How Jimmy Connors got solved
- Thread starter -NN-
- Start date
heftylefty
Hall of Fame
Connors must have been hurt. That was the only way ANYONE could have beaten Jimbo...or at least that's how the myth goes.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Much better serve, faster, better stamina, more topspin for better safety margin and sharper angles.
One time that I can remember that Borg was really tired, exhausted, was the 77 Wimbledon final. He admitted it after the match and if you watch closely you can see it. A couple of balls he doesn't go after, a little in his body language. It was very hot that day. Other than that match, though, I don't remember a time. Seemed fresh as a daisy in set 5 against Mcenroe in 1980.
I think his versatility is also underrated. He worked on his serve and his volley. Developed that backhand approach he used so effectively in the 78 final. Now he couple play really well in all areas of the court. To me all court player doesn't mean you are exactly as good at the net as at the baseball. It means are you effective in all areas of the court. Borg didn't have to be as good at the net as at the baseline to be a very effective net player.
I looked at Connors book. He's got the same timeline as Deford. Injured in the first match. Doctor very worried after the Tanner match. He mentions nothing of swearing Riordan to secrecy, though. He does say that Riordan laid a bet on Ashe with the bookies. Nor does he use it as an excuse for losing just talked some about the injury and that he was receiving treatment without the tourney. It was a small fracture around the shin
I'm very surprised that I forgot that detail about him being warned that late in the tournament. My memory had it all happening earlier. LOL, old age, I guess.
I've heard this theory before and it... just doesn't add up.
Since Connors is left handed, every right hander in the world has a way to "exploit" this weakness; Slice
If it were that easy, Connors wouldn't have done all the things he did do.
I've always taken Connors' forehand 'weakness' with a pinch of salt, like over-exaggerated claims about Roger Federer's backhand 'weakness'.
Since Connors is left handed, every right hander in the world has a way to "exploit" this weakness; Slice
If it were that easy, Connors wouldn't have done all the things he did do.
I've always taken Connors' forehand 'weakness' with a pinch of salt, like over-exaggerated claims about Roger Federer's backhand 'weakness'.
incredibly fast...only he could cover the court better than Jimmy....and that was a very tall order...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Borg had a much better serve, better overall power groundstrokes with safety and consistency. The forehand was one of the greatest I've seen and definitely in my opinion one of the top few in history but the backhand wasn't that much less than Connors and imo was better than Connors' backhand on clay. Better angles on shots and more versatile also with better variety of spin and he could serve and volley regularly with more effectiveness. Better stamina also. Borg was a physical freak.
At Borg's peak he was attacking Connors perhaps more than Connors was attacking him on fast surfaces. This was particularly true in their Wimbledon meetings in 1978 and 1979. Borg dominated Connors in those matches even though I thought Connors played very well. Interesting to note that Borg played Connors differently in both matches showing how versatile he was.
Connors' strokes was obviously lower over the net which give his flat shots tremendous penetration and he rarely mishit a ball. Connors was also more aggressive with his volleys than Borg.
This is where we disagree. I would not say that Connors played very well in either the 78 or 79 matches. Now, I've certainly seen him worse. I wouldn't say he played badly, but certainly not near the top of his game. Too many errors.
Borg attacked more in 78. Not ridiculously more, but more. In 79, Connors was in a lot more. That 79 match was probably the fewest times I saw Borg come in 76 thru 81. He did not serve and volley much at all. Well, he never did on the second serve.
Again, I mean 76 thru 81. First serve, pretty much every one by 80 and 81. And the great majority of the time the other years.
In the matches I've seen, anyway. But not this match.
I'm not sure I think his backhand was better on any surface. Connors had the penetration and it was his more consistent side.
Still, overall, Borg was just more consistent. Connors is going to make the first unforced error more often.
So, Borg has the much bigger serve, is more consistent and I think moves a bit better. Connors is a great mover, Borg is great and a bit more. And that tiny bit is all you need. Personally, at his peak, I think Mcenroe may have been just a smidgen better mover. I always thought that was the most underrated part of his game. Young Mcenroe could really cover the court.
What did Connors have over Borg? IMO, a slightly better return, overall more penetrating groundstrokes and was a more aggressive and decisive volleyer. That was mitigated partially by him missing more volleys. But if he was on volleying, a real advantage.
For me, the bottom line, when Connors was dominating Borg, Borg wasn't at his peak. 1976 Borg is still getting better. Connors has pretty much peaked. Borg kept improving until he was just better. IMO, not nearly to the extent he was with Vilas. Connors could give him really tough matches. By 79 and 80, though, they are both playing their best, Borg is going to win more. He's just better at that point. That is the objective opinion of a big Connors fan in his day,
Borg attacked more in 78. Not ridiculously more, but more. In 79, Connors was in a lot more. That 79 match was probably the fewest times I saw Borg come in 76 thru 81. He did not serve and volley much at all. Well, he never did on the second serve.
Again, I mean 76 thru 81. First serve, pretty much every one by 80 and 81. And the great majority of the time the other years.
In the matches I've seen, anyway. But not this match.
I'm not sure I think his backhand was better on any surface. Connors had the penetration and it was his more consistent side.
Still, overall, Borg was just more consistent. Connors is going to make the first unforced error more often.
So, Borg has the much bigger serve, is more consistent and I think moves a bit better. Connors is a great mover, Borg is great and a bit more. And that tiny bit is all you need. Personally, at his peak, I think Mcenroe may have been just a smidgen better mover. I always thought that was the most underrated part of his game. Young Mcenroe could really cover the court.
What did Connors have over Borg? IMO, a slightly better return, overall more penetrating groundstrokes and was a more aggressive and decisive volleyer. That was mitigated partially by him missing more volleys. But if he was on volleying, a real advantage.
For me, the bottom line, when Connors was dominating Borg, Borg wasn't at his peak. 1976 Borg is still getting better. Connors has pretty much peaked. Borg kept improving until he was just better. IMO, not nearly to the extent he was with Vilas. Connors could give him really tough matches. By 79 and 80, though, they are both playing their best, Borg is going to win more. He's just better at that point. That is the objective opinion of a big Connors fan in his day,
When talking about a right hander and a left hander, I think it's better to compare across forehands and backhands rather than absolutely.
As in Borg's forehand vs Connors' backhand, and vice versa, not Borg's FH vs Connors FH and Borg's BH vs Connors BH
It gives a more practical picture of the play.
@pc1 and @WCT ... does that change in context alter your analysis?
As in Borg's forehand vs Connors' backhand, and vice versa, not Borg's FH vs Connors FH and Borg's BH vs Connors BH
It gives a more practical picture of the play.
@pc1 and @WCT ... does that change in context alter your analysis?
kramer woodie
Professional
dgold44
My source says Connors has had 2 hip replacements. The source, an ex-neighbor. Maybe Barbi knows, except she and Jimmy are probably not on speaking
terms.
Aloha
pc1
G.O.A.T.
The main shots in their groundstrokes are the backhand of Connors and the forehand of Borg. When I have seen them play each other I have noticed when both were at their peaks that the crosscourt rallies from Borg's forehand to Connors' backhand usually led to a Borg win of the point in my opinion. As great as the Connors' backhand was I thought the Borg forehand was greater and was an inherently safer shot due to the heavy topspin that Borg put on his forehand. It was also a great passing shot when Connors tried to approach to that side.
Check this out and watch how effective the Borg forehand was.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I think Borg was better in 1977 also but he was quite SuperBorg yet. I remember watching Borg in awe as he dismantle Vilas (the defending champion) in the 1978 French Open final with the loss of only five games. I realized at that point Borg made another huge leap forward in level. I told my friend at that point that I felt Borg would destroy Connors at Wimbledon.
Borg had some injuries in 1981 so his level of play went down. His best two years in 1978 and 1979 were incredible.
I think that Connors from mid-1973 to the end of 1984 he is almost always maintained at levels from level 9, with three peaks at 9.5 (1974, 76, 78).
SuperBorg also came to an 10 level.
How do you know I do not agree with you only on the 1977. But I think it's so important. Details. We can not agree on everything.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
We don't agree on everything but I think we respect each other's opinions if we disagree and that's good. Disagreement is often very good because we can debate points as long as we aren't closed minded about the other person's viewpoint.
I also agree with you on the three peaks in 1974, 1976 and 1978 for Connors. Connors wasn't bad in 1982 either. Ask Ivan Lendl at the US Open in 1982 about that. LOL.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
He played well in both matches imo. Mike Lupica wrote that Connors in the 1979 semi couldn't play any better but still lost in straight sets. I'm not sure about that but I did think he played well.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Okay.
LOL, Mike Lupica isn't helping your case with me, PC. I never thought of much of him as a tennis writer. Now, someone like Steve Flink is another matter. Just my opinion, of course.
I live in the New York area and read a lot of Lupica in the 70s and 80s. First at the POst then the Daily News. He also wrote for World Tennis. Now, he may have wound up a huge Connors fanboy, but he didn't start out that way. He was very critical of him for years. Ironic is that Connors can't stand Peter Bodo. Bodo used to be about as pro a Connors tennis writer as you could find.
Stroke comparison. Borg backhand over Connors forehand. The other is closer, IMO. Borg definitely has the consistency, but I thought Connors had the penetration. By 79 thru 81, I give Borg a slight advantage.
PC talked about the crosscourt forehand to backhand. I think Connors favorite approach shot with any righty, Borg included, was down the line. Very penetrating with it AND consistent, unlike his forehand approach.
I do want to add one thing to my earlier post. While I think 80 and 81 Connors had closed the gap to where they had some very close matches, I think on clay he would have had little chance. Not at that point. Can't know for sure since they didn't play on it. Just my conjecture.
I live in the New York area and read a lot of Lupica in the 70s and 80s. First at the POst then the Daily News. He also wrote for World Tennis. Now, he may have wound up a huge Connors fanboy, but he didn't start out that way. He was very critical of him for years. Ironic is that Connors can't stand Peter Bodo. Bodo used to be about as pro a Connors tennis writer as you could find.
Stroke comparison. Borg backhand over Connors forehand. The other is closer, IMO. Borg definitely has the consistency, but I thought Connors had the penetration. By 79 thru 81, I give Borg a slight advantage.
PC talked about the crosscourt forehand to backhand. I think Connors favorite approach shot with any righty, Borg included, was down the line. Very penetrating with it AND consistent, unlike his forehand approach.
I do want to add one thing to my earlier post. While I think 80 and 81 Connors had closed the gap to where they had some very close matches, I think on clay he would have had little chance. Not at that point. Can't know for sure since they didn't play on it. Just my conjecture.
