Top 10 female players of all time

[BTURNER]

Excluding matches at age 13-15 surly is not cherry-picking.
It just puts Evert's good stats (which are undeniable) into perspective.

Please don't get me started with her 125-clay-win streak and the clay competition in those years.....

Of course its cherry picking. You are extracting professional tennis match scores out of consideration for your purposes. Steffi GOT PAID TO PLAY those matches. Nobody dragged her out there by her hair. She got the benefit from playing those matches, and now you are erasing the result from equal consideration, because she lost those matches and they are reducing her career win record, and consistency stats.

Steffi is not paying back the money she got, and nobody is paying the fans who bought the tickets and sat watching her immature, weak, scrawny legged amateurish performances in those tournaments.

You SwissMaestro, are not paying that money back either, so no, you do not get to erase the scores from career stats.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Of course its cherry picking. You are extracting professional tennis match scores out of consideration for your purposes. Steffi GOT PAID TO PLAY those matches. Nobody dragged her out there by her hair. She got the benefit from playing those matches, and now you are erasing the result from equal consideration, because she lost those matches and they are reducing her career win record, and consistency stats.

Steffi is not paying back the money she got, and nobody is paying the fans who bought the tickets and sat watching her immature, weak, scrawny legged amateurish performances in those tournaments.

You SwissMaestro, are not paying that money back either, so no, you do not get to erase the scores from career stats.

Of course she lost in all the tournaments she played at age 13-15.
She knew that beforehand.

But you would really have accepted my take on Evert's (deceptively) good record if Steffi had played at the age as an amateur?
That sounds weird....

Let's state this fact:
Evert's records depends on counting Steffi's many losses as a 13-15 year old which is an age at which Evert played only 2 or 3 matches.
You may not like that fact but it stays a fact nevertheless.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Steffi is not paying back the money she got, and nobody is paying the fans who bought the tickets and sat watching her immature, weak, scrawny legged amateurish performances in those tournaments.

It still stings, eh?

 

[Hard Court]

No its NOT FAIR Hard Court, and there is no such thing as 'clearly past their best'. When is it appropriate in your line of work, to go to your job, clock in, take the paycheck and do ****ty day's work and expect your boss not to notice the crappy work you did, not to write you up for your inconsistent quality? Is your excuse going to be 'I was too young, but I still deserve to be paid? or ' I am close to retirement, but I can't afford to, but I still deserve to be paid'?

These are PROFESSIONALS. They are clocking into work whenever they step on the court. Its up to them to decide whether they can do the job BEFORE THEY CLOCK IN and stay home if they are not capable or competent to produce for their employer.

We do not rip up the employment records (the tennis scores ) years later as an afterthought, because they kept the paycheck.and spent it. Its part of their work history and personnel file and its stays alongside as all their evaluations and pay raises.

You know there is no definition of 'clearly past their best' in tennis' and we would never respect the definition if we had one. Tennis players produce some phenomenal tennis in one tournament and drop down to their aging baseline in the next. And you know what? We let them keep those great matches, and even win tournaments and they get to keep that cred they got. Think of Jimmy Connors, playing ****ty tennis until the US Open shows up. Does he get to keep the famous wins in 1991, and toss away the losses surrounding them? No! Jimmy deserves the shame and the glory which means we keep all the matches when he walked onto the court in any professional tournament until he retires. They all count.

They all count when figure their win/loss percentage. It's a useful stat, but like most stats it can be misleading to an extent.

But no, they don't all count when rating a player. Sports are not very much like regular people's employment.

Let's say two players have the exact same winning % at 30. Player A retires, while Player B keeps playing until he is 40. Player B is going to finish with a lower win/loss record. That doesn't mean that Player A was a better tennis player.

There certainly are gray areas. But there are also times when it obvious that a stat is misleading.
In the case of Evert and Graf, Evert played a longer time past her prime than Graf played it when she was very young. And Evert still had a higher %.

 

[buscemi]

In the case of Evert and Graf, Evert played a longer time past her prime than Graf played it when she was very young. And Evert still had a higher %.

Yep, this nails it. Evert's career winning percentage is impacted by playing until she was almost 35. Graf's career winning percentage is impacted by playing her first professional match at 13.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

They all count when figure their win/loss percentage. It's a useful stat, but like most stats it can be misleading to an extent.

But no, they don't all count when rating a player. Sports are not very much like regular people's employment.

Let's say two players have the exact same winning % at 30. Player A retires, while Player B keeps playing until he is 40. Player B is going to finish with a lower win/loss record. That doesn't mean that Player A was a better tennis player.

There certainly are gray areas. But there are also times when it obvious that a stat is misleading.
In the case of Evert and Graf, Evert played a longer time past her prime than Graf played it when she was very young. And Evert still had a higher %.

Steffi played 71 of her 995 matches at age 13-15.
That is more than 7 %!!
She has a 89.25 % career match winning percentage. Without those matches it would be 91.52 %.
Evert has a 89.97 % career match winning percentage. Without her 14 matches at age 14/15 it would be 90.28 %.
Steffi better from age 16 on.

Yes, Evert played 264 matches at age 31 or older.
So if we count only her matches from age 16 to age 30 she is at 91.5110 %.
But Steffi at age 16-30 is at 91.5217 %.
Steffi clearly better at age 16-30 as well!!

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Yep, this nails it. Evert's career winning percentage is impacted by playing until she was almost 35. Graf's career winning percentage is impacted by playing her first professional match at 13.

Anyway, why are we even discussing Graf vs. Evert here?

The thread title is "top 10 female players of all time" and no one would rank Chris among the top 3.
Whereas Steffi is at least top three or top two if not even top one for all fans and experts.

 

[buscemi]

Anyway, why are we even discussing Graf vs. Evert here?

The thread title is "top 10 female players of all time" and no one would rank Chris among the top 3.
Whereas Steffi is at least top three or top two if not even top one for all fans and experts.

Evert is absolutely in contention for top 3 of all time.

 

[Hard Court]

Evert is absolutely in contention for #1.
People can be creative with numbers.
some things to keep in mind;
-It's harder to have a high winning % winning you are playing a lot more tournaments. Rather than being selective like Graf and her successors have done.
- Evert's competition was clearly stronger. She always had a least one and most of the time two great players to deal with. People don't always realize that she had Court, King, and Goolagong to deal with when early on. Then Navratilova came a long while ther rivals were still playing. Then Austin. Then Graf herself. and course several other not great but very good players.

Graf had years where there was a huge drop off.

Evert won 157 tournaments in her career. Graf won 107. That's a big difference.

You can make a case for Graf. Or Evert. Or Court of Navratilova. They are all close.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Evert is absolutely in contention for #1.

Evert has two huge disadvantages:

1) Never won 3 or more slams within one year - Navratilova and Serena did it twice, Court and Steffi even five (!) times, both including a Grand Slam.

2) She has not only a losing record against Navratilova but also to two teenagers (Austin and Steffi). That included terrible streaks and terrible losses, for instance
a) 3-6 1-6, 1-6 3-6 and 3-6 0-6 to a 16-year-old Tracy Austin
b) 2-6 1-6 against a 17-year-old Austin
c) 1-6 4-6 and 1-6 2-6 against a 18-year-old Austin
d) 1-6 2-6 against a 17-year-old Graf
e) 2-6 1-6 against a 18-year-old Graf
f) 4-6 0-6 against a 18-year-old Navratilova
g) 2-6 0-6 against Navratilova in 1983 and again in 1984.

I think I will compile a stats in the near future with all match losses of her, Navratilova, Steffi and Serena with less than, say, four games won to illustrate my point.

 

[buscemi]

Evert has two huge disadvantages:

1) Never won 3 or more slams within one year - Navratilova and Serena did it twice, Court and Steffi even five (!) times, both including a Grand Slam.

Kind of meaningless when she only played 2 or 3 Majors in most of her best years.

 

[Hard Court]

So really nothing. We are judging her on her career, not one season or individual losses. Cherry picking. Yet again. And do some research on Austin. You are clueless about her.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Kind of meaningless when she only played 2 or 3 Majors in most of her best years.

Both Evert and Graf played 3 or more slams in 13 different years.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

So really nothing. We are judging her on her career, not one season or individual losses. Cherry picking. Yet again. And do some research on Austin. You are clueless about her.

Chris has 12 career losses in which she won less than 4 games (one at age 15).
Martina has 10 such career losses.
Serena has 5 such career losses.
Steffi also has 5 such career losses (but 3 at age 14/15).

That is a huge concrete block around Evert's ankle.

I never saw Austin play but she is only a 2-slam winner and surely not among the top 10 open era players.
And yet she trounced Chris several times even as a 16-year-old!!

 

[buscemi]

Both Evert and Graf played 3 or more slams in 13 different years.

Graf played 4 Majors from 1988-1994, outside of 1992, when she played 3 Majors.

Between 1975 and 1980, Evert had three years playing 2 Majors and three years playing 3 Majors.

That's a huge difference.

Basically everyone believes Evert wins at least 3 Majors in 1976 if she plays the French Open and the Australian Open.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Graf played 4 Majors from 1988-1994, outside of 1992, when she played 3 Majors.

Between 1975 and 1980, Evert had three years playing 2 Majors and three years playing 3 Majors.

That's a huge difference.

Basically everyone believes Evert wins at least 3 Majors in 1976 if she plays the French Open and the Australian Open.

"Would" doesn't count in sports.
And in no would scenario Evert comes close to 5 years with 3+ slams.

Anyway, Evert was too often demolished by Austin, Navratilova and Graf to be among the top 3 of all time.
And she has a losing h2h against all three even though Austin and Steffi were only teenagers!!

 

[buscemi]

"Would" doesn't count in sports.

In this thread today, you've been arguing that Graf's career winning percentage would have been higher had she turned pro later.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

In this thread today, you've been arguing that Graf's career winning percentage would have been higher had she turned pro later.

I have never said that.

I just said that Evert's career match winning percentage is only higher because we also count Steffi's matches at age 13-15.
BTW, I should have been more precise - Evert's career match winning percentage is only higher because we include Steffi's matches at age 13/14!!!

But yes, I know - Steffi made a lot of money at that age.

 

[buscemi]

I have never said that.

I just said that Evert's career match winning percentage is only higher because we also count Steffi's matches at age 13-15.
BTW, I should have been more precise - Evert's career match winning percentage is only higher because we include Steffi's matches at age 13/14!!!

But yes, I know - Steffi made a lot of money at that age.

How's that different from my point?

In your wording, I just said Evert never won 3 Majors in a year because of the years in her prime when she only played 2 or 3 Majors.

 

[BTURNER]

Of course she lost in all the tournaments she played at age 13-15.
She knew that beforehand.

But you would really have accepted my take on Evert's (deceptively) good record if Steffi had played at the age as an amateur?
That sounds weird....

Let's state this fact:
Evert's records depends on counting Steffi's many losses as a 13-15 year old which is an age at which Evert played only 2 or 3 matches.
You may not like that fact but it stays a fact nevertheless.

I have always counted every single match Evert has played on the pro tour. These pro tournaments she played was in 1969 when she was 14 years old (December birthday)
Austin Smith Championships (Jan. 20-26; Fort Lauderdale, FL, clay): 1R def. Ann Lentz 6-1, 6-2; SF lost to Mary Ann Eisel 7-5, 3-6, 6-1
Station WLOD Invitational (Mar 17-22; Lighthouse Point/Fort Lauderdale, FL, clay): 1R def. Marilyn Ashner 6-3, 6-3; 2R def. Linda Tuero 6-4, 6-2; QF lost to Julie Heldman 6-4, 6-1

1970 as a 15 year old
Station WLOD Invitational (March; Lighthouse Point/Fort Lauderdale, FL, clay): 1R def. Bonnie Smith 6-1, 6-0; 2R def. Pam Teeguarden 6-1, 6-1; QF def. Linda Tuero 6-0, 6-2; SF lost to Nancy Richey 6-3, 4-6, 6-2
Pennsylvania Grass Court Open Championships (Aug. 3-9; Merion/Haverford, PA, grass): 1R lost to Kerry Melville 6-4, 6-4
Eastern Grass Court Championships (Aug. 24-30; South Orange, NJ; grass): 1R lost to Peaches Bartkowicz 6-2, 6-1
Carolinas International Tennis Classic (Sept. 18-20; Charlotte, NC, clay): QF def. Françoise Durr 6-0, 6-1; SF def. Margaret Court 7-6, 7-6; F lost to Nancy Richey Gunter 6-4, 6-1

That is 14 losses and They are ALL included in her all of her records and directly on point, every one of them is included her 90% (89.97) career win rate She wasn't stupid enough to play any slams until she was 16, and there weren't early round losses in slams, because Chris Evert just does not get upset in the early rounds of slams unlike Steffi.

Players who are as consistently good as Evert don't need anyone to take to White-out any of her losses. She doesn't need the excuses you think Steffi needs.

 

[BTURNER]

They all count when figure their win/loss percentage. It's a useful stat, but like most stats it can be misleading to an extent.

But no, they don't all count when rating a player. Sports are not very much like regular people's employment.

Let's say two players have the exact same winning % at 30. Player A retires, while Player B keeps playing until he is 40. Player B is going to finish with a lower win/loss record. That doesn't mean that Player A was a better tennis player.

There certainly are gray areas. But there are also times when it obvious that a stat is misleading.
In the case of Evert and Graf, Evert played a longer time past her prime than Graf played it when she was very young. And Evert still had a higher %.

Yes it does mean exactly that, because he's still a professional tennis player all of those extra years, getting pay checks all those years, and presumably having people watching him play less well until he was 40. Fans are sitting around watching older players play worse than they remember, getting tired earlier, making more sloppy errors, not covering the court, serving less well than they used to. These are somebody's memories of celebrity players too. You have zero excuse to toss out those matches between 30-40 for any reason, any calculation.

You fail to realize that the losses you accrue hanging around after your best playing days are supposed to have consequences on your legacy because your wins in later years still get trumpeted and lauded. You can't just keep the goodies in your record. Players get to decide whether they want to chase records (one more slam) and risk possible harm to their reputations or retire earlier when they are closer to their prime. They don't get to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[insideoutforehanders]

If one were to say Evert falls short of say Graf, Navratilova, or even Court in the pure "dominance" category I would agree but the "never won 3 slams in a year" is as pointless a stat as it is for Borg. There is no universe she does not win atleast 3 in 76, with a good chance in all of 75, 77, 78, 80 too. None of those completely certain like 76, but likely she manages it in atleast 2 of those 4, in addition to the super obvious of 76.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

How's that different from my point?

In your wording, I just said Evert never won 3 Majors in a year because of the years in her prime when she only played 2 or 3 Majors.

No, you are insinuating that Evert "would" have won 3 slams if she had played 3 or 4 slams per year more often in the 70s.
But we don't know that.

I never addressed any "would scenarios".
I just stated that Evert has the highest match winning percentage because we count Steffi's matches at age 13/14 as well.
Which is a fact.

Big difference!

 

[SwissMaestro81]

I have always counted every single match Evert has played on the pro tour. These pro tournaments she played was in 1969 when she was 14 years old (December birthday)
Austin Smith Championships (Jan. 20-26; Fort Lauderdale, FL, clay): 1R def. Ann Lentz 6-1, 6-2; SF lost to Mary Ann Eisel 7-5, 3-6, 6-1
Station WLOD Invitational (Mar 17-22; Lighthouse Point/Fort Lauderdale, FL, clay): 1R def. Marilyn Ashner 6-3, 6-3; 2R def. Linda Tuero 6-4, 6-2; QF lost to Julie Heldman 6-4, 6-1

1970 as a 15 year old
Station WLOD Invitational (March; Lighthouse Point/Fort Lauderdale, FL, clay): 1R def. Bonnie Smith 6-1, 6-0; 2R def. Pam Teeguarden 6-1, 6-1; QF def. Linda Tuero 6-0, 6-2; SF lost to Nancy Richey 6-3, 4-6, 6-2
Pennsylvania Grass Court Open Championships (Aug. 3-9; Merion/Haverford, PA, grass): 1R lost to Kerry Melville 6-4, 6-4
Eastern Grass Court Championships (Aug. 24-30; South Orange, NJ; grass): 1R lost to Peaches Bartkowicz 6-2, 6-1
Carolinas International Tennis Classic (Sept. 18-20; Charlotte, NC, clay): QF def. Françoise Durr 6-0, 6-1; SF def. Margaret Court 7-6, 7-6; F lost to Nancy Richey Gunter 6-4, 6-1

That is 14 losses and They are ALL included in her all of her records and directly on point, every one of them is included her 90% (89.97) career win rate She wasn't stupid enough to play any slams until she was 16, and there weren't early round losses in slams, because Chris Evert just does not get upset in the early rounds of slams unlike Steffi.

Players who are as consistently good as Evert don't need anyone to take to White-out any of her losses. She doesn't need the excuses you think Steffi needs.

You are wrong - Chris won 8 of those 14 matches!!

14-year-old Evert: 3-2 win/loss
15-year-old Evert: 5-4 win7loss

13/14-year-old Graf: 14-14 win/loss
15-year-old Graf: 32-15 win/loss

So no wonder that Evert has a narrowly higher career match winning percentage than Graf.
But even from age 15 on (and not only from age 16 on as I claimed initially) Steffi has a higher winning percentage.

I think that is very impressive!

 

[SwissMaestro81]

She wasn't stupid enough to play any slams until she was 16, and there weren't early round losses in slams, because Chris Evert just does not get upset in the early rounds of slams unlike Steffi.

Both Chris and Steffi lost only twice in rounds 1-3 in slams from age 16 on.
But yes, Steffi - in contrast to Chris - was not afraid to take on the big girls at age 13-15 (and had of course 5 more losses in rounds 1-3).

So here - same as with the career match winning percentages - Chris comes only out on top if we count young fearless Steffi's matches at age 13-15.
But why should we punish fearlessness and lionize cowardice....?

 

[buscemi]

No, you are insinuating that Evert "would" have won 3 slams if she had played 3 or 4 slams per year more often in the 70s.
But we don't know that.

I never addressed any "would scenarios".
I just stated that Evert has the highest match winning percentage because we count Steffi's matches at age 13/14 as well.
Which is a fact.

Big difference!

And you're insinuating that Graf would have had a higher winning percentage if she had turned pro later. You even compiled statistics for what her career winning percentage would have been if we excised her results at certain ages.

 

[BTURNER]

You are wrong - Chris won 8 of those 14 matches!!

14-year-old Evert: 3-2 win/loss
15-year-old Evert: 5-4 win7loss

13/14-year-old Graf: 14-14 win/loss
15-year-old Graf: 32-15 win/loss

So no wonder that Evert has a narrowly higher career match winning percentage than Graf.
But even from age 15 on (and not only from age 16 on as I claimed initially) Steffi has a higher winning percentage!

I think that is very impressive, especially when we consider that Steffi tops Chris in almost all other GOAT-relevant stats.

So we have established that those early age stats did NOT Negatively impair Graf v Evert anyway! So what was a bad excuse, never needed to be offered in first place because it does not explain the disparity? I guess we are to cooncludes that Whether Graf decided to play with the big girls at 13-15 or not Evertsucceeded in excelling by this artificial and arbitrary metric you created. Maybe you should try subdivided by only the first six months and only using matches played on Tuesdays and Thursdays despite that the rest of the week reflected actual choices to play tennis and get played for it?

By the way, I could do that because Evert never took a dime of prize-money before she turned 18. She played pro events but never accepted a paycheck by the tournaments to keep her amateur status It reflected her and her parents development first mindset, so that the ONLY criteria to consider was what would be good for her long term growth. Matter of fact she refused to enter the 1972 RG because she felt she was not ready! It showed the kind of discipline that Graf did not show, and yet still, whether you add or subtract those years you choose, she managed a better career percentage. She played and beat the women at the workplace, but she never 'clocked-in' She volunteered her time.

She did not need to ***** herself out her prepubescent years to the highest paying Johns on the street (the slams) because she still had not become a 'working girl' at all yet. She gave it all up for free even to the highest bidders until a legal adult. Papa Evert was not the pimp that Papa Graf was.

I think Chris gets to cherry pick out only the wins, and erase the losses, because while she played the pro tournaments, she never reached into the wallet on the nightstand.

 

[urban]

I don't want to underbreak the Graf-fan discussion, but context is also to be seen, Slam is not everything. In the 70s and even early 8os, RG and AO had a minor status to some US indoor events, like the Virginina Slims or Avon championships.mostly played indoors. I think, Nav with 8 Avon wins and Evert did there very well.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

And you're insinuating that Graf would have had a higher winning percentage if she had turned pro later. You even compiled statistics for what her career winning percentage would have been if we excised her results at certain ages.

No, I just stated a fact.
That Evert has a higher match winning percentage than Graf because we count Graf's matches at age 13/14.
Which we do, no?

 

[SwissMaestro81]

So we have established that those early age stats did NOT Negatively impair Graf v Evert anyway! ...

Nonsense, those stats are responsible for Evert having a better match winning percentage than Graf!

If we don't count Evert's 3-2 and Graf's 14-14 win/loss stats at age 13/14...
...Evert has a 1306-144 win/loss stats and Graf one of 874-93.
Which translates to 90.07 % and 90.38 % respectively.

But of course we do count WTA matches played by 13/14-old girls.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

I don't want to underbreak the Graf-fan discussion, but context is also to be seen, Slam is not everything. In the 70s and even early 8os, RG and AO had a minor status to some US indoor events, like the Virginina Slims or Avon championships.mostly played indoors. I think, Nav with 8 Avon wins and Evert did there very well.

Everybody knows that.
It is the only reason why both Navratilova and Evert are still included in GOAT discussions.

They both often preferred to make easy money in Kansas City or Chicago instead of traveling to France or even to Australia to play slams there.
Fully understandable.

 

[buscemi]

No, I just stated a fact.
That Evert has a higher match winning percentage than Graf because we count Graf's matches at age 13/14.
Which we do, no?

I just stated a fact. That Evert often played only 2 or 3 Majors a year during her prime.

You both stated a fact and then re-computed Graf's career winning percentage by removing results from early in her career.

 

[Hard Court]

Chris has 12 career losses in which she won less than 4 games (one at age 15).
Martina has 10 such career losses.
Serena has 5 such career losses.
Steffi also has 5 such career losses (but 3 at age 14/15).

That is a huge concrete block around Evert's ankle.

I never saw Austin play but she is only a 2-slam winner and surely not among the top 10 open era players.
And yet she trounced Chris several times even as a 16-year-old!!

She won less 4 games? Could you not come up with anything more trivial? So if she loses 6-3, 6-2, doesn't count.
Austin is only a 2-time Grand slam winner because she got injured. She was for all intense purposes (except for sporadic comebacks) done when she was still a teenager.
For 3 years, she was as good as anyone. It doesn't matter if she 16 or she was 20 or if she was 10. She could play.

You need to do more research on players before you can make valid comparisons. Watch them play. Right now you are knocking people who you could have seen play and have not.
Take into consideration their equipment. Take into account that they have been plying several more tournaments a year and didn't have the rest of more modern players who don't play as much. Naturally, it's hard to keep a higher winning %.
Sometimes a player from before time was not as good a player from during your time. sometimes she was better than the player for your time. The world didn't begin the day you became a fan.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

I just stated a fact. That Evert often played only 2 or 3 Majors a year during her prime.

Now, you said that otherwise Evert "would" have won more slams. Which we don't know.
I didn't say anything we don't know yet.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

She won less 4 games? Could you not come up with anything more trivial? So if she loses 6-3, 6-2, doesn't count.
Austin is only a 2-time Grand slam winner because she got injured. She was for all intense purposes (except for sporadic comebacks) done when she was still a teenager.
For 3 years, she was as good as anyone. It doesn't matter if she 16 or she was 20 or if she was 10. She could play.
...

So you want to say that Evert and maybe even Navratilova would have won a lot less if this player Austin (who beat both up terribly many times in 1979-81) had not get injured?
Anyway, Navratilova and Evert both were players who were quite often destroyed even by teenagers. Which should of course taken in account in GOAT discussions. Serena, Steffi and most probably also Court (I don't have her stats) rarely got a beat down like that.

But I will oblige and have a look at matches with 4 of 5 games lost.

 

[buscemi]

Now, you said that otherwise Evert "would" have won more slams. Which we don't know.
I didn't say anything we don't know yet.

You wrote: "Evert has two huge disadvantages: 1) Never won 3 or more slams within one year."

I respond: "Kind of meaningless when she only played 2 or 3 Majors in most of her best years."

Sure, as you say, I suspect that Evert wins at least 3 Majors in a year if she played all 4 Majors throughout her prime.

But my main point is simply that "no 3 Major years" is a meaningless criterion when Evert mostly played only 2 or 3 Majors during her prime.

 

[BTURNER]

Nonsense, those stats are responsible for Evert having a better match winning percentage than Graf!

If we don't count Evert's 3-2 and Graf's 14-14 win/loss stats at age 13/14...
...Evert has a 1306-144 win/loss stats and Graf one of 874-93.
Which translates to 90.07 % and 90.38 % respectively.

But of course we do count WTA matches played by 13/14-old girls.

Of course we do - if the girl plays a professional tour match! You finally agree with me. Its completely irrelevant whether the age is 14 or 25 or 34. Its completely irrelevant whether you were sick, pregnant, injured, whether your Dad was dying of cancer or heading to jail on tax evasion charges, whether it was during your period, or you have tooth pain or you are in the middle of a divorce All that matters is that you went on the court, and played the first point of the match. The moment the referee calls 15-0 or 0-15, the match goes into the record books as having been played.

So stop trying to find ways to make excuses for Steffi's losses or separate groups of her losses from the rest of her play.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

You wrote: "Evert has two huge disadvantages: 1) Never won 3 or more slams within one year."

I respond: "Kind of meaningless when she only played 2 or 3 Majors in most of her best years."

Sure, as you say, I suspect that Evert wins at least 3 Majors in a year if she played all 4 Majors throughout her prime.

But my main point is simply that "no 3 Major years" is a meaningless criterion when Evert mostly played only 2 or 3 Majors during her prime.

No, you are inserting hypothetical scenarios.
You say she "would" or "might" have won more slams had she played 3 or 4 matches in her prime (wasn't her prime 1984-86, BTW?).
I don't do that.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Of course we do - if the girl plays a professional tour match! You finally agree with me. Its completely irrelevant whether the age is 14 or 25 or 34. Its completely irrelevant whether you were sick, pregnant, injured, whether your Dad was dying of cancer or heading to jail on tax evasion charges, whether it was during your period, or you have tooth pain or you are in the middle of a divorce All that matters is that you went on the court, and played the first point of the match. The moment the referee calls 15-0 or 0-15, the match goes into the record books as having been played.

So stop trying to find ways to make excuses for Steffi's losses or separate groups of her losses from the rest of her play.

Nonsense, data always have to be interpreted.
And it is of course not irrelevant whether a played loses tons of matches at age 13-14 or in later years.
And it is a fact (!) that Evert has the best match winning percentage in the open era because we count Steffi's matches at age 13/14.
I never said we should not count them.
But of course it is allowed to state said fact. Even if it makes you so mad.

 

[buscemi]

No, you are inserting hypothetical scenarios.
You say she "would" or "might" have won more slams had she played 3 or 4 matches in her prime (wasn't her prime 1984-86, BTW?).
I don't do that.

This is what you wrote about Steffi's matches from age 13-15: "Steffi played 71 of her 995 matches at age 13-15. That is more than 7 %!! She has a 89.25 % career match winning percentage. Without those matches it would be 91.52 %." Again, you wrote that without those matches her winning percentage "would" be 91.52%.

This is what I wrote when you posted that Evert "[n]ever won 3 or more slams within one year.": "Kind of meaningless when she only played 2 or 3 Majors in most of her best years."

 

[BTURNER]

No, you are inserting hypothetical scenarios.
You say she "would" or "might" have won more slams.1 had she played 3 or 4 matches in her prime (wasn't her prime 1984-86, BTW?).
I don't do that.

It just doesn't matter how many slams get won in a given year, or whether the same slams get stretched out over a longer period. What may matter is the success rate more than the pattern. If you define 'success' as percent of slams entered to percent won. We already have those figures. Graf's was 40.7 % and Evert's was 32.1. Remember I picked Graf as my GOAT and this figure is one reason why. I see this figure as a major stat measuring peak play.

 

[BTURNER]

Nonsense, data always have to be interpreted.
And it is of course not irrelevant whether a played loses tons of matches at age 13-14 or in later years.
And it is a fact (!) that Evert has the best match winning percentage in the open era because we count Steffi's matches at age 13/14.
I never said we should not count them.
But of course it is allowed to state said fact. Even if it makes you so mad.

I am not mad. Its not interpretive. Steffi played slams too young to perform well. She put in more immature substandard performances in slams that she got paid for and lost. Evert never did either. You make excuses for Steffi's losses early in her career. Slant the data. I don't make excuses for Evert or slant the data. Evert does not need me to.

 

[Hard Court]

So you want to say that Evert and maybe even Navratilova would have won a lot less if this player Austin (who beat both up terribly many times in 1979-81) had not get injured?
Anyway, Navratilova and Evert both were players who were quite often destroyed even by teenagers. Which should of course taken in account in GOAT discussions. Serena, Steffi and most probably also Court (I don't have her stats) rarely got a beat down like that.

But I will oblige and have a look at matches with 4 of 5 games lost.

Yes I think Evert and Navratilova would have won less tournaments if Austin had not been injured. (Guess what, she is closer to Graf's age than she is to Evert). But that is speculation. Maybe Austin goes into a huge slump. Maybe she improves more and dominates the 1980s. probably somewhere in between. Who knows.
What we do know is that Austin was a great player for about three years. It doesn't matter that you keep saying that she is just a teenager. Funny, since Graf's best years were when she was teenager!

And you like to pull numbers out when it favors your player. You keep ignoring the fact that Evert won more tournaments than Graf.

But you have to interpret those numbers. You have to look at their competition. Graf had years where her best competition was Arantxa Sanchez. Come on. And for a short time, Sanches Vicario even took over the #1 ranking from her. for an ATG, that's embarrassing.

And no, you don't need to look up how times players lost 5 games. At the time, the score might seem important. In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter much if a set was 7-6 or 6-0.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Yes I think Evert and Navratilova would have won less tournaments if Austin had not been injured. (Guess what, she is closer to Graf's age than she is to Evert). But that is speculation. Maybe Austin goes into a huge slump. Maybe she improves more and dominates the 1980s. probably somewhere in between. Who knows.
What we do know is that Austin was a great player for about three years. It doesn't matter that you keep saying that she is just a teenager. Funny, since Graf's best years were when she was teenager!

And you like to pull numbers out when it favors your player. You keep ignoring the fact that Evert won more tournaments than Graf.

But you have to interpret those numbers. You have to look at their competition. Graf had years where her best competition was Arantxa Sanchez. Come on. And for a short time, Sanches Vicario even took over the #1 ranking from her. for an ATG, that's embarrassing.

Sanchez won 4 slams and made 12 slam finals in total.
Austin won 2 slams and made only those 2 slam finals. But was #1 longer than Sanchez and even relegated Evert to #3 for a short period.

 

[BTURNER]

Yes I think Evert and Navratilova would have won less tournaments if Austin had not been injured. (Guess what, she is closer to Graf's age than she is to Evert). But that is speculation. Maybe Austin goes into a huge slump. Maybe she improves more and dominates the 1980s. probably somewhere in between. Who knows.
What we do know is that Austin was a great player for about three years. It doesn't matter that you keep saying that she is just a teenager. Funny, since Graf's best years were when she was teenager!

And you like to pull numbers out when it favors your player. You keep ignoring the fact that Evert won more tournaments than Graf.

But you have to interpret those numbers. You have to look at their competition. Graf had years where her best competition was Arantxa Sanchez. Come on. And for a short time, Sanches Vicario even took over the #1 ranking from her. for an ATG, that's embarrassing.

And no, you don't need to look up how times players lost 5 games. At the time, the score might seem important. In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter much if a set was 7-6 or 6-0.

Tracy certainly would take a bite out of their tournament total. She was at her best on hard courts and carpet with that more secure footing and ball bounce. Not sure she would have had much of an impact on Evert's slam record though. Evert only won that 1982 US Open which Tracy might easily be favored for.

On clay, despite her most famous streak-braking victory over Chris in the Italian Semi in 1979, that's just about the only significant win there is.. she got to two QFs at RG losing to Mandlikova and Jo Durie in 82-83 She gets to 5 total finals on the surface, and wins three total with victories over an aging Kerry Reid, and a nascent Silvia Hanika and one final win over exhausted Marsikova. Then we have two losses to Martina in Orlando and Hilton Head. Clay is a largely unanswered question. If Tracy goes uninjured, Evert is most vulnerable on clay in RG '83, right before she changes rackets but Evert has improved her clay game dramatically 85 & 86.

On grass, its even more problematic. There is scant evidence that Tracy can take a two week major . She beat depleted fields in 80 and 81 to grab two Eastborne, and beat Turnbull and Jaeger in finals to do it. She wasn't in a 3 final anywhere. She might grab the 1984 Aussie from Evert but she couldn't take Shriver in the QF in 81 and she was healthy. She got to two SF's and lost to Martina and Evonne at Wimbledon. This tournament will always be her Achilles heel.

Big picture Tracy's got some US Opens in her future and maybe those 82-83 RG titles as well as a boat load of hard court and carpet tournaments but she needs to make some big changes beyond her racket, if she expects to stay in the top 3 long term past 1983.

She needs better footwork, more touch and variety to her game, and most of all, an entirely retooled serve. It's that serve I am most doubtful of and it is the most vital. No way in hell can Austin get away with that serve in modern tennis. She'll need more free points on the first, and that second is a potato chip, players can't wait to chomp on.

 

[Hard Court]

I think she would have been a force on clay. The win at the Italian over Evert was a big deal. That alone shows she was capable of big things on clay.
When she was just 14, she played the US Open on clay. She got all the way to the quarterfinals there.
She also won a couple of other small clay court tournaments. I think if the French Open would have been a focus, she would have won that a couple of time.
Doubt she ever would have won Wimbledon. I think with a good draw, she would have got to a couple of finals but would not have beaten Navratilova.
She was more likely to have won the Australian had she entered it every year. Could have won that a couple of times.
She almost for sure would have won a few more US Opens. That was already an event that she won twice.

She was probably would have got a little physically stronger and a played little more intelligently. (Not that she was a dumb player)
Her serve would have got better. The racquets got a lot better soon after she was not a factor anymore. She would have hit serve and groundstrokes harder.
She would not have been a small girl hitting a heavy wooden racquet. She would have been stronger physically and hitting a lighter racquet harder.

The thing that seems to get lost the most is how young she really was. She was really getting the injuries when she was 19. Not a stretch at all to think she was would have been a force for 10 more years. She won two Grand slams in 7 attempts during her prime. Imagine if she got 40 more chances, when she probably would been a little better player.
Obviously, it's all speculation. But it certainly is not far-fetched. I don't think a lot of people realize what could have happened.

 

[SwissMaestro81]

Doubt she ever would have won Wimbledon. I think with a good draw, she would have got to a couple of finals but would not have beaten Navratilova.
She was more likely to have won the Australian had she entered it every year. Could have won that a couple of times.

But wasn't the AO played on grass until 1987 as well?

 

[Hard Court]

Yes, but the Aussie grass was different than the grass at Wimbledon. Mats Wilander won the Australian on grass in 1983 and 1984 but never came close at Wimbledon. Navratliova wasn't quite as good at the Australian. She lost to Evert, Sukova and Mandlikova there. Austin would have had a better shot there.

 

[buscemi]

On clay, despite her most famous streak-braking victory over Chris in the Italian Semi in 1979, that's just about the only significant win there is.

Some strong wins on clay for Austin:

1977 Hilton Head: beat Dianne Fromholtz, a solid top 10 player who made the French Open SF in 1979-1980.​

1977 U.S. Open: beat Sue Barker, who won the 1976 French Open and finished 1977 at #5.​

1977 U.S. Open: beat Virginia Ruzici, who won the French Open the next year.​

1978 Hilton Head: beat Rosie Casals, a former champ at the event and still a top 15ish player.​

1979 Hilton Head: beat Evonne Goolagong, the 1971 French Open champion who would finish the year #4.​

1979 Hilton Head: beat Kerry Reid who had made the final the previous year and who would finish the year at #9.​

1979 Fed Cup: beat Kerry Reid again.​

1979 Rome: beat Mima Jausovec, who won the French Open in 1977 and made the final in 1978.​

1979 Rome: beat Virginia Ruzici again.​

1979 Rome: the epic win over Evert to break her 125 match clay court winning streak.​

1979 Rome: beat Sylvia Hanika, who would make the 1981 French Open final.​

1979 Wightman Cup: beat Sue Barker again.​

1979 Wightman Cup: beat Virginia Wade, who, while not especially known for clay play, did win events like Rome, Berlin, and Hilton Head.​

1980 Orlando: beat Andrea Jaeger, who made the French Open final in 1982.​

1980 Fed Cip: beat Hana Mandlíková, who won the French Open in 1981.​

1980 French Open: beat Olga Morozova, who made the French Open final in 1974.​

1980 Fed Cup: beat Wendy Turnbull, who made Major finals twice on clay (1977 U.S. Open; 1979 French Open).​

All of these wins were from 1977-1980, when Austin was 40-5 on clay, including a 24 match winning streak starting after a loss to Evert in Hilton Head in 1978 and ending with a loss to Navratilova in Orlando in 1980. The other 3 losses were all in 1977 when Austin was 14, to Navratilova, Reid, and Betty Stöve.

Overall, I think Austin's clay ceiling was pretty high.

 

[BTURNER]

Some strong wins on clay for Austin:

1977 Hilton Head: beat Dianne Fromholtz, a solid top 10 player who made the French Open SF in 1979-1980.​

1977 U.S. Open: beat Sue Barker, who won the 1976 French Open and finished 1977 at #5.​

1977 U.S. Open: beat Virginia Ruzici, who won the French Open the next year.​

1978 Hilton Head: beat Rosie Casals, a former champ at the event and still a top 15ish player.​

1979 Hilton Head: beat Evonne Goolagong, the 1971 French Open champion who would finish the year #4.​

1979 Hilton Head: beat Kerry Reid who had made the final the previous year and who would finish the year at #9.​

1979 Fed Cup: beat Kerry Reid again.​

1979 Rome: beat Mima Jausovec, who won the French Open in 1977 and made the final in 1978.​

1979 Rome: beat Virginia Ruzici again.​

1979 Rome: the epic win over Evert to break her 125 match clay court winning streak.​

1979 Rome: beat Sylvia Hanika, who would make the 1981 French Open final.​

1979 Wightman Cup: beat Sue Barker again.​

1979 Wightman Cup: beat Virginia Wade, who, while not especially known for clay play, did win events like Rome, Berlin, and Hilton Head.​

1980 Orlando: beat Andrea Jaeger, who made the French Open final in 1982.​

1980 Fed Cip: beat Hana Mandlíková, who won the French Open in 1981.​

1980 French Open: beat Olga Morozova, who made the French Open final in 1974.​

1980 Fed Cup: beat Wendy Turnbull, who made Major finals twice on clay (1977 U.S. Open; 1979 French Open).​

All of these wins were from 1977-1980, when Austin was 40-5 on clay, including a 24 match winning streak starting after a loss to Evert in Hilton Head in 1978 and ending with a loss to Navratilova in Orlando in 1980. The other 3 losses were all in 1977 when Austin was 14, to Navratilova, Reid, and Betty Stöve.

Overall, I think Austin's clay ceiling was pretty high.

You might want to check these players for their actual seeding in the actual tournament she beat them in and check their WTA ranking. Some of these efforts feel like padding. If Evert beat these same people in these years, it would have been sited as evidence of how weak the draw was, not how strong the draw was. Heck, even when they won those slams, it was considered evidence of how weak the draw was!