Jimmy Connors French Open record

[nolefam_2024]

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.

Makes sense

 

[buscemi]

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.

All of this makes me wonder what the conditions were like at the North Conway red clay tournament that has been referenced in this thread. By my count, Connors was 23-2 at the event, beating some high quality opponents and only losing to quality clay courters Higueras and Solomon.

 

[BTURNER]

All of this makes me wonder what the conditions were like at the North Conway red clay tournament that has been referenced in this thread. By my count, Connors was 23-2 at the event, beating some high quality opponents and only losing to quality clay courters Higueras and Solomon.

often the distinction here is number of matches. RG is a two week affair, and often that is one or two too many matches to grab the trophy. Its tough to win 7 straight matches full of fine clay talent. 4 , 5, or sometimes 6 seems more managable. Its about maintaining the peak but patient form that is NOT always consistent with your temperament, throughout the whole time. Our sport is littered with players who could win an Italian, or a German, or Geneva, but never win RG.

 

[WCT]

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.

I think 3-10 strokes is overstating it. He could comfortably rally longer than that. I'm thinking of more extended rallies than that. Actually, for much of 70s Connors waitinf for the short ball was his game to a great deal, As far as rallying is concerned.

 

[WCT]

often the distinction here is number of matches. RG is a two week affair, and often that is one or two too many matches to grab the trophy. Its tough to win 7 straight matches full of fine clay talent. 4 , 5, or sometimes 6 seems more managable. Its about maintaining the peak but patient form that is NOT always consistent with your temperament, throughout the whole time. Our sport is littered with players who could win an Italian, or a German, or Geneva, but never win RG.

Agreed about this, That 2 week grind is different.

 

[WCT]

I knew it was rather little, but this is less than I thought, and I know I looked this up at one time. He did not play Europe clay in the earlier 70s at all? Clearly a factor. But, he was basically going to have the chance to be a contender 1974-77, and then possibly 1982-83, in which case it might well have helped his cause to play more than one red clay "warm-up" over those two seasons. I remember some of the tennis writers (and bettors) thought him the French Open favorite in 1982 in the absence of Bjorn Borg and that it was unexpected that he went out in the QF.

A little off topic, I seem to remember Hamburg being played later in the summer in some years. Do you know when that happened?

Not in the 70s thru mis 80s at least. Not to my recollection. It was a spring event. By 82-83, I just don't think he was going to win there. His post 81 quarters and semi losses were all straight sets. 79-81 Borg was there. His best chance was the 5 years he skipped where he enjoyed his greatest US clay success.

 

[WCT]

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

Interesting how you found they gave your serve more power. But in French Open context it was always about it slowing down the ball. At least in anything I read or heard about it.

 

[jrepac]

I knew it was rather little, but this is less than I thought, and I know I looked this up at one time. He did not play Europe clay in the earlier 70s at all? Clearly a factor. But, he was basically going to have the chance to be a contender 1974-77, and then possibly 1982-83, in which case it might well have helped his cause to play more than one red clay "warm-up" over those two seasons. I remember some of the tennis writers (and bettors) thought him the French Open favorite in 1982 in the absence of Bjorn Borg and that it was unexpected that he went out in the QF.

A little off topic, I seem to remember Hamburg being played later in the summer in some years. Do you know when that happened?

I think there is an inherent assumption here that IF he played the Euro red clay circuit, he would have had a better shot at winning. I'm just not sure that's true. What's the evidence really? He got to QFs and SFs several times, with zero prior tourneys on red clay. So, he's beating/playing better than most of the field. Would a few red clay tournaments beforehand have made a difference? In '84 and '85, even '87, I think not. Maybe in 79 or 80?

 

[BTURNER]

I think there is an inherent assumption here that IF he played the Euro red clay circuit, he would have had a better shot at winning. I'm just not sure that's true. What's the evidence really? He got to QFs and SFs several times, with zero prior tourneys on red clay. So, he's beating/playing better than most of the field. Would a few red clay tournaments beforehand have made a difference? In '84 and '85, even '87, I think not. Maybe in 79 or 80?

Almost by definition, playing better tennis than 'most in the field' is not going to give you much of a shot of winning a tournament. You have to play better than everybody in the field.

 

[jrepac]

Almost by definition, playing better tennis than 'most in the field' is not going to give you much of a shot of winning a tournament. You have to play better than everybody in the field.

That's surely true, I just think playing several warm up events in Europe on red clay would not have ecessarily made a difference. There were a few matches he lost at FO that were quite winnable...a few others he is losing to clay "specialists" of the day. My point is that he was playing well enough to get to SF/QF with some regularity, in some cases beating guys who were very good red clay players. So, would playing Monte Carlo or Rome really have given him some sort of extra edge? His style of play wasn't the best for the slow dirt, so I don't know if it would have mattered. But, it wasn't like he couldn't play well on it, particularly when conditions were hot and dry and made it faster (probably more like Har Tru under those conditions).

 

[BTURNER]

That's surely true, I just think playing several warm up events in Europe on red clay would not have ecessarily made a difference. There were a few matches he lost at FO that were quite winnable...a few others he is losing to clay "specialists" of the day. My point is that he was playing well enough to get to SF/QF with some regularity, in some cases beating guys who were very good red clay players. So, would playing Monte Carlo or Rome really have given him some sort of extra edge? His style of play wasn't the best for the slow dirt, so I don't know if it would have mattered. But, it wasn't like he couldn't play well on it, particularly when conditions were hot and dry and made it faster (probably more like Har Tru under those conditions).

Can you think of anything he did to improve his chances of winning RG during his prime? Any prep, and changes in strategy or stroke production or special coaching, or do any anything that he tried to alter that stagnant pattern beginning in 1979? I am looking for evidence it was a serious goal of his to win that tournament. I seriously don't know why the man went when he could have just prepped for wimbledon grass earlier.

 

[jrepac]

Can you think of anything he did to improve his chances of winning RG during his prime? Any prep, and changes in strategy or stroke production or special coaching, or do any anything that he tried to alter that stagnant pattern beginning in 1979? I am looking for evidence it was a serious goal of his to win that tournament. I seriously don't know why the man went when he could have just prepped for wimbledon grass earlier.

I can't think of anything but maybe others who followed him more closely during 79-81 may weigh in? Perhaps he should have kept skipping FO and playing more grass events (whatever may have been availble, since that list shrunk over time). I just don't really know what he would have done differently...not hit as flat? Be less aggressive? Serve differently? I've seen him play several matches on Har Tru and it's pretty much the same game. He's not coming in as much as if it were grass---there he was going to S&V more---but otherwise, I'm not seeing him play very differently. I'm sure others have a POV on that as well. I think he beat Borg in 76 because he played a risky, aggressive game, not in spite of it. Borg then lifted his game notably after that.

 

[WCT]

You are not going to convince me that playing at least 1 tournament before the French wouldn't be some help, Marginal, perhaps, but I see as better than first playing red clay at the French, Now, he could play all the warmups he wanted in 79-81 and I don't see him beating Borg.

I agree, how much did he ever change his game per sureface except the clearly more s/v on grass. But the stroke mechanics and approach don't change much from surface to surface. And he had a ton of hartru success doing although the best of it was before entering the French again in 79.

Bottom line, he was only 26 when he started entering again and he played it a bunch of years. He never truly came close to winning it. His first 2 semi loses are closer matches than later on, but it's not like he blew them. Pecci was always ahead and Gerulaitis was ahead most of the 5th ser. Whatever he was doing was pretty clearly not working well enough for him to win the tournament. Not at that time.

 

[BTURNER]

You are not going to convince me that playing at least 1 tournament before the French wouldn't be some help, Marginal, perhaps, but I see as better than first playing red clay at the French, Now, he could play all the warmups he wanted in 79-81 and I don't see him beating Borg.

I agree, how much did he ever change his game per sureface except the clearly more s/v on grass. But the stroke mechanics and approach don't change much from surface to surface. And he had a ton of hartru success doing although the best of it was before entering the French again in 79.

Bottom line, he was only 26 when he started entering again and he played it a bunch of years. He never truly came close to winning it. His first 2 semi loses are closer matches than later on, but it's not like he blew them. Pecci was always ahead and Gerulaitis was ahead most of the 5th ser. Whatever he was doing was pretty clearly not working well enough for him to win the tournament. Not at that time.

Its just odd. If you are going to fly all the way to France to play RG, then you might as well commit to playing either the Italian or the German or Monte Carlo or Geneva while you are in the neighborhood and grab some match play on the dirt. Maybe the great born and raised claycourters can get away without, but they don't often try. I don't understand.

 

[jrepac]

Its just odd. If you are going to fly all the way to France to play RG, then you might as well commit to playing either the Italian or the German or Monte Carlo or Geneva while you are in the neighborhood and grab some match play on the dirt. Maybe the great born and raised claycourters can get away without, but they don't often try. I don't understand.

It is strange, no question. There was at least 1 har tru event prior to RG (WCT at Forest Hills) that he played...where he got trounced by Lendl. I don't recall if there were others stateside; maybe. I was not following as closely in the late 70's. Still, if you are going to France, why not go a little earlier and play Rome or Monte Carlo? I do recall that in '89, he mentioned that he was touring Europe with his wife as he played the various tournaments (and bombed out). Maybe it was all about the tourism.....LOL

 

[WCT]

It is strange, no question. There was at least 1 har tru event prior to RG (WCT at Forest Hills) that he played...where he got trounced by Lendl. I don't recall if there were others stateside; maybe. I was not following as closely in the late 70's. Still, if you are going to France, why not go a little earlier and play Rome or Monte Carlo? I do recall that in '89, he mentioned that he was touring Europe with his wife as he played the various tournaments (and bombed out). Maybe it was all about the tourism.....LOL

Wow, I never knew about the touring Europe with his wife in 89. Maybe that explains his otherwise inexplicable decision, at 36, to play basically the entire Europe spring circuit.

Forest Hills wasn't before RG until 80. Connors played there in 80, but I don't believe 81-83. River Oaks was in the spring on red clay. I know Connors lost to Panatta there in 77. I don't think he played there after.

 

[WCT]

Its just odd. If you are going to fly all the way to France to play RG, then you might as well commit to playing either the Italian or the German or Monte Carlo or Geneva while you are in the neighborhood and grab some match play on the dirt. Maybe the great born and raised claycourters can get away without, but they don't often try. I don't understand.

Connors scheduling did sometimes puzzle. He did do it in 81, 2 warmups. What changed the other years? Beats me.

 

[Musterrific]

Connors scheduling did sometimes puzzle. He did do it in 81, 2 warmups. What changed the other years? Beats me.

Connors has often come across as a mercurial loner.

 

[jrepac]

Connors has often come across as a mercurial loner.

And he liked it that way! But, he did have some friends on the tour, as I understood it. But on the court, all were foes. I find it very interesting that he has a good relationship with Borg, in their senior years. Not so much w/Mac and forget about Ivan.