It's based on Wikipedia.

 

Thanks Wiggly! LOVE that name! So apropos! Any idea about 1965?

 

Thanks Wiggly! LOVE that name! So apropos! Any idea about 1965?

The reason was the Federation Cup. In 1965 it was held in Melbourne before the Aussie. Even though the draw was only 11 teams it brought a ton of non-Aussie to Oz. Notice the # for 1965-22 foreigners. 2 each for 11 teams of two!

To me this shows the importance of Margaret Court in tennis history. It was really because of Margaret that the Fed Cup was even created. Why? Because finally someone besides the US or Great Britain could win a women's team competition.

With Fed Cup came money from Federations to send women abroad. Thus when Fed Cup was held in Australia, the US, or France in the 1960s it resulted in tougher women's fields.

 

Originally Posted by Wiggly
"Depleted fields" is an understatement.

1960 : 32 players draw - five matches to win (two foreign players)
1961 : 44 players draw - five matches to win (one foreign player)
1962 : 48 players draw - five matches to win (three foreign players)
1963 : 39 players draw - five matches to win (three foreign players)
1964 : 43 players draw - five matches to win (two foreign players)
1965 : 52 players draw - five matches to win (twenty-two foreign players)
1966 : 48 players draw - five matches to win (six foreign players)
1969 : 32 players draw - five matches to win (seven foreign players)
1970 : 43 players draw - five matches to win (four foreign players)
1971 : 30 players draw - four matches to win (four foreign players)
1973 : 48 players draw - five matches to win (sixteen foreign players)

You can't compare that to Serena's competition.

Not so sure about that.

I always laugh when people knock Court for her Aussie record. Yes, the fields in some years were "depleted", and never equal to the other 3 slams, but Court beat every damn top player for years on end. It wasn't until 1968 that she lost in the final to Billie Jean King. King was #1 at the time and Court was rusty-coming back after her first retirement.

Court's next loss at the Aussie was in 1975 to Martina Navratilova. Not a bad defeat in retrospect.

It should also be remembered that Aussie dominated the tour in the 1960s and early 70s. Thus even in a "depleted" field Court usually had to beat 2 to 3 world top tenners. Had Serena won the 2015 US Open she would have NEVER faced a top ten player. But of course Serena choked vs Vinci, an 11 to 20 player at best. This denied her the GRAND SLAM Court earned in 1970.

Court was also prone to choking of course. Her biggest chokes came at Wimbledon, where she won only 3 titles. It was this (and not her Aussie titles) that dinged her most in her era. Wimbledon was clearly the biggest slam in the 1960s, and Court had only 3 compared to Billie Jean's 6.

Both ladies are GOAT worthy IMO. Any margin between them and Graf, Navratilova, Evert, Wills, and Lenglen is slim at best. No one woman has done it all. Thank god for that!

 

Thanks Rollo!

 

I'm not sure if there were only two foreign players in the field in 1960, but if there were ONLY two, they were literally the best two to have as both Maria Bueno and Christine Truman, who were #1 and #2 in the world were there. As such, even if they were the ONLY two foreign players, I would hardly consider that a depleted field, and Court STILL won. As you can imagine, I don't buy into the attempts to discredit Court's Australian triumphs...and really there is an argument that can be used to discredit all the players in the GOAT conversation (Court, S. Williams, Graf, Navratilova, Evert), GS victories, which is why I don't buy into the whole notion of GOAT to begin with.

 

I actually do buy into it somewhat. There are so many what ifs/couldda/shouldda beens (Seles, Austin, Borg, Connelly etc etc), but winning a slam that most of the top players didn’t participate and having to usually only win 5 rounds resonates with me. I don’t totally dismiss them, but it’s something to consider. And, yeah, this affects Goolagong, Evert, anyone who won the French during WTT etc. I just think it needs to be part of the conversation, not wholly dismissed. They’re still great achievements but historical perspective has to come into consideration. Even old brace faces arguments about the Slims/Avon/Colgate should be considered. They were really huge back in le day. Evonne made the cover of Sports Illustrated by winning the Slims championship!!! Could that ever happen again? Ever? It’s crazy to think.

 

Posted by Pam Shriver I'm not sure if there were only two foreign players in the field in 1960, but if there were ONLY two, they were literally the best two to have as both Maria Bueno and Christine Truman, who were #1 and #2 in the world were there. As such, even if they were the ONLY two foreign players, I would hardly consider that a depleted field, and Court STILL won. As you can imagine, I don't buy into the attempts to discredit Court's Australian triumphs...and really there is an argument that can be used to discredit all the players in the GOAT conversation (Court, S. Williams, Graf, Navratilova, Evert), GS victories, which is why I don't buy into the whole notion of GOAT to begin with.

What's with the straight hair and the shoe buying binge Pam?

Jokes aside, I clearly agree with you on this. What I find incredible is that the Aussie federation refused to send Margaret abroad in 1960 after she won the Ausie and upset world #1 Maria Bueno. Mags wasn't able to tour overseas until 1961.

 

Posted by Mark I actually do buy into it somewhat. There are so many what ifs/couldda/shouldda beens (Seles, Austin, Borg, Connelly etc etc), but winning a slam that most of the top players didn’t participate and having to usually only win 5 rounds resonates with me. I don’t totally dismiss them, but it’s something to consider. And, yeah, this affects Goolagong, Evert, anyone who won the French during WTT etc. I just think it needs to be part of the conversation, not wholly dismissed. They’re still great achievements but historical perspective has to come into consideration. Even old brace faces arguments about the Slims/Avon/Colgate should be considered. They were really huge back in le day. Evonne made the cover of Sports Illustrated by winning the Slims championship!!! Could that ever happen again? Ever? It’s crazy to think.

In total agreement here Mark. Everything should be open to discussion.

No doubt the Aussie was weaker in the 1960s and 1970s than today. Geography was a huge factor. Even today the flight from the US is about 14 hours. Think about it in reverse though. Margaret Court and Evonne Goolagong spent most of the year away from Australia for months at a time. That's something a Chris Evert or Serena Williams never had to endure.

 

Yeah, can you even imagine. Aussies are such troupers. No modern top tier player would ever spend that much time away from home today. Even during my post college trip to Europe (eons ago) I was amazed when all the back packing Aussies I would meet at the youth hostel said their average trip was 6 months. I thought my two months was an eternity.

 

I mean I guess you can have the GOAT conversation, but ultimately isn't it meaningless to have if everyone has legitimate arguments against everyone in the conversation? In the end, you can select which arguments you choose to invest in, but doesn't the term 'Greatest' presume a unanimity which I don't think the conversation allows for. So, sure you can say that Margaret won Aussies in depleted fields, Steffi won half of her Slams after Seles stabbing, Williams won a ton of her Slams in a weak era (and also took significantly longer than Graf/Court), Evert won her RG in weakend fields, Navratilova won many of her Slams in a weak era, with no quality serve and volleyers to test her on grass (the surface she won 2/3 of her Slams on)...and on and on...I guess if you're into endless debates with no end, than there's something in it. I'd just rather say that there are about 8 women (I include Lenglen, Wills and Connolly in the list) who were the Greats of the game and leave it at that...

 

Word, Pammy! And we gotta include you in the doubles list even tho that naturally curly fright wig scared us all the beejeezus!

 

I am with PamShriver. Once upon a time, I read through media guides and various sources to learn as many statistics as possible, and in my head I started to see how I ranked players based on their careers, but I've mostly since felt that there's no joy in having a debate about who is the greatest of anything in any discipline. The discussion is rarely positive, many people throw logic out the window, and there's no true answer anyway.

To cite one measly source, Jon Wertheim's CNN/SI tennis mailbag used to touch on "the GOAT"- male or female- maybe once or twice a year. Now, it seems like he mentions it each week. Newspapers and television stations harp on "the GOAT" endlessly. It turns me off. I'm not going to agree with many people's arguments and I'm not interested in arguments anyway; I'd rather have coverage of topics like what is deficient in a certain stroke, why a player is having a better or worse season than the one before, a tribute to a deceased champion, etc.

For me, really, it's the same as ESPN's approach to player encounters. They interview players right before they take the court, try to get them after the match, and try to get the winner to their set not long after that. All the while, they basically ask the same questions over and over and push the network's talking points that aren't very creative. In one word: overkill. Wertheim addressed the subject in a mailbag last week, so at least one journalist had the guts to deal with the topic, but I think those kinds of demands from the players are unfair, and they lead to interviews being more frequent but lacking in quality compared to decades ago.

To return to Margaret Court and her wins: she was incredible, and no words she's spoken- good or bad- deny her tennis pedigree. While I've read that records for pre-Open players are considered incomplete/disputed (and even modern records are sometimes incorrect), think about another record that Court holds: highest career winning percentage for singles matches played. Cast aside critiques about ducking competition, playing a limited schedule, pulling the plug on a career prematurely, playing on just to chase specific records, etc. If you won a higher percentage of matches played than anyone else in modern times (not sure how complete historians can consider the records of Lenglen, Wills et al), you're phenomenal.

Again: color me uninterested in "the GOAT debate!!!!!!!!" I wish such focus would stop.

 

It doesn't matter how packed the field is.
If today you are unseeded and have to face only other unseeded players enroute to a Grand Slam title, it cannot count as a half Grand Slam title.
Will anyone halve your winner's cheque? Or will there be an annotation at the Roll of Honor "didn't face any good player"? No.
For Margaret Court every Grand Slam counts full.