Match Stats/Report - Connors vs Wilander, Suntory Cup Invitational final, 1986

[Waspsting]

Jimmy Connors beat Mats Wilander 6-4, 6-0 in the Suntory Cup Invitational final, 1986 on carpet in Tokyo, Japan

It was the last edition of the event and Connors’ record extending fourth title. Wilander was making his first appearance. Ivan Lendl (who had lost to Wilander in the semis) beat Stefan Edberg (who had lost to Connors) in the third place play-off

Connors won 58 points, Wilander 39

Connors serve-volleyed about a third off the time off first serves, Wilander about three-quarters

(Note: I’m partially missing 1 point
Set 2, Game 2, Point 1 - service type, direction and corresponding return data missing. The ending has been recorded. Its probably a first serve point, but this has not been marked)

Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (30/46) 65%
- 1st serve points won (21/30) 70%
- 2nd serve points won (14/16) 88%
- ?? serve points won (0/1)
- Aces 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (13/47) 28%

Wilander...
- 1st serve percentage (29/50) 58%
- 1st serve points won (20/29) 69%
- 2nd serve points won (7/21) 33%
- Aces 9
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (16/50) 32%

Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 15%
- to BH 80%
- to Body 4%

Wilander served...
- to FH 35%
- to BH 63%
- to Body 2%

Return Stats
Connors made...
- 33 (8 FH, 25 BH), including 1 runaround FH & 1 return-approach
- 2 Winners (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 7 Errors, comprising...
- 1 Unforced (1 BH)
- 6 Forced (3 FH, 3 BH)
- Return Rate (33/49) 67%

Wilander made...
- 34 (4 FH, 29 BH, 1 ??), including 2 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 BH)
- 11 Errors, comprising...
- 4 Unforced (1 FH, 3 BH)
- 7 Forced (1 FH, 6 BH)
- Return Rate (34/47) 72%

Break Points
Connors 4/4
Wilander 0/1

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 22 (9 FH, 5 BH, 5 FHV, 1 BHV, 2 OH)
Wilander 6 (1 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 1 OH)

Connors had 8 passes (6 FH, 2 BH)
- FHs - 2 cc, 3 dtl and 1 inside-in return
- BHs - 1 dtl return and 1 dtl/inside-out

- regular FHs - 2 dtl
- regular BHs - 3 dtl (1 at net)

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

- 1 from a return-approach point, a FHV that was also a pass

- the BHV was a swinging shot

Wilander's FHs - 1 dtl
- BH passes - 2 dtl (1 return)

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a first 'volley' BH at net

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 17
- 11 Unforced (7 FH, 4 BH)
- 6 Forced (4 FH, 2 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.2

Wilander 22
- 12 Unforced (5 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 10 Forced (3 FH, 5 BH, 2 BHV)... 1 FH can reasonably be called a Back-to-Net shot
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.7

(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...
- 21/23 (91%) at net, including...
- 9/10 (90%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back

Wilander was...
- 15/30 (50%) at net, including...
- 8/17 (47%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 8/14 (57%) off 1st serve and...
- 0/3 off 2nd serve
---
- 2/2 return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back

Match Report
Top notch showing from Connors, as he overwhelms an experimenting Wilander on a quick, low bouncing court

The court is so quick that even these guys’ serves are damaging on it. Unreturned rates are 28% for Jimbo, 32% for Mats and most stunningly, Mats has 9 aces from just 29 first serves. Nothing I’ve seen from him comes anywhere remotely close to that rate of sending down aces

And they’re both serve-volleying plenty - Jimbo 36% (winning 90%), Mats 70% (but winning just 57%)

Keys to play are Jimbo’s superior, counter volleying return, the duel between Jimbo’s FH and Mats’ BH and Jimbo being flawless in forecourt

The Return against Serve-volleying
When Jimbo’s not being aced, he thumps returns, leaving at least not easy volleys and often more than that. Mats can’t putaway the volley. And Jimbo makes hay on the follow-up pass

Its not an all out, every return to volleyers feet or going wide for potential winners showing. It is a strong one that anyone would struggle to dominate. Low-ish first volleys at considerable force type thing

Mats is middling in his volleying. 2 UEs, 2 FEs in such short match is just that - middling. More importantly, he’s unable to volley with any authority, and Jimbo can reach ball readily and have a decent look at the pass. It would take an exceptional volleying showing to command what Mats is faced with - but its not impossible. Beyond Mats’ norm

Jimbo’s passing is beyond even his high norm and he keeps drilling the follow-up passes for winners. Including a few when he’s on the run and odds would be against his winning the point

Full marks to Jimbo on the contest - the return the set-up, the follow up passing, as good as possible

On flip side, Jimbo serve-volleys behind well wide sliced serves that drag Mats way outside court. Mats returns what he can over the net and Jimbo finishes, no trouble at all

Good spot serving from Jimbo - he gets the serves well wide Doesn’t face difficult volleys, but literally misses nothing (0 volley errors of any kind)

The Baseline - Mats BH vs Jimbo FH
Mats slices 1-handed BHs most of the time, to the surprise of commentators who say they’ve never seen him do so to this extent

Not sure exactly when Mats took up the shot. By ‘88, it was integrated into his game. This seems to be him getting his feet wet in its waters

Not very good slices. They stay low because of the court, but also float gently through the air. Looks more like simple no-pace is carrying the ball rather than heavy back-spin

For Jimbo though, perhaps that’s enough? Low FHs tend to trouble him - and they don’t have to be anything special of spin and bite to get errors

Nope. Jimbo handles ‘em with ease. Generally, even when he remains steady (as in, not making errors), he at least looks awkward or uncomfortable stooping down to scoop up low FHs, taking a lot of his natural force off to get the ball over the net. Not here. Hits back as comfortably as you could ask for. No one watching this would suspect he had any issues with low FHs at all - which isn’t something you can say of even his better showings

Still, match high 7 FH UEs for Jimbo. That’s unrelated to low FHs, just normal errors. If Mats is looking for the shot to breakdown, he’s disappointed

With ground UE side of thing surprisingly even (Jimbo 11, Mats 10) - a product of Jimbo over-performing considerably and Mats under slightly, that leaves hitting force and Jimbo’s got substantial advantage there. Including on the low FHs

The power advantage translates to winners, errors forced and coming to net successful (also a very good approach shot day for Jimbo, who has at most 1-2 errors, possibly 0)

Rallying to net
- Jimbo 11/12
- Mats 5/11

… with dynamics between volleyer and passer similar to serve-volleying one. Jimbo’s approach shots do much of the work and he’s up tight at net to slap away anything that comes back. Mats hasn’t the luxary of such strong approach shots and even when he gets good volley off, Jimbo’s in top form on the pass

Jimbo’s 21/23 at net overall

 

[Waspsting]

Stand out Stats
Jimbo winning 88% second serve points, to 70% firsts. Even in top form, he’s apt to win more 2nds than firsts. He only loses 2 second serve points all match - both against return-approaches from Mats, the only 2 Mats plays

Jimbo 22 winners, 17 total errors (11 UEs, 6 FEs) is remarkable. Crazy yields like that tend to happen when opponent has high unreturned serves, which is somewhat true here

FHs at center of things with match high 9 winners and 7 UEs
4 passing winners (excluding a return - that both players thought was a fault), 4 FEs - excellent
3 non-pass winners (including a serve-volleying net shot), 7 UEs - humanly normal
BH has 1 pass winner (sans a return), 2 FEs. He hits plenty of BHs that draw non-finishing volleys that he can have another crack at. 3 regular winners (including a net shot), 4 UEs

All great ratios - and then the 8 volleying winners with no back-cutting errors against puts him well over on winners/errors differential

Mats’ with low 6 winners, to go with 6 errors forced and 12 UEs just breaks even on forcefully ended points/UEs - usually, a sign of a not good showing

That’s not an unfair assessment. He spends much of ground time gently slicing, which has little effect on Jimbo’s FH. He is a little off from his iron consistency. Inability to do damage or dictate play from the back are normal for him, missing routine groundies is not

At net, volleys without authority but steadily enough - all credit to Jimbo’s strong returns and killer passing for the low 50% net points won

And passing vs the at net Jimbo, he’s barely in with a chance against strong approaches and utterly killer finishing, without a blip

Jimbo with 5 neutral UEs, Mats 6. As big a surprise as anything. That stat alone would tell you who won the match and by what degree

It’s the 32% unreturneds and 9 aces that keeps more than half the match competitive. Mats Wilander, serve-bot

Finally, uncharacteristically high serve-volleying frequency, and apparently at the time completely out of norm use of 1-handed slice (and not very good ones) suggest Mats was somewhat in experimenting mood. In other words, less than fiercely determined to win

Commentators also mention how he’d been serve-volleying behind both serves in his straight set semi-final win against Ivan Lendl. Its not unheard of for Mats to serve-volley regularly on quick courts (usually, he turns to it after seeing his Plan A groundgame isn’t working), but second serve-volleying regularly would be new. He eventually turns to it here too after losing a ton of second serve points, without change of fortune and loses 3/3

Commentary of the match is almost as memorable as Jimbo’s performance. With Mats down 0-4 in second set, commentator expresses idea that Mats should come in more as he’s not going to win the match from the baseline

He’d just been broken by 4 consecutive passing winners the game before

Match Progression
To be very clear, all of the above is in context of Mats doing a lot of damage with his serves (32% unreturneds, with 31% first serves being aces). Its not as lopsided a match as above might suggest. 1 set where the difference between 2 players is 1 game, and a blowout set (with competitive service games from the loser)

First set is server dominated. Mats is broken once, Jimbo surives a deuce game, saving a break point. No other games go to as little as 30. In other words, Jimbo takes his 1 chance, Mats doesn’t - that’s the set - the only thing to write home about is the pace of the court

