View Single Post
Old 08-12-2014, 07:46 PM   #8
conway
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 721
Default

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.

Last edited by conway : 08-12-2014 at 07:53 PM.
conway is offline   Reply With Quote