Gabriela Sabatini vs Jana Novotna:Who was the Greater Champion?.

[Straightshooter]

More often than not, when the names of Jana Novotna and Gabriela Sabatini are mentioned, it's in reference to letting matches slip away(see choking). However, they also experienced their fair share of on-court success, which is often overshadowed by their infamous choking episodes. I thought it might be interesting to compare their most relevant career stats, and let you determine who the greater champion was?. I've researched eleven sets of statistics for comparison. Of course, you may have stats of your own to go by, but the following numbers don't lie, and they provide a good starting point:


1. Career Singles Titles - Sabatini:27 Jana:24 (Slight edge for Sabatini)

2. Career Doubles Titles - Jana:76 Sabatini:14 (Big edge for Jana)

3. Overall Singles Record - Sabatini:632-189 Jana:571-225 / This stat means Sabatini won 77% of her singles matches, and Jana won 72% of her matches. (Slight edge for Sabatini)

4. Overall Doubles Record - Sabatini:252-96 Jana:697-153 / Crunching the numbers shows Jana won 82% of her doubles matches, while Sabatini won 72% of her matches. (Edge goes to Jana)

5. Total number of matches played (Singles & Doubles Combined) -
Jana:1,646 Sabatini:1,169 / This means Jana played 477 more matches
than Sabatini. (Big Edge for Jana)

6. Grand Slam Singles Wins - Jana:1 Sabatini:1 / Jana captured her Slam winning the 1998 Wimbledon Title, defeating Natalie Tauziat in the Final. Sabatini upset Steffi Graf in the 1990 US Open final to collect her lone Slam. Not to detract from Jana's Slam, but Sabatini had to overcome Steffi at the 1990 US Open. (Slight edge for Sabatini due to harder draw)

7. Grand Slam Singles Finals - Jana:4 Sabatini:3 (Slight Edge for Jana)

8. Grand Slam Semifinals - Sabatini:18 Jana:9 (Big Edge for Sabatini)

9. Masters YEC Titles - Sabatini:2 Jana:1 (Slight Edge for Sabatini)

10. Highest Singles Ranking - #2 for Jana ; #3 for Sabatini (Slight Edge for Jana)

11. Head-to-Head Results: Sabatini leads Jana 10-3. This stat is somewhat misleading, as 4 of Jana's losses to Sabatini were tough 3-setters. And in 2 of Sabatini's wins, Jana held match points herself, but couldn't put Sabatini away. (Edge goes to Sabatini)


Again, the stats I've provided are not all encompassing. They are simply a foundation which may help you form your own opinion. When I compared their career singles results, I was surprised to see just how favorable Jana's numbers stack up to Sabatini's. So when your talking singles play, it's clear to me the edge goes to Sabatini. However, Jana's doubles success easily trumps Sabatini's.

To me, Sabatini's singles career was only slightly better than Jana's, but Jana's doubles career was much more successful than Sabatini's. Because of this, I feel Jana was a greater champion than Sabatini. But who do you feel was the greater champion, and why?.

 

[boredone3456]

I said Sabatini. In my opinion, Jana was a bigger choker then Sabatini, and Jana let many more big opportunities slips away on bigger stages. Jana should have won at least 3 Wimbledon titles during her career, and I even believe had she remained consistant, she should have beaten Seles in their Aussie Open Final. Jana throughout her career was in most people's eyes, only a serious contender on grass, and yet on her best surface, she choked epically on several occassions.

Sabatini, though a choker herself, had the unfortunate luck of running into Graf all the time, especially in her younger days, and apart from a 5 match win streak during the early 90's when Graf was struggling with injuries and personal issues, Graf was just a better player than her and dominated her. Novotna however had several chances to beat Graf and choked them away. If you want to say Novotna made more slam finals, and therefore is better, well that is not a good argument, because Capriati won three slams and I would rate Sabatini ahead of her also. Sabatini leads the head to head 10-3, has more career wins and a better career win percentage than Jana, all playing more total singles matches than her as well. In terms of of singles, Sabatini has more titles to, all the big factors in singles lean in favor of Sabatini. a side note....5% difference in their career win percentages is huge...not slight.

In Terms of doubles, Obviously its Novotna, but seeing as how she played nearly twice as many doubles matches as Sabatini, she obviously cared about doubles a lot more than her and played it more than Sabatini did. Singles and doubles are entirely different and doubles stats should not be used to tip the scales for Novotna. In singles, the superior is Sabatini...in doubles its Novotna.

 

[lambielspins]

Sabatini had some bad luck in a way. Early in her career she ran into Graf or Navratilova often in big matches when both were at the top of the game. Then after that it was Graf and Seles. Her best tennis came from 87-92 really. When Navratilova was close to retiring and not much of a threat any longer, when Seles was taken out of tennis by the horrific stabbing incident, when Graf began to miss time with injuries which would eventually shorten her career, Sabatini was no longer the same player. If she had played more of her peak tennis from 93-onwards she would have been better off. In the late 80s you had Graf, Navratilova, Sabatini, Evert aging but still formidable, Sukova, young Sanchez V. In the early 90s it was even tougher with Graf, Seles, Navratilova still a major force, Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario, Capriati, Novotna, Mary Joe Fernandez.

Novotna on the other hand probably played her peak tennis from 93-98, a much better time frame. You really only had Graf and Sanchez to worry about at first, then for awhile only Hingis and a badly out of shape Seles. Graf missed some slams by injuries and was affected by injuries in others from 94-96 despite being fairly dominant and winning alot of them, and Sanchez while great is still more beatable for a player like Sabatini or Novotna than the legends of the game. So Novotna really choked away more opportunities because the field when she played her peak tennis was such that more were presented to her. Both were very talented and underachieving players though.

 

[heftylefty]

Gabby hands down. She was and is SMOKIN'!!

 

[Tshooter]

Considering Novotna couldn't hit a backhand I'd have to go with GS by a mile.

 

[Mick]

you almost have to be a tennis expert to have heard of the name novotna.

sabatini is a much more recognizable name and she was a greater champion.

 

[urban]

Sabatini had to face Graf and Seles in their respective primes, and on occasion outplayed both (sometimes she couldn't finish her fine work). I always thought that over much of her career, she was trained in a false way, too much in the Vilas-style of excessive topspin and baseline bashing. She had however great touch at the net and in the forecourt, but her coaches (except Kirmayr) didn't focus on that. When she came to the net, she could exploit Grafs backhand weakness on the passing shot, and she was more versatile than Seles. Her serve however, was a major weakness. With the serve of say Ivanovic she would have won two or more Wimbledons. In that 91 final against Graf she simply couldn't outserve the match. On 30 all at 6-5 in the third, she played a backhand volley on a down the line shot of Graf, that would have gone out. Otherwise she would have won that match.

 

[Warriorroger]

Gabriela Sabatini for more reasons than only her tennis. She brought beauty and tennistalent to the women's game. A very, very gifted all court player. She could do anything with the ball. She was the one who gave Steffi the most trouble tenniswise. She did the same what Nadal does against the Federer backhand, minus the enormous power. Jane is a good player, but Sabatini is something special, she had the misfortune of being in the same era as Steffi Graf.

 

[Straightshooter]

Fine posts by all. Some points I agree with, others I don't. I researched their head-to-head records against 7 of the top players they faced, and the results are a little surprising, and a bit closer then you might think:


Sabatini's Head-to-Head Results against the top players:

1. Steffi Graf leads Sabatini 29-11. Yes, Sabatini does have more wins over Steffi than any other player. But Steffi controlled Sabatini for the most part in this rivalry. (Big Edge for Steffi)

2. Monica Seles leads Sabatini 11-3. Monica had Sabatini's number in this rivalry. Not much more to say. (Big Edge for Monica)

3. Sabatini leads Arantxa Sanchez 12-11. Although a winning record, Sabatini struggled against Arantxa as the record suggests. (Slight Edge for Sabatini)

4. Sabatini leads Conchita Martinez 9-6. Again, a winning record for Sabatini, but Conchita scored more wins than I would have thought. (Edge for Sabatini)

5. Sabatini leads Jennifer Capriati 11-5. Jennifer did have some success, but Sabatini had Jennifer's number for the most part. (Big Edge for Sabatini)

6. Sabatini leads Mary Joe Fernandez 13-10. Everyone knows Mary Joe gave Sabatini all sorts of problems, especially at the Slams. (Slight Edge for Sabatini)

7. Martina Nav leads Sabatini 15-6. (Big Edge for Martina)


Jana's Head-to-Head Results against the top players:

1. Steffi Graf leads Jana Novotna 29-4. Jana really didn't give Steffi too many problems in their matches, although Jana did beat Steffi in a Slam and the Masters Year End Championship. (Big Edge for Steffi)

2. Monica Seles & Jana Novotna tied 4-4. Jana's break-even record with Monica is pretty impressive. (No Edge for either player)

3. Jana Novotna leads Arantxa Sanchez 11-10. I was surprised to find Jana had a winning record over Arantxa. (Slight Edge for Jana)

4. Jana Novotna leads Conchita Martinez 4-1. They didn't play often, but Jana seemed to have the upper hand over Conchita. (Edge for Jana)

5. Jana Novotna leads Jennifer Capriati 4-0. (Edge goes to Jana)

6. Jana Novotna leads Mary Joe Fernandez 7-4. Just like Sabatini, Mary Joe gave Jana some difficulty. However, unlike Sabatini, Jana never lost to Mary Joe in a Grand Slam event. (Edge goes to Jana)

7. Martina Nav leads Jana Novotna 6-1. (Big Edge for Martina)


Again, these are head-to-head records against top players who were either winning Slam titles, or going deep into them. Sabatini and Jana both struggled against Steffi and Martina Nav. But when you compare their records against Monica, we have a different story. Jana beat Monica 4 of 8 matches, while Monica dispatched Sabatini 11 of 14 times. Jana and Sabatini both have winning records against ASV, Jennifer, Mary Joe, and Conchita.

Based on these head-to-head records, Jana's results are much closer to Sabatini's then most people probably would have guessed. As a result, Sabatini's singles career was only slightly more successful than Jana's(IMHO). But Jana's doubles success is overwhelming. And for these reasons, Jana gets the edge over Sabatini as the greater champion.

 

[matchmaker]

Sabatini takes it for me. She could have won a lot more IMO. There were a few years she should have exploited because she had the number of Graf. She was more versatile than Novotna. But gradually she started to focus on other things than just tennis whereas Novotna kept hunting for a Slam victory. That may also explain a number of results of the H2H's you mention. Sabatini won a Slam earlier on in her carreer and was thus less focused at the end, she already had one in her pocket. Novotna had to keep on struggling to get her Slam at the end of her carreer. She might have been more focused until her carreer was over.

 

[boredone3456]

Again, these are head-to-head records against top players who were either winning Slam titles, or going deep into them. Sabatini and Jana both struggled against Steffi and Martina Nav. But when you compare their records against Monica, we have a different story. Jana beat Monica 4 of 8 matches, while Monica dispatched Sabatini 11 of 14 times. Jana and Sabatini both have winning records against ASV, Jennifer, Mary Joe, and Conchita.

Based on these head-to-head records, Jana's results are much closer to Sabatini's then most people probably would have guessed. As a result, Sabatini's singles career was only slightly more successful than Jana's(IMHO). But Jana's doubles success is overwhelming. And for these reasons, Jana gets the edge over Sabatini as the greater champion.

The Seles head to heads you point out can also be misleading. The majority of the matches between Novotna and Seles occured after Seles was stabbed and we all know Seles was not the same player after that tragic Event, I think the fact that post stabbing Seles was, for the most part able to hold her own against a much fitter Novotna speaks for more Seles's strength then Jana's. 11 of the 14 matches between Sabatini and Seles occurred before Seles was stabbed. 5 of the 8 between Novotna and Seles occured after the stabbing. That to me pretty much explains the difference. Seles was not the same woman after it happened and even though she could have been, she wasn't. The time in a players career the matches occured in is just as important as the players involved.

Also, as I said before, doubles is entirely separate and cannot be used to tip scales, if doubles careers were counted alongside Singles to decide overall all time placement, would you then place Pam Shriver as being above both of these women? Her doubles success with Navratilova could be argued to encompass both of these womens overall careers if you wanted to argue that, but no one considers Shriver an all time great overall champ, maybe doubles champ, but not overall. Singles and doubles greatness are two entirely different entities and one cannot be used to tip the scales in the others favor.

