Did Cash cost Lendl Four Majors from 1984-1988?

I personally don't consider Agassi being more competitive at majors in his 30s than Connors to be a particularly big deal, when on the flipside Connors was generally more competitive throughout his 20s.

As I've said quite a few times in the past, it was pretty blatant to me that Agassi's relative lack of consistency (compared to players like Connors and Lendl - clearly what he achieved was incredible) in his 20s, meant that he had less wear and tear. Therefore it also meant that he had more fuel left in the tank to achieve as much as he did in his 30s, so enhacing his longevity. The two went hand in hand, and I don't think they can be separated. Would Agassi have had the same level of results and success that he did in his 30s, if he was more consistent year in year out during his 20s? I strongly doubt it, and so does Agassi himself based on previous comments.

When in his 20s for example, he failed to reach the quarter-finals at 6 consecutive majors from the 1997 US Open to the 1999 Australian Open, and at 8 majors out of 9 that he entered from 1996 RG to the 1999 Australian Open. During the lone exception at the US Open in 1996, he was destroyed by Chang in the semis. Despite being 26 at the time, he was probably no more of a serious title threat (or if he was then barely) there than Connors was at the 1987 US Open aged 34 / 35 for example.

At the US Open when aged 21-30, he failed to reach the quarter-finals 5 times, and the semi-finals 6 times, in 10 appearances. On the flipside Connors when aged 21-30 (actually 21-33) never failed to reached the last 8 at the US Open, if we use the 1973 tournament during which his 21st birthday took place as the starting point. That was only time that he failed to reach the last 4 during that period. Plus he only failed to reach the last 8 once at Wimbledon aged 21-30 (actually aged 20-32 though the 1973 tournament was of course incredibly weak for well known reasons), in 1983 when he was the title favourite but upset by Curren in R4. That was one of only two times along with 1976 that he failed to reach the last 4 at Wimbledon during that period.
 
Last edited:
yes valid point, but many people often point to Connor's longevity as a principal reason to vote him over Lendl, Mac or Agassi. Can we talk about them playing each other at their peaks - I dont know when Connors' was (USO78 or 82?) vs e.g. Agassi 95, on decoturf. No 5th set breakers, both stripped to the waist
 
Well Lendl and Mcenroe were comparable to Connors when they were all in their 20s. The longevity advantage goes to Connors. How much that should be factored in is debatable. Connors was clearly better than Agassi when they were each in their 20s. I would give Connors a slight edge when they got old, but we can go on and cherry pick good and bad performances for both of them.

Connors won his last Grand Slam when he was about 31. Agassi won an Australian when he was 32. (beating nobody btw. But you can beat who is across the court from you.) After that, they all had their ups and downs. When you get older, you aren't as consistent.
Connors at the age of 33 went the 5th set with Lendl at the Lipton International in 1986. The rest of 1986 he seemed to be in decline. But he had a better 1987.
Likewise, Agassi had his ups and downs.

Connors making the SF at the age of 39 is a big deal. But arguable, I guess. It was not as impressive as Rosewall making it the F of both Wimbledon and the US at 39. Or Tilden winning Wimbledon at 37. But still a noteworthy achievement.

I guess I have no problem with someone saying was slightly better than when they got old. but lets stop pretending that it isn't close and lets stop the cherry picking.
 
Connors isnt "clearly better than Agassi when they were each in their 20s". More consistent, yes, but no version of Connors beats Sampras at AO95, or Becker, Mcenroe+ Ivanisevic in succession at W92, with the latter serving 35mph quicker than anything Connors ever faced (except maybe Tanner but his wasnt as big as Goran's). look at the difference in the speed +spin of the balls they were hitting + player's biomechanics in 92 compared to 82
 
I didn't even know we had to debate this. No version of Connors could have won those matches? Come on.

Ivanisevic's serve 35 mph faster than anything Connors ever faced? That is simply factually incorrect. Way off.

