Top 10 women players of all time at this point- where would you place Serena

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Well like I said do you agree or not agree there could be a case for Venus being over Seles, especialy given how one sided their history is (even considering Seles was past her prime). Meanwhile there is no case for Henin being above someone like Seles or King, so Venus can be put in the top 10, Henin cannot. I think past greats like Graf, Seles, Evert, Navratilova, would all have a ton of trouble with peak Venus because her power, speed, and athleticsm probably surpasses all of them. I dont think any of those at their peaks would have much or any trouble with peak Henin however, she just doesnt bring anything to the table they couldnt handle. Henin is basically a poor women Hingis except with more power than Hingis. If you look at only Henin and Venus together it might seem like Henin has a shot in the comparision, but when you throw the other all time greats in there too, Venus clearly stands in much beter stead than Henin IMO.

As for doubles when players are virtually inseperable in singles, then doubles is a tiebreaker, especialy when there is the vast difference there is with Venus and Henin.

The 4 slams are all roughly equal today but Wimbledon is still the most prestigious. The biggest hole you can have on your resume of all is a failure to win a Wimbledon title.

I agree on Henin.No doubt she just cannot be talked in the same sentence as the great Martina Hingis.

[boredone3456]

1. Navratilova
2. Graf
3. Evert
4. Court
5/6. Lenglen and Moody
7. Serena
8. Conolly
9. King
10. Seles

Serena's low overall tournaments won number hurts her big time. At her peak she is right there but greatness is measured by numbers and her numbers do not stack up. Majors are the pinnacle but she would need to win more than 20 of them make up for her lackluster dedication outside of them.

Lenglen and Moody are from a different era when scheduling and things were totally different as was ease of travel. They both decimated everybody in epic ways and you can say they don't stack up but they were dominant in their era and until Court came along were the standard.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

1. Navratilova
2. Graf
3. Evert
4. Court
5/6. Lenglen and Moody
7. Serena
8. Conolly
9. King
10. Seles

Serena's low overall tournaments won number hurts her big time. At her peak she is right there but greatness is measured by numbers and her numbers do not stack up. Majors are the pinnacle but she would need to win more than 20 of them make up for her lackluster dedication outside of them.

Lenglen and Moody are from a different era when scheduling and things were totally different as was ease of travel. They both decimated everybody in epic ways and you can say they don't stack up but they were dominant in their era and until Court came along were the standard.

I have sorta decided not to put Lenglen or Wills in my lists because its just too wide a span and too much fundamental change in the sport to compare. but with a clear understanding of how incredible their win/loss stats always are. Even Connolly is hard to place.

[PeteD]

Originally Posted by boredone3456

At her peak she is right there but greatness is measured by numbers and her numbers do not stack up.

But in addition to numbers, isn't there a factor of greatness in contributing to appreciation and admiration of tennis as a (in a good sense of the term) "classy" sport? To me, this is the real deficit in Serena's record. Showing up only for the big purses is part of that problem, as well as hurting her in the numbers.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by kiki

I agree on Henin.No doubt she just cannot be talked in the same sentence as the great Martina Hingis.

actually no, clueless, henin > hingis ....

[TMF]

Originally Posted by PeteD

But in addition to numbers, isn't there a factor of greatness in contributing to appreciation and admiration of tennis as a (in a good sense of the term) "classy" sport? To me, this is the real deficit in Serena's record. Showing up only for the big purses is part of that problem, as well as hurting her in the numbers.

Serena just doesn't have the numbers to stack up against some of the all time great: slam count, total titles, ranking. She's nowhere near as dominating as Graf, Martina or Chris.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

Serena just doesn't have the numbers to stack up against some of the all time great: slam count, total titles, ranking. She's nowhere near as dominating as Graf, Martina or Chris.

Yes but isnt tennis in the 60s, 70s, and 80s some dinosaur tennis which cant ever be compared to today, the game only being about Australians and Americans, far less athletic and deep than today, blah blah blah, or does that only apply to your beloved Federer.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Yes but isnt tennis in the 60s, 70s, and 80s some dinosaur tennis which cant ever be compared to today, the game only being about Australians and Americans, far less athletic and deep than today, blah blah blah, or does that only apply to your beloved Federer.

I've always believe every sports gets better by the decade, and yes, it does applies to Federer too. The difference is Fed has the numbers to backup but not Serena, who's behind. If Serena has the equivalent(no need to surpass) stats as Chris, Martina or Graf, I would put her ahead of them. The problem is her achievement is not even close to their career achievements.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

I've always believe every sports gets better by the decade, and yes, it does applies to Federer too. The difference is Fed has the numbers to backup but not Serena, who's behind. If Serena has the equivalent(no need to surpass) stats as Chris, Martina or Graf, I would put her ahead of them. The problem is her achievement is not even close to their career achievements.

Serena is either ahead or will soon to be ahead in some stats:

-Most hard court slams ever. She is currently tied for the record with Graf at 9. If she wins the Australian Open (which she is the favorite to) she will take the record on her own at 10. Given that many now regard Graf the GOAT, and Graf gained 1 or 2 extra hard court slams by the Seles stabbing as it is and would already be behind otherwise, this is significant.

-Slams won 13 years apart. This is the longest since World War 11 beating Graf (12 years), Navratilova (12 years), Evert (12 years), and Wills Moody (12 years). She is likely to extend this further.

-4 Olympic Gold medals. The so called GOAT prior to Serena, Steffi Graf, has only managed 2, and 1 of them was a demonstration sport with nobody in the WTA top 20 entered.


Laver's 2 Grand Slams are superior to all of Federer's achievements, and Gonzales being the #1 player in the World for 9 years in a row also is but you dismiss them because of the so called easier era.

My point was if Serena reaches 20 slams she would clearly be the GOAT. 20 slams would be the real record considering Graf's 22 and Court's 24 both being false marks due to the Seles stabbing and the Australian Open for women in the 60s being only the Australian Nationals with on average 2 or 3 of the top 10 showing up. In reality Evert, Navratilova, Graf, Wills, and Court are all together with 18 or 19 slams, and Serena reaching 20 would set the new slam record. Add to that her already best ever longevity, her being acknowledged by all experts as having the highest peak level play ever, her dominance over the deepest field in womens tennis history back in 1999-2003, her setting the all time pace on hard courts, and Serena would be acknowledged by nearly all as GOAT. Whether Planet TW accepted that or not would be irrelevant.

Many experts and fans already consider Serena the best ever as it is. John McEnroe, Bud Collins, Chris Evert, Mary Carillo, Mary Joe Fernandez, current World #1 Victoria Azarenka, Cliff Drysdale, have all called her the best women player of all time.

[TMF]

All the major records are held/broke by Federer.

Most of the major records are held by Graf/Martina/Chris.

There's simply no comparison between Federer and Serena(to their respective tour).

To say Serena is a goat if she reaches 20 slams is like saying Fed at 12 slams is ahead of Sampras.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by TMF

All the major records are held/broke by Federer.

Most of the major records are held by Graf/Martina/Chris.

There's simply no comparison between Federer and Serena(to their respective tour).

To say Serena is a goat if she reaches 20 slams is like saying Fed at 12 slams is ahead of Sampras.

Sampras's slam record is not a phony mark tainted by a serious asterix. Graf's slam mark and Court's slam mark both are so it is not the same. 19 or 20 slams would be the true mark anyway considering the phony knife or Australian Nationals based marks of Graf and Court. To say Serena is goat with 16 slams would be like saying Fed at 12 slams is ahead of Sampras, and most Federer fanboys said Federer at 12 slams was way ahead of Sampras anyway (including you I am sure).

Anyway Federer's 16 slams should not be regarded as the true mark. Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, all won more combined amateur and pro slams than that, and all would have won more than 16 had it been Open tennis then.

Anyway prime to prime everyone knows Serena would rip Graf, Evert, or Court a new one. Only peak Navratilova would maybe be able to hang with Serena on grass and hard courts.

Who cares what you think though, your opinion doesnt matter. Many experts and fans are already calling Serena the best ever, and if she were to reach 20 (heck even maybe if she doesnt) virtually everyone will call her the best ever. Your refusal to accept that means nothing.

[Gizo]

I've always thought that Graf's RG title count has been inflated. Prior to Seles's stabbing she hadn't won the RG title in 4 attempts since 1988, with 2 defeats in finals to Seles. Then she went on to win the title there in 3 out of the next 4 years. In 1995 in particular she won RG title after an injury layoff and no tournament practice on clay. Really Martinez who had completely dominated the clay court season let her off the hook in their semi-final. I can't imagine Seles being as generous as that.

Now I'm not saying that she would have struggled to win RG again or anything even if the Seles's incident hadn't incurred, but I don't she think she would have gone on to win another 4 titles there after 1992.

Seles won 3 consecutive RG titles in and dominated the toughest clay court field in women's tennis history I would say.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by Gizo

I've always thought that Graf's RG title count has been inflated. Prior to Seles's stabbing she hadn't won the RG title in 4 attempts since 1988, with 2 defeats in finals to Seles. Then she went on to win the title there in 3 out of the next 4 years. In 1995 in particular she won RG title after an injury layoff and no tournament practice on clay. Really Martinez who had completely dominated the clay court season let her off the hook in their semi-final. I can't imagine Seles being as generous as that.

Now I'm not saying that she would have struggled to win RG again or anything even if the Seles's incident hadn't incurred, but I don't she think she would have gone on to win another 4 titles there after 1992.

Seles won 3 consecutive RG titles in and dominated the toughest clay court field in women's tennis history I would say.

I think Graf might have still ended up winning 2 more RG titles for 4, 1 more AO title for 4 (she was unbeatable in her form at the 94 event even if Seles is usually superior at AO), 2 more US Open for 4, and still been considered the GOAT by many today with her 4 for 4 slam record. However she would not have 22 slams, 18 or 19 at most. On the other hand Seles's would likely have a better record than Graf at both the Australian and French today, a similar or better record at the U.S Open, a similar or better record at the WTA Championships, a higher standing all time on all of clay, rebound ace, and possibly even decoturf and carpet, and likely been the best player of the 90s over Graf considering Graf was already 4 slams behind and her performances from 93-96 indicate the only year her being able to be #1 over Seles was 1996. Graf of course was not the best player of the 80s, which would leave her no decade to call her own. So even if she had more career slams than Seles and a more complete record due to Seles's likely always marginal at best Wimbledon record, her status as even the best player of her own era, let alone all time would be in serious question.

Court's 24 slams is also heavily inflated, she wins 11 at the Australian Open which wasnt a real slam then, never more than 3 of the top 10 played so it is on par with a 500 event or Premier non Mandatory today, and she didnt win more than 5 anywhere else. Based on that we can conclude she would be down to 18 at most if the Australian was a real slam then. That is my main point, the final slam totals of Court and Graf both come with a major asterix so most would view someone who reached 19 or 20 as holding the true mark.

[BauerAlmeida]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Sampras's slam record is not a phony mark tainted by a serious asterix. Graf's slam mark and Court's slam mark both are so it is not the same. 19 or 20 slams would be the true mark anyway considering the phony knife or Australian Nationals based marks of Graf and Court. To say Serena is goat with 16 slams would be like saying Fed at 12 slams is ahead of Sampras, and most Federer fanboys said Federer at 12 slams was way ahead of Sampras anyway (including you I am sure).

Anyway Federer's 16 slams should not be regarded as the true mark. Laver, Gonzales, Rosewall, all won more combined amateur and pro slams than that, and all would have won more than 16 had it been Open tennis then.

Anyway prime to prime everyone knows Serena would rip Graf, Evert, or Court a new one. Only peak Navratilova would maybe be able to hang with Serena on grass and hard courts.

Who cares what you think though, your opinion doesnt matter. Many experts and fans are already calling Serena the best ever, and if she were to reach 20 (heck even maybe if she doesnt) virtually everyone will call her the best ever. Your refusal to accept that means nothing.

Saying Serena is the GOAT now is as ridiculous as *******s saying he was better than Sampras when he had 9-12 slams.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by BauerAlmeida

Saying Serena is the GOAT now is as ridiculous as *******s saying he was better than Sampras when he had 9-12 slams.

*******s said Federer was better than Sampras when he had 4 slams. I dont know what your point is. I agree Serena is probably not the GOAT yet. Note I did not put her #1 on my list. However if she reaches 20 slams (and I expect she will) she definitely would be the GOAT IMO. Are you disputing if she reached 20 slams she would: 1. be regarded the female GOAT by almost all, 2. be worthy of that. Also the fact is many experts and past champions, including some female GOAT contenders themselves do call Serena the GOAT even now. The truth also is Serena is already setting some marks of her own:

1. Tied for most hard court slams, likely to break soon.

2. Most time from first to last slam. Only player to win slams both in 3 different decades, and in her teens, 20s, and 30s.

3. Best Olympic record of any player ever.

Not to mention while subjective the general feeling from everyone is that Serena's peak level of play and general level of play is higher than any women in history. Had she gone head to head with any of Navratilova, Evert, Graf, Court, she would have a winning record, and only Navratilova would come close. One just has to watch the Graf-Serena matches from 1999 when neither were in their prime, but Graf much closer to hers than Serena, and see how while they split and each won one 7-5 in the 3rd, Graf was forced to scramble, scrape, and defend almost exclusively how tough a time Graf would have containing anything close to prime Serena's power, shotmaking, and game.

[scootad.]

I don't have much to add except to say that I'd be hesitant to use head-to-heads as a deciding factor in determining who is the best or better player all-time.

Matchups play a huge role in the resulting head-to-head records between different players. History has shown that great players sometimes have poor records against inferior players simply due to a style match-up - using this as as a determining factor can lead one astray.

I also want to agree with the notion that the Hamburg '93 Seles stabbing altered the course of women's tennis that it is difficult to know exactly how the major totals would have been different if that never happened. It's interesting to speculate about though.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by scootad.

I also want to agree with the notion that the Hamburg '93 Seles stabbing altered the course of women's tennis that it is difficult to know exactly how the major totals would have been different if that never happened. It's interesting to speculate about though.

True we do not know how the major totals of Pierce, Sanchez, Martinez, and possibly even Hingis would have been affected. What we do know is the only GOAT player who would have been affected though is Graf (and Seles herself).

[Gizo]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I think Graf might have still ended up winning 2 more RG titles for 4, 1 more AO title for 4 (she was unbeatable in her form at the 94 event even if Seles is usually superior at AO), 2 more US Open for 4, and still been considered the GOAT by many today with her 4 for 4 slam record. However she would not have 22 slams, 18 or 19 at most. On the other hand Seles's would likely have a better record than Graf at both the Australian and French today, a similar or better record at the U.S Open, a similar or better record at the WTA Championships, a higher standing all time on all of clay, rebound ace, and possibly even decoturf and carpet, and likely been the best player of the 90s over Graf considering Graf was already 4 slams behind and her performances from 93-96 indicate the only year her being able to be #1 over Seles was 1996. Graf of course was not the best player of the 80s, which would leave her no decade to call her own. So even if she had more career slams than Seles and a more complete record due to Seles's likely always marginal at best Wimbledon record, her status as even the best player of her own era, let alone all time would be in serious question.

I agree with all that. Of course not even the most ridiculously biased Seles fan is going to argue that any of Graf's post stabbing Wimbledon titles have an asterisk next to them (Seles or no Seles Graf was always going to dominate Wimbledon). At the US Open she would have the edge over Seles on that surface, although I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that the Seles who improved her serve before she was stabbed could have beaten there.

But 4 more RG titles was a real stretch. Graf of course was an amazing player on clay, but the fact that she has twice as many RG titles to her name as Seles doesn't feel right at all.

I do wonder how many other female tennis players in history could have beaten a peak Seles on clay. Hardly any at all I would say.

[NadalAgassi]

I think Seles and Graf would both probably have the edge prime to prime vs Evert on clay. Graf was just a bad matchup for Evert in general even if she wasnt really a better clay courter. Evert I actually think would have been a bad matchup for Seles, however on clay Seles's persistent and oh so consistent power hitting, accuracy, and angles with power, would have still been a bit too much for Evert most times. I still think Evert deserves recognition as the clay GOAT as she mantained her best level on clay for 15 years, and her day to day consistency on the surface is mind boggling, 125 straight wins over 6 years no matter how weak the clay field was! I do think Graf and Seles both played in a far tougher clay field than Evert did though.

It is interesting to wonder how Lenglen and Connolly would compare on clay at their best transported to the same time as well. Really impossible to guage with any accuracy in their case.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by abmk

actually no, clueless, henin > hingis ....

yes, we all know how great the little belgian has been at Wimbledon...