TennisForum.com - View Single Post - 1979 to 1981: Tracy Austin was the best.

View Single Post

Old May 26th, 2004, 09:41 PM   #11
country flag Robert1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: England
Posts: 1,667
Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light Robert1 is a glorious beacon of light
Thanks for joining in guys.

First of all, why 1979 to 1981? Because those were the years when that competition was so close, it wasn't close in 1978 nor in 1982, as you said Andy, Austin wasn't good enough in those years - so why take them? This is a thread about 79 to 81 because it were interesting, competitive years and my intention is to show that Austin is underrated and the ranking system maybe wasn't very fair. The situation with Seles is different, because as dominant as Seles was, how can you argue her number 1 spot before the stabbing? A discussion wouldn't make much sense.

The "real" rankings, well, you could consider them, Declan, I didn't consider the rankings because HERE I am doing the rankings, it's like Andy doing his own (interesting) rankings the other day, I don't think the "real" ranking was considered there. So proving that the "real" rankings were a bit dodgy means I cannot use them to produce a more objective ranking, see?

Sponsors championships were the most important events after Wimbledon and US Open in 79,80 and about as important as FO and AO in 81, preacherman. So if Navratilova, Evert, Austin won 2 GSs each, the winner of those championships should decide it I think, and Austin was clearly the best of those. That they played out 2 a year is no argument as they had a great field anytime, having the best players, except for New York 1981 (when Navratilova won).

I see your point, Evert got to many more finals (that she lost) than Austin. So the question is: are 2 Grand Slam wins plus 4 lost finals (Evert) better than 2 Grand Slam wins plus zero lost finals plus 3 WTA championship wins (Austin)? I would take the latter results, because I want to find the best player, and the best player must win - not gain the most lost finals. But that's my opinion. If you emphasis pure consistency, Evert's ahead in the category.
Robert1 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote