Navratilova is overrated compared to Evert

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I am fine with those who rate Navratilova higher than Evert. I think it might be correct. However what I dont like is people seem to have Navratilova far above. I think they should be seen as relatively equal.

Yes Martina is superior in peak level play and also dominance. However Evert is superior in consistency and surface versatility. Navratilova might seem to have more longevity, but Evert has greater longevity of near peak level play. It should be considered a virtual toss up to which is higher, and not Martina clearly ahead. And they are the easiest to compare as they are contemporaries, while comparing both to Serena or Graf or Corut is more subjective, so I can accept a lot of differing options.
 

Navdeep Srivastava

Hall of Fame
She is not overrated, but yeah people pretend like Martina is from different space than Evert which also Infuriate me, every thing was in favour of Martina, fast court suited to her style, Evert skipping slam and still she didn't won more than Evert.
Actually players like Evert or Borg and to some extent Martina never knew that in future Graf, Serena, Sampras and Federer will start the slam race and players ranking will be according to slam win, Evert and Borg specially suffered from this situation, these guys even skipped their favourite slam.
Borg could have ended his career around 16 or 17 slam, retired so early and skipped all AO apart from 74, same with Evert skipped so many RG and AO and still got 18 slam.
I can see Evert reaching 21 or 22 slam if not 23.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
She is not overrated, but yeah people pretend like Martina is from different space than Evert which also Infuriate me, every thing was in favour of Martina, fast court suited to her style, Evert skipping slam and still she didn't won more than Evert.
Actually players like Evert or Borg and to some extent Martina never knew that in future Graf, Serena, Sampras and Federer will start the slam race and players ranking will be according to slam win, Evert and Borg specially suffered from this situation, these guys even skipped their favourite slam.
Borg could have ended his career around 16 or 17 slam, retired so early and skipped all AO apart from 74, same with Evert skipped so many RG and AO and still got 18 slam.
I can see Evert reaching 21 or 22 slam if not 23.
I agree with all that. I guess it is more Evert being underrated than that Martina overrated.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
The best thing about Evert is that with her baseline style she can still win in modern era with little bit adjustment withmodern racquet but can people say this same about Martina?
It is hard to say on Martina. For sure Everts game would be almost perfect for the modern game. Someone like a peak Serena (which was always sparatic) would probably overpower her, but she could run roughshed over the current field with the current playing conditions. Martina struggled with not only her age but the change in game to the power hitters, and the move of the game away from grass in the 88-94 period, so the current playing conditions which are way slower than then would be a big challenge for her game style for sure. Her talent and athleticsm might overcome it, but I dont know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
I am fine with those who rate Navratilova higher than Evert. I think it might be correct. However what I dont like is people seem to have Navratilova far above. I think they should be seen as relatively equal.

Yes Martina is superior in peak level play and also dominance. However Evert is superior in consistency and surface versatility. Navratilova might seem to have more longevity, but Evert has greater longevity of near peak level play. It should be considered a virtual toss up to which is higher, and not Martina clearly ahead. And they are the easiest to compare as they are contemporaries, while comparing both to Serena or Graf or Corut is more subjective, so I can accept a lot of differing options.
yes but Martina was much less boring............. Evert seriously boring player
 

KG1965

Legend
I am fine with those who rate Navratilova higher than Evert. I think it might be correct. However what I dont like is people seem to have Navratilova far above. I think they should be seen as relatively equal.

Yes Martina is superior in peak level play and also dominance. However Evert is superior in consistency and surface versatility. Navratilova might seem to have more longevity, but Evert has greater longevity of near peak level play. It should be considered a virtual toss up to which is higher, and not Martina clearly ahead. And they are the easiest to compare as they are contemporaries, while comparing both to Serena or Graf or Corut is more subjective, so I can accept a lot of differing options.
I think Martina is undervalued and Chrissie is heavily undervalued.

Serena was great but the two stars have won many more big titles than Serena.
 

KG1965

Legend
Evert is undervalued, yes.

Navratilova, no. She’s generally ranked 3rd all time which is fair enough - some still rank her GOAT in a very vehement way actually.
All players (male and female) whose careers are not known are undervalued.
The importance of the titles won by Court, Chrissie and Martina have been lost over time and almost no one or perhaps no one knows the careers of Court, Evert and Navratilova. So they are undervalued.

However, both Court, Evert and Martina won more than Graf and Serena.

Then media and fans are free to believe that Serena is GOAT and Graf second greatest female. There is no problem for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
All players (male and female) whose careers are not known are undervalued.
The importance of the titles won by Court, Chrissie and Martina have been lost over time and almost no one or perhaps no one knows the careers of Court, Evert and Navratilova. So they are undervalued.

However, both Court, Evert and Martina won more than Graf and Serena.

Then media and fans are free to believe that Serena is GOAT and Graf second greatest female. There is no problem for me.
I hardly think Martina’s career is unknown, since she uses every opportunity she gets to bleat to the media about how great it was.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
You cant really compare regular tournament stats of players of the distant past to today. There were many tournaments with only 3 rounds back then, so all the old greats won between 150-200 tournaments on both sides.
 

DSH

Hall of Fame
What continues to amaze me is how Wimbledon in its promotional video of legends in this edition, has not shown any image of its greatest champion, the tennis player with more titles in history, more inclusive than its male counterpart, the legendary Martina Navratilova.

It seems that there is a bias against her, do not you think?
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
What continues to amaze me is how Wimbledon in its promotional video of legends in this edition, has not shown any image of its greatest champion, the tennis player with more titles in history, more inclusive than its male counterpart, the legendary Martina Navratilova.

It seems that there is a bias against her, do not you think?
I have never seen the promo video. If that is true, yes that is pretty amazing.
 
Another point to keep in mind is if everyone had played the Australian and French Opens in the 70s Evert would have 23-25 slams and Navratilova would only be at about 19.
Why do we have to "keep [that] in mind"? Achievement is achievement. She didn't play. Yes, she very well probably would have won some of those Slams. But, again, she didn't play. We're going to start determining player's greatest on what they could have done? And, this is coming from someone who agrees with your general point about this thread - the equality of Evert and Navratilova. Is there really a significant number of people who rate Navratilova "far above" Evert? I don't see it.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Why do we have to "keep [that] in mind"? Achievement is achievement. She didn't play.
Except that many Navratilova backers point this out to context why she is so far behind Serena and Graf in slams. Which is comical and flawed, since if you go by that logic you have to realize Evert would have many more slams than her under that mode of thinking. You cant have it both ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

pat200

Rookie
i think being constantly ranked by almost every tennis fan in the top 3 of goats means she is rated quite right. as many have mentioned here, if anyone is underrated that would be evert. both evert and martina skipped many slams, but it is evert who would have benefited if she entered these slams way more than navratilova. also the fact that evert changed racquets quite late hurt her in her head to head with navratilova.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
i think being constantly ranked by almost every tennis fan in the top 3 of goats means she is rated quite right. as many have mentioned here, if anyone is underrated that would be evert. both evert and martina skipped many slams, but it is evert who would have benefited if she entered these slams way more than navratilova. also the fact that evert changed racquets quite late hurt her in her head to head with navratilova.
Well that is how I see it too. Navratilova is rated about right (or a tad bit overrated if anything, although I dont have a problem with a few people picking her as the GOAT as I believe any of the top 5 have a possible case). Evert is very underrated these days, especialy in comparision to Navratilova. As I said my impression is that the vast majority of people see Navratilova considerably in front. Even though many have Navratilova only 1 spot in front of Evert whever one has them (3rd and 4th for many, 4th and 5th for some, 1st and 2nd for some, 2nd and 3rd for others, etc..) many of those same people still see a considerable space between them despite that ranking.

They are the easiest of all the top echelon greats of either gender to compare as they are true contemporaries. And while I can see Navratilova possibly being the one ahead I dont see it as nearly as decisive as most have it. I think too many are swayed by a)Navratilova's superior peak play, which is pretty clearly in her favor, but just one aspect of evaluating them entirely as players and their careers. b)The 13 match win streak, which a large number of factors contributed too, and spanned only 2 years of a combined 15 year joint career. c)Navratilova agressively campaigning herself and to this day still 100% insistent she is the bar none GOAT firmly above Serena/Graf/Court/all others, while Evert steps back and downplays herself, even borderline ridicules herself with overly modest statements like Hingis being a way better version of her.

To Navratilova's credit I do think her 82-86 is the strongest extended 5 year stretch of play ever, that isnt broken up. For 2 year I would probably pick Graf of 88-89, Graf of 95-96, Court of 69-70, Serena of 2002-2003, over her 83-84, but it is very close.
 

pat200

Rookie
also evert always seems to advertise navratilova as someone above her. so this doesn't help her case. they are extremely close and arguments can be made for either one of these 2 to be ahead (or as u said, any of the top 5 to be the actual goats)
 

Liam

New User
I've been watching old Martina/Chris matches, and OLD Chris matches. Chris was at least as good as Martina, in that she had fierce concentration and hardly got riled. I was even surprised how well she played Steffi towards the end of her career.

And I hate to bring this up, but it was the early 80s, and many athletes were taking PEDs. It's obvious in hindsight. I think Martina should be happy with how she is regarded since she never had to take any drug tests during her dominance.
 

KG1965

Legend
And I hate to bring this up, but it was the early 80s, and many athletes were taking PEDs. It's obvious in hindsight. I think Martina should be happy with how she is regarded since she never had to take any drug tests during her dominance.
Martina's only real big problem is this. Not 18 slams compared to 22 or 25. Exactly this.
It's an unsolvable problem.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I never knew drug testing was not mandatory then in tennis. That is kind of crazy, but then if that is true was using PEDs even against the rules then if they werent even testing for it?
 

Liam

New User
As far as I can tell via Google search, the WTA started testing in 1993 (!!!). If someone has any information about it being sooner, I would be appreciative. In 1994 at the French Open Steffi Graf stated she had never been tested and voiced suspicions that others were using steroids (Sabatini then threatened legal action if anyone continued to associate steroids with her new hyper built physique, which caused murmurs).
 
Last edited:

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
As far as I can tell via Google search, the WTA started testing in 1993 (!!!). If someone has any information about it being sooner, I would be appreciative. In 1994 at the French Open Steffi Graf stated she had never been tested and voiced suspicions that others were using steroids (Sabatini then threatened legal action if anyone continued to associate steroids with her new hyper built physique, which caused murmurs).
Haha wow I would have never guessed Gaby of all people, but that sounds highly suspicious for her.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
It should also be remembered that Navratilova lost earlier than Evert in quite a few majors so didn't meet Evert when Evert was a dominant no.1.
Also, Navratilova rarely played Evert on clay. But considerably more on faster surfaces indoors, and obviously, grass.
Evert was a supreme outdoors player, but less successful indoors.

I also agree that Evert talks Martina up (and Williams, and Sharapova!) But I actually think this is healthy (tiresome for her fans) as Evert isn't hung up on being considered the best ever. That's not to say she's unaware of her place in tennis history, it's just not the be all and end all. Hell, she forgets many of her records and has to be reminded by interviewers.
I've said this before, the complete opposite of Navratilova who can recite her records as if a shopping list.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Haha wow I would have never guessed Gaby of all people, but that sounds highly suspicious for her.
I think we, the general public, are not even close to knowing all that goes on behind the scenes, but there are many open secrets between players and officials that you'd think are just conspiracy theories but are actually true: case in point, I was at a party of a friend in Wimbledon (I used to live there) on the Saturday prior to the Championships starting on the Monday. It was attended by former champions, current players and officials from the LTA, USTA etc. Any way the subject came up of a bizarre on-court incident at Wimbledon a few years ago and I said but the reason was (as given in the Press). This was greeted with hearty laughter and the real reason was explained.
Fascinating.
We know so little! Sometimes those 'conspiracy theories' are spot on!
 

TommieF

Rookie
How about some overall head to head stats. Head to head stats on the different surface types. Where are the stat posters??? I'm lazy and love to get on here and just read.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
How about some overall head to head stats. Head to head stats on the different surface types. Where are the stat posters??? I'm lazy and love to get on here and just read.
Have a party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evert–Navratilova_rivalry

"In the 12 years from the introduction of the WTA rankings in November 1975 until August 1987, one of the two held the top spot in all but 23 weeks, switching multiple times between 1978 and 1985. In the first 615 weeks of the WTA rankings, they collectively held the No. 1 ranking for 592 weeks, Navratilova at 332 weeks and Evert at 260 weeks. In total, from 1973 to 1988 they played 80 matches, including 61 tournament finals"

.Navratilova led Evert 10–5 on grass; Evert led Navratilova 11–3 on clay courts; Navratilova led 9–7 on outdoor hard courts. Indoors, Navratilova won the majority of their matches, leading 21–14. Evert led their head-to-head three-set match wins 15–14 but Navratilova led 29–22 in straight sets wins. Navratilova was ahead 36–25 in all finals. Navratilova was most dominant in Slam encounters, leading 14–8 overall and 10–4 in Slam finals. Navratilova had the upper hand in their head-to-head over 9 seasons (1979, 1981–88) whereas Evert led over the first 6 years of their rivalry (1973–78).

There is actually a lot more on that link
 
It was on this forum that I learned about Evert's insane consistency. I had to confirm it and looked at her Grand Slam singles performance time line on Wiki. It's simply amazing. Never really thought about that before. That's a heck of a trivia question - what are the only three players to beat Chris Evert before the semifinals in a Slam? Lori McNeil, Zina Garrison, Aranxta Sanchez Vicario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
It was on this forum that I learned about Evert's insane consistency. I had to confirm it and looked at her Grand Slam singles performance time line on Wiki. It's simply amazing. Never really thought about that before. That's a heck of a trivia question - what are the only three players to beat Chris Evert before the semifinals in a Slam? Lori McNeil, Zina Garrison, Aranxta Sanchez Vicario.
And Kathy Jordan.
But yes, incredible record.
 
