What does Serena have to do in order to be the best ever

Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by NadalAgassi, Dec 19, 2012.

  1. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    In your viewpoint what does Serena have to do in order to be the best ever. I believe she has to reach 20 slams and win a 2nd French. If she does that she will be GOAT IMO since she would:

    -Obviously if she keeps winning slams any longer have the best longevity ever. She already has the best longevity ever IMO.

    -Have the highest peak level play ever by a women. I know this is subjective but the general consensus already is Serena's peak level of play is the highest ever on all surfaces except clay. Higher than Graf, higher than Navratilova, higher than Seles, etc...

    -Hold the real unasterixed slam mark, considering the asterixes next to Court's 24 (Australian Open illegitimate slam of time for women), and Graf's 22 (Seles stabbing). At most Court would only have 18 and Graf only 19 without these situations, so 20 would be the true mark ahead of Wills and Graf's 19, Evert, Navratilova, and Court's 18.

    -Dominating the deepest womens field in tennis history from 1999-2003, thus proving herself vs the strongest competition of any player ever.

    -Her records in both Olympics and doubles showing her completeness. Someone like Navratilova who also excelled in doubles had countless opportunities to play in the Olympics and did not even attempt to.
     
    #1
  2. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,343
    I think you might have some arguments with the stuff I put in bold above. But I think even with twenty majors she just lost a little too much and didn't win enough overall tournaments to be considered the best ever for career. I can see the argument of her best play for one match being the best ever. A lot of experts who have seen tennis for years believe that. I think it's possible that for one match she may be the best I've seen.

    But for one year or a few years consecutively or a career I think you would have to go with players like Navratilova, Graf, Evert, Court or even Lenglen or Wills.
     
    #2
  3. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Well many/most consider Graf the female GOAT and she won 107 tournaments, which without the Seles stabbing would probably be more like 75-80. I think Serena can be in the range of "no Seles stabbing" Graf's mark of about 80 tournaments by the time her career is over too. She seems to be taking them more seriously. I already pointed out I dont think you can take that particular stat of the pre 1985 or so, or wood racquet era, players seriously. Everyone played alot more then and had much longer careers, the game was nowhere near as physical or as prone to wear out and injuries as today (which is why what Serena is doing now, excelling well into her 30s in todays game is all the more remarkable).
     
    #3
  4. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,343
    I'll put it this way, Serena doesn't seem to be slowing down so she will move up higher. I don't think you should penalize pre 1985 players for using wood racquets but it's a different skill set and in some ways I believe it's harder. Players used to play with injuries more in those days. Now they are more conservative. They rest more so nagging injuries don't happen as much.
     
    #4
  5. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    OK I dont want what I said misinterpreted so I will say this. I am not one of those who believes tennis competition was easier always in the old days, and older tennis was always weaker. For instance I believe Laver in his Grand Slam year of 1969 had WAY tougher competition than Federer ever had looking at the field. I believe Evert in the early to mid 70s had more overall competition than anyone not named Serena of 99-2003 has had since.

    However I do believe the tournament wins total, that particular stat is not at all comparable from pre 1985 or so to today. The nature of the game then was alot less physical (I didnt say worse, I actually in many ways dont like the style of the current game), and players in general had longer careers, were able to play more, missed less time with injuries. You keep trumping how Laver won 144 tournaments and Court won 199, but will we ever see any player approach those numbers again, no matter how great they are? Absolutely not, it is simply impossible in todays game. People like Connors and Lendl have many more tournament wins than Federer still, and are they better or more dominant than Federer, hell no, and believe me I am no Federer fan.

    That said I do fully agree Serena needs to up her tournament win total. She has to atleast have the most of any player the last 15 years and she doesnt even have that yet. She also needs to be roughly around the 80 or so the consensus female Graf would have without the Seles stabbing I would say.
     
    #5
  6. Gonzalito17

    Gonzalito17 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,311
    Location:
    Bradenton, FL
    She IS the greatest female player in history.
     
    #6
  7. Talker

    Talker Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,970
    Serena just has to have the usual stats and be near the top in most.
    Slams, weeks at #1, tournaments won, winning percentage.
     
    #7
  8. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,934
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Serena only has 46 titles right now and is 31 years old. There is pretty much a 0% chance of her getting to 80 titles at this point. In her best year ever 2002 she won 8 titles, she won 7 this year. She needs 34 more titles to get to 80...that means even if she is able to win 8 titles a year she will need to do that for about 5 more years. To be honest I highly doubt she is going to do that. Only 2 years in her career has she won more than 6 titles in a season. Going off that 80 titles likely will not happen. 60 is possible...80...probably not.

    Even in her stretch from the 2008 US Open- 2010 Wimbledon she only won 1 titles outside the majors....that is just well..bad. There is no way to spin it so its not. Two year period winning 5 majors and outside of them diddly really.

    Than there is the fact that from 2004-2008 she won 3 majors in 5 years after winning 5 in just over 1. That giant gap in between two periods of dominance is a mark against her as well.

    Plus only 31 non major titles...to low. Davenport, Clijsters, Hingis and Henin all have more right now....that hurts her.

    She can improve her stats of course but at this point she is playing from way to far behind to make up the numbers. If she does it props to her but looking at her whole career she doesn't seem likely. Could she hit 20 majors? That I believe is possible IF she stays in peak shape and has zero injuries. But the non major numbers will always be her downfall.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
    #8
  9. AndrewD

    AndrewD Legend

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2004
    Messages:
    6,581
    Win all 4 majors in the one calendar year.

    If she's as good as you say she is then it shouldn't be hard at all - especially given the quality of her opposition. If she can't do that (again, given the quality of opposition), she's a wasted talent.
     
    #9
  10. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,343
    Actually if she does it twice and is almost unbeatable like Navratilova was for a few years that would help a lot.
     
    #10
  11. storypeddler

    storypeddler Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    565
    Location:
    Hickory, NC
    These questions ALWAYS come back, inevitably, to opinions. Well-argued and logical perhaps, but opinions nonetheless. Here's how I select a GOAT---and I freely admit that it is an imperfect method and fraught with "Yeah, but..."s

    I evaluate a player at his or her very best---the highest level of play he or she ever reached. Then I factor in how much of his or her career was played at that level. Finally, having narrowed the field to a handful, I ask myself how those individuals would do head-to-head, all playing at their greatest playing level. Some extrapolation here, admittedly.

    I saw Martina go through an entire calendar year with a single loss---one. Her record that year was something like 87-1. Total domination. For years in the middle of her career, she dominated everyone but Chris. She and Chris are even with slams, so that isn't in play. Chris was unbelievably consistent with her results for a decade and a half.

    Steffi was just as dominant at her peak---and she won 22 slam titles, not to mention the Golden Slam. She stands alone with that accomplishment.

    I think Monica would have been in the mix had she not been stabbed, but that affected her career so drastically that she was never the same after that. So modern day, the first three I named.

    A generation earlier, Margaret Court won 24 slam titles. 24. Two dozen. It makes no difference where they were played, or who else was in the draw, or anything else. Every other player of her day could have played in every single slam Court did. If they chose not to, you cannot penalize Court for that. She may very well have rolled through a full field every year anyway. She showed up every tournament and she did what she had to do. Period. All-time slam leader has to carry some weight.

    Based on everything I have read and heard from those who saw her play, Maureen Connelly (Little Mo) was perhaps the greatest/most talented ever to play the game. She just didn't have the length of career to make the same GOAT argument.

    Finally, Suzanne Lenglen may always be underrated because of the time in which she played, but she not only won 2 gold medals and a bronze at the 1920 Antwerp Olympics, but between 1919 and 1926 she lost only ONE match!!! Think about that for a minute---one loss in seven years against all comers. No modern player has ever approached that kind of domination. And she made playing tennis look like ballet on the court---while obliterating all her opponents.

    Assuming you can never really compare one generation of players to another and can only look at individual accomplishments against their own cadre of opponents in the time they played, I would put Serena in the conversation, but there are numerous arguments against her as well, many of which have been spelled out by earlier posters.

    Best I could do would be narrow it to two and they are too close to separate---Martina and Steffi. Incidentally, I think that at their best, they would both have strong winning records over Serena. They were thinkers on the court; Serena is a physical force out there, but not particularly cerebral. IMO Serena's mentality works against her. In spite of what she says to keep the peace with the tennis public, she clearly doesn't respect her opponents nor their ability. It isn't confidence---she was instilled with a rather brazen cockiness by her father as a survival technique based on when and where she and Venus grew up. Maybe it helped her then. It hurts her now. She honestly doesn't believe she can get beaten. She convinces herself that if she loses, it is because she played sub-par, not because an opponent outplayed her on their own merit. That mentality causes her to question and challenge linespeople, umpires, everything but her own weaknesses and flaws. She doesn't think she has any. She doesn't develop a more diverse game because she doesn't believe she needs to. The physical potential was always there to be the GOAT---but the mentality never was. It still isn't.
     
    #11
  12. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,343
    Nice post. Not sure about the psychological aspects of Serena you have there however. Incidentally Margaret Court won about 92 or 93 percent of her matches for her CAREER! You add 24 majors, a Grand Slam, about 200 tournaments won and that's a pretty great record I would think.
     
    #12
  13. 90's Clay

    90's Clay Legend

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2012
    Messages:
    7,208
    She would have to win a calendar slam at least, and manage another 8 or 9 slams and have another extended reign at #1. Thats very far fetched now considering her age.

    She won't catch Graf or Martina.

    She might have had the highest peak level of any player (arguably) but in terms of her career, she's pretty far behind players like Graf, Martina, Court etc.

    She squandered quite a few "key years" away in which she could have solidified herself more to be in the hunt for GOAT status
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
    #13
  14. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    Most single titles is held by Martina, not Court.

    1 Martina Navratilova 167
    2 Chris Evert 157
    3 Steffi Graf 107
    4 Margaret Court 92
    5 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 68
    6 Billie Jean King 67
    7 Lindsay Davenport 55
    8 Virginia Wade 55
    9 Monica Seles 53
    10 Serena Williams 46
    11 Hingis 45

    EDIT: Serena has 46, which she takes over Hingis in 10th place.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
    #14
  15. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, Will you ever learn???

    Court has won at least 200 tournaments and there were no Mickey Mouse events therein. And there were no splitted fields as there were at the men.

    You can't neglect tennis before open era!!!
     
    #15
  16. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    But historians don't include Court, they consider Martina's number is the record holder.

    Those 200 titles are nowhere near having the same weight as today. Since Serena has 46 titles, are you saying she needs to win 154 more titles to be equal Court? That's ridiculous.
     
    #16
  17. BobbyOne

    BobbyOne Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,773
    TMF, Reasonable historians like Bud Collins do include Court. There is no reason to refuse to do it.

    There were no top pros among the women when Court won her many titles. Thus the best players did participate in the amateur events.

    The ATP and WTA records are false and irrelevant! They neglect all records prior to 1968 or even before founding of ATP and WTA.
     
    #17
  18. CEvertFan

    CEvertFan Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    2,057
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    There's one thing you've got wrong - the only time Navratilova could have played singles at the Olympics and had a legitimate shot to get a medal is in Seoul 1988 - she was already 31 y.o. - tennis stopped being an Olympic sport after 1924, was a demonstration sport at the '84 Los Angeles Olympics (Stefan Edberg and Steffi Graf won the gold medals which don't officially count as it was just a demonstration sport) and returned to a full medal sport at the '88 Seoul Olympics. Evert actually played in Seoul but lost early to Rafaella Reggi of Italy but Martina was too focused on winning her 9th Wimbledon title at this time and so decided to not play the Olympics.


