Skills of GOATs

kiki

Banned
It was a very good serve and he could hit aces. I think the most important thing was that Laver had a good attacking serve and that in his day he could serve and volley against anyone, including the great returns of Jimmy Connors and Ken Rosewall. Laver certainly had a good enough serve to get a lot of weak returns from almost any player. His kick serve was one of the best in his day.

No I don't think it was on the level of the great serves like Gonzalez, Newcombe, Sampras but he could hit it hard, place it well, hit with a lot of slice or kick it.

In a similar way to John Mc Enroe.They were both lefties, used a lot the angles and spins in their serves, which they never used to go for aces rather to set up the volley.That is the way they uesd their angled or heavily spun serve.

Finally, a said says " you are just as good as your second serve".Laver and Mac were the first I recall that set up their attack on the second serve, so good was it
 

kiki

Banned
The volley seems to be a lost art nowadays. I see so many missed opportunities for players today to take a weak return in the air with an aggressive volley but they often decline to do so and play a strong drive from backhand.

When I see old videos of Laver it amazes me how easily he handles what would be called a tough volley nowadays and turns it into an offensive shot. The Laver-Roche semi in the Australian of 1969 has more incredible volleys than players today would play in years.

Sometimes after many years of watching baseline tennis with poor volleys you tend to forget how great some players were at the net. I suppose in some way I took for granted how great some players were at the net like a Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe, Roche and Edberg.

Here's Laver and Roche from the 1969 Australian. Incredible volleys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHaN2h21ANs

Laver´s first step and abrupt forearm and wrist allowed him control and redirect Connors´s babies like tomato.Looked so easy, even when volleying below the net level¡¡¡Only seen 2 other volleyers do that: Mc and Edberg.Cash,RafterStich and Sampras were as good but didn´t have the same deception and timing to angle volleys like that
 

kiki

Banned
You'll get a huge kick out of this:

I have a book called "Rod Laver's Tennis Digest," a compilation of articles and lessons, some written by Laver and Bud Collins, copyright 1973. It says "In cooperation of World Tennis Magazine" on the cover.

In it, is an article written by Laver about his 1969 Grand Slam. He says that his AO semifinal match against Roche was the toughest match of his career. After winning the first two sets 7-5, 22-20, he was wilting in the heat (there was a refrigerator on court with cold towels to wipe down with on changeovers), and Roche came back and won the next two sets 11-9, 6-1. Laver explained that the momentum and confidence had completely swung to Roche, that he was serving at 0-5, and dug deep to hold serve so that he could have the psychological advantage of serving first in the final set. Apparently, they got a shower break before the 5th.

In the 5th, each player held serve until Roche was serving at 3-4, 15-30 and got what he thought was a bad call. Laver's return was called in, and Roche was sure it was out. Laver says it might have been out. Roche was so deflated by the call, he duffed his next bh volley into the net and was barely able to return any serves the next game, giving Laver the win.

PS: There are a ton of amazing articles (ie: lessons from Segura), and pictures in this book that I'd love to scan and post, but, I don't want to infringe on any copyrights.

Roche was the player who ressembled more to Laver.In his book,Laver says that he had an extra motivation when he played the best of the oncoming generation (Newc,Ashe and Roche).He and Rosewall being the last greats of the only pro era.
 

kiki

Banned
Good story LH. It's interesting to know that, since in the past I've really admired Laver and Roche in that video. It sounds like this match was the toughest hurdle he faced in 1969.

it is uncredible the conditions Laver endured to win his second GS.Only a truly great champion can.¿Have you seen his last game at Forest Hills, again vs Tony Roche? Seen the courts looking like a potato´s turf? and he even lose the first set and had to pick up special striker shoes¡¡
 
it is uncredible the conditions Laver endured to win his second GS.Only a truly great champion can.¿Have you seen his last game at Forest Hills, again vs Tony Roche? Seen the courts looking like a potato´s turf? and he even lose the first set and had to pick up special striker shoes¡¡

Yes I have Kiki. The video upload on YT from Borgforever is great. The court was really coming apart on that day. Those "spikey shoes" he wore are now famous. That court got ripped up. I guess they had a lot of rain during the tourney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMUMG3Xb6I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc
 

kiki

Banned
Yes I have Kiki. The video upload on YT from Borgforever is great. The court was really coming apart on that day. Those "spikey shoes" he wore are now famous. That court got ripped up. I guess they had a lot of rain during the tourney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMUMG3Xb6I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvpckZmLaEc

There were 3 different kinds of grass courts, Wimbledon,Forest Hills and Kooyonh having in common less than some of those courts with Roland Garros.So, it is hard to adjust, plus there were not many preparation grass court tourneys ( Queen´s for W Newport for FH,White City for Kooyong)
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
In a similar way to John Mc Enroe.They were both lefties, used a lot the angles and spins in their serves, which they never used to go for aces rather to set up the volley.That is the way they uesd their angled or heavily spun serve.

