Boris Becker - it's an open secret that Federer and Djokovic don't get on

Just as I was beginning to think that the Federer-Djokovic relationship had warmed in recent times, along comes Boris with a new autobiography.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/11660998/Boris-Becker-political-correctness-is-bad-for-tennis.html

I feel a bit sorry for Roger and Novak who will now undoubtedly be asked questions about it.

Well I suppose he has to try to sell a few copies.

It's actually not as bad as the headlines. A decent sized preview is on google books. An amusing line about Murray - it's "mind boggling" how much he talks to himself during a match:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=eZZMCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT157&lpg=PT157&dq=boris+becker+Wimbledon:+My+Life+and+Career+at+the+All+England+Club&source=bl&ots=qrPvRtwLrI&sig=uzPDd8wOPa6R7jdohrlVUr3jD2k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8bN2Vf3HDYSt7AbUlIHgBQ&ved=0CD4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=boris%20becker%20Wimbledon%3A%20My%20Life%20and%20Career%20at%20the%20All%20England%20Club&f=false

Yeah, so,what? Does it appreciaby change the dynamics of their matches when they play each other?

Matchpoint wrote:Yeah, so,what? Does it appreciaby change the dynamics of their matches when they play each other?

No.

But would it be better for the sport if the public could see more of the players' characters and relationships/rivalries?

Arguably so.

Oh, Federer doesn't usually express much. That's just him. But I think we see a lot of Djokovic's outbursts and other "characteristic" on court display, especially in his earlier years.

Non issue. Djokovic by his own admission does not really have any close friends who are close to him in the world ranking. No surprise then that he does not particularly get on well with a man five years his senior, given the whole "The king is dead"... and them "BE QUIET" drama.

The Serb's attention seeking parents saw to that. It isn't nice hearing a man tell your parents in a peed off tone to "just shut up" same way that it isn't nice to have those parents making themselves heard after every point.

You can bet they'll all get on like a house on fire after they've retired. But Djoko's remarks about not having close friends were accompanied, I think, with him saying that he was not really POSSIBLE to be close to someone you might constantly have to play against.
Even Johnny Mac and Jimbo are buddies now. They really hated each other when they were playing.

Last year, djokovic spoke quite movingly about how he sought federer out for advice on having children on tour, how federer was an inspiration and such a nice presence behind the scenes, especially from a family man standpoint. Federer when asked responded with some really nice words about djokovic and that what he had shared with him was "between friends"

They both have spoken about each other's excellent charity work.

They might not be hangout friends and might have prickly times as all one on one competitors do- but I think they have found common ground to relate to each other, and it's a legit warmer relationship than before.

It's seems like media headline manipulation anyway. What does Becker really say on terms of details? Nothing i see. Talks about how nice federer is- then says no one can be that nice. Well, if he hasn't' seen a not nice side to federer, how would he know there's another side? He's just guessing.

This Federer Djokovic thing is a non issue. Neither of them are going to lose sleep over it. Btw no top Tennis player is friends with any player who is capable of consistently beating him. Dynamics of competitive sport and all that. The word friend is used too often and means nothing

All Becker really says now that I read the excerpts is they "mutually respect each other", but aren't "close" friends.

Ooooooohhhhhhhhh. What a juicy revelation!! Smh

It was a secret?  On court they hate each other and they've never exactly got along. That said they're hardly Connors McEnroe and are quite respectful off it

if you read the extract posted above it's not sensational or even that interesting, his other comments in the extract about what Wimbledon is like as a club were 10x more interesting.

Meh, they clearly don't hate each other. Seems to be a lot of mutual respect, there have been a lot of kind words both ways in the media over the last two years. I think that it's easier now that both recognise Novak as the clear top dog, less clashing of egos.

I'm sure both will downplay this in subsequent interviews.

I have to say, I find it fascinating how resistant people are to the idea that some players don't like each other. I understand why the players want to put that to bed, because it's bad for their image, and their fortunes depend on those image, but why the fans? Does your appreciation of them depend on the illusion that they get along with each other as well as they project? Because I agree with Becker - that it's much more interesting when you know there is a more visceral level to their competition.

I don't know them personally, but I too have the feeling that Federer and Djokovic still don't really like each other. I also think Federer disliked Nadal in the beginning, and though the feelings between them seem to be genuinely better, I think it still irritates the hell out of him that he has lost to him so often, and may have cost him another 5 majors to add to his career tally. I could do a piece on that, like I did for Djokovic and Federer, it would be mostly old news.

But in the past Federer has complained about (Nadal) 1. The illegal coaching he gets 2. His mysterious injury time-outs 3. The amount of time he takes between points. There was that little tiff they had over the option for the players to go on strike at one of the majors when Federer called the suggestion "nonsense" and Nadal complained that "For him [Federer] it's good to say nothing. Everything positive. 'It's all well and good for me, I look like a gentleman'" , the back room struggle over who would become CEO of the ATP when Brad Drewett died, and not insignificantly Rafa's push for 2 year rankings and fewer hard court tournaments.

So it's not all milk and honey, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I think it's more than just image with the players. As Becker mentions, it's also to avoid hassle.

After the AO final, Andy said something pretty innocuous that nevertheless allowed room for the interpretation that he thought Djokovic was faking. With this merest sliver of controversy, both players had to answer question after question about the state of their relationship and the events of the match.

It was utterly tedious to read, so I can only imagine how irritating it must have been for them.

Imagine what the reaction would be if they really did say something negative about each other. It would be Krakatoa.

I can totally understand why they avoid controversy.

By the way, if anyone hasn't read MMT1's article that he refers to above, here it is:

http://tennis-column.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/the-relationship-between-federer-and.html

(I hope that's OK repost, MMT1?)

MMT1 wrote:I have to say, I find it fascinating how resistant people are to the idea that some players don't like each other.  I understand why the players want to put that to bed, because it's bad for their image, and their fortunes depend on those image, but why the fans?  Does your appreciation of them depend on the illusion that they get along with each other as well as they project?  Because I agree with Becker - that it's much more interesting when you know there is a more visceral level to their competition.

I don't know them personally, but I too have the feeling that Federer and Djokovic still don't really like each other.  I also think Federer disliked Nadal in the beginning, and though the feelings between them seem to be genuinely better, I think it still irritates the hell out of him that he has lost to him so often, and may have cost him another 5 majors to add to his career tally.  I could do a piece on that, like I did for Djokovic and Federer, it would be mostly old news.

But in the past Federer has complained about (Nadal) 1. The illegal coaching he gets 2. His mysterious injury time-outs 3. The amount of time he takes between points.  There was that little tiff they had over the option for the players to go on strike at one of the majors when Federer called the suggestion "nonsense" and Nadal complained that "For him [Federer] it's good to say nothing. Everything positive. 'It's all well and good for me, I look like a gentleman'" , the back room struggle over who would become CEO of the ATP when Brad Drewett died, and not insignificantly Rafa's push for 2 year rankings and fewer hard court tournaments.  

So it's not all milk and honey, and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't think Federer is irritated by Nadal at all and generally likes him.  Just look at the behind the scenes video of them cracking up while trying to film a promo.  You can't tell me that's not genuine camaraderie among two young men.    No one has been a bigger backer about Rafa will be back than Federer this year, and it's also known that Nadal and his girlfriend flew to visit and spent time with the Federers in Dubai last year.   Just like Djokovic, they might not be hangout buddies most of the time because they are at different points in their life and many different interests, but there is a genuine friendship there.

Hell, we all argue with and get aggravated by the people that we love most in life, so it hardly means anything for friendly coworkers (tennis) to have disagreements now and then.  Too much gets read into it.

Outsiders read too much into this stuff. I've seen lawyers argue and call each other names in court, threaten to have the other brought up before the BAR for ethics charges, then go out and have lunch together after the trial was over. there are the famous pictures last year of George Bush, Obama, and the Clintons who supposedly hate each other with a passion flying together on Air Force one, trading grand kid pictures, Bush with his arm draped over Hillaries shoulders while she's whispering in his ear laughing.

