Duel Match Stats/Reports - McEnroe vs Connors, Philadelphia final, 1982 & Masters round robin, 1981

[Waspsting]

John McEnroe beat Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-3, 6-1 in the Philadelphia final, 1982 on carpet

It was McEnroe’s first title at the event and he would go onto win the next 3 also. Connors had previously won it 4 times, most recently in 1980 by beating McEnroe in a 5-set final. The 2 would go onto play the Wimbledon final later in the year, with Connors winning in 5 sets

McEnroe won 97 points, Connors 65

McEnroe serve-volleyed off most first serves and about a third off the time off seconds

(Note: I’m missing 1 point - the first of the match, a McEnroe service point that he won)

Serve Stats
McEnroe...
- 1st serve percentage (54/90) 60%
- 1st serve points won (37/54) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (19/36) 53%
- ?? serve points won (1/1)
- Aces 13 (1 second serve)
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (30/90) 33%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (58/71) 82%
- 1st serve points won (28/58) 48%
- 2nd serve points won (3/13) 23%
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (2/71) 3%

Serve Patterns
McEnroe served...
- to FH 50%
- to BH 35%
- to Body 15%

Connors served...
- to FH 40%
- to BH 46%
- to Body 14%

Return Stats
McEnroe made...
- 68 (36 FH, 32 BH), including 9 runaround FHs, 3 runaround BHs & 1 return-approach
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 2 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 1 Forced (1 BH)
- Return Rate (68/70) 97%

Connors made...
- 58 (29 FH, 29 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 runaround BH
- 2 Winners (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (2 FH)
- 15 Forced (9 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (58/88) 66%

Break Points
McEnroe 7/16 (9 games)
Connors 2/6 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
McEnroe 17 (5 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV, 2 OH)
Connors 20 (5 FH, 5 BH, 6 FHV, 1 BHV, 3 OH)

McEnroe had 5 from serve-volley points
- 2 first volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 2 second volleys (1 BHV, 1 OH)
- 1 third 'volley' (1 OH)... on the bounce from the baseline, a forced back shot

- FHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl (1 runaround return), 1 lob and 1 net chord dribbler return
- BHs - 3 cc (2 passes - 1 net chord pop over, 1 at net) and 2 dtl

Connors' FHs - 3 cc (1 pass, 1 at net), 1 dtl pass and 1 inside-in return
- BHs - 2 cc passes, 2 dtl (1 return pass, 1 at net) and 1 lob

- 1 FHV was a swinging non-net shot and 1 OH was on the bounce from the baseline

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
McEnroe 41
- 22 Unforced (9 FH, 4 BH, 2 FHV, 5 BHV, 2 OH)
- 19 Forced (4 FH, 11 BH, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 Back-to-Net)... the Back-to-Net was a net shot
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.6

Connors 48
- 27 Unforced (12 FH, 13 BH, 1 BHV, 1 OH)... the OH was on the bounce from the baseline
- 21 Forced (8 FH, 11 BH, 1 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net (a net touch) & the BHV was a baseline lob
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.8

(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
McEnroe was...
- 36/57 (63%) at net, including...
- 28/48 (58%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 20/35 (57%) off 1st serve and...
- 8/13 (62%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 2/3 (67%) forced back/retreated

Connors was...
- 25/33 (76%) at net, with...
- 1/2 forced back

Match Report
How often do you see John McEnroe with more ground winners than volleys? Or Jimmy Connors with more volley winners than McEnroe (particularly when getting steamrolled straight setted)? Or anyone ever with a return rate of 97% (let alone on indoor carpet)?

All are on show in this match that’s so peculiar that the peculiarity of it transcends how good or not good it is. Exaggerating considerably, it’s McEnroe’s statement “I don’t need to serve big or come to net to beat you. I can do it from the baseline without even doing much from there”. Court is normal of pace and bounce

Mac does serve well, as 13 aces testify to, but checks the pace of his first shot. Almost all of it is at three quarters, but placement is good. Amidst check paced and considerably serving close to the body, the wide ones catch Jimbo out for aces. 60% first serves in is high for him

And Mac does come to net, though by his standard, that’s held back too. Serve-volleys less and less as match goes on and shows almost no interest in finding net from baseline rallies

Serve-volley frequency - 83% off first serves (its usually 100% on courts a lot slower than this), 39% off second serves (typically be around 70-75%). Just 8 approaches from rallies (Jimbo has 33, and he’s not coming in in a hurry)

And Mac devours Connors by almost literally making every return, floating about on the baseline and softly pushing balls back in play. He misses a lot less than Jimbo does from the back. Return rate 68/70 or 97% and ground UEs 13, to Jimbo’s 25

 

[Waspsting]

Unusual stats
- Mac with 10 ground winners, 7 volleys
- Jimbo with 10 volley winners, to Mac’s 7
- Mac returning 68/70 serves or 97%

And key stats
- ground UEs - Mac 13, Jimbo 25
- rallying to net - Mac 7/8, Jimbo 25/33

Its not a uniform match. First set is a good one and along lines of a typical, high-end Connors-McEnroe encounter; Mac serve-volleying almost always, Jimbo returning strongly enough to challenge him. Baseline rallies on Jimbo’s service games with Jimbo harder hitter and utilizing that to come to net to finish. Not quite an even set because of big difference in quality of two players’ serves, but competitive

Next 2 sets are a bit weird. Mac serve-volleys less and less. He starts by cutting back on second serve-volleying, and progresses to doing so even off first serves. For no apparent reason other than… he can

