PDA

View Full Version : Navratilova's losses in the 80ies


Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 08:15 AM
Quite interesting against whom Martina Navratilova lost during her prime in the 1980ies.

80: Turnbull (2), King, Austin (2), Stove, Evert (2), Mandlikova (2), Jaeger, Shriver
81: Jaeger (3), Kohde, Evert (2), Hanika, Nagelsen, Mandlikova, Austin (4)

82: Hanika, Shriver, Evert
83: Horvath
84: Mandlikova, Sukova
85: Evert (2), Mandlikova (2), Kohde
86: Jordan, Graf, Evert

87: Mandlikova, Graf (2), Evert (2), Sabatini (2), Sukova
88: Evert (2), Zvereva (2), Graf, Garrison, Sukova
89: Sukova, Neiland, Zvereva, Sabatini, Graf (3)

In 1980 Stove was 35, King 36, Austin 17 and Jaeger 15.
In the mid-80ies these old-timers and these wunderkinds were gone.
Navratilova had some easy 5 years until ....
... the new crop (Graf, Sabatini and - at least on slow courts - Zvereva) took over.

When we exclude Steffi, Gaby and Natasha Navratilova had only 4, 4 and 2 losses in the years 1987-89. That is an average of 3.3 losses per year. During her alleged "peak years" (1982-86) she had 2.8 losses on average.
No big difference.

Obviously Naratilova had luck that Stove & King were to old in the mid-80ies, that Austin & Jaeger burnt out with injuries and that Graf & Sabatini weren't born 5 years earlier. Kudos to her that she was able to use the window of opportunity.

Condi

suwanee4712
05-01-2007, 09:47 AM
Quite interesting against whom Martina Navratilova lost during her prime in the 1980ies.

80: Turnbull (2), King, Austin (2), Stove, Evert (2), Mandlikova (2), Jaeger, Shriver
81: Jaeger (3), Kohde, Evert (2), Hanika, Nagelsen, Mandlikova, Austin (4)

82: Hanika, Shriver, Evert
83: Horvath
84: Mandlikova, Sukova
85: Evert (2), Mandlikova (2), Kohde
86: Jordan, Graf, Evert

87: Mandlikova, Graf (2), Evert (2), Sabatini (2), Sukova
88: Evert (2), Zvereva (2), Graf, Garrison, Sukova
89: Sukova, Neiland, Zvereva, Sabatini, Graf (3)

In 1980 Stove was 35, King 36, Austin 17 and Jaeger 15.
In the mid-80ies these old-timers and these wunderkinds were gone.
Navratilova had some easy 5 years until ....
... the new crop (Graf, Sabatini and - at least on slow courts - Zvereva) took over.

When we exclude Steffi, Gaby and Natasha Navratilova had only 4, 4 and 2 losses in the years 1987-89. That is an average of 3.3 losses per year. During her alleged "peak years" (1982-86) she had 2.8 losses on average.
No big difference.

Obviously Naratilova had luck that Stove & King were to old in the mid-80ies, that Austin & Jaeger burnt out with injuries and that Graf & Sabatini weren't born 5 years earlier. Kudos to her that she was able to use the window of opportunity.

Condi


Yet another big pile of elephant dung from the master dung shoveller himself - who, I might say, hinds behind a woman's personna........... But I will thank you for making a case for Martina's era to be quite strong. She faced a lot of good serve and volley players that were able to challenge her. I'm surprised you chose to remind people of that, considering you call this the "clown era."

Any idiot can look at Martina's record and tell which years were her peak years. You say that Martina was lucky that Gaby was young and wasn't born 5 years earlier? Ms. Sabatini won ONE grand slam in her entire career. She's not even a top 20 female player of the Open era. I think Martina's trophy case as well as her (15-5) head to head record tells anyone all they need to know about the threat Gaby posed to Martina as someone who would've stopped her from winning slams.

You make such a big deal about BJK being a contender into her late 30's. Martina beat Steffi AND Monica when she was 37 years old. How can this be? If BJK isn't supposed to be beating top players at age 37, what's the difference when Martina did it to BOTH top players in 1993?

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 09:51 AM
Yet another big pile of elephant dung from the master dung shoveller himself - who, I might say, hinds behind a woman's personna........... But I will thank you for making a case for Martina's era to be quite strong. She faced a lot of good serve and volley players that were able to challenge her. I'm surprised you chose to remind people of that, considering you call this the "clown era."

Any idiot can look at Martina's record and tell which years were her peak years. You say that Martina was lucky that Gaby was young and wasn't born 5 years earlier? Ms. Sabatini won ONE grand slam in her entire career. She's not even a top 20 female player of the Open era. I think Martina's trophy case as well as her (15-5) head to head record tells anyone all they need to know about the threat Gaby posed to Martina as someone who would've stopped her from winning slams.

You make such a big deal about BJK being a contender into her late 30's. Martina beat Steffi AND Monica when she was 37 years old. How can this be? If BJK isn't supposed to be beating top players at age 37, what's the difference when Martina did it to BOTH top players in 1993?


What about

"In 1982-86 Navratilova had only Evert, Mandlikova and SHRIVER (:D :D ) as opposition."

didn't make it to your screen?


Condi

suwanee4712
05-01-2007, 09:55 AM
What about

"In 1982-86 Navratilova had only Evert, Mandlikova and SHRIVER (:D :D ) as opposition."

didn't make it to your screen?


Condi

Then why did you bring up Martina's losses to players like Sukova, Jordan, Kohde Kilsch? You can't have it both ways. Either she was a great player who had competition outside of the top 4 or she didn't. You proved that she did.

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 10:01 AM
Then why did you bring up Martina's losses to players like Sukova, Jordan, Kohde Kilsch? You can't have it both ways. Either she was a great player who had competition outside of the top 4 or she didn't. You proved that she did.

Someone said Navratilova only lost to journeywomen in 1987-89 (trying to prove Navi being over-the-hill), conveniently forgetting Navi's losses to Kohde, Hanika, Jordan, Horvath types in the mid-80ies.
The difference is that in 80/81 and in 87/89 she had some really good opposition as well. So she lost more than her occasional match here and there against Evert and a against journeywomen.

Condi

suwanee4712
05-01-2007, 10:20 AM
Someone said Navratilova only lost to journeywomen in 1987-89 (trying to prove Navi being over-the-hill), conveniently forgetting Navi's losses to Kohde, Hanika, Jordan, Horvath types in the mid-80ies.
The difference is that in 80/81 and in 87/89 she had some really good opposition as well. So she lost more than her occasional match here and there against Evert and a against journeywomen.

Condi

Meanwhile, you forget that Martina revolutionized the game beginning in 1982 with her commitment to cross training, fitness, and nutrition? The players that beat her in 1981 were still around for the most part in 1986. However, she lost to them fewer times because she was a much better player from 1982 through 1986 than she was in 1981. From 1987 through 1991, Martina was often in turmoil with injuries and all sort of off the court issues - thing you regularly use to excuse Steffi's losses.

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 10:56 AM
Then why did you bring up Martina's losses to players like Sukova, Jordan, Kohde Kilsch? You can't have it both ways. Either she was a great player who had competition outside of the top 4 or she didn't. You proved that she did.


Top players almost always lose to journeywomen like Nagelsen, Hanika (Navi in 80/81) Jordan, Horvath, Jordan, Kohde (Navi in 82-86) Neiland, Garrison, Zvereva (Navi in 87-89), deSwardt, Coetzer (Graf in 93-96) now and then.

Why did Navi lose more tennis matches in 87-89 and 80/81 compared to 82-86?
Because in 80/81 (King, Austin, Jaeger) and 87-89 (Graf, Sabatini) she had also considerable NON-journeywoman opposition which she didn't have in 82-86.

Again for the intellectually challenged:

1980/81: losses to
a) Evert
b) King, Austin, Jaeger
c) some journeywomen

1982-86: losses to
a) Evert
b) some journeywomen

1987-89: losses to
a) Evert
b) Graf, Sabatini
c) some journeywomen

In 82-86 there were no Kings, Austins, Jaegers, Grafs, Sabatinis.
So Navi had less losses. And not because those years were her peak and in 87-89 she was over-the-hill.


Condi

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 11:06 AM
Meanwhile, you forget that Martina revolutionized the game beginning in 1982 with her commitment to cross training, fitness, and nutrition? The players that beat her in 1981 were still around for the most part in 1986. ....

You are misinformed - and simply lying.
Navratilova had 7 of 12 losses that year against Austin and Jaeger.
Both didn't play anymore in 1986.


....From 1987 through 1991, Martina was often in turmoil with injuries and all sort of off the court issues - thing you regularly use to excuse Steffi's losses.

Don't be ridiculous.
Navratilova's court issues never were daily front-page headline stuff as the Graf Blackmail Scandal of 1990-92. This scandal had exactly 37 front-page headline stories in Germany's biggest tabloid. To compare that with Navi's duress is simply idiotic.

Condi

suwanee4712
05-01-2007, 11:11 AM
Speaking of intellectually challenged............

Mandlikova, Sukova, Kohde Kilsch, and Jordan were not "journeymen" tennis players from 1982 through 1986. They were top players during that time period. One won 4 grand slam titles, another appeared in 4 grand slam finals, another made one grand slam final, and the other was a regular grand slam quarterfinalist with a few semis.

So when you list Martina's losses for that period, its not just a) Evert and b) some journeywomen as you suggest.

The fact that you would list Mandlikova as a journeywoman tennis player and not Sabatini just proves further that you're an idiot.

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 11:16 AM
Speaking of intellectually challenged............

Mandlikova, Sukova, Kohde Kilsch, and Jordan were not "journeymen" tennis players from 1982 through 1986. They were top players during that time period. One won 4 grand slam titles, another appeared in 4 grand slam finals, another made one grand slam final, and the other was a regular grand slam quarterfinalist with a few semis.

So when you list Martina's losses for that period, its not just a) Evert and b) some journeywomen as you suggest.

The fact that you would list Mandlikova as a journeywoman tennis player and not Sabatini just proves further that you're an idiot.



It is a fact that Mandlikova and Shriver were Navi's main opposition (with Evert) in the mid-80ies.
When Graf took over in 1987 she regularily beat Hana and Pam (both still in their mid-20ies) to pulp. Same with Evert. Chris lost her first match to a 16-year-old Graf in April 1986 and never won a match again against the German. She had to suffer a lot of 2-6 1-6 style humiliations. So much about Navi's competition in the mid-80ies ....


Condi

suwanee4712
05-01-2007, 11:18 AM
You are misinformed - and simply lying.
Navratilova had 7 of 12 losses that year against Austin and Jaeger.
Both didn't play anymore in 1986.




Don't be ridiculous.
Navratilova's court issues never were daily front-page headline stuff as the Graf Blackmail Scandal of 1990-92. This scandal had exactly 37 front-page headline stories in Germany's biggest tabloid. To compare that with Navi's duress is simply idiotic.

Condi

Lying? Martina played Tracy and Andrea into 1983. Not that you would know it because you never saw Andrea play, but Martina beat her in the 1983 Wimbledon final. So yes, she did play most of those players during this time period.

As far as Martina goes, I can't believe you think anyone is stupid enough to think that Martina didn't have off court issues that attracted a lot of publicity. The difference is that Martina still beat Steffi in the 1991 US Open SF the WEEK BEFORE she was to have a palimony suit tried in front of a WORLDWIDE audience. No excuses necessary - dumbass.

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 11:23 AM
Lying? Martina played Tracy and Andrea into 1983. Not that you would know it because you never saw Andrea play, but Martina beat her in the 1983 Wimbledon final. So yes, she did play most of those players during this time period. ...

We were talking of 1986, not 1983, son ....


.... As far as Martina goes, I can't believe you think anyone is stupid enough to think that Martina didn't have off court issues that attracted a lot of publicity. The difference is that Martina still beat Steffi in the 1991 US Open SF the WEEK BEFORE she was to have a palimony suit tried in front of a WORLDWIDE audience. No excuses necessary - dumbass.


:D :D
A "world-wide" audience! She wasn't even front-page tabloid stuff in the US with that.

Condi

suwanee4712
05-01-2007, 11:26 AM
It is a fact that Mandlikova and Shriver were Navi's main opposition (with Evert) in the mid-80ies.
When Graf took over in 1987 she regularily beat Hana and Pam (both still in their mid-20ies) to pulp. Same with Evert. Chris lost her first match to a 16-year-old Graf in April 1986 and never won a match again against the German. She had to suffer a lot of 2-6 1-6 style humiliations. So much about Navi's competition in the mid-80ies ....


Condi


It's also a fact that Steffi only played Hana when she was healthy TWICE. Get it? TWICE, and they split the matches. Hana's win came AFTER Steffi had already beaten Martina and Chris and had won 4 tournaments in a row on clay.

No one would ever suggest that Hana was as great a player as Steffi was. But she is one of the all time greats of the game with 4 grand slam titles and the only player that could repeatedly defeat Navratilova and Evert during their peak years.

And guess what? Mandlikova repeatedly beat down Sabatini (5-2), even on clay (3-0). Gaby's one convincing win was win Hana was ready to retire. So if you're going to use head to heads, then don't just use the ones that suit you. If Gaby was quality competition, then Hana certainly surpasses that standard.

Again, why do you keep harping on Shriver when you say she's just a clown? And why do you not mention the FACT that Shriver beat Steffi during her grand slam year and had a match point against in another match?

grizzly4life
05-01-2007, 11:38 AM
good lord, how old was martina when steffi started beating her?

martina set the standard and made future players work alot harder.

martina is hands-down #1 women's player of all-time. no debate whatsoever!

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 12:01 PM
good lord, how old was martina when steffi started beating her? .... martina is hands-down #1 women's player of all-time. no debate whatsoever!

Martina was 29 and Steffi 16.

In the USA (and Australia because of Court) there is obviously still some debate whether Graf really is GOAT. In the rest of the world this has been settled long ago.

22 slams in the open era, each blue-chip slam won at least 5 times, one Golden Grand Slam and 8 years as #1 simply can't be beaten.

Condi

Andres
05-01-2007, 12:18 PM
Martina was 29 and Steffi 16.

In the USA (and Australia because of Court) there is obviously still some debate whether Graf really is GOAT. In the rest of the world this has been settled long ago.

22 slams in the open era, each blue-chip slam won at least 5 times, one Golden Grand Slam and 8 years as #1 simply can't be beaten.

Condi
345 WTA titles (345!!!!) and 1442 wins can't be eaten.

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 12:21 PM
345 WTA titles (345!!!!) and 1442 wins can't be eaten.


Court has more titles.

It's not about quantity but quality in the GOAT race.

22 slams in open era, a Golden Grand Slam (plus a non-calendar-year GS), a record 8 year-end #1's, each blue-chip slam (FO, wim, USO) won at least 5 times ....


Condi

Andres
05-01-2007, 12:26 PM
If you talk about the Open Era (as you do, cause you keep saying 22 GS in Open Era, cause Court has more GS than Graf), then no, Court doesn't have more titles.

And 18 GS compared to 22 is not that far away. What about the doubles slams? Or they don't matter to you at all? 31 DOUBLES SLAMS! That's almost one and a half the total Slams Graf has.

And 10 mixed doubles.

18 + 31 + 10 = 59

59 slam titles. In my opinion, that beats Graf's slam achievements.

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 12:40 PM
If you talk about the Open Era (as you do, cause you keep saying 22 GS in Open Era, cause Court has more GS than Graf), then no, Court doesn't have more titles.

And 18 GS compared to 22 is not that far away. ...

It's 4 slams.
The same difference as between Majoli and V.Williams, between Myskina and Hingis.

Condi

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 12:41 PM
.... What about the doubles slams? Or they don't matter to you at all? 31 DOUBLES SLAMS! That's almost one and a half the total Slams Graf has.

And 10 mixed doubles.

18 + 31 + 10 = 59

59 slam titles. In my opinion, that beats Graf's slam achievements.

Pam Shriver has 13 doubles slams.
Jana Novotna has one singles slam.

What would you prefer?

Andres
05-01-2007, 12:42 PM
It's 4 slams.
The same difference as between Majoli and V.Williams, between Myskina and Hingis.

Condi
I know what the difference is, thanks. I didn't ask for the answer. In fact, I didn't even make a question about it.
59 slams ... are pretty much a little more than DOUBLE the ammount of slams Graf has.

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 12:43 PM
I know what the difference is, thanks. I didn't ask for a reply.
59 slams ... are pretty much a little more than DOUBLE the ammount of slams Graf has.


Liezel Huber has doubles slams ....

Next question?


Condi

Andres
05-01-2007, 12:49 PM
Liezel Huber has doubles slams ....

Next question?


Condi
Steffi has only one. So?

Graf has achieved much more than Seles. In my opinion, Graf was better than Seles. But achievements-wise, you seem to be taking all credit from Navratilova's. 59 slams and 345 titles! Come on!!

It's not that wacky of an idea to believe Martina was the GOAT!

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 12:52 PM
Steffi only has only one. So?

Graf has achieved much more than Seles. In my opinion, Graf was better than Seles. But achievements-wise, you seem to be taking all credit from Navratilova's. 59 slams and 345 titles! Come on!!

It's not that wacky of an idea to believe Martina was the GOAT!

Of course it is not wacky.
Most fans and experts think Graf is GOAT, though.

You know that you are in big trouble in the GOAT race when your fans resort to bringing up your mixed doubles records .... :D

Condi

Andres
05-01-2007, 12:55 PM
Of course it is not wacky.
Most fans and experts think Graf is GOAT, though.

You know that you are in big trouble in the GOAT race when your fans resort to bringing up your mixed doubles records .... :D

Condi
Without the mixed doubles records, Martina still out-titles Steffi in a ratio of around 2.5:1

Steffi is your GOAT, Martina is mine.
We're all happy now with our own opinions

Andy

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 01:01 PM
Without the mixed doubles records, Martina still out-titles Steffi in a ratio of around 2.5:1

Steffi is your GOAT, Martina is mine.
We're all happy now with our own opinions

Andy

Let's say Steffi is my and most tennis experts' and fans' GOAT, Martina is yours.
Nothing wrong with that.

Condi

Andres
05-01-2007, 01:10 PM
Let's say Steffi is my and most tennis experts' and fans' GOAT, Martina is yours.
Nothing wrong with that.

Condi
I don't have a problem with that.
Whatever other people say won't change my mind about it.

And for the record, MOST experts is not the most accurate way to put it. I'll say it's more like a 50-50.

And certainly is not most fan's, as you can already see by yourself reading these boards.

CEvertFan
05-01-2007, 01:14 PM
What about

"In 1982-86 Navratilova had only Evert, Mandlikova and SHRIVER (:D :D ) as opposition."

didn't make it to your screen?


Condi

I would rather take Sabatini as the main competition than Evert or even Mandlikova anyday. Shriver I would put in the same category as Gaby.

Andres
05-01-2007, 01:17 PM
When asked who was the greatest player ever, Graf replied, “For me, she [Navratilova] is the uncontested No. 1; she has left a mark on the sport like no one else.”

As much as Navratilova might yearn for the unofficial “greatest ever” accolade, in ‘96 she conceded, “Steffi is the best all-around player of all time, regardless of the surface.”

None of them is going to say "Of course, I'M the greatest ever" , but it's good to have THEIR insights about it.

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 01:18 PM
I would rather take Sabatini as the main competition than Evert or even Mandlikova anyday. Shriver I would put in the same category as Gaby.

Pammy?
You cannot be serious ...

Condi

suwanee4712
05-01-2007, 01:46 PM
Court has more titles.

It's not about quantity but quality in the GOAT race.

22 slams in open era, a Golden Grand Slam (plus a non-calendar-year GS), a record 8 year-end #1's, each blue-chip slam (FO, wim, USO) won at least 5 times ....


Condi

Yes, quality does matter. If you're going to discount Court's slams, then you might as well disregard anything Steffi won past Wimbledon 1992. Because anything after that was against a field void of Steffi's peer group of all time greats. The best players she beat were Hingis and Aranxta, neither of which were top 10 all time. Court, Evert, and Navratilova all had to face top 5 all time greats every single year of their careers, along with 2nd and 3rd tier great that are superior to or the equal of Hingis, Sanchez, Sabatini, and Novotna..

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 01:51 PM
.... Court, Evert, and Navratilova all had to face top 5 all time greats every single year of their careers, along with 2nd and 3rd tier great that are superior to or the equal of Hingis, Sanchez, Sabatini, and Novotna..

:D
Which 2nd and 3rd tier greats did Navi play every single year of her career which were superior to Hingis, Sanchez, Sabatini??

Condi

suwanee4712
05-01-2007, 02:12 PM
:D
Which 2nd and 3rd tier greats did Navi play every single year of her career which were superior to Hingis, Sanchez, Sabatini??

Condi


Goolagong and Austin are at least equal to Hingis. In fact, considering the competition each of those players faced, its more than fair to rank Gooly higher. Wade is superior to Gaby (3 slams to 1), and Mandlikova is equal to or superior than Sanchez (take Mandlikova out of C&M's prime and put her in Sanchez's era and see what happens). She also had to deal with Court, King, and Evert as well as Seles and Graf. And she won the vast majority of her matches (even in her late 30's) against the likes of Novotna, Sanchez, and Gaby.

Graf played Martina, Evert, Mandlikova, Sabatini, Seles, Sanchez, Hingis, Pierce, Majoli, Davenport, Williams, and Novotna.

That's not even a contest. Martina played far more all time greats than Steffi did. And she played more top tier all time greats by far.

Arafel
05-01-2007, 06:06 PM
Top players almost always lose to journeywomen like Nagelsen, Hanika (Navi in 80/81) Jordan, Horvath, Jordan, Kohde (Navi in 82-86) Neiland, Garrison, Zvereva (Navi in 87-89), deSwardt, Coetzer (Graf in 93-96) now and then.

Why did Navi lose more tennis matches in 87-89 and 80/81 compared to 82-86?
Because in 80/81 (King, Austin, Jaeger) and 87-89 (Graf, Sabatini) she had also considerable NON-journeywoman opposition which she didn't have in 82-86.

Again for the intellectually challenged:

1980/81: losses to
a) Evert
b) King, Austin, Jaeger
c) some journeywomen

1982-86: losses to
a) Evert
b) some journeywomen

1987-89: losses to
a) Evert
b) Graf, Sabatini
c) some journeywomen

In 82-86 there were no Kings, Austins, Jaegers, Grafs, Sabatinis.
So Navi had less losses. And not because those years were her peak and in 87-89 she was over-the-hill.


Condi


Well, the simple explanation is that she lost more matches in 80/81 because she was still not pushing herself as a player. In the book The Rivals, a Navratilova "practice" in 81 is described as Martina going out, hitting a few balls, saying hi to people, and walking around the tournament grounds. Nancy Lieberman was horrified. It wasn't until 82 that Navratilova made a concerted effort to reach her potential. That explains a lot of the losses in those yeras.

As for 87-89, if you can't acknowledge that Martina was, by that time, fading physically as a player, there really isn't much worth discussing.

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 08:22 PM
... Wade is superior to Gaby (3 slams to 1), ...

Wade won her slams mostly against recreational players. Only a handful of serious competition back then.

Sabatini had to cope with Navratilova, Graf, Sanchez, Seles.
Take her back in time to the 70ies and she would have won 8+ slams for sure.

Condi

Condoleezza
05-01-2007, 08:27 PM
Well, the simple explanation is that she lost more matches in 80/81 because she was still not pushing herself as a player. In the book The Rivals, a Navratilova "practice" in 81 is described as Martina going out, hitting a few balls, saying hi to people, and walking around the tournament grounds. Nancy Lieberman was horrified. It wasn't until 82 that Navratilova made a concerted effort to reach her potential. That explains a lot of the losses in those yeras.

As for 87-89, if you can't acknowledge that Martina was, by that time, fading physically as a player, there really isn't much worth discussing.


So do I get this right:
Before 1982 (when King, Stove, Austin, Jaeger were still around) Navi "wasn't pushing herself as a player"?
And after 1986 (when Graf took over women's tennis) she was "fading physically as a player"? Although she had a 67-3 winning streak in 1989/90 with those 3 losses all coming against Graf?

How convenient .... :-D


Condi

CEvertFan
05-01-2007, 08:54 PM
Wade won her slams mostly against recreational players. Only a handful of serious competition back then.

Sabatini had to cope with Navratilova, Graf, Sanchez, Seles.
Take her back in time to the 70ies and she would have won 8+ slams for sure.

Condi


You're not serious, are you?

lambielspins
05-01-2007, 09:06 PM
Wade won her slams mostly against recreational players. Only a handful of serious competition back then.

Sabatini had to cope with Navratilova, Graf, Sanchez, Seles.
Take her back in time to the 70ies and she would have won 8+ slams for sure.

Condi

Are you crazy? Wade won her U.S Open title over a women named Billie Jean King in the final. Ever heard of her? 12 slam singles titles, including 6 Wimbledon singles titles. 20 total Wimbledon titles counting doubles, tied with Navratilova for most. 3 of the 4 slams in 1972, only missing the Australian Open. Yeah she was pretty good.

Wade won Wimbledon beating some gal named Chris Evert in the semis. Y know #2 all time in matches and tournaments won behind Navratilova, most U.S Opens in Open era, most French Opens in history, 18 singles slams. Yeah she was pretty good too.

Wade won the Australian Open over someone named Evonne Goolagong in the final. You know the Evonne that won the French Open and Wimbledon at age 19, ripping the #1 ranking away from Court and King at that tender age. The Evonne who won Wimbledon 9 years apart, 1971 at 19 and 1980 at 28. The Evonne who reached 4 straight U.S Open finals. The Evonne who most formidable in Australia where she won 4 straight titles, the place Wade took her down in the final to win this particular slam.

No player who won only 1 slam title in any era would have won 8 in another, to argue so on any player is ridiculous. You can debate various competition levels and such but to some point you either have it or you dont. Players like Sabatini, Sukova, Novotna, Martinez, Shriver, Jaeger, end up as either 1 time or best players not to win slam titles for a reason. They are good but they just dont quite have what it takes.

If Shriver and Jaeger were good enough they would have beaten Navratilova and Evert to win some slams If Sabatini and Novotna were good enough they would have beaten Graf and Seles to win multiple slams. They didnt, they just arent quite good enough. There is no arguing them winning a truckload of slams in another era, maybe arguing them winning 1 or 2 more depending on your view, but to argue 8 or more is nonsense.

travlerajm
05-01-2007, 10:49 PM
Navratilova is the female GOAT, period. No stats can convince me otherwise.
At age 49 in her last slam, she still looked to me like the best female doubles player in the world. That's awesome. And I even believe that she could still have been a top-20 player at age 50 if she still practiced singles fulltime. She's that good.

Condoleezza
05-02-2007, 12:01 AM
Are you crazy? Wade won her U.S Open title over a women named Billie Jean King in the final. Ever heard of her? 12 slam singles titles, including 6 Wimbledon singles titles. ...

Sabatini won her U.S. Open title over a woman named Steffi Graf in the final. Ever heard of her? 22 slam singles titles, including 7 Wimbledon singles titles.

Your point being?

Condi

lambielspins
05-02-2007, 12:04 AM
Sabatini won her U.S. Open title over a woman named Steffi Graf in the final. Ever heard of her? 22 slam singles titles, including 7 Wimbledon singles titles.

Your point being?

Condi

Read your own statement again:

Wade won her slams mostly against recreational players.

So now that I proved you were full of it, and had no clue what you were talking about, you bring up Sabatini winning her only slam by beating Graf. That has nothing to do with your claim Wade won her slams vs recreational players.

Wade won all her slams beating atleast one great player, and multiple other tough opponents. Yeah Sabatini did too, good for her since it was her ONLY slam, while Wade won 3 of them.

Condoleezza
05-02-2007, 12:07 AM
Read your own statement again:

Wade won her slams mostly against recreational players.

So now that I proved you were full of it, and had no clue what you were talking about, you bring up Sabatini winning her only slam by beating Graf. That has nothing to do with your claim Wade won slams vs recreational players.

Wade won all her slams beating atleast one great player, and multiple other tough opponents. Yeah Sabatini did too, good for her since it was her ONLY slam, while Wade won 3 of them.


I didn't mean that her final opponents were recreational players.
Of course there were some very good players even back then. But only 5 or 10. The rest of the slam fields consisted of recreational players. Today there are 128 pros.

Condi

lambielspins
05-02-2007, 12:57 AM
I didn't mean that her final opponents were recreational players.
Of course there were some very good players even back then. But only 5 or 10. The rest of the slam fields consisted of recreational players. Today there are 128 pros.

Condi


Ok so you are saying the fields and draws players like Graf, and recent players like Sabatini and others, are more full of all true professionals and competitive players. Much more depth throughout a field of 100+. In that case I can see that. You are probably right. Back then the top 8 or so had nothing to worry from the rest of the field. These days even girls ranked outside the top 50 can have a huge serve, or a huge forehand, or be really have wheels and chase everything done, or have something that makes them really dangerous.

Tennis wasnt big money then the way it is now. So only the top group were even making a real living off it. Today many journeywomen pros that make up the majority of the regulars on the pro tour make a living off it, even those fighting to just be ranked in the top 100 and get straight into events. So it is likely the players as you go down the ranks are more "pro" then they were back then, giving the game more depth and tougher competition overall.

suwanee4712
05-02-2007, 06:36 AM
Wade won her slams mostly against recreational players. Only a handful of serious competition back then.

Sabatini had to cope with Navratilova, Graf, Sanchez, Seles.
Take her back in time to the 70ies and she would have won 8+ slams for sure.

Condi


Funny, I don't recall Gaby having to play Martina, Aranxta, or Monica to win her ONE grand slam title. However I do recall that Wade had to defeat King, Goolagong, and Evert to win her THREE slams.

Besides with all of Steffi's "distractions" that you harp on constantly to excuse her losses, I would think that you are less than impressed with Gaby's win.

If this were a debate about Steffi and Gaby, you would surely be trying to illegitimize Gaby's win talking about a stupid "blackmail scandal" that hardly made news outside of Germany. Which is why she chose to live in the United States - you know, that country you constantly stereotype with your blind hate.

Condoleezza
05-02-2007, 06:59 AM
Funny, I don't recall Gaby having to play Martina, Aranxta, or Monica to win her ONE grand slam title. However I do recall that Wade had to defeat King, Goolagong, and Evert to win her THREE slams. ...

Sabatini lost 2 slam finals and 10 (!) slam semis against Graf.
This although she was table to beat Graf in 11 of 40 matches.

I don't think Wade types would have been able to beat a Graf 11 times .... :D

Condi

lambielspins
05-02-2007, 07:08 AM
Funny, I don't recall Gaby having to play Martina, Aranxta, or Monica to win her ONE grand slam title.

Well Martina, Aranxta, and Monica were all in the event, even though she did not end up playing them, along with of course Graf who she played and beat. So doesnt being in the same event when you win it count?

suwanee4712
05-02-2007, 12:04 PM
Well Martina, Aranxta, and Monica were all in the event, even though she did not end up playing them, along with of course Graf who she played and beat. So doesnt being in the same event when you win it count?


Of course it counts. I'm just using Condi's own standard against him.

Condoleezza
05-03-2007, 01:26 AM
Of course it counts. I'm just using Condi's own standard against him.

Ah, back-pedaling again, this alleged "Graf fan" ....

Condi

slack hack
05-03-2007, 04:32 AM
And guess what? Mandlikova repeatedly beat down Sabatini (5-2), even on clay (3-0). Gaby's one convincing win was win Hana was ready to retire. So if you're going to use head to heads, then don't just use the ones that suit you. If Gaby was quality competition, then Hana certainly surpasses that standard.


Gaby was about 14 and 15 during those losses and already playing Hana in the quarters and semis.
The wta site says Gaby won 27 titles Hana 6.
That doesn't sound correct. I thought Hana won more.

Either way I think they're two of the most gifted ever.
Few players will ever have as many shots in their respective bags as those two.

Here's a link to their head to head
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerheadtoheaddetail.asp?PlayerID=130007&x=11&y=14&Player1ID=190001

suwanee4712
05-03-2007, 06:44 AM
Gaby was about 14 and 15 during those losses and already playing Hana in the quarters and semis.
The wta site says Gaby won 27 titles Hana 6.
That doesn't sound correct. I thought Hana won more.

Either way I think they're two of the most gifted ever.
Few players will ever have as many shots in their respective bags as those two.

Here's a link to their head to head
http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/2/players/playerprofiles/playerheadtoheaddetail.asp?PlayerID=130007&x=11&y=14&Player1ID=190001

I'm not sure if you've been reading the thread or not, but Condi contends that Sabatini was a better player than Hana, which is ludicrous. As far as Hana playing her when she was 16, so what? Gaby was already pushing the top players. Heck, she won a 6-1 set against Chris at the French in 1986 and then was easily beaten by Hana at Fed Cup on clay.

Yes, I think Sabatini was a great player. But she was not as great as Hana as their records show.

BTW, they each won 27 singles titles. More importantly, Hana won 4 grand slams to Gaby's 1. The wta site is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hana_Mandlikova

suwanee4712
05-03-2007, 06:46 AM
Ah, back-pedaling again, this alleged "Graf fan" ....

Condi

Nah, that's something you have turned in to an art form. Which poster are you going to wish harm on today? Perhaps Gunter will give you a discount since you're almost as psychotic as he is.

Condoleezza
05-03-2007, 07:38 AM
I'm not sure if you've been reading the thread or not, but Condi contends that Sabatini was a better player than Hana, which is ludicrous. As far as Hana playing her when she was 16, so what? Gaby was already pushing the top players. Heck, she won a 6-1 set against Chris at the French in 1986 and then was easily beaten by Hana at Fed Cup on clay.

Yes, I think Sabatini was a great player. But she was not as great as Hana as their records show.

BTW, they each won 27 singles titles. More importantly, Hana won 4 grand slams to Gaby's 1. The wta site is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hana_Mandlikova


Sabatini won 624 of 811 career matches (76.9 %), Mandlikova only 514 of 695 (only 74.0 %).
Although Sabatini played against Evert, Navratilova - and Graf, Seles, Sanchez. And Mandlikova only against Evert, Navratilova - and a lot of clowns.

Sabatini lost 10 (!!!) slam semis and 2 slam finals against the greatest player of all time, Steffi Graf.
Sabatini won two Masters Championships (1988 & 1994), Mandlikova none.

So despite the fact that Mandlikova won 4 slams and Sabatini only 1 we can conclude that Sabatini was the better and greater player.

Condi

suwanee4712
05-03-2007, 08:06 AM
Sabatini won 624 of 811 career matches (76.9 %), Mandlikova only 514 of 695 (only 74.0 %).
Although Sabatini played against Evert, Navratilova - and Graf, Seles, Sanchez. And Mandlikova only against Evert, Navratilova - and a lot of clowns.

Sabatini lost 10 (!!!) slam semis and 2 slam finals against the greatest player of all time, Steffi Graf.
Sabatini won two Masters Championships (1988 & 1994), Mandlikova none.

So despite the fact that Mandlikova won 4 slams and Sabatini only 1 we can conclude that Sabatini was the better and greater player.

Condi


I think your butt must have swallowed your head...........

You want some facts, how about when it counts the most, at grand slams:

Sabatini's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:


vs. Graf - 1 (US Open)
vs. Navratilova - 0
vs. Evert - 0
vs. Seles - 0

Total: 1
Grand slam final appearances: 3 (US and Wimbledon only)
Grand slams won: 1 (US Open)

Mandlikova's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:

vs. Graf - 1 (French)
vs. Navratilova - 4 (US (2), Wimbledon, Australian)
vs. Navratilova in grand slam finals: 2-1, Mandlikova
vs. Evert - 3 (French, US Open, Wimbledon)

Total: 8
Grand slam final appearances: 8 (each slam at least once)
Grand slams won: 4 (won 3 of 4 slams on 3 different surfaces)

It's one thing to beat the top players at Amelia Island. It's quite another to do it in a slam. Mandlikova was a much greater threat and to more top players than Sabatini was.

4 slams > 1 slam ......that's stays true any day of the week, 365 days a year.

Series record: Mandlikova leads Sabatini, 5-2

Only a complete moron would think that Sabatini was the better player.


NEXT?

Condoleezza
05-03-2007, 08:28 AM
.... 4 slams > 1 slam ......that's stays true any day of the week, 365 days a year. ....


So according to you

Darlene Hart > Venus Williams
Nancy Richey > Jana Novotna
Margaret Osborne-duPont > Martina Hingis

Riiiight .... :D :D :D


Condi

suwanee4712
05-03-2007, 08:33 AM
So according to you

Darlene Hart > Venus Williams
Nancy Richey > Jana Novotna
Margaret Osborne-duPont > Martina Hingis

Riiiight .... :D :D :D


Condi

Woooowwwww, you picked players that played DECADES apart. Mandlikova and Sabatini overlapped one another.

But what about may comparison of top players beaten at grand slams, grand slam final appearances, and Hana's winning record vs. Martina in finals?

You don't have any way to spin that. You know you're wrong.......AGAIN.

I'm laughing at you..........

Condoleezza
05-03-2007, 08:38 AM
Woooowwwww, you picked players that played DECADES apart. Mandlikova and Sabatini overlapped one another.

But what about may comparison of top players beaten at grand slams, grand slam final appearances, and Hana's winning record vs. Martina in finals?

You don't have any way to spin that. You know you're wrong.......AGAIN.

I'm laughing at you..........


Sabatini lost tons of slam semis against Graf. Had Graf not been there and had Navratilova dared to play FO and AO post-88 Sabby would have beaten Navi like a drum on those slow surfaces.
I have watched both players and I can say you - Mandlikova was no Sabatini!
To suggest that Hana would have been able to beat Graf ELEVEN times is hilarious!!

No wonder Sabatini still will be remembered fondly in 20 years from now while Mandlikova is almost forgotten even today ....


Condi

suwanee4712
05-03-2007, 08:49 AM
Sabatini lost tons of slam semis against Graf. Had Graf not been there and had Navratilova dared to play FO and AO post-88 Sabby would have beaten Navi like a drum on those slow surfaces.
I have watched both players and I can say you - Mandlikova was no Sabatini!
To suggest that Hana would have been able to beat Graf ELEVEN times is hilarious!!

No wonder Sabatini still will be remembered fondly in 20 years from now while Mandlikova is almost forgotten even today ....


Condi



Sabatini's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:


vs. Graf - 1 (US Open)
vs. Navratilova - 0
vs. Evert - 0
vs. Seles - 0

Total: 1
Grand slam final appearances: 3 (US and Wimbledon only)
Grand slams won: 1 (US Open)

Mandlikova's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:

vs. Graf - 1 (French)
vs. Navratilova - 4 (US (2), Wimbledon, Australian)
vs. Navratilova in grand slam finals: 2-1, Mandlikova
vs. Evert - 3 (French, US Open, Wimbledon)

Total: 8
Grand slam final appearances: 8 (each slam at least once)
Grand slams won: 4 (won 3 of 4 slams on 3 different surfaces)

Getting mad because you can't spin this? I saw them both too. But the records speak for themselves. You can't change that, and never will.

And, oh yes, Mandlikova is soooooooooo forgotten. If that's the case I wonder why she only had to wait the Hall of Fame's minimum of FIVE years past retirement to be inducted UNANIMOUSLY, while Gaby had to wait NINE years to be voted in?

Condoleezza
05-03-2007, 08:56 AM
.... And, oh yes, Mandlikova is soooooooooo forgotten. If that's the case I wonder why she only had to wait the Hall of Fame's minimum of FIVE years past retirement to be inducted UNANIMOUSLY, while Gaby had to wait NINE years to be voted in?


Ask people on the street in New York, Berlin, Tokyo or Bejing whether they have heard the name "Mandlikova" or "Sabatini".

Next question?


Condi


PS: What is this "HoF" thing some American always go ga-ga over?

suwanee4712
05-03-2007, 09:03 AM
Oh, and according to you Gaby would've beaten Martina many times had Martina had the guts to play the French past 1988?

Take a BIG bite of this and swallow it: Hana NEVER needed Martina to play past age 30, past her prime, and on her worst surface for her to beat MN in a grand slam tournament. Hana beat her during her prime in the 1985 US Open final. And also beat her TWICE on Martina's best surface, grass.

Throw in the fact that Hana defeated Chris, the greatest clay court player and French Open player in the history of the game at the French in 1981, one of Chris' best years ever on the tour. You no longer have a leg to stand on. Frankly, you never did in comparing Hana to Gaby. You've lost again. :D

caulcano
05-03-2007, 09:35 AM
Ask people on the street in New York, Berlin, Tokyo or Bejing whether they have heard the name "Mandlikova" or "Sabatini".

Next question?


Condi


PS: What is this "HoF" thing some American always go ga-ga over?

Unfortunately, it's not a popularity contest.

Andres
05-03-2007, 09:43 AM
Ask people on the street in New York, Berlin, Tokyo or Bejing whether they have heard the name "Mandlikova" or "Sabatini".

Next question?


Condi


PS: What is this "HoF" thing some American always go ga-ga over?
Ask people on the street in New York wheter they have heard the name "Federer"

Next question?

Andy

suwanee4712
05-03-2007, 10:10 AM
You guys take it easy on poor Condi. He's just learned a lesson in how to apply what he calls "brutal and cold hard facts" to a debate to defeat another poster's arguments. He can't think of a way to spin the huge numbers advantage in Mandlikova's favor, so he's chosen to go elsewhere.

So now when he calls Sabatini top quality competition in an effort to bolster Graf's claim of GOAT while calling Mandlikova a "clown," he'll have to live in fear that I'll bring those stats out on him again. I guess Martina and Chris had more competition than he thought after all. ;)

This argument never had anything to do with Gaby or Hana, as I truly loved watching both play. It was all about him trying to make Steffi's competition look stronger than it really was - as usual.

Condoleezza
05-03-2007, 10:12 AM
Ask people on the street in New York wheter they have heard the name "Federer"

Next question?

Andy

Ask them in Berlin, Tokyo and Bejing, too.
New Yorkers are interested only in US sports stars. I thought you knew that ...

Condi

Condoleezza
05-03-2007, 10:15 AM
You guys take it easy on poor Condi. He's just learned a lesson in how to apply what he calls "brutal and cold hard facts" to a debate to defeat another poster's arguments. He can't think of a way to spin the huge numbers advantage in Mandlikova's favor, so he's chosen to go elsewhere. ....


Career winning percentage:
Sabatini - 76.9 % (era with Navi, Evert, Graf, Seles, Sanchez)
Mandlikova - 74.0 % (era with Navi, Evert, Shriver, Hanika, Turnbull)

Next question?

Condi

suwanee4712
05-03-2007, 10:16 AM
Career winning percentage:
Sabatini - 76.9 % (era with Navi, Evert, Graf, Seles, Sanchez)
Mandlikova - 74.0 % (era with Navi, Evert, Shriver, Hanika, Turnbull)

Next question?

Condi


Sabatini's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:


vs. Graf - 1 (US Open)
vs. Navratilova - 0
vs. Evert - 0
vs. Seles - 0

Total: 1
Grand slam final appearances: 3 (US and Wimbledon only)
Grand slams won: 1 (US Open)

Mandlikova's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:

vs. Graf - 1 (French)
vs. Navratilova - 4 (US (2), Wimbledon, Australian)
vs. Navratilova in grand slam finals: 2-1, Mandlikova
vs. Evert - 3 (French, US Open, Wimbledon)

Total: 8
Grand slam final appearances: 8 (each slam at least once)
Grand slams won: 4 (won 3 of 4 slams on 3 different surfaces)

________________________

Nah, I'm good. Any other players you want to learn something about? :p

Arafel
05-03-2007, 01:21 PM
Career winning percentage:
Sabatini - 76.9 % (era with Navi, Evert, Graf, Seles, Sanchez)
Mandlikova - 74.0 % (era with Navi, Evert, Shriver, Hanika, Turnbull)

Next question?

Condi

Well, if you are going to claim that Navrtilova and Evert overlap with Sabatini, then I'll claim the following as Hana's competition:

Billie Jean King
Martina Navratilova
Chris Evert
Tracy Austin
Evonne Goolagong
Steffi Graf
Gabriela Sabatini


Don't forget, King got to the semis of Wimbledon in 83. She was still a threat there. And this was AFTER Hana had won 2 slams.

And I'll include Graf and Sabatini, since Hana overlapped with them.

Hana was a far more dangerous player than Gabby could ever hope to be, and I LIKED Gabby.

As for career winning percentage, Sabatini had Graf as an all time great plus Sanchez Vicario and Seles as two very good players to contend with.

Hana had Evert AND Navratilova, 2 of the best players to ever pick up a racquet. Hana entered most of her Slams knowing that to win one, she had to defeat the two best players ever (at least to that point in time). Hana lost a lot of matches in tournament semis or finals to either Evert or Navratilova, and if she beat one in the semis, she had to contend with the other in the finals. That's a tall order. Gabby entered knowing she only had to be on fire once to defeat Graf and win. For a while, you can add Seles to that.

That's no contest. Who would you rather have to face: Graf, or Chris and Martina at their best? 2 beats 1 in my book.

Condoleezza
05-03-2007, 01:29 PM
... Who would you rather have to face: Graf, or Chris and Martina at their best? ...

Chris and Martina of course. So that I would have a chance to win.

Condi

obanaghan
05-03-2007, 02:19 PM
Martina Navratilova is without question one of the most talented players ever if not the most. The question comes down though to why did she not play much better in the Slams before 1982? She was thinner by 1978 and still thin enough in 1981 when she lost the US Open to Austin. At that point she had won two Wimbledons which is awesome but at that same point Evert a woman only two years older had won 3 Wimbleons, 4 French and 5 US Opens.

Martina most definitely dedicated herself to training, practicing, strategizing and intimidating the field. All that hard work counts for a whole lot of her success but one does have to wonder how can a woman who uses a midsize graphite against a standard woodie not have an advantage? It was within the rules so that is the end of the question. I raise it because Martina in her own way paved the road for players like we have today and I do not want to hear her complain about the raquets and style of play.

Martina should get extra credit for her run from 1982-1986 especially but after winning Wimbledon in 1978 and 1979 she should get demerits for her lack luster 1980 and 1981 seasons. Losing to Evert at Wimbledon and Mandlikova at NY and then losing to Hanika in Paris, Mandlikova at Wimbledon and Austin in NY is not becoming of the GOAT, is it. Add to it the dirty little secret that actually played the 1980 Aussie Open trying to pad her resume and still lost to Turnbull, tsk tsk. I love the Rabbit but she was no Martina. Grading should be like grading a student and getting a 25 on a quiz hurts your marks. Evert scored 90s all across her career in a way no other player did. She did not sparkle as brightly perhaps but she would most likely have won more French and Aussie Opens if she played them in the 1970s.

Arafel
05-03-2007, 02:23 PM
Chris and Martina of course. So that I would have a chance to win.

Condi

And that, of course, speaks VOLUMES.

federerfanatic
05-03-2007, 03:37 PM
I dont understand why this Gaby-Hana thing is even a debate. Why is it even neccessary to psycho-analyze the competition and their games. Hana won 4 slams, and Gaby won 1. It is very simple. A player is never a better player then somebody with 4 times more slams then they have, especialy both playing in the open era, never. It isnt even really a debate.

It would be like trying to argue 2-time slam winner Nancy Richey is greater then 8-time slam winner Serena Williams, since you feel her competition was tougher, or her game was better, or whatever else. It would be nonsense.

EZRA
05-03-2007, 04:36 PM
Ask them in Berlin, Tokyo and Bejing, too.
New Yorkers are interested only in US sports stars. I thought you knew that ...

Condi

Condi... you think us New Yorkers are as narrow-minded as you?

Or maybe you forget that New York is a huge melting-pot of different nationalities, cultures, religious backgrounds, etc .........

CEvertFan
05-03-2007, 05:39 PM
Chris and Martina of course. So that I would have a chance to win.

Condi


That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements you've made so far Condi.

tennus
05-03-2007, 06:01 PM
Sabatini lost tons of slam semis against Graf. Had Graf not been there and had Navratilova dared to play FO and AO post-88 Sabby would have beaten Navi like a drum on those slow surfaces.
I have watched both players and I can say you - Mandlikova was no Sabatini!
To suggest that Hana would have been able to beat Graf ELEVEN times is hilarious!!

No wonder Sabatini still will be remembered fondly in 20 years from now while Mandlikova is almost forgotten even today ....
Condi

LOL ! Sabatini will be remembered fondly in 20 years, more for how she looked than her tennis ability ! :) Fit Mandlikova = destruction for Sabatini !

CEvertFan
05-03-2007, 06:07 PM
LOL ! Sabatini will be remembered fondly in 20 years, more for how she looked than her tennis ability ! :) Fit Mandlikova = destruction for Sabatini !


The Mandlikova/Sabatini rivalry stands 5-2 in Hana's favor. Plus Hana has 4 slams to Gaby's 1. Four of Hana's five wins over Gaby are also in straight sets.

slack hack
05-10-2007, 07:54 AM
I'm not sure if you've been reading the thread or not, but Condi contends that Sabatini was a better player than Hana, which is ludicrous. As far as Hana playing her when she was 16, so what? Gaby was already pushing the top players. Heck, she won a 6-1 set against Chris at the French in 1986 and then was easily beaten by Hana at Fed Cup on clay.

Yes, I think Sabatini was a great player. But she was not as great as Hana as their records show.

BTW, they each won 27 singles titles. More importantly, Hana won 4 grand slams to Gaby's 1. The wta site is incorrect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hana_Mandlikova

No, I wasn't implying Gaby was better. I was responding to the assertion that she was not a quality opponent.

suwanee4712
05-10-2007, 08:33 AM
No, I wasn't implying Gaby was better. I was responding to the assertion that she was not a quality opponent.

You have to remember that the late Condi was involved and the kind of context that he brings to any discussion. Which is to elevate players like Sanchez, Sabatini, and Novotna over players like Evert (at least on grass in comparison to Sanchez) and Mandlikova for the sake of making Graf's mid 90's record look better than it actually was.

I don't think anyone ever asserted that Gaby wasn't a quality opponent. She most certainly was. But she wasn't quite in the same category as Mandlikova (as far as beating the top 3 at grand slams and winning those tournaments at least). And, of course, she nor Sanchez, nor Novotna were anywhere near Evert's equal regardless of surface.

The only way to deal with Condi is to get down on his level. Now that he's gone, the board is a much nicer, more civil, and more realistic place. Not to mention its much easier to praise all of the greats including the Mandlikovas and Sabatinis without being broadsided by his endless comparisons to Steffi and his inflated idea of her opponents' strength post-Seles stabbing.

federerfanatic
05-11-2007, 10:31 PM
Here is an article that I think does an excellent job analyzing Sabatini's career, written in tennis magazine by John Feinstein soon after her announced retirement. A bit harsh in context, a bit mournful in nature, but still quite truthful.


SABATINI WAS ALMOST A CHAMPION

Sabatini will be remembered more for what might have been than for what was.

When athletes retire, it's only natural that those who have written about them make some attempt to put their careers into perspective. Years and years of work often are boiled down to a single sentence that describes what they became-at least in the minds of the public.

John McEnroe was the tormented genius.
Chris Evert was grace and grit.
Jimmy Connors was the ultimate battler.
Martina Navratilova was power and precision.
Ivan Lendl was the self-created champion.

What then, do we say about Gabriela Sabatini, who retired from the tour after an 11-year pro career in order to, as she put it, "pursue the development of other activities"? If we are honest, we say this: She was beautiful.

That may be considered wide and long of today's politically correct boundaries, but the fact is that Sabatini will be remembered more for her beauty than anything else.

She was a very good player, but certainly not a great player. She won one Grand Slam title, considerably fewer than Evert, Navratilova or Steffi Graf and also fewer than Monica Seles, Hana Mandlikova and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario.

And yet, only Evert was in her class when it came to endorsements and off-court ventures. Even Evert never had a flower or perfume named for her, as did Sabatini. During the last few years of her career, Sabatini was famous for being famous. Her ranking dropped steadily, and she ceased being a factor in Grand Slam events - her last final was at Wimbledon in 1991 - and she won a grand total of two out of her twenty-seven career titles during the last four years of her career.

Nonetheless, Sabatini remained a major draw, fans pouring out to see her and cheer her. It was not as if she was a great champion nearing the end like Stefan Edberg during this past year or Evert on her farewell tour seven years ago. She was a glamorous player, though, and that in many ways, is the classic proof that, in tennis, image is everything.

The person who uttered those immortal words was Andre Agassi, who, like Sabatini, became rich and famous before he ever came close to winning a major title. Agassi benefited from the fact he came along at a time when tennis was starved for a new American star, but even after Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, and Michael Chang won majors before Agassi, Agassi remained the most marketable because the corporations backing him somehow convinced people that he had
"personality".

No one ever claimed that Sabatini was a "personality." She was always shy and quiet, a person with a reputation for being sweet and kind, which often is considered a flaw in a competitive athlete. Clearly, she was no killer, not the way Graf and Seles are or Navratilova and Evert were. She also had an Achilles' heel that haunted her throughout her career: a painfully weak serve that made her vurnerable to breaks at any time against anyone. Never was that more evident than in the 91 Wimbledon final, when she served for the match in the third set and Graf broke her with ease.

Sabatini was also the victim of that dread tennis disease - expectations. It is worth remembering that when she and Graf first arrived on the scene as teenagers, the tennis world was evenly divided on the issue of which of them was to become the next great champion. At the very least, they were expected to become the Evert-Navratilova of their era, two great champions who would play in a bucketful of Grand Slam finals.

In fact, it was Sabatini who reached a Slam semi first, becoming the youngest French Open semifinalist in history in 1985, less than a month after turning 15. But 11 years later, she and Graf had met in only three major finals - the only three Sabatini ever reached - and Sabatini had won just the 1990 U.S Open. Graf is now at 28 finals; 21 titles - and counting.

Off the court, though, Sabatini was as dominant as Graf was on the court. Although her parents and brother often traveled with her, they were never involved in any of the kind of embarassing incidents that have hounded Graf's father. Sabatini's reputation was never tainted by any sort of scandal and she was always well liked by other tour players and treated kindly by the media. From all reports, she conducted herself with grace and class at all times.

Sabatini made millions and millions of dollars and became the poster child for Jimmy Connor's thesis on why tennis seemed to produce fewer and fewer true champions in the '80s and '90s.

"When I first started playing, the only way to really make money, big money, in tennis was to win championships - major championships," Connors once told me. "You had to win Wimbledon, the U.S Open a couple of times before you really cashed in big time. Nowadays, if some kid makes it to the quarterfinals someplace, he's a millionaire before the tournament's over.

"The really great champions don't care about the money, but most players do. When they get rich they lose enough of their drive that they can't take it to the next level."

Maybe Sabatini just didn't have as much talent as Graf or Seles. Or maybe she just wasn't as driven. Maybe she never really saw the need to work on her serve or try to become more consistent as an attacking player. Through most of her career, she still won often and she was always competitive against the very best players. She just wasn't good enough to beat them when it mattered most. By contrast, Evert who had already made millons and won more than a dozen majors, completely rebuilt her serve and her body in the mid-1980s so that she could compete with Navratilova after her great rival had surpassed and dominated her.

That's why Sabatini never will be mentioned in the same sentence with the very best players. She will not be remembered for great matches (other than a couple of horrifying collapses near the end) or for being a part of a great rivalry. Her legacy will be one of grace and glamour.

And there's nothing wrong with that. Our memories of her certainly will be fond ones. But Sabatini also will be remembered as someone whose career, strictly in tennis terms, is best described by one word: almost.

She was almost a champion. But not quite.

navratilovafan
05-13-2007, 07:21 AM
Navratilova in her prime hardly ever lost. She was unbelievable. Even Chris could hardly ever stop her. None of the women today could hold her jockstrap. She is the best.

CEvertFan
05-13-2007, 12:13 PM
Navratilova in her prime hardly ever lost. She was unbelievable. Even Chris could hardly ever stop her. None of the women today could hold her jockstrap. She is the best.


Martina, contrary to popular belief, didn't wear a jock strap. You might want to change that to sports bra instead because it's an insult to a great champion.

navratilovafan
05-13-2007, 12:48 PM
Martina, contrary to popular belief, didn't wear a jock strap. You might want to change that to sports bra instead because it's an insult to a great champion.

My most sincere apologies. :p You are right, make that a sports bra. However I was saying that as a figure of speech saying, not literaly.

In any case none of the women today can hold the sports bras of Chris or Martina. The Williams sisters are the only ones who have the talent to do so, except they dont want to. The rest of the girls today are a bunch of wannabees. The mens field is even worse. I miss the old days so bad.