Match Stats/Report - Borg vs Connors, Boca Raton final 1977

[Waspsting]

Bjorn Borg defeated Jimmy Connors 6-4 5-7 6-3 in the final of the Pepsi Grand Slam 1977 in Boca Raton on green clay/har tru surface

Before this match, Borg had only beaten Connors once and had lost their last 6 encounters. After this match, Borg won 13 of the pairs last 15 clashes

(Note: I'm missing return of service data for one point on Connors' serve)

Borg won 97 points, Connors 90

Service Stats
Borg...
- 1st serve percentage (53/94) 56%
- 1st serve points won (38/53) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (22/41) 54%
- Aces 0
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned serve percentage (14/94) 15%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (72/93) 77%
- 1st serve points won (45/72) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (10/21) 48%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned serve percentage (14/93) 15%

Serve Pattern
Borg served...
- to the FH 27%
- to the BH 73%

Connors served...
- to the FH 13%
- to the BH 87%

Return Stats
Borg made 77 returns (26 FH, 51 BH), running round the BH 17 times to hit a FH

He made 12 return errors (3 FH, 9 BH)
- Unforced 6 (2 FH , 4 BH), both FH being run round ones and
- Forced 6( 1 FH, 5 BH)

He was Aced 2 (2 FH). One of the aces occurred during a passage of play during which he was continually running round to hit a FH - and Connors served what would have been a routine FH return had Borg remained in his starting return position

Return Rate (77/91) 85%

Connors made 78 returns (29 FH, 49 BH), including 1 Winner (BH). He ran around the BH 11 times to hit a FH

He made 14 return errors (6 FH, 8 BH)
- Unforced 8 (3 FH, 5 BH)
- Forced 6 (3 FH, 3 BH)

Return Rate (78/92) 85%

Break Points
Borg was 4/14 (6 games)
Connors was 3/4 (3 games)

Winners (including returns)
Borg 16 (3 FH, 13 BH)
Connors 30 (5 FH, 2 BH, 9 FHV, 7 BHV, 7 OH)

- For Borg, all winners were passes, including a running-down-a-drop-shot at net BH

- 11 were down the line (DTL) and 5 cross court (CC). By shot, FH (1 CC, 2 DTL) and BH (4 CC, 9 DTL)

- For Connors, 1 FH was hit at net and 2 FH were would-be approach shots

- 1 BHV was hit from no-mans land and was not a net point

- 1 FHV was a swinging volley

- he had one passing shot, a FH which was also a net point

Errors (excluding returns)
Borg 43
- Unforced 13 (9 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV)
- Forced 30 (14 FH, 16 BH)

Connors 67
- Unforced 62 (37 FH, 18 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 5 OH)
- Forced 5 (1 FH, 1 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHOH)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
At net, Borg was 1/7 (14%), with 0 S/V

6/7 approaches were forced - he came in to intercept drop shots from Connors. He lost the only point he voluntarily came in on

He voluntarily came in 2 other times, but retreated to the baseline within a shot or two and finished the points at the baseline (these have been excluded from his net numbers)

Connors was 49/76 (64%) at net, including 8/10 (80%) serve-volleying. ... he mostly worked his way to net for the remaining 41/66 (62%), with no approaches of the return

He hit a further two winners on would-be approach shots (as well as committed a number of errors trying to approach)... these are not included under the net point numbers

(Match report to follow, this was a real cat and mouse match....)

 

[Moose Malloy]

I remember taking to krosero a while ago about how to count a point where a player comes to net, but then retreats to the baseline. We decided to count that in the net stats.

I did stats for this match several years ago. Nothing too detailed, just serve % and winners.

 

[KG1965]

Bjorn Borg defeated Jimmy Connors 6-4 5-7 6-3 in the final of the Pepsi Grand Slam 1977 in Boca Raton on green clay/har tru surface

Before this match, Borg had only beaten Connors once and had lost their last 6 encounters. After this match, Borg won 13 of the pairs last 15 clashes

(Note: I'm missing return of service data for one point on Connors' serve)

Borg won 97 points, Connors 90

Service Stats
Borg...
- 1st serve percentage (53/94) 56%
- 1st serve points won (38/53) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (22/41) 54%
- Aces 0
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned serve percentage (14/94) 15%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (72/93) 77%
- 1st serve points won (45/72) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (10/21) 48%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned serve percentage (14/93) 15%

Serve Pattern
Borg served...
- to the FH 27%
- to the BH 73%

Connors served...
- to the FH 13%
- to the BH 87%

Return Stats
Borg made 77 returns (26 FH, 51 BH), running round the BH 17 times to hit a FH

He made 12 return errors (3 FH, 9 BH)
- Unforced 6 (2 FH , 4 BH), both FH being run round ones and
- Forced 6( 1 FH, 5 BH)

He was Aced 2 (2 FH). One of the aces occurred during a passage of play during which he was continually running round to hit a FH - and Connors served what would have been a routine FH return had Borg remained in his starting return position

Return Rate (77/91) 85%

Connors made 78 returns (29 FH, 49 BH), including 1 Winner (BH). He ran around the BH 11 times to hit a FH

He made 14 return errors (6 FH, 8 BH)
- Unforced 8 (3 FH, 5 BH)
- Forced 6 (3 FH, 3 BH)

Return Rate (78/92) 85%

Break Points
Borg was 4/14 (6 games)
Connors was 3/4 (3 games)

Winners (including returns)
Borg 16 (3 FH, 13 BH)
Connors 30 (5 FH, 2 BH, 9 FHV, 7 BHV, 7 OH)

- For Borg, all winners were passes, including a running-down-a-drop-shot at net BH

- 11 were down the line (DTL) and 5 cross court (CC). By shot, FH (1 CC, 2 DTL) and BH (4 CC, 9 DTL)

- For Connors, 1 FH was hit at net and 2 FH were would-be approach shots

- 1 BHV was hit from no-mans land and was not a net point

- 1 FHV was a swinging volley

- he had one passing shot, a FH which was also a net point

Errors (excluding returns)
Borg 43
- Unforced 13 (9 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV)
- Forced 30 (14 FH, 16 BH)

Connors 67
- Unforced 62 (37 FH, 18 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 5 OH)
- Forced 5 (1 FH, 1 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHOH)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
At net, Borg was 1/7 (14%), with 0 S/V

6/7 approaches were forced - he came in to intercept drop shots from Connors. He lost the only point he voluntarily came in on

He voluntarily came in 2 other times, but retreated to the baseline within a shot or two and finished the points at the baseline (these have been excluded from his net numbers)

Connors was 49/76 (64%) at net, including 8/10 (80%) serve-volleying. ... he mostly worked his way to net for the remaining 41/66 (62%), with no approaches of the return

He hit a further two winners on would-be approach shots (as well as committed a number of errors trying to approach)... these are not included under the net point numbers

(Match report to follow, this was a real cat and mouse match....)

A great match, very intense, one of the best no-slam matches of the 70s.
Essential to understand the two guys because it is played in a year pivotal.
Many experts wrote that it was the match of the overtaking, maybe.
I do not agree but Borg was coming.

 

[KG1965]

- Aces 0

This data serves to understand why Borg was not yet dominant.

He made 12 return errors (3 FH, 9 BH)

This also... Connors 14.

Obviously this is where Connors loses ... Errors (excluding returns)
Borg 43 - Connors 67 (Unforced 62 .. 37 FH, 18 BH)


At net, Borg was 1/7 (14%), with 0 S / V
I always found it incomprehensible that Bjorn hesitated to go to net, unlike Wimbledon. I've never understood. In this case it was a disaster.

Connors was 49/76 (64%) at net, including 8/10 (80%) serve-volleying.

Until 1978 Connors went to the net a number of times exorbitant compared to the period after.
Since 1979 Borg (and others) began to pass it more easily.
IMO no longer had the agility of the first period.

 

[abmk]

I remember taking to krosero a while ago about how to count a point where a player comes to net, but then retreats to the baseline. We decided to count that in the net stats.

I did stats for this match several years ago. Nothing too detailed, just serve % and winners.

yeah, I count that as a net point too.

 

[Waspsting]

Match Report

This was a match in which Connors took the initiative and Borg reacted. The telling stat was Connors unforced errors vs Borg's forced errors

Errors (excluding returns)
Borg 30 Forced Errors (14 FH, 16 BH) vs Connors 67 Unforced 62 (37 FH, 18 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 5 OH)

1st Set
With both players getting almost every serve back and neutralizing the servers advantage quickly, the play centered on baseline rallies. At the start of the match, Connors wasn't looking to particularly approach (Borg of course, never did) and the points settled into baseline exchanges

Connors hit flat, Borg loop-ily... the contrast in style was particularly evident from the ground level camera angle. Borg's net clearance must have been 5-6 feet... a guy at net would have had a hard time reaching the ball.

Mostly, the baseline rallies were Connors forehand vs Borg backhand. From that point, Connors tried to move Borg around (force errors) by changing direction - both by going long line or inside out. Borg was content to just put the ball back (wait for unforced errors), though he played along the angles created by Connors. And to complete the picture of play, Connors occasionally approached from suitably short balls - without appearing to be looking for chances to do so.

Connors broke first, Borg broke back a couple of games later. The match was even stevens, though the edge as far as errors went was slipping away from Connors. He was making more unforced errors trying to make the play than Borg was making forced errors from thwarting the scheme... but they remained just about even in the first set.

That set was decided by a couple of points at net. Borg broke to win the set, as Connors played two poor overheads at net. The first - an easy ball - he netted and the second he failed to put away, leaving himself open to a Borg pass. And just like that, a 50-50 set was done

2nd Set
A few things changed in this set.

Connors' attack shifted from moving Borg around from the baseline to attacking the net.

In the first set, he'd approached 14 times (won 10)
In the second, he upped it to 34 (won 21)

Borg for his part, became even more wall-like. In the first set, he'd played along with Connors' angles. In the second, he looked to hit up and down the middle of the court more. He began slicing more - an unusual, somewhat ugly looking two handed 'push', usually played from in front of his body (as opposed to from the backhand side)

Perhaps encouraged by Connors' unconvincing overheads at the end of the first set, Borg took to lobbing more and more as well. The commentators thought the motivation for this might be that it was approaching sunset (the match was played under lights) and Borg reasoned that lobs would be difficult to see. I thought he was playing tennis' equivalent of 'rope-a-dope'

Whatever the thinking, it largely worked. Overall, Connors had 7 winners to 6 errors on the smash, and failed to put away several more. I would say Connors smashed poorly more than Borg lobbed well. Furthermore, I think having the lob to think about stifled Connors at the net more... it was something he had to be on the look out for and clearly, not a line of counter-attack he was confident of smashing through

Nearing the end of the set, there were 3 10 point games, 2 on Connors serve.

Borg didn't face a break point on his, but Connors had to save 3 apiece in his two - 3 of them match points. He saved these through boldness and fortune

One match point he erased with a clever ace down the T... as Borg was constantly running round the backhand at this point, he did so again and had no chance of reaching the ball. On the other two, he serve-volleyed. Borg missed a make-able but not easy pass on the first and muffed an absolute sitter
on the next.... Connors was sitting duck after a flub volley and Borg had all the time in the world to line up his shot from around the service line, but netted it.

Uncharacteristically but understandably, Borg smacked the net with his racquet in frustration at the miss.

He played a poor service game, possibly rattled by the missed chances, and was broken to send the match into a deciding set

Set 3
Both guys started choppily after the drama of the second sets conclusion. Both were making errors at high rates - Connors through over-aggression and Borg seemingly for no reason. It looked like Borg might choke.

When they settled, Borg broke on his 4th break point of a 10 point game. His dipping return did for Connors, who was forced to scamper back to the baseline after having approached... and he went on to yield the break with a meek error.

Connors though, broke right back. To love. With four clean winners, 3 at the net. A remarkable feat against Bjorn Borg on clay... possibly unique

Borg broke in the next game though to make it 3 break games in a row. This game characterized Connors' play, which was erratically aggressive in this final set. His only double fault, an approach error... and two superb passes from Borg

Mentally, it seemed to me Connors was reacting to be feeling tired in the final set. He was at his most aggressive - charging the net and attempting to hit his most aggressive groundstrokes in the match. Borg for his part was maybe disheartened at the start of the set, but after the first changeover, was back to his level headed norm

-------

Other Points of Interest

1) Connors preferred return?

Look at Borg's serve patterns -

Serve Pattern
Borg served...
- to the FH 27%
- to the BH 73%

and Connors' return errors

Connors made 14 return errors (6 FH, 8 BH)
- Unforced 8 (3 FH, 5 BH)
- Forced 6 (3 FH, 3 BH)

Obviously, Borg clearly favoured going to Connors' backhand. The stats suggest that a more balanced distribution might have been a better strategy (if FH = BH, we would expect to see 8-10 FH errors, not just 3). Furthermore, Connors not only hit his only ROS Winner from the BH, but another virtually-a-winner was also from that side (both times, he took the return very early)

Nonetheless, Connors ran round the BH to hit FH returns 11 times by my count. That's a lot less than Borg, but still indicative that Connors preferred to return from the FH

Purely on the return, was Connors stronger off the FH or BH? Borg seems to think FH... maybe Connors thought so too, the stats are mildly suggesting otherwise. Not sure what to make of it, but it links into...

2) Connors' FH heavy strategy/ avoidance of Borg's FH

Connors, clearly didn't want anything to do with the Borg forehand. He didn't serve there (just 13%), didn't approach there, didn't volley there

I'm not sure this was justified.

Borg Unforced Errors 13 (9 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV)

Borg ran around the backhand to hit forehands not infrequently, but not nearly as much as he could have either.

Connors was the dictator of most of the baseline exchanges - and I would say it was his choice to play mostly FHs to Borg's BH

Borg's BH looked safe as houses, but not threatening, while Connors' FH looked a tad vulnerable (both compared to Borg's BH and his own). Nonetheless, Connors never ran round the backhand to hit a forehand during a rally... I would conclude that his strategy was based on avoiding Borg's perceived strength, not playing to his own. This is naturally related to...

3) Borg's acceptance of Connors' strategy?

He mostly was content to play BHs back to Connors' FH. I got the feeling he was confident Connors would blink first trying to make something out of nothing in that situation - and he was right

Borg didn't make much effort to take charge with his FH. Pity. The Borg FH vs Connors BH rallies were higher quality stuff... with Connors coming off a shade better, IMO. Connors looked more secure on the BH - and the stats bare this out even keeping in mind he was hitting more FHs than BHs

Connors Unforced Errors (37 FH, 18 BH....

4) Connors net play

Was highly effective, though I can't help but call it downright ugly. He struggled with overheads ("poor" isn't an overstatement), but otherwise very good in the forecourt. Especially the Forehand Volley

Summary

A good match - Borg playing safe and giving his opponent just enough rope to hang himself with, Connors trying to press the attack both from the back (unsuccessful) and front (successful) of the court.

Connors' attack was based on hitting FHs to Borg's BH... a game Borg was content to play

I would have liked to see Connors engage more with his BH - clearly his better groundstroke. With Borg favouring the FH... it would have made for a more dynamic match

 

[KG1965]

Obviously, Borg clearly favoured going to Connors' backhand. The stats suggest that a more balanced distribution might have been a better strategy (if FH = BH, we would expect to see 8-10 FH errors, not just 3). Furthermore, Connors not only hit his only ROS Winner from the BH, but another virtually-a-winner was also from that side (both times, he took the return very early)

Nonetheless, Connors ran round the BH to hit FH returns 11 times by my count. That's a lot less than Borg, but still indicative that Connors preferred to return from the FH

Purely on the return, was Connors stronger off the FH or BH? Borg seems to think FH... maybe Connors thought so too, the stats are mildly suggesting otherwise. Not sure what to make of it, but it links into...

2) Connors' FH heavy strategy/ avoidance of Borg's FH

Connors, clearly didn't want anything to do with the Borg forehand. He didn't serve there (just 13%), didn't approach there, didn't volley there

I'm not sure this was justified.

While Jimbo's BH is a total shot >> FH, but IMHO is not in return.
The return of FH is very important even if it is usually more v s & v.

I do not know if the strategy of playing only on Borg BH was right, I think was the strategy used by Jimbo in the previous matches: Borg had a very good BH that became excellent since 1978, but until 1977 the FH >> BH.
The Swede tended to shorten sometimes and then Connors took advantage of this (I only saw the finals USO 76 and Masters 1977). Connors feared FH because it was much more powerful.
I think he has not lost for this, but for other reasons that I then try to explain.

4) Connors net play

Was highly effective, though I can't help but call it downright ugly. He struggled with overheads ("poor" isn't an overstatement), but otherwise very good in the forecourt. Especially the Forehand Volley

Summary

A good match - Borg playing safe and giving his opponent just enough rope to hang himself with, Connors trying to press the attack both from the back (unsuccessful) and front (successful) of the court.

Connors' attack was based on hitting FHs to Borg's BH... a game Borg was content to play

I would have liked to see Connors engage more with his BH - clearly his better groundstroke. With Borg favouring the FH... it would have made for a more dynamic match

I try to place the match in the period.

It's been a year (1976) where Borg has improved but not enough ... and Connors dominated; in 1977 Connors suffers many injuries but only after the season, at this point (January or February) american is still in great shape.
Connors will not play as well as in 1976 (except 1978), he has no more margin.
Borg instead improves in some aspects:
in 1977
- improves the BH that tended to shorten a bit, giving Connors no more the opportunity for easy rallies;
- from the baseline he becomes a wall harder than before.
since 1978
- improves physical fitness even more, becomes very strong, athletically becomes super;
- improves a lot the first serve.

With these weapons disable Connors.

 

[WCT]

How long does it take you to do such extensive stats? Wow, very impressive. VERY rare display of temper by Borg there. He REALLY wanted this match. It's why you can't just write off all unofficial matches like the players don't try their hardest.

Certainly not their highest quality match. Some patchy play.
Connors did miss a bunch of overheads. I remember that from doing stats on the match. Stats that were far, far, far less extensive than these.

Same percentage of unreturned serves for each of them. I don't think you'll find that very often. I didn't do that stat in any of the matches I did. Just unreturned serves and that was pretty much always Borg, sometimes significantly.

 

[Waspsting]

How long does it take you to do such extensive stats? Wow, very impressive

Thanks

It took about twice the playing length time, but that's going down the more matches I do. Organizing the stats takes a bit of time - not much, but its the only tedious part of the process. And I watch the match a second time because I don't get a great "feel" for the play while taking stats

VERY rare display of temper by Borg there. He REALLY wanted this match. It's why you can't just write off all unofficial matches like the players don't try their hardest

He had one other show of emotion, which was lighter. Tossed his racquet up and caught it after making an unforced error

Its interesting to map the changes in priorities over time. Here, a big factor seems to have been money. The commentators talked about it quite a bit - including related to the show of temper by Borg.

Winner was to receive $100,000 (half what the President made in a year apparently) and the loser $50,000. After the Borg miss in question, one of the commentators pointed out that that miss might cost Borg $50,000... today, with the top players financially better taken care off, I don't think anyone would think of it in that way

I would like to think Borg was motivated because he was particularly hungry to get the better of Connors, something he hadn't done much at the time (won their first match, lost the next 6), not that he got angry thinking something like "There goes 50,000, damn it!", but I suppose it's possible

Connors joked with the crowd 3 or 4 times (Borg almost smiled on one occasion). Did he do stuff like that at 'serious' events?

I would say both guys took the match seriously enough. And it and the tournament are included in official records now, though I don't know how it would have been considered at the time

It was a 4 man event. Panatta and Orantes were the other two guys, players selected loosely on how well they'd performed at the Slam events the previous year (looks like Australian was excluded)

Interestingly, both Borg and Connors faced match points in their semis. Connors faced 1 against Orantes, which he aced away and Borg faced 3 against Panatta. And Orantes won the third placed match over Panatta (3rd placed guy got $30,000, 4th got $20,000)

 

[hoodjem]

Bjorn Borg defeated Jimmy Connors 6-4 5-7 6-3 in the final of the Pepsi Grand Slam 1977 in Boca Raton on green clay/har tru surface

Before this match, Borg had only beaten Connors once and had lost their last 6 encounters. After this match, Borg won 13 of the pairs last 15 clashes

(Note: I'm missing return of service data for one point on Connors' serve)

Borg won 97 points, Connors 90

Service Stats
Borg...
- 1st serve percentage (53/94) 56%
- 1st serve points won (38/53) 72%
- 2nd serve points won (22/41) 54%
- Aces 0
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned serve percentage (14/94) 15%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (72/93) 77%
- 1st serve points won (45/72) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (10/21) 48%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned serve percentage (14/93) 15%

Serve Pattern
Borg served...
- to the FH 27%
- to the BH 73%

Connors served...
- to the FH 13%
- to the BH 87%

Return Stats
Borg made 77 returns (26 FH, 51 BH), running round the BH 17 times to hit a FH

He made 12 return errors (3 FH, 9 BH)
- Unforced 6 (2 FH , 4 BH), both FH being run round ones and
- Forced 6( 1 FH, 5 BH)

He was Aced 2 (2 FH). One of the aces occurred during a passage of play during which he was continually running round to hit a FH - and Connors served what would have been a routine FH return had Borg remained in his starting return position

Return Rate (77/91) 85%

Connors made 78 returns (29 FH, 49 BH), including 1 Winner (BH). He ran around the BH 11 times to hit a FH

He made 14 return errors (6 FH, 8 BH)
- Unforced 8 (3 FH, 5 BH)
- Forced 6 (3 FH, 3 BH)

Return Rate (78/92) 85%

Break Points
Borg was 4/14 (6 games)
Connors was 3/4 (3 games)

Winners (including returns)
Borg 16 (3 FH, 13 BH)
Connors 30 (5 FH, 2 BH, 9 FHV, 7 BHV, 7 OH)

- For Borg, all winners were passes, including a running-down-a-drop-shot at net BH

- 11 were down the line (DTL) and 5 cross court (CC). By shot, FH (1 CC, 2 DTL) and BH (4 CC, 9 DTL)

- For Connors, 1 FH was hit at net and 2 FH were would-be approach shots

- 1 BHV was hit from no-mans land and was not a net point

- 1 FHV was a swinging volley

- he had one passing shot, a FH which was also a net point

Errors (excluding returns)
Borg 43
- Unforced 13 (9 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV)
- Forced 30 (14 FH, 16 BH)

Connors 67
- Unforced 62 (37 FH, 18 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 5 OH)
- Forced 5 (1 FH, 1 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHOH)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
At net, Borg was 1/7 (14%), with 0 S/V

6/7 approaches were forced - he came in to intercept drop shots from Connors. He lost the only point he voluntarily came in on

He voluntarily came in 2 other times, but retreated to the baseline within a shot or two and finished the points at the baseline (these have been excluded from his net numbers)

Connors was 49/76 (64%) at net, including 8/10 (80%) serve-volleying. ... he mostly worked his way to net for the remaining 41/66 (62%), with no approaches of the return

He hit a further two winners on would-be approach shots (as well as committed a number of errors trying to approach)... these are not included under the net point numbers

(Match report to follow, this was a real cat and mouse match....)

Interesting. Connors had double the winners, but 50% more errors.

 

[hoodjem]

Net Points & Serve-Volley
At net, Borg was 1/7 (14%), with 0 S/V. 6/7 approaches were forced - he came in to intercept drop shots from Connors. He lost the only point he voluntarily came in on. He voluntarily came in 2 other times, but retreated . . .

Connors was 49/76 (64%) at net, including 8/10 (80%) serve-volleying. ... he mostly worked his way to net for the remaining 41/66 (62%), with no approaches of the return

For me this is noteworthy and indicative.

Connors was an all-court player with a very good net game.

On clay Borg was a back-courter who very seldom and reluctantly came in only when forced to.

(I recently watched the entire Borg-Gerulaitis Wimbledon 1977 SF match. On grass Borg came to the net more, but only when it was a must-have point—he was behind or facing a break point. If he was even or ahead, he was happy to hang back on the baseline.)

 

[KG1965]

He had one other show of emotion, which was lighter. Tossed his racquet up and caught it after making an unforced error

Its interesting to map the changes in priorities over time. Here, a big factor seems to have been money. The commentators talked about it quite a bit - including related to the show of temper by Borg.

Winner was to receive $100,000 (half what the President made in a year apparently) and the loser $50,000. After the Borg miss in question, one of the commentators pointed out that that miss might cost Borg $50,000... today, with the top players financially better taken care off, I don't think anyone would think of it in that way

I would like to think Borg was motivated because he was particularly hungry to get the better of Connors, something he hadn't done much at the time (won their first match, lost the next 6), not that he got angry thinking something like "There goes 50,000, damn it!", but I suppose it's possible

Connors joked with the crowd 3 or 4 times (Borg almost smiled on one occasion). Did he do stuff like that at 'serious' events?

I would say both guys took the match seriously enough. And it and the tournament are included in official records now, though I don't know how it would have been considered at the time

It was a 4 man event. Panatta and Orantes were the other two guys, players selected loosely on how well they'd performed at the Slam events the previous year (looks like Australian was excluded)

Interestingly, both Borg and Connors faced match points in their semis. Connors faced 1 against Orantes, which he aced away and Borg faced 3 against Panatta. And Orantes won the third placed match over Panatta (3rd placed guy got $30,000, 4th got $20,000)

In my opinion you have hit all the focus points.

I find it hard to explain what the tournament was because it is a missing format: it was very relevant even if it was basically a 4-men exhibition but compared to all the others it was evaluated as a title and for h2h even if it did not give ATP points.
Borg and Connors played 100% or 99%, as almost always in special events.
Waspsting, keep in mind that if Borg was fit and was the top player he won big titles and won special events. So Connors. And so Mac and Lendl.
It's rare that the 4 won a slam or a big title and lost 6-1 6-1 a special event!
They worked hard to win one and the other.

 

[BringBackWood]

I think their 79 match at the same tournament was better played. Krosero has put some wonderful highlights of it on youtube.

 

[KG1965]

Serve Pattern
Borg served...
- to the FH 27%
- to the BH 73%

... bh.

Waspsting, I have repeatedly written to you about your threads because I think this is a really important key to Jimmy's game.
Really important because it would seem to show that the two main adversaries (the other is obviously Lendl) strategically served on the bh in clear prevalence.
Either they were unintelligent (but I strongly doubt) or they thought the fh return (and not the bh) was a dangerous weapon.


(it would be necessary to see objectively many other matches)

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Borg with zero aces, zero volley winners, zero return winners and zero ground stroke winners other than passes but nevertheless wins the match.

 

[BringBackWood]

Borg with zero aces, zero volley winners, zero return winners and zero ground stroke winners other than passes but nevertheless wins the match.

Yes this was not a good match. There are a few rallies which are stupendous but most of it is Jimmy spraying. The 79 final is peak Borg & it's great to behold.

 

[jrepac]

In my opinion you have hit all the focus points.

I find it hard to explain what the tournament was because it is a missing format: it was very relevant even if it was basically a 4-men exhibition but compared to all the others it was evaluated as a title and for h2h even if it did not give ATP points.
Borg and Connors played 100% or 99%, as almost always in special events.
Waspsting, keep in mind that if Borg was fit and was the top player he won big titles and won special events. So Connors. And so Mac and Lendl.
It's rare that the 4 won a slam or a big title and lost 6-1 6-1 a special event!
They worked hard to win one and the other.

The Borg-Connors exos I remember watching were always quite competitive....money was good, obviously, but pride was at stake as well

 

[WCT]

Yes this was not a good match. There are a few rallies which are stupendous but most of it is Jimmy spraying. The 79 final is peak Borg & it's great to behold.

This match was patchier, but followed the patterns of how they matched up then. Connors had far more winners and far more errors. Most of Borg's winners were passing shots. Few clean winners from the back of the court. Later on, as Borg surpassed him, the gap in winners shrunk significantly. But these mid 70s matches, Connors has way more winners.

Borg played great in 79, not Connors. It was 6-2, 6-3 , IIRC. Connors had, by my count, 40 unforced errors to 6 for Borg. Still more winners, though. Borg just counterpunched. A couple of nice winners at net, but on points Connors drew him in.

 

[BringBackWood]

This match was patchier, but followed the patterns of how they matched up then. Connors had far more winners and far more errors. Most of Borg's winners were passing shots. Few clean winners from the back of the court. Later on, as Borg surpassed him, the gap in winners shrunk significantly. But these mid 70s matches, Connors has way more winners.

Borg played great in 79, not Connors. It was 6-2, 6-3 , IIRC. Connors had, by my count, 40 unforced errors to 6 for Borg. Still more winners, though. Borg just counterpunched. A couple of nice winners at net, but on points Connors drew him in.

I assume the 40 UE's are from the 77 match? Connors didn't play badly in the 79 match (didn't play great either)

 

[Waspsting]

Borg with zero aces, zero volley winners, zero return winners and zero ground stroke winners other than passes but nevertheless wins the match.

also known as sound, clay court tennis

nobody hit many baseline-to-baseline winners with those racquets, especially on clay. And if you don't hit winners, then points will end with errors. And if there are no winners being hit, chances are the errors will be marked unforced

This is one of the first matches I statt-ed. I'm guessing my judgment of UE has become harsher and if I did it now, would probably mark a higher portion of errors UEs

As more consistent baseliner, Borg can just keep ball in play, confident that Connors will blink first. And the onus shifts to Connors to make things happen - the alternative is to be bled out from the baseline

He does a good job of it.... both by moving Borg around (though that doesn't lead to Borg making errors, its a good starting point) and by coming to net to finish

Despite high error counts, I though it was a good match. Rallies are long, baseline exchanges are varied and tough

A problem for Connors would be balance of his groundies. In general, he avoided Borg's FH, which means he underplayed with his BH. Which means he's mostly hitting FHs, which is his looser side. Not a good outlook going into who-blinks-first dynamic

Borg's net play is a sight. Comes in 3 times voluntarily
- gets passed once
- other two times, hits a crap volley down of court and runs back to baseline

The 5 time Wimbledon champion, Ladies and Gentlemen

You might like this one -

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-stats-report-connors-vs-borg-us-open-final-1976.659019/

 

[WCT]

I assume the 40 UE's are from the 77 match? Connors didn't play badly in the 79 match (didn't play great either)

No, it's from the 1979 match. There would be no need for me to list 77's totals here. Wasp did them for this thread. You think Connors played better in 79 than in this match? I wouldn't say that. Mind you, I didn't say I thought he played badly either. I don't think I'd use that word for 77 either. There is sure some patchy stretches, though. The difference is Borg in 79. He played far better in 79. And while it's 2 and 3 I had the points at 70 to 58 for Borg. He didn't slaughter him. There were a bunch of deuce games.

Wasp, UE are such a subjective thing. I didn't count them for that many matches, but when I did I'd say I'm very conservative. It needed to be pretty clearcut unforced for me to credit it as such.

 

[BringBackWood]

Borg's net play is a sight. Comes in 3 times voluntarily
- gets passed once
- other two times, hits a crap volley down of court and runs back to baseline

The 5 time Wimbledon champion, Ladies and Gentlemen

Which perhaps shows how mindset can play a part in execution, since Borg was an adept volleyer at SW19. Here' Borg's plan was to be a brick wall, and if I remember correctly expose Jimmy's weakness on the FH side to no pace balls.

One thing that strikes in these Connors Borg battles is how often Jimmy goes to the more conservative slice BH rather than the flat drive, which is his best shot and will give anyone a load of trouble. He does this even when the ball is high and in my opinion it is there to be hit. I think he needed to be uisng those chances to hit and approach, without prolonging the rally.
Also I like the FH loop he uses when is not confident to drive it. Paticularly when he sneaks into the net off it, as Borg is apt to throw a BH loop in reply.

 

[Waspsting]

Wasp, UE are such a subjective thing. I didn't count them for that many matches, but when I did I'd say I'm very conservative. It needed to be pretty clearcut unforced for me to credit it as such.

Very subjective

I don't take UE counts I read as set in stone but an indicator of quality of play. If I'm satisfied the guy who made the counts knows his tennis, I'm glad to look at it

Its very, very unlikely two different stat-ters will have identical counts.... its not a question of who's right or wrong, its a function of how they see the game differently.

Your take on marking return errors makes me think your more lenient in judging UEs than I am. It'd be surprising if we were in full agreement. But you know your tennis and if you've marked something, I'll take it as a sign of quality of play

I'm not even sure how my way of doing it has changed and felt I'd probably become a harsher judge over time. Now I see how I marked Connors...

Connors 67
- Unforced 62 (37 FH, 18 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 5 OH)
- Forced 5 (1 FH, 1 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 1 BHOH)

... how can one be more harsh than that?

Which perhaps shows how mindset can play a part in execution, since Borg was an adept volleyer at SW19. Here' Borg's plan was to be a brick wall, and if I remember correctly expose Jimmy's weakness on the FH side to no pace balls.

His volleying got better year by year it seems, peaking at Wimbledon every year. I'm pretty sure he went through an intense 2 week volleying prep work out just prior to it because as you say, its much better there than anywhere else

Even there though, I find his volleys less than inspiring. The strength of it is in consistency and not missing makeable volleys but he doesn't put them away or into corners... his volleys leave other guy about as good a shot on the pass as you could hope for

I remember we talked about differing values placed on shot-making vs consistency of groundstrokes on clay. Adapting it to volleying, which is by its very nature aggressive, Borg's heavily on the consistent rather than shot-making side of that

That he was so successful brings home how difficult it was to pass... and how great he was at it. Just plopping volleys down middle of court is good enough to win bulk of points against almost anyone on grass. Probably not Borg though

Think he'd have feasted on the pass against his own volleys

One thing that strikes in these Connors Borg battles is how often Jimmy goes to the more conservative slice BH rather than the flat drive, which is his best shot and will give anyone a load of trouble. He does this even when the ball is high and in my opinion it is there to be hit. I think he needed to be uisng those chances to hit and approach, without prolonging the rally.
Also I like the FH loop he uses when is not confident to drive it. Paticularly when he sneaks into the net off it, as Borg is apt to throw a BH loop in reply.

I get the feeling that at some point, he became scared of Borg... scared of his FH, scared of his passes

He has variety in his shots of both sides and those 'shovel-y', side spun slices are part of it

He would try hitting all types of shots at Borg, mostly his flat shots... nothing seemed to trouble Borg much. I get the feeling he was just trying different things out to see what sticks. Lots of drives being hit and they keep coming back... might as well throw in a side spin slice to see if it works

And strong desire to avoid Borg's FH limits his options some

By contrast, he went right after Lendl's FH in the '82 US Open final in particular. '83 to a lesser extent. He never did that with Borg

Slice is a nice shot, but he'd have been better of working out a better top spin approach. The number of approach errors he makes trying to ease the ball over with no top spin is criminal... something so easy to fix, but I don't think he ever did. On commentary in some match (possibly the '82 or '83 US Open finals), Trabert I think was talking about it and quoted Connors as saying he's tried everything and this was just the best way for him to approach

Regarding the FH moonball... in matches I've seen, there hasn't been much approaching behind it. Borg runsaround to smack FH and usually take net. Its an interesting change-up... would expect it to fail more often than not

 

[WCT]

Connors using a bh slice with any degree of regularity? Not in my notice. Taking waist high balls that he could easily drive and instead slicing? Not by my recall. Stretched wide he might employ a slice or if Borg's topspin bounced high around or above his shoulder, yes. Also, I suppose, a ball that was very short and low. He might follow that in with a slice. But those were outliers. My guess would be the overwhelming % of bh were basically flat drive.

Now, Borg, early on, employed a lot of sliced bh against Connors.To try not to give him pace. He stopped doing it, I'd say around 78, and just hit as regular topspin bh. He definitely used slice on the approach, though. And sometimes if stretched really wide. However, using it as a tactic to avoid giving Connors pace? By the time he started beating Connors regularly, that was gone.

As far as Connors changing pace on his fh. That was a big looping shot that he might throw in 3 or 4 times a match. Nothing he would ever approach off of. As Wasp said, later on, I saw Borg a few times just step in and hit it for a winner. Not on any regular basis, but it wasn't a regular shot. Again, Connors might hit it 3 or 4 times in a match.

Connors is definitely more reticent to approach to Borg's fh later on. Then again, I think he is more reticent to come to net, period, against a bunch of players.

Forgot to mention this in my last post. How seriously Borg and Connors took this. VERY seriously. Borg has a sitter pass on match point in the second set. Misses it and slams the ball into the net in a manner you never saw from him. Connors head to head was, I believe, 7-1 going into this match. Borg wanted it desperately.

Wasp, what is your criteria for UE on volleys specifically. Regarding Borg's volleying, I do think it got better at Wimbledon as he went along. In his 81 semi vs Connors, he makes some beautiful low angled backhand volleys on returns that were very low and hard. He may not have come in like a textbook s/v player, but he came in a bunch. He wouldn't have won 5 straight if he couldn't volley. Just because he couldn't volley like Mcenroe didn't mean he couldn't volley.

 

[KG1965]

I hope it is useful for the discussion.
I took some matches between the two and report below the effectiveness of the net-game.

Taking not only inspiration but also from your inherent data 7 matches (USO 76, USO 78, Wimbly 78, Masters GP 79, Boca Raton 77, USO 81 and Richmond 82.... in 4 Borg won, in 3 Jimbo won) between the two players the result very tight is this:

BORG 179/291 = 62%
CONNORS 260/387 = 67%

1​	7​	0,14​	49​	76​	0,64​
25​	36​	0,69​	67​	86​	0,78​
27​	42​	0,64​	30​	37​	0,81​
25​	45​	0,56​	27​	42​	0,64​
26​	44​	0,59​	21​	42​	0,50​
54​	81​	0,67​	36​	59​	0,61​
21​	36​	0,58​	30​	45​	0,67​
179​	291​	0,62​	260​	387​	0,67​

​

 

[jrepac]

Much like Mac's ground game, Connors' volleying is similarly under-rated. Not glamorous shots, just very efficient. Of course, set up by the approach shots, which were usually above average. Connors could hit the occasional touch shots as well, he just didn't do it all that often. Slice shots were mentioned earlier...but I don't consider his sidespin shots your typical slice. And really, that sidespin seemed to be something only he and Evert hit w/any regularity. If a ball was above his shoulders, or it was a very wide stretch, sure he might slice it, but that was rare. He was not a topspin guy....certainly not on the FH. But on the BH he could really come over the short court pass when he needed to. I do wonder about the avoidance of Borg's forehand...yet, he went right after Lendl on the FH side. But, sure, Borg's BH was the weaker side, by any account.

 

[Waspsting]

Wasp, what is your criteria for UE on volleys specifically

stuff to keep an eye out for
- height
- width
- power of pass

height which is usually the most prominent one, and most pertinent for looking at Borg. There are -

a) low volleys, including half-volleys... balls right to the feet. These are almost always FEs. rare exceptions are when pass is so slow that they volleyer had times to take a step back and hit a groundstroke

good volleying on this is putting as many balls in play

b) low-ish volleys... balls significantly below net but not to feet. These are overwhelming bulk of times FEs. Odd exceptions when ball is slow, including when its dropping slowly

good volleying on this is putting as many balls in play. The best volleyers tend to do so placing the ball wide or/and deep too, but everyone misses a few of these

c) the regulation volley.... net high, a bit higher or a bit lower. These are usually UEs, exceptions being when the ball is particularly hard hit

good volleying on this is putting away winners or putting ball in corners.... this is the staple for volleying for anyone (for simplicity sake, will skip over drop volleys)

d) easy volley, comfortably over net.... These are virtually always UEs

should be putaway or into corners at a minimum

e) the putaway, high volley... chest, shoulder high stuff. Always UEs

should be putaway
---

regarding Borg's volleying... first, outside of Wimbledon, its almost always bad. As in, regularly misses easy volleys and occasionally, putaways let alone regulation ones

At Wimbledon, he doesn't miss much but he also doesn't do much with the volley

What are some things players typically do with the regulation volley?

i) put it away... this is very high calibre volleying, and risky. Even the Mac's and Edberg's forego it as often as not and instead go for....
ii) put it in a corner... leaving a hopeless, running pass
iii) volley wide, but short of into a corner... leaving a pass that baseliner has to move to at least or hit on the move
iv) systematically volley to BH, whether that leaves a running pass or is near the baseliner

Also noting extent to which volleys are punched through, crossed with all of the above (leaving aside touch volleys for simplicity's sake)

Borg doesn't do much of any of that stuff

he puts the ball in court. usually down middle of court, often not punched through. The baseliner can reach the ball without trouble and take his shot

On grass in particular, even from that scenario, the net guy is favourite to win point from there. But from baseliners point of view, that's as good as he can hope for (other than the net player missing volleys)

That's what Borg typically does when he's volleying well (i.e. not missing volleys). Leaves the passer best possible shot

you can see this statistically in low volley winner numbers relative to approaches in his matches. In my stats, you also see low rates of first volley winners
I don't have stats for how many volleys were made to draw errors but can say with confidence the one's Borg draws tend not to come immediately. 2 or 3 volleys to force the error... and most of them from stationary passes (not necessarily from the BH)

He doesn't punch the regulation volley through or get it particularly deep.

McEnroe is highest calibre volleyer - who putsaway regulation volleys or puts them in corners - and not a reasonable basis of comparison for a non-natural volleyer. But even by a normal standard of volley away from the baseliner or to his BH... Borg's conservative in what he does with his volleys

Connors does not fool around on the volley. He gets in close and swats them away

Aesthetically too, Borg makes everything in forecourt look hard work to my eye. How a player appears superficially is first cue on judging FEs an UEs
Mac makes everything look easy. He'll miss a volley looking so natural, you think it must be a UE... only the ball was at his feet
Borg's the opposite. He'll miss a volley looking harried and you think it must be a FE... only the ball was a regulation, net high ball

For baseline play in particular, I'm a big advocate of looking at consistency as well as shot-making in assessing quality. Rarity of UEs isn't naturally eye catching and often overlooked and guys who hit great shots for winners but make UEs of regulation balls regularly are often applauded, while guys who barely miss a ball aren't... I do my best to avoid this

On the volley, which is inherently an aggressive shot, there's less scope for a clean distinction between consistency and 'shot making'. Borg's volleying seems to me to best be understood in those terms though

'76 final with Nastase is good example. Nastase volleys beautifully into corners, Borg puts the ball in play. But Nastase misses a fair few regulation volleys, Borg hardly any. Who volleys better in the match? I'd say Borg

I hope it is useful for the discussion.
I took some matches between the two and report below the effectiveness of the net-game.

Taking not only inspiration but also from your inherent data 7 matches (USO 76, USO 78, Wimbly 78, Masters GP 79, Boca Raton 77, USO 81 and Richmond 82.... in 4 Borg won, in 3 Jimbo won) between the two players the result very tight is this:

Thanks, KG

Trend in Borg approaching more and more and Connors the opposite over time comes through in these numbers

Much like Mac's ground game, Connors' volleying is similarly under-rated. Not glamorous shots, just very efficient. Of course, set up by the approach shots, which were usually above average.

I think the key to Connors' volleying quality is how decisive his intent is. He rushes all the way forward to take ball over the net - and swats them away. Might be why he had some trouble on the OH... he'd have to back pedal more to reach them, and played them with that 'wheeling' rather than classic motion

I do wonder about the avoidance of Borg's forehand...yet, he went right after Lendl on the FH side. But, sure, Borg's BH was the weaker side, by any account.

Borg was smart in the way he used his groundies

FH > BH of course, but if he found that his advantage BH-BH was greater than his advantage FH-FH.... he usually led with BH cc's

Against Connors, he seems to be as content with BH-FH as Connors does.... he's probably a bit wary of Connors' BH too, though its Connors that leads that particular dance
---
Question for all of you

How seriously do you think the post-'81 exhos between Borg and Connors were played?

I've only statt-ed 1 - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...-borg-richmond-indoor-exhibition-1982.647018/

 

[KG1965]

How seriously do you think the post-'81 exhos between Borg and Connors were played?

IMO it's hard to tell. Let me first make a clarification. I noticed some time ago that there were no differences between matches between ATG v ATG and between ATG v level 2 players. In other words, in the period when Borg was superior to Connors, Bjorn was winning v Jimbo at Wimbledon and to Boca Raton, to Las Vegas or an exhibition.
Lendl won v Noah to Masters GP or in an exhibition. The best players won slam, big titles, special events or exhibitions.
I think a different argument should be made for Borg's post 1981 exhibitions. The feeling is that Jimbo plays at his maximum output (or almost 90% -100%) and is committed like a slam while the sweden seems to have a preparation of 70% (even if wins v McEnroe and Lendl).
I think his lower performance is due to his athletic and technical training. He loses almost all exhibitons 1982-83 v Connors but if he had been at 90% he probably would have won more than half.

 

[WCT]

Several things. The seriousness with which they took the 80s exhibitions. There first 82 match was after Wimbledon, in California. There was some joking around, even Borg. Not saying they weren't trying, but I never saw that in the Pepsi matches much less something like a Grand Slam.

Connors used more topspin on his BH? Again, don't see it. Definitely FH, IMO. Not saying he used a lot there either. Pretty much always the crosscourt FH, but he employed it occasionally. The sidespin was more the FH, down the line.

BH, pretty much the only time he used it was that little short, crosscourt angled roll he sometimes employed. Took a lot of pace off of it. I think his BH was mostly flat, but occasional slice when he was stretched really wide or had to reach for a short, low ball in front of him.

Wasp, you have a much lower opinion of Borg's volley than I do. After I read your assessment I looked at 2 matches. Just 1 set from the 78 WImbledon finals. I think his volleying is very good there. 4 or 5 putaway volleys. Not on tremendously difficult volleys, but they weren't sitters either. He didn't miss any easy ones. He did have one that was more a lucky dying quail type.

YT has a video of just the 5th set of the 81 Wimbledon semi. Matches m memory. I think his volleying is excellent there. Mindy you, I didn't say sublime. It's not Edberg level. Still. I'll stand by excellent. 5 or 6 low angled backhand volleys on hard, low returns.
In my view. his backhand volley is much better. He doesn't make one of those type on the FH side. However, I wouldn't say he did nothing with sitters there. More like average to pretty good returns where he doesn't do much with the volley. Connors has a pretty good to good look at the next pass.

Plus, Borg isn't at the net that much. He missed a lot of 1st serves and he didn't s/v all of them either. In the deuce court pretty much all of them. Most were wide to Connors BH.
The ad court, though, he stayed back on some. As I expected, no S/V on any 2nd serves. Still, there were a bunch of long, break point games on each player's serves.
I didn't do a count, but he did a decent amount of volleying.

1978 US Open final is another match where I know he volleyed very well. I updated my match stats on that in the last year or two. I'm not rewatching that, I remember it. Certainly not at the net as much as at Wimbledon, but it was still more than Connors. Maybe 40ish times.

Obviously, that is only 3 matches and you have detailed actual stats that you have done fairly recently. But the 2 matches I just watched confirm my memory. I'd need to look at a lot more to really confirm my opinion which is more just my opinion watching than stats.
I did keep stats on a bunch of Borg Connors matches, but not detailed. Mostly, my net stats were only how many times the players came in. Only in my later matches did I keep winners and errors at net.

Another thing that 81 match confirmed. 8 plus balls, some on very big points, that Connors does not come in on. Balls bouncing up at the service line. NO WAY IN HELL he stays back on any of those balls in 1974 or 75. I don't think he stays back on the majority in 78. We discussed that in the thread about that match. While I think it's clear that 78 Wimbledon Connors is clearly not coming in as quickly as 74, he was still at the net a 1/3 of the points. You called him a baseliner in that thread. I disagreed than and still do. And I think I mentioned the 81 match in that thread. IMO, it is oretty glaring that he is not coming in as quick 81 match vs 78 match. 81 through 74 is REALLY glaring.
Not that he wasn't coming in at all in that 5th set. 12 to 15 times maybe. Could have easily been more, though. IIRC, I had him coming in 58 times in my stats for that 81 match.

Back to those 80s exhibitions. I don't mean to imply that the players aren't trying. Just that the one match had a level of humor you didn't see in earlier matches. Like Borg playing along some. You'd never see that at Wimbledon and we never saw it at the Pepsi. He was only responding to Connors humor, though, and you didn't get any of that from him in those matches either.

To me, Borg was just a bit rusty in those matches. He could still pull off some fantastic shots, but he would make the simple error you never used to see him make. Missing a easy 2nd serve return on break point. That sort of thing. He had some good wins in that 82-83 period. Beat Connors, Mcenroe and Lendl at various times. Not consistent, though. He and Connors played the most, IIRC, at least 6 matches in 82. and Connors had the clear edge.