Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Connors, Masters semi-final, 1983

[Waspsting]

Ivan Lendl beat Jimmy Connors 6-3, 6-4 in the Masters (Year End Championship/World Tour Finals) semi-final, 1983 on carpet in New York, USA

Lendl, the defending champion, would go onto lose the final to John McEnroe. Connors had recently beaten Lendl in the US Open final for the 2rd time in a row

Lendl won 68 points, Connors 57

Serve Stats
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (31/59) 53%
- 1st serve points won (23/31) 74%
- 2nd serve points won (16/28) 57%
- Aces 6 (1 not clean), Service Winners 5
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (13/59) 22%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (47/66) 71%
- 1st serve points won (27/47) 57%
- 2nd serve points won (10/19) 53%
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (5/66) 8%

Serve Patterns
Lendl served...
- to FH 65%
- to BH 35%

Connors served...
- to FH 23%
- to BH 77%

Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 61 (16 FH, 45 BH), including 3 runaround FHs
- 5 Errors, comprising...
- 2 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH)
- 3 Forced (1 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (61/66) 92%

Connors made...
- 44 (30 FH, 14 BH), including 6 return-approaches
- 2 Errors, both unforced...
- 2 Unforced (2 FH)
- Return Rate (44/57) 77%

Break Points
Lendl 3/7 (3 games)
Connors 1/4 (3 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Lendl 18 (6 FH, 8 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)
Connors 14 (4 FH, 5 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

Lendl's FHs - 2 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 inside-in, 1 longline and 1 drop shot at net
- BHs - 2 cc, 5 dtl and 1 inside-out/dtl…. all but 1 cc were passes

Connors' FHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl (1 pass) and 1 at net
- BHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl (1 pass) and 2 at net
- the OH was the second volley off a serve-volley point

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Lendl 36
- 17 Unforced (9 FH, 8 BH)
- 19 Forced (4 FH, 14 BH, 1 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.7

Connors 37
- 26 Unforced (10 FH, 12 BH, 4 FHV)….{includes 8 approach shot errors}
- 11 Forced (4 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 2 BHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 49.6

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented for these two matches are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Lendl was...
- 7/13 (54%) at net

Connors was...
- 24/39 (62%) at net, including...
- 2/3 (67%) serve-volleying, all first serves
--
- 3/6 (50%) return-approaching
- 1/1 forced back/retreated

Match Report
Scoreline is straightforward. Story is supportingly straightforward (Lendl led 5-0 in the first set and in the second, broke early and was never in trouble on serve)…. everything points to a straightforward Lendl win. My eyes saw it as straightforward. But there's something in that stats that at least gives hint to the possibility that there was a bit more to the action than Lendl straightforward being superior

For starters, look at the break points. Lendl 3/7 in 3 games, Connors 1/4 in 3 games... the extra points Lendl has is all down to a 16 point game where he has 5 break points (and converts). Now the distance between the players looks like just 1 game

Serve & Return
A no-contest on this front.... Lendl has a huge advantage. He has a powerful first serve and doesn't hold back on it. 6 aces and 5 service winners (and I'm fairly tough on handing those out). Excellent job by Connors getting back anything that wasn't outright unreturnable.... just the 2 errors, both unforced (also first time I've seen 100% of the return errors being unforced ones). Naturally, the powerful serves he does manage to get back still leaves Lendl in charge of points

Not hard to see where Connors' reputation as a great returner comes from. He's a terror to serve-volley to, strong at belting anything he can reach, but also, exceptionally good at reaching wide serves and consistent at putting the ball in play. Andre Agassi by contrast had the first quality in at least equal measure, but was well behind on reaching wide serves

Even so, the serve-return complex is a no contest in this match because his serve is fairly ordinary while Lendl's return is excellent. This is Connors 'improved' serve (meaning one can at least tell the difference between first and second serves) and he does place the first serve well. Lendl though takes it fairly early and barely misses... he makes 92% returns, usually well enough to instantly neutralize the point

Note Lendl serving 65% to FH, 35% to BH. I don't know if I'd recommend serving the majority to FH like this.... but I do think distributing more evenly from the default serve-majority-to-BH way that everyone else has in the matches of Connors I've done is a good ploy. Connors seems equally effective on the return across wings... better than to not let him have a good sense of where the serves are coming and get into a groove hitting from that one side

 

[Waspsting]

Baseline & Strategy
Baseline action is mostly close court stuff (which means Lendl is dictating) and here's where the stats are deviating from my impressions. It seems the baseline matches are well nigh a mismatch. The court being kept more or less closed means points usually end with errors (and usually unforced or just mildly forced) and it seems to me that Lendl is far and away the better baseliner. He never looks like he's going to miss, Connors doesn't exactly look like he's going to miss any second but he certainly doesn't give a human wall impression either

That's not what the stats are saying though - the stats are indicating that the gap baseline-to-baseline is much smaller. Lendl has 17 groundstroke UEs (none of them approach attempts), Connors has 22 (8 of them are approach errors)

Take away Connors' failed approach attempts, and Connors leads the baseline UE battle by 3 points (winners and pure baseline forced errors are the minority part of the baseline battle)… is it possible that contrary to appearances, Connors was actually on par with Lendl from the baseline? Keep in mind, Lendl has an effective 'head start' in these due to his undisputed advantage in the serve-return complex and its possible that Connors may even have had an edge baseline-to-baseline, which I find very surprising

Connors himself doesn't seem to think so because he's chasing the net as much as he can

A note on movement. Not once have I seen Lendl and thought "wow, he moves so fast", but not once have I seen him caught out of position regularly. And this is against the likes of Connors, McEnroe, Becker, Edberg, Mecir, Agassi, Sampras. It tends to go unnoticed but Lendl's movements are as efficient as can be, its quality masked by its smoothness. Somewhat reminiscent of Roger Federer, though the footwork isn't of the same quality. Connors' is strained and harried of look, but good enough

Lendl's slice stands out for quality. He uses it when in mildly defensive or at least, on the defensive side of neutral rallies and rarely misses. It stays low and gives Connors some trouble - just as much the BH as the FH, which was supposedly vulnerable to such balls. Lendl FH to Connors BH comes out slightly in Lendl's favour - and Lendl doesn't shy away from it, as Borg tended to

I like the aggressive way Lendl deals with Connors' odd FH moonball. Not having a slice, this seems to be Connors' way of slowing down a rally. Lendl's having none of it. Once, he runs around the BH and slaps a way a FH inside-in winner. Another one he unleashes a full cut BH cc to, opening the court and leading to a forced Connors errors a couple of shots later. A third is hit for a winner FH longline. Another Lendl seizes control of point through and forces an error soon after. Moonballing... not a great line of defence against Ivan Lendl on a carpet court

Connors doesn't have his usual variation of direction changing shots, and plays along with Lendl's cc stuff from both wings. Maybe that's why Lendl looks so much the better player... he's successfully imposed his preferred brand of neutral rallying. Unable or unwilling to transform it to an open court dynamic, Connors seeks escape by coming to net

Net Play
Connors' strategy is based on coming to net as often as can and attack from there. Why would that be if he felt he could take Lendl from the baseline?

Mostly he approaches off the FH. Almost always he approaches to Lendl's BH (note Lendl's 14 BH FEs to just 4 FHs... those would almost all be passing attempts. And Lendl's 7 BH passing winners to 0 off the FH). Throws in 3 serve-volleys and 6 return-approaches - the latter not being a play I've seen him employ often. how often did he turn to it?

Does well enough at net (wins 62%), but the approach errors are costly. 8 is not a small number in short two setter. Misses at least 2 easy volleys (with 2 other unforced). I though Lendl could have lowered the bar on what he was trying on his passing shots.... his winners are perfect, and his misses are attempts at perfect passes. Connors volleys well, but not so well that Lendl should have feared anything short of a perfect pass would be put away for a winner.... better to make Connors make the volley than net the passing shot

Lendl hits a deliberate, 'soft' passes to catch Connors out, when the American is in a half-and-half position at net. Connors deals admirably. On one occasion, he waits on the ball, leans back and hits it away for a FH winner.... good net instincts

Summing up, imposing from Lendl - serves big, returns very surely and stamps the baseline battle with his brand of play. Passes well enough - looks perfect when he gets it right - could be better. Connors can't impose himself from the baseline and tries to counter Lendl's strangling ways via net play. Can't do it well enough

The play of this match makes for an interesting compare & contrast with Connor's semi-final loss at the same tournament in 1980 to Bjorn Borg https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...rg-vs-connors-masters-semi-final-1980.620354/
The Lendl-McEnroe final that followed is here https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...dl-vs-mcenroe-masters-finals-82-83-84.622855/

 

[krosero]

New York Times:

The sellout crowd, which shouted ''choke!'' at the Czechoslovak, clearly wanted Connors to win. But, Lendl survived a significant challenge after he had won the first 5 games of the match and a feisty Connors stormed back to bring the score to 5-3, with a break point for 5-4.​

​

Lendl won the next 2 points on clear winners, a backhand passing shot and a forehand. He closed out the game with two aces.​

​

''I was getting back in there,'' Connors said. ''He was on edge. If I win that game you never know what could have happened.''​

​

''I was thinking to myself that I was a stupid idiot,'' Lendl said, ''and that if I didn't win the set from 5-love, I didn't deserve to win. It doesn't matter if you're playing Connors or McEnroe or player number 755, once you get ahead you have to take advantage of it.''​

​

Lendl believed he was helped here this week by the heavy Slazenger balls that most of the players have complained bitterly about. ''He was hitting with the same strength,'' Lendl said, ''but with the heavier balls it's not as fast and I don't have as much trouble running the shots down. I hit it harder, harder, harder and then he misses.''​

Sports Illustrated:

Lendl filled the Garden with nothing but live bullets during his early 5-0 fusilade against Connors. But never one to quit, or jump off a bridge, Jimbo turned into vintage Connors—grunting, dashing about, grabbing his crotch, slashing unreturnable returns. Soon he was back in the set at 5-3, 15-40—two break points and a chance to serve to tie. But then Lendl in succession drilled a backhand pass, a forehand drive winner, an ace and another serve that never came back to clinch the set. Lendl ran out the match 6-3, 6-4, gaining a bit of revenge for his humiliating collapses to Connors in the last two U.S. Open finals.​

​

Why is Lendl so much more effective in the Garden in January than he is across the river in Queens in September? "This court is slower," Lendl said. "I can set up and keep the ball in play. There's no sun or wind. I have trouble serving in sun and wind. The crowd is closer; I like that. Are those enough reasons or do you want me to make up some?"​

 

[Waspsting]

The sellout crowd, which shouted ''choke!'' at the Czechoslovak, clearly wanted Connors to win

Didn't notice this (if its true - rest of the piece isn't too reliable)

It actually crossed my mind that the crowd were rather well behaved, compared to US Open crowds

New York Times:
...Lendl won the next 2 points on clear winners, a backhand passing shot and a forehand. He closed out the game with two aces.

Sports Illustrated:
...But then Lendl in succession drilled a backhand pass, a forehand drive winner, an ace and another serve that never came back to clinch the set.

Judge for yourself

Starting 43:30

Spoiler: I call that...

1) Lendl BH cc pass winner
2) Connors FH pass FE
3) Ace
4) Service Winner

My favourite turnaround play in the match was when Lendl broke in the second set, game 3

He didn't approach - or look to - all match, but in that game, kept losing key points to Connors approaches.

So points 15 and 16, he came in himself to break

"Had just about enough of this sissy, net rushing stuff... so there", I like to imagine him thinking as he did it

Why is Lendl so much more effective in the Garden in January than he is across the river in Queens in September? "This court is slower," Lendl said. "I can set up and keep the ball in play. There's no sun or wind. I have trouble serving in sun and wind. The crowd is closer; I like that. Are those enough reasons or do you want me to make up some?"

If only he'd added a "more" at the end

Am curious about court pace of US Open relative to Masters. Do you know the unreturned serve percentages for their US Open finals?

 

[krosero]

Judge for yourself

Starting 43:30

Spoiler: I call that...

1) Lendl BH cc pass winner
2) Connors FH pass FE
3) Ace
4) Service Winner

On the second point it looks to me like Connors' FH hit the floor before it reached the net, or landed in the very bottom of the net. I know Leo Levin judged it a winner if a ball failed to make it to the net "on the fly"; and this one here either meets that description or is very close.

Back in the early 80s, and certainly in the 70s, the term "winner" was somewhat loose anyway. Some winner counts are so inflated relative to current stats that we know they must have included many ordinary forced-error points (ie, ball is driven straight into the tape).

Do you know the unreturned serve percentages for their US Open finals?

1983 - Connors 24.8%, Lendl 20.1%
1982 - Connors 18.6%, Lendl 25.6%

 

[Waspsting]

Back in the early 80s, and certainly in the 70s, the term "winner" was somewhat loose anyway. Some winner counts are so inflated relative to current stats that we know they must have included many ordinary forced-error points (ie, ball is driven straight into the tape).

What threw me was the phrase "clean winner"

Now you can define a winner as a ball that goes through untouched or is tipped off to the side or bounces twice before reaching the net... and you'd call the shot in question a winner in that case

But why "clean winner"? - what is a 'non-clean' winner than?

It would be like you or I (who define winners as balls that go through untouched) writing something like "genuine, clean winner"

Also the "2 aces".... I haven't heard anyone commentating during that time period call something like the 4th point an "ace"

The second point is an example of some of the grey area we were discussing about net points.

If I judge that an approach shot that's drawn an error would have drawn the error regardless of the approach, I won't count it a net point (just like a service-winner isn't a serve-volley point)

That point, I did count a net point... Connors sees Lendl coming in and would play his shot accordingly. Might have tried to just loop the ball back in play if Lendl hadn't come in

 

[jrepac]

Interesting; I don't think I saw this one...at least I don't remember it. Stats would point to a close match, if you did not actually watch it. I find the comment about the balls telling. Would the carpet there have been slower than the Deco Turf...which I know was faster back in the 80's than now. Or would the Slazenger balls been the difference...and yes, they were heavier than all others....they kind of sucked.

 

[krosero]

What threw me was the phrase "clean winner"

Now you can define a winner as a ball that goes through untouched or is tipped off to the side or bounces twice before reaching the net... and you'd call the shot in question a winner in that case

But why "clean winner"? - what is a 'non-clean' winner than?

It would be like you or I (who define winners as balls that go through untouched) writing something like "genuine, clean winner"

Also the "2 aces".... I haven't heard anyone commentating during that time period call something like the 4th point an "ace"

The second point is an example of some of the grey area we were discussing about net points.

If I judge that an approach shot that's drawn an error would have drawn the error regardless of the approach, I won't count it a net point (just like a service-winner isn't a serve-volley point)

That point, I did count a net point... Connors sees Lendl coming in and would play his shot accordingly. Might have tried to just loop the ball back in play if Lendl hadn't come in

Actually when I studied that game in your link to the video, I focused on the SI article and overlooked the NY Times report, so let's start over.

The Times report is more of a problem. It's got the term "clear winner"; you wrote "clean" above so I take it you regard the terms as interchangeable. And probably they are. "Clean winner", there can't be any doubt what that means. "Clear" probably means the same thing, though I can't rule out that some writers used it in the sense of "indisputable," ie, a judgment call that clearly must go into the winner column. (We do something similar when we judge a nicked serve as "unreturnable" and put it down as a service winner; or when a rally ball fails to make it to net on the fly and it gets added to the clean winners.) I've just seen writers use tennis terms in so many ways over the years ....

It's possible that the Times reporter just made a mistake, but in this case I doubt it, because SI also describes that point as a "winner". For me that's just an indication of how loosely winners could be tabulated by some writers in those days. Some writers were probably stricter than others; some stats we found from that era track fairly close to our clean-winner counts; but other don't, to put it mildly. McEnroe was credited with "96 winners" in his win over Wilander at '85 USO, but he had only 53 clean winners (excluding 4 clean aces), to use an extreme example.

The fact that the Times reporter put down the fourth point as an "ace" when we would call it a service winner (SI says "another serve that never came back"), probably means the reporter just had a looser definition of these terms than we do.

The Times reporter for this Lendl-Connors match was Jane Gross, who I know nothing about. If you ever chart the Lendl-Connors Masters semifinal from twelve months earlier (Jan. 1983), there's a NY Times report by Neil Amdur, who wrote frequently about tennis for the Times, at least as far back as '75. He gave these stats:

Lendl is a great front-runner, fearless almost to the point of arrogance when his serve and forehand are in synch. He managed only 49 percent of his 43 first serves, but his depth and power were too formidable even for Connors, whose return of serve is considered the best. Lendl won 18 points on his serve with aces (eight), service winners or an errant Connors return.​

Per Amdur, then, Lendl served on 43 points, and 18 serves did not come back: 41.9%

 

[Waspsting]

The Times report is more of a problem. It's got the term "clear winner"; you wrote "clean" above so I take it you regard the terms as interchangeable

Logical, but not quite

Actually, I just mis-read it

"Trees in the the forest" stuff