Does Chris Evert have a legitimate case to be the GOAT

[kiki]

You must have some tool, you Kiki use, to measure this 'real understanding', like a scale, beyond the complacent notions of TV pundits. Courier is a 2.3, Evert and Lendl a 2.6, Austin a 2.2, and Agassi a 2.4 etc This does not alter or change with time, experience or any other variable, its more like a special gene in a player's DNA that cannot ever mutate no matter what. One may change one's blood cholesterol number with special attention to diet and exercise , but this 'real understanding' number is genetic and tamper-proof. Once Dr. Kiki has established the figure with his patented test, he documents in in the medical chart and there is no point in retaking later on.

Oh¡ c´mon there is nothing better to judge tennis as empirics and self observation.Having played at a certain level also helps at the emphatic level.You know when somebody knows what he or she is doing at the net at a first glance.I never had that sensation with Evert, sorry for that.

Like when a Dr sees , continuing your example, your face is yellow skinned, no need to go through a computer.He has seen that and he has learnt from mere empirism.

Nobody happens to be perfect, not even mrs Lloyd

 

[BTURNER]

Oh¡ c´mon there is nothing better to judge tennis as umpirics and self observation.Having played at a certain level also helps at the emphatic level.You know when somebody knows what he or she is doing at the net at a first glance.I never had that sensation with Evert, sorry for that.

Like when a Dr sees , continuing your example, your face is yellow skinned, no need to go through a computer.He has seen that and he has learnt from mere empirism.

Nobody happens to be perfect, not even mrs Lloyd

YOu don't get it. Suggesting that Evert had improved her volley and her instincts at net late in her career, and made a concerted effort to end more points up there thus became more versatile, rather than hang in the backcourt is not about her achieving perfection as a player. It is about recognising a general change in her style of play from a fairly devout baseliner, to a more all courter type. She did it because she was losing other attributes and needed a new set of tools to compete with if she hope to hang in the top 5 and it mostly worked.

It would be bizarre if her forever-heralded uncanny sense of anticipation did NOT result in better net play results with more experience and confidence, wouldn't it? I am just saying she learned to trust that same sense of where her opponent was going hitting the ball, would yield dividends wherever she might be. She had the strokes all along to approach with, and decent technique which she improved later on. Evert really lacked experience and confidence up there and more to the point a real incentive to make it a goal to develope. Age, fear and impatience provided that.

Until you read posts of mine where I compare her instincts or net play favorably to life long serve/ volleyers, don't presume those posts exist. I am comparing them favorably with most other baseliners.

 

[kiki]

YOu don't get it. Suggesting that Evert had improved her volley and her instincts at net late in her career, and made a concerted effort to end more points up there thus became more versatile, rather than hang in the backcourt is not about her achieving perfection as a player. It is about recognising a general change in her style of play from a fairly devout baseliner, to a more all courter type. She did it because she was losing other attributes and needed a new set of tools to compete with if she hope to hang in the top 5 and it mostly worked.

Until you read posts of mine where I compare her instincts or net play favorably to life long serve/ volleyers, don't presume those posts exist. I am comparing them favorably with many other baseliners.

It would be bizarre if her forever-heralded sense of anticipation did NOT result in better net play results with more experience and confidence, wouldn't it?

OK, I didn´t try to misunderstand or do any wrong with former posts of yours.Chris Evert certainly took advantage of her flat, straight shots to appproach more constantly the net and the reason, maybe, was that she needed a little bit of a change to remain as competitive as she had been before.

I´d say that is due to increasing baseline power, ever since Austin, Jaeger,Hana and later on Graf and Sabatini.More consistent heavy hitters than Barker or Ruzici or even Nacy Richey to name a few baseliners whom Evert regularly beat in the 70´s.

Not to mention that staying at the baseline was of no use many times when Navratilova was peaking.From 1982 or 1983 onwards, Navratilova used to beat all the baseliners with great ease, until Graf showed up.

It would have been great to watch more Court/Evert matches to see if that would also impulse Evert to be a bit more daring to take to the net.

 

[BTURNER]

OK, I didn´t try to misunderstand or do any wrong with former posts of yours.Chris Evert certainly took advantage of her flat, straight shots to appproach more constantly the net and the reason, maybe, was that she needed a little bit of a change to remain as competitive as she had been before.

I´d say that is due to increasing baseline power, ever since Austin, Jaeger,Hana and later on Graf and Sabatini.More consistent heavy hitters than Barker or Ruzici or even Nacy Richey to name a few baseliners whom Evert regularly beat in the 70´s.

Not to mention that staying at the baseline was of no use many times when Navratilova was peaking.From 1982 or 1983 onwards, Navratilova used to beat all the baseliners with great ease, until Graf showed up.

