Johnny Mac’s Add Court Hook Serve was such a Monster!!! When he went down the middle on add Court he got so many Aces or weak returns. Man I miss watching him in those days.
Awesome match. The two biggest drawing cards in the history of tennis! The were NOT gentlemen but they sure made tennis interesting and fun to watch. Genius athleticism.
Notice that Mac didn’t go apeshit after the win. Just a handshake at the net and sits down. No climbing up into his box and hugging everyone. Way to go!
Hated them both. …Loved Borg….But ended up loving Connors and McEnroe as well. All great men who made my sporting life the best. Absolute warriors. Connors was unreal as a competitor. The best.
These guys played with a wood racquet and a metal rug beater respectively. They did not have fitness trainers, sports psychologists, physios, dietitians, masseuses. Connors threw his body into every shot, and McEnroe had great timing and finesse. Connors did not have a strong serve, but players said it was deceptive in terms of the placement and spin. Mac of course had a great serve and volley, groundstrokes were not great but good enough to keep him competitive. The quality of play is so good for those times and those conditions. Keep in mind McEnroe was very competitive on the senior tour for years playing with modern equipment, against players much younger than him. I always thought the perfect player would have the Sampras serve, Aggasi's return of serve, RFed's forehand, Novak's backhand, McEnroe's volley, Rafa's physicality and Connors' heart.
Mcenroe's touch is unreal - nobody has that even close to that level now. But compared to today's era, those groundstrokes are practically pedestrian pace.
@@ulrichschnier307 Maybe on clay nadal could win only 1 set, but on rapid surface I guess 6/4 6/3 6/2 or something.... with a wooden racket and without touch it would be impossible for nadal ...but with a metal racket it would be another story !
Saw Mac play in-the-flesh many times and amazing angles. Serve - on form - unreturnable. The player I would chose to play for my life against anybody. All equipment being equal.
@@marcuslambert8722 what are you talking about? Nadal would eat him alive. Nadal is ` physical monster who had 3 times the power mac had who was probably out partying on weekends while nadal would be at the gym 6 days a week. Your analysis is blinded by nostalgia
I think i was here at the match..semi a couple years earlier i alway judge the outfits the one i was at i think connors won i remember being 10 years old or younger...so this definatley wasnt the time...
After watching this I would say that Connors out finessed himself at the end. Perhaps the pressure got to him. Either way John was the most fluid and relaxed I have ever seen him.
I loved the 1970's to early 80's Era of tennis. More strategy, setting up a point with an approach shot, smaller racquet heads made it harder to just blast a winner from the baseline, like today. So much more watchable. I doubt that very many of the Modern Era of Top Twenty Players could even hit with an old wood racquet.
what a shame to end one of the all-time great matches in tennis history with that crappy, low-quality tiebreaker... this match is a classic example of why the US Open continues to get it wrong, and the 5th set should be played out to advantage.
I totally agree...I watched this match live when it aired, and I felt the same way as you when it was all over. As a tennis player, Jimmy will always be my hero. No one comes close to his determination to win and "gut" out every shot! How he was able to play the level of tennis that he did with that terrible metal racket should be enough to land him the tennis hall of fame!
Connors played really bad at the end , and in my personal opinion , mc enroe at us open 1980 played his best tennis , especially in the incredible final vs Borg !
Just watched the movie "Borg vs McEnroe" last night about the epic 5 setter between them that Borg won to clinch his 5th Wimbledon title. Mac had to beat Conners in the semis there as well. Great movie. I played with the Bancroft Borg in the early 80s and then had my first metal racquet as the Wilson T-2000 that Conners used. Switched to the Head Arthur Ashe after that and composite became the rage. Imagine how good Borg, McEnroe and Conners would have been with today's racquets?
Connors méritait de gagner, très franchement, en 1980..s'il avait pu passer l'obstacle McEnroe, Jimbo aurait offert face à Borg, une résistance incroyable et même peut-être plus...
Wow tennis was great back then not that it is it now but, you don't get that crowd reaction like we used to in a Jimmy Connors match. And what the hell is Tony trabert saying a 12-point tiebreaker and he continued saying it. I never heard of such a thing it's the best to 7 Tony. And of course you have to win by 2.✌
@@colderbeer That's hardly logical, considering he made the final FOUR times, the semi's once, the quarter finals once and the fourth round twice, and that his win/loss record in the US Open was 40 to nine.
U know two american guys were more interested in just winning to be able to face borg...that was the chips riding on this one...didnt matter who they played as long as they got to face borg in the final...just walk out on court to participate
I watched macenroe an his feet are really lazy...hes not moving them and getting in position to move thru the ball connors had a new racquet too an his shot are coming with more momentum now traveling an not popping up at the baseline...with back spin like they normally do meaning connors is putting top spin on his shots totally catching mac off guard
What a joke!! Sitting in front of a TV, we all can beat the greatest players of all time easily. You wouldn´t probably get a single break against his "weak ass serve" even today.. lol
As with many young peeps who think their shite don't stink. Let me remind you that you are comparing two totally different era's of the sport. I would love to see your arrogant punk- ass return anyone's serve with a standard size wooden racket.
The other replies reveal the worth of your comment. But to take it seriously for a moment: *Connor's serve wasn't as bad as it looked because his motion was so awkward/abbreviated. Obviously, if it was as bad you as claim- the greatest players in the game would have done just what you said- but they didn't...or couldn't consistently. His serve was the weakest part of his game but its like an effective jumper shooter in basketball who learned an awkward motion- Connors figured out how to make it work for him. *As anyone who plays club tennis knows- you can't hit 'winner after winner' off of weak serves anyway. Its high risk to try and generate pace off a shot that doesn't give you much , particularly returning serves when you are likely farther in the court. The risk of hitting it out is magnified. The best you can do often with weak serves is step in hit an offensive shot which gives you the point a stroke or two later. Even if Connors' weak serve was returned well, Jimmy would turn his return (of his service return) into an offensive shot, thereby negating the supposedly 'weak' serve. There was a women's player several years back who got to the Wimbeldon final serving underhand- she was having so much trouble with her serve. I mean the Williams' sisters were playing- there were big hitters in the women's game, but they couldn't make this girl pay for her weak serve enough to keep her from the Wimbeldon Final.
Connors would have gone onto defeat Borg in the final had McEnroe withdrawn of the tournament, Connors 6-match losing streak against Borg at that time notwithstanding! His level of play, that can be observed in the videos, is higher than Borg's this tournament.
SUMAMENTE aburrido este partido. Se ve más tiempo de limpiar y secar la raqueta que de juego mismo, que es de saque y volea y demasiados errores mutuos. Mucho tiempo se tarda en hacer el saque, más el ruido de los aviones, un desastre.
with standard size tennis racquets made of metal and wood...maybe they would. Technology and fitness has changed the way tennis is played over time and has elevated the speed and power of the game. In this light your comparison isn't fair or accurate to make. Go ahead and keep living in your nice little world. Today's tennis is boring compared to when I was a young man.
Correct THurney. This was the Golden Era of tennis...today's game is nothing but bombers, no one has to feel their way around a court or make any adjustments...it's all big serve +1 ground stroke. I feel so privileged to have grown up watching these players and these personalities play this beautiful game.
@@petersmith1788 I agree. I would love to get as interested in pro tennis today but I just can't. Bigger rackets- huge serves have changed the dynamics of the game too much. Today's game is boring and the television ratings prove that. This was the golden era of tennis- riveting theatre. Can you imagine playing with Connor's T2000 racket? Imagine any other sport which would allow such a drastic change in the basic equipment of the game? It would be like the NBA allowing smaller basketballs or shorter goals or baseball allowing fatter, lighter graphite bats. Tennis' biggest mistake was not setting a standard size racket and sticking with it. Let the players get faster, stronger...fine...but keep the basic equipment of the game the same.
