Evert, Navratilova, Graf and their worst losses

[SwissMaestro81]

In the thread about the "top 10 female players of all time" the question came up how relevant the number of brutal losses might be in GOAT discussions.

I looked it up for Evert, Navratilova and Graf.
Not Court since I don't have her match stats of the 1960s.
And not Serena because she often retired when she realized that she got demolished (retired in 12 matches).

So here are the numbers for Chris, Martina, Steffi:

0 games won:
Navratilova 1 match

less than 2 games won:
Navratilova 2 matches
Graf 1 match

less than 3 games won:
Graf 2 matches
Evert 2 matches
Navratilova 5 matches

less than 4 games won:
Graf 5 matches
Navratilova 10 matches
Evert 12 matches

less than 5 games won:
Graf 10 matches
Navratilova 14 matches
Evert 26 matches

less than 6 games won:
Graf 17 matches
Navratilova 26 matches
Evert 39 matches

Quiet interesting tidbits:
- Steffi had only 4 of those 17 bad losses after having turned 17 in 1986.
- Chris had 22 of her 39 bad losses in the 1980s, 12 in the 1980-84 years alone.
- Martina had ony 2 losses with less than 4 games won after 1982.

I think that is one of the reasons why Evert usually lags behind Navratilova and Graf in all GOAT discussions:
She suffered too many really bad losses (plus she had losing h2h records against Austin, Navratilova, Graf).

 

[BTURNER]

In the thread about the "top 10 female players of all time" the question came up how relevant the number of brutal losses might be in GOAT discussions.

I looked it up for Evert, Navratilova and Graf.
Not Court since I don't have her match stats of the 1960s.
And not Serena because she usually retired when she realized that she got demolished (retired in more than 20 matches when she had won less than 5 matches so far).

So here are the numbers for Chris, Martina, Steffi:

0 games won:
Navratilova 1 match

less than 2 games won:
Navratilova 2 matches
Graf 1 match

less than 3 games won:
Graf 2 matches
Evert 2 matches
Navratilova 5 matches

less than 4 games won:
Graf 5 matches
Navratilova 10 matches
Evert 12 matches

less than 5 games won:
Graf 10 matches
Navratilova 14 matches
Evert 26 matches

less than 6 games won:
Graf 17 matches
Navratilova 26 matches
Evert 39 matches

Quiet interesting tidbits:
- Steffi had only 4 of those 17 bad losses after having turned 17 in 1986.
- Chris had 22 of her 39 bad losses in the 1980s, 12 in the 1980-84 years alone.
- Martina had ony 2 losses with less than 4 games won after 1982.

I think that is one of the reasons why Evert usually lags behind Navratilova and Graf in all GOAT discussions:
She suffered too many really bad losses (plus she had losing h2h records against Austin, Navratilova, Graf).

You keep doing this. a 'Bad loss' is not measured by games lost. What you are measuring is lopsided losses. To measure bad losses you have to look at more than a score, you have to look at other criteria, like the relative rankings of the two players and the disparity. If the opponent is the best player in the world its not a bad loss regardless. If the opponent is ranked # 10 in the world and you are ranked at #1, then its a bad loss regardless. The score to the match does not matter much because a lopsided score does nothing that a close score does. You don't get points or prize money or ranking based on the number of games you won per set.

On the other hand, a bad loss loses you more ground on the WTA computor, and alter seedings, and can impact whether you even qualify for the end of season championships, let alone what it does for your checking account.

Other silliness here is subdividing into categories like what happened after 17 or whether the match was played in the eighties or the seventies.

The problem with your h to h theory, is that each and every one of those matches is already counted in the career win loss records. All the career record is, is a series of every single head to head match up in ones career. So by isolating 3 specific head to heads, you only cherry pick out data already reflected in the immense pool of head to head stats in Evert's career. She would not have a 90% win rate without winning a lot more head to heads or more head to heads by a greater margin, than anyone else other than Court. Matter of fact, if we are directly comparing Evert, Graf, Navratilova and Austin those specific losses twice. Once as a loss for Chris, then again as a win for Graf, Austin and Martina, and yet she STILL WINS THE CAREER WIN RATE despite the double count of those matches. . She just plain wins on this score.

My data set includes yours. Your data set cherry picks what you want.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

You keep doing this. a 'Bad loss' is not measured by games lost. What you are measuring is lopsided losses. To measure bad losses you have to look at more than a score, you have to look at other criteria, like the relative rankings of the two players and the disparity. If the opponent is the best player in the world its not a bad loss regardless. If the opponent is ranked # 10 in the world and you are ranked at #1, then its a bad loss regardless. ...

Other criteria but please not age, right?

 

[BTURNER]

Other criteria but please not age, right?

There is no criteria other than the win or the loss that affects anything. You move forward in a tournament if you win the final point. You stop if you don't. You get paid more if you win. You gain ranking points if you win. The games score has no impact, just as the age of the player has no impact or whether they were injured or whether they are going through a divorce, or they have a bad cold. Your excuses do not matter. The match being called matters. The score called does not matter. The color of their blouses does not matter. Whether it was windy or sunny does not matter either.

Again what was your point in excluding every single match in Evert's entire career 1200+ except approximately 105 of them she played against 3 cherry picked opponents you chose?

Every time you cherry pick, you look silly.

 

[Mustard]

1991 French Open SF: Arantxa Sanchez Vicario def. Steffi Graf (6-0, 6-2).

 

[SwissMaestro81]

There is no criteria other than the win or the loss that affects anything. You move forward in a tournament if you win the final point. You stop if you don't. You get paid more if you win. You gain ranking points if you win. The games score has no impact, just as the age of the player has no impact or whether they were injured or whether they are going through a divorce, or they have a bad cold. Your excuses do not matter. The match being called matters. The score called does not matter. The color of their blouses does not matter. Whether it was windy or sunny does not matter either.

Of course it matters in GOAT discussions whether you made 54 of 56 slam finals or whether you skipped the AO often during your prime.

 

[BTURNER]

Of course it matters in GOAT discussions whether you made 54 of 56 slam finals or whether you skipped the AO often during your prime.

It definitely matters whether you lose in the first round of a slam or the finals of a slam. Again that means money, points, ranking etc. . Remember when I wrote 'if you define success as winning more slams per entry, then Steffi's stat reflecting 40% of the time she entered a slam, she won it, is a big reason I called her my pick for GOAT over Evert's meager 31% That stat a great measure of peak play which means rising to the biggest moments against the biggest player in the biggest tournaments. Its what you were trying to get to with those 3 match- ups but totally failing with because you didn't know that those match ups have tons of matches that were not remotely about 'peak play' and you excluded every other slam final without them. . But that is not the only metric of success. If you want to get at consistency, looking at the rest of the matches and what rounds you win and lose is more important. That is where the QF stat comes it.

See I am not really trying to weight everything to make Evert look better or I would not have mentioned peak play at all.

your problem is that you don't care what you measure, as long as it makes Steffi better.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

It definitely matters whether you lose in the first round of a slam or the finals of a slam. Again that means money, points, ranking etc. . Remember when I wrote 'if you define success as winning more slams per entry, then Steffi's stat reflecting 40% of the time she entered a slam, she won it, is a big reason I called her my pick for GOAT over Evert's meager 31% Its a great measure of peak play which means rising to the biggest moments against the biggest player in the biggest tournaments. . But that is not the only metric of success. If you want to get at consistency, looking at the rest of the matches and what rounds you win and lose is more important. That is where the QF stat comes it.

See I am not really trying to weight everything to make Evert look better or I would not have mentioned peak play at all.

your problem is that you don't care what you measure, as long as it makes Steffi better.

No, but the more stats I analyze and the deeper I dig the more I come to the conclusion that Steffi Graf is indeed the greatest ever.
And that Evert is most certainly not among the top three, most probably not even top four.

 

[BTURNER]

No, but the more stats I analyze and the deeper I dig the more I come to the conclusion that Steffi Graf is indeed the greatest ever.
And that Evert is most certainly not among the top three, most probably not even top four.

In my opinion Graf, Court and Wills have the best balance between peak play and consistency in a broad based fairly normal career. I pick Steffi because I am a huge fan of success with surface/ condition diversity. Nobody can tell whether Graf is playing on clay, grass, or hard courts, even carpet. It simply does not appear to affect her chances at all. Neither does the weather, the style of play of the opponent etc.