It would have been great to watch more Court/Evert matches to see if that would also impulse Evert to be a bit more daring to take to the net.

I think it finally clicked with her, that if she could read the ball off her opponent's racket earlier than anybody else from the baseline, as she always had done, that meant she could lean that way a little earlier up at net too, and gain an advantage off those great flat groundies she had heretofore not recognised, so perfect 'instincts' were not as necessary as confidence, experience and a good sense of when to do it. Desperation to stay up relevant at the very top, alongside burnout and better backcourt play by the new generation made for an alliance that improved the only part of her game she really could. it wasn't enough to win more majors, but it was enough to win a lot of big points at crucial times in matches and stay up there at the top level. Her volleying was better, more prevalent and more confident in the 86-88, than at any time in her career while everything else slid.

 

[kiki]

athleticism improved a lot, in general terms, in the 80´s.While there were really 4 great athletes before ( Court,Navratilova,Goolagong, maybe Wade), there were more athletes in the 80´s, like Mandlikova, Navratilova at her best, Hanika,Jordan,Sukova,Kohde,Graf,Seles

 

[BTURNER]

athleticism improved a lot, in general terms, in the 80´s.While there were really 4 great athletes before ( Court,Navratilova,Goolagong, maybe Wade), there were more athletes in the 80´s, like Mandlikova, Navratilova at her best, Hanika,Jordan,Sukova,Kohde,Graf,Seles

if you watched that 86' semifinal between Evert and Mandikova, and if you can \take your eyes off of Hana long enough, you will notice that Evert came in almost as often as Hana except of course Chris did not come in on her serve, and she hit great solid volleys throughout. It was more volleying than I can ever recall from Chris in any match.

Mandlikova could pass her better than Martina could, because Evert could read the Navratilova backhand better than Hana's. I suspect If Evert could have gotten into the net more vs Martina like she did vs Hana, she might have won that 87 or 88 semi, but Martina was more often up there on both first and second serves, while Mandlikova tended to stay back on her second serve.

 

[kiki]

if you watched that 86' semifinal between Evert and Mandikova, and if you can \take your eyes off of Hana long enough, you will notice that Evert came in almost as often as Hana except of course Chris did not come in on her serve, and she hit great solid volleys throughout. It was more volleying than I can ever recall from Chris in any match.

Mandlikova could pass her better than Martina could, because Evert could read the Navratilova backhand better than Hana's. I suspect If Evert could have gotten into the net more vs Martina like she did vs Hana, she might have won that 87 or 88 semi, but Martina was almost always up there on both first and second serves, while Mandlikova tended to stay back on her second serve.

I´ll watch this match again, Bturner....

...I´ll do my best taking my eyes off Hana, which is certainly an herculean task for me to do

Anyhow, I do also recall Chris shortening the points as she got definitely older, around 31-32 yrs ( that should be in the middle 80´s).I certainly remember that but maybe, the real reason for that is, because she was losing a step or two.Haven´t you thought about that?

 

[kiki]

Come to think about girls who played great baseline tennis.Jaeger,Hingis, later on Sabatini, Ruzici,Hanika,Kournikova,Davenport,Fromholtz,Bunge,Venus were also good volleyers or at least, had an insinct for net play.Even if they don´t reach the " all court game" cathegory of Bueno,Court,Goolagong,Mandlikova and maybe Serena Williams

 

[suwanee4712]

if you watched that 86' semifinal between Evert and Mandikova, and if you can \take your eyes off of Hana long enough, you will notice that Evert came in almost as often as Hana except of course Chris did not come in on her serve, and she hit great solid volleys throughout. It was more volleying than I can ever recall from Chris in any match.

Mandlikova could pass her better than Martina could, because Evert could read the Navratilova backhand better than Hana's. I suspect If Evert could have gotten into the net more vs Martina like she did vs Hana, she might have won that 87 or 88 semi, but Martina was almost always up there on both first and second serves, while Mandlikova tended to stay back on her second serve.

I think it was that match that Chris had her "Queen Elizabeth moment." Remember Queen Elizabeth once heard a gunshot while she was parading on horseback in front of a large crowd and she didn't blink. She kept her composure and it reaffirmed what many already believed about the resolve and sense of duty that QE2 has.

Well Chris had that kind of moment when she left a volley short and Hana rushed in and fired a topspin bh at her shoulder (not in a mean spirit but to freeze Chris) but Chris stood in and volleyed a winner by Hana then turned and walked back to the baseline as if to say, "I hit that shot all the time, baby!" What a moment!

I absolutely agree with you that Chris read her opponents' shots quicker than anyone else which probably translated into increased success at the net. Rarely did you ever see Evert flatfooted at the net unless she was undone by a spectacular passing shot.

 

[BTURNER]

I´ll watch this match again, Bturner....

...I´ll do my best taking my eyes off Hana, which is certainly an herculean task for me to do

Anyhow, I do also recall Chris shortening the points as she got definitely older, around 31-32 yrs ( that should be in the middle 80´s).I certainly remember that but maybe, the real reason for that is, because she was losing a step or two.Haven´t you thought about that?

Except she actually did not start lose any foot speed according to her opponents until late in 1988. Everyone was hitting harder, and moving quicker as Martina's regimen became everyone's regimen, including Evert, but of course the amount of benefit someone at 32+ is going to gain, from all the extra work at the gym and track, is going to be less evident. Physically she was still improving, but at a less prodigious pace than the younger gals so the net effect was a closing of the the gap between Martina and Evert and the new generation.

In any case, there is no denying that Evert was losing a higher percentage of baseline rallies and was no longer the 'big point queen' mentally, and had to become more of an all-courter to compensate. Commentators, who had heretofore criticized her for not coming in and taking advantage of short shots, no longer had any complaints in that dept. They wondered why stray errors from before, now became short streaks of errors.

I wondered when she was going to stop returning second serves of baseliners, down the center and start whacking them for winners and charging forward, like the rest of the tour seemed to be doing, or at least occasionally coming in after her serve now and again like even Graf and Sabatini did. That stuff never happened, but she sure charged in more in rallies to good effect. The percentages of points won at net were always favorable stats for Evert.

 

[kiki]

Chris Evert vs Margaret Court on a serie of clay court matches, that is something missing.They gave us a good entrace with their FO and IO matches but, unfortunately, didn´t play as many as I would have liked.I think Court would have solved the Evert enigma better than any other player until Tracy Austin or Steffi Graf, on clay

 

[Phoenix1983]

Evert cannot be ranked ahead of Graf or Navratilova, I feel.

 

[BTURNER]

Chris Evert vs Margaret Court on a serie of clay court matches, that is something missing.They gave us a good entrace with their FO and IO matches but, unfortunately, didn´t play as many as I would have liked.I think Court would have solved the Evert enigma better than any other player until Tracy Austin or Steffi Graf, on clay

Nobody was going to solve the Evert enigma on a clay court in the 70's but Court was less likely with more matches than Evonne - at least until Martina became a force. I think that RG final was as good as Court was likely to play. It seems counter-intuitive for the less consistently steady of the two to be the problem on clay but Goolagong kept taking sets against Evert here and there on clay and she beat Evert 7-6, 6-0 in '73. Both the Aussies had plenty of clay court experience and knew their way around a slide. Goolagong could really get under Evert's skin sometimes.

 

[kiki]

Goolagong had a wonderful range of touch shots, spins and understood angles perfectly.She could change the pace as well and glided on dirt as if she was a natural there.Her problem vs Evert is to know at which point of the match she would decide that she had had enough, get bored about the whole business going on and " walkabout" which would give Chris a highway in front of her for grabbing those 4-5 consecutive games that were enough to determine the winner.

On grass or fast turf, because of the rythmics and lesser duration of point, it could happen that Evonne was left with no time to " walkabout" and, interested or not in winning, she would win the match ( even in spite of not being interested in winning it).But that seldom happened on clay and, of course, much less against Chris.

 

[kiki]

to me there is only one thing better to watch than a Hana solo
a Jimmy Page solo¡¡

 

[BTURNER]

Goolagong had a wonderful range of touch shots, spins and understood angles perfectly.She could change the pace as well and glided on dirt as if she was a natural there.Her problem vs Evert is to know at which point of the match she would decide that she had had enough, get bored about the whole business going on and " walkabout" which would give Chris a highway in front of her for grabbing those 4-5 consecutive games that were enough to determine the winner.

On grass or fast turf, because of the rythmics and lesser duration of point, it could happen that Evonne was left with no time to " walkabout" and, interested or not in winning, she would win the match ( even in spite of not being interested in winning it).But that seldom happened on clay and, of course, much less against Chris.

You are right on here, Kiki. While court had a lot of variety, she was far more reluctant to use it all. Evonne could barely contain herself with so many long rallies Evert provided. Kid in a candy store. That led to some fascinating and unpredictable clay tennis in the first sets. While Evert was still relatively inexperienced on how to respond to all those spins and shots without making errors, she pressed too much and she lost ground. In the end, she figured out that in three sets, Evonne was bound to drift downstream.

 

[kiki]

Evonne comes from the Big dream land and she certainly played according to their credo.Now, when she was awake, there are no more graceful moments to enjoy tennis ( unless you are Lenglen - whom I didn´t watch- Bueno,Mandlikova or Hingis - the three of them I was fortunate to watch-)

 

[CurrenFan]

No.

64 is 3x more than 21 and is thus greater.

Margaret Court had 24 GS singles titles, 19 women's doubles and 21 mixed doubles titles. Evert had 18 GS singles and 3 doubles titles.

 

[Phoenix1983]

Funny how people always bring in doubles titles when ranking women's greats, but never do the same with the men.

 

[kiki]

Funny how people always bring in doubles titles when ranking women's greats, but never do the same with the men.

In which case, and talking about succesful singles players ( not like Nromwich and hewitt fi), gentlemmen like Mc Enroe,Newcombe,Roche,Hoad,Rosewall,Emerson,Sedgman,Cochet,Borotra,Trabert,Kramer and Stolle would be very happy

 

[BTURNER]

No.

64 is 3x more than 21 and is thus greater.

Margaret Court had 24 GS singles titles, 19 women's doubles and 21 mixed doubles titles. Evert had 18 GS singles and 3 doubles titles.

it is a way to look at this question, but it does play havoc. Billie Jean King and Louise Brough are better than Graf. Hingis (15 majors) and Sanchez are both better than Seles and Shriver is better than Evert

I see doubles as a separate competition. Its hard to assign full credit when there is a a partner.

 

[DMan]

Chris Evert vs Margaret Court on a serie of clay court matches, that is something missing.They gave us a good entrace with their FO and IO matches but, unfortunately, didn´t play as many as I would have liked.I think Court would have solved the Evert enigma better than any other player until Tracy Austin or Steffi Graf, on clay

Except Court wasn't able to solve the "Evert enigma" when Court was on top of the tennis world in 1970 after completing the Grand Slam! Evert beat Court 7-6,7-6 as a 15 year old amateur!! Evert won again in 1972 in Indianapolis. The only time Court beat Evert on clay was 1973 (also one of Maggie's best years) at the French, when Chris choked away.

Margaret had the ability to beat Chris on clay. But, even if they played more often on clay, Chris wins 9 out of 10 - and most wouldn't be all that close.

 

[kiki]

what makes you think Court wouldn´t have evolved her game into very dangerous for Chris supremacy on the red dirt? Court could play different ways, it is just that she did fine with one of them but she proved how capable she was in 73.


The other big 4 member was King, but as great a tactician as she was, she didn´t have the mental patience to get through what it took to dominate Evert on clay, and much less after all her injuries.
The first years of Evonne on clay were also very good.

 

[BTURNER]

Except Court wasn't able to solve the "Evert enigma" when Court was on top of the tennis world in 1970 after completing the Grand Slam! Evert beat Court 7-6,7-6 as a 15 year old amateur!! Evert won again in 1972 in Indianapolis. The only time Court beat Evert on clay was 1973 (also one of Maggie's best years) at the French, when Chris choked away.

Margaret had the ability to beat Chris on clay. But, even if they played more often on clay, Chris wins 9 out of 10 - and most wouldn't be all that close.

delete wrong post

 

[kiki]

Hilton Head was a big clay court tournament back then.Court won their match as late as 73.

 

[BTURNER]

Hilton Head was a big clay court tournament back then.Court won their match as late as 73.

I think we actually know the answer to this.

MARGARET COURT (Australia) 9:4

1970 Charlotte, NC SF W 7-6, 7-6
1972 Bonne Belle Cup W 6-3, 6-3
1972 Indianapolis, IN SF W 6-3, 7-6
1972 Newport, RI SF L 6-3, 6-0
1973 French Open F L 6-7, 7-6, 6-4
1973 Wimbledon SF W 6-1, 1-6, 6-1
1973 U.S. Open SF L 7-5, 2-6, 6-2
1973 Hilton Head, SC RR L 6-4, 6-7, 6-2
1975 Akron, OH F W 6-4, 3-6, 6-3
1975 Houston, TX F W 6-3, 6-2
1975 Rye, NY SF W 6-3, 6-3
1977 Hollywood, FL F W 6-3, 6-4
1977 Chicago, IL F W 6-1, 6-3


Evert won the first six sets the two ever played. Margaret's game did evolve enough to win some sets and matches winning 3 of the next 4 meetings through 1973. They did not meet again until 1975, when age had asserted itself . Margaret seems to have a real problem reading young Evert's strokes and passes. Then it was Evert trying to figure out solutions.

The real point is that Evert's game was nowhere near fully cooked in 1973-1976 on any surface in her early years even as number 1 beginning in 1974. The whites were just beginning to thicken. She had zero understanding of what to do when drawn to net, tactically inflexible, with no serve, no volley, had never seen a set of barbells, and was outright sluggish in her movement and agility. Her youthful groundstrokes and mind were freaks of nature that got her to the top of tennis, but her vulnerabilities for Court, or Goolagong or King to exploit were more caverns than cracks.

You are comparing a mature near peak Court in 1973 with those two victories, to a strategically immature and physically out of shape Evert. Court was as good as she was ever going to get, and physically dominating over a this fairly raw 18 year old, who had yet barely completed her first tour of red clay. You have to ask if Court could win any once Evert's game grew up to the height of her mind and strokes.

I agree with D-man. Court is fortunate to win 1 or 2 in ten vs a mature Evert clay game.

 

[kiki]

Evert was blossoming young, she was mature enough as soon as 73 and girls mature much earlier to guys. an 18 yrs old Evert is like a 21 yrs old Borg to make an example...or a 22 yrs old Connors.

The difference is Court, while past prime, was such a complete and strong player, people tend to forget that too easily.

But I can agree Evert would become tougher in the middle to late 70´s.70 Court vs 80 Evert is the real deal.

 

[BTURNER]

Evert was blossoming young, she was mature enough as soon as 73 and girls mature much earlier to guys. an 18 yrs old Evert is like a 21 yrs old Borg to make an example...or a 22 yrs old Connors.

The difference is Court, while past prime, was such a complete and strong player, people tend to forget that too easily.

But I can agree Evert would become tougher in the middle to late 70´s.70 Court vs 80 Evert is the real deal.

I don't mean that Evert had not reached her full height by the time she was 18 or 19. I mean that she had not put any time in the gym training, while Court did it daily. Court was lifting weights in the 60's . Evert was petite, but none of it was muscle. It had not occurred to her or Jimmy Evert, that girls who played tennis should do the same things that young men who played tennis did routinely.

It made a big difference when trading forehands from the backcourt with 'the Arm'. I don't think this girl Evert did much on a track or with a jumping rope either.

 

[kiki]

Did Chris and Jimmy practised together? I mean, did each one learn from the other one on a tennis court?

Connors had a very funny quote after the Evert-Mc Enroe affair at the Champions Dance in 1981

 

[DMan]

Hilton Head was a big clay court tournament back then.Court won their match as late as 73.

The Evert-Court match in 1973 Hilton Head was NOT played on clay! It was a carpet surface.

 

[DMan]

what makes you think Court wouldn´t have evolved her game into very dangerous for Chris supremacy on the red dirt? Court could play different ways, it is just that she did fine with one of them but she proved how capable she was in 73.


The other big 4 member was King, but as great a tactician as she was, she didn´t have the mental patience to get through what it took to dominate Evert on clay, and much less after all her injuries.
The first years of Evonne on clay were also very good.

Court evolved her game just enough to barely eek past Choking Chrissie at the 1973 French. Maggie went about as far as she could ever go on clay versus Queen Chrissie! Evonne had some success against Chris on clay because when she wanted to, Evonne could be very patient, and make strategic advances to the net. Evonne was a great retriever with wonderful touch. (Just take a look at their 1982 Palm Beach Garden clay court gem for some examples!!!) Chris was slightly more intimidated by Evonne early in their careers. Evonne was Chris' contemporary. Margaret was 10+ years older than Chris, so I think Chris had little fear when playing her.

And it must be pointed out that as dangerous as Evonne could be to Chris on clay, she could also get slaughtered, too. Just a few weeks after their tremendous 1975 US Open final that Chris won, Evert clobbered Evonne 6-1,6-1 at Hilton Head.

 

[DMan]

The real point is that Evert's game was nowhere near fully cooked in 1973-1976 on any surface in her early years even as number 1 beginning in 1974. The whites were just beginning to thicken. She had zero understanding of what to do when drawn to net, tactically inflexible, with no serve, no volley, had never seen a set of barbells, and was outright sluggish in her movement and agility. Her youthful groundstrokes and mind were freaks of nature that got her to the top of tennis, but her vulnerabilities for Court, or Goolagong or King to exploit were more caverns than cracks.

Ouch! Methinks you're just a wee bit tough on little Chrissie Evert. OK, she never saw a set of barbells. But she was NOT tactically inflexible. Her volley may not have been strong, but yes, she could volley quite well in the early 1970s. I also don't agree that her movement and agility was sluggish. Chris always had deceptively good speed. Partly because she anticipated so well. And Evert definitely improved her footwork and speed as she got older. As did so many players.

Court is fortunate to win 1 or 2 in ten vs a mature Evert clay game.

I say Court would have been lucky to win more than 1 out of 10 matches on clay versus Chris at any point in Chris' career!

 

[kiki]

if Navratilova was able to beat Evert twice at Paris, I can´t see why Court, with a more adapted game and mind on clay wouldn´t either.

 

[BTURNER]

Ouch! Methinks you're just a wee bit tough on little Chrissie Evert. OK, she never saw a set of barbells. But she was NOT tactically inflexible. Her volley may not have been strong, but yes, she could volley quite well in the early 1970s. I also don't agree that her movement and agility was sluggish. Chris always had deceptively good speed. Partly because she anticipated so well. And Evert definitely improved her footwork and speed as she got older. As did so many players.



I say Court would have been lucky to win more than 1 out of 10 matches on clay versus Chris at any point in Chris' career!

then she was already lucky by the end of '73 because she actually had two clay victories over Evert in a total of 5 played.

With respect to our differing perceptions of her attributes at net and getting there. I'll heed to your judgement, because mine are based on a series of matches and clips that may contain bias and statements by players. Here's a list of the players I saw her play against in one form or another: Mary Anne Eisel, BJK, Goolagong, Wade, Court, Casals, Navratilova, Jo Anne Russell, all of whom were more comfortable and natural volleyers than Evert, and many who's tactics often included drawing her forward with dinks to get her to hit her short forehand, and dropshots where she was less comfortable at net. The reason it was not more successful was once expressed by King in a news conference. "Do you know the percentages of a shot like that, from where Chris keeps you playing from the ground? " Her groundstrokes were her fortress back then.

 

[hoodjem]

Short answer: no.

 

[BTURNER]

if Navratilova was able to beat Evert twice at Paris, I can´t see why Court, with a more adapted game and mind on clay wouldn´t either.

See I don't think Court had a better adapted game to beat Evert than the Martina of 1984. I think the Court of '73 is about as good as she was ever going to get on that surface. Martina of 82-88 was far stronger and faster than Court and always had a better volley for the surface. Evert said after the final in 1975 vs Navratilova, that she had never seen anyone (including presumably Goolagong and Court etc) volley that well on clay. She said she never thought it was possible to volley that well on dirt. That is how scary good the Martina of 1975 was up at net on red clay.

Martina was already adapting her temperament and game to clay, before she used her first tampon. She grew up on clay courts, not grass or carpet but clay. She saw a lot more clay than Court or Goolagong before her sweet sixteen. Yes it was always a bit of a struggle vs her nature to consistently stay patient enough match after match, but that periodic impetuousness did nothing but make her an even better lateral mover and volleyer because she insisted on going forward even as a young preteen.

Soo while Court has better results with those RG titles than Martina, and probably had a more patient approach to clay with the groundies to back it up, it does not mean that she was actually a better clay court player. I also think that Martina was a worse match-up on any surface verses Evert than Court. Evert had more trouble reading her lefty serve even at the end of 70 matches than she did Court's on meeting number one. When your best chance as a S/ver to get to net on clay, is following a first serve, it makes a real difference if your opponent can read it well.

 

[CEvertFan]

Evert lost that match to Court because it was her first major final and she had no experience with how to deal with that kind of situation and she got tentative and nervous and the vastly more experienced Court took full advantage of that. It's very rare for a player to win their first major final - it's what they learn from it that's the most important thing and Evert learned from that and made her breakthrough soon after.

I think Evert's passing shots and lobs would have been too much for Court to handle, especially on clay, if they had been closer in age and spent more time playing one another in their primes. They certainly gave Navratilova, and most everyone else, nightmares.

Also, right after that FO final Evert beat Court at Wimbledon.


And I'd agree that Navratilova in her full prime (supreme fitness included) was the toughest opponent for Evert. BTurner is right when he says that Evert always had trouble reading the Navratilova lefty serve but that's no surprise because for a while there Martina's serve was the best in the women's game. Conversely, until Graf came along, I'd say the same about Evert - she was Martina's toughest opponent as well.

 

[Rosewall]

I see doubles as a separate competition. Its hard to assign full credit when there is a a partner.

I agree. I have thought about this a lot over the years since Mac is one of my favorite tennis players. Was he the greatest doubles player ever? Maybe. Does that, combined with his incredible singles record make him GOAT? No. Singles has to be weighted many times more than doubles for obvious reasons.

This ongoing thread has me going back and rewatching old Evert matches, and I have to say I am really, really impressed with her game. While she lacked strength and athleticism, she still had more than enough on the ball to pass Navratilova, Mandlikova, Sukova and the other great serve and volleyers. Some things that stood out to me:
1. Evert uncanny ability to hit the correct shot for the situation -- pure poise
2. I saw several times she unmistakenly drew an opponent like Sukova or Mandlikova to the net on purpose with a short ground stroke only to pass them with a hard, flat, and deep passing shot down the line.
3. She was quicker than I remember. A very good defensive player that ran down balls I didn't think she could get to.
4. She had more variety to her game than I gave her credit for. Her touch on the drop shot and lob was superb. She could whip the ball cross court with severe topspin from either wing. Next point she might cut the ball with her forehand and sneak to the net for a nice crisp volley winner.

The only real weakness I noted was she had nothing on her serve or overhead. Given her record, you can make the case for GOAT. I lean Martina, but I have no problem with those who go with Chris. I know if Martina had never come along, Evert might be considered the greatest male or female competitor in any individual sport. She didn't need Martina to push her. She was self driven and her records would be astounding. Consider for a moment the possibility she might have been 28-6 in grand slam finals.

 

[kiki]

Court will always be the most underrated of all champions that claim GOAT status.Yes, even more than Connolly who had the " luck" to retire younger and at her absolute prime.

Court beat Evert, like it or not, at 31 vs 19 yrs old Evert.For a top woman athlete it would be ( almost) similar to Rosewall at 40 beating Connors at 21...so think it a bit about this.

There are sooo many examples of that at female´s elite sport.

 

[BTURNER]

Court will always be the most underrated of all champions that claim GOAT status.Yes, even more than Connolly who had the " luck" to retire younger and at her absolute prime.

Court beat Evert, like it or not, at 31 vs 19 yrs old Evert.For a top woman athlete it would be ( almost) similar to Rosewall at 40 beating Connors at 21...so think it a bit about this.

There are sooo many examples of that at female´s elite sport.

Well how many 18-22 year olds has Serena beaten as the number one player in the world that were lower ranked? How many 18-22 year old players did Evert beat between June and October in 1985 as number 1 in the world that were lower ranked?

Court was voted the number 1 player in the world that year winning 3 of four majors beating everyone in sight and she was seeded number 1 at at all the majors except the US Open, where she was seeded 2 to King.

You are putting a lot of stock in the best player in the world beating someone of lower seeding who had never entered the event before, never reached a final on a pro red clay event before and never been in the final of a major before. Court was not the first or last 31 year old to win a major. And it is nothing like a 40 year old Rosewall beating a 22 year old Connors. That's quite some math between 31 and 40 and Connors was seeded higher, not Rosewall. You have this *** backwards. It would have been seen as a minor upset had Evert won.

 

[kiki]

I guess Court gets few respect here...but I don´t really know the reason.OK she is not a sweet blond girl and I find somewhat a bit stupid that people overtalks how many AO she won with a relatively weak field as opposed to how many titles at the other majors she won against the best field possible ( not even counting A GRAN SLAM¡¡¡)

Oh BTW, there were Bueno,King,Evert,Cawley, four superstars in Court´s way not to mention excellent secondary girls like Richey,Casals,Jones,Wade,Teggart.

 

[DMan]

then she was already lucky by the end of '73 because she actually had two clay victories over Evert in a total of 5 played.

NO. Margaret Court only beat Evert once on clay - the 1973 French final. If you think the 2nd win was the 1973 Hilton Head match, it was NOT played on clay!

For the poster who was wondering if Martina could beat Chris twice at Roland Garros, then shouldn't Maggie have been able to dot he same? Ah, NO! Completely different players.

With respect to our differing perceptions of her attributes at net and getting there. I'll heed to your judgement, because mine are based on a series of matches and clips that may contain bias and statements by players. Here's a list of the players I saw her play against in one form or another: Mary Anne Eisel, BJK, Goolagong, Wade, Court, Casals, Navratilova, Jo Anne Russell, all of whom were more comfortable and natural volleyers than Evert, and many who's tactics often included drawing her forward with dinks to get her to hit her short forehand, and dropshots where she was less comfortable at net. The reason it was not more successful was once expressed by King in a news conference. "Do you know the percentages of a shot like that, from where Chris keeps you playing from the ground? " Her groundstrokes were her fortress back then.

No problem with differing opinions. Just think it is a bit absurd to say that even a young Chris Evert had no serve, and no volley. Her serve in her teens was nothing like the Chris serve in her late 20s early 30s. But Chris had a serve. And it was good enough for her to win close to 90% of the matches she played in her teens.

There were many other players of her day who had better volleys, and who were much more natural. And Chris often looked good volleying because when she came in, it was mostly on her terms. She was never going to be like Martina or Billie Jean, diving for volleys, or constantly serving and volleying.

