This is so eyerolling. I specifically pointed out Santoro was a similar type of player to Connors, albeit significantly weaker. Nadal and Robby Ginepri are both principally defensive baseliners, they are a similar type of player. That does not mean I consider them equal.
Good remarks. Let's say I agree Connors is not a serve and volleyer. What does one call his style of play? I don't feel that he's a baseliner, because he generally used groundstrokes to set up the volley. While a baseliner needs to come to the net from time to time, typically a baseliner's finishing shot is a groundstroke, not a volley.
What do you call that kind of player? I was taught there were only 4 styles of play: s&v, offensive baseliner, defensive baseliner and all-courter.
I would never call him a defensive baseliner or a pure s/v player. He's either all court or offensive baseliner. That gets into the subjectivity of how much you need to come into the net to move from baseliner to all court.
As I have discussed numerous times on this forum, there is absolutely no question that Connors is coming into the net less as you get into the later 70s and early 80s. I have done stats on numerous matches of his. Later in his career, he might have come in more at times, but, IMO, never as consistently and as aggressively as he did in those mid 70s matches. IMO, that player is ABSOLUTELY an all court player.
Joel Drucker wrote a book about Connors about 15 years ago. He kept using the term counterpuncher in that book. Really like Drucker, and the book, but it's not how I saw prime Connors. Make no mistake, in some ways I think the term fits. What is the ultimate counterpunch in tennis? The service return which was Connors' biggest strength. Also, he undoubtedly fed off the other players' pace. That is a counter move.
However, to me, at least, counterpuncher has a connotation of a reactive or defensive player. Prime Connors, off the ground, dictates point. He is a puncher, not a counterpuncher. He is not waiting to see what you do then reaction. Basically getting everything back until the other player misses. He is going for the lines, for the corners, taking the chances. Very aggressive from the ground, very aggressive at net.
Segura wrote a book, maybe 1976 it came out. Said Connors and Newcombe had the best forehand volleys in tennis because of how aggressive and penetrating they were.
And while I think he went overboard with best, it was no doubt very aggressive. I mean Connors, obviously. Lots of people probably thought Newcombe had the best forehand volley. BTW, nowhere in that book does Segura call Connors a baseliner. He called it 2 styles of play. He could come in or stay back.
Anyway, that's what I don't see him as a counterpuncher because that also connotes defensive baseliner to me. That's just simply not how I saw him. But we all have our opinions, even Connors. Years ago, I saw a youtube clip of some old interview with Charlie Rose. At one point Connors says, my game was to get one more ball back. If I was standing next to him, I'd say, no that was not your game. One more ball back suggests just keep getting another ball back until the other guy misses. That was not Connors game. It was much more about him forcing you to miss.
That stat they have now about how much ground players have covered in the match? How many feet or miles they ran. I wish they had that stat when Connors played to see how many times he ran more. Not very often would be my guess. He runs you corner to corner, not vice versa. And when I think of a player who does that, I don't think of a counterpuncher.
That 92 linked match with Lendl? Connors s/v a lot in the 1st set of that match. On 1st serves I mean. Then he just ran completely out of steam. That, and Lendl was just much better at that point.
