hoodjem
G.O.A.T.
Edberg?
Question for Older Fans - Connors/Borg
- Thread starter Waspsting
- Start date
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Ashe, Drysdale, Budge, Kovacs, Rosewall perhaps. Vilas maybe. I know Connors was mentioned already.
Laver is close but I think his forehand was better.
Ashe himself thought his backhand was superior to his forehand. He wrote that he built his game on his serve and backhand. Ashe's first coach thought that the backhand should be taught before the forehand so when other players use the usual strategy of attacking the backhand they wouldn't know what to do if that was the stronger side.
Last edited:
"Which brings us to Jimmy Connors, an attacking baseliner, with the backhand being his stronger side.
A player of this type wouldn't achieve much in modern times. His backhand, even if it's the best in the world, would be outgunned by many a right handers forehand. Yet Connors was tremendously successful."
I don't think this holds credence. Maybe ask Ivan Lendl about the 2 USO finals he lost. Particularly in '82...Lendl's dominant forehand vs. the wall that was the Connors backhand. If both of the guys were 20 something, playing today with modern equipment, it would surely amp up their power levels. Making it mostly a wash. I don't see why one would assume that forehand would overwhelm backhand. Plus, most of the guys with exceptional backhands, also had above average forehands.
A player of this type wouldn't achieve much in modern times. His backhand, even if it's the best in the world, would be outgunned by many a right handers forehand. Yet Connors was tremendously successful."
I don't think this holds credence. Maybe ask Ivan Lendl about the 2 USO finals he lost. Particularly in '82...Lendl's dominant forehand vs. the wall that was the Connors backhand. If both of the guys were 20 something, playing today with modern equipment, it would surely amp up their power levels. Making it mostly a wash. I don't see why one would assume that forehand would overwhelm backhand. Plus, most of the guys with exceptional backhands, also had above average forehands.
Maybe 'overwhelm' is putting it too strongly. Let's try 'outdo regularly'
Let's try this another way - i'm assuming changes to rackets have increased offensive capabilities more than it has defensive capacity (which is more about movement)
If the modern lot had developed in wooden racket era, obviously they wouldn't have the same level of power on their shots as they do now
In that scenario, would Nadal's fh be able to hammer down Federer's bh to the extent it has? Or would less firepower from the leftie allow the right hander to cope better? (same thing for Federer forehand to Nadal backhand)
Let's take Djokovic and Nadal in 2011-13 period (when both were playing at high level)
My assessment of the play was the player whose bh was better able to hold off the others fh came off better - of this, I have no doubt
The possibility of either bh potentially dominating the others forehand just wasn't a practical possibility
Connors' playing dynamics against right handers seems to have been categorically different from the above
---
I choose Connors as the focal point for this excercise because he's said to have had a stronger backhand than forehand, even in an absolute sense.
If that's true, I would think Connors regularly used his bh to dominate his right handed opponents forehand
Since the 1990s at least, no one has done that. Or even looked half-likely too
I'm asking - is that because Connors' backhand was so good?
Or does changes in racket technology from Connors playing days to now account for it?
(Borg and Lendl are both great reference points to measure Connors off of in this context as both had ATG forehands)
my guess is if Jimmy Connors was a product of the present time, he'd have developed his game very differently and would be a different player altogether (same way the modern lot would be in other epochs e.g. their net games would be more practiced) - not that he, Jimmy Connors would be a failure, but rather, the playing strategies he used would be a non-starter
@Limpinhitter - if you have time for a detailed assessment (not the yes, no or one line opinion posts you're wont to deal in) would like to hear your take
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
I've done stats on many Connors matches(some have threads on this site), not sure I agree with there being a big gap between the 2 groundstrokes. Seemed like about 50/50 as to which wing produced more winners. And many of the matches where his bh had more winners than his fh, it was only a few winners higher. There were some outliers, like the 84 USO, but that was partly due to Mac serving too much to his bh and JC got grooved and hit a ton of winners off that side.
I watched a match from Wimbledon recently where Connors had 34 fh winners! The only match I've tracked where someone had a higher fh winner total was Verdasco vs Nadal at 2009 Australia. Just because Connors had an all time great bh, doesn't mean his fh wasnt formidable as well. I think those famous quotes in the 70s about his weak fh have caused too many to make generalizations over the years. I recommend you watch several full matches of his to decide for yourself.
I watched a match from Wimbledon recently where Connors had 34 fh winners! The only match I've tracked where someone had a higher fh winner total was Verdasco vs Nadal at 2009 Australia. Just because Connors had an all time great bh, doesn't mean his fh wasnt formidable as well. I think those famous quotes in the 70s about his weak fh have caused too many to make generalizations over the years. I recommend you watch several full matches of his to decide for yourself.
Last edited:
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
I just counted the Connors matches krosero and I did stats for. We did 33 matches from 1972 to 1992, most from the 70s and early 80s. Pretty even split 16 matches in which he had more fh winners than bh, 16 matches in which he had more bh winners than fh. One with equal winners off both sides. The biggest gaps he had were in the 75 AO final(loss to Newcombe): 2 fh, 15 bh. 1980 W QF(win over Tanner): 6 fh, 17 bh. 1984 USO SF(loss to Mac): 12 fh, 30 bh. 1981 W QF(win over Amritraj): 34 fh, 24 bh. 1987 W QF(win over Zivojinovic): 17 fh, 2 bh.
That's not what I was suggesting - you won't get any "Connors had a weak forehand" stereotype from me, I assure you
Do you think his backhand was better, worse or equal to his forehand?
I am not trying to critique his forehand - I am trying to assess the strength of his backhand.
Was about 50-50 normal for the time? Today, it'd be highly irregular - even players with a reputation for having a stronger backhand than forehand usually have significantly more forehand winners (and more backhand errors)
In today's game, 50-50 between forehand and backhand would be seen as a sign that either -
a) the forehand was under-performing
b) the backhand was over-performing
If you and @krosero have done stats for matches for all kinds of generations, perhaps you could use the figures at your disposal to confirm/refute the idea that in modern times its typical to have more fh winners to bh winners? Agassi, Safin, Djokovic, Murray would all be good guys to run through this analysis as they're reputed to have better backhands than forehands - but also have good forehands. Like Connors
And maybe check how normal it was to have about the same number of winners from both wings in different eras? Borg, like Connors, was very strong off both wings - my guess would be he wasn't 50-50 the way your stats show Connors being.
(one confounding factor with just raw numbers in a inter-generation comparison would be the number of passing shot winners as opposed to winners from baseline battles... probably a lot more of the former in bygone eras relative to now)
Appreciate you taking the time,
NatF
Bionic Poster
Don't think I've seen anyone say Agassi had a better backhand than forehand.
Some stats for Murray and Djokovic.
http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/NovakDjokovic.html
http://www.tennisabstract.com/charting/AndyMurray.html
Some players might have more consistency on the backhand but rarely would I agree it's an out and out better shot.
For example relative to the field Murray hits more backhand winners and less forehand winners - which fits with the fact he has an ATG backhand but a rather weak forehand for a player of his level. But he still hits more forehand winners than backhand. Of course it's possible his backhand is setting up the forehand putaways.
You have to be very careful using just statistics to decide which wing is stronger for a player, especially just looking at winners.
That is because the opponent, if they have any sense, will target the weaker side. So in practice a player may play many more shots from their weaker side. They can therefore end up with 'more' winners from their weaker side because their opponent are doing anything to avoid the stronger side. A better statistic is winners/total shots from each side. Even there you have to be careful because
a) the weaker side can become 'grooved' during a match
b) players will choose to hit their stronger side in more difficult circumstances
So statistics tell you something, but not the whole picture.
That is exactly what I'm trying to get at!! - the premise from which to make sense of the great Jimmy Connors and also, possibly how the game has changed with racket tech.
a) basically, no one has a better backhand than forehand
b) cross court rallies make up majority of baseline exchanges
---
Ergo, when a right hander and left hander play, whoever has the ball on the forehand is in a position to dominate and whoever has the ball on the backhand typically is looking to neutralise
(Nadal vs anybody an example)
But Connors has the reputation for dominating from the baseline, if anything, more from the backhand than forehand.
This would make no sense in the modern game.
I want to know.... what's changed?
Was Connors' backhand just that good? Or with lower power capacity rackets, had the general discrepancy between forehand and backhand not existed?
Agree completely.
Biggest potential problem I see with using the type of stats @Moose Malloy brought up is with passing shots - a scenario which I imagine came up a lot more with Jimmy Connors than for a modern player.
A passing shot is highly likely to be a winner - but it doesn't necessarily say anything about which wing is stronger.
It might just show which side the volleyer thinks is weaker!
Best I can think of is to have % of successful passes of both wings - successful passes divided by attempts at passes - for both wings
pc1
G.O.A.T.
The thing is how complete are the statistics! Moose gave us the stats for winners but I did not see the stats for errors. The other thing is that while you may see for example more winners from one side, how often was the opponent aiming for that sides. For example Laver used to say that while he thought his backhand and forehand were about equal very few players served to his forehand.
I have noticed and this is just by observation that opponents tended to approach more to Laver's backhand then his forehand. This would give Laver more opportunities for backhand passing shots! So while Rod may have more backhand winners perhaps his forehand was more effective during the match!
Moose,
From memory, do you recall if the opponents concentrated mainly on Connors' forehand or his backhand. I believe one of Bjorn Borg's strategies at Wimbledon was to approach short to the forehand. Connors might hit some winners but often the ball would be hit for an error. I think the bad patches of Wimbledon grass did not help. It would probably be in my opinion a lot better now with the grass they have today!
One of my heroes, Bill James once wrote something to answer those who said statistics aren't always right. He wrote something like "That's because you are not interpreting the statistics correctly." I do think stats can help evaluate the quality of matches but we have to interpret them correctly. Moose and Krosero have done top notch jobs in doing this but perhaps we may not have all the necessary stats. I think a good stat would be percentage of shots hit to backhand and forehand would be most important. That would have to count every shot a player made almost except for serve.
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Perfect example I believe.
We generally think of the forehand side as the power side which was true almost all the time when people used the one handed backhand and frankly is true the great majority of the time now also but sometimes the backhand side is the more secure side and less prone to error.
NatF
Bionic Poster
There's also the forced errors etc...maybe the forehand dictated play and caused the opponent into errors, or perhaps the backhand drew a short ball that was put away by the forehand. I remember some matches of Federer at the YEC in 2006, his backhand was on fire but he didn't generate that many outright winners - however it dictated play and pushed his opponents back.
No doubt, but Borg probably wouldn't be approaching to begin with
Which brings us back to -
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Not quite sure what you mean. Can you clarify this? I'm including the quote you have of yourself.
PrestigeDave45
Semi-Pro
I miss the brawling nature Connors brought to court and also the consumate cool that was Borg. As for rating one greater than the other who knows. Who really cares.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
True enough. I was thinking of some doubles games in which I've hit a great return that forced a weak reply and my partner at the net put it away easily. My partner hit the winner but in the current tennis stats I did nothing yet imo I did the tougher job in hitting the great return.
Federer often used his backhand to set up shots for his great forehand. I am thinking often of his old effective crosscourt short slice that drew an opponent up to no man's land and set up often an easy forehand winner.
Another stat tennis should have is forcing shots which sets up winners or puts opponents in defensive positions.
I've used this example for incomplete stats that draws incorrect conclusions many a time. Let's say Larry Bird and I are in a free throw shooting contest. I make 100 free throws and Bird makes 99. Some may say "Wow, you're better than Larry Bird!" Yet if you examine a little more you may see I took 200 shots to make 100 free throws and Bird only took 100 shots to make 99! Bird is not only better than me but WAY WAY better. This should be used for backhand and forehand winners. By that I mean amount of times the backhand was hit to and amount of winners versus errors and the same for forehand. Since that's super tough we may get a good idea by looking at the ratio of winners to errors on each side.
Edit-I see no reason multi billion dollar corporations like the ATP or WTA can't have cameras at every match and have someone later taking the stats down in every match. They can review on video if they aren't sure later.
Last edited:
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
@Waspsting
I will try to compile some stats for Borg and others. Overall I would say pre 2000s players were more balanced in winners from both sides. It's pretty extreme in many nadal and fed matches, they often barely have any bh winners, but in many Sampras, Agsssi matches they can be somewhat balanced. Overall I would say Sampras was the most balanced player I've come across in terms of amount of winners from groundstrokes and winners from net, followed by Connors(I was planning a thread where I compiled all his net stats, it's really staggering how often he came to net. I think labeling him a baseliner in a way is somewhat misleading. He was very different from Borg and Agassi)
laver of course was also very balanced but we dont have a lot of matches from him.
And yes back then the majority of groundstroke winners were passing shots, I do have those numbers as well for many of Connors matches. Lendl was the first player who hit groudstroke winners from the baseline that weren't passing shots somewhat regularly. Then Becker(personally I think his emergence was one of the more groundbreaking events of the open era on many levels, he doesn't get enough credit as a game changer) It got more common in the 90s(but there were still a lot of passing shots) before getting really extreme in the fed nadal era. The game is so different today, I think making some analogy in the strategy of a Djokovic/Nadal match vs a BorgConnors match is a bit much. Baseline to baseline battles in their matches were still more about getting to net. For what's it's worth I do believe the majority of Connors approach shots were off the fh, which I think is rather telling. Quite often on down the middle shots where he clearly has time to hit bhs if he wanted to.Thats something that doesn't show up in stats(like I said before, you really should watch many complete matches of his if you really want to learn more)
Btw gasquet regularly hits more bh winners than fh winners. It's really weird, as you say unheard of in today's game for that to happen. Maybe it's a better bh than Connors
I will try to compile some stats for Borg and others. Overall I would say pre 2000s players were more balanced in winners from both sides. It's pretty extreme in many nadal and fed matches, they often barely have any bh winners, but in many Sampras, Agsssi matches they can be somewhat balanced. Overall I would say Sampras was the most balanced player I've come across in terms of amount of winners from groundstrokes and winners from net, followed by Connors(I was planning a thread where I compiled all his net stats, it's really staggering how often he came to net. I think labeling him a baseliner in a way is somewhat misleading. He was very different from Borg and Agassi)
laver of course was also very balanced but we dont have a lot of matches from him.
And yes back then the majority of groundstroke winners were passing shots, I do have those numbers as well for many of Connors matches. Lendl was the first player who hit groudstroke winners from the baseline that weren't passing shots somewhat regularly. Then Becker(personally I think his emergence was one of the more groundbreaking events of the open era on many levels, he doesn't get enough credit as a game changer) It got more common in the 90s(but there were still a lot of passing shots) before getting really extreme in the fed nadal era. The game is so different today, I think making some analogy in the strategy of a Djokovic/Nadal match vs a BorgConnors match is a bit much. Baseline to baseline battles in their matches were still more about getting to net. For what's it's worth I do believe the majority of Connors approach shots were off the fh, which I think is rather telling. Quite often on down the middle shots where he clearly has time to hit bhs if he wanted to.Thats something that doesn't show up in stats(like I said before, you really should watch many complete matches of his if you really want to learn more)
Btw gasquet regularly hits more bh winners than fh winners. It's really weird, as you say unheard of in today's game for that to happen. Maybe it's a better bh than Connors
Last edited:
Some considerations on Connors's fh:
1) I think it is the most underrated blow of all time.
How could Jimbo win for so many years if he had a phenomenal bh, but two other sharper shots (serve & fh)?
2) if Connors bh was always 10, fh was worth 7 (on red clay) at 9 (on hc). On hc (and carpet) the difference between bh & fh was modest.
3) If you consider the two shots as a whole, however, I think it is important to note that:
- in the defense-shots (passing-shot & lob) the two shots were the same (9-9)
- in return, it was perhaps better for the fh to stretch on angled servings (9-9)
- the approach was perhaps better than fh. (8,5-8,5)
4) FH became weak point on backspin shots (Orantes, Vilas..), but almost always on clay.
5) Wimbledon final 75 is not commentable because it was the most disastrous match... even with bh!
1) I think it is the most underrated blow of all time.
How could Jimbo win for so many years if he had a phenomenal bh, but two other sharper shots (serve & fh)?
2) if Connors bh was always 10, fh was worth 7 (on red clay) at 9 (on hc). On hc (and carpet) the difference between bh & fh was modest.
3) If you consider the two shots as a whole, however, I think it is important to note that:
- in the defense-shots (passing-shot & lob) the two shots were the same (9-9)
- in return, it was perhaps better for the fh to stretch on angled servings (9-9)
- the approach was perhaps better than fh. (8,5-8,5)
4) FH became weak point on backspin shots (Orantes, Vilas..), but almost always on clay.
5) Wimbledon final 75 is not commentable because it was the most disastrous match... even with bh!
pc1
G.O.A.T.
KG,
I agree.
The Jimmy Connors Wimbledon match in the finals in 1975 is a problem to look at statistically because Jimmy Connors was injured.
Connors in my opinion is one of the finest groundstrokes of all time and many believe his return is the finest of all time. It is always amusing to me how people would play up the opinion that Jimmy Connors' forehand was a weak shot. I think it was an extremely strong shot and it was also great on the service return. How would he be considered one of the all time great groundstrokers and pure hitters of the ball with a weak forehand? A lot of players would love to have forehand as weak as Jimmy Connors!
Last edited:
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Moose,@Waspsting
I will try to compile some stats for Borg and others. Overall I would say pre 2000s players were more balanced in winners from both sides. It's pretty extreme in many nadal and fed matches, they often barely have any bh winners, but in many Sampras, Agsssi matches they can be somewhat balanced. Overall I would say Sampras was the most balanced player I've come across in terms of amount of winners from groundstrokes and winners from net, followed by Connors(I was planning a thread where I compiled all his net stats, it's really staggering how often he came to net. I think labeling him a baseliner in a way is somewhat misleading. He was very different from Borg and Agassi)
laver of course was also very balanced but we dont have a lot of matches from him.
And yes back then the majority of groundstroke winners were passing shots, I do have those numbers as well for many of Connors matches. Lendl was the first player who hit groudstroke winners from the baseline that weren't passing shots somewhat regularly. Then Becker(personally I think his emergence was one of the more groundbreaking events of the open era on many levels, he doesn't get enough credit as a game changer) It got more common in the 90s(but there were still a lot of passing shots) before getting really extreme in the fed nadal era. The game is so different today, I think making some analogy in the strategy of a Djokovic/Nadal match vs a BorgConnors match is a bit much. Baseline to baseline battles in their matches were still more about getting to net. For what's it's worth I do believe the majority of Connors approach shots were off the fh, which I think is rather telling. Quite often on down the middle shots where he clearly has time to hit bhs if he wanted to.Thats something that doesn't show up in stats(like I said before, you really should watch many complete matches of his if you really want to learn more)
Btw gasquet regularly hits more bh winners than fh winners. It's really weird, as you say unheard of in today's game for that to happen. Maybe it's a better bh than Connors
What are your stats on Rosewall comparing his backhand and forehand? Rosewall is another player many believe had a better backhand then forehand.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Well that would be the case with many greats. I love the story that Vijay Amritraj told about how Gonzalez told him not to hit to Rosewall's backhand. Gonzalez kept repeating the instruction of not to hit to Rosewall's backhand.
Vijay did not listen and served four straight times to the great Rosewall backhand in the first game, got passed four times and lost the game! Vijay looked up at the box for Gonzalez but Pancho was upset and left the stadium!
Last edited:
Bingo
This is the piece I was missing - clears up a lot of the things that weren't making sense to me about the playing dynamics of the period
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Yes but they don't have percentages nor do they have the amount of times the backhand or forehand was hit to. It would also would be interesting to see where players hit approach shots and the effectiveness of the backhand or forehand in countering the approach shots. I wish they could be as great as NFL football or Major League Baseball in the United States.They do count backhand and forehand winners separately now at the end of sets and matches, it's just not uploaded anywhere for us to see
NatF
Bionic Poster
Ah yes.I hear you now. Well for what it's worth we can get some rough numbers from TA.
For example they have Djokovic hitting 30,355 forehands, 1,764 of those being winners and 2,339 of those being unforced errors. Of course that doesn't say anything about forced errors, which limits it's use somewhat.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
These are the types of statistics we need plus as you said forced errors etc.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
@Waspsting
I will try to compile some stats for Borg and others. Overall I would say pre 2000s players were more balanced in winners from both sides. It's pretty extreme in many nadal and fed matches, they often barely have any bh winners, but in many Sampras, Agsssi matches they can be somewhat balanced. Overall I would say Sampras was the most balanced player I've come across in terms of amount of winners from groundstrokes and winners from net, followed by Connors(I was planning a thread where I compiled all his net stats, it's really staggering how often he came to net. I think labeling him a baseliner in a way is somewhat misleading. He was very different from Borg and Agassi)
laver of course was also very balanced but we dont have a lot of matches from him.
And yes back then the majority of groundstroke winners were passing shots, I do have those numbers as well for many of Connors matches. Lendl was the first player who hit groudstroke winners from the baseline that weren't passing shots somewhat regularly. Then Becker(personally I think his emergence was one of the more groundbreaking events of the open era on many levels, he doesn't get enough credit as a game changer) It got more common in the 90s(but there were still a lot of passing shots) before getting really extreme in the fed nadal era. The game is so different today, I think making some analogy in the strategy of a Djokovic/Nadal match vs a BorgConnors match is a bit much. Baseline to baseline battles in their matches were still more about getting to net. For what's it's worth I do believe the majority of Connors approach shots were off the fh, which I think is rather telling. Quite often on down the middle shots where he clearly has time to hit bhs if he wanted to.Thats something that doesn't show up in stats(like I said before, you really should watch many complete matches of his if you really want to learn more)
Btw gasquet regularly hits more bh winners than fh winners. It's really weird, as you say unheard of in today's game for that to happen. Maybe it's a better bh than Connors
Moose,
I think Segura taught Connors that he should take advantage of the opportunities when his groundstrokes forced a short return to approach. Vines wrote that Connors in that way was similkar to Budge in that they would approach the net when they had the chance on a strong shot.
I'm not sure if you can say that about Borg. In the 1978 Wimbledon final I felt Borg served and volleyed well and approached quite often but in their 1979 Wimbledon semifinal match I felt from observation (could be wrong) that Borg won mainly from the baseline. You can check the stats here.
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stats-for-1978-w-final-borg-connors.195691/
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...978-w-final-borg-connors.195691/#post-2891266
It of course depended on the surface also. In 1979 Borg played Connors on har-tru at the Pepsi and rarely ventured to the net. I believe Borg knew he was easily superior to Connors at the baseline on that surface (perhaps all surfaces) and had the plan to stay back and let Connors approach the net knowing he could handle Connors with passing shots, lobs etc. Here's some highlights of the match by Krosero.
Segura wanted Connors to have versatility. He called it 2 styles of play. He could come in or stay back. Now, I'm talking Segura's Connors here. When he was his regular coach. By 76, while he might work with him on occasion at the big 2, he wasn't there regularly.
He wrote an instructional book in 75 or 76. But he referenced pro players constantly in making his points. NOWHERE in that book does he ever refer to Jimmy Connors as a baseliner. He is an all court player. The further he got away from Segura, the more that sometimes changed. And there was a period there, some of 79 into 81ish? Definitely not coming in nearly as much.
THere was an 81 FRench match against Clerc. I have maybe 3 of the 5 sets. Clerc is in more than Connors. 81 Wimbledon against Borg. He is simply not coming in as much, or as quickly as 77, 78 or 79 against Borg. It's not night and day, but it's clearly less. I did the stats, I know.
Just as I did the stats for the 74 and 75 matches I have. It's even more pronounced there. Naturally, who you play mattere. Play Laver or Newcombe, they s/v on every serve. Well, that basically eliminates getting to the net whenever they serve. But when Connors played Newcombe, 75 Australian and Las Vegas, Connors mixes it up. S/v some, stays back some. But when he stayed back on serve, he usually wound up coming in later in the point. Him, not Newcombe. When they rallied, and one of them wound up coming in, 9 out of 10 times it was Connors. And that is not hyperbole. Because, at that point in time, he was basically coming in on balls that landed, not inside the service box, closer to the service box than the baseline.
Borg hardly came in during any of their 3 Pepsi matches. IIRC, not more than 10 times in any of them. 79 was 3 and 2 of them were drop shots that Connors drew him in.
On the other hand, Borg came in more than Connors at 78 Wimbledon, the 78 US Open and, I believe, 81 Wimbledon.
79 Wimbledon was weird. Came in much less that year against Connors. Nothling like Pepsi, but less. His formula the 5 years he won Wimbledon, and 81, was pretty much the same. S/V on the 1st and stay back on the second. He never played textbook grass court tennis unlike Lendl. Well, he might have early on. He does in the 73 Roger Taylor match footage we have. in the 74 US footage vs Armitraj. But he didn't win or contend deeply that way. When he won, he mixed it up more.
I'm surprised at Moose's comments about FH vs BH. I would have thought, anecdotally, that BH would win. My stats are net stats
and free points on serve so I wasn't keeping track.
Like PC, I'd like to know the errors as well. Also, how many were passing shots. If you are going to approach against Connors, I would think he would have more chances with the FH.
That more net rushers tested that side. Consequently, I'd expect ,more FH Passing shots. PC, you are correct about that slice BH approach to Connors FH that Borg used. Especially effective at 78 Wimbledon.
Connors FH vs BH. We are not talking weaker in the sense of Gerulaitis or Newcombe's BH. Theirs were noticeably weaker in that the shots were not nearly as powerful or penetrating. While I believe Connors' FH was the less effective wing, when it was on it was a weapon. It was a weapon when it was on. It was not as consistent, IMO. Errors on approach shots? I would think easily the FH. But if it is working he could really, I mean REALLY, hurt you on that wing. Run you all over the court, corner to corner. Vitas Gerulaitis was never going to do that with his BH.
I'd rank his serve as a bigger "weakness" than his FH. The serve was more consistent, but not the potential weapon the FH was in so many matches I saw. IMO, along with his return(which is a groundstroke), the bedrock of Connors game was the depth and penetration of his groundstrokes. Both wings. I think his FH was weak in comparison to his BH, not weak for FHS in general.
He wrote an instructional book in 75 or 76. But he referenced pro players constantly in making his points. NOWHERE in that book does he ever refer to Jimmy Connors as a baseliner. He is an all court player. The further he got away from Segura, the more that sometimes changed. And there was a period there, some of 79 into 81ish? Definitely not coming in nearly as much.
THere was an 81 FRench match against Clerc. I have maybe 3 of the 5 sets. Clerc is in more than Connors. 81 Wimbledon against Borg. He is simply not coming in as much, or as quickly as 77, 78 or 79 against Borg. It's not night and day, but it's clearly less. I did the stats, I know.
Just as I did the stats for the 74 and 75 matches I have. It's even more pronounced there. Naturally, who you play mattere. Play Laver or Newcombe, they s/v on every serve. Well, that basically eliminates getting to the net whenever they serve. But when Connors played Newcombe, 75 Australian and Las Vegas, Connors mixes it up. S/v some, stays back some. But when he stayed back on serve, he usually wound up coming in later in the point. Him, not Newcombe. When they rallied, and one of them wound up coming in, 9 out of 10 times it was Connors. And that is not hyperbole. Because, at that point in time, he was basically coming in on balls that landed, not inside the service box, closer to the service box than the baseline.
Borg hardly came in during any of their 3 Pepsi matches. IIRC, not more than 10 times in any of them. 79 was 3 and 2 of them were drop shots that Connors drew him in.
On the other hand, Borg came in more than Connors at 78 Wimbledon, the 78 US Open and, I believe, 81 Wimbledon.
79 Wimbledon was weird. Came in much less that year against Connors. Nothling like Pepsi, but less. His formula the 5 years he won Wimbledon, and 81, was pretty much the same. S/V on the 1st and stay back on the second. He never played textbook grass court tennis unlike Lendl. Well, he might have early on. He does in the 73 Roger Taylor match footage we have. in the 74 US footage vs Armitraj. But he didn't win or contend deeply that way. When he won, he mixed it up more.
I'm surprised at Moose's comments about FH vs BH. I would have thought, anecdotally, that BH would win. My stats are net stats
and free points on serve so I wasn't keeping track.
Like PC, I'd like to know the errors as well. Also, how many were passing shots. If you are going to approach against Connors, I would think he would have more chances with the FH.
That more net rushers tested that side. Consequently, I'd expect ,more FH Passing shots. PC, you are correct about that slice BH approach to Connors FH that Borg used. Especially effective at 78 Wimbledon.
Connors FH vs BH. We are not talking weaker in the sense of Gerulaitis or Newcombe's BH. Theirs were noticeably weaker in that the shots were not nearly as powerful or penetrating. While I believe Connors' FH was the less effective wing, when it was on it was a weapon. It was a weapon when it was on. It was not as consistent, IMO. Errors on approach shots? I would think easily the FH. But if it is working he could really, I mean REALLY, hurt you on that wing. Run you all over the court, corner to corner. Vitas Gerulaitis was never going to do that with his BH.
I'd rank his serve as a bigger "weakness" than his FH. The serve was more consistent, but not the potential weapon the FH was in so many matches I saw. IMO, along with his return(which is a groundstroke), the bedrock of Connors game was the depth and penetration of his groundstrokes. Both wings. I think his FH was weak in comparison to his BH, not weak for FHS in general.
We can't edit posts here? Just wanted to clarify for Moose. I don't doubt your stats. Just surprised by the results and how close his FH and BH winners were. Again, curious how many were passing shots. While I think his FH was still very good, I did think the BH was better and would have guessed we'd see more winners from that side. But that's why we look at the stats. We don't always see what we think we see.
I agree.
Try adding two points to the strategies of the two players:
1) Borg often came to Wimbly to net because his opponent had more problems with the passing-shots because the grass in the 70 was pitiful in bouncing while on the carpet and hc he felt less secure.
2) Connors after 1977 is rarely to net because .... coming to the net entails considerable physical stress.
Jimmy decided to completely change strategy. At worst, but for a few years he suffered less injuries.
It isn't that surprising really, and your post answers why. His FH, while weaker, wasn't actually weak. So his opponent is going to trade FH to FH, avoiding the BH if possible. Even in a BH to BH rally his opponent is going to find it hard to change to the FH side because of the depth of Connors' BH shots, and if he does it will tend to be shorter because of the penetration of the Connors BH. So Connors gets a) lots of shots to his FH and b) short balls to his FH side when there is a change from BH rallies by his opponent. The combination adds up to many more FH opportunities I believe. (Ditto for Rosewall).
Sorry, I don't buy the second part at all. THis had nothing to do with avoiding injuries. It was a playing style choice. Joel Drucker, in his book on Connors, spoke of how Segura was often pushing Connors to come in more. My guess is it had more to do with Segura's absence.
While Borg came in most on grass, it wasn't like he didn't come in on other surfaces. It's not like he came in 3 times a set when he played Mcenroe in the 80 or 81 US Opens and Masters. I don't have the stats on the Lendl Masters match, but he came in a decent amount.
It's weird with Connors and 1979. Hardly came in at all in the Pepsi or Las Vegas. Much less 79 Wimbledon vs 78. 79 Tokyo, I saw 10 games, 74 points. I had Borg in 4 or 5 times. For thay year, I think PC was right. He knew Connors couldn't beat him from the baseline and didn't want to give him a target. But, as I said earlier, he was in more than Connors at the big 2 in 78. He was in more in the 81 Wimbledon match. I will say this. When Borg is in more, it's a little more. Some of the matches Connors is in more, it's way, way more. Those are more 70s matches, though.
People often talked about how Wimbledon's grass helped Borg's volleys. In Gene Scott's book on him, there were multiple players who said it. But IMO, he got to be a good volleyer, really good, by 80, 81. Obviously, not Mcenroe good, not one of the top volleyers in the world good, but damn good. He made a number of excellent, low volleys against COnnors in their 81 match. And not dying quail volleys. Firm volleys.
His forehand, of course, was better - I think we agree that such is the case for almost everyone - but I think his backhand stacked up better against other peoples backhands than his forehand did.
He was like a more aggressive version of Djokovic. I don't think he constructed points with the aim of using the backhand to boss people about as much as Djokovic does/did
https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/agassi-with-a-one-handed.587613/ some examples of people who rate his backhand higher than his forehand (assuming these same people don't also think he had the GOAT forehand!)
In one of your earlier posts, you observed Borg's tendencies to approach to Connors' fh on grass - and if I understood you correctly, thought on modern grass, which is less patchy, Connors would have pulled off the passing shot more often... I think that's what you meant?
My point was that on modern grass, Borg wouldn't be approaching to begin with so the point is moot... which went back to an earlier point I'd made about how great players of the time would have developed their game differently had they been raised in different environments (I was mainly thinking of racquet tech, but courts come into it too)
Btw gasquet regularly hits more bh winners than fh winners. It's really weird, as you say unheard of in today's game for that to happen. Maybe it's a better bh than Connors
Its prettier, I'll give you that
Last edited:
Thanks for the links and video.
Connors' method confused me - for all the reasons we've been discussing.
Borg's didn't.
Good serve, great return, best forehand in the game, best backhand in the game (for a right hander), best passing shots, best court coverage, best stamina, best 'bottle'... what's to be confused about?
Borg's modus operandi would be the most modern, I think
Why come in off the short ball and take the risk of being passed when you can more safely win the point by methodically out-rallying the other guy from the back? - the big difference between Borg and the moderns in this regard is perhaps in the relative emphasis placed on hitting a winner/forcing an error today whereas Borg, was effectively saying with his game -
"Even if you can go shot for shot with me, can you go shot for shot for shot?... you'll blink before I do"
I am a tad puzzled as to why Borg's hard court numbers aren't on par with his carpet ones... from what I've seen, he was a bit more willing to step up and take the ball early on the faster carpet than he was on hard courts, where he was maybe a touch more passive than would have been optimal.
Lendl handled this adjustment better - the difference between the intent of his groundstrokes depending on surface is much clearer to see
Last edited:
IMHO the Borg problem compared to Lendl on hc are:Thanks for the links and video.
Connors' method confused me - for all the reasons we've been discussing.
Borg's didn't.
Good serve, great return, best forehand in the game, best backhand in the game (for a right hander), best court coverage, best stamina, best 'bottle'... what's to be confused about?
Borg's modus operandi would be the most modern, I think
Why come in off the short ball and take the risk of being passed when you can more safely win the point by a methodically out-rallying the other guy from the back? - the big difference between Borg and the moderns in this regard is perhaps in the relative emphasis placed on hitting a winner/forcing an error today whereas Borg, was effectively saying with his game -
"Even if you can go shot for shot with me, can you go shot for shot for shot?... you'll blink before I do"
I am a tad puzzled as to why Borg's hard court numbers aren't on par with his carpet ones... from what I've seen, he was a bit more willing to step up and take the ball early on the faster carpet than he was on hard courts, where he was maybe a touch more passive than would have been optimal.
Lendl handled this adjustment better - the difference between the intent of his groundstrokes depending on surface is much clearer to see
1) the second serve
2) did not read very well some serves (Mac and Tanner)
3) Lendl fired stronger.
3) is the one I've keyed in on.
The difference in the way Lendl hits depending on surface is wonderful
On clay, at times he was almost mooballing, even on the forehand
On carpet, he was looking for the kill shot - often even with the backhand
On hard, something in between - closer to his carpet pattern, but also safe.
Borg on hardcourts - i've only seen clips - hit his shots more like his clay style than carpet
He erred on the side of safety.
Hadn't thought of 2nd serve as a factor, but now that you mention it, Borg's does look fairly vulnerable - wise decision not to follow it to net.
@pc1 - don't know how big you are on chess (the famous Capa quote you use made me think maybe quite a bit)... Do you see a resemblance of mentality between Borg and Emanuel Lasker?
----
Last edited:
Sorry, still don't see it. Coming to the net means shorter points, less physical exertion with longer rallies. I see that as easier on the body. It's not like Connors was ever injury riddled either. Then what is the injury. His thumb at 77 Wimbledon is a flukish injury, not related to physical stress. IIRC, his only serious injury was his wrist in 1990. He wasn't Nadal, constantly beset by ailments, it's how he lasted so long.
Speaking of Tanner and Mcenroe's serves, I always thought Borg had more trouble with Mcenroe's. IIRC, some of the match stats with free points back that up. Like Tanner's 79 Wimbledon unreturned serves versus 80 and 81 for Mcenroe.
To me, where any relative weaknesses Lendl had on returning manifested itself at Wimbledon. I just never felt he returned as well there. Well, none of them did, but I felt a Connors or Agassi seemed to be less affected. The shorter stoke production. THen again, Borg had long strokes and he won 5 straight titles there.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
I suppose that are some similarities between Lasker and Borg in that both often played a game that was uncomfortable to the opponent that gave them the best chance to win.
Borg imo played the way he felt was the best way to win whether it meant playing a game uncomfortable to his opponent or not. Same with Lasker. I felt both players were extremely versatile in their games.
I actually thought there was a great similarity between Rosewall and Capablanca in the purity of their play. Capa was possibly the greatest natural talent in chess of all time and he had a very pure chess style. Rosewall's game was without any excess, maximum results with minimum effect. Same with Capa.
Do you have a particular favorite chess player? My favorites are Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Petrosian.
I felt Borg was a bit unlucky at the US Open. If it stayed on har-tru I have no doubt he would have won. In 1978 at his peak imo I felt he would have beaten Connors in the final if not for the injury. I also felt he would have had great chances to win the US Open if he didn't retire so young. In 1979 he won the Canadian on hardcourt without the loss of a set in defeating Manson, Molina, Noah, Gene Mayer, Ivan Lendl and John McEnroe. He also won the 1979 Alan King on hardcourt fairly easily on Gene Mayer and Jimmy Connors in the final. I felt Borg's level declined clearly in 1980 and 1981 imo probably due to some injuries and some burnout.
Speaking of Lendl, I felt that he was wonderful in adapting his game to play the style to annoy his opponents. Case in point was his use of junk to defeat Connors regularly. Of course Lendl did also say that Connors at that point could no longer attack on shots he used to attack on. I also liked the way he adapted to John McEnroe's style.
Agreen with everything you said regarding Lasker and Borg, especially their versatility
The other thing I was mainly thinking of was that philosophical grace with which they both seemed to get on with business at hand. They could be poster boys for Kipling's portrait of a man in 'If' (Borg I suppose looks too good, Lasker flirted with talking too wise)
I'm struck by the parallels between the first four world champions and the quartet of tennis greats starting with Connors
Steinitz/Connors (ferociously competitive)
Lasker/Borg (philosopher kings)
Capa/Mac (genius with effortless touch)
Alekhine/Lendl (ambitious, hard working and brilliant)
(The third pairing might be a tad different of personality
)My favourite players are Lasker and Alekhine.
What peculiar reading that rivalry makes
A somewhat unproven Lendl annihilating freshly crowned king McEnroe 7-0 (19-1 in sets) from 81-82
Than voila, we have a 180, Mac takes 10 of the next 12 against the established Lendl
Finally, mature Lendl out plays over the hill Mac
What happened there?
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Agreen with everything you said regarding Lasker and Borg, especially their versatility
The other thing I was mainly thinking of was that philosophical grace with which they both seemed to get on with business at hand. They could be poster boys for Kipling's portrait of a man in 'If' (Borg I suppose looks too good, Lasker flirted with talking too wise)
I'm struck by the parallels between the first four world champions and the quartet of tennis greats starting with Connors
Steinitz/Connors (ferociously competitive)
Lasker/Borg (philosopher kings)
Capa/Mac (genius with effortless touch)
Alekhine/Lendl (ambitious, hard working and brilliant)
(The third pairing might be a tad different of personality
My favourite players are Lasker and Alekhine.
What peculiar reading that rivalry makes
A somewhat unproven Lendl annihilating freshly crowned king McEnroe 7-0 (19-1 in sets) from 81-82
Than voila, we have a 180, Mac takes 10 of the next 12 against the established Lendl
Finally, mature Lendl out plays over the hill Mac
What happened there?
Steinitz was a bit of theorist more than Connors I would say. Steintz's theories were revolutionary for the time. In that way I would compare him to Bill Tilden in that both changed their sports yet were great players. Both Steintz and Tilden's theories affect players today. It's of note that many said Tilden played chess on the tennis court.
I always felt bad that Steintz, in his second match with Lasker was beaten so badly. Yes I do believe Lasker was greater than Steintz ever was but a 10-2 result with five draws was just horrible for the great Steintz. By the way I'm am still amazed by Lasker's game against Pillsbury at St. Petersburg in 1895-1896. The rook sac at c3 is even now tough for a computer to solve!
Alekhine's style was super dynamic so while they both were hard working and brilliant I'm not sure if style of play was about the same relatively speaking for each game. It's a pity Alekhine never played Botvinnik. They were working on a match before Alekhine passed away. Botvinnik at that point probably would won but it would have been interesting.
I do love Lendl's style. I think Bill Talbert compared Lendl to Don Budge at the time which was high praise.
McEnroe initially couldn't deal with the power of Lendl in that period of 1981-1982 but he changed his game against Lendl and started approaching the net more and changed the rivalry. By 1984 he seemed to be able to (with the exception of the 1984 French Open) deal with Lendl so easily but in 1984 McEnroe seemed to deal with any player easily. I saw a few times where he took Lendl's first serve and approached the net! Maybe my memory is faulty but I recall that and being shocked how easily he did it to Lendl.
Lendl in around 1985 got a lot more fit and also devised some methods to deal with McEnroe's net play. I loved the little soft crosscourt slice chip barely over the net that gave McEnroe problems. Lendl's backhand passing shot of choice was the power topspin down the line. McEnroe would ready himself for that and the little crosscourt slice would throw him off balance. I noticed he often hit the forehand volley into the net. Tony Roche taught Lendl that little shot I believe.
After 1985 I think McEnroe declined immensely and Lendl was just generally the superior player. That leave of absence McEnroe took did not help. I think from 1985 onward Lendl handled Connors and McEnroe a high percentage of the time. I would attribute that to both players declining.
It was in 1983 at the US Pro Indoor that Mcenroe turned the rivalry around. Budge strongly advised him in more and he was already coming in plenty. Budge wanted him to come in on Lendl's second serve. Sure worked for a couple of years.
While I can't say that I remember him taking Lendl's first serve and coming in I definitely recall it with Connors. Not a ton, but sometimes several times in a match. Except once. I think it was Connors last title or second to last. I believe it was Gstaad.
Mcenroe must have done it maybe a dozen times that match.
Just amazing. You are almost half volleying someone's first serve to do that. You need fantastic hand/eye for that and if any tennis player had it in spades it was Mcenroe.
While I can't say that I remember him taking Lendl's first serve and coming in I definitely recall it with Connors. Not a ton, but sometimes several times in a match. Except once. I think it was Connors last title or second to last. I believe it was Gstaad.
Mcenroe must have done it maybe a dozen times that match.
Just amazing. You are almost half volleying someone's first serve to do that. You need fantastic hand/eye for that and if any tennis player had it in spades it was Mcenroe.
Here's a video of him doing it to Boris Becker. Note, he was well past his best at the time and Becker was not the first player who comes to mind when one thinks of adopting such a tactic against.
The latter view makes more sense.
A strange choice from Connors. He's noticeable portlier by 78/79, if not injured per se.
Was the coming to net less against everybody? or specifically Borg?
If just the latter, I'd speculate he had just learnt it was a bad idea to take on Borg's passing shots... if the former, perhaps a confidence problem. While an all-court player and fine volleyer, I think he was more comfortable at the baseline and would likely choose to stay back rather than come in if he felt a bit shaky
By 84 final though, he was back to approaching as often as can against McEnroe - because he was worried if he didn't, Mac would take the net perhaps?
How'd he combat Mac in 82?
The latter view makes more sense.
A strange choice from Connors. He's noticeable portlier by 78/79, if not injured per se.
Was the coming to net less against everybody? or specifically Borg?
If just the latter, I'd speculate he had just learnt it was a bad idea to take on Borg's passing shots... if the former, perhaps a confidence problem. While an all-court player and fine volleyer, I think he was more comfortable at the baseline and would likely choose to stay back rather than come in if he felt a bit shaky
By 84 final though, he was back to approaching as often as can against McEnroe - because he was worried if he didn't, Mac would take the net perhaps?
How'd he combat Mac in 82?
1) Net rallies are a lot harder than the baseline game, Connors noticed that the rioters did not pay him more than the past.
Especially v Borg, but not only.
He was networking but less continuous.
2) Connors 1979-84 plays similarly, maybe a little better in 1982-84 but I'm not sure.
McEnroe at 100% was tremendously strong, too much for everyone IMHO, unbeatable for Connors.
If Mac played instead at 80% or 90%, the match was balanced.
If Mac played 70% ... Jimmy won.
Wimbly 1984: Mac plays at 100%. He gave the feeling of being able to attack Connors ... always, even on Connors's serve.
Wimbly 1982 Mac plays at 80%.
Connors serves well enough, Mac responds badly and Connors can approach the net more.
But it is a kind of game that is now abnormal for Jimmy, he will not practice it anymore.
There are other finals on internet (US Indoor 80 & Wembley 81), Connors wins both at the 5th but does not often come net.
84 Wimbledon Connors started out s/v on both serves and, IIRC, most of the serves most of the match. Got massacred, but wasn't reluctant to come in. 84 US Open. The match stats here say at 5-4 in the 4th that Connors had been at the net 28 times. I distinctly recall, at some point in the match, Newcombe suggesting that maybe Connors should come in more. Trabert says, that really isn't his game. I'm like, Tony, that sure as hell isn't what you were saying during all those Borg/Connors 70s matches CBS televised. I defy you, find me one where he calls Connors a baseliner who is reluctant to come to net, A major part of his match strategy how well Borg passes when he comes in.
Drysdale pulled the same switch from his earliest WCT tv work versus later with ESPN. I got them both, separately, on New York sports talk radio, and the same question. I asked, why do you phrase it as if his game was not to come in much when you used to say anything but that. They both acknowledged I was right.
The 1982 Wimbledon final, if you have the NBC version, is where Bid Collins goes apeshit for 5 sets about the new Jimmy Connors.
You can teach an old dog new tricks, etc, etc. Acting like this guy never went anywhere near the net before 1982. I'm like, Bud, come back to me. Was he coming in more than some of the matches in the last several years? I think so. Not more, forget Collins' way more, than some earlier years, though.
I think he came in about 70 times that match. s/v about 15 times. Now, he volleyed better. Maybe missed 2 volleys that match. Not what Bud said, though. You know where he was different? 82 Queens. I think I had him s/v 34 of 39 first serves that match. He did that in the Wimbledon final, be my guest and go apeshit, Bud.
This was a recurring theme for Collins into the next year. THis imagined never before seen Connors. If you watched the PBS matches you know they sometimes interviewed players after the match. I don't mean courtside. I mean went up to the tv booth. Talked to Collins/Dell for 10, 15 minutes.
1983 US NATIONAL INDOOR, Memphis. Now this is form memory. I don't have the match now. Connors beats Gene Mayer in the final maybe 7-5,6-0. By my memory, Connors may have come in 10 or 12 times. Every time Collins goes nuts with the new Connors routine.
THats not the point of the story. It's Connors after the match with them. Collins is giving Connors this spiel. Instead of looking at him and asking, Bud, are you nuts, I used to routinely come in 50 more times than this. No, he sits and agrees with him.
As long as I'm on this kick. Mcenroe in the booth for the Connors/Harhous 91 US Open match. Gerulaitis and he talking about how much more Connors comes in now. I don't remember what match he was talking about, maybe that one, Ted Robinson talks about Connors being in 50 times. Mcenroe says, he didn't come in 50 times the first 20 times we played.
Watching at the time, I remember thinking, John, I'd bet he came in 50 times the first time you played. 1977 Wimbledon, and I hadn't seen that match at the time. I didn't have HBO yet.
NBC showed some points, not the entire match. I knew how Connors played then, though. Sure enough, when I got the match, damn straight he came in more than 50 times.
Believe me, I get context. No version of Connors I ever saw came in like Mcenroe, or Laver or Newcombe, They are s/v both serves pretty much the entire match. He is not going to be in as much as them. But when he is running a player one corner to another, with multiple balls, bouncing up, landing at or inside the service box, without coming in, that is not Segura's Connors.
Certainly not on any court other than clay.
Even there, 75 US Open in about 75 times in a 3 set match.And when Trabert gave his thoughts before the match, he sure as hell didn't say, probably going to have a lot of long rallies. Neither of these guys is much of a net rusher. No, it was Connors is going to attack a bunch and how well will Orantes pass him. Not to the degree of a Laver or Newcombe, but a major part of the strategy. That last sentence is mine, not Trabert.
Thing is, you don't have as many of those 70s matches lying around. There are more from the 80sHow many 76 Connors matches are out there. A few games of the Vilas US semi and the final. Go to say, 1981, there are a bunch more. The matches I've done stats for I believe confirm my beliefs.
No argument that later on in his career he had matches that he came in a lot. Krickstein in 1991. I think it was 131 times. He played Wilander in Key Biscayne in 88. IIRC, 90 or 100 times in 4 sets.
LOL, this is not something I came up with in recent years. I was saying this back then. I watched him play Mcenroe at the 79 US Open and was like, WTF? It was a pet peeve. I'd watch him, in some matches, run a guy corner to corner to corner, still not at the net. THinking,several years ago, he would have been at the net 3 or 4 shots ago.
Drysdale pulled the same switch from his earliest WCT tv work versus later with ESPN. I got them both, separately, on New York sports talk radio, and the same question. I asked, why do you phrase it as if his game was not to come in much when you used to say anything but that. They both acknowledged I was right.
The 1982 Wimbledon final, if you have the NBC version, is where Bid Collins goes apeshit for 5 sets about the new Jimmy Connors.
You can teach an old dog new tricks, etc, etc. Acting like this guy never went anywhere near the net before 1982. I'm like, Bud, come back to me. Was he coming in more than some of the matches in the last several years? I think so. Not more, forget Collins' way more, than some earlier years, though.
I think he came in about 70 times that match. s/v about 15 times. Now, he volleyed better. Maybe missed 2 volleys that match. Not what Bud said, though. You know where he was different? 82 Queens. I think I had him s/v 34 of 39 first serves that match. He did that in the Wimbledon final, be my guest and go apeshit, Bud.
This was a recurring theme for Collins into the next year. THis imagined never before seen Connors. If you watched the PBS matches you know they sometimes interviewed players after the match. I don't mean courtside. I mean went up to the tv booth. Talked to Collins/Dell for 10, 15 minutes.
1983 US NATIONAL INDOOR, Memphis. Now this is form memory. I don't have the match now. Connors beats Gene Mayer in the final maybe 7-5,6-0. By my memory, Connors may have come in 10 or 12 times. Every time Collins goes nuts with the new Connors routine.
THats not the point of the story. It's Connors after the match with them. Collins is giving Connors this spiel. Instead of looking at him and asking, Bud, are you nuts, I used to routinely come in 50 more times than this. No, he sits and agrees with him.
As long as I'm on this kick. Mcenroe in the booth for the Connors/Harhous 91 US Open match. Gerulaitis and he talking about how much more Connors comes in now. I don't remember what match he was talking about, maybe that one, Ted Robinson talks about Connors being in 50 times. Mcenroe says, he didn't come in 50 times the first 20 times we played.
Watching at the time, I remember thinking, John, I'd bet he came in 50 times the first time you played. 1977 Wimbledon, and I hadn't seen that match at the time. I didn't have HBO yet.
NBC showed some points, not the entire match. I knew how Connors played then, though. Sure enough, when I got the match, damn straight he came in more than 50 times.
Believe me, I get context. No version of Connors I ever saw came in like Mcenroe, or Laver or Newcombe, They are s/v both serves pretty much the entire match. He is not going to be in as much as them. But when he is running a player one corner to another, with multiple balls, bouncing up, landing at or inside the service box, without coming in, that is not Segura's Connors.
Certainly not on any court other than clay.
Even there, 75 US Open in about 75 times in a 3 set match.And when Trabert gave his thoughts before the match, he sure as hell didn't say, probably going to have a lot of long rallies. Neither of these guys is much of a net rusher. No, it was Connors is going to attack a bunch and how well will Orantes pass him. Not to the degree of a Laver or Newcombe, but a major part of the strategy. That last sentence is mine, not Trabert.
Thing is, you don't have as many of those 70s matches lying around. There are more from the 80sHow many 76 Connors matches are out there. A few games of the Vilas US semi and the final. Go to say, 1981, there are a bunch more. The matches I've done stats for I believe confirm my beliefs.
No argument that later on in his career he had matches that he came in a lot. Krickstein in 1991. I think it was 131 times. He played Wilander in Key Biscayne in 88. IIRC, 90 or 100 times in 4 sets.
LOL, this is not something I came up with in recent years. I was saying this back then. I watched him play Mcenroe at the 79 US Open and was like, WTF? It was a pet peeve. I'd watch him, in some matches, run a guy corner to corner to corner, still not at the net. THinking,several years ago, he would have been at the net 3 or 4 shots ago.
Moose Malloy
G.O.A.T.
@Waspsting
There's a thread by timnz in July 2015 about Lendl dominating Mac in 81/82, I posted my thoughts in it. It also has a link to my match stats on the 1982 USO Mac Lendl SF which are very telling. I mean no offense since you are a new user, but many of your questions and new threads you make have been discussed a lot here over the years and I just don't feel like repeating myself over and over again(I've been a poster here since 2005, there's a reason I no longer feel the need to post in any GOAT thread ever again
The search function here is pretty useful, another thread you might like is one by @krosero from early last year which has links to every match we've done stats for on this message board. It's called Match statistics 1959 to present. Like I said earlier I've done stats on 33 matches of Connors(probably as many on Mac) and I've done net stats on many of them. Some of them I posted about here. It's a lot of work to dig them all up and post it here. Hopefully I will get around to making a new thread about that some day. Threads like this are nice but eventually get buried and forgotten and I can't remember where I posted stats for the next time someone asks about Borg, Connors, Mac...
Btw the site tennis abstract which @NatF linked to had some Connors matches tracked. Looked like he was hitting more fhs than bhs in those matches.
There's a thread by timnz in July 2015 about Lendl dominating Mac in 81/82, I posted my thoughts in it. It also has a link to my match stats on the 1982 USO Mac Lendl SF which are very telling. I mean no offense since you are a new user, but many of your questions and new threads you make have been discussed a lot here over the years and I just don't feel like repeating myself over and over again(I've been a poster here since 2005, there's a reason I no longer feel the need to post in any GOAT thread ever again
The search function here is pretty useful, another thread you might like is one by @krosero from early last year which has links to every match we've done stats for on this message board. It's called Match statistics 1959 to present. Like I said earlier I've done stats on 33 matches of Connors(probably as many on Mac) and I've done net stats on many of them. Some of them I posted about here. It's a lot of work to dig them all up and post it here. Hopefully I will get around to making a new thread about that some day. Threads like this are nice but eventually get buried and forgotten and I can't remember where I posted stats for the next time someone asks about Borg, Connors, Mac...
Btw the site tennis abstract which @NatF linked to had some Connors matches tracked. Looked like he was hitting more fhs than bhs in those matches.
Last edited:
