Match Stats/Report - McEnroe vs Lendl, Wimbledon semi-final, 1983

[Waspsting]

John McEnroe beat Ivan Lendl 7-6(5), 6-4, 6-4 in the Wimbledon semi-final, 1983 on grass

McEnroe would go onto win the title, beating Chris Lewis in the final. It Lendl's first semi at event. He would finish runner-up on grass at the Australian later in the year

McEnroe won 106 points, Lendl 96

Both players serve-volleyed off all serves

Serve Stats
McEnroe...
- 1st serve percentage (67/99) 68%
- 1st serve points won (55/67) 82%
- 2nd serve points won (18/32) 56%
- Aces 16, Service Winners 1 (bad bounce related, can reasonably be called a non-clean ace)
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (49/99) 49%

Lendl...
- 1st serve percentage (73/103) 71%
- 1st serve points won (54/73) 74%
- 2nd serve points won (16/30) 53%
- Aces 4 (2 second serves), Service Winners 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (38/103) 37%

Serve Patterns
McEnroe served...
- to FH 33%
- to BH 49%
- to Body 18%

Lendl served...
- to FH 32%
- to BH 51%
- to Body 17%

Return Stats
McEnroe made...
- 63 (22 FH, 41 BH), including 4 return-approaches
- 9 Winners (4 FH, 5 BH)
- 33 Errors, all forced...
- 33 Forced (15 FH, 18 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- Return Rate (63/101) 62%

Lendl made...
- 47 (18 FH, 29 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- 7 Winners (2 FH, 5 BH)
- 32 Errors, all forced...
- 32 Forced (17 FH, 15 BH)
- Return Rate (47/96) 49%

Break Points
McEnroe 2/7 (4 games)
Lendl 0/2 (2 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
McEnroe 36 (7 FH, 10 BH, 8 FHV, 7 BHV, 4 OH)
Lendl 30 (7 FH, 7 BH, 5 FHV, 6 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 3 OH, 1 BHOH)

McEnroe had 19 from serve-volley points
- 12 first 'volleys' (6 FHV, 5 BHV, 1 FH at net)
- 5 second 'volleys' (1 FHV, 1 BHV, 3 OH)... 1 OH on bounce from baseline (forced back point)
- 2 third 'volleys' (1 BHV, 1 OH)... the OH was on bounce from baseline (forced back point)

- 17 passes - 9 returns (4 FH, 5 BH) & 8 regular (2 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV)
- FH returns - 1 cc, 1 dtl and 2 inside-in
- BH returns - 3 cc, 1 dtl and 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 dtl and 1 longline
- regular BHs - 2 cc, 2 dtl and 1 inside-out/dtl
- the FHV was a swinging, non-net shot

Lendl had 18 from serve-volley points
- 10 first 'volleys' (2 FHV, 4 BHV, 1 BH1/2V, 1 OH, 1 FH at net, 1 BH at net)
- 7 second volleys (3 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH, 1 BHOH)
- 1 re-approach volley (1 OH)... that can reasonably be called a FHV

- 12 passes - 7 returns (2 FH, 5 BH) & 5 regular (4 FH, 1 BH)
- FH returns - 1 cc and 1 dtl
- BH returns - 2 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out (which McEnroe got racquet on without his hand on the racquet) and 1 inside-in
- regular FHs - 1 cc, 1 dtl, 1 inside-out and 1 longline
- regular BH - 1 dtl

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
McEnroe 25
- 5 Unforced (4 FHV, 1 BHV)
- 20 Forced (7 FH, 5 BH, 4 FHV, 2 FH1/2V, 2 BHV)... with 1 FH at net (a pass attempt)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 54

Lendl 19
- 9 Unforced (1 FH, 1 BH, 2 FHV, 5 BHV)... with 1 FH at net & 1 BH at net
- 10 Forced (2 FH, 3 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BH1/2V, 1 BHOH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 56.7

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

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

Net Points & Serve-Volley
McEnroe was...
- 58/86 (67%) at net, including...
- 56/79 (71%) serve-volleying, comprising...
- 38/50 (76%) off 1st serve and...
- 18/29 (62%) off 2nd serve
---
- 1/4 (25%) return-approaching
- 2/3 (67%) forced back/retreated

Lendl was...
- 65/96 (68%) at net, all serve-volleying, comprising...
- 51/70 (73%) off 1st serve and...
- 14/26 (54%) off second serve

Match Report
Not just a high quality, 100% serve-volleying encounter but a beautiful one with both players playing very well. Key difference is McEnroe having the better serve - its better placed, has more variety and is apparently better disguised (or at very least, Lendl can't read it as well as Mac can read his serve)

That difference trickles down into other areas -
- because of better serve, Mac is able to return better than Lendl
- because Mac is able to return better, he's faced with easier volleys and is able to volley better
- because Mac is able to volley better, he's faced with easier passing chances and is able to pass better

In absolute sense - i.e. facing equal calibre stuff - there's negligble difference between 2 players sans the serve. Lendl volleys about as well as Mac, Mac passes about as well as Lendl

Its come out pretty well in numbers. With both players serve-volleying 100% of the time and match being server-dominated on whole, direct comparison is easy

Overall break points - Mac 2/7 (4 games), Lendl 0/2 (2 games)
- 1st set break points - Mac 0/1, Lendl 0/2 (2 games)
- next 2 sets break points - Mac 2/6 (3 games), Lendl 0

Lendl has slightly better of first set going in the 'breaker and its a couple of against-set's-trend points that sees Mac come out on top. Thereafter, Mac has better of play and Lendl is no real threat to break. So 1 who-plays-big-points-better set - with the lesser player coming out on top - and 2 sets where the better player reigns.

In first set, all 3 break points end with FH return errors against 1st serves (1 of Lendl's against a body serve), all drawn by particularly good serves. Mac deals in aces after saving his break points too to hold the games

Heading into 'breaker, Lendl has 0 UEs, Mac 3 (all volleys). In fact on service games, Lendl's missed just 1 volley, Mac 6 (Mac also misses a couple from nothing-to-lose, very low percentage approaches in return games - and the only volley Lendl misses is also forced by such an approach). Meanwhile, Lendl's got 3 return winners to Mac's 0. In short, Lendl's had better of play. He's faced normal amount of difficult 'volleys' too, including half-volleys and shoelace volleys and put everything back in play - he's basically been flawless in forecourt

Lendl carries on good work in 'breaker, striking a stunning running FH cc pass winner to go up mini-break and 3-1. After Mac holds for 2-3, next 2 points end up settling the set

First Lendl misses an easy, comfortable BHV - his first UE of the match. Then Mac strikes a BH return winner - his first return winner of the match. Things carry on on serve and Mac takes it with the 1 mini advantage

By contrast, Mac has better of rest of match though it remains server dominated. Lendl has no more break points, Mac ekes out a break per set - and has run of play to tune where he's far more likely to

Progression of match - Lendl having better of first set, Mac the next 2 - comes through in points served too -

1st Set - Mac 46, Lendl 37
2nd Set - Mac 23, Lendl 30
3rd Set - Mac 30, Lendl 36

 

[Waspsting]

Having the better serve is key to all this for Mac. Not the volley (or pass or return). That's come out very well in numbers

Unreturned rates - Mac 49%, Lendl 37%
Points in play - both 55
(Negligible double faults - Mac 3 from 32 2nd serves, Lendl 2 from 30)

Breaking down unreturned rates -
Aces/Service Winners - Mac 17, Lendl 5 (2 of Lendl's are second serves)
Return errors drawn - Mac 32, Lendl 33

With 100% serve-volleying, all return errors get marked forced, but the ones drawn by Mac are more difficult (as also suggested by the ace counts)

Lendl has more powerful serve but is usually directed within reach or readily coverable. Mac also seems to read it. This is normal for match up - generally, when Lendl goes all out with the first serve, it tends leave Mac helpless due to overwhelming pace, not wide placement. He also tends to have a low in-count when so serving

Since he's serve-volleying behind all 2nd serves here, he's chosen to take something off the firsts to get more in - and not have to come in behind too many second serves. Hence, very high 71% first serves in for Lendl.

Mac's serve by contrast is swung out very wide, dragging Lendl all the way out of court (or going for aces). When down the middle, Lendl obviously has no read on the serve (and he also has to be more wary of covering the other side than Mac does). Even Mac's body serves are that much more precise than Lendl's. In short, placement and disguise are where Mac has substantial advanage on the serve shot. Larger lot of Lendl's return errors are against balls he's completely stretched out for and can just look to poke back in play somehow and larger lot of Mac's are ones he's in position to play orthodoxly but misses

Coincidentally, the 2 direct serves almost identical
- to FH - Mac 33%, Lendl 32%
- to BH - Mac 49%, Lendl 51%
- to Body - Mac 18%, Lendl 17%

Mac's overeall superiority flows out having the better serve. There's neglible difference in other areas. Mac can return more because he faces less difficult serves. He's got 9 winners on the return to Lendl's 7

Given the players in question, its a high compliment to Lendl that he's as good on the volley and high compliment to Mac that he returns and passes as well as Lendl

Lendl with thin lead in net points - he wins 68% to Mac's 67% - is deceptive. Lendl's are all serve-volley points. Mac throws in the odd very, very low percentage approach (including off the return) with Lendl already at net to drag his number just under

Just serve-volleying, Mac leads in all areas -
- overall - Mac 71%, Lendl 68%
- off 1st serve - Mac 76%, Lendl 73%
- off 2nd serve - Mac 62%, Lendl 54%

On the 'volley' ('volley' as in net shots including half-volleys, excluding non-net volleys, including groundstrokes at net etc.)
- Winners - Mac 19, Lendl 18
- UEs - Mac 5, Lendl 9
- FEs - Mac 8, Lendl 5
- so total errors - Mac 13, Lendl 14

That's in context of Mac with higher unreturned rate (i.e. Lendl has more points where volley is necessary). Sans unreturned serves, Mac has 47 serve-volley points needing a volley, Lendl 63

Mac is perhaps, slightly better, on the volley. 12 first 'volley winners to Lendl's 8 somewhat speaks to his beigng more decisive on the shot (confounded by his having easier volleys to dispatch). This is supported by groundstroke FEs (i.e. passing attempts) read Mac 12, Lendl a measly 5... in other words, Mac finishs points with volleys that leave Lendl no chance, Lendl is less decisive on the volley (though still top notch - its just that Mac's just a bit better

Mac's typically clean in volleying into corners or dropping them. Lendl volleys away from Mac - often, well away - but isn't that decisive (also faces less easy volleys)

Mac slightly more consistent on the UE front. In light of his needing a volley so less often, the degree of it is smaller than the 9:5 ratio suggested purely by UE count

Virtually equal at making the dificult volley. 2-4 of Mac's FEs are from crazy approaches with Lendl at net, so FEs while serve-volleying while the other player is on baseline are near identical. Again, given Mac returning better and Lendl having to volley more often, th FE counts actually speaks to Lendl being better at making the difficult volley

On the pass -
- return winners - Mac 9, Lendl 7
- winners in play - Mac 8, Lendl 5
- Errors - Mac 12, Lendl 5

That's all coverable by Mac stronger serve ----> Mac returns more challengingly ----> Lendl faces more and slighlty tougher volleys & Mac volleys a bit more decisively

In light of the match-up and reputation of the players concerned, the surprise takeaways are -
- Lendl volleying about as well as Mac's
- Mac passing about as well as Lendl


... which together, largely cancels out. Its Mac's advantage on the serve that puts him over

Match Progression
First set was covered earlier. Amidst server domination, Lendl's almost literally flawless on the volley and stronger on the pass (including on the return) leading into the tiebreak. 3 particularly key points in the 'breaker

- Lendl with a running FH cc pass winner to go up mini-break 3-1
- Lendl missing easy BHV to hand it back (his only UE of the set) 3-3
- Mac making his sole return-pass winner point after to go up mini-break 4-3

A coin flip set that goes Mac's way

From thereon, Mac gains ascendancy, holding more comfortably and Lendl starts missing the odd volley. Lendl's left as stone regularly by Mac's wide serves that he obviously has no read on, while Mac's able to reach and make efforts on the second shot at least

Just 1 break in second set. Its a 10 point game, Mac has 4 return-pass winners that are balanced out by return errors. Crucial points are Lendl missing an easy BHV and eventually, double faulting on the second break point

Similar playing equilibrium in third set of Mac holding more easily. He gains the break early to 15 with 3 return winners and forcing a BH1/2V error. Lendl doesn't go away - he's got Mac down 0-30 in next 2 return games (Mac wins next 4 points in both), but is in even bigger danger on serve and has to save 2 break points in a 14 point hold

Close shave on the serve-out by Mac. He's down 0-15 and 15-30. 3 of the points Mac wins are near misses by Lendl on the pass, inches away from being winners, but its good enough to end the match

Summing up, an excellent match from both players and a beautiful one. McEnroe's slight superiority springs from having the better disguised and better placed serve. Everything else is near even between the two - the return, the volley and the pass - with McEnroe a bit more decisive in his volleying. In light of the two players reputations, particularly credit worthy is Lendl's excellent volleying and to lesser extent, McEnroe's strong passing

@WCT - thoughts?

Stats for the final between McEnroe and Chris Lewis - Match Stats/Report - McEnroe vs Lewis, Wimbledon final, 1983 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

Stats for Lendl's Australian Open final with Mats Wilander - Match Stats/Report - Wilander vs Lendl, Australian Open final, 1983 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[jrepac]

Great recap. Would like to go back and watch this one again to compare vs. Lendl '84. Here, Lendl served and volleyed a LOT, which I had forgotten. Not so much the following year. In this match, I just remember Mac having all the answers, no matter what Lendl did. 16 Aces not too shabby over 3 sets. When Mac was serving well (70% or so) the rest of his game tended to fall into place very nicely. Maybe it was just a confidence thing for him. To this day, I struggle to watch Lendl on grass and figure out what could he have done differently to win W? Perhaps nothing.

 

[Waspsting]

Great recap. Would like to go back and watch this one again to compare vs. Lendl '84. Here, Lendl served and volleyed a LOT, which I had forgotten. Not so much the following year.

I think you mean the '84 semi between Lendl and Connors?

Chalk and cheese, comparing Lendl's approach here to there. Here, he's 100% serve-volleying here, serving within himself, gets high in-count. Next year, he's staying back, chipping little BHs to probe Connors' FH, ends up having to pass a lot on his own service games and is banging down 1st serves looking for unreturnables and having low

Do you remember how he was playing in '84 prior to the semis? Or in '83?

I'm curious if the non-serve-volleying in the semis was something particularly designed for Connors (to avoid Connors' powerful return-passes and exploit his vulnerable low FH) or if he was staying back in general in '84

For that matter, if he was serve-volleying all the time here in '83 or if it was something particularly designed to keep Mac away from net

Not long before this match, the Mac-Lendl rivalry turned on its head, starting in Philly. Mac chip-charged all but 1 second serve return... and just kept playing Lendl that way from then on. Don't think that was a lot of fun for Lendl

To this day, I struggle to watch Lendl on grass and figure out what could he have done differently to win W? Perhaps nothing.

Probably

Clearly he's not the very best grass courter around, so for him, making deep runs and seeing off those he's supposed to beat regularly year after year gives him best possible shot of snagging a title at some point in his career. Knock on the door enough times, its more likely to open type of thing (as opposed to rule the roost the way Mac, Becker, Sampras looked to do)

Would need some luck, or things to line up just so against those better than him - Mac, Becker, Edberg, Cash etc. - him being at his very best, maybe those guys being a bit off on the day, crucial points going his way etc.

As for as prospects go, Agassi was in similar boat, though very different of style - and managed to snag said title, with a particularly zoned in showing in '92

with 5 semis and 2 finals, he's done more than enough to demonstrate his quality on grass (also a final and semi at Australian Open and a couple of titles in Queen's)

I'm often struck by how fine margins for winning and losing are on grass. Here for example, Lendl has better of 1st set - and 2 completely against run-of-play points - an easy BHV miss by Lendl's (his first of the match - he'd only missed 1 volley, a difficult one - prior to it) and a return winner by Mac (his first of the match - otherwise, he hadn't looked likely to get such a return off) - sees the set fall Mac's way

You can't possibly count on that that to happen to win. No one thinks to themself "Ah, no problem. This guy hasn't missed volley but I'm sure he will just when I need him to and I haven't got a great return off but I'm sure I will when I need to - I've got this in the bag, easy, peasy"

Imagine a point or 2 like that sending first set of '87 final Lendl's way -

Scoreline reads 7-6(5).
With Cash having to serve 31 points to hold 6 times, Lendl 57 and Cash leading tiebreak 6-1. That's grass court tennis.

So Lendl... he kept making those deep runs, kept coming against players who are just a little better and just kept falling short against them. But I think he maxed out on what he could have done - winning the title or not beyond that carries element of chance with it that just didn't end up falling his way

 

[WCT]

I was waiting to see if you did stats for this match. Your assesment is pretty close to how I remember it. I will always remember Steve Flink's comment on this match, in World Tennis Magazine. Lendl wold have beaten anyone else in the tournament in straight sets, INCLUDING CONNORS. Steve Flink is not given to hyperbole or hot takes. His commentary and opinions are generally very measured.

What you essentailly said here I've said for years. Either Mcenroe is serving better or he's returning better because Lendl is consistently having to play more difficult volleys.
And that is what I felt against a number of players. Not long ago, watched a set of hi 89 match vs Becker. He is playing the more difficult volleys.

This match especially, but in general, I think Lendl volleyed very well at Wimbledon, given his reputation. Is he Mcenroe or Edberg? Of course, not, but is that the bar? Volley like an all time great or you are poor or average at net? I would see matches where he would go close to a set without missing a volley, miss one or two, and hear a diatribe of how uncomfortable he is at net. I'm like, did you watch the last set? Forget his reputation, watch how he is playing now.

Now, I wil be the first to admit that I haven't watched these matches in a very long time. Most of them, anyway. Maybe my memory is off. Still, my take from back then was Lendl's biggest problem was not his s/v, it was his return. He simply did not return like a Connors or Agassi on grass, They didn't return as well as other surfaces either, but I think the dropoff was a lot less than Lend's. This is counterintuituve thinking because his strength is his groundstrokes. Still way my take,though.

Wasp all these early round matches were not on tv back then. Not in the states. You didn't see match by match. But from what I ever saw the Connors match was an anomaly. The 83 Tanner match was up at one time. All s/v. Go find every Lendl Wimbledon match you can find on youtube and find me another where he played the way he did against Connors. No, he plays textbook grass court tennis in all of them. Both serves s/v every point.

We discussed this in the thread you did on the 84 match with Connors. Personally, I don't think he wanted to give Connors a target. He had just beaten him love and love a month or so before on clay at Forest Hills WCT. Basically never coming in. However, I don't have clear recollection of any other 84 Wimbledon matches he played. But, given how I saw him play there in a bunch of other matched over the years, I would lay heavy odds that the Connors match was an anomaly. Textbook s/v was his norm at Wimbledon.

I'm not interested in how pretty or natural he looked doing it. Lendl was not a pretty player to watch no matter what style he played. I'm nterested in how effective he wa at it. Agian, IMO, surprisingly effective for someone with his reputation.

I've heard Flink on interviews in the last year or two express the opinion that maybe Lendl shouldn't have s/v on every 2nd serve. I think there is a lot of merit in that statement. A lot of second serves came back really hard and low at his feet. He didn't have the 2nd serve of a Mcenroe or a Newcombe and I said he volleyed very well there. I didn't say superbly or sublimely. I still maintain, though, his biggest problem is he can't break serve nearly as much as a Connors or Agassi and that has very little to do with his serve or volley.

 

[urban]

Many good observations. It seemed to me, when i was watching Lendl on grass against Mac, Becker, Cash or Edberg, that he always, when not hitting an ace, had to hit difficult volleys. Maybe this was caused by his serve, that was more straight and deep, than angled, sliced and skidding through on the grass. Maybe his sliding into the net position was a bit too mechanical, maybe his position at the T-line for his first volley wasn't ideal.. Somehow his always had to hit defensive low backhand volleys, which was a weak link in his armor, and which often sailed long or went into the net. The good, natural net players like the old Aussies, Mac or Edberg made a swift tango step, hit the volley offensively on the move forward and somehow ever looked at ease, never rushed on the volley. Maybe it had been better for Lendl, to stay back at second serves and set up his big forehand to open up the court, like Federer later did effectively.

 

[Waspsting]

I will always remember Steve Flink's comment on this match, in World Tennis Magazine. Lendl wold have beaten anyone else in the tournament in straight sets, INCLUDING CONNORS. Steve Flink is not given to hyperbole or hot takes. His commentary and opinions are generally very measured.

Top class showing from Lendl

I'd leave it there - and not get into how he'd do against anyone else... of course, top showing means 'would probably beat anybody else' but against a big serving, serve-volleyer in particular, anything can happen on a give day

If Connors returns well (holding him to his own standard), I wouldn't want to bet anyone would straight set him
The returning display Connors put on in the lead-in Queen's final against McEnroe is about as good as it gets

What stands out in Lendl's showing here is how well he copes with the tricky or not-easy or slightly hard volley all the way up to how well he copes with the difficult ones (shoelace volleys).

Generally, on his service games on grass, that's where he's a bit off (compared to the Mac's, Cash's and Edberg's of the world). You'll get a few misses to trickily not-easy volleys, you'll get a not good volley that you can line pass up for from such volleys and you'll draw errors from the shoelace ball. That's all normal by any reasonable standard

Against Connors on a good day... he'd get a lot of that. And his serve isn't placed too far out (hence, the low 4 aces - 2 of them second serves)

Either Mcenroe is serving better or he's returning better because Lendl is consistently having to play more difficult volleys.
And that is what I felt against a number of players. Not long ago, watched a set of hi 89 match vs Becker. He is playing the more difficult volleys.

Agree

I would see matches where he would go close to a set without missing a volley, miss one or two, and hear a diatribe of how uncomfortable he is at net. I'm like, did you watch the last set? Forget his reputation, watch how he is playing now..... I'm not interested in how pretty or natural he looked doing it.... I'm nterested in how effective he was at it. Agian, IMO, surprisingly effective for someone with his reputation.

Completely agree

It falls under a broader pattern for all players basically. Positive or negative

Wilander's net game, Edberg's FH, Edberg's BH, Agassi's return, Sampras' FH, Djokovic's BH... list is endless

Said shot or aspect of game gains a reputation. Anything contrary to reputation is ignored (and at times, how contrary it is can be very extreme), any hint of something in line with reputation is stressed trebly

Lendl's volleying is one of the more extreme ones because I can't even tell where the reputation came from to begin with. He doesn't come in much early in his career (outside this match), often times later too but I can count on one hand the number of genuinely bad showings on the volley I've seen from him

The worst was later in the year, the Aus Open final. That though is real horror show

Lendl's biggest problem was not his s/v, it was his return. He simply did not return like a Connors or Agassi on grass, They didn't return as well as other surfaces either, but I think the dropoff was a lot less than Lend's. This is counterintuituve thinking because his strength is his groundstrokes. Still way my take,though.

Agree with this too

Some points about Lendl's returning - and comparing to choice others

- He doesn't return early, like Connors or Agassi or even Mac

- he isn't at all compact of swing. I was watching Cash's 87 run... the return is almost perfect. Short swing, almost a block that gets under net or at least, not above it. Lendl by contrast tends to flay at the ball

- he seems to be going for sheer overpower. Blast the return so hard down the middle that volleyer can't control the ball. I'm sure it works on most, but the guys who beat him are a special bunch of net players. He doesn't go for well placed winners

This is true for him on most surfaces. He did try to guide-block returns wide of Boris in the '89 US final... didn't work, Boris was up to stretching and lunging to make the volley winners

- he doesn't have great variety of direction - and against serve-volleying, specifically that means the BH inside-out return

He goes down the middle or slightly inside-in in deuce court and cc on the other side as staple (with of course, most serves coming to his BH).

Boris and Mac in particular go every which way of both sides. Edberg makes more returns and gets them in trickily around net high, with fair few dipping slighlty under

To optimize success with Lendl's basic returning directions, he'd need to step in like Agassi did - but he tends to keep a regulation, 2-3 paces behind baseline position

I still maintain, though, his biggest problem is he can't break serve nearly as much as a Connors or Agassi and that has very little to do with his serve or volley.

I don't disagree and see if a bit differently

Neither Connors or Agassi have big serves. And they both spend healthy amount of time on the baseline, trading neutral groundstrokes. With a game like that, they're likely to get broken now and then

So they have to break regularly to win - your probably not going to see those guys go through match against strong players without getting broken

Now Lendl has a big serve and serve-volleys all the time. A style of play where its more likely he can hold regularly and comfortably

So I'd look to compare Lendl's return & passing game to similar players - like Boris and Edberg and Mac

Go find every Lendl Wimbledon match you can find on youtube and find me another where he played the way he did against Connors

I've got 7 grass matches for Lendl - 4 at Wimby, 2 at Australian Open, 1 at Queen's

Save the Connors match, he's 100% serve-volleying in all the Wimby and Queen's match (think he stays back of 1 second serve in the '87 final, but that's it)

Lendl's serve-volleying frequency at Aus Open -
- '83 final vs Wilander - 56% off time of 1st serve, 24% off 2nd
- '85 semi vs Edberg - 96% of 1sts, 64% of 2nds

 

[Waspsting]

Many good observations. It seemed to me, when i was watching Lendl on grass against Mac, Becker, Cash or Edberg, that he always, when not hitting an ace, had to hit difficult volleys.

I'd say he had to hit more difficult or less easy volleys than them on the whole

Not too much difference - he's not facing tough volleys regularly, and they're not facing easy ones either

The point about aces is relevent. On hard courts and carpet, Lendl liked to blast down first serves, apparently looking for an unretunrable. And would get low-in count as result - for the trade-off of winning almost all his 1st serve point

He served this way to Wilander in '83 Aus final too

That pattern changes when his 2nd serves get attacked (i.e. chip-charged) and he tones down the 1st serves to just hefty/healthy (as opposed to 'overwhelming') to get more in

Now at Wimby, when he's serve-volleying 100% 1st and 2nd, the overwhelming 1st serving isn't good option (and he doesn't do it) for a couple reasons

a) he really doesn't want to be serve-volleying behind too many 2nd serves to good returners. That's when he gets those ''tricky or not-easy or slightly hard volleys" or shoelace ones that he's not too good at handling

b) if he served all out, he'd barely be at service line when returns came back and don't think he's cut out for volleying from there. Serve-volleying behind a huge serve brings up its own brand of problems like half-volleying from around service line, having to judge whether to lean back and hit groundstroke or move forward and take low volley or half-volley etc.

Maybe this was caused by his serve, that was more straight and deep, than angled, sliced and skidding through on the grass.

I think so - he doesn't serve damagingly wide like Mac or crampingly close like Edberg. His serve can be reached more or less comfortably - its the pace of it that's challenging

Maybe his sliding into the net position was a bit too mechanical, maybe his position at the T-line for his first volley wasn't ideal.. Somehow his always had to hit defensive low backhand volleys, which was a weak link in his armor, and which often sailed long or went into the net. The good, natural net players like the old Aussies, Mac or Edberg made a swift tango step, hit the volley offensively on the move forward and somehow ever looked at ease, never rushed on the volley.

I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think we see this the same way

To me, a "low volley" is one well under net, but short of to the feet... everyone has trouble with these, save the best of the best on their very best days

What commentators often refer to as a "low volley" is what I'd call "regulation - under net", balls just slightly under net

Its on this type of volley that Lendl tends to not be aggressive (when its potentially possible to be so) Unlike Edberg in particular, whose apt to dispatch it. Boris doesn't do too much with these volleys either (he doesn't face as many as the others because his serve is stronger) but probably misses fewer than Lendl. Cash volleys it with authority, Mac can drop it for a winner or put it in corner with equal comfort

Completely agree with look of the shot. Henman and Rafter too - just makes it look regulation

Lendl does miss these 'makeable but tricky' type volleys

I've heard Flink on interviews in the last year or two express the opinion that maybe Lendl shouldn't have s/v on every 2nd serve. I think there is a lot of merit in that statement. A lot of second serves came back really hard and low at his feet. He didn't have the 2nd serve of a Mcenroe or a Newcombe

Maybe it had been better for Lendl, to stay back at second serves and set up his big forehand to open up the court, like Federer later did effectively.

True - the 2nd serve got pounded fair bit. And he rarely looks upto handling pounded, low returns for long

Against the A grade serve-volleyers though, if he didn't serve-volley, than they'd be coming in and quickly

Mac, Edberg, Cash all occasionally chip-charge even when they know the server is going to be at net. They 'delay' return-approach when they see the server has unexpectedly not come in. They come in quickly otherwise. They like to edge forward from the baseline as they're hitting challenging passes when they can

Boris also likes to chip-charge, but not against serve-volleying opponent and to come in when opponent doesn't serve-volley

I'm pretty sure Lendl would mostly be forced to play third ball BH passing shots against this crowd if he stayed back off 2nd serves, not court opening FHs

 

[medieval_remnant]

Top class showing from Lendl

I'd leave it there - and not get into how he'd do against anyone else... of course, top showing means 'would probably beat anybody else' but against a big serving, serve-volleyer in particular, anything can happen on a give day

If Connors returns well (holding him to his own standard), I wouldn't want to bet anyone would straight set him
The returning display Connors put on in the lead-in Queen's final against McEnroe is about as good as it gets

What stands out in Lendl's showing here is how well he copes with the tricky or not-easy or slightly hard volley all the way up to how well he copes with the difficult ones (shoelace volleys).

Generally, on his service games on grass, that's where he's a bit off (compared to the Mac's, Cash's and Edberg's of the world). You'll get a few misses to trickily not-easy volleys, you'll get a not good volley that you can line pass up for from such volleys and you'll draw errors from the shoelace ball. That's all normal by any reasonable standard

Against Connors on a good day... he'd get a lot of that. And his serve isn't placed too far out (hence, the low 4 aces - 2 of them second serves)



Agree



Completely agree

It falls under a broader pattern for all players basically. Positive or negative

Wilander's net game, Edberg's FH, Edberg's BH, Agassi's return, Sampras' FH, Djokovic's BH... list is endless

Said shot or aspect of game gains a reputation. Anything contrary to reputation is ignored (and at times, how contrary it is can be very extreme), any hint of something in line with reputation is stressed trebly

Lendl's volleying is one of the more extreme ones because I can't even tell where the reputation came from to begin with. He doesn't come in much early in his career (outside this match), often times later too but I can count on one hand the number of genuinely bad showings on the volley I've seen from him

The worst was later in the year, the Aus Open final. That though is real horror show



Agree with this too

Some points about Lendl's returning - and comparing to choice others

- He doesn't return early, like Connors or Agassi or even Mac

- he isn't at all compact of swing. I was watching Cash's 87 run... the return is almost perfect. Short swing, almost a block that gets under net or at least, not above it. Lendl by contrast tends to flay at the ball

- he seems to be going for sheer overpower. Blast the return so hard down the middle that volleyer can't control the ball. I'm sure it works on most, but the guys who beat him are a special bunch of net players. He doesn't go for well placed winners

This is true for him on most surfaces. He did try to guide-block returns wide of Boris in the '89 US final... didn't work, Boris was up to stretching and lunging to make the volley winners

- he doesn't have great variety of direction - and against serve-volleying, specifically that means the BH inside-out return

He goes down the middle or slightly inside-in in deuce court and cc on the other side as staple (with of course, most serves coming to his BH).

Boris and Mac in particular go every which way of both sides. Edberg makes more returns and gets them in trickily around net high, with fair few dipping slighlty under

To optimize success with Lendl's basic returning directions, he'd need to step in like Agassi did - but he tends to keep a regulation, 2-3 paces behind baseline position



I don't disagree and see if a bit differently

Neither Connors or Agassi have big serves. And they both spend healthy amount of time on the baseline, trading neutral groundstrokes. With a game like that, they're likely to get broken now and then

So they have to break regularly to win - your probably not going to see those guys go through match against strong players without getting broken

Now Lendl has a big serve and serve-volleys all the time. A style of play where its more likely he can hold regularly and comfortably

So I'd look to compare Lendl's return & passing game to similar players - like Boris and Edberg and Mac



I've got 7 grass matches for Lendl - 4 at Wimby, 2 at Australian Open, 1 at Queen's

Save the Connors match, he's 100% serve-volleying in all the Wimby and Queen's match (think he stays back of 1 second serve in the '87 final, but that's it)

Lendl's serve-volleying frequency at Aus Open -
- '83 final vs Wilander - 56% off time of 1st serve, 24% off 2nd
- '85 semi vs Edberg - 96% of 1sts, 64% of 2nds

Connors was awesome against Mac in the two Queens finals in 1982, 1983. Any thoughts on those matches? Was Mac off 5%? Which I didn't see. Were the Queens courts higher quality than Wimbledon's?

 

[Waspsting]

Connors was awesome against Mac in the two Queens finals in 1982, 1983. Any thoughts on those matches? Was Mac off 5%? Which I didn't see. Were the Queens courts higher quality than Wimbledon's?

Agreed - 2 of the best matches I've seen from Connors

Don't think there's anything particularly off about Mac... just gets outdone by 2 great showings

Not sure about the courts. Its been awhile since I've seen the matches, but they didn't strike me as anything out of the ordinary for grass

This '83 Wimby court might be on slow side. I noted it when looking at the final, how volleys weren't going through the way you usually see at Wimby

I watched the '87 match between Pat Cash and Mats Wilander couple of days after this one. Lot more ankle balls there - normal for Wimbledon and most grass - than here. Here, relatively comfortable hip/thigh height bounce for passing

The '83 Queens final has very low unreturned rates and Connors' hitting display on the return and on the pass... probably wouldn't be possible without a relatively good (consistent bounce, not too low) court but this Wimby one isn't bad either

All credit to Connors for both of those results

Those 2 are here -

Duel Match Stats/Reports - Connors vs McEnroe, Queens Club finals '82 & '83 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

More broadly, you can find everything I've statted here -

(2) Match Stats/Reports - Catalogue | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[jrepac]

I was waiting to see if you did stats for this match. Your assesment is pretty close to how I remember it. I will always remember Steve Flink's comment on this match, in World Tennis Magazine. Lendl wold have beaten anyone else in the tournament in straight sets, INCLUDING CONNORS. Steve Flink is not given to hyperbole or hot takes. His commentary and opinions are generally very measured.

In '83? Didn't Connors blow Lendl away a few weeks earlier in the Queen's semi? I don't think there is any video of that one out there.

 

[WCT]

In '83? Didn't Connors blow Lendl away a few weeks earlier in the Queen's semi? I don't think there is any video of that one out there.

Yeah, 3 and love, or love and 3. Not sure which set was which, but Connors lost only 3 games. I've never seen or heard about any video of the match. I'm sure BBC did the match. IIRC, in the States, NBC did Queens that year and they didn't televise the semis. The year before USA did it in the states and had semi and finals coverage. That is how I first saw it. The version I wound up getting was BBC, though.

I'm not saying I even necessarily agree with Flink. I do respect his opinions in general and this one left an impression that I never forgot over close to 40 years.

Wasp, don't have time to reply to you right now except to say that I agree with your assessment of Connors form at 82 and 83 Queens. Personally, I think he played better there than at Wimbledon 82's final.

 

[WCT]

Top class showing from Lendl

I'd leave it there - and not get into how he'd do against anyone else... of course, top showing means 'would probably beat anybody else' but against a big serving, serve-volleyer in particular, anything can happen on a give day

If Connors returns well (holding him to his own standard), I wouldn't want to bet anyone would straight set him
The returning display Connors put on in the lead-in Queen's final against McEnroe is about as good as it gets

What stands out in Lendl's showing here is how well he copes with the tricky or not-easy or slightly hard volley all the way up to how well he copes with the difficult ones (shoelace volleys).

Generally, on his service games on grass, that's where he's a bit off (compared to the Mac's, Cash's and Edberg's of the world). You'll get a few misses to trickily not-easy volleys, you'll get a not good volley that you can line pass up for from such volleys and you'll draw errors from the shoelace ball. That's all normal by any reasonable standard

Against Connors on a good day... he'd get a lot of that. And his serve isn't placed too far out (hence, the low 4 aces - 2 of them second serves)



Agree



Completely agree

It falls under a broader pattern for all players basically. Positive or negative

Wilander's net game, Edberg's FH, Edberg's BH, Agassi's return, Sampras' FH, Djokovic's BH... list is endless

Said shot or aspect of game gains a reputation. Anything contrary to reputation is ignored (and at times, how contrary it is can be very extreme), any hint of something in line with reputation is stressed trebly

Lendl's volleying is one of the more extreme ones because I can't even tell where the reputation came from to begin with. He doesn't come in much early in his career (outside this match), often times later too but I can count on one hand the number of genuinely bad showings on the volley I've seen from him

The worst was later in the year, the Aus Open final. That though is real horror show



Agree with this too

Some points about Lendl's returning - and comparing to choice others

- He doesn't return early, like Connors or Agassi or even Mac

- he isn't at all compact of swing. I was watching Cash's 87 run... the return is almost perfect. Short swing, almost a block that gets under net or at least, not above it. Lendl by contrast tends to flay at the ball

- he seems to be going for sheer overpower. Blast the return so hard down the middle that volleyer can't control the ball. I'm sure it works on most, but the guys who beat him are a special bunch of net players. He doesn't go for well placed winners

This is true for him on most surfaces. He did try to guide-block returns wide of Boris in the '89 US final... didn't work, Boris was up to stretching and lunging to make the volley winners

- he doesn't have great variety of direction - and against serve-volleying, specifically that means the BH inside-out return

He goes down the middle or slightly inside-in in deuce court and cc on the other side as staple (with of course, most serves coming to his BH).

Boris and Mac in particular go every which way of both sides. Edberg makes more returns and gets them in trickily around net high, with fair few dipping slighlty under

To optimize success with Lendl's basic returning directions, he'd need to step in like Agassi did - but he tends to keep a regulation, 2-3 paces behind baseline position



I don't disagree and see if a bit differently

Neither Connors or Agassi have big serves. And they both spend healthy amount of time on the baseline, trading neutral groundstrokes. With a game like that, they're likely to get broken now and then

So they have to break regularly to win - your probably not going to see those guys go through match against strong players without getting broken

Now Lendl has a big serve and serve-volleys all the time. A style of play where its more likely he can hold regularly and comfortably

So I'd look to compare Lendl's return & passing game to similar players - like Boris and Edberg and Mac



I've got 7 grass matches for Lendl - 4 at Wimby, 2 at Australian Open, 1 at Queen's

Save the Connors match, he's 100% serve-volleying in all the Wimby and Queen's match (think he stays back of 1 second serve in the '87 final, but that's it)

Lendl's serve-volleying frequency at Aus Open -
- '83 final vs Wilander - 56% off time of 1st serve, 24% off 2nd
- '85 semi vs Edberg - 96% of 1sts, 64% of 2nds

That is why I specified Wimbledon and didn't just say grass courts. Truthfully, I didn't remember how often he did it in Australia. Interesting how that late 83 match with Wilander is so much less. The 84 Connors match aside, I'd be surprised if you will find numbers like that at Wimbledon.

Regarding Connors and Agassi and serves, to me, that is a separate thing from how they return. Regardless of how much any of them s/v or don't when they serve, all 3 players are known for their ground strokes, ie returns, more than certainly Mcenroe and Edberg. I'd say Becker as well, perhaps not to the same degree. And I simply didn't feel that Lendl returned as well relative to his reputation.

Again, only my perception. I don't have stats that show his % of breaking serve is that much lower, on grass, compared to his numbers on other surfaces versus Connors' and Agassi's numbers.

Anecdotally, there seemed to be more of a dropoff for Lendl than I'd expect. Numbers certainly don't always back up the eye test. To me, Djokovic clearly has a better return than Lendl, but I've seen stats some years where Nadal's % of breaking serve is higher. I would then argue this could have more to do with what happened after the return was in play. However, in Lendl's era, on grass, with all that s/v, the return was the key shot. Obviously, I mean on the receiver's end.

 

[Waspsting]

Interesting how that late 83 match with Wilander is so much less.

Don't think he planned that match out at all. Just went in with his stock look-for-aces-every-first-serve & rally as it comes up with anything else

Also, good amount of 'delayed' serve-volleying there - when he takes couple paces in court after serve and waits on the return, and if its floated, runs in

He'd have finished the year ranked number 1 had he won it, though I'm not sure he knew that

And I simply didn't feel that Lendl returned as well relative to his reputation.

Again, only my perception. I don't have stats that show his % of breaking serve is that much lower, on grass, compared to his numbers on other surfaces versus Connors' and Agassi's numbers.

Anecdotally, there seemed to be more of a dropoff for Lendl than I'd expect. Numbers certainly don't always back up the eye test. To me, Djokovic clearly has a better return than Lendl, but I've seen stats some years where Nadal's % of breaking serve is higher. I would then argue this could have more to do with what happened after the return was in play. However, in Lendl's era, on grass, with all that s/v, the return was the key shot. Obviously, I mean on the receiver's end.

Ok, I get what you mean now - and I agree. and bringing in Nadal and Djokovic is a good illustration of it too

All of Connors, Agassi and Lendl have excellent 'return games' - the return shot + court game after it

Connors and Agassi though have that much more damaging ability on the return shot alone - which against serve-volleyers (particularly on grass), takes on greater than the court game - compared to Lendl

That's how I see it too. Quality of Lendl's return (in general and on all surfaces) is more about consistency than being damaging. Like Nadal. He misses very few returns and after that, he has as good court game as anyone to get breaks he needs - same calibre as Agassi, Connors

But just high consistency on return is of limited value against serve-volleyers, who'll just dispatch returns above the net

Connors and Agassi took returns early and hit powerful returns that were testing even at regulation height for the serve-volleyer- with good lot of wide winners too. Lendl strained for power, missed more as a result (which is natural), but still didn't get that kind of damaging ability

Regarding Connors and Agassi and serves, to me, that is a separate thing from how they return. Regardless of how much any of them s/v or don't when they serve...

I didn't contextualize that very well, let me try again

It goes back to Jrep speculating what Lendl might have done differently to win a Wimbledon title

Looking at it from point of view of the players concerned -

- with Connors' serve in particular (Agassi to lesser extent), I'd simply assume that I'm going to get broken now and then. Thus to win, I'd have to have ability/game to break more often than I'm broken. And they both have that

All those 50-50 points on Connors' service games. 1st serve and second. Same with Agassi on his 2nd serve - and its not rare for his 1sts to get returned comfortably either. Not feasible to indefinately hold serve winning 50-50 points. Your bound to be broken at some point

- Lendl by contrast, has big enough serve and service-game where I think he can plan out a campaign looking to hold like clock-work. Similar in nature to Boris, Sampras - if not as good

so for him, return game side of things isn't as important as for Connors and Agassi

For Lendl, i'd particuarly look to find ways to bolster his serving game - play around with how big to serve, aiming for certain percentage 1st serves in, consider staying back etc.... if he can cruise on serve, his return and return game are good enough to eventually make headway

Sort of like comparing Agassi to Sampras (to give an exaggerated example).

Planning from Sampras' point of view, looking to return-pass as damagingly as Agassi isn't a good starting point. He doesn't need to to win because his serve games are much more secure

I see Lendl on grass and his prospects of winning there as best planned out from a serve-game dominated overall game

 

[WCT]

I always thought a lot of it was stroke mechanics. That Agassi and Connors, with shorter swings and their propensity to hit the ball early ie superior hand/eye coordinatiom, were better equpped to deal with the erratic and low bounces of 70s and 80s grass.

Anecdotally, and I stressed that, it seemed to me that Lendl's return game fell off more relative to other surfaces than Connors and Agassi. I freely concede that I might be off. You'd need to have the numbers, but I think I'd lay odds that these guys broke a higher percentage of games on grass than Lendl. Than you would need to look at all 3 players' numbers on other surfaces. Perhaps they also broke that much more than Lendl on some of the other surfaces.

I've seen some discussion over the years, by tennis pundits, how Lendl would best be served to play on grass. Steve Flink felt pretty strongly that he should not have s/v on every 2nd serve. I think I would agree with that.

Anyway, I was glad to see ypur assessment of Lendl's volleying/returning vs Mcenroe's in this match pretty much agreed with my memory which was just eye test, not stats. I get some satisfaction from that.

Something similar happened this week. I saw Roscoe Tanner interviewed. He talked a bunch about playing styles, today and when he played. Well, at one point, Tanner brings up something that I had long thought. Talking about playing Borg and how Pancho Gonzalez advised him to come in immediately. Even if the approach wasn't that good that the discomfort of immediately being rushed might throw him off. Tanner mentions, I might come in on the 6th ball, with a very good approach, and get passed because he gave Borg a chance to get into the point.

Again, anecdotally, this was how I saw it back then. I'd see Connors hit a approach deep into the corner, on the 10th stroke, and get passes. Pecci chips and charges, on what looks to be a so so approach, and wins the point. Anyway, I got some satisfaction from Tanner's comments.

BTW, in case anyone would like to take a look, here is the link. Needless to say, he thinks modern players should learn to come to net more.

 

[Waspsting]

Something similar happened this week. I saw Roscoe Tanner interviewed. He talked a bunch about playing styles, today and when he played. Well, at one point, Tanner brings up something that I had long thought. Talking about playing Borg and how Pancho Gonzalez advised him to come in immediately. Even if the approach wasn't that good that the discomfort of immediately being rushed might throw him off. Tanner mentions, I might come in on the 6th ball, with a very good approach, and get passed because he gave Borg a chance to get into the point.

Again, anecdotally, this was how I saw it back then. I'd see Connors hit a approach deep into the corner, on the 10th stroke, and get passes. Pecci chips and charges, on what looks to be a so so approach, and wins the point. Anyway, I got some satisfaction from Tanner's comments.

I've wondered about this business of when to come in too

My feeling is if your good enough to rally from the back, do that and see if you can get a weak ball to come in off
If your not, then come in ASAP, before you give up the error from the back

Connors obviously can rally from the back and draw short balls to come in off. Better prospects for success at net
Pecci... his '79 French final with Borg is one of the biggest baseline mismatches I've seen. It takes 3-4 shots for him to give up an error from the back, so he'd need to get up front quickly as can

I doubt Pecci would do better rallying to net than Connors on the whole

Borg's a tough guy to come into too, because he hits quite hard and gets the ball up high

In '79 Wimby final, Borg's shooting holes through Tanner 2nd serve-volleying and chip-charging. I doubt coming in soon as possible from rallies would make much difference

An example of where I though McEnroe got it wrong was in trying to aggressively 'rip'-charge return his way to net constantly against Mats Wilander in '85 French. He made a lot of errors trying - and Mats' groundies aren't heavy enough (like Borg or Lendl's) to be too difficult to come in off

 

[medieval_remnant]

I've wondered about this business of when to come in too

My feeling is if your good enough to rally from the back, do that and see if you can get a weak ball to come in off
If your not, then come in ASAP, before you give up the error from the back

Connors obviously can rally from the back and draw short balls to come in off. Better prospects for success at net
Pecci... his '79 French final with Borg is one of the biggest baseline mismatches I've seen. It takes 3-4 shots for him to give up an error from the back, so he'd need to get up front quickly as can

I doubt Pecci would do better rallying to net than Connors on the whole

Borg's a tough guy to come into too, because he hits quite hard and gets the ball up high

In '79 Wimby final, Borg's shooting holes through Tanner 2nd serve-volleying and chip-charging. I doubt coming in soon as possible from rallies would make much difference

An example of where I though McEnroe got it wrong was in trying to aggressively 'rip'-charge return his way to net constantly against Mats Wilander in '85 French. He made a lot of errors trying - and Mats' groundies aren't heavy enough (like Borg or Lendl's) to be too difficult to come in off

Fascinating to compare the '85 Mac/Mats French semi with their '83 semi where Mac uses very little power. Seems more poised in '83. '85 a little desperate, weird bunny hop on his split step.
In 1985 Mats was really hitting through the ball. He was pushing around Becker in their French Open match

 

[WCT]

I've wondered about this business of when to come in too

My feeling is if your good enough to rally from the back, do that and see if you can get a weak ball to come in off
If your not, then come in ASAP, before you give up the error from the back

Connors obviously can rally from the back and draw short balls to come in off. Better prospects for success at net
Pecci... his '79 French final with Borg is one of the biggest baseline mismatches I've seen. It takes 3-4 shots for him to give up an error from the back, so he'd need to get up front quickly as can

I doubt Pecci would do better rallying to net than Connors on the whole

Borg's a tough guy to come into too, because he hits quite hard and gets the ball up high

In '79 Wimby final, Borg's shooting holes through Tanner 2nd serve-volleying and chip-charging. I doubt coming in soon as possible from rallies would make much difference

An example of where I though McEnroe got it wrong was in trying to aggressively 'rip'-charge return his way to net constantly against Mats Wilander in '85 French. He made a lot of errors trying - and Mats' groundies aren't heavy enough (like Borg or Lendl's) to be too difficult to come in off

Mcenroe used that rip and charge against Connors wuite effectively. I mean in 84, more often than not on 1st serves. He wasn't doing it all the time, though, nore periodically. The last time Connors bear him, 89 in Toulouse(I believe Connors 2nd to last title), he did maybe a dozen times. Connors first serves, just coming into to net off them.

I wasn't critiquing Pecci's choice to play that way. Probably was the correct way for him to play that way. Just my belief, again strictly eye test, no stats I took, that he was having more success relative to the quality of his approach shots. I only mentioned it because of how Tanner's comments seemed to match my memory of how things were back then. Although Tanner doesn't mention any other players. Just himself and how he was advised to and did play Borg.