Which decade had the toughest overall competition for women

[grafselesfan]

Which decade do you feel overall had the toughest and deepest overall competition amongst the women. Here would be mine:

1. 1990s- This decade produced the prime years of all of Graf, Seles, Hingis, Davenport, Sanchez Vicario, Sabatini, Novotna, Pierce. Also featured the young Williams sisters towards the end, a young Capriati in the early 90s, and Navratilova in the early 90s when she was still a formidable force.

2. 1970s- Alot of great players this decade, albeit rarely that many in their primes together. Court and King reigning in the early 70s, Evert a huge force this entire decade, King remaining a force in the mid to late 70s, Goolagong a force throughout the decade, a young Navratilova a force in the mid to late 70s, Virginia Wade also a great player.

3. 1960s- Pretty good overall decade. Produced Court, King, Bueno, all at their peaks. Ann Jones was a great player who was part of this decade, and Turner and Richey were formidable multi-slam winners who were especialy formidable on clay but could also play on grass. Wade also emerged as a force in the late 60s, Darlene Hard was a big force in the early 60s.

5. 2000s- the early 2000s had very good competition Williams at their peak, Clijsters and Henin on the rise and coming into their primes in 2003, Capriati in her prime (although IMO not playing any better than she did in the early 90s with less success), Davenport still near her best, Hingis still a huge contender in the early 2000s, Mauresmo a contender, a Seles and Pierce still forces. By the late 2000s it had really dropped off with Serena dissapearing for most of 2005-2006, Venus morphing into a fast court only specialist, Clijsters missing almost all of 2004 with injury then retiring mentally after her 05 U.S Open at only 22 (retiring in body in early 2007), Henin missing much of 2004 with illness too then shocking all by retiring after her best ever 2007 season in early 2008. Sharapova has has emerged in the middle of the decade as a big force, but now late in the decade is struggling to stay healthy enough to even consistently play let alone consistently contend. The late 2000s is by far the worst womens field ever, but parts of the decade were actually pretty good.

5. 1980s- not really a deep or overall impressive decade. Other than Navratilova, Evert not quite as strong as she was in the 70s, Graf and Sabatini in the final few years of the decade only, Austin for only a 2 year blip at the start of the decade, and Mandlikova, nobody really noteable with alot of weak players consistently in the top 10. When Jaeger and Shriver are actually noteable players of this decade, well....you get the picture.

 

[Lionheart392]

Overall I think your list is very well argued. I'm just wondering with the order of the 80s and 2000s. I guess one has to decide which is better, a decade which was consistently mediocre from a depth pov until the later stages when players like Graf, Sabatini and Sanchez Vicario came along, or a decade which had good competition for a longer period but became appallingly stagnant towards the end and far worse than the 80s ever was.

 

[grafselesfan]

Overall I think your list is very well argued. I'm just wondering with the order of the 80s and 2000s. I guess one has to decide which is better, a decade which was consistently mediocre from a depth pov until the later stages when players like Graf, Sabatini and Sanchez Vicario came along, or a decade which had good competition for a longer period but became appallingly stagnant towards the end and far worse than the 80s ever was.

I struggle to decide which is worst from the 90s to the 2000s as well. The 2000s was very good competition from 2000-2003, very deep although less great at the very top in 2004-2005, dwindling in 2006-2007, then as I said the most pathetic overall in history in 2008-2009.

The 80s was decent in 80 and 81 when Austin was challenging at the top, really became pathetic though when Austin was gone, Hana became so inconsistent, and Shriver and Turnbul were your perennial 4th and 5th ranked women. Even Hanika and Kohde Kilsch both ended years ranked #5 (ugh). It did pick up again late in the decade with the emergences of Graf, Sabatini, Sukova and to a lesser degree Zvereva. Sanchez was really nothing yet until 1989, the final year of the decade. Mostly though mainly 90s players arriving late in the decade to give it a boost.

