Surely, mere American commentator bias ... ??

Question

It seems to me that i note many [so-called] "experts" who write publicly about the game seem to have little fairness and reality in their perceptions and comments regarding 'the Greats' of all-time.

I note, this morning, for instance, that as I read a Wik comment on Chris Evert-Lloyd that the writer they refer to considers the 3 greatest female players of all time to be:
Stefi Graf
Martina Navratilova
Chris Evert-Lloyd

Now, you may say, "Well, Graf isn't American"...
That maybe true, but 2 things:
Her 'generation' has been one where the advances of modern technology has allowed commentators all over the world easy armchair access to the top players of the circuit.
Secondly, surely her long-tme Agassi relationship has penetrated American heart at one level or another.

Navratilova spent most of her playing years in America.

I have even heard various other American commentators claim the 'honor' of top spot for Billy-Jean King!


Now, my obvious objection to all this rating is that surely a more realistic and objective analysis reveals that Margaret Smith/Court, of Australia, was the greatest all-around player of all time, without question.

She won by far, the most number of Grand slam tournaments, and she won them anywhere!
She also won the most women's doubles titles, and took out her solid share of mixed doubles tournaments as well.
She proved that she could win anywhere, with any partner and under any type of condition.
REALISTICALLY, SHE HAS TO BE TOPS??

Well, Riskbreaker, you have just become 'Risk-taker', in your comments re Margaret Court.
You are entitled to your opinion ... but I would simply put your ignorance re her whole circumstance of achievement, down to sheer American ignorance - much due, as I said, to US commentator bias!
I would agree that the main surfaces were grass ... but here endeth the story on your objections to her rightful place!
She won 64, not 24, Grand slams - and that was her beauty; she won pretty much equal number of doubles, singles and mixed doubles titles - is largely why i call her Greatest All-Around player.
I suggest you learn something of her in Wik.
Not only that but she was just as happily winning titles when married and then after boirth to 2 children, as otherwise!
She would have kept going, but for her 3rd on the way!
Also, she retired for a while.
How many in ANY sport come back like that after that type of move???
She also had strong fields opposing then - esp Billy-Jean King.

Answer 1

I don't think it's as much an American bias (since Graf is German, despite her relationship with Agassi), as it is a contemporary bias. When Margaret Smith-Court was in her prime most, if not all of the current tennis journalists were not around. The tennis journalists of today have seen Graf, Evert, and Navratilova play.

It's like if immediately after a particulary exciting Super Bowl, you take a poll of what Super Bowls were the best ever. Invariably the most recent one will rank high if not first, because it is the freshest in everyone's mind, and still generates the most excitement. 10 months after the Super Bowl, it will have sunk to probably near where it really should be.

Answer 2

I believe it has much more to do with recent players being better than older players. Not just in regards to technology but concerning health and fitness as well. There's no way that Maragaret Court in her prime beats any of those other women in their prime OR Serena Williams OR Lindsay Davenport OR even Maria Sharapova for that matter. This is exactly why this whole "Greatest of all time" debate must be taken with a grain of salt. You can't compare different eras very accurately. Serena Williams would destroy Margaret Court very easily in their primes but if a player with Margaret's guile, intelligence, reach and speed were playing in today's era (not unlike Venus Williams, actually) she would be a major force because she'd be able to take advantage of today's notions of training and health. But that's not the case. Margaret played when she did and she can't play intergenerationally, so she's going to have to live with being left out of the "GOAT" debate. In 50 years, people will not be talking about how great Chris Evert was NEARLY as much. She would've been replaced by some other dominator.

Answer 3

I'd disagree to place Margaret on top of the list of the greatest tennis players ever.
You say she's the greatest all round player that won everywhere but really back in those days, all of the slams except the french was played on grass...Martina, Steffi, Chris won all of their slams playing on 4 different surfaces, so really I wouldn't call Margaret the greatest all round player.
It should be remembered that in that era, defending champions automatically advanced to the finals the following year.
Steffi, Martina, Chris had tougher oppostion to play against unlike the hey days of Margaret and company.
Sure she has 24 grand slams, but let's say that Graf hadn't had so many injuries and personal problems, how many could she have won? personally I think steffi has the best all round resume of any the top players ever.
I'd call Steffi the greatest and lots of people would take issue with that, but I'd say this, along with Martina and Chris they're the 3 that can wear the crown of "greatest" ever and not be called a fraud.

Answer 4

america rocks pal, so quit your jealous whining.