Match Stats/Report - Connors vs Tanner, Wembley final, 1976

[Waspsting]

Jimmy Connors beat Roscoe Tanner 3-6, 7-6(6), 6-4 in the Wembley final, 1976 on carpet

It was the first time the tournament was held since 1971. Connors had recently won the US Open. The two players had met at Wimbledon in the quarter-final earlier in the year with Tanner winning

Connors won 104 points, Tanner 111

Tanner serve-volleyed off all but 1 serve (a second serve)

Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (90/117) 77%
- 1st serve points won (59/90) 66%
- 2nd serve points won (16/27) 59%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (18/117) 15%

Tanner...
- 1st serve percentage (52/98) 53%
- 1st serve points won (42/52) 81%
- 2nd serve points won (24/46) 52%
- Aces 18, Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (39/98) 40%

Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 26%
- to BH 67%
- to Body 7%

Tanner served...
- to FH 32%
- to BH 66%
- to Body 2%

Return Stats
Connors made...
- 57 (15 FH, 42 BH)
- 3 Winners (1 FH, 2 BH)
- 20 Errors, all forced...
- 20 Forced (3 FH, 17 BH)
- Return Rate (57/96) 59%

Tanner made...
- 97 (26 FH, 71 BH), including 4 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 16 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (4 FH, 6 BH)
- 6 Forced (5 FH, 1 BH)
- Return Rate (97/115) 84%

Break Points
Connors 1/4 (2 games)
Tanner 1/9 (4 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 29 (9 FH, 6 BH, 7 FHV, 3 BHV, 4 OH)
Tanner 30 (2 FH, 4 BH, 8 FHV, 7 BHV, 9 OH)

Connors' had 13 passes - 3 returns (1 FH, 2 BH) & 10 regular (6 FH, 4 BH)
- FH return - 1 dtl
- BH returns - 1 cc and 1 inside-out
- regular FHs - 3 cc (1 at net) and 3 dtl
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl and 1 inside-out/dtl

- 5 from serve-volley points
- 4 first volleys (1 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 1 second volley (1 OH)

- 1 other OH was hit on the full from closer to baseline than service line, a forced back net point

Tanner had 20 from serve-volley points
- 7 first volleys (3 FHV, 3 BHV, 1 OH)
- 11 second 'volleys' (4 FHV, 1 BHV, 6 OH)... 2 OHs were on the bounce - 1 at net, 1 from behind the service line (marked a retreated net point)
- 1 fourth 'volley' (1 OH)... on the bounce from behind service line (marked a retreated net point)
- 1 re-approach volley (1 OH)

- 2 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 1 BHV), the FHV was a forced back + re-approach net point

- FHs - 2 dtl (1 pass)
- BHs - 1 dtl pass, 1 inside-out/dtl pass, 1 drop shot and 1 net chord dribbler return

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 40
- 20 Unforced (9 FH, 7 BH, 2 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 20 Forced (11 FH, 6 BH, 2 FHV, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 47

Tanner 55
- 27 Unforced (9 FH, 9 BH, 2 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 OH)... with 1 BH at net
- 28 Forced (9 FH, 11 BH, 2 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 Over-the-Shoulder)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50.0

(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...
- 34/46 (74%) at net, including...
- 8/10 (80%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 5/6 (83%) off 1st serve and...
- 3/4 (75%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/1 forced back

Tanner was...
- 59/94 (63%) at net, including...
- 50/76 (66%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 26/33 (79%) off first serve and...
- 24/43 (56%) off 2nd serve
---
- 3/4 (75%) return-approaching
- 4/8 (50%) forced back/retreated

Match Report
A fine match, highly competitive and very interesting (and flawed) of strategy and tactics. Tanner has the better of thing overall and over most of the match and Connors needs to find better ways of doing things to come out of the hairy situations that puts him in. The court is slow-ish, but with low bounce

Play varies across all the sets. The one constant is Tanner serve-volleying. He only desists on first point of the match (where he comes in off the third ball). That aside, at different periods of the match, Tanner’s creatively attacking from the back or passively reactive, Connors is looking to come to net or staying camped on baseline, Tanner looking to approach or not, Connors hammering returns or somewhat under/side-spinning the second shot

Tanner wins 51.6% of the points while serving 45.6% of them
Break points - Jimbo 1/4 (2 games), Tanner 1/9 (4 games)

Tanner particularly has better of first two sets.

In first, he holds comfortably 5 times, faces no break points and is taken to deuce just once

Jimbo’s broken to 30 in a poor game and faces break points in 2 others

No breaks in the second set, Tanner isn’t even taken to deuce in his 6 holds. Jimbo matches the 6 holds, but is taken to deuce 3 times, including an 18 point game where he saves 5 break points (including being down 0-40)

Tanner serves 30 points for his 6 holds, Jimbo 51

Excellent breaker from Jimbo to snatch the set, where he turns to serve-volleying regularly for the first time

Third set is close to even, with Jimbo having better of it. He has his first break points in the opening game, where Tanner proves just as resourceful as Jimbo had been in the 18 pointer the set before to hold. The break eventually comes to leave Jimbo 2 more holds away from the finish line, which he manages. Tanner has better of first set by a greater degree than Jimbo does the third

And how does action vary across the match?

In first set, Connors… does nothing, basically. Serves harmlessly and then hits neutral groundies from the back. Doesn’t serve-volley at all and doesn’t actively look for net

He’s at net 7 times in the set. As opposed to 39 in the next 2

Baseline rallies become lively because of Tanner hitting wide angles and dtl shots to open the court and get Jimbo running, from where Jimbo uses said angles too. Jimbo struggles some against Tanner’s ground-clinging BH slice shots

Jimbo’s returning is unusual of style and I’ve never seen him return in this way before. With Tanner having a low-in count and most of his first serves going for aces, vast bulk of serve-volley rallies are off Tanner’s second serves

It’s a swervy serve. Jimbo’s modus operandi for returning serve-volleyers (for that matter, baseliners too) is to hammer returns hard as can. He doesn’t do that here. Or in the next set either. He comes under the ball slightly, hitting with some combo of side and under-spin

To be clear, he’s not gone into all-out Rosewall-ian touch and angle the return to get it wide and low without much pace, but that is the direction he seems to be leaning towards. There’s pace on the ball (he’s swinging at the ball, not blocking), but lot less than his customary, hammer everything way

Theoretically, its not a bad move. Tanner’s movements to and around net look susceptible to the slower, low ball. In the event, it doesn’t work too well, though he does have Tanner fumbling about occasionally to balls that have. When he switches to belting returns in the third set, it works much better for him

In second set, both players actively search for net more. Jimbo comes in 26 times. Tanner brings out the chip-charge return. Baseline rallies are less lively because someone’s come in before they can get that way. Jimbo continues to return as he had earlier, Tanner’s in-count goes up from 52% in first set to 57% (and he wins 19/21 first serve points)

Good job by Jimbo to come in more. He volleys very well and perhaps more importantly, barely makes an approach error all match (not to be counted on, especially given the low bounce). The net play saves him from some hairy situations - and wins him the tiebreak, which events leading into would have suggested he was second favourite for

And in third set, its Tanner who “doesn’t do anything”. With Jimbo coming in still more and serve-volleying more, he doesn’t change his soft slice return. Doesn’t play the angles the way he had in the first. Doesn’t come in much himself, or look to. Drops the chip-charge return, on which he’d won 3/4 points and not made any errors going for, in the second set

Jimbo finally turns to hammering returns - and gets better results instantly. Tanner, who’d volleyed comfortably upto this point, is in trouble against even the regulation height return because of the extra pace, and there are a few to his feet that he can’t (and doesn’t look like he can) handle. Big change in outcome of baseline rallies is Tanner’s BH breaking down some, with Jimbo somewhat targetting it

Finally, a note on a constant through the match and one of the key shots - Jimbo’s defensive lobs on the run. Fantastic how he reaches so many balls on the dead run and throws up a very high lob. And how they keep landing in, often very close to line. These are played from near hopeless positions with Tanner in complete command of the point at net, and they save Jimbo’s bacon more than a few times. Note Tanner with an Over-the-Shoulder FE and being forced back/retreated 8 times. There are other forced back/retreats too where Tanner ends up re-approaching net too

Gist - lot of changing playing dynamics and strategies across the match

Roscoe Tanner
Big guy, with a big, fat first serve that isn’t likely to come back (and usually doesn’t). Serve-volleys 100% of the time. Second serve swerves considerably. Short ball toss, at times, it looks like there is no toss and that he just lets the ball go and hits it with a quick arm

His movements are interesting. On the return, he looks casual almost lazy, often bolt upright as he slices the BH. The odd quicker serve, slightly wide tends to jar him (and they’re not particularly wide or quick)

 

[Waspsting]

Not quick to move forward behind his serve. It’d be impossible for him to be in proper net position behind his first serve, but there’s handsome time to do so behind the second. He doens’t do it. Strolls up to net, not unlike Boris Becker, but isn’t quite there

With his tall frame, looks a bit awkward as he stoops with hunched shoulders to get down for the low ball on his groundies, particularly the BH slice

He’s quick as can be running side to side though. About as quick as Jimbo himself

Powerful FH and willing and able to hit not just court openingly wide with it, but potentially, point endingly so. BH is pretty. Lots of slices, which are first rate and cling to the ground and give Jimbo considerable difficulty to shovel up. Slice drives that are prettily timed and sometimes fly through fast as a regular groundie, but also keep low. This includes the return, which he always slices, getting it deep near the baseline not rarely. No great power on the drive BH, but he sweeps it at wide angles cc to open court. Capable and able to go dtl with the BH slice drive

BH breaks down a bit near end of match. As with all ‘elegant’ shots, it then looks ‘frail’ (elegant shot is another way of saying ‘lacks power’)

There’s touch and grace to his volleying along the lines of his BH. Not a great mover around net though and doesn’t inspire confidence in being able to handle the ball under the net. But putsaway stuff above it readily and with a light touch

Likes to let defensive lobs bounce for his OHs, and retreats from net to take the shot from no-man’s land rather than hit it on the full at net. Near end of match, Jimbo seems to make a statement when he takes an OH on the full from well behind the service line that he moved forward to

Maybe a bit tempermental. Seems to drop his shoulders some after losing second set that he’d had so much the better of and comes out flat and reactive for the decider. None of the creativity or artistry he’d shown off the ground and in coming forward earlier, that had made him the better player for 2 sets - and he’s not that anymore because of it

Stats of Interest
Unreturned rates read Jimbo 15%, Tanner 40%

Jimbo serving at huge 77% in count lends further credance to his serving gently. 10/16 Tanner return errors have been marked UEs

In light of Tanner’s very powerful FH in play, its logical for Jimbo to avoid that side when serving. He directs 26% serves to FH, 67% to BH

Logical yes, correct maybe not. FH has 9 return errors, BH just 7 despite BH copping twice as many serves

Tanner with very high 18 aces, 1 service winner, which comes to 37% of all his first serves. Jimbo has 18 unreturned serves total

Tanner with a very successful 56% second serve-volley points won. His is a tricky swervy second serve, but certainly not smackable in the way Jimbo likes to smack returns. Jimbo’s experiments with the return aren’t a great success

Winner counts are all but identical and along lines of how much each approaches

Jimbo’s 29 winners comprise 15 groundies, 14 volleys
Tanner’s 30 comprise 6 groundies, 24 ‘volleys’

Tanner being at net more than double Jimbo (94 to 46) opens the door for Jimbo to hit passing winners and Tanner volleys

Both players with virtually same number of UEs as FEs is a coincidental thing and of no real significance. More relevant is both players with near same UEs of both wings (Connors’ BH has 7, the other 3 shots 9)

There’s a difference in type of volleying UEs. Jimbo’s 5 are careless misses to easy volleys for most part. Tanner’s 10 looks more like his natural hit-miss rate

The slowness of the court keeps good lot of volleys from both players from going for winners and both players are able to scamper to corners at full speed and get a racquet on perfectly placed volleys that one would think were sure winners. Jimbo’s ability to throw up a defensive lob from such positions is terrific - and allows him to steal a point or two

Rallying to net, Jimbo’s 26/36 or 72%, Tanner 6/14 or 43%. Great net play from Jimbo… the lack of approach errors actually take the eye more than the volleying. He’s typically furious in finishing, but its his handling of tougher ones that standout - wide ones, lunging ones and couple of great low ones that he gets away for winners. Tanner doesn’t face too many volleys as difficult, but handles less difficult ones not as well

 

[Waspsting]

Match Progression
Match starts with Tanner coming in off the third ball and getting passed FH dtl. Its the only point he doesn’t serve-volley on the whole match. His in-count isn’t high - he makes 15/29 first serves, but but 6 of them are aces or service winner and he wins all but 2 such points

Jimbo meanwhile serves harmlessly, never serve-volleys and rarely comes to net. Tanner misses the odd return, but has no difficulty getting rallies started - and he’s the driving force of those rallies getting lively. Particularly with powerful, wide angled FH cc’s, Tanner opens up the court and starts open court, running side to side rallies. His BH slices meanwhile cling to the ground and gives Jimbo some trouble

Just the one break, which Tanner gains to move ahead 3-1. Error ridden game by Jimbo, who makes 3 ground UEs. A net chord dribbling winner by Tanner helps

While Tanner continues to hold without trouble, Jimbo’s pressed to keep from going down still further

FH errors see him go down break point in game 6, which he saves via a net point. He’s down 15-40 in his next service game too and after a smash winner, has to contend with Tanner at the net on the second break point. He survives when Tanner misses a makeable FHV

Tanner serves out to 30, twice retreating from net against defensive lobs to safely putaway OHs on the bounce from behind the service line. Tanner’s served 5.9 points per game for his 5 holds, Jimbo 7.5 for 3 holds and being broken

No breaks in the second set, but again, Tanner has the run of play. Jimbo starts coming forward more but Tanner starts chip-charging returns with success. There are fewer pure baseline rallies

Serving at 4-4, Jimbo falls to 0-40 on back of 3 BH errors. The game continues for 18 points, with Jimbo boldly taking net to win points. He makes some remarkable volleys - lunging ones, low ones, reflex ones - to do so, and makes no mistake on the approaches either. One or two bad passing shot choices from Tanner in there too as Jimbo finally holds

Jimbo’s at deuce in his final service game too. At deuce, he serve-volleys off a second serve to putaway a BHV winner. Good move. Tanner’s been push-slicing his BH returns all match

Going into tiebreaker, Jimbo’s served 51 points, Tanner 30 for 6 holds

Jimbo serve-volleys regularly in the ‘breaker and sends down an ace to reach 6-4 with 2 return points to follow. Tanner wins both of those and Jimbo double faults on his first service point set point. Follows it up with a perfect, low, first BHV winner serve-volleying to make it 7-6 with a return point to follow

The defensive lobs that had served him so well all match come good again as he forces Tanner back, comes in himself to win the point and take the set

Neither player had paused an instant during the change-of-sides during the ‘breaker

To start the decider, Jimbo starts hammering returns. It immediately pays dividends with Tanner missing a couple volleys that are on him quicker than anything he’d got to this point. Some good volleying from Tanner sees him through

Next game goes to deuce too, without any break points for Tanner. Thereafter, comfortable holds for both players. Tanner isn’t doing much off the ground as he was before and making next to no attempt to take net in return games

There are a couple of strange umpiring incidents in the match. Earlier during an important point, Tanner wins a service point that Jimbo though had been a let. The Chair good naturedly acknowledges that maybe there had been, but he doesn’t know and lets the point stand. Thereafter, a let chord judge is brought in for the first time. This is in game 10 of the second set at 30-30. Jimbo’s fairly good natured about the matter. Wouldn’t blame him if he weren’t

Later, in Jimbo’s opening service game of third set, down A-40 Tanner smacks a FH inside-in winner. At least, that’s what the line judge seems to think. The Chair doesn’t overrule, he just calls game for Connors. He doesn’t appear to have picked up on what the line judge’s call was

Tanner’s broken for the only time in game 7. Couple of passing winners from Jimbo, with Tanner missing an easy BHV bing up 2 break points. Tanner aces the first away and double faults on the second

Jimbo jaunts away to the finish line and in the serve-out, serve-volleys 4/5 points (3 of them second serves) and is net on the other point to but forced back from there. Its on this point that he putsaway a smash on the full from about half between baseline and service lien. He finishes with a swatted OH winner

Summing up, a very interesting and close match with all kinds of shifts in playing dynamics

From Connors’ side, some uncharacteristic, toned down of force returning doesn’t go too well and he’s much better for going back to his usual, hammering style eventually. At times, he’s passive from the back and seemingly content to stay there as he struggles with low balls, but eventually finds his net rushing appetite. Then his net game is superb - beginning with making virtually every approach shot on this low bouncing court and going onto handle all kinds of volleys well - low ones, wide ones, reflex ones, on top of swatting away whatever’s there to be swatted. Many an incredible get on the full run to throw up defensive lobs that all seem to land in

From Tanner, unanswerably big first serving and curling second serves behind which he exclusively serve-volleys. A strange mix in his movements - seemingly indolent on the return and at times at net, but lightning fast around the baseline. A very powerful FH and an elegant slice-drive BH that clings to the ground makes his groundgame a match for Connors’ but he eventually falls into passivity

Tanner is the better player overall, and Connors needs a bit of luck along with clutch play at net to override that to gain the win

 

[WCT]

I talked about this match some a couple week back. If they had that distance covered stat they have today I think that Connors is doing more running in the backcourt exchanges. Tanner is a big hitter. And if his backhand is a slice, it's a hard one ala Rosewall. On those passing shots he is going through the ball.

One thing I forgot. I have Tanner with 42 unreturned serves. I don't know how I could miss that. No subjectivity involved, the return is put in play or not. I do agree that Connors for corners and lines with his groundies the way he often did back then. He' also often not in control of the point, running the other player ragged.

He doesn't miss many approaches, but he's not going for much with many of them. Push that forehand approach to Tanner's backhand and pretty much says pass me.
Tanner had a very good look at many of them and no doubt he missed some. He also hit a bunch of passing shots where Connors had to make low or stretching volleys. You are right, the volleys he missed were the easier ones. The difficult ones he mostly made.

I defy anyone to find me a 1980s indoors match when Connors served for the match and s/v 4 of 5 times(and came to net the point that he didn't /v), 2 of them on 2nd serves. Such a match might exist, but I never saw it.

I do agree that Tanner was probably the better player on the day. Connors won the right points. I suppose you can say that about many matches. Connors was spraying his ankle a few times. May have been an injury there. I don't think his return was quite up to par. Certainly not if this was indeed a slow court.

Enjoyable match. The difference in how much quicker Connors plays vs later years is jarring. And, IMO, he's a much better sport. He gets his concerns across to the umpire without being an ahole. His comments about Tanner's play, after the match, are quite generous.

 

[Torben]

Yes it was a very enjoyable match.

I thought Tanner played very well and had all the shots when needed. I found the commentators comments on the improvements in Tanner's game insightful and to the point. Connors did get off to a slow start and his returns were lacking until he found his mark. It doesn't surprise me in the least that it would take him, regarded as one of the best returners in the day, more than a few games to get into any of Tanner's service games.

There were a few things that I found rather interesting. I thought it was real cool to see Tanner pouring Connors refreshments during their sit downs between games and Connors would return the favour as the match went on. You sure wouldn't see that today especially with each player having their magic potions to sip on during their matches.

I also found the situation the players found themselves in with the umpire regarding the net cord very interesting as well. Connors walked up to the umpire and says, "no but wait a minute...why don't we get someone on the net for christ sakes because this guy serves harder than god.." The umpire was under a fair bit of pressure from both Connors and Tanner and felt the need to do something right away. A few games later they did have a net cord judge on the net to make the calls. The interview with Connors after the match was both interesting and candid.

It was very entertaining!

 

[KG1965]

Connors was spraying his ankle a few times. May have been an injury there. I don't think his return was quite up to par. Certainly not if this was indeed a slow court.

I don't remember where I read five or six years ago that Jimbo managed to get Tanner and the organizers to play the 2/3 match and not the 3/5 because he was injured.
In fact, as you can see, all Wembley finals are 3/5.
This is the only 2/3.

Connors and Tanner Win, Gain Final at Wembley​

WEMBLEY, England, Nov. 20 (AP) —Jimmy Connors reached the final of a $125,000 Grand Prix tennis tournament tonight by defeating Brian Gottfried, 6‐3, 5‐7, 6‐2. In tomorrow's final, Connors will meet Roscoe Tanner, who defeated Wojtek Fibak of Poland, 6‐2, 4‐6, 7‐5 in the other semifinal.

It looked as if Connors had injured himself seriously in the seventh game of the first set when he stumbled and hurt his left ankle. But after limping around and appearing in great discomfort, he shook off the injury.


Gottfried staged a great recovery in th,e second set after Connors had led, 5‐2. He won five straight games, capitalizing on some inaccuracy by Connors, to take the set. Gottfried then broke for a 1‐0 lead in the third set, but Connors broke back and then sharpened up.

Tanner's victory assured him of a place in next month's Masters tournament in Houston. The top eight players in the Grand Prix standing automatically gain the Masters.

 

[Torben]

Tanner misses the odd return, but has no difficulty getting rallies started - and he’s the driving force of those rallies getting lively. Particularly with powerful, wide angled FH cc’s, Tanner opens up the court and starts open court, running side to side rallies. His BH slices meanwhile cling to the ground and gives Jimbo some trouble

Tanner had been getting better control of his ground strokes by adding a little spin to them. He wasn't hitting the ball so flat which would give him the ability to stay in rallies and develop points.

You can also see just how quick Tanner is around the court. I always believed that if Tanner had been a little more consistent, and that wouldn't have been by very much, he would've won many more titles. That is much easier said that done of course.

Tanner did beat Connors in straight sets at Wimbledon a little earlier in the year. I'll have a look and see if you have the stats for that quarterfinal match with Connors at Wimbledon earlier that year.

Thanks for the effort in compiling these stats!

 

[WCT]

I don't remember where I read five or six years ago that Jimbo managed to get Tanner and the organizers to play the 2/3 match and not the 3/5 because he was injured.
In fact, as you can see, all Wembley finals are 3/5.
This is the only 2/3.

Connors and Tanner Win, Gain Final at Wembley​

WEMBLEY, England, Nov. 20 (AP) —Jimmy Connors reached the final of a $125,000 Grand Prix tennis tournament tonight by defeating Brian Gottfried, 6‐3, 5‐7, 6‐2. In tomorrow's final, Connors will meet Roscoe Tanner, who defeated Wojtek Fibak of Poland, 6‐2, 4‐6, 7‐5 in the other semifinal.

It looked as if Connors had injured himself seriously in the seventh game of the first set when he stumbled and hurt his left ankle. But after limping around and appearing in great discomfort, he shook off the injury.


Gottfried staged a great recovery in th,e second set after Connors had led, 5‐2. He won five straight games, capitalizing on some inaccuracy by Connors, to take the set. Gottfried then broke for a 1‐0 lead in the third set, but Connors broke back and then sharpened up.

Tanner's victory assured him of a place in next month's Masters tournament in Houston. The top eight players in the Grand Prix standing automatically gain the Masters.

You might be right, but 1975, Dibbs vs Connors, was best of 3, as was 73 and 74, I believe. I have no specific recollection of a sets played change. Which isn't me claiming it didn't happen, just my memory. I think I remember reading about the ankle injury, though.

 

[WCT]

Tanner had been getting better control of his ground strokes by adding a little spin to them. He wasn't hitting the ball so flat which would give him the ability to stay in rallies and develop points.

You can also see just how quick Tanner is around the court. I always believed that if Tanner had been a little more consistent, and that wouldn't have been by very much, he would've won many more titles. That is much easier said that done of course.

Tanner did beat Connors in straight sets at Wimbledon a little earlier in the year. I'll have a look and see if you have the stats for that quarterfinal match with Connors at Wimbledon earlier that year.

Thanks for the effort in compiling these stats!

Consistent is the key word there. If he had that, watch out. I've never seen the entire 1976 Wimbledon match, just a partial. I had Tanner with 16 out of 33 unreturned serves in what I saw, LOL, mind you I had him for 42 in this one vs Wasp's 39. I believe I had Connors with 6 of 46. Not too hot for a grass court.

I did a search and see my memory was off about that tournament. I knew the one that Connors played before 76 was called the Dewar Cup, but I thought it was the precursor to Wembley. But I see in 1976 both tournaments were played. So, forget what I said about pre 76 being best of 3, That matters if it was essentially the same tournament, but that is clearly not the case.