Sorry but Evert's competition on clay from 1973-1979 was a complete joke. It was many times worse than the early to mid 90s field on clay which was by far the deepest womens clay court field ever, and in fact even worse than todays very weak clay court field. Of course that is not Chris's fault, she took full advantage
Evert was dominating everywhere in during this time, not just on clay. On clay it was just much more pronounced because Serve and Volley is at its worst on clay and as pretty much everybody else at the top was primarily a S & V player I think that is pretty telling. Combine this with the fact Evert has the arguably the best passing shots and maybe best defensive game of all time its not so surprising. On Faster surfaces S & V players stould a better chance but overall most of the top players back then were owned by Evert pretty much everywhere, maybe the field was terrible on clay, but if you want to go that way the field overall may couldn't have been that good if Goolagong was the only one who could give Evert a consistent battle, or maybe Evert was truly that much better?
Clay court specialists? Like whom exactly. A mid 30s King on her worst surface, Goolagong, Virginia Wade, Wendy Turnbull, are these your idea of "clay court" specialists, LOL! Or do you mean the complete journeywomen on tour who just happened to like clay and maybe won a WTT boycotted French Open (equivalent to winning Vienna today perhaps).
This I agree with, but Chris Dominated these people(except Goolagong playing her best) everywhere on every single surface, and Clay was Chris's best and arguably their worse surface, so why would the dominance not be more pronounced in such a circumstance?
Seles, Graf, Lenglen, Connolly, possibly even prime Navratilova (if she avoided a Horvath like fluke) would have had no problem winning 100 straight matches on clay vs that same nothing clay court field themselves.
This is true, but that doesn't really diminish Evert though does it?
As for prime Evert being unbeatable on clay how do you explain her losing twice in a row to Jaeger, losing tier 1 finals on clay to Zina Garrison and Manuela Maleeva, and getting thumped by a prime Martina multiple times on clay.
She lost 1 final to Garrison in 1985, when many people in any position to make any judgements believed Chris's time at the top of the game was beginning to end. But that beings said she dominated Garrison overall H2H, and apart from the 1989 US Open QF (by which time Chris truly was pretty much done), never lost to her and in 9 wins dropped 1 set. That win could be deemed a fluke much like you classify the Horvath win over Navratilova to be.
As for Jaeger, Evert never lost twice in a row to her as far as I know. Jaeger was a pretty good player as a teen, made 2 slam finals in a short spance of time, and like Austin people expected her to be a part of the new guard to take over the game. Seeing as Chris owns a 6-2 clay advantage and 17-3 overall its not as bad as you make it out to be.
As for Maleeva, she beat Evert in the 1984 Italian Open Final in straights, but that year they faced 5 times on clay and Chris won the other 4, one by a 6-1 6-1 scoreline. Maleeva played Evert close in the other 3, but Chris pulled them all out in the end, Maleeva matched up better against Chris on Clay than on other surfaces, but that year Chris owned the clay H2H 4-1 and holds the overall edge 5-2.
As for Martina, Prime Martina was killing the entire field everywhere, her worst surface was clay, but the time when many of those thumpings were occuring was when Evert was going through Racket transition, yes even after Evert Adjusted Martina was still handing her a few beatings, but Evert won the 1985 & 1986 French Opens over her so its not like Evert was completely Helpless against Prime Martina on clay, as many of the other players on the tour were.
Yes when she played the nothing clay court field of the mid to late 70s she was indeed unbeatable but then again what all time great clay courter wouldnt have been like I said. You mention it took Austin, yes indeed it took a 15 or barely 16 year old hard court specialist who never did anything much at the French to stop her long win streak on clay, what does that say about the rest of the players on the surface the 6 years preceding that.
Again true, but its not like Evert would have done comparably terrible against the clay court fields of any other decade. Sure in the 90's she would not have as high a win percentage on the surface but I doubt she would not have been a top contender for every single clay court prize that Graf and Seles were winning during this time. As for Austin, Austin like Jaeger was seen as a future superstar, was dead even with Evert H2H (she was a tough matchup for Evert, not a pure serve and volleyer who Evert could pass and Evert had to hone her other shots in to win), and After the loss to Austin Evert went on another tear winning something like 75 straight matches on Clay. It wasn't like Austin Straight Setted her either, its was lost in a 3rd set Tiebreak. Austin would go on to win the US Open later that yr over Evert, and would become World number 1 soon after, she was a teen phenom, pure and simple.
I don't find it unreasonable that the greatest Clay Courter of the times would have an off day and lose 1 match out of 200, it happens. Or do you think Graf, Seles, Lenglen or anybody else would have been able to win 200 Straight matches over roughly 7 yrs on clay during this time, they were good, but I wouldn't be betting on that.
