Understanding just how unbelievable Navratilova really was at her peak in 83-84!

[Condoleezza]

Originally Posted by federerfanatic

Explain to me how it was Hingis and Davenport were slumped or injured most of the time in 2000 and 2001. I can see 2002 and 2003, but not 2000 and 2001.
...

Venus Williams win/loss records are:
1999: 55:12
2000: 41:4
2001: 46:5
2002: 41:6

Venus was handed her defeats in that year predominantly by Graf, Hingis
and Davenport. She was 1:2 vs. Graf, 2:3 vs. Davenport and 2:3 vs.
Hingis in 1999. Graf retired in 1999, Hingis and Davenport started
their long slump/decline that year. Hingis didn't win a Slam after FO
99, Davenport not after AO 00. Of course Venus suddenly had better
results against both.
If we exclude Venus matches vs. Graf, Hingis and Davenport from Venus'
win/loss record, we get
1999: 50:4 (92,6 %)
2000: 36:3 (92,3 %)
2001: 42:4 (91,3 %)
2002: 40:6 (87,0 %)

Actually, a steady decline - if it weren't for Graf, Davenport and Hingis.
Go figure ...

Condi

[grizzly4life]

i don't understand the comment about evert raising her game. did she ever become semi-competitive with martina? my vague sense was it got worse, much much worse at times.

[AndrewD]

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

You make a good point, but other than Bueno, Goolagong and King I don't really believe that any of those other players could seriously challenge Court whether they were in the top 10 at the time or not, and since King and Bueno didn't play the AO every year in the 60's and Goolagong came along in the very late 60's and early 70's I still stand by my statement that it was a cakewalk for Court to win the AO in the 60's because she clearly outclassed the field most years.

The point I was making was that your post was a complete and utter fabrication.Please explain to us why you did that as, otherwise, I see very little point in trying to inform you of anything. If you're willing to lie to justify your (false) claims, why would I believe you're capable of accepting genuine facts that don't suit you ?

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by Condoleezza

The opposition in those years was an absolute joke.
Let's have a look at whom Navratilova beat in the slams in 1983/84 (she won 6 of 8 ).

FO 83: Lost in 3rd round against Horvath.
Wim 83: beat 3rd seed Jaeger in final.
USO 83: beat 5th seed Shriver and in the final Evert.
AO 83: beat 3rd seed Shriver and in the final 9th seed K. Jordan.
FO 84: beat 4th seed Mandlikova and in the final Evert.
Wim 84: beat 6th seed Jordan and Evert.
USO 84: beat 13th seed Turnbull (31) and Evert.
AO 84: lost to 9th seed Sukova.

Evert was a legit opponent but the rest were absolute clowns.
We don't even talk about Jordan, Jaeger and Turnbull.
Leaves us with Mandlikova and Shriver who were #3 and #4 in the world at that time.

Shriver and Mandlikova were still young (mid-20ies) at the end of the 80ies when they ran into Steffi Graf.

At age 16 Graf played Hana for the first time (in 1986 at Hilton Head) and beat her easily 6-2 6-4. Some weeks later she lost to her in 3 sets at FO 86 while having a severe cold. After that Steffi won against Hana 6-3 6-4 (Amelia Island 1987), 6-4 6-1 (FedCup 1987), 6-2 6-2 (Zurich 1987), 6-2 6-2 (AO 1988 ), 7-6 6-3 (San Antonio 1989), 6-3 6-4 (Amelia Island 1989) and 6-0 6-1 (Mahwah 1989).
So in 1987-89 peak Graf played a 25-27-year-old Hana Mandlikova 7 times.
She won all 7 matches and all 14 sets. The average result was 6-3 6-2.

Steffi had just turned 16 when she played her first match against Shriver at Wimbledon 1985, losing in a tight 3-setter. 2 months later she beat Pam at USO but lost again in Filderstadt. At the beginning of 1986 - still being 16 - she beat Shriver in a 3-setter at the Masters. So they were even (2-2 H2H) but 16-year-old Steffi had overtaken 23-year-old Pam in the rankings in the meanwhile.
Peaking Steffi played Shriver 3 times in slams in 1987/88 with an average result of 6-2 6-2.

So much about Hana and Pam, Navratilova/Evert's main opponents of the mid-80ies ...


Condi

This must be the Graf troll that I keep seeing references to. What a total lack of respect for Mandlikova and Shriver. Hana only won 4 grand slams and is a member of the Hall of Fame. I can only hope that "Condi" is as successful in whatever it is she does for a living.

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by grizzly4life

i don't understand the comment about evert raising her game. did she ever become semi-competitive with martina? my vague sense was it got worse, much much worse at times.

The head to head between Evert and Navratilova stands at 43-37 in Martina's favor. Who else besides Evert could have beaten Martina 37 times?!? Before a comment is made, I am taking into account that Evert OWNED Martina during most of the 70's, and then she had MAJOR trouble with Martina for almost 3 years in the 80's when she couldn't beat her 13 straight times. Chris was then able to not only start beating Martina again in 1985, she also took back the #1 ranking for 1/2 that year as well. Not bad for someone who was already in her 30s at the time. As for her raising her game, she herself has admitted that she was a better player in the 80's than she was when she was #1 in the 70's. She worked on her serve a bit, got much fitter which made her more fleet of foot and allowed her to hit with a bit more power and she also worked on coming to the net a bit as well.

[VikingSamurai]

Originally Posted by AndrewD

The point I was making was that your post was a complete and utter fabrication.Please explain to us why you did that as, otherwise, I see very little point in trying to inform you of anything. If you're willing to lie to justify your (false) claims, why would I believe you're capable of accepting genuine facts that don't suit you ?

Andrew I have always made reference to Margaret Court also, but as usual, these people simply dont want to believe history , and are always trying to change it..

I always say to everyone. You cant bag Margaret Court for being so good, and thats exactly what it comes down to.

History is history. Its just sad some people want to change it to suit their particular argument.. Margaret Court was, and always will be, the greatest tennis player to ever live!!

Dont believe me.. Then go count her name on all 4 trophies!

[Condoleezza]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

This must be the Graf troll that I keep seeing references to. What a total lack of respect for Mandlikova and Shriver. Hana only won 4 grand slams and is a member of the Hall of Fame. ...

Shriver is in the Hall of Fame, too. Yes, I don't respect her at all. Mean character, no tennis talent.
Mandlikova had some talent. Was worse than Novotna, though.

Condi

[Condoleezza]

Originally Posted by chris_in_japan

Andrew I have always made reference to Margaret Court also, but as usual, these people simply dont want to believe history , and are always trying to change it..

I always say to everyone. You cant bag Margaret Court for being so good, and thats exactly what it comes down to.

History is history. Its just sad some people want to change it to suit their particular argument.. Margaret Court was, and always will be, the greatest tennis player to ever live!!

Dont believe me.. Then go count her name on all 4 trophies!

Yes, all these mixed doubles titles at AO in the 60ies - awesome ...

Condi

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by Condoleezza

Shriver is in the Hall of Fame, too. Yes, I don't respect her at all. Mean character, no tennis talent.
Mandlikova had some talent. Was worse than Novotna, though.

Condi

This is laughable. No offense to Jana, who was a wonderful player. But Hana would've beaten her every day all week and twice on Sunday. Not that you would care to know why. But it has everything to do with the fact that Hana was much more versatile in the backcourt, especially off the backhand side, including a topspin backhand that was as good as her slice backhand. Because of her largely absent topspin or flat backhand, Jana was too easily attackable. Which is why she had so little success against Martina who was well past her prime in the 90's.

You disgrace Steffi. You disgrace her rivals who earned her respect and should've earned yours. And you disgrace players like Aranxta, Gaby, and Jana when you use them for your Steffi-worship and go around saying that they were better players than Chris and Hana.

The amazing thing about you, Calimero, is that if Steffi knew you, she'd be disgusted by you and your militant willful ignorance. Kind of like she's digusted by Gunter Parche. Steffi's far too decent for you.

[Condoleezza]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

This is laughable. No offense to Jana, who was a wonderful player. But Hana would've beaten her every day all week and twice on Sunday. Not that you would care to know why. But it has everything to do with the fact that Hana was much more versatile in the backcourt, especially off the backhand side, including a topspin backhand that was as good as her slice backhand. Because of her largely absent topspin or flat backhand, Jana was too easily attackable. Which is why she had so little success against Martina who was well past her prime in the 90's.

You disgrace Steffi. ...

By telling the truth about Hana Mandlikova?
Please explain.

BTW, Mandlikova won 514 and lost 181 matches.
Novotna was 526-208.
Almost the same - but Jana didn't play in an era where Jaeger and Shriver types could get to #3 and #4 ....

Condi

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by Condoleezza

By telling the truth about Hana Mandlikova?
Please explain.

BTW, Mandlikova won 514 and lost 181 matches.
Novotna was 526-208.
Almost the same - but Jana didn't play in an era where Jaeger and Shriver types could get to #3 and #4 ....

Condi

There's THE truth and then there's your truth. I think people have figured out by now the difference between the two............

Your lack of respect of a player of calibur of Mandlikova says a lot about you. And I'm confused as to why you would be so unkind Shriver. She did, after all, beat Steffi in New York during the year of her Golden Slam. Earlier that same year, she stretched Steffi to 7-6 in the third in Boca Raton.

I don't care to get into disparaging Jana or any other player. I'll leave that up to you. But without a doubt 1993-1999 will go down as the weakest time in womens tennis history. The actions of a madman in Hamburg, Germany made sure of that.

Really, you should've gotten some new material over the last couple of years. Your twisting of facts, incessant misuse of stats and context, and your taste for your own special Graf-tinted brand of revisionist history are as weak and transparent today as ever.

[Condoleezza]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

... But without a doubt 1993-1999 will go down as the weakest time in womens tennis history. ....

Wimbledon final 1993.
Wimbledon final 1995.
USO final 1995.
FO final 1996.
FO final 1999.

5 absolute classics within 6 years.

Thanks, Dumbo ...


Condi

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by Condoleezza

Wimbledon final 1993.
Wimbledon final 1995.
USO final 1995.
FO final 1996.
FO final 1999.

5 absolute classics within 6 years.

Thanks, Dumbo ...


Condi

"Dumbo?" I'm laughing at you........

The 70's and 80's were filled with even more classics, and by players who rank higher on almost anyone's all time greatest list.

[Condoleezza]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

"Dumbo?" I'm laughing at you........

The 70's and 80's were filled with even more classics, and by players who rank higher on almost anyone's all time greatest list.

Sadly almost no one remembers those "classics".
But people remember Novotna's tears in 93, the famous 13th game in the Wimbledon 95 final, Seles's return at USO 95 and the schooling of a ***** at FO 99. And they will even in 20 years ....

Condi

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by Condoleezza

Sadly almost no one remembers those "classics".
But people remember Novotna's tears in 93, the famous 13th game in the Wimbledon 95 final, Seles's return at USO 95 and the schooling of a ***** at FO 99. And they will even in 20 years ....

Condi

Perhaps in your own little world, which you're very good at building and then shutting out reality. Those "classics" will stand the test of time. Just as maybe one or two of the matches you listed will.

[tennus]

Originally Posted by Condoleezza

By telling the truth about Hana Mandlikova?
Please explain.

BTW, Mandlikova won 514 and lost 181 matches.
Condi

Condi, you seem to have a thing for dismissing the achievements of Hana Mandlikova. She was an incredible player with Grand Slam wins over Navratilova, Evert and Graf. She was, in my and others opinion an under achiever due to injury. Many of her losses came post her last GS victory in the 1987 AO. It is also well known that Hana was forced to recreate herself as a player due to a chronic back injury in the early 1980's. You point out the demolition job Steffi did on her in the 88 AO Q/F. Post 87 Hana was struggling to string matches together in tournaments and it was not unusual for her to capitulate badly mid tournament to the truly great players.........Navratilova, Graf, Evert. She also fell to some average players. In an extract from her autobiography "Hana"(1989) she says,"The game is going to change when Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova retire and no one should underestimate the marvellous advertisement they have been for womens tennis. The emphasis of the game could switch to Europe, with Steffi heading the cast of top European players. Steffi is already on record as hinting that she does not wish to stay in the game as long as Chris and Martina have. It is not easy to retain your eagerness, motivation, or even health, for a ten year span." Given this book was published in 1989 - quite an insight I believe.

[VikingSamurai]

Originally Posted by Condoleezza

Yes, all these mixed doubles titles at AO in the 60ies - awesome ...

Condi

Huh?.. Margaret Court has way more singles titles, doubles titles, and mixed titles that even Steffi could ever dream about..

Condi why do you always do this to yourself?

Next you are going to try and tell me that the colour black is actually white??.. Forget about tennis for a minute.. I want you to prove to me that the colour white is really black!.. And I am serious with this request!

[obanaghan]

Martina is supposed to be the subject of this thread. MN put together an unbelievable string of losing but 3 matches over the two year period and winning every major tournament(at least once) including 6 slams in a row!!

Adding in 1982 she only lost 6 matches in 3 years!! That's 8/12 Slams won. She won more Slams in 3 years than Hingis, Venus etc EVER did.

MN is right that hard work should count for something!!

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by obanaghan

Martina is supposed to be the subject of this thread. MN put together an unbelievable string of losing but 3 matches over the two year period and winning every major tournament(at least once) including 6 slams in a row!!

Adding in 1982 she only lost 6 matches in 3 years!! That's 8/12 Slams won. She won more Slams in 3 years than Hingis, Venus etc EVER did.

MN is right that hard work should count for something!!

During Martina's domination period she was SO much more fit than any other woman tennis player that she felt like she could run forever and get to any ball and serve and volley all day and then she started winning everything in sight because of her amazing fitness and her confidence soared as a result. The mental side of Martina's game was more of a weakness for her than anything else but she did become stronger in that regard.