PDA

View Full Version : How was the matchup between Navratilova and Graf?


Gundam
01-10-2007, 09:59 AM
I've seen Navratilova vs. Evert (I am almost done with 'the RIVAL'. Great read!)
I've seen Graf vs. Seles
but haven't seen Navratilova vs. Graf.

How did they match up against each other (Style, personality, tactics etc)? Graf leads 9:8 according to WTA site (very close).

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerheadtoheaddetail.asp?PlayerID=70044&Player1ID=140007&x=9&y=8

urban
01-10-2007, 10:13 AM
I always thought, it was 9-9, but maybe i am wrong. Graf had always problems with the lefthanded slice serve of Martina, which was aimed at her weaker backhand side. Mostly she played a slice backhand as return, which could be volleyed away by Navratilova. In the Wim final of 1988, when Graf hit the return as topspin backhand - a thing she did in training, but seldom in matches - she turned the match around. In a structural way, Martina had more problems with Sabatini or Seles, players with stronger backhands than with Graf. But then, there were the intangibles and the mental side. Martina lost many close matches to Steffi, from the RG final 1987 on, which Martina should have won. Martina had weak nerves, she lost some close encounters to Chrissie Evert and Tracy Austin, too, when she had big leads. So, in the clutch, Steffi quite often came from behind and won in three. But she had always structural problems with the offensive style of Martina.

Condoleezza
01-10-2007, 10:59 AM
I always thought, it was 9-9, but maybe i am wrong. Graf had always problems with the lefthanded slice serve of Martina, which was aimed at her weaker backhand side. Mostly she played a slice backhand as return, which could be volleyed away by Navratilova. In the Wim final of 1988, when Graf hit the return as topspin backhand - a thing she did in training, but seldom in matches - she turned the match around. In a structural way, Martina had more problems with Sabatini or Seles, players with stronger backhands than with Graf. But then, there were the intangibles and the mental side. Martina lost many close matches to Steffi, from the RG final 1987 on, which Martina should have won. Martina had weak nerves, she lost some close encounters to Chrissie Evert and Tracy Austin, too, when she had big leads. So, in the clutch, Steffi quite often came from behind and won in three. But she had always structural problems with the offensive style of Martina.


Navratilova vs. Graf: 9-9
1985/86: 5-1
1987-90: 2-6
1991-94: 2-2

Navratilova should not have won FO 1987. Graf had won the first set, then lost her nerves a little bit and allowed Martina to run away until she led Steffi with 5-3 in the 3rd set. Than Martina lost her nerves a little bit and Steffi played some awesome points.
Navratilova played her last match on slow courts (clay, AO ReboundAce etc.) against Steffi when Steffi was 17 years old (in 1987). Martina avoided Graf on those courts later. Understandably.


Navratilova vs. Sabatini: 7-3
1986-90: 5-0 (10-0 sets)
1991-94: 2-3

Gaby's first two wins were 3-setters. Her 3rd win was Navratilova's last match ever (YEC 94) when Martina was 38.


Navratilova lost her first match against Graf in 1986 (Navratilova was 29, Steffi was only 16) her first match against Sabatini in 1991 (Navratilova was 34).



I'm looking forward to your next tennis analysis, Urban ..... :D


Condi

urban
01-10-2007, 11:21 AM
Nice stats, but not true (besides the 9-9, which correspondents with my estimation). Who won the match 1987 in Rome, Martina vs. Sabatini, a match that put womens Italian on the map? Also, even in her prime, Graf had difficulties with Martina's style. The interpungation of streaks is misleading: In 1987 Martina won two matches, but the two most important, Wim and Flushing final. If you read my post, i differentiate between style of play and mental attitude. Martina should have won this final at RG 1987, i saw it, she gave it away in the wind with double faults. In almost all matches, even those she lost, Martina had one set leads, and lost her nerves and her serve. The 1988 Wim match was Graf's best ever, because - after a rain break - she straigthened out her backhand and overwhelmed Martina in the third. Ask Tracy Austin, she did the same to Narvratilova's nerves, although she hadn't the class of Graf.

Condoleezza
01-10-2007, 11:40 AM
Nice stats, but not true (besides the 9-9, which correspondents with my estimation). Who won the match 1987 in Rome, Martina vs. Sabatini, a match that put womens Italian on the map? Also, even in her prime, Graf had difficulties with Martina's style. The interpungation of streaks is misleading: In 1987 Martina won two matches, but the two most important, Wim and Flushing final. If you read my post, i differentiate between style of play and mental attitude. Martina should have won this final at RG 1987, i saw it, she gave it away in the wind with double faults. In almost all matches, even those she lost, Martina had one set leads, and lost her nerves and her serve. The 1988 Wim match was Graf's best ever, because - after a rain break - she straigthened out her backhand and overwhelmed Martina in the third. Ask Tracy Austin, she did the same to Narvratilova's nerves, although she hadn't the class of Graf.


The ITF data base doesn't know anything of a Rome 1987 Navratilova-Sabatini match ....
Clay anyway.


FO 87:
Navratilova made only 5 double faults in the whole FO 87 final against Steffi. 3 in the last 3 service games. What makes you think she would have won those points if her serves had landed within the box? What makes you think she "deserved" not to double-fault? Steffi made unforced errors in that match as well. Did she deserve them?

Wim 88:
The rain break during the Wimbledon final 1988 occured AFTER Graf had won 9 of the previous 10 games (at 5-7 6-2 3-1 coming from 5-7 0-2). It is an "urban myth" that a rain break contributed anything to Navratilova's spectacular downfall that day.


Condi

urban
01-10-2007, 12:30 PM
You don't have other stats than the ITF, o dear. You don't know about the famous Martina-Sabatini match up in the Rome semifinal 1987? What do you know about womens tennis at all? And where from you have your double fault stats? Anyway, Martina did offer Stefanie the match RG 1987 on a silver tablet, beginning to serve double faults. The match point was a double, too. Not to be misunderstood: If you rank Steffi and Martina against each other, both have their pro and cons. But regarding the style of play, Martina was a bad match up for Stefanie (with one f).

Condoleezza
01-10-2007, 12:42 PM
You don't have other stats than the ITF, o dear. You don't know about the famous Martina-Sabatini match up in the Rome semifinal 1987? What do you know about womens tennis at all? And where from you have your double fault stats? Anyway, Martina did offer Stefanie the match RG 1987 on a silver tablet, beginning to serve double faults. The match point was a double, too. Not to be misunderstood: If you rank Steffi and Martina against each other, both have their pro and cons. But regarding the style of play, Martina was a bad match up for Stefanie (with one f).

No.
Let's eliminate the matches when Steffi was too young (before she won her first WTA tournament in 1986) and Navratilova was too old (after she won her last slam in 1990). Then Steffi leads Martina 7-4 head-to-head, 4-2 in slams.

Martina was afraid to play Steffi because Steffi was a bad match-up for her.

Condi

VikingSamurai
01-10-2007, 06:46 PM
How about we eliminate the times Martina played with her glasses on, then with her glasses off.....

Or when Steffi had to blow her nose between points, and when she didnt!...

Sheesh.. Just make it up as you go there Condiiiiiii..

Gundam
01-11-2007, 08:00 AM
Haha,

I wonder if you all have all this information in your brains. Or do you always keep a copy of Bud Collins' Tennis encyclopedia beside you. Thanks for the interesting stories. Can anyone suggest a match or two between two? I don't like to watch 'my hero' destroying a lesser opponent. I like very competitive ones between two eqaully talented, fit gladiators. Thanks!

btw, Graf's Topspin 1HBH intrigues me (wimby final against MN). I know she could hit it quite well. One thing I mind about Graf is her backhand. Almost 100% slice, which was effective but kinda boring to watch.

Condoleezza
01-11-2007, 11:25 AM
How about we eliminate the times Martina played with her glasses on, then with her glasses off.....

Or when Steffi had to blow her nose between points, and when she didnt!...

Sheesh.. Just make it up as you go there Condiiiiiii..



Eliminating matches when one player was 16 or younger or the other player was 33 or older doesn't seem to be arbitrary to me.

In any case, to suggest that Navratilova had less "structural" difficulties with Graf than with Sabatini (!) is ludicrous beyond repair. Well, that came from a poster who thought Navratilova "deserved" to win FO 87 (that means: this German b**** didn't!). A U.S. poster for sure .....

Condi

Condoleezza
01-11-2007, 11:34 AM
Haha,

I wonder if you all have all this information in your brains. Or do you always keep a copy of Bud Collins' Tennis encyclopedia beside you. Thanks for the interesting stories. Can anyone suggest a match or two between two? I don't like to watch 'my hero' destroying a lesser opponent. I like very competitive ones between two eqaully talented, fit gladiators. Thanks!
....

That the problem for Graf fans - there were no equally talented, fit gladiators who could cope with Steffi ......


.... btw, Graf's Topspin 1HBH intrigues me (wimby final against MN). I know she could hit it quite well. One thing I mind about Graf is her backhand. Almost 100% slice, which was effective but kinda boring to watch.

You don't win 2 Wimbledon titles against the S&V queen Martina N. with 5-7 6-2 6-1 and 6-2 6-7 6-1 scorelines with 100% slice.
In both matches, Navratilova played only ONE tight set (won them) and was totally destroyed in the remaining sets.
Especially the 1988 Wimbledon final showed how good Graf could play. Peak Graf was completely unassailable. In the last 53 minutes Graf broke Navratilova in 7 service games in a row.

Steffi played some similar matches in the late 80ies. Sadly, she was hampered bigtime in the 90ies with tons of injuries (and off-court distractions). So we never saw what she could have done with all her talent.

Only 22 slams - I would not have believed it if someone had told me that at the end of 1989! I was SURE that Steffi would win at least 30 of the 40 slams of the 90ies!!

Condi

VikingSamurai
01-11-2007, 01:18 PM
Yeah and you cant change history to just suit your story either.. Regardless of age, they still played. Like it or lump it. But it happened..

eunjam
01-11-2007, 01:30 PM
steffi just came on....and started DOMINATING.

kiki
03-20-2011, 06:08 AM
Very simple Match Up:

Martina serving slice to Graf´s BH and coming to the net on everything.Steffi moving to her left so to hit that thundering FH past Martina.Whoever prevailed in that pattern of play, would win the match.

Chris Evert Fan
03-20-2011, 06:47 AM
Actually, Navratilova and Graf are tied 9-9.

Navratilova, of course, was the persistent, relentless veteran. No matter how old she grew, she continued to serve and volley, with great effectiveness. She was able to beat Graf with that tactic in the 1987 Wimbledon F. This would often give Martina an advantage on grass and carpet. In contrast, Graf preferred to stay right on the baseline, and her athleticism, sound foot work, and smart court coverage enabled her to get to virtually every ball.

Both women had a strong serve, Graf's being a bit better. Both of them also used a one handed backhand. Martina was more versatile with hers, though, in that she would switch between the drive and the slice throughout the match depending on the moment and what she thought was beneficial. Graf, on the other hand, primarily used her drive backhand against Navratilova, in order to create an effective passing shot. Otherwise, outside of her matches with Navratilova and after Navratilova faded from the scene, Steffi almost exclusively used the slice.

Navratilova and Graf were both incredible on grass, but Navratilova clearly better. On clay, though, Steffi was far superior than Martina. Martina's serve and volley game was never patient enough for red clay, hence the fact she won only 2 trophies at the French Open, whereas Graf won 6. On hard courts, Steffi had a slight advantage.

Their rivalry was fairly short, given Navratilova's older age, but it was intense nonetheless because one woman, Martina, was trying to preserve her spot at the top, while the other, Steffi, was trying to dethrone Navratilova and become the queen of tennis herself.

Both women had incredible talent and definitely in the top 3 for the greatest players of all time. This is reflected in their head to head, 9-9. Looking at their head to head, one could conclude they were equals. If you look at surface mastery, Graf was better, evidenced by her 6 titles at Roland Garros. However, Navratilova certainly would have won a couple more French Opens if it had not been for Chris Evert.

At the end of the day, in my opinion, I would rank Navratilova above Graf, based on her number of career titles, the testimony of her doubles career, and the competition she had to face to get to where she did. Graf never had an Evert to compete with the way Navratilova did because Seles, potentially her greatest rival, was removed from the scene. I do not want to speculate all that much about the effects of that whole episode, as some have done for years on this forum, except to note that it does mean Graf simply did not face a rival of the caliber that Navratilova had to face and overcome.

Nevertheless, both women played scintillating tennis, and they are both tremendous champions.

Joe Pike
03-20-2011, 08:39 AM
Actually, Navratilova and Graf are tied 9-9.

Navratilova, of course, was the persistent, relentless veteran. No matter how old she grew, she continued to serve and volley, with great effectiveness. She was able to beat Graf with that tactic in the 1987 Wimbledon F. This would often give Martina an advantage on grass and carpet. In contrast, Graf preferred to stay right on the baseline, and her athleticism, sound foot work, and smart court coverage enabled her to get to virtually every ball.

Both women had a strong serve, Graf's being a bit better. Both of them also used a one handed backhand. Martina was more versatile with hers, though, in that she would switch between the drive and the slice throughout the match depending on the moment and what she thought was beneficial. Graf, on the other hand, primarily used her drive backhand against Navratilova, in order to create an effective passing shot. Otherwise, outside of her matches with Navratilova and after Navratilova faded from the scene, Steffi almost exclusively used the slice.

Navratilova and Graf were both incredible on grass, but Navratilova clearly better. On clay, though, Steffi was far superior than Martina. Martina's serve and volley game was never patient enough for red clay, hence the fact she won only 2 trophies at the French Open, whereas Graf won 6. On hard courts, Steffi had a slight advantage.

Their rivalry was fairly short, given Navratilova's older age, but it was intense nonetheless because one woman, Martina, was trying to preserve her spot at the top, while the other, Steffi, was trying to dethrone Navratilova and become the queen of tennis herself.

Both women had incredible talent and definitely in the top 3 for the greatest players of all time. This is reflected in their head to head, 9-9. Looking at their head to head, one could conclude they were equals. If you look at surface mastery, Graf was better, evidenced by her 6 titles at Roland Garros. However, Navratilova certainly would have won a couple more French Opens if it had not been for Chris Evert.

At the end of the day, in my opinion, I would rank Navratilova above Graf, based on her number of career titles, the testimony of her doubles career, and the competition she had to face to get to where she did. Graf never had an Evert to compete with the way Navratilova did because Seles, potentially her greatest rival, was removed from the scene. I do not want to speculate all that much about the effects of that whole episode, as some have done for years on this forum, except to note that it does mean Graf simply did not face a rival of the caliber that Navratilova had to face and overcome.

Nevertheless, both women played scintillating tennis, and they are both tremendous champions.


In Navratilova's peak years (83-86) players like Shriver and Turnbull were top 4. And Chris Evert 28-32 years old.

NadalAgassi
03-20-2011, 01:10 PM
I have to agree with Joe Pike for once. Navratilova most definitely did not tougher competition than Graf. In fact Navratilova had less overall competition than any other all time great despite facing a past her prime but still strong Evert. The 82-86 field had no depth at all, outside the top 2 or 3 it was the most pitiful field ever (other than maybe the last few years) with nearly all the top 10 made up of mugs who wouldnt even be top 25 in most eras. Heck it is the era that made Shriver the clumsy stork a perennial #4 and supposably one of the best singles players to never win a major (snickers).

That said I still rate Navratilova over Graf due to dominance across all 3 categories, her Wimbledon record, her tournament wins record, and her general just greater stats than Graf in most categories. Also Navratilova's 4-1 record vs Graf at the U.S Open which given that it is the most netural surface for both women to meet on, and that Navratilova was 29, 30, 31, and 33 at the time of 4 of the 5 meetings is very telling.

Joe Pike
03-20-2011, 01:48 PM
...

That said I still rate Navratilova over Graf due to dominance across all 3 categories, her Wimbledon record, her tournament wins record, and her general just greater stats than Graf in most categories. Also Navratilova's 4-1 record vs Graf at the U.S Open which given that it is the most netural surface for both women to meet on, and that Navratilova was 29, 30, 31, and 33 at the time of 4 of the 5 meetings is very telling.


You are wrong - Steffi was more dominant across all 3 categories (grass, clay, HC).

And it is very telling that Steffi was 16, 17, and barely 18 years old (!) when Navratilova had 7 of her 9 wins against Steffi.

In 1988-94 Steffi won 6 of 8 matches.
Although ALL of them were on fast courts, heavily favouring Navratilova!!

BTURNER
03-20-2011, 02:37 PM
I have to agree with Joe Pike for once. Navratilova most definitely did not tougher competition than Graf. In fact Navratilova had less overall competition than any other all time great despite facing a past her prime but still strong Evert. The 82-86 field had no depth at all, outside the top 2 or 3 it was the most pitiful field ever (other than maybe the last few years) with nearly all the top 10 made up of mugs who wouldnt even be top 25 in most eras. Heck it is the era that made Shriver the clumsy stork a perennial #4 and supposably one of the best singles players to never win a major (snickers).

That said I still rate Navratilova over Graf due to dominance across all 3 categories, her Wimbledon record, her tournament wins record, and her general just greater stats than Graf in most categories. Also Navratilova's 4-1 record vs Graf at the U.S Open which given that it is the most netural surface for both women to meet on, and that Navratilova was 29, 30, 31, and 33 at the time of 4 of the 5 meetings is very telling.

Those years had great depth for fast court tennis, with Hana, Sukova, Shriver, Kodhe kilch, etc while Steffi's era had better depth on clay and slower hard courts with Sabatini, Sanchez, Seles,

kiki
03-20-2011, 02:41 PM
Those years had great depth for fast court tennis, with Hana, Sukova, Shriver, Kodhe kilch, etc while Steffi's era had better depth on clay and slower hard courts with Sabatini, Sanchez, Seles,

True; excepting Jana Novotna and ageeing Martina Navratilova, Steffi never had to face a true fast court specialist.Martina had one in Chris Evert but most of her rivals played better on fast courts ( although Mandlikova won 1 FO and Austin was very strong on red clay)

Joe Pike
03-20-2011, 02:53 PM
Those years had great depth for fast court tennis, with Hana, Sukova, Shriver, Kodhe kilch, etc while Steffi's era had better depth on clay and slower hard courts with Sabatini, Sanchez, Seles,

Mandlikova, Sukova, Shriver and Kohde are overrated.

In 1986/87 a still maturing, mostly 16/17-year-old Steffi was
4-1 vs. Mandlikova (9-2 in sets),
6-0 vs. Sukova (12-2 in sets),
4-0 vs. Shriver (8-1 in sets),
3-0 vs. Kohde (6-1 in sets).

BTURNER
03-20-2011, 02:58 PM
It is always unwise to feed trolls. If their primary agenda is gaining attention using a facade, everyone else's should be to deny the same regardless of the facade

NadalAgassi
03-20-2011, 04:02 PM
Those years had great depth for fast court tennis, with Hana, Sukova, Shriver, Kodhe kilch, etc while Steffi's era had better depth on clay and slower hard courts with Sabatini, Sanchez, Seles,

Kohde Kilsch sucks and I have seen her play many times. Such a player hanging around the top 6 for severaly years in a row is embarassing. She is like a poor womens Shriver with much less mental toughness and court smarts.

Shriver isnt that impressive a player. She moves terrible, has no ground game at all, all she has is a pretty good serve and pretty good volleys (when they arent too low as she has no agility at all). It was the depth-less mid 80s that make her more of a significant player than she ever would have otherwise.

Hana was occasionally brilliant, but even more often disaesterous. Still the only really good player other than Martina and Chris that existed around then.

Sukova was up and coming at the end of the Martina era and is 0-21 vs Graf after her initial win over a 14 year old Graf.

NadalAgassi
03-20-2011, 04:11 PM
True; excepting Jana Novotna and ageeing Martina Navratilova, Steffi never had to face a true fast court specialist.Martina had one in Chris Evert but most of her rivals played better on fast courts ( although Mandlikova won 1 FO and Austin was very strong on red clay)

Your bolded statement doesnt even make sense since while Chris was a great fast court player still she was hardly a "fast court specialist" which is your own term. Her best tennis was played on slower courts, and 10 of her 18 slams were won on clay.

And the entire top 10 of the Graf era (including those that have never beaten her) would still have been tougher opponents for her in big matches than the likes of Shriver who while still at the peak of her game lost twice in the Wimbledon semis to teenage Graf 6-2, 6-0 and 6-2, 6-1 or Kohde Kilsch, Jordan, Bunge, Turnbull, etc...ever would have been.

And "aging" Martina was a much better player than 18-24 year old Martina had been, so one takes that term with a grain of salt in her case.

kiki
03-21-2011, 02:17 PM
Your bolded statement doesnt even make sense since while Chris was a great fast court player still she was hardly a "fast court specialist" which is your own term. Her best tennis was played on slower courts, and 10 of her 18 slams were won on clay.

And the entire top 10 of the Graf era (including those that have never beaten her) would still have been tougher opponents for her in big matches than the likes of Shriver who while still at the peak of her game lost twice in the Wimbledon semis to teenage Graf 6-2, 6-0 and 6-2, 6-1 or Kohde Kilsch, Jordan, Bunge, Turnbull, etc...ever would have been.

And "aging" Martina was a much better player than 18-24 year old Martina had been, so one takes that term with a grain of salt in her case.

In fact, you are right.I mean that Steffi played just one fast court specialist (Jana), wile Navratilova played just one specific great clay courter (Evert) during her prime years (Austin´s career ended so soon and Jaeger never fulfilled her promises).So, it is even.Graf had to dig out against Seles, but also against Sanchez (on clay), Sabatini ( who was a pretty good fast court, but not a real specialist om grass),Capriati and Martinez, for most of the 1990´s ( until Hingis, late in that decade).This field would be better than martina´s mid 80´s opponents...but not better than Martina´s last 70´s to first 80´s, when the global level of women´s tennis was clearly deeper and stronger than the level of the mid 80´s ( Navratilova´s peak,as we all know)...In any case, and that is my opinion, Martina was a better and more complete tennis player, just that Graf´s speed and forehand are two of the best weapons ever seen, anytime,any gender on a tennis court.

NadalAgassi
03-21-2011, 07:06 PM
Yeah I agree on your comparision of Graf and Martina. I definitely think Martina was the more complete player, but Grafs forehand and speed made her really stand out from the pack, and despite Martina probably having the more complete game Graf was the more complete all surface performer of the 2 in singles.

Martinas comptetition from say 75-81 doesnt mean much when it comes to speaking of her competition though as she won only 2 of her slams in that period (the 81 Australian ended in early 82 but 3 if you count it). That was the Evert era where Chris won most of her 18 slams, so it really speaks more to the competition Chris had than Martina. So actually despite that I understand why people rate Martina over Chris as she clearly trumped Chris at her peak, it is Chris who by far had the tougher competition of the two and still end up with 18 slams. Chris also lost out on alot due to people not playing the Australian and French for a certain period in the mid to late 70s. Martina lost out on maybe 1 or 2 Australians, but not nearly as much as Chris.

Jack Romeo
03-21-2011, 11:13 PM
i once read an interview with navratilova where she said that she felt if she and graf played 50 times, the head to head would end up close to 25-25 because their games matched up well with each other. they were both great athletes with exceptional movement and power. graf's forehand and first serve were more powerful than martina's strongest shots, but martina had a stronger backhand and net play, plus her left-handed delivery put the pressure on graf's least favortie shot - the topspin or drive backhand.

the mental part of their match up is something else. a lot of people think that graf had the mental edge; that navratilova, after years of having supreme confidence through dominating, reverted to her old nervous self. but i think it was more because steffi was the young, fearless player coming up. it's the same mental dynamic that monica seles had against graf in 1990 when they played their first slam final. (recall that seles has said many times that winning was easier when she was younger. also, in that match, steffi had 4 set points in the first set but still lost; afterward admitting that she had indeed choked)

Joe Pike
03-22-2011, 10:58 AM
i once read an interview with navratilova where she said that she felt if she and graf played 50 times, the head to head would end up close to 25-25 because their games matched up well with each other. they were both great athletes with exceptional movement and power. ...


A little bit arrogant from Navi.

We would have to distribute those 50 matches equally on fast and slow courts.
Fast courts being grass, fast HC (USO style) and indoor carpet/HC.
Slow courts clay and slow HC (eg. ReboundAce they had at AO until recently).
Let's say 10 matches on each of those 5 surfaces (even favouring Navi a little bit).

Clay: 8-2 in Steffi's favour
Slow HC: 7-3 in Steffi's favour.
Fast HC: 6-4 in Steffi's favour.
Grass: 5-5
Indoors: 6-4 in Navi's favour.

That is 30-20 in Steffi's favour. While being generous to Navi.


We must not forget that even on grass Steffi was better result-wise, although maybe Navi was a little bit over-the-hill in 1987-89.
Navratilova won narrowly in 1987 in Wimbledon while Steffi beat her comprehensively in the next two years.

kiki
03-22-2011, 01:02 PM
Yeah I agree on your comparision of Graf and Martina. I definitely think Martina was the more complete player, but Grafs forehand and speed made her really stand out from the pack, and despite Martina probably having the more complete game Graf was the more complete all surface performer of the 2 in singles.

Martinas comptetition from say 75-81 doesnt mean much when it comes to speaking of her competition though as she won only 2 of her slams in that period (the 81 Australian ended in early 82 but 3 if you count it). That was the Evert era where Chris won most of her 18 slams, so it really speaks more to the competition Chris had than Martina. So actually despite that I understand why people rate Martina over Chris as she clearly trumped Chris at her peak, it is Chris who by far had the tougher competition of the two and still end up with 18 slams. Chris also lost out on alot due to people not playing the Australian and French for a certain period in the mid to late 70s. Martina lost out on maybe 1 or 2 Australians, but not nearly as much as Chris.

That is true about Chris.IMO, she is the least talented of the really super champions, which makes it twice more satisfactory.Her head was so tough.

Joe Pike
03-22-2011, 01:14 PM
That is true about Chris.IMO, she is the least talented of the really super champions, which makes it twice more satisfactory.Her head was so tough.

And why is having a tough head no talent?

kiki
03-22-2011, 01:27 PM
And why is having a tough head no talent?

I meant " less talented" in relative speaking terms.But you may be right, her head could be her biggest talent.

DMan
03-23-2011, 10:14 PM
Yeah I agree on your comparision of Graf and Martina. I definitely think Martina was the more complete player, but Grafs forehand and speed made her really stand out from the pack, and despite Martina probably having the more complete game Graf was the more complete all surface performer of the 2 in singles.

Martinas comptetition from say 75-81 doesnt mean much when it comes to speaking of her competition though as she won only 2 of her slams in that period (the 81 Australian ended in early 82 but 3 if you count it). That was the Evert era where Chris won most of her 18 slams, so it really speaks more to the competition Chris had than Martina. So actually despite that I understand why people rate Martina over Chris as she clearly trumped Chris at her peak, it is Chris who by far had the tougher competition of the two and still end up with 18 slams. Chris also lost out on alot due to people not playing the Australian and French for a certain period in the mid to late 70s. Martina lost out on maybe 1 or 2 Australians, but not nearly as much as Chris.

My darling NadalAgassi, you're back! But you don't fool me one bit, gurl! Graf, 'stand out from the pack'? Puh-lease! As you've told us so many times, the girl was garbage, and her competition sucked! Don't make me bring up all your quotes where you said so yourself!