Stats for 1982 French Open Final (Navratilova-Jaeger)

[Moose Malloy]

Navratilova d Jaeger 7-6(8-6), 6-1

Navratilova served at 50.6% (40 of 79)
she won 26 of 40 points on 1st serve(65%)
and won 18 of 39 points on 2nd serve(46%)
6 aces, 2 df's
she drew 13 return errors
24% of her service points were unreturned(19/79)
9-17 on S&V attempts(53%), 36-56 at net overall(64%)

Jaeger served at 59%(46 of 78)
she won 19 of 46 points on first serve(41%)
and won 14 of 32 on 2nd serve(44%)
no aces, 3 df's
she drew 4 return errors
5% of her service points were unreturned(4/78)
13-29 at net(45%). no S&V attempts

Navratilova had 25 non service winners: 4 fh, 4 bh, 6 fhv, 5 bhv, 6 ov
Jaeger had 21: 9 fh, 9 bh, 1 fhv, 1 fhv, 1 ov

Martina was 6-17 on break points(8 games). She had break points in 5 of Jaeger's service games in the first set.
Jaeger was 3-8(4 games). She was up a break twice in the first set(and served for it at 5-4). She also had a set point at 6-5 in the tiebreak(on Martina's serve)

Its's been a while since I've watched this, but I was surprised at how long the rallies were and how few times Martina serve and volleyed(17). I recall her coming in a lot more vs Evert in the '84 final(but may have to take stats on that to confirm). Also, 29 approaches were a bit more than I was expecting from Jaeger. There were 106 points in the long opening set(averaged out to 8.15 points per game). Big difference in the unreturned serve %(24 to 5 in Martina's favor). Was also surprised a bit by the low first serve %'s for both players. In the 83 W final, Martina was at 65% and Jaeger was at 84%. stats here https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...r-1983-wimbledon-f-navratilova-jaeger.485419/

Jaeger turned 17 the day after this match.

 

[WestboroChe]

along with Seles Jaeger is one of the great what ifs of tennis. I read her autobiography a couple of years ago. I think she had an unusual mindset which helped her become good so quickly. Unlike most tennis pros she did not see herself as a tennis player first. She always considered herself as on a larger mission than tennis which I think reduced the pressure to win thus allowing her to play loose and free. Would she have become a multiple slam winner? Maybe. I think she would have managed to win a FO or maybe a USO at some point at least.

 

[boredone3456]

along with Seles Jaeger is one of the great what ifs of tennis. I read her autobiography a couple of years ago. I think she had an unusual mindset which helped her become good so quickly. Unlike most tennis pros she did not see herself as a tennis player first. She always considered herself as on a larger mission than tennis which I think reduced the pressure to win thus allowing her to play loose and free. Would she have become a multiple slam winner? Maybe. I think she would have managed to win a FO or maybe a USO at some point at least.

Jaeger has said in interviews she didn't want to be a champion. I remember reading in the past that she said she deliberately avoided winning majors/tanked matches to avoid the top ranking in the world. For instance she said years after the 1983 Wimbledon final that she threw the match the Martina following an incident the night before where her Father threw her out of her room after a fight. She went to Martina for help convincing her father to let her back in...she threw the final the next day, possibly out of guilt for disturbing Martina the night before or as a thanks for helping her. She said she didn't like the narrow focus being a tennis player required...so I honestly don't think she had it in her mentally to win multiple majors...or even one. Although there is no denying she had the talent

 

[WestboroChe]

Jaeger has said in interviews she didn't want to be a champion. I remember reading in the past that she said she deliberately avoided winning majors/tanked matches to avoid the top ranking in the world. For instance she said years after the 1983 Wimbledon final that she threw the match the Martina following an incident the night before where her Father threw her out of her room after a fight. She went to Martina for help convincing her father to let her back in...she threw the final the next day, possibly out of guilt for disturbing Martina the night before or as a thanks for helping her. She said she didn't like the narrow focus being a tennis player required...so I honestly don't think she had it in her mentally to win multiple majors...or even one. Although there is no denying she had the talent

Right that’s all true. What I was thinking about was her experience at the juniors level where she was facing other kids who were clearly feeling the pressure to win. It seemed to me that her relaxed approach to the game helped her there.

 

[krosero]

good to see this, and I'll have to start watching that unreturned stat in women's matches; obviously the numbers will often be low but they could be interesting

Curry Kirkpatrick in Sports Illustrated:

Andrea Jaeger, the little churl with the curl, wasn't exactly angelic following her 7-6, 6-1 loss to Navratilova in the women's final. She accused the winner of breaking the rules by receiving voice and hand signals from two buddies in the stands, Renee Richards and Nancy Lieberman. "Mentally-wise I'm stronger than Martina, and that's how you come back against her," said Jaeger, who squandered a set point at 6-5 in the first-set tiebreaker, to which she must have arrived by stealing the bunt sign. "But I can't keep concentration when it's three against one."​

​

Jaeger and her father, Roland, a former boxer whom some people have accused of contributing a pugilistic aspect to his daughter's attitude, were wrong on two counts. Signals aren't against the rules, and even if they were, observers sitting nearby said neither Richards, who was silently taking notes, nor Lieberman, who was simply shouting encouragement like the basketball player she is, was giving any signals.​

​

"Jesus Christ, I win this great title finally and I have to hear this," said an angry Navratilova, who had hit a brave backhand approach winner on Jaeger's set point and so deserved more than a crybaby's tantrum at the end. "Thank you, Andrea. I could decide in my sleep what to do against Jaeger. The players know I am as fair as they come. I'm also a good loser. If she can't be a gracious loser, that's tough. If she's getting this stuff from her father, Mr. Jaeger is a louse."​

​

Actually, Navratilova, who now has won eight of nine tournaments, 42 of 43 matches and 85 of 96 sets this year in a rousing start toward the Grand Slam, might have thanked Jaeger for beating Chris Evert Lloyd 6-3, 6-1 in the semifinals. It was as desultory a clay-court performance as Evert Lloyd has ever been party to. Maybe she wanted to concentrate on rooting her husband, John, home in the mixed. (He reached the final with Wendy Turnbull.) Or perhaps, after so many years at the top, Evert Lloyd needs more than a steady diet of Palooka-ettes in preparation for her matches against the three or four women capable of winning a major tournament. In one span against Jaeger, Evert Lloyd lost 30 of 39 points, 25 of them on unforced errors.​

​

Meanwhile, Hana Manlikova [sic], the defending champion, gave less than her best in her semi against Navratilova, a match she lost 6-0, 6-2 in approximately 62 seconds. Mandlikova had defeated a rusty Tracy Austin 7-6, 6-7, 6-2 in an error-plagued quarterfinal match, and Mandlikova should have been primed for the defense. Instead, she nailed several balls into the back fences and then obviously quit. Afterward, Navratilova said of Mandlikova, "I wish she had tried harder." Tanka? Handitova?​

 

[Moose Malloy]

I saw that SI article, shocking numbers from Evert in her loss to Jaeger.

 

[suwanee4712]

I despise Curry Kirkpatrick and discount anything the man ever wrote about women's tennis. It seemed to be his mission to insult women's tennis in one of its grandest eras. He wouldn't get away with his sham jobs in today's world, and that's a good thing.

As a fan of Andrea's I'm very disappointed in these stats. Martina didn't play a great match, statistically speaking. She would've been primed to be upset given those numbers on clay.

I do feel Andrea should have won a slam or two, but I think she was like Tracy in that she was better on a hard court or green clay vs European clay. Still, she handed Chris a lopsided defeat at Roland Garros which is no small feat.

 

[Moose Malloy]

I despise Curry Kirkpatrick and discount anything the man ever wrote about women's tennis. It seemed to be his mission to insult women's tennis in one of its grandest eras. He wouldn't get away with his sham jobs in today's world, and that's a good thing.

As a fan of Andrea's I'm very disappointed in these stats. Martina didn't play a great match, statistically speaking. She would've been primed to be upset given those numbers on clay.

I do feel Andrea should have won a slam or two, but I think she was like Tracy in that she was better on a hard court or green clay vs European clay. Still, she handed Chris a lopsided defeat at Roland Garros which is no small feat.

Well to be honest, he was sort of insulting to pretty much anything he wrote about. His article about the men's '91 French Open final prompted Jim Courier to write a letter to SI.

 

[Liam]

Andrea was such a poor sport. I laugh that she now says that she deliberately lost those matches. Right.... She had a **** poor attitude and if she lost the first set and/or felt it wasn't happening for her that day, she'd just tank. She always had an excuse for losing. She's now trying to edit history. Pfft.

 

[WestboroChe]

Andrea was such a poor sport. I laugh that she now says that she deliberately lost those matches. Right.... She had a **** poor attitude and if she lost the first set and/or felt it wasn't happening for her that day, she'd just tank. She always had an excuse for losing. She's now trying to edit history. Pfft.

I agree. She definitely seemed like in this match she really tried to win and lost and was frustrated by it.

 

[suwanee4712]

In the last two years Andrea sometimes looked as if she were merely fulfilling an obligation. I don't believe she was ever meant to be a pro athlete. As competitive as she could be, her life was too rigorous and structured for her at that age. She found her happiness in children's hospitals rather than the court. Her career allowed her to do this and have name recognition as a fundraiser. It served a purpose, just not the purpose many of us wish it had been at that time.

I wish she would've won Wimbledon or the French. But I tend to believe her when she says she didn't. It would've meant more demands of her time and more responsibilities to the tour.

With Andrea, I have come to accept being #1 in the world was her father's dream, not hers.

 

[WestboroChe]

I agree, but I find some of her stories are dubious in truth at best. I think a lot of it is revionist history and acting like she could have or would have won matches she really would not have.

I agree to some extant. But if were being honest if she were a more successful pro she would have been able to leverage her tennis success and fame even more so. I believe win or lose she would have quit the game sooner than later and eventually injuries made it not a choice.

I don’t feel that she’s trying to rewrite history. I believe she wanted to win every match she played just likeany other player but that doesn’t mean she was necessarily going to go all out to win a tough match on certain days.

 

[WestboroChe]

I agree with this. I think her fathers insane drive also sapped a lot of her love for the game. I do think the 82 French was possibly her best ever shot if she had somehow won that very close 1st set. I could see her winning in 3 perhaps then (Martina probably still wins the 2nd set but with the momentum that set is probably closer).

83 Wimbledon, well she played a garbage match, but even with Martina subpar that day for her standards, questionable if that was ever winnable for Jaeger even at her best.

83 French maybe if she had been sharper for her semi vs Evert who she drubbed in the 82 semis and had some decent success vs then, especialy as Evert was far from her best that tournament and had a series of tough matches; but again not sure if she was ultimately winning that match even in better form to advance to an easy winnable final vs Mima. 82 U.S Open you could say the same things for.

Of course she was young enough if she had stayed on course, motivated, and healthy there would be probably be more opportunities, but she doesn't strike me as someone likely having a long prime even in best circumstanes. Martina and Chris while older just kept getting better until atleast 86, and Hana had her resurgence soon after, while Shriver and Sukova both were soon to enter their peaks. And no way do I see her being good enough against emerging Graf in the late 80s either.

She never had the ability to be a super dominant player but she could have been a multiple slam winner and bigger contender with a different mindset, team around her, maybe different parenting. She on paper had more variety, talent, and tools while having seemingly as much power as the more limited Austin, but Austin was special in terms of her sheer determination and optimization of her abilities at her brief peak.

I’ll admit I miss details but I didn’t get the impression from her autobiography or any of the other stuff I’ve read about her that her father was an insane tennis dad. Certainly not like how Andre talked about his dad or how we think about Pierce. Was that common knowledge or something? Her book made it seem that her father was competitive but that tennis was really her thing.

 

[WestboroChe]

Just because she won't admit her Dad was not an insane tennis Dad does not mean he was not.

Tiffany Chin insists even today her Mom was not an insane figure skating Mom and:

Sure I get that but can you tell me any specific evidence of that? Like incidents? Was he kicked out of tournaments like some other parents or did anyone allege abuse? You can be a super competitive person who wants your kid to succeed without being an “insane tennis dad”.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Well, wasn’t Roland so angry with Andrea eating junkfood the day before her Wimbledon final that he locked her out of their flat? Yeah that guy was a loon. Google his name, you’ll find articles from the early 80s where players and press say he’s horrible.

 

[WestboroChe]

Well, wasn’t Roland so angry with Andrea eating junkfood the day before her Wimbledon final that he locked her out of their flat? Yeah that guy was a loon. Google his name, you’ll find articles from the early 80s where players and press say he’s horrible.

Ok that works. I’m just surprised this is the first time I’ve heard of it.

 

[WestboroChe]

It took Jim Pierce who beat the living crap out of Mary to the point of near death a few times years to be finally banned from the tour. I am not sure not being kicked out of tournaments means anything. I don't know many specifics, someone like @suwanee4712 or @BTURNER would be far better for that than me, but I do know the only person who did not consider him a bad or crazed tennis Dad was Andrea herself. Of course he is still nowhere near as bad as the ultimate worse tennis dad- the physically violent Jim Pierce, and a few others.

There was an Australian teen a few years ago that had a dad along the lines of Jim Pierce but her name escapes me. But that does put it in perspective.

 

[suwanee4712]

There's a story about an alleged incident following Andrea's loss to Chris at 82 US Open that was pretty famous until Jim Pierce came along. I honestly hate to repeat it because Roland's birthday was just the other day and Andrea posted a beautiful sentiment about her late father on social media. Roland had a reputation. It wasn't a good one. But she worked that out with him in time.

There's no realistic guide to being a father/coach to a world class athlete. Sometimes these people are literally a fish out of water without the coping skills necessary to do that job and negotiate the sometimes dark world of the pro circuit.

The stories about Andrea herself later in 1983 were pretty bad as well. In hindsight it was a very good thing that Andrea began to transition her life to outside pro tennis.

I was never happier for her than when Andrea had an interview for a U.S. Open profile in 1994 that highlighted her foundation work. There she was surrounded by kids with terminal illnesses all of a whom were so thankful for her. And yet it was Andrea who had tears in her eyes thanking God that these kids had come into HER life.

Big picture, Andrea's a grand slam champion in life.

 

[WestboroChe]

There's a story about an alleged incident following Andrea's loss to Chris at 82 US Open that was pretty famous until Jim Pierce came along. I honestly hate to repeat it because Roland's birthday was just the other day and Andrea posted a beautiful sentiment about her late father on social media. Roland had a reputation. It wasn't a good one. But she worked that out with him in time.

There's no realistic guide to being a father/coach to a world class athlete. Sometimes these people are literally a fish out of water without the coping skills necessary to do that job and negotiate the sometimes dark world of the pro circuit.

The stories about Andrea herself later in 1983 were pretty bad as well. In hindsight it was a very good thing that Andrea began to transition her life to outside pro tennis.

I was never happier for her than when Andrea had an interview for a U.S. Open profile in 1994 that highlighted her foundation work. There she was surrounded by kids with terminal illnesses all of a whom were so thankful for her. And yet it was Andrea who had tears in her eyes thanking God that these kids had come into HER life.

Big picture, Andrea's a grand slam champion in life.

Thanks that’s a pretty helpful perspective. I don’t have any strong feelings about Andrea because she played before I even knew tennis existed but I found her story interesting since I am interested in both tennis and the varieties of religious experience. However even before this knowledge I did not think her autobiography was particularly well written. She clearly was trying to rehabilitate his image which is her right and also helps explain why she really glosses over her tennis career in the book. Seriously the second half of the book seems like it was written as one big thank you to her donors.

 

[PDJ]

There's a story about an alleged incident following Andrea's loss to Chris at 82 US Open that was pretty famous until Jim Pierce came along. I honestly hate to repeat it because Roland's birthday was just the other day and Andrea posted a beautiful sentiment about her late father on social media. Roland had a reputation. It wasn't a good one. But she worked that out with him in time.

There's no realistic guide to being a father/coach to a world class athlete. Sometimes these people are literally a fish out of water without the coping skills necessary to do that job and negotiate the sometimes dark world of the pro circuit.

The stories about Andrea herself later in 1983 were pretty bad as well. In hindsight it was a very good thing that Andrea began to transition her life to outside pro tennis.

I was never happier for her than when Andrea had an interview for a U.S. Open profile in 1994 that highlighted her foundation work. There she was surrounded by kids with terminal illnesses all of a whom were so thankful for her. And yet it was Andrea who had tears in her eyes thanking God that these kids had come into HER life.

Big picture, Andrea's a grand slam champion in life.

And, as far as I'm aware, used her tennis success as a platform for good works.
Other former champions have, on occasion, used their platform for... err...horrible views.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Rewatched the first set. Martina didn't S&V once on her 2nd serve. Only chip and charged off the return 3 times. Was struck at how heavy Martina's fh was, it could really push Jaeger back(didn't feel like a moon ball, but was high bouncing). Also was impressed how often Jaeger ran around her bh to hit fh returns.

Here are some stats I took on points won by either player broken down by strokes per point

Martina
points won between 1-4 shots: 25
5-9 shots: 19
10+: 13

Jaeger
1-4: 16
5-9: 20
10+: 12

Five points went over 20 shots, Martina won 3 of them. The most memorable was a 24 stroke point was when Jaeger was serving for the 1st set at 5-4. Both players covered pretty much every inch of the court and ended with Martina hitting an overhead winner from the baseline. Wonder how many women in history at that point would have been capable of doing something like that.

Based on these stats, Martina was at no real disadvantage the longer a point went. I recall there a thread(now deleted) about her ground game. @BTURNER @suwanee4712 may be interested in these stats.

here are highlights

 

[BTURNER]

Rewatched the first set. Martina didn't S&V once on her 2nd serve. Only chip and charged off the return 3 times. Was struck at how heavy Martina's fh was, it could really push Jaeger back(didn't feel like a moon ball, but was high bouncing). Also was impressed how often Jaeger ran around her bh to hit fh returns.

Here are some stats I took on points won by either player broken down by strokes per point

Martina
points won between 1-4 shots: 25
5-9 shots: 19
10+: 13

Jaeger
1-4: 16
5-9: 20
10+: 12

Five points went over 20 shots, Martina won 3 of them. The most memorable was a 24 stroke point was when Jaeger was serving for the 1st set at 5-4. Both players covered pretty much every inch of the court and ended with Martina hitting an overhead winner from the baseline. Wonder how many women in history at that point would have been capable of doing something like that.

Based on these stats, Martina was at no real disadvantage the longer a point went. I recall there a thread(now deleted) about her ground game. @BTURNER @suwanee4712 may be interested in these stats.

here are highlights

Nobody with a brain is going to claim Martina could not sustain her share of rallies against great baseliners and win some points back there, or that she might have a golden match occasionaly in her history where she simply could not fail to find the court no matter how long the rally. The woman had groundies.

Never saw Martina play this opponent, nor did I see this one match, but I do recall a comment of Martina's around 1985ish about playing Evert where she said if the ball went over the net over ten times, she was more likely to lose it than win it. That specificity seems pretty clearly drawn from some pattern her coach must have noticed and analyzed in some Martina/Evert matches and it is consistent with what commentators were saying back then. I can't vouchsafe for it, or even link to it but it was in some prematch interview where Martina was describing her goal to be aggressive and get to the net. That is not to say that you or I can't find some very long rallies where Evert made the error from the backcourt in several matches but we both know that I can find points where Evert outvolleyed Martina when they were both at a net exchange. Not going to claim Evert was as good a volleyer from those.

Did you do stats on her match against Kathy Horvath to see how well Martina's groundies held up in long rallies against that all time great baseliner on clay. That too was one match! My point is your sample size is small ( one match) and it appears to cherry picked based on score, opponent and result. You'd do your cause a little better if you just selected one of the three routs Martina won against Evert on clay and ignore the rest of their clay matches or better yet just analyze all the matches where Martina beat opponents easily on clay and collect that data.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Nobody with a brain is going to claim Martina could not sustain her share of rallies against great baseliners and win some points back there, or that she might have a golden match occasionaly in her history where she simply could not fail to find the court no matter how long the rally. The woman had groundies.

Never saw Martina play this opponent, nor did I see this one match, but I do recall a comment of Martina's around 1985ish about playing Evert where she said if the ball went over the net over ten times, she was more likely to lose it than win it. That specificity seems pretty clearly drawn from some pattern her coach must have noticed and analyzed in some Martina/Evert matches and it is consistent with what commentators were saying back then. I can't vouchsafe for it, or even link to it but it was in some prematch interview where Martina was describing her goal to be aggressive and get to the net. That is not to say that you or I can't find some very long rallies where Evert made the error from the backcourt in several matches but we both know that I can find points where Evert outvolleyed Martina when they were both at a net exchange. Not going to claim Evert was as good a volleyer from those.

Did you do stats on her match against Kathy Horvath to see how well Martina's groundies held up in long rallies against that all time great baseliner on clay. That too was one match! My point is your sample size is small ( one match) and it appears to cherry picked based on score, opponent and result. You'd do your cause a little better if you just selected one of the three routs Martina won against Evert on clay and ignore the rest of their clay matches or better yet just analyze all the matches where Martina beat opponents easily on clay and collect that data.

of course Navratilova at her best should be at net most of the time. That’s not exactly my point. And look at the stats on this match, she did get there quite a bit, just not how one would think she got there, like a chip charge/ s&v maniac like Mac when he almost won RG. He was someone lucky to win a long rally with Lendl. I don’t see how one could say Martina was lucky to win long rallies vs anyone.

I also think it’s a bit of a stretch to say I cherry picked this match, since it was the French Open final(not just any match) vs a great baseliner(jaeger beat Evert in the semis btw) and the stats are for the first set only, an incredibly long and close set that could have gone either way. it had a ton of long rallies. Not having seen it, would you have expected Martina to be dead even in long rallies against the moonball queen? (again we aren’t talking about a rally here or there, look at the total points she won) How about the fact that she didn’t serve and volley on her 2nd serve once? Or that she only chip and charged three times? I bet people would have been shocked back then if they heard that(there were pretty much no stats back then, and most commentators didn’t get too nuanced with their observations)

I haven’t seen the horvath match, but I have seen quite a bit of horvath, and I would be pretty shocked if it had rallies the length of this match. Jaeger’s groundies were considerably better than horvath.

as far as the Martina comment about Evert and 10 shots, I really doubt that was meant literally. Players and commentators make generalizations all the time in order to make a point. The point here being obviously that Martina should be trying to get to net vs evert. Martina was the fittest and fastest player of her time, even without stats I think it’s pretty obvious she wasn’t at some great disadvantage vs the baseline vs anyone. Maybe I’ll do stats on 85 RG someday. I’m pretty much the only person who’s done stats on women’s matches here(and probably will remain the only one) so be nice...

 

[BTURNER]

of course Navratilova at her best should be at net most of the time. That’s not exactly my point. And look at the stats on this match, she did get there quite a bit, just not how one would think she got there, like a chip charge/ s&v maniac like Mac when he almost won RG. He was someone lucky to win a long rally with Lendl. I don’t see how one could say Martina was lucky to win long rallies vs anyone.

I also think it’s a bit of a stretch to say I cherry picked this match, since it was the French Open final(not just any match) vs a great baseliner(jaeger beat Evert in the semis btw) and the stats are for the first set only, an incredibly long and close set that could have gone either way. it had a ton of long rallies. Not having seen it, would you have expected Martina to be dead even in long rallies against the moonball queen? (again we aren’t talking about a rally here or there, look at the total points she won) How about the fact that she didn’t serve and volley on her 2nd serve once? Or that she only chip and charged three times? I bet people would have been shocked back then if they heard that(there were pretty much no stats back then, and most commentators didn’t get too nuanced with their observations)

I haven’t seen the horvath match, but I have seen quite a bit of horvath, and I would be pretty shocked if it had rallies the length of this match. Jaeger’s groundies were considerably better than horvath.

as far as the Martina comment about Evert and 10 shots, I really doubt that was meant literally. Players and commentators make generalizations all the time in order to make a point. The point here being obviously that Martina should be trying to get to net vs evert. Martina was the fittest and fastest player of her time, even without stats I think it’s pretty obvious she wasn’t at some great disadvantage vs the baseline vs anyone. Maybe I’ll do stats on 85 RG someday. I’m pretty much the only person who’s done stats on women’s matches here(and probably will remain the only one) so be nice...

I will be a lot more convinced when you have stats on more than one set, more than one match from more than one year, from more than one opponent. Its really hard to imagine anyone using that on which to base anything.

 

[NonP]

I’m pretty much the only person who’s done stats on women’s matches here(and probably will remain the only one) so be nice...

Moose the woke feminist. Who woulda thought?

BTW I've begun to track URS rates for all ATGs regardless of serving prowess or gender. What's the highest % you've seen from Nav? And from any woman for that matter?

 

[suwanee4712]

Rewatched the first set. Martina didn't S&V once on her 2nd serve. Only chip and charged off the return 3 times. Was struck at how heavy Martina's fh was, it could really push Jaeger back(didn't feel like a moon ball, but was high bouncing). Also was impressed how often Jaeger ran around her bh to hit fh returns.

Here are some stats I took on points won by either player broken down by strokes per point

Martina
points won between 1-4 shots: 25
5-9 shots: 19
10+: 13

Jaeger
1-4: 16
5-9: 20
10+: 12

Five points went over 20 shots, Martina won 3 of them. The most memorable was a 24 stroke point was when Jaeger was serving for the 1st set at 5-4. Both players covered pretty much every inch of the court and ended with Martina hitting an overhead winner from the baseline. Wonder how many women in history at that point would have been capable of doing something like that.

Based on these stats, Martina was at no real disadvantage the longer a point went. I recall there a thread(now deleted) about her ground game. @BTURNER @suwanee4712 may be interested in these stats.

here are highlights

Thank you for that breakdown because I think Martina's clay court game and overall prowess is underrated. Andrea was a sturdy girl on the dirt and certainly not easy to push around. But Martina more than held her own from the back of the court as your stats prove.

Regardless of style of play, all of the Czechs knew how to move and to construct points on clay. And certainly here in 1982 we are also seeing that extra confidence Martina got knowing that she was more fit and could last all day if need be. She could push Andrea back with topspin as well as keep the ball low while avoiding giving Andrea pace to work with in their backhand (MN) to forehand exchanges. That's important to keep Andrea from being able to open up the court.

So many remember Andrea as a moonballer, which she certainly resorted to now and then. And we do have to remember that a match between she and Chris or Tracy looks a lot different than a match with Martina. But that's not what I remember about Andrea, and you don't get to #3 without being aggressive. She was athletic and had great hands and feel off her backhand and in the forecourt. When I watched this match I thought Martina did a great job of blunting Andrea's power - something that a savy clay courter knows how to do.