Match Stats/Report - Connors vs Borg, Suntory Cup Invitational final, 1983

[Waspsting]

Jimmy Connors beat Bjorn Borg 6-3, 6-4 in the Suntory Cup Invitational final, 1983 on carpet in Tokyo, Japan

Borg was the defending champion. Connors had previously won the event in 1981 and 1982 and would go onto win it again in 1986. The two had met in the inaugural final in 1978, with Borg having won. The champion won $110,000, the runner-up $75,000

Connors won 76 points, Borg 64

Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (47/66) 71%
- 1st serve points won (27/47) 57%
- 2nd serve points won (10/19) 53%
- Aces 1 (a second serve)
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (8/66) 12%

Borg....
- 1st serve percentage (32/74) 43%
- 1st serve points won (19/32) 59%
- 2nd serve points won (16/42) 38%
- Aces 6
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (13/74) 18%

Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 26%
- to BH 74%

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

Return Stats
Connors made...
- 57 (12 FH, 45 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 7 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 5 Forced (2 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (57/70) 81%

Borg made...
- 57 (14 FH, 43 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 7 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (2 FH)
- 5 Forced (2 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (57/65) 88%

Break Points
Connors 6/8 (7 games)
Borg 3/7 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 17 (4 FH, 2 BH, 4 FHV, 5 BHV, 2 OH)
Borg 18 (5 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH)

Connors' FHs - 2 cc (1 pass), 1 inside-out and 1 inside-in/cc at net
- BHs - 1 cc pass and 1 dtl

- 1 BHV was possibly not clean

Borg's FHs - 3 cc (1 pass, 1 at net), 1 inside-out and 1 longline return (that Connors left)
- BHs - 2 cc passes, 3 dtl (2 passes), 1 inside-in/cc pass and 1 net chord dribbler

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

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 32
- 26 Unforced (16 FH, 9 BH, 1 FHV)... the FHV was a non-net shot
- 6 Forced (4 FH, 1 BH, 1 FHV)... the BH was a running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.6

Borg 47
- 30 Unforced (12 FH, 17 BH, 1 BHV)
- 17 Forced (5 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 1 BHOH)... with 1 FH at net & the BHOH was a flagrantly forced baseline attempt to handle a smash
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 42

(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 21/29 (72%) at net

Borg was...
- 15/23 (65%) at net, including...
- 4/6 (67%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 forced back

Match Report
Hard hitting match of mixed quality, but with nail biting progression through the last set. Court is on slow side, but low of bounce

Some background. Having taken the ‘82 season of, Borg announced his ‘retirement’ in early ‘83. This, according to commentary, is his last ‘official’ event. This being an invitational, 4-man event

Stakes are high. Winner gets $110,000, the runner-up $75,000 according to commentary. Considerably more than Connors won for Wimbledon or US Open the previous year. Any doubts about the competitiveness of action should be erased at sight of an obviously tiring Connors throwing himself about with full commitment in the last quarter of the match

Action is hard hitting, baseline rally based. Negligible serve-volleying (just a little from Borg), and not much coming to net even. The two trade groundies from the back. Both hit hard. Connors FH to Borg BH is staple of play (the norm for the match up). There are considerably fewer direction changes and open court, moving-one-another side to side rallies than the pair’s usual (the usual being exceptionally high)

Looks more like a Connors-Lendl match up than a Connors-Borg

To be clear, there is moving opponent around play and all that fun stuff that characterize the rivalry - much more so than typical Connors-Lendl matches - its just low compared to other matches between the two. As are net approaches

Hard hitting and depth are the weapons on show, with both players using them. Connors hits less flat than his norm and Borg the opposite. The two have about the same net clearance, which is extremely unusual; usually, Borg has much higher, safer shots than Jimbo

Serve isn’t much of a factor. Borg has a meaty one, but very poor in-count of 43% limits what he can get out of it (also, a relatively slow court). Connors’ is beefed up a bit, though less than meaty - and even with Borg a tad off on returning, doesn’t get much out of the first shot

Coincidentally, both players make exactly 57 returns and both have 7 return errors (2 UEs, 5 FEs). In fact, even the distribution of errors is all but identical - both have 2 FH, 3 BH FEs. On the UE front, Jimbo has 1 of each wing, both of Borg’s are FHs

Low unreturned rates - Jimbo 12%, Borg 18%. That leaves play to decide matters, not the serve. And Jimbo has much better of things. He’s more consistent and Borg’s shot tolerance not being too good are 2 reasons for this. The other is his greater willingness to come forward to finish points - which he tends to do on key points, and does very, very well

If Borg had an equalizer up his sleeve, it’d be serve-volleying, but with 43% first serves in, that’s not much to go on and it isn’t a big factor

Basic Stats, Serve & Return
1st serve in - Jimbo 71%, Borg 43%
1st serve won - Jimbo 57%, Borg 59%
2nd serve won - Jimbo 53%, Borg 38%

The general pattern in the match-up is Borg winning big lot of his first serve points - and the 3 other serves going about 50-50, which obviously, humongously favours him to win

This match is deviating from that in a number of ways

First, the very low in count of 43% minimizes what Borg can get out of his much better serve
Second, he’s not getting much out of it. 59% is a poor yield of first serve points won
Third, Jimbo’s much better player and winning a lot more than 50% of the ‘50-50 prospects’ points

Borg with 6 aces but drawing just 7 errors is typical of him in that he’s a server who, other than when he’s not serving aces, isn’t too tough to return. But that’s not whats going on in this case; he sends down a number of excellent first serves - both powerful and well wide - but Jimbo makes the tough returns. Credit Jimbo. Returning tough serves isn’t his strongest point as a returner

2nd serve points won are clearest indicator of Jimbo playing much better than Borg, but there’s another, subtler sign. These tough returns Jimbo makes leaves him off-balance and Borg in prime position to take charge of the point

He doesn’t do too well at it. Sans aces, Borg’s won just 13/26 first serve points (and that’s including return errors). He’s winning 50% of points starting from strong position in rally (actually, lower than that when accounting for return errors). Not good from Borg’s point of view

Jimbo for his part serves well too. Some good wide ones, some nice ones to the FH surprising Borg (including a second serve ace - his only ace of the match) and generally deep. Borg still returns 88% of them, but it doesn’t come easily

Jimbo’s first serve isn’t just a point-starter here, as it so often is, but does give him some advantage but like Borg, he doesn’t make much use of it. Gets less advantage out of the serve than Borg does because his is weaker, but still, gets some. To follow up, he hits at most a ‘pressuring’ groundstroke rather than an attacking one, and more often, just a firm neutral one

He wins 57% first serve points because he’s the better player, but that’s a disappointing figure for him in light of how action runs. It’d have been a good figure were his serve a virtual 2nd serve as it often is

Borg’s very low 38% second serve points won in conjunction with low in count is... complicated from practical point of view. Obviously, a terrible number, but its not necessarily connected to his holding or not

He holds games where his in-count is 0/6 , 2/8, and 5/12 for example

In games he’s broken, he’s got decent in-counts - 4/6 (twice), 3/6 (twice), 4/8. Only in last game of match is he under 50% and gets broken 2/6

Play - Baselin & Net
Winners - Jimbo 17, Borg 18
Errors Forced - Jimbo 17, Borg 6
UEs - Jimbo 26, Borg 30

Aggressively ended points/UE differential - Jimbo +8, Borg -6

Action is better than the numbers, but numbers aren’t lying either. Not the best of matches, and on whole, a poor showing from Borg. Key to his showing is consistency and shot tolerance being down

The hitting is hard, and gets better in the second set. And both players go deep with their shots, giving the other some trouble to cope. For once, it doesn't take too much to get an error out of Borg. As “being tough to get an error out of” is almost his defining characterisitc, that leaves him with a lot of problems

 

[Waspsting]

UE counts -
- Borg BH 17
- Jimbo FH 16
- Borg FH 12
- Jimbo BH 9

Jimbo FH and Borg BH are far more on show than the other 2 shots, so contrary to the numbers, its actually Borg’s FH that’s most faulty, missing disproportionately much. And its not forcing action. Borg uses his BH to hit wide and deep and trouble Connors; FHs just holding the fort - and not doing it well

Jimbo by contrast is pressuring off both wings. FH looks to breakdown Borg’s BH - and does so, more often than the other way around. Borg’s BH is uncomfortable with the low balls and apt to be rushed and Jimbo wins the FH-BH duel. Significant number of FH approach errors by Jimbo’s FH too, which have nothing to do with the duel - that’s a separate matter, and a more general problem he has

UE breakdown -
Neutral - Jimbo 16, Borg 25
Attacking - Jimbo 8, Borg 4
Winner Attempts - Jimbo 2, Borg 1

Low winner attempt errors from both. Other than when at net, neither player goes for the ultimately aggressive shots. There are 5 baseline-to-baseline winners, Jimbo has no net UEs (misses a non-net FHV), Borg just 1

Attacking error advantage for Borg is mostly about Jimbo’s approach errors. Jimbo rallies forward 29 times, Borg 17. Jimbo is more apt to go attackingly wide off the ground too, but as stated earlier, depth more than angles is weapon of choice here

It’s the neutrals, usually Borg’s playground, that Jimbo dominates. There are shades of UEs though, and with the hitting being good from both sides, the UEs are relatively pressuring. Far cry from errors drawn by say McEnroe’s pushed groundies

In the semi, Borg had 4 ground UEs all match (Mac had 14). Here, he’s got that many after 7 points

To be clear, its not a good showing by Borg. Just not as bad as the numbers he’s posted

Attack comes up via net approaches, and here’s where Jimbo shines. Rallying to net -
Jimbo 21/29 (72%)
Borg 11/17 (65%)

On virtually every important point - both when he’s in trouble or his opponent is - Jimbo comes forward. The regularity with which he does suggests he could create an approach anytime he wanted to

He doesn’t need to though, because he’s winning bulk of baseline errors. But it’s a nice ace to have up one’s sleeve. Its net play as a whole, not just volleying, that's impressive. He works his way up with hard hit, angled shots - not too wide, but combo of width and force is perfect. Almost always, he ends up with a putaway volley - and he puts them away. Just 1 net error from Jimbo all match - and that’s an FE

Creating putaway volley chances is another indicator of Jimbo being able to outmanuver Borg from the back. He comes in off angled balls that Borg can only put back in play high over net. And he gets in close to net as his wont to dispatch the balls

Borg doesn’t look to come in as much, whether he’s in trouble or not, but he doesn’t outmanuver (pushing wide or wide) near as much as other way around

Gist of the rallying to net dynamics is that they reveal Jimbo’s ability to attackingly outplay Borg from the back (as in, leave him in defensive position). Generally (in other matches), doing so wouldn’t draw errors from Borg, but they do here. More importantly, it allows Jimbo to come in and much more decisively seal the important points

Not bad volleying from Borg either (1 UE) but he’s got 6 FEs. Can’t set up the approach as well as Jimbo, and Jimbo also making some strong passes from difficult positions on the run

Jimbo getting better of everything net points related - approaching, volleying (particularly the finishing) and passing. It’s the combo of creating a good approach and the way he comes net that stand out more than the volleying, or rather, the former combo make the volleying easy. Taken as a package, it’s a thing of beauty

Match Progression
Error strewn, not very good first set, with Borg particularly so. Action consists of firmly struck baseline rallies, without many direction changers. Not infrequently, somebody gets a particularly deep ball close to the baseline off, which causes trouble, especially if slightly wide

Borg's BH is rushed against the low ball. Connors handles them just fine off his FH, but is prone to routine errors of that side

Borg shows next to no interest in net. Connors now and then comes in, and makes errors trying to too

Borg’s broken to open the match - an ace, a double fault and ground errors making up the game. The double makes it 30-30, and Borg misses third ball FHs on next 2 points (both first serves)

He’s in trouble in his second serve game too, and serve-volleys a couple of times to keep his nose in front. Still, he needs a net chord dribbling winner to hold

2 trade breaks to leave Jimbo up 4-3 (with a break). 3 straight Jimbo FH errors sees him broken (the last 2 both approach attempts). Jimbo takes net a couple times to break back - helped by Borg double faulting and missing a routine, third ball line FH

Jimbo breaks for a third time to end the set. Borg loses both his serve-volley points - first missing a slightly wide, but easy high BHV and later, gets a FH1/2V he can’t handle. BH UEs lose him the other 2 points, including break/set point

Action picks up in the second set considerably. The hitting is cleaner from both players, fewer errors and longer rallies. The two hit very similarly of force and trajectory. Borg’s not loopy, Jimbo’s not flat… both shift towards the middle of the styles they’re known for and meet there. They look like the same player

From hard-hitting cc rallies as a starting point, action does take a more fluid dynamic than earlier, Not corner to corner running, but some moving side to side involved

Some good serves from Jimbo and he still looks to come to net when in trouble

Progression makes for tension. No serve game is safe and games are long. 6/10 games go to deuce - and 2 that don’t are breaks

They trade holds to open. Down 15-40, Jimbo creates approches to save 3 break points with winners, beautifully constructed stuff. He’s at net for the fourth break point too, but approach shot catches top of tape and slows down. A creative, BH inside-in/cc passing winner from Borg to take advantage and break

Jimbo responds by striking BH dtl winner to open the next game, where he breaks from deuce with 2 more net points

After a Jimbo hold, the 2 trade breaks again. Borg’s broken in an error riddled game, though on break point, he comes forward but can’t handle a wide pass

