Was grass really Martina Navratilova's best surface?

[Pheasant]

I recently was looking at Martina's peak years. Her grass court record was incredible. But her record on carpet was absolutely insane as well.

Here's the tale of the tape during her peak years from 1982-1986:

Grass Courts:
109-2, .982 match winning pct
had 20 consecutive straight set victories
20 bagels were dished out
51 bagels were dished out
Big tourneys: swept all 5 Wimbledon titles, won 2 of 4 AO.

Carpet stats:
148-4, .979 match winning pct
30 consecutive straight set victories
37 bagels dished out
70 bread sticks were dished out
Big tourneys: won 5 straight Virginia Slim tourneys(played 6 total, since 2 were held in 1986).

The Wimbledon winning pct is a hair better. However, those Virginia Slims tourney often featured much higher ranked opponents on average.

 

[martinezownsclay]

Carpet is not a slam surface, so it will never get as much attention. Yes quite possibly carpet was her best surface over grass. It is hard to say though, in one of her peak years (82) she lost to Sylvia Hanika of all people in a major carpet final. Would something close to that ever happen on grass? I know she lost the Australian semis to Sukova in 84, but IMO Sukova is a big notch above Hanika as a contender and in danger factor.

 

[buscemi]

I might go Wimbledon grass > carpet > Kooyong grass.

Looking at that 1982-1986 stretch the only match Navratilova lost at either Wimbledon or the WTA Finals was a loss to Sylvia Hanika in the finals of the 1982 WTA Finals. If we extend things forward one more year to 1987, Navratilova beat Graf to win her sixth straight Wimbledon but got straight setted by Sabatini in the QF of the WTA Finals.

So, for me, peak Navratilova is better on Wimbledon grass.

Looking at Kooyong grass, Navratilova lost to Evert in the 1982 AO final and lost to Suková in the 1984 AO SF...and I see no way she loses either of those matches in those years at Wimbledon or the WTA Finals. Again, if we extend things to 1987, Navratilova lost to Mandlíková in the final. So, I'd say Kooyong grass was her worst surface among the three.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I might go Wimbledon grass > carpet > Kooyong grass.

Looking at that 1982-1986 stretch the only match Navratilova lost at either Wimbledon or the WTA Finals was a loss to Sylvia Hanika in the finals of the 1982 WTA Finals. If we extend things forward one more year to 1987, Navratilova beat Graf to win her sixth straight Wimbledon but got straight setted by Sabatini in the QF of the WTA Finals.

So, for me, peak Navratilova is better on Wimbledon grass.

Looking at Kooyong grass, Navratilova lost to Evert in the 1982 AO final and lost to Suková in the 1984 AO SF...and I see no way she loses either of those matches in those years at Wimbledon or the WTA Finals. Again, if we extend things to 1987, Navratilova lost to Mandlíková in the final. So, I'd say Kooyong grass was her worst surface among the three.

Agree with all that. I do think Martina got extra charged up for the 87 Wimbledon final though as there was no love lost between her and Graf in general, and there was also the impending ranking controversy. There was nothing that indicated from barely beating Evert (who for sure would have almost for sure lost to Graf) in the semis, that would foreshadow her relatively easy straight sets finals win over Graf. Graf also played a really poor final with a lot of errors, poor serving, and real indecision when and how to approach the net herself. Also in 87 Martina really saved and got up for the slams, playing fully at her prime level in all 3 slam events, but gave only half assed effort all other places to purposely save for the slams, and that would extend to even the WTA Championships probably.

 

[Pheasant]

What's pretty cool is that Martina absolutely destroyed her opponents on both surfaces.

Of her 109 wins on grass, 96 were in straight sets. That means that 88% of her wins were in straight sets. That also means that 85.7% of the matches that she played on grass ended up with her winning in a straight set blowout.

Of her 148 wins on carpet, 131 were in straight sets. 88.5% of her wins were in straight sets. 86.2% of her matches played ended up with Martina winning in a straight set blowout.

Record vs top-10 on each surface

Grass: 18-1, .947 with 14 wins in straight sets
carpet: 34-2, .944 with 27 wins in straight sets

These numbers are actually laughable.

To the other posters' point, Martina was 34-0 at Wimbledon during this span, which includes 32 blowout wins in straight sets. I.e, when Martina played a match, then it ended with Martina blowing out the opponent in straight sets 94% of the time. But....her competition on carpet was much tougher by facing a lot more opponents ranked in the top-20.

I agree that Wimbledon grass > carpet > AO grass. But since AO grass is part of the equation, I'm voting for carpet overall.

 

[martinezownsclay]

I can't decide on a vote yet. Would need to stupid things closer before deciding. One note though Wimbledon > Australian Open in prestige back then bigtime if that is the main thing you are deciding their grass performance/dominance based on. People probably wouldn't even call Navratilova the grass GOAT over people like Court, Graf, Serena Williams if Australian grass and non Wimbledon grass events were given equal footing to Wimbledon, as her Australian Open grass record wouldn't be quite good enough and brings down her average, especialy factoring in Court's insane dominance there and grass events outside Wimbledon where she struggled. The fact many/most people still call Wimbledon the grass GOAT shows that point.

 

[thrust]

Martina's record on both surfaces is so close, that it really doesn't matter which she may have been better on. Not all grass courts play the same, so it is obvious that the Wimby grass best suited her game.

 

[BTURNER]

Well Here's another way to gauge the difference. I will use her great rival as her testing ground .I will take Pheasant's parameters from the OP. 1982-86

I looked at the head to head during those years on grass and on carpet.


Of the sets , which Evert won, only 1 of the 6 was played on carpet. There were 2 bagels played, both won by Martina on carpet. There were 5 breadsticks played , all won on carpet by Martina.

The last victory Evert ever had against Martina on Carpet was way back in 1979. 8 consecutive years of losses indoors through the end of 1988, until their very last tournament meeting on carpet. Evert kept it close and interesting on grass. Not on carpet.

 

[Gizo]

Yes when it comes to matches between 2 all-time greats on a particular surface, Navarilova vs. Evert on carpet during the 80s was essentially as one sided and as 'never in doubt' as possible.

Starting from their match in Tokyo in late 1980, Navratilova completely shut Evert out during their last 14 matches against each other on carpet, only dropping 1 set out of 30 along the way, though she was already starting to gain the upper hand on carpet before then.

Evert said a few times that on a slick carpet court, if Navratilova served well she felt powerless. And during that stretch of matches, Navratilova invariably did, including during their final ever official match in Chicago in 1988 when she only faced 2 break points fending both of them off.

I thought that the 2nd set of their 1984 Virgina Slims Championships final, their sole best of 5 set match, was excellent. That was probably the best set of tennis I recall from Evert vs. Navratilova on carpet during that run of matches. Ultimately Navratilova saved a series of break points with some wonderful play, and came out on top in the big points to win it, which demoralised Evert who then struggled during the 3rd set

That was in contrast to grass where Evert was routinely winning sets against Navratilova, threatening to beat her etc.

It was to Evert's credit that she set up so many appointments against Navratilova on carpet, with 35 out of their 80 matches taking place on that surface. Clearly while their were no majors on carpet, many of the most lucrative tournaments around for both the women and men were held on it (for a period a few carpet events in the US were a bigger deal than RG for the women), so it was a very important surface.

 

[jrepac]

Well Here's another way to gauge the difference. I will use her great rival as her testing ground .I will take Pheasant's parameters from the OP. 1982-86

I looked at the head to head during those years on grass and on carpet.


Of the sets , which Evert won, only 1 of the 6 was played on carpet. There were 2 bagels played, both won by Martina on carpet. There were 5 breadsticks played , all won on carpet by Martina.

The last victory Evert ever had against Martina on Carpet was way back in 1979. 8 consecutive years of losses indoors through the end of 1988, until their very last tournament meeting on carpet. Evert kept it close and interesting on grass. Not on carpet.

It's true. I never expected Chris to beat NM on carpet. I figured she had more than a fighting chance on grass. I think like Lendl, she was a dyanamo indoors w/no wind to upset her serve or her groundstrokes. No changes in lighting along the way either. Pretty much ideal.

 

[Grafil Injection]

She was in 9 Wimbledon finals in a row, winning 7 of them. That's bonkers.

 

[Racquet_smash]

Ultimately it's easier to judge players on surfaces where a slam is played on because the entire tour prepares the best way possible for them and everyone will give everything there.

Same reason why people say Federer's best surface is grass, even if he's just as impressive indoors. At the end of the day, players will care about Wimbledon way more compared to any indoor event so those wins hold more value.

 

[Grafil Injection]

She won 11 Eastbournes and was given the 'Freedom of Eastbourne' by the Mayor, which means everyone who lives there has to offer her an apple or glass of milk if she ever asks.

 

[jrepac]

She won 11 Eastbournes and was given the 'Freedom of Eastbourne' by the Mayor, which means everyone who lives there has to offer her an apple or glass of milk if she ever asks.

Seriously? That's a laugh riot!

 

[Pheasant]

Well Here's another way to gauge the difference. I will use her great rival as her testing ground .I will take Pheasant's parameters from the OP. 1982-86

I looked at the head to head during those years on grass and on carpet.


Of the sets , which Evert won, only 1 of the 6 was played on carpet. There were 2 bagels played, both won by Martina on carpet. There were 5 breadsticks played , all won on carpet by Martina.

The last victory Evert ever had against Martina on Carpet was way back in 1979. 8 consecutive years of losses indoors through the end of 1988, until their very last tournament meeting on carpet. Evert kept it close and interesting on grass. Not on carpet.

Wow. I didn’t realize that she wrecked Evert that badly on carpet. That is insane.

 

[jrepac]

Wow. I didn’t realize that she wrecked Evert that badly on carpet. That is insane.

The #s are startling, but as I said, I pretty much gave up on Chris vs. MN when it was an indoor carpet match.
Too many factors in MN's favor.
Outdoors, it was a whole different situation.
Particularly on the dirt