The starting reign of the Queen of clay court tennis, and Queen of American tennis. That patented backhand, pinpoint accurate ground strokes, and the best mental strength, male or female in the history of the game. Chris was always #1 in my book, regardless of who she played. A gracious champion in victory or defeat, and she certainly represented the US superbly!
@yogathaimassagemadrid3806 … Yes, she would have won all those titles, undoubtedly. She was undefeated on clay in those years. More to the point, if Chris had also played the Australian Opens shunted aside (she reached the final in every Oz Open she played) she would have won at least three, which would have brought her total to 25. She should have chased history instead if Billie Jean King’s perpetually underwhelming and ephemeral “Team Tennis”. There are other reasons Chris did not win a few more Slams between 1983-1984 but would rather not state what was obvious to many at the time.
It's great to see Margaret Court playing. Her movements and body were athletic and the way she moved into her shots showed a confidence and technical aspects so many players today hide behind power. Notice how many balls went out - that when Court approached she'd win the points she hit a deep approach shot before. If she didn't put away the return Chris made her pay with placement. Each could've hit the balls harder - but talent and tech suited both just fine. Impressive! Glad this was posted.
What I love most about this video, it dispel the common thought that they played slow in the 70's. These two and play some fast shots, and on clay no less.
Margaret Court was just an amazing player. Her all court game is a perfect example of a complete player. But I really have always loved Evert. Her two handed backhand is still one of the best I have seen. Her timing and pace are incredible.
Chrissie retired playing better tennis than she did during the years that she dominated the sport. It is so amazing for such a legend to keep trying to better herself and improve her game so that she could compete with the next generation of players. Here is a little known fact: Margaret Court, all 6 feet of her, was the only player to cross train back during her reign, which gave her a tremendous advantage over her opponents. People often credit Martina Navratilova with this phenomenon, but Margaret was light years ahead of Martina. Court even had her own set of barbells and weights, sold under her name in the early 1970's. Margaret even made it a point to "hide what she was doing from her opponents", according to Wendy Turnbull. Court also had extra long, gangly arms, and it was written that her "wing span" at the net was approximately that of a person who was seven feet tall.
@@kittycarson5884 That last part is untrue. Margaret was only 5'9". Same height as Serena, an inch shorter than Caroline Wozniacki, and 5 inches shorter than Lindsay Davenport or Maria Sharapova. Two inches shorter than Althea Gibson, who preceded Margaret as the top player. Her height is about average for today's top players...maybe even a little shorter (Several of the top girls have been over 6 feet...Muguruza, Azarenka, Safina, Ivanovic among them). Margaret WAS ahead of her time, training-wise. You are correct there. Margaret did have a long reach, but nothing that unusual. She appeared to be very tall because many of her rivals were short or average height Billy Jean was 5'4, Nancy Richey, 5'3, Wendy Turnbull 5'5. Her top rival, Maria Bueno, was 5'7, as was Martina Navritilova.
In an interview Court said that she’s 5’9” but people thought she was much taller. Her arms are longer than the average 5’9” person. Court credits her cross training for having very few injuries in her career and being able to return to the tour so quickly after having a baby.
@@stevenmac9158 Court looked like she was 6'1" on the court. An ominous presence. She was one of the first women tennis players to totally train her body and lift weights to get strong. She was extremely fit as shown clearly in the 1970 Wimbledon match with Billy Jean. The first set alone lasted 90 min!
Wow! I've never seen this before. Thanks for posting. I enjoyed it very much. This match really highlights the qualities that made each of these women great champions. Both were relentless!
great points here - love how Margaret can direct her backhand - floating it deep, chipping it short or hitting it hard so it scoots through - great attacking too - wish there was more of this in today's game. Chris was good on the volley even at 18 - I thought that this improved with age but she obviously had a lot of natural talent even at the net.
Thanks for this. Young Chrissie was ahead in the final set in her first major French final - and got nervous. Experienced Margaret closed out the match. Nice rallies, competitive too.
Chrissie was up 5-3 in the 2nd set after winning the 1st. I think she also had a 4-2 lead in the 3rd? I don’t speak French and they never show the score so I am not positive if she did indeed lead 4-2 in the 3rd. But in an interview with Chris and Martina, Chris joked that she should’ve had 19 GS titles but choked against Court “I was up 5-3 and blew it.” If Chris hadn’t skipped French Open in 1976-78 during her 125 match clay court streak, and played Australian Open 1975-1980, she could’ve easily won the he 3 French and multiple Australian Opens. She would then be the GOAT: 10 French, let’s say 5 Australian, 6 US and 3 Wimbledon=24. Clay court streak add 21 to 125=146. Thanks to upgrading Australian Open facilities and to beginning of year, players are playing it more. Easier to win more slams when you play 4 a year. So now players are winning more slams- Serena 7x winner, Djoko 8 or 9x winner. Chrissie played only 2 GS in 1976-78 when she was dominating and 3 slams majority of her career.
Chris def could've added 3-4 grand slam singles titles between 1976-78. Two to three French titles for certain plus maybe one Australian. But back then the players just didn't make the trek Down Under, I don't know if it was the prize money or lack of, but the 20+ hours of flying was certainly not fun
It was standard play for a player to hold two balls in his/her tossing hand when serving a first serve. (20s through early 70s) Then the player would HOLD ON TO THE EXTRA BALL ALL THROUGH THE POINT! For the rare player with a two handed backhand, dropping the ball was standard (some one-handers did it as well) But it was dangerous. Stepping on the ball can cause serious injuries. Notice the women's outfits had no pockets. In the late 80s, a popular plastic gimmick arrived that held the ball during the point, women would put take the ball out from under their skirts. I remember Arantxcha Sanchex-Vicario helped popularize it. I think people didn't use grip changes as often, so the off hand was not needed as much. McEnroe uses only one grip for every shot, for instance...
@@joemarshall4226 "It was standard play for a player to hold two balls in his/her tossing hand when serving a first serve. (20s through early 70s)". Actually it was done even until the late eighties. Steffi Graf used to hold two balls in her tossing hand, keeping the second ball in her hand during the rallies having served her 1st serve in. E.g.: ua-cam.com/video/qNfEZYew6n0/v-deo.html
@@joemarshall4226 you cant really use mcenroe as an example. his game was very unique. but now i know why his ground strokes were not as good. (if he truly used the same grip for both shots.) when i started playing paddle tennis, i developed a wonderful technique of using basically the same grip, but hitting with the same side of the paddle. for regular topspin shots. if i wanted to slice the ball, i would change the grip.
Margaret Court was amazing. And I know people might not like her cause of what she says, but I'm referring to the tennis player. Played in 47 grand slams, and won 24. Excluding the Australian Open, she played in 33 grand slaps, and won 13. That's nearly a 40% record. Super impressive. Now people would say if Serena was playing she would easily beat her. But that's the wrong question, of course a modern day athlete with all the science and the equipment would go back in time and do well. The correct question would be, how would a talented Margaret Court do in today's tennis with all the access that tennis players have today to trainers, dieticians, etc. We never know. We only go by her record. And she was the best of her time, like how Serena is the best her time this generation.
Nice match. Court looked like a really good all around player here, even late in her career. Whereas Evert played the baseline game. Martina N changed women's tennis with a more attacking game. And then Graf revolutionized it. But recall, the rackets back then were basically wood and string, and the training and supplements etc were old style also .
Just an amazing match! It shows these two champions really going for it stroke for stroke - and the most surprising thing of all are Chrissie's fine volleying skills! A joy to watch, thank you so much.
OMG! Thank you just isn't enough for your posting this.Unlike so many other players, there is little prolonged footage of Margaret. She was an impressive player..a serve & volleyer who could play extremely well on clay. She never came over her backhand, but her placement was spot on. I don't care her as a person, but I truly admire Margaret Court the tennis player. It would have been interesting to see how she would have done in 1974 had she not gotten pregnant. She absolutely dominated 1973.
I love Chris Evert during my whole life until now.She was really a champion.And a very beautiful woman.She combined both together.For me she was the world best female tennisplayer of all time.Chris forever.
Evert battled Court 3X in grand slam tournaments alone in 1973, this being the first. Evert gained revenge in another 3-setter at Wimbledon a few weeks later with Court returning the favor at the U.S. Open in another 3 sets. People have to understand Chrissie was still only 18 yrs old in 1973 and was yet to peak as a player. But taking Margaret Court to 3 sets (with one win) in their grand slam matches that year shows she was getting closer. Still this French final loss was hard for Evert to swallow as she was leading in the second and third sets. Court's experience won in the end.
I agree jigsterify, although Margaret was a great clay courter in her own right. She won 5 French Opens from 10 attempts. Her record on clay is second only to Evert's. This match here is one between arguably the two best ever on the surface.
Perhaps more variety was accessible because there was a lot less velocity and these women (comparatively speaking) weren't quick on their feet. For me, both men's and women's tennis looked pretty boring back then so I never watched it.
Adrian Brown ... Exactly. I’d like to see who can really “play” and who can’t. Who can actually structure a point and who just lets insane topspin do all the work.
The craziest part is Chris Evert throwing her second service ball behind her once the point starts. Also haven’t watched much of Margaret Court ever but that is the smoothest backhand I’ve ever seen
I feel Margaret Court had the best overhead of all time! She was tall, moved back incredibly well, and always crushed them for a winner. She never made an error on them. She was really consistent on everything. Bud Collins said in his book that she was 6 feet tall, but I think she was about 6 feet one inch. She looked as tall as Betty Stove who was that height when they shook hands at the net.
Margaret Court's overhead is likely like 30% or more slower than Serena's, and that's not even an exaggeration. Court didn't even have access to modern rackets let alone the insane strength of Serena.
lets quote Margarets wikipedia page shall we, "Her all time, all surfaces (hard, clay, grass and carpet) singles career winning percentage of 91.68 (1180-107) is an all-time record. Her Open era singles career winning percentage of 91.37% (593-56) is also unequaled. Her win-loss performance in all Grand Slam singles tournaments was 90.12% (210-23)." Margaret was also more versatile than Chris winning record womens and mixed doubles as well as the calender year grand slam
Noticing how closed the body position is on the sliced 1 hand backhand; I learned in the 70s and still do that and it drives coaches crazy because they want weight moving forward - but this reminds of why Margaret's way feels so natural to me. I miss seeing all the net talent - today's matches are mostly "baseliner du jour" (which ever baseliner has a better day, wins). I miss Navratilova, Henin, ... the point constructors and shot makers...
Yes, Court had a good serve flat and powerful. The only person against whom it did not work was Chris Evert who read the Court serve very well, neutralized it and then followed up with some devastating passing shots and lobs. As a result, Court always struggled against Evert who managed to get under Court’s skin from their very first encounter. Styles make rivalries and in this case Evert was a terrible match up for Court. Goes to show that power alone does not suffice,
The play in this match really shows that Margaret Court was an outstanding all court player, quick, and with great volleys, and maybe the best overhead of all time. Many do not give her the credit she deserves because she choked during parts of matches, but usually settled down and got her game back most of the time to still come up with the win, with a few notible exceptions such as the Bobby Riggs match.
This was a match Evert should have won. But a closer look shows Margaret Court played an extremely patient match to hang with Evert on the baseline and look for chances to attack the net. Margaret's experience won out in the end. Evert's only 18 here and her game was still developing. Tactically, Chris was lobbing way too much and most of them fell short for easy put-aways by Margaret. That alone cost her. Evert would eventually end up with a winning head to head record against Court, but this loss clearly cost her a grand slam title she should've won on her beloved clay surface.
If you did some research into their head to head you would also say that Margaret had the winning H2H at Grand Slams and 2 of Margarets losses to Chris were in 1977 where Margaret was popping out babies (I think she had had her third child that year) and was only playing a few weeks in the year, against the new number 1. I hardly think thats a fair comparison.
Yes Court had a 2-1 lead in grand slams (1-1 on grass, and 1-0 in Court's favor on clay which is this French Open match) - doesn't mean much as it is too close to call. Going into this match, Evert had already built a 3-1 lead over Court and it was 7-4 Evert discounting the 2 matches in 1977. Overall, tough to argue against Evert as far their head to head record is concerned. Court just found Evert a bit too difficult and I do not mean this disrespectfully.
2-1 winning record at Grand Slam may not mean much to you but to anyone else thats the most important stat of their meetings, perhaps your bias is stopping you from have any rationality in your argument. In 1972 Chris had 2 wins and Margaret had 1, In 1973 Margaret had 2 wins to 1 (all at GS level), so that evens them up at that stage, with Margaret coming out on TOP at that stage due to bigger tournament wins. The last 3 matches, 2 in 75 and 1 in 77 Chris won, but Margaret had missed most of 74 due to giving birth to her second child Markia and only returning in November of that year and only playing part time in 75 and having her third child in 76. Therefore Chris last wins were when she was at the top of her game against a semi retired mother of 3, WOW! My argument makes sense yours is like "oh that doesn't mean much" with no reason given, sorry Margaret won the important GS matches and was the BETTER player, end of story
When Court played Evert between 1970 and 1973, she was World number 1 while Evert was nowhere near her best. Yet Court Struggled to hold Her own against Evert, which to me only suggests that Evert was a bad match up for Court. It does not translate into Evert being the better or greater player overall - that requires looking at their records beyond their own personal head of head.
Well yes Court and Evert were all time greats.... and your analogy could be drawn also at Evert being number 1 and being beaten by a 16yo Tracy Austin, or a 15yo Monica Seles or a 16yo Steffi Graf (who never lost to her again). You may have the opinion Evert was nowhere near her best but i totally disagree, watching the 73 FO final her passing shots, lobs and moving of the opponent around the court are as good as Ive seen her play, sure some of the technical aspects of her strokes were not all there but she played a brilliant match. The point is also Chrissy had a very different game to which Margaret was suited but nevertheless she came back from being defeated by Chrissy and after having her first baby and determined to get back to number 1 in 73 and did just that, defeating Chrissy on her favourite surface at the French and also backing up to defeat her again at the US Open. If you discount the last three matches where Margaret was a part time player at best, multiple mother and mid 30s player, then they are equal in matches, and mid 70s Evert WAS at her best, no argument there. I don't think you can say Evert was a bad match up given the limited number of clashes since you could also say Martina had troubles with Chrissy untill she learned to adapt then owned Chrissy on many occassions, who knows if Margaret would not have done the same if she was in the same era......... its very hard to compare players of a different era, even by Chris and Martinas era strokes had been improved just like a Serena has much more advanced stroke production than a Chrissy or Martina.
And as I have previously said Margarets prime was in the 60s as evidenced by all her GS wins and culminating in the 1970 GS. She had a suprise loss to Evert in 70 and 72 then took care of her trully in 73 before babies and age took its toll. Lets not kid ourself margaret figured a way back once to defeat Evert if she was younger and not having babies this great champion would have again. Think Navratilova and how she did.
Coming from the young generation, I don’t care what everybody says, Margaret Court is the greatest women’s champion of all time. She played gracefully and was a hell of a competitor. It’s not fair that put people judge her because of her views, but she’s sticking up for her what she believes in, so good on her. If any one sticks up for what they believe, like Billie jean king then there should be another opposite like the Margaret Courts. Can’t be just one sided. There is always the ‘left’ and the ‘right’. Although Court was always a step ahead on all of the other women’s tennis players in her time.
Don't see the relevance of so many comments re Margaret's personal life and views. Sticking to tennis.... Chris Evert had the upper hand in this rivalry from match number 1 when Evert was 15 and Court was still World Number 1. Chris read Margaret's serve very well and used Margaret's pace against her. Chris also passed or lobbed Margaret at the net with an ease that had devastating effect on Margaret and shook Margaret's confidence in her serve and volley game. Over time, Margaret learned to not rush the net and to stay back. It ensured that she did not look completely foolish against Evert, but then she was not going to beat Evert either with any consistency by staying back. Chris was the aggressor in their matches, took the initiative, kept Margaret on the run and forced Margaret to defend and play a game foreign to her. Margaret herself admitted that she found Chris Evert "difficult" which was probably an understatement. Margaret Court was a great player.... against everyone else except Chris Evert.
+David J yes, court was a great match-up for evert... her straight forward powerful game evert fed off of.. evert did and would always have more problems with king because of king's greater variety and tactical mind. not to mention king's on court presence.... course evert got the better of king head to head as well...
I think is fair to say from the quality of tennis played in this match, along with the record of both of these players, that were they playing today with modern equipment, fitness and diet etc, they would be up there with Serena. They would beat Sharapova easily by the fact that they are quick around the court and can vary their game.
Pointless argument. These players grew up with wooden raquets and their skills developed around that. They never developed these relentless forehand and backhand drives that modern players do because raquet technology did not exist to enable these. However modern players do not develop the net game that these players had and it is doubtful if their groundstrokes with a wooden raquet, which would not nearly be as potent, consistent or accurate, would be enough to win against Court and contemporaries. It all gets down to the evolution of raquet technology. However make no mistake, Court was a phenomenal athlete.
These across ages arguments are pointless and meaningless. Is Joe Fastfoot at Freedonia State a better sprinter than Jesse Owen's was? I mean he could beat him, right? And the lady teaching relativity at Baton Bottom U knows more about it than Einstein, so surely she's a greater physicist than he was.
Evert stepping into the court, dictating with those groundies, rifling passes, moving into net and putting away volleys and overheads when sensible: she’s been an all court player since her teens.
Margaret Court won more than half of her titles agsinst amateurs. Wikipedia- "She won a record 24 singles grand slam titles, though 13 of the 24 were before the open era of tennis. Prior to the open era, only amateurs were allowed to play in Grand Slam tournaments."
Te olvidas que muy pocas mujeres por no decir ninguna pasaban al profesionalismo. así que Court los ganó muy bien ganados. No es lo mismo que el masculino donde Rod Laver despues de hacer su grand slam en 1962 pasó seguidamente a profesionales, y por tanto dejó de jugar en los slams y aun así cuando volvió 6 años después a jugarlos ya en plena era Open, repitió su Grand Slam en un año en 1969. Sin profesionales Federer y Sampras records serían mucho menores, Rod Laver hubiese ganado muchos pero que muchos más g.slam que estos dos y no solo el, otros como Rosewall o Stolle...
The impact was of being 'amateur,' was nothing like it was on the men's tour. There was no pro option dividing the talent pool. Its not like Bueno and King were somewhere else, playing on a pro tour or a series of one on one events for money, while she racked up amateur majors, like happened among the men.
Oh please, you do some actual research and go back and look at some of Martina and Chris early opponents in Grand Slams and tell me these were anything more than glorified amateurs...... Peanut Louie Harper anyone? Even todays top women like Serena don't face all the big names in a GS draw they can miss all the top players with a cake walk draw and being a high seed their first few rounds are against very low ranked players. The POINT is Margaret dominated the field in her era, like others have dominated their era and like others will dominate theirs, thats all you can ask.
Esp. as Evert beat Court 3 years earlier on clay in a NC tourney in straight sets. Up 5-3 in the 3rd - this was a heart-breaker for Evert fans like me.
+Tristan Ferguson true, but yet, king i think troubled evert more then court because while court had better groundstrokes, king had more variety in her groundstrokes, variety and tactics worried evert more (i.e. king) than simple straightforward power and stroke production... course evert got the better of king in their head to head too..
Agree. Chris always read and anticipated Margaret's powerful serve very well and her superb returns set up the lobs and passing shots that overwhelmed Margaret. Chris found Margaret's game quite predictable unlike King's. On top of this, Margaret never seemed sure of which direction Chris would hit. Margaret was a great player.... But Chris just knew how to beat her.
David J agreed.. court while technically a better player then king, was a bad match up for evert.. court's more or less "straight forward" power game played into evert's strengths.... king with infinitely more variety then court, junkballing groundstrokes to evert, varying her serves, staying back mixed with the best volley in the game (until martina) and add in her court presence and ego and it has to be said gamesmanship all combined to give evert more trouble with king, then with court.. although evert with a 19-7 head to head dominated king as well.. (and all before evert ever touched a graphite racket, lifted weights, and everything else she did in the mid 80's to stay on par with navratilova)..
MC was more patient than BJK - she didn't mind staying back at times and hitting lots of ground strokes before coming to the net. BJK liked to get in and win the point quickly, which isn't always the best way to go on clay.
Absolutely phenomenal. I like the fact that her post open era record backs up her pre-open record very well. It shuts down the naysayers who believe Margaret's 24 Slams aren't legit.*
Serena is the GOAT; discussing amateurs is an insult to Tennis and Serena. Serena has changed history--you gotta love it; Richard is the GOAT coach; they were sent to us to end the rule of racists homophobes. Serena would have dominated these lames with a broom stick!! Serena GOAT !!
no one showed up when she won her bazillion australians because travel was so much harder back in the day.. it makes her records entirely meaningless...
Even thought Margaret has had some contrversial opinion as for her tennis us Australians are very proud she is one of the all time greats and the greatest single Grand Slam winners the game has seen. The fact Chrissy has been so dominant over clay makes Margarets win her the more special.
NOTHING "controversial" about Ms. Court's spot-on biblical views --- but this corrupt post-modern culture has made it clear that "God" be "damned" and, therefore, the so-called "controversy." But for the Christ-followers, there's absoutely everything RIGHT about Ms. Court standing up for this corrupt culture by expressing that which is clearly written in the Word of God.
thanks, I always wanted to see some of this match. Its ashame their careers didn't overlap at their peaks - the difference in styles reminds me of Martina and Chris - so riveting to watch. I also think Margaret is also not given the credit she deserves. She reminds me a bit of Graf in the way she moved and Martina in her tactics.
Margaret was a fantastic mover on the court. Very solid all around game...very good serve/overhead technique too. What has me intrigued is the use of semiopen and open stance forehands the greats have used since at least the 1920s. Old footage has made it very clear that the best have all used semiopen ad open forehands and that its nothing new and probably should be taught more to adults than it is. I even saw Suzanne Lenglen using a reverse finish like nadal...and that was in the 1925 wimbledon final.
Court was simply magnificent in her prime and this victory when she was over 31 and a mother shows her fighting qualities and the variety in her game too. She had excellent footwork in contrast to Serena Williams who is the most awkward and ungainly mover ever on a tennis court. Mind you this is the age of hit hard, harder and hardest which is not always good to watch.
This was not only her first major final, it was her first time playing RG, and her first time playing the European season on the red clay. She had lost in the final of her first Italian just prior to the start of RG, to Evonne. Everyone in the states knew how good she was on the green Har-tru clay, but Europe had not had exposure to Evert. They learned soon enough. 7 French, 5 Italians, 2 Germans +Fed cup in Berlin, 1 Bancroft cup in Austria, 2 Swiss Open,1 Geneva Open,
Agree about the wood rackets.^ I had mainly seen Chris play after she switched to graphite around 1984, so her court coverage here is very impressive. Was Chris's demolition of Seles at the USO an anomaly?--control was not usually an issue for Seles, whose power was matached by her precision. Still, after seeing this, I don't know how Graf or Seles would have fared against Chris if they too were using wood rackets.
Graf and Seles didnt' come around "just a few years later". They came on the scene 15 years after this match. But even Chris was hitting much harder as her career progressed.
Always wanted to see this legendary match of Court beating Evert on clay. Now how about the 1975 Wimbledon QF when Court beat Navratilova on grass. Thanks.
@@tudormiller8898 Serena still can’t match the Great Margaret Court’s all time Grand Slam singles titles. And there is forever and a day between Court’s all time Singles, Doubles, and Mixed Doubles Grand Slam victories, as opposed to Williams’ tally. Hope that puts things in perspective for ya!
@@filipina5953 Court won 5 French, 5 US and 3 Wimbledon titles-only 1 Wimbledon title in the Open era. Chris won 7 French, 6 US and 3 Wimbledon titles. Court’s 11 Australian titles, 7 before 1968, were when the draw was much smaller and 90% of the players were Australian. I believe in 1961 and 62 there were only Australian women in the draw. If you can argue for her 11 AO titles, then I can argue that Chrissie played a lot fewer grand slams. She missed 10 slams during her prime (7 Australian, 3 French). So when you look at it from this perspective..but Court is definitely top 5 greatest female players. I’d rank her ahead of Chrissie except she’s a religious wing nut and has disrespected some of her peers, especially another top 5 legend. And said WTA is full of lesbians who take younger players to parties and well I’m sure you all have read about her opinions on LGBTQ.
@@stevenmac9158 Hey Steve! You have some very valid points in your assessments. Like many will know, it’s very hard to compare Greats from different eras, as there are many many variables at any one time. I don’t know where you are from, but here in Australia we have our National horse race (Melbourne Cup), and many experts have differing opinions on who is the Greatest winner over its 159 year tenure. Many say Phar Lap, as he won the race during “The Great Depression” in the 1930’s, was that bcoz the general public needed to get their minds of reality temporarily, was he. The people’s horse, or was he the Best? All points of conjecture. Some say Makybe Diva, a mare who won the Cup 3 years running (as no other horse has done in the race’s history), is the Greatest. And there was an obscure one that not many pundits would have ever heard of, who won the race in 1890, carrying the heaviest weight in history, against many many more entrants than in today’s race fields, on a less than forgiving track surface, over slightly more ground (imperial to metric conversion), with a race time that would have beaten almost 90-95% of all winners of the great race, and all done 130 years ago, and with none of the technological advances, modern training techniques, fitness management, dietary stimulations, etc etc. As the greatest trainer (winners of the race) Bart Cummings (12🏆) said on occasion - Its is impossible to compare horses from different eras (as explained), and also, Weight stops trains. So Who Knows? I have my opinion, as do many others, but each entitled to their own Democratic opinion! And you are right in your correct in your data about early Australian Opens, and how they were restricted at different times. When you say Chris Evert didn’t compete at 10 Grand Slams, you could also apply those stats to Navratilova who missed just as many (also French and Australian Slams) during the same years, and with both winning 18 Grand Slam titles each in total. So in Navratilova’s case, she is only 5 Grand Slam victories total behind Margaret Court’s 64, which is what my initial statement was about, that Serena’s 39 Grand Slam total victories, fall far far behind Margaret Court’s all time record. I’m saying that Margaret Court’s record number of victories completely out weigh Williams’. Court’s Grand Slam singles winning percentage is 51% (24/47) as opposed to Williams’ 29% (23/79). The closest any other female player has gotten to this winning % is Steffi Graf @ 40%, Evert @ 32%, and Navratilova @ 27%. So it’s pretty cut and dried that Court’s record is superior to all, not only in singles, but doubles and mixed combined also. I’m not saying she is/was a superior player than Williams, bcoz as you can see through my explanation above, there are way to many variables in play at any given time. And it’s a record I believe could stand for a very substantial amount of time. One thing I would love to see though, would be to see a tournament between these 5 legendary female players - Court, Williams, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and possibly throw in Billie Jean King, and Maureen “Little Mo” Connelly (Won 9 x Grand Slams singles titles in succession 1951-1954, before forced injury @ 20 years of age ended her career prematurely). Take your pick for the 8th position to make up the list. That’s just my opinion though 😊
I had no idea Chris Evert was a true historical player! I always thought of her in terms of modern tennis like with Martina. She played almost the same as a very young player, and when she finally was broadcast in color. lol./ Margaret Court was something else. She played a little like Martina or the other way around. Chris probably thought, "Here we go again..." when the rivalry with Martina started-full circle.
Chris almost played well enough to win this match. She was probably better than Margaret at this point anyway. She just missed some lob shots and that was all it took for her to lose. Margaret had no real weakness as a player.
Court had her first child in 72, then came back to win 3 slam events in 73, where was evert if she was better.in the next few years court added 3 more children to her family. Court had 24 singles grand skam titles, 64 all round grand dlam titles won 194 singles titles, her match record was 1177 wins to 106 losses 92% all records. She played in both eras but won easy in each. Her records should be recognized.
@@ag358 I would argue that 11 of Court's GS singles titles were at the Australian Open. She won 7 before the Open era when most of the top players did not participate. The draws would have between only 32-50 players and almost all of them were Australian players: 1960 had 32 players-30 were Australian. 1961 had 48-all but 2 were Australian. 1962 had 48 players-all but 5 were Australian. 1963 only 39 players-36 were Australian. 1964 had a 27-player draw, 26 were Australian. 1965- 52 draw, 1966-48 player draw. Booth were 90% Australian women. Court also won only 3 Wimbledon singles titles
@Steven Curtis she didn't play in 1966 or 1967. She was just as proficient winning in the open era as before, winning the grand slam in 1970 had 3 children in the open era and still won 92 tournaments. Her 92 % winning on all surfaces is still the best of all time. She was 90% winning ratio in ALL grand slam singles matches. She won 12 grand slam titles as an amateur and 12 as a professional , 12 tiles having 3 children in the open era ,it's safe to speculate that her 12 GS singles titles would've been higher. Her record 64 Grand slam titles along with her record 24 gs singles titles are a testament to her all around play.
Interesting how Chris did not use her side-spin down the line forehand pass in this clip. That shot must have been developed later. And it is easy to see how Margaret won five French Opens whilst BJK only won one - Margaret could be very patient at the back of the court, as well as mixing it up by coming forward. Chris shows here that she could volley pretty well - she just didn't do so very often. Great post.
Margaret is never given her due. Chris was 18 1/2 in this match, at a time when players matured earlier...she was just about at her prime....Margaret was a few months short of 30, had already had a child, and was playing under the stress of constant jet lag, travelling from Australia, at a time when that was very difficult and expensive to do. And she still beat Chris on Chris's favorite surface. Margaret's 91+% winning record is unapproached by men or women, and it would have been higher, had she not had children, played for so long, and had to travel. She achieved this while travelling every year, giving birth to several children, and winning 24 Grand Slam titles.....The complaint is that the good players did not travel to Australia at that time, where she won 11 of her titles, but it is also true that she did not travel to the west early in her career and missed some slams there. And there were quite a few players who DID travel to Australia, and WERE beaten by Margaret in the Aussie Open Had she not had children, she may well have won 30 slams.....In a recent poll, Billie Jean King was ranked ahead of her with only 12 slams (Margaret won 13 not including the Aussies), and an 82% record, and no children!
Pam Marshall I have nothing but respect for Margaret but to suggest this woman was anything but in peak form in 1973 is ludicrous. Court won RG for her fifth time, The Aussie and the US Open by its end and was number 1 in the world. Evert, # 3 in the world, had never played the European red clay circuit, had never played in RG before, and was a first time major finalist. This was not peak Evert It was a fine performance by Court to be sure, but lets not overdo here.
Yeah..what can we do..in a world where sexism, gay, and racism turned to be a card, everybody becomes hate to somebody who has different idea..not that i don't respect all of them. But placed Margaret court behind King is such a riddiculous thing. And by the way Court beat Evert again on Us open that year after she lost on Wimby Sf
Yeah, once I read about Margaret's stance on homosexuality (bisexuality by default lol), I was like aha! That's why the tennis world (particularly Billie Jean) snubs her so much. Now with Serena super close to matching her record, they have to acknowledge her (with shade though).*
And also considering Court had taken the previous year off to have a baby and Chris Evert went on to be the greatest female clay court player in history.
Monica Matos----she was having a wonderful year..but rankings didn't start until 1975......ummmmm...not to start anything....but.......physically she was #1...but.....not really......
No .. Margaret had not JUST coming back from having a baby. She played on the tour since the beginning of the year in January, practicing diligently since July of 1972, and was dominant in 1973, winning 18 of 25 tournaments played. She returned to the tour in 1972, prior to the US Open, and played quite a few events leading up to it. If we are going to quote history, let us at least state it correctly.
Chrissy really worked Margaret's backhand in this match, especially high floating balls to Margarets backhand, a definite strategy my guess from her dad Jim. A shame Margaret could not come over her backhand. A phenomenal effort from Margaret considering it was clay and Chrissy was nailing passing shots as best I have seen her do to Martina over the years. Chrissy would move to number the very next year and Margaret became at best a casual player having her next two kids so 73 was virtually her last fully competitive year.
I think Chris over-did the attack to Court’s backhand in this match. I have seen her have some success though using this tactic in some other matches, most notably the 1973 Wimbledon match where Court’s backhand just buckled under Evert’s assault. Evert clearly believed there was a weakness there, although it did not quite work out in this match.
It's pretty amazing that there appears to be a huge crowd for the final, probably because this was her first French Open and she drew the crowds. The crowds during the finals from 1974 to probably 1980 were pretty sparse in comparison. You can also hear the excitement in the audience too, which I didn't think happened in France until the epic Chris-Martina finals in the mid 80's.
The Margaret Court you see, was not a vocal homophobe. She wasn't even a fundamentalist Pentacostal. She was a quiet catholic and recent mother who was 'reborn' later on. There are YT clips of Pastor Court's Victory Life Center, and sermons/ interviews that we can use to comment on her work . They are literally a click away. Here we should comment on her tennis career. I loath the former, but admire the latter. This woman truly tore down some sexist doors in Australian tennis, and brought a new dedication to women's tennis as a athlete, and a sportswoman. She deserves our respect. As for Pastor Court, I will comment elsewhere.
If serena born on this decade... i think serena will play similar to margaret, chris & others 70s girls... coz of the racquet technology etc... i think these 2 girls played amazing similar to serena now
Fun to see this historic footage of two all-time great players. Margaret had a very effective game and seemed to understand how to play to her own strengths. Chris clearly had a game-plan to play Margaret's backhand during rallies. It's interesting that Court never hit a flat or topspin backhand. Sort of like Ken Rosewell. That style wouldn't work in today's modern era. Today, all players have monster groundstrokes and hit with amazing spin and power. Lastly, it's a shame that Margaret Court has such bigoted views about gay people. She could have been a real ambassador from the old era, like Billie Jean King is today.
Now you can see this quality of tennis played in any 3.5 women's match in America. I'm so glad these days of tennis are over. Tennis today much more athletic.
Try hitting with a wooden sometime, and you'll have a lot more respect for this era of tennis. Especially Chris Evert, who was the last professional to switch from wood to graphite.
It seems as though this match is being played in slow motion, although I do appreciate the fact that it enables me to learn more about executing effective groundstrokes, because you had the time to absorb and learn from them. Both were capable of hitting much harder shots, but elected to play the way that they did during the match, due to nerves. Chrissie must have been the more nervous of the two, because of this being her first Grand Slam final, and actually blew a pretty comfortable lead by allowing Margaret back in to the match, and allowing her to win her 5th and final French Open title. Then came Wimbledon, where Billie Jean was ready, willing and able to defeat Chrissie. Both had pressure on them to win, but Chrissie was even more nervous than she was at Roland Garros, and the result was a Billie Jean King rout of Chrissie by 6-0,7-5. Billie Jean has seldom played better. She knew what was on the line if she lost, and executed one of the finest strategic matches of her career.
Agree that Billie Jean played a well thought out game to beat Evert at Wimbledon 1973. It was a let down for Evert after her destruction of Margaret Court with superb lobbing in the semi-final. She had done to Court in the semis what King did to her in the final - totally dictated the play and outplayed her opponent.
Chris lost to Margaret in this final then Evonne in the Italian Open final then that was it, the start of the 125 match winning streak on clay 1973 - 1979. Chris was ranked 2 here and at the start of her long streak so she was at the top of her game here.
Terribly underrated player by today's players opinions and beliefs. I'd like to see the current crop and Miss Diva play with wooden rackets. Court had touch - true finesse. The current game is nothing but slam slam slam and has lost finesse, thus why no one plays net.
One of the things most people don't know about Margaret Court was that she was left handed and taught to play with her right hand. I think this was the reason her backhand was the more natural wing and the reason her serve was not would you might expect from a strong lady of her height. (Interestingly, Ken Rosewall was also left handed and stronger on the backhand and a comparatively weak serve.
Really impressive ,Margaret Court had the game- strong serve,full court game,solid hits,I wonder had she played today with today's method of training ,equipment and medicine she would have been top -player ,Chris have played both Court and Seles there is nearly 30 years difference between them.
Margaret is entitled to her personal views and that in no way changes or diminishes her stature as an athlete and world class tennis player - an all time great. She did a tremendous job in this match to win from a hopeless situation against the up and coming Chris. Overall, I do believe that Chris was the better player and that she was a nightmare for Margaret. But that does not diminish Margaret's record and her overall achievements as a player. ... and her personal views are irrelevant.
I think it was too late in Margaret's career for her to adapt her game to Chris style, one she had not encountered before. I do not believe that it would have been beyond Margaret to adapt to Chris game much like Martina did, at first being bamboozled by Chris game then over powering her with a net game. By the end of her career when Chris got her last two wins against Margaret, Margaret had had her third child and was really only a bit player on the circuit, only playing a very limited schedule, not enough to maintain the new force in tennis.
@@calvinthestormfreak why would anyone need to run around their backhand? in a normal match you don't have that sort of time, which is why it is considered a weakness in a beginners game.
Yes, Chris did go a lot to Margaret’s backhand. Not just in this match, but in others too. That was her weaker side and Chris did have a lot of success bombarding Margaret’s backhand, but not in this match obviously. Although, Chris did come close to taking this match too in straight sets.
Court was best woman's player ever. Record still stands.. Williams was tremendous player but played in modern era where many of her opponents were average (and Graf was fading from the scene) and couldn't cope with her brute force. Court had to play great players most of the time and new stars like Evert and still win through !
@Consuelo Patagonia It should be remembered that Court had two periods away from the game to have children. Each time coming back and regaining the No 1 spot from her main career rival Billie Jean King. That in itself is unique.. Of course she played in a different era with wooden rackets etc. and the game has moved on in terms of power etc. By 1973 her ankles were suffering wear and tear and the young guns were about to take over, but she does have the all-time winning percentage record for all surfaces, and she won two mixed-doubles Grand Slams in addition to her singles Grand Slam. She was the most eloquent of players deserving of her place at the top table.
@Consuelo Patagonia In 1973, Margaret had a 3-1 winning head to head record against Chris including a clay court win at the French Open. So prime Court beats prime Evert?
This is in response to R Sheen's message. A younger Margaret Court actually failed to win a single set against Evert in their first 3 encounters. It was Evert doing all the whipping. Chris Evert lobs and passing shots made Margaret doubt her net game and Margaret's serve too crumbled against Evert's devastating returns. Margaret feared Chris - no one else made her look so foolish playing her natural serve and volley game.
Evert was just too inexperienced. She had never played in Europe, never played a slam final, and never played on the red clay before this tournament. She had beaten Court several times but always on green clay which plays faster that the red clay. Court was figuring out how to play Chris by now. Margaret said she learned she needed to be far pickier about her approach shots than against anyone else and very patient.
@@charleskristiansson1296 Irony: Evert lost to 15 yr old Seles on clay in Houston about 20 years later. Only Evert was 34, and it wasn't a straight set loss, and Evert beat her two times before the rivaly was done.
classic!!, maybe this was the first time a double hander intimidate one hander on GS, Evert modern baseline style and consistent backhand were very difficult for Court game..classic serve and volley vs modern baseliner. Court did great job here (on clay, which a little bit weird), Evert won on Sf wimbledon ( grass) and Court won again on Us Open
If i didn't know better I would have thought that this footage was recorded in slow motion. There's no way these two players can survive a first week of a Slam with today's fast paced power tennis.
magnetmac1 Can't say that. Give them big high tech rackets and more advanced balls and get in a time machine and they would probably think they were cheating. I remember when the rackets started getting huge and high tech and couldn't believe it was allowed. It would be like changing the rules of pro baseball and allowing aluminum bats...or an archery competitions and allowing crossbows.
Marcus Irwin Okay, I need to alter my statement. You can compare. Look at Chris Evert in the late eighties against Martina or Graff. They had higher tech rackets by then and they played way faster than in this video. It's all about the rackets.
+Marcus Irwin Agree. And compare Graf on 1988 and Graf on 1999, the serve could even reach 148 km/h later. Imagine she was using today's racket. These power hitters fans sometimes sound so silly.
also Margaret absolutely owns the ballbashers of today with her court craft and versatility. Todays ballbashers wouldn't even know what a volley was or how to construct a point with purpose. Both Chris and Margaret had much more of a tennis head and much more consistency int hem then all todays ball bashers combined
the rackets are so different today - Serena could not play like she does now with those rackets the sweet spot is so small - her serve would still be a weapon though however she couldn't power players off the court like she does with the modern rackets
How then was Margaret able to defeat the best Australian Olympic runners over 100 meters and get selected for the Commonwealth games if she was slow? She was measurably faster than Serena.
While Court’s personal prejudices are loathsome, she was a hell of a player. Serve and volley on clay! She was quick for a tall woman and had all the shots. Today’s athleticism is light years better, but both she and Chris would excel in the current era.
Court's personal beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with her tennis ability and achievements and shame on you for your own prejudices and bad manners.
Jonathon i have watched Chris Evert throughout her career and this was NOT Evert light. She is nailing her passing shots and drop shots and covering the net with greater volleys you would see from her until the 82 Aus Open final. On the tennisforum chat many other Evert observers agreed. I recently saw the 73 King-Evert Wimbledon final and yes that was Evert light, maybe the grass or the occassion or opponent
The starting reign of the Queen of clay court tennis, and Queen of American tennis. That patented backhand, pinpoint accurate ground strokes, and the best mental strength, male or female in the history of the game. Chris was always #1 in my book, regardless of who she played. A gracious champion in victory or defeat, and she certainly represented the US superbly!
but she lost
What a pity Chrissie didn´t play the French on 76´, 77´and 78´in her best moment. Easly could have achieved 21 mayors.
@yogathaimassagemadrid3806 … Yes, she would have won all those titles, undoubtedly. She was undefeated on clay in those years. More to the point, if Chris had also played the Australian Opens shunted aside (she reached the final in every Oz Open she played) she would have won at least three, which would have brought her total to 25. She should have chased history instead if Billie Jean King’s perpetually underwhelming and ephemeral “Team Tennis”. There are other reasons Chris did not win a few more Slams between 1983-1984 but would rather not state what was obvious to many at the time.
It's great to see Margaret Court playing. Her movements and body were athletic and the way she moved into her shots showed a confidence and technical aspects so many players today hide behind power. Notice how many balls went out - that when Court approached she'd win the points she hit a deep approach shot before. If she didn't put away the return Chris made her pay with placement. Each could've hit the balls harder - but talent and tech suited both just fine. Impressive! Glad this was posted.
What I love most about this video, it dispel the common thought that they played slow in the 70's. These two and play some fast shots, and on clay no less.
Margaret Court was just an amazing player. Her all court game is a perfect example of a complete player. But I really have always loved Evert. Her two handed backhand is still one of the best I have seen. Her timing and pace are incredible.
Chrissie retired playing better tennis than she did during the years that she dominated the sport. It is so amazing for such a legend to keep trying to better herself and improve her game so that she could compete with the next generation of players. Here is a little known fact: Margaret Court, all 6 feet of her, was the only player to cross train back during her reign, which gave her a tremendous advantage over her opponents. People often credit Martina Navratilova with this phenomenon, but Margaret was light years ahead of Martina. Court even had her own set of barbells and weights, sold under her name in the early 1970's. Margaret even made it a point to "hide what she was doing from her opponents", according to Wendy Turnbull. Court also had extra long, gangly arms, and it was written that her "wing span" at the net was approximately that of a person who was seven feet tall.
@@kittycarson5884 That last part is untrue. Margaret was only 5'9". Same height as Serena, an inch shorter than Caroline Wozniacki, and 5 inches shorter than Lindsay Davenport or Maria Sharapova. Two inches shorter than Althea Gibson, who preceded Margaret as the top player. Her height is about average for today's top players...maybe even a little shorter (Several of the top girls have been over 6 feet...Muguruza, Azarenka, Safina, Ivanovic among them). Margaret WAS ahead of her time, training-wise. You are correct there. Margaret did have a long reach, but nothing that unusual. She appeared to be very tall because many of her rivals were short or average height Billy Jean was 5'4, Nancy Richey, 5'3, Wendy Turnbull 5'5. Her top rival, Maria Bueno, was 5'7, as was Martina Navritilova.
@@joemarshall4226 Margaret Court was much taller, 5'9 feet is because of osteoclasis with her age
In an interview Court said that she’s 5’9” but people thought she was much taller. Her arms are longer than the average 5’9” person. Court credits her cross training for having very few injuries in her career and being able to return to the tour so quickly after having a baby.
@@stevenmac9158 Court looked like she was 6'1" on the court. An ominous presence.
She was one of the first women tennis players to totally train her body and lift weights to get strong.
She was extremely fit as shown clearly in the 1970 Wimbledon match with Billy Jean.
The first set alone lasted 90 min!
Good old times, sweet memories...
Two great champs!
Wow! I've never seen this before. Thanks for posting. I enjoyed it very much. This match really highlights the qualities that made each of these women great champions. Both were relentless!
great points here - love how Margaret can direct her backhand - floating it deep, chipping it short or hitting it hard so it scoots through - great attacking too - wish there was more of this in today's game. Chris was good on the volley even at 18 - I thought that this improved with age but she obviously had a lot of natural talent even at the net.
Thanks for this. Young Chrissie was ahead in the final set in her first major French final - and got nervous. Experienced Margaret closed out the match. Nice rallies, competitive too.
Chrissie was up 5-3 in the 2nd set after winning the 1st. I think she also had a 4-2 lead in the 3rd? I don’t speak French and they never show the score so I am not positive if she did indeed lead 4-2 in the 3rd. But in an interview with Chris and Martina, Chris joked that she should’ve had 19 GS titles but choked against Court “I was up 5-3 and blew it.” If Chris hadn’t skipped French Open in 1976-78 during her 125 match clay court streak, and played Australian Open 1975-1980, she could’ve easily won the he 3 French and multiple Australian Opens. She would then be the GOAT: 10 French, let’s say 5 Australian, 6 US and 3 Wimbledon=24. Clay court streak add 21 to 125=146. Thanks to upgrading Australian Open facilities and to beginning of year, players are playing it more. Easier to win more slams when you play 4 a year. So now players are winning more slams- Serena 7x winner, Djoko 8 or 9x winner. Chrissie played only 2 GS in 1976-78 when she was dominating and 3 slams majority of her career.
@@stevenmac9158I agree 100 percent
Chris def could've added 3-4 grand slam singles titles between 1976-78.
Two to three French titles for certain plus maybe one Australian.
But back then the players just didn't make the trek Down Under, I don't know if it was the prize money or lack of, but the 20+ hours of flying was certainly not fun
Margaret Court was known as a serve and volley player but she handled these long rallies so well to match Chris Evert on clay and take the title !
She ended up with 5 French titles. You can't do that without being a pretty decent baseliner, too.
Wow, no orgasmic screaming at every strike!
Yeah, super boring. There's nothing like watching beautiful sweat and grunt during play!
@B M-Y Not with the raquet technology from that era she wouldn't be.
Yes...and no fist pumping either.
more like a yawn ...
@B M-Y Sharapova & Co wouldn't be able to return a ball with a wooden racket.
Thank's for this video. Funny to see Evert dropping her second ball when her first serve is good. Today, they won't play if a ball rests near a wall!
When I played in my teens in the 70s, I'd toss the 2nd ball behind me or carry it around during the point.
Should she not have been penalised for dropping something on court ?
@@fido3449 Today - yes
Back then - no
Chris just drops the second ball to the back of the court after she serves. I didn't know players could do that. You definitely can't do that now.
It was standard play for a player to hold two balls in his/her tossing hand when serving a first serve. (20s through early 70s) Then the player would HOLD ON TO THE EXTRA BALL ALL THROUGH THE POINT! For the rare player with a two handed backhand, dropping the ball was standard (some one-handers did it as well) But it was dangerous. Stepping on the ball can cause serious injuries. Notice the women's outfits had no pockets. In the late 80s, a popular plastic gimmick arrived that held the ball during the point, women would put take the ball out from under their skirts. I remember Arantxcha Sanchex-Vicario helped popularize it. I think people didn't use grip changes as often, so the off hand was not needed as much. McEnroe uses only one grip for every shot, for instance...
@@joemarshall4226 I once step on a tennis ball and suffered ligament damage to my foot. It is indeed dangerous.
@@joemarshall4226 "It was standard play for a player to hold two balls in his/her tossing hand when serving a first serve. (20s through early 70s)".
Actually it was done even until the late eighties. Steffi Graf used to hold two balls in her tossing hand, keeping the second ball in her hand during the rallies having served her 1st serve in. E.g.: ua-cam.com/video/qNfEZYew6n0/v-deo.html
@@ArthurVerhulst yup. This is absolutely correct.
@@joemarshall4226 you cant really use mcenroe as an example. his game was very unique. but now i know why his ground strokes were not as good. (if he truly used the same grip for both shots.) when i started playing paddle tennis, i developed a wonderful technique of using basically the same grip, but hitting with the same side of the paddle. for regular topspin shots. if i wanted to slice the ball, i would change the grip.
Margaret Court was amazing. And I know people might not like her cause of what she says, but I'm referring to the tennis player. Played in 47 grand slams, and won 24. Excluding the Australian Open, she played in 33 grand slaps, and won 13. That's nearly a 40% record. Super impressive. Now people would say if Serena was playing she would easily beat her. But that's the wrong question, of course a modern day athlete with all the science and the equipment would go back in time and do well. The correct question would be, how would a talented Margaret Court do in today's tennis with all the access that tennis players have today to trainers, dieticians, etc. We never know. We only go by her record. And she was the best of her time, like how Serena is the best her time this generation.
Betul sekali bro ahmad 👍
Nice match. Court looked like a really good all around player here, even late in her career. Whereas Evert played the baseline game. Martina N changed women's tennis with a more attacking game. And then Graf revolutionized it. But recall, the rackets back then were basically wood and string, and the training and supplements etc were old style also .
I really really love the backhands from Chris Evert😎🙌🏽👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Just an amazing match! It shows these two champions really going for it stroke for stroke - and the most surprising thing of all are Chrissie's fine volleying skills! A joy to watch, thank you so much.
OMG! Thank you just isn't enough for your posting this.Unlike so many other players, there is little prolonged footage of Margaret. She was an impressive player..a serve & volleyer who could play extremely well on clay. She never came over her backhand, but her placement was spot on. I don't care her as a person, but I truly admire Margaret Court the tennis player. It would have been interesting to see how she would have done in 1974 had she not gotten pregnant. She absolutely dominated 1973.
She does amazing work for charity. A true beacon of goodness.
I love Chris Evert during my whole life until now.She was really a champion.And a very beautiful woman.She combined both together.For me she was the world best female tennisplayer of all time.Chris forever.
Margaret seems to dance... what elegance, amazing!
Evert battled Court 3X in grand slam tournaments alone in 1973, this being the first. Evert gained revenge in another 3-setter at Wimbledon a few weeks later with Court returning the favor at the U.S. Open in another 3 sets. People have to understand Chrissie was still only 18 yrs old in 1973 and was yet to peak as a player. But taking Margaret Court to 3 sets (with one win) in their grand slam matches that year shows she was getting closer. Still this French final loss was hard for Evert to swallow as she was leading in the second and third sets. Court's experience won in the end.
Shame that Chrissy missed so many French opens in the 1970's. She was good enough to win some more titles for sure.
I agree jigsterify, although Margaret was a great clay courter in her own right. She won 5 French Opens from 10 attempts. Her record on clay is second only to Evert's. This match here is one between arguably the two best ever on the surface.
Much more variety back then. Bring back the wooden rackets
Perhaps more variety was accessible because there was a lot less velocity and these women (comparatively speaking) weren't quick on their feet. For me, both men's and women's tennis looked pretty boring back then so I never watched it.
Adrian Brown ... Exactly. I’d like to see who can really “play” and who can’t. Who can actually structure a point and who just lets insane topspin do all the work.
These players wouldn't be half of who they are if they had to use a wooden racket!
And, Chris should have won this match! She was well ahead
1973! Over 50 years ago. Evert still looks great to this day!
The craziest part is Chris Evert throwing her second service ball behind her once the point starts. Also haven’t watched much of Margaret Court ever but that is the smoothest backhand I’ve ever seen
I feel Margaret Court had the best overhead of all time! She was tall, moved back incredibly well, and always crushed them for a winner. She never made an error on them. She was really consistent on everything. Bud Collins said in his book that she was 6 feet tall, but I think she was about 6 feet one inch. She looked as tall as Betty Stove who was that height when they shook hands at the net.
Margaret Court was feet nine inches - a veritable pygmy by today's standards!
That is the shortest person in world history. TV does add a few.
+mcfrogner LOL
Margaret Court's overhead is likely like 30% or more slower than Serena's, and that's not even an exaggeration. Court didn't even have access to modern rackets let alone the insane strength of Serena.
In one or two of the pictures I've seen of her, she looks taller than 5'9". Interesting.*
lets quote Margarets wikipedia page shall we, "Her all time, all surfaces (hard, clay, grass and carpet) singles career winning percentage of 91.68 (1180-107) is an all-time record. Her Open era singles career winning percentage of 91.37% (593-56) is also unequaled. Her win-loss performance in all Grand Slam singles tournaments was 90.12% (210-23)." Margaret was also more versatile than Chris winning record womens and mixed doubles as well as the calender year grand slam
Thank you for posting this match and in such great quality considering the year the match took place.
Noticing how closed the body position is on the sliced 1 hand backhand; I learned in the 70s and still do that and it drives coaches crazy because they want weight moving forward - but this reminds of why Margaret's way feels so natural to me. I miss seeing all the net talent - today's matches are mostly "baseliner du jour" (which ever baseliner has a better day, wins). I miss Navratilova, Henin, ... the point constructors and shot makers...
Chrissy was soooo ahead of her time. That left hand was pumping out the power! She was destined for GOATness
@breadandcircuses8127I guess UA-cam deleted my other reply. It said: “Shut yo’ dumb azz up.”
With the possible exception of Serena, Court would even now, have one of the best serves on tour
Yes, Court had a good serve flat and powerful. The only person against whom it did not work was Chris Evert who read the Court serve very well, neutralized it and then followed up with some devastating passing shots and lobs. As a result, Court always struggled against Evert who managed to get under Court’s skin from their very first encounter. Styles make rivalries and in this case Evert was a terrible match up for Court. Goes to show that power alone does not suffice,
It's amazing to me how often Chris is at the net! I was not prepared for that.
Chrissie almost took her out here
Different game back then, but still remarkably solid play by extremely skilled players!
The play in this match really shows that Margaret Court was an outstanding all court player, quick, and with great volleys, and maybe the best overhead of all time. Many do not give her the credit she deserves because she choked during parts of matches, but usually settled down and got her game back most of the time to still come up with the win, with a few notible exceptions such as the Bobby Riggs match.
shes also a Xenophobic Narcassist and will be remembered as such, many of her 24 titles were AO wins against B-Graders
Thanks for posting this. It was interesting that Margaret Court beat Chris on clay, but Chris beat Margaret at Wimbledon on grass in the same year.
exemplifies the point that both were all court players.
This was a match Evert should have won. But a closer look shows Margaret Court played an extremely patient match to hang with Evert on the baseline and look for chances to attack the net. Margaret's experience won out in the end. Evert's only 18 here and her game was still developing. Tactically, Chris was lobbing way too much and most of them fell short for easy put-aways by Margaret. That alone cost her. Evert would eventually end up with a winning head to head record against Court, but this loss clearly cost her a grand slam title she should've won on her beloved clay surface.
If you did some research into their head to head you would also say that Margaret had the winning H2H at Grand Slams and 2 of Margarets losses to Chris were in 1977 where Margaret was popping out babies (I think she had had her third child that year) and was only playing a few weeks in the year, against the new number 1. I hardly think thats a fair comparison.
Yes Court had a 2-1 lead in grand slams (1-1 on grass, and 1-0 in Court's favor on clay which is this French Open match) - doesn't mean much as it is too close to call. Going into this match, Evert had already built a 3-1 lead over Court and it was 7-4 Evert discounting the 2 matches in 1977. Overall, tough to argue against Evert as far their head to head record is concerned. Court just found Evert a bit too difficult and I do not mean this disrespectfully.
2-1 winning record at Grand Slam may not mean much to you but to anyone else thats the most important stat of their meetings, perhaps your bias is stopping you from have any rationality in your argument. In 1972 Chris had 2 wins and Margaret had 1, In 1973 Margaret had 2 wins to 1 (all at GS level), so that evens them up at that stage, with Margaret coming out on TOP at that stage due to bigger tournament wins. The last 3 matches, 2 in 75 and 1 in 77 Chris won, but Margaret had missed most of 74 due to giving birth to her second child Markia and only returning in November of that year and only playing part time in 75 and having her third child in 76. Therefore Chris last wins were when she was at the top of her game against a semi retired mother of 3, WOW! My argument makes sense yours is like "oh that doesn't mean much" with no reason given, sorry Margaret won the important GS matches and was the BETTER player, end of story
When Court played Evert between 1970 and 1973, she was World number 1 while Evert was nowhere near her best. Yet Court Struggled to hold Her own against Evert, which to me only suggests that Evert was a bad match up for Court. It does not translate into Evert being the better or greater player overall - that requires looking at their records beyond their own personal head of head.
Well yes Court and Evert were all time greats.... and your analogy could be drawn also at Evert being number 1 and being beaten by a 16yo Tracy Austin, or a 15yo Monica Seles or a 16yo Steffi Graf (who never lost to her again). You may have the opinion Evert was nowhere near her best but i totally disagree, watching the 73 FO final her passing shots, lobs and moving of the opponent around the court are as good as Ive seen her play, sure some of the technical aspects of her strokes were not all there but she played a brilliant match. The point is also Chrissy had a very different game to which Margaret was suited but nevertheless she came back from being defeated by Chrissy and after having her first baby and determined to get back to number 1 in 73 and did just that, defeating Chrissy on her favourite surface at the French and also backing up to defeat her again at the US Open. If you discount the last three matches where Margaret was a part time player at best, multiple mother and mid 30s player, then they are equal in matches, and mid 70s Evert WAS at her best, no argument there. I don't think you can say Evert was a bad match up given the limited number of clashes since you could also say Martina had troubles with Chrissy untill she learned to adapt then owned Chrissy on many occassions, who knows if Margaret would not have done the same if she was in the same era......... its very hard to compare players of a different era, even by Chris and Martinas era strokes had been improved just like a Serena has much more advanced stroke production than a Chrissy or Martina.
And as I have previously said Margarets prime was in the 60s as evidenced by all her GS wins and culminating in the 1970 GS. She had a suprise loss to Evert in 70 and 72 then took care of her trully in 73 before babies and age took its toll. Lets not kid ourself margaret figured a way back once to defeat Evert if she was younger and not having babies this great champion would have again. Think Navratilova and how she did.
Coming from the young generation, I don’t care what everybody says, Margaret Court is the greatest women’s champion of all time.
She played gracefully and was a hell of a competitor.
It’s not fair that put people judge her because of her views, but she’s sticking up for her what she believes in, so good on her.
If any one sticks up for what they believe, like Billie jean king then there should be another opposite like the Margaret Courts.
Can’t be just one sided. There is always the ‘left’ and the ‘right’.
Although Court was always a step ahead on all of the other women’s tennis players in her time.
Yeah, the left is for rights for everyone, and the right tries to restrict rights to certain people.
Don't see the relevance of so many comments re Margaret's personal life and views. Sticking to tennis.... Chris Evert had the upper hand in this rivalry from match number 1 when Evert was 15 and Court was still World Number 1. Chris read Margaret's serve very well and used Margaret's pace against her. Chris also passed or lobbed Margaret at the net with an ease that had devastating effect on Margaret and shook Margaret's confidence in her serve and volley game. Over time, Margaret learned to not rush the net and to stay back. It ensured that she did not look completely foolish against Evert, but then she was not going to beat Evert either with any consistency by staying back. Chris was the aggressor in their matches, took the initiative, kept Margaret on the run and forced Margaret to defend and play a game foreign to her. Margaret herself admitted that she found Chris Evert "difficult" which was probably an understatement.
Margaret Court was a great player.... against everyone else except Chris Evert.
+David J yes, court was a great match-up for evert... her straight forward powerful game evert fed off of.. evert did and would always have more problems with king because of king's greater variety and tactical mind. not to mention king's on court presence.... course evert got the better of king head to head as well...
Go figure. I'm sure Chris reveled in that fact lol.*
I think is fair to say from the quality of tennis played in this match, along with the record of both of these players, that were they playing today with modern equipment, fitness and diet etc, they would be up there with Serena. They would beat Sharapova easily by the fact that they are quick around the court and can vary their game.
alan1wlondon yeah I highly doubt this...
Pointless argument. These players grew up with wooden raquets and their skills developed around that. They never developed these relentless forehand and backhand drives that modern players do because raquet technology did not exist to enable these. However modern players do not develop the net game that these players had and it is doubtful if their groundstrokes with a wooden raquet, which would not nearly be as potent, consistent or accurate, would be enough to win against Court and contemporaries. It all gets down to the evolution of raquet technology. However make no mistake, Court was a phenomenal athlete.
These across ages arguments are pointless and meaningless. Is Joe Fastfoot at Freedonia State a better sprinter than Jesse Owen's was? I mean he could beat him, right? And the lady teaching relativity at Baton Bottom U knows more about it than Einstein, so surely she's a greater physicist than he was.
Très intéressant de revoir ce match😊
Evert stepping into the court, dictating with those groundies, rifling passes, moving into net and putting away volleys and overheads when sensible: she’s been an all court player since her teens.
Ditching the second ball after the first serve is in ... that would cause aneurysms in today's game. Thanks for this historic upload.
Margaret Court won more than half of her titles agsinst amateurs. Wikipedia- "She won a record 24 singles grand slam titles, though 13 of the 24 were before the open era of tennis. Prior to the open era, only amateurs were allowed to play in Grand Slam tournaments."
Te olvidas que muy pocas mujeres por no decir ninguna pasaban al profesionalismo. así que Court los ganó muy bien ganados. No es lo mismo que el masculino donde Rod Laver despues de hacer su grand slam en 1962 pasó seguidamente a profesionales, y por tanto dejó de jugar en los slams y aun así cuando volvió 6 años después a jugarlos ya en plena era Open, repitió su Grand Slam en un año en 1969. Sin profesionales Federer y Sampras records serían mucho menores, Rod Laver hubiese ganado muchos pero que muchos más g.slam que estos dos y no solo el, otros como Rosewall o Stolle...
The impact was of being 'amateur,' was nothing like it was on the men's tour. There was no pro option dividing the talent pool. Its not like Bueno and King were somewhere else, playing on a pro tour or a series of one on one events for money, while she racked up amateur majors, like happened among the men.
Oh please, you do some actual research and go back and look at some of Martina and Chris early opponents in Grand Slams and tell me these were anything more than glorified amateurs...... Peanut Louie Harper anyone? Even todays top women like Serena don't face all the big names in a GS draw they can miss all the top players with a cake walk draw and being a high seed their first few rounds are against very low ranked players. The POINT is Margaret dominated the field in her era, like others have dominated their era and like others will dominate theirs, thats all you can ask.
That takes nothing away from her record. Back then, the best players were amateurs.
Merveil Meok weak argument because before 1968 all the players who played slams were amateurs .
Margaret knew in her heart this young girl would be big trouble soon.
Esp. as Evert beat Court 3 years earlier on clay in a NC tourney in straight sets. Up 5-3 in the 3rd - this was a heart-breaker for Evert fans like me.
@@RachelDavisMatthews Evert couldn't have been up 5-3 in the 3rd given that Margaret won it 6-4.
Court had much better ground strokes than King. That's what enabled her to have a much more stellar clay court CV.
Very good match by both women.
+Tristan Ferguson true, but yet, king i think troubled evert more then court because while court had better groundstrokes, king had more variety in her groundstrokes, variety and tactics worried evert more (i.e. king) than simple straightforward power and stroke production... course evert got the better of king in their head to head too..
Agree. Chris always read and anticipated Margaret's powerful serve very well and her superb returns set up the lobs and passing shots that overwhelmed Margaret. Chris found Margaret's game quite predictable unlike King's. On top of this, Margaret never seemed sure of which direction Chris would hit. Margaret was a great player.... But Chris just knew how to beat her.
David J agreed.. court while technically a better player then king, was a bad match up for evert.. court's more or less "straight forward" power game played into evert's strengths.... king with infinitely more variety then court, junkballing groundstrokes to evert, varying her serves, staying back mixed with the best volley in the game (until martina) and add in her court presence and ego and it has to be said gamesmanship all combined to give evert more trouble with king, then with court.. although evert with a 19-7 head to head dominated king as well.. (and all before evert ever touched a graphite racket, lifted weights, and everything else she did in the mid 80's to stay on par with navratilova)..
From what I understood reading the records, that is probably why Margaret beat Billie a lot throughout their matchups.*
MC was more patient than BJK - she didn't mind staying back at times and hitting lots of ground strokes before coming to the net. BJK liked to get in and win the point quickly, which isn't always the best way to go on clay.
Margaret Court was the greatest of all time on the women's side. Her record is phenomenal, even with pregnancies.
Lol hello Venus and Serena. Serena would have gobbled this no power little girl up.
Absolutely phenomenal. I like the fact that her post open era record backs up her pre-open record very well. It shuts down the naysayers who believe Margaret's 24 Slams aren't legit.*
Serena is the GOAT; discussing amateurs is an insult to Tennis and Serena. Serena has changed history--you gotta love it; Richard is the GOAT coach; they were sent to us to end the rule of racists homophobes. Serena would have dominated these lames with a broom stick!! Serena GOAT !!
no one showed up when she won her bazillion australians because travel was so much harder back in the day.. it makes her records entirely meaningless...
Serena Williams and Martina Navaratilova were better
Even thought Margaret has had some contrversial opinion as for her tennis us Australians are very proud she is one of the all time greats and the greatest single Grand Slam winners the game has seen. The fact Chrissy has been so dominant over clay makes Margarets win her the more special.
NOTHING "controversial" about Ms. Court's spot-on biblical views --- but this corrupt post-modern culture has made it clear that "God" be "damned" and, therefore, the so-called "controversy." But for the Christ-followers, there's absoutely everything RIGHT about Ms. Court standing up for this corrupt culture by expressing that which is clearly written in the Word of God.
thanks, I always wanted to see some of this match. Its ashame their careers didn't overlap at their peaks - the difference in styles reminds me of Martina and Chris - so riveting to watch. I also think Margaret is also not given the credit she deserves. She reminds me a bit of Graf in the way she moved and Martina in her tactics.
Margaret was a fantastic mover on the court. Very solid all around game...very good serve/overhead technique too. What has me intrigued is the use of semiopen and open stance forehands the greats have used since at least the 1920s. Old footage has made it very clear that the best have all used semiopen ad open forehands and that its nothing new and probably should be taught more to adults than it is.
I even saw Suzanne Lenglen using a reverse finish like nadal...and that was in the 1925 wimbledon final.
Court was simply magnificent in her prime and this victory when she was over 31 and a mother shows her fighting qualities and the variety in her game too. She had excellent footwork in contrast to Serena Williams who is the most awkward and ungainly mover ever on a tennis court. Mind you this is the age of hit hard, harder and hardest which is not always good to watch.
This was not only her first major final, it was her first time playing RG, and her first time playing the European season on the red clay. She had lost in the final of her first Italian just prior to the start of RG, to Evonne. Everyone in the states knew how good she was on the green Har-tru clay, but Europe had not had exposure to Evert. They learned soon enough. 7 French, 5 Italians, 2 Germans +Fed cup in Berlin, 1 Bancroft cup in Austria, 2 Swiss Open,1 Geneva Open,
it's incredible how slow their shots were! Compared to what we could see with Graf's or Seles' shots just a few years later...
Agree about the wood rackets.^ I had mainly seen Chris play after she switched to graphite around 1984, so her court coverage here is very impressive. Was Chris's demolition of Seles at the USO an anomaly?--control was not usually an issue for Seles, whose power was matached by her precision. Still, after seeing this, I don't know how Graf or Seles would have fared against Chris if they too were using wood rackets.
Graf and Seles didnt' come around "just a few years later". They came on the scene 15 years after this match. But even Chris was hitting much harder as her career progressed.
***** 1989
Right. Her prime and post-prime years leading to '89.*
Always wanted to see this legendary match of Court beating Evert on clay. Now how about the 1975 Wimbledon QF when Court beat Navratilova on grass. Thanks.
Beautiful play
I love all the comments from people who never watched tennis prior to 1999. lmao
Lol Yeah! Because nothing really happened in tennis before The Williams Sisters came along.
@@tudormiller8898 Boooooooooooring!
@@tudormiller8898 Serena still can’t match the Great Margaret Court’s all time Grand Slam singles titles. And there is forever and a day between Court’s all time Singles, Doubles, and Mixed Doubles Grand Slam victories, as opposed to Williams’ tally. Hope that puts things in perspective for ya!
@@filipina5953 Court won 5 French, 5 US and 3 Wimbledon titles-only 1 Wimbledon title in the Open era. Chris won 7 French, 6 US and 3 Wimbledon titles. Court’s 11 Australian titles, 7 before 1968, were when the draw was much smaller and 90% of the players were Australian. I believe in 1961 and 62 there were only Australian women in the draw. If you can argue for her 11 AO titles, then I can argue that Chrissie played a lot fewer grand slams. She missed 10 slams during her prime (7 Australian, 3 French). So when you look at it from this perspective..but Court is definitely top 5 greatest female players. I’d rank her ahead of Chrissie except she’s a religious wing nut and has disrespected some of her peers, especially another top 5 legend. And said WTA is full of lesbians who take younger players to parties and well I’m sure you all have read about her opinions on LGBTQ.
@@stevenmac9158 Hey Steve! You have some very valid points in your assessments. Like many will know, it’s very hard to compare Greats from different eras, as there are many many variables at any one time. I don’t know where you are from, but here in Australia we have our National horse race (Melbourne Cup), and many experts have differing opinions on who is the Greatest winner over its 159 year tenure. Many say Phar Lap, as he won the race during “The Great Depression” in the 1930’s, was that bcoz the general public needed to get their minds of reality temporarily, was he. The people’s horse, or was he the Best? All points of conjecture. Some say Makybe Diva, a mare who won the Cup 3 years running (as no other horse has done in the race’s history), is the Greatest. And there was an obscure one that not many pundits would have ever heard of, who won the race in 1890, carrying the heaviest weight in history, against many many more entrants than in today’s race fields, on a less than forgiving track surface, over slightly more ground (imperial to metric conversion), with a race time that would have beaten almost 90-95% of all winners of the great race, and all done 130 years ago, and with none of the technological advances, modern training techniques, fitness management, dietary stimulations, etc etc. As the greatest trainer (winners of the race) Bart Cummings (12🏆) said on occasion - Its is impossible to compare horses from different eras (as explained), and also, Weight stops trains. So Who Knows? I have my opinion, as do many others, but each entitled to their own Democratic opinion! And you are right in your correct in your data about early Australian Opens, and how they were restricted at different times. When you say Chris Evert didn’t compete at 10 Grand Slams, you could also apply those stats to Navratilova who missed just as many (also French and Australian Slams) during the same years, and with both winning 18 Grand Slam titles each in total. So in Navratilova’s case, she is only 5 Grand Slam victories total behind Margaret Court’s 64, which is what my initial statement was about, that Serena’s 39 Grand Slam total victories, fall far far behind Margaret Court’s all time record. I’m saying that Margaret Court’s record number of victories completely out weigh Williams’. Court’s Grand Slam singles winning percentage is 51% (24/47) as opposed to Williams’ 29% (23/79). The closest any other female player has gotten to this winning % is Steffi Graf @ 40%, Evert @ 32%, and Navratilova @ 27%. So it’s pretty cut and dried that Court’s record is superior to all, not only in singles, but doubles and mixed combined also. I’m not saying she is/was a superior player than Williams, bcoz as you can see through my explanation above, there are way to many variables in play at any given time. And it’s a record I believe could stand for a very substantial amount of time. One thing I would love to see though, would be to see a tournament between these 5 legendary female players - Court, Williams, Graf, Navratilova, Evert, and possibly throw in Billie Jean King, and Maureen “Little Mo” Connelly (Won 9 x Grand Slams singles titles in succession 1951-1954, before forced injury @ 20 years of age ended her career prematurely). Take your pick for the 8th position to make up the list. That’s just my opinion though 😊
I had no idea Chris Evert was a true historical player! I always thought of her in terms of modern tennis like with Martina. She played almost the same as a very young player, and when she finally was broadcast in color. lol./ Margaret Court was something else. She played a little like Martina or the other way around. Chris probably thought, "Here we go again..." when the rivalry with Martina started-full circle.
Chris almost played well enough to win this match. She was probably better than Margaret at this point anyway. She just missed some lob shots and that was all it took for her to lose. Margaret had no real weakness as a player.
Court had her first child in 72, then came back to win 3 slam events in 73, where was evert if she was better.in the next few years court added 3 more children to her family. Court had 24 singles grand skam titles, 64 all round grand dlam titles won 194 singles titles, her match record was 1177 wins to 106 losses 92% all records. She played in both eras but won easy in each. Her records should be recognized.
@@ag358 I would argue that 11 of Court's GS singles titles were at the Australian Open. She won 7 before the Open era when most of the top players did not participate. The draws would have between only 32-50 players and almost all of them were Australian players: 1960 had 32 players-30 were Australian. 1961 had 48-all but 2 were Australian. 1962 had 48 players-all but 5 were Australian. 1963 only 39 players-36 were Australian. 1964 had a 27-player draw, 26 were Australian. 1965- 52 draw, 1966-48 player draw. Booth were 90% Australian women. Court also won only 3 Wimbledon singles titles
@Steven Curtis she didn't play in 1966 or 1967. She was just as proficient winning in the open era as before, winning the grand slam in 1970 had 3 children in the open era and still won 92 tournaments. Her 92 % winning on all surfaces is still the best of all time. She was 90% winning ratio in ALL grand slam singles matches. She won 12 grand slam titles as an amateur and 12 as a professional , 12 tiles having 3 children in the open era ,it's safe to speculate that her 12 GS singles titles would've been higher. Her record 64 Grand slam titles along with her record 24 gs singles titles are a testament to her all around play.
Interesting how Chris did not use her side-spin down the line forehand pass in this clip. That shot must have been developed later. And it is easy to see how Margaret won five French Opens whilst BJK only won one - Margaret could be very patient at the back of the court, as well as mixing it up by coming forward. Chris shows here that she could volley pretty well - she just didn't do so very often. Great post.
Margaret court simply the greatest womens tennis player of all time who's records will never be broken
What record? Winning in Australia as an amateur...?
Deon Lucas 7 of the players she beat in Aust finals against are slam champions, including BJk
Margaret is never given her due. Chris was 18 1/2 in this match, at a time when players matured earlier...she was just about at her prime....Margaret was a few months short of 30, had already had a child, and was playing under the stress of constant jet lag, travelling from Australia, at a time when that was very difficult and expensive to do. And she still beat Chris on Chris's favorite surface. Margaret's 91+% winning record is unapproached by men or women, and it would have been higher, had she not had children, played for so long, and had to travel. She achieved this while travelling every year, giving birth to several children, and winning 24 Grand Slam titles.....The complaint is that the good players did not travel to Australia at that time, where she won 11 of her titles, but it is also true that she did not travel to the west early in her career and missed some slams there. And there were quite a few players who DID travel to Australia, and WERE beaten by Margaret in the Aussie Open Had she not had children, she may well have won 30 slams.....In a recent poll, Billie Jean King was ranked ahead of her with only 12 slams (Margaret won 13 not including the Aussies), and an 82% record, and no children!
Pam Marshall I have nothing but respect for Margaret but to suggest this woman was anything but in peak form in 1973 is ludicrous. Court won RG for her fifth time, The Aussie and the US Open by its end and was number 1 in the world. Evert, # 3 in the world, had never played the European red clay circuit, had never played in RG before, and was a first time major finalist. This was not peak Evert It was a fine performance by Court to be sure, but lets not overdo here.
Yeah..what can we do..in a world where sexism, gay, and racism turned to be a card, everybody becomes hate to somebody who has different idea..not that i don't respect all of them. But placed Margaret court behind King is such a riddiculous thing. And by the way Court beat Evert again on Us open that year after she lost on Wimby Sf
I was very impressed by Margaret's record! Her peers were sooo shady throughout the decades lol.*
Yeah, once I read about Margaret's stance on homosexuality (bisexuality by default lol), I was like aha! That's why the tennis world (particularly Billie Jean) snubs her so much. Now with Serena super close to matching her record, they have to acknowledge her (with shade though).*
This match was pretty close considering Court was #1! 6-7, 7-6, 6-4.
+Monica Matos Court had just came from having a baby back to the tour and Evert was fast on the rise to the top of the game
And also considering Court had taken the previous year off to have a baby and Chris Evert went on to be the greatest female clay court player in history.
Monica Matos--------and chrissy was how old...like 15/16----unreal
Monica Matos----she was having a wonderful year..but rankings didn't start until 1975......ummmmm...not to start anything....but.......physically she was #1...but.....not really......
No .. Margaret had not JUST coming back from having a baby. She played on the tour since the beginning of the year in January, practicing diligently since July of 1972, and was dominant in 1973, winning 18 of 25 tournaments played. She returned to the tour in 1972, prior to the US Open, and played quite a few events leading up to it. If we are going to quote history, let us at least state it correctly.
Chrissy really worked Margaret's backhand in this match, especially high floating balls to Margarets backhand, a definite strategy my guess from her dad Jim. A shame Margaret could not come over her backhand. A phenomenal effort from Margaret considering it was clay and Chrissy was nailing passing shots as best I have seen her do to Martina over the years. Chrissy would move to number the very next year and Margaret became at best a casual player having her next two kids so 73 was virtually her last fully competitive year.
I think Chris over-did the attack to Court’s backhand in this match. I have seen her have some success though using this tactic in some other matches, most notably the 1973 Wimbledon match where Court’s backhand just buckled under Evert’s assault. Evert clearly believed there was a weakness there, although it did not quite work out in this match.
Court looked like an all Court player. geddit.
yes a very athletic type ...
It's pretty amazing that there appears to be a huge crowd for the final, probably because this was her first French Open and she drew the crowds. The crowds during the finals from 1974 to probably 1980 were pretty sparse in comparison. You can also hear the excitement in the audience too, which I didn't think happened in France until the epic Chris-Martina finals in the mid 80's.
Margaret Court was a great tennis champion. She, like anyone else, is entitled to her own views.
Why does the footage look like it’s from before WW2 but evert still looks young today 🤣
Evert to this day says this is the one that got away from her. In this match her lobs were short and court had a man's overhead.
yes that was it!!!!!her overhead similar to a mans but she kinda broader and more athletic than average female tennis player
The Margaret Court you see, was not a vocal homophobe. She wasn't even a fundamentalist Pentacostal. She was a quiet catholic and recent mother who was 'reborn' later on. There are YT clips of Pastor Court's Victory Life Center, and sermons/ interviews that we can use to comment on her work . They are literally a click away. Here we should comment on her tennis career. I loath the former, but admire the latter. This woman truly tore down some sexist doors in Australian tennis, and brought a new dedication to women's tennis as a athlete, and a sportswoman. She deserves our respect. As for Pastor Court, I will comment elsewhere.
Court played such a powerful game. It would have been crazy to see what she could do if she were raised in this Era with today's racket technology.
+Logan Flowers if serena played back then, who wins?
+kittybookitty Margaret of course
+Don X ole serena would actually have to the ability to construct a point, have good footwork and all with a wood racket? don't see that happening...
kittybookitty serena
If Serena and Venus played back then and didn't serve and volley, Court would have had them for lunch.
If serena born on this decade... i think serena will play similar to margaret, chris & others 70s girls... coz of the racquet technology etc... i think these 2 girls played amazing similar to serena now
Fun to see this historic footage of two all-time great players. Margaret had a very effective game and seemed to understand how to play to her own strengths. Chris clearly had a game-plan to play Margaret's backhand during rallies. It's interesting that Court never hit a flat or topspin backhand. Sort of like Ken Rosewell. That style wouldn't work in today's modern era. Today, all players have monster groundstrokes and hit with amazing spin and power. Lastly, it's a shame that Margaret Court has such bigoted views about gay people. She could have been a real ambassador from the old era, like Billie Jean King is today.
Margaret’s backhand often crumbled against Evert’s bombardment, but not this time. Evert was just not ready.
Now you can see this quality of tennis played in any 3.5 women's match in America. I'm so glad these days of tennis are over. Tennis today much more athletic.
Just looked at some 4.0 on YT. They wouldn't get a point.
Try hitting with a wooden sometime, and you'll have a lot more respect for this era of tennis. Especially Chris Evert, who was the last professional to switch from wood to graphite.
@@monica012077Martina Navratilova too
@@peterballay2231 I think TERF switched to graphite a year before Chris did. It's why 1983 wasn't a good year for Evert
It seems as though this match is being played in slow motion, although I do appreciate the fact that it enables me to learn more about executing effective groundstrokes, because you had the time to absorb and learn from them. Both were capable of hitting much harder shots, but elected to play the way that they did during the match, due to nerves. Chrissie must have been the more nervous of the two, because of this being her first Grand Slam final, and actually blew a pretty comfortable lead by allowing Margaret back in to the match, and allowing her to win her 5th and final French Open title. Then came Wimbledon, where Billie Jean was ready, willing and able to defeat Chrissie. Both had pressure on them to win, but Chrissie was even more nervous than she was at Roland Garros, and the result was a Billie Jean King rout of Chrissie by 6-0,7-5. Billie Jean has seldom played better. She knew what was on the line if she lost, and executed one of the finest strategic matches of her career.
Agree that Billie Jean played a well thought out game to beat Evert at Wimbledon 1973. It was a let down for Evert after her destruction of Margaret Court with superb lobbing in the semi-final. She had done to Court in the semis what King did to her in the final - totally dictated the play and outplayed her opponent.
Chris lost to Margaret in this final then Evonne in the Italian Open final then that was it, the start of the 125 match winning streak on clay 1973 - 1979. Chris was ranked 2 here and at the start of her long streak so she was at the top of her game here.
Terribly underrated player by today's players opinions and beliefs. I'd like to see the current crop and Miss Diva play with wooden rackets. Court had touch - true finesse. The current game is nothing but slam slam slam and has lost finesse, thus why no one plays net.
One of the things most people don't know about Margaret Court was that she was left handed and taught to play with her right hand. I think this was the reason her backhand was the more natural wing and the reason her serve was not would you might expect from a strong lady of her height. (Interestingly, Ken Rosewall was also left handed and stronger on the backhand and a comparatively weak serve.
what a classy champion margaret court!!!
Maybe during her career but certainly not after. Nowadays, one could describe her as prejudice, hyper-religious, and hateful.
Used to admire her, but her hateful speech against gay people washed all that away. It's awful what religion does to people.
Really impressive ,Margaret Court had the game- strong serve,full court game,solid hits,I wonder had she played today with today's method of training ,equipment and medicine she would have been top -player ,Chris have played both Court and Seles there is nearly 30 years difference between them.
Margaret is entitled to her personal views and that in no way changes or diminishes her stature as an athlete and world class tennis player - an all time great. She did a tremendous job in this match to win from a hopeless situation against the up and coming Chris. Overall, I do believe that Chris was the better player and that she was a nightmare for Margaret. But that does not diminish Margaret's record and her overall achievements as a player.
... and her personal views are irrelevant.
I think it was too late in Margaret's career for her to adapt her game to Chris style, one she had not encountered before. I do not believe that it would have been beyond Margaret to adapt to Chris game much like Martina did, at first being bamboozled by Chris game then over powering her with a net game. By the end of her career when Chris got her last two wins against Margaret, Margaret had had her third child and was really only a bit player on the circuit, only playing a very limited schedule, not enough to maintain the new force in tennis.
It's sad Court never ran around her backhand or hit a flatter one hander.
@@calvinthestormfreak why would anyone need to run around their backhand? in a normal match you don't have that sort of time, which is why it is considered a weakness in a beginners game.
Chrissie kept going to Margaret’s back hand. I think Margaret did not mind that at all. What a champion she was.
Yes, Chris did go a lot to Margaret’s backhand. Not just in this match, but in others too. That was her weaker side and Chris did have a lot of success bombarding Margaret’s backhand, but not in this match obviously. Although, Chris did come close to taking this match too in straight sets.
Chris was 18 here
17
@@joemarshall4226 born December 21 1954...18 years old here.
@@larryyonce I stand corrected. I was also born in 1954. I didn't realize Chris was born so late in the year....
Also, people forget, this is Evert's FIRST slam final.
I feel like i watching the game in slow motion, the game has changed and its very different now since then.
I was just going to say the same thing. The difference in speed is incredible - really does seem like slow motion.
These are well thought out, meticulous players; neither of which would last in today's game with the addition of speed and power.
***** Tennis racquets????!!!
Ur not thinking too hard; ar you?? ;)
why compare everything to todays game? how would todays players do with wooden racquets on mostly grass courts?
jigsterify Federer would still dominate.
Court is still the greatest player until her record is beaten.
Margaret Court was damn good
Spirit Donkey then four months later she got whipped by a 55 year old man
NOYB sounds like you’re the judgmental one
Court was best woman's player ever. Record still stands.. Williams was tremendous player but played in modern era where many of her opponents were average (and Graf was fading from the scene) and couldn't cope with her brute force. Court had to play great players most of the time and new stars like Evert and still win through !
@Consuelo Patagonia It should be remembered that Court had two periods away from the game to have children. Each time coming back and regaining the No 1 spot from her main career rival Billie Jean King. That in itself is unique..
Of course she played in a different era with wooden rackets etc. and the game has moved on in terms of power etc. By 1973 her ankles were suffering wear and tear and the young guns were about to take over, but she does have the all-time winning percentage record for all surfaces, and she won two mixed-doubles Grand Slams in addition to her singles Grand Slam. She was the most eloquent of players deserving of her place at the top table.
@Consuelo Patagonia In 1973, Margaret had a 3-1 winning head to head record against Chris including a clay court win at the French Open. So prime Court beats prime Evert?
This is in response to R Sheen's message. A younger Margaret Court actually failed to win a single set against Evert in their first 3 encounters. It was Evert doing all the whipping. Chris Evert lobs and passing shots made Margaret doubt her net game and Margaret's serve too crumbled against Evert's devastating returns. Margaret feared Chris - no one else made her look so foolish playing her natural serve and volley game.
geez you talk a lot of shit
which made it all the better she came back to whip her arse in the Grand slams in 73 hahahahah Revenge is a dish best served cold
How right you are..
oh of course he's right cause Margaret don't like u being gay Karrtt hahaha
Yes .. I can say that I agree with your analysis. Some players just have some other player numbers.
thank you
Chrissie beat Margaret Court first when she was 15 and she should have won here.
Evert was just too inexperienced. She had never played in Europe, never played a slam final, and never played on the red clay before this tournament. She had beaten Court several times but always on green clay which plays faster that the red clay. Court was figuring out how to play Chris by now. Margaret said she learned she needed to be far pickier about her approach shots than against anyone else and very patient.
@@BTURNER1961 For a 15-year-old Chrissie showed incredible play.
@@charleskristiansson1296 Irony: Evert lost to 15 yr old Seles on clay in Houston about 20 years later. Only Evert was 34, and it wasn't a straight set loss, and Evert beat her two times before the rivaly was done.
@@BTURNER1961 Isn't that the proof of the intertexuality of life? There is always the next version of someone.
Vintage and classy
lost by only 2 games...pretty good...
classic!!, maybe this was the first time a double hander intimidate one hander on GS, Evert modern baseline style and consistent backhand were very difficult for Court game..classic serve and volley vs modern baseliner. Court did great job here (on clay, which a little bit weird), Evert won on Sf wimbledon ( grass) and Court won again on Us Open
If i didn't know better I would have thought that this footage was recorded in slow motion. There's no way these two players can survive a first week of a Slam with today's fast paced power tennis.
magnetmac1 Yeah.. if they were still using wooden rackets..
magnetmac1 i think they can if they were born in 1988 and developed in that era
magnetmac1 Can't say that. Give them big high tech rackets and more advanced balls and get in a time machine and they would probably think they were cheating. I remember when the rackets started getting huge and high tech and couldn't believe it was allowed. It would be like changing the rules of pro baseball and allowing aluminum bats...or an archery competitions and allowing crossbows.
Marcus Irwin Okay, I need to alter my statement. You can compare. Look at Chris Evert in the late eighties against Martina or Graff. They had higher tech rackets by then and they played way faster than in this video. It's all about the rackets.
+Marcus Irwin Agree. And compare Graf on 1988 and Graf on 1999, the serve could even reach 148 km/h later. Imagine she was using today's racket. These power hitters fans sometimes sound so silly.
also Margaret absolutely owns the ballbashers of today with her court craft and versatility. Todays ballbashers wouldn't even know what a volley was or how to construct a point with purpose. Both Chris and Margaret had much more of a tennis head and much more consistency int hem then all todays ball bashers combined
if serena went back in time and played against them, she would be unstoppable. look at how they are playing, barely moving, so slow, omg
the rackets are so different today - Serena could not play like she does now with those rackets the sweet spot is so small - her serve would still be a weapon though however she couldn't power players off the court like she does with the modern rackets
How then was Margaret able to defeat the best Australian Olympic runners over 100 meters and get selected for the Commonwealth games if she was slow? She was measurably faster than Serena.
While Court’s personal prejudices are loathsome, she was a hell of a player. Serve and volley on clay! She was quick for a tall woman and had all the shots. Today’s athleticism is light years better, but both she and Chris would excel in the current era.
Court's personal beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with her tennis ability and achievements and shame on you for your own prejudices and bad manners.
court seems to have better overheads than chrissie and tracy austin and others in that era
Her strength was her net game. Chris and Tracy are baseliners. And she is super tall. It would be ridiculous if she did not have a strong overhead.
Jonathon i have watched Chris Evert throughout her career and this was NOT Evert light. She is nailing her passing shots and drop shots and covering the net with greater volleys you would see from her until the 82 Aus Open final. On the tennisforum chat many other Evert observers agreed. I recently saw the 73 King-Evert Wimbledon final and yes that was Evert light, maybe the grass or the occassion or opponent