women GOAT lists
- Thread starter elegos7
- Start date
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
I wonder if Jana becomes a 4 or 5 slam winner if she wins her first slam earlier, either at Wimbledon 93 or even Australia 91. It would drastically change her mentality. Her actual 1st was too late to lead to a sequence of slam wins, 1 more after was the most ever realistic by then, and even that didn't happen ultimately. She was never going to be a GOAT or anything of course but could see her winning a few more slams if she got the first one sooner.
Exactly how I feel if Hana backs up her win at 1981 RG, with a win a month later over Evert at Wimbledon. Its a real shot in the arm if you beat Evert twice and Martina once to win two slams in a row. Even if she keeps it close, the entire tour sees her very differently and she definitely has a lot of confidence all the way through 1982. She won't be seeded # 5 at the 1981 Open meeting Evert in the QF's either.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
Yes there is probably a world Hana goes on to be a double digit slam winner if she wins that match. Far from certain of course, but not impossible.
Her biggest enemy may have been her own body type. It was one injury after another that kept derailing her. Every time you get injured, your momentum and confidence gets injured too.
I defy you to watch two full matches over the internet and not see this specific player fall, slip, trip etc. In her QF against Graf at RG in 1986, she injured her pinkie finger on her right hand, but did not realize how bad it was, until hours after she won. Next thing you know, she is wincing with pain when she swings her racket while Evert waltzes into her final penultimate slam final 6-1,6-1.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
Yes people focus on her inconsistency, high risk game, not always playing the percentages, but injuries were her biggest roadblock really. Plus Martina and Chris. Even so winning her 3rd straight slam likely gives her the mental boost to win at minimum another 2-3 slams in her 4+ year windows of 0 slams, thus ending atleast at 7/8.
I think they mostly stalled a learning process of experience taught her by the mid 80's anyway. She was one of those who needed the hard knocks of a lot of bad losses in a lot of tournament play to listen to Stove, incorporate the lessons in her daily match play consistently and finally learn to get the most of her talent. In '85-87 she was much more consistent, mentally tougher and much smarter, but again those damn injuries.....
I imagine a healthy and luckier Hana learning a lot faster if she gets through those stupid losses earlier and has gained the confidence and locker room rep that more success between 1981 Wimbledon final -1983. Maybe she gets access to a weight training and physical conditioning coach like Martina, maybe even a sports psychologist, strengthens those muscles, tendons, joints etc so those injuries are less frequent/ serious. Now that would be a worrisome reality for everyone in the 1980's locker room.
She really could have used 'Team Mandlikova' on her payroll.
Last edited:
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
There seems to be some massive King overrating on this site, so not surprised there are some trying to put her over Court, but yes it is preposterous. I saw someone put her over Graf on another topic whuch is even worse. Even the Seles stabbing coukd not justify that as her career is certain to blow away King's even eithout the Seles stabbing. Seles, Connolly, Venus, Henin, Doris Hart all have a better case to be over her, than her over someone like Court. Not saying all those would be but any has a better case for it than King ever being anywhere near Graf or Court.
