Navratilova is widely accepted by almost all to have proven herself the better player between her and Evert with her total dominance of Evert once she hit her stride. So it is perfectly reasonable to have them more than 1 placement apart. I know I have them #2 and #3 on my list, but I am in fact in the minority even putting them that close. Most lists I have seen have them atleast 2 placements apart. Tennis Magazine had Navratilova #1 and Evert #4. Tennis World about ten years compiled a list that had Navratilova #1 and Evert #4. Tennis Channel had Navratilova #2 (behind Graf) and Evert #4. A list voted on about a year ago by Wade, Turnbull, Drysdale, and a few others had Navratilova #2 (behind Graf) and Evert #5.
The only expert or major list I have seen that even has them only 1 placing apart is Steve Flink (a close personal friend of Evert) who has Navratilova #2 (behind Graf) and Evert #3. Who knows if by now he might even have Serena between them for all we know. He was heavy in his praise of Serena in his recent book.
Thank you for your breakdown of the Evert vs Court rivarly. That just shows 18 year old Evert was fairly evenly matched with 31 year old Court, but with Court coming out ahead more often when it mattered most. I dont see how this is exactly some hugely favorable argument for Evert though. Is an 18 year old typically considered less prime than a 31 year old in womens tennis? The reverse is usually true. Alot more players 18 and younger have won slams than women 31 or older, especialy Open Era, that is for sure. Do we consider 18 year old Graf was less in her prime in 1988 than 31 year old Navratilova when Graf completed the Golden Slam, and humiliated Navratilova by winning 12 of the last 13 years games on her beloved Wimbledon grass. I already pointed out how a 17 year old Graf did far better and far more thoroughly owned a 31-32 year old Evert than 18 year old Evert could manage vs a 30-31 year old Court. Even if we concede the point Graf is superior to both Evert and Navratilova, this still wouldnt suggest Evert should have been disadvantaged playing Court in late 72-73 by any means.
I will not entertain this kind of silliness. Court is not Evert. Evert is not Graf and drawing conclusions about the impact of chronological age on their respective bodies, minds and games is so full of logical holes as to be ludicrous. We know that some champs are precocious, some burn-out, some mature late, some show inconsistent greatness. Some get injury prone, some do not. I have shown that several players had been #1 winning majors including Serena just as late as Court in '73, so lets not pretend it is beyond your imagination that 31 years in most players, was not 31 years in
Court.
If the age is not impeding victories, then it is not a relevant factor in comparing these two players. I think the evidence shows that Court was playing consistent great tennis in 73 whatever her age, if she was winning slams left and right and still the best player in the world, and higher ranked than her opponent. She was beating everybody in'73 and had winning records to prove it. That she
never established any dominance over Evert, from the age of 15 forward, had serious trouble winning a set when Evert was most vulnerable. Your evidence of 'supremacy' is dependent on
one extra semifinal win out of 3 meetings in one year . The difference you are lauding amounts to just one set in the US national . This shows shows a very serious problem in this match-up.
And that is
all I think it proves. It is not evidence that Evert was a greater player than Court. It has nothing to say about Evert and Navratilova or Evert and Graf. It says Court had a horrible time adjusting to this two-fisted baseliner and her game and Evert had every reason to prefer seeing Court in her draw over a lot of others she had less confidence playing. These things get in player's heads.
Now frankly I could care less about other 'experts'. I am not interested in how they 'poll' on any of these issues so appealing to their authority gets us nowhere. These questions are as much about how much we weigh specific attributes in a champion ( peak vs longevity, consistency vs versatility, surface dominance vs slam dominance, # 1 status vs disparity over the tour) as what those attributes are in these women, or what evidence we require to get there. These are the issues that drive the debate at the highest levels between those first 7 -8 players. You and I put slightly different weight on what we want a champion to be, and show. How you weigh things, puts a lot of space between Graf and Martina and everyone else. I put more space between Graf and then Court/ Martina/Evert. Maybe we'd be smarter to find out why and what we are weighing than quote Tennis Magazine panels. Here's a clue. I put a hell of a lot of weight being able to master all the surfaces available for the sport. To be as dominating whether the surface is slow or fast matters is a big deal. Consistency matters to me as much as peak levels of play and I look at the whole career rather than just the dominant years. I look at the up-and coming, the injured and declining champions holding on to old glory.
