Courts Wimbledon record.

Truly the most obvious knock on Court as a GOAT candidate is not her Aussie success, or her politics, but the paltry number of Wimbledon singles trophies she walked away with and I want to know where they disappeared to. I thought we should look at it more closely. This we know. One of the absolute greatest players and specifically grass court players to play the sport, played singles 12 years between 1961-1975. She won 3 times, and was only a runner up two others. We will go year by year using Wiki.
1961: Court # 2, beat 2 unseated players before losing to #6 Truman in the QF who went on the final.
1962: Court # 1, lost in 2nd round to unseeded Billie Jean Moffit, who lost in the QF.
1963: Court # 1, beat # 8 Schuurman and #4 Darleen Hard, then unseeded Moffit to win her first title
1964: Court # 1, beat 4 unseeded players, then #3 seed Moffit, before losing to #2 Bueno in the final
1965:Court # 2, beat 5 unseeded players ( including Truman in the semis), then #1 Bueno to win her 2nd title
1966: Court #1, beat 4 unseeded players, lost to #4 and eventual champion BJK in the SF
1967: Court absent
1968: Court #2, beat 3 unseeded players, lost to #7 Tegart in the QF, who lost in the semis
1969: Court #1, beat 3 unseeded players, then beat # 7 Heldman before losing to #4 Jones in the SF, who went on to win
1970: Court #1, beat 3 unseeded players, then # 8 Neisson, #5 Casals, and #2 BJK to win her 3rd title ( the final was seen as one of the most dramatic in Womens singles history)
1971: Court #1, beat 5 unseeded players, then lost to #3 champion Goolagong in the final,
1972: Court absent
1973: Court # 1, beat 3 unseeded players, then #8 Morozova, then lost to # 4 Evert in the SF.
1974: Court absent
1975: Court # 5 (lowest seeding ever) beat 4 unseeded players, then # 2 Navratilova, then lost to #4 runner-up Goolagong in the SF.

She won 3, runner-up twice, SF four times, QF twice, and lost in Rd 2 once. Her Career w/l average was 85.10% (51–9). She lost to a lower seed 8 times, beat a higher seed two times. Of course in 1975 she did both and I think that is the one of two years she clearly exceeded expectations. The other is probably 1970 when she was so injured despite her seeding ,it was a surprise she got to the final.

While she was only once upset in an early round by an unseeded nobody ( that four eyed short girl Moffit), Margaret definitely underperformed compared to expectations most of the time.

BTURNER said:

Truly the most obvious knock on Court as a GOAT candidate is not her Aussie success, or her politics, but the paltry number of Wimbledon singles trophies she walked away with and I want to know where they disappeared to. I thought we should look at it more closely. This we know. One of the absolute greatest players and specifically grass court players to play the sport, played singles 12 years between 1961-1975. She won 3 times, and was only a runner up two others. We will go year by year using Wiki.
1961: Court # 2, beat 2 unseated players before losing to #6 Truman in the QF who went on the final.
1962: Court # 1, lost in 2nd round to unseeded Billie Jean Moffit, who lost in the QF.
1963: Court # 1, beat # 8 Schuurman and #4 Darleen Hard, then unseeded Moffit to win her first title
1964: Court # 1, beat 4 unseeded players, then #3 seed Moffit, before losing to #2 Bueno in the final
1965:Court # 2, beat 5 unseeded players ( including Truman in the semis), then #1 Bueno to win her 2nd title
1966: Court #1, beat 4 unseeded players, then lost to #4 and eventual champion BJK in the semis

Click to expand...

True, Wimbledon was not her best slam still winning three titles there is not horrible. From what I have read, she like Rosewall, had serious allergy problems which affected them at Wimbledon more than at other slams. What is interesting is that Court and BJK met in two Wimbledon finals and Court won both.

thrust said:

True, Wimbledon was not her best slam still winning three titles there is not horrible. From what I have read, she like Rosewall, had serious allergy problems which affected them at Wimbledon more than at other slams. What is interesting is that Court and BJK met in two Wimbledon finals and Court won both.

Click to expand...

Also, her loss to Goolagong was partly or mostly due to the fact she had just learned she was pregnant and physically not at her best. Losing to Goolagong, buy that score, proves that, as Margreat rarely lost to Evonne, especially that easily.

