yes - he and Goolagong were banned because they signed for World Team Tennis
"Oh but he didn't win on RED clay" will be the common, somewhat ridiculous retort.
To be fair I have never heard this said
Connors was banned from the 1974 French Open, for playing in World Team Tennis that year for the Baltimore Banners. Connors actually travelled to Paris, ready to play, but was banned. It really pissed him off, because he didn't return until 1979.
I agree.
On this board, you will hear/see it all the time.
Maybe not all the time, but I have seen it on multiple occasions.
For me, I'd say at least a 33% chance if he plays there 74-78. I listed 78, but he's not winning that year. This guy had way too much har tru success for me to think he didn't have a better chance than severe longshot.
10% based on what exactly? '74 thru '76, Borg was not yet lording it over him. Sure, he might get tagged by a clay court specialist on an off day, But even that was hard to predict. He was beating numerous 'specialists' on Har Tru, so would he be at such a disadvantage in Paris? I don't think so. He was already making semis when he was arguably well past his most youthful prime (early 20's). Not saying he'd be a lock to win but probably favored.
Borg played there in 76. If Connors plays maybe Borg doesn't play Panatta in the quarters. I would include 75 as him having a chance. He still had that mental edge over Borg.
He was only 26 when he resumed playing there in 1979. That should be pretty much in his prime. However, I do think his best clay years were before then. He did win a title in 79 and 80, his last 2. Obviously, he wasn't going to play as many summer clay events after the US Open went hard.
Politics of tennis.
Pecci, Laver, and Rosewall in '75
Winning is what counts, not reaching quarters or semis.
Rosewall was 40 in 75, Laver was 36 and hardly at their best. The rest of the players were hardly ATG players but good 2 tier players, at best.
Very good, if you include Har Tru as "clay" which is endlessly debated.
When you argue that way, looking at it over 5 years, I suppose it could be argued that it should be higher than 33%. I stand by my opinion that he has at least a reasonable chance of winning at least 1 title there if he plays the 5 years he skipped.
Makes sense. My question would have been how good he was on red clay. I don't think these green black type surfaces are true clay.
Great on har tru. Red clay vs that is the argument. Even the red clay he won on in North Conway was not the same red clay as Europe.
The most important attribute is movement, and Connors could feel comfortable sliding. He was not dependent on a big serve to win him quick easy points, and he was capable of grinding out some rallies. but he was not temperamentally suited to grind and grind and grind. His strokes were flatter and his margin more limited so it behooved him to be agressive but not too agressive.
Agree on both points you make
Nice point.
Think about it. I honestly don't think Jimmy particularly liked to travel and play much where his mother tongue was not spoken. ' Historical importance' be damned.
Keeping in mind there were more US based events back then as well. You could just still play a few warm ups on har-tru, then zip over to Paris for the FO. Other than W and the USO, I'm not sure he cared all that much about historical importance of events. Still, he claimed to love the FO by the end of his career...fans there really got behind him.
You can, but I think its far better preparation to play at least one red clay tourney, before a red clay major. The closer every variable is to Wimbledon, from the grass to the balls to the winds and drizzle, the better you will feel about your preparation. Playing on har tru in Florida or New York can only take you so far that direction.
you would think, yet Borg went straight from red clay to grass and it made no difference (or it just seemed that way). I think your GOAT baseliners are pretty adaptable....
I think your adjustment speed is a hell of a lot shorter on the surface and conditions you grew up on and in. I don't think Borg needs a red clay tournament or Connors needs much hard court competitive play before the Open or Newcomb much before the Aussie. That's duck meet water. But if you are having trouble getting to the finals, or winning, you had better do something different than you have been. Connors decision not to play Europe and red clay is suspect given his record. Semis and quarters is just not good enough.
Reaching semis and quarters is better than a host of first round and second round defeats. I would rather have Connors' record at Roland Garros than Noah's record at Wimbledon. Do you think if pros could choose to have the record of Tim Henman or a journeyman whose never made it past the second round of a slam they would say there's no difference? I know I would rather have Henman's slam record.
Connors had 3 more of these. 1976 against Nastase, a Wimbledon warmup, the final was rained out. Maybe at a set each. 1980 Palm Springs, rained out at the semifinal stage when he was still alive. 1984 Rotterdam vs Lendl. Called off in the 2nd set due to a bomb threat.
Most of the clay tournaments were in the summer. You had River Oaks and later the WCT tournament at Forest Hills, but that was after Wimbledon the first several years, 1980 they moved it to before the French.
He played more early and then, to my utter and complete amazement at the time, 1989. He played 4 or 5 warmups and the French. Only won a few matches across all those events. 89 he want back to the Italian for the first time since 73.
When the US Open moved to clay, I remember Ashe writing an articles stating that the Americans who could slide well would make the transition the best. With the French I know the balls were a big deal as well, The Pirelli pressureless balls that were so difficult to put away.
Funny, i loved the pressureless balls, which were easily available in the USA (or California at least) in the 1970s and 80s. The brand name was Treton (or Tretron - i think they made a racket also). We would use them for a change of pace - called them "pocket rockets." It helped my big-serving opponents frequently, but almost as often they had trouble controlling their serve, and just putting a (wood) racquet on their serve gave me a fast, deep return. It was fun. Then, in Mexico City, of course, we used to always use pressureless because of the high altitude (6,000 feet; 1,825 meters and higher). Nowadays, it is a mix in CDMX of pressureless and pressurized. the pressurized have to be brand-spanking fresh or it is deadsville. So, i am surprised to hear the comment (was it from Ashe?) that the Pirelli pressureless were so difficult to put away. From the context, sounds like ref. was to Roland Garros. Paris is hardly above sea level, so it seems weird that pressureless would be so difficult to put away. But there is no questioning the long, drawn out rallies at the French in the 1970s. My experience at sea level in California was they were kiss-my-hand easy to put away . . . or to put out the court
Its about his strokes and his temperament. He's great for rallies of 3-10 strokes, but much longer, and his chances diminish. He's only truly engaged as long as he is actively probing for a weakness. He cannot play the 'waiting for a short ball' game. He has to constantly create something in that rally, and that requires more risk with his flatter strokes. Players like Borg and Wilander intentially bore you into errors. Your mind can go numb on those relentless topspin shots. Jimmy cannot handle being lulled into boredom. He will keep hitting harder and harder and going for those damn lines. And that absolutely works with players that are a step slower, poorer footwork or a little less alert.
