Navratilova is way underrated these days, should be atleast #2 all time behind Serena

[brystone]

Navratilova these days is way underrated. She should atleast be the #2 all time behind Serena. Yes she has fewer slams than Court and Graf, but lets face it prime to prime she has the upper hand on both, particularly Court. Remember Court was even struggling with a baby Chris Evert. And her singles stats are slightly inferior to Evert, but in terms of peak play she destroys Chris as she proved in her 13 match win streak, and combine her doubles career and she is easily over Chris too. It seems most have her behind Serena, Court, and maybe Graf which IMO isnt right. Prime to prime she would destroy Court, and most of Courts slams were at the joke Australian Open which wasnt even a real slam back then.

My all time Open Era rankings would go:

1. Serena
2. Navratilova
3. Court
4. Graf
5. Evert
6. King
7. Venus
8. Henin
9. Seles
10. Hingis


I can see a case for Martina being #1 too. I put Connolly, Lenglen, Wills in a seperate category since you cant accurately compare pre Open to Open Era IMO.

 

[jrepac]

Martina's PR is not the greatest...you have to admit. I think that hurts her, as it does Court for different reasons. If you take doubles into account, I think you can make a case for MN as GOAT, quite honestly. She was a fantastic dubs player w/that S&V of hers, even in her 40's. Court's record is a little harder to evaluate, given the status of the AO and most of her titles are on grass (not her fault, obviously)

 

[TheIntrovert]

Martina> Serena

 

[PDJ]

Well, I wouldn't put Serena Williams at #1......

 

[brystone]

Well, I wouldn't put Serena Williams at #1......

and you are entitled that view but most people do, so I am speaking from that stance (for the record I do as well so I am not just being a sheep and following the herd, if that is what you are going to say next).

 

[70後]

I was thinking the exact same thing about Navratilova a while ago.

MN is very underrated. Her game though is all round, all her strokes from the back and front are in fact very solid. Most don't realise how good MN's ground strokes are. For example, imo, her forehand is actually a way better shot than Graf's, regardless of what most people think. They are not even on the same level. Martina/Hana have proper strokes, Graf doesn't. Martina's backhand is like Mandlikova's, again very very underrated. Today, I will advise a new young girl starting to play, if they will like to try a single hander, to learn from Navratilova's ground game, besides her serve and net game.

But why is Martina so underrated? Maybe it is because she is always over trumpeting about herself and seems so overly insecure that everybody is equally determined to underrate her.

Players like Navratilova, Mandlikova on the women's side, Connors, Borg, Mac on the men's side; their game never gets old to watch on old vids, never gets outdated, they age like good wine.

 

[70後]

An example : the moment in Wimbledon 2012 when Serena was serving 4 aces in a row on Radwanska. The camera took a shot of Navratilova in her dark shades, she was scowling, sullen, silent. She looked green! A very peculiar shade of green too.

During the warmup of the Wimbledon 2014 women's final between Kvitova and Bouchard, the camera caught Navratilova again. No dark shades, beaming away, laughing, smiling, joking with everybody. Kvitova wasn’t and probably wouldn't ever be close to 9 though.

Poor Martina.

 

[brystone]

I do agree Martina's ego is hurting her. She too often trumpets herself as the GOAT and she started to do it more when people were talking about Graf maybe being over her, then even more since people have been calling Serena the GOAT. It makes her look insecure and unlikeable, and it has made people probably subconsciously biased against her.

I do emphasize with her though in that I think more than anyone else, even more than Graf who has atleast moved on fully from tennis to family life for a long time now despite her fairly one track mind for the longest time, her whole career has always revolved around tennis and nothing else. A bunch of failed relationships, not many other interests. So a lot of her self worth revolves too much around needing validation by being called the GOAT and unfortunately that creates a lot of her self promotion with has alienated many, and in turn actually caused her to become underrated.

 

[brystone]

I was thinking the exact same thing about Navratilova a while ago.

MN is very underrated. Her game though is all round, all her strokes from the back and front are in fact very solid. Most don't realise how good MN's ground strokes are. For example, imo, her forehand is actually a way better shot than Graf's, regardless of what most people think. They are not even on the same level. Martina/Hana have proper strokes, Graf doesn't. Martina's backhand is like Mandlikova's, again very very underrated. Today, I will advise a new young girl starting to play, if they will like to try a single hander, to learn from Navratilova's ground game, besides her serve and net game.

But why is Martina so underrated? Maybe it is because she is always over trumpeting about herself and seems so overly insecure that everybody is equally determined to underrate her.

Players like Navratilova, Mandlikova on the women's side, Connors, Borg, Mac on the men's side; their game never gets old to watch on old vids, never gets outdated, they age like good wine.

And her groundstrokes HAD to be really good to have success vs Evert since to get into the net effectively vs someone like Evert you need to atleast be able to hang in points and come in off a really good shot. Otherwise Shriver who is also an excellent volleyer and incredible around the net would have had success against Evert, and we all know how their history is. Someone like Novotna was not good enough off the ground to get in effectively enough against Graf, Davenport, Seles as well. So that alone shows how strong Martina's ground game had to be in order to allow her success at the net.

 

[BTURNER]

All I know is that wherever you put Martina, Evert playing in virtually the same era, with virtually the same major results and such a close head to head, is going to be right behind. If 3 of those 80 titles switched hands they would be dead even. What Martina gains in peak play, she loses in consistency. There is one reason why that head to head in major finals is so disparate. Martina did not get to their scheduled appointment on slow surface majors ( Clay and Hard) because she lost earlier and Evert far more consistently got to theirs on grass because she did not do so on grass. Evert's consistency in grass majors (15 finals? ) and those record 31 finals is her undoing in this rivalry.

If you add doubles to this discussion Evert drops like a rock.

 

[Navdeep Srivastava]

I will say Evert is number 2 or maybe number 1 , skipped 3 RG in her prime when she was thrashing everybody on clay.
Also skipped AO in many years, went into final in 74 then didn't play till 80, again went into the final in 81. Won the tournament in 82,84 and skipped 83 AO because of injury.

 

[MathGeek]

Navratilova was very talented. I tend to weigh doubles more heavily than most.

Eras are hard to compare. But #1 or #2 all time.

 

[Deleted member 735320]

I will say Evert is number 2 or maybe number 1 , skipped 3 RG in her prime when she was thrashing everybody on clay.
Also skipped AO in many years, went into final in 74 then didn't play till 80, again went into the final in 81. Won the tournament in 82,84 and skipped 83 AO because of injury.

Evert did not play in 1980 Aussie; she played 74, 81, 82, 84, 85, 88 won 82 & 84; RU 74, 81, 85, 88

 

[PDJ]

and you are entitled that view but most people do, so I am speaking from that stance (for the record I do as well so I am not just being a sheep and following the herd, if that is what you are going to say next).

I would never write you, or anyone for that matter, is "just being a sheep and following the herd". Wouldn't occur to me.
I would add that tennis history tends to favour the current 'great'.
Although I do wonder what Williams is adding to her legacy as currently she's winning nothing.

Re Navratilova, I've said before that she can quote her achievements- as she's wont to do- like other people remember a shopping list. Evert, by comparison, had to be reminded who she won her first Wimbledon title against! Evert seems content to be remembered as one of the best to play the game. Whilst this can do her a disservice in terms of accomplishments, it's probably far healthier for her wellbeing.

 

[KG1965]

Navratilova is atleast 3 all time behind Court (1) and Chrissie 2).
Serena chases but must win a lot again.

As a best female player also Connolly, Seles and Graf played better.

 

[BTURNER]

I will say Evert is number 2 or maybe number 1 , skipped 3 RG in her prime when she was thrashing everybody on clay.
Also skipped AO in many years, went into final in 74 then didn't play till 80, again went into the final in 81. Won the tournament in 82,84 and skipped 83 AO because of injury.

Evert did not play in 1980 or 1987 either, but she reached her fifth final in 1985 ( had she won it, she would have ended 1985 as number 1). Of her 5 finals on grass Down under, all but one went to three sets. Never did she fail to reach a final in Australia.

But for a few points, here and there in those Kooyung finals of '81 and '85 and that 84 Open, she could easily be at 21 majors and Navratilova at 15! Had Martina won a few points here and there, she could have claimed the 82 Aussie, the 85 RG and 86 RG and done the exact opposite.

 

[mhkeuns]

If we are talking about dominance, Seles should be mentioned. She practically ran other great players off the courts with her devastating ground strokes. Had she not been stabbed, I would think Seles would have dominated the women’s tennis, and Graf wouldn’t have as many wins or titles.

But since Seles couldn’t continue dominating because of the stabbing horror, I’d say Navratilova is all-time no 1. I would say the dominance of Serena is noteworthy, but I’m not sure if she is as a great player as Navratilova, Evert or Graf.

 

[brystone]

I think Seles if anything has become overrated due to the stabbing. I also think prime to prime Serena would wallop Graf or Evert, only prime Navratilova of that trio would give her any real trouble consistently outside of clay.

 

[brystone]

All I know is that wherever you put Martina, Evert playing in virtually the same era, with virtually the same major results and such a close head to head, is going to be right behind. If 3 of those 80 titles switched hands they would be dead even. What Martina gains in peak play, she loses in consistency. There is one reason why that head to head in major finals is so disparate. Martina did not get to their scheduled appointment on slow surface majors ( Clay and Hard) because she lost earlier and Evert far more consistently got to theirs on grass because she did not do so on grass. Evert's consistency in grass majors (15 finals? ) and those record 31 finals is her undoing in this rivalry.

If you add doubles to this discussion Evert drops like a rock.

I can see your point but on the other hand I think that a prime Evert lost 13 matches in a row to Navratilova at one point makes it fairly clear who is the "better" player regardless of stats. So with their stats in singles close to identical, I dont think it is a surprise many seem to rank Martina ahead, and some by multiple spots. It is hard to ignore just how badly a peak Martina was slapping Chris around.

It all depends if you go 100% by stats or you factor in playing level too. Plus whether you factor in doubles or not as you said. I think doubles only comes into play when the singles are extremely close, but in this case it is, so if you consider doubles even slightly Navratilova would now soundly trump Evert.

I do respect Evert immensely. She is a great champion and perhaps the best most consistent player ever. I just think it was pretty solidly proven prime Navratilova is a better tennis player point blank though. Not even partly subjective like comparing Graf, Navratilova, Serena, Court across eras with at most a brief crossover, as they were true contemporaries and the evidence is right before us how they matched up.

 

[BTURNER]

I can see your point but on the other hand I think that a prime Evert lost 13 matches in a row to Navratilova at one point makes it fairly clear who is the "better" player regardless of stats. So with their stats in singles close to identical, I dont think it is a surprise many seem to rank Martina ahead, and some by multiple spots. It is hard to ignore just how badly a peak Martina was slapping Chris around.

It all depends if you go 100% by stats or you factor in playing level too. Plus whether you factor in doubles or not as you said. I think doubles only comes into play when the singles are extremely close, but in this case it is, so if you consider doubles even slightly Navratilova would now soundly trump Evert.

I do respect Evert immensely. She is a great champion and perhaps the best most consistent player ever. I just think it was pretty solidly proven prime Navratilova is a better tennis player point blank though. Not even partly subjective like comparing Graf, Navratilova, Serena, Court across eras with at most a brief crossover, as they were true contemporaries and the evidence is right before us how they matched up.

Our fundamental difference is this.
'Prime' and 'peak' are vague terms, and subjective thus both of these lead to cherry-picking in GOAT debate. I am one who refuses to subcategorize either for most purposes. I only talk career, which means every single match from the first pro match to their last. We do not discard the early ones, the last career ones the 'comeback' ones, the post injury ones because they each involve choices in a players career. I will not discard those matches for Martina and narrow her professional career to 1982-1988. All those crappy losses, early round losses matter late bloomer losses represent disappointments and blemishes.

 

[brystone]

Our fundamental difference is this.
'Prime' and 'peak' are vague terms, and subjective thus both of these lead to cherry-picking in GOAT debate. I am one who refuses to subcategorize either for most purposes. I only talk career, which means every single match from the first pro match to their last. We do not discard the early ones, the last career ones the 'comeback' ones, the post injury ones because they each involve choices in a players career. I will not discard those matches for Martina and narrow her professional career to 1982-1988. All those crappy losses, early round losses matter late bloomer losses represent disappointments and blemishes.

I respect your opinion and get your arguments. However for me when there is fairly clear evidence from my perspective who is the "better" player I tend to go with that. And Martina convinced me with what she did to Evert in the 80s she is the better player. And yes prime and peak is subjective but ranking all time greats is subjective anyway. If one is going to shy away from peak and prime arguments for that logic, they shouldnt be ranking players at all.

 

[BorgCash]

Navratilova these days is way underrated. She should atleast be the #2 all time behind Serena. Yes she has fewer slams than Court and Graf, but lets face it prime to prime she has the upper hand on both, particularly Court. Remember Court was even struggling with a baby Chris Evert. And her singles stats are slightly inferior to Evert, but in terms of peak play she destroys Chris as she proved in her 13 match win streak, and combine her doubles career and she is easily over Chris too. It seems most have her behind Serena, Court, and maybe Graf which IMO isnt right. Prime to prime she would destroy Court, and most of Courts slams were at the joke Australian Open which wasnt even a real slam back then.

My all time Open Era rankings would go:

1. Serena
2. Navratilova
3. Court
4. Graf
5. Evert
6. King
7. Venus
8. Henin
9. Seles
10. Hingis


I can see a case for Martina being #1 too. I put Connolly, Lenglen, Wills in a seperate category since you cant accurately compare pre Open to Open Era IMO.

What? Never ever this racist-sexist Williams will be number one. Never.

 

[brystone]

What? Never ever this racist-sexist Williams will be number one. Never.

Well Evert, Graf, and Court have all said Williams is #1 as well. You are free your opinion but like it or not she is the consensus #1 these days.

 

[BorgCash]

Well Evert, Graf, and Court have all said Williams is #1 as well. You are free your opinion but like it or not she is the consensus #1 these days.

We do not talking these days, Navratilova, Evert, Graf, and Court do not play these days.

 

[BorgCash]

Well Evert, Graf, and Court have all said Williams is #1 as well. You are free your opinion but like it or not she is the consensus #1 these days.

When did they say this?

 

[Dan Lobb]

I will say Evert is number 2 or maybe number 1 , skipped 3 RG in her prime when she was thrashing everybody on clay.
Also skipped AO in many years, went into final in 74 then didn't play till 80, again went into the final in 81. Won the tournament in 82,84 and skipped 83 AO because of injury.

There should be a price to pay for skipping majors.....that is, you should not get any credit for skipping those majors.

Sometimes great players skip majors because they are simply tired or cannot be bothered to make the effort needed to win. They should not get any credit for what they MIGHT have done had they played.

 

[hoodjem]

Navratilova these days is way underrated. She should atleast be the #2 all time . . .

Agree with this part.

 

[Pheasant]

Martina’s Peak was insane. She once won 6 straight slam titles. She also ran off 14 straight wins against her nemesis. But it gets crazier. Her winning percentages look make believe.

1982: 88-2
1983: 82-1
1984: 78-2
1985: 84-5
1986: 88-3

Martina was 248-5 over a 3 year span. That’s an average of 1 loss every 50 matches. Her 420-12 record over 5 years is insane too with an average of 1 loss a every 36 matches. That is impossible.

Martina is a legit GOAT contender. Her peak was incredible.

 

[brystone]

When did they say this?

Evert says it repeatedly when commentating on tennis these days. Graf and Court said it in rare interviews they do in the last 2 years.

 

[Pheasant]

Martina also won 8 year-end titles. The more that I look at her accomplishments, the more blown away that I am.

 

[PDJ]

There should be a price to pay for skipping majors.....that is, you should not get any credit for skipping those majors.

Sometimes great players skip majors because they are simply tired or cannot be bothered to make the effort needed to win. They should not get any credit for what they MIGHT have done had they played.

I would agree with this point of view from the mid to late 80s on. But, as I'm sure you know, the AO simply didn't matter as much back in the day. And Evert skipped the French, as did nearly all the top women during those three years due to the lucrative US Team Tennis.
Priorities were different.
And majors count wasn't the be-all and end-all it is now.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Court is ahead of both Martina and Serena. How can one seriously argue 18 > 24. Eben taking doubles into account which we shouldn’t it does not help Martina’s case against court.

 

[brystone]

In addition to the Australian Open factor the problem Court has against Evert/Navratilova is how easily a young Evert was handling her. It is hard to think she is a better player prime to prime than Navratilova or Evert.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

In addition to the Australian Open factor the problem Court has against Evert/Navratilova is how easily a young Evert was handling her. It is hard to think she is a better player prime to prime than Navratilova or Evert.

And Evert was dominated by a young Graf so what. It is or better said was completely usual that the older players where kicked out of the game by some younger ATG. Only because today’s generation useless cannot get it done with the big three means nothing. Court did not do so bad against Evert anyways.

 

[brystone]

And Evert was dominated by a young Graf so what. It is or better said was completely usual that the older players where kicked out of the game by some younger ATG. Only because today’s generation useless cannot get it done with the big three means nothing. Court did not do so bad against Evert anyways.

Evert was past her prime when Graf dominated her, and anyway I didnt say Evert shoudl be over Graf. Court in her prime was dominated by a baby Evert.

And the Australian Open back then was an illegitimate slam as others have said. So Evert and Navratilova's 18 is really higher than 18, and Court's 24 is really no higher than 20ish.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

Evert was past her prime when Graf dominated her, and anyway I didnt say Evert shoudl be over Graf. Court in her prime was dominated by a baby Evert.

And the Australian Open back then was an illegitimate slam as others have said. So Evert and Navratilova's 18 is really higher than 18, and Court's 24 is really no higher than 20ish.

If I am not mistaken Evert beat Court for the first time when she was 19 and Court was 31, Graf started beating Evert at the age of 16 so she was actually more “baby”. How was Court dominated by Evert by the way, their official H2H is 3-2. As for the AO, Court won the grand slam in 1970 and three slams in 1973 after her Baby Pause. There is no reason to believe she would not have dominated anywhere.

 

[brystone]

If I am not mistaken Evert beat Court for the first time when she was 19 and Court was 31

and here you couldnt be more wrong. Evert in fact beat Court the first time they played when Evert was 15 and Court had just done the Grand Slam. Evert in fact beat Court 3 times before she even turned 18 and before Court turned 30. They played 8 times from 70-73 which was Court's prime than Evert's, and they split 4-4. They then played 5 times in Evert's prime and after Court's, and Evert won all 5.

 

[Phoenix1983]

I have her at No 3, behind Serena and Graf.

What are your reasons for putting her ahead of Graf? I hope it's not her doubles success (which is never factored in for other greats).

 

[brystone]

I have her at No 3, behind Serena and Graf.

What are your reasons for putting her ahead of Graf? I hope it's not her doubles success (which is never factored in for other greats).

That prime to prime she beats Graf. She is 4-1 vs her at the US Open which is their most neutral meeting place. Martina was 30 or older for 4 of the 5 matches, and 3 of the 5 (87 onwards) Graf was in her prime. She also gives up 13 years to Graf and is still tied 9-9 in head to head.

That plus she was more dominant at her peak for a sustained stretch. 5 seasons of dominance from 82-86. Graf never had more than 2 or 3. Moreso than Serena too, but Serena has the longevity even over Martina, and the slams.

 

[BTURNER]

I respect your opinion and get your arguments. However for me when there is fairly clear evidence from my perspective who is the "better" player I tend to go with that. And Martina convinced me with what she did to Evert in the 80s she is the better player. And yes prime and peak is subjective but ranking all time greats is subjective anyway. If one is going to shy away from peak and prime arguments for that logic, they shouldnt be ranking players at all.

I am not bothered by your conclusion that Martina was better, I am bothered by how you get there.
Using peak and prime as focus years is worse than 'subjective' It allow players to throw out the bad matches, the bad streaks in their career. You cannot possibly credit Evert for her phenomenal consistency from 1971-1989, in majors and in ranking, if you allow other GOAT candidates to waltze away from their early years and their late career results because they were 'late bloomers' or 'past their prime', or 'immature' 'or 'burned out' or 'in a bad patch' or 'winding down' or 'coming back'. Its the same professional career and the same record.

Also, When we do not recognize the difference between a loss in the quarterfinals or semifinals and a loss in the 2nd round, again we are not even seeing a bad result as a bad result. We should NEVER be looking only from the top down at these careers.
we have to turn them upside down and spend as much time looking and quantifying those early round losses as we do those trophy presentations.

I don't see how you justify the 80's as your favored start date and end dates for Martina, when she began to show up on courts, in draws in 1973, and kept doing it through the early 2000's? People do the same thing with Serena. She has more bad slam results in her career, than any top GOAT candidate, including Martina and people let her just walk away....

 

[AM75]

Overall she should be Nr 2 after Court, but in the open era I think she is probably Nr 1. It's not only her 9 Wimbledon titles, but also longevity and all the doubles (31) and mixed (10) GS titles. She's truly the most accomplished player of the open era. No one else but Court & Martina has multiple career slams in singles, doubles and mixed doubles.

 

[brystone]

I am not bothered by your conclusion that Martina was better, I am bothered by how you get there.
Using peak and prime as focus years is worse than 'subjective' It allow players to throw out the bad matches, the bad streaks in their career. You cannot possibly credit Evert for her phenomenal consistency from 1971-1989, in majors and in ranking, if you allow other GOAT candidates to waltze away from their early years and their late career results because they were 'late bloomers' or 'past their prime', or 'immature' 'or 'burned out' or 'in a bad patch' or 'winding down' or 'coming back'. Its the same professional career and the same record.

Also, When we do not recognize the difference between a loss in the quarterfinals or semifinals and a loss in the 2nd round, again we are not even seeing a bad result as a bad result. We should NEVER be looking only from the top down at these careers.
we have to turn them upside down and spend as much time looking and quantifying those early round losses as we do those trophy presentations.

I don't see how you justify the 80's as your favored start date and end dates for Martina, when she began to show up on courts, in draws in 1973, and kept doing it through the early 2000's? People do the same thing with Serena. She has more bad slam results in her career, than any top GOAT candidate, including Martina and people let her just walk away....

I dont overlook Evert's consistency. Just for me all things being equal I favor what I see a significant gap in peak play over consistency. That is just me. Everyone has their own critieria.

It is not like Martina is lacking in consistency. Only in comparision to Graf and Evert she is behind there, but she is one of the most consistent players too as well.

 

[Deleted member 735320]

I dont overlook Evert's consistency. Just for me all things being equal I favor what I see a significant gap in peak play over consistency. That is just me. Everyone has their own critieria.

It is not like Martina is lacking in consistency. Only in comparision to Graf and Evert she is behind there, but she is one of the most consistent players too as well.

Martina has lots of "bad losses" over the years at VS events and majors. For goodness sakes she was Wimbledon champ and lost to Pam Shriver at the 78 US. She lost once to Joanne Russel. She DID play the 1980 Aussie AFTER she had won the 78 and 79 Wimbledons and LOST to Turnbull. She lost to Kathy Horvath in 83 French.

On each lady's absolute best day all things considered I agree Martina was the GOAT. Over a career no she loses points for inconsistency and crappy performances. After all as much as she "handled" Evert particularly 1983-84, they both have the SAME number of major singles titles, 18. If Martina is GOAT that is a badge of honor for Evert and yet another foible to count against Martina, why doesn't she have more?

 

[brystone]

Martina has lots of "bad losses" over the years at VS events and majors. For goodness sakes she was Wimbledon champ and lost to Pam Shriver at the 78 US. She lost once to Joanne Russel. She DID play the 1980 Aussie AFTER she had won the 78 and 79 Wimbledons and LOST to Turnbull. She lost to Kathy Horvath in 83 French.

On each lady's absolute best day all things considered I agree Martina was the GOAT. Over a career no she loses points for inconsistency and crappy performances. After all as much as she "handled" Evert particularly 1983-84, they both have the SAME number of major singles titles, 18. If Martina is GOAT that is a badge of honor for Evert and yet another foible to count against Martina, why doesn't she have more?

I agree that Martina loses points for consistency. I factor that in and I still have her over Evert even with those lost points.

 

[USOPEN1991]

Overall she should be Nr 2 after Court, but in the open era I think she is probably Nr 1. It's not only her 9 Wimbledon titles, but also longevity and all the doubles (31) and mixed (10) GS titles. She's truly the most accomplished player of the open era. No one else but Court & Martina has multiple career slams in singles, doubles and mixed doubles.

Martina = Tennis

 

[BTURNER]

I dont overlook Evert's consistency. Just for me all things being equal I favor what I see a significant gap in peak play over consistency. That is just me. Everyone has their own critieria.

It is not like Martina is lacking in consistency. Only in comparision to Graf and Evert she is behind there, but she is one of the most consistent players too as well.

Lets see how much more inconsistent. All of this stats are about majors. Navratilova played in 66 majors (ten more than Evert) to acquire those same 18 majors and 2 less finals . Along the way she lost the 1st Rd x 5, 2nd Rd x 2 3rd Rd x 2, 4th RD x 5, QF x 9. That means she failed to even reach the QF 14 times while Evert failed to exactly twice. Those respective percentages are 21.2 % of Martina's majors and 3.6% of Evert's. Evert lost her QF twice compared to 9 times for Navratilova. That means Evert lost her QF 3.7% of the time While Martina lost hers 17.3 % and Evert's career win loss percentage in majors is 89.2%(299 wins to 36 losses)while Navratilova' s is 86. 2%. . Court won 24 majors in 47 tries (19 less than Martina). She lost rd x 1, rd 2 x 2, rd 3 x1, Rd 4 x1, and QF x 7. So Court failed to reach her QF in 10.6%. Court lost her QF 16.7% . Graf played in 54 majors ( 12 less than Martina, 2 less than Evert) of which she won 22. She lost RD1x 3, Rd 2x1, Rd3 x3, Rd 4x 5 QF x 5. So Graf. . failed to reach her QF 22% and lost it 11.9 Graf's w/loss is 89.7%.

slam consistency stats : early rounds
Percentage of matches won (high to low): 1. Graf 89.7 2. Evert 89.2 3. Navratilova 86.2 * Court uncalculated
Failure to reach QF (low to high): 1. Evert 3.6 2. Court 10.6 3. Navratilova 21.2 4. Graf 22.0
Failure to win QF ( low to high) 1. Evert 3.7 2. Graf 11.9 3 Court 16.9 Navratilova 17.3

Connolly won 9 majors out of 11 played. She had two Rd 2 losses.
Lenglen won 8 of 9 played ( She withdrew in 2). Rd 2 loss x1
Wills won 19 of 23 played (withdrew in 1) lost 3 finals, 2 Rd loss x 1,

In all these stats of Court, Graf Evert and Navratilova, only on one occasion have I found Navratilova better than another player. She beats Graf on percentage of majors reached to QF 21.2 to 22. Graf suffers here statistically because Peter Graf had her play a higher number of majors at 13, 14, and 15 yrs old than anyone else did ( 9). Once she hits 16, she soars on consistency.

* Court W/L percentage hard to calculate. Not enough data on number of rds played in some majors.

 

[PDJ]

Lets see how much more inconsistent. All of this stats are about majors. Navratilova played in 66 majors (ten more than Evert) to acquire those same 18 majors and 2 less finals . Along the way she lost the 1st Rd x 5, 2nd Rd x 2 3rd Rd x 2, 4th RD x 5, QF x 9. That means she failed to even reach the QF 14 times while Evert failed to exactly twice. Those respective percentages are 21.2 % of Martina's majors and 3.6% of Evert's. Evert lost her QF twice compared to 9 times for Navratilova. That means Evert lost her QF 3.7% of the time While Martina lost hers 17.3 % and Evert's career win loss percentage in majors is 89.2%(299 wins to 36 losses)while Navratilova' s is 86. 2%. . Court won 24 majors in 47 tries (19 less than Martina). She lost rd x 1, rd 2 x 2, rd 3 x1, Rd 4 x1, and QF x 7. So Court failed to reach her QF in 10.6%. Court lost her QF 16.7% . Graf played in 54 majors ( 12 less than Martina, 2 less than Evert) of which she won 22. She lost RD1x 3, Rd 2x1, Rd3 x3, Rd 4x 5 QF x 5. So Graf. . failed to reach her QF 22% and lost it 11.9 Graf's w/loss is 89.7%.

slam consistency stats : early rounds
Percentage of matches won (high to low): 1. Graf 89.7 2. Evert 89.2 3. Navratilova 86.2 * Court uncalculated
Failure to reach QF (low to high): 1. Evert 3.6 2. Court 10.6 3. Navratilova 21.2 4. Graf 22.0
Failure to win QF ( low to high) 1. Evert 3.7 2. Graf 11.9 3 Court 16.9 Navratilova 17.3

Connolly won 9 majors out of 11 played. She had two Rd 2 losses.
Lenglen won 8 of 9 played ( She withdrew in 2). Rd 2 loss x1
Wills won 19 of 23 played (withdrew in 1) lost 3 finals, 2 Rd loss x 1,

In all these stats of Court, Graf Evert and Navratilova, only on one occasion have I found Navratilova better than another player. She beats Graf on percentage of majors reached to QF 21.2 to 22. Graf suffers here statistically because Peter Graf had her play a higher number of majors at 13, 14, and 15 yrs old than anyone else did ( 9). Once she hits 16, she soars on consistency.

* Court W/L percentage hard to calculate. Not enough data on number of rds played in some majors.

Thank you.
That's a great, informative post.
And if you factored in Serena Williams, l think she's lost around 20 times before QFs.
And, possibly her best stat - winning finals reached- is now taking a hit.

 

[junior74]

Navratilova is the most impressive tennis player ever!

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

and here you couldnt be more wrong. Evert in fact beat Court the first time they played when Evert was 15 and Court had just done the Grand Slam. Evert in fact beat Court 3 times before she even turned 18 and before Court turned 30. They played 8 times from 70-73 which was Court's prime than Evert's, and they split 4-4. They then played 5 times in Evert's prime and after Court's, and Evert won all 5.

Where do you get these numbers from. I believe you that they are correct but could not find it anywhere. In their official record it says 3-2 for Evert. Anyways odd H2H happens all the time. Do you consider Nadal greater than Federer or Courier greater than Agassi? And those guys played alongside in the same eras.

 

[BorgCash]

In addition to the Australian Open factor the problem Court has against Evert/Navratilova is how easily a young Evert was handling her. It is hard to think she is a better player prime to prime than Navratilova or Evert.

YOUNG Evert, you said it yourself