Borg breaks right back in 12 point game, a fun and lively one. Jimbo all but hits what would have been a very, very rare BH inside-in winner but Borg gets a racquet to the ball. Getting the break requires some luck. Up A-40, Jimbo completely misjudges a Borg return down the middle and leaves it. It lands inside the court - not on the line - right under his nose as it goes through for a winner. A double fault later, he’s down break point, which Borg snatches with a superb running BH dtl pass winner

At this juncture, Jimbo’s clearly tiring. Not that it stops him from hustling and bustling about

Borg endures a deuce hold, and strangely, it’s the game after that seems to release tension. A simple, quick love hold by Jimbo

They’re back at it right after, Borg surviving break point in a 12 pointer, Connors the same in a 10 point game. Borg finally actively takes net to hold, coming in 5 times (he’s passed twice and forced back once, but hits a FH cc winner as he’s on way back). Does save the break point with a BHV winner too

Jimbo’s hold is if anything, tenser. Attacking errors from both players from the back get things to deuce, when Borg brings up break point with a BH dtl pass winner. Borg’s at net again on break point and makes a short volley. Tired or not, Jimbo scampers at full speed to reach the ball and his pass from around service line is too wide for Borg to handle

Jimbo breaks to end the match. Couple of Borg BH errors involved, but also 2 Jimbo volleying winners, the last of which, an easy BHV into open court set up by an outstanding BH dtl approach, ends the match. Great set of tennis - the tension greater than the action, which doesn’t lag too far behind. Similar to the decider of the ‘77 Masters final

Summing up, the action isn’t all it could be, but things get very exciting in the second set. Borg’s ground consistency and shot tolerance is off and it doesn’t take too much or too long to get an error out of him. Connors hits as hard, with a bit more variation of direction and is more secure off the ground

Baseline rallies aren’t overly lively, with both players using depth rather than angles to create pressure. Its not great pressure, but does the job, with errors coming at a fair clip

Borg’s very low first serve in count is a problem for him, but he does serve powerfully when he gets it in and Connors does well to deny him freebies

The most outstanding positive would be the way Connors works his way to net, with commanding approach shots hit at angles and coming in all the way tight to net. It doesn’t leave him much to do on the volley and his finishing is impeccable. This is what he turns to when chips are down for either player and Borg has nothing to match it, while getting shorter end of the stick trading groundstrokes too

Stats for Borg’s semi with John McEnroe - Match Stats/Report - Borg vs McEnroe, Suntory Cup Invitational semi-final, 1983 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[KG1965]

Taking not only inspiration but also from your inherent data 11 matches (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 4 Jimbo won) between the two players the result very tight is this:
1244 points Borg
1141 points Connors
------------------------
+ 103 points Borg

"Only serves and returns (aces, winners and errors)": -171 Jimbo, - 19 Bjorn = 152 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 1122 points v 1073 of Borg (49 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.

 

[sandy mayer]

looks to me that Borg had declined in consistency by then. He didn't make anywhere near as many errors in his peak years.

 

[jrepac]

looks to me that Borg had declined in consistency by then. He didn't make anywhere near as many errors in his peak years.

I used to eat up their exos...must see TV for me! I don't recall if I saw this one....I probably did. Wouldn't mind seeing it again if someone dumps it onto YouTube! I think by this time, you are starting to see the rust in Borg's game. Incredibly rare for him to make more errors than Jimmy. [Though I will say he seemed really sloppy in the '81 W semi. ] Connors was always hungry to win, even in the exos, and people enjoyed seeing that, IMHO. One point though on the court, I thought it was on the faster side? I remember the '86 final where Jimmy just creamed Wilander, which was in part attributed to the speed of the court. Were '83 and '86 played at the same location, same surface?

 

[Drob]

Waspsting:


The more the merrier on Borg 1982 matches at the independent, or non-sanctioned, tourneys, if you can find them. There was talk he was playing quite well - in particular that his serve was stronger than previously. His record against Jimbo is poor, but he does better against McEnroe and Lendl in these 1982 encounters. It is rather intriguing.

 

[jrepac]

Waspsting:


The more the merrier on Borg 1982 matches at the independent, or non-sanctioned, tourneys, if you can find them. There was talk he was playing quite well - in particular that his serve was stronger than previously. His record against Jimbo is poor, but he does better against McEnroe and Lendl in these 1982 encounters. It is rather intriguing.

That's an interesting point; Jimmy usually got the better of him in these exos, which I attributed to lack of play/sharpness. But if he was beating Mac and Ivan, not sure my reasoning holds water. Maybe Jimmy was just hungrier to win after taking so many beatings? And, as #1/2 in the world, he did not want to be embarrassed.

 

[KG1965]

To be precise before Bjorn's official retirement, Borg and Connors met officially 23 times (15 to 8 in favor of Bjorn) although in reality 5 of Bjorn's victories were in tournaments that the ATP did not consider for the score and ranking because " special events" (like the three finals to Boca Raton, or WCT Invitational in Salisbury and WCT Challenge Cup).

They actually met 6 more times in those years:
- 5 in non-sanctioned tournaments such as the '78 Suntory Cup won by Borg (2 wins for Borg and 3 Connors), plus a matchup at a 1980 USA/Europe team exhibition where Connors won.
The total for the period before the official retirement is therefore 17-11 for Borg but with 1-0 Connors in this last performance.

After the 1981 semi-retirement they met
- in 1982 in 3 tournaments (2-1 in favor of Jimmy) and in 6 exhibitions (5-1 in favor of Jimmy)
- in 1983 only in one non-sanctioned tournament (1-0 Connors, this Suntory Cup final) and in three exhibitions, two in USA and one in South Korea (3-0 Connors).

After retiring then between exhibitions and tournaments (all not sanctioned) Borg wins 2 times and loses 11.

They met again at exhibitions in Japan three times in 1986 where Connors always won.

 

[WCT]

Here we go again. I had Connors at the net 27 times and Borg 20. I had the total points 76-65. On the bright side, I did have the same unreturned serves. Another match I did years ago.

I don't think that returning tough, well places serves is any returner's strength. I never considered Connors weaker at it than the other top returners although I never did a deep study specific to that.

Did the announcers speak to the speed of the court? I always thought of it as at worst medium paced. Certainly not slow. Regarding Wilander, Connors did beat him in special events, Not in official tournament play, though.

 

[sandy mayer]

To be precise before Bjorn's official retirement, Borg and Connors met officially 23 times (15 to 8 in favor of Bjorn) although in reality 5 of Bjorn's victories were in tournaments that the ATP did not consider for the score and ranking because " special events" (like the three finals to Boca Raton, or WCT Invitational in Salisbury and WCT Challenge Cup).

They actually met 6 more times in those years:
- 5 in non-sanctioned tournaments such as the '78 Suntory Cup won by Borg (2 wins for Borg and 3 Connors), plus a matchup at a 1980 USA/Europe team exhibition where Connors won.
The total for the period before the official retirement is therefore 17-11 for Borg but with 1-0 Connors in this last performance.

After the 1981 semi-retirement they met
- in 1982 in 3 tournaments (2-1 in favor of Jimmy) and in 6 exhibitions (5-1 in favor of Jimmy)
- in 1983 only in one non-sanctioned tournament (1-0 Connors, this Suntory Cup final) and in three exhibitions, two in USA and one in South Korea (3-0 Connors).

After retiring then between exhibitions and tournaments (all not sanctioned) Borg wins 2 times and loses 11.

They met again at exhibitions in Japan three times in 1986 where Connors always won.

Borg was simply never the same player after 81. McEnroe has said this. Connors had Borg's number from 82 onwards, as did McEnroe and other players too.

 

[WCT]

Is it some revelation that he wasn't the same player after 81. No kidding he's not the same player. He plays occasional special events and exhibitions. Basically no tournament play. How could he possibly be the same player.

That said, this was not 1991. He could still play great tennis. He beat Mcenroe multiple times. Beat him in this event. I think the difference was incremental, but definitely there. The consistent sharpness was not there. He's have a break point against Connors and miss a 2nd serve return. Things he just didn't do before.

Whenever I speak about Connors Borg and their head to head I generally don't bring up these later matches to make a case for Connors. He's not beating the same Borg. Again, though, he was still capable of great tennis.

 

[jrepac]

Is it some revelation that he wasn't the same player after 81. No kidding he's not the same player. He plays occasional special events and exhibitions. Basically no tournament play. How could he possibly be the same player.

Whenever I speak about Connors Borg and their head to head I generally don't bring up these later matches to make a case for Connors. He's not beating the same Borg. Again, though, he was still capable of great tennis.

Connors just never stepped away from the game, like Bjorn did, and I think that made a difference. Even when they were both in their 40's playing the seniors tour, it took Borg awhile to get his game in gear. Jimmy was getting the better of him on har-tru courts, where you'd expect Borg to have an edge. You'd could also attribute some of this to Connors' hyper-competitive nature and perhaps Bjorn didn't take it quite so seriously once he left the main tour? Though many of their exo matches were close ones and for a lot of money

 

[jrepac]

Here we go again. I had Connors at the net 27 times and Borg 20. I had the total points 76-65. On the bright side, I did have the same unreturned serves. Another match I did years ago.

I don't think that returning tough, well places serves is any returner's strength. I never considered Connors weaker at it than the other top returners although I never did a deep study specific to that.

Did the announcers speak to the speed of the court? I always thought of it as at worst medium paced. Certainly not slow. Regarding Wilander, Connors did beat him in special events, Not in official tournament play, though.

I am pretty sure in '86 they attributed Connors win over Mats partly due to the speed of the court. Jimmy was super aggressive in the 2nd set...so maybe it looked like the court was faster than it was, simply because Connors was playing so well.

 

[Waspsting]

I don't think that returning tough, well places serves is any returner's strength. I never considered Connors weaker at it than the other top returners although I never did a deep study specific to that.

Borg himself, Wilander, Edberg, even Boris when he wants to. More recently, Murray and even Djokovic (I say 'even' Djokovic because like Jimbo, he has other qualities on the return that takes the eye more than this)

Connors isn't bad at it, but don't think he's elite tier at it either. That would be those guys mentioned above

And worth mentioning because Connors is a bona fida top tier returner, a legitimate greatest ever candidate. Based on his spanking returns, but there are other aspects of returning

Its a pity you don't have your original scoresheets so that we could compare exactly what and what not each of us have marked net points. This match is pretty short and on-line. If you'd like to give it a second look, would be fun to compare notes. I can tell you point by point which ones I've marked and which not

Did the announcers speak to the speed of the court? I always thought of it as at worst medium paced. Certainly not slow. Regarding Wilander, Connors did beat him in special events, Not in official tournament play, though.

I am pretty sure in '86 they attributed Connors win over Mats partly due to the speed of the court. Jimmy was super aggressive in the 2nd set...so maybe it looked like the court was faster than it was, simply because Connors was playing so well.

The say 'slow bounce' at least once. They're more emphatic in calling it slow during the semi with McEnroe

Doesn't look too slow to me. Both players not overly comfy against hard hit groundies

Still, unreturned rates here are 12 and 18%
in the semis, 20 and 28%

doesn't indicate a fast court

Looks about the same as the Masters of this period, which doesn't look fast to me either

Borg was simply never the same player after 81. McEnroe has said this. Connors had Borg's number from 82 onwards, as did McEnroe and other players too.

Is it some revelation that he wasn't the same player after 81. No kidding he's not the same player. He plays occasional special events and exhibitions. Basically no tournament play. How could he possibly be the same player.

Whenever I speak about Connors Borg and their head to head I generally don't bring up these later matches to make a case for Connors. He's not beating the same Borg. Again, though, he was still capable of great tennis.

I keep an open mind about this. In the semi, he's got 4 ground UEs all match. Don't think anyone taking a blind test would be able to identify that as a showing from a semi-retired Borg rather than one out and about on tour and at the top

As KG mentioned, he's doing all right against Mac and Lendl at these events

 

[WCT]

Borg himself, Wilander, Edberg, even Boris when he wants to. More recently, Murray and even Djokovic (I say 'even' Djokovic because like Jimbo, he has other qualities on the return that takes the eye more than this)

Connors isn't bad at it, but don't think he's elite tier at it either. That would be those guys mentioned above

And worth mentioning because Connors is a bona fida top tier returner, a legitimate greatest ever candidate. Based on his spanking returns, but there are other aspects of returning

Its a pity you don't have your original scoresheets so that we could compare exactly what and what not each of us have marked net points. This match is pretty short and on-line. If you'd like to give it a second look, would be fun to compare notes. I can tell you point by point which ones I've marked and which not






The say 'slow bounce' at least once. They're more emphatic in calling it slow during the semi with McEnroe

Doesn't look too slow to me. Both players not overly comfy against hard hit groundies

Still, unreturned rates here are 12 and 18%
in the semis, 20 and 28%

doesn't indicate a fast court

Looks about the same as the Masters of this period, which doesn't look fast to me either






I keep an open mind about this. In the semi, he's got 4 ground UEs all match. Don't think anyone taking a blind test would be able to identify that as a showing from a semi-retired Borg rather than one out and about on tour and at the top

As KG mentioned, he's doing all right against Mac and Lendl at these events

Borg himself, Wilander, Edberg, even Boris when he wants to. More recently, Murray and even Djokovic (I say 'even' Djokovic because like Jimbo, he has other qualities on the return that takes the eye more than this)

Connors isn't bad at it, but don't think he's elite tier at it either. That would be those guys mentioned above

And worth mentioning because Connors is a bona fida top tier returner, a legitimate greatest ever candidate. Based on his spanking returns, but there are other aspects of returning

Its a pity you don't have your original scoresheets so that we could compare exactly what and what not each of us have marked net points. This match is pretty short and on-line. If you'd like to give it a second look, would be fun to compare notes. I can tell you point by point which ones I've marked and which not






The say 'slow bounce' at least once. They're more emphatic in calling it slow during the semi with McEnroe

Doesn't look too slow to me. Both players not overly comfy against hard hit groundies

Still, unreturned rates here are 12 and 18%
in the semis, 20 and 28%

doesn't indicate a fast court

Looks about the same as the Masters of this period, which doesn't look fast to me either






I keep an open mind about this. In the semi, he's got 4 ground UEs all match. Don't think anyone taking a blind test would be able to identify that as a showing from a semi-retired Borg rather than one out and about on tour and at the top

As KG mentioned, he's doing all right against Mac and Lendl at these events

You can tell exactly when all the approaches were? Yesiree, your stats are far more detailed, I'll do the stats for this match again. As I said, Connors' delayed approaches and whether they are net or not I could see causing a difference. Borg doesn't do all that delayed approaching and we were 3 different there. And 3 different 20 vs 23, not 3 different 120 vs 123.

You have clearly made more of a study on what types of returns these players excel at. I would not have categorized Borg as that. I saw him more as the guy who never missed the routine return. Connors could spin a serve in against Mcenroe and occasionally get the careless error. Borg less likely. Edberg doesn't come to mind either. Djokovic I will give you with no hesitation.

Never saw the Mcenroe semi win. 4 UE is pretty damn good. I remember seeing matches from the Gold Cup in Australia, late 82. Borg was playing fantastic. He could still reach great heights, but not with the consistency he had. And those careless unforced errors stood out. Things he so rarely did before.

 

[Drob]

looks to me that Borg had declined in consistency by then. He didn't make anywhere near as many errors in his peak years.

Wait a minute . . .

aking not only inspiration but also from your inherent data 11 matches (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....

. . . KG1965 cites Wimbledon '77, Wimbledon '79, USO '78, Wimbledon '78, Masters '79, Boca Raton '77 - so at least six of the 11 matches are peak Borg, and you'll not convince me '81 was not peak Borg, either - could have won Wimbledon for sure against peak McEnroe and was on a roll at USO before the final. So, I see 8 of 11 matches at Borg's peak. And '76 USO is near-peak. So, only two "outlier" matches. One the other hand, could be said that the '79 and '81 matches were not "peak Connors" - three matches. So representative enough. I think our friend might be on to something simple but dramatic: Borg big advantage in service and returns, Connors advantage in rallies. Let's see . . .

 

[Drob]

1244 points Borg
1141 points Connors
------------------------
+ 103 points Borg

"Only serves and returns (aces, winners and errors)": -171 Jimbo, - 19 Bjorn = 152 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 1122 points v 1073 of Borg (49 points of advantage for Connors).

Please explain this to me. Are you saying that out of 2,385 points over these 11 matches, 2,195 were decided on rallies, and only 190 on returns? And on those 190 points Borg has 152 points advantage? That can't be. I must be missing something crucial. But here I am citing from your numbers. Can you educate me here?

 

[Waspsting]

I'll do the stats for this match again. As I said, Connors' delayed approaches and whether they are net or not I could see causing a difference. Borg doesn't do all that delayed approaching and we were 3 different there. And 3 different 20 vs 23, not 3 different 120 vs 123.

Great!

Recommend not reading this 'til you've done yours


Borg's 23 net points

Set 1
Game 3 - points 7, 9 (both s/v)
Game 4 - point 5
Game 5 - point 2
Game 8 - point 1
Game 9 - points 3, 5 (both s/v)

Set 2
Game 1 - points 3, 9
Game 2 - point 5 (s/v)
Game 3 point 4
Game 4 - point 6
Game 5 - points 1, 6, 8
Game 6 - point 5
Game 8 - points 1, 5, 9, 10, 11
Game 9 - point 8
Game 10 - point 3 (s/v)


Connors' 29 net points

Set 1
Game 3 - points 1, 6
Game 4 - points 3, 4
Game 6 - points 1, 2, 3
Game 7 - points 1, 6
Game 8 - points 4, 5

Set 2
Game 1 - points 5, 6, 8, 10
Game 2 - points 7, 8
Game 3 - point 1
Game 5 - points 8, 9, 12
Game 6 - point 7
Game 7 - points 1, 4
Game 9 - points 7, 8, 9
Game 10 - points 2, 6

 

[WCT]

I did it. I can't read your notes on the net points. It's blurred for me. First off, a bunch of balls Connors could have come in on and didn't. A few times he started in and stopped. Not balls halfway in the service box, but balls a couple of feet inside. Mostly the type of balls he came in behind on the points he did wind up at net.

I still don't have Connors at 29 even if I include the ones I might be iffy on. I get Borg to 23 using what I view as an iffy ball. The Borg point in question is at deuce in game 17. Borg approaches to Connors BH. Very good low angled backhand crosscourt volley. Connors, on the dead run, shoots a forehand up the line. Borg not only runs across but back. Connors ball isn't hit that hard so he can catch up. He winds up hitting a forehand into the open court since Connors was on the dead run to hit the fh, Borg hits this ball several feet behind the service line. Ordinarily, I think I would have a forced back for Borg and not call it a net point, but a forehand winner. If I count it as net then I have 15 of 23.

Now, 2 for Connors. I believe the 8th game at 40-30. Rally and Connors hits an excellent bh crosscourt that Borg has to stretch for and hits a very weak fh that land maybe a couple feet over the net. Connors comes forward and hits a fh on the bounce for a winner. I guess it's intent on my part. Connors bh was not an approach shot. He only moved forward to the net to get to that very weak reply. However, he definitely ended the point at net. I wouldn't argue it strongly.

I'm interested in intent as well. How much Connors was looking to come to net. It's why I always kept a separate stat for approach shot winners and errors. He may not have gotten a net point, but he was looking to get there. Same with forced back. No net point in the end, but he wanted to get there. BTW, if a player is forced back but winds up back at net to finish the point, I only count that as a net point, not forced back. For me, forced back is when they stay back.

2nd Connors point. During a rally, with Connors showing no, in my mind, clear intent to come in, he winds up taking a Borg shot in the air and missing a fhv into the net. This was in the 15th game, maybe the last point of it. He hit the ball in the air a couple feet past the service line. Another one I'm not sure I'd call net. Again, certainly debatable.

Even if I count those 2 as net points I still don't have him with 29, though.

 

[KG1965]

Please explain this to me. Are you saying that out of 2,385 points over these 11 matches, 2,195 were decided on rallies, and only 190 on returns? And on those 190 points Borg has 152 points advantage? That can't be. I must be missing something crucial. But here I am citing from your numbers. Can you educate me here?

Borg's 152 points lead consists of the difference between all this shots:
+ aces
- double faults
+ winner returns
- errors returns.
Borg has a negative difference of 19.
Connors of 171.

 

[Waspsting]

I did it. I can't read your notes on the net points. It's blurred for me.

You click on the blurred parts, and it un-blurs

Point of blurring is to keep it from being visible until someone wants to see it

 

[jrepac]

You click on the blurred parts, and it un-blurs

Point of blurring is to keep it from being visible until someone wants to see it

Neat trick! I clicked on it and voila!

 

[WCT]

You click on the blurred parts, and it un-blurs

Point of blurring is to keep it from being visible until someone wants to see it

Thanks. I am glad you are so detailed because now I see my 2 point difference. Game 5 second set, point 8. I don't see any way this is a net point. Borg has hit an overhead and Connors returns it at his feet. Borg hits a drop half volley. Connors makes a mad dash and barely gets there, his backhand going into the net. Net point for Borg, though.

Game 9 second set, point 8. Borg comes in Connors with an attempted crosscourt bh pass. Borg with another drop volley. Connors races up and in and makes a fh up the line pass. Borg gets his racket on it but misses the volley. Again, I see it as a Borg net point, but definitely not one for Connors.

 

[Waspsting]

Thanks. I am glad you are so detailed because now I see my 2 point difference. Game 5 second set, point 8. I don't see any way this is a net point. Borg has hit an overhead and Connors returns it at his feet. Borg hits a drop half volley. Connors makes a mad dash and barely gets there, his backhand going into the net. Net point for Borg, though.

Game 9 second set, point 8. Borg comes in Connors with an attempted crosscourt bh pass. Borg with another drop volley. Connors races up and in and makes a fh up the line pass. Borg gets his racket on it but misses the volley. Again, I see it as a Borg net point, but definitely not one for Connors.

Looks like difference in our methodolgies for net points is you don't count forced approaches to net and I do

I remember thinking about this when I first got started. Casually, I'd always thought net points were about volleying, but found so many points like this, where a guy is at net (i.e. past the service line) but he's not there to volley

 

[WCT]

Looks like difference in our methodolgies for net points is you don't count forced approaches to net and I do

I remember thinking about this when I first got started. Casually, I'd always thought net points were about volleying, but found so many points like this, where a guy is at net (i.e. past the service line) but he's not there to volley

Glad you explained that because it may account for some of our other net differences. I definitely do not see them as net points, my idea of one, anyway, but methodologies can certainly differ.