They weren't spendable for him though. Every year the US Open rolls around, Connors has said that he always remembers his 1991 run more fondly than any of his titles there. Plus there were so many other highlights like beating a resurgent Mac in a final in Toulouse in 1989, his comeback against Pernfors at Wimbledon in 1987 etc.
.
IMO fitness and mental strength are basic elements, and significant improvements in those will make a much stronger player. That's putting it mildly, because in the most dramatic instances a player can become transformed, particularly if he overcomes mental obstacles. That certainly happened with Lendl.I agree.As I posted before, I saw Lendl many times in the period 1980-1982 and he did not get any bit better later on at all except that he improved fitness and mental strength because that is simply what he nedeed to improve.
This I don't understand, because Connors finished behind three players in the Slam events -- Mac, Lendl and Wilander. And he lost his H2H with all three players that year.'84 was a very strong year for Connors; if not for McEnroe, he easily could've been the #1 player. Surely, he would've won Wimbledon and squared off against Lendl in both the RG and USO finals.
This I don't understand, because Connors finished behind three players in the Slam events -- Mac, Lendl and Wilander. And he lost his H2H with all three players that year.
Without McEnroe, Connors would probably have taken Wimbledon, if he could get past Cash (not a gimme considering how spent Jimmy was after the semis). And he would have met Lendl in the USO final -- a match he could definitely have won, though I think it would have been more difficult for him than in '82 or '83.
But he would not have beaten Lendl at RG, and I'm not sure he would have even made the final there. One of the players McEnroe beat at RG was Jose Higueras, who swept Connors at RG in '82 and had Jimmy's number on clay in those years.
So yeah, if Connors takes both Wimbledon and the USO, he'd be #1 for the year. But it would not have been easy, and it would still have been close, since Lendl would have won both RG and the Masters.
With McEnroe out of the picture I can see Lendl beating Connors at both RG and the Masters, and Connors returning the favor at Wimbledon -- with a hell of a match at the USO going possibly to either one.
Yes, I agree w/your assessment...I should've left out the word "easy" It would not have been easy for him, but certainly very possible to reach #1 in '84. I do think '84 Connors would not have been troubled much by Cash; Jimmy didn't start having those crises of confidence until a bit later on. And, assuming that he would've split Wimby and RG with Lendl, it would've come down to a USO slugfest that, at that particular time, could have gone either way.
Lendl had a winning h2h record with many of his rivals
Lend vs rival
. 21 - 15 ... J McEnroe
. 22 - 13 ... J Connors
. 13 - 14 ... S Edberg
. 15 - 07 ... M Wilander
. 11 - 10 ... B Becker
. 02 - 06 ... B Borg
That's just to show how much Lendl is so underrated on this forum while Jan Kodes or Margaret Court is so overrated.
Did I read right? KODES OVERRATED?
That's just to show how much Lendl is so underrated on this forum while Jan Kodes or Margaret Court is so overrated.
And can you please explain to me your logic on why Margaret Court is overrated?
Lendl is underrated but the head to heads are quite misleading since many of these players were older than Lendl and were beaten consistently by Lendl after they went over the hill.
I've already explained it. Court 11 AO titles was against a weak fields and many experts have said it too. The establishment of the WTA in the 70s sparks the growing of women's tennis. Open era got stronger as it combines with pro and amateur as one tour. It continue to be a global sport as more athletes, more international events made it very competitive. There's NO WAY Court can win 11 AO and/or 24 slams in the open era. People don't even recognize her 24 slams as a benchmark, but it's Graf 22 slams.
Connors was older than Lendl, but Borg beat a young Lendl, then retire early so he didn't allow Lendl to have a chance to even the score, hence misleading h2h. Mac is about the same age as Lendl. Wilander and Becker are younger than Lendl, so they can't be over the hill when they met.
I might argue that Wilander, Connors and Agassi had more well rounded "all surface" careers than Ivan....it's a bit dicey on how to assess this. But, these 3 guys were very comfortable on all the surfaces for the most part and won at least 1 GS event on each surface. Ivan just had very few wins on grass against his top rivals, despite some wimby finals and 2 Queens titles. Whereas you could point to the others and say they had some key wins against their top rivals on their relatively worst surfaces. Wilander sliced up Mac and Lendl on the Aussie grass, which is often forgotten now. But, otherwise, Ivan had a fantastic career....no real argument about that.
I might argue that Wilander, Connors and Agassi had more well rounded "all surface" careers than Ivan....it's a bit dicey on how to assess this. But, these 3 guys were very comfortable on all the surfaces for the most part and won at least 1 GS event on each surface. Ivan just had very few wins on grass against his top rivals, despite some wimby finals and 2 Queens titles. Whereas you could point to the others and say they had some key wins against their top rivals on their relatively worst surfaces. Wilander sliced up Mac and Lendl on the Aussie grass, which is often forgotten now. But, otherwise, Ivan had a fantastic career....no real argument about that.
Panatta and Pecci, the only men to beat officialy Borg on clay since many years had a great mixture of touch,net reach and great S&V ability being the only s&v players raised on clay until Noah developed latwr
On US faster clay only Connors defeated Borg and that is due to the extremely bold and agressive all court attack that middle 70 Connors was able to play consistently and with unmatched confidence,as well as har tru being a bit
faster than red clay
Connors did not play a bad match; Courier did not give him very many opportunities and he kept the crowd out of it. Which is just what he needed to do. If he gave Connors an inch, he would've lost miles.....that's pretty much what happened to each of the guys before him. Harhuis had his match in hand, but let Connors in and then it totally and utterly got away from him.
Sharp match from Courier, but sadly, he played a crappy final. Connors would've put up a much stiffer fight against Edberg...particularly since he had a strong record over him.
Connors was past his prime before Lendl came into his. Although Connors continued to compete for another 7-8 years after he was passed his prime, he was clearly not as great as he was in the 70's up to 82'.
You might make the same argument for McEnroe. Lendl's prime began in about 1984. After 1984, Mac's level of play dropped off just enough to make him something less than an all time great from there on out. IMO, it was caused by cocaine abuse. If not for that, both McEnroe's and Lendl's careers would not look like they do in retrospect.
Wilander's prime coincided with Lendl's and, IMO, Lendl was clearly the better player.
Becker's peak also coincided with Lendl's, although Becker was a bit younger. Becker may have had a slightly higher level of play at his absolute peak, but, Lendl was the more consistent champion between the two.
I've already explained it. Court 11 AO titles was against a weak fields and many experts have said it too. The establishment of the WTA in the 70s sparks the growing of women's tennis. Open era got stronger as it combines with pro and amateur as one tour. It continue to be a global sport as more athletes, more international events made it very competitive. There's NO WAY Court can win 11 AO and/or 24 slams in the open era. People don't even recognize her 24 slams as a benchmark, but it's Graf 22 slams.
Connors was older than Lendl, but Borg beat a young Lendl, then retire early so he didn't allow Lendl to have a chance to even the score, hence misleading h2h. Mac is about the same age as Lendl. Wilander and Becker are younger than Lendl, so they can't be over the hill when they met.
Red clay was pretty important and prominent surface, and Connors didn't win a single title on it during his career, and in-fact only reached 2 finals on it, both in 1981. If he was more well rounded than Lendl surely he would have been able to win at least one title in red clay on Europe, but he couldn't. The Italian Open, the Germany Open, the Monte-Carlo Open, the Spanish Open, all prestigious tournaments with a rich history and Connors has no titles at any of those events. And at RG he never really looked hugely comfortable on the surface there (I would say he looked less comfortable on the RG clay than Lendl did on the Wimbledon grass). Plus he didn't really score that many really impressive victories at the tournament, with his R4 win over Orantes probably his best one.
Also about 70% of Connors's titles came in his home country the US, and he didn't even win that many titles in mainland Europe. Lendl still won all of the most important North American tournaments than Connors did, but had a far better record than Connors across the the most important European tournaments overall.
Wilander never reached the final 4 at the biggest grass court tournament at Wimbledon, and never won the biggest tournament on carpet at the Masters. In fact he only won three indoor titles during his career, despite playing in an era when indoor and carpet tennis was very prominent and important.
Across all tournaments on all surface specifications in all geographical locations, Lendl was more of day-in-day-out threat than either Connors or Wilander were.
good remark.Also despite Becker getting the better of Lendl in their big clashes, beating him 7 times out of 11 in grand slam/YEC matches, it was very impressive that, Lendl despite being over 7 and a half years older, was able to win their final 2 matches to turn their h2h around in his favour.
I don't think Jimbo ever had a crisis of confidence! Over-confidence, maybe. I believe his decline after 84 was due to age and injuries. It had nothing to do with confidence.
Red clay was pretty important and prominent surface, and Connors didn't win a single title on it during his career, and in-fact only reached 2 finals on it, both in 1981. If he was more well rounded than Lendl surely he would have been able to win at least one title in red clay on Europe, but he couldn't. The Italian Open, the Germany Open, the Monte-Carlo Open, the Spanish Open, all prestigious tournaments with a rich history and Connors has no titles at any of those events. And at RG he never really looked hugely comfortable on the surface there (I would say he looked less comfortable on the RG clay than Lendl did on the Wimbledon grass). Plus he didn't really score that many really impressive victories at the tournament, with his R4 win over Orantes probably his best one.
Also about 70% of Connors's titles came in his home country the US, and he didn't even win that many titles in mainland Europe. Lendl still won all of the most important North American tournaments than Connors did, but had a far better record than Connors across the the most important European tournaments overall.
Wilander never reached the final 4 at the biggest grass court tournament at Wimbledon, and never won the biggest tournament on carpet at the Masters. In fact he only won three indoor titles during his career, despite playing in an era when indoor and carpet tennis was very prominent and important.
Across all tournaments on all surface specifications in all geographical locations, Lendl was more of day-in-day-out threat than either Connors or Wilander were.
He didn't play a crappy final by his own admission. Edberg blitzed him. It was an awesome performance.
You aren't giving Ivan enough credit. He beat Connors 17 times in a row. He had the smarts and the guts to change his tatics by junkballing Jimmy to beat him and frustrate him. Connors was not an ordinary over 30 "fading great player". If Ivan would have stuck to his old strategy of feeding Jimmy pace there is no way he could have run off 17 in a row on him.
You aren't giving Ivan enough credit. He beat Connors 17 times in a row. He had the smarts and the guts to change his tatics by junkballing Jimmy to beat him and frustrate him. Connors was not an ordinary over 30 "fading great player". If Ivan would have stuck to his old strategy of feeding Jimmy pace there is no way he could have run off 17 in a row on him.
Not so sure about that...there were some weird losses in finals during 85 thru 87. Christo Van Rensburg? I mean, c'mon now. Not to mention the lapse in the '87 Wimby semi (yeah, Cash was hot, but Connors had just beaten him week prior). And, that Queens final loss against Becker? The old Connors would've won some of these, I think...most of them, actually. I think the long string of losses started to play games with his head..But, yeah, the injuries (back for instance) were catching up with him.
Yes and I thought his suspension in early '86 had a particularly negative effect on him, mentally.Not so sure about that...there were some weird losses in finals during 85 thru 87. Christo Van Rensburg? I mean, c'mon now. Not to mention the lapse in the '87 Wimby semi (yeah, Cash was hot, but Connors had just beaten him week prior). And, that Queens final loss against Becker? The old Connors would've won some of these, I think...most of them, actually. I think the long string of losses started to play games with his head..But, yeah, the injuries (back for instance) were catching up with him.
And lost 11 career finals indoors. Not a good record at all.Wilander never reached the final 4 at the biggest grass court tournament at Wimbledon, and never won the biggest tournament on carpet at the Masters. In fact he only won three indoor titles during his career, despite playing in an era when indoor and carpet tennis was very prominent and important.
Those stats are very deceiving. Connors was past his prime in most of those encounters, but even in '82-'84 when Connors was losing most of the time and clearly past his prime, he found a way to beat Lendl when it mattered the most. Despite those stats, I think Connors had Lendl's number.
Borg retired before Lendl reached peak form. I think the numbers would have been closer.
Mac, Edberg, Wilander, and Becker were closer contemporaries to Lendl. Early on, Mac had a hard time figuring out how to beat Lendl who seemed to push him around a lot. Mac finally figured out that he had more success by staying aggressive and their matches were more even after that.
Connors never played the red Euro clay circuit with any regularity...certainly not in his prime years. So there is no simple way to factor it in. He won numerous US clay court titles. So, if you consider his results on the green stuff radically different and somehow inferior to what Lendl accomplished on the Euro red clay, that's your choice. I do not, in part because he did beat some of the very top Euro clay guys in his prime years of 74-78.
Lendl was miserable on grass, I am sorry to say. When did he ever really look comfortable? Against the best grass court players of his day, he simply looked BAD. And I'd attribute at least some of that to his decision to play an S&V game he was never quite comfortable with. Mac, Connors, Becker, Cash, even Edberg, at times made him look quite inadequate on the grass.
If I had to pick one guy across all surfaces, it would be Wilander. He was probably the smartest, steadiest and could mix up his game plan much more than all the others could. Wimbledon was a miss, no doubt, but he could surely play on the grass. And never looked as "off" as Lendl did on the turf.
good remark.
in addition to what you wrote, he also won their last slam match, coming back from 2 sets to 1 at the US open in 1992 !
and in addition to the aforementioned rivalries with connors, mac, wilander, becker and edberg (maybe also with cash, even if -partly because of cash's injuries- they only played 8 matches ?), it's also impressive to see how well he "resisted" to the new generation of young players towards the end of his career (dominating records over agassi, ivanisevic, stich, courier and chang, for instance). but i'm going a bit off-topic, i think...
Connors avoiding Euro clay events is a big knock against him. He had the choice to play them more regularly, but didn't take it. He is rightly praised for being such a fighter, but he systematically avoided playing tournaments on his weakest surface, which does highlight some cowardice. If Lendl had avoided playing grass court tournaments, imagine the outrage that would have caused. Lendl trying and ultimately failing to Wimbledon (but coming close) reflects better on him, than Connors ducking big European clay court tournaments (obviously not in 1974 though) during his prime and his career.
He preferred the more comfortable and cushy lifestyle of racking up titles at home in the USA (a lot of them relatively minor ones), rather than trying to conquer his worst surface in Europe. I can't blame him for that, but still you would think that a guy like him would be more up for the challenge, but obviously not.
Of course Connors deserve praise for his exploits on green clay, but green clay is no red clay. And as Borg showed right from 1973, facing Connors in the USA was a totally different proposition to facing him anywhere else.
Connors, like Becker and McEnroe, failed to win singles titles on all surface specifications available to them which is a blemish on their CVs compared to other greats.
Even Sampras who was clearly not as good at Connors on clay, was able to win a big title on Euro red clay.
LOL miserable on grass that is hilarious and shows a huge lack of perspective. He looked excellent on grass from 1983-1990, when he reached the final 4 at Wimbledon or better every year apart from 1985, losing to elite grass court players or dangerous shotmakers every year. He also looked excellent on grass when he beat Edberg at Wimbledon in 1987 and crushed Becker in the 1990 Queen's final (grass court perfection according to Dan Maskell).
If Lendl was miserable on grass, how would you describe Connors on the red clay at RG, absolutely useless?
And if Lendl was miserable on grass, why did he win 2 more titles on it than Connors was ever able to win on red clay?
Lendl was better at serve-volleying at Wimbledon than Connors was at handling the higher bounce, slower pace and different footwork requirements on the RG clay.
Wilander was a very tactically versatile player (as he demonstrated no less in the 1985 RG final when he completely outsmarted Lendl).
Still he was 'off' at Wimbledon many times. Unlike Lendl he never put himself in the competition to compete for the title, but was still blown away at Wimbledon by Cash and Mecir, only won one set in his 3 Wimbledon quarter-finals, and lost in the 1st round in 1985 to Zivojinovic.
And he also looked 'off' in his biggest matches indoors, when he only won 3 finals out of 14.
Connors avoiding Euro clay events is a big knock against him. He had the choice to play them more regularly, but didn't take it. He is rightly praised for being such a fighter, but he systematically avoided playing tournaments on his weakest surface, which does highlight some cowardice. If Lendl had avoided playing grass court tournaments, imagine the outrage that would have caused. Lendl trying and ultimately failing to Wimbledon (but coming close) reflects better on him, than Connors ducking big European clay court tournaments (obviously not in 1974 though) during his prime and his career.
He preferred the more comfortable and cushy lifestyle of racking up titles at home in the USA (a lot of them relatively minor ones), rather than trying to conquer his worst surface in Europe. I can't blame him for that, but still you would think that a guy like him would be more up for the challenge, but obviously not.
Of course Connors deserve praise for his exploits on green clay, but green clay is no red clay. And as Borg showed right from 1973, facing Connors in the USA was a totally different proposition to facing him anywhere else.
Connors, like Becker and McEnroe, failed to win singles titles on all surface specifications available to them which is a blemish on their CVs compared to other greats.
Even Sampras who was clearly not as good at Connors on clay, was able to win a big title on Euro red clay.
LOL miserable on grass that is hilarious and shows a huge lack of perspective. He looked excellent on grass from 1983-1990, when he reached the final 4 at Wimbledon or better every year apart from 1985, losing to elite grass court players or dangerous shotmakers every year. He also looked excellent on grass when he beat Edberg at Wimbledon in 1987 and crushed Becker in the 1990 Queen's final (grass court perfection according to Dan Maskell).
If Lendl was miserable on grass, how would you describe Connors on the red clay at RG, absolutely useless?
And if Lendl was miserable on grass, why did he win 2 more titles on it than Connors was ever able to win on red clay?
Lendl was better at serve-volleying at Wimbledon than Connors was at handling the higher bounce, slower pace and different footwork requirements on the RG clay.
Wilander was a very tactically versatile player (as he demonstrated no less in the 1985 RG final when he completely outsmarted Lendl).
Still he was 'off' at Wimbledon many times. Unlike Lendl he never put himself in the competition to compete for the title, but was still blown away at Wimbledon by Cash and Mecir, only won one set in his 3 Wimbledon quarter-finals, and lost in the 1st round in 1985 to Zivojinovic.
And he also looked 'off' in his biggest matches indoors, when he only won 3 finals out of 14.[/QUOTE
Lets be fair.Ivan skipped grass till 83
Lets be fair.Ivan skipped grass till 83
That's right! He even told the press he was allergic to grass. Then they photographed him playing golf! :lol:
Lets be fair.Ivan skipped grass till 83
Lendl didn't completely skip grass until 1983. He played at Wimbledon from 1979-1981 without much success, losing early to Aussie players each time. In 1981 he lost to the qualifier Charlie Fancutt in 5 sets in the 1st round, the last time he would lose in the 1st round of a major until 1993.
During that initial period he struggled a lot on the surface.
The only year he skipped Wimbledon was in 1982 (and famously so), and he was rightly criticised for that. He didn't have the right attitude towards grass court tennis back then, but he quickly saw the error of his ways, and from 1983 he was fully dedicated towards trying to win Wimbledon.
Overall he had a much better attitude towards grass court tennis than Connors did to European clay court tennis I would say, not to mention better results.
Connors was a homeboy and a great one too.
He was. He didn't like Europe too much, but not everyone does. LOL
The US Open was played on green clay in 75-77. All three years, Connors was in the final and in 76 he beat Vilas and Borg to win it. Vilas was in his prime. Borg was young, but he did win Wimbledon that year, so he was extremely formidable. Borg and Vilas were great on green clay, and they played a lot of tune-ups on green clay. I don't see why people are diminishing that as an accomplishment. I suppose some people can't be satisfied with anything.
Lendl didn't completely skip grass until 1983. He played at Wimbledon from 1979-1981 without much success, losing early to Aussie players each time. In 1981 he lost to the qualifier Charlie Fancutt in 5 sets in the 1st round, the last time he would lose in the 1st round of a major until 1993.
During that initial period he struggled a lot on the surface.
The only year he skipped Wimbledon was in 1982 (and famously so), and he was rightly criticised for that. He didn't have the right attitude towards grass court tennis back then, but he quickly saw the error of his ways, and from 1983 he was fully dedicated towards trying to win Wimbledon.
Overall he had a much better attitude towards grass court tennis than Connors did to European clay court tennis I would say, not to mention better results.
Connors was a homeboy and a great one too.
Even Sampras who was clearly not as good at Connors on clay, was able to win a big title on Euro red clay.
LOL miserable on grass that is hilarious and shows a huge lack of perspective. He looked excellent on grass from 1983-1990, when he reached the final 4 at Wimbledon or better every year apart from 1985, losing to elite grass court players or dangerous shotmakers every year. He also looked excellent on grass when he beat Edberg at Wimbledon in 1987 and crushed Becker in the 1990 Queen's final (grass court perfection according to Dan Maskell).
If Lendl was miserable on grass, how would you describe Connors on the red clay at RG, absolutely useless?
And if Lendl was miserable on grass, why did he win 2 more titles on it than Connors was ever able to win on red clay?
Lendl was better at serve-volleying at Wimbledon than Connors was at handling the higher bounce, slower pace and different footwork requirements on the RG clay.
IMO the toughest rival for Jimbo in 82 may have been Vilas who beat him at 2 indoor finals in Spring
1982 not only saw Connors revival but also Vilas revival and both players freed from their conqueror Borg!!!
What a terrific year!!! Mac and Lendl struggling to take Borg' s crown, who found a heritier at Wilander and two classics dominating the tour!!
Vilas beat twice Connors and twice Lendl at great tournament finals and barely lost to Wilander at RG final and at the end of the year lost to Connors at the US Open semis, to Macat the Masters semis and to his former owner Lendl at the Detroit WCT winter finals
That was the effect of Borg's retirement
Vilas and Connors took Ivan and Mac role and Wilander squeezed into
A memorable season by any means
Vilas had a very good 1982, this is true. He kind of faded after that.
So can we conclude it was McEnroe?