She is 'second best at absolutely everything' which means she has absolutely no Achilles heel to her record. Unless we add doubles, there is no flaw.

The problem with Serena is the opposite of Evert. Fantastic peak play numbers but the consistency numbers is at the bottom of this heap. 21% of the time she played a slam, she never even made it out of the third round. I could have put her ahead of Chris and Martina, but there is something has to be said for all those tournaments that Martina and Evert won that were NOT slams. You can't seriously talk about the rest of the tour mattering and ignore the sheer volume of those titles accrued for well over a decade.

 

[Pheasant]

I like the concept of this thread. Blowout wins and blowout losses show an extra layer of dominance. I’d like to see these timeframes a bit more limited; perhaps their best 10 year span. Women with really long careers will get hurt by this career metric.

I don’t have a way to sort # of matches lost by winning 4 games, 3 games, etc. I will look at bagels here.

Let’s take a look at Evert, someone that I probably have not given enough credit to.

1974-83 time frame, using TennisAbstract:

768-67, .920 overall

This is an insane run of domination and endurance.

Let’s look at how many matches that she bageled opponents vs the number of matches that she was bageled.

233 matches where she dished out 1+ bagels
6 matches where she ate 1+ bagels

346 matches: dished out 1+ bread sticks
23 matches: ate 1+ breadsticks

Summing up, she dished out a bagel or bread stick in 579 matches out of 835 played in that 10-year span. That’s a 69.3% clip.

She played 30 slams during that time frame. Here are her results

15 titles=50%
23 finals=76.7%
29 semis=96.7%

These numbers are absurd. And they don’t quite do her justice. She missed 3 FO events right smack in the middle of her 125-match winning streak on clay.

I am not sure where to rate Evert. Now that I’ve taken a 2nd look, I think that I’ve previous rated her too low at #5. She looks like a top 3 type of player now. More on that later.

 

[buscemi]

I think that is one of the reasons why Evert usually lags behind Navratilova and Graf in all GOAT discussions:

I would wager that 99.99% of people to consider this topic have not given Evert's "bad losses" any significant weight in the GOAT discussion.

 

[BTURNER]

I like the concept of this thread. Blowout wins and blowout losses show an extra layer of dominance. I’d like to see these timeframes a bit more limited; perhaps their best 10 year span. Women with really long careers will get hurt by this career metric.

I don’t have a way to sort # of matches lost by winning 4 games, 3 games, etc. I will look at bagels here.

Let’s take a look at Evert, someone that I probably have not given enough credit to.

1974-83 time frame, using TennisAbstract:

768-67, .920 overall

This is an insane run of domination and endurance.

Let’s look at how many matches that she bageled opponents vs the number of matches that she was bageled.

233 matches where she dished out 1+ bagels
6 matches where she ate 1+ bagels

346 matches: dished out 1+ bread sticks
23 matches: ate 1+ breadsticks

Summing up, she dished out a bagel or bread stick in 579 matches out of 835 played in that 10-year span. That’s a 69.3% clip.

She played 30 slams during that time frame. Here are her results

15 titles=50%
23 finals=76.7%
29 semis=96.7%

These numbers are absurd. And they don’t quite do her justice. She missed 3 FO events right smack in the middle of her 125-match winning streak on clay.

I am not sure where to rate Evert. Now that I’ve taken a 2nd look, I think that I’ve previous rated her too low at #5. She looks like a top 3 type of player now. More on that later.

I definitely prefer the label 'lopsided losses' here because a 'bad' loss is very different and more nuanced /complicated concept. Evert losing to Lisa Bonder in Rd 2 is a bad loss in Sept of 1983 7-5, 4-6, 6-4, with nary a bagel or breadstick.

Actually there is an entire thread on this topic https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/evert-navratilova-the-bagel-war.260997/

 

[SwissMaestro81]

I would wager that 99.99% of people to consider this topic have not given Evert's "bad losses" any significant weight in the GOAT discussion.

