PDA

View Full Version : Draw History: Does it Factor into the GOAT discussion?


Pureracket
Jul 5th, 2010, 10:37 PM
I've been reading a few newspaper clippings for an article I'm working on for a local tennis club. I discovered that the Slam draw didn't extend itself to the current 128-player draw until 1983 for all four Slams.

Chris Evert won 12 of her Slam titles when there were no more than 96 women in the Grand Slam Draws. Martina Navratilova won 7 of hers below the 128-player draw.

Does depth of competition factor into the GOAT discussion?

goldenlox
Jul 5th, 2010, 10:39 PM
I think the key stats are: how many slams did Martina win with other great players in the draw, and same for Chrissie.
You have to expect great players to handle #40 or #30 most of the times they play

That's why there is a Seles-Graf debate. Those draws got a lot weaker after a Graf fan knifed Monica

LightWarrior
Jul 5th, 2010, 10:57 PM
Evert and Nav used to sail to the semis for the most part. Not much competition. But they faced each other 80 times, mostly in finals. How many more slams Evert would have won if it wasn't for Nav, and vice versa ? On the other hand they probably helped each other be better players, even subconsciously.

Pureracket
Jul 5th, 2010, 11:02 PM
I think the key stats are: how many slams did Martina win with other great players in the draw, and same for Chrissie.
You have to expect great players to handle #40 or #30 most of the times they play

That's why there is a Seles-Graf debate. Those draws got a lot weaker after a Graf fan knifed MonicaNot disagreeing you, but I'm not sure that's the total story, though. When the draw had a smaller field, isn't there a smaller need for fitness, preparation, and focus?

goldenlox
Jul 5th, 2010, 11:05 PM
But its also different rackets, a lot of differences. Like comparing Pancho Gonzales to Sampras.
Its 2 different situations they were in

goldenlox
Jul 5th, 2010, 11:18 PM
And I think Serena is showing what it takes to be at the top or near the top of the all time greats.
You have to play big at key moments. And do that over and over.
Thats probably what the greats have in common.

Who knows how Evert or Navratilova would play if they were 25 now?

Laver was small, who knows?
You can only compete in your era

Joseosu19
Jul 5th, 2010, 11:22 PM
I've been reading a few newspaper clippings for an article I'm working on for a local tennis club. I discovered that the Slam draw didn't extend itself to the current 128-player draw until 1983 for all four Slams.

Chris Evert won 12 of her Slam titles when there were no more than 96 women in the Grand Slam Draws. Martina Navratilova won 7 of hers below the 128-player draw.

Does depth of competition factor into the GOAT discussion?
Today's players get to enjoy the advantage of a 32 seed draw at slams, thus avoiding a potential tough early round matchup before they've gotten into their groove (see Graf/McNeil 94 Wimbledon).

bobcat
Jul 5th, 2010, 11:34 PM
Can anyone dig find out how big the draws were back in the 60s-70s? I think Wimbledon had the biggest draw for awhile, which is one of the reasons it was considered the most important. Also I think the seeds usually had byes in the first round.

Donny
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:11 AM
Today's players get to enjoy the advantage of a 32 seed draw at slams, thus avoiding a potential tough early round matchup before they've gotten into their groove (see Graf/McNeil 94 Wimbledon).

If this is the case, regular tour events are actually more difficult than slams, especially considering you get less time in between matches.

CloudAtlas
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:13 AM
It doesn't matter does it? If this is to be brought into the discussion then the quality of the opponents should be more relevant.

Donny
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:19 AM
It doesn't matter does it? If this is to be brought into the discussion then the quality of the opponents should be more relevant.

No one is ever going to agree on something as subjective as the quality of opponents in different years.

Temperenka
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:23 AM
It's relevant, but not to such an extent that it should be used to undercut the achievements of Evert or Navratilova.

Donny
Jul 6th, 2010, 12:31 AM
It's relevant, but not to such an extent that it should be used to undercut the achievements of Evert or Navratilova.

But at the same time, current player's inability to play long series of matches in succession is used against them.

miffedmax
Jul 6th, 2010, 01:18 AM
It's just more evidence of the uselessness of the GOAT discussion.