Match Stats/Report - McEnroe vs Connors, US Open semi-final, 1980

[Waspsting]

John McEnroe beat Jimmy Connors 6-4 5-7 0-6 6-3 7-6(3) in the semi-final of the US Open, 1980 on hard court.

It was a repeat of the previous years semi ( https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...oe-vs-connors-us-open-semi-final-1979.610663/), and McEnroe would go on to defeat Bjorn Borg in the final to successfully defend his maiden Slam title

McEnroe serve-volleyed on all but one of his first serves, and most of his seconds

McEnroe won 157 points, Connors 166

Serve Stats
McEnroe....
- 1st serve percentage (98/163) 60%
- 1st serve points won (61/98) 62%
- 2nd serve points won (36/65) 55%
- Aces 9, Service Winners 3
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (60/163) 37%

Connors. ...
- 1st serve percentage (131/163) 80%
- 1st serve points won (82/131) 63%
- 2nd serve points won (19/32) 59%
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (22/163) 13%

(Connors had no aces, double faults or in my judgement, service winners)

Serve Pattern
McEnroe served...
- to FH 33%
- to BH 48%
- to Body 19%

Connors served...
- to FH 42%
- to BH 52%
- to Body 6%

Return Stats
McEnroe made...
- 141 (66 FH, 75 BH), including 6 runaround FHs and 10 return-approaches
- 22 Errors, comprising...
- 14 Unforced (9 FH, 4 BH), including 1 runaround FH and 1 attempted chip-charge
- 8 Forced (4 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (141/163) 87%

Connors made...
- 100 (37 FH, 63 BH), including 8 runaround FHs and 1 runaround BH
- 15 Winners (6 FH, 9 BH)
- 48 Errors, comprising...
- 3 Unforced (2 FH, 1 BH)
- 45 Forced (26 FH, 19 BH)
- Return Rate (100/160) 63%


Break Points
McEnroe 7/23 (9 games)
Connors 8/17 (10 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
McEnroe 37 (4 FH, 4 BH, 9 FHV, 8 BHV, 11 OH, 1 BHOH)
Connors 53 (14 FH, 22 BH, 4 FHV, 7 BHV, 6 OH)

- For McEnroe, 7 FHVs were S/V points (3 first volleys, 4 second volleys). These were of all varieties - putaways, stretch, pat downs, reflex

- the other 2 FHVs were a stop volley and a drop volley

- 6 BHVs were S/V points (2 first, 3 second, 1 third). 2 of these were reflex volleys and most of them were placed longline

- 6 OHs were putaways and 2 more were 3rd ball shots of S/V points

- he had 5 passes (2 FH, 3 BH). Both FHs were dtl, while the 3 BHs consisted of a cc, a dtl and a lob

- 1 FH was a drop shot

- 2 baseline-to-baseline winners - a FH inside-out and a step-in BH cc

- Connors had 2 at-net groundstrokes - a FH cc and a BH dtl

- 5 other non-passes, all BHs - 2 slightly inside-out, 1 genuinely inside-out and a cc and dtl apiece

- 30 passes (13 FH, 16 BH, 1 FHV). The FHV was a curious point, with Connors S/V'ng off a second serve as McEnroe chip-charged the return

- 6 FH passes were returns - 1 apiece cc, dtl and inside-out and 3 inside-in

- 7 other FH passes (5 cc, 2 inside-out). One of each were mid-court balls and 1 cc was a running shot

- 9 BH return passes (6 dtl, 1 inside-in, 1 inside-out) and 7 other BH passes (4 cc, 1 dtl, 1 slightly inside-out, 1 lob)

- 3/4 FHVs were S/V points (2 first volleys, 1 second volley) including the earlier mentioned pass

- 3/7 BHVs were S/V points (2 first volleys, 1 second volleys). Most of all his BHVs were hit cc

- 1 swinging BHV, played from behind the service line

- 2 put away OHs, 1 which could reasonably be called a FHV, 1 on the bounce behind the service line


Errors (excluding returns and serves)
McEnroe 91
- 43 Unforced (18 FH, 15 BH, 4 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 OH)
- 48 Forced (12 FH, 9 BH, 9 FHV, 6 FH1/2V, 4 BHV, 6 BH1/2V, 1 OH)

Connors 60
- 36 Unforced (14 FH, 18 BH, 5 BHV, 1 OH)
- 24 Forced (10 FH, 9 BH, 3 FHV, 2 BHV)

(Note 1: 1 Connors FE FHV was struck from behind the service line and was not a net point)

(Note 2: All half-volleys refer to such shots played at net. Groundstroke half-volleys have been included within the broader category of groundstrokes)


Net Points & Serve-Volley
McEnroe was 92/163 (56%) at net, including 77/135 (57%) serve-volleying - 47/84 (56%) off first serve & 30/51 (59%) off second serve - and 5/10 return-approaching

He was 9/17 on all other approaches, including 1/3 when forced back from net

Connors was 42/59 (71%) at net, including 10/15 (67%) serve-volleying - 7/11 (64%) off first serves and 3/4 (75%) off second serves

He was 32/44 on all other approaches including 2/4 when forced back from the net

(Note: Connors made 2 approaches on the same point. He was forced back after the first approach and later, came in again.

This has been counted as 2 approaches, 1 point won and as a forced back point)

(Note 2: There was a point where both players approached and were forced back, won by McEnroe. This has been counted as a forced back point for both players)

 

[Waspsting]

Match Report
This was a fabulous match. It can't come closer than 7-6 in the fifth with the loser claiming a bagel and winning more points

There are a number of statistical surprises here

- Connors outdoing Mac 63%-62% on first serve points won - especially surprising giving just how many more of such points there were for Connors (131-61)

- Mac 2nd serve-volley points better than his 1st serve-volley points 59%-56% (Connors also but with statistically insignificantly few 2nd serve-volleys)

- Connors completely outstripping Mac 71% to 57% on net points won (largely explained by Mac approaching 3 times as much, but still a bit surprising)

- Connors with 1 genuine, runaround BH return. He 'moved' around several body serves to deliver the BH, but this was the sole running-around-the-forehand Backhand of the lot. A highly rare shot. It worked, drawing an UE volleying error next shot. I wonder if it was the surprise element?


The first set went on serve comfortably - until it didn't, with 3 break games in a row to close out the set, 6-4 to McEnroe. Connors had however, put enough demons into the younger man's mind with some thunderous returning that Mac started staying back on some second serves in the second set (he'd serve-volleyed 100% in the first set)

Late in the second, Connors went on a 10 game winning run, which left McEnroe ranting and throwing tantrums. Connors' returning during this stretch was as good as you'll see - he smacked return winners and forced half-volley and low volley errors routinely.

Having conceded the bagel and down 0-2, McEnroe staged his recovery. Visibly tiring, the defending champion put his back into his return games with renewed care and patience. He broke in back to back return games - the first ten points long (3 break points), the next 20 points (7 break points).

The pair traded breaks immediately in the fifth, before Mac moved ahead. He served for the match at 5-3, only to be broken in a game that Connors wrapped up with two rasping BH return winners. The tiebreak was a one sided affair - Mac led 6-1 before Connors serve-volleyed to win two points - and Mac wrapped up with his 60th unreturned serve

---

There were several points of interest in the dynamic of the play. The stats belie some of my impressions of how the players matched up

Baseline Play
My feeling was there wasn't much between the players from the baseline. Stats say otherwise. Connors held serve fairly comfortably throughout the match, mostly from the baseline, but that's a little deceiving. Primarily, Mac deserves more credit than the stats show - Connors gets his just due, he was excellent from the backcourt

Connors played with greater margin for error than he had in the 1979 match, hitting less consistently flat and focused more on moving Mac about (in 79, he had relied on power more than placement). Mac was more error prone and also forced into more errors. By contrast, he couldn't force many errors out of Connors at all baseline-to-baseline, but Connors made his share of unforced errors also.

All credit to Connors - I particularly like his change of style from 79 - but thought Mac was doing "a Sampras", so to speak and reverse coasting a bit in the first three sets and focusing on holding serve

In sets 4 & 5, by which time he couldn't count on cruising through on serve (probably a funny way to describe being broken 5 times in a row), McEnroe knuckled down.

The baseline duels became more gruesome and Mac came off much better (though still worse than his opponent).

Push comes to shove, I think McEnroe could hold close to even from the back court with the great Jimmy Connors

Returns
This was my favourite aspect of the match

It's crystal clear that McEnroe reads Connors serve like a book. The camera angle at the start of many points was behind the returner and Mac can be seen moving for the FH during the ball toss or getting ready for a BH - and he's right almost 100% of the time. Given this, and seeing as Connors' serve isn't overly powerful, a more daring Mac could well attack the serve the way he would a second serve (there isn't much difference between Connors' two serves). But he doesn't try.

Connors' return is the best thing in this match. Its one of the greatest returning displays I've seen. Leaving aside the 15 clean winners (only one was fortunate, with Mac letting a ball slip beneath his racquet), the number of errors he forced with it (most of the 12 half-volley winners and many more very low volley ones) were astounding. A number that he missed he just missed - an inch or two this way and not that and they'd be more winners

No two ways to Connors' returning - he didn't hold back on anything to make sure it just got in. I wonder how he'd do against a server who wasn't always at the net?

Volleying
Its hard to assess McEnroe's showing at net because he was up against some very heavy fire power. I have him at 9 unforced volleying errors, which doesn't seem too high for a five set match.

The fear of his volley might be a big factor in the shape of the play. As noted, Connors held back on nothing on the return - was this because he felt anything less than a haymaker would be insouciantly put away? Or is this how he always operated? In the final set, 21/26 serve points won by McEnroe were unreturned serves

Connors' net numbers are fantastic. He came in more and more as the match went on (meaning, when he was losing) - about 20 approaches in the first three sets combined, and 20 each in the last two sets

Given the passivity of Mac's ground game, I thought Connors could have ventured forward more early on rather than risk the uncertainty of a baseline duel. He might have dominated the baseline duels in number, but there was a risk of Mac putting together a break with a couple of good points or Connors a couple of bad ones - in fact, that's how he yielded breaks in the early half of the match

While fine at net, a couple of points where he struggled with medium power, less than greatly placed passes indicate how easy Mac makes net play look. Mac was up against a hell of a lot more when he was up at net, and looked more at ease. One gets the sense Connors's passes had to be as good as they were to thwart the Mac volley

Serve
Connors served bigger in the fourth and fifth set - the same period when he started coming in more. For the first 3 sets, he served relatively softly, though generally deep

McEnroe's serve saved him. Statistically, that's the equalizer - 60 unreturned serves to 22 for Connors.

Behavior & Fitness
No report would be complete without a note on behavior for these two

Mac had a few tantrums, but was immaculately behaved for the last two sets. Connors' responses to these were light - he would wait quietly in an exaggeratedly relaxed way

By the middle of the fourth set, McEnroe was tiring and for most of the fifth, he looked absolutely gone - ready to drop. I got the sense he wasn't throwing tantrums or even showing irritation in his facial expressions because he was just too tired to waste the energy. I was impressed with the fight and determination he showed (actually, I prefer him this way) to just get over the line

All credit to Mac for coming back to take Borg in the final in another 5 setter, but I can't help but feel he had a relative fitness problem. The older Connors looked much fresher

 

[Moose Malloy]

You don't have double faults listed for Mac, I assume he had 3 based on the Connors return rate. Also I'm not sure I've ever seen a 5 setter in which a player has no aces and no doubles like Connors did here(had 1 ace, 1 double in the 84 match between the 2) Impressive to serve at 80% for that long, even with his serve. The only higher % I can recall in a 5 setter was Wilander in the 88 USO final.

And I guess this match shows you can still have a great match with a lot of unforced errors - 60 by Mac with only 46 clean winners.

As far as return winners go, I'm sure Connors had even more vs Mac in 84 USO, but I didn't track. I haven't tracked that too often, but the high one I did was Mecir vs Edberg at 88 W. mecir had 26 return winners and made 74% of his returns(Was able to figure that stat out since I track unreturned serves)

 

[KG1965]

Match Report
This was a fabulous match. It can't come closer than 7-6 in the fifth with the loser claiming a bagel and winning more points

There are a number of statistical surprises here

- Connors outdoing Mac 63%-62% on first serve points won - especially surprising giving just how many more of such points there were for Connors (131-61)

- Mac 2nd serve-volley points better than his 1st serve-volley points 59%-56% (Connors also but with statistically insignificantly few 2nd serve-volleys)

- Connors completely outstripping Mac 71% to 57% on net points won (largely explained by Mac approaching 3 times as much, but still a bit surprising)

- Connors with 1 genuine, runaround BH return. He 'moved' around several body serves to deliver the BH, but this was the sole running-around-the-forehand Backhand of the lot. A highly rare shot. It worked, drawing an UE volleying error next shot. I wonder if it was the surprise element?


The first set went on serve comfortably - until it didn't, with 3 break games in a row to close out the set, 6-4 to McEnroe. Connors had however, put enough demons into the younger man's mind with some thunderous returning that Mac started staying back on some second serves in the second set (he'd serve-volleyed 100% in the first set)

Late in the second, Connors went on a 10 game winning run, which left McEnroe ranting and throwing tantrums. Connors' returning during this stretch was as good as you'll see - he smacked return winners and forced half-volley and low volley errors routinely.

Having conceded the bagel and down 0-2, McEnroe staged his recovery. Visibly tiring, the defending champion put his back into his return games with renewed care and patience. He broke in back to back return games - the first ten points long (3 break points), the next 20 points (7 break points).

The pair traded breaks immediately in the fifth, before Mac moved ahead. He served for the match at 5-3, only to be broken in a game that Connors wrapped up with two rasping BH return winners. The tiebreak was a one sided affair - Mac led 6-1 before Connors serve-volleyed to win two points - and Mac wrapped up with his 60th unreturned serve

---

There were several points of interest in the dynamic of the play. The stats belie some of my impressions of how the players matched up

Baseline Play
My feeling was there wasn't much between the players from the baseline. Stats say otherwise. Connors held serve fairly comfortably throughout the match, mostly from the baseline, but that's a little deceiving. Primarily, Mac deserves more credit than the stats show - Connors gets his just due, he was excellent from the backcourt

Connors played with greater margin for error than he had in the 1979 match, hitting less consistently flat and focused more on moving Mac about (in 79, he had relied on power more than placement). Mac was more error prone and also forced into more errors. By contrast, he couldn't force many errors out of Connors at all baseline-to-baseline, but Connors made his share of unforced errors also.

All credit to Connors - I particularly like his change of style from 79 - but thought Mac was doing "a Sampras", so to speak and reverse coasting a bit in the first three sets and focusing on holding serve

In sets 4 & 5, by which time he couldn't count on cruising through on serve (probably a funny way to describe being broken 5 times in a row), McEnroe knuckled down.

The baseline duels became more gruesome and Mac came off much better (though still worse than his opponent).

Push comes to shove, I think McEnroe could hold close to even from the back court with the great Jimmy Connors

Returns
This was my favourite aspect of the match

It's crystal clear that McEnroe reads Connors serve like a book. The camera angle at the start of many points was behind the returner and Mac can be seen moving for the FH during the ball toss or getting ready for a BH - and he's right almost 100% of the time. Given this, and seeing as Connors' serve isn't overly powerful, a more daring Mac could well attack the serve the way he would a second serve (there isn't much difference between Connors' two serves). But he doesn't try.

Connors' return is the best thing in this match. Its one of the greatest returning displays I've seen. Leaving aside the 15 clean winners (only one was fortunate, with Mac letting a ball slip beneath his racquet), the number of errors he forced with it (most of the 12 half-volley winners and many more very low volley ones) were astounding. A number that he missed he just missed - an inch or two this way and not that and they'd be more winners

No two ways to Connors' returning - he didn't hold back on anything to make sure it just got in. I wonder how he'd do against a server who wasn't always at the net?

Volleying
Its hard to assess McEnroe's showing at net because he was up against some very heavy fire power. I have him at 9 unforced volleying errors, which doesn't seem too high for a five set match.

The fear of his volley might be a big factor in the shape of the play. As noted, Connors held back on nothing on the return - was this because he felt anything less than a haymaker would be insouciantly put away? Or is this how he always operated? In the final set, 21/26 serve points won by McEnroe were unreturned serves

Connors' net numbers are fantastic. He came in more and more as the match went on (meaning, when he was losing) - about 20 approaches in the first three sets combined, and 20 each in the last two sets

Given the passivity of Mac's ground game, I thought Connors could have ventured forward more early on rather than risk the uncertainty of a baseline duel. He might have dominated the baseline duels in number, but there was a risk of Mac putting together a break with a couple of good points or Connors a couple of bad ones - in fact, that's how he yielded breaks in the early half of the match

While fine at net, a couple of points where he struggled with medium power, less than greatly placed passes indicate how easy Mac makes net play look. Mac was up against a hell of a lot more when he was up at net, and looked more at ease. One gets the sense Connors's passes had to be as good as they were to thwart the Mac volley

Serve
Connors served bigger in the fourth and fifth set - the same period when he started coming in more. For the first 3 sets, he served relatively softly, though generally deep

McEnroe's serve saved him. Statistically, that's the equalizer - 60 unreturned serves to 22 for Connors.

Behavior & Fitness
No report would be complete without a note on behavior for these two

Mac had a few tantrums, but was immaculately behaved for the last two sets. Connors' responses to these were light - he would wait quietly in an exaggeratedly relaxed way

By the middle of the fourth set, McEnroe was tiring and for most of the fifth, he looked absolutely gone - ready to drop. I got the sense he wasn't throwing tantrums or even showing irritation in his facial expressions because he was just too tired to waste the energy. I was impressed with the fight and determination he showed (actually, I prefer him this way) to just get over the line

All credit to Mac for coming back to take Borg in the final in another 5 setter, but I can't help but feel he had a relative fitness problem. The older Connors looked much fresher

Top of tops.

 

[KG1965]

1st serve percentage (131/163) 80%

- Unreturned Serve Percentage (60/163) 37%

Connors had no aces, double faults or in my judgement, service winners

- 45 Forced (26 FH, 19 BH)

14 FH

.. the Jimbo FH

McEnroe 91

 

[Waspsting]

You don't have double faults listed for Mac, I assume he had 3 based on the Connors return rate.

3 it was - edited in

Regarding Connors' serve percentage - by set

1st set - 21/28 @ 75
2nd set 31/36 @ 86
3rd set 13/15 @ 87
4th set 29/40 @ 73
5th set 37/44 @ 84

I remember reading how a Connors double changed the Wimby 77 final, how he'd have won if he hadn't etc. and being a bit confused

It's 1 point - how can it matter so much? Beginning to understand better now how a freebie from Connors could seem so exciting

Moose, could you check for me how often you have Connors winning higher percentage of 2nd serve points than 1st?

Top of tops.

Grazie, Senor!

You always hone in on the key stats - I was thinking of that this time

Regarding Mac's 60 unreturned serves - that's the match right there

When the serve was returned, Mac won 37 points, Connors 56

I'd estimate 40-50% of those 56 Connors points were third ball errors and return winners

When he got it in, Connors' return was behaving almost like a big 1st serve

 

[WCT]

Waspsting, I was hoping you'd do this match because I did as well although with nowhere near your detail.

I had Mac with 60 free serve points, Connors with 21. No biggie there. Here is the difference. I had Connors 32 of 49 at net.
Wonder how that happened.

Other thoughts. Disagree about fitness. I think Mac was fine at the end. Maybe I should say I don't think he was spent. He had just played 5 sets over 3 plus hours. He was tired I'm sure, but running on fumes? Don't agree on that.

That volley passing shot you described. That was on match point. Mac chipped and charged and Connors s/v. Connors s/v 4 times in the 5th set tiebreaker. He was at the net 6 of the 10 times. Mac stayed back on 1 2nd serve and Connors wound up coming in. Mac had 2 or 3 free points on serve and Connors had none. Connors missed 1 sitter high forehand volley. That was the difference.

Anyway, THAT is how much Connors did not want to try to pass Mac. He s/v 4 times. Twice facing match points, once on a 2nd serve facing match point.

Even during this period where I felt, overall, he didn't come in as much as he used to, he always came in on big points. But there is coming in, as in working your way in, and there is s/v even on 2nd serves. Again, THAT is how much he did not want to have to try to pass Mac.

Your stats show he had s/v occasionally throughout the match. More as a surprise tactic. The tiebreaker was different. He di it 4 points in a row.

Absolutely right in how often Connors came in the last set and a half versus the rest of the match. As soon as Mac started coming back in the 4th, Connors came in a lot more. Far more than he had in the first 3 plus sets.

Something I forgot to comment on in their 79 stats. Serving into the body. I had zero stats to back this up. It's anecdotal, just what my memory tells me. I always felt that Mac did a good job serving at Connors. Employing it more than most players.

Your stats for this match have him at 20% into the body. I think the 79 match was only 5%. The 20 is more in line with what my memory told me. If you do more of their matches, I'll be interested to see if that holds true.

Their baseline exchanges. I always maintain Mac hits the ball harder than some think he did. He was not all touch, he was a mixture. A BUNCH of time he backs Connors up with pace and draws a short ball as a result.

Connors return being the outstanding stroke of the match I would not argue. Mac's serve as well. That is the difference in the match. He is 38 points ahead on points that ended with a serve and no return put in play.

Great match, no doubt. Still don't think it's level matched 84 consistently. A bit of patchy play. Particularly Mac in the 3rd set. GREAT job on the detail of your stats.

 

[Waspsting]

@WCT - this is the kind of discussion I'm hoping for. I realize its not practical - I've just watched the match, most people haven't - but it is nice when it works out just so

I had Connors 32 of 49 at net.
Wonder how that happened.

And I have 42/59 (71%)

How do you do net points? Its the area I'm most unsatisfied with in doing stats. As a general rule, I start with when a guy crosses the service line

Other than aces and what I judge service winners, I count every unreturned serve where the server appears to be serve-volleying.

I say "appears" because its not uncommon for a player not to make it past the service line in such situations, just like its not uncommon for a player to take a step or two inside the court after the serve when they're not serve-volleying. That's typically the main situation that I include as a "net point" where the guy doesn't cross the service line

The difference between the two can be so marginal - a step or two - realistically, it'd be a folly to call one a net point and not the other... so the way I do it comes down to interpretation. If I see the guys intent is to S/V, I'll call it a net point, even if he didn't make it to the service line when a return error (or a return winner or whatever the third ball turns out to be) is hit

Connors' S/V style is a bit unusual at time... he takes a couple of steps in after the serve, watches/waits for the return and if its weak, runs in to volley... different from what we typically think of as S/V, where the guy is coming in no matter what the return (the way Connors did in the fifth set tiebreak)... I'm tempted to include these Connors points as net points, but not S/V but so far haven't

I usually exclude winners hit just behind the service line (Connors had a few of these), but tend to include such shots which the player follows up with a step or two (past the service line) which aren't winners. This is one I can see people interpreting differently

I include 'forced' approaches - when the guy has to come in to deal with a drop shot. I exclude 'would-have-been-an-approach-shot' that turn out to be clean winners

Other thoughts. Disagree about fitness. I think Mac was fine at the end. Maybe I should say I don't think he was spent. He had just played 5 sets over 3 plus hours. He was tired I'm sure, but running on fumes? Don't agree on that.

"Absolutely gone - ready to drop"... my words. Too strong, you're right.

I do think he was very, very tired. More so than Connors. Do you remember a long baseline point after which Mac fell to the ground on his back? He did it deliberately but also, not really jokingly

Given the age difference, I'd expect Mac to be fresher than Connors (Here I'm clear that he wasn't). I thought he looked tired at the end of the 79 semi and he was overtly tired in the 85 final (which some have attributed to a tough semi the previous day)

I have to say, from the little I've seen it looks like he had a relative fitness problem. Note however, he played in the finals of the doubles 79 and 80 too. That wouldn't help

Their baseline exchanges. I always maintain Mac hits the ball harder than some think he did. He was not all touch, he was a mixture. A BUNCH of time he backs Connors up with pace and draws a short ball as a result.

Agreed. especially on the forehand. I think he shades Connors FH-to-FH, but am struck that the playing patterns back then wasn't as rigid as far as cross court rallies went... there's a lot more going longline. Both guys do it, Connors more

I've seen Mac hit some ferocious backhands from out of nowhere against Borg, against Lendl and Wilander on clay... but mostly he's playing these cute little slices/cuts/dinks. Especially in this match... that BH looked both vulnerable and non-threatening

So if the FH-FH thing not working out, Connors could easily go longline to the Mac BH, just be wary of the chip approach, but not too much of that in this match

One difference I noted - in 79, he didn't take a step back, always took it early. Here, he was playing more orthodoxly as far as that goes... Connors playing more percentage groundstrokes a factor in this also

And Connors in particular is very quick, it's hard to get a ball past him.. for some reason - his build maybe - this surprises me

That volley passing shot you described. That was on match point. Mac chipped and charged and Connors s/v. Connors s/v 4 times in the 5th set tiebreaker. He was at the net 6 of the 10 times. Mac stayed back on 1 2nd serve and Connors wound up coming in. Mac had 2 or 3 free points on serve and Connors had none. Connors missed 1 sitter high forehand volley. That was the difference.

Anyway, THAT is how much Connors did not want to try to pass Mac. He s/v 4 times. Twice facing match points, once on a 2nd serve facing match point.

Even during this period where I felt, overall, he didn't come in as much as he used to, he always came in on big points. But there is coming in, as in working your way in, and there is s/v even on 2nd serves. Again, THAT is how much he did not want to have to try to pass Mac.

Your stats show he had s/v occasionally throughout the match. More as a surprise tactic. The tiebreaker was different. He di it 4 points in a row.

Absolutely right in how often Connors came in the last set and a half versus the rest of the match. As soon as Mac started coming back in the 4th, Connors came in a lot more. Far more than he had in the first 3 plus sets.

That was odd... I actually didn't even notice it 'til I was writing....

Connors' net numbers are fantastic. He came in more and more as the match went on (meaning, when he was losing) -

First two sets, he's bossing from the baseline but not coming in to finish, though he looks capable and Mac doesn't look too capable of passing

Then when he does start coming in, he loses both sets.

So he's better off staying back? that's what it looks like, but no, I don't see it that way at all.... I think Mac played much more consistently from the baseline in sets 4 and 5 and Connors saw the net as the way to close points

You saw Connors taking the net in the tiebreaker to keep Mac from net.... I hadn't thought of it that way. Probably right

The overall feeling I had was Mac could take the net a lot more than he did, if he really wanted to and Connors could finish at net a lot more at net than he did if he wanted to.... but both were afraid of the others pass

Good discussion here

 

[WCT]

Absolutely agreed about Connors and judging whether he was coming in behind a serve that isn't returned in play. Even from the baseline, he does a LOT of delayed approaches. He sees he hurts the other player, then moves forward. Or just against guys who slice against him all the time. So many rallies against Lendl were Connors fh to Lendl bh. So, after 5, 6, 7 exchanges, Connors would often delay a second or two and then come in hoping to get the slice floating above net level. He employed this some against Mac as well. He tended to slice his bh a lot against Connors, unless he knew Connors was coming in.

I was watching a little of the 5th set yesterday, trying to gauge Mac's fatigue. One point Connors comes in and Mac just rips a backhand sorta of right at him, but Connors makes a really solid, penetrating volley that wins the point.

Now, I only watched maybe 10 to 15 minutes of the set. There is one time where Mac goes down and stays down maybe 10 seconds. I didn't see exhaustion, though. Connors came in and Mac had, while not a simple pass, a pass that should not have wound up in the net. Connors should have at least had to make a volley. I saw his going down and staying down as frustration or disgust at missing a very makeable shot.

If you've got Connors at 71% I don't think you can say he as making a mistake coming in. As far as winning or losing sets that he came in vs not, Mac's level of play in the 4th and 5th sets was infinitely higher than in the 3rd. IMO, anyway.

As far as reluctance Mac might have had, you can see it in the times he doesn't come in behind his 2nd serve. There was actually 1 1st serve he didn't come in on. IIRC, it was at 40-0 in the 12th game of the 5th. That was only once. 2nd serves, there were a bunch and I think that was fear of Connors return. It was tremendous in this match. IMO, Connors return was at it's best against s/v players. They gave him a target.

Net stats in general. I do not count a clean winner on an approach shot as a net point. Nor a missed approach shot.
I keep them in a separate category. I also had a third category where the player was at the net, but was pushed back and the point ended with them at the baseline. That is not a big thing, though. How much does that happen in a match, 2 or 3 times tops?

I'm pretty much with you on how far towards the net the player has to be for me to call it a net point. Getting drawn in is also a net point although I might make a separate note for this. I remember doing it with Borg at the Pepsi Grand Slam. One of the matches Connors brought him in maybe half a dozen times.

BTW, to me, drawing in is a drop shop. Drawing in is not a slice that land half way into the service box. A player can hit that shot and back right back up to the baseline.

 

[Waspsting]

it sounds like we do net points pretty much the same way. I've given details of the forced back from net points

In the Borg-Connors Boca Raton match, Borg retreated - was not forced, chose to go back - to the baseline a couple of times. I made a note of that and excluded it as net points for him. I haven't seen anything like that since. Usually, a player retreating is forced back via lob

There was point in this match where Connors came in and was forced back, McEnroe came in as Connors was being forced back and then he was forced back. So they played the point out from the baseline... but its been counted as net point for both players

Another point, Connors came in and was forced back, then came in again and volleyed away a winner. I recorded that as two net points (i.e. approaches) but 1 point won... so it would have been impossible for Connors to have had 100% success at the net the way I've marked it

Amplifying on Connors delayed approaches.... I go by what he did, not what he might have done. Only if he crosses the service line have I marked it as a net point. When he does it after the serve... I don't know whether to call it a S/V point (which is always a net point) or net point, but not a S/V

Frankly, I think net point, but not S/V is most fitting... but in this match, they've all been marked S/V and net point. I'm open to suggestions on this front, how would you call it?

BTW, to me, drawing in is a drop shop. Drawing in is not a slice that land half way into the service box. A player can hit that shot and back right back up to the baseline.

Your talking about the way we use words (as opposed to making stats)?

On the level of using words, I tend to call short slices 'drawing to net', even though the guy can drop back if he wants. Drop shots are stronger - I'd call that "forcing to net"

Never thought about it before but I suppose the most accurate description of a short slice would be "tempting", "encouraging", maybe "inviting" to net... "drawing" is too strong a word (and not strong enough for a drop shot). Typically, I've just gone with commonly used phraseology here... it is a distinction I would make to statistically breakdown approaches though



Basically, I've taken to not taking the net points stat all that seriously... I look at as an estimate, an approximation and try to make it the best estimate I can. So many different types of "net points", putting them in a one-size-fits all category isn't optimal

I suppose one could say the same thing of "Baseline points" ... there's a world of difference between a 20 shot rally and a 3 shot one

Return data gets a bit confounded by S/V play as well

The convention I believe is if a player is S/V'ing, return errors are Forced- and I agree with this. (I remember making a couple of exceptions in the Safin-Sampras US 2000 final on what I judged extremely poor return efforts from Safin). Where it can get problematic is when a guy who is consistently S/V'ing suddenly stays back and the returner misses the return

I don't think the returner would even realize that the server isn't coming in... and would line up the return accordingly. By the time he sees, he would already be committed to the return shot he'd 'pre-started' assuming a S/V

I have Connors with 3 UE return errors, I think they were all of this type... I can see those being called FEs, but taken too far, this line of reasoning can get too subjective for my taste. We'd effectively be making calls based on dubious mind-reading. How do you handle that?

 

[WCT]

What constitutes being drawn in. We may not agree on exactly what constitutes it, but we are both counting it as a time at net.
Connors delayed approaches. I just think there are times he seems to be clearly moving forward, but because of the late start he's in that service line area instead of being further forward. This is only an issue when the other player doesn't get his ball back in play.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding. If someone at net is forced back and then comes forward again, you might count that as 2 net approaches. With me, the player would only get 1 net point per point no matter how many times he was forced back and came in.

BTW, the Pepsi match I'M thinking of was 1978. I only have basically the last 2 sets and Borg was drawn in, IIRC, at least 6 times. In 79, he only came in 3 times and 2 of them he was drawn in. In 77, the match you did the stats for, I don't recall it happening. These points are drop shots. Borg has to come in.

Connors actually used that tactic a few times in the 81 Wimbledon match with Borg. People tend to think Ashe and Connors never got along. Not true, they did at times. Ashe was sort of consulting with Connors at that year's Wimbledon. Certainly not a coach, but sort of advising. He wrote in one of his books how he thought Connors should do that. Bring Borg in. I never read that it was his strategy to do it. Just surmised it based on the book and Ashe working with him.

I care about net points. It's really why I did the stats. My 2 bugaboos with Connors back then. I was convinced that he simply did not come in as much as when I first watched him. Two, he was spotting players like Mac and Borg a bunch of free points on serve. This match would be a perfect example. So, I did those stats for a bunch of matches starting in 74. I think overall it bore out what I thought. Not always, though.

You brought up forced and unforced errors. To me, this is where there could be some noticeable differences in people taking the stats. 2 different people might not judge unforced vs forced the same way. I see that as a lot more subjective on whether a player actually came to net.

I do tend to agree about returns and s/v vs not. Definitely puts more pressure on the returner. I always Mac and Connors. 60 to 22 is huge, but it's not apples to apples. Mac knows, for the most part, that he only has to get the serve back. Connors has to go for more on the return. If he just floats the return back, Mac has an easy volley.

On the other hand, say Mac is serving a 2nd serve and it's sort of an average serve. Whether he is s/v or not, shouldn't Connors be expected to at least get the return in play? I'm taking about an average to pretty good 2nd serve that he clearly has a pretty good swing at it. Seems to me that s/v or not that could be argued as unforced.

 

[KG1965]

Serve Pattern
McEnroe served...
- to FH 33%
- to BH 48%

Mac always serves on the bh.

 

[WCT]

You've really picked up a pattern with all these threads, KG. Something I wouldn't have guessed with stats. This match's into the body % is the highest I remember seeing and is closer to what I thought would be the regular number. Just from memory, I always thought of Mac as someone who served more into the body than most players. I mean against Connors.

Regarding fh/bh, I woult have thought it would be so lopsided. That ad court wide serve I thought of as his favorite serve, That's Connors' fh. With Borg, though, he liiked to serve wide to Connors two hander in the duece court. Still, I would have never guessed such a big disparity. So much more bh.

Let's be clear about Connors fh. The relative weakness was consistency. But when it was on it was a weapon. Mcenroe in particular. I remember Connors doing a lot of damage when he did serve that wide serve in the ad court.

Still, some of the differences are huge I would have never guessed that. But the numbers are the numbers. And it's a bunch of matches. Looks like a definite pattern.
They must have really feared that fh return.

 

[BringBackWood]

You've really picked up a pattern with all these threads, KG. Something I wouldn't have guessed with stats. This match's into the body % is the highest I remember seeing and is closer to what I thought would be the regular number. Just from memory, I always thought of Mac as someone who served more into the body than most players. I mean against Connors.

Regarding fh/bh, I woult have thought it would be so lopsided. That ad court wide serve I thought of as his favorite serve, That's Connors' fh. With Borg, though, he liiked to serve wide to Connors two hander in the duece court. Still, I would have never guessed such a big disparity. So much more bh.

Let's be clear about Connors fh. The relative weakness was consistency. But when it was on it was a weapon. Mcenroe in particular. I remember Connors doing a lot of damage when he did serve that wide serve in the ad court.

Still, some of the differences are huge I would have never guessed that. But the numbers are the numbers. And it's a bunch of matches. Looks like a definite pattern.
They must have really feared that fh return.

Yeah paticularly when stretched, Connors could do more damage with the FH. A return I've seen Connors do a lot in the deuce court is the soft BH 'slider' cc keeping it low for the volleyer. If he mistimed that a bit it could lead to an easy volley. Whereas his FH was more 'all or nothing'. My theory is that as very often, his timing on the FH was better when he did it instinctively i.e. when he has less time to think. Hence his return being so good.

I do wonder how effective a really slow serve could have been to the Connors FH? Probably would have run round it!

 

[WCT]

His running wide forehand was extremely dangerous. SO many times he'd go from defense to offense with that shot. The other player might move inside the baseline based on his shot and how defensive a position Connors was in. I'm not saying that Connors would necessarily blast a winner, but the ball would come back, really hard, a foot or less from the balance. Now they are on the defensive.

Perhaps a bit like Nadal and his forehand. How many times do you see a rightahnder run around his backhand, blast a shot deep into Nadal's forehand corner and, no matter how stretched out he is, he drills a winner into the open forehand side created by them running around their backhand. Every time I see a player do that with him, I'm thinking, you better hit a clean winner.

IMO, Connors wasn't quite as dangerous really stretched wide on the bh because of the reach limitations. Like you said, he could slice very well. Still, I didn't think quite as dangerous or as penetrating as his fh in that regard.

By later in the 70s and early 80s, when Borg would s/v more, indoors, against Connors
it was almost always on the one side of the court. Wide to Connors bh. He didn't do it that much, relatively speaking, 15-20 times tops? But I would bet all of them were wide to the bh in the deuce court.