Navratilova won Roland Garros twice: in 1982 and 1984. And she was a finalist there four other times.Jimnik said:Of the top 4, why put the 2 players that never won Roland Garros at the top?
I think people put too much emphasis on winning Wimbledon many times rather than winning a variety of tournaments.
I hope Graff wins - she was the best.
She has so many titles that someone we lose some on the run. However looking at Graff standard and her minimum of 4 titles at each slam, even Martina was less versatile...MisterQ said:Navratilova won Roland Garros twice: in 1982 and 1984. And she was a finalist there four other times.
No question that Graf's slam results are the most well-rounded. But I think Martina proved her ability to play on all surfaces as well... and those RG finals that she lost, 3 were to Evert, arguably the greatest women's clay courter of all time (the last was to Graf).mdhubert said:She has so many titles that someone we lose some on the run. However looking at Graff standard and her minimum of 4 titles at each slam, even Martina was less versatile...
Whaaaat? Navaratilova and Graf are 10 times better players than Hingins and Seles.disturb3d said:This list is a joke, purely done on grand slam success.
Hingis and Seles were much better players than Navratilova or Graf.
Sampras over McEnroe?
Me too. But I think they didn't count the Slam in '62 as it was not in the Open Era. Which of course begs the question, why would Lendl (and perhaps Agassi) still be behind Laver? I guess they see Connors' career as being 'significantly' better than Lendl's and Agassi's.MisterQ said:I was surprised that they moved Connors ahead of Laver, having heard Rod mentioned so often in debates vs. Sampras and Borg
No , I think you are on the darkside and justifying the crime and its consequences or just simply ignorant . Monica was attacked for a specific reason to destroy her life and carreer and that someone else can take her place.sigmagirl91 said:What happened is tragic, indeed, but using that to justify your position is totally wrong.
Evert ranks above Borg in all ways except his total number of Wimby titles. Borg's dismal record at the US Open also cannot be overlooked, nor his penchent for quitting the game when a younger, fiestier challenger took his #1 ranking away. He simply walked away with his tail btwn his legs and said goodbye. Evert didn't do this when Martina was on a roll against her; she went back to work and re-established herself as a legitimate threat for the year end #1 ranking in 1985 (was one actually match shy in losing a relatively close Wimby final). Evert was many things but she certainly wasn't a quitter. She also showed tremendous leadership for her sport (president of the WTA for umteen yrs), something Borg nor Graf never did. Like BJK and others, Chris Evert CARES about tenni, not just herself.mirkaland said:How many slams did Graff win, like 22 or something? I'm sure she won't be placed above Sampras, but she should be. But how does Evert make top 4 over Laver and Borg (besides her connection with the magazine)?