Martina Navratilova Vs Chris Evert LLoyd 16.mp4

[48blackman]

As we now can all look back in retrospect.. Chris should have had graphite in her hand already, but she didn't; she made things alot more difficult and loss to player she shouldn't have during 82 to 84, because she was reluctant to make the switch. I think things could have been easier for her and I don't think she would have lost 13 straight time to Martina.. had she made the switch earlier.. like with the rest of the girl at the end of the 1981 season.

[karrtt1234]

Sorry to inform you but the WTA casts a vote in the year-end rankings world ranking... they are not detemind by points, there were more than a few years that the WTA cast a voted for 2 players. Like 95 they voted both Steffi and Monica, Steffi won because she got the ITF vote.Martina was not number 3 in 1977 or 1980...She was not world number 2 in 1989 either.

[raef203]

Great match--thank you so much for finding this and posting it. We never saw this in the USA.

[pb123451508]

Martina is sliding on this court as if it was clay

[andyjourn]

As a long standing fan of Chris Evert from Australia, this match between her and Martina is my favorite, and I would like to say thank you to the persons who have posted the whole match on here! I was always so impressed how Christ came from 1-5 down in the final set in the 1981 Australian Open, to 5-5, only to lose the next two games. What a gallant loser! For this reason, I was so determined for her to win the title in 1982, and she did it, making it the last gem in her Grand Slam Crown.

[KruspeFTW]

The umpire's voice makes me laugh XD

Good match though

[johnblacklovesmar]

I always like Frank Deford wrote: Evert cast the longer shadow, Navratilova shone the brighter light.

[westfaner]

@demc67 Sorry to burst your bubble, but that is unture. The facts are the facts Chris's 18 years career vs Martina's 22 year career. Here are the catergories as you would have them that Chris leads. 90 % winning percentage best of any professional tennis player, Best Grand Slams record of any player.Just 2 highligts 52 0f 56 semi-finals vs 44 of 66, 13 straight year of winning a grand slam. As far as weeks at # 1, the computer didn't come into exsistance until Nov 75.

[karrtt1234]

@demc67 Martina was ranked number #1 by the WTA in 1978, but she did not get the world number ranking .. Chris did 6 votes to 3. Tennis Magazine US & Australia, International Tennis Federation, World Tennis Magazine, John Barrett and Joe MacCauley voted for Chris, Bud Collins, WTA, L.Tingay voted for Martina.. Chris shared the record with Steffi for being ranked 7 times world number one player. Chris was ranked number 3 in 72 & 73,74-78,80-81 she number 1, 79, 82-86 number 2, 87-88 number 3.

[westfaner]

@demc67 (continued) Chris was the #1 player in 74 and 75, and surley would have had weeks in 1973 had the computer been around. Her 1974 season is still the open era record of over 100 wins, she had a 56 match win streak that season. She would easliy be the # 2 all time and quite possibly the #1, had the computer been around before. I am a fan of both ladies, but it is untrue when you say Martina record is in every way better, it simply is not.

[demc67]

@westfaner I like and respect Chris....AS Chris herself does....doesn't seem you can be as fair to Martina....you are arguing a point made by Chris herself.

[demc67]

@demc67 I meant..'As Chris likes and respects MARTINA

[westfaner]

@demc67 (continued) Chris's consistancey was spectatular and sets her apart. Chris was ranked #3 in the world in 72 & 73, 74 - 86 she was either # 1 or # 2, (7 times # 1) in 87 & 88, she was # 3, and in 89 # 4, through her entire playing career she had never been ranked lower that #4, and includes during the computer run week in and week out. Martina cannot say this.

[westfaner]

now there is a spelling error ,"spectacular" should have been the typed.

[justnatural]

lol the umpire is so 1980s australian old lady umpire , thank you linesman thankyou ballboys, things were so much simpler back then. and no grunting groaning awful russians or vulgar williams sisters

[LondonNil]

@justnatural Yes a pity about the Williams isnt it - but at least they are now on the decline.

[kljMN2]

@LondonNil - the real pity is all the awful nasty sh*t posted about them all over YouTube.Now THAT's a pity.

[sftom70]

the debate over who is better is tiresome and trite. the face is these two women are two of the best to ever play and two true legends of the game (a highly overused phrase) chris kicked martina's ass early on (which most people forget) and martina did the same to chris later. chris winning at least one slam a year for 13 years is ridiculous and will never be touched, martina dominated in her 4 year stretch (82-86) unlike an other player ever has (with the exception of graf perhaps)

[olaraay]

martina is sliding

[zedlacredit]

@Nicklas4500 - I find it funny that on another posting you were arguing about Martina and Steffi, and to downgrade Steffi you pointed out that Chris had a better record on grass than Steffi. Steffi has 7 Wimbeldons, Chris 3. It would seem, when it suits your purpose your fine with it. Now someone points out that Chris's record is better than Martina's at the AO, and you have a problem. Why I asked ?

[Nicklas4500]

Hi zedlacredit - nice to know you follow my posts with such interest ;) But you're quoting me out of context. I was arguing that Chris wasn't just a clay courter but a great player on all surfaces, which is true. What I actually wrote was: "Evert's career winning percentage on grass is 88.04% compared to Graf's winning percentage of 85.00%. I'm not saying that Evert was a better grass court player than Graf (clearly she wasn't) but she was a consistently great competitor on all surfaces."

[Nicklas4500]

This was in answer to an assertion by someone that Evert "wasn't a grass court player". So, as you can see, I'm not arguing that Evert was a better grass court player than Graf, or that 3 Wimbledon titles is better than 7, which of course is nonsense, simply that Evert was a strong competitor on all surfaces including grass. Any problems with that?

[Nicklas4500]

What I dispute is that win:loss ratio is the same thing as a "better record". It clearly isn't. The number of titles won at a tournament is the first measure of success. After that, if you like, win:loss ratio. So Chris's record is not "better" than Martina's at the AO, even if her win:loss ratio is better, because she won fewer titles there. Is that so controversial? Otherwise, you're in the nonsensical position of saying 3 titles is a "better record" than 7 or 8.

[Nicklas4500]

The other thing I object to is the lazy or dishonest misinformation put about by the likes of Yescanto and Karrrt1234 that, for example, Martia's career winning percentage was < 70% when in fact it was 87%; or that she "avoided" playing Chris on clay which somehow gave her an advantage in their h2h (they actually met 13 times on clay and 15 times on grass, so almost equal match ups on their best surfaces); and hinting that Martina's muscular physique was due to drugs etc. etc.

[Nicklas4500]

...I'm afraid it's only a handful of sad North American/Canadian queens on YouTube who still whine on about Chris's win:loss ratio and try to ignore the salient facts.

Face it, your princess Chrissie lost her crown to Martina.

[Nicklas4500]

Martina won 6 grand slams in a row (Chris won 3 in a row). She won a record 8 WTA championships (Chris won 4). Martina's spell at #1 was much more dominant than Chris's - she lost just 6 matches in 3 years. Chris lost to her 13 times in a row over 2 years and 22 out of 25 times over 5 years.

Tennis Magazine, Bud Collins, Steve Flink - all serious tennis commentators rate Martina above Chris in the all-time ranks.

The only serious debate is whether Martina, Steffi or Margaret Court is GOAT..

[Nicklas4500]

Truth is that Martina eclipsed Chris at the top of the game. She won as many GS titles and outplayed Chris in 10 of their 14 GS finals - a huge margin of superiority. She won more titles overall than Chris. She won their overall h2h. She broke Chris's previous record for the longest winning streak. She spent longer at #1 consecutively and in total (even if you include Chris's '74/'75 seasons). Martina had the best win:loss season in the open era and 4 of the top 6 (Chris had 1 of the top 10)...

[Nicklas4500]

As a general rule, which do you think is a better measure of success at a tournament - number of titles won there or win:loss ratio?

Because if you believe it's just "about your win:loss ratio" then, sure you could say that a player who's won 3 titles has a "better record" than someone who's won 8 titles. But in the real world I think most people would say it was better to have won 8 than 3 titles. No?

[bsnguy12k]

It all depended on the circumstances sometimes for Martina (she was practically unbeatable indoors w/fewer elements to contend with) but Chrissie is the epitomy of consistency with grand slam semis and her record on clay. They both forced each other to improve the weaknesses in their own gams (Martina her groundies and esp her backhand, Chris being more aggressive at net) which made it better for all of us.

[zedlacredit]

Chris is the epitomy of consistency period. Who else has spent their entire career at the top of the game ? She was ranked 3 in world or better for her entire career !

[bsnguy12k]

I don't think, in my lifetime, I will be seeing any player with the longevity, drive, and consistency as Martna (she won grand slam titles in her late 40's) than too many other players, man or woman. I watched a clip of Martina vs. Chris in Paris at the French Open and there wasn't much Chris could do that day.

[bsnguy12k]

re: Lieberman "The Rat".........tennis and all other sports are 95% mental so obviously Chris was perplexed about what to do against Martina for a good two years, thanks to Ms. Lieberman and Martina's superb play. They (Martina and Nancy) took Chris out of her comfort zone, which is the whole idea about winning.

[Nicklas4500]

Totally agree with you. Chris played brilliantly here and deserved the victory but her subsequent losses to Martina were, imo, more about Martina's level of play than any "intimidation" by her entourage.

Chris had the strongest mental game and competitive drive, so the idea that the 'rat' Lieberman somehow 'got into her head' is actually to underestimate her character and strength of mind.

[bsnguy12k]

Martina was figuring herself out before her domingating run and was a bit anxious in this match. Chris was playing more out of her comfort zone by coming to the net so much. A pity she didn't do more in the years ahead (1983 - 89) because it clearly worked during this match and Martina always hated playing against a net rusher. Chris totally deserved to win and Martina was just beginning her steam-roll for the next two years.

[Vengeance509]

This would be Chris' last victory over Martina for 2 years, until she beat Martina in the Slims of Florida (Jan 85) and then won their 85 French final.

Chis was playing aggressively here. Moving superbly. Hitting the ball VERY hard with her wood racquet. I still can't fathom her subsequent 13 losses to Martina; Chris still had the "game" to beat her. Martina's skill was grand, but I think the intimidation-tactics of her "entourage" (esp. the rat Leiberman) got into Chris' head from 83-84.

[shottut]

Chris is a more impressive singles player or has the more impressive record.

[demt1977]

Even though I was more of a Chrissie fan, Im proud to say as an Aussie that the Australian crowd was supportive of both Chris and Martina, and respected them both for being two of the best players in tennis history.

[karrtt1234]

Yes Chris has the better Grand Slam record by far which is 52 of 56 semi- finals, 2 of the others are quater- finals, and the other 2 are 3rd rounds. Pretty much untouchable...... Martina is 45 of 66 in making it to the semi- finals. So there is no question who has the better singles record at the slams (and if you looked further she has went out in the first week, more than twice). So that is a no brainer !

[karrtt1234]

As it is entirely relevant to look at their career's in totality ! How they did against the rest of their contemporaries and there entire career in grand slams and on tour! I have never said Chris was my number 1, I agree with Steve Flint (who u always bring up) I just feel, that Chris is the more impressive singles player. Her career and high standard throughout is unmatchable. Martina has the h2h, in the slams and throughout, as does Steffi with both them and has more slams than them.

[Nicklas4500]

Do you mean Steve Flink? If you agree with him, then you must rate Evert behind Navratilova and Graf.

Actually I don't go along with his conclusion that Graf is the best player of the 20th century, though it's a perfectly respectable position. I agree with Raymond Lee (writing for Tennis Magazine) whose detailed analysis of all the stats puts Navratilova just ahead of Graf and Evert, and alongside Margaret Court, as the greatest player of all time.

[bsnguy12k]

@karrtt1234 Chris may have a more consistent singles record with her semi-final percentage.......but she can't even begin to touch Martina's overall G.Slam record of women's double and mixed doubles (the last of which came in 2006 at age 49). -Even Chris wouldn't dispute that. Martina is clearly the better "over-all" player.

[karrtt1234]

@bsnguy12k Chris's record is better than Martina at all the slams except for Wimbeldon, and no disrespect meant .. I am well aware of both their records, and the discussion was about them as singles players.

[Nicklas4500]

Nice try but not true. Martina has a better record at the Australian Open with 3 titles to Chris's 2.

So Martina had a better record at Wimbledon and AO, Chris at the FO and US Open. 18 slams each. So far, so equal.

But then, as I've pointed out before, Martina beat Chris in 10 of the 14 GS finals they played against each other. She also won 6 GS titles in a row compared with Chris's 3 in a row. That shows greater dominance.

[karrtt1234]

@Nicklas4500 There is no nice try about it, maybe you should check things out before responding ..Chris's win/loss record is better than Martina's at the Australian Open. And yes you continually point out the h2h in GS finals, once again missing the point totally !!!

[Marchjoy1963]

Absolutely... even at the time of her retirement Chris held the tourament record at Wimbeldon, and she had 3 titles - Martina 8, it is about your win/loss ratio, and since Chris made the final everytime she played the Australian, it is not that surprising.

[Marchjoy1963]

It's not an argument at all,it's a fact !

[yescanto]

First off,I she said that it was at the time of her retirement that Chris held the tourament record which she did, 96-15, your the Martina queen ... figure it out yourself! This is something Bud and Billie Jean were talking about in 89 at her last Wimbeldon, She didn't say that Martina doesn't have the record, no one did, but you came on here jumping all over people stating facts and trying to make like it never happened. Now you are trying to make out like she said something she didn't !

[karrtt1234]

Stop replying to my comments if you are going be sour about the facts ! I am not posting anything that isn't fact , and you want to whine about the fact that Martina has 1 more title. Chirs has a better record period. Martina didn't make the final everytime she played at the Australian and everyone tourament record is done this way...I didn't make it up.Secondly Martina didn't play there every year herself so what are you so upset for ?

[Nicklas4500]

If you want to believe that 2 AO titles is a "better record" than 3, or that 3 Wimbledon titles is better than 8 or 9, fine. Each to his own! Sorry to have ruffled your plumage...

[karrtt1234]

If Martina had have been a better player in her earlier years they might have met in more slam finals and in more touraments overall, When Chris was dominate in teh 70's , Martina was the player she would become in the 80's, so in her dominate phase Chris was still at the top of the game and hence the latter grand slams meetings and the resverse h2h lead in their rivalry. Although it is 43-37h2h, it is funny that it would only take 3 matches for it to be equal.

[karrtt1234]

I meant to say Martina wasn't the player she would become.

[Nicklas4500]

No, they met 40 times between 1973-81 when Chris was more dominant, exactly equal to the 40 matches they played from 1981-88 when Martina was on top. Martina's 14-8 lead in grand slams and 10-4 lead in slam finals is decisive in their h2h. As are her 13 wins in a row over Chris and 22 wins in 25 matches during a 5-year spell of complete dominance.

[karrtt1234]

Yes, and how many Grand Slams meetings did they have ? and I was taking about the 70's vs 80's. Much more in the 80's than the 70's. And Martina's real dominance over Chris (and I mean when it look in 83 that Chris would never come close to her again) was over when Chris let go of her wood raquet. And the 13 wins in a row were in a 2yr period.

[Nicklas4500]

@karrtt1234

You referred to tournaments overall. My point is that they played an almost equal number of matches during the 70s as they did in the 80s. It's true they had more slam meetings in the 80s but Martina was so clearly better from '81 onwards that it's hard, I think, to argue that Chris was her equal. There was only 2 years age difference so that's not really a factor - truth is that once Martina became really fit she was a bettter player than Chris.

[Nicklas4500]

@karrtt1234

"And the 13 wins in a row were in a 2yr period." What's your point? The 13 wins in a row and the 22 wins in 25 matches were between '82-86 when Martina had a sustained period of complete dominance unmatched by any other player in the open era.

[karrtt1234]

Chris had a stronger career than Martina as far a consistency and records. Her Grand Slam record is nothing short of outstanding ! In all of the slams individually and collectively. Her 262 weeks at number one are completely missleading since the computer was only introduced in Nov 75, and she was solidly the number on player in the world 74 thru 75, and would have had weeks at the top in 1973. Martina played 4 yrs longer than Chris to amass her record.

[doetim]

@karrtt1234 Sure all of what you said is true but MN was able to play 4 years longer because she was a better athlete, it's how you see it. Head to Head MN has the upper hand and especially in slams and most historians if not all would put MN above Chris. However one thing for sure both of these player skipped quite a few AO and FO earlier in their careers they would have had more slams had they played all of them like players in Graf's generation and after.

[Vengeance509]

Equal as singles players, all things considered. Evert was two years older than Navratilova, won just as many Slam singles titles, nearly as many singles titles overall (and Martina played well into her 30s while Evert retired), and Evert finished with a .90 winning percentage, the BEST singles w/l of any man or woman in Open history. She was also far more dominant on her best surface (clay) than was Martina on grass. Her Slam record was also better. They're equal in singles, as it ought to be.

[Nicklas4500]

They had a great rivalry but Martina won more singles titles than Chris overall; had longer winning streaks; spent longer at #1 and had a more dominant spell at the top; won a record 6 GS in a row; led Chris in their career h2h and, most tellingly, won 10 of their 14 GS finals. If Chris had those figures over Martina, would you honestly say they were equal as singles players?

[Nicklas4500]

As for dominance on their best surface, don't forget that Martina won an all-time record 9 Wimbledon singles (and a record 6 in a row) - more than any other player at any slam - compared to Chris's 7 FO titles. Martina also won the end of season championships a record 8 times on indoor carpet. This isn't to put down Chris, she's one of the greatest ever imo, but overall Martina has the stronger record.

[yescanto]

You don't compare Wimbledon to the French, and winning the French is much harder than winning Wimbledon. Which a fast slick surface ( with bad bounces) that rewards power more than any other surface.Clay is an equallizer that rewards skill and mental toughness. And as stated above you can't compare Chirs to Martina in Grand Slams her record is far better than Martina's over all she made 52 of 56 semi, I think Martina is around 42 of 64. Big difference!!!

[Nicklas4500]

@yescanto

A question for you. If Chris has stronger Grand Slam credentials than Martina, how come she lost 10 of 14 GS finals against her?

[Nicklas4500]

@yescanto

As well as dominating Chris in their GS h2h, Martina's slam records include:

* 6 GS titles in a row (Chris won 3)

* 9 Wimbledons and 6 in a row - the all-time record. No other player has won as many titles at a major. (And most players and experts rate Wimbledon as a top slam.)

* The only open era player to own the GS triple crown and complete 'boxed set'.

* The only player ever to win GS titles in 3 separate decades (4 if you include doubles).

[yescanto]

We are all aware of their h2h, and you have use this alrealy on this page, and several others I might add. I am talking about their Grand Slams careers not their h2h. Individually, and there are not if''s, about it Chris's is superior. As is her entire career as a singles player.

[yescanto]

Further any one who knows tennis knows that Wimbledon is the crown jewel of the Grand Slams, and considered the most prestigious, at the same time the French is the most difficult to win.

[MrPernell27]

@yescanto Superior? You must be crazy, Martina won more titles, and more matches. Plain and simple Martina is the greatest female tennis player ever!

[shottut]

@MrPernell27 Her percentages are not as good as Chris's, that was the point being made. Plain and simpe.

[052970]

Chrissie is the best!