Duel Match Stats/Reports - Becker vs Connors, French Open quarter-final, 1987 & Connors vs Edberg, French Open quarter-final, 1985

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Boris Becker beat Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-3, 7-5 in the French Open quarter-final, 1987 on clay

Becker would go onto lose to Mats Wilander in the next round in the first of his eventual 3 semi-finals at the event. This would turn out to be the last of Connors’ 8 quarter-finals at the event

Becker won 110 points, Connors 88

Serve Stats
Becker...
- 1st serve percentage (65/102) 64%
- 1st serve points won (41/65) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (26/37) 70%
- Aces 4, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (24/102) 24%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (76/96) 79%
- 1st serve points won (43/76) 57%
- 2nd serve points won (10/20) 50%
- Aces 1 (a second serve)
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (9/96) 9%

Serve Patterns
Becker served...
- to FH 36%
- to BH 58%
- to Body 6%

Connors served...
- to FH 18%
- to BH 71%
- to Body 12%

Return Stats
Becker made...
- 86 (25 FH, 61 BH), including 8 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 8 Errors, comprising...
- 7 Unforced (3 FH, 4 BH)
- 1 Forced (1 FH)
- Return Rate (86/95) 91%

Connors made...
- 76 (35 FH, 41 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 19 Errors, comprising...
- 14 Unforced (4 FH, 10 BH)
- 5 Forced (2 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (76/100) 76%

Break Points
Becker 6/12 (7 games)
Connors 2/6 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Becker 22 (14 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 3 OH)
Connors 22 (6 FH, 4 BH, 8 FHV, 2 BHV, 2 OH)

Becker's FHs - 2 cc, 8 dtl (1 at net), 2 inside-out, 1 inside-in return and 1 running-down-drop-shot cc pass at net
- BHs - 2 dtl passes and 1 drop shot

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a first volley OH

Connors' FHs - 3 cc (2 passes), 2 dtl (1 pass) and 1 inside-out pass
- BHs - 2 cc (1 return that Becker whiffed, 1 pass) and 2 dtl (1 pass)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Becker 55
- 37 Unforced (16 FH, 19 BH, 2 BHV)
- 18 Forced (5 FH, 9 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.3

Connors 63
- 47 Unforced (20 FH, 24 BH, 2 FHV, 1 OH)… with 1 FH pass attempt at net
- 16 Forced (9 FH, 7 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.3

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Becker was...
- 18/33 (55%) at net, including...
- 2/3 (67%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 0/2 forced back

Connors was...
- 23/30 (77%) at net, including...
- 3/3 (100%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 2/2 off 1st serve and...
- 1/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 2/2 forced back/retreated

Match Report
Baseline match, and Becker has a couple of things Connors doesn’t. The only impressive shot on show, his FH and a bigger serve that results in him returning more regularly. Connors’ brain work doesn’t help his cause either

Its not a very good match, by either player though. If Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander represent Grade A clay courters of the period, this would be Grade C

Two trade groundies from the back. The hitting is controlled, clinical, but short of powerful. There’s some moving-opponent-around play, but its minority, neither player moves exceptionally well but both are able to handle the others wider hits

And the errors come. Lot of routine shot misses. And considerable amount of it in short rallies, including routine third balls. The errors that come in medium length rallies aren’t anything more difficult either. There aren’t many long rallies… because they can’t keep the ball in play long enough for there to be

Boris is -
- more consistent (ground UEs Boris 35, Jimbo 44 & neutral UEs Boris 22, Jimbo 32)
- has only impressive shot around in his FH (14 winners, 16 UEs. The other 3 winners/UE differentials are -14, -16 and -20)
- much better in serve-return complex (returns at 91%, leads unreturned rate 24% to 9%)

As for Connors’ brain-work, he stays on the baseline, trading these groundies that he’s not only getting short end of, but that he’s adapted himself to keep from getting an even shorter end. But he’s doing great coming to net. Yet he shows little inclination to do so

Ground UEs tell you how the baseline rallies are going. Its even worse than it looks for Jimbo because of all the damage Boris’ FH that does for which he has no equivalent
Boris 12 ground-to-ground winners (excluding a return, including a drop shot) are more than Jimbo’s total 10 ground winners (and only 3 of those are ground-to-ground). Boris’ FH dtl alone has 7 winners

But rallying to net -
- Boris 16/30 at 53%
- Jimbo 20/27 at 74%

And yet, he’s happy to stay on the baseline and lose points in an error battle he never looks likely to win. Early on, he plays from orthodox position, and its his FH that gives up the most UEs - usually, just missing a routine cc shot, amidst a routine cc rally

He adapts by moving over for most of second 2 sets towards his FH side, so he can take Boris BH cc with his BH. Which he hits back inside-out (to avoid Boris’ dangerous FH), thus protecting his vulnerable FH some, but his own BH doesn’t fare too well either (though better than his FH did). Long and short of it is he’s losing comfortably from the back on error front, he’s losing from the back on winner front and he’s getting no freebies with the serve while giving away a fair chunk

Just 1 thing is going his way. The net points. And he shows little interest in pursuing it. This getting beaten from the back, doing well coming in, but not coming in much is a repeat pattern in Connors’ matches from later in his career

Action & Stats
Boris leading unreturneds 24% to 9% is first important one

For him, 64% first serves in is very high, and indicates he’s not going for too much with it. Healthy serving is a good description. Jimbo even spontaneously hit a runaround FH against 1 of the first serves - not the sort of thing you see against Boris ever, to give some idea of how much Boris holds back on the serve shot (that particular serve was one of his slower ones though)

Jimbo’s returning against it isn’t very good. 14 of his 19 return errors have been marked UEs. Much of it is against healthy first serves, not widely placed, so not the easiest of UEs, but UEs still. Routine returns, the kind he’s making regularly on whole

Jimbo’s serve is a point-starter and even for him, 79% in is high. 0 trouble for Boris in returning it and he makes 91% returns. Just 1 FE (and a second serve aces the direction of which catches Boris out)

Note Boris winning more second serve points than firsts 70% to 63% - highly unusual (probably unique) for him or a server of his calibre @krosero

