PDA

View Full Version : 6 Majors In A Row...


alfajeffster
Jan 10th, 2005, 04:04 PM
We've been having this discussion in another thread, and I thought I'd give it its very own space and leave it out for everyone to discuss with your thoughts and reasoning. Both Margaret Court and Martina Navratilova won 6 consecutive majors during periods of dominance in their respective singles careers. Looking at the below results, which do you feel is more impressive, and why?

Margaret Court's 6 Majors Streak:
1969 U.S. Open (grass, def. Nancy Richey)
d. Wade 7-5 6-0
d. Krantzcke 6-0 9-7
d. Burrer 6-0 6-2
d. Grubb 6-1 6-0
d. Suzanna Petersen (Brz) 6-1 6-0

1970 Australian Open (grass, def. [2]Kerry Melville)
d. Krantzcke[4] 6-1 6-3
d. Goolagong 6-3 6-1
d. Wilkerson 6-0 6-1
d. Caroline Langsford 6-0 6-0
Bye

1970 French Open (clay, def. Helga Masthoff Niessen)
d. Heldman [4] 6-0 6-2
d. Casals [8] 7-5 6-2
d. Hunt 6-2 6-1
d. Morozova 3-6 8-6 6-1
d. Marijke Schaar (Neth) 6-1 6-1

1970 Wimbledon (grass, def. Billie Jean King)
d. Casals [5] 6-4 6-1
d. Krantzcke [7] 3-6 6-3 6-2
d. Vopickova 6-3 6-3
d. Guzman 6-0 6-1

1970 U.S. Open (grass, def. Rosie Casals)
d. Wade(5) 6-2 6-7 6-2
d. Gourlay 6-2 6-2
d. Faulkner 6-0 6-2
d. Hogan 6-1 6-1
d. Pam Austin 6-1 6-0

1971 Australian Open (grass, def. Evonne Goolagong)
d. Hunt 6-0 6-3
d. Gourlay [8] 6-0 6-4
d. Coleman 6-1 6-1
Bye

Martina Navratilova's 6 Majors Streak:
1983 Wimbledon (grass, def. Andrea Jeager)
d. Vermaak (6-1,6-1)
d. Mundel (6-3,6-1)
d. Kohde-Kilsch (6-1,6-2)
d. Jausovec (6-2,6-1)
d. Acker (7-6,6-3)
bye

1983 U.S. Open (hardcourt, def. Chris Evert)
d. Shriver (6-2,6-1)
d. Hanika (6-0,6-3)
d. Vasquez (6-0,6-1)
d. Gompert (6-2,6-2)
d. Allen (6-2,6-1)
d. Rapponi-Longo (6-1,6-0)

1983 Australian Open (grass, def. Kathy Jordan)
d. Shriver (6-4,6-3)
d. Fairbank (6-2,6-2)
d. Smylie (6-1,6-0)
d. Ludloff (6-0,7-5)

1984 French Open (clay, def. Chris Evert)
d. Mandlikova (3-6,6-2,6-2)
d. Horvath (6-4,6-2)
d. Kohde-Kilsch (6-0,6-1)
d. Calleja (6-1,6-3)
d. Mesker (6-1,6-1)
d. Tauziat (6-1,6-1)

1984 Wimbledon (grass, def. Chris Evert)
d. Jordan (6-3,6-4)
d. M. Maleeva (6-3,6-2)
d. Sayers (6-0, retired)
d. Budarova (6-2,6-2)
d. Holton (6-2,7-5)

1984 U.S. Open (hardcourt, def. Chris Evert)
d. Turnbull (6-4,6-1)
d. Sukova (6-3,6-3)
d. Potter (6-4,6-4)
d. Mundel (6-0,6-0)
d. Leand (6-4,6-2)
d. Antonopolis (6-4,6-2)

DA FOREHAND
Jan 10th, 2005, 05:07 PM
Navratilova's done on multiple surfaces not just grass, which favors both of thier games.

alfajeffster
Jan 11th, 2005, 12:57 PM
bump-d-bump, bump, bump

Chunchun
Jan 11th, 2005, 01:04 PM
you mean LenaD in 05 - 06 ? :p

alfajeffster
Jan 11th, 2005, 01:32 PM
you mean LenaD in 05 - 06 ? :p
Do you think her serve is going to be that much better this year?

hingis-seles
Jan 11th, 2005, 02:06 PM
I find Navratilova's to be more impressive of the two. 5 out of 6 of Court's majors came on grass and in the only non-grass major, she nearly lost to Morozova. Besides, Martina had to beat Chrissy in 4 of her 6 majors finals.

Oizo
Jan 11th, 2005, 02:14 PM
Steffi winning 8 out of 9 consecutive slams (starting with Aus Open 1988 and ending with Australian Open 1990) is by far the most impressive of any other player. :worship:

alfajeffster
Jan 11th, 2005, 02:20 PM
I find Navratilova's to be more impressive of the two. 5 out of 6 of Court's majors came on grass and in the only non-grass major, she nearly lost to Morozova. Besides, Martina had to beat Chrissy in 4 of her 6 majors finals.
Olga Morozova was not only a talented player, she was at times a GREAT player with an attacking game. She made it to the French and Wimbledon finals in 1974 (lost both to Evert) by beating some high-quality opposition along the way. The discussion in the other thread also highlighted the serve-and-volley opposition comparisons between the two. Yes, 5 of Court's 6 Majors were on grass, but there were more attacking players to deal with as a result, and my suggestion was that the way to beat both Court and Navratilova was to attack the attacker. Navratilova didn't play any attacking players the caliber of Billie Jean King or Evonne Goolagong during her run, and had been studying and preparing for a few years how to dismantle Evert before she went on her streak. Still think it's more impressive?

alfajeffster
Jan 12th, 2005, 05:13 PM
d-bump, bump, bump

Evelyn Tremble
Jan 12th, 2005, 05:25 PM
Personally - I feel it was have taken you to have been lucky enough to have witnessed both ladies play, to make any sweeping statement.
Unfortunately, I never seen Margaret Court play.

G1Player2
Jan 12th, 2005, 05:36 PM
Serena Williams was impressive as well winning 5 of 6 slams and possibly would have been more if it wasn't for that injury right before the US Open in 2003...

alfajeffster
Jan 12th, 2005, 06:26 PM
Steffi winning 8 out of 9 consecutive slams (starting with Aus Open 1988 and ending with Australian Open 1990) is by far the most impressive of any other player. :worship:
Margaret Court won 8 of 9 consecutive majors from 1969-1971. The only match she lost was a tough three set semi-final to eventual champion Ann Haydon Jones at 1969 Wimbledon.

spike83
Jan 12th, 2005, 08:50 PM
Do you think her serve is going to be that much better this year?
I've seen it: YES! :worship:

FrauleinSteffi
Jan 12th, 2005, 08:56 PM
I think Steffi winning each Slam 4 times each(no other man or woman has done that ever!) Is the most impressive achievement but of course Court & Evert & Martina N among others..Seles & Serena & Hingis & King..etc are all great all time champs:)

Calimero377
Jan 12th, 2005, 09:24 PM
Margaret Court won 8 of 9 consecutive majors from 1969-1971. The only match she lost was a tough three set semi-final to eventual champion Ann Haydon Jones at 1969 Wimbledon.


Then Court is second best in this department. Graf won 8 of 9 consecutive slams from 1988-90 and the only match she lost was a tough three set FINAL to ASV at FO 89.
:p

Just imagine - she even served for the match. But thank God she didn't hold serve.
Because then we would not have had all those nice greatest-ever discussions ....

Calimero377
Jan 12th, 2005, 09:28 PM
I think Steffi winning each Slam 4 times each(no other man or woman has done that ever!) Is the most impressive achievement but of course Court & Evert & Martina N among others..Seles & Serena & Hingis & King..etc are all great all time champs:)


Just to think about it - Graf was clearly the best player in 95/96 but missed the AO in both years due to injury. Had she been able to participate and win one of those AOs Graf would have

- 23 slams,
- 2 Grand Slams and
- won every slam at least 5 times ....


Woulda-coulda, I know - but why aren't Graf fans allowed to play this game from time to time too?

Evelyn Tremble
Jan 12th, 2005, 09:36 PM
Just to think about it - Graf was clearly the best player in 95/96 but missed the AO in both years due to injury. Had she been able to participate and win one of those AOs Graf would have

- 23 slams,
- 2 Grand Slams and
- won every slam at least 5 times ....


Woulda-coulda, I know - but why aren't Graf fans allowed to play this game from time to time too?

Graf would never have beaten Mary in 95. But you can have 96. ;)

Philbo
Jan 12th, 2005, 09:59 PM
Olga Morozova was not only a talented player, she was at times a GREAT player with an attacking game. She made it to the French and Wimbledon finals in 1974 (lost both to Evert) by beating some high-quality opposition along the way. The discussion in the other thread also highlighted the serve-and-volley opposition comparisons between the two. Yes, 5 of Court's 6 Majors were on grass, but there were more attacking players to deal with as a result, and my suggestion was that the way to beat both Court and Navratilova was to attack the attacker. Navratilova didn't play any attacking players the caliber of Billie Jean King or Evonne Goolagong during her run, and had been studying and preparing for a few years how to dismantle Evert before she went on her streak. Still think it's more impressive?
I absolutely think Martina's is more impressive.

YOu are yet to prove that playing attacking players is more difficult for Martina than playing Chris Evert- one of the Top 5 players of all time. Your whole argument is based on a point that is totally subjective - that Martina or Marg struggled more against attacking players.

The only opponent I would rate as being as difficult as Chris Evert is BJK. The Goolagong that Court beat during that run was still very young and was a total head case against her mentor Court - losing the first 12 times they played! So putting her down as a tougher opponent that Chris Evert just doesnt sit with me.

I know you want to educate the posters about Courts greatness and I respect that. But the fact is that if Martina had played 5 of her 6 on grass it would have advantaged her more. The US Open surface is NOT like grass and that evened it up moreso for Chris.

Court won 2 Aussie Opens in her run, Martina won 2 Wimbledons - back then Wimbledon was a MUCH more important tournament than in the early 70's.

Also Court won 5 matches to win the 1970 Aus Open and 4 matches to win the 71 Aus Open - Martina also won more matches during her 6 slams.

There's overwhelming evidence Jeff. You'll just have to admit defeat on this one..

Calimero377
Jan 12th, 2005, 10:55 PM
Graf would never have beaten Mary in 95. But you can have 96. ;)


Graf (GER) - Pierce (FRA) 6-2, 6-2 (Paris [France], final, February 19th, 1995).


Slam, bam, thank you, Ma'm ...

:kiss:

Calimero377
Jan 12th, 2005, 10:56 PM
I absolutely think Martina's is more impressive.

YOu are yet to prove that playing attacking players is more difficult for Martina than playing Chris Evert- one of the Top 5 players of all time. Your whole argument is based on a point that is totally subjective - that Martina or Marg struggled more against attacking players.

The only opponent I would rate as being as difficult as Chris Evert is BJK. The Goolagong that Court beat during that run was still very young and was a total head case against her mentor Court - losing the first 12 times they played! So putting her down as a tougher opponent that Chris Evert just doesnt sit with me.

I know you want to educate the posters about Courts greatness and I respect that. But the fact is that if Martina had played 5 of her 6 on grass it would have advantaged her more. The US Open surface is NOT like grass and that evened it up moreso for Chris.

Court won 2 Aussie Opens in her run, Martina won 2 Wimbledons - back then Wimbledon was a MUCH more important tournament than in the early 70's.

Also Court won 5 matches to win the 1970 Aus Open and 4 matches to win the 71 Aus Open - Martina also won more matches during her 6 slams.

There's overwhelming evidence Jeff. You'll just have to admit defeat on this one..


Retarded ....
:eek:

Marcus1979
Jan 12th, 2005, 11:49 PM
I think its basically impossible to compare players of different eras to one another.

Comparing Serena in her prime to Navratilova in her prime

Comparing Navratilova in her prime to Court in her prime

etc etc.

Its just impossible to say who was better.

R&J
Jan 12th, 2005, 11:49 PM
Like I said before, Calimero377 just cant stand when people dont think Graf is absolutely the best in everything! It's weird how this guy is so hung up on Steffi, its almost too much. As if it hurts him to have others with different opinions.

Calimero377
Jan 12th, 2005, 11:54 PM
Like I said before, Calimero377 just cant stand when people dont think Graf is absolutely the best in everything! It's weird how this guy is so hung up on Steffi, its almost too much. As if it hurts him to have others with different opinions.


What would I do if everybody thought that Graf is absolutely the best in everything?

I love it when others have different opinions in tennis-related themes. It gives me this comfortable feeling of infinite superiority ...

Philbo
Jan 12th, 2005, 11:58 PM
Retarded ....
:eek:
Why bring up your fat ass mother in this thread?:confused:

LeRoy.
Jan 12th, 2005, 11:58 PM
I love it when others have different opinions in tennis-related themes. It gives me this comfortable feeling of infinite superiority ...
:sad: That you need to rely on what someone else achieved to feel superior over anyone says a lot about you:o . I pity you. I pray for you. :angel:

Marcus1979
Jan 12th, 2005, 11:59 PM
What would I do if everybody thought that Graf is absolutely the best in everything?

I love it when others have different opinions in tennis-related themes. It gives me this comfortable feeling of infinite superiority ...

He is a devoted fan

We always try to say our favs are the best in everything

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Philbo
Jan 13th, 2005, 12:02 AM
BTW - Thanks to all the people good repping me over my signature!! lol

mboyle
Jan 13th, 2005, 12:43 AM
Like I said before, Calimero377 just cant stand when people dont think Graf is absolutely the best in everything! It's weird how this guy is so hung up on Steffi, its almost too much. As if it hurts him to have others with different opinions.
His name is Gunther Parche.

G1Player2
Jan 13th, 2005, 12:46 AM
Steffi Graf/Gunther Parche is one of the best players of all time...

alfajeffster
Jan 13th, 2005, 12:49 PM
Just to think about it - Graf was clearly the best player in 95/96 but missed the AO in both years due to injury. Had she been able to participate and win one of those AOs Graf would have

- 23 slams,
- 2 Grand Slams and
- won every slam at least 5 times ....


Woulda-coulda, I know - but why aren't Graf fans allowed to play this game from time to time too?
Margaret Smith (Court) was 1 match away from the Grand Slam in 1965, when she lost a close 3-set French final to Lesley Turner (a 2-time French Champion by the way). She also won 3 out of the 4 Majors in 1962 and 1973, in addition to 1969, so arguably, there are 4 OTHER YEARS where she was very close to completing the Grand Slam, aside from the 1970 year when she did accomplish the feat. "Woulda-coulda", "centre court nerves", "she doesn't have good hands", "she played when nobody else played", BULLSHIT! She set the benchmark that is still the record, and very nearly "could have" won 5 Grand Slams!

alfajeffster
Jan 13th, 2005, 01:10 PM
...You are yet to prove that playing attacking players is more difficult for Martina than playing Chris Evert- one of the Top 5 players of all time. Your whole argument is based on a point that is totally subjective - that Martina or Marg struggled more against attacking players...My whole argument (which has been lost on AndyT and other dyed-in-the-wool over the eyes, card-carrying Navratilova fans I'm afraid) is to present the achievement of Margaret Court 1969-1971 as just as impressive, if not even more impressive than Navratilova's run of majors 1983-1984. It is common knowledge that Martina Navratilova not only hired a brain trust of sorts to systematically dismantle the Chris Evert game in the early 80s, when Navratilova and Evert parted ways and Martina hooked up with Julie Anthony/Nancy Lieberman et. al., and developed her entire game plan around ascending the throne Evert had held so long. It worked, like no other assault on a rival had before (or since), as evidenced by her record against Evert during the 83-84 time frame. During that same time frame, it is interesting to note the attacking players she did lose to- the highest quality being Hana Mandlikova and Helena Sukova- hardly Billie Jean King quality, which is not to disrespect Hana or Helena. One need only look at the 1988 and specifically the 1989 Wimbledon finals (not to mention the third set of the USO final 1989) to see how Graf attacking and forcing Martina to hit passing shots was more successful than anything Evert could come up with during Martina's "glory" years. And Chris Evert had better passing shots than Steffi Graf.

That aside, I have nothing but respect for the greatness of Chris Evert. One of the players she had the most difficulty with was one Nancy Richey, who not only played a similar baseline accuracy driving game, but whom Margaret Court played several times, and nearly always defeated throughout their respective careers, and Margaret didn't have a team surrounding her to help her out.

My purpose (and argument) isn't to denegrate or diminish the greatness of what Martina Navratilova accomplished. My purpose is to highlight what has been grossly ignored and pushed aside for so many years- the greatness of Margaret Court. I have no doubt in my mind that, given the same mid-size graphite composite racquets and training, she could have played in any era, and conquered- she was that good, and that overpowering. Billie Jean King knew how to beat Margaret Court, but I think if anyone was ever able to corner Billie Jean and force her to honestly answer the following question, there would be hell to pay for even asking it:

"If you and Margaret Court were to play a match when both of you were in your prime playing condition, both physically fit, and playing at the top of your games, who would win?"

I have no doubt she would say she would, however, I would submit that (like McEnroe and a few other brash, loudmouthed Irish Americans) you'll never hear any quarter given to the abilities of the opponent leading up to, or even after a boxing match has been lost. In stark contrast, we have the following quote from Martina Navratilova:

"Billie Jean King knew exactly what to do to pick my game apart, and she did it."

I wonder if Julie Anthony and Nancy Lieberman (or the computer for that matter) cringed when they heard this.

Andy T
Jan 13th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Andy T has no desire whatsoever to compare these two accomplishments and considers them both to be very impressive on their own terms.

Andy T has NOT tried to argue that Navratilova's run of 6 is more impressive than Court's run of 6 but insisted time and time again that these two runs cannot be compared in the way alfajeffster wishes to compare them. Andy T thinks the assumptions alfajeffster makes in his "reasoning" are bollocks.

Andy T has been a long-time admirer of Margaret Court as a tennis player and has pointed out her phenomenal achievements many a time on these threads in response to those who belittle what she did.

alfajeffster
Jan 13th, 2005, 03:29 PM
Andy T has no desire whatsoever to compare these two accomplishments and considers them both to be very impressive on their own terms.

Andy T has NOT tried to argue that Navratilova's run of 6 is more impressive than Court's run of 6 but insisted time and time again that these two runs cannot be compared in the way alfajeffster wishes to compare them. Andy T thinks the assumptions alfajeffster makes in his "reasoning" are bollocks.

Andy T has been a long-time admirer of Margaret Court as a tennis player and has pointed out her phenomenal achievements many a time on these threads in response to those who belittle what she did.
Epitaph: I wish your romantic heart nothing less than the fresh breath of a balanced peace.

Love Always, Jeffster

raquel
Jan 13th, 2005, 06:51 PM
Yes, 5 of Court's 6 Majors were on grass, but there were more attacking players to deal with as a result, and my suggestion was that the way to beat both Court and Navratilova was to attack the attacker. Navratilova didn't play any attacking players the caliber of Billie Jean King or Evonne Goolagong during her run, and had been studying and preparing for a few years how to dismantle Evert before she went on her streak. Still think it's more impressive?
Alfa, you know a lot more about this than me for a start, but from the head to heads players like Chris and Tracy beat Martina often enough without exactly being great attackers. In Court's time the serve/volley style was played by most players, so when Margaret came to the net she faced passing shots of players who were more comfortable at the net. Martina's era featured more baseliners so when Martina came to the net she faced passing shots of players who were more comfortable there (I'm guessing). So then you are left with questions like 'Was BJK a better net player than Chris Evert was a baseliner?' which is hard to answer, so I don't know who's is more impressive.

alfajeffster
Jan 13th, 2005, 07:07 PM
Alfa, you know a lot more about this than me for a start, but from the head to heads players like Chris and Tracy beat Martina often enough without exactly being great attackers. In Court's time the serve/volley style was played by most players, so when Margaret came to the net she faced passing shots of players who were more comfortable at the net. Martina's era featured more baseliners so when Martina came to the net she faced passing shots of players who were more comfortable there (I'm guessing). So then you are left with questions like 'Was BJK a better net player than Chris Evert was a baseliner?' which is hard to answer, so I don't know who's is more impressive.
That's a fair question, and a good analysis, on the surface, however, while there were many more great serve-and-volley players during Court's era, I'm not necessarily convinced that the attacking, net-rushing game was played by more people then than in Martina's day. Players like Pam Shriver, Barbara Potter, Wendy Turnbull, Hana Mandlikova, Helena Sukova, Claudia Kohde-Kilsch, Sylvia Hanika, Kathy Jordan, Jo Durie, and several others were attacking, serve-and-volley players. Yes, Martina did have Chris Evert and Tracy Austin to deal with. I've already discussed how Team Navratilova assaulted the Evert throne. By 1983, Tracy Austin, through injury, was no longer a threat to Martina, and didn't factor in her 6 Majors run at all.

Yes, it is all hypothetical, and both hypotheticals have their valid points. My point in bringing this up is entirely because the Navratilova 6 majors streak is (and has been for nearly 2 decades now) touted as the achievement by a female tennis player, especially by people in the commentary booth (like Tracy Austin, who I like very much, but unfortunately, I'm not sure she knows a great deal about the players who came before her) along with false statements touting Navratilova as the holder of the most titles in the history of women's tennis. She is not- that title still belongs to one Margaret Smith Court (who by the way defeated Chris Evert on clay at Roland Garros for the title in 1973).

Andy T
Jan 13th, 2005, 07:31 PM
Exactly racquel. The only way to develop an idea of whether the opposition faced by each player was difficult or not is not to look at the style of play on the assumption that all serve volleyers are intrinsically more difficult than all baseliners but to look at the h2h records of the various players against M&M on the surface concerned - and only up to the point in time being examined (how far backwards one should go I don't know).

For example, Andrea Jaeger beat Navratilova on grass in 1981 at Eastbourne, two years before the 83 Wimbledon final whereas Evonne Goolagong, great though she turned out to be, had never taken a set off Margaret Court at the point they met in the qf of the Australian Open in 1970. I would therefore argue that Andrea Jaeger posed a bigger threat to Martina at Wimbledon in 1983 than Evonne did to Margaret Court at the Australian Open in 1970 simply because Andrea had proven she could beat Martina on grass by doing so.

By that example I do not want to imply that I'm arguing that Martina's run is more impressive. There are examples you could find in the other direction.

Other factors, such as how many times a particular player had been in a major final at that point in their careers, would also have to be considered. Evonne was in her first major final in Oz in 1971 (and nearly won it). It was also the first time she'd gone beyond the QF in a major. Kathy Jordan, Navratilova's opponent in the 83 Oz final was also appearing in her début slam final. So were Kerry Melville (Oz 1970), Helga Niessen (RG 1970) and Rosie Casals (US70).

Even when you consider those things, among others, can you really come up with anything conclusive? Of course not!

An argument based on the naive and false premise that serve volleyers are more problematic than baseliners on grass to other serve volleyers - instead of a true starting point which would be to base one's understanding of how dangerous an opponent is by looking at the facts, i.e.the record - is not worth entertaining.

In this particular case, when you know and understand the real agenda(s) of the poster, (you only have to read the posts to see what the main one is), in spite of all his protestations to the contrary, you realise it isn't even worth entering into a "discussion" because it's all a sad attempt at a set-up.

Evelyn Tremble
Jan 13th, 2005, 08:06 PM
Graf (GER) - Pierce (FRA) 6-2, 6-2 (Paris [France], final, February 19th, 1995).


Slam, bam, thank you, Ma'm ...

:kiss:


I mean at the Australian Open - Mary was on fire, and all Steffi would had got was another hammering, reminiscent of Roland Garros 94. :kiss:

LOL I'm not a Ma'm. ;) You crazy freak! :p:)

alfajeffster
Jan 13th, 2005, 08:09 PM
:lol: Dear Rachel: I've not only made it onto the AndyT ignore list (in typical hit-and-run fashion, I might add), I am now forced to read his childish posts in response to others conversing with me in my own (and I might add separately created to avoid such neurotic conflict) thread. Rest assured that I graduated from the toddler in the sandbox mentality quite a few years ago. I have never worshipped any one player, let alone to the point of that kind of schizophrenic and elementary fanatacism for a tennis player. I have an open mind, and obviously (since I have no one on a silly little "ignore list") am capable of living in this sterile, fantasy WTAworld with anyone, regardless of their agenda. You don't have to play by my rules in order to play- feel free to play, whomever you are, and wherever you are from! I have yet to run into someone here who doesn't really like tennis.

Andy T
Jan 13th, 2005, 09:18 PM
I'd just like to make it clear that if Jeff is on my ignore list it is nothing to do with his views on tennis, a sport he loves very much, but because of the personal attacks he has been making against me and which I do not feel I should have to put up with. I wrote him a pm to explain this.

The post before this one is a prime example of the offensive abuse - "dyed-in-the-wool-over-the-eyes", "neurotic", "schizophrenic", "toddler", "childish posts", "elementary fanaticism", "hit-and-run" - I am referring to.

Having posted my opinion about the impossibility (and futility) of comparing two runs so far apart in time on another thread, I studiously avoided this one until I was alerted that he had cited and abused me in it and that was when I posted my response making my point of view clear. Ironically, he doesn't seem to want me to post in what he appropriates as "my thread" yet feels perfectly at liberty to misquote and brand me in it.

Agree with me or not, I don't think anyone can say that I haven't tried to explain why I disagree with the comparison being made and why taking serve-volley opposition as the starting point is a non-starter. I haven't used the dirty word trick (à la George Bush and "liberal") to label him so as to divert attention form the argument and I have focussed on the argument, treating the human being who lies behind the poster with respect and not resorting to abusive retaliation.

Jeff, if you write a post along the lines of the one above, I will report you for insulting behaviour and leave it to the moderators to decide.

Calimero377
Jan 13th, 2005, 10:12 PM
...
Jeff, if you write a post along the lines of the one above, I will report you for insulting behaviour and leave it to the moderators to decide.


It's that sort of pupils we all hated back in school .....

Calimero377
Jan 13th, 2005, 10:17 PM
I mean at the Australian Open - Mary was on fire, and all Steffi would had got was another hammering, reminiscent of Roland Garros 94. :kiss: ...

And just three weeks later - in front of her home crowd - her fire was blown out. Pierce would have faced a humiliation reminiscent of USO 93.


....

LOL I'm not a Ma'm. ;) You crazy freak! :p:)


I often call little girls "Madam" ironically ....

Philbo
Jan 13th, 2005, 10:54 PM
AndyT's point about jaeger being as tough an opponent to Martina in 1983, if not tougher, than Goolagong was to Court in 1970 is absolutely correct.

Im absolutely saying that Martina's run is more impressive.

Margaret played BJK ONCE during her 6 slam run, Martina beat Evert 4 times during that run.

Downplaying that by saying it was in the middle of Team navratilova's assault on the Evert throne doesnt hold water. Martina did everything she could to overtake Evert and become a champion - why hold that against her? Its not like she did a Tonya harding.

You've also not addressed the other key points which is - Court had more advantage with 5 of her 6 being on grass, AND she had to win less matches to win her slams than Martina - one Oz open she only had to win 4 matches.

Your argument is thin and weak Jeff and I have eivdence to back up my claim - all you have is a subjective POV that playing attacking players was harder for Martina than playing Evert.

Mandlikova caused all sorts of mental issues for Martina when they played - you cannot just put her success against Martina down to just her style of play - more to it than that.

In summation, Martina's 6 wins came on a wider variety of surfaces (that actually advantaged a baseline opponent more than an attacking opponent), Martina won wimbledon twice during her 6 slam run - Court won the AUssie Open twice.BIG DIFFERENCE in prestige value, and Martina had to beat more opponents - 6 or 7 in each win, whereas Margarent won her slams winning 4 or 5 matches sometimes.

Its a clearcut victory for Martina - and I say that standing outside the sandpit on this occasion.

Philbo
Jan 14th, 2005, 12:34 AM
One other point about why Martina's run is more impressive..

During her 6 slam run, Martina lost only 1 match to Mandlikova..

Court lost 8 matches outside the slams during her 6 slam run.

Martina's accomplishment is more talked about because her level of dominance was way above Court's during their 6 slam streak.

The evidence is damming jeff. Ive enjoyed the debate, but at some point you need to address the reasons Ive - and others have given..Clinging to your claim that because Court played more S + v players proves nothing.

Martina's accomplishment is more impressive because it came on a wider variety of surfaces (5 on grass would have helped her more!), she won more matches during the slams, she beat a fellow top 5'er of all time (Evert) in 4 of the 6 wins, She won the World championship TWICE in her reign, Court won it once, and aside from that Martina won 50 odd matches ina row during her streak and only lost once, whereas Court lost 8 times to players outside the slams.

The evidence is damming, and its FUN being outside the sandbox!

alfajeffster
Jan 14th, 2005, 01:19 PM
I'd just like to make it clear that if Jeff is on my ignore list it is nothing to do with his views on tennis, a sport he loves very much, but because of the personal attacks he has been making against me and which I do not feel I should have to put up with. I wrote him a pm to explain this.

The post before this one is a prime example of the offensive abuse - "dyed-in-the-wool-over-the-eyes", "neurotic", "schizophrenic", "toddler", "childish posts", "elementary fanaticism", "hit-and-run" - I am referring to.

Having posted my opinion about the impossibility (and futility) of comparing two runs so far apart in time on another thread, I studiously avoided this one until I was alerted that he had cited and abused me in it and that was when I posted my response making my point of view clear. Ironically, he doesn't seem to want me to post in what he appropriates as "my thread" yet feels perfectly at liberty to misquote and brand me in it.

Agree with me or not, I don't think anyone can say that I haven't tried to explain why I disagree with the comparison being made and why taking serve-volley opposition as the starting point is a non-starter. I haven't used the dirty word trick (à la George Bush and "liberal") to label him so as to divert attention form the argument and I have focussed on the argument, treating the human being who lies behind the poster with respect and not resorting to abusive retaliation.

Jeff, if you write a post along the lines of the one above, I will report you for insulting behaviour and leave it to the moderators to decide.Not being sure whether I'm on or off your ignore list at the moment (the green light of indication that a poster is present seems always to be gray for you, Dear Andy- rather convenient that when two people have equal tickets, one can never be sure if the train left the station or not), I'll respond to this post as best I can. I appreciate your kind word regarding my love of tennis, and the fact that you took the time to at least open your ignore list long enough to read my previous post. Hopefully, the window of opportunity for lines of communication will remain open long enough for both sides of an issue to be intelligently discussed outside the box. I could digress to quoting insulting words you've used in the past describing me as a "superficial bitch" followed by "I hate you", but as that post was deleted long ago (again in typical hit-and-run fashion in a Navratilova thread discussing her endorseability)- it seems that any intelligent criticism of Martina whatsoever seems to be not only anathema, but impossible for you to deal with objectively. Those tracks, and this train are absent a mutual conductor. In the other thread, we had reached a point where our conversation about the subject of this thread was moot. I believe we were at the "apples and oranges" stage of reason, and I made the effort to politely agree to disagree, and started this thread to avoid
further discussion on the subject with you. I am more than happy to continue the discussion, any time you are. Through our conversations on the subject, you are resolutely steadfast in refusing to admit that Martina Navratilova had no great serve-and-volley contemporary to challenge her during her run, and prefer to divert that valid point by bending it into whether or not Andrea Jeager and Chris Evert were worthy opponents, and have conveniently decreed and declared that one simple (and quite valid) observation as a "non-starter". I'm really not sure what fantastical agenda you seem to think I have in discussing this, and quite frankly, have given up trying to figure out what you are thinking. I am also, quite frankly, finished pussy-footing around your adoration and boderline idol worship of Martina Navratilova, and your personal perception of her life and tennis career. You will recall that I made a very good effort to make sure that you could get close to her at the French Open last year, and gladly held your hand so that you could stretch across her team of coaches to get her autograph. I guess that effort must have been the George W. Bush storming the seats of liberalism in me- don't know. I was very happy for you that day, and still am. As I've consistently stated numerous times since I've been here at WTAWorld, I don't have any idols, and I could care less if you do.

alfajeffster
Jan 14th, 2005, 01:42 PM
One other point about why Martina's run is more impressive..

During her 6 slam run, Martina lost only 1 match to Mandlikova..

Court lost 8 matches outside the slams during her 6 slam run.

Martina's accomplishment is more talked about because her level of dominance was way above Court's during their 6 slam streak.

The evidence is damming jeff. Ive enjoyed the debate, but at some point you need to address the reasons Ive - and others have given..Clinging to your claim that because Court played more S + v players proves nothing.

Martina's accomplishment is more impressive because it came on a wider variety of surfaces (5 on grass would have helped her more!), she won more matches during the slams, she beat a fellow top 5'er of all time (Evert) in 4 of the 6 wins, She won the World championship TWICE in her reign, Court won it once, and aside from that Martina won 50 odd matches ina row during her streak and only lost once, whereas Court lost 8 times to players outside the slams.

The evidence is damming, and its FUN being outside the sandbox!
You make several valid points, and again, let me preface my response by saying how much I appreciate your open mind. Regarding your points, it must also be considered:

First, Hana Mandlikova was the most talented attacking player Navratilova had to face- and I would submit that being in Martina's very large shadow was much more of a mental block for Hana than it ever was for Team Navratilova. Certainly an attacking player the likes of Billie Jean King or Virginia Wade would have not even lost that one match;

Second, I'm happy to concede the point you make that Court lost more matches outside of her 6 majors run, however, I think before we make this deduction, we have to compare the number of tournaments each played;

and Third, I admit that Wimbledon is indeed more prestigious, and therefor more difficult to win than the Australian Open- to this day. However, this also gives credence to the point I have successfully made that a serve-and-volley opponent on the level of Billie Jean King, Virginia Wade, or even Rosie Casals or Judy Tegart would have given Martina much more trouble at Wimbledon AND the Australian (where she fell, I might reiterate, to Helena Sukova's attacking game).

The wider variety of surfaces is impressive, and Martina's accomplishment is not diminished in the least in my eyes. Unless a player selectively picks and chooses their schedule at the beginning of the year in order to avoid certain surfaces and rivals, a player has to play the opponents and surfaces dealt her. Damning? I think not.

Thanks again for your open mind. I do appreciate and concede to several of your valid points of comparison. It's nice to be able to actually get past an imaginary threshhold and continue with the conversation!

LDVTennis
Jan 14th, 2005, 04:09 PM
I am also, quite frankly, finished pussy-footing around your adoration and boderline idol worship of Martina Navratilova, and your personal perception of her life and tennis career. You will recall that I made a very good effort to make sure that you could get close to her at the French Open last year, and gladly held your hand so that you could stretch across her team of coaches to get her autograph. I guess that effort must have been the George W. Bush storming the seats of liberalism in me- don't know. I was very happy for you that day, and still am. As I've consistently stated numerous times since I've been here at WTAWorld, I don't have any idols, and I could care less if you do.

So, it seems that Calimero isn't alone. I guess that just makes him the scapegoat for everyone's else's selfloathing.

I think my appreciation for Calimero has just increased.

alfajeffster
Jan 14th, 2005, 04:34 PM
So, it seems that Calimero isn't alone. I guess that just makes him the scapegoat for everyone's else's selfloathing.

I think my appreciation for Calimero has just increased.
The only time I have ever had a problem with Calimero is when he began using the word "retarded" in this threads- which was just about from the start of his posts. We traded several private e-mails, wherein I explained that I live with my brother, who went through special education in school, and to this day I can see the hurt in my brother's eyes when he hears that word used. Cali explained himself in response to my private e-mail that he not only understands the meaning of the word, but was (and is) not using it as a personal attack against my brother, and that I should lighten up a little and get off my high horse and stop lecturing him. We have had nothing but respect for each other since (as well as a few heated, jabbing, and sometimes pointed debates). No censure, ignore lists, and definitely no self-loathing. I have learned to become a more open-minded and accepting individual in the process.

Evelyn Tremble
Jan 14th, 2005, 06:12 PM
And just three weeks later - in front of her home crowd - her fire was blown out. Pierce would have faced a humiliation reminiscent of USO 93.





I often call little girls "Madam" ironically ....


LOL No I'm not a madam either.

I guess for you, what you don't know can't hurt you - so this would make you practically invulnerable.

Andy T
Jan 14th, 2005, 08:19 PM
Not being sure whether I'm on or off your ignore list at the moment (the green light of indication that a poster is present seems always to be gray for you, Dear Andy- rather convenient that when two people have equal tickets, one can never be sure if the train left the station or not), I'll respond to this post as best I can. I appreciate your kind word regarding my love of tennis, and the fact that you took the time to at least open your ignore list long enough to read my previous post. Hopefully, the window of opportunity for lines of communication will remain open long enough for both sides of an issue to be intelligently discussed outside the box. I could digress to quoting insulting words you've used in the past describing me as a "superficial bitch" followed by "I hate you", but as that post was deleted long ago (again in typical hit-and-run fashion in a Navratilova thread discussing her endorseability)- it seems that any intelligent criticism of Martina whatsoever seems to be not only anathema, but impossible for you to deal with objectively. Those tracks, and this train are absent a mutual conductor. In the other thread, we had reached a point where our conversation about the subject of this thread was moot. I believe we were at the "apples and oranges" stage of reason, and I made the effort to politely agree to disagree, and started this thread to avoid
further discussion on the subject with you. I am more than happy to continue the discussion, any time you are. Through our conversations on the subject, you are resolutely steadfast in refusing to admit that Martina Navratilova had no great serve-and-volley contemporary to challenge her during her run, and prefer to divert that valid point by bending it into whether or not Andrea Jeager and Chris Evert were worthy opponents, and have conveniently decreed and declared that one simple (and quite valid) observation as a "non-starter". I'm really not sure what fantastical agenda you seem to think I have in discussing this, and quite frankly, have given up trying to figure out what you are thinking. I am also, quite frankly, finished pussy-footing around your adoration and boderline idol worship of Martina Navratilova, and your personal perception of her life and tennis career. You will recall that I made a very good effort to make sure that you could get close to her at the French Open last year, and gladly held your hand so that you could stretch across her team of coaches to get her autograph. I guess that effort must have been the George W. Bush storming the seats of liberalism in me- don't know. I was very happy for you that day, and still am. As I've consistently stated numerous times since I've been here at WTAWorld, I don't have any idols, and I could care less if you do.
Before dealing with the various personal comments, let's come back to the argument itself.

The starting point of the argument - that relative to Margaret Court Navratilova did not face worthy serve-volley opposition on grass during her run- is not valid. Why?
*Because it has not been proven that the serve-volley opposition Court faced was any more effective against Court on grass than the opposition faced by Navratilova on grass.
*Because it has not been proven that serve volley opposition was more worthy than baseline opposition to Navratilova on grass.
*Because the relative importance of grass in the two runs was not the same because the surfaces of the tournaments in the run were not the same.

For me this is not about Navratilova or any individual player, never has been, it's about an uneven (as in "not the same", not "unfair") playing field and I've made that point right through this whole discussion, just as many others have. I reiterate: my objections have NOTHING to do with which players you are discussing. Replace her with Graf's run 95-6 and my point would be exactly the same. I am arguing that they are equally impressive, each run on its own terms.

The reasoning:

You seemed to accept the perceptions of the majority of posters on the previous thread that hard courts were not the same as grass courts because of the way players move, the effect of spin and the type of bounce, etc, whatever. I was a little surprised at your suggestion that they were the same in the first place as you have on countless occasions been at pains to point out that Steffi never lost to Monica "on a fast court", defining Rebound ace as not fast in the process. We're not defining decoturfII as "slow", just as not the same surface as grass.

If you accept that the decoturfII does not "behave" in the same way as a grass court, you have also to accept that a hardcourt does not necessarily favour the serve and volley style. Daze11 pointed out that Chrissie relished the stuff - winning 3 titles on it 1978-80-82. Tracy won there in 79 and 81. No serve volleying woman had won the US Open on decoturfII in the first 5 years of its existence (compared to 4 victories by attacking players at Wimbledon in the same period (Evert in 81 was the exception). A clear difference exists.

So, it follows that IF one assumes a relationship between surface and style of game, the surface(s) that the run occcurs on must affect the type of opposition that could be seen as more troublesome. the number of grass court events in Martina's run in 83-4 was 3 and Court's in 69-71 was 5. To extend the point, Steffi's run of 6 majors in 95-96 consisted of 2 grass court events.

Each run is different. IF one assumes a style/surface link, the importance of top serve volley opposition in a run of 6 majors of which 5 are on grass is much greater than the importance of top serve volleyers in a run where only two or three majors are on grass. It follows that if there was less top serve volley opposition to Martina in 83/4 or to Steffi in 95/6, it's less significant than it would have been in 1970.

So the surfaces weren't the same, the runs weren't the same, and if one still wants to continue with the comparison, the way of estimating the danger of the opposition can't be the same because if the relative importance of serve volley opposition is not the same, it is not really equitable to use it as a benchmark in judging the impressiveness of the runs.

Rather than use serve-volley opposition, it seems more equitable to say contemporary grass/clay/hard court opposition. Grass/clay/hard court opposition can only be determined by the grass/clay/hard court records of the players concerned whatever their style. More of that later.

Back to the serve-volley/worthy opposition connection. Can you make the assumption that there is a direct link? Is an attacker always a more formidable opponent on grass than a baseliner? The answer must be that it depends on the quality of player. But how can that be measured? Only by their achievements on the surfaces concerned at the point in time in question. But that's not enough either! As we all know, certain players of whatever style have the measure of others and never lose to them whereas other players pose problems. How can we determine, then, whether a player is a difficult obstacle to another? By looking at the h2h on the surface in question.

An example: BJK, the great serve and volleyer, beat Margaret Court 5 times on grass (career: Wimbledon 62, 66, Australian 68, Sydney 70 and Perth 68 if I'm not mistaken) before their 1970 Wimbledon encounter for something like 9 losses (can't be 100% sure if it's 8, 9 or 10). Again, to the best of my knowledge, Chris Evert had beaten Martina on grass the same number of times (Wimbledon 1976, 1980, Eastbourne, 1979, Sydney 1981 and Melbourne 1982) and lost to her at Wimbledon in 78,79 and 82, at Eastbourne in 78 in Melbourne in 1981. They were at 5-5 when this period began. However, most would agree that a win has a shelf-life, so one has to decide if King's win over Court at Wimbledon in 62 or Evert's over Navratilova at Wimbledon in 76 are that relevant. For Chris and BJK, in both cases, their last 4 encounters on the surface stood at 2-2, I think. The evidence suggests that Evert was just as capable of beating Navratilova on grass as King was of beating Court and posed her just as many problems.

Jeff's initial claim was that Court's run was more impressive because of the calibre of the serve and volley style of play of her contemporaries including those she never met in that run. If a run is defined as a series of wins in a set number of tournaments, then surely it is the opposition contained within that run which is of interest. In this particular instance, how good an attacker Hana was on grass is actually irrelevant as she and Navatilova never met on grass during Nav's run. They met on clay at RG in 84 and Hana had never beaten Martina on that surface.

Jeff cited Evonne and Kerry Melville-Reid, Margaret's adversaries at the Australian Open in 1970 as examples of players with a high quality serve and volley style. Both women had long and illustrious careers but in January 1970, neither had ever beaten Margaret Court. You may argue that they had the game to do it but at that point in their careers, they hadn't done it because they hadn't worked out how to and/or their games weren't mature enough. One year later, in Oz 71, when they met in the final, Evonne had shown that she had worked out how to do it by her victory in the Victorian Champs just before the Aussie Open. it follows that Evonne 71 was a far more dangerous adversary than Evonne 70: essentially they were different players.

Coming back to Melville, Kerry was playing in her first major final, which brings in another variable factor. Her situation in context is similar to that of Kathy Jordan at Aus in 83. Both women were facing legends who were overwhelming favourites in a grand arena. Inevitably, the context surrounding an opponent is also essential in estimating the danger s/he poses. As it happens, of Court's 6 final opponents during her run, no fewer than 4 (Casals, Goolagong, Niessen and Melville) were in their first big four final, leaving Nancy Richey and BJK as the two opponents who had done it all before - and won. This is not to say that first time finalists can't win against big names they've never beaten before (look at Sharapova) on a grand stage but merely that centre court nerves are part and parcel of this sport of ours and have to be considered, if only to be dismissed afterwards.

If you cast aside all of the factors and only look at the opponents each woman faced during her run, whether or not they had beaten M & M on the surface in question, and count up the encounters with those who had, it comes to about 10 matches for each woman. I can post the exact figures if it would be of interest.

To end, I repeat that I am not arguing that Navratilova's run is more impressive than Court's and at no time in this whole discussion have I done so. I don't think they can be compared for the reasons given and consider each to be impressive on its own terms.

I deeply regret that Margaret Court's run of 6 is overlooked, just as her win streak was overlooked in favour of the slightly shorter but later one of Evert in the mid-70s. This has to do with WTA (BJK) politics, the media and the inevitable focus on the more recent. I have no wish (or need) to do it down.

Navratilova is my fave and the player I admire the most for what she could do with the ball but this is about accepting that each era has its own context, each achievement its own place and that trying to order them into some rigid hierarchy is not only futile but fallacious. There's nothing revolutionary or objectionable about that.

To respond the personal comments by Jeff:

Whatever the colour of the circle is, it only shows if someone's on line or not. Not being on line is not a crime and does not imply that a person is running away.

I'm just sorry that (a) I had to put you on ignore because of the insults in the first place and (b) that whatever it is that has driven you to that level of personal attack continues to drive you still further down the road. This obviously goes far deeper than the subject under discussion.

In the previous thread you suggested that we call it quits (though the message was slightly ambiguous because you suggested opening another thread somewhere else). Anyway, I thought we had. Yet in this new thread meant to avoid me, you explicitly cite my name in the very first post and in a derogatory way.....

I hope very much that I will be able to find the post in which I wrote "superficial bitch" "I hate you" and display it here. Such language only ever comes out of my mouth in jest.

As to your comments about the French Open last year; I'm honestly speechless. We did indeed spend a day together at RG and you did indeed hold my arm to steady me as I got the autograph of a player I had admired for 25 years and never before seen live. At that point, we got along fine, had many discussions about many aspects of tennis, talked frankly about Martina and others, as I have done many times since with other posters on the board who have become personal friends. The exchange of favours went two ways: you steadied my arm and I have listened while you've cried..................

I disagree with your premise and your reasoning on this matter and I have tried to explain why. If that makes you think I am all the things you say I am, then so be it.

mishar
Jan 14th, 2005, 08:26 PM
I must say, as someone with no horse in this race, Alfajeff's argument makes no sense. There is an inherent impossibility in comparing people of different eras, and the quality of the players they faced. But in so far as we can objectively compare, martina's dominance in her 6-slam run was more impressive for all the reasons Czechfan cited. Court still holds the all-time slam record and while people can poke holes in that, no one can deny that to her.

alfajeffster
Jan 14th, 2005, 08:56 PM
AHHHH- much to think about, and so little time to respond with 5 minutes left in the day! As you know, I am uplugged at home (helps me maintain sanity) as so many people here are. Rest assured I shall reply to your wonderful post on Monday morning, Andy. In the meantime- have a good weekend!

Calimero377
Jan 14th, 2005, 10:19 PM
So, it seems that Calimero isn't alone. I guess that just makes him the scapegoat for everyone's else's selfloathing.

I think my appreciation for Calimero has just increased.


And I didn't even have to stretch out to get an autograf from Graph ....

Calimero377
Jan 14th, 2005, 10:23 PM
LOL No I'm not a madam either.

I guess for you, what you don't know can't hurt you - so this would make you practically invulnerable.


Don't tremble, Evelyn, I like girls!

And Evelyn is a nice first name. Many famous women have it. Evelyn Ashford, Evelyn Waugh etc. ...

:angel:

darren cahill
Jan 15th, 2005, 06:04 AM
[QUOTE=Andy T]
As to your comments about the French Open last year; I'm honestly speechless. We did indeed spend a day together at RG and you did indeed hold my arm to steady me as I got the autograph of a player I had admired for 25 years and never before seen live. At that point, we got along fine, had many discussions about many aspects of tennis, talked frankly about Martina and others, as I have done many times since with other posters on the board who have become personal friends. The exchange of favours went two ways: you steadied my arm and I have listened while you've cried..................


You mean i'm not the ONLY one who has cried in your presence? :sad: ;)

(thank god, thats something i am more than willing to relinquish!):drool:

Andy T
Jan 15th, 2005, 01:07 PM
[QUOTE=Andy T]
As to your comments about the French Open last year; I'm honestly speechless. We did indeed spend a day together at RG and you did indeed hold my arm to steady me as I got the autograph of a player I had admired for 25 years and never before seen live. At that point, we got along fine, had many discussions about many aspects of tennis, talked frankly about Martina and others, as I have done many times since with other posters on the board who have become personal friends. The exchange of favours went two ways: you steadied my arm and I have listened while you've cried..................


You mean i'm not the ONLY one who has cried in your presence? :sad: ;)

(thank god, thats something i am more than willing to relinquish!):drool:
There you go, but that kind of stuff is best kept personal, eh?!

Oizo
Jan 15th, 2005, 06:35 PM
Neither Court, Evert or Navratilova won the trophy as the Best Tennis Female Player of the Last Century. It was Graf. Steffi Graf. :cool: And bloody hell, she deserves it more than anyone else there. She is and will always be the best female tennis player of All Time.

Calimero377
Jan 15th, 2005, 06:55 PM
Neither Court, Evert or Navratilova won the trophy as the Best Tennis Female Player of the Last Century. It was Graf. Steffi Graf. :cool: And bloody hell, she deserves it more than anyone else there. She is and will always be the best female tennis player of All Time.


Now you are exaggerating!

It is quite possible that in the middle or the end of the 21st century we will see a player who is even greater. Well, maybe ...

Oizo
Jan 15th, 2005, 07:17 PM
Thats what the price was called "Spielerin des Jahrhunderts" :nerner: Miss Missunderestimate

tennislover
Jan 15th, 2005, 07:58 PM
my two cents........
the only difference beetwen Martina and Margaret is this:
during her domination time, martina simply showed the best game ever seen in a tennis court.....
Numbers are important (and Martina's record is amazing, after all) but quality is more important............and when it comes to quality only John McEnroe or Rod Laver can be compared to Martina......
said that, obviously Margaret achievement was great as well.......


PS Andy T, please tell me, if you are a french guy, how did you learn english?
Your english is simply terrific........I'm dying to envy you that...... :)

tennislover
Jan 15th, 2005, 08:01 PM
Neither Court, Evert or Navratilova won the trophy as the Best Tennis Female Player of the Last Century. It was Graf. Steffi Graf. :cool: And bloody hell, she deserves it more than anyone else there. She is and will always be the best female tennis player of All Time.


OMG I think the very same things about Martina....... ;)

Oizo
Jan 15th, 2005, 08:08 PM
OMG I think the very same things about Martina....... ;)
It's called cognitive dissonance ;)

tennislover
Jan 15th, 2005, 08:08 PM
yes :)

alfajeffster
Jan 17th, 2005, 12:48 PM
Before dealing with the various personal comments, let's come back to the argument itself.

The starting point of the argument - that relative to Margaret Court Navratilova did not face worthy serve-volley opposition on grass during her run- is not valid. Why?
*Because it has not been proven that the serve-volley opposition Court faced was any more effective against Court on grass than the opposition faced by Navratilova on grass.
*Because it has not been proven that serve volley opposition was more worthy than baseline opposition to Navratilova on grass.
*Because the relative importance of grass in the two runs was not the same because the surfaces of the tournaments in the run were not the same.

For me this is not about Navratilova or any individual player, never has been, it's about an uneven (as in "not the same", not "unfair") playing field and I've made that point right through this whole discussion, just as many others have. I reiterate: my objections have NOTHING to do with which players you are discussing. Replace her with Graf's run 95-6 and my point would be exactly the same. I am arguing that they are equally impressive, each run on its own terms.

The reasoning:

You seemed to accept the perceptions of the majority of posters on the previous thread that hard courts were not the same as grass courts because of the way players move, the effect of spin and the type of bounce, etc, whatever. I was a little surprised at your suggestion that they were the same in the first place as you have on countless occasions been at pains to point out that Steffi never lost to Monica "on a fast court", defining Rebound ace as not fast in the process. We're not defining decoturfII as "slow", just as not the same surface as grass.

If you accept that the decoturfII does not "behave" in the same way as a grass court, you have also to accept that a hardcourt does not necessarily favour the serve and volley style. Daze11 pointed out that Chrissie relished the stuff - winning 3 titles on it 1978-80-82. Tracy won there in 79 and 81. No serve volleying woman had won the US Open on decoturfII in the first 5 years of its existence (compared to 4 victories by attacking players at Wimbledon in the same period (Evert in 81 was the exception). A clear difference exists.

So, it follows that IF one assumes a relationship between surface and style of game, the surface(s) that the run occcurs on must affect the type of opposition that could be seen as more troublesome. the number of grass court events in Martina's run in 83-4 was 3 and Court's in 69-71 was 5. To extend the point, Steffi's run of 6 majors in 95-96 consisted of 2 grass court events.

Each run is different. IF one assumes a style/surface link, the importance of top serve volley opposition in a run of 6 majors of which 5 are on grass is much greater than the importance of top serve volleyers in a run where only two or three majors are on grass. It follows that if there was less top serve volley opposition to Martina in 83/4 or to Steffi in 95/6, it's less significant than it would have been in 1970.

So the surfaces weren't the same, the runs weren't the same, and if one still wants to continue with the comparison, the way of estimating the danger of the opposition can't be the same because if the relative importance of serve volley opposition is not the same, it is not really equitable to use it as a benchmark in judging the impressiveness of the runs.

Rather than use serve-volley opposition, it seems more equitable to say contemporary grass/clay/hard court opposition. Grass/clay/hard court opposition can only be determined by the grass/clay/hard court records of the players concerned whatever their style. More of that later.

Back to the serve-volley/worthy opposition connection. Can you make the assumption that there is a direct link? Is an attacker always a more formidable opponent on grass than a baseliner? The answer must be that it depends on the quality of player. But how can that be measured? Only by their achievements on the surfaces concerned at the point in time in question. But that's not enough either! As we all know, certain players of whatever style have the measure of others and never lose to them whereas other players pose problems. How can we determine, then, whether a player is a difficult obstacle to another? By looking at the h2h on the surface in question.

An example: BJK, the great serve and volleyer, beat Margaret Court 5 times on grass (career: Wimbledon 62, 66, Australian 68, Sydney 70 and Perth 68 if I'm not mistaken) before their 1970 Wimbledon encounter for something like 9 losses (can't be 100% sure if it's 8, 9 or 10). Again, to the best of my knowledge, Chris Evert had beaten Martina on grass the same number of times (Wimbledon 1976, 1980, Eastbourne, 1979, Sydney 1981 and Melbourne 1982) and lost to her at Wimbledon in 78,79 and 82, at Eastbourne in 78 in Melbourne in 1981. They were at 5-5 when this period began. However, most would agree that a win has a shelf-life, so one has to decide if King's win over Court at Wimbledon in 62 or Evert's over Navratilova at Wimbledon in 76 are that relevant. For Chris and BJK, in both cases, their last 4 encounters on the surface stood at 2-2, I think. The evidence suggests that Evert was just as capable of beating Navratilova on grass as King was of beating Court and posed her just as many problems.

Jeff's initial claim was that Court's run was more impressive because of the calibre of the serve and volley style of play of her contemporaries including those she never met in that run. If a run is defined as a series of wins in a set number of tournaments, then surely it is the opposition contained within that run which is of interest. In this particular instance, how good an attacker Hana was on grass is actually irrelevant as she and Navatilova never met on grass during Nav's run. They met on clay at RG in 84 and Hana had never beaten Martina on that surface.

Jeff cited Evonne and Kerry Melville-Reid, Margaret's adversaries at the Australian Open in 1970 as examples of players with a high quality serve and volley style. Both women had long and illustrious careers but in January 1970, neither had ever beaten Margaret Court. You may argue that they had the game to do it but at that point in their careers, they hadn't done it because they hadn't worked out how to and/or their games weren't mature enough. One year later, in Oz 71, when they met in the final, Evonne had shown that she had worked out how to do it by her victory in the Victorian Champs just before the Aussie Open. it follows that Evonne 71 was a far more dangerous adversary than Evonne 70: essentially they were different players.

Coming back to Melville, Kerry was playing in her first major final, which brings in another variable factor. Her situation in context is similar to that of Kathy Jordan at Aus in 83. Both women were facing legends who were overwhelming favourites in a grand arena. Inevitably, the context surrounding an opponent is also essential in estimating the danger s/he poses. As it happens, of Court's 6 final opponents during her run, no fewer than 4 (Casals, Goolagong, Niessen and Melville) were in their first big four final, leaving Nancy Richey and BJK as the two opponents who had done it all before - and won. This is not to say that first time finalists can't win against big names they've never beaten before (look at Sharapova) on a grand stage but merely that centre court nerves are part and parcel of this sport of ours and have to be considered, if only to be dismissed afterwards.

If you cast aside all of the factors and only look at the opponents each woman faced during her run, whether or not they had beaten M & M on the surface in question, and count up the encounters with those who had, it comes to about 10 matches for each woman. I can post the exact figures if it would be of interest.

To end, I repeat that I am not arguing that Navratilova's run is more impressive than Court's and at no time in this whole discussion have I done so. I don't think they can be compared for the reasons given and consider each to be impressive on its own terms.

I deeply regret that Margaret Court's run of 6 is overlooked, just as her win streak was overlooked in favour of the slightly shorter but later one of Evert in the mid-70s. This has to do with WTA (BJK) politics, the media and the inevitable focus on the more recent. I have no wish (or need) to do it down.

Navratilova is my fave and the player I admire the most for what she could do with the ball but this is about accepting that each era has its own context, each achievement its own place and that trying to order them into some rigid hierarchy is not only futile but fallacious. There's nothing revolutionary or objectionable about that.

To respond the personal comments by Jeff:

Whatever the colour of the circle is, it only shows if someone's on line or not. Not being on line is not a crime and does not imply that a person is running away.

I'm just sorry that (a) I had to put you on ignore because of the insults in the first place and (b) that whatever it is that has driven you to that level of personal attack continues to drive you still further down the road. This obviously goes far deeper than the subject under discussion.

In the previous thread you suggested that we call it quits (though the message was slightly ambiguous because you suggested opening another thread somewhere else). Anyway, I thought we had. Yet in this new thread meant to avoid me, you explicitly cite my name in the very first post and in a derogatory way.....

I hope very much that I will be able to find the post in which I wrote "superficial bitch" "I hate you" and display it here. Such language only ever comes out of my mouth in jest.

As to your comments about the French Open last year; I'm honestly speechless. We did indeed spend a day together at RG and you did indeed hold my arm to steady me as I got the autograph of a player I had admired for 25 years and never before seen live. At that point, we got along fine, had many discussions about many aspects of tennis, talked frankly about Martina and others, as I have done many times since with other posters on the board who have become personal friends. The exchange of favours went two ways: you steadied my arm and I have listened while you've cried..................

I disagree with your premise and your reasoning on this matter and I have tried to explain why. If that makes you think I am all the things you say I am, then so be it.Good Morning, sir! I trust you had a restful weekend, and thanks for waiting for my reply, as I only had time to read your post at the last minute on Friday. In response:

First, the fact that Court conquered all comers (including King and Wade twice in grass-court majors in a two year period) only solidifies her dominance on the surface. You are quite correct, it has not been proven that serve-volley opposition was more effective against Navratilova on grass (or fast hardcourts for that matter), which also bolsters my seminal point- Martina had no great serve-volley contemporary not only during her run of 6 majors, but I would submit during the entire decade of the 80s. Flashes of serve-volley brilliance achieved by an ageing Billie Jean King, a consistently attacking and error-free Mandlikova or Sukova (and even their successor Novotna at 1993 Wimbledon) were enough to dismantle the Navratilova attack. Indeed, attacking Martina was the way to beat her, and my point that she didn't have a great serve-volley contemporary during not only her 6 majors streak, but in fact the entire decade of the 80s is a valid one. I am reminded of the words of the great Pauline Betz Addie, who when asked about the accomplishments of Althea Gibson, cracked a wry smile, and simply suggested "she didn't have to play anybody". While such comment may seem cold and catty to some, I got no such impression from her. She was simply assessing what another player accomplished relative to the opposition laid before her. Certainly any player has to play the field laid before them. Accepting this fact does not preclude an open mind from also reasoning that their ride may have been a little easier in comparison to those of other champions.

You make the comparison with Graf's 95-96 run, and it's a valid one. I agree with you. You are right on point regarding Steffi not having a certain level of opposition during these years. I would much rather have seen an entire decade of Graf/Seles and Graf/Navratilova matches instead of what we got. To return to my previous point, it is also ver apparent from their Wimbledon finals 87-89 that Graf realized the way to beat Martina was to attack her, and by 89 she was effectively picking apart the Navratilova passing game with surgeon-like precision. That Navratilova faded off on the rivalry in the 90s is beyond Steffi's control, and by the time they met again at the 91 U.S. Open semis, Graf had reverted to playing Martina primarily from the baseline, a grave tactical error which Navratilova capitalized on beautifully.

Regarding the success of serve-volley players on DecoturfII, it must be noted that Martina Navratilova is the last great female serve-volley player. Hardcourts were not just the U.S. Open surface, they were the California surface for many decades. Before Floridian clay-court terror Chris Evert came along to influcence millions of girls (not only in the USA, but in your beloved Europe and the world) to stay on the baseline, players from Alice Marble to Billie Jean King dominated by attacking on fast hardcourts. The fact that the trend to teach girls to be "Chrissie Clones" (which is impossible- there is only one Chris Evert) from the mid-70s onward only emphasizes the fact that Martina had no great serve-volley contemporary, and lends credence to the way Hana Mandlikova rose to the occasion by attacking relentlessly on DecoturfII to defeat Martina in the 1985 U.S. Open final.

If we follow that logical train of thought, then your example comparing Billie Jean's grass-court record against Margaret proves my assertion that Martina did not have that same level of attacking player to deal with, especially on grass, but also on hardcourts. You will remember that Billie Jean was raised on California hardcourts and in fact had beaten Martina on those same hardcourts (at a rather late stage in the life of Billie's tennis body, I might add) primarily by attacking and "picking apart" the Navratilova game. Your purported Evert/Navratilova comparison holds no water when you factor in the Team Navratilova smart-bombing of the Evert baseline throne, which resulted in a long string of Navratilova wins over Evert 83-84. That Evert was able to bolster herself and make a good showing on grass against Team Navratilova 83-88 only increases my respect for the will, determination and singular prowess of Christine Marie Evert, and simultaneously illustrates that Navratilova had no great serve-volley contemporary during this period of dominance.

The correction regarding Evonne Goolagong's win over Court in the Victorian Championships just prior to the January 1971 Australian Open is duly noted, and I thank you for straightening me out on that stat. I was relying on memory (admittedly, not always the best avenue for me). You have no idea how hard it was to return "HOME" to you, my dear statistician! By the way, was the Victorian Championships held in December 1970?

Regarding Kerry Melville, Rosie Casals, and I believe I also mentioned Virginia Wade and Judy Tegart more than once, each of those attacking players was not only formidable by the point Margaret played them during her run, Judy Tegart had already beaten Court at the 1968 Wimbledon, and Virginia Wade had played a few very close matches against Margaret, and had beaten Billie Jean King for the 1968 U.S. Open title. Rosie Casals was hovering around the top 3 USA players from 1966 onward, and already had a very real reputation as a dangerous and potent attacking adversary. Rosie was every bit as good and acrobatic a volleyer as Martina (I know, sacrilege to suggest some other woman volleyed better than Navratilova, but I don't mind). Your exact figures when citing M&M's opponents records against the greats "about 10 matches for each woman" would be interesting on an entirely different level. If you would be kind enough to post those figures, I would enjoy learning from that illustration.

So we are back to apples and oranges. Here's a thought: how about we write a collective letter to Margaret, Martina, Billie Jean, Virginia, Rosie, and Kerry, and ask them if they'll all agre to an exhibition prior to the start of the Ladies Championships at Wimbledon this year. You and I on one side, and the players on the other. You can pelt them with apples, and I with oranges, and we can settle once and for all which player deals best with flying fruit from the forecourt. Chris Evert can call the contest from the chair, but only if Serena Williams gets to call the lines.

In response to my alleged "personal attacks" and your subsequent comparison to having returned the favor by "listening while I cried", all I can hope to do (in the interest of a reality check) is to challenge you to find a single derrogatory comment I have made about you that was not directly related to my perception of your unnatural, and yes, I would submit unhealthy emotional attachment to Martina Navratilova, a professional tennis player whom you do not know personally, and probably never will. My long-distance tears had nothing to do with tennis, nor were they in any way related to an emotional perception and/or feelings for a person or reality that doesn't exist, and probably never will. My crying on the phone and your emotional attachment to Martina Navratilova are fare more than apples and oranges. One is reality, the other is emotional fantasy. It doesn't get any deeper than that, and no amount of spin can alter that simple truth.

Andy T
Jan 17th, 2005, 07:04 PM
Sorry it has taken me all day to get to this but I've not had time to look at the threads before now.

Sigh

I really don't see how steadying my arm so I didn't fall over had much to do with Martina; at the time I took it as a gesture of thoughtfulness for a friend in danger of being pushed over. However, it seems that I misunderstood and it was another emotional fantasy, on my part, it seems, because for you it was about indulging a schizophrenic, neurotic, elementary fanaticism for a tennis player.

While your slant on my admiration for Navratilova is yours to have and to hold for as long as you like, the totally unwarranted description of your perception in such extreme and damning psychological terms is very aggressive, highly personal and incredibly insulting and I take deep exception to it. Luckily, however, the schizophrenic personality which is dominant at the moment is able to see that it must be taken whence it comes and far too decent to dignify it with a retaliatory response.

If it has served no other purpose, at least the discussion has enabled you to express these deep and troubling convictions you have hitherto refrained from voicing and for that I am sincerely grateful.

Sigh.

I get the feeling we're on totally different planets. My problem in this discussion is centred around evaluating two runs by two greats in two different eras in order to come up with a hierarchy. My argument is that it can't be done because of all the changes in surfaces, conditions, lack of a constant benchmark and so on. For me it is a question of method.

Unless I am mistaken, your main interest is in looking at the quality of the serve volley style of tennis across the eras and you have chosen to compare the late 60s/early 70s with the mid 80s. That seems to me to be a perfectly valid line of enquiry; people will agree or disagree with your premise that the serve-volleyers of the late 60s were better than those of the mid 80s. It's not the line of enquiry that I have a problem with but its application as a benchmark in judging these two specfic achievements and the ensuing conclusion that you draw that Court's run is more impressive.

If you believe that the general standard of serve volley play in the late 60s was higher than that which existed in the mid-80s, that's fine. It would be a debate to which many posters in BFTP would love to contribute I am certain. I too have my views on the subject of the relative qualities of Tegart, Wade, Mandlikova, Sukova et al. One could widen the discussion to cover what the effect of more baseliners such as Graf, Evert and Seles would have had on the game in the early 1950s in Maureen Connolly's era or how King and Court in their prime would have fared in the 1990s.

But to me that is a separate issue from the one I took exception to at the beginning of the thread for all the reasons I have tried to explain. The situation stands in an impasse between me trying to focus on my points regarding evaluating a run of success and break/disprove the binary connection between worthiness of opponent and style of play I perceive you to be insisting on while you, it seems to me, continue to focus on the quality of serve-volley opposition to Navratilova which you perceive me to be sidestepping.

In order for this discussion to move forward, either we would both have to accept that serve and volley opposition is a valid benchmark to measure the runs in question (with all the elements that that entails), debate the pros and cons of the various serve volleyers and apply that to the runs or we would have to accept that while a discussion about serve volleyers is perfectly legit in itself, it can't be used as a benchmark to determine the impressiveness of each run because they weren't achieved in the same conditions.

It seems however, that with you set on the first idea and me on the second, there is no way out. Others will judge for themselves.

I even have a slight worry that you perceive my refusal to debate the pros and cons as the sticking point (and maybe the point which angers you the most) when in fact for me it is one step before - a refusal to accept it is a valid benchmark. If that is the case, then a lot of this whole debate may well have been unnecessary.

Mary Carillo
Jan 17th, 2005, 07:19 PM
If Monica had not been stabbed by a psychopathic lunatic then she would have surpassed both Martina and Margaret’s achievements.

How much can you say about this woman? She is a remarkable - she has that remarkable instinct, when under the gun, when under pressure, to attack. She's got the instincts of a doberman. You know, when confronted, she attacks. It's the natural thing for her to do. I just, as I say, I've never seen her like before. I've seen great players, obviously, great champions. But time and again we've seen Monica in trouble, we've seen her play less than her best tennis, and in the end, I mean, she just basically says, 'All right, gimme the ball, gimme the ball.' And she hits winners. It's great stuff!!

alfajeffster
Jan 17th, 2005, 07:55 PM
[QUOTE=Mary Carillo]If Monica had not been stabbed by a psychopathic lunatic then she would have surpassed both Steffi and Margaret’s achievements.../QUOTE]

All without a contemporary serve-and-volley rival!:haha:

Mary Carillo
Jan 17th, 2005, 08:00 PM
[QUOTE=Mary Carillo]If Monica had not been stabbed by a psychopathic lunatic then she would have surpassed both Steffi and Margaret’s achievements.../QUOTE]

All without a contemporary serve-and-volley rival!:haha:

Look!!! What do you expect from me ROCKET SCIENCE? :p And my HRT patch has just fallen off to boot!

alfajeffster
Jan 17th, 2005, 08:07 PM
Look!!! What do you expect from me ROCKET SCIENCE? :p And my HRT patch has just fallen off to boot!Hey Mary, you were a lefty when you played back in the 70s. How come you never developed that lefty hook serve out wide on the ad court to give you a whole bunch of cheap wins against predominantly right-handed opponents? Surely fellow Queenie Johnny Mac must've suggested you at least try it!:lol:

Mary Carillo
Jan 17th, 2005, 08:12 PM
Hey Mary, you were a lefty when you played back in the 70s. How come you never developed that lefty hook serve out wide on the ad court to give you a whole bunch of cheap wins against predominantly right-handed opponents? Surely fellow Queenie Johnny Mac must've suggested you at least try it!:lol:

Give me a break!! Some drink from the fountain of knowledge, but that Johnny Mac, he just gargled.

alfajeffster
Jan 17th, 2005, 08:46 PM
Give me a break!! Some drink from the fountain of knowledge, but that Johnny Mac, he just gargled.

:lol: :lol:

Philbo
Jan 17th, 2005, 10:03 PM
"That Navratilova faded off on the rivalry in the 90s is beyond Steffi's contro"

Martina went 2-2 with Steffi in the 90's from the age of 34-38. She faded away for a while in the late 80's due to burnout - and bounced back remarkably.

ANd even when Graf did beat her at Wimbledon it wasnt playing an attacking game up at the net - she just returned serve amazingly well and had Martina on the backfoot but her victories are hardly relevant to your argument about attacking players having more success.

And I think you are extremely passive-agressive towards Andy.. Just my 2 cents.

Calimero377
Jan 17th, 2005, 10:08 PM
Sorry it has taken me all day to get to this but I've not had time to look at the threads before now.

Sigh

I really don't see how steadying my arm so I didn't fall over had much to do with Martina; at the time I took it as a gesture of thoughtfulness for a friend in danger of being pushed over. However, it seems that I misunderstood and it was another emotional fantasy, on my part, it seems, because for you it was about indulging a schizophrenic, neurotic, elementary fanaticism for a tennis player.

While your slant on my admiration for Navratilova is yours to have and to hold for as long as you like, the totally unwarranted description of your perception in such extreme and damning psychological terms is very aggressive, highly personal and incredibly insulting and I take deep exception to it. Luckily, however, the schizophrenic personality which is dominant at the moment is able to see that it must be taken whence it comes and far too decent to dignify it with a retaliatory response.

If it has served no other purpose, at least the discussion has enabled you to express these deep and troubling convictions you have hitherto refrained from voicing and for that I am sincerely grateful.

Sigh. ...


Just continue your emotional & psychological strip-tease, both of you.
The whole world is watching breathlessly ....
;)

Calimero377
Jan 17th, 2005, 10:20 PM
If Monica had not been stabbed by a psychopathic lunatic then she would have surpassed both Martina and Margaret’s achievements. ....

You are basing your delusional dreams on what?

Monica's squeaker wins against Graf in 92/93?
Her losing 3 of 5 matches as #1 against Graf nevertheless?
Her being beaten like a drum in the most important match of her career (Wimbledon final 1992)?
Graf slumping bigtime in 90/92?
Seles with her gaining-weight genes?
Seles with her mental fragility (needed 2.25 years to recover mentally from a 1-cm stab wound)?



....
How much can you say about this woman? She is a remarkable - she has that remarkable instinct, when under the gun, when under pressure, to attack. She's got the instincts of a doberman. You know, when confronted, she attacks. It's the natural thing for her to do. I just, as I say, I've never seen her like before. I've seen great players, obviously, great champions. But time and again we've seen Monica in trouble, we've seen her play less than her best tennis, and in the end, I mean, she just basically says, 'All right, gimme the ball, gimme the ball.' And she hits winners. It's great stuff!!

What?
I thought Monica "never was the same player after The Stabbing"?
Having success as a teenager or a 20, 21 year old is one thing. Austin, Jaeger, Hingis, Sabby, Majoli, Seles, Venus, Serena, Graf had it. To win multiple slams after your 22th birthday as well - THAT means you are a truly great. Graf did it - the majority failed (or are failing before our eyes) ...

Calimero377
Jan 17th, 2005, 10:32 PM
"That Navratilova faded off on the rivalry in the 90s is beyond Steffi's contro"

Martina went 2-2 with Steffi in the 90's from the age of 34-38. She faded away for a while in the late 80's due to burnout - and bounced back remarkably.

ANd even when Graf did beat her at Wimbledon it wasnt playing an attacking game up at the net - she just returned serve amazingly well and had Martina on the backfoot but her victories are hardly relevant to your argument about attacking players having more success.

And I think you are extremely passive-agressive towards Andy.. Just my 2 cents.


Graf attacked from the baseline. Attacked Navi's serve. Attacked all the way.Net-rushing is for players who lack decent groundies ....

BTW, Navi's win/loss records:
1987: 56-8 (YE WTA rank: 2nd)
1988: 70-7 (2nd)
1989: 73-7 (2nd)
1990: 52-7 (3rd)
1991: 53-9 (4th)
1992: 38-8 (5th)
1993: 46-6 (3rd)
1994: 33-14 (8th)

Winning percentage in 87-89: 90.1 %
Winning percentage in 90-94: 83.5 %

Yeah, Navi was better in the 90ies than in the late 80ies.

Dumbo ....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Andy T
Jan 17th, 2005, 10:35 PM
Just continue your emotional & psychological strip-tease, both of you.
The whole world is watching breathlessly ....
;)
If the truth be told, the whole world is probably bored to tears!

Calimero377
Jan 17th, 2005, 10:46 PM
If the truth be told, the whole world is probably bored to tears!


Frohes Neues Jahr!

:wavey:

Philbo
Jan 17th, 2005, 10:48 PM
Graf attacked from the baseline. Attacked Navi's serve. Attacked all the way.Net-rushing is for players who lack decent groundies ....

BTW, Navi's win/loss records:
1987: 56-8 (YE WTA rank: 2nd)
1988: 70-7 (2nd)
1989: 73-7 (2nd)
1990: 52-7 (3rd)
1991: 53-9 (4th)
1992: 38-8 (5th)
1993: 46-6 (3rd)
1994: 33-14 (8th)

Winning percentage in 87-89: 90.1 %
Winning percentage in 90-94: 83.5 %

Yeah, Navi was better in the 90ies than in the late 80ies.

Dumbo ....

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Baseline attacking is for big nosed wenches who lack decent volleys :)

I didnt say Martina was BETTER in the 90's than in the 80's dipshit - Nice display of your pathetic grasp of the english language again..

I said Martina bounced back in the rivalry with Graf - I was not talking about her general record.

chris whiteside
Jan 17th, 2005, 10:49 PM
Steffi winning 8 out of 9 consecutive slams (starting with Aus Open 1988 and ending with Australian Open 1990) is by far the most impressive of any other player. :worship:

Maureen Connolly is even more impressive. Six consecutive Slams but nine straight titles in those she entered.

Calimero377
Jan 17th, 2005, 11:11 PM
Maureen Connolly is even more impressive. Six consecutive Slams but nine straight titles in those she entered.


Did Connolly beat players four times who have won at least 18 slams?
Graf beat Evert at AO 88 and Navi at Wim 88 & 89, USO 89.
:worship: :worship: :worship:

vettipooh
Jan 17th, 2005, 11:13 PM
What would I do if everybody thought that Graf is absolutely the best in everything?

I love it when others have different opinions in tennis-related themes. It gives me this comfortable feeling of infinite superiority ... Infinite superiority???. ..... that statement coming from a German is just :retard: Isn't that what GP wanted??...and Hitler??? :tape:

Andy T
Jan 17th, 2005, 11:15 PM
Frohes Neues Jahr!

:wavey:Vielen danke - Ich wunsch dir auch eine Frohes Neues Jahr. Ich kan nicht Deutsche sprechen :sad: - but one of my other selves can;) .

Calimero377
Jan 17th, 2005, 11:24 PM
Infinite superiority???. ..... that statement coming from a German is just :retard: Isn't that what GP wanted??...and Hitler??? :tape:


You think that Hitler wanted to be infinite superior in discussions on tennis-related themes?
Eerie ...

BTW, who is "GP"?

Calimero377
Jan 17th, 2005, 11:27 PM
Vielen danke - Ich wunsch dir auch eine Frohes Neues Jahr. Ich kan nicht Deutsche sprechen :sad: - but one of my other selves can;) .

Vielen Dank!
Du sprichtst doch ganz gut Deutsch.
Und dann auch noch Französisch! Englisch nicht zu vergessen ...
Auch Tschechisch (Navi!)?

Tschüs
Calimero

tennisvideos
Jan 18th, 2005, 12:46 AM
I think that both runs are phenomenal. I also thank Alfa for highlighting the performances, esp in that it does educate the current generation of fans that there have been superb performances by the legends of the past .... not just those that are still in the public eye and lauded by the media.

Which was greater? I don't know ... who could. It's too difficult to compare eras - too many variables. But I do have to admit that the top ten players of the 60s and early to mid 70s excited me far more than any other group of players since. Perhaps it was their diverse styles ... maybe their love and passion for the sport (you just knew they weren't necessarily driven by money).

alfajeffster
Jan 18th, 2005, 01:22 PM
Just continue your emotional & psychological strip-tease, both of you.
The whole world is watching breathlessly ....
;)
*Sigh* :devil:

LDVTennis
Jan 18th, 2005, 06:43 PM
I must say, as someone with no horse in this race, Alfajeff's argument makes no sense. There is an inherent impossibility in comparing people of different eras, and the quality of the players they faced. But in so far as we can objectively compare, martina's dominance in her 6-slam run was more impressive for all the reasons Czechfan cited. Court still holds the all-time slam record and while people can poke holes in that, no one can deny that to her.

With all due respect, do you understand how contradictory it is to say, in the consecutive sentences no less, that it is 'inherently impossible to compare people of different eras,' yet "insofar as we can objectively compare, [M]artina's dominance in her 6-slam run was more impressive"? Explain to me how if it is inherently impossible, you can still establish a basis, an objective one at that, upon which to compare both runs?

In short, I guess I just find it more than a little ridiculous that you would fault Alfa for trying to do something "inherently impossible" and then proceed to do the same thing in order to arrive at the conclusion that Martina's run was more impressive.

If I've been reading correctly, the analytical part of Alfa's and AndyT's argument has concerned the conditions of possibility for such a comparison at all. Whatever one may think of either of their two positions, they have at least gone further than you have in laying the groundwork for any determination on the matter. So, concluding matters like you do in two contradictory sentences, just makes everything they've gone through seem so trivial. And, it really isn't, whether one has a stake in what they are saying or not.

chris whiteside
Jan 18th, 2005, 07:10 PM
As a number of posters have pointed out it is extremely difficult if not impossible to evaluate two players from different eras with any certainty. All you can do is form a subjective opinion.

Looking over the careers of Smith-Court and Navratilova as a whole I would tend to place Margaret higher in a list of All Time Greats than Martina but that's another topic. With regard to whose run of 6 singles Slam titles was the better albeit that Margaret's included a Grand Slam I would go for Martina's.

I don't think it's just a question of whom each player beat en route to the title but also the strength of the field should be considered. By winning they have been the best player at that tournament. Why should it detract from their victory if the #2 seed for example happened to get beaten in an early round and therefore they didn't get to meet them?

Looking at the list of seeds for the Slams in question I don't think overall there is too much difference in quality apart from the oft discussed topic of the strength of the Aussie ones relevant to those which Margaret won in 1970 and 71. 1970 Winnie Shaw the #3 seed. 1971 the #3 seed had pulled out but Gail Lovera (Chanfreau) was the #4. Now, they were both good players, probably top 20 but never top 10. All 6 of Martina's titles had most of the leading players of the day in the field. Moreover with the extension of the number of seeds from 8 to 16 it meant players were more likely to have a tougher opponent in the round of the last 16. Against this, of course, was the chance that a top player could draw mayber someone just outside the top 8 in an early round but looking at Margaret's draws that did not happen. She did come up against Olga Morozova in the last 32 at RG in 1970 but Olga was by no means anywhere near the top echelon at that stage of her career. Martina had Potter and Kohde-Kilsch (twice) in last 16 matches.

All I can say is that my opinion of the "great" serve and volleyers whom Margaret faced differs from Jeffs. Rosie Casals, Olga Morozova, Kerry Melville. Very good players in their time but certainly not Master Class. The Evonne Goolagong of 1970 was only beginning to ascend the rankings comparable to the Navratilova of 1973/74 or Graf of 1983/84 and aside from Forest Hills where she had been brilliant in 1968 and always did well, until she achieved some consistency in the early 70s Virginia Wade's results in the other Slams were, to say the least, extremely flaky.

Personally, I would rate Hana Mandlikova higher than any of the above mentioned players, Andrea Jaegar was a tough cookie also, much better than many rated her but in 4 of those 6 victories Martina had to beat Chris Evert in the final round. Margaret had BJK at Wimbledon in 1970 and Evonne at the Aussie in 1971 just as she was beggining her final ascent to the top. You may suggest Nancy Richey at the USO in 1970 but over in BFTP Nancy, herself has told us she did not really have the game to compete with the top guns on grass.

It is open to debate whether a serve-and-volleyer on grass will always beat a TOP baseliner on grass. (What about Andre Agassi?) At least 9 times out of 10 I would have no hesitation in saying Chrissie on any surface would have beaten Melville, Morozova, Casals and the Goolagong or Wade of 1970 and early 1971.

So, two great Champions, but for me, Martina's run of 6 Slams the better.

Mary Carillo
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:41 PM
You are basing your delusional dreams on what?

Monica's squeaker wins against Graf in 92/93?
Her losing 3 of 5 matches as #1 against Graf nevertheless?
Her being beaten like a drum in the most important match of her career (Wimbledon final 1992)?
Graf slumping bigtime in 90/92?
Seles with her gaining-weight genes?
Seles with her mental fragility (needed 2.25 years to recover mentally from a 1-cm stab wound)?





What?
I thought Monica "never was the same player after The Stabbing"?
Having success as a teenager or a 20, 21 year old is one thing. Austin, Jaeger, Hingis, Sabby, Majoli, Seles, Venus, Serena, Graf had it. To win multiple slams after your 22th birthday as well - THAT means you are a truly great. Graf did it - the majority failed (or are failing before our eyes) ...

Before I post this counter to what appears to be, a quite emotional and strangely bizarre Graf fan. I questioned my own sense of well being and sanity. For why anybody could think of reasoning with such an insane, and psychotic fan bewilders me. But I never shirk my responsibilities of educating the tennis public. So here goes!

It was based on my data of tennis, to which no one comes close!

And Monica was never the same player after the stabbing, which virtually every tennis fan on this planet concur with -EXCEPT YOU!

I was quoting Monica 1993 when she was handing out a tennis lesson to Miss Graf.

And as I stated during the 1993 Australian [Steffi's] actually playing better than when she played in '88 and won the Grand Slam. Everyone acts as though 'Well, you know, she's got to get it back, she's got to get it back.' I actually feel that Steffi has added a lot to her game. She's a better defensive player. She's got a better first serve than she used to. I think her slice backhand really works well. I mean, I happen to think that she's a better player than she was a few years ago, but she's facing an opponent that is just remarkable, and I think that's why she doesn't have the Grand Slams titles we're used to seeing from her - yet Monica still won.


And then you have the audacity to remark upon the murder attempt. Questioning the depth of the stab wound.

If brains were dynamite you wouldn’t have enough to blow the top of your head off!

Calimero377
Jan 19th, 2005, 06:54 PM
Before I post this counter to what appears to be, a quite emotional and strangely bizarre Graf fan. I questioned my own sense of well being and sanity. ...

And rightfully so!
(Just watch what comes now from this strange Mary woman!)


....
I was quoting Monica 1993 when she was handing out a tennis lesson to Miss Graf.

And as I stated during the 1993 Australian [Steffi's] actually playing better than when she played in '88 and won the Grand Slam. Everyone acts as though 'Well, you know, she's got to get it back, she's got to get it back.' I actually feel that Steffi has added a lot to her game. She's a better defensive player. She's got a better first serve than she used to. I think her slice backhand really works well. I mean, I happen to think that she's a better player than she was a few years ago, but she's facing an opponent that is just remarkable, and I think that's why she doesn't have the Grand Slams titles we're used to seeing from her - yet Monica still won. ...


What about

"Graf in winter of 94 was faaaaaaaaaaaar better than in winter of 93 because she beat ASV 6-0, 6-2 in AO 94 final and Navi in Tokyo 94 final 6-4, 6-2 but struggled against ASV 7-5, 6-4 in AO 93 semis and lost to Navi in Tokyo 93 semis 6-4, 3-6, 3-6 which makes it very probable that Graf of 94 would not have lost to Seles at AO as she lost in AO 93 final (6-4, 3-6, 2-6)"

was too complicated for you?

:confused:

Mary Carillo
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:09 PM
And rightfully so!
(Just watch what comes now from this strange Mary woman!)





What about

"Graf in winter of 94 was faaaaaaaaaaaar better than in winter of 93 because she beat ASV 6-0, 6-2 in AO 94 final and Navi in Tokyo 94 final 6-4, 6-2 but struggled against ASV 7-5, 6-4 in AO 93 semis and lost to Navi in Tokyo 93 semis 6-4, 3-6, 3-6 which makes it very probable that Graf of 94 would not have lost to Seles at AO as she lost in AO 93 final (6-4, 3-6, 2-6)"

was too complicated for you?

:confused:


Whatever Graf achieved during the seasons Monica was absent, are meaningless in comparison with Monica Seles . It’s a well known fact amongst the tennis fraternity that Monica had Steffi in her back pocket before the stabbing.

And as Miss Graf said (NOT ME) this is from Steffi's lips.

Steffi Graf: "Well, like you said, I had an incredible year, so I am very happy about it. But I do know that there's one player who hasn't been around the last three grand slams, and that's Monica, and I just hope she'll be soon back."

Probable? I guess not!!

alfajeffster
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:15 PM
Whatever Graf achieved during the seasons Monica was absent, are meaningless in comparison with Monica Seles . It’s a well known fact amongst the tennis fraternity that Monica had Steffi in her back pocket before the stabbing.

And as Miss Graf said (NOT ME) this is from Steffi's lips.

Steffi Graf: "Well, like you said, I had an incredible year, so I am very happy about it. But I do know that there's one player who hasn't been around the last three grand slams, and that's Monica, and I just hope she'll be soon back."

Probable? I guess not!!
Old bones are never gone, they just re-surface with new gravediggers. At no time did Steffi Graf ever have a losing head-to-head record against Monica Seles. Not before the stabbing, not after- never, and Monica Seles never beat Steffi Graf on anything but slow red clay or rebound ace (the slowest, highest bouncing surface on the tour). The fact that Graf wanted to get at Monica (something I always admired about her- unlike Navratilova, Graf never avoided anyone ever) and to play her just makes me like her champion's qualities all the more. In Monica's pocket? Never.

Mary Carillo
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:18 PM
Old bones are never gone, they just re-surface with new gravediggers. At no time did Steffi Graf ever have a losing head-to-head record against Monica Seles. Not before the stabbing, not after- never, and Monica Seles never beat Steffi Graf on anything but slow red clay or rebound ace (the slowest, highest bouncing surface on the tour). The fact that Graf wanted to get at Monica (something I always admired about her- unlike Navratilova, Graf never avoided anyone ever) and to play her just makes me like her champion's qualities all the more. In Monica's pocket? Never.


Head - to - heads are worthless statistics. Are you saying that any player with a winning head-to-head against Graf was the better player?

alfajeffster
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:23 PM
Head - to - heads are worthless statistics. Are you saying that any player with a winning head-to-head against Graf was the better player?
Jesus, Mary! This particular head-to-head is very telling, actually, because it's so brief. 10-5 isn't a long and storied rivalry, and for most of it, both players were one of the top 2 players in the world. Graf never lost to Seles on grass, indoor carpet, or fast hardcourts, both before and after the unfortunate incident in Hamburg 93. Linda Ferrando has a winning head-to-head record versus Monica Seles. That kind of head-to-head is worthless, although it does bear mentioning that it happened on a fast hardcourt!

Calimero377
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:35 PM
Head - to - heads are worthless statistics. Are you saying that any player with a winning head-to-head against Graf was the better player?


Graf played Seles 15 times - from 1989 until 1999.
Seles won 5 matches only.
Graf is 3-2 vs. Seles before Seles became #1 (and Graf still was #1).
Graf is 5-2 vs. Seles when Seles was #1.
And Graf is 2-1 vs. Seles when no-one of them was #1 anymore.

:worship:

KV
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:40 PM
I think its basically impossible to compare players of different eras to one another.

Comparing Serena in her prime to Navratilova in her prime

Comparing Navratilova in her prime to Court in her prime

etc etc.

Its just impossible to say who was better.Indeed, but I can't compare ASV and CM to H. Mandlikova. Hana's certainly the edge over them. Won GS's on 3 different surfaces.

Mary Carillo
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:43 PM
Jesus, Mary! This particular head-to-head is very telling, actually, because it's so brief. 10-5 isn't a long and storied rivalry, and for most of it, both players were one of the top 2 players in the world. Graf never lost to Seles on grass, indoor carpet, or fast hardcourts, both before and after the unfortunate incident in Hamburg 93. Linda Ferrando has a winning head-to-head record versus Monica Seles. That kind of head-to-head is worthless, although it does bear mentioning that it happened on a fast hardcourt!


So some do count, as you put forward, and others don’t? It’s either all in or none. You cannot use misleading data just to theorise on what might have been. Yes and we all know why it's so brief (beacuse of a lunatic Graf fan) and well all know and concede (well everybody that's got one iota of tennis logic does) that Monica was never the same player after the murder attempt.

And here's another quote from the wonderful Chrissie.

Chris Evert: "It's one thing to overpower Steffi, like Martina Navratilova when she serves and volleys, but it's another thing to outplay her at her own game, and that's exactly what Monica's doing."

alfajeffster
Jan 19th, 2005, 07:54 PM
...And here's another quote from the wonderful Chrissie.

Chris Evert: "It's one thing to overpower Steffi, like Martina Navratilova when she serves and volleys, but it's another thing to outplay her at her own game, and that's exactly what Monica's doing."
And when did she say that? What match was it? What was the surface?

P.S.- I've never taken what Chris Evert says in the commentary booth very seriously, and you shouldn't either. Most of it is feed in her ear from some "tennis analyst" on the network payroll. If you want to listen to tennis commentary on player performance at its best- sit down and listen to Billie Jean King or John McEnroe calling a match some time (Fred Stolle wasn't too bad either- I miss him)- it's almost always educational and focused on the game itself, and not someone's agenda.

Calimero377
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:07 PM
So some do count, as you put forward, and others don’t? It’s either all in or none. You cannot use misleading data just to theorise on what might have been. Yes and we all know why it's so brief (beacuse of a lunatic Graf fan) and well all know and concede (well everybody that's got one iota of tennis logic does) that Monica was never the same player after the murder attempt.

And here's another quote from the wonderful Chrissie.

Chris Evert: "It's one thing to overpower Steffi, like Martina Navratilova when she serves and volleys, but it's another thing to outplay her at her own game, and that's exactly what Monica's doing."


And Graf was never the same player after May 90.
Your point being?

LDVTennis
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:39 PM
Old bones are never gone, they just re-surface with new gravediggers. At no time did Steffi Graf ever have a losing head-to-head record against Monica Seles. Not before the stabbing, not after- never, and Monica Seles never beat Steffi Graf on anything but slow red clay or rebound ace (the slowest, highest bouncing surface on the tour). The fact that Graf wanted to get at Monica (something I always admired about her- unlike Navratilova, Graf never avoided anyone ever) and to play her just makes me like her champion's qualities all the more. In Monica's pocket? Never.

I admired that about her too. She never ducked out of anything.

She had to be really hurting to withdraw. If she could run she would play. Bud Collins said it himself - He couldn't remember any other champion who had played hurt so often and won.

She never shied away from a challenge. She relished testing herself against Venus as much in '96 (Manhattan Beach) as in '99 (Wimbledon). And, no matter how hurt or how annoyed she was with her game, she competed well each time. (Compare that comportment to Seles' who ducked out of Wimbledon in '91, the circumstances notwithstanding.)

She was, of course, blessed with a game that could win on all surfaces. So, she never once felt the need to avoid a certain player on a particular surface or to carve out a certain part of the season (e.g., clay, grass, hardcourts, indoor) from her schedule.

It is a testament to the universality of her game that, while towards the end of her career her game was more perfectly suited to winning its last major at Wimbledon, her last major win would take place at the French. What a symmetrical ending to an almost perfect career!

alfajeffster
Jan 19th, 2005, 08:51 PM
I admired that about her too. She never ducked out of anything.

She had to be really hurting to withdraw. If she could run she would play. Bud Collins said it himself - He couldn't remember any other champion who had played hurt so often and won.

She never shied away from a challenge. She relished testing herself against Venus as much in '96 (Manhattan Beach) as in '99 (Wimbledon). And, no matter how hurt or how annoyed she was with her game, she competed well each time. (Compare that comportment to Seles' who ducked out of Wimbledon in '91, the circumstances notwithstanding.)

She was, of course, blessed with a game that could win on all surfaces. So, she never once felt the need to avoid a certain player on a particular surface or to carve out a certain part of the season (e.g., clay, grass, hardcourts, indoor) from her schedule.

It is a testament to the universality of her game that, while towards the end of her career her game was more perfectly suited to winning its last major at Wimbledon, her last major win would take place at the French. What a symmetrical ending to an almost perfect career!
I actually liked watching her play on red clay more than any other surface. I know that sounds a little strange because she was so devastating on the faster surfaces, but let me explain. There were several times (and epic matches) on red clay that you could actually see her making an extreme effort to settle down into the match, pull down her unforced errors, and hit this zone of consistency (while maintaining her aggressiveness) which was one of the best displays of balanced attack I've ever seen. Many people decry the 1999 French fiasco because of the Hingis meltdown, but I like to watch it because, in the middle of not giving up at the end of that second set, you can see Graf visibly tempering her game and concentrating on winning the set with consistency, depth, and pace in balance, as opposed to flashes of electricity that so often punctuated her grass or carpet matches. The fact that she maintained the level of balance through the first few games of the third set (when most players would have gone the other direction and lose, especially after that Hingis' convenient "bathroom" break), and kept the high level of balanced pressure is what attacking tennis is all about.

raquel
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:01 PM
And Monica was never the same player after the stabbing, which virtually every tennis fan on this planet concur with -EXCEPT YOU!

I don't think it's that easy to just write off Monica's post stabbing results as the result of her not being the same player as before the stabbing. Her results were not as good but that wasn't just down to the stabbing - the level of tennis had improved as a whole and Monica was slightly left behind by a small group of players.

There was a couple of years around 1996-1997 where she certainly was not physically as fit as she could have been. 1998-1999 she was in better shape but had some bad results in the Slams like losing to Zvereva and Lucic at Wimbledon. Monica would also sometimes beat Serena or Hingis but then had Lindsay or Venus waiting for her in the next round and it was hard for her to beat two or three of those players in a row because at that time those players were just more athletic and powerful at times than Monica - you can't then pinpoint that back to the stabbing and say "Well she lost to Venus and Lindsay because she wasn't the same player since the stabbing". The level had risen and at the Grand Slams and Monica was just one level below the main 2 or 3 contenders at the end of the day.

As for Navratilova avoiding Graf, I'm gonna give Martina the benefit of the doubt. For a start, Martina just didn't 'do' clay in her mid-30s. Wimbeldon was always her main aim and during her 30s a long clay season was best avoided if she wanted to be fresh for Wimbledon. Martina didn't have to prove anything to anyone and you certainly can't accuse her of avoiding Steffi at Wimbledon and the US Open when she was 35-38, probably the two biggest events in her eyes.

Philbo
Jan 19th, 2005, 09:59 PM
As for Navratilova avoiding Graf, I'm gonna give Martina the benefit of the doubt. For a start, Martina just didn't 'do' clay in her mid-30s. Wimbeldon was always her main aim and during her 30s a long clay season was best avoided if she wanted to be fresh for Wimbledon. Martina didn't have to prove anything to anyone and you certainly can't accuse her of avoiding Steffi at Wimbledon and the US Open when she was 35-38, probably the two biggest events in her eyes.
Well said Raquel.

Martina didnt believe she could win at Roland Garros and was totally focussed on her 9th WImbledon which is why she planned her schedule around being prepared for WImbledon.

But I'd hardly expect the Graf-camp of Alfa, LDV, Cali etc in this thread to even think that was her possible reason why.

mishar
Jan 19th, 2005, 11:12 PM
With all due respect, do you understand how contradictory it is to say, in the consecutive sentences no less, that it is 'inherently impossible to compare people of different eras,' yet "insofar as we can objectively compare, [M]artina's dominance in her 6-slam run was more impressive"? Explain to me how if it is inherently impossible, you can still establish a basis, an objective one at that, upon which to compare both runs?

In short, I guess I just find it more than a little ridiculous that you would fault Alfa for trying to do something "inherently impossible" and then proceed to do the same thing in order to arrive at the conclusion that Martina's run was more impressive.

If I've been reading correctly, the analytical part of Alfa's and AndyT's argument has concerned the conditions of possibility for such a comparison at all. Whatever one may think of either of their two positions, they have at least gone further than you have in laying the groundwork for any determination on the matter. So, concluding matters like you do in two contradictory sentences, just makes everything they've gone through seem so trivial. And, it really isn't, whether one has a stake in what they are saying or not.

Obviously Alfa and Andy have gone into this much more thoroughly than I have. My first question is, why isn't it trivial? I mean, I don't judge them, I think it's wonderful they're both so knowledgable, but I would classify this entire thread, and this entire board, as sports trivia -- nothing wrong with it, but by definition trivial. And even within the larger category of sports trivia, this is undeniably a rather picayune question.

To clarify my apparent contradiction. I think there are some criteria that are more objective than subjective. More matches played in a tournament, different surfaces, extra-gs domination, the other things czechfan said. The quality of their opponents I think brings in a level of subjectivity that makes the whole exercise reach the point of absurdity. In other words, I am disagreeing with Alfa's criteria. I don't attack him for it, I'm not offended by it, I think he is a very fair and interesting poster who knows a ton about tennis. I just don't believe "quality of opposition" is a good way to prove the superiority of a player from one era over that of another. In your own mind, it may be perfectly valid, but it's impossible to prove by recourse to numbers, since those numbers are of course only relative to their own era.

Phew. To give an example. I am a die-hard Seles fan. One who avoids all Graf-Seles arguments btw because I got bored of them a long time ago. To me the quality of Steffi's opposition was significantly lower after the stabbing because Monica was gone. However, I also acknowledge that enters the real of subjective would-hav-beens, rather than the hard facts of what was. Objectively, Steffi has a much better record than Monica. I can argue Monica's superiority, but the argument is inherently subjective.

jeanmi18
Jan 20th, 2005, 12:55 PM
my two cents........
the only difference beetwen Martina and Margaret is this:
during her domination time, martina simply showed the best game ever seen in a tennis court.....
Numbers are important (and Martina's record is amazing, after all) but quality is more important............and when it comes to quality only John McEnroe or Rod Laver can be compared to Martina......
said that, obviously Margaret achievement was great as well.......


PS Andy T, please tell me, if you are a french guy, how did you learn english?
Your english is simply terrific........I'm dying to envy you that...... :)


:lol: :lol: :lol: but Andy's French is also very good

alfajeffster
Jan 20th, 2005, 12:56 PM
Obviously Alfa and Andy have gone into this much more thoroughly than I have. My first question is, why isn't it trivial? I mean, I don't judge them, I think it's wonderful they're both so knowledgable, but I would classify this entire thread, and this entire board, as sports trivia -- nothing wrong with it, but by definition trivial. And even within the larger category of sports trivia, this is undeniably a rather picayune question.

To clarify my apparent contradiction. I think there are some criteria that are more objective than subjective. More matches played in a tournament, different surfaces, extra-gs domination, the other things czechfan said. The quality of their opponents I think brings in a level of subjectivity that makes the whole exercise reach the point of absurdity. In other words, I am disagreeing with Alfa's criteria. I don't attack him for it, I'm not offended by it, I think he is a very fair and interesting poster who knows a ton about tennis. I just don't believe "quality of opposition" is a good way to prove the superiority of a player from one era over that of another. In your own mind, it may be perfectly valid, but it's impossible to prove by recourse to numbers, since those numbers are of course only relative to their own era.

Phew. To give an example. I am a die-hard Seles fan. One who avoids all Graf-Seles arguments btw because I got bored of them a long time ago. To me the quality of Steffi's opposition was significantly lower after the stabbing because Monica was gone. However, I also acknowledge that enters the real of subjective would-hav-beens, rather than the hard facts of what was. Objectively, Steffi has a much better record than Monica. I can argue Monica's superiority, but the argument is inherently subjective.:worship: On the objective/subjective analysis. I actually agree with you whole-heartedly on that synopsis. This is a trivial pursuit, as well as a sterile environment simply because all conversations here are governed by individual opinion. One of my favorite lines from David Byrne is from a Talking Heads song called 'Crosseyed and Painless':

"Facts are useless in emergencies"

The concept is lost (and usually anathema) on those who place great store in statistics and numbers (and the subsequent bending, shaping, and interpretation of the same). My entire argument has consistently been based upon the premise that Martina Navratilova didn't have a great serve-and-volley contemporary, and that her attacking game (as with so many attacking players of the past- yes, we can learn from and make informed comparisons from the past) was best challenged with a mirror image of the Navratilova game itself. Yes, the concept that serve-and-volley players don't generally like to hit passing shots, and have the most trouble when met with an identical game plan is subjective, but I submit it's a concept that nearly all of the great serve-volley players throughout history would agree with me on, and I would even go one step further and say that most great serve-volley players feel that a well-executed serve-and-volley style of play trumps a baseline style of play every time. I realize this flies in the face of the game of the great Steffi Graf. I do believe that, given the same standard size equipment, rules and training, it is subjectively possible to deduce players like Margaret Court, Billie Jean King, Maria Bueno, and net rushers as far back as Alice Marble could have taken out Steffi Graf on any given day. Martina Navratilova, as great as she is, never really had to prove herself (especially during the 80s period of dominance) against an equally proficient attacker. The subjective counter has been made regarding surface, however, I have also demonstrated that, going all the way back to Alice Marble, attacking players from the California hardcourts were the norm, and there's a long line of champion serve-and-volleyers who did, in fact, succeed by attacking on hardcourts. It is objective to admit that Navratilova was never tested by such a high level of accomplished attack throughout her run of dominance.

casino
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:06 PM
3 of Steffi's wins came in 1989 when Monica was still 15 and losing to almost everybody, she still hasn't fully developped as a player. So that's hardly an indication of Steffi's superiority.

4 of Steffi's wins came after the stabbing, when Monica wasn't the same player. She wasn't as strong mentally, she had lost many years of competition and experience, etc. So it's hardly an indication of Steffi's superiority.

And the 1992 Wimbledon final, Monica was more focusing about keeping down her grunting than actually playing the match.

So Steffi had 2 good wins over Monica, in 1991. WOW. And let's say we count the 1992 Wimbledon final. ALL the other wins came either after the stabbing or when Monica was 15 and hasn't fully developped as a player, that's hardly impressive. That's 70% of Steffi's wins over Monica. The head-to-head actually favors Monica because almost all her wins came when Steffi was #1,#2.

alfajeffster
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:19 PM
3 of Steffi's wins came in 1989 when Monica was still 15 and losing to almost everybody, she still hasn't fully developped as a player. So that's hardly an indication of Steffi's superiority.

4 of Steffi's wins came after the stabbing, when Monica wasn't the same player. She wasn't as strong mentally, she had lost many years of competition and experience, etc. So it's hardly an indication of Steffi's superiority.

And the 1992 Wimbledon final, Monica was more focusing about keeping down her grunting than actually playing the match.

So Steffi had 2 good wins over Monica, in 1991. WOW. And let's say we count the 1992 Wimbledon final. ALL the other wins came either after the stabbing or when Monica was 15 and hasn't fully developped as a player, that's hardly impressive. That's 70% of Steffi's wins over Monica. The head-to-head actually favors Monica because almost all her wins came when Steffi was #1,#2.It's been a while since I went down this road, so why not give it another stroll today- the trees along this route are so pretty, and they never change, no matter what the season...

Let me see, so I can be on the same page with you, I'll reach in my pocket and don those rose colored glasses before I address the points you are attempting to make:

Three of Steffi's wins over Monica came when Monica was just 15, and still losing to everybody. Hmmm, why is it that when Steffi was just 15, and still losing to everybody, she is less than a champion than Monica, and somehow not as good?

The 1992 Wimbledon final somehow doesn count, because Monica was trying to suppress her grunt. This one is really off the charts of reality as far as I'm concerned. If a player goes out there and plays, she's fit. If she decides to prejudice her chances by choosing not to grunt as usual, I'd say that's her fault, and in no way diminishes the quality of the opponent, in fact, it actually makes the opponent a smarter player. By the way- ever watched Monica warm up? I have- many times (from 1990 VSC to the USO a few years ago, watched her practice at least 6 or 7 times in the past 15 years). Lots of pro players don't like to warm up with Monica (ask Jim Courier about it sometime, I believe his words were "get some other sucker"), because she hits the ball just as hard and with just as much angle and ferocity as she does in her matches, so it's not much of a warm-up for the practice partner. The most curious thing about Monica's warm-ups is the fact that she is silent- ALWAYS silent. Why is that? No grunting during practice, but somehow making the decision to "suppress her grunting" in the biggest final of her career. Seems a little fishy to me, especially when Monica herself stated right after the match that it didn't have anything to do with her suppressing her grunting.

Oh, and I guess I ought to re-hash the fact that Monica Seles has never beaten Steffi Graf on a fast court (grass, carpet, decoturfII, or any other fast hardcourt).

Now my trip down memory lane has been fulfilled. Thanks!

Mary Carillo
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:39 PM
When some consider and remark upon, and use the age factor to theorise it does make you think how good Martina Hingis was. Especially when she could defeat Steffi Graf (in her prime) at the tender age of 15.

moby
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:40 PM
@alfa: Your argument works both ways. Why should Martina N. be more challenged by other serve-and-volleyers than they are by her? Wouldn't they absolutely hate playing her too, because by your definition "serve-and-volley players don't generally like to hit passing shots, and have the most trouble when met with an identical game plan."

Since Martina N. is one of the best at serve-and-volleying ever, in the execution of similar game plans, she wins. QED.

alfajeffster
Jan 20th, 2005, 01:51 PM
@alfa: Your argument works both ways. Why should Martina N. be more challenged by other serve-and-volleyers than they are by her? Wouldn't they absolutely hate playing her too, because by your definition "serve-and-volley players don't generally like to hit passing shots, and have the most trouble when met with an identical game plan."

Since Martina N. is one of the best at serve-and-volleying ever, in the execution of similar game plans, she wins. QED."Billie Jean King knew exactly what to do to pick my game apart, and she did it."- Martina Navratilova

Yes, Martina is one of the greatest serve-and-volley players in history. My point is that she wasn't challenged by a contemporary of equal or even close ability. The same could be said of John McEnroe during the mid-80s. There wasn't another really great serve-and-volley contemporary to challenge him. The biggest weapon for both Martina and John wasn't how great they were at volleying (and they are both deservedly seen as benchmarks of sorts for great volleying skill), but the fact that they relied heavily on their lefty service delivery. Rod Laver is another great lefty who accomplished much. Look at his career, and the number of great serve-volley contemporaries he had to deal with. There was no one the calibre of Billie Jean King or Margaret Court for Martina to have to play during most of the 80s. No, I don't think either Billie Jean or Margaret would have been intimidated by Martina, I think they would've beaten her quite a few times (especially in the mental department), all things being equal. It's easy to see what Martina did as total dominance and a complete mastry over the field. It's also easy (at least for me) to see the field not containing another attacking player to test her.

moby
Jan 20th, 2005, 02:07 PM
BJK isn't really relevant to the argument, because she wasn't a scalp in either Court's or Navratilova's run of 6 Majors. I think the easy thing to do to compare both runs most objectively would be to place Martina in Margaret's draw and vice versa and see if they would have accomplished the same thing.

I believe Martina would still able to complete the 6 majors. But it would be hard to see Margaret not fall to Chris one of those 4 times, don't you agree?

alfajeffster
Jan 20th, 2005, 02:17 PM
BJK isn't really relevant to the argument, because she wasn't a scalp in either Court's or Navratilova's run of 6 Majors. I think the easy thing to do to compare both runs most objectively would be to place Martina in Margaret's draw and vice versa and see if they would have accomplished the same thing.

I believe Martina would still able to complete the 6 majors. But it would be hard to see Margaret not fall to Chris one of those 4 times, don't you agree?
Actually, Billie Jean is relevant to the argument, and yes she did fall to Margaret at the 1970 Wimbledon Final epic, and Margaret also had to deal with Billie Jean, Maria Bueno, and several other top-flite serve-and-volley players right throughout her much-interrupted career. I have also countered the Chris Evert argument by suggesting that Martina herself quite possibly would have fallen more than once to Evert during her run of 6 majors, had she not hired a military cache of strategists to systematically dismantle the Evert game. That was goal #1 for Team Navratilova during her surge of dominance in the early 80s, and she accomplished it. I would like to have seen Team Navratilova try to dissect the Billie Jean King game during that same period.

moby
Jan 20th, 2005, 02:25 PM
Actually, Billie Jean is relevant to the argument, and yes she did fall to Margaret at the 1970 Wimbledon Final epic, and Margaret also had to deal with Billie Jean, Maria Bueno, and several other top-flite serve-and-volley players right throughout her much-interrupted career. I have also countered the Chris Evert argument by suggesting that Martina herself quite possibly would have fallen more than once to Evert during her run of 6 majors, had she not hired a military cache of strategists to systematically dismantle the Evert game. That was goal #1 for Team Navratilova during her surge of dominance in the early 80s, and she accomplished it. I would like to have seen Team Navratilova try to dissect the Billie Jean King game during that same period.I apologize for overlooking BJK's loss. Again, we are not trying to prove whether Court or Navratilova is a better player, but whose consecutive 6 GS wins was more impressive. But surely it is more likely for Martina to beat BJK once than Margaret to beat Chris 4 times.

The thing is, Martina did hire the strategists (How exactly does that story go anyway? What did the strategists do) and she did notch up those 6 wins. Would Court have done the same thing? Besides what's so wrong about hiring the strategists? Perhaps you could argue that is not a nice thing to do, but she has got to do what she has to do to win, right? ;)

alfajeffster
Jan 20th, 2005, 03:17 PM
I apologize for overlooking BJK's loss. Again, we are not trying to prove whether Court or Navratilova is a better player, but whose consecutive 6 GS wins was more impressive. But surely it is more likely for Martina to beat BJK once than Margaret to beat Chris 4 times.

The thing is, Martina did hire the strategists (How exactly does that story go anyway? What did the strategists do) and she did notch up those 6 wins. Would Court have done the same thing? Besides what's so wrong about hiring the strategists? Perhaps you could argue that is not a nice thing to do, but she has got to do what she has to do to win, right? ;)
It's an interesting debate, that's for sure. Having met Margaret, Billie Jean, and Chris, I have my personal opinions, but as Mishar posted above, that is entirely subjective. I don't mind sharing my subjective opinion. It is common knowledge that Team Navratilova (starting with Nancy Lieberman and then Dr. Renee Richards and even Billie Jean eventually) mapped out a single-minded strategy to dismantle the Evert baseline game. The Navratilova military brain trust made it their tactical mission to conquer Evert, and they succeeded. Would Margaret have embarked on such a similar, single-minded team endeavor? I think not. Do I fault Martina for having done so? No. Every player uses what he or she deems appropriate at their disposal. She set a precedent that has become the norm. Before that particular systematic assualt, no one had ever even come close to the team effort (replete with computer stats on Evert) Martina employed on a single opponent. Margaret Court actually defeated Evert twice in majors in 1973 (French Open on clay, and U.S. Open on grass), and Evert herself has admitted to being lucky to have caught Court on anti-biotics in her odd 3-set win over her at Wimbledon that same year. Given the same equipment, it is possible to think Court in her prime would indeed have taken out Evert 4 times in majors, even without computers or a brain trust to direct the assault, and also, given the same equipment, I do not think peak form King would lose to peak form Navratilova. I think Billie Jean King was every bit as good a volleyer (and even better off the forehand and low volleys) as Martina, and was definitely better in the mental department.

Calimero377
Jan 20th, 2005, 07:09 PM
Well said Raquel.

Martina didnt believe she could win at Roland Garros and was totally focussed on her 9th WImbledon which is why she planned her schedule around being prepared for WImbledon.

But I'd hardly expect the Graf-camp of Alfa, LDV, Cali etc in this thread to even think that was her possible reason why.


She was afraid that Graf would humiliate her on clay or ReboundAce.
If she had played ALL slams in 89-94 she would not have a very flattering 9-9 H2H record against Graf. And Navi was very record-conscious ...

alfajeffster
Jan 20th, 2005, 07:17 PM
When some consider and remark upon, and use the age factor to theorise it does make you think how good Martina Hingis was. Especially when she could defeat Steffi Graf (in her prime) at the tender age of 15.
I'm just doing this by memory, but if memory serves, I think Hingis ended up with a 2-10 record against Graf, and only beat her on red clay in three sets at the Italian Open, and then one more time on indoor carpet in Tokyo. Didn't Graf win all the rest of their matches?

Calimero377
Jan 20th, 2005, 07:18 PM
3 of Steffi's wins came in 1989 when Monica was still 15 and losing to almost everybody, she still hasn't fully developped as a player. So that's hardly an indication of Steffi's superiority. ...

Monica hadn't fully developed as a player in 1990. Why do you count those matches. Ah, Monica won them. How convenient ...

....
4 of Steffi's wins came after the stabbing, when Monica wasn't the same player. She wasn't as strong mentally, she had lost many years of competition and experience, etc. So it's hardly an indication of Steffi's superiority.

And the 1992 Wimbledon final, Monica was more focusing about keeping down her grunting than actually playing the match.

So Steffi had 2 good wins over Monica, in 1991. WOW. And let's say we count the 1992 Wimbledon final. ALL the other wins came either after the stabbing or when Monica was 15 and hasn't fully developped as a player, that's hardly impressive. That's 70% of Steffi's wins over Monica. The head-to-head actually favors Monica because almost all her wins came when Steffi was #1,#2.

You REALLY think Seles would not have been beaten like a drum in Wimbledon 92 if she had grunted? Campino, I tell you something: Seles NEVER grunts when she she is whipped in public! She was very quiet when Graf wiped the grass floor with her at Wimbledon 89 too!!

Graf played Seles 7 times when Seles was #1. Graf won 5 of those matches.
Seles never ever beat Graf on grass, on (U.S. style fast) hardcourts or indoors. She ONLY manage to beat her twice on AOs ReboundAce and 3 times on clay. Two of those losses came exactly in the 4 weeks after the humiliating 1990 family/blackmail scandal hit Graf. That leaves Seles's FO 92 win. 10-8 in the third. Seles said: "That match could have gone either way."

Graf slumped bigtime in 90/92. Seles was the second-best player and playing with the confidence of a teenage rookie. No wonder she picked up the pieces ...

But Seles never was of the Navratilova mould. Graf always feared Navi soemhow. But never Seles.

LDVTennis
Jan 20th, 2005, 07:45 PM
I'm just doing this by memory, but if memory serves, I think Hingis ended up with a 2-10 record against Graf, and only beat her on red clay in three sets at the Italian Open, and then one more time on indoor carpet in Tokyo. Didn't Graf win all the rest of their matches?

Yes, I think your memory serves you right.

Both of the matches that Graf lost went to three sets. The match at the Italian Open is noteworthy also for the fact that Steffi was trying out a new racquet. It may also have been her first clay court tournament of the season. Graf got a late start that year due to a foot and subsequent leg injury.

In their next match after the Italian Open, Steffi dismissed Hingis in straight sets at Wimbledon. That match is noteworthy for what John Lloyd (working for HBO at the time) said about Martina's chances against Graf - "She has no weapons, nothing to hurt Graf with. The best she can do is get the ball back and hope Graf misses."

More than three years later at the '99 FO. Hingis still did not have any weapons. The best she could still do was get the ball back and hope Graf missed. Graf did for almost all of the first two sets, but then as Alfa carefully illustrated above she stopped doing that on match game against. If Hingis had a weapon to hurt Graf, she could have used it to close out the match. She didn't. Graf stopped missing. Graf started hitting winners with her forehand and the rest as they say is history, or glory in Graf's case.

LDVTennis
Jan 20th, 2005, 08:08 PM
She was afraid that Graf would humiliate her on clay or ReboundAce.
If she had played ALL slams in 89-94 she would not have a very flattering 9-9 H2H record against Graf. And Navi was very record-conscious ...

Who knows why she did it?

But the decision did have the effect of bolstering her head to head record against Graf.

It probably would not have ended up being 9-9 had Martina N. tested herself against Graf on clay or rebound ace from 89-94.

alfajeffster
Jan 20th, 2005, 08:15 PM
Who knows why she did it?

But the decision did have the effect of bolstering her head to head record against Graf.

It probably would not have ended up being 9-9 had Martina N. tested herself against Graf on clay or rebound ace from 89-94.It's not just clay or rebound ace, it's the often-termed "Fifth Major" (at least back then it was)- the Lipton International Players Championships at Key Biscayne, the Newsweek (Evert) Champions Cup, as well as several other fast surface tournaments. Of course, there is no way to prove she actually avoided Graf, unless one were to actually document that Martina got ahold of Graf's tournament schedule for the upcoming year prior to mapping out her own, and I doubt that juicy tidbit will ever see the light of day. It would be tantamount to WTAgate and we'd all be called homophobes, religious right-wing fanaticals, and Bush supporters!

raquel
Jan 20th, 2005, 08:41 PM
Well Martina always showed up at Wimbledon and US Open - the two biggest events in her eyes (and probably Steffi's) - and the WTA Championships. As I said before Martina didn't want to go through a long clay court season so that she would be fresh for grass so that explains why she didn't play the major clay events for much of the 1990s (although she did well at the Italian in the 1990s. Steffi rarely played the Italian, but Martina was there). As for Rebound Ace, at Martina's age during the latter part of her career I think she avoided Australia for a longer off-season. Quite a few players avoided the Australian (ASV for a few years, Jana skipped it a few times too) from time to time. As for the Key Biscayne and Indian Wells events, I don't know why Martina didn't play them, but in the grand scheme of things they aren't as important as Wimbledon/US Open/WTA Championships where she did show up every year.

Calimero377
Jan 20th, 2005, 08:57 PM
Well Martina always showed up at Wimbledon and US Open - the two biggest events in her eyes (and probably Steffi's) - and the WTA Championships. As I said before Martina didn't want to go through a long clay court season so that she would be fresh for grass so that explains why she didn't play the major clay events for much of the 1990s (although she did well at the Italian in the 1990s. Steffi rarely played the Italian, but Martina was there). As for Rebound Ace, at Martina's age during the latter part of her career I think she avoided Australia for a longer off-season. Quite a few players avoided the Australian (ASV for a few years, Jana skipped it a few times too) from time to time. As for the Key Biscayne and Indian Wells events, I don't know why Martina didn't play them, but in the grand scheme of things they aren't as important as Wimbledon/US Open/WTA Championships where she did show up every year.


I think Graf valued FO more than USO.

BTW, I use the "Navi was afraid of Graf" argument only to tease rabid Navratilovians (and their Selesian minions). But don't tell them .... ;)

alfajeffster
Jan 20th, 2005, 09:09 PM
Well Martina always showed up at Wimbledon and US Open - the two biggest events in her eyes (and probably Steffi's) - and the WTA Championships. As I said before Martina didn't want to go through a long clay court season so that she would be fresh for grass so that explains why she didn't play the major clay events for much of the 1990s (although she did well at the Italian in the 1990s. Steffi rarely played the Italian, but Martina was there). As for Rebound Ace, at Martina's age during the latter part of her career I think she avoided Australia for a longer off-season. Quite a few players avoided the Australian (ASV for a few years, Jana skipped it a few times too) from time to time. As for the Key Biscayne and Indian Wells events, I don't know why Martina didn't play them, but in the grand scheme of things they aren't as important as Wimbledon/US Open/WTA Championships where she did show up every year.I swear we had this conversation about a year ago, Raquel!:lol: I can understand clay not being her surface of choice (although I seem to remember Capriati losing to "the lege" at Family Circle in the early 90s), but the Rebound Ace I don't understand, especially since she showed up in Tokyo only a week after Melbourne quite a few times, and she doesn't seem to mind playing on Rebound Ace these last few years (she could've racked up a couple more doubles majors there at least and maybe even passed Court by now- doesn't make sense to me). The Navratilova contract with Yonex doesn't hold water with me either, as Martina didn't let that contract stop her from using a disguised Dunlop 200G frame at Wimbledon, and by the early 90s, I'd say she had quite a bit more contractual pulling power than to suggest she couldn't get out of a trip to Tokyo. I think it's more a matter of her picking tournaments with surfaces she felt she had a chance to win on (fast indoor carpet)- something which Billie Jean did before her, but Margaret, Chris, Virginia, and most other champions did not.

raquel
Jan 20th, 2005, 09:38 PM
I think Graf valued FO more than USO.

It is hard to grade the Slams. A lot of players say Wimbledon is the biggest (I know Roger often says this, as does Martina N) but after that it's debatable but I think Martina put the US Open over the French anyway.

BTW, I use the "Navi was afraid of Graf" argument only to tease rabid Navratilovians (and their Selesian minions). But don't tell them .... ;)
That's fine - I use the "Steffi was afraid of ASV" argument when talking about the 1995 Australian Open. No one ever agrees though :lol:

Philbo
Jan 20th, 2005, 09:40 PM
I swear we had this conversation about a year ago, Raquel!:lol: I can understand clay not being her surface of choice (although I seem to remember Capriati losing to "the lege" at Family Circle in the early 90s), but the Rebound Ace I don't understand, especially since she showed up in Tokyo only a week after Melbourne quite a few times, and she doesn't seem to mind playing on Rebound Ace these last few years (she could've racked up a couple more doubles majors there at least and maybe even passed Court by now- doesn't make sense to me). The Navratilova contract with Yonex doesn't hold water with me either, as Martina didn't let that contract stop her from using a disguised Dunlop 200G frame at Wimbledon, and by the early 90s, I'd say she had quite a bit more contractual pulling power than to suggest she couldn't get out of a trip to Tokyo. I think it's more a matter of her picking tournaments with surfaces she felt she had a chance to win on (fast indoor carpet)- something which Billie Jean did before her, but Margaret, Chris, Virginia, and most other champions did not.
The argument that Martina avoided Steffi is a complete load of crap.

Andy T proved it in BFTP for anyone who cares to take a read. Its a fair bit to digest but when put to hard analysis it blows the accusation out of the water and proves it as just another attack on Martina from the Graf camp.

I have to laugh at you Alfa, for all your attempts at trying to make us believe you dont have a favourite and you are ABOVE the sandbox mentality, you are (with all due respect) kidding yourself.

Your pro-Graf, anti-Martina is as evident as it is in LDV or Cali.

Anyway here is the link for anyone who cares to read up and realise that Alfa, LDV and Cali are all full of shit when it comes to the accusation that Martina avoded Graf.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=102434

Calimero377
Jan 20th, 2005, 09:51 PM
The argument that Martina avoided Steffi is a complete load of crap.

Andy T proved it in BFTP for anyone who cares to take a read. Its a fair bit to digest but when put to hard analysis it blows the accusation out of the water and proves it as just another attack on Martina from the Graf camp.

I have to laugh at you Alfa, for all your attempts at trying to make us believe you dont have a favourite and you are ABOVE the sandbox mentality, you are (with all due respect) kidding yourself.

Your pro-Graf, anti-Martina is as evident as it is in LDV or Cali.

Anyway here is the link for anyone who cares to read up and realise that Alfa, LDV and Cali are all full of shit when it comes to the accusation that Martina avoded Graf.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=102434


What about

"Navi didn't play FO since 88 and AO since 89"

didn't sink in?


BTW, FO & AO are 50 % of slams .....

Philbo
Jan 20th, 2005, 09:59 PM
What about

"Navi didn't play FO since 88 and AO since 89"

didn't sink in?


BTW, FO & AO are 50 % of slams .....
Poor Cali, I know you cannot read the thread because your pathetic ass is banned from BFTP. :bounce: :bounce: :lol: :lol: :kiss:

Calimero377
Jan 20th, 2005, 11:24 PM
Poor Cali, I know you cannot read the thread because your pathetic ass is banned from BFTP. :bounce: :bounce: :lol: :lol: :kiss:



You should thank the Lord and Calimero that you are still here in WTAWorld, "Dumboface" ...

BTW:
"Did Martina avoid playing Steffi 1987-94 ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfajeffster and I had a long debate over remarks made by some commentators (ask Alfa which) that Navratilova tried to avoid meeting Steffi once Graf replaced Evert as main rival. The fact that they met just 12 times in those 8 years and only three times 88-90, as Graf moved to the top suggested that there could be something in it.
<rest of delusional Navratilovian drivel mercyfully del>"
:nerner:

henmanhill
Jan 20th, 2005, 11:41 PM
This was suppsed to be a thread about Martina v Court. As usual it's been hijacked by Streffi fans trying, yet again, to persuade everyone that she is the best thing ever, even though we know she wasn't. :rolleyes:

Calimero377
Jan 20th, 2005, 11:44 PM
This was suppsed to be a thread about Martina v Court. As usual it's been hijacked by Streffi fans trying, yet again, to persuade everyone that she is the best thing ever, even though we know she wasn't. :rolleyes:


Of course, Henmanisoverthehill ...

henmanhill
Jan 20th, 2005, 11:55 PM
Of course, Henmanisoverthehill ...

FYI, I'm not particularly a Henman fan so your cheap insult was totally wasted on me.

Philbo
Jan 21st, 2005, 12:00 AM
You should thank the Lord and Calimero that you are still here in WTAWorld, "Dumboface" ...

BTW:
"Did Martina avoid playing Steffi 1987-94 ?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alfajeffster and I had a long debate over remarks made by some commentators (ask Alfa which) that Navratilova tried to avoid meeting Steffi once Graf replaced Evert as main rival. The fact that they met just 12 times in those 8 years and only three times 88-90, as Graf moved to the top suggested that there could be something in it.
<rest of delusional Navratilovian drivel mercyfully del>"
:nerner:
HAHAHAH .. My suspension would be over already and you are an ass-wipe and I dont back away from what I called you.

Anyway, thanks to Andy T, for anyone who wants to really read through it and make up their own mind, rather than swallow the propaganda put out by the Graffanatics, read below:

1987
Graf: 13 tournaments 4 HC 6 CC, 2 Ind, 1 GC (+ 1HC at Olympics). US/CDA 7, EUR 6.
Boca Raton - LIPTON – Hilton Head - Amelia Isl. - Berlin – Italian Open - FRENCH OPEN – Wimbledon – Hamburg – Los Angeles - US Open – Zurich - VS Champs

Navratilova: 12 tournaments: 5 HC, 2 CC, 3 Ind, 2GC. AUS 1, US/CDA 6, EUR 5.
Australian Open – Houston – Lipton - Italian Open -French Open – Eastbourne - WIMBLEDON – Los Angeles - US OPEN – Filderstadt - Chicago - VS Champs

Observations: They have 7 tournaments in common, over half their totals of 13 and 12, meeting 4 times and splitting the victories 2-2. Graf travels to the US for March-April, again Aug-Sept and finally for the Slims. Navratilova returns from Australia and stays in the US until May, returning after Wimbledon and crosses the ocean for a week to play Filderstadt, which has almost always been part of her schedule.


1988
Graf: 13 tournaments 6 HC 4 CC, 2 Ind, 1 GC (+ 1HC at Olympics)
Australian Open – US HC - Boca Raton - Lipton – Amelia Isl. - Berlin - French Open – WIMBLEDON – Hamburg – Mahwah - US Open – Brighton - VS Champs + Olympics

Navratilova: 16 tournaments: 3 HC, 4 CC, 7 Ind, 2GC,
Australian Open – Dallas - Oakland - Washington – Amelia Isl. – Hilton Head – Houston - French Open – Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Canadian - US Open – Filderstadt – New England - Chicago - VS Champs

Observation: They have 6 tournaments in common (ie not far from half of Steffi’s total of 13 and Martina’s 16) but meet once only: 0-1 to Graf. Graf’s schedule includes 5 European tournaments which enable her to be in Europe from April – August and from Sept – November. Navratilova’s schedule enables her to stay in the US until mid-May and return after Wimbledon, with the usual trip to Filderstadt in Autumn.


1989

Graf: 16 tournaments: 6 HC –5 CC - 1 GC - 4 Ind. AUS 1, US/CDA 9, EUR 6
Australian Open – Washington - US HC - Boca Raton – Amelia Island - Hilton Head - Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – WIMBLEDON – San Diego – Mahwah - US OPEN – Zurich - Brighton - VS CHAMPS

Navratilova: 16 tournaments: 5 HC 2 CC, 3 GC, 6 Ind. AUS 2, JPN 1, US/CDA 10, EUR 3
Sydney - Australian Open – Tokyo - Oakland – Amelia Isl. – Hilton Head – Birmingham - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Los Angeles - Canadian - US Open –Dallas – New England – Chicago - VS Champs

Observation: Again, 6/16 tournaments in common and they meet three times with Graf winning all of them. After returning from Japan, Navratilova only leaves the US for the British GC tournaments, playing 10 (to Graf’s 9) North American tournaments, 4 of which are in common. Navratilova works extensively with BJK to get her game together and skips the European Clay Court season to prepare for a victory at Wimbledon.

1990
Graf: 15 tournaments: 4 HC, 4 CC, 1 GC, 6 Ind. AUS 1, JPN 1, US/CDA 6, EUR 7.
Australian Open – Tokyo – Amelia Island - Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – Wimbledon – San Diego – Canadian Open - US Open – Leipzig – Zurich - Brighton – New England - VS Champs

Navratilova : 13 tournaments 3 HC, 4 CC, 2 GC, 4 Ind. JPN 1, US/CDA 8, EUR 4
Chicago – Washington – Indian Wells - Houston – Hilton Head– Hamburg - Italian Open - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Los Angeles - US Open –Tokyo Nichierei – Oakland.

Observation: Graf was out with a broken thumb from Feb to April and had a sinus operation after Wimbledon. Navratilova underwent a knee operation at the end of the year, causing her to miss the Slims championships. As a result, in both cases, the schedules are markedly different from previous years. The introduction of the Leipzig tournament gave Graf another home event to play and Navratilova supported Tokyo Nichirei, which had replaced her old favourite, Dallas. Their absences meant that they only played the same tournament three times, never meeting. However, during the months when they were both fit, Graf and Navratilova only played 8 tournaments each, so 3/8 seems fairer than 3/13 or 3/15, meaning the average was the same as the year before. This year was also marked by father problems for Graf and Judy problems for Martina.

Summary: 1987-90. Graf and Navratilova played the same tournament 22 times (out of 57 for Navratilova and 59 tournaments for Graf). Of these 22 tournaments, 8 were on hard courts, 7 on clay courts, 4 on grass courts and 3 indoors, i.e. 2/3 were on surfaces where Graf was supposedly favoured. They met 8 times (3 times on HC, 3 GC, 1 CC, 1 Ind) with Graf winning 6, 5 of which went to 3 sets (or four sets in the case of the VS champs of 89).

1991
Graf: 15 tournaments: HC 6, CC 4, GC 1, Ind 4. AUS 1, US/CDA 7, EUR 7
Australian Open – US HC - Boca Raton - Lipton – Amelia Island - Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – Wimbledon – San Diego - US Open – Leipzig – Zurich – Brighton - VS Champs.

Navratilova: 14 tournaments: HC 2, CC 3, GC 3, Ind 6. JPN 1, US/CDA 6, EUR 7
Tokyo – Chicago – Indian Wells – Hilton Head– Spanish Open – Italian Open - Birmingham - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – US OPEN –Milan – Filderstadt – Oakland -VS Champs

Comment: The ascent of Seles to world #2 at the end of 90 and then to world #1 means that the game's top rivalry Graf-Seles and no longer Graf-Navratilova. A distinct change in the number of tournaments they both enter, just three. They meet once with Navratilova gaining her first victory since 1987 in a tight three-setter. Following her knee operation, Navratilova reduces her hard court tournaments. While 2/3 of Navratilova’s events are on grass or indoors, 2/3 of Graf’s tournaments are on clay or cement. Navratilova’s schedule resembles that of the previous year except for no play in Australia (sqtill recovering from the knee op) none between Wimbledon and the US Open and an extra trip to Europe in the Autumn. Graf’s schedule reverts to the pre-1990 pattern as she is fit during the US hard court season.

1992
Graf: 14 tournaments: HC 3, CC 4, GC 1, Ind 6 (+ 1CC Olympics). AUS 1, US/CDA 7, EUR 7
Chicago - Boca Raton - Lipton – Amelia Island – Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – Wimbledon –[Olympics]- US Open – Leipzig – ZURICH – Brighton – Philadelphia - VS Champs.

Navratilova: 12 tournaments: HC 3, CC 1, GC 2, Ind. 6. JPN 1, US/CDA 7, EUR 4
Tokyo – Chicago – US HC – Hilton Head - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Los Angeles - US Open –Zurich – Filderstadt - Oakland – VS Champs

Comment: In spite of the fact that both play fewer tournaments, they enter 5 together with Graf winning their indoor encounter in Zurich in another tight three-setter. Navratilova announces that 2003 will be her last season.

1993
Graf: 15 tournaments: HC 6, CC 4, GC 1, Ind. 4. AUS 1, JPN 1, US/CDA 8, EUR 5
Australian Open – Tokyo - Boca Raton - Lipton – Hilton Head – Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – Wimbledon – San Diego – Canadian Open - US Open – Leipzig – Philadelphia - VS Champs.

Navratilova: 13 tournaments: HC 2, CC 1, GC 3, Ind. 6. JPN 1, US/CDA 5, EUR 7
TOKYO – Paris - Chicago – Italian Open – Birmingham - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Los Angeles - US Open –Zurich – Filderstadt - Oakland – VS Champs.

Comment: The surface split of the previous seasons remains the same. Navratilova’s schedule mainly contains events with which she has had a long association, a special affection for or a strong desire to win. Graf’s European autumn schedule is curtailed by surgery after Leipzig and she enters Philadelphia for practice before the VS Champs. They enter 4 tournaments together, with one meeting indoors where Navratilova wins in three. Following the Seles stabbing, Navratilova decides to play on for another year.

1994
Graf 13 tournaments: HC 7, CC 3, GC 1, Ind. 2. AUS 1 JPN 1, US/CDA 7, EUR 4.
Australian Open – TOKYO – Indian Wells - Boca Raton – Lipton – Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – Wimbledon – San Diego – Canadian Open - US Open - VS Champs.


Navratilova 15 tournaments: HC 1, CC 5, GC 2, Ind. 7. JPN 1, USA/CDA 7, EUR 7.
Tokyo – Paris - Chicago – Houston – Hilton Head – Amelia Island - Italian Open – French Open - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Los Angeles –Zurich – Filderstadt - Oakland – VS Champs.

Comment: Graf’s health problems keep her away from the court after the US Open. Navratilova skips the US Open, unable to find the motivation to play following her Wimbledon farewell, but plays a full clay court season. The two play 4 tournaments in common with a routine Graf victory ending their career h2h series at 9-9 in the Tokyo event. In the other three tournaments they both entered, Martina was beaten in the first round in Paris and Steffi in the first round at Wimbledon. Both lost early in New York.


Summary: 1991-94. Graf and Navratilova played the same tournament 16 times (out of 54 tournaments for Navratilova and 57 for Graf). Of these 16 tournaments, 3 were on hard courts, 1 on clay courts, 4 on grass courts and 8 indoors, i.e. 3/4 were on surfaces where Navratilova was supposedly favoured. They met 4 times (once on HC and 3 times indoors), gaining two victories each.


1987-1990: Graf played 20 HC, 19CC, 4GC and 14 Indoor events.
1991-1994: Graf played 22HC, 15CC, 4 GC and 16 Indoor events.

1987-1990: Navratilova played 16 HC, 12CC, 9 GC and 20 Indoor events.
1991-1994: Navratilova played 8 HC, 10CC, 10 GC and 25 Indoor events.

tennisvideos
Jan 21st, 2005, 12:58 AM
As usual the threads get hijacked by posters who are so caught up on suggesting that their fave was the greatest ever etc. Instead, why don't just just accept that there were greatest of their generations - and comparing generations is just not objectively possible.

So that way we don't have to denigrate anyone, we just accept that there were many great legends who were the greatest of their eras, including Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills, Maureen Connolly (a brief but stunning reign), Margaret Court, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles (another brief but stunning reign). And Billie-Jean King deserves to be included for her astonishing Wimbledon record and contribution to the sport in general. Of course there are many others who deserve kudos but I don't want to turn this into a 10 page post. :lol:

All deserve the highest accolades. :worship:

And yes, we need to accept that fate played it's hand in their career ... some benefitted, some were cruelly dealt with. But nonetheless, they are all shining stars which have brightly decorated the history of our sport.

LDVTennis
Jan 21st, 2005, 01:40 AM
This was suppsed to be a thread about Martina v Court. As usual it's been hijacked by Streffi fans trying, yet again, to persuade everyone that she is the best thing ever, even though we know she wasn't. :rolleyes:

News Alert! We don't need to do any convincing.

As to the "we" in "even though we know she wasn't," please stop pretending that you represent anybody but yourself.

Philbo
Jan 21st, 2005, 02:06 AM
News Alert! We don't need to do any convincing.

As to the "we" in "even though we know she wasn't," please stop pretending that you represent anybody but yourself.
he represents ME in that 'we' NOT just himself...

arcus
Jan 21st, 2005, 02:22 AM
As usual the threads get hijacked by posters who are so caught up on suggesting that their fave was the greatest ever etc. Instead, why don't just just accept that there were greatest of their generations - and comparing generations is just not objectively possible.

So that way we don't have to denigrate anyone, we just accept that there were many great legends who were the greatest of their eras, including Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills, Maureen Connolly (a brief but stunning reign), Margaret Court, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles (another brief but stunning reign). And Billie-Jean King deserves to be included for her astonishing Wimbledon record and contribution to the sport in general. Of course there are many others who deserve kudos but I don't want to turn this into a 10 page post. :lol:

All deserve the highest accolades. :worship:

And yes, we need to accept that fate played it's hand in their career ... some benefitted, some were cruelly dealt with. But nonetheless, they are all shining stars which have brightly decorated the history of our sport.


All true.

Plus statistic'omania cant tell u jack about the quality of opposition and the level of professionality of the game at different times.

womens tennis has had many great players, more so than the mens game. They all contributed in different ways to the sport. There doesnt have to be a 'greatest'. celebrate them all. :)

alfajeffster
Jan 21st, 2005, 01:06 PM
The argument that Martina avoided Steffi is a complete load of crap.

Andy T proved it in BFTP for anyone who cares to take a read. Its a fair bit to digest but when put to hard analysis it blows the accusation out of the water and proves it as just another attack on Martina from the Graf camp.

I have to laugh at you Alfa, for all your attempts at trying to make us believe you dont have a favourite and you are ABOVE the sandbox mentality, you are (with all due respect) kidding yourself.

Your pro-Graf, anti-Martina is as evident as it is in LDV or Cali.

Anyway here is the link for anyone who cares to read up and realise that Alfa, LDV and Cali are all full of shit when it comes to the accusation that Martina avoded Graf.

http://www.wtaworld.com/showthread.php?t=102434
I understand where you are coming from Czechfan, and I can see how you might think that I am "pro-Graf, anti-Martina", but I would submit that this feeling you have is just as coloured by your admiration and respect for Martina as my admiration and respect for Graf colours mine. The one difference that I keep coming back to (with a self-proclaimed open mind) is the fact that the thing I really respect most about any champion is the consistent display of wanting to get at their main rivals. After Martina lost to Jana Novotna in the semis of 1994 Wimbledon, and Graf squeaked out that miraculous third set over Novotna to take the rosewater dish again, Steffi actually sent her good friend Rennae Stubbs over to the flat Navratilova was occupying in London to challenge Martina to a private match. Martina wasn't in at the time, and the match never happened. The fact that she wanted to get at Martina, and play her, speaks volumes. I couple this obvious display of wanting to get at a chief rival with curious and consistent appearances at Tokyo by Navratilova just a week after the Australian Open, as well as Indian Wells and the U.S. Women's Hardcourts and selective claycourt tournaments in 94 (when Graf wasn't there), and make my open (admittedly subjective) conclusions.

I have read that thread you mention over and over, and it is clear to me that the statistics can be bent or shaped in either direction, and (thank you mishar) it is a very subjective analysis, at best. The only real way to actually quantify a supposition that Martina avoided Graf 90-94 is to find out whether Martina had access to Steffi's schedule prior to making out her own, and as we cannot ever expect to find this information, you are right, I am blowing smoke and should stop. I will stop, because in the final analysis, there really is no positive purpose in building on subjective suppositions and feelings to the detriment of as great a champion as Martina Navratilova. They are both great, and I have learned and incorporated many things from watching both players moving across a tennis court, all personal opinions from having seen and met both players aside.

Mary Carillo
Jan 21st, 2005, 07:40 PM
It's been a while since I went down this road, so why not give it another stroll today- the trees along this route are so pretty, and they never change, no matter what the season...

Let me see, so I can be on the same page with you, I'll reach in my pocket and don those rose colored glasses before I address the points you are attempting to make:

Three of Steffi's wins over Monica came when Monica was just 15, and still losing to everybody. Hmmm, why is it that when Steffi was just 15, and still losing to everybody, she is less than a champion than Monica, and somehow not as good?

The 1992 Wimbledon final somehow doesn count, because Monica was trying to suppress her grunt. This one is really off the charts of reality as far as I'm concerned. If a player goes out there and plays, she's fit. If she decides to prejudice her chances by choosing not to grunt as usual, I'd say that's her fault, and in no way diminishes the quality of the opponent, in fact, it actually makes the opponent a smarter player. By the way- ever watched Monica warm up? I have- many times (from 1990 VSC to the USO a few years ago, watched her practice at least 6 or 7 times in the past 15 years). Lots of pro players don't like to warm up with Monica (ask Jim Courier about it sometime, I believe his words were "get some other sucker"), because she hits the ball just as hard and with just as much angle and ferocity as she does in her matches, so it's not much of a warm-up for the practice partner. The most curious thing about Monica's warm-ups is the fact that she is silent- ALWAYS silent. Why is that? No grunting during practice, but somehow making the decision to "suppress her grunting" in the biggest final of her career. Seems a little fishy to me, especially when Monica herself stated right after the match that it didn't have anything to do with her suppressing her grunting.

Oh, and I guess I ought to re-hash the fact that Monica Seles has never beaten Steffi Graf on a fast court (grass, carpet, decoturfII, or any other fast hardcourt).

Now my trip down memory lane has been fulfilled. Thanks!

Coincidence or what? I was sitting next to the wonderful Chrissie, and I asked her opinion on this!!

Mary Carillo (Tennis Legend) - Monica tried to deter her grunting, and people say, 'Well that shouldn't make any difference.' What do you think?

Chrissie - I think it's taken away that firepower behind her shots. This is not the same Monica Seles that we've seen all year. And something's different, and it's been a distraction for her. She's thinking about, 'Oh, I can't grunt,' instead of thinking about hitting the ball hard and placing it. It has an effect on her, and it's been negative.

Calimero377
Jan 21st, 2005, 07:45 PM
As usual the threads get hijacked by posters who are so caught up on suggesting that their fave was the greatest ever etc. Instead, why don't just just accept that there were greatest of their generations - and comparing generations is just not objectively possible.

So that way we don't have to denigrate anyone, we just accept that there were many great legends who were the greatest of their eras, including Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills, Maureen Connolly (a brief but stunning reign), Margaret Court, Chris Evert, Martina Navratilova, Steffi Graf, Monica Seles (another brief but stunning reign). And Billie-Jean King deserves to be included for her astonishing Wimbledon record and contribution to the sport in general. Of course there are many others who deserve kudos but I don't want to turn this into a 10 page post. :lol:

All deserve the highest accolades. :worship:

And yes, we need to accept that fate played it's hand in their career ... some benefitted, some were cruelly dealt with. But nonetheless, they are all shining stars which have brightly decorated the history of our sport.


If you were Secretary of Finance we would have hyperinflation ...

alfajeffster
Jan 21st, 2005, 07:56 PM
Coincidence or what? I was sitting next to the wonderful Chrissie, and I asked her opinion on this!!

Mary Carillo (Tennis Legend) - Monica tried to deter her grunting, and people say, 'Well that shouldn't make any difference.' What do you think?

Chrissie - I think it's taken away that firepower behind her shots. This is not the same Monica Seles that we've seen all year. And something's different, and it's been a distraction for her. She's thinking about, 'Oh, I can't grunt,' instead of thinking about hitting the ball hard and placing it. It has an effect on her, and it's been negative.Actually Mary (and I know you're fond of pretending you're a man, so I'll give you the fantasy- hell, everyone likes to pretend now and then, even Martina wanted to be German at Wimbledon once), Dick Enberg was sitting next to Chris when he asked her that question (the day after the rain-interrupted final, I might add), and the follow-up from Bud Collins after Chrissie chirped her press sound byte, is even more telling:

"No one was going to beat Steffi Graf yesterday"

LDVTennis
Jan 22nd, 2005, 12:25 AM
I understand where you are coming from Czechfan, and I can see how you might think that I am "pro-Graf, anti-Martina", but I would submit that this feeling you have is just as coloured by your admiration and respect for Martina as my admiration and respect for Graf colours mine. The one difference that I keep coming back to (with a self-proclaimed open mind) is the fact that the thing I really respect most about any champion is the consistent display of wanting to get at their main rivals. After Martina lost to Jana Novotna in the semis of 1994 Wimbledon, and Graf squeaked out that miraculous third set over Novotna to take the rosewater dish again, Steffi actually sent her good friend Rennae Stubbs over to the flat Navratilova was occupying in London to challenge Martina to a private match. Martina wasn't in at the time, and the match never happened. The fact that she wanted to get at Martina, and play her, speaks volumes. I couple this obvious display of wanting to get at a chief rival with curious and consistent appearances at Tokyo by Navratilova just a week after the Australian Open, as well as Indian Wells and the U.S. Women's Hardcourts and selective claycourt tournaments in 94 (when Graf wasn't there), and make my open (admittedly subjective) conclusions.

I have read that thread you mention over and over, and it is clear to me that the statistics can be bent or shaped in either direction, and (thank you mishar) it is a very subjective analysis, at best. The only real way to actually quantify a supposition that Martina avoided Graf 90-94 is to find out whether Martina had access to Steffi's schedule prior to making out her own, and as we cannot ever expect to find this information, you are right, I am blowing smoke and should stop. I will stop, because in the final analysis, there really is no positive purpose in building on subjective suppositions and feelings to the detriment of as great a champion as Martina Navratilova. They are both great, and I have learned and incorporated many things from watching both players moving across a tennis court, all personal opinions from having seen and met both players aside.

I am going to get a bit theoretical on everyone here. So, tune out if this gets too complicated or obtuse.

What we have here is a conflict between two ways of constructing a history. The first way is bound by the rule that all actions issue from the will and desires of an individual. Therefore, the objective cause for some action has to be traced back to the subjective decision made by some individual at a given point and time. In these kind of histories, great men or evil men drive world events.

Now everything is well and good in these kind of histories until one encounters an event or thing without any ostensible subjective dimension. How, for instance, does a machine will something to happen? Or, for that matter, how does a large institution composed of thousands of nameless bureaucrats think?

In order to write the histories of these kinds of events and things, historians devised a new way of constructing the real. In this new construction of the real, individuals no longer occupied the center, no longer would they be the cause of things. In a complete reversal of the objective/subjective contruction of reality, they would now turn out to be the effect of actions that for the most part were not directly or even indirectly their own.

So, in short, whereas the previous construciton of reality worked from effects back to causes back to the individual will behind those causes, the new construction of reality worked from individuals (whom it recognized as the actual effects) back to causes, back to effects, and once there back to a structural/technological understanding of those effects.

If anyone is interested, I will attempt to explain what constitutes a technological or structural understanding in more detail through a private message. Suffice it to say for now that it involves a systematic understanding of all the relations that contribute to an effect - relations of power (governmental), relations of knowledge (discursive), relations of self (not anthing subjective, but rather ethical in the Ancient Greek sense of the word), etc.

Now, I am an adherent intellectually of this new way of constructing reality. That is why you'll never see me explaining myself or my thinking by claiming that there are things that are subjective and then there are things that are objective. I just think that kind of construction of reality is too simplistic. Intellectually speaking, there are more advanced modes of transportation. Why some of you are still riding on horse-driven carriages, I'll never understand.

To the problem at hand. Those who care to reread my post on the "subject" of whether or not Martina avoided Graf, will note that I never claimed to know what Martina was actually thinking or planning. Really, I could care less. It really makes no difference to my construction of reality because whether she intended this or not the "effect" of her not playing Graf on certain surfaces in those years was that she ended up in all likelihood with a better head to head record against Graf than she might have. That is material, more material than what Martina was thinking, because it happened. Her head to head record against Graf ended up being 9-9.

Now some of you may try to excuse that "effect" by claiming that that was not what Martina intended. But, in so doing, you expose another problem some historians have always had with the objective/subjective construction of reality. You end up ignoring and mitigating the effects in favor of a consciousness (individual) that may not be as transparent as you think.

Mary Carillo
Jan 22nd, 2005, 07:27 PM
3 of Steffi's wins came in 1989 when Monica was still 15 and losing to almost everybody, she still hasn't fully developped as a player. So that's hardly an indication of Steffi's superiority.

4 of Steffi's wins came after the stabbing, when Monica wasn't the same player. She wasn't as strong mentally, she had lost many years of competition and experience, etc. So it's hardly an indication of Steffi's superiority.

And the 1992 Wimbledon final, Monica was more focusing about keeping down her grunting than actually playing the match.

So Steffi had 2 good wins over Monica, in 1991. WOW. And let's say we count the 1992 Wimbledon final. ALL the other wins came either after the stabbing or when Monica was 15 and hasn't fully developped as a player, that's hardly impressive. That's 70% of Steffi's wins over Monica. The head-to-head actually favors Monica because almost all her wins came when Steffi was #1,#2.


The same cannot be said for Graf!!

Up until the end of the 1984 season, Graf had played 69 matches throughout her professional career.

She lost 30. And only won a meagre 39 matches. So the same logic cannot be applied to Graf. :rolleyes: ;)

DA FOREHAND
Jan 23rd, 2005, 05:57 AM
The same cannot be said for Graf!!

Up until the end of the 1984 season, Graf had played 69 matches throughout her professional career.

She lost 30. And only won a meagre 39 matches. So the same logic cannot be applied to Graf. :rolleyes: ;)


It's not how you start, but how you end!!! Watch Andre's matches and you'll see Steffi's sitting pretty.

Mary Carillo
Jan 23rd, 2005, 07:28 PM
It's not how you start, but how you end!!! Watch Andre's matches and you'll see Steffi's sitting pretty.


Unusual how she has found fame, and most remember her for being married to Andre, rather than her tennis career!!

If Steffi's happy being just another Desperate Housewife, so be it!!

Calimero377
Jan 23rd, 2005, 09:18 PM
Unusual how she has found fame, and most remember her for being married to Andre, rather than her tennis career!!

If Steffi's happy being just another Desperate Housewife, so be it!!


Desperate Mary C. .....


"STEFFI GRAF (Germany)

LOVE ALL

She gave up tennis but not the adoration of her fans. And she's still a champion to troubled kids around the world

A few sports stars win something rarer than trophies or championships - an enduring place in the public's affections. Steffi Graf is one of them. She hung up her racket five years ago after winning an amazing 22 Grand Slam titles, but that doesn't mean she is any less busy or beloved. ... "
(TIME Magazine, October 11, 2004 on "European Heroes 2004")


Love all.
Adoration.
Enduring place in the public's affections.
Amazing 22 Grand Slam titles.
Beloved.


What more can you achieve as a tennis player?


:worship: :hug: :hearts: :worship:

tennislover
Jan 23rd, 2005, 09:24 PM
Unusual how she has found fame, and most remember her for being married to Andre, rather than her tennis career!!

If Steffi's happy being just another Desperate Housewife, so be it!!


As you all know, I can't stand graf from the deepest part of my heart.... :lol:
but i have to say that I disagree with you Mary......
When she married that (unbearable as well ;) ) man she was yet very famous indeed.....
you know, winning 7 wimbledon titles (...... :fiery: :fiery: :fiery: ) makes you very famous.......

alfajeffster
Jan 24th, 2005, 01:29 PM
I am going to get a bit theoretical on everyone here. So, tune out if this gets too complicated or obtuse.

What we have here is a conflict between two ways of constructing a history. The first way is bound by the rule that all actions issue from the will and desires of an individual. Therefore, the objective cause for some action has to be traced back to the subjective decision made by some individual at a given point and time. In these kind of histories, great men or evil men drive world events.

Now everything is well and good in these kind of histories until one encounters an event or thing without any ostensible subjective dimension. How, for instance, does a machine will something to happen? Or, for that matter, how does a large institution composed of thousands of nameless bureaucrats think?

In order to write the histories of these kinds of events and things, historians devised a new way of constructing the real. In this new construction of the real, individuals no longer occupied the center, no longer would they be the cause of things. In a complete reversal of the objective/subjective contruction of reality, they would now turn out to be the effect of actions that for the most part were not directly or even indirectly their own.

So, in short, whereas the previous construciton of reality worked from effects back to causes back to the individual will behind those causes, the new construction of reality worked from individuals (whom it recognized as the actual effects) back to causes, back to effects, and once there back to a structural/technological understanding of those effects.

If anyone is interested, I will attempt to explain what constitutes a technological or structural understanding in more detail through a private message. Suffice it to say for now that it involves a systematic understanding of all the relations that contribute to an effect - relations of power (governmental), relations of knowledge (discursive), relations of self (not anthing subjective, but rather ethical in the Ancient Greek sense of the word), etc.

Now, I am an adherent intellectually of this new way of constructing reality. That is why you'll never see me explaining myself or my thinking by claiming that there are things that are subjective and then there are things that are objective. I just think that kind of construction of reality is too simplistic. Intellectually speaking, there are more advanced modes of transportation. Why some of you are still riding on horse-driven carriages, I'll never understand.

To the problem at hand. Those who care to reread my post on the "subject" of whether or not Martina avoided Graf, will note that I never claimed to know what Martina was actually thinking or planning. Really, I could care less. It really makes no difference to my construction of reality because whether she intended this or not the "effect" of her not playing Graf on certain surfaces in those years was that she ended up in all likelihood with a better head to head record against Graf than she might have. That is material, more material than what Martina was thinking, because it happened. Her head to head record against Graf ended up being 9-9.

Now some of you may try to excuse that "effect" by claiming that that was not what Martina intended. But, in so doing, you expose another problem some historians have always had with the objective/subjective construction of reality. You end up ignoring and mitigating the effects in favor of a consciousness (individual) that may not be as transparent as you think.
You better think...

Think about what you're trying to do to me, yeah think...

Let your mind go and let yourself be free...

Think.

alfajeffster
Aug 30th, 2005, 10:30 PM
You know, I forgot how great a thread this was. One of my better ones, if I do say so myself. Give it a read, and chime right in! It starts out comparing Court and Navratilova, and goes through quite a few gyrations and hyperbole, ending with a marvelous post from LDV. Let's keep it going!:bounce:

Sam L
Oct 9th, 2005, 03:21 PM
I am going to get a bit theoretical on everyone here. So, tune out if this gets too complicated or obtuse.

What we have here is a conflict between two ways of constructing a history. The first way is bound by the rule that all actions issue from the will and desires of an individual. Therefore, the objective cause for some action has to be traced back to the subjective decision made by some individual at a given point and time. In these kind of histories, great men or evil men drive world events.

Now everything is well and good in these kind of histories until one encounters an event or thing without any ostensible subjective dimension. How, for instance, does a machine will something to happen? Or, for that matter, how does a large institution composed of thousands of nameless bureaucrats think?

In order to write the histories of these kinds of events and things, historians devised a new way of constructing the real. In this new construction of the real, individuals no longer occupied the center, no longer would they be the cause of things. In a complete reversal of the objective/subjective contruction of reality, they would now turn out to be the effect of actions that for the most part were not directly or even indirectly their own.

So, in short, whereas the previous construciton of reality worked from effects back to causes back to the individual will behind those causes, the new construction of reality worked from individuals (whom it recognized as the actual effects) back to causes, back to effects, and once there back to a structural/technological understanding of those effects.

If anyone is interested, I will attempt to explain what constitutes a technological or structural understanding in more detail through a private message. Suffice it to say for now that it involves a systematic understanding of all the relations that contribute to an effect - relations of power (governmental), relations of knowledge (discursive), relations of self (not anthing subjective, but rather ethical in the Ancient Greek sense of the word), etc.

Now, I am an adherent intellectually of this new way of constructing reality. That is why you'll never see me explaining myself or my thinking by claiming that there are things that are subjective and then there are things that are objective. I just think that kind of construction of reality is too simplistic. Intellectually speaking, there are more advanced modes of transportation. Why some of you are still riding on horse-driven carriages, I'll never understand.

To the problem at hand. Those who care to reread my post on the "subject" of whether or not Martina avoided Graf, will note that I never claimed to know what Martina was actually thinking or planning. Really, I could care less. It really makes no difference to my construction of reality because whether she intended this or not the "effect" of her not playing Graf on certain surfaces in those years was that she ended up in all likelihood with a better head to head record against Graf than she might have. That is material, more material than what Martina was thinking, because it happened. Her head to head record against Graf ended up being 9-9.

Now some of you may try to excuse that "effect" by claiming that that was not what Martina intended. But, in so doing, you expose another problem some historians have always had with the objective/subjective construction of reality. You end up ignoring and mitigating the effects in favor of a consciousness (individual) that may not be as transparent as you think.
Great argument but same thing could be applied to Steffi's 1-1 head-to-head record against Serena Williams and her "early" retirement.

Have a nice day. :wavey:

hingis-seles
Oct 9th, 2005, 04:40 PM
My question to some of you in here is why is "Team Navratilova" held against Martina? I think it was a very smart move to hire a whole team of people to help her reach her peak. She was just doing the best for herself. Why all the negativity and catty comments about it?

alfajeffster
Oct 10th, 2005, 01:28 PM
My question to some of you in here is why is "Team Navratilova" held against Martina? I think it was a very smart move to hire a whole team of people to help her reach her peak. She was just doing the best for herself. Why all the negativity and catty comments about it?

That's easy. "Team Navratilova" is one of a kind in the history of tennis (not just women's tennis). At any one time it comprises an entire entourage of not just statisticians, but former champions whose sole purpose is to dissect the opponent for Martina not only court-side, but digitally. What Team Navratilova did to conquer Chris Evert in the early 80s is to this day the most glaring example in women's tennis of a computerized assault on an opponent we have. Many tennis players still prefer the individual challenge that hitting a ball against a worthy opponent provides. Team Navratilova goes way beyond this concept.

Sam L
Oct 10th, 2005, 01:31 PM
That's easy. "Team Navratilova" is one of a kind in the history of tennis (not just women's tennis). At any one time it comprises an entire entourage of not just statisticians, but former champions whose sole purpose is to dissect the opponent for Martina not only court-side, but digitally. What Team Navratilova did to conquer Chris Evert in the early 80s is to this day the most glaring example in women's tennis of a computerized assault on an opponent we have. Many tennis players still prefer the individual challenge that hitting a ball against a worthy opponent provides. Team Navratilova goes way beyond this concept.
And...? You make it sound like she cheated. :confused:

Philbo
Oct 10th, 2005, 03:53 PM
Exactly.. Martina endured bitching from the press about wasting her potential, not utilising the god given gifts she was blessed with..

Then when she did go all out in an assault to become the clear # 1, she got bitched about for having 'Team Navratilova' - because she was at the cutting edge of sports science she was ridiculed, as she is to this day by Alfa..

Martina should be applauded for pulling out every measure it took. Her record speaks for itself. And with sports science being such a boom industry these days, you can easily say Martina and Team Navratilova were ahead of their time in their approach.

But haters will be haters..thats why I hadnt bothered responding til now.

It always makes me laugh, how Evert had her husband, coach, mother, sister, friends etc in her corner, and they were Chris's 'entourage' whereas whoever Martina had in her corner was a part of Team Navratilova. Just another example of the double standards Martina had to put up with during her reign.

Nothing stopped the other girls hiring a dietician, or an Analyst that used a computer for stats and breaking down an opponent. There was nothing wrong with what she did.

Helen Lawson
Oct 10th, 2005, 04:46 PM
No one has ever won six consecutive Oscars, it's just too political. I still kick myself for not coming out with a quality film in '59, I had so much momentum going for me, I could have been a back-to-back two-timer!

alfajeffster
Oct 10th, 2005, 05:17 PM
Exactly.. Martina endured bitching from the press about wasting her potential, not utilising the god given gifts she was blessed with..

Then when she did go all out in an assault to become the clear # 1, she got bitched about for having 'Team Navratilova' - because she was at the cutting edge of sports science she was ridiculed, as she is to this day by Alfa..

Martina should be applauded for pulling out every measure it took. Her record speaks for itself. And with sports science being such a boom industry these days, you can easily say Martina and Team Navratilova were ahead of their time in their approach.

But haters will be haters..thats why I hadnt bothered responding til now.

It always makes me laugh, how Evert had her husband, coach, mother, sister, friends etc in her corner, and they were Chris's 'entourage' whereas whoever Martina had in her corner was a part of Team Navratilova. Just another example of the double standards Martina had to put up with during her reign.

Nothing stopped the other girls hiring a dietician, or an Analyst that used a computer for stats and breaking down an opponent. There was nothing wrong with what she did.



If you're capable of doing so with an open mind, try sitting right behind Martina's chair some time during a match. It's a real eye-opener, to put it mildly.

hingis-seles
Oct 10th, 2005, 05:18 PM
That's easy. "Team Navratilova" is one of a kind in the history of tennis (not just women's tennis). At any one time it comprises an entire entourage of not just statisticians, but former champions whose sole purpose is to dissect the opponent for Martina not only court-side, but digitally. What Team Navratilova did to conquer Chris Evert in the early 80s is to this day the most glaring example in women's tennis of a computerized assault on an opponent we have. Many tennis players still prefer the individual challenge that hitting a ball against a worthy opponent provides. Team Navratilova goes way beyond this concept.

Team Navratilova should be lauded. She pushed herself to the limit and did everything possible (within the rules) to win. That shows courage. If you put yourself on the line, then there's no excuse for failure. As you stated, Team Navratilova used an all-out assault on Chris to come out on top. She raised the bar. Chris did go to the gym, which is laudable. Again, though, we have to look at Martina Navratilova for raising the bar in the women's game. She made them become real atheletes. More so, than Margaret Court, I would say.

alfajeffster
Oct 10th, 2005, 05:26 PM
Team Navratilova should be lauded. She pushed herself to the limit and did everything possible (within the rules) to win. That shows courage. If you put yourself on the line, then there's no excuse for failure. As you stated, Team Navratilova used an all-out assault on Chris to come out on top. She raised the bar. Chris did go to the gym, which is laudable. Again, though, we have to look at Martina Navratilova for raising the bar in the women's game. She made them become real atheletes. More so, than Margaret Court, I would say.

No question about it. Martina raised the bar like no one before her or since. The only thing that Margaret Court had was the company of all those great Aussie male players from the 50s through the early 70s- there was no entourage or team of statisticians or physical therapists, trainers and computerized assaults. What she did was play the game and the opponent set before her.

hingis-seles
Oct 10th, 2005, 05:34 PM
No question about it. Martina raised the bar like no one before her or since. The only thing that Margaret Court had was the company of all those great Aussie male players from the 50s through the early 70s- there was no entourage or team of statisticians or physical therapists, trainers and computerized assaults. What she did was play the game and the opponent set before her.

The fact that Martina was the first to use the expertise of statisticians, trainers, physical therapists, etc. shows just how truly great she was. She broadened the boundaries of tennis for professionals. We see it now with so many top players. It's great. It makes the girls better performers and all of us win watching better tennis. Team Navratilova was a great move. If only others during her time and those before her, had the same vision she did.

alfajeffster
Oct 10th, 2005, 05:42 PM
The fact that Martina was the first to use the expertise of statisticians, trainers, physical therapists, etc. shows just how truly great she was. She broadened the boundaries of tennis for professionals. We see it now with so many top players. It's great. It makes the girls better performers and all of us win watching better tennis. Team Navratilova was a great move. If only others during her time and those before her, had the same vision she did.

These are the kinds of statements and sentiments about Martina that I find a little annoying- the lionization of Navratilova as having had some sort of vision and revolutionary foresight. She was a manufactured champion in much the same way that the West German olympic swim team was. Her vision came from great players like Billie Jean King (who in Martina's own words "knew exactly what to do to pick my game apart"), and had very little to do with Martina herself. To this day, I applaud what Martina did accomplish, and I enjoy watching her play much more than anyone in the field. I respect Billie Jean King's tennis mind in a way that Team Navratilova just can't approach.

hingis-seles
Oct 10th, 2005, 05:47 PM
The fact that she had Billie Jean King by her side, shows just how smart she was. She knew BJK's insight into the game - especially hers. Who was stopping any of the other girls from hiring anyone? She was a manufactured champion? Maybe. She did what she had to, to win, which she did a lot. And she never bent the rules for it. And she was the first to do it. That does count for something.

Philbo
Oct 10th, 2005, 06:11 PM
Manufactured Champion? Martina manufactured herself. Noone else ran the sprints, lifted the weights, i.e did the hard yards for her.

Ive sat 1 row behind her chair in one match at Aus Open, and 2 rows back at wimledon. The only thing eye opening about it was how great she looks in person..

Calimero377
Oct 10th, 2005, 07:11 PM
The fact that Martina was the first to use the expertise of statisticians, trainers, physical therapists, etc. shows just how truly great she was. ....


Reminds me of Rocky IV.
Ivan Drago and his Russian team.

A great movie, BTW ....



:p

Calimero377
Oct 10th, 2005, 07:14 PM
These are the kinds of statements and sentiments about Martina that I find a little annoying- the lionization of Navratilova as having had some sort of vision and revolutionary foresight. She was a manufactured champion in much the same way that the West German olympic swim team was. ....


The West German olympic swim team were losers.
From 1952 until 1988 they won about 5 gold medals only. IMO, the Netherlands won more.

Superdumbo ...

raquel
Oct 10th, 2005, 07:22 PM
Wasn't it later proved that a lot of West German athletes in that era took all sorts of steroids and supplements? I don't think Martina deserves to be grouped in with that.

I don't think "Team Navratilova" should be held against Martina. She was smart enough to get the most out of herself before it was too late. Trainers, nutrionists, doctors all helped Martina get the best out of herself, and it worked. And no matter how many coaches she had, or help she received, her volleying technique and her hands at the net were all natural Martina - that certainly wasn't manufactured.

Calimero377
Oct 10th, 2005, 07:52 PM
Wasn't it later proved that a lot of West German athletes in that era took all sorts of steroids and supplements? I don't think Martina deserves to be grouped in with that.
....


You most probably are from the Eastern part of Switzerland. Where they speak French, n'est-ce pas?

tennis aus
Oct 10th, 2005, 07:56 PM
HAHAHAH .. My suspension would be over already and you are an ass-wipe and I dont back away from what I called you.

Anyway, thanks to Andy T, for anyone who wants to really read through it and make up their own mind, rather than swallow the propaganda put out by the Graffanatics, read below:

1987
Graf: 13 tournaments 4 HC 6 CC, 2 Ind, 1 GC (+ 1HC at Olympics). US/CDA 7, EUR 6.
Boca Raton - LIPTON – Hilton Head - Amelia Isl. - Berlin – Italian Open - FRENCH OPEN – Wimbledon – Hamburg – Los Angeles - US Open – Zurich - VS Champs

Navratilova: 12 tournaments: 5 HC, 2 CC, 3 Ind, 2GC. AUS 1, US/CDA 6, EUR 5.
Australian Open – Houston – Lipton - Italian Open -French Open – Eastbourne - WIMBLEDON – Los Angeles - US OPEN – Filderstadt - Chicago - VS Champs

Observations: They have 7 tournaments in common, over half their totals of 13 and 12, meeting 4 times and splitting the victories 2-2. Graf travels to the US for March-April, again Aug-Sept and finally for the Slims. Navratilova returns from Australia and stays in the US until May, returning after Wimbledon and crosses the ocean for a week to play Filderstadt, which has almost always been part of her schedule.


1988
Graf: 13 tournaments 6 HC 4 CC, 2 Ind, 1 GC (+ 1HC at Olympics)
Australian Open – US HC - Boca Raton - Lipton – Amelia Isl. - Berlin - French Open – WIMBLEDON – Hamburg – Mahwah - US Open – Brighton - VS Champs + Olympics

Navratilova: 16 tournaments: 3 HC, 4 CC, 7 Ind, 2GC,
Australian Open – Dallas - Oakland - Washington – Amelia Isl. – Hilton Head – Houston - French Open – Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Canadian - US Open – Filderstadt – New England - Chicago - VS Champs

Observation: They have 6 tournaments in common (ie not far from half of Steffi’s total of 13 and Martina’s 16) but meet once only: 0-1 to Graf. Graf’s schedule includes 5 European tournaments which enable her to be in Europe from April – August and from Sept – November. Navratilova’s schedule enables her to stay in the US until mid-May and return after Wimbledon, with the usual trip to Filderstadt in Autumn.


1989

Graf: 16 tournaments: 6 HC –5 CC - 1 GC - 4 Ind. AUS 1, US/CDA 9, EUR 6
Australian Open – Washington - US HC - Boca Raton – Amelia Island - Hilton Head - Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – WIMBLEDON – San Diego – Mahwah - US OPEN – Zurich - Brighton - VS CHAMPS

Navratilova: 16 tournaments: 5 HC 2 CC, 3 GC, 6 Ind. AUS 2, JPN 1, US/CDA 10, EUR 3
Sydney - Australian Open – Tokyo - Oakland – Amelia Isl. – Hilton Head – Birmingham - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Los Angeles - Canadian - US Open –Dallas – New England – Chicago - VS Champs

Observation: Again, 6/16 tournaments in common and they meet three times with Graf winning all of them. After returning from Japan, Navratilova only leaves the US for the British GC tournaments, playing 10 (to Graf’s 9) North American tournaments, 4 of which are in common. Navratilova works extensively with BJK to get her game together and skips the European Clay Court season to prepare for a victory at Wimbledon.

1990
Graf: 15 tournaments: 4 HC, 4 CC, 1 GC, 6 Ind. AUS 1, JPN 1, US/CDA 6, EUR 7.
Australian Open – Tokyo – Amelia Island - Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – Wimbledon – San Diego – Canadian Open - US Open – Leipzig – Zurich - Brighton – New England - VS Champs

Navratilova : 13 tournaments 3 HC, 4 CC, 2 GC, 4 Ind. JPN 1, US/CDA 8, EUR 4
Chicago – Washington – Indian Wells - Houston – Hilton Head– Hamburg - Italian Open - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Los Angeles - US Open –Tokyo Nichierei – Oakland.

Observation: Graf was out with a broken thumb from Feb to April and had a sinus operation after Wimbledon. Navratilova underwent a knee operation at the end of the year, causing her to miss the Slims championships. As a result, in both cases, the schedules are markedly different from previous years. The introduction of the Leipzig tournament gave Graf another home event to play and Navratilova supported Tokyo Nichirei, which had replaced her old favourite, Dallas. Their absences meant that they only played the same tournament three times, never meeting. However, during the months when they were both fit, Graf and Navratilova only played 8 tournaments each, so 3/8 seems fairer than 3/13 or 3/15, meaning the average was the same as the year before. This year was also marked by father problems for Graf and Judy problems for Martina.

Summary: 1987-90. Graf and Navratilova played the same tournament 22 times (out of 57 for Navratilova and 59 tournaments for Graf). Of these 22 tournaments, 8 were on hard courts, 7 on clay courts, 4 on grass courts and 3 indoors, i.e. 2/3 were on surfaces where Graf was supposedly favoured. They met 8 times (3 times on HC, 3 GC, 1 CC, 1 Ind) with Graf winning 6, 5 of which went to 3 sets (or four sets in the case of the VS champs of 89).

1991
Graf: 15 tournaments: HC 6, CC 4, GC 1, Ind 4. AUS 1, US/CDA 7, EUR 7
Australian Open – US HC - Boca Raton - Lipton – Amelia Island - Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – Wimbledon – San Diego - US Open – Leipzig – Zurich – Brighton - VS Champs.

Navratilova: 14 tournaments: HC 2, CC 3, GC 3, Ind 6. JPN 1, US/CDA 6, EUR 7
Tokyo – Chicago – Indian Wells – Hilton Head– Spanish Open – Italian Open - Birmingham - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – US OPEN –Milan – Filderstadt – Oakland -VS Champs

Comment: The ascent of Seles to world #2 at the end of 90 and then to world #1 means that the game's top rivalry Graf-Seles and no longer Graf-Navratilova. A distinct change in the number of tournaments they both enter, just three. They meet once with Navratilova gaining her first victory since 1987 in a tight three-setter. Following her knee operation, Navratilova reduces her hard court tournaments. While 2/3 of Navratilova’s events are on grass or indoors, 2/3 of Graf’s tournaments are on clay or cement. Navratilova’s schedule resembles that of the previous year except for no play in Australia (sqtill recovering from the knee op) none between Wimbledon and the US Open and an extra trip to Europe in the Autumn. Graf’s schedule reverts to the pre-1990 pattern as she is fit during the US hard court season.

1992
Graf: 14 tournaments: HC 3, CC 4, GC 1, Ind 6 (+ 1CC Olympics). AUS 1, US/CDA 7, EUR 7
Chicago - Boca Raton - Lipton – Amelia Island – Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – Wimbledon –[Olympics]- US Open – Leipzig – ZURICH – Brighton – Philadelphia - VS Champs.

Navratilova: 12 tournaments: HC 3, CC 1, GC 2, Ind. 6. JPN 1, US/CDA 7, EUR 4
Tokyo – Chicago – US HC – Hilton Head - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Los Angeles - US Open –Zurich – Filderstadt - Oakland – VS Champs

Comment: In spite of the fact that both play fewer tournaments, they enter 5 together with Graf winning their indoor encounter in Zurich in another tight three-setter. Navratilova announces that 2003 will be her last season.

1993
Graf: 15 tournaments: HC 6, CC 4, GC 1, Ind. 4. AUS 1, JPN 1, US/CDA 8, EUR 5
Australian Open – Tokyo - Boca Raton - Lipton – Hilton Head – Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – Wimbledon – San Diego – Canadian Open - US Open – Leipzig – Philadelphia - VS Champs.

Navratilova: 13 tournaments: HC 2, CC 1, GC 3, Ind. 6. JPN 1, US/CDA 5, EUR 7
TOKYO – Paris - Chicago – Italian Open – Birmingham - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Los Angeles - US Open –Zurich – Filderstadt - Oakland – VS Champs.

Comment: The surface split of the previous seasons remains the same. Navratilova’s schedule mainly contains events with which she has had a long association, a special affection for or a strong desire to win. Graf’s European autumn schedule is curtailed by surgery after Leipzig and she enters Philadelphia for practice before the VS Champs. They enter 4 tournaments together, with one meeting indoors where Navratilova wins in three. Following the Seles stabbing, Navratilova decides to play on for another year.

1994
Graf 13 tournaments: HC 7, CC 3, GC 1, Ind. 2. AUS 1 JPN 1, US/CDA 7, EUR 4.
Australian Open – TOKYO – Indian Wells - Boca Raton – Lipton – Hamburg - Berlin - French Open – Wimbledon – San Diego – Canadian Open - US Open - VS Champs.


Navratilova 15 tournaments: HC 1, CC 5, GC 2, Ind. 7. JPN 1, USA/CDA 7, EUR 7.
Tokyo – Paris - Chicago – Houston – Hilton Head – Amelia Island - Italian Open – French Open - Eastbourne - Wimbledon – Los Angeles –Zurich – Filderstadt - Oakland – VS Champs.

Comment: Graf’s health problems keep her away from the court after the US Open. Navratilova skips the US Open, unable to find the motivation to play following her Wimbledon farewell, but plays a full clay court season. The two play 4 tournaments in common with a routine Graf victory ending their career h2h series at 9-9 in the Tokyo event. In the other three tournaments they both entered, Martina was beaten in the first round in Paris and Steffi in the first round at Wimbledon. Both lost early in New York.


Summary: 1991-94. Graf and Navratilova played the same tournament 16 times (out of 54 tournaments for Navratilova and 57 for Graf). Of these 16 tournaments, 3 were on hard courts, 1 on clay courts, 4 on grass courts and 8 indoors, i.e. 3/4 were on surfaces where Navratilova was supposedly favoured. They met 4 times (once on HC and 3 times indoors), gaining two victories each.


1987-1990: Graf played 20 HC, 19CC, 4GC and 14 Indoor events.
1991-1994: Graf played 22HC, 15CC, 4 GC and 16 Indoor events.

1987-1990: Navratilova played 16 HC, 12CC, 9 GC and 20 Indoor events.
1991-1994: Navratilova played 8 HC, 10CC, 10 GC and 25 Indoor events.

great post!

raquel
Oct 10th, 2005, 08:09 PM
You most probably are from the Eastern part of Switzerland. Where they speak French, n'est-ce pas?
I'm from the UK, Cali ;) The Swiss flag is just because I'm a big Roger fan.

Calimero377
Oct 10th, 2005, 08:17 PM
I'm from the UK, Cali ;) The Swiss flag is just because I'm a big Roger fan.


WEST Germany was your ally in the cold war.
EAST Germany were the communist and the swimming team dopers!!

Got it, woman???

tennis aus
Oct 10th, 2005, 09:12 PM
Before I post this counter to what appears to be, a quite emotional and strangely bizarre Graf fan. I questioned my own sense of well being and sanity. For why anybody could think of reasoning with such an insane, and psychotic fan bewilders me. But I never shirk my responsibilities of educating the tennis public. So here goes!

It was based on my data of tennis, to which no one comes close!

And Monica was never the same player after the stabbing, which virtually every tennis fan on this planet concur with -EXCEPT YOU!

I was quoting Monica 1993 when she was handing out a tennis lesson to Miss Graf.

And as I stated during the 1993 Australian [Steffi's] actually playing better than when she played in '88 and won the Grand Slam. Everyone acts as though 'Well, you know, she's got to get it back, she's got to get it back.' I actually feel that Steffi has added a lot to her game. She's a better defensive player. She's got a better first serve than she used to. I think her slice backhand really works well. I mean, I happen to think that she's a better player than she was a few years ago, but she's facing an opponent that is just remarkable, and I think that's why she doesn't have the Grand Slams titles we're used to seeing from her - yet Monica still won.


And then you have the audacity to remark upon the murder attempt. Questioning the depth of the stab wound.

If brains were dynamite you wouldn’t have enough to blow the top of your head off!


Brilliant Mary Carillo!!!!!!!!!!!!

alfajeffster
Oct 10th, 2005, 10:12 PM
WEST Germany was your ally in the cold war.
EAST Germany were the communist and the swimming team dopers!!

Got it, woman???

Thanks for the East/West correction, and even though you called me a name, I still love you, cali.:kiss:

Calimero377
Oct 11th, 2005, 12:02 AM
Thanks for the East/West correction, and even though you called me a name, I still love you, cali.:kiss:


"Superdumbo" was meant affectionately! :hug:

I know that you are one of the good guys in GM .....

Mother_Marjorie
Oct 11th, 2005, 12:22 AM
We've been having this discussion in another thread, and I thought I'd give it its very own space and leave it out for everyone to discuss with your thoughts and reasoning. Both Margaret Court and Martina Navratilova won 6 consecutive majors during periods of dominance in their respective singles careers. Looking at the below results, which do you feel is more impressive, and why?

Margaret Court's 6 Majors Streak:
1969 U.S. Open (grass, def. Nancy Richey)
d. Wade 7-5 6-0
d. Krantzcke 6-0 9-7
d. Burrer 6-0 6-2
d. Grubb 6-1 6-0
d. Suzanna Petersen (Brz) 6-1 6-0

1970 Australian Open (grass, def. [2]Kerry Melville)
d. Krantzcke[4] 6-1 6-3
d. Goolagong 6-3 6-1
d. Wilkerson 6-0 6-1
d. Caroline Langsford 6-0 6-0
Bye

1970 French Open (clay, def. Helga Masthoff Niessen)
d. Heldman [4] 6-0 6-2
d. Casals [8] 7-5 6-2
d. Hunt 6-2 6-1
d. Morozova 3-6 8-6 6-1
d. Marijke Schaar (Neth) 6-1 6-1

1970 Wimbledon (grass, def. Billie Jean King)
d. Casals [5] 6-4 6-1
d. Krantzcke [7] 3-6 6-3 6-2
d. Vopickova 6-3 6-3
d. Guzman 6-0 6-1

1970 U.S. Open (grass, def. Rosie Casals)
d. Wade(5) 6-2 6-7 6-2
d. Gourlay 6-2 6-2
d. Faulkner 6-0 6-2
d. Hogan 6-1 6-1
d. Pam Austin 6-1 6-0

1971 Australian Open (grass, def. Evonne Goolagong)
d. Hunt 6-0 6-3
d. Gourlay [8] 6-0 6-4
d. Coleman 6-1 6-1
Bye

Martina Navratilova's 6 Majors Streak:
1983 Wimbledon (grass, def. Andrea Jeager)
d. Vermaak (6-1,6-1)
d. Mundel (6-3,6-1)
d. Kohde-Kilsch (6-1,6-2)
d. Jausovec (6-2,6-1)
d. Acker (7-6,6-3)
bye

1983 U.S. Open (hardcourt, def. Chris Evert)
d. Shriver (6-2,6-1)
d. Hanika (6-0,6-3)
d. Vasquez (6-0,6-1)
d. Gompert (6-2,6-2)
d. Allen (6-2,6-1)
d. Rapponi-Longo (6-1,6-0)

1983 Australian Open (grass, def. Kathy Jordan)
d. Shriver (6-4,6-3)
d. Fairbank (6-2,6-2)
d. Smylie (6-1,6-0)
d. Ludloff (6-0,7-5)

1984 French Open (clay, def. Chris Evert)
d. Mandlikova (3-6,6-2,6-2)
d. Horvath (6-4,6-2)
d. Kohde-Kilsch (6-0,6-1)
d. Calleja (6-1,6-3)
d. Mesker (6-1,6-1)
d. Tauziat (6-1,6-1)

1984 Wimbledon (grass, def. Chris Evert)
d. Jordan (6-3,6-4)
d. M. Maleeva (6-3,6-2)
d. Sayers (6-0, retired)
d. Budarova (6-2,6-2)
d. Holton (6-2,7-5)

1984 U.S. Open (hardcourt, def. Chris Evert)
d. Turnbull (6-4,6-1)
d. Sukova (6-3,6-3)
d. Potter (6-4,6-4)
d. Mundel (6-0,6-0)
d. Leand (6-4,6-2)
d. Antonopolis (6-4,6-2)

I think Maureen Connolly's six in a row in 1952 to 1953 was more impressive, but that's just my opinion.

alfajeffster
Oct 11th, 2005, 12:42 PM
I think Maureen Connolly's six in a row in 1952 to 1953 was more impressive, but that's just my opinion.

Well then- elaborate on your opinion. That's what this thread is for. I admit to not knowing a great deal about players pre-Maria Bueno and Margaret Court, and even with them, I'm discovering things I didn't know almost daily. I've only ever seen a short clip of Maureen defeating Doris Hart, and I believe it's from a Wimbledon championship round in the early 50s. Obviously, what she accomplished was outstanding, given the level of serve-and-volley competition (on grass) this little baseline powerhouse had to face in winning those titles.

alfajeffster
Oct 11th, 2005, 12:55 PM
Manufactured Champion? Martina manufactured herself. Noone else ran the sprints, lifted the weights, i.e did the hard yards for her.

Ive sat 1 row behind her chair in one match at Aus Open, and 2 rows back at wimledon. The only thing eye opening about it was how great she looks in person..

This is true. She does look much better in person. It's too bad she never photographed well- in fact, I think out of all the great players, she is one of the least attractive photographic subjects. She has a natural tendency to screw up her face and mug horribly when the shutters are whirring (much like Maria Bueno- whose photographic legacy is peopled with horrible expressions). This could be the real reason she never received the endorsement attention normally accorded such a stellar performer. Can you imagine the money she could have made had she simply looked and photographed like Gigi Fernandez all those years?

I've sat in the Garden about 5 rows back during one Nav/Seles Virginia Slims final, and not too much farther back for the other final. I've also sat right in the middle of "Team Navratilova" at the French Open two years ago, and I do mean in the middle. Her entourage surrounded me, and during the match (as with the Seles final and just about every match I've seen her play) after the first game, she loudly and unashamedly came right over to her coach, just behind the umpire's chair, and clearly received coaching- she even disagreed with his approach and ideas on how to play the male opponent in the first game. She then proceeded to have a running dialogue with her coach throughout the losing mixed doubles effort. These performances don't have anything to do with how much work she put into making herself the supreme athlete she was and is, they merely illustrate exactly how unstable and in need of a mental propping up she has always been. It doesn't mean I don't like watching her play- it's a treasure to be able to see those volleys. I just can't lionize her or see her through rose colored glasses the way so many now can. I remember a different champion.

raquel
Oct 11th, 2005, 05:54 PM
WEST Germany was your ally in the cold war.
EAST Germany were the communist and the swimming team dopers!!

Got it, woman???
Woman? Cali, you old dinosaur, I hope you don't call your wife that too.

Calimero377
Oct 11th, 2005, 06:00 PM
Woman? Cali, you old dinosaur, I hope you don't call your wife that too.


Wife?
I'm divorced.

Ex-wife was jealous of Steffi ....

:fiery:

Helen Lawson
Oct 11th, 2005, 06:02 PM
Wife?
I'm divorced.

Ex-wife was jealous of Steffi ....

:fiery:

If you're going to be jealous over another woman, it doesn't get any better than Steffi! :D Steffi's got the whole package. Face, legs, body, brains, talent, personality, hair, and bucks. The dame's got it all!!

LeRoy.
Oct 11th, 2005, 06:06 PM
Wife?
I'm divorced.


Time to try men i guess :p

Calimero377
Oct 11th, 2005, 06:27 PM
If you're going to be jealous over another woman, it doesn't get any better than Steffi! :D Steffi's got the whole package. Face, legs, body, brains, talent, personality, hair, and bucks. The dame's got it all!!


Ex-wife was similar to Steffi. Didn't have the legs and the bucks though.
So I let her go .... :wavey:

Calimero377
Oct 11th, 2005, 06:28 PM
Time to try men i guess :p


And become a Navi or Seles fan .... ??? :eek:

alfajeffster
Oct 22nd, 2005, 07:26 PM
And become a Navi or Seles fan .... ??? :eek:

Not all Navi or Seles fans are gay men acting out (while pill-popping) fantasies about their favorite female tennis players, cali. Some of them are actually women in drag...

hingis-seles
Oct 22nd, 2005, 08:58 PM
Not all Navi or Seles fans are gay men acting out (while pill-popping) fantasies about their favorite female tennis players, cali. Some of them are actually women in drag...

:lol:

Sometimes I think I'm the only straight male Seles fan. :angel: