Talk Tennis

Talk Tennis (
-   Former Pro Player Talk (
-   -   70 Richey vs 80 Shriver (

kiki 08-08-2014 06:35 AM

70 Richey vs 80 Shriver
Another big server and volleyer (Shriver) facing a grinder from the baseline, with solid groundies (Richey)

Richey was a tougher competitor and won two slams ( even if in the 60īs) while Pam, in spite of some big wins ( Austin at Wimbledon 81 and Navratilova at US Open 78 and 82 ) never went far enough at majors, except when she was a young 16 yrs old girl who was roundly beaten in the 1978 USO final by the experienced Chris Evert.

On grass Pam wins 2-1 and indoors it is 3-0.But Richey wins 3-0 on clay and 2-1 on hard, and her superior will and determination prove too much for Pam when they play a deciding tie break, which Nancy wins 9-7.

it is 5-4 for the 70īs...

conway 08-08-2014 05:04 PM

I would favor Richey. Credit to Shriver for really going far and beyond getting the most out of her potential. To be a top 5 singles player so long with such glaring weaknesses and lack of natural ability is incredible. However Shriver also benefited from peaking in the mid 80s with one of the weakest and least deep womens fields the game has ever seen. Richey played in a far tougher era with Court, Jones, young Evert, King, Goolagong, Wade, Turner, and many others that were formidable players.

Richey's passing game was excellent, and she also had enough power to make it hard for Shriver to come in as quickly and off as effective of approaches as she would like. Shriver's incredible court smarts and array of strange, yet hard to deal with shots would make it a battle, but I see Nancy coming out ahead most of the time. The only surface I might give Pam an edge is grass. Even there look at how Graf was mutiliating Shriver at Wimbledon when Pam was arguably at her all time peak level of play in 87-88, and it is hard to look past the power baseliner in Richey even there.

BTURNER 08-08-2014 07:04 PM

Richey is a tough customer vs s/ver's on any court. She faced the toughest in a grass court era. what makes this a tough call, is that neither of these is quick on the mark and that is where the Graf analogy fails here. Graf could reach any volley in any corner of the court. Richey certainly won't, but then Shriver won't be running down those forehands all that well either.. Richey wins all the clay. Shriver wins most of grass meetings. On the other two surfaces, I'll give slightest edge to Richey because she is so mentally tough. Shriver's going to make life unpleasant on carpet with awkward underspins and Richey will return the favor on a higher bouncing hard court.

conway 08-08-2014 07:09 PM

Richey doesn't move like Graf of course, but from the clips I have seen of her she seemed to be a good mover for her era. Certainly a far better mover than Shriver (although Shriver had very good coverage at the net despite this).

BTURNER 08-08-2014 07:37 PM


Originally Posted by conway (Post 8626904)
Richey doesn't move like Graf of course, but from the clips I have seen of her she seemed to be a good mover for her era. Certainly a far better mover than Shriver (although Shriver had very good coverage at the net despite this).

According to Wade and Richey herself in an interview, it was her one liability and it often made her even more bold early in rallies off her forehand so as not to get into trouble back there. She said, while she wasn't slow, she wasn't as quick as 'a lot of the gals who were better athletes'

The video I have seen was of an aging Richey, so I could neither concur nor dispute. Shriver was a gorilla with especially long arms.

Con_T 08-09-2014 05:03 PM

Perhaps this match-up comes down to the speed of the court surface.

kiki 08-12-2014 03:34 PM

Did Shriver make a final at a major championship after that USO in 1978, when she was barely 16? I donīt think so, maybe a Virginia Slims final but that is about it.

And she played the late 80īs which were an open field once Martina grew older ( and Chris grew older).

She simply was not good enough.She was a Mary Jo Fernandez kind of player.

conway 08-12-2014 07:46 PM

And that is why one should favor Richey in this matchup. Richey was good enough to be a major champion. Shriver was not. I know one can say Shriver was unlucky to be in the era of Martina and Chris, but really how many eras would Shriver have won a major in? You cant even say this era which has seen some weak major winners (Schiavone, Stosur, Ivanovic) since the current conditions would be absolutely horrible for Pam to the point she probably wouldn't even be a top 50 player today. Richey atleast would win a French Open or two (or in some cases more) in almost any era, and could even win an Australian Open once hard courts came into play (and maybe a U.S Open). Despite being semi dominant on clay and being a multiple winner at RG, and having the handicapt of 3 of the 4 majors being on her worst surface (grass), Richey reached multiple U.S Open finals on grass with wins over the likes of Court and King. Shriver's best surface was grass, and couldn't even produce wins like that hardly ever in a big grass event.

I do concur with the Fernandez comparision in more ways than one, as despite their vastly different games, Shriver is like Fernandez an admirable overachiever who got more than the most out of herself. Probably even more of one than Fernandez, who weaponless as she was, had no glaring technical weakness, which Shriver had many of.

Another point of comparision would be Chris Evert. Richey owned young Evert, and even way past Richey's prime was up a set and something like 5-1, match points on Evert on clay in 1975, before cramping up, losing her lead and retiring before the match was over. Shriver lost 17 times in a row to Chris, and didn't get her first win until late 1987 when Chris was almost 33.

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:36 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2006 - Tennis Warehouse