"We wanted to see how far i could go with a girl's game."....Jimmy Caonnors. HIs groundstrokes, flat as they were, seem to match Ivan's in speed, and Ivan was the biggest hitter of the day
Such great analysis, well.....Analysis lol. Its incredible to watch, because at the end of all those pitter patter steps, his body is in the exact same hitting position, unless, obviously, the ball is far enough where he couldnt do so. Beautiful to watch, and a great champion.
Lendl here deliberately slowing the pace right down. After losing so many times to Connors, he realised around 1984 that Connors loved the nothing better than players giving him pace. So Lendl decided to do what Arthur Ashe had done to beat Connors in the 1975 Wimbledon final - give Connors very little pace, and slice away to Connors' forehand (a shot Connors had problems with throughout his career - you can see him actually run round his forehand to hit a backhand at times). Lendl then won something like 17 matches in a row with those tactics. Mats Wilander also used those tactics and never lost a single match to Connors.
Very astute. Once Lendl learned how to play Connors, their matches were not close. Connors lost several slam finals where he was prohibitive favorite, including Wimbledon to Ashe and US Open to Orantes in ‘75 and US Open to Vilas in ‘77.
@@jdbaes Connors wasn't a prohibitive favourite against Vilas in '77. One of the TV commentators had it an even thing, the other was picking Vilas to win.
@@egrorian1 Perhaps not prohibitive in that match but he was favored. At the time of that US Open final in 1977, Connors was 2-0 vs Vilas and had not dropped a single set…….including the 1976 US Open semis where he routed Vilas in straight sets. Vilas was terrific on clay but that 1976 match with Connors was also on clay. As a two time Open champ and defending champ who routed Vilas on that same court one year earlier, Connors was favored in the 1977 match. A commentator picking Vilas doesn’t disprove that.
@@jdbaes so "favoured by whom" then? I appreciate Connors had won easily the year before but Vilas was on his incredible run in 1977 (I think he had won his previous 3 or 4 tournaments coming in to the US Open). It's academic now of course 45 years on, but whilst past history favoured Jimmy, Vilas' form was spectacular and thus hard to see Connors as anything more than a very slight favourite at best. But hey, we don't have to agree, still makes for an interesting discussion. 👍
Connors did not receive a dime for playing with that racket while Borg, Mac, and others got huge racket endorsement deals. But he wouldn't give up playing with it because he felt it was just right for his game. That's dedication.
It also made him very vulnerable, particularly on his forehand side, to low bouncing slice. He couldn't adjust the head of his racquet to get under the ball and over it.
Conner's still playing in '85 with the antiquated Wilson T-2000 1970's steel tennis raquet with the soft stringed 'trampoline' string tension. unreal..Robert at 69.
Connors tweaked his ankle in practice badly, but refused to let Lendl have a walkover. Connors never quit and played his guts out every time, even when his skills waned or he was injured. Consummate champion.
Why players are stubborn to upgrade their rackets. I meant Roger Federer also he is very successful with 90 sq inch frame racket but his rivals are using 95 to 100 sq inch frame racket.
This is the last of Connors' 12 consecutive semifinals at the US Open, which is an absolutely remarkable record.of consistency. Im not sure anybody will ever do that again. Hes a hall of famer, and had a career that is still unmatched in a lot of ways. The only weakness in his game was his serve. Can you appreciate what he would have won, had he had a big one? And played the Australian Open? Federer might still be chasing him for the most grand slam titles.
its weird watching this match because usually lendl would wear people down the longer the match went but connors seemed to get stronger the longer the match went
That was one of Connors' strengths. As Björn Borg once said when asked which point in a match was the most important, "the last point, because whoever wins that wins the match".
connors is lucky lendl didn't have use of one of todays modern graphite rackets,,,,,,,,,,, that lendl forehand would have been even more devastating,,,
He apparently hated the pro staff and went back to his old steel racquet. I think he played with the steel racquet until 1987 when he switched to Slazenger.
The only camera angle to watch play is the traditional Wimbledon one that looks down showing the whole court during play, but oh no not in America. They seem to think its like a football game & here you spend watching at bottom or eye level height rarely going to the whole court height. They even go over to interviews with picture to other players whilst play is on. Frustrating amateurs! Its because they think Americans will fall asleep unless you go all over the shop & thus not see their adverts in breaks.
Interesting how time distorts memory. Lendl was a Tennis idol for me when I was a kid. Most of all I admired his powerful forehand. Now, more than 30 years later I feel he was a much slower and less aggressive player than I had it memorized. I feel that today the first 300 ATP players move noticeably faster and hit much, much harder. Astonishing how this sport has evolved in such a (relatively) short time.
Dude, Lendl's racquet doesn't have the large sweet spot of today's racquets. No poly strings either. He hit the ball about as well as anyone could with that equipment.
@@JD-jc8gp Agreed, I used to play with a Dunlop max 200g at the time. Even though it was a great racket, it's no comparison to today's rackets in terms of acceleration.
It’s just that our frame of reference has changed. The game now is incredibly powerful and athletic and by comparison the top players from the 70s and 80s seem slow. I prefer the older tennis. It was more unique and individual. Volleying was important. Players had different styles of play. Everyone plays the same game now, same ground strokes, same strategy etc.
Actually, it's that the recent players are not as "natural". That's the mentality you must have towards modern professional athletes. Now they have too much help, as in advanced technology in their equipment (Perhaps too much work now), so much fussiness in their diet and what they take as well as their "teams". So think about it, before the 2000s, you get more of " what you see is what you get" as the athletes were more pure and with less elements to help them or even cover-up their real abilities and talent.
@@JD-jc8gp Exactly, the modern racquets today (since the late 90s) just have too much work on them and bigger sweetspots which is helping the player but also hiding their true abilities and level of born talent. Also, the racquets prior to the 90s were with traditional smaller heads, but heavier too. Many overlook this factor. Try playing with the heavy graphites or of course, the wood.
The reason that the 1985 U.S. Open semifinal match between Connors and Lendl was not interesting and not very competitive is because earlier that day prior to the match Connors sprained his ankle in practice which hindered his mobility around the court during the match. If not for that ankle sprain the match would probably have been a lot closer and the outcome of the match uncertain.
The reason it wasn’t competitive was Jimmy was on the decline and Ivan was in his prime. Connors movement seemed fine. But Lendl was a different player by then . Improved fitness, nutrition, and a stronger mental outlook took him to no 1
@ iggypopisgod9. Although you are correct that Connors was in decline in 1985 (because he was way past his prime), their 1985 U.S. Open semifinal match would not have been as lopsided a win for Lendl as it was because Connors' mobility WAS hampered in that match by a sprained ankle. You have to look closely at Connors' movement around the court in that match to notice that he was not moving as well as he should have been. Connors' take-the-ball-on-the-rise style usually gave Lendl (as well as most other players) tremendous difficulty. A perfect example was their 5-set match a year later in the Lipton International Tournament in 1986 in which Connors was defaulted early in the 5th set because he refused to play on because Jeremy Shales (the chair umpire) refused to call a let when the net judge on a Lendl serve failed to call a let and then later in the match when Shales refused to overrule the baseline judge on a Lendl backhand volley from the baseline that Connors claimed was obviously out. Connors was way past his prime in 1986 but gave Lendl a very tough match in that Lipton tournament and the outcome of that match was a toss-up as both players were having difficulty playing their best in the extremely hot weather conditions during that match.
This was Lendl's 11th Grand Slam semifinal. He would reach 17 after it. This was Connors' 28th Grand Slam semifinal. He would reach 3 after it. Remarkably, Connors' last Grand Slam semifinal (1991 US Open) would be the same tournament as Lendl's last Grand Slam semifinal. Lendl defeated Edberg in the 1985 French Open QFs and 1985 US Open 4th Round. Edberg would go on to defeat Lendl in the 1985 Australian Open semifinal before winning his first Grand Slam.
31 grand slam semis for Connors. Thats basically 10 years worth of grand slams that he makes every semifinal of every grand slam, because Jimmy didnt play the Australian Open after 1975. You gotta think in the sixteen years he skips the Aussie that he gets to atleast 6 more semis, and probably much more. Absolutely incredible.
Lendl gagne facilement mais il restait sur match perdus en finale de l us open et une en demi de Wimbledon 84 ...bravo Lendl de n avoir pas craqué...son règne a pu commencer
@Denver Cheddie. It wasn't hard to see the tennis ball during tennis matches on television broadcasts of the U.S.Open when it was played on the green-colored DecoTurf2 surface. What was hard to see on television was the white tennis balls utilized at Wimbledon prior to the AELT&CC wisely, finally abandoning the white tennis ball during the early 1980's (I think in 1983) in favor of the yellow tennis ball which is much easier to see on television broadcasts of tennis.
Alan Chong. I loved watching connors(even more than l enjoyed watching mcenroe) , but to say that Johnny Mac was not at least Jimbo's equal is with respect absurd. The Mac of 84, demolished Jimmy at the french,Wimbledon and the wtc. Connors gave mcenroe a hell of a tussle at 84 us open(best match they ever played against each other?). I agree,the us open tv coverage has always been great(far better than what Wimbledon had to offer at the time). I speak as an Englishman!
+Jason Brooks You know your tennis. When I rate the tennis players I have watched, I rate the according to career wins, longevity and their head to head. I rate Connors and Lendl in a tie with McEnroe behind them. McEnroe shone brightly but he didn't have the longevity at the top that Connors and Lendl did. I feel Connors and Lendl had a better career than McEnroe. McEnroe struggled after 1985. Still good but slipped a bit.
Connors and Mac are great champions but honestly after 1984 booth regularly became Lendl's whores on tennis courts, In my opinion it was a major reason why Lendl was hated by the american media, i think the Americans just could not process or understand how this super fit, robotic, serious no crap champion could trash their so beloved 2 talented best players everywhere all the time.
Sa'ad Khatib Lendl exposed with a modern game the limitations of Connors’s and McEnroe’s game who were really not that great of players by today’s standards and Lendl is.
@@hymansahak181 You are wrong. Mcenroe was a fantastic player, he beat Lendl 15 times in his career, while Lendl beat him 21 times. They were both great, saying one is and the other is not is like saying Federer is great and Nadal is not, it simply doesn't make sense. Mcenroe always beat Lendl in 1983 and 1984, always 2-0 and 3-0, check the head to head. After 1984 Mcenroe's game declined, his serve (Lendl simply couldn't handle it) became weaker and weaker and Lendl started to beat him. On CZcams there are a lot of matches with Mcenroe destroying Lendl, the best is Bruxelles 1984. Maybe then you will change idea.
@@hymansahak181 Dream on friend - it's the other way round. McEnroe and the other great serve-and-volleyers exposed the limitations of Lendl's game at Wimbledon. Lendl didn't start beating Connors until Connors got old (Connors was 33 here and Lendl 25; when Lendl was 33 he too was pretty much finished) and he had to wait until McEnroe imploded - the New York party/ drug scene and lost interest/motivation for tennis - before he started beating him.As Connors put it: "Lendl had to wait to become number one until Borg retired, I got old and McEnroe went nuts."
Lendl tanked versus Connors in Masters 81 which gave him Gerulatis in the semis instead of Borg. Connors had to play him instead. In interviews he said something like: "why put effort in when it is a match next day when Connors won the first set? "The audience didnt like that very much and it sort of started from there.
Speaking of shorts, Connors wore the same brand and style of clothing for much of the 80s until 87 when he went with Slazenger these days every year the top pro's change style every single year.
Pat Summerall was great (imo). He had a very good sense of humor, good chemistry with Tony and Newcombe, plus he was a junior tennis champion, so he did know a thing or two about the sport.
I think one thing that made it appealing was everyone played a different and unique style, compared to today where everyone just stays back with extreme grips and hits forehand winners. I find that kinda boring.
Is this the match that had to be stopped for Connors to take a bathroom break since he had diarrhea? I think it was against the rules at the time but would they DQ Jimmy Connors in New York?
Honestly, Connors deserved to get crushed for a few years after he went back to his T2000...what a fool....I played with both, the Pro Staff 85 and the T2000....there is just simply no comparison...with that much talent and his fitness he could have possibly done much better in the last few years of his career if he had stayed with the PS85
I think playing tennis is about getting you head into the game. The greatest players prefer a familiar feel and can be particularly stubborn about changing frames.
8 major titles is lot in those days in men tennis sport. Jimmy Connors achieved a lot in his life actually He ranked world no 1 for 268 weeks which was surpassed by Ivan lendl which is 270 weeks in open era Jimmy Connors is true player he won 4 grass court major titles in open era. He is traditional player who grew on grass courts playing on it actually.
@@kikaa1884 you have anything intelligent to add to my comment regarding the switch to the T-2000 or you just felt the need to write something that I already know?
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Connors' court movement was incredible. You can see that he takes little steps to each shot and positions himself perfectly. Great player!
"We wanted to see how far i could go with a girl's game."....Jimmy Caonnors. HIs groundstrokes, flat as they were, seem to match Ivan's in speed, and Ivan was the biggest hitter of the day
Maybe so but he was a complete twat though
Such great analysis, well.....Analysis lol.
Its incredible to watch, because at the end of all those pitter patter steps, his body is in the exact same hitting position, unless, obviously, the ball is far enough where he couldnt do so.
Beautiful to watch, and a great champion.
Lendl ,Il est devenu un immense champion car toujours plein de respect pour ses prédécesseurs et entraîneurs,un sens du sérieux,de la hiérarchie.
Thank You For Posting.
Second the thanks
Also, crazy how the game has changed. Would love to see a smaller head division
Lendl here deliberately slowing the pace right down. After losing so many times to Connors, he realised around 1984 that Connors loved the nothing better than players giving him pace. So Lendl decided to do what Arthur Ashe had done to beat Connors in the 1975 Wimbledon final - give Connors very little pace, and slice away to Connors' forehand (a shot Connors had problems with throughout his career - you can see him actually run round his forehand to hit a backhand at times). Lendl then won something like 17 matches in a row with those tactics. Mats Wilander also used those tactics and never lost a single match to Connors.
Wanted to keep jimmy on the court long as possible with thst ankle
Very astute. Once Lendl learned how to play Connors, their matches were not close. Connors lost several slam finals where he was prohibitive favorite, including Wimbledon to Ashe and US Open to Orantes in ‘75 and US Open to Vilas in ‘77.
@@jdbaes Connors wasn't a prohibitive favourite against Vilas in '77. One of the TV commentators had it an even thing, the other was picking Vilas to win.
@@egrorian1 Perhaps not prohibitive in that match but he was favored. At the time of that US Open final in 1977, Connors was 2-0 vs Vilas and had not dropped a single set…….including the 1976 US Open semis where he routed Vilas in straight sets. Vilas was terrific on clay but that 1976 match with Connors was also on clay. As a two time Open champ and defending champ who routed Vilas on that same court one year earlier, Connors was favored in the 1977 match. A commentator picking Vilas doesn’t disprove that.
@@jdbaes so "favoured by whom" then? I appreciate Connors had won easily the year before but Vilas was on his incredible run in 1977 (I think he had won his previous 3 or 4 tournaments coming in to the US Open). It's academic now of course 45 years on, but whilst past history favoured Jimmy, Vilas' form was spectacular and thus hard to see Connors as anything more than a very slight favourite at best. But hey, we don't have to agree, still makes for an interesting discussion. 👍
I once tried a T2000. Total nightmare. How connors could play with that thing is beyond belief.
Hit with it today...forehand felt fine but the BH took some adjusting
that's the racket I started with... had no idea how bad it was, but it made hitting with anything else so much easier.
I remember the wiring around the frame always rattled like it was falling apart.
But it sure looked cool........
Connors did not receive a dime for playing with that racket while Borg, Mac, and others got huge racket endorsement deals. But he wouldn't give up playing with it because he felt it was just right for his game. That's dedication.
Trampoline on a stick..
Connors had that "flat" shot style that really put pace on that ball. No topspin at all.
It also made him very vulnerable, particularly on his forehand side, to low bouncing slice. He couldn't adjust the head of his racquet to get under the ball and over it.
There's always a bit of top spin or under spin, or you'd be very lucky to get it to the other side and not out.
Conner's still playing in '85 with the antiquated Wilson T-2000 1970's steel tennis raquet with the soft stringed 'trampoline' string tension.
unreal..Robert at 69.
Connors tweaked his ankle in practice badly, but refused to let Lendl have a walkover. Connors never quit and played his guts out every time, even when his skills waned or he was injured. Consummate champion.
He also was a major a hole his whole career. Screw him.
Yes, the ankle problem is the only reason Lendl won.
Connors with the T2000, amazing
It's hard to imagine him playing with that racquet in 85.
@@johncase2408 Yes, it was already long out of date.
Trampoline on a stick...
Why players are stubborn to upgrade their rackets. I meant Roger Federer also he is very successful with 90 sq inch frame racket but his rivals are using 95 to 100 sq inch frame racket.
Connors should have changed his racket long ago that racket looks outdated also
Legends of sports
Ivan the greatest legend of all time
James Scott Connors the greatest legend of all time.
This is the last of Connors' 12 consecutive semifinals at the US Open, which is an absolutely remarkable record.of consistency.
Im not sure anybody will ever do that again.
Hes a hall of famer, and had a career that is still unmatched in a lot of ways. The only weakness in his game was his serve. Can you appreciate what he would have won, had he had a big one? And played the Australian Open?
Federer might still be chasing him for the most grand slam titles.
If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
I'll take Lendl's eight consecutive USO finals any time. Cheers!
@@kw19193 As fan of Ivan i agree with you :)
Connors was s joke. A little girl physique and a bad personality.
@@kw19193 Yes, that is unlikely to be topped but the fact remains he went 3-5 in those 8 matches. Not especially good.
Half of this is Lendl adjusting the freaking strings on his racket 🏸🎻
Great match
Jimmy was age 33. In that era, that was a bit old.
its weird watching this match because usually lendl would wear people down the longer the match went but connors seemed to get stronger the longer the match went
That was one of Connors' strengths. As Björn Borg once said when asked which point in a match was the most important, "the last point, because whoever wins that wins the match".
He may also have been getting warmed up. Apparently Connors was injured before this match and it may have taken him some time to feel comfortable.
Connors could be a slow starter.
Why a player Ivan Lendl 👍✍
Lendl way too good.
Connors still using the T-2000 in 1985?!?!
1:36:03 tough to do that with such a small racquet
connors is lucky lendl didn't have use of one of todays modern graphite rackets,,,,,,,,,,, that lendl forehand would have been even more devastating,,,
It's funny watching this type of tennis today compared to Novak & Alcaraz, it looks like a warm up hit with Novack & Alcaraz.
ou quand "la poule mouillée" cloue le bec du vieux coq ... IVAN for ever .
Lendl pulling out eyelashes all the time like at 1:08
Haha remember him doing that!
That was his OCD.
1:08:32, yeah.
Why is he playing with that pos? He was using the new Pro Staff before this match wtf🔥🔥🔥🔥
He apparently hated the pro staff and went back to his old steel racquet. I think he played with the steel racquet until 1987 when he switched to Slazenger.
Too bad Lendl couldn't have played as long as Connors did in his career. As it was he won 94 titles. Because of back injuries he had to retire at 34.
What the hell is Connors' strategy in this match?
If Conners doesnt have U.S. in front of the Tennis title, he is toast basically/internationally...Robert at 67.
The end of jimmy connors
Until ‘91
The only camera angle to watch play is the traditional Wimbledon one that looks down showing the whole court during play, but oh no not in America. They seem to think its like a football game & here you spend watching at bottom or eye level height rarely going to the whole court height. They even go over to interviews with picture to other players whilst play is on. Frustrating amateurs! Its because they think Americans will fall asleep unless you go all over the shop & thus not see their adverts in breaks.
William Buchan you are such a curmudgeon.
C b s didn't show the handshake what a bunch of jerks
Interesting how time distorts memory. Lendl was a Tennis idol for me when I was a kid. Most of all I admired his powerful forehand. Now, more than 30 years later I feel he was a much slower and less aggressive player than I had it memorized. I feel that today the first 300 ATP players move noticeably faster and hit much, much harder. Astonishing how this sport has evolved in such a (relatively) short time.
Dude, Lendl's racquet doesn't have the large sweet spot of today's racquets. No poly strings either. He hit the ball about as well as anyone could with that equipment.
@@JD-jc8gp Agreed, I used to play with a Dunlop max 200g at the time. Even though it was a great racket, it's no comparison to today's rackets in terms of acceleration.
It’s just that our frame of reference has changed. The game now is incredibly powerful and athletic and by comparison the top players from the 70s and 80s seem slow. I prefer the older tennis. It was more unique and individual. Volleying was important. Players had different styles of play. Everyone plays the same game now, same ground strokes, same strategy etc.
Actually, it's that the recent players are not as "natural". That's the mentality you must have towards modern professional athletes. Now they have too much help, as in advanced technology in their equipment (Perhaps too much work now), so much fussiness in their diet and what they take as well as their "teams". So think about it, before the 2000s, you get more of " what you see is what you get" as the athletes were more pure and with less elements to help them or even cover-up their real abilities and talent.
@@JD-jc8gp Exactly, the modern racquets today (since the late 90s) just have too much work on them and bigger sweetspots which is helping the player but also hiding their true abilities and level of born talent. Also, the racquets prior to the 90s were with traditional smaller heads, but heavier too. Many overlook this factor. Try playing with the heavy graphites or of course, the wood.
I didn't like either player, but, I take lendl over Connors, Connors was a spoiled dueshe bag.
Newcombe sounds really drunk.
The reason that the 1985 U.S. Open semifinal match between Connors and Lendl was not interesting and not very competitive is because earlier that day prior to the match Connors sprained his ankle in practice which hindered his mobility around the court during the match. If not for that ankle sprain the match would probably have been a lot closer and the outcome of the match uncertain.
I believe it was the morning of the semi's actually. He probably should have dropped out, but that was not his style.
I agree it would have been much closer. I still think Lendl would have won though - by this stage he really had got Connors' number.
The reason it wasn’t competitive was Jimmy was on the decline and Ivan was in his prime. Connors movement seemed fine. But Lendl was a different player by then . Improved fitness, nutrition, and a stronger mental outlook took him to no 1
@ iggypopisgod9. Although you are correct that Connors was in decline in 1985 (because he was way past his prime), their 1985 U.S. Open semifinal match would not have been as lopsided a win for Lendl as it was because Connors' mobility WAS hampered in that match by a sprained ankle. You have to look closely at Connors' movement around the court in that match to notice that he was not moving as well as he should have been. Connors' take-the-ball-on-the-rise style usually gave Lendl (as well as most other players) tremendous difficulty. A perfect example was their 5-set match a year later in the Lipton International Tournament in 1986 in which Connors was defaulted early in the 5th set because he refused to play on because Jeremy Shales (the chair umpire) refused to call a let when the net judge on a Lendl serve failed to call a let and then later in the match when Shales refused to overrule the baseline judge on a Lendl backhand volley from the baseline that Connors claimed was obviously out. Connors was way past his prime in 1986 but gave Lendl a very tough match in that Lipton tournament and the outcome of that match was a toss-up as both players were having difficulty playing their best in the extremely hot weather conditions during that match.
^
It was such a boring match they start telling their cheesy personal stories at 54:00. Ewww.
This was Lendl's 11th Grand Slam semifinal. He would reach 17 after it. This was Connors' 28th Grand Slam semifinal. He would reach 3 after it. Remarkably, Connors' last Grand Slam semifinal (1991 US Open) would be the same tournament as Lendl's last Grand Slam semifinal. Lendl defeated Edberg in the 1985 French Open QFs and 1985 US Open 4th Round. Edberg would go on to defeat Lendl in the 1985 Australian Open semifinal before winning his first Grand Slam.
31 grand slam semis for Connors. Thats basically 10 years worth of grand slams that he makes every semifinal of every grand slam, because Jimmy didnt play the Australian Open after 1975.
You gotta think in the sixteen years he skips the Aussie that he gets to atleast 6 more semis, and probably much more.
Absolutely incredible.
Who cares!
Nice camera angle. You can really appreciate how close to the net cord a lot of those shots are
The best way to cover tennis in my opinion
Lendl gagne facilement mais il restait sur match perdus en finale de l us open et une en demi de Wimbledon 84 ...bravo Lendl de n avoir pas craqué...son règne a pu commencer
Those green courts made it really hard to see the ball on TV. Thank God they changed the color.
@Denver Cheddie. It wasn't hard to see the tennis ball during tennis matches on television broadcasts of the U.S.Open when it was played on the green-colored DecoTurf2 surface. What was hard to see on television was the white tennis balls utilized at Wimbledon prior to the AELT&CC wisely, finally abandoning the white tennis ball during the early 1980's (I think in 1983) in favor of the yellow tennis ball which is much easier to see on television broadcasts of tennis.
Connors with his steel racket again! Wow.
Poor old connors. At this stage mac,lendl and even wilander truely had his number. Great player & compeiter.
+Jason Brooks It's just the case of the younger brigade coming through. The only one of that group you mention that I rate Connors's equal is Ivan!
I love watching tennis with this US Open camera angle behind the court. It's bloody unreal!
Alan Chong. I loved watching connors(even more than l enjoyed watching mcenroe) , but to say that Johnny Mac was not at least Jimbo's equal is with respect absurd. The Mac of 84, demolished Jimmy at the french,Wimbledon and the wtc. Connors gave mcenroe a hell of a tussle at 84 us open(best match they ever played against each other?). I agree,the us open tv coverage has always been great(far better than what Wimbledon had to offer at the time). I speak as an Englishman!
+Jason Brooks You know your tennis. When I rate the tennis players I have watched, I rate the according to career wins, longevity and their head to head. I rate Connors and Lendl in a tie with McEnroe behind them. McEnroe shone brightly but he didn't have the longevity at the top that Connors and Lendl did. I feel Connors and Lendl had a better career than McEnroe. McEnroe struggled after 1985. Still good but slipped a bit.
Connors and Mac are great champions but honestly after 1984 booth regularly became Lendl's whores on tennis courts,
In my opinion it was a major reason why Lendl was hated by the american media, i think the Americans just could not process or understand how this super fit, robotic, serious no crap champion could trash their so beloved 2 talented best players everywhere all the time.
Sa'ad Khatib
Lendl exposed with a modern game the limitations of Connors’s and McEnroe’s game who were really not that great of players by today’s standards and Lendl is.
@@hymansahak181 You are wrong. Mcenroe was a fantastic player, he beat Lendl 15 times in his career, while Lendl beat him 21 times. They were both great, saying one is and the other is not is like saying Federer is great and Nadal is not, it simply doesn't make sense. Mcenroe always beat Lendl in 1983 and 1984, always 2-0 and 3-0, check the head to head. After 1984 Mcenroe's game declined, his serve (Lendl simply couldn't handle it) became weaker and weaker and Lendl started to beat him. On CZcams there are a lot of matches with Mcenroe destroying Lendl, the best is Bruxelles 1984. Maybe then you will change idea.
@@hymansahak181 Dream on friend - it's the other way round. McEnroe and the other great serve-and-volleyers exposed the limitations of Lendl's game at Wimbledon. Lendl didn't start beating Connors until Connors got old (Connors was 33 here and Lendl 25; when Lendl was 33 he too was pretty much finished) and he had to wait until McEnroe imploded - the New York party/ drug scene and lost interest/motivation for tennis - before he started beating him.As Connors put it: "Lendl had to wait to become number one until Borg retired, I got old and McEnroe went nuts."
They were all tremendous players. Lendl was my favorite mainly because he was all business, wasn't brash, and largely underappreciated in the U.S.
Lendl tanked versus Connors in Masters 81 which gave him Gerulatis in the semis instead of Borg. Connors had to play him instead. In interviews he said something like: "why put effort in when it is a match next day when Connors won the first set? "The audience didnt like that very much and it sort of started from there.
Shorts in those days were really short...
Speaking of shorts, Connors wore the same brand and style of clothing for much of the 80s until 87 when he went with Slazenger these days every year the top pro's change style every single year.
Why did CBS cut to a lame crowd shot just as the players were about to shake hands? I wanted to see if there was anything said between the two.
they used to do that pretty much EVERY match. ridiculous.
Pat Summerall was great (imo). He had a very good sense of humor, good chemistry with Tony and Newcombe, plus he was a junior tennis champion, so he did know a thing or two about the sport.
much better than Dick Enberg or Chris Fowler...imo.
Yeah, I'm sure he did.
I think one thing that made it appealing was everyone played a different and unique style, compared to today where everyone just stays back with extreme grips and hits forehand winners. I find that kinda boring.
1423
Is this the match that had to be stopped for Connors to take a bathroom break since he had diarrhea? I think it was against the rules at the time but would they DQ Jimmy Connors in New York?
No
Honestly, Connors deserved to get crushed for a few years after he went back to his T2000...what a fool....I played with both, the Pro Staff 85 and the T2000....there is just simply no comparison...with that much talent and his fitness he could have possibly done much better in the last few years of his career if he had stayed with the PS85
It's a little bit like Chris Evert sticking to her wooden racquet for so long too.
I think playing tennis is about getting you head into the game. The greatest players prefer a familiar feel and can be particularly stubborn about changing frames.
8 major titles is lot in those days in men tennis sport. Jimmy Connors achieved a lot in his life actually
He ranked world no 1 for 268 weeks which was surpassed by Ivan lendl which is 270 weeks in open era
Jimmy Connors is true player he won 4 grass court major titles in open era.
He is traditional player who grew on grass courts playing on it actually.
@@kikaa1884 you have anything intelligent to add to my comment regarding the switch to the T-2000 or you just felt the need to write something that I already know?
@@FLAC2023 you can ignore if it is bothering you a lot. I just felt like saying it OK why are you rude 😒😒