What if Connors had played Lendl in the 87 Wimbledon final?

[Mustard]

Cash was on fire that tournament. Ahead of Wimbledon he said that Becker was the only player he feared to meet there and then his compatriot, Peter Doohan went and took out Becker (who was the 2 times defending champion) for him in one of the most shocking upsets in the tournament's history! I often wonder how much Doohan was responsible for Cash's eventual title??

Cash did say that he was concerned about Connors and Becker, as I recall. Connors had beaten Cash at 1987 Queen's Club.

I don't know how Cash vs. Becker would have gone at 1987 Wimbledon had they met in the semi final that year. Impossible to say. Their 1988 Wimbledon quarter final match isn't really an indicator because both players were in very different places by then in terms of their game and mentality. In 1988, Becker was thinking "Cash has my title, and I'm going to knock him out", whereas in 1987 Becker was the 2-time defending Wimbledon champion which is a very different pressure and dynamic.

 

[jrepac]

Why are we comparing Connors 87 loss to 85 and 84? He was massacred those 2 years. 87 was somehow a close match because he wasn't slaughtered? The points are 92 to 60. This is not a particularly close match. Connors was only 30 ahead of Rosewall in 74.

I don't care what racket he is using, he is not as good a player as he was in 84. IMO, of course. I'm not as adamant about 85 because I thought that was where a clearer decline started 87 Connors was very consistent and solid. However, no titles and beaten in straight sets in all GS losses. He's consistent and solid enough to reach the quarters and semis, but not a real threat to win there.

Now, this is also me looking at things in retrospect. Before the Cash match of course I thought he was a threat to win. He had just beaten the guy 2 weeks earlier and it's not like Cash had any Slam wins to that point.

Slice forehand, like we are comparing it to Gerulaitis' slice backhand. When Connors was on he would run you all over the court with that forehand. Vitas' backhand, approach aside, was never a weapon. Connors forehand service return was abolutely a weapon. Mind you, I am talking career here, not specific to 87.

Djokovic has gotten a lot better at the net. At least in what I've watched. I don't claim to know him the way I do Connors, but I watch his big matches.

Well, I don't quite get the comparison to '84 and '85...I'm not sure they are relevant. Unless you are somehow arguing that it was about "power", which I don't agree. I totally agree w/you that '84 JC was better than '85 and both better than '87. '87 was pretty good though. Perhaps not all that far off from his form in '85 when he also settled at #4. Maybe a bit unlucky not to win a title in '87. He was on that 4 year losing streak, which he finally broke in '88. And yes, Djoko is better at net nowadays. Practice makes perfect?

 

[jrepac]

Cash did say that he was concerned about Connors and Becker, as I recall. Connors had beaten Cash at 1987 Queen's Club.

I don't know how Cash vs. Becker would have gone at 1987 Wimbledon had they met in the semi final that year. Impossible to say. Their 1988 Wimbledon quarter final match isn't really an indicator because both players were in very different places by then in terms of their game and mentality. In 1988, Becker was thinking "Cash has my title, and I'm going to knock him out", whereas in 1987 Becker was the 2-time defending Wimbledon champion which is a very different pressure and dynamic.

wasn't Cash dealing w/an injury as well in '88? At his best, he could certainly challenge Boris.

 

[Mustard]

With Connors, 1985 was a decline on 1984, so felt relatively disappointing. 1987 was a slight revival, so felt relatively positive.

wasn't Cash dealing w/an injury as well in '88? At his best, he could certainly challenge Boris.

I thought Cash's bad injuries were in 1985-1986 and then 1989, and obviously more in the 1990s? Around May 1988 was when Cash reached his world ranking peak of number 4, I believe.

 

[NedStark]

Cash was on fire that tournament. Ahead of Wimbledon he said that Becker was the only player he feared to meet there and then his compatriot, Peter Doohan went and took out Becker (who was the 2 times defending champion) for him in one of the most shocking upsets in the tournament's history! I often wonder how much Doohan was responsible for Cash's eventual title??

Plus, one could see that this upset forever moved tennis history to another direction.

IMO, had Becker defended the title again, he would have equalized if not surpassed Borg by the end of the decade.

 

[buscemi]

wasn't Cash dealing w/an injury as well in '88? At his best, he could certainly challenge Boris.

Yes. After making the Australian Open final, he had an Achilles tendon issue that forced him out of the Lipton and lingered until he called it quits on 1988 after Cincinnati. I think he also had a back issue in 1988, but I'm not sure when that developed.

Here's an article about Cash pulling out of the Lipton with an Achilles tendon injury.

And here's an article about that Achilles injury still lingering in October, which was why he wasn't playing in the Australian Indoor Tennis Championships (and didn't end up playing any events after Cincinnati).

 

[Mainad]

Cash did say that he was concerned about Connors and Becker, as I recall. Connors had beaten Cash at 1987 Queen's Club.

I don't know how Cash vs. Becker would have gone at 1987 Wimbledon had they met in the semi final that year. Impossible to say. Their 1988 Wimbledon quarter final match isn't really an indicator because both players were in very different places by then in terms of their game and mentality. In 1988, Becker was thinking "Cash has my title, and I'm going to knock him out", whereas in 1987 Becker was the 2-time defending Wimbledon champion which is a very different pressure and dynamic.

Don't recall him mentioning Connors but definitely Becker. Nobody could have anticipated Doohan taking him out (including Becker)!

 

[WCT]

With Connors, 1985 was a decline on 1984, so felt relatively disappointing. 1987 was a slight revival, so felt relatively positive.

I think this is a very good take on the situation.

You can look at the situation any number of ways. That this was Cash's one golden moment and he reached heights he never had before and never would again. Certainly he had injures, but this was his only Slam title.

One could argue that Connors ran into a buzzsaw the same way he and Mcenroe ran into Curren in 85. That was the only time he ever beat Mcenroe and he lost 8 games in 3 sets. Arthur Ashe called it being in the zone. By the end of Wimbledon 87, Cash was in the zone.

 

[jrepac]

I think this is a very good take on the situation.

You can look at the situation any number of ways. That this was Cash's one golden moment and he reached heights he never had before and never would again. Certainly he had injures, but this was his only Slam title.

One could argue that Connors ran into a buzzsaw the same way he and Mcenroe ran into Curren in 85. That was the only time he ever beat Mcenroe and he lost 8 games in 3 sets. Arthur Ashe called it being in the zone. By the end of Wimbledon 87, Cash was in the zone.

Cash was TOTALLY in the zone! Personally, I never saw him play that well again. '88 AO loss was a bummer tho'...I was rooting for him!

 

[NedStark]

Cash was TOTALLY in the zone! Personally, I never saw him play that well again. '88 AO loss was a bummer tho'...I was rooting for him!

IMO, the reason why Cash lost was simply surface change, given how the final was basically coin-toss.

 

[Mustard]

IMO, the reason why Cash lost was simply surface change, given how the final was basically coin-toss.

Wilander's revenge. Cash had long been a nemesis for him, beating him in all those Wimbledons and a US Open.

 

[NedStark]

Wilander's revenge. Cash had long been a nemesis for him, beating him in all those Wimbledons and a US Open.

I mean by that time Wilander was not going to beat Cash on grass, including AO grass.

Rebound Ace clearly favored Wilander, and yet it only ended 8-6 in the decider.

 

[sandy mayer]

Connor was the ageing old warhorse here, like Mac in 92, he was never gonna actually win it, + Mac was toast by 87, of course Lendl was in the top 3-4 grass players at that time, final 86, SF84, SF83, Edberg or Cash hadn't been in a W final at this juncture

I remember at the 87 Wimbledon Connors was seen as a serious contender for the title by the semi final stage, though not the favourite. Hindsight tells us he was beaten comfortably in the semis but this was a surprise at the time. Remember he was the last ex-champion left in the tournament, he had winning records over Cash and Edberg, he had recently beaten Cash on grass, and Lendl was seen as beatable on the grass. If Connors had won the title it certainly would not have been seen as the biggest surprise in tennis history.

 

[big ted]

If Connors had won the title it certainly would not have been seen as the biggest surprise in tennis history.

don’t forget he was down 6-1 6-1 4-1 against pernfors and came back so it was a surprise he got to the semis and he did say pernfors was his most iconic match

 

[jrepac]

I want to take a step back on my can't sniff opinion. 87 Connors beat Cash at Queens and was right there with Becker. That's better than can't sniff. I still believe that 83 Queens is quite clearly the superior player, but it's not night and day. My earlier remarks paint it that way.

I just watched the Queens SF between Cash and Connors. A tight match but very well played by Connors with his usual pinpoint returns going past Cash or at his shoelaces. And I saw the final w/Becker. This is a guy who could have won W '87. But on a given day, you never know. Cash just played above and beyond the entire tournament. Re: Connors, I'm amazed by the amount of revisionist history and flat out wrong statements about his game, his skills and his accomplishments. He was a unique force in the game, love him or hate him, a big factor in its growth (along w/several others) and was certainly a top draw. He was no powderpuff (despite his serve) and certainly was not out there all day hitting forehand slices (ridiculous). He had a very good year in '87, but fell a bit short in a few key moments. He certainly had a better year than Mac did.

 

[sandy mayer]

I just watched the Queens SF between Cash and Connors. A tight match but very well played by Connors with his usual pinpoint returns going past Cash or at his shoelaces. And I saw the final w/Becker. This is a guy who could have won W '87. But on a given day, you never know. Cash just played above and beyond the entire tournament. Re: Connors, I'm amazed by the amount of revisionist history and flat out wrong statements about his game, his skills and his accomplishments. He was a unique force in the game, love him or hate him, a big factor in its growth (along w/several others) and was certainly a top draw. He was no powderpuff (despite his serve) and certainly was not out there all day hitting forehand slices (ridiculous). He had a very good year in '87, but fell a bit short in a few key moments. He certainly had a better year than Mac did.

You are definitely right. Alot of nonsense is said about Connors for some reason. As you say his forehand was alot better than people say, and McEnroe says his volleying skills were excellent and that his skills are underrated.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

Connors didn't beat Lendl again after some point in 85 correct? I am pretty sure Lendl would win, even on grass. Connors in his prime would probably never lose to Lendl on grass, but this was definitely not prime Connors anymore. Connors looked even more hopeless against Cash than Lendl did anyway. Cash was even winning most of the limited number of baseline rallies vs old Connors, which he definitely would not have been doing vs Lendl.

 

[jrepac]

Connors didn't beat Lendl again after some point in 85 correct? I am pretty sure Lendl would win, even on grass. Connors in his prime would probably never lose to Lendl on grass, but this was definitely not prime Connors anymore. Connors looked even more hopeless against Cash than Lendl did anyway. Cash was even winning most of the limited number of baseline rallies vs old Connors, which he definitely would not have been doing vs Lendl.

Oct '84 in the Tokyo final was Connors last win vs. Lendl. They did play some close ones in the years that followed, but Lendl was ascendent and Connors past prime. I'm not certain about 87, Lendl v Connors is not the same sort of match up as vs. Cash. Would have been a very different dynamic.

 

[WCT]

There will always be some element of doubt, however small, about Lendl beating Connors on grass. As dominant as Lendl became, in their rivalry, the fact is that he never did beat Connors on grass.

 

[jrepac]

There will always be some element of doubt, however small, about Lendl beating Connors on grass. As dominant as Lendl became, in their rivalry, the fact is that he never did beat Connors on grass.

By nearly any assessment, Connors was a much more natural player on grass. He handled the erratic bounces of Wimby grass much better than Lendl did. Obviously, his return was better too. Net game was always solid, although Lendl improved vastly over time, I will admit. The unpredictability of grass was enough to throw off Lendl's baseline game (not so much for Jimmy) and if he S&V'd vs. Connors he was taking a significant risk, much more than w/any other player, pre-Agassi. Arguably, he was probably the 2nd best grass court player in the world for the 1st ten years of his career. Kinda overlooked in the shadows of Borg and Mac who were grass giants.

 

[Hard Court]

As for the type of match it would have been between Connors and Lendl, it probably would have been almost total serve and volley. By 1987, that is how Lendl and almost everyone else was playing at Wimbledon.

Even at this stage in his career, Connors was the better volleyer and returner than Lendl. (Though Lendl was a good returner). However, Lendl's serve was an underrated weapon. If Lendl served like he was capable of, Connors would not get a lot of good looks and Connors would not have been able to break often enough.

However, once in a while Lendl's serve did go off the rails and he had trouble getting it in. Once in a while he had trouble with double faults as well. If that is the case, Connors would have had a good chance.

 

[WCT]

As for the type of match it would have been between Connors and Lendl, it probably would have been almost total serve and volley. By 1987, that is how Lendl and almost everyone else was playing at Wimbledon.

Even at this stage in his career, Connors was the better volleyer and returner than Lendl. (Though Lendl was a good returner). However, Lendl's serve was an underrated weapon. If Lendl served like he was capable of, Connors would not get a lot of good looks and Connors would not have been able to break often enough.

However, once in a while Lendl's serve did go off the rails and he had trouble getting it in. Once in a while he had trouble with double faults as well. If that is the case, Connors would have had a good chance.

It would have been almost all serve and volley? How much do you think Connors would have done it at that point? Lendl is the question since I only remember 1 Wimbledon match of his where he wasn't pretty much all s/v, both serves, and that match was in 1984 against Connors.

I am much firmer in my belief that Connors had the clearly better return, on grass, than I am he had the better volley. Lendl did not make 4 semis and 2 finals, playing s/v every serve , if he wasn't volleying well. Don't worry about how pretty or natural he looks doing it. Don't worry about his reputation as a volleyer. Watch the matches and see how he actually volleys. It ain't Mcenroe or Edberg, but it's good,at the very least.

As I said, their status at the time says Lendl should win. He has won all their matches in the last 2 1/2 years plus, many convincingly. Again, none of them were on grass.Until he actually beat Connors there, some element of doubt remains.

 

[Mustard]

I've seen much 1987 Wimbledon TV coverage. The prevailing thought going into the 1987 Wimbledon semi finals (i.e. Connors vs. Cash, Edberg vs. Lendl) was that Lendl was the favourite to win the tournament, and that Connors was the most serious threat to Lendl. Instead of that happening, Cash played out of his mind in beating both Connors and Lendl in straight sets with clinical performances.

 

[jrepac]

It would have been almost all serve and volley? How much do you think Connors would have done it at that point? Lendl is the question since I only remember 1 Wimbledon match of his where he wasn't pretty much all s/v, both serves, and that match was in 1984 against Connors.

I am much firmer in my belief that Connors had the clearly better return, on grass, than I am he had the better volley. Lendl did not make 4 semis and 2 finals, playing s/v every serve , if he wasn't volleying well. Don't worry about how pretty or natural he looks doing it. Don't worry about his reputation as a volleyer. Watch the matches and see how he actually volleys. It ain't Mcenroe or Edberg, but it's good,at the very least.

As I said, their status at the time says Lendl should win. He has won all their matches in the last 2 1/2 years plus, many convincingly. Again, none of them were on grass.Until he actually beat Connors there, some element of doubt remains.

Really? I think Connors is a markedly better volleyer than Lendl. I'm not sure about 100% S&V either, given the '84 semi. If anything, I'd expect more of Connors at net than Lendl. At one point, I had forgotten that Lendl played S&V vs. Mac in '83, only to stay back against Connors in '84, which one has to assume is due to the Connors return. Lendl would probably try to grind him down from the back of the court (as did Pernfors), leaving Connors to be the aggressor.

 

[WCT]

Really? I think Connors is a markedly better volleyer than Lendl. I'm not sure about 100% S&V either, given the '84 semi. If anything, I'd expect more of Connors at net than Lendl. At one point, I had forgotten that Lendl played S&V vs. Mac in '83, only to stay back against Connors in '84, which one has to assume is due to the Connors return. Lendl would probably try to grind him down from the back of the court (as did Pernfors), leaving Connors to be the aggressor.

No, I definitely do not think that in 1987, on grass, that Connors is markedly better volleyer. Just how, exactly, do you think Lendl made 4 semis and 2 finals? I mean in terms of attributes. Don't tell me about his groundstrokes as in rallying. He doesn't rally on his serve because he comes in behind virtually every serve save that 84 Connors match. And how many of his opponents don't come in behind every serve.
So, rallying is mostly a non issue.

This is how I feel and many others seem to feel the same. Whether it be stroke mechanics or not, he just did not return as well on grass relative to other surfaces versus, for example, a Connors or an Agassi. So, is he making it that far mainly, or in large measure, due to the quality of his return? I don't think so, but I certainly think it could be argued with Agassi and Connors.

Again, how is he advancing so far so many years. Backcourt ground game is a non factor, return, at best, is not consistently outstanding. Serve? An excellent serve, but certainly not at the top of the sport. Is he serving people off the court like Goran? How mediocre can this guy be volleying and still advancing that far so many times?

You think he was going to play like Pernfors? So, after going on 3 years of s/v on every point, he is going to hardly come to the net? That's Pernfors. Hey, I am the one that speculated, I think with good cause, that Lendl's 1984 strategy was somewhat based on their Forest Hills love and love match. A match he came in a couple times, literally. Why give Connors a target, a way to end the points, at Wimbledon. That said, he lost that match. And he came in 45 times in that match. You think Pernfors came in 45 times in his 87 Connors match? Anyway, Lendl is not going to employ the same strategy that he lost with 3 years prior, Not, IMO.

My guess is Lendl would have played s/v at least a good amount of the time. Every serve is certainly open for debate, IMO. But I strongly see him doing it the clear, clear majority of his 1st serves. 2nd serve? I'm not nearly as convinced even though he did it against everyone else.

 

[jrepac]

No, I definitely do not think that in 1987, on grass, that Connors is markedly better volleyer. Just how, exactly, do you think Lendl made 4 semis and 2 finals? I mean in terms of attributes. Don't tell me about his groundstrokes as in rallying. He doesn't rally on his serve because he comes in behind virtually every serve save that 84 Connors match. And how many of his opponents don't come in behind every serve.
So, rallying is mostly a non issue.

This is how I feel and many others seem to feel the same. Whether it be stroke mechanics or not, he just did not return as well on grass relative to other surfaces versus, for example, a Connors or an Agassi. So, is he making it that far mainly, or in large measure, due to the quality of his return? I don't think so, but I certainly think it could be argued with Agassi and Connors.

Again, how is he advancing so far so many years. Backcourt ground game is a non factor, return, at best, is not consistently outstanding. Serve? An excellent serve, but certainly not at the top of the sport. Is he serving people off the court like Goran? How mediocre can this guy be volleying and still advancing that far so many times?

You think he was going to play like Pernfors? So, after going on 3 years of s/v on every point, he is going to hardly come to the net? That's Pernfors. Hey, I am the one that speculated, I think with good cause, that Lendl's 1984 strategy was somewhat based on their Forest Hills love and love match. A match he came in a couple times, literally. Why give Connors a target, a way to end the points, at Wimbledon. That said, he lost that match. And he came in 45 times in that match. You think Pernfors came in 45 times in his 87 Connors match? Anyway, Lendl is not going to employ the same strategy that he lost with 3 years prior, Not, IMO.

My guess is Lendl would have played s/v at least a good amount of the time. Every serve is certainly open for debate, IMO. But I strongly see him doing it the clear, clear majority of his 1st serves. 2nd serve? I'm not nearly as convinced even though he did it against everyone else.

Lendl got to the finals on more than just S&V, that's oversimplifying it a bit, no? At the time, he WAS considered a top server, alongside Mac. Sampras and Goran coming at the end of the decade. His volleys tended to look a bit off to me...not as crisp as others hit them. There was always an awkwardness. Now, Connors presents a bit of an illusion when he comes in off the short ball and crushes it, it's the approach that sets it up and makes that volley happen. His S&V was efficient, not very graceful. I could see Lendl coming in off the 1st serve, and depending on if he got passed regularly, that might change his strategy. In '84, I didn't think he had much of a strategy, period.

 

[WCT]

Lendl got to the finals on more than just S&V, that's oversimplifying it a bit, no? At the time, he WAS considered a top server, alongside Mac. Sampras and Goran coming at the end of the decade. His volleys tended to look a bit off to me...not as crisp as others hit them. There was always an awkwardness. Now, Connors presents a bit of an illusion when he comes in off the short ball and crushes it, it's the approach that sets it up and makes that volley happen. His S&V was efficient, not very graceful. I could see Lendl coming in off the 1st serve, and depending on if he got passed regularly, that might change his strategy. In '84, I didn't think he had much of a strategy, period.

Obviously, it's more than just serve/volley because that is only half the games. He only serves half the games. But when he is serving, that is all he plays. You think his serve was considered to be at the top of the game in this period? That people thought it was as good as Mcenroe's? Goran's? Check some Waspsting reports on his grass court matches. Lendl has unreturned serve % like that? I don't think so.

I am not downplaying Lendl's serve. It can absolutely be a weapon and clearly far moreso in comparison who serves like Connors. That said, I don't think it's at the top of the sport. He wasn't just unreturned serve galore his way through his serve games. So, how is he holding consistently enough to make all these semis and finals. I don't have stats to support this, but seems to me that he wasn't breaking serve with the regularity of a Connors. So, he is not getting broken a lot and those are the games that his volley is used.

I think he had a specific strategy in 84, it just didn't work. If strategy wasn't involved he would have just played on auto or use the same s/v every serve strategy that he had employed in all his other matches. He altered it for Connors and it didn't work.
Now, would he have gone back to his usual grass court strategy if they had played in 1987? That is the question. My suspicion is he would have, at the very least, employed s/v significantly more. How much more is all guesswork.

 

[jrepac]

Obviously, it's more than just serve/volley because that is only half the games. He only serves half the games. But when he is serving, that is all he plays. You think his serve was considered to be at the top of the game in this period? That people thought it was as good as Mcenroe's? Goran's? Check some Waspsting reports on his grass court matches. Lendl has unreturned serve % like that? I don't think so.

I am not downplaying Lendl's serve. It can absolutely be a weapon and clearly far moreso in comparison who serves like Connors. That said, I don't think it's at the top of the sport. He wasn't just unreturned serve galore his way through his serve games. So, how is he holding consistently enough to make all these semis and finals. I don't have stats to support this, but seems to me that he wasn't breaking serve with the regularity of a Connors. So, he is not getting broken a lot and those are the games that his volley is used.

I think he had a specific strategy in 84, it just didn't work. If strategy wasn't involved he would have just played on auto or use the same s/v every serve strategy that he had employed in all his other matches. He altered it for Connors and it didn't work.
Now, would he have gone back to his usual grass court strategy if they had played in 1987? That is the question. My suspicion is he would have, at the very least, employed s/v significantly more. How much more is all guesswork.

Would love to look at Lendl's serving stats vs. Mac's...they must be out there....when he started to peak in late 85 and through at least 87, his serve seemed pretty top notch to me. Not deceptive like Mac's, just a bomb, which few aside from Connors and later, Agassi, could get a racket on. You are probably right re: 87...staying back in '84 didn't pan out, so he'd probably have to roll the dice and S&V much more.

 

[WCT]

Would love to look at Lendl's serving stats vs. Mac's...they must be out there....when he started to peak in late 85 and through at least 87, his serve seemed pretty top notch to me. Not deceptive like Mac's, just a bomb, which few aside from Connors and later, Agassi, could get a racket on. You are probably right re: 87...staying back in '84 didn't pan out, so he'd probably have to roll the dice and S&V much more.

Again, I don't mean to diminish his serve. He definitely had a very big serve. It was a weapon. I just didn't see it as a weapon to the degree of the biggest servers. Sampras and Goran would have matches where over half their serves are unreturned. About Mcenroe, I didn't mean that Mac served bigger. I do think overall he had the more effective serve, though.

I do remember, from Waspsting's stats, that Connors and Lendl had just about the same unreturned serve %. Maybe in the mid 20s. Probably one of the reasons he lost. The serve was one of his big advantages. Not in that match, though.