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

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by chatt_town

No doubt she is clearly a top 5 player. I think Martina was the only one better because she excelled so much and in all 3 different phases(singles, doubles and mixed) and she did it for so long.

Out of interest, why, wen comparing men's greats, do we generally only look at singles achievements?

Yet, when looking at the women's game, people always feel the need to bring up the fact that Martina Navratilova excelled at doubles as well?

IMHO, it's close to irrelevant for her ranking.

[ctjpm]

Well the poster who thinks Hingis would of owned peak Seles has cheered me up after Rafa's withdrawal. The closest Seles came to peak form 95-03 @ RG'98 she completely toyed with Hingis. Monica looked matronly @ the Canadian same year and beat Martina in three, never should of happened!
Serena's a great player and would of been in any era, what does her no favours is there's been a lack of great players for at least half an era. Steffi's RG'99 win was far more impressive than Henin's in '07 who basically turned up and was overpaid for her 'efforts.'

[NadalAgassi]

In fairness to Hingis, Hingis was playing far from peak tennis in the middle of 1998. I think she even lost a match to Dominique Van Rost at one point. She had gotten lazy and overconfident and payed the price, and Davenport and Venus's surges and increasing victories over her had damaged her pysche, opening the door for lesser players (and at that point Seles would clearly be in this category) to also have success vs her. Prime Hingis mostly destroyed post prime Seles with lopsided straight set wins, numerous bagel or breadstick sets, and a 15 year old pre prime Hingis even gave fat Seles a 0 and 2 drubbing which even prime Graf wasnt close to doing vs fat Seles, so it isnt impossible Hingis might have the overall edge even prime to prime. That isnt to say she is better than Seles, just that she might be a bad matchup for her. After those 2 mid 98 wins over a clearly slumping Hingis, when Seles was btw in by far her best ever post stabbing shape, at 98 RG she was even probably 95% as physically fit as her prime and looked skinny unbelievably, she would not beat Hingis again until late 2001, over 3 years later, when Hingis was clearly crashing towards retirement herself.

As for your latter point more impressive or not Graf of Roland Garros 99, or any Graf of 99, would have been destroyed by Henin of 2007. Graf was clearly past her best at that point, and basically needed a total meltdown from Hingis in the final to avoid a 6-4, 6-4 loss and prime Henin (let alone the peak of peaks Henin of 07) >>>>>>> prime Hingis on clay atleast.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by DMan

You don't say. I mean you DON'T say ? ! ? Because that's not what I've read from you before.

And scandalous! How could you possibly state Mons was not going to win every Australian, French, and US Opens for 6 years! She was Mons. She was born, therefore she wins! Have you truly lost your mind?!

I never guaranteed Seles winning every slam for eternity. I just said it was fairly obvious she would have won alot of slams from 93-95, probably minimum 4 additional ones, and have a greater career than she currently does. Graf would also probably have atleast 2 less than her current 22. I dont think that is at all unreasonable but apparently to some Graftards it is unbearable.

[DMan]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I never guaranteed Seles winning every slam for eternity. I just said it was fairly obvious she would have won alot of slams from 93-95, probably minimum 4 additional ones, and have a greater career than she currently does. Graf would also probably have atleast 2 less than her current 22. I dont think that is at all unreasonable but apparently to some Graftards it is unbearable.

Oh darling, nice try.

*Still* playing the woulda, coulda, shoulda game?

How sad, and pathetic!

What an existence?

So how is Mons these days? Wait........... did you say sad and pathetic? Now, I know where you get it?

Speaking of, how is Mrs. Agassi these days? The only news I ever hear is how absolutely fabulous happy, and absolutely unconcerned with all the woulda, coulda, shouldas of this world.

[NLBwell]

Hard to say where to put Connelly and Seles. Either could have been the best ever, but the careers were cut short. Somewhere in the top 10 certainly - Connelly best ever if you don't count longevity.

Graf, Navratilova, Court, Lenglen - by far the best of their eras.

Evert, Wills, S. Williams behind them.

I guess Hingis for 10th, but I'm not really sold on that.

[ctjpm]

Why on earth would Steffi be concerned with coulda, woulda, shouldas? Last time I looked Monica was stabbed having won seven of the previous eight she'd competed in. Anyone in those circumstances would coulda...
The only reason Hingis was a bad up for Seles is she moved the ball away from Monica and anticipated better than just about anyone. Monica didn't have movement problems in her peak and was also brilliant anticipating the ball. Fail to see how she'd be a bad match-up for Seles in her peak. Hingis in a slump RG'98 till she reached US open final? Similar to Federer suffering mono all 2008 till he swept the US open, not buying them plums.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

Hard to say where to put Connelly and Seles. Either could have been the best ever, but the careers were cut short. Somewhere in the top 10 certainly - Connelly best ever if you don't count longevity.

Graf, Navratilova, Court, Lenglen - by far the best of their eras.

Evert, Wills, S. Williams behind them.

I guess Hingis for 10th, but I'm not really sold on that.

I agree with the names, still Connolly and King should be in the top 10.Maria Esther Bueno should be considered, too.Maybe Alice Marble too.In terms of raw talent, of course, few have been more talented than lesser ranked women like Hingis,Mandlikova,Goolagong.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by ctjpm

Why on earth would Steffi be concerned with coulda, woulda, shouldas? Last time I looked Monica was stabbed having won seven of the previous eight she'd competed in. Anyone in those circumstances would coulda...
The only reason Hingis was a bad up for Seles is she moved the ball away from Monica and anticipated better than just about anyone. Monica didn't have movement problems in her peak and was also brilliant anticipating the ball. Fail to see how she'd be a bad match-up for Seles in her peak. Hingis in a slump RG'98 till she reached US open final? Similar to Federer suffering mono all 2008 till he swept the US open, not buying them plums.

Hingis was only in the U.S Open final since Jana Chokevotna choked in the semis, after having a 4-1 two break lead. She then proceeded to be spanked by Davenport who choked badly in the 2nd set herself, blowing a 4-2, easy shot for 5-2 to go down 6-5, but still won in straights. The fact Jana Novotna of all people had become a nightmarish opponent for Hingis on all courts for awhile, says enough about her form at the time.

A 35 year old Chris Evert beat Seles, who was only 15 but had already taken Graf and Navratilova to 3 sets that very year, and was probably closer to her prime than granny Evert, 6-0, 6-2 at the U.S Open. Hingis is basically an Evert clone with better volleys but far less determination to win.

It is not true at all Seles at her peak was some fabulous mover. She was an adequate one at best, better than say Davenport or Pierce, but that is it. She didnt even have to move pre stabbing anyway, only Graf and sometimes Capriati could make her do anything other than dictate all the points and run her opponents around, but with people like Hingis, Venus, Serena, Davenport, and Pierce around in her second career this had changed.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by kiki

I agree with the names, still Connolly and King should be in the top 10.Maria Esther Bueno should be considered, too.Maybe Alice Marble too.In terms of raw talent, of course, few have been more talented than lesser ranked women like Hingis,Mandlikova,Goolagong.

Hingis, Mandlikova, and Goolagong might be the three most talented players in tennis history, well atleast before Serena and Venus who despite their towering greatness are also both underachievers. If they had the work ethic and fighting spirit of Sanchez Vicario, tennis history would look alot different.

[ctjpm]

Seles didn't have movement problems, nowhere did I state she was a fabulous mover.
1989 US result might have move to do with it being Evert's last tournament, Monica struggling at the open early in her career and Evert being her idol, who ends their idol's career? Granted Seles took Graf & Navratilova to three sets in 1989 - she also beat Evert in three. Enjoyed watching Hingis, I'll just agree to disagree regarding how she'd match-up with the Swiss pre-stabbing.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Hingis, Mandlikova, and Goolagong might be the three most talented players in tennis history, well atleast before Serena and Venus who despite their towering greatness are also both underachievers. If they had the work ethic and fighting spirit of Sanchez Vicario, tennis history would look alot different.

I agree.I watched very little of Bueno, and she was past her peak and , of course, never had the chance to see lenglen and Mo.But these 3 women are, talent wise, as good as any other who ever played the game.

As for those I watched, I agree Hingis,Mandlikova and Cawley being megatalented and probably better than women with a better record than them.Of thsoe 3, Hingis was clearly the toughest menthally and she could have been the best ever with a bit of strength and consistency ( she owned Graf at that 1999 RG final till the umpire spoiled it all).

Evonne wss like a fairy playing tennis.You would be not human if you ever rooted agaainst her, even if she played your favourite player...and Hana, well, if I was a woman ( or being a man, for that matter) and wanted to play tennis, I´d like to play exactly the way I have seen Hana on those rare ocassions she gave her 100%

[pc1]

Originally Posted by kiki

I agree.I watched very little of Bueno, and she was past her peak and , of course, never had the chance to see lenglen and Mo.But these 3 women are, talent wise, as good as any other who ever played the game.

As for those I watched, I agree Hingis,Mandlikova and Cawley being megatalented and probably better than women with a better record than them.Of thsoe 3, Hingis was clearly the toughest menthally and she could have been the best ever with a bit of strength and consistency ( she owned Graf at that 1999 RG final till the umpire spoiled it all).

Evonne wss like a fairy playing tennis.You would be not human if you ever rooted agaainst her, even if she played your favourite player...and Hana, well, if I was a woman ( or being a man, for that matter) and wanted to play tennis, I´d like to play exactly the way I have seen Hana on those rare ocassions she gave her 100%

Evonne seemed to be the happiest player I've ever saw. She just floated on the court and just casually seemed to make the most ridiculous shots.

[powerangle]

Personally for me, Serena would have to win 25 singles major to be considered the greatest. Not because I believe Court's 24 majors necessarily holds a lot of weight....but that way, at least Serena would be leading in one significant objective category (aside from H2H), even though she'd be lacking in other objective categories (weeks @#1, total number of titles, etc). Subjectively her game may be the greatest ever...but if she can reach that magical number of 25 for slam titles, she'd be the greatest for me.

If Serena "only" reaches 18 majors, or 20 majors...then she still wouldn't be leading any objective category (even though her game may be most dominating). And I'm using the slam titles as the objective category for her, since that's the one she's most likely to achieve. Any other objective category is impossible for her reach at this point, while there is a very slight chance she can still manage the singles majors record.

It's a stretch at this point to say she will reach 25. It's doable, but quite a stretch. Let's see what the next few years bring.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by powerangle

Personally for me, Serena would have to win 25 singles major to be considered the greatest. Not because I believe Court's 24 majors necessarily holds a lot of weight....but that way, at least Serena would be leading in one significant objective category (aside from H2H), even though she'd be lacking in other objective categories (weeks @#1, total number of titles, etc). Subjectively her game may be the greatest ever...but if she can reach that magical number of 25 for slam titles, she'd be the greatest for me.

First of all, there's no way she's going to win 25 slams at the current stage of her career. Even to reach 10 more slam finals is a stretch, let alone win them all. Second, even if she miraculously managed to win 25 slams there's always be people out there to dispute her goat. See Federer...he holds the record with 17 slams and some people always have unreasonable argument to knock him down. And unlike Serena, Fed owns many significant records, not just the most important one(total slams).

Originally Posted by powerangle

If Serena "only" reaches 18 majors, or 20 majors...then she still wouldn't be leading any objective category (even though her game may be most dominating). And I'm using the slam titles as the objective category for her, since that's the one she's most likely to achieve. Any other objective category is impossible for her reach at this point, while there is a very slight chance she can still manage the singles majors record.

True, she wouldn't be leading in any other stats. The total titles and ranking is out of the question.

Originally Posted by powerangle

It's a stretch at this point to say she will reach 25. It's doable, but quite a stretch. Let's see what the next few years bring.

No it's not doable at the age of 31. If she was in her early 20s that's another story.

[pc1]

Honestly even with 25 majors it's not really to the point that Serena is clearly the best ever. Graf has 22 majors, a Grand Slam (very important) and 107 tournaments won. Court has 24 majors, also a Grand Slam and over 200 tournaments won.

Let's say Serena somehow ends up with 25 majors and 70 total tournaments won. Does it compare with Graf's 22 and 107 or Court's 24 and 200 with both winning Grand Slams? Doubtful unless Serena won several Grand Slams. Then it's feasible in my mind.

Right now Serena has only 46 tournaments won. Winning another 24 is a big stretch as well as winning 10 more majors. Remember she's past 30 so you have to figure someday you will see some decline. Even though with Serena because she hasn't played as much as many you figure she may have less wear and tear overall.

Originally Posted by powerangle

It's a stretch at this point to say she will reach 25. It's doable, but quite a stretch. Let's see what the next few years bring.

Originally Posted by TMF

No it's not doable at the age of 31. If she was in her early 20s that's another story.

Incidentally TMF, just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean its not possible. It's highly improbable but not impossible. Perhaps Rosewall would be the closest to winning many majors after age 31. I will check the stats for Rosewall. It must be from 1966 onward. I agree with you. I don't think Serena will get that many majors to reach 25.

Edit-Even Rosewall only won five total majors from 1966 onward. He won the French Pro in 1966, the French Open in 1968, the US Open in 1970, the Australian in 1971 and 1972. There were several boycotts but I doubt if Rosewall would have won five majors to make ten after age 31 anyway. I suppose if you count WCT in 1971 and 1971 which essentially was a major you could argue he won seven majors after age 31 but I wouldn't count them for the purposes of this thread.

[powerangle]

Originally Posted by TMF

First of all, there's no way she's going to win 25 slams at the current stage of her career. Even to reach 10 more slam finals is a stretch, let alone win them all. Second, even if she miraculously managed to win 25 slams there's always be people out there to dispute her goat. See Federer...he holds the record with 17 slams and some people always have unreasonable argument to knock him down. And unlike Serena, Fed owns many significant records, not just the most important one(total slams).


True, she wouldn't be leading in any other stats. The total titles and ranking is out of the question.


No it's not doable at the age of 31. If she was in her early 20s that's another story.

I didn't say there wouldn't be people that would dispute her being goat. Hence I said "personally for me", and I made that quite clear. And I know that Federer leads in many significant stats and I do consider him the greatest (and yes I realize there are still people who dispute his goatness). But since Serena won't reach Federer-like stats anywhere, I stated a hypothetical for her (reaching 25), and that upon reaching that, at least she'd be leading in one objective category (which would help her case for some, obviously not all, compared to where she stands right now).

And I did state that I'm on the side of doubting she will reach 25.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by pc1

Evonne seemed to be the happiest player I've ever saw. She just floated on the court and just casually seemed to make the most ridiculous shots.

I vaguely recall ME Bueno, agorgeous player to watch.Evonne was the second one with that crazy talent.She ahd lots of " walkabouts" as she called them.

But she was a fairy, she just existed in tales...

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by pc1

Honestly even with 25 majors it's not really to the point that Serena is clearly the best ever. Graf has 22 majors, a Grand Slam (very important) and 107 tournaments won. Court has 24 majors, also a Grand Slam and over 200 tournaments won.

Let's say Serena somehow ends up with 25 majors and 70 total tournaments won. Does it compare with Graf's 22 and 107 or Court's 24 and 200 with both winning Grand Slams? Doubtful unless Serena won several Grand Slams. Then it's feasible in my mind.

Right now Serena has only 46 tournaments won. Winning another 24 is a big stretch as well as winning 10 more majors. Remember she's past 30 so you have to figure someday you will see some decline. Even though with Serena because she hasn't played as much as many you figure she may have less wear and tear overall.

I just don't see it being possible for Serena. Even with the less wear and tear on her body because of her intentional limited playing schedule she has still had a lot of injuries over the years (some of them serious) so I just don't see it happening for her. She squandered her prime by having too many off court interests and not focusing on tennis while she was in her prime and leaving all the rest until she was done with tennis.

[fluffyyelloballz]

In lower end of top ten.
1. Navratilova
2. Evert
3. Court
4. Graf
5. Lenglen
6. Connolly
7. Seles
8. Wills
9. Serena
10. Jean-King