No, I think tennis fans know very well that Chris Evert was often badly beaten even by youngsters:

3-6 1-6 against 16-year-old Austin in 1979.
1-6 3-6 against 17-year-old Austin in 1980.
3-6 0-6 against 17-year-old Austin in 1980.
2-6 1-6 against 17-year-old Austin in 1980.
1-6 4-6 against 18-year-old Mandlikova in 1980.
1-6 4-6 against 18-year-old Austin in 1980.
3-6 1-6 against 16-year-old Jaeger in 1982.
1-6 2-6 against 17-year-old Graf in 1987.
2-6 1-6 against 18-year-old Graf in 1987.
2-6 1-6 against 20-year-old Graf in 1989.

This didn't happen to Court, Navratilova, Steffi or Serena.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

I like the concept of this thread. Blowout wins and blowout losses show an extra layer of dominance. I’d like to see these timeframes a bit more limited; perhaps their best 10 year span. Women with really long careers will get hurt by this career metric.

I don’t have a way to sort # of matches lost by winning 4 games, 3 games, etc. I will look at bagels here.

Let’s take a look at Evert, someone that I probably have not given enough credit to.

1974-83 time frame, using TennisAbstract:

768-67, .920 overall

This is an insane run of domination and endurance.

Steffi was 676-45 win/loss in 1987-96 which is a 93.8 % winning percentage.
Martina was 903-63 win/loss in 1980-89 which is a 93.5 % winning percentage..

 

[buscemi]

No, I think tennis fans know very well that Chris Evert was often badly beaten even by youngsters:

Know is different than care.

To use one of your examples, Evert had a "bad" loss to Jaeger. But she was also 22-3 (88%) against her overall.

Meanwhile, Martina never had a "bad" loss to Jaeger, but she was "only" 12-5 against her (70.59%).

I would wager that the overwhelming number of people don't care that one of Evert's 3 losses to Jaeger in 25 matches was a "bad" loss.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Know is different than care.

To use one of your examples, Evert had a "bad" loss to Jaeger. But she was also 22-3 (88%) against her overall.

Meanwhile, Martina never had a "bad" loss to Jaeger, but she was "only" 12-5 against her (70.59%).

I would wager that the overwhelming number of people don't care that one of Evert's 3 losses to Jaeger in 25 matches was a "bad" loss.

Why do you think that Evert is generally not considered to be among the top 3 of all time (mostly not even top 4)?

Older fans remember and younger fans know that she had far more "bad losses" a.k.a. "lopsided losses" than the other greats. That doesn't mean that everybody knows the exact results and opponents and venues (even I had to look them up and boy, I was surprised that Chris had sooo many bad losses!).

Plus fans surely know that Evert had a 3-9 losing streak against teenage Austin, a 0-13 losing streak against Navratilova, a 0-8 losing streak against young Graf.
And that she also has losing h2h against those three.

All that is the reason why she is only No. 4 of even No. 5 in the GOAT race.

 

[buscemi]

Why do you think that Evert is generally not considered to be among the top 3 of all time (mostly not even top 4)?

Older fans remember and younger fans know that she had far more "bad losses" a.k.a. "lopsided losses" than the other greats. That doesn't mean that everybody knows the exact results and opponents and venues (even I had to look them up and boy, I was surprised that Chris had sooo many bad losses!).

Plus fans surely know that Evert had a 3-9 losing streak against teenage Austin, a 0-13 losing streak against Navratilova, a 0-8 losing streak against young Graf.
And that she also has losing h2h against those three.

All that is the reason why she is only No. 4 of even No. 5 in the GOAT race.

Evert is mostly considered #4 or #5 in the GOAT race because (1) Margaret Court won 24 Majors (with some, including myself, dinging her for the weakness of most of her Australian draws); (2) Serena Williams won 23 Majors; (3) Steffi Graf got 22 Majors; and (4) Martina Navratilova and she both won 18 Majors, but with Martina taking the H2H and also being incredible at doubles (which matters to some people, including myself).

If you change the results in all of Evert's "bad" losses to make them "average" or even "close" losses, I don't think that moves the needle for nearly anyone.

 

[jrepac]

No, I think tennis fans know very well that Chris Evert was often badly beaten even by youngsters:

3-6 1-6 against 16-year-old Austin in 1979.
1-6 3-6 against 17-year-old Austin in 1980.
3-6 0-6 against 17-year-old Austin in 1980.
2-6 1-6 against 17-year-old Austin in 1980.
1-6 4-6 against 18-year-old Mandlikova in 1980.
1-6 4-6 against 18-year-old Austin in 1980.
3-6 1-6 against 16-year-old Jaeger in 1982.
1-6 2-6 against 17-year-old Graf in 1987.
2-6 1-6 against 18-year-old Graf in 1987.
2-6 1-6 against 20-year-old Graf in 1989.

This didn't happen to Court, Navratilova, Steffi or Serena.

That's a bit of a warped view; Chris was well past her prime when Steffi started beating her. Austin, however, was a legitimate thorn in her side. Hana only beat Chris when she was in her "otherworldly" mode, where no one could touch her. Jaeger also had a losing record v. Evert.

 

[jrepac]

Evert is mostly considered #4 or #5 in the GOAT race because (1) Margaret Court won 24 Majors (with some, including myself, dinging her for the weakness of most of her Australian draws); (2) Serena Williams won 23 Majors; (3) Steffi Graf got 22 Majors; and (4) Martina Navratilova and she both won 18 Majors, but with Martina taking the H2H and also being incredible at doubles (which matters to some people, including myself).

If you change the results in all of Evert's "bad" losses to make them "average" or even "close" losses, I don't think that moves the needle for nearly anyone.

Evert's "bad" losses are inconsequential in the overall assessment. Counting majors, puts her at a solid #5. Other stats in her career, arguably put her on a more even keel w/MN. Serena certainly did not have Evert's consistency, for example. I don't put too much stock in the Evert vs. Graf thing, mostly due to their age disparity.

 

[buscemi]

Evert's "bad" losses are inconsequential in the overall assessment. Counting majors, puts her at a solid #5. Other stats in her career, arguably put her on a more even keel w/MN. Serena certainly did not have Evert's consistency, for example. I don't put too much stock in the Evert vs. Graf thing, mostly due to their age disparity.

Right, and there's quite clearly huge context to be considered surrounding Evert's Major count.

 

[BTURNER]

Evert's "bad" losses are inconsequential in the overall assessment. Counting majors, puts her at a solid #5. Other stats in her career, arguably put her on a more even keel w/MN. Serena certainly did not have Evert's consistency, for example. I don't put too much stock in the Evert vs. Graf thing, mostly due to their age disparity.

I am certain of very few things. I am 100% certain that with respect to their singles slam careers, Evert did everything Martina did (18 slams), except Evert reached a couple more slam finals, with fewer slam entries, in fewer years and a lot cleaner! The only stats Martina excels at is semi- finals conversion rate, and to a lesser degree the finals conversion rate, [which of course a broader more objective way of getting at impact of Chris playing almost as many grass slams (27!) as slams on clay and hard courts combined (29)].

The Evert 92.6 semifinal rate over the Martina 65.7 semifinal rate more than makes up for any that. It's a disparity of 27% in the Reach SF rate for Chris! compared to an 11% combined disparity rate in both conversion rate stats.

Evert entered 56 majors between 1971-1989 (19 years) and won 18 with an 89% win/loss match ratio. That means she won 32.1 % of those 56 and reached the finals 60.7% of the time with a finals conversion rate of 52.9 %. Evert reached the semifinals 92.9% of the time she entered a slam with a SF conversion rate of 65.4% and the QFs 96.4% with a QF conversion rate of 96.2%.
Evert lost in Rds 1, 2, or 3 of a major 3.6% of the time she played one,

Navratilova entered 67 majors between 1973-2004 (30 yr span w/ 8 yr sabbatical 1995-2003 included. She played in 23 separate yrs ) and won 18 with an 86% win/loss match ratio. That means she won 26.9 % of those 67 and reached the finals 47.8% of the time with a finals conversion rate of 56.3. Martina reached the semifinals 65.7% of the time she entered a slam with a SF conversion rate of 72.7% and the QFs 79.1% with a QF conversion rate of 83.0%.
Martina lost in Rds 1, 2, or 3 of a major 13.4%

Unless you are really bathing in that inherent Wimbledon bias of the 60's 70's and 80's, there is no way that Evert's singles slam career isn't clearly better. the Head to Head 4-10 advantage to Martina would look a lot better for Chris, if Chris had lost in more Wimbledon and Aussie R16 , QF's SFs like Martina did at the Open and RG.

