Connors chances at a French Open?

egn

egn

Hall of Fame
Jimmy Connors skipped the French Open for a notable part of his career 74-79. Arguable during his best clay court playing years due to WTT. Connors barely stepped foot on the red dirt in this time period due to the lack of need to due to his professional commitments and would mostly focus specifically on two majors of the year. Add to that for Connor's best years those surfaces were grass and har-tru (green clay). Connors clearly was a very well rounded player and hardcourts were most likely his best surface. However from 74-79 what are his odds of winning on the red dirt?

Now the green clay was a bit faster and a bit lower bouncing and Connors did only manage one US Open there, but he did lose on to on fire Vilas. However in all three clay years he made the finals and he beat Borg (twice), Vilas, Ornates, Vita, Tanner, Kodes, Solomon and crew there. All strong and solid red clay players. Sure he isn't winning against Borg 78 but what about the 74-77 years. That's four french opens he did not touch at all. It's honestly hard to judge because he did not play red clay at all until he was much older, but it's interesting.

Personally I think Connors might have been able to grab one. Borg 74-76 was not Borg from 78-81 on the surface. However I'd like to here some interesting opinion on it. Connors really is one of those guys who is so hard to rank, because his career although "open era" was still at a time where it was in disarray the ATP. Connors didn't really care much about the French, heck people then really knew Borg for his wimbledon wins less for his French Open wins. Either way, chances of Connors winning on red dirt?
 
I think 74 was very much a possibility and maybe, maybe 75 but after that, it would have been tough. It's a shame we'll never know.
 
Connors played at the French Open in 1979, losing to Pecci in the semi finals.

Connors' best chance of a French Open win would have been sometime from 1974-1977, but 1974 most of all, I think.
 
Difficult to be sure.Well, he may have one win in him, but I think the difference between green clay and red clay may be bigger than we suspect.
 
It is a shame we will never know. I would be much surprised if he had not won, at least, once in those years 74, 75, 76 and 77 had he played.
 
'74 was the opportune time. Borg was still not fully developed, and he may have had more trouble with Connors. a year makes a big difference when you are that young.
 
He lost in second and in first round in 1972, 1973, respectively, when he was regularly reaching the QFs at both Wimbledon and USO, so I don't like his chances in 1974, regardless of his dominance on the Tour that year.

It's hard to hit through red clay, so his flat shots would not have saved him at RG and his return wouldn't have been as successful as on faster (than red clay) surfaces.

Also, even though he reached the SFs four times, his loses to Pecci, Gerulaitis, Higueras, McEnroe...in later stages of the tournament would not have increased his chances against higher class clay court players like Villas and Borg.
 
egn said:
Jimmy Connors skipped the French Open for a notable part of his career 74-79. Arguable during his best clay court playing years due to WTT. Connors barely stepped foot on the red dirt in this time period due to the lack of need to due to his professional commitments and would mostly focus specifically on two majors of the year. Add to that for Connor's best years those surfaces were grass and har-tru (green clay). Connors clearly was a very well rounded player and hardcourts were most likely his best surface. However from 74-79 what are his odds of winning on the red dirt?

Now the green clay was a bit faster and a bit lower bouncing and Connors did only manage one US Open there, but he did lose on to on fire Vilas. However in all three clay years he made the finals and he beat Borg (twice), Vilas, Ornates, Vita, Tanner, Kodes, Solomon and crew there. All strong and solid red clay players. Sure he isn't winning against Borg 78 but what about the 74-77 years. That's four french opens he did not touch at all. It's honestly hard to judge because he did not play red clay at all until he was much older, but it's interesting.

Personally I think Connors might have been able to grab one. Borg 74-76 was not Borg from 78-81 on the surface. However I'd like to here some interesting opinion on it. Connors really is one of those guys who is so hard to rank, because his career although "open era" was still at a time where it was in disarray the ATP. Connors didn't really care much about the French, heck people then really knew Borg for his wimbledon wins less for his French Open wins. Either way, chances of Connors winning on red dirt?
Click to expand...
In 1974, I would suggest that skipped is not the right word to use. That year he was prevented from entering or banned from the French Open, because of his association with WTT. He even went to law-court to try to enter, but failed.

As a result he voluntarily skipped entering 1975-78.
 
Last edited:
Martin J said:
He lost in second and in first round in 1972, 1973, respectively, when he was regularly reaching the QFs at both Wimbledon and USO, so I don't like his chances in 1974, regardless of his dominance on the Tour that year.

It's hard to hit through red clay, so his flat shots would not have saved him at RG and his return wouldn't have been as successful as on faster (than red clay) surfaces.

Also, even though he reached the SFs four times, his loses to Pecci, Gerulaitis, Higueras, McEnroe...in later stages of the tournament would not have increased his chances against higher class clay court players like Villas and Borg.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I must agree.Good overlook on Connors first years at Paris ( and Rome)
 
Martin J said:
He lost in second and in first round in 1972, 1973, respectively, when he was regularly reaching the QFs at both Wimbledon and USO, so I don't like his chances in 1974, regardless of his dominance on the Tour that year.

It's hard to hit through red clay, so his flat shots would not have saved him at RG and his return wouldn't have been as successful as on faster (than red clay) surfaces.

Also, even though he reached the SFs four times, his loses to Pecci, Gerulaitis, Higueras, McEnroe...in later stages of the tournament would not have increased his chances against higher class clay court players like Villas and Borg.
Click to expand...

Is green clay faster than red clay? I don't know green clay at all but I think connors was quite good on it.
 
dominikk1985 said:
Is green clay faster than red clay? I don't know green clay at all but I think connors was quite good on it.
Click to expand...

Yes, green clay (Har-tru "clay", which is composed of crushed stone, not of crushed brick like the red clay) is faster and the bounce is a little bit lower, so the returns (and the serves) can do more damage.

It is interesting that Connors beat Borg on Har-tru in the USO final in 1976, but lost next year's final to Villas on the very same surface.
 
Very remote, with his lack of a track record on red clay at the time (he had a couple of false starts at RG in 1972 and 1973), and not just Borg standing in his way at RG but also potentially the likes the Orantes, Nastase, Kodes, Vilas and Panatta.

He said himself in his book at the green clay at Indianapolis was noticeably faster than the red clay at RG, and that the balls were lighter.

Also had he gone the full distance at RG, then his chances of winning his first Wimbledon title that year decrease somewhat, as he played and won a tune-up event at Manchester when RG was taking place, and there was only 1 week in-between RG and Wimbledon that year.
 
Connors was 40-13 (75.4 WP) at Roland Garros, and at his most dangerous between 1979 and 1985, when he was a quarterfinalist three times and a semifinalist four times. He skipped the tournament in 1986, and his best result the four other times he entered was a quarterfinal.

Only a silly political squabble resulted in him being banned from Roland Garros, which besmirched his otherwise perfect record that year at the majors. I am sure that he would have won the French in 1974 (and perhaps gone on to complete a calendar year Grand Slam), mainly because Bjorn Borg had not yet appeared on the scene to torment him.He beat Borg easily in the US 75 semifinals and Borg had won 2 French Opens already.

Kiki.You always mention Orantes beating Connors at Indy and the Open but Connors beat Orantes several times on clay including at the French and the Us Open.He beat Dibbs Panatta on red clay and even the great Vilas at Indy in 79.The guy was awesome on clay too.
 
