Jimmy Connors' slow decline

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

So I've been thinking about this for a while, but never seen it discussed elsewhere. The recent thread on Connors/pushing and his dislike of playing guys who didn't give him pace to work with made me think I should throw it open to a wider audience:

Jimbo's decline was famously glacial. After reaching the top 3 at the end of '73, he dropped back down to #4 for a couple of months, then returned to #3 in early '74. Thereafter, aside from four individual weeks in '81 and '84, he remained constantly in the top 3 for eleven years until the end of 1985, when he was 33 years old. At the end of that season the ATP rankings were: Lendl, McEnroe, Wilander, Connors. Even slam champs Edberg (AO) and Becker (W) hadn't overhauled the old geezer. But surely it was only a matter of time, given his age and all the new young emerging talents?

Connors finished #8 in '86, was back up to #4 in '87, down to #7 in '88 (despite his first two tournament wins since '84), and then finally dropped out of the top ten for good in 1989 at the age of 37. Here's his complete ranking graph from UTS:

What I'm wondering is: could he have maintained that top ten ranking throughout the late eighties if the power game hadn't emerged, and given him an ample supply of pace on which to thrive? The wee renaissance he had from '87 to '88 when he returned to the top four... if everyone was still playing with wood does that still happen, or would he have slipped out of the top ten a couple of years earlier than he actually did? Looking at his H2Hs, he dominated many of the younger generation; one of the standouts for me is Slobodan Zivojinovic, the huge-serving Yugoslav against whom he was 5-0 between '85 and '87. Bobo, and many of his ilk, had access to more power than the generation before, and they weren't shy about deploying it either. But that's exactly what old Jimmy wanted.

(Of course Connors did ditch the old Wilson T2000 himself in '86, so he was a beneficiary of the new racquet tech just as his opposition were...)

 

[sandy mayer]

I think if wood had stayed Connors would have been an even bigger threat from 84 to 91. I am sure he would have won more tournaments and been higher ranked. He may even have won more slams. But tennis usually is changing and that is one of the challenges for aging players.

 

[jrepac]

I'm not sure the racket would have made much difference, nor do I think it was about the "power game. He could go toe-to-toe with Becker and Agassi in his mid to late 30's and not get blown away by any stretch. Arguably, he should have won a few of those matches. And he was Edberg's nightmare, quite honestly. In later interviews Connors himself said something to the effect of "it's all in the legs, when the legs go, that's it". To be in the Top 4 at 35yrs old? That's amazing, even if he did not win a GS. It's a relatively short list of players who can say that. Even today, many players retire around 30 or so. I dont' think Fed/Nadal/Djoko are the "new normal"...if anything an aberration. Before Connors, you had Rosewall, who was incredibly getting to multiple GS finals and later winning more tour events. I think when they get older, there are good days and bad days, clearly. The A-game just is not there every day, any longer. Was watching one of Connors last wins vs. Mac at Touluse in '89 awhile back. Shoot, if he played like THAT every day, he would have stayed in the Top 10, easily. I do think that if his wrist had not blown out in '90, he probably would've stayed Top 20 for awhile. I don't think they did "protected" rankings back then, so it was what it was.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

i think Connors had a high enough baselining floor and returning abilities to keep cooking everybody not named Lendl or Wilander, even as his legs and consistency started to go

one thing i wonder is when people would say Connors' prime ended? if i compare to my thoughts on Borg (Boca Raton '77-Wimbly '81) or Rosewall (Paris '61-Wembley '65), i feel like either USO '78 or '79 is a narratively satisfying answer for Connors. tbh i haven't heard much discussion of this kind of thing with clearly defined primes before the big 3 but i think it's a fun storytelling exercise

 

[buscemi]

i think Connors had a high enough baselining floor and returning abilities to keep cooking everybody not named Lendl or Wilander, even as his legs and consistency started to go

one thing i wonder is when people would say Connors' prime ended? if i compare to my thoughts on Borg (Boca Raton '77-Wimbly '81) or Rosewall (Paris '61-Wembley '65), i feel like either USO '78 or '79 is a narratively satisfying answer for Connors. tbh i haven't heard much discussion of this kind of thing with clearly defined primes before the big 3 but i think it's a fun storytelling exercise

Maybe Connors's peak was 1974-1978.

He's then still in his prime from 1979-1984.

Post-1984 is post-prime.

 

[Mustard]

Maybe Connors's peak was 1974-1978.

He's then still in his prime from 1979-1984.

Post-1984 is post-prime.

I think 1982-1984 was a bit of a revival for Connors compared to 1979-1981, and not just because Borg was gone.

 

[jrepac]

I think 1982-1984 was a bit of a revival for Connors compared to 1979-1981, and not just because Borg was gone.

He was at #2 in the world at the end of '84. That's pretty damn near prime (but not peak)
If not for Mac, he probably would have won 1 or 2 slams that season.
Definitely Wimby.
From '85 onwards, the decline, albeit slow, is underway.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

Maybe Connors's peak was 1974-1978.

He's then still in his prime from 1979-1984.

Post-1984 is post-prime.

He was at #2 in the world at the end of '84. That's pretty damn near prime (but not peak)
If not for Mac, he probably would have won 1 or 2 slams that season.
Definitely Wimby.
From '85 onwards, the decline, albeit slow, is underway.

to me, prime for a GOAT tier player implies being the best player in the world for the majority of that time frame, and i don't think Connors was good enough in the '78-84 time frame for it to be included (barring '82).

 

[jrepac]

to me, prime for a GOAT tier player implies being the best player in the world for the majority of that time frame, and i don't think Connors was good enough in the '78-84 time frame for it to be included (barring '82).

well, ironincally, he was not #1 for most of '82, even though he won W and USO. It wasn't until the USO win that he got back to #1. Which he "mostly" held through mid-83, where it traded off a bit between him, Mac and Lendl. I tend to think 74-78 as peak years too, but from 78-84, he was quite potent. Maybe splitting hairs here as to what "prime" really means, I suppose. Top 3 or 4 is pretty prime-ish to me....outside of the top 5, much less so.

 

[WCT]

For me, 1985 is when I thought, he's not the same player anymore. I mean relative to his own standards. He was still in the top 5. He stopped winning tournaments. Made 3 GS semis, but wasn't competitive in any of them.

I would probably agree that 74-78 was his peak.

 

[Mustard]

It's a shame that Connors sprained his ankle just before the 1985 US Open semi final against Lendl. I think Connors might have perhaps won that one, even if Lendl was the favourite.

 

[jrepac]

For me, 1985 is when I thought, he's not the same player anymore. I mean relative to his own standards. He was still in the top 5. He stopped winning tournaments. Made 3 GS semis, but wasn't competitive in any of them.

I would probably agree that 74-78 was his peak.

I would concur. Really expected him to get to the Wimby final.

 

[jrepac]

It's a shame that Connors sprained his ankle just before the 1985 US Open semi final against Lendl. I think Connors might have perhaps won that one, even if Lendl was the favourite.

I don't know...not w/that darn T2000......LOL

 

[WCT]

I have my doubts that, healthy or not, Connors would have won that match. Which, in and of itself, doesn't mean a whole lot. I was convinced that Mcenroe would beat Lendl in the final. After Mcenroe and Lendl were knocked out at Wimbledon, I was convinced that Connors would win the tournament,

 

[jrepac]

I have my doubts that, healthy or not, Connors would have won that match. Which, in and of itself, doesn't mean a whole lot. I was convinced that Mcenroe would beat Lendl in the final. After Mcenroe and Lendl were knocked out at Wimbledon, I was convinced that Connors would win the tournament,

Same here.....

 

[big ted]

connors ranked 4 in '87, but didnt win a tournament of any kind since '84 LOL

 

[kevin qmto]

connors ranked 4 in '87, but didnt win a tournament of any kind since '84 LOL

85-86 were lost years due to him mistakenly going back to the T-2000

 

[sandy mayer]

i think Connors had a high enough baselining floor and returning abilities to keep cooking everybody not named Lendl or Wilander, even as his legs and consistency started to go

one thing i wonder is when people would say Connors' prime ended? if i compare to my thoughts on Borg (Boca Raton '77-Wimbly '81) or Rosewall (Paris '61-Wembley '65), i feel like either USO '78 or '79 is a narratively satisfying answer for Connors. tbh i haven't heard much discussion of this kind of thing with clearly defined primes before the big 3 but i think it's a fun storytelling exercise

This is complex. In 74 Connors had one of his peak years but then in 75 he dropped a bit, by his own admission. Then I would say 76-78 were peak years. I know he didn't win a slam in 77 but he was very close to beating a great Borg at Wimbledon. And his loss to Vilas at Forest Hills I tend to give credit to Vilas here. Vilas was having the best year of his life and was so formidable on any form of clay. If the final was on hard court I am very confident that Connors would have taken it. 77 was a year when Vilas, Borg and Connors were all playing great tennis. In 79-81 Connors was not quite as good. He had occasional great moments but Borg was his nemesis. I think in 82 Connors had another peak year. Bud Collins said he thought Connors was better than ever. In beating Mac and Lendl in 2 slam finals he had two of his best ever wins. 83 was a slightly strange year. Connors played great tennis but not as often as 82. Maskell said his play in Queen's was among the best tennis he ever saw. Obviously the win at Flushing Meadows made it a great year. Then in 84 Connors played very well but I wouldn't call it a peak year. He was too dominated by Mac. I don't think a peak Connors with a graphite racket would have been thrashed at Wimbledon, Queen's and Roland Garros. I would say the close loss to Lendl in the 84 Masters saw the end of Connors as a player who was likely to win a slam. He got to 6 slam semis after 84 but didn't win a single set. He became a very good player rather than a great player in his last years.

