byealmeens
Semi-Pro
I struggle with this one … so please help me understand the rationale behind how Martina Navratilova is viewed. In this day and age of record’s no one seems to talk about her career. Even when Roger reached 100 tournament wins, no one discussed Navratilova at 167. Yes, 167! And she had 177 doubles wins! And 10 mixed doubles wins. She has less Grand Slams than Serena for sure, but had a much tougher rival in Evert. I have even noticed that these boards rate Graf as a more “complete” player than Navratilova, who had beaten Steffi in slams later in her career and was certainly stronger coming forward than Steffi ever was. She also had more weeks at number one than Serena currently has (at 332, second below Graf at 377).
And this is no disrespect to Steffi or Serena who are obviously all-time greats (and certainly none towards Federer), but mostly wondering why there isn’t more credit given to the ridiculous accomplishments and longevity of Martina. Is it the Grand Slam total of 18? Is it something else?
And this is no disrespect to Steffi or Serena who are obviously all-time greats (and certainly none towards Federer), but mostly wondering why there isn’t more credit given to the ridiculous accomplishments and longevity of Martina. Is it the Grand Slam total of 18? Is it something else?