Match Stats/Report - Borg vs Connors, Masters semi-final 1980

Bjorn Borg beat Jimmy Connors 6-4 6-7(4) 6-3 in the semi-final of the Masters (Year End Championship/ World Tour Final) 1980 on carpet

Borg would go on to defeat Ivan Lendl in the final to lift his second Masters title

Borg won 119 points, Connors 103 (corrected - previously read Borg 117 points)

(Note: I'm missing partial data for 3 points)

Serve Stats
Borg....
- 1st serve percentage (76/127) 60%
- 1st serve points won (47/76) 62%
- 2nd serve points won (25/51) 49%
- Aces 8, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (23/127) 18%

Connors. ...
- 1st serve percentage (75/95) 79%
- 1st serve points won (41/75) 55%
- 2nd serve points won (6/18) 33%
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (7/95) 7%

(Connors had no aces, double faults or in my judgment, service winners)

Serve Pattern
Borg served...
- to FH 20%
- to BH 72%
- to Body 8%

Connors served...
- to FH 22%
- to BH 75%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Borg made...
- 88 (27 FH, 59 BH, 2 ??), including 6 runaround FHs
- 7 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (2 FH, 2 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 3 Forced (3 BH)
- Return Rate (88/95) 93%

Connors made...
- 101 (26 FH, 75 BH)
- 4 Winners (4 BH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1BH)
- 12 Forced (3 FH, 9 BH)
- Return Rate (101/124) 81%


Break Points
Borg 7/12 (8 games)
Connors 5/15 (8 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Borg 28 (5 FH, 11 BH, 4 FHV, 4 BHV, 3 OH, 1 BHOH)
Connors 30 (5 FH, 15 BH, 4 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH) + 1 unknown lob

- Borg had 13 passes (4 FH, 8 BH, 1 BHV)

- on FH passes, 2 were dtl, 1 cc and 1 lob on the run

- the non-pass FH was a S/V point hit at net

- on BH passes, 3 were dtl and 5 cc (1 cc a running shot played entirety 1 handed)

- 3 non-pass BHs were all dtl, one somewhat inside-out

- 3 FHVs were 1st volleys off s/v points, the other was a high volley

- 1 BHV was a 2nd volley off a s/v point and one other was to a very high ball

- Connors had 8 passes (1 FH, 6 BH, 1 unknown lob)

- the FH pass was cc

- 3 BH passes were returns (2 dtl), 2 other dtl and 1 running-down-a-drop-shot at net

- on non-pass FHs, 2 were cc, 1 dtl and one dtl/inside-out

- on non-pass BHs, 1 was an inside-out return that Borg misjudged and allowed to go through, 3 were dtl and 5 cc

- Connors stepped in for most of his groundstroke winners, occasionally as far as just behind the service line

- the OH was hit from the baseline

- 1 BHV was a well controlled low volley


Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Borg 64
- Unforced 27 (12 FH, 10 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV)
- Forced 37 (13 FH, 22 BH, 2 FHV)

Connors 67
- 48 Unforced (32 FH, 14 BH, 2 FHV)
- 19 Forced (5 FH, 9 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV)


Net Points & Serve-Volley
Borg was 26/45 (58%) at net, including 14/25 (56%) serve-volleying - all off 1st serves

He was 12/20 (56%) on all other approaches, including 0/2 when forced back from net

Connors was 21/42 (50%) at net, with no serve-volleys

He was 1/2 when forced back from the net

(Borg approached twice on the same point, which he lost. This has been counted as 2 'net points', 1 forced back point and 1 point lost)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Match Report
With neither player gaining an overwhelming advantage with the serve shot alone, this match on a quick court proved to be a lively mix of everything

Quick baseline points, attacking tactical exchanges, serve-volleying from Borg and approaches from Connors and stellar returning from both.... a safe hold was not on the cards and anything could happen

Statistically, there are a few surprises. You can see Borg with almost as many winners as the significantly more aggressive Connors and the error count for both being similar (though the Forced/Unforced breakdown is along the expected lines)

I wouldn't say it was an even match, though. Borg was fairly clearly (though slightly) the better player throughout. The difference that made the difference was...


Decisive Factor? - Connors poor approaching
Can you guess how many would be approach shot unforced errors Connors made?

16. 12 forehands (4 each set) and 4 backhands (at least 1 each set)

These were routine balls that Borg dropped short amidst hectic rallies, as he tends to occasionally. Short with no great power behind them.

Connors ran up to meet the ball as he does... and netted the ball. Over and over again.

It was strange. Its the kind of shot that draws groans from the crowd (and many did)... the kind of error you don't expect to see a top player make often.

Yet he made these errors at regular intervals from start to finish. He didn't seem to be going for too much on the shots (was just trying to ease the ball over and get to net) and nor did I judge Borg to be baiting him into trying the shot (though you couldn't blame him if he did)

Possibly something wrong with Connors' technique... a bit of top spin helps to get the ball up and over and he off course prefers to hit flat as possible, but I found such elementary errors and technical problems from such a player to be very strange


No Serve-Volleying from Connors
This was a deliberate choice from the American, which I found a bit strange as well.

I've seen him use a delayed serve-volley technique where after serving he'll hop into the court and take a step or two forward as he waits to see what the return is like and if its weak, run up to volley

With Borg standing well behind the baseline to return, I thought Connors' delayed S/V technique would be a good option here, given how far back Borg stood to return.

He didn't try even once. Given the whole point of the technique is to leave yourself the option of staying coupled with Connors' keenness to get to net in the match in general, I thought it was worth a definite shot.


Borg's serve/volleying and Passing
Borg mostly saved serve-volleying for important points and beefed up his serve on them. It worked - mostly by forcing return errors, but his net play was below par. He put away a few but also missed a number of routine ones - including 2 straightforward put-aways.

By contrast, he was excellent on the pass all match. Connors' volleying wasn't the best either, but I would credit Borg's passing more than discredit Connor' returning for the American's relatively low 50% at net stat

Returning
From both men was outstanding. Borg got almost everything back. Connors was up against a heftier serve and an occasionally net-rushing opponent, but also missed precious little... and his return was more apt to give him the initiative on the point

Baseline Dynamics
This made up the bulk of the action.

Borg was ready to open up the court with his FH while on the BH, he looked to play safe with standard, loopy crosscourt shots.

Connors looked to move Borg around from both wings. He made more errors on the FH trying to do so than he did the BH... hence Borg seemingly content to thwart the Connors FH with his secure BH and wait for errors

Connors hits an impressive BH (and to a lesser degree, the FH too) when forced back. With Borg mixing his depth and Connors standing close to the baseline, occasionally a deeper ball would hop up at the American, forcing him to hop back a step as he played his groundstroke. Its an awkward position, but he made it look routine

An interesting tactic employed by Connors 5-6 times was hitting a virtual FH cc moonball. I think the idea behind it was to tempt Borg to go for too much in putting it away or have him come to net

Borg did neither. Invariably, he ran around the shot to hit a big FH, but not so big as to be a winner (partially due to Connors' retrieval abilities - but no doubt Borg would have played the shot knowing this) - and only once did he come into net behind the shot. So the only thing the tactic achieved was Borg's position in the baseline rally was strengthened.

One senses Borg's confidence in his ability to outlast Connors from the baseline. If the court opens up, he can run down the balls and play equally sharp angles and if it doesn't, he can wait for the error.

Connors by contrast seems a bit hectic, throwing everything at his opponent and hoping it goes his way

Note on Borg's style
If I were designing the perfect baseliner, I would use Borg's game as a template.

I've heard much about his GOAT-ish forehand, but it seems to me the backbone of his game (at least, when facing Connors) is the backhand

It is rock solid and gives him a way to stay in control - which he loves to do. We hear about dangerous and deadly backhands...that's mostly poetic exaggeration and fancy

A good backhand should first and foremost be solid and dependable and Borg's is as secure as a bank

He can rock and roll with the forehand if pushed or necessary (should be added that despite that, its just as secure as the backhand) but his game seems to flow from the BH... especially since the emphasis of his play is on percentages

I like everything about this thread, the statistics of course, but also the analysis.

Why did you choose this match? Why do you want to understand Borg's greatness or why something of Jimbo's game does not fit?

I remember that I saw the match ....many years ago.
It's been IMHO one of the top matches indoor was wood (along with two other among them always at MSG).

I analyze the data of your statistics with another post.

Period.

We are in 1980, at the end of 1980, so Borg is at the top.
There has never been anyone who played on a similar level in the old wooden era, not even Laver (I'm not talking about achievements, I'm talking about the level of play):
- on irregular surfaces (essentially grass) he played at a very high level, certainly more than Connors who suffered a lot of rebounds;
- on slow surfaces (clay) was unbeatable;
- on fast surfaces (carpet indoor or hc open) he was very strong even if he still suffered game of Connors and above all he had problems with great services (Tanner & McEnroe).

Essentially Borg in the period 1978-1980 was likely to lose the first rounds on fast courts and against big servebot or (if he did not run into Tanner & Mac) .... he simply won.
Against Connors, Borg obviously had to work hard but had discovered the antidotes:
- he was much stronger physically;
- had a much more powerful serve than 1977;
- the fh had become an arm (of destruction), so Jimbo was afraid to play on Borg's fh;
- the bh (which played fairly short until 1977) had become more consistent;
- had defused Connors' rallies to the net-game also because the passing shot had improved.

Connors seemed to have no arms especially because:
- no longer forced the serve (Jimbo never had serv-arm but in other years he tried to play better);
- struggled compared to the past to reach the net-game (the rallies were few and not too aggressive).

But the result on many occasions was very close (and this second me is difficult to understand). Because ?

Because IMHO from the baseline Connors was on the Borg level, despite Borg being incredibly at the top.
In other words, Borg had a fh arm of destruction + a bh that became infallible but Connors played from the baseline = Borg.

I have not yet analyzed the data but the feeling is this:
- the bh with the old rackets could not give rise to many winners but often led Borg to forced errors.
- Jimbo fh (despite forcing him to various errors not forced because flat-flat), being flat-flat even if it was not as violent as the bh and often hit in advance went to the other side of the field in a fast way and forcing Borg to forced errors.

In a nutshell in the this period:
- Connors had no chance v Borg on grass for bumpy rebounds that Borg depreciated much better
- Connors had no chance v Borg on clay for slow rebounds
- on indoor courts or hc Connors had a few chances despite the difference in serve (really lacking Connors' serve 1979-81) and the big problems in the 1979-81 net-game approaches.

Waspsting said:

Serve Stats
Borg....
- 1st serve percentage (76/127) 60%
- 1st serve points won (48/76) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (24/50) 48%
- Aces 8, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (23/127) 18%

Connors. ...
- 1st serve percentage (75/95) 79%
- 1st serve points won (41/75) 55%
- 2nd serve points won (6/20) 30%
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (7/95) 7%

(Connors had no aces, double faults or in my judgment, service winners)

Click to expand...

Borg: 8+1+23-2= + 30
Connors: 0+0+7-2= +5
30-5= 25 Borg plus
Except the serve ... wins Connors.

Waspsting said:

Borg 7/12 (8 games)
Connors 5/15 (8 games)

Click to expand...

What does 8 games mean?

Waspsting said:

Connors was 21/42 (50%) at net, with no serve-volleys

Click to expand...

Bad Connors' net-game statistics ... in line with my memories ... he was struggling to systematically reach the net.

Waspsting said:

Errors (excluding returns and serves)
Borg 64
- Unforced 27 (12 FH, 10 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV)
- Forced 37 (13 FH, 22 BH, 2 FHV)

Connors 67
- 48 Unforced (32 FH, 14 BH, 2 FHV)
- 19 Forced (5 FH, 9 BH, 3 FHV, 3 BHV)

Click to expand...

Great Jimbo's numbers Jimbo despite he is foolish on the fh. Borg in difficulty instead.

Waspsting said:

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Borg 45-42

Click to expand...

... Connors' insecurity index in its approaches.
We had to read 45-65...

Well, we agree on a couple of the stats. I also had the unreturned serves as 23 to 7. LOL, 7 free points in 3 long sets and you wonder why Connors couldn't beat this guy.

I also had Connors with 42 net points. I don't have the percentage written down. Weird, I always keep that stat. Must not have transferred it over to my master sheet when I did the stats. The paper I took them on is long gone. 21 of 42 is very poor by Connors standards. Usually had a much higher % even against Borg and even after Borg started beating him all the time.

That looping forehand that Connors used. Nothing new vs Borg. Do you have the Jan 78 Masters match? He uses it multiple times in that match as well.

The softer, short approach that Connors was missing. As I recall it, this was not some strategic ploy by Borg. Those were just slices that landed short because Connors had Borg stretched wide on the backhand. It's Borg slicing because he's on the defensive.

At this point Borg had move past slicing to avoid giving Connors pace. He isn't playing Connors the way Lendl eventually did, backhand slice ad nauseum. I mean in the rallies. If Connors came in, and Lendl saw it, he'd hit topspin. Borg would also slice on his approaches. But in the rallies, Borg slugged with him. Except for something like the shot I'm addressing here. A slice because he's really stretched and on the defensive.

No doubt that Borg is the steadier player. He doesn't have to figure out a way to end the point because more times than not Connors will make the first error. Another no doubt, IMO. This match is played 4 or 5 years earlier and Connors would have been at the net more. Look at his net stats in the Pepsi matches, and they were on clay.

KG1965 said:

Why did you choose this match? Why do you want to understand Borg's greatness or why something of Jimbo's game does not fit?

Click to expand...

I want to look at the games of the greats from before my time.... Connors, Borg, Mac etc. to examine them all around. Not looking to find anything positive or negative about any of them in particular, just see what I see

Unfortunately, there aren't many Connors wins readily available, so all I've ended up doing stats for are his losses

I've long been an admirer of Borg's on-court manner and don't care much for Connors' (or Mac's)... as far as playing style goes, I'm finding I prefer the latter two

As far as findings... in this match anyway, Connors' approach errors was caught my eye most

I'm mindful that Connors' game was good enough to whoop 90% of the players around?... all I'm watching though is Borg, McEnroe and Lendl

That'd be like only watching Djokovic play Nadal on clay... it'd be foolish to conclude from that that Djoko was an ordinary clay courter

KG1965 said:

What does 8 games mean? (in the Break Points stats)

Click to expand...

That's the number of different games the player had break points on

WCT said:

Well, we agree on a couple of the stats. I also had the unreturned serves as 23 to 7. LOL, 7 free points in 3 long sets and you wonder why Connors couldn't beat this guy.

Click to expand...

Agree completely with this

As tough as Connors' ground game is -

KG1965 said:

Borg: 8+1+23-2= + 30
Connors: 0+0+7-2= +5
30-5= 25 Borg plus
Except the serve ... wins Connors.

Click to expand...

- getting next to no freebies is huge handicap as far as winning the match goes. Guy has a better shot than maybe anyone at getting a break, but is bound to get broken a fair bit too

Borg's 93% return rate is the highest I've come across... you wouldn't expect it to be on a carpet court match

WCT said:

The softer, short approach that Connors was missing. As I recall it, this was not some strategic ploy by Borg. Those were just slices that landed short because Connors had Borg stretched wide on the backhand. It's Borg slicing because he's on the defensive.

At this point Borg had move past slicing to avoid giving Connors pace. He isn't playing Connors the way Lendl eventually did, backhand slice ad nauseum. I mean in the rallies. If Connors came in, and Lendl saw it, he'd hit topspin. Borg would also slice on his approaches. But in the rallies, Borg slugged with him. Except for something like the shot I'm addressing here. A slice because he's really stretched and on the defensive.

No doubt that Borg is the steadier player. He doesn't have to figure out a way to end the point because more times than not Connors will make the first error. Another no doubt, IMO. This match is played 4 or 5 years earlier and Connors would have been at the net more. Look at his net stats in the Pepsi matches, and they were on clay.

Click to expand...

There were a few slices but I think the majority were short but regular top spin shots, often hit from defensive positions.. in other words, Connors was following standard draw-short-ball-and come-in-off-it procedure

He did the drawing nicely but made a horrible hash of the coming in part

Regarding baseline rallies on this surface... my feeling was Borg was the better player based on his steadiness as you said

Going on numbers though, that doesn't seem to be accurate. ... take away unreturned serves and net points, and Connors is comfortably ahead

On clay, I can see Borg outlasting Connors all day. In fact, I did see it in '77 Boca Raton

On carpet though, Jimbo seems to be able to force more than enough errors to at least stay even

One difference from the Boca match... there, I felt Borg passively accepted and reacted to whatever Connors was doing (mostly Connors FH to Borg BH)

Here I got the sense that Borg was proactively trying to play BH crosscourts and turn the baseline dynamic into a smothering one

Since the overall dynamic was 'lively' and not 'smothering', I'd say Connors imposed himself more than Borg did from the back... the flexibility he has off both sides - he switchs up to longline or inside-out superbly - was a treat to watch

But that handicap on unreturned serves and net play - all credit to Borg for consistency in returning and brilliance on the pass - was too big to overcome

Waspsting said:

Unfortunately, there aren't many Connors wins readily available, so all I've ended up doing stats for are his losses

Click to expand...

It's curious.

Waspsting said:

take away unreturned serves and net points, and Connors is comfortably ahead

Click to expand...

This is a disconcerting point.


To Boca Raton 1977 it was played on har tru and Borg won (not easily) even without a great plus/minus of serve (Borg > Connors).
But then Bjorn improved the serve and power game and won more easily at Boca in 1978 (Borg >> Connors) and very easily in 1979 (Borg >>>> Connors).
The clay + mix serves + more power was too much for Jimbo.

But replacing clay with faster surfaces Borg was> (or >>) Connors but ... no use on some occasions they were very close.

What I can try to explain is this.

1) Until 1977 Borg is too young and has a normal serve (Borg << Connors)
2) in 1977 does not improve the serve much but improves the power of the game (Borg = or < or > Connors, depends on the surface)
3) from 1978 onwards Borg acquires one of the best serve of the ATP Tour and the serve becomes the key (Borg >> Connors, but if you exclude the serve .. in some matches, on some surfaces the two are very close).

The serve is definitely the number 1 key to open the lock.

The other two are the very hesitant approaches of Jimbo + the bh that Borg tends to play longer. Perhaps the two points are concatenated.

Waspsting said:

I want to look at the games of the greats from before my time.... Connors, Borg, Mac etc. to examine them all around. Not looking to find anything positive or negative about any of them in particular, just see what I see

Unfortunately, there aren't many Connors wins readily available, so all I've ended up doing stats for are his losses

Click to expand...

?? perhaps from the mid 70's not as many stats available...but the guy played tons of matches, even if you captured, let's say '78 to '84, where he is at semi-prime..

Waspsting said:

Decisive Factor? - Connors poor approaching
Can you guess how many would be approach shot unforced errors Connors made?

16. 12 forehands (4 each set) and 4 backhands (at least 1 each set)

These were routine balls that Borg dropped short amidst hectic rallies, as he tends to occasionally. Short with no great power behind them.

Connors ran up to meet the ball as he does... and netted the ball. Over and over again.

It was strange. Its the kind of shot that draws groans from the crowd (and many did)... the kind of error you don't expect to see a top player make often.

Yet he made these errors at regular intervals from start to finish. He didn't seem to be going for too much on the shots (was just trying to ease the ball over and get to net) and nor did I judge Borg to be baiting him into trying the shot (though you couldn't blame him if he did)

Possibly something wrong with Connors' technique... a bit of top spin helps to get the ball up and over and he off course prefers to hit flat as possible, but I found such elementary errors and technical problems from such a player to be very strange

Click to expand...

Pat Summerall said that Connors made “51 forehand errors” during this match (he gave that stat the next day during the broadcast of the Borg-Lendl final).

CBS displayed these stats:
In the first set, Connors had 11 FH unforced errors, Borg 4. After two sets, Connors had made 15 FH unforced errors, Borg 6.

krosero said:

Pat Summerall said that Connors made “51 forehand errors” during this match (he gave that stat the next day during the broadcast of the Borg-Lendl final).

CBS displayed these stats:
In the first set, Connors had 11 FH unforced errors, Borg 4. After two sets, Connors had made 15 FH unforced errors, Borg 6.

Click to expand...

Wasn't that the model of JC's later matches against Bjorn? He was rock steady and forced Connors into aggressive errors? That plus his better serve post '78.

Waspsting said:

I want to look at the games of the greats from before my time.... Connors, Borg, Mac etc. to examine them all around. Not looking to find anything positive or negative about any of them in particular, just see what I see

Unfortunately, there aren't many Connors wins readily available, so all I've ended up doing stats for are his losses

I've long been an admirer of Borg's on-court manner and don't care much for Connors' (or Mac's)... as far as playing style goes, I'm finding I prefer the latter two

As far as findings... in this match anyway, Connors' approach errors was caught my eye most

I'm mindful that Connors' game was good enough to whoop 90% of the players around?... all I'm watching though is Borg, McEnroe and Lendl

That'd be like only watching Djokovic play Nadal on clay... it'd be foolish to conclude from that that Djoko was an ordinary clay courter




That's the number of different games the player had break points on



Agree completely with this

As tough as Connors' ground game is -



- getting next to no freebies is huge handicap as far as winning the match goes. Guy has a better shot than maybe anyone at getting a break, but is bound to get broken a fair bit too

Borg's 93% return rate is the highest I've come across... you wouldn't expect it to be on a carpet court match



There were a few slices but I think the majority were short but regular top spin shots, often hit from defensive positions.. in other words, Connors was following standard draw-short-ball-and come-in-off-it procedure

He did the drawing nicely but made a horrible hash of the coming in part

Regarding baseline rallies on this surface... my feeling was Borg was the better player based on his steadiness as you said

Going on numbers though, that doesn't seem to be accurate. ... take away unreturned serves and net points, and Connors is comfortably ahead

On clay, I can see Borg outlasting Connors all day. In fact, I did see it in '77 Boca Raton

On carpet though, Jimbo seems to be able to force more than enough errors to at least stay even

One difference from the Boca match... there, I felt Borg passively accepted and reacted to whatever Connors was doing (mostly Connors FH to Borg BH)

Here I got the sense that Borg was proactively trying to play BH crosscourts and turn the baseline dynamic into a smothering one

Since the overall dynamic was 'lively' and not 'smothering', I'd say Connors imposed himself more than Borg did from the back... the flexibility he has off both sides - he switchs up to longline or inside-out superbly - was a treat to watch

But that handicap on unreturned serves and net play - all credit to Borg for consistency in returning and brilliance on the pass - was too big to overcome

Click to expand...

When I say Connors isn't going to consistently outrally Borg I mean outsteady him. He can win from the baseline with winners or very forcing shots. Obviously, this is easier to do on a faster court.

BTW, the shot generally considered to be Connors' weakest was the lo forehand approach. So, him missing approaches is not exactly out of character. This was a lot, though.

There is evolution in the rivalry as Borg passes him. Frankly, I think Borg was still improving as a player. He is only when they play in 75, 20 in 76. His serve got bigger, his volley better. He certainly came in more in this match than their 77 Masters match.
IIRC, I had him coming in 9 times in that match.

As I said, Borg started going for more off the ground, against Connors, than he had previously. Look at the 76 US Open final and count how many times Borg is slicing his backhand in the rallies. Now count in this match. There is no more don't give Connors pace.

Check the stats from earlier matches. The winners disparity in their 76 and 77 US and Wimbledon matches. Connors has over twice as many. Keep going later on an it's a lot closer. Still, I think 79 Wimbledon was the only time Borg had more. I'm going more by stats posted here because I didn't count winners for most of the matches I did stats for. And a few I did Connors I didn't do the opponent.

Here are a couple I did do, though. I did errors, but not forced errors. And I think I'm pretty safe in what I called an unforced error. Any real difficulty involved, I didn't do it.

79 Pepsi. I believe Borg won 2 and . I have Connors with 27 winners to Borg's 21. But 14 of Borg's were passing shots to none for Connors. Borg only came in about 4 times and I think 3 of them were Connors drawing him in with drop shots. i had Connors 31 of 53 at net. Here is the biggie. Unforced errors were 40 to 6.
This was not a match where Borg was going for a lot off the ground. No flat out winners off the ground when they were both back. Perhaps because they were on clay.

80 WCT Maryland. A partial. Only 47 points. In them, though, Connors had 14 unforced errors to 6. Winners were 5 to 1 Connors. Again, only 47 points, a small sample size.

However the dynamics changed later on, Borg is the steadier player. In general he is going to make less unforced errors. Connors is not a human backboard who can stay out there all day.
He has to figure out a way to end the point. I don't mean against everyone, but against the steadier baseliners.

Watch a 1988 Lendl/Connors match thn watch a 1988 Lendl/Wilander match. Yoi don't have all that slicing against Wilander. He is going for bigger, more penetrating shots. Wilander isn't going to miss if he just keeps the ball in play long enough. Connors will.

KG1965 said:

The serve is definitely the number 1 key to open the lock.

The other two are the very hesitant approaches of Jimbo + the bh that Borg tends to play longer. Perhaps the two points are concatenated.

Click to expand...

Good to hear about changing dynamics over time

I've seen Connors hesitant to approach against Mac at USO '79 and '80. Compared to that, he was fine in this match... of course, he's no Edberg dying to get to the net, but he is ready to come in off the short ball

Which is why I found the no serve-volleying odd

Can't blame him if he'd been more hesitant, Borg was a beast on the pass. A hell of a lot more than Mac

In the pre-match interview, he said something like, "well, I'm here and if I play my game, let's see what happens"... it wasn't exactly a demonstration of confidence

I got the sense he didn't feel he could win and so played like a man with nothing to lose (less hesitant), whereas against Mac, he was scared to lose or angry at the prospect of it

krosero said:

Pat Summerall said that Connors made “51 forehand errors” during this match (he gave that stat the next day during the broadcast of the Borg-Lendl final).

Click to expand...

Strange

I can see disagreements about forced and unforced, but not on total count

On the FH, I have Connors with 32 UE and 5 FE for a total of 37 FH. Including the returns, it comes to 41

Even adding 5 total FHV errors, that comes to 46... comfortably short of 51

Can't help but think Summerall pulled that stat out off the air as a "big number"

I'm glad you brought up the Lendl final... as I recall, BH cross-courting seemed to be Borg's primary go-to play in that one too and Lendl wasn't able to throw a spanner into it the way Connors largely did here

krosero said:

In the first set, Connors had 11 FH unforced errors, Borg 4. After two sets, Connors had made 15 FH unforced errors, Borg 6.

Click to expand...

1st set, I also have Borg at 4, but Connors with 15

After 2 sets, Connors 22 and Borg 9

The reported Connors figure is particularly surprising to me... just 4 in the second set?

I normally don't track approaching errors, but keyed in on it when I noticed just how many Connors was making

I have him with 4 approach FH UEs each set and would have though every one of them were virtually beyond dispute as being 'unforced'

Assuming this is so, according to the CBS stat, he made no other FH UEs in the set

jrepac said:

?? perhaps from the mid 70's not as many stats available...but the guy played tons of matches, even if you captured, let's say '78 to '84, where he is at semi-prime..

Click to expand...

Tell you what Jrep, you find me a full, worthwhile Connors win that hasn't already been done - and I'll gladly statis-tify it

Philly 80, Wembley 81, Tokyo 84 are all missing large chunks and I can't see the ball in the 2 Queens finals

Slim pickings on Jimbo

Waspsting said:

Strange

I can see disagreements about forced and unforced, but not on total count

On the FH, I have Connors with 32 UE and 5 FE for a total of 37 FH. Including the returns, it comes to 41

Even adding 5 total FHV errors, that comes to 46... comfortably short of 51

Can't help but think Summerall pulled that stat out off the air as a "big number"

I'm glad you brought up the Lendl final... as I recall, BH cross-courting seemed to be Borg's primary go-to play in that one too and Lendl wasn't able to throw a spanner into it the way Connors largely did here



1st set, I also have Borg at 4, but Connors with 15

After 2 sets, Connors 22 and Borg 9

The reported Connors figure is particularly surprising to me... just 4 in the second set?

I normally don't track approaching errors, but keyed in on it when I noticed just how many Connors was making

I have him with 4 approach FH UEs each set and would have though every one of them were virtually beyond dispute as being 'unforced'

Assuming this is so, according to the CBS stat, he made no other FH UEs in the set

Click to expand...

Just going by memory here but there have been cases in which the network displays "match statistics" after two sets but the actual numbers pertain only to the most recent set. If that was the case here it would put Connors at 26 FH errors after two sets and makes more sense.