Ground action as described earlier. Normal baseline stuff of power, depth, direction, change-ups. Jimbo adjusts to his FH being loose by moving over to play more BHs, so it’s the BH that’s copped the most UEs

UE breakdown
- Boris FH 16
- Boris BH 19 & Jimbo FH 20
- Jimbo BH 24

Jimbo’s FH is struck well, probably better than his BH on whole. He just can’t keep striking it over and over - even by ordinary standards of the match

Boris’ FH not only starring statistically with the 14 winners (all other groundies in match have 13 total), but beyond that too. It’s the only shot that can regularly open the court

The 8 dtl winners - as many as all other shots’ non-pass winners - are star. He goes for them out of routine cc rallies as much as setting up by particularly moving Jimbo to the other side first. Doesn’t miss much either - he’s got just 4 winner attempt UEs

And its not just the dtl - he’s got a pair of cc and inside-out winners each too

FH doesn’t get too much better of Jimbo’s BH in cc rallies in terms of consistency (good lot of Jimbo’s would be hitting inside-outs against Boris’ BH), but it is better hit, considerably better of angles (Jimbo’s is average) and clearly, much, much, much better as a finisher
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
A general point about Jimbo’s BH (i.e. beyond this match). From middle of court, its effective because he can go either inside-out (unusual for most players) or cc with it. But when he moves over more to ad court, he rarely plays inside-in, making it more predictable. Here, it wouldn’t be a good idea to redirect to Boris’ FH

Boris plays all kinds of BHs - drives and slices and slice drives - mixing them all up. Usually cc, sometimes longlin. None stand out as better than the others, none are more consistent and it doesn’t seem to put Jimbo off. Jimbo stoops down to hit FHs against Boris’ BH slices and isn’t unduly error prone on it. Its the routine, firm cc FH that he tends to miss

UEs are key

Winners equal at 22
FEs near equal - Boris 18, Jimbo 16
Even UEFI is equal at 44.3
UEs though - Boris 37, Jimbo 47

Finally, the net play

Neither player makes much effort to get forward. Both serve-volley just 3 times (Jimbo once off a second serve). Jimbo hits winners every time

And Jimbo doing much, much better up there

Rallying to net
- Boris 16/30 at 53%
- Jimbo 20/27 at 74%

Even sans an exceptional game where Jimbo fires passing winners, Boris is 15/26 at 58% - well worse than Jimbo

No significant difference in players realistic prospects of taking net. Boris could probably do so more readily were he inclined early in some of his first serve points. Boris returns passively, and Jimbo could do so near as much were he particularly looking to. Boris with small manuvering advantage in rallies, with hitting about the same, so not much difference there either

Just not much desire for either player to come forward. For Jimbo, who’s losing from the back, it’d have been more important to have done so

He isn’t faced with difficult volleys (0 FEs is for that reason, not his making lots of difficult ones). I’d say Boris doesn’t pass well rather than Jimbo coming in off strong approaches too. But nothing wrong with the finishing - 12 winners is a lot for having won 23 points

Jimbo does pass better, and Boris is faced with tough volleys. Jimbo with 6 passing winners (Boris 3 - 1 a running-down-drop-shot at net), Boris with 4 ‘volley’ FEs to Jimbo’s 0

Match Progression
Easy, firm hitting off both sides from both players to open the match. Easy errors too - doesn’t take too long for one or the other to blink and it isn’t against tough balls. Boris throws in a few slies too. Standard stuff - cc rallies, with occasional long line change-ups

Jimbo’s FH blinks the most. And he misses a few routine returns. And Boris putsaway a few FH dtl winners

4-0 Boris - saving 3 break points in a 14 point hold among them. Jimbo grabs one back but sets near done by then

Last game, Jimbo has a sitting duck pass at net where best option is to go right at Boris. He misses going wide. This is a common trait of Jimbo’s, he doesn’t hit passes at players

More of the same in second set, with errors coming a little earlier, and Boris not racing into lead. He breaks for 2-1 and breaks again to end the set. Has 1 deuce hold (no break points)

Third set is best of the bunch and most competitive. 15 of Jimbo’s 30 approaches are in the set. He wins 11, so about same winning rate as earlier (12/15).

Boris opens with 14 point hold, saving a break point with a rare serve-volley. Jimbo has similar 12 point hold awhile later, where he takes net to hit FHV winner on break point

Great game in the middle as Jimbo breaks for 4-3. From 40-15 down, he pulls of a series of great passes - narrowly missing breaking with 4 straight winners. Takes net himself for only time in the game to seal break point

Follows it up with a poor game with 3 easy UEs to hand break back

Things continue on serve to the end, when Boris breaks to end it. Highlight for him would be a perfect down the line BH drop shot winner; a shot he’d toyed with occasionally throughout the match, invariably missing. It brings up third break/match point, on which Jimbo misses a dtl BH approach shot

Summing up, banal encounter, with standard baseline rallies and below par consistency from both players. Becker has much better of things because his serve does some damage (as much for Connors’ faulty returning as anything), while Connors’ does none (credit Becker for sure returning, but its not a difficult task), and his FH is the only high quality shot on show that does damage, particularly down-the-line

Out-steadied from the back and handicapped on serve-return complex, Connors has a potential tool to shorten gap in his net play. He’s highly successful at it, but doesn’t go in for it much, or look to

Not a bad match, but one gets the sense the A-grade clay courters would comfortably roll over either player; Simply, Becker and Connors both give up routine errors too readily

Stats for the final between Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander - Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Wilander, French Open final, 1987 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
 
Last edited:

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Connors beat Stefan Edberg 6-4, 6-3, 7-6(2) in the French Open quarter-final, 1985 on clay

Connors would lose to Ivan Lendl in the next round. Edberg was 19 years old, seeded 14th and would go onto win his first Slam later in the year at the Australian Open

Connors won 107 points, Edberg 94

Edberg serve-volleyed most of the time of first serves and about a third of seconds

Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (70/96) 73%
- 1st serve points won (44/70) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (17/26) 65%
- Service Winners 1 (bad bounce related)
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (14/96) 15%

Edberg...
- 1st serve percentage (65/105) 62%
- 1st serve points won (41/65) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (18/40) 45%
- Aces 9
- Double Faults 5
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (23/105) 22%

Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 47%
- to BH 48%
- to Body 5%

Edberg served....
- to FH 62%
- to BH 35%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Connors made...
- 77 (54 FH, 23 BH)
- 5 Winners (3 FH, 2 BH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 13 Forced (6 FH, 7 BH)
- Return Rate (77/100) 77%

Edberg made...
- 82 (42 FH, 40 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 13 Errors, comprising...
- 11 Unforced (7 FH, 4 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 2 Forced (2 BH)
- Return Rate (82/96) 85%

Break Points
Connors 6/12 (8 games)
Edberg 3/7 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 29 (15 FH, 8 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV, 3 OH)
Edberg 30 (4 FH, 7 BH, 6 FHV, 6 BHV, 7 OH)

Connors had 17 passes - 5 returns (3 FH, 2 BH) & 12 regular (7 FH, 5 BH)
- FH returns - 2 cc and 1 inside-in
- BH returns - 1 cc and 1 dtl
- regular FHs - 3 cc (1 turnaround), 1 cc/inside-in, 1 dtl and 2 lobs
- regular BHs - 2 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out/longline at net and 1 running-down-drop-shot cc at net

- regular (non-pass) FHs - 3 cc (2 at net), 1 dtl and 1 inside-out
- regular BH - 1 net chord dribbler

Edberg had 11 from serve-volley points -
- 7 first volleys (3 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)
- 4 second volleys (1 FHV, 3 OH)... 1 OH was on the bounce from the baseline, a forced back point

- FHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl (1 return, 1 pass) and 1 dtl/inside-out
- BHs - 2 cc (1 pass), 3 dtl (1 pass, 1 at net), 1 inside-out pass and 1 drop shot

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 41
- 23 Unforced (11 FH, 10 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 18 Forced (9 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.2

Edberg 59
- 41 Unforced (19 FH, 16 BH, 2 FHV, 4 BHV)
- 18 Forced (6 FH, 8 BH, 1 FHV, 3 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.9

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Connors was...
- 18/28 (64%) at net, including...
- 1/6 (17%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 forced back

Edberg was...
- 46/77 (60%) at net, including...
- 27/50 (54%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 21/37 (57%) off 1st serve and...
- 6/13 (46%) off 2nd serve
---
- 3/7 (43%) forced back/retreated

Match Report
A much better match than the ‘87 one and a much better showing from Connors, who is both hard hitting and consistent from the back. The young Edberg plays a successful net seeking game, but is outmatched from baseline

With Edberg serve-volleying and seeking net regularly, this isn’t similar to the ‘87 match. I’ve chosen to lump them together for ready comparison in Connors’ showings. Coincidentally, there happen to be a number of very similar stats across the 2 matches and the differences underline what players do well and not in both matches

Connors’ showing is along similar lines of ‘87. He’s still doing little with his serve, still playing from the baseline, still not seeking net much. Difference is he’s hard-hitting of shot, not clinical and he’s consistent with his groundies, not loose

In ‘87, hitting was a wash between Jimbo and opponent, and they shared the UEs to routine balls

Here, Jimbo has distinct hitting advantage and beats-down Edberg, who isn’t up to handling the power. Its largely mismatch on that front. And Jimbo is particularly consistent. He doesn’t miss much. Edberg gives up ground UEs about the same rate as both players do in ‘87 - and he’s facing the best hitting across the 2 matches. Not good baseline play from Edberg - but it comes across as being outmatched, rather than playing badly. Simply, Jimbo’s just a much better baseliner - force of shot + consistency

Ground UEs - Jimbo 21, Edberg 35
Neutral UEs - Jimbo 13, Edberg 27

Jimbo’s FH is the best shot on show (statistically and otherwise), the hardest hit with the best angles. On UE front, it has 1 more than his BH, which isn’t as damaging from the back or as good on the pass

Edberg apparently thinks FH is the place to go. He serves there 62% of the time, volleys there more often than not. Doesn’t have much control or choice in going towards it in baseline rallies

Nothing is supporting any of that being a good idea. Jimbo has 7 return errors of each wing, despite FH copping so many more serves and hits the FHs even harder than the BHs (which aren’t exactly gentle)

Passing winners (excluding returns, net shots, running-down-drop-shots) from Jimbo and FEs (close to all being passing errors)
- Winners - FH 7, BH 3
- FEs - FH 9, BH 6

Edberg’s FH is the biggest falterer. Ironically, it looks better than it would come to, less stilted and not because the BH is any less silky of look. But it has match high 19 UEs, match low 4 winners

UE counts -
- Jimbo BH 10, Jimbo FH 11
- Edberg BH 16
- Edberg FH 19

Neutrally, its as good as his BH (neutral UEs - FH 13, BH 14). He misses a good lot of approach shots of the FH. Nice for Jimbo to have his opponent donate FH approach errors for a change

More drop shots - or to be more specific, attempted drop shots - from Edberg than I’ve seen from him. Not a bad idea, given how he’s overpowered in conventional hitting, but he misses often and Jimbo’s on to them like a flash when he doesn’t

Of Jimbo’s shots, FHs are harder hit. Generally, when balls bounces up nicely to hip height, its as powerful as his BH. Its when he has to stoop down and ‘dig’ it up that his FH tends to be weaker of force (and more error prone). Again, there’s lack of variety (by unreasonable standards of his younger days) in is BH play from around center of court. The inside-out shots he plays would be unusual for almost anyone else, but he doesn’t go the other way from there. His cc BHs are hit when he’s well over in deuce court. It was the inside-out + cc combos that made him so deadly in his younger days

‘87 was a baseline match. This isn’t. Edberg serve-volleys 55% of the time - 66% off first serves and 37% off seconds - and is otherwise net-seeking in rallies. Which brings (serve-)volleying vs (return-)passing dynamics into the mix

