Great clip of McEnroe and Connors USOpen semi 1984, one of their greatest matches?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqFkccYzBS4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqFkccYzBS4&feature=related
USopen semi 1984..McEnroe v Connors
- Thread starter Cuculain
- Start date
A lot of folks feel this way. I never saw the '80 USO semi between them, which is also supposed to be off the charts good. But, the '84 semi, I think is the one where they both played A-level tennis; it was awfully good stuff....usually, with those guys, one or the other would go off the rails for some/all of the match. It was rare that you saw their very best, head to head. But, part of that is the S&V game vs. the baseliner, I suppose. If Mac was just a little off, Connors would capitalize and vice versa.
The 1980 US Open semi final match was more about momentum shifts between the two players, where McEnroe was on top for most of the first 2 sets, Connors then saved a McEnroe set point in the second set and went on to win 11 games in a row in dominant fashion, McEnroe came back strong for a set and a break. Connors then broke when McEnroe served for the match and then held to love on his own serve. McEnroe then stayed calm under pressure to hold serve and play brilliantly in the last set tiebreak.
The 1984 US Open semi final was high quality stuff from both players nearly all the way through, less about momentum shifts.
The 1984 US Open semi final was high quality stuff from both players nearly all the way through, less about momentum shifts.
This is one of my favorite matches ever. Great quality and a wonderful contrast in styles. The best serve and volleyer at the time versus the best returner at the time. Two of the all time greats playing at high levels.
McEnroe was playing well from the baseline. One of my favorite points was when McEnroe was giving Connors all different types of groundies, slice, topspin, looping shots etc and won the point.
McEnroe was playing well from the baseline. One of my favorite points was when McEnroe was giving Connors all different types of groundies, slice, topspin, looping shots etc and won the point.
I do recall that as much as they despised each other at that time, and they did, MaC had nothing but compliments for the the guy on the other side of that net after this match. Something I never saw him manage for Lendl. He really walked away an admirer of Connors guts and return. It is one of the best efforts I ever saw out of Connors. Sadly it did not win him a place in the final.
I personally believe that had Connors reached the final, he would have beaten Lendl in the US Open final for the third time in a row. Pat Cash told a story about how McEnroe felt awful physically on the day of the 1984 US Open final, until he saw how awful Lendl looked, and then McEnroe perked right up and went on to beat Lendl with ease by the score of 6-3, 6-4, 6-1.
I've long maintained that their 84 Open match was the best they ever had in sustained level of play. Mcenroe did really rave about Connors afterwards.
He served really well that day(% in the 60s, I think) and Connors broke him something like 8 times.
The 80 match was different. Mcenroe
had a set point at 5-4 in the 2nd. Connors then won 11 games in a row.
Mac constantly jawing at the umpire.
Connors had 3-1 in the 3rd and 30-30.
Great return, Mcenroe floated the volley up, Connors came foward to take it in the air before Mac could recover to the open court. Connors' volley caught the tape. Another break there and I can't see him losing. Of course he'd still had Borg in the final. Unlike 84, where I agree with Mustard about him beating Lendl, Borg was another matter.
I don't think Connors had lost a set, in 84, before the semi. He had started using the midsize leading up to the Open, and it really helped his game. For awhile, at least.
PC mentioned how Mcenroe liked to change the pace versus Connors. Set point in the 3rd set of the 84 match
was an excellent example of this. It was about a 20 hit rally. Connors used to like the delayed approach if someone constantly was chipping or floating his backhand. He did just that in this rally. Timed it perfectly, had a high backhand volley, and missed it wide by about an inch.
I've said this a couple times in other threads. I think that an often overlooked strength, I mean real strength, of Mcenroe was his movement.
He could really cover the court. I felt a smidgen faster than Connors. Not quite Borg or Gerulaitis, but excellent nonetheless. This helped him in his backcourt rallies with Connors.
He served really well that day(% in the 60s, I think) and Connors broke him something like 8 times.
The 80 match was different. Mcenroe
had a set point at 5-4 in the 2nd. Connors then won 11 games in a row.
Mac constantly jawing at the umpire.
Connors had 3-1 in the 3rd and 30-30.
Great return, Mcenroe floated the volley up, Connors came foward to take it in the air before Mac could recover to the open court. Connors' volley caught the tape. Another break there and I can't see him losing. Of course he'd still had Borg in the final. Unlike 84, where I agree with Mustard about him beating Lendl, Borg was another matter.
I don't think Connors had lost a set, in 84, before the semi. He had started using the midsize leading up to the Open, and it really helped his game. For awhile, at least.
PC mentioned how Mcenroe liked to change the pace versus Connors. Set point in the 3rd set of the 84 match
was an excellent example of this. It was about a 20 hit rally. Connors used to like the delayed approach if someone constantly was chipping or floating his backhand. He did just that in this rally. Timed it perfectly, had a high backhand volley, and missed it wide by about an inch.
I've said this a couple times in other threads. I think that an often overlooked strength, I mean real strength, of Mcenroe was his movement.
He could really cover the court. I felt a smidgen faster than Connors. Not quite Borg or Gerulaitis, but excellent nonetheless. This helped him in his backcourt rallies with Connors.
I have this whole match on tape, and it really is fantastic , this level of play for the entire match..
I agree, had Connors prevailed I believe he would have beaten Lendl in the final..
One of the great matches of tennis, and a perfect example of why Connors is the best returner in the game past or present..and McEnroe's serve and volley game sublime, his speed and touch incredible! and Connors was no slouch either!
I agree, had Connors prevailed I believe he would have beaten Lendl in the final..
One of the great matches of tennis, and a perfect example of why Connors is the best returner in the game past or present..and McEnroe's serve and volley game sublime, his speed and touch incredible! and Connors was no slouch either!
I think I agree that McEnroe may have been a bit faster than Connors. Not much but a little faster. Connors covered a lot of ground.
In the 1984 US Open match I don't know if McEnroe really threw Connors off. Connors hit the ball awfully well that day. I just think McEnroe outplayed him.
It was great tennis to watch.
In the 1984 US Open match I don't know if McEnroe really threw Connors off. Connors hit the ball awfully well that day. I just think McEnroe outplayed him.
It was great tennis to watch.
Does anyone have any footage of the after-match press conference, or perhaps a few quotes from Mac or Connors from a newspaper in relation to this? I would be interesting to hear exactly what they said about each other. An interesting departure from their usual snarling exchanges. Underneath it all, what did they REALLY think of each other?
Top tennis with both players so much inspired.Very rarely have two all time greats combined so well their strengths to complement each other in such a fierce battle.Mac alsways seemed to have a security margin all through 1984...but, in this match, his security margin was the lowest of the whole year
You know Connors was really never one to avoid the net but I was somewhat surprised in that particular match that he didn't come in more. Obviously one of the ways to keep a net rusher like Mac off the net is to get there first. Jimmie didn't S&V much and elected to stay back and try to lengthen the rallys but of course Mac wouldn't have any of that.
Everything I've heard and read indicates it was a truly great match, and in stark contrast to the Wimbledon final two months earlier. And yet according to Mac's book, when Connors won the 4th set to square the match, many people left the stadium, leaving just a third-full stadium with some remaining spectators huddled under blankets to see the outcome.
Mac couldn't believe that they were serving up such a great match only for so many people to leave before the end.
Mac couldn't believe that they were serving up such a great match only for so many people to leave before the end.
That´s it.But, even better than that match, was the 1980 US Indoors final that Connors won after 5 sensational sets.1980 was a great year for Connors vs Mac´s rivalry.In official encounters the split down is as follows:
Philadelphia: Connors in 5 sets
Memphis: John in 2 tie breaks
Dallas:Connors in 4 sets
Wimbledon: Mac in 4 sets
Flushing: Mac over 5 sets ( Connors was almost on the edge of winning it)
They also played the Tokyo Suntory cup, a very important exo, where Connors prevailed in straigh sets, and the Chicago Indoor Exo, at the end of the year, with Mac winning in straights.
Very very competitive year
Philadelphia: Connors in 5 sets
Memphis: John in 2 tie breaks
Dallas:Connors in 4 sets
Wimbledon: Mac in 4 sets
Flushing: Mac over 5 sets ( Connors was almost on the edge of winning it)
They also played the Tokyo Suntory cup, a very important exo, where Connors prevailed in straigh sets, and the Chicago Indoor Exo, at the end of the year, with Mac winning in straights.
Very very competitive year
1980 was indeed a great year in the Mac-Jimmy rivalry. McEnroe got the edge in the Slams, but Jimmy was right there and got the win in the WCT final, Connors' best win in the 1979-81 years. In that final, as the score suggests, Mac took the first set comfortably, the second set was crucial. Close all the way, but what I remember, I think Connors took the tiebreak 7-5, and then got the upper hand. Jimmy was in charge and bossed it. Connors could beat Mac on that carpet indoors alright. Connors could play on any surface.