 

[ohlori]

Because no-one mentioned it, Novotna 3 : 10 Sabatini

 

[AndrewD]

Neither was greater. Quite simply, the futility of the question is answered by the 'statistic' which shows both players held a winning record over Arantxa Sanchez Vicario a player with a significantly greater overall record than either of them. End of the day, Sabatini won 1 major, Novotna won 1 major. Based solely on talent both 'should' have won more but they didn't. End result, they're no better or worse than each other.

 

[CEvertFan]

Neither was greater. Quite simply, the futility of the question is answered by the 'statistic' which shows both players held a winning record over Arantxa Sanchez Vicario a player with a significantly greater overall record than either of them. End of the day, Sabatini won 1 major, Novotna won 1 major. Based solely on talent both 'should' have won more but they didn't. End result, they're no better or worse than each other.

I'd have to agree with that statement.

 

[Straightshooter]

Gabriela Sabatini for more reasons than only her tennis. She brought beauty and tennistalent to the women's game. A very, very gifted all court player. She could do anything with the ball. She was the one who gave Steffi the most trouble tenniswise. She did the same what Nadal does against the Federer backhand, minus the enormous power. Jane is a good player, but Sabatini is something special, she had the misfortune of being in the same era as Steffi Graf.

While I respect your opinion, I must disagee with you. True, Sabatini brought beauty and glamour to womens' tennis. No question Sabatini would win a popularity contest over Jana hands down. But comparing their careers, to determine the better player, should have nothing to do with beauty or popularity.

You mentioned Sabatini had the misfortune of playing in the Steffi Graf era?. Well, Jana also played in that same era, and had to deal with the greatest player who ever lived. People always claim how Sabatini would have won more Slams had Steffi not been around. I agree Sabatini would have collected more Slams had it not been for Steffi, but not as many as most think. And Jana would have won more Slams herself, had it not been for Steffi.

Sabatini was a gifted all-court player with great talent, but so was Jana. I just don't see, what makes Sabatini any more a special player then Jana. If you simply compare their on court achievements and nothing else, Jana's career was more successful than Sabatini's. And the numbers back up what I'm saying.

 

[Warriorroger]

While I respect your opinion, I must disagee with you. True, Sabatini brought beauty and glamour to womens' tennis. No question Sabatini would win a popularity contest over Jana hands down. But comparing their careers, to determine the better player, should have nothing to do with beauty or popularity.

You mentioned Sabatini had the misfortune of playing in the Steffi Graf era?. Well, Jana also played in that same era, and had to deal with the greatest player who ever lived. People always claim how Sabatini would have won more Slams had Steffi not been around. I agree Sabatini would have collected more Slams had it not been for Steffi, but not as many as most think. And Jana would have won more Slams herself, had it not been for Steffi.

Sabatini was a gifted all-court player with great talent, but so was Jana. I just don't see, what makes Sabatini any more a special player then Jana. If you simply compare their on court achievements and nothing else, Jana's career was more successful than Sabatini's. And the numbers back up what I'm saying.

No, I wasn't bringing up her her looks to determine who is the better player. I tried to explain that Gabby with her tennis and looks, got many people more interested for tennis. Everyone knows who Gaby is. Besides that, Gabriela is a better tennisplayer than Jana. But tenniswise also a better tennisplayer than Steffi and Monica. Steffi won because of her being the greatest athlete that ever played combined with that howitzer of a forehand and never say-die-attitude, Seles won because of her never-say die-attitude and unbelievable anticipation and angles/combined with power. Gaby is much more a player like Hingis and Navratilova, they can do anything with the ball, but necessarily win all the time. Steffi and Monica could win matches pure on will and mental strength.

Though it's shallow to say that her looks win over Novotna, take away that, she is also a more gifted natural player, whereas Novotna is more of a Henin player (tenniswise): mechanical and making the most of what they had.

Ps I also respect your opinion, at the end of the day, we are fans, no experts.

 

[Straightshooter]

The Seles head to heads you point out can also be misleading. The majority of the matches between Novotna and Seles occured after Seles was stabbed and we all know Seles was not the same player after that tragic Event, I think the fact that post stabbing Seles was, for the most part able to hold her own against a much fitter Novotna speaks for more Seles's strength then Jana's. 11 of the 14 matches between Sabatini and Seles occurred before Seles was stabbed. 5 of the 8 between Novotna and Seles occured after the stabbing. That to me pretty much explains the difference. Seles was not the same woman after it happened and even though she could have been, she wasn't. The time in a players career the matches occured in is just as important as the players involved.

Also, as I said before, doubles is entirely separate and cannot be used to tip scales, if doubles careers were counted alongside Singles to decide overall all time placement, would you then place Pam Shriver as being above both of these women? Her doubles success with Navratilova could be argued to encompass both of these womens overall careers if you wanted to argue that, but no one considers Shriver an all time great overall champ, maybe doubles champ, but not overall. Singles and doubles greatness are two entirely different entities and one cannot be used to tip the scales in the others favor.

Sure, Monica Seles was not the same dominating force she had been, when Jana was beating her. Jana was in better condition, and had more match play than Monica. However, I'm not going to totally dismiss Jana's results against Monica just for this. You still had to be a pretty good player to beat Monica(post stabbing), so Jana's wins are still impressive(at least to me). It's unfortunate for Sabatini that she couldn't beat Monica, when both were at their prime. But those are the breaks, like it or not.

As for the question about doubles play, it does count for something. I do put a higher premium on singles, but I won't toss someones doubles results out the window either. So yes, I agree singles results should carry more weight then doubles. About Pam Shriver, no way I would rank her ahead of either player. Pam Shriver's doubles success is much greater then Sabatini or Jana's, but her singles career is inferior to both those players.

Pam Shriver was elected to the Hall of Fame solely on the strength of her doubles career. I, for one, don't believe she is a Hall of Famer. Likewise, I don't feel Sabatini should have been elected to the Hall either. You can argue Jana got in only because of her doubles career, but her singles results are better then Pam's. And, as the numbers show, Sabatini's singles career was only slightly better then Jana's, but Jana's doubles record far outshines Sabatini's. So even if someone doesn't place the same emphasis on doubles as singles, Jana's overall career(singles & doubles) is better then Sabatini's. And this is precisely what the Hall of Fame was looking at, when they elected Jana ahead of Sabatini.

To sum up, Jana had a Hall of Fame career, Sabatini did not. Jana was elected to the Hall on the strength of her numbers, Sabatini got in because of her looks and popularity. For me, Jana is a true Hall of Famer, while Sabatini has no business being in the Hall.

 

[urban]

Why ask the question, if you have such a biased opinion? Of course, goning by all numbers, Sabatini was the better and more successful singles player than Novotna.

 

[Straightshooter]

No, I wasn't bringing up her her looks to determine who is the better player. I tried to explain that Gabby with her tennis and looks, got many people more interested for tennis. Everyone knows who Gaby is. Besides that, Gabriela is a better tennisplayer than Jana. But tenniswise also a better tennisplayer than Steffi and Monica. Steffi won because of her being the greatest athlete that ever played combined with that howitzer of a forehand and never say-die-attitude, Seles won because of her never-say die-attitude and unbelievable anticipation and angles/combined with power. Gaby is much more a player like Hingis and Navratilova, they can do anything with the ball, but necessarily win all the time. Steffi and Monica could win matches pure on will and mental strength.

Though it's shallow to say that her looks win over Novotna, take away that, she is also a more gifted natural player, whereas Novotna is more of a Henin player (tenniswise): mechanical and making the most of what they had.-

Ps I also respect your opinion, at the end of the day, we are fans, no experts.

Fair enough. You make several vaild points, and it's ok to disagee sometimes, right?. Anyway, your right Sabatini's looks and her play got many people hooked on tennis. As for Sabatini being a better player then Jana, what do you base that on?. I do think Sabatini had a little more talent then Jana, but not much. Also, many forget how much natural ability Jana had. So even though Sabatini was more talented then Jana, it didn't really translate into a better career(IMHO).

While Sabatini had great talent and some nice results, I feel Jana actually accomplished more with less. What say you?. Also, had Jana ever played Sabatini when both were at their peaks, who would you have given the edge to?. And why?. The pity is, they never did play each other when they were at the top of their games. Sabatini peaked around 1991-1992, while Jana peaked around 1996-1997. So when Jana hit her stride, Sabatini had already retired. At their best, I would have given a slight edge to Jana. But what do you think?.

P.S.

Your right. Were both fans, not experts. It's just interesting kicking these ideas ideas back and forth, don't you think?.

 

[Straightshooter]

Why ask the question, if you have such a biased opinion? Of course, goning by all numbers, Sabatini was the better and more successful singles player than Novotna.

I'm afraid your missing the whole point here. Going by the numbers, Sabatini's singles career is just slightly more successful then Jana's. However, Jana's doubles career is much more successful then Sabatini's. I didn't pull their numbers out of thin air, or make anything up. And there is absolutely no bias in anything I've brought to the table, just my opinion. All I've attempted to do, is show people their careers are much closer then one would think. So when you compare their singles & doubles records, it's clear to me Jana had the better overall career.

 

[CEvertFan]

When a person wins even one major in either singles or doubles they should automatically get into the Hall of Fame. This business of people saying that Sabatini or Shriver shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is ridiculous because Gaby won the US Open singles title and Shriver has a doubles Calendar Grand Slam with Navratilova (1984) as well as a doubles gold medal (with Zina Garrison) and a total of 22 Grand Slam doubles titles (21 women's doubles and 1 mixed) and those results should be good enough for any person on here, and if people left personal bias out of it then they would come to the same conclusion.

Just because some people are prejudiced against or devalue doubles doesn't mean that it's any less a part of the game.

 

[Warriorroger]

When a person wins even one major in either singles or doubles they should automatically get into the Hall of Fame. This business of people saying that Sabatini or Shriver shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is ridiculous because Gaby won the US Open singles title and Shriver has a doubles Calendar Grand Slam with Navratilova (1984) as well as a doubles gold medal (with Zina Garrison) and a total of 22 Grand Slam doubles titles (21 women's doubles and 1 mixed) and those results should be good enough for any person on here, and if people left personal bias out of it then they would come to the same conclusion.

Just because some people are prejudiced against or devalue doubles doesn't mean that it's any less a part of the game.

Nothing to do with being prejudiced or devaluating doubles, many people just don't care for doubles. I don't, nor do the great ones (Sampras, Becker, Seles, Graf, Federer, Nadal), the ones who get insecure about their single achievements keep on playing doubles until, well until it gets annoying.

Ps I hate playing doubles and dislike watching doubles.

 

[CEvertFan]

Nothing to do with being prejudiced or devaluating doubles, many people just don't care for doubles. I don't, nor do the great ones (Sampras, Becker, Seles, Graf, Federer, Nadal), the ones who get insecure about their single achievements keep on playing doubles until, well until it gets annoying.

Ps I hate playing doubles and dislike watching doubles.

Then there are other great ones who do care about doubles (McEnroe, Navratilova etc.) so what's your point? Many more people play doubles casually rather than singles.

 

[Warriorroger]

Then there are other great ones who do care about doubles (McEnroe, Navratilova etc.) so what's your point? Many more people play doubles casually rather than singles.

Because when you play doubles you have more court time, at least at my place. If doubles was that interesting, it would be on the telly more, and it isn't.

McEnroe is not a great player, he's a great pain. Navratilova, ok.

 

[CEvertFan]

McEnroe is not a great player, he's a great pain. Navratilova, ok.

I have no words... :roll::roll::roll:

 

[grafrules]

Because when you play doubles you have more court time, at least at my place. If doubles was that interesting, it would be on the telly more, and it isn't.

McEnroe is not a great player, he's a great pain. Navratilova, ok.

Sorry but any player who has:

1. 7 grand slam singles titles (that goes for either gender btw)
2. amazing degree of doubles dominance combined with that high # of slam titles in singles.
3. Was so close to the French-Wimbledon-U.S Open treble in his best year
4. Posted an open era singles record which is now over 40 years standings at 82-3
5. Did all this with multiple eventual 8+ slam champions as his rivals in or close to their primes (Borg, Connors, Lendl)

Is a great player whether you like him or not.

 

[CEvertFan]

Sorry but any player who has:

1. 7 grand slam singles titles (that goes for either gender btw)
2. amazing degree of doubles dominance combined with that high # of slam titles in singles.
3. Was so close to the French-Wimbledon-U.S Open treble in his best year
4. Posted an open era singles record which is now over 40 years standings at 82-3
5. Did all this with multiple eventual 8+ slam champions as his rivals in or close to their primes (Borg, Connors, Lendl)

Is a great player whether you like him or not.

