Connors' brilliant response to Ashe's criticism of his game

[sandy mayer]

This is what Connors said in his autobiography, 'The Outsider':


Understandably, Arthur was desperate to win in South Africa, maybe more so than in any other tournament. I later read that he had identified the weaknesses in my game that he intended to exploit.

They were as follows: My serve. (I'll give him that -- it was only as good as it needed to be.)

My forehand. (Only in comparison with my backhand, which was only the best in the game. Quiet -- this is my book.)

Shots with no pace. (People always said that, but I never saw it as a weakness.)

My overhead. (Just because I'm short? I resent that.)

Ashe's mistake was to underestimate my groundstrokes, just as he had in Boston, and I blew him away in three straight sets for my 17th tournament win. With so many weaknesses, I sure won a lot....


I have to say I agree with every word Connors said. I remember reading Ashe's criticism of Connors' game long before 'The Outsider' and I remember thinking the same as Connors. I think Ashe was ridiculously harsh about Connors, which is surprising because Ashe was highly intelligent and astute.

 

[Mustard]

Doesn't the 1975 Wimbledon final prove that Ashe had a point? Normally, Ashe played a power game, and went toe to toe with his opponent. In that Wimbledon final, he was using soft balls and angles, making Connors run and generate his own pace. In the third set and early in the fourth set, a more intense Connors was threatening to turn it all around and dominate, but then Ashe reasserted his strategy. And it was a very big upset at the time. Virtually everyone thought that Connors was going to win that final at the start of the match. One could even say that Connors' invincibility aura never returned after that match and seemed to transfer to Borg, even though Connors remained a formidable top player for a long time to come.

Lendl later on came to similar conclusions about Connors. Earlier in Lendl's career, his powerful ground game overwhelmed most players, even McEnroe in 1981-82, but Connors seemed to thrive on Lendl's power. Later on, Lendl used less power against Connors in groundstroke rallies, what Connors at the 1992 US Open called "bunting the ball". In that 1992 US Open match, Connors was being more intense and aggressive, including serve and volleying, forcing the issue and he won the first set. Lendl though refused to change tactics and slowly ground Connors down as Connors got more fatigued.

Connors and Ashe had an interesting and complex relationship. They seemed to get on well some times, and at other times were bitter rivals. In 1973-1975, there were bitter disputes about the ATP including a legal suit, and the 1984 Davis Cup final in Gothenburg was a hilarious fallout with the US team captained by Ashe. Ashe had managed to persuade Connors, for the only time in his career, to dedicate a full year to the Davis Cup in 1984.

 

[jrepac]

It's fair to say that Ashe and Connors did not get along. Ashe's assessment is a bit over the top. Did anyone else beat Jimmy in a major final w/that strategy? No. Re: Lendl, to be frank, his strategy really paid off when Connors was much older (35+). I've wondered if Jimmy had been younger, would the 'bunting' have been as effective? Maybe/maybe not. Going toe to toe, trying to outhit/hit through Connors---the way he did Mac---typically did not work. At least not in 2 USO finals. And to be fair to Ivan, few guys could stand up to his brutal power game. He could just crush you like a flea.

 

[WCT]

Connors is saying Ashe said all this hypercritical stuff. I don't ever remember reading that. I don't ever remember him harping on his serve or overhead. Or saying that his forehand was some sort of weakness overall His low forehand approach shot, at times, but LOTS of people said that.

Who else beat Connors with no pace in a major final? Ever watch the 1975 US Open final? I think Orantes hit less balls hard in that match than Ashe did. That said, it was not some magic elixer that was the be all and end all to beating Connors. Ashe beat him once in his career. Orantes beat him there and killed him in the US Clay Courts, but Connors beat him more often, including clay.

It did expose a vulnerabily in his game, but he adjusted and, frankly, played better. Ashe was the first to admit that Connors played terribly at Wimbledon. I do agree with Mustard that the Ashe match did diminish a certain aura of invincibility that h had, for however short a time. Didn't stop him from having a hell of a career, though. He's top at the top of the mountain, but he's not that far down.

Mustard is also correct about the relationship. There were definitely periods that thy got along fine. This on the Connors Sportscentury show. Someone quoted Ashe as saying this at, IIRC, his 91 US Open run. Someone asked about Connors and said he was an *******. Ashe's reply was, yeah, but he's my favorite *******.

 

[BTURNER]

That soft stuff/ junk ball gameplan against a top level player has its own perils if its not truly native, and internalized so you really have to measure in some extra risks and calculate some more errors than your norm, some more short balls and some major running happening on your legs. maybe players tend to think much easier to sustain in a match, than it actually is. It tends to disrupt your own rhythm as much as your opponent's of you do not practice that kind of play and those softer shots, and spins and then weave them into patterns in your practice sessions. You will be fighting your own instincts to employ those tactics and that leads to poor shot selection errors. If you have built your game around power or steadiness, then you will have picked your coach, your racket and your practice drills around that power or consistent steady game that you already bring to court.

It just may bring back a lot of memories from your opponent's junior tennis days when they met players who tried to win without power. By definition, they found a way around junkballers or pushers or they would not be where they are, so you had better execute very well!

The idea that Connors as a pro had not encountered and was not coached to handle softballs, floaters and spin shots, is pretty difficult for me to buy into.

 

[Mustard]

The idea that Connors as a pro had not encountered and was not coached to handle softballs, floaters and spin shots, is pretty difficult for me to buy into.

I think it was a surprise to Connors in the 1975 Wimbledon final. Most players respond to power by using their own power, but that played into Connors' hands as Connors seemed to thrive on opponents who fed him pace and power.

Yes, it was a risky strategy for Ashe, considering that it was far removed from his own usual style. When Connors won the third set 7-5 and then went 3-0 up in the fourth set, Ashe's lead looked like a pack of cards ready to fall over, but then Ashe won 6 of the next 7 games to win the title.

 

[BeatlesFan]

I think Ashe was ridiculously harsh about Connors, which is surprising because Ashe was highly intelligent and astute.

Ashe didn't like that Connors refused to prioritize Davis Cup, unlike McEnroe. Connors openly said he didn't care about team competition, though he did play on multiple American DC teams. Ashe felt DC was as big or bigger than slams.

 

[Nole Ivanisevic]

Connors was a rock star back then. For me, it's also completely incomprehensible that Ashe (who had an incredible serve with a wooden racket) criticized Connors like that. I believe it was due to the pressure Ashe put on himself at the time to prove to the world how good he is and what changes that brings with it. Maybe Connors, as a bad boy at the time, also made derogatory remarks about Ashe, but that is just speculation. Ashe was highly intelligent; I think he wanted to get revenge for something.

 

[Mainad]

Connors was a rock star back then. For me, it's also completely incomprehensible that Ashe (who had an incredible serve with a wooden racket) criticized Connors like that. I believe it was due to the pressure Ashe put on himself at the time to prove to the world how good he is and what changes that brings with it. Maybe Connors, as a bad boy at the time, also made derogatory remarks about Ashe, but that is just speculation. Ashe was highly intelligent; I think he wanted to get revenge for something.

If he'd wanted revenge against Connors he certainly succeeded at the 1975 Wimbledon final.

 

[RaulRamirez]

Connors was a rock star back then. For me, it's also completely incomprehensible that Ashe (who had an incredible serve with a wooden racket) criticized Connors like that. I believe it was due to the pressure Ashe put on himself at the time to prove to the world how good he is and what changes that brings with it. Maybe Connors, as a bad boy at the time, also made derogatory remarks about Ashe, but that is just speculation. Ashe was highly intelligent; I think he wanted to get revenge for something.

I'm not great at racket technology knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that by the early 70s, Ashe was using a Head composite. Not doubting his serve had been quite good (earlier) with wood.

Per the two guys, I guess they were very different, even if no personal run-ins.

Arthur was quiet, respectful, but very intellectual,
.and also cared a lot about Davis Cup and teamwork.

Jumbo was pretty much the opposite in each of these categories.

 

[jrepac]

Somehow I had forgotten about the '75 US final w/Orantes. Funny, that's not talked about anywhere near as much as the Ashe match. I think that early '90s quote from Ashe about Connors really says it all....love him, hate him, no one else like him. The public boost he gave to the game was immense.

 

[Mustard]

Ashe didn't like that Connors refused to prioritize Davis Cup, unlike McEnroe. Connors openly said he didn't care about team competition, though he did play on multiple American DC teams. Ashe felt DC was as big or bigger than slams.

How many Davis Cup ties did Connors play altogether? I think he played two ties with Tony Trabert as captain in 1975 (lost to Ramirez in a fifth rubber against Mexico in one), another tie with Ashe as captain soon after 1981 Wimbledon vs. reigning champions Czechoslovakia at Flushing Meadows (the USA won), and Connors played a full year of Davis Cup in 1984 that ended in the Gothenburg disaster in the final.

 

[jrepac]

How many Davis Cup ties did Connors play altogether? I think he played two ties with Tony Trabert as captain in 1975 (lost to Ramirez in a fifth rubber against Mexico in one), another tie with Ashe as captain soon after 1981 Wimbledon vs. reigning champions Czechoslovakia at Flushing Meadows (the USA won), and Connors played a full year of Davis Cup in 1984 that ended in the Gothenburg disaster in the final.

I think that's it. No offense but, over the long haul, where is Davis Cup today? On life support. While it had a very long heritage, and many top level players supporting it, it seems to just be hanging on for dear life at this point. I just don't feel there is excitement around it, the way there used to be. At its core, tennis has always been an individual sport. Team events are entertaining, but equating DC w/the Grand Slams? Eh, I don't think everyone feels the same way about that.

 

[Vincent-C]

I think that's it. No offense but, over the long haul, where is Davis Cup today? On life support. While it had a very long heritage, and many top level players supporting it, it seems to just be hanging on for dear life at this point. I just don't feel there is excitement around it, the way there used to be. At its core, tennis has always been an individual sport. Team events are entertaining, but equating DC w/the Grand Slams? Eh, I don't think everyone feels the same way about that.

Davis Cup felt very big at the time. I'm impressed that Mac took it very seriously, too.

