Stats for 1988 W final (Graf-Navratilova)

[suwanee4712]

Only thing I disagree with is I would say she lost the 85 and 87 French finals by a scant few points. Not sure the other one you are referring to. She lost the 75 and 86 French finals to Chris in 3 sets, but I wouldn't say either were by a scant few points either.

In fairness to Sanchez Vicario she did lose the 96 French final to Graf by a scant few points too, and lost 2 other finals to Graf or Seles, but I think she also majorly benefited form the Seles stabbing, and so many different circumstances at the French post 93. Avoiding Hingis at the 98 French when Hingis was killing her everywhere, including on clay. No way on earth she wins that title if she plays Hingis in the quarters, semis, or finals, and if Seles does not take out Hingis for her. And just general being in the much poorer half of the draw and avoiding any of her main clay opponents even in that half (Pierce, Martinez, Coetzer), and Serena choking badly from a clear winning position in the round of 16. The rain delay during the 94 final without which Pierce probably would have continued her 94 tournament form where she destroyed everyone including Graf, which Sanchez Vicario IMO would have never stopped. And of course Seles being out.

Yes, I was counting the 86 French which I shouldn't have. I think Martina's lost opportunity there was in the middle of the second set when I think she got a little cocky and thought she might beat Chris from the baseline. She started hanging back when attacking had been working against an errant Evert. Martina's decision to hang back allowed Chris to groove her strokes, and then Martina had little choice about staying back as Chris began to smoke her. Vintage Evert and easily my favourite French performance by Chris.

 

[skaj]

I'm the biggest Seles fan, but Seles really never "passed" Graf in the sense that there was a permanent changing of the guard and Graf's Slam-winning days were largely over. Seles equaled her, and she did exceed her for a while before the stabbing, but Graf still went on to win many more Slams and get more wins over Monica.

Graf and Seles were the same generation, it's a different thing. They were like Martina and Evert, Federer and Nadal.(It didn't last though)

 

[flutzingitaway]

Graf and Seles were the same generation, it's a different thing. They were like Martina and Evert, Federer and Nadal.(It didn't last though)

What are you referring to didn't last.

 

[skaj]

What are you referring to didn't last.

Their rivalry.

 

[bluetrain4]

Graf and Seles were the same generation, it's a different thing. They were like Martina and Evert, Federer and Nadal.(It didn't last though)

Yes, I know, but players of the same generation can still overtake one another. Graf emerged slightly before Seles and Seles rose up to meet her and eclipsed her for a period, at least in terms of Slam results (1991 AO through 1993 AO). All I was saying was that Seles' eclipsing of Graf wasn't permanent - it wasn't the end of Graf being No. 1, of Graf winning lots of Slams, etc.

 

[buscemi]

Yes, I know, but players of the same generation can still overtake one another. Graf emerged slightly before Seles and Seles rose up to meet her and eclipsed her for a period, at least in terms of Slam results (1991 AO through 1993 AO). All I was saying was that Seles' eclipsing of Graf wasn't permanent - it wasn't the end of Graf being No. 1, of Graf winning lots of Slams, etc.

Yes, it wasn't actually permanent, but it might very well have been permanent if not for the stabbing...or it might still have been temporary.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Yes, it wasn't actually permanent, but it might very well have been permanent if not for the stabbing...or it might still have been temporary.

Like I have said the Graf-Seles topic is so overdone, that while it was interesting for awhile it is now mostly boring for me. The impact on the other players besides Graf I find a more interesting thing to wonder about:

-Is Sanchez a permanent 1 slam wonder. I must admit her success annoys me a bit as I consider her by FAR the least talented player to win so much (4 slams). That she has an utterly pathetic 2-18 head to head with Hingis, yet wound up with only 1 fewer slam than Hingis (even if Hingis is probably an underachiever) is really telling. I can't imagine any world she still wins 4 slams, let alone reaches 12 slam finals now, but whether she winds up with 1, 2, or 3, or even reaches #1 is an interesting thing to wonder.

-Speaking of Hingis how much if she affected. To be honestly with Seles dealing with her fathers illness and Graf injured and going downhill in 97-98, and Seles missing the 97 and 98 Australian Opens anyway, I think she still lucks out with circumstances and the weakish field for awhile and is largely unaffected, but I know there are some who would think differently. Speaking of which I think if she is less dominant in 97 she might be better off long term, or maybe not. The many variables that went into her career falling apart is an extensive discussion, but I think rising to dominance too quickly and easily was one of them.

-Does Pierce does still have the meteoric rise she had in 94-early 95 and is she better off long term if this does not happen. She even admitted to falling badly off in 95-96 largely since she became overwhelmed with the pressure from the French press. With a super weak WTA by then where Sanchez was about to take #1, Graf seemingly injured and almost done, having not won at 4 straight slams (the last one which Pierce won missed by injury), there was tons of hype and demands back home for her to take the #1 ranking, young Capriati esque pressure.

-And some others like Conchita Martinez who rose after the Seles stabbing and won so many tier 1 clay tournaments, and won Wimbledon with a super lucky draw.

 

[bluetrain4]

Like I have said the Graf-Seles topic is so overdone, that while it was interesting for awhile it is now mostly boring for me. The impact on the other players besides Graf I find a more interesting thing to wonder about:

-Is Sanchez a permanent 1 slam wonder. I must admit her success annoys me a bit as I consider her by FAR the least talented player to win so much (4 slams). That she has an utterly pathetic 2-18 head to head with Hingis, yet wound up with only 1 fewer slam than Hingis (even if Hingis is probably an underachiever) is really telling. I can't imagine any world she still wins 4 slams, let alone reaches 12 slam finals now, but whether she winds up with 1, 2, or 3, or even reaches #1 is an interesting thing to wonder.

-Speaking of Hingis how much if she affected. To be honestly with Seles dealing with her fathers illness and Graf injured and going downhill in 97-98, and Seles missing the 97 and 98 Australian Opens anyway, I think she still lucks out with circumstances and the weakish field for awhile and is largely unaffected, but I know there are some who would think differently. Speaking of which I think if she is less dominant in 97 she might be better off long term, or maybe not. The many variables that went into her career falling apart is an extensive discussion, but I think rising to dominance too quickly and easily was one of them.

-Does Pierce does still have the meteoric rise she had in 94-early 95 and is she better off long term if this does not happen. She even admitted to falling badly off in 95-96 largely since she became overwhelmed with the pressure from the French press. With a super weak WTA by then where Sanchez was about to take #1, Graf seemingly injured and almost done, having not won at 4 straight slams (the last one which Pierce won missed by injury), there was tons of hype and demands back home for her to take the #1 ranking, young Capriati esque pressure.

-And some others like Conchita Martinez who rose after the Seles stabbing and won so many tier 1 clay tournaments, and won Wimbledon with a super lucky draw.

In my opinion:

1. ASV wins more than 1 Slam, but not 4. Tenacious competitor who can take advantage of players being off; quite a lot of variety, though really no big weapon. This may seem like a stretch because, after all, she won 2 of her 4 Slams in 1994 when Seles was out and she has a miserable record against Seles and there would obviously be an increased chance that she'd have to beat both Graf and Seles on her way to a Slam title. Nevertheless, I still see her putting it together at least one more time - an peak-playing tournament, an off-opponent, a busted draw, a combination of them all - ASV wins another Slam, so she still has at least 2. Beyond her wins, remember she had some really close losses too - she was game.

2. Hingis - Even if Seles isn't stabbed and plays peak tennis for four more years (the rest of 1993 through 1996), that's still outside of the time when Hingis started winning Slams. Unless Seles' 1997 and beyond play is vastly different because she never got stabbed, I don't see Seles not being stabbed having a drastic affect on Hingis' career. Hingis generally did well against Seles (15-5), but there was always the chance that Seles could just go off like she did at the 1998 French Open and all of Hingis' variety and shot making just didn't matter. So, again, unless not getting stabbed means Seles plays at her 1992-93 peak level (or hypothetical non-stabbed 94-95 peak level) all the way until Hingis starts winning Slams, I don't see much difference.

