-- "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
bob (one of the worst Tier 4 analysts) claims Lendl was scared of>>Connors>>
Lendl's peak was from 1985-87. Connors peak was 1974-76. Anyway>
Connors>
made Wimbledon final in 1984. So we can say he played semi-peak till>>1984. Lets say Lendl who won Masters in January 1982 and January>
1983,>
was also at semi peak (which is not same as peak). So what was their>>head-head from 1982-84?>>
Can't deal with this objectively because there is a big difference in> the ages of the players but it is fair to say that Lendl improved a lot> from his early Choke-o-Slovakian days. It would also be fair to say> that Connors didn't lose much of his game until after his mid-30s and> was still remarkably competitive at 39. Lendl caught up to Connors> and surpassed his game. Like the younger McEnroe, Connors couldn't> beat prime Lendl. Unlike Connors, McEnroe didn't have age as an> excuse.>
Mac/Jimbo don't need excuses - facts are facts. They both whipped him at peaks & he was little opposition in the face of real talent. Both won 7 Wim/USO v Lendl's 3 - completely different tiers.....
Jimbo was a shell of his former best after '84.....
"ccrevival" <ccrevival2001@yahoo.com> kirjoitti viestissд 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.
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1112937740.056645.180330@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> bob (one of the worst Tier 4 analysts) claims Lendl was scared of> Connors
he was..i saw it in his eyes..never understood it..lendl's game fell apart with connors' 1st fist pump..pissed me off too.
Lendl's peak was from 1985-87. Connors peak was 1974-76. Anyway Connors> made Wimbledon final in 1984. So we can say he played semi-peak till> 1984. Lets say Lendl who won Masters in January 1982 and January 1983,> was also at semi peak (which is not same as peak). So what was their> head-head from 1982-84?>
Lendl vs Connors 1982-84
lendl was FAR closer to his peak then than connors was..
"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.
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message news:1112938294.600321.193710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...> Raja wrote:>> bob (one of the worst Tier 4 analysts) claims Lendl was scared of>> Connors>>
Lendl's peak was from 1985-87. Connors peak was 1974-76. Anyway> Connors>> made Wimbledon final in 1984. So we can say he played semi-peak till>> 1984. Lets say Lendl who won Masters in January 1982 and January> 1983,>> was also at semi peak (which is not same as peak). So what was their>> head-head from 1982-84?>>
Okay I forgot to add the 1982 matches>
1982 U.S. Open FR Hard (O) J.CONNORS 6-3 6-2 4-6 6-4> 1983 Masters SF Carpet (I) I.LENDL 3-6 1-6> 1983 U.S. Open FR Hard (O) J.CONNORS 6-3 6-7 7-5 6-0> 1984 Masters SF Carpet (I) I.LENDL 3-6 4-6> 1984 Wimbledon SF Grass (O) J.CONNORS 6-7 6-3 7-5 6-1
it's 3-2 for old man connors considering slams/masters..and 3-0 in 3 of the absolutely biggest matches of the 82-84 timeframe..
and i didn't like connors, i don't like having to do this.
"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 Дmmдlд" <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.
Very good analysis. At 82 USO, Mac was intimidated by Lendl's big hitting. He had a look of fear in his eyes. But Connors never feared anyone and as you note he surprised Lendl by not only not being intimidate but by daring to play to Lendl's strength - his forehand. Connors consistently challenged Lendl's forehand with deep drives into the corner both in rallies and on the RoS. He had no problem trading two-handed backhands with Lendl's FH and kept Lenld off-balance with it.
And he exploited Lendl's BH as well. He noted that Lendl was much more effective when hitting backhands from the corner, where his great knee-bend allowed Lendl to tee-off on it either crosscourt or down the line, so he kept the ball towards the center of the court and forced Lendl to create angles off the BH side, and he wasn't able to do it. His knee-bend style was a liability, because he couldn't generate pace and create angles at the same time and would consistently net those shots.
-- "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)"
"Raja" <krisraja@cs.uh.edu> wrote in message > news:1112938294.600321.193710@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...>
Raja wrote:>>
bob (one of the worst Tier 4 analysts) claims Lendl was scared of>>>Connors>>>
Lendl's peak was from 1985-87. Connors peak was 1974-76. Anyway>>
Connors>>
made Wimbledon final in 1984. So we can say he played semi-peak till>>>1984. Lets say Lendl who won Masters in January 1982 and January>>
1983,>>
was also at semi peak (which is not same as peak). So what was their>>>head-head from 1982-84?>>>
Okay I forgot to add the 1982 matches>>
1982 U.S. Open FR Hard (O) J.CONNORS 6-3 6-2 4-6 6-4>>1983 Masters SF Carpet (I) I.LENDL 3-6 1-6>>1983 U.S. Open FR Hard (O) J.CONNORS 6-3 6-7 7-5 6-0>>1984 Masters SF Carpet (I) I.LENDL 3-6 4-6>>1984 Wimbledon SF Grass (O) J.CONNORS 6-7 6-3 7-5 6-1>
it's 3-2 for old man connors considering slams/masters..and 3-0 in 3 of the > absolutely biggest matches of the 82-84 timeframe..>
and i didn't like connors, i don't like having to do this.>
bob >
Yes, but being an objective analyst you must fulfill your obligation to the tennis community & call it like it is.
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 Дmmдlд" <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$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...>
"Mikko Дmmдlд" <michaelb@deletethis.mail.suomi.net> wrote in message> news:d3bifm$q5a$1@plaza.suomi.net...>> Last (men) slam finalist who played with wood is credited to Curren (AO> 84)>