 

[Drob]

well, ironincally, he was not #1 for most of '82, even though he won W and USO. It wasn't until the USO win that he got back to #1. Which he "mostly" held through mid-83, where it traded off a bit between him, Mac and Lendl. I tend to think 74-78 as peak years too, but from 78-84, he was quite potent. Maybe splitting hairs here as to what "prime" really means, I suppose. Top 3 or 4 is pretty prime-ish to me....outside of the top 5, much less so.

i always count Connors as No. 1 for '82 as does practically every student of history, despite Mac was official No. 1 on points, correct?

But if you factor in Mac's unsurpassed (in history) 1982 Davis Cup campaign ? ? ? ?

is it certain ? ? ?

 

[Drob]

This is complex. In 74 Connors had one of his peak years but then in 75 he dropped a bit, by his own admission. Then I would say 76-78 were peak years. I know he didn't win a slam in 77 but he was very close to beating a great Borg at Wimbledon. And his loss to Vilas at Forest Hills I tend to give credit to Vilas here. Vilas was having the best year of his life and was so formidable on any form of clay. If the final was on hard court I am very confident that Connors would have taken it. 77 was a year when Vilas, Borg and Connors were all playing great tennis. In 79-81 Connors was not quite as good. He had occasional great moments but Borg was his nemesis. I think in 82 Connors had another peak year. Bud Collins said he thought Connors was better than ever. In beating Mc and Lendl in 2 slam finals he had two of his best ever wins. 83 was a slightly strange year. Connors played great tennis but not as often as 82. Maskell said his play in Queen's was among the best tennis he ever saw. Obviously the win at Flushing Meadows made it a great year. Then in 84 Connors played very well but I wouldn't call it a peak year. He was too dominated by Mac. I don't think a peak Connors with a graphite racket would have been thrashed at Wimbledon, Queen's and Roland Garros. I would say the close loss to Lendl in the 84 Masters saw the end of Connors as a player who was likely to win a slam. He got to 6 slam semis after 84 but didn't win a single set. He became a very good player rather than a great player in his last years.

nicely put

 

[CyBorg]

What I'm wondering is: could he have maintained that top ten ranking throughout the late eighties if the power game hadn't emerged, and given him an ample supply of pace on which to thrive?

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. That Connors liked pace and that the power game didn't provide pace? This doesn't make sense.

Jimmy's biggest problem was his serving, which was never great but in an evolving tour that increasingly emphasized power it was becoming a glaring problem. Simply put, Jimmy didn't get easy points and was swimming against the tide in a time of bigger serves, bigger forehands, bigger spin. Those who could shorten points with the occasional ace and big passing shot held the advantage (Pete being the best at this). It's actually amazing Connors was successful despite putting himself in the position of having to win long rallies all the time.

 

[Gizo]

I’d say that Connors was still in his prime in 1984 (of course a ‘prime’ is different and more wide-encompassing than a ‘peak’) - alongside reaching the business end at all the biggest events that year, he was also winning plenty of titles, notably Tokyo beating Lendl in the final.

From 1985 he was definitely past his prime. Of course him switching back to his T2000 in early 1985, after getting asked in nearly every interview why he was struggling with his graphite ProStaff racket which understandably annoyed him, really stood out.

The fact that his ‘prime’ lasted for so long, and that he had so many deep runs in majors and impressive wins overall, such as ruthlessly destroying Edberg at the 1989 US Open, after his prime, was of course hugely impressive.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. That Connors liked pace and that the power game didn't provide pace? This doesn't make sense.

No, the opposite. Connors liked pace and the power game did provide it. Hence the question: was his very slow decline in the late '80s influenced by his new, young opposition playing exactly the kind of tennis he enjoyed facing?


As for Connors' peak/prime, in terms of accomplishments it's obviously '74-'78. Twelve slams played, eleven finals reached, five won; then in the next three years it drops off with eight SFs in nine attempts, but no finals at all. However, I suspect Jimmy himself was playing at the same level as previous years, it was simply that his biggest rivals had pushed the bar a little higher. When Borg stepped away from the slams and McEnroe consequently lost a little focus, that bar slipped back down to the level where JC could win slams again.

I guess it depends on whether you define peak as a player's level in isolation, or whether you also include his results and that of his rivals.

 

[CyBorg]

No, the opposite. Connors liked pace and the power game did provide it. Hence the question: was his very slow decline in the late '80s influenced by his new, young opposition playing exactly the kind of tennis he enjoyed facing?

Connors at times struggled when he was fed junk by his opponents (edit: to his forehand in particular). But this happened when he was younger (e.g., Ashe, Orantes) and when he was older (famously Lendl in many of their matchups).

You're mixing things up here. Junkballing always existed, but it was never the predominant style.