pierceforehands
Rookie
Not sure why you assume if Novotna somehow beat Graf at Wimbledon 93, she would then lose to Seles. She has always performed better vs Seles than vs Graf. And Graf is a far superior grass courter to Seles. Even pre stabbing she was a tough opponent for Seles, winning in straight sets in their first ever meeting, when yes Seles was only 15, but Novotna (who is a super late bloomer as I am sure you know) was ranked MUCH lower than Seles during that match, and still won in straights. She lost their next 2 matches in straight sets, but choked in both, especialy the 92 YEC quarter final which was a massive choke, where she had a 6-4, 3-0 lead, and fell apart, especialy in the 2nd set. This was made super obvious when she actualy began to play somewhat better again in the 3rd set despite losing, than she did in the 2nd set after being up 3-0 which can only be explained by a complete collapse of nerves. It isn't clear she would have won the Australian Open final anyway, but here too she fell apart completely from 7-5, 3-3 up, Seles playing a strong game to hold from 15-30 down at 3-3, then Jana playing a horrible game to lose serve, another poor game when Seles served for the 2nd set at 5-3, then a horrendous 3rd set. So she was 1-2 vs Seles pre stabbing, but all very tough matches, and easily could have been 2-1 or even 3-0 but for the choking, and none of those matches were on grass- by far Seles's worst surface and Jana's best. Add to all that Jana does not have a history of choking vs Seles the way she does vs Graf, and I am not sure how you safely conclude Seles wins this hypothetical final if it happens. Plus Seles has NEVER beaten someone at Wimbledon who beat Graf. In 98 when Zvereva beat Graf, she went on to beat Seles much more easily. In 90 when Garrison beat Graf, she had also beaten Seles before that (yes Seles had match point, but if she had won, she would have just gone on to lose to Graf anyway, and we wouldn't even know of this hypothetical nearly taking place anyhow). In 99 when Lucic beat Seles in straight sets, she then lost to Graf. So never have they played the same opponent in a grass event and Seles fared better, only once in 1990 you could say they fared roughly the same. All in all I conclude if Jana somehow beat Graf, she likely would have beaten Seles on grass too. PS- I do not think Jana beats Graf anyway, Graf played much poorer in the final than her other rounds, and still won, so not sure how Jana wins another day Graf isn't playing as poorly when she choked it away even in the final when Graf was mediocre or worse for her standards.
As for Wimbledon 94, well others have pointed this out, but Graf likely does not even go out at any point if she longer plays McNeil 1st round. I completely disagree McNeil would beat her in a semi final or something either. It isn't by chance both of McNeil's career victories vs Graf are 1st round matches. Watch the 87 US Open semis where Graf was sick and played by far her worst tournament of the entire year; shown by her going down easily to Navratilova in the final, when she had destroyed her on an almost identical hard court in Miami months earlier. Where McNeil still blew it at the very end even vs a badly out of form and sick Graf. Or the actual 94 Wimbledon semis vs Martinez where McNeil had countless opportunities to win, many times getting to 30-30 with Martinez serving to stay in the match, and failing, usually with sloppy errors, each time. There is no way McNeil beats Graf in a semi final or even quarter final, especialy as Graf would have worked into some form by then. I also don't see how you safely conclude Seles is a lock in every other match, even if she is lucky enough to somehow avoid Graf. Yes she owns Martinez, but they never met on grass. Not that Martinez is some grass wizard, but we just look at Seles's history to know grass is not the same as every other surface for her, and victory vs any opponent, especialy another top player, is no sure thing for her on grass, not even someone she generally owns. She played Studenikova (a total nobody) only 3 times in her life, twice on hard courts where she barely lost any games, and once on grass which was a 3 set loss. She played Testud a ton of times. She totally owns Testud off of grass, 1 loss, but that is out of a huge number of matches, and mostly very easy wins, but is 1-1 vs her on grass. Her other career matches vs Garrison were all super easy wins, apart from their one and only grass meeting, a loss. So I don't safely count on a win vs Martinez on grass, nor many others in the draw.
It seems you are making very generous assumptions of Seles's hypothetical grass performances based upon only 1 good grass tournament- Wimbledon 92, which she never came close to duplicating again, apart from maybe Wimbledon 2000 where she played well and took an injured Davenport to 3 sets, a good showing for her. And no that can't just be put down to the stabbing when she had tons of quality performances on other surfaces, even post stabbing. And even if you wanted to put it down to the stabbing, any evidence in her favor is still very limited and an extremely small sample size.
1. I'm definitely not assuming Novotna would lose to Seles in a hypothetical 1993 Wimbledon final. I think it would be a close match that could go either way. Of course, as you allude to in your post, their prior match was on carpet at the 1992 WTA Finals, with Novotna choking a lead away before losing to Seles. Carpet isn't that different from grass, although the surface change favors Novotna. OTOH, the pressure is a lot lower at a WTA Finals SF than it is at a Wimbledon final, and we know that Jana did actually choke in the final she actually played.
2. As for Wimbledon 1994, there's just so many possible butterfly effects beyond the draw if Seles isn't stabbed. With Seles out of the game, Graf won 4 straight Majors and clearly had the WTA throne at Wimbledon 1994 despite running into the Pierce buzzsaw at the 1994 French. If Seles isn't stabbed, her reign might have extended through 1993 and into mid-1994. In that event, what's Graf's mentality going into Wimbledon 1994 if she's been relegated to second banana?
3. I don't know that I'm being overly generous to Seles's hypothetical performance on grass. I think we both agree she has no shot against Graf if she faces her at Wimbledon in 1993 or 1994. I think we both agree she probably wins in 1994 if Graf still loses before the final (we might disagree on whether Graf loses early, but not whether Seles likely wins with Steffi out). And I'm guessing we both agree that Seles is the favorite over anyone at Wimbledon 1993 other than Graf and Novotna, with our main disagreement being over her odds against Jana. Then, there's Seles having success on other surfaces after the stabbing, but not grass. First, I think a lot of that has to do with loss of speed from the stabbing and its effects, which also explains why her carpet/WTA finals game was never recovered either. Second, Seles was making big developments in her net game, showing some serious skills even on Rebound Ace in 1993, before the stabbing. I think that was a critical component to her grass game she was developing at age 19 that went away with her dormancy before she came back.
pierceforehands
Rookie
LOL Carpet is VERY different for Monica than grass. Compare her grass career to her carpet career which includes 3 consecutive YEC at one point (something even Graf didn't ever manage). Night and day difference. It is different for Novotna too, but especialy for Monica.
And I think parlaying one good performance on grass (92 Wimbledon) which was backed up by literally nothing the entire rest of her career other than a pretty good performance at Wimbledon 2000, yes even taking into account the stabbing, is being generous to Monica. It isn't surprising most are not willing to give her the amount of benefit of doubt on grass you are. Your last points are valid, but still not enough to give her that much benefit of doubt, not for me anyway.
Right, and that's why I think we have to take Seles's performance at Wimbledon after the stabbing with a grain of salt. As you note, she still had her share of success on hard and clay courts after the stabbing. OTOH, she came nowhere near to replicating her success on carpet after the stabbing.
Seles was 12-0 at the WTA Finals from 1990-1992, taking all three titles from ages 16-18. Even at age 15 in 1989, she extended Navratilova to 7-5 in the third set. In total, she won 10 carpet titles between 1990 and 1993.
But then, after the stabbing, she was 5-5 at the WTA Finals and didn't win a single carpet title.
It's clear that Seles's game of faster courts suffered disproportionately after the stabbing.
pierceforehands
Rookie
Yes but even her pre stabbing performaces on grass were not up to her carpet performances. Lost in the quarters in 1990 (granted it was to the same person who beat Graf, but even if we are talking hypotheticals I am sure you agree she loses to both Graf and Navratilova had she played them here, and she was 5-0 against them on other surfaces in 1990), made up an injury to boink Donald Trump in 1991 as she was that unconfident in her own Wimbledon chances and wanted to protect her ranking points, then did surprise a lot of people by making the finals in 1992- a very good performance, but still got absolutely blistered by Graf in one of the most lopsided finals in the Open Era and didn't have to face people like Sabatini and Capriati, both who may have beaten her. Then carpet total dominance like I said.
And in the 96-99 period I thought her carpet performances suffered largely by injury, particularly in 96 and 97 where she was badly injured around the time of the carpet season, and then 99 where she had to miss a lot of the carpet season plus the YEC altogether due to injury. 98 I believe she would have been able to beat anyone at the YEC but Davenport, Graf (who she nearly beat so could have beaten), and possibly Hingis, so was unlucky to draw Graf in the quarters. 96 and 97 badly injured as I said. 99 missed the YEC altogether by injury. 2000 finally healthy for the end of the year, she made it all the way to the final, and narrowly lost to Hingis. A big upgrade from her grass performances around this time. So I don't tie her carpet performances that much into her grass performances as I think she had bad luck to just be very injured by that part of the year in 96, 97, 99. Now her post stabbing career she was very injury proned, so the carpet season being the end of the year would make it more likely her body was done by that point. I don't think injuries played any part of her Wimbledon showings (apart from maybe 96), she just didn't do well. To be clear I do think she has better Wimbledon performances than her post stabbing ones without the stabbing, particularly in the 93-95 period where I suspect she would be more likely to be a contender on grass than she ever would be by the late 90s anyhow, but I don't see her inpenetrable by the field sans Graf as you do, and 1 Wimbledon final is not enough to sell me on that at all. As I said even in 92 I think both Sabatini and Capriati would have had a real shot against her if they played her, and oldratilova was in horrific form at that Wimbledon (nearly losing to Po, losing to Wild on grass) and still nearly beat her. I also strongly disagree on the part you said Navratilova was better at Wimbledon 92 than 94, no idea what on earth you base that upon. Like I said in 92 she went to 3 sets to freaking Kimberly Po, and lost to Wild. The 92 Navratilova would never absolutely demolish Sukova, past her prime but still an Open finalist the year before and a historically tough opponent for even prime Martina of a decade earlier, and lose only 1 game in the final 2 sets to Novotna, even a very bad Novotna as was at the time of Wimbledon 94. It seems your only conclusion for that is she was even older in 94, so by default is weaker or something. And 92 she was in absolute peak form and confidence, which she would be some other years without the stabbing, but not likely every year, and which she likely needs to succeed on her by far worst surface of grass.
Last edited:
Sure, but the same could be said of Graf through age 18. Wimbledon in 1987 was the only grass tournament where she had made it past the QF, and she had an overall grass record of 19-10 after that tournament. OTOH, on carpet, through age 18, Graf had won the WTA Finals, lost another final to Navratilova, and lost another SF to Navratilova. She had also won Zurich x 2, the Tokyo Pan Pacific Open, and Brighton.
This is not to say that that Seles would have come close to what Graf achieved on grass without the stabbing. But it is to say that having better success on carpet than grass to start a career doesn't surprise me.
pierceforehands
Rookie
I dont have a problem with your opinion, just explaining why you are having a hard time getting many others on board with it, as you can tell, LOL! Seles did not do enough on grass, 1 good Wimbledon is not enough, for people to assume she inpenetrable to the field minus Graf as you are assuming for the coming years. And whether she would develop on grass the way Graf did is anyones guess, and sadly one we will never get the answer too, but all existing indications are it would be a stretch at best.
Is there really even disagreement between me and you/other posters on this subject? As I said, it seems we agree that Seles loses to Graf if they play at Wimbledon in 1993 or 1994. It seems we also agree that Novotna at Wimbledon in 1993 would be the next toughest opponent, other than perhaps Navratilova if they played before the final in 1994 (when Martina seemed kind of gassed).
Beyond that, I tab Seles as the favorite over the likes of Conchita Martinez, Gigi Fernández, Lori McNeil, the other players who reached the SF stage or farther those two years.
I feel like these are pretty uncontroversial opinions that most people (would) endorse.
pierceforehands
Rookie
I think it is more a case of Seles vs the field as opposed to any one opponent (outside of Graf). Yes I know the stabbing happened and has an impact, but her results at Wimbledon 96-99 don't give me confidence to make her this super safe bet vs the field. Even Graf was not a safe bet vs the field in 93 and 94 as her near loss to Jana and lost to McNeil in 94 indicate, let alone Seles. I mean look at the exact people she lost to in 96-99. And yes I am not disregarding the stabbing and its impact, but I also am not comfortable making her a near lock vs the field outside of Graf at all either. Just 1 good Wimbledon (1992) is not enough for that for me. That is literally the only basis in her favor, and it alone is not enough for me, or most people.
Not sure how most of the responses in here indicate most agree with you on Seles's great chances to win Wimbledon, especialy if something happens to Graf, in 93 and 94, but anyhow.
Yes! This is exactly what I'm thinking.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
But Graf is never "removed". Or are we talking a new, crazy, hypothetical she is stabbed instead of Seles now.
No, I'm assuming for this hypo (as I assume BTURNER is) that Seles is not playing Graf before the SF stage at Wimbledon if Seles isn't stabbed. Meaning that non-stabbed Seles makes the SF most years and picks up 1-2 titles if she doesn't have to face Graf (as might have been the case in 1994, depending on how the draw shook out and Graf's general level if Seles is never taken out).
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
Who knows. I am much higher than Seles than most as you can tell by my comments, and even I am not sold on her being a regular semi finalist and finalist at Wimbledon without the stabbing. Nor ever beating someone who was playing well enough to beat Graf, like say potentially Jana in 93. With the possible lone exception of Sanchez who was always a way tougher opponent for Graf than for Seles, but I definitely don't see Sanchez beating Graf at Wimbledon in this new timeliness despite nearly doing it in 95.
I do think Seles 50% likely sneaks out 1 Wimbledon without the stabbing. And finishes with maybe 3 finals or so. No idea when that 1 title happens or how though. I do think Seles is still the GOAT without the stabbing, regardless of Wimbledon though. And only xenophobes who hate Serbians deny this.
Her results before the stabbing were:
age 15: loss to eventual champion Graf in the fourth round
age 16: loss to eventual finalist Garrison, 9-7 in the third set after having match point
age 17: DNP
age 18: loss to Graf in the final after beating Tauziat and Navratilova
And, at age 19 right before the stabbing, Seles was starting to come into net a lot more and having good success, especially in her Australian Open SF against Sabatini.
For me, all of that points toward mostly SF and better results at Wimbledon if she's not stabbed, but I acknowledge we don't have a whole heck of a lot to go off of.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
Well unlike you I am not willing to completely ignore her post stabbing results completely. Considering they were SO bad, when she was still posting very good results on other surfaces. I don't give the stabbing 0% consideration to be clear. I wouldn't be saying she is the GOAT without the stabbing which is presuming a lot more than 1 96 onward slam, thus drastically changed results, otherwise. And her Wimbledon results are still not enough to sway me even then. Even her pre stabbing aren't that great FWIW, skipping 91 in highly suspicious circumstances, wasting match point vs a player who just took a very painful fall points earlier in 90, making the final which is good but being just destroyed as the then dominant #1 in 92, getting just 1 game vs someone you took 3 sets on clay weeks before in 89. You can't compare to Graf as the same age as Seles was a much faster riser and prime and dominant much younger than Graf but even if you go there Graf was much more impressive and competitive in both semis and finals in 87 at 18 than Seles in 92.
What does it matter anyway though. Nobody is saying Seles is one of the grass GOATs without the stabbing and we both agree Seles is the GOAT of womens tennis anyway.
I just don't understand this logic. Why would anyone discount or ignore her results post stabbing at all? Why would anyone replace those results she actually got playing those matches, with fantasy woulda coulda results created out of our imagination as though she wasn't stabbed. Monica chose to train and prepare to get back on the tour. She understood the risks and potential benefits to her record and her legacy even better having already played the professional tour for years, than she did at 15, 16, and 17 when she first made the call.
Monica could have decided to retire on her previous results and not take the risks that her results might not be filled with slams glory and drag down her lustre along with her career win/loss percentage. But she wanted to try and I applaud her for it. It was a gutsy move. That does not mean she does not have to live with the miscalculation her hopes fed. She gets judged not her potential or her talent, but her results, and that includes every single match she chose to play win or lose.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
If we're going the 'what if' route, Evert massively increases her majors tally:
What if she played the French 1976-78 during her absolute dominance on clay?
What if she played the AO more than 6 times during a near 20 year career?
What if the Wimbledon grass played as slowly as it does now?
What if the USO remained on clay?
Etc . .
Fun game.
What if she played the French 1976-78 during her absolute dominance on clay?
What if she played the AO more than 6 times during a near 20 year career?
What if the Wimbledon grass played as slowly as it does now?
What if the USO remained on clay?
Etc . .
Fun game.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
All valid points but mind you she was also lucky at the height of her dominance the US Open was on clay for the ONLY 3 years in history. I am sure Henin, Lenglen, Sanchez, Swiatek would have loved that situation. And that her nemesis Austin went down at 18, soon to retire altogether, with back problems. Remember she ended her career with a winning head to head vs Evert, even with matches she was only 14 or 15, and their 1 match in 82 she was already dunzo and semi retired. Or even that Navratilova was a super late bloomer whose prime did not begin even a bit earlier, given what a nightmare prime Navratilova is for Evert to play.
Last edited:
True. OTOH, if the U.S. Open would have switched to hard courts in 1975 as opposed to grass, I don't know that her results change. As is, with the switch to hard courts in 1978, Evert won it in 1978, lost the final to Austin (who wasn't even on the tour from 1975-1976 and wouldn't have beaten her in 1977) in 1979, and won it in 1980. And Evert's opponent in the 1975-1976 finals was Goolagong, who never beat her on hard courts, and her opponent in the 1977 final was Turnbull, who wasn't going to beat her regardless of the surface.
So, in a sense, Evert was lucky the U.S. Open shifted away from grass, but I don't know if/how much she benefited from it being on clay for 3 years as opposed to going straight to hard courts.
I agree that we should not ignore Seles's post-stabbing results, hence why I was saying that Seles's weaker results on carpet post-stabbing provide context for her weaker results on grass post-stabbing.
I do disagree that we should not discount her post-stabbing results at all. You point to the choices she made post-stabbing. Fair enough. Of course, it's also fair to say that the choices she made were constrained by the trauma she suffered at the hand's of a madman. I think we're all familiar with the phenomenon of the butterfly effect and how even small changes can alter the trajectory of someone's life. Well, this was a pretty enormous change.
Plus, does not discounting post-stabbing results really make sense? If a player comes along and plays a full career without a similar trauma and ends up with one more Major and a few more titles and weeks at #1 against a similar level of competition, do we say she's better or take into account what what happened to Seles post-stabbing?
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
Goolagong never beat her on hard courts? Wow, that is a stat I did not know, and I followed tennis in that era too. Did they have limited matches as the tour was mostly grass, clay, and carpet then. Anyway the 75 final was very close so could see the result swapping on hard courts possibly.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
I think BTURNER takes the stance you evaluate results as is with no exceptions. Which honestly I am totally fine with as long as consistent. And she/he is. Evert is clearly this person's favorite player and he/she makes no exceptions to that even for her. I have never seen a "Chris is a 6 or 7 time Wimbledon winner without Martina" or "Chris wins 25 slams if she plays all those Aussie and French Opens she missed" from her/him, despite being an Evert superfan. Now you could argue Seles is a unique case, but I respect someone who sticks to the facts and results and is consistent with that.
I am not that person as you can tell by all my comments on many players. I am also consistent that way. The worst are say Navratilova/Evert fans who play every favorable what if game with them, lowball Court's Australian Opens to diminish her, but dismiss any idea of Seles being worthy of more slams due to the stabbing, how both benefited highly from Austin's injury shortened career, or even how hampered Graf's career (unlike theirs) was by injury. Or Graf fans who create fantasy what ifs of her possible 30 slams without her injuries, but completely dismiss the Seles stabbing. Or the Navratilova fans who try to build her up further by removing the other of her/Evert, and speculating about slams she missed, ignoring completely how Evert would benefit MUCH more than Martina by this, and for sure be ranked over Martina in their new alternate fantasy in reverse. I have to say Navratilova fans are the worst abusers as a group, even worse than Seles or Connoly fans who have a far more legit case for obvious reasons. That sort of cherry picking is what annoys me. BTURNER is very consistent, even on their very favorite player Evert. And that carries over to all.
Last edited:
Only 5 matches between the two of them on hard courts, including their 1979 U.S. Open QF, so not a huge sample size. As you say, 1975 is the likeliest year for Evert not to win a hypothetical U.S. Open on hard courts from 1975-1977, given the tussle with Goolagong. I'm sure you have a better sense of how good Goolagong was on hard courts than me.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
Goolagong was a very fine hard court player, not her best surface which was still clearly grass, but neither was it Evert's which is by far clay.
I do remember their 79 US Open match but never read much into that as Goolagong was clearly past her prime by then, despite her total shock Wimbledon of 80.
Would definitely normally expect Evert to beat Evonne on hard courts, but the 75 final she played so well and had a real shot at winning, especially late in the 2nd set or early in the 3rd, vs the 125 straight clay wins Evert, she probably had a good shot on hard courts.
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
With “all stars align” I mean winning the matches she should win, never choking etc. Even in that what-if scenario though her father will still get ill which will affect her tennis. Also, Hingis would always be a nightmare matchup for her, and Martina sharing the AO as her best slam with Monica doesn’t make it easier. So in 1997, I don’t think Seles wins a slam. In 1998 she has good chances for the FO of course, but that’s it likely. Her decline will already start at that point imho even in a hypothetical where the stabbing never happens. At that point she will already have a lot of mileage in her body after being a slam contender for 8 consecutive years and we saw with other of those young prodigies (Hingis being the most prominent example) that not winning much after a very young age is not completely unusual. So maybe we can give Monica 20 slams if next to everything goes her way, but 22 is definitely out of reach.
When I rank players, I do not put myself in the business of either knowing personal traumas of all these players and their competitionor judging the severity or impact of them. I let the players do all that work. Then they decide if they are ready to walk onto the tennis court and put their reputations on the line knowing how they feel about the risks and their condition to play. If Tracy Austin has a bad back in 1982, or King has bad knees or a palimony suit in 1981, or Court has to face a wanted/ unwanted pregnancy, or Seles has PTSD, they each are judged on the quality of their assessment of their competitive chances when they decide to enter and play a specific tournament. They get to decide whether to take it slow, maybe pad their results and protect their ranking by playing the VSlims of Mobile etc for 6 months, or whether to jump in and play the US Open and take those QF and R16 losses, or whether to wait and practice some more or maybe let their previous record stand.
Seles is a perfect example of the trap we fall into. We have had posters who claim to know how 'bad' that stabbing was, and how long it would take to heal, and either discounting the PTSD and its recovery time, or making it their business to assess how long she gets to stay off the tour etc. Its incredibly arrogant. None of that is any of our business. We don't even have a right to know who has either physical or emotional trauma. We don't know who had a miscarriage, who's has a cancer scare, , who was *****, or who's spouse is cheating on her etc. We are left to look at their professional judgements when they decide they are willing to go on the tennis court.
Seles decided to return to play tennis, knowing that her legacy and reputation would be affected by that call. I just let her do it. She gets that extra Aussie title, and she gets those slam finals but she has those comparatively less impressive results that undermine our fantasies of what might have been, because she chose to replace them with a different reality.
Pam Shriver recently revealed, that she was involved in an 'inappropriate' relationship with her own coach as a minor on the tour. Clearly she was a victim of predatory, possibly criminal behavior, and we have no idea how or if that impacted her early tennis career. She did not even have the adult understanding of whether she was traumatized, let alone whether she should walk on the tennis court. We can't possibly go back and revisit her record and speculate.
She gets ranked on what she actually did and what it means. It's what I do with Court, or King, or Austin and all those players who had pain or trauma that impacted their on -court behavior and never told the world it even existed.
I don't create new matches, or new draws or new match-ups and assign winners when I rank players and their accomplishments, and I don't erase matches or draws or match-ups either.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
With “all stars align” I mean winning the matches she should win, never choking etc. Even in that what-if scenario though her father will still get ill which will affect her tennis. Also, Hingis would always be a nightmare matchup for her, and Martina sharing the AO as her best slam with Monica doesn’t make it easier. So in 1997, I don’t think Seles wins a slam. In 1998 she has good chances for the FO of course, but that’s it likely. Her decline will already start at that point imho even in a hypothetical where the stabbing never happens. At that point she will already have a lot of mileage in her body after being a slam contender for 8 consecutive years and we saw with other of those young prodigies (Hingis being the most prominent example) that not winning much after a very young age is not completely unusual. So yeah, 18-19 I can see, but 22 is definitely out of reach.
On a side note. I don’t think her level in 95- beginning 96 was so far away from her prime level. She won the Canadian Open only conceding 14 games, reached the USO final without losing a set and won the AO only losing one set. The loss to Graf at the USO was very close, and given that they always had very close matches even at slams favouring Seles more than the USO (AO and FO), this could have happened to pre-stabbing Seles as well. We can of course assume, that without the stabbing Seles would have further improved and installed a mental block in Graf by beating her some more times, such that at the time of the USO 1995 (without the stabbing), the distance between the two would have widened, but that is too much speculation here.
Last edited:
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
Deleted
BorgTheGOAT
Legend
I find this one a very hard hypothetical because we could also then assume what would happen to Nadal if there was a second major in clay? He would have set the slam record to unreachable numbers I guess. If anything, Evert was lucky that she got a second clay major for a short time which never happened before at after.
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
I don't disagree with you. It's just 'what ifs' are a tad redundant but I thought I'd play along.
Personally, I think picking an overall GOAT is silly given all the different variables. I prefer Evert over the others but Evert herself doesn't really care where she's placed but is content to be in the conversation. That seems a very sensible position to take. It doesn't consume her. Heck, she barely remembers some of her own records.
Well she certainly is 'in the conversation'. I can't think of any posters here, who do not include her name in the pile but it feels like a polite nod rather than reasoned consideration. I as an Evert fan, get real sick and tired of Evert inevitably being placed towards the end of the pile, by a bunch of posters who won't even give me a straight answer about the role of doubles results in their thinking!
When I get answers, the depth of their thinking is that Serena, Graf, and Court have more singles slams titles, and Martina has a 4-10 head to head advantage in Slam final meeting. Then they argue about the ranking of the other four. That frustrates me because nobody turns these careers upside down and looks at the embarrassing losses in those slams, as hard as they look at the highlight reel. I have to go back and say 'By the way, they also lost in Rd 2 to Sally Smith from South Africa , the year before they won Wimbledon and they lost in RD 16 to unseeded Mlle Frondeau at RG three years after they reached the finals..." That stuff never registers a second longer than it took me to type it.
Last edited:
PDJ
G.O.A.T.
They generally rate flashy over consistency. Fine by me, I don't actually care that much to argue the point. I'd much rather read the back and forth endless Graf/Seles debates which invariably consume a thread of this type.
On the plus side, Serena fans are a lot less strident/militant since she stopped playing.
Every cloud . .
I believe an argument can be made for Evert to be the best ever, as it can for all the top tier players including Lenglen, Wills-Moody et al. I'm just not sure why it's so important? It should be enough that they were each amazing in their day.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
In terms of pure dominance of their own time they are the 2 best in history still. Wish they had placed each other more, now that would have been interesting. And if either gained a clear edge in that rivalry, not winning every match which is impossible as both are too good, but an edge, would elevate that one even more.
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
I think in fairness there was a lot less depth in that era which partly explains the lack of early defeats. Albeit never losing in the quarters for so long supercedes that as she still would have played atleast some good opponents in quarter finals.
However even in comparison to Court and Navratilova who played in a similar era (earlier for Court) this is true for Evert.
I agree with the fundamental point here, but every player no matter how great gifted and talented or how lackluster the depth, has to learn as a youth from losses acquired from older, experienced pros but not necessarily tier one players. Those learning curve years, before they have a developed game, and the right habits including a regular sleep schedule, decent nutrition, avoiding stress, not partying the night before, you know... the lessons of youth. And then there is playing injured or ill.
Every player except Chris Evert. Its the consistency established those first few years 15-18 that astonishes, before she became the great top player we know now. heck even Helen Wills and Maureen Connolly did not enjoy a blemish free slam start up like Evert. 1971 Open -RG 1983
insideoutforehanders
Rookie
I remember her playing Betty Stove at Wimbledon 75 in the quarters. She was getting overpowered in the first 2 sets, in fact Stove was IMO playing better in that match than any I saw her play in any one march of Wimbledon 77 when she made it to the final and was a set from the title. She hung in though and waited for the moment late in the 2nd set when Stove cracked a bit, then ran away with the 3rd (Stove was also discouraged after the 2nd set and gave up). She also was points away from losing to an unknown who was playing the match of her life in an early round of Wimbledon 74, but saved match game with winning net foray of all things and kind of stole the match at the very end. Those are examples of her refusal to lose before the semis of any major event. And of course her debut US open as a 16 year old, saving all those matches en route to the semis.
Similar threads
