Match Stats/Report - Connors vs Borg, US Open final, 1976

[Waspsting]

Jimmy Connors beat Bjorn Borg 6-4, 3-6, 7-6(9), 6-4 in the US Open final, 1976 at Forest Hills, NY on green clay

It was second of Connors' Open Era record 5 US open title, and he had been runner-up the previous year. Borg, the Wimbledon champion, was playing the first of his 4 finals at the event. Connors had beaten Borg in the semi-finals the previous year

Connors won 141 points, Borg 139

(Note: I'm missing partial data for 2 points
Set 1, Game 2, Point 1 - a Connors serve point that was returned. Serve type, direction and corresponding return data missing
Set 3, Game 4, Point 1 - a Borg first serve point that was returned. Serve direction and corresponding return data missing

Ending of the points have been recorded)

Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (96/132) 73%
- 1st serve points won (59/96) 61%
- 2nd serve points won (20/36) 56%
- Unknown serve point (1/1) 100%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (7/133) 5%

Borg...
- 1st serve percentage (103/147) 70%
- 1st serve points won (61/103) 59%
- 2nd serve points won (25/44) 57%
- Aces 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (19/147) 13%

Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 16%
- to BH 80%
- to Body 7%

Borg served...
- to FH 21%
- to BH 68%
- to Body 10%

Return Stats
Connors made...
- 128 (43 FH, 84 BH, 1 ??), including 4 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 18 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (2 FH, 4 BH), including 1 runaround FH/return-approach/charge
- 12 Forced (2 FH, 10 BH)
- Return Rate (128/147) 87%

Borg made...
- 124 (41 FH, 82 BH, 1 ??), including 18 runaround FHs
- 5 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 3 Forced (3 BH)
- Return Rate (124/131) 95%

Break Points
Connors 6/15 (10 games)
Borg 5/9 (7 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 55 (16 FH, 14 BH, 8 FHV, 8 BHV, 9 OH)
Borg 20 (5 FH, 7 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV, 4 OH)

Connors' FHs - 5 cc (1 at net), 5 dtl (1 pass), 5 inside-out (2 at net) and 1 drop shot
- BHs - 5 cc (1 pass), 5 dtl (1 return pass, 1 net-to-net), 2 inside-out, 1 inside-in and 1 lob

- 1 OH was hit on the bounce from no-man's land and not a net point

Borg's FHs - 4 cc (3 passes) and 1 inside-in
- BHs - 3 cc (1 pass), 3 dtl (2 passes) and 1 longline/inside-out at net

- 1 OH was the second volley off a serve-volley point and 1 was hit on the bounce from no-man's land and not a net point

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 98
- 73 Unforced (39 FH, 27 BH, 2 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 OH)… including 14 approach attempts. 1 BHV was not a net point
- 25 Forced (8 FH, 9 BH, 3 FHV, 5 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.9

Borg 79
- 38 Unforced (13 FH, 22 BH, 1 BHV, 2 OH)… including 4 approach attempts. 1 OH was off the baseline
- 41 Forced (20 FH, 20 BH, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 42.4

(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 for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Connors was...
- 67/86 (78%) at net, including...
- 1/4 (25%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
--
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 4/6 (67%) forced back/retreated

Borg was...
- 25/36 (69%) at net, including...
- 3/4 (75%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
--
- 2/4 (75%) forced back/retreated

Match Report
A toughly fought match between a hard attacking Connors and a reactive Borg. Connors winning just 2 more points in the match - and Borg having had 4 set points (including the first two of the pair's combined 6) in the second set tiebreak indicate it was very close, but the final result is the most appropriate. Connors was the better player

To my eye, its a better match than the stats suggest: Connors 55 winners, 73 UEs and Borg 20 winners, 38 UEs aren't good numbers even for clay. But play is tough as can be. To use a cliché, like two heavyweights slugging it out.

Connors' attacking baseline shots and net play stand out for quality, especially the former. Of his 30 groundstroke winners, 21 are power baseline-to-baseline points nominally. Usually, such winners are hit from well inside the court, more often than not closer to service line than baseline. Here though, as many are hit from the baseline or even behind it... a remarkable demonstration of power on any court, let alone clay. Such a rate of hitting baseline winners remained unusual even on faster courts 'til about the late '80s (even by Connors himself)

Serve & Return
Not much of a net factor. Both players return very consistently (Connors 87% return rate, Borg 95%) and both serve at a high percentage (Connors 73%, Borg 70%) without seeming to be looking to do much with the first shot

In Connors' case, its unlikely trying to have done so would have made any difference. His serve just isn't strong enough to trouble Borg on this slow court. He does hit 2 aces by surprising Borg by going to the FH (he served relentlessly to the BH otherwise - 80% of time, to just 16% to the FH). Nadal often employs this play to Federer - with similar results

Borg though, probably had the potential to do a bit more damage with the serve. He mostly rolls it in, but obviously has the ability to crank it up to the level of being troublesome. Since there's hardly any difference in how well he does off either serve (wins 59% firsts and 57% seconds), its something he might have tried a bit more than he did. Probably wouldn't have made much difference - Connors' returning is typically strong and consistent and could cope with even Borg's biggest serves on the surface without undue difficulty

 

[Waspsting]

Play - Baseline & Net
In a nutshell, Connors looks to overpower Borg and Borg looks to resist being overpowered. Quality of play varies plenty across the match for both players. Either Connors succeeds by winning the point, or he fails making an error - Borg's play is like the canvas, Connors' the paint. The feature that takes the eye is the obvious greater power Connors has. In other matches between the two, baseline exchanges are invariably close but its up in the air who the stronger hitter is. Here, its self-evident

From the baseline, Connors hits with exceptional power. About as hard as its possible to hit a tennis ball. In '83 Queens final between Connors and John McEnroe, sober headed commentator Dan Maskell expressed the opinion that Connors was hitting the ball harder than anyone ever had before (with possible exception of Ellsworth Vines). To my eye, he's hitting the ball a lot harder here than he did there. The commentators for this match (Trabert, Ashe and Summerhall) note the unusually large number of baseline winners coming off Connors' racquet. Ashe thinks the metal stick Connors played with has a large hand in it. Even so, Connors hitting looks 15-20 years ahead of its time on the power front

Forcefully winning points from the baseline aside, Connors looks to come to net when he's gained an advantage from the back to put the point to bed. And come in he does - 86 times, winning a very high 78% of those points. He neither comes in blindly nor looks to manufacture an approach for its own sake - its almost always after pushing Borg back and on the defensive

From the baseline, the downside to all this are the unforced errors - both from being aggressive and not being particularly consistent (compared to Borg anyway). 73 of them from Connors. Note the moderate UEFI of 45.9, indicating his UEs were not overly aggressive. He has a tendency to just miss routine shots - the opposite of Borg - though it should be noted that Connors' 'routine' groundstroke tends to be more attacking than Borg's, in terms of placement and power

From the net, the downside is approach UEs. Connors makes 14, most of them FHs. This hasn't come out in the stats, as approach shots have been counted baseline points. Once at net though, there is no downside - just 6 UEs from Jimbo up there to 16 winners and lots of errors forced out of Borg. Borg doesn't pass particularly well though, especially by his standard

Borg for his part, looks to just keep the ball in play, heavily without undue heat. He is typically consistent, but has lapses when he makes uncharacteristic UEs to routine balls. Again worth noting is that 'routine' is a relative term... routine balls against Connors is a bit less routine than it would be most anyone else. Solid enough stuff from Borg. Note the very low UEFI of 42.4, the scanty 36 approaches and conservative 20 winners. He was 'just' putting balls in play

Given how aggressive (and error prone) Connors was, it was a good plan - and a standard one for clay. Nowhere near flashy or eye catching aside, Borg's efficiency from the back was probably enough to see him win. Its his inability to handle Connors net play that makes the decisive difference

Assessing quality of passing is a slippery slope. Almost by definition, passing errors are 'forced' so statistically, not much comes out to indicate how well someone passed. Borg forces 8 volleying errors out of Connors (most were makeable, not flagrant) and has 6 passing winners. That's on the low side

Ironically, its Borg hitting a stunning BH cc passing winner from a defensive position middle of third set that showcases what he's missing. Such shots are a regular feature of his matches on all surfaces... but he makes very few of them here. Its a tall task to hit such shots even occasionally, but one he -

a) needed, given the strength of Connors' approach shots
b) was quite capable of, despite its difficulty

On the pass, Borg is down from his norm. Still, primarily credit to Connors net play, with just a note not amounting to discredit on Borg's passing.

Connors shows strong finishing ability on the volley. He doesn't have to make many low ones, gets a fair few easy ones (a product of strong approach shots) but doesn't dilly-dally with putting it away. The difficult volleys he faces are mostly wide balls, that he reaches and deals with reasonably well

Borg comes in rarely, just 36 times. It doesn't seem to be part of his game plan but is also partially down to him being forced (or wanting to stay) behind the baseline by Connors' power hitting. He wins a healthy 69% of his approaches though and could have got more out of the play

In Wimbledon final shortly before, he was proficient in approaching of BH cc slices. Here, he comes in strong top spin shots, turning only to the slices very late in the match and then just a couple of times. The shots he comes in off are so powerful that they were a handful even without an approach, but were he looking to approach more, the slice approach would have been a good option. Connors displays his well known relative weakness on low-ish FHs throughout the match (he has 39 FH UEs to 27 BHs). Even on not low balls, the Connors FH is the more error prone wing - though he belts those just as hard as the BH

Match Progression
In first set, everything Connors tries comes off. Thundering groundstrokes and net play - its a fusillade from him and Borg is overwhelmed. That Borg can keep it as close as 4-6 is testament to his quality. Just the 4 UEs from Borg... but Connors has 15 winners and wins all his net points. Back to back BH winners - 1 cc, 1 inside-out - in game 3, a BH inside-out to a regulation ball, a bruising BH dtl return pass standout for quality

In second set, Connors' UEs are the decisive factor. Mostly routine balls. Just bad play from him, though he does pull off the shot of the match down 0-40. Cornered on his FH side, Connors whacks a BH inside-in winner. Not a shot you see everyday, or almost ever. Virtually any other player caught in such a position would be looking to return to the middle and hit a FH

Third set is the scratchiest of the match. There are 6 breaks in the first 7 games. Connors' play is something between his showing in first two sets - blistering attacks and UEs running side by side. Borg is also error prone (by his standard)

Weak play from Connors gives Borg the advantage in the tiebreak. A double fault, an easy missed FHV and an ill advised attempt to inside-out drop FHV leaves him down 2 set points, but he pummels a third ball FH winner and ace to get back even. Borg has two other set points and they're dealt with just as thoroughly, with OH winners after being overpowered from the back. Connors brings up his own second set point with possibly the hardest hit shot of the match - a BH cc winner struck from behind the baseline. Set point is an anti-climax - Borg unusually going for a low percentage BH dtl attacking shot and missing it

Final set is just a little feeble from Borg. After the tension of the tiebreak, the start is somewhat routine, with both players holding easily. After that, there's a lack of heart in Borg's play, as if he'd given up or was deflated by the last set. He makes a number of out of character loose UEs and starts attacking net early in rallies (mostly successfully). Heart in it or not... the sets no runaway on the playing level. Just the one break in a error strewn game

Interesting Comments & Incidents
- When asked what was his biggest major win, former Wimbledon and US Open champion Arthur Ashe doesn't think long before answering the Davis Cup
Asked the same thing, Tony Trabert seems torn between Wimbledon and US Open, leaning towards US Open. Ashe states that 'generally', Wimbledon is seen to be more prestigious and Trabert counters that perhaps the pressure of playing for Slam of one's own country enhanced his feeling for US Open

- In the tiebreak, both players and the chair forget to change ends at 9-9. Its a ball boy who point it out and gets a well earned round of applause for it. Commentators mention such things aren't all that rare and mention a tiebreak a where Evonne Goolagong served three points in a row without anybody noticing 'til afterwards

- Couple of interesting issues about rules. Borg takes a tumble and gets a bad cut under his knee. The trainer on site treats it just a bit at the change over and Borg's out to play in good time after. Commentators discuss the legality of receiving any kind of treatment at all and according to them, in this case, Borg should not have received any treatment at all. Blood is still flowing out of the wound as Borg continues play... it doesn't seem to be an issue that the rules allowed a player to take any kind of extra time over. Borg's mobility is hampered for 3-4 games at least after the incident

- At the start of the tiebreak, the commentators state specifically that there are no breaks in between points. At the first change over, both players towel off very briefly and Borg has a swig of water on their way to the other side. Commentators point this out and seem to universally feel this was against rules. Compare to now, where its the norm and wouldn't even be noticed, much less commented on
---
Summing up, very high highs from Connors interspersed with choppy play from one, the other or both players - but all of it scrappy and tough contest. Connors bolder, mentally tougher and the well deserved victor. My feeling of the match up more broadly on this surface is Connors' play isn't very sustainable long term... and Borg would likely win more often than not

Stats for the pairs Boca Raton match the year after - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...borg-vs-connors-boca-raton-final-1977.608541/

 

[jrepac]

anywhere you can watch this match from start to finish? I've seen most of it, but in chunks here and there...nearly one set of play is supposedly missing, I seem to recall? that wicked cross court BH by Connors in the tiebreak is etched in my memory. And the forgetting to change sides (LOL). But you captured the essence....Connors was more aggressive, Borg more passive and it paid off on this particular day. I recall seeing Borg uncharacteristically miss some shots, but JC was hitting very deep, very hard, very fast. This one is on most of those 'best matches ever' list and is a standout in their long rivalry.

 

[KG1965]

Jimmy Connors beat Bjorn Borg 6-4, 3-6, 7-6(9), 6-4 in the US Open final, 1974 at Forest Hills, NY on green clay

Great job as usual, waspsting.

I have a couple of things to tell, but the most important thing is an idea, this:
You did an excellent job on so many matches, my advice is at this point (in consideration of the fact that you now have a database of inestimable value), putting together all the data in your possession, comparing two players with total data, the career of a player on a type of surface, the whole career of a player ...
What do you think about it ? (you have an example in trying to see the differences between USO 76 and Boca Raton 77...).
You would be the only one in the world, and we will all be enriched by your great work.

As for this historic match, a few considerations:
together with 1974 and 1978 , .. 1976 is best year, perhaps it is the best year of Jimbo. He always wins apart at Wimbledon where he is overwhelmed by Tanner.
Versus Borg the match-up is certainly favorable in very fast terrains, but the swede got very close and in Forest Hills he lost to ... 2 points, despite Jimmy played one of his best matches.

The problem with Bjorn (which overtook the following years, especially since 1978, not so much in 1977) was that he
- didn't have a great serve,
- had a not particularly effective passing-shot and
- played a little too short with bh.
And Connors took advantage of these 3 weaknesses.
If we look at the matches of the coming years the bh manages to keep Connors back and when the american approaches the net, the rally is less determined, he seems to leave more space and at the same time the passing-shot of Borg seems stronger.

It obviously depends on which match you look at.
Some matches were without history (Tokyo 79 and Wimbly 79) others were very close (Wimbly 81, Masters 79 & 80).
USO 81 (which you had analyzed) seemed to be a simple match but it was not so, it was decisive the enormous and powerful serve of the swedish and a greater capacity of converter the break-points.

