Ivan Lendl vs Jimmy Connors?

[JoelSandwich]

Who's the greater player?
Connors has most match wins in history, most singles titles in history.
Both have 8 grand slams.
Lendl has more grand slam finals and more WTF's.
About equal at weeks at number 1 Lendl has 2 more weeks at 270 vs 268.
Lendl leads the head to head 22-12.

 

[Mustard]

Jimmy Connors.

Lendl's head-to-head lead is 22-13, isn't it? Lendl won their last 17 matches from late 1984 onwards.

 

[Rafa the King]

Connors for me

 

[Mr.Lob]

Connors. Want to know why? Wimbledon. Lendl couldn't win the BIG one.

 

[buscemi]

Who's the greater player?
Connors has most match wins in history, most singles titles in history.
Both have 8 grand slams.
Lendl has more grand slam finals and more WTF's.
About equal at weeks at number 1 Lendl has 2 more weeks at 270 vs 268.
Lendl leads the head to head 22-12.

Head-to-head was 22-13, but it is pretty misleading in this case. Connors led 13-5 up until right after he turned 32 years-old, followed by Lendl winning their last 17 matches. Of course, Lendl could also claim that he was pre-prime for many of their first 18 matches.

They played a pretty nice stretch of 14 matches from 1981-1984, with Connors (age 28-32) and Lendl (age 20-24) each winning seven. During that stretch, Connors won their 3 Major matchups (1982 U.S. Open final, 1983 U.S. Open final, 1984 Wimbledon SF) and Lendl won their three year-end Masters matches (1982, 1983, 1984).

 

[ibbi]

It's a tough one. Both men have got these little niggling holes in their resumes, I tend to go with Connors because I just generally like him much more, and would much rather watch him play, and find his maximizing of his abilities to be tremendous. Lendl is like Djokovic. He kind of bores me in all honesty Still, I don't think there's much of an argument against him. He may never have won Wimbledon, but the fact he played the final there 2 times is more impressive than Connors relative struggles at Roland Garros. It's neck and neck. I think they're both all time top 10 guys, both in or around the top 5.

 

[Xavier G]

Jimmy in his prime was probably better overall and had the longer, and greater career, imo, but it's pretty close. I can see why people could choose Ivan. He became a great champion too. Ivan just never won Wimbledon...if he does that, he gets rated higher than he generally does.

 

[JoelSandwich]

Head-to-head was 22-13, but it is pretty misleading in this case. Connors led 13-5 up until right after he turned 32 years-old, followed by Lendl winning their last 17 matches. Of course, Lendl could also claim that he was pre-prime for many of their first 18 matches.

They played a pretty nice stretch of 14 matches from 1981-1984, with Connors (age 28-32) and Lendl (age 20-24) each winning seven. During that stretch, Connors won their 3 Major matchups (1982 U.S. Open final, 1983 U.S. Open final, 1984 Wimbledon SF) and Lendl won their three year-end Masters matches (1982, 1983, 1984).

Interesting, thanks for posting this.

 

[hipolymer]

I think Connors would have won teh CYGS if he was allowed to play RG in 1974. But we can't judge hypotheticals; based on all stats Lendl is clearly superior.

 

[nowhereman]

Terrible Ivan.

 

[thrust]

Connors. Want to know why? Wimbledon. Lendl couldn't win the BIG one.

Connors never reached a FO final, Lendl reached 2 Wimbledon finals. They are pretty close, but I would give the slight advantage to Lendl who also had a superior H-H against McEnroe, Connors did not. Besides the FO, Lendl has many more wins on clay than Connors. He also did very well on hard and carpet.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Lendl. Greater on his weakest surface than Connors on his.

 

[Fedeonic]

I think Connors would have won teh CYGS if he was allowed to play RG in 1974.

I don't think so, especially if he had to play Borg on red clay, sure Björn wasn't in his late 70s peak, but still you had to beat him on red clay with patience, thing that Connors sometimes lacked.

 

[metsman]

lendl easily

 

[Mr.Lob]

Connors never reached a FO final, Lendl reached 2 Wimbledon finals. They are pretty close, but I would give the slight advantage to Lendl who also had a superior H-H against McEnroe, Connors did not. Besides the FO, Lendl has many more wins on clay than Connors. He also did very well on hard and carpet.

True. But Connors did win U.S Open on clay. Main point though, was at that time, and still somewhat true today, Wimbledon was/is a more prestigious and desired slam. Which was why, after years of skipping Wimbledon, Lendl hired Tony Roach to learn how to volley better and improve his grass court game. Connors championship wins at Wimbledon gives him the edge over Lendl.

 

[eldanger25]

Connors very slightly, but both are incredible, borderline Tier 1 players.

Connors has 2 Wimbledon titles, as others have pointed out, when Wimbledon was at its peak importance. Also:

1. Connors won slams on every surface.
2. Connors never once played all 4 majors in a season. Lendl regularly played all 4 (he was the first Open Era pro to do so, along with Wilander). Connors probably wins 11-12 slams if he played all 4 year after year during his prime.
3. Connors won the most important matches during the brief 3-4 years when their better playing days overlapped (two Open title fights and a Wimbledon SF).
4. I will part ways with Phoenix1983 on the "better on worse surface" argument - Connors has multiple titles on green and red clay; is the only man to beat Borg in a clay court major final; was banned from or skipped RG during his peak (as did several others at the time); and actually has (I think) the 6th best w/p in the Open Era on the surface. Lendl did well to make a few slam finals on Australian and British grass, but was straight-setted every time. I do admire his improvements on the surface, and great and characteristic determination to get better on grass.

 

[timnz]

It's very close. When their prime years intersected from 1981 to 1984 - their H2H was nearly equal.

Connors was better on grass but Lendl was better on clay (especially European clay)

Lendl had 4 more runner-ups at slams, so his slam record is slightly better

Lendl's season end chsmpionship record is considerably better 7 to 3

Lendl had very slightly longer time at weeks at number 1

Lendl had more tier 1 titles

Connors had slightly more 500 level equivalent titles - 49 vs 42 for Lendl.

Connors has more official titles 109 vs 94, but if you combine official and unofficial titles Lendl is slightly ahead 151 to 149

For all of these reasons I'd put Lendl slightly ahead by a nose.

 

[TupeloDanger]

Jimmy: His ability to stand on or inside the baseline and take balls on the rise gave him a unique baseline attacking style and an efficiency that allowed him to remain competitive much longer than his contemporaries. And this same ability enabled him to use the service return as a once in a generation tactical weapon. These two things in combination inspired Andre Agassi to become pretty much exactly like him, right down to the goofy waddle.

Ivan: His single minded quest to dominate the universe with a forehand and a psychotic dedication to fitness became the defining traits for the entire sport forever more.

Advantage: Lendl.

 

[Gizo]

As I've said before, I think that Connors was better than Lendl at the majors, and Lendl was better than Connors away from the majors. Their 'prime vs. prime' 1981-1984 h2h summarised that.

In my opinion Connors's haul of 8 major's is more impressive than's Lendl's.

The most important tournament for both players was the US Open (Lendl said many times in the early 80s his main career goal was to win the title there), and Connors won it 2 more times than Lendl, beating him in the 1982 and 1983 finals.

And Connors won the biggest tournament in tennis Wimbledon twice, while Lendl never won it at all. And we know how obsessed he became about trying to win it in the late 80s and early 90s.

The grand slams were less equal in the 70s and 80s than they are now, and Connors's 7 Wimbledon/US Open titles compared to Lendl's 3 is a big advantage.

Lendl never won a major on grass and never won a set in any of his 3 major finals on the surface. However Connors won the 1976 US Open title on clay, thumping Vilas in his semi-final before beating Borg in the final. He has victories in major finals over Borg on clay, McEnroe on grass and Lendl on hard courts, which is a big feather in his cap.

Connors's 1974 Australian Open title is very lightweight. Then again Lendl was very lucky to win his 1990 Australian Open title, with a clearly injured Edberg serving for a 2 sets to love lead in the final, before retiring in the 3rd set (he had played flawlessly in his SF demolition of Wilander).

Lendl's non-major record is certainly more impressive than Connors's. Quality over quantity his official 94 title haul has always seemed more impressive to me than Connors's 109, as Connors has a lot more weak, lightweight title wins on his record, and Lendl has a better balance/distribution of good quality title wins across both Europe and North America. And Lendl's record in unsanctioned events (which were very lucrative and highly regarded) was absolutely unrivalled. Overall he actually won more titles than Connors. And of course he won the year end Masters 5 times.

Plus Lendl led Czechoslovakia to the 1980 Davis Cup title, while Connors is the only open era great that has not played a major role in winning the competition with his country. He only played in 8 live singles rubbers during his career, and his big defeats against Ramirez in 1975 and Wilander in 1984 are more notable than any of his 6 victories. Every other open era great played in at least 20.

 

[jrepac]

[ber: 378431"]Lendl. Greater on his weakest surface than Connors on his.[/QUOTE]
that's not quite clear either...connors did not play the Euro red clay tour for most of his career. Rather, he played the US har-tru summer circuit and did very, very well. He had wins over Borg, Vilas and a young Lendl. Including a USO win and 2 more USO finals on the clay. One can easily argue that Jimmy did more on the green clay than Lendl did on the grass. It's a very close call; depends a bit on what you weight and what years you compare them.

 

[nowhereman]

[ber: 378431"]Lendl. Greater on his weakest surface than Connors on his.
that's not quite clear either...connors did not play the Euro red clay tour for most of his career. Rather, he played the US har-tru summer circuit and did very, very well. He had wins over Borg, Vilas and a young Lendl. Including a USO win and 2 more USO finals on the clay. One can easily argue that Jimmy did more on the green clay than Lendl did on the grass. It's a very close call; depends a bit on what you weight and what years you compare them.

Green clay hardly even counts as clay though. It plays very differently compared to actual red clay.

 

[jrepac]

Connors very slightly, but both are incredible, borderline Tier 1 players.

Connors has 2 Wimbledon titles, as others have pointed out, when Wimbledon was at its peak importance. Also:

1. Connors won slams on every surface.
2. Connors never once played all 4 majors in a season. Lendl regularly played all 4 (he was the first Open Era pro to do so, along with Wilander). Connors probably wins 11-12 slams if he played all 4 year after year during his prime.
3. Connors won the most important matches during the brief 3-4 years when their better playing days overlapped (two Open title fights and a Wimbledon SF).
4. I will part ways with Phoenix1983 on the "better on worse surface" argument - Connors has multiple titles on green and red clay; is the only man to beat Borg in a clay court major final; was banned from or skipped RG during his peak (as did several others at the time); and actually has (I think) the 6th best w/p in the Open Era on the surface. Lendl did well to make a few slam finals on Australian and British grass, but was straight-setted every time. I do admire his improvements on the surface, and great and characteristic determination to get better on grass.

I did not realize that only Jimmy beat Bjorn in a major clay final; never thought about it like that. Jimmy was very much a major force at Wimbledon, even in the years he did not win it. Much better record on the turf than Lend, no question. Did he win some red clay tourneys in the US? I assume all were har-tru, but that may be incorrect. Lendl never beat connors on grass....while Connors did beat Lendl on clay. Maybe a slight edge to Connors

 

[jrepac]

Green clay hardly even counts as clay though. It plays very differently compared to actual red clay.

probably depends very much on weather conditions; I've never played on the red stuff, but some have said the difference is not all that great. The strongest players on red clay also tend to well on the green stuff, so not sure if it's radically different. But, I've never stepped foot on a red clay court, so I will defer.

 

[ItalianStallion]

Jimbo by a nose...his longevity.... reaching USO semi at age 39

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Connors. 5 US Open titles, 2 Wimbledons. Says it all.

 

[timnz]

Connors very slightly, but both are incredible, borderline Tier 1 players.

Connors has 2 Wimbledon titles, as others have pointed out, when Wimbledon was at its peak importance. Also:

1. Connors won slams on every surface.
2. Connors never once played all 4 majors in a season. Lendl regularly played all 4 (he was the first Open Era pro to do so, along with Wilander). Connors probably wins 11-12 slams if he played all 4 year after year during his prime.
3. Connors won the most important matches during the brief 3-4 years when their better playing days overlapped (two Open title fights and a Wimbledon SF).
4. I will part ways with Phoenix1983 on the "better on worse surface" argument - Connors has multiple titles on green and red clay; is the only man to beat Borg in a clay court major final; was banned from or skipped RG during his peak (as did several others at the time); and actually has (I think) the 6th best w/p in the Open Era on the surface. Lendl did well to make a few slam finals on Australian and British grass, but was straight-setted every time. I do admire his improvements on the surface, and great and characteristic determination to get better on grass.

Surely we shouldn't give Connors credit for missing slams. Missing a slam is not the same as winning one.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

As I've said before, I think that Connors was better than Lendl at the majors, and Lendl was better than Connors away from the majors. Their 'prime vs. prime' 1981-1984 h2h summarised that.

In my opinion Connors's haul of 8 major's is more impressive than's Lendl's.

The most important tournament for both players was the US Open (Lendl said many times in the early 80s his main career goal was to win the title there), and Connors won it 2 more times than Lendl, beating him in the 1982 and 1983 finals.

And Connors won the biggest tournament in tennis Wimbledon twice, while Lendl never won it at all. And we know how obsessed he became about trying to win it in the late 80s and early 90s.

The grand slams were less equal in the 70s and 80s than they are now, and Connors's 7 Wimbledon/US Open titles compared to Lendl's 3 is a big advantage.

Lendl never won a major on grass and never won a set in any of his 3 major finals on the surface. However Connors won the 1976 US Open title on clay, thumping Vilas in his semi-final before beating Borg in the final. He has victories in major finals over Borg on clay, McEnroe on grass and Lendl on hard courts, which is a big feather in his cap.

Connors's 1974 Australian Open title is very lightweight. Then again Lendl was very lucky to win his 1990 Australian Open title, with a clearly injured Edberg serving for a 2 sets to love lead in the final, before retiring in the 3rd set (he had played flawlessly in his SF demolition of Wilander).

Lendl's non-major record is certainly more impressive than Connors's. Quality over quantity his official 94 title haul has always seemed more impressive to me than Connors's 109, as Connors has a lot more weak, lightweight title wins on his record, and Lendl has a better balance/distribution of good quality title wins across both Europe and North America. And Lendl's record in unsanctioned events (which were very lucrative and highly regarded) was absolutely unrivalled. Overall he actually won more titles than Connors. And of course he won the year end Masters 5 times.

Plus Lendl led Czechoslovakia to the 1980 Davis Cup title, while Connors is the only open era great that has not played a major role in winning the competition with his country. He only played in 8 live singles rubbers during his career, and his big defeats against Ramirez in 1975 and Wilander in 1984 are more notable than any of his 6 victories. Every other open era great played in at least 20.

Gizo, what do you think was particularly hard for Lendl in Jimbo's game? It's actually interesting that Lendl owned even prime McEnroe at some point (no victories for McEnroe in 1981 and 1982 against Ivan and seven losses), but was losing the the most important matches (and finals) against Connors.
You could expect that McEnroe, with is unorthodox game, trouble Ivan like he did trouble Borg, but he never managed to have the upper hand in that rivalry.
Connors, on the other hand, really had Ivan's numbers on the most important occasions, even though he was a baseliner.

 

[Gizo]

Gizo, what do you think was particularly hard for Lendl in Jimbo's game? It's actually interesting that Lendl owned even prime McEnroe at some point (no victories for McEnroe in 1981 and 1982 against Ivan and seven losses), but was losing the the most important matches (and finals) against Connors.
You could expect that McEnroe, with is unorthodox game, trouble Ivan like he did trouble Borg, but he never managed to have the upper hand in that rivalry.
Connors, on the other hand, really had Ivan's numbers on the most important occasions, even though he was a baseliner.

That's a good question.

For starters Lendl gave Connors a steady rhythm of pace and power that he loved to feed off. Later on in their rivalry Lendl would repeatedly slice the ball to Connors's forehand (the low forehand was often a problem for him even during his peak) and bunt it to him, deliberately giving him no pace.

Connors was mentally much touguher than Lendl as well. Playing in the big stage in those US Open finals in front of a massively pro-Connors crowd clearly got to him, and he didn't play as confidently in those matches as he had done in previous rounds. And at Wimbledon Connors was just a much better and more natural player on grass (he also crushed him in their 1983 Queen's semi-final).

Connors was able to hit his cross-court backhand with power and depth to Lendl's forehand, often nullifying it or drawing a weak response, and allowing him to take control of the point. In the 1983 US Open final, Krosero's stats showed that he actually hit more forehand winners than Lendl. And on the big stage he was often able to return Lendl's powerful serve well.

Plus Jimbo was an all-courter that volleyed exceptionally well in particular in the 1982 USO final and 1984 Wimby semi-final as Krosero and Moose's stats showed. He was a better volleyer than both Borg and Lendl, who were very good at the net themselves. Connors was the aggressor in those big matches at the majors, not Lendl who was more passive and uncertain.

Lendl was a better indoor player than Connors and won 4 out of their 5 matches under a roof from 1981-1984 (and it might have been 5 out of 6 had their 1984 Rotterdam final not been abandoned). But on the big stage at the US Open on the hard courts that suited both players' games, Connors was better.

 

[roundiesee]

Great debate; and agreed that it's really close between these 2 greats.
I'll go with Jimmy; will never forget how Jimmy dismantled prime Ivan at the US Open, and to me this was how Jimmy remained greater than Ivan especially in NY,

 

[Deleted member 512391]

That's a good question.

For starters Lendl gave Connors a steady rhythm of pace and power that he loved to feed off. Later on in their rivalry Lendl would repeatedly slice the ball to Connors's forehand (the low forehand was often a problem for him even during his peak) and bunt it to him, deliberately giving him no pace.

Connors was mentally much touguher than Lendl as well. Playing in the big stage in those US Open finals in front of a massively pro-Connors crowd clearly got to him, and he didn't play as confidently in those matches as he had done in previous rounds. And at Wimbledon Connors was just a much better and more natural player on grass (he also crushed him in their 1983 Queen's semi-final).

Connors was able to hit his cross-court backhand with power and depth to Lendl's forehand, often nullifying it or drawing a weak response, and allowing him to take control of the point. In the 1983 US Open final, Krosero's stats showed that he actually hit more forehand winners than Lendl. And on the big stage he was often able to return Lendl's powerful serve well.

Plus Jimbo was an all-courter that volleyed exceptionally well in particular in the 1982 USO final and 1984 Wimby semi-final as Krosero and Moose's stats showed. He was a better volleyer than both Borg and Lendl, who were very good at the net themselves. Connors was the aggressor in those big matches at the majors, not Lendl who was more passive and uncertain.

Lendl was a better indoor player than Connors and won 4 out of their 5 matches under a roof from 1981-1984 (and it might have been 5 out of 6 had their 1984 Rotterdam final not been abandoned). But on the big stage at the US Open on the hard courts that suited both players' games, Connors was better.

Thanks for the response, you made several good points.

In one interview, Lendl was explaining how he had to make some adjustments in order to change the outcome of his matches against Connors and he mentioned how he started to slice the ball to the Jimbo forehand. Anyway, it seems that the best baseliners really troubled Ivan during his career (Borg, Wilander, Jimmy - although an all courter), at least in the BO5 matches. It could be that, as you mentioned, he was way too passive in those matches, got himself involved into too much baseline rallies, instead of approaching the net more often, followed by his massive forehand approach shots.

Btw, do you think that the atmosphere in NYC was a factor in the Connors/McEnroe vs Borg matches at the USO as well? I know that Borg received death threats before his USO SF/F 1981 matches.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

I will pick Connors , if he had played AO on regular basis like Ivan then he might have won one or two more ( 2 AO slam played, 1 win and 1 final).

 

[BGod]

Connors essentially played 2 Slams. He went 1/2 at the Australian.

When you expand Connors to this era he's a minimum 12 Slam champ. We all know how that went for Lendl. Too many losses.

 

[Deleted member 512391]

Delete post.

 

[juan guzman]

Jimmy Connors was 40-13 (75.4 WP) at Roland Garros, and at his most dangerous between 1979 and 1987, when he was a quarterfinalist four times and a semifinalist four times. He skipped the tournament in 1986, and his best result the four other times he entered was a quarterfinal.

I give Connors the edge over Lendl because only a silly political squabble resulted in him being banned from Roland Garros, which besmirched his otherwise perfect record that year at the .Watching Connors on every surface, I feel that he would have won the French in 1974 (and perhaps gone on to complete a calendar year Grand Slam), mainly because Bjorn Borg had not yet appeared on the scene to torment him. 76 he would have beaten Panatta. He won on Red Clay 3 times in North Conway. He played a very few yournaments on European clay.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Jimmy Connors was 40-13 (75.4 WP) at Roland Garros, and at his most dangerous between 1979 and 1987, when he was a quarterfinalist four times and a semifinalist four times. He skipped the tournament in 1986, and his best result the four other times he entered was a quarterfinal.

I give Connors the edge over Lendl because only a silly political squabble resulted in him being banned from Roland Garros, which besmirched his otherwise perfect record that year at the .Watching Connors on every surface, I feel that he would have won the French in 1974 (and perhaps gone on to complete a calendar year Grand Slam), mainly because Bjorn Borg had not yet appeared on the scene to torment him. 76 he would have beaten Panatta. He won on Red Clay 3 times in North Conway. He played a very few yournaments on European clay.

Strange how people state these hypotheticals as facts.

- If Nadal had retired injured before playing Soderling at RG 2009, people would have written "he would have won".
- If Serena had retired injured before playing Vinci at USO 2015, people would have written "she would have won".

etc.

Connors won what he won, and nothing more. Many on this thread are handing him ill-deserved fantasy titles.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

Strange how people state these hypotheticals as facts.

- If Nadal had retired injured before playing Soderling at RG 2009, people would have written "he would have won".
- If Serena had retired injured before playing Vinci at USO 2015, people would have written "she would have won".

etc.

Connors won what he won, and nothing more. Many on this thread are handing him ill-deserved fantasy titles.

Its not about one tournament in given year, but whole life , he missed all AO in his prime and around 4 RG when he was no.1 one ranked not saying he was going to win all but see how he performed in only 2 AO , you can say he was going to win at least one AO till 84.

 

[hoodjem]

On my all-time list they are close to each other.

Lendl is two places ahead of Connors at 14.

 

[JoelSandwich]

On my all-time list they are close to each other.

Lendl is two places ahead of Connors at 14.

Whats your full list??

 

[RacquetAbuse101]

Strange how people state these hypotheticals as facts.

- If Nadal had retired injured before playing Soderling at RG 2009, people would have written "he would have won".
- If Serena had retired injured before playing Vinci at USO 2015, people would have written "she would have won".

etc.

Connors won what he won, and nothing more. Many on this thread are handing him ill-deserved fantasy titles.

Agreed.

Never ceases to amaze (and amuse) me how posters hand out titles like they were candy.
Somewhat disrespectful of the actual winners of said titles, imo.

 

[BGod]

Its not about one tournament in given year, but whole life , he missed all AO in his prime and around 4 RG when he was no.1 one ranked not saying he was going to win all but see how he performed in only 2 AO , you can say he was going to win at least one AO till 84.

Yeah it's insane to assume Connors wouldn't have won more AO titles considering the fields and him winning 1 and making a Final in his only 2 appearances.

 

[Gizo]

Thanks for the response, you made several good points.

In one interview, Lendl was explaining how he had to make some adjustments in order to change the outcome of his matches against Connors and he mentioned how he started to slice the ball to the Jimbo backhand. Anyway, it seems that the best baseliners really troubled Ivan during his career (Borg, Wilander, Jimmy - although an all courter), at least in the BO5 matches. It could be that, as you mentioned, he was way too passive in those matches, got himself involved into too much baseline rallies, instead of approaching the net more often, followed by his massive forehand approach shots.

Btw, do you think that the atmosphere in NYC was a factor in the Connors/McEnroe vs Borg matches at the USO as well? I know that Borg received death threats before his USO SF/F 1981 matches.

Another fact that I forgot to mention before, was that Connors served very well in those big grand slam matches (well I know he did in 1982 and 1984, I'm not 100% sure about 1983). He had high 1st serve percentages and was winning a lot of quick, cheap points in his service games. Facing Connors at the US Open or on grass is already difficult enough. Facing a Connors who is serving well in those settings must be a nightmare !

A difference between Borg and Lendl, was that Borg was very popular with the US Open crowd. and actually had a big share (or in numerous cases the majority) of the crowd support for many of his matches against Connors and McEnroe there (or in other places in the US for that matter). Connors only became a crowd favourite at the USO from 1979 (his 1978 match against Pannatta and his comments after the final against Borg were the turning point), and McEnroe only became a crowd favourite there during the latter stages of the career when he was past his prime.

Lendl on the other hand had barely any crowd support at the US Open, and certainly didn't whenever he played Connors or even McEnroe at the USO. His 1992 match against Edberg was the first time I remember a US Open crowd rooting for him (my memory could be hazy there though).

Still Borg didn't like the noisy atmosphere and the bright lights of the night sessions at the US Open, and never usually felt comfortable with his matches under those conditions, while Connors and McEnroe (despite often being the 'villain' with the crowd) thrived under them. Borg being such a huge star was a popular choice for those night sessions as well. Often his over protective and whiny coach Bergelin didn't help as well. Especially in 1979, he constantly complaining about the lights and the night matches throughout the tournament, and actually appeared to psyche Borg out. In 1975-1976, and from 1978-1981, he was beaten by a US southpaw, and from 1978-1980 the same player that he had beaten in the Wimbledon final (Connors, Tanner, Mac), took revenge against him at the USO.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Peak to peak they were very close. I would give Connors an edge on ground game and net game, Lendl had the advantage on serve. But, in my view, Connors was a mentally tougher competitor, especially when it mattered most.

 

[jrepac]

Connors really thrived at the USO' wild atmosphere; Lendl did not. On grass, Connors was 100 times more comfortable than Lendl. His game "worked" far better than Lendl's...hitting early on the fastest of surfaces, really gave Ivan no time to set up his shots. The '84 SF at Wimbledon is an interesting one...you get a sense of Ivan's struggles. Very different from dealing w/Mac the year before...Jimmy rushing him off the ground, closing to the net.....he was never comfortable in that match, even tho' he bagged a set. You got the sense it was a matter of time for Connors game to get to him. Keeping in mind that Jimmy won FOUR GS events on grass....not just the 2 Wimby's everyone remembers.

 

[PMChambers]

I put them even.
Connors generally better in wood era.
Lendl better in the graphite era.

I think Lendl 6'3" athletic frame was slight hindrance in wooden era. He had to temper his shots and play more crafty. Although fit and fast in straight line he was not as fluid as Borg, fleeting as Mac or boggard as Connors. Once the graphite 75 - 85 era came into being his ability to hit through his opposition became a possibility. Dropping grass from USO & AO also helped. As Wimbledon changed from erratic dirt to grass it also helped. Lendl issue with grass was never speed, rather low and erratic bounce. Lendl was great on indoor carpet which is faster than grass, but more content in bounce.
Connors would have been a serve and volleyer if he possessed a first serve.
Im not aware of Lendl's background but would not be surprised if he lacked quality coaching early in his career. Tony Roche did wonders with him and maybe if they joined forces earlier he'd have developed faster.

 

[eldanger25]

Surely we shouldn't give Connors credit for missing slams. Missing a slam is not the same as winning one.

I mean no disrespect to those who won in France and Australia during the years that Connors (and Borg and Mac and Nastase etc.) didn't appear. So I'll just say it this way: I think Connors's superior slam conversion rate during his prime years is a relevant fact.

 

[pc1]

I put them even.
Connors generally better in wood era.
Lendl better in the graphite era.

I think Lendl 6'3" athletic frame was slight hindrance in wooden era. He had to temper his shots and play more crafty. Although fit and fast in straight line he was not as fluid as Borg, fleeting as Mac or boggard as Connors. Once the graphite 75 - 85 era came into being his ability to hit through his opposition became a possibility. Dropping grass from USO & AO also helped. As Wimbledon changed from erratic dirt to grass it also helped. Lendl issue with grass was never speed, rather low and erratic bounce. Lendl was great on indoor carpet which is faster than grass, but more content in bounce.
Connors would have been a serve and volleyer if he possessed a first serve.
Im not aware of Lendl's background but would not be surprised if he lacked quality coaching early in his career. Tony Roche did wonders with him and maybe if they joined forces earlier he'd have developed faster.

Nice post.

I think Bill Talbert once compared Lendl's stroking ability to Don Budge which is not a bad comparison. Lendl was very young when he started making an impact on the World Tennis scene. He seemed at times to be in shock at the magnitude of a major final however he was extremely bright and learned quickly. I think Lendl would eventually have been a top flight player in the wood era.

Ironically Connors has also been compared to Budge (I believe by Jack Kramer) and there are a lot of similarities there also. Frankly I do think both players would have been superb in any era. Connors hit the ball so early and so solidly. It's a rare trait in any era so I think he would have been fine in the graphite era also.

The key to me always is Lendl's superior serve versus Connors' superior backhand and I believe a better volley. Although I think Lendl had a great backhand to be fair.

I also think Connors was a better mover than Lendl. It's very tough to decide. Of all the players in history I think these two have records that are so similar for overall accomplishments.

 

[KG1965]

Lendl and Connors were the two players who have won more ATP sanctioned, ATP sanctioned, and invitational or exhibitions. Laver comes not so high because many of the titles of Rod are not Pro or Open.

IMO differences between Ivan and Jimbo are 3.

A peak Ievel are similar and do not fall into a Tier 1.
As overall titles are in substance identical.

The three important differences are:
1) performance in slam, Ivan has won 8, Jimbo has won 8 .... skipping 12-15.
2) the Jimbo records (titles, matches played, won matches)
2) the historical significance, the momentum of Jimbo in America (as Borg in Europe) was much higher than what has happened in the past and in the future (with the exclusion phenomenon Federer).

 

[KG1965]

In tennis you must first understand how important are the slam tournaments on the other events, 90% seem to apply only to slam tournaments and
for 10% worth much other events (I am one of these).
For me, in fact, the achievements of Lendl have a huge burden,
but for those who think that, almost worth only slam Connors is of a different category.

The basic question to compare the two only on the slam tournaments is the following:
because in the face of a lot of great events they have won eight slam?
For Lendl the answer is simple: Ivan was the GOAT in no-slam events and unfortunately could not play at the same level in the slam tournaments.
For Connors may not be the same answer, because did not jump 2 or 3 slam ... but an exaggeration.

It 's impossible that on 15 Slam jumped, Jimbo would not win a title? He was always in the final or semi-final.
What losing 15 finals?

 

[Phoenix1983]

I'm actually starting to waver on this one. Very tough to call between them, but Connors might indeed be greater. His longevity in the context of Open Era play (greater athleticism than earlier eras) is astounding, and I am beginning to see that although he was 'only' the No 2 for a while in the 1970s, this is because Borg was one of the most dominant No 1's of all time in that period.

Of course, this would also potentially lead me to consider the ranking of Borg vs. Sampras/Nadal/Djokovic. The former may indeed still be No 2 of the Open Era...

 

[pc1]

I'm actually starting to waver on this one. Very tough to call between them, but Connors might indeed be greater. His longevity in the context of Open Era play (greater athleticism than earlier eras) is astounding, and I am beginning to see that although he was 'only' the No 2 for a while in the 1970s, this is because Borg was one of the most dominant No 1's of all time in that period.

Of course, this would also potentially lead me to consider the ranking of Borg vs. Sampras/Nadal/Djokovic. The former may indeed still be No 2 of the Open Era...

This is maybe the toughest comparison of all. Subjectively I thought Connors moved better, had a better backhand and overall return. IMO he had a better volley too. Lendl clearly had the superior serve but Connors had the edge of having a lefty spin serve that was hard to attack and he could mix it around. Lendl clearly had the better forehand. I also thought Lendl's return on grass was suspect.

And yes Connors may have been number two but those years at number two like in 1978 were better than many player's number one years. In 1975 he was one match away from number one.

Borg defied the tennis establishment in those days with what they thought was unorthodox tennis. They never thought he would last but ironically that unorthodox tennis of Borg is now considered to be the norm! I thought to myself at the time that all the experts kept saying he couldn't do this but he kept it up every day and seemed to make quantum leaps in development every year. It was terrifying and I thought to myself that he couldn't be that good. I don't think that about many players in sports. As great as Connors was when Borg was at his peak I felt Connors was overmatched on any surface.

It's a tough choice. I pick Connors subjectively because I feel he has less weaknesses to exploit but I've often changed my mind and went with Lendl also. Objectively Lendl has the edge of the Masters 1000 tournaments in his favor. Objectively to me it's very close. Both players have great tennis minds.