Main differences in Jimbo is he’s categorically both faster and harder-hitting in this match. He gets more chance to showcase the speed here, and is approaching Michael Chang levels of crazy in chasing balls (that’s an exaggeration, still, he gives up on nothing, even the almost hopeless balls). It bears fruit. Few crucial line volley winners from Edberg, trying to wrong-foot a Jimbo who’d demonstrated completely willingness to chase even great cc volleys to corners - and made a few running passes at it. This is the sort of match long effect chasing everything can have (the other more obvious one is tiring out the runner unnecessarily, which doesn’t raise its head here)

Edberg serve-volleying puts Jimbo’s return-passing on show. It’s a fine battle. Edberg serves very powerfully - considerably more than Boris in ‘87 - on same plane as a strong Boris serve showing. This was common enough in Edberg’s young days. It was in later years that his serve dwindled in power to a category lower than the heavyweights. Seeing him here, you could readily label him a big server. Lot of things happen in volley-passer contest, which we’ll get to later. Briefly, Jimbo gets enough counter-play to put himself over, in conjunction with his baseline superiority

Edberg’s got 9 aces or 14% off first serves. In ‘87, Boris had was at 6%. 14% is on par with Boris’ mode rate in his 7 Wimbledon finals (in which he’s definitely not taking anything off the serves). Lot of tough return errors among Jimbo’s 13 FEs too, even when Edberg’s not serve-volleying - fully stretched out lunges to get racquet on fast ball. A far cry from the routine misses in ‘87 against Boris. First serves Edberg misses are potential aces too, unlike Boris in ‘87

Not very good returning from Edberg against a slightly stronger Jimbo serve than ‘87. Lot worse than Boris’, and worse than Jimbo’s own (which was against a healthy serve) from ‘87 match. Good lot of routine and even simple return misses, which gives Jimbo a nice little start in freebies he’s so often missing

Edberg returns at 85%, compared to Boris’ 91% in ‘87. Not much difference, but it’s a relative step in the wrong direction for Edberg. And the returns he misses are simple. Could do with a bump. In time, he’d come to be one of the most consistent or returners. Calling 85% ‘not good’ is holding Edberg to highest standards, something he’s worthy off
 
Last edited:

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Which leaves the Edberg at net vs Jimbo on the pass contest. The highlight of the match, and it twists and turns some

From get-go, Edberg looks good on the volley - the lovely movement and the hefty punch. Early on though, he misses a few routine + volleys (‘+’ here indicating bit more powerful returns than average from Jimbo - as you’d expect from him). He gets it together after that and volleys very well in terms of not missing, but even well punched through, he can’t get the ball fully through the slow clay

Jimbo as noted earlier, chases down everything. Near perfect cc volleys punched through as well as possible are reached and hit as hard as can be on the dead run. Pulls off a couple of unlikely great winners doing so

That changes Edberg’s strategy some. He serve-volleys less, though still looking to come in, particularly on his service points. He starts looking to volley line to wrong foot Jimbo and a couple of errors come out of that

Third set is the contest at its best. Edberg’s ability to handle the tough volley is put under examination, with Jimbo striking many a powerful return/pass to his feet or low. Very well handled by Edberg, but Jimbo gets his share of screamers off for winners too

On top of the hammer & tongs returns and passes are wonderful lobs from Jimbo. Note Edberg forced back/retreated 7 times and Jimbo’s got a couple lob winners too (including match point)

Rallying to net
- Jimbo 17/22 at 77%
- Edberg 19/27 at 70% (Note similarity with Jimbo’s ‘87 figure of 20/27)

Fine job by both players. Jimbo very successful, but without much need to come in as he’s dominating from back. Edberg doing very well to come in so much given that he’s being bossed about from back and how well Jimbo passes and lobs

Comparison with ‘87 match
Some cute coincidences across the 2 matches

Boris and Edberg both win 41/65 first serve points, and both put exactly 100 non- double fault serves into play (which is nice for a stats taker for obvious reasons). Jimbo serves 96 points in both matches (he has 1 double fault in ‘87, none here)

Just like ‘87, UEs are key to rallies, with aggressive endings being virtually equal among 2 payers

In ‘87, both players with 22 winners
Here, Edberg is +1 over Jimbo

Here, both players with 18 FEs
In ‘87, Jimbo +2 in forcing errors (as in, Boris has 2 more FEs)

In ‘87, Boris was +10 in UEs (as in, he has 10 fewer)
Here, Jimbo is +18

So Jimbo with larger lead here over Edberg than Boris had over him in ‘87

The discrepancy - that is, this match being closer - is made up by return quality - Jimbo’s much better one here and Edberg’s weaker one

In ‘87, Jimbo returned at 76% and here, 77%. No difference to speak of, but Edberg’s serve is categorically stronger than Boris’ showing (even accounting for the difference serve-volleying makes towards those numbers)

There, 14/19 Jimbo return errors were marked UEs. Here, 1/14 (that’s less influenced by serve-volley than you might expect - 9/13 FEs are serve-volley points, and some of them would very likely have forced errors anyway)

So better consistency from Jimbo on the return here (taking into account what he’s up against), while returning with more force (which he has to, given he’s up against serve-volleying here)

Comparing Boris returning to Edberg’s - Boris made 8 return errors, Edberg 13 (with virtually same proportion of UEs and FEs - almost all UEs)

Match Progression
Edberg serve-volleys most of the time in first set. His serve is very strong, he has 2 aces in his first game and adds a third in the one after, and he goes for the aces with it. He ups his second serve-volleying as set goes on. Looks good on the volley, but misses a few regulation height ones

Jimbo’s counter return-passing isn’t particularly good. Gets the returns back without making it too easy, but he’s not damaging either. From baseline, he’s hard hitting and overpowers Edberg, whose FH gives way more than any other shots (often to approach attempts)

Jimbo breaks for 3-1, with Edberg making a couple of volley UEs. Jimbo starts the game by lobbing a serve-volleying Edberg back to baseline with a potential winner, that Edberg gets a racquet on at the back

Terrible game by Jimbo to hand back the break to love awhile later. This is typical Jimbo; Playing well or even very well, he has these types of lapses, and doesn’t have a fat serve to fall back on when he’s faltering

But a superb game to end the set. From 30-0 down, Jimbo smacks a series of power returns (and a lovely lob), and just like the ‘87 match, just falls shy of hitting 4 winners in a row, but wins the 4 points to take the first set. He’s had better of it

Second set by contrast is an even one. Edberg serve-volleys a little less, and makes his volleys more. Jimbo scrambles after every one. Baseline play balance remains as before

Two trade deuce holds to open (Edberg saving a break point). Jimbo’s down 0-40 at 3-3, and a bit lucky to get out of it. Saves first break point with a net chord dribbling winner and Edberg misses a rare runaround FH return on the next

Jimbo back up with only break of the set. All that chasing down everything bears fruit, as Edberg misses back-to-back line volleys, trying to wrong foot. On break point, more of Jimbo’s scrambling as he reaches a drop shot on full run and stretch to angle away a cc winner

Serves out to 30 - points won include a line volley winner and another all-out scramble to net one

Third set is a great one. Jimbo’s got a grip on Edberg’s serve and hammers returns, Edberg handles the power hits, including the ones to his feet. Jimbo’s on point with follow up passes just as hard as the returns

Edberg breaks for 2 love - winning 3 net points (2 with winners) and ace away a break point in consolidating. Jimbo breaks back for 2-3 with thundering returns drawing weak volleys that he hits for passing winners. Sensational point where Jimbo’s forced back from net, but comes away with a turnaround FH cc passing winner to bring up break point, on which, Edberg misses routine third ball BH

A great, thrilling game at 4-4 that lasts 16 points that Edberg manages to hold after saving 4 break points featuring power return/passes vs great tough volleying. Edberg’s volley winner to a bullet return to his feet is as good as it gets - and that’s down break point. A similar one of nature (not nearly as hard) awhile later. Edberg finally holds after a long rally, which he ends with a FH dtl/inside-out winner - and he good naturedly holds his arms aloft in celebration, aware that the game was something special

2 trade breaks right at the end. Jimbo’s passes and a net point move him to 6-5 serving for the match. Edberg breaks back to love in the same way - and its on to the tiebreak

Jimbo’s always in charge of it, after starting with a mini-break from a BH cc passing winner. An Edberg double, a fully stretched guided return-pass winner and Edberg missing a routine return solidifies his grip. He takes his second match point with a FH lob winner

Summing up, a very good match, with Connors at something like his best. Hammers returns, hammers passes along with superb lobs and bullies Edberg in baseline rallies with a power that the latter can’t match

Not a bad match from Edberg too, who serves very strongly and volleys well against a challenging barrage of returns and passes. Misses a few more returns than he can afford and just seems out of his hitting class from the back though - and with Connors winning enough points while Edberg’s at net - its enough to put Connors comfortably over

Connors would lose 2,3 &1 in the next round to Ivan Lendl. It looks a bit like the Lendl’s and Wilander’s were just too much for the Connors, Becker’s and Edberg’s - impressive or otherwise

Stats for the final between Mats Wilander and Ivan Lendl - Match Stats/Report - Wilander vs Lendl, French Open final, 1985 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
 

WCT

Professional
Your stats on the Becker match caused me to check out the stats you did for some of his other clay matches. One with Agassi, at the French, really stood out. 4 sets and he came in 26 times and Agassi 34. I must have read that thread because it rang a bell. Still shocking to me.

I don't think I've watched more than a couple minutes of highlights from the Becker Connors match since watching it in 87. I did not remember him s/v that little and only coming in 3 more times than Connors.
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
Your stats on the Becker match caused me to check out the stats you did for some of his other clay matches. One with Agassi, at the French, really stood out. 4 sets and he came in 26 times and Agassi 34. I must have read that thread because it rang a bell. Still shocking to me.
Agassi out-approaches Sampras in their '92 match too - 30 to 16 - so even more drastic

He gets pretty net hungry there, whereas in the Becker match, neither player is

Because of his Wimby breakout and because Wimby is so tied up with him, I think Boris gets remembered as an all-out net player more than he was

He plays from the baseline even on hard courts and carpet more than you'd think. You don't see Mac or Edberg doing that
For that matter, for a quintessential 100% serve-volleyer on grass, he stays back (relatively) often (in this case, anything less than 100% being unusual)

Does it some against Connors at '87 Queens, and again against Agassi in '95 Wimby when those guys are hammering returns. Would probably have won more easily if he'd done it a lot more against Jimbo, who's very poor at handling the low FH in that one
 

WCT

Professional
How often did he not s/v on grass? Did he stay back up to half the time on the 2nd? Did he ever do it on the 1st? Connors and Agassi I can see. I've seen Mcenroe stay back on 2nd serves with Connors.
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
How often did he not s/v on grass? Did he stay back up to half the time on the 2nd? Did he ever do it on the 1st? Connors and Agassi I can see. I've seen Mcenroe stay back on 2nd serves with Connors.

Oh no, no... nothing that drastic

in Connors match, stays back off 11/41 second serves so 27%

In Agassi match, 2/67 first serves and 6/42 seconds - 3% and 14%

For him, doing it even once is a surprise. But he does it with purpose. As opposed to Edberg, who once in a blue moon, might stay back off a serve and then come in off the third ball. He does that once in '90 Wimby final... no reason to, just felt like it I suppose

With Boris in these 2 matches, its a smart move because his serve is getting some terrific stick from these heavy hitters, and I think its clear he just wants to spare himself that

I saw Mac stay back a few times in 1 of the Queen's matches ('82 and '83), and that has a dual purpose. He avoids the stick (which wasn't too extreme), but he fancies slicing an error out of Jimbo's FH too (he longline slices on the points in question)

Boris by contrast doesn't seem to have a solid plan of winning those points from the baseline. Just not fancying his chances volleying the power returns that were raining down

Example of a time when staying back would have not just been justified but almost essential for a serve-volleyer is '93 Wimby semi, where Edberg's 2nd serve is getting the most ferocious pounding - a lot worse than the ones that made Boris stay back

He only stays back once. ends up winning just 39% second serve-volley points (with good lot of double faults thrown in too, so 2nd serve points won of just 31%)
Courier has 24 return winners there
 
