Match Stats/Report - Borg vs Connors, Wimbledon semi-final, 1979

[Waspsting]

Bjorn Borg beat Jimmy Connors 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1979 on grass

Borg would go onto win the title for the 4th year in a row, beating Roscoe Tanner in the final. Connors had lost to Borg in the final the previous two years

Borg won 98 points, Connors 69

Serve Stats
Borg...
- 1st serve percentage (37/73) 51%
- 1st serve points won (33/37) 89%
- 2nd serve points won (17/36) 47%
- Aces 11
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (25/73) 34%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (56/94) 60%
- 1st serve points won (28/56) 50%
- 2nd serve points won (18/38) 47%
- Aces 3
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (9/94) 10%

Serve Patterns
Borg served...
- to FH 23%
- to BH 66%
- to Body 11%

Connors served...
- to FH 38%
- to BH 60%
- to Body 2%

Return Stats
Borg made...
- 83 (51 FH, 32 BH), including 23 runaround FHs
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 6 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (4 FH)
- 2 Forced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (83/92) 90%

Connors made...
- 46 (22 FH, 24 BH), including 9 runaround FHs & 3 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (2 FH, 1 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 11 Forced (3 FH, 8 BH)
- Return Rate (46/71) 65%

Break Points
Borg 7/16 (7 games)
Connors 1/7 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Borg 27 (9 FH, 11 BH, 4 FHV, 1 BHV, 2 OH)
Connors 24 (2 FH, 3 BH, 7 FHV, 5 BHV, 6 OH, 1 BHOH)

Borg had 18 passes (7 FH, 11 BH)
- FHs - 2 cc, 3 dtl, 1 dtl/inside-out and 1 lob
- BHs - 2 cc, 4 dtl, 1 dtl/inside-out, 2 inside-in returns and 2 lobs

- regular FHs - 1 cc (that Connors leaves) and 1 dtl return

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a first volley BHV

- 1 FHV can reasonably be called an OH and 1 was against a net chord pop up ball
- 1 OH on the bounce from behind service line (a retreated net point)

Connors had 3 from serve-volley points
- 2 first volleys (2 BHV)
- 1 second volley (1 FHV)

- 1 from a return-approach point, an OH

- 1 other BHV was a non-net swinging shot

- FHs - 1 cc at net and 1 dtl pass
- BHs - 2 dtl (1 return pass) and 1 lob (sliced)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Borg 34
- 19 Unforced (12 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV)... with 1 FH at net
- 15 Forced (10 FH, 5 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.7

Connors 44
- 32 Unforced (9 FH, 19 BH, 1 FHV, 3 BHV)... with 1 non-net, swinging BHV
- 12 Forced (3 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)... with 1 FH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.8

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Borg was...
- 20/25 (80%) at net, including...
- 6/8 (75%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 2/2 forced back/retreated

Connors was...
- 34/59 (58%) at net, including...
- 6/15 (40%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 5/14 (36%) off 1st serve and...
- 1/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 2/3 (67%) return-approaching
- 0/1 retreated

Match Report
A great showing from Borg, who serves with overwhelming strength and backs it up with top class passing and a well judged, limited net game. Connors plays in his best style of hard-hitting groudstrokes backed up by net approaches and occasional serve-volleying, but his BH lets him down somewhat and the handicap he gives up on the serve is too much to make up


First Serve - The Only Difference?
There are multiple ways to interpret this match. One of them is that the sole difference between the two players is the difference between Borg’s potent first serve and Connors’ innocuous one (maybe with a nod to Borg’s outstanding returning that neuters the ‘innocuous’ down a step to impotent)

Sans Borg’s first serve points, both players win 65 points apiece

Borg finishes the match on an unbroken run of 27 straight first serve points won. Sans that, Borg wins 71 points, Connors 69

So, we have Borg’s first serve doing what a first serve should; winning him points outright (59% of them go unreturned) or giving him a big advantage to start the rally from where he’s heavily favoured to go onto win them

And Connors’ first failing to do the same. His first serve, like his second or Borg’s for that matter, is effectively just a point starter leaving the two equally skilled players to duke it out (and as it turns out, they duke it out to an exact 50-50 result)

22/37 or 59% of Borg’s first serves go unreturned, including all 10 in the second set. Connors has 9 unreturned serves all match

How much of the ineffectiveness of Connors’ first serve is due to Borg’s returning? At least some, probably. Objectively, its an ordinary serve, but how many players could return it as consummately as Borg? Probably not many, but Connors has a habit of doing just as well or better on his 2nd serve points as his 1st (regardless of how well he’s doing) against many opponents

