Match Stats - Lendl/Connors Forest Hills 1984

[Waspsting]

Ivan Lendl beat Jimmy Connors 6-0 6-0, semi-final Forest Hills 1984 on har-tru/green clay surface

(note: I'm missing 3 points on Lendl's serve. 2 were aces - almost certainly of first serves, which I've included in the aces and first serve percentage stats. The remaining point led to a rally that ended with Lendl netting an error - I have not included this in the forced/unforced error or serving percentage stats.

There is a discrepancy of 1 point from total points on some breakdowns due to this one point and a greater discrepancy in other breakdowns for the two aces)

Lendl won 51 points, Connors 16

Service Stats
Lendl
- first serve percentage 52% (16/31)
- first serve points won 88% (14/16)
- second serve points won 73% (11/15)
- 9 aces, 0 double faults
- 5 other unreturned serves (no service winners in my judgment)
- total unreturned serve percentage 44% (14/32)


Connors
- first serve percentage 86% (30/35)
- first serve points won 23% (7/30)
- second serve points won 40% (2/5)
- 0 aces, 0 double faults
- 2 unreturned serves (1 service winner in my judgment)
- total unreturned serve percentage 6% (2/35)


Serving Patterns
Lendl served
- 59% to the forehand
- 34% to the backhand
- 6% to the body
-----
- 52% down the T
- 41% out Wide
- 6% at the body


Connors served
- 34% to the forehand
- 60% to the backhand
- 6% to the body
----
- 31% down the T
- 63% out Wide
- 6% at the body


Break Points
Lendl.... 6/10
Connors 0/1 (the lone chance wiped out with an Ace down the T)


Net Points
Lendl.... was 3/3, including 1/1 on Serve-Volley
Connors was 9/19, including 1/2 on Serve-Volley


Play (Winners) (all numbers excluding aces, service winners)
Lendl..... had 9 winners (3 FH, 5 BH, 1 BHV)
Connors had 5 winners (2 BH, 1 FHV, 2 OH)

Connors had the only baseline-to-baseline winner - a crushing crosscourt backhand. His other backhand winner was a drop shot

Lendl's -
- 5 backhand winners were all passing shots, and all of them were Down The Line (1 can be called slightly inside-out, but essentially DTL)

- 3 forehand winners comprise two lobs and a net point where he ran down a drop shot

- sole volley winner was off his sole serve-volley effort, a neat backhand crosscourt after pulling Connors wide with the serve. This point took place as Lendl was serving for the match


Play (Forced & Unforced Errors)
By my judgment,

Lendl..... made 5 forced errors (1 FH, 4 BH) and 2 Unforced errors (2 FH)
Connors made 3 forced errors (1 FH, 2 BH) and 24 Unforced errors (16 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV)

(There were no return of service winners and all errors stats excludes return data)

Stats Summary
The key stats in my opinion are -

- Connors' unforced errors, a whopping 24 (including 16 of the forehand)

- Lendl's return, getting back all but 2 serves, despite Connors' extremely high first serve percentage

- Lendl's big first serve - he sent down 9 aces from 16 first serves as well as elicited return errors with it

 

[Waspsting]

Match Report

Probably the biggest crushing an All-Time Great has ever been on the receiving end of. What happened?

Lendl seemed to have come in with the mentality that he was going to play safe and solid. He executed this in spades, but was never pushed. Connors was unable to force a more edgy dynamic though he tried... credit goes here to Lendl for neutering Connors' attempts at aggression. He did it so smoothly you might not notice how well - albeit passively - he was playing from the back of the court

He served very well. The aces came down at an impressive rate and he painted the lines with them

I think he returned deceptively well too. Granted, even Connors' first serve doesn't look like much, but Lendl took it and neutralized the point with the return without any apparent strain

Beyond that, Lendl was happy to stay in the middle of the baseline and hit up and down. Rarely did he unload with the forehand or try to open the court up. On the backhand, he mostly sliced, taking all the power out of the point. When he did have to move though, he moved quickly and easily to retrieve Connors' attempts to liven the pace

Connors for his part started sluggishly. Its not like he was spraying unforced errors right, left and center... most of the time, the baseline rallies were going for quite awhile before he made the unforced error - usually on the forehand side

With Lendl serving so well, he couldn't do much against the first serve... but I thought he could have done more in going after the second. I wouldn't say he made inroads in even trying to attack the second serve.

Connors did try mixing it up. Who blinks first type baseline rallies, trying to be take the initiative from the baseline and even moonballing... Lendl was just too solid

In the second set, Connors played more aggressively and attacked the net. With a reasonable amount of success, as the stats show - winning about half his ventures to the forecourt

Still, it was desperation stuff. A couple of lobs and a number of rasping drive backhands sailed passed him, and he made a couple of volleying errors. And that of course, is only when he was able to find a way to net... otherwise, while more aggressive of intent than he had been in the first set, he was still coming off a distant second best from the back of the court

In the second set, his errors were mostly netting attempted aggressive baseline shots
In the first set by contrast, most of his errors were going long in longer, neutral rallies

Summing Up

Lendl played an immaculate match from the baseline... outlasting his opponent when they rallied neutrally and neutralizing any attempts to force the pace. He served excellently and returned surely

Connors, unable to get any advantage with his serve, was forced to make the play from the baseline against the Czech Wall... and was found wanting. I think he could have done more with his returns but seeing how his attempts to force the pace in baseline situations went, it probably wouldn't have made much difference

 

[Pebbles10]

The strange about connors that he never won a match against Wilander

 

[KG1965]

Ivan Lendl beat Jimmy Connors 6-0 6-0, semi-final Forest Hills 1984 on har-tru/green clay surface

(note: I'm missing 3 points on Lendl's serve. 2 were aces - almost certainly of first serves, which I've included in the aces and first serve percentage stats. The remaining point led to a rally that ended with Lendl netting an error - I have not included this in the forced/unforced error or serving percentage stats.

There is a discrepancy of 1 point from total points on some breakdowns due to this one point and a greater discrepancy in other breakdowns for the two aces)

Lendl won 51 points, Connors 16

Service Stats
Lendl
- first serve percentage 52% (16/31)
- first serve points won 88% (14/16)
- second serve points won 73% (11/15)
- 9 aces, 0 double faults
- 5 other unreturned serves (no service winners in my judgment)
- total unreturned serve percentage 44% (14/32)


Connors
- first serve percentage 86% (30/35)
- first serve points won 23% (7/30)
- second serve points won 40% (2/5)
- 0 aces, 0 double faults
- 2 unreturned serves (1 service winner in my judgment)
- total unreturned serve percentage 6% (2/35)


Serving Patterns
Lendl served
- 59% to the forehand
- 34% to the backhand
- 6% to the body
-----
- 52% down the T
- 41% out Wide
- 6% at the body


Connors served
- 34% to the forehand
- 60% to the backhand
- 6% to the body
----
- 31% down the T
- 63% out Wide
- 6% at the body


Break Points
Lendl.... 6/10
Connors 0/1 (the lone chance wiped out with an Ace down the T)


Net Points
Lendl.... was 3/3, including 1/1 on Serve-Volley
Connors was 9/19, including 1/2 on Serve-Volley


Play (Winners) (all numbers excluding aces, service winners)
Lendl..... had 9 winners (3 FH, 5 BH, 1 BHV)
Connors had 5 winners (2 BH, 1 FHV, 2 OH)

Connors had the only baseline-to-baseline winner - a crushing crosscourt backhand. His other backhand winner was a drop shot

Lendl's -
- 5 backhand winners were all passing shots, and all of them were Down The Line (1 can be called slightly inside-out, but essentially DTL)

- 3 forehand winners comprise two lobs and a net point where he ran down a drop shot

- sole volley winner was off his sole serve-volley effort, a neat backhand crosscourt after pulling Connors wide with the serve. This point took place as Lendl was serving for the match


Play (Forced & Unforced Errors)
By my judgment,

Lendl..... made 5 forced errors (1 FH, 4 BH) and 2 Unforced errors (2 FH)
Connors made 3 forced errors (1 FH, 2 BH) and 24 Unforced errors (16 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV)

(There were no return of service winners and all errors stats excludes return data)

Stats Summary
The key stats in my opinion are -

- Connors' unforced errors, a whopping 24 (including 16 of the forehand)

- Lendl's return, getting back all but 2 serves, despite Connors' extremely high first serve percentage

- Lendl's big first serve - he sent down 9 aces from 16 first serves as well as elicited return errors with it

 

[KG1965]

An overwhelming demonstration of superiority.

On the stats there is little to add that is the difference of performance.
I remember that the newspapers were highlighted, Lendl was on the rise but "JimboLoki" came from 2 very rich years. For some periods, ATP number one he was back.

Maybe it's better to jump back. To 1984.

 

[KG1965]

The period 1982-84 are the years where the clash between the two is more proportioned and vibrant, therefore more interesting.

It came from 1983:

1983 Queen's Club Grass SF Jimmy Connors 6–0, 6–3
1983 Montreal Hard SF Ivan Lendl 6–1, 6–3
1983 US Open Hard F Jimmy Connors 6–3, 6–7, 7–5, 6–0
1983 Masters, New York City Carpet SF Ivan Lendl 6–3, 6–4
+ 2 Invitational no-ATP
1983 Sun City Hard F Jimmy Connors 7–5, 7–6
1983 Nastase-Hamptons Invitational, North Miami Beach Hard F Jimmy Connors 6–3, 7–6, 6–1

1984 Rotterdam Carpet F Ivan Lendl 6-0, 1-0 ABD
1984 Forest Hills Clay SF Ivan Lendl 6–0, 6–0


1984 Wimbledon Grass SF Jimmy Connors 6–7, 6–3, 7–5, 6–1
1984 Tokyo Indoor Carpet F Jimmy Connors 6–4, 3–6, 6–0
1984 Wembley Carpet SF Ivan Lendl 6–4, 6–2
1984 Masters, New York City Carpet SF Ivan Lendl 7–5, 6–7, 7–5

Before that great victory of Lendl in Forest Hills there was a lot of balance:
- 2-2 but inserting the two invitational 4-2 Jimbo.
- in Rotterdam Lendl dominated but the final was not terminated by bomb alarm.
- it is amazing to note that Lendl won 6-0 1-0 6-0 6-0 = 19 games v zero in two consecutive tournaments.
- after Forest Hills until the end of the year the balance returns: 2-2

We are discussing a very balanced period (6-5 Jimbo, or 5-4 Ivan only ATP), it is not the years later where Connors no longer wins.

The American was not injured.

You do not lose 6-0 6-0 by chance. You lose 6-0 6-0 by injury or for a series of reasons that I can not find at the moment.

 

[KG1965]

This old article is not bad.
I think one of the keys was the rain.
Connors had a good time (he had won some big tournaments at the beginning of the year) and he did not suffer injuries, but Lendl was probably even more fit (... 6-0 1-0 in Rotterdam), but with the clay slowed down by the rain Jimbo it became a top 30 and nothing more. He probably understood from the beginning that he would not be able to turn Lendl over.
It does not want to be the explanation, but a minimal version.

THE NEW YORK TIMES
MCENROE, LENDL EASILY GAIN FINAL
Published: May 13, 1984
At least Jimmy Arias could say that a 51-minute rain delay contributed to his one-sided defeat by John McEnroe, the hottest player in men's tennis. Jimmy Connors had no such excuse.

Facing Ivan Lendl, the methodical Czechoslovak whom he has defeated in the United States Open final in each of the last two years, Connors was routed, 6-0, 6-0, yesterday in a semifinal match a the Tournament of Champions before a record crowd of 13,785 at the West Side Tennis Club in Forest Hills, Queens.

Today's final will match the third- seeded Lendl against McEnroe, seeded second, who has now won 31 straight matches. He was as dazzling as Lendl in a 6-1, 6-2 rout of Arias. Lendl and McEnroe are 8-8 in matches against one another, with McEnroe having won 6 of their last 7 meetings. First Defeat at Love

For Connors, who is 31 years old and a five time United States Open champion, it was the first time in his 11-year professionsal career that he had been beaten at love. Afterward, Connors was understandably dazed and short-fused. ''I was in it,'' he said. ''I was hitting the ball well. He just didn't miss any.''

Indeed, Lendl was amazingly precise. He took full advantage of the slow, rain-soaked clay surface by using an array of slicing backhands that kept Connors lunging and unable to put his normally scorching pace on the ball. Lendl made only 6 errors while Connors, in an uncharacteristic display, made 18.

Lendl, who has defeated Connors in three of their last five matches, aced his opponent nine times. Connors served no aces.

''I didn't want to give him a chance to come back,'' said Lendl. ''He usually grabs those chances and takes them. I feel bitter about him as a player, not as a person, because he has beaten me in the Open in the last two years. To beat him at love is a great satisfaction.'' Took McEnroe a Minute Less

Lendl needed only 52 minutes to dispatch of Connors. That was a minute longer than it took McEnroe to rout fourth-seeded Arias. The start of that match, the first of the day, was delayed for 1 hour 10 minutes because of showers. Once it resumed, McEnroe took a 3-0 lead before rain forced another intermission. It was 51 minutes before they started again.

''I've always been a slow strater,'' said Arias. ''I never had time to get started. I didn't have any feel for him until it was 6-1, 4-0. By then it was too late. I just got clubbed.''

Unlike Lendl, who was patient in his victory, McEnroe attacked a tactic that kept Arias at bay.

''I'm trying to get 70 percent of my first serves in,'' McEnroe said. ''If I can do that, I feel I can keep anyone off balance. I've got good touch at the net. I'm controlling to ball well. I fell pretty confident all-around.''

 

[jrepac]

Not shocking, the pattern that emerged here by surface. Slower clay was going to favor Lendl, particularly after a rainfall. Keeping in mind that peak Lendl form was beginning to emerge in '84/'85. He was about to win his first GS. It would have to be hot and dry on clay for Connors to have a punchers chance. And, this match, Jimmy was not at the top of his game. He was oddly flat and uninterested, it seemed to me. For him, 24 was a boatload of errors in 2 sets. Lendl was incredibly steady. Their FO match in '85 was somewhat similar; it had rained, and the clay was slow and heavy. JC made a ton of forehand errors. Of course, in between, Connors had his revenge at '84 Wimbledon, with a striking (stunning?) victory over Lendl, denying him the final round.

 

[jrepac]

The period 1982-84 are the years where the clash between the two is more proportioned and vibrant, therefore more interesting.

It came from 1983:

1983 Queen's Club Grass SF Jimmy Connors 6–0, 6–3
1983 Montreal Hard SF Ivan Lendl 6–1, 6–3
1983 US Open Hard F Jimmy Connors 6–3, 6–7, 7–5, 6–0
1983 Masters, New York City Carpet SF Ivan Lendl 6–3, 6–4
+ 2 Invitational no-ATP
1983 Sun City Hard F Jimmy Connors 7–5, 7–6
1983 Nastase-Hamptons Invitational, North Miami Beach Hard F Jimmy Connors 6–3, 7–6, 6–1

1984 Rotterdam Carpet F Ivan Lendl 6-0, 1-0 ABD
1984 Forest Hills Clay SF Ivan Lendl 6–0, 6–0


1984 Wimbledon Grass SF Jimmy Connors 6–7, 6–3, 7–5, 6–1
1984 Tokyo Indoor Carpet F Jimmy Connors 6–4, 3–6, 6–0
1984 Wembley Carpet SF Ivan Lendl 6–4, 6–2
1984 Masters, New York City Carpet SF Ivan Lendl 7–5, 6–7, 7–5

Before that great victory of Lendl in Forest Hills there was a lot of balance:
- 2-2 but inserting the two invitational 4-2 Jimbo.
- in Rotterdam Lendl dominated but the final was not terminated by bomb alarm.
- it is amazing to note that Lendl won 6-0 1-0 6-0 6-0 = 19 games v zero in two consecutive tournaments.
- after Forest Hills until the end of the year the balance returns: 2-2

We are discussing a very balanced period (6-5 Jimbo, or 5-4 Ivan only ATP), it is not the years later where Connors no longer wins.

The American was not injured.

You do not lose 6-0 6-0 by chance. You lose 6-0 6-0 by injury or for a series of reasons that I can not find at the moment.

Who knows? Connors was very secretive about his injuries and they began to slow him down by the mid-80's. Even against top-form Lendl, it was bizarre for him not to win a single game. As you point out, from 82-84, it was a very even rivalry. Before that, it tipped to Jimmy. After that, all Ivan as JC aged out of contention, IMHO.

 

[jrepac]

The strange about connors that he never won a match against Wilander

Not so shocking; they really did not meet until '84 on the ATP tour. Wilander was very, very steady and could frustrate JC. They had a few good matches though. Lipton '88 final is very fun to watch; a real doozy in 95 degree heat. Oddly, Jimmy beat Mats in most (or all?) of their exhibition and invitational matches, but not on the regular tour events. I recall him just smoking Mats in an indoor match in Japan (?), on fast carpet....could've been the surface, I suppose.

 

[Waspsting]

The strange about connors that he never won a match against Wilander

A bit, I guess

He also never bested Boris Becker.

Worth noting that he had 12 years on Wilander, and 15 on Boris

I think Connors' reputation is unfortunately mired by this type of thing

Borg quit early - and people speculate he could have continued winning this, that and the other (possibly correctly, but just as possibly incorrectly)
McEnroe fell like a stone - and people mostly accept that he no longer had it and accordingly don't weigh his post 85 efforts much

Contrast to Connors, who played on and on - and people seem to mildly hold the type of stuff you brought up against him

(from newspaper article) Today's final will match the third- seeded Lendl against McEnroe, seeded second,

Either the newspaper, or who ever made the seedings got it badly wrong. Who would the top seed have been if Lendl was 3 and Mac 2?

(from newspaper article) Lendl made only 6 errors while Connors, in an uncharacteristic display, made 18.

I had Lendl with 7 errors and Connors with 27 (forced and unforced). Even if they're referring to just unforced errors, I have Connors with 24 (and that's excluding return errors)

From the stats threads I've seen on the forum, I know there tends to be a lot of variance in peoples counts. 18 'errors' by Connors though is very lenient. By my count, he had 16 unforced errors in rallies on the forehand alone

My unforced error count for Connors lined up with the TV stats (done by Steve Fink), but were at odd with the much more basic serve percentage at the end of the first set (for which I'm certain my count is correct)

The period 1982-84 are the years where the clash between the two is more proportioned and vibrant, therefore more interesting.

It came from 1983:

1983 Queen's Club Grass SF Jimmy Connors 6–0, 6–3
1983 Montreal Hard SF Ivan Lendl 6–1, 6–3
1983 US Open Hard F Jimmy Connors 6–3, 6–7, 7–5, 6–0
1983 Masters, New York City Carpet SF Ivan Lendl 6–3, 6–4
+ 2 Invitational no-ATP
1983 Sun City Hard F Jimmy Connors 7–5, 7–6
1983 Nastase-Hamptons Invitational, North Miami Beach Hard F Jimmy Connors 6–3, 7–6, 6–1

1984 Rotterdam Carpet F Ivan Lendl 6-0, 1-0 ABD
1984 Forest Hills Clay SF Ivan Lendl 6–0, 6–0


1984 Wimbledon Grass SF Jimmy Connors 6–7, 6–3, 7–5, 6–1
1984 Tokyo Indoor Carpet F Jimmy Connors 6–4, 3–6, 6–0
1984 Wembley Carpet SF Ivan Lendl 6–4, 6–2
1984 Masters, New York City Carpet SF Ivan Lendl 7–5, 6–7, 7–5

Before that great victory of Lendl in Forest Hills there was a lot of balance:
- 2-2 but inserting the two invitational 4-2 Jimbo.
- in Rotterdam Lendl dominated but the final was not terminated by bomb alarm.
- it is amazing to note that Lendl won 6-0 1-0 6-0 6-0 = 19 games v zero in two consecutive tournaments.
- after Forest Hills until the end of the year the balance returns: 2-2

We are discussing a very balanced period (6-5 Jimbo, or 5-4 Ivan only ATP), it is not the years later where Connors no longer wins.

The American was not injured.

You do not lose 6-0 6-0 by chance. You lose 6-0 6-0 by injury or for a series of reasons that I can not find at the moment.

Nice to see how the facts line up with how people talk

The commentators talked about trends and Howard Cosell described it as odd that -

- Connors used to dominate Lendl, but that's turned around completely
- Lendl used to dominate McEnroe, but that's turned around completely

McEnroe, who was in the box, agreed and commented that other than the two US Open finals, Lendl almost won every match against Connors in the last few years (doesn't appear to be true -but its commonly known that McEnroe tends to talk in broad generalizations, often at odds with the facts).

Mac also outright attributed those US Open finals results to "Lendl choked"... which suggests to me that he felt Lendl was a better player than Connors as early as 82

 

[Gizo]

This match was just brutal. Lendl's slice backhand was impeccable and Connors was getting more and frustrated as he was given no pace to work with.

By this stage Connors was still an excellent player on clay as proven by his semi-final run at RG a few weeks later where he beat talented young players like Jaite and Emilio Sanchez and straight-setted Sundstrom in his QF (Sundstrom of had notable Davis Cup semi-final and final victories on clay against Lendl and Mac that year). But he was simply no match on the surface for Lendl, Wilander or a peak McEnroe. Had Lendl and Connors squared off in hypothetical match at RG that year, I'm sure that Lendl would have won comfortably.

 

[KG1965]

- Connors used to dominate Lendl, but that's turned around completely
- Lendl used to dominate McEnroe, but that's turned around completely

McEnroe, who was in the box, agreed and commented that other than the two US Open finals, Lendl almost won every match against Connors in the last few years (doesn't appear to be true -but its commonly known that McEnroe tends to talk in broad generalizations, often at odds with the facts).

Mac also outright attributed those US Open finals results to "Lendl choked"... which suggests to me that he felt Lendl was a better player than Connors as early as 82

As you know very well, the story is much more complicated than you think, even if speak a champion like Mac.

Mac is free to think that Lendl was > Connors in the years of 2 titles at the US Open.
Ivan and Jimbo were close in 1982-83 and maybe Ivan was the favorite to F.Meadows (for sure in 1983).

Either the newspaper, or who ever made the seedings got it badly wrong. Who would the top seed have been if Lendl was 3 and Mac 2?

Either the newspaper, or who ever made the seedings got it badly wrong. Who would the top seed have been if Lendl was 3 and Mac 2?

It's illogical Connors top seed. Jimbo was 3th..
The organizers of the tournament were of WCT, ... which was out of the ATP Tour.

 

[KG1965]

Either the newspaper, or who ever made the seedings got it badly wrong. Who would the top seed have been if Lendl was 3 and Mac 2?

Perhaps this article can help us.

By JANE GROSS
Published: May 6, 1984
CHAMPIONS RETURN TO FOREST HILLS FOR TOURNAMENT
On a breezy, blue and gold afternoon, the Tournament of Champions returned to the West Side Tennis Club yesterday, still struggling after five years to establish itself as a prestigious event and a worthy replacement for the United States Open, which was played at that manicured preserve in Forest Hills until it shifted to Flushing Meadows in 1978.

A handful of stars will play here when competition begins today in the main draw, with Jimmy Connors seeded first, John McEnroe second and Ivan Lendl, Jimmy Arias, Johan Kriek and Vitas Gerulaitis behind them. After them, however, the talent drops off sharply with unheralded players like Brad Drewett and Pedro Rebolledo seeded among the top 10.

Each of the 52 players in the draw has won a tournament in the last year, but 64 others who were eligible chose not to play. The event is scheduled against tournaments in Hamburg, West Germany, and Florence, Italy, with Yannick Noah and Mats Wilander, among others, preferring to play in Europe.

''Let me tell you, we chase these players around the world to let them know they've qualified,'' said Marty Rotberg, the tournament director. ''But the international tennis calendar is so chock-a-block full of events.'' Sees Better Field in '85

Rotberg predicts a better field next year, when World Championship Tennis events, like this one, are absorbed into the Grand Prix schedule. As a result, W.C.T. events will be included in the point standing for the Grand Prix tour, with its rich bonus pool and season-ending Masters at Madison Square Garden. In addition, Rotberg said, the Tournament of Champions has been promised a ''protected'' week in next year's schedule.

The current confusion in mens' professional tennis is evidenced in the seedings here. Events under W.C.T. seed players according to a computer system that differs from that of the Association of Tennis Professionals, which is used for other events. The W.C.T. computer weighs recent tournaments more heavily than those earlier in the year. As a result of the weighted system, Connors wound up seven one-hundredths of a point ahead of McEnroe, despite McEnroe's overall 27-0 match record this year.

Connors's top seeding places him in the more difficult part of the draw. If play goes according to form, he will meet Gerulaitis in the quarterfinals and Lendl in the semifinals, with McEnroe meeting Kriek and Arias. McEnroe is scheduled to play his first match on Tuesday, Connors on Wednesday.

The activity yesterday was limited to celebrity doubles and the opening matches in a qualifying tournament, only the winner of which will get into the main draw. Peter Fleming was seeded first in the qualifying event.

......................

Waspsting, the article (as well as explaining some issues related to too many events and the placement of the WCT Forest hills outside the Grand Prix) doesn't solve the problem of the top seed, because:
1) Mac is not 27-0 before Forest Hills ...but 22-0
2) Connors 22-2 so he should not be top seed.

It could have been like this.

The seeding was prepared 20 days earlier and excludes WCT Finals where Mac wins the tournament (and three matches) while Connors loses the final winning 2 matches out of three.

Excluding WCT Finals (Dallas):
- Connors 20-1
- Mac 19-0

As tournaments won:
- Connors wins Memphis (5-0), La Quinta (5-0), Boca West (5-0), arrives in the final in Rotterdam (4-0) and doesn't finish the final, lost to Madrid by Tom Gullikson (1-1) = 20-1
- Mac wins to Phila (5-0), Richmond (4-0), Madrid (5-0), Brussels (5-0) = 19-0.

Among other things, the Richmond tournament was only WCT not giving ATP points (the 1984 WCT mini-circuit featured only Richmond & Houston).

The organizers may have included in the count only the tournaments with points ATP and in that cas Connors had almost certainly more points of Mac and Lendl because Memphis-La Quinta-Boca West were more important than the three of Mac.

 

[WCT]

51 to 16. That is a butt whipping. I remember watching it live. Mcenroe was in the ABC booth for part of the match. Injury? I saw nothing to indicate that. Lendl had killed Connors before. He beat him 1 and 1 on a hard court in Cincy. Earlier that year, indoors in Rotterdam, Lendl won a 6-0 set than the match was called, I thinkm because of a bomb threat. It's not like there was no history of Lendl spanking Connors before this match And the rain, and slower conditions, helped Lendl.

Still, 51-16. That is a wow slaughter. Connors beat him at Wimbledon so the loss didn't devastate him mentally or anything like that.

 

[KG1965]

Ivan Lendl beat Jimmy Connors 6-0 6-0, semi-final Forest Hills 1984 on har-tru/green clay surface.............................

Taking advantage of the thread I would like to check how many matches Connors lost very sharply during the career (until 1984, afterwards it was less competitive). If I enjoy doing the same job for Borg, Mac and Lendl. I intend to win only 4 games in matches 2/3 and 6 games in matches 3/5 (with <5 games per set).

 

[KG1965]

Ivan Lendl beat Jimmy Connors 6-0 6-0, semi-final Forest Hills 1984 on har-tru/green clay surface.............................

.

 

[KG1965]

.

 

[KG1965]

.

 

[KG1965]

.

 

[KG1965]

Ivan Lendl beat Jimmy Connors 6-0 6-0, semi-final Forest Hills 1984 on har-tru/green clay surface.............................

Taking advantage of the thread I would like to check how many matches Connors lost very sharply during the career (until 1984, afterwards it was less competitive). If I enjoy doing the same job for Borg, Mac and Lendl. I intend to win only 4 games in matches 2/3 and 6 games in matches 3/5 (with <5 games per set).
I consider the period 1972-1984. Only tournaments that ATP has recognized, no retires, no W/O.
1973: - 6-3 6-1 Orantes (S - Cincinnati)
1977: - 6-1 6-3 Orantes (F - Indianapolis)
1978: - 6-3 6-0 Borowiak (1 round - Tournament of Ch.- Las Vegas)
1979: - 6-2 6-2 Borg (F - Tokyo)
1980: - 6-3 6-1 Borg (RR - Salisbury WCT Invitational)
1982: - 6-2 6-2 6-2 Higueras (Q - French Open)
1982: - 6-1 6-1 Lendl (S - Cincinnati)
1982: - 6-1 6-3 McEnroe (F - S.Francisco)
1982: - 6-3 6-1 Lendl (S - Masters GP)
1982: - 6-1 6-3 Lendl (S - Montreal)
1984: - 6-1 6-2 6-3 McEnroe (F WCT Finals - Dallas)
1984: - 6-0 6-0 Lendl (S - Tournament of Ch. - Forest H.)
1984: - 6-2 6-2 McEnroe (F - Quenn's)
1984: - 6-1 6-1 6-2 McEnroe (F - Wimbledon)

14 matches lost very clearly

• 4 McEnroe & Lendl
• 2 Borg & Orantes
• 1 Higueras & Borowiak

I also decided to consider and add the following scores:
5 games won and not 4 in matches 2/3
8 games won and not 6 in matches 3/5
These matches I think can be defined as "lost clearly" but not "lost very clearly"

1972: 6-3 6-2 Rosewall (3 - Los Angeles)
1972: 6-2 6-3 6-2 Nastase (S - Masters GP)
1978: 6-2 6-2 6-3 Borg (F Wimbledon)
1979: 6-2 6-3 Borg (F - Boca Raton)
1979: 6-3 6-2 Borg (F - Las Vegas)
1979: 6-2 6-3 6-2 Borg (S - Wimbledon)
1979: 6-3 6-2 Amritraj (RR - Salisbury WCT Invitational)
1981: 6-4 6-1 Higueras (3 North Conway)
1982: 6-3 6-3 6-1 McEnroe (F - Philadelphia)
1984: 6-1 6-3 6-3 Wilander (F - Davis Cup)

others 10 matches lost clearly

• 4 Borg
• 1 Rosewall, Nastase, Amritraj, Higueras, McEnroe, Wilander

14 + 10 = 24

• 6 Borg
• 5 McEnroe
• 4 Lendl
• 2 Orantes, Higueras
  
• 1 Rosewall, Nastase, Amritraj, Wilander, Borowiak

 

[KG1965]

I continue the next few days with Borg, Mac and Lendl but on other thread.

 

[jrepac]

A bit, I guess

He also never bested Boris Becker.

Worth noting that he had 12 years on Wilander, and 15 on Boris

I think Connors' reputation is unfortunately mired by this type of thing

Borg quit early - and people speculate he could have continued winning this, that and the other (possibly correctly, but just as possibly incorrectly)
McEnroe fell like a stone - and people mostly accept that he no longer had it and accordingly don't weigh his post 85 efforts much

Contrast to Connors, who played on and on - and people seem to mildly hold the type of stuff you brought up against him

Either the newspaper, or who ever made the seedings got it badly wrong. Who would the top seed have been if Lendl was 3 and Mac 2?

Connors played far longer than Mac, Borg or Lendl and held a Top 10 ranking for most of the time....shoot, he was top 4 for something like 12 years. But, yes, as he lost to the newer generation of players, it tarnishes the reputation. Forgetting the age difference and the fact that he had several close matches against Becker, Agassi, etc. and late career wins over guys like Edberg. I do think in 1982, Connors still had an edge over Lendl. 1983, maybe not so much. '84 was the last truly solid year for Connors at the top of the game and he was still getting wins over Lendl, just not so frequent. Connors was older, Mac became a bit of a head case, and it was Lendl's time to shine. But, even in mid to late 80's, Connors was a very, very solid player....

 

[jrepac]

A bit, I guess

He also never bested Boris Becker.

Worth noting that he had 12 years on Wilander, and 15 on Boris

I think Connors' reputation is unfortunately mired by this type of thing

Borg quit early - and people speculate he could have continued winning this, that and the other (possibly correctly, but just as possibly incorrectly)
McEnroe fell like a stone - and people mostly accept that he no longer had it and accordingly don't weigh his post 85 efforts much

Contrast to Connors, who played on and on - and people seem to mildly hold the type of stuff you brought up against him

Either the newspaper, or who ever made the seedings got it badly wrong. Who would the top seed have been if Lendl was 3 and Mac 2?

Connors played far longer than Mac, Borg or Lendl and held a Top 10 ranking for most of the time....shoot, he was top 4 for something like 12 years. But, yes, as he lost to the newer generation of players, it tarnishes the reputation. Forgetting the age difference and the fact that he had several close matches against Becker, Agassi, etc. and late career wins over guys like Edberg. I do think in 1982, Connors still had an edge over Lendl. 1983, maybe not so much. '84 was the last truly solid year for Connors at the top of the game and he was still getting wins over Lendl, just not so frequent. Connors was older, Mac became a bit of a head case, and it was Lendl's time to shine. But, even in mid to late 80's, Connors was a very, very solid player....

 

[Moose Malloy]

@Waspsting

Do you know how many points connors won in each set? I'm trying to find a lower number for a top 5 player than the 5 points zverev had vs Chung in the fifth set in Australia.

 

[Waspsting]

@Waspsting

Do you know how many points connors won in each set?

Connors won 8 points in each set

I'm trying to find a lower number for a top 5 player than the 5 points zverev had vs Chung in the fifth set in Australia.

4th seed and probably #4 ranked Lleyton Hewitt also won just 5 points, first set US Open 2004 final against Roger Federer

 

[jaggy]

I didnt see that anyone posted a link, here it is again if you have not seen it.

 

[abmk]

@Waspsting

Do you know how many points connors won in each set? I'm trying to find a lower number for a top 5 player than the 5 points zverev had vs Chung in the fifth set in Australia.

Nadal won only 4 points vs Murray in the final set of their Tokyo 2011 match :

In the decider, Murray conceded just four points as he raced to his fourth title of the season, following victories at the Wimbledon warm-up at Queen's Club, Cincinnati and Bangkok

http://www.bbc.com/sport/tennis/15231444

Edit : Out of curiosity, checked for the YEC 2011 RR 2nd set b/w Nadal and Federer. Nadal won 9 points in that set.

 

[pc1]

@Waspsting

Do you know how many points connors won in each set? I'm trying to find a lower number for a top 5 player than the 5 points zverev had vs Chung in the fifth set in Australia.

I believe Budge only won one point against Kramer in the fifth set of the 1948 US Pro semi but I'm not sure.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Connors won 8 points in each set



4th seed and probably #4 ranked Lleyton Hewitt also won just 5 points, first set US Open 2004 final against Roger Federer

Wow, that's an incredible stat. Been awhile since I've watched that match, I wonder how many of those 5 points were ue's by Federer.

Came across another low number - agassi won 6 points vs kucera in the 4th set of 2000 RG 2R. He was barely moving due to bad blisters.

 

[abmk]

Wow, that's an incredible stat. Been awhile since I've watched that match, I wonder how many of those 5 points were ue's by Federer.

Came across another low number - agassi won 6 points vs kucera in the 4th set of 2000 RG 2R. He was barely moving due to bad blisters.

1 winner from Hewitt, 2 UEs by Federer, 2 errors forced by Hewitt :

http://web.archive.org/web/20040927....org:80/en_US/scores/stats/day20/1701ss1.html

 

[Waspsting]

Wow, that's an incredible stat (Hewitt winning just 5 points in a set against Federer)....

Put a little asterisks next to it though

Hewitt hit a BH dtl winner that was erroneously called out, so he should have had won 1 more point at least

Must be 100s of such instances in history that have got lost in the wash like that

I wonder how many of those 5 points were ue's by Federer.

At the start of the second set, the crowd broke into uproarious applause when Fed made one... seemed more like a compliment to him than either being against him or encouraging the under-dog

Hewitt was bagelled 4 other times that year by Fed (including again in the same match of course), but I don't think he was top 5 at those times