 

[jrepac]

many people point to 76 as JC's strongest year....(as we know, this USO final was in '76, not '74)...'74 was remarkable, but I think the competition was tougher in '76 w/Borg becoming more potent. I think he beat Borg the year before in the USO semis, no? Again, on the green clay. ANY wins over BORG on any CLAY surface is pretty outstanding, IMHO. Truth to be told, JC did not really have any 'bad' or weak years through '84. Sure, he did not win any GS events in '79-81, but he was always in the final 4 at most of them. and he was winning tour events every year during that time. Arguably, 74/76/82 were his best seasons.

 

[Waspsting]

anywhere you can watch this match from start to finish?

I recall seeing Borg uncharacteristically miss some shots, but JC was hitting very deep, very hard, very fast..... This one is on most of those 'best matches ever' list and is a standout in their long rivalry.

I agree

I've seen a few clay matches recently with more winners than unforced errors. but on clay, I think I prefer matches with lots of tough rallies, even if they end mostly with UEs. More winners than UEs on clay might just be a sign of sub-par defence rather than high quality of play

Lots more UEs than winners here... but I thought it was a great match all the way

You did an excellent job on so many matches, my advice is at this point (in consideration of the fact that you now have a database of inestimable value), putting together all the data in your possession, comparing two players with total data, the career of a player on a type of surface, the whole career of a player ...
What do you think about it ? (you have an example in trying to see the differences between USO 76 and Boca Raton 77...).

Thanks for the kind words and its great idea

I've thought about doing something like that for some of the rivalries I have a large number of matches on - Federer/Nadal, Federer/Djokovic, Sampras/Becker, Becker/Lendl, Becker/Edberg

But its just more fun to watch and do another match instead

The problem with Bjorn (which overtook the following years, especially since 1978, not so much in 1977) was that he
- didn't have a great serve,
- had a not particularly effective passing-shot and
- played a little too short with bh.
And Connors took advantage of these 3 weaknesses.
If we look at the matches of the coming years the bh manages to keep Connors back and when the american approaches the net, the rally is less determined, he seems to leave more space and at the same time the passing-shot of Borg seems stronger.

Interesting, especially the bit about Borg's passing shots

its very hard to tell if a guy is passing well or not against Jimmy Connors because his approach shots are so strong

Borg passed splendidly in a '74 match I saw against Panatta… but Connors is a whole other thing. These approach shots of his would probably be winners with a '90s racquet

The big difference I saw here and in the '80 Masters match is the obvious power advantage Connors has. It seems to me Borg's power went up over time, as you've said, but Connors probably also went down (it can't go up from this match... ball wouldn't stay in the stadium, let alone the court)

 

[jrepac]

watching something like this reminds all of us that some of the 70's players, such as Connors, could hit incredibly hard or serve bombs (like Tanner). I do believe if they had today's equipment they would be just as effective as the modern day player. And, watching them on video is not the same as seeing them in person....where it seems slower...guys like Connors and Lendl pounded the ball. And how JC did it with that little racket is remarkable...it did have a lot of power, but very hard to control, if you ask anyone who's tried it.

 

[KG1965]

Thanks for the kind words and its great idea

Taking not only inspiration but also from your inherent data 7 matches (USO 76, USO 78, Wimbly 78, Masters GP 79, Boca Raton 77, USO 81 and Richmond 82.... in 4 Borg won, in 3 Jimbo won) between the two players the result very tight is this:
773 points Borg
737 points Connors
-----------------------
+ 36 points Borg

"Only serves and returns (aces, winners and errors)": -97 Jimbo, - 15 Bjorn = 82 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 722 points v 676 of Borg (46 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 exchanges (baseline, approach and net-game) Connors leads to surprise and not a little.

 

[Waspsting]

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 exchanges (baseline, approach and net-game) Connors leads to surprise and not a little.

Very interesting indeed and I think it gets to the heart of where Connors was lacking

Connors is an unusual player. Very attacking - and like all such - goes on unforced error runs occasionally.

This is normal, even for the best of the best. Becker, Sampras, Federer - we see the same thing

But those guys have their fat serves to fall back on. If they're playing badly, they can keep holding serve on the strength of their serve shot alone until it passes

Connors? Different story. A little run of errors is likely to cost him sets and matches. It did against Borg in '81 USO (or at least, it allowed Borg to move ahead from equal position). He can't afford little bad patches of play - but the way he plays, they're bound to happen

Do you know what happened to his serve? I saw the '74 matches with Rosewall… and its a strong shot. Fast forward to '76... and its an ordinary one. What happened in between?

 

[jrepac]

Very interesting indeed and I think it gets to the heart of where Connors was lacking

Connors is an unusual player. Very attacking - and like all such - goes on unforced error runs occasionally.

This is normal, even for the best of the best. Becker, Sampras, Federer - we see the same thing

But those guys have their fat serves to fall back on. If they're playing badly, they can keep holding serve on the strength of their serve shot alone until it passes

Connors? Different story. A little run of errors is likely to cost him sets and matches. It did against Borg in '81 USO (or at least, it allowed Borg to move ahead from equal position). He can't afford little bad patches of play - but the way he plays, they're bound to happen

Do you know what happened to his serve? I saw the '74 matches with Rosewall… and its a strong shot. Fast forward to '76... and its an ordinary one. What happened in between?

Unusual is an understatement. Not sure if there's ever been another baseliner quite like him, in terms of willingness to attack shorter balls. So true about the serve. I had seen the Rosewall match excerpts on You Tube and was floored by how hard Connors was serving. Maybe it was the grass making it look faster? Maybe his serve was just flatter then? Commentators made a big deal about his small improvements in '82, yet 74 was a much more solid shot, as far as I could see. Not sure why he would have changed it. To be fair, his serve and forehand are underrated. The forehand, overall, is very solid. The serve, perhaps not hard, but well placed and not so easy to attack. Unless you are Magic McEnroe, I suppose. I do recall a Connors serve being clocked at 108 mph at the open, when the radar first started. So he could turn it up when he wanted to. A very unique style and a dynamic character. We could use a few of those right now...

 

[KG1965]

Very interesting indeed and I think it gets to the heart of where Connors was lacking

Connors is an unusual player. Very attacking - and like all such - goes on unforced error runs occasionally.

This is normal, even for the best of the best. Becker, Sampras, Federer - we see the same thing

But those guys have their fat serves to fall back on. If they're playing badly, they can keep holding serve on the strength of their serve shot alone until it passes

Connors? Different story. A little run of errors is likely to cost him sets and matches. It did against Borg in '81 USO (or at least, it allowed Borg to move ahead from equal position). He can't afford little bad patches of play - but the way he plays, they're bound to happen

Do you know what happened to his serve? I saw the '74 matches with Rosewall… and its a strong shot. Fast forward to '76... and its an ordinary one. What happened in between?

Connors is an unusual player. I agree, and that is perhaps because he had many haters but also many fans who idolized him (like me), played in a very particular style, without owning a decent serve.

Becker, Sampras, Federer, but also Lendl and (as we recently discovered) Borg .... when they were in trouble they shot a serve winner.
It's rare that these players lost 6-0 or 6-1 just because it was very hard to make 2-3 breaks each set.
Jimbo always had to focus on his serve. Because he always had the risk of an opponent's break.

I don't know what happened to his serve after 1974.
It also seems to me that it serves stronger in 1974 but I can think that Rosewall (great player in return) was physically tired in those two slam finals (and annihilated)
Probably Jimbo wasn't a great server even in 1974.
Or he may have had a physical trouble that prevented him from posting better than that shot.
I've never read anything about it.
Some journalist said and wrote that Jimmy serve well in 1982. Perhaps a small improvement.

 

[Waspsting]

I don't know what happened to his serve after 1974.
It also seems to me that it serves stronger in 1974 but I can think that Rosewall (great player in return) was physically tired in those two slam finals (and annihilated)
Probably Jimbo wasn't a great server even in 1974.
Or he may have had a physical trouble that prevented him from posting better than that shot.
I've never read anything about it.
Some journalist said and wrote that Jimmy serve well in 1982. Perhaps a small improvement.

was floored by how hard Connors was serving. Maybe it was the grass making it look faster? Maybe his serve was just flatter then? Commentators made a big deal about his small improvements in '82, yet 74 was a much more solid shot, as far as I could see. Not sure why he would have changed it. To be fair, his serve and forehand are underrated. The forehand, overall, is very solid. The serve, perhaps not hard, but well placed and not so easy to attack

Don't think it was the grass making it look faster. I've seen him plenty of times on grass since and on grass-fast philly indoors. Never looked like that

Only parallel I can think of is Nadal serving like a demon in US Open 2010, but soon reverting to his more average norm. That I believe was related to shoulder issues, plus Nadal's games doesn't quite go with a big serve

If you saw Connors' game sans the serve, you'd think it had been built around a big serve

It did occur to me that those two Rosewall matches might just be anomalies... the best serving of his life, not necessarily an indicator of how well he served generally in '74

re: the 'improvements' in '82. Great improvements. Before, you had 10% chance of telling the difference between first serve and second serve. After, it was about 25%

I don't think the serve was terrible and am conscious that all I watch is him playing Borg, Mac, Lendl, Agassi... top notch returners who make a lot servers look weak. It looked a lot more effective in the matches I did against Noah and Leconte

Agree about the FH too. Its almost always more error prone than the BH, which is unusal, but rarely does he give up UEs off it in short rallies (which is my measuring stick for a weak shot) and it is damaging. Part of the reason though is average rally lenght was longer back than
----

1 other shot of his that's talked about that I can't help but conclude is just pure exaggerated hype is the sky hook. I've read about it many times - Jimmy Connors and his sky hook

I haven't seen him hit 1 in 30 odd matches. Just a regular OH

The excitable Bud Collins on commentary in one match kept yelping "sky hook!", whenever Jimbo went for a normal OH

You can't go through 4 random Sampras matches with seeing a 'dunk smash' or 4 Nadal matches without seeing a 'banana FH'... but I don't see any sky hooks from Connors

 

[KG1965]

Don't think it was the grass making it look faster. I've seen him plenty of times on grass since and on grass-fast philly indoors. Never looked like that

Only parallel I can think of is Nadal serving like a demon in US Open 2010, but soon reverting to his more average norm. That I believe was related to shoulder issues, plus Nadal's games doesn't quite go with a big serve

If you saw Connors' game sans the serve, you'd think it had been built around a big serve

It did occur to me that those two Rosewall matches might just be anomalies... the best serving of his life, not necessarily an indicator of how well he served generally in '74

re: the 'improvements' in '82. Great improvements. Before, you had 10% chance of telling the difference between first serve and second serve. After, it was about 25%

I don't think the serve was terrible and am conscious that all I watch is him playing Borg, Mac, Lendl, Agassi... top notch returners who make a lot servers look weak. It looked a lot more effective in the matches I did against Noah and Leconte

Agree about the FH too. Its almost always more error prone than the BH, which is unusal, but rarely does he give up UEs off it in short rallies (which is my measuring stick for a weak shot) and it is damaging. Part of the reason though is average rally lenght was longer back than
----

1 other shot of his that's talked about that I can't help but conclude is just pure exaggerated hype is the sky hook. I've read about it many times - Jimmy Connors and his sky hook

I haven't seen him hit 1 in 30 odd matches. Just a regular OH

The excitable Bud Collins on commentary in one match kept yelping "sky hook!", whenever Jimbo went for a normal OH

You can't go through 4 random Sampras matches with seeing a 'dunk smash' or 4 Nadal matches without seeing a 'banana FH'... but I don't see any sky hooks from Connors

The perception of the anomaly “Serve 74” remains. Only the american could explain the possible reason...
Rafa's example came to me too. On a couple of occasions I saw that he had a really powerful serve. It seems to me once a few years ago at the Queen's. Then Wimbly returned to normal.
I'm not surprised it's a shoulder problem.
I remember as a boy I had to change the serve movement (for dislocated shoulder) quite radically (do you believe me if I tell you that I copied Jimbo's movement?)
I liked it a lot and above all it allowed me to not completely open my shoulder, it looked a little like the movement of the smash .

Noah and Leconte were two great performers but they gave 1-2 UE of return each game.

On the skyhook I agree with you that he played a few even because (unlike the Era Laver) the defenders almost always played the passing shot.
I will have seen about thirty of them (but I saw Jimbo play twenty matches more than those available on youtube).
Well, in spite of the few opportunities to see the skyhook, in my opinion it is a unique legendary shot because it compensated for the fact that the player was late on the opponent's lob.
However, the characteristic of the shot is the elevation of Jimmy above the average, his ability to jump high is quite important.

Like the tweener of Vilas, now they all do this shot (probably also Isner....) but before Guillermo nobody used this shot (in the 70s I believe no one, maybe in the 60s ... Santana ... I don't know).

 

[jrepac]

Don't think it was the grass making it look faster. I've seen him plenty of times on grass since and on grass-fast philly indoors. Never looked like that

Only parallel I can think of is Nadal serving like a demon in US Open 2010, but soon reverting to his more average norm. That I believe was related to shoulder issues, plus Nadal's games doesn't quite go with a big serve

If you saw Connors' game sans the serve, you'd think it had been built around a big serve

It did occur to me that those two Rosewall matches might just be anomalies... the best serving of his life, not necessarily an indicator of how well he served generally in '74

re: the 'improvements' in '82. Great improvements. Before, you had 10% chance of telling the difference between first serve and second serve. After, it was about 25%

I don't think the serve was terrible and am conscious that all I watch is him playing Borg, Mac, Lendl, Agassi... top notch returners who make a lot servers look weak. It looked a lot more effective in the matches I did against Noah and Leconte

Agree about the FH too. Its almost always more error prone than the BH, which is unusal, but rarely does he give up UEs off it in short rallies (which is my measuring stick for a weak shot) and it is damaging. Part of the reason though is average rally lenght was longer back than
----

1 other shot of his that's talked about that I can't help but conclude is just pure exaggerated hype is the sky hook. I've read about it many times - Jimmy Connors and his sky hook

I haven't seen him hit 1 in 30 odd matches. Just a regular OH

The excitable Bud Collins on commentary in one match kept yelping "sky hook!", whenever Jimbo went for a normal OH

You can't go through 4 random Sampras matches with seeing a 'dunk smash' or 4 Nadal matches without seeing a 'banana FH'... but I don't see any sky hooks from Connors

I think as he got older, the 'sky hook' became less frequent....LOL

 

[Waspsting]

...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.

