Is there a case for Chris to be ranked above Martina

Mattosgrant, I think it's a really good thread. With some excellent contributions from posters I always enjoy reading. I might not always agree but I respect the knowledge they bring to any thread.
 
TMF said:
3 years ago she was ranked in the top 5 greatest of all time. Being ranked behind Graf and Martina isn't a slight to Chris because those two also had an incredible career themselves. Perhaps Chris isn't prominent than other great players by the younger people but historians(elder) haven't forgotten her legacy. Many Serena fans are young, and it's normal for them to be biased toward their favorite player, even if they try to be fair/neutral.
Click to expand...
.
You #1 poster! ​




 
Yeah, I've kind of ignored Martina a little in this thread. For those that are familiar with my posts, I think they know how I feel about Martina, the tennis player. I think she is another person that overcame so much that most people get to just take for granted like her sexuality and a freakin' high profile defection. She has a strength inside of her to go out alone into the world where people sometimes pretend to be your friend even though they aren't and make mistakes. There are things, some related to tennis and some not, that I don't like about her. But like Marge, I've learned not to hold those against her when it comes to achievements.

Earlier I said that if I could choose whose career accomplishments that I want it would be Chris'. But if I could pick a time period of domination, I think I would go with Martina's 1983 Wimbledon run through the 1984 Australian. Not only did she dominate, but she literally changed the game and forced a huge change in approach to what it means to be a professional tennis player.

I included the 1984 Australian in her run because even though she fell to Sukova in the semis, in hindsight, it was a marvelous way to have a run to end. Sukova played out of her mind and pressured Martina off both her own serve and on the return. The last game of that match was epic as Sukova had triple match point only to see Martina crush three return winners off of huge Sukova serves. She was shot down that day, but it was in a blaze of glory.

I only saw Chris' domination of the tour in the 70's in hindsight. While I have watched many of those matches on dvd, that doesn't necessarily give me the proper context of the matches and the feeling of Chris' domination of the tour. This also probably influences my choice of picking Martina over Chris.

I am, however, glad that I got to see her struggle through that long period with Martina and then rise to the occasion to win the 1985 French Open. It makes that match so much more meaningful and easier to understand what it meant to her and their rivalry.
 
WTA Tennis records of the Open Era

Most GS titles
player total
1 Steffi Graf 22
2 Serena Williams 21
3 Martina Navratilova 18
3 Chris Evert 18
5 Margaret Court 11
6 Monica Seles 9
7 Billie Jean King 8
8 Justine Henin 7
8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 7
8 Venus Williams 7

Most GS finals
Rank Name Total
1 Chris Evert 34
2 Martina Navrátilová 32
3 Steffi Graf 31
4 Serena Williams 24
5 Evonne Goolagong 18
6 Venus Williams 14
7 Monica Seles 13
8 Margaret Court 12
8 Martina Hingis 12
8 Billie Jean Moffitt 12

Consecutive GS finals
1. Steffi Graf 13
2. Martina Navratilova 11
3. Margaret Court 6
3. Chris Evert 6
3. Monica Seles 6
6. Steffi Graf 5
6. Martina Hingis 5
8. Martina Navratilova 4
8. Chris Evert 4
8. Arantxa Sánchez 4
8. Serena Williams 4
8. Venus Williams 4
8. Justine Henin 4

Most single titles
Rank Player Singles
1 Martina Navratilova 167
2 Chris Evert 157
3 Steffi Graf 107
4 Margaret Court 101
5 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 68
6 Billie Jean King 67
= Serena Williams 67
8 Virginia Wade 55
= Lindsay Davenport 55
10 Monica Seles 53

Most weeks at #1
Rank Player weeks
1 Steffi Graf 377
2 Martina Navratilova 332
3 Chris Evert 260
4 Serena Williams 252*
5 Martina Hingis 209
6 Monica Seles 178
7 Justine Henin 117
8 Lindsay Davenport 98
9 Caroline Wozniacki 67
10 Victoria Azarenka 51

Consecutive weeks at #1
1 Steffi Graf 186
2 Martina Navratilova 156
3 Serena Williams 123*
4 Chris Evert 113
5 Monica Seles 91
6 Martina Navratilova 90
7 Steffi Graf 87
8 Martina Hingis 80
9 Chris Evert 76
10 Martina Hingis 73

Year end No. 1 players
player year
1 Steffi Graf 8
2 Martina Navratilova 7
3 Chris Evert 5
4 Lindsay Davenport 4
4 Serena Williams 4
6 Justine Henin 3
6 Martina Hingis 3
6 Monica Seles 3
9 Caroline Wozniacki 2
10 Jelena Jankovic 1
10 Victoria Azarenka 1

Year-End Championships
1. Martina Navratilova 8
2. Steffi Graf 5
2. Serena Williams 5
4. Chris Evert 4
5. Monica Seles 3
6. Kim Clijsters 3
7. Gabriela Sabatini 2
8. Martina Hingis 2
9. Evonne Goolagong Cawley 2
10. Justine Henin 2

All surface single winning percentage
Rank Player Wins-Losses Win %
1 Margaret Court 593-56 91.37
2 Chris Evert 1309-146 89.97
3 Steffi Graf 902-115 88.69
4 Martina Navratilova 1442-219 86.82
5 Serena Williams* 724-121 85.68
6 Monica Seles 595-122 82.98
7 Justine Henin 503-109 82.18
8 Billie Jean King 695-155 81.76
9 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 704-165 81.01

Most singles matches won
Player Wins
1 Martina Navratilova 1442
2 Chris Evert 1309
3 Steffi Graf 902
4 Virginia Wade 839
5 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 759
6 Lindsay Davenport 753
7 Conchita Martínez 739
8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley[5] 704
9 Billie Jean King 695
10 Serena Williams 684

Most match winning streak(all surfaces)
Rank Player Matches
1 Martina Navratilova 74
2 Steffi Graf 66
3 Martina Navratilova 58
4 Margaret Court 57
5 Chris Evert 55
6 Martina Navratilova 54
7 Steffi Graf 46
8 Steffi Graf 45
9 Steffi Graf 44
10 Martina Navratilova 41

Most consecutive singles titles
1. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
2. 12 - Margaret Court (1972-1973)
3. 11 - Steffi Graf (1989-1990)
4. 10 - Chris Evert (1974)
5. 9 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
5. 9 - Margaret Court (1970)
7. 8 - Steffi Graf (1988 )
7. 8 - Martina Navratilova (1983)

Best annual singles winning percentage
1 Martina Navratilova 98.9
2 Steffi Graf 97.7
3 Martina Navratilova 97.5
4 Steffi Graf 97.4
5 Martina Navratilova 96.8
6 Martina Navratilova 96.7
7 Steffi Graf 96
8 Margaret Court 95.3
9 Serena Williams 95.1
10 Chris Evert 94.9

Winning Streaks
1. Martina Navratilova 74
2. Steffi Graf 66
3. Martina Navratilova 58
4. Chris Evert 56
5. Martina Navratilova 54
6. Steffi Graf 46
7. Steffi Graf 45
8. Martina Navratilova 41
9. Martina Navratilova 39
10. Martina Navratilova 38

Most consecutive years winning at least one singles title
1. 21 - Martina Navratilova (1974-1994)
2. 18 - Chris Evert (1971-1988 )
3. 14 - Steffi Graf (1986-1999)
4. 11 - Sharapova (2003-2013)
4. 11 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970-1980)
4. 11 - Virginia Wade (1968-1978 )
7. 9 - Sandra Cecchini (1984-1992)
7. 9 - Margaret Court (1968-1976)
7. 9 - Lindsay Davenport (1993-2001)
7. 9 - Conchita Martinez (1988-1996)
7. 9 - Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (1988-1996)

Most singles titles won in a year
1. 21 - Margaret Court (1970)
2. 18 - Margaret Court (1969, 1973)
3. 17 - Billie Jean King (1971)
4. 16 - Chris Evert (1974, 1975)
4. 16 - Martina Navratilova (1983)
6. 15 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970)
6. 15 - Martina Navratilova (1982)
8. 14 - Margaret Court (1968 )
8. 14 - Steffi Graf (1989)
8. 14 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
11. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
12. 12 - Chris Evert (1973, 1976)
12. 12 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971)
12. 12 - Martina Navratilova (1985)
12. 12 - Martina Hingis (1997)
16. 11 - Tracy Austin (1980)
16. 11 - Chris Evert (1977)
16. 11 - Steffi Graf (1987, 1988 )
16. 11 - Martina Navratilova (1978, 1979)
16. 11 - Serena Williams (2013)
 
Serena is honestly still arguable as a part time player. She really only gives her best at the majors and will seemingly choose when to do well outside of them given her whims.

Take this year for instance...she has a chance to win the Calendar slam...and yet has only 1 non slam title in Miami.

From 2008's us open to 2010's Wimbledon she won 5 majors, at one point holding 3 of the 4...and during this time only won 1 non major singles title.

The only real year she was insanely dominant until very recently both at the majors and outside of them was in 2002.

Her non major numbers tell the tale. She has 68 overall titles, but take away her 21 majors she has 47 non major titles. Lindsay Davenport has more non major titles and Serena has 7 times as many majors as she does.

Serena is still top 5 all time there is no doubt about it at all, but the huge gaping hole is her numbers outside the 2 months of the year that constitute the majors.
 
boredone3456 said:
Serena is honestly still arguable as a part time player. She really only gives her best at the majors and will seemingly choose when to do well outside of them given her whims.

Take this year for instance...she has a chance to win the Calendar slam...and yet has only 1 non slam title in Miami.

From 2008's us open to 2010's Wimbledon she won 5 majors, at one point holding 3 of the 4...and during this time only won 1 non major singles title.

The only real year she was insanely dominant until very recently both at the majors and outside of them was in 2002.

Her non major numbers tell the tale. She has 68 overall titles, but take away her 21 majors she has 47 non major titles. Lindsay Davenport has more non major titles and Serena has 7 times as many majors as she does.

Serena is still top 5 all time there is no doubt about it at all, but the huge gaping hole is her numbers outside the 2 months of the year that constitute the majors.
Click to expand...
Great post, couldn't have said it better.
 
The devaluation of Slams has begun. If Serena is a "part time tennis player", why is literally lapping the field on ranking points?
 
Regarding the rankings I actually think Serena has a great shot to eclipse Graf's record consecutive weeks at #1. She is a slam dunk to pass Chris's official weeks at #1 very soon but Chris should be closer to where Martina is there, had the computer rankings been invented a year and half sooner. I think Serena also has a great shot to pass Martina's mark there though. If she is #1 at the end of the 2017 Australian Open (hardly unreasonable when one looks how far ahead of the field she is now, less than a year and half before then) that would do it.

That is without even considering Serena did lose a large number of weeks at #1 (probably roughly 100) based on the divisor system being replaced by the current ranking system which is in fact horrible and has produced too many ridiculous WTA rankings to even get into the last 15 years. Yes I know Serena caused herself to deseredly not be #1 some of that time by not playing enough, not being consistent enough on tour, etc...but even so with the divisor system, which pretty much everyone agrees was the infinitely better ranking system, she would have roughly an additional 100 weeks there.

Now onto what Vanhool was saying I do agree there is definitely a case for Chris to be placed over Martina. Martina at her peak was clearly the more intimidating and dominant player IMO, but that is not the only factor in ranking players. One flaw is people say the difference between them when Chris was on top to when Martina was is greater, but this couldnt be more false IMO. While Chris did go through a period of embarassing dominance at the hands of scary peak Martina, 13 straight losses, she still reached Martina those 13 times in only 2 years of tennis, and was still clearly the 2nd best player in the world. For a long time when Chris was on top, Martina was 3rd, 4th, 5th best, rarely even 2nd best to Chris. To me that would make the gap even larger.

Another edge of Chris I see is her slam record was more balanced. Not as balanced as Serena or Steffi, but moreso than Martina. She has 7 French Opens, despite missing 3 years she was a virtual lock to win even in a complete field. She has 6 U.S Opens, 3 of those on clay but she was so dominant on anything but maybe grass at the time she likely wins 2 of 3 even on hard courts. She has 3 Wimbledon finals, but lost 5 finals to Martina the grass GOAT, and a total 10 finals. She won the Australian Open on grass twice, but did not play it once from 75-80, almost all of which she was #1 ranked at the time. Martina has 9 Wimbledons, half of her 18 slams come here. She has 4 U.S Open titles, and despite this being a faster court which should be tailor made for her game less than Chris (true more on decoturf than Chris, but there is no way to know Chris would have only 3 or 4 otherwise, and as mentioned beforehand given her 75-77 dominance of the game unlikely). This despite the number of times she denied Chris here (81, 83, 84) which is not true the same way in reverse. Chris only beating Martina in a 75 semi on clay, with Goolagong who would have been heavily favored over Martina on clay at that point, remaining. She has 2 French Open titles, in fairness losing 3 finals to the clay GOAT Chris (1 of those though in 75 in a badly weakened draw). She surprisingly has only 3 Australian Open titles on GRASS, only missing 2 years she would have been a co favorite to win in a complete field- 78 and 79. From 80-87 playing each year and winning only 3, the same period she would win 6 Wimbledons. Likely with both playing annually in the 70s Chris surprisingly would have ended up topping Martina in titles at this grass slam too, considering nt titles (Martina only up 3 to 2) and of the current years both missed Chris would be far and away a stronger contender in 75, 76, 77 (two were held), almost equally strong in both 78 and 79, and a strong favorite had she played in 1980 where Martina played as heavy favorite and went out. Just imagine had it been held on rebound ace like today.

That is not to lowball Martina, just that it is amazingly how unquestionably people give it to Martina over Chris, without any serious discussion it seems.

Chris vs Graf is also interesting in some ways. Since people note how Serena has so many fewer titles than Martina and Chris, it is also worth noting Graf has 50 fewer titles than Chris.
Chris clearly beats Steffi in consistency, despite that Steffi herself had an amazingly consistent career. Chris beats Steffi soundly in longevity. Steffi beats Chris soundly in dominance. In versatility Steffi likely comes out ahead, but some of that is her clay record imparticular padded so much by the Seles stabbing (the most obvious place she gained). Steffi has more slam titles of course, and by a considerable margin, but had the Australian and French been fully rated slams during Chris's 70s reign, Chris would likely have more, and that is even with the Seles stabbing. I know these are what ifs, but just some perspective. That is also with the huge number of likely slams she lost out on due to Martina (which as already noted is not true to the same degree in reverse). Chris has more French and U.S Opens. Steffi has more Wimbledons, and Australian Opens where Chris lost so much by not playing in the 70s, but Graf did miss 4 times while ranked #1 or #2., all years she had a great shot of winning, with injuries. Yet Steffi being ranked over Chris is done as even more of a no brainer than Martina.
Chris was the #1 player 7 years, Martina 6, Steffi 8 (with 1994 a highly disputed one).
 
Well there was no official computer ranking in 1974. I am going by the expert rankings for that year. In 1978 Martina was computer #1, but the ITF gave it to Chris. Back then the ITF took priority over the official rankings, which is different than today where the ITF ruling is important but the rankings take precedent. Martina even complained about ITF "giving #1 for the year to Chris." Nadal wouldnt say for instance ITF gave #1 for 2013 to Djokovic, since while they are still a noted award, they dont hold that power today, but back then they did. The players felt whoever the ITF chose was the true #1 of a year.

On official rankings you are right though, or 6 for Chris if you give her 1974.
 
TMF said:
.
No one is forgotten her except a few Serena fans put her down to pump up Serena.

Chris has produced an incredible stats/numbers which can never be disputed and she is in a goat conversation!
Click to expand...
Lol….once again, you #1 poster!

No one's putting Chris down, or "is forgotten her." .
Your Serena hatred's clearly getting the better of you….lay off the drugs. . . Oh, and know when to stop digging…


 
Last edited:
Djokovic2011 said:
Yeah, after clicking on WTA records.
Click to expand...

This is the place I usually go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_number_1_women_tennis_players

I assume you are referring to a different page.

If one goes by this one could say Navratilova and Evert were both #1 7 years, by giving them equal credit for 78. That one truly seems split. By official rankings though you are right it would be Martina 7 though and Chris 5 (since there were still no rankings in 74, and official rankings went to Martina in 78 but most experts went with Chris, and expert selections were more influential in the early ranking days).

Well Chris even gets partial credit for #1 8 different years as one source gave her 79, but as that is 1 out of 8, and it seems clear Martina was better that year, I dismiss that one altogether.
 
PDJ said:
Mattosgrant, I think it's a really good thread. With some excellent contributions from posters I always enjoy reading. I might not always agree but I respect the knowledge they bring to any thread.
Click to expand...

What was I thinking?
Obviously any post about any of the former female greats would descend in to a "laud/condemn " SW post.
TMF posts a list.
Angry villagers try to burn down the castle.
YAWN.
Result- 'delete thread'
Don't you people get bored.
Clearly not.

And it was all going so well....
 
boredone3456 said:
Serena is honestly still arguable as a part time player. She really only gives her best at the majors and will seemingly choose when to do well outside of them given her whims.

Take this year for instance...she has a chance to win the Calendar slam...and yet has only 1 non slam title in Miami.

From 2008's us open to 2010's Wimbledon she won 5 majors, at one point holding 3 of the 4...and during this time only won 1 non major singles title.

The only real year she was insanely dominant until very recently both at the majors and outside of them was in 2002.

Her non major numbers tell the tale. She has 68 overall titles, but take away her 21 majors she has 47 non major titles. Lindsay Davenport has more non major titles and Serena has 7 times as many majors as she does.

Serena is still top 5 all time there is no doubt about it at all, but the huge gaping hole is her numbers outside the 2 months of the year that constitute the majors.
Click to expand...
That depends on what titles your looking at.
Take away the majors then she has 47 titles. Yes thats a small number.
But then of those 47 titles how many of those are of the highest quality. As in Tier 1 tournaments?
She has 21 tier 1 titles which include the best tournaments outside of majors. And she holds the record of most tier 1s.
So that leaves 26 titles left. 5YEC+1 OG(singles) leaves 20 titles. Of those 20 titles 19 of those are tier 2
And the remaining 1 is an international title.
If your comparing no of titles you need to break it down with each individual player.
Chris/Martina/graf all won over a 100 titles but which ones were Tier 1/Tier2/internationals. Figuring chris and martina's would be difficult because the tiering system only came in 1988 i believe. Buy a large number of titles would of theirs would have been of lower quality events. We can't penalise players for not wanting to play lower event if the can dominate the top quality events and we can't penalise them if they do play lower events. What i'd like to know is since chris and martina have 150+ titles, how many of those are split into Tier1/2internationals
 
^not to mention how many of those 150 wins were just 4 or 8 player events. or how many majors they won that were only 32 or 64 player draws. They were great champions, but the tour is structured in such a way today it would be impossible for anyone to win as many events(or even be allowed to play as many, top 10 players today just can't play as many tier 3/4 events as they want, right? no such rules in the 80s)

here are some threads by Bturner that kind of expose the flaws in this way of thinking.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/everts-tournaments-won-listings.514583/
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/womens-majors-career-of-early-losses.531207/

Evert's consistency was amazing. But the facts are that she had to win less matches to get to the semis of many of her majors compared to Graf or Serena(who of course had to win 5 matches every time) And many years she didn't play all 4 majors.

Does anyone know the records of Chris, Martina, and Graf in major semis? I heard that Serena is 26-3 in semis (in addition to 21-4 in finals as we all know)
just curious how that compares with other all time greats. And of course how Chris and Martina compare against each other.

Her win % in major finals (84%) edges out Courts (82%)....which is weird because won 3 additional and only lost 1 more then Serena did.
Click to expand...

that is hilarious. math...I guess it can be "weird" sometimes.
 
Chris graciously admits that on their best days Martina was a better player than she was. However, a career is like a tournament and includes days that are not your best. Her consistency over the whole of her career 1971-1989 is unrivaled by any player. Even Nadal is having a patch of bad results that Evert NEVER had. In 1981 she made the SFs or better of all her tournaments and lost ONLY to the French Open champ Mandlikova, US champ Tracy Austin or Australian champ Martina. They all claimed number one but World Tennis magazine said that given that she had wins over all the other three, lost ONLY to them and won Wimbledon that year she was #1. I would rather have Evert's career than Martina's. (I would also rather have Agassi's career than Sampras, yes I said that. I'd have a gold medal in singles and a career slam, quality over quantity. Yes, he had pitfalls but the 1999 French more than made up for it.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
Greatgatsby said:
Chris graciously admits that on their best days Martina was a better player than she was. However, a career is like a tournament and includes days that are not your best. Her consistency over the whole of her career 1971-1989 is unrivaled by any player. Even Nadal is having a patch of bad results that Evert NEVER had. In 1981 she made the SFs or better of all her tournaments and lost ONLY to the French Open champ Mandlikova, US champ Tracy Austin or Australian champ Martina. They all claimed number one but World Tennis magazine said that given that she had wins over all the other three, lost ONLY to them and won Wimbledon that year she was #1. I would rather have Evert's career than Martina's. (I would also rather have Agassi's career than Sampras, yes I said that. I'd have a gold medal in singles and a career slam, quality over quantity. Yes, he had pitfalls but the 1999 French more than made up for it.)
Click to expand...
are you really trying to compare evert to a male pro and one of the male goat?
And since when does 8 majors + 1 OG > 14 majors.
Some bad analogies there mate.
 
Greatgatsby said:
Chris graciously admits that on their best days Martina was a better player than she was. However, a career is like a tournament and includes days that are not your best. Her consistency over the whole of her career 1971-1989 is unrivaled by any player.
Click to expand...

I agree with this entirely. Wasn't she generally ranked 4th by the experts at the end of 72? She barely played in 71 so not fair to rank her but in the 1 important tournament she played she was top 4 (semis). She was ranked 4th at the time she retired at the 89 U.S Open. Simply amazing. She was never lower than 2nd for 13 years.

This is what I touched on earlier. Chris had a string of some ugly and lopsided defeats at Martina's fans for a couple years. Even then she was 2nd best to Martina though. Martina was only a brief period 2nd best to Chris. Otherwise she was often 3rd, 4th, or 5th best when Chris was on top. Even while playing well she played 3rd fiddle to Chris and Tracy at one point. Chris was never 3rd fiddle, even at the height of some borderline humiliating dominance at Martina's hands when they met for a couple years.

Not enough people even consider this when comparing the two.
 
heftylefty said:
The devaluation of Slams has begun. If Serena is a "part time tennis player", why is literally lapping the field on ranking points?
Click to expand...

Of course. There are only a few true measures of tennis achievement and the majors rest at the top of that, then in small categories of majors, such as the supreme Grand Slam. Since we are well aware of certain agendas, slam counts are rejected when certain players are passed, so in comes trivia which is no indication of a great place in history.

Dedans Penthouse said:
Lol….once again, you #1 poster!

No one's putting Chris down, or "is forgotten her." .
Your Serena hatred's clearly getting the better of you
Click to expand...

You see the game: if one does not worship / practice revisionist history regarding Evert (and some sideline shot against Serena), then you are forgetting, or hating her.

Sigh.
 
TMF said:
WTA Tennis records of the Open Era

Most GS titles
player total
1 Steffi Graf 22
2 Serena Williams 21
3 Martina Navratilova 18
3 Chris Evert 18
5 Margaret Court 11
6 Monica Seles 9
7 Billie Jean King 8
8 Justine Henin 7
8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 7
8 Venus Williams 7

Most GS finals
Rank Name Total
1 Chris Evert 34
2 Martina Navrátilová 32
3 Steffi Graf 31
4 Serena Williams 24
5 Evonne Goolagong 18
6 Venus Williams 14
7 Monica Seles 13
8 Margaret Court 12
8 Martina Hingis 12
8 Billie Jean Moffitt 12

Consecutive GS finals
1. Steffi Graf 13
2. Martina Navratilova 11
3. Margaret Court 6
3. Chris Evert 6
3. Monica Seles 6
6. Steffi Graf 5
6. Martina Hingis 5
8. Martina Navratilova 4
8. Chris Evert 4
8. Arantxa Sánchez 4
8. Serena Williams 4
8. Venus Williams 4
8. Justine Henin 4

Most single titles
Rank Player Singles
1 Martina Navratilova 167
2 Chris Evert 157
3 Steffi Graf 107
4 Margaret Court 101
5 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 68
6 Billie Jean King 67
= Serena Williams 67
8 Virginia Wade 55
= Lindsay Davenport 55
10 Monica Seles 53

Most weeks at #1
Rank Player weeks
1 Steffi Graf 377
2 Martina Navratilova 332
3 Chris Evert 260
4 Serena Williams 252*
5 Martina Hingis 209
6 Monica Seles 178
7 Justine Henin 117
8 Lindsay Davenport 98
9 Caroline Wozniacki 67
10 Victoria Azarenka 51

Consecutive weeks at #1
1 Steffi Graf 186
2 Martina Navratilova 156
3 Serena Williams 123*
4 Chris Evert 113
5 Monica Seles 91
6 Martina Navratilova 90
7 Steffi Graf 87
8 Martina Hingis 80
9 Chris Evert 76
10 Martina Hingis 73

Year end No. 1 players
player year
1 Steffi Graf 8
2 Martina Navratilova 7
3 Chris Evert 5
4 Lindsay Davenport 4
4 Serena Williams 4
6 Justine Henin 3
6 Martina Hingis 3
6 Monica Seles 3
9 Caroline Wozniacki 2
10 Jelena Jankovic 1
10 Victoria Azarenka 1

Year-End Championships
1. Martina Navratilova 8
2. Steffi Graf 5
2. Serena Williams 5
4. Chris Evert 4
5. Monica Seles 3
6. Kim Clijsters 3
7. Gabriela Sabatini 2
8. Martina Hingis 2
9. Evonne Goolagong Cawley 2
10. Justine Henin 2

All surface single winning percentage
Rank Player Wins-Losses Win %
1 Margaret Court 593-56 91.37
2 Chris Evert 1309-146 89.97
3 Steffi Graf 902-115 88.69
4 Martina Navratilova 1442-219 86.82
5 Serena Williams* 724-121 85.68
6 Monica Seles 595-122 82.98
7 Justine Henin 503-109 82.18
8 Billie Jean King 695-155 81.76
9 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 704-165 81.01

Most singles matches won
Player Wins
1 Martina Navratilova 1442
2 Chris Evert 1309
3 Steffi Graf 902
4 Virginia Wade 839
5 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 759
6 Lindsay Davenport 753
7 Conchita Martínez 739
8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley[5] 704
9 Billie Jean King 695
10 Serena Williams 684

Most match winning streak(all surfaces)
Rank Player Matches
1 Martina Navratilova 74
2 Steffi Graf 66
3 Martina Navratilova 58
4 Margaret Court 57
5 Chris Evert 55
6 Martina Navratilova 54
7 Steffi Graf 46
8 Steffi Graf 45
9 Steffi Graf 44
10 Martina Navratilova 41

Most consecutive singles titles
1. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
2. 12 - Margaret Court (1972-1973)
3. 11 - Steffi Graf (1989-1990)
4. 10 - Chris Evert (1974)
5. 9 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
5. 9 - Margaret Court (1970)
7. 8 - Steffi Graf (1988 )
7. 8 - Martina Navratilova (1983)

Best annual singles winning percentage
1 Martina Navratilova 98.9
2 Steffi Graf 97.7
3 Martina Navratilova 97.5
4 Steffi Graf 97.4
5 Martina Navratilova 96.8
6 Martina Navratilova 96.7
7 Steffi Graf 96
8 Margaret Court 95.3
9 Serena Williams 95.1
10 Chris Evert 94.9

Winning Streaks
1. Martina Navratilova 74
2. Steffi Graf 66
3. Martina Navratilova 58
4. Chris Evert 56
5. Martina Navratilova 54
6. Steffi Graf 46
7. Steffi Graf 45
8. Martina Navratilova 41
9. Martina Navratilova 39
10. Martina Navratilova 38

Most consecutive years winning at least one singles title
1. 21 - Martina Navratilova (1974-1994)
2. 18 - Chris Evert (1971-1988 )
3. 14 - Steffi Graf (1986-1999)
4. 11 - Sharapova (2003-2013)
4. 11 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970-1980)
4. 11 - Virginia Wade (1968-1978 )
7. 9 - Sandra Cecchini (1984-1992)
7. 9 - Margaret Court (1968-1976)
7. 9 - Lindsay Davenport (1993-2001)
7. 9 - Conchita Martinez (1988-1996)
7. 9 - Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (1988-1996)

Most singles titles won in a year
1. 21 - Margaret Court (1970)
2. 18 - Margaret Court (1969, 1973)
3. 17 - Billie Jean King (1971)
4. 16 - Chris Evert (1974, 1975)
4. 16 - Martina Navratilova (1983)
6. 15 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970)
6. 15 - Martina Navratilova (1982)
8. 14 - Margaret Court (1968 )
8. 14 - Steffi Graf (1989)
8. 14 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
11. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
12. 12 - Chris Evert (1973, 1976)
12. 12 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971)
12. 12 - Martina Navratilova (1985)
12. 12 - Martina Hingis (1997)
16. 11 - Tracy Austin (1980)
16. 11 - Chris Evert (1977)
16. 11 - Steffi Graf (1987, 1988 )
16. 11 - Martina Navratilova (1978, 1979)
16. 11 - Serena Williams (2013)
Click to expand...
 
This is the stat that needs revision

Most weeks at #1
Rank Player weeks
1 Steffi Graf 377
2 Martina Navratilova 332
3 Chris Evert 260

Since the weekly rankings only came in Nov. 1975 and Evert was probably number 1 the last 1/2 of 1974 and all of 1975 - then Evert would be pretty close to Martina in weeks
 
There absolutely is a case. Chris Evert faced more competition than any other woman in history. Her consistency records despite this make Federer's seem quaint in comparison. She also had to bear the brunt of the game undergoing major changes in equipment and fitness regimes right as she exited her peak. One must bear in mind that she nonchalantly skipped three (thanks to PDJ for correcting me) French Opens where she would have been an overwhelming favourite, just to play World Team Tennis.
It is also worthwhile to note that in the absence of Martina, Chris would have won almost 30 singles slams, and her era would still be one of the most competitive ever.
 
Last edited:
ZiggyStardust said:
There absolutely is a case. Chris Evert faced more competition than any other woman in history. Her consistency records despite this make Federer's seem quaint in comparison. She also had to bear the brunt of the game undergoing major changes in equipment and fitness regimes right as she exited her peak. One must bear in mind that she nonchalantly skipped two French Opens where she would have been an overwhelming favourite, just to play World Team Tennis.
It is also worthwhile to note that in the absence of Martina, Chris would have won almost 30 singles slams, and her era would still be one of the most competitive ever.
Click to expand...

Just to add - she skipped three consecutive French when she ruled clay. 76-78. :)
 
If Evert had played all those missed French and Australian Open's in the 70's and ended up with the slam record, everyone would say she had weak competition. Evert herself between 1982 and 1985 was better than anyone Evert played between 74 and 81.
 
ZiggyStardust said:
There absolutely is a case. Chris Evert faced more competition than any other woman in history. Her consistency records despite this make Federer's seem quaint in comparison. She also had to bear the brunt of the game undergoing major changes in equipment and fitness regimes right as she exited her peak. One must bear in mind that she nonchalantly skipped two French Opens where she would have been an overwhelming favourite, just to play World Team Tennis.
It is also worthwhile to note that in the absence of Martina, Chris would have won almost 30 singles slams, and her era would still be one of the most competitive ever.
Click to expand...

Mostly agree. However I think 30 is too high. Chris lost 10 slam finals to Martina. She lost 4 semis to Martina, none which she would have been the favorite against the other finalist (3 of 4 for instance would be against Graf, all well after Chris's last ever win over Steffi). I think it is more likely she loses a couple of those 10 she lost to Martina in the finals to the semi final loser, than winning any (or maybe 1 at most) of the titles she lost to Martina in the semis. So 26-27 is a better guesstimate than 30. However if everyone had played the Australian and French Opens in the 70s and there been no Martina she could have about 32 slams.

The field from 82-86 without Martina would also be kind of lame, but 74-81 had pretty good competition even if Martina weren't there.
 
mattosgrant said:
Mostly agree. However I think 30 is too high. Chris lost 10 slam finals to Martina. She lost 4 semis to Martina, none which she would have been the favorite against the other finalist (3 of 4 for instance would be against Graf, all well after Chris's last ever win over Steffi). I think it is more likely she loses a couple of those 10 she lost to Martina in the finals to the semi final loser, than winning any (or maybe 1 at most) of the titles she lost to Martina in the semis. So 26-27 is a better guesstimate than 30. However if everyone had played the Australian and French Opens in the 70s and there been no Martina she could have about 32 slams.

The field from 82-86 without Martina would also be kind of lame, but 74-81 had pretty good competition even if Martina weren't there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, 30 is probably pushing it. She'd certainly have the slam record though.
Also, while 82-86 would be relatively 'lame', as you put it, would anyone honestly be able to claim, even without Martina, that Steffi and Serena faced greater competition for most of their slams? Of course, this is purely pedantic, as Martina of course, did exist, but it shows just how good Chris used to be. (A lot better than the current generation of tennis followers gives her credit for.)
 
Graf's competition was pretty weak overall I feel and when she had tougher competition she always seemed to struggle (Martina in 87, Seles in 90-93, Davenport in 98-99). Even when Sanchez and Pierce started playing better in 94 she stopped winning much. The only years I feel she sort of faced down tough competition was 89 and 95, and I guess 87 in general even if she mostly failed vs Martina in the biggest matches.

Serena had quite tough competition from 99-2007, and not so much in future times, especialy since 2010 or so, but increasingly that is where the majority of her slams will come. Still her dominance in 2002-2003 shows what she can do even against very tough competition, and I think still could even today if such existed, but much of the time with tough competition coincided with slumping years for Serena she was only winning the sporadic slam, then disappearing awhile again.

So yes I would agree.
 
mattosgrant said:
Mostly agree. However I think 30 is too high. Chris lost 10 slam finals to Martina. She lost 4 semis to Martina, none which she would have been the favorite against the other finalist (3 of 4 for instance would be against Graf, all well after Chris's last ever win over Steffi). I think it is more likely she loses a couple of those 10 she lost to Martina in the finals to the semi final loser, than winning any (or maybe 1 at most) of the titles she lost to Martina in the semis. So 26-27 is a better guesstimate than 30. However if everyone had played the Australian and French Opens in the 70s and there been no Martina she could have about 32 slams.

The field from 82-86 without Martina would also be kind of lame, but 74-81 had pretty good competition even if Martina weren't there.
Click to expand...

Just for giggles, let me try this. Evert lost to Martina in 78 Wimbledon, and probably would have met Evonne, whom she had already beaten in '76 and had been developing a serious winning record against already. Evonne beat an immature Austin and Rucici earlier I put Evert's odds at 65% to take it.

In 79 Wimbledon it would have been Austin (Casals with an outside chance of getting through Martina's Q), who had just beaten her in Italy and who lost to Evert in the subsequent match in New Jersey final. English grass is the best surface imaginable for Evert to play Austin. Its suits her strokes, spins and variety far better, and Evert was simply more experienced and moved better on turf. I give Evert an even better chance of victory than the year before.

In 81 Open, Martina took out Jordan earlier and that is historically a tough opponent for Evert, but on hard courts in a major, you have to give Chris strong odds of about 70% she'll get to the final, but beating Austin is real dicy. That is Austin's best surface to play Evert. I think Evert has a 40% chance of winning both matches and coming away with that title.

81 Aussie. Martina took down Jordan, Goolagong and Shriver consecutively, and that is an dangerous group of women on grass for Evert and its a crap shoot as to which it will be. Despite Evonne's age, I am giving her the nod to get to the final. Evert had killed her in Sydney earlier that year, but that kind of thing is such a poor indicator of Goolagong's performance at any given time and its AUSSIE grass. I am going no more than 55% for Evert to beat the 5 time champ, and 65% if it is one of the other women.

I'll keep going but life interupts, so tune later for more.
 
Last edited:
Those all look about right. It is also why I guesstimated 8 out of the 10 or so. She would have been favored in nearly all of them, but not all of them would have been a lock.

Then the 4 semis she lost, well beating Graf in a slam from 87 onwards was never likely for Chris. Beating Austin in the 81 U.S Open when Tracy had lost just a few games to her in Canada a couple weeks earlier, and would be 2-1 vs her that year, but both wins in crushing fashion while barely losing the other, would have been a task too.
 
mattosgrant said:
Those all look about right. It is also why I guesstimated 8 out of the 10 or so. She would have been favored in nearly all of them, but not all of them would have been a lock.

Then the 4 semis she lost, well beating Graf in a slam from 87 onwards was never likely for Chris. Beating Austin in the 81 U.S Open when Tracy had lost just a few games to her in Canada a couple weeks earlier, and would be 2-1 vs her that year, but both wins in crushing fashion while barely losing the other, would have been a task too.
Click to expand...
Foreshadowing moment. You will find I agree with almost all of this.
 
Didn't Evert herself say she would have retired in the early 80's had Martina not developed into a challenge for her? Without Martina Chris probably would have retired earlier due to boredom and probably wouldn't get many more then the majors she has now. She might have pushed herself to break Courts record, but I don't see her staying around and winning 30+ without Martina. She wasn't a huge numbers hog the way Martina was, she played for the fight and if there wasn't anyone to fight her she probably wouldn't keep playing.
 
1982 Wimbledon. Martina took out Shriver and Kodhe-Kilch, both of whom were potential but unlikely upsets for Evert on grass, but neither had shown themselves much of a threat to Chris anywhere yet. Believe it or not, tall big serving girls were terribly matched for the Evert game on the slippery grass and none of them got a victory until Helena did in 1988! Evert's got this pretty solid with a percentage in the upper 60's as well.

1983 Open. Initially, I figured this was an upset because Evert did not seem to play tough in the final, but I was wrong. Virtually every opponent that was potentially tough for her she actually beat with wins over Maleeva, Mandlikova and Jordan. Nobody on Martina's half really compares except Shriver and Hanika and I don't need to say more.

1984 RG. Navratilova takes out Hana and Kohde -Kilch. Mandlikova had last beaten Evert in 1981 RG, but had lost the last 10 matches in a row to Chris and only won two sets in three years of meetings. Evert's got this in the bag with an 75% chance of victory.

1984 Wimbledon. Navratilova took out the same two seeds as above with Kathy Horvath smack between them and the result is the same. This is the year Evert's grass game really begins to take off, having adjusted fully to the graphite racket with improved power and speed on every stroke and a bolder riskier game. It just gets better with every year, IMO. She's got a 65% chance of taking this one.

1984 Open. Martina takes out Turnbull and Sukova ( unseeded) and Potter. I actually think Evert has a slightly less chance here than at Wimbledon. While Evert played well in the final, this is the major she had the most trouble with motivation in from here on out. It took Martina or Seles in 1989 to get her to play a decent match. Obviously none of these three are likely to be able to take advantage if her interest wavers. Sukova is about to get her great victory over Martina in three months, but its not happening on a hard court in New York yet. 60-65%
 
boredone3456 said:
Didn't Evert herself say she would have retired in the early 80's had Martina not developed into a challenge for her? Without Martina Chris probably would have retired earlier due to boredom and probably wouldn't get many more then the majors she has now. She might have pushed herself to break Courts record, but I don't see her staying around and winning 30+ without Martina. She wasn't a huge numbers hog the way Martina was, she played for the fight and if there wasn't anyone to fight her she probably wouldn't keep playing.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with this and there are several other intangibles that will reduce this number, but let me finish presuming otherwise, mostly because I am having fun! I promise to come that to these issues.
 
1985 Wimbledon. Martina downs Garrison and Shriver. This one might be trouble and it is likely to come from either of them. Shriver was playing some of her best stuff in 1985 and she was healthy that summer. As for Garrison, she beat Chris on clay that summer, and had the ideal grass game to beat Chris because she had that great footspeed and agility Shriver and friends lacked to defend from the backcourt, as well as the s/v option and a great slice. Neither is mentally ready to give Evert a knock out though. Evert has a 60% chance.

1985 Aussie - Martina beats Sukova and Hana, and I just don't think Evert has a better than 50% chance at this one. I smell victory for Mandlikova this time. She is now beginning a streak of winning half of her meetings vs Evert, and this is a great shot at 60%. Sukova who may well end up in the final though ( you now Hana!), and has more like a 40% chance but her game has grown in a year.

1987 RG. Evert is not playing well secondary to the divorce but I don't think Kilch or Hanika can take advantage, and Graf is HOT and ready. Evert has 40-45% chance because she will at least have time to get used to the power and take it to three maybe. Graf won't fold.

1987 Wimbledon. Mattisgrant, this is where we will part company. Nobody is stopping Evert in her half, and Graf will meet her. Graf's got all the right weapons already except good net instincts, but she was not mentally ready to win Wimbledon and it showed in that final vs Martina. Evert on the other hand peaked at just the right time, definitely was as fast, and as strong as ever and a hell of a lot smarter. I think her more versatile approach to winning points, will pay in UEs, and Graf is going to choke this one away if it gets tight. Evert has a 55-60 percent chance to win this event.

1988 Wimbledon Martina had a tough match vs Fairbank as did Evert the year before who can be lethal on grass. Evert is by now having even more trouble in the first sets of matches, and that semi is going the distance. I think Evert has a 60-65% chance of pulling it out, but she will not take a set against Graf. Graf is now smart enough, less nervous, and her serve is awesome. Graf is truthfully a bad match-up for Evert, and here is the surface where it will show most profoundly.

And that is what I think. This was fun!
 
That is a really good breakdown. I think you are overating Evert in a hypothetical Evert-Graf final at Wimbledon 87 somewhat though. A thing to keep in mind in addition to the 7 match win streak (discounting the default) that Graf had over Evert from May 86-July 89, losing only 1 set, was that in 87 Evert had not figured out Graf's game yet. In 88 and 89 she played Graf much better tactically even though she didn't win. In 87 she was still trying to avoid the forehand from the start of rallies, which she later learnt was not the right tactic. She also had a mental block against Graf at that point, making a ton of errors in their matches that year which she cleaned up in their later encounters.

Martina hit hook lefty serves to the backhand, and low biting slice approaches to the backhand, and Graf simply wasn't ready or able to cope with those tactics, which Evert would not employ as they aren't even part of her arsenal. So I don't see Graf's performance in the final as being indicative of much. I don't agree she wasn't ready mentally, she was just outplayed.
 
To simplify Evert would have had decent odds to win every major she chose to enter up until 1987 when Graf would still emerge and likely post the same results she did with no Martina around. After Martina the threats to Chris during the late 70's and into the 80's before Graf were:

Austin: very dangerous, snapped the Evert 125 streak, only woman besides Evert and Martina to claim the #1 ranking for seemingly forever. She was a 2nd Evert who drove Chris nuts because she had to beat herself essentially. However injuries limited her presence

Mandlikova: Dynamite in a can. When she exploded she destroyed everyone but usually the fuse was bad, especially against Chris. Chris was a rock and Hana couldn't rattle her the way she could Martina. Evert owned her for the most part.

Goolagong: Dangerous, probably Everts greatest opponent in the mid 70's. Gave Evert many great battles...but once she became a mom she faded away mostly and wasn't the same anymore. I don't see her stopping Chris

Shriver: She couldn't touch Chris period. She had a lot of the same tools as Martina but not the hyper drive or the killer instinct. She once made the error of wishing she could play Chris more and Chris went head hunting just to give her what she wanted...and gave her a beating.

Sukova: she could be dangerous, but she seemed to only play well one match at a time. Without Martina she could actually snag a major as she would only need to beat one biggie in Chris instead of likely having to beat the dynamic duo...but as a steady threat no way

Then there is Jaeger (openly said she never wanted to win), the non Graf German brigade, the non Evert American brigade....

I don't see Evert being stopped from cutting a path of destruction at events she chose to play if motivated. However....she would probably get bored to death by 1983 and then who knows. Evert herself said she was ready to retire by 1982 I think. The real question would be who would win all the majors from 1982-1987 or so without them both.
 
Well one enormous different between Shriver and Martina was movement. You are comparing maybe the quickest player ever (or one of them) to one of the slowest and least athletic top players in history. Although Shriver amazingly seemed to move quite well at the net despite her general slowness. A lot of that was her reach and her split step was pretty good.

Martina's ground game was light years better. She could play with Chris from the baseline and wait for the perfect approach shots to get in off of. She could even draw Chris into the net. At her dominant peak she probably could have even beaten Chris often playing just from the baseline if she really wanted to, but why make it harder for herself than it has to be. Pam cant do that at all, and had to rush in as quickly as possible since she could barely last a few shots with Chris back there.

Martina is also a lefty, and like everyone Chris had extra trouble with that lefty serve.
 
mattosgrant said:
That is a really good breakdown. I think you are overating Evert in a hypothetical Evert-Graf final at Wimbledon 87 somewhat though. A thing to keep in mind in addition to the 7 match win streak (discounting the default) that Graf had over Evert from May 86-July 89, losing only 1 set, was that in 87 Evert had not figured out Graf's game yet. In 88 and 89 she played Graf much better tactically even though she didn't win. In 87 she was still trying to avoid the forehand from the start of rallies, which she later learnt was not the right tactic. She also had a mental block against Graf at that point, making a ton of errors in their matches that year which she cleaned up in their later encounters.

Martina hit hook lefty serves to the backhand, and low biting slice approaches to the backhand, and Graf simply wasn't ready or able to cope with those tactics, which Evert would not employ as they aren't even part of her arsenal. So I don't see Graf's performance in the final as being indicative of much. I don't agree she wasn't ready mentally, she was just outplayed.
Click to expand...

She had only had two of those losses ( one was a royal beatdown) so the record was actually 6-2 so Chris is not yet feeling so perplexed as you may think and the power off Evert's backhand is a lot more potent on that same grass than on clay or hard and her forehand is more effective as well. Evert's chief tactical improvement in later matches was not changing that basic backhand to backhand pattern. It was simply being more aggressive about everything she did, including hitting out and coming foreward, tactics she was already employing on grass. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
 
Watching the Miami final earlier that year it was clear Chris was baffled by Graf's improved game at that point, and really didn't know what she was doing tactically (which is unheard of from her). She also seemed spooked by Graf's power, was going for too much, and had a bushload of errors which even King remarked on in the booth. As for it just being a bad day, well they played a match later that year and while the scoreline was closer it wasn't much different in nature. Then their 88 Australian Open was going that way until 6-1, 5-1 until finally something clicked and Evert seemed to finally clue into some of the patterns on how to play Graf, and realize she could have some success doing them.
 
mattosgrant said:
Watching the Miami final earlier that year it was clear Chris was baffled by Graf's improved game at that point, and really didn't know what she was doing tactically (which is unheard of from her). She also seemed spooked by Graf's power, was going for too much, and had a bushload of errors which even King remarked on in the booth. As for it just being a bad day, well they played a match later that year and while the scoreline was closer it wasn't much different in nature. Then their 88 Australian Open was going that way until 6-1, 5-1 until finally something clicked and Evert seemed to finally clue into some of the patterns on how to play Graf, and realize she could have some success doing them.
Click to expand...

you see you don't get to move the 1987 Wimbledon into late 1987, or early 1988 for 'evidence' of dominance that had not yet happened. She had lost exactly twice. Graf was not the winner in a single grass tournament, had not proven squat beyond beating club footed and exhausted Shriver on the surface and that is not the kind of resume to take into a Wimbledon final against a 10 time finalist and three time winner anymore than it was Martina who routined her. Evert did not 'click' in the '88 final at 6-1, 5-1 with a whole new tactics. The damn roof was closed at one all in set one post rain delay, and turned the whole match into the first ever Aussie indoor Championship. She started cover the court and anticipate better after adjusting to the indoor lighting and conditions. Rallies got longer because Evert wasn't late to all those balls, and then began to hit harder. It got tight, Graf got nervous and the UES began to show up and Evert grabbed her chance. the only difference is I think that scenario is more likely to happen on Centre Court than the Ford Australian Open, not less.
 
Last edited:
boredone3456 said:
To simplify Evert would have had decent odds to win every major she chose to enter up until 1987 when Graf would still emerge and likely post the same results she did with no Martina around. After Martina the threats to Chris during the late 70's and into the 80's before Graf were:

Austin: very dangerous, snapped the Evert 125 streak, only woman besides Evert and Martina to claim the #1 ranking for seemingly forever. She was a 2nd Evert who drove Chris nuts because she had to beat herself essentially. However injuries limited her presence

Mandlikova: Dynamite in a can. When she exploded she destroyed everyone but usually the fuse was bad, especially against Chris. Chris was a rock and Hana couldn't rattle her the way she could Martina. Evert owned her for the most part.

Goolagong: Dangerous, probably Everts greatest opponent in the mid 70's. Gave Evert many great battles...but once she became a mom she faded away mostly and wasn't the same anymore. I don't see her stopping Chris

Shriver: She couldn't touch Chris period. She had a lot of the same tools as Martina but not the hyper drive or the killer instinct. She once made the error of wishing she could play Chris more and Chris went head hunting just to give her what she wanted...and gave her a beating.

Sukova: she could be dangerous, but she seemed to only play well one match at a time. Without Martina she could actually snag a major as she would only need to beat one biggie in Chris instead of likely having to beat the dynamic duo...but as a steady threat no way

Then there is Jaeger (openly said she never wanted to win), the non Graf German brigade, the non Evert American brigade....

I don't see Evert being stopped from cutting a path of destruction at events she chose to play if motivated. However....she would probably get bored to death by 1983 and then who knows. Evert herself said she was ready to retire by 1982 I think. The real question would be who would win all the majors from 1982-1987 or so without them both.
Click to expand...

Here's how I see it. Nature abhors a vacuum. All those finals, Martina was in, provided opportunities for some other S/ver to get the experience, the confidence and the consistency to fill that void. One of the ladies you mentioned ( or possibly someone we haven't thought of) would move to the top rung and kick out the runts and offer that very competition Evert would need to hang in there, once Austin pooped out. So far I am seeing Sukova, Garrison or Mandlikova taking more matches, and some majors from Evert in the mid eighties, before Graf, Sabatini move in. They'd get mentally tough and fan some flames of fire in her. So the very list I made, becomes dated by 1984-5. These will not be the same players with the same resumes without Martina and Evert to crush them in the smaller venues every single time.
 
BTURNER said:
Here's how I see it. Nature abhors a vacuum. All those finals, Martina was in, provided opportunities for some other S/ver to get the experience, the confidence and the consistency to fill that void. One of the ladies you mentioned ( or possibly someone we haven't thought of) would move to the top rung and kick out the runts and offer that very competition Evert would need to hang in there, once Austin pooped out. So far I am seeing Sukova, Garrison or Mandlikova taking more matches, and some majors from Evert in the mid eighties, before Graf, Sabatini move in. They'd get mentally tough and fan some flames of fire in her. So the very list I made, becomes dated by 1984-5. These will not be the same players with the same resumes without Martina and Evert to crush them in the smaller venues every single time.
Click to expand...
 
mattosgrant said:
That is a really good breakdown. I think you are overating Evert in a hypothetical Evert-Graf final at Wimbledon 87 somewhat though. A thing to keep in mind in addition to the 7 match win streak (discounting the default) that Graf had over Evert from May 86-July 89, losing only 1 set, was that in 87 Evert had not figured out Graf's game yet. In 88 and 89 she played Graf much better tactically even though she didn't win. In 87 she was still trying to avoid the forehand from the start of rallies, which she later learnt was not the right tactic. She also had a mental block against Graf at that point, making a ton of errors in their matches that year which she cleaned up in their later encounters.

Martina hit hook lefty serves to the backhand, and low biting slice approaches to the backhand, and Graf simply wasn't ready or able to cope with those tactics, which Evert would not employ as they aren't even part of her arsenal. So I don't see Graf's performance in the final as being indicative of much. I don't agree she wasn't ready mentally, she was just outplayed.
Click to expand...


just need to point put that it actually is an 8 match winning streak that graf has over evert, for some reason her 87 fed cup victory is not listed on wta website
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

suwanee4712
80's cat fights on the womens tour
Replies
11
Views
3K
CEvertFan
CEvertFan
lobsterrush
Evert vs Navratilova- who should rank higher
Replies
3
Views
410
lobsterrush
lobsterrush
M
Henin vs Mandilikova vs Goolagong- who was better tennis player
Replies
12
Views
2K
kiki
kiki
X
Chris and Martina 1978
Replies
5
Views
1K
kiki
kiki
T
Who should rate higher- Mandlikova or Austin?
2
Replies
68
Views
4K
PDJ
PDJ
Back
Top