Was Fed prob peed as hell that Stan beat him at the French, sure--- but who did Stan say was the first to call him when he won, loves him like a brother and his most important confidant? Federer..  these guys just like the lawyers and politicians know how to compartmentalize on and off the court dealings.

TRuffin wrote:Was Fed prob peed as hell that Stan beat him at the French, sure--- but who did Stan say was the first to call him when he won, loves him like a brother and his most important confidant? Federer..  these guys just like the lawyers and politicians know how to compartmentalize on and off the court dealings.

Federer and Wawrinka - now that's a relationship with some complexity.

I always get the feeling that Roger thinks they are buddies but Stan is less warm about Roger.

HM Murdoch wrote:

TRuffin wrote:Was Fed prob peed as hell that Stan beat him at the French, sure--- but who did Stan say was the first to call him when he won, loves him like a brother and his most important confidant? Federer..  these guys just like the lawyers and politicians know how to compartmentalize on and off the court dealings.

Federer and Wawrinka - now that's a relationship with some complexity.

I always get the feeling that Roger thinks they are buddies but Stan is less warm about Roger.

But of course Tipsarevic and Troicki love Novak dearly. Stupid comment.

I also read that when Rafa was out of action for 7mths, FED  was concerned and was telephoning him regularly to see how he was progressing. Yes I too believe there is a genuine friendship there.
But it is hardly news is it that Novak and Roger don't like each other.. I think anyone with half an eye can see there is political correctness there .. gentlemanly conduct and all that tosh.  I agree with Boris to some degree, the McEenroe/Connors era, Nastasi, and Agassi characters are missing from the tennis world.. that s why I just love Montfils..
As for expletives on court.. surely the odd one here or there is permissible, are you telling me there is anyone left on this planet who has not watched an American movie and thus knows every one in the book ??

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

TRuffin wrote:Was Fed prob peed as hell that Stan beat him at the French, sure--- but who did Stan say was the first to call him when he won, loves him like a brother and his most important confidant? Federer..  these guys just like the lawyers and politicians know how to compartmentalize on and off the court dealings.

Federer and Wawrinka - now that's a relationship with some complexity.

I always get the feeling that Roger thinks they are buddies but Stan is less warm about Roger.

But of course Tipsarevic and Troicki love Novak dearly. Stupid comment.

I can't decide which component of your comment is dafter.

Is it thinking that the Serbs have anything to do with the comment on Federer and Wawrinka?

Or is it thinking that Tipsarevic going on holiday with Novak, and Troicki going on Novak's stag weekend, and them all attending each other's weddings mean they don't really get on?

Tough one.

HM Murdoch wrote:

TRuffin wrote:Was Fed prob peed as hell that Stan beat him at the French, sure--- but who did Stan say was the first to call him when he won, loves him like a brother and his most important confidant? Federer..  these guys just like the lawyers and politicians know how to compartmentalize on and off the court dealings.

Federer and Wawrinka - now that's a relationship with some complexity.

I always get the feeling that Roger thinks they are buddies but Stan is less warm about Roger.

I think that's incredibly wrong. "I still love you Roger" "He's my closest friend on tour" "He's the one I can turn to with anything on my mind" "Roger always tells me that I can use Sevrin for any advice, anything I need. Roger is so nice, that's just the kind of guy he is. He has no problem when Sevrin is there with him to share his knowledge with me" on and on........... those are quotes from Stan. Anyone that follows Roger closely will see the pictures that fans post at every tournament of the two practicing together, hugging each other, laughing,etc... There is a genuine mutual friendship.

Probably a little easier now that Stan has his own majors. Reckon Mirka doesn't trust him. Wives don't take kindly to their husband's friends who've abandoned ship before.

What's Boris on about? It's not political correctness gone mad that is the reason why most players control themselves on court it's what you would expect of a professional. If he thinks that all players today behave like adults though and wants to see a little more verbal aggro he should check out the recent Murray/Rosol match. Murray was heard to yell at his opponent during play that nobody likes him and everyone hates him. Does he really think Federer and Djokovic should reduce themselves to that whatever their feelings for each other. Would he expect anyone let alone professional sports people to show such lack of control.