Last edited:

jrepac

Hall of Fame
A general point about Jimbo’s BH (i.e. beyond this match). From middle of court, its effective because he can go either inside-out (unusual for most players) or cc with it. But when he moves over more to ad court, he rarely plays inside-in, making it more predictable. Here, it wouldn’t be a good idea to redirect to Boris’ FH

Boris plays all kinds of BHs - drives and slices and slice drives - mixing them all up. Usually cc, sometimes longlin. None stand out as better than the others, none are more consistent and it doesn’t seem to put Jimbo off. Jimbo stoops down to hit FHs against Boris’ BH slices and isn’t unduly error prone on it. Its the routine, firm cc FH that he tends to miss

UEs are key

Winners equal at 22
FEs near equal - Boris 18, Jimbo 16
Even UEFI is equal at 44.3
UEs though - Boris 37, Jimbo 47

Finally, the net play

Neither player makes much effort to get forward. Both serve-volley just 3 times (Jimbo once off a second serve). Jimbo hits winners every time

And Jimbo doing much, much better up there

Rallying to net
- Boris 16/30 at 53%
- Jimbo 20/27 at 74%

Even sans an exceptional game where Jimbo fires passing winners, Boris is 15/26 at 58% - well worse than Jimbo

No significant difference in players realistic prospects of taking net. Boris could probably do so more readily were he inclined early in some of his first serve points. Boris returns passively, and Jimbo could do so near as much were he particularly looking to. Boris with small manuvering advantage in rallies, with hitting about the same, so not much difference there either

Just not much desire for either player to come forward. For Jimbo, who’s losing from the back, it’d have been more important to have done so

He isn’t faced with difficult volleys (0 FEs is for that reason, not his making lots of difficult ones). I’d say Boris doesn’t pass well rather than Jimbo coming in off strong approaches too. But nothing wrong with the finishing - 12 winners is a lot for having won 23 points

Jimbo does pass better, and Boris is faced with tough volleys. Jimbo with 6 passing winners (Boris 3 - 1 a running-down-drop-shot at net), Boris with 4 ‘volley’ FEs to Jimbo’s 0

Match Progression
Easy, firm hitting off both sides from both players to open the match. Easy errors too - doesn’t take too long for one or the other to blink and it isn’t against tough balls. Boris throws in a few slies too. Standard stuff - cc rallies, with occasional long line change-ups

Jimbo’s FH blinks the most. And he misses a few routine returns. And Boris putsaway a few FH dtl winners

4-0 Boris - saving 3 break points in a 14 point hold among them. Jimbo grabs one back but sets near done by then

Last game, Jimbo has a sitting duck pass at net where best option is to go right at Boris. He misses going wide. This is a common trait of Jimbo’s, he doesn’t hit passes at players

More of the same in second set, with errors coming a little earlier, and Boris not racing into lead. He breaks for 2-1 and breaks again to end the set. Has 1 deuce hold (no break points)

Third set is best of the bunch and most competitive. 15 of Jimbo’s 30 approaches are in the set. He wins 11, so about same winning rate as earlier (12/15).

Boris opens with 14 point hold, saving a break point with a rare serve-volley. Jimbo has similar 12 point hold awhile later, where he takes net to hit FHV winner on break point

Great game in the middle as Jimbo breaks for 4-3. From 40-15 down, he pulls of a series of great passes - narrowly missing breaking with 4 straight winners. Takes net himself for only time in the game to seal break point

Follows it up with a poor game with 3 easy UEs to hand break back

Things continue on serve to the end, when Boris breaks to end it. Highlight for him would be a perfect down the line BH drop shot winner; a shot he’d toyed with occasionally throughout the match, invariably missing. It brings up third break/match point, on which Jimbo misses a dtl BH approach shot

Summing up, banal encounter, with standard baseline rallies and below par consistency from both players. Becker has much better of things because his serve does some damage (as much for Connors’ faulty returning as anything), while Connors’ does none (credit Becker for sure returning, but its not a difficult task), and his FH is the only high quality shot on show that does damage, particularly down-the-line

Out-steadied from the back and handicapped on serve-return complex, Connors has a potential tool to shorten gap in his net play. He’s highly successful at it, but doesn’t go in for it much, or look to

Not a bad match, but one gets the sense the A-grade clay courters would comfortably roll over either player; Simply, Becker and Connors both give up routine errors too readily

Stats for the final between Ivan Lendl and Mats Wilander - Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Wilander, French Open final, 1987 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
This match came online recently on You Tube...watched the 1st set...Boris looked more steady, Connors more error prone. Have to watch the rest. I don't get matches where Jimmy stayed back when he was getting the short end of it, particularly when he was doing very well at net.. But as you say, he did it a lot in the late 80's. Ironically, he'd play a better match against Boris at Queens a few (?) weeks later.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
I would amend that to a whole bunch of the 80s in general.
I think it depended on the circumstances a bit. And the surface. I felt in '89, even '91, he was playing pretty aggressively. Yet, you had a bushel of matches where you'd scratch your head as to why he was hanging back so much ('88 USO vs. Agassi, for instance). And certainly vs. Lendl. He was not winning that battle vs. Ivan anytime soon (from '85 on, at least)
 

WCT

Professional
By 89 I assume you mean the Agassi match? Certainly more than 88, but by Wasp's stats 62 times in 262 points. 23.7%. Do you know how many 70s matches I can give you that top that % fairly easily?

By 91, you must mean Krickstein. That is the most net rushes I have seen from him. 130 some. However, there were also 375 points in that match. It's not the highest %.
Not the highest, but high. 36 or 37 I believe. This match is a good example. Thing is, it's one match. None of his earlier matches come close to that. Not Mcenroe, not Courier, not Harrhuis.


It was the Harrhuis match John Mcenroe spent much of the match doing color with Vitas. On and on about how much more Connors was coming than ever before. Sort of like Collins in 82 at Wimbledon. Anyway, sometime, maybe about halfway through the 4th set, they flash the net stats. Connors has been in 47 times. Mcenroe cracks, he didn't come in 47 times the first times we played.

