Would Connors have had a much better career than his already amazing one had Ashe not exposed his vurnerabilities to all in the 75 Wimbledon final

[insideoutforehanders]

Before the Wimbledon 75 final many were predicting (fearing as he was not that popular at the time) a long period of dominance for Connors. Ashe however won in a big upset, but far worse than that for Connors was not so much the upset itself as those will happen to everyone, but that Ashe did not play his own usual big game in winning it. Instead he played a tactical masterpiece that exposed some of Connors vurnerable points, including low balls to the forehand, or wide serves where he had to stretch out a lot further on his two handed backhand. Orantes would use a lot of the same tactics in the 75 US Open final, and others such as Borg, Newcombe, even McEnroe who would not emerge as a big threat for several years more, but surely watched this match. Had this match never happened does he win significantly more? Total dominance for a period of 10 years is super unlikely with people like Borg, McEnroe, and later Lendl coming on the scene, but does he semi dominante longer and win significantly more than he did in his still exceptional career?

 

[reaper]

Before the Wimbledon 75 final many were predicting (fearing as he was not that popular at the time) a long period of dominance for Connors. Ashe however won in a big upset, but far worse than that for Connors was not so much the upset itself as those will happen to everyone, but that Ashe did not play his own usual big game in winning it. Instead he played a tactical masterpiece that exposed some of Connors vurnerable points, including low balls to the forehand, or wide serves where he had to stretch out a lot further on his two handed backhand. Orantes would use a lot of the same tactics in the 75 US Open final, and others such as Borg, Newcombe, even McEnroe who would not emerge as a big threat for several years more, but surely watched this match. Had this match never happened does he win significantly more? Total dominance for a period of 10 years is super unlikely with people like Borg, McEnroe, and later Lendl coming on the scene, but does he semi dominante longer and win significantly more than he did in his still exceptional career?

This one is a test...recalling the tactical nuances of matches going back 50 years. I can't help much, other than to say McEnroe wins the 1984 Wimbledon Final comfortably irrespective of this tactical advantage.

 

[JMR]

Before the Wimbledon 75 final many were predicting (fearing as he was not that popular at the time) a long period of dominance for Connors. Ashe however won in a big upset, but far worse than that for Connors was not so much the upset itself as those will happen to everyone, but that Ashe did not play his own usual big game in winning it. Instead he played a tactical masterpiece that exposed some of Connors vurnerable points, including low balls to the forehand, or wide serves where he had to stretch out a lot further on his two handed backhand. Orantes would use a lot of the same tactics in the 75 US Open final, and others such as Borg, Newcombe, even McEnroe who would not emerge as a big threat for several years more, but surely watched this match. Had this match never happened does he win significantly more?

Probably not. First, remember that the illusion of Connors' invulnerability already had been dispelled by his four-set loss to Newcombe in the final of the 1975 AO. While Newcombe generally played his normal S&V game rather than a Connors-tailored variant, the key fact is that Jimbo lost. Thus, he could be beaten by an "ordinary" top player; he wasn't destined to be a super-GOAT.

Ashe's well-conceived battle plan systematized a lot of the insights that I think most good players of the era would have figured out for themselves. The simplest way to understand how to beat a player is to see what works when you play them. Ashe thought it through beforehand, but the tactics themselves were not some kind of exotic witches' brew.

As for Orantes in the USO final, while he may have increased the frequency of low, short balls directed to Connors' forehand, I think he basically played his standard game. He was a clay specialist, and he was a "mix 'em up" player rather than a power hitter. In other words, he was already in a good position to give Jimmy a tough time on a clay court.

 

[helterskelter]

Did Connors ever give any reason for not playing the AO again after 1975? Playing more than two of the slams per year might have helped him win more overall (1976-78 he only played Wimbledon and the US Open, and he won two of the three US Opens. Borg's improvement at Wimbledon explains most of why he didn't win Wimbledon - he lost the final to Borg in 1977 and 1978).

 

[RSJfan]

It’s not like it was a state secret that Ashe’s team figured out. That Connors could be vulnerable on low FH shots especially approach shots. But you had to execute well and Connors not able to adjust that day. Did Orantes “expose” Connor’s weakness to an offensive topspin forehand lob when he lost to Orantes at the USO? No. Orantes just hit the shot well and beat him on the day in a major upset. Same as Ashe did at W.

 

[RSJfan]

Probably not. First, remember that the illusion of Connors' invulnerability already had been dispelled by his four-set loss to Newcombe in the final of the 1975 AO. While Newcombe generally played his normal S&V game rather a Connors-tailored variant, the key fact is that Jimbo lost. Thus, he could be beaten by an "ordinary" top player; he wasn't destined to be a super-GOAT.

Ashe's well-conceived battle plan systematized a lot of the insights that I think most good players of the era would have figured out for themselves. The simplest way to understand how to beat a player is to see what works when you play them. Ashe thought it through beforehand, but the tactics themselves were not some kind of exotic witches' brew.

As for Orantes in the USO final, while he may have increased the frequency of low, short balls directed to Connors' forehand, I think he basically played his standard game. He was a clay specialist, and he was a "mix 'em up" player rather than a power hitter. In other words, he was already in a good position to give Jimmy a tough time on a clay court.

Connor’s was a big fav. Orantes won that crazy comeback semi verse Vilas and got to sleep very late at night. He wasn’t in a good position to win. He scored a major upset beating Connor’s easy. The next week all us kids we’re trying to hit topspin FH lobs like Orantes.

PS, Connors won the 1975 USO doubles. Playing with Nastase.

 

[JMR]

Did Connors ever give any reason for not playing the AO again after 1975?

I believe he did at some point, but I can't recall the specifics. But my sense is that he'd won it and saw no reason to go back after he no longer had to defend the title. In those days, the AO didn't offer enough money or glory to entice the top players to go way down there regularly (or at all, in some cases). The total slam count was not something generally on players' minds in the mid-1970s. Instead, it was, "Can I win Wimbledon? Can I win the U.S. Open? How much money can I make from the Pepsi Grand Slam? Does WTT pay enough to make that league worth trying for a season or two? Can I improve my indoor game enough to win the WCT or Masters final?"

 

[fritzhimself]

Hey guys, are you stuck in a time loop? It's 2025!

It's pretty weird to be rehashing old stuff from 50 years ago.

 

[Gizo]

After winning the big money challenge matches against Laver and Newcombe in Vegas earlier in the year (the Australian Open final vs. Newcombe was a big deal and the Challenge match in Vegas was an even bigger deal), I do think that Connors slacked off at least a bit in 1975. He previously talked about how he lost some motivation and focus in 1975 (not drastically but still at least in part), which wouldn't ever be the case again throughout the rest of his career.

He basked in the spotlight and was enjoying life off court (he was 22 / 23 that year after all). Several opponents adjusted more to his game in terms of feeding him less pace, with him then adjusting and adapting as he rebounded with a strong year in 1976.

His level of play en-route to the 1975 Wimbledon final was brilliant though. I said elsewhere that I thought he played even better during his Wimbledon 1975 semi-final win vs. Tanner, than he did during his 1974 final win vs. Rosewall. Dan Maskell ranked it as one of the best displays he had ever seen at Wimbledon.

His record in big matches was highlighted in 1975. In addition to the 3 defeats in the finals of majors (Newcombe, Ashe and Orantes all deserve a great deal of credit for their respective performances in those matches), he also lost in 2 notable finals in back to back weeks during the fall in Stockholm and then in the Dewar Cup in London. And while it belonged to the 1976 competition, just before Christmas he suffered the big defeat to Ramirez in Mexico City in the Davis Cup.

There was already a recent thread about the Wimbledon final that year. Orantes' performance in the US Open final, especially following the incredibly short turn-around due to his SF finishing so late, was a masterpiece. It looked like he had the ball on a string. He used his variety, craft and touch to frustrate Connors. In terms of touch and dropshots, he is one of the best players I've ever seen in those departments. I thought that his offensive topspin lob (a thing of beauty and his pet shot) was actually far more effective in his SF win vs. Vilas than in the final vs. Connors.

 

[I get cramps]

After winning the big money challenge matches against Laver and Newcombe in Vegas earlier in the year (the Australian Open final vs. Newcombe was a big deal and the Challenge match in Vegas was an even bigger deal), I do think that Connors slacked off at least a bit in 1975. He previously talked about how he lost some motivation and focus in 1975 (not drastically but still at least in part), which wouldn't ever be the case again throughout the rest of his career.

Wasn't Connors carrying extra weight during 1975? If I remember correctly, I read it in Ashe vs Connors: Wimbledon 1975: Tennis that went beyond centre court by Bodo. JSC adjusted his weight for the following season.

Incidentally, since you mentioned Orantes, he lost a significant amount of weight for the 1975 season. Perhaps the debacle of the last three sets of the Roland Garros final against Borg stayed with him for a long time. I know about Orantes' weight loss because he mentioned on a radio programme a few years ago that he had felt weak on the court in 1974.

 

[ollinger]

Connors won five more slams after the Ashe match and made something like an additional 15 slam semis. Whatever "vulnerabilities" were exposed in 1975 didn't seem to hamper him much.

 

[BTURNER]

Hey guys, are you stuck in a time loop? It's 2025!

It's pretty weird to be rehashing old stuff from 50 years ago.

It's not weird in here! This is exactly the place. This is where us history buffs hang out, and it's why we hang out here.

To the op. I think the tactical significance of this match is overblown. You have bit of a generation gap, a bad match-up, you have an opponent that thrives on pace, and a court, some rackets and a circumstances where that off speed stuff can really be effective. Arthur has to try something different if he is going to have a chance, and its the logical direction to go. What made this match different was that Arthur did not wait to lose the first set before he went to the obvious 'Plan B'. He switched Plan B to Plan A before he went on the court.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Connors won five more slams after the Ashe match and made something like an additional 15 slam semis. Whatever "vulnerabilities" were exposed in 1975 didn't seem to hamper him much.

Fair point, but he won only 2 slams in the next around 7 years, which was pretty shocking at the time.

 

[jrepac]

After winning the big money challenge matches against Laver and Newcombe in Vegas earlier in the year (the Australian Open final vs. Newcombe was a big deal and the Challenge match in Vegas was an even bigger deal), I do think that Connors slacked off at least a bit in 1975. He previously talked about how he lost some motivation and focus in 1975 (not drastically but still at least in part), which wouldn't ever be the case again throughout the rest of his career.

He basked in the spotlight and was enjoying life off court (he was 22 / 23 that year after all). Several opponents adjusted more to his game in terms of feeding him less pace, with him then adjusting and adapting as he rebounded with a strong year in 1976.

His level of play en-route to the 1975 Wimbledon final was brilliant though. I said elsewhere that I thought he played even better during his Wimbledon 1975 semi-final win vs. Tanner, than he did during his 1974 final win vs. Rosewall. Dan Maskell ranked it as one of the best displays he had ever seen at Wimbledon.

His record in big matches was highlighted in 1975. In addition to the 3 defeats in the finals of majors (Newcombe, Ashe and Orantes all deserve a great deal of credit for their respective performances in those matches), he also lost in 2 notable finals in back to back weeks during the fall in Stockholm and then in the Dewar Cup in London. And while it belonged to the 1976 competition, just before Christmas he suffered the big defeat to Ramirez in Mexico City in the Davis Cup.

There was already a recent thread about the Wimbledon final that year. Orantes' performance in the US Open final, especially following the incredibly short turn-around due to his SF finishing so late, was a masterpiece. It looked like he had the ball on a string. He used his variety, craft and touch to frustrate Connors. In terms of touch and dropshots, he is one of the best players I've ever seen in those departments. I thought that his offensive topspin lob (a thing of beauty and his pet shot) was actually far more effective in his SF win vs. Vilas than in the final vs. Connors.

I think you hit on several relevant points. I've always felt like the Ashe upset, in terms of impact on Connors career, has been exaggerated somewhat. Let's face it, he was never able to pull it off again, and it wasn't such an easy play. Not normal for some...Tanner tried it and failed. Mac had enough variety in his game, IMHO, to make it an irrelevant strategy. Experienced players realized trying to overpower Connors w/pace was a fool's errand. Newbies, maybe not as much, like young Lendl, for instance. Connors bounced back rather nicely in 1976, despite the shortfalls in '75 and maintained his high ranking for years to come, so it's a bit of a nothing burger.

 

[jrepac]

Fair point, but he won only 2 slams in the next around 7 years, which was pretty shocking at the time.

Shocking? Not really. Not with Borg in the mix. And really, only 2 GS a year were relevant to him....USO and W. He never went back to AO and only played FO starting in '79. He probably would have won at least 2 more GS if he had competed in both regularly from 75 on, I'd suspect. Him picking up 3 more GS after Borg left was the real shocker.

 

[jrepac]

Hey guys, are you stuck in a time loop? It's 2025!

It's pretty weird to be rehashing old stuff from 50 years ago.

maybe because it's more interesting than a lot of what's going on today?

 

[jrepac]

Wasn't Connors carrying extra weight during 1975? If I remember correctly, I read it in Ashe vs Connors: Wimbledon 1975: Tennis that went beyond centre court by Bodo. JSC adjusted his weight for the following season.

Incidentally, since you mentioned Orantes, he lost a significant amount of weight for the 1975 season. Perhaps the debacle of the last three sets of the Roland Garros final against Borg stayed with him for a long time. I know about Orantes' weight loss because he mentioned on a radio programme a few years ago that he had felt weak on the court in 1974.

It's been mentioned before. He was a bit "fat & happy" after '74. you can see he is a bit stockier in '75

 

[martinezownsclay]

Shocking? Not really. Not with Borg in the mix. And really, only 2 GS a year were relevant to him....USO and W. He never went back to AO and only played FO starting in '79. He probably would have won at least 2 more GS if he had competed in both regularly from 75 on, I'd suspect. Him picking up 3 more GS after Borg left was the real shocker.

If you said in early 75 he would win only 2 slams in the next 7 years I guarantee you everyone would have been shocked.

 

[fritzhimself]

maybe because it's more interesting than a lot of what's going on today?

So you're also interested if a sack of rice falls off a truck in China?
Have fun with your “what if” scenarios—but remember, you'll have to tell your therapist about them.

 

[jrepac]

So you're also interested if a sack of rice falls off a truck in China?
Have fun with your “what if” scenarios—but remember, you'll have to tell your therapist about them.

"What If?" is a pretty popular concept.....

 

[fritzhimself]

"What If?" is a pretty popular concept.....

........Yes, but only for those stuck in the past.
What if you could change history with this sentence (what if...)?

 

[sandy mayer]

Ashe tended to over hype his win over Connors, saying it was the most important match of the 70s and led to the end of Connors' dominance because people learned from Ashe how to beat Connors. Ashe said his win led to the rise of Borg. To be frank I strongly disagree.
The Ashe win made only this difference: one more slam title for Ashe which massively enhances his career, and one fewer slam for Connors, which made his career slightly less great than it was.
The only 2 players who between 1975 and 1984 ever got the upper hand over Connors for significant lengths of time were Borg and McEnroe. They didn't beat Connors by copying Ashe. The biggest factor in Borg dominating Connors for a period of time was his very big serve, which he started to develop for the first time in 1976. Borg in 76-80 was a much better player than he was in 1975. With McEnroe the biggest factor in his dominating Connors in 1984-1985 was breathtaking form, Connors aging a little, and Connors stubbornly refusing to modernise with his racket.
I believe Orantes and Vilas would have beat Connors at Forest Hills on clay if Connors had beaten Ashe at Wimbledon. Vilas and Orantes beating Connors on clay (even green clay) is not that big an upset.

