Even Connors hated pushers!

E

esprits4s

Rookie
Probably old news, but:
www.sportskeeda.com

"It's like pulling teeth... He doesn't play anything like he used to" - When Jimmy Connors expressed frustration with Ivan Lendl after losing to arch-rival in their final battle

Jimmy Connors took a dig at Ivan Lendl's playing style after losing to him in the second round of the 1992 US Open. It was the last of the 35 matches between the two greats of the game.
www.sportskeeda.com www.sportskeeda.com

I've never really thought of Lendl as a pusher with his forehand, but maybe his back problems were already taking a tole in '92? Regardless, Connors comments sounded like a lot of threads here, and I feel like I can totally relate;)
 
esprits4s said:
Probably old news, but:
www.sportskeeda.com

"It's like pulling teeth... He doesn't play anything like he used to" - When Jimmy Connors expressed frustration with Ivan Lendl after losing to arch-rival in their final battle

Jimmy Connors took a dig at Ivan Lendl's playing style after losing to him in the second round of the 1992 US Open. It was the last of the 35 matches between the two greats of the game.
www.sportskeeda.com www.sportskeeda.com

I've never really thought of Lendl as a pusher with his forehand, but maybe his back problems were already taking a tole in '92? Regardless, Connors comments sounded like a lot of threads here, and I feel like I can totally relate;)
Click to expand...
lendl was "just bunting" according to connors yet lendl bageled him in the final set. I have not seen the match, but that sounds dubious.
 
I think he was gutted he got his old.foe and couldnt get as far as 1991. But he was a year (even ) older.

Lendl played pretty well that year but got outclutched by edberg.
 
The 1992 US Open in general is one my favourite ever majors on the men's side. It was packed full of intriguging matches, big names, drama and excitment etc.

Regarding Connors and Lendl. well before that 1992 US Open match, things were tense between at the back end of the 1984 season.


After Lendl fought back form 2-5 down in the final set to win their Masters SF, he said of his incentive to beat Connors that day, 'You can triple it when you play someone who wasn't treating you sportsmanlike before.' Connors replied, 'Does he deserve to be treated like a sportsman? I think anyone who has a reputation in big matches like he does has to prove himself to me first.

Before then Connors was annoyed that Lendl strategely tankied their 1980 Masters RR match to avoid playing Borg in the semis, and lack of effort in the 4th set of the 1983 US Open final.

There was humerous banter between them at the net during their 1984 Wimbledon SF.
 
Last edited:
Gizo said:
The 1992 US Open in general is one my favourite ever majors on the men's side. It was packed full of intriguging matches, big names, drama and excitment etc.

Regarding Connors and Lendl. well before that 1992 US Open match, things were tense between at the back end of the 1984 season.


After Lendl fought back form 2-5 down in the final set to win their Masters SF, he said of his incentive to beat Connors that day, 'You can triple it when you play someone who wasn't treating you sportsmanlike before.' Connors replied, 'Does he deserve to be treated like a sportsman? I think anyone who has a reputation in big matches like he does has to prove himself to me first.

Before then Connors was annoyed that Lendl strategely tanking their 1980 Masters RR match to avoid playing Borg in the semis, and lack of effort in the 4th set of thei 1983 US Open final.

There was humerous banter between them at the net during their 1984 Wimbledon SF.
Click to expand...
Connors sounds like typical bully.
 
@Gizo @Waspsting I will tell you something you may not know. It is audio-visually recorded and told by Lluis Bruguera:

Jimmy Connors defeated an 18-year-old ranked world number 85 in the Hamburg quarter-finals by the following scoreline: 7-5, 3-6, 7-5. Connors was 36 years old at the time (May ‘89) and the 12th-ranked player in the world.

Sergi Bruguera, a hardly known player, had top-class anger after the match. Given such a situation, Lluis Bruguera asked his son, ‘Do you want to kill him?’ The answer was, 'Yes, I want to kill him.' LL. Bruguera: ‘Then listen to me.’

A week later, Connors would play again in Rome against the puny world number 85 in the round of 16. Connors lost to Bruguera by a double 6-1.

Some players know how to ‘bunt the ball,’ and others don't.
 
I get cramps said:
@Gizo @Waspsting I will tell you something you may not know. It is audio-visually recorded and told by Lluis Bruguera:

Jimmy Connors defeated an 18-year-old ranked world number 85 in the Hamburg quarter-finals by the following scoreline: 7-5, 3-6, 7-5. Connors was 36 years old at the time (May ‘89) and the 12th-ranked player in the world.

Sergi Bruguera, a hardly known player, had top-class anger after the match. Given such a situation, Lluis Bruguera asked his son, ‘Do you want to kill him?’ The answer was, 'Yes, I want to kill him.' LL. Bruguera: ‘Then listen to me.’

A week later, Connors would play again in Rome against the puny world number 85 in the round of 16. Connors lost to Bruguera by a double 6-1.

Some players know how to ‘bunt the ball,’ and others don't.
Click to expand...
A nice revenge but i dont see anything remarkable about an 18 yo beating someone twice their age.. after already losing.. especially with a quick turnaround.
Back then teenagers were more dangerous than veterans
 
People knew as far back as the mid '70s that Connors didn't like to have to create pace himself. The ATP Tour website did a fantastic three-part story on Ashe's 1975 Wimbledon victory, where his tactics were discussed in great depth:
  • "Ashe has watched video tapes of wins for John Newcombe and Raul Ramirez; but he's also secretly spoken to Bernie Mitton, who slow-balled Connors in a 7-6, 6-1 semi-final victory on Chichester's grass, a few weeks earlier"
  • "On the eve of the final, I remember discussing Arthur’s prospects with Donald Dell as we stood on the steps of the competitors’ restaurant. We agreed that he could not expect to outhit Jimmy, who thrived on pace.” (John Barrett)
  • "You got to pull Jimmy off the court, then drop the ball short to his forehand. That should be your standard play. Jimmy likes pace, what you got to do is give him as little pace as possible." (Charlie Pasarell)
  • “He played a match of technical magnificence, changing speed, feeding junk to Connors’ forehand, slicing his serves wide to Connors’ backhand, cleverly mixing up his game the entire match.” (Bud Collins)

I don't think Connors should be surprised about/complain about a fellow professional simply maximising their chance of winning by exploiting his well-known weakness. Lendl famously did the same at Forest Hills in 1984 and double-bagelled him, so why shouldn't he stick with what worked? If Connors didn't like it, then it was up to him to improve his own shotmaking so that he wasn't reliant on his opponents being aggressive.
 
tele said:
lendl was "just bunting" according to connors yet lendl bageled him in the final set. I have not seen the match, but that sounds dubious.
Click to expand...
Not dubious at all. Lendl knew that Connors loved power being hit at him. Connors would use the opponent's power back against them.

After Lendl won his next match against Chuck Adams, this was the exchange in the post-match press conference:

Q. Ivan, we had, for the second straight interview with your opponent, we had Chuck Adams in here saying, of you, he doesn't play like he used to. I am baiting him with short balls. He lets you back-in points. In order for him to win it, he has got to loosen up and go for it, some of-- sort of the same stuff Connors was saying the other night. I guess-- your response?

IVAN LENDL: I don't care what they say.

Q. Not that you don't care, but you also disagree?

IVAN LENDL: I disagree, because why I would play hard against Connors and let him eat me up with pace? He loves pace. He hates it when you hit it short and slow to his forehand. He just can't stand it. I mean, if you hit hard to his forehand or to his backhand, he would take the ball early and attack you and eat you up. It would be stupid. And Chuck over here was hitting the ball really well. Also when I had looped the ball a little bit to his backhand and I chipped it to his backhand, all of a sudden he started making some errors. If you hit it hard, he just hits it hard down the line and comes in. I mean, it is, you know, if I will see that it is helping me, I am going to do it. But I am not going to do it when I will see it is hurting me.
Click to expand...

When Lendl first appeared on the scene, his power intimidated a lot of players, including McEnroe from 1981 to early 1983, but Connors seemed to thrive on Lendl's power game.

Connors won the first set of his 1992 US Open second round match against Lendl by playing a very intense, highly aggressive game that also included serve and volley. By about half way through the second set, the 40-year-old Connors was physically tired and basically needed Lendl to be feeding him power. Lendl didn't do that. Connors went into the match angry, driving up a dislike of Lendl, and basically shot his load too early into the match. Towards the end of the match, it was not pretty at all for Connors. It may have even convinced Connors that he no longer had the physicality over best of 5 sets to do what he wanted to do anymore.
 
Last edited:
nolefam_2024 said:
Connors sounds like typical bully.
Click to expand...
For Connors, tennis was war. His opponent was an enemy soldier on the battlefield.

Galvermegs said:
A nice revenge but i dont see anything remarkable about an 18 yo beating someone twice their age.. after already losing.. especially with a quick turnaround.
Back then teenagers were more dangerous than veterans
Click to expand...
What about Agassi vs. Connors in two US Open quarter finals in 1988 and 1989? Agassi was age 18-19 and Connors was age 36-37.
 
Mustard said:
For Connors, tennis was war. His opponent was an enemy soldier on the battlefield.


What about Agassi vs. Connors in two US Open quarter finals in 1988 and 1989? Agassi was age 18-19 and Connors was age 36-37.
Click to expand...
Thats my exact point. Chang, agassi, becker, wilander.. the teen wonders all did some great things back in those days.
Sampras also was just about in the bracket.
 
Mustard said:
Something like "the f****ng f***ott is a f****ng pusher!". LOL. Imagine the PC meltdowns if that happened now.
Click to expand...
There was a Youtube video about that incident alone. Seems to be deleted now, most likely just because the quote was in the video title.

However, some comments speculated that Connors might have scolded himself and not Lendl with that quote, in a sense of "Come on Jimmy, hit the ball, don't be too passive."
 
ChrisRF said:
There was a Youtube video about that incident alone. Seems to be deleted now, most likely just because the quote was in the video title.

However, some comments speculated that Connors might have scolded himself and not Lendl with that quote, in a sense of "Come on Jimmy, hit the ball, don't be too passive."
Click to expand...

I have only seen Conners in a practice set. He was playing terrible (by his standards) and was berating himself constantly. His funniest insult to himself was that his Grandma could play better than him.
 
Mustard said:
Not dubious at all. Lendl knew that Connors loved power being hit at him. Connors would use the opponent's power back against them.

After Lendl won his next match against Chuck Adams, this was the exchange in the post-match press conference:



When Lendl first appeared on the scene, his power intimidated a lot of players, including McEnroe from 1981 to early 1983, but Connors seemed to thrive on Lendl's power game.

Connors won the first set of his 1992 US Open second round match against Lendl by playing a very intense, highly aggressive game that also included serve and volley. By about half way through the second set, the 40-year-old Connors was physically tired and basically needed Lendl to be feeding him power. Lendl didn't do that. Connors went into the match angry, driving up a dislike of Lendl, and basically shot his load too early into the match. Towards the end of the match, it was not pretty at all for Connors. It may have even convinced Connors that he no longer had the physicality over best of 5 sets to do what he wanted to do anymore.
Click to expand...
Your recap is spot on. Having watched that match and nearly all of their televised matches, it's true that Lendl got wiser with his approach when it came to Connors. Plus, with Connors getting a bit older, that probably helped a bit too. That '92 match was pretty interesting for the first 2 sets....if Connors had managed to hold that lead and win the 2nd, who knows? Lendl was definitely off his game early and Connors super aggressive. Hey, he was bunting, but if you are winning points, why the hell not? Connors could not counter it effectively.
 
Connors broke Lendl to open the 2nd set and then it was pretty much all Lendl. Connors was nowhere remotely close to winning the 2nd set. Lendl is pretty much slicing all his backhands except when Connors comes in. If he knows Connors is coming in, that is. Connors was sneaking in a lot.

Lendl wasn't bunting any forehands eiither. He is hitting a bunch of them pretty hard.
I've seen him play where he has gone after the forehand more, but in no way would I describe his forehand that night as bunting.

This match was nothing dramatically new. Lendl had been feeding Connors a lot of sliced backhands for years at this point. Dramatically new in Lendl's strategy. Connors did more s/v, early on, than I'd seen in many years, if ever, on a hard court.
Maybe Segura's Connors did it; That was a dramatic strategy change.
 
WCT said:
Connors broke Lendl to open the 2nd set and then it was pretty much all Lendl. Connors was nowhere remotely close to winning the 2nd set.
Click to expand...
While Lendl broke back immediately in the second set, Connors did get some momentum back soon after that when a centre lineswoman reversed a call on a Connors serve in Connors' favour. John Lloyd was then interviewed in the crowd by CBS and he was predicting Connors to win the match. By the third set at the latest, it was clear that Connors was too gassed, and needed Lendl to hit power shots towards him.

WCT said:
Lendl wasn't bunting any forehands eiither. He is hitting a bunch of them pretty hard.
I've seen him play where he has gone after the forehand more, but in no way would I describe his forehand that night as bunting.
Click to expand...
Lendl didn't deny that he was bunting. In his press conference after beating Chuck Adams, Lendl said:

IVAN LENDL: I disagree, because why I would play hard against Connors and let him eat me up with pace? He loves pace. He hates it when you hit it short and slow to his forehand. He just can't stand it. I mean, if you hit hard to his forehand or to his backhand, he would take the ball early and attack you and eat you up. It would be stupid. And Chuck over here was hitting the ball really well.

WCT said:
This match was nothing dramatically new. Lendl had been feeding Connors a lot of sliced backhands for years at this point. Dramatically new in Lendl's strategy. Connors did more s/v, early on, than I'd seen in many years, if ever, on a hard court.
Maybe Segura's Connors did it; That was a dramatic strategy change.
Click to expand...
Connors depleted his energy in the process.
 
Mustard said:
While Lendl broke back immediately in the second set, Connors did get some momentum back soon after that when a centre lineswoman reversed a call on a Connors serve in Connors' favour. John Lloyd was then interviewed in the crowd by CBS and he was predicting Connors to win the match. By the third set at the latest, it was clear that Connors was too gassed, and needed Lendl to hit power shots towards him.


Lendl didn't deny that he was bunting. In his press conference after beating Chuck Adams, Lendl said:

IVAN LENDL: I disagree, because why I would play hard against Connors and let him eat me up with pace? He loves pace. He hates it when you hit it short and slow to his forehand. He just can't stand it. I mean, if you hit hard to his forehand or to his backhand, he would take the ball early and attack you and eat you up. It would be stupid. And Chuck over here was hitting the ball really well.
Click to expand...


Mustard said:
Connors depleted his energy in the process.
Click to expand...
The Lloyd intervew is in the second game of the 2nd set. Connors is up a set and he broke Lendl the first game of the 2nd set. If anyone is ever going to pick Connors it's at that point. Then he got broken and was never ahead again in the match. There were a couple of longer games where each had break points and then Lendl broke, maybe at 4-3.

I didn't see Lendl use the term bunting and if he did he'd be lying. The match is on youtube, the entiire thing. He is not slicing any forehands. The bunting, I call it sliicing, was a backhand thing. Now, I will say that the majority of the rallying was Lendl backhand to Connors forehand. But it had been that way for years with them.
That said, they flash stats in the 2nd set and Lendl has 12 forehand winners. He didn't do that bunting.


Connors was 40 years old, he was going to burn out either way. I think the s/v and quicker to get to the net in general slowed the process. Shortening points was an essential if he was going to win this match.

I also think it was more than fatigue. His level of play really dropped off. Personally, I think he reached back in time for that first set and then 40 years old reality started to set in.
 
I have watched the first set of that ‘92 match many times. I marvel at Jimmys aggressiveness and tactics. But at 40 he just couldn’t keep up that energy the whole match. I can totally understand his frustration. The body just can’t do what he’s asking it to do anymore.
 
Call that slice back hand what you will, but it's essentially "bunting" to the Connors forehand. While this was not new in any way, Lendl was able to regain control of the match via the tactic. When Connors broke Lendl in the 2nd set, it was looking like a possible runaway win for Jimmy. He was playing that well. But, Connors ran out of gas too quickly, no question. He was actually playing very well off the ground too in that first set, which we had not seen vs. Lendl in some time. But, 40yrs is 40yrs, let's face it. In '92 he also had that FO match against Stich where he was also very much in control at one point, and then "hit the wall" by his own admission. Still, it was some impressive tennis to watch while it lasted. It was time for him to stick to best of 3 set matches on the ATP and then kick off his Seniors Tour, which was very successful.
 
Last edited:
Galvermegs said:
Thats my exact point. Chang, agassi, becker, wilander.. the teen wonders all did some great things back in those days.
Sampras also was just about in the bracket.
Click to expand...
what's more amazing? the teenager or the geriatric? I think any guy over 35 years making it into quarters and beyond in a GS event is pretty remarkable. We take it for granted now w/Fed, Rafa, Nole, but it's not all that common and takes tremendous skill and wherewithal. A guy like Rosewall getting to GS finals at 39, was probably the last time we saw something quite that impressive, along w/Andre at 35 making the USO finals. Hopefully, I'll live long enough to see if Sinner and Alcaraz have comparable longevity ;)
 
jrepac said:
what's more amazing? the teenager or the geriatric? I think any guy over 35 years making it into quarters and beyond in a GS event is pretty remarkable. We take it for granted now w/Fed, Rafa, Nole, but it's not all that common and takes tremendous skill and wherewithal. A guy like Rosewall getting to GS finals at 39, was probably the last time we saw something quite that impressive, along w/Andre at 35 making the USO finals. Hopefully, I'll live long enough to see if Sinner and Alcaraz have comparable longevity ;)
Click to expand...
I am impressed by both. Agassi was already a contender as a teenager, as was rafa.

It is funny to think how becker appeared so much older than he was throughout his career. By the time of his last wimbledon final he really looked near the end. Of course he had that last impressive period the following season. Edberg also burnt out early as his serve definitely was no longer able to set him up enough.

Someone like stich could have tried for a 2nd major more but had more going on than just tennis. Skill is a factor, but motivation and even frenzied obsession to chase records is a bigger factor still.
 
Galvermegs said:
I am impressed by both. Agassi was already a contender as a teenager, as was rafa.

It is funny to think how becker appeared so much older than he was throughout his career. By the time of his last wimbledon final he really looked near the end. Of course he had that last impressive period the following season. Edberg also burnt out early as his serve definitely was no longer able to set him up enough.

Someone like stich could have tried for a 2nd major more but had more going on than just tennis. Skill is a factor, but motivation and even frenzied obsession to chase records is a bigger factor still.
Click to expand...
you have to be pretty driven to win multiple GS events....you look at the guys at the top of that list, along w/things like # of wins and win %s and it's pretty indicative of their sheer will to keep winning, stay at the top, etc. To have 3 guys who all pushed it to their physical limits to keep going at nearly 40 is amazing. I think Nole is coming to the end of the road soon, but no question he's one of the most driven and "obsessed" ever to play the game. The "teens" like Agassi, Becker, Chang and Sampras....all pretty special as well. But, only Agassi had great longevity (despite inconsistency)
 
I am really not a fan of the term "pusher". If you can't figure out how to beat that so called "Pusher" then they are better than you that day. If you can't beat them ever than they are better than you period.

Besides at one level of play a player may be a basher and crush their opponents 0,0. At another that same player may be called a "pusher".

If any of us played that so called pusher back in the day they would crush us and we would have trouble even getting to balls he hit.
 
Mustard said:
Something like "the f****ng f***ott is a f****ng pusher!". LOL. Imagine the PC meltdowns if that happened now.
Click to expand...

Lendl drove practically all his backhands. Rarely sliced. GOAT monster forehand.
Lendl is one of the most powerful hard-hitting aggressive players in history. The Arnold of tennis.
Pusher?! What in the world is Connors babbling about?
:rolleyes:
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
Lendl drove practically all his backhands. Rarely sliced. GOAT monster forehand.
Lendl is one of the most powerful hard-hitting aggressive players in history. The Arnold of tennis.
Pusher?! What in the world is Connors babbling about?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Did you see the entire match from '92? Post 1984, Lendl played the slice backhand pretty heavily to Connors forehand. For the reasons he actually stated in that press interview quoted above. In the '92 match, it helped slow things down, took power away from Connors, and as Jimmy tired, he started missing more and more forehands as that 2nd set evolved.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
Lendl drove practically all his backhands. Rarely sliced. GOAT monster forehand.
Lendl is one of the most powerful hard-hitting aggressive players in history. The Arnold of tennis.
Pusher?! What in the world is Connors babbling about?
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Lendl played the "pusher" way against Connors, because Connors loved it when opponents hit hard with power towards him. That's why young Lendl, who intimidated a lot of players with his power game, including McEnroe for a couple of years, had all sorts of trouble with Connors in the early years of their rivalry, because Connors thrived off of Lendl's power game. The worst thing that any opponent of Connors could do is hit towards him with a lot of power.
 
jrepac said:
Did you see the entire match from '92? Post 1984, Lendl played the slice backhand pretty heavily to Connors forehand. For the reasons he actually stated in that press interview quoted above. In the '92 match, it helped slow things down, took power away from Connors, and as Jimmy tired, he started missing more and more forehands as that 2nd set evolved.
Click to expand...

It does not negate the fact that Lendl was the hardest hitter in the world. The very antithesis of a pusher. Literally the last guy on the planet that one would dare call a pusher. Absurd.
Sour grapes by Connors. Ashe slow-sliced his way to the biggest Wimbledon upset ever in 1975. Connors was never quite the same after that. The aura of invincibility was gone.
The object of the game is to win. A change of tactics to a "pusher style" on any given day against a particular vulnerable opponent is the smart move.
And even in that 92 match I see Lendl crushing some backhand winners. Oh my goodness. Lendl was a hard-hitting beast!
 
Last edited:
jrepac said:
Call that slice back hand what you will, but it's essentially "bunting" to the Connors forehand. While this was not new in any way, Lendl was able to regain control of the match via the tactic. When Connors broke Lendl in the 2nd set, it was looking like a possible runaway win for Jimmy. He was playing that well. But, Connors ran out of gas too quickly, no question. He was actually playing very well off the ground too in that first set, which we had not seen vs. Lendl in some time. But, 40yrs is 40yrs, let's face it. In '92 he also had that FO match against Stich where he was also very much in control at one point, and then "hit the wall" by his own admission. Still, it was some impressive tennis to watch while it lasted. It was time for him to stick to best of 3 set matches on the ATP and then kick off his Seniors Tour, which was very successful.
Click to expand...
He didn't regain control using that tactic because he used that same tactic the entire match. Runaway? I don't think so. Connors won by a single break in the 1st and broke to open the 2nd. Don't get me wrong, watching live I was starting to get my hopes up, but the word runaway never entered my mind.

It was also Lendl's play. He did not play well the first set. Combine that with Connors falloff and it was a runaway the other way at the end.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
It does not negate the fact that Lendl was the hardest hitter in the world. Literally the last guy on the planet that one would dare call a pusher. Absurd.
Sour grapes by Connors. Ashe sliced his way to the biggest Wimbledon upset ever in 1975. Connors was never quite the same after that. The aura of invincibility was gone.
The object of the game is to win. A change of tactics is the smart move. And even in that match I see Lendl crushing backhand winners. Lendl was a beast!
Click to expand...
I agree, sour grapes by Connors. That said, Lendl did a whole lot of pushing off the backhand in this match. He crushed a few backands, very few. And while he certainly was not bunting or pushing his forehand, I don't think he was going after it,consistently, to the degree that he would with someone like Wilander.


But why should he? Hr doesn't need to force the play the same way. Wilander isn't going to just miss if he keeps the ball in play long enough, Connors will. Lendl beat Connors a whole lot of straight times using at least a form of this strategy. He may have sliced EVEN MORE this match, but he had been doing a lot against Connors going back a bunch of years.

You are correct about the seeming contradiction. Ashe and Orantes were hailed for it.
 
jrepac said:
what's more amazing? the teenager or the geriatric? I think any guy over 35 years making it into quarters and beyond in a GS event is pretty remarkable. We take it for granted now w/Fed, Rafa, Nole, but it's not all that common and takes tremendous skill and wherewithal. A guy like Rosewall getting to GS finals at 39, was probably the last time we saw something quite that impressive, along w/Andre at 35 making the USO finals. Hopefully, I'll live long enough to see if Sinner and Alcaraz have comparable longevity ;)
Click to expand...
In this respect, Connors impresses more than Novak. Novak is still at the top. He made the finals of Wimbledon and won the Olympics. Connors never made a GS final after 84. 91 was his first semi in 4 years. He came back from that bad injury in 90. He loved the game and the competition. That was not lip service.

Novak may as well, let's see if he hangs around for a year or two only making the quarters or an occasional semi at the GS events.
 
Mustard said:
Lendl played the "pusher" way against Connors, because Connors loved it when opponents hit hard with power towards him. That's why young Lendl, who intimidated a lot of players with his power game, including McEnroe for a couple of years, had all sorts of trouble with Connors in the early years of their rivalry, because Connors thrived off of Lendl's power game. The worst thing that any opponent of Connors could do is hit towards him with a lot of power.
Click to expand...
I think later Borg was an exception. He was slicing less backhands, approach shots aside, as he began to domiinate Connors. Still, the general consensus was just that. Connors loved pace, he fed off of pace, he used your pace against you.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
It does not negate the fact that Lendl was the hardest hitter in the world. The very antithesis of a pusher. Literally the last guy on the planet that one would dare call a pusher. Absurd.
Sour grapes by Connors. Ashe slow-sliced his way to the biggest Wimbledon upset ever in 1975. Connors was never quite the same after that. The aura of invincibility was gone.
The object of the game is to win. A change of tactics to a "pusher style" on any given day against a particular vulnerable opponent is the smart move.
And even in that 92 match I see Lendl crushing some backhand winners. Oh my goodness. Lendl was a hard-hitting beast!
Click to expand...
I never said that it did negate his generally hard-hitting style. But against Connors, he dialed it down for many years. Off both sides in many of the rallies in that match. Of course it's sour grapes. But in that particular match, and a few others, it's easy to see why he'd be criticized as a pusher. Doesn't really matter if he won! I think he tried to do some of that as well in the '84 W semi, but Connors was much sharper (and younger) then, it did not work so well.
 
WCT said:
In this respect, Connors impresses more than Novak. Novak is still at the top. He made the finals of Wimbledon and won the Olympics. Connors never made a GS final after 84. 91 was his first semi in 4 years. He came back from that bad injury in 90. He loved the game and the competition. That was not lip service.

Novak may as well, let's see if he hangs around for a year or two only making the quarters or an occasional semi at the GS events.
Click to expand...
While I'm more impressed by Novak's success as an "elderly" guy, it's true that Connors came back from a career ending injury in '91 in rather grand style. He deserved that Comeback Player of the Year award.
 
WCT said:
He didn't regain control using that tactic because he used that same tactic the entire match. Runaway? I don't think so. Connors won by a single break in the 1st and broke to open the 2nd. Don't get me wrong, watching live I was starting to get my hopes up, but the word runaway never entered my mind.

It was also Lendl's play. He did not play well the first set. Combine that with Connors falloff and it was a runaway the other way at the end.
Click to expand...
Hhmm.....Lendl was pretty stinky in that first set and going into set #2....yeah, a lot of us got ahead of ourselves. But if Connors kept his level up?? He surely would have been up 2 sets to none. But it was not to be as the gas ran out of the tank. And Lendl did re-adjust.
 
jrepac said:
Hhmm.....Lendl was pretty stinky in that first set and going into set #2....yeah, a lot of us got ahead of ourselves. But if Connors kept his level up?? He surely would have been up 2 sets to none. But it was not to be as the gas ran out of the tank. And Lendl did re-adjust.
Click to expand...
If Connors had kept it up, it would have been like the 1982 US Open final.
 
Connors needed to be a lot further along for it to evoke 1982 memories. Connors had fallen a lot from that player and Lendl, while having fallen from his peak, had matured greatlly. The moment wasn't going to be too big for him as 1982 arguably was.
 
jrepac said:
Hhmm.....Lendl was pretty stinky in that first set and going into set #2....yeah, a lot of us got ahead of ourselves. But if Connors kept his level up?? He surely would have been up 2 sets to none. But it was not to be as the gas ran out of the tank. And Lendl did re-adjust.
Click to expand...
Far as I see, his only adjustment was playing better. He didn't noticeably change his tactics.
 
jrepac said:
While I'm more impressed by Novak's success as an "elderly" guy, it's true that Connors came back from a career ending injury in '91 in rather grand style. He deserved that Comeback Player of the Year award.
Click to expand...
His later on court accomplishments clearly dwarf Connors. I'm talking about being more impressed by Connors' competitive fire, his grit.
 
WCT said:
His later on court accomplishments clearly dwarf Connors. I'm talking about being more impressed by Connors' competitive fire, his grit.
Click to expand...
Well, that's exactly why he got Comeback Player of the Year in '91. His wrist exploded, he fell off the charts, yet still came back to capture the imagination of many tennis fans, and even non-fans. Starting at the FO and culminating at the USO. S#it, it wound up on Nightline and on the cover of Sports Illustrated. It WAS a big deal in the media and demand for his USO night match tickets went through the roof. Novak would give his eye-teeth to have such adulation at the USO. Just won't happen, in large part due to his own missteps and surly demeanor. He must have hired Lendl's PR team from 1982.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
Duel Match Stats/Reports - Lendl vs Connors, US Open semi-finals, 1985 & 1987
Replies
14
Views
2K
Waspsting
W
King_olaf_the_hairy
Jimmy Connors' slow decline
Replies
23
Views
725
CyBorg
CyBorg
W
Match Stats/Report - Connors vs Lendl, Tokyo Indoor final, 1984
Replies
5
Views
567
Waspsting
W
W
Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Connors, Masters semi-final, 1982
Replies
3
Views
445
Waspsting
W
T
The Ten True Changes Of The Guard In Tennis!
Replies
24
Views
371
Tennis Devolution
T
Back
Top