Finally, a said says " you are just as good as your second serve".Laver and Mac were the first I recall that set up their attack on the second serve, so good was it

I think Mac had a bigger slice with more movement than Laver. He had a good kick, but, rarely used it. Laver hit a huge kick, and with a modern racquet, I think Laver could serve bigger serves than Mac. JMHO, of course.
 

kiki

Banned
I think Mac had a bigger slice with more movement than Laver. He had a good kick, but, rarely used it. Laver hit a huge kick, and with a modern racquet, I think Laver could serve bigger serves than Mac. JMHO, of course.

Yes, I agree.laver is very deceptive, being a short man and with a too close to the body toss, however, he unfolds his arm very fast and uses his phenomenal wrist to give a tremendous kick to the serve.

Another player who served this way to earn time to volley was Edberg.His serve, deep and high would give him that extra second he needed to be on top of the net ( Laver did the same and Mac also, but with slice insetad of top spin)
 

Limpinhitter

G.O.A.T.
Yes, I agree.laver is very deceptive, being a short man and with a too close to the body toss, however, he unfolds his arm very fast and uses his phenomenal wrist to give a tremendous kick to the serve.

Another player who served this way to earn time to volley was Edberg.His serve, deep and high would give him that extra second he needed to be on top of the net ( Laver did the same and Mac also, but with slice insetad of top spin)

The timing on Laver's serve was impeccable. And, he created a tremendous amount of torque between his upper and lower body, something you don't see much of anymore with the closed platform stance so prevalent now.
 

kiki

Banned
The timing on Laver's serve was impeccable. And, he created a tremendous amount of torque between his upper and lower body, something you don't see much of anymore with the closed platform stance so prevalent now.

Something I´ve always enjoyed with some great S&V is that their serve is not thought to priorize making aces rather taking you out of the line thus allowing them to reach the net in time and set up a winning volley.In different styles, but under the same concept we had players like Laver,Mac or Edberg that used an uncredible amount of slice or top spin to create their own space.In a way, to a lesser extent, Newc,Roche and Ashe could fit into this pattern, even if their serves were quite more flat out.
 

BTURNER

Legend
You mean we should stay on topic instead of discussing other things?? :confused:

No the opposite. Like I was thinking the other day, bout which slams Seles would have won - or how fast a slice can be hit - stuff like that we never get around to.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
No the opposite. Like I was thinking the other day, bout which slams Seles would have won - or how fast a slice can be hit - stuff like that we never get around to.

Lol.

Yes no one ever talks about that stuff here. :)

Actually one thing we should discuss in this thread is while some players may have some weaknesses that an overpowering strength can overcome that.

For example a John Newcombe didn't have a great backhand or great speed but he overcame that with some great strengths like his serve, his great forehand and an excellent volley.
 
Last edited:

kiki

Banned
Lol.

Yes no one ever talks about that stuff here. :)

Actually one thing we should discuss in this thread is while some players may have some weaknesses that an overpowering strength can overcome that.

For example a John Newcombe didn't have a great backhand or great speed but he oversame that with some great strengths like his serve, his great forehand and an excellent vollely.

Good point.Like Rosewall, who had a weak ( but deep ) serve and short reach at the net, but oversame that with his great shotmaking, flat and slice from the FH and BH, and a wondeful lob ( which is an underrated shot IMHO)
 

Zimbo

Semi-Pro
I think Mac had a bigger slice with more movement than Laver. He had a good kick, but, rarely used it. Laver hit a huge kick, and with a modern racquet, I think Laver could serve bigger serves than Mac. JMHO, of course.

I was watching the Masters yesterday and Jimmy Arias made a comment that Connor's slice serve on the add side had more of an angle then Mac's. According to Arias Mac serve was better because he had more velocity to his. I agree with the velocity statement but not that the can opener portion. What do you guys think?
 

kiki

Banned
I was watching the Masters yesterday and Jimmy Arias made a comment that Connor's slice serve on the add side had more of an angle then Mac's. According to Arias Mac serve was better because he had more velocity to his. I agree with the velocity statement but not that the can opener portion. What do you guys think?

Connors hit a very wide open angle to the add court, but he seldom did it with the same velocity of Mac; plus Connors seldom ventured to the net until his late 30´s, when he played great tennis, for example, against Lendl at the Open and mac at Wimbledon.That did not let him take advantage of that wide open serve.

In any case, Mac made a weapon out of his serve, Connors never used his serve as a weapon, as I said, except circunstancially.
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
Connors hit a very wide open angle to the add court, but he seldom did it with the same velocity of Mac; plus Connors seldom ventured to the net until his late 30´s, when he played great tennis, . . .
Are you sure?

I think of Connors as an all-court player who could trade groundstrokes all-day long or rush the net when it made sense.
 

kiki

Banned
Are you sure?

I think of Connors as an all-court player who could trade groundstrokes all-day long or rush the net when it made sense.

I think Connors played more at the net during his starting pro career years - watch him vs Rosewall at Forest Hills or Newcombe at the AO-, stuck back in his central years and, somehow, imporved his feeling at the net, using agression and smart thinking when he was over 30.In 82, you saw him play very good net tactics vs Mac or Lendl.

He certainly had the reflexes and sense of volleying but he used a bit less than he could have.May be the fact that Borg dominated during Connors central years, has something to do with his sticking back ( only Mac and, on ocasion, big serving Tanner could beat Bjorn with an attacking game in the 1977-1981 period).
 

WCT

Professional
I don't think I'd phrase it as seldom came to the net. As I've said previously, though, it's how you define that. Just yesterday, in 3 sets, how many times was Nadal at the net? I first started watching tennis and would see Chris Evert come in 5 times in 3 sets. What defines seldom.

As you got into later 79 into 80 and 81, I think Connors was definitely coming in less. Hell, he is coming in less period after Segura stopped coaching him full time.. But that is not the same as seldom coming in.

About the wide serve. The name Jimmy Arias was mentioned. I distinctly recall watching Connors in early 1984 and thinking, he has clearly gotten better with that wide serve in the ad court.
Mind you, it's relative. Better doesn't mean it was Mcenroe like. But the timeline coincides with when Arias really started emerging on the tour.

Prior to that, like the 70s, I don't recall ever thinking that Connors was particularly good in that area. He liked to mix the serve up a bit. In the duece court, he would sometimes kick it out wide as well as go down the middle.
in the ad court, he probably wen wide more often because he played more righties and he'd be inclined to go into the backhand. With someone like Gerulaitis he did it most of the time.
But I don't remember ever thinking that he's got a really good wide serve or even an underrated one.
 

kiki

Banned
I don't think I'd phrase it as seldom came to the net. As I've said previously, though, it's how you define that. Just yesterday, in 3 sets, how many times was Nadal at the net? I first started watching tennis and would see Chris Evert come in 5 times in 3 sets. What defines seldom.

As you got into later 79 into 80 and 81, I think Connors was definitely coming in less. Hell, he is coming in less period after Segura stopped coaching him full time.. But that is not the same as seldom coming in.

About the wide serve. The name Jimmy Arias was mentioned. I distinctly recall watching Connors in early 1984 and thinking, he has clearly gotten better with that wide serve in the ad court.
Mind you, it's relative. Better doesn't mean it was Mcenroe like. But the timeline coincides with when Arias really started emerging on the tour.

Prior to that, like the 70s, I don't recall ever thinking that Connors was particularly good in that area. He liked to mix the serve up a bit. In the duece court, he would sometimes kick it out wide as well as go down the middle.
in the ad court, he probably wen wide more often because he played more righties and he'd be inclined to go into the backhand. With someone like Gerulaitis he did it most of the time.
But I don't remember ever thinking that he's got a really good wide serve or even an underrated one.

he was agressive, with good feeling at the net.he ventured to it less than he should have, IMo.Even vs Borg, when the swede was at his top.Yes, seldom may not be the word.let´s say... ¿ less than he could or should?
 

WCT

Professional
As I said, he came in less after Segura left, but there are factors involved specifically versus Borg.

Connors didn't have a big serve and he wasn't a "great" volleyer. He's setting up his volleys with his approach. Plus, Borg started coming in more.

Again, what is coming in a lot? Connors won the 78 Masters match at the net. From what I saw, half a set, and read about the match. He definitely won their 75 US Open semi at the net. He was at the net 86 times, I think, in their 76 US final. He was coming in 20-25 times a set in their 3 Pepsi matches.

What are you comparing him to? If it's someone like Mcenroe, he isn't coming in as much. However, he was coming in a lot more than many of the other players whom one would classify as baseliners.

Someone used the term all court player and that's how I see my idea of vintage Connors. I know that Segura's instructional book from 1976, which talks about Connors game in fair detail, never uses the term baseliner to describe him.

No doubt, though, later on I thought there were times he didn't come in as much as he could. Still, I saw the term seldom came in and I don't think that applied. I thought that as going too far.
 

kiki

Banned
As I said, he came in less after Segura left, but there are factors involved specifically versus Borg.

Connors didn't have a big serve and he wasn't a "great" volleyer. He's setting up his volleys with his approach. Plus, Borg started coming in more.

Again, what is coming in a lot? Connors won the 78 Masters match at the net. From what I saw, half a set, and read about the match. He definitely won their 75 US Open semi at the net. He was at the net 86 times, I think, in their 76 US final. He was coming in 20-25 times a set in their 3 Pepsi matches.

What are you comparing him to? If it's someone like Mcenroe, he isn't coming in as much. However, he was coming in a lot more than many of the other players whom one would classify as baseliners.

Someone used the term all court player and that's how I see my idea of vintage Connors. I know that Segura's instructional book from 1976, which talks about Connors game in fair detail, never uses the term baseliner to describe him.

No doubt, though, later on I thought there were times he didn't come in as much as he could. Still, I saw the term seldom came in and I don't think that applied. I thought that as going too far.

He came to the net, while backcourters seldom did.I just meant that, because of his great, deep, low approach shots, he could have taken more advantage of that coming in more often.Certainly, he came to the net , lets say in a middle way between a S&V and a baseliner.No doubt.

In fact one of his major assets in his renaissance in 82-83 was the net game, that so much surprised Mac and Lendl.His 82 Wimbledon final proves he could volley as lethally as JMac.He was so guttsy he attacked Ivan constantly at the 82-83 USO and 84 W, with no fear to the czech thundering passing shots.

To me, this Connors was a better player than the 74 Connors, even if he lost some power - but gained in tactichal sense and on court poise-.

Might be, you are more amd more demanding with the players you really like a lot and Jimmy, I just loved him on court.
 

WCT

Professional
You see, I don't think 82-84 Connors is coming in more than 77, 78 or parts of 79 Connors. Less than 1974 or 75, perhaps, but still enough to be considered an all courter.

I've said this in several posts. Watch the CBS telecasts of the 75-78 Open finals, the 77-79 Grand Slam of Tennis and the 78 Masters final. If you can find an example of Tony Trabert calling Connors a player who doesn't come in much, let me know where it is.

Connors is the aggressor, looking for the short ball to attack. Borg is the counterpuncher. That is how he always describes thei playing styles.

There was definitely, I think, a period maybe late 79 where I first noticed it.
It's very clear in the US Open semi versus Mcenroe, where I saw matches where he just didn't come in as much.

But he served and volleyed a much higher percantage of the time in the 74 Wimbledon final than he did in the 82 final. 82 was much more than 81, but he wasn't doing anything he hadn't done before.

That's why the Collins/Enberg telecast irked me so much. Collins acted like Jimmy Connors never went anywhere near the net before 1982. Actually, where Connors dd play serve volley on about 90% of his first serves was Queens, but not Wimbledon. I'll say this. Connors volleyed as well in the 82 final as I ever saw which is about as well as those 74 matches I have. He missed very few volleys that match.

I never thought Connors was a great volleyer. When right, he was lethal on the higher volley. It sounds simple, yet not everyone puts those volleys away.
Nastase had a habit of giving players another shot at the pass. He could never volley the consistently tough volley like Mac, though. IMO, that's what makes you a "great" volleyer.

As far as him being better in 82, I think there are advantages both ways. He was a smarter, more judicious player in 82. I think he was a better pure ball striker in 74 and probably just a bit faster at that point.
 

kiki

Banned
You see, I don't think 82-84 Connors is coming in more than 77, 78 or parts of 79 Connors. Less than 1974 or 75, perhaps, but still enough to be considered an all courter.

I've said this in several posts. Watch the CBS telecasts of the 75-78 Open finals, the 77-79 Grand Slam of Tennis and the 78 Masters final. If you can find an example of Tony Trabert calling Connors a player who doesn't come in much, let me know where it is.

Connors is the aggressor, looking for the short ball to attack. Borg is the counterpuncher. That is how he always describes thei playing styles.

There was definitely, I think, a period maybe late 79 where I first noticed it.
It's very clear in the US Open semi versus Mcenroe, where I saw matches where he just didn't come in as much.

But he served and volleyed a much higher percantage of the time in the 74 Wimbledon final than he did in the 82 final. 82 was much more than 81, but he wasn't doing anything he hadn't done before.

That's why the Collins/Enberg telecast irked me so much. Collins acted like Jimmy Connors never went anywhere near the net before 1982. Actually, where Connors dd play serve volley on about 90% of his first serves was Queens, but not Wimbledon. I'll say this. Connors volleyed as well in the 82 final as I ever saw which is about as well as those 74 matches I have. He missed very few volleys that match.

I never thought Connors was a great volleyer. When right, he was lethal on the higher volley. It sounds simple, yet not everyone puts those volleys away.
Nastase had a habit of giving players another shot at the pass. He could never volley the consistently tough volley like Mac, though. IMO, that's what makes you a "great" volleyer.

As far as him being better in 82, I think there are advantages both ways. He was a smarter, more judicious player in 82. I think he was a better pure ball striker in 74 and probably just a bit faster at that point.

I agree he didn´t have the talent of a Mac Enroe and his deft touch volleys ( ¿Who´s ever had it anyway?).But Connors won almost every volley he hit.he throw himself to the ball, generating a special " last second " speed and also was very good in getting angles the opponent could not reach.Certainly, his volleying style did not look as natural as a mac,Roche or Edberg, but he would win many more points than losing them and that made him very dangerous at the net ( his only problem, sometuimes, was with the 2 handed backhand volley that limited his reach, Borg took advantage of it many times).

Another not so much talked shot Connors was a superior master was the offensive lob.He somewhat sliced it, and seldom used spin, but he played some of the most extraordinary lobs I´ve seen.
 

NonP

Legend
The reason that Nadal is winning in the head to head is that the majority of times they have played, it has been on clay (Nadal's best surface, Federers worst), I believe. That is not to say that Nadal can't beat Federer on a surface other than clay - we all know he has - however, Federer leads the non-clay head to head. If you don't believe that argument, then imagine that the majority of matches between Borg and McEnroe had been on clay (a surface they never officially played together on), then Borg would be leading by even a greater margin than Nadal does over Federer.

timnz, with all due respect (and I do mean that), I think you were oversimplifying here. You're right that the surface has a lot to do with the lopsided H2H, but you seem to think it's the only reason. I disagree. IMO another and more important reason is that Nadal is in fact a bad matchup for Federer.

You need to look at their entire rivalry to see why one might think that. Let's recap their first three meetings on a HC:

2004 Miami - Nadal, then a relatively unknown newcomer, knocks out Federer in straight sets. Despite this win Rafa doesn't bag a single HC title the whole year.
2005 Miami - The outcome is reversed this time, but only after Nadal wins the first two sets and Federer barely ekes it out in a tough 5-setter.
2006 Dubai - Nadal wins again, this time on a fast HC that should on paper suit Federer's game more.

Now their three Wimbledon finals:

2006 - A fairly breezy win for Federer, but Nadal manages to grab a set in a TB. Still Rafa fails to reach the final at any of the Masters events he plays that year.
2007 - Federer survives another tough 5-setter. Now Nadal is starting to catch up.
2008 - Thanks in part to an improved serve, this time it's Nadal who's holding the trophy after yet another 5-setter.

As for their three encounters indoors, Federer won the first two comfortably, but Nadal kept it closer the third time around (which, of course, was the last ATP match of this season).

There's a pattern. And even then we're talking about just 10 matches on a variety of surfaces. The only conclusive surface advantage you can gather from the Federer-Nadal H2H alone is Rafa's on clay.

To see how they match up on other surfaces, you need to look beyond the numbers. And my take is that Nadal is a tough matchup for Federer not because Fed's best game cannot neutralize Rafa's, but because Rafa's own game makes it tough for Fed to play his best, largely due to four factors:

1) Nadal is a southpaw. This presents problems for Fed from the get-go because he must receive a serve out wide on the ad court, and as with most one-handers that's where his return of serve tends to be at its weakest. After the serve, Fed must also deal with the fact that one of his specialties, his inside-out FH (particularly from the center), isn't as big a weapon against Nadal as the ball goes straight to Rafa's FH and, on slow surfaces, right at his wheelhouse. And we all know how Rafa has exploited Fed's BH over the years.

Which brings me to 2), the trademark Nadal topspin. In the majority of their cross-court exchanges, Fed's BH must counter Rafa's FH, and the Spaniard's heavy topspin makes the ball kick up high especially (again) on slow surfaces, which in turn makes it hard for a one-hander like Fed to be aggressive with his BH.

3) While Fed has a pretty high shot tolerance himself, Nadal's is even higher. But most of the time Fed is either unwilling or unable to dictate play and keep the number of shots to a minimum--perhaps understandably so because Fed is at heart a baseliner--and for that he has paid the price.

4) Though Fed's mental strength is often underrated (you don't make 23 consecutive SFs at the majors if you're a mental midget), he does have this unfortunate tendency to wilt when his opponent will not budge an inch. (I'm not just talking about Fed against Rafa, BTW. For other examples see his crucial '03 Davis Cup rubber against Hewitt, '09 USO final against del Potro, and '09 Doha SF against Murray). That's a huge no-no against Nadal, one of the fiercest competitors to have ever played the sport.

And let me again emphasize that those early wins by Rafa on HCs came before his prime, when he had yet to play closer to the baseline, flatten out his strokes further, and develop a serve befitting one of the world's top players. In other words, when he had yet to master all surfaces. Tie all these together and it's not hard to see why prime Rafa would've been a tough matchup for prime Fed.

Anyway, that was not the main point of my original post, which was that these skill-by-skill comparisons are often misleading. You should be familiar with this MO: someone wants to hype up his hero, so he draws up a list of skills that he deems important--almost invariably to his player's advantage, of course. And to make his comparison look better he might even incorporate scales (say, of 1 to 10) on which to rate each skill. Then he declares that his hero is superior in more skills, and thus a better player.

Needless to say, tennis doesn't work like that in the real world. The problem with such a cartoonish approach is that it's most likely a case of numerous glaring commissions and omissions: an important stroke like the lob or the drop shot might not even get a mention, while there may be some silly "skills" like ability to apply constant pressure or to hit non-textbook shots though you see other similar (but differently named) categories. (I don't mean to suggest that the skill-set comparisons we have on this thread are as bad as this parody of an example. I just want to caution against taking such comparisons at face value.)

And then you have to factor in the holistic aspects of the game. For most players the serve or the forehand would be a more important stroke than the overhead or the backhand, especially if both or either of the former is a big weapon. You can't tell that from the kind of comparisons outlined above; all you see is which player has a greater number of superior skills, or a greater number of points. And which era are we talking about? The lob would've come in very handy in the golden era of S&Vers, but not so much today. And how do we account for the fact that the 1st-serve percentages have been steadily rising over the last decade or so? Does anyone in his right mind think this is simply because today's players are better servers, when the fundamental mechanics of the serve has changed very little throughout the history of tennis?

Nothing in life is that simple, and certainly not the overall skill set of GOATs or a H2H between two of such advanced and multifaceted players.
 
Last edited:

pc1

G.O.A.T.
You see, I don't think 82-84 Connors is coming in more than 77, 78 or parts of 79 Connors. Less than 1974 or 75, perhaps, but still enough to be considered an all courter.

I've said this in several posts. Watch the CBS telecasts of the 75-78 Open finals, the 77-79 Grand Slam of Tennis and the 78 Masters final. If you can find an example of Tony Trabert calling Connors a player who doesn't come in much, let me know where it is.

Connors is the aggressor, looking for the short ball to attack. Borg is the counterpuncher. That is how he always describes thei playing styles.

There was definitely, I think, a period maybe late 79 where I first noticed it.
It's very clear in the US Open semi versus Mcenroe, where I saw matches where he just didn't come in as much.

But he served and volleyed a much higher percantage of the time in the 74 Wimbledon final than he did in the 82 final. 82 was much more than 81, but he wasn't doing anything he hadn't done before.

That's why the Collins/Enberg telecast irked me so much. Collins acted like Jimmy Connors never went anywhere near the net before 1982. Actually, where Connors dd play serve volley on about 90% of his first serves was Queens, but not Wimbledon. I'll say this. Connors volleyed as well in the 82 final as I ever saw which is about as well as those 74 matches I have. He missed very few volleys that match.

I never thought Connors was a great volleyer. When right, he was lethal on the higher volley. It sounds simple, yet not everyone puts those volleys away.
Nastase had a habit of giving players another shot at the pass. He could never volley the consistently tough volley like Mac, though. IMO, that's what makes you a "great" volleyer.

As far as him being better in 82, I think there are advantages both ways. He was a smarter, more judicious player in 82. I think he was a better pure ball striker in 74 and probably just a bit faster at that point.

I agree he didn´t have the talent of a Mac Enroe and his deft touch volleys ( ¿Who´s ever had it anyway?).But Connors won almost every volley he hit.he throw himself to the ball, generating a special " last second " speed and also was very good in getting angles the opponent could not reach.Certainly, his volleying style did not look as natural as a mac,Roche or Edberg, but he would win many more points than losing them and that made him very dangerous at the net ( his only problem, sometuimes, was with the 2 handed backhand volley that limited his reach, Borg took advantage of it many times).

Another not so much talked shot Connors was a superior master was the offensive lob.He somewhat sliced it, and seldom used spin, but he played some of the most extraordinary lobs I´ve seen.

Excellent posts guys.
WCT, I agree with you that Connors moved a bit better and overall was a better player in 1974 than in 1982.

Both of you pointed out that Connors is very underrated as a net player and I agree. I've been watching a number of old Connors matches recently and I think I appreciate his play more now than even when he was playing. Even his serve, which is really no great shakes is pretty decent in that he moves it around and controls the point. He sneaks in on an occasionally serve/volley to keep the returner honest also. Connors really had everything and no major weaknesses. And he is perhaps the best pure ball striker I've seen.

People talk about great talent in tennis. People talk about the touch of McEnroe and how great his talent is and they are right. But pure ball striking is one of the most important talents in tennis if not THE most important and Connors is as good as anyone in that area. That's why the man was so consistent and won 148 tournaments with an incredible 82 percent winning percentage in a very long career.

Just think about it. Connors played Emerson, Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Gonzalez, Smith, Nastase and Ashe, many of the old guard. Then he played his contemporaries in Borg, McEnroe (not sure if McEnroe is one of age comtemporaries but he did play Connors at or near his best in the 1970's), Gerulaitis, Vilas, Tanner etc. After that he played the younger group in Edberg, Becker, Cash, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang.

It's really stunning to look at his career, his accomplishments and the guys he played. The latter part to me is incredible. He played Pancho Gonzalez and he also played Michael Chang. And he was competitive with all of them. In his prime he was generally above the great majority of them.
 

kiki

Banned
Excellent posts guys.
WCT, I agree with you that Connors moved a bit better and overall was a better player in 1974 than in 1982.

Both of you pointed out that Connors is very underrated as a net player and I agree. I've been watching a number of old Connors matches recently and I think I appreciate his play more now than even when he was playing. Even his serve, which is really no great shakes is pretty decent in that he moves it around and controls the point. He sneaks in on an occasionally serve/volley to keep the returner honest also. Connors really had everything and no major weaknesses. And he is perhaps the best pure ball striker I've seen.

People talk about great talent in tennis. People talk about the touch of McEnroe and how great his talent is and they are right. But pure ball striking is one of the most important talents in tennis if not THE most important and Connors is as good as anyone in that area. That's why the man was so consistent and won 148 tournaments with an incredible 82 percent winning percentage in a very long career.

Just think about it. Connors played Emerson, Rosewall, Laver, Newcombe, Roche, Gonzalez, Smith, Nastase and Ashe, many of the old guard. Then he played his contemporaries in Borg, McEnroe (not sure if McEnroe is one of age comtemporaries but he did play Connors at or near his best in the 1970's), Gerulaitis, Vilas, Tanner etc. After that he played the younger group in Edberg, Becker, Cash, Lendl, Wilander, Agassi, Sampras, Courier, Chang.

It's really stunning to look at his career, his accomplishments and the guys he played. The latter part to me is incredible. He played Pancho Gonzalez and he also played Michael Chang. And he was competitive with all of them. In his prime he was generally above the great majority of them.

Great way to define and resume such a long and succesful career.You are right in remarking the natural talent of Connors, because he had to have an extraordinary talent to play the shots the way he played them, with almost no margin for error ( he disguissed it because his margin of error was taking the ball on the rise and making a perfect eye hand job).

As I posted before, never have we seen a player do play with his style and have the same amount of success.At the beginning of his career agassi seemed to me a second Connors.but their talent, as time went on, seemed to me utmost different.Both were fantastic but had a very differnet game conception.
 

WCT

Professional
Kiki, agreed about Connors lobbing. Perhaps the most underrated part of his game. I thought he evolved into an excellent lobber. Not all timer, but much more of a strength than I think is generally attributed to him.

While I don't think that he had Mcenroe level talent, I do agree that Connors was very skilled. His type of game really required extrordinary hand/eye coordination. I think you need to be very skilled to hit the ball as cxonsistently cleanly as he did.

Speaking of Connors as an overall player, longevivity and consistency are what I think of. His valleys are relative.
His valleys were number 3 instead of number 1. We're talking for a decade.
That's a long time. Even after that he's still a top 10 player.

When you look at him historically, it's not that his best is the best of all time, it's how long he was among the best.
I think it's pretty clear how much he loved to play and loved to compete. It's why he outlasted so many of his rivals.
 

NonP

Legend
Kiki, agreed about Connors lobbing. Perhaps the most underrated part of his game. I thought he evolved into an excellent lobber. Not all timer, but much more of a strength than I think is generally attributed to him....

Speaking of Connors as an overall player, longevivity and consistency are what I think of. His valleys are relative.
His valleys were number 3 instead of number 1. We're talking for a decade.
That's a long time. Even after that he's still a top 10 player.

When you look at him historically, it's not that his best is the best of all time, it's how long he was among the best.
I think it's pretty clear how much he loved to play and loved to compete. It's why he outlasted so many of his rivals.

I highly doubt that the Connors lob is underrated by most seasoned fans or experts. At least that's certainly not the case here. I'd say it's his serve that's the most underrated aspect of his game.
 

kiki

Banned
Kiki, agreed about Connors lobbing. Perhaps the most underrated part of his game. I thought he evolved into an excellent lobber. Not all timer, but much more of a strength than I think is generally attributed to him.

While I don't think that he had Mcenroe level talent, I do agree that Connors was very skilled. His type of game really required extrordinary hand/eye coordination. I think you need to be very skilled to hit the ball as cxonsistently cleanly as he did.

Speaking of Connors as an overall player, longevivity and consistency are what I think of. His valleys are relative.
His valleys were number 3 instead of number 1. We're talking for a decade.
That's a long time. Even after that he's still a top 10 player.

When you look at him historically, it's not that his best is the best of all time, it's how long he was among the best.
I think it's pretty clear how much he loved to play and loved to compete. It's why he outlasted so many of his rivals.

I hadn´t payed so much attention but, when I look at those Laver,Rosewall,NewcombeConnors videos, I realise how strategically important was lobbing well.Those 4 were excellent lobbers, so was nastase, because they faced big S&V players who stood so on op of the net.They won many points with that stroke, putting it either on the BH side or on the FH side.

Connors is unique because his style is the most flasier possible.hand Eye, footwork, backswing flat strokes and jumping on the ball to take it on the rise makes him unique.And his lasting at the top for so long is a very big plus that pays a tribute to his deep love for the competition, as you said.
 

kiki

Banned
I highly doubt that the Connors lob is underrated by most seasoned fans or experts. At least that's certainly not the case here. I'd say it's his serve that's the most underrated aspect of his game.

Well, his serve was not bad at all.The problem was that was not good enough at the very high levels he competed; not certainly at the level of Borg,JMac,Lendl to name a few.He never made a weapon out of it, probably his stance and poor toss caused him dammage.I also think it made the difference in some close losses to Borg or Mac Enroe.A better serve might have changed the result.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
I highly doubt that the Connors lob is underrated by most seasoned fans or experts. At least that's certainly not the case here. I'd say it's his serve that's the most underrated aspect of his game.

I hadn´t payed so much attention but, when I look at those Laver,Rosewall,NewcombeConnors videos, I realise how strategically important was lobbing well.Those 4 were excellent lobbers, so was nastase, because they faced big S&V players who stood so on op of the net.They won many points with that stroke, putting it either on the BH side or on the FH side.

Connors is unique because his style is the most flasier possible.hand Eye, footwork, backswing flat strokes and jumping on the ball to take it on the rise makes him unique.And his lasting at the top for so long is a very big plus that pays a tribute to his deep love for the competition, as you said.

Here a perfect example of Jimmy Connors' excellent lobbing. I believe he learned a lot from Pancho Segura.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVoPamaFrlI



One thing about Connors, as great as he was offensively, he was about as great defensively.
 
Last edited:

NonP

Legend
Here a perfect example of Jimmy Connors' excellent lobbing. I believe he learned a lot from Pancho Segura.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVoPamaFrlI



One thing about Connors, as great as he was offensively, he was about as great defensively.

Ah yes, who could forget (or, if you live in the States, have not seen on TV) this point. One of the all-time great moments in tennis.

But frankly I don't think Connors' lobs in that clip were that great. Look how far the ball lands away from the baseline (sometimes it's about to land inside the service line, actually). Haarhuis blew at least 3 chances to put it away.

Isn't Jimmy known more for his defensive rather than offensive lobs?

Now here's a great defensive lob, by Wilander:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2WIBU6i-Ac#t=16s

I'm sure there are even better ones by Mats (and Connors), but I've wasted too much time today. May look for them later this weekend.
 

pc1

G.O.A.T.
Ah yes, who could forget (or, if you live in the States, have not seen on TV) this point. One of the all-time great moments in tennis.

But frankly I don't think Connors' lobs in that clip were that great. Look how far the ball lands away from the baseline (sometimes it's about to land inside the service line, actually). Haarhuis blew at least 3 chances to put it away.

Isn't Jimmy known more for his defensive rather than offensive lobs?

Now here's a great defensive lob, by Wilander:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2WIBU6i-Ac#t=16s

I'm sure there are even better ones by Mats (and Connors), but I've wasted too much time today. May look for them later this weekend.

It's funny, you read my mind. I was think that while the point is quite amazing that the lobs by Connors in this point weren't that good.

But nevertheless Connors won a lot of points imo that he shouldn't have won because of his lobbing ability.
 

NonP

Legend
But nevertheless Connors won a lot of points imo that he shouldn't have won because of his lobbing ability.

Yes, of course.

BTW that wasn't just a rhetorical question regarding Connors' defensive vs. offensive lobs. Jimbo's prime is a little before my time.
 

WCT

Professional
I highly doubt that the Connors lob is underrated by most seasoned fans or experts. At least that's certainly not the case here. I'd say it's his serve that's the most underrated aspect of his game.

Maybe you're looking at different Connors threads than I am. I don't recall his lob being discussed much here.

But we are talking relative terms here. Of course, if you were a real observer of his matches, you know that he was a good lobber. However, it's rarely one of the things first associated with his game. Fo example, go to his wikipedia page. Go to any sort of biogaphy page he has on the ATP or ITF websites. Is his lob even mentioned? Again, in relative terms, he was/is an underrated lobber.

Personally, I think his lob was better than his serve. For me, his serve is only underrated in that it wasn't the weakness some see it as. He moved it around well and it wasn't that easy to attack. On the other hand, I don't think it was a real strength although it was more effective in the 82 Wimledon and US finals.. Mind you, not so effective as to keep Lendl from having a fairly signaficant lead in free points.

He just spotted the Borgs and Mcenroes too many free points, IMO.
Charting many of his old matches just confirmed it for me.

His lob, while not a strength in the sense that his backhand or service return were, I still felt was a strength.
Against someone like Mcenroe, I thought his offensive lob was his most effective lob.
 

kiki

Banned
Maybe you're looking at different Connors threads than I am. I don't recall his lob being discussed much here.

But we are talking relative terms here. Of course, if you were a real observer of his matches, you know that he was a good lobber. However, it's rarely one of the things first associated with his game. Fo example, go to his wikipedia page. Go to any sort of biogaphy page he has on the ATP or ITF websites. Is his lob even mentioned? Again, in relative terms, he was/is an underrated lobber.

Personally, I think his lob was better than his serve. For me, his serve is only underrated in that it wasn't the weakness some see it as. He moved it around well and it wasn't that easy to attack. On the other hand, I don't think it was a real strength although it was more effective in the 82 Wimledon and US finals.. Mind you, not so effective as to keep Lendl from having a fairly signaficant lead in free points.

He just spotted the Borgs and Mcenroes too many free points, IMO.
Charting many of his old matches just confirmed it for me.

His lob, while not a strength in the sense that his backhand or service return were, I still felt was a strength.
Against someone like Mcenroe, I thought his offensive lob was his most effective lob.

Well said.Probably he learned from Segura, who also was a kind of short player like Jimmy, and had to look for ways to discourage big S&V players.Segura and Connors are two players with a keen eye for tactics ( Connors used S&V many times as an additional tactic which worked well in those finals you mention, and also vs Rosewall in 1974 )
 

kiki

Banned
Sure I do talk about other players, you would know if you pay more attention.

All your comments on other players always have an issue refeering to federer.In your planet, Federer is the sun and the other - few-players- are the satellites.You simply can´t deeply talk about them cause your lack of any knowledge that goes beyond the topic - that is ,topics you heard around or watched a few clips- and this little knowledge won´t let you do so.

¿Can you, for example, made a technichal comparison shot by shot between Mac Enroe and Connors ? ¿ Can you discuss, for instance, which strategy Becker had when he was playing Edberg or which one when playing Wilander? ¿Any comment of strength and weakness in a match between Newcombe and Laver?...This is not a test for a Nobel Prize, but just the minimal basis to have any credibility as a poster.
 
Top