The Final Thread-Time for a good ol Rogering? Novaks Roger... Im OK (its mine!)

[temporary21]

First topic message reminder :

lets get ready to rumblllllleeeeee!!!!

dododododododo
dododoDODODODO!....

[CAS]

The weakness in Connors case is that it requires us to assume that he would have won more slams had he entered them. We are required to give the benefit of the doubt.

I do not quite see it as giving benefit of the doubt.  Back then, there were effectively three slams.  AO just did not count (even if Connors had entered AO and won it I do not think it would really figure in his "greatness" estimates as the AO just did not have a slam quality field back then).

So the question is how do you compare a guy with 8 slams from an era with 3 slams per year with a guy with 10 slams from an era with 4 slams per year.  Maybe you take 8 x (4/3) or maybe you do something else, but I do not think it is fair to Connors to just do a straight-up comparison of slam counts.

PS.  But that only applies to AO.  The other slams that he missed he simply did not win - same to me as if he entered and lost.

I read Connors book and he eludes to this, he actually only played two slams a year as he was banned from the FO, in fact in 74 he won 3 out of the 4 slams but wasn't allowed to play the French, he actually beat Borg in straight sets the week before the French started..

After being banned he refused to go back for 6 or 7 years, he said he's extremely proud of his 8 and many other finals when he did it with half the amount of chances

[CaledonianCraig]

The fact Jimmy Connors only played two slams a year was something that came about through his actions so he can have no complaints (if he is) about having fewer slam winning chances. He was banned from the French Open for his own indiscretions and chose not to play the Australian Open.

[CAS]

The fact Jimmy Connors only played two slams a year was something that came about through his actions so he can have no complaints (if he is) about having fewer slam winning chances. He was banned from the French Open for his own indiscretions and chose not to play the Australian Open.

Read his book, he explains the events very differently

[socal1976]

Actually Connors was banned from the French Open because he played team tennis for a lot of money and somehow this upset the ITF. The slams were very ham handed in 1970s trying to retain the control they had from the Pre-open Era. If anyone looks bad for banning Connors in 1974 it is the FO not Connors. Just like how they tried to keep tennis pros from even earning a living for over a generation, really because they wanted to have all the proceeds of slam and not share any with the players.

[CaledonianCraig]

Actually Connors was banned from the French Open because he played team tennis for a lot of money and somehow this upset the ITF. The slams were very ham handed in 1970s trying to retain the control they had from the Pre-open Era. If anyone looks bad for banning Connors in 1974 it is the FO not Connors. Just like how they tried to keep tennis pros from even earning a living for over a generation, really because they wanted to have all the proceeds of slam and not share any with the players.

Yes but others towed the line and so were not banned and had that chance of winning the French Open. He also chose not to participate in the Australian Open so he could have altered that.

If he had 'towed the line' like the other players then he would have had his chances to win the French Open and if he had chosen to he could have had many chances to win the Australian Open but he didn't by his own choice. Jimmy Connors was my favourite player as a kid but I won't let that distract me from pertinent facts.

[Sponsored content]