Lendl vs. Connors?

[BGod]

I think this comparison is one of the hardest in tennis history to be honest. As both were clear legends and the standard bearers for their eras, playing a lot of secondary tournaments and having a thick field of competition. Connors had the longer career but he only had two additional seasons of YE Top 3 (12 to 10).

Both won 3 of the 4 Slams and I guess the big difference in terms of attendance was Connors largely skipping AO and being banned from FO then skipping for several of his prime years whereas Lendl had his fill so to speak. And it's fitting they are so incredibly close in total weeks at #1 at 268-270.

For best 3 seasons I think with Connors it's 74, 78 and 82 while Lendl is fairly clear 86-87 and then between 85 or 89.

The other aspect is we can both look at greatness and being better as in many other cases comparing legends we get to these arguments of Player A had the better career but Player B was better prime, yatta, yatta.

It's hard for me personally as I change from time to time but as of today I would go Lendl as I feel he did have a deeper field to deal in draws whereas Connors had the harder top flight opponents in Borg & McEnroe. All else is pretty well the same.

 

[bigbadboaz]

I think over time Lendl has come to be perceived as more dominant at his peak and a more intimidating opponent. The US Open run and his persona at that time would seem to be the main reasons for that.

I was very young then and Connors was already well over the hill. For that reason I can't give any more detailed analysis.

 

[muddlehead]

This is a tough one. I give the nod, reluctantly. to Connors because, at least un the US, he WAS tennis for so long. (not to me). If they're equal in ability etc ..., legacy factory tilts heavily to the jerk.

 

[OldGuy]

By the numbers, Connors had the better career overall, but I'd say that Lendl became a better player -- more versatile, tactically smarter, and without any real weaknesses. Connors was kind of a strange phenomenon. In the '75 Wimbledon final Ashe exposed Connors' great weakness -- he imploded against opponents who wouldn't feed him pace (and who could handle his pace). At the same time, he had an almost uncanny ability to lure opponents into playing to his strengths. So it took tremendous discipline and focus to keep him from imposing his style on the match a la Borg, or the touch to neutralize his pace a la McEnroe (or Nastase, or Ashe in '75). Lendl came along, and for the first few years he couldn't help himself and would get out-gunned by Connors. Then he adapted, and Connors couldn't beat him anymore. Age was a factor in this, but having watched a lot of tennis at the time, I think it was more that Connors never adjusted and kept stubbornly flailing away. Sticking with the T-2000 (a terrible racket for serving or topspin) didn't help either. I suspect that the OCD he talks about in his autobiography is probably what prevented him from changing -- psychologically, he couldn't do it; his playing style was itself a compulsion.

 

[big ted]

being american id go with connors for his 5 USO and 2 W... the FO isnt as big to me personally.. its a specialized surface that favors specialized players

 

[Mustard]

Jimmy Connors.

 

[LOBALOT]

I would pick Connors due to his longevity/consistency over the period. To me he was one of the best. I don't care much for the guy from a personality perspective but then again the Lendl certainly couldn't be called a "fan favorite" either.

 

[jrepac]

By the numbers, Connors had the better career overall, but I'd say that Lendl became a better player -- more versatile, tactically smarter, and without any real weaknesses. Connors was kind of a strange phenomenon. In the '75 Wimbledon final Ashe exposed Connors' great weakness -- he imploded against opponents who wouldn't feed him pace (and who could handle his pace). At the same time, he had an almost uncanny ability to lure opponents into playing to his strengths. So it took tremendous discipline and focus to keep him from imposing his style on the match a la Borg, or the touch to neutralize his pace a la McEnroe (or Nastase, or Ashe in '75). Lendl came along, and for the first few years he couldn't help himself and would get out-gunned by Connors. Then he adapted, and Connors couldn't beat him anymore. Age was a factor in this, but having watched a lot of tennis at the time, I think it was more that Connors never adjusted and kept stubbornly flailing away. Sticking with the T-2000 (a terrible racket for serving or topspin) didn't help either. I suspect that the OCD he talks about in his autobiography is probably what prevented him from changing -- psychologically, he couldn't do it; his playing style was itself a compulsion.

This is it in a nutshell. It was not exactly easy to 'play to Connors' weakness' as it wasn't all that weak to begin with. Ashe got it perfectly. Connors was pretty good at controlling the play and his return kept his opponents on defense. The other thing is that their peak years really did not intersect, at all. Older Connors got the better of young Lendl at the big events. Lendl did learn to adapt, Connors got older (even if he did update his racquet), etc, etc. Early matches featured a LOT of hard hitting, perhaps a bit less once Ivan got that 'slice and dice' down pat. But overall career, I always tip to Connors given the mix of GS titles and near equal # of weeks at #1 and somewhat more titles (tho if you include non-ATP, they are equal there). Also, the original poster should have included 1976 as that was a pretty sweet year as well for Connors, knocking off Borg at the USO, on clay, of all things.

 

[jrepac]

I think over time Lendl has come to be perceived as more dominant at his peak and a more intimidating opponent. The US Open run and his persona at that time would seem to be the main reasons for that.

I was very young then and Connors was already well over the hill. For that reason I can't give any more detailed analysis.

Connors was pretty intimidating in his youth, pre-Bjorn's rise in the game. Plus the guy was dominant, in top 4 through '85, so he was a pretty tough guy to knock down/out. Getting past him, and then perhaps a Mac or Bjorn, was damn difficult. Took Lendl until '85 to beat them both, back to back in a GS event. No small feat.

 

[Kralingen]

Lendl

 

[medieval_remnant]

so thankful for their two US Open finals in 1982 and 1983, the years I began watching/playing tennis

 

[jrepac]

so thankful for their two US Open finals in 1982 and 1983, the years I began watching/playing tennis

1982 was the year I really got hooked on watching tennis, having rather casually watched the W finals in '79-81, which were interesting but I was not fully drawn into fandom, just yet. The Connors "comeback' in '82 was really exciting....no one expected it at Wimby, and then he goes and snags the USO over Lendl. It was quite the accomplishment from someone who was "written off". Say what you will about the guy, but he brought an energy to the game that came right through the TV. Those USO wins over Lendl in '82 and '83 have to be respected since 1) he is not a young man anymore and 2) Lendl was kicking his butt at the smaller events leading up to USO.

 

[jorjipy]

5 USO + 2W…..

 

[TheFifthSet]

By the numbers, Connors had the better career overall, but I'd say that Lendl became a better player -- more versatile, tactically smarter, and without any real weaknesses. Connors was kind of a strange phenomenon. In the '75 Wimbledon final Ashe exposed Connors' great weakness -- he imploded against opponents who wouldn't feed him pace (and who could handle his pace). At the same time, he had an almost uncanny ability to lure opponents into playing to his strengths. So it took tremendous discipline and focus to keep him from imposing his style on the match a la Borg, or the touch to neutralize his pace a la McEnroe (or Nastase, or Ashe in '75). Lendl came along, and for the first few years he couldn't help himself and would get out-gunned by Connors. Then he adapted, and Connors couldn't beat him anymore. Age was a factor in this, but having watched a lot of tennis at the time, I think it was more that Connors never adjusted and kept stubbornly flailing away. Sticking with the T-2000 (a terrible racket for serving or topspin) didn't help either. I suspect that the OCD he talks about in his autobiography is probably what prevented him from changing -- psychologically, he couldn't do it; his playing style was itself a compulsion.

Great post.

lefties and OCD, name a more iconic duo

 

[jrepac]

Great post.

lefties and OCD, name a more iconic duo

wonder if Mac has an OCD streak in him?

 

[medieval_remnant]

1982 was the year I really got hooked on watching tennis, having rather casually watched the W finals in '79-81, which were interesting but I was not fully drawn into fandom, just yet. The Connors "comeback' in '82 was really exciting....no one expected it at Wimby, and then he goes and snags the USO over Lendl. It was quite the accomplishment from someone who was "written off". Say what you will about the guy, but he brought an energy to the game that came right through the TV. Those USO wins over Lendl in '82 and '83 have to be respected since 1) he is not a young man anymore and 2) Lendl was kicking his butt at the smaller events leading up to USO.

youtude has two great McEnroe/Connors finals at Queens in 1982 and 1983

 

[hoodjem]

Lendl . . . by a nose.

 

[jrepac]

youtude has two great McEnroe/Connors finals at Queens in 1982 and 1983

those were also impressive wins over a guy who was supposed to be #1 on grass
Jimmy is very underestimated on grass, likely due to Borg's dominance
But Mac in his book acknowledged that if he was not 100% movement wise, he'd be in danger vs. Connors.
He had a mild ankle injury in '82 and that affected him just enough to get him into trouble

 

[AceyMan]

Connors career titles figure is a record that won't be broken.

Sure, Lendl defined the modern game, but his abysmal record in major finals is shocking for a guy regarded as being an unflappable machine; he wasn't, really, when you look at the numbers.

And if Jimbo made use of better equipment when he could have I think he'd have had an even better win percentage against Lendl and the other NextGens towards the end of his run.

 

[BGod]

1982 was the year I really got hooked on watching tennis, having rather casually watched the W finals in '79-81, which were interesting but I was not fully drawn into fandom, just yet. The Connors "comeback' in '82 was really exciting....no one expected it at Wimby, and then he goes and snags the USO over Lendl. It was quite the accomplishment from someone who was "written off". Say what you will about the guy, but he brought an energy to the game that came right through the TV. Those USO wins over Lendl in '82 and '83 have to be respected since 1) he is not a young man anymore and 2) Lendl was kicking his butt at the smaller events leading up to USO.

And like Fed, Connors handicapping himself with inferior equipment. Him switching to PS85 for USO 84 shows how much he was holding himself back. But that's a hard hypothetical.

 

[jrepac]

And like Fed, Connors handicapping himself with inferior equipment. Him switching to PS85 for USO 84 shows how much he was holding himself back. But that's a hard hypothetical.

he was very stubborn re: switching frames. He went back to the T2000 in '85 and '86, which felt like a mistake. I recall him saying that he felt he had less control w/the PS85. He had a few bad losses with it and I suppose he lost confidence. I think he was the only pro who could effectively use the T2000. He finally made the break in '87, switching to modern Slazenger frames, in part because finding T2000 frames was proving impossible.

 

[jrepac]

Connors career titles figure is a record that won't be broken.

Sure, Lendl defined the modern game, but his abysmal record in major finals is shocking for a guy regarded as being an unflappable machine; he wasn't, really, when you look at the numbers.

And if Jimbo made use of better equipment when he could have I think he'd have had an even better win percentage against Lendl and the other NextGens towards the end of his run.

People recall where Lendl wound up, not where he began. He was quite shaky in the GS events until he had his breakthrough in '84/'85. Had a very poor reputation until then.

 

[OldGuy]

he was very stubborn re: switching frames. He went back to the T2000 in '85 and '86, which felt like a mistake. I recall him saying that he felt he had less control w/the PS85. He had a few bad losses with it and I suppose he lost confidence. I think he was the only pro who could effectively use the T2000. He finally made the break in '87, switching to modern Slazenger frames, in part because finding T2000 frames was proving impossible.

I remember that interval when he used the PS. I have a dim memory of him seeming to hit better and serve harder with it, and it being hard to understand why he switched back. My father started using the T2000 when it first came out ca. 68, and stuck with it until his last one broke and he couldn't get another in the early 80s. He hit very hard and flat, and could crush his serve, but he was really wild and would throw away entire sets with out shots and double faults. When he switched to graphite and instantly was able to control the ball, it finally became obvious how much of his wildness was the T2000. I would periodically try it, and was completely hopeless with it. Couldn't put a ball in the court with it, and it felt like my arm would fall off. I really don't know how Connors was able to hit with that thing.

 

[jrepac]

I remember that interval when he used the PS. I have a dim memory of him seeming to hit better and serve harder with it, and it being hard to understand why he switched back. My father started using the T2000 when it first came out ca. 68, and stuck with it until his last one broke and he couldn't get another in the early 80s. He hit very hard and flat, and could crush his serve, but he was really wild and would throw away entire sets with out shots and double faults. When he switched to graphite and instantly was able to control the ball, it finally became obvious how much of his wildness was the T2000. I would periodically try it, and was completely hopeless with it. Couldn't put a ball in the court with it, and it felt like my arm would fall off. I really don't know how Connors was able to hit with that thing.

The T was unusual. I was able to find one in the early 80's and bought it on a lark. It actually was quite powerful, if and when you hit in the sweet spot. And, as you say, weighed a ton. Only one guy could truly master it!

 

[barone]

1982 was the year I really got hooked on watching tennis, having rather casually watched the W finals in '79-81, which were interesting but I was not fully drawn into fandom, just yet. The Connors "comeback' in '82 was really exciting....no one expected it at Wimby, and then he goes and snags the USO over Lendl. It was quite the accomplishment from someone who was "written off". Say what you will about the guy, but he brought an energy to the game that came right through the TV. Those USO wins over Lendl in '82 and '83 have to be respected since 1) he is not a young man anymore and 2) Lendl was kicking his butt at the smaller events leading up to USO.

That comeback he can thank Borg for

 

[travlerajm]

People recall where Lendl wound up, not where he began. He was quite shaky in the GS events until he had his breakthrough in '84/'85. Had a very poor reputation until then.

Not unlike Djokovic pre 2011.

 

[suwanee4712]

Lendl has so many impressive records. To have reached so many major finals is great, but his record in those finals takes away from that fact. For that reason I would go with Connors.

I will add that had Connors respected all 4 majors more, he would have won at least a few more than he did. But I'm sure he's not losing any sleep over it. Nor should he.

 

[Roubaixcomp]

Connors by a mile. Much more versatile as he won on all surfaces. Also was winning Majors while Borg Mcenroe were around winning. Lendl only started winning regularly after mcenroe declined and borg had retired. Also Connors had 2 wimbledons which back then was the biggest event by a distance. Lendl never did.

 

[Tshooter]

This seems to be a very popular topic because it keeps returning in the TTW rotation.

Connors but Lendl has a bigger belly.

 

[Otacon]

Lendl had more impact on the game than Connors.

 

[Tshooter]

Lendl had more impact on the game than Connors.

I assume you are referring to players training in a more "professional manner" or some think Lendl had some big impact on strokes but as far as impact on the game, Connors played a huge role in popularizing tennis in the US in the 70s when it had it biggest growth spurt. Lendl had zero impact on the tennis zeitgeist.

 

[Otacon]

I assume you are referring to players training in a more "professional manner" or some think Lendl had some big impact on strokes but as far as impact on the game, Connors played a huge role in popularizing tennis in the US in the 70s when it had it biggest growth spurt. Lendl had zero impact on the tennis zeitgeist.

Not everything revolves around the popularity of tennis in the US. Lendl is the player who brought the sport into the modern era, and that is why he is more significant than Connors in the history of the game.

 

[Tshooter]

Not everything revolves around the popularity of tennis in the US. Lendl is the player who brought the sport into the modern era, and that is why he is more significant than Connors in the history of the game.

Tell me you weren’t born when Connors was in his prime w/o telling me. I don’t think you ever saw Lendl play either.

 

[Otacon]

Tell me you weren’t born when Connors was in his prime w/o telling me. I don’t think you ever saw Lendl play either.

I am old enough not to get caught up in a spiral of ad hominem attacks.

 

[jrepac]

Lendl had more impact on the game than Connors.

Um, no way man.
Not in the US at least.
And Lendl did not usher in the "power" baseline game.
Connors beat him there by nearly a decade.
The 'modern' era really started in the 70's as Open Tennis really took hold.
With a ton of marketing and new, dynamic players (men and women)
And tremendous rivalries.
And tennis groupies!
It was a very big boom in the US from about '74-'85 and then the Germans kind of took it over.
Connors was a big part of that, especially in 'democratizing" the perception of tennis, moving it from the ivory towers into the concrete colosseums!
From a badminton or fencing mentality to one that was more akin to football or boxing (or rugby)

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

Great post.

lefties and OCD, name a more iconic duo

wonder if Mac has an OCD streak in him?

He used to avoid stepping on the tramlines at changeovers, if I recall. [Source 1][Source 2]

Also, probably the most (in)famous OCD player of all, Art "Tappy" Larsen, was a leftie.

 

[jrepac]

I assume you are referring to players training in a more "professional manner" or some think Lendl had some big impact on strokes but as far as impact on the game, Connors played a huge role in popularizing tennis in the US in the 70s when it had it biggest growth spurt. Lendl had zero impact on the tennis zeitgeist.

Perhaps one needed to be alive in that era and actually see it first hand. Youngsters don't quite get it. Sure, Lendl had a 'modern' heavy, hard hitting topspin game. And he shifted to modern training techniques, diet, etc., before Djoko ever showed up (as did Martina). But Lendl did not impact the game the way Borg, Connors and Mac did. No way, no how. Interestingly, someone also pointed out to me that Margaret Court may have preceded all of them when it came to training...she lifted weights, did stuff men did, etc. And, she hit a pretty hard ball, from what I've seen. I suppose it's all relative!

 

[jrepac]

This seems to be a very popular topic because it keeps returning in the TTW rotation.

Connors but Lendl has a bigger belly.

yes, it will be debated after we are all dead and buried.
Jimmy has remained very fit.
However, Lendl should get a bit of a pass due to his bad back....which is what really drove him out of the game.
He couldn't even play seniors very well....and he tried.

 

[big ted]

on one hand i can see how lendl shaped the tour with his power topspin hitting, big serve and forehand, fitness regime, diet, etc...
but on the other hand ive never really heard a newer player mentioning him as inspiration, someone they watched, father of modern tennis, etc...

 

[eldanger25]

This seems to be a very popular topic because it keeps returning in the TTW rotation.

Indeed. I do think there is a small but real gap between them in Connors's favor, but rather than focusing on that small distance, I'd rather make the larger point that both men are and have been truly underrated/underappreciated. There is plenty of room to celebrate both of them in tennis history rather than pitting them against each other (not meant as a shot at the original poster, it is a very interesting debate notwithstanding the 8 year age gap).

What is fascinating to me about them is that there is almost an invisible dividing line b/w them - Connors was really the last "touring" pro, infused with the outlaw spirit of the pre-Open Era touring professionals who followed the money, trotted the globe, tour-hopped frequently, and gave not a rip for the bureaucrats slowly taking over the sport (perhaps not least because the two Panchos were his first mentors), and Lendl was the first "ATP" pro, who systematized his training and scheduling regimen and was the first Open Era guy (with his peer Wilander) to reliably attend all four traditional "majors" year after year, and thus helped in the formation of the current ATP/ITF power structure over the sport (which was not at all a guaranteed outcome through the first 15 years or so of the Open Era).

 

[Quaichang]

Connors by a mile. Much more versatile as he won on all surfaces. Also was winning Majors while Borg Mcenroe were around winning. Lendl only started winning regularly after mcenroe declined and borg had retired. Also Connors had 2 wimbledons which back then was the biggest event by a distance. Lendl never did.

Lendl had the tougher competition. In addition to Mac Lendl had to deal Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and later Agassi and Sampras all future HOFs.

 

[Tshooter]

Lendl had the tougher competition. In addition to Mac Lendl had to deal Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and later Agassi and Sampras all future HOFs.

Good point. Still, Connors > Lendl.

 

[jrepac]

Lendl had the tougher competition. In addition to Mac Lendl had to deal Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and later Agassi and Sampras all future HOFs.

Well it's fair to say that Lendl had very stiff competition...I've cited that many times as why he did not win W. But I'm not sure that makes him better than Connors. He lost a lot of important matches to 2 generations of GOATs...from the Borg era thru early Sampras

 

[Roubaixcomp]

Lendl had the tougher competition. In addition to Mac Lendl had to deal Wilander, Becker, Edberg, and later Agassi and Sampras all future HOFs.

That is subjective. Reality is Lendl could not break through Borg Mcenroe and connors at the Majors until they passed their peak.

 

[Pheasant]

Lendl was late to the game joining his peak. He used to get tired during matches. He got so sick of running out of gas during key matches, that he went to the doctor. The doctor immediately found out that he his cholesterol was sky high. Lendl fixed that at the end of 1984. This is actually quite similar to what Djokovic did in 2010. As a result, Lendl versus 2 arrived 1985, which sucked for us McEnroe fans. Actually, it sucked for the entire ATP tour until injuries wrecked him for good.

From 1985-87, Lendl put up a ridiculous 34-7 record vs the top 5. And he often crushed his opponents in straight sets. He was the terminator for that brief period of time. His career reminds me a lot of Djokovic’s; a very good player who became a terminator once he fixed his diet.

Here are some of his incredible records:
7 straight wins vs world #1.
9 straight finals at the year-end tourney.
8 straight USO finals
66 straight wins on carpet.

His 7 straight wins vs world #1 is perhaps his greatest record. Why? Because this happened when he was not in his prime and when he wasn’t busy spending 270 weeks at #1.

I saw this guy play a lot. He’s a tier 1 ATG in my book. Granted, his true peak didn’t last long. But when he was there, he was devastating.

And this guy got to the point. Players today always give fluff answers during interviews. They avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. Lendl was once asked about his prediction of playing McEnroe. I won’t forget this, because it’s one reason I hated him back then. He said, and I will paraphrase. “He cannot beat me. He doesn’t have the pace on his shots or the speed and stamina to keep up with me.”

Lendl and Djokovic are the only 2 players that I could find that managed 30+ wins over top 5 opponents in a 3 calendar year span. This is dominance of top opponents. Lendl was 34-7 and Djoker was 31-10; two insane runs.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Ivan choked endless slam finals, including losing to old Jimbo in the 1982 and 1983 USO finals. There was absolutely no excuse for either of those collapses. Lendl was 8-11 in slam finals and Connors was 8-7. I think Connors is slightly ahead of Ivan in career legacy.

 

[Quaichang]

That is subjective. Reality is Lendl could not break through Borg Mcenroe and connors at the Majors until they passed their peak.

Mac was at his peak in 84 when Lendl beat him at RG. Their careers pretty much when in opposite directions after 84 with Lendl going on to win 7 more majors and 0 for Mac.

 

[President]

Ivan choked endless slam finals, including losing to old Jimbo in the 1982 and 1983 USO finals. There was absolutely no excuse for either of those collapses. Lendl was 8-11 in slam finals and Connors was 8-7. I think Connors is slightly ahead of Ivan in career legacy.

Lendl has 4 more slam finals than Connors. By your logic, losing before the final is better than making it to the final at all.

 

[jrepac]

His 7 straight wins vs world #1 is perhaps his greatest record. Why? Because this happened when he was not in his prime and when he wasn’t busy spending 270 weeks at #1.

I saw this guy play a lot. He’s a tier 1 ATG in my book. Granted, his true peak didn’t last long. But when he was there, he was devastating.

And this guy got to the point. Players today always give fluff answers during interviews. They avoid hurting anyone’s feelings. Lendl was once asked about his prediction of playing McEnroe. I won’t forget this, because it’s one reason I hated him back then. He said, and I will paraphrase. “He cannot beat me. He doesn’t have the pace on his shots or the speed and stamina to keep up with me.”

Is Mac your World#1 here? Or was it any #1 at that time?
Lendl made comments like that to agitate McEnroe
Which after 1985, I think were mostly true.
Lendl was truly great for 3 years....but before that, as others have pointed out, he could not break through.
Borg left, Connors got old, Mac went mental.....all of which made it even easier for Lendl to ascend

 

[jrepac]

Ivan choked endless slam finals, including losing to old Jimbo in the 1982 and 1983 USO finals. There was absolutely no excuse for either of those collapses. Lendl was 8-11 in slam finals and Connors was 8-7. I think Connors is slightly ahead of Ivan in career legacy.

I don't feel he collapsed in '82; Connors outplayed him.
'83 was a little different; he gagged when he had a chance to pull ahead (the infamous double fault in the 3rd set)
But even then, Connors really turned up the heat with a barrage of winners down the stretch.
I watched the '83 match again not so long ago and felt that Ivan just hit the wall while Connors found a second wind.
Interestingly, their '84 match at W was not all that different. Down the stretch, Ivan wilted.
That did not happen in 85-87

JR