But my source does, but Fed cup happens after Wimbledon, not before. My argument is that a Centre Court final grass meeting changes the two prior meeting dynamic sufficiently and dramatically, so that using other lesser events as a template does not work.
Is there a case for Chris to be ranked above Martina
- Thread starter mattosgrant
- Start date
mattosgrant
Banned
Why would meetings after be less significant though. Their Miami meeting (BEFORE Wimbledon) and their 2 meetings directly after, indicate Evert was still cracking the code to Graf's game. She has said so herself many times. In 88 and 89 she admits she had figured out how to play her far better (despite losing all their encounters then too), what playing patterns to use, and the biggest tactical change of all that you have to go after her forehand early in rallies to open up the backhand side, and that the part of the court Graf prefers most is from the middle going towards the backhand side to a certain point, due to her preferred inside out forehands anyway. She had not learnt that yet in 87, and that she apparently still had not in their upcoming 2 87 meetings, nor really in their 88 Australian Open meeting (88 Miami was the first time she began to look like she was playing Graf smartly, using the tactics I discussed which she herself pinpoints in interviews), just indicate all the less likely she would have for their hypothetical Wimbledon one BEFORE that.
Also grass was always Graf's best surface and of the 3 major surfaces Evert's worst, despite still being excellent on it. So I am confused why you think the grass surface gives Evert a much better likelihood compared to any other court as you seem to be implying. Like you said we will have to agree to disagree. I do agree Graf looked pretty bad in the final vs Martina, but I already outlined the tactics Martina used which in no way correlate to the tactics Evert would use as they aren't even part of her game.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
To a degree I agree with the argument that more finals experience for other players might increase their confidence, but at the same time that doesn't necessarily mean it would increase there chances of winning a final against Evert. Looking through all the woman of the 80's there was a lot of talent but to beat Evert you didnt just need talent, you needed to literally be a killer (Navratilova) or just so naturally gifted you could outplay her (Goolagong). The 80's get dumped on a lot as a weak era because Chris and Martina were so dominant, but they were surrounded by some decent women.
Looking at how people matched to Evert I think the ones most likely to assume the mantle of number 2 would be
1. Austin when she was healthy.
2. Mandlikova- she had the talent piece down and I think for her the argument of more finals increasing her confidence applies. She was good but always having to beat Navratilova and Evert to win everything seemingly was mentally draining. She could pull it off but it took a lot of effort. If she just had to deal with Evert she could have learned to tool her game just to that and build herself up to that, because talent wise she could deal with everyone else.
3. Sukova- She was so hit or miss I cannot say. She was literally tournament to tournament. She could make a SF then lose in the 2nd round. I could see her being a dangerous dark horse to Chris who could turn it up and be dangerous or be flattened.
4. Maleeva- ok call me crazy but she was also very steady. She could usually live up to her seeding or at least make QFs where she would usually lose to the big 3. However she was talented and the gap that a Martina absence would create would cause some shuffling. If Pam could get to number 3 behind Martina and Chris then Maleeva could get up there, and without Martina if she ended up opposite Chris she could maybe work a miracle to get to a final. she got as high as number 3 at one point anyway I believe, I think she is very underrated talent wise and might be the best player, along with Petrova, to never make a major final.
5. Shriver- ok I am a shirver fanboy, or as close as you might find around here. I personally think she is one of the best to not win a major because she was always in the shadow of at least 2 all time greats and losing to them in QFs and SFs. However with no Martina she could probably get into a couple additional finals...but I don't see her being explosive enough to deal with Chris. She gave it her all at the 1978 US Open and while it was a close 2 sets, Evert in big moments and big points always seemed better then Pam when Chris was at her Peak. in 1987 Pam was able to beat Chris in a final I think but before then it was almost no chance. Pam wasnt weak, but Chris was to great. However IF Martina doesn't exist and Chris retires in 1982 or 1983 from boredom...Pam could easily snag a major or 2 because all she has to deal with is then Mandlikova and Sukova probably until Graf...she could sneak one then.
Everyone else. Everts levels was just so high and consistent its hard to see anyone being a permanent long term threat. Sure the field could combine to knock her down once or twice but it would really be on Everts racquet whether she wins or loses.
Looking at how people matched to Evert I think the ones most likely to assume the mantle of number 2 would be
1. Austin when she was healthy.
2. Mandlikova- she had the talent piece down and I think for her the argument of more finals increasing her confidence applies. She was good but always having to beat Navratilova and Evert to win everything seemingly was mentally draining. She could pull it off but it took a lot of effort. If she just had to deal with Evert she could have learned to tool her game just to that and build herself up to that, because talent wise she could deal with everyone else.
3. Sukova- She was so hit or miss I cannot say. She was literally tournament to tournament. She could make a SF then lose in the 2nd round. I could see her being a dangerous dark horse to Chris who could turn it up and be dangerous or be flattened.
4. Maleeva- ok call me crazy but she was also very steady. She could usually live up to her seeding or at least make QFs where she would usually lose to the big 3. However she was talented and the gap that a Martina absence would create would cause some shuffling. If Pam could get to number 3 behind Martina and Chris then Maleeva could get up there, and without Martina if she ended up opposite Chris she could maybe work a miracle to get to a final. she got as high as number 3 at one point anyway I believe, I think she is very underrated talent wise and might be the best player, along with Petrova, to never make a major final.
5. Shriver- ok I am a shirver fanboy, or as close as you might find around here. I personally think she is one of the best to not win a major because she was always in the shadow of at least 2 all time greats and losing to them in QFs and SFs. However with no Martina she could probably get into a couple additional finals...but I don't see her being explosive enough to deal with Chris. She gave it her all at the 1978 US Open and while it was a close 2 sets, Evert in big moments and big points always seemed better then Pam when Chris was at her Peak. in 1987 Pam was able to beat Chris in a final I think but before then it was almost no chance. Pam wasnt weak, but Chris was to great. However IF Martina doesn't exist and Chris retires in 1982 or 1983 from boredom...Pam could easily snag a major or 2 because all she has to deal with is then Mandlikova and Sukova probably until Graf...she could sneak one then.
Everyone else. Everts levels was just so high and consistent its hard to see anyone being a permanent long term threat. Sure the field could combine to knock her down once or twice but it would really be on Everts racquet whether she wins or loses.
suwanee4712
Professional
I have always believed that Hana would have won more slams if it were not for Evert. That was the reason why I spent a decade rooting against Chris every chance that I got! 
I don't believe that this would have solved Hana's internal problems with her lack of consistency. But I could see where she might have gotten 2 to 3 more slams to add to her total. Lord knows there were players in the 90's that ended up with slams and a #1 ranking that they otherwise would have never achieved without the unfortunate circumstances that permeated that decade.
However, in hindsight had Evert retired, we would've missed Evert's most thrilling slam win (85 French) and my idea of vintage Chris Evert (86 French) had she retired early. It also would've cheapened Hana's great 1985 US Open win without the win over Chris. That win will always be overlooked because of the drama and the high quality of the final, but for Hana, beating Evert was the bigger key. She said as much in a 1986 interview in World Tennis magazine. Getting the monumental chore of beating Evert, who dangles all of your weaknesses in your face and makes you overcome yourself before you can even think of overcoming her, out of the way allowed her to relax for the match with Martina. That is why her tennis was so brilliant and stunning that day.
Something that was often overlooked, but Shriver has spoken and written about, was the mental shadow of Chris and Martina as it pertained to the media. Players like Hana and Pam would have always been more susceptible to early round losses because of their own deficiencies. But part of the mental strain of dealing with the two headed monster was created by the media. If Hana beat Bassett in the 4R or Pam beat Maleeva, they would step into the press room and get perhaps 2 questions about those fine wins. Then, they would spend 30 minutes having to answer questions about Chris and Martina. They never got to talk just about their own tennis. There's no way that either of them could just concentrate on their next opponent. Their minds were projected into these hypothetical meetings with M and C that sometimes never even materialized. Perhaps this is just part of their role in the game. But I don't think that it helped their tennis at all.
I don't believe that this would have solved Hana's internal problems with her lack of consistency. But I could see where she might have gotten 2 to 3 more slams to add to her total. Lord knows there were players in the 90's that ended up with slams and a #1 ranking that they otherwise would have never achieved without the unfortunate circumstances that permeated that decade.However, in hindsight had Evert retired, we would've missed Evert's most thrilling slam win (85 French) and my idea of vintage Chris Evert (86 French) had she retired early. It also would've cheapened Hana's great 1985 US Open win without the win over Chris. That win will always be overlooked because of the drama and the high quality of the final, but for Hana, beating Evert was the bigger key. She said as much in a 1986 interview in World Tennis magazine. Getting the monumental chore of beating Evert, who dangles all of your weaknesses in your face and makes you overcome yourself before you can even think of overcoming her, out of the way allowed her to relax for the match with Martina. That is why her tennis was so brilliant and stunning that day.
Something that was often overlooked, but Shriver has spoken and written about, was the mental shadow of Chris and Martina as it pertained to the media. Players like Hana and Pam would have always been more susceptible to early round losses because of their own deficiencies. But part of the mental strain of dealing with the two headed monster was created by the media. If Hana beat Bassett in the 4R or Pam beat Maleeva, they would step into the press room and get perhaps 2 questions about those fine wins. Then, they would spend 30 minutes having to answer questions about Chris and Martina. They never got to talk just about their own tennis. There's no way that either of them could just concentrate on their next opponent. Their minds were projected into these hypothetical meetings with M and C that sometimes never even materialized. Perhaps this is just part of their role in the game. But I don't think that it helped their tennis at all.
mattosgrant
Banned
The perception is that Evert was Hana's worst opponent yet her W-L ratio is much better vs Evert than Navratilova. Furthermore even if we discounted any Graf-
Mandilikova meetings after 1987, Graf's W-L ratio would be better vs Hana than Chris's too (and 86-87 wasn't even exactly prime Graf). So is this truly reality or myth? I am not saying it couldn't be reality, sometimes W-L ratio is deceiving but it is worth noting.
Mandilikova meetings after 1987, Graf's W-L ratio would be better vs Hana than Chris's too (and 86-87 wasn't even exactly prime Graf). So is this truly reality or myth? I am not saying it couldn't be reality, sometimes W-L ratio is deceiving but it is worth noting.
suwanee4712
Professional
On Evert vs. Mandlikova:
If you look at the major losses that Hana took in grand slam finals and semis, most of them came at the hands of Evert, usually in devastating fashion. I think that she liked the challenge of playing Evert, but found playing Martina less pressure and more enjoyable. Considering the closeness of the majority of the matches when both players were at the top, the rivalry between Hana and Martina was much closer than Hana's rivalry with Evert despite the overall numbers. I think Martina won 12 of their last 13 meetings at least half of those wins coming well after Hana fell out of the top 10 and ceased being a top player. Those aren't the matches that define their rivalry, in my opinion.
On Graf vs. Mandlikova
Frankly, when Hana pulled her stomach muscle, strained her hamstring, and had a pregnancy in the spring and summer of 1987, Hana was done as a player at the very top. No one knew that at the time because she was still young, but it was very true. She just couldn't move or serve the way she had previously on any kind of consistent basis. She went into a pattern of having matches where she would have 20+ double faults in a match. There were matches in 1989 where she actually had 30+ double faults. You can't beat good players that way. And if you think about how good Graf was at holding her serve, you can't beat her if you're not holding your own.
However, too many Graf fans fool themselves into thinking that the Hana that we saw in 1987 and beyond was the same Hana as before. That's just not the case. Novotna, Garrison, McNeil, etc. were all good players, but they were never as good as Hana was. And if they could beat Steffi multiple times including at slams, then Hana should have been able to do the same plus a little better.
Unfortunately, that's just not how the real world works. I can "if" you and "but" you all day, but the record is all that we have to work with. It says 9-1 for Graf. Fair or not, that's what it is.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
If Hana could have duplicated the 1985 US Open and have played like that at every tournament she would have been a terror for MartIna and Chris.
To win she beat, in order
3Rd round Hanika 63 64 (former french open finalist)
4th round Barbara Jordan 75 36 61 (former Australian Finalist)
QF Helena Sukova 76 75
SF Evert 46 62 63 (a comeback..which rarely happened for ANYONE against Chris)
F Nav 76 16 76
No joke draw...and she stepped up. Sadly she couldn't always do this...NO ONE could because to win anything you had to beat both usually.
Another match of note was the Graf/Shriver QF..... Graf won 76 67 76...then got flogged by Martina. Poor Pam.
To win she beat, in order
3Rd round Hanika 63 64 (former french open finalist)
4th round Barbara Jordan 75 36 61 (former Australian Finalist)
QF Helena Sukova 76 75
SF Evert 46 62 63 (a comeback..which rarely happened for ANYONE against Chris)
F Nav 76 16 76
No joke draw...and she stepped up. Sadly she couldn't always do this...NO ONE could because to win anything you had to beat both usually.
Another match of note was the Graf/Shriver QF..... Graf won 76 67 76...then got flogged by Martina. Poor Pam.
mattosgrant
Banned
Well I did look at their H2Hs eliminating any post 87 matches. She would be 7-23 vs Navratilova and 6-19 vs Evert (although interestingly I am now only discounting a Hana win in 89). The ratios are still virtually identical, and marginally better vs Chris. Now that is purely W-L. If you are saying she put on better showings vs Martina even in defeat, and seemed to have a better shot of hanging in matches and having a chance to win, possibly. You seem more familiar with that era than I am, so if you say Hana was a tougher opponent for Martina than she was for Chris, I will believe you, but nonetheless the head to heads don't really bear that out was my point.
Fair enough. There isn't much evidence to go by conclusively of Graf vs Mandlikova. There is some marginal data, but it is mostly a guessing game. However I suspect she wouldn't have done as well vs Graf as either Sanchez Vicario or Sabatini, just due to playing styles, not abilities. Better than Sabatini where it really mattered in slams possibly, where Gaby only managed 1 win (Hana managed a combined 7 vs Martina and Chris), but even that is a guessing game really. Sanchez Vicario amazingly beat Graf 4 times in slam, and was in a whisker of winning about another 3 times. Considering their respective abilities she was a nightmare match up for Graf. Look at how Sanchez Vicario does vs Seles, Hingis, or Navratilova for indications how she more typically does vs a player of that level (in Hingis's case of a lower level) so it is evident she presents some real match up issues for Graf. Sabatini underperformed vs Graf in slams, but was in general an extremely tough opponent for her too just due to her playing style which seemed to bother Graf. One thing about both those women though is they were very consistent as far as tournament to tournament, and year to year performance in their primes, which was never Hana's forte, which impacts the overall H2H, but as I also said I think she would have a good chance of exceeding Sabatini's mere 1 win over Graf in slams, which is what really matters.
It is hard to say on the real topic here how Graf would compare as an opponent for Hana to Martina and Chris. Possibly the ratio of wins in the 80-87 vs a hypothetical prime Steffi would be roughly the same as the exact total they seem to be vs both Martina and Chris (23% area). Who knows.
Not surprised at this as the ignorance of Graf fans is something I have encountered many a time. I think in fairness to them some broke down having to constantly defend her record in light of the Seles stabbing the 8-10 years after she retired, and it turned a large number of them crazy. Given that there are many Graf fans who act like Sabatini is a 7-8 slam winning caliber player, and Evert who Graf was mostly mauling her last 3 years was peak Evert, nothing surprises me.
Note though I said AFTER 1987. So I wasn't counting any matches that may have played in 88 or 89 or 90. Hana did end 1987 ranked 4th, and she won a slam that year (being a player who won only 4 slams in her career) so as someone who didn't feverishly follow her career, I would assume this is a prime year for her. It certainly on paper to look better than years she produced in 82, 83, even 84 which in theory were her prime too. I recall even up to that point Graf was 4-1 already, and this was Graf aged 16 and 17 and not having won a slam yet.
Tennis doesn't work like that though. I mean does it make any sense Stosur has beaten Serena twice in slams, and Maria hasn't beaten her in a tennis match since 2004? There are an incredibly high number of variables that go into an outcome of a tennis match, and the course of a rivalry. If you are meaning players of extremely similar player styles (and I don't find Novotna that similar to Hana, or either one that similar to McNeil/Garrison personally) then Ivanovic has beaten Serena in a slam and gives Serena more trouble than Sharapova, despite being substantially inferior and playing almost an identical game to Maria.
Does it make sense either how Novotna was so much tougher an opponent for Seles than say Sanchez Vicario who on paper was a much better player. Although I know here we are talking totally different playing styles. However Novotna was also so much tougher for Seles than Navratilova, who even at her 90-93 level was generally superior to prime Novotna IMHO.
Novotna, Garrison, and McNeil all beat Graf exactly once in a slam though, all being on tour with her roughly 10 years. Nothing I can really draw meaning from. All had pretty awful head to heads. Jana's was 4-26 for instance. McNeil beat Graf only twice, that huge Wimbledon win and one other time. Garrison only beat her twice ever, that big upset in the Wimbledon semis, and one time when Graf was 15. Novotna and Garrison only did in a noticeable problem period for Steffi's game in mid 1990-early 1991. The period she lost something like 5 of 6 matches to Sabatini, lost a Roland Garros to Sanchez Vicario 0 and 2, and general had something really strange going on (note I am not a Steffi fan and I am not one who goes out of my way to make excuses for her). McNeil's Wimbledon win over Graf was superior impressive, as Graf's odds to win Wimbledon were the lowest in history that year. I don't think it would have ever happened in a later round that year, so she oddly benefited from her inconsistency and lower ranking.
McNeil is the only one of those I would say had a surprisingly good performance vs Steffi considering her career and rank. Novotna and Garrison as longtime top 5 players should be expected to have the marginal success they had vs Steffi. They both have beaten everyone who mattered atleast once in a slam too (except Jana beating Chris but for obvious reasons this wasn't likely), so Steffi is no exception there. Hana obviously is a better player than all, but I am not sure if her playing style is that similar to any. I wouldn't refer to her as an all out attacker. She played the baseline often as well as the net. Actually that is true of Jana too, but very different in many other respects. McNeil and Garrison are pretty much full out net rushers.
Very true, although since we are speaking about hypothetical prime related match ups and who Hana would prefer of Chris, Martina, and Steffi all your conjecture is perfectly valid in this case. 9-1 is a fact, but it doesn't have to matter for this discussion.
Maybe we are misunderstanding each other and we are debating degrees. I know the claim, I know what is said, by a woman who is notoriously bad at remembering anything accurately. I also know that if you watch the matches as often as I have, you'll be real hard pressed to see all this tactical difference reflected as a percentage of points played. Here's an experiment. Find any ten consecutive points in those later matches (Boca Raton) or even this Aussie final when everything 'clicked. Count the number of times Evert hits to the backhand and count the number of times Evert hits to the forehand. Count the number of those points where she hits early to the forehand to open up the backhand. It is still overwhelmingly an effort to get into backhand exchanges and stay in them, until she can get comfortable in a rally and do anything else at all . All that 'hit early to the forehand to open up the backhand' happened very rarely as a percentage of points played because that was all an effort to end the rally not an effort to maintain the rally. What really happened if you actually watch the tennis matches does not compute with everyone's memories. You can either trust me, or not, but she did not hit very darn often hit to that forehand unless she was going for an outright winner, or a set-up for that backhand cross as the winner because NO ONE rallied against that forehand until Sanchez succeeded because she was fast enough to retrieve three four or five in a row, or baseline bashers a la pierce/Seles who could hit to the forehand corner hard and deep enough to keep Graf off balance so she could not throw her body weight into forehands. That was the next generation.
In reality, Evert was able to have sustained backhanexchanges and win the matches (remember this once was a winning strategy, not a bad one through 1986) because 1. Graf was not quite as fast and could not run around as far and get back into position as a girl of 15 2. 2. Graf was not physically fully developed so her height and reach were compromised 2 Evert was given more time to prepare for each stroke on her end, and thus direct it more accurately to the side line , because that power was not as consistently strong as it would become. 3. fewer of their matches were played on clay as the rivalry went on, slowing the ball down for Evert. After Hilton Head not one single set was ever played on clay. 4. Evert was no longer patient enough to balls into that backhand .
Once it ceased to work as well,because Graf grew tall and strong, she had to modify it, not abandon it!! Mostly she kept it because it was a 'rally survival kit' to keep the rally neutral until something else could happen. What I noticed was that 1. she learned to hit HARD , wherever she targeted the ball, to the backhand, down the center, or to the forehand as a rally shot or a winner, with the occasional slice even as the rallies actually last longer which also helped her. 2. she approached as often as she could. ( here she did hit wide to the forehand because that was Evert's most natural approach shot or use that sidespin DT) 3. Evert hit crosscourt forehands for clean winners when on the dead run 'going for broke' into Graf's forehand corner. But always the basic rallying strategy was to hit to that same backhand until a better idea came along.
Now if that is consistent with what you meant by 'abandoning backhand exchanges' as a tactic, we agree. Certainly Evert could not rest her laurels inducing backhand errors alone and win like she had before.
I do not agree that Graf's best surface was always grass. It became her best surface as a mature adult player. In her early years, clay was her best, IMO. and that was where she made her early mark and then Hard courts. Before 1987 she had never gotten past Rd 16 at Wimbledon. You have zero evidence for this great grass court player before that 1987 tournament,except a great run that year and on that, you expect her to win it all. I see Evert as employing winning tactics in that match , because by happenstance, the same ones I discussed were natural and intuitive to her routine grass game. All of Evert's normal spins become better on grass.
The biggest differences in Graf's grass game in one year (1988), was that huge first serve, her court coverage and her confidence in playing big matches.
Now I am done on this topic. We won't convince each other and this is just about one friggin match when we agree on every thing else
Last edited:
suwanee4712
Professional
I think we are largely in agreement. On a Graf/Mandlikova series under the best possible conditions for Hana, I still see Hana losing the majority of the time. I think she would win more than 10% of the time, but likely no more than 20%. There was never going to be a great rivalry between the two in the sense of Graf and Seles. Interestingly, Graf's old coach Pavel Slozil and Peter Graf himself had high regard for Hana. They clearly thought of her as a threat to be a spoiler on a big occasion - which is what her role really became post 1981.
I also agree with you that match ups are different between different players. What I meant by comparing Hana to Jana,Zina, and Lori was that they would all attack Steffi the same way. If they can scratch out a slam win over 90's Graf, then surely Hana would stand a decent chance to get one or two. The one thing that I think Hana would've had to change about herself is that she would have to hit with more spin against Steffi. Graf loved hitting against the kind of flat ball that Hana usually hit. I think Steffi's speed counteracted the potential penetration of a flat ball.
Back to Hana vs. Chris and Martina, Hana knew how to get under Martina's skin particularly when they weren't getting along. There were many times in the early and mid 80's that Martina looked physically uncomfortable sharing a court with Hana. It wasn't always about personal animosity as much as it was that Hana could attack Martina's serve or approach the net while Martina was trying to take it. Then, she would try something unconventional like a half volley return of serve. Or if Martina started staying back on her second serve, Hana would hit a drop shot on a return of serve. That kind of stuff unnerved Martina at times sort of like how the Sabatweeny would unnerve Graf. Those little gambit tactics had little to no effect on Chris.
From a tennis standpoint, the worst thing that ever happened to Hana was when she and Martina got chummy. Martina liked playing her friends and did not enjoy playing her enemies. It allowed her to relax and play free.
Evert was the opposite. She enjoyed needling Hana in the locker room or placing a strategic comment in the press knowing the kind of lippy response she would get back from Hana. If Evert got mad at you or if you beat her once, look out the next time you meet her on court. Somewhere in Chris' back yard are tombstones with names of players that ticked her off only to be buried and publicly humiliated.
I've always said that Evert would've made an excellent serial killer.
I also agree with you that match ups are different between different players. What I meant by comparing Hana to Jana,Zina, and Lori was that they would all attack Steffi the same way. If they can scratch out a slam win over 90's Graf, then surely Hana would stand a decent chance to get one or two. The one thing that I think Hana would've had to change about herself is that she would have to hit with more spin against Steffi. Graf loved hitting against the kind of flat ball that Hana usually hit. I think Steffi's speed counteracted the potential penetration of a flat ball.
Back to Hana vs. Chris and Martina, Hana knew how to get under Martina's skin particularly when they weren't getting along. There were many times in the early and mid 80's that Martina looked physically uncomfortable sharing a court with Hana. It wasn't always about personal animosity as much as it was that Hana could attack Martina's serve or approach the net while Martina was trying to take it. Then, she would try something unconventional like a half volley return of serve. Or if Martina started staying back on her second serve, Hana would hit a drop shot on a return of serve. That kind of stuff unnerved Martina at times sort of like how the Sabatweeny would unnerve Graf. Those little gambit tactics had little to no effect on Chris.
From a tennis standpoint, the worst thing that ever happened to Hana was when she and Martina got chummy. Martina liked playing her friends and did not enjoy playing her enemies. It allowed her to relax and play free.
Evert was the opposite. She enjoyed needling Hana in the locker room or placing a strategic comment in the press knowing the kind of lippy response she would get back from Hana. If Evert got mad at you or if you beat her once, look out the next time you meet her on court. Somewhere in Chris' back yard are tombstones with names of players that ticked her off only to be buried and publicly humiliated.
I've always said that Evert would've made an excellent serial killer.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I have always believed that Hana would have won more slams if it were not for Evert. That was the reason why I spent a decade rooting against Chris every chance that I got!
However, in hindsight had Evert retired, we would've missed Evert's most thrilling slam win (85 French) and my idea of vintage Chris Evert (86 French) had she retired early. It also would've cheapened Hana's great 1985 US Open win without the win over Chris. That win will always be overlooked because of the drama and the high quality of the final, but for Hana, beating Evert was the bigger key. She said as much in a 1986 interview in World Tennis magazine. Getting the monumental chore of beating Evert, who dangles all of your weaknesses in your face and makes you overcome yourself before you can even think of overcoming her, out of the way allowed her to relax for the match with Martina. That is why her tennis was so brilliant and stunning that day.
Something that was often overlooked, but Shriver has spoken and written about, was the mental shadow of Chris and Martina as it pertained to the media. Players like Hana and Pam would have always been more susceptible to early round losses because of their own deficiencies. But part of the mental strain of dealing with the two headed monster was created by the media. If Hana beat Bassett in the 4R or Pam beat Maleeva, they would step into the press room and get perhaps 2 questions about those fine wins. Then, they would spend 30 minutes having to answer questions about Chris and Martina. They never got to talk just about their own tennis. There's no way that either of them could just concentrate on their next opponent. Their minds were projected into these hypothetical meetings with M and C that sometimes never even materialized. Perhaps this is just part of their role in the game. But I don't think that it helped their tennis at all.
I've read many times in the past that had Evert retired in 87 her already incredible record would be exemplary in terms of stats.
I've always felt pleased that she retired when she did because there were still some great matches to be played even if she lost them (Wimbledon semis 87 & 88, comeback in 88 F) and two great matches in 89- Seles USO and my personal favourite (because I saw it live) Golarsa, Wimbledon qf.
And she did go out on a high unbeaten in the Fed Cup.
Re Hana- I vaguely recall one year where Evert beat Mandlikova in every major they both played. 82? I'm not certain but whilst Mandlikova denied Evert at least 3 times in majors, Evert was generally the victor.
Ps I really laughed at the serial killer comment. Evert the Dexter of the tennis court- but with greater social skills.
suwanee4712
Professional
I've read many times in the past that had Evert retired in 87 her already incredible record would be exemplary in terms of stats.
I've always felt pleased that she retired when she did because there were still some great matches to be played even if she lost them (Wimbledon semis 87 & 88, comeback in 88 F) and two great matches in 89- Seles USO and my personal favourite (because I saw it live) Golarsa, Wimbledon qf.
And she did go out on a high unbeaten in the Fed Cup.
Re Hana- I vaguely recall one year where Evert beat Mandlikova in every major they both played. 82? I'm not certain but whilst Mandlikova denied Evert at least 3 times in majors, Evert was generally the victor.
Ps I really laughed at the serial killer comment. Evert the Dexter of the tennis court- but with greater social skills.
One of the highest quality matches that I have ever seen was the 1987 Wimbledon SF between Chris and Martina. And there was also the 7-6 in the 3rd gem between those same two in Houston earlier that year. Evert still had good tennis in her, she just couldn't produce it every single week.
Hana and Chris met at all 4 slams in 1981. Hana won the French and lost the other 3.
I envision Chris, on full moon nights, strolling out into her backyard wearing only her nighty and bunny slippers while stroking a hot cup of coffee. She saunters over to a dark shady corner where she keeps the tombstones reading:
Billie Jean
1979 US Open
6-1, 6-0
Martina
1981 Amelia Island
6-0, 6-0
Tracy
1982 Toyota Championships
6-0, 6-0
Hana
1984 Wimbledon
6-1, 6-2
Monica
1989 US Open
6-0, 6-2
Chris' eyes glaze over as she reads the names and recalls all of the perceived slights and attempts to dethrone her or dismisss her as being too old. She narrows her eyes, flares her nostrils, and purses her lips relishing the memory of punishing passing shots, devious lobs, and deftly placed forehand drop shots. Her mind conjures up visions of pushing her rivals' heads in their own pool of tears until they stop kicking and screaming. Slowly, she cracks a crooked, demented smile. The Ice Princess then takes another sip of her coffee before slowly walking back towards her palatial home filling the night air with her wicked laughter!
You know she does this!
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I am laughing my head off.
classic classic post!
and she pretends to not remember some of her matches.....damn she's good.
Last edited:
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
The above is perfect. Honestly though...yes I can see Chris being the type to relish in her biggest beat downs of others, albeit privately.
And that Monica match....that was just sublimely epic. People think Chris couldn't handle power...just watch what she did to Monica.
I wish it were possible for prime Chris to play Prime Serena. Because some people think Chris stands no chance....well those scorelines above show what she could do when she set her mind to it....and if Evert wanted to...she would destroy you or do everything possible to destroy you. She'd shake your hand and be nice doing it....but she would crush you like a bug. Serena and Evert would be a bloodbath.
And that Monica match....that was just sublimely epic. People think Chris couldn't handle power...just watch what she did to Monica.
I wish it were possible for prime Chris to play Prime Serena. Because some people think Chris stands no chance....well those scorelines above show what she could do when she set her mind to it....and if Evert wanted to...she would destroy you or do everything possible to destroy you. She'd shake your hand and be nice doing it....but she would crush you like a bug. Serena and Evert would be a bloodbath.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Evert fans are scary! Who knew?!
Be afraid.......
"She was an assassin that dressed just nice and said the right things and meanwhile just cut you to shreds.”
-John McEnroe
CEvertFan
Hall of Fame
Suwanee I had a good laugh reading your posts - so funny.
With Evert it was just business - on court she was ruthless and calculating and made her opponents nuts because of her uncanny knack of finding all of her opponent's weaknesses and doing everything possible to exploit them as much as she could but it was usually never personal. She always was and still is great friends with Martina but when they faced one another it was no offense to Martina, it was just business and Chris would act as she always did - try her best to beat her down into the ground.
And poor Jeannie Evert having to face big sister on the tour twice in the 70s and while she wasn't half the tennis player her big sis was, Evert made it a point to treat her the same as everyone else and grind her into the ground. She lost both times she played Chris:
JEANNE EVERT (USA) 2:0
1971 Columbus, GA F W 6-2, 6-3
1971 Birmingham, AL F W 6-1, 6-0
And on a sad note Chris's dad Jimmy Evert just passed away at age 91. A big part of who Chris was as a tennis player was because of how and what her father taught her.
With Evert it was just business - on court she was ruthless and calculating and made her opponents nuts because of her uncanny knack of finding all of her opponent's weaknesses and doing everything possible to exploit them as much as she could but it was usually never personal. She always was and still is great friends with Martina but when they faced one another it was no offense to Martina, it was just business and Chris would act as she always did - try her best to beat her down into the ground.
And poor Jeannie Evert having to face big sister on the tour twice in the 70s and while she wasn't half the tennis player her big sis was, Evert made it a point to treat her the same as everyone else and grind her into the ground. She lost both times she played Chris:
JEANNE EVERT (USA) 2:0
1971 Columbus, GA F W 6-2, 6-3
1971 Birmingham, AL F W 6-1, 6-0
And on a sad note Chris's dad Jimmy Evert just passed away at age 91. A big part of who Chris was as a tennis player was because of how and what her father taught her.
Last edited:
mattosgrant
Banned
5 games is even quite a bit. Maybe Chris indeed went a bit soft on her that day. While I applaud anyone who makes it to that level at all, from what I know of her record Jeanne was an extremely marginal pro player. Nothing like say Patrick McEnroe who wasn't a true elite or contender the way the Williams were, but was a solid top 30 regular who was dangerous on tour. So 5 games seems like even a stretch if she weren't Chris's sister. She didn't play long on tour, probably since she couldn't even make ends meet.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
I think Jeanne was a decent player. There were so many Americans around in development in the 70's and she was able to make it for a little while. It can't have helped living in Chris's shadow and never living up to "the family name".
I don't think however that Chris went soft. I don't see Chris going soft on a tennis court ever...even for her sister.
I don't think however that Chris went soft. I don't see Chris going soft on a tennis court ever...even for her sister.
suwanee4712
Professional
It's all in good fun. I have another story about Chris checking her makeup in her 1985 French Open trophy and deciding to give Martina a call.
I never saw Jeanne play, but I did understand her to be a good player. I also think that the Everts handled their meetings much better than the Maleevas did. I remember one year at the US Open Katerina and Maggie met in the 4th round and the tournament officials didn't know what court to assign them to. They eventually decided to put them on the Grandstand and it was a tear filled disaster with the match finishing with about 8 people in the stands, 5 of them being a Maleeva or Maleeva-in-law.
That Columbus, GA tournament that the Everts first met at used to be a clay court tournament that drew some big names. BJK won it one year and Margaret won it another.
I never saw Jeanne play, but I did understand her to be a good player. I also think that the Everts handled their meetings much better than the Maleevas did. I remember one year at the US Open Katerina and Maggie met in the 4th round and the tournament officials didn't know what court to assign them to. They eventually decided to put them on the Grandstand and it was a tear filled disaster with the match finishing with about 8 people in the stands, 5 of them being a Maleeva or Maleeva-in-law.
That Columbus, GA tournament that the Everts first met at used to be a clay court tournament that drew some big names. BJK won it one year and Margaret won it another.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
Yes 2 hander, but judging by this clip, not so fluid on the forehand. Yes, a baseliner.
boredone3456
G.O.A.T.
The big weakness in that clip I see is that she looked really hopeless when she was forced to come up to the net. She didn't seem to be able to anticipate a drop shot...which is pretty sad given her sister was a master of it.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I thought similarly, although I did allow for whom she was playing.
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
Hahaha, this post is so funny!
D
Deleted member 735320
Guest
No not really mate; depends on what you want. Most people would rather have major titles at each place than a ton of Wimbledons and no FO etc. When Agassi visits Melbourne, Paris, London and Queens he knows at least once he WON there. Likewise every four years he knows he WON Olympic gold. He has a career matched set to his wife's. She won more but Mommy didn't win any major titles Daddy didn't in the eyes of their kids. That said I loathe Agassi as a human being, always have.
D
Deleted member 735320
Guest
Seriously she isn't that attractive never was. Only when compared to King, Martin, Casals and Court is she attractive. Compared to Capriati, Kournikova and Sharapova and Wozniacki, please.
D
Deleted member 735320
Guest
Hardly, she never was that cute and my understanding is that Martina is a very friendly nice person while CE is not. Only in the world of 1970s tennis would Evert be attractive. Sharapova, Wozniacki and Kournikova are
I am comparing their records. Rafa obviously came on strong and has won many titles from the get go esp. the French. Likewise Evert came out strong and did not win as quickly nor nearly as much at the French or other clay events and events in general. However when Rafa dropped so many matches last year and several so far this year he is not losing to a stunningly improved male player like Evert did to Martina. I fully realize that men's tennis is NOT the same as women's tennis but from 1971-1989 Evert failed to reach the SF of only 4 slam tourneys she entered. That is simply amazing. I seriously doubt any future player will match that. 3Rs in 1983 W and 1988 FO and QF at 1987 and 1989 US and only SFs.
It's a confidence game. Clearly Evert did not out hit her opponents but she psyched them out even a mega athlete like Martina at times. Rafa's psyche is rattled and the lesser thans are not afraid of him and fight back and are taking his scalp again and again. In 1984 I think some gal said that Chris is at our level now and then Evert destroyed Kathy Jordan and Hana Mandlikova to send a very clear message that while Martina was on Mt Olympus make no mistake that there is the same gap between #2 and the lesser thans from #3 and lower.
If Rafa can win another French that will be a fantastic testimony to his established greatness, Kind of like Jimmy Connors winning W and US in 1982 and US in 1983, but I don't realistically see that happening. I am a Federer fan but after the 2015 W final I realized that Novak is just too much player in those major finals. The only way I see Fed winning the 18th major is if Novak trips up against a hot player before he would play Fed.
"I am comparing their records. Rafa obviously came on strong and has won many titles from the get go esp. the French. Likewise Evert came out strong and did not win as quickly nor nearly as much at the French or other clay events and events in general" Huh? I must be misreading this.
Evert's clay streaks She has a 94.05% on clay ( undetermined in Nadals case, except it is bound to decline)
1974–1979 125 consecutive clay court match victories[c] longest such surface streak by either gender (loss to Tracy), Stands alone
followed by third longest winning streak on clay by any man or women in the Open Era, winning 64 matches straight ( loss to Hana). She didn't lose again until the '81 French Open, for 189-1 match record on clay surface court. (Rafael Nadal won 81 in a row in 2007! Chris still has the top 2 longest streaks of the women however)
While it is true that number of Evert''s match wins at RG is lower, she did not play for three years. LOL, Its also true that Nadals clay record at the US Open is zero wins while she was undefeated at forest hills on clay.
Evert's clay streaks She has a 94.05% on clay ( undetermined in Nadals case, except it is bound to decline)
1974–1979 125 consecutive clay court match victories[c] longest such surface streak by either gender (loss to Tracy), Stands alone
followed by third longest winning streak on clay by any man or women in the Open Era, winning 64 matches straight ( loss to Hana). She didn't lose again until the '81 French Open, for 189-1 match record on clay surface court. (Rafael Nadal won 81 in a row in 2007! Chris still has the top 2 longest streaks of the women however)
While it is true that number of Evert''s match wins at RG is lower, she did not play for three years. LOL, Its also true that Nadals clay record at the US Open is zero wins while she was undefeated at forest hills on clay.
The reality is Chris has reached 34 GS finals more than Martina and Graf. As much as ı love her, ı have some huge doubts that Steffi would have won more slams than Martina and Chris if not Seles stabbed.When both players won the same amount of slams you can always argue who ever reach more slam finals is better. The thing with Chris the way she approaches the things she wasnt as bitter or desperate about this greatest ever thing as much as Martina. She was a bigger star than Martina and winning more money than Martina from the sponsors. Then Martina has the late respect stuff come from the public and she sell her self as the best ever. People buy it and she was always more desperate about that recognition compare to Chris.Martina at one stage won 6 majors in a row not even Steffi done it and Martina at one stage looking like the Serena of her own playing times ( ı mean gives you a impression that no one can much their POWER) helps her to sell herself as the best ever.Then Graf kills the party way too early with the GOLDEN SLAM.
Last edited:
Harry_Wild
G.O.A.T.
Chrissy did well in marrying Greg Norman and divorcing him! Got the $$$$$$$$$ to buy Tennis Magazine!
The main reason why I rank Navratilova over Evert is due to her feat of winning 6 straight majors from 1983-1984, but there are definitely strong arguments to rank Evert ahead, as detailed very well in this thread.
I still cannot comprehend just how amazing her day in day out consistency was during her career. She entered 303 singles tournaments during her career and won 157 of them, a staggering 51.8% success rate. To put it another way, she had 11 more titles (157) than match losses (146) during her career.
I still cannot comprehend just how amazing her day in day out consistency was during her career. She entered 303 singles tournaments during her career and won 157 of them, a staggering 51.8% success rate. To put it another way, she had 11 more titles (157) than match losses (146) during her career.
Another area is weeks at number 1. Since the WTA's ranking system didn't start until Nov. 75 - it missed out about 1.5 years of Evert being the number 1 (she was likely the number 1 for the last 1/2 of 1974 and all of 1975 up to the Nov. 75 beginning of the ranking system. Hence, if you were to include those weeks (if the weekly ranking started mid-1974 instead)- Evert's total weeks come out about the the same as Navratilova's.
mattosgrant
Banned
Yeah I imagine they are really virtually tied there.
