Why was Connors so defenseless against McEnroe in the first half of 1983?

[Martinl]

Why was Connors so defenseless against McEnroe in 1984



Up until 1983 McEnroe and Connors had a fairly even rivalry. But in 1984 McEnroe demolished Connors one time after another.



WCT finals in Dalls 61 62 63

RG SF 75 61 62

Queens SF 62 62

Wim Final 61 61 62



Thins only changed after Wimbledon, in their Toronto match Connors won a set and then there was the epic US Open five set match.



But how could McEnroe be so dominating against Connors for the first half of of 1984?


People will generally come up with two answers: 1) 1984 was the year McEnroe was unbeatable, he compiled an 82-3that remains the highest single-season win rate of the Open Era.
2) Connors was getting too old and was declining

I do not really buy any of those explanations

Yes, Mac was superb in 1984, but he did not demolish other, lower ranked, players the way he demolished Connors.

In WCT Dallas, Queens and Wimbledon he lost fewer games against Connors than against any other player he faced in those tournaments. In RG he only lost fewer games in the first round against a qualifier than he did against Connors.

So while McEnroe was great in 1984 he did not dominate other, lower ranked, players the way he dominated Connors for the first half of the year.

Then there is the Connors-was-getting-too-old-and-was-past-his-prime argument


Connors spent the entire 1984 in top three and at the end of the year he was the second ranked player, ahead of Lendl (whom he beat in Wimbledon and Tokyo) and Wilander. In Roland Garros he beat Sundtrom, an exellent clay court player who, as we remember beat McEnroe in the Davis Cup Final.

And the matches in WCT Dallas, Roland Garros, Queens and Wimbledon, where he was totally demolished, were all played when he was still the reigning US Open championn


So Connors was still a top player, maybe not in his absolute prime, but definitely pretty close to his prime.

So how could McEnroe dominate Connors to the extent that he did in the first half of 1984? He was the better player for sure, but not THAT much better.

How come he beat Connors more convincingly than all the lower ranked players he faced in the same tournaments?

Any thoughts?

 

[jrepac]

Mac was just too damn good. End of story. His serve was practically unreadable. He had no physical limitations, which dogged him somewhat in '82 and '83. Jimmy was getting older...still potent...but this was Mac reaching a peak he'd never see again. Jimmy surely would've won Wimby in '84 otherwise, and possibly the USO

 

[WCT]

Mac was just too damn good.

This pretty much sums it up for me.

 

[Martinl]

Mac was just too damn good. End of story. His serve was practically unreadable. He had no physical limitations, which dogged him somewhat in '82 and '83. Jimmy was getting older...still potent...but this was Mac reaching a peak he'd never see again. Jimmy surely would've won Wimby in '84 otherwise, and possibly the USO

This is not a satisfying answer. Yes, Mac was very good, but my question is: Why was McEnroe so much more dominant against Connors than against lower ranked players?

 

[penguin]

Switch to graphite.

 

[jrepac]

Why? Well, their encounters came down to a very simple equation...Mac's serve vs. Jimmy's return...for the most part. Mac was obviously going to have to demonstrate some sort of consistency from the baseline, but that was not the winning formula for him, it was the potency of his serve. He needed a 1st serve percentage ~60% + to beat Connors badly. What made the '84 USO match so startling was that Mac served around 63% and still had his hands full with Connors, whose return was crackling that evening. Jimmy had said that in the W final, he didn't 'see' the ball as well as he did in earlier rounds. Take that for what you will, but part of the Connors magic was his eye/hand coordination on the return. It was often stellar against Lendl, but I always felt he was much more challenged by Mac. Connors also had to keep the errors low and the passing shots firing against Mac, not the easiest thing to do consistently. I'd say compare some of the '84 match stats where Mac won, to a few where Connors won in '82, '83 and the McEnroe serve efficacy will be the big difference. I also think Mac typically stepped up his game a bit against Jimmy as he knew it wasn't going to be a walkover.

 

[WCT]

Was he that much more dominant? He dominated a lot of good players that year. I think Mcenroe was just that good in 84. CLEARLY better than he was in 83. How about all the clay courters, who he has never beaten on that surface, and is killing on it in 1984. I think this was more about his level than Connors although he isn't at prime level. However, that 84 US Open semi was about as well as he had played since maybe Queens the year before.

Connors didn't see the ball well in the Wimbledon final? What was his excuse at the WCT finals, Queens, the French? And while I think Mcenroe's domination was in large part on Connors inability to get into his serve the way he once had, it's more than that. He breaks Connors half the time he serves. That has nothing to do with Mcenroe's serve or Connors return. He is just walking through Connors' serve, many of them first serves, and wacking it.

I've seen Connors play a lot worse than he played at Wimbledon in the 84 final. Obviously, I have also seen him play far better. However, he is not spraying errors all over the place as I have sometimes seen him do. And Mcenroe toyed with him. TOYED with him. That was extremely discouraging as a Connors fan. It's like, how is he ever going to beat this guy. Things change in sports, though. What looks impossible one day is possible another. No way Mcenroe will not win another GS title after the way he looked in 84. Well, it happened.

Again, this isn't just Connors. He killed Lendl a bunch of matches. Difference is Lendl had the French. For me, the clay dominance may have been the most glaring. Clerc, Higueras, Lendl, Arias. Until he was up 2 sets in the French final and it was almost like he realized that he wasn't supposed to be this good on clay. He certainly never was before or after.

No, I think I'll stick with Mcenroe was just that good in 1984.

 

[jrepac]

Was he that much more dominant? He dominated a lot of good players that year. I think Mcenroe was just that good in 84. CLEARLY better than he was in 83. How about all the clay courters, who he has never beaten on that surface, and is killing on it in 1984. I think this was more about his level than Connors although he isn't at prime level. However, that 84 US Open semi was about as well as he had played since maybe Queens the year before.

Connors didn't see the ball well in the Wimbledon final? What was his excuse at the WCT finals, Queens, the French? And while I think Mcenroe's domination was in large part on Connors inability to get into his serve the way he once had, it's more than that. He breaks Connors half the time he serves. That has nothing to do with Mcenroe's serve or Connors return. He is just walking through Connors' serve, many of them first serves, and wacking it.

I've seen Connors play a lot worse than he played at Wimbledon in the 84 final. Obviously, I have also seen him play far better. However, he is not spraying errors all over the place as I have sometimes seen him do. And Mcenroe toyed with him. TOYED with him. That was extremely discouraging as a Connors fan. It's like, how is he ever going to beat this guy. Things change in sports, though. What looks impossible one day is possible another. No way Mcenroe will not win another GS title after the way he looked in 84. Well, it happened.

Again, this isn't just Connors. He killed Lendl a bunch of matches. Difference is Lendl had the French. For me, the clay dominance may have been the most glaring. Clerc, Higueras, Lendl, Arias. Until he was up 2 sets in the French final and it was almost like he realized that he wasn't supposed to be this good on clay. He certainly never was before or after.

No, I think I'll stick with Mcenroe was just that good in 1984.

well, I do agree w/you. He WAS that much better in '84....better than he ever would be again in his career (who knew?)
But, I don't think I've ever seen him beat Connors as badly as he did in the '84 W final. Yes, he was "walking through" Connors service games, on the first serves--just a stunning display
That's was Jimmy's comment about not "seeing" the ball....what can I tell you?? Personally, I felt he looked a bit fatigued. The Lendl semi was tough.
But NO ONE ON EARTH was beating Mac that day.
You are right, Mac also killed Lendl earlier that year on Har Tru and hard courts! So, it wasn't just Jimmy he was clobbering.
But Connors can only get into Mac's service game if he's returning well...clearly, he COULD do it, and do it well, based on the '84 USO semi
What other weapon does he really have against Mac?
Mac could hold his own off the ground long enough to get to net for a winning volley, even if Connors was deemed stronger overall from the back.
Younger viewers watch Mac today and have all sorts of critical comments about his strokes, his "weak" serve, but don't have a clue how deadly effective he could be.

 

[Pheasant]

McEnroe hit a sick level in 1984; most dominant I’ve ever seen.

He was a ridiculous 17-1 vs the top-5 that year, which includes 6-0 vs Connors, 6-1 vs Lendl, and 3-0 vs Wilander. That is incredible. And those wins were mostly blowouts

For example, he blew out Lendl in 5 times in straight sets. He blew out connors 4 times in straight sets. And he blew out Wilander once in straight sets.

That is ridiculous domination of 3 guys that easily made the Hall of Fame with 7+ slam titles each.

 

[Martinl]

Was he that much more dominant? He dominated a lot of good players that year. I think Mcenroe was just that good in 84. CLEARLY better than he was in 83. How about all the clay courters, who he has never beaten on that surface, and is killing on it in 1984. I think this was more about his level than Connors although he isn't at prime level. However, that 84 US Open semi was about as well as he had played since maybe Queens the year before.

Connors didn't see the ball well in the Wimbledon final? What was his excuse at the WCT finals, Queens, the French? And while I think Mcenroe's domination was in large part on Connors inability to get into his serve the way he once had, it's more than that. He breaks Connors half the time he serves. That has nothing to do with Mcenroe's serve or Connors return. He is just walking through Connors' serve, many of them first serves, and wacking it.

I've seen Connors play a lot worse than he played at Wimbledon in the 84 final. Obviously, I have also seen him play far better. However, he is not spraying errors all over the place as I have sometimes seen him do. And Mcenroe toyed with him. TOYED with him. That was extremely discouraging as a Connors fan. It's like, how is he ever going to beat this guy. Things change in sports, though. What looks impossible one day is possible another. No way Mcenroe will not win another GS title after the way he looked in 84. Well, it happened.

Again, this isn't just Connors. He killed Lendl a bunch of matches. Difference is Lendl had the French. For me, the clay dominance may have been the most glaring. Clerc, Higueras, Lendl, Arias. Until he was up 2 sets in the French final and it was almost like he realized that he wasn't supposed to be this good on clay. He certainly never was before or after.

No, I think I'll stick with Mcenroe was just that good in 1984.

Tice games, on the first serves--just a stunning display
That's was Jimmy's comment about not "seeing" the ball....what can I tell you?? Personally, I felt he looked a bit fatigued. The Lendl semi was tough.
But NO ONE ON EARTH was beating Mac that day.
You are right, Mac also killed Lendl earlier that year on Har Tru and hard courts! So, it wasn't just Jimmy he was clobbering.
But Connors can only get into Mac's service game if he's returning well...clearly, he COULD do it, and do it well, based on the '84 USO semi
What other weapon does he really have against Mac?
Mac could hold his own off the ground long enough to get to net for a winning volley, even if Connors was deemed stronger overall from the back.
Younger viewers watch Mac today and have all sorts of critical comments about his strokes, his "weak" serve, but don't have a clue how deadly effective he could be.

I had a close look at McEnroes matches at Queens, Roland Garros, Dallas and WImbledon. In Queens, Dallas and Wimbledon McEnroe lost fewer games against Connors than against any other player he faced in those tournaments. At RG he only lost fewer games in the first round against a qualifier than he did against Connors.

Was he that much more dominant? He dominated a lot of good players that year. I think Mcenroe was just that good in 84. CLEARLY better than he was in 83. How about all the clay courters, who he has never beaten on that surface, and is killing on it in 1984. I think this was more about his level than Connors although he isn't at prime level. However, that 84 US Open semi was about as well as he had played since maybe Queens the year before.

Connors didn't see the ball well in the Wimbledon final? What was his excuse at the WCT finals, Queens, the French? And while I think Mcenroe's domination was in large part on Connors inability to get into his serve the way he once had, it's more than that. He breaks Connors half the time he serves. That has nothing to do with Mcenroe's serve or Connors return. He is just walking through Connors' serve, many of them first serves, and wacking it.

I've seen Connors play a lot worse than he played at Wimbledon in the 84 final. Obviously, I have also seen him play far better. However, he is not spraying errors all over the place as I have sometimes seen him do. And Mcenroe toyed with him. TOYED with him. That was extremely discouraging as a Connors fan. It's like, how is he ever going to beat this guy. Things change in sports, though. What looks impossible one day is possible another. No way Mcenroe will not win another GS title after the way he looked in 84. Well, it happened.

Again, this isn't just Connors. He killed Lendl a bunch of matches. Difference is Lendl had the French. For me, the clay dominance may have been the most glaring. Clerc, Higueras, Lendl, Arias. Until he was up 2 sets in the French final and it was almost like he realized that he wasn't supposed to be this good on clay. He certainly never was before or after.

No, I think I'll stick with Mcenroe was just that good in 1984.

"Was he that more dominant?" The answer is:: Yes! McEnroe certainly dominated other players but not in the way he dominated Connors for the first half of 1984. In Queens, Dallas and WImbledon, McEnroe lost fewer games against Connors than against any other player he faced. In RG he only lost fewer games in the first round against a qualifier than he did against Connors. In those four tournaments Connors and McEnroe played 11 sets, and Connors won a combined 22 games, that is an average two games per set. If you look at McEnroes matches against Lendl and do the math, you will see that although McEnroe certainly dominated Lendl and beat him badly, it was not the same level of dominance.

 

[jrepac]

McEnroe hit a sick level in 1984; most dominant I’ve ever seen.

He was a ridiculous 17-1 vs the top-5 that year, which includes 6-0 vs Connors, 6-1 vs Lendl, and 3-0 vs Wilander. That is incredible. And those wins were mostly blowouts

For example, he blew out Lendl in 5 times in straight sets. He blew out connors 4 times in straight sets. And he blew out Wilander once in straight sets.

That is ridiculous domination of 3 guys that easily made the Hall of Fame with 7+ slam titles each.

That's insane.....didn't sit down and figure it out, but I knew he was killing just about everyone. These were not "cupcake" opponents. Of course, we all know what that 1 match loss was...talk about 1 match that could have changed the course of a career.

 

[jrepac]

I had a close look at McEnroes matches at Queens, Roland Garros, Dallas and WImbledon. In Queens, Dallas and Wimbledon McEnroe lost fewer games against Connors than against any other player he faced in those tournaments. At RG he only lost fewer games in the first round against a qualifier than he did against Connors.

"Was he that more dominant?" The answer is:: Yes! McEnroe certainly dominated other players but not in the way he dominated Connors for the first half of 1984. In Queens, Dallas and WImbledon, McEnroe lost fewer games against Connors than against any other player he faced. In RG he only lost fewer games in the first round against a qualifier than he did against Connors. In those four tournaments Connors and McEnroe played 11 sets, and Connors won a combined 22 games, that is an average two games per set. If you look at McEnroes matches against Lendl and do the math, you will see that although McEnroe certainly dominated Lendl and beat him badly, it was not the same level of dominance.

Jimmy did not beat Mac again until 1987, if memory serves me. Mac was well off his peak 1984 form at that point, still struggling a bit to return from his ill-advised sabbatical in 1986.

 

[Pheasant]

That's insane.....didn't sit down and figure it out, but I knew he was killing just about everyone. These were not "cupcake" opponents. Of course, we all know what that 1 match loss was...talk about 1 match that could have changed the course of a career.

Yeah, he set a record for winning pct that still stands with an 82-3 record that year. She shredded Lendl in back-to-back matches on CLAY of all surfaces before that horrifying FO match. I figured he had it.

Mac was so good at serving and volleying that year, that he was shredding people on clay that year.

And wow!!! I'm digging further into that ridiculous start that he had that year. He started out 42-0 that year, which includes winning 37 of those matches in straight sets. That includes dishing out 3 bagels and 17 breadsticks while eating 0 of those himself.

That is absolutely insane. For the entire year, he ate 0 bagels and only 1 breadstick.

 

[Martinl]

Jimmy did not beat Mac again until 1987, if memory serves me. Mac was well off his peak 1984 form at that point, still struggling a bit to return from his ill-advised sabbatical in 1986.

I think it was only in 1988 that Jimmy finally beat Mac, after having lost ten times in a row. But then Jimmy actually beat Mac two times in a row, the second match being in a final

 

[jrepac]

I think it was only in 1988 that Jimmy finally beat Mac, after having lost ten times in a row. But then Jimmy actually beat Mac two times in a row, the second match being in a final

That may be right....there was the Toulouse final in '89 and before that, it was a Canadian Open match....QF I think...Mac had lost that dominance he once had. Jimmy could get into his service games a bit more.

 

[WCT]

I had a close look at McEnroes matches at Queens, Roland Garros, Dallas and WImbledon. In Queens, Dallas and Wimbledon McEnroe lost fewer games against Connors than against any other player he faced in those tournaments. At RG he only lost fewer games in the first round against a qualifier than he did against Connors.

"Was he that more dominant?" The answer is:: Yes! McEnroe certainly dominated other players but not in the way he dominated Connors for the first half of 1984. In Queens, Dallas and WImbledon, McEnroe lost fewer games against Connors than against any other player he faced. In RG he only lost fewer games in the first round against a qualifier than he did against Connors. In those four tournaments Connors and McEnroe played 11 sets, and Connors won a combined 22 games, that is an average two games per set. If you look at McEnroes matches against Lendl and do the math, you will see that although McEnroe certainly dominated Lendl and beat him badly, it was not the same level of dominance.

You are splitting hairs. He dominated these other players whether he lost a couple more games or not. Gerulaitis won 7 games in Dallas instead of Connors 6 doesn't change that. He played 9 sets, won all 9 and lost 4 games in 1 of them. That is domination.

Testerman and Purcell won 9 games at the French vs Connors' 8. Who cares? Scanlon, Sadri and Masur won 7 games in 3 sets instead of Connors'4. Who cares, they were dominated.

What about the tournaments where he didn't play Connors? They don't count. He killed a bunch of clay courters on red clay at the World Team Cup. That isn't domination because you can't compare it to Connors. What he did to Lendl at Brussels and Forest Hills isn't domination because Lendl you can't compare it to Connors?

BTW, Connors beat Mcenroe again at the Canadian Open in 1987.

 

[WCT]

well, I do agree w/you. He WAS that much better in '84....better than he ever would be again in his career (who knew?)
But, I don't think I've ever seen him beat Connors as badly as he did in the '84 W final. Yes, he was "walking through" Connors service games, on the first serves--just a stunning display
That's was Jimmy's comment about not "seeing" the ball....what can I tell you?? Personally, I felt he looked a bit fatigued. The Lendl semi was tough.
But NO ONE ON EARTH was beating Mac that day.
You are right, Mac also killed Lendl earlier that year on Har Tru and hard courts! So, it wasn't just Jimmy he was clobbering.
But Connors can only get into Mac's service game if he's returning well...clearly, he COULD do it, and do it well, based on the '84 USO semi
What other weapon does he really have against Mac?
Mac could hold his own off the ground long enough to get to net for a winning volley, even if Connors was deemed stronger overall from the back.
Younger viewers watch Mac today and have all sorts of critical comments about his strokes, his "weak" serve, but don't have a clue how deadly effective he could be.

Obviously, Connors was the one who said it about seeing the ball. And I'm saying that I think he was full of crap. I don't buy fatigue being a factor at Wimbledon. He hadn't had a lot of tough matches and he had a day off after the semis. In my mind the biggest issue was Mcenroe's insane level of play. And yes I'd say that he beat him there worse than anywhere else. However, that just means he beat him like a rented mule x2. He still beat him like a rented mule in Dallas. And maybe Paris was just beat him like a mule. I've never seen the Queens match, I can only go by the score. We do agree that noone was beating Mcenroe that day at Wimbledon.

Again, Mcenroe only serves half the games. If the only real weapon Connors has is his return he is in deep you know what. He can't use his service return to hold serve.
Prime Connors' groundtrokes are a weapon. It's hard to come to the net when you are running corner to corner and he is coming to the net behind those groundstrokes.

Mcenroe was hitting the ball harder and deeper that year. So many shots Connors was in trouble right off the serve. It wasn't chip and charge either, it was drive and charge. However, Connors passed tremendously in this match. Not just off the service return.

CBS flashed the net stats at 5-2 duece in the 4th. Mcenroe was 54 of 112 and Connors 15 of 28. Less than 50% for Mcenroe when he was serving 61%. That was the stat CBS flashed a couple of games before the net stat. That was a very good % by Mcenroe standards and he was still less than 50% on winning at net.

I just saw maybe a set and a half not that long ago. I always remembered something like 28 for Connors because Newcombe asks Trabert if Connors should maybe come in more. To which Trabert replied, well, it's really not his game. I rolled my eyes that night because he sure as hell used to think it was his game.

Some people think had a weak serve? It's usually the weak groundtrokes that I see and I think he hit the ball pretty hard when he wanted to. Certainly in 84. One more thing about that 84 US Open. Mcenroe is not playing quite as well as I remembered. Now, I knew it wasn't Wimbledon good, but I thought it was better, and still feel that way, than his level in 1980 vs Connors. Still, there were more errors in that set and a half than I expected. Not a lot more, but more.

Still served over 60% and Connors was killing him on the return. That's more about how well Connors is playing than how poorly Mcenroe is playing.

 

[Martinl]

That may be right....there was the Toulouse final in '89 and before that, it was a Canadian Open match....QF I think...Mac had lost that dominance he once had. Jimmy could get into his service games a bit more.

And 1989 was in many ways McEnroe's best year in the post-1985/sabbatical stage of is career. Wimbledon SF, won in Dallas, got his only post-1985 win over Lendl. So it was quite impressive that Jimmy could beat Mac in that year

 

[WCT]

When I was watching some of that 1989 Toulouse final recently, in the warmup they flashed their ATP ranking. Mcenroe was 4 and I was thinking that I had forgotten that he got that high again. That match had to be up there as Connors' highest level his lat 5 or so years. Just watched it and he played great. I can remember, from 1989, how complimentary Mcenroe was of his level after the match. Post 84-85 they didn't play that much. Certainly not compared to earlier.

 

[jrepac]

Obviously, Connors was the one who said it about seeing the ball. And I'm saying that I think he was full of crap. I don't buy fatigue being a factor at Wimbledon. He hadn't had a lot of tough matches and he had a day off after the semis. In my mind the biggest issue was Mcenroe's insane level of play. And yes I'd say that he beat him there worse than anywhere else. However, that just means he beat him like a rented mule x2. He still beat him like a rented mule in Dallas. And maybe Paris was just beat him like a mule. I've never seen the Queens match, I can only go by the score. We do agree that noone was beating Mcenroe that day at Wimbledon.

Again, Mcenroe only serves half the games. If the only real weapon Connors has is his return he is in deep you know what. He can't use his service return to hold serve.
Prime Connors' groundtrokes are a weapon. It's hard to come to the net when you are running corner to corner and he is coming to the net behind those groundstrokes.

Mcenroe was hitting the ball harder and deeper that year. So many shots Connors was in trouble right off the serve. It wasn't chip and charge either, it was drive and charge. However, Connors passed tremendously in this match. Not just off the service return.

CBS flashed the net stats at 5-2 duece in the 4th. Mcenroe was 54 of 112 and Connors 15 of 28. Less than 50% for Mcenroe when he was serving 61%. That was the stat CBS flashed a couple of games before the net stat. That was a very good % by Mcenroe standards and he was still less than 50% on winning at net.

I just saw maybe a set and a half not that long ago. I always remembered something like 28 for Connors because Newcombe asks Trabert if Connors should maybe come in more. To which Trabert replied, well, it's really not his game. I rolled my eyes that night because he sure as hell used to think it was his game.

Some people think had a weak serve? It's usually the weak groundtrokes that I see and I think he hit the ball pretty hard when he wanted to. Certainly in 84. One more thing about that 84 US Open. Mcenroe is not playing quite as well as I remembered. Now, I knew it wasn't Wimbledon good, but I thought it was better, and still feel that way, than his level in 1980 vs Connors. Still, there were more errors in that set and a half than I expected. Not a lot more, but more.

Still served over 60% and Connors was killing him on the return. That's more about how well Connors is playing than how poorly Mcenroe is playing.

"Drive and charge" was a good way to describe Mac's play. And you are right to call out Jimmy's passing shots in that USO semi, they were stellar. I did not think Mac was playing as well as in the W final, but Connors was MUCH better, so maybe a little hard to judge. I felt Jimmy needed to win that one in 4 sets...he let it get away from him a little bit in the 3rd set. But still, my favorite match between them. Great stuff all over.

 

[jrepac]

When I was watching some of that 1989 Toulouse final recently, in the warmup they flashed their ATP ranking. Mcenroe was 4 and I was thinking that I had forgotten that he got that high again. That match had to be up there as Connors' highest level his lat 5 or so years. Just watched it and he played great. I can remember, from 1989, how complimentary Mcenroe was of his level after the match. Post 84-85 they didn't play that much. Certainly not compared to earlier.

Yes, that final was a throwback for Connors...he played VERY well. Passing, lobbing, taking to the net, he had all cylinders firing in that one. Mac was having a career resurgence in 89/90....it was definitely more exciting to follow him as you knew he was more of a threat. than he had been a few years earlier. But time was not on his side with Becker, Edberg, Agassi and then Sampras coming up.

 

[bigjimbofan]

Mac in 1984 was in a zone that may never be equaled. I have not seen anything like that year since. Just my opinion.

 

[jrepac]

Mac in 1984 was in a zone that may never be equaled. I have not seen anything like that year since. Just my opinion.

Peak Fed comes close.

 

[WCT]

"Drive and charge" was a good way to describe Mac's play. And you are right to call out Jimmy's passing shots in that USO semi, they were stellar. I did not think Mac was playing as well as in the W final, but Connors was MUCH better, so maybe a little hard to judge. I felt Jimmy needed to win that one in 4 sets...he let it get away from him a little bit in the 3rd set. But still, my favorite match between them. Great stuff all over.

Not my favorite match, Connors lost and no match where he came to the net that infrequently would be among my favorites. My favorite Connors matches are all from the 70s. However, I do think the 84 match one had te consistently highest level of play between both players. He was up a break in the third, but it was early in the third. I don't think of this as a match Connors was close to having in hand. 1980 was much closer to that, but even there Connors was up a break early in the 3rd.

Yes, Connors level was MUCH better. Caps are appropriate. I really think he would have won the next day if he kept that level. If being the operative word because it ended very late. How would his body hold up. On the other hand, maybe momentum would have carried him.

Newcombe mentions during the match that you just don't see players do what Mcenroe is doing. Not on the men's pro tour. It's like he is just walking through another player's first serve.

It's hard to compare levels from then and now because of the rackets and strings. I may have seen some more awe inspiring tennis from Federer, but give 1984 Mcenroe modern racket technology. From that era, I think 84 Mcenroe was the best I saw. When I saw that Wimbledon match I definitely remember thinking that this is as good as I have everyone seen anyone play.

 

[Martinl]

Peak Fed comes close.

extremely close. He was 81-4 in 2005. He lost one match at the AO against Safin,, where he held match point. And in the final match of the year, the masters final. he was up 2 sets to 0 against Nalbandian and lost the fifth set in a tie break. And a few years later it was decided that the finals at the year end masters should only be best of three, had that been implemented earlier Fed would have won. So extremely close.

 

[BauerAlmeida]

extremely close. He was 81-4 in 2005. He lost one match at the AO against Safin,, where he held match point. And in the final match of the year, the masters final. he was up 2 sets to 0 against Nalbandian and lost the fifth set in a tie break.

Not only he was 2-0 up, in the fifth he was serving 6-5 30-0.

And a few years later it was decided that the finals at the year end masters should only be best of three, had that been implemented earlier Fed would have won. So extremely close.

But also, if hawk-eye had been implemented earlier he might have lost the 2nd set.