As for its lessened importance these days, decisions have been made by humans
with agency to make it less so: it didn't get that way by itself- alas.
I miss high-stakes DC ties.

 

[BTURNER]

Davis Cup felt very big at the time. I'm impressed that Mac took it very seriously, too.

As for its lessened importance these days, decisions have been made by humans
with agency to make it less so: it didn't get that way by itself- alas.
I miss high-stakes DC ties.

It was the only unformly nationalized expression tennis really had. Once the Olympics began to provide that outlet, both Fed cup and Davis Cup lost their steam.

 

[Vincent-C]

It was the only unformly nationalized expression tennis really had. Once the Olympics began to provide that outlet, both Fed cup and Davis Cup lost their steam.

Good points.

At some point, the lessening of individuals' indentification with their country became important to some powerful entities, I think. Look at how nationalism is now identified as "a problem" by the tiny,
oligarchic ruling classes pretty much worldwide, for example.

What used to be done to the Global South as a test run is now
being done to the citizenry of the now-very-pliable North.
Corrections to this hypothesis are welcome.

 

[WCT]

The public boost he gave to the game was immense.

I don't think even the biggest Connors detractors can deny this.

 

[WCT]

How many Davis Cup ties did Connors play altogether? I think he played two ties with Tony Trabert as captain in 1975 (lost to Ramirez in a fifth rubber against Mexico in one), another tie with Ashe as captain soon after 1981 Wimbledon vs. reigning champions Czechoslovakia at Flushing Meadows (the USA won), and Connors played a full year of Davis Cup in 1984 that ended in the Gothenburg disaster in the final.

I only think he played 1 tie with Trabert. The Mexico loss. 1981 was the tie that confused me. Why play that 1 tie? 84 was more what I'd expect. He committed for the entire year.

I've said this before and it's strictly my conjecture, not something I ever actually read or heard. I always suspected Donald Dell as being a factor in his decision to play in 84. His firm was managing Connors at the time. Dell was a former captain and it would help Connors image to play.

BTW, 1981 was a period where Connors and Ashe were friendly. Ashe served as a sort of quasi coach/advisor at Wimbledon that year. I distinctly recall reading that at the time.

Davis Cup was pretty big back then. Not Wimbledon, US Open big. Very important, though. Now, they have totally changed the format and timing. I've heard a bunch of former players, on podcasts, lamenting it. John Lloyd has a podcast and hates. The Australians hate it. Problem was, how do you get these players to commit to potentially 4 weeks a year.

 

[Mustard]

I only think he played 1 tie with Trabert. The Mexico loss. 1981 was the tie that confused me. Why play that 1 tie? 84 was more what I'd expect. He committed for the entire year.

I believe Ashe convinced Connors to give it a try in 1981, especially as it was at Flushing Meadows, and Ashe had just become US Davis Cup captain that year. Connors only did that one tie that year, and Tanner did the semi final and final alongside McEnroe as the singles players, as the US won the Davis Cup that year. The US won the Davis Cup again under Ashe in 1982 (2/2 at the time) with players like McEnroe, Mayer, Teltscher and Gottfried in the singles.

For 1984, Connors committed to a full year of Davis Cup.

I've said this before and it's strictly my conjecture, not something I ever actually read or heard. I always suspected Donald Dell as being a factor in his decision to play in 84. His firm was managing Connors at the time. Dell was a former captain and it would help Connors image to play.

No reason why it can't be a combination of both. Dell as Connors' manager, but Ashe had been the US captain for a few years by then (and a successful one), while Connors had gone two whole years without playing any Davis Cup, so Ashe has to want Connors there for it to work. It seemed to work well until the disastrous final, which was so bad that even McEnroe wanted a break from Davis Cup in protest at "behaviour" clauses.

BTW, 1981 was a period where Connors and Ashe were friendly. Ashe served as a sort of quasi coach/advisor at Wimbledon that year. I distinctly recall reading that at the time.

Yes, absolutely. It rings a bell from the Borg vs. Connors semi final at 1981 Wimbledon.

Davis Cup was pretty big back then. Not Wimbledon, US Open big. Very important, though. Now, they have totally changed the format and timing. I've heard a bunch of former players, on podcasts, lamenting it. John Lloyd has a podcast and hates. The Australians hate it. Problem was, how do you get these players to commit to potentially 4 weeks a year.

I hate what they've done to Davis Cup. It's not really Davis Cup anymore since the last year with the old format in 2018. I agree 100% with Lleyton Hewitt's opinions on the matter.

 

[Vincent-C]

I only think he played 1 tie with Trabert. The Mexico loss. 1981 was the tie that confused me. Why play that 1 tie? 84 was more what I'd expect. He committed for the entire year.

I've said this before and it's strictly my conjecture, not something I ever actually read or heard. I always suspected Donald Dell as being a factor in his decision to play in 84. His firm was managing Connors at the time. Dell was a former captain and it would help Connors image to play.

BTW, 1981 was a period where Connors and Ashe were friendly. Ashe served as a sort of quasi coach/advisor at Wimbledon that year. I distinctly recall reading that at the time.