3. Pierce - her career is always slightly better than I remember - those four additional Slam finals really adds some depth to the prototypical huge-shot, but inconsistent (not necessarily within a match, but from tournament to tournament) player. Mary was all about hot and cold, peaks and valleys and I don't think that would change much. Obviously having Seles in the draw means the draw is that much tougher and altered, so maybe she doesn't win AO 1995, then again maybe she does. I'd still give Pierce two Slams.

4. Martinez. She probably doesn't win 1994 Wimbledon with Seles around. She had a miserable record vs Seles and Seles would beat her even on grass, where Seles was only a percentage of the player she was on other surfaces. Though if Graf is still upset in the first round and someone like Navratilova or Novatna takes out Seles, then maybe Martinez could win anyway. And as crazy as it sounds, Wimbledon with Seles is the best chance she's got. She kinda sorta had a chance at the 1995 French Open where she could have beat Graf in the SFs. But, first, she didn't, and even if she did, she would have played ASV - who though Conchita has beaten at the French Open, still has a 14-4 record over her. And if Seles was there, no way. It's too many people who generally own her to get through. So her best bet would have remained 1994 Wimbledon with Graf losing early; or maybe wins that second set vs Pierce in 2000 at the French and claws her way to a victory. 40/60 wins/doesn't win a Slam if Seles isn't stabbed. And a few of those Tier 1 titles go away too. But, she'd still have her moments - she has a broad and deep resume and plenty of deep Slam runs even when Seles was in the draw.

 

[flutzingitaway]

In my opinion:

1. ASV wins more than 1 Slam, but not 4. Tenacious competitor who can take advantage of players being off; quite a lot of variety, though really no big weapon. This may seem like a stretch because, after all, she won 2 of her 4 Slams in 1994 when Seles was out and she has a miserable record against Seles and there would obviously be an increased chance that she'd have to beat both Graf and Seles on her way to a Slam title. Nevertheless, I still see her putting it together at least one more time - an peak-playing tournament, an off-opponent, a busted draw, a combination of them all - ASV wins another Slam, so she still has at least 2. Beyond her wins, remember she had some really close losses too - she was game.

2. Hingis - Even if Seles isn't stabbed and plays peak tennis for four more years (the rest of 1993 through 1996), that's still outside of the time when Hingis started winning Slams. Unless Seles' 1997 and beyond play is vastly different because she never got stabbed, I don't see Seles not being stabbed having a drastic affect on Hingis' career. Hingis generally did well against Seles (15-5), but there was always the chance that Seles could just go off like she did at the 1998 French Open and all of Hingis' variety and shot making just didn't matter. So, again, unless not getting stabbed means Seles plays at her 1992-93 peak level (or hypothetical non-stabbed 94-95 peak level) all the way until Hingis starts winning Slams, I don't see much difference.

3. Pierce - her career is always slightly better than I remember - those four additional Slam finals really adds some depth to the prototypical huge-shot, but inconsistent (not necessarily within a match, but from tournament to tournament) player. Mary was all about hot and cold, peaks and valleys and I don't think that would change much. Obviously having Seles in the draw means the draw is that much tougher and altered, so maybe she doesn't win AO 1995, then again maybe she does. I'd still give Pierce two Slams.

4. Martinez. She probably doesn't win 1994 Wimbledon with Seles around. She had a miserable record vs Seles and Seles would beat her even on grass, where Seles was only a percentage of the player she was on other surfaces. Though if Graf is still upset in the first round and someone like Navratilova or Novatna takes out Seles, then maybe Martinez could win anyway. And as crazy as it sounds, Wimbledon with Seles is the best chance she's got. She kinda sorta had a chance at the 1996 French Open where she could have beat Graf in the SFs. But, first, she didn't, and even if she did, she would have played ASV - who though Conchita has beaten at the French Open, still has a 14-4 record over her. And if Seles was there, no way. It's too many people who generally own her to get through. So her best bet would have remained 1994 Wimbledon with Graf losing early; or maybe wins that second set vs Pierce in 2000 at the French and claws her way to a victory. 40/60 wins/doesn't win a Slam if Seles isn't stabbed. And a few of those Tier 1 titles go away too. But, she'd still have her moments - she has a broad and deep resume and plenty of deep Slam runs even when Seles was in the draw.

That sounds about what I think as well. The thing is I think whether Pierce wins one of the 94 RG or 95 AO or not, I think with Seles around, even if Graf still has a pretty poor 94/early 95, the French press would not hype her being #1 so much which I think might help her play better overall in 95 and 96, and not have to rebound to being a top player at all starting in 97, just before the womens game got a lot tougher. Then again I might be assuming too much, and giving her too much benefit.

The thing with Martinez and why I don't think she wins Wimbledon 94 is not neccessarily whether Seles wins it or not is the draw was so lucky for her. And with Seles in the draw as either the #1 or #2 seed the entire draw changes and I just don't think she can get as lucky again. Keep in mind she avoided all of Graf, Novotna, Sanchez as it was, and she almost for sure loses to all of those (Sanchez could be debated but she had a huge mental edge on Martinez and beat her at Wimbledon 95 when they met, where most expected Martinez to win). If she plays Seles, Garrison, some other serve and volley players, or Navratilova on a day other than the final as Martinez was much better in that match than most of her matches that tournament and it was one of Navratilova's worst all tournament, she could possibly lose to. I just don't see a scenario with the draw redone she somehow gets lucky enough to win 7 matches, regardless if he plays or loses to Seles or not. And of course I don't think she wins so many tier 1 and tier 2 clay touranments, as most Seles entered that Martinez was also in 93-96 she would probably win. As it was she benefitted from Graf greatly cutting down her non grand slam play to protect her fragile body, and with Sabatini massively declined and no real threat anymore, she really had hardly any competition to win Premier non RG clay titles except Sanchez in some of them. Which is generally how Martinez needs to win her events, weak draws and weak competition, against the big girls she was never a factor really.

I could see Seles having a second surge of sorts after her father died, but I imagine she would have struggled in 97-early 98 regardless as this was at the peak of her fathers illness, so yes I don't see her affecting Hingis much, which is probably bad luck for Hingis, since I think she would be better off not being as dominant as she was in 97 honestly. I think rising to dominance so fast hurt her career long term personally, I know some would shoot down that theory and say the big hitters and other issues (foot problems, etc...) would have driven her out of the game regardless.

 

[bluetrain4]

Just a note, Flutz - For Martinez I had mistyped and said that maybe she wins 1996 French Open, but I meant 1995. She played Graf in the SF both years, but 1995 was much, much closer, and 1995 overall was a really good year where she made all 4 Slam SFs.

 

[buscemi]

Like I have said the Graf-Seles topic is so overdone, that while it was interesting for awhile it is now mostly boring for me. The impact on the other players besides Graf I find a more interesting thing to wonder about:

-Is Sanchez a permanent 1 slam wonder. I must admit her success annoys me a bit as I consider her by FAR the least talented player to win so much (4 slams). That she has an utterly pathetic 2-18 head to head with Hingis, yet wound up with only 1 fewer slam than Hingis (even if Hingis is probably an underachiever) is really telling. I can't imagine any world she still wins 4 slams, let alone reaches 12 slam finals now, but whether she winds up with 1, 2, or 3, or even reaches #1 is an interesting thing to wonder.

-Speaking of Hingis how much if she affected. To be honestly with Seles dealing with her fathers illness and Graf injured and going downhill in 97-98, and Seles missing the 97 and 98 Australian Opens anyway, I think she still lucks out with circumstances and the weakish field for awhile and is largely unaffected, but I know there are some who would think differently. Speaking of which I think if she is less dominant in 97 she might be better off long term, or maybe not. The many variables that went into her career falling apart is an extensive discussion, but I think rising to dominance too quickly and easily was one of them.

