Better claycourter: Sanchez or Navratilova

[thalivest]

Since there was a poll about Sanchez vs a player with 1 more French Open title than her I thought it might be interesting to create another poll about Sanchez vs a player who has 1 less French Open title than her and that is Navratilova. Navratilova has been in 6 French Open finals but only won 2. She lost a couple heartbreakers and classics in 1985 and 1987 to Evert and Graf, arguably the two greatest clay courters in history. Her 1975 final though is almost certainly a result of the sparsely attended event as she wasnt really competitive on clay until 1982. Her play on clay outside the French Open was often sparse, tending to many times avoid the bigger tournaments outside the French Open for whatever reason.

Sanchez Vicario of course is a 3 time Champion. She has lost 3 other finals giving her a total of 6 finals, so while 1 more title the same # of finals as Navratilova. She won her 3 titles by defeating a peak dominant Graf, a red hot first time finalist Pierce, and a past her prime Seles. She a heartbreaker and classic to Graf in the 1996 final as 1 of her 3 final defeats. Her other 2 final defeats were to a prime Graf and a peak dominant Seles. Sanchez actually has additional 4 semifinals, giving her 10 total. Unlike Navratilova she did frequently play the big tier 1 and tier 2 events on clay and won or finaled in many of them.

So who is the greater clay courter? I would go with Sanchez Vicario for consistency, longevity on the surface, and frequent participation and success in tournaments other than the French, all of which she trumps Navratilova IMO. Navratilova's peak level I believe was higher on clay, but it didnt last nearly as long. As for strength of competition Navratilova faced Evert, Mandlikova, Jaeger, Maleeva, Sukova and very briefly a young pre prime Graf. Sanchez faced Graf, Seles, Sabatini, Martinez, Pierce, Fernandez, Maleeva, Hingis, Novotna, and Majoli so I would say overall Sanchez faced a deeper field of clay courters too.

 

[BTURNER]

I agree with your assessment. Its not just about RG, there is the italian, german, Madrid, and the American circuit. Sanchez played them and did well in an era of very good clay courters. I also agree that Martina at her peak climbed the highest of mountains, but fell down after the short overnight period. ( 1984,1987)

 

[CEvertFan]

Navratilova at her absolute peak would beat ANYONE on clay but Arantxa had the better clay court career. I voted for Arantxa.

Martina skipped a lot of clay tournaments during a large portion of her career possibly because she knew it would be extremely difficult to beat her main rival on her best surface.

 

[hoodjem]

This poll reminds me of Laver versus Guga. Laver won two RG because he was great on any surface when he needed to be; Guga won three because it was his best surface and he was very good on it.

A GOAT versus an excellent clay-courter. I voted Sanchez-Vicario.

 

[boredone3456]

Wow. This is actually pretty tough. In terms of Accomplishment, Arantxa accomplished more in her career with what was in front of her. Also, since I know someone is going to come in here and talk about Arantxa Benefitting and only winning because Seles was gone and to that I will say the tennis world was not going to just stop for Seles and wait for her to get back, life goes on and Arantxa and everyone else were not about to go "I only won because so and so was not here and I am inferior". History is full of players leaving and getting injured or out for whatever reason that could be argued to have altered history had they not happened (Connolly and Austin are examples). It was tragic but things were not about to stop just for her.

Nav at her prime on clay was unlucky to have Evert as her Rival and then Graf. When your time on a surface comes through 2 of that surfaces greats its extremely difficult to accomplish much. Nav was a good clay court player, just Evert and Graf were better. I do think Nav could beat Arantxa on clay, but as Nav routinely skipped many big clay court events and picked a schedule that facored surfaces where her game was more deadly, I would have to say Arantxa for her accomplishment against a very deep clay field including Graf, Seles, Pierce, the eratic but problematic Sabatini and potentially deadly clay court specialist Martinez (Yes she won Wimbledon but that was more luck than anything and she was truly a claycourt specialist).

 

[thalivest]

Navratilova at her absolute peak would beat ANYONE on clay but Arantxa had the better clay court career. I voted for Arantxa.

Martina skipped a lot of clay tournaments during a large portion of her career possibly because she knew it would be extremely difficult to beat her main rival on her best surface.

That is why I find Navratilova difficult to rank on clay. She did reach an unbelievably high level for 5 years on clay, one that probably only Evert or Graf of Open Era players could have ever toppled her on clay. For 1 or 2 years she reached a level that probably no player in history could have toppled her on clay. However by skipping so many clay court events in all but her very best years she sacrifices alot of her potential overall career on the surface. She didnt even play the French after 1975 until 1981, stopped playing it altogether after 1988, and all but a few of those years hardly played any of the other events on clay. She like you said seemed to go out of her way to avoid Evert on clay until 1984. She also seemed to avoid Steffi Graf on clay except for the French after her smackdown to a 16 year old Graf in Germany in early 1986 (she even admited to the press it was why she was skipping the German Open and some other key clay events in 1987).
That detracts from her legacy on the surface somewhat IMO.

 

[scootad.]

She did reach an unbelievably high level for 5 years on clay, one that probably only Evert or Graf of Open Era players could have ever toppled her on clay. For 1 or 2 years she reached a level that probably no player in history could have toppled her on clay. That detracts from her legacy on the surface somewhat IMO

What about Seles of 1991 vs. Navratilova of early 80s at the FO? I think it would be a terrific matchup...highly entertaining and competitive.

 

[scootad.]

To me, there's nothing more beautiful than watching a top class serve and volley player at their prime playing on the red clay. It's tennis at its most interesting...especially contrasted with a baseliner in a tough battle.

 

[suwanee4712]

LOL.....everyone should already know how I voted. I think Martina's clay court prowess has always been underated. In womens tennis, surface has mattered less than it did in mens tennis. While there certainly are clay court specialists and even a few that avoided grass, mostly the ladies have been able to make their individual games work on any surface. Martina was just a few points from 5 French titles at the hands of 2 of the very greatest players ever: Evert and Graf. She was very unlucky in that sense.

Martina didn't play as much on clay as others have pointed out. But most players had a certain time of the year where they cut their tour schedule back to rest. Chris avoided indoor tournaments like the plague after 1979. In later years, Steffi mostly skipped the American clay circuit altogether. For several years, Hana bypassed the Florida hardcourt season both when it was after the US Open and when it was moved up prior to the Lipton.

I credit ASV's success vs. Graf on clay to her style of play matching up so well with Graf. She would try to draw Steffi into long matches where she just kept getting balls back, but rarely doing anything special. That kind of tactic would be hard to employ against a player like Martina unless MN had an off day. If the tour was played entirely on clay, I would still expect Martina to be the better player, both vs. ASV and in terms of winning titles.

 

[scootad.]

I also think MN would really know strategy wise what to do. I remember watching ASV vs. MN in Nav's twilight - I believe it was Amelia Island in 93 or something. Even at her elderly age, MN knew exactly how to expose ASV - she would slice the approach up the middle of the court slightly to the right of midline right into ASV's weak forehand. ASV could not adjust very well.

I wish I was around to watch Nav at her prime on clay.

 

[matchmaker]

The better claycourter is Sanchez Vicario IMO. Navratilova was a fast surface player who could contrive with the best on clay, but Sanchez Vicario had the more typical claycourt game.

 

[suwanee4712]

I also think MN would really know strategy wise what to do. I remember watching ASV vs. MN in Nav's twilight - I believe it was Amelia Island in 93 or something. Even at her elderly age, MN knew exactly how to expose ASV - she would slice the approach up the middle of the court slightly to the right of midline right into ASV's weak forehand. ASV could not adjust very well.

I wish I was around to watch Nav at her prime on clay.

It was awesome. Pick up a copy of just about any of Martina's latter round French Open matches between 1982 and 1987. As a natural clay courter, she moved so beautifully and truly was one of the best sliders I've ever seen on the stuff. Her 1984 SF and F round wins over Hana and Chris are treasures in my book.

Martina's game may not be the typical clay court game. But she's not an all time great merely depending upon the surface on which she's playing. With her game, she's an all time great on clay too.

Just because the French Open was really the only clay court title that she coveted doesn't mean that she couldn't have won in Rome or Berlin too. She rarely played Berlin, and didn't play much in Rome either until after she experienced that great night match with Gaby in 1990. I think that electrified atmosphere was why she kept going back to Rome after that.

