Match Stats/Report - Connors vs McEnroe, Toulouse Indoor final, 1989

[Waspsting]

Jimmy Connors beat John McEnroe 6-3, 6-3 in the Toulouse Indoor final, 1989 on carpet

It was the second last meeting between the two players. Connors was ranked 14th at the time, McEnroe 4th

Connors won 70 points, McEnroe 54

McEnroe serve-volleyed all but 2 times off first serve and occasionally off second

Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (49/66) 74%
- 1st serve points won (31/49) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (11/17) 65%
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (6/66) 9%

McEnroe...
- 1st serve percentage (35/58) 60%
- 1st serve points won (22/35) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (8/23) 35%
- Aces 4
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (12/58) 21%

Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 30%
- to BH 69%
- to Body 2%

McEnroe served...
- to FH 53%
- to BH 40%
- to Body 7%

Return Stats
Connors made...
- 45 (21 FH, 24 BH)
- 6 Winners (3 FH, 3 BH)
- 8 Errors, all forced...
- 8 Forced (6 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (45/57) 79%

McEnroe made...
- 59 (18 FH, 40 BH, 1 ??), including 1 runaround FH & 13 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 6 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (1 FH, 2 BH), including 2 return-approaches
- 3 Forced (1 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (59/65) 91%

Break Points
Connors 4/9 (5 games)
McEnroe 1/8 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 33 (9 FH, 15 BH, 2 FHV, 4 BHV, 3 OH)
McEnroe 17 (5 FH, 2 BH, 7 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

Connors had 14 passes (5 FH, 9 BH)
- FHs - 1 cc, 3 dtl (2 returns) and 1 inside-in return
- BHs - 2 cc, 5 dtl (3 returns) and 2 lobs

- regular FHs - 2 cc, 1 dtl and 1 cc running-down-drop-volley at net hit at a very fine angle
- regular BHs - 2 cc, 3 dtl (1 at net) and 1 inside-out

- 2 BHVs were first volleys off serve-volley points

McEnroe had 7 first volleys off serve-volley points (6 FHV, 1 BHV)

- FHs - 1 cc pass, 3 dtl and 1 drop shot
- BHs - 1 cc pass and 1 net chord dribbler return

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 24
- 12 Unforced (4 FH, 7 BH, 1 BHV)
- 12 Forced (5 FH, 7 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.8

McEnroe 30
- 10 Unforced (4 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 20 Forced (5 FH, 7 BH, 1 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48

(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...
- 20/24 (83%) at net, including...
- 4/4 (100%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 2/2 off 1st serve and..
- 2/2 off 2nd serve

McEnroe was...
- 29/58 (50%) at net, including...
- 18/37 (49%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 16/29 (55%) off 1st serve and..
- 2/8 (25%) off 2nd serve
--
- 6/13 (46%) return-approaching
- 0/4 forced back

Match Report
A strange match on what looks like a fast carpet court, the star of the show being Connors returning and passing

If the surface is so fast, why are the unreturned serve percentages so low (Connors 9, Mac 21)?

For one thing, Connors largely rolls the serve in... why, I don't know. He's serving so gently that one thinks it must be a second serve and the video has cut the missed first serve. But no, when he misses first serves, it becomes clear that he actually was serving this gently. Mac isn't slow to pick up on this... 9/13 of his chip-charge returns are against the first serve. Good move by Mac... so many players who like to chip-charge returns don't desist from trying just because they're facing a first serve, even when the first serves are coming down as gently as second serves from other players who they do chip-charge against

Two, McEnroe also rolls in a few first serves, especially in the first set... again, why, I don't know. And same story with thinking there must be a mistake, but no, that's just how he chose to serve

Third, both players return well. A addendum to this is that Connors lays focus on getting the ball back in play. Most of Mac's 6 first volley FHV winners could be called OHs... generally, Connors tends not to return like this, but bangs returns so that they either give the server a challenging volley or are an error. What he does in this match - getting some returns back to give an easy putaway volley, is uncharacteristic and statistically, raises his return rate (and allows Mac to get a few more winners in, at the cost of lower unreturned serve rate)

In all other ways, play resembles fast court tennis. Baseline rallies are short, routine-ish balls tend to draw slightly rushed unforced errors, errors are forced by just slightly hitting harder or placing slightly wider, normal attacking shots tend to go for winners and so on

Routine looking 3 & 3 scoreline is deceptive too. Note break chances - Connors 9, Mac 8... both with chances in 5 separate games. Connors just happens to play these points better

In first set, Connors serves 37 times, Mac 26 (Connors serving the extra game), which is a fair reflection of how matters weren't straightforward. Second set is decided by Connors going on a spectacular 3 and a 1/2 game zoning run

Connors is clutch and appropriately bold all match. When down break point, he takes the net to deal. More impressive still, he does via serve-volley just once - otherwise, outmuscling McEnroe from the back slightly, orchestrating the approach and then winning the point at net. That's the bold part. Recognizing the pattern at play, the ever sharp Mac ventures forward first on consecutive break points... only to be passed BH dtl both times. That's the clutch

Despite Mac's poor 50% net points won, I thought he was very good in the forecourt. Its just that he was facing powerful passing shots all match (sans the putaway first volleys, which he puts away as just about anyone could have). The 8 forecourt FEs would be testament to how well Connors passed, but actually, doesn't cover it because McEnroe put back in play so many volleys that would have been forced error had he not... every volley he makes seems to be to a ball of some combination of extra power/placed wide/down low... yet make them he does. Note also Mac with just 1 volleying UE (there are two, but one wasn't a net point). Good stuff from Mac up front, even better from Connors on the pass. The power passes are supplemented with precise lobs to boot

Final act of the match is of the epic variety. 3-2 up, Mac reaches 15-40 with some fine play - 2 chip-charges that lead to him winning points and a superbly disguised touch FH drop shot winner he makes after being run around all over the place. And then Connors steps it up

He saves the break points by coming to net and goes on to hold. Then breaks to love in one of the best return games you'll see.

First point, whack... return winner that goes through with Mac about half-way to the service line. Second point, whack, forces difficult volley which leads to step-in power pass that Mac can only reflex volley an error to. 3rd point, whack, defensive volley, Connors advancing and low lob BHV'ng the ball to force Mac back, where the younger man can only net a turnaround BH pass attempt. 4th point, Connors orchestrates approach from neutral rally and finishes with a BHV winner

Connors consolidates the break with 2 FH cc would-be-approach shot winners and forcing another volley error of a chip-charge return point

What turns out to be the final game is almost as impressive as the last Connors return game. 30-0 down, Connors whacks 2 FH return pass winners (1 inside-in, 1 dtl), and just to show its not all about whacking, throws in a perfect BH lob winner to bring up match point, which he coverts by forcing an error

Shot of the match is worth mentioning. BH inside-out winners are rare, usually hit just slightly inside-out and even then, tend to surprise the player on the receiving end. The one Connors hits in this match is not slight - he's 1/2 way into the ad court when he makes it. McEnroe is stone as he watches it go through for the winner

Summing up, a high quality match with Jimmy Connors thundering down passes and returns while showing tip top net instinct. McEnroe actually copes fairly well with the barrage he faces at net... but its just a bit too much for him in all

 

[jrepac]

I've seen bits of this on You Tube. Is the whole match available? I recall this being one of the more notable late career wins from JC. He was coming off the '89 USO where he played quite well overall.

 

[KG1965]

Connors was...
- 20/24 (83%) at net, including...
- 4/4 (100%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 2/2 off 1st serve and..
- 2/2 off 2nd serve

Jimmy no longer came to the net with continuity but he still knew how to play on the net. Perhaps because Mac had forgotten how to do passing shots.

 

[jrepac]

Jimmy no longer came to the net with continuity but he still knew how to play on the net. Perhaps because Mac had forgotten how to do passing shots.

Connors always came to net behind a strong approach and Mac was not Borg, when it came to the pass.

 

[Waspsting]

Jimmy no longer came to the net with continuity but he still knew how to play on the net. Perhaps because Mac had forgotten how to do passing shots.

Connors always came to net behind a strong approach and Mac was not Borg, when it came to the pass.

He didn't come in much, but tended to do on critical points. And very successfullying

I took it as a sign that... he didn't because he didn't need to. On this quick court and with these racquets, he could end points from the back

Had he played his whole career starting round about then, I think Connors would have probably developed as primarily an attacking baseliner.... like Agassi did. Though a bona fida all-courter, he seems fundamentally a baseline based one to me (unlike say, Sampras or Becker) and if enviornment had pushed him towards it, that's the way he'd have gone

About just a month prior to this match, I have him coming in 28 times against Edberg - a similar player to Mac, who came in a lot and Connors could take baseline-to-baseline.... but also 62 times against Agassi, a guy he couldn't.... so he still had the skills, conditions didn't necessitate he use them quite as much

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-stats-report-connors-vs-edberg-us-open-fourth-round-1989.650802/

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-stats-report-agassi-vs-connors-us-open-quarter-final-1989.651016/

 

[jrepac]

He didn't come in much, but tended to do on critical points. And very successfullying

I took it as a sign that... he didn't because he didn't need to. On this quick court and with these racquets, he could end points from the back

Had he played his whole career starting round about then, I think Connors would have probably developed as primarily an attacking baseliner.... like Agassi did. Though a bona fida all-courter, he seems fundamentally a baseline based one to me (unlike say, Sampras or Becker) and if enviornment had pushed him towards it, that's the way he'd have gone

About just a month prior to this match, I have him coming in 28 times against Edberg - a similar player to Mac, who came in a lot and Connors could take baseline-to-baseline.... but also 62 times against Agassi, a guy he couldn't.... so he still had the skills, conditions didn't necessitate he use them quite as much

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-stats-report-connors-vs-edberg-us-open-fourth-round-1989.650802/

https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/match-stats-report-agassi-vs-connors-us-open-quarter-final-1989.651016/

Interesting; yes, the Mac/Edberg comparison is relevant. Against an Agassi or Wilander, he was forced to come to net even more, to shorten up the points. I think Mac had slowed a bit by '89, so JC could push him around a bit more from the baseline than in the past. I will have to go watch this one; I recall Mac raving about the way JC played that day, but it sounds like Mac was off a bit.

I always thought of JC as an attacking baseliner. I think others have analyzed his matches in the 70's vs. 80's and shown that he was always quite aggressive in getting to net. We just have an impression of him doing it more later in his career...which may be due to his shifting strategies against other stronger base-liners. Can't out rally, so get to the net ASAP (tho' even at his advanced age, there were not too many guys who could easily out rally him).

 

[Waspsting]

Interesting; yes, the Mac/Edberg comparison is relevant. Against an Agassi or Wilander, he was forced to come to net even more, to shorten up the points. I think Mac had slowed a bit by '89, so JC could push him around a bit more from the baseline than in the past. I will have to go watch this one; I recall Mac raving about the way JC played that day, but it sounds like Mac was off a bit.

I wouldn't say Mac was off

Volleys well enough, but he's facing a hurricane of power passes. Few could have made as many defensive volleys to the combination of powerfully hit/wide/low balls Connors sent his way

Connors does get the better of the baseline stuff... maybe Mac was a step down from his best here, but generally, Connors would be expected to come out on top anyway in this deparment

Another thought I had watching this is that if both guys started their careers round about this period, Connors may well have edged out McEnroe because the balance of power between passer vs volleyer has shifted to the former with changing racquet tech (falsely assuming their games would have developed the same way as they actually did)

Have a look at their US Open semis in '79 and '80. Connors isn't hitting the ball any less hard, but Mac can still make the volleys reasonably comfortably

Here in 1989? Not so much

Again, look at Connors' approach shots. 2 go for clean winners easily here.... that didn't happen with the wooden racquets

I always thought of JC as an attacking baseliner. I think others have analyzed his matches in the 70's vs. 80's and shown that he was always quite aggressive in getting to net. We just have an impression of him doing it more later in his career...which may be due to his shifting strategies against other stronger base-liners. Can't out rally, so get to the net ASAP (tho' even at his advanced age, there were not too many guys who could easily out rally him).

Beyond going on the word of those who say he was an aggressive net seeker in his younger days - and I have confidence in them - I don't see how he could have been so successful without being quite the net rusher in '70s

What was an "attacking baseliner" then, anyway? The hardest hit baseline shots weren't necessarily enough to end points.... far as I can tell, the only sure way to do so was to come to net

I find Connors' net play... ungainly to look at, but he doesn't miss much. His baseline play on the other hand, though unorthodox of technique are impressive in their variety and power

Maybe that's why he got the reputation for being mostly a baseliner. That and McEnroe's commentary.... to hear Mac, you'd think Connors was Thomas Muster

This whole match is up on youtube by the way. in 11 parts

 

[krosero]

Match took place Oct. 15.

Officially it was title #108 for Connors; he was defending champion here.

Connors said to the press, “I don’t think I can play any better than that. It’s something you dream about.”

Mac said, “I didn’t feel I was playing that badly. I can’t remember the last time he played that well. I would have liked to see him play Boris Becker today.”

Connors reported to win 11 straight points during the second set.

 

[Waspsting]

Connors said to the press, “I don’t think I can play any better than that. It’s something you dream about.”

Mac said, “I didn’t feel I was playing that badly. I can’t remember the last time he played that well. I would have liked to see him play Boris Becker today.”

Connors reported to win 11 straight points during the second set.

Agree with both players

Glad to see sense in this type of assessment of an old players turning back the clock. Commentators were also raving about how well Connors had played against Edberg in '89 US Open, saying similar things about best he's played in a long time (he won 2, 3 and 1 - one of those games being a penalty)

Hogwash, in my opinion - Edberg played particularly badly - commentators might have a sense of delicacy in stating things like that

Here though, its legit

Connors did indeed win 11 points in a row from 15-40 down 6th game, 2nd set to 40-0 up 8th game... the 7th game being one of the previously mentioned remarkable break effort from Connors

Starting about 3:50

 

[jrepac]

I wouldn't say Mac was off

Volleys well enough, but he's facing a hurricane of power passes. Few could have made as many defensive volleys to the combination of powerfully hit/wide/low balls Connors sent his way

Connors does get the better of the baseline stuff... maybe Mac was a step down from his best here, but generally, Connors would be expected to come out on top anyway in this deparment

Another thought I had watching this is that if both guys started their careers round about this period, Connors may well have edged out McEnroe because the balance of power between passer vs volleyer has shifted to the former with changing racquet tech (falsely assuming their games would have developed the same way as they actually did)

Have a look at their US Open semis in '79 and '80. Connors isn't hitting the ball any less hard, but Mac can still make the volleys reasonably comfortably

Here in 1989? Not so much

Again, look at Connors' approach shots. 2 go for clean winners easily here.... that didn't happen with the wooden racquets



Beyond going on the word of those who say he was an aggressive net seeker in his younger days - and I have confidence in them - I don't see how he could have been so successful without being quite the net rusher in '70s

What was an "attacking baseliner" then, anyway? The hardest hit baseline shots weren't necessarily enough to end points.... far as I can tell, the only sure way to do so was to come to net

I find Connors' net play... ungainly to look at, but he doesn't miss much. His baseline play on the other hand, though unorthodox of technique are impressive in their variety and power

Maybe that's why he got the reputation for being mostly a baseliner. That and McEnroe's commentary.... to hear Mac, you'd think Connors was Thomas Muster

This whole match is up on youtube by the way. in 11 parts

Thanks; JC's net play was compact and efficient, truly aided by the super approach shots. I don't think it had to be all that fancy. Even at 40, the guy would hit the corners and lines on the approach. Which is a bit of a lost art nowadays. While I consider both Borg and Connors better baseliners than JMAC, at his best, he could push JC around from the back court. With his slices and taking the ball early, he could keep them off balance. Very deft and subtle. By the late 80s, not so much. I find your point about the racquet tech interesting. If they had graphite from Day One, would they have evolved as they did? I suspect the tech favors the baseliner, particularly one who would be on the attack, like a Connors. From the above snippet, the court seems to be playing very fast and JC is smartly aggressive...Mac looks like he is running around a lot. Will have to watch the rest.

 

[Waspsting]

Thanks; JC's net play was compact and efficient, truly aided by the super approach shots. I don't think it had to be all that fancy. Even at 40, the guy would hit the corners and lines on the approach. Which is a bit of a lost art nowadays

Think he might have overdone the quality of his approach shots at time. It won him a lot of points, but made a lot errors trying too

He seems a good enough volleyer that he could have come in of easier approaches (not as forceful but could make them more consistently) and won the point at net

Then again, all I look at is matches against guys like Borg and Lendl... not the guys you want to be coming in behind junk to

JMAC, at his best... could push JC around from the back court. With his slices and taking the ball early, he could keep them off balance. Very deft and subtle. By the late 80s, not so much. I find your point about the racquet tech interesting. If they had graphite from Day One, would they have evolved as they did? I suspect the tech favors the baseliner, particularly one who would be on the attack, like a Connors

I enjoy watching the Connors-Mac baseline duels... such a contrast, and its often fairly even. There was a match (Philly '80, I think) when the commentators were discussing how they stack up shot for shot.

Beyond the obvious, one commentator opined that Mac had the better FH. What do you think?

I have a strong feeling Connors would have developed into an all out baseliner starting with graphite. Mac.... I don't know. He's a good baseliner, but when that's all he's doing... he isn't exactly easy on the eyes. But that probably enhances disguise of shot

Of all the players I've seen, I don't think there's anyone I can read less well than McEnroe and its pretty clear that he's pretty confusing to his opponents too

 

[jrepac]

Think he might have overdone the quality of his approach shots at time. It won him a lot of points, but made a lot errors trying too

He seems a good enough volleyer that he could have come in of easier approaches (not as forceful but could make them more consistently) and won the point at net

Then again, all I look at is matches against guys like Borg and Lendl... not the guys you want to be coming in behind junk to



I enjoy watching the Connors-Mac baseline duels... such a contrast, and its often fairly even. There was a match (Philly '80, I think) when the commentators were discussing how they stack up shot for shot.

Beyond the obvious, one commentator opined that Mac had the better FH. What do you think?

I have a strong feeling Connors would have developed into an all out baseliner starting with graphite. Mac.... I don't know. He's a good baseliner, but when that's all he's doing... he isn't exactly easy on the eyes. But that probably enhances disguise of shot

Of all the players I've seen, I don't think there's anyone I can read less well than McEnroe and its pretty clear that he's pretty confusing to his opponents too

Mac sort of slapped the forehand, on the rise in many cases....it was such an odd shot. Then sometimes he came over it more than others. Hard to read. And, he could slice or chip the FH approach. The "weakness" of Connors forehand is vastly overstated, by comparison. I think Mac would rally w/him only long enough to get to the net. Mac certainly had more variety in his FH. Connors (and Evert) did have that very neat, inside out, side spin shot however. You don't really see that anymore.

 

[jrepac]

After reading other recent posts re: Connors v. Wilander and fast indoor courts, and the Lendl '84 Tokyo, I came back this one. Makes me wonder about Connors indoors....did he do better on a faster court, generally speaking? Even on old, fast, uneven grass, he tended to do well (mostly). Why though? What did he do better on the faster surface that others did less well? He beat some of the best guys on grass...and you look at a match like this, at 37, and wonder what made the difference. His returns were stellar on just about any surface, so it's more than that. His reflexes and taking the ball so early perhaps?

 

[WCT]

His return is a huge factor. It's not the same factor on clay. But on a faster surface, especially against a s/v player it's a huge factor. It sure was in this match. He just turned back the clock in this match. This is way above his normal 1989 level. All time great players can do that, though. For a match or two, he might do that. Babe Ruth retired about 2 months into his last season. Washed up and he knew it. About a week before that, though, he hit 3 home runs in 1 game. He turned back the clock. Now, 89 Connors sure ain't washed up, but he sure isn't the player he was.

They flashed each player's ranking as they warmed up. Mcenroe was 4 and Connors was 14. Mcenroe was 4 in 89? I didn't remember that. And Connors had a lot of bad losses for 14. He won this tournament and the next, but that hasn't happened as they flashed that graphic.

Possibly the most inexplicable scheduling I can remember from him. Plays much of the Europe clay schedule. The French and at least 4, maybe 5 warmups. Played the Italian for the first time since 73. Lost early in basically every one. A bunch of second round losses. That's where he lost to Jay Berger at the French. Lost second round at Wimbledon. Anyway, I was stunned that he did it. At 36, NOW he's going to play all the warmups. 79-85 he played 2 warmups once, in 1981. No warmups on red clay 3 times and 1 warmup tournament 3 times. Now when he has very, very little chance at the French he is going to play most of the spring circuit. It just perplexed me at the time.

A couple question for Wasp on specific points to get his idea of forced vs unforced. BTW, very unusual for Connors to serve first versus Mcenroe. Very, very unusual.
First game Mcenroe serves, first point. Comes in behind a 2nd serve and misses a volley. Return not hit particularly hard, pretty far below not level, but pretty much straight at him. He didn't have to stretch. Did you call this forced or unforced? I have become looser with unforced errors as I do more matches. The way I have grading I think I'd say unforced. I often wonder if I am too tough with Mcenroe on volleys. Like I'm grading on a curve. It's just for me, with him, that is a very makeable volley.

Next game, Connors serves and it's the last point. Mcenroe comes in behind a 2nd serve and not a good approach. Landed past the service, probably not quite halfway between it and the baseline. Connors got a really good look at the pass and ripped it crosscourt. Still, Mcenroe read it and I'd say it was about net level or a bit below. BH volley that he missed. Forced or unforced.

I'll give you 2 that I found pretty clear cut, 1 forced and 1 unforced. 3rd game, 2nd point. Connors comes in hits an overhead, Mcenroe scampers to the corner and makes his shot. I'd say the volley was a little below net level, but the court that Connors was volleying into was basically open. He missed the bh volley wide. I call this unforced without hesitation.

4th game, Mcenroe serving, 1st point. Connors absolutely rips a return very low to Mcenroe's bh volley and he missed it. Again, I'd say forced error without hesitation, even for someone with Mcenroe's volleying ability,

Just curious as to how you saw those points. I've done a bunch of Connors Mcenroe matches and Mcenroe is not getting a lot of truly easy volleys. Most of the ue volley errors I give him really are a matter of interpretation. He's not getting many sitter volleys to miss.

This may have been the last match I saw Connors play at this level. I don't think he ever reached their heights at the 91 Open. The exchange at the net is about as warm as we ever saw between these 2. I think Mcenroe recognized how well he played. One last thing. Connors was brutal with the towel this match. Every other point. Mcenroe was pretty bad as well. And for an indoor match.

 

[jrepac]

In '89, I was at the French Open...my one and only trip. Got to see Chang, not Connors, but recall that loss to Berger! The year was not going well for him...losing to Dan Goldie (?) at Wimbledon? And, I too was shocked to see him playing the red clay tour....whaaaattt? After those losses, I seem to recall reading that he took time off, got in shape and prepped for the USO. Where he performed more than respectably, given the earlier results. Yes, that Toulouse match had a pretty friendly exchange, shockingly. Mac had a solid 1989, overall. So, it was a bit of an upset. Connors '91 run was a lot of fun, at all the big events, really, but he wasn't playing at that '89 level. But his competitive spirit was sure intact

 

[WCT]

You went to the French Open? Cool. Now that you mention it, I do seem to have some vague recall of Connors mentioning playing all those clay tournaments to try to get in better shape. Problem was he wasn't playing that many matches getting knocked out early so often.

 

[jrepac]

You went to the French Open? Cool. Now that you mention it, I do seem to have some vague recall of Connors mentioning playing all those clay tournaments to try to get in better shape. Problem was he wasn't playing that many matches getting knocked out early so often.

In '89, Roland Garros had not renovated the place yet...was still the old/original stadiums. And it was very tight getting around. I vividly remember the absolute CRUSH of people going to and from matches...not being used to that, given the more sprawling US Open, it was a bit scary! That and getting picked up for suspected ticket scalping by the French police when all i was trying to do was BUY tickets. They literally put me and my friend in the back of the paddy wagon (it was literally a wagon). Then let us go when they saw our passports....a story for the ages! I need to get back there one day....and to Wimby. AO may be a bridge too far....LOL

 

[WCT]

Wow, great story.

 

[Waspsting]

First game Mcenroe serves, first point. Comes in behind a 2nd serve and misses a volley. Return not hit particularly hard, pretty far below not level, but pretty much straight at him. He didn't have to stretch. Did you call this forced or unforced?

Definitely forced

I think that's a half-volley. That low - almost always forced

Next game, Connors serves and it's the last point. Mcenroe comes in behind a 2nd serve and not a good approach. Landed past the service, probably not quite halfway between it and the baseline. Connors got a really good look at the pass and ripped it crosscourt. Still, Mcenroe read it and I'd say it was about net level or a bit below. BH volley that he missed. Forced or unforced.

That one could go either way. I call those reaction/reflex volleys - height is easy to gauge, so is width, but whose to say where the line is for human reaction time?

I'd go with forced. He's rushed on the shot

3rd game, 2nd point. Connors comes in hits an overhead, Mcenroe scampers to the corner and makes his shot. I'd say the volley was a little below net level, but the court that Connors was volleying into was basically open. He missed the bh volley wide. I call this unforced without hesitation.

Clearly unforced - agree

4th game, Mcenroe serving, 1st point. Connors absolutely rips a return very low to Mcenroe's bh volley and he missed it. Again, I'd say forced error without hesitation, even for someone with Mcenroe's volleying ability

forced - agree

I'd call that 'low, powerful, little wide'
-----

Are we thinking of the same point, the first one you brought up? You call this one 'very low' and that one 'pretty far below net level'
If its the point I'm thinking, that one couldn't be any lower

I often wonder if I am too tough with Mcenroe on volleys. Like I'm grading on a curve. It's just for me, with him,

even for someone with Mcenroe's volleying ability,

I'm careful to avoid this - holding people to their own personal standard, rather than a general one for everyone
And for someone like Mac, more so becaue he makes volleying look easy

He'll miss volleys looking so at ease that first response is to see it as UE, but than you notice its a very low volley
Compare to someone like Borg, or Connors himself, who look a lot more rushed and jumpy at net. Borg in particular misses routine or easy volleys looking so harried that it looks forced

I try to judge by the ball faced alone, not individual's look or ability

Its a bigger problem for return errors more than volleys

Apologies for the delay in replying. I've been randomly getting blocked from the site recently

 

[WCT]

Definitely forced

I think that's a half-volley. That low - almost always forced



That one could go either way. I call those reaction/reflex volleys - height is easy to gauge, so is width, but whose to say where the line is for human reaction time?

I'd go with forced. He's rushed on the shot


Clearly unforced - agree




forced - agree

I'd call that 'low, powerful, little wide'
-----

Are we thinking of the same point, the first one you brought up? You call this one 'very low' and that one 'pretty far below net level'
If its the point I'm thinking, that one couldn't be any lower




I'm careful to avoid this - holding people to their own personal standard, rather than a general one for everyone
And for someone like Mac, more so becaue he makes volleying look easy

He'll miss volleys looking so at ease that first response is to see it as UE, but than you notice its a very low volley
Compare to someone like Borg, or Connors himself, who look a lot more rushed and jumpy at net. Borg in particular misses routine or easy volleys looking so harried that it looks forced

I try to judge by the ball faced alone, not individual's look or ability

Its a bigger problem for return errors more than volleys

Apologies for the delay in replying. I've been randomly getting blocked from the site recently

I went back and looked at that first point again and you are right, pretty much a half volley. I don't know what happened there. I didn't mix the points up, I just didn't see it correctly before. I didn't see it as that low when clearly it was.

I agree completely with your point about the relative talents of the players not affecting how a point was judged. An unforced error for one player should be an unforced error for another. I said I think I sometimes judge Mcenroe by a higher set of standards on the volleys. But if I do it's my failing. It's not how it objectively should be done.

To me, the difference in volleying ability among Mcenroe, Connors and Borg is best highlighted in up close, rapid fire volley exchanges. It's like Mcenroe has all the time in the world while they are more awkward on jumpier. In fairness to them, he's just got magical hands. That is a high bar.

There was a Connors/Borg Wimbledon final, maybe 1977. They have a volleying exchange at net which Borg wins and Dan Maskell remarks that it's rare to see Connors lose one of those. Well, not against Mcenroe it wasn't.

 

[jrepac]

Mac has amazing hands....makes it all look easy.

 

[WCT]

Yep. He would make shots look relatively easy that were anything but easy.