-Does Pierce does still have the meteoric rise she had in 94-early 95 and is she better off long term if this does not happen. She even admitted to falling badly off in 95-96 largely since she became overwhelmed with the pressure from the French press. With a super weak WTA by then where Sanchez was about to take #1, Graf seemingly injured and almost done, having not won at 4 straight slams (the last one which Pierce won missed by injury), there was tons of hype and demands back home for her to take the #1 ranking, young Capriati esque pressure.

-And some others like Conchita Martinez who rose after the Seles stabbing and won so many tier 1 clay tournaments, and won Wimbledon with a super lucky draw.

I think a lot depends on two things in connection with a non-stabbed Seles: (1) how does she hold up physically; and (2) how does she hold up physically and emotionally. Tennis-wise, it's pretty clear that Seles was still improving at the time of the stabbing, namely adding a bigger serve and coming to net more.

Physically, it's pretty clear that injuries started limiting Seles during her comeback starting in early 1996, and it seems pretty clear that her time off played some role in those injuries. Mentally.emotionally, we know that there's some off the court stuff that impacted Seles during her comeback, and it again seems clear that the stabbing played some role in her inability t cope with those events.

All of which is to say that there are a lot of question marks. But, if non-stabbed Seles remains relatively healthy and mostly keeps it together mentally and emotionally, I think she plays at a very high level through around 2000 (the last year she finished in the top 5 during her actual comeback).

If so...that's pretty terrible news for ASV. Seles would be heavily favored over ASV at the 1994 French and U.S. Opens, and ASV barely got by a diminished Seles at the 1998 French Open. Maybe ASV sneaks a Major somewhere at some point, but I'd say she's the biggest loser in this scenario.

Hingis is the toughest call. Obviously, she's the only one of these players w/out matches against a pre-stabbing Seles, and she did very well against a post-stabbing Seles. But still, we saw how Hingis did when the big hitters started finding their range against her. This could work both ways, though. Hingis would have found it tougher sledding against a non-stabbed Seles, but she also would have needed to find a way to beat her, which might have helped her against the big hitters down the road. I think Hingis doesn't have that huge breakthrough in 1997 with a non-stabed Seles, but I think her game might have developed more and helped her down the road.

Pierce's 1995 Australian Open title is clearly in danger w/a non-stabbed Seles given how much Monica loved Rebound Ace. Overall, though, Pierce was a hot and cold player who was always just looming on the WTA. I think she still breaks through once or twice at Majors even w/Seles present.

With Conchita, Wimbledon 1994 would be interesting. The biggest question might be what happens w/a non-stabbed Seles at Wimbledon 1993. Obviously, she skipped W in 1991, and then we had shriek-gate in 1992, w/the disastrous final against Seles. Does Seles make a better showing in 1993 w/a bigger serve and net game, and then come in w/the eye of the tiger in 1994, especially after Graf loses? Or does Seles have a bad performance in 1993 and kind of give up on a huge emphasis on Wimbledon?

 

[flutzingitaway]

I think a lot depends on two things in connection with a non-stabbed Seles: (1) how does she hold up physically; and (2) how does she hold up physically and emotionally. Tennis-wise, it's pretty clear that Seles was still improving at the time of the stabbing, namely adding a bigger serve and coming to net more.

Physically, it's pretty clear that injuries started limiting Seles during her comeback starting in early 1996, and it seems pretty clear that her time off played some role in those injuries. Mentally.emotionally, we know that there's some off the court stuff that impacted Seles during her comeback, and it again seems clear that the stabbing played some role in her inability t cope with those events.

All of which is to say that there are a lot of question marks. But, if non-stabbed Seles remains relatively healthy and mostly keeps it together mentally and emotionally, I think she plays at a very high level through around 2000 (the last year she finished in the top 5 during her actual comeback).

If so...that's pretty terrible news for ASV. Seles would be heavily favored over ASV at the 1994 French and U.S. Opens, and ASV barely got by a diminished Seles at the 1998 French Open. Maybe ASV sneaks a Major somewhere at some point, but I'd say she's the biggest loser in this scenario.

Hingis is the toughest call. Obviously, she's the only one of these players w/out matches against a pre-stabbing Seles, and she did very well against a post-stabbing Seles. But still, we saw how Hingis did when the big hitters started finding their range against her. This could work both ways, though. Hingis would have found it tougher sledding against a non-stabbed Seles, but she also would have needed to find a way to beat her, which might have helped her against the big hitters down the road. I think Hingis doesn't have that huge breakthrough in 1997 with a non-stabed Seles, but I think her game might have developed more and helped her down the road.

Pierce's 1995 Australian Open title is clearly in danger w/a non-stabbed Seles given how much Monica loved Rebound Ace. Overall, though, Pierce was a hot and cold player who was always just looming on the WTA. I think she still breaks through once or twice at Majors even w/Seles present.

With Conchita, Wimbledon 1994 would be interesting. The biggest question might be what happens w/a non-stabbed Seles at Wimbledon 1993. Obviously, she skipped W in 1991, and then we had shriek-gate in 1992, w/the disastrous final against Seles. Does Seles make a better showing in 1993 w/a bigger serve and net game, and then come in w/the eye of the tiger in 1994, especially after Graf loses? Or does Seles have a bad performance in 1993 and kind of give up on a huge emphasis on Wimbledon?

I could see a plausible possible scenario ASV wins the 94 French. This specific scenario is if Seles-Pierce play in the semis, Pierce wins, and Graf-Sanchez play in the other semi, and Sanchez wins. I don't think it is extremely likely though. I don't think Sanchez even likely beats Graf in the semis honestly and most likely loses to Graf if that semi takes place despite how easily Graf lost to Pierce and some of Sanchez's success vs Graf that year, nor is Pierce certain to beat Seles either with despite how well she was playing until the final. I could see a scenario any of Graf, Pierce, Seles, or Sanchez wind up winning the 94. Pierce's is if the semis I mention took place, ifs he beats Seles in hers, and she plays Graf in the final instead of Sanchez. Graf's is the scenario I just mentioned, and if she is able beat Pierce or Seles (more likely Pierce, despite how easily she lost to her in the semis, as she was clearly much worse in the final). And Seles is likely the most likely of the 4, but I could see a possible scenario for each of the 4 winning, but none of them involve Graf playing Pierce in the semis, or Sanchez playing Seles at all. I agree Sanchez is lucky if she wins 1 more major big picture. And she never wins a U.S Open with both Graf and Seles in the draw, she is even very unlikely to beat Graf if she plays her in the semis rather than the final since she mostly won the final due to Graf injuring herself during it, and she quite possibly even loses to Novotna or some other fast courters if she plays them before the finals or semis rather than playing Date and Sabatini to make the final.

I agree Seles's showing at Wimbledon 93 which go a long way to her motivation and hunger for 94 and beyond.

I agree Hingis could be better off long term if she has to work harder to overcome and figure out Seles. Her rise to the top was super easy with Graf going completely off the grid and Seles looking like she were on maternity leave. Getting a too swelled head and thinking she was better than she was, was not positive for her long term, she got pretty lazy and disinterested in improving for atleast a couple years. Then when competition became harder fast, she did not react well, and by the time she did it was too late. Of course there are many possible explanations to her slam drought and early retirement, the big hitters emerging, some confidence sucking losses (99 RG, 2000 U.S semis, worst of all the 2002 Australian debacle which was for sure the end of her career), foot problems which she later sued the shoe manufacter for. Which again speaks to my point about draws, if Seles in the draw changes any of those draws and chain of events even a bit and those specific matches/losses don't happen the way they did, that could also help her career as those 3 specific matches and the way she lost each were soul sucking.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I could see a plausible possible scenario ASV wins the 94 French. This specific scenario is if Seles-Pierce play in the semis, Pierce wins, and Graf-Sanchez play in the other semi, and Sanchez wins. I don't think it is extremely likely though. I don't think Sanchez even likely beats Graf in the semis honestly and most likely loses to Graf if that semi takes place despite how easily Graf lost to Pierce and some of Sanchez's success vs Graf that year, nor is Pierce certain to beat Seles either with despite how well she was playing until the final. I could see a scenario any of Graf, Pierce, Seles, or Sanchez wind up winning the 94. Pierce's is if the semis I mention took place, ifs he beats Seles in hers, and she plays Graf in the final instead of Sanchez. Graf's is the scenario I just mentioned, and if she is able beat Pierce or Seles (more likely Pierce, despite how easily she lost to her in the semis, as she was clearly much worse in the final). And Seles is likely the most likely of the 4, but I could see a possible scenario for each of the 4 winning, but none of them involve Graf playing Pierce in the semis, or Sanchez playing Seles at all. I agree Sanchez is lucky if she wins 1 more major big picture. And she never wins a U.S Open with both Graf and Seles in the draw, she is even very unlikely to beat Graf if she plays her in the semis rather than the final since she mostly won the final due to Graf injuring herself during it, and she quite possibly even loses to Novotna or some other fast courters if she plays them before the finals or semis rather than playing Date and Sabatini to make the final.

I agree Seles's showing at Wimbledon 93 which go a long way to her motivation and hunger for 94 and beyond.

I agree Hingis could be better off long term if she has to work harder to overcome and figure out Seles. Her rise to the top was super easy with Graf going completely off the grid and Seles looking like she were on maternity leave. Getting a too swelled head and thinking she was better than she was, was not positive for her long term, she got pretty lazy and disinterested in improving for atleast a couple years. Then when competition became harder fast, she did not react well, and by the time she did it was too late. Of course there are many possible explanations to her slam drought and early retirement, the big hitters emerging, some confidence sucking losses (99 RG, 2000 U.S semis, worst of all the 2002 Australian debacle which was for sure the end of her career), foot problems which she later sued the shoe manufacter for. Which again speaks to my point about draws, if Seles in the draw changes any of those draws and chain of events even a bit and those specific matches/losses don't happen the way they did, that could also help her career as those 3 specific matches and the way she lost each were soul sucking.

For one thing, the RG 99 loss scarred her badly and she choked away slam finals multiple times (maybe three in all) to Capriati. As such, the fact that her serve was weak and she couldn't absolutely impose herself on the opponent no matter how well she played always made her liable to getting yippy in crucial serve holds.

The other is, yes, the swelled head syndrome and also, I think, for not being SO attractive, she was extremely vain about her looks. The Radwanska syndrome (I remember her team once saying they wanted her to look feminine and not all bulked up. lol, what) I think had she put in the work and got stronger, her height should not have been as much of a liability as it became. Look at Henin, she was even shorter than Hingis and yet won more slams in a more competitive era and dominated the most physical slam of all. Hingis wanted to be able to win with trickshots and delectable drops all the time; she didn't enjoy gusting it out in long, brutal rallies. Graf exposed that in the 99 RG final and she refused to learn her lesson from that. I think she had a window of opportunity to add 2-3 slams until Serena caught fire but she wasted it. Oh, not only her looks, she was extremely vain about her technique which got quickly outdated (ironic for a player who mocked Graf as not fit and up to date enough for the modern game only to be served her comeuppance). I usually think of arrogance as not such a bad thing to have for a champion because they have to be a little delusional to believe they can win. But in Hingis' case, the arrogance was ultimately toxic and I say this as someone who loved the tactical genius of her game and aforesaid trick shots.

 

[flutzingitaway]

For one thing, the RG 99 loss scarred her badly and she choked away slam finals multiple times (maybe three in all) to Capriati. As such, the fact that her serve was weak and she couldn't absolutely impose herself on the opponent no matter how well she played always made her liable to getting yippy in crucial serve holds.

The other is, yes, the swelled head syndrome and also, I think, for not being SO attractive, she was extremely vain about her looks. The Radwanska syndrome (I remember her team once saying they wanted her to look feminine and not all bulked up. lol, what) I think had she put in the work and got stronger, her height should not have been as much of a liability as it became. Look at Henin, she was even shorter than Hingis and yet won more slams in a more competitive era and dominated the most physical slam of all. Hingis wanted to be able to win with trickshots and delectable drops all the time; she didn't enjoy gusting it out in long, brutal rallies. Graf exposed that in the 99 RG final and she refused to learn her lesson from that. I think she had a window of opportunity to add 2-3 slams until Serena caught fire but she wasted it. Oh, not only her looks, she was extremely vain about her technique which got quickly outdated (ironic for a player who mocked Graf as not fit and up to date enough for the modern game only to be served her comeuppance). I usually think of arrogance as not such a bad thing to have for a champion because they have to be a little delusional to believe they can win. But in Hingis' case, the arrogance was ultimately toxic and I say this as someone who loved the tactical genius of her game and aforesaid trick shots.

Losing so many big slam matches to Capriati shows her confidence was shot by then.

Henin was willing to go through sheer torture to take herself to the physical level she needed to be. Hingis simply wasn't. Her Mom was on her case constantly but it never go through, and that combined with some of the emotionally devastating losses I mentioned, which hit her confidence a bit more each time, and eventually it became too much. Even something as simple as fixing her serve technique and working on more racquet head speed on the forehand could be done without murderous work, and she refused to do even that. It was a shame as she showed amazing potential as a young player, but did not progress as she needed to from that point. And I also really enjoyed her extremely unique playing style, and amazing point constuction, but she still needed to up the physical aspect once she started losing more and waited way too long to make any move to do this (if she did at all).

And how dismissive she was of the mere idea the field was kind of weak in 97-early 98 when a reported even hinted at it, shows she wasn't grounded in reality either. I can understand not wanting to feel like anyone is taking anything away from your achievements, but it doesn't diminish what you achieve and all you win so young, by acknowledging the field is pretty bad at the moment and you have to be prepared for the possability of it improving moving forward. I love how she acted like the game was just so fast and devastating in 97 it pushed the old useless hag Graf out, and all but said those exact words in numerous press conferences LMFAO, delusional. In a year Coetzer reached #3 in the world, Majoli ends at #4 and wins a slam, and an old Jana Novotna (a Graf/Seles contemporary) even after choking in a bunch of important matches that year like usual ending the year at #2. Please Martina.

 

[skaj]

Yes, I know, but players of the same generation can still overtake one another. Graf emerged slightly before Seles and Seles rose up to meet her and eclipsed her for a period, at least in terms of Slam results (1991 AO through 1993 AO). All I was saying was that Seles' eclipsing of Graf wasn't permanent - it wasn't the end of Graf being No. 1, of Graf winning lots of Slams, etc.

It was a rivalry in every sense, in my opinion. Yes, Seles had an edge, but she was fighting really hard for that advantage.

 

[flutzingitaway]

It was a rivalry in every sense, in my opinion. Yes, Seles had an edge, but she was fighting really hard for that advantage.

Although this hard work only began in late 92, and the 9 months or so before she got stabbed. When she first rose to the top in late 90/early 91 it was by virtual default with Graf playing absolutely HORRIBLY, the worst tennis of her entire career, and losing in the quarters most events/losing regularly to people like Sabatini, Garrison, Novotna, and Sanchez (of course Selestials who are inherently stupid and mentally handicapped apart from the rare reasonable ones like buscemi deny this but all sane and informed people are aware of this), and the hard work for Seles and rivalry only began to emerge in the half year or so before the stabbing. Another reason the stabbing was unfortunate, as the meaningful part of the rivalry had only started to begin.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Although this hard work only began in late 92, and the 9 months or so before she got stabbed. When she first rose to the top in late 90/early 91 it was by virtual default with Graf playing absolutely HORRIBLY, the worst tennis of her entire career, and losing in the quarters most events/losing regularly to people like Sabatini, Garrison, Novotna, and Sanchez (of course Selestials who are inherently stupid and mentally handicapped apart from the rare reasonable ones like buscemi deny this but all sane and informed people are aware of this), and the hard work for Seles and rivalry only began to emerge in the half year or so before the stabbing. Another reason the stabbing was unfortunate, as the meaningful part of the rivalry had only started to begin.

Agree partly with this. In 1990, it was not by default. Graf was still the woman to beat when Seles trounced her in Berlin. Yes, the victories had started to come with greater difficulty for Graf but she was still winning. After AO, she won Tokyo, Amelia Island and Hamburg, so four tournaments in a row. And she was absolutely cruising at the German Open until Seles beat her in straight sets. Likewise romped to the final at RG only to be beaten again in straight sets by Seles. It was after this that the rest of Graf's season suffered. Losses to Garrison at W and Sabatini at both USO and Virginia Slims.

So the Graf fan narrative that Seles had NOTHING to do with Graf's sudden and steep decline in 90-91 is also a reach. She would seem to have tipped her over the precipice and solidified the sense of self-doubt that was building up in Graf's mind through the early part of the 1990 season.

After that, yes, 1991 is a completely inexplicable season. Graf beat her in both their meetings that year but was either meh (Wimbledon which she still won or USO/AO) or disastrous (RG) for most of the year.

From 92-93 was more of a pattern, yes. And right then, the stabbing...but we don't have to go over it again at this point.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Agree partly with this. In 1990, it was not by default. Graf was still the woman to beat when Seles trounced her in Berlin. Yes, the victories had started to come with greater difficulty for Graf but she was still winning. After AO, she won Tokyo, Amelia Island and Hamburg, so four tournaments in a row. And she was absolutely cruising at the German Open until Seles beat her in straight sets. Likewise romped to the final at RG only to be beaten again in straight sets by Seles. It was after this that the rest of Graf's season suffered. Losses to Garrison at W and Sabatini at both USO and Virginia Slims.

So the Graf fan narrative that Seles had NOTHING to do with Graf's sudden and steep decline in 90-91 is also a reach. She would seem to have tipped her over the precipice and solidified the sense of self-doubt that was building up in Graf's mind through the early part of the 1990 season.

After that, yes, 1991 is a completely inexplicable season. Graf beat her in both their meetings that year but was either meh (Wimbledon which she still won or USO/AO) or disastrous (RG) for most of the year.

From 92-93 was more of a pattern, yes. And right then, the stabbing...but we don't have to go over it again at this point.

The thing is it was obvious at the Australian Open she was not the same as 87-89 to me. She nearly lost to/should have lost to Sukova who was clearly past her prime by then (and is Graf's pigeon). Just to note this is the year Sukova dropped out of the top 10 permanently. She then struggled in the final vs a green Mary Joe Fernandez, and was lucky to win the 2nd set. The field was incredibly weak at that event, most people absent, then made even weaker by Sabatini's injury. So I would disagree she only started to go down when she lost to Seles at the German Open, a match she played like absolute rubbish btw, probably the worst of any of her 15 matches vs Seles.

Keep in mind again there was NO depth in womens tennis back then. 13 year old Capriati made the French Open semis that year, LOL! And 34 year old Navratilova ended the year at #3, spending all but the final week at #2, despite not even playing 2 of the 4 slams, and playing a half schedule.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

The thing is it was obvious at the Australian Open she was not the same as 87-89 to me. She nearly lost to/should have lost to Sukova who was clearly past her prime by then (and is Graf's pigeon). Just to note this is the year Sukova dropped out of the top 10 permanently. She then struggled in the final vs a green Mary Joe Fernandez, and was lucky to win the 2nd set. The field was incredibly weak at that event, made even weaker by Sabatini's injury. So I would disagree she only started to go down when she lost to Seles at the German Open, a match she played like absolute rubbish btw, probably the worst of any of her 15 matches vs Seles.

Keep in mind again there was NO depth in womens tennis back then. 13 year old Capriati made the French Open semis that year, LOL!

Which is why I said her victories were already coming with greater difficulty. I agree completely on the AO 90 campaign, the final was a very struggley straight set affair. That said, somebody still has to finally bell the cat. As you said, the field was weak and she regularly got to play her pigeons with some resistance from ASV. So even teenage Seles was still stronger than the rest and the one who would finally call out the Emperor's clothes on Graf. Without THAT, I still don't see her losing to Garrison. To Gaby at USO and VS, yes, very much possible because even in 88/89, her victories against Gaby had often come with difficulty. I think the Gaby-Graf rivalry is a classic example of why looking at H2H can be misleading if you don't actually watch the matches. Gaby kept getting close to beating her through to 91 (apart from beating her, of course, in 1990). And then after the Wimbledon 92 drubbing, it was like everything changed. Graf even beat her at Key Biscayne in 93 despite still being somewhat of a wreck mentally (which was exposed by ASV in the final).

 

[flutzingitaway]

Which is why I said her victories were already coming with greater difficulty. I agree completely on the AO 90 campaign, the final was a very struggley straight set affair. That said, somebody still has to finally bell the cat. As you said, the field was weak and she regularly got to play her pigeons with some resistance from ASV. So even teenage Seles was still stronger than the rest and the one who would finally call out the Emperor's clothes on Graf. Without THAT, I still don't see her losing to Garrison. To Gaby at USO and VS, yes, very much possible because even in 88/89, her victories against Gaby had often come with difficulty. I think the Gaby-Graf rivalry is a classic example of why looking at H2H can be misleading if you don't actually watch the matches. Gaby kept getting close to beating her through to 91 (apart from beating her, of course, in 1990). And then after the Wimbledon 92 drubbing, it was like everything changed. Graf even beat her at Key Biscayne in 93 despite still being somewhat of a wreck mentally (which was exposed by ASV in the final).

I guess it is hard to say. Garrison just had an inspired magical sort of tournament at Wimbledon, and seemed super determined to try and finally beat Graf. I could still see Graf losing the matches she lost at Wimbledon and the U.S Open regardless, but it is all speculation. I don't downplay the impact of confidence and loss of confidence, but I don't buy the theory all Graf's problems, including her increasing problems with other players, began and ended with Seles like some want to think.

As for Gaby her all time peak was from the 90 U.S Open to Wimbledon 91. She still never beats Graf 7 times in a row or Graf 9 times out of 11 matches if Graf is normal, but Gaby was also peaking even if not coming through at the slams, apart from the 90 U.S Open, and even there she was lucky to escape Fernandez in the semis. After the Wimbledon 91 loss she wasn't quite the same anymore. Then after RG 92, she really was no longer fully prime anymore. She began losing to Graf pretty easily again, with Graf now also back to better form. And she began taking some 6-2, 6-0 type losses to Seles regularly. Her serve while never great, atleast became manageable for awhile in mid 90-mid 92, but was not back to sucking more than ever and the big hitters were eating it up. RG 93 was really the death of her as a contender for good, but RG 92 was more or less the end of her as one of the really big girls, and the Wimbledon 91 final loss after serving for it twice already started her going down a bit.

It also shows how Capriati was starting to stagnate and burn out, that she was now back to regularly losing to Gaby by late 92/93, despite starting to beat her in summer 91 when Gaby was much better. The stage was already being collectively set even prior to the Seles stabbing for the epic poop show WTA would become all of 93-97, apart from maybe 95 to a degree,.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

I guess it is hard to say. Garrison just had an inspired magical sort of tournament at Wimbledon, and seemed super determined to try and finally beat Graf. I could still see Graf losing the matches she lost at Wimbledon and the U.S Open regardless, but it is all speculation. I don't downplay the impact of confidence and loss of confidence, but I don't buy the theory all Graf's problems, including her increasing problems with other players, began and ended with Seles like some want to think.

As for Gaby her all time peak was from the 90 U.S Open to Wimbledon 91. She still never beats Graf 7 times in a row or Graf 9 times out of 11 matches if Graf is normal, but Gaby was also peaking even if not coming through at the slams, apart from the 90 U.S Open, and even there she was lucky to escape Fernandez in the semis. After the Wimbledon 91 loss she wasn't quite the same anymore. Then after RG 92, she really was no longer fully prime anymore. She began losing to Graf pretty easily again, with Graf now also back to better form. And she began taking some 6-2, 6-0 type losses to Seles regularly. Her serve while never great, atleast became manageable for awhile in mid 90-mid 92, but was not back to sucking more than ever and the big hitters were eating it up. RG 93 was really the death of her as a contender for good, but RG 92 was more or less the end of her as one of the really big girls, and the Wimbledon 91 final loss after serving for it twice already started her going down a bit.

It also shows how Capriati was starting to stagnate and burn out, that she was now back to regularly losing to Gaby by late 92/93, despite starting to beat her in summer 91 when Gaby was much better.

Well, obviously not all, but I think the point is she too did have something to do with it as the Berlin-RG double whammy and its aftermath shows. Given that Graf lost there and then had a slump, it seems a stretch to suggest those losses had nothing to do with Graf's slump. It was somewhat like Fed's losses to Canas in 2007 with the difference that Seles was of a different pedigree altogether and Graf had inadvertently awakened the beast. Again, Fed being Fed and having a measure of ego and swag, he didn't snap. Graf was never really swag after 1988 for whatever reason, maybe daddy hounding her too much and not letting her enjoy the game or something. I did see signs of the swag return at RG 99 in the way she tackled Hingis repeatedly going over to the umpire and complaining. So it was there or would have been...

Capriati is one of the big what ifs again. Should have moved onto bigger things after the 91 semi. I was glad when she finally did get the slams she deserved. It would have been cruel for her to not go down as any sort of great at all. Not only her game which was a proto-modern power baseline style but her will to fight on and on and run like an energizer bunny.

 

[flutzingitaway]

Well, obviously not all, but I think the point is she too did have something to do with it as the Berlin-RG double whammy and its aftermath shows. Given that Graf lost there and then had a slump, it seems a stretch to suggest those losses had nothing to do with Graf's slump. It was somewhat like Fed's losses to Canas in 2007 with the difference that Seles was of a different pedigree altogether and Graf had inadvertently awakened the beast. Again, Fed being Fed and having a measure of ego and swag, he didn't snap. Graf was never really swag after 1988 for whatever reason, maybe daddy hounding her too much and not letting her enjoy the game or something. I did see signs of the swag return at RG 99 in the way she tackled Hingis repeatedly going over to the umpire and complaining. So it was there or would have been...

Capriati is one of the big what ifs again. Should have moved onto bigger things after the 91 semi. I was glad when she finally did get the slams she deserved. It would have been cruel for her to not go down as any sort of great at all. Not only her game which was a proto-modern power baseline style but her will to fight on and on and run like an energizer bunny.

Yes, hence why I speculated what if Capriati had won the 91 U.S Open semis vs Seles; and she absolutely would have won the title 100% btw, Navratilova played a pretty terrible final vs Seles and had just lost to Capriati in straight sets on grass. It is possible her career really surges then, not saying she dominates, but she does much better. Then again lots of unknowns for her, she had lots of issues, and insane pressure on her which would only increase now, but she seemed to lose all heart after losing that match, and barely care about tennis anymore, unlike the bubbly ever improving phenom of 90-91. Yeah she stayed top 10 and kept making almost all the slam quarters, and even had a big win at the Olympics, once again womens tennis had NO depth back then though.

Capriati and Sabatini's declines were both horrible situations for the WTA. Along with the worst of all in the Seles stabbing, and all the other top players dropping off around the same time was just the perfect storm. Fernandez constantly injured after the 93 French was even bad, as the WTA was so weak by then even someone like Fernandez in her top form would be a needed asset. The WTA which had been weak for awhile as it was really did morph into Steffi and the 7 dwarfes as Navratilova put it.

I just don't subscribe to a great player losing confidence based on losses as easily as some here. Graf lost form and lost 4 straight slams even in a weak field in 94/early 95 and came back hard. I don't even subscribe to what many here say that Roddick is suddenly way more confident and doing much better vs everyone else if Federer didn't exist, and Roddick isn't even that great a player or a patch on Graf in mental strength. The only thing I give him that is significant is I strongly believe he no longer fires Gilbert end of 04 without Federer, and being coached by Goldfine for 18 months ended up being a disaester for his career. Graf had all kinds of problems in 90/91, her tennis looked ragged, her drop off was obvious starting in Australia 90 to me, and I think atleast 90% (I didn't say 100% so I am giving your theories a bit of credence) of her non Seles losses happen anyway even without Seles. Of course with the field weak and Sabatini the ultimate choker (losing something like 5 times she was a match away from #1) she probably does stay #1 without Seles, even if she is winning only Wimbledon still.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Yes, hence why I speculated what if Capriati had won the 91 U.S Open semis vs Seles; and she absolutely would have won the title 100% btw, Navratilova played a pretty terrible final vs Seles and had just lost to Capriati in straight sets on grass. It is possible her career really surges then, not saying she dominates, but she does much better. Then again lots of unknowns for her, she had lots of issues, and insane pressure on her which would only increase now, but she seemed to lose all heart after losing that match, and barely care about tennis anymore, unlike the bubbly ever improving phenom of 90-91. Yeah she stayed top 10 and kept making almost all the slam quarters, and even had a big win at the Olympics, once again womens tennis had NO depth back then though.

I just don't subscribe to a great player losing confidence based on losses as easily as some here. Graf lost form and lost 4 straight slams even in a weak field in 94/early 95 and came back hard. I don't even subscribe to what many here say that Roddick is suddenly way more confident and doing much better vs everyone else if Federer didn't exist, and Roddick isn't even that great a player or a patch on Graf in mental strength. Graf had all kinds of problems in 90/91, her tennis looked ragged, her drop off was obvious starting in Australia 90 to me, and I think atleast 90% (I didn't say 100% so I am giving your theories a bit of credence) of her non Seles losses happen anyway even without Seles. Of course with the field weak and Sabatini the ultimate choker (losing something like 5 times she was a match away from #1) she probably does stay #1 without Seles, even if she is winning only Wimbledon still.

This is the rub. Ultimately Graf still has a better season without Seles. And for sure she wins RG too in 1990. Nobody else was beating her that year. It's astounding how weak the field was that even off-peak Graf could coast through the draw.

 

[flutzingitaway]

This is the rub. Ultimately Graf still has a better season without Seles. And for sure she wins RG too in 1990. Nobody else was beating her that year. It's astounding how weak the field was that even off-peak Graf could coast through the draw.

Yeah I agree Graf wins the 90 French for sure without Seles. Who is going to beat her, Maleeva, a 13 year old Capriati, just no. I am not sure if she gains any other slams without Seles from 90-92 though. Maybe the 92 French, but Sabatini could definitely beat her there, or maybe she chokes like usual. That is a 50/50. Definitely not any others. Even if she doesn't lose to Garrison anymore at Wimbledon 90 (which I personally don't believe) I am pretty sure Navratilova beats her there. She had lost to Graf in 88 and 89, but her form was the best it had been since 87, and Graf was so much weaker than 88 and 89 too. Navratilova was playing better than Graf at Wimbledon 90 to the point I am pretty sure she beats Graf even if Graf was coming in just winning her 9th of the last 10 slams at RG 90.

The only winning Wimbledon was a reference to 91 and 92, I think she still wins no non Wimbledons those years even without Seles, or she wins just 1- 1992 French. I think the 92 French is 50/50 between Graf and Sabatini without Seles, as it was basically 33/33/33 between all 3 as it was.

 

[Dolgopolov85]

Yeah I agree Graf wins the 90 French for sure without Seles. Who is going to beat her, Maleeva, a 13 year old Capriati, just no. I am not sure if she gains any other slams without Seles from 90-92 though. Maybe the 92 French, but Sabatini could definitely beat her there, or maybe she chokes like usual. That is a 50/50. Definitely not any others. Even if she doesn't lose to Garrison anymore at Wimbledon 90 (which I personally don't believe) I am pretty sure Navratilova beats her there. She had lost to Graf in 88 and 89, but her form was the best it had been since 87, and Graf was so much weaker than 88 and 89 too. Navratilova was playing better than Graf at Wimbledon 90 to the point I am pretty sure she beats Graf even if Graf was coming in just winning her 9th of the last 10 slams at RG 90.

The only winning Wimbledon was a reference to 91 and 92, I think she still wins no non Wimbledons those years even without Seles, or she wins just 1- 1992 French. I think the 92 French is 50/50 between Graf and Sabatini without Seles, as it was basically 33/33/33 between all 3 as it was.

I have her winning RG 92 without Seles because she played very well in the final, not perfect, but heaps better than 91 and she pounded Gaby at W 92. So her tail was up. But that's the only one I would add. She choked to freaking Novotna in 91 AO. That match score is better than it looks, both players started missing backhand passes or approach shots in the clutch. I have never seen that USO 92 drubbing to ASV but it's really hard to understand how Graf could manage to lose in straight sets to her on a fast court.

 

[skaj]

Although this hard work only began in late 92, and the 9 months or so before she got stabbed. When she first rose to the top in late 90/early 91 it was by virtual default with Graf playing absolutely HORRIBLY, the worst tennis of her entire career, and losing in the quarters most events/losing regularly to people like Sabatini, Garrison, Novotna, and Sanchez (of course Selestials who are inherently stupid and mentally handicapped apart from the rare reasonable ones like buscemi deny this but all sane and informed people are aware of this), and the hard work for Seles and rivalry only began to emerge in the half year or so before the stabbing. Another reason the stabbing was unfortunate, as the meaningful part of the rivalry had only started to begin.

And Seles was still a teenager. It would have been a wonderful rivalry, what a pity.

 

[buscemi]

Agree partly with this. In 1990, it was not by default. Graf was still the woman to beat when Seles trounced her in Berlin. Yes, the victories had started to come with greater difficulty for Graf but she was still winning. After AO, she won Tokyo, Amelia Island and Hamburg, so four tournaments in a row. And she was absolutely cruising at the German Open until Seles beat her in straight sets. Likewise romped to the final at RG only to be beaten again in straight sets by Seles. It was after this that the rest of Graf's season suffered. Losses to Garrison at W and Sabatini at both USO and Virginia Slims.

So the Graf fan narrative that Seles had NOTHING to do with Graf's sudden and steep decline in 90-91 is also a reach. She would seem to have tipped her over the precipice and solidified the sense of self-doubt that was building up in Graf's mind through the early part of the 1990 season.

After that, yes, 1991 is a completely inexplicable season. Graf beat her in both their meetings that year but was either meh (Wimbledon which she still won or USO/AO) or disastrous (RG) for most of the year.

From 92-93 was more of a pattern, yes. And right then, the stabbing...but we don't have to go over it again at this point.

I agree with this. I'd say the same thing about early 1990 as I said about Graf from the 1992 French (or a touch earlier)-the stabbing: Graf from the start of 1990-1990 French Open was not quite her peak level, but still a very high level.

 

[buscemi]

Even if she doesn't lose to Garrison anymore at Wimbledon 90 (which I personally don't believe) I am pretty sure Navratilova beats her there. She had lost to Graf in 88 and 89, but her form was the best it had been since 87, and Graf was so much weaker than 88 and 89 too. Navratilova was playing better than Graf at Wimbledon 90 to the point I am pretty sure she beats Graf even if Graf was coming in just winning her 9th of the last 10 slams at RG 90.

Without Seles, Wimbledon 1990 would have been crazy. If my numbers are correct, Graf won 41 straight matches to close 1989 (last loss vs. ASV in the 1989 French final). If we assume Graf wins Berlin and the French Open in 1990 without Seles and makes it to the Wimbledon SF, that's 38 straight wins to open 1990 for 79 consecutive victories. If Graf wins those Berlin and French finals in straight sets, Graf would have won 17 straight sets going into the Wimbledon SF.

So...you would have Graf again holding all 4 Majors. Unlike in 1988, Graf would be going into Wimbledon undefeated, with the possibility of a perfect season. Which means...I don't know. As has been noted, her level had dropped in early 1990, but her confidence would have been sky high with that winning streak (despite other things going on). Personally, I think Garrison rode the confidence/momentum of her Seles victory to take down Graf in the SF, so, w/no Seles for Garrison to defeat and w/Graf w/an epic winning streak, I see Graf winning in this alternate reality. She'd just be too confident and Garrison wouldn't have the Seles win to boost her own confidence. And while Graf was worse in 1990 and Navratilova better, I don't see a Graf on that winning streak losing that match. But who knows?

 

[flutzingitaway]

Without Seles, Wimbledon 1990 would have been crazy. If my numbers are correct, Graf won 41 straight matches to close 1989 (last loss vs. ASV in the 1989 French final). If we assume Graf wins Berlin and the French Open in 1990 without Seles and makes it to the Wimbledon SF, that's 38 straight wins to open 1990 for 79 consecutive victories. If Graf wins those Berlin and French finals in straight sets, Graf would have won 17 straight sets going into the Wimbledon SF.

So...you would have Graf again holding all 4 Majors. Unlike in 1988, Graf would be going into Wimbledon undefeated, with the possibility of a perfect season. Which means...I don't know. As has been noted, her level had dropped in early 1990, but her confidence would have been sky high with that winning streak (despite other things going on). Personally, I think Garrison rode the confidence/momentum of her Seles victory to take down Graf in the SF, so, w/no Seles for Garrison to defeat and w/Graf w/an epic winning streak, I see Graf winning in this alternate reality. She'd just be too confident and Garrison wouldn't have the Seles win to boost her own confidence. And while Graf was worse in 1990 and Navratilova better, I don't see a Graf on that winning streak losing that match. But who knows?

Yeah come to think of it maybe she does not lose to Garrison now (if they even play), but I still think she loses to Navratilova. Navratilova was so much better than Wimbledon 89, and the best she had been at Wimbledon since 87, maybe even better than 87. Graf was playing much worse than 89. And their 89 match was not exactly easy, it was a tough 3 setter already. The 88 matches was kind of easy towards the end, despite it being 3 sets, but Navratilova had already adapted to Graf's game to make it more competitive by 89. Honestly I think Navratilova was atleast as good as Wimbledon 87, and Graf was probably playing worse than 87 as well in 90, and what happened in their match at Wimbledon 87. Easy straight set win for Navratilova. Granted Graf had almost no grass experience at that point, and had a ton and the confidence of winning twice in 90 so that isn't entirely a fair comparision either.

Lets say Seles had converted her match point vs Garrison. Obviously it is a Navratilova-Graf final now since Seles is never winning against Graf on grass in the semis (Seles has 4 games in 4 career sets vs Graf on grass, lol). I assume you agree on that. I think everyone agrees Navratilova would have won that match in the final now though. I also assume you agree on that. Now in the alternate universe she has not lost all year maybe it boosts her chances some to beat Navratilova, but not sure it would be enough.

 

[buscemi]

Yeah come to think of it maybe she does not lose to Garrison now (if they even play), but I still think she loses to Navratilova. Navratilova was so much better than Wimbledon 89, and the best she had been at Wimbledon since 87, maybe even better than 87. Graf was playing much worse than 89. And their 89 match was not exactly easy, it was a tough 3 setter already. The 88 matches was kind of easy towards the end, despite it being 3 sets, but Navratilova had already adapted to Graf's game to make it more competitive by 89. Honestly I think Navratilova was atleast as good as Wimbledon 87, and Graf was probably playing worse than 87 as well in 90, and what happened in their match at Wimbledon 87. Easy straight set win for Navratilova. Granted Graf had almost no grass experience at that point, and had a ton and the confidence of winning twice in 90 so that isn't entirely a fair comparision either.

Lets say Seles had converted her match point vs Garrison. Obviously it is a Navratilova-Graf final now since Seles is never winning against Graf on grass in the semis (Seles has 4 games in 4 career sets vs Graf on grass, lol). I assume you agree on that. I think everyone agrees Navratilova would have won that match in the final now though. I also assume you agree on that. Now in the alternate universe she has not lost all year maybe it boosts her chances some to beat Navratilova, but not sure it would be enough.

It's a tough call. Every B03 match the two played between 1988 and 1993 went the distance, and their B05 match went 4 sets. And while the matches were closer than the scores indicate, both the 1988 and 1989 finals were 1 close set won by Navratilova and 6-2 and 6-1 sets won by Graf. I think this hypothetical 1990 final goes three sets, and I don't know how either player handles it.

It seemed like in both the 1988 and 1989 finals, something clicked with Graf mid-match (2nd set in 1988/3rd set in 1989), where she just got dialed in and started passing Navratilova with impunity. I think your point is that Navratilova and Graf's levels in 1990 make this clicking less likely, but I think it's still a distinct possibility.

 

[flutzingitaway]

It's a tough call. Every B03 match the two played between 1988 and 1993 went the distance, and their B05 match went 4 sets. And while the matches were closer than the scores indicate, both the 1988 and 1989 finals were 1 close set won by Navratilova and 6-2 and 6-1 sets won by Graf. I think this hypothetical 1990 final goes three sets, and I don't know how either player handles it.

It seemed like in both the 1988 and 1989 finals, something clicked with Graf mid-match (2nd set in 1988/3rd set in 1989), where she just got dialed in and started passing Navratilova with impunity. I think your point is that Navratilova and Graf's levels in 1990 make this clicking less likely, but I think it's still a distinct possibility.

So you concede Navratilova wins the Graf-Navratilova final if Seles converts her match point vs Garrison in the quarters in the actual timeline, but think Graf edges Navratilova in the new timeline she does not lose a couple times to Seles? Or think Graf wins over Navratilova in the final even in the present time world just with Seles converting her match point vs Garrison in the quarters, too?

I admit I am possibly biased since I LOVE Navratilova, and I can't stand Graf. I respect Graf's career and player too, but I found her so boring and cold, I could never warm to her as a tennis fan. I didn't even like Seles, atleast pre stabbing version Seles, either, but atleast unlike Graf she was interesting and controversial. You could have made a TLC program about her at that point.

 

[buscemi]

So you concede Navratilova wins the Graf-Navratilova final if Seles converts her match point vs Garrison in the quarters in the actual timeline, but think Graf edges Navratilova in the new timeline she does not lose a couple times to Seles? Or think Graf wins over Navratilova in the final even in the present time world just with Seles converting her match point vs Garrison in the quarters, too?

I admit I am possibly biased since I LOVE Navratilova, and I can't stand Graf. I respect Graf's career and player too, but I found her so boring and cold, I could never warm to her as a tennis fan. I didn't even like Seles, atleast pre stabbing version Seles, either, but atleast unlike Graf she was interesting and controversial. You could have made a TLC program about her at that point.

I think all three scenarios are toss-ups. I see the scenarios as (1) no-Seles, meaning Graf is on a 79 match winning streak heading into the Wimbledon final after beating Garrison in the SF; (2) better-Seles, where Seles still wins Berlin and the French, and converts her MP against Garrison in the QF before losing to Graf in the SF; and (3) Garrison still beats Seles in the QF, but Graf beats Garrison in the SF.

In scenario (1), Graf's confidence is sky high and she has an aura of invincibility. In scenario (2), for the reasons you stated, Graf likely smokes Seles in the SF and enters the final with a good deal of confidence. In scenario (3), Graf probably enters the final the weakest, assuming she merely squeaks by Garrison rather than narrowly losing to her.

But in all three scenarios, it comes down to this: Does Navratilova's net game overwhelm Graf's baseline game as it did in 1987 (and did to Evert many times)l, or does Graf get dialed in from the baseline and start passing Navratilova with impunity, as happened in 1988 and 1989? I'd agree with you that things would have looked worse for Graf entering the 1990 final, but I don't know how either Graf or Navratilova would have responded once Graf inevitably started clocking some passing shots in the 1990 final.

 

[flutzingitaway]

I think all three scenarios are toss-ups. I see the scenarios as (1) no-Seles, meaning Graf is on a 79 match winning streak heading into the Wimbledon final after beating Garrison in the SF; (2) better-Seles, where Seles still wins Berlin and the French, and converts her MP against Garrison in the QF before losing to Graf in the SF; and (3) Garrison still beats Seles in the QF, but Graf beats Garrison in the SF.

In scenario (1), Graf's confidence is sky high and she has an aura of invincibility. In scenario (2), for the reasons you stated, Graf likely smokes Seles in the SF and enters the final with a good deal of confidence. In scenario (3), Graf probably enters the final the weakest, assuming she merely squeaks by Garrison rather than narrowly losing to her.

But in all three scenarios, it comes down to this: Does Navratilova's net game overwhelm Graf's baseline game as it did in 1987 (and did to Evert many times)l, or does Graf get dialed in from the baseline and start passing Navratilova with impunity, as happened in 1988 and 1989? I'd agree with you that things would have looked worse for Graf entering the 1990 final, but I don't know how either Graf or Navratilova would have responded once Graf inevitably started clocking some passing shots in the 1990 final.

You could be right. I admit you came up with some reasonsings behind the analysis of the match up that I had not thought of or even Dolgopolov did not come up with, despite that his analysis was good.

I can just envision a scenario Graf and Navratilova were tied at 8 Wimbledons or Graf was possibly even ahead with 9 (if she wins WImbleodn 90 quite possible she wins another Wimbledon at some point. I can see the arguments for grass GOAT now, I would be arguing hard in favor of Navratilova even if Graf had 1 more Wimbledon since she played in the era of IMO real grass courters, most girls then were serve and volleyers. Graf played in an era the only traditional grass courters were Novotna (who is very good but weak mentally) and Tauziat (who sucks), maybe Gigi Fernandez (who sucks in singles, great doubles player). Sabatini in 90-92 maybe, mostly only 91. I am not saying Navratilova faced a "strong" overall or grass field either most of the 80s, definitely not, but it atleast was a proper grass field with people playing proper grass tennis. Shriver, Jordan, Durie, Sukova, Potter, Turnbull, Bunge, Mandlikova, even Jaeger when she played on grass were playing serve and volley and proper grass tennis, really only Evert and Austin of the top players were not. I can already see myself being slammed down by most, with most siding with Graf. While it is possible Seles could have emerged enough on grass even to do damage to Graf without the stabbing, that also would not be a convincing argument against Graf really. So I can just imagine myself getting frustrated for arguing for Navratilova as best all time on grass but being drowned out by most. Basically if Graf wins Wimbledon 90 somehow there probably is not a scenario most aren't picking her as the grass GOAT above Navratilova, even though I doubt I would agree unless Graf somehow reached 10 Wimbledons to Navratilova's 8. Thankfully the scenario that did play out has played out and Navratliova is the grass GOAT, with pretty much everyone accepting Graf as only being 2nd or 3rd, as she IMO should be (although if Serena wins a couple more Wimbledons I might give it to her, since even if she doesn't face many proper grass players either, the actual strength of her top few rivals on grass like Venus, Davenport, Mauresmo, even Sharapova far exceeds either Navratilova or Graf overall).

 

[krosero]

the Wimbledon youtube channel uploaded Graf-Venus. Unreal court coverage by both. High quality despite having several rain delays.

That's a great upload. I've updated my stats for the match: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/ind...w-final-graf-navratilova.172622/#post-1972641

I've also updated McEnroe-Nystrom: https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/stats-for-mcenroe-nystrom-1985-uso-qf.196262/