Match Stats/Report - Connors vs Borg, Masters final, 1977

[Waspsting]

Jimmy Connors beat Bjorn Borg 6-4, 1-6, 6-4 in the Masters (Year End Championship) final, 1977 on carpet in New York, USA

The tournament was being held in New York for the first time and would remain there until 1989. This would be Connors’ only title at the event, he had earlier also won the WCT Finals and finished the year ranked number 1. Borg, who had beaten Connors to win Wimbledon, finished third.

Connors won 89 points, Borg 96

Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (64/93) 69%
- 1st serve points won (34/64) 53%
- 2nd serve points won (18/29) 62%
- Aces 2 (1 second serve)
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (10/93) 11%

Borg....
- 1st serve percentage (43/92) 47%
- 1st serve points won (27/43) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (28/49) 57%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (21/92) 23%

Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 27%
- to BH 73%

Borg served....
- to FH 20%
- to BH 77%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Connors made...
- 70 (18 FH, 52 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 4 Winners (4 BH)
- 19 Errors, comprising...
- 9 Unforced (2 FH, 7 BH)
- 10 Forced (3 FH, 7 BH)
- Return Rate (70/91) 77%

Borg made...
- 83 (30 FH, 53 BH), including 9 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 8 Errors, comprising...
- 5 Unforced (2 FH, 3 BH)
- 3 Forced (3 BH)
- Return Rate (83/93) 89%

Break Points
Connors 4/9 (5 games)
Borg 4/11 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 37 (5 FH, 9 BH, 6 FHV, 12 BHV, 5 OH)
Borg 16 (3 FH, 11 BH, 2 OH)

Connors' FHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl (net chord clipper), 1 inside-out, 1 longline and 1 net chord dribbler
- BHs - 2 cc (1 return pass), 4 dtl (1 return, 1 pass), 2 inside-out (1 return) and 1 inside-in return

- 2 from serve-volley points (1 FHV, 1 BHV), both second volleys

- 1 OH was on the bounce from the baseline

Borg's FHs - 1 dtl pass, 1 inside-out and 1 inside-in
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl and 2 net chord dribblers (1 return)
- BH passes - 2 cc and 5 dtl (1 net chord pop over)

- 1 OH can reasonably be called a FHV

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 59
- 45 Unforced (24 FH, 15 BH, 3 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 14 Forced (4 FH, 7 BH, 2 FHV, 1 OH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.7

Borg 41
- 17 Unforced (10 FH, 6 BH, 1 OH)... with 1 FH at net & the OH was on the bounce from the baseline
- 24 Forced (13 FH, 10 BH, 1 BHV)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.5

(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
Connors was...
- 36/55 (65%) at net, including...
- 2/3 (67%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 2/4 (50%) forced back/retreated

Borg was...
- 15/23 (65%) at net, including...
- 8/10 (80%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 3/5 (60%) forced back

Match Report
Magnificent match; the two players run each other side-to-side, corner-to-corner from start to stop almost without lull. Connors throws in net approaches, Borg is forced to hit passing shots - and both are high end in what they do. And all that live-wire action comes out virtually dead even. Result stays up in in the air ‘til the very end and happens to falls Connors’ way, the more creative, attacking player

If there is a factor that helps Connors gain the win, its his court position; while running no less than Borg - he takes the ball from around the baseline, Borg 3-4 paces behinds it. From that position, Jimbo has chance to take net in a way Borg does not. He does so very well, and his net play is that little much better than Borg’s passing

Statistically, Borg has the edge, as can happen when the set he wins is a commanding breadstick, while the 2 he loses are 1 break affairs

Borg wins 51.9% of points, while serving 49.7% of them
Break points read Jimbo 4/9, Borg 4/11, with both of them having them in 5 games

It follows logically that these basic matters being so close with the given scoreline that Borg having better of the set he won must be counter-balanced by Jimbo having better of the 2 he did. That’s not really true

Break points by set -
Set 1 - Jimbo 1/1, Borg 0/2, both having them in 1 game
Set 2 - Jimbo 1/1, Borg 3/6 (3 games)
Set 3 - Jimbo 3/7 (3 games), Borg 1/3 (1 game)

First set equal, Jimbo taking his chance, Borg not
Second set, Borg having much better of things

The third looks like reversal of second, but that’s deceptive. If they wrote poems and songs about sets of tennis, deciding one here would be front of the line as a candidate for an ode, with see-saw, zig-zagging flow amidst very high quality but not unflawed action… now one player, now the other having better of things, both players on the brink of just getting ahead, but being reeled back in time and again, one amazing game following another, until amazing is the norm… all amidst the tension of decider stakes

That one’s up in the air like the first, despite the break points numbers

Odes and songs; a romantic take. There is potentially a much more mundane one

Borg serves at 47%. In decider, its much worse (15/42 or 36%). Simply, if Borg serves decently there, no odes, no songs… just another win to his tally?

(Fortunately), that’s not supported by what happens. Going into decider -

- Borg wins 15/22 second serve points or 68%. More than the 17/28 or 61% he does off first serves. He wins higher lot of 2nd serve points than 1sts in both sets taken individually too

That trend doesn’t continue in the decider (wins 67% firsts, 48% seconds), but there’s nothing to guarentee that getting higher lot of first serves in would lead to Borg winning

Essentially, he finds himself in the same boat that Jimbo calls home; His two serves are one and the same (of success rate. Unlike Jimbo, he actually has a much better first serve than second). Jimbo’s figures are odd too. Or at least, would be for anyone else…

Basic Stats, Serve, Return & Serve-Volleying
1st serve in - Jimbo 69%, Borg 47%
1st serve won - Jimbo 53%, Borg 63%
2nd serve won - Jimbo 62%, Borg 57%

Aces are rare (both players have 2), as are double faults (Borg has the only 1). Jimbo’s 2nd > 1st is not unusual for him, though there’s no sound explanation for it. His isn’t a strong first serve, but it is visibly stronger than his 2nd

Closeness of Borg’s success across his 2 serves is stranger. He has a decent first serve - much stronger than his seconds. In which light, one would expect him to be doing considerably better of first serves

Sans aces (small at just 2) and serve-volley points (considerable at 8/10), Borg actually does better off his second serve than firsts. It comes to 17/31 or 55% (both aces and serve-volleys are small for Jimbo, and sans those, he wins 31/60 or 52% first serve points)

Jimbo doing sizably better of 2nd serves than firsts however you slice it - serve-volley, no serve-volley, aces, no aces, whatever

Borg doing better of 2nd serves than firsts sans aces and serve-volley points. In fact, just sans the small 2 aces, his first serve winning drops to same as his 2nd serve winning rate

What all this means from Borg’s point of view is his having better serve isn’t doing him any good. Its his court game that’s on the front line. With Jimbo, that’s always the case

That opens the door for possibility of two of the best court games clashing on equal footing. And that they do deliver

The other implication is that Borg would have done well to consider serve-volleying more than just 24% of the time

That doesn’t really hold water because virtually all of Borg’s serve-volley are in deuce court and he serve-volleys large lot of time from there. Unless serve-volleying out wide to Jimbo’s BH, he’s not comfortable with coming in behind his serve

 

[Waspsting]

Play - Baseline & Net
Here’s where the fun’s at

It starts right at the return. 3 non-pass return winners for Jimbo. He thumps his returns as he does, but considerably more widely placed to get rally off to a bright start. Borg too for that matter sends a few wide FH cc’s to have Jimbo scampering for the third ball

Baseline rallies are very lively. Connors often overpowers Borg, particularly early on. Connors plays from around baseline, Borg 3-4 paces behind it. This isn’t a product of the overpowering but seems to be each players default position

Does Connors overpower Borg because of the difference in position? Or does Borg stay that far back because he’s wary of being overpowered? In years to come, Borg would play closer to baseline and be a match for Jimbo’s hitting strength. He’s not quite there yet, though hitting well himself

More than overpower, Connors runs Borg around. To be more precise, Connors starts moving Borg around and while on the move, Borg returns in kind. Side-to-side is minimum amount of moving around. Corner-to-corner is common. Open court, entrhalling action

Starting point of action is usually Connors FH to Borg’s BH, and that cc exchange makes up bulk of stationary rallies too. Good clean hitting from both on the stationary stuff, with Borg getting better of things, but rallies usually go on the road

Its Jimbo who usually directs or at least, initiates moving-around play. He changes direction from stock cc in all ways bar inside-in shots. Both FH and BH shift to longline, dtl or inside-out. For that matter, wider cc shots do the trick too

The biggest court openers on show are Connor’s FH cc and inside-out and Borg’s BH cc

Amidst the strong hitting and attacking, wide placement, there is an odd, passive note: Jimbo throws up a slow, FH cc moonball now and then

Its not necessarily a defensive shot when he’s rushed. Its not even primarily that. Just throws it up amidst a rally that’s going a normal route. Its something he does to Borg in general outside of grass

The point seems to be tempt Borg to attack. Borg usually declines and swings a head high BH cc back. The more attacking go-to, which he rarely turns to, is back-away hard hit FH inside-in, behind which Borg approaches, but that’s very rare here

From the side-to-side fluid baseline rallies, Jimbo’s able to create approaches and comes forward to finish regularly. His being on baseline and more powerful hitter lends itself to the move in a way Borg 4 paces behind baseline isn’t able to match

How does it all look in numbers?

Winners - Jimbo 37, Borg 16
Errors Forced - Jimbo 24, Borg 14
UEs - Jimbo 45, Borg 17

Points ended aggressively/UE differentials - Jimbo +16, Borg +13

For starters, around this period and in fact, long after, its common for there to be virtually no aggressively ended points baseline-to-baseline. Simply counting up ground UEs does to measure who won bulk of baseline points

Not here. Baseline-to-baseline winners - Jimbo 8, Borg 4 (and that’s discounting a bunch of returns and net chord dribblers). That many winners from that situation is extremely rare in 1977. It would be very rare even 10 years later, and an indicator of the quality of shot making and attacking point construction on show. Both players run and defend extremely well too, to make the count even more impressive

With so many winners, plenty of errors being forced too. And in this case, the running and defending thwarts many more

UEs though of course, make up the bulk of how baseline rallies end. Ground UEs -
- Jimbo FH 24
- Jimbo BH 15
- Borg FH 9
- Borg BH 6

And UE breakdown -
Neutral - Jimbo 23, Borg 9
Attacking - Jimbo 14, Borg 5
Winner Attempts - Jimbo 8, Borg 3

Jimbo’s FH is the biggest playmaker on show, opening up the court both with wide cc’s and inside-outs. The latter comes as a bit of a surprise. He’s generally not a big FH inside-out guy

Still, its probably come out net negative. By far match high UEs - higher by half again as all of Borg’s - and bulk of them are neutrals. This is the flawed part of the match. As successful as he is attacking, it’d be a one sided thrashing if he weren’t faltering and well behind in consistency stakes. And at least, he doesn’t have prolonged spells of missing FHs. They’re spread out across the match (particularly sets 1 and 3). For pure hitting, he hits his FHs harder and better than BH. Credit also to Borg for typical rock-like BH play, but a little blackmark to Jimbo’s FH too

Most of Jimbo’s approach shots are FHs too, which get him all kinds of goodies (we’ll get to that in a minute)

Borg’s BH - the most impressive of all the groudies on show with match high 11 winners, match low 6 UEs. It clearly outlasts Jimbo’s FH. It handles itself on the run and doesn’t give up errors. It counter-attacks from such positions, using angles created. By 2nd set and continuing into the third, it does its fair share of leading and dictating the wide angled attacking play. Even on the pass, its deadly - 7 winners, 10 FEs (not all of which are passes). Top marks for Borg’s BH

 

[Waspsting]

Rallying to net -
Jimbo 34/52 at 65%
Borg 7/13 at 54%

With the greater damage he’s doing from the back more than compensated for by Borg’s superior consistency, this is what puts Jimbo over. And its his whole net game - setting up the approach + volleying - that’s impressive, not just the volleying

Playing from on the baseline allows him to step in when he’s got Borg pushed off to the sides and come in. Not many approach errors. Comes in off both sides, preferring the FH, and in all directions

Excellent volleying. Along customary making volleys easy by coming in so close, he’s made to do a lot of lunging and even running to pick off Borg’s wide passes. 22 winners, 3 FEs, 6 UEs by Jimbo in forecourt. Both approach and volley UEs in the decider has the crowd on tenterhooks

He has to volley well because Borg’s on point with his passing too. On top of 8 winners, gives Jimbo a running over in the forecourt. The Jimbo volley vs Borg pass contest is as similar to corner-to-corner rallying as a forecourt vs backcourt contest can be. It perfectly complements the baseline rallies

Borg not having much chance to come forward from where he’s standing, even when he counter-attacks to send Jimbo running to a corner. Still less chance with Jimbo taking chances to come up

Match Progression
Action is hot right out the gate. Borg holds to 30 to open. A routine enough start. Already though, Jimbo’s forced 2 errors from the back - a wide return draws and a FH inside-out to the corner

A variety of errors from both players - drop shots, dtl winner attempts, moonballs - sees Borg gain break point in the next game at 30-40. Connors takes net in all 5 of the game’s remaining points to hold, finishing with a BHV winner

Then breaks. Another lively game. 40-15 down, Jimbo strikes 3 winners in next 4 points - BH inside-out from well up the court, a BH dtl pass after he’d retreated from net and Borg came in, and on break point, a wide angled FH cc

Turns out to be the only break of the set, though play remains lively and varied. Highlights include Borg striking a 1-2 BH dtl - BH cc for the winner, and awhile later, Jimbo a FH dtl - BH dtl ending the same way. No more break points, or even deuces, but the only love game is the serve out

A fine set of tennis. Jimbo 1/1 on break points, Borg 0/2 (same game) is the result determinant, and action is fun and lively

Second set isn’t as good, with Jimbo’s FH faltering considerably, but action remains fluid. Borg takes a greater hand in making it so by stepping up some, and initiating attacking play (as opposed to counter-attacking against it), particularly with wide BH cc’s. Also uses more dtl shots

Terrible game by Jimbo to be broken to love and fall behind 0-2. 3 ground UEs set him back 0-40 and his FH moonball is whacked FH inside-out to mildly force an error for the break

Jimbo’s got 15-30 in next game and strikes his sole return-pass winner of the match. Missing a BHV pegs him back and Borg hold

Next 3 games are all breaks

More ground UEs get Jimbo broken again for 0-4, though there’s a delightful Borg BH dtl/BH cc 1-2 to win a point there too. He hits back to 15 in a lively game. Borg regains 2 break cushion in a promising game that ends with Jimbo’s groundies giving way

Borg serves out to 15 to take things into the decider

That decider turns into an Epic. It has 83 points, or 8.3 per game, and the two players are evenly matched (Jimbo serves 41 points, Borg 42)

If action in first set was enthralling, the decider is that jacked up to 10. No side-to-side moving around play, its all corner-to-corner. Constant hustling and moving around. The odd sloppy error. Jimbo at net regularly. Almost as lively action with Jimbo at net as there is when both players are on the baseline, with Borg hitting wide passes and Jimbo lunging for them or running them down

Great thrilling game follows great thrilling game follows great thrilling game. It seems impossible the two can keep it up - but they do, all the way to the glorious end

For added appeal, Jimbo starts to tire after being broken in the opener in a 16 point game. Thereafter, he starts taking fair amount of time between his service points and rarely, when returning too. Not that it stops him from dashing about like a jumpy rabbit. By the end of the match, he looks very, very tired

Borg breaking to start the set and consolidating means he’s won 8 of last 9 games, and with Jimbo seemingly tiring, looks very much favourite. In the opener, pair of Jimbo FH errors takes score to 15-40. Thereafter, Jimbo’s at net constantly - 6 times for remaining 10 points. Some great volleys, some great passes, ‘til Jimbo’s broken missing a BH approach shot

Borg consolidates to love. Horrendous FHV miss by Jimbo in the game. Jimbo holds serve for first time in 5 games, where he’s at net 4/6 points

Then breaks in a fantastic 14 point game. Borg’s up 30-0 and 40-15 in the game and there isn’t much net play. Its back to corner to corner running about rallies. Jimbo hits a return winner of what looks like was a fault to bring up break point, Borg erases with a BH cc pass. Jimbo forces a running FH error, Borg comes back with a big serve. Finally, Jimbo brings up third break pint with a lunging, almost diving FHV winner and on it, a FH of his dribbles over the net chord for winner. 2-2

Plenty of high end play in the next 3 games. The defending and retrieving is up there to match the attacking play of both players.

