Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php)
-   Former Pro Player Talk (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/forumdisplay.php?f=37)
-   -   Can you beat Chris Evert today? (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=123314)

Gundam 03-16-2007 10:31 AM

Can you beat Chris Evert today?
 
First of all, it is not to start a heated debate. I am just curious.

There was an article I read in the Tennis Magazine that says Chris Evert still can beat 95% (or was it 99%?) of all the male tennis players in the world. Of course she wouldn't be able to win a match against any ATP players or College players. But what about very good players who used to play seriously?

I picked her because I always thought she was a kind of mystery (to me). Compared to Graf or Navratilova or even Austin, she didn't appear to be that athletic or strong. She was consistent, mentally tough, solid techniques-also, even though she didn't look superfast as Grat, it seemed she was always in a good position to hit probably due to her excellent strategy and anticipation.

What kind of strategy would you use to defeat Chris Evert today? Since I don't belong to that 5% of all the male players in the world, I don't think I have a chance, to be frank with you.

snapple 03-16-2007 10:41 AM

Since I'm pretty sure I can't out rally her (I'm about a 5.0+), and my power would probably not phase her too much, I would just feed her a barrage of drop shots and then lob over her head (hopefully) eventually wearing her down.

raiden031 03-16-2007 10:44 AM

According to USTA guidelines, since she is 52 years old, she would be a 5.0 player. That would equate to a 4.0-4.5 men's player. So maybe she could beat 80% of males, but probably not 95%.

But Navratilova is 50 and still playing WTA, so maybe its different for women. They can retain their rating older than men can. Who knows.

Moose Malloy 03-16-2007 11:03 AM

Quote:

According to USTA guidelines, since she is 52 years old, she would be a 5.0 player. That would equate to a 4.0-4.5 men's player.
so what would mcenroe be rated? he's 48. Former pros don't apply to any rating system.

raiden031 03-16-2007 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy (Post 1317263)
so what would mcenroe be rated? he's 48. Pros don't apply to any rating system.

McEnroe is a 5.5 according to the guidelines.

Clintspin 03-16-2007 11:17 AM

Chris Evert, in her prime, could not beat her brother a college level player.

tarheels2323 03-16-2007 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiden031 (Post 1317264)
McEnroe is a 5.5 according to the guidelines.

I can tell you that McEnroe is better than a 5.5. I saw him play in Boston last year and although he certainly wasn't up to top 10 standards, he was playing pretty damn well.

raiden031 03-16-2007 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheels2323 (Post 1317289)
I can tell you that McEnroe is better than a 5.5. I saw him play in Boston last year and although he certainly wasn't up to top 10 standards, he was playing pretty damn well.

I think the guideline is meant to be taken as a minimum requirement. So McEnroe could not self-rate any less than 5.5 if he decided to play USTA. Although yeah he probably is above that, just like Evert is probably above 5.0.

But I disagree with the college guidelines where they say unranked D3 players are 4.5s, when in reality college players can be as low as 3.0-3.5 at some schools, but would be stuck self-rating at 4.5.

Rabbit 03-16-2007 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiden031 (Post 1317264)
McEnroe is a 5.5 according to the guidelines.


Wait, how in the world do you get McEnroe, John P. McEnroe, is a 5.5? The first thing the guidelines say is that they don't apply to professionals. The NTRP ratings are like handicaps in golf. McEnroe competed in two ATP doubles events last year winning one. This alone means he still has a 7.0+ rating which means that you don't need a rating.

Remember, the rating system is meant to insure that you are competitive among a group of players. That's why you can't play down.

raiden031 03-16-2007 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rabbit (Post 1317393)
Wait, how in the world do you get McEnroe, John P. McEnroe, is a 5.5? The first thing the guidelines say is that they don't apply to professionals. The NTRP ratings are like handicaps in golf. McEnroe competed in two ATP doubles events last year winning one. This alone means he still has a 7.0+ rating which means that you don't need a rating.

Remember, the rating system is meant to insure that you are competitive among a group of players. That's why you can't play down.

Look at the NTRP experienced player guidelines. There is a chart showing the downgrading of players as they age. I don't know if those numbers would actually be enforced if a former ATP tried to play USTA, but I'm just going by what it says. But like I said, its probably an absolute minimum for self-rating purposes, and is not necessarily accurate.

goober 03-16-2007 12:24 PM

A lot would depend on whether or not Chris Evert has been playing actively. If she hadn't hit a ball in 10 years and is out of shape, she would not fare that well. But 95% of all male tennis players would actually probably mean 4.5 and below club players so that is not that far feteched. There are not that many 5.0+ players percentagewise in the total tennis playing population.








-

sureshs 03-16-2007 12:48 PM

I think for sure a 5.0 male can beat her today. She still coaches at her academy and plays a little, but we don't know how good she is or whether she cares at all. The few times I have seen her at charities have been in doubles, and there was nothing exceptional about her play.

AndrewD 03-16-2007 02:29 PM

I agree, a 5.0+ male would most likely beat her. HOWEVER, I'm guessing that genuine 5.0+ players make up only 5% or less of the total (that means everyone, not just everyone you know) male tennis-playing population in the world. So, in that regard, the claim isn't as ridiculous as it sounds. Of course, I do also imagine that the actual percentage was exaggerated and not intended to be taken as gospel.

Just a note: Athleticism isn't confined to the things we can see - muscles- or the showy display - obvious foot speed. Players like Evert, Rosewall or, to a degree, Hewitt, who don't appear obviously athletic are almost certainly in possession of physical traits that put them well above the average person. I'm not talking about hand-eye coordination but things like core/trunk and leg strength which is essential in hitting sports. Speed can also be overlooked when, like Evert or Rosewall, the player's anticipation is so good (not to mention, the way they orchestrate a point) they don't need to make so many of those last minute sprints.

Gundam 03-16-2007 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndrewD (Post 1317691)

Just a note: Athleticism isn't confined to the things we can see - muscles- or the showy display - obvious foot speed. Players like Evert, Rosewall or, to a degree, Hewitt, who don't appear obviously athletic

Speed can also be overlooked when, like Evert or Rosewall, the player's anticipation is so good (not to mention, the way they orchestrate a point) they don't need to make so many of those last minute sprints.

I haven't watched Rosewall playing but think Hewitt very athletic, isn't he? Regarding 'anticipation', when Evert played Navratilova, she could look less athletic because Navratilova, being Navratilova, could hit really crazy shots from time to time. I read somewhere, Martina scored 140+ when she played bowling for the first time and the person who was playing with her was simply blown away. On the contrary, Evert's play seemed boring or slow but I'd open amazed with her anticipation and positioning-even though she didn't look very fast like Graf, often she seemed she was 'waiting' to hit the ball.

BTW, we are discussing ratings and percentage, not how you would play Evert?:-(

drakulie 03-16-2007 03:45 PM

I once saw an ex-pro play a few 5.0's. This guy was not ever a top ten player, or slam contender. He was in his mid to late 50's???.

He beat the living daylights out of a few 5.0's. One of the 5.0's was ranked top 5 in Florida.

After witnessing that, I would think Evert would have no problems with 5.0's.

Moose Malloy 03-16-2007 03:50 PM

Kaptain Karl could beat her, since apparently he can beat Serena.;)

Pete.Sampras. 03-16-2007 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheels2323 (Post 1317289)
I can tell you that McEnroe is better than a 5.5. I saw him play in Boston last year and although he certainly wasn't up to top 10 standards, he was playing pretty damn well.

I was about to say something similar. If McEnroe is a 5.5 then we're all just beginners :p

atatu 03-16-2007 03:55 PM

There's no way a 5.0 could beat her. It's not like she's been sitting around doing nothing since she retired, she's on the court all the time hitting balls. A good 5.5 who can serve and volley would give her a close match...maybe.

Moose Malloy 03-16-2007 04:20 PM

Quote:

There was an article I read in the Tennis Magazine that says Chris Evert still can beat 95% (or was it 99%?) of all the male tennis players in the world.
what issue was it? what was the article about specifically? did she say this or did someone else? thanks

Voltron 03-16-2007 04:22 PM

I can beat Evert anyday, as long as I don't actually have to prove it. ;)


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse