Who should rank higher all time- Lendl or Connors

[jaystarhair]

I sort of have them at roughly the same spot. My Open Era rankings would go.

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras (although Djokovic/Sampras is a toss up at this point for me)
5. Borg
------large gap obviously------
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Laver- for his 69 year which feaured a Calendar Slam alone
10. Agassi

So I do have Connors above if forced to choose I guess, but it really can go either way in my mind. Both have 8 slams, almost the same # of weeks at #1 which is a grossly inflated total by a flawed ranking system at the time for both guys. Connors spending nearly all of 77-79 ranked #1 when nearly everyone considered Borg the better player this whole time, and in 77 Vilas better as well is outright . Both are often the leaders in stats like tournament wins, slam semis and finals.

For me the big edge for Connors though is he managed 8 slams despite basically playing only 2 slams per year most of his prime. In heavy contrast to Lendl who played all 4 slams nearly his entire prime and career and still only managed the same # of slams as Connors- 8. Connors would clearly be well ahead otherwise, he atleast wins numerous Australian Opens in 74-80, even if his chances at RG are debateable (I think he would have a fighting shot in 74-77, but I know a lot would disagree). Lendl's biggest edge is his # of YEC titles.

At the time Wimbledon and the U.S Open were clearly the biggest 2 events. It was not like today where all 4 slams are roughly equal, and even today one could argue a slightly higher prestige for the years final 2 majors. Back then there was a distinguishible gap really though. Connors has 7 combined Wimbledon/ U.S Open titles to only 3 for Lendl. Even at the U.S Open which is generally Lendl's pet slam he has only 3 titles to Connors 5, and Connors with U.S Open titles on grass, clay, and hard courts, is arguably still the Open goat over people like Sampras and Federer today. Lend of course failed to even win a single Wimbledon. Another point worth noting in addition to my point of Connors only playing 2 slams per year a lot of his prime, is Connors almost certainly has 7 U.S Open titles today without the switch to clay in 75-77. The only years in history the event was held on clay.

Connors was also still winning most of his matches with Lendl in 82-83 when he was already old and declined. Lendl had to wait until 84, the year Connors turned 32 to start consistently getting his better, particularly in big matches, and he still lost to Connors at Wimbledon and was outplayed by Connors at the U.S Open and would have almost certainly lost in a meeting there too had Connors gotten past McEnroe. This indicates to me Connors is the better player most likely. Lendl's competition in 85-87 while good, doesnt really compare to what Connors had to deal with in the 70s either, even if Connors vultured a bit of a weak 1974.

So I go with Connors ahead but just.

 

[cigrmaster]

Connors by a big margin. Not winning the biggest title Wimbledon is a huge hole in lendl's career.

 

[Limpinhitter]

It's very close. Both are all time greats. Who you consider to be the greater player depends on your criteria. Even then, most of the criteria are very close.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I sort of have them at roughly the same spot. My Open Era rankings would go.

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras (although Djokovic/Sampras is a toss up at this point for me)
5. Borg
------large gap obviously------
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Laver- for his 69 year which feaured a Calendar Slam alone
10. Agassi

So I do have Connors above if forced to choose I guess, but it really can go either way in my mind. Both have 8 slams, almost the same # of weeks at #1 which is a grossly inflated total by a flawed ranking system at the time for both guys. Connors spending nearly all of 77-79 ranked #1 when nearly everyone considered Borg the better player this whole time, and in 77 Vilas better as well is outright . Both are often the leaders in stats like tournament wins, slam semis and finals.

For me the big edge for Connors though is he managed 8 slams despite basically playing only 2 slams per year most of his prime. In heavy contrast to Lendl who played all 4 slams nearly his entire prime and career and still only managed the same # of slams as Connors- 8. Connors would clearly be well ahead otherwise, he atleast wins numerous Australian Opens in 74-80, even if his chances at RG are debateable (I think he would have a fighting shot in 74-77, but I know a lot would disagree). Lendl's biggest edge is his # of YEC titles.

At the time Wimbledon and the U.S Open were clearly the biggest 2 events. It was not like today where all 4 slams are roughly equal, and even today one could argue a slightly higher prestige for the years final 2 majors. Back then there was a distinguishible gap really though. Connors has 7 combined Wimbledon/ U.S Open titles to only 3 for Lendl. Even at the U.S Open which is generally Lendl's pet slam he has only 3 titles to Connors 5, and Connors with U.S Open titles on grass, clay, and hard courts, is arguably still the Open goat over people like Sampras and Federer today. Lend of course failed to even win a single Wimbledon. Another point worth noting in addition to my point of Connors only playing 2 slams per year a lot of his prime, is Connors almost certainly has 7 U.S Open titles today without the switch to clay in 75-77. The only years in history the event was held on clay.

Connors was also still winning most of his matches with Lendl in 82-83 when he was already old and declined. Lendl had to wait until 84, the year Connors turned 32 to start consistently getting his better, particularly in big matches, and he still lost to Connors at Wimbledon and was outplayed by Connors at the U.S Open and would have almost certainly lost in a meeting there too had Connors gotten past McEnroe. This indicates to me Connors is the better player most likely. Lendl's competition in 85-87 while good, doesnt really compare to what Connors had to deal with in the 70s either, even if Connors vultured a bit of a weak 1974.

So I go with Connors ahead but just.

Another poster who thinks Laver's open era greatness is based only on his Grand Slam? In fact, Laver has one of the best records in the open era alone.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Lendl. Just.

 

[dgold44]

I put Sampras as two
Then nadal then djoker then Borg

 

[thrust]

Connors by a big margin. Not winning the biggest title Wimbledon is a huge hole in lendl's career.

I would say Connors by a Small margin. Connors never won the French or came close, Lendl did reach 2 Wimbledon finals. Jim and some other players were banned from the French in the mid seventies because the chose to play WTT, instead of other European tournaments. Back then several players skipped slams they knew they had no chance of winning, especially some European players who hated grass court tennis.

 

[hoodjem]

Lendl. Just.

Yep.

Very close. Lendl.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I sort of have them at roughly the same spot. My Open Era rankings would go.

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras (although Djokovic/Sampras is a toss up at this point for me)
5. Borg
------large gap obviously------
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Laver- for his 69 year which feaured a Calendar Slam alone
10. Agassi

So I do have Connors above if forced to choose I guess, but it really can go either way in my mind. Both have 8 slams, almost the same # of weeks at #1 which is a grossly inflated total by a flawed ranking system at the time for both guys. Connors spending nearly all of 77-79 ranked #1 when nearly everyone considered Borg the better player this whole time, and in 77 Vilas better as well is outright . Both are often the leaders in stats like tournament wins, slam semis and finals.

For me the big edge for Connors though is he managed 8 slams despite basically playing only 2 slams per year most of his prime. In heavy contrast to Lendl who played all 4 slams nearly his entire prime and career and still only managed the same # of slams as Connors- 8. Connors would clearly be well ahead otherwise, he atleast wins numerous Australian Opens in 74-80, even if his chances at RG are debateable (I think he would have a fighting shot in 74-77, but I know a lot would disagree). Lendl's biggest edge is his # of YEC titles.

At the time Wimbledon and the U.S Open were clearly the biggest 2 events. It was not like today where all 4 slams are roughly equal, and even today one could argue a slightly higher prestige for the years final 2 majors. Back then there was a distinguishible gap really though. Connors has 7 combined Wimbledon/ U.S Open titles to only 3 for Lendl. Even at the U.S Open which is generally Lendl's pet slam he has only 3 titles to Connors 5, and Connors with U.S Open titles on grass, clay, and hard courts, is arguably still the Open goat over people like Sampras and Federer today. Lend of course failed to even win a single Wimbledon. Another point worth noting in addition to my point of Connors only playing 2 slams per year a lot of his prime, is Connors almost certainly has 7 U.S Open titles today without the switch to clay in 75-77. The only years in history the event was held on clay.

Connors was also still winning most of his matches with Lendl in 82-83 when he was already old and declined. Lendl had to wait until 84, the year Connors turned 32 to start consistently getting his better, particularly in big matches, and he still lost to Connors at Wimbledon and was outplayed by Connors at the U.S Open and would have almost certainly lost in a meeting there too had Connors gotten past McEnroe. This indicates to me Connors is the better player most likely. Lendl's competition in 85-87 while good, doesnt really compare to what Connors had to deal with in the 70s either, even if Connors vultured a bit of a weak 1974.

So I go with Connors ahead but just.

Regarding Laver's place among the open era greats, below are some of Laver's open era accomplishments that I posted in a previous thread:

- 1969 - The one and only open era "Grand Slam,"

- 1968 through 1971 - 5 traditional majors, plus 2 Tennis Champions Classics in 70' and 71', and the Dunlop International [the true Aussie Championship for 1970], so arguably 8 of the most important titles in 4 years,

- 1968 - 1970 - Probably the most dominant 3 years in tennis history - Laver won a total of 43 titles in 3 years* (10 titles in 68', 18 titles in 69', 15 titles in 70'), which included the Grand Slam and the 5 traditional majors, 1 of his 2 TCC's and numerous Masters 1000 equivalents as described below.

*Compare these 3 years of Laver's to Federer's best 4 years in which he won a total of 41 titles from 04' through 07'. Laver won more titles in 3 years than Federer won in his best 4 years.​

- 1969 - Laver's 18 titles in one year remains the open era record,

- 1968 thorugh 1977 - Laver won at least 74 total titles in the open era, alone, (200 known titles in his career), despite his injuries and being semi-retired for about half of those years.

- 1968 thorugh 1971 - Easily the #1 player every week for the first three straight years, and the #1 year end player for 4 straight years in the open era alone (64' through 71'),

- 1968 through 1971 - Easily the best player in the world for 4 straight years in the open era alone, and widely considered the best player in the world for several more years,

- 1969 - Arguably the highest level of tennis ever played.

In addition to the foregoing, our very own pc1 contributed the following comments from Andrew Tasiopolous. I redacted parts regarding Rosewall which are not relevant to this subject:

* * *​

Laver from 1968 onward. Open Era. Laver actually won several tournaments early in 1968 before the Open Era but I didn't count them.​

* * *​

Tournaments won-74 with five majors won plus an Open Grand Slam. If we include the 1970, 1971 Tennis Championships classic and the 1970 Dunlop it's eight majors won. Laver won a projected 585 and lost 154 for a percentage of 79.16.​

Both [Laver and Rosewall] won a number of big tournaments but in glancing at Laver's Masters equivalent I see Laver winning tournaments like the 1971 Italian Open, 1968 Pacific Southwest, 1968 French Pro, 1968 US Pro, the 1969 US Pro Indoor, 1969 South African Open, 1969 US Pro, 1970 South African Open, the Philadelphia Indoor several times, the 1970 Canadian Open, the 1974 Alan King, the British Covered Court in 1969 and 1970. Incidentally I heard the 1971 final of the British Covered Court was a fantastic five set match with Laver versus Nastase. I understand (if memory serves) that Laver had match point against him and tried a drop shot against the super quick Nastase that Nastase reached, won the point and the match. The score was 3-6 6-3 3-6 6-4 6-4. I would love to see that match.​

 

[pc1]

I would say Connors by a Small margin. Connors never won the French or came close, Lendl did reach 2 Wimbledon finals. Jim and some other players were banned from the French in the mid seventies because the chose to play WTT, instead of other European tournaments. Back then several players skipped slams they knew they had no chance of winning, especially some European players who hated grass court tennis.

Yep.

Very close. Lendl.

Of all the all time greats I find Lendl and Connors about as close as you can get for career record. They are close in virtually everything.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

Very hard to say. Records are really similar, hard to give the definite edge to one of them, but I would go with Connors.

Maybe Connors had an easier start in 74 which was a bit transitional. The AO was weak that year, so it isn't too impressive. Then he faced twice Rosewall on his last leg, who was also the best match up for Connors. But then until 1982 he only won two USO and otherwise was clear second to Borg. After Borg retirement, miracle, he won 3 others slam against McEnroe and Lendl, who was not really ready I think.

And for Lendl he was so consistent but it's hard to overlook all these shaky finals. He had magnificent consistency but sometimes failed to deliver in the biggest match. I like his 9 straight Master Cup finals (winning 5). It's an insane stat. He also have 2 WCT year end championships.

Also I would have McEnroe ahead of Agassi, although it's also a toss-up. Records aren't as similar so the comparison is more difficult. McEnroe has less slams but hardly play at the FO and especially the AO at a time it was legitimate to do so. He also performed very well at both master cup and the WCT finals, which were more important than the AO and are truer ersatz of majors. Longevity is very poor.

Agassi has his amazing late career for him. All in all he prevailed often in kind of open draws, with Martin, Medvedev, Clément, Schüttler, etc. who are both players who haven't too impressive careers and didn't either shock the world by their level in these tournaments.

 

[jrepac]

a never ending debate, but slight edge to Connors due to : # of titles, better composition of GS wins--on all 4 surfaces--which Lendl can't claim, and longevity. The guy was near the very top for a solid 10 years and in the Top 10 for several years after that. Not to mention his impact of the game's popularity. It was tremendous (along w/Mac, Borg, Chris, Martina, etc). He also pulled off a resurgence NO ONE ever expected, after Borg departed. Lendl never really had a "2nd act." Rough start, several GS losses, then success and then he was done by '89 or so.

 

[BobbyOne]

Regarding Laver's place among the open era greats, below are some of Laver's open era accomplishments that I posted in a previous thread:

- 1969 - The one and only open era "Grand Slam,"

- 1968 through 1971 - 5 traditional majors, plus 2 Tennis Champions Classics in 70' and 71', and the Dunlop International [the true Aussie Championship for 1970], so arguably 8 of the most important titles in 4 years,

- 1968 - 1970 - Probably the most dominant 3 years in tennis history - Laver won a total of 43 titles in 3 years* (10 titles in 68', 18 titles in 69', 15 titles in 70'), which included the Grand Slam and the 5 traditional majors, 1 of his 2 TCC's and numerous Masters 1000 equivalents as described below.

*Compare these 3 years of Laver's to Federer's best 4 years in which he won a total of 41 titles from 04' through 07'. Laver won more titles in 3 years than Federer won in his best 4 years.​

- 1969 - Laver's 18 titles in one year remains the open era record,

- 1968 thorugh 1977 - Laver won at least 74 total titles in the open era, alone, (200 known titles in his career), despite his injuries and being semi-retired for about half of those years.

- 1968 thorugh 1971 - Easily the #1 player every week for the first three straight years, and the #1 year end player for 4 straight years in the open era alone (64' through 71'),

- 1968 through 1971 - Easily the best player in the world for 4 straight years in the open era alone, and widely considered the best player in the world for several more years,

- 1969 - Arguably the highest level of tennis ever played.

In addition to the foregoing, our very own pc1 contributed the following comments from Andrew Tasiopolous. I redacted parts regarding Rosewall which are not relevant to this subject:

* * *​

Laver from 1968 onward. Open Era. Laver actually won several tournaments early in 1968 before the Open Era but I didn't count them.​

* * *​

Tournaments won-74 with five majors won plus an Open Grand Slam. If we include the 1970, 1971 Tennis Championships classic and the 1970 Dunlop it's eight majors won. Laver won a projected 585 and lost 154 for a percentage of 79.16.​

Both [Laver and Rosewall] won a number of big tournaments but in glancing at Laver's Masters equivalent I see Laver winning tournaments like the 1971 Italian Open, 1968 Pacific Southwest, 1968 French Pro, 1968 US Pro, the 1969 US Pro Indoor, 1969 South African Open, 1969 US Pro, 1970 South African Open, the Philadelphia Indoor several times, the 1970 Canadian Open, the 1974 Alan King, the British Covered Court in 1969 and 1970. Incidentally I heard the 1971 final of the British Covered Court was a fantastic five set match with Laver versus Nastase. I understand (if memory serves) that Laver had match point against him and tried a drop shot against the super quick Nastase that Nastase reached, won the point and the match. The score was 3-6 6-3 3-6 6-4 6-4. I would love to see that match.​

You firmly stay the "good old Limpinhitter": As usual the bizarre Laver worshipping. The usual wrong claims and statistics. The usual pumping up Laver's records.

Laver won at least 202 tournaments. Here you underrate The Rocket...

Laver was NOT the No.1 year end player in 1964 and 1971. In 1964 Rosewall was as krosero has proved. In 1971 either Smith or Newcombe was. Regarding 1970 Rod himself says he was No.4.

Laver was NOT considered the best player in the world for any year after 1970.

Laver was NOT easily the No. 1 player every week for the first three straight years. It could be that Rosewall was the No.1 for a few weeks after his 1968 French Open win and/or after his 1970 US Open win (if there was a weekly ranking at all).

By the way, when will you correct your wrong number of Laver's 36 winning majors? Still in this century?

And when finally will you apologize for your bad lie about me claiming that Rosewall would have won 40 open GS tournaments???

 

[heninfan99]

Usually both are underrated. Pretty good list! Though Laver needs to be moved up.

 

[jrepac]

Very hard to say. Records are really similar, hard to give the definite edge to one of them, but I would go with Connors.

Maybe Connors had an easier start in 74 which was a bit transitional. The AO was weak that year, so it isn't too impressive. Then he faced twice Rosewall on his last leg, who was also the best match up for Connors. But then until 1982 he only won two USO and otherwise was clear second to Borg. After Borg retirement, miracle, he won 3 others slam against McEnroe and Lendl, who was not really ready I think.

And for Lendl he was so consistent but it's hard to overlook all these shaky finals. He had magnificent consistency but sometimes failed to deliver in the biggest match. I like his 9 straight Master Cup finals (winning 5). It's an insane stat. He also have 2 WCT year end championships.

Also I would have McEnroe ahead of Agassi, although it's also a toss-up. Records aren't as similar so the comparison is more difficult. McEnroe has less slams but hardly play at the FO and especially the AO at a time it was legitimate to do so. He also performed very well at both master cup and the WCT finals, which were more important than the AO and are truer ersatz of majors. Longevity is very poor.

Agassi has his amazing late career for him. All in all he prevailed often in kind of open draws, with Martin, Medvedev, Clément, Schüttler, etc. who are both players who haven't too impressive careers and didn't either shock the world by their level in these tournaments.

Prior to '82, Connors had 3 USOs....1 each on grass, clay and hard courts. Then 2 more HC wins to follow. I put Mac ahead of Andre as well. But, that's another close one to call. Andre did better across surfaces, yet, most of his wins are at the AO....which perhaps I unfairly undervalue. Andre did redeem himself in those later years, no doubt.

 

[Tshooter]

------large gap obviously------

 

[eldanger25]

Connors by a wh*re's eyelash. Been appreciating Lendl more and more recently though, and both men are underrated and maybe belong up there with the other top tier Open Era greats due to sheer consistent excellence across matches, tournaments, and seasons. A less showy greatness, but the kind that one values more and more with age.

 

[helterskelter]

Some of these stats involve double counting. For example, the first one is great, but then you start the second one by saying he won five traditional majors. You should just add "one further traditional major," and then go on to the other stuff. Still, certainly Laver did very well in the open era.

By the way, in a match with a score of 3-6 6-3 3-6 6-4 6-4, the victor definitely DID NOT save match point. Either the score is wrong, or there were no match points, or both.

Regarding Laver's place among the open era greats, below are some of Laver's open era accomplishments that I posted in a previous thread:

- 1969 - The one and only open era "Grand Slam,"

- 1968 through 1971 - 5 traditional majors, plus 2 Tennis Champions Classics in 70' and 71', and the Dunlop International [the true Aussie Championship for 1970], so arguably 8 of the most important titles in 4 years,

- 1968 - 1970 - Probably the most dominant 3 years in tennis history - Laver won a total of 43 titles in 3 years* (10 titles in 68', 18 titles in 69', 15 titles in 70'), which included the Grand Slam and the 5 traditional majors, 1 of his 2 TCC's and numerous Masters 1000 equivalents as described below.

*Compare these 3 years of Laver's to Federer's best 4 years in which he won a total of 41 titles from 04' through 07'. Laver won more titles in 3 years than Federer won in his best 4 years.​

- 1969 - Laver's 18 titles in one year remains the open era record,

- 1968 thorugh 1977 - Laver won at least 74 total titles in the open era, alone, (200 known titles in his career), despite his injuries and being semi-retired for about half of those years.

- 1968 thorugh 1971 - Easily the #1 player every week for the first three straight years, and the #1 year end player for 4 straight years in the open era alone (64' through 71'),

- 1968 through 1971 - Easily the best player in the world for 4 straight years in the open era alone, and widely considered the best player in the world for several more years,

- 1969 - Arguably the highest level of tennis ever played.

In addition to the foregoing, our very own pc1 contributed the following comments from Andrew Tasiopolous. I redacted parts regarding Rosewall which are not relevant to this subject:

* * *​

Laver from 1968 onward. Open Era. Laver actually won several tournaments early in 1968 before the Open Era but I didn't count them.​

* * *​

Tournaments won-74 with five majors won plus an Open Grand Slam. If we include the 1970, 1971 Tennis Championships classic and the 1970 Dunlop it's eight majors won. Laver won a projected 585 and lost 154 for a percentage of 79.16.​

Both [Laver and Rosewall] won a number of big tournaments but in glancing at Laver's Masters equivalent I see Laver winning tournaments like the 1971 Italian Open, 1968 Pacific Southwest, 1968 French Pro, 1968 US Pro, the 1969 US Pro Indoor, 1969 South African Open, 1969 US Pro, 1970 South African Open, the Philadelphia Indoor several times, the 1970 Canadian Open, the 1974 Alan King, the British Covered Court in 1969 and 1970. Incidentally I heard the 1971 final of the British Covered Court was a fantastic five set match with Laver versus Nastase. I understand (if memory serves) that Laver had match point against him and tried a drop shot against the super quick Nastase that Nastase reached, won the point and the match. The score was 3-6 6-3 3-6 6-4 6-4. I would love to see that match.​

 

[Limpinhitter]

Some of these stats involve double counting. For example, the first one is great, but then you start the second one by saying he won five traditional majors. You should just add "one further traditional major," and then go on to the other stuff. Still, certainly Laver did very well in the open era.

By the way, in a match with a score of 3-6 6-3 3-6 6-4 6-4, the victor definitely DID NOT save match point. Either the score is wrong, or there were no match points, or both.

There is some overlap. But, in my view, looking at each point separately serves to demonstrate my point that Laver's open era record is among the very best notwithstanding his Grand Slam in 1969. As for the Laver/Nastase match, I see your point. That was a double quote: pc1 quoting Andrew Tasiopoulos.

 

[dgold44]

Very slight edge to Connors over Lendl and Mac and Agassi

 

[thrust]

You firmly stay the "good old Limpinhitter": As usual the bizarre Laver worshipping. The usual wrong claims and statistics. The usual pumping up Laver's records.

Laver won at least 202 tournaments. Here you underrate The Rocket...

Laver was NOT the No.1 year end player in 1964 and 1971. In 1964 Rosewall was as krosero has proved. In 1971 either Smith or Newcombe was. Regarding 1970 Rod himself says he was No.4.

Laver was NOT considered the best player in the world for any year after 1970.

Laver was NOT easily the No. 1 player every week for the first three straight years. It could be that Rosewall was the No.1 for a few weeks after his 1968 French Open win and/or after his 1970 US Open win (if there was a weekly ranking at all).

By the way, when will you correct your wrong number of Laver's 36 winning majors? Still in this century?

And when finally will you apologize for your bad lie about me claiming that Rosewall would have won 40 open GS tournaments???

According to Bud Collins Tennis Encyclopedia, Rosewall was ranked higher YE than Laver in: 70,71,72,73, and 75 which was the last year bot were ranked in the top ten. Laver's last #1 YE ranking was in 69, also in 68.

 

[BobbyOne]

According to Bud Collins Tennis Encyclopedia, Rosewall was ranked higher YE than Laver in: 70,71,72,73, and 75 which was the last year bot were ranked in the top ten. Laver's last #1 YE ranking was in 69, also in 68.

thrust, Additionally Lance Tingay (the Tennis Pope) ranked Rosewall above Laver in 1974: Rosewall No.2; Laver No.7.

Rosewall had the disadvantage in the ATP rankings that he played only 7 events. Twelve tournaments were the minimum not to be punished by losing points.

Muscles was the only top player (1 to 30) who played less than 12 tourneys that year!

 

[cigrmaster]

Wasn't the question Connors or Lendl? What does laver have to do with the question? Sometimes I just don't understand the suck fest with laver on this site. Yes he was great, no he is not the goat. He was my hero as a kid, I got to see him play more times than I can remember. Let's put a lid on the laver worship.

 

[Limpinhitter]

According to Bud Collins Tennis Encyclopedia, Rosewall was ranked higher YE than Laver in: 70,71,72,73, and 75 which was the last year bot were ranked in the top ten. Laver's last #1 YE ranking was in 69, also in 68.

As you well know from the numerous discussions on this subject, those are subjective opinion rankings, not official rankings.

 

[BobbyOne]

As you well know from the numerous discussions on this subject, those are subjective opinion rankings, not official rankings.

Limpinhitter, Instead of finally apologizing for your bad lie(s) you argue with the next strange statement.

Of course Collins' rankings had a high quality, especially as Bud was Laver's buddy. Furthermore the rankings of the other experts (Tingay, McCauley and so on) don't differ significantly from Bud's. Stop your exaggerated Laver worshipping and use serious stats and numbers!

 

[PMChambers]

I sort of have them at roughly the same spot. My Open Era rankings would go.

1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic
4. Sampras (although Djokovic/Sampras is a toss up at this point for me)
5. Borg
------large gap obviously------
6. Connors
7. Lendl
8. McEnroe
9. Laver- for his 69 year which feaured a Calendar Slam alone
10. Agassi

So I do have Connors above if forced to choose I guess, but it really can go either way in my mind. Both have 8 slams, almost the same # of weeks at #1 which is a grossly inflated total by a flawed ranking system at the time for both guys. Connors spending nearly all of 77-79 ranked #1 when nearly everyone considered Borg the better player this whole time, and in 77 Vilas better as well is outright . Both are often the leaders in stats like tournament wins, slam semis and finals.

For me the big edge for Connors though is he managed 8 slams despite basically playing only 2 slams per year most of his prime. In heavy contrast to Lendl who played all 4 slams nearly his entire prime and career and still only managed the same # of slams as Connors- 8. Connors would clearly be well ahead otherwise, he atleast wins numerous Australian Opens in 74-80, even if his chances at RG are debateable (I think he would have a fighting shot in 74-77, but I know a lot would disagree). Lendl's biggest edge is his # of YEC titles.

At the time Wimbledon and the U.S Open were clearly the biggest 2 events. It was not like today where all 4 slams are roughly equal, and even today one could argue a slightly higher prestige for the years final 2 majors. Back then there was a distinguishible gap really though. Connors has 7 combined Wimbledon/ U.S Open titles to only 3 for Lendl. Even at the U.S Open which is generally Lendl's pet slam he has only 3 titles to Connors 5, and Connors with U.S Open titles on grass, clay, and hard courts, is arguably still the Open goat over people like Sampras and Federer today. Lend of course failed to even win a single Wimbledon. Another point worth noting in addition to my point of Connors only playing 2 slams per year a lot of his prime, is Connors almost certainly has 7 U.S Open titles today without the switch to clay in 75-77. The only years in history the event was held on clay.

Connors was also still winning most of his matches with Lendl in 82-83 when he was already old and declined. Lendl had to wait until 84, the year Connors turned 32 to start consistently getting his better, particularly in big matches, and he still lost to Connors at Wimbledon and was outplayed by Connors at the U.S Open and would have almost certainly lost in a meeting there too had Connors gotten past McEnroe. This indicates to me Connors is the better player most likely. Lendl's competition in 85-87 while good, doesnt really compare to what Connors had to deal with in the 70s either, even if Connors vultured a bit of a weak 1974.

So I go with Connors ahead but just.

I'm bit confused in your previous post about hardest competition you have
9 Nadal
10. Federer
11. Djokovic

They are each others competition within reason.
But you rate them
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic

Are you saying the weakest era had the three best players?

It's all subjective but lacks consistency.

BTW I rate Lendl about Connors by a flies eyebrow. But switching Mac,Connors and Lendl is fine.I feel the end of wood era really hurt Mac, if the status quo continued he would have won more Wimbledon and US plus would have a decent chance at AO.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I'm bit confused in your previous post about hardest competition you have
9 Nadal
10. Federer
11. Djokovic

They are each others competition within reason.
But you rate them
1. Federer
2. Nadal
3. Djokovic

Are you saying the weakest era had the three best players?

It's all subjective but lacks consistency.

BTW I rate Lendl about Connors by a flies eyebrow. But switching Mac,Connors and Lendl is fine.I feel the end of wood era really hurt Mac, if the status quo continued he would have won more Wimbledon and US plus would have a decent chance at AO.

In my view, the end of McEnroe's dominance arose from personal lifestyle issues, not racquet technology.

 

[PMChambers]

In my view, the end of McEnroe's dominance arose from personal lifestyle issues, not racquet technology.

I believe his drug and family issues effected his play it but did not end it, he was a coke head in 70's. The power game of the mid 80's onward significantly effected his ability to server and volley. He struggled to handle the power game from the back of the court and he was not able to get away with short dead volleys as much. His lack of topspin generation was not helpful and the ability of new generation to generate topspin off both sides on short balls did not help. I think if you dropped Rosewall into the 90's he would not make Top 10, his game was developed around volleying and half volleying. His stature would adversely effect his serve.
I don't see it as "luck" that the best of the late 70s to 80s where Mac 5'11", Borg 5'11", Connors 5'10, Vilas 5'11" & Geralaitis 6'0" (I omit Lendl because he was not at his peak and I like to bend arguments). from 87 onwards, note he didn't play 86 the best players where, Lendl 6'3", Becker 6'3", Edberg 6'2" Wilander 6'0" (Wiki has him at 5'11.5" but he was generally considered 6'0"), Mercir 6'3". Then later in the early 90's with the exception of Chang who was 1 Major winner and Agassi who really not there seriously until late 90's and a little mid 90's spell dominant players Stich, Sampras, Krajicek, Courier, Korda, Ivanišević , etc plus Becker 6'3", Edberg 6'2". The height went from 5'10" as optimal to 6'2" nearly over night. There are always exceptions such as Agassi and Chang, they also exist in the 70's in reverse.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I believe his drug and family issues effected his play it but did not end it, he was a coke head in 70's. The power game of the mid 80's onward significantly effected his ability to server and volley. He struggled to handle the power game from the back of the court and he was not able to get away with short dead volleys as much. His lack of topspin generation was not helpful and the ability of new generation to generate topspin off both sides on short balls did not help. I think if you dropped Rosewall into the 90's he would not make Top 10, his game was developed around volleying and half volleying. His stature would adversely effect his serve.
I don't see it as "luck" that the best of the late 70s to 80s where Mac 5'11", Borg 5'11", Connors 5'10, Vilas 5'11" & Geralaitis 6'0" (I omit Lendl because he was not at his peak and I like to bend arguments). from 87 onwards, note he didn't play 86 the best players where, Lendl 6'3", Becker 6'3", Edberg 6'2" Wilander 6'0" (Wiki has him at 5'11.5" but he was generally considered 6'0"), Mercir 6'3". Then later in the early 90's with the exception of Chang who was 1 Major winner and Agassi who really not there seriously until late 90's and a little mid 90's spell dominant players Stich, Sampras, Krajicek, Courier, Korda, Ivanišević , etc plus Becker 6'3", Edberg 6'2". The height went from 5'10" as optimal to 6'2" nearly over night. There are always exceptions such as Agassi and Chang, they also exist in the 70's in reverse.

I completely disagree with this in every respect. First, peak McEnroe handled power as well as anyone who ever played the game, including Rosewall, and was one of the quickest players who ever played, an attribute largely overlooked. Neither Connors nor Borg, two of the biggest hitters of all time, with among the greatest return games and passing shots of all time, could overpower him. McEnroe's drug abuse compromised his conditioning, his athleticism and his level of play. As a result, after 1984, McEnroe was a different, lesser player.

Second, the notion that a few inches in height makes a significant difference in power is completely meritless and has been repeatedly disproved throughout tennis history by players like Johnston, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, Agassi and even Wawrinka who at 6' is currently the biggest hitter in the game.

 

[PMChambers]

I completely disagree with this in every respect. First, peak McEnroe handled power as well as anyone who ever played the game, including Rosewall, and was one of the quickest players who ever played, an attribute largely overlooked. Neither Connors nor Borg, two of the biggest hitters of all time, with among the greatest return games and passing shots of all time, could overpower him. McEnroe's drug abuse compromised his conditioning, his athleticism and his level of play. As a result, after 1984, McEnroe was a different, lesser player.

Second, the notion that a few inches in height makes a significant difference in power is completely meritless and has been repeatedly disproved throughout tennis history by players like Johnston, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, Agassi and even Wawrinka who at 6' is currently the biggest hitter in the game.

When you disagree your not meant to support my position with evidence, Johnston, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, are all wooden era players, they are all short by today champions 5'6 - 5'11". McEnroe is a wood era player also in this 5'10" range.

Neither Connors nor Borg, two of the biggest hitters of all time,

Not even close, they may or may not have been bigger hitters in the wooden era but neither comes close to the graphite era at any stage. Mcenroe struggled with the power and top spin of the woven graphite era. It is very evident in his matches in the late 80's and early 90's. He did OK, but was never dominant.

Second, the notion that a few inches in height makes a significant difference in power is completely meritless

difference between 5'10 and 6'2" is huge on serve, even in the wood era this was evident though not as much a dominant factor in match outcome.

Wawrinka who at 6' is currently the biggest hitter in the game.

No he's not. Not even close on any shot except maybe his one handed backhand which is more to do with the length and wind up than anything hence his poor performance on grass. Also he's a distant 5th during his era. If your putting his record against Nadal, federer or Djokovic you're coming up very short (LOL) and although he has similar Majors to Murray he's career is not even close. if he's your under 6'0" modern era outlyer, he's not even under 6'0" and he so distance to the Big 3 or 4 that he's more of a floating danger if the Top 4 are out of form or injured.

I don't think you thought very hard on this one, since 86 when the woven graphite racquet era and 00's poly era there are no Rosewell 5'7' or Laver 5'8" Hoad 5'10/11" Mac 5'10" Connors 5'10" Borg 5'11" dominating the game. The nearest is Agassi 5'11" who manage to win a few major finals against the weakest finalist in history, (Rainer Schüttler, Arnaud Clément, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Todd Martin, [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Medvedev']Andrei Medvedev)[/URL] and Hewitt at touch under 6'0" The french has allowed a few under 6'0" to win but they never dominate out side clay in Chang, Gaudio, Costa & Muster.

It is not luck there has been no male player under 6'0" who has dominate tennis since 86. With the exception of the Netherlands all average male heights are less than 6'0" and most 1st world tennis nations average 5'10 so it's not that there aren't enough under 6'0" people in the world as they make up the majority. It is not luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

 

[Limpinhitter]

When you disagree your not meant to support my position with evidence, Johnston, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, are all wooden era players, they are all short by today champions 5'6 - 5'11". McEnroe is a wood era player also in this 5'10" range.

Not even close, they may or may not have been bigger hitters in the wooden era but neither comes close to the graphite era at any stage. Mcenroe struggled with the power and top spin of the woven graphite era. It is very evident in his matches in the late 80's and early 90's. He did OK, but was never dominant.

difference between 5'10 and 6'2" is huge on serve, even in the wood era this was evident though not as much a dominant factor in match outcome.

No he's not. Not even close on any shot except maybe his one handed backhand which is more to do with the length and wind up than anything hence his poor performance on grass. Also he's a distant 5th during his era. If your putting his record against Nadal, federer or Djokovic you're coming up very short (LOL) and although he has similar Majors to Murray he's career is not even close. if he's your under 6'0" modern era outlyer, he's not even under 6'0" and he so distance to the Big 3 or 4 that he's more of a floating danger if the Top 4 are out of form or injured.

I don't think you thought very hard on this one, since 86 when the woven graphite racquet era and 00's poly era there are no Rosewell 5'7' or Laver 5'8" Hoad 5'10/11" Mac 5'10" Connors 5'10" Borg 5'11" dominating the game. The nearest is Agassi 5'11" who manage to win a few major finals against the weakest finalist in history, (Rainer Schüttler, Arnaud Clément, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, Todd Martin, Andrei Medvedev) and Hewitt at touch under 6'0" The french has allowed a few under 6'0" to win but they never dominate out side clay in Chang, Gaudio, Costa & Muster.

It is not luck there has been no male player under 6'0" who has dominate tennis since 86. With the exception of the Netherlands all average male heights are less than 6'0" and most 1st world tennis nations average 5'10 so it's not that there aren't enough under 6'0" people in the world as they make up the majority. It is not luck.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide

Again, I completely disagree with all of your premises, express and implied. The fact that players can hit bigger with modern racquets only makes the point about the racquets, not the size of the players. Throughout tennis history, the best players have mostly been over 6 feet tall. They remain over 6 feet tall today. So what? If you think that is because they hit harder than the sub 6 feet players, then, in my view, you know little about the game, past and present.

Nor is the average size of the World's best players much different than it was 50 years ago. For example, a few years ago, I calculated and compared the average height of the men's Wimbledon seeds in 1969 and 2015. As I recall, the difference was about 1 inch despite the fact that the top 4 or 16 seeds in 1969 were Laver (5'9"), Roche (5'10), Okker (5'10") and Rosewall (5'7). Arthur Ashe correctly observed that, with a modern racquet, no one would be hitting harder than Laver.

 

[jrepac]

I completely disagree with this in every respect. First, peak McEnroe handled power as well as anyone who ever played the game, including Rosewall, and was one of the quickest players who ever played, an attribute largely overlooked. Neither Connors nor Borg, two of the biggest hitters of all time, with among the greatest return games and passing shots of all time, could overpower him. McEnroe's drug abuse compromised his conditioning, his athleticism and his level of play. As a result, after 1984, McEnroe was a different, lesser player.

Second, the notion that a few inches in height makes a significant difference in power is completely meritless and has been repeatedly disproved throughout tennis history by players like Johnston, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver, Connors, Borg, Agassi and even Wawrinka who at 6' is currently the biggest hitter in the game.

I agree with you re: Mac's ability to blunt power....he did it with Borg, Connors and Lendl.....he was a very deft player from the backcourt...underrated. What really hurt him against those guys was when his mobility was off....even just a little bit. Mac himself has said this in his books. He needed to be 100pct in terms of footspeed against those guys....Borg and Connors in particular, who were quite fleet in their primes. Re: drug abuse, I just don't know. There was a lot of it rumored...Mac, Vitas--most notable, Wilander....did that ruin Mac's game? hard to say. He had a very turbulent marriage too, that couldn't have helped. Once Mac took that sabbatical in '86 he was never the same player again.

 

[Tshooter]

Why does this question come up constantly.

The only thing Lendl has over Jimbo is belly size.

 

[KG1965]

Why does this question come up constantly.

The only thing Lendl has over Jimbo is belly size.

There are at least 10 threads on this subject in fact....

I think it's because Jimbo is the most indecipherable of the Era Open.

How do you place Connors, Tshooter?

 

[jrepac]

There are at least 10 threads on this subject in fact....

I think it's because Jimbo is the most indecipherable of the Era Open.

How do you place Connors, Tshooter?

This will ALWAYS be debated....and it will always be close, but I think Connors will be viewed a bit more positively, as this poll shows. Two Wimbledons makes a difference, no way around that. And, in his peak years, he owned a young Lendl. Sure, Lendl surpassed him eventually, but you are talking when Jimmy was hitting his mid-30's, when most guys are retiring from the game. Jimmy had a huge impact on the game in the US....good and bad, depending on your POV. But, he surely put fan booties in the seats wherever he played.

 

[esprits4s]

I agree it's a close call, but I'm surprised there isn't more love for Lendl. I don't understand the argument about Lendl's lack of Wimbledon win's when Conners has the French open gap in his resume. At least Lendl made multiple finals appearances at Wimbledon. Losing to Becker twice, one of the greatest grass court players of all times, was bad luck.

I know my own opinion is somewhat skewed because Lendl was the dominant player when I first started watching tennis (late 80's), so perhaps the comments above reflect the demographics of the above posters?

 

[BobbyOne]

I agree it's a close call, but I'm surprised there isn't more love for Lendl. I don't understand the argument about Lendl's lack of Wimbledon win's when Conners has the Australian open gap in his resume. At least Lendl made multiple finals appearances at Wimbledon. Losing to Becker twice, one of the greatest grass court players of all times, was bad luck.

I know my own opinion is somewhat skewed because Lendl was the dominant player when I first started watching tennis (late 80's), so perhaps the comments above reflect the demographics of the above posters?

Connors won the AO and reached the great 1975 final against Newcombe.

 

[esprits4s]

Connors won the AO and reached the great 1975 final against Newcombe.

Sorry, I meant to write the French Open gap instead of AO.

 

[Xavier G]

Even though Jimmy didn't win the French Open, he won a US Open of course on the green 'clay' Har Tru beating Borg in the 1976 final and reached all 3 finals in the years 1975-77 that the US Open was played on it.
Add to that the numerous French semi finals he reached and it's clear that Connors was a formidable player on clay and indeed any surface.

 

[BobbyOne]

Even though Jimmy didn't win the French Open, he won a US Open of course on the green 'clay' Har Tru beating Borg in the 1976 final and reached all 3 finals in the years 1975-77 that the US Open was played on it.
Add to that the numerous French semi finals he reached and it's clear that Connors was a formidable player on clay and indeed any surface.

Xavier, Yes, and Connors did not play the French Open in five of his best years (1974 to 1978).

 

[jrepac]

Xavier, Yes, and Connors did not play the French Open in five of his best years (1974 to 1978).

That's the thing....in his best couple of years, he couldn't play the event. Though, I thought the ban was only a year (or two?) He proved he could play on the green stuff, but was never a big fan of the euro clay circuit. He played it a few times when he was much older. But, in '75-77, I think he proved he could play well on clay w/his wins over guys like Vilas and Borg, who were the top clay players. And, he just stopped playing the AO after 2 years....he didn't think it was worth it, even when grass was one of his best surfaces. Back then, it was not as it is today. Just different times. I think 5 USOs across 3 surfaces + 2 Wimbledons, along w/his win totals and everything else, are just a little more prestigious (not a lot) than Lendl. If anything, he and lendl are under rated/regarded, I think. Both had significant periods of dominance/consistency and Connors longevity was pretty remarkable.

 

[BobbyOne]

That's the thing....in his best couple of years, he couldn't play the event. Though, I thought the ban was only a year (or two?) He proved he could play on the green stuff, but was never a big fan of the euro clay circuit. He played it a few times when he was much older. But, in '75-77, I think he proved he could play well on clay w/his wins over guys like Vilas and Borg, who were the top clay players. And, he just stopped playing the AO after 2 years....he didn't think it was worth it, even when grass was one of his best surfaces. Back then, it was not as it is today. Just different times. I think 5 USOs across 3 surfaces + 2 Wimbledons, along w/his win totals and everything else, are just a little more prestigious (not a lot) than Lendl. If anything, he and lendl are under rated/regarded, I think. Both had significant periods of dominance/consistency and Connors longevity was pretty remarkable.

jrepac, I believe Connors was banned only in 1974. He would have had good chances to win in 1975 and 1976, I think.

 

[Ciaron]

How about we analyze and discuss their playability/ shots..
Who had the 1st 2nd better serve to the deuce/ ad court
Ability to serve different types of serves
Ground strokes.. drive and angle
Volley .. drop .. lob .. over head
etc use your discretion

 

[bigjimbofan]

Mention the names of Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl to anyone over the age of 45 and whose name do you think will get the blank stare the most ? Both great players and close IMO but Connors had the greater impact as an icon of the game.

 

[jrepac]

jrepac, I believe Connors was banned only in 1974. He would have had good chances to win in 1975 and 1976, I think.

I did not remember if it was one year or more....he and Evert skipped several years. He really should have gone back sooner. No guarantee he would've won, but....

 

[jrepac]

How about we analyze and discuss their playability/ shots..
Who had the 1st 2nd better serve to the deuce/ ad court
Ability to serve different types of serves
Ground strokes.. drive and angle
Volley .. drop .. lob .. over head
etc use your discretion

I think this would be inconclusive at best:

Serve- Lendl, obviously
Groundies...well, they are 2 of the best. Forehand Lendl, Backhand Connors.
Volley, drop, lob....Connors...tho' I think Lendl could hit a nice drop and his topspin lob was wicked.
Return Connors, obviously.
Like I said, pretty much a toss up.
I think Connors over the years became a craftier player....he could mix things up better...or was at least willing to. He was also more aggressive on short balls than Lendl, I think. But, you are talking small differences here. Peak game of each was pretty impressive.

 

[BobbyOne]

Mention the names of Jimmy Connors and Ivan Lendl to anyone over the age of 45 and whose name do you think will get the blank stare the most ? Both great players and close IMO but Connors had the greater impact as an icon of the game.

That does not mean he should be ranked higher though.

 

[mtincoronel76]

Connors seems to be more agressive style. Lendl dominated more than Connors in your era, but don't have the quality of rivals that Jimbo. The h2h (22-13 fav Lendl) dont have much sens, for the each age. the first matches win Connors and the last (much more) Ivan. Lendl was boring ... I bet Connors, but is probabbly that i loose the bet.