Originally Posted by jamesuk
Well Steffi may have had severe back problems but with the way mary played (and had been playing through the whole tournament) it was a blitzing, and would have been if Steffi had been fit!! The way mary was being talked up all that tournament, it just seemed like destiny.
If the back was severe why did she risk playing?
Oh and i also remember the following Graf match v McNeil at Wimbledon, watched that one live, edge of seat stuff! Damp court, against a grass court player who came up with too many well crafted points, voleys etc.....what was the reason/excuse that time?!
As for the Davenport match, that has to be a true example of being beaten fair and square. Graf played really well, Davenport a tiny bit better. HAd Davenport made a few more of her customary errors, just a few more, Graf would have won.
Pierce: Admittedly Pierce played the match of her live, Steffi would have difficulties even in top form ...
Had Steffi not played every time when she was injured she would have played only 700 and not more than 1000 matches during her career. She was some slams with injuries no Williams sister would have even played with.
McNeil: Perhaps Steffi had to fill out her tax declaration the day before (sensing trouble already)?
Davenport: It was a tight match, Lindsay made just 4 points more (68-64). But hey, Graf of 98/99 was a shadow of her former self. She had some great days still (comparably to Evert in 88/89) but was over the hill after her reconstructive knee surgery in 97.
Don't forget that almost all doctors said in 97 that Steffi was done & that she had to stop her farewell tour in spring 2000 because of that injury. Steffi had many, many injuries. Without them she would have had about 28, 30 slams. 97 was the end of the road for her. 99 was only an afterglow .....