FrontHeadlock
Hall of Fame
Not sure why AussieDarcy's thread was nuked. Talk about having a jumpy trigger finger, yikes!
Anyway, I wanted to re-post what I wrote in that thread, in regards to why Rosewall isn't as highly regarded as Court, and the raw major count between Court and Serena.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth, didn't the women not have pro events then like the men? My understanding is that women's draws, AO notwithstanding, weren't as hollowed out as the men's pre-open era.
Having said that, here are a few important points:
1. Court CLEARLY is an all-time great, winning the Grand Slam in 1970. The reason Court's record is important is because it gets people to acknowledge that other factors matter as opposed to raw Major count. If you think raw Major count is all that matters, Court has to be #1. If you don't, then you rightly have to analyze a player's career holistically.
2. You can't both denigrate Court's draws at the AO, and then not acknowledge the fact that the AO was an afterthought even in much of the Open Era. It was skipped A LOT by players. Chris Evert played it FOUR times from 75-87, reaching the finals all 4 times and winning twice. Navratilova played it 10 times, as compared to 23 and 21 at W and USO. Even Steffi only played it 6/12 times from 85-96. That matters when comparing raw major count in the open era.
3. When you consider both points 1 and 2 above, it is not anywhere near clear cut that Serena is #1. In fact, when you consider raw numbers of years played, and overall accomplishments, Steffi's career really is a lot better than Serena's. And the lack of AO prestige, coupled with Evert and Navratilova being forced by bad rules to miss many French Opens in their primes, creates a situation that has to be acknowledged if you are being intellectually honest.
4. Finally people will also constantly bring up Seles' stabbing in regards to Graf. For starters, that's as much Graf's doing as players like Henin, Clijsters, Capriati, Hingis, etc retiring early were Serena's doing (yes those players weren't as good as Serena, but they hollowed out draws and left the women's tour VERY weak, kinda like Seles' absence). In addition, Seles missed time starting at the 1993 RG through 1995 W. Even if you give Seles the entire benefit of the doubt, that only impacts Graf for 4 majors, 93 and 95 RG, 93 US and 94 AO. We all know Seles wasn't winning Wimbledon. And that's very favorable to Seles, because their matches were exceptionally close at both the 92 RG and 93 AO. Additionally, it assumes that Seles would have kept her level up, which isn't clear at all, especially considering she reached the finals in 3 of her first 5 Majors back, and then deteriorated. It also assumes Graf doesn't, for example, win 94 W in an alternative universe, or play post 99 if she has fewer majors.
Anyway, I wanted to re-post what I wrote in that thread, in regards to why Rosewall isn't as highly regarded as Court, and the raw major count between Court and Serena.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For what it's worth, didn't the women not have pro events then like the men? My understanding is that women's draws, AO notwithstanding, weren't as hollowed out as the men's pre-open era.
Having said that, here are a few important points:
1. Court CLEARLY is an all-time great, winning the Grand Slam in 1970. The reason Court's record is important is because it gets people to acknowledge that other factors matter as opposed to raw Major count. If you think raw Major count is all that matters, Court has to be #1. If you don't, then you rightly have to analyze a player's career holistically.
2. You can't both denigrate Court's draws at the AO, and then not acknowledge the fact that the AO was an afterthought even in much of the Open Era. It was skipped A LOT by players. Chris Evert played it FOUR times from 75-87, reaching the finals all 4 times and winning twice. Navratilova played it 10 times, as compared to 23 and 21 at W and USO. Even Steffi only played it 6/12 times from 85-96. That matters when comparing raw major count in the open era.
3. When you consider both points 1 and 2 above, it is not anywhere near clear cut that Serena is #1. In fact, when you consider raw numbers of years played, and overall accomplishments, Steffi's career really is a lot better than Serena's. And the lack of AO prestige, coupled with Evert and Navratilova being forced by bad rules to miss many French Opens in their primes, creates a situation that has to be acknowledged if you are being intellectually honest.
4. Finally people will also constantly bring up Seles' stabbing in regards to Graf. For starters, that's as much Graf's doing as players like Henin, Clijsters, Capriati, Hingis, etc retiring early were Serena's doing (yes those players weren't as good as Serena, but they hollowed out draws and left the women's tour VERY weak, kinda like Seles' absence). In addition, Seles missed time starting at the 1993 RG through 1995 W. Even if you give Seles the entire benefit of the doubt, that only impacts Graf for 4 majors, 93 and 95 RG, 93 US and 94 AO. We all know Seles wasn't winning Wimbledon. And that's very favorable to Seles, because their matches were exceptionally close at both the 92 RG and 93 AO. Additionally, it assumes that Seles would have kept her level up, which isn't clear at all, especially considering she reached the finals in 3 of her first 5 Majors back, and then deteriorated. It also assumes Graf doesn't, for example, win 94 W in an alternative universe, or play post 99 if she has fewer majors.