1979 was an all Mac show after his USO and WCT wins over Connors.But, Connors stroke back in 1980, which was the best year for their rivalry along 1982.
in 1982, both won 2 matches each.John won in straight sets in Phily ( thus avenging his 1980 defeat) and San Francisco, a place he displayed his best tennis of the whole 1982.Connors won their 2 London matches (Queen´s and Wimbledon)
I remember, after a disappointing year, the last 2-3 months of the season, John played unbelievable tennis, winning 4 straight tournaments in a row without losing one single set.
in 1982, both won 2 matches each.John won in straight sets in Phily ( thus avenging his 1980 defeat) and San Francisco, a place he displayed his best tennis of the whole 1982.Connors won their 2 London matches (Queen´s and Wimbledon)
I remember, after a disappointing year, the last 2-3 months of the season, John played unbelievable tennis, winning 4 straight tournaments in a row without losing one single set.
Slightly related topic: Does anyone know the specs of Mac's woods? Did he play with lights or mediums? I've been hitting with the woods lately and it's been a total blast! I haven't picked up my K90's! It makes watching these old clips that more enjoyable. I remember being at many of the US Open semi's and finals as a kid. JM was my guy. I just loved the way he moved on the court. So cool that we can watch these matches again!
I'm hitting with a Prostaff light right now. Strung with over grip it comes in right around 13.10. To me the light is perfect because you can whip it with modern technique. I haven't picked up my K90's in a week (although I did play around with a warped max200G I picked up in the thrift store for $5)! Put in synthetic gut over the weekend on the PS wood. On Wednesday half way through my 2nd hitting session one of the mains snapped. Seems like I'm getting more pace on my forehands and my backhand is more solid/consistent. Overheads are a total blast. This is too much fun!
About 6 years ago, there was a time when I was really playing well (for my own standards mind you) and so with my new bravado, I told my buddies that I would bring out my old Kramer Pro Staff and Dunlop Forte and beat them with those ancient wooden sticks. But after only a week of hitting with those things, Damn if I didn't develope my first case of tennis elbow in decades and it took me forever to get over it. Pardon the pun, but it served me right.
Ouch! Yeah, I think it's all about timing with the woods. Getting to the ball and preparing so you can hit it out front. I've been using the K90's for years now and they are heavy frames by today's standards. The Prostaff wood I've been playing with is right around the same weight. Also, the flex I'm feeling from the wood is a welcome treat compared to what I'm used to.
I've also found that working out regularly has helped me a great deal. I spend a lot of time working on my legs, back, and core stretching between sets. And I also hit all of the other muscle groups (for arms, I do bi's, skull crushers for triceps, and forearm exercises as well). I see a direct correlation in overall fitness and muscle strength, and the my ability to really strike the ball. The gym has conditioning me so I can do what I need to with my body out on the court. It's very rewarding not just for the court but then you realize..."hey, I'm in pretty good shape and I feel great!" Okay, I'm off the soap box FOR NOW
I've also found that working out regularly has helped me a great deal. I spend a lot of time working on my legs, back, and core stretching between sets. And I also hit all of the other muscle groups (for arms, I do bi's, skull crushers for triceps, and forearm exercises as well). I see a direct correlation in overall fitness and muscle strength, and the my ability to really strike the ball. The gym has conditioning me so I can do what I need to with my body out on the court. It's very rewarding not just for the court but then you realize..."hey, I'm in pretty good shape and I feel great!" Okay, I'm off the soap box FOR NOW
Oh, at various times, he stayed back. Was a real pet peeve of mine at the time. Last year or two, was watching some of the match on youtube. Came to a point where Newcombe mentions. that maybe Jimmy should come in more. Trabert responds that it's really not his game to come in. Could of fooled me, Tony, because I could produce any number of 70s CBS matches where you claimed that was a fairly significant part of his game. Particularly Borg/Connors matches.
I'll say what I always say about this match. IMO, pretty clearly the highest quality match these 2 ever played. I think if Connors won that match he might have beaten Lendl in straight sets the next day. One caveat, though, his age coming off a late night match. But quality of play I think he would have won. IIRC, Connors didn't lose a set before the semis.
He had started using the midsize during the summer and it seemed to revitalize his game. For the time being, anyway. In 1885 he was back using the T2000 again.
I'll say what I always say about this match. IMO, pretty clearly the highest quality match these 2 ever played. I think if Connors won that match he might have beaten Lendl in straight sets the next day. One caveat, though, his age coming off a late night match. But quality of play I think he would have won. IIRC, Connors didn't lose a set before the semis.
He had started using the midsize during the summer and it seemed to revitalize his game. For the time being, anyway. In 1885 he was back using the T2000 again.
I thought Jimmy missed his opportunity in the 3rd set. If he won that, Mac would've been much harder pressed. Mac served better in the 5th, I thought. And, maybe 32 yr old Connors was running out of steam, hard to say for sure. I thought the play was really stellar...Mac's 1st serve % was up around 63% and Connors was giving him fits. Usually, when he's up there at that level, he creams his opponents. Not in this one. Jimmy should've stayed w/that pro-staff. He later claimed it hurt his control....made the ball "fly". To most of us watching, it looked like an enhancement to his game. particularly when serving and volleying.
Mate I have this match at home. It's a really good match to watch. I think rallies were more interesting then, especially with these 2 guys. Couldn't so easily hit a winning shot from the back so there was more variety and chess play. Feel like tennis has lost a lot.
Now back to your point, I agree Jimmy lost his chance in the 3rd. He was up a break and playing so well. He maybe could have broken Mac again, and he was always a bit vulnerable on serve, he barely got any free points and Mac was returning well and charging in at times. Sometimes Mac was even hitting and charging after 1st serve. The guy was such a wizard. I don't think Jimmy would have had much luck S&V anymore than he did because of the ease of return. What do you think? I think Connors could maybe have worked his way into net more often in rallies. But Mac was mixing up his BH so it wouldn't have been easy.
My point was simply that the first 3 sets were really top notch. The 4th set Mac had a letdown until he broke Jimmy but Jimmy held on. He played well in the 4th. Then in the 5th I think as you say Jimmy ran out of steam. Mac just cruised through the 5th, I would have liked it to be more competitive but yes I am being picky. It's a fabulous match.
Now back to your point, I agree Jimmy lost his chance in the 3rd. He was up a break and playing so well. He maybe could have broken Mac again, and he was always a bit vulnerable on serve, he barely got any free points and Mac was returning well and charging in at times. Sometimes Mac was even hitting and charging after 1st serve. The guy was such a wizard. I don't think Jimmy would have had much luck S&V anymore than he did because of the ease of return. What do you think? I think Connors could maybe have worked his way into net more often in rallies. But Mac was mixing up his BH so it wouldn't have been easy.
My point was simply that the first 3 sets were really top notch. The 4th set Mac had a letdown until he broke Jimmy but Jimmy held on. He played well in the 4th. Then in the 5th I think as you say Jimmy ran out of steam. Mac just cruised through the 5th, I would have liked it to be more competitive but yes I am being picky. It's a fabulous match.
In terms of coming to net, I thought Connors was reasonably aggressive when the chance arose. It wasn't like Mac was giving him short balls all that often. He wasn't going to S&V on the hard courts of flushing w/any regularity, never did really. He returned Mac's serve very well that night, which wasn't often the case as Mac was very hard to read. It was a very competitive match....JC should have won it in 4....missed opportunity.
He could have come in more. This match was played in a lot of the 70s he would have. Obviously, he's not going to match Mac and Mac is s/v on basically every serve. That said, he didn't come in 40 times in a 5 set match. It's not like Mcenroe came in behind Connors serve THAT much.
Newcombe asks Trabert at one time, do you think Jimmy should come in more? Trabert said that's really not his game. I'm thinking, that sure as hell isn't what you were saying when you did the commentary on all those 70s Borg Connors matches.
It was amazing how a few times Mac would just take Connors first serve and come in. Newcombe described it as walking right through the serve. Something like that. But it was just amazing how he would almost half volley a first serve. MAGIC hands. This guy had magic in his hands. Even by pro player standards, that is remarkable hand/eye.
I play the same note on this match every time I comment. IMO, absolutely their best match in level of play from both players. It's hard to say that Connors blew a set because he was up a break because Mac was always a threat to break. His serve as a weapon didn't compare to Mac's.
I really think Connors would have beat Lendl if he won this match. Mac didn't play like at Wimbledon, but her served in the 60s and Connors broke him about 8 times. He returned fantastic that day.
I don't think he had lost a set before that match. Short term, at least, that new racket really helped. IMO, that was the last time he reached that level of play. In a major, at least.
Newcombe asks Trabert at one time, do you think Jimmy should come in more? Trabert said that's really not his game. I'm thinking, that sure as hell isn't what you were saying when you did the commentary on all those 70s Borg Connors matches.
It was amazing how a few times Mac would just take Connors first serve and come in. Newcombe described it as walking right through the serve. Something like that. But it was just amazing how he would almost half volley a first serve. MAGIC hands. This guy had magic in his hands. Even by pro player standards, that is remarkable hand/eye.
I play the same note on this match every time I comment. IMO, absolutely their best match in level of play from both players. It's hard to say that Connors blew a set because he was up a break because Mac was always a threat to break. His serve as a weapon didn't compare to Mac's.
I really think Connors would have beat Lendl if he won this match. Mac didn't play like at Wimbledon, but her served in the 60s and Connors broke him about 8 times. He returned fantastic that day.
I don't think he had lost a set before that match. Short term, at least, that new racket really helped. IMO, that was the last time he reached that level of play. In a major, at least.
I also found the non tennis interesting. Connors asking the umpire to remove a linesman because he'd had a run in with him before. Can't see that happening today. Also McEnroe asking for a photographer to be removed. Connors, who is waiting to serve, doesn't berate Mac for holding him up. He instead turns on the dithering photographer, telling him to hurry up in no polite terms. Then the photographer tells him 'you try moving a ton of equipment' to which Jimmy takes affront, calls him 'punk breath' I think and chucks a ball at him.
Thinking about something the other day: What matches are similar to this in style & quality? I ask because to my mind there are several factors which when combined make the conditions that this match happened in pretty unique.
1) It was in the brief period post wood but pre the age of big power. Therefore the artistry of Mac could still flourish, both players had a few more options from the baseline than with wood, but you couldn't simply overwhelm with power from the back, or at the very least these players couldn't. The type of rallies in this match to my mind represent an ideal for tennis. True all court tennis. Fast forward a few years & McEnroe's genius was bludgeoned out.
2) A S& V vs a Baseliner. Therefore we got rallies from the back. Most players back then at least S & V on 1st serve. Connors serve was his weakness but his returns were 'on'. Therefore this was by no means a servefest. Something which a few years later would become common on fast courts.
3) Both players were playing very well at the same time for most of the match. And of course they are 2 of the greats of the game.
Maybe what I am arguing is that this brief period between wood and big power was the optimum for tennis. It is a coincidence that Mac played his best tennis in 1984?
1) It was in the brief period post wood but pre the age of big power. Therefore the artistry of Mac could still flourish, both players had a few more options from the baseline than with wood, but you couldn't simply overwhelm with power from the back, or at the very least these players couldn't. The type of rallies in this match to my mind represent an ideal for tennis. True all court tennis. Fast forward a few years & McEnroe's genius was bludgeoned out.
2) A S& V vs a Baseliner. Therefore we got rallies from the back. Most players back then at least S & V on 1st serve. Connors serve was his weakness but his returns were 'on'. Therefore this was by no means a servefest. Something which a few years later would become common on fast courts.
3) Both players were playing very well at the same time for most of the match. And of course they are 2 of the greats of the game.
Maybe what I am arguing is that this brief period between wood and big power was the optimum for tennis. It is a coincidence that Mac played his best tennis in 1984?
There are very beautiful matches, others exciting.
This is part of the best 20-30 of tennis history.
And considered all matches in the history of tennis is not bad.
Of the matches I've seen is one of the top 10, no doubt. Supermac 84 played by GOAT, Connors was fierce, ravenous on hc.
It was a bloody fight.
This is part of the best 20-30 of tennis history.
And considered all matches in the history of tennis is not bad.
Of the matches I've seen is one of the top 10, no doubt. Supermac 84 played by GOAT, Connors was fierce, ravenous on hc.
It was a bloody fight.
I think that in the 80s tennis was played more fun because more varied.
I do not want to take anything away from the other decades.. in the 90s we played very well on grass, the serve was dominant; in recent years the players play tremendously good from the baseline, physically the players are at the top.
In the 80s the mix not excessive racquets and different styles made the difference.
Many players were creative: Mac, Mecir, Leconte, Noah, Edberg, ...
I do not want to take anything away from the other decades.. in the 90s we played very well on grass, the serve was dominant; in recent years the players play tremendously good from the baseline, physically the players are at the top.
In the 80s the mix not excessive racquets and different styles made the difference.
Many players were creative: Mac, Mecir, Leconte, Noah, Edberg, ...