Stats for Navratilova-Evert (1987 Wimbledon sf)

Navratilova d. Evert 6-2, 5-7, 6-4

From the New York Times:

They are getting old for athletes, perhaps, but not going completely soft. They agreed that this was one of the better matches in their rivalry. What was lacking, though, was a sense of drama, shifts in the fortunes of both players. Navratilova won the first set, let the second slip away, then broke Evert to start the third, regaining control.

Navratilova served extremely well, hit her volleys cleanly and played with exuberance, looking frisky. She hit a diving forehand volley winner to give her set point in the first set. She tumbled again in the seventh game of the second set, hitting a stab volley winner that eventually led to another break.

''I felt as athletic as I have in a long time,'' Navratilova said. ''It was just winners, all winners for both of us. I think it was the best that Chris ever played against me and still lost.''

The match captured their styles and personalities perfectly: Navratilova displaying flair and emotion, Evert coolly shooting for the lines. ''To see Martina tumbling and rolling, I had to acknowledge that she's a great athlete,'' Evert said. ''But this was the happiest I've felt after a loss in a long time. Finally, I was playing well. I can't ask any more of myself.''

Click to expand...

My counts:

Navratilova won 105 points overall, Evert 91.


SERVICE

Navratilova won 57 of 72 points on first serve (79%) and only 4 of 19 on second (21%).

Evert won 48 of 85 points on first serve (56%) and 13 of 20 on second (65%).

I can't remember the last time I saw someone win a match while having only 21% success on second serve.

Martina came in directly behind her second serve 9 times, and lost 7 of them. She stayed back 8 times and lost 6, almost always after hitting an approach shot.

She won basically because she rarely had to go to a second serve.


Navratilova served at 79%, making 72 of 91 first serves (% by set: 85, 71, 83).

Evert served at 81%, making 85 of 105 first serves (% by set: 85, 83, 74).

Chris had a run of 13 straight first serves, Martina 10.


Navratilova converted 4 of 13 break points. Evert converted 2 of 4, losing her two chances in Martina’s opening and closing service games.

Navratilova made her first serve on all four break points she faced.

Evert made her first serve on 11 of 13 break points. Each time she got broken it was on a first serve.


Navratilova made 4 aces (all to the FH corner), 2 df's.
Evert made no aces, 1 df's.

Navratilova had 21 other unreturned serves, 4 of which I judged as service winners.

Evert had 5 unreturned serves. I judged 2 as service winners, though both came on exceptionally bad bounces.


WINNERS

Navratilova made 44 clean winners apart from serves: 4 FH, 7 BH, 9 FHV, 15 BHV, 9 OH.

Evert made 45 clean winners apart from serves: 17 FH, 15 BH, 5 FHV, 5 BHV, 3 OH.


Navratilova had 1 return winner (a netcord dribbler). She made 6 passes (4 BH).

Evert made 9 return winners (4 BH) -- six on second serves. On top of returns, she made another 14 passes/lobs (7 FH).


NBC:

At 4-5 in the second, Navratilova had made 32 winners and 10 unforced errors, Evert 30 winners and 8 ue.

At love-1 in the third, Navratilova was up to 12 ue. Evert was at 8.

At 2-4 in the third, Navratilova had won 67 of 103 approaches, Evert 22 of 32.

Krosero,

Great information again. Did you do the stats for 1980 US Open men's final? I was watching some of it yesterday and I was amazed at the amount of first serves missed by Borg. It was (from the part I saw) the worst serving performance I've ever seen Borg have.

pc1 said:

Krosero,

Great information again. Did you do the stats for 1980 US Open men's final? I was watching some of it yesterday and I was amazed at the amount of first serves missed by Borg. It was (from the part I saw) the worst serving performance I've ever seen Borg have.

Click to expand...

I did those here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=218007.

Thanks so much Krosero, Only match in which Evert had more winners than Martina! And to see Evert winning double her second serve points compared to Martina on fast grass is astonishing! What about the UE counts?

krosero said:

I did those here: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=218007.

Click to expand...

Thanks krosero.

BTURNER said:

Thanks so much Krosero, Only match in which Evert had more winners than Martina! And to see Evert winning double her second serve points compared to Martina on fast grass is astonishing! What about the UE counts?

Click to expand...

From NBC's stats, Evert was on pace to go over 10 ue's by the end of the match, Martina over 15. Those are very small numbers, and I doubt that my own judgments, if I did them, could be very far off, so I didn't see enough incentive to do them. We can estimate NBC's final numbers, and that's good enough for me, because UE's are not fixed numbers anyway (unlike clean winners).

Anyone is welcome to get their own counts, of course.

BTURNER said:

Thanks so much Krosero, Only match in which Evert had more winners than Martina!

Click to expand...

yes, that surprised me too. Moose has stats for their '82 final which may be more typical (http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=201778), though I think it's always dangerous to underestimate how many winners any baseliner can hit when faced with a serve-and-volleyer. Just because Chris didn't have a lot of a power doesn't mean she didn't have a lot of opportunities to hit winners.

This was the best tennis in their dramatic rivalry. I know it was the best Evert ever played on grass. It was also the best Martina ever played on grass and that is saying something.

By the way, krosero, do you find doing these stats kills your enjoyment of the matches as sport and theater? Does it distract from the beauty, drama and thrill to be seeing it like a clinician instead of a fan. I hope you enjoyed watching the tennis in the match.

BTURNER said:

By the way, krosero, do you find doing these stats kills your enjoyment of the matches as sport and theater? Does it distract from the beauty, drama and thrill to be seeing it like a clinician instead of a fan. I hope you enjoyed watching the tennis in the match.

Click to expand...

Well yes and no. When I just watch for enjoyment I sometimes zone out, stop paying attention. And that's no fun, it just feels like a waste of time. Taking stats, I pay close attention, learn a lot more, get surprised a lot more (like Chris' winners, or Martina's numbers on second serve). Watching that keenly, I enjoy the great points even more than if I "just watch for enjoyment."

But working with stats is still work. Fun work, but sometimes I do need a break.

If you're just asking about this match, I will say that maybe something is missing. The shotmaking was clean, but the match feels a little like a foregone conclusion despite Chris staying "close enough" in the games won (you can see it when you look at the total points won -- not that close). I never really enjoyed it in '87 when I was a big Chris fan, but even now that I probably appreciate Martina's tennis more than Evert's, there's something about it that's missing. Some basic drama.

Their '88 semifinal, that one felt wilder, despite less quality in the shotmaking. And it ended 7-5 in the third.

Navratilova made 44 clean winners apart from serves: 4 FH, 7 BH, 9 FHV, 15 BHV, 9 OH.

Evert made 45 clean winners apart from serves: 17 FH, 15 BH, 5 FHV, 5 BHV, 3 OH.

Click to expand...

what were the winners by set?

Their '88 semifinal, that one felt wilder, despite less quality in the shotmaking

Click to expand...

do you have any stats by nbc on that one?

It was also the best Martina ever played on grass and that is saying something.

Click to expand...

I think that's a bit of a stretch(Martina never said that, did she?) When you win 9 Wimbledons(several without losing a set) I would think there are a lot of candidates for 'best match she played.'

I found her play to be at a higher level vs Mandlikova in '86 & Graf in '87. Maybe because those players actually had something to hurt her with. I agree with krosero, nice match, but the result was never in doubt. When Hana opened the '86 final by hitting a barrage of winners, there was a different sort of buzz in the air...

I admire Chris for having such a positive attitude after the match. If she did believe that she played her absolute best tennis and still lost the match, it would've been easy to break down and just give up. But she clearly must've gained motivation because if I'm right she defeated Navratilova at the Australian Open the next year.

Moose Malloy said:

what were the winners by set?

Click to expand...

Martina - 11, 17, 16
Chris - 14, 16, 15

Moose Malloy said:

do you have any stats by nbc on that one?

Click to expand...

No I don't own a copy.

Moose Malloy said:

I found her play to be at a higher level vs Mandlikova in '86 & Graf in '87.

Click to expand...

I remember her being incredibly keyed up against Graf, and her concentration nearly perfect.

Against Chris she lost her serve for the first time in the second set, from 40-love up. I got the sense that she lost focus a bit, having been cruising.

Meanwhile Chris lost her serve 4 times, and each time she had a lead: 40-15, 30-15, and 30-love twice. Those were not due to loss of focus, I don't think. I just got the sense that Martina was serving so well, it was hard to keep holding with her -- particularly because Chris did not have a strong serve and was not exactly filled with confidence.

On the other hand Chris held once from love-40 and another time from 15-40. She also saved break points in two other holds. So she was definitely determined, but this was a tall assignment, beating Martina at W.

Lionheart392 said:

I admire Chris for having such a positive attitude after the match. If she did believe that she played her absolute best tennis and still lost the match, it would've been easy to break down and just give up. But she clearly must've gained motivation because if I'm right she defeated Navratilova at the Australian Open the next year.

Click to expand...

In fact Martina had just beaten her 6-2, 6-2 at the French, so imagine what she was feeling after she lost the first set here 6-2. She went down love-40 on her serve in the opening game of the second set but held. That was a critical moment, and she got out of it, made a match of it.

I'm sure it helped her confidence. The next meeting was in LA and Chris won 6-2, 6-1. The next year, you're right, she won at the AO, 6-2, 7-5.

I think on that Rebound Ace she had an edge over Martina, and their rivalry would have been more interesting if the AO had changed to Rebound Ace earlier.

Moose Malloy said:

what were the winners by set?



do you have any stats by nbc on that one?





I found her play to be at a higher level vs Mandlikova in '86 & Graf in '87. Maybe because those players actually had something to hurt her with. I agree with krosero, nice match, but the result was never in doubt. When Hana opened the '86 final by hitting a barrage of winners, there was a different sort of buzz in the air...

Click to expand...

In 86, the buzz did not last even a set. Martina did have to dig deep to break back from 3-0 down but afterwords, Hana never threatened in the tiebreak or thereafter. Both Evert and Navratilova knew that once some errors crept in, Hana would loose confidence she would not regain. Not that she self destructed, but it because routine affair. Martina made more errors and had lower first serve percentage in that match.

As for the Graf Match in 87, Graf was a little too green on grass and hadn't a clue how to return the hook serve to her backhand. she was too predictable in her passes, and did not lob offensively. Graf did a good job on her own servethough. It was a straight setter, and again Martina was not really threatened in the second set. By 1988 Navratilova's game had started its decline. I recall Evert being quoted as predicting Graf to win because she thought Martina vulnerable and not as sharp in the semi as usual.

No I have no quote from Martina on her best grass play. Do you, Moose?

Martina made more errors and had lower first serve percentage in that match.

Click to expand...

Martina served at 79% here & 76% vs Hana, not much of a difference(& she made 22 straight 1st serves at one point in that match, something I've never seen before, & coming from a S&V player vs someone in the zone, a pretty remarkable stat. Martina had to do something remarkable to get back in it that day, while against Chris, on grass, she just had to be solid & she would win almost every time)

And Martina made less ue's in that match(NBC only gave her 4 after one set, I wouldn't be surprised if she made 0 in the 2nd)
Hana had 2 after one set, and she certainly wasn't making more than a couple in the 2nd either.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=269268

No I have no quote from Martina on her best grass play.

Click to expand...

I think she said something like that after beating Graf in '87. And after beating Hana: “I can’t ever remember feeling so confident on my serve"

I love this match! It's one of my favorites to watch. I think the reason why I love it is because I had a special feeling while watching the match. I really thought it would be Chris' last match at Wimbledon at the time, so while watching it, I was feeling all nostalgic. I still get that same feeling when I watch it.

They did have another great battle at Wimbledon in 1988, but it had a darker feel to it than this match. There were no light moments in that one and the ending was uncomfortable to watch for me.

I loved what Bud Collins said before the 1987 match. After Martina had drubbed Chris on clay in Paris, he ended up picking Chris to win Wimbledon that year. But in his prematch analysis, Martina had been playing so well that he said on picking against Martina, "I feel like I picked Poland to win WW2."

Well, Chris put up a fight and made Martina earn it.

What is fascinating comparing the stats in the 86 final and the 87 semi. Evert and Mandlikova both won 65% of their second serve points despite their very different styles and second serves. Martina had no greater or lesser success. Even more interesting is the return success. Mandlikova thrived on the pace of the first serve . Martina won 70 % of her first serve points, but won 79% of her first serve points vs Evert. On the other hand, Evert crushed Martina's second serve. Martina only won 21% but she won 61% of her second serve points vs Mandlikova. Why on earth couldn't Hana do better on winning those second serve points?

By the way, Krosero I have seen this 87' match several times. I remember the look on Martina's face when she hit a DF in either the second or third set. You have her down with no DF.

BTURNER said:

By the way, Krosero I have seen this 87' match several times. I remember the look on Martina's face when she hit a DF in either the second or third set. You have her down with no DF.

Click to expand...

Thank you for checking! I wrote that part too quickly. I have her down with 2 df's, both in the second set.

I did not include either df, when I counted the number of times that she followed her second serve into net or stayed back.

You picked up on something unusual in this match. Both players were very relaxed. There were moments it had the feel of an exhibition, with some banter and laughter between the two on one occasion. Chris hit an overhead that almost hit Martina, she was sure the former czeck would run to the open court and Martina had given up and stayed. NO ice maiden here, but refreshing. good spirit from both. The number 1 player for was all compliments during the match. In both matches it was that early break in the third.

I think that this match was quite a bit different from their '85 final. I just re-watched that one, after 24 years (it was the match that got me into tennis).

They didn't hug at the end, for one. Just a handshake, no other gestures.

I thought Martina was more intense, the way she usually is in Slam finals: strutting about with great nervous energy, slapping her racquet, waiting to receive serves like a coiled wire, showing her emotions.

You can tell when Martina feels some threat from her opponent, and Chris had just beaten her in Paris. Bud said after the match that most people had picked Chris to win here too; they were even co-seeded #1.

Everything was more tense, because Chris got an early lead and had a lot of confidence. Her shots were bolder and she ran hard for everything (which I think requires a lot of self-belief). Late in the match she started pushing volleys hesitantly and showing some lack of confidence in holding serve (all the things that happened regularly in the '87 match).

Martina said that by the third set all the pressure she was applying was finally telling on Chris.

Thing is, Martina was attacking Chris' serve a lot more often in the '85 final, and she converted a few break points that way. That's why I feel, Bturner, that she still had another level in reserve, in that '87 match. Her form was great, so she produced all those winners with very few errors. But when she added the intensity that she brought to the final against Graf, I thought she hit another level.

I even think Chris was more intense and confident in '85, whatever the stats might be.

I didn't get any counts, and my DVD is missing lots of points anyway. I noticed Martina losing a lot of points on second serve, but she hit some good ones and won a few that I remember in the third set, which I mention just because in '87 she didn't win a single point on second serve in the final set.

I'd like to see this stat in more of their matches, particularly while Chris was still playing with wood. I wonder if back then she was able to attack Martina's second serve as well as she did later.

Martina theorized that Evert was unhappy about the warm-up, Martina was nervous and give her enough good overheads or some such thing. In fact, It was those two calls that went against Evert at the end. The reserved english crowd was booing the linesman. Evert felt hooked in the last two games. On replay one ws clearly bad and the other was iffy. you will noticed there was a very chilly handshake with the umpire. In both matches it was that crucial early break in the third On Evert's serve, first game of the set. Navratilova is always a great front runner. On grass its almost impossible to stop her. No matter how many great winners Evert hits, she always behind and pressured. I really think Evert serving first after taking the second set was the deal breaker. Notice that Chris's first serve percentage dropped in the third. Had Martina served first Evert would have gotten into the third receiving and attacking that serve, rather than "protecting her serve and getting tentative. . Might have made a real difference, Despite her reputation, Evert really thrives being bold and taking risks. Its jsut she wants to do it on her return game.

I just noticed this stat: Evert won 48 of 85 points on first serve (56%) and 13 of 20 on second (65%). Why on earth would she be winning more on second that first on GRASS? Obviously she was passing well. HOw often did Martina chip and charge on Evert's second serve?

BTURNER said:

I just noticed this stat: Evert won 48 of 85 points on first serve (56%) and 13 of 20 on second (65%). Why on earth would she be winning more on second that first on GRASS? Obviously she was passing well. HOw often did Martina chip and charge on Evert's second serve?

Click to expand...

See my post above, it was one of the differences I noticed right away when I re-watched the '85 final. Martina was attacking Chris' serve (even the first serve) a lot more often and forcefully in that match.

When I took the '87 stats I remember seeing her attack a few serves in the third set and thinking, why isn't she doing this more? In '85 she did it relentlessly, and converted a few break points that way.

After the '85 match, Bud told Martina that she'd come in nearly 150 times.

In the '87 match, after nearly the same number of games, NBC had her at only 103 approaches.

After the '85 match, Bud told Martina that she'd come in nearly 150 times.

Click to expand...

That's a pretty remarkable number for only a 3 set match. I wonder if there are many other players, men or women, who've approached as often, on a per set basis. Of course opponents are factors - when you have 2 players S&Ving on 1st & 2nd serve(Laver vs Newcombe, Edberg vs Becker, etc) no one can really chip & charge, like Martina vs Chris, so a player can only add to their approach counts on their serve.

Maybe Evert was better about keeping that second serve deeper than in '85. That I don't know. She definitely was more aggressive hitting her groundstrokes harder. It explains those 45 winners over a 'athletic' Navratilova. Navratilova was on the run, rather than having lots of time to set up for approaches. . While Evert had depth in the first two set of '85, there just wasn't this kind of power. Evert was also consistently approaching early in rallies which she did less of in the third set of '85. One of the definite differences in tactics in this match as opposed to '85 was the use of an EFFECTIVE backhand slice as a rallying shot as well as approach. by Evert, which stayed deep cut more severely. I really think you are not giving Evert enough credit for what I see as improved tactics and execution since '85 final. In general her game came down in those later two years . But there were few matches where improved power and more aggressive style plus the old concentration and desire made for glorious stuff. I submit this match is the best example. Some fall into the Bud Collins's trap where every single loss is about someone not coming to net often enough. Sometimes you play as aggressively as you are allowed.

Moose Malloy said:

That's a pretty remarkable number for only a 3 set match. I wonder if there are many other players, men or women, who've approached as often, on a per set basis. Of course opponents are factors - when you have 2 players S&Ving on 1st & 2nd serve(Laver vs Newcombe, Edberg vs Becker, etc) no one can really chip & charge, like Martina vs Chris, so a player can only add to their approach counts on their serve.

Click to expand...

Right, so you'd expect the greatest number of approaches by a SV'er against a baseliner. Which is why Edberg had 254 approaches (per CBS) against Chang in that five-setter at the USO.

BTURNER said:

Maybe Evert was better about keeping that second serve deeper than in '85.

Click to expand...

It's possible that there was a subtle difference, though I did not notice it. However, Martina was attacking even Chris' first serve in '85, and I know Chris worked hard on her serve but it always remained attackable. That was why I wondered why Martina did not chip and charge more in '87; those serves seemed very attackable.

Connors had a lower success on first serve than he did on second, when he lost to Newcombe at the 1975 Australian (64% to 66% per my count). With players like Evert or Connors that can happen, I think, because there's not a lot of difference between their first and second serves.

The real difference is a mental one on the side of the attacker, a decision on their part, whether to get aggressive when the first serve is missed. And that's where I see a big difference, on Martina's side. In '85 she was boring in on everything, even when it was difficult to do so. So I don't really see Chris keeping her back in '87, I just see a somewhat more relaxed attitude from Martina.

After all, she never lost the lead in that match. In '85 she was behind from the start -- and she felt a threat to her title. I really think in '87 if she had felt even more challenged by Chris, she would have raised her intensity, and one of the things she does when she's in that state is start to bore in on everything.

BTURNER said:

She definitely was more aggressive hitting her groundstrokes harder. It explains those 45 winners over a 'athletic' Navratilova. Navratilova was on the run, rather than having lots of time to set up for approaches. . While Evert had depth in the first two set of '85, there just wasn't this kind of power. Evert was also consistently approaching early in rallies which she did less of in the third set of '85. One of the definite differences in tactics in this match as opposed to '85 was the use of an EFFECTIVE backhand slice as a rallying shot as well as approach. by Evert, which stayed deep cut more severely. I really think you are not giving Evert enough credit for what I see as improved tactics and execution since '85 final. In general her game came down in those later two years . But there were few matches where improved power and more aggressive style plus the old concentration and desire made for glorious stuff. I submit this match is the best example. Some fall into the Bud Collins's trap where every single loss is about someone not coming to net often enough. Sometimes you play as aggressively as you are allowed.

Click to expand...

Again, you may be right about Chris' groundstrokes. I actually thought they were bolder and more confident in '85, when she was on the run. But you may be right in general, I just didn't notice a difference one way or another.

However, my point was about what Martina did with Chris' serve, not in rallies. And it made a crucial difference, because she converted a few break points in '85 that way, by chipping and charging.

I do agree that Chris came in more in '87. There was some improvement there, though she failed to punch away her volleys more than a few times, which allowed Martina to run them down and get all her spectacular winners (I'm not sure why you have "athletic" in quotes; Martina's form, physically, was superb). Partly she reminds me of Borg that way, a little tentative because she's not a natural up there; partly I thought her confidence was low in '87.

The reason for the quote is that Martina was impressed with her own athletic ability in this match. It is noted above in her remarks afterwords. She felt very happy with herself on that score. I fully concur with her assessemtn on that score. She was moving superbly. It was not a sarcastic use of the quotation mark . It was a proper use of the quotation marks.

It is not merely that I observe Evert as hitting more boldly, it ias a logical deduction. The winner counts are there. Evert hit a ton of clean winners. Martina , you and I think she was moving just fine or better than usual, and Evert's stroke production was no more deceptive. How do you explain those ground stroke winners but for either better tactics or bolder more powerful hitting than 1985.

BTURNER said:

The reason for the quote is that Martina was impressed with her own athletic ability in this match. It is noted above in her remarks afterwords. She felt very happy with herself on that score. I fully concur with her assessemtn on that score. She was moving superbly. It was not a sarcastic use of the quotation mark . It was a proper use of the quotation marks.

Click to expand...

Understood.

For Evert's net stats, NBC had her at only 8 of 14 approaches in '85, after 22 games.

In '87, after 28 games, they had her winning 22 of 32.

Bud was wondering in '85 why she wasn't coming in more, because she'd been all over the net when she beat Martina in Paris.

See my edited version of the above. As for Bud, Its an old constant and simplistic refrain of his, in every match he calls, on every surface of any two opponents. The looser did not come in enough. He said it every time Martina lost. In the 86' French Navratilova responded to the effect: "I tried, she just passed too well. You can't just come in on anything...."

BTURNER said:

It is not merely that I observe Evert as hitting more boldly, it ias a logical deduction. The winner counts are there. Evert hit a ton of clean winners. Martina , you and I think she was moving just fine or better than usual, and Evert's stroke production was no more deceptive. How do you explain those ground stroke winners but for either better tactics or bolder more powerful hitting than 1985.

Click to expand...

Well I'm glad when stats are emphasized, and Evert's numbers are great, but Martina's are off. When the winner of a match has only 21% success on second serve, you know something is lacking in her performance -- at least compared to her very best potential. And perhaps some of the credit can go to Chris for that stat, but no amount of effort by the returner should drive the winner's success on second serve that far down, if that player (the winner) is really playing to full potential.

It was so weird, that stat, so when I put in the '85 DVD I watched her points on second serve. I'm no expert at judging. But some of her second serves were absolutely handcuffing, both deep and sharp. And she won points on second serves with some regularity, particularly, I thought, as the match wore on.

So I'm not saying anything was really wrong with her serve in '87, in the sense of needing to be fixed. She wasn't lobbing second serves into the box. But you know something was lacking if the stat could be that low.

Now for Chris' winners in '87, yes she had a lot. Without question, it's one of her best matches. But we don't know how many groundstroke winners she had in '85, or even what her total winners were.

She probably hit more in '87, but six of her winners were off Martina's second serve, so anything lacking from Martina's end would have lifted Chris' total.

Tactics: in '87 Chris refused to go to Martina's FH. She just kept hammering away at the BH, often with crosscourt FH's. And the stats show Chris's FH leading all strokes in winners, which was a little surprising. And Martina has only a few FH winners.

I'm not saying it was anything new, for Chris to play Martina's BH. But she was so extreme about it in '87, maybe this was another factor that allowed her, rather than Martina, to take control of rallies and finish them with winners.

No question, Chris played a very clean match in '87. They both did. You can observe it, and the stats confirm it. But I find it hard to say that Chris hit her groundstrokes with greater boldness than in '85, when she played such a fine match and I saw her cracking passing shots on the run with great force and confidence.

And I don't see Martina taking as many chances in '87, which I think is because she didn't need to.

That said, I'm not pushing Martina's performance in the '85 final as one of her very best. So in the '87 match maybe both women produced better tennis overall. But I think there were things lacking in their performances, despite the clean hitting.

What is ironic is Graf ended up losing to Martina pretty easily in the final, much more easily than Evert lost to Martina in the semis. Yet I am pretty sure Evert would have had virtually no chance vs Graf in the final, and it is would have been a fairly easy win for Graf, probably similar to the Navratilova-Graf final but in Grafs favor. Graf was probably watching that match cheering hard for Evert to pull it out in the end as Martina would be the far worse matchup for her on grass at that point in time. Martina was able to exploit all of Grafs weaknesses on grass perfectly, something Evert playing with Graf from the baseline and without a big serve wouldnt have been able to do.

bumped for Evertfan's imput.

BTURNER said:

bumped for Evertfan's imput.

Click to expand...

Well one of Evert's "improvements" was that she did try to come in to the net more to take it away from Martina if possible but she was never going to be a great net player although she was a competent one.

Martina at her best had always been attacking the Evert serve (both first and second) but the low bouncing, skidding, fast Wimbledon grass of the time made it that much more difficult for Evert to get set up to pass Martina consistently, which is why she hardly ever beat Martina at Wimbledon and why Martina attacked the Evert serve even more relentlessly than usual at Wimbledon. Evert's number of clear winners in the '87 match just emphasize how well Evert could hit her passing shots (which was almost better than anyone else ever in the women's game) and it is probably one of her very best displays of her style of tennis. Also the low percentage of second serve points won by Martina might be an indication that her game was sliding a bit because by '88 (one year later) she definitely wasn't the same player that she was during her most dominant stretch.


