So who was right in solving for the same Wimbledon dilemna , Chris or Ivan?

[BTURNER]

We watched them both trying to figure out how much to alter their basic baseline game to adapt it to that fast grass and the litany of great grass courters they were forced to face year after year after year from 1883 to the end of their careers. Chris stubbornly refused to become a S/ver, or 'chip and charger to beat Martina. Other than the expected efforts to improve her slice serve and volley/ half volley, all I really noticed between RG and Wimbledon was she put a lot of effort into her slice approach shots, most dramatically improving her two handed slice . Lendl famously got Tony Roche and retooled his game to win Wimbledon, and decided if you can't beat the S/V brigade, its best to join them in the net charging. he worked on his chip return, his slice approach, and turning that big serve and his rather sturdy predictable volley into a potent and versatile super duo. Evert clearly has the better 'record' Its not quite that easy because the size of their problems were different.

Evert had three Wimbledons under her belt and must have been considered either the second or third best grass court player for most of her remaining years. While there were threats to her in Hana, or Helena, or Shriver, she could assume probably only one really tough match before she got to that inpenetrable Martina wall. That single player was the barrier. She's not going to change her entire game for just the final! Would trying to serve/volley even some of the time to victory, turn Chris into a 4 time champion or would she lose in the fourth round, then the semis, then the QF, and then Rd 2? I think there is aways a cost to being the player in a match who does not know exactly what tactics they are going to employ . Having to always ask the question 'do I come in this time?' means you are constantly of two minds all through your match. The player with the question to answer point after point has extra weight. Evert avoids that by simply putting the idea of charging on second serves, or following her own foreward completely out of her mind. Its stubborn, yes, but its also a very clear vision.

Lendl was rarely considered the second or third best grass courter. There was nobody in the draw he could not beat if he was at his best and they were not, but a lot more players in the draw that could beat him . He was under constant threat with his baseline game with 2nd and 3rd round losses already recorded. For him there was more to lose by sticking with had not worked than by retooling and revamping his basic style. So he commits to winning or losing as a S/ver. And through 1990, it pays real dividents with 7 semifinals in an 8 year span, and two finals but it was just too much to win three or even four dangerous matches.

Could Evert had won another wimbledon beating Martina by adding a s/v option or chipping and charging? Could Lendl have one his first W by putting that question out of his mind, and playing his own baseline game? Maybe both made the best out of a bad situation, and got the best record they could realistically expect.

 

[jrepac]

Evert played her game, consistently. Perhaps she got a little more adventurous in the mid to late 80's with her net forays. She typically lost to the same player over and over. She was never going to serve and volley, but I do think she took more chances later on. And she played MN very close in 85, 87 and 88

Ivan changed his game just for W. We've spoken about it many times. I was never fully sold on it. When was he ever the best grass courter in the world? 1990 maybe? Every other year he lost to guys who were better on it than he was...Mac, Connors, Becker, Cash, Edberg...a murderer's row of guys who were excellent grass court players. It was tough for him in that his 'regular' non-S&V game wasn't great for grass to begin with, so he then adopted a style he was good at, but maybe not great at.

So, of the two? I think Evert had the far better results by staying with her strengths.

 

[sandy mayer]

Evert didn't have a strong serve at all. It was the weakest part of her game. It made no sense becoming a serve volley player. She was better off as a baseliner. Lendl had a very good serve, so he was more likely than Evert to be able to play serve volley effectively. Every year Lendl played Wimbledon as a contender (let's say 83-90) a serve volleyer won the men's Wimbledon. That was not the case with the women. Look at Graf.

 

[BTURNER]

Evert didn't have a strong serve at all. It was the weakest part of her game. It made no sense becoming a serve volley player. She was better off as a baseliner. Lendl had a very good serve, so he was more likely than Evert to be able to play serve volley effectively. Every year Lendl played Wimbledon as a contender (let's say 83-90) a serve volleyer won the men's Wimbledon. That was not the case with the women. Look at Graf.

Good points. On the other hand, Evert was far more comfortable in the role of S/V than you might think. The woman played a a lot more doubles than Ivan did, and she followed every single serve I have ever seen her hit into the net and followed most those returns to the net as a doubles player and won no less than 32 doubles titles in addition to 3 slam titles as half of a team. thats not counting all those times she reached semifinals or finals of a tournament in doubles. While her famous return was probably as much of an asset in her success, as her serve, her serve was good enough for the job at hand. Its not like it was foreign territory to move forward rather than backward. She did it in three hours later or earlier on the same days she was playing her fourth round singles match. She could easily have incorporated the tactics into her game much as Connors did without that strong a serve. Heck Chris and Jimmy actually won the world Mixed Doubles title and reached the finals in 1983 and 1984 as a team despite their weak serves! That was fun to watch with John and Patty watching on!.

Evert is charging in after her serve its working fine. She's not getting her 'weak' serve broken.

 

[jrepac]

Y'know, I had not even considered her dubs game...which wasn't bad at all!

 

[WCT]

It's all well and good to talk about Evert s/v in doubles. Back then everyone did that. The reality is she pretty much did it in singles which could be said for a lot of women.
Depending on how well his country played Davis Cup, he might play a little doubles.

A woman could stay back a lot and win at Wimbledon. And it's not like Evert never came in but the women had more of a chance staying back. Lendl was not going to win coming in as much as he did on other surfaces.

For me, the argument was should he have gone s/v every single serve. Borg didn't , it was almost all 1st serve. He had to come in off the ground as well. He wasn't going to win mostly staying back. A women had a far better chance at that. Obviously, Connors also won in 74 and 82 without doing the extreme shift that Lendl tried. He tried textbook grass court tennis.

Lendl was on a podcast a couple months ago. Tennis worthy. He was asked if he regretted his decision to play. He said no, that he was not a good enough mover on grass to stay back. That the erratic bounces were sometimes a problem on his backhand. He specifically said it was talked about, considered and it was decided that this was the best way for him to play on grass.

I think Evert did change when Martina flew past her. Got in better condition and did come in a bit more. I've heard say that she thinks that was her peak as a player. When she came back and started challenging and beating Martina again.

I just don't think the 2 situations are apples to apples. The men vs women difference makes it that way.

 

[jrepac]

It's all well and good to talk about Evert s/v in doubles. Back then everyone did that. The reality is she pretty much did it in singles which could be said for a lot of women.
Depending on how well his country played Davis Cup, he might play a little doubles.

A woman could stay back a lot and win at Wimbledon. And it's not like Evert never came in but the women had more of a chance staying back. Lendl was not going to win coming in as much as he did on other surfaces.

For me, the argument was should he have gone s/v every single serve. Borg didn't , it was almost all 1st serve. He had to come in off the ground as well. He wasn't going to win mostly staying back. A women had a far better chance at that. Obviously, Connors also won in 74 and 82 without doing the extreme shift that Lendl tried. He tried textbook grass court tennis.

Lendl was on a podcast a couple months ago. Tennis worthy. He was asked if he regretted his decision to play. He said no, that he was not a good enough mover on grass to stay back. That the erratic bounces were sometimes a problem on his backhand. He specifically said it was talked about, considered and it was decided that this was the best way for him to play on grass.

I think Evert did change when Martina flew past her. Got in better condition and did come in a bit more. I've heard say that she thinks that was her peak as a player. When she came back and started challenging and beating Martina again.

I just don't think the 2 situations are apples to apples. The men vs women difference makes it that way.

Chris played some terrific tennis in '85 and '86. Martina didn't roll over her as easily any longer. Their '88 AO semi was also a good example of her enhanced game.

 

[Gizo]

It's all well and good to talk about Evert s/v in doubles. Back then everyone did that. The reality is she pretty much did it in singles which could be said for a lot of women.
Depending on how well his country played Davis Cup, he might play a little doubles.

A woman could stay back a lot and win at Wimbledon. And it's not like Evert never came in but the women had more of a chance staying back. Lendl was not going to win coming in as much as he did on other surfaces.

For me, the argument was should he have gone s/v every single serve. Borg didn't , it was almost all 1st serve. He had to come in off the ground as well. He wasn't going to win mostly staying back. A women had a far better chance at that. Obviously, Connors also won in 74 and 82 without doing the extreme shift that Lendl tried. He tried textbook grass court tennis.

Lendl was on a podcast a couple months ago. Tennis worthy. He was asked if he regretted his decision to play. He said no, that he was not a good enough mover on grass to stay back. That the erratic bounces were sometimes a problem on his backhand. He specifically said it was talked about, considered and it was decided that this was the best way for him to play on grass.

I think Evert did change when Martina flew past her. Got in better condition and did come in a bit more. I've heard say that she thinks that was her peak as a player. When she came back and started challenging and beating Martina again.

I just don't think the 2 situations are apples to apples. The men vs women difference makes it that way.

Yes if Lendl had played as a pure baseliner at Wimbledon, I strongly doubt he would have reached so many finals and semi-finals there. His record there probably wouldn't have been that much better than Wilander's. He struggled with the bad bounces and lack of firm footing on the old school grass, and the long backswing on his groundstrokes would have exposed had he predominantly stayed back. And his backhand return also hindered him on the surface. He looked rushed on his groundstrokes on grass (struggling especially to really launch into his backhand). Of course Agassi winning Wimbledon from the baseline in the 90s was irrelevant to Lendl, as Agassi had a shorter backswing and groundstrokes and footing that were far more suited to the surface, especially on the backhand side.

So he was 100% correct to serve-volley on his 1st serves, and he generally did that very well. Predominantly staying back on 1st serves would have been madness IMO.

As you said the real question is whether he should have stayed back more on his 2nd serves, like Borg did, and only chosen to chip and charge and come in at the right moments, maybe after hitting a powerful forehand approach shot. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I think he should definitely have mixed it up a lot more and stayed back more on 2nd serves, as he often forced himself to hit low, awkward volleys, especially on his backhand side, after his opponents had chipped the ball back to him. During the mid to late 80s, notably 1986 and 1987, he made the most extreme transformation in playing styles from RG to Wimbledon that I've ever seen from any player, with him playing as defensive grinder in RG engaging in a series of long, seemingly never-ending rallies, and then serve-volleying behind every 1st and 2nd serve at Wimbledon. It was like 2 completely different players.

Of course back then the top female players like Evert had the luxury of only really needing to worry about their main rivals, as they knew that they could effortlessly coast through to the quarter-finals or even semi-finals, which was then when their tournament really started (often women's finals and semi-finals were much more enjoyable to watch than the equivalents on the men's side). The top male players like Lendl didn't have that luxury though, as they had to contend with and worry about a host of dangerous lower ranked / unseeded opponents in the early to middle rounds, before even setting up appointments against their main rivals. That of course would impact their planning, training and strategies. Lendl couldn't afford to obssess about McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg etc., as he had to worry about getting past, Reneberg, Mayotte, Leconte, Davis etc., first.

 

[BTURNER]

It's all well and good to talk about Evert s/v in doubles. Back then everyone did that. The reality is she pretty much did it in singles which could be said for a lot of women.
Depending on how well his country played Davis Cup, he might play a little doubles.

A woman could stay back a lot and win at Wimbledon. And it's not like Evert never came in but the women had more of a chance staying back. Lendl was not going to win coming in as much as he did on other surfaces.

For me, the argument was should he have gone s/v every single serve. Borg didn't , it was almost all 1st serve. He had to come in off the ground as well. He wasn't going to win mostly staying back. A women had a far better chance at that. Obviously, Connors also won in 74 and 82 without doing the extreme shift that Lendl tried. He tried textbook grass court tennis.

Lendl was on a podcast a couple months ago. Tennis worthy. He was asked if he regretted his decision to play. He said no, that he was not a good enough mover on grass to stay back. That the erratic bounces were sometimes a problem on his backhand. He specifically said it was talked about, considered and it was decided that this was the best way for him to play on grass.

I think Evert did change when Martina flew past her. Got in better condition and did come in a bit more. I've heard say that she thinks that was her peak as a player. When she came back and started challenging and beating Martina again.

I just don't think the 2 situations are apples to apples. The men vs women difference makes it that way.

S/ver women totally dominated Wimbledon for decades. The last woman before Evert to win wimbledon with a baseline game was Mo Connolly in the mid fifties. The next one would be Graf in 1988. No baseliner was beating Louise Brough or Althea Gibson or Darlene Hard or Bueno or Court or King, or Wade, or Goolagong in a final. Evert has been very clear her great regret was not winning more Wimbledons. Since 1978, Evert played Martina at Wimbledon 8 times from 1978-1988. Evert only won once in 1980. She lost in 78,79, 82,84,85,87,and 88. On every occasion except in '79, Evert pushed her to three sets . These were close matches. Strategically, the only tactics she did NOT employ was either to come in on her own serve occasionally or consistently, or attack Martina's second serve and charge in occasionally or consistently. I told you above thread the advantage Evert gained from never doing either. She knows exactly what she is doing every single time she hits the serve. But then so do they !

The advantage in her occasionally S/Volleying on grass is to force her opponents to worry more about their returns of her serve. All Martina ever had to do, float that damn return near the baseline. Martina ( or Hana or or any one else) did not have to direct it all l, or worry about how high the return was over the net because Evert was never going to volley it away regardless. Evert's missing out on some cheap points on serve if she charges in and volley's that floater, or if she forces Martina to direct that return more and makes errors. Was it a mistake to take those options off the table, considering she kept having the same result year after year by not doing so.

 

[sandy mayer]

Good points. On the other hand, Evert was far more comfortable in the role of S/V than you might think. The woman played a a lot more doubles than Ivan did, and she followed every single serve I have ever seen her hit into the net and followed most those returns to the net as a doubles player and won no less than 32 doubles titles in addition to 3 slam titles as half of a team. thats not counting all those times she reached semifinals or finals of a tournament in doubles. While her famous return was probably as much of an asset in her success, as her serve, her serve was good enough for the job at hand. Its not like it was foreign territory to move forward rather than backward. She did it in three hours later or earlier on the same days she was playing her fourth round singles match. She could easily have incorporated the tactics into her game much as Connors did without that strong a serve. Heck Chris and Jimmy actually won the world Mixed Doubles title and reached the finals in 1983 and 1984 as a team despite their weak serves! That was fun to watch with John and Patty watching on!.

Evert is charging in after her serve its working fine. She's not getting her 'weak' serve broken.

Doubles is different. It's much harder to pass two people at the net. You are right that Evert was comfortable at the net. She was a good volleyer, but I don't think her serve was good enough to serve volley consistently in singles. She isn't stupid, she knew this full well.

 

[King_olaf_the_hairy]

I think they both made the right choices.


Evert
Following Martina's maiden Wimbledon in 1978, Chris was 62-4 (93.9%) versus everyone not called Navratilova, losing only to Graf, Mandlikova, Goolagong, and Jordan until 1989. Martina was the only one causing her problems. But would approaching the net more often really have turned around her SW19 head-to-head with the final boss of women's serve-volleying? I can't see it.

Lendl
Looking over Ivan's Wimbledon resumé again, I honestly think his performances are right up there. It's as @jrepac (and previously @Pheasant) have said; his opposition at the time was a "murderer's row" of grass greats. From 1983 to '90 he was 40-8 (83.3%) losing only to Connors, McEnroe, Becker (x3), Edberg, Leconte, and Cash. Had wins over Edberg, Leconte, Mayotte (x2), young Cash, and old Tanner. Two successive titles at Queens Club as well. Sure, he was prone to losing sets to weaker opposition in a way that his rivals didn't, but he kept coming through in the end; 9-0 in first week matches that went the distance during the aforementioned period.

The game was moving forward in the mid-80s as well, so it wasn't enough for Lendl to merely maintain his level; he had to improve as the post-wood power game took hold. I highly doubt that he'd have done as well as he actually did without hiring Roche and becoming more of a serve-volleyer for the grass season. Had he taken a stay-back-on-the-baseline approach I think he'd have ended up with a Wimbledon record more akin to Wilander's.

 

[BTURNER]

Doubles is different. It's much harder to pass two people at the net. You are right that Evert was comfortable at the net. She was a good volleyer, but I don't think her serve was good enough to serve volley consistently in singles. She isn't stupid, she knew this full well.

I agree with you Sandy not consistently. It can't be often enough that her opponent gets that return grooved. Her goal is not to beat a lot of people and win Wimbledon, like Ivan's is. She already been doing that since 1974. She is already reaching the semifinals and finals more consistently for more years than anyone else on the planet earth. She does not want to risk losing that advantage with a grand experiment. She has to beat one more female than she already is beating. She needs to do something different, something more because she is meeting the definition of insanity every July. Following her first serve into the net, and knocking off floater returns a once or twice a game complicates Martina's return game strategy because she has to do more than drop her return safely within 3 feet of the baseline.

Martina disliked playing fellow s/volleyers. She had a good return of serve, not a great one, good passing shots, not great ones ( but she was possibly the fastest woman in the game for decade w/ incredible defensive skills). Everytime Evert gets to the net, is one less time that Martina gets to do it to her. .

 

[sandy mayer]

I agree with you, she was the second best player on grass in the world most of the time Martina was dominating. The key was to beat Martina. My memory is hazy. Did she go to net more against her at Wimbledon or did she play her normal game?

 

[BTURNER]

I agree with you, she was the second best player on grass in the world most of the time Martina was dominating. The key was to beat Martina. My memory is hazy. Did she go to net more against her at Wimbledon or did she play her normal game?

Its hard to measure but I doubt she had the same number of opportunities as she did with others. Martina was always there first. Her problem was Martina's ground game seemed twice as effective on grass. Martina's big forehand was more powerful, her biting slice stayed lower, and Martina was so agressive from the first stroke foreward that Evert did not have enough time to structure the point the way she did on clay or hard courts. Chris was great at controlling rallies and drawing errors but Martina was so damn fast covering that baseline that Chris needed to hit for the sidelines constantly just to rob Martina of enough time to set up that forehand. Then Chris was always too rushed and forced to make these heroic low percentage passes. She made 10, 20, 40 great heroic shots for the hightlight tapes, but even even the greatest passing shot artist of all time, runs out them against the greatest volleyer of all time in the course of three sets on fast grass.

Evert got her only cheap points from forcing Martina to hit perfect second serves, approach shots or impossible half volleys all match long but it wasn't enough to hold her back on Evert's service games. I do believe keeping Martina guessing on her return of serve game, forcing Martina to keep that return lower and worry about giving Evert an easy volley like Connors did, would have made Evert's service games less of a constant struggle with break points to constantly fight off.

 

[WCT]

Yes if Lendl had played as a pure baseliner at Wimbledon, I strongly doubt he would have reached so many finals and semi-finals there. His record there probably wouldn't have been that much better than Wilander's. He struggled with the bad bounces and lack of firm footing on the old school grass, and the long backswing on his groundstrokes would have exposed had he predominantly stayed back. And his backhand return also hindered him on the surface. He looked rushed on his groundstrokes on grass (struggling especially to really launch into his backhand). Of course Agassi winning Wimbledon from the baseline in the 90s was irrelevant to Lendl, as Agassi had a shorter backswing and groundstrokes and footing that were far more suited to the surface, especially on the backhand side.

So he was 100% correct to serve-volley on his 1st serves, and he generally did that very well. Predominantly staying back on 1st serves would have been madness IMO.

As you said the real question is whether he should have stayed back more on his 2nd serves, like Borg did, and only chosen to chip and charge and come in at the right moments, maybe after hitting a powerful forehand approach shot. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I think he should definitely have mixed it up a lot more and stayed back more on 2nd serves, as he often forced himself to hit low, awkward volleys, especially on his backhand side, after his opponents had chipped the ball back to him. During the mid to late 80s, notably 1986 and 1987, he made the most extreme transformation in playing styles from RG to Wimbledon that I've ever seen from any player, with him playing as defensive grinder in RG engaging in a series of long, seemingly never-ending rallies, and then serve-volleying behind every 1st and 2nd serve at Wimbledon. It was like 2 completely different players.

Of course back then the top female players like Evert had the luxury of only really needing to worry about their main rivals, as they knew that they could effortlessly coast through to the quarter-finals or even semi-finals, which was then when their tournament really started (often women's finals and semi-finals were much more enjoyable to watch than the equivalents on the men's side). The top male players like Lendl didn't have that luxury though, as they had to contend with and worry about a host of dangerous lower ranked / unseeded opponents in the early to middle rounds, before even setting up appointments against their main rivals. That of course would impact their planning, training and strategies. Lendl couldn't afford to obssess about McEnroe, Connors, Becker, Edberg etc., as he had to worry about getting past, Reneberg, Mayotte, Leconte, Davis etc., first.

I agree with you about the 2nd serve, And I'm not saying stay back on them all like Borg. I'm saying mix it up. Don't come in on every one. During this podcast, when asked the accomplishments he was most proud of, Lendl listed all his Wimbledon semis and finals. The transition was very difficult for him. He said people would question how he could be extended to 4 and 5 sets in early rounds against lesser players. He said he was thinking that he was lucky to win. That there were years that the Sunday before the tournament started Roche was beating him in practice matches. That clay to grass turnover took time for him.

 

[WCT]

S/ver women totally dominated Wimbledon for decades. The last woman before Evert to win wimbledon with a baseline game was Mo Connolly in the mid fifties. The next one would be Graf in 1988. No baseliner was beating Louise Brough or Althea Gibson or Darlene Hard or Bueno or Court or King, or Wade, or Goolagong in a final. Evert has been very clear her great regret was not winning more Wimbledons. Since 1978, Evert played Martina at Wimbledon 8 times from 1978-1988. Evert only won once in 1980. She lost in 78,79, 82,84,85,87,and 88. On every occasion except in '79, Evert pushed her to three sets . These were close matches. Strategically, the only tactics she did NOT employ was either to come in on her own serve occasionally or consistently, or attack Martina's second serve and charge in occasionally or consistently. I told you above thread the advantage Evert gained from never doing either. She knows exactly what she is doing every single time she hits the serve. But then so do they !

The advantage in her occasionally S/Volleying on grass is to force her opponents to worry more about their returns of her serve. All Martina ever had to do, float that damn return near the baseline. Martina ( or Hana or or any one else) did not have to direct it all l, or worry about how high the return was over the net because Evert was never going to volley it away regardless. Evert's missing out on some cheap points on serve if she charges in and volley's that floater, or if she forces Martina to direct that return more and makes errors. Was it a mistake to take those options off the table, considering she kept having the same result year after year by not doing so.

I should have stated that in my last post. A lot of women won Wimbledon with the s/v.
Grass was certainly geared for coming to ney, men or women. Still, I don't think to the quite same degree for the women.

 

[sandy mayer]

Its hard to measure but I doubt she had the same number of opportunities as she did with others. Martina was always there first. Her problem was Martina's ground game seemed twice as effective on grass. Martina's big forehand was more powerful, her biting slice stayed lower, and Martina was so agressive from the first stroke foreward that Evert did not have enough time to structure the point the way she did on clay or hard courts. Chris was great at controlling rallies and drawing errors but Martina was so damn fast covering that baseline that Chris needed to hit for the sidelines constantly just to rob Martina of enough time to set up that forehand. Then Chris was always too rushed and forced to make these heroic low percentage passes. She made 10, 20, 40 great heroic shots for the hightlight tapes, but even even the greatest passing shot artist of all time, runs out them against the greatest volleyer of all time in the course of three sets on fast grass.

Evert got her only cheap points from forcing Martina to hit perfect second serves, approach shots or impossible half volleys all match long but it wasn't enough to hold her back on Evert's service games. I do believe keeping Martina guessing on her return of serve game, forcing Martina to keep that return lower and worry about giving Evert an easy volley like Connors did, would have made Evert's service games less of a constant struggle with break points to constantly fight off.

I actually believe Chris was better than Martina off the ground on both wings, but if Martina came to the net too often on her terms then the match would be hers. I agree Chris should have gone to net more when returning second serves.

 

[Airspun]

Good points. On the other hand, Evert was far more comfortable in the role of S/V than you might think. The woman played a a lot more doubles than Ivan did, and she followed every single serve I have ever seen her hit into the net and followed most those returns to the net as a doubles player and won no less than 32 doubles titles in addition to 3 slam titles as half of a team. thats not counting all those times she reached semifinals or finals of a tournament in doubles. While her famous return was probably as much of an asset in her success, as her serve, her serve was good enough for the job at hand. Its not like it was foreign territory to move forward rather than backward. She did it in three hours later or earlier on the same days she was playing her fourth round singles match. She could easily have incorporated the tactics into her game much as Connors did without that strong a serve. Heck Chris and Jimmy actually won the world Mixed Doubles title and reached the finals in 1983 and 1984 as a team despite their weak serves! That was fun to watch with John and Patty watching on!.

Evert is charging in after her serve its working fine. She's not getting her 'weak' serve broken.

true story, they saw return of the jedi
and then back to the future immediately after both those matches in the theater.

 

[PDJ]

Different grass, but Evert went to the net many times in beating Navratilova at the 82 AO.
Interestingly, Evert had great net stats in beating Navratilova at the 86 French.
I'd say what hurt Evert more was sticking to the wood for 1983. But, kudos to Evert when the challenge to Navratilova appeared insurmountable she rose to the challenge.

Trivia: the very popular long-running UK sports quiz 'A Question of Sport' features a round 'What happened next?' and it was always something unexpected/bizarre. Cue clip of Evert serving in a singles match. The clip stops and the two teams of sporting greats guess 'what happened next'. Yup, the clip reveals Evert serving and volleying. Or attempting to, Evert is easily passed.

 

[WCT]

Different grass, but Evert went to the net many times in beating Navratilova at the 82 AO.
Interestingly, Evert had great net stats in beating Navratilova at the 86 French.
I'd say what hurt Evert more was sticking to the wood for 1983. But, kudos to Evert when the challenge to Navratilova appeared insurmountable she rose to the challenge.

Trivia: the very popular long-running UK sports quiz 'A Question of Sport' features a round 'What happened next?' and it was always something unexpected/bizarre. Cue clip of Evert serving in a singles match. The clip stops and the two teams of sporting greats guess 'what happened next'. Yup, the clip reveals Evert serving and volleying. Or attempting to, Evert is easily passed.

Watching some of her old matches I forgot that she can volley very well. Not like Martina, but there is a big chasm between her and doesn't volley well. And I think Evert fits in the upper half of that chasm. Nothing wrong with her volley.

 

[jrepac]

Watching some of her old matches I forgot that she can volley very well. Not like Martina, but there is a big chasm between her and doesn't volley well. And I think Evert fits in the upper half of that chasm. Nothing wrong with her volley.

not at all....she had some good points at net in the '85 FO final.

 

[PDJ]

not at all....she had some good points at net in the '85 FO final.

Even better in the 86 RG Final.
Fitting that she won on yet another sublime drop volley.

 

[jrepac]

Even better in the 86 RG Final.
Fitting that she won on yet another sublime drop volley.

I think she played better in '86, but '85 was more exciting...a lot of tension in that one.

 

[PDJ]

I think she played better in '86, but '85 was more exciting...a lot of tension in that one.

Absolutely agree. My comment was purely about volleying: Evert volleyed alot more in the 86 final.