Arthur= really smart pusher!Arthur=pusher?
I agree and most pushers are smart. A easy spinning high ball to my backhand frustrates me to no end. I practice them with the ball machine often...same goes for the side-spin slice to my backhand, unfortunately ball machines don't impart side-spin.Arthur= really smart pusher!
(Frustrate your opponent; never hit him a shot he likes.)
no end, not knowI agree and most pushers are smart. A easy spinning high ball to my backhand frustrates me to know end. I practice them with the ball machine often...same goes for the side-spin slice to my backhand, unfortunately ball machines don't impart side-spin.
Ashe d. Connors 6-1, 6-1, 5-7, 6-4
Ashe actually has a higher rate of winners here than in the '69 match where he and Laver were ripping the ball. Of course, power is not the only way to produce winners, but I was still surprised at how much power Ashe produced in this match.
I'm just seeing the match for the first time, partly because from everything I've read about it, I had the impression that it was mainly about junkballing from Ashe and errors from Connors. The match was actually more complex than that.
Steve Flink included it as one of the 20 greatest matches of the century. He said that previously Ashe had been a low-percentage player, going for big shots at ill-advised moments. Against Connors, I thought he was still often going for the big winner, but he never seemed to do it when he was out of position or the opening wasn't there. He was playing the percentages, in other words. Sometimes to create an opening he would need some touch and finesse, and then he would go for the big shot; sometimes he didn't need it and would just do classical Big Game serve-and-volley.
He just always seemed to know when he could go for it. When he did, I sometimes expected Connors to react well, since Jimmy liked pace; but then he'd be already out of position, or off balance, or just didn't have his strokes in groove. Ashe wasn't letting him get in a groove. He wasn't moonballing Jimmy or junkballing his way through the match; he was mixing it up.
An important point here shouldn't be forgotten. Jimmy Connors had a bad injury that may have had more to do with his defeat than Ashe's vaunted game plan.Jekyll and Hyde performance from Ashe, it would appear. This is exactly what I assumed anyway.. that it was a careful balance of aggression and taunting/goading play, leaving Connors consistently dishevelled. You don't just chronically junkball your way to a Wimbledon title.
An important point here shouldn't be forgotten. Jimmy Connors had a bad injury that may have had more to do with his defeat than Ashe's vaunted game plan.
http://www.thehindu.com/sport/tennis/connors-ending-his-silence/article4892266.ece
https://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/memories-of-a-wimbledon-upset/?_r=0
Despite this I believe this points out what a versatile player Ashe could be if he wanted to be. He had all the shots.
Don't remember if he took a time out. I don't remember if they even allowed time outs then.don't trust this account after so many years --- seems just like a made-up excuse - especially from someone like Connors
did he take any time-out during the match ?
An important point here shouldn't be forgotten. Jimmy Connors had a bad injury that may have had more to do with his defeat than Ashe's vaunted game plan.
http://www.thehindu.com/sport/tennis/connors-ending-his-silence/article4892266.ece
https://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/memories-of-a-wimbledon-upset/?_r=0
Despite this I believe this points out what a versatile player Ashe could be if he wanted to be. He had all the shots.
Fascinating! Hit to Connors' forehand: low and with no speed, or as Wilander states "dead balls to his forehand."
Make Connors hit up and generate his own pace. Bring him in toward the net, and force him to hit up and flat (Connors had no topspin).
It completely negates Connors' (flat) power game.
Hey, you can just edit your original post - I do, frequently, thanks to predictive text.no end, not know
Absolutely fascinating. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks for posting.
Absolutely fascinating. Thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks for posting.
Ashe's lob was magnificent. Only seen Evert and Hewitt hit it better.
As an aside, Annabel Croft has the most beautiful English accent. She could recite the alphabet and sound intelligent.
PS - I'm going to Google Bernie Mitten!
An important point here shouldn't be forgotten. Jimmy Connors had a bad injury that may have had more to do with his defeat than Ashe's vaunted game plan.
http://www.thehindu.com/sport/tennis/connors-ending-his-silence/article4892266.ece
https://straightsets.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/memories-of-a-wimbledon-upset/?_r=0
Despite this I believe this points out what a versatile player Ashe could be if he wanted to be. He had all the shots.
I have thought that also. How was Connors solved when you examine his record in the years afterwards? I think age solved the Connors mystery more than the strategy.That Connors lost to Ashe due to injury or some other reason other than strategy and tactics makes sense because Connors has an overall 5-1 head-to-head winning record against Ashe. Two of those wins came after his loss to Ashe at Wimbledon. Given these facts, I don't believe that it would be accurate to claim that Connors was "solved." Ashe clearly couldn't beat him again after that match. I don't understand why the Wimbledon commentators on the video posted by OP left these facts out of their analysis.
I have thought that also. How was Connors solved when you examine his record in the years afterwards? I think age solved the Connors mystery more than the strategy.
One of the things Lendl mentioned after Connors reached a certain age was that Connors now couldn't attack on shots he could attack on in the past. He had to play it defensively. He indicated that was perhaps the primary reason he could now beat Connors regularly.Naturally. I think every dumb and deaf owl knows that Connors won an awful lot of tennis matches and tournaments after the 1975 Wimbledon final.
I think it was around 1971 and 1972 I believe. The ATP has Gonzalez with one win but I know he had two. Connors wasn't Connors I believe until 1973 and wasn't imo the prime Connors until late 1973.Wasn't Pancho Gonzalez the first player to exploit this "weakness"?
I think it was around 1971 and 1972 I believe. The ATP has Gonzalez with one win but I know he had two. Connors wasn't Connors I believe until 1973 and wasn't imo the prime Connors until late 1973.
How did Borg dominate Connors so completely after 1978? I would have thought that hard flat drives would trump heavily topspun balls, if everything else is equal, but clearly there were some inequalities. In what ways was Borg better than Connors?
I agree.clearly better serve and insane defense.
I agree, pc1.It's easier said than done of course. Even in his forties Rosewall had excellent control and of course he did know this strategy yet he couldn't win a set.
One of the players best equipped to play this type of game against Connors was Orantes who played that style as a matter of course. Yet Orantes was only 3-12 against Connors. I will say in Orantes' favor was that Orantes had a lot of injuries that hampered him. Orantes' match at the 1977 US Claycourts in which he crushed Connors 6-1 6-3 was just a work of art. Orantes was brilliant that match.
I think Borg got even better in1979!!I agree.
I add more physical power & more power on their shots.
Connors dropped a 10% in 1979 (in 1978 he played excellently).
Borg increased a 30-40% to beginning of 1978.
pc1, I think that Connors had slipped a rung but I think that Bjorn Borg 79 is the best player I've seen play tennis in the Wood Era. Best player.I think Borg got even better in1979!!
And he played Pancho Gonzalez. Gonzalez played Tilden so only a bit of separation there. LOL.Great video.
Would like to hear Jimmy's take on it, which reminds me, I have to get his book.
Wilander and Jimmy were really different gens, obviously, 12 years apart by age.
Amazing that Jimmy played both Laver and Agassi.
Borg in 1979 was unbelievable. He declined a bit because of some injuries in 1980 and 1981. Yes Borg in 1979 was fantastic. He was one of the finest ever and he could be argued the finest of the wood era.pc1, I think that Connors had slipped a rung but I think that Bjorn Borg 79 is the best player I've seen play tennis in the Wood Era. Best player.
Without going into details of the surfaces ... I think that, starting from 1976 ... and trying to give the votes from 1 to 10 ...
1976 Connors was worth 9, Borg 8
1977 on a series of injuries of both Connors & Borg were worth 8
1978 Borg and Connors could not be beaten by others,
Connors was worth 9, Borg 9+
1979 Borg is worth 10, 8 Connors (no injury).
1980 Borg worth 9.5, Connors goes back to 8.5
What do you think about it ?
pc1, I think that Connors had slipped a rung but I think that Bjorn Borg 79 is the best player I've seen play tennis in the Wood Era. Best player.
Without going into details of the surfaces ... I think that, starting from 1976 ... and trying to give the votes from 1 to 10 ...
1976 Connors was worth 9, Borg 8
1977 on a series of injuries of both Connors & Borg were worth 8
1978 Borg and Connors could not be beaten by others,
Connors was worth 9, Borg 9+
1979 Borg is worth 10, 8 Connors (no injury).
1980 Borg worth 9.5, Connors goes back to 8.5
What do you think about it ?
KG, did you know I started a conversation with you but you never answered!Borg in 1979 was unbelievable. He declined a bit because of some injuries in 1980 and 1981. Yes Borg in 1979 was fantastic. He was one of the finest ever and he could be argued the finest of the wood era.
KG, did you know I started a conversation with you but you never answered!
He is extremely smart not to answer.lol!
I agree.
I add more physical power & more power on their shots.
Connors dropped a 10% in 1979 (in 1978 he played excellently).
Borg increased a 30-40% to beginning of 1978.
just a few....Naturally. I think every dumb and deaf owl knows that Connors won an awful lot of tennis matches and tournaments after the 1975 Wimbledon final.
Late to this discussion...
Super post!Connors absolutely had an injury before the start of the tournament. Advised not to play and did anyway. It was in his book, but I'd read it before. IIRC, as far back as Frank Deford's profile of him, for SI, in 1978. He swore Bill Riordan to secrecy.
That said, the guy had blown through the entire tournament. His semi win over Tanner made him seem unbeatable. Look at the British bookmaker odds that day. So, NOW the injury is hampering him badly and is the main reason he lost? Connors fan I was, never bought that and still don't.
Another that said. As others pointed out Ashe only beat him that one time. Same with Orantes. If hhe was really on, and connors was off, you might have 75 US Open and 77 Indy. If not you've got a whole lot of matches the other way. IIRC, Orantes was playing great at the 77 US Open and Connors straight setted him in the quarters. And it was just clay with him. He's not beating Connors on other surfaces. Connors absolutely destroyed him in their challenge match. Bottom line, it was far more complicated than give Connors no pace and you stand a good chance of winning.
Borg vs Connors was, IMO, Borg was still getting better when the rivalry started while Connors had pretty much peaked. I do think that 79 Connors level is definitely down some, but he was getting killed by him. 80 and 81 I think is more representative. Mostly close matches. Borg is just a little bit better.
He certainly wasn't beating him with soft stuff, though. On the contrary. Rather than slice his backhand as he often had earlier, everything was topspin. Unless he was really stretched out. And the backhand approach shot he sliced.
But rallying he hit with Connors.
Much bigger serve, clearly more consistent from the baseline and I think a slighty better mover. Very, very useful when Connors is running you corner to corner.
About connors forehand. He often imparted some topspin on his crosscourt forehand. Not a lot, mind you. His down the line was another story. Overall i think the flatter of his two sides was his backhand. That was pretty much always flat.