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

[PDJ]

Nadalaggasi - you make a great case for evert above

[NadalAgassi]

Thank you. I know the reason hardly anyone is willing to dare put Chris above Martina, it is because of Martina's 13 match winning streak over Chris where she was kicking Chris's *** in brutally for about 2 years, but considering that and nothing else is a very narrow minded view. When one examines their whole career one should atleast be willing to consider putting Chris above Martina, even if they dont neccessarily do so. Martina massacreing Chris for 2 years still doesnt mean they are on a whole different level, when one considers all the different things that happened to both over their 20 year careers.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Thank you. I know the reason hardly anyone is willing to dare put Chris above Martina, it is because of Martina's 13 match winning streak over Chris where she was kicking Chris's *** in brutally for about 2 years, but considering that and nothing else is a very narrow minded view. When one examines their whole career one should atleast be willing to consider putting Chris above Martina, even if they dont neccessarily do so. Martina massacreing Chris for 2 years still doesnt mean they are on a whole different level, when one considers all the different things that happened to both over their 20 year careers.

And I will point this out, Chris played with a wood racquet for much of that Navratilova winning streak. After she switched it was very competitive.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

My top 10 of all time are:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Serena Williams
3. Margaret Court
4. Chris Evert
5. Martina Navratilova
6. Helen Wills Moody
7. Maureen Connolly
8. Suzanne Lenglen
9. Monica Seles
10. Billie Jean King

I have the same top 10 as you but in a different order:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Chris Evert
4. Serena Williams
5. Margaret Court
6. Billie Jean King
7. Helen Wills Moody
8. Maureen Connolly
9. Monica Seles
10. Suzanne Lenglen

Your list isn't bad, the main errors being of course the strange overestimation of Serena and putting Navratilova at only #5.

[SystemicAnomaly]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Now with Serena climbing upwards who would be your top 10 women players of all time. Mine would be:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Serena Williams
3. Margaret Court
4. Chris Evert
5. Martina Navratilova

I think Serena will soon be #1 all time though.

2013 AO update:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Margaret Court or Chris Evert
4. Margaret Court or Chris Evert
5. Sloane Stephens
6. Serena Williams

[PDJ]

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

2013 AO update:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Margaret Court or Chris Evert
4. Margaret Court or Chris Evert
5. Sloane Stephens
6. Serena Williams

Cruel............but funny!

[PDJ]

Originally Posted by SystemicAnomaly

2013 AO update:

1. Steffi Graf
2. Martina Navratilova
3. Margaret Court or Chris Evert
4. Margaret Court or Chris Evert
5. Sloane Stephens
6. Serena Williams

Levity aside, this does strengthen the case for Evert who rarely had a bad loss in a slam (Jordan in 83 & to a lesser degree, sanchez -vicario, garrison, sukova & mcneil). This is perhaps also true of Court but i don't know her record well enough. Pc1??
The Stephens win is a stunning upset and I can only think of the Jordan result in context. I could be wrong? Bturner? Chrisevertfan?

[chandler bing]

Originally Posted by PDJ

Levity aside, this does strengthen the case for Evert who rarely had a bad loss in a slam (Jordan in 83 & to a lesser degree, sanchez -vicario, garrison, sukova & mcneil). This is perhaps also true of Court but i don't know her record well enough. Pc1??
The Stephens win is a stunning upset and I can only think of the Jordan result in context. I could be wrong? Bturner? Chrisevertfan?

I was thinking today that this may be the biggest upset in the women's singles at AO since Navratilova lost to Sukova in 1984.

[PDJ]

Originally Posted by chandler bing

I was thinking today that this may be the biggest upset in the women's singles at AO since Navratilova lost to Sukova in 1984.

You're probably right given what Williams has achieved from June 2012. But surely the navratilova loss was more crushing given, i think,it came at the end of an incredible year. Evert reaped the benefit by claiming her 11th year winning at least one slam title.

[Phoenix1983]

How much of an upset this match is will only be determined in retrospect - i.e. if Sloane goes on to have a great career (as she may well do), it will not be looked on as an upset, but a kind of 'passing of the torch' moment like Fed beating Sampras at Wimbledon.

[pc1]

Originally Posted by Phoenix1983

How much of an upset this match is will only be determined in retrospect - i.e. if Sloane goes on to have a great career (as she may well do), it will not be looked on as an upset, but a kind of 'passing of the torch' moment like Fed beating Sampras at Wimbledon.

I haven't seen that much of Sloane Stephens in match play. I saw her hitting with Murphy Jensen at the US Open 2012 and I did like her strokes but that was just casual hitting. Jensen was in ball return mode and Sloane couldn't do much to hurt him even when she belted the ball. She seems like a great kid.

What do all of you think of her potential?

[The-Champ]

Originally Posted by pc1

I haven't seen that much of Sloane Stephens in match play. I saw her hitting with Murphy Jensen at the US Open 2012 and I did like her strokes but that was just casual hitting. Jensen was in ball return mode and Sloane couldn't do much to hurt him even when she belted the ball. She seems like a great kid.

What do all of you think of her potential?

She is very fast with good serve. Very steady baseline game, a very good defender and absorbs power effectively. She is not afraid of attacking the net and quite competent at it actually. She has a promising future I think.

However, Serena was IMO injured in that match with back and ankle problems. Her serve was basically non-existent. This is the Serena whom second serves were on average faster than Murray's second serves during wimbledon last year.

Trivia: Serena clocked two serves at 207 km/h during AO2013.

[BTURNER]

The problem with both Evert and Navratilova is in surface variety in those majors. Chris: 10 on clay, 5 on grass, 3 on hard. Martina: 2 on clay, 12 on grass, 4 on hard for 18 apiece. If we changed just a few points in some close ones ( defined as one break of serve or mini in the second or third) things would look very different - or would they?

if Chris had won a few vital points in '84 Open, and Martina had won a few vital points in '85 RG, It would be Chris:9 clay,5 grass and 4 hard. Martina:3 clay, 12 grass, 3 hard for 18 apiece

Now if Martina had won a few vital points at '87 Rg, and '81 Open instead over Graf and Austin she would have 3 clay, 12 grass and 5 hard. If she won all the above it would be 4 clay, 12 grass and 5 hard for a total of 21

now if Chris had won a few vital points at '73 RG and at the '78 Wimbledon over Court and Navratilova respectively she would have 11 on clay, 6 on grass and 3 on hard. If she won all of the above she would have 11 on clay, 6 on grass and 4 on hard courts for a total of 21.

Oops I forgot the '85 Open. Martina was damn close to beating Hana there. Went to a 3rd set tiebreaker. Coulda been 22 majors split 4 clay, 12 grass, 6 hard.

Oops I forgot how close Evert was to toppling Martina in the '81 Aussie. 5-7 in the third. Coulda been 22 for her split 11 clay, 7 on grass, 4 on hard. LOL!

We can reverse this and assume the close finals are losses. Chris has 8 clay (loosing to Court and Navratilova), 4 grass ( if she looses that close '76 final to Goolagong) and 3 hard for 15 majors.

Martina could have easily ended up with 2 clay, 10 on grass (- '81 Aussie and the '78 wimbledon to Evert), and 3 on hard (- the 84 Open) for 15 majors. This is getting funny!

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by PDJ

Levity aside, this does strengthen the case for Evert who rarely had a bad loss in a slam (Jordan in 83 & to a lesser degree, sanchez -vicario, garrison, sukova & mcneil). This is perhaps also true of Court but i don't know her record well enough. Pc1??
The Stephens win is a stunning upset and I can only think of the Jordan result in context. I could be wrong? Bturner? Chrisevertfan?

Well the loss to Jordan was Evert's very first exit in a major before the semis (after 11 years on the tour already) and it only happened because she was sick with the flu - she had asked the Wimbledon officials for a later start (meaning the next day or so) and they refused - Jordan was a solid serve/volley player and one who occasionally gave Chrissie a bit of trouble.

The loss to Garrison was because she had a bad day - was flat and the game just wasn't there which had been happening a lot to Evert in '89 hence calling it a day on her career.

Another flat day against Sukova who incidentally is one of my candidates for the best woman to never have won a singles major.

The French loss against Sanchez-Vicario was because she had been battling a heel injury all spring of that year but still a surprise.


Stephens beating an injured Serena is a big upset but Sloane saw her opportunity and even though she had some nerves and her relative lack of experience showed a bit she found a way to win - expect more good things to come from the teenager as she gains more experience and learns how to deal with the pressure better. She's definitely getting some good lessons this Australian Open for sure.

As for those of you who have Serena ranked so highly - could you please explain why? I just can't see it. Yes she is a great player with a ton of power and the best serve ever in the women's game but talent and peak level of play plus 15 majors just isn't enough IMO. She lags far behind the other top players of all time in so many other areas it's not even close - IMO.

[CEvertFan]

Originally Posted by chandler bing

I was thinking today that this may be the biggest upset in the women's singles at AO since Navratilova lost to Sukova in 1984.

Martina could have more trouble with playing another serve/volley player than she did if she was playing most baseliners excluding Evert - her passing shots were never as good as Evert's and against another player who could take the net away from Martina she sometimes struggled.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

Martina could have more trouble with playing another serve/volley player than she did if she was playing most baseliners excluding Evert - her passing shots were never as good as Evert's and against another player who could take the net away from Martina she sometimes struggled.

Apart from Sukova her career records vs other top serve and volleyers dont indicate that. She is 7-1 vs Novotna and she was mid 30s for most or all of those matches. Granted Novotna should have won atleast 2 more of those that I recall her being up or having match point(s) and choked them away at the end in her typical fashion. She is 39-3 vs Shriver. She is 10-1 vs Tauziat, even if Tauziat isnt exactly a great serve and volleyer or player. She is 5-2 vs Court, playing her when neither was in their primes in 1975.

Actually the one player apart from Sukova that would support this theory is King who as 5-9 vs Navratilova but all of those matches were when King was 34 to 40 years old, and Navratilova was in or near her prime starting in late 1977. King would have led the head to head if she retired at 36, and was up 3-0 in the early going.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

Martina could have more trouble with playing another serve/volley player than she did if she was playing most baseliners excluding Evert - her passing shots were never as good as Evert's and against another player who could take the net away from Martina she sometimes struggled.

See Mandlikova in many of their matched

[CEvertFan]

Let me clarify - I said STRUGGLED. That doesn't mean the same thing as lose. Against the better serve volleyers Navratilova faced during her career there were more than a few tight matches even if Martina wound up winning in straight sets or in 3 sets.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by CEvertFan

Let me clarify - I said STRUGGLED. That doesn't mean the same thing as lose. Against the better serve volleyers Navratilova faced during her career there were more than a few tight matches even if Martina wound up winning in straight sets or in 3 sets.

I think you are on the money. She did have more relative trouble with s/vers than baseliners and her passing shots were one of the reasons. it took her awhile to get them grooved. The reason she almost always won anyway, was because

1. Her serve was better than theirs.
2. her return was better than theirs
3. her volley was better than theirs
4. She had more chances to pass, because she got to all but the best volleys and approaches in plenty of time.

When you are faster and stronger, you win a lot of these battles

Ps Zina deserved that '89 Open victory, but the credit should go to her feet. Some of the fastest court coverage I ever saw, was running down Evert's best shots. Zina got everything back a la Sanchez. Evert faded.

[PDJ]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Apart from Sukova her career records vs other top serve and volleyers dont indicate that. She is 7-1 vs Novotna and she was mid 30s for most or all of those matches. Granted Novotna should have won atleast 2 more of those that I recall her being up or having match point(s) and choked them away at the end in her typical fashion. She is 39-3 vs Shriver. She is 10-1 vs Tauziat, even if Tauziat isnt exactly a great serve and volleyer or player. She is 5-2 vs Court, playing her when neither was in their primes in 1975.

Actually the one player apart from Sukova that would support this theory is King who as 5-9 vs Navratilova but all of those matches were when King was 34 to 40 years old, and Navratilova was in or near her prime starting in late 1977. King would have led the head to head if she retired at 36, and was up 3-0 in the early going.

I too am struggling with Williams being placed in the top 5 & whilst i appreciate the arguments made for this i don't think they are enough to topple those that most include above her.
Re the Jordan match, by the time john Lloyd had asked the AELTC for a day's grace it was too late as the Order of Play had already been released. A rule that remains today.