Graf was seriously injured in 97 in the 2 slams she entered and had to finally succumb to the fact she needed surgery. the way you say it that she went on hiatus after the french makes it sound like she was having a vacation or something.
Is Steffi Graf a higher GOAT than Margaret Court?
- Thread starter Aussie Darcy
- Start date
Graf was seriously injured in 97 in the 2 slams she entered and had to finally succumb to the fact she needed surgery. the way you say it that she went on hiatus after the french makes it sound like she was having a vacation or something.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Oh, please. I just said she went on hiatus. A hiatus is a pause. You fans make me physically ill. Stop trying so damned hard to defend her over nothing. She's filthy rich.
Dedans Penthouse
Legend
Guess I'd go with Graf ....though who really cares?
. . . . . "Ich werde gewinnen!"
. . . . . "Ich werde gewinnen!"
It does not make sense to me because 1. there is no standard of 'slam depth/ established, on which to judge a major as substandard, let alone applied to all these grand slam tournaments from 1950 forward. How few of the top five players entered as either a number or percentage of total draw, does it take to get to the demerit, how few of the top 16 players does it take? 2. the list of majors where the #1 player in the world did not enter for one of a thousand reasons, to bolster the final victory of the eventual champion who did win, is a very very long list indeed. Either the best player in the world showed up and competed in a specific major, or she did not and the seedings are redrawn and altered to reflect that reality. The 'why; is immaterial. Lady Luck has done her thing all over the place and yet the asterisks are not handed down to Turner, Court, King, Evert, Navratilova, Henin, Sharapova, Williams, Mandlikova, Wade, Hart, Brough...
The asterisks are not on the names of the players who won, and they are not on the tournaments that they won, and they never reach the women who were proud finalists, semifinals etc in part because the tournament was weakened by lack of this competition. Are those asterisks stuck in a drawer? Nobody mentioned to any of these women who got a career high result, whatever it was, before they started their first match, that the end result of their hard work was bound to compromised because Seles was not there. But that is all okay because the compromised status only really traveled to Sanchez and Graf when they won?
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
ea, Seles was overrated, and her Wimbledon final--at the height of her abilities--was proof of that, as Graf made Seles look like an amateur in that match. Seles' deficiencies were exposed in that match, and it was clear she was never going to win the Wimbledon title. No Wimbledon title, and you are not within a galaxy's length of being a GOAT player.
Exactly. There is thishypocritical little gang of people who have made it their job to attack and attempt (and thankfully fail) to belittle and erase Court from the GOAT history she earned. Thair hate is clearly eyebrow-deep in a resentment of her Christian faith, so they work overtime trying to demonize a woman who player her sport and succeeded above the majority ho ever stepped on a court. That's doing her job.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
And like clockwork, as you did earlier in the thread, you willfully ignore how Seles dismantled Graf at AO 93. Which happens to be the last time they played before Seles got stabbed. You ignore it because I bet you can't bear to watch the last three games of that third set.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
No, the problem is Graf was simply not competitive in 97 due to her injuries and you try to indulge in mental gymnastics to get around this. It's not comparable to say 92 when she missed the AO and came back to tennis only in Lipton and began to hit top form by RG. You are making them defend her because you are being disingenuous and on a repeated basis. And just because Graf fans are disingenuous about Seles doesn't mean it's OK for you to be disingenuous from the equal opposite direction.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Cool. Goodbye.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
It was Graf's best surface and Seles' worst surface. And Seles had been subjected to yet another scandal. Wimbledon isn't the only tournament that matters. Though by all means, take the alternate future where Graf wins every Wimbledon in the '90s, and Seles wins everything else.
Still, that wasn't 100% how it was going. Seles'd just lost to an old, unconfident Navratilova before the '93 Hamburg. '93 Seles was performing worse in her recent slams compared to her earlier wins, and it looked like her rivals were starting to try and put together some sort of game plan against her. As much as they could- her movement suffered from '91, though, and her shots had a bit less bite. I could narrate all this some more, but you only have to look at the scoreboard to see the difference: she skipped all of March and played less in general, yet she had many more 3-setters in early '93 than early-'91 or '92. These weren't 'Martinka 3-setters' either where Martinka screwed around with minimum effort. Prime Seles gave every shot her all, like tennis was actually her job. Another reason foot and shoulder injuries were coming her way soon, regardless of any stabbing. Then on top of that, I'm pretty clear her movement- even though always had iffs- was getting worse because she was gaining a little weight. Not like in '96 but enough for it to matter, like with '98 Hingis...there's something about these limelight-loving players and switching to cruise control once they're winning everything. One thing for sure- Graf wasn't that character.
So it was even more telling that Seles still sounded Graf in the '93 Australian Open, that year. Graf didn't error herself out of a match- Seles dismantled Graf as per usual. Maybe Graf would've upped her game and flipped things after the indoor season. We can't know. Seles' results were technically on the decline, but her game variety was actually improving. We can only look at the trajectory where Seles became, pretty basically, a different person in Grand Slams compared to the rest of the tour calendar.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I wouldn't read much into that. Seles was pretty flat in the US hardcourt championships 91 when she lost to Graf. She was also extremely erratic (both were, really) at Hamburg same year. I think Seles wasn't as much of a rhythm player as Graf and could get her game up for the slams. She was already learning to preserve her best for slams rather than work herself to death, past the point where tennis was fun (the Graf mistake).
Still, surely the tour would want to do something about the Seles hegemony. So we will never know how RG 93 would play out. Or USO. Because, ironically, the biggest Graf fanatic Gunther Parche was convinced about the one thing the Graf fans on here and elsewhere argue vehemently against - that Seles would eclipse Graf. That is what he wanted to stop. And he got what he wanted.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
The results may be flukes, but her form was definitely getting worse. I don't think any player has managed to keep up their prime form for 3+ years, no hitches. Either the competition can't capitalize on the form-decline, or the decline isn't enough to matter. With slams especially, it might've been going that way with Seles. A shame, because she was about to win the clay with yet another different hairstyle.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
She could have extended her form capitalizing on weak competition a la 2007 Fed. In saying that, I don't expect Graf to have mounted a challenge in 93. Maybe in 94. By which time Seles would have closed the gap and she would finally be forced to get over her stubborn fixation on one gameplan.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Okay, that was pretty funny.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Think about it. Lost to Canas twice and to Kidovic at Montreal but won 3 slams all the same. Albeit with great difficulty this time against Nadal.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Seles was going to run into major injuries or personal problems in due time- so Graf probably was going to overtake her eventually. That's still my speculation only.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Just saw the bold. Butter me up.
I agree, also. Something like Sabatini reverting back to her usual strokes after the improvised tactics failed against Graf. Sabatini was adopting that tactic against more than Graf before their fated Wimbledon final. Seles wouldn't be doing that: she'd be keeping up that net pressure whenever she needed to. Even up to the early '00s, she was playing doubles. She wasn't the best at it...I remember Hingis recruiting her for doubles after Seles' last partner left her for costing them. Seles at least always wanted to have her doubles sharp. She and Hingis (barely) beat the Williams' for goodness sake.
Biggest issue with Seles was she didn't have good doubles court sense.
But hey, she was more in-practice than Graf. Making doubles slam semis sounds decent enough for an all-court Wimbledon run.
You're right that it could've been seeing the writing on the wall. What I know she said for sure, though, is she basically grew up as of the stabbing and realized her own vulnerability beyond losing in tennis. That there was much more at stake in life than tennis, and that was a candle blown out. I did love her graciousness, but that's another thing you saw in her weakness. You heard her talk about how she was just glad to be back- period. Not back and conquering. She settled. But in all fairness, her injuries came about right as expected from her form, even after the hiatus. She was shoulder-injured in that January '96 Melbourne, and it only went downhill from there.
You could already see her lesser authority in the following indoor season. Here's Oakland, that April. Granted, she made the finals, but...
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
Yes, you could say the injury post winning the AO again pretty much ended her hopes. I do like that she became easily reconciled to the new reality, after all that she went through. There's a lesson there. She wasn't bitter, at least not openly, about things. She just got on with it. It may not have helped her tennis but it helped her stay sane.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
I feel like there's a message somewhere. But if I don't hate Graf, I won't have a TTW posting career. It's not enough to suck up to Hingis all day.
Every once in a while, I dream I'm on center court at Roland Garros and yelling at Hingis to not get flustered by Graf and the crowd. She doesn't hear me. She loses and starts crying. And then I wake up. Graf's actions damaged me emotionally. Have pity on me.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
lol, it wasn't targeted at THAT at all. I am a straight shooter. I don't know how to insert veiled messages. I don't think many PLAYERS in Seles' situation would have handled it the way she did. She would have been within her rights to give the middle finger to the tennis world. She would have to find something else to do but mostly tennis players have to anyway at some point in their life. But she could have walked away over the lack of support in the tour and used that to shroud the fact that she was just not physically good enough anymore. But she just kept playing, even suffering defeats now to the player she looked like she was gonna own for sometime. I am not sure Graf if she found herself in Seles' place would have handled it that way. I do think she would have walked away from what she regarded as a source of unhappiness. It takes a lot for a professional tennis player, especially who was dominating the tour and comfortably atop no.1, to decide that winning wasn't everything. That's just wow. It made her a lesser player but a better person and she was already unusually good for a champion player to begin with.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
The point you continue to miss is that Seles--contrary to the worst of her revisionist history-practicing fans--was no GOAT in the making, and that had everything to do with her being a washout at Wimbledon. So, she could have won another 6 majors, but no Wimbledon, and she's certainly not winning the Grand Slam, the only way she could have ascended to GOAT status.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
Seles was better. Graf said it multiple times. A random TTW post won't change that.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
No, she could have won Wimbledon in 94 pretty easily, what with your beloved crashing out to Lori McNeil in the very first round.
I think with a normal length career, Seles was bound to win one, maybe with luck two. . She was just too tenacious, too goal minded, and too driven not to do whatever it took every single year to get there. A little bit of good fortune in the draw, an opponent who was injured or off their A game in the final, and fan support for the underdog, she'd have grabbed the chance.
One big difference between the men and women's game is that the great women of the sport can more easily overcome surface deficiencies than the men can. Sampras does not win RG, but King gets hers. Lendl does not take Wimbledon but Hingis does.
Last edited:
mxmx
Hall of Fame
Serena faced greater competition in more generations and more variety. She outlasts Graf and is better in all aspects. She would win prime vs. prime 7/10 matches against Graf imo. Taking longer to win the slams is a positive and not a negative. Federer's longevity is making him great. Why shouldn't it for Serena?
Saying Court had weak competition and then saying Graf didn't with her golden slam doesn't make sense to me. Graf faced both great and weak players as did Serena.
As for Court playing unknowns:
Could be due to the fact that it was long ago and just that "we" don't know how great those "amateurs" were. Not being officially pro does not mean they weren't necc good. It was still the best players available and Court still won outside the Aus open which proves that she was quality.
Do open era players not also "gain" with weak draws and walkovers? What about opponents withdrawing tournaments and matches? I'm sure everyone of each era gains something that benefits them personally.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
And what people forget is in 92 Seles was already better than everyone else but Graf at Wimbledon. Women's tennis became a two horse again (after Evert-Navratilova) in 1992-93 (pre stabbing) with Graf and Seles cruising past the rest as long as they hit their stride. Graf at 92 Wimbledon produced an extraordinary level. She only played like that again to some extent in 96 or 99 (but without the mobility she had in 92). 92 W was the last time she played like the 88 Graf, absolutely on fire and unstoppable and visibly enjoying her tennis. So in either of 93-95, Seles would have had a good shot at beating Graf. Providing somebody else (like Novotna) didn't get past Graf anyway and make Seles' work easier.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
That poster predictably omits the original Serena slam which was against very tough competition. Always pick on those very infirmities that have crept into Serena's performance BECAUSE of her age and her longevity. That she was even in a position to complete a CYGS in 2015 is a testament to her strength and her greatness, if anything.
mxmx
Hall of Fame
You mean people/comentators with promotional powers high up in the tennis boards/circle/clicks...promoting their own games or people they side with?
yeah...they cleverly disowned Court in the tennis circles as an evil stepsister when in fact she was the real Cinderella.
I think you may be overselling here. Monica was not a natural grass player. Nothing in her game improves comparatively on that surface except her serve. Her first problem will be getting to the semis. Each year she will have at least one more tough match than the rest of the top seeds who are more comfortable. If they have one, she will have two. If they have two she will have three. An awful lot will depend on the weather. If it stays dry, her chances prove remarkably. Damp conditions, with the wrong opponent in any round may be fatal. My calculations at least one more early round upset nobody is anticipating.
mxmx
Hall of Fame
Perhaps...but then there is no hypothetical with Court's slams. Not her fault no one turned up. Not her fault the tour wasn't "professional". But one is blind if one ignores that a person on the same "side" of Graf and of the same nationality attempts to kill Seles and THEN gets away with it. If this is not suspicious and above all bias of biases, then i don't know what is.
Much like Court, Serena is hated...yet no one can truly wipe their legacy. They are the true goat no matter how hard people try to wipe their achievements. I cannot help but wonder what people would have done if Serena was white and if Court was not religious but rather "the same" as BJK or Navratilova.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Seles was better, yes. That is evident in what happened. I do not dispute one bit that Seles was better than Graf.
However, in Steffi's defence, that does not mean Steffi was not great! I feel this had to be put into this thread which is seeing Graf being generally rubbished because she was second best to someone. Being second best is a normal part of a tennis career.
It's only natural, or it was, that the players coming up who rose to the top were better than those before them. There's no shame for Graf in Seles being better. Seles had a target, Graf, and knew how to beat her. She also had advances in coaching and technology. Graf had had her time at the top, 1987 to 1990. That's a fairly decent period and her record was excellent, winning the Golden slam in that time. She also stayed in the top 2 during Seles' and still challenging for No.1 now and then. She also beat her in a slam final pre '93.
Let's say Graf had not had the benefit of Seles' absence and she had ended her career with 14 slams and not been a GOAT contender. I would still absolutely stan her! Even when she was losing to Seles in slam finals, she was still great to watch and added real value to Seles' wins imo.
So, yes, Seles was better. But, in a way, Graf had something to do with that, giving her an ATG to usurp.
However, in Steffi's defence, that does not mean Steffi was not great! I feel this had to be put into this thread which is seeing Graf being generally rubbished because she was second best to someone. Being second best is a normal part of a tennis career.
It's only natural, or it was, that the players coming up who rose to the top were better than those before them. There's no shame for Graf in Seles being better. Seles had a target, Graf, and knew how to beat her. She also had advances in coaching and technology. Graf had had her time at the top, 1987 to 1990. That's a fairly decent period and her record was excellent, winning the Golden slam in that time. She also stayed in the top 2 during Seles' and still challenging for No.1 now and then. She also beat her in a slam final pre '93.
Let's say Graf had not had the benefit of Seles' absence and she had ended her career with 14 slams and not been a GOAT contender. I would still absolutely stan her! Even when she was losing to Seles in slam finals, she was still great to watch and added real value to Seles' wins imo.
So, yes, Seles was better. But, in a way, Graf had something to do with that, giving her an ATG to usurp.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I think the problem is simply that the OP is so lofty and seems to completely ignore Seles. And it's a bit weird to crown the player who rarely came over the backhand as the most complete. Forget the ones with 18 or 23 slams. Henin had a more complete game than Graf. She was just up against the Williams sisters, not Gabby /ASV/Novotna.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I think given that Seles was starting to use S&V even on HC in 93, she could have potentially been better in 93. But even if she wasn't, the field was hollowing out quickly. Navratilova wasn't getting any younger and Gabby was fading away. It was down to Graf and Novotna. I like Seles' chances against that kind of field.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
There is truth to what you say. However, surely Graf should also get credit for producing a game that was so much better than her peers? Isn't that a principal part of competition? Henin was disadvantaged in that she lacked the physical qualities to develop a more power based game, right? Credit to Williams' for bringing that game to the time they did. Same for Graf, surely.
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
I am not denying credit for THAT. I just think when the word complete is used, it implies all round technical prowess. I don't think Graf was THE most complete in that regard though she obviously didn't suck.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Agreed. I don't think she was the most complete. But, she did manage a pretty complete resume, so perhaps being a complete player is not the key to such success and is overvalued.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
In weak seasons where Pierce and ASV are your biggest rivals, yeah.
D
Deleted member 771911
Guest
Unfortunately, we don't live in a hypothetical world. Graf was not a complete player but at times in her career was the best. She can't be penalised for that!
Before the fateful stabbing incident, I remember really looking forward to the RG-Wimbledon double header in 1993. Seles's serve and volleying ability were clearly improving with Wimbledon in mind (it was talked about a lot during the Australian Open). Graf had narrowly lost their RG final the previous year after fighting back and turning the match into a gruelling war, her 3rd final defeat in Paris within 4 years.
I agree with comments that Seles most likely would have won a Wimbledon title had it not been for the stabbing, especially with the women's field on grass becoming noticeably weaker in the mid-90s compared to the start of the decade, the general lack of depth outside the 10 (though basically always the norm in women's tennis until we were well into the 21st century) and lack of dangerous specialists / lower ranked players /serve-volleyers around etc. But it could be argued that going into that double-header, Graf was still closer to winning a 3rd RG title than Seles was to winning a 1st Wimbledon title. It would have been fascinating to see how that would have unfolded.
I remember being happy when Seles replaced Graf as the world no. 1 / dominant figure with women's tennis. Navratilova was far too arrogant for my liking, and Graf during her first dominant period (though she was very young) rarely smiled or showed any joy or excitement (including in 1988 when she secured her grand slam). I found it difficult to warm towards a player that routinely won matches in 40 minutes, and then afterwards shook hands coldly at the net / barely looked at her opponents. Seles with her infectious enthusiasm, charisma and fact she clearly loved the sport and had fun, seemed to be a complete breath of fresh air. I did come to appreciate Graf a lot more during the mid-90s though.
I agree with comments that Seles most likely would have won a Wimbledon title had it not been for the stabbing, especially with the women's field on grass becoming noticeably weaker in the mid-90s compared to the start of the decade, the general lack of depth outside the 10 (though basically always the norm in women's tennis until we were well into the 21st century) and lack of dangerous specialists / lower ranked players /serve-volleyers around etc. But it could be argued that going into that double-header, Graf was still closer to winning a 3rd RG title than Seles was to winning a 1st Wimbledon title. It would have been fascinating to see how that would have unfolded.
I remember being happy when Seles replaced Graf as the world no. 1 / dominant figure with women's tennis. Navratilova was far too arrogant for my liking, and Graf during her first dominant period (though she was very young) rarely smiled or showed any joy or excitement (including in 1988 when she secured her grand slam). I found it difficult to warm towards a player that routinely won matches in 40 minutes, and then afterwards shook hands coldly at the net / barely looked at her opponents. Seles with her infectious enthusiasm, charisma and fact she clearly loved the sport and had fun, seemed to be a complete breath of fresh air. I did come to appreciate Graf a lot more during the mid-90s though.
Last edited:
On the subject of Serena, she won her first Serena slam in 2002-2003 when the top 10 was incredibly strong and stronger than it had ever been before IMO (the period from 1999 into the early to mid 00s was an absolute golden age in that department). Then she won her second Serena slam in 2014-2015 when the WTA top 10 definitely was much weaker compared to 2002-2003, but the overall strength in depth in the WTA top 100 was overwhelmingly better than it had ever been before in any previous decade. So in terms of dominance and longevity her achievements stack up very well.
I have to admit that I've found it funny over the years when some of the same posters that have mocked Connors' 109 titles on the men's side and insisted that it's a meaningless 'archaic' record which shouldn't be brought up when assessing modern day players' own title counts, have simultaneously repeatedly brought up Navratilova's 167 titles on the women's side and made a big deal out of Serena's much lower title count. Due to the astronomically better depth in men's tennis when Connors was around compared to that in women's tennis when Navratilova was around (that gulf really cannot be emphasised enough), it's safe to say that Connors' title count stacks up much better in comparisons with modern day male players than Navratilova's does in comparisons with modern day female players.
That's not to say that the grand slam title count and grand slam achievements are the be all and end all, and that all other achievements are completely meaningless or anything, far from it. The increased prevalence of the 'it's only the slams that matter' attitude and obsession with the slam count that has further intensified over time, has been very regrettable IMO.
I have to admit that I've found it funny over the years when some of the same posters that have mocked Connors' 109 titles on the men's side and insisted that it's a meaningless 'archaic' record which shouldn't be brought up when assessing modern day players' own title counts, have simultaneously repeatedly brought up Navratilova's 167 titles on the women's side and made a big deal out of Serena's much lower title count. Due to the astronomically better depth in men's tennis when Connors was around compared to that in women's tennis when Navratilova was around (that gulf really cannot be emphasised enough), it's safe to say that Connors' title count stacks up much better in comparisons with modern day male players than Navratilova's does in comparisons with modern day female players.
That's not to say that the grand slam title count and grand slam achievements are the be all and end all, and that all other achievements are completely meaningless or anything, far from it. The increased prevalence of the 'it's only the slams that matter' attitude and obsession with the slam count that has further intensified over time, has been very regrettable IMO.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
You were one of the few. Most of us weren't on the Seles train until after the stabbing.
No- but we do see her struggling before and after the weak era ('87-96). I don't have a narrative: I'm like C-SPAN with humor. The only things I penalize Graf for are cheating Hingis (and me) and promoting that YouTek crap.
If I'm being honest, before '99*, we hadn't had a strong era since the late '70s-early '80s. Navratilova and Serena had some weak-era funk in their primes too, but they at least stuck in it when the competition was harder.
Clarification*
Last edited:
Yeah when players are insanely dominant, at the height of their powers, rarely lose and win most of their matches only conceding a few games, it can understandably be difficult for many people to root for them, as people especially paying spectators want to see competitive matches. When they themselves become the underdog, have to overcome adversity etc, then they often attract far more support as more people can relate to / sympathise with them. That was probably exacerbated in women's tennis when for a long time there was very little or next to no depth, the early round matches at majors were typically a joke etc.
Evert becoming the underdog to Navratilova in the 80s, or at least that rivalry becoming more competitive and Navratilova beginning to score more wins, massively increased her popularity. She was insanely popular when she broke through and did tremendously well as a teenager, but then understandably wasn't so popular (though still an incredibly big deal) during the height of her dominance during the 70s. It seemed clear that Federer was far more popular in 2016 for example than he was in 2006 when he was incredibly dominant.
In the 1990 RG final, Seles was the clear crowd favourite with Graf having won 8 out of the last 9 majors, while 2 years later Graf now as the big underdog was the clear crowd favourite. Seles to her credit and despite still being a a teenager, understood the 'bigger picture' and why fans often cheered for her opponents during matches, with them simply wanting longer contests during earlier rounds, and rooting for clear underdogs during latter rounds. Navratilova with her huge ego on the other hand failed to understand that, and often whined about fans cheering for her opponents during early round matches at majors, including when she was barely dropping games.
I've personally never seen a player 'demonised' to the extent that Seles was at Wimbledon in 1992 (when she was only 18 years old). Under those circumstances, I think she did well to reach the final. Many people including the British tabloids still hadn't forgiven her for her withdrawal the previous year (which basically over-shadowed the tournament on the women's side) and treated her as a villain, there was the 'gruntometer' saga with other players including Navratilova lining up to take aim at her, she was criticised by players like Ivanisevic for her silence re the Balkan wars etc.
But I think her 'bubbly' personality really shone through during those pre-stabbing days. Yes it's easier for a teenager that's winning nearly all the time to love tennis with their enthusiasm often waning as they get older, but I've rarely seen any player love the sport as much as Seles did. I remember her interview after the 1993 Australian Open final, when she talked about how badly she wanted the Akubra hat, there were a lot of stories about how well she treated kids working / volunteering at tournaments etc.
Last edited:
Graf1stClass
Professional
Weren't figures such as Evert disliked for their mannerisms?
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
She was the original Open Era ice queen. So, yes. Her baseline bashing was unpopular just the same.
Jason Swerve
Hall of Fame
100% right. I don't remember that disdain for Graf at her '80s height, though. Kind of peculiar, out in the open, isn't it. You'd have expected more of the 'now Graf has competition- so let's appreciate it' crowd. It existed back then, but it didn't exist as a majority.
Evert was a pretty cold person as a player in her early years. I can understand the criticism she got- not as bad as Kournikova, but it was a different time, and people were held to different standards. That's including how she played, but then that's why you chose her as a mirror from the past to Seles- and that conversation was definitely happening. Same with Federer, minus the Evert comparisons. He was compared more to Graf: weak era champions.
Seles did some dumb things that brought unneeded hostility her way. I'd say the reason she found it in the locker room was because she wasn't approachable to the surrounding women. Too flamboyant. Too many groupies always with her. Never really went out of her way to talk to anyone who didn't engage with her. That's the difference between her and Hingis, that Hingis went out of her way to chat with people. People can be shallow that way, judging others because they're too afraid to actually get to know them. Makes sense that Seles would sense the cold air and keep to her circle, with the feedback loops going on.
The anti-grunting campaign was bunk- there'd been grunts before, you already know. Navratilova was complaining she couldn't hear the ball of Seles' racket. So you know she wasn't lasting long in the poly era.
But yeah, she wasn't politically 'savvy' by any means either. Real unfortunate people couldn't see the person she actually was beyond the tabloid headlines. You know, we're only just now getting rid of this biased garbage. You really can't imagine even the young Seles acting like Azarenka, grunting or not.Dolgopolov, I am going off on a tangent just because I have never expressed this opinion here before. I wonder what you think.
Its always an interesting question isn't it, how much ought a devout baseliner, change his or her game to s/v or chip/ charge to win Wimbledon. We know that Lendl tried and failed and Borg tried and succeeded. We know that Evert won three and was a finalist 10 times, without ever following a serve into the net. Its a real tradeoff. I think we often underestimate the problem the question "should I on this serve" Should I on this point' causes. There is something to be said about knowing you will not even if it means your opponent knows will not. Just knowing the decision is made and final, before you go out on the court, means that you are just as sure about what you have to do. its the mirror image of what s/vers have to decide on slow clay.
I have often thought the player who is stuck having to ask himself the most tactical questions during a match, is the player with the biggest problem to solve in the match, and that is the guy with the doubts that weigh on the purity of his concentration and confidence..
On the other hand, it precludes changing a losing game, surprise tactics, and unpredictability.
Did Seles really need to S/v to win Wimbledon, and what would a few inevitable failures up there, have done to her confidence?
Dolgopolov85
G.O.A.T.
This is a very interesting question and a great post.
My take is I don't think Seles should have (or would have) 'transformed' into a serve and volleyer for Wimbledon. There's only one player in at least the Open Era history who could transform like a chameleon from clay to grass and that's Borg. Borg is the gold standard, nobody since has ever matched up to THAT versatility. And Borg was flexible even on grass. He didn't used to come in as much as against Connors as he did against Mac. How he managed this adjustment only he can tell. And we know he is simply a different species of human being so what he did cannot be emulated. Forget the poly era with Fedalovic seamlessly moving from one surface to another with only subtle adjustments. Agassi didn't have a slice as good as any of the big three and was always a reluctant volleyer and still won Wimbledon in 92 before even extra duty felt, let alone slower grass.
No, I think adding S&V would have simply helped Seles keep opponents further off balance. It seemed to irk Graf in the 93 AO match when Seles S&Ved a couple of times in the second set. More so because she did it on the ad. This forced Graf to 'cheat' on her return and lean towards making a forehand return from outside the court. Naturally, that left down the middle wide open and Seles exploited that, outacing Graf comfortably and in fact hitting more aces in that one match than she did in the entire tournament.
In the same way, throwing in a few S&V points would have made Seles even more unpredictable. I think the unpredictability was an important and underrated facet of her game. If I had to guess, her two handed and flat strokes without either a long takeback or a long follow through made it tough for opponents to tell which way she was gonna go (until it was too late). So the additional dimension of S&V would have helped Seles stay unpredictable and keep opponents off balance. But I certainly don't think she should have radically changed her game for grass. That would have been foolish IMO. She had a very crude slice like most double handers of the time and not very great volleys. So I think she should have continued to power through aggressively from the baseline as she had done in 92. But she had already been throwing in the odd S&V in 92 and she should have just increased the frequency a little more. Say once in a game rather than twice in a whole match. Seles, like Agassi, had both a great swing volley and a great deep smash. Even the 90s S&Vers like Novotna would get defensive if the lob landed deep but Seles would go for it and make the winner. So taking charge of the forecourt confidently, much as Agassi did in 92, is what I think she should have done and what she would have done imo.
As for confidence, hard to say if a Wimbledon loss would have dented her much. Graf pounded her in 92 and if Seles was being honest to herself, she would have known that was only partly due to all the distractions over Seles' grunting and largely due to the fact that Seles threw the kitchen sink at Graf but that day, Graf somehow handled it all with ease. In their match up on grass, the Graf slice would have always posed a severe problem unlike on any other surface. But for all of that, Seles put behind the loss and bounced right back at W and AO so I would say she was good at shutting out bad results and approaching every match with a blank slate.
Crocodile
G.O.A.T.
Very hard to compare the small standard sized wood era to midsize graphite injected Dunlop
200G, Tennis really changed when this new technology became available. Both great players. Margaret has the GS record and Stefanie has the Golden Slam and she was them succeeded by Seles who got to number one until that terrible incident.
200G, Tennis really changed when this new technology became available. Both great players. Margaret has the GS record and Stefanie has the Golden Slam and she was them succeeded by Seles who got to number one until that terrible incident.
Graf1stClass
Professional
Do you believe she would have remained the number one? For how long?
Crocodile
G.O.A.T.
Good question, she had already won 9 slams before the age of 20 before the incident, so she was doing very well,
Similar threads
