QUESTION: Do you think your former pupil Andy Roddick can win another Slam title?
JIMMY CONNORS: I certainly hope so. I would hate for somebody who has had so many opportunities in the finals at Wimbledon a couple of times and the U.S. Open —for him to only win one Grand Slam would be a shame.
Q: Was he unlucky to come along at the same time as Roger Federer?
JC: If Roger wasn’t here, Andy might have won five Slams. But you’ve got to look at it on both sides. He’s had the opportunity to beat him a couple of times at Wimbledon and the Open. Isn’t that what you play for? You don’t play to say, “Well if it weren’t for him…” I’d be thinking, “I’ve got to stop this guy somehow. I’ve got to figure out how I need to train.” That’s what you shoot for. McEnroe chased Borg. I chased Borg. I chased Mac. Sampras chased Agassi. Agassi chased Sampras. Whatever it takes to beat these guys is what you have to do. You can’t sit back at the end of your career and say, “Gee if it weren’t for Federer, I might have won five or six Slams.” You’ve only got a certain amount of time to play your best. To walk off after a 12- or 15-year career and say, “Geez, what if I played a little harder? What if I trained a little bit harder? What if I had done this and what if I done that?” You go through the rest of your life with a “what if?” That’s brutal. Was McEnroe unlucky that he played with me and Borg and Lendl? Was Sampras unlucky that he played with Courier and Agassi and Chang? No. Isn’t that what it’s all about, to play guys who bring you the competition on a daily basis and for you to have to go out and figure out a way to do your best, day in and day out?
Q: Andy did appear to play his best in the 2009 Wimbledon final against Federer. It seemed like he used everything he had and still came up short. Does that motivate or demoralize you?
JC: You’re talking to the wrong guy when you ask me that. That would only motivate you, in my opinion. If that doesn’t motivate you to come and say, “Hey, I was that close. I know I can get there. Now it’s just a matter of figuring out a way to do it.” The motivation factor is what counts. But tennis isn’t a two weeks here/two weeks there game; it’s a 52-weeks-a-year game year after year after year, and if you don’t treat it that way, you can’t expect to snap your fingers and all of a sudden play your best. The day Wimbledon ended for me was the day I started working for it the following year. The U.S. Open just happened to get in the way along the way. That was my mindset. And I think that’s Nadal‘s mindset. “This is my job. This is what I have to do to be the best at my job.” To play a match like he did and throw everything he had at them — it’s all good. But the patient died. What do you have to do for the patient to live? That would be my attitude and my drive. But not everybody is me. Not everybody was McEnroe. Not everybody was Sampras. You’ve got to find your own inner self that allows you to push yourself to a point of perfection. That’s what you’re trying to achieve. You never do, but that’s what you are trying to achieve. That’s why Federer has been as successful as he has. That’s why Nadal is as successful as he is. They find something inside to push them to the brink of trying to be as perfect as they can be against an opponent who’s trying to take it away from them. Tennis is really the only sport that you’re trying to take it away from them. Nadal can stop Federer. Federer can stop Roddick. Golf is different. You can’t stop me from shooting a 62. Tennis is a different mindset. There’s no time limit. It’s mental and physical all in one. So what does it take to come through in the end? That was the great thing about playing tennis — figuring out a way to win on a daily basis sometimes when you weren’t playing your best. It was the best part of it. Anybody can win when they are playing a 110 percent. But if you are only playing 70 percent and find out a way to win…Andy played at 110 percent and lost. There’s no disgrace in that. What he should have done coming out of that – and I’m sure this is what he did — was try to take something out of that that says “I’m an inch away.” Where do I find that inch? You can’t have a coach sit there and tell it to you, because once you’re out there and that’s the best thing about it.
Q: A while ago, there were no American men in the top 10 for the first time in nearly four decades and there are no American women in the top 25 outside the Williamses, yet if you look at the retail and participation numbers, the sport isn’t hurting.
JC: What does it take for you to be thrown into these statistics? Do you play three times a year? Every time I go by public courts or fly into a town and look down on the courts they’re empty. And that’s not good. So I want to know where the stats are coming from that say that tennis is growing. I’d like to see kids standing in line waiting to play like they were forty years ago, when tennis shot to new heights. That’s what created the interest. It’s a matter of who is to blame. Why don’t the kids want to play tennis? They do, but we get them too late. They go through soccer, baseball, basketball, maybe even football. By the time they come to tennis, they’re 16 or 17 and it’s too late. So you need to get the kids when they’re eight, nine and 10, and show them a way to play and have fun. And not get them out there with the intent of pushing them into a pro arena. Sometimes there are people who put too much pressure on them right away, so they don’t stay with it. But the U.S. is spoiled. They had the best players for so many years and now all of a sudden, they pop up and they don’t have somebody in the top 10 for a week or two and there’s instant panic. The panic should have been there already. It should have been there because we have fallen way behind everybody else and it shows. Without Mardy and Sam —who else is winning three and four tournaments? There’s an opportunity to start to get young players, if they go about it in the right way. They have to figure out a way to do it. Maybe a change is in order. If the company is going under, you don’t keep doing the same thing and getting the same results. It’s the definition of insanity. I know how I would go about it and what I try to do, but I would get a better response from my foot.
Q: Is there a connection between how American pros are doing and whether kids choose tennis?
JC: You can’t push somebody into a game and all of a sudden say, ‘You’re going to be a world champion.” It’s impossible. But inspiration is something that’s necessary. It has to come from the players. They’ve got to see these guys show passion. Nadal shows the passion, and that’s what’s going to draw kids. Why do you think they’re winning in Spain and Argentina? You’ve got to have somebody who’s got the goods, with the credentials. But if they wanted to listen to me, I’d be working with them a little bit, but, obviously, that’s not the case.
Q: What sets Nadal apart?
JC: I look at Nadal and the way he goes about his business, the way he trains, the way he looks every time he walks out on court – what he gives and expects of himself. If anybody’s going to win, it’s going to be him. He’s not afraid to do whatever it takes. Tennis is one part of it – the desire, the sacrifice, the willingness to learn, to train, to take your knocks to be better. Even when he lost at Wimbledon and the French, he comes back stronger and better to the point where he wants to prove to himself that he’s the best. He’s only 24. He hasn’t even reached his prime. That’s scary. He brings more than just the tennis. He brings that excitement, that electricity and that feel of walking into a stadium and having more than just a tennis match going on. I’m not saying anything disrespectful about the other guys. I’m just saying that he might have a little bit more of that, just by his enthusiasm and passion. You don’t see guys like him jumping around and running out to the baseline and diving and trying after every ball. That’s a long lost art. Nadal grinds it point to point, and shows his passion when he wins a big point and isn’t afraid to let you know how he’s feeling. That’s old-school attitude. Today, being cool is probably more important. He might be a one-of-a-kind, and any time you’re a one-of-a-kind it’s not a bad thing.
Q: Rivalries have changed a lot since you played. Are they more friendly now than the antagonistic rivalries of your era?
JC: The guys get along a lot better than in the past. I never thought that rivalries were meant to be. I played against a lot of great players and I knew what it took for me to try to win against them and being friendly along the courts was very difficult. I knew that when I walked out there, I had to be able to separate the two and I wasn’t good at that. I had to keep my distance. I had to go out there with a killer instinct and try to do whatever it took to win. What is a friendly rivalry? When you give them a hug and slap on the back and say, “Great match?” I never looked at it like that. I looked at it that when the battle was over that if I lost, it continued. I had to figure out a way to get into that battle again and win. And if I won, I had to figure out a way to stay in that battle and stay on top. Everybody criticized me for my attitude and the way I went about things and the rivalries I had. But the rivalries attracted people because of the electricity. You knew that when I played Mac or Borg, or when Borg played Mac or Lendl there was more to it than just the tennis. You knew right away that it meant so much to us to win, and maybe winning isn’t in it anymore. I don’t know. You have to ask the guys who’re playing now. What is it that makes your year? Is it winning? Is it your bank account? Is it just being out there? Is it trying to make good showings? Why is it only Nadal and Federer that have a rivalry? How come other guys aren’t stepping in there and putting their racket in the ring and saying, “I want to be a part of this?” That’s what creates interest in the game and that’s what’s going to get the kids interested — to have guys willing to kill themselves to win. Nadal’s that kind of kid. Whether he’s the most talented — that’s not what I would be looking for. I would be looking for a kid to do what he does on a daily basis. That’s what makes a champion and his attitude allows him to be a part of the rivalry. If it’s a friendly rivalry — well, there you go, maybe that’s what it’s become. But to look back and see the rivalries I had and the way we went about it and what that meant – there you go, too. There’s no right or wrong. It was just the attitude at the time. But you can’t inject my attitude or McEnroe’s attitude into Roger and Rafa. The fans see that that would be a bluff and that’s not who they really are. But certainly, a rivalry is a rivalry, as long as it’s good.
Q: Would you say that there are some players who could actually benefit from a more antagonistic rivalry, like Novak Djokovic a few years ago? There seemed to be some dislike between him and Federer.
JC: So what’s he afraid of? He doesn’t want to step into the villain role? Is he afraid of the way the others look at him or the way they treat him in the locker room? I don’t know. But I guess you have to figure out what it takes for you to be the best. And if it’s being a friend to everybody and fun-loving and going around and — he’s a good imitator, he’s a jokester and all that — if that’s what it takes, then okay. If it takes staying away from everybody and not letting them know who you really are — if that’s the best way to go about it, you have to figure it out. You can’t feel that just to be a part of everything makes it a rivalry. If you get criticized for staying away and because you’ve got a different attitude — it was so natural back in the old days. There was never any thought about what it took. It was natural with myself and Mac. I had to fight. He was trying to take my position away as the best. He was seven years younger. He was American and he’s Irish. I’m Irish. It was natural. We didn’t sit down and say, “Okay, Mac, I don’t like you this week.” It was a natural feeling of the competition and it meant so much to us. It just was what it had become, which happened to be pretty exciting, too. Whatever else it brings that allows the people who are paying good money to watch. It’s more than just the tennis. It’s tough for me to talk about what a rivalry is, because it shouldn’t be planned. Why was the Boston-Lakers rivalry great? Why was Ali and Joe Frazier a great rivalry? What makes that? It’s not something they sit down and talk about. It’s natural and if it’s not all natural it doesn’t come over that way.