And don't forget, in Warriorroger's opinion Navratilova was just ok. :roll:


Utterly laughable.

 

[grafrules]

And don't forget, in Warriorroger's opinion Navratilova was just ok. :roll:


Utterly laughable.

I had assumed he meant 'ok' as in 'ok she can be considered great.' Maybe that is just because I didnt want to even comtemplate someone making the implication you just stated though. :shock:

 

[Warriorroger]

I had assumed he meant 'ok' as in 'ok she can be considered great.' Maybe that is just because I didnt want to even comtemplate someone making the implication you just stated though. :shock:

You were right about the ok!

 

[boredone3456]

When a person wins even one major in either singles or doubles they should automatically get into the Hall of Fame. This business of people saying that Sabatini or Shriver shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame is ridiculous because Gaby won the US Open singles title and Shriver has a doubles Calendar Grand Slam with Navratilova (1984) as well as a doubles gold medal (with Zina Garrison) and a total of 22 Grand Slam doubles titles (21 women's doubles and 1 mixed) and those results should be good enough for any person on here, and if people left personal bias out of it then they would come to the same conclusion.

Just because some people are prejudiced against or devalue doubles doesn't mean that it's any less a part of the game.

I agree with this. I just don't like people using one to delude the other. Doubles is amazing and requires in a way, a very different set of skills that should be valued on their own. I rank doubles and singles greatness separately, and don't beleive they should be meshed together to determine an overall value. I think doubles and singles should be assessed in a separate way as to different parts of a whole. Doubles is much different from singles...and therefore should be assessed in its own respectable right under the umbrella of tennis. I never ment with my statement to devalue shriver, and I brought her up because I misinterpreted the original posters words. After reading his reply I realize now what he ment, though I stand by my opinion of the two, its all opinion really.

 

[Straightshooter]

I said Sabatini. In my opinion, Jana was a bigger choker then Sabatini, and Jana let many more big opportunities slips away on bigger stages. Jana should have won at least 3 Wimbledon titles during her career, and I even believe had she remained consistant, she should have beaten Seles in their Aussie Open Final. Jana throughout her career was in most people's eyes, only a serious contender on grass, and yet on her best surface, she choked epically on several occassions.

Sabatini, though a choker herself, had the unfortunate luck of running into Graf all the time, especially in her younger days, and apart from a 5 match win streak during the early 90's when Graf was struggling with injuries and personal issues, Graf was just a better player than her and dominated her. Novotna however had several chances to beat Graf and choked them away. If you want to say Novotna made more slam finals, and therefore is better, well that is not a good argument, because Capriati won three slams and I would rate Sabatini ahead of her also. Sabatini leads the head to head 10-3, has more career wins and a better career win percentage than Jana, all playing more total singles matches than her as well. In terms of of singles, Sabatini has more titles to, all the big factors in singles lean in favor of Sabatini. a side note....5% difference in their career win percentages is huge...not slight.

In Terms of doubles, Obviously its Novotna, but seeing as how she played nearly twice as many doubles matches as Sabatini, she obviously cared about doubles a lot more than her and played it more than Sabatini did. Singles and doubles are entirely different and doubles stats should not be used to tip the scales for Novotna. In singles, the superior is Sabatini...in doubles its Novotna.

I disagree with your statement, about Jana being a bigger choker then Sabatini. Sure, Jana did give some important matches away, but Sabatini has some monumental chokes herself. Yes, Jana let the 1993 Wimbledon Final against Steffi slip away, but Sabatini choked against Steffi in the '91 Wimbledon final. And perhaps the most famous choke of them all, Sabatini vs Mary Joe Fernandez at the '93 French, pretty much ended Sabatini's career.

At least Jana made up for her choking, to some extent, by winning Wimbledon late in her career. Sabatini never really did overcome her numerous bouts of choking. If anything, Sabatini's choking episodes continued throughout her career. After Sabatini blew the match against Mary Jo, she also choked against Kimiko Date at the '95 Lipton. And a year later, Sabatini was out of tennis.

Sabatini's choking swallowed her up, while Jana persevered and finished her career fairly strong. That says alot to me. You mentioned Jana had several chances to beat Steffi but choked?. I recall only one instance where Jana choked against Steffi('93 Wimbledon). What are these other matches your referring to?.

Was Sabatini unlucky having to face Steffi all the time?. Sure, you could say that. But Jana also had to deal with Steffi as well, and Jana did score a couple of important wins over Steffi. So it's not like Sabatini had an unfair advantage having to play Steffi all the time, but Jana didn't. As a matter of fact, Steffi and Sabatini played 40 times, while Jana and Steffi played 33 times, so it's pretty close.

To sum up, even though Jana gets the rap as being the worst choker ever, she could have given up, but didn't. Jana went out playing quality tennis, as Sabatini was declining rapidly. Sabatini turned out to be the ultimate underachiever. She was pegged to reach the #1 ranking, but never got there. According to most, Jana achieved far more then she ever had a right to. I'm not sure I agree with this, but it does paint Jana's career far more favorably then Sabatini's(IMHO).

 

[grafrules]

The 91 Wimbledon final was a small choke, nowhere near as major as the 93 Wimbledon final or 98 U.S Open semis by Novotna. Sabatini was never far ahead in the 91 Wimbledon final, serving for a match up only one game is not a sure thing when you have a serve like Sabatini's and you are playing Graf. A match like the 93 French Open quarters was a major choke, but it wasnt as important a match as the 93 Wimbledon final, 97 Wimbledon, 98 U.S Open semis, or 91 Australian Open final (for those who think she even choked a bit there) as she wasnt yet close to winning the title at that point. Likewise 95 Lipton semis was a horrendous choke but it wasnt as big a match as the ones I just listed either. If we want to talk about less important matches one could bring up Novotna vs Sabatini in the 91 French Open quarters or Novotna vs Rubin in the 95 French Open 3rd round.

Sabatini retired from tennis after the 96 season because her tennis had been on decline for about 4 years by the end of 96, and her serving had fallen apart. It wasnt due to being a chronic choker, her quality of tennis even with a firm mindset had simply fallen way off. It just happens sometimes, Sabatini was a more early bloomer and Novotna a much later career bloomer. The two were never really in their primes together.

 

[CEvertFan]

I agree with this. I just don't like people using one to delude the other. Doubles is amazing and requires in a way, a very different set of skills that should be valued on their own. I rank doubles and singles greatness separately, and don't beleive they should be meshed together to determine an overall value. I think doubles and singles should be assessed in a separate way as to different parts of a whole. Doubles is much different from singles...and therefore should be assessed in its own respectable right under the umbrella of tennis. I never ment with my statement to devalue shriver, and I brought her up because I misinterpreted the original posters words. After reading his reply I realize now what he ment, though I stand by my opinion of the two, its all opinion really.

I agree with you and I too keep doubles greatness separate from singles greatness because, like you said, they require very different sets of skills.

Many people look at doubles as being the illegitimate stepchild of tennis but I've always enjoyed a good doubles match (either watching or actually playing) and it would be nice to actually see more doubles coverage on TV and as I said before there are many more mere mortals who play doubles more than singles.


As for Sabatini and Novotna, they were both pretty big chokers but I would have to give Novotna the edge in that department as it defined her entire career to a greater degree than it did Sabatini's.

 

[Argento full]

Gaby, you know why........

 

[slack hack]

Sabatini retired from tennis after the 96 season because her tennis had been on decline for about 4 years by the end of 96, and her serving had fallen apart. It wasnt due to being a chronic choker, her quality of tennis even with a firm mindset had simply fallen way off. It just happens sometimes, Sabatini was a more early bloomer and Novotna a much later career bloomer. The two were never really in their primes together.

Gaby's tennis really started nosediving after she caught that virus at the AO that one year.
Never really recovered IMO. That coupled with the ongoing mediterranian anemia (I forget the real name for the disorder) with which she dealt , and that heavy A$s racquet.
(@ 14+ oz it was heavier than sampras' or Muster's or any pro's for that matter), proved to
be too much.

 

[CocaCola]

Sabatini the hotest but Jana was better.

 

[cokebottle]

Sabatini was a contender to win at each of the slams. Novotna was only considered a contender to win at Wimbledon. Even in 1997 and 1998 when she was ranked #2 and #3 in the world nobody talked about her having a chance to win the Australian or U.S Opens, let alone the French Open.