Lendl / Connors Records

avasbar wrote:Im not going to add my voice to any more speculations as I only get it all wrong anyway, but feel free folks- its all good
For me, W8 was the only #mustdo and now I really must try to keep my word and not care one way or the other about further titles except to be happy for him.
May he attain all the goals he sets himself - incl #1 and #20 and I have my own goal for him anyway - The Federer Decima this year-  but the only thing that somewhat bothers me really is after all Roger's superlatives and that he's now 36 and still playing is that there are still records for him to break. how is this possible. OK Connors played till he was 41or something, ditto Rosewall but how on earth has Lendl stayed ahead of him so long when he stopped playing so much earlier (surely?)

Good question re Lendl. He was one of the first power players of the Open era and played an awful lot of matches per year early in his career - according to the ATP website, he played in 101 tournaments between 1980 and 83! That would suggest that there were far more tournaments on offer and that he was able to blast lesser opponents away in some small tournaments?

Connors won quite a few (very) minor tournaments. One of his ATP wins tally only involved him playing 1 match (just 3 players in the contest and the other two played in the 'semi' while he had a bye to the final!) and a couple more involed just 4 players in total.

Milesahead wrote:Connors won quite a few (very) minor tournaments. One of his ATP wins tally only involved him playing 1 match (just 3 players in the contest and the other two played in the 'semi' while he had a bye to the final!) and a couple more involed just 4 players in total.

I think Connors, for a couple of years, played a parallel tour where the competition was pretty bad and he just "cleaned up" on titles.

No 1 AND #20

^^^ well those titles really shouldnt be counted then - that's cr*p.

It does seem unfair - I don't know what minimum standards the ATP has re 'countable' tournament victories. I doubt they'll downgrade Connors after all this time, though!

When were these tournaments? I looked back at his ATP profile and I couldn't find these tournaments where he played only one match. Was it early in his career? I did see that in 1974 he won 15 titles including three majors, which has got to be a record and his w/l was 93/4, which is incredible. I was never a big fan of Connors as a kid but that's pretty impressive year.

edit: I just found one. Roanoke 1972. But you know I'm pretty sure back in the olden days of Wimbledon the reigning champion had a bye to the final. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong. That's just the way it was. So do we discount those wins? Connors played a hell of a lot of tennis. I think if he had a couple of easy titles that's fine. Whatever. Did you know that from 1971-1978 the first four sets at Wimbledon were played to 8? At 8 all there would be a tiebreak. So Connors and others during his time actually had it tougher.

I don't know about events being only a few rounds, but I do know one year where he played a while on a competing tour (without most of the other top guys), hence he cleaned up on the titles.

And you are right... in the very early days at Wimbledon, the defending champion only had to play the final - obviously much easier to retain the title.  Did Renshaw (the other guy with 7 titles) win that way?  Can't remember.  And yes, there were years with no TBs and years where the TB happened at 8-all.  That's another reason why it is so difficult to compare eras.

I was incorrect in claiming a 1 match victory was included in his titles tally!
However, these are the titles he won in 3 matches:
Roanoke 1972; Roanoke 1973; Paramus 1973 and WCT Finals 1977; WCT Finals 1980 (although these WCT matches in 77 and 80 were best of 5 sets!).

These required 4 match wins: Baltimore 1973; Jacksonville 1973; Salt Lake City 1973; Roanoke 1974; Little Rock 1974; Birmingham 1974; Salt Lake City 1974; Manchester 1974; Birmingham 1975; Bermuda 1975; Birmingham 1976;
Hampton 1976; Denver 1976; Birmingham 1977; Saint Louis 1977.

I really don't think that's tougher than today's schedules.

However, Connors was one of the all-time great competitors, no doubt about it - he was a terrific player (and he was not responsible for the scheduling of the 70s). In fact, he was denied the chance to win the calendar grand slam in 1974 as he was banned from RG! (Although whether he'd have beaten a young Borg there? Who knows?) The fact that Connors was able to reach the USO semi final at the age of 39 in 1991, tells its own story.

Why was he banned from RG?

avasbar wrote:Why was he banned from RG?

According to Wiki he was banned alongside Evonne Goolagong:

Philippe Chatrier, president of the French Tennis Federation (FTF), [banned them] because both had signed contracts to play in the World Team Tennis league in the United States.


Sounds a bit politically motivated to me - he was the best tennis player in the world then and had a real chance of winning. Borg was there, true, but he was very young and that was the year Connors had a great chance to win RG before Borg established his dominance.

Thanks milesahead. So only the French Slam banned him? That's a bit weird.

avasbar wrote:Thanks milesahead.   So only the French Slam banned him? That's a bit weird.

Yes, Avasbar - rather unusual and VERY unlucky for Connors (and Goolagong).

I wouldn't want board members to think that I believe Connors isn't worthy of heading the ATP titles table (although it could be argued that his tally should be reduced by 3), as he was a tremendous player. In fact, when people suggest that 70s players would've struggled with the power players of the 80s onwards, I always counter with Connors' achievement in still reaching the US Open semi at the age of 39! He (and Borg and McEnroe) would have been competitive in any era.

I loved Yvonne Goolagong. Didnt play long enough though.

Yes those 70s players were great. I missed their best years though in the decade from mid-70s. Not televised where I was.