H2H believers (not Big 3 content)

[73west]

What do you do with Jimmy Connors?
In his career, he had a losing H2H record against Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander (as well as later generation greats like Becker, Sampras and Agassi).
Most of that (everything other than Borg/Mac) is because Connors stuck around forever and kept playing well enough to lose to younger players who were in or near their prime, arguably not reflective of Connors in his prime. But then, if you "excuse" Connors's post-prime losses to other all-time-greats, do you have to discount the value of his longevity? Is it appropriate to give him "credit" for making a major SF at 40, for winning titles deep into his 30s, for maintaining a good ranking deep in his 30s, but then not "ding" him for racking up loss after loss to the likes of Ivan Lendl at the same time?

 

[Lleytonstation]

Not the guy your looking to hear from (not a h2h dude). It is about winning tournaments not h2h, the point is to hold the trophy at the end. I think Connors did pretty good at that.

 

[BeatlesFan]

What do you do with Jimmy Connors?
In his career, he had a losing H2H record against Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander (as well as later generation greats like Becker, Sampras and Agassi).

And never once do you mention this fact and which impacts your "thesis" to a ludicrous degree:

Jimbo is 4 years older than Borg
7 years older than McEnroe
8 years older than Lendl (lost their last 17 matches)
12 years older than Wilander
15 years older than Becker
19 years older than Pete
18 years older than Andre

Beyond belief fail "thesis."

 

[Ann]

What do you do with Jimmy Connors?
In his career, he had a losing H2H record against Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and Wilander (as well as later generation greats like Becker, Sampras and Agassi).
Most of that (everything other than Borg/Mac) is because Connors stuck around forever and kept playing well enough to lose to younger players who were in or near their prime, arguably not reflective of Connors in his prime. But then, if you "excuse" Connors's post-prime losses to other all-time-greats, do you have to discount the value of his longevity? Is it appropriate to give him "credit" for making a major SF at 40, for winning titles deep into his 30s, for maintaining a good ranking deep in his 30s, but then not "ding" him for racking up loss after loss to the likes of Ivan Lendl at the same time?

Back in the day -- H2H, Slam Count, GOAT etc. were not bandied about like they are now. Honestly, few even cared. Connors was a showman, he LOVED the crowd and most of the time they loved him back. In his day he was a damned good tennis player.

That's all that needs to be remembered about Connors.

 

[travlerajm]

Connors did ok against Edberg. And Edberg was my favorite player back in the day, so I give Jimbo credit.

 

[73west]

And never once do you mention this fact and which impacts your "thesis" to a ludicrous degree:

Jimbo is 4 years older than Borg
7 years older than McEnroe
8 years older than Lendl (lost their last 17 matches)
12 years older than Wilander
15 years older than Becker
19 years older than Pete
18 years older than Andre

Beyond belief fail "thesis."

Did you not even read my post before responding insultingly? This was in my original post.
"Most of that (everything other than Borg/Mac) is because Connors stuck around forever and kept playing well enough to lose to younger players who were in or near their prime, arguably not reflective of Connors in his prime."

 

[RaulRamirez]

I'll answer more generally - but I don't have a clear answer.
(You're welcome?)

When I evaluate players, H2H ranking doesn't factor in too highly, but I see both sides of that debate.
Let's say two players have almost identical records, though A dominates B in their H2H.
Most would prefer A. But, the other side of that is that B achieved the same amount, so he played the rest of the tour better.

In Jimmy's case, his longevity of very good play was remarkable, even if he wasn't adding any majors in his latter years.
I vacillate in how I rank the guys with 7 and 8 "slams", though I have Lendl, Connors and McEnroe all ahead of Agassi, and well ahead of Wilander. I go back and forth between Lendl, McEnroe and Connors - and often in that order.