I guess I decided it by something like this. Any decade where Bettina Bunge can somehow finish 3 straight years in the top 10, Claudia Kohde Kilsch soon after 4 straight years in the top 10 (a different 3 years than Bunge), and Potter can spend years ended in the top 10 both early and late in the decade, has to be the weakest. I see Bunge play and I think to myself even someone like her countrywomen Anke Huber would even rip her to shreads nearly everytime even if both used a wood or graphite racquet, yet Bunge and Huber spent about the same amount of time in the top 10 in their own decades. I think she was something like 0-50 vs Navratilova, Evert, and Mandlikova, even though Hana is the most inconsistent great player ever and must have had some really bad days in atleast some of those. Kohde Kilsch spending that much time in the top 10 is embarassing, and even some time in the top 5. It wasnt surprising her career pretty much ended fairly quickly once some actual depth of talent on tour emerged.

 

[Lionheart392]

I struggle to decide which is worst from the 90s to the 2000s as well. The 2000s was very good competition from 2000-2003, very deep although less great at the very top in 2004-2005, dwindling in 2006-2007, then as I said the most pathetic overall in history in 2008-2009.

The 80s was decent in 80 and 81 when Austin was challenging at the top, really became pathetic though when Austin was gone, Hana became so inconsistent, and Shriver and Turnbul were your perennial 4th and 5th ranked women. Even Hanika and Kohde Kilsch both ended years ranked #5 (ugh). It did pick up again late in the decade with the emergences of Graf, Sabatini, Sukova and to a lesser degree Zvereva. Sanchez was really nothing yet until 1989, the final year of the decade. Mostly though mainly 90s players arriving late in the decade to give it a boost.

I guess I decided it by something like this. Any decade where Bettina Bunge can somehow finish 3 straight years in the top 10, Claudia Kohde Kilsch soon after 4 straight years in the top 10 (a different 3 years than Bunge), and Potter can spend years ended in the top 10 both early and late in the decade, has to be the weakest. I see Bunge play and I think to myself even someone like her countrywomen Anke Huber would even rip her to shreads nearly everytime even if both used a wood or graphite racquet, yet Bunge and Huber spent about the same amount of time in the top 10 in their own decades. I think she was something like 0-50 vs Navratilova, Evert, and Mandlikova, even though Hana is the most inconsistent great player ever and must have had some really bad days in atleast some of those. Kohde Kilsch spending that much time in the top 10 is embarassing, and even some time in the top 5. It wasnt surprising her career pretty much ended fairly quickly once some actual depth of talent on tour emerged.

I have never heard of the bolded players, which I guess proves your point

 

[grafselesfan]

I have never heard of the bolded players, which I guess proves your point

Claudia is a klutzy serve/volley player. She moved terribly, her groundstrokes were pitiful, and her agility makes Sukova look like a rythmic gymnast, and the best part of her game were her volleys which were just pretty good. That is about how I would describe her. In the horrible mid 80s she was a frequent top tenner, and sometimes top 5 player, who fell off the map completely in the late 80s and early 90s still in her mid 20s and late 20s as some real depth on the womens tour emerged.

Despite enjoying the general overal rankings and overall success of an Anke Huber in the 80s, Bunge would be more the equivalent of a Barbara Rittner if she played in the 90s. Basically a generic run of the mill baseliner without even the moderate weapons or somewhat visible talents of even the top 20 players during the last 20 years excluding the last 4.

 

[NadalandFedererfan]

I would say the 60s. With Court, Bueno, King, all at their best together you have 3 of the top 15 players all time in their primes together most of the decade. You also had Ann Jones who despite being a clay court specialist was good enough to beat an in form Court and in form King back to back to win Wimbledon, and could have won more than her 3 slams if she ever played Australia or had continued playing slams after that Wimbledon title. Wade and Richey emerging in the mid to late 60s too.

 

[boredone3456]

I would have broken the 2000s into 2 groups....2000-2005 and 2006-now. The early 2000s were much deeper than the last 4 years, even though 2006-2007 had prime Henin in dominant form, I would still say overall it could be considered a noticeable step down from the first half of the decade. For me it would be a tough choice between the 60's, and late 80's (1987)-mid 1990's (I cut off at 97-98 because those 2 years were terrible in that decade...although still at least 10 times better than today). In the end I went with the 60's as everywhere outside of Australia had consistantly deep fields.

 

[egn]

I would have broken the 2000s into 2 groups....2000-2005 and 2006-now. The early 2000s were much deeper than the last 4 years, even though 2006-2007 had prime Henin in dominant form, I would still say overall it could be considered a noticeable step down from the first half of the decade. For me it would be a tough choice between the 60's, and late 80's (1987)-mid 1990's (I cut off at 97-98 because those 2 years were terrible in that decade...although still at least 10 times better than today). In the end I went with the 60's as everywhere outside of Australia had consistantly deep fields.

2000-2005 was rough

2006- now was blah

outside of Justine Henin and the 'we will show up to the tour when we feel like it' Williams Sisters womens tennis has sucked since 2006.

 

[flying24]

2000-2005 was rough

2006- now was blah

outside of Justine Henin and the 'we will show up to the tour when we feel like it' Williams Sisters womens tennis has sucked since 2006.

Yeah the 2000s is hard to evaluate. 6 years of it was really good overall competition, good depth, lots of contenders, some strong leaders. Since 2006 it has really dwindled. 2006 Justine, Amelie, and Maria were the only 3 real players. Kim was making all the semis of slams and was the clear #4, but was just going through the motions at that point. Basically the U.S Open title after so many dissapointing close calls for winning majors prior had fulfilled her atleast for then, and she might as well have retired right after it in hindsight given her motivational state. You knew was going out in the semis each time even if she didnt play her nemisis Justine. Williams were pretty much AWOL completely. 20007 Justine, Venus, and Serena, were the only 3 real players now. Maria was injured almost whole year, made the Australian Open final even serving like crap reflecting the state of the womens game. Kim finally stopped putting off the inevitable and retired rather than continuing to go through motions with no hunger to try and win majors anymore. Mauresmo like Kim seemed fulfilled after her 2006 breakthroughs and quickly went into "stick a fork in me" mode where she has remained ever since. 2008 to now it has become a Serena show minus the French where it is a nobody worthy show, with Venus making it a duet act only at Wimbledon, U.S Open, and maybe 1 or 2 smaller tournaments, and a mostly submissive and dissapointing duet when she and Serena share the stage. When Venus and Serena play I almost picture Venus saying "you Master, me slave", funnily enough even feeling that way while Venus is outplaying Serena (eg- most of the U.S Open match between them last year).

 

[imalil2gangsta4u]

I also agree with bored. 2000-2005 was full of great tennis, just as good as the 90's.

 

[flying24]

I also agree with bored. 2000-2005 was full of great tennis, just as good as the 90's.

Maybe it can get good again but I dont think it will be with Safina, Ivanovic, Jankovic. Those 3 just arent championship caliber and their places so high up in the womens game are a bit embarassing. Kuznetsova is the only current veteran contender with true potential, but she didnt backup her long awaited 2nd slam well even if she doesnt like grass. Dementieva perhaps as well but she is getting old to be finally making the breakthroughs, but Novotna was even older so who knows. The rebuilding of the depth of the womens game will need to come from people like Azarenka, Wozniacki, Saurez Navarro. However the unfortunate thing is I am not yet sold on any of those, so my faith that will come with that generation isnt even yet strong. Of course the longer the Williams can stay strong forces the better for the womens game, ideally some true top tier talent of a much higher level than the aforementioned 3 clown #1s will come soon enough while the Williams are still near their best which would form a strong group of contenders again, but that might be wishing for too much.

 

[thalivest]

2000-2005 was rough

2006- now was blah

outside of Justine Henin and the 'we will show up to the tour when we feel like it' Williams Sisters womens tennis has sucked since 2006.

Even some of the players who are still around and maybe closer to the top now like Kuznetsova and Dementieva IMO were much more exciting and played better quality tennis in 2004-2005 than now, even if their results are as good or better now.

 

[hewittboy]

The 90s by far.

 

[suwanee4712]

Most already know exactly how I feel about this topic.

It's the 70's and it's not even close. That was tennis' golden age in my opinion. Court, King, Goolagong, Evert, Wade, Navratilova, Austin........that's a tremendous lineup that I don't think has ever been duplicated. Those ladies had talent, and they didn't have racquets that did their work for them. They had to play very physical and very mental games, and use actual strategy.....something that disappeared from the game altogether in the mid 90's.

The 90's brought about power tennis and wide body racquets that have taken so much of the artistry of the game away. The 90's lineup is so overshadowed as far as pure tennis talent goes. For me, womens tennis became an absolute drudgery to watch. Endless baseline tennis, grunts, and unforced errors......much like today's game which I only understand from the periphery. Because when players like Graf and Novotna passed out of the game, virtually every player looked the same to me.

Give me Bunge, Kohde, Sukova, Shriver, Turnbull, Rinaldi, etc. any day. All of those players had variety in their games, and were generally smarter players than Martinez, Huber, Hack (how did she ever get into the top 5?), or Majoli how did she win a slam with other slam champions in the field?).

Bunge had beautiful strokes, shotmaking, and movement. She rivalled Goolagong, Mandlikova, and Sabatini in that regard. She just wasn't as mentally tough as the players that I compared her to. Sukova is the best womens player to never win a grand slam, something that she may have been able to do in another era. And for all of the criticism of her game and movement, Pam Shriver had more tennis knowledge and understanding of herself and her opponents than just about anyone else that came after her.

I have always been against the death penalty. However, I think in capital offense cases, I would force the ones found guilty to have to watch Sanchez Vicario vs. Martinez, it doesn't even matter what the surface is. Having those two in the top 3 of womens tennis set the sport back ages and into a downward spiral that, as far as I'm concerned, it never recovered from.

 

[suwanee4712]

Claudia is a klutzy serve/volley player. She moved terribly, her groundstrokes were pitiful, and her agility makes Sukova look like a rythmic gymnast, and the best part of her game were her volleys which were just pretty good. That is about how I would describe her. In the horrible mid 80s she was a frequent top tenner, and sometimes top 5 player, who fell off the map completely in the late 80s and early 90s still in her mid 20s and late 20s as some real depth on the womens tour emerged.

Despite enjoying the general overal rankings and overall success of an Anke Huber in the 80s, Bunge would be more the equivalent of a Barbara Rittner if she played in the 90s. Basically a generic run of the mill baseliner without even the moderate weapons or somewhat visible talents of even the top 20 players during the last 20 years excluding the last 4.

You are seriously going to compare Bunge to Barbara Rittner? That's possibly the most absurd statement I've ever seen on this board.

 

[grafselesfan]

You are seriously going to compare Bunge to Barbara Rittner? That's possibly the most absurd statement I've ever seen on this board.

Yes I indeed will. I have seen Bunge play plenty of times (unfortunately) and she is nothing more than a garden variety baseliner who would be out of the top 20 just like Rittner if she didnt play in such a weak era as the early to mid 80s. I dont know why you would expect anyone to be impressed by someone who in her prime was getting slapped around the court in one sided losses already by a 14 and 15 year old Graf, and whose performance vs the top players of her era makes even Mary Joe Fernandez look like a demon by comparision.

Here are some of Bunges head to heads by the way:

Bunge vs Navratilova- 0 to 17
Bunge vs Evert- 0 to 14
Bunge vs Mandlikova- 1 to 16
Bunge vs Graf - 0 to 5 all in straight sets (first 3 matches Graf was only 14 or 15 years old)

 

[grafselesfan]

Hack (how did she ever get into the top 5?),

Sorry to inform you but Hack never for even a week got into the top 10, let alone the top 5.

Sukova is the best womens player to never win a grand slam, something that she may have been able to do in another era.

The one and only thing we seem to agree on. Sabatini is probably the best womens player ever to only win 1 slam though. The best to never do something is always a dubious honor at best.

I have always been against the death penalty. However, I think in capital offense cases, I would force the ones found guilty to have to watch Sanchez Vicario vs. Martinez, it doesn't even matter what the surface is. Having those two in the top 3 of womens tennis set the sport back ages and into a downward spiral that, as far as I'm concerned, it never recovered from.

Yes I am sure everyone would rather watch Bunge, Hanika, Kohde Kilsch, and Turnbull than watch Sanchez Vicario anyday. Sanchez Vicario only beat Graf FOUR times in slams, and took her to the brink of defeat atleast 2 other times. I am sure everyone would rather watch Hanika or Turnbull in the top 4 and in slam semis or finals instead and lose in 40 minutes to Graf or Seles everytime.

As for Martinez mock her all she want but reality if she was taking sets off or taking 9 games off PRIME Graf in slams (as well as spanking Graf in a victory indoors late in 93), something Bunge couldnt even do in multiple tries vs 15 year old Graf in slams or out of them. By the way did you watch any of Martinez play the 95 clay court season. That was some unbelievable tennis, she was destroying everyone- Sabatini, Sanchez, young Hingis, dishing out bagels and breadsticks to that group of esteemed clay courters. The French Open semis she played her worst match of the whole spring and still narrowly lost to Graf the eventual champion, only nerves at the French kept her from an unbeaten clay court season. I laugh at the idea of Bunge, Turnbull, or anyone from that group duplicating something like that ever.

Also if you claim to not like monotnous baseline bashing why are you criticizing these 2. That is the last thing either of them were known for. Sanchez Vicario especialy was one of the smartest players out there, has a great deal in her shots (lobs, drop shots, slices, moonballs, heavy topspins, flat drives, net forays, you name it), and is arguably the greatest defensive player in the history of womens tennis. So if you dislike baseline bashing clones you should actually embrace something like her as even without playing a serve/volley game (though she was a very good volleyer) she is about the furthest thing of any baseliner from that.

 

[Warriorroger]

Why start a thread if you are not open for discussion what other posters think. We are aksed for our opinions, not to be discussed into yours.

Sukova a slam winner in another era?? Has anyone who has that opinion, ever seen her play? She was terrible to watch, she couldn't rally, made lots of mistakes at the net, her game was rarely on, I can't think of an era she would have been succesful, maybe if she played at the same time as her mother Vera.

As for Sanchez having a great deal in her shots, maybe, but IMO she was terrible to watch, Martineze I could live with, but SV, nope. That doesn't mean I respect the way she got the ball back and her mentality.

 

[suwanee4712]

Yes I indeed will. I have seen Bunge play plenty of times (unfortunately) and she is nothing more than a garden variety baseliner who would be out of the top 20 just like Rittner if she didnt play in such a weak era as the early to mid 80s. I dont know why you would expect anyone to be impressed by someone who in her prime was getting slapped around the court in one sided losses already by a 14 and 15 year old Graf, and whose performance vs the top players of her era makes even Mary Joe Fernandez look like a demon by comparision.

Here are some of Bunges head to heads by the way:

Bunge vs Navratilova- 0 to 17
Bunge vs Evert- 0 to 14
Bunge vs Mandlikova- 1 to 16
Bunge vs Graf - 0 to 5 all in straight sets (first 3 matches Graf was only 14 or 15 years old)

Are you sure you watched Bettina Bunge? Because she wasn't a baseliner. She was an all court player that could hold her own from the back of the court on clay as well as serve and volley every point on grass effectively vs. Martina.

I'm sure you never saw her Center Court match with Martina in 1985. Martina had to play, in her words, "second weekend quality tennis" to get by her. Although she hit some fine passing shots, Bettina most certainly wasn't playing baseline tennis in that match.

Your comparison to Rittner is truly astounding to me though. Rittner was a short, stubby, out of shape player that could be pretty decent (sort of like Marianne de Swaardt and Veronica Martinek) without being in any kind of decent shape in the 90's.

Bunge? She was a fit, lithe athlete that could've done well at any number of sports. She was a marvelously talented shotmaker that all too often was injured and lacked confidence in herself at the big moment. But the years that she was in the top 10, she did so because she was able to beat the players that she was supposed to beat more often than not and win a tournament here and there. It's a shame that she never beat Chris or Martina. But they both respected her ability.

Say what you like about Sukova, Sabatini, and whoever else you want to bring up, Gaby only won ONE slam and it was at the worst time in Steffi's life, and Monica and Martina had already been knocked out of the tournament. In each of Sukova's runs to a slam final, she never had the chance to play less than two of the all time greats. In other words, she never caught the break that Gaby did at the 1990 US Open. But she did beat Martina at the Aussie (twice) and came within 4 points of beating her at the French. She also beat Chris at the US Open. That's 2 more wins in slam play vs. the all time greats than Gaby had. And that's a stat that encompasses more than just her matches with Steffi.

One thing is sure, you've never watched Sanchez play Martinez. Either that, or you and I have a completely different idea about quality tennis. The French fans whistling because of their boring play in 1994 was an embarrasment to womens tennis. But that was neither the first nor the last time that the French whistled at Sanchez moonballing and defensive tactics. I respect her tenacity, but she probably bored about as many opponents into defeat as anything else.

The truth is, the 90's are just like the 2000's. The first 3 rounds are a lot more difficult than they typically were in the 70's and 80's. But that's where the differences in real depth end.

The second week has always been about the top players, that's why they are the top players. And in no way shape or form can anyone convince me that Martina, Chris, Tracy, and Hana was somehow weaker than Graf, Seles, Sanchez, Martinez (feel free to plug in Hingis, Novotna, etc.). Steffi was legit. She's at least in the top 2 of all time greats. Monica, unfortunately, didn't get to make a complete case for herself. And that's why womens tennis post 1993 Australian Open just wasn't that great. And there's no way that I can see saying that Steffi, Monica, Sanchez, Martinez, Pierce, Sabatini was comparable to Court, King, Goolagong, Evert, Wade, and Navratilova.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. I'm sure the younger ones won't agree. When I was growing up, I thought the oldsters didn't know what they were doing either. But time and age gives you a different perspective on things.

 

[suwanee4712]

Why start a thread if you are not open for discussion what other posters think. We are aksed for our opinions, not to be discussed into yours.

Sukova a slam winner in another era?? Has anyone who has that opinion, ever seen her play? She was terrible to watch, she couldn't rally, made lots of mistakes at the net, her game was rarely on, I can't think of an era she would have been succesful, maybe if she played at the same time as her mother Vera.

As for Sanchez having a great deal in her shots, maybe, but IMO she was terrible to watch, Martineze I could live with, but SV, nope. That doesn't mean I respect the way she got the ball back and her mentality.

Roger, I need to make some copies of some Sukova matches for you. Yes, she could rally even with Chris Evert. For her size, she wasn't that bad of a mover. Although the deficiencies she had there were accentuated as she got older. Nevertheless, she had enough movement combined with a serve, volleys, and groundstrokes to have won a slam at her peak.

In particular, she was excellent in 1986. Her French semi match with Martina is one of the best slam semis I've ever watched. It was beautiful attacking tennis on clay by two players who grew up on clay. The shotmaking was breathtaking at times. And she was within 4 points of defeating Martina in the 2nd set tiebreak.

Her 1986 matches with Evert at Fed Cup (on clay) and Wimbledon were outstanding as well. Sukova was actually able to take a set off of Chris on clay at the French one year, so it shouldnt' have been a surprise that Sukova gave her battle in Prague. Chris was so relieved to have won the match that she actually threw her racquet in the air. How many times did you ever see Chris do that? I think she did it once when she won her first US Open?

The Wimbledon match was there for the taking for Helena. She had Chris on the ropes. And had she won, she would've been big trouble for either Hana or Martina on grass.

Then there was her US Open SF win over Chris. It came at a bad time for Chris. But Chris knew it was only a matter of time before she lost to Helena in a match like that anyway. And it happened to be that day.

Helena then beat Martina and Chris in back to back 3 setters to win Eastbourne in 1987. She was unlucky to lose to Shriver 8-6 in the 3rd at Wimbledon that year. Despite Steffi's easy win over Shriver in the SF, beating Helena in that kind of form probably would've been a bigger challenge than most think.

 

[Warriorroger]

Roger, I need to make some copies of some Sukova matches for you. Yes, she could rally even with Chris Evert. For her size, she wasn't that bad of a mover. Although the deficiencies she had there were accentuated as she got older. Nevertheless, she had enough movement combined with a serve, volleys, and groundstrokes to have won a slam at her peak.

In particular, she was excellent in 1986. Her French semi match with Martina is one of the best slam semis I've ever watched. It was beautiful attacking tennis on clay by two players who grew up on clay. The shotmaking was breathtaking at times. And she was within 4 points of defeating Martina in the 2nd set tiebreak.

Her 1986 matches with Evert at Fed Cup (on clay) and Wimbledon were outstanding as well. Sukova was actually able to take a set off of Chris on clay at the French one year, so it shouldnt' have been a surprise that Sukova gave her battle in Prague. Chris was so relieved to have won the match that she actually threw her racquet in the air. How many times did you ever see Chris do that? I think she did it once when she won her first US Open?

The Wimbledon match was there for the taking for Helena. She had Chris on the ropes. And had she won, she would've been big trouble for either Hana or Martina on grass.

Then there was her US Open SF win over Chris. It came at a bad time for Chris. But Chris knew it was only a matter of time before she lost to Helena in a match like that anyway. And it happened to be that day.

Helena then beat Martina and Chris in back to back 3 setters to win Eastbourne in 1987. She was unlucky to lose to Shriver 8-6 in the 3rd at Wimbledon that year. Despite Steffi's easy win over Shriver in the SF, beating Helena in that kind of form probably would've been a bigger challenge than most think.

Well, maybe when I see the clips I think differently, but to me she wasn't that good of a player. Thanks for the repsonse, bye.

 

[Moose Malloy]

Well, maybe when I see the clips I think differently, but to me she wasn't that good of a player

well you've said in the past that you didn't follow tennis in the 80s, so I don't think you ever saw her in her prime. Not many players beat both Chris & Martina in majors that decade(think Sukova, Austin, & Mandlikova were the only ones - not bad company)

many were predicting for her to break through & win a major back then. she was one of the favorites at '87 Wimbledon(beat Martina in Eastbourne the week before - & Martina had won 5 straight titles there & at Wimbledon at that point)

Are you sure you watched Bettina Bunge?

he wasn't alive for most of the 80s. and I doubt there are any clips of her on youtube, so maybe he has her mixed up with someone else.

 

[BTURNER]

Helena could be physically imposing. She was a shrewd tactician and with more solid groundies than Shriver or Kohde Kilch. mentally she was suspect and prone to error.I think she had more potential to break through the Evert-Navratilova wall than anyone other than Hana.

 

[vbranis]

The 90s IMO. Great variety and plenty of charismatic, talented players. The 2000s, especially after '05 are all but a trainwreck. And the 80s had top stars, but lacked depth.

 

[Warriorroger]

well you've said in the past that you didn't follow tennis in the 80s, so I don't think you ever saw her in her prime. Not many players beat both Chris & Martina in majors that decade(think Sukova, Austin, & Mandlikova were the only ones - not bad company)


Tell me when I said that???

 

[suwanee4712]

Helena could be physically imposing. She was a shrewd tactician and with more solid groundies than Shriver or Kohde Kilch. mentally she was suspect and prone to error.I think she had more potential to break through the Evert-Navratilova wall than anyone other than Hana.

Practically all of the top Czechs were prone to choke. I don't really believe in culturally stereotyping people, but Martina, Lendl, Hana, Helena, and Jana all had some major chokes in their careers.

Helena had those big sweeping groundstrokes and I think that's why she surprisingly never made it past the quarters at Wimbledon. But on a clay or hard court, when she had her timing down, that forehand was whistling when it went by and she had all kinds of variety on the backhand. I also heard Chris talk about Helena saying that her groundstrokes were heavy, which means when they hit her racquet she had a harder time steadying the head and driving through it than she did with most.

Kohde had a pretty solid forehand too. But it was another big windup stroke that cost her on Wimbledon's faster courts. But as Shriver once described playing Kohde when she was on, it was like facing a German cannon.

With Shriver, she used the other players' pace very well. Her slice forehand was tougher to deal with than most think. You had to get her moving. But if Pam's serve was working, she was hard to handle because she was a very good tactician and she made excellent first volleys. When she chipped and charged she drew a lot of errors because she was such a good volleyer with an even better overhead. Players below her tended to go for too much because they had such trouble getting the ball by her.

I don't mean to make these players sound like super stars, or somehow better than they actually were. But eah of these players were trouble on their day. The problem with Claudia and Pam is that they didn't have enough of those days at the slams. In Helena's case, she could be very good at the slams. But she was only good for one big upset.

 

[BTURNER]

Iagree witht the above. I never saw Claudia playing impressive tennis. I think I saw her play three matches. I saw Evert play her and it was bad match up for Kodhe, She looked confused and lumbering, her groundstrokes posed no difficulty and she had trouble bending low to Evert's returns. Evert used her forehand drop shot to good affect which she was reticent to employ vs S/V. I know she got as high a 5 in the world, briefly but I jsut never caught a good day.

Shriver was different, though. She had fairly steady groundstrokes, with slice on both wings, and a odd shovel forehand that was quite well placed with surprising speed. They were nevertheless a weakness in longer rallies, thus her virtually nonexistant record on clay despite a fine court sense and tactical intellegence. She too had a bad match-up vs Evert until 1988 when she FINALLY got a win. She had more success vs Han or Martina.

 

[suwanee4712]

Iagree witht the above. I never saw Claudia playing impressive tennis. I think I saw her play three matches. I saw Evert play her and it was bad match up for Kodhe, She looked confused and lumbering, her groundstrokes posed no difficulty and she had trouble bending low to Evert's returns. Evert used her forehand drop shot to good affect which she was reticent to employ vs S/V. I know she got as high a 5 in the world, briefly but I jsut never caught a good day.

Shriver was different, though. She had fairly steady groundstrokes, with slice on both wings, and a odd shovel forehand that was quite well placed with surprising speed. They were nevertheless a weakness in longer rallies, thus her virtually nonexistant record on clay despite a fine court sense and tactical intellegence. She too had a bad match-up vs Evert until 1988 when she FINALLY got a win. She had more success vs Han or Martina.

Kohde challenged Chris a few times, but Chris was a bad matchup for her, as you said. I always felt sorry for Claudia in the 1985 Aussie SF against Chris because she got an awful call in the 2nd set tiebreak that I think would've given her a set point. They also had tough 3 setter at Amelia Island one year. I've seen Claudia play Chris at Wimbledon and the Lipton, and Chris won pretty handily in both of those.

She matched up better with Martina on indoor and hard court surfaces. I've always wanted to see her 1985 Canadian win over Martina.

The player who really struggled with Claudia was Hana. I think Hana was something like 6-4 in their series. But Claudia gave her a couple of big losses at the 1985 French and the 1987 US Open. It was an oddity because Hana so easily handled Shriver and Sukova - who both handled Claudia quite easily. But that just goes to show you that matchups are different for each player.

I think Claudia had more game than Pam did. But Pam was a much tougher and more confident player. Every time Claudia went back for an overhead with that frying pan grip of hers I cringed. But she was very good at playing the angles at the net and angling her volleys away. Sukova was somewhere in between those two in the area of mental toughness, which is why she usually beat Claudia and lost to Pam.

I actually tried fooling around with Pam's shovel forehand for funsies. Every once in a while you find an occasion where a slice forehand is a good shot, particularly on an approach shot off of a low ball. I couldn't get the pace on it like she seemingly could. She seemed to hug the ball and drive the slice downward and through, which I could not do. I just chalk that shot up to being a Pamela Howard Shriver specialty. :razz: