Adriano Panatta - Jimmy Connors: US OPEN 1978

[Nigelxman1]

This to me still remains the best tennis shot ever. Just amazing how Connors ran down that shot and somehow hooked it back in!

[whatubeaccount1]

jimmy connors looks like he could play, today.

[Zeusdattilo]

In any case Adriano joined the "Grand Slams Winner Club" but what I mean is that there are lots of players who never won a Slam that I liked to see on courts more than winners...

I mean people as Miroslav Mecir, Henri Leconte, Sandy and Gene Mayer and others...

[colrely57]

@zeusdattilo: watching adriano is like watching a ballet performance on the tennis court very graceful unlike today's tennis which is too mechanical...he is the rudolf nureyev tennis version.

[Zeusdattilo]

@colrely57 Thanks for your reply. I couldn't agree more...Panatta was classy and he knew hot to play each type of shot...good serve, voleé, drop-shot, lob...when he played tennis was more intersting and funny than today...

[tenniscollector]

@Zeusdattilo My Friend, If he was "classy" and "knew hot to play each type of shot..."as you say, then how come he did NOT WIN More Grand Slams? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm ? ! ?? Also what da you mean "funny than today" ? Adriano was a good player but will go down as a ONE SLAM WONDER (1976 Roland Garros champion).

[Zeusdattilo]

@tenniscollector True. As most people used to complain here in Italy Adriano was lazy and his athletic shape was not as good as his ability in playing. I mean funny, to say that as many others players before and after he had the gift to play a type of tennis nice to see. He had his peak in 1976 (Roland Garros, Rome, Davis Cup ) was able to reach other three Davis Cup finals (1977,79,80) and he is the one who defeated Borg in Roland Garros courts (1973, 1976) a record that will never be erased.

[Zeusdattilo]

This one , maybe among best tennis matches ever played...

Connors once said "There are only two people who knows hot to play tennis: me and Adriano Panatta".

On the other hand Panatta always respected Connors and told many times that when in Forrest Hills matches were interrupted by rain the staff used to entertain the public showing the highlights of this match on the big screen...

[rondelego2]

court looks so clean without all the advertising

[brasileiro69]

@vacanzecaluri: sai se è possibile reperire la registrazione integrale dell'incontro? E nel caso dove?

[Nigelxman]

Unfrickingreal backhand by Jimbo. :-)

[dks13827]

Jimmy is truly an all time great, and contributed mightily to the tennis boom that started in the early 70's. I know because my group was part of it. It was a great time to be a tennis player, at any level. :)

[ramb63]

"A Tennis sappiamo giocare soltanto in due: Io e Adriano Panatta" (Jimmy Connors)

[snoble2k]

I was at this match and never seen anything like it since. Yes there are exciting matches based on an teeter totter of errors but this match was one great shot after another. Every point was one level better because each player was giving 100%. I did not like Connors until this match and meeting him a few times. I truly missing Jimbo and the rest, a true lot of talents.

[Zeusdattilo]

@snoble2k. I agree. One of best tennis match ever played. As I wrote Panatta told that when in Forrest Hills happened that matches were interrupted because of the rain the staff used to show highlights of this match on a the big screen...

[skyjuke2006]

@ino351 si va be', non è che per un errore uno deve essere definito 'di poco valore'

[xxd0m1n4t0rxx]

@ino351 Molti "uomini" di successo valgono poco a livello etico

[ghicaccatta]

@ino351 sottoscrivo al 100%... a Palermo, come capitano non giocatore di Davis, a noi ragazzi in un incontro per le scuole ci trattò malissimo...

[tomloft2000]

for a two handed player,Connors seemed to hit a lot of great shots with only one hand(on the backhand)

[Fra70]

Federer is great but is not even close the top 10 of all time ...maybe in the first 20.

[iamtman1]

Federer is the best ever. Even Sampras, McEnroe, and Agassi admit it. You saying he's not top ten is Lol assenine.

[Fra70]

For McEnroe the best ever is Sampras and i think Agassi agree too ... The problem is that Federer is great but have no opposition , Davydenko , Djorkovic are very weak mentally , Roddick is like rolling a dice and Nadal is a joke of a player .

[iamtman1]

not true! Both McEnroe and Agassi said last week that Federer is the best player ever. And in Agassi's book he said it as well. Federe does have very good players against him, but he makes them look ordinary because of his greatness.

[Fra70]

Where and when they have said it ?? ... McEnroe made a list of the 5 best player ever and it was 1)Sampras 2) Lever 3) Federer 4) Borg 5) Rosewall

i dont think Federer deserve fanboys ...

[iamtman1]

McEnroe has said it many times, and the latest time he said Federer was the greatest ever was last week. I'm surprised you didn't hear it, it was all over Yahoo sports. He has also said it many times while commentating. And Agassi said Federer was better than Sampras,or anyone else. He said with Sampras as great as he was you always knew what to try to beat him even if it didn't always work. With Fed he said there's no plan of attack vs him bec he'll just change his game and be just as great.

[snoble2k]

@iamtman1 McEnroe is making money from Tennis so his comments are to support the business. As for calling Federer the greatest I can only see Mac laughing to the banks.

[iamtman1]

@snoble2k That's nonsense! Mac's worth 200 mil$ by Forbes he doesn't say Fed's the GOAT just for the business of tennis as you Lol! say. Mac and many others know Fed was the greatest ever 04-07 by wide margin. If you want to bel your conspiracy theory, you do that if it makes u feel good. But mature fans like me agree with MOST experts-Fed is the best ever. Now he's no longer anywere near that level anymore, but at his peak he was no1 all time.

[datacipher]

@iamtman1

I'd certainly question your maturity, and knowledge, if you put faith in Mac's offhand comments. Mac has always said a number of things to:

1.hype the game

2.create controversy

Other times he simply speaks off the top of his head, and changes his mind the next day.

In the case of "greatness", I suppose it depends what you mean. He MAY feel Fed has the best record, on the other hand, he's said in print that if both met at Wimbledon at their best, Sampras is the superior player.

[iamtman1]

@datacipher Firstly, i haven't been on this site in over a yr so u are catching me by surprise. The McEnroe comment i used was only to respond to someone else who had quoted him(Mac). I like Sampras, but at their best Fed was better on hard, and by far on clay. On grass it's a tossup.Maybe slightly Pete. Federe was more complete (defence, offense, athletic ability etc). McEnroe has said the same. But let me make clear i love Pete as well. My top 4 in order; Fed, Pete, Laver, Borg. Mature??

[datacipher]

@iamtman1

Well I couldn't disagree more. I find Federer increasingly one dimensional, particularly since I coached juniors who played him. His game has atrophied to an astonishing degree contrary to popular belief. He can no longer SV or even rush the net at the level required to beat a top player. In fact, even from the baseline his strategy has become increasingly limited, he has been unable to adapt to even other baseline competitors eg. Nadal. Sampras was FAR more complete, having....

[datacipher]

....matches entirely by SV, by chip and charge, and, during his prime, largely from the baseline. I would add that Mcenroe was far more versatile as well...but then again...Mac may have been the most versatile of all of them, since the basis of his game was based on using the opponent's power.

It's impossible for me to reply to your "top 4" as I don't know what basis your judging them on. In terms of record, Fed is #1 with his slam titles for me; however, as a player, he is very limited.

[iamtman1]

@datacipher Mcenroe pushed his strokes. Fed on his worst day had better strokes than mac ever had. If you think Fed had a 'limited' game you are lost. Never has there been a player at his peak who had absolutely no weaknesses EXCEPT Federer. He has regressed, i agree, but that is natural You can't keep the level he had 04-07 forever. On Federer's worst surface, he's won a french and gotten to 4 finals. On grass and hard he's the GOAT when you combine the two. All his peers (Samp,Mac etc agree).

[datacipher]

@iamtman1

I'm not going to have an extensive conversation or insult-fest on youtube, 500 characters at a time. In any case your rhetoric is laughable..."no weakness EXCEPT federer"! LOL. Fed plays baseline tennis only...chances are you're a young man, who never actually saw Mcenroe, Sampras, Laver etc at their best. In any case, obviously, you have made up your mind. SIlly boy.

[iamtman1]

@datacipher Who's insulting who? Federer did NOT only play baseline at his peak. He had a great volley, touch, and serve. What have you been watching? I did see Mac, and Sampras inperson at their best. Mac's ground strokes were very avg. Sampras had great strokes, and next to Fed the best. But he sucked on clay. Laver was ahead of his time. Also a great champ. But no 5ft 7 i player could beat fed overall. relax man! join the majority. don't be a contrarian just for the hell of it.

[scorreggiadifica]

In today's tennis there isn't any champion,so a well quotated tennis player is seen as the best ever.

[iamtman1]

What planet are you on? You say there isn't "any champion" in today's tennis. Did you ever hear of Federer and Nadal. One the best all around player (Federer) ever, the other the best clay player ever-Nadal. When you wake up from your dream let me know!

[donaldcallen]

@iamtman1 I don't think even Nadal (who is a great sportsman) would claim that he is the best ever on clay -- not yet. His record does not compare with Borg's. It may happen, if he holds up physically, but he's not there yet. Did you ever see Borg play? He was phenomenal. Winning 5 Wimbledons and 6 French Opens is simply incredible, given the difference in the surfaces (much more then than now, the grass at the All-England Club having been slowed greatly in recent years).

[iamtman1]

And despite both Stick and Krajijek having winning records vs Sampras all time head to head, noone would make the argument they were better (just like nadal vs fed) Also i watched that Soderling win vs Nadal in Paris last yr, and there was nothing wrong with nadal (until he lost of course as always excuses). He moved fine and played ok. Soderling just played out of his mind. Nadal even said his pre Wimbledon injury happened the week after the French. So Federer deserves full credit for French W.

[donaldcallen]

@iamtman1 Federer, on the other hand, does have a claim to Best Ever, based on his record. The only issue I would raise is that Laver won all four in one year -- twice. And Laver was banned from the Slams from 1963 until 1968. Those 5 years he missed were right in his prime. Had he played the Slams in those years, he'd most likely have more than 20 total. I've seen all these guys a lot (I saw Laver at Forest Hills when he was 19), and for my money, Laver is the best I've ever seen.

[donaldcallen]

@iamtman1 And no one "owned" Laver as Nadal has done to Federer (if Nadal had been fit, I don't believe Federer would have gotten his French title). Among the all-time best in my book are Federer, Sampras, John McEnroe, Pancho Gonzalez, Jack Kramer, and Lew Hoad, among those I've seen (I never got to see Don Budge, Tilden, or Ellsworth Vines, except on film; the latter is not so well known, but he was unbelievable when he was "on"). Jimmy Connors probably belongs in that group, too.

[iamtman1]

I did see Borg play in person and tv. I also respect Laver as a player ahead of his time. I still think Fed's the best ever. You say Nadal "owns" Fed. Most of those wins were on clay Nadal's best, and Fed's worst surface. I also don't think Laver competed against 1\10th the depth of today's game. AND Laver also played in an era were 3 of 4 majors were on grass. Fed would have 20 majors by now if the same was around 2day. Getting back to who owns who, Stick and Krajicek had w rec's vs Sampras.

[donaldcallen]

@iamtman1 Your mention that Stich (not Stick) and Krajicek had winning records against Sampras is interesting, but not relevant to the discussion of Federer vs. Laver.

As for your contention about Nadal's fitness at the French, did you see his match against Federer at Ion Tiriac's tournament in Madrid? He was a shadow of himself. My point is that Nadal last year wasn't right, at Madrid or Paris. If he had been the Nadal of the previous year, I doubt that Federer would have won either of them.

[iamtman1]

The Stich and Krajicek comments were made to point that even though both had winning head to head rec's vs Sampras noone would consider them better. Same between Fed and Nadal. As far as your point that if Nadal had been perfectly fit Fed wouldn't have beaten him in Madrid, or won the French last year, same can be said that Nadal wouldn't have beaten Fed at 08 Wimbledon or Djok at Australia earlier in 08 if Fed hadn't been battling mononucleosis. Excuses can be made by anyone. Nadal/Djok espec!

[donaldcallen]

@iamtman1 I never suggested that Nadal was better than Federer; I don't think he is. But he's owned Federer head-to-head, which is different.

The '08 mono episode was likely a factor at the Australian, less so at Wimbledon; hard to know. Look, I think Federer is a phenomenal player, one of the best I've ever seen (perhaps second most talented, behind McEnroe, just to stir up some more controversy :-). I still think Laver is the best ever, for the reasons already given (disagreeing with Mac).

[iamtman1]

I think Fed was far more gifted than Mac. Mac had great hands, and touch, but his strokes even for that era were average. Brilliant volleys Yes! Along with Stefan Edberg the 2 best ever at the net. But overall Federer more talented than McEnroe. As far as Laver, i would rate him 3 all time behind Fed and Pete. Borg would be my 4th.

[donaldcallen]

@iamtman1 I disagree with you about McEnroe's (ground) strokes. He was/is very similar to Laver on the backhand -- great slice for defense and approach and a tremendous topspin backhand for passing. The forehand suffered a bit from his one-grip style in terms of power, but he could do a lot with it and his game didn't rely on power. He won with court-sense, eyes, reflexes, touch. Look at the results. Federer never had a year like 1984 against competition as tough as Connors, Borg, Lendl, etc.

[iamtman1]

Fed had as good a year as Mac did in 84, in 04. And then he followed it with almost as spectacular yrs in 05-07. Mac never again won a major after 84 us open. He played way above any other year of his career. Fed played like that as the norm for almost half a decade. As far as depth is concerned its' never been this deep. Fed will never be at the consistently unbelievable level he had 04-07 but he will occasionally show it.

[donaldcallen]

@iamtman1 "Fed had as good a year as Mac did in 84, in 04." Not true. Federer was 74-6 in 2004, with 11 titles. Mac was 82-3 and won 13 titles in 1984.

If you read what I wrote, you will find that I said McEnroe was the most *talented* player I've ever seen. He did not compile the best record, certainly not better than Federer's. I think he had the talent to do so, but other things interfered (lack of training, marital problems, etc.).

[donaldcallen]

@iamtman1 As for your statement about depth, you are right. But depth says nothing about the quality of the top competition. McEnroe had to deal with all-time greats such as Connors, Borg, and Lendl. Who among Federer's competition is likely to end up honored at Newport? Djokovic? Murray? Soderling? I doubt it. The only one, if he can manage to stay healthy (I hope so, because he's a great player and sportsman), is Nadal. And when Nadal was healthy, Federer couldn't handle him.

[absolutebore]

@iamtman1 Likewise with Nadal and the courts of today. Wimbledon is grass only in name as the grass there bounces so high it's ridiculous.  Nadal as good as he is would never have won Wimbledon on the traditional courts with a true grass bounce. The Aussie open surface is also much slower than the US open courts.

The tour and its tournaments pander to the Spaniards and Argentines etc. BORING.

[iamtman1]

We don't know if Murray, Djok or some of the others would be all time greats because they've been overshadowed and outclassed by the immense skill of the Federer era. Nadal has been perfectly healthy many of the times he's lost to Fed so i don't agree that he can't handle rafa when he's healthy. The only surface nadal has winning rec vs Fed is clay. And that shows Fed on his worst surface is no2, but Nadal on his least fav surfaces not even in finals most of the time. Lendl by the way "Owned Mac

[donaldcallen]

@iamtman1 Wow, you sure are good at rationalizing, so it comes out the way you want it! I'm going to quit this -- a waste of time. Parting shot:

Lendl did have a winning record against Mac and I think that was because McEnroe never trained properly and Lendl was a fitness freak, as well as a great player. Sampras has talked about working out with Lendl and it almost killed him. Remember the '84 French final? Mac was up 2-0, beating Lendl pretty handily on the red clay, and ran out of gas.

[iamtman1]

@donaldcallen Lendl was beating Mac even be4 he started winning majors. As far back as 82 at WCT finals, and semis at US Open. I think it was match up problems more than fitness back then. Anyway i thk Mac was great and so was Lendl. And as far as Fed and Nadal, Laver, Sampras and all others we have discussed that's what makes sports fun. Discussing and expressing diff viewpoints. No need for rancor. PEACE!!

[iamtman1]

@donaldcallen Lendl was beating Mac even be4 he started winning majors. As far back as 82 at WCT finals, and semis at US Open. I think it was match up problems more than fitness back then. Anyway i thk Mac was great and so was Lendl. And as far as Fed and Nadal, Laver, Sampras and all others we have discussed that's what makes sports fun. Discussing and expressing diff viewpoints. No need for rancor. PEACE!!

[theriokid]

@iamtman1 I have to disagree. As much talent as Mcenroe had, he should have won at least 10 majors. Maybe more. But he hated to practice. Lendl, though not as talented, loved to practice. That's why Mac was washed up at 28, and Lendl competed well into his 30s.

[scorreggiadifica]

In fact when in a sport there isn't any champion, so then someone begin to win the most of titles. That's what is happening in today' tennis.

[Pitonto]

Federer is great but overrated; except Nadal (who many times defeated him) he has not great opponents

[AXOU2203]

What about the rest of this legendary match ?

[conndogg79]

You fed people are funny, having to defend your lil buddy on every youtube tennis video.

[kjetin99]

Nobody has ever been close to play tennis like Roger F. Basta!

[joyholmes11]

Had Connors had a strong serve, with his stamina and dedication he could have been unstoppable even over 30. In 84 at age 32 (!) he played Wimledon final, US Open and Roland Garros semifinal. He lost to Mac each time who happened to achieve the best win/loss record that year in open era tennis history.

[blue2907]

Ciao, ti riferisci a Panatta o Connors?

[blade0954]

remember panatta at wimbledon 1979,lost in the quarter finals to pat dupre,if my memory serves me correct,dupre won,3-6,6-4,6-7,7-6,6-3,panatt­a had a great following

[AXOU2203]

Let's see the rest of the match, no ?

[wouldntyoulike2know]

Jimmy's so fast, what an incredible shot. :)

[sharpasaneraser]

one thing is set in stone: 15 grand slam titles(on 4 different surfaces) by the age of 27.

...and the competition in the pro game today is head and shoulders above just 10 years ago let alone 30.

get a fucking clue, snoble2k before making pompous, pontifical pronouncements.

[snoble2k]

15 slams will be surpassed but another lack luster as Tennis continues to become dominated by the talentless rich. Fact.

[iamtman1]

I see you are making an ass out of yourself on other tennis sights. And people are responding to your amazing idiocy with Lol laughter, and some concern for your Federer derangement syndrome. Did he (Federer) not sign an autograph for you, or did you lose$ betting against him. snoble2k you must think the earth is flat. I can see you arguing with those who know it's not with the same delusional fervor.

[iamtman1]

You're 100% correct sharpasaneraser. Fed has the greatest record in the most competitive and athletic era in tennis history. No disrespect intended to the great champs of the past. But Fed is the Greatest!

[snoble2k]

Tennis is not like Golf or Bowling where you can compare greats through just the scoring because there is a set number. Bowling it is strikes as Golf is the how many holes in one or under par shots it takes to finish all 18 holes. Tennis is the calibre of opponents and that is inconsistant.

[snoble2k]

I was at this match and believe me the atmosphere was electrifying. The stadium was vibrating from the crowds reactions. Truly a phenominal match.

[sharpasaneraser]

i'd heard about that around the post shot but had always thought it was slightly exaggerated...nope, that was straight out of federer's book and then some. supposedly, it totally demoralized panatta.

[snoble2k]

Panatta was better than any player Federer ever played and he was better than Federer but Panatta was a head case like Nastase but far more reserved,

[sharpasaneraser]

huh?

federer is the best of all time whether you are willing to accept it or not.

[snoble2k]

If I am willing or not? Now thats a laugh. Best of all time means he played and defeated every past champion that ever existed. The guy is in luck to be at the right place at the right time and that is the talent void in tennis. His opponents are no way of the calibre of the opponents of past champions.

[sharpasaneraser]

federer has all the records. i'm a huge pete sampras and mcenroe fan; alas, federer would crush both of them on any surface. sampras would give fed a run on a very fast court, but in a best of five, federer would always prevail. i do believe we have seen the best of fed and from here on out he will save his best for grand slam events, but the fire for fed to compete as he has must be somewhat extinguished after capturing the french, surpassing sampras' record and becoming a father. phew!

[snoble2k]

The only thing Federer would crush is your bloated imagination of him after he gets destroyed by Connors, Laver, Mac and every other past great. The guy is impressive to those who do not know tournament tennis. How was the around the post shot straght out of Federers book when is was done way before he existed lol. Federer is great yes but against todays strategy lacking baseline rallying clowns.

[sharpasaneraser]

christ, you are dumb....or in denial.

[sharpasaneraser]

all right, you are not dumb, but i just can't see how any of the past champions would stand a chance against federer. they are all so much slower.

[snoble2k]

Slower? Now that is a laugh. That is called anticipation. They had much better anticipation and you do not know a single thing about Tennis. They look fast cause they are running fast to make up for the lack of game strategy. Calling me dumb and not putting together an argument is pathetic. Bjorn Borg competed against football, baseball and other athletes in a 1970's event beating everyone including olympic sprinters. Bjorn Borgs heart rate was 35, thats how phenominal shape he was in.

[sharpasaneraser]

look, i don't need to put an argument together to destroy your contention that past champions would have crushed federer. just ask the past champions who they think is the greatest ever...all give the same answer: FEDERER

should i listen to a bloated youtube windbag like yourself or the should i take the words of tennis legends who know far more about the game than both of us?...hmmmmm...i think i'll go with someone who has actually won a few grand slams before taking your word as gospel truth.

[iamtman1]

you are right sharpasaneraser. Fed's the MAN!

[snoble2k]

You mean the guys making money commentating? Connors was complaining not too long ago how poor the field was until coaching Roddick, Money changes everything. Try not to curse as it just shows that deep down you are unsure and bordering on my beliefs but fighting your tiny ego. So get a grip little man.

[sharpasaneraser]

yeah, get back in touch with me when someone surpasses fed's records, then we'll talk. until that time, show some respect.

[snoble2k]

You are truly a clown, "show some respect", lol. When Federer beats some one that actually plays a strategic game instead of playing with him, then I will credit him but until then he sucks.

[sharpasaneraser]

you're right, snoble2k, federer sucks...now put the gun down and back away from the ledge. we've got a hot shot of thorazine waiting for you back at the home.

[snoble2k]

When Federer plays real Tennis players then he will be close to the top 100 of all time but till then he is made from his opponents skills and that is not much. Muhammed Ali was a legend due to his opponents but by his boxing alone.

[casheasy]

What a great match. Thanks for posting this video.

[docrely]

besides nastase panatta is another graceful player on court..love to watch him

[Zeusdattilo]

@docrely Thanks. I'm Italian and great supporter of Panatta who was to me one of classiest players ever seen on courts...I remember that once on a USA magazine there was a poll about the nicest things to watch and someone answered "To watch Adriano Panatta playing at his best.."

[Parabolico7]

Grazie!!! c'era solo una versione microscopica di questo punto in rete..col commento di Panatta poi...grande classe anche lui...

[berkeleylawyer]

Panatta: the only player to beat Borg at Roland Garros in 8 years.

[AXOU2203]

I dreamt to see this particular match for 31 years...

THANKS !!!

[massiconiglio]

Qualcuno mi può aiutare a trovare questo incontro tra Jimbo e Panatta?