Last edited:
Rubico (green clay) is very different than red clay. I think it would have been possible, but unlikely that Connors would have won the French Open had he played. He should have been allowed to. Borg should have been able to play the French Open in 1977 as well, and he would have been very tough to beat.
 
borg number one said:
Rubico (green clay) is very different than red clay. I think it would have been possible, but unlikely that Connors would have won the French Open had he played. He should have been allowed to. Borg should have been able to play the French Open in 1977 as well, and he would have been very tough to beat.
Click to expand...
What's the difference between rubico and Har-Tru?
 
juan guzman said:
Connors was 40-13 (75.4 WP) at Roland Garros, and at his most dangerous between 1979 and 1985, when he was a quarterfinalist three times and a semifinalist four times. He skipped the tournament in 1986, and his best result the four other times he entered was a quarterfinal.

Only a silly political squabble resulted in him being banned from Roland Garros, which besmirched his otherwise perfect record that year at the majors. I am sure that he would have won the French in 1974 (and perhaps gone on to complete a calendar year Grand Slam), mainly because Bjorn Borg had not yet appeared on the scene to torment him.He beat Borg easily in the US 75 semifinals and Borg had won 2 French Opens already.

Kiki.You always mention Orantes beating Connors at Indy and the Open but Connors beat Orantes several times on clay including at the French and the Us Open.He beat Dibbs Panatta on red clay and even the great Vilas at Indy in 79.The guy was awesome on clay too.
Click to expand...

I know.Connors beat both Orantes ( 30 yrs old but still excelent on clay) and Dibbs at the 1979 FO, he also beat Gildemeister,Noah and Panatta in 1980, as well as Sundtrom in 1984 and Edberg in 1985.it is a great collection of players, and he did very well, as you mentioned, at Indy 79.Not only Vilas, but Higueras ( who had his best ever season) bowed to Jimmy that year.
 
hoodjem said:
What's the difference between rubico and Har-Tru?
Click to expand...

It's the same hoodjem, green clay, har-tru, or "rubico" as it's also known.

http://hartru.com/har-tru-surfaces/green-clay


Har-Tru is made from billion-year-old Pre-Cambrian metabasalt found in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. It is a natural green stone that is extremely hard and angular, two very important qualities when it comes to tennis court construction. The angularity helps the stone particles lock together to form a stable playing surface.
Click to expand...
 
Tshooter said:
Apparently you never saw him play. He was capable on any surface and certainly could have won a French, if he played.
Click to expand...

Past 1974, its hard to see him beating Borg. Once he's out of the way, there is Wilander and Lendl. I don't see a lot of chances. But if he showed up as religiously as he did in New York and made it a real priority, he's sure to end up deep enough into the draw, often enough that the probabilities start leaning his way for at least one. That era is packed with truly great europeans who suckled clay before they got pablum.
 
I am sure that he would have won the French in 1974 (and perhaps gone on to complete a calendar year Grand Slam),
Click to expand...

did you know that there was only one week in between the French and Wimbledon that year? Connors would have had very little time to practice on grass if he played & won the French. he ended up having plenty of time since he wasn't in Paris that year - and even then he had many struggles at Wimbledon that year. I have trouble seeing him winning both events in a hypothetical situation. That would be a legendary feat, so much is made of how there are only 2 weeks in between those 2 events, imagine only 1 week!
 
Last edited:
Moose Malloy said:
did you know that there was only one week in between the French and Wimbledon that year? Connors would have had very little time to practice on grass if he played & won the French. he ended up having plenty of time since he wasn't in Paris that year - and even then he had many struggles at Wimbledon that year. I have trouble seeing him winning both events in a hypothetical situation. That would be a legendary feat, so much is made of how there are only 2 weeks in between those 2 events, imagine only 1 week!
Click to expand...

Connors was in Paris and ready to play. He was taking legal action, which failed. The injustice is that he was denied the opportunity to play in the 1974 French Open.
 
1974 was Connor's breakout year (he was age 21). He had an incredible record that year, losing only something like 3 or 4 matches I believe. It seemed that the top players did not know how to play him yet, which is why he stormed through the other majors. Given the year he had, plus the fact he won the US Open on clay in '76, I think he had an excellent chance. After 1974 I don't think so. Of course this is all speculation so it really doesn't matter.
 
BTURNER said:
Past 1974, its hard to see him beating Borg. Once he's out of the way, there is Wilander and Lendl. I don't see a lot of chances. But if he showed up as religiously as he did in New York and made it a real priority, he's sure to end up deep enough into the draw, often enough that the probabilities start leaning his way for at least one. That era is packed with truly great europeans who suckled clay before they got pablum.
Click to expand...

I agree with this:

"...made it a real priority, he's sure to end up deep enough into the draw, often enough that the probabilities start leaning his way for at least one."

We all have our biases, right. To me (as Gilbert likes to say) Connors is among the most underrated Champions in history. And he was a threat on any court, any surface.

I know the Red stuff is different but I personally saw Connors beat Borg on the Green clay post 1974. Lendl was a non-issue as far as Connors chance at the French. Either Lendl wasn't even on the tour (mid-70s), too young to be a threat (late 70s) or Connors was past the time Connors had a chance to win it, Lendl or no Lendl.

More importantly, see how nice we are conversing after our Bob Hewitt squabble.
 
Connor's certainly had a chance, especially in the early 70s.

Servers had a hard time getting serves past him on hard courts, lets alone dirt. Also, he was 5'9" 160 and really fast back then, which would have aided him greatly at the French open.

I am sure those flat shots of his would have been tough to dig out of the dirt!
 
Tshooter said:
I agree with this:

"...made it a real priority, he's sure to end up deep enough into the draw, often enough that the probabilities start leaning his way for at least one."

We all have our biases, right. To me (as Gilbert likes to say) Connors is among the most underrated Champions in history. And he was a threat on any court, any surface.

I know the Red stuff is different but I personally saw Connors beat Borg on the Green clay post 1974. Lendl was a non-issue as far as Connors chance at the French. Either Lendl wasn't even on the tour (mid-70s), too young to be a threat (late 70s) or Connors was past the time Connors had a chance to win it, Lendl or no Lendl.

More importantly, see how nice we are conversing after our Bob Hewitt squabble.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Connors was a top notch player on all surfaces from '74-76, beating Borg twice on green clay at the USO. Lendl was a non factor during this period and Borg had not quite figured Jimmy out. Wilander did not show up until '82 so he was not a factor. Even in the '80's, Connors made a few semis there, so he was competitive ('80, '84, '85), even if he was not dominant on the surface. Shoot, he made the QF in '87, when he was nearly 35 yrs old, losing to Becker. Not too shabby on what was his "worst" surface.

He certainly "had a shot" at the FO in 74-76.
 
Last edited:
DirtBaller4 said:
Connor's certainly had a chance, especially in the early 70s.

Servers had a hard time getting serves past him on hard courts, lets alone dirt. Also, he was 5'9" 160 and really fast back then, which would have aided him greatly at the French open.

I am sure those flat shots of his would have been tough to dig out of the dirt!
Click to expand...

If you have not seen it, watch some of the '76 USO final to get a sense of how tough those flat shots are, even on clay. Shoot, you can watch the '91 match he had against Chang at the FO, who struggled greatly with Connors' unique style of play. While he was more effective on the faster surfaces, he was not averse to playing clay court players and top spinners....he could eat it up on a good day.
 
if I recall properly, only two men beat Connors on clay by playing agressive S&V:Mac and Pecci ( I think Panatta´s victories were not on cc).Even so, in their 84 semi, Mac dominated mainly from the backcourt, attracting Connors to the net with great drop shots and then passing him easily.
 
jrepac said:
If you have not seen it, watch some of the '76 USO final
Click to expand...

My first of many live USO finals. Like a lot of young Kids I wanted Borg to win.

Borg was one of those players that changed the game. And by change the game I mean (almost) every kid learning to play in the mid-late 70s was trying to hit a massive topspin forehand. And Borg helped jumpstart the 2HBH (Evert as well). No one tried (or could) emulate Connors strokes. They were odd. And no one could really control a T-2000 either. Also no one liked Connors back then...
 
He would have won the title in 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977 so would have 4 French Open titles today. Had he played the Australian he would have won there 2 or 3 times too and had 14 or 15 majors overall.
 
granddog29 said:
He would have won the title in 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1977 so would have 4 French Open titles today. Had he played the Australian he would have won there 2 or 3 times too and had 14 or 15 majors overall.
Click to expand...

Absurd statement. You're telling me Connors would have beaten Borg to the title in 1974/1975, and Vilas in 1977? They were much better red clay courters than he. And, if he had won the FO in 1974, he would likely have been too exhausted to then win Wimbledon a few weeks later. Similarly for if he had played the AO all those years (and we have to assume that the other top players would've played it as well, so we can't just hand Connors titles when the likes of Nastase/Borg/Mac would have been there).

I hate these hypotheticals handing players imaginary majors. :evil:
 
Phoenix1983 said:
Absurd statement. You're telling me Connors would have beaten Borg to the title in 1974/1975, and Vilas in 1977? They were much better red clay courters than he. And, if he had won the FO in 1974, he would likely have been too exhausted to then win Wimbledon a few weeks later. Similarly for if he had played the AO all those years (and we have to assume that the other top players would've played it as well, so we can't just hand Connors titles when the likes of Nastase/Borg/Mac would have been there).

I hate these hypotheticals handing players imaginary majors. :evil:
Click to expand...

Well, Borg didn´t look too exhausted to me when he won three times in a row RG&W
 
kiki said:
Well, Borg didn´t look too exhausted to me when he won three times in a row RG&W
Click to expand...

1. Borg was a much greater red clay courter than Connors.

2. Borg actually had a much tougher time winning Wimbledon than the other great champions of the Open Era (Sampras, Federer). He was regularly pushed to 5 sets, even by lesser players like Amaya, Amirtraj. I believe that Connors would also have been pushed to 5 sets a lot and quite probably beaten by such players, because he was not as great as Borg.
 
In the 70´s, since clay and grass were so opposite, there were a lot of grass court and clay court magnificient specialists.

Under those conditions, calling Amritraj ( who had challenged many greats on grass and in 81 extended Connors to five sets at the qf) a lesser player is wrong.
 
kiki said:
In the 70´s, since clay and grass were so opposite, there were a lot of grass court and clay court magnificient specialists.

Under those conditions, calling Amritraj ( who had challenged many greats on grass and in 81 extended Connors to five sets at the qf) a lesser player is wrong.
Click to expand...

The dude never reached a slam semi-final. By historical standards he is a lesser player.
 
Phoenix1983 said:
1. Borg was a much greater red clay courter than Connors.

2. Borg actually had a much tougher time winning Wimbledon than the other great champions of the Open Era (Sampras, Federer). He was regularly pushed to 5 sets, even by lesser players like Amaya, Amirtraj. I believe that Connors would also have been pushed to 5 sets a lot and quite probably beaten by such players, because he was not as great as Borg.
Click to expand...

no question that Borg was a superior clay court player, however, I think someone looked up Connors record at RG and it's something like a 75pct winning percentage. And this record was built during years when he was not at the highest peak of his abilities. This tends to refute the claim that "a lot" of players would beat him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Connors At The French
Replies
25
Views
5K
NadalAgassi
N
D
Connors 74-78
Replies
1
Views
943
jrepac
J
drwood
  • Poll Poll
Before 1989 (in Open Era), who had the toughest draw to win their first slam?
Replies
0
Views
1K
drwood
drwood
S
Borg's analysis of Connors' decline in late 70s
Replies
40
Views
2K
goldenera
G
S
Jimmy Connors' French Open number of matches won is really high
Replies
43
Views
2K
WCT
W
Back
Top