Also, again from memory but I think in those days the term "forehand" could be used to cover both groundstrokes and volleys. So that's another possibility.

I also may have taken down the CBS graphic incorrectly; I'll check it when I get a chance.

It's been so long since I did stats for old matches, I think my dvd's are in a box somewhere in my house

By the way the big take-away from your stats on this match, for me, is that Connors was out-pointing Borg apart from serves and net play. This is not what anyone would expect but it appears to be what your stats show.

Can we calculate that exactly? Removing service from the total points is easy. But at that point if we want to remove all net play, I'd need to know how many of your numbers for net stats overlap with the unreturned serves? What I mean is, Borg coming in behind a serve, clearly SVing, might force a return error; this point would end up in both categories, the service and the net-play.

Or did you keep unreturned serves separate from net stats?

That's a question we've batted around here before, ie, whether such points should be counted as net points. I think both Moose and I have agreed that they are net points but we're not sure everyone does it that way.

Aggressive Margins

1980 YEC semi, Borg d. Connors 6-4, 6-7, 6-3
Borg: 15.5%
Connors: 9.1%

1981 USO sf, Borg d. Connors 6-2, 7-5, 6-4
Borg: 18.2%
Connors: 8.1%

1978 USO final, Connors d. Borg 6-4, 6-2, 6-2
Connors: -4.4%
Borg: -15.9%

1978 Wimb final, Borg d. Connors 6-2, 6-2, 6-3
Borg: 35.2%
Connors: 19.8%

I think these are all the AM's we've got for this rivalry (but maybe I'm missing some matches charted by Waspsting?)

For this YEC match, I used Waspsting's stats for everything, both total points and UE's.

For '81 USO and '78W, we counted the total points ourselves and I'm using UE counts displayed late in each match (in each case I completed the stats by charting UE's myself to the end).

'78 USO, I've used UE counts given in the press. Moose counted the total number of points played, but I've estimated that Connors led in total points won by 102-81, an estimate based on a very similar margin of victory in their '78 Wimb final.


So per the AM's, the '78 Wimb was their best-played of these matches -- but AM's are usually highest on grass anyway.

The pair of '81 matches are right in the middle range, with their '78 USO match standing out by going into negatives. Those numbers were dragged down in that case by Borg's UE's; it's the only match I know of in which Borg made more UE's than Connors.

@Waspsting
Connors pretty much never serve and volleyed indoors. And carpet was not considered a fast surface in the 70s/early 80s. I've come across many player interviews from the YEC back then where players call it medium or even a slow court. Even Mac didn't S&V as much on carpet at the YEC as he did at the USO. Krosero came across an intersting article about Stockholm in the 70s where the indoor harcourt used was called much faster than carpet. Clearly there was more fluctuation in surface speed back then than we think.

I don't remember anyone calling it a slow court in the late 70s/early 80s. Medium maybe. It certainly don't recall it being called lighting fast either. Mcenroe didn't s/v on all his 1st serves there? I don't know the 2nd serve breakdown although he didn't follow them all in at the Open either. Certainly not against Connors.

While I have no doubt that Connors wasn't s/v much indoors at this point, we don't have many 70s indoor matches to determine it. What we have of the Laver and Newcombe challenge matches tells me he did. Half his 1st serves against Laver. 9 of 18. Newcombe 11 of 26 including 1st and 2nd. I have the 3rd set of a 1975 London match with Nastase. I don't have s/v, but he was at the net 18 of the 40 points. I have the entire 76 Wembley final with Tanner. 3 sets, I had him s/v 10 times. Certainly not much, but more than zero. He did it zero times in this match in 3 sets.
The Jan 78 Borg match Connors only s/v a couple times. Twice, maybe 3? He did s/v on match point against Gottfried in the semis(only point we have). 79 Memphis against Ashe is only 1 set and he s/v 6 times.

I would wager that Pancho Segura's Jimmy Connors s/v at least periodically. Unfortunately, they ain't much out there to confirm or disprove this opinion. I'm going by how he played on other surfaces and what we have of the 2 75 challenge matches.

Waspsting did the stats on the 77 Pepsi match. IIRC, Connors s/v 8 to 10 times that match, on clay. It's not that he didn't do it all the time this match. It's not he never did it.

Wasp talked about fear of Borg's return. To me, that is much more evident at Wimbledon. In 77, he s/v a lot on 1st serve against Mac in the semis then maybe a 10-12 times in a 5 set final. This is guesswork, not actual counts.

The 78 Gerulaitis match I counted. 43 of 50 on 1st and 28 of 37 on 2nd. Finals, maybe 10 times. Again, a guess, not an actual count. I'd bet my guess was pretty close, though.

In both the 77 and 78 NBC coverage, Newcombe remarks on this.
Connors should be s/v more. The 78 match is out there, I have it, and he definitely said it. But I remember it in 77 as well.

Borg was a great returner. Was he better than Ken Rosewall?
At Wimbledon 74, I have Connors s/v on 39 of 59 on 1st and 19 of 31 2nd. At the US, 33 of 47 and 14 of 23. Difference was Segura's influence, IMO. He still coached him later on, but not to the same day to day level. More like sometimes at the 2 big ones.

Bottom line, he just did not come in as much. With me, I really focused on was off the ground. Yes, Borg is hitting harder and deeper then he had been a couple years earlier, but there are numerous short balls, ball landing at or inside the service line, that he would have been coming in on several years before.

Trust me, I made a study of it. It's why I started doing these stats. I wanted to see if the numbers supported my memory at the time. I railed about this to people I knew when these matches were being played. Then something like 82 Wimbledon final happens and you've got 4 hours of Bud Collins acting like Jimmy Connors never went anywhere near the net before then. And I'm like, WTF?

This match was a real anomaly in Connors % at net. This was about as low as I remember it. Borg throttled him in some matches and his net % was still way over 50.

Krosero already explained this to me a ways back. Can someone refresh me on the formula for aggressive margin?

Krosero, let me double check the total numbers and get back to you on overall baseline figures

Overall points isn't perfectly lining up with 1st and second point stats. I'm missing 3 points from the latter category that are in the former - might just be that, but let me give it a second look

krosero said:

Just going by memory here but there have been cases in which the network displays "match statistics" after two sets but the actual numbers pertain only to the most recent set. If that was the case here it would put Connors at 26 FH errors after two sets and makes more sense.

Click to expand...

In that case, they had Connors with 15 FH UEs in the second set alone. I had him with 7 (including the 4 approach errors)

Whichever way you slice it, there's a radical difference between my count and CBS'

Also, Summerall's count of 51 for the match is based on CBS' count, then they really, really over counted Connors' errors in the 3rd set

krosero said:

By the way the big take-away from your stats on this match, for me, is that Connors was out-pointing Borg apart from serves and net play. This is not what anyone would expect but it appears to be what your stats show.

Can we calculate that exactly? Removing service from the total points is easy. But at that point if we want to remove all net play, I'd need to know how many of your numbers for net stats overlap with the unreturned serves? What I mean is, Borg coming in behind a serve, clearly SVing, might force a return error; this point would end up in both categories, the service and the net-play.

Or did you keep unreturned serves separate from net stats?

Click to expand...

When serve-volleying, Borg forced return errors 6/25... so was 8/19 when the return was made

He had 23 unreturned serves total... so 17 when he stayed back

Connors had 7 total unreturned serves

So Borg's +10 on unreturned serves in non-S/V situations

Approaching in a rally, Borg is 12/20, Connors is 21/42

For these two generally and certainly in this match, I would hesitate to discount the above even when looking at just baseline play

Neither guy was looking to take the net in order to mix it up or just for the sake of it... they both rallied their way to net when it was called for (other guy had been forced out of position or/and coughed up a short ball)

In other words, they earned their place at net by out playing the other from the baseline

Furthermore, Connors paid a heavy price to find the net (16 approach errors) and was just winning 50% when he got there to boot

@KG1965 nailed it - without serves, Connors comes out on top. From the baseline, Connors comes out on top

Most interesting

krosero said:

I think these are all the AM's we've got for this rivalry (but maybe I'm missing some matches charted by Waspsting?)

Click to expand...

Just one more, Boca Raton 1977

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...borg-vs-connors-boca-raton-final-1977.608541/

I'm not sure how to calculate AMs

Adding AM's for another Borg/Connors match charted by Waspsting

1977 Boca Raton final, Borg d. Connors 6-4, 5-7, 6-3
Borg: 2.7%
Connors: -1.1%

Here Connors goes into negatives, just barely. But these numbers are not that unusual for a claycourt match. On clay you see more UE's, which drives down the AM's.

WCT, there used to be a nice essay about Aggressive Margins, in PDF, but the link no longer works. There are some others showing up in a Google search. This one explains the AM and even offers a downloadable template to calculate it: https://tencaptennis.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/forced-errors-the-aggressive-margin/

Basically, the AM measures to what degree a player is earning his win with proactive play and to what degree he gets his points on his opponent's unforced errors.

In the match charted in the OP, Connors won 103 points. He got 33 of these points from Borg's UE's, so that leaves 70 points that Connors "earned", either with winners or by forcing Borg into errors.

220 points were played in the match. Connors earned 70 of them, or 31.9%. Connors lost 50 points with his own unforced errors, or 22.7% of all the points played. So 31.9 - 22.7 = 9.1%, that is, Connors' aggressive margin.

That last figure is really the degree to which Connors' aggressive efforts paid off, ie, what his aggressive efforts earned him, balanced against its costs.

If a player makes more UE's than the number of points that he earns proactively/aggressively, then he's into negative AM percentages -- but keep in mind that this is actually a common situation on clay, where rallies are extended and often end with UE's.

Thanks for the explanation Krosero.

Waspsting said:

Krosero, let me double check the total numbers and get back to you on overall baseline figures

Overall points isn't perfectly lining up with 1st and second point stats. I'm missing 3 points from the latter category that are in the former - might just be that, but let me give it a second look

Click to expand...

Ok sounds good.

So here are the unreturned serve rates for all the Borg-Connors matches that we've done, including the two you did.

1981 USO – Connors 10.2%, Borg 37.0%

1981 Wimb – Connors 10.6%, Borg 23.9%

1980 YEC SF - Connors 7.4%, Borg 18.1%

1979 Wimb – Connors 9.6%, Borg 34.2%

1978 USO - Connors 16.4%, Borg 17.3%

1978 Wimb – Connors 7.2%, Borg 28.2%

1977 Wimb - Connors 7.1%, Borg 30.8%

1977 Boca - Connors 15.1%, Borg 14.9%

1976 USO - Connors 5.3%, Borg 11.6%

As far as I know these numbers should be complete.

Boca is the one match in which Connors edged Borg, though barely.

He nearly matched Borg again in that '78 USO final, much more surprising on hard court.

Moose Malloy said:

@Waspsting
Connors pretty much never serve and volleyed indoors. And carpet was not considered a fast surface in the 70s/early 80s. I've come across many player interviews from the YEC back then where players call it medium or even a slow court. Even Mac didn't S&V as much on carpet at the YEC as he did at the USO. Krosero came across an intersting article about Stockholm in the 70s where the indoor harcourt used was called much faster than carpet. Clearly there was more fluctuation in surface speed back then than we think.

Click to expand...

I thought carpet was considered a relatively faster surface, but there were also different variants out there...

krosero said:

Ok sounds good.

So here are the unreturned serve rates for all the Borg-Connors matches that we've done, including the two you did.

1981 USO – Connors 10.2%, Borg 37.0%

1981 Wimb – Connors 10.6%, Borg 23.9%

1980 YEC SF - Connors 7.4%, Borg 18.1%

1979 Wimb – Connors 9.6%, Borg 34.2%

1978 USO - Connors 16.4%, Borg 17.3%

1978 Wimb – Connors 7.2%, Borg 28.2%

1977 Wimb - Connors 7.1%, Borg 30.8%

1977 Boca - Connors 15.1%, Borg 14.9%

1976 USO - Connors 5.3%, Borg 11.6%

As far as I know these numbers should be complete.

Boca is the one match in which Connors edged Borg, though barely.

He nearly matched Borg again in that '78 USO final, much more surprising on hard court.

Click to expand...

There it is. This guy was too good to spot that many points most matches. If I get a chance, I think I'm going to do the stats on the 78 US final. I did some already, but not all I need to get the AM figure. Man, that seems like a bad figure for Connors based on my recall.

Question for Moose and Wasp about how you track stats. 2nd serve returns. Borg serves to Connors and stays back. The 2nd serve is basically spun in, nothing special. Connors misses the return. Do you count that as an unforced error? In the few matches that I kept track of unforced errors, I credit Connors with one on a point like that.

WCT said:

There it is. This guy was too good to spot that many points most matches. If I get a chance, I think I'm going to do the stats on the 78 US final. I did some already, but not all I need to get the AM figure. Man, that seems like a bad figure for Connors based on my recall.

Question for Moose and Wasp about how you track stats. 2nd serve returns. Borg serves to Connors and stays back. The 2nd serve is basically spun in, nothing special. Connors misses the return. Do you count that as an unforced error? In the few matches that I kept track of unforced errors, I credit Connors with one on a point like that.

Click to expand...

Yes that's the big thing lacking in Jimmy's game, the big difference between him and Borg. He made up for it to a large degree with his great returning, but the gap in free points remained.

The published UE's for '78 USO may be somewhat high. I found them in a newspaper article -- Connors made 47 and Borg 63. But compare that to their '81 USO semi, which had a very similar number of total points played (109 vs. 102). CBS had Connors making roughly 33 (and Borg only 40). And that was a match that Jimmy lost. So 47 in the '78 match does seem too high. I'd be surprised if you didn't get a lower number in your own count.

Many UE counts in very old matches seem excessively high.

Would be very interested in your stats if you get the chance.

Yes, I would be very surprised if he made more unforced errors in 78 than 81. What about my question about UE? I don't think I'd ever charge one off a 1st serve. Also, if someone like Mac was s/v on a 2nd serve. But someone who stays back on 2nd serve, I would tend to do it. Again, I only counted errors in a handful of matches, and I only counted UE, Of course, you then get into personal interpretation of what constitutes one.

I forgot to post this before. I have unreturned serves on other Connors/Borg matches. Problem is I don't have the rate because I didn't count the total serves from each player. Only started doing that the last several matches I tracked.

Here they are in case anyone is interested.
Wimbledon 1975 Connors 19 of 70 and Tanner was 30 of 89.
Wembley 1976 Connors 18 of 115, Tanner 42 of 98.

I think that's a great stat because it gives you context. Wish I had kept it earlier. It really shows you ho much superior some of these other players' serves were.

I've corrected the overall points... Borg won 119 points, Connors 103. Sorry for the mistake

krosero said:

By the way the I'd need to know how many of your numbers for net stats overlap with the unreturned serves? What I mean is, Borg coming in behind a serve, clearly SVing, might force a return error; this point would end up in both categories, the service and the net-play.

Or did you keep unreturned serves separate from net stats?

That's a question we've batted around here before, ie, whether such points should be counted as net points. I think both Moose and I have agreed that they are net points but we're not sure everyone does it that way.

Click to expand...

I include S/V unreturned serves in net stats

On 6/25 S/V points, Borg drew a return error

You're looking for pure baseline points - no net play, no unreturned serves?

I'll get that out - have to recheck all the breakdowns since I made a mistake with total points

What to do with attempted approaches that turned out to be errors? Technically, it's a pure baseline point, but it ended because the player was trying to turn it into a net point

And I don't have stats for Borg's failed approach attempts

WCT said:

Question for Moose and Wasp about how you track stats. 2nd serve returns. Borg serves to Connors and stays back. The 2nd serve is basically spun in, nothing special. Connors misses the return. Do you count that as an unforced error?

Click to expand...

Unless Connors is significantly stretched to return the ball, I'd mark that as unforced

Personally, I keep return errors in a separate category of their own

On S/V points, I all but always mark return errors forced. Few exceptions - if the serve is particularly slow, if the return is shanked or otherwise particularly far off

No one-size-fits-all-rules for judging return errors when server stays back for 1st or 2nd serve for me

I look at -

- pace of serve
- placement of serve
- where the returner is standing
- what the returner is doing

Unlike for rally situations, depth isn't much of a factor - the deepest possible ball on the service line isn't enough in itself to force an error

I did a Sampras match where I gave him a couple of UEs on first serve returns. The balls weren't particularly powerful and within his reach - he just muffed them. In one case, he could have comfortably moved to play the ball normally but instead stood rooted and took a slightly stretched swing... looks forced but only because of his lack of footwork

If the returner is taking the ball early and stretched a bit, I might mark that unforced. If he's moving around a lot, I might give it an unforced even if it is forced (no one forced him to move around - it's his own doing)

Case by case stuff

Waspsting said:

I've corrected the overall points... Borg won 119 points, Connors 103. Sorry for the mistake

Click to expand...

No prob, so AM changes to:

Borg: 16.2%
Connors: 9.0%

Waspsting said:

I include S/V unreturned serves in net stats

On 6/25 S/V points, Borg drew a return error

You're looking for pure baseline points - no net play, no unreturned serves?

Click to expand...

Yes

Waspsting said:

What to do with attempted approaches that turned out to be errors? Technically, it's a pure baseline point, but it ended because the player was trying to turn it into a net point

And I don't have stats for Borg's failed approach attempts

Click to expand...

I don't know, I remember thinking about this too. I do not believe that I ever put these points into the net play category. But they really are net points, the more I think about it. Somewhat like a double-fault is still a service point, even if it never makes it into the box.

I guess this doesn't make a great difference in most matches but it comes up a lot for connors because this was his particular weakness.

So yeah they're net points, but it depends on what you're looking at, as always. If we're judging all baseline/groundstroke points they might still go in that category because obviously the point began and ended with ground strokes.

WCT said:

What about my question about UE? I don't think I'd ever charge one off a 1st serve. Also, if someone like Mac was s/v on a 2nd serve. But someone who stays back on 2nd serve, I would tend to do it. Again, I only counted errors in a handful of matches, and I only counted UE, Of course, you then get into personal interpretation of what constitutes one.

Click to expand...

Case by case like Wasp says, at least in the sense that there are no fixed rules. But as a general rule of thumb, I wouldn't charge an UE off a first serve. Someone stays back on second serve, generally that's UE, unless the serve is genuinely a challenge to return.

Ok, pure baseline points - no net play, and with a return being put in play, we have -

Connors 57 points, Borg 55

By set,
Connors 15, 30, 12
Borg 21, 21, 13

Winners
Connors 13 (4 FH, 9 BH)
Borg 2 (2 BH)

Errors
Connors 53
- 45 Unforced (32 FH, 13 BH)
- 8 Forced (2 FH, 6 BH)

Borg 44
- 22 Unforced (12 FH, 10 BH)
- 22 Forced (11 FH, 11 BH)

----

In addition, there are three points where an approach was made, the net-rusher was pushed back and the point was played out from the baseline

Connors won 2 points, Borg 1

Borg had a BH dtl winner and made a FH forced error

Connors had an OH winner

My note says "(baseline)" for the Connors OH. One would think the net play shaped the point

The low rate of Borg winners hints at the same for the forced back point he won too

There's one further Borg 2nd serve point that Borg won that I don't have (don't know how it ended, don't know if either player approached).... so the final difference could be just 1 point

Either way, virtually equal. Connors' edge is almost certainly statistically not significant

Note Borg's symmetry across both error types and wings... and contrast with Connors unforced loaded and FH heavy numbers

And look at Connors' BH heaviness on winners

----

This seems to mildly support my take that Borg BH => Borg FH

For Connors, I wonder how feasible it is to runaround the FH to hit BHs are? Even on return - same # of unforced errors on each side, despite the BH copping three times as many serves - the BH shines brighter than the FH

Anyway you look at, it seems to be his stronger side. The '77 Boca match showed the same thing too

I did the 78 US finals stats. Moose had done some of them before, but he didn't have UE. I got the same winners as him. Connors 33 and Borg 25. We had a difference in total points. I have 188 points played. Where I just list who won the point. However, when breaking it down to first and second serves w/l, different columns, I only have 185. I tend to think the 188 might be right since that is the first thing I record. Which player one that point. Then I go to the details of the point.

Unforced errors. I have Connors with 18 plus 2 second serve return errors off what I saw as pretty easily returnable serves. Borg, I have with 27 plus 3 second serve what I saw as unforced errors. So, I guess 20 and 30.

FYI, I probably err more on not calling something unforced if it has some degree of difficulty to it. Borg 1st serve, Connors return comes back very hard, pretty much back down the middle, but maybe a foot or less from the baseline. Borg misses that shot. In my mind, that is a forced error. That happened several times in this match.

Second to last point of the match. A rally, Connors shot catches the tape and rolls over. Borg comes running forward, pretty much barely reaches it, his backhand goes into the net. Lucky point for Connors, but I would never call it an UE on Borg.

I think you could really get into it with volleys. At one point does the volley error become forced. Didn't matter in this match because I only had 1 for each player. And 1 I considered forced.
Borg makes some really nice, difficult volleys in this match. Overhead was shaky, though.

My feelings watching this match are the same usually are. There is this perception of the injured Borg like he can barely hold the racquet in his hand because it flew out twice in the match. I have 2 other, I think, 78 Borg Connors matches where it flew out of his hand once. It's not like it ever happened before.

Borg is hitting the ball HARD. He is going for way more on his shots than he does when they play at the Pepsi in January of 79.
Last set Connors is doing way more running than Borg. But Borg is making way more errors than usual. Late in the 2nd set, Newcombe comments on how hard Borg is hitting the ball.

As always, I want to be clear. I'm not saying Borg wasn't injured or that the injury didn't affect how he played. My guess was he was perhaps looking to end points more quickly because of the injury. My point is how it affected him. He's not pushing the ball weakly because of the thumb. He's serving just as big and hitting, off the ground, I thought, bigger than he normally did against Connors.

Back to my stats. I'm not saying that I only recorded very simple mistakes as UE. But if someone approached off what I saw as a reasonably good approach shot and the passing shot was missed, I don't count that as an UE. The approach doesn't need to be a foot from the sideline and a foot form the baseline for a missed pass to be a forced error. There was once or twice in this match where I thought the player had a really good swing at a pass. Ball sitting up at midcourt. They missed it and I called it an error.

Well, those are the numbers I got. Sure a lot lower than the figures Krosero found in that article. My numbers might be questioned some, but I'll take them over the UE total that article gave Connors. Connors was pretty much at the top of his game that day. He was not making a lot of UE. Actually, first game of the match, they both made a bunch. It was a long game with a bunch of deuces. Connors probably made at least 4 in that game alone. Not too many after that, though.

That's great you got those. So 20 and 30 UE's, including df's I presume?
What was Connors' edge in total points?

Here is the breakdown. Points are 105 to 83 for Connors. Borg had 6 double faults to none for Connors. Those 6 are not included in my UE total. Here is the UE breakdown.
Connors FH 12, BH 5, BHV 1, and those 2 2nd serve return errors. IIRC, both forehands. Borg FH 9, BH 15, FHV 1, Overheads 2 and the 3 2nd serve return errors. IIRC, all FH. My winners total and stroke breakdown are the exact same as Moose had.

Ok so with UE totals of 20 for Connors and 36 for Borg, and with new figures for total points won, the AM changes to:

Connors: 26.1%
Borg: 14.4%

No more negative numbers, which you just wouldn't expect in a fast-court match. So I think these new UE counts are much better.

Possibly if we could do our own UE counts for their '81 semi, we would have two similar matches with similar stat-keeping that we could compare.

I think our UE counts today might be stricter because we tend to use clear rules of thumb, which have been developed over decades. Back in the 70s, the concept of the UE was very new and I'm not sure there were any clear guidelines.

I remember reading in a tennis magazine in the 1980s, an explanation of the UE that went something like, you charge Ivan Lendl with an unforced error if he misses a shot which you would expect someone of the caliber of Lendl to make.

But that kind of guideline is entirely subjective. Of course UE counts are never completely objective, but at least today there are some guidelines and general rules, based on what is physically happening on the court (is it a first serve; is it an approach; etc.), and applied equally to all players. But asking someone to think about a player and to place an expectation on what shots he should be making -- as if that player should be held to a standard different from that applied to other players -- is just asking for the exercise to be ruled by subjectivity.

I don't know that that was entirely the case back then, because it's not like I've done a thorough study of UE-error figures in the early OE. But it does seem to me that some UE counts from those early matches are excessively high, compared to ours today.

Wasp and I had similar UE counts for Borg-Vilas matches at '78 RG and '80 Monte Carlo, so that was good to see. I think Moose and I tended to get similar numbers as well, when we did UE's.

A couple of things remain unusual about the '78 USO match, statistically. Borg is still making more UE errors than Connors (that seems even more clear in WCT's new count); and this is the only match in which we know of that happening.

And the unreturned serve rate is nearly identical, Connors nearly matching Borg, which you would never expect on a fast court -- not by '78. Either Borg was having trouble returning Connors' serve, or he was not serving as well as he normally would; or a combination of the two.

Also Connors faced no break points in the '78 match, which has to be unusual not only against Borg but in any Connors match.

I agree, WCT, about Borg trying to end points early. And though I would pick a healthy Borg to win, I do think, more than I used to, that he might have lost anyway. Nevertheless I would argue that some of the stats in the match are anomalies and illustrate, or strongly suggest, the degree to which Borg was injured.

Those % are more what I'd expect. What piqued my curiosity was Connors with a negative number in a match I thought he played great.

I still say the first set and a half is good tennis. Borg is playing well. Not Wimbledon 78 final well, but well. I'd say it's 2/3 maybe a tad later in the second where his level falls off. Definitely in the third.

Yes, no break points against Connors over 3 sets stands out. Regarding unreturned serves, I think it's more that Borg had less than usual. It's not like Connors had a lot. A few more, I suppose.

Just realized I have another match. Their 79 Pepsi match. I don't have points broken down by each of their serves. However, I the total points each won as well as each players winners and UE.

Total points I had Borg 70 to 58. Winners Connors 27 to 21. UE Connors 40 to 6. Not a mistake. Those are the figures I got. Borg clearly had more forced errors. but I didn't record them.

Show one big difference vs the US. Times at net, I had 53 to 4. And 3 of the 4 were Connors hit a drop that drew Borg in. Borg was in more at the 78 Open. There is an example of my recollection of a match and what happened, decades later, when I finally saw it again. I would not have thought that Borg had been at net more.

That Borg was hitting the ball really hard, I remembered. Reason I remembered that was how much Connors is running. Definitely more than Borg in the 3rd. I wasn't used to that. Even when Borg was beating him. It just made the memory stand out.

Be interesting if any of us do the same matches how our UE totals compare. Funny how you used that phrasing from the old days. Is it a shot Lendl would normally make. I found myself pondering that with some of Connors very deep service returns. Well, Borg makes those shots sometimes. I wound up saying no, that is a forced error by what I view as objective terms.

krosero said:

I think our UE counts today might be stricter because we tend to use clear rules of thumb, which have been developed over decades. Back in the 70s, the concept of the UE was very new and I'm not sure there were any clear guidelines.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%.

Now it's easy to untangle between statistics, the raw material is not missing ... we can make Mannarino-Sock stats in any Master 250.

Of the 70s we have some matches and the comparison on those few movies that we have is exciting because it explains some important aspects.

We never stop learning!
Especially if there are Borg & Connors.

Obviously there is a difference between analyzing 4 matches or 400 matches or having all the matches of the year available but the work / comparison in this thread seems to me to a really high level.

WCT said:

Be interesting if any of us do the same matches how our UE totals compare. Funny how you used that phrasing from the old days. Is it a shot Lendl would normally make. I found myself pondering that with some of Connors very deep service returns. Well, Borg makes those shots sometimes. I wound up saying no, that is a forced error by what I view as objective terms.

Click to expand...

Very interesting man, and yep that's exactly what I had in mind.

So Borg was at net 53 times in the '78 USO final? That also fits in with the perception that he was trying to end points early. Moose has him making a good number of volley/overhead winners (11) compared to groundstroke winners (14).

So '79 Pepsi, I've taken your total points won, and for the UE I'm putting in 6 for Borg and 40 for Connors (let me know if df's are not included). So AM is:

Borg: 18.8%
Connors: 9.4%

Those are really good AM's for a claycourt match, and much higher than the ones we got for '77 Pepsi, where both men had percentages hovering around zero.

No, Krosero. I meant Connors came in 53 times at the Pepsi. Borg came in 4 times. At the 78 US Open, I had Borg coming in 40 times to Connors 33. I had done the net stats years ago.

I don't think the Pepsi had any double faults by either player. Here are the stroke breakdowns if any are interested. Winners for Connors. FH 5 BH 6 FHV 6 BHV 7 Overhead 3. Borg FH 13 BH 4 FHV 2 BHV 2. Most of Borg's groundstroke winners were passing shots to none of Connors. Borg had no winners when they were both at the back of the court. Here certainly had some at the 78 US Open.

UE Borg FH 5 BH 1. Connors FH 16 BH 17 FHV 1 BHV 5 Overhead 1. Unreturned serves Borg had 15 and Connors 6. Unfortunately, I didn't break points down by player and how many were on each player's serve. So, we can't do the % unreturned, Still, 15 to 6 is a pretty big edge.

Oh, one more. Connors was 31 of 53 at net. Borg 4 of 4. At the 78 US, the % at net were Connors 26 of 33 and Borg 26 of 40.

What the hell, I did the 78 Pepsi match. Now we have all 3. Well, not all of them. This is a partial. It was 7-6, 3-6,6-1 Borg.
My copy starts at the tiebreaker in the 1st and cuts off at 5-1 15-30 Connors serving. Also the 2nd set cuts from the middle of one game to the middle of the next. I guess a few points missing.

I did stats on this before without winners and UE. Then I had 109 total points. 57-52 for Borg. Today I didn't do who won the points. Just who served them to do the unreturned serves %. I only have 108 points now. Connors serving 56 and Borg 52.

Here is what I got. Winner Connors FH 6 BH 6 FHV 5 BHV 2 Overhead 3. So 22. Borg FH 4 BH 6 = 10. UE Connors FH 16 BH 15 FHV 3 and Overhead 1. Borg FH 4 BH 5 BHV 1. Only 1 double fault and it was Borg. They each had what I viewed as 2 2nd serve return errors. Each 1 FH and BH. I already included them in their UE totals. Just pointing out that they were there. I'm pretty much not going to call an unreturned 1st serve an UE. Just more disclosure on how I track stats.

Again, I probably lean more not calling it an UE if in doubt. Approach shots have to be pretty weak for me to call the missed pass an UE. I called 1 on Borg and 1 on Connors in this match. A Connors approach that landed around the service line. If the approach is anywhere near the sideline and within several feet of the baseline I'm most likely not calling a missed pass an UE.

More stats. Net Connors 21 of 33 and Borg 4 of 12. Connors drew Borg in with dropped shots I'd say a good 6 times. Unreturned serves was Borg 9 and Connors 6. 5 of Connors winners were passing shots. 6 of Borg's were.

That's about it. Borg I guess by this point had decided to abandon the slice BH against Connors. Unless really stretched pretty much all topspin. Definitely not going for winners or really aggressive shots the way he was at the 78 US Open, though.

WCT said:

No, Krosero. I meant Connors came in 53 times at the Pepsi. Borg came in 4 times. At the 78 US Open, I had Borg coming in 40 times to Connors 33. I had done the net stats years ago.

I don't think the Pepsi had any double faults by either player. Here are the stroke breakdowns if any are interested. Winners for Connors. FH 5 BH 6 FHV 6 BHV 7 Overhead 3. Borg FH 13 BH 4 FHV 2 BHV 2. Most of Borg's groundstroke winners were passing shots to none of Connors. Borg had no winners when they were both at the back of the court. Here certainly had some at the 78 US Open.

UE Borg FH 5 BH 1. Connors FH 16 BH 17 FHV 1 BHV 5 Overhead 1. Unreturned serves Borg had 15 and Connors 6. Unfortunately, I didn't break points down by player and how many were on each player's serve. So, we can't do the % unreturned, Still, 15 to 6 is a pretty big edge.

Oh, one more. Connors was 31 of 53 at net. Borg 4 of 4. At the 78 US, the % at net were Connors 26 of 33 and Borg 26 of 40.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks, I see now what you meant above -- that Borg came in more than Connors, at the '78 USO.

That's surprising, I don't recall when we've ever noticed that. 33 approaches for Jimmy and 40 for Borg, not a great difference but it's still surprising, at least on this kind of court. On grass, Borg's net points might be higher than Connors' since he came in regularly behind first serves. On clay, carpet or hard, I wouldn't expect it.

But Borg clearly thought he had to do something different, in that situation. Whether it was a plan, or something he did as he started falling behind, I can't recall, without rewatching the match. But the end result was different.

It wasn't quite his game, what he was attempting (big groundstroke winners, frequent net rushing), but credit to him for taking those risks. If his serve had been giving his his usual edge in free points he could even have turned it into a tight match, though that blister was only going to get worse as the match wore on.

WCT said:

Borg I guess by this point had decided to abandon the slice BH against Connors. Unless really stretched pretty much all topspin. Definitely not going for winners or really aggressive shots the way he was at the 78 US Open, though.

Click to expand...

Yes in that '78 Pepsi match he told the press that he changed his strategy against Connors for the first time.

Some short reports from each of the Pepsi matches:

1977


1978


1979

In those 3 Pepsi matches, I would guess that Borg didn't have more than a half dozen clean winners from the backcourt. I mean when both players were back. I would include in that any Borg approach shot winners if Connors was back. I would not include something that happened in the 78 match. A Connors drop shot that Borg got to fairly easily and then hit a winner.

That stat they keep today, the distance each player ran during the match. I wished they had that for those 3 matches. Borg did so much more running. Again, that is what stood out about the 78 US Open. It wasn't reversed. It wasn't lopsided one way or the other. But by the 3rd set, I'd definitely say Connors was doing more running. I wasn't used to say then.

However, Borg won all 3 matches. If you can run enough of those shots down Connors will miss eventually. Can he hit enough winners/forcing shots to offset his errors. At the 76 US Open he could.

krosero said:

I agree, WCT, about Borg trying to end points early. And though I would pick a healthy Borg to win, I do think, more than I used to, that he might have lost anyway. Nevertheless I would argue that some of the stats in the match are anomalies and illustrate, or strongly suggest, the degree to which Borg was injured.

Click to expand...

While I have to sit down one day and watch this one from start to finish, from what I have seen, I tend to agree. Seemed like BB was hitting the ball pretty firmly, but being more aggressive than usual, probably looking to end the points faster, given the thumb problem. This was atypical for him. But it wasn't like the guy was unable to play....no way, not at all. Combine those factors with Connors bringing his "A" game and you get a very explainable result.

WCT said:

In those 3 Pepsi matches, I would guess that Borg didn't have more than a half dozen clean winners from the backcourt. I mean when both players were back. I would include in that any Borg approach shot winners if Connors was back. I would not include something that happened in the 78 match. A Connors drop shot that Borg got to fairly easily and then hit a winner.

That stat they keep today, the distance each player ran during the match. I wished they had that for those 3 matches. Borg did so much more running. Again, that is what stood out about the 78 US Open. It wasn't reversed. It wasn't lopsided one way or the other. But by the 3rd set, I'd definitely say Connors was doing more running. I wasn't used to say then.

However, Borg won all 3 matches. If you can run enough of those shots down Connors will miss eventually. Can he hit enough winners/forcing shots to offset his errors. At the 76 US Open he could.

Click to expand...

Would be tremendous to know how much ground was covered in those days, particularly in Borg's matches.

I like a lot about Borg's game, but his speed above all. Always been fascinated by it.

Interesting that Connors was doing more running than Borg by the third set, would you say that was because Borg was trying more than ever to rip winners -- or because Borg was running less for his shots than he was at the beginning?

Just noticed that Wasp has Borg coming to the net more than Connors, in the OP match ('80 YEC). So the fact that he came in more than Connors at '78 USO is not as unusual as I had thought. I said above that I wouldn't expect Borg to approach more than Connors, on clay, carpet or hard. But he did so, at least in the 80 YEC match, on carpet.

Checked my notes for their '81 USO sf, don't know if I ever posted these stats: by my own count Borg came in 27 times (winning only 13, or 48%), Connors 42 times (winning 28, exactly two-thirds).

krosero said:

Would be tremendous to know how much ground was covered in those days, particularly in Borg's matches.

I like a lot about Borg's game, but his speed above all. Always been fascinated by it.

Interesting that Connors was doing more running than Borg by the third set, would you say that was because Borg was trying more than ever to rip winners -- or because Borg was running less for his shots than he was at the beginning?

Click to expand...

The former. He is going for more on his shots. Doesn't have to be a clean winner. Could be hard shots deep into the corners. IMO, very noticeable later in the second and the third. But even before then I think he's going for more than he did in any of the Pepsi finals.

Regarding coming in more at the Masters, you can see he s/v 25 times. He would have never done that, on an indoor court, against Connors several years before. Only on one side of the court, though, and only to the BH side. Wide to the 2 hander. Indoors I mean. On grass was different. Anyway, those 25 s/v are what put him ahead. At the 78 Open, though, nowhere near that much. Maybe 8 to 10 times did Borg s/v. Same location. All wide to Connors BH.

Yes, Borg was about as good as it got at court coverage. That was another area he had over Connors. Not by much, but little advantages sometimes help win matches.

Tell me if I did these numbers wrong. The AM for the 78 Pepsi match. Since I had a conflict in points, I'm using the 109 and saying it was 57 to 52 points won for Borg.

So, Connors won 52 points -10 Borg UE. 42/109= 38.5%. 35 Connors UE /109= 32.1%. So his AM is 6.4%.

Borg 57 points won - 35 Connors UE = 22. 22/109= 20.2%. 10 Borg UE /109= 9.2%. So, 11% for Borg. Both in the positive range which you said wasn't always the case on clay courts.

BTW, i was mentioning other matches where Borg lost his racquet. It happened once in this Pepsi match. IIRC, once in another 78 match as well. Maybe the Masters. It wasn't something new at the 78 US Open although it did happen twice there.

WCT said:

The former. He is going for more on his shots. Doesn't have to be a clean winner. Could be hard shots deep into the corners. IMO, very noticeable later in the second and the third. But even before then I think he's going for more than he did in any of the Pepsi finals.

Regarding coming in more at the Masters, you can see he s/v 25 times. He would have never done that, on an indoor court, against Connors several years before. Only on one side of the court, though, and only to the BH side. Wide to the 2 hander. Indoors I mean. On grass was different. Anyway, those 25 s/v are what put him ahead. At the 78 Open, though, nowhere near that much. Maybe 8 to 10 times did Borg s/v. Same location. All wide to Connors BH.

Yes, Borg was about as good as it got at court coverage. That was another area he had over Connors. Not by much, but little advantages sometimes help win matches.

Tell me if I did these numbers wrong. The AM for the 78 Pepsi match. Since I had a conflict in points, I'm using the 109 and saying it was 57 to 52 points won for Borg.

So, Connors won 52 points -10 Borg UE. 42/109= 38.5%. 35 Connors UE /109= 32.1%. So his AM is 6.4%.

Borg 57 points won - 35 Connors UE = 22. 22/109= 20.2%. 10 Borg UE /109= 9.2%. So, 11% for Borg. Both in the positive range which you said wasn't always the case on clay courts.

BTW, i was mentioning other matches where Borg lost his racquet. It happened once in this Pepsi match. IIRC, once in another 78 match as well. Maybe the Masters. It wasn't something new at the 78 US Open although it did happen twice there.

Click to expand...

Those AM's are correct. And they're good ones, signs of good play.

Just going by the AM's the '79 Pepsi was the highest quality. But that was also my impression just watching it, and the reason that I made a highlight video of it. Borg really put on a clinic in that match with passing shots and was pretty much in the zone all-around.

I've seen Borg lose his racquet against Connors at '76 USO and '78 Wimb. Also vs. Lendl at '81 RG.

Waspsting said:

Bjorn Borg beat Jimmy Connors 6-4 6-7(4) 6-3 in the semi-final of the Masters (Year End Championship/ World Tour Final) 1980 on carpet

Serve Stats
Borg....
- 1st serve percentage (76/127) 60%

Connors. ...
- 1st serve percentage (75/95) 79%

Click to expand...

By the way you've got Borg serving a lot more points than Connors. Moose and I noticed this sometimes in our matches, where the winner of the match would serve a lot more than the loser. I can't say that we ever figured out any significance to this, but I still like to track it. Last night I looked at my stats for Borg-Connors at '81 USO, and there Borg served 100 points, Connors 98. Negligible difference but in my notes it says that it was the only time we had found Borg serving more than Connors, in all the matches we'd done (the others were 76USO, 77W, 78W, 78USO, 79W, 81W). And here you've got a 32-point difference, which I'd say is pretty big, certainly for a best-of-three match.

You do have Borg facing break point slightly more often than Connors but it's a small difference (15-12) and not really enough to say that Borg was struggling through his services.

I think sometimes this stat CAN indicate that a player is struggling to hold, struggling to keep up with a superior opponent. But a high number might also result, I think, from his ability to save break points, ie, he's lengthening his service games, in a good way.

Not sure, just thought it was interesting to point out.

Just today I found a new boxscore for a Tilden-Cochet match from 1934. Tilden won in 5 sets, and the boxscore shows him serving 182 points, Cochet only 142. Which is just about as large a difference as you ever see. Tilden actually only won 57.7% of his service points, while Cochet was at 60.6%. Yet Tilden won the match (and trailed in total points by 161-163).

krosero said:

By the way you've got Borg serving a lot more points than Connors. Moose and I noticed this sometimes in our matches, where the winner of the match would serve a lot more than the loser. I can't say that we ever figured out any significance to this, but I still like to track it.

Last night I looked at my stats for Borg-Connors at '81 USO, and there Borg served 100 points, Connors 98. Negligible difference but in my notes it says that it was the only time we had found Borg serving more than Connors, in all the matches we'd done (the others were 76USO, 77W, 78W, 78USO, 79W, 81W). And here you've got a 32-point difference, which I'd say is pretty big, certainly for a best-of-three match.

Click to expand...

I found that odd too.

Usually i'd take it to be a sign that one player was holding more easily than the other, but that's not really true here. Connors was getting broken easily at times accounts for some of it


Connors was broken to love twice and 15 once.
Borg's weakest non-holds were 2 30s

Only 3 Connors games went to deuce - 2 8 pointers and 1 10

7 Borg games did - 4 8 pointers, a 10 and 2 long games (14 and 18)

----------

Unrelated, I've noticed a stats taking methodology issue that turns the numbers in this match on its had

I've counted failed approaches as baseline points but they can legitimately be marked net points too

My way, Connors edges Borg 57-55 from the baseline. The other way, he destroys him 57-39

The swings to the roundabouts of this is that at net, Connors goes from a sub-par 50% to an abysmal 36%

(Borg may have made approach errors too but I'd say 3 at most and possibly 0)

I noted in my '77 Boca thread that Connors made a "fair few" approach errors

I get the feeling that one of the big differences between the two men was their flexibility of mind

Over the years, Borg streamlined/beefed up his serves, BH, slices, volleys.... wherever he thought he needed a little dial up, he did it

Connors strikes me as a stubborn cuss, who couldn't be bothered to fix routine approach shot technique or the most important shot of all, the serve(?)

Waspsting said:

Over the years, Borg streamlined/beefed up his serves, BH, slices, volleys.... wherever he thought he needed a little dial up, he did it

Connors strikes me as a stubborn cuss, who couldn't be bothered to fix routine approach shot technique or the most important shot of all, the serve(?)

Click to expand...

I agree, without a doubt Borg has improved significantly over the years while Connors did not improve anymore after 1976 (or 1978).
I do not know if for a little intelligence (I do not think) or because he had reached his limit. A physical limit in my opinion.

Waspsting said:

I found that odd too.

Usually i'd take it to be a sign that one player was holding more easily than the other, but that's not really true here. Connors was getting broken easily at times accounts for some of it


Connors was broken to love twice and 15 once.
Borg's weakest non-holds were 2 30s

Only 3 Connors games went to deuce - 2 8 pointers and 1 10

7 Borg games did - 4 8 pointers, a 10 and 2 long games (14 and 18)

----------

Unrelated, I've noticed a stats taking methodology issue that turns the numbers in this match on its had

I've counted failed approaches as baseline points but they can legitimately be marked net points too

My way, Connors edges Borg 57-55 from the baseline. The other way, he destroys him 57-39

The swings to the roundabouts of this is that at net, Connors goes from a sub-par 50% to an abysmal 36%

(Borg may have made approach errors too but I'd say 3 at most and possibly 0)

I noted in my '77 Boca thread that Connors made a "fair few" approach errors

I get the feeling that one of the big differences between the two men was their flexibility of mind

Over the years, Borg streamlined/beefed up his serves, BH, slices, volleys.... wherever he thought he needed a little dial up, he did it

Connors strikes me as a stubborn cuss, who couldn't be bothered to fix routine approach shot technique or the most important shot of all, the serve(?)

Click to expand...

Believe me, you are not the first person to comment on Connors being stubborn about adapting his game. In Frank Deford's famous piece on him, from 1978, I remember a quote from Dick Stockton. Something like, if Jimmy wanted to work on his game, he'd have Lornie Kuhle(his then practice partner/travel companion) make him hit 1.000 low forehand approach shots a day. As I said earlier, at the time, that was generally considered to be his biggest weakness.

I'm skeptical that, if we checked all the matches, Connors was coming out ahead on baseline points. One thing, you can't just count missed approach shots as net points. The approach shot winners have to count as net points as well. In my mind, it's either one or the other.

I have actually kept that stat in pretty much all my matches. Problem is, I didn't separate them. I just have one number for both. I kept it because I thought of them as net points in a sense.

Anyway, Connors has some matches where that number is pretty high. I had Connors with 26 at the 76 US Open final, 23 at 77 Wimbleon final and I had 25 for this Masters match. Again, though, you'd need it broken down to determine. Of course, we need to do the same with Borg for his approach winners/errors. They are now net points, too.

Clean winners when both players make no move towards the net are baseline points. Anecdotally, I think Borg would have come out ahead in the majority of cases. Baseline only points. Perhaps I'm wrong. We know Borg was almost always ahead in serve free points.

In some cases, you are going to need a lot of approach errors from Connors because some of his net % are very high. The 50% in this match was absolutely an anomaly. Certainly in the matches I charted.

WCT said:

That stat they keep today, the distance each player ran during the match. I wished they had that for those 3 matches. Borg did so much more running.

Click to expand...

Maybe you saw these stats at Wimbledon.org.

Anderson ran an average of 25.6 feet per point in his semi over Isner, who ran 27.6 feet (interestingly the average in the fifth set was slightly higher, for each player, than the full-match average)

Djokovic and Nadal? 51.4 feet and 54.3 feet, respectively.

I saw that stat. I deliberately looked because I was curious. It seemed that Nadal was doing more running.

Nadal, there is a perfect example of a guy who is willing to adapt his play. He'll do anything, work on anything to try to win. He may not be s/v at Wimbledon, but he was clearly going for more on many of his shots. He's hurt Djokovic an move forward in a way he wouldn't at Paris. Least not nearly as often.