PDA

View Full Version : Nadal is coming after our Chrissie's records


Sam L
Jun 12th, 2012, 11:50 AM
A few years ago, I think Chris fans breathed a collective sigh of relief when Rafa's winning streak on clay ended. I can't remember when or the match.

Now he has 7 Roland Garros titles! Unbelievable. It's very realistic that he will get one more.

I can't believe that a men's record for most slams at a Grand Slam will now be more than a women's record.

He is really a great on the surface and the only female players I think that are up there with him on clay are Evert (overall career) and Seles (at her peak before the stabbing).

What do you all think?

tennisvideos
Jun 12th, 2012, 02:41 PM
We mustn't forget Suzanne Lenglen and her great clay court prowess. But yes, Nadal is awesome on clay ... scarily so. I can see him winning several more!

Evert's record is safe for the women. Hard enough to compare eras without comparing the sexes. Both are legends :)

Sumarokov-Elston
Jun 13th, 2012, 09:39 AM
Mmmm, unlike Evert, Nadal did not skip the French Open at the height of his dominance (1976-78)!

While I think Nadal is a great player, and I do like him for his own individual style, I am not so sure that I consider him a great claycourt player per se. I think in terms of claycourt prowess, I would go for the likes of Bjorn Borg, Miloslav Mecir or perennial BFTP favourite :worship: Guillermo Coria. I think much of Nadal's greatness can be attributed to (1) modern rackets (2) modern strings (3) modern [let's just say "training techniques and medical advancement"]. The fact that he is great, of course, is shown by how well he moves from clay to the grass of Wimbledon and really plays well on that surface as well.

Moving to the women, I cannot believe that Shriekipops won the French Open. In fact, what I find worse than Nadal equalling Evert's record is the fact that if banana-loving Maria wins another French Open, she will have the same number of singles titles as Martina Navratilova! Of course, every time Martina played the French there was also another player in the draw called Chris Evert, not a whole load of flakey "screamerupovas"... But viewing the way the women carry on, the errorfests and the complete inability to finish off an opponent, I actually begin to seriously think: could Chris Evert or Martina Navratilova still win a grand slam today?!? :lol: I know one thing: seeing Chris in her colour-coordinated Ellesse outfits + headband or Martina in her dashing Teddy Tinling dresses would be a hell of a sight better than those horrible, sweaty, nylon-looking things the gals of today wear (why?? it may make them seem more masculine, if that is what they are after, but no one rocked the dikey look with such style and simultaneous femininity as Martina and Chris back in the mid-80s).

LightWarrior
Jun 14th, 2012, 07:51 PM
A few years ago, I think Chris fans breathed a collective sigh of relief when Rafa's winning streak on clay ended. I can't remember when or the match.

Now he has 7 Roland Garros titles! Unbelievable. It's very realistic that he will get one more.

I can't believe that a men's record for most slams at a Grand Slam will now be more than a women's record.

He is really a great on the surface and the only female players I think that are up there with him on clay are Evert (overall career) and Seles (at her peak before the stabbing).

What do you all think?

It's a men's record, so this discussion is womewhat irrelevant.
Honestly I breathed a real sigh of relief when Justin Henin retired. I really thought that after she won her 4th RG titles that she would be able equal or even beat Chris' record.

Rollo
Jun 14th, 2012, 08:17 PM
It's almost a certainty that Nadal will win more Frenchies-perhaps the next record in danger is Margaret Court's all-time record of 11 singles slams in one major.

While I think Nadal is a great player, and I do like him for his own individual style, I am not so sure that I consider him a great claycourt player per se. I think in terms of claycourt prowess, I would go for the likes of Bjorn Borg, Miloslav Mecir or perennial BFTP favourite :worship: Guillermo Coria. I think much of Nadal's greatness can be attributed to (1) modern rackets (2) modern strings (3) modern [let's just say "training techniques and medical advancement"]. The fact that he is great, of course, is shown by how well he moves from clay to the grass of Wimbledon and really plays well on that surface as well.


I had to chuckle at that Sumarokov-Elston:lol:

Every era is different of course. As Mcenroe said covering Nadal the day, Borg was just as much of a terror on clay in his day. I'll never forget Bjorn just crushing Vilas on clay at the 1978 French the year AFTER Vilas ran up a huge clay streak. Had Borg not burnt out or coked up I wonder how many Roland Garros titles he'd have.

