Match Stats/Report - Connors vs Lendl, Tokyo Indoor final, 1984

[Waspsting]

Jimmy Connors beat Ivan Lendl 6-4, 3-6, 6-0 in the Tokyo Indoor final, 1984 on carpet

Connors wouldn’t win another title for 4 years and Lendl was the defending champion. The result took the head-to-head to 13-5 in Connors’ favour. He would lose the pair’s remaining 17 matches to end the head-to-head 22-13 in Lendl’s favour

Connors won 86 points, Lendl 66

Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (61/75) 81%
- 1st serve points won (37/61) 61%
- 2nd serve points won (8/14) 57%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (15/75) 20%

Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (28/77) 36%
- 1st serve points won (17/28) 61%
- 2nd serve points won (19/49) 39%
- Aces 3
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (8/77) 10%

Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 12%
- to BH 88%

Lendl served...
- to FH 66%
- to BH 28%
- to Body 7%

Return Stats
Connors made...
- 68 (49 FH, 19 BH)
- 5 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (3 FH)
- 2 Forced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (68/76) 89%

Lendl made...
- 59 (7 FH, 52 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (1 FH, 3 BH)
- 10 Forced (2 FH, 8 BH)
- Return Rate (59/74) 80%

Break Points
Connors 6/14 (8 games)
Lendl 4/7 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 19 (3 FH, 5 BH, 7 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)
Lendl 16 (7 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 2 OH)

Connors' FHs - 1 cc and 1 dtl
- BHs - 2 cc and 3 dtl (1 at net)

- 3 from serve-volley points - 2 first 'volleys' (1 FHV, 1 FH at net) & 1 second volley (1 FHV)

- the OH was on the bounce from the baseline

Lendl's FHs - 1 cc pass, 5 dtl (1 at net) and 1 drop shot (can reasonably be called a very short, sharply angled cc)
- BHs - 1 cc pass, 2 dtl (1 pass), 1 inside-out/dtl and 1 net chord dribbler

- 1 FHV was a non-net swinging inside-out shot

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 41
- 31 Unforced (15 FH, 12 BH, 4 BHV)... with 1 baseline BHV
- 10 Forced (4 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.5

Lendl 51
- 28 Unforced (12 FH, 14 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)... with 1 swinging, baseline BHV
- 23 Forced (11 FH, 12 BH)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47.1

(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...
- 29/41 (71%) at net, including...
- 6/8 (75%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 2/4 (50%) forced back

Lendl was...
- 6/12 (50%) at net, with...
- 1/4 (25%) forced back/retreated

Match Report
Brilliant match of hard hitting, dual winged, fluidly aggressive baseline action. Connors adds net play to all that (Lendl doesn’t) and his BH is the most powerful, commanding shot on show with Lendl’s FH not far behind though the two operate in different ways. The court is very fast and the bounce is like a pebble skimming over ice

Biggest factor though isn’t FHs or BHs but Lendl’s serve. Generous soul that he is, Lendl’s decided to play the match with 1 serve and dishes out a staggeringly low 36% first serve in count in this indoor match. Jimbo responds not just with 81%, but some of his very best serving, slicing first serves damagingly wide in the ad court as is normal for most left-handers but unusual for him. The court helps

The irony is that this is the usual dynamic of the pair’s matches turned around: Jimbo effectively playing with 1 serve because his first serve is a virtual second giving him no advantage. And Lendl making most of his big first serve, his free hit

Nor is the lop sided difference in in-count decisive. Lendl wins the second set serving at 30.8% over Jimbo serving at 88.2%. In ordinary scheme of things, wouldn’t be too surprising as all those serves would produce 50-50 starting points, but this isn’t ordinary; Jimbo’s first serve is giving him advantage

The contest is decided by Jimbo getting red-hot in the decider and running over Lendl like a beaver on a train track, losing just 5 points in the set

Credit also to Jimbo’s return. Rare as first serves are, he returns whatever he’s faced with superbly. Early on, Lendl just blasts down first serves without much attention to getting them out of reach, which on this court, would do to overwhelm most players. Jimbo isn’t one of them and he hammers the ball back in kind. Later, he goes wider without loss of power. Jimbo moves over well and with minimal back swing, still fends the returns back deep with reasonable authority. Lendl directs his second serves body-ishly to FH and Jimbo imperceptibly slides into comfy position to smack the returns hard and deep

Unreturned rates - Jimbo 20%, Lendl 10%
Aces - Jimbo 1, Lendl 3
Ace rate - Jimbo 1.6% off first serves, Lendl 10.7%

Fair reflection of how serve-return contest. Lendl with much more powerful first serve, as evidenced by the ace rate, but with vast difference in in-count, Jimbo with double the freebies. If those figures fail to capture something, it’s the advantage Jimbo gathers from his firsts. 10/15 Lendl's return errors have been marked forced - very unusual for Jimbo

Both players win 61% first serve points, which very heavily favours Jimbo with his 45% in-count advantage
Second serve points won - Jimbo 57%, Lendl 39%

Lendl’s figure is heavily influenced by the decider, where he wins 0/9 but even sans that, he wins 19/40 or 48% second serve points - comfortably behind Jimbo

All that is the back drop of intense baseline action

Play - Baseline (& Net)
The typical Connors-Lendl match is filled with drudge action - stationary cc exchanges and Lendl bunting/chipping soft BHs to Jimbo’s uneasy FH ‘til it coughs up errors

Much better stuff here. Hard hitting, excellent depth, dual winged, attacking open court action with lots of side-to-side running

Jimbo leads more often than reacts and does so with BH. He’s usually further up in court - on the baseline or just behind, while Lendl stays a couple paces behind and is pushed further back regularly

To start, Jimbo keeps a biased to ad court position to give his BH maximum chance to be in use. From there, he goes both ways with the shot - inside-out back to Lendl’s BH or pulling it cc to give a running FH. Hard hit either way, particularly cc. Lendl’s forced to hit a lot of running FHs, which he usually manages (including counter-attackingly but a lot means a lot and he can’t make them all

When going to Lendl’s BH, Jimbo’s particular about depth. FH cc’s in particular are hard hit 6 inches to a foot close to baseline. Any bright ideas Lendl might have of systematic BH cc chipping are a daydream against stuff like this. He’s pushed further back still, and the block-chips he plays are defensive in nature, just trying to withstand the power to not give up errors. The wider FH cc’s force errors, losing nothing of depth and with Lendl pulled the other way by BH cc’s, its often a running or at least, on the move shot

Jimbo BH vs Lendl FH rallies don’t stay that way too long, but Jimbo’s harder hitter and has Lendl rushed. Unable to set-up for his shots, even Lendl’s FH is reduced to counter-hitting much of the time

Such plays marks the first set. In the second, Jimbo’s depth isn’t so consistently good, Lendl looks to take ball a little earlier (wouldn’t make much difference without drop in Jimbo’s depth, and Lendl would probably abandon it) and succeeds. His FH becomes chief play-maker with the emphasis on dtl attacking shots. To lesser extent he attacks dtl with BH too, though less often (and more often making the error trying)

Jimbo adds in net play when he’s dominating rallies. Lendl does not and looks to end points solely from back. Rallying to net, Jimbo’s 23/33 at 70%, to Lendl’s 6/12

And Jimbo serve-volleys some. Borderline ‘delay’ serve-volleys, behind excellent, very wide sliced serves. McEnroe-ishly placed and he wins 6/8 doing that

Finally, lot of fast movement required to handle the Lendl’s dtl attacking shots or Jimbo’s side-to-side hitting. Lendl’s more often on the run and is particularly quick. Generally, he’s the kind of mover whose footspeed doesn’t stand out but he’s always in right position. If his footspeed didn’t stand out here, Jimbo would have 10 more winners than he does… Lendl rushes about to reach and make running shots - good counter ones on FH, defensive blocks on BH. On flip side, Jimbo counter-punches against Lendl’s dtl shots. He’s not quite as quick a Lendl, but he’s not slow

 

[Waspsting]

Stats don’t do justice to quality of action though they don’t lie either

Winners - Jimbo 19, Lendl 16
UEs - Jimbo 31, Lendl 28
Errors Forced - Jimbo 23, Lendl 10

Winners and UEs cancelling out, and FEs being the big difference. The harder hitting, earlier taking, wider hitting, more point constructive (rather than basic 1 shot dtl attacking) and more net active Jimbo’s game coming through

Breakdown of UEs
- Neutral - both 14
- Attacking - Jimbo 14, Lendl 8
- Winner Attempts - Jimbo 3, Lendl 6

Neutral UEs being equal is a win for Jimbo as he’s harder hitter and higher lot of Lendl’s UEs are beaten out of him. In another sense, its not too good from Jimbo’s point of view because he rarely stays in neutral for long, going for an attacking shot sooner rather than later

Attacking errors clearly in Lendl’s favour, but a good outcome for Jimbo for the same reason as the neutrals aren’t as good as they look; he hits attacking shots all the time, so more errors are expected. And he’s got more value out of such shots, as evidenced by forcing 23 errors to Lendl’s 10, with Lendl being tough to force an error out of to begin with

By contrast, Lendl forcing just 2 more errors than his own attacking UEs agaisnt the slightly easier to force an error from Jimbo. One reason is dearth of net play

Great efficiency on the winners by Jimbo. Lendl goes a little wild near the end, but he’s the been the one going for point ending shots and at most 1-2s with the 2 being a dtl shot. Jimbo has more run opponent side-to-side sharply

Basic groundstroke yields (ordered by most winners to least)
- Lendl FH 7 winners, 12 UEs
- Jimbo BH 5 winners, 7 UEs
- Lendl BH 5 winners, 14 UEs
- Jimbo FH 3 winners, 15 UEs

Jimbo’s BH the best shot on show - dominating play, but staying by far the most secure, while up against the formidable Lendl FH. dtl shots would be challenging to handle, even sans his approaching behind them

Lendl’s FH next. The most damaging shot, with its dtl point enders (he has 5 winners in that direction), but at times beat down by Jimbo’s BH and it goes a bit off near end when shot choices become more risky. Needs time to set up, when rushed, it isn’t effective, unlike Jimbo’s BH which seems fine either way

Remaining 2 shots are about even
Lendl’s BH has its moments dtl and does curb Jimbo’s FH’s hitting on low ball (court takes care of that, more than anything Lendl does), but is also pushed back and outhit when Jimbo has lead position on the FH
Jimbo’s FH with match low winners (and 1 is a FH at net serve-volleying), match high UEs. Loosest shot around, less powerful than his BH, some good deep cc hits its best positive contribution

Purely from baseline, roughly even, with Jimbo more dynamic of play
Throw in the rallying to net numbers - Jimbo 23/33, Lendl 6/12 - and Jimbo surges ahead

Match Progression
Jimbo has considerably better of first set, serving 25 points in it to Lendl’s 38. Some good, wide serving from him, often alloyed to ‘delay’ serve-volleying. Lendl makes 16/38 first serves or 42% (which is by far his best of the match, both other sets its 31%) and Jimbo returns with hefty authority. Does well to get Lendl’s big first serves back too, which are potentially overpoweringly strong

Hard hitting baseline rallies, Jimbo’s at something like his non-zoning best. Takes ball earlier, uses BH from center of court to go both ways and have Lendl running side to side. Lendl’s good at reaching and making tough running FHs. On stationary rallies, Jimbo’s BH’s force keeps Lendl rushed enough that he can’t wind up the FH to get out of counter-punching

Lendl plays BH cc’s, some chips, some drives. Jimbo isn’t unduly troubled, but can’t hit out on the low FH, instead, hitting it up to get over the net, like a low volley somewhat. Jimbo’s FH forces errors through power, width and depth when he has lead position to start though

Tough, 14 point hold for Lendl at start, where he makes 4 first serves (1 of them a re-do after he’d missed the first serve)

Players trade breaks in middle, Jimbo breaking with power and net play, Lendl hitting back with Jimbo’s FH making 2 third ball UEs and taking advantage of Jimbo not putting away an OH

Jimbo breaks to end the set. Some hefty returns, but more Lendl making UEs from the back at most mildly pressured. Lendl’s FH had been rock of the set with just the 1 UE, but it makes 2 towards the end of the game, including an attempted dtl winner against a deep-ish return that was there for the shot

Not too bad from Lendl. He’s been competitive despite such a low in count. He goes one better by winning the second set, but in count gets even worse with 8/26

Action changes in that Jimbo loses the exemplary depth that had kept Lendl pegged down in first set. Its little enough, but Lendl takes advantage to fight for and take his fair share of command of points, with his FH in particular. Lots of dtl attacking and point-ending shots by Lendl, again, particularly off the FH

Jimbo survives 0-40 and Lendl 15-40 to come away with holds to open the set, and then they trade breaks. Jimbo’s broken making 7/8 first serves, Lendl 0/5

Lendl wins the last 4 games to take the set. 1 of the holds is a 6 point, all 2nd servess game, while he breaks with Jimbo making 6/8 and 4/4 first serves

Going into decider, momentum is with Lendl

Jimbo wins 15/16 points to open the set, loses 2, and finishes winning 9/11. So much for having the momentum

A Midas set by Jimbo with everything he touches turning to gold. The power and depth are on full show and he’s great on the run. The first break to is to love, ending with BH dtl winner that was probably out

The second ends with a spectacular point with Jimbo placing a running-down-drop-shot at net well enough to force a weak reply that he can run back and dispatch BH cc for another winner

Down 3-0, Lendl gets a bit trigger happy. He hasn’t shown great fight all match, and earlier, semi-tanked some points with the games in them still alive. He’s broken to love again before Jimbo serves out to 30

Lendl wins just 1 point on serve in the set and makes 4/13 first serves. He’s a bit better on return, winning 4 points

Summing up, Jimmy Connors at something like his best. When you consider how well he serves, perhaps beyond reasonable expectation of his best, for he gets the serve out damagingly wide with decent force to genuinely force errors out of Lendl. Returns meatily against the plethora of second serves he faces and more impressive still, copes with the few big, fat first serves, getting them back with reasonable pace and good depth even

Lendl by contrast serves at 36% (Jimbo’s number is 81%). The biggest factor in match outcome

Still, great court action. Hard hitting, dual winged, attacking baseline stuff. Connors more often leading and running Lendl around, pinning his BH back with power and depth and coming to net to finish when appropriate. Lendl scoring with dtl shots, especially FHs and getting better of Connors’ FH with his BH as often as not, despite often being pinned back. He doesn’t come to net much

Connors hitting red-hot, zoning form settles the result. A great win for him, but there is a black lining in the clear sky

Serving at his very best of quality (unlikely to be repeated) at 88% in-count while playing something like his best and returning just as well, he still lose a set by 2 break margin to Lendl serving at 31% on lightning fast court. Not the best of omens for future

 

[sandy mayer]

It is very surprising that Connors has doubly better unreturned serve percentage over Lendl. I guess that is a unique case. When Connors served well he rarely lost.

 

[jrepac]

I remember watching this and thinking Lendl would take it in 3...then Connors comes on like a house on fire. And, who would've thought he'd never win another match against Lendl after this one. If anything, it put an exclamation point on 1984 as one of his better years, despite living in Mac's shadow for nearly all of it.

 

[WCT]

I just did stats for this last weekend. Boy, do we have differences at net. LOL, I have Lendl 4 of 6 and Connors 27 of 36. Same unreturned serve and winners., though. The serve that Connors was hitting better here was the Mcenroe wide ad court serve. I remember thinking, at times, in 84 that he was hitting it better. It would come and go, though. It was there that day.

I don't think Lendl is slicing the bh as much as later. Here it is more of a mix which is what Mcenroe did. I do think Connors has, as a rule, more control in the rallies. He pushes him wide to the forehand and shoots that bh up the line. And he can do it from an offensive or defensive position. Once he did it, Lendl was a string. But I just shake my head at balls he stays back on. Or even when he came in, points that 6 years before he would have been at the net at least twice before he actually got there this match. Lendl did a lot of running.

Lendl was certainly not at his best. A few more ue that I would expect. That said, Connors beat him 6-0 in the last set. He played really well. Who would have thunk how long it would take for him to win another tournament. Sure not me when I saw this match. They played in Wembley maybe a month later and Lendl won easily. Then the January 85 Masters match where Connors lead 5-2 in the 3rd and lost. That was the closet he ever came to beating Lendl again.

 

[Waspsting]

... Connors comes on like a house on fire (in third set)

Amazing showing in the decider, similar to the Suntory drubbing of Wilander

I enjoyed the first set more - that's high end, intense play but sustainable and normal (as opposed to zoning, which is great to see, but I understand its a blue moon thing)

@BringBackWood - awhile ago you were asking about good Connors-Lendl matches. This would be the only one I've come across

It is very surprising that Connors has doubly better unreturned serve percentage over Lendl. I guess that is a unique case

Lendl's in count has a lot to do with that and that's also uniquely low

Connors led freebies in their '83 US Open final also, though nowhere near by double, which must be unique

When Connors served well he rarely lost.

Problem is he serves well just as rarely

For him, I usually note his serving well "by his standard" or "for him" or something like that. In absolute sense of serving well, I'm struggling to think of anything after '75 that qualifies

Strangely, one of his better service showings was against Agassi in one of their US Open matches, where he's directing serves wide and moving Agassi about with it. Not enough pace to be too bothersome though and the numbers coming out of it are standard stuff (low aces, and unreturned rate)