Serving at 3-4, Borg is again put through the hoop in a 14 point game. Point after thrilling point follows like a streak - Jimbo forcing back Borg with a lob and coming in to BHV the winner, a perfect Borg BH cc pass, answered by Jimbo’s charge BH inside-in return winner, followed by another wide BH cc return that forces an error… it goes on and on. Borg holds for 4-4

Then its Jimbo’s turn. ‘Just’ an 8 point hold, without facing break points and being up 40-0 seems comfy. 5 winners in the game. And a horrendous putaway FHV miss by Jimbo that takes the game to deuce

Borg opens game 10 with a strong, error forcing serve, and that’s the last point he wins. 3 winners and a forced error, match is done. Jimbo finishes with a typically well constructed net point, ending with a FHV winner

Brief stats for the set
- Connors 22 winners, UEs 15, FEs 5
- Borg 12 winners, 6 UEs, 11 FEs

Unreturneds - Jimbo 4/41, Borg 8/42
Net points - Jimbo 21/34, Borg 6/7

Summing up, one of the best matches ever played, with two great players at the top of their games giving it their all

Connors hits hard, hits wide and comes to net regularly. He’s a bit loose of the ground at times
Borg hits back hard, runs down balls and counter-attacks, and passes. He’s a rock of the ground

Both players have to do a lot of running and retrieving, and both manage it superbly

Connors playing closer to the baseline gives him a small edge, which he utilizes perfectly to attack net

Result remains up in the air to the very end, where it falls the way of the bolder, more aggressive Connors

 

[KG1965]

Taking not only inspiration but also from your inherent data 12 matches (Masters GP 1977, Suntory Cup 83, Wimbly 1977, Wimbly 81, Wimbly 79, USO 76, USO 78, Wimbly 78, Masters GP 79, Boca Raton 77, USO 81 and Richmond 82.... in 7 Borg won, in 5 Jimbo won) between the two players the result very tight is this:
1340 points Borg
1230 points Connors
------------------------
+ 110 points Borg

"Only serves and returns (aces, winners and errors)": -185 Jimbo, - 24 Bjorn = 161 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 1206 points v 1155 of Borg (51 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.

 

[KG1965]

Basically after that Waspsting has analyzed 12 matches,

• Borg makes each match 9 points more,
• Borg makes each match 13-14 points more.... thanks to the serve/return.
• Connors makes each match 4-5 points more for the other shots.

 

[jrepac]

Is this match available anywhere? I've heard about it for years and would love to see it.

 

[WCT]

Is this match available anywhere? I've heard about it for years and would love to see it.

I think I sent you a message or a comment. Did it from your profile,

 

[WCT]

Damn, whatever I thought I might have been smoking when I did stats for that 81 Wimbledon match, I might have been doing more when I did the stats for this one.
Another one I did years ago. Just did net points and approaches as well as unreturned serves. However, my copy cut off at deuce in the second to last game. When that part showed up on the net, several years back, I adjusted to my stats.

The differences. I have Connors with 9 unreturned serves and Borg with 18. I had Connors at 38 for 55, but at least I had 55. LOL, I have Borg at 9 of 12 at net. Yeah, 12 instead of 23.

This is more of an early Connors Borg match went. I said in the other thread, Connors called a counterpuncher. How could you possibly watch this match and call him a counterpuncher. He is the puncher, Borg is the counterpuncher.

Look at the net points, the winners, the unforced errors. And 8 of Borg's winners are passing shots, not my idea of aggression. Take them out and it's even more lopsided. But that's how their matches went until Wimbledon 78, I suppose. Their next match was the 1978 Pepsi final, a couple weeks later. I have a partial of that match I have the net points 33 to 12 and Borg was brought in with drop shots 6 times. Winners, less the passing shots were 17 to 4. And unforced errors were 36 to 7. Wimbledon 78 and US Open, for that matter, were different. Before that, this was it.

Connors is dictating play, for good or bad. From my memory of 1978 and watching it live, I thought Connors had come in more the first 2 sets, but he lived there in the 3rd. He won this match at net. When Bud Collins was going on hi 4 1/2 rant on NBC for the 82 Wimbledon final, this was one of many matches that came to mind.

Granted, it has been awhile since I watched this match, but I don't remember getting the impression that Connors did close to the running that Borg did. Today, we'd have that stat. You talk about Connors' court positioning. I thought he standing farther back than usual to return Borg's 1st serve. For an indoor court, I mean. And this was one of the first matches I remember Connors using that looping forehand roll that much.

 

[KG1965]

Summing up, one of the best matches ever played, with two great players at the top of their games giving it their all

Connors hits hard, hits wide and comes to net regularly. He’s a bit loose of the ground at times
Borg hits back hard, runs down balls and counter-attacks, and passes. He’s a rock of the ground

Both players have to do a lot of running and retrieving, and both manage it superbly

Connors playing closer to the baseline gives him a small edge, which he utilizes perfectly to attack net

Result remains up in the air to the very end, where it falls the way of the bolder, more aggressive Connors

Yes I think it was one of the best matches 2/3 of the 70's & 80's.

The two played really hard.
Perhaps another match won by Borg at the MSG is comparable.

Bjorn's serve is not yet a weapon and Borg waits too far behind and is anticipated by Jimbo, as you observe well.
Until 1978 all matches were balanced (from USO 76 to this match, at Wimbly 77 at Boca Raton 78).

Then in 1979 Borg becomes more powerful at the serve but also in the game and Jimbo loses his aggression.
Bjorn becomes impregnable.
Since 1982 in those exhibition matches the distances have shortened but not because Bjorn's serve doesn't work, but because the swede's baseline game loses intensity.

 

[jrepac]

I think I sent you a message or a comment. Did it from your profile,

thank you

 

[WCT]

I found myself watching the lat couple games of this match. Question, did you count the second to last point as a net point for Connors? That point is a perfect example of my occasional problem in doing his net stats. He was definitely moving forward at the end, but it's so delayed. I'm guessing I said yes. My notes are not that extensive that I could go back and check. Not even the notes where I originally took the stats.

 

[Waspsting]

I found myself watching the lat couple games of this match. Question, did you count the second to last point as a net point for Connors? That point is a perfect example of my occasional problem in doing his net stats. He was definitely moving forward at the end, but it's so delayed. I'm guessing I said yes. My notes are not that extensive that I could go back and check. Not even the notes where I originally took the stats.