    As for Serena and being considered the best ever:

    Grand Slam singles titles aren't the only criteria when you consider a GOAT candidate. There are many other factors you have to take into account - year end #1s, weeks at #1, total number of singles titles, consistent period of dominance etc and for most of them other than the major titles Serena falls far short of the "Big Four" of Graf, Navratilova, Evert and Court. Heck, even Davenport has more singles titles than Serena does (55 to 46) and has 4 year end #1s to her name because she mostly maximized her potential and Serena hasn't for the most part, and at 31 time is quickly running out on her career. She could have had the best numbers ever and dominated like no other if she had been more dedicated to tennis instead of her other outside interests but you can't fault her for wanting more out of life than just tennis, but you just can't put her in the same conversation with the "Big Four" either unless by some miracle she accomplishes a lot more than she has already outside of the majors.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2012
    #18
  19. boredone3456

    boredone3456 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Messages:
    4,934
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Also...Serena was not the dominant player for all of 1999-2003. She was only dominant in 02-03. From 1999-2001 she won only won major. The dominant ones during this period were Venus (4 majors), Capriati (3 majors), Davenport (2 majors) and Hingis (only 1 major but way more dominant all the same. Serena from 99-01 was barely the 5th most dominant player on tour. Extending not even 2 years of dominance into saying she dominated from 1999-2003 is an exaggeration that is ridiculous.
     
    #19
  20. Wolbo

    Wolbo Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
    Messages:
    147
    Serena has to win in my view at least another two or three Grand Slam titles, another 15 or so titles and have a significant time at No.1 to even be included in the female GOAT discussion. I do think she's capable of that and she shows no signs yet of slowing down.
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2012
    #20
  21. Winners or Errors

    Winners or Errors Professional

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,497
    She can't. She's too old to catch others who are ahead of her on the list.
     
    #21
  22. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    Yep. At the age of 31 it's too late for Serena to catch up with the other leaders.




    IN THE OPEN ERA

    Most GS titles
    player total
    1 Steffi Graf 22
    2 Martina Navratilova 18
    2 Chris Evert 18
    4 Serena Williams 16*
    5 Margaret Court 11
    6 Monica Seles 9
    7 Billie Jean King 8
    8 Justine Henin 7
    8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 7
    8 Venus Williams 7

    Most GS finals
    Rank Name Total
    1 Chris Evert 34 (18 )
    2 Martina Navrátilová 32 (18 )
    3 Steffi Graf 31 (22)
    4 Evonne Goolagong 18 (7)
    5 Serena Williams 20 (16)
    6 Venus Williams 14 (7)
    7 Monica Seles 13 (9)
    8 Margaret Court 12 (11)
    8 Martina Hingis 12 (5)
    8 Billie Jean Moffitt 12 (8 )

    Most single titles
    Rank Player Singles
    1 Martina Navratilova 167
    2 Chris Evert 157
    3 Steffi Graf 107
    4 Margaret Court 92
    5 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 68
    6 Billie Jean King 67
    7 Lindsay Davenport 55
    8 Virginia Wade 55
    9 Monica Seles 53
    10 Serena Williams 52*

    Most weeks at #1
    Rank Player weeks
    1 Steffi Graf 377
    2 Martina Navratilova 332
    3 Chris Evert 260
    4 Martina Hingis 209
    5 Monica Seles 178
    6 Serena Williams * 143
    7 Justine Henin 117
    8 Lindsay Davenport 98
    9 Caroline Wozniacki* 67
    10 Victoria Azarenka* 45

    Consecutive weeks at #1
    1 Steffi Graf (1) 186
    2 Martina Navratilova (1) 156
    3 Chris Evert (1) 113
    4 Steffi Graf (2) 94
    5 Monica Seles (1) 91
    6 Martina Navratilova (2) 90
    7 Steffi Graf (3) 87
    8 Martina Hingis (1) 80
    9 Chris Evert (2) 76
    10 Martina Hingis (2) 73

    Year end No. 1 players
    player year
    Steffi Graf 8
    Martina Navratilova 7
    Chris Evert 5
    Lindsay Davenport 4
    Justine Henin 3
    Martina Hingis
    Monica Seles
    Caroline Wozniacki 2
    Serena Williams 2
    Jelena Jankovic 1
    Victoria Azarenka 1


    All surface single winning percentage
    Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
    1 Margaret Court 593 56 91.37
    2 Chris Evert 1309 146 89.97
    3 Steffi Graf 902 115 88.69
    4 Martina Navratilova 1442 219 86.82
    5 Serena Williams*[1] 600 111 84.38
    6 Monica Seles 595 122 82.98
    7 Justine Henin* 503 109 82.18
    8 Billie Jean King 695 155 81.76
    9 Evonne Goolagong Cawley 704 165 81.01
    10 Maria Sharapova 509 121 80.79

    Clay court singles career winning percentage
    Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
    1 Chris Evert 310 20 93.94
    2 Steffi Graf 273 30 90.1
    3 Justine Henin* 130 22 85.83
    4 Monica Seles 142 25 85.03
    5 Martina Hingis 109 25 81.34
    6 Martina Navratilova 202 47 81.12
    7 Gabriela Sabatini 196 49 80
    8 Maria Sharapova 79 20 79.80
    9 Serena Williams 104 29 78.20
    8 Venus Williams 143 40 78.14


    Hard court singles career winning percentage
    Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
    1 Steffi Graf 335 36 90.3
    2 Chris Evert 304 37 89.15
    3 Martina Navratilova 340 48 87.63
    4 Monica Seles 311 59 84.05
    5 Serena Williams* 333 60 84.73
    6 Kim Clijsters 323 69 82.40
    7 Justine Henin 251 56 81.76
    8 Venus Williams* 335 80 80.72
    9 Maria Sharapova* 264 66 80
    10 Lindsay Davenport 469 116 80.17

    Grass court singles career winning percentage
    Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
    1 Martina Navratilova 305 39 88.66
    2 Chris Evert 184 25 88.04
    3 Serena Williams* 63 10 86.30
    4 Venus Williams* 74 11 85.39
    5 Steffi Graf 85 15 85
    6 Maria Sharapova* 65 13 83.33
    7 Justine Henin 53 11 82.81
    8 Jana Novotna 79 21 79
    9 Tracy Austin 43 12 78.18
    10 Kim Clijsters 56 16 77.78


    Carpet court singles career winning percentage
    Rank Player Wins Losses Win %
    1 Martina Navratilova 516 58 89.9
    2 Steffi Graf 189 23 89.2
    3 Chris Evert 209 39 84.3
    4 Serena Williams* 34 7 82.93
    5 Martina Hingis 97 23 80.83
    6 Kim Clijsters 50 13 79.37
    = Monica Seles 98 26 79.03
    8 Lindsay Davenport 93 27 77.5
    9 Tracy Austin 85 25 77.27
    10 Venus Williams* 50 17 74.63

    Most singles matches won
    Player Wins
    1 Martina Navratilova 1442
    2 Chris Evert 1309
    3 Steffi Graf 902
    4 Virginia Wade 839
    5 Arantxa Sánchez Vicario 759
    6 Lindsay Davenport 753
    7 Conchita Martínez 739
    8 Evonne Goolagong Cawley[5] 704
    9 Billie Jean King 695
    10 Gabriela Sabatini 632

    Most match winning streak(all surfaces)
    Rank Player Matches
    1 Martina Navratilova 74
    2 Steffi Graf 66
    3 Martina Navratilova 58
    4 Margaret Court 57
    5 Chris Evert 55
    6 Martina Navratilova 54
    7 Steffi Graf 46
    8 Steffi Graf 45
    9 Steffi Graf 44
    10 Martina Navratilova 41

    Most consecutive singles titles
    1. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
    2. 12 - Margaret Court (1972-1973)
    3. 11 - Steffi Graf (1989-1990)
    4. 10 - Chris Evert (1974)
    5. 9 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
    5. 9 - Margaret Court (1970)
    7. 8 - Steffi Graf (1988 )
    7. 8 - Martina Navratilova (1983)

    Best annual singles winning percentage
    1 Martina Navratilova 98.9
    2 Steffi Graf 97.7
    3 Martina Navratilova 97.5
    4 Steffi Graf 97.4
    5 Martina Navratilova 96.8
    6 Martina Navratilova 96.7
    7 Steffi Graf 96
    8 Margaret Court 95.3
    9 Chris Evert 94.9
    10 Margaret Court 94.8


