Tennis Forum banner

61 - 80 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,918 Posts
Thanks very much, Robert - very interesting indeed.

I'd like to know what EGC's ranking was in March 83 at the moment the entry was fixed. She was unseeded at the FC Cup (4 April '83) and #13 at Amelia Island (April 11 '83) acc to the ITF database and tennis corner, so was not far off the top 16.

At Boston, in the week before the championships, the seedings were:
1: ? 2: Austin 3: Turnbull 4: Hanika 5: King 6: Potter 7:? 8: Fairbank

At the FC Cup:

1: Navratilova 2: Jaeger 3: Austin 4: Bunge 5: Mandlikova 6: Hanika
7: Potter 8: Ruzici 9: Garrison 10:? 11: ? 12: Temesvari 13: Fairbank
14: Kohde-Kilsch. Gadusek played but is not given is seed - 10 or 11?.

and at Amelia Island
1: Evert 2: ? 3: Bunge 4: Mandlikova 5: Hanika 6: Ruzici 7: Garrison 8: ? 9: ? 10: ? 11: Fairbank 12: Kohde-Kilsch 13: Goolagong 14: ?
?2 Rinaldi

Given Robert's information that the other players at the Slims: (Evert, Navratilova, Jaeger, Austin, Shriver, Bunge, Mandlikova, Turnbull, Hanika, King, Potter, Ruzici, Garrison, Gadusek and Rinaldi) were the top 15, then Goolagong must have been in the group just behind with Temesvari, Fairbank, and Kohde-Kilsch.

What a great line-up of personalities and styles for a championships!

While on the subject of out-of-the-ordinary championships, what's the deal with Houston 1971? Some publications list it as the first tour champs, some don't. I know it happened before the end of the series so maybe it was just a title for a regular event and entry was not based on points/performance. Can anyone shed any light?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
That has always confused me as well (that some list it, some don't). Just a guess: They didn't have a ranking system that year so it was more or less a normal tournament ?
In all statistics I found most of the times Houston 71 is not listed, but Rollo listed it, so I guess it is part of the Championships history.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,244 Posts
Discussion Starter #63
There were certainly no points involved in Houston-but the same thing could be said about 1972 and 1973. When Chris Evert won in 1973 she had spent most of the year playing on the opposing USTA tour.

Points would have been pointless (ha ha:) anyway since the fields were so big. Why it was considered the tour championships I'm not sure of. Perhaps it was symbolic, as the first Slims event ever was in 1970 at Houston.

Another event that could be listed was in 1976 Colgate Inaugeral. It kicked off Colgate's sponsorship of the first world womens tour, badly needed after the Slims tour cut back its events in 1975.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,918 Posts
I tend to accept the "official" version that the 72 and 73 slims champs were season-ending, but the 71 Slims and 76 Colgate Inaugural Champs were just regular tournaments.

However, it does make better sense to say all 4 were regular tournaments and the first series-ending (as opposed to season-ending) championships was in fact the LA one of 74. In that case, the 83 one would be excluded, too. What a mess!

The other thing that has always irritated me is the two Aussie Opens in 77 thing. I wish (though know this would never happen) they'd "revise" it and make the 77 dec champs 78, and so on through to 85 becoming 86. This would, of course, make Navratilova a regular Grand Slam winner because her Aussie win in december 83 (29/11-12/9) would be counted as the Aussie Open for 1984. She won all 4 in the SAME ORDER as Connolly, Court and Graf, Budge and Laver and it just seems so silly that her achievement is not considered/counted as equal because the first tournament took place a couple of weeks early. The 02-03 "Serena Slam" and Steffi's 93-94 four-in-a-row, would not be affected by this change.

I know I could be accused of plugging Nav 'cos she's my favourite, but even at the time, I never considered that Martina's four-in-a-row Wimbledon 83-RG '84 should have been trumpeted as a Grand Slam.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
"Grand Slam" is just a word IMO, Andy. For years there has been a better entry list at the Championships than at the AO or FO, and it definetely was a greater achievement to win 3 GSs plus the Championships than the 4 GSs in one year.

Anyway, I once read a statistic which even excluded the 1983 Championships, but that's going a bit far. After all it was called Championships back then and everybody was aware that this was not just an exhibition in Madison Square Garden.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
Another good point Andy T. I like the way you think. Why should a paltry 3 weeks decide the difference between a grand slam? Martina won those titles in the same order as all the other so-called Grand Slam champs. We need to include her name in that list as well.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
25,244 Posts
Discussion Starter #67
Andy-I didn't realize until you pointed it out that the 1971 is excluded from most lists-It was included in Tingay's Guiness book in 1982. I'll add in the note that it's not counted in many(or even most) quarters.

I can't agree with you about Martina in 83/84 though. Why? Because had Martina's 83 win "counted" then she would be playing for THE Grand Slam at the 84 US Open-the same 84 US Open I might add where Chris stretched her big time to 3 sets. The mental change in Martina, Chris, and the crowd COULD have produced a different result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,435 Posts
Good point, Rollo. I wasn't even thinking about the pressure factor. Nobody was talking about a Grand Slam for Martina at the 84 US Open. That certainly has to be considered. Hmmm. I wonder if Chrissie would have pulled that match out if all the GS talk/pressure was on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,918 Posts
It looks like my post got lost so here's another try.

Completely agree with you Rollo, that even if the same feat was achieved in terms of winning tennis matches in a given sequence, the psychological conditions were not the same and had they been, who knows what have happened. We'll never know and we have two conflicting indications:

At that time, all the talk was of a modern grand slam, as many were saying it was impossible for the traditional Grand Slam to be achieved by modern players. There was the ITF (i.e. the sport's official governing body) bonus of $1m out for any player who could win a "grand slam" of four in a row, giving legitimacy to the whole thing. Navratilova duly completed the feat, in what was for me the greatest title winning performance of her career, on her least favourite surface against her main contemporary adversary, herself one of the all-time top ten.

As I said, I was one of those who felt the slam should be in one season, as it had always been but the reality was that in June 1984, the tennis establishment was saying otherwise.

As the debate raged on and the traditional idea of a grand slam was defended, Navratilova, having thought she had achieved it, was told she hadn't. In Australia that year, after an entire season (traditional slams can be achieved in 9 months), having played 79 matches and won 78 and on a 74-match win-streak, she lost in the sf to Sukova (from 61 36 54, and saving 5 mps). With the psychological let-down of RG 84, and the added physical and mental tiredness of three extra months of tennis, I think it is fair to say that the psychological and physical conditions Martina was playing under in December 1984 were tougher than those faced by the other slam winners in September 38,53 62,69,70 and 88. What that means is that her achievement would have been greater had she pulled it off, IMO, but it also means that the Australian Open of 1984 is not necessarily an indictator of what would have happened at Flushing Meadows.

Anyway, the RG result suggests she could have done it in New York (also, she did win there after all, and against the same adversary as in Paris), and the Kooyong defeat suggests she may not have, though there are reasons against reading that as an identical situation to the one she would have been facing if that match against Chrissie at Flushing Meadow had been recognised as the last hurdle to the Grand Slam. I just feel sorry, I guess, that her achievement is "overlooked" (don't forget that she also held all 4 women's doubles titles too).
Grr, whinge, grrr, whine, grrr ;-)

ps: sorry - I realise this discussion is off-point in this thread
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
Andy T said:
Great Project Guys!
Don't know if any of this info is interesting or not:

1974 Slims: RICHEY and MELVILLE withdrew ill, MOROZOVA injured and back in Russia
1975 Slims COURT & HUNT qualified but did not play.
1978 Colgate GOOLAGONG-CAWLEY qualified but did not play (injured)
1980 Avon FROMHOLTZ qualified but did not play
1982 Avon JAEGER qualified but didn't play
1986 November Slims EVERT qualified but didn't play
1988 November Slims REHE qualified but DNP
1989 November Slims EVERT qualified but DNP
1990 November Slims NAVRATILOVA qualified but DNP
In 1982 Austin qualified and DNP. A waitress pour hot water over Austin's arm just the week prior to the Championships.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,965 Posts
Rollo said:
1996


Doubles


1st Round
Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario(1) d. Hingis/Sukova 6-4 3-6 7-5
McGrath/Neiland(4) d. Basuki/Vis 6-4 6-7(4) 6-4
Davenport/MJ.Fernandez(3) d. Raymond/Stubbs 6-2 6-2
G.Fernandez/Zvereva(2) d. Smylie/Wild 6-1 6-2

Semis
Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario(1) d. McGrath/Neiland(4) 6-2 6-2
Davenport/MJ.Fernandez(3) d. G.Fernandez/Zvereva(2) 7-6(3) 6-3

Final
Davenport/MJ.Fernandez(3) d. Novotna/Sanchez-Vicario(1) 6-3 6-2
---------------------------------
Attendance was 80,171. 15,296 saw the final.

SINGLES

Round 1
S. Graf (1) d. K. Habsudova 6-1, 6-4
L. Davenport (8) d. B. Paulus 6-3, 6-2

A. Sanchez-Vicario (3) d. B. Schultz-McCarthy 6-4, 7-6
J. Novotna (5) d. A. Coetzer 6-4, 6-1

I. Majoli d. A. Huber (6) 7-5, 6-2
C. Martinez (4) d. J. Wiesner 6-1, 3-6, 6-4

M. Hingis (7) d. I. Spirlea 6-2, 6-1
K. Date d. M. Seles (2) 5-4 retired

Quarterfinal
Graf (1) d. Davenport (8) 6-4, 7-6
Novotna (5) d. Sanchez-Vicario (3) 6-0, 6-3

Majoli d. Martinez (4) 7-6, 7-6
Hingis (7) d. Date 6-1, 6-2

Semifinal
Graf (1) d. Novotna (5) 4-6, 6-4, 6-3
Hingis (7) d. Majoli 6-2, 4-6, 6-1

Final
Graf (1) d. Hingis (7) 6-3, 4-6, 6-0, 4-6, 6-0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,845 Posts
I have really enjoyed reading / looking at all these results for the year end championships. Way to go Rollo :wavey:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,667 Posts
Rollo, some stats of the Avon Championships in March 1981 (New York):

Bunge and Hanika played a match for the third place. Bunge won 5:7,6:4,3:2ret.

Hanika maintained having had stomach pains, but at that point of the match the withdrawel came very surpringly to anyone (including Bunge).

Also, there was a Jaeger/Hanika dispute. Some of their comments:
Hanika: "Andrea plays unbelievably boring and is also not very nice". Jaeger: "She once hit a smash in my direction on purpose and several times she insulted me with German invectives that I understand but don't won't to repeat." Hanika: "I apologised for that smash. Andrea is not very nice on the court, she behaves like a super-star and tries to manipulate the linesmen."

King about Bunge "She is the most talented of all the upcoming players, she'll bring it far".

Navratilova was the oldest player of the tournament at age 24, Jaeger was the youngest (15). She still has the record of the youngest finalist at the championships ever.
 

·
Dubai Love
Joined
·
52,394 Posts
2003 WTA Tour Championships

Played at the Staples Center, Los Angeles. November 5-10

Format: Round Robin

Red Group
Kim Clijsters[1] d. Amelie Mauresmo[6] 3-6 6-4 6-4
Clijsters[1] d. Elena Dementieva[9] 6-2 6-2
Clijsters[1] d. Chanda Rubin[10] 6-4 6-4
Mauresmo[6] d. Dementieva[9] 6-3 6-2
Rubin[10] d. Mauresmo[6] 4-6 6-4 6-2
Dementieva[9] d. Rubin[10] 4-6 7-5 6-1

Black Group
Justine Henin-Hardenne[2] d. Jennifer Capriati[5] 6-2 6-1
Henin-Hardenne[2] d. Anastasia Myskina[9] 7-5 5-7 7-5
Ai Sugiyama[11] d. Henin-Hardenne[2] 6-2 6-4
Capriati[5] d. Myskina[9] 7-5 5-7 6-4
Capriati[5] d. Sugiyama[11] 7-5 7-6(3)
Myskina[8] d. Sugiyama[11] 6-4 6-3

Semis
Clijsters[1] d. Capriati[5] 4-6 6-3 6-0
Mauresmo[6] d. Henin-Hardenne[2] 7-6(2) 3-6 6-3

Final
Clijsters[1] d. Mauresmo[6] 6-2 6-0
-----------------------------------------
Doubles

Semis
Clijsters/Sugiyama[1] d. Black/Likhovtseva 6-3 6-4
Ruano Pascual/Suarez[2] d. Kuznetsova/Navratilova 6-4 6-4

Final
Ruano Pascual/Suarez[2] d. Clijsters/Sugiyama[1] 6-4 3-6 6-3
 

·
Dubai Love
Joined
·
52,394 Posts
2004 WTA Tour Championships

Played at the Staples Center, Los Angeles. November 10-15

Format: Round Robin

Red Group
Anastasia Myskina[3] d. Lindsay Davenport[1] 7-6(5) 6-4
Davenport[1] d. Elena Dementieva[5] 6-0 6-1
Davenport[1] d. Serena Williams[8] 3-6 7-5 6-1
Myskina[3] d. Dementieva[5] 6-3 6-3
S. Williams[8] d. Myskina[3] 4-6 6-3 6-4
S. Williams[8] d. Dementieva[5] 7-6(3) 7-5

Black Group
Amelie Mauresmo[2] d. Svetlana Kuznetsova[4] 6-3 6-2
Mauresmo[2] d. Maria Sharapova[6] 7-5 6-4
Mauresmo[2] d. Vera Zvonareva[11] 6-1 6-0
Sharapova[6] d. Kuznetsova[4] 6-1 6-4
Kuznetsova[4] d. Zvonareva[11] 6-2 6-4
Sharapova[6] d. Zvonareva[11] 6-4 7-5

Semis
Sharapova[6] d. Myskina[3] 2-6 6-2 6-2
S. Williams[8] d. Mauresmo[2] 4-6 7-6(2) 6-4

Final
Sharapova[6] d. S. Williams[8] 4-6 6-2 6-4
-------------------------------------------
Doubles

Semis
Black/Stubbs d. Ruano Pascual/Suarez[1] 7-6(7) 6-4
Petrova/Shaughnessy d. Kuznetsova/Likhovtseva[2] 6-3 6-2

Final
Petrova/Shaughnessy d. Black/Stubbs 7-5 6-2
 
61 - 80 of 91 Posts
Top