I didn't

its delayed enough that I don't think it had any bearing on Borg's shot. Even if it werent', I probably wouldn't have marked it so because though he's in process of approaching, he's nowhere near the net

I do mark net points for when a guy is on his way to net but hasn't reached too far in, if it seems to me that his position has influenced the error maker's shot. And I'm pretty easy going of standard on that and will mark it net point even if it seems likely that the approach shot would have drawn error sans the approach part... I call these 'token net points'

Here, I don't think it influenced Borg's shot - and Connors is just too far back when Borg strikes the ball anyway

 

[WCT]

I didn't

its delayed enough that I don't think it had any bearing on Borg's shot. Even if it werent', I probably wouldn't have marked it so because though he's in process of approaching, he's nowhere near the net

I do mark net points for when a guy is on his way to net but hasn't reached too far in, if it seems to me that his position has influenced the error maker's shot. And I'm pretty easy going of standard on that and will mark it net point even if it seems likely that the approach shot would have drawn error sans the approach part... I call these 'token net points'

Here, I don't think it influenced Borg's shot - and Connors is just too far back when Borg strikes the ball anyway

I don't factor in whether the other player knows he is coming to net. Later on, against Lendl, a significant amount of his approaches were based on getting Lendl to think he wasn't coming in. Those forehand to backhand rallies, over and over. Connors waits and waits, hits the ball, delays a second or two, and then comes in. He wants to catch Lendl slicing. Obviously, if Lendl knows he is coming then he isn't slicing. Connors is still at the net, though. He would also do this against Mcenroe some. Not as much because he sliced a lot, not virtually all the time.

This point is more of a delayed approach. He is not trying to trick Borg, he just realizes late that he has hurt him. Very late in this point. Nadal does it a lot. He realizes that he has hurt a player, stretched out and has to slice, he comes in and takes the ball in the air. You are certainly right that Connors is not close to the net although he was headed forward.

It's why I found it troubling how to count. As I said, I encountered this with Connors definitely by the 80s. In this match, it might have only been this point. That 76 Tanner Wembley match you recently did. None of that. No sneaks and delays. I'm coming in, try to pass me. That is Segura's Connors.

Speaking of players changing or evolving, and I have seen this footage before, check out Borg and Armitraj at the 74 US Open. Borg s/v on everything and he absolutely throttles his returns of serve. It's only like 15 minutes of edited points and he hits about 10 clean winners off the return. That's not prime Borg. Fantastic volleying by Armiitraj. Clean winners on very good, blistering returns.

 

[Waspsting]

I don't factor in whether the other player knows he is coming to net. Later on, against Lendl, a significant amount of his approaches were based on getting Lendl to think he wasn't coming in. Those forehand to backhand rallies, over and over. Connors waits and waits, hits the ball, delays a second or two, and then comes in. He wants to catch Lendl slicing. Obviously, if Lendl knows he is coming then he isn't slicing. Connors is still at the net, though. He would also do this against Mcenroe some. Not as much because he sliced a lot, not virtually all the time.

This point is more of a delayed approach. He is not trying to trick Borg, he just realizes late that he has hurt him. Very late in this point. Nadal does it a lot. He realizes that he has hurt a player, stretched out and has to slice, he comes in and takes the ball in the air. You are certainly right that Connors is not close to the net although he was headed forward.

If the guy makes it to net (i.e. the service line), I'll mark it a net point - whether his opponent sees him coming or not is irrelevant

Exception would be if I judge that the approach shot would have drawn an error regardless

But if the guy is in the act of approaching - like in the case of the point you brought up - if Borg is unaware he's coming in, then Connors' approaching or not is irrelevant to the error Borg makes

Do you remember we discussed how aces and service winners weren't included as serve-volley points?

Same principle

When I think about net points, I think of a guy being at net has to have influenced the point. In case of an ace or service winner - imagine a typical Goran bomb that returner knocks off to the side - does it matter if Goran was approaching or not?

He could have dropped his racquet and done a head-stand instead of follow the serve to net - and it still wouldn't come back

Similarly, in the point in question, don't think it matters what Connors was doing - coming in or not - Borg wasn't making that shot, and his shot choice wasn't influenced by knowledge of Jimbo coming in

The idea behind receiver's awareness being a factor is that he might change his shot because of the approach. If he doesn't know an approach is being made when he makes the error, then the 'approach' part of it hasn't influenced the point

That all changes if a volley is actually made... then its a net point regardless of receiver's knowledge or not

----

Another situation that gets tricky is when a guy is serve-volleying all the time, but suddenly stays back, and the returner misses the return going hard at it

Since there's no serve-volley there (and lets say the serve is an ordinary one), that would be a UE
But one can readily understand that the error was a product of the returner assuming a serve-volley - and that was what 'forced' his error

Tricky one. I love me my UEs, so I usually give those UEs

 

[WCT]

If the guy makes it to net (i.e. the service line), I'll mark it a net point - whether his opponent sees him coming or not is irrelevant

Exception would be if I judge that the approach shot would have drawn an error regardless

But if the guy is in the act of approaching - like in the case of the point you brought up - if Borg is unaware he's coming in, then Connors' approaching or not is irrelevant to the error Borg makes

Do you remember we discussed how aces and service winners weren't included as serve-volley points?

Same principle

When I think about net points, I think of a guy being at net has to have influenced the point. In case of an ace or service winner - imagine a typical Goran bomb that returner knocks off to the side - does it matter if Goran was approaching or not?

He could have dropped his racquet and done a head-stand instead of follow the serve to net - and it still wouldn't come back

Similarly, in the point in question, don't think it matters what Connors was doing - coming in or not - Borg wasn't making that shot, and his shot choice wasn't influenced by knowledge of Jimbo coming in

The idea behind receiver's awareness being a factor is that he might change his shot because of the approach. If he doesn't know an approach is being made when he makes the error, then the 'approach' part of it hasn't influenced the point

That all changes if a volley is actually made... then its a net point regardless of receiver's knowledge or not

----

Another situation that gets tricky is when a guy is serve-volleying all the time, but suddenly stays back, and the returner misses the return going hard at it

Since there's no serve-volley there (and lets say the serve is an ordinary one), that would be a UE
But one can readily understand that the error was a product of the returner assuming a serve-volley - and that was what 'forced' his error

Tricky one. I love me my UEs, so I usually give those UEs

So, the service line is your line of demarcation? If the player reaches there then you count it as a net point? Interesting conversation that can be looked at different ways. For example, Connors hit a good amount of really penetrating approach shots where the opponent is put in a position where he is making very weak replies. It was going to be weak whether Connors followed that shot to net or not. That has no factor on me counting it as a net point if he followed it in.

One thing, that player has to have at least hit the ball, been able to make some attempt, however feeble, at the pass for me to count it as a net point. Connors hits an approach shot, clearly on his way to net, and it doesn't go in the court, no net point. He hits an approach shot that is a clean winner, no net point. I do keep them as a separate stat. Approach winners and errors. And as I've started counting winners and unforced errors, I would also include the approach winners and errors in the regular winners and errors. I kept that separate stat for my own knowledge that even if I didn't count them as net points, Connors intent on that point was to get to net.

Your post reads like you are pretty liberal with unforced errors. I think I am pretty conservative. Did you often give them on missed 1st serve returns? Pretty much never for me. However, 2nd serves yes if I feel it was a relatively weak serve.

I agree completely that s/v can affect the return. Whenever comparing Connors and Mcenroe's unreturned serve totals I usually thrown in the qualifier that it's not apples to apples. Connors has to do more with the return. Still, if Mcenore didn't follow it in then no net point. And very rarely would I give Connors an ue on the return because Mcenroe has such an excellent 2nd serve. But there have been a few times I did. I think I gave him 1, maybe 2 in their first ever match 77 Wimbledon. Last couple of sets Mcenroe stayed back on 2nd serve a lot. Mind you, this is 18 year old Mcenroe.

 

[Waspsting]

So, the service line is your line of demarcation? If the player reaches there then you count it as a net point?

Its a starting point, and other guiding principle is intent to volley

I think of all points (for a given player) being a baseline point or a net point. Like UE and FE, has to be one or the other

Baseline is default, so net is the one that's 's special. It requires action to achieve (that is, you have to get up to net. If you stand still, your on the baseline)

So, what's the difference between a net point and a baseline point? Isn't it where the player is positioned? If he's at net, its a net point and if not, then its a baseline point

So where does the baseline end and the net begin? Has to be a line

There's a real line right there in the service line, so no need for an imaginary one. So very strictly - touching net makes it a net point, behind it a baseline point

----

Which brings us to intentions with respect to volley. Before I got into taking stats, I just thought of 'net points' as all about the volley and I think that's how everyone thinks of it

If a guy is coming in with what I judge as clear intent to volley, he's on his way to a net point

Say a serve-volleyer is coming in,
-if he doesn't reach the service line when the return is an error - still a net point
- he doesn't reach the service line but plays a shot (volley or groundstroke) - still a net point

Different situation. Say there's a baseline rally between X and Y, and Y hits a weak, loopy ball that's going to land very short. X moves forward to put it away

- if he plays a groudstroke, and hasn't touched service line, not a net point
- if he plays a groundstroke and touches service line, net point
- if he plays a swinging volley... I'm little more lenient, will give it a net point as long as he's close to service line (which I wouldn't for a groundstroke)
- if he plays a swinging volley from well behind service line, not a net point

Then there's back-pedalling smashes. Say X is at net (that is, past the service line) when he gets lobbed. He back-pedals to hit the OH and goes behind the service line
- If he takes it on the full, net point (unless he's gone really, really far behind, close to the baseline)
- if he lets it bounce, not net point (or to be more specific a 'retreated net point' - he was at net during the point but didn't end there) because he's not at net and he's not hitting ball on full

Here's where the grey area comes in. In above 2 situations, I'll mark a net point for guy whose gone say 5 paces behind service line to smash on full, but not a net point for a guy whose gone 2 paces behind to hit on the bounce

----

As far as the passer's awareness of being a factor

- guiding principle is that a net point has to mean something. I'm not just jotting it down to note where the guy was standing - his being 'at net' (in line with all of the above) has to influence the point

In case of the sneak approach, where receiver seems unaware of an approach

- if he makes an error, not a net point. In such cases, invariably the rusher hasn't reached service line (if he had, the receiver would know it)
- if the rusher makes a shot, depends on whether he's reached service line or not (along earlier explained line of whether its a volley or a groundstroke). But i'll mark it a half-volley error if he if he half-volleys ball from behind service line

Then there's forced approaches, to deal with drop shots. Those dont' have much to do with volleying, but if the guy crosses or touches service line, I mark that a net point since he's physically at net, as long as he touches the ball

If he doesn't - not a net point (under the reasoning if he didn't touch it, it doesn't matter where he is)

Summary - if guy touches service-line to play a shot - net point (everything else irrelevant)
- if guy plays a shot from behind service line - maybe, maybe not depending on whole bunch of things, primarily, intent and reality of taking ball on full or not
- if approach shot draws the error - depends on if his approaching affected the receiver's shot

Connors hits an approach shot, clearly on his way to net, and it doesn't go in the court, no net point. He hits an approach shot that is a clean winner, no net point.

I'd mark that the same way

Did you often give them on missed 1st serve returns? Pretty much never for me. However, 2nd serves yes if I feel it was a relatively weak serve.

All the time

I think of returns largely in terms of routine or not

Routine return against first serve - not too fast, not too wide... I'll usually mark that a UE, particularly on slower surface

For example, considerable amount of return errors drawn by Djokovic or Borg with their first serves get marked UEs from me. Its rare for likes of Sampras, Federer. Common for Agassi, normal for Connors, Wilander

I have stuck to always marking FE if server is serve-volleying though - even if its a weak serve. Rarely give a UE for a pass as well

How do you tend to mark the return errors Connors draws with his first serve on a hard court?

 

[WCT]

You have clearly given this more thought than I did and I can't argue that any of your logic is flawed. Originally, I just did the stats for my edification. Was my perception, all those years ago, that Connors was coming in less and got comparatively less free points on serve correct. And I made my determination on what I viewed as a net point. Right or wrong, it was how I did. And intent was very important to me. What was Connors intent, It was why I kept that separate stat for approaches because it spoke to his intent even if I didn't think it wound up as an actual net point.

Overheads, bounced or on the fly, if the overhead is the last shot put in play, I count it as a net. Not saying this is consistent thinking, but I view as a continuation and conclusion of the net point. An exception might be a lob that lands near the baseline. Obviously,if the overhead is returned and a rally begins then no net point. I'd give the player a forced back. However, he makes his way back to net and the point ends there then it's net point and I don't count the forced back. I only count it if he is forced back and never gets back in on that point.

I have never given an ue on a 1st serve regardless of how is serving or the surface. I always think of the serve as the biggest weapon in the sport and figured that even weaker servers have a certain level of action on it that precluded me giving an ue.
You can come back and say to me, especially on clay, that there can be a lot of light serving, spinning it in. Very valid point that perhaps I should factor in more. As I said, I am conservative. It really had to be a pretty clear ue for me to mark it that way.

We agree on serving and s/v. If the guy is s/v, no ue. Absolutely never on 1st serve. I don't think I have ever given 1 on 2nd, but recently I have debated a couple, Wondered whether I should. But never with someone like Mcenroe's 2nd serve.
If the server stays back I really never used to either. There I have evolved some although I still think I am pretty conservative. But when someone like Barazzutti was throwing in creampuff 2nd serves that Connors isn't putting into play, I'm thinking these really should be ue.

I asked you about this maybe a few weeks back. UE on pretty easy passing shot attempts. It had always been a rule of thumb for me, no ue when the other player as at net. I was doing a Connors match where there were a few. Great return, volley sitting up in the middle of the court, maybe a tad further although certainly not deep, and he doesn't even put the passing shot in play. It wasn't a sitter pass, but he had excellent looks on those passed. I found myself wondering if I should count it as an ue. I didn't because I am so conservative and the other player is forcing by being at net.

This is certainly not what I would call an exact science.

Editing this because I forgot to mention it yesterday. I also find myself evolving on volleys. I am giving some more on volleys below, but not too far below the level of the net. Especially on balls that aren't hit that hard, like slices. It used to have to be pretty routine for me to mark an ue. I still won't do it on anything below, say the knee. Anything really low, toward the feet. definitely no ue from me. How much the person is stretched at net is also a factor. It could be at net level, but if the player is really stretched out, probably no ue.

 

[Waspsting]

...what I viewed as a net point. Right or wrong, it was how I did.

Don't give it another thought - there is no right or wrong here

I see stats (particularly UE and FE distinction) as an expression of the stat-taker sees tennis. Not right or wrong

Don't pay particular attention to stats that flash on the screen in middle of a match, but even then, I've seen enough to gather that there's little consistency in official stats
To have meaningful official stats, you'd need standardization. Doesn't matter if the standard is conservative or liberal, but it should be consistent

I'm pretty sure it isn't with official stats

Couple of examples, 'in middle of '98 Wimby final between Sampras and Goran, they show stats with considerably higher lof of UEs than I had at that point
Now that's a 100% serve-volley match. Following convention, all return and passing errors should be FEs. There aren't many volley errors to begin with, but good lot of those are tough ones and I'd have said, clear FEs

The only way their counts make sense is if they were counting return and passing errors as UEs... nothing else makes sense
Even if you don't follow convention (which is fine by me) of marking passing errors as FEs... this is Sampras and Goran. Would think person would judge the errors to FEs on merit alone, sans convention

Another one, about 6-7 games into match, Federer had lost all his net points, about 6. I can see it easily because its all on the same page that I'm marking and its eyecatching even without taking the stats

Commentator says the same thing and then (after I'm sure checking the official stats that are in front of him), says no, he's won 2 of them
Since there are so few points played at that stage (and I have them all marked down) its easy to see which points the statter marked as net points that I and the commentator didn't see as such

Fed hits a couple of step-in ground winners. Less than half-way to service line. Those have to be the points in question

There isn't a chance in hell all official statted matches count those as net points... net points per match would go up by a crazy amount if they did

I have never given an ue on a 1st serve regardless of how is serving or the surface. I always think of the serve as the biggest weapon in the sport and figured that even weaker servers have a certain level of action on it that precluded me giving an ue.

The reason I don't do this is because it negates assessing service quality via stats

Say a big Borg first serve draws an error. And a typical Connors one does as well
If I mark them both FEs... what is there in the numbers to differentiate between the quality of the two serves?

Same problem exists with marking all passes FEs, but I've stuck to that one

As far as thinking (not statting) goes, I think of passing errors in terms of 'good look', 'tough', 'makeable' etc. rather than FE/UE

I remember flirting with idea of expanding on error types, but realized it'd solve nothing and just make things more complicated. For example, the errors that seem to fall right in between UE and FE, I thought why not create something in between? An ambivalent error (AE)

All that would happen is there would then be things that fell right in between FE and AE and between AE and UE... and the whole process starts over. Making finer and finer distinctions is like making a more and more detailed map... the perfect map would be the same sie as the territory it represents, which defeats the purpose of the map (a simplification, a model)

Same thing with net point and baseline point. Guy just behind the service line and guy 6 feet behind baseline aren't the same thing... but for stat-taking purposes, they both go into the 'baseline' column

I also find myself evolving on volleys. I am giving some more on volleys below, but not too far below the level of the net. Especially on balls that aren't hit that hard, like slices. It used to have to be pretty routine for me to mark an ue. I still won't do it on anything below, say the knee. Anything really low, toward the feet. definitely no ue from me. How much the person is stretched at net is also a factor. It could be at net level, but if the player is really stretched out, probably no ue.

Sounds like we do this the same way

I think of volleys in terms of 'regulation' - and modify with 'regulation over/under' (over and under referring to the net)
Commentators often refer to a "low volley" to what I judge as "regulation under"

An example is the '83 Aus match between Wilander and McEnroe. Good lot of reg-under volley misses for Mac there. Another is '01 US final between Hewitt and Sampras

I'll mark a low (i.e. under knee height) volley a UE under some situations. If the ball is dropping slowly and especially, if the court is wide open with passer out of the picture. You put that volley in play any which way, its a winner - no fear of the passer having another shot

A tricky type of volley to judge is what I call a 'reaction volley', often the second volley of a serve-volleyer. Balls at perfect height above net, not too wide, but its been struck well by passer. From playing, I know those are just stick-racquet-out type deals, but judging whether reaction time falls inside or outside normal or above normal human capacity is not so straightforward

And of all things, OHs. Early on, I used to mark OH errors as UEs with my eyes closed almost. The back-pedalling ones aren't so easy, though some players make it look like they are (Boris stands out here). I take how hard the smasher hit the ball as a sign... if he's really smashed it and missed, I'm more likely to give it UE, if he hasn't, then he was sufficiently troubled/stretched by the ball that he couldn't, so more chances of FE go up

 

[WCT]

I rarely mark an ue when the passing shot is drilled right at the net player, even if it's above net level. I mean on more of an up close passing shot where the ball is sitting up waiting to be hammered and he drills it at the player.

I've been giving Connors some ue on some lower volleys recently because they are floaters. I did stats on 2 Wilander Connors matches and watched another. Zero ue volley errors for Wilander. He also misses very few difficult ones. He may not make a particularly strong volley on the difficult ones, but he only missed a couple. It's not like he came in a ton, but it was 46 times between the 2 matches I did stats and a little more often in the one I didn't. But zero ue volley errors

Question related to another match. The 1976 US Open final. Do you have Connors net approaches by set? Do you have the total points played in each set? No sweat if you don't, but I figured if anyone would keep stats that detailed it would be you.

 

[Gattone]

Before getting to the match, thanks to @Waspsting and @WCT for their really insightful discussion about stats and stat-taking - one of my pet peeves in that regard is that even in 2026, when we can know how many kilometres a players has run to the last millimeter, the exact spot where they hit each ball and where each of their shot landed, the height of their toss, the RPMs of their strokes... most if not all of the stats I see on the screen lump together unforced errors without a single clue as to whether the player was simply playing the ball or actively trying to hit a winner. Which is why, among all other things, I very much appreciate Waspsting's use (creation?) of the "Unforced Error Forcefulness Index".

As for the match itself, it's just possible that I was spoiled by their two earlier Slam finals, but I must admit I only share your enthusiasm to a point. Or rather to a set: the final one, obviously, which especially in the first and the last part is chock-full of great playing by both parts, with drama and excitement aplenty. A huge improvement over a frankly disappointing second set, something which the crowd of the Madison Square Garden (oh, the memories of the first YECs I watched on tv...) seems to sense immediately - in the first two sets it was lively, though a bit unruly, but in the last one it becomes really loud. The long, all-court baseline rallies which make up the bulk of the first set are intense and interesting, from a tactical point of view, but the winners on display are relatively few and far away, from both players.

Connors, as usual, is the more aggressive player - although his constant moonballing (at least in the first set - later on he uses it less) is quite a surprise for me. I'm not sure he was using it to lure Borg to the net, mostly because they're usually pretty deep shots (and when they aren't, Borg has the chance to go for a FH winner) - if that was his intent, I suspect he would have resorted more to drop-shots, which he only plays a couple of times. And, as usual, he essentially hands over a whole set to Borg, losing serve three or four times in a row (as in their previous Slam finals) - and sure, Borg attacks a little more in the second set, but in the end it's mostly down to Connors' skyrocketing UEs numbers. And even in the wonderful final part of the match, he's still far from consistency: on 4-3 he gets three BPs, but squanders them (he misses an easy return on Borg's 2nd serve, then a hard-ish FHV, then a harder low FHV), and in the next game he goes 40-0 and gets dragged to deuce mostly thanks to a couple of stupid mistakes (especially a grisly FHV). Overall, though, he plays not only aggressively and bravely but also smartly, which is in itself kind of a surprise.

Anyway, at least for the first two sets I kept thinking that there was something a little off with Borg - apart from his questionable outfit (striped shirt over squared shorts, really? ). HIs movements and mostly his shots (from his serve to his passing) seem less efficient than usual - staying behind the baseline might have been part of his gameplan, but hitting so many UEs and so little winners probably wasn't. If I read the stats correctly, Borg played 16 winners, 12 of which in the final set (while Connors has 15 in the first two sets and 22 in the third alone), meaning that he only has 4 winners in two sets, one of which he wins with a breadstick - more indication that it was Connors who lost momentum stepped down, much more than Borg stepping up. For more proof: in the only game Jimbo wins in the 2nd set, Borg makes a total mess, managing to serve a DF, miss an OH, and then a FH. And when he's serving for the set, he misses two easy FH at the net.

In the end, though, I don't know which is more admirable: Borg being close to winning a match playing far from his best tennis, or Connors getting away with giving a whole set (in a Bo3 match!) to a player like Borg.