Misconceptions about the Borg/McEnroe/Connors rivalry

[Benhur]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

I haven't noticed any big difference in the Connors' serve over the years. I think fans/media get too caught up in trying to come up with a reason why a player does better in one year compared to another...sometimes there is no big adjustment in their game, you win some, you lose some. Its not like Connors wasn't close to winning majors from '79 to '81 or something.

I didn’t see much of Connors prior to the 80s, so I can’t say if his serve improved that year, but I've always thought it was by far the weakest part of his game. Out of the best 6 or 7 players in the open era, of which he is a part (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal), his serve seems to me the least significant part of story. The closest one for comparison would be Nadal’s, but even that is not really all that close. If Connors had a serve like Lendl or even McEnroe, I think he may well have become the best player in the open era. But Providence distributes things its way. He was gifted with the best return, so it seems reasonable the gods took something off his serve in compensation.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by Benhur

I didn’t see much of Connors prior to the 80s, so I can’t say if his serve improved that year, but I've always thought it was by far the weakest part of his game. Out of the best 6 or 7 players in the open era, of which he is a part (Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Federer, Nadal), his serve seems to me the least significant part of story. The closest one for comparison would be Nadal’s, but even that is not really all that close. If Connors had a serve like Lendl or even McEnroe, I think he may well have become the best player in the open era. But Providence distributes things its way. He was gifted with the best return, so it seems reasonable the gods took something off his serve in compensation.

Good comment.Does anybody remember the 1977 Wimbledon final, when he was coming back in such a memorable way..just to hit a double fault at 40 ALL in the ninth game of the fifth set?

I am sure he would have won the title without that double fault.Borg himself said so.

[WCT]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

He had 13 double faults, no aces in the '82 Wimbledon final. That's the worst ratio I've ever seen from him(maybe the worst anyone's had in a major final that they won) He choked away the 3rd set to go down 2-1 in sets (2 straight doubles when serving at 5-4, 30-30) And he served at 64%, on the low side for him compared to some of his 70s matches(was at 83% in the '76 USO final, 75% in '75 W Final)

I haven't noticed any big difference in the Connors' serve over the years. I think fans/media get too caught up in trying to come up with a reason why a player does better in one year compared to another...sometimes there is no big adjustment in their game, you win some, you lose some. Its not like Connors wasn't close to winning majors from '79 to '81 or something.

I remember all those DFs in the final, but did have the impression that the serve was a bit better in 82. Not areal weapon, though, as compared to other bi serves.

do you have any other stats on that match? Mac had a 55-33 edge in free points in '82. don't know how he lost that match, the stats don't really show a big edge for Connors in any category.

I had 56-33, pretty damn close. Here is what I have from that 80 match. I had a foreign language version that is missing a few games. But i got most of them in the ESPN Classic version. Might still be missing a few points. Here is what I have. For some reason, I did more detailed stats here at least as relates to Mac. The free points are off a couple points. I posted by memory before.

Free points Mac 60 and Connors 21. Mac 97 of 165 first serves in. He won 60 of 97 on the first, and 34 of 68 on the second. I have Connors 32 of 49 at the net and Mac 45 of 112. But the 112 doesn't include 45 s/v free points.
So I guess you could say he was 90 of 157. There were 10 points where Connors was headed to the net and either hit a clean winner on the approach or missed the approach. There were 11 for Mac. Mac had 4 double faults.
Connors served and volleyed 16 times, 4 in the 5th set tiebreaker. It was 7-3 and Mcenroe had 2 or 3 free points in it.

The 'biggest' Connors serve ever seemed to me was vs Rosewall in '74.

Agreed. It's relative in that it's still not huge, but he seems to be serving harder. Do you have that set from the 75 challenge match against Newcombe? Same thing there. For Connors, he is serving hard. Winning his service games easily. The free points in that set are 11-7 Connors.


I remember the 77 Wimbledon. Hard for me to definitively say that Connors would win. He double faulted at 15-0. We don't even know he'll win the second point, just that he wouldn't have lost it outright.

I'll say this. That match is the most exhausted I ever saw Borg. Read his post match quotes, he admitted to it. Having read them, watching the match again, you can really see it at several points. A couple balls he didn't chase and some of the body language, if you look really closely. He was dying out there. Not sure why. It was hot that day, but he was coming off a day's rest. In any case, the most tired I ever saw him. And I imagine a lingering fifth set, without a tiebreaker, might have been too much for him.

[Moose Malloy]

^here's a thread with stats on Connors(& others) serve % for 1982

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=357452

[kiki]

Originally Posted by WCT

I remember all those DFs in the final, but did have the impression that the serve was a bit better in 82. Not areal weapon, though, as compared to other bi serves.



I had 56-33, pretty damn close. Here is what I have from that 80 match. I had a foreign language version that is missing a few games. But i got most of them in the ESPN Classic version. Might still be missing a few points. Here is what I have. For some reason, I did more detailed stats here at least as relates to Mac. The free points are off a couple points. I posted by memory before.

Free points Mac 60 and Connors 21. Mac 97 of 165 first serves in. He won 60 of 97 on the first, and 34 of 68 on the second. I have Connors 32 of 49 at the net and Mac 45 of 112. But the 112 doesn't include 45 s/v free points.
So I guess you could say he was 90 of 157. There were 10 points where Connors was headed to the net and either hit a clean winner on the approach or missed the approach. There were 11 for Mac. Mac had 4 double faults.
Connors served and volleyed 16 times, 4 in the 5th set tiebreaker. It was 7-3 and Mcenroe had 2 or 3 free points in it.





Agreed. It's relative in that it's still not huge, but he seems to be serving harder. Do you have that set from the 75 challenge match against Newcombe? Same thing there. For Connors, he is serving hard. Winning his service games easily. The free points in that set are 11-7 Connors.


I remember the 77 Wimbledon. Hard for me to definitively say that Connors would win. He double faulted at 15-0. We don't even know he'll win the second point, just that he wouldn't have lost it outright.

I'll say this. That match is the most exhausted I ever saw Borg. Read his post match quotes, he admitted to it. Having read them, watching the match again, you can really see it at several points. A couple balls he didn't chase and some of the body language, if you look really closely. He was dying out there. Not sure why. It was hot that day, but he was coming off a day's rest. In any case, the most tired I ever saw him. And I imagine a lingering fifth set, without a tiebreaker, might have been too much for him.

Borg was coming off a classical exhausting 5 setter against Gerulaitis, which certainly had affected even such a great athlete as him.

[krosero]

There seems to be some difference in the Connors serve in '82. He said himself he was making contact further into the court. In that five-set loss to Borg in '81, he was spinning his serves as softly as I've ever seen him do. In '82 he was going for big serves more often.

But whether that was more effective is something else. He had 33 free points against McEnroe in that long '82 Wimbledon final, just as many as he had in their semifinal there in 1980, which was only four sets long.

In the '82 match, he got a free point on 17.7% of his service points; in 1980 his rate had been 22.8%.

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

don't know how he lost that match, the stats don't really show a big edge for Connors in any category.

We do know he made fewer total errors than McEnroe, 105 vs 117, if we subtract their clean winners and aces from their Total Points Won.

On points where the serve was returned successfully, Connors made only 57 errors of all kinds, McEnroe 74.

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

The 'biggest' Connors serve ever seemed to me was vs Rosewall in '74.

That one and the Challenge Match against Laver. Some very big serves in that one.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

There seems to be some difference in the Connors serve in '82. He said himself he was making contact further into the court. In that five-set loss to Borg in '81, he was spinning his serves as softly as I've ever seen him do. In '82 he was going for big serves more often.

But whether that was more effective is something else. He had 33 free points against McEnroe in that long '82 Wimbledon final, just as many as he had in their semifinal there in 1980, which was only four sets long.

In the '82 match, he got a free point on 17.7% of his service points; in 1980 his rate had been 22.8%.

We do know he made fewer total errors than McEnroe, 105 vs 117, if we subtract their clean winners and aces from their Total Points Won.

On points where the serve was returned successfully, Connors made only 57 errors of all kinds, McEnroe 74.

That one and the Challenge Match against Laver. Some very big serves in that one.

I´d like to imagine top Laver ( 1967 or 1969) against top Jimbo (1974 or 1976).Connors won in 4 sets and then lost to Newcombe.Newcombe was beaten often by Laver, at his prime.So, I am not sure Connors would even win one single set had he met top Laver.

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

I´d like to imagine top Laver ( 1967 or 1969) against top Jimbo (1974 or 1976).Connors won in 4 sets and then lost to Newcombe.Newcombe was beaten often by Laver, at his prime.So, I am not sure Connors would even win one single set had he met top Laver.

Connors won the match against Newk, in four sets.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by krosero

Connors won the match against Newk, in four sets.

Not in the one really counting, the 1975 AO ( I was refeering to that, sorry I wasn´t specific).

And Newcombe ate up Connors at the 1973 USO qf, when jimmy was just a few months away from peaking...and just 2 months away from playing his second Masters ( he reached the semifinals and lost to Okker)

[krosero]

Originally Posted by kiki

Not in the one really counting, the 1975 AO ( I was refeering to that, sorry I wasn´t specific).

And Newcombe ate up Connors at the 1973 USO qf, when jimmy was just a few months away from peaking...and just 2 months away from playing his second Masters ( he reached the semifinals and lost to Okker)

But I think those two Challenge Matches make the best comparison. Same surface, same place, same type of match.

The AO was on grass, which had to be Newk's best surface. On grass he has to be one of the best ever. Connors was great on grass but may have been better on carpet. Anyway that's my impression when watching those two matches.

Newk served brilliantly in the AO match, and did not serve well in Vegas. But Laver served poorly too in the Vegas match, for two sets. And they were both defeated in four sets; so I think the results were very comparable.

[kiki]

Laver was slept for most of his match and Jimmy was eager.prior to it he said " Get me Laver" to his slave´s troop, captained by Riordan and his balck coach ( can´t get to his name now, Ian Crookenden?)

For the few points Laver was on a high, look at Jimmy´s face...

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

I´d like to imagine top Laver ( 1967 or 1969) against top Jimbo (1974 or 1976).Connors won in 4 sets and then lost to Newcombe.Newcombe was beaten often by Laver, at his prime.So, I am not sure Connors would even win one single set had he met top Laver.

Connors and Newcombe were different players with far different styles. Laver was great and I think he was greater than Connors but let's not underestimate Connors. I think Jimmy would win some matches against Laver.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Connors and Newcombe were different players with far different styles. Laver was great and I think he was greater than Connors but let's not underestimate Connors. I think Jimmy would win some matches against Laver.

...of course...and nowhere truer than in Vegas, where,according to his words, he may have fathered AGASSI¡¡¡

[kiki]

Why Borg and Connors never play a Las Vegas Challenge match? Jimmy played Laver,Newcombe,Orantes and Nastase.I think Nastase was the one beating him ( as he used to do, generally)

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by krosero

But I think those two Challenge Matches make the best comparison. Same surface, same place, same type of match.

The AO was on grass, which had to be Newk's best surface. On grass he has to be one of the best ever. Connors was great on grass but may have been better on carpet. Anyway that's my impression when watching those two matches.

Newk served brilliantly in the AO match, and did not serve well in Vegas. But Laver served poorly too in the Vegas match, for two sets. And they were both defeated in four sets; so I think the results were very comparable.

I was thinking the same; Newk was more effective on grass than carpet or hard courts. Even then, he was not a lock to beat Connors, regardless of surface. I was watching some of the AO '75 final on You Tube recently; definitely some sharp play from Newk. Here is an interesting link on the potential match up

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/...ombe-1941.html

[kiki]

Originally Posted by jrepac

I was thinking the same; Newk was more effective on grass than carpet or hard courts. Even then, he was not a lock to beat Connors, regardless of surface. I was watching some of the AO '75 final on You Tube recently; definitely some sharp play from Newk. Here is an interesting link on the potential match up

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/...ombe-1941.html

It could be true, but remember that he won the 2 biggest indoor events: Phili and Dallas, both on supreme carpet.

[kiki]

Connors never beat Newcombe at the majors, John owned him throughoutly¡¡¡

[sandy mayer]

Originally Posted by kiki

Connors never beat Newcombe at the majors, John owned him throughoutly¡¡¡

To say Newcombe owned Connors does not bear up with the facts. They only played 4 times, with 2 wins a piece and don't forget Connors won their big money challenge match which doesn't count in their ATP head to head but at the time probably meant more than their Australian Open final.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by sandy mayer

To say Newcombe owned Connors does not bear up with the facts. They only played 4 times, with 2 wins a piece and don't forget Connors won their big money challenge match which doesn't count in their ATP head to head but at the time probably meant more than their Australian Open final.

Connors won in WTT which was no serious event.Newcombe won at FH and Melbourne.I liked both, but Connors is always the overrated guy and Newcombe is the underrated guy.Both asre in the same level, no way Connors has ever proven to be any bit better of Newcombe ( and I like Connors a lot as a tennis player and showman)

[sandy mayer]

Originally Posted by kiki

Connors won in WTT which was no serious event.Newcombe won at FH and Melbourne.I liked both, but Connors is always the overrated guy and Newcombe is the underrated guy.Both asre in the same level, no way Connors has ever proven to be any bit better of Newcombe ( and I like Connors a lot as a tennis player and showman)

They are both greats, but I think Connors had the better career and quite comfortably. He won more slams, more titles, was number one longer (I'm not sure Newcombe ever finished had a year when he was clear number one), had dominant periods Newcombe never had, had more longetivity, more consistency and had more surface versatility. I would say it is debatable who had the best career on grass and Connors achieved much more on the other surfaces.