Davis Cup was pretty big back then. Not Wimbledon, US Open big. Very important, though. Now, they have totally changed the format and timing. I've heard a bunch of former players, on podcasts, lamenting it. John Lloyd has a podcast and hates. The Australians hate it. Problem was, how do you get these players to commit to potentially 4 weeks a year.

Dell seemed like quite the operator on the US tennis scene at the time.
Just a hunch.. I did not realize (or had forgotten) that he had been managing Connors- though I remember some of JC's earlier management.

 

[dannyslicer]

I'll just leave this here

 

[WCT]

I believe Ashe convinced Connors to give it a try in 1981, especially as it was at Flushing Meadows, and Ashe had just become US Davis Cup captain that year. Connors only did that one tie that year, and Tanner did the semi final and final alongside McEnroe as the singles players, as the US won the Davis Cup that year. The US won the Davis Cup again under Ashe in 1982 (2/2 at the time) with players like McEnroe, Mayer, Teltscher and Gottfried in the singles.

For 1984, Connors committed to a full year of Davis Cup.


No reason why it can't be a combination of both. Dell as Connors' manager, but Ashe had been the US captain for a few years by then (and a successful one), while Connors had gone two whole years without playing any Davis Cup, so Ashe has to want Connors there for it to work. It seemed to work well until the disastrous final, which was so bad that even McEnroe wanted a break from Davis Cup in protest at "behaviour" clauses.


Yes, absolutely. It rings a bell from the Borg vs. Connors semi final at 1981 Wimbledon.


I hate what they've done to Davis Cup. It's not really Davis Cup anymore since the last year with the old format in 2018. I agree 100% with Lleyton Hewitt's opinions on the matter.

Obviously Ashe should be all in for it to work, but the fact is that he had been the captain for 3 years and had played in 1 tie. Dell becomes his manager in 83 and Connors is playing every tie the next yar. I know which one I think was more responsible for him playing.

Again, my speculation. I have never read or heard that it was Ashe or Dell.

 

[Mustard]

Ashe's only Davis Cup loss as captain between 1981-1983 was to Argentina on clay in Buenos Aires in 1983, facing the team of Vilas and Clerc. Vilas seems to have been in good form in the singles matches, beating Mayer 6-3, 6-3, 6-4 and beating McEnroe 6-4, 6-0, 6-1 to clinch the tie for Argentina. Clerc had beaten McEnroe in a 5-setter 6-4, 6-0, 3-6, 4-6, 7-5, while the doubles rubber was also a 5-setter with McEnroe/Fleming beating Vilas/Clerc 2-6, 10-8, 6-1, 3-6, 6-1.

 

[Vincent-C]

I wish we could time-travel and somehow equalize so that Connors
and Lleyton Hewitt could play each other. That'd be a cracker!

 

[WCT]

Dell seemed like quite the operator on the US tennis scene at the time.
Just a hunch.. I did not realize (or had forgotten) that he had been managing Connors- though I remember some of JC's earlier management.

Fingers in a whole lot of pies. Represented players. Negotiated tv rights. Announced on the rv. Promoted at least 1 tournamnt, Washington. The words conflict of interest were thrown around.

 

[sandy mayer]

Doesn't the 1975 Wimbledon final prove that Ashe had a point? Normally, Ashe played a power game, and went toe to toe with his opponent. In that Wimbledon final, he was using soft balls and angles, making Connors run and generate his own pace. In the third set and early in the fourth set, a more intense Connors was threatening to turn it all around and dominate, but then Ashe reasserted his strategy. And it was a very big upset at the time. Virtually everyone thought that Connors was going to win that final at the start of the match. One could even say that Connors' invincibility aura never returned after that match and seemed to transfer to Borg, even though Connors remained a formidable top player for a long time to come.

Lendl later on came to similar conclusions about Connors. Earlier in Lendl's career, his powerful ground game overwhelmed most players, even McEnroe in 1981-82, but Connors seemed to thrive on Lendl's power. Later on, Lendl used less power against Connors in groundstroke rallies, what Connors at the 1992 US Open called "bunting the ball". In that 1992 US Open match, Connors was being more intense and aggressive, including serve and volleying, forcing the issue and he won the first set. Lendl though refused to change tactics and slowly ground Connors down as Connors got more fatigued.

Connors and Ashe had an interesting and complex relationship. They seemed to get on well some times, and at other times were bitter rivals. In 1973-1975, there were bitter disputes about the ATP including a legal suit, and the 1984 Davis Cup final in Gothenburg was a hilarious fallout with the US team captained by Ashe. Ashe had managed to persuade Connors, for the only time in his career, to dedicate a full year to the Davis Cup in 1984.

Ashe only beat Connors once and lost to Connors every time after the 75 Wimbledon final. Lendl's domination over Connors was more due to Connors' aging than anything else

 

[sandy mayer]

Connors is saying Ashe said all this hypercritical stuff. I don't ever remember reading that. I don't ever remember him harping on his serve or overhead. Or saying that his forehand was some sort of weakness overall His low forehand approach shot, at times, but LOTS of people said that.

Who else beat Connors with no pace in a major final? Ever watch the 1975 US Open final? I think Orantes hit less balls hard in that match than Ashe did. That said, it was not some magic elixer that was the be all and end all to beating Connors. Ashe beat him once in his career. Orantes beat him there and killed him in the US Clay Courts, but Connors beat him more often, including clay.

It did expose a vulnerabily in his game, but he adjusted and, frankly, played better. Ashe was the first to admit that Connors played terribly at Wimbledon. I do agree with Mustard that the Ashe match did diminish a certain aura of invincibility that h had, for however short a time. Didn't stop him from having a hell of a career, though. He's top at the top of the mountain, but he's not that far down.

Mustard is also correct about the relationship. There were definitely periods that thy got along fine. This on the Connors Sportscentury show. Someone quoted Ashe as saying this at, IIRC, his 91 US Open run. Someone asked about Connors and said he was an *******. Ashe's reply was, yeah, but he's my favorite *******.

I remember reading Ashe saying this.

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I enjoy these threads.

 

[sandy mayer]

Doesn't the 1975 Wimbledon final prove that Ashe had a point?

Ashe published his criticism after his Wimbledon final win. I do think Connors is right in saying if he had as many weaknesses as Ashe claimed it's strange he won so much.

 

[Mustard]

Ashe only beat Connors once and lost to Connors every time after the 75 Wimbledon final.

My point is that Ashe identified a tactical approach that could hurt Connors, at a time when Connors' aura was at its peak. Tanner mentioned in his autobiography that Ashe had told him about the tactics.

Lendl's domination over Connors was more due to Connors' aging than anything else

Connors' age was a big factor in Lendl winning every match between them from 1985-1992, I agree. However, it still doesn't change the fact that Connors likes it a lot more when his opponents use a lot of power and pace against him, especially so when he was older and had less stamina than in his younger years. Ashe did this to Connors in the 1975 Wimbledon final, at a time when Connors' aura was never higher and when Connors was 22, so it must have been a lot more difficult to execute when Ashe did it.

I never claimed that it was like a magic bullet, as if Ashe could now beat Connors every time they met, just that Ashe identified a vulnerability in Connors at a time when Connors was at the peak. Who else saw it? A lot of people in 1975 were like "Connors is brilliant, very powerful, can't be beaten when he's fully locked in like he is now", a feeling that became all the stronger when Connors blitzed Tanner in the 1975 Wimbledon semi final, as Tanner had beaten Connors on grass at Nottingham, one of only two men (along with Newcombe in the 1975 Australian Open final) to have beaten Connors in 1975 at that point. Ashe was struggling to beat Roche in 5 sets in the other semi final.

 

[WCT]

I remember reading Ashe saying this.

Got a source? Where did he say it? A week after the match he wrote an article in SPORTS ILLUSTRATED outlining how he beat Connors. He didn't say it there. I'm speaking specifically to his serve and overhead. He did say when Connors came in that he would lob over his two handed side. I assume the SI vault is still open to read the article. I first read it when the issue came out.

Obviously, Ashe talked about that match numerous times in numerous places over the years. I've read and heard a bunch of them. I certainly don't claim to have read and heard them all. That's why I asked for a source. I do know that he never said it in any interview I saw. I mean specifically denigrating his serve and overhead.

If Ashe thinks so little of Connors game, why is so changing his own game to beat him? That's the ultimate compliment. I can't beat you with my game. I have to change mine to beat you.

 

[sandy mayer]

Got a source? Where did he say it? A week after the match he wrote an article in SPORTS ILLUSTRATED outlining how he beat Connors. He didn't say it there. I'm speaking specifically to his serve and overhead. He did say when Connors came in that he would lob over his two handed side. I assume the SI vault is still open to read the article. I first read it when the issue came out.

Obviously, Ashe talked about that match numerous times in numerous places over the years. I've read and heard a bunch of them. I certainly don't claim to have read and heard them all. That's why I asked for a source. I do know that he never said it in any interview I saw. I mean specifically denigrating his serve and overhead.

If Ashe thinks so little of Connors game, why is so changing his own game to beat him? That's the ultimate compliment. I can't beat you with my game. I have to change mine to beat you.

I read it in a book of Ashe's when I was a boy many years ago. Because it was so long ago I am not sure what book it was. I am sure Connors is not misquoting him in his own autobiography.

 

[WCT]

I read it in a book of Ashe's when I was a boy many years ago. Because it was so long ago I am not sure what book it was. I am sure Connors is not misquoting him in his own autobiography.

I'd be interested in what book. Didn't say it in OFF THE COURT because I read that. Why is it impossible that Connors would misrepresent what someone said about him?
I KNOW he did it with Peter Bodo in that very book.

He didn't use Bodo's name, but it was clearly him. In COURTS OF BABYLON's Connors chapter, Bodo talks about how he thought Connors was using cocaine by the way he was blowing into his towel. Howver, he points out how wrong he was. Lornie Kuhle corrected him that it was his allergies and that Jimmy hated drugs. In his book, all Connors says is that this guy accused me of being a cocaine user and that the guy was a piece of craop. Or words to that affect.

This isn't me definitively stating that he misrepresented or exaggerated what Ashe said. I sure wouldn't rule it out, thoigh.

 

[sandy mayer]

I'd be interested in what book. Didn't say it in OFF THE COURT because I read that. Why is it impossible that Connors would misrepresent what someone said about him?
I KNOW he did it with Peter Bodo in that very book.

He didn't use Bodo's name, but it was clearly him. In COURTS OF BABYLON's Connors chapter, Bodo talks about how he thought Connors was using cocaine by the way he was blowing into his towel. Howver, he points out how wrong he was. Lornie Kuhle corrected him that it was his allergies and that Jimmy hated drugs. In his book, all Connors says is that this guy accused me of being a cocaine user and that the guy was a piece of craop. Or words to that affect.

This isn't me definitively stating that he misrepresented or exaggerated what Ashe said. I sure wouldn't rule it out, thoigh.

I certainly remember Ashe criticising Connors' serve, overhead, forehand, and ability to handle no pace. I agree with Connors that Ashe had a point about Connors' serve but not the other stuff. Connors' overhead was actually very good, as was his forehand, and I don't believe slow balls were a weakness. As Connors said, how could he win so much with so many weaknesses. There were times when Ashe made Connors sound like a bad player.

 

[WCT]

I certainly remember Ashe criticising Connors' serve, overhead, forehand, and ability to handle no pace. I agree with Connors that Ashe had a point about Connors' serve but not the other stuff. Connors' overhead was actually very good, as was his forehand, and I don't believe slow balls were a weakness. As Connors said, how could he win so much with so many weaknesses. There were times when Ashe made Connors sound like a bad player.

Unless you have specifics we are getting nowhere. It's just you saying he said it and me saying I never saw it. The things I claim were said, I told you the source.

I would grade his overhead more as good than very good. Not overly powerful. Slow balls did periodically give him some problems. As I said before, it wasn't some big weakness that was a secret sauce for beating him. I never read anything from Ashe that made Connors sound like a bad player. Talks about his game for about 2 pages in OFF THE COURT. Thinks his strokes should have him beating Borg about 40% of the time. He would change his stratgy This book came out in 1981 He called him the best player of the open era at one ooint late in Connors' career. Obviously, longevity was a big part of that.

Again, without some specifics, it's he said she said. I never saw it and I saw Ashe talk about him a bunch of times. Do color on a bunch of his matches. Maybe I forget something. Show me somthing specific and I'll buy it,

 

[Gizo]

In terms of Connors’ Davis Cup record, I think it can be explained by numerous factors:

- ‘Jimmy was all about Jimmy'
- the lack of pay
- his dislike of the format of the competition with ties spread out throughout the year - I think he clearly would have preferred the current format which I personally despise.
- his feuds and spats over the years with Trabert, Ashe and McEnroe.

Below is the W/L record of the 12 greatest players that played exclusively in the open era, in live singles rubbers (I don’t like to count dead rubbers alongside live ones so I typically ignore them), under the traditional format before the competition was basically smashed to pieces with the grotesque format change from 2019:

Agassi: 25-5 (18-2 at home, 7-3 away)
Becker: 31-2 (20-0 at home, 11-2 away)
Borg: 28-3 (13-1 at home, 15-2 away)
Connors: 6-2 (4-0 at home, 2-2 away)
Djokovic: 29-7 (18-3 at home, 11-4 away)
Edberg: 23-11 (10-4 at home, 13-7 away)
Federer: 40-7 (19-3 at home, 21-4 away)
Lendl: 14-7 (5-2 at home, 9-5 away)
McEnroe: 27-7 (19-2 at home, 8-5 away)
Nadal: 22-1 (16-0 at home, 6-1 away)
Sampras: 12-8 (7-3 at home, 5-5 away)
Wilander: 24-11 (12-5 at home, 12-6 away)

So Connors only played in 8 live singles rubbers, with his 2 defeats against Ramirez and Wilander standing out far more than any of his 6 wins, while every other exclusively open era legend played in at least 20.

If we also include Newcombe who had the majority of his best years and achievements in the open era, and who was the leader of Australia’s 1973 Davis Cup winning team, Connors in the only of those open era legends not to play a major role in winning the competition. If he hailed from a non-tennis powerhouse country, that wouldn’t be such a big deal. But with him being the best player from the clear no. 1 tennis country for a long period (and 2nd best for an additionally long period), it is very significant IMO.

 

[jrepac]

Davis Cup felt very big at the time. I'm impressed that Mac took it very seriously, too.

As for its lessened importance these days, decisions have been made by humans
with agency to make it less so: it didn't get that way by itself- alas.
I miss high-stakes DC ties.

I would agree w/you on that. Money talks. Just waiting for the UAE deal to come to pass....inevitable.

 

[GAS]

Didn't this "brilliant response" only come after Ashe's death?

 

[jrepac]

Fingers in a whole lot of pies. Represented players. Negotiated tv rights. Announced on the rv. Promoted at least 1 tournamnt, Washington. The words conflict of interest were thrown around.

Dell was a big money guy back then...a mover and shaker, as they say. I do recall the story being that he encouraged Connors to play DC for an image boost. And honestly, it was all fine until they got to the final. The business about the venue and court surface always bugged me about DC, to be honest. That was a perfect example. Should always be on a mostly 'neutral' surface. No team should be allowed to pick.

 

[WCT]

Dell was a big money guy back then...a mover and shaker, as they say. I do recall the story being that he encouraged Connors to play DC for an image boost. And honestly, it was all fine until they got to the final. The business about the venue and court surface always bugged me about DC, to be honest. That was a perfect example. Should always be on a mostly 'neutral' surface. No team should be allowed to pick.

That is an interesting question. It was always such a nationalistic event. You take some of that away with the neutral courts or surfaces. Can't question that the surface in Sweden killed them in 84. France did the same thing in 82, an indoor clay court. Nobody remembers because the US won.

 

[WCT]

In terms of Connors’ Davis Cup record, I think it can be explained by numerous factors:

- ‘Jimmy was all about Jimmy'
- the lack of pay
- his dislike of the format of the competition with ties spread out throughout the year - I think he clearly would have preferred the current format which I personally despise.
- his feuds and spats over the years with Trabert, Ashe and McEnroe.

Below is the W/L record of the 12 greatest players that played exclusively in the open era, in live singles rubbers (I don’t like to count dead rubbers alongside live ones so I typically ignore them), under the traditional format before the competition was basically smashed to pieces with the grotesque format change from 2019:

Agassi: 25-5 (18-2 at home, 7-3 away)
Becker: 31-2 (20-0 at home, 11-2 away)
Borg: 28-3 (13-1 at home, 15-2 away)
Connors: 6-2 (4-0 at home, 2-2 away)
Djokovic: 29-7 (18-3 at home, 11-4 away)
Edberg: 23-11 (10-4 at home, 13-7 away)
Federer: 40-7 (19-3 at home, 21-4 away)
Lendl: 14-7 (5-2 at home, 9-5 away)
McEnroe: 27-7 (19-2 at home, 8-5 away)
Nadal: 22-1 (16-0 at home, 6-1 away)
Sampras: 12-8 (7-3 at home, 5-5 away)
Wilander: 24-11 (12-5 at home, 12-6 away)

So Connors only played in 8 live singles rubbers, with his 2 defeats against Ramirez and Wilander standing out far more than any of his 6 wins, while every other exclusively open era legend played in at least 20.

If we also include Newcombe who had the majority of his best years and achievements in the open era, and who was the leader of Australia’s 1973 Davis Cup winning team, Connors in the only of those open era legends not to play a major role in winning the competition. If he hailed from a non-tennis powerhouse country, that wouldn’t be such a big deal. But with him being the best player from the clear no. 1 tennis country for a long period (and 2nd best for an additionally long period), it is very significant IMO.

Sampras with only 20 matches caught my eye. Additionally, Connors never won a match that clenched a tie. His only 2 pressure matches he lost. In 81, he was the second match after Lendl beat Mcenroe. They were down 1-0, I guess there was some pressure there, but not real pressure,

I suppose how that affects his career depends on how one views the importance of Davis Cup. Pretty clearly, though, Davis Cup was not his thing.

 

[Mainad]

Sampras with only 20 matches caught my eye. Additionally, Connors never won a match that clenched a tie. His only 2 pressure matches he lost. In 81, he was the second match after Lendl beat Mcenroe. They were down 1-0, I guess there was some pressure there, but not real pressure,

I suppose how that affects his career depends on how one views the importance of Davis Cup. Pretty clearly, though, Davis Cup was not his thing.

Connors was only ever into things that benefitted only himself. He was not a natural team player.

 

[Mustard]

Connors was only ever into things that benefitted only himself. He was not a natural team player.

He seemed to work very well with his entourage, i.e. himself, his mother Gloria, his coach Pancho Segura, his fitness coach Lornie Kuhle, sometimes Chris Evert, and also his different managers over the years from Bill Riordan onwards. Wasn't Connors the first tennis player to have an entourage like that? Previously, it always seemed to be the "country club" atmosphere of carrying on your load of wooden racquets and get on with the job without fuss. I suppose Pancho Gonzales and Ilie Nastase were "bad boys" before Connors, but Connors added this to other factors in what was the open professional era. Gonzales was a pre-open era professional (so they often ignored him) while Nastase was seen as an eccentric maverick. Gonzales in his 1940s amateur days sounds like a very different personality too, i.e. much more easy going. It was only his bad loss to Kramer on the 1949-50 Pro Tour, and being treated as "dead meat" as a market attraction for some time afterward, that made Gonzales a bitter man with a grudge against the world, which he used to fuel him to greatness.

 

[Gizo]

Sampras with only 20 matches caught my eye. Additionally, Connors never won a match that clenched a tie. His only 2 pressure matches he lost. In 81, he was the second match after Lendl beat Mcenroe. They were down 1-0, I guess there was some pressure there, but not real pressure,

I suppose how that affects his career depends on how one views the importance of Davis Cup. Pretty clearly, though, Davis Cup was not his thing.

The 1995 final on clay in Moscow and the 1997 semi-final at home to Australia were clearly Sampras’s most impressive Davis Cup moments. However I didn’t think he particularly liked the competition, its format (as he became more focused on winning as many majors as possible) etc. that much.

The competition did noticeably decline in importance during the 90s, after it had previously been huge. I’d personally say in the late 70s and 80s it was no lesser in status than Roland Garros for example. The tense 1981 final, Becker vs. Edberg matches in the 1985, 1988 and 1989 finals etc. felt every bit as big to me as major finals.

Regarding Connors and team competitions, he did help the USA win the World Team Cup in Düsseldorf in 1985, notably coming from 1-5 down in the final set to beat Mecir (who choked horrendously and served underarm during a couple of games) and prevent the Czechoslovakia team from taking an unassailable 2-0 lead in the final. I think he was scheduled to enter the competition again in 1987 as well, but withdrew, with his last tournament appearance before his QF run in Paris (where he charmed everyone and was certainly the fan favourite) in an invitational event in Japan.

On the subject of Dell who was previously mentioned and conflicts of interest, it could be very ‘weird’ listening to him commentate on so Lendl matches in-particular when he was his agent.

 

[jrepac]

Sampras with only 20 matches caught my eye. Additionally, Connors never won a match that clenched a tie. His only 2 pressure matches he lost. In 81, he was the second match after Lendl beat Mcenroe. They were down 1-0, I guess there was some pressure there, but not real pressure,

I suppose how that affects his career depends on how one views the importance of Davis Cup. Pretty clearly, though, Davis Cup was not his thing.

Well, wasn't '81 significant in that he beat Lendl? Some pressure, I suppose.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Connors was only ever into things that benefitted only himself. He was not a natural team player.

And said so publicly at the time. I was never a Connors fan except at the USO in 1991, but I admired his attitude towards DC. "Tennis is an individual sport, not a team sport."

 

[Mustard]

The 1995 final on clay in Moscow and the 1997 semi-final at home to Australia were clearly Sampras’s most impressive Davis Cup moments. However I didn’t think he particularly liked the competition, its format (as he became more focused on winning as many majors as possible) etc. that much.

Didn't Sampras say that he was disappointed by what he saw as a lack of acclaim in the US for them winning the 1995 Davis Cup on clay in Moscow against Russia? So it seems at that point, i.e. late 1995, Davis Cup was no longer viewed at or near the same level as the majors.

 

[Mustard]

Well, wasn't '81 significant in that he beat Lendl? Some pressure, I suppose.

Yes, although it was a dead fifth rubber.

1st Rubber: Ivan Lendl def. John McEnroe (6-4, 14-12, 7-5)
2nd Rubber: Jimmy Connors def. Tomas Smid (6-3, 6-1, 6-2)
3rd Rubber: Bob Lutz/Stan Smith def. Ivan Lendl/Tomas Smid (9-7, 6-3, 6-2)
4th Rubber: John McEnroe def. Tomas Smid (6-3, 6-1, 6-4)
5th Rubber: Jimmy Connors def. Ivan Lendl (7-5, 6-4)

USA 4-1 Czechoslovakia (Flushing Meadows, New York City)

 

[WCT]

Yes, although it was a dead fifth rubber.

1st Rubber: Ivan Lendl def. John McEnroe (6-4, 14-12, 7-5)
2nd Rubber: Jimmy Connors def. Tomas Smid (6-3, 6-1, 6-2)
3rd Rubber: Bob Lutz/Stan Smith def. Ivan Lendl/Tomas Smid (9-7, 6-3, 6-2)
4th Rubber: John McEnroe def. Tomas Smid (6-3, 6-1, 6-4)
5th Rubber: Jimmy Connors def. Ivan Lendl (7-5, 6-4)

USA 4-1 Czechoslovakia (Flushing Meadows, New York City)

This is why I didn't mention it. Dead rubber.

 

[WCT]

The 1995 final on clay in Moscow and the 1997 semi-final at home to Australia were clearly Sampras’s most impressive Davis Cup moments. However I didn’t think he particularly liked the competition, its format (as he became more focused on winning as many majors as possible) etc. that much.

The competition did noticeably decline in importance during the 90s, after it had previously been huge. I’d personally say in the late 70s and 80s it was no lesser in status than Roland Garros for example. The tense 1981 final, Becker vs. Edberg matches in the 1985, 1988 and 1989 finals etc. felt every bit as big to me as major finals.

Regarding Connors and team competitions, he did help the USA win the World Team Cup in Düsseldorf in 1985, notably coming from 1-5 down in the final set to beat Mecir (who choked horrendously and served underarm during a couple of games) and prevent the Czechoslovakia team from taking an unassailable 2-0 lead in the final. I think he was scheduled to enter the competition again in 1987 as well, but withdrew, with his last tournament appearance before his QF run in Paris (where he charmed everyone and was certainly the fan favourite) in an invitational event in Japan.

On the subject of Dell who was previously mentioned and conflicts of interest, it could be very ‘weird’ listening to him commentate on so Lendl matches in-particular when he was his agent.

I imagine you have heard of this event. When I think of Connors and team competitions the event I think of is the Aetna team cup. I think that was the name. Played in Hartford, Conn. every year. Australia and the US. I'd say Connors played that at least 3 times in the 70s.

Why am I completely blanking on Dell being the agent for Lendl? I don't remember that.