Listen up for Jimbo !

The world according to Jimmy Connors, for anyone keen to hear the thoughts of one of the game's past greats (still with way more match wins to his name than anyone else ....)

BBC Radio Five Live 7.30 pm tonight - and he will be taking listener questions too

Good shout - but I'll be listening via the Podcast

I listened to this on the way to work.

I thought it was pretty good, I'd recommend a listen. Jimmy is good value as an interviewee.

Thanks for notifying us, Lags.

The only blemish was, with just 9 mins to go: "Jimmy, do you think Andy Murray can win Wimbledon?". Is it part of the BBC charter to ask this of any tennis player they speak to?

HM Murdoch wrote:The only blemish was, with just 9 mins to go: "Jimmy, do you think Andy Murray can win Wimbledon?". Is it part of the BBC charter to ask this of any tennis player they speak to?

I always thought it was a journalists / interviewers job to ask the interesting / difficult question not the bleeding obvious

I'd have thought that been a recent slam winner and Olympic Champion at the same venue - might have been a full enough answer

Don't you love the Beeb!!

Banbro, it made me cringe.

"Can a player who's won a slam and made 5 other finals (including Wimbledon) and is currently #2 in the world possibly win Wimbledon?"

Indeed HMM ....... we could have happily done without such an inane question re Andy.

BUT ..... it was - as you say - the only blemish, and the session as a whole made for good listening.

Jimmy never had much time for press/media in his playing days (I think that's putting it mildly ....) but with a book to promote and the perspective on life that comes about in your sixth decade, he is now much happier to talk.

Whilst not wanting to 'downgrade' any of his own achievements - and why on earth would he/should he with a CV like his ! - he was also quick to give fulsome praise to the elite players of the current scene. This is always a far more endearing trait than the many athletes who adopt a things-were-much-better-in-my-day approach.

Easy to forget sometimes just how big a figure Jimbo was, and how he NEVER gave less than 100% in every match of every event he played ............

Lags, yes, I think Jim's foray into the 'era debate' was pretty good.

He basically had two points on the matter:

1) Comparisons are almost impossible due the the change in technology and training methods.

2) He thinks anyone who is a champion in one era would have a pretty good chance of being a champion in another era.

It was quite refreshing that he didn't descend into cliché on this matter.

He also made an interesting point that the on-court shenanigans of him and McEnroe, whilst not approved of by many, may have played a big part in tennis attracting TV audiences. I think there's probably some truth in that.

People always love conflict and contrast on TV...where would Jeremy Kyle be without it?

I never warmed to Connors during his playing days, I always rooted for his opponent. But as lags says you never doubted his commitment to any match. A true competitor who made the most of his gifts, almost certainly robbed of the Grand Slam in 1974 by the French (who else) not allowing Connors to enter due to him playing World Team Tennis (WTT).

Borg won at RG in 74 but Connors beat Borg in the final of the US Claycourt Championships in Indianapolis later that year 5-7 6-3 6-4. He also beat Orantes, the RG74 finalist of '74 in Indy. So I'd give the nod to Connors taking RG74. A shame...but he did win slams on all 3 surfaces (USO76 on clay).

I don't know if you heard the interview Lydian, but he said one his few regrets is that he subsequently continued missing FO, even when they said he could play.

With regard to disliking him, he also said that he didn't particularly care if he wasn't liked as long as people were there.

HM Murdoch wrote:The only blemish was, with just 9 mins to go: "Jimmy, do you think Andy Murray can win Wimbledon?". Is it part of the BBC charter to ask this of any tennis player they speak to?

The Beeb should be credited for showing extraordinary intelligence in asking this question and excellence in reporting. You do recall that the question used to be...

"XXX, do you think Andy Murray can win Wimbledon a slam?"

Give the interviewer an OBE, I say...

laverfan wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:The only blemish was, with just 9 mins to go: "Jimmy, do you think Andy Murray can win Wimbledon?". Is it part of the BBC charter to ask this of any tennis player they speak to?

The Beeb should be credited for showing extraordinary intelligence in asking this question and excellence in reporting. You do recall that the question used to be...

"XXX, do you think Andy Murray can win Wimbledon a slam?"

Give the interviewer an OBE, I say...

It took them a while to get it out of their system.

After years of "Can Andy Murray win a slam?", this was Jonathan Overend's blog for the first slam after Andy's New York victory:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/21002898

Not really the most imaginative approach!

I didn't hear or know that HMM, interesting. I know he missed 76 but wasn't aware of others. Given he could have won a couple more slams he would have been seen in a completely different light in terms of greatness had he won 10 slams and within that a Grand Slam in 1974...a record that would still stand today. This is why I can never agree to any player being called GOAT, only most successful.

Lydian, he didn't play the French from 74 - 78.

I'm not sure if the FO said he was able to play after 74 or whether, with conclusion of the legal wrangling against Arthur Ashe in 75, he felt it might have been possible to move from the WTT at that point.

My understanding was that he was banned the whole time but Jimmy's comments in the interview definitely suggested he chose not to attend in that period.

And funnily enough, your comments about GOAT were exactly my thoughts after that interview! Jimmy managed 8 slams despite not entering FO for 5 years in a row and only ever playing AO twice. Had he played 4 slams per year during his prime, he could have had a much bigger total.

Exactly HMM, todays guys enter all slams as matter of routine but it wasn't always that way. Likewise Borg only went to Australia once in 1974, this being on grass back then he would have won surely 3-5 more slams, with Connors winning a couple. I'm sure Borg would have added to his #1 weeks total greatly as well given he was top 3 for 8 years! All water under the bridge now...

One of Jimbo's more entertaining stories from his book 'The Outsider', and recounted during last night's interview/phone-in, relates to an off-court episode.

He apparently took the prize money from one of his many titles and that same evening placed the entire sum of $70,000 on a single bet at either poker or roulette (can't remember which it was) - and promptly lost the lot !!

He was asked just how much regret he later felt, to which the answer was "not a lot really." He said that winning was always more important to him than the money, and that the title itself was enough of a reward.

Obviously he could not have indulged like that every week, or his life today would be very different ; but it does perhaps provide an insight into the winning-is-everything mentality that characterised the man and his on-court persona.

The more you read about what Connors achieved, particularly as a older player, you're left somewhat staggered by his sheer will to win and indomitable spirit. This excerpt from Wiki...

Connors continued to compete against younger men well into his 41st year. In the fourth round of the 1987 Wimbledon Championships, Connors defeated Mikael Pernfors, ten years his junior, 1–6, 1–6, 7–5, 6–4, 6–2, after having trailed 4–1 in the third set and 3–0 in the fourth set. In July 1988, Connors ended a four-year title drought by winning the Sovran Bank Tennis Classic in Washington, D.C. It was the 106th title of his career. Connors had played in 56 tournaments and 12 finals since his previous victory in the Tokyo Indoors against Lendl in October 1984.

At the 1989 US Open, Connors defeated the third seed (and future two-time champion), Stefan Edberg, in straight sets in the fourth round and pushed sixth-seeded Andre Agassi to five sets in a quarterfinal. His career seemed to be at an end in 1990, when he played only three tournament matches (and lost all three), dropping to no. 936 in the world rankings. However, after surgery on his deteriorating left wrist, he came back to play 14 tournaments in 1991. An ailing back forced him to retire from a five-sets match in the third round of the French Open against Michael Chang, the 1989 champion. Ironically, Connors walked off the court after hitting a winner against Chang.

The defining moment of Connors' later career came when he made an improbable run to the 1991 US Open semifinals at the age of 39. On his birthday, he defeated 24-year-old Aaron Krickstein, 3–6, 7–6, 1–6, 6–3, 7–6, in 4 hours and 41 minutes, coming back from a 2–5 deficit in the final set. Connors then defeated Paul Haarhuis in the quarterfinals before suffering a defeat to Jim Courier.

Connors participated in his last major tournament in the 1992 US Open, where he beat Jaime Oncins, 6–1, 6–2, 6–3, in the first round, before losing to Lendl (then ranked no. 7), 6–3, 3–6, 2–6, 0–6, in the second round.

In September 1992, Connors played Martina Navratilova in the third Battle of the Sexes tennis match at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada. Connors was allowed only one serve per point and Navratilova was allowed to hit into half the doubles court. Connors won, 7–5, 6–2.

