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by kiki

Mac injured?
He lost just a set to Kriek ( best match of the tourney with finals)

I think he was struggling with his ankle if I am not mistaken; he was not 100pct exactly. It's mentioned in his biography as hampering his mobility that season, along with the comment that against anyone other than Connors, it was not much of a hindrance. Against Jimmy, he had to be able to step it up a notch (or two) and that just wasn't possible w/out being 100pct physically.

That match was spotty, for sure, but it definitely held your interest. Very much a roller coaster.

[Xavier G]

Originally Posted by pjonesy

Wasn't McEnroe injured? What looked desperate to the public, may have been Mac's only way to win, considering how limited he may have been during the match.

Connors was no joke, though. Best competitor this sport has ever seen.

I think McEnroe had been injured in Brussels earlier in 82. Not sure if he was still affected by that during Wimbledon the same year.

[rkelley]

Jimmy was playing really well in '82. From memory, he seemed to have a bit more pop on his serve, he was netting his dtl fh less than he had been for the last few years (a constant problem for him over the years - an effective but low margin shot), and he was effectively getting to the net.

Should Mac have won? So hard to say. Mac had come off the boil a bit from 81 when Borg was still around. Lendl had been beating on Mac in 82 and Mac hadn't figured out a way to solve that riddle.

Connors was always going to take a match right to your face. He didn't always win, but I can't remember him ever loosing a match (i.e. giving up, not caring, mentally checking out). You got everything he had to give on that day.

So a Connors in good form, Mac a tad off, Connors taking it to him, Mac maybe mentally not 100% - I can see Connors taking Wimbledon.

[kiki]

in Phily and Frisco, Mac overwhelmed Connors with straight set victories, asy put aways.On grass, Connors had also a very easy win at the Queen´s final, prior to Wimbledon.

Maybe their best match was an exo, the Chicago Superchallenge, which Connors won after a torrid final.

[pjonesy]

Originally Posted by rkelley

Jimmy was playing really well in '82. From memory, he seemed to have a bit more pop on his serve, he was netting his dtl fh less than he had been for the last few years (a constant problem for him over the years - an effective but low margin shot), and he was effectively getting to the net.

Should Mac have won? So hard to say. Mac had come off the boil a bit from 81 when Borg was still around. Lendl had been beating on Mac in 82 and Mac hadn't figured out a way to solve that riddle.

Connors was always going to take a match right to your face. He didn't always win, but I can't remember him ever loosing a match (i.e. giving up, not caring, mentally checking out). You got everything he had to give on that day.

So a Connors in good form, Mac a tad off, Connors taking it to him, Mac maybe mentally not 100% - I can see Connors taking Wimbledon.

I've never seen the whole match, I just remember some comments about it. If McEnroe was slightly injured or a little off his game, I still don't think he would start experimenting(or quit) in a Wimbledon final against Jimmy Connors. That's ridiculous. McEnroe is as competitive as any player that has ever lived and would use his biggest weapons, that would give him the best chance to win. I mean its the freaking Wimbledon final!!!