Evert had used the strategy of hitting to the Navratilova BH to great success before ( '86 FO Final for one) and I think it was a sound strategy as long as she didn't give Martina anything short because especially on grass Martina would be to the net faster than you could blink. It was Evert's strategy against Graf as well - keep it deep to the Graf backhand and wait for an opportunity to go for a winner or wait for Steffi to make an error - which only got more difficult to do once Graf entered her prime.


Graf in general was a bad match up for Evert so I am sure that Steffi was definitely hoping that Chris could pull out the win over Martina although if Chris had beaten Martina in '87 then she might have won the whole thing riding a wave of confidence (which beating Martina at Wimbledon would have done for her as she hadn't beaten Martina at Wimbledon since the 1980 semis).

By '87 Evert was having a lot more bad days then when in her prime and it showed because she didn't even make it to one Slam final that year and the Martina/Chrissie show was now relegated to semis instead of finals.

I even think Chris was more intense and confident in '85, whatever the stats might be.

I didn't get any counts, and my DVD is missing lots of points anyway. I noticed Martina losing a lot of points on second serve, but she hit some good ones and won a few that I remember in the third set, which I mention just because in '87 she didn't win a single point on second serve in the final set.

I'd like to see this stat in more of their matches, particularly while Chris was still playing with wood. I wonder if back then she was able to attack Martina's second serve as well as she did later.

Click to expand...

Just did stats on the '81 AO Final - Martina only won 33% of her points on 2nd serve, despite winning the match.

Moose Malloy said:

Just did stats on the '81 AO Final - Martina only won 33% of her points on 2nd serve, despite winning the match.

Click to expand...

That's somewhat surprising, though you've got Chris down at 36% herself.

Navratilova won 57 of 72 points on first serve (79%) and only 4 of 19 on second (21%).

Evert won 48 of 85 points on first serve (56%) and 13 of 20 on second (65%).

I can't remember the last time I saw someone win a match while having only 21% success on second serve.

Click to expand...

Serena only had 20% success on second serve vs Azarenka at the Olympics(2/10)
She had 89% success on 1st serve(31/35)

krosero said:

Well I'm glad when stats are emphasized, and Evert's numbers are great, but Martina's are off. When the winner of a match has only 21% success on second serve, you know something is lacking in her performance -- at least compared to her very best potential. And perhaps some of the credit can go to Chris for that stat, but no amount of effort by the returner should drive the winner's success on second serve that far down, if that player (the winner) is really playing to full potential.

It was so weird, that stat, so when I put in the '85 DVD I watched her points on second serve. I'm no expert at judging. But some of her second serves were absolutely handcuffing, both deep and sharp. And she won points on second serves with some regularity, particularly, I thought, as the match wore on.

So I'm not saying anything was really wrong with her serve in '87, in the sense of needing to be fixed. She wasn't lobbing second serves into the box. But you know something was lacking if the stat could be that low.

Now for Chris' winners in '87, yes she had a lot. Without question, it's one of her best matches. But we don't know how many groundstroke winners she had in '85, or even what her total winners were.

She probably hit more in '87, but six of her winners were off Martina's second serve, so anything lacking from Martina's end would have lifted Chris' total.

Tactics: in '87 Chris refused to go to Martina's FH. She just kept hammering away at the BH, often with crosscourt FH's. And the stats show Chris's FH leading all strokes in winners, which was a little surprising. And Martina has only a few FH winners.

I'm not saying it was anything new, for Chris to play Martina's BH. But she was so extreme about it in '87, maybe this was another factor that allowed her, rather than Martina, to take control of rallies and finish them with winners.

No question, Chris played a very clean match in '87. They both did. You can observe it, and the stats confirm it. But I find it hard to say that Chris hit her groundstrokes with greater boldness than in '85, when she played such a fine match and I saw her cracking passing shots on the run with great force and confidence.

And I don't see Martina taking as many chances in '87, which I think is because she didn't need to.

That said, I'm not pushing Martina's performance in the '85 final as one of her very best. So in the '87 match maybe both women produced better tennis overall. But I think there were things lacking in their performances, despite the clean hitting.

Click to expand...

First I have to say, even after all this time, I appreciate this kind of dialogue and in depth discussion by all parties in this thread. Here opinion and statistics blend in harmony, rather than dissonance or obstinence. I learned a lot not just on how to use objective data (supplied by those kind enough to do the work), but its limitations. The data is only enlightening, if those who are using it, interpret it knowledgeably and without any duty imposed by agenda or ego.

Krosero, what you saw as bold passes on the run, in '85 and they were beautiful, I saw as great and glorious desperation gets, that showed a player in too much trouble if those are the kind of shots she has to depend on, to keep from loosing her serve. Those incredible passes on the run at the end of the first set and in the middle of the second to protect her serve and stay even, may have showed that she had great footspeed and determination, but also spell a lack of control over the rallies to get into the situation in the first place. I think Evert did not make as many of those dramatic shots on her serve in '87, yes because Martina wasn't attacking the second as much and because because Evert was controlling those rallies and keeping Martina on the run or pinned with the tactics you mentioned . If Evert has to hit her passes on the dead run on, break point after break point, she is going to loose no matter how hard she tries or how fast she is.

So I think we are both right. Martina did not attack the second so she wasn't playing as intensely in '87, and Evert was hitting her groundies/ better and controlling the points from the back of the court with greater power.

BTURNER said:

First I have to say, even after all this time, I appreciate this kind of dialogue and in depth discussion by all parties in this thread. Here opinion and statistics blend in harmony, rather than dissonance or obstinence. I learned a lot not just on how to use objective data (supplied by those kind enough to do the work), but its limitations. The data is only enlightening, if those who are using it, interpret it knowledgeably and without any duty imposed by agenda or ego.

Krosero, what you saw as bold passes on the run, in '85 and they were beautiful, I saw as great and glorious desperation gets, that showed a player in too much trouble if those are the kind of shots she has to depend on, to keep from loosing her serve. Those incredible passes on the run at the end of the first set and in the middle of the second to protect her serve and stay even, may have showed that she had great footspeed and determination, but also spell a lack of control over the rallies to get into the situation in the first place. I think Evert did not make as many of those dramatic shots on her serve in '87, yes because Martina wasn't attacking the second as much and because because Evert was controlling those rallies and keeping Martina on the run or pinned with the tactics you mentioned . If Evert has to hit her passes on the dead run on, break point after break point, she is going to loose no matter how hard she tries or how fast she is.

So I think we are both right. Martina did not attack the second so she wasn't playing as intensely in '87, and Evert was hitting her groundies/ better and controlling the points from the back of the court with greater power.

Click to expand...

It's been so long since the discussion, and I can't recall the matches very well right now. But it's a logical argument, you could be right.

Appreciate your remarks about the discussion.

Moose Malloy said:

Serena only had 20% success on second serve vs Azarenka at the Olympics(2/10)

Click to expand...

And Azarenka was down at 17% herself. That is much less surprising since she got blown out (she won only 55% on 1st serve), but still, 17% is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Surprising to see Serena at 20%.

Huge difference between her 1st and 2nd success rates.

BTURNER said:

First I have to say, even after all this time, I appreciate this kind of dialogue and in depth discussion by all parties in this thread. Here opinion and statistics blend in harmony, rather than dissonance or obstinence. I learned a lot not just on how to use objective data (supplied by those kind enough to do the work), but its limitations. The data is only enlightening, if those who are using it, interpret it knowledgeably and without any duty imposed by agenda or ego.

Krosero, what you saw as bold passes on the run, in '85 and they were beautiful, I saw as great and glorious desperation gets, that showed a player in too much trouble if those are the kind of shots she has to depend on, to keep from loosing her serve. Those incredible passes on the run at the end of the first set and in the middle of the second to protect her serve and stay even, may have showed that she had great footspeed and determination, but also spell a lack of control over the rallies to get into the situation in the first place. I think Evert did not make as many of those dramatic shots on her serve in '87, yes because Martina wasn't attacking the second as much and because because Evert was controlling those rallies and keeping Martina on the run or pinned with the tactics you mentioned . If Evert has to hit her passes on the dead run on, break point after break point, she is going to loose no matter how hard she tries or how fast she is.

So I think we are both right. Martina did not attack the second so she wasn't playing as intensely in '87, and Evert was hitting her groundies/ better and controlling the points from the back of the court with greater power.

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with you on that point - if Evert is in control of a match she doesn't need to go for those glorious, on the run, amazing passing shots, yes she's definitely a shot maker who's capable of pulling them off, but to constantly have to do that to just stay even says a lot about who was in control of the match. Evert's serve was attackable and no one attacked both first and second serves better than Navratilova did and nine times out of ten if Navratilova was at her attacking best then Evert would have a really tough time winning those types of matches.

Evert didn't always need Navratilova to be a little off but it sure did help her cause and if Martina was really off on that day then Evert would give her a severe beatdown (that 6-0, 6-0 drubbing at Amelia Island comes to mind).