Connors calling it an end vs Chang @ 1991 French Open

[rockit730]

Tennis players injured? Jeez. What's next?  Golf players with broken fingernails?

[TheMrBennito]

connors did do everything in order to win, including intimidation. first of all he played great tennis, let s not forget that!

[HitMeQuick]

Michael Chang was actually the result of an experiment between the Americans and the Chinese. "Born" in a laboratrory in 1972, Chang's body was made entirely of covert formula one engine parts which were shipped over from Britain under legitimate pretences and then re-formulated into human looking robotic limbs by the Chinese. His feet were fitted with tiny motorised springs and levers which he fuelled from underneath his towel at the change over using dried banana skins and lighter fluid.

[TheBORIS7777777]

Jimbo Forever

[totalannihilator99]

Another masterpiece by Jimbo. At age 38 1/2 he was still a giant. Listen to the crowd, this is love and respect.

[fdlmotorsports]

Connors could not see, his sight was troubled. That's why it does not serve the hand of Chang immediately. We must stop talking nonsense. Connors was a great champion and 1991 U.S. Open was fantastic. It is true he used to destabilize the public aversaire. Lendl in 983 for example. I'm a french fan of Edberg I definite.

[Howeller68]

The French applauded him becasue they adore mediocrity. Their society is built on it!

[Notir072]

@Howeller68 No, they applaud because they have a heart, unlike you

[Proggydan]

@Howeller68 show some respect to French people you stupid douche

[pccoder2671]

I used to love Connors growing up in the 70s and 80s. As an adult I've come to realize what an asshole he was to all the other players on the tour. It's a shame when you lose your innocence.

[robertk2007]

connors, the biggest douche ever to play. didnt even want to shake chang's hand it seemed. i hated connors growing up

[Caksman1027]

Andy Roddick is one of the few Players on the Tour that have that Personality that everyone loves. Has fire, has a great sense of humor..plays to the crowd...the Rafas and Feds of the game are exceptional players...but damn that can get so boring.

[polly768]

Chang is now a few months younger than Connors back then...

[supers789]

free4us is a Federer fan, so he puts that comment. Nadal fan will put his comment. Sampras i the best tennis player ever.

[free4us]

Becker, Lendl, Courier, Rafter, Connors, etc played slow motion tennis, today you can't play tennis with 30 years old and win a GS, you can't play for the crowd because you could end it with a ball in your face. Wake up, Edwin Moses was a great runner but thanks God Usain Bold run faster today. Roger Federer is the best player ever not only for his 16 GS till now, he is the perfection of tennis in every shot except two hands backhand :)

[craigcraigrobertson]

Can't compare old vs new players, it doesn't work. Federer had the advantage of watching the evolved games of Sampras, Becker, Lendl, Courier, Rafter, Conners, Agassi, etc.. not to mention the advent of the modern equipment, training methods, diet, etc..Just look @ the olympic events that are measured with time/distance. People evolve, records fall. Just re-watched the 1981 US open a week ago, & it was easy to see that any man on the tour today would crush Bjorn Borg in that final.

[Inzanezombie]

@craigcraigrobertson

but would they with a wooden racket at the same string tension? :)

[my1story]

I remember McEnroe making a case for bringing back wood racquets a few years back. Definitely would slow down the match, making it more fun to watch. But in my humble opinion, the yester-year players would still get crushed. At least until they realized the need to hit the gym, & adopt the more aggressive style of game play, but that would feed back to my original point of evolution...I can't imagine an 1981 Bjorg getting back a 1994 Sampras serve. Yes, even with a wood racquet.

[my1story]

I remember McEnroe making a case for bringing back wood racquets a few years back. Definitely would slow down the match, making it more fun to watch. But in my humble opinion, the yester-year players would still get crushed. At least until they realized the need to hit the gym, & adopt the more aggressive style of game play, but that would feed back to my original point of evolution...I can't imagine an 1981 Bjorg getting back a 1994 Sampras serve. Yes, even with a wood racquet.

[craigcraigrobertson]

Conners, Agassi, McEnroe & few other champions gave us not only great tennis but also fun/entertaining personalities. The Federer/Nadal era brings us competitive tennis but DAMN are they boring..4hr matches & those 2 robots never say a word to one-another or the fans (like modern-day Ivan Lendl's). Don't get me wrong, Fed is a great tennis player with a beautiful game, but I love to see him lose simply cause he plays for trophies & not people. Please god have Agassi's kids play pro tennis.