And Kathy Jordan.
But yes, incredible record.
Whoops didn't catch 1983 Wimbledon. So, four pre-SF losses - that's it. Unreal.

Graf, for example, had 17 pre-SF losses, including 8 after she won her first Slam.

Martina has 23

Serena has over 30 (including 14 QF losses).

Maybe Evert has more pre-SF losses if she extends her career like Martina and Serena, but the BIG difference between Graf, Martina, Serena is that Evert doesn't have the bunch of early career pre-SF losses that the other players do. She came fully formed.

That fact that "pre-SF losses" is even a standard of consistency is insane. But Evert set it.
 

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
It was on this forum that I learned about Evert's insane consistency. I had to confirm it and looked at her Grand Slam singles performance time line on Wiki. It's simply amazing. Never really thought about that before. That's a heck of a trivia question - what are the only three players to beat Chris Evert before the semifinals in a Slam? Lori McNeil, Zina Garrison, Aranxta Sanchez Vicario.
What's more astonishing was the when. If you see blue she lost before the Semifinals in one of the total listed that year. The multiplier represents the number of majors entered that year.Never more than once in a year. How in hell do you manage not to falter at all in your first 12 yrs competing, and only once in your first 16 years on tour or your first 49 slams? ( there are some people living out there that don't see reaching the QF's of a major as a 'falter', but we both know Chris Evert isn't one of them)
1971 x1,1972x2, 1973x3, 1974x4, 1975x3,1976 x2,1977x2 ,1978 x2,1979 x3, 1980 x3,1981x4, 1982x4 ,1983x3,1984 x4,1985x4 ,1986x3,1987x3,1988x4,1989 x2
 
Last edited:

BTURNER

Hall of Fame
Whoops didn't catch 1983 Wimbledon. So, four pre-SF losses - that's it. Unreal.

Graf, for example, had 17 pre-SF losses, including 8 after she won her first Slam.

Martina has 23

Serena has over 30 (including 14 QF losses).

Maybe Evert has more pre-SF losses if she extends her career like Martina and Serena, but the BIG difference between Graf, Martina, Serena is that Evert doesn't have the bunch of early career pre-SF losses that the other players do. She came fully formed.

That fact that "pre-SF losses" is even a standard of consistency is insane. But Evert set it.
You can give Dad some of the credit. Evert did not play her first major before her body was at least physically ready to compete with women at 16 years old. Graf started at 14 years old. Seles at 15. Evert was introduced gradually into the pro game with short seasons, so that there was not too much pressure early on. Chris Evert did not accept one penny of pay until she turned 18 years old. No matter what your family says, if you are young, have to feel like you have to do well to pay for the coaching, the travel etc. Not the Everts! Forbidden.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
You can give Dad some of the credit. Evert did not play her first major before her body was at least physically ready to compete with women at 16 years old. Graf started at 14 years old. Seles at 15. Evert was introduced gradually into the pro game with short seasons, so that there was not too much pressure early on. Chris Evert did not accept one penny of pay until she turned 18 years old. No matter what your family says, if you are young, have to feel like you have to do well to pay for the coaching, the travel etc. Not the Everts! Forbidden.
Evert's father was also instrumental in her retirement, although Evert lasted one more season before retiring in 1989.
Mr Evert advised in 1987 that his daughter had wrung everything mentally from her career but if she wanted to give it one more year she should be prepared for more bad days than normal. He was right, and there is an argument that, in terms of her legacy, she could have retired at the end of 1987 but we, the fans, would have missed out on some incredible matches: Houston v Navratilova. AO v Navratilova, Wimbledon v Golarsa, USO v Seles.
And once retired, her stats are off the chart; she went out on top winning the Federation Cup. And a career that never once saw her out of the top 4 of the WTA ranking.
And a career that never saw emotional on-court tirades or tantrums. Although it was said that Evert could convey in one stare what others achieve in broken racquets.
:)
 

TommieF

Rookie
Have a party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evert–Navratilova_rivalry

"In the 12 years from the introduction of the WTA rankings in November 1975 until August 1987, one of the two held the top spot in all but 23 weeks, switching multiple times between 1978 and 1985. In the first 615 weeks of the WTA rankings, they collectively held the No. 1 ranking for 592 weeks, Navratilova at 332 weeks and Evert at 260 weeks. In total, from 1973 to 1988 they played 80 matches, including 61 tournament finals"

.Navratilova led Evert 10–5 on grass; Evert led Navratilova 11–3 on clay courts; Navratilova led 9–7 on outdoor hard courts. Indoors, Navratilova won the majority of their matches, leading 21–14. Evert led their head-to-head three-set match wins 15–14 but Navratilova led 29–22 in straight sets wins. Navratilova was ahead 36–25 in all finals. Navratilova was most dominant in Slam encounters, leading 14–8 overall and 10–4 in Slam finals. Navratilova had the upper hand in their head-to-head over 9 seasons (1979, 1981–88) whereas Evert led over the first 6 years of their rivalry (1973–78).

There is actually a lot more on that link
:) Thanks!
 

Vamos Rafa Nadal

Professional
Martina is in my opinion the greatest of all time, so I disagree entirely with the OP! :) I count both her singles and doubles achievements in my assessment and she comes out #1! :) Serena would be #2, with Steffi Graf at #3, Margaret Smith Court at #4, Chris Evert at #5, and Billie Jean King at #6. (I am only including players since the 1970's as I have never seen Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills Moody or Helen Jacobs, who had significant careers in the 1920's and 1930's).
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
Martina is in my opinion the greatest of all time, so I disagree entirely with the OP! :) I count both her singles and doubles achievements in my assessment and she comes out #1! :) Serena would be #2, with Steffi Graf at #3, Margaret Smith Court at #4, Chris Evert at #5, and Billie Jean King at #6. (I am only including players since the 1970's as I have never seen Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills Moody or Helen Jacobs, who had significant careers in the 1920's and 1930's).
Well if you are someone who give considerable consideration to doubles I am fine with you having Martina clearly in front of Evert. I am talking about those who dont give much or any considration to doubles ( most people).
 

Vamos Rafa Nadal

Professional
Well if you are someone who give considerable consideration to doubles I am fine with you having Martina clearly in front of Evert. I am talking about those who dont give much or any considration to doubles ( most people).
It's the combination of singles and doubles that matters and nobody compares to Martina in this regard, which is why I consider her the greatest of all time! :) Most people need to consider both :)
 

SeeItHitIt

Semi-Pro
I think ManTina was a juicer from the Soviet days of building athletes. That said, it seems hard to overstate her effectiveness.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
It's the combination of singles and doubles that matters and nobody compares to Martina in this regard, which is why I consider her the greatest of all time! :) Most people need to consider both :)
Court does actually have the record number of combined singles/mixed/doubles slams though, even over Martina. When evaluating her singles there is the Australian Open factor and all but she also retired at 35 (even from doubles) while Martina played doubles into her 50s, and Court still held on.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
Evert is like a better version of Halep and Kerber who do just fine today.
I'm not sure why you dignified that poster with an answer?
But I agree with you.
I always felt that had Hingis had Evert's professionalism, work ethic and mental toughness she would have found away to take on the big hitters.
Likewise if Sharapova met the challenge of Serena Williams and adjusted her strategic planning she may not have the one sided H2H.
Evert came back from a string of losses to level the playing field. Now that's a champion.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I'm not sure why you dignified that poster with an answer?
But I agree with you.
I always felt that had Hingis had Evert's professionalism, work ethic and mental toughness she would have found away to take on the big hitters.
Likewise if Sharapova met the challenge of Serena Williams and adjusted her strategic planning she may not have the one sided H2H.
Evert came back from a string of losses to level the playing field. Now that's a champion.
Hingis got too cocky after her early success. She is underrated today. People say she could not win slams vs the big hitters but in addition to the 99 Australian Open she had numerous good chances (99 French, 2001 and 2002 Australian Open, to a lesser degree 2000 U.S Open, 2000 French) wasted of additional slams. Was really very unlucky and unlikely to not win atleast 1 or 2 post 99 Australian, if you break it down in detail.

If she had worked harder, not had her foot problems, and worst of all nto gotten complacent at the exact moment she most needed to step it up, she could compete with the big hitters minus peak Serena. That isnt to say many of them like Davenport and Venus would not be very challenging opponents for her, but she could challenge them. And peak Serena never lasts particularly long anyway.

The most impressive thing of all for Evert was her fighting back to settle the score vs Martina and play her almost even from 85-89, after being creamed repeatedly in 83-84. Most would have given up. That plus her determination in her early rivalry vs Austin when for awhile the much younger Tracy had eclipsed her, and was owning the head to head with her.

I agree if Maria had founds solutions in her rivalry with Serena she would be way higher regarded today. Obviously that was never the case.
 
Top