davey25
Banned
It seems hardly anyone considers Evert the greatest women player of all time at this point, with virtually everyone sideing with either Graf or Navratilova, with some outside support for Court. Some would even make arguments for the dominant greats of the past especialy Lenglen, Wills Moody and Connolly. People still rate Evert very highly of course, 3rd or 4th of the Open Era atleast, some even 2nd of all time. However even though I was never a huge Evert fan it strikes me in many ways she is unlucky to not be considered the greatest ever. I will go over some of the things I mean.
First of all she missed 3 French Opens during her complete dominance on clay, and she didnt play the Australian from 1975 to 1980. She really should have won 10 French Opens which would be an unassailable record. It is possible had Austin played the French in 79 and 1980 she might have beaten Evert one of those years, but then again Evert also probably would have had the French in the bag in 1972 the year King won had she played as well, so that pretty much evens out IMO. As it is now her 7 French Opens is definitely beatable in the future. Had Graf stayed healthy she likely would have broken it, some Seles fans would argue had she not been stabbed and stayed healthy she too perhaps. And even Henin might well have tied it already and eventually broken it had she not retired for 2 years and come back rusty(what a laugh that would have been IMO but anyway). She certainly wouldnt have completely dominated the Australian on grass even if she played it every year, especialy assuming everyone else did. However she might have won 2 or 3 out of those 6 years. That would put her around 23 or 24 slams herself right now.
Her consistency is the greatest of any women of all time. Her longevity of great play is only really matched by Court. Navratilova gets high praise for her longevity but it is longevity of very good play, her longevity of near peak play is not even close to the Graf who had her prime and career shortened by chronic injuries, let alone Evert's. Her overall dominance even at her peak is clearly inferior to Graf or Navratilova at theirs, but that is only one aspect. Her versatility is outstanding as well. Grass is considered her weakest surface, and Evert had the disadvantage of coming up at a time 3 of the 4 majors were on grass, and most of her career still 2 of the 4. Yet she reached a whopping 10 Wimbledon finals, and reached the Australian Open final on grass all 5 times she played it (winning twice).
She also was denied probably roughly 7 slams by Navratilova. She lost in the finals to Navratilova of 9 slams and she probably would have won the vast majority of those. There is even 1 semifinal loss to Navratilova where she might have had a shot in the final too (vs Austin in 81). Without Navratilova she probably would have won about 25 slams and 6-8 Wimbledons. Without Navratilova and playing the French and Australian regularly she could be well up over 30 (I know those are alot of what ifs but just putting into perspective).
Alot of people seem to hold her to tougher standards than Navratilova especialy. All of Navratilova's losses before 82 are dismissed as a "pre prime" Martina, and understandably so, yet Navratilova is then considered old and past her prime instantly just because a young Steffi Graf displaces her starting in 87. Navratilova somehow gets these considerations yet is still applauded heartily for her longevity and mantaining such an incredibly high level of play so many years!!??! Am I the only one that finds that a bit strange. Contrast that to Evert who began regularly beating Court and King in the early 70s, and dominating the womens game as early as 1974, yet is supposably still in her prime while being dominated by a peak Navratilova from 83-86, stretching to ages 30 and 31, the same ages a ultra late blooming Martina was supposably "past her prime". If all this is somehow true then Evert truly demolishes Navratiova when it comes to mantaining an exceptionally high level of play over many years. It seems alot of people hold Evert being dominated by Navratilova during her peak years against her far too much, especialy when it is certainly possible Evert was past her prime by that point, and even if she wasnt had many years on top of the womens game and mantained that level alot longer than Martina did. And also especialy when the late blooming Navratilova is certainly not judged by being dominated by a teenage Graf when she was not much older than the former teen phenom Evert was while being dominated by her. There are also the matchup aspects, maybe Martina was just a bad "matchup for Evert", it doesnt instantly prove her vast superiority. Even so their career head to head is almost tied. I am not looking to diss Martina, just saying it seems Evert is unfairly held to different standards in comparisiont to Martina, and she suffers much more in the comparision than she ought to. And it does seem Evert's elmination from stronger greatest ever consideration is based upon her perceived clear inferiority to Navratilova, her fellow contemporary great.
All in all I dont neccessarily think Evert is the greatest women player ever, but I am surprised she doesnt get more consideration than she does, and in many respects she is perhaps unlucky to not be considered so.
First of all she missed 3 French Opens during her complete dominance on clay, and she didnt play the Australian from 1975 to 1980. She really should have won 10 French Opens which would be an unassailable record. It is possible had Austin played the French in 79 and 1980 she might have beaten Evert one of those years, but then again Evert also probably would have had the French in the bag in 1972 the year King won had she played as well, so that pretty much evens out IMO. As it is now her 7 French Opens is definitely beatable in the future. Had Graf stayed healthy she likely would have broken it, some Seles fans would argue had she not been stabbed and stayed healthy she too perhaps. And even Henin might well have tied it already and eventually broken it had she not retired for 2 years and come back rusty(what a laugh that would have been IMO but anyway). She certainly wouldnt have completely dominated the Australian on grass even if she played it every year, especialy assuming everyone else did. However she might have won 2 or 3 out of those 6 years. That would put her around 23 or 24 slams herself right now.
Her consistency is the greatest of any women of all time. Her longevity of great play is only really matched by Court. Navratilova gets high praise for her longevity but it is longevity of very good play, her longevity of near peak play is not even close to the Graf who had her prime and career shortened by chronic injuries, let alone Evert's. Her overall dominance even at her peak is clearly inferior to Graf or Navratilova at theirs, but that is only one aspect. Her versatility is outstanding as well. Grass is considered her weakest surface, and Evert had the disadvantage of coming up at a time 3 of the 4 majors were on grass, and most of her career still 2 of the 4. Yet she reached a whopping 10 Wimbledon finals, and reached the Australian Open final on grass all 5 times she played it (winning twice).
She also was denied probably roughly 7 slams by Navratilova. She lost in the finals to Navratilova of 9 slams and she probably would have won the vast majority of those. There is even 1 semifinal loss to Navratilova where she might have had a shot in the final too (vs Austin in 81). Without Navratilova she probably would have won about 25 slams and 6-8 Wimbledons. Without Navratilova and playing the French and Australian regularly she could be well up over 30 (I know those are alot of what ifs but just putting into perspective).
Alot of people seem to hold her to tougher standards than Navratilova especialy. All of Navratilova's losses before 82 are dismissed as a "pre prime" Martina, and understandably so, yet Navratilova is then considered old and past her prime instantly just because a young Steffi Graf displaces her starting in 87. Navratilova somehow gets these considerations yet is still applauded heartily for her longevity and mantaining such an incredibly high level of play so many years!!??! Am I the only one that finds that a bit strange. Contrast that to Evert who began regularly beating Court and King in the early 70s, and dominating the womens game as early as 1974, yet is supposably still in her prime while being dominated by a peak Navratilova from 83-86, stretching to ages 30 and 31, the same ages a ultra late blooming Martina was supposably "past her prime". If all this is somehow true then Evert truly demolishes Navratiova when it comes to mantaining an exceptionally high level of play over many years. It seems alot of people hold Evert being dominated by Navratilova during her peak years against her far too much, especialy when it is certainly possible Evert was past her prime by that point, and even if she wasnt had many years on top of the womens game and mantained that level alot longer than Martina did. And also especialy when the late blooming Navratilova is certainly not judged by being dominated by a teenage Graf when she was not much older than the former teen phenom Evert was while being dominated by her. There are also the matchup aspects, maybe Martina was just a bad "matchup for Evert", it doesnt instantly prove her vast superiority. Even so their career head to head is almost tied. I am not looking to diss Martina, just saying it seems Evert is unfairly held to different standards in comparisiont to Martina, and she suffers much more in the comparision than she ought to. And it does seem Evert's elmination from stronger greatest ever consideration is based upon her perceived clear inferiority to Navratilova, her fellow contemporary great.
All in all I dont neccessarily think Evert is the greatest women player ever, but I am surprised she doesnt get more consideration than she does, and in many respects she is perhaps unlucky to not be considered so.
Last edited:
