Stats for 1984 AO SF: Sukova-Navratilova

[Moose Malloy]

Sukova d Navratilova 1-6, 6-3, 7-5

This ended Martina's 74 match win streak, her 46 match win streak on grass, her streak of 6 consecutive majors(which included a 45 match win streak in majors), & her quest for the Calendar Grand Slam of 1984(but the public address announcer did introduce her by saying she completed the 'Grand Slam' by winning the French Open earlier that year, her 4th consecutive major)

Navratilova was 3-0 vs Sukova going into this match, not having lost a set to her. She finished with a 26-6 edge in the rivalry.

During the 1987 AO Womens Final on ESPN, Cliff Drysdale referred to this match as "the best women's match I have ever seen."

my stats:

Navratilova won 52 of 76 points on 1st serve(68%) & 15 of 38 on 2nd(39%)
She made 76 of 114 1st serves(67%)

Sukova won 34 of 54 points on 1st serve(63%) & 22 of 44 on 2nd(50%)
She made 54 of 98 1st serves(55%)

Navratilova won 109 pts, Sukova 103.

Navratilova had 4 aces, 5 df's
Sukova had 5 aces, 3 df's

Navratilova had 39 winners: 11 fh, 7 bh, 6 fhv, 8 bhv, 7 ov
winners by set: 16, 6, 17

Sukova had 47: 14 fh, 18 bh, 4 fhv, 6 bhv, 5 ov
winners by set: 17, 14, 16

Navratilova had 15 passing shot winners(9 fh, 6 bh)
Sukova had 29(11 fh, 18 bh)

Navratilova had 13 unforced errors, Sukova 9(none in the 3rd set)

Navratilova was 4 of 12 on break points
Sukova was 4 of 13

Navrtailova had 26 unreturned serve, 1 I judged a service winner
Sukova had 18, 2 I judged a service winner

Navratilova was 70 of 118 at net(59%)
Sukova was 39 of 60(65%)

The first set score is misleading, there were more points played in that set(80) than either the 2nd or 3rd sets. 6 of the 7 games went to deuce, & Martina faced break point in 3 of her 4 service games(7 in all)
Very impressive for Sukova to shrug off that 1st set loss & continue to play well.

The last game of the match was pretty amazing. 12 points played, 8 clean winners. No unforced errors. Martina saved 5 match points, 4 with fh winners. Sukova made 1st serves on all 5 match points. Not sure if I've ever seen Martina hit her fh as hard as she she did in this game, what a gutsy performance in defeat.


from SI:

Although Navratilova had lost but once in the past 18 months—on Jan. 15 to Hana Mandlikova—there was a growing feeling on the tour that she was ripe for the taking, that the sheer weight of numbers pressed on her. "For months now, Martina's been playing not to lose, rather than to win," said Don Candy, Pam Shriver's coach. Navratilova's volleys had become more jabs than punches, her attacking slice backhand short and choppy. Also, since she'd started working on a new high-kick serve late last year, her wide and wonderful lefty delivery into the ad court often seemed to have been missing in action.

Only in doubles, where Navratilova's numbers are every bit as impressive but where onlookers don't count out loud, did her game remain in full flower. At Kooyong, not only would she and Shriver become the first women's team ever to win a Calendar Slam, but they also would win their seventh straight Grand Slam championship and an unprecedented 83rd match in a row.

The Navratilova-Sukova semifinal will be remembered as one of the most exciting matches ever played at Kooyong Stadium. Navratilova won the first set at one, but Sukova was marionette-loose, and the score was deceptive. Six of the seven games went to deuce. Certainly, at home in Perth, Margaret Court, the last Calendar Slammer, had no business leaving her TV to go shopping at that point, which is exactly, what Court did.

Sukova pulled on a blue sweater early in the second set and got a break for 4-2. When she held serve for a 5-2 lead, she looked over to Kurz and gestured mischievously that maybe she should walk off now,-because the modest goal they'd set was for her to win five games in a set. Sukova was simply having a dandy time, and she held again to win the set 6-3.

Almost nonchalantly, she powered her way to a two-break 3-0 in the third. Navratilova was volleying shakily and foolishly coming in behind all of her many shallow second serves, which were duck soup for Sukova's accurate artillery. In the women's locker room, the players began to cluster about a TV. Little Carling Bassett, at 17� a whole year and a half younger than the doddering Sukova, sighed, "Oh, if you can just beat her, Helena, you'll be my idol for life." Hoots, catcalls.

Instead, Navratilova came back to tie the set at 4-4. But Sukova wasn't cowed. "When I lost a point, I'd just say, 'Let's try another one and forget that,' " she said later. "I wasn't nervous or anything." Then, to the astonishment of the 12,000 spectators, Sukova got the next break. After Sukova made a sharp volley and Navratilova botched an easier one, Navratilova twice failed to serve wide enough to the ad court. Sukova passed her both times to go ahead 6-5.

Quickly, Sukova went up triple match point. On the practice courts, men laid down their rackets to read history on the scoreboard high on the stadium's rim. In the women's locker room, bedlam reigned. Sukova hit three sterling serves. Navratilova responded with three forehand winners. Sukova earned two more advantages, and Navratilova slugged two more forehand winners. The kid had banged in five excellent first balls, but the champion had saved five match points, streak points, Slam points, history points.

Yet Sukova kept peppering the Navratilova forehand. If that's advertised as being Martina's better wing, she swoops in more naturally off her slice backhand. When, at the next deuce, Sukova finally missed a first serve, to the forehand, she had the audacity to deliver a second to the same side. Shocked, Navratilova pushed the return wide. Match point No. 6. "Dammit," Navratilova muttered. In the mad locker room, if one voice called it out, half a dozen did: The backhand, Helena.... Spin it, three-quarters.... Kick it three-quarters to the bloody backhand. And that, at last, is what Sukova did. The return feathered wide. The streak was over. Mo Connolly and Court are still the only Calendar Girls.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1122953/3/index.htm

 

[Moose Malloy]

here are my stats for the final(Evert d Sukova 6-7, 6-1, 6-3)

did this a while ago, & didn't take as many stats. Quality wasn't great, possibly due to very windy conditions.

both players had 38 winners.

Evert: 15 fh, 16 bh, 2 fhv, 3 bhv, 2 ov
Sukova: 2 fh, 2 bh, 17 fhv, 12 bhv, 5 ov

winners by set
Evert - 10, 14, 14
Sukova - 22, 5, 11

Evert had 28 passing shot winners(12 fh, 16 bh)
Sukova had 1

Evert was 6 of 13 on break points
Sukova was 2 of 13

Evert was 73 of 114 on 1st serves, 64%
Sukova was 41 of 95, 43%

Sukova had 2 aces, 14 df's
Evert had 8 df's

Sukova had 17 unreturned serves, 2 I judged service winners
Evert had 19, 2 I judged service winners

from SI:

Two days later, now in blazing summer heat, Evert Lloyd gave Sukova every chance to surpass the highlight of her mother's career. Evert Lloyd was tight, serving atrociously, humpbacking returns, stuttering with her feet. However, she was also like some cagey old baseball pitcher, even down to blowing on her fingers, knowing she didn't have her good stuff today. But hey, mix it up, change speeds and just try to hang on through the early innings.

Evert Lloyd almost bluffed her way to victory in the first set, but lost 7-4 in the tiebreaker, during which Sukova did her best serving and volleying of the match. Thereafter, though, Sukova lost her serve altogether, fighting her toss in the swirling wind—she got in just 43% of her first balls and double-faulted 14 times—kept drop-shotting without success and, even more suicidally, repeatedly sent approach shots to Evert Lloyd's backhand, a multitude of which Sukova watched come back across her bow. Evert Lloyd won the last two sets 6-1, 6-3. Rotten match, terrific triumph. "Only the real champions win when they don't have their good stuff," John Lloyd said afterward, trying to console a wife who was irritated by the esthetics of the thing.

And so: That's 16 Grand Slam singles championships for Evert Lloyd. She's 1,003-97 for her first 1,100 matches and has had at least one Grand Slam singles title for 11 consecutive years. Bjorn Borg is next in line, with titles in eight straight years. Evert Lloyd says she'll play only one more year, two maximum. And there's one more number. On Friday next, the 21st, our little Chrissie will have another cake. This one will have 30 candles on it.

 

[BTURNER]

It was a wonderful match, and a well written article. Chris took her down after the loss of the first set.

 

[jrepac]

sukova, I think, is one of the best players never to win a slam..

she played a fine match against Martina, and had Chris on the ropes early on...

but then she just fell apart...

 

[SoftTen]

I can't stop reading again. Nice article for sure. At least, the information is valid not based on imagnation.

 

[krosero]

The last game of the match was pretty amazing. 12 points played, 8 clean winners. No unforced errors. Martina saved 5 match points, 4 with fh winners. Sukova made 1st serves on all 5 match points. Not sure if I've ever seen Martina hit her fh as hard as she she did in this game, what a gutsy performance in defeat.

I agree, it was an incredible game. It's a cliche, having your back "against the wall," but that's what you see when a champion is finally forced to that point: there's nothing left to lose and suddenly you see all their former inhibitions lifted, and they just fire away.

I guess that's why when we think of some champions and their greatest moments from a "mental toughness" point of view, we often end up looking at matches they lost: Lendl at 88 USO, Martina here and at 85 USO, Federer at 08 Wimbledon, etc.

Navratilova was volleying shakily and foolishly coming in behind all of her many shallow second serves, which were duck soup for Sukova's accurate artillery.

This comment by Deford was interesting. I remember in one of Martina's matches against Chris (87W), we were discussing how Martina won the match despite having only 21% success on second serve. Here against Sukova she's got 39%, which is not that low considering she lost the match -- but it's kind of low considering that Martina really "won" the match in the sense of winning more points than Sukova (109-103).

It's something I've been watching for in Martina's matches ever since our 87W debate: whether she's coming in too much, or too inflexibly, behind her second serve. It's not always easy to say. In that 87W match, her winning rate on second serve was equally low no matter whether she followed the serve directly into net or stayed back. I'm not sure what those stats would look like in this 84 AO match, but sometimes in her matches it's true that she comes in behind second serves that don't have much on them, and gets passed. But she had to get to net, so it's the SVer's dilemma.

Even in her most aggressive matches she doesn't follow every second ball in as if mindlessly following the Big Game philosophy; she does stay back on some second serves. I just wonder why Martina's success on second serve seems often to be low when we get her stats -- so far.

Sukova had 47: 14 fh, 18 bh, 4 fhv, 6 bhv, 5 ov

Sukova: 2 fh, 2 bh, 17 fhv, 12 bhv, 5 ov

So of course you expect Sukova's winners to look different when her opponents are as different as Martina and Chris. I just didn't expect them to look so dramatically different. Sukova's winners against Evert, no problem, they're exactly what you'd expect: a SVer getting her winners at net, against a baseliner. But you look at Sukova's winners against Martina and she looks like a baseliner: 32 groundstroke winners.

And I wonder how many were return winners (esp. of 2nd serves).

It's interesting, however, even though Sukova was a SVer, the net stats show Martina coming in twice as much.

 

[Moose Malloy]

^ just rewatched the 2nd set for some more detailed stats. Martina S&Ved on every service point she played. She was 10 of 16 when she S&Ved on 1st serve, 5 of 7 when she S&Ved on 2nd serve. Sukova hit 6 return winners, 4 off the 1st serve, 2 off the 2nd serve(these 6 were counted in passing shot winners as well)

Sukova only came to net 8 times in this set! She was 6 of 8. S&Ved 5 times on 1st serve. Once on 2nd serve(won all 6 S&V points)
She had a low serve % in this set - 44%, which may explain why her net stats were so low, since she wasn't that comfortable S&Ving on 2nd serve(also had 4 aces in this set, which obviously don't count for net stats, but she was clearly coming in after her serve on those points) Martina came in on Sukova's serve 9 times(won 5 of them)

So of course you expect Sukova's winners to look different when her opponents are as different as Martina and Chris. I just didn't expect them to look so dramatically different.Sukova's winners against Evert, no problem, they're exactly what you'd expect: a SVer getting her winners at net, against a baseliner. But you look at Sukova's winners against Martina and she looks like a baseliner: 32 groundstroke winners.

If I hadn't taken stats on this match, & was asked after watching it what I thought Sukova's winner breakdowns were, I probably would've guessed she had a lot more volley winners, at least equal to her groundstroke winner count. I guess the taking stats show you details that you can't get just by casually watching.

Its a shame none of this match is on youtube.

 

[suwanee4712]

I think comparing the two matches shows just how different playing Martina was vs. playing Chris. I think a lot of younger fans don't really appreciate how daunting it was not only to have to play two all time greats back to back, but also in having to play two totally different matches tactically speaking. That's something that seems completely lost in the womens game today.

Chris didn't play the Australian very often, but every time she did she got to the finals. The higher bouncing grass courts suited her game very well in my opinion.

Hana skipped this Australian season that year citing fatigue. I can't think of a single Australian womens field that included all of the womens top 5 from 1980-1990.

 

[BTURNER]

I think comparing the two matches shows just how different playing Martina was vs. playing Chris. I think a lot of younger fans don't really appreciate how daunting it was not only to have to play two all time greats back to back, but also in having to play two totally different matches tactically speaking. That's something that seems completely lost in the womens game today.

Chris didn't play the Australian very often, but every time she did she got to the finals. The higher bouncing grass courts suited her game very well in my opinion.

Hana skipped this Australian season that year citing fatigue. I can't think of a single Australian womens field that included all of the womens top 5 from 1980-1990.

It was almost impossible to beat Evert/ Navratilova in consecutive matches. I can think of only three players who did in majors. Austin, Mandlikova and Graf ( Graf did in in 1989 with Evert at 34 and barely playing. She did the same in the Lipton two years earlier without it being a foregone conclusion) To beat the two of them required an entirely different mindset and set of skills. As a few pointed out, it was hard to settle down and get to sleep after the first victory.

 

[krosero]

I think comparing the two matches shows just how different playing Martina was vs. playing Chris. I think a lot of younger fans don't really appreciate how daunting it was not only to have to play two all time greats back to back, but also in having to play two totally different matches tactically speaking.

Chris said afterward, ''I think I gave her more problems than Martina because Helena likes a target at the net."

Chris didn't play the Australian very often, but every time she did she got to the finals. The higher bouncing grass courts suited her game very well in my opinion.

Hana skipped this Australian season that year citing fatigue. I can't think of a single Australian womens field that included all of the womens top 5 from 1980-1990.

Chris said in '82 that she wanted to win the title, particularly with the field so strong that year. Strong in that context may have been only relatively strong, but it was certainly stronger than the men's field in which none of the Top Ten attended. I wonder why Chris and Martina started showing up again at the AO in 1981 (Martina actually in '80), while the men took a few more years. I don't know but maybe one reason they showed up in '81 and '82 was because the top spot for the year was still in question, which was not the case for the men. In '83 the top men showed up at the AO and that year the race for the top spot was not so clear-cut (though the race was definitely over among the women).

 

[Moose Malloy]

Here are stats I took on the '87 Eastbourne Final, Sukova d Navratilova 7-6(7-5) 6-3

This win snapped Martina's 69 match win streak on English grass(last loss was vs Mandlikova at '81 Wimbledon. She won 5 straight Eastbourne & Wimbledon titles after that)

Martina had to finish off Shriver in a SF match earlier in the day(won 6-4 4-6 6-3, picking up from 4-3 in the 1st)

Sukova had beaten Evert the day before 4-6, 6-4, 8-6, coming back from 5-2 down in the 3rd(and also overcoming 16 df's)

Martina was 16-1 vs Sukova going into this match.

Sukova served at 56%(50 of 89)
Martina served at 67%(47 of 70)

Sukova won 31 of 50 points on 1st serve(62%)
She won 24 of 39 on 2nd(61%)

Martina won 31 of 47 points on 1st serve(66%)
She won 9 of 23 on 2nd(39%)

Sukova had 31 non service winners: 4 fh, 13 bh, 7 fhv, 4 bhv, 3 ov
Martina had 36: 12 fh, 8 bh, 7 fhv, 7 bhv, 2 ov

Sukova had 14 passing shot winners(3 fh, 11 bh)
Martina had 18(10 fh, 8 bh)

Sukova had 2 aces, 3 df's
Martina had 1 ace, 3 df's

Sukova had 21 unreturned serves, 4 were service winners
8 were 2nd serves
Martina had 21 as well, 1 service winner. 3 were 2nd serves.

Sukova was 4 of 7 on break points(Martina made 1st serves on 5 of them)
Martina was 2 of 7(Sukova made 1st serves on 4 of them)

Sukova won 85 points, Martina 74

The first set was very entertaining. 44 clean winners. Martina had a 5-0 lead, hitting 12 winners in those 5 games. Don't think it was a choke, Sukova started hitting a ton of winners the rest of the set(with Martina still making a lot as well)

But like with the AO loss, you wonder if Martina should have stayed back more on 2nd serves(which she started doing some in the 2nd) since Sukova started treeing with her returns.

 

[Moose Malloy]

some aticles I came across:

EASTBOURNE, England - Martina Navratilova's seven-month string of frustration continued through the last tuneup for Wimbledon on Saturday when she was beaten by Helena Sukova 7-6, 6-3 in the final of the Eastbourne grass-court championships. Navratilova, in the first set, squandered a 5-0 lead to Sukova, her victim in the previous two finals here. Navratilova had won the last five Eastbourne titles.

"Right now I'm not exactly brimming with confidence. But I'll still go into Wimbledon as the favorite," Navratilova said.

"I'm sure I'll get that extra bit of inspiration from playing on Centre Court. But right now, I'm feeling down."

Navratilova always has placed great importance on this pre-Wimbledon tournament. On each of the six occasions she won here, she went on to win the Wimbledon title.

Because of rain on Friday, Navratilova had to finish her semifinal against doubles partner Pam Shriver before playing the final.

On Saturday, when she lost in the final of the pre-Wimbledon tournament in Eastbourne, which she had won five consecutive times, she wasted a 5-0 first-set lead against Helena Sukova of Czechoslovakia, and double-faulted at set point in the tiebreaker.

''I'm not finished yet,'' she told a cheering crowd at Eastbourne. But in a more reflective mood, she said: ''I'm putting too much into the fact that I'm 30. Maybe, I am feeling the pressure that much more. I've been able to bounce back in the past, but I get very disappointed with myself for the way I've been falling apart at the drop of a hat.''

''I know there is nothing wrong with my game,'' Navratilova added. ''There is nothing wrong with me technically. At this point, it's all emotional. It's in my head.''

The mind, though, can play dirty tricks. Navratilova recently switched from a Yonex racquet, which she is paid to endorse, to a Dunlop, the model used by Steffi Graf, the 18-year-old West German who is No. 2 in the world and heir to Navratilova's throne. It was an impulsive move, perhaps made in panic.

Pam Shriver knows Navratilova as well as anyone. She lost a difficult three-set match to her friend and doubles partner in the semifinals at Eastbourne, squandering an opportunity to beat her for the first time since 1982. ''On the court,'' Shriver said, ''that little bit of arrogance is gone. It will be interesting to see how Martina will react to this.''

''Losing at Eastbourne was huge for Martina,'' she added. ''It was more damaging than winning would have been helpful. The confidence factor is so fragile. You can lose it on a backhand volley and get it back the same way.''

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/22/s...rs-for-navratilova.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

WIMBLEDON, ENGLAND — The sun shone on Martina Navratilova Wednesday, but it was during Tuesday`s rain delay that she first found a ray of hope in her season of doubt.

Navratilova watched a British Broadcasting Co. replay of her upset loss to Helena Sukova in the Wimbledon warm-up at Eastbourne, which ended Navratilova`s winning streak on English grass courts at 69 matches.

WIMBLEDON, ENGLAND — The sun shone on Martina Navratilova Wednesday, but it was during Tuesday`s rain delay that she first found a ray of hope in her season of doubt.

Navratilova watched a British Broadcasting Co. replay of her upset loss to Helena Sukova in the Wimbledon warm-up at Eastbourne, which ended Navratilova`s winning streak on English grass courts at 69 matches.

No one needed to get off to a solid start more than the 30-year-old Navratilova, who has been searching for reasons for her decline. In last week`s loss, Navratilova squandered a 5-0 first-set lead against Sukova, who won five straight games and took the match 7-6, 6-3.

The score didn`t change, but watching the BBC replay during the rain delay made Navratilova feel a little better about her game.

``Helena did not miss one shot in those five games,`` said Navratilova.
``It wasn`t me. I did play well. I just needed a little luck.``

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...679_1_english-grass-courts-navratilova-porwik

 

[Moose Malloy]

WIMBLEDON, England -- Martina Navratilova, the defending champion, could win Wimbledon.

But so could the sensational Steffi Graf.

Or maybe, Helena Sukova will win here, after the way she conquered Eastbourne last week.

Or Pam Shriver, a terrific grass-court player who should win a Grand Slam event one of these days.

``What about me?`` asked Chris Evert.

The three-time Wimbledon champion is feeling a bit slighted at the All- England Lawn Tennis Club. Folks are talking about her love life and forgetting her tennis. Evert reminded them Wednesday by routing Sara Gomer of Great Britain 6-1, 6-0 in the first round.

``I definitely think I have a shot this year,`` said Evert, the third seed, who played her 1,300th professional match and won No. 1,183. ``I`ve had the second best record of anyone this year (40-5, compared to Graf`s 40-0). I think this is the most interesting Wimbledon in years, but I`m playing well and I have a good chance.``

``Wimbledon is as open as it`s ever been,`` said Navratilova, who lost only 16 points to Porwick. ``All the top players are capable of winning.``

Navratilova, despite her Year of Losing Everything, is primed to win her eighth Wimbledon -- and sixth in a row.

``I`m always confident I can win this tournament,`` said Navratilova, who has won 35 consecutive matches here, since losing to Hana Mandlikova in the 1981 semifinals. ``My game is there. I just need to stay tough mentally.``

Navratilova watched a tape of her 7-6, 6-3 Eastbourne loss to Sukova during a rain delay Tuesday and came away feeling better about her game.

``I tried to remember what happened after I was up five-love and I saw that Helena hit all these winners,`` she said. ``In the second set, I was mentally tired from playing Shriver in a tough semifinal, but I felt I played well. There`s nothing wrong with my tennis.``

``Martina has to be favored,`` said Evert, who has lost to Navratilova in five Wimbledon finals (but has beaten her in two semifinals, their designated showdown this year).

``Of all the players at this Wimbledon, Martina and I are the angriest,`` Evert said. ``Everyone is talking about the changing of the guard. It may look that way, now or in the near future. But Martina and I are both champions who have won this tournament and all the Grand Slam tournaments and we have a lot of pride.

``The young players -- Graf, (Gabriela) Sabatini, Sukova -- are all getting a lot of publicity. I don`t let any of that bother me. Five years ago, when I was No. 1, I was more sensitive. Hana would say something or Kathy Jordan would say something and I would get defensive and say, `What do you mean?`

``Now, I know I`m going to have my bad days, but I know I`m going to have my good days, too. I was playing well at the French Open, and then I played terrible and lost to Martina in the semifinals. I don`t know why. But I know, on my good days, I can beat anyone. At this stage in my career, I`m taking it one day at a time and not listening to anything.``

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/19...1_evert-and-navratilova-wimbledon-chris-evert

 

[Joe Pike]

Here are stats I took on the '87 Eastbourne Final, Sukova d Navratilova 7-6(7-5) 6-3

This win snapped Martina's 69 match win streak on English grass ....

Quite interesting how much trouble Martina had with Sukova. Considering for example that Sukova lost 21 matches in a row to Steffi Graf from 1986 through 1994, with Sukova winning only 4 sets.

In 1987-89 alone there were 11 wins for Steffi with 22-0 sets and Sukova winning more than 3 games in only 4 sets!

 

[krosero]

Sukova had beaten Evert the day before 4-6, 6-4, 8-6, coming back from 5-2 down in the 3rd(and also overcoming 16 df's)

And this after serving 14 doubles against Evert in the AO final.

The first set was very entertaining. 44 clean winners.

That's an awful lot of (non-service) winners for one set. Offhand I recall Becker and Agassi hitting 39 non-service winners between them in the third set, during their Davis Cup match. I can't think of any over 40.

How many points were in the set?

 

[krosero]

Martina was 16-1 vs Sukova going into this match.

She'd won their last 13 meetings. Of course she also had a run of 13 against Evert. Not to mention 21 straight over Garrison, and 29 straight over Shriver.

 

[Moose Malloy]

That's an awful lot of (non-service) winners for one set

43 were non service winners.

86 points in the 1st set.

 

[krosero]

43 were non service winners.

Here's another, ironically also by Becker and Agassi: 40 winners between them in their 1995 Wimbledon SF, fourth set. If you throw in Becker's aces it's 47 clean winners.

But that set was exceptionally long (108 points).

86 points in the 1st set.

That's not even a particularly long set.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Those stats show that Sukova often got up for playing Martina. 18 backhand passing shot winners? Her backhand isnt even a good passing shot normally. In fact all she usually did was slice it. Also 0 unforced errors in the 3rd set, very unusual for her game which was high risk.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Evert was 73 of 114 on 1st serves, 64%
Sukova was 41 of 95, 43%

Sukova had 2 aces, 14 df's
Evert had 8 df's

Sukova had 17 unreturned serves, 2 I judged service winners
Evert had 19, 2 I judged service winners

some more stats(there was a pt missing on Evert's serve in the 3rd set, which she lost. I'm counting it as a 1st serve)

Evert was 73-115 on 1st serve
She won 66% of 1st serve pts(48-73)
and won 52% of 2nd sere pts(22-42)

Sukova won 76% of 1st serve pts(31-41)
and won 39% of 2nd serve pts(21-54)

Evert drew 20 return errors, 10 on 2nd serve
Sukova drew 17 return errors, 6 on 2nd serve

Not counting df's I have Sukova with 28 unforced errors, Evert with 11

Sukova made 1st serves on 5 of the 13 break points she faced.
Evert made 9 on the 13 break points she faced

 

[BTURNER]

some more stats(there was a pt missing on Evert's serve in the 3rd set, which she lost. I'm counting it as a 1st serve)

Evert was 73-115 on 1st serve
She won 66% of 1st serve pts(48-73)
and won 52% of 2nd sere pts(22-42)

Sukova won 76% of 1st serve pts(31-41)
and won 39% of 2nd serve pts(21-54)

Evert drew 20 return errors, 10 on 2nd serve
Sukova drew 17 return errors, 6 on 2nd serve

Not counting df's I have Sukova with 28 unforced errors, Evert with 11

Sukova made 1st serves on 5 of the 13 break points she faced.
Evert made 9 on the 13 break points she faced

Helena turned out to be one of the best from-behind players of this era, splashing winners with abandon in streaks even against the best of front-runners, but when ahead, the golden touch was circumspect. That pattern was clear in many of these matches discussed here in come-from behind set wins. It is also true that by late '86, Evert's renowned nerve and concentration was already suspect.

 

[PDJ]

Fascinating thread.

 

[CEvertFan]

Martina often seemed to get into tight matches playing against other serve/volleyers than she did against baseliners - I've seen some other players besides Sukova give her a lot of trouble.

I think it was mostly because her passing shots weren't nearly as strong as, for example, someone like Evert''s were. She sometimes had trouble passing, especially off the backhand side.

And I agree with others that Sukova was one of the very best players to never win a major. When she was on she hit with a lot of power and accuracy for the time and her wingspan and height helped her at the net. Bud Collins dubbed her and Claudia Kodhe-Kilsch the "Twin Towers" when they played doubles together regularly.

 

[rockandroll]

Sukova wasnt that good a mover and her agility was lacking. I think that was her biggest problem. That plus matching up poorly vs Graf who she was 1-21 against lifetime, and who often stood in her way of a potential major.

I think her best chances to win a major were the 84 Australian Open and 90 Australian Open. She could have beaten an off form Graf in the 1990 semis. The 84 event she could have won if she served better in the final. I am not sure if there is any other slam she had a real shot to win. 1987 Wimbledon maybe.

 

[BTURNER]

Martina often seemed to get into tight matches playing against other serve/volleyers than she did against baseliners - I've seen some other players besides Sukova give her a lot of trouble.

I think it was mostly because her passing shots weren't nearly as strong as, for example, someone like Evert''s were. She sometimes had trouble passing, especially off the backhand side.

And I agree with others that Sukova was one of the very best players to never win a major. When she was on she hit with a lot of power and accuracy for the time and her wingspan and height helped her at the net. Bud Collins dubbed her and Claudia Kodhe-Kilsch the "Twin Towers" when they played doubles together regularly.

I think Navratilova did well enough when given 'target practice' often enough. You don't win that much grass tennis without passing well. Her problem came with players who were less predictable and came in occasionally. It took her a long time to get her passes grooved and there were a lot of blanks that came from her guns. Add to that, her backhand pass was sometimes telegraphed, and she really did not hit the topspin as well so it refused to dip in time, so shewas left with low percentage flat backhand and the slice.

 

[suwanee4712]

I think Navratilova did well enough when given 'target practice' often enough. You don't win that much grass tennis without passing well. Her problem came with players who were less predictable and came in occasionally. It took her a long time to get her passes grooved and there were a lot of blanks that came from her guns. Add to that, her backhand pass was sometimes telegraphed, and she really did not hit the topspin as well so it refused to dip in time, so shewas left with low percentage flat backhand and the slice.

As an all courter, I always thought that preparing for a serve and volleyer was a mindset as much as it was physical. And I think that's why netrushers like Martina and Hana weren't prepared to pass well vs. a baseliner as opposed to when they played each other. I think this is a big reason why Evert was often successful approaching vs. the netrushers, but maybe not as successful vs. a baseliner.

 

[suwanee4712]

As great of a win as it was for Helena, and she deservedly won, the thing I remember most about this match were the crushing, monster returns that Martina fired back against Helena's huge first serves to save all of those match points. Martina made Helena win it.

 

[kiki]

sukova vs mandlikova hth please?

 

[BTURNER]

"sukova vs mandlikova hth please?"
Hana won the H TO H 11 matches to 2. Sukova got her first victory in 1986 (about the same time she upset Evert for the first time) on carpet and got her second victory, again on carpet,in 1989.

 

[rockandroll]

I am surprised Sukova has a lopsided losing head to head with Shriver (I would guessed equal or ahead, she is the better player IMO) and such a lopsided losing record vs Hana (I would think she could play her closer than 2-11).

To a lesser degree I am a bit surprised at her 1-21 (only win when Graf was 14 so hardly even counts) vs Graf. Although less than those other two as Graf is a GOAT and is in many ways a better version of Sukova (slightly better serve, bigger forehand, even better backhand slice and backhand variety) minus the persistent net rushing and true volleying expertise, but replacing clunky and poor movement (Sukova) with GOAT level speed and athleticsm (Graf). So I can see how Graf would be nightmare opponent for Sukova, even more than either Navratilova or Evert.

 

[suwanee4712]

I am surprised Sukova has a lopsided losing head to head with Shriver (I would guessed equal or ahead, she is the better player IMO) and such a lopsided losing record vs Hana (I would think she could play her closer than 2-11).

To a lesser degree I am a bit surprised at her 1-21 (only win when Graf was 14 so hardly even counts) vs Graf. Although less than those other two as Graf is a GOAT and is in many ways a better version of Sukova (slightly better serve, bigger forehand, even better backhand slice and backhand variety) minus the persistent net rushing and true volleying expertise, but replacing clunky and poor movement (Sukova) with GOAT level speed and athleticsm (Graf). So I can see how Graf would be nightmare opponent for Sukova, even more than either Navratilova or Evert.

I thought she underperformed vs. all of those players too. Some are easier to explain than others.

Hana had a clear mental edge over Helena. I don't think that Helena's dad, Cyril, helped things much. After Helena beat Hana for the first time in early 1986, as president of the Czech tennis federation, Cyril had his daughter declared Czech #1 using a ranking system that included doubles. Naturally, Hana objected and things boiled over between Hana and the Suks in a feud that lasted several years. This doomed the Czechs chances even before the Fed Cup in Prague as they did not want to play doubles with each other and hardly even spoke. Hana resumed her dominance of Helena that lasted until she became Australian. Things went bad again when Helena's doubles partnership with Novotna ended. By 1996, things were good again as Hana was then Helena's Fed Cup coach.

Helena vs. Pam appears to be the big mystery. Comparing the two, Helena passes the eyeball test. She looks like the better player. But this discounts the strength of Shriver's game and why she achieved all that she did. Pam was a shrewd tactician that knew Helena's game as well as Helena did. She often picked her apart by returning low to Sukova and then making her cover the net from post to post with chips, dinks, and slices and then over her head with her excellent lobs. Sound familiar? It should because that's Novotna's game vs. a netrusher. Also, Pam served Helena's body better than anyone producing weaker returns and errors. Their 1987 Wimbledon QF match is one of the best slam quarters that almost no one saw or remembers.

With Graf, Helena had the same problem that Hana did at almost exactly the same time. Helena's best year by miles was 1986. That "peak " level lasted through about 1987 and then her game started receding. Why? Because she started losing consistency and pace on her serve. Combine that with Graf's improved return (and other players' returns too) she started losing confidence. If you can't hold your serve, how are you going to beat Steffi, who is one of the best at holding?

Helena's 1989 Australian was an anomoly. Her serve was back as she knocked off Martina in a thrilling match and she lost to Steffi in two tight sets. But it wasn't meant to be. Realizing that she can no longer win by pumping in only 40 to 50% of her first serves, Helena spent the rest of her career serving at 3/4 pace, and she just didn't have the movement to consistently back that up. It's amazing to me that Helena was able to reach the 1993 US Open final. Because the Helena that got to the 86 Open final was twice the player that got to the 93 Open final. That SF vs. Sanchez? Horrid exhibition of moonballing on both sides with an occasional volley from Sukova.

 

[krosero]

some more stats(there was a pt missing on Evert's serve in the 3rd set, which she lost. I'm counting it as a 1st serve)

Evert was 73-115 on 1st serve
She won 66% of 1st serve pts(48-73)
and won 52% of 2nd sere pts(22-42)

Sukova won 76% of 1st serve pts(31-41)
and won 39% of 2nd serve pts(21-54)

Evert drew 20 return errors, 10 on 2nd serve
Sukova drew 17 return errors, 6 on 2nd serve

Not counting df's I have Sukova with 28 unforced errors, Evert with 11

Sukova made 1st serves on 5 of the 13 break points she faced.
Evert made 9 on the 13 break points she faced

Evert’s Aggressive Margin was 24.8%, Sukova’s 17.1%.

Evert served on 115 points and 20 serves did not come back: 17.4%
Sukova served on 95 points and 19 serves did not come back: 20.0%


Service success when serves were returned successfully:

Evert 60% on first serve (38/63) and 50% on second (12/24).
Sukova 64% on first serve (18/28 ) and 44% on second (15/34).

 

[driscoll]

I thought she underperformed vs. all of those players too. Some are easier to explain than others.

Hana had a clear mental edge over Helena. I don't think that Helena's dad, Cyril, helped things much. After Helena beat Hana for the first time in early 1986, as president of the Czech tennis federation, Cyril had his daughter declared Czech #1 using a ranking system that included doubles. Naturally, Hana objected and things boiled over between Hana and the Suks in a feud that lasted several years. This doomed the Czechs chances even before the Fed Cup in Prague as they did not want to play doubles with each other and hardly even spoke. Hana resumed her dominance of Helena that lasted until she became Australian. Things went bad again when Helena's doubles partnership with Novotna ended. By 1996, things were good again as Hana was then Helena's Fed Cup coach.

Helena vs. Pam appears to be the big mystery. Comparing the two, Helena passes the eyeball test. She looks like the better player. But this discounts the strength of Shriver's game and why she achieved all that she did. Pam was a shrewd tactician that knew Helena's game as well as Helena did. She often picked her apart by returning low to Sukova and then making her cover the net from post to post with chips, dinks, and slices and then over her head with her excellent lobs. Sound familiar? It should because that's Novotna's game vs. a netrusher. Also, Pam served Helena's body better than anyone producing weaker returns and errors. Their 1987 Wimbledon QF match is one of the best slam quarters that almost no one saw or remembers.

With Graf, Helena had the same problem that Hana did at almost exactly the same time. Helena's best year by miles was 1986. That "peak " level lasted through about 1987 and then her game started receding. Why? Because she started losing consistency and pace on her serve. Combine that with Graf's improved return (and other players' returns too) she started losing confidence. If you can't hold your serve, how are you going to beat Steffi, who is one of the best at holding?

Helena's 1989 Australian was an anomoly. Her serve was back as she knocked off Martina in a thrilling match and she lost to Steffi in two tight sets. But it wasn't meant to be. Realizing that she can no longer win by pumping in only 40 to 50% of her first serves, Helena spent the rest of her career serving at 3/4 pace, and she just didn't have the movement to consistently back that up. It's amazing to me that Helena was able to reach the 1993 US Open final. Because the Helena that got to the 86 Open final was twice the player that got to the 93 Open final. That SF vs. Sanchez? Horrid exhibition of moonballing on both sides with an occasional volley from Sukova.

Thanks for your summary of these great players. I should point out though Graf 6 times in 86 and 87 though and lost all 6, winning only 2 sets. This was Sukova at her best ever (according to you) and a clearly not yet prime Graf. So Graf was never a good matchup for her as rockandroll indicated.

 

[jaggy]

What a wonderful thread to read, great job everyone

 

[krosero]

Sukova-Navratilova and Vinci-Serena have a lot of similarities: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/s...liams-monumental-us-open-loss.html?ref=tennis

Even the scorelines are similar; and in both matches the winner won fewer points overall than the loser (85 vs. 93 in Vinci-Serena).

Usually we say that such a match is won (or lost) on mental factors like nerves. Physically, the player who wins the most points has "out-played" the other, overall, but not on the most important points. And I think that was true in both these cases.

 

[DMan]

Sukova d Navratilova 1-6, 6-3, 7-5

This ended Martina's 74 match win streak, her 46 match win streak on grass, her streak of 6 consecutive majors(which included a 45 match win streak in majors), & her quest for the Calendar Grand Slam of 1984(but the public address announcer did introduce her by saying she completed the 'Grand Slam' by winning the French Open earlier that year, her 4th consecutive major)

Navratilova was 3-0 vs Sukova going into this match, not having lost a set to her. She finished with a 26-6 edge in the rivalry.

During the 1987 AO Womens Final on ESPN, Cliff Drysdale referred to this match as "the best women's match I have ever seen."


The first set score is misleading, there were more points played in that set(80) than either the 2nd or 3rd sets. 6 of the 7 games went to deuce, & Martina faced break point in 3 of her 4 service games(7 in all)
Very impressive for Sukova to shrug off that 1st set loss & continue to play well.

The last game of the match was pretty amazing. 12 points played, 8 clean winners. No unforced errors. Martina saved 5 match points, 4 with fh winners. Sukova made 1st serves on all 5 match points. Not sure if I've ever seen Martina hit her fh as hard as she she did in this game, what a gutsy performance in defeat.

Thanks for posting. I remember that match very well.

I recall thinking that the first set was one of the closest 6-1 sets I ever witnessed. And, it gave me an inkling Helena could beat Martina. The match game Helena won was an all-time game. That Helena could withstand Martina saving 5 match points, and not get discouraged or break down is amazing.

It is one of the best women's matches I've ever seen.

So, my big question is, why is there no footage, no YouTube clips, nothing online about this historic match?!?! Even the Australian Open's vault of great matches does not include this one! A shame, because this is one for the ages. (And the Helena-Martina battle a far superior match to the the other Slam-busting-semi we recently witnessed. The Vinci upset was far bigger than the Sukova one. Helena was knocking on the door of the top 10 at the time. She was a player on the rise. Vinci was, quite frankly, lucky to be in the semis, with her best tennis behind her. All props to her for pulling it off. Serena, like Martina in 1984, was vulnerable, and ripe for the picking. The fact Serena lost to Vinci shows how far more vulnerable she was than Martina!)

 

[PDJ]

Thanks for posting. I remember that match very well.

I recall thinking that the first set was one of the closest 6-1 sets I ever witnessed. And, it gave me an inkling Helena could beat Martina. The match game Helena won was an all-time game. That Helena could withstand Martina saving 5 match points, and not get discouraged or break down is amazing.

It is one of the best women's matches I've ever seen.

So, my big question is, why is there no footage, no YouTube clips, nothing online about this historic match?!?! Even the Australian Open's vault of great matches does not include this one! A shame, because this is one for the ages. (And the Helena-Martina battle a far superior match to the the other Slam-busting-semi we recently witnessed. The Vinci upset was far bigger than the Sukova one. Helena was knocking on the door of the top 10 at the time. She was a player on the rise. Vinci was, quite frankly, lucky to be in the semis, with her best tennis behind her. All props to her for pulling it off. Serena, like Martina in 1984, was vulnerable, and ripe for the picking. The fact Serena lost to Vinci shows how far more vulnerable she was than Martina!)

I actually emailed the AO site asking them to put a clip on. I had no response. Rude!
I saw on a documentary that the players in the dressing room were willing Sukova to serve to the forehand on her final matchpoint,

 

[suwanee4712]

Thanks for posting. I remember that match very well.

I recall thinking that the first set was one of the closest 6-1 sets I ever witnessed. And, it gave me an inkling Helena could beat Martina. The match game Helena won was an all-time game. That Helena could withstand Martina saving 5 match points, and not get discouraged or break down is amazing.

It is one of the best women's matches I've ever seen.

So, my big question is, why is there no footage, no YouTube clips, nothing online about this historic match?!?! Even the Australian Open's vault of great matches does not include this one! A shame, because this is one for the ages. (And the Helena-Martina battle a far superior match to the the other Slam-busting-semi we recently witnessed. The Vinci upset was far bigger than the Sukova one. Helena was knocking on the door of the top 10 at the time. She was a player on the rise. Vinci was, quite frankly, lucky to be in the semis, with her best tennis behind her. All props to her for pulling it off. Serena, like Martina in 1984, was vulnerable, and ripe for the picking. The fact Serena lost to Vinci shows how far more vulnerable she was than Martina!)

I agree with this post. It's so tempting to say that pressure got to Martina when she lost this match. I don't believe that at all. Sukova played some brave tennis in going for her serves and her passing shots. Martina upped the level of her game when her back was against the wall. When she last the last break of serve in the 3rd set, it was more about Sukova making her shots than Martina doing anything wrong.

But the brilliant comeback by Martina from triple match point down was unbelievable. Sukova challenged her going strength vs. strength. She refused to serve to Martina's backhand and Martina hit four or five of the biggest forehand returns that I've ever seen a woman hit - bar none. A lot of people assume that Chris, who had been surging since Wimbledon and getting closer and closer to Martina, would have beaten Martina to stop her from winning the slam anyway. I think they are probably wrong. The tenacity that Martina showed was only overcome by the huge shots of a player that could take the net away from her.

 

[BringBackWood]

These two matches (the AO semi & the Eastbourne final) are a masterclass in women's tennis between two all out attackers. They alone would lead me to crown Sukova as the greatest slamless female player. Her returns, when on, are possibly the most devastating I've seen.

Her 86 matches against Martina & Chris at the French & Wimbledon are absolutely first rate as well. I think her biggest weakness may be that her serve wasn't big enough to compensate for her lack of mobility. She didn't get enough cheap points & she had to stay back on 2nd serves because the serve quality wasn't good enough.

Do you know of other quality matches of Helena @Moose Malloy ?

 

[jorjipy]

I wonder why Chris and Martina started showing up again at the AO in 1981 (Martina actually in '80), while the men took a few more years. I don't know but maybe one reason they showed up in '81 and '82 was because the top spot for the year was still in question, which was not the case for the men

the reason the top female players started appearing again in 1980 is simple. The previous years on the Australian summer circuit, the biggest event was actually the Toyota Classic, and the Australian Open an afterthought. It had a stronger line up of players and was more prestigious to win. In 1979 if I recall correctly, the Toyota Classic had prize money of $200,000 and the Aussie Open had $50,000 of prize money.

Then things changed in 1980 because the Toyota Classic vanished and that prizemoney instead went into the Australian Open and it became the biggest event on the summer circuit in Australia and Martina decides to fly down for the Aussie Open. And a year later Chris Evert joins her

of course Mandlikova won the Aussie open in 1980 beating Turnbull in the final......and guess who won the 1979 Toyota Classic which was the de facto Australian Open of that season? Mandlikova won it beating Turnbull....that’s a lot stronger final than the Aussie open final of Barbara Jordan vs Sharon Walsh. The prestige was with the Toyota Classic. It was a different world to what younger readers experience now.

....of course Mandlikova bombed out early in that $50,000 Aussie open of 1979 and missed out on the cheapest of cheap slams but she won 3 of the 6 summer grass court tournaments in that Aussie summer. And she won the quasi Slam of that summer

 

[suwanee4712]

I noticed the difference in prize money, and I believe the Toyota Championships were played after the Australian which made it even more curious. I think Toyota became the Australian Open's title sponsor in 80 or 81, perhaps the first slam to have one?

 

[jorjipy]

In those days the Australian Open wasn’t the culmination and final event of the Aussie summer. I remember when Mandlikova won the Australian Open in 1980, the NSW Open was played the following week..... that would be the modern equivalent of the Sydney International, the current final lead up to the Australian Open. And the grass court circuit continued for a couple of weeks after that even.....( this isn’t isolated to the Aussie Open, in the early 1970s the Italian Open was played AFTER the French Open. The French wasn’t the be-all it is nowadays. I recall Jan Kodes won the French but Rod Laver hadn’t entered as he had a bigger prize money event to play in the US. Laver did play the Italian the week after the French and he destroyed Kodes in the final.....)

Definitely from 1981 they got the scheduling right and the Aussie Open had lead up events escalating in significance and it was the exclamation mark to the season. But remember, the women’s Australian Open wasn’t played on the same dates as the men’s! It was earlier and therefore was more player friendly as the men’s event was held over the Christmas and New Year’s Day period. So that helps younger readers understand why the men were not keen to play the Aussie Open.

As for sponsorship, the women’s event was the Toyota Australian Open but the men’s event had had sponsorship for years......

 

[PDJ]

In those days the Australian Open wasn’t the culmination and final event of the Aussie summer. I remember when Mandlikova won the Australian Open in 1980, the NSW Open was played the following week..... that would be the modern equivalent of the Sydney International, the current final lead up to the Australian Open. And the grass court circuit continued for a couple of weeks after that even.....( this isn’t isolated to the Aussie Open, in the early 1970s the Italian Open was played AFTER the French Open. The French wasn’t the be-all it is nowadays. I recall Jan Kodes won the French but Rod Laver hadn’t entered as he had a bigger prize money event to play in the US. Laver did play the Italian the week after the French and he destroyed Kodes in the final.....)

Definitely from 1981 they got the scheduling right and the Aussie Open had lead up events escalating in significance and it was the exclamation mark to the season. But remember, the women’s Australian Open wasn’t played on the same dates as the men’s! It was earlier and therefore was more player friendly as the men’s event was held over the Christmas and New Year’s Day period. So that helps younger readers understand why the men were not keen to play the Aussie Open.

As for sponsorship, the women’s event was the Toyota Australian Open but the men’s event had had sponsorship for years......

Maria Bueno always said The Italian was much more important in her day.

 

[suwanee4712]

In those days the Australian Open wasn’t the culmination and final event of the Aussie summer. I remember when Mandlikova won the Australian Open in 1980, the NSW Open was played the following week..... that would be the modern equivalent of the Sydney International, the current final lead up to the Australian Open. And the grass court circuit continued for a couple of weeks after that even.....( this isn’t isolated to the Aussie Open, in the early 1970s the Italian Open was played AFTER the French Open. The French wasn’t the be-all it is nowadays. I recall Jan Kodes won the French but Rod Laver hadn’t entered as he had a bigger prize money event to play in the US. Laver did play the Italian the week after the French and he destroyed Kodes in the final.....)

Definitely from 1981 they got the scheduling right and the Aussie Open had lead up events escalating in significance and it was the exclamation mark to the season. But remember, the women’s Australian Open wasn’t played on the same dates as the men’s! It was earlier and therefore was more player friendly as the men’s event was held over the Christmas and New Year’s Day period. So that helps younger readers understand why the men were not keen to play the Aussie Open.

As for sponsorship, the women’s event was the Toyota Australian Open but the men’s event had had sponsorship for years......

Wow, this is all interesting info. And while I do remember some players saying that the Italian was as big of bigger than the French, at one time, I did not realize it was ever played after the French.

Thanks for sharing!

I also wanted to add that for those that love watching Sukova vs Martina, the 86 French SF is very entertaining with Sukova four points from victory. 86 Eastbourne final is very good. The 89 Australian Open QF is high quality and exciting. The 88 Aussie QF is a match I've seen several times, and though it's only two sets, it's also quite good.

The U.S. Indoors used to be televised in the US by CBS, but I don't remember seeing that final between Helena and Martina. However, I hope someone finds it because I think Martina won 7-6 in the 3rd.

Two other Sukova matches that were absolutely brilliant world be the 87 Wimbledon QF vs Shriver. And Bud Collins said the 88 Lipton QF with Chris was worthy of a Wimbledon final.

And lastly, it's a rout, but I'd love to see the 82 US Clay Courts F. That was the first time I ever saw Helena. But I would mostly want to watch it because of my love for the winner, Virginia Ruzici!

 

[BringBackWood]

Wow, this is all interesting info. And while I do remember some players saying that the Italian was as big of bigger than the French, at one time, I did not realize it was ever played after the French.

Thanks for sharing!

I also wanted to add that for those that love watching Sukova vs Martina, the 86 French SF is very entertaining with Sukova four points from victory. 86 Eastbourne final is very good. The 89 Australian Open QF is high quality and exciting. The 88 Aussie QF is a match I've seen several times, and though it's only two sets, it's also quite good.

The U.S. Indoors used to be televised in the US by CBS, but I don't remember seeing that final between Helena and Martina. However, I hope someone finds it because I think Martina won 7-6 in the 3rd.

Two other Sukova matches that were absolutely brilliant world be the 87 Wimbledon QF vs Shriver. And Bud Collins said the 88 Lipton QF with Chris was worthy of a Wimbledon final.

And lastly, it's a rout, but I'd love to see the 82 US Clay Courts F. That was the first time I ever saw Helena. But I would mostly want to watch it because of my love for the winner, Virginia Ruzici!

Thanks, sadly the shriver and Lipton matches do not seem to exist. Odd for a wimbledon QF but there it is.

 

[suwanee4712]

Thanks, sadly the shriver and Lipton matches do not seem to exist. Odd for a wimbledon QF but there it is.

I've never seen them listed anywhere. I do remember a few points being shown of the match with Shriver. Along with the 90 QF between Gaby and Zvereva (which I have seen) it's been mentioned amongst the best Wimbledon women's matches that few have seen or know about.

Helena was angry after the Lipton match. Apparently a raucous Florida night crowd got under her skin, and she kind of took it out on Chris a bit.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Regarding the comparision between Sukova and Shriver, my answer would be fairly simple. Sukova is clearly the "greater" player (atleast in singles). While Shriver is probably the better player. Sukova is clearly the more talented player. So who is superior goes back and forth depending on your basis.

4 slam finals vs 1 and all the big wins in slams Sukova have is undeniable for greater. Shriver was consistently ending years ranked in the top 4 or 5 while Sukova I don't think did even once, so based on that I easily pick Shriver as the better player. Sukova is the more talented player, I wouldn't say she underachieved so much as Shriver found ways to overachieve through insane court intelligence and intangibles (along with sheer will and finding ways to utilize her strengths while protecting her weaknesses as much as possible).

I know Sukova did poorly against Hana and it is probably for all the reasons suwanee pointed out. Did Shriver have anymore success vs Hana than Helena did though? I know Helena did a bit better vs Navratliova, particularly in big matches, although Shriver had a couple big wins too. Similar vs Evert but considering all Pam's wins were post 87, and she rarely had close calls before then, I would say Sukova was more threatening to Chris too. Against Graf obviously Shriver wins by default, she atleast beat Graf 3 times (even if baby Graf twice) and had the huge YEC 88 win over her, while Sukova was was such a Graf pigeon she might as well have pulled her pants down whenever they played. She was basically Graf's Tauziat, despite being a far better player than Tauziat.

 

[BTURNER]

Evert played Helena 19 times and only lost twice with her first loss in 1986 Open. There were 7 three setters with Helena only winning the 87 Eastborne. At Majors it was a 4-1 split with Chris winning 1983 French, 1984 Aussie, and both the 86 and 88 Wimbledons. Interesting that grass majors were so kind to Chris, especially since all of these wins were after Martina had already lost to Helena.

Martina played Helena 30 times and lost 6 times, the first time being in Dec 1984. They played 11 three setters with Helena winning 4 of them 1984 Aussie, WTA Championships in 88, 1989 Aussie, Zurich 1994. At majors it was a 7-3 split with Helena winning the 1984 Aussie, 1989 Aussie and the 1993 OPen.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Helena's wins over Martina were almost all in big or semi big matches which was the amazing thing. 84 Australian Open was probably the biggest loss of Maritna's career. 89 Australian, 88 YEC, 93 U.S Open were big losses obviously. 87 Eastbourne final was a pretty big match back then, especialy as that was a special event for Martina. Only the Zurich win was pretty minor. She really got up for playing Martina in big matches.

 

[BTURNER]

Helena's wins over Martina were almost all in big or semi big matches which was the amazing thing. 84 Australian Open was probably the biggest loss of Maritna's career. 89 Australian, 88 YEC, 93 U.S Open were big losses obviously. 87 Eastbourne final was a pretty big match back then, especialy as that was a special event for Martina. Only the Zurich win was pretty minor. She really got up for playing Martina in big matches.

Agreed! Helena was a bit of shotmaker. Big serves, big volleys, big passes . She was streaky and she played better from behind or staying even than with the pressure of a lead. If she could relax a little, connect on a few, she had a shot at breaking Martina and sometimes Martina had trouble getting her passing shots grooved. Evert had less trouble with Helena because she made her hit more balls that Martina, had a better return, especially if the serve was predictable hard and flat, had inevitably played a lot more passing shots in prior rounds, and she was able to move Sukova around side to side and wrong foot her. Evert took full advantage of the Giraffe syndrome from the backcourt.

Chris always did well against tall serve volleyers like Court, Stove, Shriver, Sukova and Kodhe Kilch, getting her losses mostly outside her prime years ( 1974-1986) when her reactions slowed on that big serve return, and she had more trouble getting started and keeping focused. That single1986 loss by Sukova was the only one involving those 5 players, and it was literally at the very tail end of her 'prime time' Serve volleyers who with a low center of gravity, and more mobile like King, Jordan, Garrison etc gave her more trouble.