PDA

View Full Version : What if Graf never existed


justineheninfan
Nov 17th, 2010, 11:34 PM
If Steffi Graf never existed who would have won her 22 slams instead. Here are my choices:

1987 French Open- Navratilova
1988 Australian Open- Evert
1988 French Open- Sabatini
1988 Wimbledon- Navratilova
1988 U.S Open- Sabatini
1989 Australian Open- Sukova
1989 Wimbledon- Navratilova
1989 U.S Open- Navratilova
1990 Australian Open- Sukova
1991 Wimbledon- Sabatini
1992 Wimbledon- Sabatini
1993 French- Fernandez
1993 Wimbledon- Novotna
1993 U.S Open- Sanchez Vicario. I know she lost to Sukova in the semis but with the draw rearranged I still favor her.
1994 Australian Open- Sanchez Vicario
1995 French Open- Martinez
1995 Wimbledon- Novotna
1995 U.S Open- Seles
1996 French Open- Seles if she avoids Novotna, Sanchez if she avoids Seles, Novotna if she avoids Sanchez. Sanchez Vicario I guess.
1996 Wimbledon- Date
1996 U.S Open- Hingis
1999 French Open- Hingis

So by my count:

Sabatini now has 5 slams instead of 1
Navratilova now has 22 slams instead of 18
Hingis now has 7 slams instead of 5
Sanchez Vicario now has 7 slams instead of 4
Novotna now has 2 slams instad of 0
Sukova now has 2 slams instead of 0
Evert now has 19 slams instead of 18
Seles now has 10 slams instead of 9
Martinez now has 2 slams instead of 1
Date now has 1 slam instead of 0
Fernandez now has 1 slam instead of 0

for now, but......there are some slams that Steffi didnt win that would nonetheless IMO have a different slam winner without Graf around:

1989 French- Seles. Since Sanchez was always her pigeon.

1994 French Open- Pierce. Sanchez Vicario was lucky to avoid Pierce until the final itself.

1994 U.S Open- Novotna. Jana was playing well here, and Sanchez only won the final since Grafs back went out halfway through anyway.

1999 Wimbledon- Venus. Venus wasnt Davenports nightmare just yet but she was already a troublesome matchup, especialy on a surface that rewards her superior athleticsm.

So actually Sanchez drops all the way back down to 4 slams again.
Pierce moves ups to 3.
Seles moves up to 11.
Novotna moves up to 4.
Venus moves up to 8.

hingis-seles
Nov 18th, 2010, 12:22 AM
Well, first of all Seles doesn't get stabbed so that changes everything.

1987 French Open- Navratilova
1988 Australian Open- Evert
1988 French Open- Sabatini
1988 Wimbledon- Navratilova
1988 U.S Open- Sabatini
1989 Australian Open- Sukova
1989 Wimbledon- Navratilova
1989 U.S Open- Navratilova
1990 Australian Open- Fernandez
1991 Wimbledon- Sabatini
1992 Wimbledon- Seles
1993 French- Seles
1993 Wimbledon- Seles
1993 U.S Open- Seles
1994 Australian Open- Seles
1995 French Open- Seles
1995 Wimbledon- Novotna
1995 U.S Open- Seles
1996 French Open- Sanchez Vicario
1996 Wimbledon- Date
1996 U.S Open- Hingis
1999 French Open- Hingis

Of the Slams Graf didn't win but the winner would have changed:

1994 RG - Pierce
1994 Wimbledon - Navratilova
1994 US - Seles
1997 RG - Hingis
1999 W - I'm really tempted to say Venus, but I don't think she was ready to win a Slam.

That changes the Slam count to:

Navratilova - 23
Hingis - 8
Seles - 17
Evert - 19
Sanchez Vicario - 3
Pierce - 3
Novotna - 2
Venus - 8
Sabatini - 2
Davenport - 2
Date, Sukova, Fernandez - 1

Martinez and Majoli are slam-less now.

justineheninfan
Nov 18th, 2010, 01:17 AM
Navratilova winning Wimbledon 94. How, she did lose to Martinez, she would probably lose to Seles as she did in 92, and she would probably also lose to Sanchez Vicario. She only beat Novotna since Novotna cant pass worth a darn off the backhand side and since Jana always had a mental block playing her Czech hero. Was Martina really playing that well (I dont mean for her age which was of course was remarkable), she had an easy draw to the final except for her pigeon Novotna, nearly went to a 3rd set vs Gigi Fernandez, then was soundly outplayed by clay courter Martinez in the final despite it going 3 sets.

And Seles was mediocre at best in the 92 Wimbledon final. Assuming she performed at that level in the final still I dont see how she would have beaten Sabatini or even Navratilova who she beat in the semis (or even Capriati or Zvereva perhaps). Maybe it was Graf who made her look mediocre that day, I dont know.

If Seles didnt get stabbed I think she would have won the 97 and 98 French Opens as well though.

Rollo
Nov 18th, 2010, 01:48 AM
Not to throw cold water on this thread, but be careful that this doesn't head off in a direction that leads me to to use my delete button.

It's fine so long as it does'nt turn into an anti-Graf thread.

DennisFitz
Nov 18th, 2010, 01:55 AM
Not to throw cold water on this thread, but be careful that this doesn't head off in a direction that leads me to to use my delete button.

It's fine so long as it does'nt turn into an anti-Graf thread.

I sort of wish you would use the delete button.

Or maybe we could start a thread.....what if man didn't invent fire! Or computers! Or what if Al Gore didn't invent the Internets?!

Steffi Graf, along with all the other greats, did play tennis! Why try to erase an all-time greats entire career! I mean, why?

spiceboy
Nov 18th, 2010, 03:11 AM
Answer: The WTA Tour would have lost its greatest player EVER :sobbing:

justineheninfan
Nov 18th, 2010, 03:37 AM
Not to throw cold water on this thread, but be careful that this doesn't head off in a direction that leads me to to use my delete button.

It's fine so long as it does'nt turn into an anti-Graf thread.

I would think a thread like this would be a compliment to Graf essentially.
:shrug:

austinrunner
Nov 18th, 2010, 04:34 AM
What if emoticons were never invented? Just askin.... :smash::nerner::crazy::sobbing::aparty::weirdo::ee k:

spencercarlos
Nov 18th, 2010, 08:07 AM
Somehow i like this thread, we can only dream lol..
Some observations!


1987 French Open- Navratilova

I would say that Sabatini who led 5-3 Graf in the third set in the semis had something to say about this one. Don´t forget Sabatini beat Navratilova on clay at Rome just weeks earlier 7-6 6-1. I think it would have been a toss up anyone´s match, Martina with the edge mentally.. or not? considering how she served (DFs) for the match against Graf..


1989 Australian Open- Sukova

Sabatini was SF on this one, i really have a hard time to believe that Sabatini who won 12 of the last 15 matches against Sukova (losing only 2 times in 94 in 95 when Sabatini was in clear decline mentally out of it for the most part) would have lost to Helena on a non fast hard court slam.

Sabatini overall won her most important matches against Sukova and they were on hard courts/meduim and fast/indoor/: YEC SF (6-4 6-2)1988, Miami SF 1989 (6-7 6-3 6-4), Usopen 1990 (6-2 6-1).


1993 U.S Open- Sanchez Vicario. I know she lost to Sukova in the semis but with the draw rearranged I still favor her.

This is when it get ridiculous :rolleyes: no comments about choosing Arantxa LOL.
Arantxa was on her way of NO TITLES since Amelia Island 1993, was not exactly playing great tennis. I would have choosen Sukova all the way considering she was at her peak, won Doubles, Mixed Doubles and lost the final only to Graf... 6-3 6-3...
Sabatini took Graf to three sets in the Quarters, but boy she was in such a horrible state at the time that she would have probably lost to Maleeva in the semis :help:.


1995 French Open- Martinez.

Really tough to choose this one, considering how tough mentally Arantxa was. Sure Arantxa may have lost to Martinez easily in Rome, but Arantxa is a different player at Roland Garros. This would have been another tough struggle, i would probably say Arantxa instead considering their head to head.


1995 Wimbledon- Novotna

Another disagrement here, i think Arantxa who was few points from winning Wimbledon 1995 over Graf would have beaten 1995 Novotna at Wimbledon.


1996 French Open- Seles if she avoids Novotna, Sanchez if she avoids Seles, Novotna if she avoids Sanchez. Sanchez Vicario I guess.

Not sure if i understood you here. I think the right answer should be Sanchez Vicario, considering again she was 3 points away from winning this one against Graf in the final.


1996 Wimbledon- Date

I would not be so sure. Novotna made QF and lost to Graf who played an unbelieveable match then, had probably something to say against Date on grass, just like at Wimbledon 1995. This is probably an open one i honestly never saw Date as grand slam winning material. Arantxa was not exactly doing badly at the time either.


1994 U.S Open- Novotna. Jana was playing well here, and Sanchez only won the final since Grafs back went out halfway through anyway.
:rolleyes: Yeah Jana beat Graf so many times in 1994 0-3 and Arantxa beat Graf 3 times all because of her back :lol:.. Sorry but this one´s Arantxa all the way IMO.


1999 Wimbledon- Venus. Venus wasnt Davenports nightmare just yet but she was already a troublesome matchup, especialy on a surface that rewards her superior athleticsm.
Lindsay was at her absolute peak of her powers, she played such a clean match in the final. Don´t forget by then she OWNED Venus, incluiding massive beatdowns 6-4 6-0 twice, and was 7-1 in the head to head against Venus at the time. Again not convincing your athleticism argument, this was Lindsay´s time IMO.

djul14
Nov 18th, 2010, 10:39 AM
Seriously ?

justineheninfan
Nov 19th, 2010, 01:04 AM
I would say that Sabatini who led 5-3 Graf in the third set in the semis had something to say about this one. Don´t forget Sabatini beat Navratilova on clay at Rome just weeks earlier 7-6 6-1. I think it would have been a toss up anyone´s match, Martina with the edge mentally.. or not? considering how she served (DFs) for the match against Graf..

I agree it would have been close between the two but I still would favor Martina. Gaby has only beaten Martina, Graf, and Seles one time combined total in something like 20 slam meetings with the trio. And Martina was close to her prime, and is mentally tougher than Sabatini. And she was very determined at this French.


Sabatini was SF on this one, i really have a hard time to believe that Sabatini who won 12 of the last 15 matches against Sukova (losing only 2 times in 94 in 95 when Sabatini was in clear decline mentally out of it for the most part) would have lost to Helena on a non fast hard court slam.

Whenever Sabatini is involved you are sure to bring up some doozy comments. It is funny how you have to mention how Sabatini went into decline in 94 and 95 yet make no mention at all that Sukova's prime was 84-89 and she was nowhere near the player from 1990 onwards she was in previous years when almost all of that streak of 12 out of 15 took place. And 94-95 who was more past their prime between Sabatini or Sukova, yet you still try to discredit Sukova's wins those years. :lol: Yes on the whole Sabatini had the better of Sukova, and yes on the whole she was the better player of course, but around the time of the 89 Australian Open their head to head was quite competitive and I personally think the way Sukova was playing that event, beating Navratilova in a great match, she would have been able to beat Sabatini. Again it is close though.


Sabatini overall won her most important matches against Sukova and they were on hard courts/meduim and fast/indoor/: YEC SF (6-4 6-2)1988, Miami SF 1989 (6-7 6-3 6-4), Usopen 1990 (6-2 6-1).

As I mentioned on average Sabatini was the better player even when Sukova was at her best, so of course Sabatini will win more of their meetings. Sukova is a dangerous and slightly streaky player who could rise and beat the best at a given time, everyone except Graf that is. Remember all the big wins she had over Martina in big events over the years. She isnt good enough to beat those better than her consistently, but she is good enough to beat them all at a given time when she hits a patch of form.


This is when it get ridiculous :rolleyes: no comments about choosing Arantxa LOL.
Arantxa was on her way of NO TITLES since Amelia Island 1993, was not exactly playing great tennis. I would have choosen Sukova all the way considering she was at her peak, won Doubles, Mixed Doubles and lost the final only to Graf... 6-3 6-3...

Sukova barely won her semifinal with Sanchez Vicario, scraping out of a 2nd set tiebreak and winning in 3. So it is not certain Sukova wins if they played in the final, especialy since Sukova didnt even play a very good final at all (yes I know she was playing Graf who played very well and who she is 1-21 against but I still watched the final and her performance mostly sucked). And if Sanchez Vicario is now World #1 without Graf, that mentally changes things as well. Anyway I originally was forgetting at this point the Seles stabbing probably never happens if Graf didnt exist which pretty much makes this all moot anyway, as Seles probably destroys them all at this point (sans Graf).


Really tough to choose this one, considering how tough mentally Arantxa was. Sure Arantxa may have lost to Martinez easily in Rome, but Arantxa is a different player at Roland Garros. This would have been another tough struggle, i would probably say Arantxa instead considering their head to head.

I agree this is a close call. Sanchez Vicario was a bit sick at the French as well though and had no energy by the 3rd set of the final with Graf. That is another reason I pick Martinez. I dont think Martinez had as big a mental block with Sanchez as some say. Their head to head is reasonable for Martinez considering Sanchez Vicario is the better, mentally tougher, and harder working player.


Another disagrement here, i think Arantxa who was few points from winning Wimbledon 1995 over Graf would have beaten 1995 Novotna at Wimbledon.

I dont know. I would always favor Novotna over Sanchez on grass or probably carpet. Sanchez is a much tougher matchup for Graf than Novotna over the years remember. And Novotna was fairly close to winning her semifinal with Graf in 2 sets potentially too. I agree the way Sanchez was playing she would have had a shot vs Novotna though. Another close call.


Not sure if i understood you here. I think the right answer should be Sanchez Vicario, considering again she was 3 points away from winning this one against Graf in the final.

If Sanchez plays Seles she 90% likely loses, no matter what form Seles is in. Just look at their 96 meetings, Seles spanked Aranxta like she usually does in their careers, and it is not like she was ever in great shape or playing near her best in 96, she doesnt have to vs her pigeon Sanchez to win. Sanchez Vicario was lucky Novotna had Seles's number that year and took her out in a couple of the big events (Olympics too) when Seles was in Aranxta's half.

Basically if Jana doesnt play Sanchez I think she wins this year, if Sanchez doesnt play Seles I think she wins, and if Seles doesnt play Jana she wins. No way am I just going to say flat out Sanchez wins point blank when if she somehow runs into Seles she has almost no chance of getting past her.


I would not be so sure. Novotna made QF and lost to Graf who played an unbelieveable match then, had probably something to say against Date on grass, just like at Wimbledon 1995. This is probably an open one i honestly never saw Date as grand slam winning material. Arantxa was not exactly doing badly at the time either.

Possibly. I considered going with Novotna or Sanchez. Novotna wasnt in great form here though, and her QG performance vs Graf mostly sucked (she didnt have a winner until the 1st set was almost over).


:rolleyes: Yeah Jana beat Graf so many times in 1994 0-3 and Arantxa beat Graf 3 times all because of her back :lol:.. Sorry but this one´s Arantxa all the way IMO.

Actually 2 of Aranxta's 3 wins over Graf were definitely related to the back. If you in fact watched the 94 Canadian Open final and the 94 U.S Open final you would see what I mean, imparticular the latter which no way she comes back to win without Graf's back going out midway through. It is stupid to just compare Jana and Aranxta by how they fare vs Graf. Yeah Aranxta is and always was far and away a tougher opponent for Graf than Jana we all know that. By your logic Jana should have won her 96 meetings with Sanchez since she was regularly beating Seles who was killing Sanchez that yaer. Jana's chances against Aranxta on a faster surface are always decent though if she is in form. Of course fast hard courts arent the same as grass or carpet but still a decent shot on that surface I would say. Aranxta's form wasnt that amazing, she played a tired and crappy Date in the quarters, an abysmal Sabatini in the semis (still went to a 2nd set tiebreak), then was getting killed by Graf in the final before Graf's back went out midway through and ASV improved her play.
Jana killed Pierce who was playing well around then, and then had set points to go 3 sets vs a way stronger Graf than the final round version.

Lindsay was at her absolute peak of her powers, she played such a clean match in the final. Don´t forget by then she OWNED Venus, incluiding massive beatdowns 6-4 6-0 twice, and was 7-1 in the head to head against Venus at the time. Again not convincing your athleticism argument, this was Lindsay´s time IMO.

Venus and Lindsay played 5 times in 1999. Venus won 2 in a row, right after Wimbledon. Lindsay won 3, their first 2 of the year, and another late that year on carpet. I wouldnt say Lindsay still owned Venus in the context of 1999. I would say that was the year their head to head play pulled nearly even, Lindsay owned Venus back in 97 and 98 which is why she still had a huge career head to head lead at that point, and after 99 it was Venus starting to own Lindsay for awhile.

I would say this one is a tossup though, I could see most picking Lindsay, I think it would be almost 50-50 though.

austinrunner
Nov 19th, 2010, 02:13 AM
This thread is full of negativity and disparagement of players.

Pat Bateman
Nov 19th, 2010, 09:53 AM
Worst thread of 2010 :worship:

spencercarlos
Nov 19th, 2010, 11:08 AM
Whenever Sabatini is involved you are sure to bring up some doozy comments.
I have to involve Sabatini as she lost to Graf in the semis, is not Graf the topic of this thread. :confused:


It is funny how you have to mention how Sabatini went into decline in 94 and 95 yet make no mention at all that Sukova's prime was 84-89
Its even more funnier that Sukova was due to win a slam in 1989 against Sabatini, and then find herself winning only 1 set in 7 matches against Sabatini between 1990 and 1991. Is not that ridiculous?.
I don´t discredit Helena´s wins in 1994 and 1995, just Sabatini was not there mentally, if you want to make a big deal out of Boca Raton 1994 and Rome 1995 so be it. 1998 YEC, 1989 Miami and 1990 Usopen´s were bigger deals..


she was nowhere near the player from 1990 onwards she was in previous years when almost all of that streak of 12 out of 15 took place.
:rolleyes: Its sad that Sukova ended up facing Sabatini mostly between 1990 Usopen and 1991, when Sabatini was at her peak, and lost 7 straight times with 14 of 15 sets played. Life sucks :lol:


Yes on the whole Sabatini had the better of Sukova, and yes on the whole she was the better player of course, but around the time of the 89 Australian Open their head to head was quite competitive and I personally think the way Sukova was playing that event, beating Navratilova in a great match, she would have been able to beat Sabatini. Again it is close though.
Around 1989 and their last 4 matches dating back to 1987, Sabatini had won 3 of those (all matches on CARPET IMO), one of those YEC 1988 SF, after Sukova had beaten Navratilova.
I really doubt Sukova could have beaten Sabatini on a slower hard court like rebound ace :rolleyes:. Just like their Miami 1989 SF showed Sabatini would have won probably in three sets. Their particular record in the big events speaks for itself. Sukova only got to beat Sabatini on a big event (GS/YEC) back in 1984. :eek:

Sukova barely won her semifinal with Sanchez Vicario, scraping out of a 2nd set tiebreak and winning in 3.
So basically Sukova barely won her match vs Arantxa, yet she won 6-2 in the third set, and Sukova beat Arantxa in three other meetings on fast courts and important events like Wimbledon 1993, Usopen 1993, Canadian Open 1995, it was not really a random feat IMO..

