Jimmy Connors beat Vitas Gerulaitis 6-2, 6-4 in the Boca Raton semi-final, 1978 on green clay
Connors would go onto lose the final to Bjorn Borg and Gerulaitis would go onto lose the third place play-off match to Brian Gottfried
Connors won 61 points, Gerulaitis 45
Gerulaitis serve-volleyed about half the time off first serves
Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (42/54) 78%
- 1st serve points won (26/42) 62%
- 2nd serve points won (4/12) 33%
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (4/54) 7%
Gerulaitis....
- 1st serve percentage (25/52) 48%
- 1st serve points won (16/25) 64%
- 2nd serve points won (5/27) 19%
- Aces 3
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (11/52) 21%
Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 26%
- to BH 65%
- to Body 9%
Gerulaitis served....
- to FH 51%
- to BH 41%
- to Body 8%
Return Stats
Connors made...
- 40 (26 FH, 14 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 2 Winners (1 FH, 1 BH), with 1 runaround FH
- 8 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (2 FH, 1 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 5 Forced (1 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (40/51) 78%
Gerulaitis made...
- 50 (15 FH, 35 BH), including 1 runaround FH, 1 runaround BH & 8 return-approaches
- 4 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (2 BH)
- 2 Forced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (50/54) 93%
Break Points
Connors 6/10 (6 games)
Gerulaitis 3/9 (4 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 26 (9 FH, 9 BH, 2 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 OH)
Gerulaitis 6 (2 BH, 1 BHV, 3 OH)
Connors' had 16 passes (7 FH, 9 BH)
- FHs - 4 cc, 1 dtl/inside-out, 1 inside-in runaround return and 1 longline
- BHs - 5 cc, 3 dtl and 1 inside-out pass
- regular FHs - 1 dtl and 1 longline
Gerulaitis' BHs - 1 cc pass and 1 inside-out at net
- 1 from a return-approach point, an OH
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 28
- 19 Unforced (6 FH, 9 BH, 1 BHV, 3 OH)... with 1 BH pass attempt
- 9 Forced (4 FH, 4 BH, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.3
Gerulaitis 30
- 13 Unforced (3 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV, 3 BHV)... with 1 FH pass attempt
- 17 Forced (2 FH, 10 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 49.2
(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...
- 17/24 (71%) at net, with...
- 0/1 forced back
Gerulaitis was...
- 20/45 (44%) at net, including...
- 7/13 (54%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 6/10 (60%) off 1st serves and...
- 1/3 (33%) off 2nd serves
---
- 5/8 (63%) return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back
Match Report
Strong, hard hitting showing from Connors - with the passing standing out - and a weak, soft hitting one from Gerulaitis (in all areas) makes for a quick show
Connors hammers the ball on everything but the serve, which he spins in. Vitas pokes and pushes it on everything,including the serve much of the time. And Connors has much better of it
Jimbo’s weapons are his powerful groundies, his ability to take net from large hitting advantage from the back, pounding returns, ferocious volleys. And the crown in the jewel, very powerful passing
His weakness is a minor tendency to miss routine groundstrokes. He serves gently, but even that’s a good thing because…
Vitas’ chief weapon is the chip-charge return. Which he only does against second serves. Which he only sees 12 of, with Jimbo spinning in a large 78% first serves. A potential weapon is his serve-volleying but its met with considerable counter-force in Jimbo’s return
His weakness’ are the feebleness of his shots, including the return. Vitas capitilizes on Jimbo’s soft serving by returning almost everything, but its all gently pushed back. Similar lack of force in his groundies, particularly his BH
Potential advantage in that is his making very few errors, but he makes his fair share, though fewer than Jimbo. Maybe the lack of force might make it difficult for Jimbo to work off, but no, the ball sits up nicely for Jimbo to rip his groundies into. The big gap in hitting strength makes it difficult for Vitas to take net
Difficult or not, he has little choice given how badly outgunned he is from the back, and he does create approaches from nothing or make quick dashes to net. Not particularly good on the volley, but far more than that, he’s met with blazing passing shots
Baseline starting point
Points starting baseline-to-baseline (including non- serve-volley return errors) comprise
- all Jimbo’s first serves
- Jimbo’s second serves, bar chip-charge returns
- Vitas’ service points, sans serve-volleys, aces and sole double fault
Jimbo’s first serves - Jimbo wins 26/42 or 62%
Jimbo’s second serves sans chip-charges - Jimbo wins 1/4 or 25%
Vitas’ first serve sans aces and serve-volleys - Vitas wins 7/12 or 58%
Vitas’ second serve sans doubles and serve-volleys - Vitas wins 4/23 or 17%
Not much difference in type of rallies springing out of each type of point
Jimbo gets minimal to no advantage from his first serve (or the seconds). Would expect to see him winning similar lot of points across the two - but no. Can be accounted for by small sample of 2nd serve points
Jimbo thumps returns with heat, but wouldn’t think it would make anything like the difference in Vitas’ success across 2 serves either. He returns both serves about the same way. Why such a difference in Vitas’ success then?
As for how the rallies end -
Ground UEs - Jimbo 14, Vitas 8 (excluding a pass miss from both), broken down as -
- Vitas FH 2
- Vitas BH & Jimbo FH 6
- Jimbo BH 8
Jimbo’s FH does damage too - couple of winners and his cc forces 2-3 errors out of Vitas’ BH
From there, both rally to net 24 times
Jimbo wins 17, Vitas 8
Every reason that could be, is. Jimbo coming in from commanding position, Vitas not. Jimbo passing powerfully and well, Vitas not. Vitas not volleying too well, Jimbo has 3 OH UEs but misses just 1 volley. He’s not faced with any difficult ones, Vitas’ passes like all his groundies are feeble
Very consistent returning (93% return rate), hanging in ‘til Jimbo misses and the chip-charge return are enough to get Vitas 3 breaks
His weak force game though doesn’t look good to be able to hold regularly though, and so it proves. Holds 3 times, is broken 6
Net starting point
Vitas is 6/10 first serve-volleying, 1/3 second and 5/8 return-approaching (all against second serves) for a total of 12/21 at 57%
Not great. A lot better than the 33% he has rallying to net but also a lot worse than Jimbo’s 71% doing the same
Not a strong serve, and likely to get him broken sooner rather than later if he did it all the time. And he’s done just as well not serve-volleying behind first serves (and actually better of 2nds, poor though both numbers are)
Vitas’ serve-volleying wouldn’t be a worry for Jimbo. But the return approaches are. Not the best shots - they tend to float more than skim and of average depth - but they work
Jimbo’s first serves are potentially chip-charagable, but no attempt by Vitas to try. Good move by Jimbo to keep the in-count high at cost of force
He doesn’t need force on the serve - Vitas’ return is no threat, and he can handily brutalize him from the back
On commentary, Pat Summerall asks Tony Trabert whether Connors is a smart player. Trabert waits before replying along the lines, “Well, he can stay stuck in his ways sometimes when its not working”… which sounds like a roundabout way of saying “No, he isn’t”
Match Progression
Two very powerful passing winners by Jimbo in opening game, but Vitas holds
Same deal next go around and this time Jimbo breaks. Only to be broken back to love - couple of chip charge returns and a nice lob that Jimbo doesn’t handle well running back to retrieve
Jimbo runs away with next 4 games to end the set, breaking first when Vitas makes 2/8 first serves and double faults on break point, and for a second time by taking net to putaway 3 winners
Second set starts with trade of breaks. For Jimbo, just more of the same to go up 1-0. For Vitas, an unlikely BH cc pass winner seals the break back
Vitas disarmingly serves as gently as he hits to break streak of being broken 4 times in a row before they trade breaks agai. Jimbo losing his serve missing a sitting duck BH pass, and breaking Vitas’ with BH inside-out return pass winner against a rare 2nd serve-volley
Returning at 4-3, Vitas reaches 15-40 with 3 OH winners. Jimbo overpowers him from thereon to hold, and breaks decisively with more powerful passes. Again, he finishes with a return-pass winner against a second serve, deftly stepping aside to smack it FH inside-in
Jimbo serves out to 30, finishing appropriately with a BH dtl pass winner
Summing up, powerful hitting by Connors is the call of the day, with his passing of both sides particularly so. In baseline rallies, its his FH that’s the most damaging shot
Gerulaitis plays a delicate game of tapping and pushing balls back in play without heat, but they sit up nicely for his opponent to hit through. Has a hard time escaping to net, and on top of the fusillade of power passes that greet him there, doesn’t volley well either of being sting or consistency
Stats for the other semi-final between Bjorn Borg and Brian Gottfried - Match Stats/Report - Borg vs Gottfried, Boca Raton semi-final, 1978 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
Connors would go onto lose the final to Bjorn Borg and Gerulaitis would go onto lose the third place play-off match to Brian Gottfried
Connors won 61 points, Gerulaitis 45
Gerulaitis serve-volleyed about half the time off first serves
Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (42/54) 78%
- 1st serve points won (26/42) 62%
- 2nd serve points won (4/12) 33%
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (4/54) 7%
Gerulaitis....
- 1st serve percentage (25/52) 48%
- 1st serve points won (16/25) 64%
- 2nd serve points won (5/27) 19%
- Aces 3
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (11/52) 21%
Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 26%
- to BH 65%
- to Body 9%
Gerulaitis served....
- to FH 51%
- to BH 41%
- to Body 8%
Return Stats
Connors made...
- 40 (26 FH, 14 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 2 Winners (1 FH, 1 BH), with 1 runaround FH
- 8 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (2 FH, 1 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 5 Forced (1 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (40/51) 78%
Gerulaitis made...
- 50 (15 FH, 35 BH), including 1 runaround FH, 1 runaround BH & 8 return-approaches
- 4 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (2 BH)
- 2 Forced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (50/54) 93%
Break Points
Connors 6/10 (6 games)
Gerulaitis 3/9 (4 games)
Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 26 (9 FH, 9 BH, 2 FHV, 4 BHV, 2 OH)
Gerulaitis 6 (2 BH, 1 BHV, 3 OH)
Connors' had 16 passes (7 FH, 9 BH)
- FHs - 4 cc, 1 dtl/inside-out, 1 inside-in runaround return and 1 longline
- BHs - 5 cc, 3 dtl and 1 inside-out pass
- regular FHs - 1 dtl and 1 longline
Gerulaitis' BHs - 1 cc pass and 1 inside-out at net
- 1 from a return-approach point, an OH
Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 28
- 19 Unforced (6 FH, 9 BH, 1 BHV, 3 OH)... with 1 BH pass attempt
- 9 Forced (4 FH, 4 BH, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.3
Gerulaitis 30
- 13 Unforced (3 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV, 3 BHV)... with 1 FH pass attempt
- 17 Forced (2 FH, 10 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 49.2
(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...
- 17/24 (71%) at net, with...
- 0/1 forced back
Gerulaitis was...
- 20/45 (44%) at net, including...
- 7/13 (54%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 6/10 (60%) off 1st serves and...
- 1/3 (33%) off 2nd serves
---
- 5/8 (63%) return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back
Match Report
Strong, hard hitting showing from Connors - with the passing standing out - and a weak, soft hitting one from Gerulaitis (in all areas) makes for a quick show
Connors hammers the ball on everything but the serve, which he spins in. Vitas pokes and pushes it on everything,including the serve much of the time. And Connors has much better of it
Jimbo’s weapons are his powerful groundies, his ability to take net from large hitting advantage from the back, pounding returns, ferocious volleys. And the crown in the jewel, very powerful passing
His weakness is a minor tendency to miss routine groundstrokes. He serves gently, but even that’s a good thing because…
Vitas’ chief weapon is the chip-charge return. Which he only does against second serves. Which he only sees 12 of, with Jimbo spinning in a large 78% first serves. A potential weapon is his serve-volleying but its met with considerable counter-force in Jimbo’s return
His weakness’ are the feebleness of his shots, including the return. Vitas capitilizes on Jimbo’s soft serving by returning almost everything, but its all gently pushed back. Similar lack of force in his groundies, particularly his BH
Potential advantage in that is his making very few errors, but he makes his fair share, though fewer than Jimbo. Maybe the lack of force might make it difficult for Jimbo to work off, but no, the ball sits up nicely for Jimbo to rip his groundies into. The big gap in hitting strength makes it difficult for Vitas to take net
Difficult or not, he has little choice given how badly outgunned he is from the back, and he does create approaches from nothing or make quick dashes to net. Not particularly good on the volley, but far more than that, he’s met with blazing passing shots
Baseline starting point
Points starting baseline-to-baseline (including non- serve-volley return errors) comprise
- all Jimbo’s first serves
- Jimbo’s second serves, bar chip-charge returns
- Vitas’ service points, sans serve-volleys, aces and sole double fault
Jimbo’s first serves - Jimbo wins 26/42 or 62%
Jimbo’s second serves sans chip-charges - Jimbo wins 1/4 or 25%
Vitas’ first serve sans aces and serve-volleys - Vitas wins 7/12 or 58%
Vitas’ second serve sans doubles and serve-volleys - Vitas wins 4/23 or 17%
Not much difference in type of rallies springing out of each type of point
Jimbo gets minimal to no advantage from his first serve (or the seconds). Would expect to see him winning similar lot of points across the two - but no. Can be accounted for by small sample of 2nd serve points
Jimbo thumps returns with heat, but wouldn’t think it would make anything like the difference in Vitas’ success across 2 serves either. He returns both serves about the same way. Why such a difference in Vitas’ success then?
As for how the rallies end -
Ground UEs - Jimbo 14, Vitas 8 (excluding a pass miss from both), broken down as -
- Vitas FH 2
- Vitas BH & Jimbo FH 6
- Jimbo BH 8
Jimbo’s FH does damage too - couple of winners and his cc forces 2-3 errors out of Vitas’ BH
From there, both rally to net 24 times
Jimbo wins 17, Vitas 8
Every reason that could be, is. Jimbo coming in from commanding position, Vitas not. Jimbo passing powerfully and well, Vitas not. Vitas not volleying too well, Jimbo has 3 OH UEs but misses just 1 volley. He’s not faced with any difficult ones, Vitas’ passes like all his groundies are feeble
Very consistent returning (93% return rate), hanging in ‘til Jimbo misses and the chip-charge return are enough to get Vitas 3 breaks
His weak force game though doesn’t look good to be able to hold regularly though, and so it proves. Holds 3 times, is broken 6
Net starting point
Vitas is 6/10 first serve-volleying, 1/3 second and 5/8 return-approaching (all against second serves) for a total of 12/21 at 57%
Not great. A lot better than the 33% he has rallying to net but also a lot worse than Jimbo’s 71% doing the same
Not a strong serve, and likely to get him broken sooner rather than later if he did it all the time. And he’s done just as well not serve-volleying behind first serves (and actually better of 2nds, poor though both numbers are)
Vitas’ serve-volleying wouldn’t be a worry for Jimbo. But the return approaches are. Not the best shots - they tend to float more than skim and of average depth - but they work
Jimbo’s first serves are potentially chip-charagable, but no attempt by Vitas to try. Good move by Jimbo to keep the in-count high at cost of force
He doesn’t need force on the serve - Vitas’ return is no threat, and he can handily brutalize him from the back
On commentary, Pat Summerall asks Tony Trabert whether Connors is a smart player. Trabert waits before replying along the lines, “Well, he can stay stuck in his ways sometimes when its not working”… which sounds like a roundabout way of saying “No, he isn’t”
Match Progression
Two very powerful passing winners by Jimbo in opening game, but Vitas holds
Same deal next go around and this time Jimbo breaks. Only to be broken back to love - couple of chip charge returns and a nice lob that Jimbo doesn’t handle well running back to retrieve
Jimbo runs away with next 4 games to end the set, breaking first when Vitas makes 2/8 first serves and double faults on break point, and for a second time by taking net to putaway 3 winners
Second set starts with trade of breaks. For Jimbo, just more of the same to go up 1-0. For Vitas, an unlikely BH cc pass winner seals the break back
Vitas disarmingly serves as gently as he hits to break streak of being broken 4 times in a row before they trade breaks agai. Jimbo losing his serve missing a sitting duck BH pass, and breaking Vitas’ with BH inside-out return pass winner against a rare 2nd serve-volley
Returning at 4-3, Vitas reaches 15-40 with 3 OH winners. Jimbo overpowers him from thereon to hold, and breaks decisively with more powerful passes. Again, he finishes with a return-pass winner against a second serve, deftly stepping aside to smack it FH inside-in
Jimbo serves out to 30, finishing appropriately with a BH dtl pass winner
Summing up, powerful hitting by Connors is the call of the day, with his passing of both sides particularly so. In baseline rallies, its his FH that’s the most damaging shot
Gerulaitis plays a delicate game of tapping and pushing balls back in play without heat, but they sit up nicely for his opponent to hit through. Has a hard time escaping to net, and on top of the fusillade of power passes that greet him there, doesn’t volley well either of being sting or consistency
Stats for the other semi-final between Bjorn Borg and Brian Gottfried - Match Stats/Report - Borg vs Gottfried, Boca Raton semi-final, 1978 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)
