Ivan Lendl vs Jimmy Connors?

[Phoenix1983]

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.

It's even difficult IMHO when we come down to the intangibles like who had the greatest influence on tennis.

Connors of course was the first modern superstar and arguably popularised the game by dragging from its country club image into a sport that the masses could enjoy.

Lendl however revolutionised the sport with his fitness regime and professionalism, and being the first top player for a long time to regularly play in all four slams.

Both very influential in terms of what the sport looks like today.

 

[pc1]

It's even difficult IMHO when we come down to the intangibles like who had the greatest influence on tennis.

Connors of course was the first modern superstar and arguably popularised the game by dragging from its country club image into a sport that the masses could enjoy.

Lendl however revolutionised the sport with his fitness regime and professionalism, and being the first top player for a long time to regularly play in all four slams.

Both very influential in terms of what the sport looks like today.

Never thought about that but you're right, even the intangibles are close!

 

[dgold44]

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.

Lendl had superior game but connors was mentally tougher and won more in big matches

 

[dgold44]

Connors was a warrior who seemed to always fight to death every point

Lendl was more technical and skilled but would break down in big pressure matches

 

[timnz]

Connors was a warrior who seemed to always fight to death every point

Lendl was more technical and skilled but would break down in big pressure matches

What evidence is there for this? Surely not his Slam final record. Those 11 finals he lost, all but one of those players were number 1 sometime in their career. Hence, the presumption is that they simply played better than Lendl on the day, not that Lendl 'broke down'. Lendl did really well to make so many finals. Better to be a runner-up than a first round loser or even a semi-finalist right? If he instead lost those 11 tournaments in the first round then we would be looking at 100% slam final record 8 of 8. Hence, losing in the first round is better than being a slam runner-up ;-)

 

[dgold44]

What evidence is there for this? Surely not his Slam final record. Those 11 finals he lost, all but one of those players were number 1 sometime in their career. Hence, the presumption is that they simply played better than Lendl on the day, not that Lendl 'broke down'. Lendl did really well to make so many finals. Better to be a runner-up than a first round loser or even a semi-finalist right? If he instead lost those 11 tournaments in the first round then we would be looking at 100% slam final record 8 of 8. Hence, losing in the first round is better than being a slam runner-up ;-)

I know Lendl was a legend and the best player of the superb decade of amazing 80s tennis

 

[dgold44]

Tennis today is like watching 2 identical robots all made from the same clone factory

Too bad that most people here never saw the real golden age of the 70s through 80s where creativity and huge diversity made the game amazing

 

[hoodjem]

Tennis today is like watching 2 identical robots all made from the same clone factory.

You're so right.

I find it ironic that, with the "bigger gene pool" and "world-wide interest" that everyone is always on about, back then there was more diversity of personalities.

 

[timnz]

It really is close between these two. I would respect arguments for either guy. I have Lendl slightly ahead but understand others who would have it the other way around.

I mean close (Lendl on left, Connors on right):

270 weeks vs 268 weeks number 1

151 official and unofficial titles vs 149 official and unofficial titles

8 Slam titles vs 8 Slam titles

I could go on.

For me the thing that allow Lendl to pip Jimmy at the post by a nose is Lendl's better record at the Season end finals (WTF and WCT) (7 vs 3) and greater number of slam runner-ups (11 vs 7)

 

[Phoenix1983]

Connors was a warrior who seemed to always fight to death every point

Lendl was more technical and skilled but would break down in big pressure matches

Up to the point of Borg's retirement, Connors' record in slam finals was 5-6 (with a record of 2-6 in the years 1975-1978, when according to the computer he was world #1).

Let's not pretend that Connors was unbeatable in pressure matches.

 

[TheCanadian]

Lendl was more important for the game of tennis and has been called the father of modern tennis for several reasons. He had far more impact on other players in terms of technique, diet, training, etc. than Connors. He was the first modern player in his approach to the game. Further, he's been a far better coach than Connors.

 

[Arafel]

Up to the point of Borg's retirement, Connors' record in slam finals was 5-6 (with a record of 2-6 in the years 1975-1978, when according to the computer he was world #1).

Let's not pretend that Connors was unbeatable in pressure matches.

To be fare, I think 75 is the only one where you can really fault Connors for some of those losses, as he seemed to not have quite the same drive. The 77 Wimbledon loss in five sets to Borg was tough, and Connors did have a broken thumb on his right hand. The 77 US Open was on Har-Tru, never Connors best surface, against a Vilas who was in the zone. The 78 Wimbledon was an interesting blowout. Not sure what happened in that one.

 

[BlackLendl]

Let's observe this match up a new way!
Lendl vs Conners
22 - 12
The two "best players" that they influenced respectively
Sampras vs Agassi
20 - 14
The two "best players" that they influenced respectively
Federer vs Roddick
20 something - 6

If you look up Lendl in the thesaurus his name is synonymous with FOREHAND!!!!!!!!!

P.S. Andy Murray won another Wimby and Gold. Who's his coach again?


Case closed .........

 

[jrepac]

Let's observe this match up a new way!
Lendl vs Conners
22 - 12
The two "best players" that they influenced respectively
Sampras vs Agassi
20 - 14

The two "best players" that they influenced respectively
Federer vs Roddick
20 something - 6

If you look up Lendl in the thesaurus his name is synonymous with FOREHAND!!!!!!!!!

P.S. Andy Murray won another Wimby and Gold. Who's his coach again?


Case closed .........

That is a non-sequiter of an argument. Oh, BTW....Connors was WILANDER's idol and influence....he did OK....not sure where you source your claim that Connors was Agassi's influence. When did he ever state that??

 

[jrepac]

What evidence is there for this? Surely not his Slam final record. Those 11 finals he lost, all but one of those players were number 1 sometime in their career. Hence, the presumption is that they simply played better than Lendl on the day, not that Lendl 'broke down'. Lendl did really well to make so many finals. Better to be a runner-up than a first round loser or even a semi-finalist right? If he instead lost those 11 tournaments in the first round then we would be looking at 100% slam final record 8 of 8. Hence, losing in the first round is better than being a slam runner-up ;-)

Lendl was unlucky in many ways...when you look at who he lost to in the many GS finals, it's truly an all star line up.

 

[Rafa the King]

Jimmy

 

[Gizo]

During Connors's 11 year prime from 1974-1984, he entered 30 majors out of 45 (66.7%). During Lendl's 10 year prime from 1981-1990, he entered 35 majors out of 39 (89.7%). Now I'm not saying that players should be awarded fantasy slam titles from events that they skipped, but it's clear that Connors was affected more than Lendl by the reduced importance of slam counting and lower status of the Australian and French Opens for a while. So Connors winning 8 majors in the conditions and circumstances that he faced is more impressive to me than Lendl doing so in his.

Connors was unlucky that the US Open surface at Forest Hills switched to clay for 3 years from 1975-1977. Had it remained on grass before the move to Flushing Meadows in 1978, or made the switch to the new hard court facility 3 years earlier, I find it very difficult to imagine him not winning the title more than once during that period. However becoming the only player male or female to win it on 3 different surfaces is a big feather in his cap, not least beating Vilas and Borg back to back to win it on clay in 1976. The switch to clay did make sense at the time though, as the grass courts at Forest Hills were a joke, most of the warm-up events were already held on clay anyway, and hard courts were considered to be a west-coast surface.

Lendl was unlucky that 6 out of the 9 Australian Opens held during his prime were played on grass, including the 2 held during his peak from 1985-1987. with no 1986 edition. I find it very difficult to imagine him not winning a hard court Australian Open title at least once during 1985-1987 given that he was by far the best hard court player (and player in general) during that period. However he was then very lucky to win his 1990 Australian Open with Edberg's stomach muscle injury.

 

[Gizo]

So the question to me is whether Lendl advantage over Connors away from the majors is enough to outweigh Connors's advantage over Lendl at the majors. The majors certainly weren't the be all and end all during the 70s and 80s, so it wouldn't make sense to only look at their major records and ignore the other tournaments. However Connors winning 7 Wimbledon/US Open titles to Lendl's 3 and majors on 3 different surfaces to Lendl's 2 are very significant advantages. I would lean towards no and rank Connors ahead in the pecking order, but I accept that it is close.

During that prime vs. prime intersection from 1981-1984 I would rank the top players as follows (ignoring the computer rankings):
1981: 1) McEnroe, 2) Borg, 3) Lendl, 4) Connors
1982: 1) Connors, 2) Lendl, 3) McEnroe
1983: 1) McEnroe, 2) Connors, 3 Wilander, 4) Lendl (Connors vs. Wilander for the no. 2 position behind Mac is a tough one though)
1984: 1) McEnroe, 2) Lendl, 3) Connors

So again while it is close I would say that Connors has the advantage there.

Talking of Lendl's phenomenal 'non-slam record', by my count he won at least 30 unofficial but big money titles in which he had to play either 4 or 5 matches (there are probably others that I have missed):

5 matches:
Beckenham x 2 (1990, 1991)
Challenge of Champions x 3 (1982, 1985, 1988)
Hong Kong x 3 (1990, 1991, 1992)
Melbourne x 1 (1982)
Milan x 1 (1981)
Stuttgart Indoor x 1 (1989)
Toronto Indoor x 2 (1982, 1984)

4 matches:
Antwerp x 5 (1982, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989)
Boston x 3 (1992, 1993, 1994)
Chicago x 1 (1989)
Ede x 3 (1986, 1987, 1988)
Forest Hills x 1 (1990)
Jericho x 4 (1984, 1985, 1986, 1989)

It is a huge shame that he is only credited with winning 94 titles.

 

[AllCourtHeathen]

Lendl.
Despite being unlikeable, he was a beast. WAY ahead of his time.

 

[Easy Rider]

Lendl.

 

[jrepac]

Lendl.
Despite being unlikeable, he was a beast. WAY ahead of his time.

Everyone says that, but really, why? I don't see him as being "ahead" of anyone, honestly. Martina, if anyone, was there first, when you look at diet, fitness and training. The guy was running out of steam in key GS finals against guys like Borg and Connors---truly warhorses of the game--so, he went on a diet and improved his fitness. Great for him. Djoker did the same...smart moves for both, I agree. But earth-shatteringly futuristic? No, not really. There were guys like Connors and Vilas who practiced for hours on court...so not like they were lounging. Maybe Mac didn't train as hard as the others, if you believe the stories. He'd play a set or two and that was that, whereas the others would hit for hours on end.

And, please don't tell me that Lendl is the father of the "power game". That's just rubbish. If it was true, he'd have 2 more USO titles in his pocket and maybe another FO. He's a great player, neck and neck w/Connors, but I don't buy this "ahead of his time" garbage. He simply did what he needed to do, what worked for him. He figured it all out.

 

[AllCourtHeathen]

Everyone says that, but really, why? I don't see him as being "ahead" of anyone, honestly. Martina, if anyone, was there first, when you look at diet, fitness and training. The guy was running out of steam in key GS finals against guys like Borg and Connors---truly warhorses of the game--so, he went on a diet and improved his fitness. Great for him. Djoker did the same...smart moves for both, I agree. But earth-shatteringly futuristic? No, not really. There were guys like Connors and Vilas who practiced for hours on court...so not like they were lounging. Maybe Mac didn't train as hard as the others, if you believe the stories. He'd play a set or two and that was that, whereas the others would hit for hours on end.

And, please don't tell me that Lendl is the father of the "power game". That's just rubbish. If it was true, he'd have 2 more USO titles in his pocket and maybe another FO. He's a great player, neck and neck w/Connors, but I don't buy this "ahead of his time" garbage. He simply did what he needed to do, what worked for him. He figured it all out.

 

[Mustard]

Lendl was ahead of his time in terms of watching what he ate, his fitness regimen and lifestyle off the court, and paying very close attention to the technology of his tennis equipment, having a personal stringer and putting racquets in plastic bags. Borg and Vilas had a lot of downtime, for all their fitness. Lendl had the reputation of "The Terminator". Along with Becker, Lendl was also a big influence in ushering in the power game in tennis in the second half of the 1980s.

Before that, Connors was ahead of his time in terms of having an entourage and doing his best to drag tennis out of its country club roots into a sport for the masses. Connors also had a knack of drawing the crowds in to fight alongside him, or against him, and he fed off the energy. McEnroe said that he envied how Connors could have the crowd in the palm of his hands.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Lendl was ahead of his time in terms of watching what he ate, his fitness regimen and lifestyle off the court, and paying very close attention to the technology of his tennis equipment, having a personal stringer and putting racquets in plastic bags. Borg and Vilas had a lot of downtime, for all their fitness. Lendl had the reputation of "The Terminator". Along with Becker, Lendl was also a big influence in ushering in the power game in tennis in the second half of the 1980s.

Before that, Connors was ahead of his time in terms of having an entourage and doing his best to drag tennis out of its country club roots into a sport for the masses. Connors also had a knack of drawing the crowds in to fight alongside him, or against him, and he fed off the energy. McEnroe said that he envied how Connors could have the crowd in the palm of his hands.

Good post but you could've used different wording to me. Pretty obvious you copied this from my earlier post.

 

[pc1]

Just for fun I'll do a subjective stroke analysis of the two. If anyone disagrees please post.

Serve-Easily Lendl on first and second second. However Connors' lefty serve wasn't easily attacked and allowed him to control play. Being a lefty server was very important to Connors. Edge to Lendl. Some felt that Lendl had the best serve in tennis because of his overall variety.
Backhand-I think Connors by a clear margin but Lendl's backhand was excellent. Edge to Connors. Connors' backhand is one of the greatest ever.
Forehand-Lendl's forehand is one of the all time great forehands while Connors had an excellent forehand. Edge to Lendl.
Volley-Connors had a very good but not great volley. Lendl's volley was fine. I would go with Connors by a bit. Connors was always a bit better in the transition from the baseline to the net which is key to me. Edge to Connors.
Overhead-Lendl had the superior overhead. Connors' overhead was okay but not great.
Return of serve-Oddly enough I believe I read somewhere that Lendl preferred on big points for his opponents to serve to his backhand instead of his forehand. Connors could always attack off both sides on the return. I would go with Connors here although I do think Lendl had an excellent return.
Movement and footwork-I think Lendl is underrated in the mobility and range department but Connors imo had the superior footwork and movement. Both were excellent in hitting winners on the run.
Stamina-Edge to Lendl.

 

[pc1]

Good post but you could've used different wording to me. Pretty obvious you copied this from my earlier post.

That was an excellent observation from that earlier post that you made.

 

[Gizo]

I really like pc1's stroke by stroke comparison of the 2 players. Comparing them surface by surface:

Clay - Lendl comfortably. I consider Lendl to be the 3rd greatest player on clay in the open era behind Nadal and Borg. His overall W/L record and quality of titles on the surface, plus his dominance at RG during his prime years, definitely put him ahead of Wilander, Kuerten, Vilas etc in the clay court pecking order in my opinion.

Grass - Connors by a landslide. He has a positive h2h against McEnroe on the surface, with victories over a prime Mac in the Wimbledon and Queen's finals in 1982, and the Queen's final in 1983. He also won 10 grass court titles (including Beckenham in 1978). Only Federer (15) and Sampras (10) have won more or as many in the open era. He beat Lendl comfortably in their 2 matches on grass in 1983-1984. I would also rank Connors on clay ahead of Lendl on grass.

Indoors - Definitely Lendl. I consider Lendl to the be the 2nd greatest indoor player of the open era, just behind McEnroe. He has positive h2h records against Connors, Becker, Edberg and Sampras under a roof (including a victory in 1993 when Pete was at the height of his powers). He won at least 30 good quality indoor titles that are not counted by the ATP as well.

Hard courts - This is the toughest one by far but I would lean towards Connors. Lendl had more opportunities to enter and win hard court majors during his prime (13 in 10 years from 1981-1990) than Connors (7 on 11 years from 1974-1984). Connors does have the advantage in terms of overall titles and W/L records. And notably he did win those 2 big US Open finals in 1982-1983, when many people favoured Lendl to win. I would definitely favour a prime Connors over a prime Lendl at the US Open. And to be honest I'm not even sure that a prime Lendl would have the advantage over a prime Connors in hypothetical matches on the Australian Open rebound ace (where serve-volleyers and attacking players could still cause him a lot of problems), although of course we'll never know that.

Both were phenomenal all surface players though. Connors won at least 10 titles and has one of the 6 best open era win-loss percentages on each surface; he has the 3rd best W/L record on hard courts, the 4th best on carpet, the 6th best on both clay and grass.

During his peak years, Lendl was the undisputed best player in the world on clay, hard courts and indoors/carpet, and was one of the best players in the world on grass. In 1985 he won 3 titles in consecutive weeks on different surfaces, Fort Myers on outdoor hard courts, Monte-Carlo on clay and the WCT Finals on indoor carpet.

 

[jrepac]

Lendl was ahead of his time in terms of watching what he ate, his fitness regimen and lifestyle off the court, and paying very close attention to the technology of his tennis equipment, having a personal stringer and putting racquets in plastic bags. Borg and Vilas had a lot of downtime, for all their fitness. Lendl had the reputation of "The Terminator". Along with Becker, Lendl was also a big influence in ushering in the power game in tennis in the second half of the 1980s.

Before that, Connors was ahead of his time in terms of having an entourage and doing his best to drag tennis out of its country club roots into a sport for the masses. Connors also had a knack of drawing the crowds in to fight alongside him, or against him, and he fed off the energy. McEnroe said that he envied how Connors could have the crowd in the palm of his hands.

He became very fit, aware of diet and such, no question. It just seems rather obvious to me and not so futuristic. But, hindsight is 20/20. Connors, if anyone, should get credit for ushering in the "power game". Aside from his serve, obviously...

 

[jrepac]

Just for fun I'll do a subjective stroke analysis of the two. If anyone disagrees please post.

Serve-Easily Lendl on first and second second. However Connors' lefty serve wasn't easily attacked and allowed him to control play. Being a lefty server was very important to Connors. Edge to Lendl. Some felt that Lendl had the best serve in tennis because of his overall variety.
Backhand-I think Connors by a clear margin but Lendl's backhand was excellent. Edge to Connors. Connors' backhand is one of the greatest ever.
Forehand-Lendl's forehand is one of the all time great forehands while Connors had an excellent forehand. Edge to Lendl.
Volley-Connors had a very good but not great volley. Lendl's volley was fine. I would go with Connors by a bit. Connors was always a bit better in the transition from the baseline to the net which is key to me. Edge to Connors.
Overhead-Lendl had the superior overhead. Connors' overhead was okay but not great.
Return of serve-Oddly enough I believe I read somewhere that Lendl preferred on big points for his opponents to serve to his backhand instead of his forehand. Connors could always attack off both sides on the return. I would go with Connors here although I do think Lendl had an excellent return.
Movement and footwork-I think Lendl is underrated in the mobility and range department but Connors imo had the superior footwork and movement. Both were excellent in hitting winners on the run.
Stamina-Edge to Lendl.

I think Connors was a crisper volleyer than Lendl by far....Ivan always seemed awkward...but, I will acknowledge that Connors' volleying was contingent upon his excellent approach shots. Made it easy.

Overhead? Kind of a toss up, I think.
Stamina? that's dependent upon what time frame you evaluate I think....pre-1985 or so, I think it's pretty even, maybe slight edge to Connors. Re-watching the '83 USO final, made me believe that is was less about Ivan's nerves and more about physical exhaustion. He just looked wiped out.

Agree on footwork and mobility....Ivan really was very good, but Jimmy better.

How about the LOB? Even? or slight edge to Ivan maybe?

 

[jrepac]

I really like pc1's stroke by stroke comparison of the 2 players. Comparing them surface by surface:

Clay - Lendl comfortably. I consider Lendl to be the 3rd greatest player on clay in the open era behind Nadal and Borg. His overall W/L record and quality of titles on the surface, plus his dominance at RG during his prime years, definitely put him ahead of Wilander, Kuerten, Vilas etc in the clay court pecking order in my opinion.

Grass - Connors by a landslide. He has a positive h2h against McEnroe on the surface, with victories over a prime Mac in the Wimbledon and Queen's finals in 1982, and the Queen's final in 1983. He also won 10 grass court titles (including Beckenham in 1978). Only Federer (15) and Sampras (10) have won more or as many in the open era. He beat Lendl comfortably in their 2 matches on grass in 1983-1984. I would also rank Connors on clay ahead of Lendl on grass.

Indoors - Definitely Lendl. I consider Lendl to the be the 2nd greatest indoor player of the open era, just behind McEnroe. He has positive h2h records against Connors, Becker, Edberg and Sampras under a roof (including a victory in 1993 when Pete was at the height of his powers). He won at least 30 good quality indoor titles that are not counted by the ATP as well.

Hard courts - This is the toughest one by far but I would lean towards Connors. Lendl had more opportunities to enter and win hard court majors during his prime (13 in 10 years from 1981-1990) than Connors (7 on 11 years from 1974-1984). Connors does have the advantage in terms of overall titles and W/L records. And notably he did win those 2 big US Open finals in 1982-1983, when many people favoured Lendl to win. I would definitely favour a prime Connors over a prime Lendl at the US Open. And to be honest I'm not even sure that a prime Lendl would have the advantage over a prime Connors in hypothetical matches on the Australian Open rebound ace (where serve-volleyers and attacking players could still cause him a lot of problems), although of course we'll never know that.

Both were phenomenal all surface players though. Connors won at least 10 titles and has one of the 6 best open era win-loss percentages on each surface; he has the 3rd best W/L record on hard courts, the 4th best on carpet, the 6th best on both clay and grass.

During his peak years, Lendl was the undisputed best player in the world on clay, hard courts and indoors/carpet, and was one of the best players in the world on grass. In 1985 he won 3 titles in consecutive weeks on different surfaces, Fort Myers on outdoor hard courts, Monte-Carlo on clay and the WCT Finals on indoor carpet.

Excellent synopsis.

 

[pc1]

I think Connors was a crisper volleyer than Lendl by far....Ivan always seemed awkward...but, I will acknowledge that Connors' volleying was contingent upon his excellent approach shots. Made it easy.

Overhead? Kind of a toss up, I think.
Stamina? that's dependent upon what time frame you evaluate I think....pre-1985 or so, I think it's pretty even, maybe slight edge to Connors. Re-watching the '83 USO final, made me believe that is was less about Ivan's nerves and more about physical exhaustion. He just looked wiped out.

Agree on footwork and mobility....Ivan really was very good, but Jimmy better.

How about the LOB? Even? or slight edge to Ivan maybe?

Tough to say on the lob. Jimmy had a great lob, defensive and offensive but Lendl had a great topspin lob also.

 

[KG1965]

Just for fun I'll do a subjective stroke analysis of the two. If anyone disagrees please post.

Serve-Easily Lendl on first and second second. However Connors' lefty serve wasn't easily attacked and allowed him to control play. Being a lefty server was very important to Connors. Edge to Lendl. Some felt that Lendl had the best serve in tennis because of his overall variety.
Backhand-I think Connors by a clear margin but Lendl's backhand was excellent. Edge to Connors. Connors' backhand is one of the greatest ever.
Forehand-Lendl's forehand is one of the all time great forehands while Connors had an excellent forehand. Edge to Lendl.
Volley-Connors had a very good but not great volley. Lendl's volley was fine. I would go with Connors by a bit. Connors was always a bit better in the transition from the baseline to the net which is key to me. Edge to Connors.
Overhead-Lendl had the superior overhead. Connors' overhead was okay but not great.
Return of serve-Oddly enough I believe I read somewhere that Lendl preferred on big points for his opponents to serve to his backhand instead of his forehand. Connors could always attack off both sides on the return. I would go with Connors here although I do think Lendl had an excellent return.
Movement and footwork-I think Lendl is underrated in the mobility and range department but Connors imo had the superior footwork and movement. Both were excellent in hitting winners on the run.
Stamina-Edge to Lendl.

What is the "overhead" ?

 

[pc1]

What is the "overhead" ?

The smash. Putting away lobs.

 

[KG1965]

The smash. Putting away lobs.

The overhead (smash) deserves a thread separately.

Some top players had great serve but not the overhead (IMHO Edberg & Djoko, and to a lesser extent Borg and Lendl).

Others, like Jimbo, had a smash fantastic and serves lacking.

 

[pc1]

The overhead (smash) deserves a thread separately.

Some top players had great serve but not the overhead (IMHO Edberg & Djoko, and to a lesser extent Borg and Lendl).

Others, like Jimbo, had a smash fantastic and serves lacking.

Best overhead I've seen was Yannick Noah's. A good portion of the time he put the ball into the stands. At 6'4" tall with great leaping ability he was very tough to lob. I wonder if Yannick's son, who plays center for the New York Knicks plays tennis. At almost 7" tall he would be very very tough to lob. I would guess his dad give him some lessons.

 

[KG1965]

Best overhead I've seen was Yannick Noah's. A good portion of the time he put the ball into the stands. At 6'4" tall with great leaping ability he was very tough to lob. I wonder if Yannick's son, who plays center for the New York Knicks plays tennis. At almost 7" tall he would be very very tough to lob. I would guess his dad give him some lessons.

Great Yannick, also Pistol Pete.

 

[pc1]

Great Yannick, also Pistol Pete.

Sampras was great on the overhead. Some say Jack Kramer was as good as anyone on the overhead. Here's some examples of his overhead here. Bobby Riggs said he never saw Kramer miss an overhead.

 

[KG1965]

Sampras was great on the overhead. Some say Jack Kramer was as good as anyone on the overhead. Here's some examples of his overhead here. Bobby Riggs said he never saw Kramer miss an overhead.

pc1, the smash was my best shot and I regret that, in practice, has disappeared.
The overhead in jump is very spectacular !

 

[pc1]

Great pictures KG. I used to have a good overhead. I used to wonder how people could have problems with the smash because I thought it was so simple. Just move back and whack it I thought. However as I've aged it's not that easy anymore. It's definitely a weakness of mine now. Of course every shot is my weakness. LOL.

 

[pc1]

Anyway to get back to Connors versus Lendl. Another huge difference is that Connors is a very flat hitter of the ball. I think a very pure ball striker and perhaps a bit better than Lendl in that aspect of the game. Lendl of course hits with a lot more topspin, especially on the forehand side and I would think in longer rallies has the edge over Connors. Lendl's backhand can be a little more defensive than Connors' backhand or forehand. Both are aggressive power baseliners but Lendl doesn't mind playing the grinding game, especially on clay. Connors will attack more even on clay. I would think that Connors' shots, because they are flatter and less clearance over the net tend to be a bit more penetrating. I also think Connors takes the ball earlier than Lendl.

Actually now that I think of it Agassi is sort of a combination of both players. He takes it very early, maybe earlier than Connors but is also able to hit with more topspin like Lendl.

 

[KG1965]

Great pictures KG. I used to have a good overhead. I used to wonder how people could have problems with the smash because I thought it was so simple. Just move back and whack it I thought. However as I've aged it's not that easy anymore. It's definitely a weakness of mine now. Of course every shot is my weakness. LOL.

The same for me.
The overhead smash is divided into two:
with or without jump.
- no-jump is struck fairly easy but requires training, ... if you do not have the sun in your face..., good footwork, so coldly, and a lot of angles.
- with jump requires in addition a lot of elevation, a lot of acrobatics, sturdy legs to cushion the jump and get back into the net.
It's extremely difficult, with the passing years do not jump over ... LOL ...

 

[KG1965]

Anyway to get back to Connors versus Lendl. Another huge difference is that Connors is a very flat hitter of the ball. I think a very pure ball striker and perhaps a bit better than Lendl in that aspect of the game. Lendl of course hits with a lot more topspin, especially on the forehand side and I would think in longer rallies has the edge over Connors. Lendl's backhand can be a little more defensive than Connors' backhand or forehand. Both are aggressive power baseliners but Lendl doesn't mind playing the grinding game, especially on clay. Connors will attack more even on clay. I would think that Connors' shots, because they are flatter and less clearance over the net tend to be a bit more penetrating. I also think Connors takes the ball earlier than Lendl.

Actually now that I think of it Agassi is sort of a combination of both players. He takes it very early, maybe earlier than Connors but is also able to hit with more topspin like Lendl.

Yes, Agassi is a good combination of the two.

 

[Gizo]

Talking of smashes, Stich's backhand overhand was an excellent shot. In my opinion this is the single most difficult shot in the tennis (often when I've tried it I've made a fool out of myself), but for Stich it was a speciality and one of the best that I've ever seen. The backhand return is much more difficult for one handers than two handers, but Stich ranks among the best that I've seen in that department as well. I personally found his playing style to be smoother and more aesthetically pleasing than Edberg's, and thought that he was the most technically complete player of the 90s.

I made a mistake in one of my earlier posts, as I realised that McEnroe actually won 11 grass court titles (the 8 counted officially plus his unsanctioned ones at Manchester in 1982 and Beckenham and Edinburgh in 1989), putting him ahead of Sampras and Connors in the 'most grass court titles' category. Still that doesn't detract one bit from Connors's grass court prowess.

Speaking of Lendl it was amazing how in 1986-1987 he could win RG titles playing as ultra-defensive grinder (with so many gruelling, seemingly never-ending rallies), but then a few weeks later reach Wimbledon finals serve-volleying on every point (and then he won his US Open and Masters titles playing as an attacking, power baseliner). His 1987 victories over Wilander in the RG final and Edberg in his Wimbledon semi-final were like watching different sports. His fitness was so good by that stage that he could comfortably outlast Wilander from the baseline (Mats had to be a lot more aggressive and shorten the points to beat him in the 1988 USO final).

At Wimbledon he was absolutely right to come in and serve-volley on every 1st serve. Maybe he could have stayed back more and merely chipped and charged on his 2nd serves. However his long wind-up and more awkward footing (compared to other surfaces) meant that he would look rushed on his groundstrokes on grass (struggling especially to his really launch into his backhand). Therefore I think that Tony Roche and him got his tactics right on grass, and they took him to 2 finals and 5 more semi-finals at Wimbledon. Agassi winning Wimbledon from the baseliner in the 90s was irrelevant to Lendl, as Agassi had a more shorter backswing and groundstrokes and footing that were far more suited to the surface, especially on the backhand side.

 

[hoodjem]

Just for fun I'll do a subjective stroke analysis of the two. If anyone disagrees please post.

Serve-Easily Lendl on first and second second. However Connors' lefty serve wasn't easily attacked and allowed him to control play. Being a lefty server was very important to Connors. Edge to Lendl. Some felt that Lendl had the best serve in tennis because of his overall variety.
Backhand-I think Connors by a clear margin but Lendl's backhand was excellent. Edge to Connors. Connors' backhand is one of the greatest ever.
Forehand-Lendl's forehand is one of the all time great forehands while Connors had an excellent forehand. Edge to Lendl.
Volley-Connors had a very good but not great volley. Lendl's volley was fine. I would go with Connors by a bit. Connors was always a bit better in the transition from the baseline to the net which is key to me. Edge to Connors.
Overhead-Lendl had the superior overhead. Connors' overhead was okay but not great.
Return of serve-Oddly enough I believe I read somewhere that Lendl preferred on big points for his opponents to serve to his backhand instead of his forehand. Connors could always attack off both sides on the return. I would go with Connors here although I do think Lendl had an excellent return.
Movement and footwork-I think Lendl is underrated in the mobility and range department but Connors imo had the superior footwork and movement. Both were excellent in hitting winners on the run.
Stamina-Edge to Lendl.

Sawdust on the court-Big advantage to Lendl.

 

[pc1]

Sawdust on the court-Big advantage to Lendl.

Lendl is clearly the GOAT of sawdust.

 

[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.

You say Connors had titles on red clay - what were those?

 

[eldanger25]

You say Connors had titles on red clay - what were those?

The Volvo (North Conway) - won by Connors 3x. He had a nice win there in 1975, beating Pecci-Laver-Rosewall, back to back to back. Also beat a young Lendl there on his way to the 1980 title.

I think he also won a team event at Dusseldorf in 1985, though I may be misremembering.

 

[jrepac]

Talking of smashes, Stich's backhand overhand was an excellent shot. In my opinion this is the single most difficult shot in the tennis (often when I've tried it I've made a fool out of myself), but for Stich it was a speciality and one of the best that I've ever seen. The backhand return is much more difficult for one handers than two handers, but Stich ranks among the best that I've seen in that department as well. I personally found his playing style to be smoother and more aesthetically pleasing than Edberg's, and thought that he was the most technically complete player of the 90s.

I made a mistake in one of my earlier posts, as I realised that McEnroe actually won 11 grass court titles (the 8 counted officially plus his unsanctioned ones at Manchester in 1982 and Beckenham and Edinburgh in 1989), putting him ahead of Sampras and Connors in the 'most grass court titles' category. Still that doesn't detract one bit from Connors's grass court prowess.

Speaking of Lendl it was amazing how in 1986-1987 he could win RG titles playing as ultra-defensive grinder (with so many gruelling, seemingly never-ending rallies), but then a few weeks later reach Wimbledon finals serve-volleying on every point (and then he won his US Open and Masters titles playing as an attacking, power baseliner). His 1987 victories over Wilander in the RG final and Edberg in his Wimbledon semi-final were like watching different sports. His fitness was so good by that stage that he could comfortably outlast Wilander from the baseline (Mats had to be a lot more aggressive and shorten the points to beat him in the 1988 USO final).

At Wimbledon he was absolutely right to come in and serve-volley on every 1st serve. Maybe he could have stayed back more and merely chipped and charged on his 2nd serves. However his long wind-up and more awkward footing (compared to other surfaces) meant that he would look rushed on his groundstrokes on grass (struggling especially to his really launch into his backhand). Therefore I think that Tony Roche and him got his tactics right on grass, and they took him to 2 finals and 5 more semi-finals at Wimbledon. Agassi winning Wimbledon from the baseliner in the 90s was irrelevant to Lendl, as Agassi had a more shorter backswing and groundstrokes and footing that were far more suited to the surface, especially on the backhand side.

I don't know if Lendl was "served" all that well serving & volleying on the grass, if you will pardon the pun. He never looked comfortable and it seemed unnatural for him. I wonder if he stuck with his basic game, would he have broken through at Wimbledon?

 

[KG1965]

The Volvo (North Conway) - won by Connors 3x. He had a nice win there in 1975, beating Pecci-Laver-Rosewall, back to back to back. Also beat a young Lendl there on his way to the 1980 title.

I think he also won a team event at Dusseldorf in 1985, though I may be misremembering.

I appreciate the reminder of the Nation's Cup (now World Team Cup),
Final 1985 USA-Czechoslovakia (Mac & Connors v Mecir & Lendl)

From WIKI:
The World Team Cup was the international men's team championship of the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP). The inaugural edition of the tournament was contested in 1975 in Kingston, Jamaica and was called the Nations Cup.[1][2] No tournament was held in 1976 and 1977. From 1978 through 2012 the tournament was held annually in Düsseldorf, Germany. It was generally considered to be second most prestigious men's team competition in tennis after the Davis Cup.

 

[Gizo]

I don't know if Lendl was "served" all that well serving & volleying on the grass, if you will pardon the pun. He never looked comfortable and it seemed unnatural for him. I wonder if he stuck with his basic game, would he have broken through at Wimbledon?

I think if he had played as a pure baseliner at Wimbledon, I doubt he would have reached so many finals and semi-finals there. His record there probably wouldn't have been that much better than Wilander's. Up to that point in the open-era, no-one had won Wimbledon titles or reached finals there playing as a baseliner. Agassi would be a truly unique case, and even from that era guys like Courier and Bruguera were coming in a lot at Wimbledon. Lendl struggled with the bad bounces and lack of firm footing on the old school grass (he would have loved the modern day rye grass), and the long backswing on his groundstrokes would have exposed had he predominantly stayed back. And his backhand return also hindered him on the surface.

So he was 100% correct to serve-volley on his 1st serves, and he generally did that very well. For me the question is whether he should have stayed back on his 2nd serves, like Borg did, and only chosen to come in at the right moments, maybe after a hitting a powerful forehand approach shot. I guess thinking it about it, he could have mixed it up a lot more on 2nd serves, as he often forced himself to hit low, awkward volleys, especially on his backhand side, after his opponents had chipped the ball back to him.

His Wimbledon obsession was so great that he arguably sacrificed an additional RG title to try and win there. Gomez's confidence soared when he found out that Lendl (his ultimate nemesis) wouldn't be playing at RG in 1990. Still at least he got over and stopped caring about his failure to win Wimbledon pretty much the minute that he retired, unlike McEnroe who has continued to be haunted by and bitter about his failure to win RG well into 50s (which is comical). I remember Lendl winding McEnroe up about their 1984 RG final ahead of a exho a few years ago, and the angry look on Mac's face afterwards.

As far as Lendl's all surface prowess goes, all in one package he was better than Wilander on clay, better than Becker indoors, no worse than Agassi on hard courts and no worse than a Roddick or Rafter on grass (in my opinion), which was pretty good going.