Tri Match Stats/Reports - Vilas vs Connors, Monte Carlo & US Open finals, 1981 & 1977 & Orantes vs Connors, US Open final, 1975

[Waspsting]

Jimmy Connors played Guillermo Vilas to 5-5 (0-15, Vilas serving) abandoned in the Monte Carlo final, 1981 on clay

The match was called off due to incessant rain. It was Connors' only final at the event. Vilas had been runner-up the previous year and would go onto win the following year

Connors won 32 points, Vilas 30

Serve Stats
Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (22/26) 85%
- 1st serve points won (17/22) 77%
- 2nd serve points won (3/4) 75%
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (5/26) 19%

Vilas...
- 1st serve percentage (27/36) 75%
- 1st serve points won (21/27) 78%
- 2nd serve points won (3/9) 33%
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (3/36) 8%

Serve Patterns
Connors served...
- to FH 44%
- to BH 48%
- to Body 16%

Vilas served...
- to FH 94%
- to BH 3%
- to Body 3%

Return Stats
Connors made...
- 33 (32 FH, 1 BH)
- 3 Errors, all unforced...
- 3 Unforced (3 FH)
- Return Rate (33/36) 92%

Vilas made...
- 20 (14 FH, 16 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 5 Errors, all unforced...
- 5 Unforced (4 FH, 1 BH), including 1 runaround FH
- Return Rate (20/25) 80%

Break Points
Connors 0/1
Vilas 0

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Connors 6 (3 FH, 1 BH, 1 FHV, 1 OH)
Vilas 5 (1 BH, 2 BHV, 2 OH)

Connors' FHs -1 cc, 1 dtl pass and 1 inside-out
- BH - 1 cc

Vilas' BH - 1 dtl pass

- both OHs were on the bounce

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Connors 21
- 19 Unforced (15 FH, 4 BH)
- 2 Forced (1 FHV, 1 Back-to-Net)... the Back-to-net was at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 42.6

Vilas 21
- 11 Unforced (5 FH, 6 BH)
- 10 Forced (3 FH, 7 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 40.9

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented for this match are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Connors was 9/12 (75%)

Vilas was 5/6 (83%)

Match Report
This final is halted and then called off due to rain with score at 5-5, no breaks. Connors has better of play and stats are suggesting a couple tweaks to his approach - specifically, shifting play to a BH-BH dynamic - would do him much good

Connors wins 32/62 or 51.6% of the points while serving 26/62 or 41.9% of them
Connors has the only break point of the match
Connors' average service games last 5.2 points, Vilas' 7 (discounting last point of the match from an ultimately incompleted game)

Both players serve harmlessly and both should be able to return like clockwork. Connors does - he misses 3 returns and has return rate of 92%. Vilas doesn't - his return rate is 80%

Neutral serve, neutral return (save a couple heavy ones from Connors - one that forces an error), and then they rally from the baseline. Rallies are long. Essentially, who-blinks-first based. Connors hits a bit harder - but not hard enough to force errors. And not all the time.

Balance of advantage shifts during rallies. Connors tends to be playing closer to baseline, but he hops back against Vilas' deeper balls. Vilas doesn't fall back unduly behind baseline and steps up occasionally. And rallies are long

If you tune in to middle of a rally, you'd have no chance of confidently guessing who served the point, let alone whether its a first or second serve point. They pretty much all look the same and shift through neutral multiple times. Connors tends to slightly leading, Vilas reacting - but that's true regardless of who served

In that light, stats are a bit strange

Both players dominate their first serve points - Connors wins 77%, Vilas 78%. Those would be good figures for a quality serve-volleyer on grass. Why are neutral, long rallies falling the line of first server with advantage to such a marked degree?

Connors logically wins about the same amount of 2nd serve points - 3/4 or 75%, the point he loses being matches only double fault. Vilas though wins just 3/9 or 33% second serves

Baseline rallies are FH oriented and this is probably where Connors is erring, and badly. Vilas gives a hint of what he thinks of Connors strenghts across wing sby directing 34/36 serves to Connors' FHs. Not that it does him any good as far as drawing return errors goes, but that's clearly not the point of Vilas serve. Its there to just start the rally - and clearly, he likes to start it to Connors FH

Connors seems content to hit FHs, makes no attempt to change things around. Its not difficult to do. He goes dtl or longline occasionally to Vilas BH, Vilas likes to slice it longline back to Connors' FH

To be clear, Vilas doesn't avoid Connors BH like the plague or anything so extreme. He plays a shot there... and lets Connors carry on hitting FH cc that Vilas can reply to in kind. With Connors leading more often than not, it looks more like Connors prefers leading with FHs or at very least, is content to do so

UEs read -
- Connors FH 15
- Vilas BH 6
- Vilas FH 5
- Connors BH 4

The slack is made up in FEs - Connors forces 10 errors (7 passes, 3 baseline to baseline), Vilas 2 (both net shots)

So baseline to baseline
- Winners - Connors 3, Vilas 0
- Errors Forced - Connors 3, Vilas 0
- UEs - Connors 19, Vilas 11

... or Vilas winning 19 points (all Connors UEs - 15 of them FH), Connors 17

Connors is more net hungry and comes in 12 times, to Vilas 6 (both win healthy amounts there - Connors 75%, Vilas 83%)
From baseline, Connors is harder hitter and closer to 'attacking' (no one is really attacking or defending). Connors is hitting more winners from the back (Vilas is hitting 0). Connors is forcing more errors from the back (Vilas is forcing 0)

The only thing Vilas has going for him is outlasting Connors and getting UEs out of the FH. Assuming Connors could continue leading with the BH and that it'd prove steadier - and the BH UE counts srongly suggest so - just shifting to more BH-BH oriented play is apt to retain all his hitting and 'attacking' advantages while losing the big, consistency handicap that makes up almost all of Vilas points

Not what Connors does. He keeps playing FHs, going longline and occasionally inside-out with it, but sticking to FH play. Probably a big mistake. In general, beyond this match, Connors' BH is almost always much more secure than his BH, and at least just as damaging and with just as much variety (more actually)

Match Progression
Vilas holds an all baseline, long rallies ending with UEs 10 point game to open. Connors comes in on his very first service point, but his short volley isn't good enough and he loses a net-to-net battle. Next point he smacks a BH cc winner and later in game, forces an error with a powerful FH cc

Awhile later, Vilas can't finish a point with 2 OHs and needs a third, this time on the bounce, to do so. Comfy holds in the middle, with Vilas camped on baseline, Connors occasionally coming in

Couple of net points from Connors gives him matches first (and as it turns out, last) break point at 4-5. Vilas draws weak ball, swings forward and sweeps away a BHV winner on it. He's not out of the woods with a wide FH cc return forcing another error to bring things back to deuce, but Connors misses a regulation return after and Vilas holds with a putaway OH on the bounce

Connors is down 0-30 game after. Couple of net points gets him through to hold

Just 1 point is played in Game 11. A long rally develops on court as a storm does overhead. Connors finally slaps a FH cc winner and immediately runs off. Umpire doesn't call the score. Not sure if the point even counts. Its been included in stats

Summing up, no-result is the result. Connors has better of play, is the harder hitter, more able to finish aggressively from the back and more net hungry. Vilas hangs in on back of Connors' loose FH. Connors could probably retain his advantages while losing the inconsistency disadvantage by shifting to more BH play, but he seems happy to keep banging FHs away

 

[jrepac]

stupid question, but is the title for that year considered 'vacant' since the match was not finished?

 

[bobcolbert]

stupid question, but is the title for that year considered 'vacant' since the match was not finished?

Yes I think. No winner ... or maybe 2 winners ... ? I don't know if the title was counted in the number of tournaments won by Vilas and Connors ...

 

[jrepac]

Yes I think. No winner ... or maybe 2 winners ... ? I don't know if the title was counted in the number of tournaments won by Vilas and Connors ...

No, I don't believe they count it in Connors 109 titles. Kind of feels like the fair thing would be to have 2 winners.
Rotterdam was another; Connors was getting killed by Lendl and then the match was abandoned due to the bomb scare.
Made for some odd TV that afternoon.

 

[BringBackWood]

The last rally in particular of this match really impresses me. When someone tries to deride the baseline play of this era, I would get them to watch it and think of the equipment they are using versus today. I think Zverev, Medvedev etc would look like clowns trying to play with Connors' racquet.

 

[WCT]

No way those unfinished tournaments counted as wins. Connors had 3 of them. Monte Carlo, Rotterdam in 84 and I think it was Palm Springs, the precursor to La Quinta and then Indian Hills, in 1980. The last was cancelled at the semifinal stage. You'd think they'd be albe to finishhe 2 finals, but I guess their schedules didn't permit it.

My first thought was that Connors didn't come in 12 times in this match. I was wrong, I had the same 9 for 12 as you, Wasp. Guess I misremembered. It's been years since I did stats for this match. I only had Vilas coming in 5 times.

 

[KG1965]

Jimbo came in three unfinished finals (Nottingham 76*, Montecarlo 81 and Rotterdam 84) and one semifinal (Rancho Mirage 80*).

Rancho Mirage was one of the top 4 tournaments after the 3 slams.
Montecarlo a comparable Master 1000
Rotterdam and Nottingham a comparable Master 750.

* Connors won the first set, 6‐2, Nastase the second, 4‐6, and they were at 1‐1 in the third when they decided to quit and split the $31,062 first prize as the grass grew more slippery.
* Semifinals: Connors-Teacher & Gene Mayer-Fleming

 

[WCT]

Good one. I had forgotten about Nottingham.

 

[Waspsting]

Vilas beat Connors 2-6, 6-3, 7-6(4), 6-0 in the US Open final, 1977 on green clay

Vilas had won the French Open earlier in the year and this would turn out to be his only title at this event. Connors was the defending champion. Both players reached the final without loss of set. Previous year, they'd met in the semi-final with Connors winning

Vilas won 129 points, Connors 113

Serve Stats
Vilas...
- 1st serve percentage (79/122) 65%
- 1st serve points won (51/79) 65%
- 2nd serve points won (24/43) 56%
- Aces 5
- Double Faults 3
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (30/122) 25%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (74/120) 62%
- 1st serve points won (44/74) 59%
- 2nd serve points won (22/46) 48%
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (18/120) 15%

Serve Patterns
Vilas served...
- to FH 76%
- to BH 20%
- to Body 4%

Connors served...
- to FH 38%
- to BH 49%
- to Body 13%

Return Stats
Vilas made...
- 100 (64 FH, 36 BH), including 15 runaround FHs
- 17 Errors, comprising...
- 14 Unforced (8 FH, 6 BH), including 2 runaround FHs
- 3 Forced (1 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (100/118) 85%

Connors made...
- 89 (68 FH, 21 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 25 Errors, comprising...
- 14 Unforced (14 FH)
- 11 Forced (7 FH, 4 BH)
- Return Rate (89/119) 75%

Break Points
Vilas 6/15 (7 games)
Connors 4/16 (8 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Vilas 26 (6 FH, 10 BH, 5 FHV, 3 BHV, 2 OH)
Connors 30 (10 FH, 4 BH, 6 FHV, 7 BHV, 3 OH)

Vilas had 14 passes (4 FH, 10 BH)
- FHs - 4 dtl
- BHs - 5 cc, 2 dtl, 1 inside-out, 1 inside-out/dtl and 1 longline (net chord pop over)

- regular FHs - 1 dtl and 1 inside-out

- 1 OH was on the bounce from no-man's land

Connors' FHs - 3 cc (2 passes), 1 dtl, 2 dtl/inside-out, 3 lobs and 1 running-down-drop-shot cc pass at net
- BHs - 1 cc, 2 dtl (1 at net) and 1 dtl/inside-out

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Vilas 62
- 30 Unforced (15 FH, 11 BH, 1 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)... with 1 FH at net
- 32 Forced (11 FH, 15 BH, 1 FHV, 5 BHV)... with 1 BH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 44.7

Connors 71
- 56 Unforced (39 FH, 12 BH, 2 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)... the OH was on the bounce from the baseline
- 15 Forced (9 FH, 5 BH, 1 FHV)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 45.9

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Vilas was...
- 21/41 (51%) at net, with...
- 2/2 forced back

Connors was...
- 40/59 (68%) at net, including...
- 1/3 (33%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 return-approaching

Match Report
A very interesting - and good, competitive match. Connors dominates the first set, Vilas the last but the middle two are not only up for grabs but Connors has the better of them, despite losing them and thus, effectively making the match a who-played-big-points better affair. And clearly, its Vilas who does

Generally, closely related to ‘who-played-bigger-points-better’ type matches is idea of either the winner ‘clutching’ or the loser ‘choking’. No clear pattern for that here. Closer to Vilas ‘clutching’ in terms of him finding his best passes at important times. Winning at net is Connors' go-to way to win points, outlasting Connors from the baseline is Vilas' - so the choice passing is crucial

Action is straight forward enough. Negligible serve-volley (just 3 - all from Connors). Connors’ serve is harmless and Vilas returns with ease, while Vilas when he wants to is able to find damagingly, powerful, ooh and aah crowd inducing serves amidst general harmless serving also. The odd big serve from Vilas gives him advantage in serve-return-complex and has a hand result too. Play being roughly equal, but for Vilas’ ability to find big point ending serve on occasion to put him over the top overall is another way of looking at the match

The last set bagel skews stats some. Vilas ends up doing better at everything, leading in-count by 3%, first serve points won by 6% and second serve points won by 8%

Action is virtually all baseline to baseline starting point and baseline action is virtually all FH-FH hard hard hitting of nature. Connors usually leads, Vilas reacts but both hit hard. Taking Connors’ hard hitting style as a given, its Vilas stepping up to play the same way (as opposed to hitting top spinny, loopy shots) that makes dynamics what they are. Connors has slight hitting advantage but its Vilas battleground. Vilas starts the FH play and Connors carries on. When Connors tries switching up with longline FH, Vilas invariably plays BH longline (usually sliced) to reset

I’d estimate at least 70% of Vilas’ BHs in the match are longline but he remains very secure. The only way Connors would be able to play BHs is if he runs into deuce doubles… Vilas responds FH cc to stock FH cc and BH longline to FH longline or the rare inside-out

In short, Vilas keeps play to Connors FH. Connors usually isn’t hassled or particularly anxious to change it up. Whenever he tries, Vilas resets. As in Monte Carlo, bleeding errors out of Connors’ FH seems to be Vilas play, only in this match, we get to see how difficult it is for Connors to do anything about it. Basically, as long as he stays on the baseline, there’s nothing he can do about it

Rallies are often long and usually hard hitting. Connors has the more powerful FH, though VIlas’ isn’t soft by any means either. Things are a contest, not a never-in-doubt exploitation of a loose shot (like Borg breaking down opponents BHs with 3-4 cc shots). But, end result is just as Vilas would have it

Connors’ FH has by far match high 39 UEs. Putting that in context -
- Unreturned serves - Vilas 30, Connors 18
- Winners - Vilas 26, Connors 30
- FEs - Vilas 32, Connors 15
- Vilas’ UEs - 30 (15 of them FHs)
- Connors non-FH UEs - 17

Whether rallies are tough or long or hard hitting or look like they’re up in the air… Connors’ FH can’t keep it up. And its Vilas’ deliberate choice to play that side. Nicely done from the winner. This is how you break down a relatively weak wing with persistence

With most baseline rallies ending with a blink and Connors’ FH blinking so very much more than anything else, what does that leave Jimbo with?

Net points - Connors 40/59 at 68%, Vilas 21/41 at 51%. Just rallying to net - Connors is 38/55 at 69% (all of Vilas’ approaches are from rallies)

Connors maybe trailing in consistency but he’s harder hitter and more net hungry and does well enough when in forecourt. As stated earlier, both middle sets are up in the air with Connors having better of them so he’s doing enough when getting forward to at least stay even

And that’s with not volleying particularly well. Few easy misses and he isn’t able to putaway volleys too well. He’s a bit slow, unsteady of balance in forecourt. And of course, a good lot of approach errors

Vilas is even worse at net. Sans last set blowout when he’s 5/7, he wins just 16/34

That’s play in a few nutshells -

- Vilas implementing (with Connors not too resistant) FH-FH rallies
- Rallies being hard hitting and longish - Connors hitting a bit harder and leading them
- Vilas being far more consistent
- Connors being more net hungry and in position to come in regularly
- Connors doing well enough at net to off-set his consistency disadvantage from the back
- (Vilas having big serve to win cheap point in his locker, unlike Connors)….

...put it all together and it comes out near enough even - with a few crucial points determining outcome of Sets 2 and 3

How does it look in numbers?

For starters, Vilas leads unreturned rates 25% to 15% - a good, healthy lead. And its all down to his choice big serves

Return UEs - both 14

The forced stuff is very different…
- Aces - Vilas 5 , Connors 1
- Return Errors Forced - Vilas 11, Connors 3

Barely a forceful first serve in sight from Connors. His serve is just a point starter

Vilas usually serves the same way but does change up to gunning down a huge serve when he chooses. Connors rarely returns Vilas’ bigger serves. Note Vilas serving very high 76% to the FH. It works - all 14 Connors UEs are FHs as are 7/11 FEs

Good stuff from Vilas - he keeps high in count of 65% serving not hard, but bangs down big ones when he wants/needs and he serves in the right place

 

[Waspsting]

Baseline to baseline, the key number is UEs and they read...
- Vilas 25, Connors 51 (excluding a FH at net for Vilas and an OH on bounce from Connors)

BHs are virtually even (Vilas 11, Connors 12). Credit Vilas for the low figure, given he’s playing longline so often

Leaving the big gap on FH (Vilas 14, Connors 39)

Not much going on with winners or FEs baseline-to-baseline. Vilas has 2 winners, Connors 7. Connors forces a small number of errors, Vilas virtually 0

Breakdown of all UEs read -
- Neutral - Vilas 18, Connors 26
- Attacking - Vilas 10, Connors 27
- Winner Attempts - Vilas 2, Connors 3

With both players having 4 forecourt UEs, that makes just looking at baseline numbers easier

Vilas’ neutral advantage is not too big. His UEs are a bit more ‘pressured’ if not beaten-out of him, but not by much. He hits near as hard as Connors and his deeper balls draw good number of Jimbo’s UEs too

Its the attacking UEs where Vilas screams ahead. Good lot of approach errors from Jimbo - I’d estimate 8-12 - which leaves a healthy lot of just power shots too. He can’t beat Vilas down - but non-approach, attacking errors are pretty close too (Vilas also has a small number of approach errors too)

Despite first appearance of Vilas with vast basic consistency advantage, its not actually that big. More a product of Connors straining to attack - and faltering considerably - particularly in trying to get to net

And Connors needs strong approach shot to come in behind because he doesn’t volley very well. In context of Connors with 59 approaches, Vilas 38 -

‘Volley’ Winners - Connors 18, Vilas 10 (including 2 Connors BH at net)
‘Volley’ UEs - both 4 (including a Vilas FH at net)
Volley FEs - Connors 1, Vilas 6

Passing Winners - Vilas 14, Connors 6
Groundstroke FEs - Vilas 26, Connors 14 (overwhelming bulk would be passing winners and figure can be taken as strong indicator of passing errors)

18 volley winners from Connors to 14 passing ones from Vilas is not a good outcome for Jimbo. Lot of credit to Vilas for some great passes, but part of reason is non-killing volleying that leaves him decent looks at the pass

Strangely enough, Vilas tends to miss the more makeable ones and pull off the more difficult ones. And ironically, he’s most effective going BH cc, where he has match high 5 winners because its a shot he barely plays in baseline rallies. Vilas’ first pass - against Connors’ approach shots - tend to be tougher than the ones against Connors’ volley. Again, pointing to need for strong aproach shots and somewhat justifying the large lot of approach errors from Jimbo

Vilas volleying is similarly non-killer and he barely breaks even when coming forward

All in all, not much in it. Connors is +4 on winners and Vilas +9 on errors (as in, Vilas has fewer).
Connors leading points ended forcefully 62 to 41
Vilas leading UEs 56 to 30 (as in, he has fewer)

By far biggest difference is Vilas leading unreturned rates 30-18 or by 10%

Match Progression
Match is played in breezy conditions that leads to few mishits and missed first serves. Fair number of missed regulation returns in first set to and they tend to be mis-hittish from both players too

Action in first set is mostly FH-FH rallies. Its not too clear who initiates. Over time, it becomes clearer that its Vilas who wants it that, but Connors is perfectly accepting of it. He hits his shots harder, but Vilas is also hard hitting in reply and both players are pushed back to defensive at times. Neither approaches much (Vilas 7 times, Jimbo 5)

Its a pretty close set. Connors gains break to go up 3-2 with large chunk of luck. A completely mishit return brings Vilas to net from where Jimbo makes a lob winner and couple points later, a net chord dribbler forces an error to make score 0-40. Vilas double faults after saving first 2 break points

Jimbo's down 0-40 game after, but a couple of missed returns sees him out of trouble. Vilas misses an attempted aggressive return on his 4th break point in the game too. Connors finally holds after 12 points

Jimbo makes it 3 games in a row with another break - couple of Vilas FH errors, an excellent defensive slice that catches the coming forward Vilas out and on break point, a net point seals the game for Jimbo. And he serves out to 15, finishing with a BHV winner. So far, he's got better of baseline rallies

Second set is closer. Vilas survives being down 0-40, saving first two break points with net play and on the third, striking excellent BH dtl pass winner. From 40-15 up, Jimbo's taken to deuce and eventually holds 10 point game game after

Vilas breaks to move ahead 5-3, with Connors making 3 ground UEs. Connors rushes net as Vilas serves for the set and 2 wonderful BH cc passing winners sees Vilas even the match

Both players with break point in 1 game in the set - Vilas holds from 0-40 down with some bold net play and a brilliant pass, and the game he breaks in unknown. Great passing by Vilas to thwart a net rushing Connors in serve-out too

Third set is up and down and very exciting stuff with 4 breaks in it - including traded love breaks at 5-5. Connors has considerably better of it break points in 3 further games. Connors serves 39 points in the set, Vilas 54

Early on, Vilas briefly switches to looping FHs cc a bit more than he had done previously, but continues BH longlining to keep things to Jimbo's FH. 3 net points gives Connors early break and he leads 4-2. Vilas breaks back to make score 3-4, punishing a poor central volley with a BH inside-out pass

Big serves get Vilas out of 3 break points the next game. He's down 15-40 again next time of asking and these are set points for Jimbo to boot. Aces away the first and Jimbo clumsily misses a BHV he's a bit slow to move to on the second

Excitement builds as against run of play, Jimbo plays a stinker to be broken to love. Than plays a great game to break back to same score - and push set into tiebreaker. The 'breaker is exciting too, with a series of winners - 5 points in a row, the pick of them a stunning BH cc on the run by Vilas leaves things on serve with Vilas leading 4-3

The crucial point is the one after where a very deep ball from Vilas draws an error to put him up 5-3. On set point, he smacks a FH dtl pass winner to go up 2 sets to 1

4th set is one way traffic. Jimbo comes to net regularly - 18 times, but wins just 7. Looks more like having lost stomach to tussle from the back than anything lese and Vilas sweeps up with a bagel to finish the match

Summing up, good, strategically rich match and a pretty close one. Vilas plays the important points better. He has a big serve that he holds in reserve. He orchestrates baseline rallies so Connors almost always has to play FHs - Vilas trades hard hit FH cc's and plays BH longline slices - and Connors' FH eventually gives up errors. On flip side, Connors is the harder hitter by small margin, more in position to approach and considerably more eager to do so

While successful at net, Connors isn't particularly good on the volley, but neither is Vilas. Few crucial points determine the result - Vilas finds his big serves, or best passing shots or wins his net points on them to take the win

 

[Waspsting]

Manuel Orantes beat Connors 6-4, 6-3, 6-3 in the US Open final, 1975 on green clay

It would turn out to be Orantes only Slam title. Connors was the defending champion (tournament had been played on grass) and would go on to win the title the following year

Orantes won 90 points, Connors 80

(Note: I’m missing 2 points entirely and 2 partially -
Set 1, Game 2, Point 1 - A Connors second serve point, missing serve direction and corresponding return type. Ending of point has been recorded and point has been marked returned
Set 1, Game 4, Point 1 - Unknown Connors service point won by Connors
Set 2, Game 4, Point 1 - Unknown Connors service point won by Orantes. Commentary indicates it was a lob winner. Point has been marked a net point for Orantes and an unknown lob winner for Orantes - probably a FH
Set 3, Game 2, Point 1 - Unknown Orantes service point won by Orantes

On a small number of points, I’ve made educated guesses regarding serve type or deduced it)

Serve Stats
Orantes...
- 1st serve percentage (37/86) 43%
- 1st serve points won (24/37) 65%
- 2nd serve points won (23/49) 47%
- ?? serve points won (1/1)
- Aces 3
- Double Faults 2
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (17/86) 20%

Connors...
- 1st serve percentage (58/81) 72%
- 1st serve points won (29/58) 50%
- 2nd serve points won (11/23) 48%
- ?? serve points won (1/2)
- Aces 1
- Double Faults 1
- Unreturned Serve Percentage (7/82) 9%

Serve Patterns
Orantes served...
- to FH 38%
- to BH 57%
- to Body 5%

Connors served...
- to FH 60%
- to BH 28%
- to Body 12%

Return Stats
Orantes made...
- 74 (46 FH, 26 BH, 2 ??), including 2 runaround BHs
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 6 Errors, comprising...
- 5 Unforced (3 FH, 2 BH)
- 1 Forced (1 BH)
- Return Rate (74/81) 91%

Connors made...
- 67 (21 FH, 46 BH), including 1 return-approach
- 1 Winner (1 FH)
- 14 Errors, comprising...
- 5 Unforced (4 FH, 1 BH)
- 9 Forced (7 FH, 2 BH)
- Return Rate (67/84) 80%

Break Points
Orantes 8/13 (9 games)
Connors 4/7 (5 games)

Winners (including returns, excluding serves)
Orantes 19 (11 FH, 4 BH, 1 ??, 2 FHV, 1 BHV)
Connors 30 (8 FH, 4 BH, 3 FHV, 6 BHV, 9 OH)

Orantes had 16 passes (12 FH, 4 BH)
- FHs - 2 cc, 4 dtl (1 not clean), 1 dtl/inside-out and 5 lobs (1 return, 1 unknown based on commentary)
- BHs - 4 cc

- 1 from a serve-volley point, a second volley FHV

Connors' FHs - 2 cc, 2 dtl (1 return, 1 at net), 2 inside-out and 2 inside-in
- BHs - 3 cc and 1 net chord dribbler

- 2 from serve-volley points - a first volley BHV & a second volley FHV

- 2 OHs were on the bounce (1 from near the baseline)

Errors (excluding serves and returns)
Orantes 40
- 15 Unforced (12 FH, 2 BH, 1 OH)... the OH was on the bounce from the baseline
- 25 Forced (16 FH, 9 BH)
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 42.7

Connors 52
- 43 Unforced (12 FH, 23 BH, 5 FHV, 2 BHV, 1 OH)... with 1 BH at net
- 9 Forced (3 FH, 1 BH, 1 FHV, 1 BHV, 2 Over-the-Shoulder)... with 2 FH running-down-drop-shot at net
- Unforced Error Forcefulness Index 48.1

(Note 1: All 1/2 volleys refer to such shots played at net. 1/2 volleys played from other parts of the court are included within relevant groundstroke numbers)

(Note 2: the Unforced Error Forcefulness Index is an indicator of how aggressive the average UE was. The numbers presented are keyed on 4 categories - 20 defensive, 40 neutral, 50 attacking and 60 winner attempt)

Net Points & Serve-Volley
Orantes was...
- 8/10 (80%) at net, including...
- 2/2 serve-volleying, both 1st serves
---
- 0/1 forced back

Connors was...
- 41/74 (55%) at net, including...
- 3/5 (60%) serve-volleying, all 1st serves
---
- 1/1 return-approaching
- 2/4 (50%) forced back/retreated

Match Report
Very convincing win for Orantes as he outsteadies the hard hitting Connors by junk balling from the back and shows precision on the pass when Connors inevitably comes in. And (in fact, more significantly) Orantes does genuine damage with his serve, Connors doesn’t

Orantes showing is by avenues let alone streets the most passive I’ve seen in a Slam final winning effort. He barely 'hits' a ball, including a return. Everything is bunted or dinked or chopped or sliced or lofted or wafted or poked. In a word, ‘junked’. Even pushing is too strong to describe his shots, though he in no way moonballs either The only time Orantes ‘strikes’the ball is on the pass - and even then, precision placement (including with lots of lobs)- is his primary weapon, not power. Connors thumps balls firmly, as per his norm and is free to come in whenever he wants

So Orantes junks, Connors hits. Connors comes to net regularly and Orantes is forced to pass.

From back, Orantes is much more consistent, Connors a lot more damaging (Orantes is virtually 0 damaging) - leaving things virtually equal
Baseline UEs read Orantes 15, Connors 35
Baseline-to-baseline winners read Connors 11 (Orantes 0) - and Connors forces considerably more errors (Orantes, close to 0)

Connors can come to net whenever he wants (and largely, does). He’s not particularly convincing on the volley while Orantes threads needles on the pass often enough to keep Jimbo down to just 55% net points won. Connors is at net huge 74 times, Orantes just 10

With 2 players playing so completely differently, its surprising that action is virtually dead even. In play -

Winners - Orantes 19, Connors 30
Errors forced - Orantes 9, Connors 25
UEs - Orantes 15, Connors 43

… comes out to Orantes 71 points, Connors 70 (with 2 points - 1 won by each player - unaccounted for)

So why does Orantes win so handily? Unreturned serves - Orantes 20%, Connors 9%

Interesting as the very sharp contrast in rallying style from the back and relative net hunger is, neither player is able to pull away from the other. Its serve-return complex that’s deciding things. Orantes serve does damage, Jimbo’s does not

That's only effective difference between 2 players - and the difference is huge, with Orantes winning fairly comfortably

"Fairly comfortably" seems like an understatement, given scoreline and the surface, which looks "very comfortable" or "routine". Its not quite as straightforward as the 4, 3 & 3 score looks. One of the strangest stats in match is Orantes winning just 10 more points, which given he's also won a full 8 more games, is very small.

There's no real reason for it. Orantes serves 86 points, Jimbo 81. Both players break in short games often enough. Connors tends to have more easy holds

Not that he holds often. Jimbo's holds 6 times and is broken 8 (Orantes holds 10, broken 4 by contrast)

Serve & Return
The two stand-out positive shots are Orantes' 1st serve and 1st return

He only serves at 43%. For that low an in-count, its not a big serve. It does its job though

15/37 or 41% of Orantes' 1st serves go unreturned, broken down as -
- 3 aces
- 9 FEs
- 3 UEs

9/12 return errors being marked FEs is quite high for clay. More than half of those 9 are on makeable side - by definition of FE, not easy, but certainly not very tough. Good job with the first serve by Orantes and also room for better returning for Jimbo, particularly given how Orantes plays from the back

There's no need for Jimbo to thump returns (though he of course does) because Orantes will junk the 3rd ball regardless. In that light, would be a good move for Jimbo to conservatively waft tougher returns in play - he's less likely to miss (and he ends up missing fair bit) and the shot not having much weight won't matter unless Orantes changes tacks and attacks the weak return

At no point in the match does Orantes do so. Among long rallies, there are inevitable short or weak balls from Connors that Orantes continues junking

Orantes winning 65% 1st serve points and 47% 2nds speaks to role of his damaging first serve

By contrast, Jimbo wins near same off both serves (50% off 1sts, 48% off 2nds). For him, that's very common and over course of his career, its usually difficult to distinguish between his 2 serves. Though its not powerful serve, that at least isn't true here. The first serves are considerably stronger than 2nds, which are just rolled in. There's potential for it to draw a few errors. Good job by Orantes to maintain very high 91% return rate. Big reason for that is how conservatively he returns - wafting ball in play

Unusually high 60% of Connors' serves are directed at FH. If rallies are anything to go by, its a sound move (Orantes' BH is rock of play with 2 UEs), but Orantes misses next to nothing on FH return to. Also plays 2 runaround BH returns, further suggesting his prefernace for that wing

Just 5 serve-volleys from Connors and he wins 3 so doing. Well worth considering doing so more often, given Orantes airy returning. 1 of the points Jimbo loses is to a lob and another time when he was looking to serve-volley, he bails because ball would have gone over his head had he come in fully. That's not Orantes adjusting his return, that's how high and conservatively he returns often. Well worth a few serve-volleys to encourage him to return harder - and thus, increase chances of getting a few freebies

 

[Waspsting]

Play - Baseline & Net
With exception of freebies from Orantes' 1st serves, rallies start with 50-50 prospects with very few freebies

Connors wins 50% of his first serve points, 48% of his 2nds and 53% of Orantes' 2nd serve points (all numbers including unreturneds and double faults - which are very small). Sans the high 41% unreturned, Connors wins 13/22 or 59% of Orantes first serve points too

Baseline rallies are Connors thumping balls in typical fashion, Orantes junking them. UEs are key. Broken down by shot, UEs read -

- Orantes BH 2
- both FHs 12
- Connors BH 22 (excluding a net shot)

Doesn't need much explanation. FHs equal, Orantes BH the rock leaving Jimbo's BH to falter. Of direction, rallies are typical cc based with odd longline change-ups. Connors falters some to low-ish balls off both sides. He misses a good lot of BH approach shots

Lots of credit to Orantes' BH - one of those impregnable, doesn't-miss-a-ball showings. Far more credit for that than discredit Jimbo for looseness. Its unusual for him to have so many more BH errors than FHs

Breakdown of UEs by type -
- Neutral - Orantes 11, Connors 17
- Attacking - Orantes 4, Connors 17
- Winner Attempts - Connors 9

For starters, calling Orantes' shots 'neutral' is a slight stretch and most of his attacking UEs are approach attempts. He barely hits an attacking shot from the back

Connors has 10 baseline-to-baseline power winners (including a return, excluding a net chord dribbler) but Orantes' movement is largely upto thwarting the power and Jimbo ends up making more errors trying to force action from the back than winning points forcefully. Good resistance from Orantes, who makes it look easy. Because of how gently he chooses to hit, it looks elegant

Which leaves Jimbo to take net. He's 37/68 or 54% rallying to net (overall - i.e. including serve-volleys and return-approaches - he's 41/74 or 55%). Throw in roughly 10 approach errors (all approach errors are marked attacking errors) and he's not breaking even coming forward

Does he volley badly? Does Orantes pass well? More the latter, but some suboptimal choices from Jimbo coming forward. He looks to come in at angles, which suits Orantes not powerful but precisely placed passing style. Orantes' ability to cover wide shots (powerful or otherwise) is evident in baseline rallies so its expected that he can reach Connors wide approach shots. Whether he can do something other than waft the ball on reaching it - which would lead to Connors swatting away easy volley winners - is up in the air

As it turns out, Orantes can hit fine angles, wrong footing passes and lobs. This time, its genuinely elegant stuff. With Connors at net vs Orantes on the pass -

- Connors with 18 forecourt winners, Orantes with 16 passing ones
- Connors with 9 UEs
- Connors with 5 FEs (including 2 forced back points, excluding 2 running-down-drop-shot ones), Orantes has 25 ground FEs (most of them passes)

9 UEs is not good from Jimbo. Certain number or routine misses are inevitable when coming in so much, but 9s blackmark territory. He misses the routine volleys often enough. On top of that, Orantes has ability to get the ball just a bit wide, and Jimbo's movements in forecourt, like the '77 final, isn't very good. His balance and poise at net looks like an 'un-natural' volleyer's

Lob is key part of Orantes passing game. He throws up some beauties - he's got 5 winners and forces Jimbo back a couple of other times and draws to OH errors (1 FE, 1 UE). Jimbo's got 8 forecourt smash winners and draws substantial lobbing errors so nominally gets better of the contest (which is expected, he'd have to play badly for it not to be). Lobbing always useful against Jimbo, who generally, likes to get very close to net to swat away volleys. Regular good lobbing gives up something to think about on that front. Here, I'd say he does very well - usually winning with the smash while maintaining aggressive forward position. Orantes successful lob plays are just perfect

In the Australian Open final, John Newcombe's regular lobbing was more disruptive to Jimbo's net game. And with respect to Orantes lobs, John McEnroe recounted on commentary about his loss to Orantes earlier in this tournament that Orantes kept drop shotting him to net and than lobbing him for winners "30 times". Despite the junking play, Orantes rarely plays genuine drop shots

Choice of when to come to net is in Jimbo's hands. With Orantes junking and never approaching, Jimbo can bang away until he's ready to approach. Some of Orantes shots stay low - he doesn't slice much but just lack of power leads to ball dropping - but he can't and isn't even trying to consistently keep the ball low. Plenty of passive shots - sort of a push-block with a hint of under-spin - that sit up on the clay. Jimbo plays around with trying to outsteady or/and pressure errors with hard hit shots from the back or come in

Orantes has no interest in net and is 6/8 rallying forward (and 2/2 serve-volleying)

 

[Waspsting]

Comparison with '77 final
I’ve chosen to present this match clumsily lumped together with the 2 Vilas matches to make ready comparison with the ‘77 final. The parallels (statisitical in particular, but not solely) between this match and that one are fascinating

In both matches, the serve is almost the only difference in play

Here, Orantes wins 10 more points - and leads unreturned serves by 10. In other words, points in play (i.e. when a return is made) + double faults are dead equal
In '77, Vilas wins 16 more points - and leads unreturned serves by 12

In both matches, Connors holds even of consistency ( almost always most imporant number in baseline rallies on clay) on 1 wing, but falters on the other

Here, FH UEs are equal at 12, but on BH, Connors has 23 to Orantes' 2
In '77, BH UEs are virtually equal (Vilas 11, Connors 12), but on FH Connors has 39 to Vilas' 15

There are other similarities - Connors with hitting advantage, being more net hungry and not too reliable in forecourt (including in his movement there)

This thing with play being virtually dead even, but other player doing damage with serve while Connors does none is very common in Jimmy Connors' matches

Match Progression
In first set, odd big first serve from Orantes, odd hefty return from Connors. From the back, Orantes push-blocks and lofts balls in play safely and Connors gives up good lot of errors early off both wings. Connors comes to net aplenty, particularly in second half of set

Jimbo breaks to love to open the match impressively - 2 net points to force errors and deepish returns to win the next 2 and then consolidates to 15. Connors wins 9 of first 10 points of match to lead 2-0, 0-15 before Orantes finds himself and wins next 4 games

Jimbo breaks back and ups his aggression. He's at net 4/5 points to put match on serve and follows up with 12 point game hold where he's at net 9/12 points (and 1 of the points he's not is a double fault). It stirs Orantes to make his first serve-volley and couple points later, his first voluntary approach the game after to hold for 5-4. Couple of good passes and couple of Connors attacking BH errors ends the set with another break. Orantes wraps up with a perfect FH dtl pass winner

Second carries on in similar way. Some more drop shots and lobs by Orantes, and he comes to net a little bit more. The vulnerability to Connors in forecourt is more on show, his inability to putaway routine volleys and few easy misses. Eventually, some frustrated hitting out by him but he still can't get ball through the wall that is Orantes

Couple of lob winners gets Orantes the first break to lead 3-1 but Jimbo breaks back from 40-0 down, scoring with consecutive FH winners (dtl return and an inside-in) before a double fault takes things to deuce. Connors wraps up with an OH winner

Decisive break comes in game 8. Connors starts with a first volley BHV winner serve-volleying but misses three attacking shots from the back (including 2 FH approach shot attempts) to go down 15-40. Jimbo serve-volleys again but Orantes' return lobs him for a winner. Deliberate? Or just his normal, high return? Hard to tell

Jimbo has 15-30 with Orantes serving for the set. A smart lob forces an error to make it 30-30, Connors misses a routine return and a BH approach attempt to end the set

Couple of lovely pass winners sees Orantes break to start the third and he consolidates. Connors goes on a 13 point winning run to move ahead 3-2. For first time in match, Orantes gives no chase in the last game Connors wins

Connors has a break point to go up 4-2 too, which Orantes saves with a strong serve. He goes on to hold and reel of the last 3 game to end the match - passing well and Connors being a bit loose from both front and back of court

Summing up, well planned and executed match from Orantes. He fires with a powerful serve, returns with great caution and bunts, lofts and junks his groundstrokes. In essence, he dares Connors to attack. Connors obliges but he can't beat Orantes down from the back, isn't too reliable at net and Orantes passes with great precision

Orantes makes things look easy. Strong first serve, steadily safe return against Connors' decent first serve, effortless movement to cover Connors' power, a rock solid BH and good placement and particularly, use of the lob when Connors is at net are all credit worthy

For Connors, he can't overpower Orantes and his net play is a little shakey and Orantes' accuracy on the pass is just the thing to exploit it. Few things Connors could do as alternatives like serve-volley to discourage passive returning or approach down the center to cut off Orantes angles on the pass that he doesn't try

A fine match from Orantes and not a bad one from Connors. For the vast difference in the way the two play, action is almost completely even - with Orantes powerful serves being major difference

Stats for Australian Open final between Connors and John Newcombe - Match Stats/Report - Newcombe vs Connors, Australian Open final, 1975 | Talk Tennis (tennis-warehouse.com)

 

[Third Serve]

Jimmy Connors played Guillermo Vilas to 5-5 (0-15, Vilas serving) abandoned in the Monte Carlo final, 1981 on clay

The match was called off due to incessant rain. It was Connors' only final at the event. Vilas had been runner-up the previous year and would go onto win the following year

What other instances in the Open Era do we know of where finals were actually abandoned and never concluded? Never read about anything like this happening on the tour until now.

 

[WCT]

Connors himself had several others. 1980 Ranch Mirage. The tournament was rained out at the semifinal stage. 1984 Rotterdam final vs Lendl, bomb scare after the first set. 1976 Nottingham final vs Nastase. Rain, I believe, they called it off at 1 set apiece.