-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
The reason why Connors rapidly faded against Lendl after 1983 was simple:
As like Evert spoiled mid 83-84 staying with wood (when Navratilova went graffite), Connors stayed far too long with his old iron Wilson racket (changed 86-87?). I remember one interview mid 80:ies when Connors complained (about rackets) smt like "Throughout the match I did hit some really good shots to run my opponent, he then did hit bad shots back which still kept me even more busy".
When did Lendl, Wilander, Connors and McEnroe make the switch from wood>to graphite?
Connors 86 (though Connors did not play with wood, but Wilson T-model which was made from iron (and was ancient and generally considered very bad racketf) Lendl early 84 Mac 83 (Does anyone remember, did Mac play graffite 83 Wimbledon) Wilander probably 84 but can be 83
"ccrevival" <ccrevival2001@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissä news:1112990359.102215.93340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> For me, no matter how many times Lendl beat him, I will always rank> Connors over him, simply because of the WAY the Czech-choker played> against Jimbo. Against every other top player during his career (Borg,> Mac, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, etc.) Ivan hit all out and went for it> on his topspin backhand. HOWEVER, whenever he played Connors, he> continuously chipped his backhand to Jimbo's forehand (ie. Arthur> Ashe's W strategy). Instead of trying to overpower him by trading hard> groundies, Lendl tried to score points by goading Jimmy into hitting> forehand errors.
That is quite true. I think that after Lendl himself improved (especially Lendl's bh and all-around game improved a lot from 83 to 85 and onwards) and Connors declined, Lendl just had a room for humiliate Connors to make US 82/83 less painfull.
"The Terminator" <villainintown@rediffmail.com> wrote in message news:1112939973.404290.276270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...> Lloyd wrote:>> "Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message>> news:1112938294.600321.193710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>>
Still it is 7-5 in Lendl's favor. boob, you are right, Connors> owned>> > Lendl. And don't forget Lendl won 16 of their next 16 encounters.>>
Bob doesn't worry about dry old facts. Not when he has these> GUT-FEELINGS>> about things.............>
bob is clairvoyant... he senses things which nobody can. He is like a> dog. He can smell, sniff, sense everything. What players are thinking?> How much effort the players is putting? etc...etc...
that happens when you attend tournament live and spend lots of time in player lounge hanging out..not clairvoyant really, quite obvious.
"ccrevival" <ccrevival2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1112990359.102215.93340@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> For me, no matter how many times Lendl beat him, I will always rank> Connors over him, simply because of the WAY the Czech-choker played> against Jimbo. Against every other top player during his career (Borg,> Mac, Wilander, Edberg, Becker, etc.) Ivan hit all out and went for it> on his topspin backhand. HOWEVER, whenever he played Connors, he> continuously chipped his backhand to Jimbo's forehand (ie. Arthur> Ashe's W strategy). Instead of trying to overpower him by trading hard> groundies, Lendl tried to score points by goading Jimmy into hitting> forehand errors. Furthermore, as Connors got older and slower, Lendl> would chip even MORE!! I know Jimmy gives Ivan match-up problems (RoS> and backhand negates Lendl's serve and forehand) but to play "bunting"> tennis all the time just seems weak to me.
nailed lendl/connors to a T..
i don't know why lendl was so intimidated of connors, there wasn't a good reason to be, but he was, you could see it in his strokes..again, good post..
"Mikko Ämmälä" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message news:d36fm3$dq1$1@plaza.suomi.net...> The reason why Connors rapidly faded against Lendl after 1983 was simple:>
As like Evert spoiled mid 83-84 staying with wood (when Navratilova went> graffite), Connors stayed far too long with his old iron Wilson racket> (changed 86-87?). I remember one interview mid 80:ies when Connors> complained (about rackets) smt like "Throughout the match I did hit some> really good shots to run my opponent, he then did hit bad shots back which> still kept me even more busy".
it's quite ridiculous to even compare connors/lendl head/heads as they truly were from different eras..but heck, connors STILL managed to win their most important meetings.
Ivan was intimidated because his game could not intimidate Jimbo. Lendl> was not able to get as many free points or weak returns with his serve> against Jimmy because the latter's RoS was so good. I remember those> USO finals where Jimmy would routinely fire back returns right at> Ivan's feet or for outright winners (I also remember the crowd going> "whoaw!" whenever that happened.) Also, as awesome as a weapon it was,> Lendl's forehand became somewhat of a liablity against Connors' since> he seemed to thrive on it's pace, especially when the former hit it> towards the latter's patented dhb.>
So, instead of playing his standard "power" game, Lendl went the other> extreme: he "bunted" the ball. Compare that to how Borg played Mac or> how Wilander developed; these guys attacked and got more aggressive> when playing against better opponents whereas Lendl got more defensive> (even more so as Connors got older and slower!). That is weak to me,> especially considering Lendl's rep as a "power" player.>
Lendl did beat Jimbo once at USO with the bunting - but Jimbo was 57 yrs old at the time I think....?
Good points on Lendl's bh weakness vs. Jimbo. Overall, Ivan did not> have much of a ad over him. Lendl was fortunate during his best years> that Borg and Connors retired or got old.>
Yes, he's very much a transitional champ.
Very consistent, but very much transitional. All the best guys beat him when they played close to their best. Heck even Cash beat him at 3 slams, so any good player had the edge at their best....
The only reason why Lendl "killed" Connors 16 times in a row was> because Jimbo continued to play way beyond 32 years old (vs Sampras> retiring at 31). The fact that Jimmy (at 32+) still beat a 24 year old> Ivan twice (6-0 and 6-1 in the final sets!) in 1984 speak volumes for> Connors.>
Yes, & everyone knows I rate Jimbo tier 2 & Lendl tier 3.
Very consistent, but very much transitional. All the best guys beat him> when they played close to their best. Heck even Cash beat him at 3> slams, so any good player had the edge at their best....
Good way of putting it. Sheesh, i didn't know Cash beat him at 3 slams... who did Lendl ever beat peak-prime at slams? Just about nobody...
-- "The federal judiciary is working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction until all shall be usurped from the States, and the government of all be consolidated into one (i.e., federalization)"
"Mikko Ämmälä" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message news:d3bifm$q5a$1@plaza.suomi.net...> Last (men) slam finalist who played with wood is credited to Curren (AO 84)
What did Mecir use? I'm sure it was wood..........
"Lloyd" <watiyinna@"remove this to reply" smartchat.net.au> wrote in message news:d3fhkn$ivm$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"Mikko Ämmälä" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message> news:d3bifm$q5a$1@plaza.suomi.net...>> Last (men) slam finalist who played with wood is credited to Curren (AO> 84)>
