Best and 2nd best players of each decade of Open Era
- Thread starter Trillus
- Start date
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Not you! No, you buy in to the "stabbing denial cult!" What a weak spirited jellyfish Monica Seles must be to allow an attempted murder by a crazed Graf fan have such an affect on her. What a wimp!
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Hahaha! Thanks! I wonder if he's related to the stabber?
Graf was not as good in the early 90s as she was in late 80s. That is why Seles took over. I am not saying Seles did not fully deserve #1 during that period as she was playing better at that time. However Graf of the late 80s would never have been losing 7 of 8 matches to Sabatini or 3 times/twice in major events to her pigeon Jana Novotna, or losing in slams to a pre peak Sanchez Vicario 6-0, 6-2 and 6-3, 7-6. And Graf of the late 80s would not have lost and struggled in as many matches as Seles of 91-92 did as well. Anyone who seriously followed the game at the time could realize the huge difference in Graf's early 90s level to her late 80s level, she wouldnt have been even close to dominant those years even had Seles never existed. Graf in the late 80s was losing 2 matches a year and only challenged in the least (even being given competitive matches) by about 2 players. She was dominant on all surfaces. Navratilova in the 82-84 stretch was also losing only about 2 matches a year and only could be challenged in matches by Evert or Hana, for awhile only Hana. Seles in the early 90s was losing 5 or 6 matches a year, could be pushed sometimes even in slams by unseeded opponents, and was challenged and even lost matches to everyone else in the top 6, along with clearly never being the one to beat on a particular surface.
And Venus took over in late 2000 and 2001 since Hingis and Davenport were both going down, especialy Hingis, since Graf was retired (the aging Graf actually outshone Venus in 1999), and since her sister had not matured full yet. Granted Venus did make a noticeable jump in her game starting at Wimbledon 2000, and she had already been excellent before that. It might well be that she was good enough to take over on her favorite surfaces from Hingis and Davenport regardless. However her success was still limited to only a couple surfaces. She couldnt win on rebound ace or clay, and rarely even came close. She rarely played and rarely won indoors as well. That is not taking tennis to a level it had not been seen before. A women who takes tennis to a whole new level does not let Capriati win 3 slams in 13 months under her watch, and Capriati to win AP and Laureus Athlete of the Year awards under her reign. No disrespect to Capriati, but lets be real here. And a women who takes tennis to a whole new level is certainly winning on all surfaces, not the minority of them. Atleast Seles won on all but one surface at her peak.
Last edited:
Joe Pike
Banned
Not really relevant to the topic but I think Seles's 96 beyond career panned out as it would have anyway and her decline in results were a variety of factors all cummulative.
1. Biggest of all her fathers death which greatly impacted her motivation and emotional state in the 96-98 period where her biggest window was still in existence (once all the huge hitters matured in 99 she had little chance really).
2. A series of injuries, a few which could have been fitness related, but which were mostly bad luck.
3. Returning in the face of a once again dominant Graf, not the already for awhile slumping/struggling Graf she was able to rise to #1 over in March 91.
4. The next generation of players- Hingis, Davenport, Venus, and Serena, who were all great players but who were also bad matchups for her game. Davenport, Venus, and Serena all serve harder and hit harder than Monica, and while Monica was a more complete player in many ways, her biggest nightmare is women who hit as hard or harder than her. And Hingis was just able to move Seles around expertly by taking the ball so early, amazing timing, and impeccible precision and court construction.
5. Monica was an early bloomer and those tend to be past their prime at an earlier age. Such was the case in her case as well.
Along with all that the vagarities of time, place, and chance no longer went in her favor in situations things could have gone a number of ways. And that even the best players of all time such as Navratilova and Graf were unable to sustain total dominance for more than 2-3 years, making it especialy unlikely anyone else would be able to do so.
The 93-95 period is interesting to speculate on of course. The 96 and beyond period played out exactly as it would have though.
1. Biggest of all her fathers death which greatly impacted her motivation and emotional state in the 96-98 period where her biggest window was still in existence (once all the huge hitters matured in 99 she had little chance really).
2. A series of injuries, a few which could have been fitness related, but which were mostly bad luck.
3. Returning in the face of a once again dominant Graf, not the already for awhile slumping/struggling Graf she was able to rise to #1 over in March 91.
4. The next generation of players- Hingis, Davenport, Venus, and Serena, who were all great players but who were also bad matchups for her game. Davenport, Venus, and Serena all serve harder and hit harder than Monica, and while Monica was a more complete player in many ways, her biggest nightmare is women who hit as hard or harder than her. And Hingis was just able to move Seles around expertly by taking the ball so early, amazing timing, and impeccible precision and court construction.
5. Monica was an early bloomer and those tend to be past their prime at an earlier age. Such was the case in her case as well.
Along with all that the vagarities of time, place, and chance no longer went in her favor in situations things could have gone a number of ways. And that even the best players of all time such as Navratilova and Graf were unable to sustain total dominance for more than 2-3 years, making it especialy unlikely anyone else would be able to do so.
The 93-95 period is interesting to speculate on of course. The 96 and beyond period played out exactly as it would have though.
Trillus, what you see in post # 54 has Steffi or Martina's decline in form , from their pinnacle of dominance, I see as an improvement on the tour in response to their weapons and tactics. As competitors keep meeting these unstoppable women, more data is collected, patterns are discovered by coaches, weaknesses probed and defenses errected by players. Through trial and error, each opponent finds some chinks that they can exploit with their set of strengths if they train and work. That takes a couple of years and the confidence of a close set here, a tiebreaker there. Steffi, or Martina or Evert, feeling just a little more threatened, first plays more defensively, with slightly less abandon and a protectionist mentality, and then rises to the new challenges by shielding those chinks, and developing new weapons as their bodies and minds permit. Steffi was in part stifled from full 'recovery' to her complete dominance by injuries and personal problems. but then again setbacks is part of any tennis champs life.
Last edited:
Joe Pike
Banned
I agree Martina did not decline after 1984. Chris, Hana, and later Steffi simply stepped up, and in the case of Chris and Hana did figure out her game somewhat and what had to be done. However Steffi Graf was playing far worse in the early 90s than either the late 80s or mid 90s, it was obvious just watching her play. I dont think it had much to do with her opponents apart from Seles, since players like Sabatini, Novotna, Sanchez Vicario she was doing much worse than ever against from 91-93, and yet simply went back to beating all of them regularly once she regained top form, despite that someone like Sanchez Vicario played her best ever tennis from 1994-1996 and Novotna was continuing to improve.
As I said 1991 and 1992 were the 10th and 11th best years of tennis of Steffi's career, with 5 years of superior tennis preceding and 4 or 5 years of superior tennis following. So far removed from her "peak" tennis.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Oh, you mean the "reality based world" cult? Where the vast majority of rational people reside? What do you call stabbing someone in the back with two hands on a 10 inch boning knife, Schicklegruber?
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Why do you suppose Graf's tennis declined for 2 year, after 5 years of superior tennis, only to resurge again for 4-5 years of superior tennis? That's a bit odd, don't you think?
It might seem odd but it really isnt that much as many great players have 2 year downswings in the middle of their careers.
Evert in 1979 and most of 1980 wasnt playing as well. Her win at the U.S Open over Austin revived her best tennis. She then took a slight downtown in form in 1983 and early 1984 before reviving herself.
Court also went on a down period in her own game in 1966 and 1968 (along with being retired temporarily in late 1966 and 1967, her only non pregnancy based break from tour) before returning to top form.
King's form went down quite a bit from 1969 to 1971 before she returned to her top form.
And then Serena's major dropoff in 2004 and 2006 before returning to regular contention and even some semblance of dominance.
And Navratilova in 1987 and 1988 saw her overall form drop off enormously, despite inspired hunger-driven performances in the 87 Wimbledon and U.S Open finals, before returning to a higher level of tennis in 1989 onwards. She also had a real downturn in 1980 and most of 1981 after her breakthrough 1977-1979 years, before reviving herself starting at the 81 U.S Open.
I cant really say why she wasnt playing as well exactly. It was probably similar to all those others, some personal issues, some loss of motivation, some minor burnout factor. It is hard for any great player to keep the same standard for 10+ years without some dip at some point though. Pretty much nobody has done it, suggesting it is basically impossible to do for anyone anyway.
Last edited:
I dont think Evert by 1983 and 1984 was as good as she was in previous years. She lifted her game only because of Martina and the extra incentive it gave her in 1985 and 1986. Had Martina never existed I think she would have retired after 1982.
Joe Pike
Banned
After 3.5 years of superior tennis.
Because of the 90-92 blackmail scandal.
1) Graf wins 11 tournaments in a row.
2) Scandal starts.
3) Graf loses tournament final 3 days later.
4) Graf loses the next two tournaments as well.
Cause and effect.
Very simple.
Joe Pike
Banned
Evert was in her prime until spring 1986 (exception April 1986 when she lost to a 16-year-old Steffi). So Navratilova had top-notch competition.
From then on Evert was "too old". So it was easy for Graf to overtake her.
True that seems to be the skewed logic of many. Also dont forget Navratilova was "past her prime" immediately in 1987 when Graf took #1, but returned to her prime in 1991 when Seles took over at #1. Seles was a future Wimbledon great simply because she barely beat a 35 year old Navratilova at Wimbledon 92, while Graf capatilized on an "old" Martina at ages 31 and 32 in 1988 and 1989.
The ultra late blooming Navratilova was also well past her prime at age 30 when losing #1 to Graf, but Graf after major reconstructive surgery was still in her prime at age 30 when losing the Wimbledon final to Davenport and beating Venus in the Wimbledon quarters.
Am I missing anything?
Last edited:
Joe Pike
Banned
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
But getting stabbed in the back is no cause and effect whatsoever! Brilliant! I'm beginning to think your real name is Günter Parche!
I dont think anyone said the stabbing didnt hurt Seles's career. At the least she would have won a few additional slams in the 93-95 period. Beyond that is anyones guess and a matter of opinion, something that will never be proven unfortunately.
That doesnt mean one has to accept the opinion she took womens tennis to a higher level. All of the available stats dont show anywhere near the level of dominance of Navratilova and Graf at their peaks. At her peak she loses 5 or 6 matches a year, averages about 2 lost sets per slam, has a losing head to head with the World #2, and multiple losses to 4 of the other top 5, loses a Slam final 6-2, 6-1, and never wins Wimbledon. That is not a new level of dominance and tennis which the World has never seen before. And ultimately as her career went on she could not keep up with the next generation, and cope with the injuries and personal issues (apart from the stabbing) that are commonplace for any player to have. She is not GOAT material and there is no reason to consider her as such, not peak level of play, not longevity at the top, not dominance, not versatility, not achievements, not consistency, but an excellent player nonetheless and for the moment worthy top 10 all time. What annoys many people is those who keep sceaming Seles was the future GOAT without the stabbing as if it were fact when there are really no indications of this or of her having GOAT level ability at all. I mean if you watched Seles in the early 90s and you are convinced she played at a level no other women player has then fine I guess, you are entitled your opinion, but there is no reason to expect others to believe that, it certainly isnt reflected by any of her stats even at her peak.
The poster I was quoting even referred to Venus as taking womens tennis to a new level, yet Venus was even further from doing this than Seles. Venus who happens to be one of my favorite players was unable to win on anything other than grass or decoturf at her peak. She allowed Capriati to win 3 slams in 13 months during her reign. And once Serena matured she swatted a still peak Venus aside like a fly. Venus is an outstanding player but certainly did not take tennis to a new level either, unless you are just comparing her to Hingis and Davenport directly before her, which in that case yeah she probably did. Perhaps Venus on grass at her best played at a level as high or higher than Graf or Navratilova, despite that it will likely never be reflected in # of Wimbledon titles, but certainly nowhere else. On her 2nd best surfaces (eg- U.S Open, Miami) she has strings of defeats to eventual Champions showing she is great but most times not quite great enough, and the years she won she had narrow escapes apart from once.
The next player to arguably take womens tennis to a new level as far as overall quality of play compared to Navratilova and Graf at their peaks, and I only say arguably, was Serena Williams. Then again her stats in 2002-2003 dont even bear that out but atleast in her case you could argue her level of competition with Venus, Clijsters, Henin, and Capriati all to contend with (you cant count Davenport who barely played those 2 years and was nowhere near her best).
That doesnt mean one has to accept the opinion she took womens tennis to a higher level. All of the available stats dont show anywhere near the level of dominance of Navratilova and Graf at their peaks. At her peak she loses 5 or 6 matches a year, averages about 2 lost sets per slam, has a losing head to head with the World #2, and multiple losses to 4 of the other top 5, loses a Slam final 6-2, 6-1, and never wins Wimbledon. That is not a new level of dominance and tennis which the World has never seen before. And ultimately as her career went on she could not keep up with the next generation, and cope with the injuries and personal issues (apart from the stabbing) that are commonplace for any player to have. She is not GOAT material and there is no reason to consider her as such, not peak level of play, not longevity at the top, not dominance, not versatility, not achievements, not consistency, but an excellent player nonetheless and for the moment worthy top 10 all time. What annoys many people is those who keep sceaming Seles was the future GOAT without the stabbing as if it were fact when there are really no indications of this or of her having GOAT level ability at all. I mean if you watched Seles in the early 90s and you are convinced she played at a level no other women player has then fine I guess, you are entitled your opinion, but there is no reason to expect others to believe that, it certainly isnt reflected by any of her stats even at her peak.
The poster I was quoting even referred to Venus as taking womens tennis to a new level, yet Venus was even further from doing this than Seles. Venus who happens to be one of my favorite players was unable to win on anything other than grass or decoturf at her peak. She allowed Capriati to win 3 slams in 13 months during her reign. And once Serena matured she swatted a still peak Venus aside like a fly. Venus is an outstanding player but certainly did not take tennis to a new level either, unless you are just comparing her to Hingis and Davenport directly before her, which in that case yeah she probably did. Perhaps Venus on grass at her best played at a level as high or higher than Graf or Navratilova, despite that it will likely never be reflected in # of Wimbledon titles, but certainly nowhere else. On her 2nd best surfaces (eg- U.S Open, Miami) she has strings of defeats to eventual Champions showing she is great but most times not quite great enough, and the years she won she had narrow escapes apart from once.
The next player to arguably take womens tennis to a new level as far as overall quality of play compared to Navratilova and Graf at their peaks, and I only say arguably, was Serena Williams. Then again her stats in 2002-2003 dont even bear that out but atleast in her case you could argue her level of competition with Venus, Clijsters, Henin, and Capriati all to contend with (you cant count Davenport who barely played those 2 years and was nowhere near her best).
Last edited:
Joe Pike
Banned
A stabbing is over in one day (Seles).
A blackmail scandal with police investigation and a trial is not (Graf).
Neither is a dad dying of cancer (Seles).
So what's up with your constant referring to a minor stabbing?
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
IMO, at her best, Seles was a better player than Graf was at her best. Seles proved it, and she was cheated out of the chance to prove that she might have been the best player of all time, by a psychopathic Graf fan who admitted his purpose was to help Graf regain the top ranking, and he succeeded in doing just that. Anyone who denies that is either blowing smoke or not thinking clearly. Frankly, I think Graf's lack of any meaningful response or show of concern for Seles was a disgusting display of the utter lack of sportsmanship. And further, every major title Graf won after that date should have an asterisk next to it.
And here is where I respectively disagree. Graf in her best years of tennis ever such as 88, 89, 95, and 96 was IMO clearly better than Seles in 91 and 92.
Graf in 1988:
- Won all 4 Grand Slams
- 72-3 record
- Won 11 of 14 tournaments
- 2 lost sets in 4 Grand Slams to Navratilova (1), Sabatini (1)
- 9-3 record vs year end top 5 this year
Graf in 1989:
- Won 3 of 4 Grand Slams, lost in final 7-5 in 3rd of other
- 86-2 record
- Won 14 of 16 tournaments
- 6 lost sets in 4 Grand Slams to Sanchez (2), Navratilova (2), Sabatini (1), Seles (1)
- 12-2 record vs year end top 5 this year
Graf in 1995:
-Won all 3 Grand Slams she played
- 47-2 record
- Won 9 of 11 tournaments
- 7-0 head to head vs year end top 5
- 6 lost sets in 3 Grand Slams to Sanchez (2), Seles (1), Novotna (1), Martinez (1), Coetzer (1)
Graf in 1996:
-Won all 3 Grand Slams she played
- 54-4 record (1 loss via retirement)
- Won 7 of 10 tournaments
- 1 lost set in 3 Grand Slams to Sanchez (1)
- 11-1 head to head vs year end top 5 (loss by injury retirement after 1st set to Novotna)
Seles in 1991:
- Won the 3 Grand Slams she played (one she missed was Wimbledon which she never won, only made it past the quarters once, and lost 6-2, 6-1 in her only ever final there the following year)
- 74-6 record
- Won 10 of 17 tournaments
- 5 lost sets in 3 Grand Slams to Fernandez (saved match point), Novotna (1), Capriati (1), Cechini (1), Zardo (1)
- 9-5 record vs top 5 this year, losses to Graf (2), Navratilova (2), and Sabatini (1)
Seles in 1992:
- Won 3 of 4 Grand Slams she played, losing 6-2, 6-1 in final of the 4th.
- 70-5 record
- Won 10 of 15 tournaments
- 7 lost sets in 4 Grand Slams to Graf (3), Navratilova (1), Sabatini (1), Meshki (1), Kijimuta (1)
- 11-4 record vs top 5 this year with losses to Graf (1), Navratilova (1), Sabatini (1), and Sanchez Vicario (1)
So I am not sure when or where Seles proved her best tennis was better than Graf's.
Last edited:
Joe Pike
Banned
Joe Pike
Banned
Don't forget that "the field" had their ups and downs, too.
The field peaked in 1983/86 together with Navratilova.
Then it slumped in 1987-89.
But suddenly peaked again in 1990/92 together with Seles.
And slumped in 1993-1999.
Only to surge again in 2000-03 together with the Williams sisters.
Don't you get it?
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Seles was the best player in the World in 91 and 92 winning 6 of 8 majors those years. She was the best player in the world in the beginning of 93 and beat Graf in the AO final at the beginning of the year. Seles beat Graf in 3 out of the last 4 major finals they played in during this time. Seles was the top player for over two years, she had momentum, she had confidence, she had proven her mental toughness, and she had Graf mentally conquered. Then she was stabbed by a Graf fan who admitted he wanted to help Graf regain the #1 spot. I don't buy the notion that Graf's game just fell off. Graf was at her peak and she was dethroned by Seles. And the pressure of having Seles on top is what affected Graf's game. Once that pressure was removed by a nut, Graf's confidence returned. Watching it as it happened, it was quite obvious. And frankly, I was shocked at how completely graceless and unconcerned Graf was about the whole thing. I didn't expect that from Graf.
Last edited:
No offense but it is ridiculous to suggest 1991 and 1992 was Graf's peak. It would be one thing to say she was in her prime which makes sense but it certainly wasnt her peak. Do you even know the meaning of that word? Or do you think players have 10-12 year peaks since if 1991 and 1992 was Graf's peak tennis than apparently she had a 10-12 year peak, as apparently the 10th and 11th best years of tennis of her career was still her peak. After all she played better tennis in 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 than 1991 and 1992. Or do you in fact believe Graf's best ever tennis was in 1991 and 1992 now, LOL! Even if you removed Seles her results would have been terrible for her standards and she wouldnt have been even close to dominant. In fact Seles had minimal direct impact as they barely played.
Graf went a combined 23-16 vs Sabatini, Novotna, 30s version Navratilova, and Sanchez Vicario during this 30 month stretch. Do you know what her combined head to head with those is the rest of her career.
Yes Seles was the best player in the World in 1991 and 1992. Nobody is disputing that. And she wasnt the best player in the World in 1989, 1990, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. That is all we know. The rest is a guessing game. However she never proved herself to have the dominance, longevity, consistency, versatility or any of the elements to be even close to the greatest women player ever or has given ample reason to assume that was her likely destination which her fans seem to want everyone else to believe and get upset when time and time again almost nobody else will (I wonder why). Even in 91-92 at her career high point she was not playing at the level of many of the past all time greatest at their peaks and during their dominance as the stats I just posted show. I would happy to post Martina's or Court's peak stats by comparision for example as well.
And you say every slam Graf won after the Seles stabbing should have an asterix. Do you forget Graf's final slam win was in 1999. Or are you now suggesting even the slams won by Hingis, Davenport, and Serena from 97-99, players of the next generation (and players Seles all matched up poorly against it turned out) should have their slams devalued. How long should people blindly just assume for Seles into the future now, until 2001, until 2003 when she retired, even longer? Sorry but no. Courier was dominating the game during the same time frame as Seles, considering how much tougher and more competitive the mens game has always been than the womens. So if he had been stabbed in April 93 how many more slams should people have assumed he would have won? And Graf's Wimbledon should have an asterix when Seles has made it past the quarters there only once in her career and lost 6-2, 6-1 to Graf at her final Wimbledon before the stabbing as the World #1? Seles has earned that kind of benefit how exactly? OK I am done now.
Graf went a combined 23-16 vs Sabatini, Novotna, 30s version Navratilova, and Sanchez Vicario during this 30 month stretch. Do you know what her combined head to head with those is the rest of her career.
Yes Seles was the best player in the World in 1991 and 1992. Nobody is disputing that. And she wasnt the best player in the World in 1989, 1990, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003. That is all we know. The rest is a guessing game. However she never proved herself to have the dominance, longevity, consistency, versatility or any of the elements to be even close to the greatest women player ever or has given ample reason to assume that was her likely destination which her fans seem to want everyone else to believe and get upset when time and time again almost nobody else will (I wonder why). Even in 91-92 at her career high point she was not playing at the level of many of the past all time greatest at their peaks and during their dominance as the stats I just posted show. I would happy to post Martina's or Court's peak stats by comparision for example as well.
And you say every slam Graf won after the Seles stabbing should have an asterix. Do you forget Graf's final slam win was in 1999. Or are you now suggesting even the slams won by Hingis, Davenport, and Serena from 97-99, players of the next generation (and players Seles all matched up poorly against it turned out) should have their slams devalued. How long should people blindly just assume for Seles into the future now, until 2001, until 2003 when she retired, even longer? Sorry but no. Courier was dominating the game during the same time frame as Seles, considering how much tougher and more competitive the mens game has always been than the womens. So if he had been stabbed in April 93 how many more slams should people have assumed he would have won? And Graf's Wimbledon should have an asterix when Seles has made it past the quarters there only once in her career and lost 6-2, 6-1 to Graf at her final Wimbledon before the stabbing as the World #1? Seles has earned that kind of benefit how exactly? OK I am done now.
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
I already explained why Graf's game declined in 91 and 92. There's no guessing about it. Seles caused that. It was patently obvious to all who witnessed it. You didn't read my post carefully, or you're ignoring my explanation.
PS: As for 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, justice and rationality call for a big fat asterisk * next to those years!
Last edited:
So now according to you the slams and achievements of not only Graf or Sanchez Vicario in the immediate years after but in later years Davenport, Venus, Serena, Hingis, Capriati, heck even Henin (who started winning slams in 2003) now should be devalued due to some Seles based asterix from something that happened 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, even 10 years ago. Yeah ok. I am getting out now, we have entered crazy Selestial land, a little too crazy for my tastes. Cya.
If we put those big fat asterisks on the locker room doors BEFORE players dressed down, I'd be fine. We didn't. thw press covered those events, players trained for those events, orchestrated their scheduling to peak at the majors, coaches prepped them, folks bought tickets to see grand slam play, advertisers bought time during these major championships.
Lets face it its not just about Graf having an asterik, viritually every player in the draw wass afffected, and being as Seles did not play Italy, Berlin, any WTA event , we should have closed down the tour. We could put asteriks on the books for the years Court was pregnant, Austin's back was at its worst and when Maria Bueno got seriously ill for another year too.
The women on the tour deserved every ounce of credit for playing and winning at the QF, Semis, final or winning whether Seles showed up or not, regardless of why. Graf is no exception.
Lets face it its not just about Graf having an asterik, viritually every player in the draw wass afffected, and being as Seles did not play Italy, Berlin, any WTA event , we should have closed down the tour. We could put asteriks on the books for the years Court was pregnant, Austin's back was at its worst and when Maria Bueno got seriously ill for another year too.
The women on the tour deserved every ounce of credit for playing and winning at the QF, Semis, final or winning whether Seles showed up or not, regardless of why. Graf is no exception.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
No, not every player was affected the way Graf was affected. Graf benefited more from Seles' stabbing than anyone else. The difference between 1 and 2 is much more important that the difference between 2 and 3. 1 is the champion. All the rest are not. Graf certainly won more events, more majors and was ranked at the top longer than she would have been had Seles not been stabbed by one of her fans - a stabbing that the attacker confessed was for the purpose of helping Graf regain the #1 ranking.
And why do you expect others to just assume Seles was going to continue to dominate. If you want to then that is perfectly fine, but you seem to expect the rest of us to as well. No player in the last 50 years has truly dominated longer than 2-3 years, including greater players than Seles. Navratilova even saw her dominance stopped in 1985 after the 2 most dominant years ever by a women in modern times (well other than possibly Graf's own 88-89 to come) in 1983 and 1984. And not by up and comers or new players but by contemporaries. Graf of course only dominated for 2-3 years at a time at most, 87-89 (87 not totally though), 93, 95-96. Court only dominated for briefer periods at once too, 62-63, 65, 69-70, 73. King and Serena the same. Yet in the face of this evidence we are all supposed to just assume Seles was going to dominate another decade because she dominated for a little more than 2 years? And even after returning to tennis and falling far short of nearly everyones early expectations, not winning a slam the final 7+ years of her career, and being dominated by the next generation we are still supposed to assume this?
Last edited:
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
Because that's just the rational, reasonable outcome. How long Seles would have dominated is another matter. She might have injured herself, or burnt out after a few more years. But, "domination" isn't the point. It probably would have continued to be very competitive. But, given the mental toughness she demonstrated in knocking Graf off of the top, and the fact that she was 4 years younger than Graf, there's no rational basis to dispute that Seles would have, in all likelihood, continued to have a winning record against Graf for the rest of her career. In any event, whatever career Seles would have experienced had she not been stabbed, there is no rational, reasonable dispute that she was cheated out of it.
PS: Having said all that, to return to my point, IMHO, Seles at her best was a better tennis player than Graf at her best. At her best, Seles hit harder, she was steadier and she was mentally tougher than Graf. Graf may have outlasted Seles even if she hadn't been stabbed, the way Connors outlasted Borg. Who knows! But, it's not reasonably disputable that Seles' time at the top, however long it would have been, was cut short through no fault of her own.
Last edited:
Similar threads
