I think this may be their best. Evert -Navratilova Eastbourne 1979

[BTURNER]

The year before Navratilova won 9-7 in the third, but we now have the 1979 Eastbourne final with Evert/ Navratilova on full display. Its everything we heard it was. Three full hours of just great tennis. It was played in good spirit, with the lines getting as much beating as the balls did. There some moments of levity, some smiles, good sportsmanship, and a lot of exhaustion.

Evert wins the first closely fought 7-5 set, the highlight of which is a perfect return game from Martina. She wins a love game off serve, and hits 4 clean winners to do it - three forehand winners and a backhand pass. Evert comes back from 1-5 down, to grab the six of the next 7 games, only to lose the second 5-7. Navratilova ends up with I think 3 or 4 match points but can't convert, always her service game up 5-4, 6-5, 7-6, 8-7, 9-8, 10-9, 11-10, 12-11 before she cracks. Evert was not especially effective at net losing more points than she won, but her return was marvelous and Martina was having to come up with incredible first volleys which she did. Evert had to come up with some heroic forehand passes which she did. The only thing lacking of course was the pressure of the big stakes in a major final.

Two interesting stats - ( one from the semifinal against Wade we do not see. If I believe Barrett my source), Evert only missed 4 total first serves in her straight set win over Virginia. 6-3,6-2. That has to be the best serving I have read or heard about from her)

In this match of 48 games in 3 hours, there was a total of two double faults: one for Chris and one for Martina. I know of no such match with anything like that stat played by the #1 and #2 players in the world.

 

[Waspsting]

In this match of 48 games in 3 hours, there was a total of two double faults: one for Chris and one for Martina. I know of no such match with anything like that stat played by the #1 and #2 players in the world.

1 or 2 on the men's side. It must be very rare for there to be that many games on the women's side to begin with?

Connors - Borg '76 US Open final had 2 in 42 games (both by Connors)

Wilander - Lendl '88 US Open final had 2 in 51 games (both by Lendl)... just shy of 5 hours

Nadal - Federer '06 Rome final had 1 in 57 games (by Nadal)... just over 5 hours

 

[Moose Malloy]

a much shorter match(29 games), but only 2 df's in their 88 W SF(both by Martina)

 

[Oval_Solid]

looks like they keep their elbow much higher when serving in the olden days

 

[MissileBackHand99]

This is my personal favorite match of their rivalry. They played a fantastic final at Eastbourne in ‘78, and this one topped even that one. Evert’s mobility and footwork during this match is amazing. I’d argue their Eastbourne Finals in ‘78 and ‘79 were better than even their Wimby Finals from those same years

 

[BTURNER]

This is my personal favorite match of their rivalry. They played a fantastic final at Eastbourne in ‘78, and this one topped even that one. Evert’s mobility and footwork during this match is amazing. I’d argue their Eastbourne Finals in ‘78 and ‘79 were better than even their Wimby Finals from those same years

That 1987 Wimbledon semi was the highest quality match I saw them play. They were spraying winners all over the place and with relatively few errors to balance them. Every shot and spin in tennis was explored. so now I have a favorite wood racket match and a favorite modern racket match. I bought the 87 match on CD and for a awhile the whole thing was on Youtube. Those cruel overlords took it down though.

 

[R. Schweikart]

That 1987 Wimbledon semi was the highest quality match I saw them play. They were spraying winners all over the place and with relatively few errors to balance them. Every shot and spin in tennis was explored. so now I have a favorite wood racket match and a favorite modern racket match. I bought the 87 match on CD and for a awhile the whole thing was on Youtube. Those cruel overlords took it down though.

That is interesting since I often hear that Evert and Navratilova were already "too old" in 1987.
At least by the usual suspects.

 

[Gizo]

I agree that both their Eastbourne finals in 1978 and 1979 were an absolute treat, and much better quality matches and more exciting than their Wimbledon finals during those same years, and that the 1979 final managed to top the 1978 one. Helped by the much lower stakes and more relaxing and less pressured environment, it wasn't uncommon at all for players to produce better quality tennis at Eastbourne compared to Wimbledon.

After this win, Evert led their h2h 25-8, the joint largest differential in either player's favour during their storied rivalry (Evert was also 23-6 ahead after the 1978 season and 24-7 ahead after their indoor match in LA earlier that year). Navratilova began to claw back the large deficit starting with their Wimbledon final 2 weeks later.

 

[BTURNER]

That is interesting since I often hear that Evert and Navratilova were already "too old" in 1987.
At least by the usual suspects.

Basically you are right . Strange thing how getting old works on a tennis court. You have all lot more flat days, when no matter what you do, you just cannot produce what you would had before. The concentration lapses, the feet won't get you there, the serve is more suspect, the nerves fray etc. As King put it " the body keeps writing checks, your body can't cash." Then once in a blue moon, you get out of bed and all the magic, the ball control and athleticism of your best days , marries the experience and and tactical acumen you acquired since and you produce your old glory. But the next day, the 'new norm' is back and the listless, lackluster and compromised form sadly returns. You cannot predict it or sustain it day after day. Its like a lightbulb flickering before it finally gives out. If you think about it, you will see how this happens with lots of aging champions. Evert still had a handful of those great matches in her vault in 1987. She found one in the 87 Worchester seminfinal against Sabatini, 1988 Aussie semi against Martina,, and another in the 89 Boca Raton final against Graf. She used up her last one in the 1989 rd 16 match with Seles.

Its a bit deceptive to use a players age to fully define or predict the quality of their play. You have to actually watch the match.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Basically you are right . Strange thing how getting old works on a tennis court. You have all lot more flat days, when no matter what you do, you just cannot produce what you would had before. The concentration lapses, the feet won't get you there, the serve is more suspect, the nerves fray etc. As King put it " the body keeps writing checks, your body can't cash." Then once in a blue moon, you get out of bed and all the magic, the ball control and athleticism of your best days , marries the experience and and tactical acumen you acquired since and you produce your old glory. But the next day, the 'new norm' is back and the listless, lackluster and compromised form sadly returns. You cannot predict it or sustain it day after day. Its like a lightbulb flickering before it finally gives out. If you think about it, you will see how this happens with lots of aging champions. Evert still had a handful of those great matches in her vault in 1987. She found one in the 87 Worchester seminfinal against Sabatini, 1988 Aussie semi against Martina,, and another in the 89 Boca Raton final against Graf. She used up her last one in the 1989 rd 16 match with Seles.

Its a bit deceptive to use a players age to fully define or predict the quality of their play. You have to actually watch the match.

It irks me a lot to say that but you seem to have a point here, maybe.

 

[Jason Swerve]

Basically you are right . Strange thing how getting old works on a tennis court. You have all lot more flat days, when no matter what you do, you just cannot produce what you would had before. The concentration lapses, the feet won't get you there, the serve is more suspect, the nerves fray etc. As King put it " the body keeps writing checks, your body can't cash." Then once in a blue moon, you get out of bed and all the magic, the ball control and athleticism of your best days , marries the experience and and tactical acumen you acquired since and you produce your old glory. But the next day, the 'new norm' is back and the listless, lackluster and compromised form sadly returns. You cannot predict it or sustain it day after day. Its like a lightbulb flickering before it finally gives out. If you think about it, you will see how this happens with lots of aging champions. Evert still had a handful of those great matches in her vault in 1987. She found one in the 87 Worchester seminfinal against Sabatini, 1988 Aussie semi against Martina,, and another in the 89 Boca Raton final against Graf. She used up her last one in the 1989 rd 16 match with Seles.

Its a bit deceptive to use a players age to fully define or predict the quality of their play. You have to actually watch the match.

Does this carry over for doubles is the question. Navratilova continued to contend into her 30s. Hingis was arguably better in her 30s than in '98 as a 17 year old.

 

[jrepac]

That 1987 Wimbledon semi was the highest quality match I saw them play. They were spraying winners all over the place and with relatively few errors to balance them. Every shot and spin in tennis was explored. so now I have a favorite wood racket match and a favorite modern racket match. I bought the 87 match on CD and for a awhile the whole thing was on Youtube. Those cruel overlords took it down though.

That was one of their best, I agree. Wasn't that the one w/the questionable call though?

 

[jrepac]

Basically you are right . Strange thing how getting old works on a tennis court. You have all lot more flat days, when no matter what you do, you just cannot produce what you would had before. The concentration lapses, the feet won't get you there, the serve is more suspect, the nerves fray etc. As King put it " the body keeps writing checks, your body can't cash." Then once in a blue moon, you get out of bed and all the magic, the ball control and athleticism of your best days , marries the experience and and tactical acumen you acquired since and you produce your old glory. But the next day, the 'new norm' is back and the listless, lackluster and compromised form sadly returns. You cannot predict it or sustain it day after day. Its like a lightbulb flickering before it finally gives out. If you think about it, you will see how this happens with lots of aging champions. Evert still had a handful of those great matches in her vault in 1987. She found one in the 87 Worchester seminfinal against Sabatini, 1988 Aussie semi against Martina,, and another in the 89 Boca Raton final against Graf. She used up her last one in the 1989 rd 16 match with Seles.

Its a bit deceptive to use a players age to fully define or predict the quality of their play. You have to actually watch the match.

Very true...you'd see that w/many of the greats....a fab match followed by a flubbed one...

 

[BTURNER]

Does this carry over for doubles is the question. Navratilova continued to contend into her 30s. Hingis was arguably better in her 30s than in '98 as a 17 year old.

The timeline is entirely different in doubles. Player have an extra 5-8 maybe ten years to play great doubles. Stamina and footspeed are not the pressing issues they are in singles.

 

[BTURNER]

That was one of their best, I agree. Wasn't that the one w/the questionable call though?

No that was 1988 semi. Martina was in fantastic form in that one too, Evert had long fallen in the habit of of starting slow and you just cannot afford start slow against Martina on Centre Court. Once Evert got her customary precision off the ground, Martina had her hands filled. There were actually two controversial points in that final game, the second of which was on match point down. That one has broken the hearts of Evert fans for decades.

 

[Jason Swerve]

The timeline is entirely different in doubles. Player have an extra 5-8 maybe ten years to play great doubles. Stamina and footspeed are not the pressing issues they are in singles.

Exactly, and that's why doubles should be taken into account just as much. More time to accumulate a record in doubles to go along with your singles.

 

[jrepac]

No that was 1988 semi. Martina was in fantastic form in that one too, Evert had long fallen in the habit of of starting slow and you just cannot afford start slow against Martina on Centre Court. Once Evert got her customary precision off the ground, Martina had her hands filled. There were actually two controversial points in that final game, the second of which was on match point down. That one has broken the hearts of Evert fans for decades.

Ah, yes..thanks! Yes, that match point one totally sucked.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Basically you are right . Strange thing how getting old works on a tennis court. You have all lot more flat days, when no matter what you do, you just cannot produce what you would had before. The concentration lapses, the feet won't get you there, the serve is more suspect, the nerves fray etc. As King put it " the body keeps writing checks, your body can't cash." Then once in a blue moon, you get out of bed and all the magic, the ball control and athleticism of your best days , marries the experience and and tactical acumen you acquired since and you produce your old glory. But the next day, the 'new norm' is back and the listless, lackluster and compromised form sadly returns. You cannot predict it or sustain it day after day. Its like a lightbulb flickering before it finally gives out. If you think about it, you will see how this happens with lots of aging champions. Evert still had a handful of those great matches in her vault in 1987. She found one in the 87 Worchester seminfinal against Sabatini, 1988 Aussie semi against Martina,, and another in the 89 Boca Raton final against Graf. She used up her last one in the 1989 rd 16 match with Seles.

Its a bit deceptive to use a players age to fully define or predict the quality of their play. You have to actually watch the match.

I personally don’t think that’s a general rule for everyone—some players play their best tennis in their “older years” (Agassi 1999-2003, Wawrinka after age 28, Serena in the 2010s, Clijsters in her comeback in 2009, etc). Martina was hardly “too old” by ‘87...she made all 4 Slam Finals, won the US and Wimby, and lost tight matches in Australia to Mandlíková and in Paris to Steffi. Chrissy might’ve been in the twilight of her career, but it’s not like she had fallen off to #55 in the world, with only the occasional flash of greatness—she won what, 4 or 5 titles in ‘87 and several in ‘88 as well i believe. Even after her final match at the ‘89 US Open, wasn’t she ranked #5 in the world at the time??

 

[BTURNER]

I personally don’t think that’s a general rule for everyone—some players play their best tennis in their “older years” (Agassi 1999-2003, Wawrinka after age 28, Serena in the 2010s, Clijsters in her comeback in 2009, etc). Martina was hardly “too old” by ‘87...she made all 4 Slam Finals, won the US and Wimby, and lost tight matches in Australia to Mandlíková and in Paris to Steffi. Chrissy might’ve been in the twilight of her career, but it’s not like she had fallen off to #55 in the world, with only the occasional flash of greatness—she won what, 4 or 5 titles in ‘87 and several in ‘88 as well i believe. Even after her final match at the ‘89 US Open, wasn’t she ranked #5 in the world at the time??

'older' is a relative term. Players nowadays have longer careers than they did in the 60's, 70-80s. I agree that Martina was still in top form in 1987 and began to slip in 1989. She was late bloomer anyway and she still had slams with her name on them.


I guess it depends what you think a player like Chris is going to be happy with. I can assure you that a year in which Evert does not win a major, does not even reach a final and loses in the QF at the OPen, and only wins 4-5 smaller events is a real clue that she is on a downhill slope. This woman was the most consistent champion in the open era. That means she stays at #1-2 or at the very lowest, # 3, in the world, wins at least one slam a year, and reaches the semifinals of each slam she enters. That is her standard and was her standard since 1974. But by literally none of this criteria was she up to snuff. She said she was having serious concentration lapses, she was having to train and work harder just to keep up with the young players and was losing matches she would not have even two years before. She was seeing the writing on the wall, as was everyone else.

Every year from 1987 to the end, she was struggling to find tournament wins, struggling to stay relevant at the very top, and failed to even reach the semis of one major, let alone win any of them. She only reached one major final in the last three years she played the tour.. By her estimation, these were very disappointing seasons that she was never going to be content with.

 

[R. Schweikart]

'older' is a relative term. Players nowadays have longer careers than they did in the 60's, 70-80s. I agree that Martina was still in top form in 1987 and began to slip in 1989. ...

Not quite.
1987 was a not very good year for Navratilova even though she won Wimbledon and the US Open (the latter had mostly to do with Graf not being fit at all on final day). She won only two more tournaments in the whole year and had a 56-8 win/loss record, her worst since 1980.

But the period from May 1989 to April 1990 saw Navratilova close to her peak again. She had a 67-3 win/loss record. All three losses came against peak Steffi in the finals of Wimbledon, the USO and the YEC. All three matches were high-quality with Martina winning one set in each. Without Graf Navratilova might have had a 70-match-unbeaten run!
Then she lost to Sanchez and Seles on clay only to win Eastbourne and Wimbledon.
Only after that her slow descent began, coinciding with Graf's slump and by this enabling the fast ascent of Monica Seles.

 

[BTURNER]

Not quite.
1987 was a not very good year for Navratilova even though she won Wimbledon and the US Open (the latter had mostly to do with Graf not being fit at all on final day). She won only two more tournaments in the whole year and had a 56-8 win/loss record, her worst since 1980.

But the period from May 1989 to April 1990 saw Navratilova close to her peak again. She had a 67-3 win/loss record. All three losses came against peak Steffi in the finals of Wimbledon, the USO and the YEC. All three matches were high-quality with Martina winning one set in each. Without Graf Navratilova might have had a 70-match-unbeaten run!
Then she lost to Sanchez and Seles on clay only to win Eastbourne and Wimbledon.
Only after that her slow descent began, coinciding with Graf's slump and by this enabling the fast ascent of Monica Seles.

Lol. You are trying to suggest that 1987 for Martina was on par with 1980 ? In 1980 Martina never reached the final of any major. She reached the semis of the Aussie, and Wimbledon and lost a 4th round match at the Open. In 1987 Martina reached the finals of all four majors and won the US Open and Wimbledon. That is damn good form no matter what else happens on the rest of the tour.

. Every year from 1982-1987 she won two or more slams for a total of 14 singles She won only one single slam from 1988 through the end of her career for a total of - !! Not interested in who she lost to, or how good you think those opponents were when she lost.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Lol. You are trying to suggest that 1987 for Martina was on par with 1980 ? In 1980 Martina never reached the final of any major. She reached the semis of the Aussie, and Wimbledon and lost a 4th round match at the Open. In 1987 Martina reached the finals of all four majors and won the US Open and Wimbledon. That is damn good form no matter what else happens on the rest of the tour.

. Every year from 1982-1987 she won two or more slams for a total of 14 singles She won only one single slam from 1988 through the end of her career for a total of - !! Not interested in who she lost to, or how good you think those opponents were when she lost.

It was about when Navratilova "still was in top form" or "began to slip".
To say she was still in top form in 1987 but began to slip in 1989 just because she lost the Wimbledon and USO finals in 1989 to the same opponent she beat in 1987 is nonsense. You can't just go to Wikipedia and look at the "slam tournament timeline".

 

[BTURNER]

It was about when Navratilova "still was in top form" or "began to slip".
To say she was still in top form in 1987 but began to slip in 1989 just because she lost the Wimbledon and USO finals in 1989 to the same opponent she beat in 1987 is nonsense. You can't just go to Wikipedia and look at the "slam tournament timeline".

I didn't. She was able to reach peak level when it really counted throughout 1987 but she was less consistent in the small tournaments ( your point) . She began to slip when it really counted in 1988 . Her win loss record in majors in 1987 was 26 wins and two losses playing all four. Her win loss in majors the next year was 18 wins and four losses playing all four . In 1989 it was 16 wins and three losses out of 3 majors. This is the year she starts restricting her play. Beginning in 1989 she stopped playing all four slams so stats don't jive. The last year previous to 1988, when she lost three matches in majors was in 1981. Any woman who wins 14 slams in five years between 1982-1987, and wins only one slam in the next five, is not playing as well during those years as she was prior.

Again, I am not paying any attention to the opponent she played, win or lose. I don't care the name . Its a distraction.

The real tests are at the slams during these years because beginning in the mid 80's, all the top players really began to make it a habit to show up all four venues consistently including the Australian and French and the depths of the four majors was beginning to go very deep at about the time Steffi took control of them. There has not been any such creature as a 'weak slam' since 1983.

 

[R. Schweikart]

I didn't. She was able to reach peak level when it really counted throughout 1987 but she was less consistent in the small tournaments ( your point) . She began to slip in when it really counted in 1988 . Her win loss record in majors in 1987 was 26 wins and two losses playing all four. Her win loss in majors the next year was 18 wins and four losses playing all four . In 1989 it was 16 wins and three losses out of 3 majors. This is the year she starts restricting her play. Beginning in 1989 she stopped playing all four slams so stats don't jive.The last year previous to 1988, when she lost three matches in majors was in 1981.

Again, I am not paying any attention to the opponent she played, win or lose. I don't care the name . Its a distraction.

The real tests are at the slams during these years because beginning in the mid 80's, all the top players really began to make it a habit to show up all four venues consistently including the Australian and French and the depths of the four majors was beginning to go very deep at about the time Steffi took control of them. There has not been any such creature as a 'weak slam' since 1983.

I'm paying also attention to the opponents Navratilova played and how she played in non-slams.
And therefore can better judge when she was "still in top form" or when she "began to slide".

Fans who only go to the "slam results page" on Wikipedia of course come to different conclusions. But that is not serious tennis analysis.

 

[BTURNER]

I'm paying also attention to the opponents Navratilova played and how she played in non-slams.
And therefore can better judge when she was "still in top form" or when she "began to slide".

Fans who only go to the "slam results page" on Wikipedia of course come to different conclusions. But that is not serious tennis analysis.

Any player who goes from winning 14 majors in the five years 1982-1987 with at least two per year every year during that span, and then cannot even win two majors in the next five years 1988-1992 in total is not playing nearly as competitively at the top level of the game or the same quality of tennis as she was before. That's a fact. Now you can go ahead and try to dissemble and distract with the Virginia slims of Chicago results, but this woman could not win the tournaments that mattered anymore. That's ok her time at the top was over, age happens and it takes its toll. Its what happened to Chris beginning in 1987.

Your problem is that you have decided that with different opponent, they would have won matches that were never played because that is what a Graf fanboy is tempted to do. Don't do that. Keep Graf's name out of it and just look at their record.

 

[R. Schweikart]

Any player who goes from winning 14 majors in the five years 1982-1987 with at least two per year every year during that span, and then cannot even win two majors in the next five years 1988-1992 in total is not playing nearly as competitively at the top level of the game or the same quality of tennis as she was before. That's a fact. Now you can go ahead and try to dissemble and distract with the Virginia slims of Chicago results, but this woman could not win the tournaments that mattered anymore. ...

Because of you know whom.
Do you really think Navratilova would have won her 12 slams in 1982-86 with her around?

As I mentioned - Martina had a 67-3 win/loss record from May 1989 to April 1990. All three losses to that woman who is called the GOAT by most tennis fans (sorry to get you agitated again by saying this!).

 

[BTURNER]

Because of you know whom.
Do you really think Navratilova would have won her 12 slams in 1982-86 with her around?

As I mentioned - Martina had a 67-3 win/loss record from May 1989 to April 1990. All three losses to that woman who is called the GOAT by most tennis fans (sorry to get you agitated again by saying this!).

I am not going to speculate on that question here, moving champions to other eras except to say that Graf is going to win majors as long as she is playing with a graphite racket and that means from 1982- today. Nobody is safe from Steffi Graf. This colloquy is about a changing of the guard. Martina on the decline, Graf on the ascent. Sometimes in tennis history, its more rocky than others and I suspect that is mostly about the individual match-ups. I think you may be mistaking me for another poster. I have not posted any response to such a comment, although I have read those posts.. I don't care about polling data by tennis fans. It would not bother me, if Steffi was, nor would I be troubled if she wasn't. Its just not my thing.

I do believe the problem with Martina's inconsistency was largely about having Steffi on her mind. She was too worried about Graf, and not focused enough on the rest of the women who were also improving. She let Graf dominate her mental game in 1987 and 1988, and showed her tennis elsewhere.

Suffice it to say that Graf was an astonishing tennis champion who well deserves to be considered GOAT. I am a great admirer.

 

[R. Schweikart]

I am not going to speculate on that question here, moving champions to other eras except to say that Graf is going to win majors as long as she is playing with a graphite racket and that means from 1982- today. Nobody is safe from Steffi Graf. This colloquy is about a changing of the guard. Martina on the decline, Graf on the ascent. Sometimes in tennis history, its more rocky than others and I suspect that is mostly about the individual match-ups. I think you may be mistaking me for another poster. I have not posted any response to such a comment, although I have read those posts.. I don't care about polling data by tennis fans. It would not bother me, if Steffi was, nor would I be troubled if she wasn't. Its just not my thing.

I do believe the problem with Martina's inconsistency was largely about having Steffi on her mind. She was too worried about Graf, and not focused enough on the rest of the women who were also improving. She let Graf dominate her mental game in 1987 and 1988, and showed her tennis elsewhere.

Suffice it to say that Graf was an astonishing tennis champion who well deserves to be considered GOAT. I am a great admirer.

My beef with you was only that you claimed 1987 Navratilova was still a peak and that her slide began in 1989.

 

[BTURNER]

My beef with you was only that you claimed 1987 Navratilova was still a peak and that her slide began in 1989.

That's just too bad. I never said that. The slide starts in 1988. Playing the calendar defensively, as a compensatory tactic starts in 1989.
After her loss in the semis of the Aussie in 1984, she reaches the finals of every major there was, running a streak of 11 majors in a row from 1985-1987 winning two each year.
1987: She was less consistent outside of the slams, but in matches where it really counted, she was as good as ever reaching four finals in four entries losing to Hana (#2) and Steffi (#2) at the Aussie and French, then beating #2 Steffi the next two Wimbledon and Open.
1988: We watch her consistency in majors drop as well, losing to Evert in the semi, then to Zvereva in the fourth round ( worst showing since 1983), losing to Graf in the final, then to top it off a loss to Garrison in the QFs. She lost to the 3rd seed, the top seed, the 13 seed and the 11 seed. Graf was only responsible for one of those losses.
1989: And her response was to reduce her play, . She does worse at the Aussie losing to 5th seed Sukova a round earlier, Goodbye France , repeats her work at Wimbledon losing to Graf in the final, and does better at the Open reaching the final before losing to Steffi. Graf is responsible for two of those losses but again she dumped the riskiest one.
1990 her response to the previous year, is to ditch playing in the tournament she did the worse in AGAIN. Goodbye Australia. Goodbye France. She does better at Wimbledon winning the whole thing against 5th seed Garrison, but slides backwards in the Open with her worst showing since 1980, a fourth round loss to 9th seed Maleeva. She did not play Graf in the two she played

Yes she is absolutely still winning tournaments and capable of putting in great performances and beating the top players , but the the only way she stops the slide, is by getting a lot pickier where she enters, and how often she enters tournaments.

I think you should be very careful using the non slam tournaments to measure much in this discussion. Martina and Chris would both love to compare their tournaments total won stats with Steffi Graf or Serena. That's a discussion I would enjoy. Steffi Graf's greatest claim to GOAT was not made on Virginia Slims tournaments, 'tier one or two" venues/ equivilants, or doubles,or team competition or consistency stats. Its those majors for Steffi. Live by the sword, die by it.

 

[Jason Swerve]

That's just too bad for you. .
1987: She was less consistent outside of the slams, but in matches where it really counted, she was as good as ever reaching four finals in four entries.
1988: We watch her consistency in majors drop as well, losing to Evert in the semi, then to Zvereva in the fourth round ( worst showing since 1983), losing to Graf in the final, then to top it off a loss to Garrison in the QFs. She lost to the 3rd seed, the top seed, the 13 seed and the 11 seed. Graf was only responsible for one of those losses.
1989: And her response was to reduce her play, . She does worse at the Aussie losing to 5th seed Sukova a round earlier, Goodbye France , repeats her work at Wimbledon losing to Graf in the final, and does better at the Open reaching the final before losing to Steffi.
1990 her response to the previous year, is to ditch playing in the tournament she did the worse in AGAIN. Goodbye Australia. Goodbye France. She does better at Wimbledon winning the whole thing against 5th seed Garrison, but slides backwards in the Open with her worst showing since 1980, a fourth round loss to 9th seed Maleeva.

Yes she is absolutely still winning tournaments and capable of putting in great performances and beating the top players , but the the only way she stops the slide, is by getting a lot pickier where she enters, and how often she enters tournaments.

If only Garrison had won that Wimbledon. Would've been the Miracle Run to define them all.

 

[Deleted member 771911]

Navratilova had the best outfits. Compared to the players now, she oozes charisma, too.

 

[R. Schweikart]

...
I think you should be very careful using the non slam tournaments to measure much in this discussion. Martina and Chris would both love to compare their tournaments total won stats with Steffi Graf or Serena. That's a discussion I would enjoy. Steffi Graf's greatest claim to GOAT was not made on Virginia Slims tournaments, 'tier one or two" venues/ equivilants, or doubles,or team competition or consistency stats. Its those majors for Steffi. Live by the sword, die by it.

 

[R. Schweikart]

...
I think you should be very careful using the non slam tournaments to measure much in this discussion. Martina and Chris would both love to compare their tournaments total won stats with Steffi Graf or Serena. That's a discussion I would enjoy. Steffi Graf's greatest claim to GOAT was not made on Virginia Slims tournaments, 'tier one or two" venues/ equivilants, or doubles,or team competition or consistency stats. Its those majors for Steffi. Live by the sword, die by it.

Evert and Navratilova played a lot to earn money. Often week after week in various US cities. With fields consisting of 60-70 % of US college players.

What is more interesting are winning percentages. Evert is at 90.0 %, Graf at 89.3 % and Navratilova at 86.7 %.
But Graf played - and lost - a lot when only 13/14-year-old. Evert only few matches, Navratilova started at age 16 only.
Considering only matches after turning 15 Graf takes the lead with 90.38 % ahead of Evert (90.14 %).
And when only considering matches after turning 16 Graf's lead gets even bigger - 91.52 % to Evert's 90.28 %.

So to say Steffi was only a "majors great" is misleading. She dominated everywhere, at slams AND and at other tournaments. She was the most dominant player over 16 in the open era.

 

[Rochester]

I admittedly have my favorites among the players, but when someone argues the greatness of one player without being acknowledge the greatness of other players ultimately can't be taken too seriously.

 

[BTURNER]

Evert and Navratilova played a lot to earn money. Often week after week in various US cities. With fields consisting of 60-70 % of US college players.

What is more interesting are winning percentages. Evert is at 90.0 %, Graf at 89.3 % and Navratilova at 86.7 %.
But Graf played - and lost - a lot when only 13/14-year-old. Evert only few matches, Navratilova started at age 16 only.
Considering only matches after turning 15 Graf takes the lead with 90.38 % ahead of Evert (90.14 %).
And when only considering matches after turning 16 Graf's lead gets even bigger - 91.52 % to Evert's 90.28 %.

So to say Steffi was only a "majors great" is misleading. She dominated everywhere, at slams AND and at other tournaments. She was the most dominant player over 16 in the open era.

How many non Slam tournaments did each of these three players win in their career? No editorializing, just answer the question. We are talking about providing 3 numbers.

Navratilova won ______ non slam singles tournaments in her career.
Evert won ______ non slam singles tournaments in her career.
Graf won ______ non slam singles tournaments in her career.

Whoever has the most is GOAT of the modern era.

Whoever has the second most is GOAT runner up.

Whoever has the lowest number is - well - doing better than Mary Jo Fernandez!

 

[R. Schweikart]

How many non Slam tournaments did each of these three players win in their career? No editorializing, just answer the question. We are talking about providing 3 numbers.

Navratilova won ______ non slam singles tournaments in her career.
Evert won ______ non slam singles tournaments in her career.
Graf won ______ non slam singles tournaments in her career.

Whoever has the most is GOAT of the modern era.

Whoever has the second most is GOAT runner up.

Whoever has the lowest number is - well - doing better than Mary Jo Fernandez!

That is a misconception.

The important criteria for GOATness are in descending order:
1) Grand Slams or Golden Slams
2) number of slams
3) each slam won at least n times
4) weeks and year-end #1 rankings
5) career winning percentages
6) head-to-head records against top opponents
7) career titles

1) Graf* > Navratilova/Evert
2) Graf* > Navratilova/Evert
3) Graf* > Navratilova > Evert
4) Graf > Navratilova > Evert
5) Evert > Graf > Navratilova
6) Graf > Navratilova > Evert
7) Navratilova > Evert > Graf

Please note that 1), 2) and 3) are not only open era but all-time records.

 

[BTURNER]

That is a misconception.

The important criteria for GOATness are in descending order:
1) Grand Slams or Golden Slams
2) number of slams
3) each slam won at least n times
4) weeks and year-end #1 rankings
5) career winning percentages
6) head-to-head records against top opponents
7) career titles

1) Graf* > Navratilova/Evert
2) Graf* > Navratilova/Evert
3) Graf* > Navratilova > Evert
4) Graf > Navratilova > Evert
5) Evert > Graf > Navratilova
6) Graf > Navratilova > Evert
7) Navratilova > Evert > Graf

Please note that 1), 2) and 3) are not only open era but all-time records.

LOL, Your 'important criteria' is subjective and agenda driven. Its not a unique problem you have here. You are just a lot more obvious about it than others. I do not dispute that Graf may be GOAT. She qualifies as a solid candidate.

 

[R. Schweikart]

LOL, Your 'important criteria' is subjective and agenda driven. Its not a unique problem you have here. You are just a lot more obvious about it than others. I do not dispute that Graf may be GOAT. She qualifies as a solid candidate.

But at least those 5 are generally considered to be important GOAT criteria:
1) Grand Slams or Golden Slams
2) number of slams
3) period of being #1 ranked
4) career winning percentages
5) career titles

And here is the ranking under all those five criteria:
1) Graf > Evert, Navratilova, S. Williams
2) S. Williams > Graf > Evert, Navratilova
3) Graf > Navratilova > S. Williams > Evert
4) Evert > Graf > Navratilova > S. Williams
5) Navratilova > Evert > Graf > S. Williams

So if we assign 3-2-1-0 points to them (with Evert/Navratilova/Williams all 0 Pts. at 1) of course)
the GOAT race looks like this :
1) Graf 11 pts.
2) Navratilova 7 pts.
3) Evert 6 pts.
4) S. Williams 4 pts.

Generally speaking Graf having 22 vs. 18 slams (a FOUR slam gap) and the Golden Slam over Evert/Navratilova ist insurmountable. 50 more non-slam titles can not change that.

And Serena is worse than Steffi in criteria 3) - 5) to begin with.
Yes, she is (just) ONE slam ahead of Steffi - but (like the others) lacks the Golden Slam.

And that is the way most tennis fans see it.

 

[Rochester]

When did you poll all these fans?

 

[R. Schweikart]

When did you poll all these fans?

US tennis fans voted for Steffi Graf as “greatest of all time“ at “tennis.com“ (November 2018):

GOAT Vote: Steffi or Serena? 'The Ten' went one way; you went another. | Tennis.com

<p><strong>Watch the second episode of <em>The Ten—Wom

www.tennis.com

Steffi beat Navratilova and S. Williams in an Italian GOAT poll (“Gazzetta di Parma“, July 2018):

Gazzafun: Steffi Graf o Serena Williams? Vota la miglior tennista di sempre!

L'edizione 2018 di Wimbledon è alle sue battute conclusive. Questa settimana, abbiamo scelto 7 tra le tenniste più vincenti e popolari degli ultimi anni. A te il compito di decidere chi è la migliore tra loro!

gazzafun.gazzettadiparma.it

“The Guardian“ (UK) readers voted for Steffi Graf as GOAT, giving her nearly twice as many votes as any other player (July 2020):

The greatest female tennis player of the last 50 years: the fans' verdict

Who is the best of the best? Our writers have had their say this week. Now it’s time to hear from our readers

www.theguardian.com

Austrian tennis website „tennisnet.com“ asked 29 experts and they overwhelmingly voted for Steffi Graf as GOAT (December 2020):

Steffi, Serena, Martina - so haben die Experten abgestimmt

Die Details zur Legendenfrage

www.tennisnet.com