I remember watching this match back in 1981. It was a Friday evening and Connors started so well, this was clearly his best chance for a first win against Borg at Wimbledon. But the tide turned and Borg prevailed. As a huge Connors fan, at the end I just couldn't believe he'd lost, and I honestly was in tears. It was fantastic, though, for him to come back and win the championship the following year, against long odds.
IN los angeles i did not have hbo so i saw it or a good portion on nbc from 1 to 330 am friday...hbo may have shown it thursday evening.. in needed to work friday ar 6 am.. it was a special telesasr of a significant event
The great thing about watching Connors/Borg is that this was a time when you really didn't know who would win on the day. Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Vitas G, etc...but today you have Nadal, Joke, Federer...but he is faiding....so I prefer the old days when we knew we would see a great match but did not know who would win. I Miss the old days
Right from the start, you could see how well Borg was hitting the ball, yet his serve wasn't as sharp early on. And Jimmy was crushing the ball in this match. Once Borg started serving better, this became a dogfight. And in the 5th set, when Borg was facing break points, he came up with big aces time and again. What a great match this was.
Borg coming up with aces when down break point in the fifth set, not once, but twice was pure nerves of steel. The Ice Man lived up to his reputation. Great match! Thanks for uploading!
The reason that the 1981 Wimbledon semifinal between Borg and Connors went 5 sets is because Borg foolishly and ridiculously tried a new (for him) tactic of underspinning his backhand during baseline rallies instead of driving the ball as he normally would with topspin which allowed Connors to take the initiative in baseline rallies. Had Borg not foolishly put himself behind by 2 sets to love by utilizing that ridiculous tactic, he would probably have won that match in 3 or 4 sets. It was a smart tactic to underspin his backhand as an approach shot to get to the net against Connors in the 1978 Wimbledon final. But hitting the ball that way 3 years later in the 1981 Wimbledon semifinal against Connors during baseline rallies was absurd. But Borg was so mentally burned out from tennis at that point in 1981 in his career that he believed he could beat Connors by playing any way he chose. He found out after the first 2 sets that that wasn't true! Martina Navratilova learned the same lesson in the 1984 U.S. Open women's final against Chris Evert when Navratilova foolishly attempted to hit drop shot winners from too deep in the court in the first set of that match and made 11 of the sloppiest unforced errors ever seen in a tennis match! Navratilova at that point in 1984 , like Borg against Connors in 1981, felt that she could play against Evert any old which way she pleased and defeat her. After she lost the first set 6-4 to Evert, she quickly came to the realization that that wasn't true and realized that she needed to, as the old expression goes, "tend to business" by playing the points the way she normally would by getting to the net behind excellent serves and approach shots to set up winning volleys and overheads!
@@michaelbarlow6610I see it a bit differently. The only reason this went to 5 sets is that Connors had a mediocre serve, the worst among the top players of the time. Had he had, I’m not saying McEnroe’s, but just Borg’s or Lendl’s serve, Jimbo would have won many more of his matches against Borg and Mac
@@italnsd . There's no question that if Connors had had a very good offensive serve, he would have had more wins against McEnroe and Borg, BUT there is no question that given his serve as it was, the reason that the 1981 Wimbledon semifinal between Borg and Connors went the full 5 sets is because Borg was so mentally burned out from the demands required of him to maintain a top flight pro career, that he foolishly decided to try that new tactic against Connors which failed miserably! Had he played that match his normal way right from the start of that match, Borg would have won that match in 3 or 4 sets!
@@michaelbarlow6610 We’ll have to agree to disagree. In your analysis there is only one active agent in the game, Borg, and the result is fully determined by his actions only. Hard to claim when Connors had won several matches against him before and seriously challenged him to 5 sets even on grass. I remember this match very vividly. In the quarterfinals Connors had to rally back, down 2 sets to 0 against Vijay Amritraji. In this match, the first two sets are dominated by a Connors at the top of his game. Unfortunately, as soon as his precision decreases even by the tiniest of margins, Borg’s high percentage tennis, with his ball always comfortably above the net, starts inexorably to exact its toll. Especially on grass, whose slightly irregular bounces impose an extra penalty on Jimmy’s low-margin flat shots. Had he been able to maintain the same winners to unforced errors ratio for just a bit longer he would have likely won in three sets. Still he had his chances in the fifth, but Borg’s better serve made the difference in those key moments. Had this match been at Flushing Meadows, I am convinced that Connors would have won in straight sets, but here I’m clearly letting my bias, equal and opposite to yours, do the talking😉 I need to confess I am loving every minute of our discussion as debating Connors vs. Borg in 2023 is making me feel again like that little child that just fell in love with tennis and was glued to that old tv watching his heroes play these legendary tournaments in faraway lands lol
I could listen to him for hours describing the manufacture of tennis balls in excruciating detail. He also had a photographic memory of all the players' apparel logos -- even obscure ones from the 50s. And don't get me started on his knowledge grass maintenance.
I distinctly remember thinking, at the end of the 2nd set, "Right this is it. Borg era over. Borg could come back from Victor Amaya or Hank Pfister but NOT a player of Connors calibre. There is no way that Jimmy will now lose this match". Or something like that.
It was quite something to watch those long rallys on grass back then, considering how beaten up the grass was, and the unpredictable bounces. A far cry from today's grass surface.
Borg was not the same of previous years, he was declining, he gave many explanations but he never said anything about his addictions or his problems with his own family. Then we learned that his exceptional image of a sportsman had nothing to do with his behaviour off the court
@@stephaneamady1745 Thank you for posting all these great matches. Any chance you might have Wimbledon final 1982? I can only find highlights of that match-Connors vs McEnroe?
What a fantastic era this was in men's tennis
I remember watching this match back in 1981. It was a Friday evening and Connors started so well, this was clearly his best chance for a first win against Borg at Wimbledon. But the tide turned and Borg prevailed. As a huge Connors fan, at the end I just couldn't believe he'd lost, and I honestly was in tears. It was fantastic, though, for him to come back and win the championship the following year, against long odds.
Nope - was a Thursday evening. I remember rushing home from school especially to see it. The Friday was the women's final, won by Evert.
IN los angeles i did not have hbo so i saw it or a good portion on nbc from 1 to 330 am friday...hbo may have shown it thursday evening.. in needed to work friday ar 6 am.. it was a special telesasr of a significant event
@@Gammonsworstnightmare why was the final not on saturday for evert
@@bradleysmall2230 Because back then the women's final was on Friday afternoons. This changed the very next year (1982) to Saturday afternoons.
it was not friday, it was thursday
The great thing about watching Connors/Borg is that this was a time when you really didn't know who would win on the day. Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Vitas G, etc...but today you have Nadal, Joke, Federer...but he is faiding....so I prefer the old days when we knew we would see a great match but did not know who would win. I Miss the old days
I was 15 went to watch this with my school. Brilliant match but I wanted Jimmy to win
Glad to see many fellow Jimmy’s fans in here. The excitement he always managed to create was unique
Right from the start, you could see how well Borg was hitting the ball, yet his serve wasn't as sharp early on. And Jimmy was crushing the ball in this match. Once Borg started serving better, this became a dogfight. And in the 5th set, when Borg was facing break points, he came up with big aces time and again. What a great match this was.
Borg coming up with aces when down break point in the fifth set, not once, but twice was pure nerves of steel. The Ice Man lived up to his reputation. Great match! Thanks for uploading!
The reason that the 1981 Wimbledon semifinal between Borg and Connors went 5 sets is because Borg foolishly and ridiculously tried a new (for him) tactic of underspinning his backhand during baseline rallies instead of driving the ball as he normally would with topspin which allowed Connors to take the initiative in baseline rallies. Had Borg not foolishly put himself behind by 2 sets to love by utilizing that ridiculous tactic, he would probably have won that match in 3 or 4 sets. It was a smart tactic to underspin his backhand as an approach shot to get to the net against Connors in the 1978 Wimbledon final. But hitting the ball that way 3 years later in the 1981 Wimbledon semifinal against Connors during baseline rallies was absurd. But Borg was so mentally burned out from tennis at that point in 1981 in his career that he believed he could beat Connors by playing any way he chose. He found out after the first 2 sets that that wasn't true! Martina Navratilova learned the same lesson in the 1984 U.S. Open women's final against Chris Evert when Navratilova foolishly attempted to hit drop shot winners from too deep in the court in the first set of that match and made 11 of the sloppiest unforced errors ever seen in a tennis match! Navratilova at that point in 1984 , like Borg against Connors in 1981, felt that she could play against Evert any old which way she pleased and defeat her. After she lost the first set 6-4 to Evert, she quickly came to the realization that that wasn't true and realized that she needed to, as the old expression goes, "tend to business" by playing the points the way she normally would by getting to the net behind excellent serves and approach shots to set up winning volleys and overheads!
@@michaelbarlow6610I see it a bit differently. The only reason this went to 5 sets is that Connors had a mediocre serve, the worst among the top players of the time. Had he had, I’m not saying McEnroe’s, but just Borg’s or Lendl’s serve, Jimbo would have won many more of his matches against Borg and Mac
@@italnsd . There's no question that if Connors had had a very good offensive serve, he would have had more wins against McEnroe and Borg, BUT there is no question that given his serve as it was, the reason that the 1981 Wimbledon semifinal between Borg and Connors went the full 5 sets is because Borg was so mentally burned out from the demands required of him to maintain a top flight pro career, that he foolishly decided to try that new tactic against Connors which failed miserably! Had he played that match his normal way right from the start of that match, Borg would have won that match in 3 or 4 sets!
@@michaelbarlow6610 We’ll have to agree to disagree. In your analysis there is only one active agent in the game, Borg, and the result is fully determined by his actions only. Hard to claim when Connors had won several matches against him before and seriously challenged him to 5 sets even on grass. I remember this match very vividly. In the quarterfinals Connors had to rally back, down 2 sets to 0 against Vijay Amritraji. In this match, the first two sets are dominated by a Connors at the top of his game. Unfortunately, as soon as his precision decreases even by the tiniest of margins, Borg’s high percentage tennis, with his ball always comfortably above the net, starts inexorably to exact its toll. Especially on grass, whose slightly irregular bounces impose an extra penalty on Jimmy’s low-margin flat shots. Had he been able to maintain the same winners to unforced errors ratio for just a bit longer he would have likely won in three sets. Still he had his chances in the fifth, but Borg’s better serve made the difference in those key moments. Had this match been at Flushing Meadows, I am convinced that Connors would have won in straight sets, but here I’m clearly letting my bias, equal and opposite to yours, do the talking😉
I need to confess I am loving every minute of our discussion as debating Connors vs. Borg in 2023 is making me feel again like that little child that just fell in love with tennis and was glued to that old tv watching his heroes play these legendary tournaments in faraway lands lol
Love the voice of Dan Maskell- such a knowledge on all things tennis.
I could listen to him for hours describing the manufacture of tennis balls in excruciating detail. He also had a photographic memory of all the players' apparel logos -- even obscure ones from the 50s. And don't get me started on his knowledge grass maintenance.
I watched this live at the time and remember thinking at the end of set two that this was the end of an era.
It was but not until one match later.
I distinctly remember thinking, at the end of the 2nd set, "Right this is it. Borg era over. Borg could come back from Victor Amaya or Hank Pfister but NOT a player of Connors calibre. There is no way that Jimmy will now lose this match".
Or something like that.
best match ever
Well, Borg beat Jimmy there too many times..............I was always a bit sad. But, 1982 was great.
I really don't like Conners, but strangely I'm rooting for him here..can't explain..Robert at 69.
Good thing they switched to yellow balls in 1986. It is hard to see what is going on here.
It was quite something to watch those long rallys on grass back then, considering how beaten up the grass was, and the unpredictable bounces. A far cry from today's grass surface.
The grass was real in those days, unlike today's fake crap.
La miglior partita di Jimmy Connors, peccato che dopo il secondo set non ne aveva più.
It's a pity that racket technology advancements has made it difficult to compare different generations unlike Baseball and Ice Hockey
This picture quality is rather grainy. But Part 2 is quite sharp.
As much as I liked Borg I was always wanting Jimmy to win against him.
A shame Jimbo never improved his serve.
Borg was not the same of previous years, he was declining, he gave many explanations but he never said anything about his addictions or his problems with his own family. Then we learned that his exceptional image of a sportsman had nothing to do with his behaviour off the court
O saque do Borg foi decisivo no 5° set, para que ele vencesse a partida.
Connors has a light forhand
Merci quel match si vous l avez en entier je prends
des que j'aurai le temps la deuxieme partie viendra ! en esperant na pas avoir de soucis avec les droits d'auteurs
@@stephaneamady1745 Thank you for posting all these great matches. Any chance you might have Wimbledon final 1982? I can only find highlights of that match-Connors vs McEnroe?
Magic indeed 😎 merci ☺️
Did anyone else think the thumbnail for this looked like Federer in a wig?
je pense qu'en jouant de cette facon sur une surface en ciment connors aurait gagné