    Most consecutive years winning at least one singles title
    1. 21 - Martina Navratilova (1974-1994)
    2. 18 - Chris Evert (1971-1988 )
    3. 14 - Steffi Graf (1986-1999)
    4. 11 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970-1980)
    4. 11 - Virginia Wade (1968-1978 )
    6. 9 - Sandra Cecchini (1984-1992)
    6. 9 - Margaret Court (1968-1976)
    6. 9 - Lindsay Davenport (1993-2001)
    6. 9 - Conchita Martinez (1988-1996)
    6. 9 - Arantxa Sanchez Vicario (1988-1996)

    Most singles titles won in a year
    1. 21 - Margaret Court (1970)
    2. 18 - Margaret Court (1969, 1973)
    3. 17 - Billie Jean King (1971)
    4. 16 - Chris Evert (1974, 1975)
    4. 16 - Martina Navratilova (1983)
    6. 15 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1970)
    6. 15 - Martina Navratilova (1982)
    8. 14 - Margaret Court (1968 )
    8. 14 - Steffi Graf (1989)
    8. 14 - Martina Navratilova (1986)
    11. 13 - Martina Navratilova (1984)
    12. 12 - Chris Evert (1973, 1976)
    12. 12 - Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971)
    12. 12 - Martina Navratilova (1985)
    15. 11 - Tracy Austin (1980)
    15. 11 - Chris Evert (1977)
    15. 11 - Steffi Graf (1987, 1988 )
    15. 11 - Martina Navratilova (1978, 1979)
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2013
    #22
  23. jrepac

    jrepac Professional

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,387
    Serena may be regarded as the greatest tennis player ever on the merits of her GS play, but overall career results? She is primarily just a GS player. the other stats just don't support it and pale in comparison to some of the others here.
     
    #23
  24. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,484
    Needs more total titles, more slam wins, more stay at #1. She's great no doubt, but a lot of hype for her being the best ever, yet can't pull a consecutive dominance at the top a la some of the greats. Frankly, given the pathetic state of the WTA if she only wins 1 or 2 slams next year (assuming no injury occurs), I'd question her "highest level of play" credibility big time.
     
    #24
  25. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    LOL you make it sound like Serena is at her career peak. Newsflash- Serena is 31 years old, the same as Federer who you ****s have been calling a grandpa for 5 years now. Last season she had the best season EVER by a 30/31 year old women, better than Navratilova's 1987 or Evert's 1986 which was probably the previous best. In the event she wins 1 or 2 majors next year she will have the best season ever by a 31/32 year old women as well. The Serena of 2002 who won 5 of 6 slams vs the deepest womens field ever, would win 20 slams in a row vs the current field, but naturally given age and years of injuries that is not the Serena who plays now, however it is a testement to her greatness that she has remained so great and dominant as she is at this age. No women in the Open Era has ever won more than 3 slams in her 30s and 1 past age 30. Serena is likely to oliterate both those records. Steffi Graf for instance retired from tennis barely after her 30th birthday, after a generally mediocre final 3 years where she managed only 1 major. To expect a women in her 30s to win 3 or 4 majors a year is absurd. As for competition womens tennis always has bad competition. The only periods it didnt were 1999-2003 (the deepest womens field ever, where Serena was top dog) 1971-1975, and 1989-1992.
     
    #25
  26. Phoenix1983

    Phoenix1983 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2012
    Messages:
    2,540
    I really hope Serena doesn't become GOAT as I dislike her attitude and behaviour immensely.

    That said, 20 slams - sad to say - would do it.
     
    #26
  27. forzamilan90

    forzamilan90 Legend

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    5,484
    NadalAgassi she needs more majors for sure like you said she is no spring chicken. She has to win some in bunches and fast before father time catches up with her and Graf begins to look tougher to catch. It's as good as a time as ever to pull that off with the current field
     
    #27
  28. heninfan99

    heninfan99 Legend

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    Messages:
    6,959
    To get a uniform nod from the critics she's gonna have to have the most slams. I do think most agree that when she brings her A game she'll beat anyone on that list. However, her volleys are suspect. I can't give the GOAT nod to someone that can't volley efficiently but I admit she'll beat most everyone. Henin did best her at the US Open when they were both playing well but I'm sure Serena would win most of the time all things being equal. Too much power! Amazing serve too.

    I really can't tell if she likes tennis that much. Some years she seemed to enjoy doing her clothing line more. Her Dad may have chosen tennis for her...kinda like an Agassi thing.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2012
    #28
  29. _skunk_

    _skunk_ Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    165
    Why this board if sull of trolls.

    Stick to facts and not to the "what ifs", "what if" means nothing.

    Cannot really understand this typical american attitude where everything there should be the biggest and greatest.
    I can understand fans, but facts are facts and the story is made just of facts.

    She's a great player, raising always to the top of ther ranks whenever she comes back to play (and this is a problem in my opinion, of course not for her, but for the level of game proposed by ladies)
    When i see azarenka and sharapova are n. 1 and 2, i'm horrified, Serena at 50% of her potential trash them with any problem, but to define her the best ever it's clearly an overstatement.
    15 slams are not little...... but there are players who won more than her, with better career percentages.

    In 20 or 30 year I guess there will be new trolls saying that and XYZ player of 2040 is the greatest and would trash serena with level of game at their pick.
    It's called evolution.
     
    #29
  30. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,343
    This evolution stuff that some posters write about makes no sense to me. Evolution doesn't happen that quickly. I read some posters already writing that Sampras wouldn't be a factor today because of the great progress of the sport aka evolution. I'll believe in the evolution of tennis when we find a player with wings and three feet. Overheads will be easy for this player because he or she can fly and he or she will be faster because this human has three feet. Otherwise I think Bill Tilden (6'2" tall and very slim with excellent speed) from the pre 1920's would be able to adapt and play today.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2012
    #30
  31. hoodjem

    hoodjem G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Messages:
    12,647
    Location:
    Bierlandt
    I say not possible.

    BTW, did she retire? Is she a former player?
     
    #31
  32. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,343
    I've only seemed to mention this to him a few billion times and he never seems to acknowledge it. Therefore we must conclude that TMF is correct. Tennis and the universe didn't exist prior to 1968. :?

    Incidentally even after 1968 we can put Court up there with anyone considering she won the Grand Slam in 1970.

    Here's Court's won-lost from 1968 on. Awful isn't it. Only 96 tournaments won plus 11 majors in that time and a Grand Slam. I would say her record even from just 1968 on is better than many greats entire careers like Hingis, Davenport, Sharapova, Clijsters, Henin, Venus Williams, Mandlikova, Goolagong etc. The first group of numbers are her won-lost record and the second is the amount of tournaments won.

    68 104-12/14
    69 98-5/19
    70 113-6/21
    71 64-4/10
    72 61-7/10
    73 100-5/18
    74 14-3/1
    75 39-11/2
    76 9-2/1
    77 16-5/0
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2012
    #32
  33. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    ^
    But if Court 200 titles and 24 slams hold the standard for the players after her era, shouldn't she be head and shoulder above Martina and Graf? There's a reason why she's considered below them and you guys just don't want to admit it. You think her 200 titles is 4 times greater than Serena's 46 titles. Unbelievable!
     
    #33
  34. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    You misinterpret the reason Court is lowballed. The reason Court is diminished is not the general field per say. It is that back then the Australian Open was a joke slam, especialy for women, played generally only by Australian women. She won 11 of her 24 slams there, and no more than 5 at any of the other 3. Had she won only 5 of her slams at the Australian Open, or had everyone played the Australian Open like the other 3 slams, most would probably consider her and her 24 majors the greatest ever. However the Australian Open, atleast for women, was just not a real slam then.
     
    #34
  35. _skunk_

    _skunk_ Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    165
    Evolution happens everytime somebody set new standards, you cannot deny that lot of factors changed the game from the beginning, all Nr. 1 have been Nr. 1 with the standards of their own time, therefore to me is stupid to compare different era's, anyhow they were super-athletes and they would have adapted very well to the game of the new eras, i don't doubt that.
     
    #35
  36. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,343


    And that is all I'm saying. Some are writing (I believe) that the players physically have become far superior due to the I guess the incredible speed of evolution.
     
    #36
  37. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,343
    I never wrote Court is head and shoulders over Navratilova and Graf. Please read what I write carefully. I think she gets a bad rap in some ways perhaps because of her views. Give me a break, she won the Grand Slam in 1970 against everyone. I think Court's record is clearly superior to Serena's.

    You do realize that most people don't know Court won 200 tournaments in her career and know her great record. You seem to throw numbers out when it's convenient for you but don't acknowledge other numbers like Court's 200 tournament wins or her Grand Slam.
     
    #37
  38. _skunk_

    _skunk_ Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    165
    I think we agree in our views, I agree also with the fact that the actual players are stronger compare to the old ones due to more professional training, new tecnologies in material, food, ecc ecc ecc. the actual athletes are push to limits just unknown before.
    I really believe that a champ would be a champ in any era, because they are able to maximize their talents whatever talents are.
     
    #38
  39. pc1

    pc1 Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2008
    Messages:
    9,343
    That's essentially my view with some minor exceptions. I think for example Lew Hoad would be exceptional strong in any era but he do a lot of weight training in the 1950's. You would read stories about what Hoad was able to do because of his great strength on and off the court.
     
    #39
  40. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    She'll never be the greatest ever, her brand of tennis isn't particularly exciting to respected tennis analysts and former players, and don't forget all the you know achievements and stuff she's far behind many of the GOATs on.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2012
    #40
  41. NLBwell

    NLBwell Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,081
    Graf has 377 weeks at #1, Navratilova has 332. Serena has 123 weeks.
    Another 200 weeks or so and she could be there depending upon what else she does.
    That would be about 4 years more at #1. Given her age, it would be a very tough task. However, if she dedicated herself completely to it, she could get at least a couple of years of being #1. I wouldn't say it would be impossible for her to get 4 years.
     
    #41
  42. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    I think there'll be a new GOAT caliber player arriving before she retires in 4 years, probably around 2014.
     
    #42
  43. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    The number 1 ranking has clearly become zero indication whatsoever to who the best player in the World at a given time is (in the last 15 years the best player is only ranked number 1 about 25% of the time) so it really is an almost meaningless stat to determine best ever. The mens ranking system and rankings in general have had much more credence to reality, and thus is a more meaningful stat for them.
     
    #43
  44. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    True story.
     
    #44
  45. Paul Murphy

    Paul Murphy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,792
    Win more majors in singles than Margaret Court.
    That'll do it.
     
    #45
  46. Razoredge

    Razoredge Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2012
    Messages:
    269
    That's never happening lol.
     
    #46
  47. Paul Murphy

    Paul Murphy Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,792
    You're right. It won't. :)
     
    #47
  48. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,147
    Just win, baby. Let the losers sort it out.
     
    #48
  49. NLBwell

    NLBwell Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    7,081
    The #1 ranking shows who was consistently the best throughout the year. We know Serena can reach extremely high peaks of play. To be the best ever, you also have to be consistent. If Wozniaki was over 300 weeks at #1, I would be examining her peak level and how many majors she has won. You have to do both.
    People claim Wozniaki worked the schedule to be #1 (which really isn't true - almost everyone played the maximum amount of tournaments that are counted), but Serena worked the schedule to peak for the majors without going through the grind of all the smaller tournaments.
    When Wozniaki was #1, who was the best player? Kvitova - only on certain days, Sharapova - not back to her best form, Clijsters - playing a limited schedule, Serena W. - sometimes injured sometimes not motivated, Stosur - not consistent, Azarenka - a head case back then. So why is the WTA ranking system messed up? It is very similar to the men's rankings. It's just that it didn't come out the way you wanted.
     
    #49
  50. TMF

    TMF Talk Tennis Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2009
    Messages:
    21,031
    I agree. Consistently playing high level, commited to play throughout the year is totally difference than just playing high level for a short period. The challenge isn't just about playing the big events, but continue to compete for 1 year. On the men side, there's 4 different slam winner, but the reason why Nole ended the year #1 because he more consistent than Fed/Murray/Nadal. Serena could have been #1 if she's consistent. This is something Graf/Martina was able to do throughout their career and it helps boost their placement in his history as the goat.
     
    #50

Share This Page