View Full Version : Who, in the WTA Open era, has come closest to a game that suits all courts?

Jul 22nd, 2002, 05:32 PM
To me, it's Steffi, with the following GS single titles:
4 OZ
6 French
7 Wimbledon
5 US

Navratilova was the queen of Wimbledon, with 9 single titles; but she only managed 2 singles titles at Rolland Garros.

Serena is highly promising.

Now, with this in mind and considering the constant calls by the tennis pundits for players to come to the net, a side question I have is: how come Seles' baseline style with power from both forehand and backhand is favored today over Steffi's style? Is it because Monica's is easier to coach, easier to develop, easier to master, or else?

Helen Lawson
Jul 22nd, 2002, 05:38 PM
I don't see that big a difference between a win and a final. Thus Martina only captured Roland Garros twice but made 6 finals, not bad. But look at Evert--5 slams on grass, and about twice as many finals. If not for Martina, Chris would have the record at both Roland Garros and Wimbledon and two more grass titles from Australia. Chris did superb on grass as long as Martina was not around. Stef is close she could win on anything. I go with Chris.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 05:45 PM
If Monica wasn't stabbed, then Steffi wouldn't have won as many Frenchs and US Opens.

Also you can look at it that way, if Navratilova was stabbed, then Evert would have won more Wimbledons and other slams. (the same goes for Navratilova she would have won many more French Opens and other slams if Evert was stabbed). Steffi's numbers are exagerated by that stabbing and everyone knows that. But I do agree that she's a great all-court player but do not use the stats because like I said, Navratilova, Evert, Seles could've have won more on particular surfaces (example: Navratilova with many more Frenchs if Evert was out) if their main opponent was forced out.

Helen Lawson
Jul 22nd, 2002, 05:55 PM
If you take a player and remove their biggest rival it is Chris who benefits the most for slam titles if you count losses in finals--without Martina she would have surpassed Court's numbers--she would have about 28 slams in singles. For Martina to have those numbers you would have to get rid of both Stef and Chris. This is why Chris is overlooked as a player.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:03 PM
I get sooooo tired of people boasting about Steffi's Grand Slam numbers and knocking Martina Navratilova's record. Martina went up against the greatest Clay court player in history(Chris Evert) and Chris went up against the greatest Grass court player of all time (martina) Whom did Steffi have to go up against during her prime. After Monica was stabbed Steffi won some of her slams by DEFAULT!

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:18 PM
I think I'll attempt an answer of the question.

Martina Navratilova

Answer to 2ndary question - Yes, Monica's style is easier to teach. Beyond that, it necessary for many players. Players start playing young. as soon as they can walk in some cases. They often aren't physically strong enough to hit the ball over the net from the baseline with a one handed backhand. And of course, it takes less time to teach you how to play on the baseline than it does to teachthe baseline, the midcourt, and the net. And becasue so many players on the women's side are physically weak, or out of condition. An in shape big hitting baseline player can easily defeat them. Then it becomes 'why mess with success?'

Add in the big time money (Remember Richard Williams (supposed) rational for having two more kids) and any success is likely to be exploited early, not nurtured into something more. Basically, players ar brought up to be Monica, and if the want to turn themselves into Steffi later, that's their perogative. THenxt truly great serve-and-volleyer is going to come from a very rch family, who can afford for tennis to be a loss leader til their daughter is 23 or 24. Venus Williams was a millionaire at 15. The future prodigy's family will have to be willing and able to give that up.

NOTE: 100 years from now, the names 'Steffi Graf' and 'Monica Seles' will have all the meaning to tennis fans that Louise Brough and Doris Hart have now. But the record books will stay have '22' next to Steffi's name, and '9' next to Monica's. Had Monica not been stabbed, she might have fallen in love six months later, retired, and have ten kids now. Or shye might have won 30 GS titles. The past is what it is. You can 'what if' the 22 and the 9 to death, but history only records results.

The 'how' fades far faster than the 'what'.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:19 PM
Steffi and Martina :)

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:20 PM
Steffi's game was not suited for grass, it was only when she decided to love grass that she started to dominate there but the result was that she blew some big big chances in 3 french open finals in a row(89: 5:3, 90:5 setpoints, 92:just look at the statistics) so I am not so sure Steffi is the best alround player!
not that it really matters!

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by selesrules
If Monica wasn't stabbed, then Steffi wouldn't have won as many Frenchs and US Opens.

That's a presumptuous thing to say:rolleyes: ...It may be true but you don't know that for sure. Steffi earned all the grandslams she won, she couldn't help that such a tragedy would fall upon Monica. And who know's....Maybe Monica wouldv'e gotten lazy and bored with the game and would have never won a grandslam again had she not been stabbed.

Back to the original question....
Steffi certainly has the resume to be called queen of all courts, but certainly Martina N also with her numerous finals at the French open(not to mention a couple titles)...

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:26 PM
Interesting point regarding Chris's versatility; she's always heralded as the clay queen, but when looking at her wins and finals combined, she did quite well on grass too.

As far as Steffi having won more French and US titles because of Monica's stabbing: remove those that Steffi won in Monica's absence (2 French, 1 US) and Steffi still has won each slam at least 4 times. Also, keep in mind Steffi had already won EVERY slam twice by 1989. These figures speak volumes for her lack of having a weak surface and for her versatility.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:38 PM
If Monica was not stabbed, she would even be a different player in 1995, 1996, 1997 to today. Her mentality changed, at 1993 she was improving and then everything stopped and she went backwards while Steffi went forward with more confidence, etc. Monica's stabbing didn't only affect the results during 1993-1995, but forever. In other words, if she wasn't stabbed her results today would be different because she would have more experience, bigger confidence with all the extra records she would have, a different mentality, she would probably be even going for records such as most grandslams. Her motivation would be totally different.

And I'm sick of people saying to stop talking about the stabbing and that the bottom line is that Steffi has 22 and Monica 9. The bottom line is: Monica's stabbing is not a "what if", Monica's stabbing *IS A FACT*. Live with it because it changed tennis history and people will ALWAYS bring it up. It's so convenient for Graf fans that everyone would accept the numbers 22 and 9 and not talk about the stabbing, but that's not going to happen. Life isn't a fairy tale like that where you win and we should shut up.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:42 PM
If Monica had not been stabbed, she might not even be playing today. I wasn't saying that Monica not being stabbed wouldn't have hindered Steffi, but the fact is we will never know. Its useless to discuss whether or not Monica would have more grandslam titles or not because we'll never know.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:44 PM
If Navratilova was stabbed at her prime, wouldn't you agree that Evert would have many more grandslams then Navratilova? It doesn't take a genius.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:49 PM
I'm getting sick of people bringing up Monica's stabbing. Steffi won all of her slams because she played the best then, and whether Monica was stabbed or not wouldn't of made a huge impact. Most likely she would have retired earlier and wouldn't be playing today. Like Volcana and others said, they'll have a 22 next to Steffi's name, and 9 next to Monica.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 06:52 PM
Hahaha... That's why I hate Steffi and Steffi fans. Because they are cold and unhuman. Who cares about everything else as long as they get things their way. Pathetic.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 07:04 PM
I agree with selesrules that the stabbing changed tennishistory, no matter if we like it or not. It pisses me off when fellow steffi fans say Steffi won 22 grand slams and that's in the book and the stabbing was a bad thing and bad things happen. that's pretty harsh especially when you realise the idiot wanted this to happen so he got what he wanted!
but I still think people should not use Monica's tragedy to bash Steffi because that pisses me off too. She was already a great champion before that idiot came and that's also a fact.
some seem to think she never won anything before but she had already 71 titles and 11 grand slams. that was pretty good for a 23 year old;)

Jul 22nd, 2002, 07:07 PM
I was accused of being a selestial on the steffi board for my opinion but I don't care. It's just how I feel;)

Helen Lawson
Jul 22nd, 2002, 07:27 PM
If you assume Martina never played tennis and Chris would have won every final she played against Martina (not a big assumption but still an assumption), Chris ends up with 4 Aussie titles (all grass), 8 RG titles, 8 Wimbl. titles, and 8 U.S. titles for a total of 28. You cannot get these numbers with any other player removing ONE player from their finals history. What this means I am not certain except that if not for Martina, Chris would be considered not only clay diva but grass diva also (12 slams on grass). Her record for grass is much better than many "grass specialists" of today and yesterday. The fact she played against the best grass player of all time has made people forget this. 10 Wimbl finals is not someone without ability to play great on grass. It is worth a thought.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 07:33 PM
I'm with irma in that Monica's stabbing is relevant in a discussion about Steffi's numbers (sorry to blow your theory about all Steffi fans, selesrules).

However, as irma points out (and I tried to suggest in my previous post), Steffi had already racked up quite an impressive resume before Monica even arrived on the scene.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 07:52 PM
it is definately Steffi

Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:10 PM
What happened to Monica was terrible but it wasn't Steffi's fault.

It would be nice if Monica could have won more but she didn't and I think that it wouldn't hurt for some people to learn to deal with it because I'm sure that Monica and Steffi have.

It's entertaining to talk about 'what if' scenarios but that doesn't change one important fact - that Monica and Steffi were both great champions. That was pretty obvious long before 1993.

In answer to the thread, I think that Steffi probably had the best suited game - she had the serve, power forehand, vicious slice backhand and the volleys when she chose to use them. Also, she was very atheletic and had nerves of steel in tight situations.

As time goes by we will see more and more the best players are more complete - not just tennis players but atheletes as well. Any great athelete will be able to adapt their game to be successfull on all surfaces like Venus has so I'm not sure how much statstics will ever tell us about how suited a player's game is for all court types.

Answer to the side question ... don't know about coaching but maybe Monica's style is taught more because it was really the only style that could handle Steffi's ??? ;)

One other thing :

Originally posted by irma
I am not so sure Steffi is the best alround player!

:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Ok what have you done with the real irma ??? :p;)

Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:23 PM
Monica's stabbing was unfortunate. that is fact. but unless someone can prove that Steffi took out a contract on her then rival, there is no point in developing posts in which Steffi is being practically held responsible for what occurred. it was not Steffi's fault, and it was not her fault that she also benefited from it.

it would be the same if both Serena and Venus (knock wood) were to get into a car accident tomorrow. everyone else on the tour would benefit -- especially the top players. but unless anyone can prove that it was all arranged by Melanie Molitor, there would be no point in attacking HIngis for having a more successful comeback as a result.

so to answer Tennispower's original question, the answer is the great Stephanie Graf. i can live with that. and i am happy for Monica that she is still around to show us that she can still be a threat on the tour.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by selesrules
Hahaha... That's why I hate Steffi and Steffi fans. Because they are cold and unhuman. Who cares about everything else as long as they get things their way. Pathetic.

:rolleyes: *takes a note as one of the most ridiculous posts on this board*

Just face the fact that Steffi won 22 GS-titles and Seles didn't!!!!!
Seles got stabbed, true. It changed tennishistory, true. But that doesn't mean Steffi didn't earn those titles!!!!!!!!
Always the 'if this, if that...' face it!!!!!! If Ayrton Senna wouldn't have crashed he might have majour records...

That's the way things go in life.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:25 PM
The original question was "Who (in the open era) has a game that's closest to a game that suits all courts?"

There are only two possible answers-Margaret Court and Steffi Graf. Both won huge on all surfaces. All the others mentioned(Navratilova, Evert, Seles) didn't.

Helen's defense of Chris is interesting, but lets point out a few things.

1. 10 of Evert's 18 slams were won on clay.
2. You can't assume Evert would have won every grass court final without Martina around. Grass was always Evert's weakest surface. Yes, she usually made the semis or finals, but once there she was vulnerable to the likes of Wade, Goolagong, Mandlikova, and Jordan-all of whom she lost to on grass in slams. Without Martina other women would have developed confidence from making more finals and challenged Chris.

3. Take the other side of the coin, an it can be argued that Evert had some luck in capturing her grass slams. In winning her first Wimbledon she won without facing King or Goolagong, she had never beaten both on grass. King sat out in 76, and Goolagong didn't defend in 1981 when Evert won again.

Ditto for those who say Martina would have won all the French finals she lost if Evert wasn't there. Martina was always weaker on clay-her record bears this out.

Now to Graf-Seles.

The core argument of Monica fans is that Steffi's slams in her absense are worthless because Monica wasn't there. But using that logic, Seles herself has some "worthless" slams because Steffi wasn't there, these 2 being the 92 and 96 Aussie Opens.

Had Seles won slams in 1997-98 (when Graf was out with a major injury) would those be worthless too? Monica missed a golden opportunity that Hingis exploited. Seles' case would be a lot stronge if she could have (or does) win some more slams.

Finally, consider their head to head. I think it's somethinf like 10-5 in Graf's favor. Even during the year's when Monica ruled the tour(1990-93) her record vs. Graf was only 4-3.

Don't misunderstand me. Seles was a 'better' player than her 10 slams suggests, but assuming she would have caught or passed Graf's slam numbers is an overstatement.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:26 PM
Martina Hingis

:) :) :) :) :)

Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:28 PM
thanks Rollo:kiss: :kiss: this is what i meant to say...:o :o

Originally posted by Rollo
...Now to Graf-Seles.

The core argument of Monica fans is that Steffi's slams in her absense are worthless because Monica wasn't there. But using that logic, Seles herself has some "worthless" slams because Steffi wasn't there, these 2 being the 92 and 96 Aussie Opens.

Had Seles won slams in 1997-98 (when Graf was out with a major injury) would those be worthless too? Monica missed a golden opportunity that Hingis exploited. Seles' case would be a lot stronge if she could have (or does) win some more slams.

Finally, consider their head to head. I think it's somethinf like 10-5 in Graf's favor. Even during the year's when Monica ruled the tour(1990-93) her record vs. Graf was only 4-3.

Don't misunderstand me. Seles was a 'better' player than her 10 slams suggests, but assuming she would have caught or passed Graf's slam numbers is an overstatement.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:34 PM
I am her evil twinsister :p;)

Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:50 PM
Are you the same people claiming Jenn GS titles are tainted cause she didn't beat Venus or Serena to get any of them? Cause this is just as ridiculous. You win what you win.

Would Nancy Kerrigan have won the Gold Medal if she hadn't been whacked on the knee? WE DON'T KNOW. Would Eddie Merkx have won his sixth Tour de France if that maniac Frenchman hadn't attacked him during the race? WE DON'T KNOW.

Monica will go down as an alltime great who's career was limited by physical trauma. Just like Tracy Austin and Maureen Connolly. Well, not 'just like'. Their physical traumas only cost them their careers.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 08:58 PM
Tracy Austin. How many of you even SAW Tracy Austin? Only 2 GS titles. Injuries wrecked her body. But at sixteen, she beat Martina Navratilova and Chris Evert In succession to win the 1979 USOpen. Navratilova and Evert both already being multi-GS winners, and both at their peak.

If you're gonna 'what if', THAT'S the greatest player in history. Who else could hand it to both Chris and Martina? Assuming of course, that winning has nothing to do with sports.

Jul 22nd, 2002, 11:02 PM
If ever you need to know a truly authoritative and reasonable answer, scroll down and see if Rollo has posted first..;)

Jul 22nd, 2002, 11:51 PM
This thread seems to have digressed from the original topic slightly.

I pick the ladies who have made it to all 4 GS finals:


Lindsay came close-ish (1 SF at RG), and I think Venus and Serena will also fall into this category sooner rather than later. Jen too.

Another way to boil it down is to see who has won career titles on ALL surfaces. That will show whose game is most suited for all the courts.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 12:08 AM
I think Hingis has an every surface game its just she get overpowered these days if she'd played in another generation she would be domminant!

On the Seles thing i think theres no question that Monica's grandslam tally would be much greater in fact i think she would have taken Connallys record.I do think though that Steffi would still have won many grandslams from 1993 onwards but would she have won 22 in total? Another 11 i don't think so maybe 4?

But at the end of the day Steffi has won 22 and Monica has won 9 as unfortunate as it is and as annoyed as i am as a monica fan thats what happened.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 12:36 AM
i don't think the question implied the answers we are giving.
the point is not whether a game is "more winning" on all surfaces, but whether it "suits" them.
Winning or not that it might be.
Under thsi respect, i think it's a matter of style and materials.
It's absurd, for ex., to say Navratilova's game didn't suit all courts because Evert was superior on clay.
Her game was the best on all courts, but power was starting to make its way.
On the other hand, it's absurd to say that Serena is today's candidate.
Her game does suit all courts because of power, not because of style.
If we talk about a "style" which suits all courts, well, serve and volley surely is.
So we'll have to go with Navratilova and/or Lenglen.
If we deal with the "most efficient" style for all courts, well, that's sure a strong baseline power play (a la Borg, Graf, Serena)

Jul 23rd, 2002, 12:48 AM
As for the "secondary" thread, we all have debated a lot about that.
Very sad how Steffi status is always "asterisked" with Monica stabbing, never with her 43 injuries, her three years of total absence from courts and her serious family problems.
Very nice, though, to see that some posters, not usually pointed at as Graffans are starting to see things from the right distance.
Rollo, Ryan15, Joseosu19 and Volcana, namely.
And to see that the "purpose" of the crime has nothing to do with the discussion of its consequences.
Any whatif is debatable.
Or none.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 01:11 AM
Martina Hingis

Granted she isn't the serve and volleyer Navratilova was, or the power baseliner like Graf was, IMO she was better at the net than Graf and more comfortable at the baseline than Martina probably was.

1. Hingis
2. Navratilova
3. Graf

Even though the majority think Martina's game wasn't tailor made for clay, I think it's more special that she was able to win 2 slams at Roland Garros than say 6-8 if her game was made for the surface. Her ability to do well on a surface which isn't considered your best is very rewarding.

Graf-Seles: Besides the whole Slam total, there is no proof either that Graf would have played till '99 had Seles not been stabbed. Nor is there proof Seles would still be playing today had she not been stabbed. And the slam total doesn't just touch Graf. It touches Aranxta, Conchita, Pierce, Martina H. Add in the #1 ranking, too.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by irma
I am her evil twinsister :p;)

If you are a Selestial then you must be her good twin sister them :p ;) :p :eek: :kiss: :p ;)

Jul 23rd, 2002, 03:42 AM
Looking strictly at their games, from the players I've seen, both Martinas look to be the best all-court players, not to mention the most imaginative and creative. Their repertoire of shots is the most complete.

Looking strictly at a statistical standpoint, it's hard to argue against Court and Graf. Both have won too much on all surfaces to be ignored.

And one more comment:

Seles was a 'better' player than her 10 slams suggests, but assuming she would have caught or passed Graf's slam numbers is an overstatement.

Likewise, assuming that Graf would have surpassed Navratilova's or Evert's 18 Slams total even if Seles had not been stabbed is also an overstatement.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 04:50 AM
Don't misunderstand me. Seles was a 'better' player than her 10 slams suggests, but assuming she would have caught or passed Graf's slam numbers is an overstatement.

When Seles was stabbed she had 8 slams. Graf had 11. With the way Seles was winning back then I wouldn't consider it an overstatement by an means.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 05:55 AM
Same old argument! We have done it soo many times... but we'll never know what would've happened if Monica hadn't been stabbed. Monica's record in 91-93 was superb, she was clearly dominating the tour. And I'm sure she would've won more majors, but you can't say that she was dominating Steffi. 4-3 from 90-93. Steffi was struggling more with Gaby than Monica. (Steffi was 3-2 against Monica from 91-93). Also, Monica has never beaten Steffi on a fast surface. All her wins over Steffi came on clay and Rebound Ace. And u can't say Steffi didn't deserve the 96 FO or the 99 FO!

Jul 23rd, 2002, 05:55 AM

Jul 23rd, 2002, 06:24 AM
Great posts by Selesrules!!!!!

Jul 23rd, 2002, 07:07 AM
Is Martina's game so suited for grass? except for 97 she never really did well!(in comparing with her results in the other grand slams)

Williams Rulez
Jul 23rd, 2002, 09:59 AM
Interesting opinions... I'm not giving mine... I don't want to defend it... ;)

Jul 23rd, 2002, 10:27 AM
Philbo, great post!
urm......could you give marks also to "other's" posts or you'd just stick to Selesrules?

Jul 23rd, 2002, 10:41 AM
......and, seriously.
I agree with you this time, Zummi.
Conjecturing what have happened had Seles not been stabbed provokes overtstatement, right.
Both saying Monica would have won more, and Graf would have won the same.
But isn't so an "understatement" to say Graf would have won less?
And isn't an "understatement" Graf would have won the same had she played 15 years injury-free?

Graf has NEVER succumbed to Seles, even in 90 91, let alone she was even far superior on grass.
(i know people who just read figures cannot know this, but people who were around know better)
Seles has never won Wimbledon, stabbing or not.
Seles has a clearly "worse" surface, which Graf has not.
The thesis according to which Seles would have attained a much better place in history and Graf a minor one because of the attempt are, to me, superficial and groundless.
Graf is the greatest ever because she won on allcourts, because she won almost 1/2 of the slams she entered, reaching the finals in 2/3.
Thsi also before the stabbing.
Because she did a Grand Slam (Golden, really) in the Open Era beating Evert (though declining) and Navratilova (still at her top on grass at least)
Thsi happened before the stabbing.
After the stabbing she had a year (94) which her enemies could have never have dreamed of had Seles been around.
And even all her injuries.....
Ok, i'm conjecturing myself, here!

Jul 23rd, 2002, 01:23 PM
Rollo You suggest that Chris Evert had a slew of great grass court players in her day, King, Goolagong, Navratilova and was lucky to win a few of her Grand Slams; however, I say the same about Steffi Graf. What great player did she play after Seles left the game? ( please don't say Sanchez and Sabatini) and Navratilova had to contend with THE greatest clay court player of ALL time Chris Evert. and Steffi had to contend with ?

Jul 23rd, 2002, 01:39 PM
Seles and Arantxa were Steffi's main competitors.

1) All 3 of these women went to No. 1 in that era, regardless of injuries and circumstances, these three rose to the top.

2) Arantxa was definitely Steffi's greatest nemesis after Seles was stabbed. people underestimate Arantxa's achievements and just look at the H2H against Steffi. Look at how tight some of those matches were. Arantxa was in a different league to Sabatini.

3) Steffi still had to WORK for her 22 Slams. I believe Seles would have won many more, but it is too difficult to predict how many, which ones, etc.

And if Arantxa was a 'nobody' then why has she defeated both Graf and Seles to take 2 of her 4 Slams?

Circumstances have created havoc for many players esp Seles. I'm not taking away anything from her, but Graf still had to work for her Slams. It takes 7 matches to win one. And please give credit to Arantxa.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 02:15 PM
Thanks JonBcn and tennischick. You're checks are in the mail;)


I wasn't saying Evert was luckier than other Wimbledon winners. What I was saying is she had "some luck". ALL CHAMPIONS DO. Name me a grand slam champ, and I can build a case that she had at least some luck on her side.

That includes Steffi Graf, of course;) Besides the
stabbing, Steffi had favorable conditions in a number of areas.

Off the top of my head.

1. She came along at a time when Evert and Navratilova were both over 30 and past their peak.
This conincided with injuries to Mandlikova and was before dynamo Seles came along. Steffi stepped into the "gap" in 1988-9.
2. The Aussie switch from grass to hard court. Had the Aussie remained on grass Martina may have stopped a Graf slam in 1988.
3. Steffi benefitted from a spectacular choke from Jana at Wimbledon in 93 and barely survived Mary Joe at the French. Had she lost either match Steffi may not have regained her #1 position.

Sure she had luck. So did Evert-and Navratilova, and Hingis, the Williams sisters-all of them. They also earned what they got:)

It's just that their fans usually won't admit their fave had some luck but will be the first to jump at others.

Sam L
Jul 23rd, 2002, 02:17 PM
I'd say Graf, Hingis, Serena and Venus

Jul 23rd, 2002, 03:14 PM

Jul 23rd, 2002, 03:32 PM
you have to take the opportunities you get and that's the difference between the number 1 players and multiply grand slam winners and the rest!

fan of Jana
Jul 23rd, 2002, 04:08 PM
I think that Hana Mandlikova definitely deserves to be on the list :

She has reached at least one final on every Grand Slam, Winning Oz twice on grass, FO won in 81, US Open won in 85 (+ final in 80 and 82), twice finalist in Wimbledon (81 and 86), plus numerous victories in Indoor tournaments: She was really an All-Court-Competitor.

Jul 23rd, 2002, 06:54 PM
To answer the original question, I say Steffi Graf. I don't think Monica's game is suited for grass (and nor is Evert's), and Navratilova's game is not that suited for clay. I can't comment on Court becuase I have never seen her play.

About the Graf/Seles issue, I believe that, considering how things were going, Seles would have surpased Graf in Slams. But we will never know. She could have won Wimbledon in '93 and decide to retire. Also, had Graf lost to Sabatini in WB'91, she might have retired too. And Gaby could have been a different player. If Hingis had been stabbed in Hamburg'99, we would all be talking about the slams she would have won if she hadn't been stabbed...It's worthless to go on.

Re: the secondary question, I think Seles game is easier to teach than Steffi's. Most girls are not strong enough to use a one-handed backhand when they start. Also, Steffi's game relies 'more' on tactics and placement than Seles's, and this is also difficult to teach.

Jul 24th, 2002, 01:44 AM
way - Nope, Selesrules posts sum up my feelings exactly...

Way - has anyone ever told you that your posts waffle on and are extremely uninteresting?? Honestly mate, I start reading your posts, and the grammar and the flow of it is non-existent...Just a tip m8, maybe one day if you improve your writing style I will make it to the end of one of your posts...(no disrespect intended :))

Jul 24th, 2002, 02:01 AM
Martina Hingis.
She plays in hard,well,just look at the grand slam she's son,the tournaments she's wonchase championships ,etc.....
She won Wimbledon beating Novotna in that final,she has won the other tournament apart from wimbledon she's played in grass...
And clay,well,she has always reach at least semis in roland garros since 1997,she has reached the final twice,and she nearly won it in 1999,and she has won in rome,hamburg,berlin,hilton head,all the good clay tournaments...so there's no doubt about that.

And i know Steffi,Navratilova won many grand slams in every tournament,but don't mix things,when they played there wasn't the level that there is today so the changes of surface weren't important.

There's no doubt,Martina Hingis is the best example of best all surface player

Jul 24th, 2002, 02:33 AM
Anyone that says Hingis is DELUSIONAL!!

I'd even have to say Graf over Hingis, nominating Hingis over Graf or Nav is just laughable...

Jul 24th, 2002, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Czechfan
Anyone that says Hingis is DELUSIONAL!!

I'd even have to say Graf over Hingis, nominating Hingis over Graf or Nav is just laughable...

blah blah blah......

SELES(shot making)
GRAF(just a good player)
COURT(just a good player)
HINGIS(smart and shot making)
NAVRATILOVA(net and shot making)
S. WILLIAMS(speed and power)

Jul 24th, 2002, 05:00 AM
GRAF(just a good player)
COURT(just a good player)

LMAO :rolleyes:

Jul 24th, 2002, 08:13 AM
I can't believe I missed this thread!:( Helen Lawson, I love you and your posts. Of course it's Chris. Her consistency on all surfaces is second to none.........................

Williams Rulez
Jul 24th, 2002, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Czechfan
Anyone that says Hingis is DELUSIONAL!!

I'd even have to say Graf over Hingis, nominating Hingis over Graf or Nav is just laughable... And over Chris too...

Jul 24th, 2002, 12:25 PM
Always insulting, never debating, ah, Philbo?
Not a ghost of an answer, a bunch of names, ah?

Admit, Philbo, my post just irk you, it's nothing like you reading them or not, c'mon!

You read the whole of them, beginning to end, shall i quote "historical" examples?

And.....erm....no, nobody ever told me anything bad about my grammar (anf my fluency, namely)
I happen to teach English as a job, and, you know, i could surely do better, nobody is perfect, but, all and all, at the end of the day......

can i give a tip to you too, mate?

(mate with a 8 is really funny in a post accusing someone of bad writing):)

say WHY you think graf and navra under Hingis is laughable, don't just "state" it is.
1. you won't convince anyone (if you just state)
2. you disrepect posters (fleeing from debate)
3. you don't satisfy yourself (you know better you're just convincing yourself and no one else, as soon as you don't argument)

Got to the end of the post?

Sorry to the others for this digression

Jul 24th, 2002, 02:55 PM
Martina Hingis!!!
im not gonna get in to the details and i KNOW that she isn't the BEST grasscourter(that honour lies with Navratilova or maybe Graf) but OVERALL i think her game is adaptable to all surfaces the most . I think for Martina Hingis the transition amongst courts is the EASIEST...i dont think shes the greatest ever all-courter but that her game, which is inferior to other certain players IMHO is the most adaptable..

ofcourse her court adaptability has no bearing on her results when she is mentally weaker, dimunitive and hence weaker physically than the willis etc...

Jul 25th, 2002, 12:40 AM
Way - Sorry m8, what did u say, I never got to the end of that one either...

Do you mind summing it up for me in one or two sentences...I know that would be impossible for you, but give it a go...

More info about your real life?? havent I told you that I dont care what you do for a living, along with who your wife likes etc etc...irrelevant!!

Jul 25th, 2002, 06:05 AM
Steffi !

Jul 25th, 2002, 10:18 AM
two sentences, philbo? easy!

1. I am here to discuss tennis issues
2. you are here to give vent to your frustrations through insults

I apologize again to the others for this immature argument i'm having
My opinion on the topic remains in the first of my posts in here
I'm looking forward to get back to it with anyone, Philbo included, obviously.
oops, i forgot he hasnt read this far.......

Jul 25th, 2002, 10:23 AM
i'm sorry, looking forward has a gerund.
So, it's "looking forward to GETTING (not get) back to it."