Question for Older Fans - Connors/Borg

Only 5 matches unfortunately. Connors was hitting more forehand but hitting comparatively more backhand winners. Though in such a small sample a single match could make a huge difference.

 

^thanks. I'm sure he overall hit more bh winners than fh winners in the 33 matches I've tracked, just that the breakdown match to match had him hitting more fh winners half the time. If that makes any sense.

@WCT
I didn't do net stats for the 82 Wimbledon final, but I did do them for the 82 Queens final. Connors served 51 points and served and volleyed on 34 of them, so 67% of the time. He was 29/34 on those pts, 85%. Pretty darn good. He came to net 6 other times, so his net game wasn't about his approach shots this day, more about his serve.
I had him with 22 winners and 8 unforced errors. 1 ace, 3 df's.

I also have some stats on the 1984 French Open SF, which I haven't posted before. Connors came to net 20 times in that one, Mac 50 times. There were 175 total points. Surprised at how often Mac stayed back.

 

The success of Borg's return on grass probably had more to do with where he stood than the stroke length

He espoused his philosophy eloquently - how standing near the baseline was macho, low percentage and foolish, how his goal was just to get as many balls back in play rather than hit winners and how ironically this resulted in him hitting more return winners than anyone (and i'm guessing almost all of them were against guys charging the net)

Regarding Drysdale, Bud Collins and commentators. .. God knows what gets into them, maybe just trying to build the energy than be accurate

McEnroe today makes some wonderful, subtle points but there's a healthy dose of drivel and hyperbole thrown in. Wilander also has this reputation

Mac told the story of how Lendl started to get the better of him

Said he was so confident of beating Lendl at a certain point, he'd ask people to name the number of games he'd give Ivan.

At 1 match, he cruised through the 1st set and decided for fun to throw the second

Lendl won the match and that was the turning point

No match seems to fit this description from their H2H list. Could have been an exhibition

Not unlikely the whole story is BS

 

I looked up my stats. Here is what I have for 82 Queens. On 1st serves, I have Connors 34 of 39. On 2nd serves, I have him 4 of 14. One thing with Connors. I don't always find it clear that he was s/v. I mean when it's a serve where the return is not put back in play.

I believe I asked you or Krosero this before. How you account for an approach shot that is a clean winner. Net point? I have 2 categories. Net points and approach shot winners and errors. I combine the winners and errors into one total.

I'd say it took me maybe 2/3 of the way through doing matches to start counting total points. Such a mistake because that's what you want. Not how many net points in how many games. You want % of points at net. Like my new favorite stat I see in threads now. % of unreturned serves. I was just doing free points. The % is what you need for context.

1982 Wimbledon. I have Connors s/v on 26 of 114 1st serves and 8 of 70 on 2nd serve. I have 79 net points and 11 approach winners or errors. There were 340 points in the match.

To illustrate my point. 1974 Wimbledon. 36 of 55 s/v 1st. 26 of 51 2nd. 74 US Open 33 of 47 on 1st and 14 of 23 2nd. 75 Australian 1st 74 of 95. 2nd 10 of 40. The highest total % of s/v I have is his 78 Wlmbledon semi with Vitas. 1st 43 of 50 and 2nd 28 of 37. Tells you what he thought of Vitas' return vs Borg's. I have total net stats for the Borg match, but not s/v. Wasn't more than about 10 times I'd guess, though.

Here are a few more, again, for anyone interested. The number after the slash is the combined approach winners and errors. The first is the net.

77 Pepsi. 75/10 out of 187 points. 78 Pepsi where it's joined in the tiebreaker of the 1st set. 35/10 of 109 points. 79 Pepsi 53/6, but I don't have the total points. Borg won 2 and 3, IIRC.
78 Wimbledon 49/9 182 total points. 79 Wimbledon Borg 57/10 167 total points. 81 Wimbledon Borg. 58/13 280 points. 76 US Borg 86/26 280 points.

Look at the 81 Wimbledon difference. 81 French Clerc. i have Clerc at 40/5 while Connors at 27/2. 226 points. Clerc in more than Connors? No way in hell that happens in 1975. 81 Monte Carlo Noah. 9/1 in 89 points. Those would be a couple of stark examples of what I mean.

I haven't watched that 84 French semi in a very long time. Mcenroe only 50 times at net. Man, my recollection was him s/v on just about all his 1st serves in that year's French. Obviously, I was wrong. The Connors 20 doesn't surprise me, though.

 

@WCT
The way I count net points is the way they are counted among modern statisticians. I've done stats on many recent matches and they line up pretty closely with official stats. Any time a player is moving forward, it's a net point regardless if the opponent misses the return or passing shot. Krosero and Abmk count them the same way.
Seems like we are pretty close, you have 38 net pts, I have 40.

If an approach shot is a clean winner it's not an approach shot. I don't count missed approach shots as net points either(usually count those as an unforced error)

I have Connors S&V on 41 of the 70 pts that he served vs Tanner at 75 Wimbledon(there is a thread on it)
I didn't break his S&V attempts down by 1st and 2nd serve, but I'm sure most were on first.

Btw I had Mac coming in 84 times vs Arias at 84 French Open, it was quite different than the Connors semi(Mac had a low first serve % in the semi,only 47%)

 

I figured we agreed on anything where the opponent has a swing, even a feeble one, and the other player is moving toward the net, is a net point. And I didn't think anyone counter an approach show error as a net point. It's why I kept it separate.
But approach shot clean winners, I thought you might count.

I have that 75 match. Haven't done the stats, though. 41 of 70 is a slightly lower percentage than 74. I haven't done the Ashe 75 match either. IIRC, that seemed less as well. Not less as in much less, but less than the 70%ish the Rosewall matches had.
I did do the stats for his 80 match with Tanner. Well, it was missing the 1st set. These are form the last 4. Very high considering it was 1980. 48 of 67 on 1st. 16 of 40 on 2nd.

Contrast this with 81 vs Armitraj. 19 of 106 on 1st . S/V on 9 second serves I didn't write down on how many. Stockton in 81.
S/V 24 times. But I didn't keep track out of how many. Only 25 total games in the match, though. I mean all games. Connors probably served 12. He always started out receiving,

I remember seeing that Arias match. USA network used to carry the early rounds on tape delay. Coming in behind the 1st serve is what I thought I remembered seeing.

 

Couple more stat questions for Moose. Someone was clearly serving and volleying, but hits an ace. Net point? I'm guessing, like the approach shot clean winner, no? I'm guessing if they are serve/volleying and the returner gets his racket on the ball you count it as a net point?

I did the stats for this match. I had Connors with 70 serve points in one section, but in another section, where I had him s/v or not broken down for 1st and 2nd serves, I only had 69 points. So, I guess I missed one in that section. I had 45 of 69. 3 were on aces, but he was clearly coming in on them. Another ace, as I mentioned earlier about him, I couldn't tell. Since I wasn't sure I just said new.

It's just another 1975 match that reaffirms what the others show. There are no long rallies. One 15 hit rally the entire match. In the two 74 matches with Rosewall there was one.
ONCE in two matches.

Tanner at least s/v on every serve. Rosewall was like Connors, mixing it up. Probably over a third of their points were not s/v.
But one or the other was going to come in if a ball landed, not inside the service line, within several feet of the service line.

Same with Connors in the Tanner match. The serves he did stay back, he was usually coming in several strokes later. This was simply not the case later on. CLEARLY more aggressive about getting to the net.