[fungamesss]

agassi would never let his kids go through what he went through :/

[jirishanca]

I would say that Federer plays great tennis...for the people to appreciate.

[ChristianPaul75]

Take a look at the scoreboard - Connors made young Michael Chang work hard for the money. I admire Connors´ stamina and dedication, they literally had to carry him off court because he felt dizzy. 1991 was a great season for him, never will forget these matches.

[SlashLesPaul321]

44,444 view! poor conners

[TOMYREYESZ]

If you put Nadal and Federer in the era of Borg, Connors and whoever else, they'd still get the same results maybe better... It'd still be Federer vs Nadal that would be talked about all voer the world. BTW Sampras can take all these guys from the earlier era as well.

[wouldntyoulike2know]

Its sad that Jimmy had to stop playing, because he is my favorite tennis player ever, but it was time. He needed to move on to other things. So now he is my favorite tennis broaddcaster. :) Some things never change, love you always Jimmy!!!

[mplebanon]

Anyone interested in modern tennis missed the best era (1978-1991). American tennis sucks now and so does worldwide tennis. The players were better back then. Anyone racking up wins and tournament wins now isn't playing good competition like they had back then. Tennis sucks in the 2000's.

[tomasdelonge182]

you cant tennis sucks now. Its just a different type of game. You need to work harder and its more athletic. Don't get me wrong, I loved the tennis from the 90's, but to say that tennis from 2000 onwards sucks is really immature. Also so what if American tennis suck, it doesn't mean jack. The world or the tennis community doesn't revolve around America okay?

[pistolpete58]

yeah murray and djokovic are horrible in comparison to Pete n Agassis era

[standupstella]

Connors would tell you himself that Roger is the greatest. But Jimmy was great and perhaps the most fun to watch, though Mac and Becker were no slouches in that dept.

[snoble2k]

Connors did not say Federer was the best until tennis channel gave him a job. True opinion is much different from a paid one.

[SoooBlue]

Tennis does not have the depth today as it did even in the early 2000's. Federer is on the decline and players are still unable to beat him.

All the courts are the same speed which leads to players all playing the same, the game is in a crisis, whether you like it or not.

This is the worst era in tennis history.

[Wobgoblin]

Connors is my favorite and he played when there were truckloads of talented, tough players. You almost can't name them all, there were so many. Federer? Other than Nadal who are the good competitors?

[snoble2k]

And now Federer lost to Del Potro straight out, no excuses. Last meeting went to 5 sets so there is no luck but loss for Federer.

[snoble2k]

Federer will have 20 grand slams lol if Nadal, his only opponent should leave tennis due to his knee problems. The players today are awful and that can be measured in comparing court usage with past matches.

[Mikeart978]

I was a big connors fan, but come on, roger has twice as many slam titles as connors.  get real.

[cam230723]

agreed-Connors is a true legend but Federer is the greatest of all time

[seydisehir1]

You Guys got to be kiddin,,, Connors would have eatin Federer alive... Connors is a master of the game,, where as Fed is a pompass ass

[Boromir1]

well said mate!

[stealthpakfa]

what a bunch of unfit, unathletic mugs they were back then! nadal would slaughter these mugs!

[kalaprogrock2]

Unathletic mug?? Jimbo was like 39 years old there. I wonder if Nadal will be able to reach a Grand Slam Semifinal at that age.

[mysteriekiller]

Nah, his knees will be gone by that age.

[DIANAROSS4EVER]

@kalaprogrock2 nadal won't be able to reach a second round at that age

[hattrickster33]

@kalaprogrock2 no his knees will give up for good and he'll have to quit by the time he hits 30

[Magara16]

@kalaprogrock2 yeah but difference is nadal wud win the final ;) lol

[MiniFats01]

@kalaprogrock2

Given his knees now, Nadal will be lucky if he's even able to walk at that age!

[Eric0816]

I will be surprised if Nadal is still playing at age 29.

[supertrex2]

yes he will but he wont be winning anymore. But we will see. Thats how you beat Federer to give it all out or you wont be winning againts the finnes shot of the legend. opponents like Nadal wont even last long to catch up on him.

[12345677814]

lol federer is in a hard era its just that he is so good he makes others look much worse with the exception of Nadal and Andy murray

[benjaminzirkelbach]

if that era was that easy why didnt you become a professional tennis player kicking some pros' asses???

[luisdjokovic]

he have almost 38 years... this is a legend not like shit of federer

[jmaycock]

Federer has already won more slams than Connors ever did and he is only 27 dipshit. Get your facts straight...

[luisdjokovic]

Connors titles :109

Federer titles: 57

Open era match wins

Connors: 1222

Federer 612

Who have more? And Connors win all that winning to great legends like Ivan lendl,John McEnroe,Bjorn Borg,Vilas,Becker, there all players outstanding, Federer won his titles to players like Roddick, Cañas,Safin, players not oustanding, and its hard to federer won a slam now, when players like murray and nadal play with him they are the future, Federer is good but not to compare with Connors

[jmaycock]

Let me repeat this so you can get it into that thick head of yours. Federer is still only 27 and he has won 13 grand slams. Connors played until his late 30´s and only won 8. Thats a fact. Get over it. It is generally accepted that the level of tennis has gotten better over time. Therefore this makes what Federer has done, and what Nadal is starting to do all the more incredible. He has also played in the era of other great players like Sampras, Aggasi and Nadal. Stop wasting my time.

[luisdjokovic]

And you think federer will still winning after 30 years? not many players can do that, thats why connors is a legend, and yeah federer play one time with sampras winning in wimbledon and then what? Sampras retire, and then Aggasi, After one year the only player outstanding is Nadal, When connors play with 5 and win so many times, I think youre the typical player who start to see tennis when sampras or federer show up, first know the history and then you say something

[jmaycock]

I´ve been watching tennis for 25 years pal. I know the history. And you are an almighty dumb ass if you think Federer is not a legend already. Right now, Federer is ahead of Connors and HE IS STILL PLAYING!! When Connors was Federer`s age he had only won 5 slams. Fed has won double that and 3 more. Wake up buddy. Connors was a great player, one of the best, but he is not close to Fed. End of story.

[luisdjokovic]

If youre watching tennis for 25 year and you think federer is a legend youre an idiot or you watch tennis with the eyes close, Anyway who have more titles and matches winning.. CONNORS thats youre answer, when federer got all that you write me then, its like compare Cristiano Ronaldo with Pele...

[jmaycock]

Its nothing like that idiot. Grand slams are what determine who the best player is - Federer has 5 MORE than Connors. End of f&%king story.

[luisdjokovic]

and to who win those grand slams?roddick? Safin?or always Nadal? players not outstanding, only nadal, And Connors won his grand slams to:Ken Rosewall ,John McEnroe ,Björn Borg ,Ivan Lendl all players outstanding, all legends, Federer won only 1 player outstanding Nadal, TO WON A GRAND SLAM! when federer defeat Sampras he loose the final in Wimbledon,Connors even Defeat Rod Laver another Legend,When Federer make all that defeat legends, make all the titles Connors have,He's going to be a legend

[jmaycock]

Agreed!

[dual4aces]

double agreed luisdjokovic can suck on djokovices cock 9 djoko is gay by da way go fed and nadal a final is not worth watching unless its them two personaly

[luisdjokovic]

I have culture of tennis, you dont know the history thats why you kiss federer balls, learn something and then you say something

[luisdjokovic]

and you think federer can hold at age of 44? and yet win at that age? at age of 28 he's loossing, with Murray and Nadal, i can imagine what happen in the future, another tears on the U.S open or Wimbledon. but well just need to see

[luisdjokovic]

Yes youre right Connors did'nt win so many grand slams like Fed, because the players in that time are more competitive Connors play agaist, Bjorn Borg,Edberg,McCenroe,Ledl,Rod laver, Michael Chang, All player there are legends, players who have more then 6 grand slams, Fed won his grand slams agaist Who? Gonzales?how many slams have? none,Safin? 2 Roddick? 1 all player who he plays there not oustanding like the players Connors play, Connors play agaist legends and still win, Fed got an easy ERA

[luisdjokovic]

He won agaist who? Andy murray a young player with a big Future, Who still no won a grand slam...Federer have an easy Era with players there not legends yet.. player with only 1 grand slam or 2, its easy to win so many titles when theres no players oustanding, Connors won als his titles and slams winning to a Legends like Borg,Lendl,Vilas,McCenroe dont make me repeat all again,Connors its better cause he won to legends,players with 6 or 7 Slams, Not to easy players like rODICK with 1

[jmaycock]

Hi again. Just dropping by to rub your face in the fact that Federer has won 2 more grand slams since we last talked. And is considered the absolute best of all time as he has won the most Grand Slams and has won on all surfaces. And he is only 28! Haha

[luisdjokovic]

and he won to.. Soderling? hahaha yeah thats a great player, And Roddick? yeah he has 2 grand slams yeah he's great, Connors won his Slams to Legends Mcenroe, Borg, Lendl, ETC, all have at least 6 grand slams, what comparation has roddick Or soderling with Borg, McCenroe or Lendl?

[jmaycock]

Hey retard. Soderling beat one of the greatest players in the world to get to the final. You know, Nadal. And between Nadal and Federer they have pretty much won all the Grand Slams there is to win over the past 5 years, SO HOW CAN FEDERER BEAT PEOPLE WITH 6 GRAND SLAMS IF THEY DONT EXIST ANYMORE BECAUSE HE WON THEM ALL? WELL? You are such a dumbass.

[luisdjokovic]

Thats because Federer play in a Easy ERA, thats why he have all that slams, his only competitions is who, Nadal, waooh that must to be hard, And yeah Soderling won to nadal but lost to federer, haha thats show how bad he is, thats why hes not a legend, thats why hes never won a Grand Slam, Thats why Federer have so many, cause he play in the finals agaist PLayers like Roddick and Soderling , Federer: The best player of the worst Era of tennis ;)

[aLfredz777]

yeah.... federer sure play in an Easy ERA.... coz no one can beat him, all players are shit....

[THEKINKS08]

Very right point. i totally agree with you. Jimbo played too against great players such as Arthur Ashe, Ilie Nastase, John Newcombe, Mats Wilander, and many many others, for more than 20 years in his long career.

[JimDimTheGreat]

federer is the Greatest of all time,not only because he has got 14 grand slams,he is also a holder of all 4 of them...And he continues getting titels... as fas as i am concerned federer might stop at somewhere like 18 grand slams...

[snoble2k]

He also has no challengers which is why he has those slams. If you compare the skills of Federers opponents to those of Connors, Laver and others past champions you will see why Federer is the Mike Tyson of Tennis, Over rated.

[pistolpete58]

agreed

[supertrex2]

Federer 13 GS, connors?

[TheoMurpse]

14. 14 GS. ;)

[snoble2k]

The competition was far tougher in the era of Connors cause Connors came in at the tail end of legends and those legends were Laver, Rosewall, Roche, Gonzales etc...

[luisdjokovic]

110% Agree with you ;)

[bjornsiborgsi]

luisdjokovic you're an idiot. it seems you hate federer cause he repeatedly fucks djokovic. judging by your username you wished you fucked him. of course you can safely say federer is better than connors..period. what are YOU watching?

[luisdjokovic]

I have nothing to do, and well djokovic wins to federer in Australia And Montreal, and he have a medal a bronce in "SINGLES" but thats other thing,the point is Connors always was a champion even at 38 years old can federer do to? i dont think so, the youn players beat hime easy just see (Murray and nadal)

[snoble2k]

Federer has an awful backhand and an awful serve. Awful because without his serve he is nothing and awful cause it is so obvious where it is going. If the toss is above his head he is going for an ace down the middle. If he tosses the ball to the side he is serving wide. 15 slams is a product of the dead spot in tennis. Sampras was like Federer with the serve being such a big part an a poor back hand. Connors, Borg, Laver and many others would destroy Federer and Sampras in there Prime.

[TOMYREYESZ]

do you think before you speak?

"Federer's serive is easy to read?" are you that stupid? His serve is definately one of the toughest serves to read. He tosses the ball at the exact same spot and hit it anywhere on the court. NBC has proven that in a clip they made in thsi years Wimbledon final... Federer would beat all of those guys in their prime anyday, you're obviously a Roger hater.

[snoble2k]

Is that why Bud Collins said Federer has been beaten by weaker players where the players Borg played were far tougher and still had no chance against Borg.

[TOMYREYESZ]

what do you mean the players in Borgs time where better... The competition is the same, probably better than that time, just the style of play has changed.

[snoble2k]

Yeah they were better and no the competition is not the same and that is because this is a different group of players. Style of Play is now one style compared to many that were in Borgs era.

[TOMYREYESZ]

what do you mean one style of play...

Today there's more ALL AROUND PLAYERS,rather than just serve and volleyers...

[snoble2k]

Have you looked at the wear of center court at Wimbledon over the years? Today it is the base line area where in the past it was most of the court.

[kelman221]

@TOMYREYESZ If roger played in the same era as these guys i doubt he would have had near as much success, to say he would have smoked all these players is kind of naive, even for a Fed fan.

[scienceisknolwedge]

@TOMYREYESZ You can't say that nor prove that. The sport was different and to do those stupid claims like All time best - give me a break, that is not important and even Fed knows it. He's the best of current tennis when it comes to almost everything you can think of, he's got a huge amount of records, he's clearly the genius of an era; so was those guys.

Stop with this bs comparison, it's pointless. Enjoy those genius in court, that's the closest you get to this level of tennis.

[fetisov02]

get a clue moron and get off connors dick already. both sampras and federer were/are better players than connors ever was.

[snoble2k]

You must live a different life style when you mention getting off dicks. Enjoy your self and stay in the closet.

[ramito8]

You are two stupid guys! It seems as if you really never watched tenis. What's the fucking point, of discussing if connors or federer o sampras or whoever was the best? You can't see the real point, there is no best player, there were all great legends of this beautiful sport. The best one, is the best for yourself, with guys like you and arguing like this, you make worthless loving this sport !

[MesenkoHadow]

i think if connors in his prime played federer in his prime (not saying he lost it yet) but if the connors played the 2005-2006 federer.....i think federer would still win...cus i mean he could do every shot anywhere on the court...like the low percentage running down the line passing shows or the cross court passing shots...he did those on a consistent basis...but if would be interesting to see them play though...but in my opinion my money is on federer

[snoble2k]

Federer is easily wrong footed and has a weak back hand when pulled wide. His arsenal is good while not challenged. Connors was an all around tennis player.

[jamesguo66a]

Good times

[bababooey76]

This was actually a great example of what Tarango meant when he said Rebeau (the chair umpire) was corrupt. Bruno was the same official who Tarango said played favorites and broke rules in favor of top players and in this clip you can hear him say to Jimmy "are you sure? I'll give you a second chance" which leads Jimmy to mock him.

Clearly breaking the rules of an umpire being unbiased but luckily for him, Chang was too classy to complain

[sonicgeisha]

after he won the 1st point of the 5th set, he couldn't play anymore because he was completely tired. the commentator also says that his vision was troubled (eyes problems). he has needed 1 hour of treatment after the match.

[EnonimusTransmission]

Can someone explain what happened and why he quit? I don't speak French...

[timafi]

After tying the match at 2 sets all;17.000 people are on their feet to applaud his courage/strenght.This is the most beautiful salute a player has ever receive on P.Chatrier(Center Court).He is dizzy but wins the 1st point of the 5th set but retires.He didn't miss his exit.

He needed 4 people 2 help him get to the locker room and an 1h of ivy before he feels better again.

hope this helps

[EnonimusTransmission]

Thanks for the explanation.

[kala140290]

Jaja, eso de que los tenistas de los '90 y del nuevo milenio son mejores que los del '70 solo por jugar un tenis más rápido es una gran mentira, éste partido lo demuestra.

Un Connors de 39 años (o 38 no cambia mucho) dándole pelea a un Chang de 19 y encima en polvo de ladrillo, llegaba a ser unos 10 o 15 años más joven y lo desarmaba.

[goto123]

Jimmy le Grand, le chouchou de Roland, quel show man et quel bagarreur!! Respect, la légende.

[ThailandKyle]

I remember him telling the chair that it was his back that was bothering him. Could not go on because of his back.

[JKwingsfan]

Wow, classic Connors moment. Refused to quit while losing, so he won the first point of the fifth set so that he could say he retired while he was winning.

[ibwangin]

poor dude, must be tired as hell...

[gilesNRW]

I remember that the end of the 4th set was amazing. Please more from this match !