Best and 2nd best players of each decade of Open Era

[Trillus]

Here would be my choices as the best and 2nd best players of each decade of the Open Era:

1970s women: Best- Court. The Grand Slam trumps Evert's 1 more major title.
2nd best- Evert. Better overall than King.

1980s women: Best- Navratilova.
2nd best- Graf. Again the Grand Slam trumps the 1 extra major title of Evert.

1990s women: Best- Graf. Even without the stabbing I am sure she would have ended up with as many or more slams for the decade than Seles, and a much more balanced record with better longevity even in the decade alone.

2nd best: Seles. 2 years of dominance trumps Hingis's 1 year of dominance. Plus without the stabbing she probably wins another few slams and is even further ahead.

2000s womens: Best- Serena.
2nd best: Henin or Venus. Toss up, probably Henin by a bit since many of Venus's great non slam showings were in the 90s.

1970s men: Best- Connors. I give him the edge over Borg since he was pretty dominant from 1974 to 1976.

2nd best: Borg

1980s men: Best- Lendl. Just for being more consistent over the whole decade even without winning a major the first 4 years of it.
2nd best: Best- McEnroe. At his best better than Lendl but a relative irrelevance after 1985.

1990s men: Best- Sampras
2nd best: Courier. I picked Courier as 2nd best since he actually was a dominant player for awhile which Agassi was not, and that overcomes 1 major for me. And while Courier didnt win a Wimbledon or U.S Open (making finals of both) Agassi wouldnt have either if he played Sampras the years he made it.

2000s men: Best- Federer
2nd best: Nadal

 

[boredone3456]

The best of the 70's for the ladies is Evert. Court after 1973 was almost a non-entity on the tour, playing next to nothing, especially after 1975. She won the Calender Grand Slam, but thats not enough to give her best player of a decade she only played half of really if you add up all her tournament time.

Evert during the 1970's won all of the French, Wimbledon and US Open at least twice, and if she went down to the Australian every year I don't doubt she couldn't have won 2 there, since she was capable of beating Goolagong who was sweeping up slams down there, and no one else could really consistently threaten her (beat her yes, pose a permanent problem, no). If not for World Team Tennis she likely would have won at least one french between 1976 and 1978, and probably would have won more than one, increasing her slam count over Court, Especially since she won in 74 and 75, and again in 79 and 80 and won the US Open all three of those years (it was played on clay at the time). From 1974-1977 she was the yr end number 1 player, won a ton of titles. Her 125 match clay win streak during this time was something Court never came close to on any surface, yes you could say the competition was bad, but the mental strain of keeping up a streak that big for as long as she did, and then after losing it being able to rebound and win another string of matches on the stuff, is mind boggling. Not losing a match on a surface for about 6 years, along with everything else Evert did in the 1970s, is enough to put her over Court for that Decade. Court is arguably the best of the 60s....Evert takes the 70s.

 

[Trillus]

The best of the 70's for the ladies is Evert. Court after 1973 was almost a non-entity on the tour, playing next to nothing, especially after 1975.

And that is why I feel she was the best of the decade. Only playing about 3-4 years of full time tennis she still achieved about as much as Evert did playing nearly the whole decade.

As for beating Goolagong in Australia, of course she could have, but Goolagong had a 2-1 record vs her on grass during the 74-76 period both were at their best (4-4 lifetime) with Evert's only win during this time being 8-6 in the 3rd, and Evonne would have had the home court advantage, so it wouldnt have been easy. Chris played Wimbledon on grass every year and only won it 3 times, and she won the Australian 2 times already as it was, so I dont see a particular reason to assume she would have won it alot more when there would have been Goolagong, Navratilova, King, Austin, all at various points in multiples to contend with. Let say everyone played the Australia then, everyone played the French every year, and the U.S Open were always on hard courts. Lets say she wins another 1-2 Australian Opens, another 2-3 French Opens, and loses out on 1 or 2 U.S Opens (she probably doesnt sweep from 75 to 77 if not still on clay). So lets say overall she adds another 3 slams and has 12 for the 70s instead of 9. I would still take a someone who managed a Grand Slam and 8 majors despite playing only a third of the decade over someone who played the whole decade and managed 12 but no Grand Slam.

 

[Steffi-forever]

I pretty much agree overall. The only thing I would change is Borg as he is the best of the 70s to me and Agassi for the second best for the 90s.

From september 1994 to september 1995 he was dominating (2 slams, a final, semi and quarter) and won several Masters Series. And Agassi has longevity in his side. In 1990, he was finalist at the US Open. In 1999, he won it. After 1993, Courier wasn't really a big contender for slams.
Also, Agassi is definitly a much better player than Courier. And he was the main rival of Sampras too.

 

[Trillus]

Also was Chris really the #1 of 1974. There wasnt computerized rankings yet I dont think so she wouldnt have been based on that. Goolagong beat her in 3 of the 4 biggest events both played- U.S Open semis, Australian Open final, and Virginia Slims Championships final. Chris's big title of the year was Wimbledon obviously. King faltered at Wimbledon (as did Goolagong) but King won the U.S beating Goolagong in the final after Goolagong had beaten Chris in the semis. The French was a nothing event this year with a nothing field other than Evert, and the Virginia Slims Championships was a bigger event than either the Australian or French around that time. Bud Collins ranked Chris #3 for the year behind King and Goolagong.

 

[Steffi-forever]

Also was Chris really the #1 of 1974. There wasnt computerized rankings yet I dont think so she wouldnt have been based on that. Goolagong beat her in 3 of the 4 biggest events both played- U.S Open semis, Australian Open final, and Virginia Slims Championships final. Chris's big title of the year was Wimbledon obviously. King faltered at Wimbledon (as did Goolagong) but King won the U.S beating Goolagong in the final after Goolagong had beaten Chris in the semis. The French was a nothing event this year with a nothing field other than Evert, and the Virginia Slims Championships was a bigger event than either the Australian or French around that time. Bud Collins ranked Chris #3 for the year behind King and Goolagong.

Not from the WTA Tour. Top 10 ranking at the end of 1974 :

1. Billie Jean King
2. Evonne Goolagong
3. Chris Evert
4. Virginia Wade
5. Julie Hedman
6. Rosie Casals
7. Kerry Reid
8. Olga Morozova
9. Lesley Hunt
10. Francoise Durr

 

[Steffi-forever]

This is a little strange since Evert had a better year than King in 1974 but this what my guide WTA Tour show

 

[Trillus]

Not from the WTA Tour. Top 10 ranking at the end of 1974 :

1. Billie Jean King
2. Evonne Goolagong
3. Chris Evert
4. Virginia Wade
5. Julie Hedman
6. Rosie Casals
7. Kerry Reid
8. Olga Morozova
9. Lesley Hunt
10. Francoise Durr

Thank you. So I guess Chris was the #1 from 1975 to 1977, not 1974 to 1977 which I suspected anyways. Although most felt she was the deserving #1 of 1978 even though Martina ended the year as computer #1.

So either way she had a longer run at top than Court in the 70s but I still give the nod to Court's Grand Slam and such dominance and managing so much in the brief periods she played full time of the decade.

 

[Steffi-forever]

Thank you. So I guess Chris was the #1 from 1975 to 1977, not 1974 to 1977 which I suspected anyways. Although most felt she was the deserving #1 of 1978 even though Martina ended the year as computer #1.

So either way she had a longer run at top than Court in the 70s but I still give the nod to Court's Grand Slam and such dominance and managing so much in the brief periods she played full time of the decade.

I believe most tennis fans and experts will say that Evert is the player of the 70s. She had an amazing consistency that you can't deny.

 

[Mustard]

In 1990, he was finalist at the US Open. In 1999, he won it. After 1993, Courier wasn't really a big contender for slams.

Courier was considered a threat for slams up to 1996. He ran into Sampras pretty often.

Here are their slam finishes in the 1990s
Jim Courier
1990 Australian Open: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Jonas Svensson)
1990 French Open: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Andre Agassi)
1990 Wimbledon: Round of 32 Loser (lost to Mark Woodforde)
1990 US Open: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Gary Muller)
1991 Australian Open: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Stefan Edberg)
1991 French Open: CHAMPION (beat Andre Agassi in the final)
1991 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Michael Stich)
1991 US Open: Runner-up (lost to Stefan Edberg)
1992 Australian Open: CHAMPION (beat Stefan Edberg in the final)
1992 French Open: CHAMPION (beat Petr Korda in the final)
1992 Wimbledon: Round of 32 Loser (lost to Andrei Olhovskiy)
1992 US Open: Semi Final Loser (lost to Pete Sampras)
1993 Australian Open: CHAMPION (beat Stefan Edberg in the final)
1993 French Open: Runner-up (lost to Sergi Bruguera)
1993 Wimbledon: Runner-up (lost to Pete Sampras)
1993 US Open: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Cedric Pioline)
1994 Australian Open: Semi Final Loser (lost to Pete Sampras)
1994 French Open: Semi Final Loser (lost to Sergi Bruguera)
1994 Wimbledon: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Guy Forget)
1994 US Open: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Andrea Gaudenzi)
1995 Australian Open: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Pete Sampras)
1995 French Open: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Albert Costa)
1995 Wimbledon: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Cedric Pioline)
1995 US Open: Semi Final Loser (lost to Pete Sampras)
1996 Australian Open: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Andre Agassi)
1996 French Open: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Pete Sampras)
1996 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Jonathan Stark)
1996 US Open: DID NOT PLAY
1997 Australian Open: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Thomas Muster)
1997 French Open: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Magnus Larsson)
1997 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Michael Stich)
1997 US Open: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Todd Martin)
1998 Australian Open: DID NOT PLAY
1998 French Open: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Jens Knippschild)
1998 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Thomas Johansson)
1998 US Open: DID NOT PLAY
1999 Australian Open: Round of 32 Loser (lost to Yevgeny Kafelnikov)
1999 French Open: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Hicham Arazi)
1999 Wimbledon: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Tim Henman)
1999 US Open: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Slava Dosedel)

Andre Agassi
1990 Australian Open: DID NOT PLAY
1990 French Open: Runner-up (lost to Andres Gomez)
1990 Wimbledon: DID NOT PLAY
1990 US Open: Runner-up (lost to Pete Sampras)
1991 Australian Open: DID NOT PLAY
1991 French Open: Runner-up (lost to Jim Courier)
1991 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser (lost to David Wheaton)
1991 US Open: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Aaron Krickstein)
1992 Australian Open: DID NOT PLAY
1992 French Open: Semi Final Loser (lost to Jim Courier)
1992 Wimbledon: CHAMPION (beat Goran Ivanisevic in the final)
1992 US Open: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Jim Courier)
1993 Australian Open: DID NOT PLAY
1993 French Open: DID NOT PLAY
1993 Wimbledon: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Pete Sampras)
1993 US Open: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Thomas Enqvist)
1994 Australian Open: DID NOT PLAY
1994 French Open: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Thomas Muster)
1994 Wimbledon: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Todd Martin)
1994 US Open: CHAMPION (beat Michael Stich in the final)
1995 Australian Open: CHAMPION (beat Pete Sampras in the final)
1995 French Open: Quarter Final Loser (lost to Yevgeny Kafelnikov)
1995 Wimbledon: Semi Final Loser (lost to Boris Becker)
1995 US Open: Runner-up (lost to Pete Sampras)
1996 Australian Open: Semi Final Loser (lost to Michael Chang)
1996 French Open: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Chris Woodruff)
1996 Wimbledon: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Doug Flach)
1996 US Open: Semi Final Loser (lost to Michael Chang)
1997 Australian Open: DID NOT PLAY
1997 French Open: DID NOT PLAY
1997 Wimbledon: DID NOT PLAY
1997 US Open: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Patrick Rafter)
1998 Australian Open: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Alberto Berasategui)
1998 French Open: Round of 128 Loser (lost to Marat Safin)
1998 Wimbledon: Round of 64 Loser (lost to Tommy Haas)
1998 US Open: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Karol Kucera)
1999 Australian Open: Round of 16 Loser (lost to Vincent Spadea)
1999 French Open: CHAMPION (beat Andrei Medvedev in the final)
1999 Wimbledon: Runner-up (lost to Pete Sampras)
1999 US Open: CHAMPION (beat Todd Martin in the final)


And their head-to-head:

Jim Courier 7-5 Andre Agassi
1989 Philadelphia R16: Andre Agassi def. Jim Courier (6-3, 7-6)
1989 Forest Hills R16: Andre Agassi def. Jim Courier (3-6, 6-3, 7-5)
1989 French Open R32: Jim Courier def. Andre Agassi (7-6, 4-6, 6-3, 6-2)
1990 Miami QF: Andre Agassi def. Jim Courier (4-6, 6-3, 6-1)
1990 French Open R16: Andre Agassi def. Jim Courier (6-7, 6-1, 6-4, 6-0)
1991 Indian Wells R16: Jim Courier def. Andre Agassi (2-6, 6-3, 6-4)
1991 French Open F: Jim Courier def. Andre Agassi (3-6, 6-4, 2-6, 6-1, 6-4)
1991 World Championships SF: Jim Courier def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 7-5)
1992 French Open SF: Jim Courier def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-2, 6-2)
1992 US Open QF: Jim Courier def. Andre Agassi (6-3, 6-7, 6-1, 6-4)
1995 Tokyo Outdoor F: Jim Courier def. Andre Agassi (6-4, 6-3)
1996 Australian Open QF: Andre Agassi def. Jim Courier (6-7, 2-6, 6-3, 6-4, 6-2)

Hardcourt: 3-2 to Courier
Clay: 3-2 to Courier
Grass: 0-0
Carpet: 1-1
In Slams: 4-2 to Courier

 

[Trillus]

I pretty much agree overall. The only thing I would change is Borg as he is the best of the 70s to me and Agassi for the second best for the 90s.

From september 1994 to september 1995 he was dominating (2 slams, a final, semi and quarter) and won several Masters Series. And Agassi has longevity in his side. In 1990, he was finalist at the US Open. In 1999, he won it. After 1993, Courier wasn't really a big contender for slams.
Also, Agassi is definitly a much better player than Courier. And he was the main rival of Sampras too.

Of course there are many great points to put Agassi over Courier for the 90s, and most probably will. Still when you think about it, before 1999, virtually nobody would have put Agassi above Courier in the 90s. In fact had it not been for his miracle French Open in 1999 (and it truly was a miracle) not many would have either.

I dont agree Agassi was ever really dominant though. The only year he won 2 slams was 1999, but that has the asterix of Sampras pulling out last minute of the U.S Open when he was a virtual lock that year, and he ended that year 1-4 vs Pete with all 4 losses straight set smackdowns in tournament finals or semis. 1995 he played his greatest year of tennis ever and still won only 1 slam, while Sampras won the years 2 biggest events, hardly dominant. Agassi never had a year he was by far the dominant player like Courier in 1992, and a 3 year stretch as strong as Couriers from 1991 to 1993 where he was in 7 slam finals. Agassi never defended a slam title in the 90s, while Courier did it twice at two different slams.

As for Agassi being the main Sampras rival, Agassi was only the main rival to Sampras in late 1994 and 1995 really. In late 1992 and early 1993 it was Edberg and Courier. The rest of 1993 and most of 1994 it was Courier. In 1996 it was any of Ivanisevic or Chang or Krajicek or Becker but nobody imparticular, definitely not Agassi. In 1997 it was Chang or Rafter although again nobody imparticular. In 1998 it was Rafter for sure. In 1999 it was injury. In 2000 it was Safin and age, in 2001 it was Hewitt and age, and 2002 it was just age. Yes overall he was the main Sampras rival if you mean over their whole careers, but very little time he was specifically this.

You mention longevity. Well Courier was a much more consistent force from 1990 to 1996 than Agassi was for any extended stretch of the decade.

 

[Justin Side]

I pretty much agree overall. The only thing I would change is Borg as he is the best of the 70s to me and Agassi for the second best for the 90s.

Same here. Can't put Courier over Agassi when Andre had a Career Slam in the 90's, one more major, a Year End Championship and a Gold Medal.

 

[borg number one]

In my opinion, these are the "best" and "2nd best" players for each decade of the Open Era.

Women

1970s: 1. Evert, 2. King

1980s: 1. Navratilova , 2. Evert

1990s: 1. Graf, 2. Seles

2000s: 1. Serena W., 2. Venus W.

Men

1970s: 1. Borg, 2. Connors

1980s: 1. McEnroe, 2. Lendl

1990s: 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi

2000s: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal

 

[timnz]

Another look

Women

1970s: 1. Evert, 2. Court (One year won the Grand Slam, another year won 3 of the slams)

1980s: 1. Navratilova , 2. Evert

1990s: 1. Graf, 2. Seles

2000s: 1. Serena W., 2. Venus W.

Men

1970s: 1. Borg, 2. Connors

1980s: 1. Lendl 2. McEnroe (Feel that Lendl is clearly better because he was one of the top players for the whole decade whereas McEnroe was only to 1985).

1990s: 1. Sampras, 2. Agassi

2000s: 1. Federer, 2. Nadal

 

[BTURNER]

Ditto the above. Timnz has it right.

 

[Joe Pike]

Ditto the above. Timnz has it right.

Evert 2nd-best in the 80s?


Why do I feel that you three are US Americans ... ?

 

[Trillus]

Hmm for me personally there is no way Evert is the 2nd best of the 80s. She won 1 more slam than Graf, and was a bigger force for more of the decade due to her age, but Graf won the Grand Slam, and had 3 years she lost a combined 7 matches. Evert didnt have a single truly dominant year the whole decade, even in 1980 and 1981 when she was arguably the #1 she certainly wasnt dominant. Graf had 2 of the most dominant ever and arguably a 3rd dominant year. And unlike the 70s her slam count is in no way deceiving, all 4 slams were fully valued in the 80s.

 

[borg number one]

Hmm for me personally there is no way Evert is the 2nd best of the 80s. She won 1 more slam than Graf, and was a bigger force for more of the decade due to her age, but Graf won the Grand Slam, and had 3 years she lost a combined 7 matches. Evert didnt have a single truly dominant year the whole decade, even in 1980 and 1981 when she was arguably the #1 she certainly wasnt dominant. Graf had 2 of the most dominant ever and arguably a 3rd dominant year. And unlike the 70s her slam count is in no way deceiving, all 4 slams were fully valued in the 80s.

I think you can make a strong argument for Graf being #2 for the 80's. Yet, in the early-mid 1980's, Evert was facing off against Navratilova arguably at her very best. That makes a big difference to me. Who is the primary competition for each? I think that one could argue that by the time Graf matured, Navratilova was not quite the player she was during the early 1980's. Its debatable in my opinion. The GS by Graf was fantastic though. For me, Evert's 4 FO titles, 2 AO titles, W title, and 2 US Open titles during the decade (9 majors) is also very impressive (all by 1986, basically in the first half of the decade). Graf was more "dominant", but I would argue that Navratilova was a bit tougher with her play from 1980-1986. It's a close call.

 

[BTURNER]

By the way do any other tournaments count besides majors or any other showings beyond tournament wins? Are we looking at this a little narrowly

 

[Trillus]

I think you can make a strong argument for Graf being #2 for the 80's. Yet, in the early-mid 1980's, Evert was facing off against Navratilova arguably at her very best. That makes a big difference to me. Who is the primary competition for each? I think that one could argue that by the time Graf matured, Navratilova was not quite the player she was during the early 1980's. Its debatable in my opinion. The GS by Graf was fantastic though. For me, Evert's 4 FO titles, 2 AO titles, W title, and 2 US Open titles during the decade (9 majors) is also very impressive (all by 1986, basically in the first half of the decade). Graf was more "dominant", but I would argue that Navratilova was a bit tougher with her play from 1980-1986. It's a close call.

While true I think the mid 86-89 Graf would have still more often than not beaten any version of Chris of the 80s. And I dont think even a peak Martina would have ever won 13 matches in a row against the mid 86-89 Graf as she did against Chris at one point in the decade. Graf's game is just too explosive and she matches up too evenly with Martina as far as athleticsm and weaponary for that to ever happen. In fact it is debateable who is better between Martina of 83-84 or Graf of 88-89, but obviously considering the whole decade Martina has to be tops.

 

[Joe Pike]

I think you can make a strong argument for Graf being #2 for the 80's. Yet, in the early-mid 1980's, Evert was facing off against Navratilova arguably at her very best. That makes a big difference to me. Who is the primary competition for each? I think that one could argue that by the time Graf matured, Navratilova was not quite the player she was during the early 1980's. ....

In the early 80s Navratilova even was only #3 for some time behind Austin and Evert.
Navi was dominant in 83-86 because Evert was old (her peak was in the 70s), Austin was gone and Steffi had not arrived yet.

 

[Mustard]

In the early 80s Navratilova even was only #3 for some time behind Austin and Evert.
Navi was dominant in 83-86 because Evert was old (her peak was in the 70s), Austin was gone and Steffi had not arrived yet.

Navratilova became much fitter and lifted the women's game to a whole new level. That is why she was dominant from 1983-1986, especially the first two years of that spell. Evert eventually adapted somewhat by 1985, but she struggled for a few years before that with the level Navratilova had lifted her game to. I don't think Evert's age in 1983-1984 is the reason at all as to why Navratilova dominated.

 

[Limpinhitter]

Here would be my choices as the best and 2nd best players of each decade of the Open Era:

1970s women: Best- Court. The Grand Slam trumps Evert's 1 more major title.
2nd best- Evert. Better overall than King.

1980s women: Best- Navratilova.
2nd best- Graf. Again the Grand Slam trumps the 1 extra major title of Evert.

1990s women: Best- Graf. Even without the stabbing I am sure she would have ended up with as many or more slams for the decade than Seles, and a much more balanced record with better longevity even in the decade alone.

2nd best: Seles. 2 years of dominance trumps Hingis's 1 year of dominance. Plus without the stabbing she probably wins another few slams and is even further ahead.

2000s womens: Best- Serena.
2nd best: Henin or Venus. Toss up, probably Henin by a bit since many of Venus's great non slam showings were in the 90s.

1970s men: Best- Connors. I give him the edge over Borg since he was pretty dominant from 1974 to 1976.

2nd best: Borg

1980s men: Best- Lendl. Just for being more consistent over the whole decade even without winning a major the first 4 years of it.
2nd best: Best- McEnroe. At his best better than Lendl but a relative irrelevance after 1985.

1990s men: Best- Sampras
2nd best: Courier. I picked Courier as 2nd best since he actually was a dominant player for awhile which Agassi was not, and that overcomes 1 major for me. And while Courier didnt win a Wimbledon or U.S Open (making finals of both) Agassi wouldnt have either if he played Sampras the years he made it.

2000s men: Best- Federer
2nd best: Nadal

60's: Men: Laver, Rosewall; Woman: Court, BJK
70's: Men: Borg, Connors; Woman: Evert, BJK
80's: Men: Lendl, McEnroe; Women: Navratilova, Evert
90's: Men: Sampras, Agassi; Women: Graf, Seles
2000's: Men: Federer, Ralph; Women: S. Williams, V. Williams

 

[BTURNER]

Navratilova became much fitter and lifted the women's game to a whole new level. That is why she was dominant from 1983-1986, especially the first two years of that spell. Evert eventually adapted somewhat by 1985, but she struggled for a few years before that with the level Navratilova had lifted her game to. I don't think Evert's age in 1983-1984 is the reason at all as to why Navratilova dominated.

You are on the money. No one intelligent about tennis thinks Evert's best tennis was in the 70's. She had that 'invincibility factor' all champs get during their most dominant run. That has as much to do with many of their opponent's being intimidated, and not knowing what works or not and having time to develope new weapons against them. She was much better in 84',85, even part of '86 before the decline seeped in. And of course Navratilova would have killed almost anyone in the 80's. Trolls may be intelligent but, wanting attention, may type something different.

 

[Joe Pike]

Navratilova became much fitter and lifted the women's game to a whole new level. That is why she was dominant from 1983-1986, especially the first two years of that spell. Evert eventually adapted somewhat by 1985, but she struggled for a few years before that with the level Navratilova had lifted her game to. I don't think Evert's age in 1983-1984 is the reason at all as to why Navratilova dominated.

In 1983-86 Evert was 28-32 years old and Navratilova's main opponent.
Evert was even #1 for 22 weeks in 1985 at age 30. A 19/20-year-old Steffi would have been a far stronger opponent for Navratilova.

Steffi won 7 slams in two calendar years, in 1988/89. An all-time record. That alone is enough to rate her better than Evert in the 80s.

 

[Joe Pike]

You are on the money. No one intelligent about tennis thinks Evert's best tennis was in the 70's. She had that 'invincibility factor' all champs get during their most dominant run. That has as much to do with many of their opponent's being intimidated, and not knowing what works or not and having time to develope new weapons against them. She was much better in 84',85, even part of '86 before the decline seeped in. And of course Navratilova would have killed almost anyone in the 80's. Trolls may be intelligent but, wanting attention, may type something different.

So Evert's peak was 1984-86?
As was Navratilova's?

And as soon as Steffi burst onto the scene both suddenly were "too old" so that the 18-year-old German could take over the women's game ... ?

 

[Mustard]

So Evert's peak was 1984-86?
As was Navratilova's?

And as soon as Steffi burst onto the scene both suddenly were "too old" so that the 18-year-old German could take over the women's game ... ?

Evert was well into her 30s by 1987 when Graf started to take over, while Graf was still a teenager and on the rise. Graf, like Navratilova a few years earlier, pushed the women's game to a new level. Seles did the same in the early 1990s. Tennis changed an awful lot in terms of power and fitness in the period from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, on both the men's and women's side.

 

[BTURNER]

I agree. It hardly needs saying on a forum of this caliber that champions rarely play their best tennis in that first ' invincible phase'. They are still growing, developing new strokes and tactics both offensive and defensive with the arrival of challengers that find and can exploit chinks in their first sets of armour. Occasionally either life stunts them a la Seles or Austin or they stunt themselves but not often. That is how the game keeps upping the ante generation after generation.

 

[Joe Pike]

Evert was well into her 30s by 1987 when Graf started to take over, while Graf was still a teenager and on the rise. Graf, like Navratilova a few years earlier, pushed the women's game to a new level. Seles did the same in the early 1990s. Tennis changed an awful lot in terms of power and fitness in the period from the mid-1980s to the mid-1990s, on both the men's and women's side.

Seles pushed women's tennis to a new level in 1991/92 compared to Graf in 1987-90???

Say, why do people like you have no shame to embarrass themselves publicly in the internet?
Exhibitionism?

 

[Joe Pike]

I agree. It hardly needs saying on a forum of this caliber that champions rarely play their best tennis in that first ' invincible phase'. They are still growing, developing new strokes and tactics both offensive and defensive with the arrival of challengers that find and can exploit chinks in their first sets of armour. Occasionally either life stunts them a la Seles or Austin or they stunt themselves but not often. That is how the game keeps upping the ante generation after generation.

But Evert's peak was 1984-86?
Better than in 1974-83?
And in spring 1987 she suddenly was "too old" when Steffi destroyed her in Key Biscayne and took over the #2 spot?

 

[Steffi-forever]

But Evert's peak was 1984-86?

1984-86 was Evert's peak?

French Open 1984 F
Wimbledon 1984 F
US Open 1984 F
Australian Open 1984 W
French Open 1985 W
Wimbledon 1985 F
US Open 1985 SF
Australian Open 1985 F
French Open 1986 W
Wimbledon 1986 SF
US Open 1986 SF

So a peak Evert won 3 slams in her 3 ''best'' seasons while losing 5 finals.

Evert from 74-76 won 6 slams.

 

[Mustard]

Seles pushed women's tennis to a new level in 1991/92 compared to Graf in 1987-90???

It's pretty damn obvious that Seles pushed women's tennis to a new level in the early 1990s. The Williams sisters did the same in the early 2000s, pushed women's tennis to a new level.

 

[Joe Pike]

It's pretty damn obvious that Seles pushed women's tennis to a new level in the early 1990s.

Because as #1 she
1) lost 4 times against a 34/36-year-old Navratilova
2) lost to Capriati, aged 15 years and 4 months
3) lost 3 of 5 matches against the #2 player?

You really think that would have happened to 1988/89 Steffi?


Dream on, fan boy ...

 

[Limpinhitter]

It's pretty damn obvious that Seles pushed women's tennis to a new level in the early 1990s. The Williams sisters did the same in the early 2000s, pushed women's tennis to a new level.

I agree. And, but for the fact that she was stabbed in the back by a psychopath, she probably would have been the best player of the 90's.

 

[Joe Pike]

... The Williams sisters did the same in the early 2000s, pushed women's tennis to a new level.

Venus by losing to Dokic, Schett, Mg. Maleeva, Shaughessy, Zvonareva (#21) in 00-03?
By getting thrashed 1-6 1-6 by Hingis at the AO 01?
By letting all-time-great Capriati win three slams, you troll?

 

[Joe Pike]

I agree. And, but for the fact that she was stabbed in the back by a psychopath, she probably would have been the best player of the 90's.

I just love it - furious and bitter US tennis fanatics ...

 

[BTURNER]

1984-86 was Evert's peak?

So a peak Evert won 3 slams in her 3 ''best'' seasons while losing 5 finals.

Evert from 74-76 won 6 slams.

French Open 1984 F loss to Martina
Wimbledon 1984 F loss to Martina
US Open 1984 F loss to Martina
Australian Open 1984 W loss to Martina
French Open 1985 W
Wimbledon 1985 F loss to Martina
US Open 1985 SF loss to Hana
Australian Open 1985 F loss to Martina
French Open 1986 W
Wimbledon 1986 SF loss to Hana
US Open 1986 SF Loss to Sukova

I have not used the word 'peak' in any post on this thread. Don't like it. Evert's dominant period which you describe, did not remotely correspond with her best tennis. She was slower, weaker, had less stamina, had less variety, less tactical acumen, a poorer volleyer and a puff serve both first and second. Both the Navratilova and Austin usurptions left a positive imprint on the Evert game, by encouraging more physical fitness and greater risk-taking. The women's field also grew slightly deeper as more women came through the junior ranks having adapted earlier on in their youth to the new racket technology.

Now note who Evert lost to, the woman I claim as the greatest woman of the '80's or twice to Hana Mandlikova, the # 3 -4 seed, a slam winner on every surface, who probably produced her best career tennis from 85-87, the same years. Evert had only one loss in a slam during those years to someone who did not end up with four majors on her own and that was Sukova the # 7 seed and obviously never before the semis. Evert was a far superior player from 84-86 as the second greatest palyer in the world,than from 74-77 but the women's field was rather shell-shocked by the weapons she conquered tennis with. Same with Graf from late 87-91. Graf was a better player in the 90's, after the challenges of Sanchez, Sabatini and Seles than she was during her golden slam year.

 

[Joe Pike]

... Same with Graf from late 87-91. Graf was a better player in the 90's, after the challenges of Sanchez, Sabatini and Seles than she was during her golden slam year.

People tend to forget how good Graf was in 1988/89.
How she beat Zvereva 6-0 6-0 in the FO 88 final, Sabatini 6-3 6-0 in the AO 89 semis. Or Navratilova 5-7 6-2 6-1 in the Wimbledon 88 final and 6-2 6-7 6-1 in the Wimbledon 89 final.

In the 90s she played in comparable form only for a few months in 93/94 and in summer of 96. She won a lot with experience, grit, good strategy, though. Don't forget that she suffered from a multitude of injuries starting in the 90s which forced her to reduce her exercise schedule considerably.
Sadly we never saw Steffi being able to take full advantage of her infinite talent and abilities.

 

[Limpinhitter]

I just love it - furious and bitter US tennis fanatics ...

What are you talkin' about, huckleberry?

 

[Limpinhitter]

People tend to forget how good Graf was in 1988/89.
How she beat Zvereva 6-0 6-0 in the FO 88 final, Sabatini 6-3 6-0 in the AO 89 semis. Or Navratilova 5-7 6-2 6-1 in the Wimbledon 88 final and 6-2 6-7 6-1 in the Wimbledon 89 final.

In the 90s she played in comparable form only for a few months in 93/94 and in summer of 96. She won a lot with experience, grit, good strategy, though. Don't forget that she suffered from a multitude of injuries starting in the 90s which forced her to reduce her exercise schedule considerably.
Sadly we never saw Steffi being able to take full advantage of her infinite talent and abilities.

Yeah, too bad she got stabbed in the back by a psychopathic Seles fan. Who knows what she could have accomplished!

 

[Joe Pike]

Yeah, too bad she got stabbed in the back by a psychopathic Seles fan. Who knows what she could have accomplished!

She would have accomplished far more if she had had to cope only with a minor stab wound instead of her many grave injuries (especially with the knee injury which virtually ended her career in 1997).

 

[Trillus]

It's pretty damn obvious that Seles pushed women's tennis to a new level in the early 1990s. The Williams sisters did the same in the early 2000s, pushed women's tennis to a new level.

You seem to take the approach that more recent is always better than past. Such is not always the case. Monica Seles and Venus Williams certainly never went beyond the overall level Navratilova of 82-84 and Graf of 87-89 or 95-96 displayed, I am talking all around, not just on one surface. This is evidenced by the various stats, results, and evidence of their performance by comparision.

It is also not evidenced by their level of tennis and overall ability displayed. Venus of 2000-early 2003 showed a complete inability to win on anything other than grass or decoturf. This inspite of there being no dominant player in place (Venus the closest to being this) in 2000 to early 2002. She showed tremendous power and athletic ability, but high unforced errors count, a still breakable forehand, and an attackable 2nd serve, things you did not see from peak Martina or Graf. Seles of 91-early 93 meanwhile suffered 4 losses and many battles to a mid 30s Navratilova, about 8 years removed from her peak, and had a losing record vs Steffi Graf playing about only her 10th or 11th best years of tennis of her career (behind 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996). So how could one propose she was playing at a level that would surpass both in their peak years. She did not display the level of serving, the overall athletic ability, the all court game or the variety of peak Graf or Navratilova. She also was borderline useless vs the very best on one surface (eg- her Wimbledon final vs Graf). Speculating had she not been stabbed is one thing, but the level she had actually reached certainly was not an upgrade on a peak Navratilova or peak Graf.

Serena in 2002-2003 is the first one you could even argue took womens tennis to a higher level in that brief timeframe, although even that isnt born out by stats which in her case as well as far inferior to Navratilova and Graf at their peaks.

 

[Trillus]

Venus by losing to Dokic, Schett, Mg. Maleeva, Shaughessy, Zvonareva (#21) in 00-03?
By getting thrashed 1-6 1-6 by Hingis at the AO 01?
By letting all-time-great Capriati win three slams, you troll?

Yes, someone taking womens tennis to a new level does not let Jennifer Capriati win 3 slam titles in 13 months and sweep Athlete of the Year awards one year during their reign (if Venus's 2000-2001 can even be called a reign that is). Venus's best ever tennis was not in fact in 2000 and 2001 overall (maybe summer of 2000 specifically) but in 2002 and at the 2003 Australian Open. Unfortunately for her peak Serena had arrived and peak Serena was too much for even a better than ever Venus.

 

[Mustard]

You seem to take the approach that more recent is always better than past.

Mostly because of equipment reasons.

 

[Joe Pike]

Mostly because of equipment reasons.

So Seles had better equipment in 91/92 than Steffi in 88/89? :?

 

[Mustard]

So Seles had better equipment in 91/92 than Steffi in 88/89? :?

Seles had a higher tennis level than a late 1980s Graf, which is why she took over. Graf had to improve and cut out the losses if she was going to overtake regain the number 1 ranking. By 1993, Graf's tennis level was certainly higher than what it was in the late 1980s.

 

[Joe Pike]

Seles had a higher tennis level than a late 1980s Graf, which is why she took over. ....

Graf was 4-0 against a 31/32-year-old Navratilova in 1988/89.
Seles was 6-3 against a 34/35-year-old Navratilova in 1991/92.
That is not exactly a sign that Seles of 91/92 was better than Graf of 88/89.

Maybe Graf of 91/92 was worse than Graf of 88/89?
Any signs for that?

Well, Graf made 15 of 16 consecutive major finals from 1987 until spring 1990.
But only 4 of 13 in from summer 1990 until end of 1992.
Doesn't seem to me that Graf held her 88/89 level, stupid.

 

[Limpinhitter]

She would have accomplished far more if she had had to cope only with a minor stab wound instead of her many grave injuries (especially with the knee injury which virtually ended her career in 1997).

We have a psychic among us!

 

[BTURNER]

We have a psychic among us!

No Limpin reread his posts,
He's a trolling for adrenalin flow . The petty, condescending or divisive remark at the end of every post usually works to keep conflict rolling while giving him the impression he has the 'upper hand' and with the superior affect, more control . Its about insecurity camouflaged in put-downs. Ignore him until he learns to be polite.

 

[Joe Pike]

No Limpin reread his posts,
He's a trolling for adrenalin flow . The petty, condescending or divisive remark at the end of every post usually works to keep conflict rolling ...

Trolls who really want to tell us that in 91/92 Seles played on another level than Graf of 88/89 want to keep conflict rolling. They have no data to support this silly idea but they keep on trolling anyway.