However, this would not be the end of his playing career. As late as June 1995, three months shy of his 43rd birthday Connors beat Sébastien Lareau, 6–4, 7–6, and Martin Sinner, 7–6, 6–0, to progress to the quarterfinals of the Halle event in Germany. Connors lost this quarterfinal, 6–7, 3–6 to Marc Rosset. Connors' last match on the main ATP tour came in April 1996, when he lost, 2–6, 6–3, 1–6, to Richey Reneberg in Atlanta.

vs McEnroe: Connors' best win during 1979–81 was the 1980 WCT Finals, when he defeated the defending champion, John McEnroe. McEnroe and Borg were battling for the top spot in those years, while Connors played the role of the spoiler. However, in 1982, at age 29, Connors was back in the Wimbledon singles final, where he faced McEnroe, who by then was established firmly as the world's top player. Connors recovered from being three points away from defeat in a fourth-set tie-break (at 3–4) to win the match, 3–6, 6–3, 6–7, 7–6, 6–4, and claim his second Wimbledon title, eight years after his first. Although Connors' tour record against McEnroe is 14–20, McEnroe is six years younger than Connors and had a losing record against Connors until he won 12 out of their last 14 meetings.

vs Lendl: Connors defeated another of the next generation of tennis stars, Ivan Lendl, in the 1982 US Open final and soon regained the world no. 1 ranking. Connors has a tour record of 13–22 against Lendl, but Lendl is seven years younger than Connors and had a losing record against Connors until he won their last seventeen matches from 1984 through 1992, after Connors' prime. Head to head in major championship finals, Connors took both meetings, winning the 1982 and 1983 US Open.

lydian wrote:The more you read about what Connors achieved, particularly as a older player, you're left somewhat staggered by his sheer will to win and indomitable spirit. This excerpt from Wiki...

Connors continued to compete against younger men well into his 41st year. In the fourth round of the 1987 Wimbledon Championships, Connors defeated Mikael Pernfors, ten years his junior, 1–6, 1–6, 7–5, 6–4, 6–2, after having trailed 4–1 in the third set and 3–0 in the fourth set.....

Head to head in major championship finals, Connors took both meetings, winning the 1982 and 1983 US Open.

I'll never forget the Pernfors match; Connors won an important point at 4-1 down in the third and went into fistpump mode (1987 style), from then on you knew that Pernfors's goose was cooked. The two finals against Lendl in the USO were of a very high standard - I felt so sorry for Lendl, Connors seemed to be invincible against him and Borg at the USO.

Connors was a sort of super-effective version of Lleyton Hewitt, a flat-hitting baseliner, and he did not have to face the real power game until the late 1980's. Nor did he have to face luxilon strings. I often wonder if Hewitt could have lasted longer at the top had he played in an era less dependent on powerful hitting.

Fascinating stuff there lydian, and safe to say we will never quite see his like again .....

He touched on his Borg rivalry, commenting that Bjorn was the one guy he could never successfully wind-up or irritate on court - despite his best efforts !

In the face of all manner of provocation, ice-Borg was of course calmness personified. Can't recall the exact words Jimmy used last night, but it was very much along the lines of "I tried my best stuff on him but there was never the slightest reaction ...."

lags72 wrote:
Jimmy never had much time for press/media in his playing days (I think that's putting it mildly ....) but with a book to promote and the perspective on life that comes about in your sixth decade, he is now much happier to talk...

Jimmy's in his 7th decade.


Pedantry Bogbrush

This guy gets badly overlooked in GOAT discussions. I put him ahead of Lendl easily.

lydian wrote:The more you read about what Connors achieved, particularly as a older player, you're left somewhat staggered by his sheer will to win and indomitable spirit.

I completely agree but I'll also add these other words from the man himself:

"People say I'm around because I have a lot of heart, but I know all the heart in the world couldn't have helped me if I wasn't physically fit"

You're right bb. Just into his seventh !

But then Jimmy's age was always something of a conundrum. And when he memorably made the USO semis at a totally ridiculous 38, I reckon we could all be forgiven for imagining he was 28 ..........

Good quote HMM, he knew he had to be superfit given his brand of tennis.

I like this quote too: "There's always somebody out there who's willing to push it that extra inch, or mile, and that was me. I didn't care if it took me 30 minutes or five hours. If you beat me, you had to be the best, or the best you had that day. But that was my passion for the game. If I won, I won, and if I lost, well, I didn't take it so well."

Its unreal to achieve what he did into his late 30s/early 40s in what we can call the modern game - especially considering the totally different game he learnt his craft in the 60s/early 70s.

Definitely ahead of Lendl, arguably ahead of McEnroe and Agassi too for what he achieved (slams count, slams on all surfaces, weeks at #1, longevity, spanning eras)

HM Murdoch wrote:Lags, yes, I think Jim's foray into the 'era debate' was pretty good.

He basically had two points on the matter:

1) Comparisons are almost impossible due the the change in technology and training methods.

2) He thinks anyone who is a champion in one era would have a pretty good chance of being a champion in another era.

It was quite refreshing that he didn't descend into cliché on this matter.

He also made an interesting point that the on-court shenanigans of him and McEnroe, whilst not approved of by many, may have played a big part in tennis attracting TV audiences. I think there's probably some truth in that.

Nice to see someone speaking some sense, for once! And I don't think it is a coincidence that Connors is probably one of few who doesn't have much interests with media companies or tennis players or associations.

What he said reflects exactly my view on the old abused issue; if there is a true champion around, he will find a way to win the big prizes, no matter the competition. Well said Jimbo!

For me Lendl is ahead in the GOAT stakes.

More slam finals, longer spell at number one, greater dominance, more meaningful titles (many of Connors' titles are tinpot titles where the field was much reduced - all of which was achieved in a shorter timespan and arguably spanned the toughest eras of all from Borg to Sampras.

Connors had a few outstanding (well actually one) runs at the end of his career which coupled with his fiery on court persona, contrasting greatly with the rather robotic Lendl, tends to get him placed higher than Lendl. However, objectively, I think Lendl achieved more against a more varied field.

emancipator wrote:For me Lendl is ahead in the GOAT stakes.

More slam finals, longer spell at number one, greater dominance, more meaningful titles (many of Connors' titles are tinpot titles where the field was much reduced - all of which was achieved in a shorter timespan and arguably spanned the toughest eras of all from Borg to Sampras.

Connors had a few outstanding (well actually one) runs at the end of his career which coupled with his fiery on court persona, contrasting greatly with the rather robotic Lendl, tends to get him placed higher than Lendl. However, objectively, I think Lendl achieved more against a more varied field.

I agree, Connors extraordinary for longevity, but Lendl firmly ahead of Connors in any GOAT debate, not least because of his contribution to the way modern tennis is (and modern players are) today.

bogbrush wrote:This guy gets badly overlooked in GOAT discussions. I put him ahead of Lendl easily.

Not here... http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0017249

lydian wrote:
Its unreal to achieve what he did into his late 30s/early 40s in what we can call the modern game - especially considering the totally different game he learnt his craft in the 60s/early 70s.

I must object to this. Pancho at 41 yo beating Pasarell ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancho_Gonzales#One_of_the_greatest_matches_ever_played ) or Rosewall


1977 was Rosewall's last year in the Top 20, which means he was one of the best players for 26 years (in the Top 20 from 1952 to 1977). He won his last tournaments in Hong Kong and Tokyo (Gunze Open) at the age of 43.

1977 Rosewall played in the Sydney Indoor Tournament. Approaching his 43rd birthday he beat the #3 in the world Vitas Gerulaitis 7–6 6–4. He then put in a credible performance losing to Jimmy Connors 7–5 6–4 6–2 in the final. The following year he lost in the semi finals at 44 years of age.

Afterwards, he gradually retired. In October 1980 at the Melbourne indoor tournament, at nearly 46 years of age, Rosewall defeated American Butch Walts, ranked World No. 49, in the first round before losing to Paul McNamee.

Granted, they do not have the titles (Rosewall has 133, but across the ProAm divide).

HM Murdoch wrote:Lags, yes, I think Jim's foray into the 'era debate' was pretty good.

He basically had two points on the matter:

1) Comparisons are almost impossible due the the change in technology and training methods.

2) He thinks anyone who is a champion in one era would have a pretty good chance of being a champion in another era.

It was quite refreshing that he didn't descend into cliché on this matter.

He also made an interesting point that the on-court shenanigans of him and McEnroe, whilst not approved of by many, may have played a big part in tennis attracting TV audiences. I think there's probably some truth in that.

I agreed entirely. The only thing I would add HM, is that I genuinely don't think it is cliche (if you are referring to weak-era debate). I have never read or heard any former player or current professional downgrading any multiple Grand Slam Champion by saying "yeah but he had it easier than so and so". It's just not what is done by peers. And Connors gives another example of this.
I firmly believe it is a recent media ‘creation’ that has come about by increased coverage (across all mediums) meaning more discussion points are required (no matter how asinine) in order to fill the time and to possibly create controversy (which would also require excessive media coverage). It is a positive feedback loop. This is then perpetuating on internet forums. When any tennis player/great is thrown this question it is always batted straight back to them. And I don’t believe they are being insincere when doing this. They have been a champion of the sport they, and millions others, love and respect. Why feel the need to get involved in such small talk.