He’s done much better serve-volleying than not behind second serves (winning 62% vs 50%). non- serve-volley off first set just seems like a gesture. He usually does it when up mutliple game points and draws return errors anyway - but staying back 7 times on those is unusual for Mac on a court like this. Neither of his serves are under undue pressure from Jimbo’s returning at times when he dials back the serve-volleying

Then there’s the return. Harmless as Jimbo’s serve is, making 68/70 is remarkable from Mac. On top of the serve being harmless, Mac reads it perfectly. He’s moving to his right or left during ball toss and 100% of the time, he’s going in the right direction. Note the 9 runaround FH and 4 runaround BH returns. These aren’t attempts at aggression, but rather, just moving towards center of court for upcoming rally. There’s plenty more than the 13 runarounds where he’s moving in right direction that don’t amount to a ‘runaround’ tag

The baseline stuff is the most interesting part. Mac doesn’t do much other than keep ball in play. Moves about well, in his floaty, easy way and pushes balls back off both sides with little force. Once in a very rare while, lets loose with a shot - particularly FH dtl, but that’s about it

As for seeking net goes, virtually none from Mac. For starters, he playing from further back than his norm. He’s not looking to open court with angles or hitting hard. At least once, he foregoes an approach chance so obvious even the dustiest of clay courters would have come in off. On another occasion, he simply retreats from net from a standard, perhaps even slightly advantageous position (that is, there’s no reason to think the upcoming pass will be a brute to handle)

As with the attacking groundie, once in a rare while, he manufactures an approach. Same thing with the return - just the 1 chip-charge

In a word, weird

And Jimbo? In first set, he hits hard off both sides and has Mac counter-punching. Utilizes that power advantage to come to net, where he’s highly successful. Rest of match, he hits firmly but not hard; pace of his shots aren’t likely to ‘beat-down’ Mac (earlier, it was a possibility, though Mac was mostly upto resisting). And he doesn’t come in much either or at least, nowhere near as much as he has scope to given hitting advantage

Being so much more error prone from the back, coming in (especially since he’s so successful at net) seems like obvious play for Jimbo. His not making most of it is a general failing of his - there are scores of matches of the same type, the difference here being the extent to which he’s looser than Mac off the ground

No particular weakness - FHs, BHs, low balls, normal balls. Just basic, inferior consistency to Mac’s

By set, Jimbo’s at net 12, 9 and 12 times respectively. All 12 approaches in the last set are in the last 3 games (by which times its too little, too late)

Jimbo escapes a particularly humiliating bagel by the skin of his teeth in the last set. He’s broken twice to love and down 0-40 and 3 match points (in other words, he’s 1 point away from not winning a service point the set)

More broadly, his third set serving woes are continuation from second set, where he’d lost his last 3 service games (and held a long game, saving 3 break points before that)

Starting at a particular point from second set, Jimbo has a run of winning just 4/27 service points, including losing 12 in succession

Match Progression
Mac wins first 3 games, Jimbo the next 3, then Mac the last 3

Mac serve-volleys almost always (stays back off the odd second serve). Jimbo returns powerfully enough to threaten to break. On other side, Mac returns with complete ease, moving over to wherever serve is headed before Jimbo’s delivery and returning without a glitch. In ensuing baseline rallies, Mac pushes and pokes to keep ball in play, Jimbo hammers the ball and comes in early to finish at net. The odd flash of FH dtl aggression from Mac

Mac breaks in second game. Beautiful, runaround FH dtl return winner in middle of game and a FH dtl - BH dtl 1-2 ending with a winner to close it

Jimbo breaks back in game 5. He takes net on both points Mac stays back off to force passing errors, and throws in a couple of powerful returns (1 a winner) in the game

In winning last 3 games, Mac’s taken to deuce in both his service games. Has to save 2 break points the first time (brought on by pair of BHV UEs - 1 easy, 1 with court wide open)), which he does with a pair of aces. The break though is to love - BH cc passing winner, a return right to the baseline and a fortunate net chord dribbling return winner on break point, on which he was going for a dtl return winner

Uncharacteristic, touch BH cc passing winner from Jimbo in the serve out, tapped just wide is eyecathing. Double fault gets him to deuce, but a couple of good, wide serves seals the set. The placement of them brings home that Mac has been serving relatively conservatively

Second set is drier. Mac cuts back on second serve-volleying (for no apparent reason) and towards the end, stays back off a couple of first serves too. Continues to return with ease and tones down even the occasional flashes of ground aggression he’d shown earlier; its all pushing and blocking from him. Most surprisingly, he not only doesn’t rally his way to net, but looks like he’s going out of his way not to

Jimbo’s return-passing standard drops and Mac holds more comfortably than earlier. Meanwhile, Jimbo tones down his hitting too and just keeps trading groundies ‘til he gives up the error. Not much coming in by him either - and with Mac glued to baseline, there’s plenty of room to

Jimbo wins 7/8 voluntary net points. Makes a lot more ground UEs than that - and more importantly, lot more than Mac

After saving 3 break points to hold for 2-1, Jimbo moves to 15-0 in his next service game. From there til near end starts his losing 23/27 service point streaks

He does much better returning during the period. Breaks as Mac serves for set at 5-3 (he’s of course, broken right after to end the set). And takes Mac to 10 and 12 point games in the decider with a break point in each game

He regains net taking gusto in last part of the 3rd set. Mac, trying to finish with a flourish, throws in a couple approaches too (which accentuates just how much he’d avoided it for most of match)

Jimbo saves 3 break/match points to hold from 0-40, 0-5 down and escape being bagelled, but no trouble for Mac to serve it out

Summing up, a very strange match from McEnroe, who holds back his serve some and declines to serve-volley to an unusual extent by his standard. More strangely still, he almost seems to be avoiding net during rallies. Moves well on the baseline and pushes and blocks balls back in play - and the errors come from his firm hitting opponent much more regularly than they do from him

Good ground consistency from the winner, but more discredit to Connors for looseness on the same front

Connors’ is at his best when hitting hard from the back and coming to net quickly. He drops both after the first set, and his results go south accordingly

The other stand out is McEnroe’s ultra consistent returning. Connors’ serve is weak to be sure, but there still has to be a standard of returning it that qualifies as exceptional. Wherever that line is, 97% return rate is over it. McEnroe reads the serve like an open book, is moving into position during the ball toss and misses next to nothing, while getting himself to middle of court for upcoming rally

 

[WCT]

I don't think I've ever seen this match. My PBS station didn't show it live in 82 and Mcenroe won so easily I didn't have much inclination to watch it afterwards. Interesting how Mcenroe came in less as the match progressed. I can imagine him outrallying Connors as in not making the unforced error first. I have seen that before. It's not the rule, but I have seen it.

2 out of 71 unreturned serves? Mcenroe is 28 points ahead before a ball is put in play. That is hard to overcome. I just did their 1979 Frejus match. Connors was 3 of 64 in that match. It is SUCH a disadvantage.

 

[medieval_remnant]

Underrated part of Mac's game is his return of serve.
Normal bounce? Sure? indoor carpet can be very low which is a major advantage for someone with a continental grip like Mac.
Amazing that Connors was able to adapt and beat Mac at Queens and Wimbledon

 

[WCT]

I always thought the most underrated aspect of Mcenroe was his movement. How well he covered the court.

 

[medieval_remnant]

I'm watching the match. The bounce is very low, like pickle ball

 

[Waspsting]

I can imagine him outrallying Connors as in not making the unforced error first. I have seen that before. It's not the rule, but I have seen it.

I've found it to be true as often as not. If Connors has an advantage over Mac off the ground, its in force of shot, not consistency

But he doesn't have such force of shot that it beats errors out of Mac, let alone goes for winners, so it needs a finisher at the end. That'd be coming to net. He's at his best when he plays like that

He often doesn't

Question for you - do you think Mac was good enough off the baseline to win say, US Opens playing from the back? By 'playing from the back', I mean a) not serve-volleying and b) not pointedly looking to come to net all the time, but ready to come in when its appropriate and choice manufacturing approaches

I always thought the most underrated aspect of Mcenroe was his movement. How well he covered the court.

Bit part of that is his anticipation. Very rarely seems caught out by direction or seems to wait to see where ball is hit before starting his first step movement

Underrated part of Mac's game is his return of serve.

I would agree

We tend to try isolate shots when discussing who has the best x,y,z shot... all the while knowing that nothing exists in isolation. And the return least of all

Taking effectiveness of his return-approaches into account (and that includes all the net skills - anticipation, movement, volleying etc.), I think he's a bona fida greatest ever returner candidate

Intuitively, one senses that that's a lot to add on to the return shot alone for such an assessment, but its pretty much the same with someone like say Andre Agassi (who's regularly talked about as grade A returner), whose deadly follow-up passing has as much to do with his return game success as the return itself

Amazing that Connors was able to adapt and beat Mac at Queens and Wimbledon

Anyone else, and I'd be tempted to think that this and the San Francisco match are almost a con job, baiting opponent into false sense of security for the bigger matches at Wimby or US Open

You watch this and wonder how he could possibly beat Mac at all. Don Budge is in attendance and says the same thing in almost the same words even

Huge advantage in serve to Mac (and if its to extent of 31% freebies, that's impossible to overcome), his net game > Jimbo's pass game, his groundgame at least as good (quite possibly better)

And if Jimbo stays on baseline on top of that... its hard to see how he can win

 

[jrepac]

I have not seen this one, but I get the impression that Jimmy was a bit off his game. Connors v. Mac matches could be messy. And, less about what each did well, but what one did NOT do so well. Mac also had some injuries to deal with in '82 that affected his movement (ankle I believe) and he himself said that was a problem facing someone like Connors heading into Queens and Wimby. Jimmy's game on grass was always underestimated; with a winning record over Mac, and 4 GS wins, that's a pretty strong testament to his abilities on the turf. Mac winning USO from the backcourt? I think it would have been unnatural for him. Not impossible, but very unnatural given his game. Again very underrated off the ground, maybe because his strokes looked a little unusual, but he more than held his own against baseline GOATs, so you have to give him due credit. A mad genius in so many ways!

 

[sandy mayer]

I thought Connors improved his serve in 82. 3% unreturned serves is woefully bad, the worst serve stat I have ever seen. In 82 Wimbledon and Queen's his serve was effective against Mac.

 

[Waspsting]

3% unreturned serves is woefully bad, the worst serve stat I have ever seen

Makes 2 of us

John Newcombe of all people has the same but over 62 serves, not 71 (and a game missing) and on clay, in a '77 clay match Borg

Connors has his better days too. He's got Mac moving around and ill at ease at '80 Wimby and hopping around all over the place in the '80 Philly final (on a very fast court)

But yes, those are the exceptions (along with the grass matches you mentioned), this is closer to his mode against Mac

 

[sandy mayer]

Makes 2 of us

John Newcombe of all people has the same but over 62 serves, not 71 (and a game missing) and on clay, in a '77 clay match Borg

Connors has his better days too. He's got Mac moving around and ill at ease at '80 Wimby and hopping around all over the place in the '80 Philly final (on a very fast court)

But yes, those are the exceptions (along with the grass matches you mentioned), this is closer to his mode against Mac

On clay when Newcombe was well past his best against the clay master 3% is not that surprising, though a little. But Connors was playing on a fast surface.

 

[WCT]

Makes 2 of us

John Newcombe of all people has the same but over 62 serves, not 71 (and a game missing) and on clay, in a '77 clay match Borg

Connors has his better days too. He's got Mac moving around and ill at ease at '80 Wimby and hopping around all over the place in the '80 Philly final (on a very fast court)

But yes, those are the exceptions (along with the grass matches you mentioned), this is closer to his mode against Mac

I have Connors at 18/113 in 1980 Philly. 15.9%. Worst I have seen is a partial with Nastase indoors. 0/47. Mcenroe at Frejus 1979 3/64, 4.7. Hard court which I thought was fast until I did Connors/Tanner there. Tanner stayed back on all 2nd serves. Court must have been slow, but Mcenroe was well over 20% against Connors.

He is over 20% in all his grass court matches with Mcenroe. 82 Wimbledon I don't know because I didn't count the serve points for each player. I know how many free points Connors had, but not how many points he served.

I think Mcenroe just got a little careless on the return sometimes. Look at Connors %
in all the Borg Wimbledon matches, 4 of them. 10 or 11 % tops. He didn't miss the routine return. I did Wembley 81 last week and Connors was 18/126, but Mcenroe had 3-5 2nd serves where he tried a drop shot and missed. Just careless. I did or did more expansively Suntory Cup 81, Dallas 1980, Chicago 82 and the Masters January of 82. They are all in the 10-15% range,

 

[WCT]

I've found it to be true as often as not. If Connors has an advantage over Mac off the ground, its in force of shot, not consistency

But he doesn't have such force of shot that it beats errors out of Mac, let alone goes for winners, so it needs a finisher at the end. That'd be coming to net. He's at his best when he plays like that

He often doesn't

Question for you - do you think Mac was good enough off the baseline to win say, US Opens playing from the back? By 'playing from the back', I mean a) not serve-volleying and b) not pointedly looking to come to net all the time, but ready to come in when its appropriate and choice manufacturing approaches



Bit part of that is his anticipation. Very rarely seems caught out by direction or seems to wait to see where ball is hit before starting his first step movement


I would agree

We tend to try isolate shots when discussing who has the best x,y,z shot... all the while knowing that nothing exists in isolation. And the return least of all

Taking effectiveness of his return-approaches into account (and that includes all the net skills - anticipation, movement, volleying etc.), I think he's a bona fida greatest ever returner candidate

Intuitively, one senses that that's a lot to add on to the return shot alone for such an assessment, but its pretty much the same with someone like say Andre Agassi (who's regularly talked about as grade A returner), whose deadly follow-up passing has as much to do with his return game success as the return itself



Anyone else, and I'd be tempted to think that this and the San Francisco match are almost a con job, baiting opponent into false sense of security for the bigger matches at Wimby or US Open

You watch this and wonder how he could possibly beat Mac at all. Don Budge is in attendance and says the same thing in almost the same words even

Huge advantage in serve to Mac (and if its to extent of 31% freebies, that's impossible to overcome), his net game > Jimbo's pass game, his groundgame at least as good (quite possibly better)

And if Jimbo stays on baseline on top of that... its hard to see how he can win

Several things. I don't see Mcenroe, possible exception 84 Mcenroe, winning basically from the baseline. Being at the net only 30-35% of the points instead of 45% or more, to me, just means he isn't coming in AS much. It's too much for me to see it as winning from the baseline. You s/v on every 1st serve, that does not meet my definition. Anyway, I am skeptical that he would beat Lendl, Wilander, among others that way.

I also don't see him as a GOAT of all time returner. For me, the return is the return. If you have sublime follow up passing shots, that is separate from the return. Absolutely, not knocking Mcenroe as a returner, but GOAT is a high bar. Connors or Agassi returning at their best, where it's rocket after rocket at the server's feet? I don't see Mac at that level.

As I said, in another post, I did or redid stats for a bunch of Connors/Mac matches. He pushes Connors around, or at least backs him up, more than people. He doesn't just give him junk. Maybe half his backhands he goes through. He can always shoot that forehand up the line. He hits the ball harder than people think, even before 84 In 84, he damn straight does.

In the Masters match, I thought they ran each other about the same. Wembley 81, Connors had him on a string a lot. Like with the 84 Lendl Tokyo match, only moreso, I'm like, how are you not at the net yet? Corner to corner he is running this guy. And Connors volleyed very well that match. Mcenroe was getting that passing shot low from very defensive positions. That running forehand pass he can whip crosscourt from virtually any position. I'd say Chicago was in between Wembley and the Masters in terms of who ran who.

