Navratilova is overrated compared to Evert

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
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.
I think the biggest difference between Evert, Hingis and Sharapova was the influence of said 'tennis' parent. Mr Evert instilled in his daughter not a sense of entitlement, but a strong work ethic. Plus, Evert was treated exactly the same as her siblings which must have been quite grounding. And a sense of fair play - even if she didn't always like it: Mrs Evert often clapped her daughter's opponents and congratulated them on a win.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
I think the biggest difference between Evert, Hingis and Sharapova was the influence of said 'tennis' parent. Mr Evert instilled in his daughter not a sense of entitlement, but a strong work ethic. Plus, Evert was treated exactly the same as her siblings which must have been quite grounding. And a sense of fair play - even if she didn't always like it: Mrs Evert often clapped her daughter's opponents and congratulated them on a win.
I am not sure if Melanie Molitor instilled a sense of entitlement in her daughter, but at one point their personalities did not mesh so well anymore as coach/pupil, and the confusion between mother/daughter and coach/pupil began to really conflict. I still remember her vividly though, from the large poodle perm from the players box, and all else.

Mr. Sharapova definitely instilled a sense of entitlement in his daughter, similar to Richard Williams in his, but it did not play out as well for Maria. And it forever lit a fire in Serena to never lose to Maria again after the debacle at the 2004 YEC.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
I am not sure if Melanie Molitor instilled a sense of entitlement in her daughter, but at one point their personalities did not mesh so well anymore as coach/pupil, and the confusion between mother/daughter and coach/pupil began to really conflict. I still remember her vividly though, from the large poodle perm from the players box, and all else.

Mr. Sharapova definitely instilled a sense of entitlement in his daughter, similar to Richard Williams in his, but it did not play out as well for Maria. And it forever lit a fire in Serena to never lose to Maria again after the debacle at the 2004 YEC.
They are fair points.
Also Mr Evert took a backseat (not attending matches, but offering advice and coaching) once his daughter became an adult. The same could not be said of the fathers of Sharapova and Williams- both liking to rile others and maintain a media profile.
In fairness, the Williams sisters mother appears to be similar to Mrs Evert. Calmer. And likewise to Mrs Evert, I've seen Mrs Williams applaud her daughters opponents play.
 

chimneysweep

Semi-Pro
They are fair points.
Also Mr Evert took a backseat (not attending matches, but offering advice and coaching) once his daughter became an adult. The same could not be said of the fathers of Sharapova and Williams- both liking to rile others and maintain a media profile.
In fairness, the Williams sisters mother appears to be similar to Mrs Evert. Calmer. And likewise to Mrs Evert, I've seen Mrs Williams applaud her daughters opponents play.
I, unlike you, am a big fan of the Williams, but was never a fan of RIchard Williams. For one thing I think he is a gigantic racist, every bit as racist as the racists he accuses that are against his daughters, if not more.

I do like Oracene a lot though. I love the story how after Seles beat Venus for the first time ever at the 2002 Australian Open she told Seles backstage she hoped she won the title now. Class act.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
I, unlike you, am a big fan of the Williams, but was never a fan of RIchard Williams. For one thing I think he is a gigantic racist, every bit as racist as the racists he accuses that are against his daughters, if not more.

I do like Oracene a lot though. I love the story how after Seles beat Venus for the first time ever at the 2002 Australian Open she told Seles backstage she hoped she won the title now. Class act.
I just recall Richard Williams writing on those boards at Wimbledon the year Venus beat Davenport in that long final. He detracted attention away from his daughter. I can't imagine Mr Evert ever behaving like that.
Tacky.
Ps, I rarely post negatively about Venus Williams. Not a fan of the shrieking - but that's something I loathe generally.
 

BTURNER

Legend
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 :)
If you are going to include doubles and mixed and there's a very respectable case for that, you are going to have up the ranking of Court (19 slam doubles, 21 slam mixed) and King( 16 slam doubles, 11 slam mixed) considerably and demote players like Graf and Evert who's doubles and mixed is nearly non-existent. In Court's day virtually everyone on the tour played doubles, far more so than in Martina, or Steffi's era or now. Much more competitive fields back then.
 

Ann

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.
I wonder so often what Borg's numbers would have been if he'd continued to play for another 4 or 5 years ...
 
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.
While it's a great stat(and I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it before this forum, commentators used to mention it all the time when she was on tour) it is worth noting that Evert played many majors that were only 32 or 64 player draws while all the majors Graf and Serena played were 128 player draws.
 
While it's a great stat(and I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it before this forum, commentators used to mention it all the time when she was on tour) it is worth noting that Evert played many majors that were only 32 or 64 player draws while all the majors Graf and Serena played were 128 player draws.
That's important to know. I knew some majors were 64 back in the day, but I never knew there were 32-player draws in her career.
 

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
While it's a great stat(and I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it before this forum, commentators used to mention it all the time when she was on tour) it is worth noting that Evert played many majors that were only 32 or 64 player draws while all the majors Graf and Serena played were 128 player draws.
Whilst I can see Evert played in some round of 64 majors I can find nothing for round of 32?
Admittedly, I've only looked at the AO (seemed the most likely to have a 32 player draw)- easy enough as Evert only played it 6 times and always reaching the final. There are no round of 32 championships in the 6 she contested.
5x64, 1x128.
 

BTURNER

Legend
While it's a great stat(and I'm surprised you hadn't heard of it before this forum, commentators used to mention it all the time when she was on tour) it is worth noting that Evert played many majors that were only 32 or 64 player draws while all the majors Graf and Serena played were 128 player draws.
I cannot find any of these 32 player draws in an Evert major. Can you link me to some? The lowest I can find for Evert was the 1974 Aussie with what looks like a 56 player draw and seeding of 8. All her French opens had at least 64 players, as did all of her US Opens. And Evert was protected in her first major in the early rounds, from seven other top ranked women. In her last major it was 15other women. Now Williams has always enjoyed the protection of a 32 seeding system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

BTURNER

Legend
Whilst I can see Evert played in some round of 64 majors I can find nothing for round of 32?
Admittedly, I've only looked at the AO (seemed the most likely to have a 32 player draw)- easy enough as Evert only played it 6 times and always reaching the final. There are no round of 32 championships in the 6 she contested.
5x64, 1x128.
Moose is wrong. Evert never played a major with less than a 54 player draw ( 1974 Aussie) the rest were 64 or more. Its a hell of a lot easier to avoid early round upsets when you are protected from meeting the top 31 players or top 15 other women. When Evert was starting she was protected from meeting 7 other seeds. When she stopped she was protected from meeting 17 other seeds at the 1989 Open. She never had the luxury of a 32 seed system and yet guess who seems to have the most trouble with rds 1-3?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

PDJ

G.O.A.T.
I cannot find any of these 32 player draws in an Evert major. Can you link me to some? The lowest I can find for Evert was the 1974 Aussie with what looks like a 56 player draw and seeding of 8. All her French opens had at least 64 players, as did all of her US Opens. And Evert was protected in her first major in the early rounds, from seven other top ranked women. In her last major it was 15other women. Now Williams has always enjoyed the protection of a 32 seeding system.
My understanding of the 1974 AO Draw is that it was 56 direct entry plus 8 qualifiers?
 

BTURNER

Legend
My understanding of the 1974 AO Draw is that it was 56 direct entry plus 8 qualifiers?
You could be right, but I am not see a reference to the number of qualifiers.

Moose may be working under the assumption that if there are more rounds, and thus more numerical risk, that equates with actual risk. I am not at all sure that is correct, if you are being well protected by an increase seeding. I periodicaly hear players talk about those early rounds as though they had actual value and byes as a detriment to later round preparation. They talk about them as opportunities to get used to the show courts, the surface speed, the balls the weather, the general conditions and to get used to playing actual matches. The extra rounds offer a low risk opportunity to get different styles, a grinder, a basher, a volleyer of lower caliber. Maybe that seventh round improves the quality of their play more often than it leads to an upset. Maybe that bye leads to flatter play in Rd 16. In that case, it may be more risky to be in a six round 64 rounder than a 7 rounder with 120. We don't know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

BTURNER

Legend
The womens singles at RG had a 16 seed draw in 1958 with 64 players. It soared to a 96 draw and 16 seeds in in first pro/amateur year in 1968 but shrunk back to normal with 8 seeds and 64 players in1969. There it stayed through 1978, when it went to 16 seeds. In 1983 it went to a 128 draw. It went to a 32 seeds in 2002.

The Australian women's singles in 1970 had 8 seeds and a draw of 48. It went to 12 seeds in 1973 with 48, but went back to 8 seeds with a 56 draw the next year. In 1977 it down to a 32 draw, but by 1980 it was back to 8 seeds/ 56 draw. In 1981 it went to 14 seeds with 56, and then 16 seeds the next year. in 1983 it was up to 64 draw. In 1988 it hit the big time with 128 draw but still 16 seeds. 2002 it went to a 32 seed 128 draw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ

BTURNER

Legend
In 1960 The US National had a 64 draw and 8 seeds. In '62 it had 96 draw, but just 8 seeds, then up to 12 seeds next year. Back to 8 seeds in 1964. 10 seeds in 1967 and the first US Open 1968 women's singles draw is listed at 8 seeds and 68 players. That is how it stayed until 1976 when it had a draw of 96 and 16 seeds. The next year they brought down the number of seeds to 12 with 96 draw and in 1978 they went up to 16 seeds. In 1981 they went up to a 128 draw. In 2001 they went to 32 seeds.

As for Wimbledon, in 1960 it had 96 draw and 8 seeds, but had 96 players 1962, with the same seeds. Went to 12 seeds in 1963It went to 12 seeds in 1977, and 16 seeds in 1978. It had its first 128 draw in 1983. In 2001 it protected 32 players with that same 128 draw.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PDJ
Wimbledon is worth twice every other slam. So Navratilova has the equivalent of 27 slams and Evert only 21. So no Navratilova is not overrated compared to Evert. It is suitable she is regarded as far above.
 
I think most rate Navratilova higher since people feel her best is better than Evert. Usually when achievements are almost tied like they are for these two, people go by the eye test or the subjective judgement. And while I like Evert way more, I have to agree Navratilova's best is better, and in her prime she is just a better player.
 

BTURNER

Legend
I think most rate Navratilova higher since people feel her best is better than Evert. Usually when achievements are almost tied like they are for these two, people go by the eye test or the subjective judgement. And while I like Evert way more, I have to agree Navratilova's best is better, and in her prime she is just a better player.
Its all about priorities. Evert's consistency is unmatched in the open era. Martina's peak play over a 1982-1984 was unmatched. Martina has those doubles titles and the better head to head. But one reason Evert's final conversion rate is poorer, is that Evert kept on showing up at the finals and semis of Wimbledon and the Aussie ,to be beaten by Martina (mostly) or King or Goolagong in all those grass finals, a lot more often than Martina showed up at the finals and semis of RG or Forest Hills to be beaten by her on clay. Martina's inconsistent results outside 1982-1984, worked to her advantage in the head to head.
 
Its all about priorities. Evert's consistency is unmatched in the open era. Martina's peak play over a 1982-1984 was unmatched.
This is true, but most people value peak play over consistency. As long as you were consistent enough to be amongst the leaders in slam wins.
 
Top