Originally Posted by NadalAgassi
Best ever rankings arent just based on major wins. Otherwise Court would be the GOAT, as her achievements far trump Navratilova in both singles and doubles, and even trump Graf in singles, yet most rank Court down in 3rd behind Graf and Navratilova, or these days many even 4th behind Graf, Navratilova, and Serena.
While I defended my ranking of Evert over Navratilova earlier in this thread, which I know heavily goes against the norm, I would also say there is no way Evert could be logically argued as the GOAT for the simple fact she was made to look so hopeless vs Navratilova in 83-84 and then again by Graf at the end of her career. From different angles she could be argued as being over anyone, well anyone except Court and Graf I guess, I see no arguments for Evert possibly being over either of them, even based on pure stats and nothing else, although some might feel differently. However whoever she is ranked above, she cant be ranked over everyone else and at the very top, for the simple truth of how badly she was beaten up by a couple of rivals for a significnat period of time. Yes I know she was past her prime when Graf went on that long run of dominance, but Graf started it at age 16, way before her prime as well, and Evert herself was losing several matches, including a Wimbledon semifinal, to someone like 33 year old Virginia Wade at the apex of her career (someone even baby Evert mostly dominated in Wade`s prime which shows the age detriment for an older player is way overhyped at times), so age alone cant be an excuse for her complete ineptitude against Graf from 86-89, and obviously her way too one sided for any would be GOAT dominance at the hands of peak Martina in 83-84. 3rd or 4th all time would be the absolute max ranking for Evert, regardless who is put in front of her (Graf being the only compulsory undisputed one to be over her IMO), and she could also be ranked as low as 6th or 7th for those who value peak level play, dominance, success vs biggest rivals, and equality of great play in singles and doubles.
Why would someone rank Serena over Evert. Well maybe for the simple obvious fact if they played in their mutual primes Serena would win most of the matches, and that Serena before she turns 36 atleast would never be as dominated by anyone, no matter how great they were or were playing, as Evert was by both Navratilova and Graf for a stretch of time. Even in years like 2005-2006 when she was a terrible player after the 05 AO, and in all fairness to Chris way worse a player than Chris was at any point in her career, through sheer power and weaponary and talent, would still find a way to be more competitive vs Navratilova and Graf than Chris was through those periods if she was forced to play them about 10 times. Her pride and sheer explosiveness and raw talent would find her raise her game for them to keep most matches competitive and score the odd win somehow, something Evert mostly playing excellent tennis and fully in shape still couldnt do vs peak Martina and peak Graf for quite awhile. Also people credit Court and Navratilova for their doubles careers, well atleast some do, and Serena also had a fabulous doubles career, vs Graf and Evert who had a barely existent one. Serena also has won slams over a 13 year stretch, pretty much making her already number 1 all time in longevity, as the previous longest in the post World War 11 years was 12, and she is still going strong as we speak. To add to all that Serena won many of her slams in what probably was the deepest womens field in history in 1999-2005.