And yes consistency counts.

In their 20s, Agassi finished #1 once. Connors was #1 5 times.
Agassi finished #2 twice. Connors once.
Agassi never finished #3 in his 20s. Connors was #3 3 times.

So for Connors, 9 of 10 years in the Top 3.

Agassi had another year when he was #4. Another #6, and years at #8, #9, #10.
Oh, and Agassi finished one year #24. And how about this one: At the age of 27, Agassi was ranked #110 in the world.

This isn't that close. Connors was simply better.
 
forget rankings dude, use your own eyes, pls tell me u can see the difference here


the latter is like a Sunday amateur club warm-up knock up by comparison
 
A little exaggeration again. You are also picking one match out of their careers. By this reasoning, Agassi was better than Sampras. Racquets are significantly different as well. Not Connors best match, but he still beat Ivan Lendl. How embarrassing. How did Agassi do against Lendl?
Thought that you might pick Agassi's loss to Krickstein in the first round of the 1991 US Open. Who was the old guy that beat Krickstein that year?

You are grasping at straws. Agassi was your guy growing up. Fine. Sometimes a guy before your time was better. Sometimes he wasn't. Sometimes a guy that you like is not as good as someone else. That's just how it goes. In this case, the guy that came along earlier was better, not your hero. Thats life.
 
feel free to post some prime Connors for comparison... + yes I agree, the racket technology is an issue as well, no way Connors can mix it with prime Pete or Andre with a Wilson T2000. But also fairly clear that training, nutrition, athleticism, biomechanics everything had moved on greatly since Connor's heydey, you'd have to give him the benefit of all that to make this a reasonable conversation (i.e. give him 2 years to adjust/benefit to all that). There's a reason Borg got smoked in 91, even on his favourite surface. Imagine if he'd played Wimbledon that year lol. + by '94, Borg+Connors were about even on the seniors tour
 
Last edited:
GuyForget said:
Connors isnt "clearly better than Agassi when they were each in their 20s". More consistent, yes, but no version of Connors beats Sampras at AO95, or Becker, Mcenroe+ Ivanisevic in succession at W92,
Click to expand...
That's like comparing apples and oranges. Connors won 3 majors in 1974, and was unjustly banned from the other. Connors at times was very impressive on grass, more times than Agassi, like his Queen's Club wins in 1982 and 1983 (also winning Wimbledon in 1982).

GuyForget said:
There's a reason Borg got smoked in 91, even on his favourite surface.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons was Borg using a wooden racquet against Arrese at 1991 Monte Carlo, as if it was still a decade earlier. Another was having Ron Thatcher (aka Tia Honsai), an 80 year old Welsh karate expert, as his coach :)

As far as I recall, Borg ditched the wooden racquet in 1992 for a graphite racquet, but stuck with Thatcher as coach until 1993.
 
Mustard said:
That's like comparing apples and oranges. Connors won 3 majors in 1974, and was unjustly banned from the other. Connors at times was very impressive on grass, more times than Agassi, like his Queen's Club wins in 1982 and 1983 (also winning Wimbledon in 1982).


One of the reasons was Borg using a wooden racquet against Arrese at 1991 Monte Carlo, as if it was still a decade earlier. Another was having Ron Thatcher (aka Tia Honsai), an 80 year old Welsh karate expert, as his coach :)

As far as I recall, Borg ditched the wooden racquet in 1992 for a graphite racquet, but stuck with Thatcher as coach until 1993.
Click to expand...

 
yes totally agree rackets is a big issue which would have to be properly factored into account (forgot Mac was using wood here but there's still the same disparity vs the 84 final in terms of hitting speed), but also look at the difference in their general explosiveness, the forehands, Pete serving bombs at 130 compared to Mac around 100, beautiful optimal vs awkward horrible biomechanics/forehands with no real topspin etc. switching from a 15 dollar aluminium racket to a 200 dollar graphite doesnt magically add 30mph to your serve, that's not the main reason Pete's serve is in a completely different universe to Mac or JC's. It's like comparing Carl Lewis to Usain Bolt
 
Last edited:
GuyForget said:
yes totally agree rackets is a big issue which would have to be properly factored into account (forgot Mac was using wood here but there's still the same disparity vs the 84 final in terms of hitting speed), but also look at the difference in their general explosiveness, the forehands, Pete serving bombs at 130 compared to Mac around 100, beautiful optimal vs awkward horrible biomechanics/forehands with no real topspin etc. switching from a 15 dollar aluminium racket to a 200 dollar graphite doesnt magically add 30mph to your serve, that's not the main reason Pete's serve is in a completely different universe to Mac or JC's. It's like comparing Carl Lewis to Usain Bolt
Click to expand...
Sampras with 1982 equipment is not going to do what he did in 1999. He's not going to do it with wood or the T-2000.

The best serving display with wood was probably Curren against Connors at 1983 Wimbledon, in the fourth round. Curren hit 33 aces and beat tournament favourite Connors 6-3, 6-7, 6-3, 7-6. Connors was seen as the best returner in tennis, too.

Tanner was an incredible server in the 1970s and 1980s, but he usually had a metal racquet.
 
Mustard said:
Sampras with 1982 equipment is not going to do what he did in 1999. He's not going to do it with wood or the T-2000.

The best serving display with wood was probably Curren against Connors at 1983 Wimbledon, in the fourth round. Curren hit 33 aces and beat tournament favourite Connors 6-3, 6-7, 6-3, 7-6. Connors was seen as the best returner in tennis, too.

Tanner was an incredible server in the 1970s and 1980s, but he usually had a metal racquet.
Click to expand...
Mac served well with wood. Because of the smaller head size with, of course, the same racket length, the sweet spot is further away from the racket handle giving you more leverage. Like hitting a 2-iron instead of a 4-iron
 
McEnroe was never known for an especially hard serve but he could hit for decent speed, especially with the improving racquets.
The main reason that McEnroe's serve was effective was not because of speed. It was placement that made him effective. In particular, that wide serve to the ad court put his opponent so far off of the court.
Agassi had a mediocre serve in terms of power and placement.
Connors did not hit it hard, though he had good placement.
The vast majority of the opponents that he faced hit it well within 35 mph of Sampras serve, no idea where the idea that he only faced one player that did came from.
 
buscemi said:
Connors's loss to Chang at the 1991 French Open was quite competitive unless you're writing that off b/c he retired in the fifth set. And why should we focus just on close losses to top players when Connors had a huge win over a top player against Edberg at the 1989 U.S. Open?
Click to expand...
Edberg played a terrible match, which would happen to him sometimes [happened again the following year against Volkov]. Nice win by Connors, but his real level got exposed later.
 
GuyForget said:
forget rankings dude, use your own eyes, pls tell me u can see the difference here

the latter is like a Sunday amateur club warm-up knock up by comparison
Click to expand...

That's a fail argument and you should know it. Any and all improvements over time have to do with improved equipment, optimised nutrition and training, etc. Talent level does not intrinsically increase over time just because. It only ever makes sense to compare players across eras by evaluating their performances against what was possible at the time, with the equipment, training etc those players had.
 
AnOctorokForDinner said:
An up-and-down teenage Agassi. When AA pulled himself together, Connors couldn't keep up - stands to reason given how old and declined he was. Of course, prime Connors would've beaten young Agassi with a clear advantage, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Agassi was put under a lot of pressure in the fifth set of their 1989 US Open quarter final match, towards the end. The crowd was roaring for Connors. Connors was annoyed later when it was insinuated that Agassi had tanked the third set to try to win a match that had gone into a fifth set for the first time.
 
Agassi denying (including in his autobiography I think) that he tanked that 3rd set, when he was seen holding up a full hand / 5 fingers to his box and also mouthing 'it's going 5', was funny. It was pretty blatant what was going on there. Agassi wasn't exactly subtle when he tanked sets or matches.

Connors had come up with one of the all-time great quotes after their 1988 QF; 'I enjoy playing guys who could be my children. Maybe he's one of them. I spent a lot of time in Vegas.'
 
Can't believe that Agassi tanked the entire set. Nobdy would be that stupid. He got far behind in the set, I could see him not giving his best for the rest of the set. that sin't unheard of. I remember this match. It was not particularly well played, but it was intense.
 
martinezownsclay said:
Agassi was much more a real contender to win big hard court events at ages 32-35 than Connors ever was. I think that is the main point being made. And I think that is pretty simple and straightforward. After mid 85 or so, did anyone seriously consider Connors a possible winner at a major, hard courts or otherwise, anymore? While Agassi was considered a legit contender to win any slam he was in still 2001-2003, and at the 2 hard court slams in both 2004 and 2005.
Click to expand...
I think he was a contender through end of '85....then again at W in '87, given the way the draw fell out. 1986 was the year where he fell off the rails, in all honesty.
 
GuyForget said:
feel free to post some prime Connors for comparison... + yes I agree, the racket technology is an issue as well, no way Connors can mix it with prime Pete or Andre with a Wilson T2000. But also fairly clear that training, nutrition, athleticism, biomechanics everything had moved on greatly since Connor's heydey, you'd have to give him the benefit of all that to make this a reasonable conversation (i.e. give him 2 years to adjust/benefit to all that). There's a reason Borg got smoked in 91, even on his favourite surface. Imagine if he'd played Wimbledon that year lol. + by '94, Borg+Connors were about even on the seniors tour
Click to expand...
Jeepers. Connors moved to graphite. Watch him play Becker at 87 Queens final and tell me that it's not competitive? He returned Beckers serve just fine. He could return Sampras's serve. And we know about Mac's. Too much focus on the frames and "mechanics" ....and don't compare to Borg '91 because that's farcical...Connors would have kicked his butt as well....he was way, way out of form.
 
Last edited:
AnOctorokForDinner said:
An up-and-down teenage Agassi. When AA pulled himself together, Connors couldn't keep up - stands to reason given how old and declined he was. Of course, prime Connors would've beaten young Agassi with a clear advantage, I'm sure.
Click to expand...
at age 37.....he was still in the top 20, so not like he was a hacker by any stretch. He had a pretty good run at the end of '89 from USO onwards and ended #14, assuming Wiki is correct. Andre was done well before 37, so the real comparison is to the "Big 3" who have redefined what it means to be "old" in men's tennis, competing and winning GS events. And let's not forget 39 year old Rosewall, who defied all expectations.
 
Last edited:
jrepac said:
I think he was a contender through end of '85....then again at W in '87, given the way the draw fell out. 1986 was the year where he fell off the rails, in all honesty.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I would have to go back and relive that period again (when I was very young but still following the sport very closely) to really give an accurate perspective. I still maintain through memory though Agassi felt like a much stronger contender to win slams aged 32 to 35 than Connors ever was though. I think after 85 the only time he was considered even an outside possible winner of a major was Wimbledon 87 after the draw fell apart. And even in 85 itself he felt like a real long shot to win a slam with McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander now all firmly above him, probably young Becker too, and numerous others capable of taking him out on any given day, which wasn't the case even in 84. Whereas Agassi as late as 2004 and 2005 to me felt the 2nd most likely winner of any hard court major, behind only Federer (yes I had him slightly over Hewitt, erratic Safin, and Roddick in likelihood of winning a hard court major those years, some may agree, some may not). A very distant 2nd well behind overwhelming favorite Federer, but still.

Does not change that overall Connors has to clearly rank above Agassi career wise mind you.
 
martinezownsclay said:
Fair enough. I would have to go back and relive that period again (when I was very young but still following the sport very closely) to really give an accurate perspective. I still maintain through memory though Agassi felt like a much stronger contender to win slams aged 32 to 35 than Connors ever was though. I think after 85 the only time he was considered even an outside possible winner of a major was Wimbledon 87 after the draw fell apart. And even in 85 itself he felt like a real long shot to win a slam with McEnroe, Lendl, Wilander now all firmly above him, probably young Becker too, and numerous others capable of taking him out on any given day, which wasn't the case even in 84. Whereas Agassi as late as 2004 and 2005 to me felt the 2nd most likely winner of any hard court major, behind only Federer (yes I had him slightly over Hewitt, erratic Safin, and Roddick in likelihood of winning a hard court major those years, some may agree, some may not). A very distant 2nd well behind overwhelming favorite Federer, but still.

Does not change that overall Connors has to clearly rank above Agassi career wise mind you.
Click to expand...

85 Wimby was all about Mac...Becker was the new hot young buck who blew through the draw at Queens. I don't recall Lendl being favored, actually, despite being seeded #2. Once he lost early to Leconte, it was a 3 man race (Mac, Connors, Becker) in that order. Connors was #3 seed that year, ahead of Wilander, who lost in the first round. Wilander was not firmly ahead of him at this stage, certainly not on W grass and Becker was not even seeded. I think the 1985 seeding reflected the current state of affairs, in all honesty. Curren, the giant killer, had other ideas. And no one really expected Becker to win. It was a huge surprise.
 
Last edited:
Hard Court said:
Can't believe that Agassi tanked the entire set. Nobdy would be that stupid. He got far behind in the set, I could see him not giving his best for the rest of the set. that sin't unheard of. I remember this match. It was not particularly well played, but it was intense.
Click to expand...
It seemed like he was screwing around in that 3rd set. I don't know what he possibly could have been thinking. Was he insane? It was not a romp in the park in sets 4 and 5. If Connors had made a few less errors down the stretch, he might've pulled it off. Andre was looking shaky down the stretch. One of those very messy matches that was still fun to watch. Made me think the old man wasn't done just yet (that plus the Edberg win, of course, which was a stunner).
 
Hard Court said:
I didn't even know we had to debate this. No version of Connors could have won those matches? Come on.

Ivanisevic's serve 35 mph faster than anything Connors ever faced? That is simply factually incorrect. Way off.

And yes consistency counts.

In their 20s, Agassi finished #1 once. Connors was #1 5 times.
Agassi finished #2 twice. Connors once.
Agassi never finished #3 in his 20s. Connors was #3 3 times.

So for Connors, 9 of 10 years in the Top 3.

Agassi had another year when he was #4. Another #6, and years at #8, #9, #10.
Oh, and Agassi finished one year #24. And how about this one: At the age of 27, Agassi was ranked #110 in the world.

This isn't that close. Connors was simply better.
Click to expand...
Well, you've got recency bias at work, along w/fan favoritism, which I get. But, it becomes revisionist history when folks are trying to paint Lendl and Agassi as better grass court players than Connors. I get the hard court debate somewhat...some credence there given Andre's wins, but as all have said his consistency was not there at times. But on grass? No way guys. Connors has FOUR grass slams (2 W, 1 AO, 1 USO), took out prime Mac at W and Queens, beat Lendl twice (one was nearly a double bagel) and even gave Becker hell when he was "old". Plus a really memorable W final vs. Borg in '77. He was much more "natural" and comfortable on the turf than Lendl ever was. And he had plenty of competition, particularly since S&V was still a big deal and the grass was fast. there were big servers as well. but, I would've enjoyed seeing him play Goran, I will say that much.
 
jrepac said:
85 Wimby was all about Mac...Becker was the new hot young buck who blew through the draw at Queens. I don't recall Lendl being favored, actually, despite being seeded #2. Once he lost early to Leconte, it was a 3 man race (Mac, Connors, Becker) in that order. Connors was #3 seed that year, ahead of Wilander, who lost in the first round. Wilander was not firmly ahead of him at this stage, certainly not on W grass and Becker was not even seeded. I think the 1985 seeding reflected the current state of affairs, in all honesty. Curren, the giant killer, had other ideas. And no one really expected Becker to win. It was a huge surprise.
Click to expand...

Ok fair point on Wimbledon. I don't think Connors was a top 2 or 3 favorite for any other major in 85 outside of Wimbledon though. And after 1986 not even a top 4, outside of Wimbledon 87, and that is not going in, but after the draw fell apart.

Still Connors > Agassi clearly overall, but Agassi > Connors aged 32 to 35, and possibly even aged 29/30 to 35. I do think what Agassi achieved in 99/early 2000 for instance is still more impressive than what Connors did in 82 and 83, apart from Connors probably having the harder competition.
 
martinezownsclay said:
Ok fair point on Wimbledon. I don't think Connors was a top 2 or 3 favorite for any other major in 85 outside of Wimbledon though.
Click to expand...
1985 US Open, obviously. Connors had terrible luck spraining his ankle just before the semi final against Lendl.

martinezownsclay said:
And after 1986 not even a top 4, outside of Wimbledon 87, and that is not going in, but after the draw fell apart.
Click to expand...
I've said it before, but going into the 1987 Wimbledon semi finals (Connors vs. Cash, Edberg vs. Lendl), Lendl was considered the tournament favourite, and Connors was seen as the best bet to stop Lendl.

Connors' chances at the 1987 US Open were pretty high, but Lendl played so well in that semi final. Even Connors was like "well done, well played" at the net after that match.
 
Mustard said:
1985 US Open, obviously. Connors had terrible luck spraining his ankle just before the semi final against Lendl.


I've said it before, but going into the 1987 Wimbledon semi finals (Connors vs. Cash, Edberg vs. Lendl), Lendl was considered the tournament favourite, and Connors was seen as the best bet to stop Lendl.

Connors' chances at the 1987 US Open were pretty high, but Lendl played so well in that semi final. Even Connors was like "well done, well played" at the net after that match.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure McEnroe and Lendl were both seen well above Connors going into the 85 US Open, and some others were considered atleast on part with him in chances.

And I agree on Wimbledon 87, which is what I said. He was not a favorite going into the tournament at all, but became one by the semis.
 
martinezownsclay said:
Pretty sure McEnroe and Lendl were both seen well above Connors going into the 85 US Open, and some others were considered atleast on part with him in chances.

And I agree on Wimbledon 87, which is what I said. He was not a favorite going into the tournament at all, but became one by the semis.
Click to expand...
Eh, Lendl was just doing OK in '85...better than Connors who was winless that season. But Mac was the very clear favorite. Wimby '87 was a pretty interesting one, with the Lendl struggle, the upstart Cash, young Edberg w/2 grass slams and the veteran Connors. I was thinking that a Connors-Edberg final was a real possibility. so much for that
 
jrepac said:
85 Wimby was all about Mac...Becker was the new hot young buck who blew through the draw at Queens. I don't recall Lendl being favored, actually, despite being seeded #2. Once he lost early to Leconte, it was a 3 man race (Mac, Connors, Becker) in that order. Connors was #3 seed that year, ahead of Wilander, who lost in the first round. Wilander was not firmly ahead of him at this stage, certainly not on W grass and Becker was not even seeded. I think the 1985 seeding reflected the current state of affairs, in all honesty. Curren, the giant killer, had other ideas. And no one really expected Becker to win. It was a huge surprise.
Click to expand...
Curren was favourite for the final, a previous grass slam finalist +Wimbledon semi finalist + decimated Mac+Jimbo, so he was a horse here as well. The final was a knife fight between the best 2 serves in the world, like the 94 final
 
Thought I would mention some things about 1985. I was really following the sport closely at the time. ESPN was covering the semifinals and finals of of quite a few tournaments at the time. The USA network covered some as well.
I distinctly remember Mcenroe winning at Stratton Mountain, Vermont, which was a good tournament at the time. Lendl beat Connors in one Sf and McEnroe beat Robert Seguso (I think) and then beat Lendl in the final. Not long after that, McEnroe beat Connors badly in the SF and then Lendl at the Canadian Open.

However, Lendl had to be fairly close to McEnroe in the rankings before the US Open; otherwise he would not have passed him after winning it.
Lendl was having a pretty good year. He won 11 tournaments that year.
Connors did not win a tournament the entire year. He did make the SF at the French, Wimbledon, and US Open.

Becker of course won Wimbledon. He also won in Cincinatti over Wilander. But overall, he was not that close to the top yet. He only finished #6 for the year.
 
Hard Court said:
Thought I would mention some things about 1985. I was really following the sport closely at the time. ESPN was covering the semifinals and finals of of quite a few tournaments at the time. The USA network covered some as well.
I distinctly remember Mcenroe winning at Stratton Mountain, Vermont, which was a good tournament at the time. Lendl beat Connors in one Sf and McEnroe beat Robert Seguso (I think) and then beat Lendl in the final. Not long after that, McEnroe beat Connors badly in the SF and then Lendl at the Canadian Open.

However, Lendl had to be fairly close to McEnroe in the rankings before the US Open; otherwise he would not have passed him after winning it.
Lendl was having a pretty good year. He won 11 tournaments that year.
Connors did not win a tournament the entire year. He did make the SF at the French, Wimbledon, and US Open.

Becker of course won Wimbledon. He also won in Cincinatti over Wilander. But overall, he was not that close to the top yet. He only finished #6 for the year.
Click to expand...
Yes, Stratton Mountain was a good one, indeed. Didn't remember Seguso making the SF, but I sure liked his big game, w/ those massive BH returns. Wawrinka before Wawrinka..
 
Last edited:
GuyForget said:
Curren was favourite for the final, a previous grass slam finalist +Wimbledon semi finalist + decimated Mac+Jimbo, so he was a horse here as well. The final was a knife fight between the best 2 serves in the world, like the 94 final
Click to expand...
Oh, I fully expected Curren to beat Becker. But some shadow body double with about half the skill showed up in his place that day
 
jrepac said:
Oh, I fully expected Curren to beat Becker. But some shadow body double with about half the skill showed up in his place that day
Click to expand...
Curren started slowly against Becker, in the opening 3 games in particular, but Curren did play very well for a couple of sets. At one point, it was 1 set all with Curren a break up in the third set. Becker then had to respond, and did so.

Admittedly, Curren played nothing like as good as his performances against McEnroe and Connors, especially against Connors when Curren was unplayable on the day.
 
Mustard said:
Curren started slowly against Becker, in the opening 3 games in particular, but Curren did play very well for a couple of sets. At one point, it was 1 set all with Curren a break up in the third set. Becker then had to respond, and did so.

Admittedly, Curren played nothing like as good as his performances against McEnroe and Connors, especially against Connors when Curren was unplayable on the day.
Click to expand...
yes, not God awful, but certainly not Godly play from Curren in that final.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GuyForget
Lendl losses to Cash
Replies
35
Views
3K
jrepac
J
K
Backhand and forehand winners (1959-2008)
2
Replies
68
Views
16K
Grafil Injection
Grafil Injection
S
Mat Wilander's Grand Slam Finals Matches
Replies
0
Views
1K
serve/and/volley
S
M
Stats for 1984 USO SF (Lendl-Cash)
Replies
20
Views
6K
krosero
K
B
Why was Wilander so bad at Wimbledon?
Replies
33
Views
3K
jrepac
J
Back
Top