Mats serve-volleys almost always and breezes through his first 3 holds to 15 each time. His returning is a bit off, and he gives up a game to love with 3 return UEs, and starts the next 1 with another

That game sees him get reach 15-30 and later 30-40. Its this that turns Jimbo to serve-volleying and being more proactive in seeking net, as he holds by forcing serve-volleying return errors, and finishing with a pair of OH winners to make things 3-3

Poor game from after that to get broken - 2 UEs off the ground and a double fault on break point - gives Jimbo the lead

That’s all she wrote for Mats. He loses 8 of the next 9 games left. The one he doesn’t features 3 aces in a row. Awakened to being aggressive a couple of games ago, Jimbo’s on fire from then on

After 8 games (Jimbo leading 5-3), Jimbo’s won 20 points, Mats 17
From then on, Jimbo wins 38, Mats 22

… with winners all over the place - FH, BH, passes, volleys, you name it

Still, as bagels go, not too bad from Mats. 2 of the games he’s broken last 8 and 12 points and he pushes Jimbo to 10 points in a return game. He’s at net regularly (contrary to amusing commentary), and as he falls further behind, even takes to second serve-volleying (total fail at 0/3) and even return-approaching (a raging success at 2/2 - the only 2 second serve points Jimbo doesn’t win out of 16 in the match - including a streak of 12 straight from the start (possibly but probably not just 7, with service type for 1 point unknown. Action on said point looks much more like a first serve point)

The whole thing looks like a highlights package. The highlight f the highlights is Jimbo breaking in game 3 from 30-0 down with 4 successive ‘passing’ winners (1 is a shot into wide open court, with Mats technically at net but nowhere in picture)

He wraps things up with an unreturend serve serve-volleying soon after

Summing up, Jimmy Connors at his very best, with his traditional strengths (the powerful returns and passes, the no mercy net play) all firing, and his sometimes weaknesses (the steadiness of the FH against low balls, ground consistency, the serve) all up to scratch. Wilander in an experimental mood (serving much bigger, serve-volleying and slicing much more than his norm) and a little off on his own usually iron ground consistency is bulldozed

 

[WCT]

Commentary of the match is almost as memorable as Jimbo’s performance. With Mats down 0-4 in second set, commentator expresses idea that Mats should come in more as he’s not going to win the match from the baseline

He’d just been broken by 4 consecutive passing winners the game before

This reminds me of a 1980s Wimbledon Lendl match I saw on HBO. Billie Jean King was doing the color. Lendl was playing an Italian, can't even remember his name. I think Lendl lost a first set tiebreaker. King's analysis was that Lendl needed to get more aggressive. Both players had s/v on every serve in the set. I remember just shaking my head at this commentary. Are we watching the same match?

I wonder how much the surface explained this result. Wilander gave him fits. They played in Stockholm on a fast indoor court and he still won. He mixed in s/v there. In Cincy, in 84, he was getting killed in the 3rd set and started s/v every 1st serve and came back. He wasn't doing it on 2nd serves, though.

In Stockholm, he was serving pretty big for him. Around 10 aces, but in 3 sets. I never said Wilander is the most authoritative volleyer, but I didn't have him with an ue volley in either match. And very few forced, but I don't keep that stat.

I watched some of this match recently. Didn't remember Connors s/v 1/3 of the time.
Peculiar result given their other matches. And 1986 was not a good year for him. I guess it was just one of those days when he was in the zone.

 

[jrepac]

Thanks for doing this. It was a 'special event' , not ATP, but it was a well regarded one at the time. Got to figure if Connors beat Eddy in the semis, he was playing well. '86 was a poor year for him overall, but I do remember this match and thinking "Wow!"...can he play like that more often? When Connors was on a roll, he was hard to stop, that much is true. Unless your name is Borg, Mac or Lendl, good luck w/that. I also recall the fastness of the court being mentioned...different from what others have said about past Suntory cups. Connors played hard in exos and special events, maybe Mats not so much. But still, he beat Lendl so that's not trivial. I see that the final is up on You Tube, so I'll have to watch it one of these days.

 

[WCT]

Thanks for doing this. It was a 'special event' , not ATP, but it was a well regarded one at the time. Got to figure if Connors beat Eddy in the semis, he was playing well. '86 was a poor year for him overall, but I do remember this match and thinking "Wow!"...can he play like that more often? When Connors was on a roll, he was hard to stop, that much is true. Unless your name is Borg, Mac or Lendl, good luck w/that. I also recall the fastness of the court being mentioned...different from what others have said about past Suntory cups. Connors played hard in exos and special events, maybe Mats not so much. But still, he beat Lendl so that's not trivial. I see that the final is up on You Tube, so I'll have to watch it one of these days.

Suntory usually had a couple of the top players. Connors and Mcenroe played there a bunch. Lendl and Borg multiple times. It was always only a 4 man event. As far as special events go a pretty big deal.

86 is "bad" for me mostly because of his GS results. He had made at least the semis in 22 of the last 24 Wimbledons and US Opens he played. 1 quarter and 1 round of sixteen. He went from that to losing in the first and third rounds to unseeded players.

The reason I put bad in quotes is it was relative. He made 4 or 5 tournament finals that year and probably about as many semis. Then there was the 10 week suspension as well. I believe that is how long it lasted.

 

[jrepac]

Suntory usually had a couple of the top players. Connors and Mcenroe played there a bunch. Lendl and Borg multiple times. It was always only a 4 man event. As far as special events go a pretty big deal.

86 is "bad" for me mostly because of his GS results. He had made at least the semis in 22 of the last 24 Wimbledons and US Opens he played. 1 quarter and 1 round of sixteen. He went from that to losing in the first and third rounds to unseeded players.

The reason I put bad in quotes is it was relative. He made 4 or 5 tournament finals that year and probably about as many semis. Then there was the 10 week suspension as well. I believe that is how long it lasted.

Yes, I'm sure other players would have loved to had such a "bad" year like Connors did in '86. The GS results were disappointing...I recall that year there were a bunch of early upsets at W...Connors and a few others in the first few rounds. USO loss to Witsken was terribly disappointing. That 10wk ban due to his Lipton cray-cray wound up being lucrative....he played a string of exos/special events and made a ton of money...the press had a field day with that. You are right...he got to finals and semis, just didn't win any. I seem to recall injuries cropping up as well that year. Age is a b#tch. Still, the Suntory win was a fine display of what he was capable of when he was on his game. He was underestimated indoors a bit, just because Lendl and Mac were also very dominant on the surface, most notably at the Masters. Jimmy's #s, along w/Becker's are pretty sweet. I miss those special events..made for great tennis TV on the weekends.

 

[WCT]

Yes, I'm sure other players would have loved to had such a "bad" year like Connors did in '86. The GS results were disappointing...I recall that year there were a bunch of early upsets at W...Connors and a few others in the first few rounds. USO loss to Witsken was terribly disappointing. That 10wk ban due to his Lipton cray-cray wound up being lucrative....he played a string of exos/special events and made a ton of money...the press had a field day with that. You are right...he got to finals and semis, just didn't win any. I seem to recall injuries cropping up as well that year. Age is a b#tch. Still, the Suntory win was a fine display of what he was capable of when he was on his game. He was underestimated indoors a bit, just because Lendl and Mac were also very dominant on the surface, most notably at the Masters. Jimmy's #s, along w/Becker's are pretty sweet. I miss those special events..made for great tennis TV on the weekends.

There were a slew of those special events in the 70s and 80s.

 

[WCT]

Another question about how you take stats. What is your criteria for a winner? I assume it goes beyond the player not getting a racket on the ball. But how far beyond it where you no longer classify it as a winner?

 

[Drob]

Thanks for doing this. It was a 'special event' , not ATP, but it was a well regarded one at the time. Got to figure if Connors beat Eddy in the semis, he was playing well. '86 was a poor year for him overall, but I do remember this match and thinking "Wow!"...can he play like that more often? When Connors was on a roll, he was hard to stop, that much is true. Unless your name is Borg, Mac or Lendl, good luck w/that. I also recall the fastness of the court being mentioned...different from what others have said about past Suntory cups. Connors played hard in exos and special events, maybe Mats not so much. But still, he beat Lendl so that's not trivial. I see that the final is up on You Tube, so I'll have to watch it one of these days.

As you say in your post following this one, a very fine win for Connors regardless what Mats was doing. Connors went out and won a TON of money that day by winning the match.

Connors definitely underrated on fast indoor. About 50 titles on carpet, including big one, multiple win at US Pro Indoor, US National Indoor, Wembley. He is right up there.

 

[jrepac]

Went back and watched this....since you can't trust your own memory from 30+yrs ago! What stood out for me on the re-watch? Connors forehand. He was just killing it...not having trouble w/the low ones, either. Volleying was great. Mats was slicing a lot off the backhand but that did not bother Connors at all.

 

[Waspsting]

This reminds me of a 1980s Wimbledon Lendl match I saw on HBO. Billie Jean King was doing the color. Lendl was playing an Italian, can't even remember his name. I think Lendl lost a first set tiebreaker. King's analysis was that Lendl needed to get more aggressive. Both players had s/v on every serve in the set. I remember just shaking my head at this commentary. Are we watching the same match?

'lol' is usually a figuritive comment, but that chestnut about a guy just broken by 4 passing winners in a row should come in more got a real chuckle out of me

My second favourite piece of commentary ever. There's no beating the first

in '95, Ion Tiriac is in attendance for a Boris Becker match. They'd parted ways as manager and client not too affably not long ago and commentator quote Tiriac as saying the problem with Boris is he's a child and will never grow up. Then adds (paraphrased) -

"I disagree. I think Boris has matured tremendously over the years. You can see that in his family life and how he manages his money...."

I also recall the fastness of the court being mentioned...different from what others have said about past Suntory cups.

This one looks a lot faster than the others I've seen. Unreturned rates point in that direction too

Commentators call this one very fast, and talk about '82 and '83 as slow, though I wouldn't submit that as evidence given a whole bunch of things they say - like the should come in more comment here

in either '82 or '83, commentry points out that Borg is returning from way back

He's a couple of paces behind baseline - about standard for most players, and early for him. He used to stand as far back as possible taking McEnroe's serve at Wimby and US Open an I assume whoever the commentator is has at least watched those matches

Another question about how you take stats. What is your criteria for a winner? I assume it goes beyond the player not getting a racket on the ball. But how far beyond it where you no longer classify it as a winner?

Very, very rarely does it go beyond player not getting racket on ball (clean winner)

Beyond that, if player got thinnest of nicks on the ball - which doesn't alter course of ball at all and which you wouldn't be able to tell he got a racquet on without audio - that's as far as I go for adding a non-clean winner. Sometimes, I can't even tell if he got a racquet on it or not, then I'll note 'possibly not clean'

Maybe get 1 of those in 10-15 matches. Happens bit more often with aces, but even that's negligible amount

 

[BTURNER]

I watched this and I thought the commentators were missing the obvious. Mats endless soft slices was an attempt to go 'book' and give Jimmy no pace on his forehand a la Ashe. Personally I never quite bought it was 'book' in the first place. It may have been great for Ashe, but It was a disaster in this match. Jimmy knows what he is doing on carpet, and he was exceptional form. The man never liked to hit two or three volleys when one should do. And one did just fine! Jimmy was more agressive and it paid off.

 

[jrepac]

I watched this and I thought the commentators were missing the obvious. Mats endless soft slices was an attempt to go 'book' and give Jimmy no pace on his forehand a la Ashe. Personally I never quite bought it was 'book' in the first place. It may have been great for Ashe, but It was a disaster in this match. Jimmy knows what he is doing on carpet, and he was exceptional form. The man never liked to hit two or three volleys when one should do. And one did just fine! Jimmy was more agressive and it paid off.

I wish he played like this all the time...particularly against guys like Mats. Just take it to him, as they say. Easier said than done, obviously. But Mats was not Lendl, in terms of general strength off the ground. Jimmy could bully him a bit more than he could Ivan in his later years.

 

[BTURNER]

I wish he played like this all the time...particularly against guys like Mats. Just take it to him, as they say. Easier said than done, obviously. But Mats was not Lendl, in terms of general strength off the ground. Jimmy could bully him a bit more than he could Ivan in his later years.

I think the difference was where Connors was able to stand, or rather how far back he had to stand in those rallies. Lendl's fire power and topspin pushed him further back than just about anyone else in baseline rallies. Its a hell of a lot harder to get to net if you are trapped that far back. Connors ended up making a lot more errors trying to get and hold better real estate, and it took perfect timing if he ended up hitting virtual half volleys just to keep his positioning. Jimmy ended up doing a lot more running and a lot less dictating.

Ivan seemed to be adept at reading Jimmy's strokes. He was anticipating the direction of Connors groundies really well as the 80's moved forward.

 

[jrepac]

I think the difference was where Connors was able to stand, or rather how far back he had to stand in those rallies. Lendl's fire power and topspin pushed him further back than just about anyone else in baseline rallies. Its a hell of a lot harder to get to net if you are trapped that far back. Connors ended up making a lot more errors trying to get and hold better real estate, and it took perfect timing if he ended up hitting virtual half volleys just to keep his positioning. Jimmy ended up doing a lot more running and a lot less dictating.

Ivan seemed to be adept at reading Jimmy's strokes. He was anticipating the direction of Connors groundies really well as the 80's moved forward.

Perhaps he read them better, but I think his change in style, chipping and slicing off the backhand made things more predictable for him. Connors couldn't be as aggressive off those slower balls w/little to no pace on them. So, was then much less likely to "surprise" Lendl off the ground, is how I saw it. In their early matches, Ivan trying to outhit Connors was a questionable proposition, particularly if Connors was having a good day. Lendl forehand to Connors backhand was kind of a wash. Only exception may be their few encounters on grass, which was a different proposition. entirely. Ivan's change in approach made a huge difference on hard courts (which admittedly, are most of the matches I watched between them).

 

[buscemi]

Perhaps he read them better, but I think his change in style, chipping and slicing off the backhand made things more predictable for him. Connors couldn't be as aggressive off those slower balls w/little to no pace on them. So, was then much less likely to "surprise" Lendl off the ground, is how I saw it. In their early matches, Ivan trying to outhit Connors was a questionable proposition, particularly if Connors was having a good day. Lendl forehand to Connors backhand was kind of a wash. Only exception may be their few encounters on grass, which was a different proposition. entirely. Ivan's change in approach made a huge difference on hard courts (which admittedly, are most of the matches I watched between them).

As much as people talk about Lendl's tactics, I don't know how much they mattered independent of Connors's age/physical decline.

In 1983, the H2H was 2-2, with Connors winning the biggest match: the 1983 U.S. Open final
In 1984, the H2H was 3-2 in favor of Lendl, w/Connors winning their Wimbledon SF and Ivan eking out the rubber match at WTF, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5

At that point, the H2H was 13-7 in favor of Connors.

After 1984, Connors declined not only against Lendl, but against the rest of the field. Ivan's tactical change worked, but I don't know that it would have worked against a more spry Connors.

 

[jrepac]

As much as people talk about Lendl's tactics, I don't know how much they mattered independent of Connors's age/physical decline.

In 1983, the H2H was 2-2, with Connors winning the biggest match: the 1983 U.S. Open final
In 1984, the H2H was 3-2 in favor of Lendl, w/Connors winning their Wimbledon SF and Ivan eking out the rubber match at WTF, 7-5, 6-7, 7-5

At that point, the H2H was 13-7 in favor of Connors.

After 1984, Connors declined not only against Lendl, but against the rest of the field. Ivan's tactical change worked, but I don't know that it would have worked against a more spry Connors.

I don't know...sure, age was catching up to him, but he was still pretty potent. In '85 he lost several matches to Lendl and sure, Lendl was beginning to peak. Jimmy was still in the Top 4 of the world. Ivan did seem to play Connors differently....there were a few close ones along the way, but Lendl was almost always in control. Hanging onto the T2000 way past it's expiration date probably didn't help him, either. Connors didn't lose all that often to players below him, but as he got older was less likely to threaten those in front of him, if that makes sense. I think others have documented this.

 

[Waspsting]

Mats endless soft slices was an attempt to go 'book' and give Jimmy no pace on his forehand a la Ashe. Personally I never quite bought it was 'book' in the first place. It may have been great for Ashe, but It was a disaster in this match

It was probably considered 'book'. Even during the '74 Wimby and US Open finals - complete thrashings dished out by Connors, and of course before the famous Ashe match - commentators mention a general weakness on the low FH approach

From what I've seen, there is a weakness in that there is a decent liklihood it'll give out (in a way you wouldn't think Borg or Lendl might falter against x type regulation ball), but it might not

My take - and Jrep's hint at this. I wouldn't look at a Borg match and bother mentioning "his FH wasn't shakey against low balls!" - its a given that it wouldn't, and would be considered worth mentioning if it did

With Connors, I find it worth mentioning when he's particularly good on that front

Perhaps he read them better, but I think his change in style, chipping and slicing off the backhand made things more predictable for him. Connors couldn't be as aggressive off those slower balls w/little to no pace on them. So, was then much less likely to "surprise" Lendl off the ground, is how I saw it. In their early matches, Ivan trying to outhit Connors was a questionable proposition, particularly if Connors was having a good day. Lendl forehand to Connors backhand was kind of a wash. Only exception may be their few encounters on grass, which was a different proposition. entirely. Ivan's change in approach made a huge difference on hard courts (which admittedly, are most of the matches I watched between them).

Agree, completely

As Lendl got better of Jimbo in the mid 80s, he's just bunting and chipping balls at him

Funny point in either '85 or '87 US match between them. Lendl's already up 2 sets to love and probably multiple breaks in the third, so match is good as over. He switches up from the bunting and power hits... and finds a very different Jimbo from the little rabbit he'd created with the bunts/chips, one who overwpowers him and wins the point readily

Goes right back to bunt/chip. Smart player, Lendl, if not the most fun one

Another match that's telling is in their '83 US Open final, which is a power-vs-power tussle, Jimbo looks as uncertain against the few low chips to his FH as he does in later matches when that's all Lendl gives him

Doesn't face much of it, but there's something there

...But Mats was not Lendl, in terms of general strength off the ground. Jimmy could bully him a bit more than he could Ivan in his later years.

I don't know abou this. Mats strikes me as nightmare match-up for Connors. The guy never misses, to even greater extent than Lendl. Guy picks up on what sides is shakey (groundstoke or even volley) and keeps going there and can do it off or to either side

Guy can regularly get passes in just low enough to be a pest (particularly for someone like Jimbo, who loves to take it and swat it away above the net). Granted, when he doesn't execute that routine well, might turn into a feast for the net player and Jimbo is the type to particularly tuck in heartily. Guy lobs superbly, likely screwing with Jimbo's preferred close-in net position - and Jimbo's not the best of smashers (Newcombe made use of this in their '75 Aus Open final)

Where Jimbo has leverage in match up is his pouding returns might be a bit much for serve-volleying Mats to handle. Serve-volleying is what Mats turns to when he finds he can't win staying back (which happens when his opponent comes in regularly from rallies, doesn't happen when both players stay on baseline because Mats can outlast them all - even Lendl

Some combo of
a) coming in regularly from rallies
b) coping with Mats' bag of passing tricks
c) 'force' Mats to serve-volley and...
d) get give him a hard time with the big return-pass counter-game

... sounds like a plan for Jimbo. Easier said than done, as you said

 

[jrepac]

I don't know abou this. Mats strikes me as nightmare match-up for Connors. The guy never misses, to even greater extent than Lendl. Guy picks up on what sides is shakey (groundstoke or even volley) and keeps going there and can do it off or to either side

Guy can regularly get passes in just low enough to be a pest (particularly for someone like Jimbo, who loves to take it and swat it away above the net). Granted, when he doesn't execute that routine well, might turn into a feast for the net player and Jimbo is the type to particularly tuck in heartily. Guy lobs superbly, likely screwing with Jimbo's preferred close-in net position - and Jimbo's not the best of smashers (Newcombe made use of this in their '75 Aus Open final)

Where Jimbo has leverage in match up is his pouding returns might be a bit much for serve-volleying Mats to handle. Serve-volleying is what Mats turns to when he finds he can't win staying back (which happens when his opponent comes in regularly from rallies, doesn't happen when both players stay on baseline because Mats can outlast them all - even Lendl

Some combo of
a) coming in regularly from rallies
b) coping with Mats' bag of passing tricks
c) 'force' Mats to serve-volley and...
d) get give him a hard time with the big return-pass counter-game

... sounds like a plan for Jimbo. Easier said than done, as you said

Oh Mats was a total nightmare for Connors. Just super steady, ala Borg. But, he wasn't going to bully/overpower Connors from the backcourt...I don't think he even hit as hard as Borg did. Lendl had the commanding power off the ground while Mats could out- steady just about anyone. Mats was a great player, I was always a fan. In this particular Suntory match, it seemed he was over-relying on a strategy that was not paying off. And Connors forehand was atypically, impressively good in this match, along w/super volleying, returns and passes. Kind of like when he was at the top of his game on grass, actually. The first set was close, but Mats needed to do something different....much like Connors did in some Lendl matches, he stayed with a losing plan. Which is pretty unusual for Mats, honestly! Guy was a super smart player.

 

[Waspsting]

... (Wilander) wasn't going to bully/overpower Connors from the backcourt...I don't think he even hit as hard as Borg did.

I concur - Mats not as hard a hitter as Borg

Did anyone bully/overpower Connors from the backcourt? I've seen him get thrashed many times, but never bullied/overpowered. Not Borg, not Lendl... maybe Agassi but we're talking a whole different period and a bona fida old, aging version of Connors (vs a fresh young Agassi)

He seems to take a certain pride in it too. After getting thrashed by Borg at '79 Wimby, one of his post-match assessments was "... he wasn't overpowering me in any way", which is a bit like a guy whose serving double faults saying "my opponent wasn't returning me with power", but it gets to Jimbo's mentality

Lendl had the commanding power off the ground...

agreed, but I don't think it did him much good against Connors. In fact, he learnt to avoid using it against Connors and would primarily bunt, chip, junk

Only match I can think of when he bullies Connors a bit from the back is '82 Masters. Lots of others where he gets better of him - hell, even double bagels him - but I wouldn't describe what he does as 'bullying' or 'overpowering'

2 big fat fails trying to use the commanding power game in their US Open finals too

If you get a chance, check out the '84 Tokyo match between them. The most entertaining match of theirs I've come across, which isn't necessarily saying much, but its a good one by any standard

 

[buscemi]

Did anyone bully/overpower Connors from the backcourt? I've seen him get thrashed many times, but never bullied/overpowered. Not Borg, not Lendl... maybe Agassi but we're talking a whole different period and a bona fida old, aging version of Connors (vs a fresh young Agassi)

Maybe Clerc?

 

[jrepac]

I concur - Mats not as hard a hitter as Borg

Did anyone bully/overpower Connors from the backcourt? I've seen him get thrashed many times, but never bullied/overpowered. Not Borg, not Lendl... maybe Agassi but we're talking a whole different period and a bona fida old, aging version of Connors (vs a fresh young Agassi)

He seems to take a certain pride in it too. After getting thrashed by Borg at '79 Wimby, one of his post-match assessments was "... he wasn't overpowering me in any way", which is a bit like a guy whose serving double faults saying "my opponent wasn't returning me with power", but it gets to Jimbo's mentality



agreed, but I don't think it did him much good against Connors. In fact, he learnt to avoid using it against Connors and would primarily bunt, chip, junk

Only match I can think of when he bullies Connors a bit from the back is '82 Masters. Lots of others where he gets better of him - hell, even double bagels him - but I wouldn't describe what he does as 'bullying' or 'overpowering'

2 big fat fails trying to use the commanding power game in their US Open finals too

If you get a chance, check out the '84 Tokyo match between them. The most entertaining match of theirs I've come across, which isn't necessarily saying much, but its a good one by any standard

Perhaps my adjectives were a bit strong...Lendl could push him around at times, particularly in later years...as could Agassi. But, yes, raw power from the back was not the way to beat him, as Ivan had more success chipping and bunting, over all else. Very much true in those 2 USO finals, '82 in particular. I have to go back and watch '84 Tokyo....another one of those where Connors caught fire down the stretch. Have not watched since it first aired.

 

[WCT]

'lol' is usually a figuritive comment, but that chestnut about a guy just broken by 4 passing winners in a row should come in more got a real chuckle out of me

My second favourite piece of commentary ever. There's no beating the first

in '95, Ion Tiriac is in attendance for a Boris Becker match. They'd parted ways as manager and client not too affably not long ago and commentator quote Tiriac as saying the problem with Boris is he's a child and will never grow up. Then adds (paraphrased) -

"I disagree. I think Boris has matured tremendously over the years. You can see that in his family life and how he manages his money...."

Donald Dell is the master of it. It's like, are you paying attention to the match. I was doing stats for Connors/Mac January 82 Masters. He is going on and on about how Mac is beating him from the baseline. Point played, Mac wins on 1st serve with s/v. Dell comments on how he has done that rarely in the match. He came in on just about every 1st serve. It was the 2nd serve where he mostly stayed back.

Connors Higueras La Quinta 1984. 3rd set tiebreaker. Maybe 4-3 Connors, his 2 serves upcoming. The 1st he plays s/v. Maybe the 2nd or 3rd time in the match. Great half volley sets up next winning volley. Next point, s/v again and Higueras misses the return. 20-30 seconds of Dell telling us how Connors surprised him with the tactic and that is why he missed the return. How surprised could he have been when Connors did it the point before and where he made an excellent return. Now, if he had argued it about the first point, that I could see. The missed return point there is no way he is surprised. It was almost like Dell forgot the 1st point 30 seconds later.

 

[Waspsting]

Maybe Clerc?

Will check it out if I get the chance. I haven't seen any Clerc - Connors matches

Seeing Connor bossed about from the baseline would be worth seeing

Donald Dell is the master of it...

In some match I watched recently, Connors came in to putaway a volley and he said something like "who says Connors can't volley?". You'd think he was talking about Thomas Muster

As far as I know, no one says Connors can't volley. He doesn't come in much, sure a lot of people say that , but not that he can't volley

I can't readily tell his voice from Tony Trabert's and remember thinking a couple of times what on earth is Trabert yapping about when he said something stupid. Pretty sure I mistook him for Dell those times, Trabert's a sound guy

 

[WCT]

Will check it out if I get the chance. I haven't seen any Clerc - Connors matches

Seeing Connor bossed about from the baseline would be worth seeing


In some match I watched recently, Connors came in to putaway a volley and he said something like "who says Connors can't volley?". You'd think he was talking about Thomas Muster

As far as I know, no one says Connors can't volley. He doesn't come in much, sure a lot of people say that , but not that he can't volley

I can't readily tell his voice from Tony Trabert's and remember thinking a couple of times what on earth is Trabert yapping about when he said something stupid. Pretty sure I mistook him for Dell those times, Trabert's a sound guy

I think pretty much the entire 1981 Clerc Connors match is up. Years back I did stats for a partial version. A big partial, well over 200 points, but it was a 5 set maybe 4 hour match. IIRC, Clerc won the last set 6-0. I had Clerc with 39 times at net to Connors 25, I believe. Don't know how much you know about Clerc. Not known much for his net play.

I have seen Connors pushed around by other players as much as he pushed them. But just run silly the way I saw him do with other players? Not many of them.

You confused Dell with Trabert? They had stuff in common, former players who were Davis Cup captains. Dell was undefeated, 2 years as captain with 2 cups. Dell was obviously nowhere near the player Trabert was.

He was actually a walking talking conflict of interest doing these matches. He represented players, negotiated the tv contracts and then did the commentary. He is a great guest on podcasts. Very good storyteller. My favorite is how Gloria Connors fired him as Jimmy's agent.

The can't volley came from the Lendl Tokyo match. I just did the stats last week. I think he said it twice, While Tom Gullickson said he thought, on medium and high balls, he was among the better volleyers. In fairness, Dell isn't saying he can't, he is rhetorically asking, who says he can't. In a bunch of matches, though, he is saying that he thinks he should come in more.

Anyway, I think the original point stands. For a former player and coach, his commentary sometimes leaves me wondering if he is really paying attention to the match.

 

[Waspsting]

You confused Dell with Trabert?

Their voices as commentators

With Trabert being a guy whose commentary and takes on play I respect, Dell not so much

 

[WCT]

Their voices as commentators

With Trabert being a guy whose commentary and takes on play I respect, Dell not so much

Well, I know you meant by the voice. I just don't think they sound very similar. The second part I agree with. IMO, Trabert is pretty clearly the better color commentator. Dell was essentially working for himself, though, and it wasn't very likely that he would replace himself. For all his shortcomings, Dell didn't overly grate on me. Mary Carillo, she grated on me.