Now if we wanted to pint out which pros don't have a volley, it would be a lengthy (and painful) discussion about the majority of the top pros today. I cringe sometimes when Serena comes to the net. And don't even get me started on Sharapova!

One thing that is in no doubt: Chris Evert is the absolute all-time Queen of Clay. And I think we can safely name her Queen GOAT on clay, and retire the title indefinitely, until another woman even begins to amass victories and titles, along with a game and reputation on clay to challenge Chris.

 

[BTURNER]

NO. Margaret Court only beat Evert once on clay - the 1973 French final. If you think the 2nd win was the 1973 Hilton Head match, it was NOT played on clay!

For the poster who was wondering if Martina could beat Chris twice at Roland Garros, then shouldn't Maggie have been able to dot he same? Ah, NO! Completely different players.



No problem with differing opinions. Just think it is a bit absurd to say that even a young Chris Evert had no serve, and no volley. Her serve in her teens was nothing like the Chris serve in her late 20s early 30s. But Chris had a serve. And it was good enough for her to win close to 90% of the matches she played in her teens.

There were many other players of her day who had better volleys, and who were much more natural. And Chris often looked good volleying because when she came in, it was mostly on her terms. She was never going to be like Martina or Billie Jean, diving for volleys, or constantly serving and volleying.

Now if we wanted to pint out which pros don't have a volley, it would be a lengthy (and painful) discussion about the majority of the top pros today. I cringe sometimes when Serena comes to the net. And don't even get me started on Sharapova!

One thing that is in no doubt: Chris Evert is the absolute all-time Queen of Clay. And I think we can safely name her Queen GOAT on clay, and retire the title indefinitely, until another woman even begins to amass victories and titles, along with a game and reputation on clay to challenge Chris.

I find myself agreeing with every word, here. Factually I remember looking at that Hilton Head result to double check Kiki but evidently saw the one listed next where Evert won another tournament on clay. Hilton head was a hard court event back then, not clay. Court only had one victory on clay. I exaggerated to make my point on Evert's deficiencies on serve and the volley, a little literary license. They were both 'good' enough to do what she required to win.

her serve had the virtue of being steady, with an uncomplicated motion so it did not go far astray, but it was one of the weakest in the top ten. She won those matches because behind that serve was uncanny anticipation, consistently fine footwork, and laser accurate strokes off both wings. Again the weakness is there, but it's damn hard to expose it successfully often enough without being hung out to dry time and again by passes. Of course its not like Evert needed to panic when she was broken. We know where the best return of serve could be found.

But the essence of my conviction that she was far more limited and constrained tactically and physically in the early and mid 70's than she became from 1976 forward. Like all great players, once she got to number 1, just meant she had to work on the weaknesses even harder to stay there. If you watch Evert, you can she her mature in front of your eyes. the one Margaret met in 1973 RG was a great champion in the making, not a great champion.

 

[Steady Eddy]

She might be the GOAT female player. But too bad because her matches were so boring as to be unwatchable.

 

[BTURNER]

She might be the GOAT female player. But too bad because her matches were so boring as to be unwatchable.

Ya know I rarely found her boring to watch. She was a lot like Borg or young Wilander. Someone else had to bring at least some of the party favors. That someone was not named Austen, or Maleeva, or any number of other clones, who replicated the most obvious parts of her game.

 

[kiki]

still Austin brought the excitment of handling down Evert playing a very similar style.

At one point folks were asking, I recall it neatly, if Evert would turn down Austin domination, short but intense.

Not easy and Tracy did it.BTW, I should have posted in the Most underrated player that Tracy is a certain qualifier for that dubious honour

 

[PDJ]

It's a shame that the general feeling that Austin is forgotten pervades. And it would appear from the majority of postings don't factor in what a great player she was. A thread on her, if there isn't one (??), would be really interesting if people participated.

 

[kiki]

It's a shame that the general feeling that Austin is forgotten pervades. And it would appear from the majority of postings don't factor in what a great player she was. A thread on her, if there isn't one (??), would be really interesting if people participated.

watch next and post in please

 

[ravelok]

I think she does. She has the best consistency ever, could be argued to have the best longevity ever, and while Court and Graf both have an inflated slam tally by a unique circumstance, Evert would have 24-25 slams had the Australian and French been fully valued/participated in the 70s (Navratilova would not benefit nearly as much and would still have only 18-20). Sadly Evert is the Rosewall of the mens side in how underrated she is today, and nobody outside her rabid fan base considers her even the possible GOAT today, even if she should be considered. Graf, Navratilova, and now Serena (whether she should be or not is another matter, but reality is she is being talked up) are the only ones being seriously considered as the possible female GOAT.

 

[kiki]

Evert consistency as a top player is amazing, it is a Rosewall female version.