Should Connors have won Wimbledon in 1973?

[sandy mayer]

Connors stepped up a gear in 74 obviously, but in 73 he was clearly already a top player. With the boycott the obvious favourites to win Wimbledon were missing: Newcombe, Smith, Rosewall, Laver, Ashe etc.

The only player in the draw who was clearly better than Connors in 73 was Nastase who was eliminated in an upset by Sandy Mayer. Connors lost to Metreveli in the quarters, a player who Connors defeated on grass the year before at Queen's. If Connors had beaten Metreveli he would have faced Mayer in the semis and Kodes in the finals. Connors had a very dominant record against both Mayer and Kodes (he had already started beating them before the 73 Wimbledon).

Let's look at titles won in 73: Connors 11, Metreveli 2, Kodes 2, Mayer 1.

I think this was a big opportunity for Connors that was missed. I believe he should have won Wimbledon that year after Nastase's loss. Nastase really missed a massive chance for him.

 

[jrepac]

Connors stepped up a gear in 74 obviously, but in 73 he was clearly already a top player. With the boycott the obvious favourites to win Wimbledon were missing: Newcombe, Smith, Rosewall, Laver, Ashe etc.

The only player in the draw who was clearly better than Connors in 73 was Nastase who was eliminated in an upset by Sandy Mayer. Connors lost to Metreveli in the quarters, a player who Connors defeated on grass the year before at Queen's. If Connors had beaten Metreveli he would have faced Mayer in the semis and Kodes in the finals. Connors had a very dominant record against both Mayer and Kodes (he had already started beating them before the 73 Wimbledon).

Let's look at titles won in 73: Connors 11, Metreveli 2, Kodes 2, Mayer 1.

I think this was a big opportunity for Connors that was missed. I believe he should have won Wimbledon that year after Nastase's loss. Nastase really missed a massive chance for him.

This crossed my mind as well when looking at 1973 Wimby results.

 

[jorjipy]

Didn’t Connors at his peak of 1974 take 5 sets to best Kodes at Wimbledon? That implies he might not have beaten him in 1973…..

 

[sandy mayer]

Didn’t Connors at his peak of 1974 take 5 sets to best Kodes at Wimbledon? That implies he might not have beaten him in 1973…..

Good point. Kodes might well have beaten Connors in 73. At the end of the day Kodes won in 73 fair and square and Connors lost. But, was Connors at his very best the day he beat Kodes in 5 sets in 74? It certainly doesn't mean that because Connors took 5 sets to beat Kodes in 74, he would have lost to Kodes in 73. Tennis doesn't work that way. Connors and Kodes played once before the 73 Wimbledon, and Connors won. Their head to head ended 6-0 to Connors.

People say Connors missed a big opportunity to win Wimbledon in 75 and 77. I agree with that, but I also think he missed a big opportunity in 73, and that never gets talked about. Having said that, Connors could easily have not won Wimbledon in 74 and 82. He could so easily have lost his 74 second round match to Phil Dent, and his 82 final to McEnroe. He came very very close to losing both matches. I doubt Connors looks back and gets nightmares about his missed opportunities, unlike McEnroe who admits to being haunted by his failure to win the 84 French.

 

[jorjipy]

Connors also played Kodes in the 74 US Open and won in 4 sets…..

but I look at 1973, and Kodes confirmed he was probably a worthy Wimbledon winner by making the US Open final and taking Newcombe to 5 sets….in fact Kodes led 2 sets to 1……remember, Newcombe had beaten Connors in straight sets in that 1973 US Open…..so on that basis I would say Kodes peaked in 73, and Connors in 74….I am a huge Connors fan, but the 1973 Wimbledon title carried so little prestige, I don’t think it adds to anyone’s resume.

 

[hoodjem]

As long as we are thinking about what could have been (though in actuality both lost in the quarters), it could have been Connors versus Borg in the final.

 

[sandy mayer]

Connors also played Kodes in the 74 US Open and won in 4 sets…..

but I look at 1973, and Kodes confirmed he was probably a worthy Wimbledon winner by making the US Open final and taking Newcombe to 5 sets….in fact Kodes led 2 sets to 1……remember, Newcombe had beaten Connors in straight sets in that 1973 US Open…..so on that basis I would say Kodes peaked in 73, and Connors in 74….I am a huge Connors fan, but the 1973 Wimbledon title carried so little prestige, I don’t think it adds to anyone’s resume.

Connors gave Newcombe a very hard match. There were 2 tiebreaks in which both Connors and Newcombe had set points at the same time (under a different tie break rule system).

 

[sandy mayer]

As long as we are thinking about what could have been (though in actuality both lost in the quarters), it could have been Connors versus Borg in the final.

I don't think Borg in 73 had any chance of winning Wimbledon. He was only 17 and his game was nowhere near as strong as it became. I give him only about a 10% chance of beating Connors in a 73 Wimbledon final.

 

[ollinger]

"should"????

 

[hoodjem]

I don't think Borg in 73 had any chance of winning Wimbledon. He was only 17 and his game was nowhere near as strong as it became. I give him only about a 10% chance of beating Connors in a 73 Wimbledon final.

Probably not. Borg was definitely rather young.

Ironically, Borg beat Connors in their first meeting in 1973 (on hard court in Stockholm). After that, it was all Connors till 1977. Then they traded wins for about two years. After 1978 it was all Borg.

 

[urban]

Connors was a factor on grass since 1972, when he won Queens Club and had a good showing at Wim. His problem was Nastase, who had his number and beat him easily at Wim 1972. In 1972 and 1973, boycotts hampered the Wim draws. So Connors didn't have to face WCT grass experts like Newcombe, Ashe and others. Maybe 1973 Wim was a bit of a dissapointing result, however Metreveli was a good, solid allround player. Another player, who was very unlucky was Roger Taylor, who lost a very close match to Kodes in the semis. As was said above, the real upset, mabe the greatest upset in all open Wims, was that of Nastase. Ilie was in the form of his life, he had won everything before, including RG, Rome on clay and Queens on grass, and he had won it all easily and overwhelmingly. With all grass contenders like Newk, Smith, Ashe and Rosewall out by the boycott, he seemed unbeatable. But on the graveyard of champions, the Nr. 14 outside court, Sandy Mayer with his fresh attacking game upset him. On this court many champions, including Mac and others, faltered, and many more would have faltered, if they had played there more often since the 80s and 90s. The outside court was a great equalizer. I think, Sampras lost there to Bastl.

 

[WCT]

I always thought of court 2 as the big upset court at Wimbledon. That's where Curren beat Connors in 83 and I thought Gullikson Mcenroe in 79. You mentioned Mcenroe losing on 14. To who?

I would have thought a player of Nastase's stature, at that point, would never play a match on those outside courts That it would only be center, 1 or at worst 2.

I would think at this point in their career's that Kodes had a pretty good chance against Connors. Maybe not an even chance, but I'd say slight underdog at worst. But Connors definitely had a real opening with Nastase out and most of the top players boycotting. It could reasonably be called something of a blown opportunity.

 

[urban]

Yep. It was Court Nr. 2. Memory lapse, age is a wonderful thing.

 

[WCT]

Boy, do I know where you are coming from regarding memory and age.

 

[jrepac]

Yep. It was Court Nr. 2. Memory lapse, age is a wonderful thing.

yeah, pretty much figured that...NP