Match Stats/Report - Connors vs McEnroe, Wimbledon final, 1982

[Waspsting]

Jimmy Connors beat John McEnroe 3-6, 6-3, 6-7(2), 7-6(5), 6-4 in the Wimbledon final, 1982 on grass

It was Connors’ second and last title at the event and his first Slam title since 1978. He would go onto win the upcoming US Open also. McEnroe was the defending champion. The two had recently met in the lead in Queen’s Club final, with Connors winning in straight sets. The two would go onto play the final again in 1984, with McEnroe winning in straight sets

Connors won 171 points, McEnroe 175

McEnroe serve-volleyed off all serves bar 9 second serves

Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (116/186) 62%
- 1st serve points won (86/116) 74%
- 2nd serve points won (32/70) 46%
- Service Winners 3
- Double Faults 13
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (33/186) 18%

McEnroe...
- 1st serve percentage (89/160) 56%
- 1st serve points won (69/89) 78%
- 2nd serve points won (38/71) 54%
- Aces 19 (3 second serves), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 10
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (56/160) 35%

Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 50%
- to BH 41%
- to Body 9%

McEnroe served...
- to FH 44%
- to BH 47%
- to Body 9%

Return Stats
Connors made...
- 94 (36 FH, 58 BH), including 2 runaround BHs
- 9 Winners (3 FH, 6 BH)
- 36 Errors, all forced...
- 36 Forced (11 FH, 25 BH)
- Return Rate (94/150) 63%

McEnroe made...
- 140 (96 FH, 44 BH), including 20 runaround FHs, 1 runaround BH & 6 return-approaches
- 3 Winners (3 FH)
- 30 Errors, comprising...
- 20 Unforced (15 FH, 5 BH), including 3 runaround FHs & 1 return-approach attempt
- 10 Forced (7 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (140/173) 81%

Break Points
Connors 5/14 (8 games)
McEnroe 4/12 (6 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 56 (14 FH, 13 BH, 14 FHV, 12 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 2 OH)
McEnroe 50 (7 FH, 8 BH, 15 FHV, 10 BHV, 8 OH, 2 BHOH)

Connors had 21 passes - 9 returns (3 FH, 6 BH) & 12 regular (7 FH, 5 BH)
- FH returns - 1 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in (that opponent possibly left)
- BH returns - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out, 3 inside-in
- regular FHs - 2 cc, 1 cc/down-the-middle at net, 2 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 longline
- regular BHs - 4 cc, 1 dtl/inside-out at net

- regular (non-pass) FHs - 1 cc, 1 inside-out, 1 longline (that opponent leaves)
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl at net

- 8 from serve-volley points -
- 5 first 'volleys (2 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 FH at net)... both FHVs can reasonably be called OHs, 1 BHV was a net chord dribbler
- 3 second volleys (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)

- 1 other BHV was a swinging cc, 1 other was net-to-net and 1 OH was on the bounce from the baseline

McEnroe had 27 from serve-volley points -
- 15 first 'volleys' (9 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 FH at net)... 1 FHV was a net chord dribbler
- 9 second 'volleys' (3 FHV, 2 BHV, 3 OH)... 1 FHV can reasonably be called an OH & 1 OH was on the bounce from no-man's land closer to baseline than service line
- 3 third volleys (3 OH)

- 1 from a return-approach point, a BHV

- 10 passes - 2 returns (2 FH) & 8 regular (2 FH, 6 BH)
- FH returns - 1 cc, 1 inside-out (possibly not clean)
- regular FHs - 2 dtl
- regular BHs - 4 cc (1 possibley not clean), 2 dtl

- regular (non-pass) FHs - 1 dtl return, 1 drop shot
- regular BHs - 2 dtl

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 56
- 26 Unforced (13 FH, 9 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)... with 1 FH pass at net, 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 baseline BHV. He had 4 approach UEs
- 30 Forced (13 FH, 14 BH, 3 BHV)... with 1 FH running-down-drop-shot at net & 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.4

McEnroe 72
- 31 Unforced (9 FH, 7 BH, 6 FHV, 6 BHV, 3 OH)... with 1 OH on the bounce, just behind the service line
- 41 Forced (10 FH, 17 BH, 8 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 4 BHV, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 49.7

(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...
- 63/87 (72%) at net, including...
- 24/32 (75%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 20/25 (80%) off 1st serve and..
- 4/7 (57%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/3 (33%) forced back/retreated

McEnroe was...
- 97/152 (64%) at net, including...
- 82/121 (68%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 52/72 (72%) off 1st serve and..
- 30/49 (61%) off 2nd serve
---
- 3/6 (50%) return-approaching
- 4/9 (44%) forced back

Match Report
Struggle of a a great match. Connors plays an all-court game, with well-judged and frequent trips to net the spearhead of hard hitting baseline play. McEnroe serve-volleys and looks to hang in from the baseline. Both doing what they do well and there’s little in the result. There’s no single clear cut factor that makes the result what it is. Or two. Or even three. Connors is outstanding and his combo of powerful passing and impeccable net game is tough to top but McEnroe has much better serve, on top of playing well too. Call it a ‘its-a-shame-someone-has-to-lose’ match

Holding players to standards of their capabilities, Connors comes off a little better. He’s at least near his best in all areas and avoids not-good tendencies he generally has. By contrast, Mac’s serving and returning could do with a bump, though neither are bad. But that’s judging the players by different standards (and McEnroe a higher one). Holding them to equal standard, both with excellent showings

Mac wins 50.6% of the points, serving 46.2% of them
In words, two players basically win same number of points, but Mac holding serve more easily. Its not much, but whatever edge comes out of it favours Mac. And its unaffected by scoreline, with both players winning a set to 3 and tiebreak, and final set ending 6-4 (as opposed to a match where winner takes sets by close margins while losing sets by big ones)

Break points - Jimbo 5/14 (8 games), Mac 4/12 (6 games)
Clearly in Jimbo’s favour, by contrast. Surprisingly so, given the points won/points served ratio

Couple reasons contribute to Jimbo having longer service games the discrepancy

- Jimbo following common pattern against good serve-volleyers of occasional throw-away return game, while Mac is fully engaged in every return game (which Jimbo’s serve doesn’t discourage, the way Mac’s does)

- augmented further by Jimbo being up a break far more often than Mac is. Mac is up a break for grand total of one game in all the sets for the whole match. Jimbo enjoys break advantage for substantial parts of 4/5 sets, giving him luxury of easing up in return games. Not that he does ease much - its not his way - but a little at times. And certainly some compared to Mac, whose even less of a ease-upper in general, circumstances, and down a break so often here, has less than reason to ever ease-up

Putting together all of the above
- Mac holding more readily most of the time (impression of which is enhanced by his fluent serve-volley style)
- Jimbo often up a break (including in both sets he loses) and though tasked to hold more, manages to stay couple steps ahead of real trouble (i.e.facing break points)

First set, Jimbo breaks to start and opens 3-1 lead before losing 5 games in a row
Second set, Jimbo goes up early break and nurses it through without trouble
Third set, Jimbo breaks to open and fails to serve out the set before losing it in tiebreak
Fourth set, no breaks, Mac holding in shorter games
Final set, Jimbo breaks early and nurses it through

That progression - especially Jimbo being up breaks in both sets he loses and a terrible game from him to not serve-out third set - gets to if anything, Mac being lucky to keep match as competitive as it is
Looking at the scoreline and knowing about the 2 players’ general habits, would have more expected Mac somehow blowing a won match, rather being lucky to make such a tight contest of it

Mac serve-volleys virtually always. For him, ‘virtually’ is a big step down
Jimbo serve-volleys a little, otherwise hits powerful groundies and takes net from there

Jimbo pounds return in passes, as is his way. Typical high end contest between his return and Mac’s serve-volleying
Mac returns orthodoxly. Neither well, nor badly.

Wind is a factor in match. For first couple sets, its breezy enough to be hindrance to precision serving, which hurts Mac more. Both players struggle with OHs as a result too. Majority of match though, wind is not significant factor

Serve, Return & Serve-Volley
The serving is in line with both players norm (Jimbo harmless, Mac good) with caveat of both players having double faulting trouble. At times, winds adversely affect quality of serving for both. Connors pounds returns in his way, Mac puts returns in play without heat

Mac serve-volleys off all first serves, and 84% off second serves
Jimbo serve-volleys off 22% first serves and 12% seconds

First serve percentage - Jimbo 62%, Mac 56%
First serve aces & service winners (hereafter referred to as ‘SW’) - Jimbo 3, Mac 17
First serve ace/SW rate - Jimbo 3%, Mac 19%

The relative in counts is a win for Mac. Aces/SWs discrepancy is fair indicator of discrepancy in quality of 2 players first serve. With that large a gap, Jimbo would look for a higher in count. 56% in for Mac with quality of his serve is a good figure, 62% for Jimbo in same light, is not

Occasionally, Mac pulls back on going wide with first serves. Sometimes because he’s missing a lot of first serves, but not always. One of those not-always times is crucially in fourth set tiebreak, with a win just around the corner

 

[Waspsting]

Its still a pacey serve, but pace and where Jimbo can reach them might be the worst serve there is from Mac’s point of view. Generally though, swings and slings serves wide and has Jimbo hopping and lunging to return

Jimbo’s serve is average at best. He doesn’t have an ace and all 3 of his service winners are product of bad bounces. In other words, not 1 genuinely unreturnable serve from 186 deliveries. Best that can be said about Jimbo’s serve is that one at least has good idea which is first serve and which is second, which for him, isn’t always the case

He served better in the pair’s 1980 semi, where he actually had Mac hurrying sideways to returns some. Here, pace of serve is about the same, but Mac’s almost never put out to get into position and rarely rushed, while returning from on baseline

20/30 Mac return errors have been marked UEs, with serve-volleying accounting for half of the FEs and not-good bounces most of the rest. Jimbo does send down occasional mildly forceful serves, but they almost all come back. Mac even gets square racquet on serves that unexpectedly stay low to make errors, which would be virtually impossible against good pace serve

Interestingly, Jimbo targets Mac’s FH return, directing 50% that way to 41% to BH
Mac has the twisted looking yield of 96 FH returns, 44 BHs. On top of bulk going to his FH, Mac also runsaround to play 20 FH returns
This is new. In their match at Queen’s Club, Jimbo had normal 44% to FH, 56% BH serving pattern. Mac even runsaround to play a BH return against a first serve to get into center of court for upcoming rally

It works. Mac’s return errors -
- UEs - 12 FH, 8 BH (counting 3 runaround FHs as BHs for purpose of this illustration)
- FEs - 7 FH, 3 BH

Mac’s FH giving up disproportionate number of return errors. Choice to serve so much to FH probably not related to fears around chip-charging. With wooden racquets, Mac wasn’t a big chip-charger. Here he does so 6 times and has 1 other error trying. Furthermore, Jimbo serves more and more to FH as match goes on and he apparently picks up on Mac being shakier off that side

Shakier is different from being shakey. Mac still returns at very good 81%. Without much force on returns

Mac not too good with the runaround FH returns. He moves forward as well as to the side for them, not infrequently ends up getting them around the body and when he’s cramped. Why the forward move? It doesn’t look like he has any plans to approach and he just pushes the return in play. Just takes time away from himself to make return against harmless serve, while not even trying to attack it.

On other end of contest, Mac serving with power and width and Jimbo pounding returns
To start, 63% return rate for Jimbo. That figures about on course to break occasionally, given his force of return and expecting Mac to volley as he does

Pounded, powerful returns off both sides. Even the net high stuff has Mac with at least, no excess time on volley, and often rushed. Good lot wide and/or low. Whether by design or otherwise, less than normal going for outright wide winners and more wide enough to force errors. And always pounded returns

Mac winning 68% serve-volley points in all
When Jimbo makes the return, that falls to 54%
Good for Mac to win majority of points when having to make volley. Jimbo’s returning is fiery and wouldn’t be surprising to see returner when bulk points, after return is made

Double faults - Jimbo 13, Mac 10, or Jimbo 19% of second serves, Mac 14%
Poor stuff, especially from Jimbo. Some of Mac’s are early on, with wind having a hand. And he’s under pressure to deliver good second serves, what with Jimbo’s thundering returns. He also has 3 second serve aces to back cut into the handovers

Jimbo isn’t under pressure from Mac’s returning by contrast, but double faults regularly throughout, including to get himself broken

Second serve points won - Jimbo 46%, Mac 54%
Sans doubles faults - Jimbo 56%, Mac 62%

Sans double fault, match liable to be thoroughly server dominated. Mac doubles less, his doubles are more understandable and for Jimbo, generally double faults are very rare
Jimbo puts out his usual no-handovers showing, he probably wins comfily

Gist - Jimbo average, non-threatening serve that Mac returns normally, if not passively
Mac with a good, damaging serve that he serve-volleys behind and that Jimbo hammers
Both players double faulting to problematic extent
Statistical gist, freebies - Mac 35%, Jimbo 18%, double faults - Mac 6.3%, Jimbo 7.0%
Given match up, that’s not bad from Jimbo’s point of view

Play - Baseline & Net
Bulk of action is serve-volleying (virtually all of Mac’s service points and significant amount of Jimbo’s), with healthy baseline starting point too (most of Jimbo’s, near negligible Mac’s service points)

Much of baseline rallies end with someone approaching net. Usually Connors

Starting with pure baseline rallies -
Winners - both 4
Errors Forced - Jimbo 4, Mac 7
UEs - Jimbo 21, Mac 16

Dual winged action, Jimbo hitting hard off both wings, Mac at most counter-punching less strongly and often just pushing and poking balls back in play. Both move well and reach the wider shots. Moderate wide hitting from both players so rallies aren’t pure stationary cc exchanges

And Mac’s got better of it - winners equal, +3 forcing errors, +5 UEs (as in, he has fewer). Very good start for Mac, especially as he’s the one reacting, counter-punching and occasionally, downright defending more often

UEs make up biggest lot of point. All shots are clustered together
- Mac BH 7
- Jimbo BH 8
- Mac FH 9
- Jimbo FH 12
(Jimbo also has a strange BHV)

6/12 Jimbo’s match high FH UEs come in back to back service games where he’s broken both times to lose first set from a break up. They’re normal FHs, not against low balls. Call it a brief, bad phase (and a very costly one at that). Outside that brief phase, Jimbo’s FH as solidly reliable as any shot in the match. To be very accurate, the most reliable even

On the winners front, Mac very foolishly leaves one of Jimbo’s (its an aggressive shot that may well have forced an error had Mac not done so) and 1 of Mac’s is a return

Mac leading in errors forced is a surprise. While playing second fiddle, he’s apt to not-powerfully guide a ball dtl now and then. Jimbo usually upto making the get, but not always. 2-3 deep returns force errors too (which Jimbo can’t match as Mac serve-volleys). Action features moderate moving-each-other-around and enough power from Jimbo to make Mac think hard about trying to manufacture approach. Low FEs shows good hustle from both players, UEs aren’t too high. Quality fluctuates - the worst of of it is Jimbo’s FH mini-bender - but is never bad (other than the bender)

The main offence comes when someone takes net

Rallying to net -
- Jimbo 39/54 or 72%, Mac 12/25 or 48%

Where Jimbo flies ahead
Just 4 approach UEs from Jimbo (including 1 in the bad FH burst). For him in particularly, outstanding

2:1 gap in being able to get to net is best indicator of Jimbo having better of baseline rallies. He comes in in many ways. Rarely, after drawing soft return, mostly after mildly overpowering Mac, less often outmanuvering him and sometimes, just manufacturing approach from neutral position. He’s committed in his approaching and shows no signs of hesitating or being in 2-minds about it when he does come in. And he’s not in a rush either. Baseline exchanges are normal, not with Jimbo looking for chance to approach. Its beautifully done

Meanwhile, Jimbo’s power is deterrent to whatever net thirst Mac might have. He doesn’t show much proactive desire to get forward, and it would have to proactive for him to find net as he’s usually pinned back in rallies. He’s doing well in pure rallies and might reasonably expect Jimbo to make a mess of approach shots, so not a bad move to not take risks to make approaches (Jimbo’s passing being excellent, is another reason to forego low percentage, risky approaches)

At net, Jimbo wins 72% of 87 approaches, Mac 64% of 152

On the ‘volley’-
- Jimbo has 30 winners, 3 UEs, 3 FEs (excluding a baseline UE)
- Mac has 36 winners, 15 UEs, 13 FEs

On the pass in play (that is, sans returns)
- Jimbo has 12 winners (7 FH, 5 BH) to go with 20 FEs (8 FH, 12 BH)
- Mac has 8 winners (2 FH, 6 BH) to go with 23 FEs (7 FH, 16 BH)

(Jimbo also has 9 return winners, Mac 2)

Jimbo doing much, much better on both volley and pass. Its unreturned serves from serve-volleying that’s keeping Mac in contest

Jimbo’s approaches are good enough (at low cost of 5 UEs) to not give Mac good look on pass. And Jimbo volleys almost perfectly. The tough, low or/and wide stuff is angled away to open side of court at least, often to corner. Net high volleys are snapped to corners or for winners. Misses nothing easy. Both UEs come in last set, within period short period

Mac’s passing numbers aren’t bad, given not good looks. Even more so given Jimbo missing next to nothing at net while volleying with full authority. Not much for Mac to do. Most of his winners are low percentage shots that come off, particularly running BH cc’s. They’re the only looks he has. All credit to Jimbo’s net play for how that match up plays out - the approaching, the volleying and even the power baselining lead to the approaching - top drawer stuff here from Jimbo. For Mac, would probably have been better to throw up a few more lobs. He doesn’t have good looks at passes, so lob is a good option just for that reason

Jimbo generally not being the surest of smashers is another and Jimbo being near flawless on volley this day is a third. Just 2 OH winners from Jimbo and he has bad miss. Bad move from Mac to not test him more with lobs. What does he have to lose?

 

[Waspsting]

Jimbo wins 75% serve-volleying - even better than the 72% he has rallying to net

Serve-volleying success -
- Jimbo 1st serve - serve-volleying 22% of time, winning 80%
- Mac’s 1st serve - s/v’ng 100% of time, winning 72%
- Mac’s 2nd serve - s/v’ng 84% of time, winning 61%
- Jimbo 2nd serve - s/v’ng 13% of time, winning 57%

… where the gap in returning comes in. Mac returning just average of force and Jimbo still tip-top on the volley. Serve-volleying makes up 37% of Jimbo’s net points, with rest being approaches from rallies

80% of Mac’s net points are serve-volleys by contrast, and he’s got small 6% return-approaching

Great contest between Mac serve vs Jimbo return. High quality of placement, pace and variety from Mac as the 19 aces testify to and 56% in count is good for him. Jimbo clobbers everything in sight as is his way and 63% return rate at that calibre force against such calibre serves is good for him too

35% unreturneds, with all return errors drawn by serve-volleying is Mac’s cushion before the volley vs return-pass contest starts

36 ‘volley’ winners, 15 UEs and 13 FEs for Mac
8 return-pass winners, 36 return errors for Jimbo
12 regular pass winners, 20 passing FEs, 1 UE at net

Mac volleys are beautiful, angling away winners and corner volleys against heavy power. Even regulation height volleys leave him no excess time to volley. Moves nicely for the wide ones and there are plenty of them
13 FEs is acceptable given what he’s up against.
The 15 UEs is only problematic piece. Few not-easy ones in there (good height around the net and well covered by Mac, but powerful, so reaction type deals), but still UEs

Credit also to Jimbo’s power. ‘Regulation volley’ faced by Mac involves handling pace. The ‘regulation volleys’ Jimbo faces are comfy by comparison. That’s all about the power difference on pass between the two

Jimbo’s FH pass having the best of it with 7 winners, 8 FEs (BH has 5 and 12) and related, Mac’s FHV coming under particular fire (has 9 FEs to 4 for BHV, with UEs split across the two)

Match Progression
Jimbo’s on fire to start the match as he breaks to 15, holds to 15, stretches a fully strained Mac to 12 point hold and then holds to love. 3-1 Jimbo

Clean hit, hammered returns, more of the same on follow up pass. Taking net early or serve-volleying and flawless at net. Mac’s low in count helps. Mac stays back in first game of match itself
Blasted wide, low return forces FHV first point, and Jimbo follows up with BH cc pass winner. Mac’s spooked enough to stay back off what turns out to be last point of game, but makes a third ball BH UE

Not a bad start for Mac returning either as he stretches out to guide a FH inside-out return pass winner first point, but Jimbo takes net early rest of game and is flawless there. Lots of tough volleys for Mac (and 4 volley FEs) to make after that to hold after saving 2 break points. Jimbo conolidates to love - 3 successful net points and passes Mac FH inside-out on the other point

3-1 Jimbo and he’s won 17 points (Mac 9), serving 9 of them

And that’s the last game Jimbo wins for the set. His FH goes off and gives up 6 UEs for rest of set
Horrendous game by Jimbo to be broken to love and move set back to 3-3, with 3 FH UEs - a regulation third ball, one against a slice and one approach attempt
He’s broken again next go-around, with the ground UEs coming out of long rallies and Mac holding up silkily. Mac also landing 2 brilliant, unlikley BH cc pass winners and nifty BHOH. And he serves out to 30

Jimbo holds to open the 2nd set and then there are 3 breaks in a row
2 passing winners (BH inside-in return and FH cc) from Jimbo, a double fault and a routine BHV miss by Mac make it 2-0
More ground UEs from Jimbo, along with a bad OH UE hand break back
Lobs that send Mac back to baseline and a thumped BH return that yields a feet level, wide volley that Mac can’t handle put Jimbo back up a break

In time, Jimbo serves out to 30 in probably most important game of the match. Mac misses 2 OHs - 1 not easy but very much a UE, the second as easy as can be. With Jimbo throwing in a double fault, that game could very easily go the other way, and Mac blowing it is better description of than Jimbo winning it

Jimbo breaks to love to open the third set also - again with 2 winning returns (including a runaround BH return) and Mac double faulting and missing routine BHV
He has a tough time holding onto the break, with is first 2 service games lasting 10 and 12 points (2 break points in the latter). On second break point, Mac plays it safe on the smash by allowing ball to bounce and moving just behind the service line, but misses again.

Jimbo responds by attacking net more and holds more comfily to reach 5-4 and serve for the set
Another horror game from Jimbo to lose the would-be serve out. Approach UE and third ball BH UE set him down 0-30, and after getting level at 30-30, he double faults twice in a row - and set is back on serve at 5-5
Jimbo’s in trouble in last regular game too, with Mac winning 3 net points and taking game to deuce before Jimbo comes away with hold

Tiebreak. Forced back from net Mac pulls off brilliant FH dtl pass winner to start, and Jimbo misses a winner attempt FH dtl third ball to go down 0-2. 3/4 Mac’s remaining serves are unreturned and Jimbo double faults. 7-2 Mac, 2 sets to 1 Mac

Set 4 goes to tiebreak too and there are no breaks. Both returners conjure chances though
To hold 6 times, Jimbo serves 44 points, Mac 38
Break points for set - both 0/2 (1 game)

Opening game is a 16 point hold for Jimbo. He needs a net chord dribbling first volley winner serve-volleying off a second a serve to save first break point. Deals with the second more convincingly - a strong third ball BH cc approach and putting away high BHV rejoinder

Mac’s trail comes in game 6, which lasts 12 points, with Jimbo firing heavy returns and passes. Mac stays back on the first break point, and finds a winning FH dtl in the baseline rally. Jimbo comes away with BHV winner in a nose-to-nose battle at net; they’re close enough to kiss (or head butt) one another. Good, back-pedalling OH winner by Mac to save second break point before going on to hold

Tiebreak, after Mac’s had better of the set. Jimbo serves his very best in it, while Mac eases up on the first shot.
Jimbo’s got stable look at pass against chip-charging Mac, but misses for Mac to mini-break for 3-2. Jimbo strikes right back with another net-to-net BHV winner after forcing a first 1/2volley with the return for 3-3

2 good first serves from Jimbo to stay up 5-4
Powerful return draws a FHV error from Mac. Its been marked UE, its on tough side by that standard, well struck, slightly under net. Both this first serve and the earlier one that led to net-to-net BHV winner for Jimbo are in swing zone ones

The latest mini is enough for Jimbo as he finishes with a bad bouncing service winner to wrap up. Bad bounce is what makes it unreturnable, but was a good, strong wide serve that he was serve-volleying behind and would very likely have won him the point regardless of bounce

Jimbo breaks for 2-1 early in the fifth. It’s a bad game by Mac - double fault, BHV UE against firm return, easy FHV miss he was trying to drop set uhim down 15-40. Jimbo nail BH inside-in return pass winner couple points later to finish

Mac’s in count drops to match worst 13/29 for the set. He has to save a break point next go around too, despite making 6/8 first serves. Jimbo for his part continues to use net well. He makes his only 2 volley UEs for the match (1 low-ish, 1 genuinely easy), and so good has he been on the full that it comes as a huge surprise. Not double faulting (bar once at 40-0 with 3 match points) is more important for him, in light of how match has gone

Mac gets to 30 in 3 successive return games, a step behind being a threat. Earlyin game 8, he foolishly leaves a ball that through for a winner. He thinks ball was out (or pretends to in berating the chair). Chalk flying up seems to have escaped his notice. Chip-charge returns on last 2 points of the game, only to have FH dtl and BH dtl/inside-out at net pass winners knocked back past him

In due time, 2 serve-volleys and a groundstroke to baseline get Jimbo to 40-0 and 3 match points. Double faults the first away, but bad bounce helps his serve-volley force return error point after to end the match

Summing up, not a flawless match but a great one. Jimmy Connors in particular is fantastic. Pounded powerful returns and follow-up passes is high quality but normal enough for him and its his power-hitting + approach + net game that stands out as high point of match

Strong groundies that has relegates opponent to counter-punching
Choosily picking his approaches - neither in a hurray, nor reluctant to get to net - and very good approach shots, with barely an error
And virtually perfect volleying - the tough ones are angled to corners or sides of court, most anything else is putaway, with barely a miss

McEnroe with his usual serve-volleying. Its met with blistering, power returns, but he’s upto handling the volleys most of the time and still wins more than he loses even when return comes back. Volleys beautifully and decisively into corners, not much to be done against the just too-hot returns, but unlike opponent, does miss fair few routine volleys or/and hard hit but at comfortable height ones
From the baseline, he hangs in and is more consistent of shot and occasionally pinches attacking dtl shots while being outhit, but has little scope to take net

On down side, lots of double faults from both players, and a few bad games by servers to get broken. Connors’ serve is ordinary, room for McEnroe to have returned it with more authority. McEnroe persisting with bad-look passes (against near flawless volleying) instead of throwing up lobs probably not best move

 

[WCT]

Thanks for doing this match. I did it a long time ago. Might have been up to 15 years ago, but condensed stats. Net, unreturned serves and Connors s/v totals. We did have the same unreturned serve numbers.

Interesting that you didn't think that Connors was serving much bigger than normal. That being the case 62% and 13 df is not good. Well, you never see that many doubles fron him. I suppose the wind might have been a factor.

Ive been tempted over the years to do more complete stats first and foremost to see Connors ue volley. Im glad to see your stats baclk up my memory. Said it many times over the years. Bud Collins wanted to rant about Connors volleying better, certainly versus the last couple Wimbledons, be my guest. But to insist he had somehow discovered the net in 82 was ridiculous. So many matches he was at the net a higher % of the total points. Absolutely no denying, though, this is the best he volleyed in the 4 matches.

This match is the lowest % of the 4 Mcenroe matches. It's also the lowest unreturned % of his serve in the 4 matches. Again , I'm a bit surprised at your take on his serve. Been so long since I looked at this match, but I seem to remember that he was serving bigger. Certainly not way bigger, but bigger. Same with Queens where I know he s/v a much higher % of the time.

As always, you chart these matches in such intricate detail that you point out things I hadn't noticed. Like Connors serving so much to the Mcenroe fh or how infrequently Mcenroe lobbed.

All I can tell you is I waited a long time to see this guy win Wimbledon again. I had my doubts it would ever happen. Would it have happened if Borg hung around? I'll guess we'll never know.

 

[jrepac]

Great details.....thanks. I've seen this one in its entirety twice...when it aired and then when I got it on VHS. Have watched bits and pieces since. I just remember the extreme tension of it...blown chances by Connors (might he have won in straights?) and Mac being just a few points from winning in the 4th w/Connors somehow snatching it away. By the 5th, you just got a sense that Mac was a bit dispirited...when Jimmy took that break, I figured that was going to be it...and it was. Connors was pretty amazing that day. A messy match in many ways, but super exciting and was the longest final for several years until Becker-Edberg.

 

[WCT]

Great details.....thanks. I've seen this one in its entirety twice...when it aired and then when I got it on VHS. Have watched bits and pieces since. I just remember the extreme tension of it...blown chances by Connors (might he have won in straights?) and Mac being just a few points from winning in the 4th w/Connors somehow snatching it away. By the 5th, you just got a sense that Mac was a bit dispirited...when Jimmy took that break, I figured that was going to be it...and it was. Connors was pretty amazing that day. A messy match in many ways, but super exciting and was the longest final for several years until Becker-Edberg.

You use the word messy. Ashe was interviewed not long after the match and he didn't think it was particularly well played. While I thought that was overstating it, 13 doubles is way more than you'd ever expect. Still, that is only 1 aspect of the game.

I don't know where you get Connors blowing the 1st set. Losing a 2-0 or 3-1 lead is not my idea of blowing the set. That is what Connors did in the 1st. I have never thought back on this match thinking if only that Connors could have won in straight sets. This wasn't that type of match. This was an either player could have won with a change of a couple points.

 

[Waspsting]

Interesting that you didn't think that Connors was serving much bigger than normal.

I really don't. I've heard all about it, Connors' serve improved in 1982... and really don't see it

He's got 18% unreturned serves here, no aces

Other matches from this year -
- '81 Masters vs Mac (which I think was played in January '82?) - 11%
- '82 Philly vs Mac 3%
- Queen's Club vs Mac 27%, 1 ace (lot of serve-volleying there, more than here)
- Richmond exho vs Borg 11%, 1 ace
- US Open vs Lendl 19%, 3 aces
- San Francisco vs Mac 8%
- Masters vs Lendl 19%, 3 aces

... other Wimby showings vs Mac
- '80 - 23%, 1 ace
- '84 - 24%

Stats aside, I thought his best serving was in '80, where he has Mac moving around to return. Little of that here

If there's a standout area to serve, its how often Mac gets himself cramped when playing runaround FH return
Its only occasional, but match-up norm is basically 0. Still makes the return virtually always
That'd be in line with high double faults, and going for bigger second serves... but I didn't see it that way. Just thought Mac was under-par in moving around for them, and double faults were just plain old bad serving

The serving to Mac's FH thing... to keep Mac from chip-charging? No, because he serves to BH readily on second serves, hence the 20 runaround FH returns and also, I haven't seen any wooden racquet matches of Mac where he's eagerly chip-charging
Vitas Gerulaitis did so to almost all of Lendl's second serves in '81 Masters, so there's at least one instance of someone doing it
But Mac, no. Only rare, choice chip-charge returns. Completely different from '83-'85 with graphite

Do you know one of the most baffling things about Connors? How is it he's able to return more powerfully and better on this typical slick grass court than those much slower and perfeclty reliable bouncing courts in rest of '82

...to see Connors ue volley. Im glad to see your stats baclk up my memory

'beautiful' is not a word I associate much with Connors, but it comes to mind for his net play here
Stress on 'net play', not just 'volleying'
The ways he's at ease on baseline, not pointedly looking to come in (and doing enough to discourage Mac from)
The way he approaches. Bit of everything - overpower and come in off short ball, manufacture approach from neutral position, come in off third ball, serve-volley
And the the capper, the way he volleys. Harder stuff into corners, normal stuff putaway - almost no misses

Borg could be very solid on volley, but wasn't so decisive. Others are decisive but miss good few
Almost perfect from Jimbo here

A messy match in many ways, but super exciting and was the longest final for several years until Becker-Edberg.

I was expecting messier, based on what you and WCT have told me about this match

Where it is a bit messy is the breaks tend to come from poor play by server. Both of them. But of course, there aren't many breaks
Compare to '80 final, which is as messy, but breaks (and resisting being broken) tend to be high quality

Are you sure it was longest final until Becker-Edberg? Assuming your referring to 1990, that would surprise me

Longer match here, more games, more points, healthy lot of good lenght baseline rallies
1990 was an extremely fluent match and all serve-volley. Neither players dawdling between points. How could it be longer?

...blown chances by Connors (might he have won in straights?) and Mac being just a few points from winning in the 4th w/Connors somehow snatching it away

I don't know where you get Connors blowing the 1st set. Losing a 2-0 or 3-1 lead is not my idea of blowing the set.

I think possible straight sets for Jimbo is plausible

He's playing absolutely pefectly to reach 3-1, Mac survives it not being 4-0 by skin of his teeth
With Jimbo, I see him playing perfectly and feel this can't last
Horrendous game to get broken for 3-3

Wins second set, serves for third set, when he's broken playing another horrendous game out of the blue (this time, not against a zoning background)

Progression of this match is maybe unique. Though winning bulk of points, Mac's up a break for 1 game all match (just before he serves out first set)
Jimbo's up a break most of the match by contrast - breaks first chance in 3/5 sets, and second chance once

 

[jrepac]

You use the word messy. Ashe was interviewed not long after the match and he didn't think it was particularly well played. While I thought that was overstating it, 13 doubles is way more than you'd ever expect. Still, that is only 1 aspect of the game.

I don't know where you get Connors blowing the 1st set. Losing a 2-0 or 3-1 lead is not my idea of blowing the set. That is what Connors did in the 1st. I have never thought back on this match thinking if only that Connors could have won in straight sets. This wasn't that type of match. This was an either player could have won with a change of a couple points.

Well, blowing it is a bit extreme...but he did seem to lose his serve in those sets where he was ahead, which made me crazy. There was a lot of quality shotmaking in this match, recounted above, despite the somewhat erratic nature of things. You never quite knew who was in control, because it kept shifting along the say, pretty much until that 5th set when Jimmy got that break. Something felt different at that point, Mac seemed to lose some mojo after losing the 4th. I found it much more exciting than the USO final that year, which was more "hammer and tongs" between Jimmy and Ivan. Probably better played, but not such a level of tension, IMHO.

 

[jrepac]

here's a list from the Open era of the longest matches.....I must be mistaken about Becker-Edberg....or this is not accurate?

2009 Wimbledon Roger Federer d. Andy Roddick 5-7, 7-6(6), 7-6(5), 3-6, 16-14 (77)
2019 Wimbledon Novak Djokovic d. Roger Federer 7-6(5), 1-6, 7-6(4), 4-6, 13-12 (68)
2008 Wimbledon Rafael Nadal d. Roger Federer 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-7(8), 9-7 (62)
2014 Wimbledon Novak Djokovic d. Roger Federer 6-7(7), 6-4, 7-6(4), 5-7, 6-4 (58)
1980 Wimbledon Bjorn Borg d. John McEnroe 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7(16), 8-6 (55)
1982 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors d. John McEnroe 3-6, 6-3, 6-7(2), 7-6(5), 6-4 (54)
1998 Wimbledon Pete Sampras d. Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(2), 7-6(9), 6-4, 3-6, 6-2 (53)
2007 Wimbledon Roger Federer d. Rafael Nadal 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2 (52)
2001 Wimbledon Goran Ivanisevic d. Patrick Rafter 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 2-6, 9-7 (51)
1972 Wimbledon Stan Smith d. Ilie Nastase 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5 (50)

 

[WCT]

I really don't. I've heard all about it, Connors' serve improved in 1982... and really don't see it

He's got 18% unreturned serves here, no aces

Other matches from this year -
- '81 Masters vs Mac (which I think was played in January '82?) - 11%
- '82 Philly vs Mac 2%
- Queen's Club vs Mac 27%, 1 ace (lot of serve-volleying there, more than here)
- Richmond exho vs Borg 11%, 1 ace
- US Open vs Lendl 19%, 3 aces
- San Francisco vs Mac 8%
- Masters vs Lendl 19%, 3 aces

... other Wimby showings vs Mac
- '80 - 23%, 1 ace
- '84 - 24%

Stats aside, I thought his best serving was in '80, where he has Mac moving around to return. Little of that here

If there's a standout area to serve, its how often Mac gets himself cramped when playing runaround FH return
Its only occasional, but match-up norm is basically 0. Still makes the return virtually always
That'd be in line with high double faults, and going for bigger second serves... but I didn't see it that way. Just thought Mac was under-par in moving around for them, and double faults were just plain old bad serving

The serving to Mac's FH thing... to keep Mac from chip-charging? No, because he serves to BH readily on second serves, hence the 20 runaround FH returns and also, I haven't seen any wooden racquet matches of Mac where he's eagerly chip-charging
Vitas Gerulaitis did so to almost all of Lendl's second serves in '81 Masters, so there's at least one instance of someone doing it
But Mac, no. Only rare, choice chip-charge returns. Completely different from '83-'85 with graphite

Do you know one of the most baffling things about Connors? How is it he's able to return more powerfully and better on this typical slick grass court than those much slower and perfeclty reliable bouncing courts in rest of '82


'beautiful' is not a word I associate much with Connors, but it comes to mind for his net play here
Stress on 'net play', not just 'volleying'
The ways he's at ease on baseline, not pointedly looking to come in (and doing enough to discourage Mac from)
The way he approaches. Bit of everything - overpower and come in off short ball, manufacture approach from neutral position, come in off third ball, serve-volley
And the the capper, the way he volleys. Harder stuff into corners, normal stuff putaway - almost no misses

Borg could be very solid on volley, but wasn't so decisive. Others are decisive but miss good few
Almost perfect from Jimbo here


I was expecting messier, based on what you and WCT have told me about this match

Where it is a bit messy is the breaks tend to come from poor play by server. Both of them. But of course, there aren't many breaks
Compare to '80 final, which is as messy, but breaks (and resisting being broken) tend to be high quality

Are you sure it was longest final until Becker-Edberg? Assuming your referring to 1990, that would surprise me

Longer match here, more games, more points, healthy lot of good lenght baseline rallies
1990 was an extremely fluent match and all serve-volley. Neither players dawdling between points. How could it be longer?




I think possible straight sets for Jimbo is plausible

He's playing absolutely pefectly to reach 3-1, Mac survives it not being 4-0 by skin of his teeth
With Jimbo, I see him playing perfectly and feel this can't last
Horrendous game to get broken for 3-3

Wins second set, serves for third set, when he's broken playing another horrendous game out of the blue (this time, not against a zoning background)

Progression of this match is maybe unique. Though winning bulk of points, Mac's up a break for 1 game all match (just before he serves out first set)
Jimbo's up a break most of the match by contrast - breaks first chance in 3/5 sets, and second chance once

Only 2% unreturned in Phily 82? I saw your thread on that match, but didn't remember it being that low. I remember at the time thinking he was serving a bit bigger. To me, looking at aces is not that key. If Connors has no aces or 2 aces, how much difference is that. Unreturned serves, I think, is more relevent. Obviously, though, some days the player doesn't return as well. You just did this match and didn't think he moved Mcenroe around much and I haven't seen the entire thing in years. I'll take your word for it.

However, even though I haven't seen it in so long, Connors is not coming in as quickly as he was in 74-75. And I mean s/v aside. I mean in the rallies. There are a good number of balls he could have come in on and most certainly would have in that era.
I would lay odds that rewatching this match would not change my mind. Mind you, he still came in a bunch. He's not adverse to coming in, just AS aggressive about it.

I always thought Connors was a more decisive volleyer than Borg where Borg didn't miss as many. Connors is VERY decisive when volleying well. Segura, in that book I keep referencing, said that Connors and Bewcombe had the most aggressive forehand volleys in tennis.

This is footage I wish would show up one day. After the 2 mens semis at the 78 US Open. Newcombe and Trabert on the final. Trabert said a lot of the second chances that Gerulaitis was giving Borg to pass him, Connors wouldn't. That he volleyed more decisively than Gerulaitis.

Obviously, the quality of the approach is a big factor. Connors' were much more penetrating than Vitas'. Good approaches or not, in this match, Connors' net winners vs net ue is, I'd guess, as high as I've ever seen it.

I don't dispute the 3rd set. He served for it and lost. In my mind, that is more fitting of had the set. 3-1 in a set, not foir me. But I don't remember details like the terrible game he played to lose his serve..

 

[WCT]

I forgot to address Wasp's point about the seeming contradiction in surfaces. How Connors is having more success vs Mcenroe on grass vs a surface that has a truer bounce. I have mused on that in the past. In theory, indoors would seem to serve him better.

Connors, like Agassi, could really return on grass unlike, IMO, Lendl. Something in their stroke mechanics, I'd imagine. In this match, though, it was as much about Connors holding serve. He was only broken 3 times in 5 long sets. I think, at Queens, Connors broke Mcenroe 4 times in 2 sets. 4 breaks in 5 long sets is not a ton by Connors standards..

 

[Waspsting]

here's a list from the Open era of the longest matches.....I must be mistaken about Becker-Edberg....or this is not accurate?

2009 Wimbledon Roger Federer d. Andy Roddick 5-7, 7-6(6), 7-6(5), 3-6, 16-14 (77)
2019 Wimbledon Novak Djokovic d. Roger Federer 7-6(5), 1-6, 7-6(4), 4-6, 13-12 (68)
2008 Wimbledon Rafael Nadal d. Roger Federer 6-4, 6-4, 6-7(5), 6-7(8), 9-7 (62)
2014 Wimbledon Novak Djokovic d. Roger Federer 6-7(7), 6-4, 7-6(4), 5-7, 6-4 (58)
1980 Wimbledon Bjorn Borg d. John McEnroe 1-6, 7-5, 6-3, 6-7(16), 8-6 (55)
1982 Wimbledon Jimmy Connors d. John McEnroe 3-6, 6-3, 6-7(2), 7-6(5), 6-4 (54)
1998 Wimbledon Pete Sampras d. Goran Ivanisevic 6-7(2), 7-6(9), 6-4, 3-6, 6-2 (53)
2007 Wimbledon Roger Federer d. Rafael Nadal 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2 (52)
2001 Wimbledon Goran Ivanisevic d. Patrick Rafter 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 2-6, 9-7 (51)
1972 Wimbledon Stan Smith d. Ilie Nastase 4-6, 6-3, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5 (50)

That list looks like its 'longest' by games played, which is easily verfiable and '90 final isnt close with 44 games
I thought you meant 'longest' by time? - I'd be surprised if such a polished, fluent match as '90 took more time than this '82 one

Edberg and Boris are either putting perfect volleys away or knocking perfect passes away. Its like there's nothing else going on but one of those
Here, lots of stuff going on - regular and not short baseline rallies and good as volleying is, its not '90 final calibre fluent. Leaving aside 10 more games here

Only 2% unreturned in Phily 82? I saw your thread on that match, but didn't remember it being that low

It was 3% and raw unreturned was 2. My mistake, correcting it in the post where I listed it
But yeah, you look at that and hear about 'improved serve' and wonder, ok, so what kind of numbers was he posting before the improvement? How can it be lower than 3%?

If Connors has no aces or 2 aces, how much difference is that. Unreturned serves, I think, is more relevent. Obviously, though, some days the player doesn't return as well. You just did this match and didn't think he moved Mcenroe around much and I haven't seen the entire thing in years. I'll take your word for it.

I agree unreturneds are more important, but if ace stats are known, they do add to the picture
Unreturneds might be influenced by returner having off day, but if you see a guy has a lot of aces, its usually safe to attribute it to the serve quality, not return

Its a little surprising to see Lendl having considerably lower return rates than Mac in these matches + being aced more
Mac's always read Connors' serve like a book

I always thought Connors was a more decisive volleyer than Borg...

By 3 country miles

...where Borg didn't miss as many.

... oh Borg could be sloppy on the volley, though rarely in Wimby final (funnily enough, his worst is the '80 final, for all the hype around it)
I was thinking of the '77 final, where Borg literally had 0 volley UEs, over 5 sets, while serve-volleying off most first serves. That's astounding and comparable to Connors here
But he was just putting a lot of volleys in play anyway how there. Here, every volleys of Jimbo's is with pointed, finishing intent

Even the tough or not-easy stuff that's some combo of low or wide. Angles them towards corners while stretched out
Borg often wouldn't even volley medium paced, above net high stuff that aggressively

I think possible straight sets for Jimbo is plausible

I don't dispute the 3rd set. He served for it and lost. In my mind, that is more fitting of had the set. 3-1 in a set, not foir me. But I don't remember details like the terrible game he played to lose his serve..

There is just as plausible an opening for Mac winning in 3

Of course, he wins 2 of 3 first sets. On the serve out of the one he doesn't, Jimbo double faults and Mac misses 2 smashes. He makes those and all other things being equal, score is 30-40 break point

Its not a simple match. With Jimbo up breaks all the time and playing terrible games to hand back breaks, Mac winning in 3 would have felt like Jimbo big time blowing it

In that way, this match isn't unlike many close 3 set grass matches, where one feels it could have been straight sets the other way
Both guys with plausible alternative paths to straigt set wins, it not being dependent on big serving, and match going 5 high quality but flawed sets. Great stuff of both tennis and storyline

Its many of the breaks being product of bad service games that's maybe set its reputation back
'80 final is about as flawed, but there, the tense moments see both players rise to top of their games

 

[jrepac]

I forgot to address Wasp's point about the seeming contradiction in surfaces. How Connors is having more success vs Mcenroe on grass vs a surface that has a truer bounce. I have mused on that in the past. In theory, indoors would seem to serve him better.

Connors, like Agassi, could really return on grass unlike, IMO, Lendl. Something in their stroke mechanics, I'd imagine. In this match, though, it was as much about Connors holding serve. He was only broken 3 times in 5 long sets. I think, at Queens, Connors broke Mcenroe 4 times in 2 sets. 4 breaks in 5 long sets is not a ton by Connors standards..

I"ve pointed out this apparent contradiction many times....Mac is considered a grass GOAT, yet Connors more than held his own against him. Whereas Connors, who is viewed more as a hard court GOAT, has a losing record vs. Mac on that surface. Folks want to write it off to Queens being different. Maybe, but I think there is more to it. With half his GS wins being on grass, he was more formiddable than people care to believe (or remember). Perhaps his great eye hand coordination, along w/the returns, allowing him to deal w/the uneven bounces effectively? Truth being told, he was in more GS finals on grass than any other surface, if I'm counting correctly....4 wins plus losses to Newk, Ashe, Borg (2) and Mac...that's 9 finals on the turf. That's a lot.

 

[Galvermegs]

I"ve pointed out this apparent contradiction many times....Mac is considered a grass GOAT, yet Connors more than held his own against him. Whereas Connors, who is viewed more as a hard court GOAT, has a losing record vs. Mac on that surface. Folks want to write it off to Queens being different. Maybe, but I think there is more to it. With half his GS wins being on grass, he was more formiddable than people care to believe (or remember). Perhaps his great eye hand coordination, along w/the returns, allowing him to deal w/the uneven bounces effectively? Truth being told, he was in more GS finals on grass than any other surface, if I'm counting correctly....4 wins plus losses to Newk, Ashe, Borg (2) and Mac...that's 9 finals on the turf. That's a lot.

Lets not forget the us open took some time to switch to hardcourt and by then connors was slowly giving way to other top contenders. But at least he won on all 3 surfaces at the event.. a pretty special feat.

 

[jrepac]

Lets not forget the us open took some time to switch to hardcourt and by then connors was slowly giving way to other top contenders. But at least he won on all 3 surfaces at the event.. a pretty special feat.

Agreed....that will stand the test of time.

 

[WCT]

That list looks like its 'longest' by games played, which is easily verfiable and '90 final isnt close with 44 games
I thought you meant 'longest' by time? - I'd be surprised if such a polished, fluent match as '90 took more time than this '82 one

Edberg and Boris are either putting perfect volleys away or knocking perfect passes away. Its like there's nothing else going on but one of those
Here, lots of stuff going on - regular and not short baseline rallies and good as volleying is, its not '90 final calibre fluent. Leaving aside 10 more games here


It was 3% and raw unreturned was 2. My mistake, correcting it in the post where I listed it
But yeah, you look at that and hear about 'improved serve' and wonder, ok, so what kind of numbers was he posting before the improvement? How can it be lower than 3%?


I agree unreturneds are more important, but if ace stats are known, they do add to the picture
Unreturneds might be influenced by returner having off day, but if you see a guy has a lot of aces, its usually safe to attribute it to the serve quality, not return

Its a little surprising to see Lendl having considerably lower return rates than Mac in these matches + being aced more
Mac's always read Connors' serve like a book


By 3 country miles


... oh Borg could be sloppy on the volley, though rarely in Wimby final (funnily enough, his worst is the '80 final, for all the hype around it)
I was thinking of the '77 final, where Borg literally had 0 volley UEs, over 5 sets, while serve-volleying off most first serves. That's astounding and comparable to Connors here
But he was just putting a lot of volleys in play anyway how there. Here, every volleys of Jimbo's is with pointed, finishing intent

Even the tough or not-easy stuff that's some combo of low or wide. Angles them towards corners while stretched out
Borg often wouldn't even volley medium paced, above net high stuff that aggressively




There is just as plausible an opening for Mac winning in 3

Of course, he wins 2 of 3 first sets. On the serve out of the one he doesn't, Jimbo double faults and Mac misses 2 smashes. He makes those and all other things being equal, score is 30-40 break point

Its not a simple match. With Jimbo up breaks all the time and playing terrible games to hand back breaks, Mac winning in 3 would have felt like Jimbo big time blowing it

In that way, this match isn't unlike many close 3 set grass matches, where one feels it could have been straight sets the other way
Both guys with plausible alternative paths to straigt set wins, it not being dependent on big serving, and match going 5 high quality but flawed sets. Great stuff of both tennis and storyline

Its many of the breaks being product of bad service games that's maybe set its reputation back
'80 final is about as flawed, but there, the tense moments see both players rise to top of their games

In 77 Borg had zero ue volley errors in 5 sets??? Damn. I obviously looked at your stats for that match a long time ago, but that isn't a stat I should forget. Undecisive volleying or not if the player s/v a lot. 5 sets is a lot of volleys.

Want to see some decisive Borg volleying, check the 81 semi. He makes some beautiful low, firm backhand volleys. Mind you, I said some, not a lot.

I agree that aces can certainly tell a story, I just think much with Connors. 2 aces versus no aces is a lot different than the bigger servers. The 82 conversation about Connors' serve started with Queens. And, correct or incorrect, there was a bunch of it from broadcast and print media. I remember it.

Let's face it, even by Connors' standards, 3% is low. That is unusually low for him although he certainly had some of them. I did a 1977 Nastase partial, on an indoor court, where he had none unreturned in 47 serves.