What amazes me is that these players, well out of their prime, still hit the ball with such startling accuracy and clarity of thought. I know a lot of pros who would kill for a percentage of their technical skill.
Absolutely. Proves that good technique and fundamentals never really leave you. It's not unlike riding a bike, as they say. Connors here, for example, still hits the ball with amazing depth and accuracy. Also, the competitive drive to win seems to come back for a lot of players when they come back on the tennis court, especially in the case of people like Connors and McEnroe.
Jimmy , 110 titles under his belt, played for three decades . He played Laver, Rosewall, Newcomb to Edberg , Becker ,Agassi and Sampras. He is the greatest of all who played on all courts. At the age of 38 he reached US open SF where his compatrot Borg retired.To day's youngsters , i doubt, can they stand , forget about play. This is called ageless wonder .Our fragile young champions learn this how to keep health.Tennis is his breath and blood.
"the greatest of all", that's so funny... How can you even compare a US open semi final at 38 with a grand slam win at 37 (and 19 others) ?? Connors is potentially top 10, but definitely not top 5, there are so many other players who are hugely greater than him, including Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe, etc. He's more on par with Agassi/Lendl for somewhere around no.10, than the actual greatest... PS: huge Agassi fan. Makes me sad to rank him 10 but you get points for winning consistently, not for being the most fun to watch...
@@patrickviet6786 its weird because the old school players played in way more tournaments than the guys today do from what it seems. Although Connors does have the most pro tournament wins ever. Not the most majors but the most tournament wins.
LMAO - Go Jimmy with those old school strokes, they still work even against modern strokes. And yes yes yes, Courier was being nice with the center shots. More for Jimmy's legs and relaxes though. Connors went 5 sets with a ball bashing crazy Agassi at the US Open, so he can hit.
you have one player (in their prime) to play for your life, against an unknown opponent on an unknown surface........who would you choose? For me, Connors would be right up there near the top of the list. Maybe at the very top.
On anything except clay, I would pick Sampras. On clay, it would depend on the tech level - with today's tech it would have to be Nadal. With wooden racquets, it would be Borg.
I'd probably pick Sampras and just pray the dice doesn't roll clay. But then again, he was capable of performing well on clay, just not match after match in the same tournament.
@@hehehehehahahaha2025 interesting reading that 9 years ago I picked Connors. I'd now have to go with Djokovic. Plays great on any surface against any opponent, including Rafa on clay & Federer on grass, which are TOUGH asks.
Yeah, new hips=no lateral movement. But he can still hit the ball in that unique manner. The younger Connors covered the court well enough to avoid being pulled way off the court by the spin, angles and pace players like Lendl, Courier etc. He could take the ball early, before it kicked up and rush them. Not so much anymore. Movement is gone, strokes are being dusted off before our eyes. Courier is a classy guy, making Connors look good.
ptothej100 well yeah at his age and with the hip replacements, there is no way he would be able to move nearly as good as even the end of his pro career. But he still hits the ball really well and places it. Sure Courier was feeding him, but some of those winners were legit.
This question with that exact same wording "play for your life" has been asked many times - in reference to Connors over the years. Connors was picked by the majority of pros in the early 90's. Connors,when asked, nswered he would pick Mcenroe and Gonzalez.
A player in his prime to play a match on any surface with my life on the line? Laver, no question. He won Grand Slams on fast and slow surfaces (Connors never won the French, nor did Sampras nor did McEnroe; Nadal is another matter -- he is obviously a dominant clay-courter and beat the best grass-court player of recent times at Wimbledon, though the Wimbledon grass now is not what it was in Laver's time, or Sampras's) and speaking of never choking! Either Newcombe or Stolle said that when Laver was serving at 5-4 in the fifth, they just went into the locker room and got the beer out. They knew he'd be right in.
+Donald Allen Today's players are far better than the old guard, and it's not just the equipment. Granted skill levels of the best will be comparable across era's, but the sport is far more competitive and the field far deeper, and every aspect of the athlete has to be attended to just to hang in there. Today a top 150 player can beat a top ten player if the top 10 player dips just slightly. I watched Laver as a youngster, remember all those half-volleys well, but really, in all honesty the game is at another level now. To deny this is to cave in to sentimentality. Borg was my hero .... but he would be crushed too. A modern player to play a point for my life? ..... an in-form Nadal. To play a match (best of 5) for my life? .... Djokovic; no one has the defence, flexibility or stamina of this man, not even Nadal. As for skill level, Roger is tough to top, maybe McEnroe? In terms of statesmanship and sportsmanship, well that is a totally different thing, but the old guard never has the commercial and social pressure the modern top player player does. This is what makes Roger so amazing ....
***** He'd struggle! LOL! He was 5ft 8", and by today's standards even the "short" guys are are taller (e.g Hewitt 5 ft 11", Nishikori 5ft 10", Ferrer 5 ft 9") That sort of physicality is unlikely to win slams the modern era. I'm not sure there are any sub 5 ft 10" Grand Slam winners recently? (mens, that is!); they tend to fall by the wayside in the rounds.
***** My point is that Laver wouldn't make it today BECAUSE of his physicality. In his era things were far from optimised like they are now and all sorts of gifted players could make it, including the short ones. However, these days you have to be both gifted and tall to stand a chance, so he would be eliminated on the basis of his physicality. It's the same with a number of sports.
if I should choose a player to play for my life and I knew he was going to be in the zone when playing that particular match, I would choose Michael Stich
REALLY? Stich? Way talented, but not in Connors' class as a competitor. Stich and Krajicek are in the same class. For me it would be 1)Connors-Don't get me wrong, he could be beaten. But Connors loved those important moments and he just didn't choke. 2)Sampras-On a fast court, at his best, I'll take Sampras all day long!! 3)Nadal-I really don't like his style of play, but he is an absolute beast on the court and will never give up. 4)Borg-He didn't miss. He just didn't miss.
Courier just giving some respect here
nice of courier to hit basically everything up the middle with no pace. still good to see connors playing, and with the sweater vest!!
Many thanks for the upload, great to see Jimmy again
What amazes me is that these players, well out of their prime, still hit the ball with such startling accuracy and clarity of thought. I know a lot of pros who would kill for a percentage of their technical skill.
Absolutely. Proves that good technique and fundamentals never really leave you. It's not unlike riding a bike, as they say. Connors here, for example, still hits the ball with amazing depth and accuracy. Also, the competitive drive to win seems to come back for a lot of players when they come back on the tennis court, especially in the case of people like Connors and McEnroe.
Conor Casey
I'm still in my prime at 52
Jimmy , 110 titles under his belt, played for three decades . He played Laver, Rosewall, Newcomb to Edberg , Becker ,Agassi and Sampras. He is the greatest of all who played on all courts. At the age of 38 he reached US open SF where his compatrot Borg retired.To day's youngsters , i doubt, can they stand , forget about play. This is called ageless wonder .Our fragile young champions learn this how to keep health.Tennis is his breath and blood.
"the greatest of all", that's so funny... How can you even compare a US open semi final at 38 with a grand slam win at 37 (and 19 others) ?? Connors is potentially top 10, but definitely not top 5, there are so many other players who are hugely greater than him, including Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, Borg, Laver, Rosewall, McEnroe, etc. He's more on par with Agassi/Lendl for somewhere around no.10, than the actual greatest...
PS: huge Agassi fan. Makes me sad to rank him 10 but you get points for winning consistently, not for being the most fun to watch...
@@patrickviet6786 its weird because the old school players played in way more tournaments than the guys today do from what it seems. Although Connors does have the most pro tournament wins ever. Not the most majors but the most tournament wins.
LMAO - Go Jimmy with those old school strokes, they still work even against modern strokes. And yes yes yes, Courier was being nice with the center shots. More for Jimmy's legs and relaxes though. Connors went 5 sets with a ball bashing crazy Agassi at the US Open, so he can hit.
not exactly fair - Courier 41 vs. Jimbo 59.
2 jimbos
Thanks for the upload!
you have one player (in their prime) to play for your life, against an unknown opponent on an unknown surface........who would you choose? For me, Connors would be right up there near the top of the list. Maybe at the very top.
On anything except clay, I would pick Sampras. On clay, it would depend on the tech level - with today's tech it would have to be Nadal. With wooden racquets, it would be Borg.
I'd probably pick Sampras and just pray the dice doesn't roll clay. But then again, he was capable of performing well on clay, just not match after match in the same tournament.
@@hehehehehahahaha2025 interesting reading that 9 years ago I picked Connors. I'd now have to go with Djokovic. Plays great on any surface against any opponent, including Rafa on clay & Federer on grass, which are TOUGH asks.
Yeah, new hips=no lateral movement. But he can still hit the ball in that unique manner. The younger Connors covered the court well enough to avoid being pulled way off the court by the spin, angles and pace players like Lendl, Courier etc. He could take the ball early, before it kicked up and rush them. Not so much anymore. Movement is gone, strokes are being dusted off before our eyes. Courier is a classy guy, making Connors look good.
ptothej100 well yeah at his age and with the hip replacements, there is no way he would be able to move nearly as good as even the end of his pro career. But he still hits the ball really well and places it. Sure Courier was feeding him, but some of those winners were legit.
A young jimmy would have destroyed him at their best
great!! Where's the rest???
He can play that well with a replaced hip. Jimmy is truly the shit!
Connors the champ as usual
Jim courtier is just hitting the ball to Conors. Letting the old man win
it's the goal i think !
but connors don't make a fault ! he plays good
Exactly! Hard to watch..
that off pace stuff is a killer sometimes
This question with that exact same wording "play for your life" has been asked many times - in reference to Connors over the years. Connors was picked by the majority of pros in the early 90's. Connors,when asked, nswered he would pick Mcenroe and Gonzalez.
Who won?
Let's go Jimbo😁
Was he using a wooden racket?
A player in his prime to play a match on any surface with my life on the line? Laver, no question. He won Grand Slams on fast and slow surfaces (Connors never won the French, nor did Sampras nor did McEnroe; Nadal is another matter -- he is obviously a dominant clay-courter and beat the best grass-court player of recent times at Wimbledon, though the Wimbledon grass now is not what it was in Laver's time, or Sampras's) and speaking of never choking! Either Newcombe or Stolle said that when Laver was serving at 5-4 in the fifth, they just went into the locker room and got the beer out. They knew he'd be right in.
+Donald Allen Today's players are far better than the old guard, and it's not just the equipment. Granted skill levels of the best will be comparable across era's, but the sport is far more competitive and the field far deeper, and every aspect of the athlete has to be attended to just to hang in there. Today a top 150 player can beat a top ten player if the top 10 player dips just slightly.
I watched Laver as a youngster, remember all those half-volleys well, but really, in all honesty the game is at another level now. To deny this is to cave in to sentimentality. Borg was my hero .... but he would be crushed too.
A modern player to play a point for my life? ..... an in-form Nadal.
To play a match (best of 5) for my life? .... Djokovic; no one has the defence, flexibility or stamina of this man, not even Nadal.
As for skill level, Roger is tough to top, maybe McEnroe?
In terms of statesmanship and sportsmanship, well that is a totally different thing, but the old guard never has the commercial and social pressure the modern top player player does. This is what makes Roger so amazing ....
+Donald Allen
Laver won the Slam in times when 3 of the 4 Slams were played on grass. Now you have grass, clay, fast HC and slow HC. Night and day.
*****
He'd struggle! LOL!
He was 5ft 8", and by today's standards even the "short" guys are are taller (e.g Hewitt 5 ft 11", Nishikori 5ft 10", Ferrer 5 ft 9")
That sort of physicality is unlikely to win slams the modern era. I'm not sure there are any sub 5 ft 10" Grand Slam winners recently? (mens, that is!); they tend to fall by the wayside in the rounds.
***** My point is that Laver wouldn't make it today BECAUSE of his physicality.
In his era things were far from optimised like they are now and all sorts of gifted players could make it, including the short ones. However, these days you have to be both gifted and tall to stand a chance, so he would be eliminated on the basis of his physicality.
It's the same with a number of sports.
+Justin Peterson Justin, those guys are ALL over 6ft! This is the era of "total" sport. Jimmy never played competitively in it.
Um. Unfair? Music is loud as hell also!!
if I should choose a player to play for my life and I knew he was going to be in the zone when playing that particular match, I would choose Michael Stich
REALLY? Stich? Way talented, but not in Connors' class as a competitor. Stich and Krajicek are in the same class. For me it would be 1)Connors-Don't get me wrong, he could be beaten. But Connors loved those important moments and he just didn't choke. 2)Sampras-On a fast court, at his best, I'll take Sampras all day long!! 3)Nadal-I really don't like his style of play, but he is an absolute beast on the court and will never give up. 4)Borg-He didn't miss. He just didn't miss.
Difference d'âge
Connors plus âgé
If you play like this, then it's better not to play! You made your time man, great job, big success.......be happy anyway!
Hmmm...I might beat Jimmy.
And you can win over 100 ATP titles too.
@1StarProductions I am.
@@miguelbarahona6636 not relevant now.
@@ST-xg3gy Are you a 65 years old 5.0 player?