BTURNER said:

Truly the most obvious knock on Court as a GOAT candidate is not her Aussie success, or her politics, but the paltry number of Wimbledon singles trophies she walked away with and I want to know where they disappeared to. I thought we should look at it more closely. This we know. One of the absolute greatest players and specifically grass court players to play the sport, played singles 12 years between 1961-1975. She won 3 times, and was only a runner up two others. We will go year by year using Wiki.
1961: Court # 2, beat 2 unseated players before losing to #6 Truman in the QF who went on the final.
1962: Court # 1, lost in 2nd round to unseeded Billie Jean Moffit, who lost in the QF.
1963: Court # 1, beat # 8 Schuurman and #4 Darleen Hard, then unseeded Moffit to win her first title
1964: Court # 1, beat 4 unseeded players, then #3 seed Moffit, before losing to #2 Bueno in the final
1965:Court # 2, beat 5 unseeded players ( including Truman in the semis), then #1 Bueno to win her 2nd title
1966: Court #1, beat 4 unseeded players, lost to #4 and eventual champion BJK in the SF
1967: Court absent
1968: Court #2, beat 3 unseeded players, lost to #7 Tegart in the QF, who lost in the semis
1969: Court #1, beat 3 unseeded players, then beat # 7 Heldman before losing to #4 Jones in the SF, who went on to win
1970: Court #1, beat 3 unseeded players, then # 8 Neisson, #5 Casals, and #2 BJK to win her 3rd title ( the final was seen as one of the most dramatic in Womens singles history)
1971: Court #1, beat 5 unseeded players, then lost to #3 champion Goolagong in the final,
1972: Court absent
1973: Court # 1, beat 3 unseeded players, then #8 Morozova, then lost to # 4 Evert in the SF.
1974: Court absent
1975: Court # 5 (lowest seeding ever) beat 4 unseeded players, then # 2 Navratilova, then lost to #4 runner-up Goolagong in the SF.

She won 3, runner-up twice, SF four times, QF twice, and lost in Rd 2 once. Her Career w/l average was 85.10% (51–9). She lost to a lower seed 8 times, beat a higher seed two times. Of course in 1975 she did both and I think that is the one of two years she clearly exceeded expectations. The other is probably 1970 when she was so injured despite her seeding ,it was a surprise she got to the final.

While she was only once upset in an early round by an unseeded nobody ( that four eyed short girl Moffit), Margaret definitely underperformed compared to expectations most of the time.

Click to expand...

The loss to Billie Jean Moffit does count as an "acceptable" loss given Billie Jean's eventual run at 20 W titles including 6 singles.

Someone less into tennis asked me to compare Serena and Court last year, and to give an educated answer I looked at Court's results, including the draws at the Australian Opens she won. It was pathetic. For example, in 1964 she won against a field of 27 players, 25 of whom were Australian. Her record is probably the hollowest in all of professional sports. Maybe she only won 3 Wimbledons because she actually had to compete against quality players?

AlexR said:

Someone less into tennis asked me to compare Serena and Court last year, and to give an educated answer I looked at Court's results, including the draws at the Australian Opens she won. It was pathetic. For example, in 1964 she won against a field of 27 players, 25 of whom were Australian. Her record is probably the hollowest in all of professional sports. Maybe she only won 3 Wimbledons because she actually had to compete against quality players?

Click to expand...

Doesn't make sense. She had a winning record head to head against every single woman in her era including Bueno, Hard, King, Wade, Casals, Richey,Goolagong, won the majority of finals she reached, and she played them all over the globe, including at the US national where she has 6 titles and five RG titles. Court had a career w/l average of 91%.

BTURNER said:

Doesn't make sense. She had a winning record head to head against every single woman in her era including Bueno, Hard, King, Wade, Casals, Richey,Goolagong, won the majority of finals she reached, and she played them all over the globe, including at the US national where she has 6 titles and five RG titles. Court had a career w/l average of 91%.

Click to expand...

True facts, but some haters here do not care about facts. Of the 11 Aussie titles she won she beat King and Bueno twice each. She also beat Goolagong twice when she was a top player, which counts to 6 of her titles. Whenever the top players came to Australia, she won except in 69 when she came back fro a year off the tour.

Greatgatsby said:

The loss to Billie Jean Moffit does count as an "acceptable" loss given Billie Jean's eventual run at 20 W titles including 6 singles.

Click to expand...

She did not win them as an unseeded girl. The beauty of seeding is that instead of comparing the famous or infamous names that we look back on now, you are comparing the quality of play at that time in history. Evert beat a 16 year old Seles , and a 15 year old unseeded Graf too, but not when they were THE SELES and THE Graf.

thrust said:

True facts, but some haters here do not care about facts. Of the 11 Aussie titles she won she beat King and Bueno twice each. She also beat Goolagong twice when she was a top player, which counts to 6 of her titles. Whenever the top players came to Australia, she won except in 69 when she came back fro a year off the tour.

Click to expand...

True, and some fanboys and girls, will always excuse every loss, and justify the relative poor showings of their favorites. Sooner or later one of those will show up in this thread too. It balances out.

BTURNER said:

She did not win them as an unseeded girl. The beauty of seeding is that instead of comparing the famous or infamous names that we look back on now, you are comparing the quality of play at that time in history. Evert beat a 16 year old Seles , and a 15 year old unseeded Graf too, but not when they were THE SELES and THE Graf.

Click to expand...

I see your point but I think a win over any top player early or late in her career is still a respectable win. Losses are generally properly seen in the light of the moment but the stunning upset Court suffered to a 15 year-old Evert in 1970 just weeks after win the Grand Slam did not seem as "stunning" once Evert's followup wins in Wightman Cup and the 1971 US Open run happened. Court herself writes about her struggles at Wimbledon over the years. One does have to wonder if the grass at Wimbledon was todays grass back then might King and Navratilova have a few less wins overall. We shall never know.

Also ANY win against Navratilova at Wimbledon is a HUGE feather in a cap. The fact that she did that rare feat in 1975 is major. She did win it three times and she did manage to beat two of the all time great Wimbledon champions during her career there.

BTURNER said:

Truly the most obvious knock on Court as a GOAT candidate is not her Aussie success, or her politics, but the paltry number of Wimbledon singles trophies she walked away with and I want to know where they disappeared to. I thought we should look at it more closely. This we know. One of the absolute greatest players and specifically grass court players to play the sport, played singles 12 years between 1961-1975. She won 3 times, and was only a runner up two others. We will go year by year using Wiki.
1961: Court # 2, beat 2 unseated players before losing to #6 Truman in the QF who went on the final.
1962: Court # 1, lost in 2nd round to unseeded Billie Jean Moffit, who lost in the QF.
1963: Court # 1, beat # 8 Schuurman and #4 Darleen Hard, then unseeded Moffit to win her first title
1964: Court # 1, beat 4 unseeded players, then #3 seed Moffit, before losing to #2 Bueno in the final
1965:Court # 2, beat 5 unseeded players ( including Truman in the semis), then #1 Bueno to win her 2nd title
1966: Court #1, beat 4 unseeded players, lost to #4 and eventual champion BJK in the SF
1967: Court absent
1968: Court #2, beat 3 unseeded players, lost to #7 Tegart in the QF, who lost in the semis
1969: Court #1, beat 3 unseeded players, then beat # 7 Heldman before losing to #4 Jones in the SF, who went on to win
1970: Court #1, beat 3 unseeded players, then # 8 Neisson, #5 Casals, and #2 BJK to win her 3rd title ( the final was seen as one of the most dramatic in Womens singles history)
1971: Court #1, beat 5 unseeded players, then lost to #3 champion Goolagong in the final,
1972: Court absent
1973: Court # 1, beat 3 unseeded players, then #8 Morozova, then lost to # 4 Evert in the SF.
1974: Court absent
1975: Court # 5 (lowest seeding ever) beat 4 unseeded players, then # 2 Navratilova, then lost to #4 runner-up Goolagong in the SF.

She won 3, runner-up twice, SF four times, QF twice, and lost in Rd 2 once. Her Career w/l average was 85.10% (51–9). She lost to a lower seed 8 times, beat a higher seed two times. Of course in 1975 she did both and I think that is the one of two years she clearly exceeded expectations. The other is probably 1970 when she was so injured despite her seeding ,it was a surprise she got to the final.

While she was only once upset in an early round by an unseeded nobody ( that four eyed short girl Moffit), Margaret definitely underperformed compared to expectations most of the time.

Click to expand...

