Match Rewind: John McEnroe vs. Jimmy Connors...1984 Wimbeldon Final

[don_budge]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQS-XriW9p8&t=2s

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/john-mcenroe-vs-jimmy-connors/m047/c044

What do you see?

[don_budge]

What do you see?

1984...an interesting year. The "Orwellian" year. Crossing the rubicon. How old were you in 1984? The computer went mainstream in 1984. At least in the sense that at the 1984 U. S. Open all of the commercials were about computers. Apple...Hewlett Packard...IBM. Others.

Jimmy Connors Wilson T2000 68 square inches. John McEnroe's Dunlop Max 200 85 square inches.

In this match Jimmy Connors is humiliated by John McEnroe and has his ass handed to him left handed. Did the disparity in the racquet size have anything to do with the outcome? Why would Jimmy Connors, who pound for pound was one of the best competitors the game has seen, go into such an important match out gunned. McEnroe's 85 square graphite was like a bazooka compared to Connors' popgun T2000. Why?

[don_budge]

Jimmy Connors Wilson T2000 68 square inches. John McEnroe's Dunlop Max 200 85 square inches.

I've seen this match before. I just watched the first set once again. John McEnroe and his Dunlop Max 200 prevail with surprising ease...6-1. It was a pretty strange set. Surreal. Connors doesn't know what has hit him. He has brought a knife to a gun fight. Ever so subtly and probably not discernible to the untrained eye, McEnroe has the distinct advantage of control. What is power I ask the student? Control is the answer every time. If you control the ball you control your opponent. Such is the nature of tennis. It's a fight. An argument. Over the ball. Who controls the ball? In this match everything McEnroe does in the first set is better than what Connors does. In fact...Connors really has no reply to what McEnroe is doing to him. It is surreal alright. Such a great, great competitor...Jimmy Connors. Yet McEnroe surgically dissects him and so efficiently that Connors cannot even must a whimper. He knows that something is amiss. Something isn't being played out fairly on this slick Wimbledon court. More to follow. I suspect the play is much the same. But there is one big surprise. A huge surprise.

As Napolean Boneparte said..."history is a set of lies agreed upon". The tennis world was shifting based on "lies". Nobody stood up to the powers that be. Nobody except me that I know of. This is a period of my life when my mind felt separated from my body. It wasn't me though. Not in a million years.

[don_budge]

After watching the second set and watching John McEnroe continue to make mince meat of Jimmy Connors...the unbiased observer is struck by the surprising one lopsidedness of the match. Connors is not contending...he is just defending. The commentator comments at one point that he has never seen Connors have such a difficult time with the McEnroe serve. Later on he mentions that even Rod Laver never pounced on second serves the way that McEnroe was taking the Connors second serve really early and just pounding it into Connors court. McEnroe polishes off the set by breaking Connors at 15. The commentators are rather surprised at the one sided nature of the match...yet not one comment about the racquet disparity. History is a set of lies agreed upon. Tennis metaphors life constantly. It never ceases to amaze me. The irony has never been lost on me. What I find somewhat baffling is that others do not see it.

A pivotal moment in the conspiracy to eliminate the classic game into the dust bin. Right out of the George Orwell novel 1984. One can only imagine what is going on in Connors head as he takes the shellacking like a man. No whimpering. Connors had his bad moments in terms of behavior during his career. This was not one of them. He is showing a lot of courage. A lot of grace under pressure. Is that the definition of class? Grace under pressure?

[don_budge]

Interesting comment from the commentator in the third set..."murderous serving. Amazing he can maintain this level of power and service accuracy." McEnroe cleans up the match by breaking Connors at love. A rather cold handshake at the net. Not once during the match did the commentators make mention of the disparity in the racquet department. It was a very unusual match for these two tremendous competitors. Jimmy Connors always had the reputation for at least a couple of things. Number one...he was a tenacious competitor. Number two...he was a great returner of serve. Uncharacteristically he was out of this match for the very beginning. Equally uncharacteristic was his inability to make any kind of inroad on the McEnroe serve. It was McEnroe who had the devastating returns all day long. McEnroe was superior in every aspect of the game. He dominated from start to finish. Not one comment the entire match regarding the disparity in racquet size. As if this had nothing to do with the outcome of the match and not worth mentioning. Such an obvious and blatant cover-up. Why and how? How is this possible? Wouldn't a responsible journalist be looking into cause and effect in such a lopsided contest. This concludes the match but the best is yet to come...the Bud Collins interview.

[don_budge]

"History is a set of lies agreed upon"...Napoleon Bonaparte

This concludes the match but the best is yet to come...the Bud Collins interview.

Lies come in the form of omission. You just leave something out. You don't mention it. You do it to obfuscate. To deceive. You didn't say anything but that doesn't make it the truth. It is still a lie. I'm sorry. I hate to break it to you. It is a set of lies. Game, set and match.

The commentators marveled at the complete dominance of John McEnroe over Jimmy Connors in the Wimbledon final. They never once mention the disparity in the racquets. McEnroe is dominating the tennis world this year. He stumbled against Ivan Lendl in the French Open final when he was up two sets to one and let a photographer break his concentration. Unremembered about the French that year is that he also shellacked this same Jimmy Connors in the semifinals 7-5, 6-1, 6-2. The same set of circumstances with the disparage in the racquet size.

But there is one person who should know better. That would be Bud Collins. A flamboyant tennis historian and commentator of that era. He interviews John McEnroe after his victory over Connors. Connors walked past Collins and blew him off as Bud went to ask Connors some questions. Jimmy wasn't talking this day. I know how angry he felt. Cheated. Cheated by the game that he had devoted his life to. Cheated in full view of millions and nobody said a word. How many lies does it take to destroy the world? Merlin told Arthur that every time you lie you destroy a part of the world. I understand what he meant.

The transcript of the interview:

BC: John, could you wait just a minute while we talk to while we talk to Jimmy. Jimmy? Jimmy? Could we have a word? Jimmy doesn't want to speak. You seemed in a great hurry...congratulations champion.

JM: Well, after the French I was up two sets there and I was playing really well. I just wanted to uh...it was one of the greatest matches I've ever played. I felt like I was serving really well. It felt like 70 or 75 percent first serves. I was hitting the ball really solid...he seemed about half a step slow and I was just really taking advantage of it. I got a few breaks on let cords and just played like the best match I have ever played.

BC: Do you realize that you made a grand total of two unforced errors?

JM: I didn't know that. I was glad to hear I finally I've gone into a match and played real solid. I got a few bad bounces on some backhand returns I felt like I was going to hit pretty well. You know I didn't miss...obviously I didn't miss too many easy shots.

BC: Let's go back to Paris for a moment. What did that defeat do to you from two sets down?

JM: Well I got a little tired there in like the fourth set and I still had a chance at 4-2 in the fourth set. He hung in there pretty good in that match and I choked that a little bit and I didn't want the same thing to happen here.

BC: Choked? Choked?

JM: Yeah...I had a chance to wrap it up and just wasn't able to. Today I played really consistently well from the start and felt real good out there and real relaxed. I wasn't letting anything bother me and I think it helped me a lot.

BC: John McEnroe. You have not said boo during the tournament.

JM: I've said that I was going to let my tennis (racquet) do the talking. That's what I did.

BC: Does that help your tennis? Improve your tennis? To avoid the hassle.

JM: I think it put me in a little more relaxed frame of mind. It's what I decided to do. Therefore I didn't worry about it that much which was good. It doesn't help in the long run to get involved with the controversy. So I was just glad I could stay away from it. So if I could, I would just like to say hello to my mother right now. I hope she's doing alright. This one's for you.

BC: I suspect she enjoyed that.

JM: I hope she did.

BC: What's the future for John McEnroe? Do you know? Will me see more outbursts? Can you read the future for John McEnroe?

JM: I can't read it. I just hope I get better as a player and I improve on certain things. That is what playing sports is all about...to try and reach your potential. I just hope that I can get better and better in the next couple of years and if not, I am going to give it a helluva try.

Not one word about the racquets. An obvious question. They just glossed over it. Tip toed around the elephant in the room. One that I certainly would have had at that point in tennis history. I was smack dab in the middle of it. Controversy? There was some controversy being played out on some smaller venues. I was questioning the integrity of my opponents. I was questioning the integrity of the game and the powers that be in the game. As it turns out the questions are even bigger than tennis. Napoleon Bonaparte said..."history is a set of lies agreed upon". Just because it wasn't being said doesn't mean it wasn't a lie. Sort of like the Russian players currently made to play without representation of their flags. They still just gloss it over. Such arrogance...is frightening when you consider the ramifications and possible consequences. Modern tennis is such an arrogant sport. Arrogance is written all over it. The FAKE superiority over the passed. It's downright Orwellian. Isn't it?

[doctorhl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQS-XriW9p8&t=2s

https://www.atptour.com/en/players/atp-head-2-head/john-mcenroe-vs-jimmy-connors/m047/c044

What do you see?

At that match, at least, it certainly seemed that there was a ball speed differential by the players and the current two hand set up by Conners, in particular was just too slow for JM's ball speed

[don_budge]

At that match, at least, it certainly seemed that there was a ball speed differential by the players and the current two hand set up by Conners, in particular was just too slow for JM's ball speed

Oh yes...there was "ball speed differential" as well as racquet size differential. The speed of the court certainly would favor the player with the more speed. Yet speed is only one element of control, which is in effect power, there is also spin and placement to factor in. Arguably all factors are significantly effected by the size of the racquet...as we shall see if we already don't know. Here is the "Jimmy and Johnny Show" being played out in Paris before the infamous final between McEnroe and Lendl. McEnroe is pretty edgy in this match...arguing over line calls there are mere millimeters in or out. The clay slows down the action and might just neutralize the speed factor of control, yet the spin and placement (depth) are equally as important in "Classic Era" tennis before the equipment change. McEnroe takes a significant edge of Connors even on the clay and he defeats him 7-5, 6-1, 6-2. The embarrassment at Wimbledon is on the horizon at this point in history. McEnroe served Connors notice in this match and it is odd that Connors didn't respond and counter him with a racquet switch at this point. 1984 being the Orwellian year. Tennis has gone full blown Orwell. War is Peace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwA9xIBqiQg

Connors did get the message after Wimbledon as we shall see in a follow up thread. 1984 was such a brilliant novel by George Orwell as he depicted what the future was sure to become. Fast forward another forty years to today and we see how dystopian it has all become. How engineered it has all become. Evolution ceasing to be a factor in human development...and tennis for that matter. Said the Voice in the Wilderness.