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

[Waspsting]

John McEnroe beat Jimmy Connors 6-3, 3-6, 6-3, 6-4 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1980 on grass

McEnroe would go onto lose the final to Bjorn Borg. The two would meet in the US Open semi shortly after, with McEnroe again winning

McEnroe won 137 points, Connors 128

McEnroe serve-volleyed off all serves, Connors off half his first serves and about a third off seconds

(Note: I’ve made very confident guesses or deductions for about serve type for about 10 points)

Serve Stats
McEnroe...
- 1st serve percentage (71/120) 59%
- 1st serve points won (52/71) 73%
- 2nd serve points won (23/49) 47%
- Aces 13 (1 bad bounce related)
- Double Faults 4
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (52/120) 43%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (94/145) 65%
- 1st serve points won (61/94) 65%
- 2nd serve points won (22/51) 43%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (33/145) 23%

Serve Patterns
McEnroe served...
- to FH 51%
- to BH 36%
- to Body 13%

Connors served...
- to FH 38%
- to BH 56%
- to Body 6%

Return Stats
McEnroe made...
- 110 (51 FH, 59 BH), including 4 runaround FHs & 5 return-approaches
- 3 Winners (2 FH, 1 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 32 Errors, comprising...
- 6 Unforced (4 FH, 2 BH), including 1 return-approach attempt
- 26 Forced (6 FH, 20 BH)... including 1 return-approach attempt
- Return Rate (110/143) 77%

Connors made...
- 64 (30 FH, 34 BH), including 3 runaround BHs
- 8 Winners (5 FH, 3 BH)
- 39 Errors, all forced...
- 39 Forced (20 FH, 19 BH),
- Return Rate (64/116) 55%

Break Points
McEnroe 5/25 (10 games)
Connors 3/11 (7 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
McEnroe 36 (8 FH, 6 BH, 12 FHV, 4 BHV, 6 OH)
Connors 36 (12 FH, 9 BH, 6 FHV, 7 BHV, 2 OH)

McEnroe had 16 from serve-volley points
- 11 first 'volleys' (8 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH, 1 FH at net)
- 5 second volleys (2 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)

- 3 from return-approach points (1 FHV, 2 OH)... the FHV was also a pass

- 13 passes (6 FH, 6 BH, 1 FHV) - 2 returns (1 FH, 1 BH) & 11 regular (5 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV)
- FH return - 1 runaround dtl
- BH return - 1 cc
- regular FHs - 3 cc, 1 longline and 1 inside-out/longline
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl, 1 longline slice and 1 lob
- the FHV was a non-net, swinging shot

- non-pass FH return - 1 dtl

Connors had 11 from serve-volley points
- 5 first volleys (5 BHV)
- 6 second volleys (4 FHV, 1 BHV, 1 OH)... the OH can reasoanbly be called a swinging FHV

- 18 passes - 8 returns (5 FH, 3 BH) & 10 regular (5 FH, 3 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV)
- FH returns - 1 cc, 2 dtl and 2 inside-in
- BH returns - 1 dtl, 1 inside-out and 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 2 cc, 1 lob and 2 running-down-drop-shot dtl at net
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl and 1 lob
- the FHV was a swinging net-to-net shot
- the BHV was net-to-net

- regular (non-pass) FHs - 1 cc and 1 dtl
- regular BHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl at net and 1 inside-out

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
McEnroe 54
- 24 Unforced (9 FH, 3 BH, 5 FHV, 7 BHV)
- 31 Forced (6 FH, 14 BH, 3 FHV, 8 BHV, 2 Back-to-Net BH, 1 Over-Shoulder)... with 1 BH at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 50.8

Connors 47
- 23 Unforced (6 FH, 8 BH, 5 FHV, 4 BHV)
- 24 Forced (7 FH, 8 BH, 3 FHV, 1 FH1/2V, 2 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 OH, 1 BHOH)... 1 BHV was a baseline pass attempt
- 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 are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
McEnroe was...
- 78/124 (63%) at net, including...
- 62/103 (60%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 39/58 (67%) off 1st serve and...
- 23/45 (51%) off 2nd serve
---
- 5/5 (100%) return-approaching
- 1/7 (14%) forced back

Connors was...
- 61/93 (66%) at net, including...
- 43/66 (65%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 35/47 (74%) off 1st serve and...
- 8/19 (42%) off 2nd serve

Match Report
Excellent, dynamic match with the contest between McEnroe’s exquisite serve-volleying and Connors hammer & tongs return-passing particularly high end, while on other side of things, Connors himself serves well and serve-volleys much of the time to great effect (in fact, more successfully than McEnroe), tempered by dubious choices to stay back and a problematically vulnerable second serve that he can’t protect

Though compelled to stay on his toes in service games, Mac has things under control because he can apparently get into return games whenever he needs. Connors returns very well to create his breaking chances, but can't do it at will. Mac's prospects of breaking are much better

First 3 sets all have just 1 break, while there are 5 in the fourth set

Mac's down a break in second set and couple times in the fourth. In second set, after Jimbo breaks for 2-0, he faces break points in next 3 service games (he'd also faced them in opening game). Its a minor miracle he's able to hold Mac off - he has to serve 62 points in the set to Mac 28 and Mac’s 0/13 on break points for the set. The serve-out is to 30 (from 30-30)... that's what constitues an 'easy hold' for Jimbo

In fourth set, Mac's down a break twice - and breaks back immediatly both times

When Connors is down a break by contrast - as he is for most of 1st and 3rd sets - he's as likely to break back as he is at any other time. On whole, he creates substantial break chances by returning and passing superbly, but Mac remains favoured (as you'd expect for server on grass). That's normal - in fact, Jimbo's returning is particularly high quality to get into return games fairly regularly. Mac's ability to threaten to break at will, is not normal - and gives him considerably advantage

Mac wins 51.7% of points while serving just 45.3% of them
Break points read - Mac 5/25 (10 games), Jimbo 3/11 (7 games)

3 Keys to Match
1) Strenght and frequency of McEnroe's best first serves - Mac serve-volleys 100% of the time, as is his way. Jimbo hammers returns, as is his. 1st and 2nd serves, in both cases

Things falls into line logically from there. Hammering returns while keeping them low comes with territory of missing a fair few but scoring regularly with the ones that land in

Mac wins 75/120 service points or 63% total
When return is made, that falls to just 23/68 or 34% (23/64 or 36% excluding double faults). Dangerously low to be holding behind. He's essentially counting on unreturned serves to hold

Unreturned rate is 52/120 or 43%, which is high enough to hold regardless of losing bulk when return is made
Sans aces, 39/107 or 36%, which isn't

Its Mac's best first serves that puts him over to hold with confidence. There are 13 aces (Connors has 1) and a good 6-7 more that are near enough unreturnable. Serves that completely stretch Jimbo out, that he can barely get a racquet on and that don't come back. If they did, they'd leave putaway 'volleys'. These serves are of quality that they're going unreturned is wholly unrelated to the serve-volleying. Mac could drop his racqut after the serve and do a hand-stand and they still wouldn't be coming back

Including the aces, there are about 20 such calibre first serves (Connors has at most 4-5, probably more like 2-3). Guarenteed freebies that simply can't be returned from relatively early position Jimbo takes returns

Roughly 20/71 first serves are guarenteed point winners. That's good enough cushion for him to hold behind, in light of how powerfully Jimbo returns. Anything short of near unretunrable, even with substantial lof of return errors that are the price for hammering returns, and Jimbo's returns and follow-up passes is good enough to break regularly

Statistically, and edging towards practically, unreturneds make up difference between two players. Mac's got 9 more aces than double faults (Jimbo's -1) and wins 9 more points in the match

2) Weakness of Connors' second serve - Connors starts the match serve-volleying most of the time. He tunes that down and frequency varies for rest of match. For first serve, decision to tune down is not smart, but second serve, its necessity

A lot of things happens off Jimbo's second serve. He serve-volleys. He stays back. He hits hard from the back and looks to dominate. He hits hard and looks to come in. He plays neutrally. He has to pass when Mac chip-charges. Whatever happens, it doesn't end well for Jimbo. None of it

Off second serve, he serve volleys 38.8% of the time
Serve-volleying, he wins 8/19 or 42%
Staying back, he wins 14/30 or 47%
Mac's a perfect 4/4 return-approaching (+ 1/1 against 1st serve)
Double faults twice

His second serve isn’t strong enough to come in behind with confidence and his volleying isn’t good enough to handle the kinds of firm returns Mac makes when he does. Mac returns firmly, occasionally even powerfully but short of devastatingly (the way Connors regularly does). A Mac calibre volleyer could still look to win bulk of point serve-volleying behind this serve, undaunting though it is

After losing bulk of early second serve-volleys, he stays back. Keeps on losing most points. Turns to serve-volleying again under pressure at end and again, loses bulk of points

A genuine problem for Jimbo. Credit Mac too for organically attacking with the return, but it is a highly attackable serve

Some good (by his standard) first serving from Jimbo though. Strong enough to confidently serve-volley behind and even drawing errors (as often as not marked forced) or fairly weak returns he can attack when staying back. That's all tainted by...

 

[Waspsting]

3) Connors' peculiar (read: daft) serve-volleying choices - Off first serves, he serve volleys 50.5% of the time
Serve-volleying, he wins 35/47 or 74%
Staying back, he wins 25/46 or 54%
(He also has 1 ace)

He does better 1st serve-volleying than McEnroe in fact , winning 74% to Mac’s 67% (and higher lot of Mac’s points won are from overwhelming serves, i.e. serves that would almost certainly have gone unreturned regardless of serve-volley or not. Why isn’t he serve-volleying more???

But Jimbo just doesn’t seem to have the necessary serve-volleying spirit to keep at it. Or confidence. Or he fancies his ability to take Mac from the baseline (which turns out to be unjustified)

If he misses a volley or two (difficult or otherwise) or Mac scores with a pass, it keeps him on the baseline. From where he hits hard off both sides - particularly the FH - but Mac’s up to resisting the power hitting - and then either player is as likely as the other to cough up the error

There’s nothing wrong with Connors’ volleying. He’s not as quick to get up as Mac and a fraction slower to reach wider or slightly lower returns and doesn’t seem to anticipate direction of Mac’s returns as well as other way around. He doesn’t have Mac’s surety in finishing the routine volley - and certainly not in hitting winners against tricky or even difficult volleys that Mac sometimes does. But clearly, its good enough to win bulk of points behind his first serve and even more clearly, much, much more than staying back and starting a baseline rally (more on that dynamic later)

In other matches, Jimbo's often serve-volleying so little that high winning rate is likely influenced by surprise element. Not here. Serve-volleys 47 times, doesn't 46... wins 74% doing the first, 54% the other

Play - Serve-Volley & volley vs pass
Mac's volleying and Connors' passing (including the return) are A-grade
Connors' volleying and Mac's passing are B-grade

And funnily enough, the relative battle comes out very close to even. In context of Mac with 124 net points, Jimbo 93 -

'Volley' winners - Mac 22, Jimbo 16
'Volley' UEs - Mac 12, Jimbo 9
'Volley' FEs - Mac 12, Jimbo 8

'Pass' Winners - Mac 14, Jimbo 17
'Pass' FEs - about Mac 15-16, Jimbo 16 (about 3-5 of Mac's 20 ground FEs are non-passes, all of Connors' are passes)

(All of the above numbers include non-traditional shots, like net groundstrokes or forced back groundies counted as 'volleys')

Mac's volleying errors (UEs or FEs) are typically tougher than Jimbo's. Serve-volleying, Mac gets at least firmly struck, slightly under net volleys to deal with first up. Jimbo by contrast, gets good lot above net. Balls Mac faces is type that's not difficult to put in play but not easy to putaway, while Jimbo's lot can be dispatched

Jimbo's volleying to net-high balls leave Mac with shots at the pass. Against similar kind of returns, Mac putsaway the volley

The volleys Mac putsaway for winners are tougher than the routine ones Jimbo does. Hits winners from very difficult volleys rarely too

The serves being what they are, much tougher for Connors to get a good return off than Mac. Some top class running passes from Jimbo too. Lobs are superb - on top of the 2 winners, he's forced Mac back 7 times, winning 6 of them and Mac's 2 Back-to-Net and 1 Over-Shoulder FEs are hopeless shots

Net points -
- Overall, Mac wins 63%, Jimbo 66%
- serve-volleying - Mac 60%, Jimbo 65%, broken down as...
... Jimbo first serve 74%
.... Mac 1st serve 67%
.... Mac 2nd serve 51%
.... Jimbo 2nd serve 42%

 

[Waspsting]

Which goes back to the 3 keys to the match. Its Mac lot of unreturnable first serves that push his first serve success up to necessary high degree to hold behind (and lots of credit to Jimbo's ferocious returning too). Weakness of Jimbo's 2nd serve is a big problem for him. And Jimbo, for reasons best known to himself, electing not to serve-volley more than about half the time off first serves

Near equal effectiveness for Jimbo off his 2 returns
- FH - 30 returns made, 20 errors, 5 winners
- BH - 34 returns made, 19 errors, 3 winners

He reads the serve well enough, after getting used to it. Note the 3 runaround BH returns (he doesn't have any FHs). 2 are against first serves close to body. Seems to prefer the BH and Mac prefers serving to FH where he directs 51% serves (as opposed to 36% to FH), with remainder 13% to body not biased towards one side or the other

Nothing to justify either players preferance but nothing to not justify it either. Connors in general is equally at ease thumping returns off both sides

Play - Starting on baseline
Connors' staying back half the time off first serves and majority of seconds allows for some baseline action

Early on, he does so randomly and serve-volleys most of the time. Quickly, he cuts back off second serves after losing bunch of points. Continues to randomly alternate on first serves all match

Connors' first serves tend to draw soft returns and he's often up to net quickly off those. Second serve points turn into more 'neutral' rallies, with Connors harder hitter and who makes the approach varies more

Most points end in UEs. Ground UEs read Mac 12, Connors 14, comprising...
- Mac BH 3
- Connors FH 6
- Connors BH 8
- Mac FH 9

Connors hits 4 winners and forces a small number of errors (Mac 0 on both fronts) and rallying to net -

- Connors 18/27 or 67%, Mac 11/16 or 69%

Connors hits powerfully, looking to beat-down Mac. Particularly his FHs. Mac's forced to defend. Doesn't stick to baseline but falls back and runs around as needed - but he's up to not being forced into errors or even leaving easy approach chances. Very few approach errors by both players. Eventually, Mac switches to going for low percentage winners or very attacking FHs to escape rallies, invariably missing

Good job all around. Jimbo's hitting is powerful enough to potentially dominate so its not a passive withdrawal from serve-volley. And Mac handling the heat and thwarting it

As with volley-pass contest, close to even

Both volley-pass and baseline-baseline starting points close to even brings home that biggest factor in result is Mac's lot of unreturnably strong first serves

Connors winning just 43% second serve points (42% serve-volleying, 47% not and 2 double faults), brings home problems with his 2nd serve

Match Progression
First set has the most serve-volleying in it, with Connors serve-volleying as norm and staying back as a change-up, more so off the second serve (as opposed to later in the match where he stays back off second serves as norm and serve-volleys as a change-up). Mac's sweeping serves out wide are too much for Connors to return and he serves good amount of 2nd serves to body. Connors thumps whatever returns he makes and even the regulation height volleys reach Mac quickly enough to be not easy to handle (though Mac typically handles them readily enough)

Mac breaks in game 3. He follows a wide, inside-out FH first return to net to take first point before Connors misses easy volley and double faults to go down 0-40. Saves a couple break points, but is forced into passing error at 30-40 after staying back off a first serve. Connors has 2 break points in next game but Mac serves his way through them to hold. Mac has another break point in long, 14 point game towards the end that Connors needs 2 good volleys serve-volleying to thwart. Mac serves out to 30 to end the set

Second set is hell of a struggle. Both players hold to 30 once and remaining 7 games all go to deuce and/or have break points in them. Connors in particular is put through the wringer and serves 62 points or 12.4 per game, including a mammoth 26 point game. Mac has it easier and serves just 28 or 7 a game

What matters is Connors breaks (1/3 from 2 games), Mac doesn't (0/13 from 4 games) to win the set

The 26 point game is particularly thrilling. Mac has 8 break points in it, Connors just 3 game points. Just about everything that can happen on those break points, does - 1st serves and 2nd serves, good returns and not so good ones, unreturned serves and Connors' sole ace, baseline rallies developing, 1 or other player rallying to net, Connors serve-volleying and getting easy volleys or tough ones. Everything that is, bar Mac winning any of the points

Game after, Connors forces a low volleying error with a low, chip return. Don't see too many of those from him

Connors levels match at 1 set all by serving out to 30, but he can't possibly keep this up, can he?

By third set, there are large trenches just behind the baseline in the 4 spots Mac serves from, due to the way he digs his feet in and drags forward as he serves. Dangerous looking, ridges. The women's final was played after this match and one imagines ground crew had a challenge fixing the areas in time. They get worse and more dangerous looking as match goes on

Mac saves a break point to hold opener of third set and in his second service game, hits a gorgeous drop FHV first volley winner from a powerful return to his feet. He breaks in game to follow - couple of running BH pass winners (a cc lob and a dtl) involved from Mac and on his third break point, serve-volleying Jimbo can't handle a makeable, reaction volley

Up a break, Mac takes it a bit easy on return. Jimbo stays back off all second serves and hits power groundies and Mac, who'd been counter-punching previously, bails on the rallies with very ambitious winner attempts

Couple of genuinely easy volley misses gives Jimbo 2 break points with Mac serving for the set. He responds with 4 excellent first serves, all unreturned

4th set is the only one with mutiple breaks. Connors breaks to go up 2-0 and later 4-2, but Mac strikes back at once both times. Connors returns to 2nd serve-volleying with nothing else having worked much. The 2nd serve-volleying doesn't either

In game 5, Mac slips and falls in the corner during baseline rally which Jimbo can readily see. He has wide open court to put ball in. He pseudo-slices a BH inside-out right to the opposite corner for the winner. No need to cut it that fine

3 passing winners gives Connors break for 4-2. And that's the last game he wins. Mac breaks back by taking net 4 times - twice in the face of serve-volleying Jimbo - to reach 15-40 and Connors misses high BHV to get broken. He breaks again next chance with 3 good passes - 2 winners and 1 forcing a BH1/2V error

Couple of good returns from Jimbo in Mac's service games either side of the last break, but Mac holds both games to 30 to wrap things up

Summing up, high quality affair with Jimmy Connors' powerful returning, passing and beautifully played lobs the engine behind the best part of the action. Its enough to get better of McEnroe's excellent net game, but 'big' perfectly placed serves keeps McEnroe ahead of the curve to hold with confidence. On flip side, Connors' struggles to protect his second serve no matter what he does and for reasons best known to himself, limits his own first serve-volleying, though highly successfuly at it. From the baseline, Connors is much harder hitter, but McEnroe's able to stay in the rallies, though forced to fall back and counter-punch, to win his even share of points

All in all, McEnroe fairly comfortably having better of things through a combination of regular enough unanswerable first serves, ability to attack Connors' second serve and regularity of Connors' choice stay back and pound away from the baseline rather than serve-volley

Stats for the final between McEnroe and Bjorn Borg - Match Stats/Report - Borg vs McEnroe, Wimbledon final, 1980 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[WCT]

Glad to see you do this match. I haven't watched it in probably 10-15 years. Your net stats for Connors are surprising, at least by my memory. You have him at 93 times at net. Krosero or Moose did stats that had him at net much less. I think it was 59 times and when I saw them I didn't think, that is too little. It was in line with how I remembered it.

You were going on about the questionable choice to s/v less, but seems like he came in a lot off groundstrokes. 93-66 is 27 times not s/v. He came in 93 times in 145 points. That's a lot when the guy he's playing is really looking to come in once they rally. And it's sure a lot for 1980 Connors. Although I did the stats for the last 4 sets of the Tanner QF and he s/v about 60%. In 81, I did stats for 3 of his Wimbledon matches and the s/v % was much lower. IIRC, only once in 5 sets against Borg. Hell, in 82 against Mcenroe, he only did it about 25 times the entire match.

My memory matches one critique of yours. Connors on volleys above the level of the net. Connors is just not volleying as aggressively. When he is volleying well, high volleys are dispatched, ruthlessly. Very aggressive volleyer. It's the low volleys where he could have the problem. But that's what makes a great volleyer. the difficult ones. It's why Mcenroe ha the lower net %, how much more difficult his volleys are.

I am going to have to watch this match again based on your analysis. I didn't remember the level of play as that high. Not that I didn't think it was high, but not exceptional. You seem to think it leaned in that direction. For me, the gold standard of their matches is the 84 US Open. I'm going to give it another watch.

Some more comments. This is the match where Connors told Mcenroe that his son, less than 1 at the time, was better behaved than him. There was bad rain the second week. IIRC, Connors had to play the Tanner match, 5 sets, on Thursday, this match on Friday, and the finals would have been Saturday. He would have had to play 3 straight days of best of 5 to win that tournament.

Very, very rarely have I heard tennis on the radio. Somehow I stumbled on this match. I had no idea it was on or I would have listened to the entire thing. I heard maybe the last set. Same thing happened with the Connors Vilas Masters match. January of 78, rematch of the US Open, 18000 at Madison Square Garden. Stumbled upon the match on the radio and listened to some or most of the last set.

The 93 times at net for Connors is what caught my eye. Not that I didn't think he came in a bunch, but not 93 times. Gee, that is just about twice 47. That is a reference to when Mcenroe was in the tv booth for the 91 Haarhuis US Open QF. Midway through the 4th set, Ted Robinson remarks that Connors has been at the net 47 times. "He didn't come to the net 47 times the first 20 times we played." Much like Collins in the 1982 Wimbledon final, it was the same thing countless times when Connors came to the net. Acting like this was something new, like he'd never done this before. AD NAUSEUM.
I remember watching it, that night, thinking, John, he came in way more than that the first time you played. Which was their 1977 Wimbledon match, which I had not even seen at that point, but I knew how Connors played then. And there was no way he wasn't at the net 47 times in a 4 set match played on grass.

I totally agree with your analysis of the serves. To me, that is easily the biggest disparity between the 2 players. I always felt that Connors, overall, returned Mcenroe's serve better than Borg did. It's just that Borg's serve gave Mcenroe a lot more trouble than Connors' did. Like you said, it's almost like he can break him any time he wants. And that was what I think was most different about the 82 match. Connors serve certainly wasn't overwhelming, but improved enough that every serve game is a struggle.

 

[medieval_remnant]

Connors was awesome against Mac at Queens in 1982 and 1983

 

[jrepac]

Interesting to read the stats. This match is never mentioned as one of their 'classics' and I have not seen it (as I'm not sure it's even available online like many others). Was watching the 81 semi against Borg, which was fascinating for different reasons. Connors was something of an enigma on grass, you never quite knew what he was going to do sometimes. He might serve and volley (or not). But this idea that he did not come into net is such an old chestnut of a fallacy, it's hard to even fathom. Yet, there were matches where he stubbornly stayed back, when he might've met more success coming in. But, certainly on grass, he came in with more regularity.

 

[WCT]

Are you citing that 81 match as one where he was coming in a bunch? If you just watched that match, now watch the 74 matches against Rosewall. If you think he is nearly as aggressive about coming in, you and I are watching different matches. Those 2 1974 matches have 1 15 stroke rallly in 6 sets of tennis. And both of them s/v 60 to 65% of the time. So, there were plenty of points that started with a rally. I think Connors took Rosewall's 2nd serve and came in a couple time. Like maybe 2 or 3 tops.

Now, he didn't avoid the net like the plague in 81. He came in some, but more like 20% of the points versus the 40% plus versus Rosewall. As you got late in the 70s into the early 80s he was coming in CLEARLY less. That is not fallacy, that is fact. I believed it anecdotally 40 years ago and doing the stats for the matches just confirmed it.

However, I am not claiming it was 100% of the time. There were exceptions when he might still come in a lot. This match is proof. By Wasp's stats he is at the net 35% of the time. But it isn't as simple as 35 here versus 20 in 1981. It's even more pronounced than that because Mcenroe s/v on every single serve. Borg never came in behind a 2nd serve and didn't come in on all firsts. Most of them, yes, but not all. So, Connors has a lot of chances to come in when Borg served vs basically none vs Mcenroe. Even 80 versus 74. Rosewall stayed back maybe 30-40% of his total serves. Connors has chances to come in from there.

Anyway, that he was coming in less was no fallacy. Fallacy is Bud Collins acting, in 1982, like he just discovered the net. Or Mcenroe doing the same when doing commentary in that 1991 match.

 

[Waspsting]

Your net stats for Connors are surprising, at least by my memory. You have him at 93 times at net. Krosero or Moose did stats that had him at net much less. I think it was 59 times and when I saw them I didn't think, that is too little. It was in line with how I remembered it.

he serve-volleys, let alone comes to net, more than 59 times
- 1st serve-volleying 35/47
- 2nd serve-volleying 8/19
Total - 43/66

but seems like he came in a lot off groundstrokes. 93-66 is 27 times not s/v. He came in 93 times in 145 points. That's a lot when the guy he's playing is really looking to come in once they rally. And it's sure a lot for 1980 Connors

Rallying to net - he's 18/27. Mac is 11/16

Early on, Connors' looks to (and does) come in early off his first serve points that he doesn't serve-volley behind. So its either serve-volley or come in early off those

Some good, hefty serving from him - he's got Mac rushed and troubled on the return. Contrast to US Open match soon after, where Mac returns with complete ease

As match goes on, he moves over to hard-hitting, moving-Mac-around play from the back. Big hitting advantage for Jimbo, so with much greater scope to come in. Doens't seem to be looking for approach oppurtunities but rather, beat Mac down with power from the back. Could come in more if he was looking for it

From what I've seen, Mac in his wooden racquet days wasn't overly net hungry and is often content to reactively trade groundies from the back. I don't even get the sense he's got particular eye out for chances to slip in either Just playing whatever comes up. That's true here too

And he's good at playing from the back (as in, doesn't make many errors), though not damaging or powerful of shot

Here, even with decent first serve to draw weak and not-strong returns, Jimbo wins just 54% not serve-volleying (that includes non-ace unreturneds and points that turn into net points), exactly the same as he does against Borg (reputedly a much stronger baseliner than Mac) in the '77 final

Borg rallies to net as often or more as Mac does from baseline rallies in their matches too - and unlike Connors, don't think there's any question of Borg ever being keen to take net

Rallying to net (that is, net points minus serve-volley and return-approaches)
'79 Masters - Borg 28, Mac 19
'80 Wimby - Borg 29, Mac 19
'80 US - Borg 41, Mac 26
'80 Masters - Borg 21, Mac 24
'81 US - Borg 32, Mac 18

Compare with Borg-Connors matches on similar surfaces

'77 Wimby - Connors 72, Borg 18
'78 Wimby - Connors 46, Borg 40
'78 US final - Connors 32, Borg 33
'80 Masters semi - Connors 42, Borg 20
'81 Wimby semi - Connors 56, Borg 33 (missing data for 4th set, that Borg won 6-0)
'81 US semi - Connors 38, Borg 26
'82 Richmond exho - Connors 39, Borg 29

Those numbers are bent by whose service games bulk of baseline rallies are taking place of course - in Mac-Borg, majority would be Borg's and in Borg-Connors, majority would be Connors

I totally agree with your analysis of the serves. To me, that is easily the biggest disparity between the 2 players.... it's almost like he can break him any time he wants. And that was what I think was most different about the 82 match. Connors serve certainly wasn't overwhelming, but improved enough that every serve game is a struggle.

I haven't seen the '82 Wimby final, but couple thoughts here

This first serving from Jimbo looks as strong as his '82 Queens showing. We've talked before about whether or not Jimbo's serve improved in '82 and if so, how much

My feeling is at most, it improved a small bit. And this showing is well above his norm prior to the '82 changes

He's got Mac struggling on the return. Another match where he did pre-82 was on a very fast carpet in Philly '81

I always felt that Connors, overall, returned Mcenroe's serve better than Borg did.

Now that is a tricky comparison to make because they're styles, objectives with the return are quite different

With Jimbo, taking it early and hammering it flat
With Borg, taking it late and top-spinning it with a loop

Returns Jimbo makes are almost all tough too handle. Borg by contrast leaves good lot above net
But Borg makes a lot more returns - and leaves scope for Mac to miss not tough volleys. He barely sees a 'not tough' volley against Jimbo by contrast

You won't see Mac making shoelace volleys against Borg - they're either at comfy net height, or the returns gone through for a winner
Lots of shoelace volleys have to be made against Jimbo - but fewer volleys overall too because he misses the return trying to hit that well

Borg leaves scope for Mac to mess up on the volley
Connors doesn't - he misses the return or its a tough volley

I didn't remember the level of play as that high. Not that I didn't think it was high, but not exceptional. You seem to think it leaned in that direction

This match is never mentioned as one of their 'classics'

To me, its not a 'classic' because with one guy able to get into return games at will while the other has to do spectacular things to, odds are heavily loaded one way

But the action - particularly Mac's serve-volley vs Connors' return-passing is great stuff, particularly from Connors (which it has to be to give him a chance). Its up there with the final - which has the highest of all reputations (probably more for tension than the tennis, admittedly)

Question for you both, other than '84 US semi, what do you think are the high end Mac-Connors matches?

I did stats for 3 of his Wimbledon matches and the s/v % was much lower. IIRC, only once in 5 sets against Borg.... it isn't as simple as 35 here versus 20 in 1981. It's even more pronounced than that because Mcenroe s/v on every single serve. Borg never came in behind a 2nd serve and didn't come in on all firsts. Most of them, yes, but not all. So, Connors has a lot of chances to come in when Borg served vs basically none vs Mcenroe

I statted that, sans the 4th set (Borg's bagel)

I have one serve-volley for Jimbo too

242 points, Connors 57 approaches

with Borg serve-volleying 49/58 first serve-points... that leaves 184 points with scope for Jimbo to come in.
Take away combined 13 aces and 5 double faults, that leaves 166.
Take away 21 further unreturned serves (all return errors, sans Connors' FEs, that are probably all part of Borg's serve-volley points), that leaves 145
Take away Connors' sole serve-volley, 144

Roughly then, Connors rallying to net 56/144 possible times or 39% of the time... not bad
Borg rallies forward 33 times, or 23%

 

[BringBackWood]

Question for you both, other than '84 US semi, what do you think are the high end Mac-Connors matches?

I would say there's quite a big gulf between the 84 semi and any others. However, I would suggest

first 2 sets or so of their Wembley 81 final, before the match was derailed by a slightly harsh 'unsportsmanlike warning', which caused about 10 minutes of arguing (Connors took the opportunity to sit in the crowd). After that the match lost focus, and Mac started feeling sorry for himself.

Toulouse 89. Jimmy rolls back the years to produce a vintage display against a well playing Mcenroe.

I've seen part of the 1984 Canadian open SF and it was very good tennis.

In truth however most of their matches were a disappointment, even though they would produce the odd great rally/moment. I'm not sure why that is, because against Borg the matches were often high level. It's perhaps a wider truism that 2 aggresive players are less likely to produce a quality match, at least one that's pleasing to the eye, than the classic 'contrast of styles'. However when they do (84 US), it's very beautiful.

 

[WCT]

he serve-volleys, let alone comes to net, more than 59 times
- 1st serve-volleying 35/47
- 2nd serve-volleying 8/19
Total - 43/66



Rallying to net - he's 18/27. Mac is 11/16

Early on, Connors' looks to (and does) come in early off his first serve points that he doesn't serve-volley behind. So its either serve-volley or come in early off those

Some good, hefty serving from him - he's got Mac rushed and troubled on the return. Contrast to US Open match soon after, where Mac returns with complete ease

As match goes on, he moves over to hard-hitting, moving-Mac-around play from the back. Big hitting advantage for Jimbo, so with much greater scope to come in. Doens't seem to be looking for approach oppurtunities but rather, beat Mac down with power from the back. Could come in more if he was looking for it

From what I've seen, Mac in his wooden racquet days wasn't overly net hungry and is often content to reactively trade groundies from the back. I don't even get the sense he's got particular eye out for chances to slip in either Just playing whatever comes up. That's true here too

And he's good at playing from the back (as in, doesn't make many errors), though not damaging or powerful of shot

Here, even with decent first serve to draw weak and not-strong returns, Jimbo wins just 54% not serve-volleying (that includes non-ace unreturneds and points that turn into net points), exactly the same as he does against Borg (reputedly a much stronger baseliner than Mac) in the '77 final

Borg rallies to net as often or more as Mac does from baseline rallies in their matches too - and unlike Connors, don't think there's any question of Borg ever being keen to take net

Rallying to net (that is, net points minus serve-volley and return-approaches)
'79 Masters - Borg 28, Mac 19
'80 Wimby - Borg 29, Mac 19
'80 US - Borg 41, Mac 26
'80 Masters - Borg 21, Mac 24
'81 US - Borg 32, Mac 18

Compare with Borg-Connors matches on similar surfaces

'77 Wimby - Connors 72, Borg 18
'78 Wimby - Connors 46, Borg 40
'78 US final - Connors 32, Borg 33
'80 Masters semi - Connors 42, Borg 20
'81 Wimby semi - Connors 56, Borg 33 (missing data for 4th set, that Borg won 6-0)
'81 US semi - Connors 38, Borg 26
'82 Richmond exho - Connors 39, Borg 29

Those numbers are bent by whose service games bulk of baseline rallies are taking place of course - in Mac-Borg, majority would be Borg's and in Borg-Connors, majority would be Connors



I haven't seen the '82 Wimby final, but couple thoughts here

This first serving from Jimbo looks as strong as his '82 Queens showing. We've talked before about whether or not Jimbo's serve improved in '82 and if so, how much

My feeling is at most, it improved a small bit. And this showing is well above his norm prior to the '82 changes

He's got Mac struggling on the return. Another match where he did pre-82 was on a very fast carpet in Philly '81



Now that is a tricky comparison to make because they're styles, objectives with the return are quite different

With Jimbo, taking it early and hammering it flat
With Borg, taking it late and top-spinning it with a loop

Returns Jimbo makes are almost all tough too handle. Borg by contrast leaves good lot above net
But Borg makes a lot more returns - and leaves scope for Mac to miss not tough volleys. He barely sees a 'not tough' volley against Jimbo by contrast

You won't see Mac making shoelace volleys against Borg - they're either at comfy net height, or the returns gone through for a winner
Lots of shoelace volleys have to be made against Jimbo - but fewer volleys overall too because he misses the return trying to hit that well

Borg leaves scope for Mac to mess up on the volley
Connors doesn't - he misses the return or its a tough volley




To me, its not a 'classic' because with one guy able to get into return games at will while the other has to do spectacular things to, odds are heavily loaded one way

But the action - particularly Mac's serve-volley vs Connors' return-passing is great stuff, particularly from Connors (which it has to be to give him a chance). Its up there with the final - which has the highest of all reputations (probably more for tension than the tennis, admittedly)

Question for you both, other than '84 US semi, what do you think are the high end Mac-Connors matches?



I statted that, sans the 4th set (Borg's bagel)

I have one serve-volley for Jimbo too

242 points, Connors 57 approaches

with Borg serve-volleying 49/58 first serve-points... that leaves 184 points with scope for Jimbo to come in.
Take away combined 13 aces and 5 double faults, that leaves 166.
Take away 21 further unreturned serves (all return errors, sans Connors' FEs, that are probably all part of Borg's serve-volley points), that leaves 145
Take away Connors' sole serve-volley, 144

Roughly then, Connors rallying to net 56/144 possible times or 39% of the time... not bad
Borg rallies forward 33 times, or 23%

Sorry, not going to multi quote like you. It takes me long enough to do it this way. Still have not watched the match. Connors came in 27 more times than his s/v yet you only have him rally to net 18 times. What is the difference? Something like Connors approaching off the return? Basically, approaching off that shot as a groundstroke as opposed to s/v? As far as I'm concerned, that is like approaching off a short ball in a rally. It's just that the first shot he sees is short. If he stays back there and comes in on Mcenroe's next grpundstroke than it's a rally? For me, it's about whether he comes in on that short ball regardless of when it is in the rally. I see the demarcation line as the service line. Especially balls that are bouncing up because Connors liked to drive the approach shot.

It is true that Mcenroe, at times, stayed back more than I would think a net player of his stature would. However, I didn't see him as reluctant to come in. Like everything, it's about context when analyzing how often each player comes in when rallying. Connors is hitting harder and deeper. Making the other player do more running. When you are going corner to corner you are most likely not coming to net. Mcenroe did hit hard sometimes, but he also mixed a lot of slices into the rallies.

Same with Connors and Borg. Not as much as Borg caught and passed him. He dispenses using sliced backhands as a strategy against Connors. He only uses them for approaches and when stretched out. Other than that he slugs with Connors albeit with more safety. That said, I still think Borg ran more than Connors in the rallies. The 78 US Open match was one where I thought, by the last half, Connors is running more because Borg is just slugging the ball.

But early in the rivalry you can see by the winners it's much more pronounced. Borg is doing much more running, like 77 Wimbledon, and that doesn't lead to a ton of net approaches off of rallies. However, in my opinion. he is MUCH more aggressive in getting to the net in 1978 Wimbledon. He s/v on every first serve and is approaching on balls landing a couple feet past the service line. He is not doing that in 1977.

You don't think there is ever a question of Borg being keen to take the net? Sure don't agree with that. Certainly not on all surfaces, but not on grass either. Again 77 versus 78. If you ever see the 79 match with Connors he comes in much less.

All stats have context to them and I have always acknowledged that part of Connors coming in less vs Borg was Borg coming in more himself, but also that he is hitting deeper. That said, he is letting short balls go without coming in to a degree that he wasn't before.

I rewatched the 5th set of the 81 Wimbledon Borg match and just that set was not AS glaring as I thought. Doesn't mean there weren't balls, just not as many as I thought. 2 were on break points he had against Borg late in the 5th. Short balls he stayed back on and lost the point

Again, just rewatch the rallies in the 2 74 Rosewall matches. The 75 Australian and US Open. The challenge matches against Laver and Newcombe. Where is he staying back on ANY short balls? When Connors and Newcombe rally, and one ends up at net it's mostly Connors. Mostly, it's about Connors and his inclination to get to net.

The US Open put up highlights from the 4 Mcenroe matches. Most points I've seen from that 78 match since I saw it live. They might have showed 20 points, 8 with no s/v or return approach. Connors is at the net 7 of them. You had Connors at the net 21 times in I think 175 points the next year. He wasn't playing the same way or certainly not with the same inclination to come to net. To me, this was a match where it was egregious. I would not call the 81 semi that. Definitely noticeable I think, not that glaring, though. Man, I'd like to see that 78 US Open match or at least what CBS showed which was joined early in the second set. I'd like to be sure that those 8 points weren't an exception. Highlights can certainly be deceptive at times. You see the entire match and it isn't the same.

 

[WCT]

I had to split it into 2 posts. Too many character when I tried to post 1. Didn't even realize that there was a character limit.


Connors serve. He is getting a higher % of unreturned serves in 82, if memory serves. 20 some % might not be great but it sure beats some of his earlier numbers. I definitely think he serves a bit harder in 74/75. He seems to go for that big serve down the middle more often. Relatively speaking, of course. It's not a huge serve, but a bit bigger than later.

Borg's return vs Connors. Mcenroe got a lot of unreturned serves vs Borg in some of these matches. Mid to upper 30s %. Not as high as against Connors in this match, but pretty high. There is not a drastic difference. You don't think Mcenroe had to play a lot of volleys below net level against Borg? This is topspin making the ball dip? I certainly don't dispute that the returns are hit with the same pace, though.

In my mind, what stands out about Borg's return is he won't miss the easy return. Which I think explains some of Connors' ridiculously low unreturned serve % matches against him. Like the 77 and 78 Wimbledon matches or the 76 US Open match. Mcenroe would sometimes get careless or sloppy so Connors numbers vs him weren't quite so low.

BTW, one place where Borg did miss some relatively simple service returns was the 81 match. Watching it again, for a match with such a great reputation, there were a lot of unforced errors in that 5th set. A bunch of great shots as well, but too many errors or me to call it superlative tennis.

Speaking of which, I would not categorize most Connors/Mcenroe matches as disappointments, I just think the level in that 84 match is pretty exceptional. Every set is a single break difference. I'm talking sustained level of play on both ends. Lotsof good play in their 80 US match, but periods where each player lulled. Mcenroe especially. He lost like 11 straight games.

I do agree about that 81 Wembley match. At least the last 3 sets. Mcenroe was still playing pretty well, I just think Connors level was really high. I haven't seen the 84 Canadian match since I saw it live on ESPN, but I remember thinking Connors level was up with the new racket. I don't recall Mcenroe's level that well, though.

I think a bunch of their matches have had periods of really great play. I just don't think any sustained it like their 84 US match.

 

[medieval_remnant]

Sorry, not going to multi quote like you. It takes me long enough to do it this way. Still have not watched the match. Connors came in 27 more times than his s/v yet you only have him rally to net 18 times. What is the difference? Something like Connors approaching off the return? Basically, approaching off that shot as a groundstroke as opposed to s/v? As far as I'm concerned, that is like approaching off a short ball in a rally. It's just that the first shot he sees is short. If he stays back there and comes in on Mcenroe's next grpundstroke than it's a rally? For me, it's about whether he comes in on that short ball regardless of when it is in the rally. I see the demarcation line as the service line. Especially balls that are bouncing up because Connors liked to drive the approach shot.

It is true that Mcenroe, at times, stayed back more than I would think a net player of his stature would. However, I didn't see him as reluctant to come in. Like everything, it's about context when analyzing how often each player comes in when rallying. Connors is hitting harder and deeper. Making the other player do more running. When you are going corner to corner you are most likely not coming to net. Mcenroe did hit hard sometimes, but he also mixed a lot of slices into the rallies.

Same with Connors and Borg. Not as much as Borg caught and passed him. He dispenses using sliced backhands as a strategy against Connors. He only uses them for approaches and when stretched out. Other than that he slugs with Connors albeit with more safety. That said, I still think Borg ran more than Connors in the rallies. The 78 US Open match was one where I thought, by the last half, Connors is running more because Borg is just slugging the ball.

But early in the rivalry you can see by the winners it's much more pronounced. Borg is doing much more running, like 77 Wimbledon, and that doesn't lead to a ton of net approaches off of rallies. However, in my opinion. he is MUCH more aggressive in getting to the net in 1978 Wimbledon. He s/v on every first serve and is approaching on balls landing a couple feet past the service line. He is not doing that in 1977.

You don't think there is ever a question of Borg being keen to take the net? Sure don't agree with that. Certainly not on all surfaces, but not on grass either. Again 77 versus 78. If you ever see the 79 match with Connors he comes in much less.

All stats have context to them and I have always acknowledged that part of Connors coming in less vs Borg was Borg coming in more himself, but also that he is hitting deeper. That said, he is letting short balls go without coming in to a degree that he wasn't before.

I rewatched the 5th set of the 81 Wimbledon Borg match and just that set was not AS glaring as I thought. Doesn't mean there weren't balls, just not as many as I thought. 2 were on break points he had against Borg late in the 5th. Short balls he stayed back on and lost the point

Again, just rewatch the rallies in the 2 74 Rosewall matches. The 75 Australian and US Open. The challenge matches against Laver and Newcombe. Where is he staying back on ANY short balls? When Connors and Newcombe rally, and one ends up at net it's mostly Connors. Mostly, it's about Connors and his inclination to get to net.

The US Open put up highlights from the 4 Mcenroe matches. Most points I've seen from that 78 match since I saw it live. They might have showed 20 points, 8 with no s/v or return approach. Connors is at the net 7 of them. You had Connors at the net 21 times in I think 175 points the next year. He wasn't playing the same way or certainly not with the same inclination to come to net. To me, this was a match where it was egregious. I would not call the 81 semi that. Definitely noticeable I think, not that glaring, though. Man, I'd like to see that 78 US Open match or at least what CBS showed which was joined early in the second set. I'd like to be sure that those 8 points weren't an exception. Highlights can certainly be deceptive at times. You see the entire match and it isn't the same.

the difference between McEnroe in 1978 and 1979 is massive, who looks as strong as he would be in 1984

 

[jrepac]

I had to split it into 2 posts. Too many character when I tried to post 1. Didn't even realize that there was a character limit.


Connors serve. He is getting a higher % of unreturned serves in 82, if memory serves. 20 some % might not be great but it sure beats some of his earlier numbers. I definitely think he serves a bit harder in 74/75. He seems to go for that big serve down the middle more often. Relatively speaking, of course. It's not a huge serve, but a bit bigger than later.

Borg's return vs Connors. Mcenroe got a lot of unreturned serves vs Borg in some of these matches. Mid to upper 30s %. Not as high as against Connors in this match, but pretty high. There is not a drastic difference. You don't think Mcenroe had to play a lot of volleys below net level against Borg? This is topspin making the ball dip? I certainly don't dispute that the returns are hit with the same pace, though.

In my mind, what stands out about Borg's return is he won't miss the easy return. Which I think explains some of Connors' ridiculously low unreturned serve % matches against him. Like the 77 and 78 Wimbledon matches or the 76 US Open match. Mcenroe would sometimes get careless or sloppy so Connors numbers vs him weren't quite so low.

BTW, one place where Borg did miss some relatively simple service returns was the 81 match. Watching it again, for a match with such a great reputation, there were a lot of unforced errors in that 5th set. A bunch of great shots as well, but too many errors or me to call it superlative tennis.

Speaking of which, I would not categorize most Connors/Mcenroe matches as disappointments, I just think the level in that 84 match is pretty exceptional. Every set is a single break difference. I'm talking sustained level of play on both ends. Lotsof good play in their 80 US match, but periods where each player lulled. Mcenroe especially. He lost like 11 straight games.

I do agree about that 81 Wembley match. At least the last 3 sets. Mcenroe was still playing pretty well, I just think Connors level was really high. I haven't seen the 84 Canadian match since I saw it live on ESPN, but I remember thinking Connors level was up with the new racket. I don't recall Mcenroe's level that well, though.

I think a bunch of their matches have had periods of really great play. I just don't think any sustained it like their 84 US match.

Their matches could be ragged affairs, but they were rarely dull
As long as it wasn't a Mac blowout (which some were), they were often very entertaining.
I miss the S&V vs. Returner contrast!

 

[WCT]

the difference between McEnroe in 1978 and 1979 is massive, who looks as strong as he would be in 1984

79 is on par with 84? I don't agree. I believe that 84 Mcenroe, at his best, is clearly a cut above any other Mcenroe, I said a cut, not a huge gap. He's not leaps and bounds better than, say, 1981 Mcenroe. But his 84 level was SO high. He toyed, and I mean toyed, with Connors at Wimbledon.

 

[WCT]

Their matches could be ragged affairs, but they were rarely dull
As long as it wasn't a Mac blowout (which some were), they were often very entertaining.
I miss the S&V vs. Returner contrast!

Yeah, dull is not a word you would use. And when Connors was on Mcenroe's serve, he could put on some amazing return displays.

 

[Mustard]

Why does the 1982 Wimbledon final tend to be overlooked?

 

[medieval_remnant]

79 is on par with 84? I don't agree. I believe that 84 Mcenroe, at his best, is clearly a cut above any other Mcenroe, I said a cut, not a huge gap. He's not leaps and bounds better than, say, 1981 Mcenroe. But his 84 level was SO high. He toyed, and I mean toyed, with Connors at Wimbledon.

McEnroe toyed with Connors in the 1979 US Open semi

 

[WCT]

McEnroe toyed with Connors in the 1979 US Open semi

No he didn't. NOWHERE CLOSE to what he did in 84. Mind you, he beat him decisively in 79, but he didn't toy with him. In that 84 match, forget break point, I don't think he got to deuce on Mcenroe's serve. And while I won't claim that Connors was close to his best, I've seen him play so much worse. Spraying errors all over the place. That was not the case this match and he was absolutely crushed, obliterated.

 

[WCT]

Why does the 1982 Wimbledon final tend to be overlooked?

Arthur Ashe said in 82 that he didn't think either player played well. I didn't agree with that, but it was patchy in spots. I think Connors double faulted like 13 times.

 

[Mustard]

Arthur Ashe said in 82 that he didn't think either player played well. I didn't agree with that, but it was patchy in spots. I think Connors double faulted like 13 times.

It was a toe-to-toe battle, and a long match that Connors edged from behind. Not as clinical as Connors' 1982 and 1983 Queen's Club final wins over McEnroe, but a big, gutsy victory. Connors had won Wimbledon again after 8 years.

 

[Mustard]

No he didn't. NOWHERE CLOSE to what he did in 84. Mind you, he beat him decisively in 79, but he didn't toy with him. In that 84 match, forget break point, I don't think he got to deuce on Mcenroe's serve. And while I won't claim that Connors was close to his best, I've seen him play so much worse. Spraying errors all over the place. That was not the case this match and he was absolutely crushed, obliterated.

I'll have to watch it again sometime. Mind, it wasn't easy to see the ball on TV in the 1984 Wimbledon final, as I recall, with the bright sun and Wimbledon still using white balls at the time. Wimbledon didn't start using yellow balls until 1986.

 

[jrepac]

Arthur Ashe said in 82 that he didn't think either player played well. I didn't agree with that, but it was patchy in spots. I think Connors double faulted like 13 times.

It was patchy with missed opportunities from both guys....but there was a great tension and drama to it all. It was the longest final for many years, actually. A very gutsy performance from Connors who was on the verge of losing and the 'tragedy' of Mac being oh-so-close to defending his title and falling short.

 

[jrepac]

It was a toe-to-toe battle, and a long match that Connors edged from behind. Not as clinical as Connors' 1982 and 1983 Queen's Club final wins over McEnroe, but a big, gutsy victory. Connors had won Wimbledon again after 8 years.

Well, that WAS what made it special, right? That was a pretty big gap and Jimmy had been blocked by Borg for so long. Borg not being there was a huge thing and really changed the entire dynamic of W that year

 

[WCT]

I just want to reiterate that Ashe said the match wasn't particularly well played. I think there was plenty of good tennis, but some patches that keep it from matching their 84 US match. While Connors did do all that double faulting, he seemed to serve a bit bigger than the year before. He volleyed exceptionally well. Only a couple of unforced volley errors.

At the time, it sure as hell was a big thing for me. I waited a long time for that. I was wondering if I would see him win another slam. I was one happy camper that day.

The balls. It sure can be hard to see it in a lot of those old matches. I'm surprised it took so long to go yellow. Maybe the traditionalists at Wimbledon holding out? But I've gotten some of these 70s and early 80s matches and have to practically sit on top of the screen to see the ball.

 

[jrepac]

I just want to reiterate that Ashe said the match wasn't particularly well played. I think there was plenty of good tennis, but some patches that keep it from matching their 84 US match. While Connors did do all that double faulting, he seemed to serve a bit bigger than the year before. He volleyed exceptionally well. Only a couple of unforced volley errors.

At the time, it sure as hell was a big thing for me. I waited a long time for that. I was wondering if I would see him win another slam. I was one happy camper that day.

The balls. It sure can be hard to see it in a lot of those old matches. I'm surprised it took so long to go yellow. Maybe the traditionalists at Wimbledon holding out? But I've gotten some of these 70s and early 80s matches and have to practically sit on top of the screen to see the ball.

It just was not at the consistent level of play that you saw in the '84 USO, certainly. But, it was a gripping match and changed the direction of things in the men's game. I think most figured it was Mac's time to roll over everyone and everything. Connors was largely written off by then and Lendl was also coming up. Funny about those white balls....just so hard to see when I watch old matches....maybe it's due to age and old eyes!

 

[WCT]

Well, let's not forget possibly the biggest factor in the changing dynamics. You take the biggest 3 tournaments at the time, French, Wimbledon and US. The guy who has played in 11 of the last 12 finals is out of the equation now. Connors won't ever have to beat both Borg and Mcenroe again.

Still had to beat Mcenroe, though, and he did.

 

[jrepac]

Well, let's not forget possibly the biggest factor in the changing dynamics. You take the biggest 3 tournaments at the time, French, Wimbledon and US. The guy who has played in 11 of the last 12 finals is out of the equation now. Connors won't ever have to beat both Borg and Mcenroe again.

Still had to beat Mcenroe, though, and he did.

A very valid point. And, at the time, Ivan was certainly not ready to fill Bjorn's role.