If that implies that his 2 serves are equal, what do we call them? 2 ‘first serves’? Or 2 ‘second serves’? Beyond doubt, 2 second serves is the most accurate description

Its like two equally (and in this case, very highly) skilled tennis players clashing, but one of them is only allowed to 1 serve per point

Very strong serving from Borg, some of the best I’ve seen from him and categorically stronger than the final. And typical, evergreen returning. His return rate is 90%. It was 92% in both the ‘77 and ‘78 finals

Jimbo’s serve is what it is apparently, but does his return have a hand in Borg’s first serve success? I’d say no. The serving is just too good here

 

[Waspsting]

Playing Dynamics - Baseline & Net
With low serve-volleying frequencies (Borg 31%, Connors 26% off first serves and there’s just one second serve-volley point), most of the action starts with baseline rallies. The two trade groundies until someone misses (there are just 2 baseline-to-baseline winners and 1 of them is a product of the recipient misjudging and leaving the ball) or someone comes to net

Connors does the bulk of both missing from the back and coming to net.

Baseline UEs is best gauge of how rallies go and they read -
Borg 17 (11 FH, 6 BH)
Connors 29 (9 FH, 19 BH, 1 BHV)

Breaking down into types of UEs -
- Neutral - Borg 13, Connors 11 (+ 1 defensive)
- Attacking - Borg 4, Connors 12
- Winner Attempts - Connors 5

Connors leads rallies more, and Borg correspondingly reacts more. Normal for the pair and very normal for Connors to take the lead. In general (i.e. in other matches,) Connors tends to avoid Borg’s FH and thus, underplays with his BH, making Connors FH and Borg BH the main shots on show

Not here. Connors predominantly leads with BHs, majority of which he plays cc to Borg’s FH and Borg responds in kind

To clarify, ‘leading rallies’, ‘reacting’ and Connors BH - Borg FH being the major rally are all relative terms with none of them to be taken too strongly. Connors does initiate directions of play more than Borg does, but once the rally begins, the two are near enough evenly matched in hitting, Connors with perhaps a thin edge more often than not. And persistent cc rallies aren’t the flavour on plate. Connors in particular changes directions off both wings, including via inside-out shots off both wings, resulting in a lot of running around and lively rallies

Within that dynamic, what do the numbers say?

Chief diagonal at play comes out in the higher lot of UEs by the two most seen shots. A bit surprisingly, Connors hanging in with Borg on the neutral UEs (in fact, shading them)

Borg though has far fewer of the more aggressive errors. Jimbo as ever is the more eager to go on the attack, while Borg is more content to keep trading groundies. Jimbo’s apt to go dtl with the BH for a winner or at least, a point-endingly strong ‘approach shot’ that would likely end the point without the approach

Pretty good approach day for Jimbo. Doesn’t miss many pure approach shots, but rather these dtl to the corner shots with Borg on the other side that he might or might not have come in behind for insurance. He hits his dtl with a bit of side spin, not completely flat

As 11 UEs show, Borg’s FH does suffer against Jimbo’s BH. In cc rallies, the two share the honours, as the near equal neutral errors suggest. Its all the dtl and/or approach errors that sends Jimbo’s BH UE count up to by far match high 19. Neutrally, it holds even with the Borg FH - both shots well struck

Connors has BH UEs on 5/7 break points he loses to give up breaks

Rallying to net figures -
- Borg 14/17 or 82%
- Connors 26/41 or 63%

Jimbo’s greater net hunger on show. Both players manufacture approaches, not draw weak ball and come in off it (there aren’t many weak balls to be had from either player). Jimbo regularly comes in off the third ball, preferring to do so with the FH

It’s a good alternative to be aggressive when serve-volleying isn’t working (Jimbo’s just 5/14 first serve-volleying). He volleys well too, but Borg passes better still. Jimbo is typically vigorous in dispatching anything above the net, while punching and placing anything slightly under it deep and wide. Just 3 volleying UEs for Jimbo in forecourt - 1 in last game of match, another not too easy as its slow, but dropping low

Borg however passes superbly and makes some spectacular, improbable running passes

He has 9 BH passing winners (excluding 2 returns), to just 4 errors trying. FH has 7 winners, 9 errors - which is a great figure itself, though dwarfed by the BHs. These are not promising numbers for Jimbo

On flip side, very neat in the forecourt from Borg. He comes in behind slices, including at least 1 FH and is able to keep the ball lower than Jimbo does. Couple of lovely, touch drop volley winners. Just the 1 missed volley by Borg in the match (also, a FH at net)

Not so good passing by Jimbo, though he pulls out an eye catching slice lob winner that I’ve never seen him play before. Its his only BH pass winner (other than a return)

For Jimbo on the pass, 2 winners (1 FH, 1 BH), 9 errors (2 FH, 7 BH) and Borg with a measly 1 volleying error. He virtually never gets a good look at a pass, but Borg had made do on the run from worse positions. Not a blackmark against Jimbo’s passing, but he’d need to have done better against what he’s up against

Match Progression
Though Borg wins all 3 sets by 2 break margins, they’re not equal by any means

First set is competitive even. Break point numbers in it read Borg 2/6 (2 games), Connors 0/4 (3 games)

Jimbo comes out swinging - serve-volleying off both serves, banging down an ace and completing the hold with a swatted volley winner

Borg also serve-volleys off his first point, but is passed by the return. Thereafter, he stays back and holds

All the remaining games of the set go to deuce, with Jimbo crowding the net both via serve-volley and rallying forward. Borg can usually keep him back on his own service games. Action remains competitive either way. The result doesn’t. Borg wins all the games

Jimbo has the first break points in game 4. Misses an attacking BH dtl on the first and Borg takes net and erases the next with a well-timed BHOH. Jimbo climbs out of 0-40 game after, but misses a BH approach shot awhile later to give up the first break

Borg consolidates, saving a break point with a strong serve (which begins his unbroken streak of 27 straight first serve points won) and breaks again. Couple of passing winners help - the FH lob he opens game with is particularly good, but its another BH dtl error from Jimbo that seals the break. Borg serves out the set, saving another break point, this time serve-volleying on it. Makes a so-so volley and Jimbo has 1 of the few decent looks at a pass but misses. Beautiful drop volley by Borg to wrap up the set

Good set of tennis with average game length 7.88 points, 6/8 games going to deuce and 5 having break points in them

Second set by contrast is a breeze for Borg, who loses 1 point in 4 service games. He doesn’t just win all 10 first serve points, but not 1 is returned (5 of them aces). Jimbo meanwhile is made to work every service game

Borg serves 4.25 games per set, Jimbo 8.2, while being broken 2/5 times. Only 1 of his games don’t go to deuce

Just the 1 serve-volley in the set by Jimbo (loses the point to a return at his feet), down from 10 in first set but he still rallies his way in regularly and bring out the return-approach for first time

Having survived two 8 point holds (no break points), Jimbo’s broken to go down 2-3 in 14 point game. There’s net play and there’s baseline play in the game, which eventually ends with Jimbo missing a regulation BH. He’s broken a second time to end the set in an error ridden game with little net play, and again, it’s a strange BH dtl/inside-out error that seals it

Undaunted, Jimbo comes out swinging in set 3, taking net thee times (including once off the approach) to get to 0-40 in the opening game. Borg saves first 2 break points with serve-volleys, but a rally develops at 30-40. This time its Borg tries to go BH dtl and misses. An odd choice from him

Jimbo’s feeling well enough to start serve-volleying again, and consolidates to love. And that’s the last game he wins

First break by Borg makes it 2-2 and again it’s a strange BH UE, a slicey, inside-out that wouldn’t have bothered Borg had it landed in anyway

Jimbo finds some other way of losing break points than with BH errors after that. He misses a low, but slowly dropping return on the BHV to go down 2-4 and finally, is broken to love to finish. Couple of Borg passing winners takes it to 0-40, and Jimbo misses a half-court sitter of a FH to wrap things up

Summing up, top showing from Borg. His serve is the standout, but the passing isn’t far behind with a smart, tidy net game to complement his steady ground game

If Borg plays well, then Connors must have too, since he’s neck-and-neck with Borg in all areas, other than the first serve, but his is a very ordinary one and the handicap turns ‘neck-and-neck’ of play into ‘eating dust’ of result

Stats for the final between Borg and Roscoe Tanner - Match Stats/Report - Borg vs Tanner, Wimbledon final, 1979 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[Debraj]

I generally like your match report,can you please do one for 1989 french open match between ivan lendl and michael chang(sorry if you already did)

 

[sandy mayer]

Bjorn Borg beat Jimmy Connors 6-2, 6-3, 6-2 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1979 on grass

Borg would go onto win the title for the 4th year in a row, beating Roscoe Tanner in the final. Connors had lost to Borg in the final the previous two years

Borg won 98 points, Connors 69

Serve Stats
Borg...
- 1st serve percentage (37/73) 51%
- 1st serve points won (33/37) 89%
- 2nd serve points won (17/36) 47%
- Aces 11
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (25/73) 34%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (56/94) 60%
- 1st serve points won (28/56) 50%
- 2nd serve points won (18/38) 47%
- Aces 3
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (9/94) 10%

Serve Patterns
Borg served...
- to FH 23%
- to BH 66%
- to Body 11%

Connors served...
- to FH 38%
- to BH 60%
- to Body 2%

Return Stats
Borg made...
- 83 (51 FH, 32 BH), including 23 runaround FHs
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 6 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (4 FH)
- 2 Forced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (83/92) 90%

Connors made...
- 46 (22 FH, 24 BH), including 9 runaround FHs & 3 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (2 FH, 1 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 11 Forced (3 FH, 8 BH)
- Return Rate (46/71) 65%

Break Points
Borg 7/16 (7 games)
Connors 1/7 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Borg 27 (9 FH, 11 BH, 4 FHV, 1 BHV, 2 OH)
Connors 24 (2 FH, 3 BH, 7 FHV, 5 BHV, 6 OH, 1 BHOH)

Borg had 18 passes (7 FH, 11 BH)
- FHs - 2 cc, 3 dtl, 1 dtl/inside-out and 1 lob
- BHs - 2 cc, 4 dtl, 1 dtl/inside-out, 2 inside-in returns and 2 lobs

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a first volley BHV

- 1 FHV can reasonably be called an OH and 1 was against a net chord pop up ball
- 1 OH on the bounce from behind service line (a retreated net point)

Connors had 3 from serve-volley points
- 2 first volleys (2 BHV)
- 1 second volley (1 FHV)

- 1 from a return-approach point, an OH

- 1 other BHV was a non-net swinging shot

- FHs - 1 cc at net and 1 dtl pass
- BHs - 2 dtl (1 return pass) and 1 lob (sliced)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Borg 34
- 19 Unforced (12 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV)... with 1 FH at net
- 15 Forced (10 FH, 5 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 43.7

Connors 44
- 32 Unforced (9 FH, 19 BH, 1 FHV, 3 BHV)... with 1 non-net, swinging BHV
- 12 Forced (3 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)... with 1 FH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.8

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Borg was...
- 20/25 (80%) at net, including...
- 6/8 (75%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 2/2 forced back/retreated

Connors was...
- 34/59 (58%) at net, including...
- 6/15 (40%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 5/14 (36%) off 1st serve and...
- 1/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 2/3 (67%) return-approaching
- 0/1 retreated

Match Report
A great showing from Borg, who serves with overwhelming strength and backs it up with top class passing and a well judged, limited net game. Connors plays in his best style of hard-hitting groudstrokes backed up by net approaches and occasional serve-volleying, but his BH lets him down somewhat and the handicap he gives up on the serve is too much to make up


First Serve - The Only Difference?
There are multiple ways to interpret this match. One of them is that the sole difference between the two players is the difference between Borg’s potent first serve and Connors’ innocuous one (maybe with a nod to Borg’s outstanding returning that neuters the ‘innocuous’ down a step to impotent)

Sans Borg’s first serve points, both players win 65 points apiece

Borg finishes the match on an unbroken run of 27 straight first serve points won. Sans that, Borg wins 71 points, Connors 69

So, we have Borg’s first serve doing what a first serve should; winning him points outright (59% of them go unreturned) or giving him a big advantage to start the rally from where he’s heavily favoured to go onto win them

And Connors’ first failing to do the same. His first serve, like his second or Borg’s for that matter, is effectively just a point starter leaving the two equally skilled players to duke it out (and as it turns out, they duke it out to an exact 50-50 result)

22/37 or 59% of Borg’s first serves go unreturned, including all 10 in the second set. Connors has 9 unreturned serves all match

How much of the ineffectiveness of Connors’ first serve is due to Borg’s returning? At least some, probably. Objectively, its an ordinary serve, but how many players could return it as consummately as Borg? Probably not many, but Connors has a habit of doing just as well or better on his 2nd serve points as his 1st (regardless of how well he’s doing) against many opponents

If that implies that his 2 serves are equal, what do we call them? 2 ‘first serves’? Or 2 ‘second serves’? Beyond doubt, 2 second serves is the most accurate description

Its like two equally (and in this case, very highly) skilled tennis players clashing, but one of them is only allowed to 1 serve per point

Very strong serving from Borg, some of the best I’ve seen from him and categorically stronger than the final. And typical, evergreen returning. His return rate is 90%. It was 92% in both the ‘77 and ‘78 finals

Jimbo’s serve is what it is apparently, but does his return have a hand in Borg’s first serve success? I’d say no. The serving is just too good here

Borg's serve was actually one of the best in the world in his day. People forget what a weapon it was. In his autobiography written in early 1980, Borg says Connors' problem in the 79 period is that he didn't serve as hard as he did in 74, and didn't get as many bigger first serves in. For Connors to beat Borg at Wimbledon he would have had to serve at his very best so that his serve was a weapon rather than simply a point starter. Connors' serve was never as good as Borg's even when Connors served better in 74 and 82, but when Connors served at his best he got alot more cheap points with it.

