Would Evert have caught Court's record if she had played all the slams at her peak?

[sandy mayer]

Evert won slams between 74 and 86. Yet in that time she missed 3 French Opens and 8 Australian Opens.

I believe she would have won all 3 French Opens she missed in 76-78. She was virtually invincible on clay in this period. This brings her to 21 slams. How many Australians would she have won if she had played them all? That is harder to say. Grass wasn't her best surface though she still won 5 slams on it, and I actually believe she was even better on the grass of the Australian Open than the grass of Wimbledon. If she had played in the weak fields of the 70s Australian Open I think she would have won virtually all the tournaments she missed. If the other top players had turned up I don't think she would have won them all, but I think she would have won some.

I am confident Evert would have matched Court's 24 slam wins, and probably exceeded them.

Navratilova didn't miss so many slams she could have won, though I won't deny her standing as a true GOAT contender.

Thinking about this makes me think Evert is underrated and there is a genuine case for her being GOAT.

 

[urban]

Maybe Court, but not Helen Wills, if she had played all the slams at her (very long) peak.

 

[urban]

About the slam number wasn't made that great fuzz in the past, as it is made today, also in the womens game, nobody in the media was obsessed with it. The new attention has do to with Serenas run at the slams, which brought Courts record to more publicity - the same effect, we saw with Emersons number around 2000, when Sampras was approaching his slam record. I was surprised, to see Court ranked now so high, as only rival of Serena in some recent articles, with the slam count as only parameter.

Up until Sampras, in the tennis media nobody cared much about the sheer slam numbers count. Court was seen a a great player of course, but mainly because of her Grand Slam. The Grand Slam was more a theme than the slam number, especially in the context of Nav and then Graf. And when leading experts like Maskell, Tingay or Collins made an all time list, Court very seldom appeared as Nr. 1, mostly around Nr. 3, 4 or 5. Others like Wills, Lenglen, Connolly, Nav or Graf were mentioned much more and praised more. Some US experts even rated King above Court, because she won significantly more Wimbledon singles titles. I don't remember, even in the case of Graf, that the slam number of Court was often mentioned, when she got over 20 slams. More attention had Grafs very balanced resume across all four slam venues, with 4 titles at least at each venue.

Evert herself said in a recent interview, that the slam number wasn't her main goal, when she was playing. She was the darling of the US tennis media without any question, but the attention circled much more about her leading and dominant role at the Virginia Slims or Avon tour, and her performance at Wim and US Open, or her position at Nr. 1 against Austin or Nav.. Her 125 matches winning streak on clay was a greater theme, as well as her dates with nice guys a la Burt Reynolds, the sexiest man alive at that time.

 

[MissileBackHand99]

Ditto what urban just stated. The # of Slams was NOT talked about ad nauseum, nor was it seen as the most important thing...until very recently. As urban stated, you didn't hear much about it even when Chris, Martina, and Steffi were racking up Slams. Sampras was really the first one to start talking about it in 2000, when he was on the verge of breaking Emerson's record

I definitely think if Evert played 4 Slams a year, every year like players do now....she would've at least tied Court's record, if not surpassed it. She definitely wins at least 2 of the 3 FO's she missed, and wins a several Aussie Opens

Her signing to play WTT in '75 was more important to her than just pursuing Slam titles, as she knew WTT would get more eyes on the sport and increase its popularity (this was before cable tv and decades before the internet, obviously). Players today really don't get how fortunate they are to just be able to focus on accumulating theost # of Slam titles

 

[thrust]

Maybe Court, but not Helen Wills, if she had played all the slams at her (very long) peak.

No doubt Chris probably would have won the 3 FO she missed, wasting her time playing Team Tennis. She could have won some AO titles as well, but back then slam count was not that important to most players. Court took a year off about 67, then time off for two pregnancies before she retired. Navratilova, as far as I know, did not take any time during her long career. All things considered, I would rank Court, Serena, Evert and Navratilova as equally great players.

 

[ChrisRF]

Court was seen a a great player of course, but mainly because of her Grand Slam. The Grand Slam was more a theme than the slam number, especially in the context of Nav and then Graf.

Really? I mean, I totally get why number of Slams wasn't everything back then, due to the structure of tennis with multiple rivaling tours and other top tournaments, some bans and weak Slam fields etc. It would be too shallow to just look at the numbers when not all Slams were equally contested and often the four Slams weren't the four biggest tournaments of the year.

But the problem is, just looking at ONE year of dominance resulting in a CYGS is way MORE shallow yet. Because when comparing greatness, obviously the whole career of players should be looked at. And of course hailing the CYGS as the holy grail of tennis actually also is a "Slams only" view in an era where I wouldn't expect it.

 

[BTURNER]

We know she is winning at least two of the three RG titles in the 70's. I don't see anyone who can beat her on clay in those years. In Australia, Evonne is the only consistent problem she has. Margaret is too old and Martina is too young, immature and inconsistent, and Wade and Reid have to play their absolute best to have a prayer. If King decided to play those years when she wasn't having knee problems, she has to be given the edge over Chris through 1978 . I pick Chris to pick up at least three more Aussies if she shows up every year.

 

[BTURNER]

Really? I mean, I totally get why number of Slams wasn't everything back then, due to the structure of tennis with multiple rivaling tours and other top tournaments, some bans and weak Slam fields etc. It would be too shallow to just look at the numbers when not all Slams were equally contested and often the four Slams weren't the four biggest tournaments of the year.

But the problem is, just looking at ONE year of dominance resulting in a CYGS is way MORE shallow yet. Because when comparing greatness, obviously the whole career of players should be looked at. And of course hailing the CYGS as the holy grail of tennis actually also is a "Slams only" view in an era where I wouldn't expect it.

I think what it really accomplishes for Evert is more surface balance from that 'claycourt specialist' label. Having say 3 more slams on grass Downunder, brings her up to 11-12 on red clay, 3 on green clay (US Open), 3 on hard court, and 7-8 on grass rather than her 5. If she happens to beat aging Court in the semis75-77, and Evonne in at least one of the finals and maybe King or Wade in another ( she's not the only one who shows up more often!) it improves her cred even assuming she takes the odd loss to a King, Hana post -1980, or Sukova/Jordan post- 1984, and Navratilova post-1977 in other years. Evert is very unlikely to lose before her obligatory semi on grass courts that suit her much better than the soggy English ones.

Who knows, she might even win a womens doubles down there if she picks the right partner and the draw opens up a little.

 

[BorgTheGOAT]

She could habe beaten 24, but then we must be fair and also assume Court would make slam count her priority and does not retire twice. In that case she would still hold the record.

 

[BTURNER]

She could habe beaten 24, but then we must be fair and also assume Court would make slam count her priority and does not retire twice. In that case she would still hold the record.

Its a little different because we aren't talking about family sabbatticals during pregancy and post marriage with Evert. . When we say Evert did not make the slams a priority we mean specifically the Aussie and the French. Evert stayed on the tour. She entered the Open for 19 consecutive years, and wimbledon 18 consecutive years. She never stopped making tennis a priority until her retirement . I can't imagine Court deciding to give up her baby to adoption or deciding not to retire to stay home with Barry and her kid, because she needed to win another French Open. Margaret put tennis itself aside during these retirements.

 

[thrust]

Its a little different because we aren't talking about family sabbatticals during pregancy and post marriage with Evert. . When we say Evert did not make the slams a priority we mean specifically the Aussie and the French. Evert stayed on the tour. She entered the Open for 19 consecutive years, and wimbledon 18 consecutive years. She never stopped making tennis a priority until her retirement . I can't imagine Court deciding to give up her baby to adoption or deciding not to retire to stay home with Barry and her kid, because she needed to win another French Open. Margaret put tennis itself aside during these retirements.

TRUE, but Court only retired once during her peak, I think in 67. She then had to take time off for two pregnancies before she finally retired in 77. She won 3 slams after her first child was born but none after the second.

 

[Dan Lobb]

Pauline Betz missed a ton of majors after 1946, could have won huge numbers into the late fifties. A dominant player in her time.

Court missed a bunch of majors due to family life. She was still dominant in 1973.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Yes, had she been focused on accumulating slams, Chris Evert would have the record. She was that good. Yet another reason that comparing eras is difficult.

 

[BTURNER]

Yes, had she been focused on accumulating slams, Chris Evert would have the record. She was that good. Yet another reason that comparing eras is difficult.

Pauline Betz missed a ton of majors after 1946, could have won huge numbers into the late fifties. A dominant player in her time.

Court missed a bunch of majors due to family life. She was still dominant in 1973.

Acceptance and access to the 'pill' and other family planning options, may have been the single biggest change to extend careers and provide consistency in women's tennis. The other is just a broader acceptance of women as social equals. The idea of a woman traveling without needing a male 'companion/ protector', or the idea of a woman as capable of managing her own finances and deciding her own career priorities.

We have forgotten that Margaret Smith was actually a bit of a 'feminist' trailblazer in her early days, standing up to a very male dominated Australian Tennis Federation, to decide her own schedule, rather than have it assigned for her.