Clearly, this is a debate in psychology perhaps more than actual tennis...but, I do think in 1985 Connors was a shadow of his old self. He won 5 tournaments in '84 and was runner up 3 times in 1984. In '85, he only made r/up in 2 events. It was not a very good year, even tho' he maintained a decent ranking and was in 3 GS semis (respectable, granted, but not a successful year by JC standards). Jimmy really was much better in '84 and I think the results point to that.
I don't think there's any question that in '85 Connors declined from the previous year. But in '84 he was also a shadow of his former self, if we're talking about clay. He had not won a clay event since 1980. He was double-bageled at Forest Hills, as PC1 said, on the same surface where he once won the USO. That would not have happened to him even on his worst day in the 70s. I think PC1 also noted that Connors was no longer as fast as he used to be according to comments that Lendl made after the Forest Hills match.
I see decline from '84 to '85, but Connors was already far from his best days in the 70s on Har-Tru. I don't see any kind of twelve-month decline where I could imagine that he'd be double-bageled by Lendl on Har-Tru and then, in the French Open final, on red clay, suddenly start playing the dazzling hard-court tennis that took Lendl down at Flushing Meadows.
Mere desire from Connors is not going to change their claycourt rallies into hardcourt rallies. You can see the dynamics of their claycourt matches in the Forest Hills match (6-0, 6-0) and the French Open semi (6-2, 6-3, 6-1).
He did reach the #2 ranking late in the year, I seem to recall.
Yes he reached #2 late in '84. But he was ranked #2 as late as April '85.
I think '85 WAS the breakthrough year for Lendl and the criticism was in fact fading. Re: Connors, he really got that "monkey" off his back in the Masters semis, where he came from behind to win that 3 setter when it looked like Jimmy would close it out. He never lost again to Connors from '85 on (tho' there were some close ones in the mix).
I have made similar points about the Masters match. Something subtle but real did happen there. But it did not get the monkey off his back. Lendl was still stuck firmly in the #2 spot, losing finals decisively to McEnroe, including that Masters final. When the French rolled around plenty of people believed that he was defending champion only because McEnroe had choked.
It was really the '85 USO that was a decisive turn -- but if you remember, even then he had his doubters. It was not until deep into '86 that people began thinking of Lendl as a sort of iron man of tennis and realized that he was going to be hard to dislodge from #1.
I watched that match on TV; had forgotten it was '84, not '85. And, Mac was impressive in downing Lendl in the final the next day. [only to screw it up a few weeks later!] Lendl was playing very, very well in that semi, and Jimmy was well, just flat. Which started happening more and more to him in his 30's. So, I tend to agree that Lendl would have a big advantage in a hypothetical '84 RG final, but one would think that JC would be highly motivated, Lendl a bit nervous and the crowd likely behind Connors. RG crowds have always been rowdy...maybe not like the USO, but much more involved than Wimby.
That's right, he did come out flat in many of his matches at this time, including the '84 Forest Hills final and the '84 Wimbledon final. At Wimbledon he seemed simply tired. That did not seem to be the case in his two losses to Lendl at Forest Hills and the French. But if he played "flat" in those matches, there's a specific reason for that. Lendl was hardly giving him the pace that Connors thrived on. Connors had nothing to work with, and had to generate the pace himself. He had nothing with which to create his fireworks. He was getting older, of course, but that double-bagel on clay was in '84: the dynamics of their claycourt matches were already in place.
And yet it was nothing new for Connors to lose in straight sets at the French, which is why I have such a hard time with the implication that he lost quickly to Lendl mostly due to age. Go back to '83, he lost in straights to an unseeded Frenchman. In '82, one of Connors' best years, he lost to Jose Higueras 6-2, 6-2, 6-2.
From the AP:
"... Higueras gave Connors a lesson in slow surface tennis. The 29-year-old Spaniard seldom left the baseline and kept his patience during long rallies that sometimes lasted 30 or 40 strokes.... While Higueras was content to stay back, hitting one long, looping shot after another, Connors tried from time to time to step up the pace – with disastrous results. Too many of his attacking forehands went into the net."
In '81 Connors pushed Clerc to five sets but was bageled in the fifth set (which reminds me, Lendl has a better five-set record than Connors does).
Even as far back as the '75 USO, you could describe Connors as "flat" when he lost in straights to Orantes on Har-Tru. That's largely because Orantes was extremely successful at slowing down the pace.
So I'm not sure how Connors in '84 would have been young enough to avoid all these problems that he had when he faced Lendl on clay.
Connors was much better on clay than Lendl ever was on grass, respectively. I think results support that as well.
Not in the 80s.
Hard to back-cast an '85 RG semi to a hypothetical '84 RG final between Lendl and Connors. Sure, Ivan would be favored and on his best surface, but the mental pressure would've been tremendous. I would also pick Ivan to win that match, but at that point, Jimmy was a bigger task for him to beat than was McEnroe.
Lendl had double-bageled Connors at Forest Hills, and then lost to McEnroe in the final. McEnroe beat him again on clay that spring. And of course Lendl was barely able to beat McEnroe at the French. It is emphatically not true that Lendl found Connors more difficult to defeat on clay than he found McEnroe.
It isn't even true on the fast surfaces. Lendl has two wins over Connors on fast surfaces in the '84 season. None over McEnroe.