Points per set
- Set 1 - 60 (Connors serves 27)
- Set 2 - 65 (Connors serves 33)
- Set 3 - 95 (Connors serves 42)
- Set 4 - 59 (Connors serves 31)

Connors' net numbers by set
- 1st - 17/17, including 1/1 serve-volleying - 100%
- 2nd - 10/16, with 2/3 forced/retreated - 63%
- 3rd - 24/34, including 0/2 serve-volleying & 1/2 forced back - 71%
- 4th - 16/19, including 0/1 serve-volleying, 1/1 return-approaching & 1/1 forced back - 84%

 

[WCT]

Points per set
- Set 1 - 60 (Connors serves 27)
- Set 2 - 65 (Connors serves 33)
- Set 3 - 95 (Connors serves 42)
- Set 4 - 59 (Connors serves 31)

Connors' net numbers by set
- 1st - 17/17, including 1/1 serve-volleying - 100%
- 2nd - 10/16, with 2/3 forced/retreated - 63%
- 3rd - 24/34, including 0/2 serve-volleying & 1/2 forced back - 71%
- 4th - 16/19, including 0/1 serve-volleying, 1/1 return-approaching & 1/1 forced back - 84%

Thanks. I figured if anyone had such detail it would be you. This is about a podcast I listened to about that match. Joel Drucker and the host. The host claiming that Connors started coming in so much more in the 3rd. I'm thinking he came in all along. Your numbers show he came in twice as but there were 50% more points played. He didn't go from hardly coming in to what he did in the third.

You use the words forced back and retreat. To me, for the most part, forced back is a lob. Retreating is what Connors wound up doing. I won't say a lot, but some. Did it 3 or 4 times in the Stockholm Wilander. What happens is, whether s/v or a regular approach, the opponent gets the ball down near his feet. If he is far enough out of court, Connors will hit the low or half volley and retreat to the baseline. He's afraid to stay up there when the other player is going to have a really good luck at the passing shot. He very rarely if ever does this in 74-76ish era. It started creeping in afterward to where it became the standard. Again, the court positioning is a factor. There were times he couldn't retreat based on where the other player was.

Anyway, with one of them you have no choice. The retreat, as I see it, is definitely a choice.

 

[bigjimbofan]

watching something like this reminds all of us that some of the 70's players, such as Connors, could hit incredibly hard or serve bombs (like Tanner). I do believe if they had today's equipment they would be just as effective as the modern day player. And, watching them on video is not the same as seeing them in person....where it seems slower...guys like Connors and Lendl pounded the ball. And how JC did it with that little racket is remarkable...it did have a lot of power, but very hard to control, if you ask anyone who's tried it.

The first stick I ever bought was that T2000 back in the late 70's. As much as I tried, I could not get super consistent with it. I was good with it but only after years of playing. Hard to control for sure.

 

[jrepac]

The first stick I ever bought was that T2000 back in the late 70's. As much as I tried, I could not get super consistent with it. I was good with it but only after years of playing. Hard to control for sure.

I toyed with it for a bit, just for fun...it was great when you hit the sweetspot. Amazing pace actually. But, of course it wasn't that easy to hit the sweetspot consistently. Just tells you how exceptional Connors' eye and hand coordination was. I have it wrapped up in a closet somewhere. Maybe one day it will be worth something!

 

[bigjimbofan]

I toyed with it for a bit, just for fun...it was great when you hit the sweetspot. Amazing pace actually. But, of course it wasn't that easy to hit the sweetspot consistently. Just tells you how exceptional Connors' eye and hand coordination was. I have it wrapped up in a closet somewhere. Maybe one day it will be worth something!

I still have that one I bought many years ago and hit with it every now and then. Like you said, the sweet spot is difficult to find consistently. But when you do, the ball just explodes and feels better than any other racket I have ever used. I see these T-2000's alot at thrift stores.

 

[Drob]

Maybe for storytelling purposes, I keyed in on this match as the most important of Connors' career. Now, I may steal a couple of lines from your observations.

Connors was...
- 67/86 (78%) at net, including...
- 1/4 (25%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves

So, Wasp, if I follow you correctly over the many Connors matches you stat, you would say that Jimmy "lost" that ability/willingness to charge the net as early as 1978, certainly it is missing in 1979-80, he sporadically starts to bring it back in 1981, and it is a keystone to his success and continued competitiveness 1982-onwards? That more or less right?

In '83 Queens final between Connors and John McEnroe, sober headed commentator Dan Maskell expressed the opinion that Connors was hitting the ball harder than anyone ever had before (with possible exception of Ellsworth Vines).

Maskell said something similar 1981 Wimbledon semifinal - not about "hard" but "irresistible" or something.

Ashe thinks the metal stick Connors played with has a large hand in it.

Yeah, BUT . . . nobody else could do anything with that bleating chunk of heavy metal. Designed by Rene Lacoste btw, and it did pave the way for better innovations. But in-and-of-itself an awful thing with which to try to win a world-class tennis match. I can't completely trust Arthur on Jimmy or Jimmy on Arthur. Nothing deliberate, just natural, almost unconscious tendencies when you've had personal enmity.

From the net, the downside is approach UEs. Connors makes 14, most of them FHs.

Interesting. Something to look at in other Connors matches, where the approach UEs are more frequent. I mean the cost-benefit in some cases.

Borg comes in rarely, just 36 times. It doesn't seem to be part of his game plan but is also partially down to him being forced (or wanting to stay) behind the baseline by Connors' power hitting.

I agree. Jimmy has the edge in command.

Final set is just a little feeble from Borg. After the tension of the tiebreak, the start is somewhat routine, with both players holding easily. After that, there's a lack of heart in Borg's play

Have to look at that again. Don't remember noticing.

When asked what was his biggest major win, former Wimbledon and US Open champion Arthur Ashe doesn't think long before answering the Davis Cup

Of course. Coming from Arthur Ashe, the ultimate traditionalist. (In this case not an unconscious dig at Connors, but his genuine feeling). Arthur's Cup legacy is Golden - worth a Slam two. Tilden, the Musketeers, Kramer, Gonzalez would say the same without thinking. That was the way the younger Borg and Becker felt . . . until they didn't. McEnroe always held the Cup as at least equal to anything else he could accomplish in tennis. Things changed in the 1990s. The last Cup generation - for it exists no more - probably did not give it equal weight to the Slams. Andy Murray seemed to be the one who did put it on top. Nevertheless, Fed, Rafa, Nole all made sure to win one, as did Murray . . . and

1976 is best year, perhaps it is the best year of Jimbo. He always wins apart at Wimbledon where he is overwhelmed by Tanner.

many people point to 76 as JC's strongest year....(as we know, this USO final was in '76, not '74)...'74 was remarkable, but I think the competition was tougher in '76 w/Borg becoming more potent.

Agree 100 percent.

Connors is an unusual player. Very attacking - and like all such - goes on unforced error runs occasionally.

This is normal, even for the best of the best. Becker, Sampras, Federer - we see the same thing

But those guys have their fat serves to fall back on. If they're playing badly, they can keep holding serve on the strength of their serve shot alone until it passes

Connors? Different story. A little run of errors is likely to cost him sets and matches. It did against Borg in '81 USO (or at least, it allowed Borg to move ahead from equal position). He can't afford little bad patches of play - but the way he plays, they're bound to happen

Excellent argument here. Who has been like him since? Courier, Agassi and Hewitt all had better serves, which, if not offensive, were still better, particularly Agassi's, which is a bit underrated. Nor did any of these three take flight to the net. They were much different players in reality.

Unusual is an understatement. Not sure if there's ever been another baseliner quite like him, in terms of willingness to attack shorter balls. So true about the serve. I had seen the Rosewall match excerpts on You Tube and was floored by how hard Connors was serving. Maybe it was the grass making it look faster? Maybe his serve was just flatter then? Commentators made a big deal about his small improvements in '82, yet 74 was a much more solid shot, as far as I could see. Not sure why he would have changed it.

Exactly. Maybe Rosewall himself, Segura and players older still (Drobny, Budge, Vines, Perry, Tilden). Yet Kenny and Pancho were also serve-volley players, which made the mentality easier. Perhaps not coincidental that Segura was the young Jimmy's coach. Perhaps not coincidental that the young Jimmy did a bit of serve-volley.

"Unusual is an understatement" - I think that is right. There is no really close parallel and never will be.

 

[Drob]

Asked the same thing, Tony Trabert seems torn between Wimbledon and US Open, leaning towards US Open.

Of course. Tony the Tiger got his tail handed to him in Davis Cup by the young lion kings.

 

[Waspsting]

So, Wasp, if I follow you correctly over the many Connors matches you stat, you would say that Jimmy "lost" that ability/willingness to charge the net as early as 1978, certainly it is missing in 1979-80, he sporadically starts to bring it back in 1981, and it is a keystone to his success and continued competitiveness 1982-onwards? That more or less right?

I woulnd't put it that way exactly

He has matches in '78, '79 where he's coming in a lot, for example Boca Raton '79. He's coming in more than even McEnroe would there

As for the '82 onward thing... he's stuck on the baseline trading groundstrokes with Lendl (or even McEnroe) on hard courts in mid-80s. Nothing like the coming in he used to do

Interesting (regarding Connors' approach errors). Something to look at in other Connors matches, where the approach UEs are more frequent. I mean the cost-benefit in some cases.

Oh yes

With him, assume a lot approach errors, unless otherwise stated

Have to look at that again (referring to Borg weakening in 4th set). Don't remember noticing.

Would recommend watching whole match in a single sitting. Or at least the 3rd and 4th set to gauge the contrast

Borg's so uniform of style that drops are subtle. In isolation, I doubt anyone would think he's playing feebly

I think Ashe comments on it too (can't remember)

Of course. Coming from Arthur Ashe, the ultimate traditionalist. (In this case not an unconscious dig at Connors, but his genuine feeling). Arthur's Cup legacy is Golden - worth a Slam two. Tilden, the Musketeers, Kramer, Gonzalez would say the same without thinking. That was the way the younger Borg and Becker felt . . . until they didn't. McEnroe always held the Cup as at least equal to anything else he could accomplish in tennis. Things changed in the 1990s. The last Cup generation - for it exists no more - probably did not give it equal weight to the Slams. Andy Murray seemed to be the one who did put it on top. Nevertheless, Fed, Rafa, Nole all made sure to win one, as did Murray . . . and

Do you think Jimmy Connors - top dog of tennis - ignoring Davis Cup hurt its prestige? Or did it hurt Connors'?

Excellent argument here. Who has been like him since? Courier, Agassi and Hewitt all had better serves, which, if not offensive, were still better, particularly Agassi's, which is a bit underrated. Nor did any of these three take flight to the net. They were much different players in reality.... "unusual is an understament" - I think that's right. There is no really close parallel and never will be

I agree there's no one quite like him

The guy who struck me as most Connors like is Chang

Similarly ineffective serve
Excellent, counter-attacking returner. He did some crazy things in terms of taking returns from inside the court
Strong, hard hitting ground game, both sides
He was a very capable net player too, and at his best when utilizing the hitting advantage he had over most players to come forward and finish (he didn't do it too often)
Great movers, both
Something similar in their dog-on-a-bone attitude too

 

[jrepac]

I woulnd't put it that way exactly

He has matches in '78, '79 where he's coming in a lot, for example Boca Raton '79. He's coming in more than even McEnroe would there

As for the '82 onward thing... he's stuck on the baseline trading groundstrokes with Lendl (or even McEnroe) on hard courts in mid-80s. Nothing like the coming in he used to do



Oh yes

With him, assume a lot approach errors, unless otherwise stated


Would recommend watching whole match in a single sitting. Or at least the 3rd and 4th set to gauge the contrast

Borg's so uniform of style that drops are subtle. In isolation, I doubt anyone would think he's playing feebly

I think Ashe comments on it too (can't remember)


Do you think Jimmy Connors - top dog of tennis - ignoring Davis Cup hurt its prestige? Or did it hurt Connors'?



I agree there's no one quite like him

The guy who struck me as most Connors like is Chang

Similarly ineffective serve
Excellent, counter-attacking returner. He did some crazy things in terms of taking returns from inside the court
Strong, hard hitting ground game, both sides
He was a very capable net player too, and at his best when utilizing the hitting advantage he had over most players to come forward and finish (he didn't do it too often)
Great movers, both
Something similar in their dog-on-a-bone attitude too

I liked Chang very much as well, but I think Connors' all around game was a bit stronger. Still, quite a few similarities in style and attitude. Really enjoyed that '91 RG match they played....pretty amazing contrast.

 

[WCT]

Connors net rushing dropping significantly damn straight started before 1982 or the mid 80s. 1979 is when I first noticed it and it became the pet peeveist of pet peeves.
How about the 79 US Open vs Mcenroe.

Just finished doing stats for 2 Vilas matches. 79 and 80 in Frejus, France, on what looked to be at least a fairly fast hard court. 79 Connors won 3 or 4 the 1st set and a tiebreaker the second. 131 points, Connors in 13 and Vilas 36. 1980, Connors 3 and 1. 85 points Connors at the net 7 and Vilas 4. I had Vilas with 32 UE. Took Connors about 2/3 of the 1st set to get in and when he did he missed a simple volley. He has very little apparent interest in coming in and little apparent confidence in his volley.

I also have the 79 Mcenroe and 80 Tanner matches. Got them years ago and watched. Didn't do stats on either, but I'd say his attitude about coming in was about the same. Honestly, it is difficult for me to do stats for these because I dislike watching him play like. Doing those Vilas matches was a chore.

I didn't say all of 79. His Pepsi, Vegas and Wimbledon matches with Borg. Got him in 19 of 60 points in a Nastase match. He did not start coming more in 81. At Wimbledon, he is definitely coming in less than in 80. Far less. I have the 81 Armitraj, Stockton and Borg matches. 80 the Stewart, Tanner and Mcenroe matches. In 82 Wimbledon he is coming in more than 81.

There are matches here and there where he comes in. I have an 81 Teltscher partial, a Smid complete match on red clay. He's at the net 30% of the point in those matches. I also have a Noah match where he came in 9 times, a Portes match where he hardly came. I did stats for about 225 points of his Clerc French match. Clerc 39 times at net Connors 25. Jose Luis Clerc came in more than him!!!

Again, I noticed it in 79. To me, that is when it became glaring. But getting all these matches, it had started ebbing that way earlier. He never came in the way he did 74-75, not consistently. If you look closely, really closely, at the 76 and 75 US Open finals, he is not coming in as quickly in 76. Mind you, he still came to the net what 86 times in 4 sets on a clay court. But he's not AS aggressive about in 76. In 77, he's a little less. Net points in the 50s .

My belief has always been it was Segura's lessening influence. He taught Connors how to volley, not his mother or grandmother. Whatever the reason, he eventually got to the point where he was coming in significantly less. That is FACT, FACT, FACT!!!!!
The eye test says it, the match stats say it. And back then all I wanted was 1 announcer, writer, player to say it I was like, how can I be the only one who notices this?

I just stumbled on this. The part of the 75 Borg US Open that is out there. This is a replay of the last 9 points. They showed more than this live. Maybe the last half set. Definitely joined in the 3rd set. And my memory is it went pretty much like these points. It was a long time ago, though. I sure would like to see it if it exists.

Anyway, I am putting this link because the video has been up about 10 years. I don't like to get videos taken down, but if it's stayed up this long. Look at this video. Do you see and delayed or sneak approaches. I'm coming in, try to pass me. 2 of the approaches he just floats a backhand chip and try to pass me. Does the guy in this video look THE LEAST BIT hesitant about coming in or lack confidence in his volley.

Admittedly, short portions of the match can deceive. Someone could put up just the 5th set tiebreaker of the 80 Connors Mcenroe US semi and you would see Connors at the net and they would see Connors at the net 6 times and Mcenroe 4. The whole of the match was nothing like that. However, I would thousand dollar bills to pennies that this was not the case with the 75 match. Here is the link. All these years and I never knew this match was up.

 

[jrepac]

Connors net rushing dropping significantly damn straight started before 1982 or the mid 80s. 1979 is when I first noticed it and it became the pet peeveist of pet peeves.
How about the 79 US Open vs Mcenroe.

Just finished doing stats for 2 Vilas matches. 79 and 80 in Frejus, France, on what looked to be at least a fairly fast hard court. 79 Connors won 3 or 4 the 1st set and a tiebreaker the second. 131 points, Connors in 13 and Vilas 36. 1980, Connors 3 and 1. 85 points Connors at the net 7 and Vilas 4. I had Vilas with 32 UE. Took Connors about 2/3 of the 1st set to get in and when he did he missed a simple volley. He has very little apparent interest in coming in and little apparent confidence in his volley.

I also have the 79 Mcenroe and 80 Tanner matches. Got them years ago and watched. Didn't do stats on either, but I'd say his attitude about coming in was about the same. Honestly, it is difficult for me to do stats for these because I dislike watching him play like. Doing those Vilas matches was a chore.

I didn't say all of 79. His Pepsi, Vegas and Wimbledon matches with Borg. Got him in 19 of 60 points in a Nastase match. He did not start coming more in 81. At Wimbledon, he is definitely coming in less than in 80. Far less. I have the 81 Armitraj, Stockton and Borg matches. 80 the Stewart, Tanner and Mcenroe matches. In 82 Wimbledon he is coming in more than 81.

There are matches here and there where he comes in. I have an 81 Teltscher partial, a Smid complete match on red clay. He's at the net 30% of the point in those matches. I also have a Noah match where he came in 9 times, a Portes match where he hardly came. I did stats for about 225 points of his Clerc French match. Clerc 39 times at net Connors 25. Jose Luis Clerc came in more than him!!!

Again, I noticed it in 79. To me, that is when it became glaring. But getting all these matches, it had started ebbing that way earlier. He never came in the way he did 74-75, not consistently. If you look closely, really closely, at the 76 and 75 US Open finals, he is not coming in as quickly in 76. Mind you, he still came to the net what 86 times in 4 sets on a clay court. But he's not AS aggressive about in 76. In 77, he's a little less. Net points in the 50s .

My belief has always been it was Segura's lessening influence. He taught Connors how to volley, not his mother or grandmother. Whatever the reason, he eventually got to the point where he was coming in significantly less. That is FACT, FACT, FACT!!!!!
The eye test says it, the match stats say it. And back then all I wanted was 1 announcer, writer, player to say it I was like, how can I be the only one who notices this?

I just stumbled on this. The part of the 75 Borg US Open that is out there. This is a replay of the last 9 points. They showed more than this live. Maybe the last half set. Definitely joined in the 3rd set. And my memory is it went pretty much like these points. It was a long time ago, though. I sure would like to see it if it exists.

Anyway, I am putting this link because the video has been up about 10 years. I don't like to get videos taken down, but if it's stayed up this long. Look at this video. Do you see and delayed or sneak approaches. I'm coming in, try to pass me. 2 of the approaches he just floats a backhand chip and try to pass me. Does the guy in this video look THE LEAST BIT hesitant about coming in or lack confidence in his volley.

Admittedly, short portions of the match can deceive. Someone could put up just the 5th set tiebreaker of the 80 Connors Mcenroe US semi and you would see Connors at the net and they would see Connors at the net 6 times and Mcenroe 4. The whole of the match was nothing like that. However, I would thousand dollar bills to pennies that this was not the case with the 75 match. Here is the link. All these years and I never knew this match was up.

Huh, I never came across that video and I've watched so many others....yup, Jimmy is definitely not hesitant in any way. This was how he should have been playing ALL the time, but we know that was not the case. Why he'd settle in and rally w/some players was always a mystery to me....particularly if he was losing. You figure he can out rally maybe 90-95% of the field, but against certain guys, on certain surfaces, it made little sense (such as Lendl by the mid-to-late 80's).

 

[WCT]

I want to reiterate that I realize that this is only 9 points and shouldn't be just accepted as 100% representing the rest of the match. Connors was 6 of 6 at net. The match was 7-5 7-5 7-5. Obviously Connors wasn't winning that high a % at net. He is at the net 6 of 9 points, 6 of 7 when the serve was put in play. It certainly wasn't that high over the 3 sets. I'd bet money, though, that it was over 40% like against Orantes in the finals.

Speaking of which, he lost the finals. It wasn't like going in a lot ensured he won. Given it's limitations I still find that video pretty jarring. Watch that and then go watch 10-15 minutes of his 81 match with Borg. Yes, it is not apples to apples. Borg is hitting harder and deeper. But there a bunch of balls that he would have been all over the net in 75. Without even bringing up that the latter match is on a faster court.

 

[jrepac]

I want to reiterate that I realize that this is only 9 points and shouldn't be just accepted as 100% representing the rest of the match. Connors was 6 of 6 at net. The match was 7-5 7-5 7-5. Obviously Connors wasn't winning that high a % at net. He is at the net 6 of 9 points, 6 of 7 when the serve was put in play. It certainly wasn't that high over the 3 sets. I'd bet money, though, that it was over 40% like against Orantes in the finals.

Speaking of which, he lost the finals. It wasn't like going in a lot ensured he won. Given it's limitations I still find that video pretty jarring. Watch that and then go watch 10-15 minutes of his 81 match with Borg. Yes, it is not apples to apples. Borg is hitting harder and deeper. But there a bunch of balls that he would have been all over the net in 75. Without even bringing up that the latter match is on a faster court.

Points well taken. Why he'd hang back on a faster court, yet come in repeatedly on har-tru is more than just a bit mind boggling.

 

[Mustard]

Borg said in an interview that this was the angriest that he had ever been after losing a tennis match.

 

[WCT]

When he was on Connors podcast he talked about this match and how it bothered him. He was saying something like, can you believe this guy hitting lines on set points against him? Connors reply was, that's what they are there for.

I see they are putting up post match interviews from Wimbledons. The 82 Connors one is there. What is in that interview is a microcosm of the NBC broadcast. 4 1/2 hours of Connors discovering the net. Better yet, Connors basically agreeing with him in the interview.

In 1983, Connors beat Gene Mayer in Memphis. I think was 7-5 6-0. It was on PBS. My memory is Connors coming to net 12-15, tops 20 times. Been 40 years, I think more like 15, but maybe it was 20. Pretty much everytime he comes in we get the same spiel,

Connors goes in the booth after the match and, same thing, he's agreeing with Collins. Only this time for 10 minutes instead of a couple minutes like with Wimbledon. I'm watching this Memphis interview thinking, why isn't Connors saying, Bud, what are you smoking, I used to routinely come in way more than this.

 

[Drob]

@Waspsting

Do you think Jimmy Connors - top dog of tennis - ignoring Davis Cup hurt its prestige? Or did it hurt Connors'?

I think in the case of Connors, it hurt Connors' prestige, did not hurt Cup prestige. Jimmy realized this later, and tried, too late, to make some amends. Jimmy is effectively the first "top dog" who did not prioritize Davis Cup - first I know to reject it.

Roughly 20 years later, in the somewhat similar case of Sampras, I think Pete's absence tended to hurt the Davis Cup aura, when combined, with Boris abandoning the Cup after 1991. I don't think it hurt Sampras too much, in part, because Pete's rejection was not a big a deal in the media and was not as absolute a rejection. With Pete it was mostly failure to participate but also poor results (with notable exception of 1995 - which is also a difference: Jimmy has no redeeming D.C. moment(s)).

 

[Mustard]

@Waspsting

Do you think Jimmy Connors - top dog of tennis - ignoring Davis Cup hurt its prestige? Or did it hurt Connors'?

I think in the case of Connors, it hurt Connors' prestige, did not hurt Cup prestige. Jimmy realized this later, and tried, too late, to make some amends. Jimmy is effectively the first "top dog" who did not prioritize Davis Cup - first I know to reject it.

Roughly 20 years later, in the somewhat similar case of Sampras, I think Pete's absence tended to hurt the Davis Cup aura, when combined, with Boris abandoning the Cup after 1991. I don't think it hurt Sampras too much, in part, because Pete's rejection was not a big a deal in the media and was not as absolute a rejection. With Pete it was mostly failure to participate but also poor results (with notable exception of 1995 - which is also a difference: Jimmy has no redeeming D.C. moment(s)).

I'm not sure it hurt either. Jimmy Connors was only dedicated to Davis Cup fully in 1984, which Arthur Ashe had talked him into doing. Jimmy barely played Davis Cup otherwise. If I remember right, Jimmy's only other Davis Cup ties were one tie in 1975, one tie in 1978 and one tie in 1981 (that 1981 tie was against reigning champions Czechoslovakia at Flushing Meadows soon after 1981 Wimbledon ended), along with Jimmy's full-time Davis Cup schedule in 1984 that ended in the Gothenburg disaster in the final against Sweden. In contrast, John McEnroe was a full schedule Davis Cup guy virtually all the way from 1977-1984, although even he wanted a break from Davis Cup in the aftermath of Gothenburg when the USTA tried to force a "moral code" on the team.

As for Pete Sampras, he was buzzing after winning the 1995 Davis Cup in Moscow, but was disappointed at the lack of hype and adulation back in the USA. Tom Gullikson was the US Davis Cup captain at the time, and Tim Gullikson was terminally ill at that point, so Sampras had done it not just for himself and his country, but for the Gulliksons as well.

 

[WCT]

Connors didn't play in 78. He played in 75, 81 and 84. If I were to guess, I would say that Donald Dell had more to do with him playing in 84 than Ashe. I believe that he started representing Connors in 83. As the former Davis Cup captain and an agent looking to cast Connors in the best possible light, I could see him working on Connors to play.

81 was the one that confused me. Why play the one tie? Back then he and Ashe were getting along. Ashe was sort of quasi coach/adviser at Wimbledon n 81. I remember reading that at the time. Ashe appeared on an ESPN talk show right before the Davis Cup finals. Connors called into the show wishing the team luck. I remember Ashe saying, I wish you were with us. It was a brief call. Still, why play one tie? That perplexed me, but Connors sometimes did that.

As far as whether it hurt his stature. I'm not sure it did that much. Stockholm was pretty ugly, though.

 

[jrepac]

Connors didn't play in 78. He played in 75, 81 and 84. If I were to guess, I would say that Donald Dell had more to do with him playing in 84 than Ashe. I believe that he started representing Connors in 83. As the former Davis Cup captain and an agent looking to cast Connors in the best possible light, I could see him working on Connors to play.

81 was the one that confused me. Why play the one tie? Back then he and Ashe were getting along. Ashe was sort of quasi coach/adviser at Wimbledon n 81. I remember reading that at the time. Ashe appeared on an ESPN talk show right before the Davis Cup finals. Connors called into the show wishing the team luck. I remember Ashe saying, I wish you were with us. It was a brief call. Still, why play one tie? That perplexed me, but Connors sometimes did that.

As far as whether it hurt his stature. I'm not sure it did that much. Stockholm was pretty ugly, though.

They recruited him for that one match in '81 against Czechoslovakia vs. Lendl, no? Just odd to play one match like that. Did not realize he played in 75 as well

 

[WCT]

They recruited him for that one match in '81 against Czechoslovakia vs. Lendl, no? Just odd to play one match like that. Did not realize he played in 75 as well

Not that I recall reading or hearing. I mean specifically for that match. I would think they would want him for every tie they could have him. 75 was Tony Trabert's first year as captain. Some said, previously, that Connors didn't want to play for Dennis Ralston, who proceeded Trabert as captain. Connors lost a big match, in 75, to Raul Ramirez as Mexico upset the US.

 

[WCT]

I did some research on this. I had forgotten some of these specifics. I wasn't following in 72 and 73. He was on the team in 72, but never played a match. He volunteered to play in 73 and they went with other players, That seemed to have started the bad blood.

Also, I called the 75 Ramirez loss big because I saw it as the latest in a series of big losses. It was Connors finally playing Davis Cup and losing. However, it was not like he lost in the finals. This was the US essentially trying to qualify for the main Davis Cup draw in 1976.

 

[jrepac]

I did some research on this. I had forgotten some of these specifics. I wasn't following in 72 and 73. He was on the team in 72, but never played a match. He volunteered to play in 73 and they went with other players, That seemed to have started the bad blood.

Also, I called the 75 Ramirez loss big because I saw it as the latest in a series of big losses. It was Connors finally playing Davis Cup and losing. However, it was not like he lost in the finals. This was the US essentially trying to qualify for the main Davis Cup draw in 1976.

interesting facts I never knew! Gives a bit of insight into why he was not so keen on DC. Thanks!

 

[WCT]

I got some of the details wrong. He was only on the team for the first tie in 1972. He wasn't chosen to play in any of the matches and was unhappy about that. He then wasn't chosen to be on the team for the remaining ties that year. For 1973 I read it right,

The reason I rechecked ,the article where I found this info, is because I remembered the 72 Cup final. The one in Romania where they had to overcome the gamesmanship and dubious lines calling to win. I said to myself, no way Connors was in Romania for that tie.

Just trying to be accurate.

 

[sandy mayer]

Connors' son Brett says the 76 US Open final win over Borg was his dad's best ever win. I agree given it was against Borg on clay.

 

[buscemi]

Connors' son Brett says the 76 US Open final win over Borg was his dad's best ever win. I agree given it was against Borg on clay.

Damn, what a run he had from the R16-F:

R16: beat Gerulaitis, 6-4, 6-3, 6-1​

QF: beat Kodeš, 7-5, 6-3, 6-1​

SF: beat Vilas, 6-4, 6-2, 6-1​

F: beat Borg, 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4​

 

[sandy mayer]

Damn, what a run he had from the R16-F:

R16: beat Gerulaitis, 6-4, 6-3, 6-1​

QF: beat Kodeš, 7-5, 6-3, 6-1​

SF: beat Vilas, 6-4, 6-2, 6-1​

F: beat Borg, 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4​

Yes and on clay too.

 

[jrepac]

Damn, what a run he had from the R16-F:

R16: beat Gerulaitis, 6-4, 6-3, 6-1​

QF: beat Kodeš, 7-5, 6-3, 6-1​

SF: beat Vilas, 6-4, 6-2, 6-1​

F: beat Borg, 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 6-4​

I think that punctures the myth that Jimmy Connors can't win on clay over clay court specialists

 

[WCT]

I think a legitimate argument can be made that the final was his most impressive win since it was on clay and against Borg. The stuff before then is forgotten if you don't win the tournament. He didn't lose a set before the finals in 1977. Look at the scores he was winning by. The semis was the first time he lost more than 4 games in a set. Whereas in 78 Panatta served for the match in the round of 16. Dent was 2 points from beating him at Wimbledon in 74. That goes out the window if you win.

Neither Gerulaitis or Kodes were top 10 players that year. Gerulaitis was 16 seed and Kodes was unseeded. Doesn't change beating Vilas and Borg, though. He did only lose 1 set in 7 matches. I don't believe he did that in any of his other GS titles.