Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Connors, US Open second round, 1992

[Waspsting]

Ivan Lendl beat Jimmy Connors 3-6, 6-3, 6-2, 6-0 in the US Open second round, 1992 on hard court

Lendl would go onto lose in the quarter-final to eventual champion Stefan Edberg. This was the fifth and last time the two players met at the event. This was the 40-year old Connors’ last Slam match

Lendl won 111 points, Connors 80

Connors serve-volleyed more often than not off first serves

(Note: following 2 points are incomplete -
- Set3, Game 2, Point 1 - a Lendl service point with incomplete visual. Serve type and direction are known, and based on available visual, has been marked BH return FE
- Set 3, Game 6, Point 1 - a Lendl service point that he won, completely missing)

Serve Stats
Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (40/84) 48%
- 1st serve points won (31/40) 78%
- 2nd serve points won (29/44) 66%
- ?? serve point won (1/1)
- Aces 12
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (29/84) 35%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (64/106) 60%
- 1st serve points won (39/64) 61%
- 2nd serve points won (17/42) 40%
- Aces 2
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (22/106) 21%

Serve Patterns
Lendl served...
- to FH 65%
- to BH 28%
- to Body 7%

Connors served...
- to FH 32%
- to BH 65%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Lendl made...
- 82 (25 FH, 57 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 20 Errors, comprising...
- 8 Unforced (6 FH, 2 BH)
- 12 Forced (3 FH, 9 BH)
- Return Rate (82/104) 79%

Connors made...
- 54 (39 FH, 15 BH), including 2 return-approaches
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 10 Unforced (8 FH, 2 BH)
- 7 Forced (3 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (54/83) 65%

Break Points
Lendl 7/12 (9 games)
Connors 2/6 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Lendl 24 (19 FH, 4 BH, 1 FHV)
Connors 22 (1 FH, 2 BH, 8 FHV, 9 BHV, 2 OH)

Lendl's regular FHs - 1 cc, 4 dtl (1 return), 1 dtl/inside-out, 3 inside-out

- FH passes - 1 cc, 5 dtl, 2 longline, 2 lobs
- BH passes - 1 cc, 3 dtl (1 slice)

Connors' had 10 from serve-volley points -
- 6 first volleys (3 FHV, 3 BHV)
- 4 second volleys (2 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)

- 1 other BHV was a swinging dtl

- FH return - 1 inside-in
- BHs - 2 cc ( 1 at net)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Lendl 35
- 23 Unforced (14 FH, 8 BH, 1 OH)... the OH was on the bounce from the baseline
- 12 Forced (3 FH, 9 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.1

Connors 55
- 42 Unforced (21 FH, 11 BH, 9 FHV, 1 BHV)... with 1 BH at net
- 13 Forced (1 FH, 2 BH, 3 FHV, 3 FH1/2V, 3 BHV, 1 Tweener)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 46.2

(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
Lendl was 1/2 at net, with...
- 0/1 forced back

Connors was...
- 40/77 (52%) at net, including...
- 21/38 (55%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 21/37 (57%) off 1st serve and...
- 0/1 off 2nd serve
---
- 1/2 return-approaching
- 0/2 forced back

Match Report
A controlled Lendl picks apart Connors’ game. Connors leads with a flurry of serve-volley and net play, Lendl chips returns and passes low and Connors is wobbly to on any volley under the net, and Lendl’s also strong with standard FH pass. While in baseline rallies, Lendl chips BHs to breakdown Connors’ FH. And Lendl prolongs rallies, wearing Connors down. Connors’ serve-volleying seems almost desperate, and he doesn’t play smart from the back; Its not difficult to get the ball away from his FH but he makes little effort to. Court is normal, with healthy bounce, though Lendl’s able to keep ball low with his under-spin

Fine 24 winners, 23 UE showing from Lendl, with FH starring with 19 winners, 17 errors (14 UEs, 3 FEs). Its better on the pass than it is in baseline rallies, BH is the quiet star in those, with match low 8 UEs, while drawing most of Jimbo’s match high 21

Jimbo meanwhile serve-volleys off 60% off his first serves and rallies to net even more often. Serves about as big as he’s capable. Its hot enough game to singe Lendl, but he’s shakey in volleying anything even slightly under the net and gets shakier lower the ball gets. And why he doesn’t bail on FH cc rallies with Lendl’s little BH chipping is a mystery to go with so many in a long career

Just 52% net points won by Jimbo. Does a little better just serve-volleying where he’s 55%. Bad enough to get broken and have threat of being broken constantly around. FHs proneness to error against low ball is his bug from the baseline

77 net points for Jimbo. Lendl almost literally only comes to shake hands. He approches twice - once being forced back without playing a shot at net. He remains 2-3 paces behind baseline even when Jimbo’s being forced back from net. Prolonging rallies and tiring the 40-year old out is call of the day, not finish points decisively

Gist - Jimbo at net regularly, but error prone on anything under the net. Lendl hitting nice balance of feeding him chipped/blocked passes that catch him under the net and draw errors and ramming through more typical FH pass winners
- on the baseline, Lendl chipping BHs, keeping ball low and Jimbo’s FH getting broken down by it

Serve, Return & Serve-Volley
Jimbo serves about as big as he’s capable, Lendl is less than all out with the serve, contrary to his numbers

In count - Lendl 48%, Jimbo 60%
First serve ace rate - Lendl 30%, Jimbo 3%

Lendl with low 48% first serves in usually means he’s looking for aces virtually every first serve. And his high ace rate supports that. He’s actually not all-in with the serve, and only choice banging down big ones. In that light, 48% is poor (though he’s so much better player he can comfily afford it)

With Jimbo serve-volleying so often, necessary for him to serve forcefully to avoid a return-pass massacre.

He’s forced 12 return errors, while drawing 8 UEs. Largely due to serve-volley, but even without it, considerable lot of his first serves would qualify as forceful (some combo of powerful and wide). Considerably more than his norm. He even forces a return error with a second serve that he’s staying back on. Good job at, 60% in count, with pretty good second serves too (to be clear, the forceful second serve is exception, not norm) and just 2 double fualts

Gets him 2 aces or 3% of first serves, so not exactly formidable
Unreturned rates - Lendl 35%, Jimbo 21%

Very good to be going on for Lendl. Jimbo would need to volley well with that low a rate. The substantial serve-volley helps indirectly in drawing aggressive UEs when Jimbo stays back, with Lendl wary of a possible serve-volley

Lendl though has a safe answer to return against regular, but not full serve-volleying; He doesn’t blast every return looking for winner, but chips and blocks them with control to get ball under the net

If Jimbo serve-volleys, he’ll face under-net volley
If he doesn’t, it doesn’t matter and a rally will develop

Jimbo serve-volleys 60% off time off first serves or 37 times (also, once of a second) and Lendl has no return-pass winners (he does have a return winner with Jimbo on baseline). Good enough serving from Jimbo to make smacking return-pass winners not-easy (it tells you something about Jimbo’s norm serving strength when that’s a positive point worth noting), but Lendl also not trying for them; He’s happy to chip returns and present low volleys (more on how serve-volleying action goes later)

Jimbo a little slow to move sideways to meet returns. 65% return rate against 48% in-count isn’t a good outcome. Does look to slap a few winning second returns. Without much success - 1 winner, a few misses trying, virtually 0 point ending calibre returns

Lendl serving 65% to Jimbo’s FH. Normal for the match-up

 

[Waspsting]

Play - Baseline & Net
Jimbo’s serve-volleying frequency is at its highest at start of match and for first set and a bit, he’s virtually doing so every points. That goes down as match goes on but he looks to come in from rallies instead

Lendl hits 2 volleys all match - putting away an easy winner at net, and a swinging shot from near baseline that he approaches off (and moves back to baseline for next shot upon Jimbo’s defensive lob)

Lendl returns with soft blocks and soft chips to gives Jimbo low volleys as mentioned earlier. Passes that way in play large lot of time too. Jimbo’s typically harried in making his way around net, but looks uncomfy. He looks like unnatural net player (which commentators, Vitas Gerulaitis prominently among them, paint him as), jumpy and seemingly just about reach volleys. The opposite of a smooth showing - mostly reacting, not much anticipating. And he is not good at making anything under the net - whether its just slighlty under or down to his feet

Smart move from Lendl to pass as he does. You never see him passing like this against McEnroe. Very likely because he doesn’t think slightly under net volleys is going to result in much other than Mac putting volleys away. Against Jimbo, such passes (including the return) prove much more effective. In their ‘85 semi, Lendl had passed the same way

Its not all rinky-dink stuff from Lendl on the pass. Off the FH, more typical, powerful wide shots looking for winner. Its BH pass that’s chippy of style (and Jimbo serves there most of the time)

Jimbo on ‘volley’ has 20 winners, 11 UEs, 9 FEs
Lendl on pass has 14 winners (10 FH, 4 BH), 10 FE (2 FH, 8 BH)

That’s a comfy win for Lendl in the contest

Both UEs and FEs for Jimbo are high. Misses more ‘regulation-under net’ volleys than he makes and anything lower than that is far more likely to draw error than not from him. FHV is the loose one and has 9/10 UEs, though Jimbo does seem to prefer hitting them over BHV. He does putaway above net high stuff with typical, if somewhat rushed, gusto

Phenomenal FH passing output from Lendl of 10 winners, 2 FEs. BH has more normal 4 winners, 8 FEs yield, but its BH chips that draw Jimbo’s errors, while the power FHs go through for clean winners

In all, Jimbo’s 21/38 serve-volleying (all but 0/1 being first serves) and 18/37 rallying to net
Jimbo’s net thirst for rallies also peaks at start of match, and gets smaller as match goes on. He’s never not keen to get to net, but not to ‘must-get-to-net’ early enthusiasm

(Commentary& Stats Taking Detour)
Jimbo reaches 18 approaches before end of first set, which 1 commentator claims is more than he had in entire ‘83 final. He seems to be be speaking literally because he very specifically mentions Jimbo having 17 approaches in that match, both prior to Jimbo crossing it here and after

I have him with 46 approaches in that match and total of 18 winners and errors at net, leaving aside entirely passing figures for Lendl

Some parts of the world resonate more with ‘never-let-facts-get-in-the-way-of-a-good-story’ philosophy than others. Commentators for this match all seem to hail from one of the most parts

Much of commentary early on focuses on how unusual it is for Jimbo to attack net so much (which probably is true, and certainly for the period in question)

Vitas Gerulaitis, who played Connors over 20 times says something about this being the most aggressive he’s ever seen Connors or most net-seeking or something like that. Specifically mentions how his Jimbo’s old coach Pancho Segura wanted Jimbo to come to net more, but Connors preferred ‘beating people up from the back’ (paraphrased). @WCT might find this interesting

Stats appear on screen at one stage, which has Lendl being 1/3 at net. Same guy who made claim about ‘83 final net stats quips he must have missed the 3 approaches. He’s not the only one

Closest Lendl’s been to ‘net’ at that stage is less than half-way to service line. He misses a FH dtl from 2-3 paces inside court that I’d call a baseline winner attempt, with possible intent to follow to net had he not missed. If that’s one of the points - and that’s the furthest forward Lendl’s been up court at that stage - then stats taking for the match is using a very, very different standard than the one that has Jimbo with 18 approaches in the ‘83 final

Play - Baseline
Back to the match

Lendl dominates baseline astutely. He’s better player, which is enhanced by strange choices by Jimbo to persist with Lendl BH - Jimbo FH rallies
Lendl’s baseline play is very similar to his passing. Plays orthodox hitting FHs and isn’t averse to going of his shots off that side. On the BH, he settles into low chipping to get to look to exploit Jimbo’s FH and to prolong rallies

All of it works like a charm

Winners - Lendl 9, Jimbo 2 (Jimbo with the only BH, both players with a FH return)
Errors Forced - Lendl 3, Jimbo 2
UEs - Lendl 23, Jimbo 31

8 winners from Lendl’s FH (plus a return), none from Jimbo. Lendl’s FH doing good damage. Jimbo’s more apt to look for approaches instead of shot-making from back, so winner counts aren’t good indicator of direct comparison of damaging quality of shots on show

But winning 18/37 rallying to net speaks to Jimbo’s offence not being effective. He’s also got good 5-6 approach errors in there, which for him, isn’t large

UEs by paired cc exchanges
- Lendl FH 14, Jimbo BH 10
- Lendl BH 8, Jimbo FH 21

This is where Jimbo’s choices are questionable. He’s quite happy to persist with unfavourable rally. Lendl does very little with BH. Just chips them gently cc over and over again and Jimbo’s obviously uncomfy handling the low ball

Why not escape the rally by playing FH longline? There’s no rush to. Lendl’s chip cc BH is very predictable, and while they’re good ones, not all of them are landing on baseline or spinning so viciously that changing directions is difficult. Just play back cc til get a ball that he feels good playing longline to put ball on Lendl’s FH. Would take 3 balls maximum

 

[Waspsting]

Nope. Keeps playing back FH cc, until he blinks up error, with Lendl looking like he could do this all day and all the next, Jimbo like he might blink up error any minute

He makes a very audible comment after getting broken by passive chipping about Lendl pertaining to pushing, sexual orientation and either a cat or female genitalia

If he’s hoping Lendl responds by hitting out and moving away from a winning game to one which offers opponent better chances, he’s disappointed. Lendl’s been doing this to him for nearly 10 years at this stage with almost perfect success. Worth a shot in that he has nothing to lose, though it’s a poor shot

If that’s how he actually sees things, as opposed to “He’s really exploiting my weakness well here” or “I really should learn how to deal with this very, very basic dynamic better”, maybe it says something about his brains. Same brains that persist with FH cc rally that ends so predictably

Lendl not targetting Jimbo FH with his own FH. When balls on his FH, Lendl playing orthodox, cc based directions with firm force. Jimbo BH holding its own in those rallies as the UE counts suggest. Lendl slightly more leading that cc rally, but not to pegging Jimbo back degree, let alone attacking degree. And Lendl’s neutral FH is fairly loose, giving up fair few routine ground UEs and Jimbo actually getting better of things there

It’s all a neutral FH longline away against a light chip, but Jimbo is either incapable of such a shot or likes his chances playing who-blinks-first against those BH chips. It doesn’t go well for him, his FH is broken down, the rallies are long which further tire him down and he’s left fuming about pushing, Lendl’s sexual orientation and likeness to a cat/female genitalia

Gist - Lendl breaking down Jimbo’s FH with little chip BHs is at heart of his substantial superiority. Not a difficult pattern to break out of for Jimbo, though he makes little effort to

Match Progression
Jimbo’s near all out serve-volleying to start the match, and serving strongly and wide. He’s a little awkward stretching and lunging about for volleys, but makes them. Lendl’s FH passing is successful though and he mostly top-spins or drives BHs in baseline rallies

First set is competitive, with Jimbo taking his only break pint and saving the only one he’s faced with after that

Error forcing strong serve to start match, which Jimbo stays back on. He serve volleys for rest of game, gets a couple of second FHV winners off, Lendl strikes a couple of FH passing winners too
Jimbo return-approaches off his first return point too, but Lendl passes him FH dtl and adds couple of ground FH winners in holding

Strong game by Jimbo to break for 3-1 - a net point, a winning FH dtl, a winning deep wide FH return, before Lendl misses routine FH
Lendl has his only break point in game 7, which lasts 10 points and misses a winner attempt BH dtl on it. Jimbo secures the game with a BH cc winner. His only baseline rally winner of the match

After serving out to 30 with Lendl missing aggressive FHs, Jimbo breaks to start the second set on back of Lendl ground UEs. Lendl breaks straight back with Jimbo giving up the errors

Jimbo eases back some on serve-volleying but is still a regular at net. He’s got next break point in game 5 with more net play. Strong serve from Lendl saves it and he slices a BH dtl pass winner before going on to hold. Jimbo struggles through 3 break points to to hold for 3-3

Lendl wins 15/17 of rest of matches games. The 2 games he loses are pseudo-tanks

Holds an all second serve game to love, before breaking to 15 in a mixed game, where a ne chord dribbling return stumps the serve-volleying Jimbo. Lendl serves out to love

First game of third set that takes the stuffings out of Jimbo.Lendl turns to passive BH chipping in earnest and calmly outlasts Jimbo in long rallies. On break point, Jimbo second serve-volleys for only time in match and is met with a return to his feet that he can’t handle. Its after this game that he derisively comments on Lendl’s style of play

Lendl settles into low chipping BHs, without pointedly looking for BHs. Jimbo plays along to bad results. He’s not as a net hungry and doesn’t serve-volley much
After opening up 4-0 lead, Lendl half-asses 2 return games to lose them, while holding to take set

For a bagel, fourth set is competitive. Jimbo has game points in all his service games (which last 8, 8, and 10 points). And Lendl from 30-0 up, Lendl twice falls to 30-40 on back of 3 consecutive ground UEs before going on to hold. Jimbo’s weary at start of set and gets more so as set goes on

Jimbo still attacking the net and unable to handle low volleys
He’s lighthearted and indulges the crowd during last 2-3 games when result is all but settled and he’s at his most tired

Only the serve out is straightforward. Lendl banging down a couple of aces, Jimbo missing a tweener (has he ever played a tweener before?), and fittingly enough, Jimbo with a FH UE to wrap up love game and match

Summing up, sentimental occasion of what would turn out to be 40-year old, 5-time former champion Jimmy Connors’ last match at the US Open. He typically gives it full go with an assault of serve-volleying and net play that’s more desperate than calculated, while serving about as powerfully as he’s capable

He isn’t very good though and Lendl is a lot better. Connors apt to miss any volley below the net, and Lendl feeds him chipped BH passes there, while more normally smacking FH passing winners regularly. And in baseline action, Lendl settles into groove of chipping BH cc’s that exploit and breakdown Connors’ FH. Escaping that staple rally isn’t difficult but Connors makes little effort to. He’s worn down by the lengthy rallies too and substantially more tired than the winner by the end

Stats for Lendl’s fourth round match with Boris Becker - Match Stats/Report - Lendl vs Becker, US Open fourth round, 1992 | Talk Tennis
Stats for Lendl’s quarter-final with Stefan Edberg - Tri Match Stats/Reports - Edberg vs Lendl, US Open semi-final, 1991, Australian Open & US Open quarter-finals, 1992 | Talk Tennis

 

[WCT]

Vitas specifically mentioned Segura in reference to Connors coming to net? Damn, how could I possibly forget that no matter how many years ago it was. I sure never forgot the 91 Haarhuis match where Mcenroe and Gerulaitis going on and on about how much more he is coming in than ever.

At one point, maybe midway in the 4th set, they flash Connors net stats, He had been in 47 points at that point. Mcenroe remarks, he didn't come in that much the first 20 times we played, I'm thinking, John, he came in more than that the first time you played. And I had never seen more than a couple points of their 77 Wimbledon match at that point. However, I knew how he played then. It was actually 83 when I did the stats.

I didn't remember it exactly right, though. For probably 20 plus years until I saw it again, I thought the number was 50 times. That he didn't come in 50 times the first 20 times they played, But the on and on conversation about it I remembered. Kind of like Bud Collins in the 82 Wimbledon final.

 

[WCT]

I looked for the quote and found it. Fortunately in the 3rd game was so I didn't have to look too hard. Vitas says Segura and Gonzalez and that it was 20 years ago, but Connors didn't want to come in. And how ironic it is that 20 years later he is a net rusher.

This, of course, is nonsense. I don't mean Segura and Gonzalez encouraging him to come in. Perhaps not in reluctance he showed to do it 20 years ago. However, it is absolutley nonsense that he spent most of the next 20 years reluctant to come in. For the howmanyith time, so many of those mid 70s matches are up on youtube, He is not a baseliner, he is an all court player. You want to argue later on, you can make a case. But not the Connors Segura directly coached.

Still can't believe I didn't remember Vitas saying that. I definitely watched this match live and would have thought that would be seared in my memory.

 

[jrepac]

I have to watch this one again, it's been awhile. It was an unusual match. Where I disagree is the description of his S&V strategy being "desperate". I didn't see it that way at all...it seemed smart...as long as he could keep it up. He was stretching or lunging for some volleys, but so what? He was playing like it was a grass match, practically. And Lendl was on the ropes going into the 2nd set and getting broken right out of the gate. But, your point about Connors falling into that BH to FH pattern, Lendl chipping away is very valid. Why Connors did not do more to BREAK that pattern stumped me. It's not like Lendl was killing the ball...he was DELIBERATELY pushing it back chipped and low. Knowing that as the rally goes on, Jimmy's gonna make an error. It was frustrating to watch, when as you say, he could've changed direction, at the very least, hit something inside out w/sidespin, etc....just do something other than fall into the predictable trap. It was fun for the 1st 2 sets, after that it was pretty much done. But I did forget that Jimmy was competitive in most of his service games in that 4th set. At that point, I figured, it did not matter.

 

[Waspsting]

I looked for the quote and found it. Fortunately in the 3rd game was so I didn't have to look too hard. Vitas says Segura and Gonzalez and that it was 20 years ago, but Connors didn't want to come in. And how ironic it is that 20 years later he is a net rusher.

This, of course, is nonsense. I don't mean Segura and Gonzalez encouraging him to come in. Perhaps not in reluctance he showed to do it 20 years ago. However, it is absolutley nonsense that he spent most of the next 20 years reluctant to come in. For the howmanyith time, so many of those mid 70s matches are up on youtube, He is not a baseliner, he is an all court player. You want to argue later on, you can make a case. But not the Connors Segura directly coached.

Still can't believe I didn't remember Vitas saying that. I definitely watched this match live and would have thought that would be seared in my memory.

Is it possible that when these people talk about 'net rushing', they simply mean 'serve-volleying'?

That to them, a guy who rallies his way to net isn't 'net rushing', he's playing from baseline and only straight out serve-volleying and return-approaching is their defination of 'net rushing'?

Mac, I've long known to be simplistic in his views and prone to exaggerations and imprecision
For example, when he says something like "I need to make 70% first serves"... he doesn't literally mean that (I don't think I've ever seen him make 70% first serves), but to him, that 70% is his idea of 'large figure'

Vitas I haven't heard as much from, but was impressed by his breakdown of some early 90s match of Edberg's, so was a little surprised to hear him say what he did

I have to watch this one again, it's been awhile. It was an unusual match. Where I disagree is the description of his S&V strategy being "desperate". I didn't see it that way at all...it seemed smart...as long as he could keep it up. He was stretching or lunging for some volleys, but so what? He was playing like it was a grass match, practically. And Lendl was on the ropes going into the 2nd set and getting broken right out of the gate.

I agree with you, and I expressed myself unclearly before, so let me try again

Desperate, in that its thoroughly outside his regular game
But not desperate in the negative sense. Smart and desperate

If you can't win from the baseline, then you have to come to net. Maybe you'll lose there too, but you'll definatley lose from the baseline... and at net, at least you have better chances
For Connors against Lendl around this period, I don't think he'd have a hope in hell of winning from the baseline

Hence, the serve-volleying is good move. Call it necessary desperation. He's heavy under dog no matter what he does, so its fitting to be desperate

 

[WCT]

Is it possible that when these people talk about 'net rushing', they simply mean 'serve-volleying'?

That to them, a guy who rallies his way to net isn't 'net rushing', he's playing from baseline and only straight out serve-volleying and return-approaching is their defination of 'net rushing'?

Mac, I've long known to be simplistic in his views and prone to exaggerations and imprecision
For example, when he says something like "I need to make 70% first serves"... he doesn't literally mean that (I don't think I've ever seen him make 70% first serves), but to him, that 70% is his idea of 'large figure'

Vitas I haven't heard as much from, but was impressed by his breakdown of some early 90s match of Edberg's, so was a little surprised to hear him say what he did



I agree with you, and I expressed myself unclearly before, so let me try again

Desperate, in that its thoroughly outside his regular game
But not desperate in the negative sense. Smart and desperate

If you can't win from the baseline, then you have to come to net. Maybe you'll lose there too, but you'll definatley lose from the baseline... and at net, at least you have better chances
For Connors against Lendl around this period, I don't think he'd have a hope in hell of winning from the baseline

Hence, the serve-volleying is good move. Call it necessary desperation. He's heavy under dog no matter what he does, so its fitting to be desperate

I listened closely to what Vitas said, wondering if it could be interpreted as s/v. And maybe that is what he meant, but it is not what he said. He said net rushing. Ironically, the highest s/v I have for Connors is his 78 Wimbledon semi vs Vitas. Maybe 71 of 87 overall. That is both serves. Than in the final I think you only had him doing it 12-15 times against. Be interested to say any of his earlier matches that year and how often I did it.

Obviously, he did it regularly in other grass court matches as well, especially 74, 75 and what I've seen of the 76 Tanner match. This match is the most I saw him do it on a outdoor hard court, but the pickings are slim on his mid 70s hard court matches. I mean as far as video goes, I suppose Stockholm was indoor hard court, In the partail I got of his 75 match with Panatta, he s/v on 23 of 55 serves, Both serves that is, You sure as hell would never see him do that later on. I mean later on as later in the 79s and 80s, not as a 39 or 40 year old. Whoops, he did do it a good amount in that 1990 match vs Lendl at Forest Hills. Right before the US Open. He retired in that match and withdrew from the US Open. That was when he had that bad wrist injury.