 

[WCT]

Borg's serve was actually one of the best in the world in his day. People forget what a weapon it was. In his autobiography written in early 1980, Borg says Connors' problem in the 79 period is that he didn't serve as hard as he did in 74, and didn't get as many bigger first serves in. For Connors to beat Borg at Wimbledon he would have had to serve at his very best so that his serve was a weapon rather than simply a point starter. Connors' serve was never as good as Borg's even when Connors served better in 74 and 82, but when Connors served at his best he got alot more cheap points with it.

I think you are going too far here.. He had a very good serve. One of the best in the game? I don't think so. He has one of the top 6 or 8 serves in the game then? Again, I think t was very good and could definitely be a weapon. I just don't think that good.

I know we have discussed this book before. Gene Scott wrote it with Borg. I can't remember the specifics, but it was sort of the same thing. You saying he said something in the book that I don't recall and can't find. I can't find him talking about Connors serve and him serving harder previously.

He talks about his 79 success and one of the reasons is his now longer trying to feed Connors slower balls. He just slugs away and feels that he is more consistent. He talks about Connors a lot, has a lengthy passage on January 80 Masters match. Pretty much goes point by point through the last few games and the last set tiebreaker. But nothing about any change in Connors' serve. Now that I think of it maybe you had a different version of the book? I have the paperback.

Anyway, while I agree with your general point about Connors serve, and I do think it was the difference in some of the matches, I don't think it was the difference here. Correction, I think it's a clear difference in this match, but it's more than that this day. More than that pretty much all of 1979.

I did stats for this match a long time ago. At least 10, maybe close to 15 years ago. 1979 was a different Wimbledon for Borg. At least in the 2 matches we have. It's the least he came in during 76-81. Even in the final, a lot of 1st serves he didn't come in. For the most part his rule was come in on all the 1st serves and stay back all the seconds. He came in on every first serve against Connors in 78. Came in more against him at the US Open too,

79 was way different. He hardly came in their Pepsi match, their Las Vegas match, the part of the Tokyo match that I've seen. When I say hardly come in I mean 3 or 4 times in each of them. Pepsi was 128 points, Tokyo 74 and Vegas I don't think I did the points, but it was about 14 or 15 games. Obviously, he came in much more in this match, but maybe 40-50 times less than 78 where it was basically the same score.
Anyway, I think it's interesting that this one Wimbledon he took a different approach.
Hard to be too definitive when we only have the 2 matches, though. Perhaps he came in more in some of the earlier matches.

For whatever reason, Borg just thumped Connors in 79. Until their last 2 matches which were 4 setters and in special events. Then the Masters went the distance as well. Maybe it was his baby being more. As I've long stated, Connors Borg was not Borg Vilas. Borg thumped him for years. He wound up beating Connors all the time, but didn't spend years beating him like a drum. He spent a year doing that.

GREAT to see you back, Wasp.

I forgot something. It's about Connors s/v. NBC aired an edited version of this match at about 130 AM the next morning. As the match was starting, Donald Dell doing color for NBC, says that Connors needs to s/v every serve, 1st and 2nd. Now, I knew the result by now, but if I didn't I would have said that' crazy. Not every serve he hits. And I, and John Newcombe on NBC, thought he should have done it more in 77 and 78. Not every serve, though.

That was those years. 79 you see the stats. He was having no success doing it. Winning 5 out of every 14 points you try it is not going to cut it.

 

[jrepac]

Not that Borg was a bad server, and he certainly served harder than Connors on average, I never thought of his as the best server among his peers. My mind always went to Tanner, Mac and Lendl over Borg. Then later some tier 2/3 guys like Curren (a T1 server, actually) and Steve Denton.

 

[Waspsting]

I generally like your match report,can you please do one for 1989 french open match between ivan lendl and michael chang(sorry if you already did)

I'd like to do that one if I can get a full copy, but chances don't look good. Even the one released by the offiical Roland Garros site is missing first several games

Anyway, I think it's interesting that this one Wimbledon he took a different approach (regarading serve-volleying frequency)
Hard to be too definitive when we only have the 2 matches, though. Perhaps he came in more in some of the earlier matches.

Thought it was interesting that he did considerably better not serve-volleying than serve-volleying in the final vs Tanner

But he did serve-volley considerably in the final, unlike here

-------------

Regarding Borg's serve - I've heard it mentioned as one of the best of its time and so on, and don't really see it. Couple of good showings - this match and the '81 US semi stand out, but for most part, doesn't look anything special

He's got some pitiful unreturned rates in a lot of matches. Far more often than good ones. Mac usually returns him with thorough comfort
And particularly the second serve. Its just like anyone elses - a rolled in point starter

A question for all of you. To what extent do you think its Borg's return that makes Connors' serve look so ordinary? (as opposed to it looking ordinary because it is ordinary)

II doubt anyone else is returning him at 90%+ rate

 

[WCT]

I think on clay Borg would sometime forego the big serve and just spin it in. I think he has a very good first serve. If you don't s/v on the 2nd there is less need to go for a really good one. Mcenroe can't just spin it in if he's coming in behind it.

I think Borg didn't miss easy service returns. Mcenroe could get careless. Connors wasn't going to just spin on in against Borg and have him miss the return. I think it was just his consistency that lead to some extremely low unreturned serve %.

Yeah, Borg definitely s/v more against Tanner than Connors, but it's clearly less than other years. While say 60% of his 1st serves is a lot it's also a lot less than 90+%

 

[paolo2143]

Borg started owning Connors from 77 onwards. Yes there wasn't massive edge in 77 and 78 but from 79-81 he went on rampage winning something like 12 out of 13 matches and some real thumpings in there such as Us open 81, Wimbledon 79 as well as some others.

Don't get me wrong in 1981 matches started being closer again but Borg owned Connors mentally by that point.

 

[jrepac]

I'd like to do that one if I can get a full copy, but chances don't look good. Even the one released by the offiical Roland Garros site is missing first several games


Thought it was interesting that he did considerably better not serve-volleying than serve-volleying in the final vs Tanner

But he did serve-volley considerably in the final, unlike here

-------------

Regarding Borg's serve - I've heard it mentioned as one of the best of its time and so on, and don't really see it. Couple of good showings - this match and the '81 US semi stand out, but for most part, doesn't look anything special

He's got some pitiful unreturned rates in a lot of matches. Far more often than good ones. Mac usually returns him with thorough comfort
And particularly the second serve. Its just like anyone elses - a rolled in point starter

A question for all of you. To what extent do you think its Borg's return that makes Connors' serve look so ordinary? (as opposed to it looking ordinary because it is ordinary)

II doubt anyone else is returning him at 90%+ rate

Borg was a solid returner, but if Connors was just spinning it in, that's not much to speak about. Connors serve was arguably the weakest part of his very strong overall game (others will point to the low forehand). Borg's 2nd serves were not much better than Connors's actually. Borg was just better at popping aces than Connors was. Solid serving, but he was no Tanner. Not even Lendl IMHO. As you say, this match and the '81 USO semi were pointed to as particularly good service outings for Bjorn.

 

[WCT]

So, it's no big deal because Connors is just spinning it in? Then why aren't all these other players returning 90%+ of Connors' serves? Big match after big match he did it.
Their Wimbledon matches. 2 out of their 3 US Open matches. The January 81 Masters match. All of them 90%+

If it's so easy, and Borg deserves so little credit for it then the stats for other players should reflect it. They don't. It's not fancy, eye catching, but there is value in basically never missing the easy return. Other players got careless occasionally Borg didn't.

Borg's unreturned serve % in all his Wimbledon finals is high 20s into the 30s. In 1979, it's higher than Tanner's. This guy had more than a pretty good serve. He had a very good serve, a weapon. I'm not backtracking, I didn't consider it among the best, but it was damn sure better than pretty good and damn sure much better than Connors'. The difference in the two may not have cost him this much, but I can name several big matches that I do think it was the difference.

I was complaining 45 years ago about it. That Connors was just spotting this guy too many points. He was tough enough to beat without that. I wanted him to try for bigger 1st serves with Borg because he wasn't going to be attacked on the 2nd serve anyway.

The only Borg Mcenroe match that a lopsided difference in free points was the 80 US Open when Mcenroe was 45 or 46 points ahead. Like with Connors and Mcenroe it's not exactly apples to apples. Connors and Borg have to try to do more with the return. They can't just get back whereas Mcenroe. Well, not against Borg on grass. In any case, that is the only match where there is a really dramatic difference in free points on serve.

 

[jrepac]

So, it's no big deal because Connors is just spinning it in? Then why aren't all these other players returning 90%+ of Connors' serves? Big match after big match he did it.
Their Wimbledon matches. 2 out of their 3 US Open matches. The January 81 Masters match. All of them 90%+

If it's so easy, and Borg deserves so little credit for it then the stats for other players should reflect it. They don't. It's not fancy, eye catching, but there is value in basically never missing the easy return. Other players got careless occasionally Borg didn't.

Borg's unreturned serve % in all his Wimbledon finals is high 20s into the 30s. In 1979, it's higher than Tanner's. This guy had more than a pretty good serve. He had a very good serve, a weapon. I'm not backtracking, I didn't consider it among the best, but it was damn sure better than pretty good and damn sure much better than Connors'. The difference in the two may not have cost him this much, but I can name several big matches that I do think it was the difference.

I was complaining 45 years ago about it. That Connors was just spotting this guy too many points. He was tough enough to beat without that. I wanted him to try for bigger 1st serves with Borg because he wasn't going to be attacked on the 2nd serve anyway.

The only Borg Mcenroe match that a lopsided difference in free points was the 80 US Open when Mcenroe was 45 or 46 points ahead. Like with Connors and Mcenroe it's not exactly apples to apples. Connors and Borg have to try to do more with the return. They can't just get back whereas Mcenroe. Well, not against Borg on grass. In any case, that is the only match where there is a really dramatic difference in free points on serve.

Obviously there is value in returning 90% back...even when 2nd serves are puffballs. As you say, Borg was rarely careless. Borg's serve could be a weapon, agree, just never saw it as explosive. Explosive is what catches the viewer's attention, I believe, rightly or wrongly. Even when the stats may tell a slightly different story. Surely Connors lost many 'free' points by not serving bigger more regularly...with everyone, actually. You watch some of his late stage matches and he's serving harder than when he was 10+yrs younger. Sure, better racket, bigger sweet spot, but don't quite get it and never will. His lefty serve out wide could be very effective.

 

[KG1965]

The chess matches between Connors and Borg have always interested me.
So I picked up an old post of mine from 2019 on a Waspsting thread on Borg/Connors USO 1976 and integrated the old statistic.

Taking not only inspiration but also from your inherent data 8 matches (Wimbly 79, USO 76, USO 78, Wimbly 78, Masters GP 79, Boca Raton 77, USO 81 and Richmond 82.... in 5 Borg won, in 3 Jimbo won) between the two players the result very tight is this:
871 points Borg
806 points Connors
-----------------------
+ 65 points Borg

"Only serves and returns (aces, winners and errors)": -109 Jimbo, - 9 Bjorn = 100 points of advantage for Borg .

If it follows that purifying from the total by the data "Only serves and returns" it results that Connors has made 797 points v 762 of Borg (35 points of advantage for Connors).

I think that it is very interesting to point out the fact that
1) the serve of Borg was a real weapon (arm) that disempowered the most famous shot of Connors (return), ... while on the contrary ...
2) in the remaining shots (baseline, approach and net-game) Connors leads to surprise and not a little.

 

[WCT]

Obviously there is value in returning 90% back...even when 2nd serves are puffballs. As you say, Borg was rarely careless. Borg's serve could be a weapon, agree, just never saw it as explosive. Explosive is what catches the viewer's attention, I believe, rightly or wrongly. Even when the stats may tell a slightly different story. Surely Connors lost many 'free' points by not serving bigger more regularly...with everyone, actually. You watch some of his late stage matches and he's serving harder than when he was 10+yrs younger. Sure, better racket, bigger sweet spot, but don't quite get it and never will. His lefty serve out wide could be very effective.

I never used the word explosive. I called it very good, which I think it was. Not pretty good, more than that. However, it's not one of the best in the sport. I did use the word weapon and I stick by it. Not huge, Tanner, Mcenroe weapon, but weapon.

I still think the hardest Connors served was circa 74-75. I've cited this match before. The 1975 Newcombe Las Vegas challenge match. Only the last set is there, but watch that and tell me he isn't serving bigger. Later on, in 82, I definitely think it was improved. I also think he eventually got a bit better with the wide serve in the ad court, ala Mcenroe. I certainly don't mean at his level. That same hook serve, though.

Yes, the racket may well have been a factor later on. Early and 82 were still the T2000, though.

 

[jrepac]

I never used the word explosive. I called it very good, which I think it was. Not pretty good, more than that. However, it's not one of the best in the sport. I did use the word weapon and I stick by it. Not huge, Tanner, Mcenroe weapon, but weapon.

I still think the hardest Connors served was circa 74-75. I've cited this match before. The 1975 Newcombe Las Vegas challenge match. Only the last set is there, but watch that and tell me he isn't serving bigger. Later on, in 82, I definitely think it was improved. I also think he eventually got a bit better with the wide serve in the ad court, ala Mcenroe. I certainly don't mean at his level. That same hook serve, though.

Yes, the racket may well have been a factor later on. Early and 82 were still the T2000, though.

Yup, I got your point on the Borg serve. As a viewer I think we are always impressed by the guys who can pound it, rather than those who are steady. (ex. Was watching Isner at Newport the other night ....holey, moley, talk about pounding a serve, just stunning).

I vividly recall Connors hitting a serve at 108mph at the USO in the 80's...don't recall which frame...maybe the white one. So, it was possible for him to serve reasonably hard--not Tanner level, mind you. Watching the video of the USO '74 final, I don't think I ever saw him serving so forcefully. Was watching his W '78 Semi vs. Vitas the other night; he was hitting some pretty good serves. I recall some saying that his ball toss was the problem...it was going backwards a bit....and in '82 he modified the toss and was more effective. I need to see that Challenge match....

 

[paolo2143]

The chess matches between Connors and Borg have always interested me.
So I picked up an old post of mine from 2019 on a Waspsting thread on Borg/Connors USO 1976 and integrated the old statistic.

Taking not only inspiration but also from your inherent data 8 matches (Wimbly 79, USO 76, USO 78, Wimbly 78, Masters GP 79, Boca Raton 77, USO 81 and Richmond 82.... in 5 Borg won, in 3 Jimbo won) between the two players the result very tight is this:
871 points Borg
806 points Connors
-----------------------
+ 65 points Borg

"Only serves and returns (aces, winners and errors)": -109 Jimbo, - 9 Bjorn = 100 points of advantage for Borg .

If it follows that purifying from the total by the data "Only serves and returns" it results that Connors has made 797 points v 762 of Borg (35 points of advantage for Connors).

I think that it is very interesting to point out the fact that
1) the serve of Borg was a real weapon (arm) that disempowered the most famous shot of Connors (return), ... while on the contrary ...
2) in the remaining shots (baseline, approach and net-game) Connors leads to surprise and not a little.

To be fair to Borg he had already pretty much semi retired by Richmond 82. He announced his plan to take a long leave of absence in September 1981. He then didn't play until Monte Carlo where he was forced to play qualifiers (which seems ridiculous in current age) and got hammered by Yannick Noah in Q/F the same Noah who up until then had never troubled Borg). When he was told he would have to play qualifiers for French open and Wimbledon that was basically last straw for Borg who quire rightly said g** it ** you to ATP.

He then played series of exhibitions such as Richmond but he was way out of peak fitness and real match practice.

 

[WCT]

Yup, I got your point on the Borg serve. As a viewer I think we are always impressed by the guys who can pound it, rather than those who are steady. (ex. Was watching Isner at Newport the other night ....holey, moley, talk about pounding a serve, just stunning).

I vividly recall Connors hitting a serve at 108mph at the USO in the 80's...don't recall which frame...maybe the white one. So, it was possible for him to serve reasonably hard--not Tanner level, mind you. Watching the video of the USO '74 final, I don't think I ever saw him serving so forcefully. Was watching his W '78 Semi vs. Vitas the other night; he was hitting some pretty good serves. I recall some saying that his ball toss was the problem...it was going backwards a bit....and in '82 he modified the toss and was more effective. I need to see that Challenge match....

The challenge match was indoors and watch it and I think most would agree that he is serving bigger. I recall the ball toss being talked about in 82. However, I don't think he sustained that improvement. I do think the racket change helped a bit. Still, in the 88 and 89 Agassi matches Agassi has the bigger first serve, IMO.

In most cases his serve got the job done. A high 1st serve % a lot of the time. A good enough 2nd serve that it wasn't easily attacked. Against someone like Borg, though, it's hard to spot them a 15-20 lead in unreturned serves. I did notice that in 2 of their 1982 matches that I did stats for that there was only 1 point difference in the unreturned serves.

Borg could still play some fantastic tennis in those matches, but definitely not as sharp. Occasional unforced errors were made that were so infrequent before.

 

[KG1965]

To be fair to Borg he had already pretty much semi retired by Richmond 82. He announced his plan to take a long leave of absence in September 1981. He then didn't play until Monte Carlo where he was forced to play qualifiers (which seems ridiculous in current age) and got hammered by Yannick Noah in Q/F the same Noah who up until then had never troubled Borg). When he was told he would have to play qualifiers for French open and Wimbledon that was basically last straw for Borg who quire rightly said g** it ** you to ATP.

He then played series of exhibitions such as Richmond but he was way out of peak fitness and real match practice.

Yes, I remember that period well.
Borg was not fit and lost to Connors 7 of 9 matches in 1982 and 4 of 4 in 1983, then 3 of 3 in 1986.
But Bjorn often won in unsanctioned tournaments against McEnroe, Lendl, Gerulaitis and others.
Paolo, are you Italian?