suwanee4712
Professional
Nah, that's something you have turned in to an art form. Which poster are you going to wish harm on today? Perhaps Gunter will give you a discount since you're almost as psychotic as he is.
Navratilova's losses in the 80ies
- Thread starter Condoleezza
- Start date
Nah, that's something you have turned in to an art form. Which poster are you going to wish harm on today? Perhaps Gunter will give you a discount since you're almost as psychotic as he is.
Condoleezza
Banned
Sabatini won 624 of 811 career matches (76.9 %), Mandlikova only 514 of 695 (only 74.0 %).
Although Sabatini played against Evert, Navratilova - and Graf, Seles, Sanchez. And Mandlikova only against Evert, Navratilova - and a lot of clowns.
Sabatini lost 10 (!!!) slam semis and 2 slam finals against the greatest player of all time, Steffi Graf.
Sabatini won two Masters Championships (1988 & 1994), Mandlikova none.
So despite the fact that Mandlikova won 4 slams and Sabatini only 1 we can conclude that Sabatini was the better and greater player.
Condi
suwanee4712
Professional
I think your butt must have swallowed your head...........
You want some facts, how about when it counts the most, at grand slams:
Sabatini's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:
vs. Graf - 1 (US Open)
vs. Navratilova - 0
vs. Evert - 0
vs. Seles - 0
Total: 1
Grand slam final appearances: 3 (US and Wimbledon only)
Grand slams won: 1 (US Open)
Mandlikova's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:
vs. Graf - 1 (French)
vs. Navratilova - 4 (US (2), Wimbledon, Australian)
vs. Navratilova in grand slam finals: 2-1, Mandlikova
vs. Evert - 3 (French, US Open, Wimbledon)
Total: 8
Grand slam final appearances: 8 (each slam at least once)
Grand slams won: 4 (won 3 of 4 slams on 3 different surfaces)
It's one thing to beat the top players at Amelia Island. It's quite another to do it in a slam. Mandlikova was a much greater threat and to more top players than Sabatini was.
4 slams > 1 slam ......that's stays true any day of the week, 365 days a year.
Series record: Mandlikova leads Sabatini, 5-2
Only a complete moron would think that Sabatini was the better player.
NEXT?
Last edited:
Condoleezza
Banned
So according to you
Darlene Hart > Venus Williams
Nancy Richey > Jana Novotna
Margaret Osborne-duPont > Martina Hingis
Riiiight ....
Condi
suwanee4712
Professional
So according to you
Darlene Hart > Venus Williams
Nancy Richey > Jana Novotna
Margaret Osborne-duPont > Martina Hingis
Riiiight ....
Condi
Woooowwwww, you picked players that played DECADES apart. Mandlikova and Sabatini overlapped one another.
But what about may comparison of top players beaten at grand slams, grand slam final appearances, and Hana's winning record vs. Martina in finals?
You don't have any way to spin that. You know you're wrong.......AGAIN.
I'm laughing at you..........
Condoleezza
Banned
Sabatini lost tons of slam semis against Graf. Had Graf not been there and had Navratilova dared to play FO and AO post-88 Sabby would have beaten Navi like a drum on those slow surfaces.
I have watched both players and I can say you - Mandlikova was no Sabatini!
To suggest that Hana would have been able to beat Graf ELEVEN times is hilarious!!
No wonder Sabatini still will be remembered fondly in 20 years from now while Mandlikova is almost forgotten even today ....
Condi
suwanee4712
Professional
Sabatini's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:
vs. Graf - 1 (US Open)
vs. Navratilova - 0
vs. Evert - 0
vs. Seles - 0
Total: 1
Grand slam final appearances: 3 (US and Wimbledon only)
Grand slams won: 1 (US Open)
Mandlikova's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:
vs. Graf - 1 (French)
vs. Navratilova - 4 (US (2), Wimbledon, Australian)
vs. Navratilova in grand slam finals: 2-1, Mandlikova
vs. Evert - 3 (French, US Open, Wimbledon)
Total: 8
Grand slam final appearances: 8 (each slam at least once)
Grand slams won: 4 (won 3 of 4 slams on 3 different surfaces)
Getting mad because you can't spin this? I saw them both too. But the records speak for themselves. You can't change that, and never will.
And, oh yes, Mandlikova is soooooooooo forgotten. If that's the case I wonder why she only had to wait the Hall of Fame's minimum of FIVE years past retirement to be inducted UNANIMOUSLY, while Gaby had to wait NINE years to be voted in?
Condoleezza
Banned
Ask people on the street in New York, Berlin, Tokyo or Bejing whether they have heard the name "Mandlikova" or "Sabatini".
Next question?
Condi
PS: What is this "HoF" thing some American always go ga-ga over?
suwanee4712
Professional
Oh, and according to you Gaby would've beaten Martina many times had Martina had the guts to play the French past 1988?
Take a BIG bite of this and swallow it: Hana NEVER needed Martina to play past age 30, past her prime, and on her worst surface for her to beat MN in a grand slam tournament. Hana beat her during her prime in the 1985 US Open final. And also beat her TWICE on Martina's best surface, grass.
Throw in the fact that Hana defeated Chris, the greatest clay court player and French Open player in the history of the game at the French in 1981, one of Chris' best years ever on the tour. You no longer have a leg to stand on. Frankly, you never did in comparing Hana to Gaby. You've lost again.
Take a BIG bite of this and swallow it: Hana NEVER needed Martina to play past age 30, past her prime, and on her worst surface for her to beat MN in a grand slam tournament. Hana beat her during her prime in the 1985 US Open final. And also beat her TWICE on Martina's best surface, grass.
Throw in the fact that Hana defeated Chris, the greatest clay court player and French Open player in the history of the game at the French in 1981, one of Chris' best years ever on the tour. You no longer have a leg to stand on. Frankly, you never did in comparing Hana to Gaby. You've lost again.
Unfortunately, it's not a popularity contest.
Andres
G.O.A.T.
Ask people on the street in New York wheter they have heard the name "Federer"
Next question?
Andy
suwanee4712
Professional
You guys take it easy on poor Condi. He's just learned a lesson in how to apply what he calls "brutal and cold hard facts" to a debate to defeat another poster's arguments. He can't think of a way to spin the huge numbers advantage in Mandlikova's favor, so he's chosen to go elsewhere.
So now when he calls Sabatini top quality competition in an effort to bolster Graf's claim of GOAT while calling Mandlikova a "clown," he'll have to live in fear that I'll bring those stats out on him again. I guess Martina and Chris had more competition than he thought after all.
This argument never had anything to do with Gaby or Hana, as I truly loved watching both play. It was all about him trying to make Steffi's competition look stronger than it really was - as usual.
So now when he calls Sabatini top quality competition in an effort to bolster Graf's claim of GOAT while calling Mandlikova a "clown," he'll have to live in fear that I'll bring those stats out on him again. I guess Martina and Chris had more competition than he thought after all.
This argument never had anything to do with Gaby or Hana, as I truly loved watching both play. It was all about him trying to make Steffi's competition look stronger than it really was - as usual.
Condoleezza
Banned
Ask them in Berlin, Tokyo and Bejing, too.
New Yorkers are interested only in US sports stars. I thought you knew that ...
Condi
Condoleezza
Banned
Career winning percentage:
Sabatini - 76.9 % (era with Navi, Evert, Graf, Seles, Sanchez)
Mandlikova - 74.0 % (era with Navi, Evert, Shriver, Hanika, Turnbull)
Next question?
Condi
suwanee4712
Professional
Sabatini's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:
vs. Graf - 1 (US Open)
vs. Navratilova - 0
vs. Evert - 0
vs. Seles - 0
Total: 1
Grand slam final appearances: 3 (US and Wimbledon only)
Grand slams won: 1 (US Open)
Mandlikova's wins over all time greats in grand slam events:
vs. Graf - 1 (French)
vs. Navratilova - 4 (US (2), Wimbledon, Australian)
vs. Navratilova in grand slam finals: 2-1, Mandlikova
vs. Evert - 3 (French, US Open, Wimbledon)
Total: 8
Grand slam final appearances: 8 (each slam at least once)
Grand slams won: 4 (won 3 of 4 slams on 3 different surfaces)
________________________
Nah, I'm good. Any other players you want to learn something about?
Well, if you are going to claim that Navrtilova and Evert overlap with Sabatini, then I'll claim the following as Hana's competition:
Billie Jean King
Martina Navratilova
Chris Evert
Tracy Austin
Evonne Goolagong
Steffi Graf
Gabriela Sabatini
Don't forget, King got to the semis of Wimbledon in 83. She was still a threat there. And this was AFTER Hana had won 2 slams.
And I'll include Graf and Sabatini, since Hana overlapped with them.
Hana was a far more dangerous player than Gabby could ever hope to be, and I LIKED Gabby.
As for career winning percentage, Sabatini had Graf as an all time great plus Sanchez Vicario and Seles as two very good players to contend with.
Hana had Evert AND Navratilova, 2 of the best players to ever pick up a racquet. Hana entered most of her Slams knowing that to win one, she had to defeat the two best players ever (at least to that point in time). Hana lost a lot of matches in tournament semis or finals to either Evert or Navratilova, and if she beat one in the semis, she had to contend with the other in the finals. That's a tall order. Gabby entered knowing she only had to be on fire once to defeat Graf and win. For a while, you can add Seles to that.
That's no contest. Who would you rather have to face: Graf, or Chris and Martina at their best? 2 beats 1 in my book.
Condoleezza
Banned
Martina Navratilova is without question one of the most talented players ever if not the most. The question comes down though to why did she not play much better in the Slams before 1982? She was thinner by 1978 and still thin enough in 1981 when she lost the US Open to Austin. At that point she had won two Wimbledons which is awesome but at that same point Evert a woman only two years older had won 3 Wimbleons, 4 French and 5 US Opens.
Martina most definitely dedicated herself to training, practicing, strategizing and intimidating the field. All that hard work counts for a whole lot of her success but one does have to wonder how can a woman who uses a midsize graphite against a standard woodie not have an advantage? It was within the rules so that is the end of the question. I raise it because Martina in her own way paved the road for players like we have today and I do not want to hear her complain about the raquets and style of play.
Martina should get extra credit for her run from 1982-1986 especially but after winning Wimbledon in 1978 and 1979 she should get demerits for her lack luster 1980 and 1981 seasons. Losing to Evert at Wimbledon and Mandlikova at NY and then losing to Hanika in Paris, Mandlikova at Wimbledon and Austin in NY is not becoming of the GOAT, is it. Add to it the dirty little secret that actually played the 1980 Aussie Open trying to pad her resume and still lost to Turnbull, tsk tsk. I love the Rabbit but she was no Martina. Grading should be like grading a student and getting a 25 on a quiz hurts your marks. Evert scored 90s all across her career in a way no other player did. She did not sparkle as brightly perhaps but she would most likely have won more French and Aussie Opens if she played them in the 1970s.
Martina most definitely dedicated herself to training, practicing, strategizing and intimidating the field. All that hard work counts for a whole lot of her success but one does have to wonder how can a woman who uses a midsize graphite against a standard woodie not have an advantage? It was within the rules so that is the end of the question. I raise it because Martina in her own way paved the road for players like we have today and I do not want to hear her complain about the raquets and style of play.
Martina should get extra credit for her run from 1982-1986 especially but after winning Wimbledon in 1978 and 1979 she should get demerits for her lack luster 1980 and 1981 seasons. Losing to Evert at Wimbledon and Mandlikova at NY and then losing to Hanika in Paris, Mandlikova at Wimbledon and Austin in NY is not becoming of the GOAT, is it. Add to it the dirty little secret that actually played the 1980 Aussie Open trying to pad her resume and still lost to Turnbull, tsk tsk. I love the Rabbit but she was no Martina. Grading should be like grading a student and getting a 25 on a quiz hurts your marks. Evert scored 90s all across her career in a way no other player did. She did not sparkle as brightly perhaps but she would most likely have won more French and Aussie Opens if she played them in the 1970s.
And that, of course, speaks VOLUMES.
federerfanatic
Banned
I dont understand why this Gaby-Hana thing is even a debate. Why is it even neccessary to psycho-analyze the competition and their games. Hana won 4 slams, and Gaby won 1. It is very simple. A player is never a better player then somebody with 4 times more slams then they have, especialy both playing in the open era, never. It isnt even really a debate.
It would be like trying to argue 2-time slam winner Nancy Richey is greater then 8-time slam winner Serena Williams, since you feel her competition was tougher, or her game was better, or whatever else. It would be nonsense.
It would be like trying to argue 2-time slam winner Nancy Richey is greater then 8-time slam winner Serena Williams, since you feel her competition was tougher, or her game was better, or whatever else. It would be nonsense.
Last edited:
Condi... you think us New Yorkers are as narrow-minded as you?
Or maybe you forget that New York is a huge melting-pot of different nationalities, cultures, religious backgrounds, etc .........
Last edited:
CEvertFan
Hall of Fame
tennus
Rookie
LOL ! Sabatini will be remembered fondly in 20 years, more for how she looked than her tennis ability !
Fit Mandlikova = destruction for Sabatini !
CEvertFan
Hall of Fame
LOL ! Sabatini will be remembered fondly in 20 years, more for how she looked than her tennis ability !
The Mandlikova/Sabatini rivalry stands 5-2 in Hana's favor. Plus Hana has 4 slams to Gaby's 1. Four of Hana's five wins over Gaby are also in straight sets.
slack hack
Rookie
No, I wasn't implying Gaby was better. I was responding to the assertion that she was not a quality opponent.
suwanee4712
Professional
You have to remember that the late Condi was involved and the kind of context that he brings to any discussion. Which is to elevate players like Sanchez, Sabatini, and Novotna over players like Evert (at least on grass in comparison to Sanchez) and Mandlikova for the sake of making Graf's mid 90's record look better than it actually was.
I don't think anyone ever asserted that Gaby wasn't a quality opponent. She most certainly was. But she wasn't quite in the same category as Mandlikova (as far as beating the top 3 at grand slams and winning those tournaments at least). And, of course, she nor Sanchez, nor Novotna were anywhere near Evert's equal regardless of surface.
The only way to deal with Condi is to get down on his level. Now that he's gone, the board is a much nicer, more civil, and more realistic place. Not to mention its much easier to praise all of the greats including the Mandlikovas and Sabatinis without being broadsided by his endless comparisons to Steffi and his inflated idea of her opponents' strength post-Seles stabbing.
federerfanatic
Banned
Here is an article that I think does an excellent job analyzing Sabatini's career, written in tennis magazine by John Feinstein soon after her announced retirement. A bit harsh in context, a bit mournful in nature, but still quite truthful.
SABATINI WAS ALMOST A CHAMPION
Sabatini will be remembered more for what might have been than for what was.
When athletes retire, it's only natural that those who have written about them make some attempt to put their careers into perspective. Years and years of work often are boiled down to a single sentence that describes what they became-at least in the minds of the public.
John McEnroe was the tormented genius.
Chris Evert was grace and grit.
Jimmy Connors was the ultimate battler.
Martina Navratilova was power and precision.
Ivan Lendl was the self-created champion.
What then, do we say about Gabriela Sabatini, who retired from the tour after an 11-year pro career in order to, as she put it, "pursue the development of other activities"? If we are honest, we say this: She was beautiful.
That may be considered wide and long of today's politically correct boundaries, but the fact is that Sabatini will be remembered more for her beauty than anything else.
She was a very good player, but certainly not a great player. She won one Grand Slam title, considerably fewer than Evert, Navratilova or Steffi Graf and also fewer than Monica Seles, Hana Mandlikova and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario.
And yet, only Evert was in her class when it came to endorsements and off-court ventures. Even Evert never had a flower or perfume named for her, as did Sabatini. During the last few years of her career, Sabatini was famous for being famous. Her ranking dropped steadily, and she ceased being a factor in Grand Slam events - her last final was at Wimbledon in 1991 - and she won a grand total of two out of her twenty-seven career titles during the last four years of her career.
Nonetheless, Sabatini remained a major draw, fans pouring out to see her and cheer her. It was not as if she was a great champion nearing the end like Stefan Edberg during this past year or Evert on her farewell tour seven years ago. She was a glamorous player, though, and that in many ways, is the classic proof that, in tennis, image is everything.
The person who uttered those immortal words was Andre Agassi, who, like Sabatini, became rich and famous before he ever came close to winning a major title. Agassi benefited from the fact he came along at a time when tennis was starved for a new American star, but even after Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, and Michael Chang won majors before Agassi, Agassi remained the most marketable because the corporations backing him somehow convinced people that he had
"personality".
No one ever claimed that Sabatini was a "personality." She was always shy and quiet, a person with a reputation for being sweet and kind, which often is considered a flaw in a competitive athlete. Clearly, she was no killer, not the way Graf and Seles are or Navratilova and Evert were. She also had an Achilles' heel that haunted her throughout her career: a painfully weak serve that made her vurnerable to breaks at any time against anyone. Never was that more evident than in the 91 Wimbledon final, when she served for the match in the third set and Graf broke her with ease.
Sabatini was also the victim of that dread tennis disease - expectations. It is worth remembering that when she and Graf first arrived on the scene as teenagers, the tennis world was evenly divided on the issue of which of them was to become the next great champion. At the very least, they were expected to become the Evert-Navratilova of their era, two great champions who would play in a bucketful of Grand Slam finals.
In fact, it was Sabatini who reached a Slam semi first, becoming the youngest French Open semifinalist in history in 1985, less than a month after turning 15. But 11 years later, she and Graf had met in only three major finals - the only three Sabatini ever reached - and Sabatini had won just the 1990 U.S Open. Graf is now at 28 finals; 21 titles - and counting.
Off the court, though, Sabatini was as dominant as Graf was on the court. Although her parents and brother often traveled with her, they were never involved in any of the kind of embarassing incidents that have hounded Graf's father. Sabatini's reputation was never tainted by any sort of scandal and she was always well liked by other tour players and treated kindly by the media. From all reports, she conducted herself with grace and class at all times.
Sabatini made millions and millions of dollars and became the poster child for Jimmy Connor's thesis on why tennis seemed to produce fewer and fewer true champions in the '80s and '90s.
"When I first started playing, the only way to really make money, big money, in tennis was to win championships - major championships," Connors once told me. "You had to win Wimbledon, the U.S Open a couple of times before you really cashed in big time. Nowadays, if some kid makes it to the quarterfinals someplace, he's a millionaire before the tournament's over.
"The really great champions don't care about the money, but most players do. When they get rich they lose enough of their drive that they can't take it to the next level."
Maybe Sabatini just didn't have as much talent as Graf or Seles. Or maybe she just wasn't as driven. Maybe she never really saw the need to work on her serve or try to become more consistent as an attacking player. Through most of her career, she still won often and she was always competitive against the very best players. She just wasn't good enough to beat them when it mattered most. By contrast, Evert who had already made millons and won more than a dozen majors, completely rebuilt her serve and her body in the mid-1980s so that she could compete with Navratilova after her great rival had surpassed and dominated her.
That's why Sabatini never will be mentioned in the same sentence with the very best players. She will not be remembered for great matches (other than a couple of horrifying collapses near the end) or for being a part of a great rivalry. Her legacy will be one of grace and glamour.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Our memories of her certainly will be fond ones. But Sabatini also will be remembered as someone whose career, strictly in tennis terms, is best described by one word: almost.
She was almost a champion. But not quite.
SABATINI WAS ALMOST A CHAMPION
Sabatini will be remembered more for what might have been than for what was.
When athletes retire, it's only natural that those who have written about them make some attempt to put their careers into perspective. Years and years of work often are boiled down to a single sentence that describes what they became-at least in the minds of the public.
John McEnroe was the tormented genius.
Chris Evert was grace and grit.
Jimmy Connors was the ultimate battler.
Martina Navratilova was power and precision.
Ivan Lendl was the self-created champion.
What then, do we say about Gabriela Sabatini, who retired from the tour after an 11-year pro career in order to, as she put it, "pursue the development of other activities"? If we are honest, we say this: She was beautiful.
That may be considered wide and long of today's politically correct boundaries, but the fact is that Sabatini will be remembered more for her beauty than anything else.
She was a very good player, but certainly not a great player. She won one Grand Slam title, considerably fewer than Evert, Navratilova or Steffi Graf and also fewer than Monica Seles, Hana Mandlikova and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario.
And yet, only Evert was in her class when it came to endorsements and off-court ventures. Even Evert never had a flower or perfume named for her, as did Sabatini. During the last few years of her career, Sabatini was famous for being famous. Her ranking dropped steadily, and she ceased being a factor in Grand Slam events - her last final was at Wimbledon in 1991 - and she won a grand total of two out of her twenty-seven career titles during the last four years of her career.
Nonetheless, Sabatini remained a major draw, fans pouring out to see her and cheer her. It was not as if she was a great champion nearing the end like Stefan Edberg during this past year or Evert on her farewell tour seven years ago. She was a glamorous player, though, and that in many ways, is the classic proof that, in tennis, image is everything.
The person who uttered those immortal words was Andre Agassi, who, like Sabatini, became rich and famous before he ever came close to winning a major title. Agassi benefited from the fact he came along at a time when tennis was starved for a new American star, but even after Pete Sampras, Jim Courier, and Michael Chang won majors before Agassi, Agassi remained the most marketable because the corporations backing him somehow convinced people that he had
"personality".
No one ever claimed that Sabatini was a "personality." She was always shy and quiet, a person with a reputation for being sweet and kind, which often is considered a flaw in a competitive athlete. Clearly, she was no killer, not the way Graf and Seles are or Navratilova and Evert were. She also had an Achilles' heel that haunted her throughout her career: a painfully weak serve that made her vurnerable to breaks at any time against anyone. Never was that more evident than in the 91 Wimbledon final, when she served for the match in the third set and Graf broke her with ease.
Sabatini was also the victim of that dread tennis disease - expectations. It is worth remembering that when she and Graf first arrived on the scene as teenagers, the tennis world was evenly divided on the issue of which of them was to become the next great champion. At the very least, they were expected to become the Evert-Navratilova of their era, two great champions who would play in a bucketful of Grand Slam finals.
In fact, it was Sabatini who reached a Slam semi first, becoming the youngest French Open semifinalist in history in 1985, less than a month after turning 15. But 11 years later, she and Graf had met in only three major finals - the only three Sabatini ever reached - and Sabatini had won just the 1990 U.S Open. Graf is now at 28 finals; 21 titles - and counting.
Off the court, though, Sabatini was as dominant as Graf was on the court. Although her parents and brother often traveled with her, they were never involved in any of the kind of embarassing incidents that have hounded Graf's father. Sabatini's reputation was never tainted by any sort of scandal and she was always well liked by other tour players and treated kindly by the media. From all reports, she conducted herself with grace and class at all times.
Sabatini made millions and millions of dollars and became the poster child for Jimmy Connor's thesis on why tennis seemed to produce fewer and fewer true champions in the '80s and '90s.
"When I first started playing, the only way to really make money, big money, in tennis was to win championships - major championships," Connors once told me. "You had to win Wimbledon, the U.S Open a couple of times before you really cashed in big time. Nowadays, if some kid makes it to the quarterfinals someplace, he's a millionaire before the tournament's over.
"The really great champions don't care about the money, but most players do. When they get rich they lose enough of their drive that they can't take it to the next level."
Maybe Sabatini just didn't have as much talent as Graf or Seles. Or maybe she just wasn't as driven. Maybe she never really saw the need to work on her serve or try to become more consistent as an attacking player. Through most of her career, she still won often and she was always competitive against the very best players. She just wasn't good enough to beat them when it mattered most. By contrast, Evert who had already made millons and won more than a dozen majors, completely rebuilt her serve and her body in the mid-1980s so that she could compete with Navratilova after her great rival had surpassed and dominated her.
That's why Sabatini never will be mentioned in the same sentence with the very best players. She will not be remembered for great matches (other than a couple of horrifying collapses near the end) or for being a part of a great rivalry. Her legacy will be one of grace and glamour.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Our memories of her certainly will be fond ones. But Sabatini also will be remembered as someone whose career, strictly in tennis terms, is best described by one word: almost.
She was almost a champion. But not quite.
Last edited:
navratilovafan
Banned
Navratilova in her prime hardly ever lost. She was unbelievable. Even Chris could hardly ever stop her. None of the women today could hold her jockstrap. She is the best.
CEvertFan
Hall of Fame
Martina, contrary to popular belief, didn't wear a jock strap. You might want to change that to sports bra instead because it's an insult to a great champion.
navratilovafan
Banned
My most sincere apologies.
You are right, make that a sports bra. However I was saying that as a figure of speech saying, not literaly.In any case none of the women today can hold the sports bras of Chris or Martina. The Williams sisters are the only ones who have the talent to do so, except they dont want to. The rest of the girls today are a bunch of wannabees. The mens field is even worse. I miss the old days so bad.
WRONG! There are plenty of reasons for debate.
pierceforehands
Professional
LOL non debateable Navratilova is #1? Almost no expert and the vast minority of fans even has Navratilova at #1 these days. All experts and all major tennis publications today have Serena and Graf at #1 and #2, in one order or the other, with Navratilova ranging anywhere from 3rd to 6th it seems. And any polls participated on by millions of voters again has Graf and Serena with a huge gulf on everyone else, then Navratilova fighting for the 3rd most votes with several others. Of course you can disagree, and have Navratilova as your GOAT, but funny to say it is non debateable when there are like only 5% of people who watch tennis, or about 5% of experts or historians who are still alive if you prefer to only consider "important" views, who even think Navratilova is the GOAT anymore.
And truthfully in major achievements Court has her beat everywhere too. She even has her beat in combined singles + doubles slams, singles tournament titles (199 to 167), and basically everything except Wimbledon. The only reason many have Navratilova even above Court is she is more popular if we are being honest.
Similar threads