I remember watching that at the time and thinking, John, he was at the net more than 47 times the first time you played. And I had never seen that match at that point, just some highlights in 1977. I finally did the stats for that match and Connors was at the net 83 times. It was a 4 set match.

During the 89 Agassi match, in the 5th set, they flash the net stats, Connors was at 50 something. It was 40, maybe a couple more than 40, more than Agassi. Ted Robinson remarks something along the lines of, I wonder how many times, in his US Open career, if it ever happened, Jimmy Connors was at the net 40 more times than
his opponent.

Now, I didn't see this match live. It was afternoon and I was at work, but I did tape it.
And when I saw Robinson's comments, I thought, how about the 1975 US Open semi? The 1975 US Open final? The 1976 US Open final? And this was 1989. I had never done any stats, but I knew how he played and I saw 2 of the 3 matches. Not that long ago I did the stats for the 77 US Open semis. He was at the net 40 more times than his opponent that match. Wasn't surprised by that one either.

I did have one match to add to your list. Wilander 1988 Lipton. I never did the stats myself, but I believe it was a little over 100 times in 4 sets. I just did stats for their 84 Cincy match. It's a partial match. 51 of 116 points 44%.

Hey, I didn't say there were NO examples. That's why I said a whole bunch of the 80s, not the entire 80s. Overall, though, pretty few and pretty far between. In the matches I've seen. It's not like today, you couldn't see pretty much every single match.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
By 89 I assume you mean the Agassi match? Certainly more than 88, but by Wasp's stats 62 times in 262 points. 23.7%. Do you know how many 70s matches I can give you that top that % fairly easily?

By 91, you must mean Krickstein. That is the most net rushes I have seen from him. 130 some. However, there were also 375 points in that match. It's not the highest %.
Not the highest, but high. 36 or 37 I believe. This match is a good example. Thing is, it's one match. None of his earlier matches come close to that. Not Mcenroe, not Courier, not Harrhuis.


It was the Harrhuis match John Mcenroe spent much of the match doing color with Vitas. On and on about how much more Connors was coming than ever before. Sort of like Collins in 82 at Wimbledon. Anyway, sometime, maybe about halfway through the 4th set, they flash the net stats. Connors has been in 47 times. Mcenroe cracks, he didn't come in 47 times the first times we played.

I remember watching that at the time and thinking, John, he was at the net more than 47 times the first time you played. And I had never seen that match at that point, just some highlights in 1977. I finally did the stats for that match and Connors was at the net 83 times. It was a 4 set match.

During the 89 Agassi match, in the 5th set, they flash the net stats, Connors was at 50 something. It was 40, maybe a couple more than 40, more than Agassi. Ted Robinson remarks something along the lines of, I wonder how many times, in his US Open career, if it ever happened, Jimmy Connors was at the net 40 more times than
his opponent.

Now, I didn't see this match live. It was afternoon and I was at work, but I did tape it.
And when I saw Robinson's comments, I thought, how about the 1975 US Open semi? The 1975 US Open final? The 1976 US Open final? And this was 1989. I had never done any stats, but I knew how he played and I saw 2 of the 3 matches. Not that long ago I did the stats for the 77 US Open semis. He was at the net 40 more times than his opponent that match. Wasn't surprised by that one either.

I did have one match to add to your list. Wilander 1988 Lipton. I never did the stats myself, but I believe it was a little over 100 times in 4 sets. I just did stats for their 84 Cincy match. It's a partial match. 51 of 116 points 44%.

Hey, I didn't say there were NO examples. That's why I said a whole bunch of the 80s, not the entire 80s. Overall, though, pretty few and pretty far between. In the matches I've seen. It's not like today, you couldn't see pretty much every single match.
HA! I've seen most of the matches you mention...the 70's ones in snippets on You Tube. But yes, I was thinking of '89 vs. Agassi and '91 vs Krickstein. In the latter, I felt his constant attack is what won him the match. And it was constant down the stretch. I would like to see the '75 semi; have seen most of the 76 final, in parts, and yes, he was hyper aggressive...again, that likely won him the match vs. super steady Bjorn. I forgot about the Wilander match from '88..that was a very good one...super aggressive and a very tight match. So, yeah, I don't know how to square this with matches where he pointlessly stayed back, or as you say, commentators who acted like he never came in to the net. Big head scratcher on so many levels!
 

WCT

Professional
I remembered another couple. Forest Hills 1990 vs Lendl. He retired early in the 3rd set. He is s/v on most of his 1st serves. Sort of like the 1992 Open match vs Lendl, but I think even more often. And he really only did it the 1st set in the 92 match.

I've seen some of that 90 match recently. I had taped it in 90 and remembered he came in a lot, but not the s/v. The 90 match is on hard court. No previous version, 70s included, that I saw played this much s/v on a surface other than grass. Of course, s/v didn't tend to be his primary when to get in even when he came in a lot more. Other than grass I mean.

Most of the 1975 match wasn't televised. CBS joined it in the 3rd set, maybe halfway through. My memory is Connors coming in a lot. Newspaper accounts of the match indicated it. I have the last 9 points of the match. CBS showed it in a replay after the womens' final, I believe. But live they showed some games.

The last game Borg is serving. 2 of the points are unreturned serves. Another point was Borg facing match point. Connors return lands at about the service line. Borg comes in behind a forehand approach and Connors misses the pass. The other 6 points are short rallies followed by Connors coming to net. I believe he won all 6 points. I can't say I know it for a fact, but based on what I do know I think I'd bet the ranch that Connors was at the net 40 more times(and I think that is conservative) than Borg.

He played Harold Solomon in that year. I'd wager he was at the net at least 40 more times that match. 77 and Orantes is another possibility. I only saw highlights of it and Connors wasn't coming in as quickly in 77 as 75. Plus, it was straight sets. Not as much time to build up a big disparity. On the other hand, their 75 match was straight sets and Connors was at the net 70 more times. He could have lost 30 in 77 and still be there. That match I will not claim. I just don't know enough about it other than Connors played great no matter how much he came in. Killed Orantes that day.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
I remembered another couple. Forest Hills 1990 vs Lendl. He retired early in the 3rd set. He is s/v on most of his 1st serves. Sort of like the 1992 Open match vs Lendl, but I think even more often. And he really only did it the 1st set in the 92 match.

I've seen some of that 90 match recently. I had taped it in 90 and remembered he came in a lot, but not the s/v. The 90 match is on hard court. No previous version, 70s included, that I saw played this much s/v on a surface other than grass. Of course, s/v didn't tend to be his primary when to get in even when he came in a lot more. Other than grass I

I had forgotten how they paved over Forest Hills and made it a USO warm-up event. that was kind of sad, actually. As I recall, Connors was playing with that blown out wrist in 1990 and was wearing a huge brace. Was trying to assess if he could play the USO that year...which he did not. Makes sense that he'd take to net against Lendl under those circumstances. And, as most of us know, he had wrist surgery later that year. In '92, I don't think he could keep up the pace after the 1st set and Lendl also adjusted a bit more...because he was really in trouble, being down a break early in the 2nd. An interesting bit of trivia, supposedly, is that Connors referred Agassi to his doctor when Andre was having wrist problems a few years later.
 

WCT

Professional
Yeah, he was wearing a bandage on his wrist. It wasn't why he retired from the match, though. It was a leg or ankle injury. Believe it or not, Connors and Lendl are friendly that match. At the end when Connors quits and there is a point where Lendl hits a clean backhand rocket winner on the run and Connors yells at him, don't do that again.

Reminded me of when Connors and Borg played in the summer of 82. This was Borg's first event in awhile, Borg did pretty much the same thing as Lendl, only on the forehand. Connors wags his finger at him and says, you've been practicing.

Connors did come up with humorous lines on occasion.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
Yeah, he was wearing a bandage on his wrist. It wasn't why he retired from the match, though. It was a leg or ankle injury. Believe it or not, Connors and Lendl are friendly that match. At the end when Connors quits and there is a point where Lendl hits a clean backhand rocket winner on the run and Connors yells at him, don't do that again.

Reminded me of when Connors and Borg played in the summer of 82. This was Borg's first event in awhile, Borg did pretty much the same thing as Lendl, only on the forehand. Connors wags his finger at him and says, you've been practicing.

Connors did come up with humorous lines on occasion.
Oh that's interesting; I always thought he retired because of the wrist....did not realize (or forgot) it was something else. Funny Connors was always much better than a###ole Connors, for sure.
 

WCT

Professional
I didn't see any overt favoring of the wrist. Couldn't miss that bandage, though. He is limping very noticeably the last couple of games. This was right before the Open. I don't remember if it played a factor in not playing there. Maybe it was the wrist and it wasn't close enough to 100% to play. He was considering playing there.

I liked him despite the fact that he could be an a-hole, not because of it. I became a fan because of his style of play. That hyper aggressive all court play. And how hard he hit the ball.
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
I liked him despite the fact that he could be an a-hole, not because of it. I became a fan because of his style of play. That hyper aggressive all court play. And how hard he hit the ball.
Gotta take the bad with the good! No one like him since....very unique style.
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
I don't get matches where Jimmy stayed back when he was getting the short end of it, particularly when he was doing very well at net.. But as you say, he did it a lot in the late 80's
I would amend that to a whole bunch of the 80s in general.

I was wondering (only half-jokingly) what would have done Connors more good

A better serve or better brains

You don't see Mats Wilander - a guy with similar calibre serve - get it all wrong like Connors did so often
 

WCT

Professional
I was wondering (only half-jokingly) what would have done Connors more good

A better serve or better brains

You don't see Mats Wilander - a guy with similar calibre serve - get it all wrong like Connors did so often
When I did the stats for their 84 Stockholm match, Wilander has a clearly bigger serve than Connors. Unreturned serves are 24-9 and Wilander has about 10 aces. Granted on a very fast indoor court, but Connors was serving on that same court.
 

WCT

Professional
Gotta take the bad with the good! No one like him since....very unique style.
There was some of each, no doubt. I did the stats on that 90 Lendl match. He s/v on 41 of 50 1st serves. How the hell could I have forgotten something like that? The only other match I can think of where he did something similar, on a hard court, was the first set against Lendl in 92. Difference is, I remember that, never forgot it.
 

Waspsting

Hall of Fame
When I did the stats for their 84 Stockholm match, Wilander has a clearly bigger serve than Connors. Unreturned serves are 24-9 and Wilander has about 10 aces. Granted on a very fast indoor court, but Connors was serving on that same court.

Point taken

I think the broader one stands - Neither Wilander, nor Connors won as much as they did because of their serves

I did the stats on that 90 Lendl match. He s/v on 41 of 50 1st serves. How the hell could I have forgotten something like that?

The Forest Hills was an exho/invitational tournament, wasn't it?

They do all kinds of funny things in those. Saw 1 where Lendl was serve-volleying on all first serves on clay
 

jrepac

Hall of Fame
I was wondering (only half-jokingly) what would have done Connors more good

A better serve or better brains

You don't see Mats Wilander - a guy with similar calibre serve - get it all wrong like Connors did so often
But w/Connors, that wasn't always the case....sometimes his play was quite smart. Other times, brain dead. Never quite sure what inner voice guided him...
 

WCT

Professional
Point taken

I think the broader one stands - Neither Wilander, nor Connors won as much as they did because of their serves



The Forest Hills was an exho/invitational tournament, wasn't it?

They do all kinds of funny things in those. Saw 1 where Lendl was serve-volleying on all first serves on clay
I agree that when you think of either Connors or Wilander's biggest strengths that you don't think serve. That said, Wilander clearly has the bigger serve in Stockholm. Granted on a fast indoor hard court, but Connors was serving on the same court.

Forest Hills was, I believe a special event that year. It was the same site where Lendl beat Connors 0 and 0 in 84. That was clay, it was hard court in 90. Both players were trying. I think Connors decision was probably to shorten points. He was just coming back from his wrist injury. Probably not in top match shape.

I would wager, though, that if Connors had played the US Open that year, and had faced Lendl, that he would not s/v 41 of 50 first serve. Of course, he did it a lot early in their 92 match. He was another 2 years older then.
 
Top