Connors won in Dallas, at the Suntory, Chicago at Wembley. I only have 75-80 points of the first 2 and about 200 points of a 5 hour 5 set match in Chicago. Dallas he was at the net 21% of the points. The other 3 and the 82 Masters as well as Frejus 79 and Philadelphia 80(another Connors win) are all in the maybe 13-17% range. Now, you are more generous with net points than I am, but how many of yours, grass court aside, vs Mac is he over 20?

This match it's a little over 20 and he got killed. He's 25% in San Francisco and got killed. BTW, in several of those 81-82 matches I did, Mac s/v was way down on 2nd serve. Only 8 of 68 s/v on 2nds at Wembley. 9 of 36 at Chicago and 6 of 30 at the Masters. In theory, this should increase Connors' net frequency since the point starts with a rally. Didn't make much of a difference in those 3 matches,

Connors success seems more predicated on the return games. He had matches with just insane returning. The Dallas match has 12 games. Connors wins 4 of 6 on his serve and 5 of 6 on Mcenroe's. And the game that Mcenroe won, Connors had break point. He broke him 2 of 5 games at the Suntory, 6 of 13 in Chicago. Didn't break him in the first 2 sets at Wembley and was down 2---0, Then broke him 6 times in 3 sets.
At Philadelphia in 80, it was 7 or 8 times he broke him. Look at the Queens matches. 4 times in 2 sets and 5 times in 2 sets. On grass. This guy lost 2 US Open matches where he broke Mcenroe 8 times.

Then you have the matches like this one where he can't get into Mcenroe's serve and it's not pretty. Even those matches, he pretty much always gets at least one break. H broke twice this match, 3 times at the 79 US Open. It isn't until 84 that he can't break at all.

One exception was 82 Wimbledon. He only got broken 3 times in 5 sets and only broke Mcenroe 4 times. Most times, he'd need to break more over 5 sets to win.

In general, what could Connors do to hold more? I think the first thing was the serve.
This match is extremely low in free points, but all those other matches I did he's not at 20% unreturned in any of them. More often than not less than 15.

Do I think he should have come in more? Anyone who has read my posts, the answer is obvious. And 4-6 years before he would have. Still, the reality is he did win a bunch of these matches not doing that. Again, grass court matches aside. He is in the 30s% for all their Wimbledon and Queens matches except for 82 Wimbledon where it's mid 20s.

The stat I just started keeping and wish I had all along is % of games that Connors breaks serve. I'd be interested in seeing how he compares to modern players where the stat is readily available. I think Medvedev leads with 32% With a big sampling size of matches I'd like to see how Connors would compare to that.

 

[medieval_remnant]

Several things. I don't see Mcenroe, possible exception 84 Mcenroe, winning basically from the baseline. Being at the net only 30-35% of the points instead of 45% or more, to me, just means he isn't coming in AS much. It's too much for me to see it as winning from the baseline. You s/v on every 1st serve, that does not meet my definition. Anyway, I am skeptical that he would beat Lendl, Wilander, among others that way.

I also don't see him as a GOAT of all time returner. For me, the return is the return. If you have sublime follow up passing shots, that is separate from the return. Absolutely, not knocking Mcenroe as a returner, but GOAT is a high bar. Connors or Agassi returning at their best, where it's rocket after rocket at the server's feet? I don't see Mac at that level.

As I said, in another post, I did or redid stats for a bunch of Connors/Mac matches. He pushes Connors around, or at least backs him up, more than people. He doesn't just give him junk. Maybe half his backhands he goes through. He can always shoot that forehand up the line. He hits the ball harder than people think, even before 84 In 84, he damn straight does.

In the Masters match, I thought they ran each other about the same. Wembley 81, Connors had him on a string a lot. Like with the 84 Lendl Tokyo match, only moreso, I'm like, how are you not at the net yet? Corner to corner he is running this guy. And Connors volleyed very well that match. Mcenroe was getting that passing shot low from very defensive positions. That running forehand pass he can whip crosscourt from virtually any position. I'd say Chicago was in between Wembley and the Masters in terms of who ran who.

Connors won in Dallas, at the Suntory, Chicago at Wembley. I only have 75-80 points of the first 2 and about 200 points of a 5 hour 5 set match in Chicago. Dallas he was at the net 21% of the points. The other 3 and the 82 Masters as well as Frejus 79 and Philadelphia 80(another Connors win) are all in the maybe 13-17% range. Now, you are more generous with net points than I am, but how many of yours, grass court aside, vs Mac is he over 20?

This match it's a little over 20 and he got killed. He's 25% in San Francisco and got killed. BTW, in several of those 81-82 matches I did, Mac s/v was way down on 2nd serve. Only 8 of 68 s/v on 2nds at Wembley. 9 of 36 at Chicago and 6 of 30 at the Masters. In theory, this should increase Connors' net frequency since the point starts with a rally. Didn't make much of a difference in those 3 matches,

Connors success seems more predicated on the return games. He had matches with just insane returning. The Dallas match has 12 games. Connors wins 4 of 6 on his serve and 5 of 6 on Mcenroe's. And the game that Mcenroe won, Connors had break point. He broke him 2 of 5 games at the Suntory, 6 of 13 in Chicago. Didn't break him in the first 2 sets at Wembley and was down 2---0, Then broke him 6 times in 3 sets.
At Philadelphia in 80, it was 7 or 8 times he broke him. Look at the Queens matches. 4 times in 2 sets and 5 times in 2 sets. On grass. This guy lost 2 US Open matches where he broke Mcenroe 8 times.

Then you have the matches like this one where he can't get into Mcenroe's serve and it's not pretty. Even those matches, he pretty much always gets at least one break. H broke twice this match, 3 times at the 79 US Open. It isn't until 84 that he can't break at all.

One exception was 82 Wimbledon. He only got broken 3 times in 5 sets and only broke Mcenroe 4 times. Most times, he'd need to break more over 5 sets to win.

In general, what could Connors do to hold more? I think the first thing was the serve.
This match is extremely low in free points, but all those other matches I did he's not at 20% unreturned in any of them. More often than not less than 15.

Do I think he should have come in more? Anyone who has read my posts, the answer is obvious. And 4-6 years before he would have. Still, the reality is he did win a bunch of these matches not doing that. Again, grass court matches aside. He is in the 30s% for all their Wimbledon and Queens matches except for 82 Wimbledon where it's mid 20s.

The stat I just started keeping and wish I had all along is % of games that Connors breaks serve. I'd be interested in seeing how he compares to modern players where the stat is readily available. I think Medvedev leads with 32% With a big sampling size of matches I'd like to see how Connors would compare to that.

Connors was awesome against Mac at the '82 and '83 Queens. And Mac looked to be playing very well. Do you have an explanation?

 

[WCT]

Connors was awesome against Mac at the '82 and '83 Queens. And Mac looked to be playing very well. Do you have an explanation?

I think awesome is the word. I don't know that I'd say that Mcenroe was playing very well for him, but he wasn't playing poorly. Connors returning in those matches is fantastic. His volleying in 82 is about as good as you are going to see from him. 83 is good as well, just not as good.

Why did he play so well at this particular time? Beats me. Sort of counterintuitive. He goes 3 for 3 in grass court matches those 2 years and Mcenroe wins most of the indoor matches, killing him in a couple. You'd think Connors would have a better chance, against him, indoors than grass. In theory, anyway. But the matches aren't played in theory.

 

[Waspsting]

McEnroe beat Connors 6-2, 7-5 in the Masters (Year End Championship) round robin, 1981 on carpet in New York, USA

McEnroe would finish second in the group with a 2-1 record and go on to lose in the semi-final to eventual champion Ivan Lendl. Connors would finish bottom of the group with a 1-2 record and be eliminated

McEnroe won 64 points, Connors 49

McEnroe serve-volleyed off all but 2 first serve

Serve Stats
McEnroe...
- 1st serve percentage (29/59) 49%
- 1st serve points won (23/29) 79%
- 2nd serve points won (17/30) 57%
- Aces 3
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (14/59) 24%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (40/54) 74%
- 1st serve points won (20/40) 50%
- 2nd serve points won (10/14) 71%
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (6/54) 11%

Serve Patterns
McEnroe served...
- to FH 28%
- to BH 60%
- to Body 12%

Connors served...
- to FH 35%
- to BH 52%
- to Body 13%

Return Stats
McEnroe made...
- 48 (17 FH, 31 BH), including 3 runaround FHs & 2 runaround BHs
- 6 Errors, comprising...
- 5 Unforced (5 FH), including 1 runaround FH
- 1 Forced (1 BH)
- Return Rate (48/54) 89%

Connors made...
- 43 (16 FH, 27 BH), including 3 runaround FHs & 1 runaround BH
- 4 Winners (4 BH)
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (3 BH)
- 8 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH)
- Return Rate (43/57) 75%

Break Points
McEnroe 4/6 (5 games)
Connors 1/3 (2 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
McEnroe 14 (3 FH, 3 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 3 OH)
Connors 15 (2 FH, 7 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

McEnroe had 9 from serve-volley points -
- 7 first 'volleys' (3 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH, 1 FH at net, 1 BH at net)
- 1 third volley (1 OH)
- 1 re-approach volley (1 OH)

- FH passes - 2 dtl
- BHs - 1 cc pass, 1 net chord dribbler

Connors' FH passes - 1 cc, 1 inside-out
- BHs - 5 dtl passes (4 returns), 1 inside-out, 1 drop shot

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a second volley FHV

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
McEnroe 26
- 13 Unforced (5 FH, 7 BH, 1 OH)
- 13 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 Back-to-Net)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.1

Connors 36
- 25 Unforced (11 FH, 10 BH, 3 BHV, 1 OH)... with 1 baseline BHV and 1 OH on bounce from baseline
- 11 Forced (5 FH, 6 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.2

(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
McEnroe was...
- 27/41 (66%) at net, including...
- 22/30 (73%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 18/24 (75%) off 1st serve and...
- 4/6 (67%) off 2nd serve
---
- 2/4 (50%) forced back

Connors was...
- 16/24 (67%) at net, including...
- 2/2 serve-volleying, both 1st serves
---
- 0/3 forced back

Match Report
This match was played about a week and half before the one in Philly and action is similar, though less one sided. Its an ugly and petulant affair. Bounce of court is particularly low, but pace isn’t fast

Mac essentially serve-volleys off all first serves (stays back twice, both times drawing hard forced return errors) and barely at all off seconds (21% of the time). Jimbo serve-volleys just twice. So there’s a lot of baseline-to-baseline starting points

And that’s a good thing from Mac’s point of view

Ground UEs - Mac 12, Jimbo 23 (counting a BHV and bounce OH for Jimbo)
Rallying to net - Mac 5/11, Jimbo 14/22

With negligible ground to ground winners (Mac 1 - a net chord dribbler, Jimbo 2) or FEs from baseline rallies, the above two stats sum up what happens from baseline to baseline starting points. Points won come to Mac 36, Jimbo 32

Given that those numbers engulf all Jimbo’s service points but just Mac’s second serves while Mac dominates his first serve points to tune of 79% won (also wins 4/6 second serve-volley points), that’s a disaster for Jimbo

Mac does a bit better 2nd serve-volleying (4/6 or 67%) than he does not (13/22 at 59% or counting 2 double faults 54%), but staying back is a good move. First game of match demonstrates the dangers of Jimbo’s return against serve-volleys. Other than that, he has nothing to fear from Jimbo - not his serve, not his return as long as Mac stays on baseline and not his groundstrokes

As numbers make abundantly clear, Mac has big consistency advantage off the ground. He’s fairly passive from the back, though not as much as the Philly match. Early on, he strikes FHs and slices BHs both ways. Soon enough, he tunes down to pushing FHs and slicing BHs orthodoxly cc

Bounce is low enough that whatever power advantage Jimbo might aspire to have is kept in check. And Jimbo isn’t a slice-approacher. His usual brand of drive or ease-over-the-net approaching doesn’t auto suggest itself against knee and lower balls. So baseline rallies stay baseline rallies til someone blinks - and usually, its Jimbo

That’s the ugly part. The ground battle is neither lively of direction nor hard hitting. Basically, who-blinks-first, with 1 player pushing and slicing, the other hitting with moderate, non-threatening force some of the time, while being forced to hit spinny shots to low balls near as often.

Good consistency from Mac, that’s about it on positive front

The petulance comes in both players making heavy weather about every other line call that goes against them, including ones on opposite side of court where they can’t possibly be confident in their hopes of ball being in or out. Crowd get in on the act and start applauding missed first serves - mostly, but not exclusively Mac’s, who serving at 49% to Jimbo’s 74% gives them far more chances to. Mac gets 2 warnings - 1 for striking a ball aggressively post-point, the other for delay of game while he’s demanding the Chair ask the crowd to be be quiet. There are at least a dozen other points with similar length delays, and neither player (Mac in particular) plays quickly even when they’re not complaining about whatever it is they’re complaining about

With Mac serving at 49% while serve-volleying of first serves, the rest of action being the ugly baseline stuff and all the delaying and tantrums, it’s not a good watch

 

[Waspsting]

What else? Jimbo’s in no hurry to come to net from rallies, though he eventually does so twice as much as Mac. You’d think being outdone 2:1 on the back court error front would be impetus to come in early and often. Jimbo has other ideas - what they are, only he knows. Ironically, he’s broken in the one game where he approaches early. Mac’s passive groundies doesn’t leave him in position to manufacture approaches but he’s not as averse to coming in like the Philly match, which was extreme

If coming in was a priority for Jimbo (nothing to suggest it was) and the low bounce is tripping him up from that, how else can he approach? 1 interesting point where plays a FH cc moonball that gets up so high that Mac has to top spin it back (not slice). Ball gets up to good height for Jimbo to approach off, but he misses the approach shot. Doesn’t try it again. It’d have been more interesting to see how Mac coped with it than what does transpire

Some wonderful, defensive lobs from Jimbo in particular, but Mac too. On dead run and in hopeless position, he saves immediate loss of point by throwing them up and forcing Mac back to baseline. Mac’s forced back 4 time, Jimbo 3

Not particularly good volleying from Jimbo either. He’s got 3 UEs and no FEs. Doesn’t face many difficult volleys, usually draws error with strong, wide approach shot

Mac’s first serve-volleying is its usual excellent, both the serve and the volleying behind it. Some strong return-passing from Jimbo too whose got 4 winners, all BH dtl’s

Mac returns merely outstanding to tune of 89% return rate, as opposed to inhumanly as in Philly. Same type of easy reading and movement, but he goes for the odd dtl attacking return

Jimbo winning 71% second serve points to 50% firsts. And like Philly, having another bender of points lost

Match Progression
Highlight of the match is the opening, a 12 point hold for Mac, saving 2 break points. He serve-volleys 9/12 points (and 2/5 second serves), Jimbo strikes 4 passing winners (2 returns - 1 of each serve). Game ends with Jimbo missing 2nd return with Mac staying back

Jimbo’s at net twice in in each of his first 2 holds and rolls another FH cc running pass winner in his second return game as score moves to 2-2. Looks a good match

Mac wins the next 7 games. In remaining 4 games of the set, wins 16/18 points and extends that to 28/36 as he opens up 3-0 lead in second set. Play marked by Jimbo blinking in ground rallies. He takes net early in last game of first set, but loses all 3 points anyway - missing slightly under net volley to wide open court, Mac with a lovely BH cc pass winner and being forced back from net to miss an OH on the bounce from the back. Down set/break point, Jimbo makes an approach error

Unlikely fully stretched poke FH dtl pass winner from Mac in opening game of the second, and he breaks thereafter with more baseline blinks from Jimbo game after

Strong game from Jimbo to break back for 3-4 later on - 2 BH dtl return pass winners and 2 net points forcing passing errors, but either side of it, he endures deuce holds (saving a break point in the consolidation). Things are at there most petulant during this period

It comes as little surprise as Mac breaks to end the match - couple of blinks by Jimbo and a Mac net chord dribbling winner making score 0-40, and Mac striking a FH dtl pass winner couple points after to tend things

Summing up, dull, less extreme version of the Philly match - with McEnroe not inhumanly regular in returning or completely wrapped up in passive groundstrokes and un-seeking of net as he would be there - but same nature and same dominance by the winner

McEnroe dominates his first serve points with typical high quality serve-volleying, but mercifully for his opponent, serves at just 49%. Everything else starts on baseline

Baseline play is unremarkable with Mac’s quite passive in pushing FHs and slicing BHs, but is far more consistent than his firmer hitting opponent. While Connors does hit harder, its not to damaging extent and the low bounce forces him to hit side spinny BHs much of the time to counter too

Connors is slow to take net and and is neither there often enough nor does well enough when he is to make up for his consistency handicap

Stats for the final between Ivan Lendl and Vitas Gerulaitis - Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Gerulaitis, Masters finals, 1981 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[WCT]

Regarding the court, Arthur Ashe is interviewed and says it's very slow. I don't think Mcenroe would stay back on that many 2nd serves otherwise, I thought that Mcenroe pushed Connors around the court more than you did. He hit through a good % of backhands, He mixed it up, Even if he isn't hitting into the corners, he is pushing Connors back with depth and pace,

Now, make no mistake, I think Connors could have been in more, but I didn't find this match to be among the most egregious in that matter. I didn't see point after point of, how is he not at the net at that point. Because I didn't see him as overtly in control of the rallies as I often did.

It's amazing how my stat taking has evolved. When I first started counting ue it had to be so obvious. In this match and the 84 Tokyo Lendl match, I have the players with more ue than you do. I had 29 and 15 in this match.

About the player' behavior, I don't remember if it was this match or another. The play by play guy, I think Trautwig or Doucette, asks Dell what it is going to take to stop this. Dell says a really strong chair umpire. For a guy who represented players, he has very little sympathy for them here. He thought there shouldn't be all these warnings. One warning then you are out. Default a few of them and the rest will get the message.

Easy enough to say, but meaningless if they don't get the backing of the referee and the tournament organizers. What happens when the crowd goes crazy when you default Connors or Mcenroe? Natase was defaulted against Mcenroe at the US Open. The crowd was going crazy. The referee overruled the umpire and replaced him in the chair.

I agreed with Dell in principle. Executing it is another matter.

 

[Waspsting]

Regarding the court, Arthur Ashe is interviewed and says it's very slow.

I don't think the court was fast but will add that Ashe says that about every court. I've never heard him not say a court is slow - 5-10 matches here and there. He strikes me as one of those guys who unless court is lightning fast, will say it was slow or very slow

About the player' behavior, I don't remember if it was this match or another. The play by play guy, I think Trautwig or Doucette, asks Dell what it is going to take to stop this. Dell says a really strong chair umpire. For a guy who represented players, he has very little sympathy for them here. He thought there shouldn't be all these warnings. One warning then you are out. Default a few of them and the rest will get the message.

yeah, that was this match

The way they carry on about line calls on far side of court, where they can't possibly be confident is ridiculous
Essentially, they're controlling pace of play - the game will continue when they want it to, they obviously know when that will be - but the opponent has no idea. That's simply, unfair

Whats to stop a guy just calmly walking up to the Chair and saying "Yeah, I'll play when I'm ready. And that'll be when it will be. And my opponent can die wondering for all I care - not my problem. And I'm not going to stand here shouting and screaming at you to mark the time. I'm going to go sit down. Do you have a good book I can borrow?"

Easy enough to say, but meaningless if they don't get the backing of the referee and the tournament organizers. What happens when the crowd goes crazy when you default Connors or Mcenroe? Natase was defaulted against Mcenroe at the US Open. The crowd was going crazy. The referee overruled the umpire and replaced him in the chair.

I agreed with Dell in principle. Executing it is another matter.

True

Story from cricket, where when a batsmen is out, he's out and won't be on show for rest of day. Umpire has to give him out of course

The most popular batsmen in the world walked upto the umpire one day, pointed to the full house and told him -

"See them? They're here to watch me bat, not to watch you umpire"

 

[WCT]

I don't think the court was fast but will add that Ashe says that about every court. I've never heard him not say a court is slow - 5-10 matches here and there. He strikes me as one of those guys who unless court is lightning fast, will say it was slow or very slow



yeah, that was this match

The way they carry on about line calls on far side of court, where they can't possibly be confident is ridiculous
Essentially, they're controlling pace of play - the game will continue when they want it to, they obviously know when that will be - but the opponent has no idea. That's simply, unfair

Whats to stop a guy just calmly walking up to the Chair and saying "Yeah, I'll play when I'm ready. And that'll be when it will be. And my opponent can die wondering for all I care - not my problem. And I'm not going to stand here shouting and screaming at you to mark the time. I'm going to go sit down. Do you have a good book I can borrow?"



True

Story from cricket, where when a batsmen is out, he's out and won't be on show for rest of day. Umpire has to give him out of course

The most popular batsmen in the world walked upto the umpire one day, pointed to the full house and told him -

"See them? They're here to watch me bat, not to watch you umpire"

I hadn't realized Ashe made a habit out of saying that courts were slow. For me, Mcenroe staying back on so many 2nd serves , from the start of the match, pretty much conforms that it was pretty slow.

In my mind, the players were allowed to get away with it and so they pushed it. However, the reality is they were the draw. Stars get away with things others don't get away with. Might not be right, but it's reality. All I can tell you is i sure wouldn't have wanted to umpire any of these guys' matches.