TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
Apr 30th, 2019 12:08 AM
Mark43
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

It almost looks as if Lil ‘Mo completely whiffs the ball in that illustration!
Apr 29th, 2019 09:51 PM
rucolo
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

Feb 22nd, 2018 10:49 AM
Rollo
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

Mo at Forest Hills. I like this shot because you can see "the bowl" shape of the center court in the background.


Feb 19th, 2018 03:38 PM
peterhurst
Re: Maureen Connolly Brinker - A brief but brilliant life

This is a superb piece.
Nov 17th, 2013 11:10 PM
rollingraces
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

Wouldn't most dominant player though be Suzanne Lenglen? Connolly could be considered the most dominant post World War 11 player ever. Lenglen lost only 1 match her whole career I believe.
Nov 17th, 2013 11:07 PM
rollingraces
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

Austin didn't play King until King was way past her prime btw, so it isn't fair to read anything into those matches.
Nov 17th, 2013 11:05 PM
rollingraces
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

1962 is the first year Court could have even conceivably challenged Connolly. I think Connolly would have the edge at that point though. More likely Court would be really challenging her starting in 1965. The big victim would be King who would likely not have the type of game to stand up to Maureen, and Court would not have gotten bored and retired for awhile from 66-68 either now.
Nov 17th, 2013 01:15 AM
laschutz
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

i think maureen would have handled a young margaret court (smith) comfortably in the early 60's time period. connolly would have been 28 in 1962 surely at the height of her powers and experience and even improved from her early 50's heyday (course her heyday would have continued throughout the 50's and into the 60's if not for her career endng injury)....

imagine a more 'fully grown womanly" connolly with experience of over 10 years of championship tennis? her groundstrokes would have been even more if possible devastating, she would have improved her serve, volley, overhead and mid court game no doubt as well and has the years of experience to boot!

poor maggie would have been shellshocked and fragile compared to a supremely confident fight to the last breath and then some connolly's demeanor on court!...

connolly would have done the same thing to margaret as she would have done to gibson a few years earlier in gibsons' best years of 57 and 58.. both gibson and margaret's simple matter of fact "power game and straightforward aggressiveness" would have been catnip for connolly to deal with i think!..

if anything i think connolly would have had more trouble with a mercurial maria bueno and later billie jean moffit/king. both with more variety than gibson and smith/court and variety and tactics were more troublesome for connolly than sheer brute serve and volley power/force...

bueno for connolly would have been like mandlikova for evert.. like evert, connolly would by and large have the great huge advantage head to head wise, but bueno might have occassionally pulled off "the upset" if she was playing out of her mind like mandlikova could do to anyone. however, i even doubt that the rare bueno win over connolly would EVER OCCUR at a grand slam event. maureen's game and mentality and fight and confidence would have been too solid for maria to go up against in the higher stake grand slam tournaments...

king for connolly would have been like king for evert, once again connolly like evert would with king have the big head to head win edge in matches, but king could pull off the very rare upset,OF ALL the others who followed after connolly who reached the top gibson, court, bueno i think king with her great variety and her great mind in tactics (she would spin topspin, slice,sidespin, chop, gosh knows what else spin and slow ball connolly to death on serves and groundstrokes mixed in with hard flat drives and being the greatest volleyer of the others) and her own fighting spirit would give connolly the greatest challenge...

but i think more times than not, much more times than not, connolly would hit king off the court and not allow king to do what she wanted to do. think of connolly as a more experience and a better tracy austin and what she austin did to king in their brief encounters(not counting of course king's 1 win over a downhill austin at the 82 wimby quarters)...
Nov 12th, 2013 02:32 AM
Sam L
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

It would've been amazing had Maureen's career continued well into the early 60s. I wonder how she would've fared against a young Margaret Smith.

That late 30s/40s/50s period was a real tumultuous time for women's tennis. So many great careers lost.
Nov 5th, 2013 12:02 AM
thrust
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

Quote:
Originally Posted by preacherfan View Post
I disagree with your assessment that her competition was past its prime. Du Pont was 33 and no longer a full-time player when Maureen won her first Slam. However, Brough and Hart were 28 and 26 and would again win Slams once Maureen was gone. And Shirley Fry was 24 and just coming into her prime. Betz had been a pro for quite awhile.
In retrospect, you are correct.
Oct 27th, 2013 02:52 AM
preacherfan
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

I disagree with your assessment that her competition was past its prime. Du Pont was 33 and no longer a full-time player when Maureen won her first Slam. However, Brough and Hart were 28 and 26 and would again win Slams once Maureen was gone. And Shirley Fry was 24 and just coming into her prime. Betz had been a pro for quite awhile.
Oct 26th, 2013 02:17 AM
thrust
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

No doubt Connolly was the best of her time, but I do think she was a bit lucky in that Brough, Betz, Hart and du Pont were a bit past their prime when Maureen reached her peak. I agree that Gibson would have developed a better all round game if not for the racist banning of her from playing regular tournaments early on. Still, she won 5 slams including a French title on clay, which was not really suited for her game. I think that due to the racial situation, Althea peaked late, so did not have the opportunity to win more slams and is also the reason she lost to the other top players, early on. The fact is we will never know as life does throw us lots of curve balls especially, it seems, in the world of tennis. Seles-Graf probably being the biggest and most unfortunate situation in the history of women's tennis.
Oct 22nd, 2013 02:09 PM
preacherfan
Re: Maureen Connolly: Most dominant player ever

In reading through the results threads of the early 50's, I'm amazed by Connolly's dominance at such a young age. From the US Championships in 1951 through the end of her career in 1954, she you can count her losses on one hand. I don't think there is a 3 year dominance like that in post-war tennis. She didn't lose a Slam match during this period. Amazing. She surely left a void for the next few years. After her departure, Hart went to #1 again, then Fry after Hart retired, and Gibson after Fry retired, then Bueno after Gibson retired. Even Mortimer who claimed #1 in 1961, got that because Bueno was will for several months. It was 1962 before someone (Margaret Smith) earned #1 without the prior #1 abdicating the throne.
Nov 29th, 2011 09:33 PM
alfajeffster
Re: Maureen Connolly.. just how dominant was she really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by austinrunner View Post
What was Betz Addie's record against Sarah Palfrey Fabyan Cooke Danzig as professionals? Something like 9-9. Not exactly "dominant."

Betz Addie has enjoyed a sterling reputation mostly because of Jack Kramer's book from many years ago, which gets quoted interminably as if he were THE expert on women's tennis.

But when Betz Addie was at her best, there was virtually no competition from Europe or Australia, which left Americans like an aging Sarah P. F. C. D., an almost retired Helen Jacobs, Margaret Osborne DuPont, Louise Brough Clapp, a very young Shirley Fry Irvin, Doris Hart, Patricia Canning Todd, and Dorothy Bundy Cheney as her main competition. Alice Marble retired in 1940, and Helen Wills Moody left the scene in 1938.

Unlike Maureen Connolly Brinker in 1951-54, Betz Addie never had overwhelmingly dominate years.
Let's just agree to disagree on something that never was, shall we?
Nov 29th, 2011 06:32 PM
austinrunner
Re: Maureen Connolly.. just how dominant was she really?

What was Betz Addie's record against Sarah Palfrey Fabyan Cooke Danzig as professionals? Something like 9-9. Not exactly "dominant."

Betz Addie has enjoyed a sterling reputation mostly because of Jack Kramer's book from many years ago, which gets quoted interminably as if he were THE expert on women's tennis.

But when Betz Addie was at her best, there was virtually no competition from Europe or Australia, which left Americans like an aging Sarah P. F. C. D., an almost retired Helen Jacobs, Margaret Osborne DuPont, Louise Brough Clapp, a very young Shirley Fry Irvin, Doris Hart, Patricia Canning Todd, and Dorothy Bundy Cheney as her main competition. Alice Marble retired in 1940, and Helen Wills Moody left the scene in 1938.

Unlike Maureen Connolly Brinker in 1951-54, Betz Addie never had overwhelmingly dominant years.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome