PDA

View Full Version : WHY is martina's 1983 incredible year not being given it's due?!


laschutz
Sep 13th, 2011, 12:12 PM
hi everyone! can someone please explain to me how the commentators at the recently ended u.s. open keep going on and on and on and on and did i say on about novak's incredible year.... and the best year ever in tennis... huh, did i forget something...

what about martina's 1983 year when she went 84 and 1! that's 84-1!... mcenroe is guilty of praising novak's like he's his best friend and dick enberg ( when is that man going to retire? doesn't know anything about tennis and never did and has been doing this "ahem, commentating" for 20 plus years on tennis!) and mary carillo ( who lucked into a career as a "tennis broadcaster" in the first place 30 plus years ago and it helps with her association with mcenroe)... what's up with her stupid questioning of serena after her final.. "so it was that bad huh? in regard to serene's illlness, like she didn't believe her!?" ... she's so awful and using her " deep voice when she wants to sound so professional and such a expert" gimme a break!... and these 3 are the best we have for tennis commentating?!

the only thing i can think of is that 1)novak is a man and so a women's record doesn't count as much? and 2) perhaps he has had to deal with more difficult opponents in hall of fame all time greats like federer and nadal whereas in 1983 who did martina have to content with? evert and ? minus her hiccup with horvath... stil can't believe she lost to her! and then horvath gets whipped by jausovec who in turns gets whipped by chrissie? wow.... anyway... thoughts and comments please!

Rollo
Sep 13th, 2011, 03:56 PM
I would say the reason is the one you've touched on-this is largely in the context of men's tennis. In addition memories are short. I think a final reason is that when Mcenroe had his incredible 1984 it was seen as rare indeed-whilst dominance on the women's side was more commonplace.

My how the worm had turned! Women's tennis hasn't seen a "dominator" since 2002-when Serena won the "Serena slam".

Returning to 1983-this would be a great place to celebrate Martina's stupendous acheivement. In hindsight it was only that one loss to Kathy Horvath that kept her from both a perfect year and the Grand Slam. And even in that match Martina won more games and points than Horvath.

Even Grand Slam winners such as Graf, Court, and Conolly lost at least 2 matches in their most dominant years. Topping Martina's 1983 won-lost percentage one has to go all the way back to the 'invincibles' such as Alice Marble (unbeaten in 1939-40) Helen Wills Moody (1927-1932) and Suzanne Lenglen (unbeaten 1919-20, 1922-26).

Truly it's worth doing some more digging into and memorializing.

alfajeffster
Sep 14th, 2011, 01:04 AM
...the only thing i can think of is that 1)novak is a man and so a women's record doesn't count as much? and 2) perhaps he has had to deal with more difficult opponents in hall of fame all time greats like federer and nadal whereas in 1983 who did martina have to content with? evert and ? minus her hiccup with horvath... stil can't believe she lost to her! and then horvath gets whipped by jausovec who in turns gets whipped by chrissie? wow.... anyway... thoughts and comments please!

I've been saying this for years, and some people here (only a few) have even attacked me and branded me homophobic (imagine me, homophobic!:lol:) for daring to cross the PC line and just talk about the tennis where Martina is concerned. Navratilova had no great net-rushing contemporary to deal with. Her great attacking game would have suffered greatly with the presence of a fellow net rusher who would've made her hit passing shots on a regular basis. Helena and Hana came through on the few great days they actually reached their potentials, but there was no one to really push Martina and take the net away from her. I remember most of the competition was actually afraid of her because she was so athletic and "played like a man". Serena has enjoyed this fear factor through much of her career. Many girls were defeated before they even stepped on court. With McEnroe, he had Connors, Lendl, and several other players who could and did push him, and he came through in one great year. Djokovic does have Federer, Nadal and even Murray who can and have beaten him, and as Nadal said quietly in his runner-up speech, this year has been a terrific achievement for him, one that will likely never happen again. It never did for McEnroe, but Martina had several great years where (until Graf) she had only Evert to sometimes break her game down.

calou
Sep 14th, 2011, 10:59 AM
1) women sport isn't as well considered as men ,it's a long way baby to come ...
2) Just before the French ,when it was about Novak winning streak ,the papers also related the fabulous 83 and 84 Martina 's campaign.It's true she always had good press in France .
3) @ Alfajeffster
If i summary your latest posts on Nav :you cannot stand her voice ,may be she was doped and the best one she had ONLY EVERT to "sometimes" beat her ...Very pleasant for Chris and her fans :(
As you said ,nothing personal against Martina :lol:
Not homophobic just pathetic ...

Sam L
Sep 14th, 2011, 11:05 AM
Don't know but did you know that the WTA website doesn't even give Martina credit?

Look at their player profiles and it mentions how Graf won 45 consecutive grand slam matches in 1995-96 (which is entirely not true since she didn't win the Australian Open). But Martina, who actually WON 45 consecutive grand slam matches from French Open 83 to Australian Open 84, doesn't actually have this listed as an accomplishment!

Sumarokov-Elston
Sep 14th, 2011, 12:26 PM
Don't know but did you know that the WTA website doesn't even give Martina credit?

Look at their player profiles and it mentions how Graf won 45 consecutive grand slam matches in 1995-96 (which is entirely not true since she didn't win the Australian Open). But Martina, who actually WON 45 consecutive grand slam matches from French Open 83 to Australian Open 84, doesn't actually have this listed as an accomplishment!


Personally, I think Martina's 1984 is more impressive, because it contained two drubbings of Evert on clay (she did not play her at all on clay in 1983). She beat Evert, who was clearly #2, in three straight Grand Slam finals, on three different surfaces - clay, grass, hard - for the loss of only one set.

1983 is a rather strange year, because both Evert and Mandlikova were very much out of the game, probably having the worst years in their careers. Austin and Jaegar were on the way out as well, so there was no one really to challenge Martina, who knew how to beat her (her biggest threat, funny as it might seem, was Jo Durie!). When you look at the losing finalists in the four grand slams of that year (Mima Jausovic, Andrea Jaegar, Chris Evert at her worst at the 1983 US Open, and Kathy Jordan), you see how parse it was of quality. And when you look at the semi-finalists, it gets even worse! But despite the losses to Mandlikova and Sukova at the beginning and end of 1984, I think Martina was more dominant in 1984, because she faced more REAL challenges, especially from Chris and Hana.

AdeyC
Sep 14th, 2011, 02:08 PM
1983 is a rather strange year, because both Evert and Mandlikova were very much out of the game, probably having the worst years in their careers. Austin and Jaegar were on the way out as well, so there was no one really to challenge Martina, who knew how to beat her (her biggest threat, funny as it might seem, was Jo Durie!).

I so wish it hadn't rained during the Nav-Durie Aussie Open QF - would have been interesting to see whether Jo kept her momentum going.

calou
Sep 14th, 2011, 05:20 PM
Today an other proof we don't forget Martina in France :http://soyonsport.com/2011/09/14/djokovic-2011-john-mcenroe-1984/
I suppose few speak French ;)
At the end of the article they talk about Martina winning streak :worship:

the computer
Sep 14th, 2011, 05:59 PM
I recently heard Peter Fleming describe Martina Navratilova as ‘almost invincible’ during her best years.

The same could be said about Suzanne Lenglen of course who didn’t just have one year but a whole career with really only one significant loss, and even then she was ill.

I think Helen Wills and Maureen Connolly also fall into the ‘almost invincible’ category.

Anyway my alter ego ‘the computer’ came out with the following best years which is based on a mixture of dominance and achievement – surprisingly maybe Margaret Court came out ahead with her 1970 and 1965 years with Martina placing third. Do we forget how dominant Court was?

So Court was ahead with the top 2 places – Graf was ahead with 3 placings in the top 10 and Navratilova was ahead with 6 placings in the top 24 – take your pick!

Navratilova registered 6 years in the top 24 to Court and Graf’s 5 years – that’s 2/3 dominance by just 3 players – Court, Navratilova and Graf.

1 Margaret Court 40092 1970
2 Margaret Court 34536 1965
3 Martina Navratilova 33024 1983
4 Maureen Connolly 32544 1953
4 Steffi Graf 32544 1988
6 Martina Navratilova 32080 1984
7 Steffi Graf 31336 1989
8 Steffi Graf 30904 1993
9 Billie Jean King 30680 1972
10 Martina Hingis 28800 1997
11 Steffi Graf 28432 1996
12 Martina Navratilova 28312 1986
13 Serena Williams 28176 2002
14 Steffi Graf 27472 1995
15 Margaret Court 26840 1964
16 Martina Navratilova 26824 1982
17 Margaret Court 26720 1969
18 Margaret Court 26624 1973
19 Chris Evert 26440 1975
20 Martina Navratilova 25504 1985
21 Althea Gibson 25496 1957
22 Martina Navratilova 25360 1987
23 Chris Evert 25264 1976
24 Monica Seles 25160 1992

Graham

alfajeffster
Sep 14th, 2011, 11:34 PM
"She's like a finely tuned Ferrari or Maserati. If everything is working, she's virtually unbeatable, but if the slightest little thing is wrong, the entire performance suffers".- Virginia Wade on the greatness of Martina Navratilova

daze11
Sep 15th, 2011, 02:07 AM
Don't know but did you know that the WTA website doesn't even give Martina credit?

Look at their player profiles and it mentions how Graf won 45 consecutive grand slam matches in 1995-96 (which is entirely not true since she didn't win the Australian Open). But Martina, who actually WON 45 consecutive grand slam matches from French Open 83 to Australian Open 84, doesn't actually have this listed as an accomplishment!
This is obviously not making excuses ~ Chris is even more forgotten about than Martina... But just don't lose sight that the people who collect these 'factoids' are largely interns, they are largely YOUNGER, they collect information for (and are more motivated to collect stats on) those players they grew up idolizing.

Graf is the more current player, her accomplishments will be remembered with greater immediacy AND care... AND it wont last, because the next set of people deciding what gets remembered will have grown up watching Williams, etc...

I know people who were interviewed for the CBS feature etc, and they DID mention Navratilova's streak (certainly true, womens tennis is treated apples to oranges compared to mens anyway) as well as McEnroe... and Federer in 2006. ...all edited out. BLEEP.

That's not what sells their coverage. Honesty is not what gets people watching. They want to tune in to the greatest year EVER. And whoever's on board to help raise that flag up there for all to see gets the air time.

lesson: Dont give too much a shit what all these folks & their telecasts conjure up, its ALL SALESMANSHIP. There are NO Howard Cosell's in modern tennis who will "Tell it like it is", they're all hyping whatever happens currently to keep you watching. And if you get infuriated and TALK about their broadcast, thats a win for them too.

alfajeffster
Sep 15th, 2011, 09:33 AM
And it doesn't matter whether you criticize Mary Carillo's dyslexic 14 year-old boy delivery, Mary Joe's or Justin's bastardization of the English language, or Tracy Austin's squeaky pinafore delivery, there will always be an idol worshipper with blinders on to call you evil for saying Martina talks too much at times, has that monotonous Czech machine voice (see Novotna) and doesn't always stay with the match. The fact that you've also lauded a Billie Jean King / John McEnroe as (in your opinion) possibly he best pairing ever is totally overlooked, or possibly out of view- the blinders being just too large. Maybe we could put the blinders to better use figuring out why corporate sponsors chose to endorse Gabriela Sabatini, and not less attractive, unmarketable players with better records.

Pat Bateman
Sep 15th, 2011, 09:58 AM
1) women sport isn't as well considered as men ,it's a long way baby to come ...
2) Just before the French ,when it was about Novak winning streak ,the papers also related the fabulous 83 and 84 Martina 's campaign.It's true she always had good press in France .
3) @ Alfajeffster
If i summary your latest posts on Nav :you cannot stand her voice ,may be she was doped and the best one she had ONLY EVERT to "sometimes" beat her ...Very pleasant for Chris and her fans :(
As you said ,nothing personal against Martina :lol:
Not homophobic just pathetic ...

Pathetic and homophobic, I think, Calou.

laschutz
Sep 15th, 2011, 03:26 PM
well said daze11... you made some excellent points! i guess i just EXPECT MEDIA TO BE HONEST! WHEN THEY HAVE THE POWER TO INFORM AND INFLUENCE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AND THEY ALSO HAVE THE FACTS AND INFORMATION TO BE HONEST IN THE FIRST PLACE!

PERHAPS I CARE TOO MUCH ABOUT TENNIS AND WANTING THE PUBLIC WHETHER THE WEEKEND WARRIOR OR YOUNG CHILDREN LEARNING ABOUT THE GAME OR PEOPLE LIKE US WHO KNOW TENNIS HISTORY TO KNOW THE TRUTH AND WHAT IS RIGHT...

DennisFitz
Sep 18th, 2011, 09:16 AM
hi everyone! can someone please explain to me how the commentators at the recently ended u.s. open keep going on and on and on and on and did i say on about novak's incredible year.... and the best year ever in tennis... huh, did i forget something...

what about martina's 1983 year when she went 84 and 1! that's 84-1!...

For the same reason they discuss Federer's record of 16 majors won, and how he broke Sampras' mark of 14. They compare the men to the men, and women to women.


mcenroe is guilty of praising novak's like he's his best friend and dick enberg ( when is that man going to retire? doesn't know anything about tennis and never did and has been doing this "ahem, commentating" for 20 plus years on tennis!) and mary carillo ( who lucked into a career as a "tennis broadcaster" in the first place 30 plus years ago and it helps with her association with mcenroe)... what's up with her stupid questioning of serena after her final.. "so it was that bad huh? in regard to serene's illlness, like she didn't believe her!?" ... she's so awful and using her " deep voice when she wants to sound so professional and such a expert" gimme a break!... and these 3 are the best we have for tennis commentating?!

Ouch! Lots going on in these comments. So let me say: Dick Enberg has been covering tennis for a long time. He is one of the best broadcasters around. I'm not saying he's a tennis expert. But it's part of the package of a major US netwrok to have a career announcer int he booht for a major sporting event.

I must defend Mary Carillo. She didn't "luck" into a career as a broadcaster. She EARNED it! The hard way. By working it, for many, many years! I get it she's not everyone's cup of tea. But she knows her stuff. And what I've always loved about her is she calls it like she sees it, and isn't afraid if she offends someone. Like it or not, Mary Carillo IS a tennis expert. And an expert tennis commentator!

the only thing i can think of is that 1)novak is a man and so a women's record doesn't count as much? and 2) perhaps he has had to deal with more difficult opponents in hall of fame all time greats like federer and nadal whereas in 1983 who did martina have to content with? evert and ? minus her hiccup with horvath... stil can't believe she lost to her! and then horvath gets whipped by jausovec who in turns gets whipped by chrissie? wow.... anyway... thoughts and comments please!

No. But the men don't compete against the women. So while it would be nice for commentators to also acknowledge that in the sport of tennis, in the modern age, Navratilova had a nearly undefeated season in 1983. Bottom line, when discussing men's tennis, they compare records and achievements to other men. Ditto for women.

When they discuss Andy Murray and talk about his winning a major, they reference how he would be the first Brit in 75+ years. And of course they mean a British man, since Our Ginny won Wimbledon in 1977. No one gets bent out of shape when that issue is brought up.

Philbo
Sep 19th, 2011, 04:29 PM
I've been saying this for years, and some people here (only a few) have even attacked me and branded me homophobic (imagine me, homophobic!:lol:) for daring to cross the PC line and just talk about the tennis where Martina is concerned. Navratilova had no great net-rushing contemporary to deal with. Her great attacking game would have suffered greatly with the presence of a fellow net rusher who would've made her hit passing shots on a regular basis. Helena and Hana came through on the few great days they actually reached their potentials, but there was no one to really push Martina and take the net away from her. I remember most of the competition was actually afraid of her because she was so athletic and "played like a man". Serena has enjoyed this fear factor through much of her career. Many girls were defeated before they even stepped on court. With McEnroe, he had Connors, Lendl, and several other players who could and did push him, and he came through in one great year. Djokovic does have Federer, Nadal and even Murray who can and have beaten him, and as Nadal said quietly in his runner-up speech, this year has been a terrific achievement for him, one that will likely never happen again. It never did for McEnroe, but Martina had several great years where (until Graf) she had only Evert to sometimes break her game down.

So wait, you think the reason that Martina's 1983 isnt talked about very much is because she had no other net rusher to take the net away from her (besides the fact that more players played attacking S + V tennis in Martina's era) so that somehow diminishes the accomplishment of losing only 1 match in a year?

How funny it is that you point that out as if it were a blemish on her record, but remain deathly silent when it comes to the old matter of the competition Steffi had to face during her career lol.

I like you Jeff, nice guy and all that, but your insinuations in the other thread that Martina's success was due to steroid abuse is asinine and it DOES come from a place of prejudice. I know you arent homophobic in the sense that you hate gay people, but trying to trivialise Martina's amazing record as being related to drug abuse, does come from a similar place of prejudice that she had to put up with back in the day - that no female could naturally be that strong, have veins like she did etc - it reeks of prejudice whether you care to admit it or not.

alfajeffster
Sep 19th, 2011, 09:31 PM
"she had to put up with back in the day" is pretty much close to anything I was "insinuating". No one should have to put up with that. I do not personally believe she did use steroids. That doesn't make it illegal to discuss the fact that it was a rampant rumour back then. Face it- she was the anti- Chris America, and suffered for it. I admit I don't much care for her, because I've watched her over the years, and seen how much she complains and whines about just about everything during a match, and yes, I've seen her bark so roughly at a ball kid that the poor kid was reduced to tears. Navratilova's accomplishments are incredible for anyone, male or female. I used to turn the volume down so as not to hear John McEnroe's mouth for many of the same reasons I did so when watching Martina play. The talent and achievements are undeniable. Oh, and you forgot about how she avoided Steffi Graf toward the end of her career so as not to develop a losing record against Steffi :devil:. That one's always good for daggers and exhaustively opinionated dissertations from both overseas and stateside. So I don't care for her behavior and some of what comes out of her mouth. She is one of the best tennis players male or female that ever picked up a racquet, and she worked for it. I have nothing but respect for that. I don't worship any tennis player- there never has been a "greatest ever" and never will be IMO. The game is greater than all of that. Thanks for the compliments!

justineheninfan
Sep 20th, 2011, 06:15 PM
When people talk about Djokovic they are talking in the context of mens tennis. Mens and womens tennis is rarely compared. Even as someone who prefers womens tennis it is much harder to dominate mens tennis than womens tennis, even when womens tennis was at its all time height (which no fault of Martina but was far from the case in 1983). I am sure if the discussion was on womens tennis and the greatest years Martinas 1983 would always be part of it.

justineheninfan
Sep 20th, 2011, 06:19 PM
Personally, I think Martina's 1984 is more impressive, because it contained two drubbings of Evert on clay (she did not play her at all on clay in 1983). She beat Evert, who was clearly #2, in three straight Grand Slam finals, on three different surfaces - clay, grass, hard - for the loss of only one set.

1983 is a rather strange year, because both Evert and Mandlikova were very much out of the game, probably having the worst years in their careers. Austin and Jaegar were on the way out as well, so there was no one really to challenge Martina, who knew how to beat her (her biggest threat, funny as it might seem, was Jo Durie!). When you look at the losing finalists in the four grand slams of that year (Mima Jausovic, Andrea Jaegar, Chris Evert at her worst at the 1983 US Open, and Kathy Jordan), you see how parse it was of quality. And when you look at the semi-finalists, it gets even worse! But despite the losses to Mandlikova and Sukova at the beginning and end of 1984, I think Martina was more dominant in 1984, because she faced more REAL challenges, especially from Chris and Hana.

Agreed. I was even more impressed with Martinas 1984 than her 1983 as womens tennis in 1984 was far better than 1983. 1983 was basically a ghastly year for the womens game, except for the amazing play of Martina. It still doesnt take away from Martina having an incredible year though.

Philbo
Sep 21st, 2011, 11:36 AM
Agreed. I was even more impressed with Martinas 1984 than her 1983 as womens tennis in 1984 was far better than 1983. 1983 was basically a ghastly year for the womens game, except for the amazing play of Martina. It still doesnt take away from Martina having an incredible year though.
Curious. What changed so dramatically from 83 to 84 that made one year dire and 84 far better?

Rollo
Sep 21st, 2011, 01:08 PM
Curious. What changed so dramatically from 83 to 84 that made one year dire and 84 far better?

Hey Philbo-were you watching tennis back in 1983-4? The difference was marked for quite a few reasons.

In 1981 there was delicious parity at the top-with Chris, Tracy, Martina, Hana and Andrea all in contention.

Then came 1982 when Martina and Chris pulled away. Andrea was still an emerging star, but Tracy got injured and Hana went backwards.

In many ways 1983 was the year the bottom fell out. Martina was still as impressive as she had been in 1982, probably more so, as she really dominated Evert.

Below those two the rest of the field exploded into nothingness. Tracy's injuries made her pack it in. Andrea reached the final at Wimbledon, but got destroyed and then basically packed her career in. Mandlikova had horrible back problems. There was just a feeling that there was no depth-no one to challenge the top two. The season even ended on a downer-as Evert skipped the Aussie, where at least Jo Durie talked big and gave Martina a fright.

1984 was much more exciting. Evert changed to graphite for one. She still got beaten easily by Martina twice indoors, but I can still recall watching the matches and marveling at how hard they hit-the Slims final was the hardest hitting I'd ever seen in a women's match to that point. Martina was still dominating at this point, but she was being challenged. The match at Amelia Island between Hana and Martina is easily one of the best matches EVER.
Then came Martina's masterfull performance at Roland Garros, a much better Wimbledon final then 1983, and the rockin US Open.

Going into the 1984 Aussie we'd already had several memorable matches that year vs one or two from 1983. And of course Martina was chasing THE Grand Slam.

So to answer your question, 1984 was a much more exciting vintage of wine than 1983, even if one was a Martina fan.

Rollo
Sep 21st, 2011, 01:16 PM
At any rate my post above still doesn't change my opinion of Martina's 1983 season. Was she lucky to some extent? Sure she was. Then again Steffi had good luck in 1988, Chris had luck during her clay court streak, and I would argue that the "invincibles" (Alice Marble, Helen Wills, and Suzanne Lenglen) also had good luck.

There has never been a tennis champion who didn't have some good luck. The key is in seizing the opportunity when it's there. I don't care if Martina beat nothing but scrubs in 1983, losing only one match all year is just incredible-period.:clap2:

Rollo
Sep 21st, 2011, 01:21 PM
Here was Martina's stupendous year. (copied from Zummi's site)

$150,000 Virginia Slims of Washington
Washington D.C., USA; Jan 3
1R def. Leigh-Anne Thompson (US) 6-2 6-1
2R def. Vicki Nelson-Dunbar (US) 6-0 6-0
QF def. Helena Sukova (Tch) 6-2 6-1
SF def. Mary Lou Piatek (US) 6-1 6-3
F def. Sylvia Hanika (FRG) 6-1 6-1

$150,000 Virginia Slims of Houston
Houston, USA; Jan 10
1R def. Lisa Bonder (US) 6-0 6-2
2R def. Dianne Fromholtz (Aus) 7-6 6-0
QF def. Bettina Bunge (FRG) 6-1 7-5
SF def. Tracy Austin (US) 6-2 6-2
F def. Sylvia Hanika (FRG) 6-3 7-6

$150,000 Virginia Slims of Chicago
Chicago, USA; Feb 14
1R def. Ann Kiyomura (US) 6-3 6-1
2R def. Iva Budarova (Tch) 6-1 6-1
QF def. Marcella Mesker (Ned) 6-2 6-2
SF def. Pam Shriver (US) 6-1 6-3
F def. Andrea Jaeger (US) 6-3 6-2

$150,000 Virginia Slims of Dallas
Dallas, USA; Mar 7
1R def. Sue Barker (Gbr) 6-1 6-2
2R def. Ann Kiyomura (US) 6-3 6-1
QF def. Hana Mandlikova (Tch) 6-1 6-3
SF def. Bettina Bunge (FRG) 6-2 6-1
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-4 6-0

$350,000 Virginia Slims Championships
New York City, USA; Mar 23
1R def. Hana Mandlikova (Tch) 4-6 6-1 6-0
QF def. Pam Shriver (US) 6-1 6-2
SF def. Sylvia Hanika (FRG) 6-1 6-1
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-2 6-0

$200,000 Family Circle Magazine Cup
Hilton Head Island, Calif., USA; Apr 4
1R bye
2R def. Ivanna Madruga-Osses (Arg) 6-0 6-0
3R def. Alycia Moulton (US) 6-1 6-3
QF def. Andrea Temesvari (Hun) 7-6 4-6 6-2 (error the final set score was 6-4)
SF def. Bettina Bunge (FRG) 6-2 6-3
F def. Tracy Austin (US) 5-7 6-1 6-0

$200,000 United Airlines Tournament of Champions
Orlando, USA; Apr 18
1R bye
2R def. Anne Hobbs (Gbr) 6-4 6-0
QF def. Yvonne Vermaak (SA) 6-0 6-1
SF def. Hana Mandlikova (Tch) 4-6 6-2 7-5
F def. Andrea Jaeger (US) 6-1 7-5

$350,000 French Open
Paris, France; May 23
1R def. Mary Lou Piatek (US) 6-1 6-1
2R def. Katerina Skronska (Tch) 6-1 6-1
3R def. Wendy White (US) 6-0 6-3
4R l/t. Kathy Horvath (US) 4-6 6-0 3-6

$150,000 BMW Championships
Eastbourne, England; Jun 13
1R def. Elise Burgin (US) 6-2 6-4
2R def. Sue Barker (Gbr) 6-1 6-0
3R def. Rosalyn Fairbank (SA) 6-0 6-0
QF def. Jo Durie (Gbr) 6-2 6-1
SF def. Zina Garrison (US) 6-2 6-3
F def. Wendy Turnbull (Aus) 6-1 6-1

$670,000 The Championships
Wimbledon, England; Jun 20
1R def. Beverly Mould (US) 6-1 6-0
2R def. Sherry Acker (US) 7-6 6-3
3R def. Mima Jausovec (Yug) 6-2 6-1
4R def. Claudia Kohde-Kilsch (FRG) 6-1 6-2
QF def. Jennifer Mundel (US) 6-3 6-1
SF def. Yvonne Vermaak (SA) 6-1 6-1
F def. Andrea Jaeger (US) 6-0 6-3

$150,000 Virginia Slims of Los Angeles
Los Angeles, USA; Aug 8
1R bye
2R def. Ann Henricksson (US) 6-1 6-1
3R def. Kathy Jordan (US) 6-1 6-0
QF def. Wendy White (US) 6-0 6-2
SF def. Pam Shriver (US) 6-2 6-1
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-1 6-3

$200,000 Players Challenge Canadian Open
Toronto, Canada; Aug 15
1R bye
2R def. Terry Phelps (US) 6-3 6-1
3R def. Eva Pfaff (FRG) 4-6 6-4 7-5
QF def. Kathy Horvath (US) 6-2 6-4
SF def. Hana Mandlikova (Tch) 6-1 7-5
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-4 4-6 6-1

$850,000 US Open
New York City, USA; Aug 30
1R def. Emilse Rapponi-Longo (US) 6-1 6-0
2R def. Louise Allen (US) 6-2 6-1
3R def. Kate Gompert (US) 6-2 6-2
4R def. Pilar Vasquez (Per) 6-0 6-1
QF def. Sylvia Hanika (FRG) 6-0 6-3
SF def. Pam Shriver (US) 6-2 6-1
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-1 6-3

$150,000 Florida Federal Open
Tarpon Springs, Fla., USA; Oct 10
1R def. Peanut Louie (US) 6-1 6-1
2R def. Wendy White (US) 6-3 6-2
QF def. Bonnie Gadusek (US) 7-5 6-2
SF def. Zina Garrison (US) 6-4 6-1
F def. Pam Shriver (US) 6-3 6-2

$150,000 Porsche Tennis Classic
Filderstadt, FRG; Oct 24
1R def. Sue Leo (Aus) 6-0 6-0
2R def. Terry Holladay (US) 6-0 6-4
QF def. Jo Durie (Gbr) 6-1 6-4
SF def. Eva Pfaff (FRG) 6-2 6-1
F def. Catherine Tanvier (Fra) 6-1 6-2

Wightman Cup
Williamsburg, Va., USA; Nov 3
** def. Sue Barker (Gbr) 6-2 6-0
** def. Jo Durie (Gbr) 6-3 6-3

$200,000 Lion Ladies Cup
Tokyo, Japan; Nov 22
1R def. Andrea Temesvari (Hun) 6-3 6-3
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-2 6-2

$500,000 Marlboro Australian Open
Melbourne, Australia; Nov 29
1R def. Heather Ludloff (US) 6-0 7-5
2R def. Liz Sayers (Aus) 6-1 6-0
3R def. Rosalyn Fairbank (SA) 6-2 6-2
QF def. Jo Durie (Gbr) 4-6 6-3 6-4
SF def. Pam Shriver (US) 6-4 6-3
F def. Kathy Jordan (US) 6-2 7-6

Rollo
Sep 21st, 2011, 01:24 PM
A summary of Navratolova's 1983

Martina won 16 of 17 events entered.
She won 11 events without dropping a set-this may well be another record.
She won events on all surfaces.
Even in the 1 match she lost she won more games than her opponent.

Martina won 7 events without EVER being extended past a 6-4 set. These events are:

Washington: Most games in one set (3) -most game lost in an entire match (4)
Chicago: Most games in one set (3) -most game lost in an entire match (5)
Dallas: Most games in one set (4) -most game lost in an entire match (4) -she beat Evert 6- 4 6-0
Eastbourne: Most games in one set (4) -most game lost in an entire match (6)
Los Angeles: Most games in one set (3) -most game lost in an entire match (4)
United States: Most games in one set (3) -most game lost in an entire match (4)
Stuttgart: Most games in one set (4) -most game lost in an entire match (5)

Martina lost only 19 games in winning 7 matches at the 1983 US Open. Only the final lasted more than one hour. At the hour mark the crowd burst into applause for Chris "extending" Martina.

Rollo
Sep 21st, 2011, 01:54 PM
Martina dropped 9 sets throughout the year. Some were more memorable than others.

$350,000 Virginia Slims Championships
New York City, USA; Mar 23
1R def. Hana Mandlikova (Tch) 4-6 6-1 6-0

Not really memorable in hindsight as Martina clubbered Hana after dropping a set.
---------------------------------------------
$200,000 Family Circle Magazine Cup

QF def. Andrea Temesvari (Hun) 7-6 4-6 6-4
FI def. Tracy Austin (US) 5-7 6-1 6-0

The Temesvari match was perhaps the match of the year. Martina held on for dear life as Andrea hit spectacular winners from the baseline. Navratilova held her nerve as rain delayed the match in the third set. Unfortunately I'm not sure if it was captured on film. It wasn't on TV in the US. The final was horrible to watch, as Tracy was a shadow of her former self and Martina wasn't good either. There were 11 breaks of serve in the first set! Then Martina settled down and flattened Miss Austin.
---------------------------------------------


$200,000 United Airlines Tournament of Champions
Orlando, USA; Apr 18
SF def. Hana Mandlikova (Tch) 4-6 6-2 7-5

Another close call. Hana led 5-4 in the third. After the match she said. "Martina is beatable. It's just a matter of time."
---------------------------------------------


$350,000 French Open
Paris, France; May 23
4R l/t. Kathy Horvath (US) 4-6 6-0 3-6

The lone defeat all year for Martina. I've never seen the match. Martina felt that her indecision regarding tactics hurt her.

---------------------------------------------

$200,000 Players Challenge Canadian Open
Toronto, Canada; Aug 15

3R def. Eva Pfaff (FRG) 4-6 6-4 7-5
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-4 4-6 6-1

Does any tape of the Pfaff match exist? Eva had two match points at 5-4 in the third. On the first match-point, at 5-4, Pfaff went to net and saw a Navratilova passing shot sail by her. Eva hesitated a bit during the point when someone shouted out "Go".

Martina served a winner down the middle on match point two.

The final was televised. Chris must have extractyed some hope from the final in getting a set but this was not one of their memorable matches.

---------------------------------------------


$500,000 Marlboro Australian Open
Melbourne, Australia; Nov 29
QF def. Jo Durie (Gbr) 4-6 6-3 6-4


Does the fill match of this exist on video? I never saw the match. Jo talked big about how she could beat Martina and then actually came close-she won the first set and then led 3-1 in the third. A rain delay forced the match to be played over two days. This match had drama.


---------------------------------------------

gabybackhand
Sep 21st, 2011, 02:58 PM
Hey Philbo-were you watching tennis back in 1983-4? The difference was marked for quite a few reasons.

In 1981 there was delicious parity at the top-with Chris, Tracy, Martina, Hana and Andrea all in contention.

Then came 1982 when Martina and Chris pulled away. Andrea was still an emerging star, but Tracy got injured and Hana went backwards.

In many ways 1983 was the year the bottom fell out. Martina was still as impressive as she had been in 1982, probably more so, as she really dominated Evert.

Below those two the rest of the field exploded into nothingness. Tracy's injuries made her pack it in. Andrea reached the final at Wimbledon, but got destroyed and then basically packed her career in. Mandlikova had horrible back problems. There was just a feeling that there was no depth-no one to challenge the top two. The season even ended on a downer-as Evert skipped the Aussie, where at least Jo Durie talked big and gave Martina a fright.

1984 was much more exciting. Evert changed to graphite for one. She still got beaten easily by Martina twice indoors, but I can still recall watching the matches and marveling at how hard they hit-the Slims final was the hardest hitting I'd ever seen in a women's match to that point. Martina was still dominating at this point, but she was being challenged. The match at Amelia Island between Hana and Martina is easily one of the best matches EVER.
Then came Martina's masterfull performance at Roland Garros, a much better Wimbledon final then 1983, and the rockin US Open.

Going into the 1984 Aussie we'd already had several memorable matches that year vs one or two from 1983. And of course Martina was chasing THE Grand Slam.

So to answer your question, 1984 was a much more exciting vintage of wine than 1983, even if one was a Martina fan.
That' was a great insightful post. Thanx for illuminating the young :rolleyes: and ignorant about those years!

daze11
Sep 21st, 2011, 03:16 PM
$850,000 US Open
New York City, USA; Aug 30
1R def. Emilse Rapponi-Longo (US) 6-1 6-0
2R def. Louise Allen (US) 6-2 6-1
3R def. Kate Gompert (US) 6-2 6-2
4R def. Pilar Vasquez (Per) 6-0 6-1
QF def. Sylvia Hanika (FRG) 6-0 6-3
SF def. Pam Shriver (US) 6-2 6-1
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-1 6-3
look at that us open... its never been done better.

Philbo
Sep 21st, 2011, 03:54 PM
Hey Philbo-were you watching tennis back in 1983-4? The difference was marked for quite a few reasons.

In 1981 there was delicious parity at the top-with Chris, Tracy, Martina, Hana and Andrea all in contention.

Then came 1982 when Martina and Chris pulled away. Andrea was still an emerging star, but Tracy got injured and Hana went backwards.

In many ways 1983 was the year the bottom fell out. Martina was still as impressive as she had been in 1982, probably more so, as she really dominated Evert.

Below those two the rest of the field exploded into nothingness. Tracy's injuries made her pack it in. Andrea reached the final at Wimbledon, but got destroyed and then basically packed her career in. Mandlikova had horrible back problems. There was just a feeling that there was no depth-no one to challenge the top two. The season even ended on a downer-as Evert skipped the Aussie, where at least Jo Durie talked big and gave Martina a fright.

1984 was much more exciting. Evert changed to graphite for one. She still got beaten easily by Martina twice indoors, but I can still recall watching the matches and marveling at how hard they hit-the Slims final was the hardest hitting I'd ever seen in a women's match to that point. Martina was still dominating at this point, but she was being challenged. The match at Amelia Island between Hana and Martina is easily one of the best matches EVER.
Then came Martina's masterfull performance at Roland Garros, a much better Wimbledon final then 1983, and the rockin US Open.

Going into the 1984 Aussie we'd already had several memorable matches that year vs one or two from 1983. And of course Martina was chasing THE Grand Slam.

So to answer your question, 1984 was a much more exciting vintage of wine than 1983, even if one was a Martina fan.
Hey Rollo, No I wasnt watching it. I was only 5-6 years old. My earliest memory is the 87 Wimbledon final and from that point I got hooked. I have about a dozen matches from 82-86 on tape, mostly Martina classics but I wasnt following the tour, so I appreciate your excellent explanation!

At any rate my post above still doesn't change my opinion of Martina's 1983 season. Was she lucky to some extent? Sure she was. Then again Steffi had good luck in 1988, Chris had luck during her clay court streak, and I would argue that the "invincibles" (Alice Marble, Helen Wills, and Suzanne Lenglen) also had good luck.

There has never been a tennis champion who didn't have some good luck. The key is in seizing the opportunity when it's there. I don't care if Martina beat nothing but scrubs in 1983, losing only one match all year is just incredible-period.:clap2:

:worship::worship::worship:
Isnt the Horvath match the one that Martina kinda 'blames' on contracting toxoplasmosis from her friends cat? Am I mixing that up with another one?

That' was a great insightful post. Thanx for illuminating the young :rolleyes: and ignorant about those years!
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Apologies for not being born earlier.

laschutz
Sep 21st, 2011, 04:43 PM
philbo.. the "cat disease" match in regard to martina was her "shocking"loss to shriver at the 1982 u.s. open... martina cruised thru the first set and a half... seemingly on her way to victory, when it all fell apart...

the horvath match in 1983 at the french.. was the loss that happened because lieberman and renee richards were visibly arguing in the stands much to martina's dismay and loss of focus and how martina should be playing horvath... richards i think wanted martina to just play patiently from the baseline and out rally horvath and move horvath around with drop shots and so on.. you know the way martina would typically play against baseliners (when she wasn't serving and volleying)... figuring in 1983 if this was working against the greatest baseliner, evert, surely it would work easy on horvath...

lieberman wanted martina to serve and volley constantly force the issue taking it to horvath... consquently martina didnt' know what to do or who to rely on... so consequently she played awful and tentative... horvath was playing well at the time... the week before she had lost a tough one on clay to evert 6-4, 7-6 so obviously she could play on the red clay...

horvath had nothing to lose.. played steady from the baseline and made a number of sneak attacks to the net and while not much of a volleyer.. hit her volleys short and angled in the court on purpose so martina couldn't get another look at a passing shot or run the volley down....

still martina SHOULD NOT HAVE LOST as it was she never lost a set to horvath ever again.... horvath would go on to get whipped by jausovec in the very next round who in turn would grab a measly 3 games from evert in the final?!

calou
Sep 21st, 2011, 05:32 PM
philbo.. the "cat disease" match in regard to martina was her "shocking"loss to shriver at the 1982 u.s. open... martina cruised thru the first set and a half... seemingly on her way to victory, when it all fell apart...

the horvath match in 1983 at the french.. was the loss that happened because lieberman and renee richards were visibly arguing in the stands much to martina's dismay and loss of focus and how martina should be playing horvath... richards i think wanted martina to just play patiently from the baseline and out rally horvath and move horvath around with drop shots and so on.. you know the way martina would typically play against baseliners (when she wasn't serving and volleying)... figuring in 1983 if this was working against the greatest baseliner, evert, surely it would work easy on horvath...

lieberman wanted martina to serve and volley constantly force the issue taking it to horvath... consquently martina didnt' know what to do or who to rely on... so consequently she played awful and tentative... horvath was playing well at the time... the week before she had lost a tough one on clay to evert 6-4, 7-6 so obviously she could play on the red clay...

horvath had nothing to lose.. played steady from the baseline and made a number of sneak attacks to the net and while not much of a volleyer.. hit her volleys short and angled in the court on purpose so martina couldn't get another look at a passing shot or run the volley down....

still martina SHOULD NOT HAVE LOST as it was she never lost a set to horvath ever again.... horvath would go on to get whipped by jausovec in the very next round who in turn would grab a measly 3 games from evert in the final?!
I WAS IN THE STANDS at Roland Garros and it was obvious she didn't know what to do .She serve and volley in the 2nd set and won it .
For me it's my worse memory of Martina :sad:

tommystar
Sep 21st, 2011, 07:47 PM
QF def. Andrea Temesvari (Hun) 7-6 4-6 6-4

The Temesvari match was perhaps the match of the year. Martina held on for dear life as Andrea hit spectacular winners from the baseline. Navratilova held her nerve as rain delayed the match in the third set. Unfortunately I'm not sure if it was captured on film. It wasn't on TV in the US.

Once Temesvari herself remembered back to that match in a quite long article, the 1st set tie-break was 9/7. She said she won the 2nd set 6-3, and lead 4-3 in the final set and was serving. Didn't mentioned rain delay.

AdeyC
Sep 21st, 2011, 09:03 PM
$500,000 Marlboro Australian Open
Melbourne, Australia; Nov 29
QF def. Jo Durie (Gbr) 4-6 6-3 6-4


Does the fill match of this exist on video? I never saw the match. Jo talked big about how she could beat Martina and then actually came close-she won the first set and then led 3-1 in the third. A rain delay forced the match to be played over two days. This match had drama.


---------------------------------------------

I remember this match being shown in the UK.

justineheninfan
Sep 21st, 2011, 10:28 PM
It was a shame Martina lost to Horvath. If you have an undefeated year broken you would prefer it to be someone who was a top player. Even Jaeger or Shriver would have been someone better to lose it to.

Sumarokov-Elston
Sep 21st, 2011, 11:43 PM
Hey Philbo-were you watching tennis back in 1983-4? The difference was marked for quite a few reasons.

In 1981 there was delicious parity at the top-with Chris, Tracy, Martina, Hana and Andrea all in contention.

Then came 1982 when Martina and Chris pulled away. Andrea was still an emerging star, but Tracy got injured and Hana went backwards.

In many ways 1983 was the year the bottom fell out. Martina was still as impressive as she had been in 1982, probably more so, as she really dominated Evert.

Below those two the rest of the field exploded into nothingness. Tracy's injuries made her pack it in. Andrea reached the final at Wimbledon, but got destroyed and then basically packed her career in. Mandlikova had horrible back problems. There was just a feeling that there was no depth-no one to challenge the top two. The season even ended on a downer-as Evert skipped the Aussie, where at least Jo Durie talked big and gave Martina a fright.

1984 was much more exciting. Evert changed to graphite for one. She still got beaten easily by Martina twice indoors, but I can still recall watching the matches and marveling at how hard they hit-the Slims final was the hardest hitting I'd ever seen in a women's match to that point. Martina was still dominating at this point, but she was being challenged. The match at Amelia Island between Hana and Martina is easily one of the best matches EVER.
Then came Martina's masterfull performance at Roland Garros, a much better Wimbledon final then 1983, and the rockin US Open.

Going into the 1984 Aussie we'd already had several memorable matches that year vs one or two from 1983. And of course Martina was chasing THE Grand Slam.

So to answer your question, 1984 was a much more exciting vintage of wine than 1983, even if one was a Martina fan.

Exactly. 1983 was so weird because you had the two summer slams when, in both, you had Martina or Chris going out before the quarterfinals - completely unheard of! The result was finals so one-sided that Chris (French) and Martina (Wimbledon) could have turned up an hour after the start and still won the match handily.

I recently watched the 1983 US Open and compared it to the 1984 US Open - and I am convinced, as I wrote earlier, that Martina was playing much better in 1984. Chris was handicapped by playing with wood. If she had graphite, she may have pushed Martina to play even better, who knows. And then Chris skipped the Australian Open, and you had Kathy Jordan in the final.

1983 was so lacking in quality that you had Martina playing Yvonne Vermack in her Wimbledon semi-final! In the other one, Jaegar was playing a completely over-the-hill Billie Jean King.

That is not to take anything away from Martina's performance. If anything, I think if the quality had been better, that would just have pushed her higher. But she was simply not tested at all, not even when she faced the next best player in the US Open final. Interesting, whose fault is that - Chris's for not being good enough or Martina's for being too good?!?

justineheninfan
Sep 22nd, 2011, 02:44 AM
Yeah 1983 was a strange year. Austin was clearly finished, regardless if she found a way to continue playing or not. Jaeger surprisingly had already peaked and was going downhill, and showing signs of major burnout, to her own very early retirement early next year it turned out. Mandlikova was really in the dumps, probably her worst year of the whole 1980-1987 stretch, didnt she drop out of the top 10 at one point that year. Shriver and Hanika were pretty quiet that year. Evert was playing with wood when most of the tour had already switched to graphite.

I do agree too if it hadnt been such a weak year for womens tennis and some others had bee playing better, it would have pushed Martina to take tennis to an even higher level that year. I dont think anyone would have stopped her that year, she was so strong, it is just a shame there werent people playing well to push her like 84 and 85.

tennisvideos
Sep 22nd, 2011, 01:26 PM
I recently heard Peter Fleming describe Martina Navratilova as ‘almost invincible’ during her best years.

The same could be said about Suzanne Lenglen of course who didn’t just have one year but a whole career with really only one significant loss, and even then she was ill.

I think Helen Wills and Maureen Connolly also fall into the ‘almost invincible’ category.

Anyway my alter ego ‘the computer’ came out with the following best years which is based on a mixture of dominance and achievement – surprisingly maybe Margaret Court came out ahead with her 1970 and 1965 years with Martina placing third. Do we forget how dominant Court was?

So Court was ahead with the top 2 places – Graf was ahead with 3 placings in the top 10 and Navratilova was ahead with 6 placings in the top 24 – take your pick!

Navratilova registered 6 years in the top 24 to Court and Graf’s 5 years – that’s 2/3 dominance by just 3 players – Court, Navratilova and Graf.

1 Margaret Court 40092 1970
2 Margaret Court 34536 1965
3 Martina Navratilova 33024 1983
4 Maureen Connolly 32544 1953
4 Steffi Graf 32544 1988
6 Martina Navratilova 32080 1984
7 Steffi Graf 31336 1989
8 Steffi Graf 30904 1993
9 Billie Jean King 30680 1972
10 Martina Hingis 28800 1997
11 Steffi Graf 28432 1996
12 Martina Navratilova 28312 1986
13 Serena Williams 28176 2002
14 Steffi Graf 27472 1995
15 Margaret Court 26840 1964
16 Martina Navratilova 26824 1982
17 Margaret Court 26720 1969
18 Margaret Court 26624 1973
19 Chris Evert 26440 1975
20 Martina Navratilova 25504 1985
21 Althea Gibson 25496 1957
22 Martina Navratilova 25360 1987
23 Chris Evert 25264 1976
24 Monica Seles 25160 1992

Graham

Wow ... I will have to keep a copy of this! Very excited to see Court had the two most dominant seasons based on your rankings ... and her 1970 was so far ahead of the rest it isn't even funny! Now this is what I call underrated.

Navratilova with 6 spots in the top 24 and Court and Graf with 5 of the best seasons in the top 24 are all astonishing! Yes, that's is 2/3 of the dominance rolled into just 3 players. Pretty amazing.

I wonder how Monica may have done in 93-96 had she not suffered that terrible misfortune. I don't mean to bring up another Seles v Graf debate in the Martina thread but Seles was my favourite player in the early 90s and it was devastating for me when she was stabbed as she was already great and seemed destined for so much more. It's a tragedy for her and her fans. I feel robbed still to this day. :sad:

Sumarokov-Elston
Sep 22nd, 2011, 03:42 PM
Wow ... I will have to keep a copy of this! Very excited to see Court had the two most dominant seasons based on your rankings ... and her 1970 was so far ahead of the rest it isn't even funny! Now this is what I call underrated.

And think of the players who were in the mix in that year as well. On grass, she was up against King, Casals, Wade, Reid, while on clay she had to play against the likes of Richey, Durr and even Chris Evert!

I think the list is just as interesting for how dominant some players were in year in which they had to constantly face other great players. I have always thought one of Martina's great achievements was her 1986, when she was battling against Evert, Graf (come of age) and a resurgent Hana Mandlikova. I think that is better than Graf's 1988, when her two main rivals were over the hill and Sabatini was too flaky to really challenge her. Chris Evert's 1975 is also a good showing, as is BJK's 1972 when you think of all the greats in the mix and her own commitments to organising the Virginia Slims tour as well. I am surprised to see Martina's 1982 and 1985 there, however. In my own, albeit subjective opinion, I would say Chris Evert was more dominant in 1977 (when she was more or less invincible). It would also be interesting to see the statistics for bagels handed out; I think we would see Lenglen, Evert and Graf top such lists.

alfajeffster
Sep 22nd, 2011, 09:01 PM
...I wonder how Monica may have done in 93-96 had she not suffered that terrible misfortune. I don't mean to bring up another Seles v Graf debate in the Martina thread but Seles was my favourite player in the early 90s and it was devastating for me when she was stabbed as she was already great and seemed destined for so much more. It's a tragedy for her and her fans. I feel robbed still to this day. :sad:

Believe it or not (I know you believe me) I feel exactly the same way. I remember watching some of that tournament on ESPN, and then that horrible day when the news and the indelible picture of her sitting down on the court, still chewing whatever gum the physician gave her, and watching her just break down before the worlds' eyes. I cried. It was so unlike anything I'd ever seen before not only in professional sports, but in life. It was so shocking, I still feel the pain like remembering an assassination. The lively little girl with so much tenacity and fire in her eyes (and game) was murdered in an instant. I don't think anyone anywhere feels you're bringing up the endless debate. I realize Graf's career would have been much different (for better or worse), but we'll never know what Monica Seles would have grown into. She was just a girl- that's what hurts.

justineheninfan
Sep 22nd, 2011, 09:18 PM
Wow ... I will have to keep a copy of this! Very excited to see Court had the two most dominant seasons based on your rankings ... and her 1970 was so far ahead of the rest it isn't even funny! Now this is what I call underrated.

Navratilova with 6 spots in the top 24 and Court and Graf with 5 of the best seasons in the top 24 are all astonishing! Yes, that's is 2/3 of the dominance rolled into just 3 players. Pretty amazing.

I wonder how Monica may have done in 93-96 had she not suffered that terrible misfortune. I don't mean to bring up another Seles v Graf debate in the Martina thread but Seles was my favourite player in the early 90s and it was devastating for me when she was stabbed as she was already great and seemed destined for so much more. It's a tragedy for her and her fans. I feel robbed still to this day. :sad:

I dont know Monica's career numbers would have looked like but I feel pretty certain she would never have had a year of dominance as extreme as Lenglen, Wills, Connoly, Martina's 83 and 84, and Graf's 88 and 89. She wasnt that strong on grass and would have been lucky to win Wimbledon even once, and in general she was more vurnerable to defeats especialy in non slam events even while dominating. She also had Graf who could often beat her even while #1 (she lost 3 of their 5 matches in 91-early 93, with a defeat on all 3 surfaces, 2 of them easy defeats, even while dominating and winning almost the slams), while these others had nobody that could beat them more then on very rare occasion while at their most dominant. Of course her career numbers still could have put her in GOAT contention (I am not saying they would or wouldnt have) but I doubt she would have ever had a GOAT season compared to those I mentioned.

DennisFitz
Sep 23rd, 2011, 06:05 AM
US Open
New York City, USA; Aug 30
1R def. Emilse Rapponi-Longo (US) 6-1 6-0
2R def. Louise Allen (US) 6-2 6-1
3R def. Kate Gompert (US) 6-2 6-2
4R def. Pilar Vasquez (Per) 6-0 6-1
QF def. Sylvia Hanika (FRG) 6-0 6-3
SF def. Pam Shriver (US) 6-2 6-1
F def. Chris Evert-Lloyd (US) 6-1 6-3

look at that us open... its never been done better.

Technically speaking.....Chris Evert did. In 1976, Evert lost 12 games in 6 matches (it was a 96 draw, and Chrissie got a bye in the 1R). Chris lost an average of 2 games per match. Martina lost 2.7.

But, to take nothing away from Marina, she was in devastating form that year. I think not having won it before made her so eager and confident.

justineheninfan
Sep 23rd, 2011, 07:11 AM
Losing a total of 10 games in 6 sets to Hanika (who was peaking around then), Shriver, and Evert is mighty impressive.

alfajeffster
Sep 23rd, 2011, 10:48 AM
I dont know Monica's career numbers would have looked like but I feel pretty certain she would never have had a year of dominance as extreme as Lenglen, Wills, Connoly, Martina's 83 and 84, and Graf's 88 and 89. She wasnt that strong on grass and would have been lucky to win Wimbledon even once, and in general she was more vurnerable to defeats especialy in non slam events even while dominating. She also had Graf who could often beat her even while #1 (she lost 3 of their 5 matches in 91-early 93, with a defeat on all 3 surfaces, 2 of them easy defeats, even while dominating and winning almost the slams), while these others had nobody that could beat them more then on very rare occasion while at their most dominant. Of course her career numbers still could have put her in GOAT contention (I am not saying they would or wouldnt have) but I doubt she would have ever had a GOAT season compared to those I mentioned.

I remember after either the Wimbledon or USOpen loss to Seles, Martina made a very good assessment of playing Monica. She mentioned that Graf and Capriati both hit good passing shots, but that they tended to sit up, whereas with Seles, not only was there no side to pick on, her passing shots dipped, and she found herself hitting many more tough volleys at her feet, and went on to say that even if she stretched Monica wide, Seles still hit a great one-handed lefty forehand passing shot. Martina played very well in taking out Graf in the semis of the USO in 1991, but had no answers for the laser beam target practice of Seles in the final. I do not think she would've racked up the kind of numbers of a Navratilova, Graf, or Court, but she definitely had a shot at being on that aforementioned list. Like Martina (sorry kids), she really only had Graf to stand in her way. I was glad to have witnessed Navratilova bringing Seles back out on court in Atlantic City. Even if she played down a bit to an obviously rusty Seles, she got her back out there, and for that alone she is to be commended.

Sam L
Sep 23rd, 2011, 03:47 PM
I dont know Monica's career numbers would have looked like but I feel pretty certain she would never have had a year of dominance as extreme as Lenglen, Wills, Connoly, Martina's 83 and 84, and Graf's 88 and 89. She wasnt that strong on grass and would have been lucky to win Wimbledon even once, and in general she was more vurnerable to defeats especialy in non slam events even while dominating. She also had Graf who could often beat her even while #1 (she lost 3 of their 5 matches in 91-early 93, with a defeat on all 3 surfaces, 2 of them easy defeats, even while dominating and winning almost the slams), while these others had nobody that could beat them more then on very rare occasion while at their most dominant. Of course her career numbers still could have put her in GOAT contention (I am not saying they would or wouldnt have) but I doubt she would have ever had a GOAT season compared to those I mentioned.

Monica peaked for the big matches. She was a big point, big match player. Her losses in Hamburg and San Antonio in 1991 are meaningless when she won the French Open later. Even considering her 1989 records against Graf, she was already 3-3 against her in Grand Slams.

Monica quite regularly lost to players like Capriati, ASV, Sabatini in non-slams. I remember she failed to have success in big tournaments in 91-92 like Liptons and Rome. But come the French Open, she always blew her opponents away.

The Grand Slams and the VS Championships were the Big 5 for Monica. I mean really, the only losses in the three years prior to the stabbing for Monica in that Big 5 was twice to Graf (Wimbledon) and once to Ferrando (US Open).

That is why I have no doubt she would've won Wimbledon without the stabbing. Beating Martina on grass at Wimbledon at 18 is a huge effort. Martina may be over the hill by 92 but not on grass. She's still as good as anyone.

How many players have reached a Wimbledon final at 18 and failed to win a Wimbledon eventually?

I remember after either the Wimbledon or USOpen loss to Seles, Martina made a very good assessment of playing Monica. She mentioned that Graf and Capriati both hit good passing shots, but that they tended to sit up, whereas with Seles, not only was there no side to pick on, her passing shots dipped, and she found herself hitting many more tough volleys at her feet, and went on to say that even if she stretched Monica wide, Seles still hit a great one-handed lefty forehand passing shot. Martina played very well in taking out Graf in the semis of the USO in 1991, but had no answers for the laser beam target practice of Seles in the final. I do not think she would've racked up the kind of numbers of a Navratilova, Graf, or Court, but she definitely had a shot at being on that aforementioned list. Like Martina (sorry kids), she really only had Graf to stand in her way. I was glad to have witnessed Navratilova bringing Seles back out on court in Atlantic City. Even if she played down a bit to an obviously rusty Seles, she got her back out there, and for that alone she is to be commended.

That's true. Martina should be commended for it. I also love how she apologised to Monica for complaining about the grunting in 92.

Philbo
Sep 23rd, 2011, 04:27 PM
Monica peaked for the big matches. She was a big point, big match player. Her losses in Hamburg and San Antonio in 1991 are meaningless when she won the French Open later. Even considering her 1989 records against Graf, she was already 3-3 against her in Grand Slams.

Monica quite regularly lost to players like Capriati, ASV, Sabatini in non-slams. I remember she failed to have success in big tournaments in 91-92 like Liptons and Rome. But come the French Open, she always blew her opponents away.

The Grand Slams and the VS Championships were the Big 5 for Monica. I mean really, the only losses in the three years prior to the stabbing for Monica in that Big 5 was twice to Graf (Wimbledon) and once to Ferrando (US Open).

That is why I have no doubt she would've won Wimbledon without the stabbing. Beating Martina on grass at Wimbledon at 18 is a huge effort. Martina may be over the hill by 92 but not on grass. She's still as good as anyone.

How many players have reached a Wimbledon final at 18 and failed to win a Wimbledon eventually?



That's true. Martina should be commended for it. I also love how she apologised to Monica for complaining about the grunting in 92.
If she hadnt been stabbed I would put money on her winning Wimbledon 94. Think about it, Graf loses to McNeil early, can you really imagine Monica pre stabbing losing to Conchita on grass? Wimbledon 94 was surely the year she would have won wimbledon without being stabbed in my humble opinion.

Rollo
Sep 23rd, 2011, 05:21 PM
we are getting :topic:


Back to Martina's incredible 1983 please:)

DennisFitz
Sep 25th, 2011, 06:09 PM
Back to Martina's incredible 1983 year. I read in the book The Rivals that Renee Richards arrived the morning of the Horvath match, and advised Navratilova to play more conservatively. And that Martina's tactics were the cause of her downfall in the match. And that Lieberman was livid about this, got into a fight w/Renee, and sat in a different location for the match. Renee resigned right after, and Martina hired Mike Estep.

I always felt Martina complicated her life by involving too many people and too many thoughts. It's directly analogous to how she commentates: Too much talking - bad. Less = More. In terms of her playing, I think she tried too hard sometimes, including against Evert and other baseliners. And paid for it. When she was at her dominating best, she played all out attack tennis. She didn't even have to play her best serve and volley to beat the rest of the field (perhaps Evert and then Graf).

Ultimately, it shouldn't have mattered what advice Richards gave Navratilova. Martina was on a big winning streak. She already won the French. And Kathy (who was a bit more than just a Chrissie clone - she was a very good volleyer not afraid to come in and take the net away) was the type of player Martina should have been able to figure out on her own how to beat. Especially after losing the opening set, and coming back to win the 2nd 6-0, this was a match Martina should not have lost. And it wasn't Richards or her advice that lost it for her.

Tennis is a mental game. And everyone, including Martina, was subject to mental lapses. When Martina got caught up in emotions during matches, it often affected her negatively. Don't know if Martina has ever watched a tape of her commentating, but I wonder if she would be annoyed at all her chatter. Perhaps not. Don't think she is very self aware. I bet she has non stop chatter going inside her head all the time, so she thinks it's natural.

Less really is more. Fewer options and strategies in a tennis match, esp for Martina - just s& v all the time!. Fewer comments during a match. We tune in to watch the match, not to listen to incessant chattering!

Sumarokov-Elston
Sep 25th, 2011, 07:39 PM
I do agree with the above post. I was watching the 1989 US Open final between Graf and Navratilova. It was like a repeat of the first half of the 1985 French Open. Martina was up 6-3 and 4-2. She only had to HOLD SERVE TWICE! But of course the double faults crept in and she collapsed after losing the second set (unlike Evert, who fought back about four or five times from subsequent losing positions in 1985). And I was thinking that half the problem was that Martina had taken on BJK as coach, and I could almost read all that psychobabble and advice BJK could give out, a hundred words a minute, going non-stop through poor Martina's head: "live in the now, play the ball and not the opponent, get your head down with the racket, bend the knees, pressure is a privilege, blah blah blah...." And I almost think Martina would have been better on her own, just getting her first serve in, nothing more!

I was also viewing the match in terms of our conversations about the supremacy of wood. Graphite seemed to become a substitute for brainwork, and the match was not really so good if you dissected it from the technical point of view (and I hated those white midsize rackets that the old pros were using at that time, Connors had the same). Martina was playing very well, but her greatest shots were the ones that she had learnt with wood - that great forehand down the line she used often against Chris (1982 AO), her topspin backhand passing shot (not true that she never had it before!), and her groundstrokes in general, which impressed me a lot (Martina was no slouch on the groundstrokes, it is just that you so rarely saw them). Graf, on the other hand, who had grown up with graphite, seemed like an early version of Sharapova. Mindlessly bashing the ball into the middle of the court, using up all the power she could, getting no depth at all. Why?!? Watching that match, I thought it was a good thing that Martina was playing an 18-year-old Graf and not an 18-year-old Evert, because Evert would have been making the passing shots and running Martina all over the court with the help of calculated, placed shots.

It was a shame we never got an Evert-Navratilova semi-final at the 1989 US Open. If you take the way Martina played in the first half of her Graf match and Chris the way she routed Monica Seles, it could have been a real humdinger!

Barktra
Sep 25th, 2011, 09:12 PM
I have a question, if Jaeger actually tried during the wimbledon final in 83, could she have had a chance? In a tennis channel documentary Martina said she had a huge fight with Nancy the night before, so that should have incorporated mentally for martina. Could have andrea took her down if she actually tried?

justineheninfan
Sep 25th, 2011, 09:17 PM
I have a question, if Jaeger actually tried during the wimbledon final in 83, could she have had a chance? In a tennis channel documentary Martina said she had a huge fight with Nancy the night before, so that should have incorporated mentally for martina. Could have andrea took her down if she actually tried?

No, Andrea even on her best day wouldnt be a match for Martina on her worst on grass by that point.

DennisFitz
Sep 25th, 2011, 10:45 PM
I do agree with the above post. I was watching the 1989 US Open final between Graf and Navratilova. It was like a repeat of the first half of the 1985 French Open. Martina was up 6-3 and 4-2. She only had to HOLD SERVE TWICE!
I don't think this correlation is correct. Evert led for most of the 1985 French final. In 1986, Martina won the first set, Chris the 2nd. Martina briefly led 2-0 in the 3rd.

In the 1989 US Open final, Navratilova won the 1st set, and led 4-2.

I don't think the US Open match was anything like a French final.

And I was thinking that half the problem was that Martina had taken on BJK as coach, and I could almost read all that psychobabble and advice BJK could give out, a hundred words a minute, going non-stop through poor Martina's head: "live in the now, play the ball and not the opponent, get your head down with the racket, bend the knees, pressure is a privilege, blah blah blah...." And I almost think Martina would have been better on her own, just getting her first serve in, nothing more!
Agreed. But I always remember Martina holding up 2 fingers after getting to 4-2, and saying to herself, and to everyone else, only 2 more games to go. And guess what? She did win 2 more games. But not the match!

I was also viewing the match in terms of our conversations about the supremacy of wood. Graphite seemed to become a substitute for brainwork, and the match was not really so good if you dissected it from the technical point of view

IMHO, I don't agree completely. But I get your point.

Graf, on the other hand, who had grown up with graphite, seemed like an early version of Sharapova. Mindlessly bashing the ball into the middle of the court, using up all the power she could, getting no depth at all.
First, Graf grew up playing with wood. If you really watched her game when she was younger, she had a rather traditional game, similar to styles that were employed in the 1970s. She had great foot speed, and thus developed her FH as a weapon. Sure, plying with graphite helped her cause when she debuted on the pro tour. But Graf would have had an effective slice with wood too.

Now as for comparing Graf and Sharapova.....apart from both being blonde and winning Wimbledon as teenagers, the comparisons end there!

Graf mindlessly bashing the ball into the middle of the court?!?! When Graf emerged as #1, she was able to dominate play with ehr serve, controlling the rallies with her forehand - which she did not just bash into the middle of the court. She often liked to hit her FH inside out from the BH side, or rip it crosscourt. Plus she had a wicked, and very underrated slice. When Graf kept her slice deep, she made it impossible for any baseliner or net rusher to penetrate the court. Which is why Graf won so much!!!

Why?!? Watching that match, I thought it was a good thing that Martina was playing an 18-year-old Graf and not an 18-year-old Evert, because Evert would have been making the passing shots and running Martina all over the court with the help of calculated, placed shots.

It was a shame we never got an Evert-Navratilova semi-final at the 1989 US Open. If you take the way Martina played in the first half of her Graf match and Chris the way she routed Monica Seles, it could have been a real humdinger!

Graf was 20 when she and Navratilova played in the 1989 US Open final. And it's another one of those fantasy matchups to say how 32 y.o Martina with graphite would have fared against 18 y.o. Evert w wood racquet.

It would have been nice if Chris and Martina met in the 1989 US Open semifinal. As hard as I would have been rooting and wishing Chris would win, I don't think it was gonna happen. Martina was playing very well in that tournament. Seles and Navratilova were different players. Chris got really psyched up to play Monica. I don't think she had the same enthusiasm for the Zina match. If Chris had somehow managed to get by Zina, I think she would have been lucky to stay close with Martina. (Might have been shades of the 1983 US Open final.)

alfajeffster
Sep 26th, 2011, 12:11 AM
My favorite quote about that 1989 USO final came from Ted Tinling "Martina saw vultures that no one else could see that day".

Zummi
Sep 26th, 2011, 02:07 AM
A summary of Navratolova's 1983

Martina won 16 of 17 events entered.
She won 11 events without dropping a set-this may well be another record.
She won events on all surfaces.
Even in the 1 match she lost she won more games than her opponent.

Martina won 7 events without EVER being extended past a 6-4 set. These events are:

Washington: Most games in one set (3) -most game lost in an entire match (4)
Chicago: Most games in one set (3) -most game lost in an entire match (5)
Dallas: Most games in one set (4) -most game lost in an entire match (4) -she beat Evert 6- 4 6-0
Eastbourne: Most games in one set (4) -most game lost in an entire match (6)
Los Angeles: Most games in one set (3) -most game lost in an entire match (4)
United States: Most games in one set (3) -most game lost in an entire match (4)
Stuttgart: Most games in one set (4) -most game lost in an entire match (5)

Martina lost only 19 games in winning 7 matches at the 1983 US Open. Only the final lasted more than one hour. At the hour mark the crowd burst into applause for Chris "extending" Martina.

Great posts, Rollo! All of them.

Once Temesvari herself remembered back to that match in a quite long article, the 1st set tie-break was 9/7. She said she won the 2nd set 6-3, and lead 4-3 in the final set and was serving. Didn't mentioned rain delay.

Tom, the first set tie-break score was 7-3, not 9-7. And while Andrea was up 4-3 in the final set, it was on serve. Martina broke her at 4-4 and then served out the match. Martina had been up 5-3 40-15 in the first set but failed to close it out.

I have a question, if Jaeger actually tried during the wimbledon final in 83, could she have had a chance? In a tennis channel documentary Martina said she had a huge fight with Nancy the night before, so that should have incorporated mentally for martina. Could have andrea took her down if she actually tried?

According to Andrea, yes, she could have beaten Martina because she had been playing well and had beaten Martina at Eastbourne the week before Wimbledon (link here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1031959/EXCLUSIVE-Jaegers-confession--I-let-Martina-win-title.html)). The record book indicates that Jaeger lost to Wendy Turnbull that year at Eastbourne who in turned got blown out by Navratilova in the final. But anyway... Jaeger opted to tank the Wimbledon final since she felt guilty about breaking Martina's concentration the day before the final and for making Nancy Lieberman fall down the stairs, trying to get her a phone...

Jaeger also said she was one match away from becoming #1 in the world in 1983 - if she had defeated Pam Shriver in the 1983 U.S. Open quarterfinal (link here (http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=9613464&postcount=13)). But she chose to tank this match too because she did not want to be #1.

It is strange that with as good of a year Martina had in 1983, she could have lost her #1 ranking to Jaeger :tape: :o

justineheninfan
Sep 26th, 2011, 02:12 AM
Jaeger also said she was one match away from becoming #1 in the world in 1983 - if she had defeated Pam Shriver in the 1983 U.S. Open quarterfinal (link here (http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=9613464&postcount=13)). But she chose to tank this match too because she did not want to be #1.

It is strange that with as good of a year Martina had in 1983, she could have lost her #1 ranking to Jaeger :tape: :o

I guess the ranking system had its major flaws before this year. How could that have ever been possible. What a travesty and laughable situation that would have been. I dont blame Jaeger for tanking her quarterfinal match in that case. Who would want to be a #1 10 times more unworthy than Wozniacki today (only speaking relative to Martina and even Chris at the time of course). :help:

Can someone enlighten me on what results she would have that made this even possible. Martina had lost like 3 matches in the past year, and Chris had won 3 of the last 4 slams and as usual been insanely consistent (apart from one poor result at Wimbledon).

JakeMan90-93
Sep 26th, 2011, 02:55 AM
I guess the ranking system had its major flaws before this year. How could that have ever been possible. What a travesty and laughable situation that would have been. I dont blame Jaeger for tanking her quarterfinal match in that case. Who would want to be a #1 10 times more unworthy than Wozniacki today (only speaking relative to Martina and even Chris at the time of course). :help:

Can someone enlighten me on what results she would have that made this even possible. Martina had lost like 3 matches in the past year, and Chris had won 3 of the last 4 slams and as usual been insanely consistent (apart from one poor result at Wimbledon).

This, like Jaeger's claim that she defeated Navratilova at Eastbourne in 83 is not true. Jaeger did defeat Navratilova at Eastbourne but that was two years before. Jaeger's accounts of her tennis career have been anything but factual.

Oh and she's also not a nun anymore.

Barktra
Sep 26th, 2011, 02:57 AM
This, like Jaeger's claim that she defeated Navratilova at Eastbourne in 83 is not true. Jaeger did defeat Navratilova at Eastbourne but that was two years before. Jaeger's accounts of her tennis career have been anything but factual.

Oh and she's also not a nun anymore.

:eek: Why is she not a nun?

justineheninfan
Sep 26th, 2011, 04:19 AM
This, like Jaeger's claim that she defeated Navratilova at Eastbourne in 83 is not true. Jaeger did defeat Navratilova at Eastbourne but that was two years before. Jaeger's accounts of her tennis career have been anything but factual.

Oh and she's also not a nun anymore.

Thank goodness. It makes more sense to believe she was lieing, since how could any ranking system have offered Jaeger the chance to pass Martina and Chris at the 83 U.S Open (even by winning) based on results of the previous year.

DennisFitz
Sep 26th, 2011, 07:21 AM
According to Andrea, yes, she could have beaten Martina because she had been playing well and had beaten Martina at Eastbourne the week before Wimbledon (link here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-1031959/EXCLUSIVE-Jaegers-confession--I-let-Martina-win-title.html)). The record book indicates that Jaeger lost to Wendy Turnbull that year at Eastbourne who in turned got blown out by Navratilova in the final. But anyway... Jaeger opted to tank the Wimbledon final since she felt guilty about breaking Martina's concentration the day before the final and for making Nancy Lieberman fall down the stairs, trying to get her a phone...

Jaeger beat Martina in the semis of the 1981 Eastbourne event. Turnbull did beat Jaeger in the 1983 Eastbourne QF.

IMHO, Jaeger had no chance at the 1983 Wimbledon final. Martina was in devastating form that year. Not sure what led Andrea claim she "let" Martina win. Certainly a strange and sad situation that occurred the night before a Wimbledon final. Andrea may have "tanked" the final. But she had many matches in 1983 where she barely tried. So it rings kind of hollow that she would tank in the finals of the biggest tournament in the world.

Jaeger also said she was one match away from becoming #1 in the world in 1983 - if she had defeated Pam Shriver in the 1983 U.S. Open quarterfinal (link here (http://www.tennisforum.com/showpost.php?p=9613464&postcount=13)). But she chose to tank this match too because she did not want to be #1.

It is strange that with as good of a year Martina had in 1983, she could have lost her #1 ranking to Jaeger :tape: :o

Have no idea where this quote originated. Jaeger ranked #3 throughout 1983. She was very far behind Evert at #2. She was in no way remotely close to the #1 ranking in 1983. In fact, she ranked #2 for all of 2 weeks in 1981, when she very briefly ascended to #2 right before the US Open, and thus was seeded #2. Martina did not defend a title from the summer of 1980, so Andrea leapfrogged ahead of Martina in the rankings for one month in 1981. Navratilova was RU at the Open that year, and Andrea slumped out in the 2R. And never again did Jaeger rank ahead of Navratilova.

And the 1983 US Open QF was for #1 ?!?!?! Jaeger had a good season in 1983, reaching the Wimbledon final, and 3 other events. But by the US Open, it was clear she was on the downward slope. Jaeger was lucky to hold on to #3 - and again not even remotely close to #2 let alone #1. (Furthermore, she had to reach the semis of the US Open in 1983 just to earn the same # of points as the previous year!)If Tracy wasn't injured, Hana not in a slump, and Pam a bit more consistent, Jaeger wouldn't have held that # spot.

Pat Bateman
Sep 26th, 2011, 08:52 AM
This, like Jaeger's claim that she defeated Navratilova at Eastbourne in 83 is not true. Jaeger did defeat Navratilova at Eastbourne but that was two years before. Jaeger's accounts of her tennis career have been anything but factual.

Oh and she's also not a nun anymore.

Take anything Andrea says with a large grain of salt. She has had issues, to put it mildly.

I've heard that there is a lot more to the story of Andrea showing up at Martina's house that night - namely that Andrea made some overtures to Martina that were not reciprocated.

tommystar
Sep 26th, 2011, 10:27 AM
Tom, the first set tie-break score was 7-3, not 9-7. And while Andrea was up 4-3 in the final set, it was on serve. Martina broke her at 4-4 and then served out the match. Martina had been up 5-3 40-15 in the first set but failed to close it out.


So, Temesvari gilded the hill in the home press about the match of her life. Probably we can let it her... :)

daze11
Sep 26th, 2011, 02:54 PM
Technically speaking.....Chris Evert did. In 1976, Evert lost 12 games in 6 matches (it was a 96 draw, and Chrissie got a bye in the 1R). Chris lost an average of 2 games per match. Martina lost 2.7.

But, to take nothing away from Marina, she was in devastating form that year. I think not having won it before made her so eager and confident.

But going through Gomper, Hanika, Shriver, Evert was a pretty high standard of competition to face. Chris had Barker, Jausovec & Goolagong ion her field, but Jausovec on a cement court was not a substantial test either.

In any case, both superb showings.

PamShriver
Sep 26th, 2011, 06:50 PM
but Jausovec on a cement court was not a substantial test either.
But it wasn't cement that year, it was Har-Tru! And Mima on clay was always at least top 10, if not top five in the mid-70s.

daze11
Sep 26th, 2011, 09:02 PM
But it wasn't cement that year, it was Har-Tru! And Mima on clay was always at least top 10, if not top five in the mid-70s.good call, PamShriver! I stand corrected, and gladly so!

Now we may ask, 'How many more US Opens would Chris Evert have won if the US Open had STAYED har-tru, which would be a move I'd favor!!!!!!!' (I know, that's a different thread, but still...)

Actually, to tie it to this thread --and this is going to sound like a remarkable stretch-- but I believe Chrissie would have stood a fair-to-good chance against Martina in the 1983 Us Open with her wood racket, on a har-tru surface!!

Here are my reasons:
1) She had just finished a hotly contested match at the Canadian Open, that was their first competitive match in a while! Chrissie looked at that tape a few times before facing her in the final of the USO...though as it turned out, Martina played better than in Canada & Chris worse, when they met for the final. A clay-ish court would have added a dimension of nerves for Martina, who had still never won a US Open.

2) Chris was not yet as psyched out against MN as she'd be in 1984 after a few more losses and the fear she felt in 'protecting her turf' on clay contributed to her lackluster play when they finally played their first clay match in 3 years, at Amelia in '84.

3) After the french open final, they asked her about the fact that she hadnt beaten Martina in the final, so did it feel as special winning against Jausovec. But she said she would have LOVED to play her on clay.... so I think this would have been something she'd look forward to, which--as I said-- was not so much the case by April of '84.

4) Fourthly, this is not to take anything away from Martina, to say I believe there is a great deal that was psychological in the way that rivalry got whisked away & submerged into a 13-match losing streak, and perhaps a win in september of '83 might have prevented the wall from becoming such an impenetrable barrier as it became for 2 years.

Sumarokov-Elston
Sep 26th, 2011, 09:19 PM
Chris blows hot and cold in the 1983 US Open final. She is down a set and a break in the second set, getting humiliated, but she turns things around to win three games in a row, with almost perfect tennis.

I always thought that if Martina had made the final of the 1983 French Open, Evert would have prevailed with wood (mainly for the same reasons you list above). On the other hand, I know Evert was up for playing Navratilova at the 1984 Australian Open, but I think Martina would have edged a win (mainly because it was grass), as long as the match did not get tight in a third set.

Kathy Horvath
Sep 26th, 2011, 10:34 PM
Quite simply I played the important points better that day. I remember it well. I hit to Martina's backhand a lot - she got over-anxious, looking up to Team Navratilova (the french tv director kept showing a slow-mo of a furious Nancy!) and started to chip it back instead of hitting with topspin. When she started talking to herself I knew I had a chance. Martina did not deal well that day with my relentless groundstrokes and refusal to give in - I ran everything down and hit it back with interest. Passing shots for days. The French crowd were gloriously on my side. They roar like lions at your passing shots. They know how to give you support in a good way.... It was a magnificent victory for me. Martina was distraught. Even Renee Richards appearing in the player's box couldnt save Martina! It was my day - so many bouquets for me after the match. Funny, I can still remember the sweet scented French roses.....

DennisFitz
Sep 27th, 2011, 04:08 AM
good call, PamShriver! I stand corrected, and gladly so!

Now we may ask, 'How many more US Opens would Chris Evert have won if the US Open had STAYED har-tru, which would be a move I'd favor!!!!!!!' (I know, that's a different thread, but still...)

Actually, to tie it to this thread --and this is going to sound like a remarkable stretch-- but I believe Chrissie would have stood a fair-to-good chance against Martina in the 1983 Us Open with her wood racket, on a har-tru surface!!

Here are my reasons:
1) She had just finished a hotly contested match at the Canadian Open, that was their first competitive match in a while! Chrissie looked at that tape a few times before facing her in the final of the USO...though as it turned out, Martina played better than in Canada & Chris worse, when they met for the final. A clay-ish court would have added a dimension of nerves for Martina, who had still never won a US Open.

2) Chris was not yet as psyched out against MN as she'd be in 1984 after a few more losses and the fear she felt in 'protecting her turf' on clay contributed to her lackluster play when they finally played their first clay match in 3 years, at Amelia in '84.

3) After the french open final, they asked her about the fact that she hadnt beaten Martina in the final, so did it feel as special winning against Jausovec. But she said she would have LOVED to play her on clay.... so I think this would have been something she'd look forward to, which--as I said-- was not so much the case by April of '84.

4) Fourthly, this is not to take anything away from Martina, to say I believe there is a great deal that was psychological in the way that rivalry got whisked away & submerged into a 13-match losing streak, and perhaps a win in september of '83 might have prevented the wall from becoming such an impenetrable barrier as it became for 2 years.

It would be a whole new thread....the US Open still on har tru in 1983.

But it would be interesting to speculate what would have happened if Martina and Chris did meet in the 1983 French final. Or in the 1983 Hilton Head or Amelia Island finals.

PS - Evert's 6 wins in 1976 US Open came against players who were all ranked in the top 40; four of the top 20, two top 10. Chris beat the reigning French champ, the following year's French champ, and the reigning Australian and VS Champion.

Martina's 1983 year was super impressive.......

Zummi
Sep 27th, 2011, 04:42 AM
So, Temesvari gilded the hill in the home press about the match of her life. Probably we can let it her... :)

Of course, we can :) This was the closest she ever played Martina and Andrea did have her chances in this match. But I think winning Roland Garros in 1986 may have made up for it :lol:

:eek: Why is she not a nun?

Technically-speaking, she never was a nun to begin with. She was an Anglican Dominican sister. The Wall Street Journal reported that she left the order in 2009.

calou
Sep 27th, 2011, 08:24 AM
Quite simply I played the important points better that day. I remember it well. I hit to Martina's backhand a lot - she got over-anxious, looking up to Team Navratilova (the french tv director kept showing a slow-mo of a furious Nancy!) and started to chip it back instead of hitting with topspin. When she started talking to herself I knew I had a chance. Martina did not deal well that day with my relentless groundstrokes and refusal to give in - I ran everything down and hit it back with interest. Passing shots for days. The French crowd were gloriously on my side. They roar like lions at your passing shots. They know how to give you support in a good way.... It was a magnificent victory for me. Martina was distraught. Even Renee Richards appearing in the player's box couldnt save Martina! It was my day - so many bouquets for me after the match. Funny, I can still remember the sweet scented French roses.....
You forget the breeze blowing that day and the song of little birds
:D

Sumarokov-Elston
Sep 27th, 2011, 04:09 PM
You forget the breeze blowing that day and the song of little birds
:D

Kathy remembers that match as if it were yesterday! One would almost be forgiven for thinking that she watches a tape of it at least twice a day! :lol:

There were so many Kathys in 1980s tennis, it was like trying to get your head round Wuthering Heights, with dead Cathy, old Cathy and young Cathy. The fact that so many of them were "Chrissie clones" made them even more difficult to differentiate. I would like to ask Ms. Horvath if she ever had the same luck against Kathy Jordan enjoyed by Kathy Rinaldi-Stunkel, who I remember once trouncing the frying-pan-gripping one at Eastbourne in a match I thoroughly enjoyed!

Kathy Horvath
Sep 27th, 2011, 09:21 PM
I only played Jordan once when I was 14 at the French. I didnt like her or her hair. Barbara Potter and Jordan were my least favourites on the tour. Rather old maids even at 24! I had a good record against other baseliners - Rinaldi, Bonder, Temesvari and Bassett - all touted as future champions at 15. And players such as Mary Lou-Piatek and "Peanut" Louie were my bread and butter:O)

justineheninfan
Sep 27th, 2011, 10:08 PM
Temesvari is another of a fairly large group of once very promising players around that period who peaked young and fizzled out into eventual nothingness. I wonder what it was in her case why she didnt end up better.

Pat Bateman
Sep 28th, 2011, 08:22 AM
good call, PamShriver! I stand corrected, and gladly so!

Now we may ask, 'How many more US Opens would Chris Evert have won if the US Open had STAYED har-tru, which would be a move I'd favor!!!!!!!' (I know, that's a different thread, but still...)

Actually, to tie it to this thread --and this is going to sound like a remarkable stretch-- but I believe Chrissie would have stood a fair-to-good chance against Martina in the 1983 Us Open with her wood racket, on a har-tru surface!!

Here are my reasons:
1) She had just finished a hotly contested match at the Canadian Open, that was their first competitive match in a while! Chrissie looked at that tape a few times before facing her in the final of the USO...though as it turned out, Martina played better than in Canada & Chris worse, when they met for the final. A clay-ish court would have added a dimension of nerves for Martina, who had still never won a US Open.

2) Chris was not yet as psyched out against MN as she'd be in 1984 after a few more losses and the fear she felt in 'protecting her turf' on clay contributed to her lackluster play when they finally played their first clay match in 3 years, at Amelia in '84.

3) After the french open final, they asked her about the fact that she hadnt beaten Martina in the final, so did it feel as special winning against Jausovec. But she said she would have LOVED to play her on clay.... so I think this would have been something she'd look forward to, which--as I said-- was not so much the case by April of '84.

4) Fourthly, this is not to take anything away from Martina, to say I believe there is a great deal that was psychological in the way that rivalry got whisked away & submerged into a 13-match losing streak, and perhaps a win in september of '83 might have prevented the wall from becoming such an impenetrable barrier as it became for 2 years.


Oh Daze, that IS a stretch, even for you, buddy.

Nice try, though ;)

daze11
Sep 28th, 2011, 06:28 PM
Oh Daze, that IS a stretch, even for you, buddy.

Nice try, though ;)
when you have a 13 match losing streak, you gotta grab whatever you can. :lol:

trivfun
Oct 1st, 2011, 07:22 PM
Its because of Martina. You listen to the 1983 U.S. Open and what Virginia Wade had to say. My goodness. I guess she broke Ginny's heart by giving Chrissie a beatdown. Lot of folks shared that sentiment.

Kathy Horvath
Oct 1st, 2011, 09:15 PM
I think at the time, in 1983, Martina just appeared invincible (obviously apart from my glorious win in Paris). If she had not lost to me it was highly likely she could have a calendar year grand slam. Martina was in fact far out front through the summer of 1983, Chris was a distant No2. Chris started struggling against teenage baseliners like Manuela Maleeva and Carling Bassett. It seemed the writing was on the wall for her. Martina's athleticism was supreme. Martina deserves great credit for her 1983 and 1984. I dont think she lost very much in 1984 either - I remember Mandlikova beating her in Oakland in March 1984 but Martina went on to win everything including Roland Garros, Wimbeldon and the US Open. It was here though in 1984 that Chris started to come back at her and, if you watch that match (You Tube), she should have taken her opportunities and won. Chris only broke the sequence of 13 losses in Key Biscayne 1985. I have never seen that match but it was something like 6-2 6-4 and, even though Martina had raised the bar, Chris was back in the game - for the first time since June 1983!

Kathy Horvath
Oct 1st, 2011, 09:17 PM
I also think Martina's year was just as good as Novak's. She wasnt injured as much as Novak and she also played longer into December....

trivfun
Oct 2nd, 2011, 01:15 AM
I think at the time, in 1983, Martina just appeared invincible (obviously apart from my glorious win in Paris). If she had not lost to me it was highly likely she could have a calendar year grand slam. Martina was in fact far out front through the summer of 1983, Chris was a distant No2. Chris started struggling against teenage baseliners like Manuela Maleeva and Carling Bassett. It seemed the writing was on the wall for her. Martina's athleticism was supreme. Martina deserves great credit for her 1983 and 1984. I dont think she lost very much in 1984 either - I remember Mandlikova beating her in Oakland in March 1984 but Martina went on to win everything including Roland Garros, Wimbeldon and the US Open. It was here though in 1984 that Chris started to come back at her and, if you watch that match (You Tube), she should have taken her opportunities and won. Chris only broke the sequence of 13 losses in Key Biscayne 1985. I have never seen that match but it was something like 6-2 6-4 and, even though Martina had raised the bar, Chris was back in the game - for the first time since June 1983!

I always thought, Chris lost her first step around that year particularly when she lost to Kathy Jordan at Wimbledon and she never seemed to find it where she controlled tempo with her touch game except on ocassion that you mentioned.

Sumarokov-Elston
Oct 2nd, 2011, 03:22 PM
I think at the time, in 1983, Martina just appeared invincible (obviously apart from my glorious win in Paris). If she had not lost to me it was highly likely she could have a calendar year grand slam. Martina was in fact far out front through the summer of 1983, Chris was a distant No2. Chris started struggling against teenage baseliners like Manuela Maleeva and Carling Bassett. It seemed the writing was on the wall for her. Martina's athleticism was supreme. Martina deserves great credit for her 1983 and 1984. I dont think she lost very much in 1984 either - I remember Mandlikova beating her in Oakland in March 1984 but Martina went on to win everything including Roland Garros, Wimbeldon and the US Open. It was here though in 1984 that Chris started to come back at her and, if you watch that match (You Tube), she should have taken her opportunities and won. Chris only broke the sequence of 13 losses in Key Biscayne 1985. I have never seen that match but it was something like 6-2 6-4 and, even though Martina had raised the bar, Chris was back in the game - for the first time since June 1983!

I don't know if I agree with you, except for what you write that Martina's athleticism was supreme. And by the way, Kathy, would you really call losing the second set 6-0 (!!) a "glorious win" in Paris? Tactics, perhaps? Or maybe you are thinking of another win against a fading Andrea Jaegar or an injured Jo Durie? :lol:

I think Chris was nevertheless closer to Martina than the rest of the pack when she was #2. She owned everyone else, as you can see from even her embarrassingly easy semi-final wins at the slams, especially in 1984. I always felt that was because Martina owned Chris 1983-84, so Chris used to take her frustration out on everyone else and really beat them up!

Kathy Horvath
Oct 2nd, 2011, 08:29 PM
Martina lost her way at the beginning of 1985 and the invincibility went forever. She had had at least 24 months of no one (except me - the 6-0 was tactics!)getting close. Martina still a step down from Steffi's achievements though in terms of calendar year Grand Slam. Indeed it was only when Steffi started to beat players

Kathy Horvath
Oct 2nd, 2011, 08:30 PM
6-0 6-1 in 40 minutes that we all realised what dominance and invincibility really meant on the Tour!

Philbo
Oct 3rd, 2011, 11:14 AM
6-0 6-1 in 40 minutes that we all realised what dominance and invincibility really meant on the Tour!
Did you miss the plethora of 6-0 6-1 type wins Martina had notched up in the few years previous?

Graf did dominate in due course,but never to the same level as Martina did during her golden run. Oh, and calendar year slam < 6 consecutive slams ;)

Kathy Horvath
Oct 3rd, 2011, 12:32 PM
Did Martina win all four in one year? I dont think she did - Steffi won all four in 1988.
Shall we count the beigels and see who comes out on top? Graf was notching up the beigels way before Ms Seles came along! I dont find Sports Illustrated to be that great a mag - well it is if you like gawking at bikinis!

Kathy Horvath
Oct 3rd, 2011, 12:34 PM
I do sympathise with you on Ms Seles. She was cut down in her prime but in her later years - wasnt she was rather chasing money? - blatantly - would go to the opening of an envelope to get appearance money.

Philbo
Oct 3rd, 2011, 02:52 PM
Did Martina win all four in one year? I dont think she did - Steffi won all four in 1988.
Shall we count the beigels and see who comes out on top? Graf was notching up the beigels way before Ms Seles came along! I dont find Sports Illustrated to be that great a mag - well it is if you like gawking at bikinis!

Did Graf ever win 6 consecutive slams? Last I counted 6 > 4 :)

Did Graf ever win a slam losing less than 18 games on the way? No.
Did Graf ever win 72 matches in a row? No
Did Graf ever lose less than 1 match in a season? No

Rollo
Oct 3rd, 2011, 05:19 PM
We're getting :topic: again folks.

Keep to 1983 please. The mod doesn't want to get out his delete button:mad:

Sumarokov-Elston
Oct 3rd, 2011, 07:52 PM
One of the great paradoxes of Martina's incredible 1983 year is that you also had Chris Evert going for the grand slam right in the middle of it. If she had won Wimbledon, she would have won four in a row - that was being talked about at the time, I remember. I wonder if there has ever been a time when you had two top-class players both going for a grand slam. Such dominance - Evert's three in a row, followed by Navratilova's six in a row (not counting all their other wins). It is amazing to think that they both won 18 grand slams at the same time. They were so intertwined, and certainly deprived each other of being the best ever. Without one, it is not inconceivable that the other could have won 30 slams (or more, if they had played the FO and AO more in the 1970s). That is why I sometimes think that in arguments over GOAT, Chris and Martina should almost be counted as one player. On the other hand, Margaret Court was like a slightly less player than the sum of them both - groundstrokes not quite as good as Evert's and not the same incredible serve and volley game as Martina, but still not too far behind them in both categories.

DennisFitz
Oct 4th, 2011, 07:18 AM
One of the great paradoxes of Martina's incredible 1983 year is that you also had Chris Evert going for the grand slam right in the middle of it. If she had won Wimbledon, she would have won four in a row - that was being talked about at the time, I remember. I wonder if there has ever been a time when you had two top-class players both going for a grand slam.

It was a most amazing paradox. Evert going for 4 majors in a row. And the ITF meddling with the definition of a Grand Slam. Not sure if there has ever been a period where one player won 3 consecutive majors, only for another to come along and win 6 in a row. Ironic too, that even if Evert had won Wimbledon in 1983, edging out Navratilova in the final, she would not, I repeat NOT, have ranked #1 on the WTA computer at the time! (Eeek, and we thought the current ranking system was flawed!)

It is amazing to think that they both won 18 grand slams at the same time. They were so intertwined, and certainly deprived each other of being the best ever. Without one, it is not inconceivable that the other could have won 30 slams (or more, if they had played the FO and AO more in the 1970s). That is why I sometimes think that in arguments over GOAT, Chris and Martina should almost be counted as one player. On the other hand, Margaret Court was like a slightly less player than the sum of them both - groundstrokes not quite as good as Evert's and not the same incredible serve and volley game as Martina, but still not too far behind them in both categories.

I understand the sentiment. But wholeheartedly disagree that we should consider Evert and Navratilova as one player, when having a GOAT discussion. Just about a million reasons why that shouldn't happen. Some might consider poetic justice that two supreme players, in overlapping eras, would wind up with the same # of majors won. I still like to consider their extraordinary achievements on an individual basis.

newmark401
Oct 4th, 2011, 08:55 AM
Indeed it was only when Steffi started to beat players 6-0 6-1 in 40 minutes that we all realised what dominance and invincibility really meant on the Tour!


If you look back through tennis history, you'll see that players like Lottie Dod, May Sutton, Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills and Maureen Connolly were as dominant for long, if not longer periods, than were more modern players such as Martina Navratilova and Steffi Graf. At their best, and even a bit below it, all of these players were capable of annihilating the opposition, including alleged rivals, by scores of 6-1, 6-1 or 6-1, 6-0.

The one-sided nature of many of the top woman's victories was nothing new by the time Steffi Graf came along.

Sumarokov-Elston
Oct 4th, 2011, 09:13 PM
If you look back through tennis history, you'll see that players like Lottie Dod, May Sutton, Suzanne Lenglen, Helen Wills and Maureen Connolly were as dominant for long, if not longer periods, than were more modern players such as Martina Navratilova and Steffi Graf. At their best, and even a bit below it, all of these players were capable of annihilating the opposition, including alleged rivals, by scores of 6-1, 6-1 or 6-1, 6-0.

The one-sided nature of many of the top woman's victories was nothing new by the time Steffi Graf came along.

That is true. Suzanne Lenglen's career basically consisted of year after year of 1983s!

In 1976, Evert won Wimbledon and the US Open. She said that if she had won the French Open (which was almost a certainty), she would have gone Down Under to aim for the Grand Slam. Her only possible rival, Goolagong, would have had her hands full against a determined Ice Maiden, though with Evonne anything could happen, and she might just as well have won such a match 7-5, 6-0.

Looking back now, with the benefit of hindsight, I wonder if Chris and Martina would have come to an agreement to let one win the GS one year, then the other the following year?? Funny that both were denied grand slams by a player other than their main rival - Kathy Jordan for Chris and Helena Sukova for Martina's calendar GS.

I think all the above puts into perspective why the tour was so much deeper in the 1970s than it was in the 1980s. It was never a done deal Evert would win a slam in the 1970s, because she would always have to face Cawley, King, Court, Wade and Navratilova on grass. Whereas in the 1980s, Navratilova took her slam when her only other rival was on a downer and playing with a Stone Age racket. But Martina was so superhuman at that time in any case, I feel she would have had victories over any other player on fast surfaces.

Zummi
Oct 5th, 2011, 03:58 AM
In 1976, Evert won Wimbledon and the US Open. She said that if she had won the French Open (which was almost a certainty), she would have gone Down Under to aim for the Grand Slam. Her only possible rival, Goolagong, would have had her hands full against a determined Ice Maiden, though with Evonne anything could happen, and she might just as well have won such a match 7-5, 6-0.

The 1976 Australian Open was played in January (technically, December 26, 1975 - January 4, 1976).

Sumarokov-Elston
Oct 5th, 2011, 04:31 AM
The 1976 Australian Open was played in January (technically, December 26, 1975 - January 4, 1976).

Yes, but Evert herself got it mixed up in her own mind and said she would have given up her "Christmas 1976" to play the Australian Open that year.

Kathy Horvath
Oct 7th, 2011, 10:23 PM
Martina's year is unbelievable and equal to Novak's. However, not a calendar year GS! 6 in a row but unfort for her, not calendar year! I think it right that Chris and Martina end up on 18. Martina's run also benefitted from the time from the lack of a credible Tracy Austin and Andrea Jaeger - maturing into their game - running into injury. Hana Mandlikova also didnt win another major until 1985. Martina might have had more problems had she had to beat Chris, Tracy and Andrea in GS rather than just Chris. Tracy was so mentally tough but her game had practically disintegrated by the time Jo Durie beat her in Paris in 1983 6-1 4-6 6-0! Andrea had great success at Wimbeldon in 1983 but by the US Open in 1983 and her loss to Hana Mandlikova, her game also fell apart - a rotator cuff injury (same as Sharapova but was more difficult to treat in 1984). So no Tracy after June 1983 or Andrea by September 1983....

Kathy Horvath
Oct 7th, 2011, 10:43 PM
Martina's rivals had been reduced from Chris, Tracy,Hana, Andrea to just Chris and Hana. Players like Kathy Jordan, Wendy Turnbull, Barbara Potter and Jo Durie were definitely not in the same class as Tracy and Andrea. In addition, Chris did not show for the Australian Open at the end of 1983. So no Tracy, Andrea or Chris (who played some of her best grass tennis at Kooyong).

Sumarokov-Elston
Oct 8th, 2011, 12:31 AM
It is true that had Martina to face not just Chris in a final, but in the previous round a consistent Hana on grass, a fit Tracy or Pam on cement, and a non-wacko Andrea on indoors or clay, then it would have been a lot harder for her. She was helped in that she was on the court for so little time during these dominant years, especially in the earlier rounds (but then, that was the dividends from her own input into her game). I always thought that Martina getting the grand slam depended on getting a French Open over Chris - which happened in 1984 - and then building around it.* And I agree that even a very down Chris Evert (late 1983) at Kooyong was still a force to be reckoned with, no matter what. Maybe she was poor Chrissie playing with a wooden racket against this superhuman from the Eastern Bloc, but, as BJK once said, "Chris Evert has a heart that is even colder than mine."

* As it happened, Martina lost the first set of her semi-final to Hana, so could very easily have gone out then (Chris won her semi 6-0, 6-0, though had a rather shaky ride before that).

What fascinates me is the year of 1985, when Martina "only" won two grand slams and was "only" #1 for about half the year. In fact, from AO 1984 to USO 1985, she held only one slam, Wimbledon, requiring three sets to win in the final. Was this because of a revived Chris Evert (and a resurgent Hana) or was it because Martina obviously had to have some sort of a letdown after an incredible 1983 (one loss) and 1984 (two losses)?

Kathy Horvath
Oct 10th, 2011, 10:29 PM
Wasnt 1985 the year Martina hooked up with Judy Nelson? That may have been enough for her to start losing a few matches! I think Chris "upped" her game after that terrible loss to Martina at the US Open in 1984 - she should have won that match and after that it was her mission to have a better 1985, crowned of course by that spectacular win at the French -probably one of the best matches of her career. After the FO 1985 I think Martina's invincibility went forever. Her "invincible" reign had gone from Wimbeldon 1983 to French 1985 -quite incredible!

Kathy Horvath
Oct 10th, 2011, 10:38 PM
Also at the 1985 French a lot of the younger players coming through like Sabatini and Graf (Chris beat them both on the way to the final) were playing a different style - Sabatini with topspin off both flanks and Graf with a heavily sliced backhands and killer topped forehands. They must have watched that match and thought it was only a matter of time....Graf made her breakthrough in May 1986 in Berlin....

DennisFitz
Oct 11th, 2011, 12:04 AM
Wasnt 1985 the year Martina hooked up with Judy Nelson? That may have been enough for her to start losing a few matches!

No. Martina and Judy got together in 1984.

But it is interesting to note that Martina's dominance over Chris, including the 13 consecutive wins, occurred during a time when Chris and John Lloyd were going through a very difficult period in their marriage, and even separated.

I also feel Renee Richards was unfairly blamed for Martina's lone 1983 loss to Horvath at the French. I know the stories of Renee supposedly telling Martina not to play as aggressively, etc., and to hang more from the baseline. I still find it hard to believe that in the middle of a major, Martina would suddenly change tactics, or play differently, merely because Renee told her to. Also, ultimately it's up to the player themselves. It's not like Martina never played Kathy before, and didn't know what to expect.

I also feel Martina was due for a loss. She was on a 39 match win streak, and had been cruising most of the year, barely losing sets. But once the indoor season ended, Martina only played 2 tournaments before the French. Naturally, she skipped the entire European spring clay court season. In Hilton Head in April, she was severely tested by Temesvari. And Hana nearly beat her in Orlando.

As the defending French champ, she would have been facing additional pressure. And perhaps she was just a bit rusty, having only played 1 tournament in 6 weeks, and only 1 tournament on clay in a year.

Martina was so used to most players just rolling over once Martina got a lead. So Horvath surprising her in the first set surely rattled her. However, the fact that Martina was able to come back and win the second set at love shows you that Martina really should have won that match. Martina was vulnerable, no doubt. And she's human, and she succumbed to the pressure.

I do think Mike Estep was a big help to Martina. And obviously Martina felt she needed a change. I think he convinced her she should play attacking tennis all the time. I felt Martina played the best tennis of her life from June 1983-June 1984. Practically perfect in that time span.

justineheninfan
Oct 11th, 2011, 01:16 AM
Martina's year is unbelievable and equal to Novak's. However, not a calendar year GS! 6 in a row but unfort for her, not calendar year! I think it right that Chris and Martina end up on 18. Martina's run also benefitted from the time from the lack of a credible Tracy Austin and Andrea Jaeger - maturing into their game - running into injury. Hana Mandlikova also didnt win another major until 1985. Martina might have had more problems had she had to beat Chris, Tracy and Andrea in GS rather than just Chris. Tracy was so mentally tough but her game had practically disintegrated by the time Jo Durie beat her in Paris in 1983 6-1 4-6 6-0! Andrea had great success at Wimbeldon in 1983 but by the US Open in 1983 and her loss to Hana Mandlikova, her game also fell apart - a rotator cuff injury (same as Sharapova but was more difficult to treat in 1984). So no Tracy after June 1983 or Andrea by September 1983....

Andrea is irrelevant to Martina's year as peak Andrea is nowhere near good enough to challenge a peak Martina anyway. Their 2 slam finals show how they compare at their best, no contest. It is a shame Austin's potentially brilliant career fell apart due to injuries. I dont think she was on her way to being the best ever or anything, but I am sure she would have continued to challenge Martina and Chris in future year otherwise.

Kathy Horvath
Oct 11th, 2011, 11:03 PM
I think if Andrea had been motivated after Wimbledon 1983 she may have mounted some challenge. She didnt really play after the US Open 1983 and was only 18! Had she continued fit she would I think have been a real threat. She wasnt just a baseliner - she came to the net often and had great hands at the net. Even Serena and Venus werent at their very best at 18!!

Kathy Horvath
Oct 11th, 2011, 11:10 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz2kDp7OhY0
Jaeger taking the net away from Martina at the French Open 1982!

newmark401
Oct 13th, 2011, 03:12 PM
I think if Andrea had been motivated after Wimbledon 1983 she may have mounted some challenge. She didnt really play after the US Open 1983 and was only 18! Had she continued fit she would I think have been a real threat. She wasnt just a baseliner - she came to the net often and had great hands at the net. Even Serena and Venus werent at their very best at 18!!

It's strange that after Andrea Jaeger and Tracy Austin left the game in the early-to-mid-1980s, the next win at one of the four majors by an American-born woman (excluding Chris Evert-Lloyd) was Lindsay Davenport's at the 1998 US Open, 17 years after Tracy Austin won her second and last singles title there. In the interim there were many Evert-Lloyd clones, but none of them had what it takes to win a major.

I don't think Martina Navratilova would have had any difficulty beating Andrea Jaeger after the 1983 Wimbledon tournament. Martina probably looked at Andrea and thought: "Okay, this is a younger, poorer version of Chris. I know what I have to do to beat her. There is no way I should lose to a player like her."

Martina beat Andrea the last eight times they played and eleven of the last twelve times they met in the years 1981-83, Andrea's only win during that period coming, somewhat ironically, in the semi-final of the Eastbourne tournament in 1981, on grass.

Sumarokov-Elston
Oct 13th, 2011, 06:18 PM
Martina beat Andrea the last eight times they played and eleven of the last twelve times they met in the years 1981-83, Andrea's only win during that period coming, somewhat ironically, in the semi-final of the Eastbourne tournament in 1981, on grass.

Are you sure? I have a match from a round-robin tournament in 1982 in Australia (sponsored by McDonald's?) in which Andrea beats Martina quite handily on an indoor court, coming back from one set down.

newmark401
Oct 13th, 2011, 07:17 PM
Are you sure? I have a match from a round-robin tournament in 1982 in Australia (sponsored by McDonald's?) in which Andrea beats Martina quite handily on an indoor court, coming back from one set down.

Yes, I meant in open tournaments, not exhibitions or other special matches or tournaments. In 1982, Martina Navratilova had three losses in singles in open tournaments, one each to Sylvia Hanika, Pam Shriver and Chris Evert-Lloyd.

Kathy Horvath
Oct 19th, 2011, 09:36 PM
Sylvia Hanika! I'd quite forgotten about her. Wasnt she left handed with various spins on each side? Awkward to play against. Cant seem to find any footage of her but I think she was in the top 10 for some time. Never did well at Wimbledon so nothing to see on YouTube...