So it is not certain Sukova wins if they played in the final, especialy since Sukova didnt even play a very good final at all
How do you figure, facing Graf is an all different match up than facing Arantxa. Steffi actually was dominant in that final, she would not let Sukova win at the net, even Graf passed great with her backhand that day. :rolleyes:


Actually 2 of Aranxta's 3 wins over Graf were definitely related to the back. If you in fact watched the 94 Canadian Open final and the 94 U.S Open final you would see what I mean
I have and watched both matches...Usopen final YES her back gave out, Canadian Open Final not so much.
As for Novotna so much winning that Usopen, you seem to forget that Novotna was not actually that great of a hard court player, she last beat Sanchez Vicario on hard courts in 1991 (rebound ace) and 1989 if you want a normal hardcourt. For all of Novotna´s peak between 1993-1998 she ended up losing 4 straight hard court matches against Arantxa (Atlanta 96, San DIego 96, Miami 98, Canadian Open 98). Sorry but Novotna would not have beaten Arantxa in 1994 :tape:

Venus and Lindsay played 5 times in 1999. Venus won 2 in a row, right after Wimbledon.
Wrong. Right after Wimbledon Lidnsay won 7-6 6-2 in the Standford Final, making the head to head 8-1 at the time.

I would say that was the year their head to head play pulled nearly even, Lindsay owned Venus back in 97 and 98 which is why she still had a huge career head to head lead at that point, and after 99 it was Venus starting to own Lindsay for awhile.

I would say this one is a tossup though, I could see most picking Lindsay, I think it would be almost 50-50 though.
Who was it put nearly even when Lindsay ended 1999 with a 9-3 head to head over Venus in their carreer meetings? :rolleyes::tape::lol:
I can understand that Venus at her peak in 2000 put things on her favor (3-1), but that was not the case in 1999.

And their Philly match 6-1 6-2 win pretty much sums what Lindsay could have done to Venus on grass that year, and very fast court.

irma
Nov 19th, 2010, 11:50 AM
I would have found a different obsession and everything would have been the same? :p

chris whiteside
Nov 19th, 2010, 12:15 PM
Not to throw cold water on this thread, but be careful that this doesn't head off in a direction that leads me to to use my delete button.

It's fine so long as it does'nt turn into an anti-Graf thread.

Like the new quick-to-the-draw, tough Rollo.;)

chris whiteside
Nov 19th, 2010, 12:19 PM
This thread is full of negativity and disparagement of players.

Worst thread of 2010 :worship:

I've actually enjoyed reading it.

Of course, it would need a really in-depth analysis in that draws and match-ups would be different and as the threadstarter says it's not just the Slams that Steffi won which would have had a different outcome but a fair number of the ones she entered but didn't win would also surely have been affected.

justineheninfan
Nov 21st, 2010, 08:46 AM
I have to involve Sabatini as she lost to Graf in the semis, is not Graf the topic of this thread. :confused:

No problem involving Sabatini, but your doozy arguments whenever she comes up, which as we see here go well off base from even the main topic whenever you are involved, are always humourous to witness.


Its even more funnier that Sukova was due to win a slam in 1989 against Sabatini, and then find herself winning only 1 set in 7 matches against Sabatini between 1990 and 1991. Is not that ridiculous?.

It is not ridiculous to anyone who can think rationally who actually followed tennis back then since everyone knows Sukova was never that big a force again after the 1990 Australian Open. She would never again end a year ranked inside the WTA top 10 after 1989 (someone who spent almost every week of 1985-1989), make it to only 2 slam quarterfinals the remainder of her career, and lose 3rd round or earlier of the vast majority of major tournaments she played from then on. Of course to you only where Sabatini was in her career matters, where other players were means nothing as your past arguments involving Novotna/Martinez/Date/Graf/anyone who played Gaby proves. Everyone was at their best while facing Sabatini always, Sabatini almost never was when losing, everyone should subscribe to that skewed "Sabatini World" logic. :rolleyes: Then again given your obvious lack of knowledge on tennis you probably are completely unaware of Sukova being a non entity amongst the elite after 1989 and just assume since she had that one big showing at the 1993 U.S Open she must have still been at her best all those years. :lol:


I don´t discredit Helena´s wins in 1994 and 1995, just Sabatini was not there mentally, if you want to make a big deal out of Boca Raton 1994 and Rome 1995 so be it. 1998 YEC, 1989 Miami and 1990 Usopen´s were bigger deals..

I didnt make a big deal out of anything, you are the only one who brought up matches in 1994 and 1995 which was pointless pertaining to an argument about the 89 Australian Open anyway. I was merely pointing out how silly of logic it is to downplay wins over a past her prime Sabatini when she was facing a player who was nearly 30 and much further past her own prime than Sabatini was, since you were the one who chose to bring up those pointless matches out of the blue then try to downplay them anyway.


:rolleyes: Its sad that Sukova ended up facing Sabatini mostly between 1990 Usopen and 1991, when Sabatini was at her peak, and lost 7 straight times with 14 of 15 sets played. Life sucks :lol:

Yeah just like it is sad Sabatini was washed up at only 22 according to her own fans, life sucks. :lol:


Around 1989 and their last 4 matches dating back to 1987, Sabatini had won 3 of those (all matches on CARPET IMO), one of those YEC 1988 SF, after Sukova had beaten Navratilova.

Atleast you are now sticking to the late 80s which makes more sense. Maybe there is hope for you after all. Yes Sabatini won 4 of her 6 matches with Sukova from 87-89. An edge, excepted as Sabatini is the better player, but not a huge one. And 4 of the 6 matches were 3 setters.


I really doubt Sukova could have beaten Sabatini on a slower hard court like rebound ace :rolleyes:. Just like their Miami 1989 SF showed Sabatini would have won probably in three sets. Their particular record in the big events speaks for itself. Sukova only got to beat Sabatini on a big event (GS/YEC) back in 1984. :eek:

You would be incorrect. Sukova beat Sabatini in the YEC in 1986 (and no before you start your rant I am not saying that was prime Sabatini, but your reference to 1984 was wrong). Anyhow if Sukova had beat Navratilova 5 times in major events doing it just once to Sabatini would hardly be a huge stretch. They played twice in slams, once when Sabatini was a 14 year old girl (Sukova winning of course) and once when Sabatini was playing her career tournament and Sukova was already on the way down in a big way (Sabatini winning of course). Not much to go by exactly.


So basically Sukova barely won her match vs Arantxa, yet she won 6-2 in the third set, and Sukova beat Arantxa in three other meetings on fast courts and important events like Wimbledon 1993, Usopen 1993, Canadian Open 1995, it was not really a random feat IMO..

Aranxta was very close to winning the 2nd set to win the match in straight sets. So in that sense Sukova barely escaped as she was near defeat. I agree Sukova would have had a real shot vs Sanchez Vicario in the final if they played, and might well have won. However just because she won when they played in the semis (barely) does not mean she was certain to win if they played in the final instead. Sukova is 0-4 in slam finals for a reason, a large part is playing legends who were better than her, but she was a nervy performer in big matches, especialy playing someone both stronger and mentally tougher than she is.


How do you figure, facing Graf is an all different match up than facing Arantxa. Steffi actually was dominant in that final, she would not let Sukova win at the net, even Graf passed great with her backhand that day. :rolleyes:

I never disputed Graf was playing very well or said Sukova could have won even playing better. However Sukova also did not play particularly well that day.


As for Novotna so much winning that Usopen, you seem to forget that Novotna was not actually that great of a hard court player, she last beat Sanchez Vicario on hard courts in 1991 (rebound ace) and 1989 if you want a normal hardcourt. For all of Novotna´s peak between 1993-1998 she ended up losing 4 straight hard court matches against Arantxa (Atlanta 96, San DIego 96, Miami 98, Canadian Open 98). Sorry but Novotna would not have beaten Arantxa in 1994 :tape:


Yeah you are probably right here actually. It is just hard to guage how well Sanchez Vicario was really playing at the 94 U.S Open since the bigger threats were all in the other half (Graf, Novotna, Pierce, etc..) and then in the final itself Graf's back going out helped her in a big way when she was getting smoked early on.


Wrong. Right after Wimbledon Lidnsay won 7-6 6-2 in the Standford Final, making the head to head 8-1 at the time.

And then Venus won the next 2 in a row and trailed only 3-2 in head to head that year. And the time closest to Wimbledon around that summer led 2-1, with her lopsided losses coming very early in the year (rebound ace) and late in the year (carpet). And of all surfaces grass would be the best for Venus to play Lindsay on as it is Venus's best and not close to Lindsay's best.


Who was it put nearly even when Lindsay ended 1999 with a 9-3 head to head over Venus in their carreer meetings? :rolleyes::tape::lol:

Apparently everything has to be spelt out for you. Their head to head just in 1999 was 3-2 for Lindsay, hardly a huge advantage. Given Venus's rate of progress, matches in 1997 are hardly meaningless to a matchup between them in 1999.

I can understand that Venus at her peak in 2000 put things on her favor (3-1), but that was not the case in 1999.

I agree she didnt turn the matchup in her favor, it became alot more even in 1999 though, and with the way Venus was playing at Wimbledon I think she would have had a shot vs Davenport even though I acknowledge Lindsay was also playing outstandingly and fully deserved to win that Wimbledon. You dont agree? Fine, to each their own.


And their Philly match 6-1 6-2 win pretty much sums what Lindsay could have done to Venus on grass that year, and very fast court.

Yes since Venus is such a great carpet and indoor player over the years, and Lindsay is every bit the player on grass she is on carpet or indoors.
:lol:

PLP
Nov 21st, 2010, 10:00 AM
This is kind of a fun thread. Steffi was my favorite player until the late-90's, but I'll play.
Of course the draws would have been completely different, so taking that into consideration:

1987 French Open- Evert
1988 Australian Open- Evert
1988 French Open- Sabatini
1988 Wimbledon- Navratilova
1988 U.S Open- Sabatini
1989 Australian Open- Sukova
1989 Wimbledon- Navratilova
1989 U.S Open- Navratilova
1990 Australian Open- Seles
1991 Wimbledon- Sabatini
1992 Wimbledon- Seles
1993 French- Fernandez
1993 Wimbledon- Novotna
1993 U.S Open- Seles
1995 French Open- Martinez
1995 Wimbledon- Novotna
1995 U.S Open- Seles
1996 French Open- Seles
1996 Wimbledon- Hingis
1996 U.S Open- Hingis
1999 French Open- Hingis

spencercarlos
Nov 21st, 2010, 05:53 PM
No problem involving Sabatini, but your doozy arguments whenever she comes up, which as we see here go well off base from even the main topic whenever you are involved, are always humourous to witness.
What it is so off base when Sabatini lost in the SF of the Australian Open 1989 vs Graf? :rolleyes:
What it is so off base when Sabatini had a great record in big events vs Sukova, incluiding 3 of the last 4 matches played all of them on carpet? :rolleyes:

I don´t see it very difficult to understand.


It is not ridiculous to anyone who can think rationally who actually followed tennis back then since everyone knows Sukova was never that big a force again after the 1990 Australian Open. She would never again end a year ranked inside the WTA top 10 after 1989 (someone who spent almost every week of 1985-1989), make it to only 2 slam quarterfinals the remainder of her career, and lose 3rd round or earlier of the vast majority of major tournaments she played from then on. Of course to you only where Sabatini was in her career matters, where other players were means nothing as your past arguments involving Novotna/Martinez/Date/Graf/anyone who played Gaby proves. Everyone was at their best while facing Sabatini always, Sabatini almost never was when losing, everyone should subscribe to that skewed "Sabatini World" logic. :rolleyes: Then again given your obvious lack of knowledge on tennis you probably are completely unaware of Sukova being a non entity amongst the elite after 1989 and just assume since she had that one big showing at the 1993 U.S Open she must have still been at her best all those years. :lol:
Is it too difficult to get that the top ten got crowded of far more greater players than Sukova post 1989?

Players like Capriati, Martinez, Novotna, Mary Joe Fernandez, Sanchez Vicario, along with Seles, Graf, Navratilova, Sabatini, Sanchez Vicario all then along came Pierce, Davenport, Date, there was little room for Sukova is not it :rolleyes: :lol:


I didnt make a big deal out of anything, you are the only one who brought up matches in 1994 and 1995 which was pointless pertaining to an argument about the 89 Australian Open anyway. I was merely pointing out how silly of logic it is to downplay wins over a past her prime Sabatini when she was facing a player who was nearly 30 and much further past her own prime than Sabatini was, since you were the one who chose to bring up those pointless matches out of the blue then try to downplay them anyway.

Wrong, my point was that in the end Sabatini won 12 of the last 15 matches she played against Sukova dating back to 1987, and 2 of those three loses came up when Sabatini was losing matches to anyone at the time 1994/1995 Sukova then still a pretty decent top 20 player.

Yeah just like it is sad Sabatini was washed up at only 22 according to her own fans, life sucks. :lol:

You are not quoting her fans, she has said that many times in interviews, is that hard to realize? :confused:

Atleast you are now sticking to the late 80s which makes more sense. Maybe there is hope for you after all. Yes Sabatini won 4 of her 6 matches with Sukova from 87-89. An edge, excepted as Sabatini is the better player, but not a huge one. And 4 of the 6 matches were 3 setters.

Since Filderstat 1987 til 1988 YEC just before the Australian Open 1989, Sabatini edges Sukova 3-1 in matches, incluiding wins 6-4 6-2 at the YEC just after Sukova had beaten Martina, and 6-3 6-1 in SF at Brighton 1987. Is that too difficult to understand? :lol: I thought you were better than that.

You would be incorrect. Sukova beat Sabatini in the YEC in 1986 (and no before you start your rant I am not saying that was prime Sabatini, but your reference to 1984 was wrong). Anyhow if Sukova had beat Navratilova 5 times in major events doing it just once to Sabatini would hardly be a huge stretch. They played twice in slams, once when Sabatini was a 14 year old girl (Sukova winning of course) and once when Sabatini was playing her career tournament and Sukova was already on the way down in a big way (Sabatini winning of course). Not much to go by exactly.

Still there was a huge difference in each of those wins, as Sabatini ended up winning 1988 YEC after beating Sukova along the way and Usopen 1990 :devil: There is much to go by...

On a more serious note i can concur they ended 1-1 in slam matches and 1-1 in YEC matches.. Still Sabatini leads 4-1 in Tier I matches.

Aranxta was very close to winning the 2nd set to win the match in straight sets. So in that sense Sukova barely escaped as she was near defeat. I agree Sukova would have had a real shot vs Sanchez Vicario in the final if they played, and might well have won. However just because she won when they played in the semis (barely) does not mean she was certain to win if they played in the final instead. Sukova is 0-4 in slam finals for a reason, a large part is playing legends who were better than her, but she was a nervy performer in big matches, especialy playing someone both stronger and mentally tougher than she is.
Arantxa was not actually playing great tennis at the time, remmember she was tittleless since Amelia Island 1993.
Plus Sukova was 1-21 vs Graf (no wins at slams), 2-17 vs Evert (no wins at slams), 6-26 vs Navratilova (3-6 on Grand Slam events), vs Arantxa she is 4-6 but 2-0 at slams. Big and Huge difference to face Evert, Graf or Navratilova in slam final than facing Arantxa.

And then Venus won the next 2 in a row and trailed only 3-2 in head to head that year. And the time closest to Wimbledon around that summer led 2-1, with her lopsided losses coming very early in the year (rebound ace) and late in the year (carpet). And of all surfaces grass would be the best for Venus to play Lindsay on as it is Venus's best and not close to Lindsay's best.

So actually at this time even when Lindsay was 7-1 vs Venus by the time Wimbledon 1999 came in the corner and, Lindsay made 8-1 after Standford just after Wimbledon, then those 2 wins from Venus meant that she was definetly going to beat Lindsay in at Wimbledon 1999 :rolleyes:. Talk about flawled logic.

Lindsay was 3-2 vs Venus in 1999 but she destroyed Venus in two of those matches 6-4 6-0 and 6-1 6-2 and even straight setted her 7-6 6-2 just after Wimbledon. Hard to argue that it was anything but close. Venus got two great wins no doubt, but they were in far more contested matches than the ones Lindsay won.


I agree she didnt turn the matchup in her favor, it became alot more even in 1999 though, and with the way Venus was playing at Wimbledon I think she would have had a shot vs Davenport even though I acknowledge Lindsay was also playing outstandingly and fully deserved to win that Wimbledon. You dont agree? Fine, to each their own.

What i mean is that Lindsay was in flawless form in that event, even without Graf taking out Venus, there was no reason at the time to think that Venus would be a more serious thread to Lindsay, hence the 7-1 head to head, and ultimately 8-1 after Standford.

Venus was playing well at Wimbledon 1999 but Lindsay was at her peak of her powers, sorry but that event belonged to Lindsay and no one else at the time.

DennisFitz
Nov 21st, 2010, 08:55 PM
I guess if the purpose of this thread is to talk about what other players might have won majors. But I got whiplash reading the post going back and forth about Sabatini and Sukova, then delve into Lindsay And Venus! Was nauseous just from reading it, so confused was I : - )

One thing about this types of threads. I wish folks would remember to press the "All Things Being Equal" button. Which is, if Graf never existed, do you just assume that ALL other things would have progressed the same?! Would the absence of a player so dominant as Graf mean that the results, rankings, etc. would have been the same save a different finalist or winner? Of course the answer is no. So I guess it's fun to speculate about whether Sabatini would have won the 1988 US Open, or Sukova the 1989 Australian. I just don't see it as simple as removing Graf's name from every major she won, as though she withdrew at the last minute from the tournament. EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING would have changed. Rankings would be different, draws would be different, thus match ups would be different. And no matter who won those 22 Graf majors, and specifically the lot she won in the late 80s early 90s, it would have altered how many different players careers would have played out if Graf never played.

It's a lot easier to just select the finalist or who was playing well at the time.

[Just think for a minute if a woman, a female equivalent of today's Federer and Nadal combined, were born in the late 60s. And she played pro tennis. And came up at the same time as Graf. And dominated the tour, not Graf. And had a really long career. Think how different the story would be today.]

AdeyC
Nov 25th, 2010, 10:24 PM
Worst thread of 2010 :worship:

Well I disagree, it's been an interesting read.