Should we take into account recovering from pregnancy? Others like King never left the tour due to pregnancy.

pc1 said:

Should we take into account recovering from pregnancy? Others like King never left the tour due to pregnancy.

Click to expand...

You can choose to if you like, but Court was in complete control of the decision to return. If she wasn't ready, then either she made a poor decision to come ill prepared , or she decided that her enjoyment of competition was well worth seeing her reputation for consistent champion stature results take a hit. Coming back after pregnancy is no different that coming back after retirement, or coming back after a serious injury. You may not choose to leave the tour, but you definitely choose to get yourself back in shape, practice, and return. Court should do exactly as she pleases with respect to when she plays the sport she loves. She can do it pregnant or after childbirth, or injured or old or young. Court should be held accountable for the results of all her play because the results of those decisions is the product fans received for their payment.

I pay attention to the seeding. Evidently those who decided to seed her at Wimbledon as either #1, or #2, or in 1975 # 5, had confidence that she was playing at a high enough level to warrant those seedings. I choose to believe them. If someone beats the #2 seeded player, then they deserve full credit for beating someone who is seeded at two. Of course if someone is injured the day before, and that injury could not impact seeding that is different.

Greatgatsby said:

I see your point but I think a win over any top player early or late in her career is still a respectable win. Losses are generally properly seen in the light of the moment but the stunning upset Court suffered to a 15 year-old Evert in 1970 just weeks after win the Grand Slam did not seem as "stunning" once Evert's followup wins in Wightman Cup and the 1971 US Open run happened. Court herself writes about her struggles at Wimbledon over the years. One does have to wonder if the grass at Wimbledon was todays grass back then might King and Navratilova have a few less wins overall. We shall never know.

Also ANY win against Navratilova at Wimbledon is a HUGE feather in a cap. The fact that she did that rare feat in 1975 is major. She did win it three times and she did manage to beat two of the all time great Wimbledon champions during her career there.

Click to expand...

1975 was the year she turned pro. At that time, Martina was seen as a talented young gun who reached the finals of the Aussie and RG, but she was three years from winning her first major. That Court victory was a mild upset, but we also know in hindsight, how very hit/miss Martina's performances were back then. She had no sense of mental or emotional discipline back then and she lost a lot of matches by losing confidence or focus. She also lacked physical stamina back then, and that was never of problem for Court.

BTURNER said:

Doesn't make sense. She had a winning record head to head against every single woman in her era including Bueno, Hard, King, Wade, Casals, Richey,Goolagong, won the majority of finals she reached, and she played them all over the globe, including at the US national where she has 6 titles and five RG titles. Court had a career w/l average of 91%.

Click to expand...

No doubt she was the best of her era. My point is only that her slam record is the hollowest in professional sports, due to the Australian Open women's draws in that era being almost comically weak. That's supported by her record at Wimbledon, where she always faced the best in the world. And to build on that, I can't personally consider her the best of all time when Serena has won basically the same # of slam singles titles while playing through draws of 128 players every time. I mean, there is simply no way that winning a tournament with 27 players, 25 of whom are the same nationality, should count the same as winning a tournament with 128 players from all over the world. And yeah, I only care enough to even get into it because she's a proud homophobe.

AlexR said:

No doubt she was the best of her era. My point is only that her slam record is the hollowest in professional sports, due to the Australian Open women's draws in that era being almost comically weak. That's supported by her record at Wimbledon, where she always faced the best in the world. And to build on that, I can't personally consider her the best of all time when Serena has won basically the same # of slam singles titles while playing through draws of 128 players every time. I mean, there is simply no way that winning a tournament with 27 players, 25 of whom are the same nationality, should count the same as winning a tournament with 128 players from all over the world. And yeah, I only care enough to even get into it because she's a proud homophobe.

Click to expand...

1. I am not making an argument comparing her stature with Serena. Serena's era provides more challenges that came with professional tennis including a more internationally competitive field, and it comes more advantages that came with professional tennis. Modern medicine which lengthens and strengthens careers and massive amounts of money at the top, which funds any and all investments in that body and career. The difference between Margaret's 'investment capital' and what it could buy in coaching, training, and nutrition therapy and injury treatment and what the number 20 player could buy was smaller than the difference in 2012. Nowadays there is no doubt that Serena and Federer have been able to extend their body's athletic lifespan in a way, that past champions simply could not. Can you imagine what Court, Bueno and King's careers would have been like, if they had MRI to properly scan and measure their injuries, real sports medicine specialists to diagnose them, and laparoscopic surgical options and modern physical therapy to treat it without lengthy post-operative stays? Just imagine how much more healthy time they would have had on court, in their peak years, and how those peaks could be extended?

2. the larger draws came with more protection for top players in majors. In 1970 there were only 8 seeds dispersed safely in 8 sections of a draw. In 2015 there were 32 seeds in the same 8 sections. A lot of top players prefer to play more early rounds rather than less, knowing that the experience on the courts, and with conditions with unseeded opponents helps them gain valuable match play and avoid upsets rather than just create opportunities for them. Byes and too quick of matches in the first week are a mixed blessing at best. I am not sure that the 128 draw doesn't make top players better prepared to handle their quarterfinal opponents rather than less. In other words, maybe those extra early rounds actually provide a sounder performance level, that more than makes up for the numerical risk of two more matches.

3. If we agree that Margaret fully dominated her peers and rivals over a long career on all surfaces of the era, and we know she proved it in part by winning a majority of major finals she played, even excluding the Aussie, and in head to head stats, and we know she was consistent throughout her career by virtue of a 91% w/loss average, what is left for us to measure in a GOAT, that is really missing beyond those Wimbledons ? In other words, if we arbitrarily give those Aussie titles, say 'half credit' because they were weak, we still have astonishing dominance. That magic number '24', does not need to be the way we get her to GOAT stature if the evidence also exists outside that record number.

4. As the creator of this thread, I would really prefer that the political issues not intrude on this Margaret Court thread. It will really distract from my purpose here, and there are other threads that already discuss it.

It's hard to say, well she ONLY won Wimbledon titles. But to be the holder of the most grand slam titles and to be an Australian serve and volleyer who should have dominated on grass, that's kind of the feeling that people have about Court's record. It sort of sticks out like a sore thumb.

I will say this though, having won ONLY three Wimbledon titles is a good problem to have. Between her supposed lack of Wimbledon titles and her glutony of Aussie titles, these are the sore points that people go to when they want to criticize her record. She's no personal favorite of mine on or off the court, but I do feel that Margaret's accomplishments don't get their deserved respect sometimes.

suwanee4712 said:

It's hard to say, well she ONLY won Wimbledon titles. But to be the holder of the most grand slam titles and to be an Australian serve and volleyer who should have dominated on grass, that's kind of the feeling that people have about Court's record. It sort of sticks out like a sore thumb.

I will say this though, having won ONLY three Wimbledon titles is a good problem to have. Between her supposed lack of Wimbledon titles and her glutony of Aussie titles, these are the sore points that people go to when they want to criticize her record. She's no personal favorite of mine on or off the court, but I do feel that Margaret's accomplishments don't get their deserved respect sometimes.

Click to expand...

Its amazing to think that Evert has a better record than Court on Wimbledon grass. She at least managed to get into all those finals (10 times finalist in 18 entries) even if she lost most of them and only once did she fail to reach the semis.

Gotta agree w/ AlexR on this issue. Stunned me when I read Court's bio "Court on Court" 1975 and Goolagong's bio "Evonne" 1975 and both said more than once the only tournament that really, really mattered was Wimbledon. You'd figure in each's bio, with time to think about each thought ... they'd inflate their home country's major just because. But, no. Each placed Aussie Open somewhere below the Italian Open. Nuff said.

muddlehead said:

Gotta agree w/ AlexR on this issue. Stunned me when I read Court's bio "Court on Court" 1975 and Goolagong's bio "Evonne" 1975 and both said more than once the only tournament that really, really mattered was Wimbledon. You'd figure in each's bio, with time to think about each thought ... they'd inflate their home country's major just because. But, no. Each placed Aussie Open somewhere below the Italian Open. Nuff said.

Click to expand...

Its absolutely true that the Aussie was 'low man on the totem' poll, but honestly the French wasn't all that much higher. Neither Goolagong nor King had much interest beyond the obligatory collector piece title, much like the Aussie was for non Australians. Everyone wanted one before they retired, but few players showed up often either before or after they got one to fill out the ol' resume. Evert showed up for the Aussie in 1974, and did not return until she thought she might not hang around much longer, in the early eighties ( her first during her burn-out- maybe- I- should- quit phase) Only the US National/ Open and Wimbledon had true grand slam status all throughout these years.

BTURNER said:

Its absolutely true that the Aussie was 'low man on the totem' poll, but honestly the French wasn't all that much higher. Neither Goolagong nor King had much interest beyond the obligatory collector piece title, much like the Aussie was for non Australians.

Click to expand...

Maybe it depends on the player and the tournament. Evert did not seem to feel that way about the French.

1974
1975
1979
1980
1983
1985
1986

suwanee4712 said:

It's hard to say, well she ONLY won Wimbledon titles. But to be the holder of the most grand slam titles and to be an Australian serve and volleyer who should have dominated on grass, that's kind of the feeling that people have about Court's record. It sort of sticks out like a sore thumb.

I will say this though, having won ONLY three Wimbledon titles is a good problem to have. Between her supposed lack of Wimbledon titles and her glutony of Aussie titles, these are the sore points that people go to when they want to criticize her record. She's no personal favorite of mine on or off the court, but I do feel that Margaret's accomplishments don't get their deserved respect sometimes.

Click to expand...

Court did win 5 US titles on grass and beat King and Bueno, each twice, to win 4 of her Aussie titles. She also won 5 French, and as a 31 year old mother was the only player capable of beating Evert in a FO final in 73. Court also won 2 Amateur US titles in 68 and 69 in which most of the top players competed. Coming back after her first child's birth, she won 3 slams. Coming back at 34 after her second child was born was probably a mistake. I think the main reason she came back was because she was making more money than she had in her peak period. Like her or not, Margret Court is a tier one all time great post 1960 along with: Evert, Navratilova, Graf and Serena.

hoodjem said:

Maybe it depends on the player and the tournament. Evert did not seem to feel that way about the French.

1974
1975
1979
1980
1983
1985
1986

Click to expand...

Of course it does. Lets face it. European clay circuit were some of the easiest paychecks and tour points Chris was likely to see all year. Most of the time her opponents had trouble getting more than 3 games in a set. Its not she had to worry if she would last long enough to pay for the plane and Hotel bill. Margarent and Evonne showed up at the Aussie because it was at their backdoor, and easy money . They would also be pilloried in the Aussie press if they didn't.

I don't think too many people in their right minds really think of Margaret Court as the greatest of them all, and I think you're being a little harsh Take all her Aussie Open victories away, and from playing just three majors she still has 13 of the bloody things, and she still had the better of basically all of her rivals when they did go head to head. While it is sort of strange how Wimbledon is a relative weak spot for her, I think that is perhaps simply due to the court itself? She clearly was very happy at Forest Hills, and the Australian Open moving around all over the place masks a certain amount. Is it fair to say she simply wasn't as comfortable with the conditions of SW19?

ibbi said:

I don't think too many people in their right minds really think of Margaret Court as the greatest of them all, and I think you're being a little harsh Take all her Aussie Open victories away, and from playing just three majors she still has 13 of the bloody things, and she still had the better of basically all of her rivals when they did go head to head. While it is sort of strange how Wimbledon is a relative weak spot for her, I think that is perhaps simply due to the court itself? She clearly was very happy at Forest Hills, and the Australian Open moving around all over the place masks a certain amount. Is it fair to say she simply wasn't as comfortable with the conditions of SW19?

Click to expand...

I think to get her to the very top spot, you have got to look at the role that doubles and mixed doubles played in the sport back then. While the Aussie singles wasn't as important back then, doubles and mixed at all the majors were much more significant. King and Bueno, and Hard didn't give a rats ass about the Aussie singles, but they cared a lot about the US National doubles championship, and they weren't anomalies. Literally everyone played doubles and a lot of them played mixed as well, and how you did there was an important part of your reputation and legacy as a tennis player. It never occurred to players in the 40's 50's and 60's that the Aussie would matter more to a legacy, and doubles would one day be so marginalized and 'specialized' and disconnected from this general concept of 'Tennis Champion'. It wasn't of equal importance, but it sure was not irrelevant, and it wasn't a separate question. Any notion of ' GOAT' in their imagination. would inevitably ask how well you did in doubles.

its not fair to ask these questions outside the lens of historical perspective and apply only 2018 values to 1968 tennis players. If doubles was supposed to matter in career achievement back then, we cannot dismiss that priority when assessing these women. We cannot sneer at the Aussie singles because it was poorly represented by the crème de crème, and not recognize that most of following Margaret Court results were represented by the crème de la crème among the women, ( the top men players often did not play mixed)

Grand Slam Doubles results
Australian Open W (1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1973)
French Open W (1964, 1965, 1966, 1973)
Wimbledon W (1964, 1969)
US Open W (1963, 1968, 1970, 1973, 1975)
Other doubles tournaments
Tour Finals W (1973, 1975)
Mixed doubles
Career titles 21 (7 during the open era)
Grand Slam Mixed Doubles results
Australian Open W (1963, 1964, 1965, 1969)
French Open W (1963, 1964, 1965, 1969)
Wimbledon W (1963, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1975)
US Open W (1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1972

hoodjem said:

Maybe it depends on the player and the tournament. Evert did not seem to feel that way about the French.

1974
1975
1979
1980
1983
1985
1986

Click to expand...

FYI, Evert skipped the French from 1976 to 1978 to play Team Tennis, which is very telling. And sue barker, who won the event in 1976, said she didn't feel like she even won a major, more like a B level event.

Moose Malloy said:

FYI, Evert skipped the French from 1976 to 1978 to play Team Tennis, which is very telling. And sue barker, who won the event in 1976, said she didn't feel like she even won a major, more like a B level event.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Interesting. Another wrinkle.

(The women’s draw at the French Open in 1976 does not look that impressive: no Evert, no Navratilova, no Cawley, no Wade, no Casals, no Reid, no Stöve, no Morozova, no Court, no King.

The tournament did include Barker, Ruzici, Simionescu, Turnbull, and Masthoff.)

hoodjem said:

Thanks. Interesting. Another wrinkle.

(The women’s draw at the French Open in 1976 does not look that impressive: no Evert, no Navratilova, no Cawley, no Wade, no Casals, no Reid, no Stöve, no Morozova, no Court, no King.

The tournament did include Barker, Ruzici, Simionescu, Turnbull, and Masthoff.)

Click to expand...

This is where the tennis Gods did Evert a solid. Realizing that RG was struggling for credibility, they gifted a second, much better attended, clay major substitute to Chrissie by throwing greenish gray dirt at the US Open for a few years. Evert beat the best and the brightest on clay. She just waited a few months to get them collected over here.

BTURNER said:

This is where the tennis Gods did Evert a solid. Realizing that RG was struggling for credibility, they gifted a second, much better attended, clay major substitute to Chrissie by throwing greenish gray dirt at the US Open for a few years. Evert beat the best and the brightest on clay. She just waited a few months to get them collected over here.

Click to expand...

Yep. Didn’t she grow up on har-tru?
Sprinkled it on her Cheerios?

hoodjem said:

Yep. Didn’t she grow up on har-tru?
Sprinkled it on her Cheerios?

Click to expand...

hoodjem said:

Yep. Didn’t she grow up on har-tru?
Sprinkled it on her Cheerios?

Click to expand...

I think Collette Evert had a pregnancy craving.

BTURNER said:

I think Collette Evert had a pregnancy craving.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, on her ice cream and pickles.

BTURNER said:

Its amazing to think that Evert has a better record than Court on Wimbledon grass. She at least managed to get into all those finals (10 times finalist in 18 entries) even if she lost most of them and only once did she fail to reach the semis.

Click to expand...

I have always thought that Evert's Wimbledon record, and her skills as a grass courter in general, have always been underated. I think he early preparation, her anticipation skills, and her ability to block out things that bother other players like bad bounces all served her well on grass. She may not have had the serve and volley, and she may not have chosen to attack the second serve and follow it in like many of her actual grass court contemporaries, but she was more than able to mold HER game to the grass courts. Much of what Evert is all about was tailor-made for Wimbledon.

And I have always lauded her Australian Open record. Those firm courts with higher bounces were great for her. All of the serve and volley players loved a warm, dry two week period for the Australian - but so did Evert even if for different reasons.

It's really all about expectations, fairly or unfairly. Both Court and Evert have 3 Wimbledon titles. But given Court's background and strengths, 3 just doesn't seem right somehow. However, she had an excellent French Open record which may even things out for Marge.

suwanee4712 said:

I have always thought that Evert's Wimbledon record, and her skills as a grass courter in general, have always been underated. I think he early preparation, her anticipation skills, and her ability to block out things that bother other players like bad bounces all served her well on grass. She may not have had the serve and volley, and she may not have chosen to attack the second serve and follow it in like many of her actual grass court contemporaries, but she was more than able to mold HER game to the grass courts. Much of what Evert is all about was tailor-made for Wimbledon.

And I have always lauded her Australian Open record. Those firm courts with higher bounces were great for her. All of the serve and volley players loved a warm, dry two week period for the Australian - but so did Evert even if for different reasons.

It's really all about expectations, fairly or unfairly. Both Court and Evert have 3 Wimbledon titles. But given Court's background and strengths, 3 just doesn't seem right somehow. However, she had an excellent French Open record which may even things out for Marge.

Click to expand...

If Court had hay fever, similar to Rosewall, that might explain part of her supposed underachieved Wimbledon record, plus the time off for child bearing.

suwanee4712 said:

I have always thought that Evert's Wimbledon record, and her skills as a grass courter in general, have always been underated. I think he early preparation, her anticipation skills, and her ability to block out things that bother other players like bad bounces all served her well on grass. She may not have had the serve and volley, and she may not have chosen to attack the second serve and follow it in like many of her actual grass court contemporaries, but she was more than able to mold HER game to the grass courts. Much of what Evert is all about was tailor-made for Wimbledon.

And I have always lauded her Australian Open record. Those firm courts with higher bounces were great for her. All of the serve and volley players loved a warm, dry two week period for the Australian - but so did Evert even if for different reasons.

It's really all about expectations, fairly or unfairly. Both Court and Evert have 3 Wimbledon titles. But given Court's background and strengths, 3 just doesn't seem right somehow. However, she had an excellent French Open record which may even things out for Marge.

Click to expand...

Court's game was built for grass, but she adapted it easier for clay than most s/vers do . I have already mentioned how much more time on clay courts Australians got, than Americans and British players. Additionally, Court's great height / reach advantage and arm strength allowed her to drive through higher bounces without falling as far back in the court as other s/vers needed to, and thus she was regularly in better court position to charge forward or drop shot than, say
BJK. That same heigth has a bit of disadvantage over in England where slices and underspin are so well rewarded with wood rackets, wet conditions, pits, and low bounces. Court is scraping her half- volleys from further away than most women. Evert's game was built for clay but she more easily adapted it for grass compared to other baseliners whether they hit with one or two handed backhands. She was constantly using moderate underspin, sidespin or flat drives so the kind of groundies that would be successful on grass, were part of her normal clay repertoire. I did a study on her losses on grass courts. She literally never lost a tennis match to another baseliner from 1972-until Graf beat her in 1989 at Wimbledon. No losses to Austin, Jaeger, Nancy Richey, any Maleeva, Sabatini, etc. If you did not have an 'all court' game like Mandlikova or Goolagong, or a strict s/v game, you did not beat Chris Evert on a lawn.

But still Courts big serve should have been a huge weapon at Wimbledon and that same reach made it easier to handle passes and lobs before the bounce. I can't put much lipstick on this pig. There really is no satisfactory explanation for a woman with her caliber, to retire with only 3 wins and two runner-ups.

suwanee4712 said:

I have always thought that Evert's Wimbledon record, and her skills as a grass courter in general, have always been underated. I think he early preparation, her anticipation skills, and her ability to block out things that bother other players like bad bounces all served her well on grass. She may not have had the serve and volley, and she may not have chosen to attack the second serve and follow it in like many of her actual grass court contemporaries, but she was more than able to mold HER game to the grass courts. Much of what Evert is all about was tailor-made for Wimbledon.

And I have always lauded her Australian Open record. Those firm courts with higher bounces were great for her. All of the serve and volley players loved a warm, dry two week period for the Australian - but so did Evert even if for different reasons.

It's really all about expectations, fairly or unfairly. Both Court and Evert have 3 Wimbledon titles. But given Court's background and strengths, 3 just doesn't seem right somehow. However, she had an excellent French Open record which may even things out for Marge.

Click to expand...

Great post.
Evert's Wimbledon record is pretty amazing given her game and faster grass back then.
Court's Wimbledon record is good, but should have been better given her game.

If the Wimbledon grass had been as it is now, I have no doubt Evert would have more titles.

Evert defends her Wimbledon Record.