pc1
G.O.A.T.
I like your choices.
Is Jimmy Connors actually underrated?
- Thread starter pc1
- Start date
Eh, I never really placed the Masters at the level of the Slams, even back then, and I was a huge tennis fan at that time. Lendl beating Connors in the Masters is not the same as Connors beating Lendl in two Slam finals and one Slam semi, plus the Davis Cup.
The Masters is as big as the 2 biggest Grand Slams? I didn't know that!
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
I somewhat understand the point you're making, but do you really think Mac circa '79 and Wilander circa '84 were better than, for instance, Borg and Vilas on clay in '76 (both of whom Connors beat back-to-back to win the '76 Open)?
Anyway, none of these guys were fixed points on another player's career to be overcome. Connors was four years older than Borg and 7 years older than Mac, and by mid-'79 it started to show as he entered a transitional time in his life and career. As well, his consistency against the field is to be admired, but in my opinion at these levels of greatness rivals like Connors, Borg, Mac etc. are in a conversation with one another more than the field.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Forgot DC.Not as important as Masters though...
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Used to be more important than a major. The DC captain once ordered a player to default a final to be really for DC.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Yes that's true.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
I think Connors 76 US Open run is one of the most impressive in the open era. But although I value peak performance it has to be more than just 1 tournament.
In answering the question of whether Connors is underrated I would say in one match/tournament he is perhaps underrated, longevity-wise I actually think he is overrated. Overall, most people seem to rate him as a definite top 20 all time which I would say is fair, but probably not top 10. So I would say Connors is rated about right.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I'm not sure. Connors may very well be top ten. Look at his great dominance at his peak and by that I mean winning percentages and level of play. Look at the 149 tournaments he won. It's hard to pick ten players who are clearly ahead of Connors.
Tilden, Vines, Kramer, Gonzalez, Laver, Borg are ahead of him but who else is clearly superior to him of the retired players. Lendl is debatable. Sampras to be is debatable. Yes he has 14 majors but only 64 tournaments won and a lousy 77.4% lifetime winning percentage. Rosewall, perhaps but for level of play I'm not sure. Rosewall had a weak serve and a good but suspect at times forehand. I am not convinced that a peak 1976 Connors wouldn't defeat 1962 Rosewall most of the time. Rosewall would have a lot of problems with the Connors' return.
Hard to say.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
One time and after that it was a slaughter. Forty some odd year old Gonzalez also beat 34 year old Rosewall too. It happens.
Kramer, who couldn't bend down because of arthritis beat young Rosewall around 1957 when Kramer was around 36 and Rosewall was 22 or 23.
Last edited:
7
70sHollywood
Guest
I would have to include Sampras. The winning percentage is questionable due to what seems to be an overall deflation of winning percentages for the top players during the era. Personally I never hesitate in ranking McEnroe ahead of Connors.
Funny you compare with Rosewall because their two slam finals in 74 complicate issues for me. It's easy to just pass it off as Ken being over the hill, but reaching the final of consecutive slams - beating the players he beat - cannot be ignored. When you then consider Connors won comfortably in both matches, plus the belief by many that Connors was not at his peak I can understand the argument for Connors above Rosewall.
What makes it more complicated is that I always feel Rosewall is linked with Laver, so the more you downgrade Rosewall the lower Laver should be. Thus, it would be easy to just rank Connors very high. However, I then go back to the start, where my strong feeling is that a dozen or so players are definitely superior to Connors. So I end up in a sort of "GOAT infinite loop"! (This happens with many player comparisons for me)
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I said I'm not sure if I would rank Rosewall above Connors. To me it's debatable. I didn't necessarily say I would.
Rosewall would be tough for a lot of great players but it often depends on the opposing styles as you well know. Laver against Rosewall works well because Rosewall could bother Laver in certain ways that others couldn't. Connors style obviously is far different from Laver and his style could be a problem for even a peak Rosewall. Just an opinion. It's hard to forget that Rosewall never won sets from Connors after their first meeting and most of the sets were very one sided. The depth and power on Connors' shot prevented Rosewall from attacking.
Writing that Rosewall may lose often to Connors isn't degrading Laver necessarily. Frankly I think Connors, because his return would be very bothersome to Laver as he would to any player that ever played
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
You're probably right. I started this thread to give Connors the credit he is due, especially in these forums where I feel some underestimate him.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
You mean the decade of the 1970s I assume. He's clearly second. Could be first perhaps in some decades.
kiki
Banned
I have always been intringued over a fantasy match on hard courts between Jack Kramer and Jimmy Connors.
Kramer never faced such a returner that could broke into pieces his S&V percentage strategy.Serving wide out to Connors backhand is not a great idea most of time.How could he cope with that? Was Segura a returner of this level? Was Kovacs?
The best returner of the 50´s was Rosewall but he and Kramer belong to different slots of time.
Kramer never faced such a returner that could broke into pieces his S&V percentage strategy.Serving wide out to Connors backhand is not a great idea most of time.How could he cope with that? Was Segura a returner of this level? Was Kovacs?
The best returner of the 50´s was Rosewall but he and Kramer belong to different slots of time.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Actually Kramer faced Kovacs and Budge who were pretty great. But I agree with you that Connors would be a problem. Kramer actually discussed how he would play Connors. Here's a quote from his great biography "The Game." If I played Connors on a fast surface, I would start off with the realization that he had dulled on great strength of mine: I could not serve and volley with abandon. Like Budge, Kovacs, Bromwich, two or three others from my era, Jimmy returns too well. Above all, that is his greatness.
On the other hand he plays best in a groove. Just as he would force me to change my serve and volley pattern, so would I mix up his patterns. I would constantly change the pace of the action, throw in a lot of soft stuff (he tends to overhit, trying to generate his own power when you don't give him speed), try to sucker him into approaching with his forehand, then make him hit low volleys.
On his service return, as great as he hits it, he has a habit of standing too far back--particularly in the forehand court--so I would give him a lot of slice first serves (like Ashe did, when he beat Connors at Wimbledon in '75). In contrast, I would try to serve him tight into his body at other times. Connors likes to work best around the middle of the baseline where he can disguise his shots, which he does well. I'd make the kid hit more angles. I'd try to make him go into the corner. And ultimately, I feel I could beat him on a fast surface because, as great as his service return is, his serve is so average that I could crack it more times than he could break me.
Yes Kiki that's a dream match up as I also think Kramer versus Sampras or Federer would be. Kramer could serve and volley with Sampras at Wimbledon and I would be interested on how his excellent baseline game would stand up to Federer.
Kramer mentioned Ashe's slice serve bothering Connors at the 1975 Wimbledon. Just a little point here, many feel Kramer could hit his slice service wider than any player ever.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
Kramer could serve into the body, that was Connors only weakness as a returner.
OTOH, I don´t think he should go to the angles, that is where Connors felt at home.To beat him from the backcourt, unless you are a Borg or a Lendl ( and Kramer clearly wasn´t) or a shomaker a lá Nastase or Orantes, you better do what Ashe ( and Gerulaitis at RG 1980) did: play into the middle with off pace shots and be faithful.
I agree that Connors serve could be broken as it was his weakest shot.But...was Kramer a good returner?
OTOH, I don´t think he should go to the angles, that is where Connors felt at home.To beat him from the backcourt, unless you are a Borg or a Lendl ( and Kramer clearly wasn´t) or a shomaker a lá Nastase or Orantes, you better do what Ashe ( and Gerulaitis at RG 1980) did: play into the middle with off pace shots and be faithful.
I agree that Connors serve could be broken as it was his weakest shot.But...was Kramer a good returner?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
The guy was an excellent returner. He still holds the record for fewest games lost at Wimbledon! You can't have that record without breaking serve well. Actually Kramer was an excellent baseliner. Gonzalez ranked Kramer, Segura and Rosewall as the best baseliners he ever faced.
Kramer was a complete player. That's why Sedgman, Vic Braden, Don Budge, Lew Hoad, Bromwich, Bobby Riggs and many others ranked him as the best of all time. I spoke to Vic Braden in 2014, unfortunately just a few weeks before he left us and he still thought Kramer was the greatest ever. He felt Kramer would be number one in the world in 2014! Gonzalez despite his many arguments with Kramer ranked Kramer second only to Lew Hoad. Kramer's slice serve was so accurate he could consistently hit the ball through rings set up at various heights on the court!
Last edited:
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Well, I think it was more than just one tournament - he won a little over 9 out of every 10 matches he played from roughly the summer of '73 through the spring of '79, which is a pretty substantial peak level for a pretty substantial period of time.
I rate him 5th best in the Open Era, and around 9 or 10 all time. He and Borg suffer somewhat from playing during the most chaotic era of the sport, though that very chaos (and their achievements and charisma) grew the game tremendously.
I'd have to say that putting Vines ahead of Connors is either an underrating of Connors, or an overrating of Vines. I could see the others ranked over Connors. I think Pancho Gonzalez, for example, had stronger H2H performances than Vines did on the H2H tours -- dominant margins over alltime greats like Segura, Trabert and Rosewall. Vines' most dominant margins were over Lester Stoefen, who obviously was nowhere near his class; over Henri Cochet, who was 32 at the time; and over Bill Tilden, who was in his early 40s.
Vines' best opponent on the tours, before Budge, was Perry. But Vines and Perry ended up in an even tie in all their meetings in '37, despite most of the matches being played indoors where Vines was strongest and Perry weakest. In '38 Vines had a strong 48-35 edge over Perry, but only a year later Budge defeated Perry by a 28-8 margin; so even here Vines is already behind Budge.
One sharp contrast between Vines and Connors comes immediately to mind. Both men were great fighters from day to day, on a consistent basis; but Vines was very vulnerable under pressure. He could get very nervous before pressure-matches, like the loss to Borotra in Davis Cup, when he played somewhat like a deer in headlights. At the time this was put down to his being only 20 years old; and that's a fair point. But look at how other precocious greats like Borg were already handling the biggest stages at that age.
And I'm not sure it can be put down to his youth, because he remained vulnerable to nerves throughout his pro career. He under-performed to shocking degrees in the biggest tour matches, specifically the big openers in Madison Square Garden. And there were strange losses, like a blowout at Stoefen's hands in Ellsworth's hometown.
Nothing could be more different, in my mind, from Connors who lived for the highest-pressure matches -- or Budge and Perry who lifted their games in the biggest of the Davis Cup matches.
We always talk about who you would pick to play a match for your life. In that category I'd pick Budge or Pancho Gonzalez, or Tilden, in a heartbeat over Vines.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
You could be right. It was an off the cuff thought but I think the term CLEARLY for Vines in this case is incorrect. I was thinking of the many years Vines was World Number One.
Last edited:
kiki
Banned
1930´s field was split as Crawford remained an amateur and Perry joined late the pro ranks.Plaa and Stoeffen were good but not great players and, as Krosero mentioned, Cochet and Tilden were past prime.Until 1936 the pros wouldn´t be that good with only Vines and Nusslein as true stars before Perry and later on Riggs and Budge joined the pros.
The same happened in the late 40´s amateurs, when Kramer was dominating.Bromwich was good and Schroeder was good but not all time greats.And Gonzales was too young...
The same happened in the late 40´s amateurs, when Kramer was dominating.Bromwich was good and Schroeder was good but not all time greats.And Gonzales was too young...
You are making a common mistake about how age affects a player. Time can seemingly fall away for several matches, and then age returns with vengeance at the worst moments. It makes for increasingly unpredictable tennis, more than predictably bad tennis.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
I know exactly what you mean. We have been seeing it with Federer in virtually every event for the past few years. Even today, the commentators have been waxing lyrical about how good he looks and how easy his draw is. Let's see what happens...
I don't doubt Rosewall was past his best but it's a question of how much. He knocked off Tanner, Smith and Newcombe in a row at Wimbledon, then at the US Amritraj, Ramirez and Newcombe.
My personal feeling is that the early/mid 70's was not the strongest. Past his best Rosewall and Connors took advantage.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Especially at majors in a best of five it is harder for the older player to recover from the previous match.
7
70sHollywood
Guest
Would you have Budge or Perry over Connors?
Whilst the indoor surfaces helped Vines, do you not think the pro tour format (loads of matches close together) hurt him? With his reputation as someone who could blow hot and cold in terms of hitting his peak he seems to have been far more suited to tournament play. Of course, he played virtually no tournaments during his best pro years so it's hard to judge.
eldanger25
Hall of Fame
Lots of great, informative stuff here - thanks.
Is it really true that a tournament format would help someone who tends to run hot and cold? In a H2H series, if you have a bad day, you've just lost one match; you can pick up again the next day where you left off. In a tournament, if you have a bad day, you could be eliminated.
Anyway I think Vines' reputation for running hot and cold can be exaggerated. Studying his record, I've been surprised to find so much consistency.
Tilden said once that when Vines was good, he was invincible, but when he was bad he was very bad. That's not quite the same as saying that he was often bad. I think it just means that when he was bad, he hit extreme lows. Tilden thought that Budge's best, in a single match, was not quite as high as Vines', but he said that when Budge had an off day he was still great. That's why, when asked who was the best player he'd ever seen, he said Vines on a single day, but Budge over 365 days.
I'm not sure if that really answers your question -- because I'm not entirely sure myself, whether Vines was more suited to tours or to tournaments. Maybe it was neither.
I wouldn't place any of Budge, Perry or Vines above Connors. That's not because I think it's a ridiculous position to put their names ahead of Jimmy's -- but I would find it a hard sell. I tend of think of Connors as being in a second tier, with GOAT candidates in the first tier (which I usually think of as Tilden, Pancho, Rosewall, Laver, Borg, Sampras, Federer). Connors, imo, is not far behind that first tier. He's there because he was clearly second-best to Borg; but he had a long career and added many late-career accomplishments that Borg did not. So if Jimmy is second-tier, it's not by a lot.
Now if I compare Budge's career, for example, to Tilden's, I see a large gap. If I compare Vines' career to that of Pancho Gonzalez (and their careers are somewhat similar, which makes it easier to compare), I think Pancho's was clearly superior -- I gave some of my reasoning in my post above where I compared their H2H tour victories. I could throw in Pancho's longevity as well.
Vines just did not dominate the 30s the way Pancho did the 50s. It's true that Vines can be seen as world #1 in many years -- but he was usually co-#1, with Tilden or Perry. He was clearly #1, alone, in 1932. I think he also has a good case to be named #1 in 1931 -- but I doubt he would have defeated Tilden that year in direct competition. I'd also say Vines has a case to be #1 in 1934-35 and 37 (imo his competition in '36 is deeply unimpressive, and inferior to what Perry faced) -- but Perry was sweeping the Grand Slam majors and Davis Cup in those years against fine competition. So who was better? Isn't it reasonable in these years to name them as co-#1's? When they finally met in '37, they split their matches evenly, despite the matches being played mostly indoors, to Vines' advantage.
The 1950s was a totally different case. Pancho defeated his tour opponents by clear margins; and no one in the amateurs was at his level. He was a clear world #1 for a long string of years.
Connors, we usually only give 3 years as world #1 (1974, 1976, 1982). That seems to be well behind Vines, if we give Vines, let's say, 5 years as #1: 1931-32, 1934-35, 1937 (I'm not entirely sold on all those years, but I think this is reasonable list). But that's with co-#1's. Wouldn't Connors have more years as #1 if he played in a pro/am split that was similar to the 1930s?
In 1975, for example, none of us picks Connors as #1. But imagine the tour split among pros and amateurs. Let's say Connors, after his brilliant '74, turns pro. In '75, like Vines, he faces older opponents on the pro circuit and dominates them (let's say, for example, Newcombe and Laver). Meanwhile Ashe and Orantes are sweeping the traditional majors. With the display of power and excellence that Connors put on in '74, he would still be thought of as world #1 in '75. Maybe he'd be named as co-#1 with the best amateurs (Ashe and Orantes), but there would be no way to say that he was #2; because as long as he defeats the pros in front of him, he's not dethroned.
In other words, in a pro/am split like the 1930s, in which no one is sure whether the top amateurs or the top pros are superior, Connors could be seen as world #1 from 1974 perhaps all the way through 1978: five years altogether, equaling Vines.
Didn't mean to make this such a long answer, but in short, Vines/Perry/Budge are in my opinion somewhere in the second tier with Connors; and if forced to choose I'd put Jimmy's name above theirs.
As usual prompt and witty krosero.
The fact that Connors could be seen as world # 1 from 1974 perhaps all the way through 1978, five years altogether poses a problem : if Connors commandes until 1978 as it does Borg to have dominated the '70s ?
I'm not sure he's under rated, but in retrospect 1975 really hurt his legacy. He made the same 3 slam finals finals as '74 but this time lost them all. He owned Ashe and gets straight setted by Orantes in the US Open final?
BGod
G.O.A.T.
The amount of times he's ranked below the likes of McEnroe and Agassi astonishes me.
Open Era
1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Lendl
5. Nadal
6. Connors
7. Djokovic
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Edberg
And the only reason I have Connors 6th is as unfair as it may seem, his skipping of the French hurts his all-time ranking and it's sad because he could have won a few titles. He only played two Australian Opens, winning his first and losing his second.
Consistency at the Slams (though he only consistently played 2) is what gets me.
1974: Wins 3/4
1975: Loses in Finals of all the ones he won
1976: Wins UO
1977: Loses in WM & UO Finals
1978: Loses Wimbledon, win UO
1979-81: Makes 8/9 Semifinals at Slams, but no Finals
1982: Wins two Slams
1983: Defends UO, last Slam
I mean, you can't help but look at his career and think why he didn't win over a dozen Slams, easily. I know Borg and McEnroe, but it wasn't always the case and why couldn't he beat them more?
8-7 Finals Record
13 Semifinal Exits
And I'm not counting his 87-91 twilight period.
Open Era
1. Federer
2. Borg
3. Sampras
4. Lendl
5. Nadal
6. Connors
7. Djokovic
8. Agassi
9. McEnroe
10. Edberg
And the only reason I have Connors 6th is as unfair as it may seem, his skipping of the French hurts his all-time ranking and it's sad because he could have won a few titles. He only played two Australian Opens, winning his first and losing his second.
Consistency at the Slams (though he only consistently played 2) is what gets me.
1974: Wins 3/4
1975: Loses in Finals of all the ones he won
1976: Wins UO
1977: Loses in WM & UO Finals
1978: Loses Wimbledon, win UO
1979-81: Makes 8/9 Semifinals at Slams, but no Finals
1982: Wins two Slams
1983: Defends UO, last Slam
I mean, you can't help but look at his career and think why he didn't win over a dozen Slams, easily. I know Borg and McEnroe, but it wasn't always the case and why couldn't he beat them more?
8-7 Finals Record
13 Semifinal Exits
And I'm not counting his 87-91 twilight period.
The problem is not the understatement of Connors , but also that of Borg and McEnroe .
If you look at only the majors Borg missing 7 , Connors 15 , 5 Mac !
You can not make a comparison with existing standards using only the majors !
Connors > Mac >>>> Agassi
But if we pownder quality of era:
Top Tier:Borg,Sampras
Second Tier: Connors,Lendl,Federer,Nadal
Third: Mac,Becker,Wilander,Agassi
Fourthjokovic,Laver,Newk
Fifth:Rosewall,Edberg
Not for me
Top Tier:Federer
Second Tier: Borg, Connors, Nadal
Third: Mac,Sampras, Lendl
Fourth
jokovic,Fifth: none
kiki
Banned
kiki
Banned
Connors was the best flat out counterpuncher but that only worked on the long run against Lendl,Vilas or Edberg, whose game was tailor made for him.Not against players who added some very special things to their game like Borg or were clearly more talented like Mc Enroe.
He gave a lot to the game but felt short of his own shortcomings.Didn´t have that extra gear to keep up with Borg and Mc Enroe.
He gave a lot to the game but felt short of his own shortcomings.Didn´t have that extra gear to keep up with Borg and Mc Enroe.
kiki
Banned
a fluke??
man, are you talking about the Orantes that, for instance, won Barcelona in 1969/71 and Rome in 1972 as well as Montecarlo?
The same Orantes who barely lost the RG final a year before after leading Borg two sets up?
Gimme a break
Disadvantage Connors
One of the big disadvantages for Connors when people are judging his career is that he is often measured against players who weren't truly in his generation. McEnroe and Lendl, in particular, are seven and eight years younger than him. He had winning records against both of them for many years. They only started to dominate him the further he got into his thirties. I think people KNOW that, but like to ignore that fact in order to promote their argument against his greatness. The amazing longevity of Jimmy Connors helped his legacy in some ways, but hurt it statistically. Even Borg was four years younger, but I don't think that played much of a factor in their rivalry.
One of the big disadvantages for Connors when people are judging his career is that he is often measured against players who weren't truly in his generation. McEnroe and Lendl, in particular, are seven and eight years younger than him. He had winning records against both of them for many years. They only started to dominate him the further he got into his thirties. I think people KNOW that, but like to ignore that fact in order to promote their argument against his greatness. The amazing longevity of Jimmy Connors helped his legacy in some ways, but hurt it statistically. Even Borg was four years younger, but I don't think that played much of a factor in their rivalry.
Similar threads
