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

[Winners or Errors]

She can't. She's too old to catch others who are ahead of her on the list.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Winners or Errors

She can't. She's too old to catch others who are ahead of her on the list.

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 15
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 19 (15)
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 47*

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 * 130
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] 554 108 83.68
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

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)

[jrepac]

Originally Posted by TMF

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.

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.

[forzamilan90]

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.

Originally Posted by forzamilan90

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.

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.

[Phoenix1983]

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.

[forzamilan90]

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

[heninfan99]

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.

[_skunk_]

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by _skunk_

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.

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.

[hoodjem]

I say not possible.

BTW, did she retire? Is she a former player?

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

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.

Originally Posted by BobbyOne

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!!!

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

[TMF]

^
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!

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.

[_skunk_]

Originally Posted by pc1

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.

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by _skunk_

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.

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by TMF

^
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!

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.

[_skunk_]

Originally Posted by pc1

[/b]

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.

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.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by _skunk_

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.

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.

[Razoredge]

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.