Who ranks higher all time- Steffi Graf or Chris Evert

[BTURNER]

Just because I still have more drop shot stuff on these women. Evert's forehand dropper was one for the ages, but her backhand dropper was just 'very good'. She often envied all those one-handers their natural advantage off that wing. Her forehand dropper actually had a bit more margin over the net than many of the backhand drops like Martina or Steffi, and thus she traded extra 'air time' for a little more security. She still got great results because she was normally a little pickier about positioning and could anticipate the reply well. Their's were gorgeous when they went over, but Martina's especially was cut a hint too fine and errors resulted. Graf actually started using a forehand dropper late career. It worked for the same reason Lend'ls did. Everyone stood further back when they saw those forehand wind-ups with all their weight preparing for that power. Hingis probably had the better pair of droppers and any of the above, but again, lost perspective of when they were working and when they weren't, so they weren't a better percentage play after all.

 

[suwanee4712]

If I were betting my house, I would choose Graf. If I were betting my life, I would choose Evert.

There's a difference.

 

[suwanee4712]

Just because I still have more drop shot stuff on these women. Evert's forehand dropper was one for the ages, but her backhand dropper was just 'very good'. She often envied all those one-handers their natural advantage off that wing. Her forehand dropper actually had a bit more margin over the net than many of the backhand drops like Martina or Steffi, and thus she traded extra 'air time' for a little more security. She still got great results because she was normally a little pickier about positioning and could anticipate the reply well. Their's were gorgeous when they went over, but Martina's especially was cut a hint too fine and errors resulted. Graf actually started using a forehand dropper late career. It worked for the same reason Lend'ls did. Everyone stood further back when they saw those forehand wind-ups with all their weight preparing for that power. Hingis probably had the better pair of droppers and any of the above, but again, lost perspective of when they were working and when they weren't, so they weren't a better percentage play after all.

Evert's fh dropper was an amazing weapon. She could back you off the baseline with hard, flat penetrating strokes and the first short ball you gave her, she would step into the court and hit you with it. She also was effective drop shotting behind her opponent.

Of all the drop shots, Chris' were usually the ones that people mostly didn't even try for. Her take back before hitting it sealed her opponents' fate.

 

[CEvertFan]

some of this is true, some is silliness. Using some You-tube clips shows that the shot existed, but very little more because the context is missing including the errors the same stroke produced before and after that clip began, so that definitely falls in the silly category. The bizarre theory that Evert introduced the shakey overhead theory is also silly. In fact it goes back to Graf's early days in the 80's, when I recall a ton of flubbed overheads. And I recall it as a periodicl problem especially in wind. Evert' was more secure and consistent, and Graf's had more power and while Graf certainly could back better, and had a more athletic leap, evert seemed to read it earlier. I can list a few players discussing the Evert overhead. Shriver: An interesting thing about Evert, She has a very fine overhead. She does not hit it as hard as some but she always winds up winning the point. It was usually just enough. Wendy Turnbull and Virginia Wade said the same thing. on the other hand, I can think of two baseliners in Steffi's era, that were more comfortable and secure overhead: Sabatini and Sanchez.

Drop shots. Yes Graf developed a fine drop shot, just as many did off the one handed backhand wing. It is naturally disguised as just another slice. Its not that hard a shot among one-handers. And it worked well to draw opponents in off their backhand sides. Graf used it a lot for example vs Gabby. But I got the impression she had to be reminded to employ it by coaches otherwise she forgot to use it.

The difference was that Evert's great dropper was on the forehand side. It worked especially well because her forehand was so often hit withslight underspin or sidespin and she had such superb sense of discipline and timing on when to use it. Evert could also move that dropper all over that net so that it could go across at severe angles,just drip DTL, or right over the low center to cut off the angles of the retreiver. Graf's dropper was better on the backhand, Evert's was better on the forehand. Hingis' dropper might have been better had she used better judgement on when to hit the damn thing and against whom. If one watching all those favorite Evert Navratilova matches, you sure will see a lot more droppers from Martina than Evert, because Evert was smart enough NOT to try it against the fastest woman in the sport, who loved moving forward, and felt more at home at net than in her own bathroom. Honestly, nobody I know, talks of Graf's dropper in the kinds of terms they did Evert's.

you are right about Evert's volley being vastly improved late career. Graf was far more reluctant than Evert to come in. She rarely played doubles( usuallyw/ Gaby) in her later career, and while it may seem odd at first blush, Evert was more of an all-courter than a pure baseliner from 87-forward. Hell she was beginning to attack weak second serves of folks like Sabatini occasionally and charging forward. whether that showed a lack of confidence in her baseline game or not, I think she volleyed better than Graf. My only uncertainly comes from not seeing Graf up there as often and that has nothing to do with when I did nor did not watch tennis. I watched Graf's whole career.

Ps. no one can list the great overheads and leave off BJK. Some people put her ahead of anyone listed above. The fact she was shorter and was put to more of of test than either Martina or Court, made hers even more impressive.

Nothing to argue with here - good post.

I will say that Hingis had awesome drop shots off both sides but as you said it was her inability to know when to use them and when not to use them which separates her from Evert. Plus I saw many times where Hingis tried a drop shot and it didn't even go over the net.

Chris ALWAYS knew when to drop shot and when not to and they usually always went over, often for a clean winner.

 

[BTURNER]

Nothing to argue with here - good post.

I will say that Hingis had awesome drop shots off both sides but as you said it was her inability to know when to use them and when not to use them which separates her from Evert. Plus I saw many times where Hingis tried a drop shot and it didn't even go over the net.

Chris ALWAYS knew when to drop shot and when not to and they usually always went over, often for a clean winner.

Well the Hingis droppers were victims of the new heavy ball, coming off both wings of the Big Babe tennis. Women like Davenport, Capriati and the williams sisters hit such a hard, heavy and deep shot that the kind of touch, Hingis could count on, no longer was percentage stuff. Hingis had to stand further back and the sheer power was just too much for consistent use of the dropper. Yet she needed her touch more than ever, because it was hard to get short balls for approaches and hard to run down all that power. That gorgeous soft stuff that had taken her all the way to the big leagues, and into the last two rounds of majors, wasn't working as well in the last two rounds. Its hard to blame her.

 

[conway]

I think Hingis sometimes throwing in a drop shot at the wrong time (or missing one) was more her lack the intensity of players like Evert, Graf, or Seles than any weakness with the shot itself. She often laughed at herself after stupid shots (of every variety) and didnt even care, almost always on an unimportant point in matches. Her actual feel, disguise, and technique for the short were impeccable. And it would be a lot harder to employ the drop shot in the era of Big Babe tennis. There were not a lot of hard hitters at all in Evert's era. Graf who I mentioned, contrary to what some of you obviously believe, had an excellent drop shot in her adulthood, almost stopped playing them together the last 12 months of her career. Why, well the reason is obvious, all the power on tour by then.

 

[BTURNER]

I think Hingis sometimes throwing in a drop shot at the wrong time (or missing one) was more her lack the intensity of players like Evert, Graf, or Seles than any weakness with the shot itself. She often laughed at herself after stupid shots (of every variety) and didnt even care, almost always on an unimportant point in matches. Her actual feel, disguise, and technique for the short were impeccable. And it would be a lot harder to employ the drop shot in the era of Big Babe tennis. There were not a lot of hard hitters at all in Evert's era. Graf who I mentioned, contrary to what some of you obviously believe, had an excellent drop shot in her adulthood, almost stopped playing them together the last 12 months of her career. Why, well the reason is obvious, all the power on tour by then.

I want to be clear, that I did see those great droppers off the backhand and in specific matches they brought dividends because she used them properly. Steffi was never foolish in her shot selection.

If Hingis made the mistake of rushing too quickly into using hers, Steffi forgot to bring hers to the party entirely. The problem was Steffi lacked imagination in her play and she just did not see much need in any time in her career. The quality of the shot is not in question and it compares well with almost any.

Its just that when I look at the whole picture from strategy, tactical and court sense, discipline, execution and the follow-up, Evert was ingenious with the dropper in a way nobody was.

 

[Chico]

LOL at the poll results.

Evert >>>>>>>>>> Graf

Graf with no Seles stabbing < 17 slams.

Graf is the most overrated player in tennis history, both men and women.

 

[conway]

Oh Definitely voted for Graf in this poll. I admit I am shocked at that.

 

[THUNDERVOLLEY]

LOL at the poll results.

Evert >>>>>>>>>> Graf

Graf with no Seles stabbing < 17 slams.

Graf is the most overrated player in tennis history, both men and women.

Seles was overrated and rather one dimensional. Further, she was a complete failure at Wimbledon, where she was destroyed in her lone final by---you guessed it--the superior Graf.

 

[saintlaurent]

I voted for Graf, but I think the poll should be closer than it is. I am not surprised it isn't though, since Evert is underrated historically, in part since a lot of peoples memory is her perceived dominance at the hands of Navratilova (a lot wouldn't even know the final H2H tally is close). While Evert was old then, the memories of her total dominance at the hands of Graf the final several years of her career probably are with some too, especialy seeing old Navratilova still hold her own and score wins over Graf and Seles in the early 90s.

 

[saintlaurent]

this poll is headed for steffi in a landslide, going by previous polls the consensus seems to be steffi is the GOAT while martina is a clear number 2.
a poll between evert and court might be interesting

Yeah a poll between these two was pointless to make. Given the perceived pecking order of both, Evert never really had a hope. The Evert-Court thread is a far more interesting one.

 

[saintlaurent]

Graf is about the 11th greatest player ever.

Who is the GOAT then. Bettina Bunge.

 

[saintlaurent]

Graf is the most overrated player in tennis history

Well maybe 2nd most to Novak Djokovic.

 

[tennisjon]

LOL at the poll results.

Evert >>>>>>>>>> Graf

Graf with no Seles stabbing < 17 slams.

Graf is the most overrated player in tennis history, both men and women.

For sure if Seles wasn't stabbed she would have won more slams. If you look at the head-to-head, Graf was superior. Even the year of the stabbing, Graf was starting to trend upwards again after having some "mediocre" years. I think Seles' lack of athleticism did catch up to her as the players all began to hit with more power and she could no longer step into the court for her amazing angles. I would say, Seles would have gotten about 4 more titles over Graf, but maybe Graf doesn't retire at a young age then. Graf won a major and then retired. She was less done than Pete was done after winning the US Open. If Graf continued to play, I think she wins another major or two. So, maybe she doesn't end up with the same total she had. Seles gets 4 of Graf's, plus some of other people's. But, Graf gets some of those 4 back. Regardless, she is superior to Evert. I don't even think its a debate. A real debate would be is she better than Serena?

 

[Xavier G]

Steffi because she won a CYGS, did win more Slams and has the edge on Chrissie h2h. It's not a big gap in my mind because Evert has 18 GS herself, won 157 tournaments and was amazingly consistent in her career. Chris didn't play some French in her prime when she'd probably have won and missed quite a few Aussies when the Aussie Open didn't seem to matter as much .

 

[saintlaurent]

I wouldn't read too much into the H2H as:

1. It is very close 7-6 (I discount the walkover win for Steffi)

2. It is about what it should be. They played 7 matches where Chris was far more prime than Steffi (mid 86 and earlier) and 6 where Steffi was far more prime than Chris (87 and beyond). Well the two 87 ones maybe not far, as neither were totally prime, but still probably favoring Steffi.
So in theory it should be 7-6 Chris and she only trails 6-7 so not a big difference.

I know I have said their head to head matches strongly suggest to me Graf having a big edge if they had been contemporaries so sound like I am contradicting that. However that is more that I feel Chris should have been more competitive than she was, only 1 set in their last 7 matches, and some real blowouts, is IMO less competitive than she should have managed considering she was still playing at a very high level. The actual W-L ratio though is pretty close to even and on par with what it should be.

 

[BTURNER]

I wouldn't read too much into the H2H as:

1. It is very close 7-6 (I discount the walkover win for Steffi)

2. It is about what it should be. They played 7 matches where Chris was far more prime than Steffi (mid 86 and earlier) and 6 where Steffi was far more prime than Chris (87 and beyond). Well the two 87 ones maybe not far, as neither were totally prime, but still probably favoring Steffi.
So in theory it should be 7-6 Chris and she only trails 6-7 so not a big difference.

I know I have said their head to head matches strongly suggest to me Graf having a big edge if they had been contemporaries so sound like I am contradicting that. However that is more that I feel Chris should have been more competitive than she was, only 1 set in their last 7 matches, and some real blowouts, is IMO less competitive than she should have managed considering she was still playing at a very high level. The actual W-L ratio though is pretty close to even and on par with what it should be.

This was nightmare match-up for Evert. Much worse than Austin or Navratilova. Evert just could not run down that forehand often enough to rally against it. Steffi basically robs 2/3rd of the court from Evert, leaving her with a small strip of real estate to work with. Evert's pinpoint accuracy, great return, and lobbing does her little good if Graf won't come into the net,

Graf is so quick herself, that the usual patterns Evert used, to maneuver opponents out of position, did not work very well either. You can get Graf out of position or out of court, but you can't keep her there, long enough that it makes a difference. She's back in the court before you can strike the next ball.

i have said before that Evert's greatest attribute as a champion was that she was the best 'problem-solver' of all the greats. She was not the fastest, or strongest, but she had a knack for figuring out the right tactics, in the right balance to win, if given enough chances. I think in 1988, early 1989, Chris was just beginning to crack the german code here (the routs of '87 stopped being routs, and the matches became more competitive). but being able to execute the tactical plan often enough and early enough was never in the cards even if she had been 25, or 30 rather than 32-34. Its just too tough if you don't many weapons to hurt Steffi.

Had they been contemporaries . Graf would have won virtually every carpet and grass meeting, and the majority of the hard court meetings. I think Evert would definitely have won more on green clay, and edged her out on red clay. Despite the fact that Graf's first win was on Har-tru, I think that was more happenstance than anything else.

 

[saintlaurent]

I think prime for prime the matchup would probably go:

Grass: Graf wins 9 out of 10
Carpet/indoors: Graf wins 9 out of 10
Slow hard courts: Graf wins 6 out of 10
Fast hard courts: Graf wins 8 out of 10
Clay: 5 for 5 (Graf in her peaking years such as 88, 89, 95, 96 wins vast majority of encounters, while in her non peaking years of her prime Evert wins most)

BTW I don't see how red clay vs green clay would favor either player in the matchup but would be open to hearing why it would make a difference either way.

So I am not disputing I think Graf would have the clear edge in this matchup, and I feel that way too. I just don't think the head to head is what demonstrates that firmly as far as W-L anyway (the nature of their mid 86 onwards matches maybe somewhat). I agree it is an awful matchup for Evert. The vast majority of her greatest strengths are not things Graf is bothered by. Evert could not outpower Graf, she could not frusterate her with insane defense like Sanchez, she would not attack her at the net frequently, and she didn't hit with the heavy topspin of Sabatini.

By contrast though I think Evert would have been an awful matchup for Seles, and would have had much less trouble with Seles than Steffi Graf did.

 

[CEvertFan]

This was nightmare match-up for Evert. Much worse than Austin or Navratilova. Evert just could not run down that forehand often enough to rally against it. Steffi basically robs 2/3rd of the court from Evert, leaving her with a small strip of real estate to work with. Evert's pinpoint accuracy, great return, and lobbing does her little good if Graf won't come into the net,

Graf is so quick herself, that the usual patterns Evert used, to maneuver opponents out of position, did not work very well either. You can get Graf out of position or out of court, but you can't keep her there, long enough that it makes a difference. She's back in the court before you can strike the next ball.

i have said before that Evert's greatest attribute as a champion was that she was the best 'problem-solver' of all the greats. She was not the fastest, or strongest, but she had a knack for figuring out the right tactics, in the right balance to win, if given enough chances. I think in 1988, early 1989, Chris was just beginning to crack the german code here (the routs of '87 stopped being routs, and the matches became more competitive). but being able to execute the tactical plan often enough and early enough was never in the cards even if she had been 25, or 30 rather than 32-34. Its just too tough if you don't many weapons to hurt Steffi.

Had they been contemporaries . Graf would have won virtually every carpet and grass meeting, and the majority of the hard court meetings. I think Evert would definitely have won more on green clay, and edged her out on red clay. Despite the fact that Graf's first win was on Har-tru, I think that was more happenstance than anything else.

To attempt to beat Graf, Evert had to go out of her comfort zone and start hitting much more aggressively and with more angles than she usually did (see the 89 Boca Raton match on youtube). She also had finally figured out she couldn't always hit to the Graf backhand, she had to go to that forehand to open up the court (again, see the 89 Boca match). As you said she was finally starting to crack the "German code" as you so cleverly put it and I do agree with you that one of Evert's greatest strengths was her problem solving skills on court.

I do think their rivalry would have been closer if they were both in their primes at the same time but Steffi was always going to be a very difficult opponent for Evert to beat. It all would depend on how well Evert could handle the Graf forehand. Steffi was one of the few players who could make Evert do the running when for most of Evert's career SHE was the one making her opponents do all the running.

 

[Djokovic2011]

To attempt to beat Graf, Evert had to go out of her comfort zone and start hitting much more aggressively and with more angles than she usually did (see the 89 Boca Raton match on youtube). She also had finally figured out she couldn't always hit to the Graf backhand, she had to go to that forehand to open up the court (again, see the 89 Boca match). As you said she was finally starting to crack the "German code" as you so cleverly put it and I do agree with you that one of Evert's greatest strengths was her problem solving skills on court.

I do think their rivalry would have been closer if they were both in their primes at the same time but Steffi was always going to be a very difficult opponent for Evert to beat. It all would depend on how well Evert could handle the Graf forehand. Steffi was one of the few players who could make Evert do the running when for most of Evert's career SHE was the one making her opponents do all the running.

I saw highlights of that Boca Raton match for the first time a few months ago and OMG Chris was incredible, especially considering she was 34 at the time. I was genuinely amazed at the high level she was able to bring for that match and it made me realise just how good she must've been in her prime years. A truly great player.

 

[BTURNER]

I saw highlights of that Boca Raton match for the first time a few months ago and OMG Chris was incredible, especially considering she was 34 at the time. I was genuinely amazed at the high level she was able to bring for that match and it made me realise just how good she must've been in her prime years. A truly great player.

I have to say that what you watched really wasn't the real Evert. Frankly, Chris was playing the lowest percentage baseline tennis I ever saw her play. This was brazen aggression from a woman who had decided it may be her last time playing Graf, and she just did not much care which risks she was taking. LOL, She looked like Mary Pierce at times. Well, her timing happened to be especially good from that far back, and the risks paid dividends in at some key points.

She did move exceptionally well this match and you will notice that she was very opportunistic in approaching the net. That was shrewd play, IMO. Evert was never going to come in enough for Graf or navratilova to groove those passing shots, and she sure picked good times to move forward, and varied that approach well.

I suspect if she had tried for these same baseline inners on another day, the score would not have been pretty. Such is the nature of play when you are 34 years old and going for broke

 

[thedunster]

I don't recall Evert winning each of the slams four times or more. I also don't seem to recall Evert holding the No. 1 position for the most consecutive weeks or weeks in total.

The numbers don't lie. Graf by the proverbial country mile.

 

[BTURNER]

I don't recall Evert winning each of the slams four times or more. I also don't seem to recall Evert holding the No. 1 position for the most consecutive weeks or weeks in total.

The numbers don't lie. Graf by the proverbial country mile.

Now I happen to agree that Steffi's record is better, but you know I can play that game too. The focus of Evert's legacy is a little different.

I don't recall Graf reaching 34 major finals.

I don't recall Graf reaching the semifinals in 48 of the first 49 majors she entered. That covers the first 16 years Evert was on the tour, by the way.

I don't recall Graf winning at least one major every year, for 13 consecutive years

I don't recall Graf reaching the Quarterfinals or better in 96% of the majors she entered over her entire career, or the semifinals of 92.8 %.

I don't recall Graf winning 90% of her professional matches or having the longest single streak of consecutive wins on any surface, by either gender, or that she won more RG titles than any woman in history,

I don't recall Graf going 12 consecutive years without dropping out the the top two in the word or going 13 years without dropping out of the top three in the world.

Evert has the consistency records pretty well sown up.

Martina is the 'hostest with the mostest' with most tournaments, wins, etc

Steffi has the best majors records with both more won and a golden slam.

I definitely give the nod to Graf. She was at least the second best player in history on every surface, but there is no proverbial mile here.

 

[thedunster]

Now I happen to agree that Steffi's record is better, but you know I can play that game too. The focus of Evert's legacy is a little different.

I don't recall Graf reaching 34 major finals.

I don't recall Graf reaching the semifinals in 48 of the first 49 majors she entered. That covers the first 16 years Evert was on the tour, by the way.

I don't recall Graf winning at least one major every year, for 13 consecutive years

I don't recall Graf reaching the Quarterfinals or better in 96% of the majors she entered over her entire career, or the semifinals of 92.8 %.

I don't recall Graf winning 90% of her professional matches or having the longest single streak of consecutive wins on any surface, by either gender, or that she won more RG titles than any woman in history,

I don't recall Graf going 12 consecutive years without dropping out the the top two in the word or going 13 years without dropping out of the top three in the world.

Evert has the consistency records pretty well sown up.

Martina is the 'hostest with the mostest' with most tournaments, wins, etc

Steffi has the best majors records with both more won and a golden slam.

I definitely give the nod to Graf. She was at least the second best player in history on every surface, but there is no proverbial mile here.

Consistency and longevity are barely a blip on the radar when compared to winning a calender year grand slam.

Evert fell short every year she played of joining that elite club.

The more season she played the more times she failed to join that elite club.

Great competitor but not in the same class as Graf.

 

[BTURNER]

Consistency and longevity are barely a blip on the radar when compared to winning a calender year grand slam.

Evert fell short every year she played of joining that elite club.

The more season she played the more times she failed to join that elite club.

Great competitor but not in the same class as Graf.

LOL Evert did not 'fall short' that often because she rarely even tried . She only entered the Aussie 6 times, and did not enter the French for her most dominant years, but then in that generation, it was not the holy grail it is now. Think about it. from 1975-1977, at her most dominant,Evert could have won the two clay majors without breaking a sweat. I can easily see her winning one of the three aussies( she had already reached the 1974 final), because they were not that well attended, King did not show, Court was getting on and vulnerable to Evert, and Chris won the 76' Wimbledon over Goolagong as it was.


You are talking to the wrong guy on this topic. I am rather unimpressed with the importance of the 'calender year slam. It shows absolute dominance during one year, rather than the almost absolute dominance of someone who won three of the four and for what it does measure, it sure impresses me a hell of a lot less than 6 majors won consecutively a la Navratilova. Frankly I really don't care if they were more or less condensed during her career or during one or over two seasons. The calender slam is as arbitrary, as it is overhyped. Yes it is a select club, and no player who is in that club is anything but great by any definition, but they are no more godlike in my eyes. It is way overblown for how much it it really separates from other great champions. its an incredible year in an incredible career, but it is the career that we measure, from the first professional match to the very last.


Evert was more consistent from day 1 through day last, by most criteria and her career was more impactful longer than Graf's but Graf has all that hardware and two periods of several years where she was almost totally dominant.

 

[CEvertFan]

LOL Evert did not 'fall short' that often because she rarely even tried . She only entered the Aussie 6 times, and did not enter the French for her most dominant years, but then in that generation, it was not the holy grail it is now. Think about it. from 1975-1977, at her most dominant,Evert could have won the two clay majors without breaking a sweat. I can easily see her winning one of the three aussies( she had already reached the 1974 final), because they were not that well attended, King did not show, Court was getting on and vulnerable to Evert, and Chris won the 76' Wimbledon over Goolagong as it was.


You are talking to the wrong guy on this topic. I am rather unimpressed with the importance of the 'calender year slam. It shows absolute dominance during one year, rather than the almost absolute dominance of someone who won three of the four and for what it does measure, it sure impresses me a hell of a lot less than 6 majors won consecutively a la Navratilova. Frankly I really don't care if they were more or less condensed during her career or during one or over two seasons. The calender slam is as arbitrary, as it is overhyped. Yes it is a select club, and no player who is in that club is anything but great by any definition, but they are no more godlike in my eyes. It is way overblown for how much it it really separates from other great champions. its an incredible year in an incredible career, but it is the career that we measure, from the first professional match to the very last.


Evert was more consistent from day 1 through day last, by most criteria and her career was more impactful longer than Graf's but Graf has all that hardware and two periods of several years where she was almost totally dominant.

I agree, just like too much is made of the "Golden Slam" when other tennis greats never had the opportunity to even attempt to go for it because tennis wasn't even an Olympic sport from 1924 to 1988. It's way overhyped IMHO.

Now don't get me wrong, the Calendar Grand Slam is an impressive feat but you also can't hold it against the greats of the past for not even trying to go for it when some of the majors didn't have the prestige (or prize money) that they all do now. Plus there was also the travel factor (it's a REALLY long flight to Australia even today and before airplanes it was a weeks long trip by ship).

 

[Djokovic2011]

You are talking to the wrong guy on this topic. I am rather unimpressed with the importance of the 'calender year slam. It shows absolute dominance during one year, rather than the almost absolute dominance of someone who won three of the four and for what it does measure, it sure impresses me a hell of a lot less than 6 majors won consecutively a la Navratilova. Frankly I really don't care if they were more or less condensed during her career or during one or over two seasons. The calender slam is as arbitrary, as it is overhyped. Yes it is a select club, and no player who is in that club is anything but great by any definition, but they are no more godlike in my eyes. It is way overblown for how much it it really separates from other great champions. its an incredible year in an incredible career, but it is the career that we measure, from the first professional match to the very last.

Great post, especially this paragraph which I really hope THUNDERVOLLEY reads at some stage.

 

[Chico]

Evert >>>>>>> Graf.

/Thread.

 

[jrepac]

I have to say that what you watched really wasn't the real Evert. Frankly, Chris was playing the lowest percentage baseline tennis I ever saw her play. This was brazen aggression from a woman who had decided it may be her last time playing Graf, and she just did not much care which risks she was taking. LOL, She looked like Mary Pierce at times.

Chris got quite a bit bolder in her later years. Would you also say she was going for broke in the '89 USO QF against Seles?

 

[BTURNER]

Chris got quite a bit bolder in her later years. Would you also say she was going for broke in the '89 USO QF against Seles?

I agree with your premise in general but I never saw her try for winners from that far back hitting that hard and often as in the Boca Raton match. With respect to the Open match you could not be more wrong.

Watch it again. Entirely different tactics it was vintage 70's Evert. Chris played it with more conservative tactics except when serving. Very few errors, she was actually standing little further from the baseline than she had in a lot of matches in the eighties vs Martina, and did not hit a lot of clean winners at all, and did not approach often. Check the winners stats for Evert and compare. She hit comparatively fewer vs the slower footed 15 year old than peak gazelle Graf. Vs Monica, She kept the ball very deep, close to the sidelines but she was not actually generating power in those rallies. It was her 70's concentration + great anticipation + phenomenal footwork with a few choice droppers, that won the match, inducing error after error

Monica was the one with the prime real-estate standing closer to the baseline and belting away, when she wasn't moonballing.

 

[PDJ]

I agree with your premise in general but I never saw her try for winners from that far back hitting that hard and often as in the Boca Raton match. With respect to the Open match you could not be more wrong.

Watch it again. Entirely different tactics it was vintage 70's Evert. Chris played it with more conservative tactics except when serving. Very few errors, she was actually standing little further from the baseline than she had in a lot of matches in the eighties vs Martina, and did not hit a lot of clean winners at all, and did not approach often. Check the winners stats for Evert and compare. She hit comparatively fewer vs the slower footed 15 year old than peak gazelle Graf. Vs Monica, She kept the ball very deep, close to the sidelines but she was not actually generating power in those rallies. It was her 70's concentration + great anticipation + phenomenal footwork with a few choice droppers, that won the match, inducing error after error

Monica was the one with the prime real-estate standing closer to the baseline and belting away, when she wasn't moonballing.

Great description: I love this match (as I've said before, one of 2 matches that make me happy that Evert didn't retire end of 88, wdon 1/4 being the other). I thought Evert's concentration was incredible, although it probably contributed to her rather flat play in her next match.
Evert used the court beautifully against Seles and, as you say, using spin and occasionally slice, to great effect. A tactical masterclass.

 

[PDJ]

Great post, especially this paragraph which I really hope THUNDERVOLLEY reads at some stage.

As would I. I think a debate between BTurner ( whom I hugely respect) and TV would make for genuinely interesting reading.

 

[BTURNER]

Great description: I love this match (as I've said before, one of 2 matches that make me happy that Evert didn't retire end of 88, wdon 1/4 being the other). I thought Evert's concentration was incredible, although it probably contributed to her rather flat play in her next match.
Evert used the court beautifully against Seles and, as you say, using spin and occasionally slice, to great effect. A tactical masterclass.

it was fascinating. Evert often seemed to put a little more top on her backhand for more margin than usual rather than the moderately flat stroke that was her norm. It was junk that landed within 6 inches of whatever line she wanted, with the occasional blazer thrown in. .She played the match more like Sanchez than Pierce, except Sanchez never did half as well vs Seles.

I would never have thought Chris could get away with giving that much territory up vs Seles in rallies with graphite rackets , But that is why folks call her a tactical genius and not me, LOL. You had better play near error -free and be able to run like crazy ,if you going to try that. She was and She did! The execution was immaculate. IT is also true that Monica did not play as well as she had in Houston. She was more nervous in this big venue with all this attention. The games were almost always close, but Evert won virtually every big point there was to play. Somehow, Chris got the job done, whenever there was an ad or a break point.

 

[scootad.]

To be fair, monica in '89 hadn't had her teen growth spurt and was 15. i believe she was like 5' 5 and a skinny little twig, hadn't yet grown into her body at time of Evert match. For the most part, she had to use moonballs and lots of retrieving before her body caught up with her true game style.

 

[PDJ]

To be fair, monica in '89 hadn't had her teen growth spurt and was 15. i believe she was like 5' 5 and a skinny little twig, hadn't yet grown into her body at time of Evert match. For the most part, she had to use moonballs and lots of retrieving before her body caught up with her true game style.

True. But Seles had beaten Evert already and the media at the time suggested that Seles would win. It really was a great match, and a last hurrah for Evert. I was also struck how gracious Seles was in defeat. I'm glad she went on to greater things.

 

[thedunster]

Goolgong came back as a mother to win the 1980 Wimbledon final in straight sets against Evert.

That's how great Evert was.

 

[thedunster]

The tennis public decide what is important and what is not.

79% of people here have most likely decided that a calender year slam is more important than a long and consistent career.

If current and former pros were asked to vote I think they would follow a similar trend.

 

[AngieB]

LOL Evert did not 'fall short' that often because she rarely even tried . She only entered the Aussie 6 times, and did not enter the French for her most dominant years, but then in that generation, it was not the holy grail it is now. Think about it. from 1975-1977, at her most dominant,Evert could have won the two clay majors without breaking a sweat. I can easily see her winning one of the three aussies( she had already reached the 1974 final), because they were not that well attended, King did not show, Court was getting on and vulnerable to Evert, and Chris won the 76' Wimbledon over Goolagong as it was.


You are talking to the wrong guy on this topic. I am rather unimpressed with the importance of the 'calender year slam. It shows absolute dominance during one year, rather than the almost absolute dominance of someone who won three of the four and for what it does measure, it sure impresses me a hell of a lot less than 6 majors won consecutively a la Navratilova. Frankly I really don't care if they were more or less condensed during her career or during one or over two seasons. The calender slam is as arbitrary, as it is overhyped. Yes it is a select club, and no player who is in that club is anything but great by any definition, but they are no more godlike in my eyes. It is way overblown for how much it it really separates from other great champions. its an incredible year in an incredible career, but it is the career that we measure, from the first professional match to the very last.


Evert was more consistent from day 1 through day last, by most criteria and her career was more impactful longer than Graf's but Graf has all that hardware and two periods of several years where she was almost totally dominant.

Both women had careers that impacted the history of the WTA. The calendar year grand slam should never be understated when comparing the greats of the sport. Aside from showing a specific dominant period in the grand slam events, it has been achieved so rarely in tennis history that it cannot be discounted as an arbitrary feat.

Two things about Steffi's career that are often overlooked was competing in 13 consecutive grand slam finals from 1987-1990, uninterrupted. Compare that with Chris' best, 10 from 1977-1981 which were interrupted by not competing at the French and Australian Opens.

10 of Chris' 18 grand slam singles titles were won on clay. She won 3 Wimbledon titles. Steffi won at least 4 grand slam events at each of the grand slam events, including 7 Wimbledon titles. Clearly, Steffi was the most consistent on EVERY surface in comparison to Chris.

You err when attempting to say that Chris was much more consistent throughout her career. Chris was a clay court great. Steffi was an all-surface great. That is what makes Steffi's career much more appealing historically. It's what also separates her from Martina historically as well. During the last seven years of Chris' career, she only won (1) non-clay grand slam singles title, the 1984 Australian Open.

Bottom line: Steffi was a better all-surface great than Martina and Chris, which makes her more appealing historically.

#PTL

AngieB

 

[BTURNER]

Both women had careers that impacted the history of the WTA. The calendar year grand slam should never be understated when comparing the greats of the sport. Aside from showing a specific dominant period in the grand slam events, it has been achieved so rarely in tennis history that it cannot be discounted as an arbitrary feat.

Two things about Steffi's career that are often overlooked was competing in 13 consecutive grand slam finals from 1987-1990, uninterrupted. Compare that with Chris' best, 10 from 1977-1981 which were interrupted by not competing at the French and Australian Opens.

10 of Chris' 18 grand slam singles titles were won on clay. She won 3 Wimbledon titles. Steffi won at least 4 grand slam events at each of the grand slam events, including 7 Wimbledon titles. Clearly, Steffi was the most consistent on EVERY surface in comparison to Chris.

You err when attempting to say that Chris was much more consistent throughout her career. Chris was a clay court great. Steffi was an all-surface great. That is what makes Steffi's career much more appealing historically. It's what also separates her from Martina historically as well. During the last seven years of Chris' career, she only won (1) non-clay grand slam singles title, the 1984 Australian Open.

Bottom line: Steffi was a better all-surface great than Martina and Chris, which makes her more appealing historically.

#PTL

AngieB

I think you misunderstand what I mean by consistent and it causes you to see a bigger difference in our views than exists. I don't mean simply by surface, but from best day to worst day, from first day to last day pre-prime, prime, peak, post prime. I mean healthy, injured, traumatized, psyched, looking not at how high is the peak or for how long, or how low is the valley and for how long, but the average altitude of the whole career

Evert simply did not have slumps from day one until the very end of her career 1988ish?, and stayed either 1 or 2 from 1974-1986 and stayed number 1,2, or 3 in the world from 1974-1988 ( there was I think a month or so in '88 where Sabatini took #3 but lost it before year end), and won at least one major every year from 1974-1986 -13 years and a career w/l percentage of 90% and those numbers include every surface tennis can be played on, it includes early years where 3-4 majors were grass events, it includes a ton of tennis played on carpet and hard. Any career where one enters 56 majors and reaches 52 semifinals over 19 years and 48 of her first 49 majors entered is one of astounding consistency, .

her record playing on grass in majors. She entered 3 U. S Opens on grass. She reached the semifinals of 3. She entered 5 Australians on grass. She reached the semifinals every time. She reached the finals every time.
She entered Wimbledon 18 times. She reached the semifinals 17 times and was a finalist 10 times. That is a total of 25 semifinals in 26 tries on her 'weak' major surface, and 15 finals in those 26 tries.

Now Graf has a better record, but not as consistent a record because despite some early round losses, she took those championships when Evert walked away with a bouquet, and you are absolutely right that Graf was as likely to win the whole enchilada on grass, clay or hard, while with Evert, she was more likely to succumb in one of the last two rounds, if not playing on clay. Graf started younger and it cost her consistency at one end, and due to injury, lost QF or earlier 5 times in a row, in from the Aussie in '97 through the Aussie in 99 with a plummet in the ranking, before making the rest of her final year glorious. Graf also lost in the QF of the '91 Aussie,the '92 Open, and that 1st rd loss to Mcneil at Wimbledon. Other than those three blips, her peak years 1987-1996 were far superior to Evert's by almost every measure

In short I agree with you about what puts Graf over Evert and Navratilova and that was a total indifference to surface even in the final,but she wasn't quite as consistent getting to the top rounds for as long as Evert.

We will never agree on exactly what a 'grand' or golden' slam actually means in terms of accomplishment, but with Graf it does not matter.Because as you put it , "Bottom line: Steffi was a better all-surface great than Martina and Chris, which makes her more appealing historically." That is how she gets to the top of my GOAT list anyway.

 

[serenaserve]

Now don't get me wrong, the Calendar Grand Slam is an impressive feat but you also can't hold it against the greats of the past for not even trying to go for it when some of the majors didn't have the prestige (or prize money) that they all do now. Plus there was also the travel factor (it's a REALLY long flight to Australia even today and before airplanes it was a weeks long trip by ship).

This is flawed logic when it comes to Evert or Navratilova as Navratilova has never played a year without a slam loss, making the grand slam impossible for her regardless. Evert despite only playing 2 slams a year most of her peak, still only managed 1 year without a loss in a slam, indicating the Grand Slam was unlikely for her to manage too (along with the reality in her many future years still in her prime never managing a 3 slam year, although I am sure she would have managed 1 or 2 had she played all slams in the 70s, but not likely the Grand Slam).

Meanwhile it is worth noting Graf did the French-Wimbledon-U.S Open triple 4 times, and 3 times won every slam she played that year, something Navratilova and Evert managed only once combined. If anyone is unlucky to not win the Grand Slam more often it would be Graf, not the other two.

 

[serenaserve]

it sure impresses me a hell of a lot less than 6 majors won consecutively a la Navratilova.

Except that Court won the Grand Slam AND won 6 in a row like Navratilova. Graf won 5 in a row and fell 7-5 in the final set of the attempted 6th so not some vast difference there. :lol: I will take the Grand Slam with that over the 6th in a row anyday.

Winning 8 out of 9 as Court and Graf both did (and in Graf's case a 2nd time many years later winning 6 in a row she plays) impresses me a hell of a lot more than 6 out of 8 in by far your 2 best years ever as Navratilova did.

 

[BTURNER]

Except that Court won the Grand Slam AND won 6 in a row like Navratilova. Graf won 5 in a row and fell 7-5 in the final set of the attempted 6th so not some vast difference there. :lol: I will take the Grand Slam with that over the 6th in a row anyday.

Winning 8 out of 9 as Court and Graf both did (and in Graf's case a 2nd time many years later winning 6 in a row she plays) impresses me a hell of a lot more than 6 out of 8 in by far your 2 best years ever as Navratilova did.

Delete. No point in rebutting it. anymore is there? suffice it to say, what I had written was incisive, brilliant and altogether praiseworthy!

 

[amazingrace]

As much as I despised Steffi Gunther Graf when she played, and loved Evert when she played, Graf is the easy winner in this comparision unfortunately. Without her good pal Gunther it would probably be closer, but it is what it is. Prime to prime Graf would own Evert as well, even on clay would probably win atleast 50% of the time. So that is an additional factor as I consider who would likely win in a head to head as well as stats in these comparisions.

 

[PMChambers]

I'd give Chris edge with wood, lol, Graf would hable grass ok with wood, but Chris played some of the greatest all court players and held her own. I went with Graf but it was only because there was no even.I piyt Martina above both, but again it's very even. I think the Monica issue plagues Graf in the same way that if Evert was stabbed Martina would have greatest numbers and vis versa. Comparing GS numbers is the lowest form of simplicity when comparing era's, it identifies a tack of understanding of the sport.

 

[roaringsounds]

This is an insulting question, and the poll results speak for themselves.

Martina would not have the greatest numbers without Chris. She would only gain about 3 slams and still have less slams than Court and Graf, and now with competition even poorer than she already has (which is already weak even with Chris). Graf lost as much to Seles just in the pre stabbing period alone as Martina did to Chris over their whole careers. This thread isn't about Martina anyway though.