I agree with you on #3 too I'm afraid. I love Nadal's personality, but would I be shocked if there was something in the cheerios Uncle Tony has told him to eat every day? No. Give the Spanaird his due though, he stays hungry and focused-I like Rafa.

Moving on to Chris, one modern record NOT in any danger is her 125 match win streak on clay.

Did anyone else notice the other commentators calling her "Chrissie" throughout the French? I wonder if she is goign by "Chrissie" rather than Chris now.

alfajeffster
Jun 14th, 2012, 11:50 PM
It's almost a certainty that Nadal will win more Frenchies-perhaps the next record in danger is Margaret Court's all-time record of 11 singles slams in one major...

And we know that most of Nadals titles have already come when nobody played, so he's got the right formula. :lol:

mistymore
Jun 17th, 2012, 09:17 PM
Nadal is greater on clay than any women. Evert dominated most on clay from 74-80 when there was literally no good clay players who werent already 32 or older other than Evonne to a minor extent. Graf and Seles were never nearly as dominant on clay as Nadal now.

Rollo
Jun 18th, 2012, 04:22 PM
Nadal is greater on clay than any women. Evert dominated most on clay from 74-80 when there was literally no good clay players who werent already 32 or older other than Evonne to a minor extent. Graf and Seles were never nearly as dominant on clay as Nadal now.


Well, based on his total amount of majors your argument is a good one IMO. 7 out of 8 French titles is hard to surpass in any era.

But as Sumarokov-Elston points out, there are some factors in his dominance. Just as Chris only had Evonne, who does Nadal have as a rival on clay? To me it's a sort of chicken vs egg argument. Does Rafa's (or Chris's) great record rest on their amazing abilities, or on circumstances favorable to them?

To me there are good arguments for both sides.

Frankly I don't see Nadal winning all those French titles vs Borg, for example. Bjorn would simply loop back enough balls (as would Rafa) until one or the other dropped dead. And unlike Chris, he has lost on clay outside the French where conditions vary and it's 2 out of 3 sets vs 3 of 5.

And lets be just as honest-Chris would be hard pressed to be unbeaten for 125 consecutive matches on clay vs the likes of Seles, Graf, or Henin under "modern" post-wood conditions.

Whatever one thinks I tip my hat to both for their amazing feats of clay!

lakan kildap
Jun 19th, 2012, 03:39 AM
records should always come with the narrative, so that young fans are not lost. Chris Evert skipped both the French Open (the major and surface where she was most dominant) and the Australian Open for three years, when she was untouchable on clay and the consensus No. 1 player in the world, at the height of her powers, so she could concentrate on Wimbledon and the US Open. Can any player today do that? Evert could easily have won 2 of those FO's, maybe all three, and at least one AO. Her GS total could have been 21 or 22 instead of 18.

Unfortunately, the record books don't provide space for asterisks and narratives. That's why Evert's fans need to keep reminding people what happened.

I think Evert's 125-match winning streak on clay is safe.

nat75
Jun 19th, 2012, 03:57 AM
Mmmm, unlike Evert, Nadal did not skip the French Open at the height of his dominance (1976-78)!

While I think Nadal is a great player, and I do like him for his own individual style, I am not so sure that I consider him a great claycourt player per se. I think in terms of claycourt prowess, I would go for the likes of Bjorn Borg, Miloslav Mecir or perennial BFTP favourite :worship: Guillermo Coria. I think much of Nadal's greatness can be attributed to (1) modern rackets (2) modern strings (3) modern [let's just say "training techniques and medical advancement"]. The fact that he is great, of course, is shown by how well he moves from clay to the grass of Wimbledon and really plays well on that surface as well.

Moving to the women, I cannot believe that Shriekipops won the French Open. In fact, what I find worse than Nadal equalling Evert's record is the fact that if banana-loving Maria wins another French Open, she will have the same number of singles titles as Martina Navratilova! Of course, every time Martina played the French there was also another player in the draw called Chris Evert, not a whole load of flakey "screamerupovas"... But viewing the way the women carry on, the errorfests and the complete inability to finish off an opponent, I actually begin to seriously think: could Chris Evert or Martina Navratilova still win a grand slam today?!? :lol: I know one thing: seeing Chris in her colour-coordinated Ellesse outfits + headband or Martina in her dashing Teddy Tinling dresses would be a hell of a sight better than those horrible, sweaty, nylon-looking things the gals of today wear (why?? it may make them seem more masculine, if that is what they are after, but no one rocked the dikey look with such style and simultaneous femininity as Martina and Chris back in the mid-80s).