 

[scootad.]

Yeah, imagine how many FO's Nav would have won had a Czech fan stabbed Evert in 1982.

Does youtube have any of Nav's later round FO matches? I'll have to check it out.

 

[thalivest]

Yeah, imagine how many FO's Nav would have won had a Czech fan stabbed Evert in 1982.

Possibly 4 at most, even then not certain as her nerve in finals and semis vs opponents she is favored over can be suspect at times. Depending how the draw came out in 1986 Graf, Mandlikova, Sukova, and even Sabatini all had a real shot at her depending on the day. Actually as Graf's loss to Hana in the quarters was a big upset and she was favored to win that year, if Graf plays someone else in the quarters she probably still wins that year with a different draw. In 1985 Martina would win for sure unless she got really nervous and lost because of that.

 

[BTURNER]

suwanee, sorry ,but I think you make a lot of excuses for her. Fact is, she did not do the job on red clay throughout a twenty year career, unless the job = 2 RG titles and zero Italian and zero Germans. To be blunt she was the best in the world on clay in 1984, and proved nothing but sporadic success before and after. Of course she could put some glorious stuff together and was a natural mover on the clay. That is what got her to finals. But she was someone everyone knew was capable of loosing a la Kathy Horvath, including Martina herself. That's why she avoided some red clay events. It wasn't just a fear of Chris or Steffi. Had she shone up more, might as easily had losses to Maleeva sisters or Bassett as won more often.

 

[suwanee4712]

suwanee, sorry ,but I think you make a lot of excuses for her. Fact is, she did not do the job on red clay throughout a twenty year career, unless the job = 2 RG titles and zero Italian and zero Germans. To be blunt she was the best in the world on clay in 1984, and proved nothing but sporadic success before and after. Of course she could put some glorious stuff together and was a natural mover on the clay. That is what got her to finals. But she was someone everyone knew was capable of loosing a la Kathy Horvath, including Martina herself. That's why she avoided some red clay events. It wasn't just a fear of Chris or Steffi. Had she shone up more, might as easily had losses to Maleeva sisters or Bassett as won more often.

It's totally fair to be critical of Martina and her clay court choices. I just don't believe that it was as big of a weakness as others seem to.

I wish that Martina and Chris had not felt that they needed to spread themselves out for the sake of the tour in the mid 80's. That's one thing preventing more clay court matchups. Although there were enough green clay events in America that she and Chris divided those up fairly neatly until Graf came into the picture.

Of course, Chris left the indoor tournaments mostly to Martina. But people tend to make a bigger deal of Martina "avoiding" her on clay and say nothing about Chris' lack of indoor play. Seems like a double standard to me.

 

[flying24]

Martina wasnt even really that good a clay courter until 1982. As late as 1981 she played two tournaments on clay. She was spanked in the French Open quarters by Sylvia Hanika in one, and double bageled by Chris in the other. What on earth would she be doing vs Sanchez Vicario on clay that year if she were getting only 6 games from Hanika and 0 games from Chris.

Martina was really only that good a clay courter from 1982 to 1988. Sanchez was a really good clay courter from 1989 to 2000. So 6 years vs 11 years.

On the other hand Sanchez might have only the same or even less French Open titles than Martina without the Seles stabbing I guess one could argue. Then again without the Seles stabbing the overall competition Sanchez would have faced on clay would now be another planet from Martina, even with Chris Evert being considered.

 

[flying24]

Of course, Chris left the indoor tournaments mostly to Martina. But people tend to make a bigger deal of Martina "avoiding" her on clay and say nothing about Chris' lack of indoor play. Seems like a double standard to me.

If you look at the head to head Chris played Martina quite often indoors, even at Martina's peak.

http://www.sonyericssonwtatour.com/....asp?PlayerID=140007&x=15&y=7&Player1ID=50020

They played twice on carpet in 1982, twice on carpet in 1983, and twice on carpet in 1984. Doesnt seem like Chris was backing away from Martina even at her scariest anywhere to me. Martina also began increasingly skipping events on slower surfaces once Steffi Graf emerged. Martina is an amazing player of course but the criticism of her avoiding her toughest competition on her least favorite surfaces except at her most dominant and confident is a valid one. I see no evidence Chris vs Martina did in the same way on any surface ever.

 

[dannykl]

Yeah, imagine how many FO's Nav would have won had a Czech fan stabbed Evert in 1982.

Does youtube have any of Nav's later round FO matches? I'll have to check it out.

If you want argue like that, I can also say Martina already has been lucky enough from 1982 because of Tracy's damaged body and thereafter her early leave from the tour. Image how many majors Tracy would have won had she not suffered from the terrible early injuries.

Almost every player has some fortunes mixed with bad lucks in his/her own career life.Martina is no exception.

 

[flying24]

If you want argue like that, I can also say Martina already has been lucky enough from 1982 because of Tracy's damaged body and thereafter her early leave from the tour. Image how many majors Tracy would have won had she not suffered from the terrible early injuries.

Almost every player has some fortunes mixed with bad lucks in his/her own career life.Martina is no exception.

There isnt a parallel there that I see, sorry. Injury does not = stabbing. That being said as thalivest said even with Chris gone from tennis in 1982, Martina wins 4 Frenchs at most, probably more likely 3 as she would have a hard time winning in 86 with all her possible threats and Graf is probably the likely winner with that big upset quarterfinal loss adverted (assuming she is no longer draw playing Hana in the quarters where that big upset took place). In an imaginery situation with Chris gone from tennis lets say even 1977 onwards, Martina now really faces a really weak clay court field, much weaker than Sanchez faced even with the Seles stabbing. The only true quality clay courter she would now face until the emergence of a very young pre prime Graf and Sabatini would be Hana, that is it. Ok maybe Jaeger for a bit at a push. Yet even vs this almost nothing clay court field with Chris gone even much earlier than 1982 she would still have won only 3, 4 if lucky, French Opens, due to her relative irrelevance on clay until 1982, her being prone to massive upsets on clay on a given day even at the height of her glory(eg- Horvath), and her inability to stop even a young pre-prime Graf on clay in 1986 and 1987.

 

[BTURNER]

My position is, it is exactly parallel until someone can point to a practical difference/ distinction in the subsequent tourneys and the way they were held. The draws the women got after the stabbing, were no different than had Seles broken her ankle. The seedings were precisely the same as if she had broken her ankle. Every tournament was held on schedule, women trained and competed no differently than had she fallen in that event. The tennis world continued just as though she was injured except for adding some security, and rightly so. I see no reason to treat the events or the winners any differently than had she broke her ankle. Those that got into the Quarters, semis or finals because she wasn't there or won events because she wasn't there do NOT deserve an asterik, because we don't give asteriks because one woman could not compete. No single player is so important that events and results should be marginalized because she could not compete. This is not just about Graf. Its about all the women who might have met Seles including Graf, who sweated and worked hard, only to have pundits sneer because Seles wasn't there. Yes, to Seles and her fans, it makes a difference that she was the victim of a violent act. But in the mechanics of the tourneys and how they were run, she might as well have had a broken ankle UNTIL the WTA treated it differently when she came back as co- number one. even then, while it affected rankings, it did not affect draws.

 

[Moose Malloy]

suwanee, sorry ,but I think you make a lot of excuses for her. Fact is, she did not do the job on red clay throughout a twenty year career, unless the job = 2 RG titles and zero Italian and zero Germans

when did rome & berlin become such significant events for the women? attendance was horrible for the womens italian open event until the late 80s when I think Graf & Sabatini put on a great night match that finally got italian fans into womens tennis. And prize money was also lame for that event. Amelia Island & Family Circle were far more significant clay events for the women in Chris & Martina's time(family circle offered one of the biggest purses on tour at the time, and attracted great crowds)

Using Berlin/Rome to compare Sanchez to Martina is almost like using the AO to compare Borg to Federer. The tour was in a completely different place in Sanchez's time.

 

[BTURNER]

Considering Martina's relatively poor showing at RG on european clay, it might be mitigating if she won some other European clay one week events instead, to show her capacity to dominate in somewhere at least. If you find some european clay events with attendance figures you like, that may suggest she could and did win tourneys on red dirt less than sporatically, feel free. Sanchez has 3 RG wins to 2 for Martina with just as many finals, in a highly competitive era.

 

[Moose Malloy]

This obsession with surface seems to be a rather recent thing. I played & watched a lot of tennis in the 80s & don't recall fans/players sitting around talking about different types of clay, hardcourts, etc(nor did the media ask players about it) Somehow I doubt you did either.

Tennis was just tennis then, you won, you lost, period. Who would have thought players like Borg & Martina(who had insane win %'s, isn't that enough?) would have their record on 'hardcourts' or 'red clay' analyzed so intensely all these years later.

I know its hard, but fans of today should really try not to view the tennis world of 20-30 years ago with the same eyes they have today.

But if a champion on short lists for GOAT, has only have two wins at RG in a twenty yr career

And Court only has 3 Wimbledons. How many times do these 'Goat' candidates have to win events to impress you?

anyway I see Martina won 4 Family Circle Cups(Arantxa 1) & 3 Amelia Islands(Arantxa 2) That's pretty impressive imo.
I can't believe you think green clay makes that much of a difference(we are talking about womens players here) that you would ignore them in a 'clay' argument about Martina. Again I certainly don't remember the commentators or players saying that the Family Circle result wasn't a significant warmup event going into the FO back in the 80s because it was on different clay.

by my math, Martina was 51-11(& I'm including her loss in '04 at the age of 80 here) at the French (that a win % of 82%)

Arantxa was 72-14(83.7%)

Five of the years Martina played, it was a 64 draw, so if you add 5 more wins to that record she's at 83.5%

And looking at the FO record book, Martina, Graf, & Evert are the only players in the Open Era to make 4 consecutive finals at the French.

 

[BTURNER]

This obsession with surface seems to be a rather recent thing. I played & watched a lot of tennis in the 80s & don't recall fans/players sitting around talking about different types of clay, hardcourts, etc(nor did the media ask players about it) Somehow I doubt you did either.

Oh yes I fully remember them pointing out how differently green clay and Red clay play. Most of the tennis I watched was 80's Tennis, and that's where I learned it.

Tennis was just tennis then, you won, you lost, period. Who would have thought players like Borg & Martina(who had insane win %'s, isn't that enough?) would have their record on 'hardcourts' or 'red clay' analyzed so intensely all these years later.

Tennis was never just tennis, and folks had their preferences, strengths and weaknesses noted by opponents and pundits. I have matches on DVD from the 70's with commentators describing why how's and why's of a players success on a specific surface and describing the reasons for respective success and failure. its just silliness to suggest differently. Specific statistical analysis were not in vogue, but then again stats weren't so much in vogue on any subject, so their analysis wouldn't be. Compu- tennis made such study practical and available. Doesn't mean the subject was not important in Tennis circles.



And Court only has 3 Wimbledons. How many times do these 'Goat' candidates have to win events to impress you?

For me it has always been about surface, length of the tourney (two week events over one) and stature. Court show a little expertise on grass with the 6 US and 11 Australians so I didn't fret "only three" too darn much. Question was about her winning on hard courts but that was answered sufficiently on another thread.

anyway I see Martina won 4 Family Circle Cups(Arantxa 1) & 3 Amelia Islands(Arantxa 2) That's pretty impressive imo.
I can't believe you think green clay makes that much of a difference(we are talking about womens players here) that you would ignore them in a 'clay' argument about Martina. Again I certainly don't remember the commentators or players saying that the Family Circle result wasn't a significant warmup event going into the FO back in the 80s because it was on different clay.

that proves she can move on the stuff. and obviously playing green clay helps to get that feel back. It just isn't as slow, and therefore does not test the same values, and shots as strenuously. No doubt Americans who played the green clay more exclusively did not do as well as europeans did at RG who played more exclusively on red clay. . One might surmise there is a connection. Maybe Martina would have been better prepared for RG had she played the italian. For me smaller events are tie breakers. There is no tie to break



by my math, Martina was 51-11(& I'm including her loss in '04 at the age of 80 here) at the French (that a win % of 82%)

Arantxa was 72-14(83.7%)

Five of the years Martina played, it was a 64 draw, so if you add 5 more wins to that record she's at 83.5%.

I'll take your word on that. Not sure those extra early rounds would have been much of a challenge to a Sanchez so they may not measure much. An extra slam does.

And looking at the FO record book, Martina, Graf, & Evert are the only players in the Open Era to make 4 consecutive finals at the French.

Now I never understood the importance of consecutive anything as a standard except as a trivia question. I just never cared whether say, four titles came next to each other or within 5 yrs or six. Did really said anything about the merit of the championships or their caliber.Maybe its more impressive with time between wins. Maybe career w/l ratio on clay might be more revealing.

Edit. someohw I managedto put the wrong stuff in the box and not make who's words were who's, clear. Makes the reply hard to read, sorry.

 

[scootad.]

Excellent posts Moose Malloy.

 

[Tennisfan!]

I just can't choose Arantxa, sorry

 

[srinrajesh]

Navratilova reached FO final 6/13 years
while Arantxa reached FO final 6/16 years.

Arantxa won 19 titles on clay versus 18 by navratilova.

Arantxa best surface was clay while martina's was carpet / grass and clay was her worst surface because of her serve and volley style. Still she won 2 FO and reached 6 finals and only lost to players like evert and graf.

She beat Evert 6-2, 6-0 in Amelia island clay in 84 and 6-3,6-1 in FO final in 84.

Also head to head they were 2-2 on clay while martina leads 13-3 overall.

I would rate them equal in clay court prowess.

 

[flying24]

Navratilova reached FO final 6/13 years
while Arantxa reached FO final 6/16 years.

Martina is fortunate her best years were beginning when the French was becoming a fully attended and recognized slam again. If the French were like today and Martina had played each year before 1981 with a full field like today that ratio would be alot worse IMO. Probably more like 5/18. I know she reached the 1975 final but that was because of the depleted field and all the players who didnt show up that year like most years around then. That is not to mention her skipping the French from 89-93, again years she wasnt as likely to do well as 81-88 (82-87 especialy). Sanchez played the French every year she could against a full field every year.

 

[srinrajesh]

still voted for navratilova by a slight edge because she actually skipped 5 years from 76-80 when she could definitely have won one more and reached couple of more finals at FO

 

[flying24]

Martina wasnt that good a clay courter until 1982. If the French were like today with everyone playing she wouldnt have won any of those years from 76-80, and her French Open ratio would only be worse from playing those years. Plus the only 2 slam finals Martina was even in before 1981 were the 2 Wimbledons she won in 78 and 79 on her very favorite surface. Of course the French during that time wasnt like today, and the only reason she would have played those years anyway is if it were and in that case she doesnt win any of them, and her %s get worse as she isnt as good a player and certainly not as good a clay courter those years.

 

[CEvertFan]

Navratilova reached FO final 6/13 years
while Arantxa reached FO final 6/16 years.

Arantxa won 19 titles on clay versus 18 by navratilova.

Arantxa best surface was clay while martina's was carpet / grass and clay was her worst surface because of her serve and volley style. Still she won 2 FO and reached 6 finals and only lost to players like evert and graf.

She beat Evert 6-2, 6-0 in Amelia island clay in 84 and 6-3,6-1 in FO final in 84.

Also head to head they were 2-2 on clay while martina leads 13-3 overall.

I would rate them equal in clay court prowess.

Martina leadss 13-3 overall in what area? If you mean the clay H2H with Evert than you're wrong. Evert leads their H2H on clay by a big margin but unfortunately it's the surface where they faced each other the least out of any of the surfaces during their careers. They played many more matches against one another on grass and indoors than they did on clay.

 

[Lionheart392]

Martina leadss 13-3 overall in what area? If you mean the clay H2H with Evert than you're wrong. Evert leads their H2H on clay by a big margin but unfortunately it's the surface where they faced each other the least out of any of the surfaces during their careers. They played many more matches against one another on grass and indoors than they did on clay.

S/he is talking about Martina and Arantxa's H2H
I had no idea they'd played so many matches actually.

 

[grafselesfan]

I think he meant Martina's overall head to head with Sanchez is 13-3 which it is. Of course nobody would compare Sanchez and Martina on any surface except clay so that really doesnt matter. They never played each on clay when both were in their primes. Martina had 2 wins way before Sanchez's prime, and Sanchez 2 well after Martina's prime so head to head there is also meaningless.

 

[Nalbandian great]

La gran Arantxa