Could Roger Experience The Connors Factor?

In light of Roger's recent Wimbledon triumph, it has been 9 Slams since his previous victory at the Australian Open 2010. In that time he suffered defeats to Nadal, Djokovic, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling in the Slams. Interstingly Jimmy Connors went 14 Slams without victory. Losing to Borg, McEnroe, Clerc, Gerulaitis, Pecci Snr. See interestingly Connors had in Borg and McEnroe in semi finals of the Slams like Federer has in Djokovic or Nadal. Take 1982. Like this Wimbledon, Connors ultimate opponent in Borg was not at the 1982 Wimbledon championships. At the 2012 championships we saw Nadal taken out. What a lift that must've given Roger. Despite his problems with Djokovic at previous Slams, I don't think he fears Djokovic as much as he fears Nadal. Same with Connors. Not so much fear, but I think he would prefer to face McEnroe than Borg. More interstingly Connors went on to win the US Open that year against up and coming great Lendl and also the following year in 1983 against the same opponent. Connors was still ranked in the top 3 in the world during those final 3 Slams in his career. In the Baron 12 Slam run, he finished ranked 2,3,3 in the world. Similar to Federer. Also after his last Slam victory, Connors in his next 24 Slams made 1 Slam final, 8 Semi Finals and 3 Quarter Finals. For me that is a superb record for someone who was ageing and yet still competing at the latter stages of Slams. Could Roger such a period of be a consistent force at the Slams beyond this Slam victory and be a warrior like champion that Connors was?

Also If Nadal and Djokovic were to experience such a drought, could they make such a comeback?

Look I think Fed did great but he did have an easy ish draw, Djokovic for some reason didn't show up and thankfully Roger didn't have to face his old nemesis in the final. BUT he could only beat those in front of him and he certainly did that...let's see if this is a true renaissance whereby he goes deep in the next few.

Hmm, he's gone very deep @ the USO, he's been match points away to the USO final two years running so going even deeper means taking those match points which I'm sure he could do. He could win it but I'd like to see how he does @ the Olympics, Canada & Cinci before I'm sure of where he's heading. If we're looking @ a Fed resurgence, I'd expect a good run @ the Olympics, reasonable progress @ Canada (quarters, semis or final) and winning Cinci.

Fed's draw @ Wimbledon was no easier than Djokovic's draw to the semis, so it equals out and Djokovic himself wasn't easy to face although the match did appear that way. The reasons for why Djokovic showed up or wasn't upto what we might have expected is conjecture, I just think Fed handled the pressure better because a lot was riding on this match for both of them, Djokovic the No.1 spot and the defense of his title and Fed perhaps less, but a lot in terms of his rivalry with Djoko. If we go on things on the basis of surfaces, then we'd expect Fed to do better on faster surfaces (Wimbledon & USO) and less well at the other two. The only immeasurable is what impact confidence will have. If confidence is important, then Fed may be able to get past Djokovic @ the USO if he meets him.

There are a few differences between Connors and Fed, although I see the parallel. The main difference is that Connors lost close to half the grand slam finals he appeared in (and was in less of them) whereas Fed has won most of the grand finals he's been in and been in more. Some similarities, but also noticeable differences.

What's a "Baron 12 slam run"?

Pedantry aside I do think RF has the game to get some way towards emulating Connors' longetvity, but am not quite sure he has the same "cussedness". Too soon to say but I'd be surprised to see Fed toiling away in his 40s.

McEnroe always typified Connors as being driven by the money - if the money wasn't there then he wasn't doing it. That's possibly true but he could just have said that Connors was driven because that's obviously true, too.