This.

mistymore
Jun 19th, 2012, 06:07 PM
Well, based on his total amount of majors your argument is a good one IMO. 7 out of 8 French titles is hard to surpass in any era.

But as Sumarokov-Elston points out, there are some factors in his dominance. Just as Chris only had Evonne, who does Nadal have as a rival on clay? To me it's a sort of chicken vs egg argument.

Nadal has had Federer and Djokovic for years as rivals on clay. Federer most regard a top 10 clay courter all time, some would say top 6. Djokovic will likely become a top 10 or better clay courter all time by careers end, and he has been an excellent clay courter since 2008 atleast now, continously held back by Nadal mostly (Federer to some degree). That is head and shoulders above anything Chris had until 1982 atleast. Even after that you had solid performers like Coria (until 2006), Ferrero, Davydenko, Nalbandian. Who was Chris's biggest rival on clay in the mid to late 70s after Goolagong. Virginia Ruzica? 35 year old semi retired Nancy Richey. No offense but what a joke.

Does Rafa's (or Chris's) great record rest on their amazing abilities, or on circumstances favorable to them?

Both would be great clay courters in any era. However Rafa did have tough competition on clay always. Chris had no competition on clay from 1974 to 1981.

Frankly I don't see Nadal winning all those French titles vs Borg, for example. Bjorn would simply loop back enough balls (as would Rafa) until one or the other dropped dead. And unlike Chris, he has lost on clay outside the French where conditions vary and it's 2 out of 3 sets vs 3 of 5.

Borg and Nadal are the two best clay courters ever so they would have to be insanely unlucky to have ever been born in close to the same year. Nadal's clay competition is fine, it is as tough as most people had, and tougher than what Borg had. The 1974-1979 clay court field for women (possibly for men too come to think of it) is bar none the worst in tennis history, including even the post Henin years on clay year. Just look at the French Open winners from 1976-1978, and I dont care if a few people didnt play.

And lets be just as honest-Chris would be hard pressed to be unbeaten for 125 consecutive matches on clay vs the likes of Seles, Graf, or Henin under "modern" post-wood conditions.

Without a doubt. Meanwhile Nadal would have duplicated most of his current stats in any era. Only if you put him in the era of peak Borg or peak Rosewall might he have suffered even a bit from his current record, but they would likely have suffered even more, since he is even better than they are. Chris meanwhile would have not even approached her current stats on clay peaking in the era with Court, Richey, Jones, all as clay competition, or with prime Navratilova and even prime Mandlikova and young Austin as competition on clay, basically any era except 1974-1979, that is probably the only time in history she could manage something like 6 years unbeaten on clay, even as great as she was on the surface. Certainly least of all in the era of Graf, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Sabatini, and others which was the deepest and strongest clay court field ever, and why I think you could even make an argument Graf is the greatest women clay courter despite winning only 6 French Opens and the Seles stabbing, or perhaps Seles herself, but that is another topic. Either way Nadal >>>>> any man or women in history on clay.

mistymore
Jun 19th, 2012, 06:18 PM
Mmmm, unlike Evert, Nadal did not skip the French Open at the height of his dominance (1976-78)!

While I think Nadal is a great player, and I do like him for his own individual style, I am not so sure that I consider him a great claycourt player per se. I think in terms of claycourt prowess, I would go for the likes of Bjorn Borg, Miloslav Mecir or perennial BFTP favourite :worship: Guillermo Coria.

Yes Mecir who only got destroyed badly in 2 slam finals in his career is a great clay courter, and the all time winningest clay courter is not. Coria who at his peak was getting outplayed by 18 year old Nadal on clay is also the great clay courter that Nadal is not. Arent you the same one who said Henin wasnt a top 20 clay courter all time, haha. What planet are you from my friend.

Rollo
Jun 19th, 2012, 07:17 PM
Federer most regard a top 10 clay courter all time, some would say top 6.

Then MOST need a good lesson in tennis history.

Top 6 of all time? With 1-as in uno French Opens? And that one without beating Rafa? I think not. By that standard Martina, with 2 French Opens, beating Evert, should be top 3! And Serana, with 2, should also be top 6...e

Are you prepared to argue that? Or assume that Martina would have won all those French titles if only Chris had not been in the way? I'd wager Roger would have won more French Opens wihout Nadal around, but we'll never know and there's no way of knowing for sure.

The argument is purely speculative, just like any argument a Seles fan throws up saying Seles would have continued to beat Steffi like bongo drums in slams outside of Wimbledon after 1993 is purely speculative.

Roger got schooled by Kuerten in straights in 2004-the same year he won the other 3 majors.

So before we go any further are you still convinced Federer was or is some top 6 (or even top 10) player of all-time on clay?

matthirst2000
Jun 19th, 2012, 08:08 PM
[QUOTE=lakan kildap;21667306]records should always come with the narrative, so that young fans are not lost. Chris Evert skipped both the French Open (the major and surface where she was most dominant) and the Australian Open for three years, when she was untouchable on clay and the consensus No. 1 player in the world, at the height of her powers, so she could concentrate on Wimbledon and the US Open. Can any player today do that? Evert could easily have won 2 of those FO's, maybe all three, and at least one AO. Her GS total could have been 21 or 22 instead of 18.

A very interesting and valid point.Yes I think Evert would have won Roland Garros 1976-1978.A superb champion on clay.To balance it though remember she was a little lucky in the US Open switching to clay(albeit green clay) 1975-1977 in an era when there were no other other real clay court experts.Had that tournament stayed on grass at Forest Hills she would not have been a guaranteed winner for all 3 titles.One sort of compensatesthe other.(For good measure she did win the USO in 1978 on hardcourt!)

daze11
Jun 19th, 2012, 08:15 PM
Did anyone else notice the other commentators calling her "Chrissie" throughout the French? I wonder if she is going by "Chrissie" rather than Chris now.ever since i've known her, she's been called chrissie - I rarely hear anyone call her chris... That said, she did call her book from 1981 'chrissie'...

Rollo
Jun 19th, 2012, 09:51 PM
ever since i've known her, she's been called chrissie - I rarely hear anyone call her chris... That said, she did call her book from 1981 'chrissie'...

Thanks Daze!

that shows it's not been a suden change of anything like that. Because she was mostly listed as "Chris" after her early days as "Chrissie" I assumed she normally went by Chris.

How is New Mexico BTW?

P.S. I'm hoping to order some matches soon-maybe I'll even break down and get an Evert bagel special like Amelia Island or the 1982 Austin sluagheter-LOL:lol:

Rollo
Jun 19th, 2012, 09:53 PM
A very interesting and valid point.Yes I think Evert would have won Roland Garros 1976-1978.A superb champion on clay.To balance it though remember she was a little lucky in the US Open switching to clay(albeit green clay) 1975-1977 in an era when there were no other other real clay court experts.Had that tournament stayed on grass at Forest Hills she would not have been a guaranteed winner for all 3 titles.One sort of compensatesthe other.(For good measure she did win the USO in 1978 on hardcourt!)

Nice post Matt-thirst. I'd never looked at it like that. And youre right of course-In so many ways the tennis gods given and taketh away in ways that even out.

78 was important for Chris in showing she could win it on a faster court. I believe she also set a record for consecutive match wins at the US Open by winning at Flushing -this could be a record she still holds.

The Evert-Shriver final (sadly Pammy's only GS final) is highly entertaining.

TigerTim
Jun 19th, 2012, 10:59 PM
don't forget Borg.....

mick1303
Jun 23rd, 2012, 01:33 PM
I'm very frustrated with discussions where men's and women's records are lumped together and discussed as whole. WTA tennis has something in common with junior tennis and wheelchair tennis, which ATP tennis does not. It is a limited entry to the competition. If you are physically disabled, or did not reach certain age or you are of the certain gender - you can entry these competitions.

Please, stop comparing WTA records with ATP.

hingis-seles
Jun 23rd, 2012, 04:20 PM
Certainly least of all in the era of Graf, Seles, Sanchez Vicario, Sabatini, and others which was the deepest and strongest clay court field ever, and why I think you could even make an argument Graf is the greatest women clay courter despite winning only 6 French Opens and the Seles stabbing, or perhaps Seles herself, but that is another topic. Either way Nadal >>>>> any man or women in history on clay.

:tape::help::lol:

(Because GM-level statements deserve GM-level responses. Otherwise, I agree that men's and women's records cannot be compared)

daze11
Jun 25th, 2012, 06:49 PM
Thanks Daze!

that shows it's not been a suden change of anything like that. Because she was mostly listed as "Chris" after her early days as "Chrissie" I assumed she normally went by Chris.

How is New Mexico BTW?

P.S. I'm hoping to order some matches soon-maybe I'll even break down and get an Evert bagel special like Amelia Island or the 1982 Austin sluagheter-LOL:lol:lol - match page is down for the summer at LEAST... maybe running again in sept. :) but no need to wait for me! ;)

new mexico is magical, truly.... i never thought i'd get over ny but nm is a pretty good antidote pill... and every time you talk to people, someone in the conversation ends up being a new yorker, so its no fluke.

I think 'chrissie' is a very conscious choice for her post-career, to de-associate the heaviness of 'chris evert, legend' into a more personable, relatable, less threatening person... for her own sake. :)

daze11
Jun 25th, 2012, 06:55 PM
Nice post Matt-thirst. I'd never looked at it like that. And youre right of course-In so many ways the tennis gods given and taketh away in ways that even out.

78 was important for Chris in showing she could win it on a faster court. I believe she also set a record for consecutive match wins at the US Open by winning at Flushing -this could be a record she still holds.

The Evert-Shriver final (sadly Pammy's only GS final) is highly entertaining.

This actually is really interesting.... because Chris was 5-5 against Martina on grass, outside of Wimbledon, and it was always my conviction that Martina was the greatest Wimbledon player ever ... but not SO necessarily the grass even if it favored her playing style, since it was still wood racket tennis. Evert is just highly under-rated as a grass player, making more wimbledon finals than anyone but Martina & great results at eastbourne, sydney & the australian... and her main competition during 75-77 would have been King & Goolagong... and Chris was a VERY fierce US Open player, specifically. I think she might have had some stellar results even on grass, pushed by the 'home turf' of the US crowds.

The '75 USO matchup (on grass) against King would be particularly enthralling, because she she was up 3-0 in the 3rd at Wimbledon before Connors walked in with a lady on his arm, participating in the 6-game slide out. She would have been very psyched up to avenge that match.

Chrissie-fan
Jun 27th, 2012, 12:20 AM
Well, based on his total amount of majors your argument is a good one IMO. 7 out of 8 French titles is hard to surpass in any era.

But as Sumarokov-Elston points out, there are some factors in his dominance. Just as Chris only had Evonne, who does Nadal have as a rival on clay? To me it's a sort of chicken vs egg argument. Does Rafa's (or Chris's) great record rest on their amazing abilities, or on circumstances favorable to them?

To me there are good arguments for both sides.

Frankly I don't see Nadal winning all those French titles vs Borg, for example. Bjorn would simply loop back enough balls (as would Rafa) until one or the other dropped dead. And unlike Chris, he has lost on clay outside the French where conditions vary and it's 2 out of 3 sets vs 3 of 5.

And lets be just as honest-Chris would be hard pressed to be unbeaten for 125 consecutive matches on clay vs the likes of Seles, Graf, or Henin under "modern" post-wood conditions.

Whatever one thinks I tip my hat to both for their amazing feats of clay!
Yes. Some things are just too close to call, and people should accept that. What could either Chrissie or Nadal have done more to prove that they are "the greatest" claycourt players? Not much I think. Maybe, say, Lenglen or Borg were as good or impressive in their eras, but in that case they should be considered as "arguably as great", but definitely not as greatER.

alfajeffster
Jun 27th, 2012, 06:41 AM
I miss Guga (Gustavo Kuerten). He was the Evonne of men's tennis, which is not to say he was effeminate, he was just a free spirit out there enjoying the joy of life on a tennis court. They (he and Evonne) radiated terrific, positive energy that was truly infectious. You look at Nadal, and he's got this expression on his face like he's constipated. I'm glad I got to see Guga at the French Open before he retired.

alfajeffster
Jun 29th, 2012, 02:51 AM
Aw, poor baby Nadal. He's still shy of Chris' 3 titles there, and at this stage, unlike Roger, I doubt he has another title in him. Steffi Graf had it right- Rosol served and hit him off the court. There are a number of players that can do this on grass to Nadal. Boo Hoo (I always chuckled when Pam described the Maleevas as "the sisters boo-hoo).