PDA

View Full Version : So close, yet so far: 1982 & 1985


BCP
Oct 8th, 2010, 07:35 PM
Just been thinking about how close both of these years were between Chris and Martina, and how Chris missed out being no.1 in both of these years. If Chris had beaten Martina in the Toyota Final, would she really have done enough to be no.1 that year? Ditto 1985 and the Australian Open Final? Which year did she have the stronger case for no.1?

justineheninfan
Oct 8th, 2010, 09:00 PM
Just been thinking about how close both of these years were between Chris and Martina, and how Chris missed out being no.1 in both of these years. If Chris had beaten Martina in the Toyota Final, would she really have done enough to be no.1 that year? Ditto 1985 and the Australian Open Final? Which year did she have the stronger case for no.1?

I think Martina was definitely the #1 for 1982 even if Chris had won the Toyota Final. 1985 though Chris would have been the rightful #1 had she won the Australian Open final.

BCP
Oct 8th, 2010, 09:16 PM
I recently watched that Toyota F for the first time only recently, and was surprised at what a great match it was. In contrast, I thought the 85 AO was really patchy and both were really nervous.

As I recall, though they were tied for GS in 82, Martina still had a better match winning % and more titles. Can't remember whether whether she would still have been ahead in the H2H for that year.

samn
Oct 8th, 2010, 09:46 PM
I recently watched that Toyota F for the first time only recently, and was surprised at what a great match it was. In contrast, I thought the 85 AO was really patchy and both were really nervous.

As I recall, though they were tied for GS in 82, Martina still had a better match winning % and more titles. Can't remember whether whether she would still have been ahead in the H2H for that year.

To me Navratilova was far and away the best player of 1982. Even with a loss to Evert in the Toyota finals, Navratilova would have ended 1982 with a stupendous 89-4 record in singles. Besides MN, in addition to winning the French and Wimbledon, also dominated the Avon circuit and reached the Avon finals. Navratilova led the final head-to-head for that year 3-1, but I daresay it'd have been more lopsided had Evert not avoided having to play Navratilova on carpet by skipping pretty much the entire Avon indoor circuit.

Wimbledon final: Navratilova d. Evert 6-1, 3-6, 6-2
Brighton final: Navratilova d. Evert 6-1, 6-4
Australian Open final: Evert d. Navratilova 6-3, 2-6, 6-3
Toyota Series final: Navratilova d. Evert 4-6, 6-1, 6-2

Plus, Evert lost twice as many matches that year (3x Navratilova, 3x Jaeger) although Navratilova did have a couple of "bad" losses (1x Hanika, 1x Shriver). It's a shame that Evert lost to Jaegs in the semis of both Hilton Head and Roland Garros. I think Navratilova was ready to beat Evert on clay that season and could have done it at least once if not on both occasions.

BCP
Oct 9th, 2010, 06:43 AM
I'm not sure that a judgment can be made on what Martina would have done if Evert had gone to some finals. Based on those stats if Chris had beaten Martina, they would have been 2 GS each, even on H2H. Chris would only have had 2 more losses for the year than Martina, but as you say, Martina had some bad losses. Out of interest what were Chris's other two losses?

justineheninfan
Oct 9th, 2010, 07:37 AM
To me Navratilova was far and away the best player of 1982. Even with a loss to Evert in the Toyota finals, Navratilova would have ended 1982 with a stupendous 89-4 record in singles. Besides MN, in addition to winning the French and Wimbledon, also dominated the Avon circuit and reached the Avon finals. Navratilova led the final head-to-head for that year 3-1, but I daresay it'd have been more lopsided had Evert not avoided having to play Navratilova on carpet by skipping pretty much the entire Avon indoor circuit.

Wimbledon final: Navratilova d. Evert 6-1, 3-6, 6-2
Brighton final: Navratilova d. Evert 6-1, 6-4
Australian Open final: Evert d. Navratilova 6-3, 2-6, 6-3
Toyota Series final: Navratilova d. Evert 4-6, 6-1, 6-2

Plus, Evert lost twice as many matches that year (3x Navratilova, 3x Jaeger) although Navratilova did have a couple of "bad" losses (1x Hanika, 1x Shriver). It's a shame that Evert lost to Jaegs in the semis of both Hilton Head and Roland Garros. I think Navratilova was ready to beat Evert on clay that season and could have done it at least once if not on both occasions.

Navratilova ended up losing the Avon final to Sylvia Hanika of all people so dont be so sure Chris wouldnt have had a chance. :lol:

As for beating Chris on clay, the scores you show indicate Martina was still having a real battle with Chris even on her favorite surfaces so if Chris were in top form than unlikely probably. As it was though Chris losing to Jaeger twice in a row on clay indicates she was far from her best on clay this year.

samn
Oct 9th, 2010, 09:38 AM
Chris would only have had 2 more losses for the year than Martina, but as you say, Martina had some bad losses. Out of interest what were Chris's other two losses?

Navratilova's losses
Avon Champs F (indoor): lost to Sylvia Hanika 1-6, 6-3, 6-4
US Open QF (hard): lost to Pam Shriver 1-6, 7-6, 6-2
Australian Open F (grass): lost to Chris Evert 6-3, 2-6, 6-3

Evert's losses
Avon Series of Oakland F (indoor): lost to Andrea Jaeger 7-6, 6-4
Family Circle Cup SF (clay): lost to Andrea Jaeger 6-1, 1-6, 6-2
French Open SF (clay): lost to Andrea Jaeger 6-3, 6-1
Wimbledon F (grass): lost to Martina Navratilova 6-1, 3-6, 6-2
Brighton F (indoor): lost to Martina Navratilova 6-1, 6-4
Toyota Series Champs F (indoor): lost to Martina Navratilova 4-6, 6-1, 6-2

samn
Oct 9th, 2010, 10:45 AM
1985 seems a much closer year as you guys said before.

Navratilova won eleven titles to Evert's eight and had five losses to Evert's eight. Had Evert won the final in Kooyong, the record of losses would have been closer (Evert with seven losses to Navratilova's six). Their personal head-to-head for 1985 was 4-2 in Navratilova's favour, which, of course, would have been an even 3-3 if the Australian final had gone the other way.

Titles won

Navratilova
Hard: Lipton International Championships (Delray Beach), Lynda Carter/Maybelline Classic (Fort Lauderdale)
Clay: Tournament of Champions (Orlando), Virginia Slims of Houston
Grass: Pilkington Glass Championships (Eastbourne), Wimbledon, National Panasonic Women's Classic (Brisbane), Family Circle NSW Open (Sydney), Australian Open
Indoor: Virginia Slims of Dallas, Virginia Slims Championships

Evert
Hard: Virginia Slims of Florida (Key Biscayne), Canadian Open, Virginia Slims of New Orleans
Clay: Family Circle Cup (Hilton Head Island), German Open (Berlin), French Open
Grass: Virginia Slims of Newport
Indoor: Pretty Polly Classic (Brighton)


Losses

Navratilova
Hard:
Virginia Slims of Florida, Key Biscayne (F): Evert d. Navratilova 6-2, 6-4
Canadian Open, Toronto (QF): Claudia Kohde Kilsch d. Navratilova 3-6, 6-4, 6-3
US Open (F): Mandlikova d. Navratilova 7-6, 1-6, 7-6

Clay:
French Open (F): Evert d. Navratilova 6-3, 6-7, 7-5

Indoor:
US Pro Indoors, Princeton (SF): Mandlikova d. Navratilova 7-6, 6-0

Evert
Hard:
Lipton International Championships, Delray Beach (F): Navratilova d. Evert 6-2, 6-4
US Open (SF): Mandlikova d. Evert 4-6, 6-2, 6-3

Clay:
Sunkist WITA Championships, Amelia Island (F): Garrison d. Evert 6-4, 6-3

Grass:
Wimbledon F: Navratilova d. Evert 4-6, 6-3, 6-2
Australian Open F: Navratilova d. Evert 6-2, 4-6, 6-2

Indoor:
Virginia Slims of California, Oakland (F): Mandlikova d. Evert 6-2, 6-4
Virginia Slims of Dallas (F): Navratilova d. Evert 6-3, 6-4
Virginia Slims Championships (1R): Jordan d. Evert 6-2, 1-6, 6-2


Clearly Navratilova was much less dominant in 1985 than she had been in 1984 and it seems to me that the biggest fall she took was on hard courts, winning only two titles all year, and losing once each to Evert, Kohde Kilsch, and Mandlikova. As such the Kohde Kilsch match was Navratilova's only "bad" loss whereas Evert had two of those (the Jordan loss at the Slims and the Garrison loss in Amelia Island). Both of them, however, won at least one title on all four surfaces. Navratilova was the clear leader on grass (not losing a single match) and indoors, and Evert edged out her rival on clay. Hard courts were a bit of tossup, with each winning one big title (MN getting the Lipton and CE winning the Canadian) but losing at the US Open to the same player (Mandlikova).

Ultimately I think Navratilova still had the better year, especially since she also won the Slims title in MSG. I also wonder whether Evert would have made it to #1 at all that year had the diminishing returns ranking system not been in place.

BCP
Oct 9th, 2010, 10:55 AM
Navratilova's losses
Avon Champs F (indoor): lost to Sylvia Hanika 1-6, 6-3, 6-4
US Open QF (hard): lost to Pam Shriver 1-6, 7-6, 6-2
Australian Open F (grass): lost to Chris Evert 6-3, 2-6, 6-3

Evert's losses
Avon Series of Oakland F (indoor): lost to Andrea Jaeger 7-6, 6-4
Family Circle Cup SF (clay): lost to Andrea Jaeger 6-1, 1-6, 6-2
French Open SF (clay): lost to Andrea Jaeger 6-3, 6-1
Wimbledon F (grass): lost to Martina Navratilova 6-1, 3-6, 6-2
Brighton F (indoor): lost to Martina Navratilova 6-1, 6-4
Toyota Series Champs F (indoor): lost to Martina Navratilova 4-6, 6-1, 6-2


Thanks for this. This means that if Chris has beaten Martina, then it would have been 5 losses to 4, with Chris only losing to Martina and Andrea. A lot closer than what actually occurred surely?

daze11
Oct 9th, 2010, 03:08 PM
Navratilova ended up losing the Avon final to Sylvia Hanika of all people so dont be so sure Chris wouldnt have had a chance. :lol:

As for beating Chris on clay, the scores you show indicate Martina was still having a real battle with Chris even on her favorite surfaces so if Chris were in top form than unlikely probably. As it was though Chris losing to Jaeger twice in a row on clay indicates she was far from her best on clay this year.
also, chris was playing with wood while martina was playing with graphite at this point; even then, chris STILL beat her on GRASS at the aussie open. Hard to make any fargone conclusions about an evert/navratilova match up on clay where chris had the clear mental edge.

I dont think chris would have been #1 on the computer if she took that slims championships final, but yes she would have been number one on the slims/avon points for the year.

in '85, it is clear she would have been #1 on the computer had she won.

BCP
Oct 9th, 2010, 04:33 PM
I wonder how everyone would have felt had Hana won the 85 AO. It would have been really hard to rank the 3 then.

DennisFitz
Oct 9th, 2010, 06:11 PM
also, chris was playing with wood while martina was playing with graphite at this point; even then, chris STILL beat her on GRASS at the aussie open. Hard to make any fargone conclusions about an evert/navratilova match up on clay where chris had the clear mental edge.

I dont think chris would have been #1 on the computer if she took that slims championships final, but yes she would have been number one on the slims/avon points for the year.

in '85, it is clear she would have been #1 on the computer had she won.

In 1985, had Evert beaten Martina in the Australian Open final, I don't think she would have been #1 on the computer. Martina had already overtaken Chris as #1 at the time of their Australian Open match, even though Chris was seeded #1, as seeds were made prior to Oz draw. Chris was defending champ, so she couldn't have increased her point average much. Martina, had she lost, would have improved from SF to RU.

Now if Chris had won the 1985 Australian Open, I think she would have had a legitimate claim to #1. Winning 2 majors to Martina's 1, beating Martina in 2 of those finals, with them having a 3-3 H2H for the year would have nudged Chris past Martina in my mind as #1.

In 1982, it would have been very interesting how year end rankings would have looked. A win in the Toyota finals would have meant 2-2 in their H2H. Each would have 2 majors, but Evert would have claimed a season ending championships, and a win over Martina to boot. Seeing that she was #1 the prior year might have meant she had the psychological edge. Some folks might have felt Martina again failed to 'seal the deal' and cement her status as #1.

Martina might have made her case for #1 in 1982 and 1985, even if she had lost the Toyota and Australian finals respectively. She still would have had a better W-L record, with more title and fewer losses in both years. In 1982, some would argue that Martina playing a full year, and only losing to Chris at the very end of the year would have meant Chris wasn't really the best player all year. In 1985, Martina won the VS Championships in March, while Evert lost 1R. One thing for sure is that Mandlikova's win over Evert and Navratilova in the US Open made the remainder of the year quite interesting.

However, Evert didn't win the Toyota or Australian finals, Martina did, and was definitely #1 for those years.

daze11
Oct 10th, 2010, 02:29 AM
In 1985, had Evert beaten Martina in the Australian Open final, I don't think she would have been #1 on the computer. Martina had already overtaken Chris as #1 at the time of their Australian Open match, even though Chris was seeded #1, as seeds were made prior to Oz draw. Chris was defending champ, so she couldn't have increased her point average much. Martina, had she lost, would have improved from SF to RU.

Now if Chris had won the 1985 Australian Open, I think she would have had a legitimate claim to #1. Winning 2 majors to Martina's 1, beating Martina in 2 of those finals, with them having a 3-3 H2H for the year would have nudged Chris past Martina in my mind as #1.
they discuss it in the commentary of the match...back then, the more recent 6 months somehow counted more --which is just nuts-- and because Navratilova had become the #1 ranked player, a win by chris would give her extra points for upsetting a player above her. (something about bonus points for beating top 10 players whenever ranked above you) It was absolutely factual that chris was #1 on the computer if she won that match, despite already being the australian open defending champion.

martina was furious about it of course, so her complaints to the press about possibly losing her #1 ranking were discussed during the match.

DennisFitz
Oct 10th, 2010, 06:22 AM
they discuss it in the commentary of the match...back then, the more recent 6 months somehow counted more --which is just nuts-- and because Navratilova had become the #1 ranked player, a win by chris would give her extra points for upsetting a player above her. (something about bonus points for beating top 10 players whenever ranked above you) It was absolutely factual that chris was #1 on the computer if she won that match, despite already being the australian open defending champion.

Didn't know that. I guess the bonus points Chris would have gotten for beating #1 Martina certainly helped her cause, since they were more valuable than her 1984 win over Sukova (who I don't think was top 10 at the time).

martina was furious about it of course, so her complaints to the press about possibly losing her #1 ranking were discussed during the match.

Not surprising Martina would have been complaining. Then again, had Chris won, Evert would have had 2 majors to Martina's 1, their H2H would have been even, but Chris would have triumphed in 2 major finals, including one on grass. It was obviously a very close year, and it really did come down to that one match.

samn
Oct 10th, 2010, 08:58 AM
I wonder how everyone would have felt had Hana won the 85 AO. It would have been really hard to rank the 3 then.

Actually it becomes easier for me to rank Navratilova at #1 if Mandlikova had beaten the Big Two again in Kooyong. In spite of winning two Grand Slams, Mandlikova would have been a relative flop at the other two Slams, losing to Claudia Kohde Kilsch in the quarters in Paris and, worse still, being beaten by Liz Sayers Smylie in the third round at Wimbledon. Across the four Slams and the Slims Championships, their records would have been (F,W,F,SF,W) for Navratilova; (W,F,SF,F,1R) for Evert; and (QF,3R,W,W,F) for Mandlikova. Taking the whole year into account, I'd still have to go with Navratilova as #1, Evert as #2, and Mandlikova as #3.

Navratilova would have been the only player to reach at least the semis at all five events. A Mandlikova triumph at the Australian would have given her a 2-1 head-to-head against Navratilova and a 2-0 record against Madame Evert Lloyd at "the majors" and the Big Two would have split their two meetings in the top five events. Although Mandlikova would appear to have performed the best when it mattered, I think her bad losses and her pedestrian record across the year (3 titles not counting the Aussie; 2 losses to Kohde Kilsch; 2 losses to Garrison; 1 loss each to Rinaldi, Lindqvist, Bassett, Karlsson, and Sayers Smylie) would need to count against her. (And you have no idea how painful it is for me to rank that Evert woman above my beloved Mandlikova :sad:)

BCP
Oct 10th, 2010, 11:29 AM
Actually it becomes easier for me to rank Navratilova at #1 if Mandlikova had beaten the Big Two again in Kooyong. In spite of winning two Grand Slams, Mandlikova would have been a relative flop at the other two Slams, losing to Claudia Kohde Kilsch in the quarters in Paris and, worse still, being beaten by Liz Sayers Smylie in the third round at Wimbledon. Across the four Slams and the Slims Championships, their records would have been (F,W,F,SF,W) for Navratilova; (W,F,SF,F,1R) for Evert; and (QF,3R,W,W,F) for Mandlikova. Taking the whole year into account, I'd still have to go with Navratilova as #1, Evert as #2, and Mandlikova as #3.

Navratilova would have been the only player to reach at least the semis at all five events. A Mandlikova triumph at the Australian would have given her a 2-1 head-to-head against Navratilova and a 2-0 record against Madame Evert Lloyd at "the majors" and the Big Two would have split their two meetings in the top five events. Although Mandlikova would appear to have performed the best when it mattered, I think her bad losses and her pedestrian record across the year (3 titles not counting the Aussie; 2 losses to Kohde Kilsch; 2 losses to Garrison; 1 loss each to Rinaldi, Lindqvist, Bassett, Karlsson, and Sayers Smylie) would need to count against her. (And you have no idea how painful it is for me to rank that Evert woman above my beloved Mandlikova :sad:)

I'm not sure whether it would have been as clear cut, and is the same argument around who was no.1 in 87 when Martina won both Winbeldon and the US Open beating beating Graf at both, but not winning anything else. Would either have deserved no.1 if they had both lost to Mandlikova twice at the GS? In any event, it would have been a hugely unusual year and definitely one to be talked about a lot if that had happened.

Re: 1982, I remember Martina getting really annoyed pre tournament that there were suggestions that the Toyota F would determine no.1 In her opinion she had done enough to remain no.1 for the year whatever the result, and this really got on Chris's nerves............

samn
Oct 10th, 2010, 01:31 PM
I'm not sure whether it would have been as clear cut, and is the same argument around who was no.1 in 87 when Martina won both Winbeldon and the US Open beating beating Graf at both, but not winning anything else. Would either have deserved no.1 if they had both lost to Mandlikova twice at the GS? In any event, it would have been a hugely unusual year and definitely one to be talked about a lot if that had happened.



Well, Navratilova in 1987 had a much stronger case for #1 than Mandlikova would have had in 1985 had the latter won the Australian Open. Navratilova reached all four Grand Slam finals and finished 2-2 in her personal head-to-head with Graf. Yes, she had more losses than she had been having in prior years (2x Graf, 2x Evert, 2x Sabatini, 1x Mandlikova, 1x Sukova) and won only four titles, but I still think that a (F, F, W, W, QF) record in the five major events trumps a (W, QF, 3R, W, F) record.


Re: 1982, I remember Martina getting really annoyed pre tournament that there were suggestions that the Toyota F would determine no.1 In her opinion she had done enough to remain no.1 for the year whatever the result, and this really got on Chris's nerves............

I can understand why Navratilova would have been ticked off by the Evert apologists (Steve Flink and that lot) suggesting that Evert had a claim to the top spot in 1982 if she won the Toyota finals. The same lot quoted Evert's year-long consistency and her superior winning percentage as the reason for ranking her #1 at the end of 1981 even though Austin (US Open, Toyota) and Navratilova (Australian Open, Avon) both held two big titles to Evert's one (Wimbledon) and Navratilova won both of her matches against Evert at the major events (US semis, Australian final). Frank Deford in SI used Evert's consistency and her win over Austin in the round-robin match at the Toyota event to give her the year-end #1!

It's as though they were conveniently changing their criteria to accommodate Evert's results. If year-long performance and winning percentages were the main criteria, Navratilova was head and shoulders above Evert in 1982 regardless of their results at the Toyota finals. And as Navratilova pointed out in 1982, apparently the Toyota finals were big enough to count toward the year-end top spot in 1982 but had been conveniently ignored in 1981 when Evert got bushwhacked 1 and 2 in the semis by Austin.

daze11
Oct 11th, 2010, 06:52 PM
I can understand why Navratilova would have been ticked off by the Evert apologists (Steve Flink and that lot) suggesting that Evert had a claim to the top spot in 1982 if she won the Toyota finals. The same lot quoted Evert's year-long consistency and her superior winning percentage as the reason for ranking her #1 at the end of 1981 even though Austin (US Open, Toyota) and Navratilova (Australian Open, Avon) both held two big titles to Evert's one (Wimbledon) and Navratilova won both of her matches against Evert at the major events (US semis, Australian final). Frank Deford in SI used Evert's consistency and her win over Austin in the round-robin match at the Toyota event to give her the year-end #1!

It's as though they were conveniently changing their criteria to accommodate Evert's results. If year-long performance and winning percentages were the main criteria, Navratilova was head and shoulders above Evert in 1982 regardless of their results at the Toyota finals. And as Navratilova pointed out in 1982, apparently the Toyota finals were big enough to count toward the year-end top spot in 1982 but had been conveniently ignored in 1981 when Evert got bushwhacked 1 and 2 in the semis by Austin.
You are mixing opinions (of yourself & Evert 'apologists') with facts.

Chris Evert is who the computer said was #1 in 1981. Not Steve Flink, Frank Deford or Martina Navratilova.

In 1982, the computer said Martina was #1...but on the Slims championships points (points earned by play & results... not earned by opinions) Chris was still in striking distance to take #1 in their rankings if she won the last match.

The 'value of points earned' for those events were not tabulated AFTER THE RESULTS were achieved to fit the hopes & opinions of media enthusiasts, but before the year began.

So it's true Flink & Deford shared their opinions, as did World Tennis & Sports Illustrated, regarding Chris being #1. But the computer gave her that ranking because she had the best year of any player.

It's possible that if Tracy Austin had gone to Paris to play the French Open, she rather may have been #1...but her choices resulted in her obtaining zero points for that event, even if she may have lost in the QF or SF, it may have given her the edge in year-long results she needed. Winning Avon didn't make up for that gap. So as it is, she was 2 & Martina 3.

mick1303
Oct 11th, 2010, 08:04 PM
Just been thinking about how close both of these years were between Chris and Martina, and how Chris missed out being no.1 in both of these years. If Chris had beaten Martina in the Toyota Final, would she really have done enough to be no.1 that year? Ditto 1985 and the Australian Open Final? Which year did she have the stronger case for no.1?

When and where was the Toyota final in 1982? Do we have a draw somewhere on this site? I have results for 47 tournaments of 1982, not counting Fed Cup. There were 2 tournaments in Tokyo in October, won by Lisa Bonder-Kreiss and Laura Gildemeister. This is all what I have in Japan in 82.

samn
Oct 11th, 2010, 08:19 PM
You are mixing opinions (of yourself & Evert 'apologists') with facts.

Chris Evert is who the computer said was #1 in 1981. Not Steve Flink, Frank Deford or Martina Navratilova.

In 1982, the computer said Martina was #1...but on the Slims championships points (points earned by play & results... not earned by opinions) Chris was still in striking distance to take #1 in their rankings if she won the last match.

The 'value of points earned' for those events were not tabulated AFTER THE RESULTS were achieved to fit the hopes & opinions of media enthusiasts, but before the year began.

So it's true Flink & Deford shared their opinions, as did World Tennis & Sports Illustrated, regarding Chris being #1. But the computer gave her that ranking because she had the best year of any player.

It's possible that if Tracy Austin had gone to Paris to play the French Open, she rather may have been #1...but her choices resulted in her obtaining zero points for that event, even if she may have lost in the QF or SF, it may have given her the edge in year-long results she needed. Winning Avon didn't make up for that gap. So as it is, she was 2 & Martina 3.

Do cut the patronising crap, Daze! The records from 1982 confirm that Navratilova would have stayed #1 on the computer even if she hadn't won the Toyota finals. At the end of the year's final event leading up to the series finale, Navratilova topped the Toyota points standings with 1,970 points to Evert's 1,860 points. As I understand it, the series finals did not count towards the Toyota points tally. Even if we assume that they did and assign the same number of points that were available to the four Slam events that season (250 points to the winner, 200 points to the finalist), Evert wouldn't have overtaken Navratilova in the standings unless the latter hadn't played the event at all. In the final year-end computer rankings, Navratilova's average (across the Avon and Toyota tours) was 19.165 points and Evert's average was 17.526.

The SI recap also confirms that Navratilova's computer ranking was safe regardless of what happened in East Rutherford. It was the year-end lists (Tennis, World Tennis, ITF World Champion, WTA Player of the Year) that were based on the panelists' opinions and thus not always free from bias.

samn
Oct 11th, 2010, 08:29 PM
When and where was the Toyota final in 1982? Do we have a draw somewhere on this site? I have results for 47 tournaments of 1982, not counting Fed Cup. There were 2 tournaments in Tokyo in October, won by Lisa Bonder-Kreiss and Laura Gildemeister. This is all what I have in Japan in 82.

The Toyota Series Championships were the season-ending event for the second half of the tour (i.e. the events sponsored by Toyota). The event was held at the Meadowlands, New Jersey, from Dec 14 to Dec 19.

Singles
First Round: Navratilova (bye); Turnbull. Gadusek 6-1, 6-1; Potter d. Ruzici 5-7, 6-3, 6-2; Mandlikova (bye); Jaeger (bye); Austin d. Jausovec 6-2, 4-6, 6-1; Shriver d. Bunge 6-3, 7-6; Evert Lloyd (bye)

Quarter-finals: Navratilova d. Turnbull 6-2, 6-1; Mandlikova d. Potter 4-6, 6-3, 7-6; Austin d. Jaeger 6-4, 6-4; Evert Lloyd d. Shriver 6-2, 6-3

Semi-finals: Navratilova d. Mandlikova 7-6, 6-1; Evert Lloyd d. Austin 6-0, 6-0

Final: Navratilova d. Evert Lloyd 4-6, 6-1, 6-2

Doubles
Quarter-finals: Casals/Turnbull (bye); P. Smith/Reynolds d. Allen/Jausovec 6-1, 6-2; Potter/Walsh d. Russell/Ruzici 6-3, 6-0; Navratilova/Shriver (bye);

Semi-finals: Smith/Reynolds d. Casals/Turnbull 6-4, 4-6, 7-6; Navratilova/Shriver d. Potter/Walsh 6-3, 6-2

Final: Navratilova/Shriver d. Smith/Reynolds 6-4, 7-5

mick1303
Oct 11th, 2010, 08:36 PM
So it was East Rutherford. This answers my question. That one I do have. I wrongly assumed that Toyota final should be in Japan.

daze11
Oct 12th, 2010, 03:02 PM
Do cut the patronising crap, Daze! The records from 1982 confirm that Navratilova would have stayed #1 on the computer even if she hadn't won the Toyota finals. At the end of the year's final event leading up to the series finale, Navratilova topped the Toyota points standings with 1,970 points to Evert's 1,860 points. As I understand it, the series finals did not count towards the Toyota points tally. Even if we assume that they did and assign the same number of points that were available to the four Slam events that season (250 points to the winner, 200 points to the finalist), Evert wouldn't have overtaken Navratilova in the standings unless the latter hadn't played the event at all. In the final year-end computer rankings, Navratilova's average (across the Avon and Toyota tours) was 19.165 points and Evert's average was 17.526.

The SI recap also confirms that Navratilova's computer ranking was safe regardless of what happened in East Rutherford. It was the year-end lists (Tennis, World Tennis, ITF World Champion, WTA Player of the Year) that were based on the panelists' opinions and thus not always free from bias.

what has rollo been telling you about inappropriate posting etiquette on these boards? :rolleyes: :confused: In what way were you condescended to? I pointed out you were slinging inaccuracies and offered in its place the correct information.

My post was quite clear about particulars, and all the facts I stated hold true, with your additions here.

The second set of facts are that I --and many who are commenting on this -- have the footage from that event and hear the conversations on our tapes from the commentators talking about Evert being #1 with a win there. So it is possible that all those commentaries were pure fiction and they would have been the laughing stock of tennis if evert won & they were just silly & mistaken... but it would seem unlikely.