Evert: Navratilova's forehand weaker than backhand

[Lionheart392]

On the History of Wimbledon dvd I have Chris Evert says in her interview that she would try to keep pounding Navratilova's forehand because she knew it was 'the weaker shot'. Do you agree with Chrissy here?

[jrepac]

that sounds unusual...unless, at W on grass, the backhand would be more heavily sliced? So, she rather play to Martina's forehand, which tended to have more top on it?

[Lionheart392]

Originally Posted by jrepac

that sounds unusual...unless, at W on grass, the backhand would be more heavily sliced? So, she rather play to Martina's forehand, which tended to have more top on it?

Maybe, I'm not sure if she was talking about their Wimbledon matches specifically or just in general, that's a good point. She was saying that if she kept playing to the forehand it would often eventually come up with an error.

[BTURNER]

Well she sure kept things to the backhand side on clay! She must mean grass. That slice was devastating and unerring on a grass court. On clay it was the backhand that was by far the weaker. Maritina's topsin was not offensive enough and could land short, her slice was dependable but did not bite enough, giving Evert her longer rallys free of risk.

[grafselesfan]

This would be a silly statement on any surface other than possibly grass. Even then I would disagree, but could see it.

[BTURNER]

Well, I cannot recall Chris Evert ever making a silly statement. And she knew Martina's game better than anyone on the planet. So we know what she meant.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

Well, I cannot recall Chris Evert ever making a silly statement. And she knew Martina's game better than anyone on the planet. So we know what she meant.

Did you by any chance hear any of her work for NBC from 1990-2003. Lets just say even an amazing genuis tennis mind on the court does not always translate to a great speaker of the game on air.

[35ft6]

She would know. Makes sense since Martina had a continental forehand. Edberg definitely had a better backhand. Not sure about Mac.

[obanaghan]

In 1985 in Paris Evert played the forehand because the backhand slice was a better approach for Martina. In 1986 she reversed strategy and relentlessly played the backhand corner. She tried to keep it deep and keep Martina off the net.

The big "problem" with anything Evert says about Martina at Wimbledon is that with 2 SF wins, 2 SF losses and 5 final losses, maybe playing Martina's forehand was not the right choice. 2-7 against the all time Ladies Champ leaves room for improvement on how to beat her.

[jrepac]

Well, beating Martina at the Big W would be a challenge for anyone....and Chris' game not terribly well suited v. Martina's on grass, I do feel.

Re: forehand vs. backhand, the comments on RG are true...in '85 she hit more to Martina's forehand side. In '86, what I remember from that is her absolutely relentless assault on Martina's backhand...she just broke her down. Clay was always a struggle for Martina and an advantage for Chris.

I can only conclude that on grass, Chrissie did not want that backhand slice coming back at her....

I actually liked the way Chris played Martina on hard courts....those were very balanced matches (in terms of strategy/shots) and at times, they seemed quite evenly matched (once Chris stepped up her game in the 80's to meet Martina).

[Mick]

probably chrissy meant when under pressure, martina would make more errors on her forehand than on her backhand (because she would go for more).

[CEvertFan]

Martina approached much more off her backhand side especially on grass and although more powerful the Navratilova forehand could be inconsistent so I could see where Evert is going with this comment. You all have to remember that this wasn't the same Wimbledon grass as they play on now - the ball stayed much lower and skidded much more through the court, especially a slice shot.


During the '86 French, Evert pummeled the Navratilova backhand only because it's much more difficult for a net player to come in on clay so Evert wasn't as worried about hitting to the Navratilova backhand on clay like she would on grass.

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by grafselesfan

Did you by any chance hear any of her work for NBC from 1990-2003. Lets just say even an amazing genuis tennis mind on the court does not always translate to a great speaker of the game on air.

It wasn't that bad. There are more than a few commentators who are/were much worse than Evert was in the booth.

[grafselesfan]

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

It wasn't that bad. There are more than a few commentators who are/were much worse than Evert was in the booth.

True, I never thought she was particularly great by any stretch of the imagination. However she still would be a big improvement over the current ESPN clown brigade who now monopolize tennis coverage, which is fast becoming the worst broadcasting team in history. Even moreso now that the previously quite good Shriver is sadly dropping down in quality so far (perhaps from years of working with the likes of Fowler and Carillo now), that Carillo is a shadow of what she was in the 90s, and that McEnroe and now Fernandez have become more about on air agenda pushing since they became Davis/Fed Cup captains.

Still Everts biggest fault was she often would make these rash statements on air which were reflective at times of some of her personal bias (eg- her friendships with players like Capriati, Seles, her kinship with Hingis who played a similar game and who she mentored some). Then rather than backing up on her previous comments would radically twist reality of what was going on to defend her previously incorrect claims.

I still remember the 2001 French Open final where she claimed Clijsters had nothing to hurt Capriati with, a short sighted claim considering most realized even young Clijsters was already at an almost similar level to Capriati as far as the matchup and on a clay court. Then as the match progressed bellowed out loud the whole match how Capriati was so subpar about 1000 times in order to save from embarassment given her pre match dismissiveness that it turned into an epic which Capriati might well end up losing (thankfully for Chris especialy she won). Of course trumpeting how Clijsters was supposably playing perfect tennis for herself too, even though the 2nd and 3rd sets the errors went way up from her compared to the 1st set, the 1st set being the only one where her claims of the play of Capriati and Clijsters were somewhat accurate and a set NBC didnt even air anyway.

Another example would be at Wimbledon 1999 when Evert cheerily boasted how Graf had no obstacle to claiming her 8th Wimbledon title if she got past her match with Venus as Graf was leading that match late in the 3rd set. I could agree Graf seemed like the favorite to win Wimbledon at that point (actually she was even before her match with Venus who IMO she was still favored to beat). However to say someone like Davenport, one of the 3 women who Evert noted was already in the semis, had no chance vs a still clearly past her prime Graf on grass isnt very logical. Even dismissing the extremely hard hitting Lucic who was having a breakout tournament as having any chance vs a past her prime Graf wasnt a totally safe viewpoint. Of course I also find it disrespectful for Davenport to have hyped Venus as this huge threat to Graf and yet Davenport as not even an outside one. After all Davenport was ranked higher than Venus at the time, and Venus had not done anything more than Davenport on grass at that point. Further disrespect was actually saying before the semifinal she thought Stevenson had a good shot to beat Davenport. Then when Lucic nearly beat Graf in the semis she barked in excess about Grafs very subpar play, just like she had in the Capriati-Clijsters French Open final where she wrongfully dismissed Clijsters as an easy walkover beforehand. Basically her commentary of that Wimbledon exposed much of her deep rooted biases for and against certain players, and also trying to carry the hype machine of certain individuals to the viewing public.

Also how many times do we have to hear her bring up the 1973 French Open final vs Court. We get it, you think you choked the match away since you were up 5-3 in the 2nd set and you love any excuse to try and remind people of that. I mean seriously I know she is your favorite player but didnt you notice she only brought that up only 200 times or so. It was like she was itching for an excuse to keep bringing it up again.