I've always sensed that Federer refuses to put Djokovic on a pedestal quite high enough for Djokovic's (or his supporters) liking rather than saying anything about him as a person. It is relative lack of professional respect rather than personal dislike. That's hardly Federer being completely politically correct. If he was he wouldn't be so honest with his assessment. It's also I think obvious that Federer does give Nadal both professional respect and likes him as a person. Maybe it's that contrast rather than anything negative that Irks?

Matchpoint wrote:Wimbledon: My Life and Career at the All England Club, Becker said: “People occasionally put it to me that tennis is more boring now than when I played, and when I ask them why they say there are fewer characters.


I disagree with the "fewer characters" remark. We've enough drama queens in today's field already. More likely tennis is more boring now because players spend all day hitting from the baseline rather than constructing more unexpected winners away from it. 


How could there be a lack of characters when you have Nadal setting the trend of the frenzied fist-pump (can he lift his knee any higher as the fist pumps up?), Djokovic ripping his shirts (where does this crazy custom come from?) or Murray shouting expletives and hitting himself (why such self-punishment for all to see?). Never saw such varieties and intensity of drama on the court before, not to mention the racquet smashing and arguing with umpires. And Becker claims "people" want more characters? Sounds like there's something off in Becker's new book. 

You don't end Becker's quote with a quotation mark which caused me to think the whole of this was Becker's quote and he was calling his own player crazy. I guess the quote of beckers is just ended after paragraph 1.

Henman Bill wrote:

Matchpoint wrote:Wimbledon: My Life and Career at the All England Club, Becker said: “People occasionally put it to me that tennis is more boring now than when I played, and when I ask them why they say there are fewer characters."


I disagree with the "fewer characters" remark. We've enough drama queens in today's field already. More likely tennis is more boring now because players spend all day hitting from the baseline rather than constructing more unexpected winners away from it. 


How could there be a lack of characters when you have Nadal setting the trend of the frenzied fist-pump (can he lift his knee any higher as the fist pumps up?), Djokovic ripping his shirts (where does this crazy custom come from?) or Murray shouting expletives and hitting himself (why such self-punishment for all to see?). Never saw such varieties and intensity of drama on the court before, not to mention the racquet smashing and arguing with umpires. And Becker claims "people" want more characters? Sounds like there's something off in Becker's new book. 

You don't end Becker's quote with a quotation mark which caused me to think the whole of this was Becker's quote and he was calling his own player crazy. I guess the quote of beckers is just ended after paragraph 1.

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. Corrected. 

Then you have never lived though the time of characters, fist pumps, shirt ripping or drama queens don't make them "characters".
Get some footage on players like Nastasi, LeConte, and Connors even
The nearest is Montfils, with his showboating and died orange hair.
The best of all Agassi playing in cut of jeans and a wig.. now there is a character.
There is very little charisma on court these days.
Intensity is the operative word.

@HN, relax, I'm not aware of any ATP rule forbidding the use of swear words, so of course expletives are allowed. Doesn't bother me at all. But that's not my point. I wanted to show we already have plenty of characters on court, one of them is Murray with his mouth wide open cursing and swearing. That's enough character for me, thank you very much, when I'm supposed to be watching a gentlemen's sports. 

Haddie-nuff wrote:Then you have never lived though the time of characters, fist pumps, shirt ripping or drama queens don't make them "characters".
Get some footage on players like Nastasi, LeConte, and Connors even
The nearest is Montfils, with his showboating and died orange hair.
The best of all Agassi playing in cut of jeans and a wig.. now there is a character.
There is very little charisma on court these days.
Intensity is the operative word.

No offence to Monfils. If I want to see a clown, I'd go to the circus. 

@HN, relax

Just quit your patronising, holier than thou, attitude with me..Im entitled to my own opinion..which I am bliddy glad to say does not agree with yours

Matchpoint wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:Then you have never lived though the time of characters, fist pumps, shirt ripping or drama queens don't make them "characters".
Get some footage on players like Nastasi, LeConte, and Connors even
The nearest is Montfils, with his showboating and died orange hair.
The best of all Agassi playing in cut of jeans and a wig.. now there is a character.
There is very little charisma on court these days.
Intensity is the operative word.

No offence to Monfils. If I want to see a clown, I'd go to the circus. 

Oh how droll........and if I wanted to see someone ripping their shirt off I would go and watch the Chippendales

Personally, I think Roger and Novak don't hate each other or dislike each other to the level of animus Connors created for himself with other pros. But I do think that there is a little prickly side in their rivalry that goes back to when Novak was first breaking into the tour and doing impressions of players and withdrawing from matches. And for Novak's part I think he also doesn't like Roger quite that much as a result of some snide commentary to the press the "be quiet incident" etc. But I think it is probably just two competitive people with different personalities and I am sure when it is done and dusted they will be more friendly with each other. I like the fact that when they play their seems to be more animation and intensity in both players because of these things. I think it does make the matchup saucier.

I think the problem is that I get the strong suspicion that Roger thinks he should be loved by all and when the 'likes' of Murray and Novak make it plane that they aren't going to join in the fan worship he has (or certainly had) a problem with it

I also think he has been very patronising about Stan in the past and I get the impression Stan doesn't like it

I honestly like Novak (and Andy) for their early 'up yours' attitude, rather than the 'gosh Roger you've a saint' that the likes of Roddick and the others peers who had a 5-10% success ratio against him

As an aside.

Djokovic obviously got his shirt ripping from Hulk Hogan.

socal1976 wrote:Personally, I think Roger and Novak don't hate each other or dislike each other to the level of animus Connors created for himself with other pros. But I do think that there is a little prickly side in their rivalry that goes back to when Novak was first breaking into the tour and doing impressions of players and withdrawing from matches. And for Novak's part I think he also doesn't like Roger quite that much as a result of some snide commentary to the press the "be quiet incident" etc. But I think it is probably just two competitive people with different personalities and I am sure when it is done and dusted they will be more friendly with each other. I like the fact that when they play their seems to be more animation and intensity in both players because of these things. I think it does make the matchup saucier.

But the Connors / Nasty / Mac way of shooting your mouth of on court, just wouldn't be tolerated now

I actually could have imagined, if Roger, Novak and Andy had been playing in that era having a few on court rows

But I think why Boris was asked that question was because he himself was a character..When he exploded on to the scene as a 19yr old he was the most athletic player of his time.. he would literally throw himself and his racquet at the ball He spent as much time lying down as he did standing up lol . He was truly a talented and entertaining player.. which took nothing away from his achievements.

banbrotam wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Personally, I think Roger and Novak don't hate each other or dislike each other to the level of animus Connors created for himself with other pros. But I do think that there is a little prickly side in their rivalry that goes back to when Novak was first breaking into the tour and doing impressions of players and withdrawing from matches. And for Novak's part I think he also doesn't like Roger quite that much as a result of some snide commentary to the press the "be quiet incident" etc. But I think it is probably just two competitive people with different personalities and I am sure when it is done and dusted they will be more friendly with each other. I like the fact that when they play their seems to be more animation and intensity in both players because of these things. I think it does make the matchup saucier.

But the Connors / Nasty / Mac way of shooting your mouth of on court, just wouldn't be tolerated now

I actually could have imagined, if Roger, Novak and Andy had been playing in that era having a few on court rows

Yes I actually think that the main reason for this is the corporatization of the sport. These guys all have to be squeaky clean corporate pitch men as well as being pro tennis players. I mean that was part of the game back then as well but it is a much more dominant theme now.

Nasty yes he was.. but he could also be funny.
Connors too, loud mouthed particularly with Mac. Connors got a lot of bad press because of Mac, who would deliberately wind him up on court. But Connors was not all bad I championed him at the time. Mac walked a very fine line for most of his career.

I loved Connors Haddie, he was my first favorite player that I rooted  for against any other opponent. But he was actually that bad. Agassi tells a funny story about Connors and how Jimmy used to use his dad as a racquet stringer when he would come to Vegas and that he had seen and met Jimmy a bunch of times growing up as kid when Jimmy would play in Vegas. When Agassi broke onto the tour and Jimmy was asked about Agassi, Jimmy (paraphrase) told the media "I have no idea who this kid is but a lot of people say he plays like me and I have been to Vegas a lot so who knows maybe he is my son. " Basically alluding that he scored with Andre's mom. Mac met him for the first time at wimbeldon when he was making his first run at wimby and Jimmy was the big star and make the up and coming college champion. He said he went up to him and introduced himself and said he was a big fan and that Connors basically got upset and told him who the Smeg are you. That was Jimmy but it was what made him interesting. Both guys would win each other up, for sheer entertainment watch the 83 USO semi final with those two and watch how they work the crowd and wind each other up.

HM Murdoch wrote:(I hope that's OK repost, MMT1?)

By all means...

socal1976 wrote:I loved Connors Haddie, he was my first favorite player that I rooted  for against any other opponent. But he was actually that bad. Agassi tells a funny story about Connors and how Jimmy used to use his dad as a racquet stringer when he would come to Vegas and that he had seen and met Jimmy a bunch of times growing up as kid when Jimmy would play in Vegas. When Agassi broke onto the tour and Jimmy was asked about Agassi, Jimmy (paraphrase) told the media "I have no idea who this kid is but a lot of people say he plays like me and I have been to Vegas a lot so who knows maybe he is my son. " Basically alluding that he scored with Andre's mom. Mac met him for the first time at wimbeldon when he was making his first run at wimby and Jimmy was the big star and make the up and coming college champion. He said he went up to him and introduced himself and said he was a big fan and that Connors basically got upset and told him who the Smeg are you. That was Jimmy but it was what made him interesting. Both guys would win each other up, for sheer entertainment watch the 83 USO final with those two and watch how they work the crowd and wind each other up.

Yeah I know what he was Socal, but I still think he hyped it a bit, 'Bad press is better than no press"
He really didn't need it his racquet spoke volumes. I don't ever believe that someone is ALL bad
You know he developed the GRUNT I think it got louder and louder simply because he knew he annoyed Mac doing it.
They were a comedy duo and I sometimes now do wonder if some of it was staged..
But whatever, they gave you something to talk about as well as their superb tennis.

socal1976 wrote:I loved Connors Haddie, he was my first favorite player that I rooted  for against any other opponent. But he was actually that bad. Agassi tells a funny story about Connors and how Jimmy used to use his dad as a racquet stringer when he would come to Vegas and that he had seen and met Jimmy a bunch of times growing up as kid when Jimmy would play in Vegas. When Agassi broke onto the tour and Jimmy was asked about Agassi, Jimmy (paraphrase) told the media "I have no idea who this kid is but a lot of people say he plays like me and I have been to Vegas a lot so who knows maybe he is my son. " Basically alluding that he scored with Andre's mom. Mac met him for the first time at wimbeldon when he was making his first run at wimby and Jimmy was the big star and make the up and coming college champion. He said he went up to him and introduced himself and said he was a big fan and that Connors basically got upset and told him who the Smeg are you. That was Jimmy but it was what made him interesting. Both guys would win each other up, for sheer entertainment watch the 83 USO final with those two and watch how they work the crowd and wind each other up.

I read that in "Open" about Connors as well - and I also recall him saying that Borg was as nice as could be. Connors was crass and vulgar to a fault, in my opinion, but the world needs villains as well as heroes. Two corrections, however: Connors was an NCAA champion (UCLA 1971), but McEnroe had not yet won the NCAA's when he made it to the Wimbledon semifinal - he had won Roland Garros Juniors that year, as well as the mixed with Mary Carillo, but not yet the NCAAs. And Connors and McEnroe never played a US Open final - they met in the semi-finals in 1978 (Connors), and 1979, 1980 and 1984 (McEnroe). Connors played Lendl in the 1983 final, McEnroe lost to Bill Scanlon in the 4th round.

Lets not forget though, whilst calling Connors crass and vulgar.. Mac was not squeaky clean either.. he would have got penalised to the hilt had he talked to umpires the way he did then. In his autobiography he admits doing it in order to get himself banned for a few matches so he could spend time with his kids.. hardly professional
So whilst agreeing to some degree that Connors was a villain.. they come in various guises

Maybe this is not how I would live my life.. but who am I to knock the attitude that brought him to success from his very poor beginnings. "Rocky" Jimbo Connors thank you for the entertainment


Connors might not be classy, but he is honest, tough and still competitive. He's already hinting that at 61 years of age he's eager to compete again, and God help the person who stands in his way. This guy doesn't just love to win, he loves to fight. He's an old warrior searching for a new war, and I hope he finds it. Anyone who grew up in the 70's playing tennis should read this book. You may disagree with Connors brash behavior and his non-apologetic approach, but I promise you won't be bored. Connors doesn't do his reputation as a difficult person any favors in this book. Some people might even conclude that he's kind of a jerk. But the bottom line is that Jimmy Connors is an American original, and the odds of seeing the likes of his kind come again in our lifetime are slim to none. Bad behavior and poor ]judgment aside, we can all learn a lesson from this book: Be yourself, live life on your own terms and play to win. Whether you like him or not, Jimmy Connors is the embodiment of these ideals, and we can all benefit by following his lead. Long live James Scott Connors, the brawler from Belleview!

Haddie-nuff wrote:Lets not forget though, whilst calling Connors crass and vulgar.. Mac was not squeaky clean either.. he would have got penalised to the hilt had he talked to umpires the way he did then. In his autobiography he admits doing it in order to get himself banned for a few matches so he could spend time with his kids.. hardly professional
So whilst agreeing to some degree that Connors was a villain.. they come in various guises

McEnroe started out a smart alleck, but it wasn't until he became #1 and had that unbelievable year in 1984 that he started using really foul language - and that thing about getting banned was in 1984 and the ruse didn't work - his father appealed his banned (as he always did) and it was overturned. I'm no defender of McEnroe - he was atrocious. But in my opinion Connors was worse - grabbing his crotch, flipping off the crowd, rubbing out marks in the clay - this guy was a real menace, and not in a good way. There are nice things about him, and I'm sure in real life he was a nice guy, but there are a few things he did that I find unforgivable - including scrawling "F U Arthur" on the court when he dared to arrived late from giving one of their hitting partners, Aaron Krickstein, a ride to a practice at the Davis Cup final in Stockholm 1984, among many others. I've never liked him, and I've always found him to selectively principled on the tennis court.

Count me as not a fan of Jimmy Connors.

Yea MMT1 I know where you are coming from..but given the quotation above this was what made Jimbo tick, neither of them would be able to play today given that they made up their own rules. But you have illustrated my point in your description of Mac. It was a Fed/Nadal situation you were one or the other.. and what you saw was what you got from Jimbo but Mac was more deceitful in my view. his father who was a lawyer got him of any misdemeanours he was guilty of.MacEnroe was disrespectful of all officials and all players OTHER than Borg.
Yeah Jimbo was a brawler.. but I loved his tennis..maybe I just love bad boys eh  

Connors, despite been one of my all time faves, was despicable in his pomp

As someone who hated Lendl's metronome tennis, I laughed like a 20/21 - year old naive fool would do, when Connor screamed "you're chicken" across the net to Lendl in front of his home crowd at the US82 (or 83), but it was quite a horrendous thing to say. Not least, because it was calculated and not even said in temper

The contrast between Lendl and  Connors could not be more extreme
Lendle THE SURGEON.. who cut through his opponents..... clinical, robotic, without charisma or personality  he could have been a cardboard cut out of himself.
Connors, volatile, irrational, bombastic explosive  yes he was a jerk, But he was honest and did not give a damn what anybody thought of him. There truly is not many critical adjectives that can not be applied to him.
His tennis spoke for him as far as I was concerned and he was the man you loved to hate. I loved to watch him in spite of his bad behaviour Christ Evert must have seen another side to him at one point Im sure.