Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Yes but it was Evert's choice to not play more slams. However I do agree Evert should have won 24 or 25 slams, and should have made herself the real record holder rather than Court or Graf. She must be kicking herself. I wonder if she then would be considered better than Navratilova who only has 18 (and only would have 19 or 20 now even if she played the French and Australian through the 70s, if Chris also did, she wouldnt have benefited half as much0 or if MN would still be considered better because of her H2H ownage of Evert in the 80s. Peoples perceptions (often baised and unfairly slanted to MN IMO) of Chris vs Martina is why I laugh when Federer fans think the talk of the Federer-Nadal H2H and its impact is a unique case, people have always cared about major H2Hs between major rivals, even a bit too much at times.
I do expect if Serena reaches 20 or more slams, that will include atleast 1 more RG title.
With Federer I believe it is because of Federer's obvious weakness. I don't think that Martina had something that Evert couldn't handle. She just played better. I mean not match up wise, she would've been an equally big problem. No rock paper scissor type sh*t.
With Nadal, when you see him pepper Federer's BH, people know that the same trick wouldn't necessarily work on a guy like Djokovic or if we are talking 2006, Blake (
) Martina there looked unbeatable for any hypothetical opponent.