^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.

^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.

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.