Sorry we disagree Seles had won 8 of the last 11 slams she played ..in the last three years she was dominating the sport and had the edge that's why she was number one in fact I really believe she had a shot at winning Wimbledon in 92 if not for the grunt BS.respectively I hear this argument all the time from Graf fans ( btw maybe you are not a fan don't know) but I agree it was a true rivalry and I am sure grAf would have beat Seles but Seles was the better player numbers don't lie ....my point on the head to head was Monica was 15 when they played three times in 89 when she was barely 100 pounds had no serve and was playing part time so of course Graf was better she was the number one and dominating the sport ...it takes time to develop a game ( even back then) so the wins would come later on against the top players if you are good enough...First of all, the premise is wrong. It is not a universal truth that the younger player always loses at the beginning of a match-up. It is true nowadays, because the new generations are simply incapable of overtaking the older champions. But what in fact was often the case in tennis history is that younger players who would become champions would start beating the older players sooner rather than later. Look at how Connors, Becker, Sampras or even Federer came along - immediately beating champions from the past generation. Second of all, the Graf-Seles rivalry until 1993 goes Graf-Graf-Graf-Seles-Seles-Graf-Graf-Seles-Graf-Seles. This suggests an ongoing rivalry with ups and downs, not the "older player beating up the younger player" and the "Seles-becoming-utterly-dominant" scenarios you're describing.