 

[jrepac]

........Yes, but only for those stuck in the past.
What if you could change history with this sentence (what if...)?

there's a reason why some of us are nostalgic about the past and run What If scenarios....tennis is struggling here in the US, as a spectator sport, in a pretty big way.

 

[bigbadboaz]

........Yes, but only for those stuck in the past.

A better question than yours is, "What the heck are you doing in a Former Pro Players forum?"

 

[fritzhimself]

A better question than yours is, "What the heck are you doing in a Former Pro Players forum?"

What if I had already asked myself that question?
If I didn't have to answer it, I might be involved in the moon landing story.
But that's another story.

 

[jrepac]

Ashe tended to over hype his win over Connors, saying it was the most important match of the 70s and led to the end of Connors' dominance because people learned from Ashe how to beat Connors. Ashe said his win led to the rise of Borg. To be frank I strongly disagree.
The Ashe win made only this difference: one more slam title for Ashe which massively enhances his career, and one fewer slam for Connors, which made his career slightly less great than it was.
The only 2 players who between 1975 and 1984 ever got the upper hand over Connors for significant lengths of time were Borg and McEnroe. They didn't beat Connors by copying Ashe. The biggest factor in Borg dominating Connors for a period of time was his very big serve, which he started to develop for the first time in 1976. Borg in 76-80 was a much better player than he was in 1975. With McEnroe the biggest factor in his dominating Connors in 1984-1985 was breathtaking form, Connors aging a little, and stubbornly refusing to modernise with his racket.
I believe Orantes and Vilas would have beat Connors at Forest Hills on clay if Connors had beaten Ashe at Wimbledon. Vilas and Orantes beating Connors on clay (even green clay) is not that big an upset.

"Ashe tended to over hype his win over Connors, saying it was the most important match of the 70s and led to the end of Connors' dominance because people learned from Ashe how to beat Connors. Ashe said his win led to the rise of Borg. To be frank I strongly disagree."

That's a lot of bunk, honestly. It may be regarded as one of the most memorable matches of the 70's, but it's not like it ended Connors career. He was at the very top through 1978. Then in top 3 or 4 for several more years. not to mention regaining the #1 slot. Ashe's strategy had zero impact on what Borg and Mac did vs. Jimmy. Those 2 guys could dominate, I agree. Lendl much later, when Connors was well into his 30's. Lendl used the junk ball strategy and a lot of backhand slice to disarm Connors and generate errors from him. But that was not exactly what Ashe did.

 

[Mustard]

Yes, absolutely. Connors never regained his old aura after the 1975 Wimbledon final (which seemed to transfer to Borg over time), although Connors remained extremely consistent and a top player for years.

Connors' reputation going into the 1975 Wimbledon final was one of invincibility. He had only lost twice all year, and had avenged both defeats.

 

[Mustard]

This one is a test...recalling the tactical nuances of matches going back 50 years. I can't help much, other than to say McEnroe wins the 1984 Wimbledon Final comfortably irrespective of this tactical advantage.

Let's just focus on up to 1982, when wooden and metal racquets still predominated. The 1984 Wimbledon final saw McEnroe using a graphite racquet and Connors using the T-2000 racquet that he had always used before.

 

[Hard Court]

If Connors would have beaten Ashe, he would have won three Wimbledon titles instead of two. 9 Grand Slams instead of 8 for the Grand Slam counters.

 

[WCT]

Did Connors ever give any reason for not playing the AO again after 1975? Playing more than two of the slams per year might have helped him win more overall (1976-78 he only played Wimbledon and the US Open, and he won two of the three US Opens. Borg's improvement at Wimbledon explains most of why he didn't win Wimbledon - he lost the final to Borg in 1977 and 1978).

I think I heard him say on his podcast that it was to rest. That at some point in the year he was going to take a break and that was when the Australian was held. For much of the 70s, playing there meant being there over Christmas and New Years.
I've always felt that moving away from those dates played a significant part in more and more players going there.

Now, Connors never went there even after the dates were changed. So, it wasn't all about the holidays.

 

[helterskelter]

I think I heard him say on his podcast that it was to rest. That at some point in the year he was going to take a break and that was when the Australian was held. For much of the 70s, playing there meant being there over Christmas and New Years.
I've always felt that moving away from those dates played a significant part in more and more players going there.

Now, Connors never went there even after the dates were changed. So, it wasn't all about the holidays.

Dates didn't change until 1987, though, and he was 34 by then, so it might have been earlier. But players aged faster then so him at 34 was at least as old in relative terms as Djokovic is now at 38, so he probably felt he needed to pace himself.

 

[WCT]

If you said in early 75 he would win only 2 slams in the next 7 years I guarantee you everyone would have been shocked.

Agreed, Mind you, not as shocked as saying after the US Open, in 84, that Mcenroe would never win another GS title.

 

[WCT]

Ashe tended to over hype his win over Connors, saying it was the most important match of the 70s and led to the end of Connors' dominance because people learned from Ashe how to beat Connors. Ashe said his win led to the rise of Borg. To be frank I strongly disagree.
The Ashe win made only this difference: one more slam title for Ashe which massively enhances his career, and one fewer slam for Connors, which made his career slightly less great than it was.
The only 2 players who between 1975 and 1984 ever got the upper hand over Connors for significant lengths of time were Borg and McEnroe. They didn't beat Connors by copying Ashe. The biggest factor in Borg dominating Connors for a period of time was his very big serve, which he started to develop for the first time in 1976. Borg in 76-80 was a much better player than he was in 1975. With McEnroe the biggest factor in his dominating Connors in 1984-1985 was breathtaking form, Connors aging a little, and Connors stubbornly refusing to modernise with his racket.
I believe Orantes and Vilas would have beat Connors at Forest Hills on clay if Connors had beaten Ashe at Wimbledon. Vilas and Orantes beating Connors on clay (even green clay) is not that big an upset.

I'd sure be interested in a source for Ashe ever saying that his win over Connors was the most important match of the 70s. I sure don't remember ever seeing him say it.

 

[WCT]

Dates didn't change until 1987, though, and he was 34 by then, so it might have been earlier. But players aged faster then so him at 34 was at least as old in relative terms as Djokovic is now at 38, so he probably felt he needed to pace himself.

No, the dates changed long before 87. Try, early 80s. It was originally moved to earlier in December. Then, later on, to later in January.

 

[helterskelter]

No, the dates changed long before 87. Try, early 80s. It was originally moved to earlier in December. Then, later on, to later in January.

Oh, I was thinking of the change back to January. I think that whether it was early or late December, he'd consider that disruptive of the off-season. Who knows though?

BTW, I checked and it moved earlier in 1982.

 

[Angrybirdstar]

With McEnroe the biggest factor in his dominating Connors in 1984-1985 was breathtaking form, Connors aging a little, and Connors stubbornly refusing to modernise with his racket.

i suspect that the biggest factor was in broad strokes, the same thing as Borg - being able to consistently out serve-return Connors, while keeping up from the baseline

 

[urban]

In my view, Connors was always a bit vulnerable on grass, because his serve wasn't that effective, despite being a leftie. The older players like Newcombe, Nastase or Ashe, who could play on grass with their serve and return game, could break him at times.. Against Stan Smith, Connors had a fine record, but on grass, it was not so easy. In 1977, when Smith was already over the hill, he had to play 5 hard sets at Wim. In 1974, just before Wim, Smith beat him on grass 6-0, 6-3, pretty deciding. Connors also had problems with lesser grass players like Kodes and Dent.

I think, Roche would have done well against him, old Roche beat Mac at Queens i think in 1978. In the Borg Wim matches the serve was a deciding factor. In 1982, Jimbo got more sting and length into his serving..

 

[sandy mayer]

I'd sure be interested in a source for Ashe ever saying that his win over Connors was the most important match of the 70s. I sure don't remember ever seeing him say iI read this in

I read Ashe say this in a book of his dated around 1980-81. I suspect the book is out of print now. I am sure he said this.

 

[sandy mayer]

I read Ashe say this in a book of his dated around 1980-81. I suspect the book is out of print now. I am sure he said this.

 

[jrepac]

I think I heard him say on his podcast that it was to rest. That at some point in the year he was going to take a break and that was when the Australian was held. For much of the 70s, playing there meant being there over Christmas and New Years.
I've always felt that moving away from those dates played a significant part in more and more players going there.

Now, Connors never went there even after the dates were changed. So, it wasn't all about the holidays.

The December timing was God-awful, let's be honest. I recall that they were trying to lure Connors there in '83 and he was close to playing. I think that's come up in other posts here.

 

[jrepac]

Dates didn't change until 1987, though, and he was 34 by then, so it might have been earlier. But players aged faster then so him at 34 was at least as old in relative terms as Djokovic is now at 38, so he probably felt he needed to pace himself.

And, it was always god awful heat down there....he probably didn't think it was worth it, at that stage of his career. but I think the new surface would have suited him

 

[jrepac]

i suspect that the biggest factor was in broad strokes, the same thing as Borg - being able to consistently out serve-return Connors, while keeping up from the baseline

The Mac serve and volley game, when "on" was pretty much unbeatable....see circa 1984....aside from that one match....

 

[helterskelter]

And, it was always god awful heat down there....he probably didn't think it was worth it, at that stage of his career. but I think the new surface would have suited him

Heat way worse with the new courts, though.

 

[WCT]

I read Ashe say this in a book of his dated around 1980-81. I suspect the book is out of print now. I am sure he said this.

The Arthur Ashe book that came out in 1981 was titled OFF THE COURT, and I can assure you that he didn't say it in this book. I still have the book and can check, but I'd bet very long odds he didn't say it there.

Here is something I found on YouTube. An interview with Bob Costas from 1990.
As I said recently, he doesn't think Connors played well. I certainly don't agree with his opinion here about Connors and the net. In 1975, noone had to draw Jimmy Connors into the net, on any surface much less grass. Just hit the ball service line in and he's there.

I never said I agreed with all Ashe's opinions. In that book he says Laver was not a great volleyer, that he flubbed a lot of volleys. My jaw hit the floor when I read that in 1981. What I did say, and maintain, is that I never saw him diminish Connors accomplishments/abilities or say his 1975 win was the biggest of the decade.
Here is the video.

 

[WCT]

The December timing was God-awful, let's be honest. I recall that they were trying to lure Connors there in '83 and he was close to playing. I think that's come up in other posts here.

In my mind, the original timing was the worst for American players. Across Christmas and New Years. Then it went from the last week in November to the first 8-10 days in December. And that is when the fields got much, much better. I'm not saying there weren't other factors like increased prize money or maybe guarantees, but I think the timing helped.

Was it 83? There was a year where he was entered and withdrew pretty late. Not the day it started, maybe a week or two earlier. I think Gizo said they tried to get him to come, in maybe 1984, after Mcenroe pulled out.

He was a late entry in 75. Newcombe has spoken about it. He had no intention of playing the Australian that year. Then the tournament informed him that Connors was playing and he entered. This was maybe 2 weeks, IIRC, before it started. Newcombe started training like crazy to try to get in some sort of shape.

Like I said, the holidays problem disappeared in the early and he still never played there. It's not like he took 2 month breaks or even took all of December off. He played in early to mid December plenty of years. It wasn't the country of Australia.
He played their indoors multiple times. Played in Asia, Japan.

For whatever reasons, no Australian Opens after 1975.

 

[Gizo]

Wasn't Connors carrying extra weight during 1975? If I remember correctly, I read it in Ashe vs Connors: Wimbledon 1975: Tennis that went beyond centre court by Bodo. JSC adjusted his weight for the following season.

Incidentally, since you mentioned Orantes, he lost a significant amount of weight for the 1975 season. Perhaps the debacle of the last three sets of the Roland Garros final against Borg stayed with him for a long time. I know about Orantes' weight loss because he mentioned on a radio programme a few years ago that he had felt weak on the court in 1974.

Yes Orantes definitely looked leaner and it much better shape in 1975. It's highly likely that the Orantes of 1974 would simply have lost to Vilas in their semi-final, never mind being able to completely outplay Connors in the final so soon afterwards.

As well as Orantes being a lot of fun to watch, many of his fellow players liked him a lot. He smiled a lot, had a great and very cheerful personality, regularly applauded excellent shots by opponents, regularly gave points to opponents by purposely missing serves / returns if he felt that they were on the wrong side of bad line calls etc. Definitely a very popular US Open champion in 1975.

And he came very from a very 'humble' and 'financially poor' background, especially for tennis standards.

 

[jrepac]

The Arthur Ashe book that came out in 1981 was titled OFF THE COURT, and I can assure you that he didn't say it in this book. I still have the book and can check, but I'd bet very long odds he didn't say it there.

Here is something I found on YouTube. An interview with Bob Costas from 1990.
As I said recently, he doesn't think Connors played well. I certainly don't agree with his opinion here about Connors and the net. In 1975, noone had to draw Jimmy Connors into the net, on any surface much less grass. Just hit the ball service line in and he's there.

I never said I agreed with all Ashe's opinions. In that book he says Laver was not a great volleyer, that he flubbed a lot of volleys. My jaw hit the floor when I read that in 1981. What I did say, and maintain, is that I never saw him diminish Connors accomplishments/abilities or say his 1975 win was the biggest of the decade.
Here is the video.

There's a quote attributed to Ashe that I always found hysterical RE: Connors, along the lines of "He's an a-hole, but he's my favorite a-hole".

 

[jrepac]

In my mind, the original timing was the worst for American players. Across Christmas and New Years. Then it went from the last week in November to the first 8-10 days in December. And that is when the fields got much, much better. I'm not saying there weren't other factors like increased prize money or maybe guarantees, but I think the timing helped.

Was it 83? There was a year where he was entered and withdrew pretty late. Not the day it started, maybe a week or two earlier. I think Gizo said they tried to get him to come, in maybe 1984, after Mcenroe pulled out.

He was a late entry in 75. Newcombe has spoken about it. He had no intention of playing the Australian that year. Then the tournament informed him that Connors was playing and he entered. This was maybe 2 weeks, IIRC, before it started. Newcombe started training like crazy to try to get in some sort of shape.

Like I said, the holidays problem disappeared in the early and he still never played there. It's not like he took 2 month breaks or even took all of December off. He played in early to mid December plenty of years. It wasn't the country of Australia.
He played their indoors multiple times. Played in Asia, Japan.

For whatever reasons, no Australian Opens after 1975.

It might have been '84

 

[WCT]

There's a quote attributed to Ashe that I always found hysterical RE: Connors, along the lines of "He's an a-hole, but he's my favorite a-hole".

He definitely said it and, I agree, a great line. Maybe I shouldn't say definitely since I didn't hear him say it. Someone, maybe Peter Bodo, attributed it to him. It might have been on the Sportscentury that ESPN did on Connors.

 

[jrepac]

He definitely said it and, I agree, a great line. Maybe I shouldn't say definitely since I didn't hear him say it. Someone, maybe Peter Bodo, attributed it to him. It might have been on the Sportscentury that ESPN did on Connors.

Say what you will about his behavior, but he was never, ever boring. Between him, Borg and Mac, it was must see TV. I will admit that I've gotten into the Sinner-Carlos match ups....was glad Sinner won W as I was afraid it was becoming one sided. Great shot making, variety of shots, etc., makes it a fun matchup to watch. Now, if they'd only start cursing at one another.....