 

[Pheasant]

Chris Evert missed the AO 6 straight years(1975-80) during the peak of her career. She also missed the FO 3 straight years(1975-77) during her peak. It’s not much of a stretch to think that she could have bagged 6 of those 9 slams that she missed(3 FO titles and 3/6 of the AO titles). And that’s just slams missed during her peak. She also missed the AO from 1971-73, 1983, and 1987(probably not winning any of these, to be fair).

The flip side is that Evert is 4-10 vs Martina in slam finals. So that’s why I originally had Martina ahead of her. Honestly, I don’t think that there much of a difference among the top 5. I could see jumbling them up in any order.

I currently have:

1. Court
2. Steffi
3. Martina
4. Williams
5. Evert

I recently bumped Court up to #1. Why? Because even if we ignore most of her prime, here’s what she did in Open Era.

Won 6 straight slams, including the CYGS. The CYGS is the ultimate achievement. Serena caved big time from the pressure. So did Martina.

Holds the record for the highest winning pct in the Open Era at 3 out of the 4 slams, despite battling through 2 pregnancies.

She holds the open era record for the best winning pct in finals(min 50 wins) and it’s not even close. Her 92-29, .760 winning pct is absolutely ridiculous.

Martina was a monster. I used to have her #1. But she failed at getting the CYGS. I give huge kudos for Steffi for completing that last leg at the USO, despite throwing up before matches. She handled it like a champ. That was one of my favorite things ever when I saw her complete the CYGS. What a clutch player!

Here’s something that’s awesome for Martina and Evert, however: Martina won 239 tourneys and Evert won 230. The next highest in the Open Era is Steffi at 138. That is so ridiculous. To be fair, I’m sure that Court would at least be in the ball park if we included her amateur stats.

And lastly, I haven’t given enough thought to Evert. She missed all of those slams. She was arguably more impressive at slams than Martina. She won a higher percentage.

As I said before, I can see jumbling up my top-5 list in any order and it wouldn’t look too bad. I’m sure that I will change the order again.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

That's a bit of a warped view; Chris was well past her prime when Steffi started beating her. Austin, however, was a legitimate thorn in her side. Hana only beat Chris when she was in her "otherworldly" mode, where no one could touch her. Jaeger also had a losing record v. Evert.

According to Chris herself she never played better than in 1985/86.
Steffi started beating her in April 1986.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Right, and there's quite clearly huge context to be considered surrounding Evert's Major count.

But no "context" to be considered when we look at career match winning percentages?
Even though your context includes hypothetical scenarios (Evert winning slams she didn't win) whereas mine doesn't?

 

[Rochester]

Austin cleaned Evert's clock several times in the late 70s and early 80s and Navratilova beat her many times consistently (12? 13?), but I am willing to bet that she leads in three setters against both. I am not willing to bet against Graf because Evert was on the decline during those years and she had more bad days.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

I am certain of very few things. I am 100% certain that with respect to their singles slam careers, Evert did everything Martina did (18 slams), except Evert reached a couple more slam finals, with fewer slam entries, in fewer years and a lot cleaner! The only stats Martina excels at is semi- finals conversion rate, and to a lesser degree the finals conversion rate, ....

A big difference is also that Evert was easily pushed aside by the new generation in the late 80s whereas Martina fought valiantly until the end in the mid-90s (beat both Seles and Steffi even as a 36-year-old in 1993).

 

[Rochester]

A big difference is also that Evert was easily pushed aside by the new generation in the late 80s whereas Martina fought valiantly until the end in the mid-90s (beat both Seles and Steffi even as a 36-year-old in 1993).

Easily? Really? Evert beat Seles in 89, and didn't lose to Sabatini until the last year or two of her career. She also registered wins against Sanchez-Vicario and Martinez.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Easily? Really? Evert beat Seles in 89, and didn't lose to Sabatini until the last year or two of her career. She also registered wins against Sanchez-Vicario and Martinez.

Seles was 15 in 1989 and yet she beat Evert once.
A 17/18-year-old Sabatini was 3-1 win/loss against Evert in 1988/89.
A 16-year-old Sanchez was 1-1 win/loss against Evert and won their last match with 6-1 7-6 at the FO 88.
A 16/18-year-old Graf had a 6-match win streak against Evert.
Evert also lost to 18-year-old Barbara Paulus, 17-year-old Natalia Zvereva.

Those youngsters sent Chris into retirement.

 

[Rochester]

Evert wanted a baby. Your comments about Evert are funny because you don't even pretend to hide your bias.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Evert wanted a baby. Your comments about Evert are funny because you don't even pretend to hide your bias.

Evert realized that she would not be able to keep up with the new generation and turned to other endeavors.
Oh, and I think I have far less bias than the Evert fans here.
I just present facts why Evert is not among the top 3 or 4 all-time greats. I am surprised how many people seem to be triggered by that......

 

[Rochester]

I am pretty sure no one is triggered anymore than I am. You posted some statistics but where your bias shows is your conclusions about those stats.

 

[boredone3456]

Career win loss record and win %
Navratilova 1442–219 (86.82%)
Graf 900-115 (88.67)
Evert 1309-146 (89.97)

Even with those bad loses she ends up with the highest Career win % of the 3. Now you could argue that things like Graf's injury and Navratilova's longevity would contribute to their numbers, But Evert was around a long time and was generally a consistent deep round performer. At the time of her retirement she held the open era major record, and open era record for most singles titles. Graf would win more majors, and Navratilova would eventually overtake her title record. But even with those "bad loses" other stats aren't as impacted.

 

[boredone3456]

Also, to flip the script, I'd be curious to know how many "bad losses" did each one of them inflict on the rest of the tour? For instance if Evert handed out the most, I'm not saying she has, but if she handed out the most beat downs of that caliber would that counter act being on the receiving end of more than Graf and Navratilova? Its entirely possible she doesn't score the highest in that category as well, all were dominant at their peaks, but its a way to flip the script just for the sake of analyzing the whole "bad loss" idea.

 

[buscemi]

But no "context" to be considered when we look at career match winning percentages?
Even though your context includes hypothetical scenarios (Evert winning slams she didn't win) whereas mine doesn't?

Yes, I believe that context should be considered in both situations. I believe that you were the one arguing to the contrary.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Career win loss record and win %
Navratilova 1442–219 (86.82%)
Graf 900-115 (88.67)
Evert 1309-146 (89.97)

Steffi's numbers are 888-107 (89.25 %) since WTA qualies and ITF tournaments are not counted (otherwise we would have many ITF queens among the top in match winning percentage stats!).
Evert is the best because we of course also count Steffi's WTA main draw matches at age 13/14. Which we must do since Steffi made a lot of money on the tour at that age.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Yes, I believe that context should be considered in both situations. I believe that you were the one arguing to the contrary.

I think context is less convincing if it implies hypothetical scenarios (Evert winning slams other people won).

 

[boredone3456]

You also have to take into account Graf played barely 1000 matches in her career...Evert and Navratilova played like 1500 each. More matches played = more potential for bad losses.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

You also have to take into account Graf played barely 1000 matches in her career...Evert and Navratilova played like 1500 each. More matches played = more potential for bad losses.

Yes, that is true.
But Evert had 26 losses with less than 5 games won, Navratilova only 14 (Graf only 10).
Evert played about 1,450 matches, Navratilova about 1,650 matches, Graf about 1,000 matches.
So Evert has the highest percentage of bad losses (with less than 5 games won) and Martina the lowest - because we count of course Graf's 6 losses at age 13/14..... ).

 

[buscemi]

I think context is less convincing if it implies hypothetical scenarios (Evert winning slams other people won).

Both of our argument simply hypothetical scenarios. Yours implies Graf either turning pro later or winning more matches at a younger age.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Both of our argument simply hypothetical scenarios. Yours implies Graf either turning pro later or winning more matches at a younger age.

No, I just stated a fact.
The fact that Evert has a better match winning percentage than Graf because we count all matches Graf played at age 13/14. Which we do, no?

I never speculated about Graf's winning percentage if she had turned pro two years later.
Because that would be a hypothetical. Same as insinuating that Evert would have taken other players' slams away if she had played more AOs or FOs in the 1970s.

 

[buscemi]

No, I just stated a fact.
That Evert has a better match winning percentage than Graf because we count all matches Graf played at age 13/14.
There is nothing hypothetical about that.

You wrote: "Steffi played 71 of her 995 matches at age 13-15. That is more than 7 %!! She has a 89.25 % career match winning percentage. Without those matches it would be 91.52 %."

That's a hypothetical about what Evert's winning percentage would be without her matches from age 13-15.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

You wrote: "Steffi played 71 of her 995 matches at age 13-15. That is more than 7 %!! She has a 89.25 % career match winning percentage. Without those matches it would be 91.52 %."

That's a hypothetical about what Evert's winning percentage would be without her matches from age 13-15.

But I agreed that we do count her matches at age 13/14. And that's why Evert has a better match winning percentage.
Which is a fact.

And I also agree that Evert did often play only 2 or 3 slams per year in the 1970s. But we don't know whether that is the reason that she won only 18 slams.
So that is not a fact.

 

[buscemi]

But I agreed that we do count her matches at age 13/14. And that's why Evert has a better match winning percentage.
Which is a fact.

But that's assuming those early matches didn't impact the rest of Graf's winning percentage, especially in her early years on tour.

 

[jrepac]

According to Chris herself she never played better than in 1985/86.
Steffi started beating her in April 1986.

"started" is the key word....after 86, Evert was in decline, gradual, but in decline

 

[jrepac]

Seles was 15 in 1989 and yet she beat Evert once.
A 17/18-year-old Sabatini was 3-1 win/loss against Evert in 1988/89.
A 16-year-old Sanchez was 1-1 win/loss against Evert and won their last match with 6-1 7-6 at the FO 88.
A 16/18-year-old Graf had a 6-match win streak against Evert.
Evert also lost to 18-year-old Barbara Paulus, 17-year-old Natalia Zvereva.

Those youngsters sent Chris into retirement.

she retired of her own free will, to have a family. By 88 and 89, her motivation was not there any longer. Despite some strong performances, like the shellacking she gave Seles at 89 USO

 

[BTURNER]

A big difference is also that Evert was easily pushed aside by the new generation in the late 80s whereas Martina fought valiantly until the end in the mid-90s (beat both Seles and Steffi even as a 36-year-old in 1993).

I would like a list of the players who 'easily' pushed Evert aside other than Graf. These should be players who beat her consistentl more often than she beat them.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

But that's assuming those early matches didn't impact the rest of Graf's winning percentage, especially in her early years on tour.

It isn't assuming anything.
If we count Steffi's matches as a 13/14-year-old Evert has the best career match winning percentage. That is a fact.
If we don't count them she hasn't. And that is also a fact.

 

[buscemi]

It isn't assuming anything.
If we count Steffi's matches as a 13/14-year-old Evert has the best career match winning percentage. That is a fact.
If we don't count them she hasn't. And that is also a fact.

It's assuming that Graf's record stays the same if she turns pro later, which is what we need to erase her early losses.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

One interesting thing SwissMaestro seems to be referencing is what a huge disadvantage Austin, Jaeger, Sabatini, Sanchez, and even Graf had in their wins over Evert aged 16-18, supposably even bigger than being in their 30s as Evert was at one point. That is fine, as long as you apply that to everyone. On that note per SwissMaestro Seles was heavily disadvantaged apparently when playing Graf at 16-18 where she went 3-3 (4-3 including the 93 Australian Open but in fairness Seles was 19 but now so wouldnt qualify) including 2-0 at 16. So either this is great for Seles and a bit embarrassing for the so called GOAT Graf; or it really isn't that bad to be this age in that day of young phenoms in womens tennis and admit to just pushing that idea so hard against truth only to try and lowball Evert further. Take your choice, but can't be neither, atleast one or the other.

 

[jrepac]

I would like a list of the players who 'easily' pushed Evert aside other than Graf. These should be players who beat her consistentl more often than she beat them.

yes, they all did...that's why she was still ranked #4 when she retired...clearly she sucked...